4294_4269

7/28/2019 4294_4269

1/12

This review was published by RBL 2005 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a

subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

RBL 02/2005

Betz, Hans Dieter

The Mithras Liturgy: Text, Translation and

Commentary

Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 18

Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Pp. xvii + 274.

Hardcover. 69.00. ISBN 3161481283.

John GeeInstitute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts,

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84602

Context Matters1

This book has all that one would hope for: a senior scholar preparing a critical edition and

commentary of an important text. Betz is Shailer Mathews Professor Emeritus of New

Testament at the University of Chicago and former president of the Society of Biblical

Literature. The text,PGMIV.475829, usually called the Mithras Liturgy, has previously

been published in several editions, as noted by Betz in his introduction (pp. 1113). Thevolume is elegant; the typesetting is all that one has come to expect from the publisher.

The photographs are reasonably clear, although those in my edition appear already to be

yellowing; the index is magnificent. The commentary is erudite, learned, and deeply

steeped in Hellenic philosophy.

The book begins with a list of abbreviations and sigla (pp. ixxviii). This is followed by a

discussion of the previous work on the text (pp. 113), including just over two pages

attempting to show that the provenance of the text is irrelevant (pp. 68). Betz then

provides a biography, almost a hagiography, of Albrecht Dieterich (pp. 1426). In the

following pages Betz tries to deal with the problem of where the text came from and whyit was placed where it was in the Egyptian codex in which it was found. Betz presents the

Greek text in an edited form (pp. 3949), not as it appears in the papyrus, but to the

extent possible in a readers edition a platonic ideal text where all the abbreviations are

1. At the request of the editors, this review has been revised (July 2005) from its original published version,the first section of which was entitled The Wrong Context.

7/28/2019 4294_4269

2/12



expanded, all the spelling and grammatical errors removed, and everything uncluttered by

any apparatus giving a hint of the extensive editing involved. Betz follows this with a

serviceable translation into flowing, if not always felicitous, English (pp. 5059). A

conspectus, minutely analyzing the text into outline form, succeeds the translation (pp.

6067). Then comes the commentary (pp. 88226). Betz has done a thorough job here

and has wrung every possible connection to the world of Hellenistic philosophy from the

text. I can scarcely imagine that anyone could come up with anything else to say along

those lines. The photographs of the text (pp. 227243) are perhaps the single most

important reason to obtain the volume, since this manuscript, for all its importance, has

almost no photographs available, and Betz deserves our deep gratitude for obtaining them

and publishing them. A lengthy bibliography (pp. 24555), and separate indices of Greek

words (pp. 25772) and terms not understood (pp. 27374) round out the volume. Subject

indices would have been helpful but are unfortunately absent. An index of passages cited

would have been useful too, had it been included. The running headers at the top of the

page cover such large blocks of the text that they are almost useless in finding ones way

around the commentary, and help is to be found neither in the table of contents nor in the

nonexistent indices.

The book is an homage to Albrecht Dieterich (18661908), who deserves the credit for

drawing attention to this important textand the blame for misnaming it. It is intriguing

that, although Dietrich dedicated his work on the text, Eine Mithrasliturgie, to the great

Belgian scholar of Mithraism, Franz Cumont, Cumont could not believe that the text was

Mithraic because it lacked (1) Mithraic eschatology, (2) the Mithraic doctrine of the

passage of the soul through the seven planetary spheres, and (3) Mithras as a guide in theascension (pp. 12). Betz agrees that a major problem with Dieterichs interpretation is

that the seven stages in the M[ithras] L[iturgy] only partly conform to the Roman

Mithraic mosaics (p. 136). There is a simple reason why some of the greatest scholars of

ancient Greek, Roman, and Mithraic religion, such as Cumont, Richard Reitzenstein,

Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Martin P. Nilsson, and Walter Burkert all rejected

the idea that the text was a Mithras liturgy (pp. 15): the text is not Mithraic.

