Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:05 pm And you continue to make the most irrelevant comments.

I did read the article, and am very much aware of the arguments for and against the pagan parallel proposition.

My reason for bringing up Osiris and Dionysus is to show that, when Christianity and the Jesus story was beginning to emerge, such distinctions were not thought of. Osiris and Dionysus (and Adonis, Attis, Mithras and Sabazios) both had underlying differences. But despite these, they were all written of as being THE SAME god. Not similar, the same.

So the "superficial commonalities" and "significant differences" between Tammuz and Jesus is a moot point of contention.

You made it emphatically apparent that you had no desire to engage or discuss by saying that you don't have a point to prove. Yet 1) you continue to respond, and 2) shows you to be disingenuous.

I am not arguing to prove a point, since the article says it clearly enough. Tammuz and Jesus are different deities, and just because two other deities are similar, that is no evidence to say these two are.

My answer was to you, not to the argument, since you seemed unable to understand what I was posting.

I am glad that you have now read the article. There is nothing disingenuous in my comments, since I have supported their inclusion as being relevant to the thread.

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:01 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:05 pm And you continue to make the most irrelevant comments.

I did read the article, and am very much aware of the arguments for and against the pagan parallel proposition.

My reason for bringing up Osiris and Dionysus is to show that, when Christianity and the Jesus story was beginning to emerge, such distinctions were not thought of. Osiris and Dionysus (and Adonis, Attis, Mithras and Sabazios) both had underlying differences. But despite these, they were all written of as being THE SAME god. Not similar, the same.

Could you provide a source for that claim please ?
Although syncretism between specific gods clearly happened I don't think it took quite this general form.

Andrew Criddle

Off the top of my head, Herodotus, Diodorus and Plutarch made it explicit that Dionysus and Osiris were syncretized to such an extent that their names were interchangeable. I know of a few more similar references that are made in regards to Dionysus and Attis, Attis and Adonis, and Adonis and Osiris, but will have to dig them out.

Mithras and Attis were conflated by at least the first century as shown by the small terracotta figurines unearthed at Kerch.

What's more, Attis is even integrated into the Naassenes' concept of a primordial Adam figure.

Lastly, Paul even goes so far as to quote pagan poets praising Zeus to preach his Unknown God in Acts 17. So the author(s) of Acts felt the necessity of including such an endorsement, albeit redirected.

Although I'm sort of convinced the real God of Paul/Marcion was a YHWH-Sabazios-Attis hybrid, worshipped by Jews in north Phrygia. There's already testimony from pagan writers that Jews worshipped Dionysus and Sabazios under the moniker Iao, even in the Maccabean literature.

Is this digression? Probably. I just want to make my thoughts on the matter clear. Syncretism took place all over the empire. To say Jews were exempt from this process is rather shortsighted.

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:18 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:01 pm

Could you provide a source for that claim please ?
Although syncretism between specific gods clearly happened I don't think it took quite this general form.

Andrew Criddle

Off the top of my head, Herodotus, Diodorus and Plutarch made it explicit that Dionysus and Osiris were syncretized to such an extent that their names were interchangeable. I know of a few more similar references that are made in regards to Dionysus and Attis, Attis and Adonis, and Adonis and Osiris, but will have to dig them out.

Mithras and Attis were conflated by at least the first century as shown by the small terracotta figurines unearthed at Kerch.

The Kerch figurines are fascinating. Thanks for drawing my attention to them, However the absence of written text or clear context makes interpretation difficult.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:19 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:18 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:01 pm

Could you provide a source for that claim please ?
Although syncretism between specific gods clearly happened I don't think it took quite this general form.

Andrew Criddle

Off the top of my head, Herodotus, Diodorus and Plutarch made it explicit that Dionysus and Osiris were syncretized to such an extent that their names were interchangeable. I know of a few more similar references that are made in regards to Dionysus and Attis, Attis and Adonis, and Adonis and Osiris, but will have to dig them out.

Mithras and Attis were conflated by at least the first century as shown by the small terracotta figurines unearthed at Kerch.

The Kerch figurines are fascinating. Thanks for drawing my attention to them, However the absence of written text or clear context makes interpretation difficult.

Andrew Criddle

Indeed, but there are a few indications that may make the connection less innocuous...

1) Mithras and Attis are both depicted with Phrygian caps,

2) The exposed genitalia of the figurines from Kerch emphasize the virility of Attis

3) Both Attis and Mithras are associated with pine trees and pine cones

4) Mithras is associated with the rock birth, and I'm aware of at least one depiction of Attis coming out of the earth.

5) Both Attis and Mithras were conflated with Osiris by the first century

I should also like to mention that I believe this was in fact the origin of the Roman Mithras mysteries--that the Mithra of Persia had been conflated with Attis in Turkey, before this cult came to Rome and was imperialized.

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:23 pm

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:19 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:18 am

Off the top of my head, Herodotus, Diodorus and Plutarch made it explicit that Dionysus and Osiris were syncretized to such an extent that their names were interchangeable. I know of a few more similar references that are made in regards to Dionysus and Attis, Attis and Adonis, and Adonis and Osiris, but will have to dig them out.

Mithras and Attis were conflated by at least the first century as shown by the small terracotta figurines unearthed at Kerch.

