spin

Sol Invictus is only a title. And it is used for Mithras. (See A.D. Nock, The Genius of Mithras, JRS, 27, inscription from Ostia, p.112, and a reconstructed inscription, p.109.)

We already have the connection of Sol Invictus.

I think you ought not complain about other people making forced interpretations.

Yes, I'd say what you have presented is rather vague.


spin

Roger Pearse

The word is "incompetent". Too strong, you know.

I agree entirely with this.

I don't know very much about arguments on Ant. 20, since I never feel any real urge to prove to people what the entire educated world believes. I'll think about these objections once.

I think we should restate these, if we may, in a form that would apply equally to *any* passage which might be considered suspect. It removes the emotional attachment to one, you see.

I hope that I have not altered the sense of your argument?

Now:

1. We say that there is no mention of Jesus earlier; since there is no mention, yet there must be if this is to make sense, then it is fake. But of course in the text as we have it, there IS such a mention. And ... if there was not, do we know for sure that Antiquities is not damaged? If not -- and most ancient texts suffer damage -- then the argument is unsound.

2. The reference to the brother being unusual; I don't know whether this argument is sound or not. How do we know this? And ... if so, is it 100% true, in the entire corpus of ancient literature? And... if it is, does it prove anything or merely suggest? The latter, IMHO, would be the case, at best.

3. The argument is that Josephus must use the word Christ -- this is Greek, remember -- in more places than just referring to Jesus, or else not at all. To which the only possible response is "why"? Josephus will write as he pleases.

4. The TF is not universally considered an interpolation, as a matter of fact. But say that it was. It is not clear to me just why this should cause us to look suspiciously at another mention of this person. The logical connection between the two does not seem to me to exist.

Now I have offered objections to these propositions. Let's look at what WOULD be reasonable grounds to suppose interpolation. Here's some suggestions.

1. Verbal identity with some other text.
2. Absence from some copies of the text
3. Absence from ancient quotations of the text thereby suggesting the existence of other copies without it.
4. Anachronism; reference to things not known at time of composition
5. Stylistic considerations; gross deviations from the pattern of the work or author (minor deviations are not evidence). This is a weak evidence, unless the view is attested in antiquity itself, because of the risk of subjectivism.
6. Changes the meaning of the text in an unnatural way (weak also).

There's probably more. Not all will display all of these, but a good number would tend to suggest interpolation. It's not a science, but an art; but we need to be wary of the 19th century habit of proposing an interpolation whenever a passage was inconvenient to some theory or other.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Erm, no, not after Aurelian it is not. After 274 it is the name of the late Roman state sun-god. No doubt it continues to be used as a title as well.

If you are asserting that Sol Invictus = Mithras, some evidence would be interesting to see. The former was a state cult; the latter was not.

Indeed; and for Hercules, and for the Baal of Edessa brought to Rome by Elagabalus. But surely you do not say that this makes Mithras Hercules?

If we wish to assert that Natalis means birthday, it is certainly possible. But... we will have to offer a specific reason to suppose this, given that it can mean "anniversary of construction of temple."

I have no view on this, since I would need to research the use of the term more; I merely outline the possibility.

Indeed so. Yet, for the confident statement, uttered with complete certainty, that "Obviously Sol Invictus/Mithras had a birthday celebrated on 25th Dec", this is all the evidence. There is nothing more. So we need to see much more caution in these sorts of statements.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

I stated evidence in the post you responded to.

Elagabalus's god was called Sol Invictus. Mithras was called Sol Invictus and the god of Aurelian was called Sol Invictus. I didn't say that they were the same, though syncretism tended to identify them all as the same deity.

(It certainly wasn't the Baal of Edessa. The god's name, as taken by the emperor was Elagabalus, from Aramaic the El of the mountain (gebel).)

Romans and Greeks tended to syncretize. Who was the Syrian Hercules? Melkart. Who was the Carthaginian Urania (Cassio D. 80.11) that Elagabalus summoned?

You'll already find Mithras syncretized with Apollo and Helios in the Commagene. Julian does the same in his Hymn to King Helios.

I haven't seen Mithras ever being equated with Hercules though, just with mainstream sun gods.

You merely need an indication of a temple in the phrase, which isn't there.