Provenance

The so-called Mithras Liturgy is just one of a number of texts found in PGMIV. PGM

IV, also known as P. Bibl. Nat. Suppl. gr. 574, was part of an archive from Thebespurchased by Giovanni dAnastasi and subsequently scattered throughout Europe, in four

installments, in 1826, 1828, 1839, and in one final auction in 1857 after his death. The

fifty-eight papyri were some of the most coveted items in Anastasis collection and were

7/28/2019 4294_4269

3/12



purchased by museums from all over Europe.2

The third-century papyri were then

published individually in scattered venues that left no indication that they once belonged

together. In 1893 Albrecht Dieterich and his students assembled many of the documents

accidentally when they decided to publish all the documents of a particular type together.

Karl Priesendanz finally published a majority of the archive in 1928 and 1931 in his ill-

titled workPapyri Graecae Magicae, the Greek Magical Papyri. Unfortunately for

Priesendanz and those who have worked with the texts after him, the documents were

neither Greek, nor magical, and in many cases not even papyri. Garth Fowden first

reassembled the archive in 19863

and was followed by Bill Brashear and Robert Ritner in

1995.4

The full archive is listed in the following table:

Inventory Number PGM number Languages and

Scripts

General Contents

P. Berol. 5025 I Greek and OldCoptic

Ritual texts

P. Berol. 5026 II Greek Ritual texts

P. Bibl. Nat. Suppl.

gr. 574

IV Greek and Old

Coptic

Ritual texts

P. Holm. Greek Alchemical texts

P. Holm. Va Greek Ritual texts

P. Lond. 46 V Greek Ritual texts

P. Leiden I 384 XII Greek, Demotic,and Old Coptic

Ritual texts

P. Leiden J 395 XIII Greek and Old

Coptic

Ritual texts

P. Lond. demotic

10070 + P. Leiden J383

XIV / xiv Demotic, Hieratic,

Old Coptic andGreek

Ritual texts

P. Brit. Mus. 10588 lxi Demotic and Greek Ritual texts

P. Louvre E 3229 PDM Supplement Demotic, Hieratic,and Old Coptic

Ritual texts

P. Leiden J 397 Greek Alchemical texts

P. Leiden J 398 Demotic and Greek Ritual texts

The various texts in this collection all come from Thebes in Egypt, hundreds of milesfrom the nearest Mithraeum. They are often in the same handwriting of a bilingual scribe

2. Warren R. Dawson, Anastasi, Sallier, and Harris and Their Papyri,JEA 35 (1949): 160.

3. Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 16873.

4. William M. Brashear, The Greek Magical Papyri: An Introduction and Survey; Annotated Bibliography

(1928-1994),ANRW2.18.5:34003412, 348485; Robert K. Ritner, Egyptian Magical Practice under theRoman Empire: The Demotic Spells and their Religious Context,ANRW2.18.5:333379.

7/28/2019 4294_4269

4/12



who can write both Greek and Demotic with some degree of proficiency, who switches

between Greek and Demotic with ease and sprinkles his Demotic with Hieratic. This

indicates that the owner of the documents was an Egyptian priest who belonged to the

priesthood servicing the temples at Thebes and that the texts are the product of temple

scriptoria and come from temple archives. The primary context of the texts should be

sought in the sphere of the Egyptian temple rather than the sphere of mythical wandering

Greek magicians, whatever they may have been. Betz is aware of this problem but

speculates an absence of concrete evidence concerning the time, location and

circumstances of the discovery, even though all sources agree that they came from

Thebes (p. 7). He hypothesizes that the volume was written elsewhere and would

presuppose a wandering magician traveling around (p. 7). He even claims that the

Mithras Liturgy explicitly refers to such sharing of ritual texts among magicians (p. 8),

although the text never mentions magicians of any sort, and I failed to find the passage

to which Betz refers despite repeated searches. Betzs entire background for the text is a

baseless presupposition. Betz himself notes that terms such as , , are not found in the Mithras Liturgy and are, in fact conspicuous by their absence (p.

