Talk:Mithraism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Possible Plagiarism Violation

Hi, I realise Iv been making a lot of posts recently, but an important issue has come up that needs to be discussed. During the course of carrying out research (in part inorder to make additions to this webpage) I came across a page on mithraism, that was part of a larger (fairly weird) website. As i was reading it i realised that i recognised lots of phrases, comments aand passages. When i looked carefully, i realised that large sections of this particular webpage were word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, identical to this wikipage. Now, its perfectly possible that the people who run that particular site have copied and pasted their material from here, in which case there's no problem. However, it also created at least the possibility that some of the wikipage may have been copied exactly from another webpage. Im not entirely certain of the ins and outs of the wikipedia plagiarism rules, but i am certain that you could never submit an academic essay including such direct copy and pasting (without citation and quotation marks) you would be cruxified. Again, like i said, its probably the case that they copied wikipedia and not the other way around. However it probably needs to be checked out. So if anyone knows anything about the writing of the 'mithraic ranks', or 'iconography of mithraism' sections, and can vouch for their authenticity, then could they just stick up a quick message to that effect, so as to lay the matter to rest. Thanks Mattlav 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mithra the person?

Hey this is totally unrelated to any of the stuff below, and perhaps im just revealing my ignorance, but has anyone ever heard of mithra/mithras the prophet/scholar? Iv never heard of anything like this before, but an Iranian person who i mentioned my writing about Mithras too has just spoken to me about him being some kind of real life 7th century BC person, widely recognized in Iran. and i note that two or three people on this page appear to have posted stuff along these lines; such as the bit below where someone describes what mithra (the actual person, not the religion or its followers) beleived(???). I quote from below;

"Mithra believed in Zoroaster's school of thought. However, as many Iranians and as Zoroaster himself, Mithra did not consider Zoroaster a prophet. In fact, both Zoroaster and Mithra did not believe in any prophet being in touch with god like the Judaic version."

Whats going on? am i completely out of the loop or what. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Similarities to Christianity changes

Hi perhaps someone would like to tell me what they think their doing vis a vis the similarities to christianity section. A couple of days ok I added a short piece at the start of this section, pointing out the problems with trying to compare mithraism and christianity, most noticably that we dont really know what mithraic beliefs and practices were. The piece as far as i could tell, was about as objective as it comes, and merely made clear to people that they need to keep a cautious mind when reading the stuff that came next, and understand that the following stuff was conjectural, not neccessarily concrete fact.I did not delete or edit anything in the section that followed, except to add a title saying 'Theories of similarity (cumont and larson)' above it, to emphasis that it represented one particular take on the similarites, and not neccessarily one shared by everyone. given the great deal of argument over this section, and the line by line attacks on what that section contains that have been presented by people here, it seems to me that the things i have added are not only right, but essential if the article is to be truly objective and have NPOV.

Now i'v found that someone, probably the person who originally wrote the piece, has reverted everything iv done, so the piece is just as bad as it was originally. In the explanation, they've said that theyve reverted the changes on the grounds that 'the section includes citations throughout'. I guess they are therefor arguing that anything that can be backed up with sources is objective and entitled to be included in the article. This, i think, is part of exactly what is going wrong on pages like this. Just because you can find an author who agrees with you, that doesn't make your argument correct or objective. I can find published authors who've argued that the earth is hollow and man was put on this planet by aliens, that doesn't make it true. In the case of the principle authors this section is based on, the most imortant, Cumont, has been dead for more than a hundred years, and virtually the whole of mithraic scholarship since 1971 has been dedicated to overturning and discrediting most of his theories. Given this, and the fairly doubtful statements included in the section, i think i would have been within my rights to delete the entire section and start again.

this however, brings me on to the even more important point, which is that i havn't actually changed or deleted anything that is included here or that anyone else has written. All iv done is added a piece stating that the ideas contained within need to be treated with some caution. Given their dubious character and phrasing, and their lack of support among the current scientific consensus, i think thats the very least that should be done.

If the piece was ok as it is, then it wouldn't have that warning sign up. All iv been trying to do is make this section fit the neutrality and accuracy requirments of wikipedia. if someone is just going to revert any attempts to change what they've written, then it undermines the entire point of this site.

PS; they also added the words; please discuss any changes to controversial sections before hand. given the fact that changes to that section have been argued about and demanded for what looks like at least six months, i would've thought that would be sufficient. But if the person in question had checked, they would have noticed that i stuck up a short piece about the changes i was making in the relevant 'similarities' section below. I hope therefore that this argument satisifes them in everyway, and i am now going to try and edit the section again; perhaps more thoroughly this time.

Mattlav 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points Matt - you are right and they are wrong - they should have discussed whether to revert your sensible changes before taking action. So I have restored them, until they justify their retention. TomHennell 00:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon166 - there is no point in revert war here. There are three points at issues, as I see it;

a. that Matt's contributions may not have been presented in a sufficiently NPOV style,

b. the more general issue of how Wikipedia may make room for the contributions of those who continue to maintain and defend postions that have been wholly discarded in the current academic mainstream of the field,

c. a tricky epistemological issue of the extent to which lists of "similarities" (which are of their nature subjective), are proper to a descriptive article. "Similarities" are not in themselves evidence; to be used as evidence they must be combined with with an assessment of differences. We may only infer a link, where we find agreement on key points of similarity, without any points of difference.

on the first, I suggest that Matt's contributions should be restored, but that he should be invited to repharase them in a more NPOV format.

on the second, I suggest that Matt's approach has merit - include a section allowing contributions that relate to superceded scholarship - but with a warning that the views presented, and the authors cited, are outside the current mainstream.

on the third, it might been suggested that the entire section should be made into a separate article "Mithraism and Christianity" , and that any such posting on the descriptive article should be removed to the "subjective" article. I am not myself in favour of this, as there are too many persons who wish to make contributions on similarity, and so the edit task will create constant effort and ill-will. In addition, there are in the evidence demonstrable links between Mithraism and Christianity (e.g. in the iconography of the Magi, or in the polemics of such Patristic authors as Tertullian), and these are quite proper to the article.

I shall wait a day or so beofre restoring Matts changes until you have had an opportunity to respond. TomHennell 09:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Anon166 Thanks for your support Tom, but im still completely confused by Anon166's arguments and actions. Is he pro or anti the views of Cumont et al about similarities, and their inclusion in the page? He seems to be saying above that he thinks that they are now largely discredited, and perhaps should not be in the page at all. If this is really what he thinks, then its a view i have a lot of sympathy with. Ideally i think the whole section needs to be rewritten. It should probably include a discussion of the apparent similarities betwen mithraism and some aspects of early christianity, and make reference to the claims by some people that one may have fed into the other. I think it is important that there should be such a section, since i think one of the main reasons people are drawn to this page is because they've heard that there is this secret pagan religion that christianity is a ripoff of, and that loads of christianity is really copied from, but the catholic church hushed it up etc etc. For such people, a section which discusses the claims but also all the dangers in making those kind of camparisons and which explodes a few of the popular myths, could be very useful. It wouldn't be the first time that a history text has said

'it used to be thought that x, but in recent years the wieght of scholarly opinion has shifted in favour of interpreting it in terms of Y; although some scholars still maintain that z'.

I think that such a discussion is important, if only because if we dont raise and discuss these issues, someone is just going to assume that we've rejected/censored them, and stick them up without qualification anyway.

The kind of general revision outlined above is always what i personally had in mind anyway, but i stuck up my warning paragraphs as a kind of stopgap to deal with the problems of that section's objectivity and accuracy, until i or someone else got round to a proper edit.

So thats my view on the section generally, but to get back to the immediate discussion on the constant reverts; could Anon166 possibly put up on explanation of where he's coming from and what hes trying to propose, because im still confused with regards to his perspective. His post above seems to imply doubt over much of the sections content, which is fine, but his deletion of my warning message and covering paragraphs would appear to imply the opposite. Also, he questions at one point whether what i wrote was truly NPOV, and refers to "wholesale removal of footnoted material". Now, i dont know if someone elses actions and changes have got mixed up with mine or what, but none of that makes sense. In the short piece i wrote, i didnt actually discuss any points of issue or include any actual content, i just highlighted the limits of our knowledge about mithras and the need to be careful when comparing it to christianity. I dont know how such a piece could possibly have any kind of view at all, given the absence of any actual factual statements or arguments. And as far as wholesale deletions go, im not aware that i deleted or changed ANY existing words at all, apart from a single word change for the purposes of grammar. So if Anon could possibly post up some kind of explanation or elaboration of a) the perspective he's trying to argue and b) what he means by all these things and what he's refering to, i would really appreciate it.

Mattlav 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Commonalities due to Common Archetypal Borrowings

There is little in Christianity that is original. Much of what is in Christianity can be found in various religions dating back to at least 6000 B.C. Most notably, Horus the christ, son of Osiris from the Egyptian mythos. I'm sure the same can be said for Mithracism. The similarities between these religions probably have more to do with the commonalities in their historical borrowings. One major juncture in history for these two religions would have been the Council of Niceae called by the Emperor Constantine to organize Christianity as we know it today. Constantine was almost certainly familiar with the religion of his troops and there was an opportunity at this time for some cross over. However, the Council of Niceae is fairly well documented and there does not seem to be any overt references to Constantine injecting Mithraic practice into Christianity at this council.

Laughingskeptic 22 November 2006

Communion wafers

I have heard that mithraists ate communion wafers and it might possibly have influenced the practice of transubstansiation in catholicism. any information about this wold be much apreciated?

Mithraism, in common with all Roman mystery cults - and indeed Roman religious clubs (collegia) - held regular communal meals. In at least one of these meals (probably that associated with the Autumn equinox) the cult members re-enacted the sacred banquet of Sol and Mithras. One relief depicting this autumnal meal shows the main foods eaten as being grapes, and round buns inscribed with a diagonal cross (like hot-cross buns).

