Month: April 2009

Attis 3 – Firmicus Maternus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In chapter 3 of his De errore profanum, Firmicus Maternus apparently discusses Attis, although without naming him.  Supposedly it says: 

In the first half of the fourth century CE, Firmicus Maternus reports that “he whom they had buried a little while earlier [Attis] had come to life again.” (from here)

There seems to be no English translation online.  I’ve made one here from the 1905 edition.

III. (1) The Phyrgians who live at Pessinus around the banks of the river Gallus, assign first place to the earth over the other elements, and this they profess (volunt) is the mother of all things. Then, so that they also might have for themselves an order of annual sacred events, they have consecrated the love affair of a rich women, their queen, who chose to punish tyrannically the scorn of an adolescent lover, with annual lamentations.  And to satisfy the irate woman, or to find consolation for her remorse, he whom they had buried a little earlier, they claim that he had come back to life.  And as the soul of the woman burned with the impatience of excessive love, they built temples to the dead youth. Then they profess that the priests appointed should undergo from themselves what the angry woman had done because of the injury to her scorned beauty.  So in the annual sacred rites in honour of the earth the pomp of his funeral is organised, and when men are persuaded that they are honouring the earth, they are (in fact) venerating the death and funeral of a wretch.

(2) Here also, most sacred emperors, in order to shield this error, they profess that these natural sacred rites are also arranged rationally.  They profess that the earth loves its fruits, they profess that Attis is exactly this, which is born from fruits; however the punishment which he sustained, this they profess is what the reaper with his scythe does to the ripe fruits.  They call it his death when the collected seeds are stored; life again, when the sown seeds sprout in the turning of the years.

(3) I would like them now to reply to my inquiry, why have they associated this simple (story of) seed and fruit with a funeral, with death, with scorn, with punishment, with love?  Was there not anything else that might be said? Was there not anything else that poor mortals might do in grateful thanks to the highest God for the crop? So that you can give thanks for the reborn crop, you howl; so that you rejoice, you weep. And you, when you see the true reason, you do not finally repent of doing this, but you do this, so that busyied with the turning seasons, you still flee from life, you pine for death.

(4) Let them tell me, how it benefits the crop, that they renew their tears with yearly howlings, that they groan over the calamities of a reborn corpse, which they say is arranged for a natural reason. You mourn and you wail, and you cover your mourning with another excuse. The farmer knew when he could furrow the earth with a plow, when he could sow the furrows with grain, he knew when to gather the crop ripened by the heat of the sun, he knew when to tread out the dried crop.  This is the natural reason, these are the true sacrificial rites, which are carried out by the yearly labour in men of healthy minds.  The divinity asks for this simplicity, that men should follow the laws ordained of the seasons (temporum) in collecting crops.  Why do they try to explain this order by wretched fictions of a death?  Why is that shielded with tears, which does not need to be shielded? From which let them admit of necessity, that these rites are not held in honour of the crops, but in honour of an unworthy death.

(5) When they say that the earth is the mother of all the gods, and they allot the chief roles to this element, indeed it is mother of their gods, — this we don’t deny or refuse, because from it they are always making their bunch of gods, whether of stone or wood. The sea flows around the whole earth, and again it is held tight by the circle of the encircling embracing Ocean.  The heavens also are covered by the lofty dome, blown through by winds, splashed by rains, and in fear, as shown by tremors of unremitting motion.  What remains to you, who cultivate these things, consider; when your gods reveal their weakness to you in daily declarations.

 

Here is the Latin, from the 1905 Teubner of Ziegler from Archive.org (tided up a bit):

