Thoughts on Antiquity, Patristics, putting things online, information access, and more
Yesterday I received an evasive email from my long-term web host, Pair Networks. After careful reading, it seems to mean that they are increasing the prices on all their shared hosting by 50%, starting on January 1, 2025. That will take the price up from $12 a month to $20, which seems like a silly price for my limited needs.
Does anyone have recommendations for a new web hosting company? It’s not about price, but reliability and good customer service.
The internet is full of protagonists overstating their claims for every imaginable cause. On Twitter I see many Muslim-bots making extreme claims about the origins of the Koran. They tend to claim that no copy of it deviates at all from any other copy, ever. They explain this extreme claim – no human error? ever? – by reference to the “oral tradition,” that the first Muslims memorised the Koran and so nobody could ever get it wrong and if they did it would immediately be detected. This they invariably contrast to the bible text, to the disadvantage of the latter.
There are various obvious objections to this, and there is likewise a bodyguard of deflections that the same people deploy.
When confronted with Muslims bashing the bible in this way, I have begun to refer to the role of the third Caliph, Uthman, in creating the Koran. Uthman was an early Caliph, who created an official written Koran, copies of which were distributed to provinces of the new Islamic empire. Once these had been created, Uthman had other copies of the Koran burned.
Uthman himself ruled for only a decade before the early Muslims killed him, for corruption. His misdeed, as I understand it, was appointing members of his own family to senior posts instead of those more qualified.
Uthman’s action in burning Korans is documented in the Hadith. It turns out that there is a rather splendid website with the Arabic text and English translation of the Hadith online. This is well-indexed by Google, and so a search quickly found the relevant hadith here. (I have over-paragraphed the English translation).
حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ شِهَابٍ، أَنَّ أَنَسَ بْنَ مَالِكٍ، حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّ حُذَيْفَةَ بْنَ الْيَمَانِ قَدِمَ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ وَكَانَ يُغَازِي أَهْلَ الشَّأْمِ فِي فَتْحِ إِرْمِينِيَةَ وَأَذْرَبِيجَانَ مَعَ أَهْلِ الْعِرَاقِ فَأَفْزَعَ حُذَيْفَةَ اخْتِلاَفُهُمْ فِي الْقِرَاءَةِ فَقَالَ حُذَيْفَةُ لِعُثْمَانَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَدْرِكْ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَخْتَلِفُوا فِي الْكِتَابِ اخْتِلاَفَ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى فَأَرْسَلَ عُثْمَانُ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ أَنْ أَرْسِلِي إِلَيْنَا بِالصُّحُفِ نَنْسَخُهَا فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ ثُمَّ نَرُدُّهَا إِلَيْكِ فَأَرْسَلَتْ بِهَا حَفْصَةُ إِلَى عُثْمَانَ فَأَمَرَ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ وَعَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ وَسَعِيدَ بْنَ الْعَاصِ وَعَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنَ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ هِشَامٍ فَنَسَخُوهَا فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ وَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ لِلرَّهْطِ الْقُرَشِيِّينَ الثَّلاَثَةِ إِذَا اخْتَلَفْتُمْ أَنْتُمْ وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ فِي شَىْءٍ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فَاكْتُبُوهُ بِلِسَانِ قُرَيْشٍ فَإِنَّمَا نَزَلَ بِلِسَانِهِمْ فَفَعَلُوا حَتَّى إِذَا نَسَخُوا الصُّحُفَ فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ رَدَّ عُثْمَانُ الصُّحُفَ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ وَأَرْسَلَ إِلَى كُلِّ أُفُقٍ بِمُصْحَفٍ مِمَّا نَسَخُوا وَأَمَرَ بِمَا سِوَاهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فِي كُلِّ صَحِيفَةٍ أَوْ مُصْحَفٍ أَنْ يُحْرَقَ.
Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to `Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before.”
So `Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to `Uthman. `Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, `Abdullah bin AzZubair, Sa`id bin Al-As and `AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. `Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.”