It appears very likely, though we have no literary references to back it up, that the buns and grapes were considered to be the fruits of respectively the semen and blood of the sacred bull, ritually killed by Mithras, in an event in the sacred narrative associated with Spring (a number of reliefs show plants sprouting where the blood and semen has been sprinkled).

the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is very much later in development - 9th/10th century at the earliest - far too late to have been influenced at all by Mithraism, which was totally extinct by the 5th Century. TomHennell 09:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

I'm just thinking that maybe having the warning sign up on the page right now is possibly a bit much, since there's not really much of an argument going on, and I know that personally, that big ugly sign deters me from even wanting to read that :/
Tirentu 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not post the warning, but I agree with it. The article as it stands mixes elements that are good, elements that are speculative, and elements that are entirley unsupported by the archeolgical evidence. Moveover, the "Point of View" is dominated by the theories of Franz Cumont (which were once very much the standard, but are now entirely supeceded in the Mihthraic scholarship). I have intended for some time completely rewriting the article to conform with the current standard; best represented, in my view, in the enclcylopedia article by Alison Griffith in the references. Now you have prompted me, I had better get on with it. TomHennell 00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know a huge amount about Mithraism, though more than the average person.

But, there are some big problems in this article.

Mithraism and Christianity both possess similar religious doctrines.

OK, but...

The cult of Mithra taught that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions, and inhabited a body upon birth.

Not Biblical. Never heard it in church. Never heard it from Augustine or anyone. Christianity does not teach pre-existing souls. It's not incompatible, I suppose, but this makes it sound like a specific teaching.

"Yes it is Its called the Guff or well of souls"

Life then becomes a great struggle between good and evil, spirit and matter, the children of light versus the children of darkness (identical to Pythagoreanism, Essenism, and Pauline theology).

There are two mentions of being children of light in the Epistles. Hardly a central doctrine. Also, calling it a battle of 'spirit vs. matter' is a big stretch, far more gnostic than traditional Christian. In fact, that is pretty much the definition of gnosticism. Yes, you can call upon the fall and sinful flesh, to an EXTENT. But it's pretty obscure, and as mentioned the big splitting point with gnosticism. And also, how much of a struggle is it, really, in Christian theology? Unlike a more polytheistic approach, the fact is that God is never presented as being in any sort of danger from the Enemy whatsoever. The idea of it being a great battle is much more related to Zoroastrianism than Christianity proper.

All souls were to be judged by Mithra (represented as a bull) with the elect going to heaven, and the earthly and evil being annihilated in a great battle. Mithraism divided the human race into three classes: the spiritual Elect, the wicked, and those who try to be good but can't seem to overcome evil. The Elect go straight to heaven, while the good-intentioned will have to wait until judgment to be resurrected, where the wicked will be destroyed.

This is not Christian doctrine either. I mean, it just isn't. Hard to prove a negative, I know, but there just isn't anything about two judgements in Pauline theology. Actually, the article doesn't even say there's a crossover, which is odd given what section it's in.

Curious... Isn't that an awful lot like this Heaven-Purgatory-Hell thingy christians have? Ok, maybe Dante's Inferno doesn't count as a reference, but it's not like this isn't a pretty ambiguous thematic, after all, and I suppose that's what the author was talking about. So this is NOT part of christian dogma at all? --Stephan, 25.01.2006

The doctrine of Purgatory only came about in the Middle Ages in the Roman Catholic Church (though they'll say it was hinted at earlier), but is absent from Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic Orthodoxy (which are both just as old as the Roman Catholics), and of course from Protestantism. Also, Christianity doesn't have the wicked being destroyed (except maybe in some Psalms), but generally talks about them suffering forever in one way or another, Jehovah's Witnesses being the main exception I know of on that point. So even if we admit a similarity between Mithraism and the Roman Catholic Heaven-Purgatory-Hell thing, the Catholic version came 1000 years too late to have copied from Mithraism. Wesley 03:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably not such a great idea to use Dante as any sort of historical/doctrinal reference, but adding that comparaison in there is a pretty good idea - even though they're not too closely related. Might be purely coincidental, like a lot of the similarities here seem to be :/. Tirentu 19:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Both Christianity and Mithraism prided themselves in brotherhood and organized their members as church congregations. Both religions purified themselves through baptism, and each participated in the same type of sacraments, bread and wine, and expected salvation through their Lord’s supper.

Well, most religions would have churches and brotherhood. That's a stretch. Would be curious about a source on the baptism, but remember baptisms predate Christianity anyway. Same with the sacred meal.

But, the actual error is that the Lord's Supper (Christian) is not related at all to salvation. Confession of sins and (possibly) baptism are more properly listed as requirements of salvation. Jesus breaks bread and says 'do this in rememberance of me', not that it will bring you salvation. As I mentioned, baptism is the main thing mentioned in the New Testament.

---

... it's a close call: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life" - John 6:54. cf "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation" = Zoroaster.

I would like to learn more. Do you have a reference for the second quote? I mean, what text it is in, what's the name of the translation, so I can look it up? Maestlin 16:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Mithra and Jesus were both said to have been born in a cave on December 25th, and each savior was visited by shepherds with gifts. Both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, despite early Christianity observing the Jewish Sabbath for centuries.

Uh, Jesus was not said to be born in a 'cave'. 'Away in a Manger', anyone? Jesus was said to be born in an inn. Also, if you check the Christmas page, you'll find that most likely Jesus was born in Spring in the first place. And celebrating on Sunday is mentioned in the New Testament, as a celebration of when Jesus was supposed to have been raised. I'd be very curious for a source on saying it was 'centuries' before the switch.

Both religions considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues.

No, not particularly. Well, with the exception of self control (uh, duh. Can't do much without that)

Galatians 5:21-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

No mention of abstinence or celibacy here. Also, both Paul and Jesus say the highest virtue is love, which is not on that list. Paul specifically says that chastity is a calling that only a minority of people have, and that many people can not be chaste. So to say it is a highest virtue is a stretch.

Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were almost identical, with Christianity adopting millenial features well-known to Mithraism from Zoroastrianism. Huh. Funny none of this is sourced or even listed out. And I sincerely doubt that they had the same idea of the 'battle' (what battle? when is a literal battle with evil mentioned in the Epistles? When did Paul 'battle' anyone, save with debate and prayer?) between good and evil. More to the point, it doesn't have a lot to do with the article. Put it in Zoroastrianism. PLus it's a bit more disputed than that, anyway.

“They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones…and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth.”

'A Heaven inhabited by beautiful ones'? Er, kinda. Not particularly specifically. Also, it's pretty popularly disputed even within Christianity what happens to the damned, from destruction to flames to whatnot. Dante's view of demons living in a cave isn't from the New Testament, particularly, and seems more based on Greek views. It's also written well over a thousand years later.

(Cumont, 191) Both religions each believed in the immortality of the soul, and both each placed a flood at the beginning of history, and a both believed in revelation as key to their doctrine. They both believed in a last judgment and a resurrection of the dead after the final conflagration of the universe. Christ and Mithra were both referred to directly as the "Logos" (Larson 184).

Flood myths are almost universal, as is the belief in an immortal soul. Last judgement's very common, though not as automatic. It's not much of an organized religion if you don't have revelation. I'd be curious as to why Mithras would be a 'Logos' in the sense Jesus was... how is Mithras a 'living word'?

OK, I understand that many people think there are connections between Mithraism and Christianity. I agree. But a lot of the things in this article are just plain wrong. I mean, Christianity just doesn't teach a great deal of the things mentioned up above. Really. Look into it if you want, claim the always ethereal 'original Christianity' did it. But don't just toss crap like this out. It's just wrong. 24.126.232.208 08:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll hold back till tomorrow. Shouldn't have been interfering with Mithra/Mithras. I thought you were done... Wetman 22:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I just did a major rewrite of the pages Mithraism, Mithras, and Mithra. For lack of time, I have to stop now; please have a look and fix as approriate.

AFAIK, there is only a thin connection (little more than a borrowed name) between the Persian "Mithra" and the Roman "Mithras", so it seems best to have two separate pages for them, with due explanations and pointers.

Presently all the information on Roman "Mithras" is in a section of the Mithraism page, so that Mithras is little more than a disambiguation page. Perhaps this is OK, or perhaps that section could be extracted and made into a full Mithras page; I can see advantages and disadvantages in either choice.

There are many rough spots in these pages, especially Mithraism. The explanation of strological "ages" and precession is clearly broken, but I do not know enough of astronomy to fix it. Some of the details of Mithraism sound highly suspicious, and may be just extreme "new age" beliefs or unproven speculation. As for the information on the Mithra page, I have absolutely no knowledge of Zoroastrism so it is just the original contents (minus what seemed to be Roman-related stuff).

I may have lost some links, especially to the foreign Wikipedias. I may try to fix some of the links-to-here later today. Thanks for the patience...

Jorge Stolfi 23:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I tried to smooth out the section =Mithraism before Rome=, and trimmed heavily the following text which does not seem to be germane to the argument:

After the collapse of the Achaemenid dynasty, the rule of Alexander's successors the Seleucid dynasty found itself with a formidable enemy in the , one of whose most able kings bore the name Mithradates I (died 138 BC), a name proudly born by several of his successors. The Near Eastern tradition of bearing the name of one's god was of millenial standing. ... In the Anatolian kingdom of Pontus, a series of kings bore the name, notably Mithradates VI ("the Great"), king of Pontus, who died in 63 BCE.

