The Myth of the Myth of Mithras

[cj.23]

QI (BBC2) tomorrow features Stephen Fry repeating the old chestnut about Mithras and December 25th, and his supposed similarities to Christ. This annoys me, and the fact that it keeps being promulgated shows a remarkable lack of critical thinking, or willingness to examine the evidence. I have briefly summarised here some of the problems with this, and provided links.

Now if you hold it as an article of non-faith that this is true, fair enough. I like to challenge beliefs, and have mine challenged, but I do think this argument is an embarrassment. I refuse to be precious about others beliefs or lack thereof,and while this is a sceptical board, this strikes me as an excellent chance to apply some sceptical and critical thinking...

I certainly did believe this theory myself, until I did some research in to the Graeco-Roman Mystery cults and gnostics for a book I was writing. Sure it was just an rpg supplement, but I did have 15 years in university study of world religion and 9 years worth of formal study (and lecturing) in the area. I'm no expert, but I have a pretty good base for understanding the issues.

Anyway I was writing a book, and I decided to do a quick survey of modern scholarship. What I found was that in fact pretty much nobody in academia believes any of this anymore: no more than most of them believe in Christianity.

The problem is twofold: syncretism and dating.

Now syncretism is just where two or more religions take material from each other. Religions like cultures do this all the time. You can look at how parts of Genesis reflect earlier Sumerian myths (though again it is a not a direct relationship as many claim). What we are dealing with here is syncretism, and yep it happens...

Dating is the problem. Let me explain...

Gnosticism was a body of thought which peaked in the 2nd and 3rd century. It's origins are still under consideration, but in the form we know it today it arose about the same time as Christianity. Gnosticism took from Christianity - and there were gnostic influences on the early Church.

Now I don't think many people dispute this connection. Hence all the fuss about 'other Gospels' -if you are interested in this area, there are many fine books and collections of these texts available.

Now also, there was another strand in the periods religious thinking - the Mystery Cults. There are plenty of good sound academic works on these as well.

Anyway, what happens is that the Mystery Cults usually take existing Middle Eastern deities, and create initiatory theurgical which work on a principle of allowing the initiate supposed powers in the journey of the soul after death - I'm simplifying massively here.

So far so good - the problem is that in many cases, and Mithraism is the classic, the earliest form of the religious devotion to these deities and the later mystery cults versions are different - and part of this is believed to be the influence of early Christianity, Greek Philosophy and other Gnostic thought on these cults.

So in fact, there are no early references at all to Mithras having been celebrated on December 25th. The Cult of Sol Invictus was indeed celebrated on this day, but scholars make a distinction between the two these days - and that celebration was actually instituted in the reign of Elagabulus (218-222AD). It is generally considered to be part of the post-Christian reaction: December 25th was being popularised as the date of Christ's birthday then, most popularly by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221AD book. However as the solstice marked a natural point and is celebrated by many religions, this is hardly surprising.

Now one often hears of "Mythmus" and the supposed parallels between the Life of Mithras and the life of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately this is simply bad academic research: I don't blame anyone for accepting it, as i have supposedly considerable academic experience in this area and as I say I certainly did. It's just very outdated. No one in modern Mithraic studies believes this - and we are not talking Christians here...

There is a sound, and quite funny article on this on a highly intelligent apologetics site. Ah! These guys are Christians right? Yes, but the scholars they quote and reference aren't - they are the leading researchers in the area, and definitely the authorities in the field. It clearly shows how the problem arose...

http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Do read it, and see if you see any crude Christian propaganda. if you do, post here and tell me. The site also has a series of scholarly and amusing essays explaining the current state of play on the others too -

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html

You might also be interested in Miller's Christian essay (note his faith bias) http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

The problem is that I am afraid the consensus of hard academic scholarship (post 1950) does not agree with the hypothesis, so Christian apologists can walk all over these claims.

Now I believe firmly in Critical Thinking. That means one has to be ready to make a case. Sadly citing the Jesus Mysteries will not get you anywhere in this field...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Mysteries

For an extremely funny but scathing demolition see
http://www.tektonics.org/books/jesmystrvw.html

Well, that's about it from me for now. I'm not saying that there is not a fascinating subject here, but I'm afraid the "Christ is a repackaging of a pagan messiah" meme owes more to 19th century anti clericalism than anything happening in the Humanities of academia today, and really, really is an embarrassment to atheism.

I feel that it is important to try and remain accurate, up to date and aware in these things. Failure to engage critical faculties here will simply play in to the hands of the fundies as they demolish your arguments. Citing woo like the Jesus Mysteries unfortunately is about as credible as attacking Roman Catyholicism based on the Da Vinci Code.

