Vorkosigan

Was that piece a continuation of the one Pharoah started?

Vorkosigan

Roger Pearse

I saw some of that, but hadn't picked up that general issue. Possibly I was misled, for I also saw a (not very perceptive) reference to Halsberghe's monograph on Sol Invictus (1972, the series edited by Vermaseren). I thought that conference happened earlier than this. But I suppose teaching would not have reflected it for a number of years in various institutions.

Plutarch certainly doesn't say it, I agree. (I have done an English-only collection of literary references to Mithrashere with a view to reducing the quantity of hearsay going around -- so far in vain, I think). The translation of Plutarch is old, but seems to suggest worship of Mithras. I know Ulansey and Clauss think this is merely a mistake by Plutarch for the similar-appearing Perseus; but I feel nervous about finding reasons to ignore testimony.

I'd be grateful. If someone could get a photocopy of the relevant page(s) and it turns out to be relevant then I'd be happy to OCR it and shove it on the web.

(The annoying thing is that I am sat here at home for the Christmas holidays, but my library of choice is closed for just the same period!)

I think they do not care. Indeed it is remarkable how anti-educational such factoids often are, stripped of any context or reference in the service of some agenda or other, and even if true they are very often misrepresented or misleading.

I'm working on a page on Sol Invictus also, which is here, but isn't complete yet. I've taken it from Halsberghe, who doesn't offer any translations. The Greek is of course courtesy of yourself! But the literary evidence seems to be only a tiny part of the puzzle for this mythos.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Mageth

April 1st?

John A. Broussard

That may not be far off. I've seen some scholarly essays on the subject holding out for late March.

December 25 is way off if the NT is even half-way accurate.

Of course, all of this postulates a real, live Jesus, which would make all the jawboning over the date of birth--shall I say--academic.

Mageth

(April 1st is also known as April Fool's Day. )

GakuseiDon

Hi Jeffrey, I'm a Christian. I wouldn't call it a "hate campaign", since "campaign" implies organisation. But yes, you'll find hate, and bias, and paranoia, by various posters here at various times. But it is no worse than any other ideologically driven board, theist or atheist.

Two further points:

1) Toto has responded many times to "Pagan Christ" posts by pointing to threads that have previously discussed and debunked various particulars of the notion.

2) I know that the Mithras claims are blatant nonsense, but I didn't respond either, since I am more interested in the superior nonsense of Doherty. But doesn't that make me part of the problem, as well?

Roger Pearse

Whereas I really do want to know everything there is to know in the ancient record about Mithras. Why not? It increases my knowledge of the ancient world, and, while dealing with the nonsense claims, I learn more about what really happened. Luckily the world has room for both.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

I saw that Samuele Bacchiocchi's writing was critiqued on three levels. One, that he is adventist. I think we can pass on that. Two, the Celucian pirate footnote. A reasonable critique, but minor in context. Third, using Cumont instead of more recent scholarship on the more fundamental point we were discussing.

I've written to Bacchiocchi on the third (also mentioning the second), asking if we give his understanding. Perhaps he is not up-to-date, or perhaps he considers Cumont's understanding as viable despite the modern critiques, or perhaps something else. Bacchiochi is reasonably careful and respected in his scholarship, so I think it behooves us to be slow in simply labeling his mithra discussion as "misinformation" in a case like this.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

There's an online journal of Mithra studies here:

http://www.uhu.es/ejms/papers.htm

Volken's paper seems to be apropo, Steve.

Vorkosigan

jgibson000

It's Cilician, not Celucian. More importantly, how can noting that someone has wholly misrepresented and misued what a text says be "a minor critique" when that text is being employed, as it is in the article in question, as the primary basis for, and the explicit documentation of, a claim about how and when Mithraism came to Rome?

One begins to wonder what your criteria for detemining what is of major an minor import and importance in critiques of arguments actually are.

Jeffrey Gibson