III. Phryges qui Pessinunta incolunt circa Galli fluminis ripas, terrae ceterorum elementorum tribuunt principatum, et hanc volunt omnium esse matrem. Deinde ut et ipsi annuum sibi sacrorum ordinem facerent, mulieris divitis ac reginae suae amorem quae fastus amati adulescentis tyrannice voluit ulcisci, cum luctibus annuis consecrarunt, et ut satis iratae mulieri facerent, aut ut paenitenti solacium quaererent, quem paulo ante sepelierant revixisse iactarunt, et cum mulieris animus ex inpatientia nimii amoris arderet, mortuo adulescenti templa fecerunt. Tunc quod irata mulier pro iniuria spretae fecerat formae, hoc ordinatos a se pati volunt sacerdotes. Sic annuis sacris cum honore terrae istius funeris pompa conponitur, ut cum persuaderetur hominibus quod colant terram, miseri funeris venerentur exitium. Hic quoque sacratissimi imperatores ut error iste celetur, etiam haec sacra physica volunt esse ratione conposita. Amare terram volunt fruges, Attin vero hoc ipsum volunt esse, quod ex frugibus nascitur, poenam autem quam sustinuit hoc volunt esse, quod falce messor maturis frugibus facit. Mortem ipsius dicunt, quod semina collecta conduntur, vitam rursus quod iacta semina annuis vicibus reconduntur. Vellem nunc mihi inquirenti respondeant, cur hanc simplicitatem seminum ac frugum, cum funere, cum morte, cum fastu, cum poena, cum amore iuncxerunt? Itane non erat aliud quod diceretur? Itane non erat quod in agendis deo summo pro frugibus gratiis faceret misera mortalitas? Ut gratias pro renatis frugibus agas ululas, ut gaudeas plangis, nec te cum veram rationem videris, hoc aliquando fecisse paenituit, sed hoc agis ut annuis luctibus occupatas vitam semper fugias mortem requiras. Dicant mihi quid hoc frugibus profuit, ut fletus suos annuis ululatibus renovent, ut renati funeris calamitatibus ingemescant, quod dicant physica ratione conpositum? Lugetis et plangitis, et luctus vestros alia ratione celatis. Novit agricola quando terram aratro dimoveat, novit quando sulcis frumenta committat, novit quando maturatas solis ardoribus colligat segetes, novit quando tostas terat fruges. Haec est physica ratio, haec sunt vera sacrificia, quae ab sanae meniis hominibus annuo labore conplentur, hanc simplicitatem divinitas quaerit, ut homines in colligendis fructibus ordinatis temporum legibus serviant. Cur huic ordini miserae mortis figmenta quaesita sunt? Cur celatur lacrimis quod celari non debuit? Unde confiteantur necesse est, haec sacra non in honorem frugum sed in honorem esse conposita mortis alienae. Nam quod terram matrem esse omnium deorum dicunt qui huic elemento primas tribuunt partes, vere deorum suorum mater est, nec abnuimus aut recusamus, quia ab hac collectos deos suos aut lapideos faciunt semper aut ligneos. Terram omnem circumfluunt maria, et rursus inclusa Oceani ambientis circulo stringitur, caeli etiam rotunda sublimitate operitur, perflatur ventis aspergitur pluviis, et timorem suum assidui motus tremoribus confitetur. Quid vos maneat qui haec colitis considerate, cum dii vestri infirmitatem suam vobis cottidianis confessionibus prodant.

I always sigh on seeing so large a chunk of Latin.

This is a very different earth cult to the one represented in the other sources.

Share

Mithras and the Taurobolium

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Taurobolium was a pagan Roman ritual in which the worshipper stood in a pit and was drenched in bull’s blood.  It was supposed to confer immortality, or something of the kind, although I’ve not researched it. 

Sometimes people assert that this was part of the cult of Mithras, which seems to be untrue; the inscriptions that record the rite are not associated with Mithras, and no Mithraic literary text mentions it.

There is an inscription which associates Mithras with the Taurobolium (CIL VI, 736).   In his article “The Mithraic bas-relief of Pesaro” (“Le bas-relief Mithraique de Pesaro”, Revue archeologique, 3rd series, t. 13, pp. 64-69, 1889), J. Lebegue raises the question of whether the inscription is authentic. I’ve been sent the article, and asked to summarise its argument for non-French speakers: here it is.

The inscription appears on a relief, found at Rome, then transfered to the Olivieri museum at Pesaro. It appears on a stone plaque which represents the familiar scene of Mithras sacrificing the bull. The inscription appears almost completely on a column to the right of the scene; some words are inscribed on the body of the bull being immolated by the god.

The inscription is almost complete, and can be restored as:

Deo magno Mithrae pollenti consenti Lari sancto suo M. Philonius Philomuses Eugenianus delibutus sacratissimis misteriis per omnia probatissimus qui et arcanis perfusionibus in aternum renatus taurobolium crioboliumque fecit et bucranium signavit.

(“To the great god Mithras, with the agreement of the holy Lares, for his health, M. Philonius Philomuses Eugenianus did this, having been anointed in the most sacred mysteries, through it all most worthy (?), who also in the secret bloodshed reborn into the eternal Taurobolium and Criobolium, and sealed the bull-head on the altar (bucranium). “)

On the body of the bull appear the words:

Absolvit | K(alendis) mart(iis) | Agria Ceresi pa(ter) | et pont(ifex) s(a)c(ris) [f]ac(iundis?) | dei magni

(“Paid off on the kalends of March, when Agria Ceresius was Father and pontiff of the holy things that must be done for the great god.”)

And further down:

Tatiano et Simacho consulibus.

Tatian and Symmachus being consuls.

This dates the inscription to 391 AD. The question is whether the inscription is authentic. There are numerous anomalies.

Line 1: Mithras never bears the title “Magnus”, but instead “Invictus”, or sometimes “summus”. The “dii magni” are part of the cult of Cybele, not Mithras. The term is not reserved entirely for that cult, tho, so might be used generically. If so, then it would be very odd that this is the only title given here to Mithras. Further, if in line 27 (on the bull) “dei magni” is correct, then it is certain that this is the only title being given in this inscription to Mithras, and so that the inscription is false. Mommsen has given a different explanation of that line, tho.