I know my position on this will be unpopular, but hell, you have to make a stand sometimes...

cj x


cj x

[ponderingturtle]

One thing I did not see being adressed was when did the christian ideas of christmas come about and focus on the birth and not just on the resurection?

The issues of a Mithras->Christ connection and a Mithras->Christmas while related are seperate.

[cj.23]

221AD, in that book by Sextus Julius Africanus I mentioned. In short, same time the Sol Invictus celebration were instituted, +/- 2 years. The two were part of a ongoing religious 'discussion' in Roman society, and the Sol Invictus festival is generally considered to be a response to the popular interest. Sol Invictus was a heavily syncretic cult as i recall. It's holy day was Sunday, and i think it borrowed much from the incredibly successful early Christian evangelists and apologists. again, i could be wrong...

The formal acceptance of the date by the Church comes much later though. I don't think the early Church celebrated Christmas much - the emphasis was Easter and Pentecost initially. I'll have a look through my books. Excelelnt question though.

[Beerina]

The point of Mithras was to show there were other religions floating around at the time, or earlier, that had many of the features of Christianity, especially the important ones like rising from the dead and curing the sick.

[Ryokan]

You guys can keep your Jesuses and your Mithras. In Norway we celebrate Yule, the winter solstice. Originally it was december 21st, but now we celebrate it on the 24th. No Christ Mass for us!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule

[cj.23]

You guys can keep your Jesuses and your Mithras. In Norway we celebrate Yule, the winter solstice. Originally it was december 21st, but now we celebrate it on the 24th. No Christ Mass for us!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule


God jul! May Julenissen bring you something nice!

cj x

[AgingYoung]

CJ,

I see a difference in how you define

Now syncretism is just where two or more religions take material from each other. Religions like cultures do this all the time. You can look at how parts of Genesis reflect earlier Sumerian myths (though again it is a not a direct relationship as many claim). What we are dealing with here is syncretism, and yep it happens...

and the wiki explanation
Syncretism
Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing, beliefs and to meld practices of various schools of thought. It is especially associated with the attempt to merge and analogize several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity.

From your perspective I get a meaning where different beliefs borrow from each other but from wiki I get the sense the term describes our attempt to understand beliefs. Which is the case or are both correct?

Gene

[Mr Clingford]

I am familliar with cj.23s definition but have not come across the wiki one; I thought it was just a borrowing of bits of another religion into ones own type thing.

[cj.23]

Yes interesting. It's certainly used in the sense I use it in Religious Studies, the discipline which deals with the history and sociology or religious belief (in the UK - it replaced the older "Religious Instruction" which was didactic and concerned with proselytising as far as i can see). It is however correctly defined in the quote you cite in it's philosophical sense. One term used for such endeavours as defined in the wiki definiion in Christianity, and in general usage all religions, is often ecumenicalism, defined as partially b. Concerned with establishing or promoting unity among churches or religions.

Syncretism is generally used to explain how religions "borrow" traditions from one another, adopting their practices in RS. The actual articles goes on to use it in the sense I do, with many, many examples.

I think the wiki article may be confusing here, but I am very grateful to you for pointing this out. I'll make some enquiries,. I'm so used to being wrong about things i like to check! :)

cj x

[Dr Adequate]

I feel that it is important to try and remain accurate, up to date and aware in these things. Failure to engage critical faculties here will simply play in to the hands of the fundies as they demolish your arguments. Citing woo like the Jesus Mysteries unfortunately is about as credible as attacking Roman Catyholicism based on the Da Vinci Code.

I know my position on this will be unpopular... Au contraire, your position is the local orthodoxy (of which the high priest and Keeper of the Holy Flame is jjramsey). Here are SkepticWiki articles on Mithras and on The Jesus Mysteries.

[cj.23]

Au contraire, your position is the local orthodoxy (of which the high priest and Keeper of the Holy Flame is jjramsey). Here are SkepticWiki articles on Mithras and on The Jesus Mysteries.

AH! Sorry, I did search the site, but never thought of checking skepticwiki! So my piece was utterly unnecessary! Nice articles btw.

cj x

[Merko]

I remember from reading about Zoroastrism, that there appears to have been a (much) older Mithraism, with some very striking differences, but also some similarities. This religion would have been parallel to the one that Zoroaster founded (with Mithra being a competitor of the Zoroastrian god, Mazda).

[Darat]

AH! Sorry, I did search the site, but never thought of checking skepticwiki! So my piece was utterly unnecessary! Nice articles btw.

cj x

Not unnecessary - I hadn't read one of the SkepticWiki articles so now I've had a double dose. Thanks for taking the time to make your opening post.

