Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-31-2008, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

CLAIM 4:
This name, and his other name, Sol Invicto ('Invincible Sun")
appeared together on his coinage.

Cannot immediately find such a coin for the earlier emperor, however he was succeeded by Marcus Aurelius, and this is one of his coins. Data from the source Reading and Cataloging Roman Imperial Coins

Quote:

Obverse legend
Shown by [1], the legend reads IMP C M AVR PROBVS P F AVG. IMP, short for Imperator, was an honorary title bestowed upon a general by his troops after a battle in which they were victorious, though later only the emperor could be given this title. The word "emperor" comes from "imperator". C abbreviates Caesar, originally indicating a family relationship with the family of Julius Caesar, it later became a title of the emperor. M AVR PROBVS indicates the emperor himself, Marcus Aurelius Probus, who ruled from 276 to 282 AD. P F is Pius Felix, "dutiful and wise", and AVG is once again Augustus. The legend is then "Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Probus, dutiful and wise, Augustus".

Obverse type
This portrait of Probus [2] is down below the shoulder, so it is a "bust" rather than just a head. He is facing left, and is wearing the Imperial mantle and holding an eagle-tipped scepter. The headdress [3] also identifies this portrait as the "radiate" style.

Reverse inscription
The inscription SOLI INVICTO [3] refers to Sol, the sun god. It is often seen as SOLI INVICTO COMITI, "(to) the unconquerable sun god".

Reverse type
The inscription gives a hint to the reverse type - this is Sol, in a quadriga. Chariots with two horses are biga, three are triga, and four are quadriga. The design looks a little odd as the technique of perspective had not yet been developed.

Exergue
The letters KHA are in the exergue [6], possibly indicating the mint at Cyzicus, Turkey.

Additionally, on the same page is a coin for Elagabalus ...

Quote:

CLAIM 11:
The Sun in Rome (218 CE) - -
Emperor Elagabalus and Sol Invictus

Quote:

Obverse legend
[1] gives IMP ANTONINVS AVG. IMP is again Imperator. ANTONINUS, unlike the other legends, isn't immediately clear. It is the ruler's name - Marcus Aurelius Antoninus - though he is commonly known as Elagabalus because of the Syrian sun god that he worshipped.

Obverse type
As with the coin of Julia Mamaea, this bust [2] is also draped, and it is of the laureate style because of the laurel wreath [3].

Reverse inscription
Unlike the other coins, this one has a list of titles that Elagabalus has assumed [4], reading P M TR P II COS II P P. P M abbreviates Pontifex Maximus, the head priest of the Roman religion. TR P is short for Tribunicia Potestas, the civil power and the emperor as the civil head of the Roman state. This power was issued periodically - TR P II, the second issuance, occurred in 219 AD for Elagabalus. COS indicates the Consul, a chief magistrate of the Roman state. COS II was obtained by Elagabalus also in 219 AD. P P is Pater Patriae, the Father of the Country.

Roger Pearse · 07-31-2008, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

CLAIM 9:
Cumont, Olcott and other scholars clearly show that December 25 was the yearly date of the annual birth of Mithra. On that date, his followers held a special celebration of the fact that the sun was beginning to rise again higher in the sky. (It was lowest at the winter solstice, December 21, and not until the 25th could its rising be clearly seen.) This birthday of the sun-god was made an official holiday in the Roman Empire by Aurelian about the year 273.

What evidence if any from ancient sources stands behind these claims?

Quote:

Here is what Williston Walker, a well-known church historian,

Never heard of him. But who cares? What we want is evidence, surely?

Quote:

...has to say about this:

"December 25 was a great pagan festival, that of Sol Invictus, which celebrated the victory of light over darkness, and the lengthening of the sun's rays at the winter solstice. This assimilation of Christ to the sun god, as Sun of Righteousness, was widespread in the fourth century and was furthered by Constantine's legislation on Sunday, which is not unrelated to the fact that the sun god was the titular divinity of his [Constantine's] family."--Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, third edition, page 155.

This doesn't discuss the claim above AT ALL.

Quote:

This claim rests on the scholars cited (Cumont, Olcott, Williston Walker)

I.e., no evidence at all.