Line 3: The “dii consentes” belong to the cult of Jupiter, in which Mithras does not figure. Pollenti, next to consentes, is inappropriate.

Line 4: If Mithras is really being labelled “lare”, then this is a first. The term “lares sancti” is otherwise unknown. (?)

Line 6ff: M. Philonius Philomusus Eugenianus is a strange name for the period. In the 4th century the praenomen is generally omitted.

Line 9-11. “Delibutus sacratissimus mysteriis” is a phrase more literary than epigraphic. But it must be recognised that in the 4th century the epigraphic style had lost much of it conciseness.

Line 12: “Oia” for “Omnia” is a frequent abbreviation in manuscripts. It is only found, to my knowledge, in one inscription, now lost, and which may have been copied incorrectly.

Line 14ff: “Arcanis perfusionibus in aeternum renatus”. There is mention of someone “taurobolio criobolio q. in aeternum renatus” in an inscription discovered longer ago, and which may have served as a model for a falsification. If correctly copied, this too seems strange. The baptism in blood of the taurobolium, carried out in public, could confer immortality; but it isn’t from the taurobolium that Philonius asks this. It is *after* secret and doubtless Mithraic ablutions that he has been “regenerated for eternity”; then he was offered the taurobolium and criobolium. So this is some other baptism producing the same effects as the sacrifice of blood (and in the same terms) before receiving the aforementioned sacrifice.

The next inscription, engraved on the bull, can’t be much studied as it is very obscure and has been variously restored. This concerns the priest who carried out the sacrifice, and who is described as “pater et pontifex”; no doubt the pater of the cult of Mithras, and pontifex in the taurobolic ceremony.

The position of the inscription seems ill-chosen to me. It is engraved on the body of the bull, but the legendary bull, immolated by Mithras himself, and surrounded by allegorical personages, is not the victim of the real sacrifice of Philonius. Also, why degrade the bas-relief in inscribing it there? It would be understandable if the forger, in common with the scholars of his period, confused the bull with the sacrifice.

These anomalies fall into two groups: some against the general rules of epigraphy…; others against our knowledge of the cults themselves. If this discusses a public ceremony then there is nothing to say; this must be a fake. But it is possible that, like Alexander Severus, this relates to a private ceremony, which the dying paganism sought to revive. A special taurobolium may have been carried out, in 391, at a period when it was already illegal. This would make him the founder of a special, private cult, comprising elements from Cybele and Mithras, placing them among the ranks of the “consenting gods”, to make the god one of his lares and his great god. But this hypothesis hardly seems satisfactory. Why does Mithras not bear his characteristic epithet “Invictus”? Furthermore, it would not be Philonius who was the creator of this special cult, but Arcesius, the pater and pontifex. The latter, in mentioning the taurobolium was in public “spectatum”, and dating it by the names of the consuls, would strangely parody an official ceremony.

I believe that this inscription is false. This is fortified by the evidence taken from general epigraphy, and the font (?) declared suspect by contemporary scholarship.

But the enquiry must be completed by examining the monument itself. I have written to the learned conservator of the museum of Pesaro, who has described to me with much competence and precision the details of the Mithraic bas-relief. It is almost entirely very good. Is this a proof of authenticity, and that it cannot have been copied? I would advance another hypothesis; that the monument is ancient, but that the inscription is fake; I will furnish another remarkable example of this sort of falsification. A specialist with the aid of a stone-mason could help us here. Lacking this skill, I will merely demand that the examination is made.

Be that as it may, we can reach the following conclusion. I do not hesitate to condemn the inscription; if I am deceived, it means only that Philonius invented his own religion. There is nothing that need be considered here for the history of Roman religion and public worship.

UPDATE (13/3/2013): I have added the online link and corrected the reference.

Share

Attis, the sources: part 2

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Arnobius the Elder, Against the Pagans, book 5, 5-7 (here) has a long discussion of the cult of Cybele, the Great Mother, of which Attis is a part, and her castrated and infamous priests, the Galli:

5. In Timotheus, who was no mean mythologist, and also in others equally well informed, the birth of the Great Mother of the gods, and the origin of her rites, are thus detailed, being derived-as he himself writes and suggests-from learned books of antiquities, and from his acquaintance with the most secret mysteries:-

Within the confines of Phrygia, he says, there is a rock of unheard-of wildness in every respect, the name of which is Agdus, so named by the natives of that district. Stones taken from it, as Themis by her oracle had enjoined, Deucalion and Pyrrha threw upon the earth, at that time emptied of men; from which this Great Mother, too, as she is called, was fashioned along with the others, and animated by the deity. Her, given over to rest and sleep on the very summit of the rock, Jupiter assailed with lewdest desires. But when, after long strife, he could no accomplish what he had proposed to himself, he, baffled, spent his lust on the stone. This the rock received, and with many groanings Acdestis is born in the tenth month, being named from his mother rock.