They did so, and when they had written many copies, `Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4987
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4987
Uthman’s action makes sense only if the material destroyed was not, in fact, the same as that which he promoted as the “true Koran.”
The Muslim bots respond to this by claiming that the difference was only one of pronunciation. But this hadith does not say so. Rather it makes clear that the text of the Koran was already circulating in different Arabic dialects, and in written copies which did not all contain the same material.
Indeed the preceding hadith openly states that when the koran was collected under Abu Bakr, one verse was only in the possession of one person. Similarly the following hadith is as follows:
قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ وَأَخْبَرَنِي خَارِجَةُ بْنُ زَيْدِ بْنِ ثَابِتٍ، سَمِعَ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ، قَالَ فَقَدْتُ آيَةً مِنَ الأَحْزَابِ حِينَ نَسَخْنَا الْمُصْحَفَ قَدْ كُنْتُ أَسْمَعُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقْرَأُ بِهَا فَالْتَمَسْنَاهَا فَوَجَدْنَاهَا مَعَ خُزَيْمَةَ بْنِ ثَابِتٍ الأَنْصَارِيِّ {مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ رِجَالٌ صَدَقُوا مَا عَاهَدُوا اللَّهَ عَلَيْهِ} فَأَلْحَقْنَاهَا فِي سُورَتِهَا فِي الْمُصْحَفِ.
Zaid bin Thabit added, “A verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuza`ima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ (33.23)
Sahih al-Bukhari 4988
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4988
This attests to a copy where a verse was missing, even though the copyist had actually heard Mohammed himself say that verse. And, far from having memorised it, he had to search until he found someone who had written it down.
None of this is actually surprising. Even if we were Muslim, and accepted that the Koran was from Allah, the fact is that it did not fall from heaven on gold plates, or whatever, but involved a human being giving utterance to it in a local Arab dialect and being copied down by other human beings. The laborious efforts to make sure that it was indeed as Mohammed uttered it also testify to human activity, and, inevitably, some kinds of human error. Muslims believe that these efforts were successful, and that the text today is an exact copy of the text as dictated by Mohammed.
Non-Muslims need not believe this. The Hadith suggests strongly that the process was far more haphazard than the bots would like us to believe. It also suggests strongly that claims to memorisation at this period are false. We may also note that Muslims display no interest in actually finding out by collation whether extant manuscripts copies of the Koran – and indeed printed copies – are actually exactly the same.
But we need not labour this point, except in response to those who deploy it in order to rubbish the bible. There is nothing of significance here. For all practical purposes, it seems likely that the Koran does indeed contain the mission statement of Mohammed and his earliest followers.
An email yesterday with an interesting query, asking for the source of a quotation from Cyril of Alexandria (found here and many other places):
Just as by melting two candles together you get one piece of wax, so, I think, one who receives the Flesh and Blood of Jesus is fused together with Him by this Communion, and the soul finds that he is in Christ and Christ is in him.
Our friend has done quite a search and turned up a version in a little treatise from 1534:
Germain Gardiner (later beatified), “The Letter of a Yonge Gentylman…” (London: W. Rastell), verso of f. xxxiii to verso of f. xxxiiii. The candles-and-wax part appears on the recto of f. xxxiiii. See a scan here, on the Internet Archive.
He says, “Wherfore it muste be consydered, that Chryst is in us not onely habitually by cheryte, but also by naturall partycypacyon. For lyke wyse as yf a man take wex that is molten with fyre, & with other wex [that] is in lyke maner molten, so myngle it that bothe twayne be made one: so by the communion of Chrystes body and bloud he is in us and we in hym.”
Thankfully this is all about wax, and a search for Cyril of Alexandria and wax promptly produced a hit here, in Simon Birckbek, “The Protestants Evidence, Taken out of Good Records…,” London (1657), page 176. This is written to show that the Fathers taught the doctrine of the Church of England, and responds to Catholic objections.
Here it quotes the saying, and gives a reference: “Cyril, l.4, c.17, in Joan.” – i.e. the “Commentary on John”, book 4, chapter 17.