Quote:

Is there anyone disputing this stuff?

DO THE RESEARCH!!!!

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 07-31-2008, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Here is a link to "OSTIA Mithraea"

I hope that helps inre Claim 1.

Cheers!

Many thanks thentian .... nice picture of a Mithraem before Constantine.

Here is another reference:
The Mithras Inscriptions of Santa Prisca and the New Testament Hans Dieter Betz, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1968), pp. 62-80 (article consists of 19 pages)

It discusses not a literary relic but an inscription.
Here are some of the lines in the inscription to mithras ...

Quote:

Line 4:

Rockbound spring that fed the twin brothers with nectar

Line 7:

This young bull which carried on his golden shoulders according to his ways

Line 9:

And after I had received (it) I have borne on my shoulders the greatest things of the gods

Line 14:

And you saved us after having shed the eternal blood

Line 18:

Hail to the lions for many and new years

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 07-31-2008, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

CLAIM 9:
Cumont, Olcott and other scholars clearly show that December 25 was the yearly date of the annual birth of Mithra. On that date, his followers held a special celebration of the fact that the sun was beginning to rise again higher in the sky. (It was lowest at the winter solstice, December 21, and not until the 25th could its rising be clearly seen.) This birthday of the sun-god was made an official holiday in the Roman Empire by Aurelian about the year 273.

What evidence if any from ancient sources stands behind these claims?

THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA
by Franz Cumont
[1903]

Cumont - Table of Contents
* PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION
* THE ORIGINS OF MITHRAISM
* THE DISSEMINATION OF MITHRAISM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
* MITHRA AND THE IMPERIAL POWER OF ROME
* THE DOCTRINE OF THE MITHRAIC MYSTERIES
* THE MITHRAIC LITURGY, CLERGY AND DEVOTEES
* MITHRAISM AND THE RELIGIONS OF THE EMPIRE
* MITHRAIC ART
* INDEX

Have you done the research on the footnotes and citations made by Cumont to the references in the archaeological record? Or are you expecting and/or demanding there to be references in the textual record?

Quote:

DO THE RESEARCH!!!!

Roger Pearse

Here is a quote from Cumont ....

Quote:

It was not until the end of the first century that the name of Mithra began to be generally bruited abroad in Rome. When Statius wrote the first canto of the Thebaid, about eighty years after Christ, he had already seen typical representations of the tauroctonous hero, 1 and it appears from the testimony of Plutarch that in his time (46-125 A.D.) the Mazdean sect already enjoyed a certain notoriety in the Occident. 1 This conclusion is confirmed by epigraphic documents.

The most ancient inscription to Mithra which we possess is a bilingual inscription of a freedman of the Flavians (69-96 A.D.). Not long after, a marble group is consecrated to him by a slave of T. Claudius Livianus who was pretorian prefect under Trajan (102 A.D.) (Figure 10). The invincible god must also have penetrated about the same time into central Italy, at Nersæ, in the country of the Æqui; a text of the year 172 A.D. has been discovered which speaks of a mithræum that had "crumbled to pieces from old age." The appearance of the invader in the northern part of the empire is almost simultaneous. It is undoubted that the fifteenth legion brought the Mysteries to Carnuntum on the Danube about the beginning of the reign of Vespasian, and we also know that about 148 A.D. they were practised by the troops in Germany.

Under the Antonines, especially from the beginning of the reign of Commodus, the proofs of their presence abound in all countries. At the end of the second century, the Mysteries were celebrated at Ostia in at least four temples.

Also from Cumont, from the chapter entitled MITHRA AND THE IMPERIAL POWER OF ROME

Quote:

In the year 307 A.D., Diocletian, Galerius, and Licinius, at their conference in Carnuntum, dedicated with one accord a temple to Mithra fautori imperii sui (Figure 19), and the last pagan that occupied the throne of the Cæsars, Julian the Apostate, was an ardent votary of this tutelar god, whom he caused to be worshipped in Constantinople.

Best wishes,

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by INSCRIPTION TO MITHRA

Line 14:

And you saved us after having shed the eternal blood

Roger Pearse · 07-31-2008, 06:36 AM

In response to a request for evidence for the claims, we get an impudent demand that *we* look it all up, and yet more irrelevant quotations from secondary sources.

