Christianity As A Mystery Religion

[roman wargamer]

christmas was a romanized paganized ritual not a true first century christian doctine.

 

you can not even read or find this word in the Holy Bible.

[idahojeri]

I

 

Whatever Jesus' original message, I believe it was perceived in the west and in the Greek world, as a mystery religeon. I

 

Phil

 

I am very surprised that no one has brought up the evidence of the biblical scholars who studied the influence of the mystery religons on Christianity. Entire forests were felled to create the thousands and thousands of books on the subject.

 

Of course, these books were written some time ago. As Nash writes, "During a period of time running roughly from about 1890 to 1940, scholars often alleged that primitive Christianity had been heavily inluenced by Platonism, Stoicism, the pagan mystery religons, or other movements". The reason that bible scholars stopped writing about it was that archeological and literary evidence proved the exact oppostie. Not only was Christianity not influenced by the mystery religions, instead, Christianity became a huge influence on the mystery religions, especially Mithraism. As Nash puts it, "Today, most bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue".

 

Anyone interested in the subject will want to read Ronald Nash's "The Gospel and the Greeeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?". It's a readable book (unlike many books on biblical scholarship) and it's just about the only book on the market on this subject still in print. The others are all only to be found gathering dust in libraries. Edwin Yamauchi is considered the greatest scholar on the subject, buy his books are all now out of print.

 

About Mithraism: all evidence points to it being a small cult in Iran. Only much later, after it had borrowed a number of beliefs from Christianity, did it succeed in growing in Rome.

 

There are so many books written on the subject I hardly know where to begin, but anyone interested in a list can email me.

notw ...d'on

[phil25]

Unless you are suggesting that the Roman army was occupying Iran at the time, I can't see the logic of your statement. Mithraism was clearly a major force in the army (I have seen the evidence on Hadrian's Wall for myself); in London (the Walbrook temple) and in Rome itself (and places such as Ostia) from the C2nd-3rd onwards. the shrines and sculptures are there to prove it

 

Phil

[idahojeri]

Unless you are suggesting that the Roman army was occupying Iran at the time, I can't see the logic of your statement. Mithraism was clearly a major force in the army (I have seen the evidence on Hadrian's Wall for myself); in London (the Walbrook temple) and in Rome itself (and places such as Ostia) from the C2nd-3rd onwards. the shrines and sculptures are there to prove it

 

Phil

 

 

I am sorry--I must not have been very clear. Mithraism was a small cult in Iran. Mithra was the twin brother of the Zoroastrain god Ahura Mazda. However, although this formed the original kernal for the cult, it had little to do with the Mithraism that was so popular in the Roman military. That cult, which apparently borrowed much of its trappings and ethical content from early Christianity, was very different indeed. M. J. Vermaseren, who wrote about the excavations on Mithraism at Dura, suggested that there were no Mithraic sites that could be dated earlier than 168. There are none, for example, in Pompeii.

 

My point was merely that there are no instances of mystery religions influencing Christianity, at least none that 100 years of scholarship could find. There are, however, as in the Mithric cult, instances of Christianity influencing mystery religions. I hope I've made it clear this time! Sorry for the confusion--

 

Blessings,

 

Unless you are suggesting that the Roman army was occupying Iran at the time, I can't see the logic of your statement. Mithraism was clearly a major force in the army (I have seen the evidence on Hadrian's Wall for myself); in London (the Walbrook temple) and in Rome itself (and places such as Ostia) from the C2nd-3rd onwards. the shrines and sculptures are there to prove it

 

Phil

 

 

I am sorry--I must not have been very clear. Mithraism was a small cult in Iran. Mithra was the twin brother of the Zoroastrain god Ahura Mazda. However, although this formed the original kernal for the cult, it had little to do with the Mithraism that was so popular in the Roman military. That cult, which apparently borrowed much of its trappings and ethical content from early Christianity, was very different indeed. M. J. Vermaseren, who wrote about the excavations on Mithraism at Dura, suggested that there were no Mithraic sites that could be dated earlier than 168. There are none, for example, in Pompeii.