In him there had been resistless might, and a fierceness of disposition beyond control, a lust made furious, and derived from both sexes. He violently plundered and laid waste; he scattered destruction wherever the ferocity of his disposition had led him; he regarded not gods nor men, nor did he think anything more powerful than himself; he contemned earth, heaven, and the stars.

6. Now, when it had been often considered in the councils of the gods, by what means it might be possible either to weaken or to curb his audacity, Liber, the rest hanging back, takes upon himself this task. With the strongest wine he drugs a spring much resorted to by Acdestis where he had been wont to assuage the heat and burning thirst roused in him by sport and hunting. Hither runs Acdestis to drink when he felt the need; he gulps down the draught too greedily into his gaping veins. Overcome by what he is quite unaccustomed to, he is in consequence sent fast asleep.

Liber is near the snare which he had set; over his foot he throws one end of a halter formed of hairs, woven together very skilfully; with the other end he lays hold of his privy members. When the fumes of the wine passed off, Acdestis starts up furiously, and his foot dragging the noose, by his own strength he robs himself of his sex; with the tearing asunder of these parts there is an immense flow of blood; both are carried off and swallowed up by the earth; from them there suddenly springs up, covered with fruit, a pomegranate tree, seeing the beauty of which, with admiration, Nana, daughter of the king or river Sangarius, gathers and places in her bosom some of the fruit.

By this she becomes pregnant; her father shuts her up, supposing that she had been debauched, and seeks to have her starved to death; she is kept alive by the mother of the gods with apples, and other food, and brings forth a child, but Sangarius orders it to be exposed.

One Phorbas having found the child, takes it home, brings it up on goats’ milk; and as handsome fellows are so named in Lydia, or because the Phrygians in their own way of speaking call their goats attagi, it happened in consequence that the boy obtained the name Attis.

Him the mother of the gods loved exceedingly, because he was of most surpassing beauty; and Acdestis, who was his companion, as he grew up fondling him, and bound to him by wicked compliance with his lust in the only way now possible, leading him through the wooded glades, and presenting him with the spoils of many wild beasts, which the boy Attis at first said boastfully were won by his own toil and labour. Afterwards, under the influence of wine, he admits that he is both loved by Acdestis, and honoured by him with the gifts brought from the forest; whence it is unlawful for those polluted by drinking wine to enter into his sanctuary, because it discovered his secret.

7. Then Midas, king of Pessinus, wishing to withdraw the youth from so disgraceful an intimacy, resolves to give him his own daughter in marriage, and caused the gates of the town to be closed, that no one of evil omen might disturb their marriage joys.

But the mother of the gods, knowing the fate of the youth, and that he would live among men in safety only so long as he was free from the ties of marriage, that no disaster might occur, enters the closed city, raising its walls with her head, which began to be crowned with towers in consequence. Acdestis, bursting with rage because of the boy’s being torn from himself, and brought to seek a wife, fills all the guests with frenzied madness: the Phrygians shriek aloud, panic-stricken at the appearance of the gods; a daughter of adulterous Gallus cuts off her breasts; Attis snatches the pipe borne by him who was goading them to frenzy; and he, too, now filled with furious passion, raving frantically and tossed about, throws himself down at last, and under a pine tree mutilates himself, saying, “Take these, Acdestis, for which you have stirred up so great and terribly perilous commotions.”

With the streaming blood his life flies; but the Great Mother of the gods gathers the parts which had been cut off, and throws earth on them, having first covered them, and wrapped them in the garment of the dead. From the blood which had flowed springs a flower, the violet, and with this the tree is girt. Thence the custom began and arose, whereby you even now veil and wreath with flowers the sacred pine.

The virgin who had been the bride, whose name, as Valerius the pontifex relates, was Ia, veils the breast of the lifeless youth with soft wool, sheds tears with Acdestis, and slays herself After her death her blood is changed into purple violets.

The mother of the gods sheds tears also, from which springs an almond tree, signifying the bitterness of death. Then she bears away to her cave the pine tree, beneath which Attis had unmanned himself; and Acdestis joining in her wailings, she beats and wounds her breast, pacing round the trunk of the tree now at rest.

Jupiter is begged by Acdestis that Attis may be restored to life: he does not permit it. What, however, fate allowed, he readily grants, that his body should not decay, that his hairs should always grow, that the least of his fingers should live, and should be kept ever in motion; content with which favours, it is said that Acdestis consecrated the body in Pessinus, and honoured it with yearly rites and priestly services.

And:

16. And yet how can you assert the falsehood of this story, when the very rites which you celebrate throughout the year testify that you believe these things to be true, and consider them perfectly trustworthy?

