Religion & language

Here begins a rather long blog about a train of thought, which began when I looked up on the internet the meaning of "Mithras."

Mithras is an ancient Persian religion, which was adopted by the Romans, particularly Roman soldiers. There were many mithraea, or mithric temples, stretching from Britain to Persia, the ruins of which can be found in London & Colchester among other examples. To summarise, (although details can obviously be looked up,) Mithra, one of many Persian gods, was depicted by the Romans as a figure slaying a bull, in many statues and paintings, as a good over evil symbol. The Romans that practised Mithras kept their religion as an exclusively male sect, and were very secretive, so few written details survive. (Roman emperors were also worshiped as gods at one time, and although historians claim Mithras was very popular, it was also very 'underground,' temples actually being built under ground, with severe initiation ceremonies to test the devotion of members.)

Interestingly, some scholars of Mithraism have put forward the theory that the similarities between Mithra, the god, and the life of Jesus have so many parallels as to indicate that the New Testament borrowed many ideas from the religion of Mithras. Namely:

Mithra was born on Dec 25th, of a virgin.

Mithra had 12 followers.

Mithra was buried in a tomb and after 3 days was resurrected.

Mithra performed miracles.

His resurrection was celebrated every year.

His sacred day was Sunday.

So, of course, if this is true, it has enormous implications, as it discredits the Bible completely. But no, not so simple as that. I then realised that some historians discredit this claim, although naturally, these are Christians, working in the field of Apologetics. (This is presenting a rational argument for the Christian faith. Forgive me if I am stating the obvious, but the term is new me.)

Their main agument seems to be that nearly all the evidence comes from a time after the writing of the New Testament. I emphasise nearly as it seems to me that its not good enough; if any evidence comes before, then that is sufficient evidence.

They also argue that some attributes are common to many religions, as in performing miracles, which is a valid point. Also, that Dec 25th was not mentioned in the New Testament, but was suggested by the church long after, and was anyway used by many sacred festivities as it was at the time recognised as the winter solctice.

There is far too much for and against information to discuss here. There are many conferences and books on the subject, you could say an industry! But how the two 'sides' argue the case can be analysed:

Acharya, a writer attempting to prove the virgin birth of Mithra, many years BC, says he was born of Aditi, the 'mother of the gods' or the 'inviolable or virgin dawn.' Critics say this is applying terminology illicitly, dawn=virgin. The story is that Mithra was born from a rock, so Acharya says Mithra was born of 'Prima Materia, or Primordial Matter, which could be considered First Mother, Virgin Matter, Virgin Mother, etc.' This is flimsy, using the latin Mater, mother, to connect the words matter and mother, and connecting the words first and virgin, to try to prove her case.

Also, of course, there is the problem of translation of ancient language, and it has been acknowledged that no one person has the mastery of linguistics, history, anthropology, archaeology etc. that is needed to decypher this problem. It also seems there are ulterior motives for each 'side' to propogate their beliefs.

Another word on Apologetics. The Bible states that some people of the Old Testament lived for hundreds of years, ie Noah lived for 950 years. The only answer I can find from the Apologists is that the Earth was a very different, ie healthier, place, before the flood, or that there was an envelope of water around the Earth that protected it. Not that I am making any claims about the scriptures here! Just that it is all food for thought.

Finally, and somewhat irrelevantly, these are pictures from some plaques beside the Roman wall at Noble St, London.

.