[AgingYoung]

CJ,

There is no doubt as christianity evolved they hijacked ideas and incorporated them. This very, merry holiday season coming up is a good example. I don't think it is sound reasoning to conclude that a religion borrowed an idea from a previous religion simply because both teach the same idea. Take for instance the idea of the golden rule. I've heard it argued that christianity borrowed the idea from Buddhism. An alternate possibility would be that both came to the same conclusion independently.


Merko,

I think Toyota predates Mazda.

Dr. Adequate,

I suspected that there was a Mithra/zodiac link but I've never heard it mentioned. The skepticwiki link you posted points that out.

Gene

[CapelDodger]

You guys can keep your Jesuses and your Mithras. In Norway we celebrate Yule, the winter solstice. Originally it was december 21st, but now we celebrate it on the 24th. No Christ Mass for us!
Happy Solstice, everybody! It's on the 22nd this year - the coordination between days and years is woeful, let alone months. That's what you get when you sub-contract a rush-job, I guess.

Days start to get longer from Saturday, but it's not really discernable for a few days - until around the 25th, in fact. (And not discernable at all if you're far enough North :).) For three days the Sun lingers in the South before its move North promises another Spring ... re-birth ... yada-yada ... Mithras ... Osiris ... Shergar ...

Anyhoo, enjoy. I love the Solstice, entirely free of religious trappings. it's simply human. I don't rail against the winter but I'd still like it gone. An odd thing is that the worst of the weather is actually yet to come, but hey. The days are getting longer, and there are figures to prove it.

[Tricky]

Anyhoo, enjoy. I love the Solstice, entirely free of religious trappings. it's simply human.
LOL. You wish. It is a holy day to the neopagans and druids. I always have to buy at least one gift for my wife that she can open on Solstice (or Midwinter as it is often called), because she wants presents on Christmas too.

[CapelDodger]

LOL. You wish. It is a holy day to the neopagans and druids. I always have to buy at least one gift for my wife that she can open on Solstice (or Midwinter as it is often called), because she wants presents on Christmas too.
You mistake me, I enjoy it free from from religious trappings. I have an emotional response to an astronomical event, and why not? I bay at the full moon and that has nothing to do with religion, m'dog's just come to expect it. It would unsettle him if I didn't.

[CapelDodger]

LOL. You wish. It is a holy day to the neopagans and druids.
And another thing. Who knows from the actual solstice except the experts? Ordinary folk judging sunrise against the landscape wouldn't have been sure of a turn for a few days - just as predicted by the experts. The Solstice is for the cognoscenti, for the proles the turn of the year is when they can see it for themselves. A few days later. Neopaganist concentration on the Solstice is elitism. Damn right.

[geni]

I remember from reading about Zoroastrism, that there appears to have been a (much) older Mithraism, with some very striking differences, but also some similarities. This religion would have been parallel to the one that Zoroaster founded (with Mithra being a competitor of the Zoroastrian god, Mazda).

the competitor would be Ahriman who plays the role of the bad god.

[Merko]

the competitor would be Ahriman who plays the role of the bad god.

No, you misunderstand me. Ahriman was (is) a Zoroastrian devil-god. He inherited some traits from Mithra if I remember correctly. But both Mazda and Mithra were worshipped before Zoroaster, alongside a number of lesser gods, in a polytheistic fashion. Zoroaster then demoted many of these gods to under-gods for Mazda (thus essentially creating a monotheistic religion). But some gods, such as Mithra, were instead demoted to demons. Presumably it was a matter of politics which side some deity ended up on - the gods of allied tribes would no doubt end up on the good side.

[Dr Adequate]

Presumably it was a matter of politics which side some deity ended up on - the gods of allied tribes would no doubt end up on the good side. No, it's much more interesting than that.

It seems that the original Indo-European religions had two pantheons: the devas and the asuras (cognate to Persian "ahura", as in Ahura Mazda --- "the great ahura").

In Indian mythology, the asuras were demoted to demons, in Zoroastrianism, the devas (Persian: "daeva") were, and in Norse mythology there remained two sets of gods, the Vanir and Æsir (again, Æsir is a cognate of asura / ahura).

More information can be found in the section on proto-Indo-European polytheism in the SW article on polytheism.

[Merko]

No, it's much more interesting than that.


I know, but it still seems like politics to me. Btw, while I like the idea that the norse mythology had the same origins (presumably carried across the russian steppe by people living by the horseback), I find the evidence a bit shaky.

