stephan huller

I am wondering about this statement in Irenaeus which I find puzzling on a number of levels:

The reason why I find this so puzzling is that Irenaeus is interested in the bull not the returning son. He is trying to fit each one of the four gospels with the four living creatures of Ezekiel. Yet why take an interest in the bull of Luke 15:23? Is this just a grasping at straws on Irenaeus's part (i.e. to find a bull in Luke). Or is there something here about the slaughter of the bull which is connected with the 'resurrection of the son.' Remember the context, the Father says:

But the father in this story isn't a priest. The obvious sense is that they are going to eat the calf not sacrifice it per se. I wonder if Irenaeus thought the idea of cutting open the bull as sacred was because he was thinking of the rites of Mithras.

andrewcriddle

There is no doubt that Taurobolium's were performed in the rites of Cybele.

IF Irenaeus is thinking of a Taurobolium it is probably related to Cybele not Mithras.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

That's quite helpful Andrew. Thanks

tanya

Take a gander at this statue, 8000 years old, of an Phrygian masterpiece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele

Umm, so, did the Mithraic tendency, (which Roger and I disagree about, he thinks it a purely Roman invention, I argue, contrarily, that it is a purely Persian invention, which the Romans adopted) borrow from this even more ancient tradition from the Phrygians?

The conflict between the IndoEuropeans and the Hittites for the country we call today, Turkey, i.e. headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates, must have been very important in ancient times.

outhouse

As well, the problem with romans doing a bull sacrifice in mithras, is that they had their own sect that did sacrifices, and took care of he meat before the mithras feast.


the lack of a sacraficial alter semi confirms, the lack of animal sacrifice in places of their worship. While animal bones have been found in the floors through archeology

outhouse

romans were excellent at adapting, there is no reason to discount earlier influences


to what extent for different cults is so debatleable due to the lack of written information on these cults

Roger Pearse

The taurobolium is a rite of Cybele. It has no association with Mithras at all. Also, the form depicted is unknown before the 4th century AD and the "pagan revival": earlier rites were not for personal benefit, but for state purposes. The idea of a personal benefit from the sacrifice, being drenched in blood in this way, seems to be adapted in that period from Christian ideas. The cult of Cybele displays a number of such borrowings in very late antiquity, and was correspondingly unpopular with the church fathers. By the 5th century it had created "scriptures", not previously evidenced.

All the best,

Roger Pearse