Iasion

Greetings all,

I just noticed this odd comment by Origen, who seems to be admitting that the Christians borrowed from the pagan mysteries :

Against Celsus, Book6, Ch.23


The context has Origen defending the validity of the Christian mysteries - Origen goes on at length about the Christian mysteries in many of his books. (e.g. Against Celsus Book3, Ch.59 "And when those who have been turned towards virtue have made progress, and have shown that they have been purified by the word, and have led as far as they can a better life, then and not before do we invite them to participation in our mysteries. "For we speak wisdom among them that are perfect." )


The Cabiri are nature deities associated with the mysteries of Samothrace - the home of Iasius the son-of-god, born of a virgin woman Electra. Iasius brought the mysteries to mankind, was tragically killed by Zeus, but later rose to heaven.

Iasius seems to be one ingredient of the melange that made up the Jesus story.


Can anyone here suggest a good source for more detail on Origen and his Christian mysteries?

Quentin David Jones

CX

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. It seems evident from the excerpts of Celsus we have in Origen that he accused Xianity of borrowing heavily from the mystery cults because of the obvious similarities between the story of Jesus and other mythic figures in antiquity. Rather, it appears to me that Origen is explicitly defending Xianity against such a charge.

We see this elsewhere (I'm drawing a blank on references at the moment) such that it seems clear that early Xians contended on a regular basis with accusations that the Jesus story, or at least elements of it, are borrowed from paganism. This is how we end up with notions like Justin Martyr's "diabolical fictions" as a way to explain religious doctrines preceding Jesus which seem to parallel Xian dogma.

If you read the entire Contra Celsum (as I'm sure you have) it must be obvious to you that Origen goes to considerable effort to demonstrate the uniquesness of Xianity in the face of Celsus' claims to the contrary (not the least of which being his suggestion that the philosophy of Jesus is a cheap, exsanguine imitation of Plato and other philsophers from antiquity).

In other words you're not the first person to notice similarities between Jesus and other cultic figures, Quentin. Those fingers have been pointing practically since the earliest beginnings of Xianity.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Bob K

CX:

Iasion/QDJ says thus: ... which is followed by this quote: From these quotes --

1. Iasion/QDJ is saying that Origen is defending Xnity from Celsus, Celsus is attacking Xnity for 'borrowing' mystical elements from 'mysteries'/pre-existing myths.

2. Origen, while defending Xnity from Celsus' attacks, admits that Xns 'borrowed' mythical elements from pre-existing myths.

You are saying thus: And then you say thus: From these quotes ---

1. You are disagreeing with Iasion/QDJ, to paraphrase, that you don't think Origen is admitting Xns 'borrowed' mythical elements from pre-existing myths.

2. You are agreeing with Iasion/QDJ, to paraphrase, that Origen is indeed defending Xnity from Celsus.

But then you do not respond to Iasion's/QDJ's assertion that by Origen's statement, "... neither do our prophets, nor the apostles of Jesus, nor the Son of God Himself, repeat anything which they borrowed from the Persians or the Cabiri ...," particularly "... which they borrowed from the Persians or the Cabiri ...," [emphasis added] that Origen admitted that Xns 'borrowed' mystical elements from pre-existing myths.

You have, therefore, and, evidently, missed Iasion's/QDJ's premise/supporting evidence for his conclusion.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

Jackalope

(hope this doesn't show up twice, I think I found another bug in the UBB software)

Wouldn't you need the original text (which is in greek, yes?) to be able to determine if Origen is admitting that christianity borrowed from the pagan mysteries or denying that it was so? Word order means a lot in english, but there's no guarantee that the original sense was preserved in translation. My reading would be that Origen is denying that there was borrowing. That is, he's refuting Celcus' claim. It all depends on how you parse Origen's phrasing, a risky proposition when you're dealing with a translation.

Iasion

Greetings CX,

Thanks for your reply.

Indeed yes,
Certainly Origen argues Jesus Christ is unique (and he clearly believed he existed, and his Christology is quite "high"), and he argues that Christianity is better than the pagan mystery cults.

But,
Origen's defence portrays Christianity as a mystery religion in its own right - that is the issue I would like to bring out here.


Firstly
Origen explicitly argues that Christianity maintains esoteric doctrines for their elites, just like other schools : He contrasts the ordinary believers and "wise" men who have advanced to the divine knowledge: Origen describes initiation into the "mysteries of Jesus" as revealing the secret teachings : Origen argues that having secret "mysteries" does NOT discredit Christianity anymore than it discredits the other schools of the mysteries :
Secondly,
he explicitly states that many stories, from both OT and Gospels, are to be interpreted as 'mysteries', but not as having literally occured : Origen argues that Christian scriptures are primarily allegorical : He notes even the Christian "histories" are to be understood as allegory: He repeatedly defends Christian scriptures as having allegorical meaning, not literal - just like the pagan writings :
In Sum,
Origen's writings show his view of Christianity is a mystery cult :[*] two classes of Christian - the multitudes and the initiates[*] two interpretations of scripture - outwardly literal but inwardly allegorical[*] the inner meaning only given to the initiates

Origen defends Christianity as a valid mystery school, heir to ancient secret knowledge.


Which brings me back to the original quote :
The plain English meaning is clearly :[*] they borrowed from the Persians and/or the Cabiri[*] they did not profane this knowledge.
(Perhaps someone could confirm this meaning in the Greek?)


Origen seems to be arguing that his mystery cult, Christianity, also initiates believers into the ancient secrets of the divine.


Quentin David Jones

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]</p>

Iasion

Greetings all,

Thanks BobK, Jackalope, for your replies.