Do you think that "inconrupti Solis invicti Mithra[e]" (to cite Nock's Ostian inscription - CIL xiv,66) was not celebrated on Dec 25th along with the Sol Invictus of Aurelian? Do you think that Aurelian's imposition of his own brand of Sol Invictus would make the army put aside the Sol Invictus many of them already worshiped (as evinced by the numerous Mithraea in the provinces featuring votive offerings by very many soldiers)? The soldiers would have celebrated Mithras.


spin

spin

I don't have much respect for people who are called scholars yet produce apologetics.

This statement deserves a . The entire educated world? 98% of it doesn't know the first thing about Josephus. Doh! Roger. Most of those who know about it know for ideological reasons. The entire educated world!

Note this phrase: "a previous recent mention". You have failed to perceive the notion of discourse here. We may consider a paragraph or two recent, but not a book or two. Discourse is somewhat elastic, but there is an elastic limit, which your thought goes beyond.

Yes, it suggests. The nomenclature issue doesn't stand by itself. The notion of people referred to by a reference to their brother in the Hebrew bible might be one in a few hundred. It adds to the suspicion regarding the phrase.

A non-response. Josephus has shown a tendency to avoid the term. Christians don't. (And here you want to believe that he uses it for someone that would be inappropriate for a Jew to think of as the messiah, ie a person who was dead.)

You miss the notion of corrupt. Can you think of a modern scholar having commented on the TF who doesn't think it is corrupt? They may think that some of the material is veracious, but almost none think for example that the reference to christ is.

It's called "being tarred by the same brush". You certainly haven't grasped this relatively simple issue. Now you go on to cloud the issue as well as you can...

As can be seen in Origen's phrases discussed here at length which didn't come from Josephus, for Origen didn't know very much about Josephus.

Once corruption in the text of a similar nature has been accepted such an indicator is no longer of any value.

Not easy to deal with because we don't have a solid manuscript tradition.

Not applicable.

Two already provided.

The phrase is too short for hope of such deviations. It's merely a short though complex noun phrase.

I was hoping for a bit more analysis, Roger. An "any response is good enough" isn't really worth the effort. We've seen that too often.


spin

Roger Pearse

I did not see any evidence on this point; where was it?

Again evidence for the syncretism between Mithras and Sol Invictus would be interesting to see, if so. But I don't think it exists.

It should have been *Emesa*. I read that it was Ba'al; your suggestion sounds more reasonable, tho.

I think you need specifics on this.

Evidence for this claim would seem appropriate. I don't find such a statement in the OLD.

This inscription, from Ostia?

"C(aius) Valerius Heracles pat[e]r e[t] an[tis]/tes dei iu<b=S>enis(!) inconrupti(!) So[l]is Invicti Mithra[e] / [c]ryptam palati(i) concessa[m] sibi a M(arco) Aurelio /"

Perhaps you would give us a translation and we might discuss it. I see no reference to a date of a festival, however, and "of the incorrupt Sol Invictus Mithras" does not tell me much. It looks as if it is referring to the gift by C. Valerius Heracles, pater and magistrate, of a crypt/mithraeum in the palace.

I don't think it is helpful to post untranslated Latin or Greek. No-one here is that fluent in either, you know.

Nothing in the evidence suggests that the creation of the new state cult involved dispossessing Mithras. Late inscriptions show aristocrats who held roles in both cults.

But it is hardly for me to show that the two cults were distinct! You seem to suggest that you have ready access to academic articles; have a look at Hijmans, "The sun that did not rise in the east."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Erm, people who don't know about Josephus do not constitute the educated world; by definition they are outside it. Perhaps you did not understand that, for this argument, the term "educated world" means "Josephus scholars qualified to have an opinion."

The argument, then, is that if someone is not mentioned a few paragraphs before, then a mention of them involves interpolation? This seems extreme to me; it would involve every first mention of someone being an interpolation?

I think you need to clarify your thought here, and state it more simply and explicity. Whether sound or not, it isn't coming across, except in forms that are evidently wrong.

You certainly don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to! But merely reiterating your case leaves my reply as it was.

No indeed, for I can see no logical connection between the two. I suspect that your argument is so centred on *Jesus*, that you can't see this as a generic argument; and, as a generic argument, it fails. This is why introducing controversial persons like Jesus is a mistake.

I have no interest in "clouding the issue." But I have even less interest in discussing something with someone who resorts to accusations of dishonesty so readily. This discussion is over.

Roger Pearse

Vinnie

Is Jesus winning?

Vinnie

I'm actually a bit surprised by the lack of 2s...

dragoon

I'm more than surprised by the number of 1's...