Thankfully I have Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John online here, in Philip Pusey’s horribly unreadable translation. Pusey also has different chapter numbers. But it will do for our purposes:
56 He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood dwelleth in Me and I in him.
Manifoldly does Christ initiate us by these words, and since His Discourse is hard of attainment by the more unlearned, asking for itself rather the understanding of faith than investigation, He revolving again and again over the same ground makes it easy in divers ways, and from all parts illumines what is useful therein, fixing as a kind of foundation and groundwork the most excellent desire for it.
For he that eateth My Flesh (saith He) and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me and I in him. For as if one should join wax with other wax, he will surely see (I suppose) the one in the other; in like manner (I deem) he who receiveth the Flesh of our Saviour Christ and drinketh His Precious Blood, as He saith, is found one with Him, commingled as it were and immingled with Him through the participation, so that he is found in Christ, Christ again in him.
Thus was Christ teaching us in the Gospel too according to Matthew, saying, The Kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Good to find a genuine translation, and, if you do quote Cyril here, please indicate that it’s from the Commentary on John, book 4.
Earlier I came across a twitter post by the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, referencing a book unknown to me. The book title is “Views in Egypt, from the original drawings in the possession of Sir Robert Ainslie, taken during his embassy to Constantinople by Luigi Mayer” and printed in London in 1801.
The volume may be found at Archive.org here. The 10mb PDF is useless, however, as the pictures have been compressed to the point of destruction. But the original images of the pages are also downloadable, although the zip file is 2Gb in size.
The text is not interesting. The images are not especially interesting either, in truth! But I did see this one, between pages 14 and 15, of the two largest pyramids at Giza.
The figures in all the illustrations are clearly stylised and added in the studio.
What makes this image interesting is the mound reaching up the side of the Great Pyramid, right up to the huge gash in one side. Today that damage is in mid-air. But here we see that this is the residue of attempts to take stone from it, for building purposes in Cairo. The mound was heaped up to facilitate this.
There are quite a number of images of Alexandria. The drawings were taken while Egypt was still under Mameluke rule, before the coming of Mohammed Ali, and the beginning of modernisation.
Here are the next four chapters of the “Jerusalem Life” of John Damascene. John Damascene’s father has met an educated Italian slave named Cosmas in the market in Damascus, and employs him to teach his sons philosophy.
* * * *
10. John’s Father Frees Cosmas and Entrusts His Sons to Him.[1]
On hearing these words, the man[2] who was seeking such a treasure replied, “Well then, O blessed man, console yourself, for perhaps the Lord may grant you the requests of your heart.” Having said this, John’s father ran as fast as he could to the Saracen chief and fell at his feet, requesting the now quiet distinguished Cosmas as a gift, nor did he fail in his request, but he received the one truly worthy of much as a gift, and brought him into his own house, comforted him, and refreshed him after his long ordeal, and said something like this, “Not only are you free from now on, but also I make you a partner in my household, and equal in authority with me, sharing all my joys and sorrows.” But this only I request of you, in honour your honour, that you instruct and educate most diligently my natural son John, and also this other who shares your name – whom I have made my spiritual son, who was born in Jerusalem but orphaned at a young age – all the secular learning and philosophy that you know, as well as that to which the grace of the Holy Spirit guides the worthy.[3] The philosopher, upon hearing this, was at once like a horse galloping away from its restraints and prancing across the field, or a thirsty deer sent out towards streams of water. You might say that he was like another Midas who had stumbled upon great treasures of gold. He was very eager for the matter at hand, and he took on the young men, and became their tutor.
