|
I wish today to look at what is essentially a quite simple proposition, though one ignored by the mainstream Churches -as though pretending that an issue did not exist, and looking the other way, could make it go away! My main contention is that the primitive Christianity of Jesus and his immediate circle of followers, something that remained essentially true to its origins and motivations into the second century, was thereafter heavily modified not merely by contact with Mithraists and Mithaism but by the pressing need to absorb Mithraic ideas and practices if Christianity itself was not to be completely submerged and overwhelmed by its main rival. In fact, as will become evident, the absorption of these Mithraic elements had such a profound effect on the religion of Jesus that -to an extent largely still unacknowledged -we are justified in making the distinction between 'original Christianity' -the true religion of Jesus, and, after the absorption, 'Mithraic Christianity', which is a very different creature, although the mainstream Churches now, which are in effect 'Mithraic Christian' Churches, act and put themselves forward as though they were 'original Christian' Churches. I regard it as part of our duty as Unitarians to expose the Mithraic absorptions for.what they are, and to make possible thereby a return to the true religion of Jesus. I have touched glancingly elsewhere on elements of this question. In Christmas services I have mentioned the adoption of Mithras's birthday on December 25th as the birthday of Jesus. In an address in Blackpool last January, I suggested that 'original Christianity' was a non-sacramental religion, and that sacraments were superimposed on it from Mithraism. And, in Communion Services, without much doubt, I think, the 'blood of the slain bull', which was physically consumed by Mithraists for its redemptive powers, became transmuted to Christianity -the redemptive 'blood of the lamb'. Today, while saying something about the gradual growth of awareness of Mithraism over the last 175 years, I wish particularly to focus on the question of Atonement -in traditional Christianity, the notion that Jesus paid the price for our sins and that we are thereby redeemed by his paying of that price. This notion has always been problematical for Free Christians and Unitarians, and indeed even for liberal Anglicans such as Hastings Rashdall in the early part of the twentieth century. It will probably come as no general surprise in the circumstances if I say that atonement, too, is a Mithraic idea, and thus characteristic of 'Mithraic Christianity' rather than 'original Christianity'. My attention was drawn to this question by a remark of Kay Millard (a West of England Unitarian) in The Inquirer of 29th August 1998. She had the following reported of her there: "Unable to accept the doctrine of atonement, [Kay Millard] realised that she could neither give nor receive Communion'. Now indeed the doctrine of atonement ("This is my body which is/will be given up for you; this is my blood which is/will be shed for you") is central to orthodox interpretations of Communion. But I think it can be shown that Jesus never spoke these words, in the form in which they are reported in the New Testament. The correct and original 'doctrine of Communion' (if such a concept can be articulated by a Unitarian!) is of preparation for, or anticipation of, God's great wedding-banquet at the Last Judgement. This has been recognised by some modern theologians: John H. McKenna, in chapter 1 of his 1975 book Eucharist and Holy Spirit, has observed that 'last times' theology played a strong part in the Eucharist of the very early Church. That is in fact evident in the Communion ceremony surviving in the early manual of instruction the Didache (of about A.D.150). And this original emphasis -in relation to the image of the bridal feast -survives also in the Gospel of Philip 76: "Our bridal chamber" -in other words, any wedding and wedding-feast here on earth, and, therefore, by metaphorical extension, any celebration of Communion -"is nothing other than the image of the bridal chamber which is above". The communicant, according to this interpretation, by anticipating through his/her participation God's great wedding-banquet at the Last Judgement, ties and Commits himself/herself to the highest possible level of behaviour, to a way of life characteristic Of the Kingdom, in the interim. In brief, the communicant vows to try to make the Kingdom of Heaven real here upon earth: it is an awesome commitment and responsibility. Communion properly, therefore, has absolutely nothing to do with concepts such as Jesus's death or sacrifice of himself for others. Where then did the doctrine of atonement come from? The answer is Mithraism. The years A.D.120-160 were years when Mithraism and Christianity were locked in mortal rivalry and combat; either could have emerged victorious. Interestingly, and importantly, there is no hint of the doctrine of atonement in the Communion ceremony of the Didache in 150. Christianity in due course consolidated its victory by (in order to appease Mithraists) appropriating Mithraic symbols. Christmas was one such development. Too little is generally known about Mithraic sacramental liturgy. But the evidence is available. A.Dieterich published at Leipzig in 1903 the important A Mithras Liturgy reprinted as recently as 1966 -, and there have been other studies as well, most recently the 2005 book by the Iranian author Payam Nabarz, The Mysteries of Mithras. The Pagan Belief that shaped the Christian World. What emerges is that Mithras sacrificed the bull as a prelude to the 'sacramental supper' of Mithraic ritual. And that bull's blood actual blood -became the atoning agency which encouraged and prompted all regenerative and life-bringing forces on earth. And -as I noted earlier -'the blood of the bull' became, transferred to Christianity, 'the blood of the lamb'. The first detailed study of Mithraism was the two-volume book Mithraica by Baron Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, published in 1833 in Caen and Paris. Knowledge and coverage have grown apace since then, and a modern landmark was the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies at Manchester University, which resulted in two volumes of Proceedings, published in 1975. Before the 1830s, therefore, there was little valid evidence for questioning historically the Christian doctrine of atonement. Now, a century and three quarters later, the doctrine is less and less defensible objectively. A Communion Service without any hint of atonement would be a marvellous achievement. And, significantly, it was first nearly achieved in Unitarianism rather over a hundred years ago: in 1890 the Unitarian Minister the Revd. J.P.Hopps published a little book A NewBook of Common Prayer; and the Communion Service in that book (pp.71-73) goes a long way in the required direction, when compared with the notions then and now current in Christian orthodoxy. And such a Holy Communion Service, shorn of any hint of the doctrine of atonement, would -most importantly -be something in which those with Kay Millard's entirely understandable reservations could willingly at last participate. Amen.
Dr.Martin Pulbrook |