Jorge Stolfi 05:30, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The following seriously needs support (cut from article for now):

===Holidays and rituals===

Mithraism celebrated the anniversary of Mithras's resurrection, similar to the Christian Easter. They held services on Sunday. Rituals included a Eucharist and six other sacraments that corresponded to later Christian rituals. Some individuals who are skeptical about stories of Jesus' life suspect that Christianity may have appropriated many details of Mithraism in order to make their religion more acceptable to Pagans. St. Augustine even stated that the priests of Mithras worshipped the same God as he did.<!--Someone should check these statements...--&gt

[by User:Bacchiad]

---

Thanks to User:Bacchiad for spotting and excising the Roman mythology from the Persian Mithra page. However now we have two problems:

1. There are two descriptions of Roman Mithras, one in a section of Mithraism, another in Mithras. The Mithraism section claims that all we know is what we can deduce from mithraeum iconography. The Mithras page has a lot of detail presented categorically, as if it were common knowledge. So which version is correct? I recall a Scientific American article o years ago which seemed to agree with the former. So what are the sources for the Mithras page?
2. The Persian Mithra page is now rather weak. Perhaps some material from Zoroastrianism can be transplanted into it?

All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 15:34, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I merged Mithra into Mitra. Seemed like a shame to have two separate pages for gods with such obvious cognate features and rich opportunities for comparison. Added a little bit; I think there's more meat now. Perhaps a similar merge-job should be done on the even-more-obviously-related Mithras and Mithraism?

As for the "all we know about Mithraist belief we know from iconography" line, I'm pretty sure I added it. It's marginally overstated. There are two fragments of works about Mithras quoted by Neoplatonists; they're not very extensive and have very heavy Middle Platonist biases. Difficult to a whole lot from them, but they are there. Other than that, the only information about beliefs comes from iconography. Please do edit for all necessary clarifications. Bacchiad 20:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can't claim any expertise in this area, but came to the discussion page because the supreme role allotted to the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda in a Roman soldier's cult seemed extravagant and somewhat implausible. Is there a muddle now between the two traditions alluded to above? If so, might it make sense to preface paragraphs with 'According to the Persian branch, ...' and 'According to the Roman branch ...'? Adhib 18:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

"The titles of the first four ranks suggest the possibility that advancement through the ranks was based on introspection and spiritual growth, as these titles seem to correspond respectively to the Jungian concepts of the shadow, the anima, the persona, and the self (Personally, I'm not buying this last sentence)."

Personal comments here? I'm just going to delete everything after the first comma. Jungian psychology decidedly postdates Mithraism. :) Guest, Oct. 16 2004, 4:21 UTC

---

Jesus is a translation of the word Mithra. Christianity has adopted a great deal of cutural celebration and setup (i.e. church architecture) from Mithra's followers. Mithra never claimed to be a prophet though. He had a school of thought and was a well known scholar that create a great deal of peace teaties in and around Iran. Mithra did not believe in souls in the form that Christianity does. Mithra just like Zoroaster believed there is no beginning and no end to this world. He did not believe in nothing more than just a single god and the nature. His followers are known as Pagans. Pag=innocent, an is a suffix for plural. Though many Christian culture and ceremonies are Mithraic, the main idea of Christianity is completely different than Mithra's, and in many cases against. Mithra live 767 years before the Gregorian zero (767 BC). Guest, 4 April, 2006.

I believe this anonymous user is the same who edited the article a few days later to open by calling Mithraism a "school of thought" that started in the 7th century BC. Since

• it's quite well-established that Mithraism was a mystery religion, at least for parts of its history, and
• I don't know of any actual evidence for early existence of Mithraism of the sort described in the article,

I have restored the opening sentence to its status as of April 8, 2006. Maestlin 00:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I think the article is very biased towards the notion of Roman Mithraism, and does not emphasis enough on its Persian origin. It is not disputes that the Persians first developed the religion, and was later adopted by Europeans. The article should do more to emphasis the Persian influence on modern day religions. For example, the name Peter is derived from the Persian word of Pedar (meaning father).

you are entitled to express your view, but your summary of current scholarship is incorrect. The predominant scholarly position at present is to regard Roman Mithraism as substantially a Roman mystery cult - pretty much a new development of the 1st Century CE - albeit one that claimed origins in Persia, and incorporated some (very few actually) Persian terms and practices. This substantial consensus replaces the former view contained in the late C19 works of Franz Cumont - under which Mithraism (and all other Roman mystery cults) were seen as "oriental"; and essentially alien to the Roman civic religions (which, in this narrative, were understood as essentially moribund in this period). A minority alternative current view suggests that the astrological aspects of Mithraism point to an origin in Asia Minor - specifically Commagene - and that some degree of direct Persian/Babyonian influence is more likely than not. What is not in dispute is that no parallels to the characteristic architecture and practices of Roman Mithraism have ever been found in Persia proper. If we look for any sort of distinct Mithraist cult outside of the Roman Empire - the only evidence is in Bactria (specifically in the Buddhist shrines of Bamiyan); and these relate far more closely to Avestan sources than to Roman ones.

I fully agree with you that the influence of ancient Persian thought on modern day religions tends to be seriously underappreciated. But in this debate, Mithraism (which disappeared totally at the end of the 4th Century CE) does not signify. TomHennell 13:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

edit war

why is there an edit war w/o discussion in talk? Why is cheese not banned yet? What is the world coming to? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 09:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are POV warriors trying to get others banned? Its pathetic. CheeseDreams 11:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Wikipedia is transparent. The edit history ("User contributions") of User:CheeseDreams is two clicks away. --Wetman 22:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC))

As is the significantly more controversial edit history of Sam Spade (a.k.a. Jack Lynch). CheeseDreams 00:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed four external links--

• Abstract from M.J. Vermaseren, Mithras, the Secret God, 1963

• Mithraism and Precession (critical review of Ulansey's claims regarding Mithraism and the Age of Taurus)

• David Fingrut, "Mithraism: The Legacy of the Roman Empire's Final Pagan State Religion" (high-school level paper, but good summary of Cumont)

• Ronald Nash, "Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" An essay arguing that pagan religions (including Mithraism) did not influence the new Testament.

The first of these is a dead link. The second two have never been subjected to any sort of peer review, and the third is only tangentially about Mithraism-- these do not belong in the same list of references as Cumont, Ulansey, and the Ecole Initiative. (August 26, 2005)

I again removed the two external links that have not been peer reviewed and that I previously removed (above), since 138.250.108.108 restored them without explanation on August 31. Until some convincing explanation for the inclusion of those non-peer-reviewed links is provided, I will continue to remove them. (I suspect that 138.250.108.108 has a conflict of interest.) (September 22, 2005)

there is nothing in wikipedia external links policy that requires them to be peer reviewed. Kinda fortuate or we wouldn't be able to link to things like the BBC in our BBC article.Geni 09:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I mediated this dispute by dividing external links into scholarly and non-scholarly. (October 1, 2005)

Modern Mithraism

Why is there no mentiono? Harvestdancer 19:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)Harvestdancer

Mithraists are mentioned in this week's Economist magazine (dtd. January 15, 2005), although it is unclear from the article whether these are Mithraists or followers of a similar relgious philosophy. According to an article on the upcoming Iraqi elections, the "Yazidi Movement for Reform and Progress", a political party running for membership in the new Iraqi National Congress, is "supported mainly by Kurds who follow a religion said to be related to Mithraism, n ancient Roman mystery cult." LevyBoy 20 Jan 2005

Several layers of skeptical reserve might arise at this third-hand news. Revivals of cults are generally referred to as "neo-" for quite good reasons. Followers of "revived' religions generally insist there has been an underground continuty. Islamist informers of writers for The Economist may have a number of agendas about the various reasons Kurds are unacceptable. Accusing Kurds of Neo-Zoroastrianism would have been more believable. Too late now, eh... --Wetman 06:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Zoroastrianism? How can you have a revival of something that was never extinct? Zoroastrians have formed a distinct minority in Iran since the Islamic conquest, and there are also several million of them in India. --Centauri 08:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The form of Zoroastrianism familiar to Centauri is actually the Neo-Zoroastrianism revived by the Sassanians. Check the fairly accurate Wikipedia articles. An example of classicism is the Maison Carrée; an example of neoclassicism is the production of Wedgwood. Nothing is ever revived in the same condition it formerly was: this is the theme of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. --Wetman

Ah so you're talking about the Sassanid state religion then. Yes, in that context it is "neo-Zoroastrianism" - but if we're going to begin appending the term "neo" to every historic incarnation of a religion we better start taking a close look at Judaism and Christianity because their current forms are vastly different from their historic antecedents - particularly so in the case of the former.--Centauri 21:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Mithra believed in Zoroaster's school of thought. However, as many Iranians and as Zoroaster himself, Mithra did not consider Zoroaster a prophet. In fact, both Zoroaster and Mithra did not believe in any prophet being in touch with god like the Judaic version. Kurds or any other Iranians have been folling Mithra's school of thought for many years. The Islamic pressure forced many Iranians to lie for over a 1000 years about their belief. They either had to say that they are muslim or be ready to die. Guest 9 April 2006.

---

Ahura Mazda vs Sol Invictus

The article says...

"One of the central motifs of Mithraism is the tauroctony, the myth of sacrifice by Mithra of a sacred bull created by the supreme deity Ahura Mazda, which Mithra stabs to death in the cave, having been instructed to do so by a crow, sent from Ahura Mazda."

Isn't the crow sent by Sol Invictus?

Mithras is known as 'Sol Invictus' - specifically Deus sol Invictus Mithras. Why would he send himself a crow to tell him to do something? Why bother? Pydos 19:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The pictures in the article SHOW depictions of Mithras and Sol Invictus, together, as two different individuals. How could they be the same god if there are two of them? In the tauroctony scene you even see the raven sitting on a clowd... with Sol Invictus above him... while Mithras is below slaying the bull! In fact, I have an old Encyclopedia Britannica here that says that the Sun god sent the raven to Mithras. So where exactly does the Zoroastrian God Ahura Mazda play into all of this? Unless I'm confusing Sol Invictus with Sol? Even then, it's still not Ahura Mazda sending the raven.-3/3/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.11 (talk • contribs) .

