ph2ter

Regarding the place where Jesus was born, Justin Martyr gives the testimony in his Dialogue with Trypho that from the very early times that place was perceived by Christians to be a cave near Betlehem:
"But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him. I have repeated to you," I continued, "what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage." Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. "

Justin Martyr was presumably aware of Luke's and Mathew's version of the birth scene, or with some combination of both. But Luke and Mathew do not mention the cave of birth. We can suspect that the cave as a place of birth existed in the original version of those two Gospels but was removed for some reason. That reason may be the similarity with the Mithras myth. And Justin complains exactly because of that. He argues that Mithras mysteries imitate the utterance of Daniel and the Isaiah's words:
"And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words? "

In The Protoevangelium of James the birth scene is descibed almost exactly as Mithra's birth:
"And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen strange things -- because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. "
If we change Mary to the petra genetrix then we get Mythra's birth scene.

It looks that the birth cave made troubles to 2nd century Christians and was subsequently removed from the Gospels of Mathew and Luke for exactly that reason.
Justin Martyr tries to suggest that the followers of Mithras imitated Christians, but I think that in reality it was vice versa.

GakuseiDon

Where is Mithras's birth described as containing a luminous cloud and a great light that shone in a cave until an infant appeared?

ph2ter

We are talking about mysteries which were supposed to be secret. Mostly only picture representations survived and also some temples.
Mithras is born as an adult from solid rock, "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix."
"Sometimes, as at Dura-Europos, flames are shown shooting out from the rock's surface and even from the cap, which is often studded with stars, like the vault of the Mithraic grotto, was regarded as a symbol of the celestial vault". The rock is somethimes shaped like a cloud.
"On the front of the shaft is the relief of the torso of Mithras rising from the Living Rock. He wears a cloak and a radiate crown, the rays of which are cut through to a hollow niche at the back of the altar in which an oil lamp would have been placed"
"The ceiling was painted blue with yellow stars, or designed with openings where lamps could be fitted to imitate star light. Further developing this theme of heavenly light, there is good reason to believe that natural light effects, either solar or lunar, were encouraged through small apperatures in Mithraea, either to illuminate the Tauroctony or other symbolic surfaces, and that various reflective surfaces on cult objects were used to redirect the beam of light or be the receiving surface."
"Aside from hypothetical reconstruction of natural light effects in Mithraea, artificial light effects were both common and necessary. A wide variety of oil lamps and incense holders, whose hot charcoals would facilitate lighting the Mithraeum, have been recovered."

Also as an interesting detail The Protoevangelium of James records something very strange which in some ways fits the birth scene of Mithras. Joseph "found a cave there, and led her (Mary) into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a widwife in the district of Bethlehem."
The two sons may be the reminiscence to the two torch-bearers which are present at Mithras birth.

Roger Pearse

These claims -- made in quotation from an unidentified source -- need to be referenced.

None of them seem to justify the statement to which they are given as justification, to my eyes anyway.

ph2ter

The reference is http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras.php which is abstraction from: Mithras, the Secret God, M.J. Vermaseren, London, 1963

To agree or to not agree is your right. I do not ask you to agree, but only maybe to give me some reasons pro and contra. My main thesis is that the birth cave existed in the original versions of the Gospels of Mathew and\or Luke, but was removed after Justin Martyr's time.

Roger Pearse

Many thanks. We have to regard them all as suspect, I'm afraid to say. Vermasseren did excellent work himself on inscriptions. Unfortunately he was a pupil of the great Franz Cumont -- the founder of modern Mithraic studies, but misled by the evidence --, and too prone to presume large conclusions from insufficient evidence, particularly in that book intended for a general audience.

I think that if you wish to make a point, you do have to make it. General quotations about light do not amount to a specific instance.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gentleexit

Though they kept the cave in tradition and Constantine built on caves (birth, death, ascension). Per Eusebius ...

In the same country he discovered other places, venerable as being the localities of two sacred caves: and these also he adorned with lavish magnificence. In the one case, he rendered due honor to that which had been the scene of the first manifestation of our Saviour’s divine presence, when he submitted to be born in mortal flesh; while in the case of the second cavern he hallowed the remembrance of his ascension to heaven from the mountain top. And while he thus nobly testified his reverence for these places, he at the same time eternized the memory of his mother, who had been the instrument of conferring so valuable a benefit on mankind.

So birth cave still resonated.

ph2ter

But that does not bear considerable significance to my citations because I was relied on him mostly because his work contains descriptions of survived picture representations of Mithra. Picture is a picture and if there is in it depicted a rock and also red flames which shoot out all around, then there must be also the light. In ancient times source of light was always believed to be from some fire and fire which goes from the petra genetrix must be very strong source of light.

ph2ter

Eusebius is too late.
When Christianity was adopted by Constantine the Great as the new state religion, Mythraism was no more the threat. After that for the reason of conversion, incorporation of some Mithraic elements into Christianity was favorable for Christians.

ph2ter

From the same page:
"The initiates had first to undergo severe trials, and a number of fragmentary scenes, preserved in the grotto at Capua, convey to us something of the fears they experienced. In one of the scenes a mystagogus in charge of the initiates, dressed in a white tunic with red borders, is pushing a naked initiate by the shoulders. The novice has his eyes bound; he is still blind and cannot yet see the secrets of the mysteries. Very unsteadily and slowly he advances with his hands outstretched, not knowing where his guide is going to take him. Next we see him still blindfolded, with hands clasped, kneeling in front of the mystagogus while behind him a priest is approaching with a sword or stick."
"A text of the fourth century A.D. explains clearly the function of the sword in these representations. The author observes that the followers of Mithras 'are not even ashamed to be blindfolded', and continues indignantly: 'with some their hands are tied together with chicken guts and then they are thrown across pits full of water. Someone approaches with a sword, cuts through the guts and as a result of this act calls himself liberator."

Blindfolding is present at almost all initiation ceremonies and this is also the case in the Eleusinian mysteries. Before the act of initiation the novices had been submitted to certain purification rites and had gone through a time of fasting and abstinence.

Regarding the Paul's conversion some similarities can be observed.
In The Acts there is the mention of blindness and also some other similarities: "The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the sound, but seeing no one. Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no one. They led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. He was without sight for three days, and neither ate nor drank.
.. Ananias departed, and entered into the house. Laying his hands on him, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord, who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me, that you may receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he received his sight. He arose and was baptized. He took food and was strengthened."

In his extant letters Paul also mentions something which is probably connected with his conversion experience:
II Corinthians 12:2-4
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows -- and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter."

If this is reference to the conversion, some chronological problems arise. II Corinthians is assumed to be written after Paul's second visit to Jerusalem, but that second visit was according to the Galatians made 14+3 years after the conversion. That would mean that 2 Corinthians had been written before Galatians and before his second visit to Jerusalem.
There also exist the theory that the first visit to Jerusalem (after 3 years) is interpolation (Detering and his Marcion's version of Galatians).
Maybe the visit to Jerusalem and collecting for the saints in Judea was preparation for his first visit to Jerusalem 14 years after the conversion, (or eventually the second visit after 3+14 years if there is no interpolation in Galatians). Galatians then would be Paul's reaction to the confrontation with Peter and James eye to eye 14 or 17 years after the conversion.
If we exclude The Acts completely from the analysis, would that be plausible? Is there anything in the extant letters that goes against such possibility?