11. John and Cosmas the Younger gain expertise in theology.
John was like an eagle, soaring through the air, as if using wings, and with natural ability and zeal of purpose. And his spiritual brother, and fellow initiate, Cosmas, was like a ship with sails spread wide, and borne like a cargo vessel upon the waters, [propelled] by a favourable breeze[4] and with a west wind blowing from the stern. Thus, by natural quickness and intensity of zeal, they gathered all the most important teaching in a short time, whether in grammar, dialectic or demonstration. And with moral philosophy, they not only cultivated their minds by means of studying this, but also calmed the disturbances of their souls. And just like an eagle looking keenly, so did they gaze intently at the laws of nature. They also learned mathematical proportions as skilfully as Pythagoras or Diophantus. They were trained so well in the proof of geometry that they seemed like Euclid and those others similar to him. In harmony, they became like those[5] who appear to have created divine melodies for the wise. In astronomy, as much as [pertains] to intervals, figures,[6] and the proportions of distances, even if he[Cosmas the elder] taught only a introductory understanding for non-specialists, from what he wrote John appears to excel; and indeed so also did Cosmas. But discussion about him [Cosmas the younger] must be left to others, for John is the subject of our praise.[7]
12. They study theology especially.
Who would not recognize and marvel at his theological insights, and the precision of his doctrines in his foundational book—or rather, in his comprehensive book on doctrine—which one could call a code of laws of every orthodox doctrine, and [liken to] the tablets of Moses without straying from the truth. However I know that I ought to have made praises of that book in the earlier chapters, and not here, but I have stated these things to demonstrate the education in which he was educated, and how he pursued all of it with knowledge and precision, and the marvellous thing is that he was not puffed up by knowledge, but rather, just as the noble branches of trees, weighed down by their abundance of fruit, inclined toward the ground, so also the great John, as the fruits of learning increased upon him, began to incline, not towards the ground, but towards the depths of the philosophical sea, sailing still upon it as if on some ship of worldly endeavour.[8] But he also longed to unload this world’s ship, and to entirely strip off the garments of bodily endeavour, and with a naked mind to swim across the sea, and dive into the deep, so that he might find the precious pearl lying hidden there. Therefore, longing for this and aiming at it, he descended to the bottom of the depths. And he was not puffed up by his knowledge, but humbled by his desire for a more mystical wisdom. So the intellectual lamp of his soul was filled with the oil of worldly wisdom, in order that the incorporeal light falling down from above might set fire to this light, and John might appear like a burning torch.
13. They are returned to their father by their teacher, who retires to a monastery. John becomes Chief Adviser.
In these circumstances, his teacher, guided towards this desire by his student, or so it seems, approached the boy’s father and said,
“Behold: your wishes are fulfilled, and the boys surpass me in wisdom. For it was not enough for them to become equal to their teacher, but by the greatness of their nature, and their unyielding efforts, perhaps also with God increasing their gift of wisdom, they have risen above me towards the pinnacle of philosophy. Accordingly, I am no longer needed by them from now on.” As reward for my labours, allow me to depart to a monastery, where I may scientifically[9] seek the highest wisdom. For the philosophy, in which I was already trained, directs me towards that [higher wisdom], and to be enriched still more by both blessings [heavenly and earthly wisdom], and to add to the earlier wisdom also that which is most separated from matter, and surpasses understanding, and which only the mind alone, completely free from the body, can be initiated into.”
John’s father was grieved at the words of the philosopher. But he could not detain him, as otherwise it would seem as if he had held onto the wages agreed for the teaching given [to his sons]. Having provided him with the most abundant supplies for his needs, he sent him away in peace. But he went to the monastery of Mar Saba in the desert, and remained there until his end, going to God who is Wisdom Himself. The father of John also departed through death. But the leader of the Saracens summoned John, and appointed him as Chief Advisor.[10] But he declined because his inclination was directed elsewhere. However he was put under sufficient pressure that he was no longer able to refuse, and was appointed to a greater office than his father.
* * * *
The Muslim caliphs made use of the existing Byzantine civil service to run the government machine and – the most important part – collect taxes, for a considerable period after the conquest.
The United States has given the world much, including peace, democracy and an open internet, and much that is perhaps less attractive. But it has also given us a vast surge of cranks and lunatics. In certain fields of study there must be many an undergraduate tutor who finds that, every year, he must try to be patient, when some self-assured young man innocently trots out some terrible old canard once again.