Mithraic dedications vary, but the most usual formula is "Deus Sol Invictus Mithras"; which is probaly best translated as "Sun God, and Unconquered Mithras". The formula "Sol Invictus" runs together the the end of one title with the beginning of the other. If found in a Mithraem it refers to the distinct cult of Sol Invictus - though one that many Mithraists also belonged to (Mithraism was in no way exclusive). The theory that Ahura Mazda is in any way involved in Roman Mithraism is pure speculation - there has been no archeological evidence found that supports this view. It is possible that the two components of the qabove Mithraic formula always referred to separate deities - but it is more likely that Mithras was seen as embodying the Sun's power. Certainly it is a standard element in Mithraic iconography that Mithras ivests Sol with some sort of power or authority, before the sacred banquet and his ascent to heaven. TomHennell 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The mithraeum

I deleted the sentence "However, this later theory has its own problems, as shown by Dr. Shepherd Simpson's 'Mithraism and Precession: The Tauroctony and the Celestial Equator.'" This sentence was apparently a reference to a web page that is listed in the External Links section ("Mithraism and Precession"). However, the description of that web page in the External Links section says, "the author's credentials are not given, and references to scholarly literature are not provided." The claims made by that web page, therefore, are unverifiable (by Wikipedia standards), and it therefore should not be cited in the article.

Mithras and Precession of the Equinoxes

An anonymous deleted the following: " However, this later theory has its own problems, as shown by Dr. Shepherd Simpson's "Mithraism and Precession: The Tauroctony and the Celestial Equator"." Anonymities deleting material is a little high-handed. But can anyone who knows this work give a better reference and incorporate the gist of Simpson's thought, rather than just waving towards it? --Wetman 12:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OUTSTANDING ARTICLE

Wow!! This is a very well written article. The author/s should consider nominating this article for -featured status- because it certainly meets all the requiremnts. I'll vote for it!! Good luck! Braaad 19:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

LWW

It might be fun to mention that Aslan from the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is sometimes viewed as more of a Mithraic character than a Christ character. JeffBurdges 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis's views on Mithraism might be more to the point at C. S. Lewis. --Wetman 11:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Nativity in a cave

The reference to Gospel of James I've made is awkward, but its influence needs to be made clear, forsomeone deleted the cave reference to Jesus' nativity. Hadn't seen any Sienese paintings I suppose...

Confused Chronology

The introduction contains the text:

..The veneration of this God began about 4000 years ago in Persia..

Mithraism apparently originated in the Eastern Mediterranean around the first or second centuries BC.

How could this god have been venerated 2000 years before the origin of the associated religion?

--Philopedia 01:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempted answer: The god Mithra has been a player in the Persian pantheon for approximately two millenia, before a mystery religion centered around this guy arose in hellenistic times (calling him Mithras). Several scholars - especially Ulaney - have pointed out the significant differences in the depiction, mythology and and role of the Persian Mithra vs. the hellenist Mithras. Especially obvious in all three respects is the addition of the sacrificial bull-slaying and the transition from Mithra as incarnation of the Sun to an independent Sol character as Mithras' sidekick. So it is argued that Mithraism is close to completely different from Mithra worship, not only sociologically but also theologically. This would be rather typical for hellenist mystery religion, as e.g. the Mysteries of Isis are much more influenced by the the Greek perception of Egypt than by Ancient Egyptian Isis worship.

--jonasmkl 11:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good points - except that Mithras is not Hellenistic in Ulansey's view, but wholly Roman. One fact is beyond question; no archeological evidence for Mithraism has ever been found except in territories within the Roman Empire and within the period 70AD to 450AD. There have been (a very few) Mithrea found in Greece and Asia Minor - but even when the cult members were clearly Greek speakers, it is significant that the dedicatory inscriptions on Altars etc are almost invariably in Latin. It is the fundamental Latinity of Mithraism that marks it out from the pack of Graeco-Roman mystery relgions (as also from Christianity) TomHennell 02:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Mithraeum

We need some firm dates here. One thing is clear - Roman Mithraism was only, and could only, be practiced in a Mithraeum. This is handy for archaeology, as mithraea (being underground) frequently survive when all other structures have been lost. But it also means that we must clearly distinguish the early (1st Century AD) veneration of the Persian deity Mithra by Romans keen on esoteric eastern cults, from full scale Roman Mithraism, which emerged fresh-minted when the first mithraeum was constructed. But when was this? The papers for the 1971 Manchester conference estimated the earliest known date then as little before 150AD. Have earlier mithraea been discovered since?

TomHennell 13th Jan 2006 TomHennell 11:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Connections

The issue of the compariative dating of Christianity and Mithraism is glossed over here. It shouldn't be. It is certainly true that a range of dates have been given for the Christian Gospels - although very few serious scholars, whether Christian or not, would now defend a dates much later than 100AD. But many of the parallels being speculatively advanced here are rather between Mithraism and doctrines inferred in the Epistles of Paul; as for instance between the Mithraic cultic meal and the Eucharist as described in the first letter to the Corinthians. But I Corinthians must have been written before Paul's death in 64/65 AD; and in any case is extensively quoted in the first letter of Clement (90 AD).

So as it stands, developed Christian theology (as found in the letters of Paul) rather ante-dates the earliest known developed Mithraic Theology (as found in surviving mithraea). But since at first the two cults appealed to totally different classes of persons; concentrated in very different areas, I would think it most unlikely there was any connection at all in either direction.

TomHennell 13th Jan 2006 TomHennell 11:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that much about Mithraism, but some of the alleged similarities between it and Christianity simply aren't true of Christianity, then or now. Examples:

• From its Zoroastrian sources, Mithraism first held that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions, and inhabited a body upon birth. Mormonism I think teaches this, but the rest of Christianity does not.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/soul.htm Augustine's reluctance to take sides in the debate on the origin of the soul was not shared by his contemporaries. Some Greek church fathers shared Origen's theory that the soul preexisted with God and that it was assigned to a body as a penalty for its sin of looking downward. Most, however, accepted the creationist view that God created each individual soul at the moment that he gave it a body, while some, like Tertullian, held the traducianist theory that each soul is derived, along with the body, from the parents.

• All souls were to be judged by Mithra with the Elect going to heaven, and the earthly and evil being annihilated in a great battle. Assuming that 'annihilated' means they would then no longer exist, I think that understanding of the fate of the evil is mostly unique to the Jehovah's Witnesses.
• Many have noted that the title of Pope (father) is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. This looks like an actual similarity, but since when is the title of Pope prohibited in Christian doctrine? No earlier than the 16th century I suspect; the title today is also used by the Greek Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox in Alexandria, at the very least.
• Like early Christianity, Mithraism was an ascetic, male-only religion. Its priesthood consisted of celibate men only (Legge 261) and women were not allowed in the temples. Christianity was not limited to males, and St. Peter himself was married, according to the epistles of St. Paul and as implied by at least one of the gospels that describes Jesus healing Peter's mother-in-law.

I'm willing to assume that these things are true of Mithraism, but as they aren't true of Christianity, they don't belong in the 'Parallels with Christianity' section. If no one objects, I suggest the parts of them that are about Mithraism be moved up to describe Mithraism itself, unless doing so would duplicate information in that earlier section. Wesley 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost forgot, in addition to the above, some of the parallels probably are true of Mithraism and Christianity, but would also be held in common in some form by most religions, and so seem hardly worth mentioning. These are:

• Both Christianity and Mithraism prided themselves in brotherhood and organized their members as church congregations.
• Mithraism also had a flood at the beginning of history, but deemed necessary because what began in water would end in fire according to Mithraic eschatology. (All early cultures have some kind of flood story.)
• Both religions believed in revelation as key to their doctrine.

I'll bet they both practiced prayer in some form; wonder why that isn't listed too? Seriously, is there any real value to keeping these? Wesley 06:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll bet they both practiced prayer in some form; wonder why that isn't listed too? Seriously, is there any real value to keeping these? Wesley 06:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

How can you honestly criticize the inclusion of parallels when you are simultaneously demanding more of them? You don't seem to care that there were many pagan expressions in the ancient world, but it so happens that early Christianity and Mithraism were very much alike, therefore important for many reasons, including the idea of common origins, the dynamics of borrowing and adopting, rivalry and competition, and cross persecution and jealousy.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.70.243.229 (talk • contribs) .

That was intended as sarcasm; sorry if it was too obscure. My point is that any two random religions you could name are going to have some similarities just by virtue of being religions. These sorts of similarities don't mean that one influenced or derived from the other, just that they're both religions. When looking at origins of Christianity, Occam's razor would suggest we look for similarities between Christianity and Judaism before looking for other influences. BTW, it would really help if you would learn to sign your posts with four tilde's. Signing up for a username would help too, since addressing you as 129.173.208.99 just sounds so impersonal. Plus when I have to put sigs in, there's always a chance I'll get the wrong one, although I do try to be careful. Wesley 18:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

“soldier OF Christ”

I am not sure who wrote this part of the article:

“After co-existing with Mithraism for centuries, Christians also began to describe themselves as soldiers for Christ.”

But in Luke (11:22) Jesus makes references to “armor”. There are many more references in the bible that indicate that being a “soldier OF Christ”. So this "analogy" was not something that was imported from Mithraism as the above extraction indicates. Also never in the bible there is talk about “fighting FOR Christ”, but there are references against it: John 18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” Licio 15:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Although it should be recognized that without reading the original Sanskrit, any Biblical interpretation is just that - an interpretation.

Huh? Who says the Bible was originally in Sanskrit? I don't know of anyone who makes this claim. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Parallelism with Christianity, continued

The supposed parallelism is in fact a modern anti-Christian viewpoint, the idea being that Christianity, you see, is all a derivative hash. If Wikipedia really had no POV, that would be much toned down.... Most of the supposed parallels, as noted by others above, are just not so — or are trivial. (Before anyone gets on my case for going against the Zeitgeist, I'm not Christian either, but that doesn't mean I have to be hostile toward the religion, or, worse, lie.) It is quite impossible to avoid "POV"; it's one of biggest flaws of Wikipedia that a pretence of doing so is paid much lip service to. Bill 08:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oboy, from the frying pan into the fire; we've now officially flagged this article as being dangerous to our NPOVs.... Repeat, NPOV is utterly impossible; and attempts to reach No Point Of View just flatten articles out and make 'em look like they was written by a committee; which they are, of course. Bill 13:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The supposed parallelism is in fact a modern anti-Christian viewpoint, the idea being that Christianity, you see, is all a derivative hash....I'm not Christian either, but that doesn't mean I have to be hostile toward the religion, or, worse, lie.

