GakuseiDon

But, even if true, so what? Mysteries could be around historical persons as well as mythical, so even if Christianity was another form of mystery religion, what is the implcation IYO?

gurugeorge

"Could be"? Maybe, but that would still need to be demonstrated in the case of Christianity. (And you'd need some independent historical evidence of the person.)

And I don't think Christianity was a form of Mystery religion; I think it was initially a Jewish visionary/mystical myth-based proto-Gnostic religion that had some similarities to the Mysteries, and spoke to some of the same human needs the Mysteries served.

dog-on

I think Christianity was originally a Greek/Roman mystery religion which may have initially borrowed some themes from Judaism, but only later were actual Judaic elements added to the story when the demiurge and the (original Christian) stranger god were merged by the proto-orthodox.

gurugeorge

Something like that used to be my preference, but over time I've gone over more to the "standard biblical scholarship" side. I think "The Anointed One" is just too much of a Jewish concept and too much of the early evidence is Jewish or Scripture-based.

I think the Graeco-Roman/Mysteries ideas come in pretty early (i.e., on the one hand probably with Paul's direct disciples, some of whom go on to develop, or whose students in turn go on to develop, Christian Gnosticism - which is probably actually the earliest majority form of Gentile Christianity - under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy; and on the other hand, with some of the tropes used in the earliest gospels coming from popular novels, which themselves probably had a Mysteries influence), but the initial starting motor looks Jewish to me.

dog-on

This view really depends on much of the current epistles being true to the original.

In my opinion, the epistles we have today are (a) not true to the original, (b) originally appear as part of a Marcionite canon and (c) may have (originally) denounced the Jewish god (demiurge) in favor of the secret, good, god.

This is not to say that the writer of these epistles did not take his lead/inspiration from the Jewish writings, indeed it seems he did. However, his reading seems to be that of a non-Jew's interpretation of the Jewish scriptures. He basically rejects them and the Law. The most telling part being the complete change in the character/personality of God. No more jealous, vengeful Jehovah and his chosen people...now loving merciful and, more importantly, universal God communed with through his logos, Christ.

andrewcriddle

The ancient commentators such as Jerome and by implication the Syriac Peshitta OT regarded Hadad Rimmon as a place name and the mourning involved as the mourning for King Josiah killed at Megiddo. (We are told in Chronicles that there was such a mourning for Josiah) Some modern scholars IIUC still hold this position.

The Septuagint on the other hand has a translation 'mourning for the pomegranate' which appears to be based on a Hebrew text Rimmon rather than Hadazd-Rimmon.

Hadad-Rimmon if it is a divine name must really be Baal or a Baal equivalent, with Rimmon referring to Baal/Hadad's status as storm God. (Rimmon is mentioned in the account of Naaman and Elijah in Kings where it certainly means Baal/Hadad)

If however Rimmon was the original text and Hadad-Rimmon is a later addition based on misunderstanding; then Rimmon may actually mean 'pomegranate' and be a title of Adonis/Tammuz (see Ovid's Metamorphosis for comparison of the slain Adonis to a pomegranate) In this case the text would refer to mourning for a dying God but one other than Baal.

In any case the passage in Zechariah gives no indication that it is about a dying and rising God only mourning is referred to.



Here you are right and I was wrong Justin does refer to the story of Dionysos being originally torn in pieces and eventually ending up in heaven as a parallel to the death and resurrection of Christ.

This seems to be a very distorted version of the Dionysos story confusing Dionysos-Zagreus born of Persephone and torn to pieces with the Dionysos reborn of Semele who discovers wine and becomes one of the Olympian Gods.

However you seem correct that Justin interpreted the story this way.

The burial of Jesus is central to Paul it is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 and is used in Paul's link in Romans between baptism and the death and resurrection of Christ. Apotheosis through cremation would not have worked.

Andrew Criddle

gurugeorge

That's very informative Andrew, thanks. But I think you're just being a bit obtuse to keep going with this. There were dying/rising gods, long predating Christianity, going way back into the past. Obviously, they were in one way or another representative of a higher continuity through the apparent changes of life and death. (Actually hinting more at a concept of metempsychosis rather than resurrection, perhaps.)

