JohnG

I read through the link, and I am no expert on this (history is a hobby) but there is some things I disagree with here. They base a lot of their position on the work of David Ulansey. I don't know much about him but he seems to have a keen interest on Mithra and has done considerable work on the subject.

The tektonics argument is attempting to place the advent of the Mithra cult after the advent of Christianity, by stating that the original research done by Franz Cumont is incorrect, and that the Persian Mithra and the Roman Mithra are two different cults. However, the argument doesn’t state the Roman version of Mithra still predates the writing of the New Testament by almost two centuries.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my research tells me that a gap of 175 years separates the alleged time of Jesus from the earliest surviving copies of the gospels. There is only just over thirty papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament, which can be dated before the 4th century. Moreover, each copy has its own oddities and mistakes. No two are completely alike.

From dating artifacts, it is known that Mithraism began in Rome in 68 BCE.

Something else about their argument is not quite right. They are going about their merry business degrading the author of “The Christ Conspiracy” for her comments about knowledge of precession before the time of Hipparchus, and how that doesn’t jibe with Ulansey's theory that Mithraism is based on Hipparchus’ discovery.

Ulansey never states that phenomenon went unnoticed, just that Hipparchus had the math together to ascertain an earthly wobble. Interesting to note, however, that they are using an argument by a researcher claiming that the religions of the time are based on precession, but that's another heated topic.

Ulansey isn’t hesitant to point out the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism and goes into some detail about the astrological implications as well. He goes on to note that “astrological beliefs permeated Mediterranean religious and intellectual life at the time Mithraism originated”. Remember, this is in the same timeframe that Christianity found its origins.

The tectonics main argument (that Christianity preceded Mithraism) doesn’t necessarily reflect with Ulansey’s claim that the Persian Mithra and the Roman Mithra are two different religions. Those are two different statements.

As stated, there is not much info on this subject, but in doing some quick research the apologetic arguments all mirror one another to some extent and roughly look like the tektonics argument...not very good.

I'm not saying one is based on the other, if I had to guess, I would say that they both filled a common need that was reflective of the time period, and that Mithra was popular before christianity, but that's a mildly educated guess based on limited reading.

Roger Pearse

Ah, but I've never been a member of that list and wouldn't use Neville Lindsay as a source on anything.

Yes; this was what I was thinking of. The quotation from the Georgics indicating a Cilician settled in Italy as possible evidence for pirates settled there by Pompey. Thank you!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I think you've got hold of some very elderly research -- dating from the Victorian era when the papyri were not known, and the oldest manuscripts were the great 4th century codices. A century later, we have a piece of John dated to ca. 125 AD (plus or minus 25 years, probably more later than earliuer); more or less complete gospels from ca. 200. These of course make the date of the text first century.

But the date of a text is not related to the date of the earliest manuscript. For nearly all texts that have survived from antiquity, the earliest copies are 10th century or later. See here for info on Greek classics manuscripts.

No, this isn't right. No artifacts exist prior to the 3rd quarter of the 1st century. This is confused with the Plutarch reference (discussed above).

The difficulty is that Ulansey's assertions don't rest on data.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

JohnG

As I say, I am no expert on this stuff, but much of what I have posted is based on the research of David Ulansey...the same source used in the tektoniks argument. If they deem his research credible, AND they are only presenting SOME of his research...the parts that support their argument and leaving out parts that don't....it says a lot about their position.

I also have my doubts about some of his work, but the tektoniks argument rests on it (the parts they like)

lycanthrope

quick question

I understand now that christianity in its infancy was made up of various groups with different ideology but roughly they can be split into 2 groups: Literalist and Gnostic...am i rite?

any idea why the Literalist christians took over? ...i mean they are the dominant ones in modern christianity while the gnostics seem to disappear like a fart in the wind...

Toto

The gnostics believed in inner revelation, so everyone was his own authority. This made it hard to build an organization.

Most gnostics seem also to have been opposed to sex and childbearing. Rodney Stark in The Rise of Christianity theorizes that much of the staying power of early Christianity came from its pro-natalist practices.

spin

To quote Brent Nongbri on P52, the text Roger alludes to as "ca. 125 AD" (and which Roger should know is gross misrepresentation),

What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the late second and early third centuries. - HTR 98.1 p.46

Roger of course shuts is eyes to modern analysis of P52 and deliberately peddles the earliest possible date as the only possible date. P52 could have been copied any time between 125 CE and the early 200s. But Roger knows this.

The same sources that provide the earliest fragments of christian literature also provide early fragments of Greek classical literature, Herodotus, Homer, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, etc. After citing P52 as evidence for an early biblical text, Roger cites the 10th century date for various texts found at Oxyrhynchus and Tebtunis. Go figure.


spin

gstafleu

Just on this one point, if the CAIS article is reasonably accurate, this is not too far off:
In other words, he was generated without the participation of a male, which is implicit in what is called the "virgin birth" in Christianity. The equation between the Christian virgin birth and the Mithraic birth is thus not that a rock equals a virgin, but that in neither case a (human) father was necessary.

Gerard Stafleu

Clivedurdle

Upon this rock...

Roger Pearse

Likewise we could "prove" that you are a transvestite using similar massaging of categories; or that I am.

This type of argument may seem ingenious, but is usually considered dishonest, so you may not want to do it. A rock is not a virgin, and a virgin is not a rock; playing with words to obscure this is not acceptable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse