That which we are not allowed to hear

The UK mass media is controlled by a relatively small number of people, but sets the “tone” of public debate.  In the last week I have come across three examples where stories of considerable public interest are simply not reported, and strangled by silence.

The first of these is the climate-change emails scandal.  Hackers stole a bunch of emails from the University of East Anglia, by leading climate change scientists, together with source code for the climate models being used as the basis for all the predictions of world catastrophe.  This revealed much data which Freedom of Information requests had failed to extract.  It revealed systematic and seemingly fraudulent tampering with the data and the algorithms by those same scientists. The source code revealed comments showing intentional “fudges” to mask the fact that global temperatures had actually been declining during the late 20th century.  There are endless extracts from this at Small Dead Animals.  But you wouldn’t know anything about this scandal from the UK mass media.  The “theft” of emails is reported; not the fraud thereby apparently uncovered.  The fact that Phil Jones, the director, has been forced to step aside is reported, as a minor thing, with the expectation that he will be vindicated.  Mid-week I watched a “news” item on ITV droning out propaganda for minute after minute as if this scandal had never broken.

Another item has been the scandal where Members of Parliament have claimed “expenses” for such items as cleaning the moat at their stately home and other items clearly not for the purpose of carrying out their duties.  This has been a major national scandal.  The local MP, John Gummer claimed $15,000 a year for gardening services, for four years.  Other MP’s who have helped themselves to our taxes have had to resign.  Yet … I have seen little trace of this in the local media, on the TV.  A local MP, a substantial scandal, and … silence.  As a result it seems that he is likely to continue as MP for a further 5 years, despite being 70 years old and doing little that I can see.

We should be grateful for the blogosphere.  Those who tell us what the mighty and corrupt would rather we did not hear do us all great service.  This is why we need free speech online. 

Share

The “Mithras was born on 25th December! Tee hee” myth

Every year at Christmas time the web is filled with people jeering at Christians.  Such is the society we live in.  A common jeer is to shout exultantly that Christmas is really a pagan festival.  In years gone past these people mocked that it was really the birthday of Mithras.

It looks as if my efforts with the Mithras wikipedia page are bearing fruit.  Far fewer of these fools are appearing in fora, and people are offering refutations.

I need hardly say that no ancient text or inscription records any “birthday” for Mithras.  The idea that it does is a confusion with the late Roman state sun god, Sol Invictus.  There is a record of a festival on 25 Dec. for the latter, in 354 AD, in the calendar included in the Chronography of 354.  This says simply “Natalis Invicti”. 

This is pretty certainly a festival for Sol Invictus.  The ancient festivals have fewer chariot races than the ones from late antiquity, and the Natalis Invicti has the substantial number of 24 listed. 

The word “natalis” can mean “birthday”; but it can also mean the anniversary of the dedication of a temple.  Since no source indicates that the sun came into being at one precise date — indeed the idea is ridiculous — it is probably the anniversary of the dedication of the splendid temple by Aurelian in 274 AD.

So how does Mithras come into this?  Well Mithras is labelled Deus Sol Invictus Mithras almost from the earliest inscriptions, ca. 100 AD.  But “deus sol invictus” seems to have been a cheap epithet.  Quite a few deities use it, as meaning only “invincible sun god”.  To identify all these would be as silly as supposing that everyone called John Smith was the same.  Doubtless someone, of limited education and less scepticism towards anything he found convenient, stumbled across this and fell into this error.  Knowing that few people had ever heard of Sol Invictus, he chose to mention Mithras.

But as I say, I am heartened.  None of us benefit from the wrong raw facts getting into circulation, after all; and it feels as if my efforts have done some good.

Share

More on the Septizodium

The fragmentary map of ancient Rome does show a portion of the Septizodium, an expensive facade designed to impress people arriving at the foot of the Palatine hill up the Appian Way.  Here is the fragment.

The photo has East at the top.  To the right is one end of the Circus Maximus.  The Palatine hill is at the bottom.  The Septizodium is the two semi-circles, with pillars in front of them, to the left of the Circus Maximus.

What I do not quite understand, tho, is why people say that this records the form of the name “Septizodium” rather than “Septizonium”.  Surely the crucial letter is lost?

The Septizodium on the marble map of Rome
The Septizodium on the marble map of Rome
Share

Why I don’t believe that NT studies is an academic discipline

I’m not going to write an essay on this.  I trained as a scientist, and so was naturally sceptical that the humanities were doing more than wiggling their prejudices.  I came to think differently about patristics after reading T.D.Barnes Tertullian, which convinced me that objective data-driven work was possible. 

One factor in my disbelief in the humanities was that I was long ago convinced, by reading books produced by people holding teaching posts in New Testament Studies, that the discipline was pseudo-academic.  Objectivity counted for nothing; conformity to a manufactured consensus was everything.  Over the years I heard endless anecdotes about victimisation of Christians foolish enough to subject themselves to “study” in this subject, who found prejudice being taught as scholarship.

It seems little has changed, if Dan Wallace is to be believed.  And I do believe him.  I believe every word of it.  After all, what structural mechanism stops such behaviour?  But there is no pressing reason why any of us should pay good money to fund such “studies”.

Share