One of these claims – that Mithras was “born of a virgin,” – has emerged again. Ali Babaei, an Iranian gentleman who came across it, emailed me a couple of days ago. Unlike many who write to me, he included a source for the claim and had tried to research it. He had found the claim on a website here:
An inscription on a Seleucid Temple in Iran dated to the 200s B.C. reads “Anahita, as the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithra.” While there is only one primary source for the “virgin birth” claim, and it has been shown to be very difficult to locate, the quote about Mithras being born of the virgin was published in 1983 by Mary Boyce, a British scholar on Iranian languages and Zoroastrianism who is so respected, the Royal Asiatic Society award for outstanding contributions to the study of religion is called the “Boyce Prize.”
Mithras was, in fact, born from a rock – petra genetrix, as it says on monuments. Amusingly the website even showed a picture of Mithras being born… from a rock. This is an unintelligent website pushing a fantasy, and deserves no consideration.
What concerned my correspondent was the claim on the website that this information came from Mary Boyce, the leading scholar of Zoroastrianism, published in an unspecified source in 1983.
The website gave a link, which is to a PDF written by a certain Frank Zindler, containing emails that he wrote, without response, at Dr Bart Ehrman. The latter must receive a great quantity of crank emails. Indeed Mr Z. appears to be part of the lunatic fringe of US atheism. In the PDF we find this:
There is a popular, English-language women’s Web-site called www.irandokht.com. On it I found an article by a certain Manouchehr Saadat Noury, PhD, titled “First Iranian goddess of productivity and values,” dealing with the ancient Iranian goddess Anahita. After showing a picture of the great Temple of Anahita at Kangavar, the article says that
“By the HELLENISTIC era (330—310 BC), if not before, Anahita’s cult came to be closely associated with that of MITHRA.
The ANAHITA TEMPLES have been built in many Iranian cities like Kangavar, Bishapur (an ancient city in south of present-day Faliyan) and other places during different eras. An inscription from 200 BC dedicates a SELEUCID temple in western Iran to “Anahita, as the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithra.” The ANAHITA TEMPLE at Kangavar city of Kermanshah (a western province in present-day Iran) is possibly the most important one. It is speculated that the architectural structure of this temple is a combination of the Greek and Persian styles and some researchers suggest that the temple is related to a girl named Anahita, the daughter of din Mehr, who enjoyed a very high status with the ancient Iranians.”
And also this:
“In the Bundahishn, the two halves of the name “Ardwisur Anahid” are occasionally treated independently of one another, that is, with Ardwisur as the representative of waters, and Anahid identified with the planet Venus.[20] In yet other chapters, the text equates the two, as in “Ardwisur who is Anahid, the father and mother of the Waters” (3.17).
“This legend of the river that descends from Mount Hara appears to have remained a part of living observance for many generations. A Greek inscription from Roman times found in Asia Minor reads ‘the great goddess Anaïtis of high Hara.'[21] On Greek coins of the imperial epoch, she is
spoken of as ‘Anaïtis of the sacred water.[20]”[20] Boyce 1983, p. 1004 [Boyce, Mary (1983), “Āban,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. I, New York: Routledge &
Kegan Paul]
[21] Boyce 1975a, p. 74 [Boyce, Mary (1975a), A History of Zoroastrianism, Vol. I, Leiden/Köln: Brill]
There is indeed an article on “Aban” by Mary Boyce in vol. 1 of the Encyclopedia Iranica – on page 58, in the 1985 edition – but it does not contain the quote made at all. But the reference in the Zindler PDF to Boyce reference is nothing to do with the “immaculate conception of Anahita”, but to this stuff about the waters. I have also searched her publications from this time – the History of Zoroastrianism in 3 volumes – and there is no reference to this supposed “immaculate conception of Anahita” inscription.
So it looks very much as if the website author has just skimmed the Zindler PDF, and misread, and posted his misreading. He has assumed that the reference covered both claims. In fact Zindler references the “immaculate conception” claim is to an article online by somebody called “Manouchehr Saadat Noury, PhD”.