The Kerch figurines are fascinating. Thanks for drawing my attention to them, However the absence of written text or clear context makes interpretation difficult.

Andrew Criddle

Indeed, but there are a few indications that may make the connection less innocuous...

1) Mithras and Attis are both depicted with Phrygian caps,

2) The exposed genitalia of the figurines from Kerch emphasize the virility of Attis

3) Both Attis and Mithras are associated with pine trees and pine cones

4) Mithras is associated with the rock birth, and I'm aware of at least one depiction of Attis coming out of the earth.

5) Both Attis and Mithras were conflated with Osiris by the first century

I should also like to mention that I believe this was in fact the origin of the Roman Mithras mysteries--that the Mithra of Persia had been conflated with Attis in Turkey, before this cult came to Rome and was imperialized.

My problem is that although most of these claims might be true (I am unaware of an early conflation of Osiris and Mithras) many of them are questionable. We are dealing with images not literary texts and what or whom the images represent is unclear.

In particular the idea that the puzzling figurines in Anatolia are related to the origins of Western imperialized Mithraism is very speculative.
There is a discussion at Mithras and Cybele

Andrew Criddle

EDITED TO ADD
The lines from Statius Thebaid (invoking Phoebus Apollo)

whether ‘tis right to call thee rosy Titan, in the fashion of the Achaemenian race,or Osiris bringer of the harvest, or Mithras, that beneath the rocky Persean cave strains at the reluctant-following horns.

are a reference to the various names given to the sun god in various countries. (Osiris isn't the sun nor is Mithras but Statius thinks differently see scholia at http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithr ... s Placidus. )

This in some sense may be a conflation between Osiris and Mithras but not one that would encourage conflation with Attis.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:53 am


EDITED TO ADD
The lines from Statius Thebaid (invoking Phoebus Apollo)

whether ‘tis right to call thee rosy Titan, in the fashion of the Achaemenian race,or Osiris bringer of the harvest, or Mithras, that beneath the rocky Persean cave strains at the reluctant-following horns.

are a reference to the various names given to the sun god in various countries. (Osiris isn't the sun nor is Mithras but Statius thinks differently see scholia at http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithr ... s Placidus. )

This in some sense may be a conflation between Osiris and Mithras but not one that would encourage conflation with Attis.

Andrew Criddle

I should have said Mithras is not to be straightforwardly identified with the sun,
Sol Invictus Unconquered Sun is one of the chief titles of Mithras but in the sculptures Mithras and the Sun God appear as separate deities.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:36 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:53 am


EDITED TO ADD
The lines from Statius Thebaid (invoking Phoebus Apollo)

whether ‘tis right to call thee rosy Titan, in the fashion of the Achaemenian race,or Osiris bringer of the harvest, or Mithras, that beneath the rocky Persean cave strains at the reluctant-following horns.

are a reference to the various names given to the sun god in various countries. (Osiris isn't the sun nor is Mithras but Statius thinks differently see scholia at http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithr ... s Placidus. )

This in some sense may be a conflation between Osiris and Mithras but not one that would encourage conflation with Attis.

Andrew Criddle

I should have said Mithras is not to be straightforwardly identified with the sun,
Sol Invictus Unconquered Sun is one of the chief titles of Mithras but in the sculptures Mithras and the Sun God appear as separate deities.

Andrew Criddle

This goes along with the Platonic influence on Mithraism. Sol/Helios represented the sun/fire which burned within the cave/the universe. Mithras was the light--the true sun--which shone outside of the cave. Just as John calls Jesus the true light: the Light which existed before the sun and moon were created. (Jn 1:19; Gen 1:3, 1:14-18)

I would also like to point out that Osiris is one aspect of the sun. (That Statius invokes him as such is enough to establish that fact, with Plutarch calling him Logos as another). Sun gods, or solar types, existed throughout Egypt and simultaneous of one another. Horus, Re, Ptah, Osiris, Bennu, Sekar, Shu, and Atum, were all regarded as representing one or another aspect of the sun.

And while I'm unaware of a single source conflating Attis and Mithras with Osiris, there are assorted texts that conflate one with the other. One is the above Thebaid by Statius. Another is the relatively late De Nuptiis by Martianus Capella. (Late, though not without older corroborating evidence, such as a second century oil lamp showing a mummified Attis). Given the similarities between Attis and Osiris--both were consorts of goddesses of fertility, both underwent death and resurrection/rebirth, both were ritualistically placed on trees signifying their deaths--it's not at all outside the realm of possibility that the two would eventually be conflated; especially given the syncretism which occurred between Attis and Dionysus in the first century bc, with Dionysus being the number one god with whom Osiris was oft' conflated.

Second century lamb depicting a mummified Attis



First century bc mummy cloth belonging to a priest of Mithra



Attis bound to the pine tree, third-fourth century ad




The Abydos fetish, containing the remains of Osiris, placed on a tree, twelfth century bc

As an addendum, here is preserved in Hippolytus the Phyrgian Hymn, addressed to Attis:


Further attention has been given to the detail of "Pappa... Corpse, or God...." The succession of these descriptions signify how Attis was seen by the Phyrgians: as a teacher, then as deceased, and finally as a God, undergoing apotheosis. This further connects to Paul in 1 Cor 15:35-49, and of how the dead are resurrected in heavenly flesh.