[Ryokan]

I know, but it still seems like politics to me. Btw, while I like the idea that the norse mythology had the same origins (presumably carried across the russian steppe by people living by the horseback), I find the evidence a bit shaky.

Why? The Edda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edda), specifically the Ynglinga Saga (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/heim/02ynglga.htm), says Odin came from Asia.

The country east of the Tanaquisl in Asia was called Asaland, or
Asaheim, and the chief city in that land was called Asgaard. In
that city was a chief called Odin, and it was a great place for
sacrifice. It was the custom there that twelve temple priests
should both direct the sacrifices, and also judge the people.
They were called Diar, or Drotner, and all the people served and
obeyed them. Odin was a great and very far-travelled warrior,
who conquered many kingdoms, and so successful was he that in
every battle the victory was on his side. It was the belief of
his people that victory belonged to him in every battle. It was
his custom when he sent his men into battle, or on any
expedition, that he first laid his hand upon their heads, and
called down a blessing upon them; and then they believed their
undertaking would be successful. His people also were
accustomed, whenever they fell into danger by land or sea, to
call upon his name; and they thought that always they got comfort
and aid by it, for where he was they thought help was near.
Often he went away so far that he passed many seasons on his
journeys.

Tanaquisl is another name for the river Don. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_River%2C_Russia)

The famous Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl tried to find the origin of Odin before he died (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakten_p%C3%A5_Odin).

[Dr Adequate]

I know, but it still seems like politics to me. Btw, while I like the idea that the norse mythology had the same origins (presumably carried across the russian steppe by people living by the horseback), I find the evidence a bit shaky. Well, the evidence for the Indo-European language family is rock-solid certain. Hence, there were proto-Indo-Europeans, who, presumably, had one religion, the multicultural society not having been invented. The dual pantheon is, AFAIK, only found among Indo-Europeans, and can be found from North India to Scandinavia.

The fact that "áss" (singular of Æsir) is cognate with "asura" is agreed on by philologists, who base their deductions on regular sound-changes which are well-evidenced. Also, as the SW article points out, the names for gods are sometimes cognates.

Another interesting common feature in IE mythology is the lame smith god/demigod. Consider Weyland/Wolund, Hephaestus, Vulcan, Daedalus.

[Hamrag]

QI So in fact, there are no early references at all to Mithras having been celebrated on December 25th. The Cult of Sol Invictus was indeed celebrated on this day, but scholars make a distinction between the two these days - and that celebration was actually instituted in the reign of Elagabulus (218-222AD). It is generally considered to be part of the post-Christian reaction: December 25th was being popularised as the date of Christ's birthday then, most popularly by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221AD book. However as the solstice marked a natural point and is celebrated by many religions, this is hardly surprising.

Now one often hears of "Mythmus" and the supposed parallels between the Life of Mithras and the life of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately this is simply bad academic research: I don't blame anyone for accepting it, as i have supposedly considerable academic experience in this area and as I say I certainly did. It's just very outdated. No one in modern Mithraic studies believes this - and we are not talking Christians here...
cj x

Hi cj,

Interesting post! I've been doing a bit of amateur reading on this, nothing that could stack up against proper 'research', but it would seem to me that, to those people involved in the Cult of Mithras, that Sol Inviticus was indeed the 'official state' personification of Mithras.

Rather than being two separate Gods, they were in fact the same. If Sol Inviticus day was 25th December then so was Mithras-day, or whatever you'd like to call it.

Also, even with that in mind, the God known as Sol Inviticus was, in fact, just the latest representation (or syncretism) of the (obviously ancient) Sun God. Aurelian (AD270-5) elevated the Syrian Sun God under the name Sol Inviticus to the rank of high God of the empire, and transported the cult image, probably from Palmyra to Rome. This idea of the Sun God became fused with the tendencies of the time towards monotheism, thus Sol Inviticus became the Supreme God.

One unique feature of the mystery religions is that they didn't preclude you from membership of other religions. That's a difficult concept for people to grasp in this day and age - I mean how many Christians do you know who are also Hindu? Or vice-versa? Or how about this - how many atheists do you know who are also Christians? :)

An initiate into Mythraism could quite happily view the public worship of Sol Inviticus as honour paid to the God he (it was an all-male sect, after all) served, despite the fact that other people who were not members of the Mithraic sect didn't do so.

[Beady]

One unique feature of the mystery religions is that they didn't preclude you from membership of other religions. That's a difficult concept for people to grasp in this day and age...

Oh, I dunno... Reminds me of the Japanese Buddhist who, at his Christian baptism, publicly thanked Buddha for leading him to Jesus.

True story.