Nothing further need be said, I think.

I can't help feeling contempt for anyone who chooses to behave like that, tho.

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-31-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

In response to a request for evidence for the claims, we get an impudent demand that *we* look it all up, and yet more irrelevant quotations from secondary sources.

Nothing further need be said, I think.

I can't help feeling contempt for anyone who chooses to behave like that, tho.

And don't you know that the coins and images depicting Mithras and Sol Invictus, and all the Mithraic sites (as well as the Persian literature on Mithra -- where's the carbon dating of the MSS?-- as well as the Roman references to Mithras) were produced under the direction of Julian. Geeze, how gullible are you to think otherwise!

Jeffrey

mountainman · 07-31-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

In response to a request for evidence for the claims, we get an impudent demand that *we* look it all up, and yet more irrelevant quotations from secondary sources.

Nothing further need be said, I think.

I can't help feeling contempt for anyone who chooses to behave like that, tho.

Quote:

CLAIM 9:
Cumont, Olcott and other scholars clearly show that December 25 was the yearly date of the annual birth of Mithra. On that date, his followers held a special celebration of the fact that the sun was beginning to rise again higher in the sky. (It was lowest at the winter solstice, December 21, and not until the 25th could its rising be clearly seen.) This birthday of the sun-god was made an official holiday in the Roman Empire by Aurelian about the year 273.

What evidence if any from ancient sources stands behind these claims?

What do you know about the emperor Aurelian other than he did not dabble in the prenicene christianity business?

Eutropius Roman History 9:15

Quote:

He [Aurelian] built a temple to the Sun, in which he put a vast quantity of gold and precious stones.

"Zosimus, Historia Nova 1.61.2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zosimus

… and he (= Aurelian) built there (in Rome) the temple of the Sun and he decorated it magnificently with sacred objects from Palmyra and he installed (in that temple) the statues of Sun and of Bel.

Aurelian

Quote:

Religious reform

Aurelian strengthened the position of the Sun god, Sol or Oriens, as the main divinity of the Roman pantheon. His intention was to give to all the peoples of the Empire, civilian or soldiers, easterners or westerners, a single god they could believe in without betraying their own gods. The center of the cult was a new temple, built in 271 in Campus Agrippae in Rome, with great decorations financed by the spoils of the Palmyrene Empire. Aurelian did not persecute other religions. However, during his short rule, he seemed to follow the principle of "one god, one empire", that was later adopted to a full extent by Constantine. On some coins, he appears with the title deus et dominus natus ("God and born ruler"), also later adopted by Diocletian. Lactantius argued that Aurelian would have outlawed all the other gods if he had had enough time.

What problem do you have with the Roman emperor Aurelian going out of his way for the One God of the Invincible Sun Roger? Are people not entitled to their own choice of religious belief? Do you need to be briefed on how it was a very important natural event on the longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere, the day of midsummer or Litha as it was known to the celts, via the account of Bede.

The evidence is archaeological.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-31-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

In response to a request for evidence for the claims, we get an impudent demand that *we* look it all up, and yet more irrelevant quotations from secondary sources.

Nothing further need be said, I think.

I can't help feeling contempt for anyone who chooses to behave like that, tho.

What do you know about the emperor Aurelian other than he did not dabble in the prenicene christianity business?

Eutropius Roman History 9:15

"Zosimus, Historia Nova 1.61.2

Where is it in these quotes that the claim that

"December 25 was the yearly date of the annual birth of Mithra. On that date, his followers held a special celebration of the fact that the sun was beginning to rise again higher in the sky. (It was lowest at the winter solstice, December 21, and not until the 25th could its rising be clearly seen.) This birthday of the sun-god was made an official holiday in the Roman Empire by Aurelian about the year 273."

mooted , let alone sustained?

Quote:

What problem do you have with the Roman emperor Aurelian going out of his way for the One God of the Invincible Sun Roger? Are people not entitled to their own choice of religious belief? Do you need to be briefed on how it was a very important natural event on the longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere, the day of midsummer or Litha as it was known to the celts, via the account of Bede.