Here's a fascinating little bit from a Wikipedia entry on Orphism I found a while ago:

The epigraphical sources demonstrate that the "Orphic" mythology about Dionysus' death and resurrection was associated with beliefs in a blessed afterlife. Bone tablets found in Olbia (5th cent. BC) carry short and enigmatic inscriptions like: "Life. Death. Life. Truth. Dio(nysus). Orphics." The function of these bone tablets is unknown.

Gold leaves found in graves from Thurii, Hipponium, Thessaly and Crete (4th cent. BC) give instructions to the dead. When he comes to Hades, he must take care not to drink of Lethe ("Forgetfulness"), but of the pool of Mnemosyne ("Memory"), and he must say to the guards:

"I am the son of Earth and Starry Heaven. I am thirsty, please give me something to drink from the fountain of Mnemosyne."

Other gold leaves say:

"Now you are dead, and now you are born on this very day, thrice blessed. Tell Persephone, that Bacchus himself has redeemed you."

How much more explicit do you need to get?

Life. Death. Life. Truth. Dio(nysus). Orphics.

I mean, hello?

So, again: Dionysus' dying/rising myth is different from Attis, which is different from Adonis, from Baal, from Osiris, and there are even different myths within those cults. The details are all different, for sure. And Christianity is different again, has its own wrinkle, and because of the linear nature of the Jewish sense of time, isn't about nature's cyclic continuity through changes. But it is definitely partly about the afterlife, about what happens after death. Some Christians saw it as physical resurrection, but many didn't. I find it doubtful that Paul did:

35: But some one will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"
36: You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
37: And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38: But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
39: For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
40: There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41: There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42: So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.
43: It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44: It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.
45: Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46: But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual.
47: The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48: As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.
49: Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50: I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51: Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52: in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
53: For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.
54: When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."

To me this seems to be about spiritual resurrection, with overtones of a gnostic hidden meaning (i.e. resurrection as mystical experience wherein the ordinary sense of self dies and a sense of being God, or as we moderns would say, the Universe, takes its place). If as some standard scholars believe, this was a proto-orthodox text written against Gnostics he was doing a poor job of dissuading them by pretty much agreeing with them!

Note also, the first example Paul gives is a "grain" example - shades of the most famous Mystery religion of all.

That's very gracious of you Andrew, not many people openly acknowledge things that way. (I certainly don't, usually, I just sort of slink off ... )

Well it would have worked symbolically, but not practically! Controlled drowning's a bit kinder, and brings on a sense of claustrophobia and imminent death quite handily.

I was thinking more of the ascended to heaven side of it. What we have here are already two variations of detail in a Christian myth, as different from each other as any pagan dying/rising myths are from each other - yet these two Christian myths are part of the "same" religion - again, as different within itself as Mysteries from each other, or as varying within themselves.

To look for exact parallels, otherwise you're not playing (so to speak), is to erect a strawman.

There are no exact parallels between the Mysteries either, yet they are still Mysteries.

There are no exact parallels between the various "sons of Jupiter" and Jesus, yet Justin recognises that, fundamentally, the myths are "no different".

andrewcriddle

Minor correction

Elisha cured Naaman not Elijah.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Is this not a summary of the Gospel?

Adam is of Dust. Jesus is of Heaven.

The two do not meet.

Except there is an exception - the saviour of the universe Jesus who has become flesh!

It is all a thought experiment! There never was a bloke called Jesus wandering around Palestine - no need to be - it was all revealed to Paul by God and through his study of the scriptures and probably visionary experiences. It is a logical thesis antithesis synthesis.

andrewcriddle

Hi Gurugeorge

There is a controversial article about Orphism and Dionysus at http://www.brynmawr.edu/classics/redmonds/zagreus.pdf
it may be of interest.

There is a more general issue in your post about how similar do similarities have to be in order to outweigh differences.

I may get back to this later after thinking about it.

Andrew Criddle