The above would indicate a crippling bias, without or without ranting about NPOV, which, officially, is blatantly referring to a detectable POV, not an assumed one. I think it is appropriate to the above bias that they outright claim that revealing the parallels to Christianity is hostile to Christianity, because this demonstates how or why Mithraism was basically stamped out by the same. What would be the point in denying parallels after early Christian fathers declared it as such, and officially adopted Mithra's birthday, Sunday worship, and assumed a Mithraic papacy at Vatican hill itself?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.70.243.229 (talk • contribs) .

Similarities

Yesterday I added the fallowing statement to the end of the article:

It is important to keep in mind when referring to “Christianity” that many of the similarities were not always present. Later Christians imported many of these so-called similarities from Mithraism after their religion became legalized and endorsed by the roman emperors, in an effort to make Christianity more appealing and familiar to people outside of the faith.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.173.208.99 (talk • contribs) . Licio 15:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind when referring to “Christianity” that many of the similarities were not always present. Later Christians imported many of these so-called similarities from Mithraism after their religion became legalized and endorsed by the roman emperors, in an effort to make Christianity more appealing and familiar to people outside of the faith. ??? What is worse here, mindreading, babysitting, or biased commentary? I can't imagine why the reader's intelligence should be insulted with this fearful attitude if not stated as fact where it belongs. If naysayers just recently received their background in Mithraism from this article, I would strongly challenge them to open up to the possiblility that their ability to edit this article is inadequate.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.70.243.229 (talk • contribs) .

We as historians must keep in mind that Christianity has evolved (as had Mithraism) and will continue to evolve. When someone comes out and says “this is a similarity” between Mithraism (or any pother pagan religion) and Christianity it usually makes people upset. That is not the problem, but the problem is, is it a valid/true statement? When comparing the similarities one must emphasize the time in which the “doctrine” was present in “Christianity” and Mithraism. Also it would be helpful to the reader to identify it not as “Christianity” but if possible what “brad” of Christianity, since as we know “Christianity” can mean anything you want it to mean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.173.208.99 (talk • contribs) . Licio 15:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i just thought id inform everyone that iv added a section at the start of the 'similarities to christianity' section that describes some of the problems with comparing mithraist and christian ideas and practices, which qualifies the following section, and therefore makes it a bit more objective and scholarly. i'v also added a subtitle,indicating that the following represents the theories raised by two particular writers, and not neccessarily the accepted scietific consensus on the issue. I still think that the rest of the section needs a lot of work, not only in terms of content but also in terms of its tone and style of writing; which i might have a go at editing tomorrow. Plus, some of the stuff that whoever wrote that piece says needs more backng up with citations. Hopefully all of this will mean they can finally take down that 'disputed' sign. matt lavender

Born In a Cave?

Mithra was not born in a cave. He was born out of solid rock. See Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975 (173). This being the case, I am removing that line in the text. 4.18.35.37 18:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, born in a cave

The above information is not refuting anything. Mithra had many legends and a rock does not rule out a cave anyway.

http://www.mithraism.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?file=cumont.txt&part=5&total=6

No other references suggest worship in/of "caves" although there seems to be some indication that the thematic source for Mithra born from a rock or cave may reach back to pre-Zoroastrian lore, which, however, does not lend to a more elaborate interpretation of Roman Mithraic cave usage in its panoply of motifs and meanings as all originating from an ancient pre-Zoroastrian tradition.166.70.243.229 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/gods&goddesses/mithra.html

Mithra was born from a rock within a cave, and his birth was witnessed by a group of shepherds. He has also been depicted as being born from a tree, and at Housesteads on Hadrians Wall, there was a tradition that he came forth from a Cosmic Egg. As he grew, Mithra became strong and courageous, eagerly using these traits to fight evil.166.70.243.229 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is more. Apparently, the protester above is citing the page listed by a pro-Christian apologist that thinks Cumont is outdated and that there should not be any Mithraic parallels to Christianity, based on the fear and dread that this means Christianity is unoriginal. The author ignores common origins completely, indicating a bias, and seems to not cite the authors of the quotes he uses, but uses them freely anyway to make his point to his Christian readers.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/pda/thread.php?topic_id=1575&&start=10

Next, the cave part. First of all, Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind -- and I suppose technically the rock he was born out of could have been classified as a virgin! Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up, but you won't hear the copycatters mention this! (The rock-birth scene itself was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern; Ulan.OMM, 36.)

The fact is that it was said that Mithra originated from a cave, even by the same author who is likening it to Perseus to explain it. This quote affirms it. It cannot be used to deny it. To emphatically say that Mithra did not originate from the cave, which he went back to again and again is misleading, as if there is no chance of similiarity to another savior originating from a cave, featured in the gospel of James. 166.70.243.229 18:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. The main problems with this entry on Mithraism is the zealous effort among Christian missionaries here to deny any similarity whatsoever by saying that they are ONLY similarities. They are basically editing the piece by having assumed that if it can't prove that Christianity is a derivative fraud, then it should be removed. Their mistaken belief/projection here is that anyone needs to prove a derivation to show a similarity. 166.70.243.229 19:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That is preposterous and doesn't refute anything. Not only are you committing a logical fallacy known as the biased sample and ad hominem, but it's also an appeal to prove that something is false merely because of their bias. Does a bias fatally taint his objectivity? If so, then no book is really objective including those by atheists and skeptics. All books are written for a reason and they all believe in what they write! However, that doesn't mean they are false or not objective. Whether one believes in what they write is true doesn't imply they are correct but that they could be right. Instead of accusing christians of bias, it would be more productive to actually investigate these claims yourself.

It has nothing to do with "Christian missionaries." It has to do with choosing to do serious scholarly comparative work, as opposed to a free-association exercise where everything that just happens to remind you of something else is suddenly held up as proof of historical influence. Since the 1980's, scholars of religion have overturned the Frazerian assumption that everything that resembles something else is necessarily copied from it. You don't have to be Christian (much less a "Christian missionary") to realize that the vague appearance of "caves" or "ritual baths" in two different religious traditions is "proof" that one is derived from the other. It is important to compare contexts, emic understandings, ritual settings, demographics and so on -- and when you do that with Christianity and Mithraism, it's clear that these two religions have no more (and no less) in common than Christianity does with rabbinic Judaism, Isis-worship, Roman emperor-worship, or just about anything else from the same time and place. See the work of Jonathan Z. Smith (who is not the least bit Christian!) if you want to learn more about how important it is to outgrow the nineteenth century in our scholarship. --Hapax 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

7-day week

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/Astronomy/7day.html

The 7-day week was introduced in Rome (where ides, nones, and calends were the vogue) in the first century A.D. by Persian astrology fanatics, not by Christians or Jews. The idea was that there would be a day for the five known planets, plus the sun and the moon, making seven; this was an ancient West Asian idea. However, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire in the time of Constantine (c. 325 A.D.), the familiar Hebrew-Christian week of 7 days, beginning on Sunday, became conflated with the pagan week and took its place in the Julian calendar. Thereafter, it seemed to Christians that the week Rome now observed was seamless with the 7-day week of the Bible -- even though its pagan roots were obvious in the names of the days: Saturn's day, Sun's day, Moon's day. The other days take their equally pagan names in English from a detour into Norse mythology: Tiw's day, Woden's day, Thor's day, and Fria's day. 166.70.243.229 06:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit...Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, Theodosius did in 391.

PS. The 7-day week was introduced in the time of Moses which is written in Genesis. The 7 days were written as an example for the Israelites to follow. If any borrowing occurred, it was probably the other way around.

Where days of the week are found on Mithraic reliefs, they are in the standard pagan order - with Saturday as the first day of the week. Hence Saturday is Mithras day, Sunday is Sol day, Monday is Luna day: etc. Constantine shifted the pagan week to correspond with the Christian week; whose first day is Sunday, and that became the general day of pagan worship. Hence, in so far as Mithraists of the 4th century CE worshipped on a Sunday (which is likely but not conclusively proved) the practice demonstrates a Mithraic borrowing from Christianity, albeit at two or three removes. TomHennell 13:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

more comments about Mithras/Christ information

I just wanted to respond to some of the complaints/observations made by Jorge Stolfi. I do agree that on the whole the wording of this article seems to give undue agency to Mithraists in the formation of Christianity. Statements such as Mithra’s birthday was adopted by Christians in the 4th century A.D. as the birth of Christ misrepresent the complex religious topography of the late Roman period. For the record, Mithraism was the last 'mystery' cult to gain popularity in the Roman empire, c. mid-second second century C.E., and "long after the appearance of Christianity. (R.L. Gordon, "Mithraism and Roman Society." Religion 2:2 (Autumn 1972), p 93) Given this information it seems unlikely that the Christians directly borrowed from Mithraism. However, sorry Jorge, in the fourth century when Constantine was building some of the first major Christian basilicas in the Holy Land, they were nearly all built over 'sacred caves,' including the Constantinian church at Bethlehem, so despite your beliefs, early Christians did think that Christ was born in a cave...just like Mithras. I can't help but wonder if the problems that I have with the article would have been avoided if the author had drawn from more recent sources. It is just irresponsible to use works from the 1902-1910(!) when there are many authoritative books from the last two decades. Our scholarly framework (especially in reference to issues of identity and culture) have changed considerably from the turn of the century and this article would benefit from some new research. A.Fisher (grad student)

• • note *** the identification of the image on the main page is WRONG - it is not from Dura but rather from the Mithraeum at Marino at the Alban Hills outside of Rome. Mid-third century C.E.