[Hamrag]

OK, perhaps 'unique' was the wrong choice of word there :)

[Darth Rotor]

Well, the evidence for the Indo-European language family is rock-solid certain. Hence, there were proto-Indo-Europeans, who, presumably, had one religion, the multicultural society not having been invented. The dual pantheon is, AFAIK, only found among Indo-Europeans, and can be found from North India to Scandinavia.

The fact that "áss" (singular of Æsir) is cognate with "asura" is agreed on by philologists, who base their deductions on regular sound-changes which are well-evidenced. Also, as the SW article points out, the names for gods are sometimes cognates.

Another interesting common feature in IE mythology is the lame smith god/demigod. Consider Weyland/Wolund, Hephaestus, Vulcan, Daedalus.
To add to the list of gimby smiths, the Finnish pantheon's smith Ilmarinen was lame as well. I enjoyed how he was used as a vehicle in M Scott Rohan's "Winter of the World" stories.

All these gimpy smiths: maybe they had a habit of dropping anvils on their feet, and Wagner's anvil chorus is a remaking of the howls of "Ow, sh__!" in various languages, put to music.

DR

[chris epic]

No, you misunderstand me. Ahriman was (is) a Zoroastrian devil-god. He inherited some traits from Mithra if I remember correctly. But both Mazda and Mithra were worshipped before Zoroaster, alongside a number of lesser gods, in a polytheistic fashion. Zoroaster then demoted many of these gods to under-gods for Mazda (thus essentially creating a monotheistic religion). But some gods, such as Mithra, were instead demoted to demons. Presumably it was a matter of politics which side some deity ended up on - the gods of allied tribes would no doubt end up on the good side.Wrong. Zoroaster was the prophet, Ahura Mazda was the most powerful God, and Mithras (not Mithra, almost sounds like Mathra- and Godzilla is nowhere to be found ;) ) Mithras was the Phoenix/Scape-goat Savior, Mazda's half-mortal messiah. This is why people think Christianity stole from Zoroastrianism because of the parallels between Christ and Mithras. Zoroastrianism was Persian in origin, about 800 BC (maybe). I'm no expert, either.

[maatorc]

QI (BBC2) tomorrow features Stephen Fry repeating the old chestnut about Mithras and December 25th, and his supposed similarities to Christ. ............
The point about ALL the sacred legends and myths is that they are ALL without exception occult anatomical myths about human perfectibility.
The classics are the New Testament and the Grail legend.

[bjornart]

Why? The Edda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edda), specifically the Ynglinga Saga (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/heim/02ynglga.htm), says Odin came from Asia.

Tanaquisl is another name for the river Don. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_River%2C_Russia)

The famous Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl tried to find the origin of Odin before he died (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakten_p%C3%A5_Odin).

Snorre wrote in 1200CE and created a historical mundane origin for the old Norse gods. It's most certainly doesn't have any basis in reality.

Heyerdahl and Lillieströms quest to connect Odin to Azov is pure pseudohistory. Ref. the latest material on the Norwegian Skeptical Society's homepages: Nordic pseudoarchaeology part 5 (in Norwegian only) (http://www.skepsis.no/kultarkeologi/nordisk_pseudoarkeologi_del5.html)

[ceo_esq]

Another interesting common feature in IE mythology is the lame smith god/demigod. Consider Weyland/Wolund, Hephaestus, Vulcan, Daedalus.

That is interesting, although I don't remember any account in which Daedalus was portrayed as lame, or as a demigod. Is there one?

[cj.23]

221AD, in that book by Sextus Julius Africanus I mentioned. In short, same time the Sol Invictus celebration were instituted, +/- 2 years.


Just out of interest, Franz Cumont (1910) placed the opening of the temples of Sol Invictus and the institution of December 25th as a festival in 273AD. That's a fifty year discrepancy from the dates I have seen cited on web sources. Does anyone have any other sources on this, as this has coinfused me?

I conducted a short literature survey for a discussion on another forum where a few people were convinced Skepticwiki was a crypto-christian source, and this came up while I was reading through the academic literature.

cj x
cj x

[Hamrag]

the God known as Sol Inviticus was, in fact, just the latest representation (or syncretism) of the (obviously ancient) Sun God. Aurelian (AD270-5) elevated the Syrian Sun God under the name Sol Inviticus to the rank of high God of the empire, and transported the cult image, probably from Palmyra to Rome. This idea of the Sun God became fused with the tendencies of the time towards monotheism, thus Sol Inviticus became the Supreme God.


I guess you missed my post.

[cj.23]

I guess you missed my post.