94), yet he feels impelled to impose them. The use of the pejorative term magician for

the author and owner of the text (pp. 7, 34, 135, 161, 193) is an unfortunate indication of

a modern bias against an ancient religion that, were it directed against a living religion,

would be termed bigotry.

Errors in Transcription

Unfortunately, errors in reading the papyrus abound. Betzs text is not identical with the

papyrus, but because he provided no apparatus to his text edition, there is almost no wayof knowing that without scouring the footnotes. Some of the textual changes are judicious

editorial corrections and are discussed in the commentary, but they should have been

noted in an apparatus in the transcription. Others are uncorrected errors in transcription.

Even where the editorial corrections are correct, the number of errors in transcription is

far too high. I would also have been more liberal in dotting, but I will omit those from

this list unless the transcription has another error. One cannot blame Betz for this, since

he makes it abundantly clear that he did not read the text from the original papyrus and

never consulted the photographs himself (e.g., the note 39 and throughout the textual

commentary in the notes) but instead relied on previously published editions. With those

caveats, the following are places where Betzs text differs from the papyrus:

p. 39 line 475 for the papyrus readsp. 39 line 477 for the papyrus reads p. 39 line 482 for- the papyrus reads []-p. 39 line 483 for the papyrus reads

7/28/2019 4294_4269

5/12



p. 39 line 484 for the papyrus reads (see pp. 99100)p. 40 line 502 for the papyrus reads (p. 113 n. 146)p. 40 line 507 for the papyrus reads (p. 116 n. 165)p. 40 line 508 for the papyrus reads p. 40 line 508 for- the papyrus reads []-p. 40 line 509 for the papyrus reads []p. 40 line 510 for the papyrus reads []p. 40 line 523 for the papyrus reads (p. 123 n. 210)p. 40 line 528 for the papyrus reads (p. 126 n. 225)p. 40 line 530 for the papyrus reads p. 40 line 533 for the papyrus reads (p. 128 n. 244)p. 40 line 534 for the papyrus reads (p. 128 n. 244)p. 41 line 540 for, [] the papyrus reads ,

[]p. 41 line 541 for the papyrus reads p. 41 line 541 for [] the papyrus reads []p. 41 line 544 for the papyrus reads p. 41 line 565 for the papyrus reads (Betz changes this to on p. 149)p. 42 line 583 for the papyrus reads p. 42 line 583 for the papyrus reads (p. 155 n. 388)p. 42 line 585 for the papyrus reads (p. 155 n. 387)p. 42 line 590 for the papyrus reads p. 42 line 591 for the papyrus reads p. 42 line 597 for the papyrus reads (p. 161)p. 43 line 598 for the papyrus reads (p. 161)p. 43 line 610 for the papyrus reads p. 43 line 613 for the papyrus reads p. 43 line 614 for the papyrus reads p. 44 line 636 for - the papyrus reads - (p. 167 n. 447 with disagreement)p. 44 line 641 for the papyrus reads p. 44 line 645 for consistencys sake should read ()() (p. 171 n. 469)p. 44 line 651 for the papyrus reads p. 44 line 654 for the papyrus reads

p. 45 line 665 for the papyrus reads p. 45 line 668 for the papyrus reads p. 45 line 677 for the papyrus reads (p. 178 n. 523)p. 45 line 682 for the papyrus reads (p. 179 n. 528)p. 45 line 684 forthe papyrus reads p. 45 line 684 for the papyrus reads (p. 179 n. 531)

7/28/2019 4294_4269

6/12



p. 45 line 691 for the papyrus reads p. 46 line 709 for the papyrus reads (p. 186 n. 574)p. 46 line 710 for the papyrus reads (p. 187 n. 579)p. 46 line 718 for consistencys sake should read ()()p. 47 line 732 for- the papyrus reads - (p. 199 n. 634)p. 47 line 746 for the papyrus reads (p. 203 n. 660)p. 47 line 752 for the papyrus reads (p. 206 n. 674)p. 47 line 755 for the papyrus reads (p. 208 n. 685)p. 47 line 758 for the papyrus reads (p. 208 n. 691)p. 48 line 761 for the papyrus reads (p. 208 n. 691)p. 49 line 789 for the papyrus reads () (p. 218 n. 751)p. 49 line 793 for the papyrus reads () (p. 219 n. 759)p. 49 line 805 for the papyrus reads

p. 49 line 806 for the papyrus reads []p. 49 line 813 for the papyrus reads () (p. 224 n. 793)p. 118 and note 179, for the papyrus reads []p. 141 last paragraph for the papyrus reads p. 141 note 302 should be deleted.