Some newer sources:

Clauss, Manfred. The Roman Cult of Mithras. Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

Elsner, Jaś. Art and the Roman viewer : the transformation of art from the Pagan world to Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Turcan, R. The Cults of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Gordon, R.L. “Mythraism and Roman Society: Social Factors in the Explanation of Religious Change in the Roman Empire.” Religion 2:2 (Autumn 1972), 92-121.

Gordon, R.L. “Reality, Evocation, and Boundary in the Mysteries of Mithras,” Journal of Mithraic Studies 3 (1980): 19-99.

White, L. Michael. Building God’s house in the Roman world : architectural adaptation among pagans, Jews, and Christians. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.

Sunday as a Biblical Teaching

I'm no scholar, but I am a Christian and do go to church on Saturday (not solely on the following point). I can remember being about 13 and seeing in the encyclopaedia that one of the popes changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. This was never a Biblical teaching; this is a Catholic teaching. How this fits into the arguments, I'll leave for the rest of you to bicker.

Gee thanks. --DanielCD 04:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Catholic, but a Christian. The idea of Saturday and Sunday worship is an old idea, which has no basis or any fact. The Sabbath (Saturday) is the 7th day. Sunday is the first day. If anyone wants to examine why Christians worship on the first day, I would suggest reading Acts 20.7 or Romans 14. The reason why Christians worship on Sunday is two fold. 1. Jesus was raised on the first day of the week. 2. The law was fulfilled in Jesus, and we are no longer under the law (i.e., Jewish worship on the Sabbath). If an encyclopedia or any other reference material states otherwise, it is at best misleading. From the days of Acts on, Christians worshipped on Sunday. All of this has nothing to do with Apollo (sun god of the Romans).

Sun vs Son

The article says "They venerated Jesus in Mithraic sun-god fashion, calling him Light of the World or Son (Sun) of Righteousness." Now, "son" in Latin is "filius" and "sun" in Latin is "sol." The Romans would not confuse those two words, I don't think. This shouldn't be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.10 (talk • contribs) - February 26 2006

We should look at this and reword it/correct it. I don't know enough about it at the moment, so I'm afraid to touch it just now. --DanielCD 22:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly did archaeologists find out that Mithra was "born" on the 25th of December?

I realize the 25th of December more than likely is not the birthday of Jesus, but where is some archaeological evidence that it was on the 25th that they found this out about the Mithra cult? I was watching a documentary on Discovery channel and they were supposedly using all kinds of techniques in the first couple of centuries to try and figure out the birthday of Jesus. Also, Clement of Alexandria speaks of celebrating the nativity somewhere in March - August (I can't remember which). One more thing, Mithraism could have been trying to emulate Christianity because they were losing Roman soldiers to Christian missionaries. Also, the Bible specifically speaks of Christians worshipping on the first day of the week -- Sunday. In Catholicism, the Mass can be celebrated on the Saturday from sundown to sunup as an anticipated Mass and count as a Mass that's valid on the Lord's Day (Sunday). Sunday is the day when Christ was resurrected from the dead and Jesus said He was "Lord of the Sabbath".Rchamberlain 11:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

pretty well every mithraeum has a representation of Mithras being born from the rock, usually attended by Caudes and Cautopates. There is some archeological evidence - from the Virunum album, and inscriptions - that this birth was thought to take place at the winter solstice; and that Mithraic devotees celebrated their souls being "born again" in a ceremony around that date. The evidence from Virunum is rather stronger that Mithraic devotees were celebrated their souls departing to the heavenly realm around the Summer Solstice. However Mithra day in Iran is the 16th October. 25th December is associated with the winter pagan festival of rebirth - which was taken up by the new cult of Sol Invictus in the 3rd century, and thence by Christianity some time later. If Mithraists also hit on the specific date of 25th Decemeber, then it was most likely in imitation of Sol Invictus.

It is highly unlikely that Mithraists would have sought to emulate Christianity (too feminine, too exclusive, and too subversive); certainly not soldiers who very rarely converted before Christianity became an official religion.

Nobody knows which day Mithraists met for worship - if indeed they did pick on a specific day of the week, rather than day(s) of the month. In Mithraic astrology, Mithras is associated with Saturn, and Sol with the Sun; so a weekly meeting on Saturday (Saturn's day) would be most likely, but all that is speculation. TomHennell 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Christianity may have adopted a festival, but I have also read some convincing evidence that Christmas may have been adopted from the Jewish hannukah which is celebrated on the 25th of Hebrew lunar month of Kislev. Sure, a Christianization of a winter solstice festival happened (does that make Christianity 'pagan'?), but that doesn't mean it's celebrated anywhere near the way the ancient pagans did. Also, Roman soldiers were persecuting Christians. I don't really see why the Christians would want to emulate the cult which was practically made up of nothing but Roman soldiers. Rchamberlain 04:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Early Christians generally went out of their way to avoid copying pagan cults - and indeed rejected all pagan traditions, with the passible exception of Cynic Philosophy. From the 2nd century they also tried to distinguish themselves from Rabbinic Judaism too. This is the key reason they were so unpopular. However,once Christianity had achieved political dominance - from the 4th century onwards- - there arose a strong tendancy to appropriate pagan sanctuaries, festivals and iconography. This was less emulation than triumphalism. In this period, the army became Christian quite rapidly; it was the universities (and the rural aristocracy) that stayed predominantly pagan. TomHennell 10:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Christianity lost many and definitely killed many more to convert pagans to christians. Mithra was born on Winter Solstice of 767 BC in Iran. He never claimed to be a prophet but a scholar. Jesus was supposedly born on December 25st of year zero!? There are no accurate version of Jesus birth. It is still unclear when and where Jesus was born.

Thanks for this, would it be possible to provide your user name?

Your reference to scholar called Mithra being born in 767 BC is completely new to me. Can you provide a reference? How does this scholar relate to the divine figure of Mithra known from earllier Vedic, Iranian and Semitic texts? And what does this have to do with Mithraism; whose divine figure is presented as a hunter, not a scholar?

TomHennell 10:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is any pagan belief system, regardless of how many followers it had or has, a cult? If the relion of the majority is an actual religion and smaller relious groups are 'cults', consider this: Judaism itself, the parent religion of all forms of Christianity, is not more than a few thousand years old. Before that time, all religious beliefs were 'pagan' according to the dictionary definition of the word. Therefore, not all pagan belief systems could be rightly considered 'cults'.

This will only be here until the first reader deletes it, but it's worth it to say it. Anyone who honestly veiws any mythology, including the Bible, as factual, is impossible to debate sanely with as they are arguing in favor of something that can never be proven. You cannot prove or disprove a belief, or an effectively imaginary being like a God. They will try very hard to appear to be rational, objective people, but because that is not what they are, the debate will go on into perpetuity as they fight for the utterly impossible task of legitimizing and defending their beliefs in the realm of reality and fact.

4.159.107.88 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC) C. Lewis

Sceptical

Right, Christianism and Mithraism origins have many links. bu I'am sceptical to the whole discourse due to many points. E.g. the so-called "mass" sacrement.

"The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have original significance in Mithraism."

The "mass" is absolutely not a sacrement!Just open the Catholic Church Catechism before saying such stupidities.

"It was called mized and in Latin missa and in English mass."

And even the name "mass" is not an initial nam of the celebration but came from the latin "ite missa est", words said at the end of the celebration to tell to the participants that "it's done (you can go)". Then later, the name "missa" become the name of the celebration, but it was later, when the latin were used as liturgical language, replacing the greek. The whole discourse is based on such lies and deformation of truth and is absolutely not objective, but as the clear goal to "proof" that Christiasnim comes from Mithraism...

you are correct on both points - though perhaps you might find your views as being able to be expressed with rather less invective. "Mass" , so far as I am aware, is nowhere found in mithraic remains. "Petros" is found in relation to the birth of Mithras, but this can scarcely be suggested as a parallel to the Christian Saint named (in Aramaic) Cephas. "built on a rock" is a very different concept from "born out of a rock".

However, it is a reasonable question whether two - almost exactly contemporary - new religions may not have been somehow related. Many theories have been advanced with supporting evidence, some by respected scholars, and it is surely right that persons who find the evidence compelling (as personally I do not) should be able to report this in the Wikipedia. TomHennell 12:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  or if Jesus was born, for that matter.

Jesus Mysteries

I replaced this book in the "EL/further reading" section. If there is a problem with it, please discuss it here before you remove it. Thanks. --DanielCD 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Age of Mithraism

"it has been suggested in recent times that the Mithraic religion is somehow connected to the end of the astrological "age of Taurus," and the beginning of the "age of Aries," which took place about the year 2000 BC. It has even been speculated that the religion may have originated at that time (although there is no record of it until the 2nd century BC)."

It would be nice to know who speculates that Mithraism originated about 2000 BC. I also noticed the Tauroctony article wrongly says that Ulansey's theory requires this date of origin. Maestlin 01:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mithraism in Europe

Mithraism in Europe has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism, except for the name. Aucaman^Talk 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree pretty much with that in respect of the structure and practices of Roman Mithraism; Zoroastrianism has no element of initiation, no grades, no worship in caves, no pantheon of planetary gods, no correspondence at all in iconographic representation. Two points of reservation may be suggested however;

We lack direct evidence of Persian Zoroastrian practice around the first century CE; what has been transmitted to us in the Avestan and Pahlavi texts has undergone two subsequent radical reformations (under Sassanian, and then Islamic rule).

Some Mithraic ethics and ideals - as described by Christian and Neo-Platonist contemporary commentators - do seem to suggest at least an attempt to relate to Persian teachings relating to Mithra; as in the emphasis on trustworthiness, fortitude, loyalty and personal integrity. Mithraism is the only widespread mystery cult in the Roman World, never to appear to have caused any difficuties anywhere to civic authorities (until those authorities themselves turned Christian).

I am currently pulling together a draft of a fairly drastic rewrite of this article, on the lines that you seem to suggest Aucaman. I would welcome your modifications and edits when I post it.