For what is the meaning of that pine which on fixed days you always bring into the sanctuary of the mother of the gods? Is it not in imitation of that tree, beneath which the raging and ill-fated youth laid hands upon himself, and which the parent of the gods consecrated to relieve her sorrow?

What mean the fleeces of wool with which you bind and surround the trunk of the tree? Is it not to recall the wools with which Ia covered the dying youth, and thought that she could procure some warmth for his limbs fast stiffening with cold? What mean the branches of the tree girt round and decked with wreaths of violets? Do they not mark this, how the Mother adorned with early flowers the pine which indicates and bears witness to the sad mishap?

What mean the Galli with dishevelled hair beating their breasts with their palms? Do they not recall to memory those lamentations with which the tower-bearing Mother, along with the weeping Acdestis, wailing aloud, followed the boy? What means the abstinence from eating bread which you have named castus? Is it not in imitation of the time when the goddess abstained from Ceres’ fruit in her vehement sorrow?

17. Or if the things which we say are not so declare, say yourselves-those effeminate and delicate men whom we see among you in the sacred rites of this deity-what business, what care, what concern have they there; and why do they like mourners wound their arms and breasts, and act as those dolefully circumstanced?

What mean the wreaths, what the violets, what the swathings, the coverings of soft wools? Why, finally, is the very pine, but a little before swaying to and fro among the shrubs, an utterly inert log, set up in the temple of the Mother of the gods next, like some propitious and very venerable deity?

For either this is the cause which we have found in your writings and treatises, and in that case it is clear that you do not celebrate divine rites, but give a representation of sad events; or if there is any other reason which the darkness of the mystery has withheld from us, even it also must be involved in the infamy of some shameful deed. For who would believe that there is any honour in that which the worthless Galli begin, effeminate debauchees complete?

And ch. 39:

39. Whence, then, do we prove that all these narratives are records of events? Froth the solemn rites and mysteries of initiation, it is clear, whether those which are celebrated at fixed times and on set days, or those which are taught secretly by the heathen without allowing the observance of their usages to be interrupted.

For it is not to be believed that these have no origin, are practised without reason or meaning, and have no causes connected with their first beginnings. That pine which is regularly born into the sanctuary of the Great Mother, is it not in imitation of that tree beneath which Attis mutilated and unmanned himself, which also, they relate, the goddess consecrated to relieve her grief? That erecting of phalli and fascina, which Greece worships and celebrates in rites every year, does it not recall the deed by which Liber paid his debt?

Share

Attis and Jesus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Crude anti-Christian polemics often try to rubbish Christianity by alleging that loads of pagan deities had a myth about a god who was born of a virgin on 25 December, crucified, reborn after 3 days, and so on.  Factually this is rubbish, but it relies on general ignorance.

I happened to see this post by Bill Hamblyn in an online forum where he went off to find out what the primary sources were for Attis.  He listed them as follows, without quoting them full-length:

1- Pausanius, Guide to Greece, 7.17.5
2- Ovid, Fasti, 4.221-224
3- Diodorus Siculus, History, 3.58.4-59.1

J.P.Holding mentions a few more in passing here.

Pausanias:

The Achaian city Dyme is distant about four hundred stadia from Larissus… Besides this the Dymaei have a temple of Minerva, and a statue of the goddess, which is very ancient. They have also another temple sacred to the mother Dindymene, and Attes. But who Attes is, I have not been able to discover, because it is. an arcane affair. Hermesianax, indeed, a writer of elegies, says, that he was the son of the Phrygian Calaus, and that he was produced by his mother incapable of begetting children. That when he arrived at manhood he migrated to Lydia, and established there the orgies of the Great Mother. And that he was so highly honoured by the goddess, that it excited the indignation of Jupiter, who sent a boar into the Lydian fields, by which other Lydians were destroyed, and Attes himself was slain. The Gauls who inhabit Pesinus, confirm by their conduct the truth of this relation, for they cannot bear to touch swine. However, they report things concerning Attes far different from the above.

Jupiter, say they, while he was asleep emitted his seed on the earth; this in process of time produced a daemon with twofold private parts, viz. with the parts of man and woman united. The name of this daemon was Agdistis: and the gods, in consequence of being terrified at him, cut off his virile parts. From these parts an almond tree was produced, the fruit of which, when ripe, the daughter of the river Sangarius gathered and concealed in her bosom. The fruit, however, immediately vanished, and she became pregnant. As the result of her pregnancy, she was delivered of a boy, who being left in the woods was educated by a goat, and who, as he grew in years, possessed a beauty surpassing that of the human form, and through which Agdistis fell in love with him. But when he arrived at manhood, his friends sent him to Pesinus, in order that he might marry the daughter of the king. Here, as they were singing the nuptial song, Agdistis presented himself before them, and Attes becoming insane, cut off his private parts. The king’s daughter, too, that was given to Attes, cut off her privities. But Agdistis was grieved that Attes had acted in this manner, and obtained of Jupiter that no part of the body of Attes should either become putrid or waste away. And such are the particulars which are reported about Attes.