The evidence is archaeological.

Bede -- who lived from 673-735, and who, when he speaks of L�*ða as he did in 725 does NOT, to my knowledge, use the term in reference to a celebration of any sort, let alone a midsummer one engaged in by Celts --is archaeological evidence?:huh:

(You haven't actually read Bede, have you Pete? You are once again relying on what ["neo pagan"?] websites say Bede said for your "knowledge" of his remarks on L�*ða, aren't you? Perhaps you'll produce the actual text of Bede where he speaks of L�*ða as you say he does and gives us an account of how the Celts not only engaged in a midsummer celebration called L�*ða but regarded a day named L�*ða as one of the most important of the year, to show us that he does what you say he does).

Besides that, the writings of "Zoisumus" (a pope who believed in pre nicene Christianity) and of Eutropius and the temple attributed to Aurelian are all "forgeries" sponsored by Julian.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 07-31-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Besides that, the writings of "Zoisumus" (a pope who believed in pre nicene Christianity) and of Eutropius and the temple attributed to Aurelian are all "forgeries" sponsored by Julian.

I will return to your earlier questions later, be patient. But for the moment since you bring up opinion of the emperor Julian, why dont we allow him to set the scene for what it may have been like to be a votary of the sun. Julian's first care had been to erect a temple to the Sun, within the palace precincts, in which he began each day with sacrifice to that luminary. Here is what he says:

UPON THE SOVEREIGN SUN.
ADDRESSED TO SALLUST.

Quote:

IT is my opinion that the present subject interests all:

"Whatever breathes, and moves upon the earth,"

all that are endowed with existence, with a rational soul, and with a mind: but that above all others it interests myself, inasmuch as I am a votary (o)pado_j) of the Sun. Of which fact I possess the most certain evidences in my own case; but one instance, which it is allowable to adduce, is the following:----From my earliest infancy I was possessed with a strange longing for the solar rays, so that when, as a boy, I cast my eyes upon the ethereal splendour, my soul felt seized and carried up out of itself. And not merely was it my delight to gaze upon the solar brightness, but at night also whenever I walked out in clear weather, disregarding all else, I used to fix my eyes upon the beauty of the heavens; so that I neither paid attention to what was said to me, nor took any notice of what was going on. On this account, people used to think me too much given to such pursuits, and far too inquisitive for my age: and they even suspected me, long before my beard was grown, of practising divination by means of the heavenly bodies. And. yet at that time no book on the subject had fallen into my hands, and I was |220 utterly ignorant of what that science meant. But what use is it to quote these matters, when I have still stranger things to mention; if I should mention what I at that time thought about the gods? But let oblivion rest upon that epoch of darkness! How the radiance of heaven, diffused all round me, used to lift up my soul to its own contemplation! to such a degree that I discovered for myself that the moon's motion was in the opposite direction to that of the rest of the system, long before I met with any works giving the philosophy of such matters. What I have said must be taken as evidence of this. And truly do I envy the felicity of that man who, being endowed with a body sprung from a holy and prophetic seed, is able to unlock the treasures of philosophy: but neither do I undervalue that state and condition to which I have myself attained through the favour of heaven, in that I have drawn my birth from the family to which it has given the empire, and possession of the world.

My own belief is, if philosophers be entitled to any credit, that the Sun is the common parent of all men, to use a comprehensive term. It is a true proverb, "Man begets man, and so does the Sun:" but souls that luminary showers down upon earth, both out of himself, and out of the other gods: which souls show to what end they were propagated by the kind of life that they pursue.

But well is it for that man who, from the third generation backwards, and a long succession of years, has been dedicated to the service of this god; yet neither is that person's condition to be despised who, feeling in his own nature that he is a servant of this deity, alone, or with few on his side, shall have devoted himself to his worship.