TomHennell 15:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

== . == (this is regards to the 'warning' heading in this debate)

Ancient history nearly always has an aspect of speculation however. 'Educated guesses' made by those who have seen what sources are availabe and know the context of the time.

I dont see so much debate going on on other aspects of the ancient world which also have limited evidence. I think the warning tag should be removed as long as the article itself generally explains the problems/limitations with the evidence sources.

Warning II

I have restored the recently removed NPOV warning on the main page. Contrary to what the edit summary stated, there was a clear explanation for the warning in the section titled "Warning" at the top of this discussion page. This article retains problems despite cumulative minor edits. In my opinion, it remains biased towards heavy influence between Christianity and Mithraism. It also does not do an adequate job of addressing the areas mentioned by the anonymous editor just above, in explaining the limitations and so on. Not all areas of ignorance in ancient history are equal; this one calls for more attention than most. I'll also point out that the current article has lots of nonspecific phrasing: "it is speculated" and similar. Even if there is not active debate on this talk page, if the article itself has problems it needs to be tagged. Maestlin 22:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Do accept my apology, I didn't see that -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, it's a big talk page and easy to overlook things. Maestlin 23:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually christianity did have specific teachings on pre-existant nature of souls: Origen. Also you can't look to the Bible to find out what is considered Christian doctrine. The first 800 years of Christian tradition is filled with arguments over Biblical interpretation. Out of the Bible you get a very WIDE range of opinions and views. There is no one teaching from the bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.150.77 (talk • contribs)

Origen hardly represents all of Christianity. The vast majority of Christians since the inception of Christianity, have held that passages like Gen. 2:7 imply creation of souls at the point of creation of body (see Traducianism regarding creation/propigation of souls following Adam). Also, there are multiple interpretations of everything in human experience, not just texts; that's just part of the human condition. But post-modernism and textual deconstructionism are relatively novel and minority positions. In science, for example, you find various interpretations of phenomena (e.g., point physics vs. string theory), but most people don't conclude that this means the nature of the world is uncertain or unknowable, only that our current knowledge is imperfect; in other words, there is an unique, objective interpretation of the world, but we haven't perfectly attained to it yet. Historically, texts have been viewed in the same way as phenomena; they have a unique, objective meaning, though we may not have acheived perfect understanding of that meaning yet. » MonkeeSage « 23:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mithras picture

I've uploaded a picture of Mithras sculpture that I took in the Vatican Museum. Please feel free to use it. Image:Mithras vatican.jpg. -- Jeff3000 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! That's the finest and most famous tauroctony. --Wetman 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed details

Misunderstandings have crept in. I have added a Notes section. References may be inserted in the text following the point where they are relevant, using <ref></ref>. Why is the reference to "petra gentrix" in Latin: is the impression that a Latin document is quoted a falso one? When the tauroctony is described as a "Graeco-Roman myth" where is such a myth related? Several assertions need to be sourced in order to carry information. I marked them. Sourcesa go in the Notes section. --Wetman 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Arabic removed: "(Persian: آيين مهر Āyīn-e Mehr also مهرپرستی Mehr parasti)" Arabic is immaterial. Mithraism was scarcely practiced in Arabia before Islam if at all. Irrelevant and distracting.
• "later" Roman Empire: second and third centuries are not "later"
• cavern "preferably sanctified by previous local religious usage" There is no example of a mithraeum "previously sanctified." If one were adduced, it would need to be discussed a little.
• known "throughout Asia": not true. "and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher" Why are these names to be included here? This discussion is carried out further down.
• "The veneration of this school of thought began about 4,000 years ago in Iran, where it was soon embedded with Babylonian doctrines and all the rest of Iran." Mystic babble: "veneration of a school of thought"?
• "Members of the cult are thought to have moved about the mithraeum in imitation of the sun and constellations through the universe." A statement like this is incomplete: ("are thought" by whom? On what grounds?).
• Some depictions show Mithras "carrying a rock on his back, much as Atlas did..." A common misconception of the sphertes of heavens, in both cases.
• "According to some accounts, Mithras died, was buried in a cavernous rock tomb, and was resurrected." The reference to such detailed "accounts" suggests knowledge of Mithraic texts.
• "It is easy to explain the Sun-god Mithra being worshipped in the windowless, cave-like mithraeum. Each night the sun was thought to journey through the underworld, after sunset from West to East until sunrise." Inserted by someone convinced that Mithra was a "sun god".

--Wetman 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"(Persian: آيين مهر Āyīn-e Mehr also مهرپرستی Mehr parasti)" this is not arabic , this is persian (farsi) that پ is a farsi letter arabs do not have such letter . and since mithraism is persian in origin it is relevant.

First Principle

In a related context, I had prepared the following text that applies to Mithraism. I'm not sure where it might go in the article, so I'm leaving it here for someone more familiar with the aricle's structure/content to decide if/how it might be added.

- Begin -
The Prima Causa (i.e. the first principle or the creator god) of Mithraism was "Infinite Time", called Aion, Saturnus (conflated with Hellenic Kronus, the name the Mithraists used). According to Arendzen (1911 citing Cumont, 1902), this first principle "was none other than Zurvan", the Middle Persian name of the Zoroastrian concept of Time that by the 1st century CE had developed a cult of its own (within the greater Zoroastrian church), today known as Zurvanism.

In contrast to Zurvan, who as a sexless, passionless divinity was more akin to Roman Chronos than to its Hellenic namesake, Mithraism's first principle was a cruel and tempestuous deity. For the Mithraists, Kronus was represented by a semi-human monster with the head of a lion and a serpent coiled about his body. Kronus carried a sceptre and lightning as sovereign god and held in each hand a key as master of the heavens. He had two pair of wings to symbolize the swiftness of time. His body was covered with symbols of the Zodiac and emblems of the seasons <!-- these are direct pastes from the Catholic Ency which is GPL'd --> (Arendzen, 1911).

• Arendzen, John Peter (1913). "Mithraism". The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. New York: Encyclopedia Press.

- End -

ps:Could someone please identify the reason for the NPOV tag by naming the section where the npov is discussed to {{npov}}?

-- Fullstop 08:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

that is a well expressed telling of a scholarly opinion that is now nearly a century old, and pretty much abandoned by most Mithraic scholars since the 1970s. That does not mean it is necessarily wrong (or even if wrong, uninteresting); but it does mean you need to produce some updated scholarly support. In particular, our understanding of Zurvanism now can draw on the enormously rich scholarship of Mary Boyce; and this supercedes the speculative early C20 reconstructions of Cumont and Arendzen: which were heavily determined by the then dominant scholarly tendency to orientalism.

Cumont et al assumed that Roman Civic religion of the 1st century CE was decadent and formalised; hence open to challenge from exotic "Oriental" cults - Isis, Mithras, Christ. In the case of Mithraism however, any Persian precursor is completely lost (or at least has left no archeological trace at all). But Zurvanism was also almost entirely lost in the Sassanian reforms of late antiquity. Hence Cumont reconstructed Persian Zurvanism by reverse-engineering from what he presumed to be "oriental" remains within its western successors (Christianity and Mithraism). But this clearly creates a severe risk of circularity when the reconstructed Persian religion is itself compared to Christianity or Mithraism.

The identity of the common "lion-headed" personage in Mitrhaic iconography is still disputed, though the view that he is a time god is the most likely. There is no name given on any of the surviving statues; nor is there any ground at all for charactising him as "cruel and tempestuous". Lions do appear in the iconography of the Mithras narrative - as helpers in the hunting scenes, and as assistants/guardians in the bull-slaying. In addition, the most common Mithraic rank appears to have been denoted "leo"; whose initiates donned lion masks. All of which makes it most unlikely that the lion-headed figure had the negative function that Cumont and Arendzen ascribe to him. (on all this see the extensive articles in Hinnells(1975).

Of course, the Cumont theories (like their orientalist underpinnings) remain very attractive in popular culture; albeit that Cumont himself had grave misgivings - especially in relation to the lion-headed figure - in his later work. Nevertheless many contributions to Wikipedia continue to maintain this theory, which other contributors reject as obsolete. Hence the NPOV warning.

TomHennell 09:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

From Boyce's work I had figured that the Zoroastrianism->Mithraism connection was tenuous at best. However, I hadn't realized that the lion headed figure (which the article on Zurvan assigns to (Zurvanite) Zoroastrianism, gah!) was not even nominally "Zurvan". I had assumed that it made sense that the persophilic Mithraists used that name for their own divinity, even if it was conceptually something altogether different. Thanks for the clarification. -- Fullstop 12:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is what?

Could the NPOV discussion here in talk please be flagged as such? For someone not familiar with the history of the article, its not clear what the NPOV box in the article is referring to. Thanks.

NPOV is...

The section on Mithras and "parallels" to Christianity. When I want to send people to an article to demonstrate the worst of Wikipedia, I'll use this one. I'd correct the errors, but I suspect this article to be someone's particular hobby horse.