Ovid is as follows:

…  I said ‘Where did this urge to cut off
Their members come from?’ As I ended, the Muse spoke:
‘In the woods, a Phrygian boy, Attis, of handsome face,
Won the tower-bearing goddess with his chaste passion.
She desired him to serve her, and protect her temple,
And said: “Wish, you might be a boy for ever.”
He promised to be true, and said: “If I’m lying
May the love I fail in be my last love.”
He did fail, and in meeting the nymph Sagaritis,
Abandoned what he was: the goddess, angered, avenged it.
She destroyed the Naiad, by wounding a tree,
Since the tree contained the Naiad’s fate.
Attis was maddened, and thinking his chamber’s roof
Was falling, fled for the summit of Mount Dindymus.
Now he cried: “Remove the torches”, now he cried:
“Take the whips away”: often swearing he saw the Furies.
He tore at his body too with a sharp stone,
And dragged his long hair in the filthy dust,
Shouting: “I deserved this! I pay the due penalty
In blood! Ah! Let the parts that harmed me, perish!
Let them perish!” cutting away the burden of his groin,
And suddenly bereft of every mark of manhood.
His madness set a precedent, and his unmanly servants
Toss their hair, and cut off their members as if worthless.’
So the Aonian Muse, eloquently answering the question
I’d asked her, regarding the causes of their madness.

Diodorus is as follows:

58. However, an account is handed down also that this goddess was born in Phrygia. For the natives of that country have the following myth: In ancient times Meïon became king of Phrygia and Lydia; and marrying Dindymê he begat an infant daughter, but being unwilling to rear her he exposed her on the mountain which was called Cybelus. There, in accordance with some divine providence, both the leopards and some of the other especially ferocious wild beasts offered their nipples to the child and so gave it nourishment, and some women who were tending the flocks in that place witnessed the happening, and being astonished at the strange event took up the babe and called her Cybelê after the name of the place. The child, as she grew up, excelled in both beauty and virtue and also came to be admired for her intelligence; for she was the first to devise the pipe of many reeds and to invent cymbals and kettledrums with which to accompany the games and the dance, and in addition she taught how to heal the sicknesses of both flocks and little children by means of rites of purification; in consequence, since the babes were saved from death by her spells and were generally taken up in her arms, her devotion to them and affection for them led all the people to speak of her as the “mother of the mountain.” The man who associated with her and loved her more than anyone else, they say, was Marsyas the physician, who was admired for his intelligence and chastity; and a proof of his intelligence they find in the fact that he imitated the sounds made by the pipe of many reeds and carried all its notes over into the flute, and as an indication of his chastity they cite his abstinence from sexual pleasures until the day of his death.

Now Cybelê, the myth records, having arrived at full womanhood, came to love a certain native youth who was known as Attis, but at a later time received the appellation Papas; with him she consorted secretly and became with child, and at about the same time her parents recognized her as their child. Consequently she was brought up into the palace, and her father welcomed her at the outset under the impression the she was a virgin, but later, when he learned of her seduction, he put to death her nurses and Attis as well and cast their bodies forth to lie unburied; whereupon Cybelê, they say, because of her love for the youth and grief over the nurses, became frenzied and rushed out of the palace into the countryside. And crying aloud and beating upon a kettledrum she visited every country alone, with hair hanging free, and Marsyas, out of pity for her plight, voluntarily followed her and accompanied her in her wanderings because of the love which he had formerly borne her. … And Apollo, they say, laid away both the lyre and the pipes as a votive offering in the cave of Dionysus, and becoming enamoured of Cybelê joined in her wanderings as far as the land of the Hyperboreans.

But, the myth goes on to say, a pestilence fell upon human beings throughout Phrygia and the land ceased to bear fruit, and when the unfortunate people inquired of the god how they might rid themselves of their ills he commanded them, it is said, to bury the body of Attis and to honour Cybelê as a goddess. Consequently the physicians, since the body had disappeared in the course of time, made an image of the youth, before which they sang dirges and by means of honours in keeping with his suffering propitiated the wrath of him who had been wronged; and these rites they continue to perform down to our own lifetime. As for Cybelê, in ancient times they erected altars and performed sacrifices to her yearly; and later they built for her a costly temple in Pisinus of Phrygia, and established honours and sacrifices of the greatest magnificence, Midas their king taking part in all these works out of his devotion to beauty; and beside the statue of the goddess they set up panthers and lions, since it was the common opinion that she had first been nursed by these animals.

Such, then, are the myths which are told about Mother of the God both among the Phrygians and by the Atlantians who dwell on the coast of the ocean.