p. 149 for the papyrus reads p. 154 note 385 the first should read p. 155 note 385 should read p. 159 the papyrus reads p. 159 for the papyrus reads

To this list of changes in the readings of the papyrus, we may also note the following

typographical errors (I do not pretend to have caught them all), all of which coincidentally

relate to Egyptian:

p. vi has Thomas Dusa instead of Thomas Dousa

p. 96 note 42 has (bzw) instead of (b)s) orb3wp. 154 note 382 has sbz forsn)orsb3p. 154 note 382 has ntr forntr

p. 158 note 409 forTw3ptread Tw3 pt

Betz presents the text in such a way as to make the ancient author appear to be a polishedStoic philosopher, fluentnay, nativein Greek, whose text only has a couple of errors

in copying. The text on the papyrus does not bear this out. Admittedly, some of the

differences are spelling errors that reflect the pronunciation of the local dialect, but this is

an important point when it comes to understanding the author and scribe of the text. In

some cases the papyrus variants are mere trifles; in others they are significant variations

7/28/2019 4294_4269

7/12



that impact translation and interpretation. For example, in line 509 (incorrectly read ) is for Demotic ir wyn, Coptic r- ouoein to shine, and indicates that thisparticularvox magica is actually Egyptian in origin. Another example worth examining is

the papyruss use of for in line 528. If translated according towhat is actually in the papyrus (), Betzs translation shouldread according to the decree of an immutable god instead of according to the

immutable decree of god (pp. 51, 12526). I think that Betzs translation is correct, but

it makes one wonder: Since and are not graphically similar in the papyrus (lookingmore like u and n), why is the case wrong? What kind of Greek author would make that

error? The answer: one whose native language did not have cases, like Hebrew, Aramaic,

or Egyptian. There is an additional reason to think that the native language of the author

of this line might have been Egyptian. In Egyptian, adjectival expressions follow the

noun they modify in a genitive construction. This phenomenon is common in Demotic

and standard in Coptic.5 The error can be explained as (1) a copyists error, (2) a

grammatical error by a nonnative Greek author, or (3) a calque of Egyptian grammar.

Grammar, Vocabulary, and Syntax

One of the more intriguing clues to the origin of the text is some of the grammatical,

vocabulary, and syntactic peculiarities of the text. For instance, one of the grammatical

peculiarities of the text that Betz notes is the use of four parallel purpose clauses (with

) that stand as independent sentences (lines 502515, pp. 11419). Betz cites a fewGreek grammars that give examples of where clauses are used as imperatives (p. 114n. 153), but their examples for the phenomenon are Egyptian papyri. This construction

makes sense in Egyptian, where the subjunctive sdm=f is used for purpose clauses,optatives, and polite imperatives. These passages should be seen as a calque on Egyptian

grammar; comparable claques have been found in Aramaic translations of Egyptian

formulae.6

The multiple calques on Egyptian grammar, or Egyptianisms, indicate that

whether or not the document was written in Greek or translated into Greek, the native

language of the author was Egyptian.

In vocabulary, too, the document is unusual. Some of the words are attested only in

Egyptian contexts. Thus all pagan usage of the term (line 482) seem to goback to the Egyptian Anebo (p. 99 n. 60). The closest parallels to (line 491)

are the Egyptian alchemist Zosimus and Iamblichus (p. 108). The presence of Egyptian

5. Wilhelm Spiegelberg, Demotische Grammatik (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universittsbuchhandlung,

1925), 4244; Walter C. Till, Koptische Grammatik(2nd ed.; Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopdie, 1978),

6671.