Come then, and let us celebrate in the best way we can the anniversary festival,2 which the imperial city is |221 keeping by sacrifices, with unusual splendour. And yet I feel how difficult it is for the human mind even to form a conception of that Sun who is not visible to the sense, if our notion of Him is to be derived from the Sun that is visible; but to express the same in language, however inadequately, is, perhaps, beyond the capability of man! To fitly explain His glory, I am very well aware, is a thing impossible; in lauding it, however, mediocrity seems the highest point to which human eloquence is able to attain. Nevertheless in that attempt may Hermes, presiding over all knowledge, be our guide, together with the Muses and Apollo leader of their quire, for to him belongs my theme; and may they grant me to deliver such things concerning the immortal gods as shall be acceptable and well-pleasing to themselves. What plan, therefore, of setting forth His praises shall we pursue? shall we treat of His nature and origin, His powers and influences, both those that be manifest to all, and those occult; or of the distribution of blessings which He showers down so largely upon all worlds; and by so doing, perchance, we shall not be unsuccessful in the kind of praise that is most acceptable unto Him? From this point therefore let us start.

This is the introduction. He carries on. Julian attempted to preserve the old traditions and he did not succeed. Nevertheless Julian is a guide to the old traditions, even though he wrote in the middle of the fourth century. He refered to christians as "Galilaeans" and Constantine's basilica's as "charnel houses". He wrote a treatise "Against the Galilaeans". Maybe this will turn up in an earthen jar someday like the NHC?

I will return to your earlier questions about 25th December, mid summer and Aurelian's epigraphic habit separately. But from the above, c.361 CE, celebrations of the anniversary festival, which the imperial city is keeping by sacrifices, with unusual splendour to me indicates some sort of celebration.

Minor Note:

Notice how Julian uses the third person Him in reference to either Hermes and/or the god of the sun (I am not quite sure) but certainly not in reference to the story of the crucified galilaean.

Quote:

we shall not be unsuccessful in the kind of praise
that is most acceptable unto Him.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 07-31-2008, 10:18 PM

Sol Invictus in Rome under Marcus Aurelius (c.160-180) ...

Quote:

Dedication slab representing Sun, Moon and Jupiter Dolichenus, dedicated to Sol Invictus and to the Genius of the Imperial Batavian horseguards (equites singulares) for the emperors' health. Latin inscription: “Soli Invicto pro salute Imp(eratorum) et Genio n(umeri) eq(uitum) sing(ularium) eorum M. Ulp(ius) Chresimus sace[rd(os)] Iovis Dolich[eni] [dedicavit].” Marble, second half of the 2nd century CE. From the area of the barracks of the Equites Singulares, via Tasso, Rome.

Then there is the numismatic evidence for the sponsorship of Sol Invictus by the emperors.

Quote:

Emperors up to Constantine portrayed Sol Invictus on their official coinage, with the legend SOLI INVICTO COMITI, thus claiming the Unconquered Sun as a companion to the Emperor. The statuettes of Sol Invictus, carried by the standard-bearers, appear in three places in reliefs on the Arch of Constantine. Constantine's official coinage continues to bear legends relating to Sol Invictus until 323.

Constantine decreed (March 7, 321) dies Solis—day of the sun, "Sunday"—as the Roman day of rest [CJ3.12.2]:

There is also a reference that the reference to the emperor as the representative of the "sol invictus" appears first on the coinage, ahead of the reference to the emperor also being the "pontifex maximus".

From livius.org about Heliogabalus:

Quote:

According to Cassius Dio, Heliogabalus placed Sol Invictus Elagabal above Jupiter in all aspects of daily life and he presented himself as this new god's high priest. The cult was to take place on the Palatine near the imperial palace. None of this forces us to assume that Heliogabalus had already placed his god above Jupiter before 220.

Another question is when Heliogabalus accepted the title of sacerdos amplissimus dei Solis Invicti Elagabali. It held more authority than pontifex maximus and on coins, it was placed before the abbreviation p.m. After careful research of several coins, scholars tend to date Heliogabalus' priestly title between 220 and 222.

I wonder when mid-summer and mid-winter are this year and how these events might relate to festivals of the people who subscribe to the worship of the sun as a divine institute of quite a number of the earlier Roman emperors, commencing in the second century?

Best wishes,

Pete

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2008, 06:36 AM	#15
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	In response to a request for evidence for the claims, we get an impudent demand that we look it all up, and yet more irrelevant quotations from secondary sources. Nothing further need be said, I think. I can't help feeling contempt for anyone who chooses to behave like that, tho.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.