The similarities with Jesus will doubtless strike every reader. 

Share

Archimedes fire-mirror gets an early bath

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Jona Lendering points out that the common story that Archimedes used mirrors to set fire to Roman galleys rests on, erm, no historical source earlier than half a millennium later.  He lists the data and concludes the whole story is a legend.  Very interesting indeed, and highlights the need to tabulate the data before evaluating it.

Share

Mesmerised by “Hip gnosis” – or maybe not

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The internet gives us the power to encounter people that we could never have otherwise met, and then disagree with them.  I found an article by a certain Michael Kaler in a Canadian paper, the Globe, entitled “Hip Gnostics”.  (The title is nice, since it highlights the hippy interest in gnosticism).  It began with the following whopper:

If there ever was one unified Christian movement, it probably died with Jesus at the first Easter. Ever since, Christianity has been a collection of any number of diverse groups.

Coming across it, by accident, I wrote a comment, but as this was abbreviated by their software and crunched up — and because I quite liked it — I thought that I would post it here.

*        *        *        *        *       

Every so often, someone decides to make up their own religious group. If they live in a culture where Christianity has some moral authority, they will try to hijack that in some way. They will pretend that they too are Christians, as the Moonies did, or the successors of Christianity, as the early Moslems and the Manichaeans did. But of course it’s terribly easy to spot the fake; you just get hold of their holy books, and look for the bits added on. The bits will always be taken from the contemporary culture, instead of the teachings of Jesus.

This process has gone on for centuries. The earliest Christians tell us that it was going on in their day. The apostle John had gone to the Roman baths. Told that a certain Cerinthus was in the baths, he exclaimed that everyone should get out, because Cerinthus was so dishonest that if he leaned against a wall the place would probably collapse. John’s disciple Polycarp taught in Rome ca. 150 AD, where he met the early cult-maker Marcion, and refused to have anything to do with him. Polycarp’s own pupil Irenaeus, while sympathetic to Christians who thought different things, wrote a long attack on these outsiders who were trying to hijack the reputation of Jesus for their own ends.

It is mildly depressing to see that your article pretends that none of this happens. The writings of the Fathers of the church are online in English. Which of them, we might ask, contains descriptions of themselves as leaders of differing factions? What do those whom the apostles appointed to lead churches, and their successors, say on this? Do they talk about “diversity” — such a 20th century US idea! — or orthodoxy and heresy?

There can be no doubt that they do the latter. Nor is this surprising. Christians had a reputation in the ancient world, for living and dying for their beliefs. Others, making up their own ideas, wanted the name, although not to die for it. These others were the gnostics. Their teachings came from the pagan philosophical schools, not from Christ (Tertullian, De praescriptione 7); and no gnostic felt obliged to follow the teaching of any other unless he felt like it! The diversity of this movement was commented on very harshly by the Fathers.

So I’m sorry to say that your article is rather misleading. The statements made in it result from a piece of linguistic legerdemain which goes like this (1) first label all early people who claim to be Christians “Christians”, regardless of what they teach and where they got it from; (2) argue that since this label includes people who held wildly different ideas, this proves that early Christianity was diverse. Such circular “reasoning” hardly deserves our attention.

It is an old anti-Christian debating ploy to argue that since there are many Christian denominations, any Christian who comes along to talk about Christianity must be lying, since which — he is asked, mock-piously — is the “real” Christianity? Elaine Pagels is merely the latest in this line of polemicists. But a look at the Ante-Nicene Fathers — all online — should dispose of this swindle. A look at the Nag Hammadi texts — which include a portion of Plato, and are also online — should make the difference plain.

The Nag Hammadi texts are indeed very interesting, as is the story of their discovery. How many people realise that the sands of Egypt have produced a steady flow of other books written in antiquity over the last few decades? The find that included the Gospel of Judas included three other ancient books; a Greek mathematical treatise, and a Coptic Exodus and some Letters of St. Paul. More manichaean texts have been found at Kellis in the Dakhla oasis, with a text of an oration by Isocrates. A pile of leaves were found at Tura in 1940 under some stone blocks, which turned out to be lost works by church Fathers Origen and Didymus the Blind. And so it goes on. Undoubtedly there are many more, waiting to be found.

Is there an Indiana Jones among your readers, willing to go and find them and restore them to the knowledge of mankind?

Share

How to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Ever wanted to learn about Syriac literature?  Or Persian?  Or Chinese? Or whatever?  It can be a daunting prospect, can’t it?  Why would we want to, anyway?

Well, the need to do so comes about like this; during an interesting discussion, on an interesting subject, someone refers to some geezer from some other language group whom no-one has ever heard of.  And everyone thinks, “What? Who?”.  People who talk about the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus will be familiar with this; people start talking about “Agapius”, and everyone wonders who this might be.  Someone says “Arabic Christian”, everyone nods, and tries to get on without taking things further.