 

My point was merely that there are no instances of mystery religions influencing Christianity, at least none that 100 years of scholarship could find. There are, however, as in the Mithric cult, instances of Christianity influencing mystery religions. I hope I've made it clear this time! Sorry for the confusion--

 

Blessings,

[phil25]

idahojeri

 

You wrote that there are "...no instances of mystery religions influencing Christianity..."

 

I myself cited some examples of potential similarities in an earlier post. How did the scholars you mention conduct their analysis?

 

On the basis of admittedly limited reading, I would question whether Mithraism was influenced by Christianity, but continue to suggest that the influence was the reverse.

 

Are you sure that the scholars were not influenced by that they wanted to find?

 

Phil

[idahojeri]

idahojeri

 

 

I myself cited some examples of potential similarities in an earlier post. How did the scholars you mention conduct their analysis?

 

On the basis of admittedly limited reading, I would question whether Mithraism was influenced by Christianity, but continue to suggest that the influence was the reverse.

 

Are you sure that the scholars were not influenced by that they wanted to find?

 

Phil

 

Phil, great questions. Were the scholars influenced by what they wanted to find? Biblical scholarship is pretty well divided into pro-God and anti-God types. If there was even the smallest proof that the mystery religons created/influenced Christianity the anti-God squad would be proclaiming it from the rooftops.

 

I am talking about people like Elaine Pagels. Pagels' most famous book title pretty well sums up her attitude: 'Beyond Belief". Or people like John Crossan. Crossan is a fallen away Catholic priest who has spent the last thirty years writing books in an effort to squash Christianity like a bug. He's one of the founders of the Jesus Seminar. Ever heard of it? Anyway, my point is that there are a legion of atheist scholars out there trying to prove Christianity false, and they would be delighted if they could find proof that the Roman mystery religions influenced Christianity. .

 

The anti-God scholars did give it their best, for about 100 years. Some of the stumbling blocks they ran into:

 

Paul. Paul's first letter was written about 20 years after the death of Christ. Not a lot of time for "influence" of any kind to seep in. A huge number of people who knew Christ were still alive. Facts could be checked.

 

Next, archeological and historical evidence. As I mentioned before, the very earliest site for the Roman-style Mithric cult is about 170 or so. This was about the same time that the gnostics were feverishly pouring out writings heavily influenced by Christianity (like the recent gospel of Judas discovery).

 

Now, put that together with Tacitus' famous mention of the "vast multitudes" of Christians who were killed by Nero, and Pliny's letter in 112 in which he complains that the pagan temples are deserted because so many people had converted. All these things suggest that the Romans--at least a large number of them--were influenced by Christianity.

 

But proof that Christianity had been influenced by the mystery religons? As hard as they looked, the anti-God types couldn't find anything.

 

I think the only book on the market on this subject is "The Gospel and the Greeks". It goes into much more detail than my quick sketch here, and could probably answer most of your questions. Otherwise, if you are interested in hearing the various arguments, you may have to go back to books written over 50 years or so. Innerlibrary loans may be your only bet (and we all know what a pain innerlibrary loans are). Sorry.

 

However, I have a copy of "The Gospel and the Greeks". I'd be glad to look up anything I can for you. I'm afraid I don't have any of Edwin Yamouchi's books. They are very expensive now.

 

Blessings,

[phil25]

Paul. Paul's first letter was written about 20 years after the death of Christ. Not a lot of time for "influence" of any kind to seep in. A huge number of people who knew Christ were still alive. Facts could be checked.

 

Except for Paul himself as the influence!!

 

Truth is, the epistles are all FACT-light. Jesus' message - if Pauline Christianity has any link to it - is spiritual and mysticised (moved away from Judaism), with hardly any mention of Jesus' life or deeds. The whole thrust is to make the teachings attractive to and amenable to the Hellenised thought.

 

I find a good deal of believability in the idea that Jesus and his immediate disciples (as far as we know Paul never met him) were concerned with traditional Jewish ideas (if revolutionised and put over in an innovative way) and perhaps with Jesus as the traditional idea of Messiah.