Yes, the issue of word order and translation is important - I hope someone can shed some light on the Greek.

My argument does not at all rest on this one quote - my reading of Origen shows him often validating Christianity by comparing it with other respected systems - e.g. Mithraic, Greek, Egyptian mysteries. ("the fact that the Egyptians present to view many by no means contemptible mysteries")

He regularly complains that critics fail to see the allegorical meaning of Christian scriptures, while accepting allegoric meaning in crude pagan stories.

He quotes the mysteries phrase :
"we speak wisdom among the perfect"
seven times, expounding at length on the validity of the Christian mysteries.

He does not at all dismiss the pagan mysteries - rather, he argues that the Christian mysteries are as valid, (or better), than the pagan systems.

What really caught my eye is the connection to the Cabiri - from Samothrace, origin of Iasius ("healer"), son-of-god, born of virgin woman Electra, brought the mysteries to humankind, died tragically, rose to heaven.

The Iasius story is found in Diodorus Siculus, just before the Gospel period.


Quentin David Jones

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]</p>

Tercel

No, it isn't. It took me several careful readings to try to work out how on earth you got that interpretation out of the text.

The only conclusion that I can come to is: You are wrong, Origen is in no way shape or form admitting borrowing by any sensible interpretation of the english. Origen is saying that the Scriptures (including the teachings of the prophets, apostles and Jesus recorded in them) do not record anything borrowed.

While your theory about Origen and mystery religion etc is not inconsistent with this passage, it is is no way at all even remotely implied, evidenced or suggested by this passage.

And as CX rightly pointed out, if you read Contra Celsum you'd know that your theory runs totally contrary to Origen's position.

CX

I don't think I have, rather I think Iasion, and perhaps yourself, is misreading Origen with regard to the bolded borrowing phrase. Origen says, "... neither do our prophets, nor the apostles of Jesus, nor the Son of God Himself, repeat anything which they borrowed from the Persians or the Cabiri ...". In other words he says saying, "We don't say things that we borrowed from the pagans, because we didn't borrow anything from the pagans." Now the original quote could conceivably be taken two ways. 1)They borrowed things from the pagans, but specifically don't say them or 2)They didn't borrow anything from the pagans. Take out the "which" and see if it makes more sense.

I agree that the syntax is a little confusing, but we are reading an English translation. Still it seems pretty clear that Origen is specifically saying that they didn't borrow from the pagans. If you read the Contra Celsum in it's entirety this point becomes extremely obvious. Of course I'd say his objections are so strenuous as to suggest concern on his part (perhaps unconcious) that stuff was borrowed. Central to Xianity is the idea that it is unique and exclusive. Pretty hard to make that case if you realize that a lot of it sounds like other religions.

As to whether Origen conceives of Xianity as a mystery religion well certainly early Xianity, at least amongst some adherents, had that quality. Out of that sprang Marcion, Valentinus and other Xian Gnostics, so it's not inconceivable that Origen may have had some of that.
We should recall that early on most rank and file Xians were essentially illiterate peasants and artisans. It seems clear that the elitist heirarchy in the early orthodox church wanted to maintain control of the ignorant masses and as such, so-called "mysteries" may have abounded. Even today priests don't get up on the pulpit and sermonize about critical examination of the bible. If you are a clergyman you want the flock to believe and a bunch of knowledge about the synoptic problem and the like would only confuse them and perhaps undermine their faith. Hell, my dad just finished 3 years of seminary and is about to be ordained as a deacon in the Episcopal Church and I know substantially more than he does about the development of the NT, text critcism, the synoptic problem, Koine (he doesn't know any), the state of NT MSS evidence and other related topics in this field of study.

In antiquity there was a much greater disparity between the educated and the uneducated. It resulted in the educated having a very elitist attitude that the hoi polloi weren't capable of understanding the more esoteric theological concepts contained within Xianity.

Iasion

Greetings again,

Well,
the phrase could admit of several meanings, but it seems to me that the sentence breaks down as follows :

Object : anything which they borrowed from the Persians or the Cabiri

Subject(s) : our prophets, nor the
apostles of Jesus, nor the Son of God Himself

Verb : neither do ... repeat

But it really depends on the original - probably Latin IIRC, not Greek.

If he had been trying to say they had NOT borrowed, he would surely have used a form like : "they did not borrow".

Instead, he says they did not repeat.

And what they did not repeat was :
"anything they borrowed..."

Which clearly suggests that at least SOMETHING was borrowed.

The context is the mystery knowledge buried in the scriptures (e.g. Moses).

The use of the word "repeat" emphasises the meaning that they DID borrow, but did not repeat it.


As to Origen's view of Christianity as a mystery cult -

I adduced several cases where Origen compared Christianity as being similar to the mysteries.

I adduced several examples where Origen specifically described Christianity as a mystery cult - initiations, secret meanings, elite and multitudes.

I think its quite clear, from these and other examples, that Origen saw Christianity as a mystery cult.

Of course he claims his cult and its founder are better than the pagan cults - but in doing so he validates Christianity by arguing it is no less valid than others, e.g. the Egyptian (which he describes as "no mean mysteries").


My main point is that Origen uses mystery terms and describes Christainity as a mystery cult with initiates, secret meanings etc.

In that sense the form of the movement (as seen by Origen) was clearly copied from the pagans.

How much of the teaching was copied is not so clear - yet I note that Celsus charged Christianity with repeating the same fear of eternal damnation as other pagan cults e.g.


Perhaps someone who has studied Origen in depth could provide their analysis?


Quentin David Jones

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]</p>