So the claim that this is by Mary Boyce is simply untrue.
Let’s see if we can go a bit further. Is there any evidence at all of such an inscription?
The ‘article by Manouchehr Saadat Noury, PhD, titled “First Iranian goddess of productivity and values,”‘ referred to by Zindler, seems today to be online at iranian.com here, making the same claims, but with no reference to Boyce at all. This gives the following references.
Frye, R. N. (1963): The Heritage of Persia: The pre-Islamic History of One of the World’s Great Civilizations, ed., The World Publishing Company, New York.
Frye, R. N. (1993): The Golden Age of Persia, ed., Weidenfeld, London.
Nazmi Afshar, M. S. (2005): Online Article on “Anahita, the Mother of Gods, Iran the cradle of the early gods”.
Saadat Noury, M. (2005): Various Articles on Persian Culture and the History of Iran.
Various Sources (2005): Notes & Articles on Anahita.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia (2005): Online Notes on Anahita (in English & Persian).
I have accessed the two Frye volumes, and I can confirm that neither contains this claim. The Afshar article is today here. This also says nothing about this supposed “immaculate conception” inscription in a Seleucid era temple.
There is a Persian-language Wikipedia article for Anahita here. As far as I can tell this does not include the claim either.
The other “references” are not references at all, and cannot be followed further.
In conclusion, this claim about an inscription in an unspecified temple in western Iran cannot be verified, and need not be attended to.
Update 19 Nov 2024: Note the extremely useful further investigation in the comments by STRT!
Update 9 Dec 2024: STRT summarises his very useful investigation for us:
At one time the Wikipedia page for Anahita did make a claim that there was an inscription. But in 2006 this was removed from the article, for lack of citation. Before that happened, a certain Dr Noury had already written an article, which repeating the claim from Wikipedia. Noury’s article was the source for all subsequent mentions.
The Wikipedia article did not give any source for this claim. But in fact appears to trace back to a high school paper, written in the 1990’s, that was put online. This paper, however, does not explicitly say there was an inscription, but rather that it was dedicated to ‘Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras’. (By the time this reached the Wikipedia page, the claim had become an explicit statement that there was an inscription saying this.)
In the paper, the phrase ‘Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras’ is presented in quotes, as if that is the full name of the temple. This came from a work named “Iran: A Glimpse of History” which on page 37 claims (without offering any evidence or source) that Anahita was the virgin mother of Mithra. The same work then claims that there was a temple “at Kangavar, named after Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord, situated near Kermanshah on the road to Hamedan.” This lacks any quotation marks around the phase, indicating that the author of this work was not saying that this was the full name of the temple (much less any inscription), but rather that it was named after Anahita, who according to the work was the virgin mother of the lord (Mithra). It is actually not even certain if this was a temple of Anahita in the first place, though perhaps doubts of such emerged after the book was written. In any event, when we trace it all the way back to the original source, that does not make any mention of an inscription whatsoever, and its claims about Anahita being the virgin mother of Mithra are stated without any evidence. Thus this claim about the inscription appears completely false.
Yesterday the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Venezia posted a gorgeous image on their twitter feed of a votive relief in their collection (inventory number 158). It depicts Cybele (left) and Attis, with two women, mother and daughter, entering the shrine through doors.
Just look at that, and admire.
The origins of the piece are unknown, as it was acquired by a Venetian nobleman in the 16th century. I don’t know what the dates offered – 3rd or 2nd century BC – are based on.
I looked this item up in the Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque (CCCA) volume, where it is in vol. 7, pp.44-45. The entry is as follows:
Greyish-white marble relief (H. 0.57, W. 0.80, D. 0.06) from unknown provenance. Venice, Archaeological Museum, Inv. no 118, formerly in the Grimani collection.