6. See Bezalel Porten and John Gee, Aramaic Funerary Practices in Egypt, in The World of theAramaeans II(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 28083.

7/28/2019 4294_4269

8/12



words is also marked such as the use of (Egyptian k)p, Demotic qpe) incense,which Betz acknowledges as an Egyptian term (p. 118 n. 182). Betz also concedes that

several of the names of the stars match the Egyptian decans (pp. 17778). A number of

phrases have clear equivalents in Egyptian. Thus (line 482) is a translationofnt;r ().7 The phrase (line 489) is a translation of the Egyptian godBibiou (b)-b)w).8 The term (line 528) can be viewed as a translation ofEgyptian wd;-ntr.9 This is just a sample of the vocabularly that indicates Egyptian origin.

The numerous Old Coptic words and phrases included that Betz calls voces magicae are a

rich resource that is difficult to assess until cracked, a problem made more difficult

because, while Demotic had five hs and two glottal stops, Greek has none and Old Coptic

transcriptions in Greek can potentially drop out seven Egyptian phonemes. Greek also

collapses both Egyptian sibilants into a single one. On the other hand, Egyptian tends not

to write vowels, and thus seven Greek letters represent items that will not appear in any

Egyptian script. Egyptian dental and palatal stops have collapsed by this time, so an

original four Egyptian phonemes were represented by any one of three Greek ones.

Egyptian velar and uvular stops have also collapsed in pronunciation, and the original

three phonemes were represented by any of the three Greek phonemes.10

The voces

magicae are thus an untapped resource for understanding the text, for which Betz has

provided little, if any, enlightenment.

Format

Internal indications support the identification of the documents as Egyptian, as the

general pattern followed by the ritual texts is the same pattern used in the Book of theDead, the earlier Coffin Texts, and other Egyptian ritual texts. It consists of preliminary

comments, the spoken portion of the ritual, and terminal comments.11

The preliminary

and terminal comments are slightly interchangeable as different copies of some rituals

move the same passages between the two sections; they often comprise a title for the

manuscript, directions for its use, and encomia on its effectiveness. The format ofPGM

IV.475829 fits the format for Egyptian ritual texts as, indeed, does most of the PGM,

with passages in PGM XII being particularly interesting as they use Demotic for the

7. See Lexikon der gyptischen Gtter und Gtterbezeichnungen (ed. Christian Leitz; 7 vols.; Leuven:

Peeters, 2002), 4:395417.

8. Ibid., 2:67879.

9. See the discussion in Jan Quaegebeur, Letters de Thot et Dcrets pour Osiris, inFunerary Symbols and

Religion, (ed. J. H. Kamstra, H. Milde, and K. Wagtendonk; Kampen: Kok, 1988), 10526; Laszlo Kakosy,Three Decrees of Gods from Theban Tomb 32, OLP23 (1992): 31132.

10. For a discussion of the problem, see Janet H. Johnson, The Dialect of the Demotic Magical Papyrus of

London and Leiden, in Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1976), 10532.

11. T. G. Allen, The Book of the Dead or Going Forth by Day (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1974), 2.

7/28/2019 4294_4269

9/12



preliminary and terminal comments and Greek and Old Coptic for the spoken portion,

presumably because those scripts preserve vowels not present in the Demotic. One of the

interesting aspects of the format ofPGM IV.475829 is the inclusion of directions or

offering material punctuating actions described in the spoken portion (e.g., incense in line 512). This is a common treatment of certain ritual texts, particularly

those dealing with offerings that can be traced back to the Pyramid Texts.12

Deities

It is instructive to list the various identifiable deities in the text and group them according

to their origin. The following deities are mentioned in the so-called Mithras Liturgy:

Mithraic deities

Mithras (once, line 481)

Jewish deities

Iao (once, line 593)

Egyptian deities

Bibiou / b)-b)w (once, line 489)

Harchandara /H9r-h}nty-irty (once, line 631)

Harei /H9r-ii (once, line 511)