 

Paul changes this, and seems to come into conflict with the Jerusalem "Christians" (note under James the brother of Jesus, NOT Peter) over his message. he promotes changes (dietary, circumcision) that divorce Pauline chritianity from its Judaic origins.

 

It was also in Antioch, not Jerusalem, that the name Christians appears first to have been applied to the sect.

 

The mystery religeons to me were a way of thinking and in interest in such things as resurrection, as about ritual and practice, symbolism or creed. It doesn't really matter if Christianity was influenced in such things until later - the "Hellenised" thought, the driving curiousity, for me comes in with Saul/Paul of Tarsus - a Roman citizen, from Asia Minor.

 

He gives a metaphysical spin to Jesus' ideas - seems to pick up on the more mystical ideas of Jesus - initiation transforms the individual, takes you into a new world, allows healing - and runs with those alone. Paul uses the term Christ Jesus a lot - promoting the divine above the human - rather than Jesus Christ.

 

At least, that's how it seems to me.

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

I can't begin to see how Christianity was not influenced by the mystery religions and predecessing Pagan beliefs.

 

Whether such notions... Zoroaster prediction of the savior, the immaculate virgin mother Anahita who was once worshipped as a fertility goddess, Mithra's ascension to heaven etc., influenced Christianity may be a tough thing to prove, but summarily dismissing them simply because Christians had the foresight to burn anything that disagreed with their own doctrine doesn't prove anything either.

[idahojeri]

I can't begin to see how Christianity was not influenced by the mystery religions and predecessing Pagan beliefs.

 

Whether such notions... Zoroaster prediction of the savior, the immaculate virgin mother Anahita who was once worshipped as a fertility goddess, Mithra's ascension to heaven etc., influenced Christianity may be a tough thing to prove, but summarily dismissing them simply because Christians had the foresight to burn anything that disagreed with their own doctrine doesn't prove anything either.

 

 

Hi. I am simply reporting what 100 years of scholarship has found. There are hundreds, even thousands, of books and studies on the subject. No one was able to find a connection, either in the texts that are available (admittedly scanty) or in any archeological site. The earliest Mithric cult site, for example, is about 170. THere are no traces of it in Pompeii.

 

On the contrary, all the influence was on the other side. Christianity appears to have exploded like bomb in the Roman world. Within thirty years or so after Christ's death "vast multitudes" of them were killed by Nero. By 112 Pliny was complaining that all the pagan temples were deserted because of the number of converts. By 150 the Roman world was awash in gnostic texts, Christian persecutions, and the arguing hasn't stopped since then.

 

As for why the mystery religions didn't influence Christianity, from the very beginning participation of any kind of activity to any god except Christ was forbidden. Paul makes this very clear in Corinthians 10. He allowed for no flexibility at all. He says pagan sacrifices are offered to "to demons and not to God". Partcipation of any kind of cultic activity was regarded as idolatry and was condemned in the harshest terms.

And all the other early writings are equally strong on this point.

 

Blessings.

[Ursus]

"Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Graeco-Oriental culture of the Hellenistic world."

 

Manfred Claus. _The Roman Cult of Mithras_ Routledge. New York, NY. 2000.

[idahojeri]

Paul. Paul's first letter was written about 20 years after the death of Christ. Not a lot of time for "influence" of any kind to seep in. A huge number of people who knew Christ were still alive. Facts could be checked.

 

Except for Paul himself as the influence!!

 

Truth is, the epistles are all FACT-light. Jesus' message - if Pauline Christianity has any link to it - is spiritual and mysticised (moved away from Judaism), with hardly any mention of Jesus' life or deeds. The whole thrust is to make the teachings attractive to and amenable to the Hellenised thought.

 

 

 

Phil, Hi, these are interesting issues, although perhaps too many to deal with in a few paragraphs.

 

As far as Hellenized thought and Paul are concerned, surely Paul's message was only important to people because it had the full weight of Jewish history and religion behind it. And his message was one of fullfilled Jewish covenant and of messianic promises of salvation. Paul's beliefs were also a clear challenge to paganism at the level of power, particularly of empire. Almost everywhere he went Paul was persecuted, whipped, riots ensued, etc. This doesn't seem to me to be softening anything up.