Zoega, Bassor. II, 73 arbitrarily supposes that Smyrna or Magnesia ad Sipylum is the place of origin; G. Valentinelli, Catalogo dei marmi scolpiti del Museo archeologico della Marciana di Venezia, Venice 1863, no 233 and Pl. L; M. Collignon, Monuments grecs I, 1881, 11ff and Pl. 2; A. v. Salis in JdI XXVIII, 1913, 10 and fig. 6; C. Anti, Il Regio Museo archeologico nel Palazzo Reale di Venezia, Rome 1930, 104 ff and fig.17; F. Matz in AA 1932, 279; Schuchhardt in Die Antike XII, 1936, 103ff and Pl. 7; Kähler, Pergamon, 75f and 73 n. 70; Bruna Forlati Tamaro, Il Museo archeologico del Palazzo Reale di Venezia, Rome 1953, 21 no 17 and fig. on p. 62, who mentions “Asia Minor” as the origin and dates the monument to the second century B.C.; Lullies, Plastik, Pl. 230; Linfert in AA LXXXI, 1966, 496ff and fig. 2; Vermaseren, Legend Attis,2 3 and Pl. XII, 1.
At the left side of the relief Cybele, wearing polos, veil, four tresses of hair and a long garment, is solemnly standing in her temple, facing the entrance. She is holding a long sceptre in her right hand and a tympanum in her other hand. At her feet a seated lion. In front of her is Attis in oriental dress leaning with his left hand on the pedum, the point of which is resting on a mound of rocky soil. One door of the entrance is open and a mother and daughter are entering. The mother is holding an unidentifiable object in her left hand (bird or fruit?) and raising her left hand in adoration. The daughter is carrying a plate with both hands.
Date: middle of the third century B.C. (Lullies) ; second century B.C. (Tamaro).
The abbreviations used in the bibliography can be found in the full volume. A “pedum” is a shepherd’s staff with a curled end. Giovanni Grimani donated his family collection of artworks, obtained in Italy and the Eastern Mediterranean, to the republic of Venice in 1587.
As well as his big index of Mithras monuments and inscriptions, Maarten Vermaseren also compiled a collection of monuments and inscriptions for Cybele and Attis. He probably found that he had to do this while working on Mithras, simply because the two are often confused. Indeed I’ve often seen Attis statues identified online as Mithras. It’s the hat, I think. But depictions of Attis always show curly hair peeking out under the hat, and an effeminate expression, a huge contrast to the stern cosmic resoluteness of Mithras.
I discovered that the 7 volumes of the Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque volumes are online at Archive.org, with the exception of volume 2. Archive.org does list a “volume 2” but it is in fact volume 7. However the volume 2 may be found elsewhere online.
Here’s what’s accessible.
The other item to mention is a collection of literary mentions of Attis. It’s not complete in any way, but I think it covers the main sources for the cult myth. I compiled it ages ago – quite possibly nearly 20 years ago – on a private wiki space, but never finished it or made it publicly available.
It’s now online here: https://tertullian.org/rpearse/attis/attis_literary_testimonies.htm
Recently online I expressed the opinion that no version of the myth of the god Attis states that he was resurrected, until 350 AD when the story appears in Firmicus Maternus. Prior to that date, the myth is that he was not.
Not everyone reading this may recall the myth of Attis. Here is a less-than-serious summary of the myth, as found online, and reflecting the myth as we find it in Pausanias:
Attis was a shepherd-lad. He was also the boyfriend of the scary Phrygian goddess Cybele. One day he went off and shagged a nymph; and his missus found out (as they do). In a rage, she cursed him with madness (as they do). While “under the influence,” therefore, Attis sat down and chopped off his willy with the edge of a potsherd (as you do). Then he died of sepsis, as you do in a pre-antibiotic era.
Then his missus calmed down. No more Saturday nights at the disco. So, she went to Father Zeus and asked him to bring Attis back from the dead.
Zeus, no mean shagger himself, disapproved of this “infidelity means castration” meme. Not having that in his mythology. So he refused. The most he would do is to preserve the body of Attis eternally.
The reaction of Cybele is not recorded.