Hi Hamrag, yes that is what Cumont says. Cheers! It's just I am confused because, as you will note in my OP, I was originally led to believe this was in the reign of Elagabulus (218-222AD). I'll read you post more carefully. My suspicion is that Elagabulus may have promulgated a short lived local cult, but Aurelian instituted the larger public faith?

It puzzled me!
cj x

[cj.23]

Hi cj,

Interesting post! I've been doing a bit of amateur reading on this, nothing that could stack up against proper 'research', but it would seem to me that, to those people involved in the Cult of Mithras, that Sol Inviticus was indeed the 'official state' personification of Mithras.

Rather than being two separate Gods, they were in fact the same. If Sol Inviticus day was 25th December then so was Mithras-day, or whatever you'd like to call it.

Also, even with that in mind, the God known as Sol Inviticus was, in fact, just the latest representation (or syncretism) of the (obviously ancient) Sun God. Aurelian (AD270-5) elevated the Syrian Sun God under the name Sol Inviticus to the rank of high God of the empire, and transported the cult image, probably from Palmyra to Rome. This idea of the Sun God became fused with the tendencies of the time towards monotheism, thus Sol Inviticus became the Supreme God.

One unique feature of the mystery religions is that they didn't preclude you from membership of other religions. That's a difficult concept for people to grasp in this day and age - I mean how many Christians do you know who are also Hindu? Or vice-versa? Or how about this - how many atheists do you know who are also Christians? :)

An initiate into Mythraism could quite happily view the public worship of Sol Inviticus as honour paid to the God he (it was an all-male sect, after all) served, despite the fact that other people who were not members of the Mithraic sect didn't do so.

Absolutely. I was confused over the Elagabulus (218-222AD) cult, and the later Aurelian one -- no that confusion is dispelled, after i found a useful article on Sol Invictus! I always got my wrists slapped for calling the public rites of Sol Invictus Mithraism, so yes I have made a false distinction there. What I should have said was same deity, different method of worship. I did a literature survey recently for a thread on another forum -- it sort of starts here http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6285&start=48
and you might enjoy it as you have clearly read a great deal on the issue.

cj x (or Jerome as they know me!)

[c4ts]

You mean I can't use Mithraism as a sex cult of boar wrestlers in my Renaissance RPG? Damn.

[cj.23]

You mean I can't use Mithraism as a sex cult of boar wrestlers in my Renaissance RPG? Damn.

You you can, and I'll write more rules for it if a) you are playing the excellent Ars Magica rpg, and b) you could use the version in the wonderful The Mysteries Revised Edition for that game, and send gifts of roast boars and sex cultist young ladies to the author at - well pm me for my address. :)

Bet you did not expect that response!
cj x

[aries]

The opening sequence of the movie *the da vinci code* is very interesting

Prof. Langdon speaks of symbols, and then he shows a trifork and asks what people think of this: Immediately people start shouting things 'the devil' and that stuff. When he later reveals that it is, in fact Poseidon's fork, all are struck speechless. The same goes for his little show with a picture of mother & child: Everyone immediately thinks of The Holy Madanno and the Baby Jesus. However, it is revealed that it is a statue of the Egyptian God Horus and his son/daugter Isis. (I think).

The point, both Prof. Langdon, (although fictional character) and I both want to reiterate is this: Symbols only have meaning in ther speficic cultural context, like if we transport the swastika to India it will have a different meaning for the Indians than for us in the western world.

Thus, for us to understand the cult of the Sol Invictus or the Cult of Mithras,
we would first have to strip ourselves from our own western background, and tru understanding how these people were thinking. (this sounds harder as it seems at first sight).

And from what I've read on the subject from -100 bc to about 200 ac, the middle east was a melting pot when it came to religion, spirituality and such things. Many things in the (early) Christian religion seem to come from the old Persian zoraasterism(?) in which there is a Deity and his Enemy and such things. The Devil's image may have been taken from the Greek god Pan, the Roman God, Neptune (called Poseidon in Greek).

And the celebration of the birth of Christ was pinned down to Dec 25th for some odd reason. I've also thought (or read) that it has something to with the Roman celebrating 'the saturnaelians' --- which they did to celebrate
one year going over in the next one. (they held a great feast of some sort, lasting 12 days or so----and then John Denver appeared singing 'the twelve days of Christmas' ;) )

As for the Sol Invictus celebration, yes, this is probably one of the reasons why the Christians at the council of Nicæa in 325 (or so) decided to place the birth of Christ there --- as they could argue that it was the birth of the light coming into the world, a light that should shine for all mankind (and similar stuff).

