E. Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity (Metzger)
There has always been, it seems, a struggle for scholars to be judicial in their approach to the relation of extra-biblical materials to the Bible, whether it's materials pertaining to O. T. backgrounds or N. T. backgrounds. Either they tend to define the message and meaning of the Scripture by its historical context or they disavow any influence of the culture upon the sacred writers.12 Perhaps there is a better, truer path.
The "better" path according to Metzger leads us to a more critical, thoughtful approach. I think that he's right and that these materials should be handled in a historical-critical fashion. Dr. Metzger gives 6 criteria for comparing the materials, but perhaps the most significant include the following three: 1) there is relatively little evidence concerning the actual content of the mysteries themselves; 2) there appears to be significant, though often overlooked differences, between the Palestinian church and the Greek people groups involved in the mysteries and 3) the differences between the materials must be allowed to speak as well as the similarities. This last point is crucial because it is the defining idea when the final statement is made about the relation the N. T. has to the mysteries and vice-versa.
F. Summary
There are parallels between the mystery texts and the N. T. In some cases knowledge of the mysteries helps us greatly in our understanding of the background to a N. T. passage13 and at times it helps for understanding N. T. vocabulary better.14 There are also practices that seemed to parallel the N.T.15 And the one great event of the N. T., the resurrection, appears to have its counterpart in the mysteries.16
We must remember, though, that there are many differences in these parallels as well, and that the essential world-view of the mystery writers is not the same as that of the apostles. This accounts for the use of similar religious language and forms but investing them with new meaning in the light of Christ. In the final analysis, all alleged parallels must be treated cautiously and substantiated on the basis of clear affinities established through critical study.17 bible.org
I think there are reputable scholars who have considered both myth and mythology in relation to early christian literature. I am still looking for Mithraic references in particular. FF Bruce writes a chapter called "Myth and History in the book 'History, Criticism and Faith,' but I see no reference to Mithra in it. He is interested in Bultmann's de-mythologizing hermeneutic and gnosticism. The "mystery religions" in general also receive significant attention. (The numbers in the text refer to footnotes or bibliographical literature. In general I find the references cited on the Mithra site to be as apologetic as the "Turlow scholar", while people like Metzger are much more up front about their work.)
12 Consider the evolution of the debate surrounding the use of extant Biblical materials to shed light on O.T. texts. My understanding at this point is that scholars can, at times, jump on band-wagons, all the time feeling like they're critically evaluating parallels. Perhaps closer attention should be paid to why they're answering the questions the way they do. Cf. Cyrus H. Gordon, "Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets," The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, vol. 2, ed. D. N. Freedman and E. F. Campbell (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1957), 21-33. T. J. Meek, "Mesopotamian Legal Documents," Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1955), 219-220. George E. Mendehall, "Mari," The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, vol. 2, ed. D. N. Freedman and E. F. Campbell (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1957), 3-20. H. H. Rowley, "Recent Discovery and the Patriarchal Age," BJRL 32(1949): 44-79. M. J. Selman, "Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age," Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 91-139. |