Harpi /H9r-PHorus of Buto (once, line 511)

Horus (once, line 672)

Harmachis /H9r-m-)h}t(once, line 672)

Pre / Re (twice, lines 505, 717)

Thoth (once, line 575)

Greco-Egyptian deitiesAion / Shai (twice, lines 520-21, 594)

Arktos /Msh}tyw (once, line 700)

Helios / Re (twice, lines 481, 640)

Tyche / Rnnwtt (twice, lines 665-666)

Egyptian deities, whether under Greek or Egyptian names, appear sixteen times more

frequently in the text than deities from any other pantheon. It is probably significant that

the only mention of Mithras is of Helios-Mithras, where Mithras is syncretized with the

Egyptian deity Re under the Greek name Helios. Betz himself notes that usually Mithras

was identified with Saturn rather than the sun (p. 137). If we consider that there is

evidence of the Egyptian co-opting Iao as early as the Persian period, then we have thestrange situation where all the deities mentioned in the so-called Mithras Liturgy are

Egyptian. At one point, Betz speculates that a particular god is certainly Mithras,

12. Pyramid Texts 32-201 22117.

7/28/2019 4294_4269

10/12



although it is peculiar that his name is not mentioned (p. 182), but this simply shows that

it is his assumption imposed upon the text.

Subject Matter

Above all, the subject matter covered in the text is Egyptian. Initiation is known in Egypt

and traceable in the historical texts in the Third Intermediate Period,13

in the iconography

to the New Kingdom, and in the ritual texts to at least the Middle Kingdom,14

with one of

them attested as early as the Pyramid Texts of the Sixth Dynasty. That the initiate would

ascend to heaven as a bird (line 484) is attested in a number of texts dating as early as the

Old Kingdom15

and lasting with certainty until the Roman period. The connection of a

seven-starred polar constellation with a bull (pp. 17480) fits perfectly with an Egyptian

milieu, since in Egypt the Dipper is seen as a bulls foreleg made of seven stars, all of

which are attributed to gods,16

and sometimes depicted as having a bulls head.17

The seven

virgins attested in the text also have been found in Egyptian texts.18 A comparison of the

text with other Egyptian initiation rituals from the Greco-Roman period shows that it is

quite at home in the Egyptian milieu:19

Book of the Dead 125 Initiation scenes on

the Bark Shrine at

Karnak

Document of

Breathings Made by

Isis

Apuleius

(Metamorphosis 9)

PGMIV 475829 (the

so-called Mithras

Liturgy)

Pure after preparation

for appointed day

(aS3)

10-day abstinence (23) 7-day purification

(73234)

Secrecy (1) Silence (24) Silence (55781, 623)

Washing (cS6, cT2) Washing Washing (2) Washing (23)

Naming (3) Instructions (23)

13. Jean-Marie Kruchten, Les annales des prtres de Karnak (XXIXXIIImes dynasties) et autres textes

contemporains relatifs linitiation des prtres dAmon (OLA 32; Leuven: Departement Orintalistiek,

1989).

14. Walter Federn, The Transformations in the Coffin Texts: A New Approach,JNES19 (1960): 24157; Edward F. Wente, Mysticism in Pharaonic Egypt?JNES41 (1982): 16179.

15. Pyramid Text 669 196170; ECT 271274 IV 915, 278 IV 2325, 283 IV 33, 28687 IV 3639,29294 IV 4347, 302 IV 5355, 312313 IV 6893, 386 V 53, 678 VI 305, 703 VI 33435, 955 VII 169-

70, 989 VII 19799; Book of the Dead 7778, 8384, 86.

16. Book of the Dead 17; ECT 335 IV 184326.

17. E.g., Peter F. Dorman, The Tombs of Senenmut(New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1991), plates

8485.18. See Robert K. Ritner, The Wives of Horus and the Philenna Papyrus (PGM XX), in Egyptian

Religion: The Last Thousand Years (ed. Willy Clarysse, Antoon Schoors, and Harco Willems; Leuven:

Peeters, 1998), 2:102741.19 Adapted from John Gee, The Requirements of Ritual Purity in Ancient Egypt, (Ph.D. dissertation, YaleUniversity, 1998), 279, table 7.1.