As for the Origin of Odin (or Wotan as this asa god is called in German myth and folklore), I know that there are scholars who support the idea that the a tribe called the Danes, invaded Denmark during the years 300-400 bc. And that they kicked the original inhabitants, the herules, out. and they all fled --- to Sweden, I think. Or further south in Europe. And the Danes should have come from Dan-ube river (get it ;) ).

Other scholars do think (and there seem to be a growing consensus about
this amongst scholars) that the wiking age was a resemblance to the bronzeage. And this really came about because the nordic people again
got in contact with the mediterean cultures. These scholars also have proof (of sorts) that the original bronze age somehow came about since inhabitants from say Phoecia and Greece sailed to the Nordic countries and traded
with the Nordic people. [I've remember seeing a tv-documentary/program about this last year, but I can't remember on what channel and when it was aired].

Anyway, back to topic:

The myths concerning the Christ that was the man Jesus were mainly decided by the first and second council of Nicea, in 325 and in 525.
It then comes as no surprise to me that Christiany took a little bit of ev'rything, put it into the pot, and ---- instant Christianity.
(BTW, all other beliefs other than the approved one, were considered --- heresy --- and thus began the :( persecutions ---- :( )

As biblical scholars learn more & more, more & more of this story is revealed.
For the better, I'd say :)

[Hamrag]

I think the spirit of your post is spot on, however I don't think that the Council of Nicea was concerned with trivialities such as when the celebrate Christmas. It was for more important things.

At the council of Nicea only the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John out of the 50 gospels in existence were deemed to be 'ok'. Everything else became a heresy.

It seemed that certain things or events were too controversial or needed to be written out of the official story of the Jesus the Christ.

The question becomes, what were they trying to hide?

But back to Christmas - there seems to be a lot of Christian writing and videos made to justify Christmas as a purely Christian ceremony. Just look up Christmas on YouTube to view some of it. Unfortuantley, it's all bad thinking based on bad research. It also seems to be convincing people too - just look at CJ the starter of this post!

The most popular view seems to be that since Jesus died in 0AD and the Roman Emperor Aurelian only started the Sol Inviticus celebration 270 years later that Jesus must have come first! Logically that makes no sense.

[cj.23]

I think the spirit of your post is spot on, however I don't think that the Council of Nicea was concerned with trivialities such as when the celebrate Christmas. It was for more important things.

At the council of Nicea only the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John out of the 50 gospels in existence were deemed to be 'ok'. Everything else became a heresy.

It seemed that certain things or events were too controversial or needed to be written out of the official story of the Jesus the Christ.

The question becomes, what were they trying to hide?

But back to Christmas - there seems to be a lot of Christian writing and videos made to justify Christmas as a purely Christian ceremony. Just look up Christmas on YouTube to view some of it. Unfortuantley, it's all bad thinking based on bad research. It also seems to be convincing people too - just look at CJ the starter of this post!

The most popular view seems to be that since Jesus died in 0AD and the Roman Emperor Aurelian only started the Sol Inviticus celebration 270 years later that Jesus must have come first! Logically that makes no sense.

I do actually make my case very clear - Africanus was in fact popularising the celebration of Christmas among Christians in his best seller of 221, fifty years before the cult of Sol Invictus created their ceremony. I think I posted a link before in my previous post to my survey of the current state of the archaeological and historical evidence for the Mitthras-Christ claims. I spent several weeks on them in January, and found no basis at all for the claims.

cj x

[Hamrag]

Actually....no.

The Roman Sextus, in his now lost book, was supposedly trying to calculate the birthday of Christ - there is no mention of a festival or celebration of that day.

There is a significant difference between a proposed date for Jesus' birthday, and a celebration happening on that day.

"The earliest literary evidence we have of a date for a celebration of the Nativity of Christ is in the Roman Chronograph of Furius Dionysius Philocalus - sometimes called the Philocalian Calendar - written between 336 and 354 AD."

"True birth date unknown
Although there is evidence during the late second century AD of disputes about different dates of the birth of Jesus – 6th or 10th January, 19th or 20th April, 20th May and 18th November – there is no reliable evidence of an actual birth date.

Writing in his Chronographiai before 221, Sextus Julius Africanus places both the dates of the annunciation and of the passion of Christ on 25th March. This would point to 25th December as a birth date.

The Alexandrian Christian theologian Origen (185-232) stated that “only sinners” celebrate the birthdays of their kings, such as Herod and Pharoah, and that Christians celebrated the death dates of their martyrs as their “birthday into heaven”.

Why 25th December? Two theories
Two sets of hypotheses or theories have been offered to explain why 25th December was chosen as the feast of the Nativity. The first is based on the idea of Sextus Julius Africanus that the date of the conception of Jesus coincided with the date of his death - on 25th March. Add nine months for Mary's pregnancy and you get 25th December. This is called the calculation hypothesis or computationist theory. The other hypothesis is based on the link between the feast of Christmas and the celebration of a pagan feast of the winter solstice of in honour of the sun god. This is called the history of religions theory."