 

Paul was a strict Jew who received instruction from Gamaliel, and then persecuted and killed Christians. Does it really seem reasonable to you that someone of this temprament would be interested in Hellenizing anything? Which teachings are you talking about?

 

Blessings

[Germanicus]

Within thirty years or so after Christ's death "vast multitudes" of them were killed by Nero. By 112 Pliny was complaining that all the pagan temples were deserted because of the number of converts

 

Could you please post the quotes for these ? I can remember Pliny saying nothing like this ?

[idahojeri]

Within thirty years or so after Christ's death "vast multitudes" of them were killed by Nero. By 112 Pliny was complaining that all the pagan temples were deserted because of the number of converts

 

Could you please post the quotes for these ? I can remember Pliny saying nothing like this ?

 

First quote--Tacitus in the Annals says "Nero fastened the guilt...on a class...called Christians...an immense multitude was convicted...Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illunination...Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle".

 

Second quote--from Pliny the Younger, in his tenth book, written around Ad 112. The letter is very long but says, among other things, that the pagan temples had been nearly deserted and 'sacrificial animals had few buyers". Pliny had two female slaves who were deaconesses in the church tortured to obtain information about Christianity. Only if the Christian denied Christ and "repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered adoration ...to your (Trajan's image) were they to be let go"; otherwise, they were killed.. Pliny explained that his purpose in all this was that "multitudes may be reclaimed from error".

 

Blessings

[Germanicus]

First quote--Tacitus in the Annals says "Nero fastened the guilt...on a class...called Christians...an immense multitude was convicted...Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illunination...Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle".

 

Second quote--from Pliny the Younger, in his tenth book, written around Ad 112. The letter is very long but says, among other things, that the pagan temples had been nearly deserted and 'sacrificial animals had few buyers". Pliny had two female slaves who were deaconesses in the church tortured to obtain information about Christianity. Only if the Christian denied Christ and "repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered adoration ...to your (Trajan's image) were they to be let go"; otherwise, they were killed.. Pliny explained that his purpose in all this was that "multitudes may be reclaimed from error".

 

Blessings

 

Thanks, with regard to Pliny - I am familiar with the letter but didn't interpret it as evidence of massive rates of conversion. His description of it in that letter as being a "degenerate sort of cult carried to extravegant lengths" along with his assertion that it could be "checked and directed to better ends" suggested to me that it had not yet become such a problem.

 

It would be good to know what Tacitus and Pliny meant by "multitude".

[phil25]

Whatever Paul was before his "Damascus experience", he certainly wasn't "a strict Jew" afterwards, given his views on diet and circumcision.

 

There is nothing in Acts to say he personally killed Christians - he was present at the stoning of Stephen we are told (a different thing) and went to Damascus to arrest Christians - no mention of their being killed.

 

 

Whetever Paul's message - it appealed to people. If what you say about it being dependent upon the weight of jewish tradition behind it - why were these people not being converted to Judaism?

 

Paul's mission and message was clearly to a different - Hellenised - community in Asia, and it clearly worked. His "persecution" as he went, by others, suggests his effectiveness. I think your arguments work against your case, not mine.

 

 

Which teachings are you talking about? Read ACTS. It is clear that the message here is put across more metaphysically - mystically? - than Jesus did - no parables, less homespun wisdom. I talk about some of this in a previous post.

 

Finally, common sense suggests that there could not have been anything like "vast multitudes" of Christians in Rome by 64AD.

 

What do you define as a vast multitude anyway - give me a number that the words conjure for you?

 

Pewrsonally, I think we have events from later times - perhaps Domitian, perhaps later, transferred back by later Christian writers to add drama to the deaths of Peter and Paul, which probably did take place around this time. I'm not saying Nero did NOT persecute the followers of Chrestus, but I think numbers were probably in the hundreds at most, more likely less.

 

If you think more - where did these come from, when were they converted and by whom?

 

Let's be practical please.

 

Phil