7/28/2019 4294_4269

11/12



Book of the Dead 125 Initiation scenes on

the Bark Shrine at

Karnak

Document of

Breathings Made by

Isis

Apuleius

(Metamorphosis 9)

PGMIV 475829 (the

so-called Mithras

Liturgy)

Clothing (cT2) Clothing (includes

amulets)

Clothing (9) Clothing (23) Amulets (81324)

Anointing (cT2) Anointing (744, 772

74)

Entry into Sanctuary

(cS18)


(also called heaven)


(23)

Ascends to heaven

(48384)

Sees sun set (3) Approaches death (23)

Members deified (3

4)

Goes through elements

(23)

Goes through elements

(485536)

Transformed (5) Transformed (52237)

Breathing (67) Breathing (53755)

Sun appears (9) Sees sun at night (23) Sees sun (57683)

In presence of god Joins gods (11) Admitted before gods

(23)

Meets gods (62934,

65566, 67387, 692

710)

Adores gods (23) Worships gods

including planetary

gods (63854, 66672,

68791, 71123)

Identified with Re (24) Identified with Re

(505506)

Offerings (12) Repast (24)

Freedom of Movement

(14)

Goes on way (24)

There is not space to go into specific parallels between the wording of the various

documents, but all the elements in the so-called Mithras Liturgy match elements from

identified Egyptian initiation rituals during Greco-Roman times. Relevant here also is

Apuleiuss description of the book that contained the instructions for his initiation as

written in special letters: partim figuris cuiusce modi animalium concepti sermonis

compendiosa verba suggerentes, partim nodosis et in modum ae tuosis capreolatimque

condenses, some which used the shapes of animals to suggest abbreviated words of

ritual [i.e., hieroglyphic], some knotted and circular shape and twisted like vines.20

Symbols matching this description are found in PGM IV, cols. 6, 30 and, in fact, are

20Aupleius,Metamorphosis 11.22.

7/28/2019 4294_4269

12/12



common throughout thePGM, thePDM, and associated archives. Apuleius connects this

style of characters with Egyptian religion, and, in fact, it is a style that survives into

Coptic. Thus the book containing the text under review matches the general description

of books known to contain initiation rituals for the Egyptian religion. It also matches, in

general outline, what is known of the content of initiation rituals in Egyptian religion

from the same general time period in broad outlines and many particulars.

Conclusions

We have a text found in Egypt, coming from an Egyptian temple archive, dealing with an

Egyptian subject, in an Egyptian fashion, in an Egyptian format, using Egyptian offering

lists, invoking Egyptian deities, employing Egyptian words, and calquing Egyptian

grammar that poorly matches Mithraic material. Nothing in the text is necessarily Greek

or Mithraic, but several of the subjects dealt with in the text are definitely not Greek or

Mithraic; on the other hand, there is nothing in the text that is not Egyptian. The simplest

explanation is that that the text is Egyptian, not Mithraic. Efforts to see the text as

Mithraic are misguided. The references to Stoicism that Betz sees throughout the book

bring to mind the Egyptian priest Chaeremon, who was also thought to be a Stoic

philosopher;21

perhaps the Egyptian religion looked like Stoic philosophy to Greco-

Roman philosophers then and now. We cannot blame Betz for his unfamiliarity with

Egypt since it is not his specialty, and he admits that his knowledge of the culture that

wrote and preserved the text is derived from another whose names he misspells in his

acknowledgments (pp. vii and 154 n. 382).

Betzs book demonstrates that it is possible to provide a highly learned and seeminglyplausible commentary for a work while still setting that work in the wrong contextual

framework. The result, while neither useless nor worthless, is ultimately irrelevant. In a

field where the context of every biblical book is or has been disputed, this ought to be

sobering.

21. Pieter W. van der Horst, Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher(Leiden: Brill, 1984).

4294_4269

Documents