Sadly because I don't have enough posts on this forum I cannot link you to that web page. You might want to do a search in Google for the text.

So Sextus proposes his conception date (which has to match the day he dies so that he lived the god-approved full year), and if you add full 9 months to that you can calculate 25th December (not that Sextus actually named that date - which is important to note!).

Again, the only actual festivals (celebrations) on that day were pagan way before they became Christian. As you hinted yourself in your first post - (pagan) celebrations had been held on the winter solstice since time immemorial.

[Jorghnassen]

The most popular view seems to be that since Jesus died in 0AD and the Roman Emperor Aurelian only started the Sol Inviticus celebration 270 years later that Jesus must have come first! Logically that makes no sense.

A few nitpicks. First, there is no 0 AD. Zero was not a very well known concept back when the modern calendar was established (especially considering they were using roman numerals, which certainly don't have a 0). Second, 1AD marks the year of Jesus' birth, which means (provided he existed and all other assumptions and calculations were right), he would have died around 33-34AD.

[Hamrag]

Apologies - you are right of course, although as I'm sure you are aware, it doesn't deflect from my argument.

[ceo_esq]

I think the spirit of your post is spot on, however I don't think that the Council of Nicea was concerned with trivialities such as when the celebrate Christmas. It was for more important things.

At the council of Nicea only the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John out of the 50 gospels in existence were deemed to be 'ok'. Everything else became a heresy.

That's not true. From the pertinent SkepticWiki (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/First_Council_of_Nicaea) article:

There is a popular belief that the Canon of the New Testament was determined by the First Council of Nicaea[.] ... This is absolutely not the case. The main business of the First Council of Nicaea was the determination of the date of Easter; and the condemnation of the heresy of Arius. ... The question of the Canon of the New Testament is not mentioned in the decisions of the council, and the only texts condemned were the theological writings of Arius, and not any book claimed by anyone to be canonical.

[Hamrag]

Thank you, looks like you're right, so I have learned something.

[jimbob]

To add to the list of gimby smiths, the Finnish pantheon's smith Ilmarinen was lame as well. I enjoyed how he was used as a vehicle in M Scott Rohan's "Winter of the World" stories.

All these gimpy smiths: maybe they had a habit of dropping anvils on their feet, and Wagner's anvil chorus is a remaking of the howls of "Ow, sh__!" in various languages, put to music.

DR

Seconded, and Harry Harrison's "Hammer and the Cross" trilogy for another reworking.

There was an article attributing the lameness of the archetypal smith to the use of arsenical bronze

Google Link (http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=lame+smith+arsenic+bronze&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)



That is interesting, although I don't remember any account in which Daedalus was portrayed as lame, or as a demigod. Is there one?

The story of Daedelus and his escape from Minos is similar to that of Volund and his escape from Nídud. Both fashioned wings and flew, and Daedelus's son died (after already killing his apprentice Talos) Volund killed Nídud's sons.

Robert Graves doesn't mention Daedelus being lame, but does state that Talos reappeared as a partridge and (in the greek myths vol 1 92.1) , "one of Talos's names was Tantalus ('hobbling or lurching'); a cock-partridge hobbles in his love-dance, holding one heel ready to strike at rivals."

He also argues that Daedelus, Talus, and Hesphastus are the same mythological character, and that "Icarus, io-carios 'dedicated to the moon goddess Car' may be yet another of his titles".

Good reading


Jim

[RationalReverend]

It is no secret that Dec.25 occurs in the middle of a number of ancient pagan festivals, I'm pretty sure that is why it was chosen actually.

[Beerina]

Exactly. Which, if any, particular religion was "copied" is somewhat irrelevant. That's when the winter solstice was, and thus most religions and cultures have festivals around that point.

Even worse, within Christianity, it is not believed December 25th is literally Jesus' birthday. Hence there is nothing to "expose" here -- anyone religious apologist worried that this info will 'expose' Christianity as making up Jesus' birthday is barking up the wrong tree. December 25 is, and always has been, the "Birth Anniversary" of Jesus -- the day you celebrate his birth, unrelated to the actual date of birth. Apparently this was quite common in some ancient cultures as either nobody cared about the actual birthday of people, or nobody knew it, with mostly just the clergy and dictators even knowing what the actual calendar date was.

So there is nothing here -- there is no "Jesus' birthday" being celebrated on December 25. It isn't, and never has been, that.