But really, what we want then is to get some kind of overview of that branch of literature.  How much of it is there?  What sorts of writing?  Starting and ending when?  How much published?  Who are the big names?  What did they write?  When did they live?

If we’re lucky, there are handbooks that list all the authors and their works.  For the Fathers, you start with Quasten’s Patrology.  For Arabic Christian literature, with Graf’s Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (and curse the lack of an English version).  And so on.  For Islamic literature one would start with Brockelmann’s Geschichte der arabischen Literatur (if one can get access to it; and curse the lack of an English version).  But how does one explore these massive multi-volume tomes? 

It’s like entering an unknown country, through a pass in the mountains.  How do we move forward, and get an idea of the whole country?

What I tend to do is to look for the histories.  By this I mean the works in which authors of the new land write about their own people, and times, and past.  These seem to me like the backbone of the literature.  They will mention all the people whom the author thinks are important, and why, and when, and thereby act as a guide to the world of that language group.

For instance, once you know that there are five Arabic Christian histories, to 1500, the mass of literature in which to take an interest reduces to manageable proportions.  Once you know that Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History is the key text for early Christian literature, plus continuators such as Socrates and Sozomen and Evagrius Scholasticus, you have something manageable, which will put all the rest in context.

This is how I do it. If I ever read up on Persian literature, I will find a handbook, and go through it and mark out the histories.

The other works of interest are things like a catalogue of writers; something like Ebedjesu’s 13th century catalogue of Syriac writers known to him, what existed, who wrote what.  (I’ve made sure that an English version of this is online)

For Arabic Christian literature there is a similar list, by Abu-l Barakat, and I’m taking an interest in that again.  There is an old edition and German translation by Riedel.  Apparently Samir Khalil Samir has made an edition also.  And someone tells me that a French version exists in the Patrologia Orentalis 20, although I’m not sure about that.

These are the planks from which we will build our wagon; the materials with which to make our star-map; the tools whereby we can go where no-one ever seems to  go very often!

Share

How not to translate the bible

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I found a blog pushing the TNIV, and added a comment to a post or two before I realised that the blog title “Better bibles” was really just Newspeak for “Use the TNIV.” 

The TNIV is the version of the New International Version which was revised in accordance with the principles of political correctness.  If the bible said “brothers”, it changed it to say “brothers and sisters.”  And so on, sometimes with farcical consequences.  Fortunately US Christians treated it with the contempt it deserved, and it sounds as if it is dead (praise God).   But the damage is severe; the NIV was well on the way to being the standard Christian English translation.  Now few will trust it, or its owners.

It is hard to imagine what was going through the minds of the people who did this deed — although judging from the commenters on that blog, indifference to the idea that this is the Word of God is pretty evident, as is a determination to use the bible to promote political correctness.

But just imagine if we did the same to other texts!  Das Kapital, revised to say what Ronald Reagan thinks it should have said.  Mein Kampf, as translated by an Israeli extremist (a version in which the word “Jew” is replaced by the word “Arab”, “in order to situate it better in modern society” or some form of words which would walk the streets for any vice).  Robert Mugabe translating Jefferson.  It’s almost funny, isn’t it?

I do a bit of translating from time to time, and I tend to favour reader comprehension over literal incomprehensibility.  But if I have to paraphrase, I’d put the original in a note.  If I felt the meaning was unclear, I wouldn’t paraphrase; I would stick the meaning in a note.  To fail to know where to draw the line between a translation and a note is the nadir of incapacity in a translator.

Share

Coptic Paul found!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The ps.gospel of Judas was sold together with three other manuscripts.  I have never been able to find what happened to one of them, which contained a Coptic version of three letters of Paul.  From Christian Askeland at Evangelical Textual Criticism I learn these excellent tidings:

Along with Codex Tchacos (= the Gospel of Judas Codex), two other codices were found. One of these contained the Pauline Epistles. This codex was sold about a year and a half ago and has been sent to Augsburg to be restored by Gregor Wurst. Apparently, it is also Sahidic with considerable Middle Egyptian influence. A picture has apparently been published of one side of a relatively intact leaf of Colossians in Ink and Blood Dead Sea Scrolls to the English Bible. Is there anyone out there who can send me a scan of the photo from this publication? The pamphlet was created as part of a traveling exhibition. cha25 [a] cam.ac.uk

In the comments he adds:

Gregor Wurst gave a paper at the International Association of Coptic Studies Conference in Cairo this last summer, and revealed the details posted here. In my notes, I have written “~13 fragmentary leaves, Galatians and Colossians”. Hans-Gebhard Bethge (Humboldt University, Berlin) is editing the text.

I think that these fragments were bought at an antiquities auction — not on eBay, although I am aware of the eBay incident. 

Share