This remark of mine led some strange person to message me with a jeer and a screen grab from some unknown forum:
My first reaction – possibly yours also – was to wonder what on earth the “Tragodopodagra” might be. But long experience with online trolls tells me never to let such a claim go past unexamined.
The work is indeed a humorous work of Lucian, known usually as the Podagra. I learn that the manuscripts also call it the Tragopodagra, or Tragodopodagra.[1]https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/illiclasstud.43.2.0488/ref] “Podagra” means “Gout” – that nasty cramping feeling in the legs that 18th century gentlemen got from drinking a couple of bottles of port a day. The work appears with English translation in volume 8 of the Loeb Classical Library edition, LCL 432, accessible on Archive.org here.
The work does indeed refer at one point to Attis, among its other classical references. Let us hope that this erudition consoled the poet in his discomfort. Page 327:
CHORUS
On * Dindymus, Cybebe’s mount,
Phrygians raise their frenzied cries
To tender Attis as his due.
To the note of Phrygian horn
Along the slopes of Tmolus high
Lydians shout their revelling song,
And Corybants on tambourines
Madly drum with Cretan beat…
But the loud howls of the Galli, the castrated priests of Cybele, are as nothing to the cries of the sufferer from gout.
Needless to say the work has no other mention of Attis, and certainly none of resurrection.
The scene is the slave-market in Damascus, after a raid into the west. Some of the captives taken by the Saracens are being sold, the rest are to be killed as worthless. Among them, the dignified figure of the captive Italian monk Cosmas has drawn the attention of the father of John Damascene, who is still a child at that time.
* * * *
9. Cosmas explains his grief to John’s father. [1]
But John’s father, standing not far away and so seeing the man in tears, came up, to console him in his distress, and said, “Why, O man of God, do you weep over the loss of this world, having long ago renounced and become dead to it as I see from your manner of dress?”
Then the monk replied, “I do not lament the loss of this life; for I, as you have said, am dead to the world. But what does trouble me is that I have sought after all human wisdom, and laid down a general education[2] as a foundation. I have exercised my tongue in rhetoric; I have cultivated my reasoning through the methods and demonstrations of dialectic; I pursued [the study of] moral philosophy, as much of it as [Aristotle the] Stagirite, and as much as [Chrysippus] the disciple of Ariston, have handed down; I have examined carefully everything concerning natural philosophy, as far as humanly possible; I have learned the principles of arithmetic; I have mastered geometry to the highest degree; I have formally completed the disciplines of musical harmony and proportion[3]; and I did not pass over anything concerning movement of the heavens and the turning of the stars, so that, from the greatness and beauty of these created things, in accordance with my knowledge of them, I might possess a proportionate understanding of the Creator. For the one who has acquired a clearer knowledge of created things, understands more clearly and regards with greater wonder the one who created them. From there, I advanced into the mysteries of theology, which the sons of the Greeks have handed down, and which our own theologians have most accurately elucidated.
So I am filled with these sciences, but I have not yet been able to impart[4] to anyone else the benefit from them, nor to produce a disciple through philosophy in the manner of a father producing a son.[5] For just as most people want natural children to continue their family line, similarly those who have studied philosophy want, through teaching and initiation, to produce disciples[6] so that the golden line of philosophers may continue among the living for all time; and those who are the cause of this marvellous birth [of a disciple] inherit an immortal renown. Moreover it is a characteristic of goodness to share with others the good things that one has in abundance. Indeed anyone who is not like this, nor wishes to be, is not live in what is good, but in what is evil, as being full of pride and envy concerning those things which he does not want to share with others if he has received something good. Therefore, even what he seems to have is taken away from him, just as with that servant who did not deposit the talent with the bankers.[7] But I have chosen the good portion,[8] and I was very much inclined to become a sharer with others of the wisdom given to me. But since I did not attain what I desired, that I might be counted among those faithful servants who doubled their talents through their dealings with others,[9] and I did not produce a disciple through philosophy, I am, as some might say, childless and miserable, as you see: my face is downcast and I am deeply distressed.”
* * * *
Onward.