OK. That being the case, I have relocated the NPOV tag to the relevant section, where it belongs. --Splitpeasoup 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You are now promoting your credibility. What specificially is wrong with the section? Anon166 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

firstly - "Similarities" are an inherently subjective intellectual category, and (in my view) not a proper topic for an encylopedia. However there appear to be many contributors to this section who hold to the view that religions share fundamental common dynamic characteristics ; and hence that similarities are valid data in discerning such underlying identities.

secondly - the section contains much that is contradictory, argumentative, tendentious, and factually disproved (albeit that contributors can point to sources in polemical and outdated academic works that continue to rehearse these claims)

TomHennell 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, got preempted, but will say my piece anyway:

Do the 13 sections on this talk page that discuss the "parallels" count? :)

I really don't have an opinion as to the validity of the comments, but many of them sound credible, which is more than can be said for the section. Saying there is such-and-such an opinion (first para) is fine, but the section has altogether way too much text for a theory based on marginal coincidences (note the title of the section). But then again, everyone understands coincidences. :) -- Fullstop 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of the most prominent material on this page, and in this section in particular, is factually erroneous. (Indeed: was there ever such a thing as 'Mithraism'? The word never appears in antiquity at all. Mithras was just part of paganism). The innocent reader would come away with ideas that would get them flayed alive as a fool by the first person familiar with the data and the scholarship. The statements about the opinions of "most scholars" are likewise either nonsense or at best outdated by about a century. The whole article reflects the POV of bigoted Christophobes (the only people daft enough to assert most of this, in my experience), and this section does so in particular. So I agree: whenever I want to show that Wikipedia is crap, I too will point people at this. How could it be improved? Firstly, remove all statements that have no reference to something scholarly and up-to-date. A valid NPOV of this particular section here would consist solely of the parallels, expressed where possible only in the original data; that would not be POV; anything else will be. But I suspect that none of those editing this page know what that data is. I could correct this; but likewise, I think that I'd merely be drawn into an edit war. This page needs deletion, to be honest. What little facts it contains should appear under Mithras. 84.66.164.138 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And, sure enough, I experimentally remove some of the junk from the top of the page and it is reverted! I am so glad that I didn't bother with a rewrite.

It looks like your edit was reverted as vandalism, not necessarily by someone with the agenda you allege. This is less likely to happen if you add a short explanation to the edit summary, maybe something like "details on talk page." Also, you'll get a friendlier reception if you avoid phrases like "crass errors" and "bigoted Christophobes." They set off alarm bells in many people's minds. As for deleting the page, I disagree. "Mithraism" and its derivatives are not ancient words, but they are legitimate English words. This is an English encyclopedia, not a Latin one. Maestlin 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself after a direct question concerning the details, but at least alluded to your apologetic bias, which means I won't need any more information from you. Brittanica has an entry on Mithraism, by the way. Anon166 15:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am confused. To whom is the paragraph "You're repeating yourself..." directed? Maestlin 22:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at you. Anon166 01:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this article and I have no agenda (I'm not a Christian) and some knowledge (I've read quite a bit about early Christianity). I have to say that the section in question is horrible. It is way over the top in its claims for influence of Mithraism on Christianity. Scholars certainly talk about influences of Mithraism, along with several other religions, on Christianity. This article, however, takes an extreme position compared to scholarly consensus, grossly overstating the influence of Mithraism and presenting distorted descriptions of both religions to make them sound more similar than they really are. 72.75.88.85 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

good points - which I largely agree with. However there is no shortage of scholarship of the earlier part of the last century which tends more towards the views expressed here. Which generates a POV issue; should the NPOV be focussed on the current scholarly consensus, which would tend to regard Mithriasm and early Christianity as larely distinct and having little influence on one another? Or should it reflect a former widely held scholarly view that both Mithraism and Christianity are "Oriental" religions, both based on Persian sources, and heavily interdependent? Clearly some allowance has to be made for those who feel that the current scholarly consensus is false, to contribute their own edits. But perhaps it should be clearer that this perspective - though once widely supported - is now very much discredited in current scholarlship. TomHennell 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's easy. An encyclopedia article should reflect the current scholarly consensus. It is fine to mention that a view was formerly widespread but is now largely rejected. It is not OK to have a long section devoted to a view that is now widely rejected, much less to present it as established fact. When I read an article about a disease, I don't want to read a long section about how it is caused by an imbalance of bodily humors. Less absurdly, when I read an article on geology I don't want to read claims that the earth is only thousands of years old, even though there are people out there who hold to this obsolete view and reject the modern view that it is billions of years old. People are free to believe what they like about the current scholarly consensus. They are not free to put their opinions into encyclopedia articles. 72.75.86.87 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so easy I fear in the case of classical and antique religions, as it is for the natural sciences (as in the parallels you quote). The scholarly consensus on Mithraism has been as you say, broadly since the late 1970s. But some aspects of the older consensus hung on in scholarship into the 1990s (or example in the view, only dispelled in 1996, that the emperor Julian's rejection of Christianity was heavily influenced by Mithraism). Indeed it is still the case, that more printed enclopaedia articles reflect the old consensus than the new - especially those that are also in the Public Domain on the internet (such as the 1911 Britannica). In any case, Wikipedia has no way to block edits from those who wish to present scholarship that challenges the new consensus (and this talk page shows that there are quite a number of these active in the Wiki community); and nor should it. TomHennell 09:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also in reference to "Thats easy": Actually, its not quite "that easy" for the very simple reason that 'scholarly consensus' has no weight in an encyclopedia that is not edited by scholars. Its an admirable goal to strive for, but its probably not going to happen.

The parallels to disease and earth, though valid, are not quite applicable to problems with the Mithraism article because what is popularly understood by disease/earth is pretty much in synch with what science tells us each is. And that is the measure to go by, i.e. what is popularly understood, not whether an opinion is citable or not. Or to put it another way, "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." - Jimbo Wales, Sept. 26 2003 [1]. See also "undue weight" policy.

To address Tom Hennel's correct observation that the putative connection between Mithraism and Mithra is oh-so-Cumont. While I agree with him entirely, the issue at stake in that matter is no longer just a matter of whats academically correct, but also must take into account what what non-academics understand by the term. Fact is, the term 'Mithraism' is misleading, and this is painfully evident in many of the articles under 'What links here'.

Sure, from an academic point of view, any reference in Mithraism to the Zoroastrian/Neopagan cult is entirely misplaced (its not even the right epoch), but for nominal reasons might be the "right" thing to address anyway. That is, simply saying Mithraism should not be confused with the cult of Mithra, no matter how technically correct that may be, is not judicious since it does not reflect "popular" opinion.

-- Fullstop 14:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Remedial action

Moving on,...

~~ At present, we have four semi-disconnected issues bungling about in the Mithraism article.

• The cult of Mithras,
• the Cumontesque connection between Mithras and Zoroastrian/neopagan Mithra,
• the nominal connection between Mithras and Zoroastrian/neopagan Mithra,
• "Similarities to Christianity"

~~ I propose that the article be rebuilt with the following goals in mind:

• Use the article at Mithras to also describe the cult of Mithras. Dealing with the divinity Mithras without dealing with his cult (and vice-versa) makes no sense at all. (See also point 5 below).
• The semi-homophonic similarity needs to be dealt with it without Mithras and Mithra getting into each other's hair and the distinction between the two needs to be obvious and emphasized. The Cumontesque connection needs to disappear or at least its discreditation be apparent.
• The "Christianity" section either vanishes altogether or is shrunk down to a sentence or two with a suitable "this is not taken seriously" disclaimer ('NPOV:undue weight' policy).

~~ Suggested procedure: (step 1/2 occur first, then 3/4/5 in one whoosh)

1. Develop the Mithras article properly to cover the cult.
2. Take a straw poll with respect to "Similarities to Christianity". If it fails, it disappears, otherwise its reduced to a sentence or two and wanders over to Mithras too.
3. Nuke anything else thats not properly cited or long debunked or doesn't fit in point 5 below.
4. Introduce a lede passage that a) identifies where the term comes from (that it is an english language term from academia), b) and that it has different meanings for different people. Perhaps something like:
       Mithraism is originally a 19th/20th century academic term for the Greco-Roman cult of Mithras. The term
       gained currency in the late 1890s following the publication of Franz Cumont's syncretic theories of
       the cult. Although Cumont's theories are now outdated, the term remains in common use: in academia
       where it continues to refer to the Mediterranean cult of Mithras; and in popular imagination, where it is
       also a reference to the Zoroastrian & neopagan cult of Mithra that was promoted by the Achaemenids.
5. Follow up the lede in point 4 with a paragraph (or two) for each of the two divinities (Mithra and Mithras), under a section titled "The ABC cult of XYZ" that is simply a brief summary of Main article: XYZ.

~~

What do y'all say? Aye in favor, or Nay to oppose.

-- Fullstop 14:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a radical recasting, and have been scoping one in my mind for quite some time. I would however try to be a bit more eirenic towards those who want to edit in Cumont style / Frazer style / "history of religions" style speculations; not the least because they will edit themselves in anyway, and its better if there are clear pegs they can hang their supposed references on.

I would suggest that "Mithaism" covers five distinct belief systems, (of which the first is only really understood speculatively) these are:

A - The pre-Zoroastrian cult of Mitra (source from Mary Boyce, but noting that it is really only known in remains in later belief systems).

B - Zoroastrian reverence for Mithra (as evidenced in the Mhir Yasht, again mainly from Mary Boyce, but coming down to the present in Iranian Mithra festivals).

C - the Anatolian cults of Mithra - chiefly as evidenced in Nemrud Dagh and other sanctuaries in Commagene, but also including Trapezus, Pontus, the Cilician pirates, Armenia, and possibly the Crimea.

D - Roman Mithraism - as evidenced in the extensive archeological record, and soley as found within the Roman Empire between 90 CE and 400 CE.

E - The Bactrian Mithra cult of the Sun (again as found in the archeological record, but surviving within Central Asian Buddhism in the Mithra frescoes at Bamiyan (destroyed by the Taliban)).

I think it is reasonably clear that C and E derive from B. There are good arguments (chiefly in Beck) to suggest that D - Roman Mithraism - derives in some degree from a Commagene Mithra cult (and the ongoing investigations of the Mithrea at Doliche may well strengthen this). The speculation that A survived underground to influence Roman Mithraism and Christianity by means of Babylonian Hellenized Magi is too fanciful for Wikipedia I think.

Hence possibly deal with the various Mithraism separately in the order A, B, C, E and D. Then note arguments for their being interrelated.

I would then put a summary of the thesis of Cumont - which is not just a Mithraism theory, but also a general theory of "Orientalism" and antique relgion.

I would set this against the views of Burkert on Mithraism in the context of Roman Mystery Relgions.

and then a summary of current consensus - chiefly as per Alison Griffith, but paying respects to the astrological theories of Ulansey and Beck in particulary.

finally a section of influence from and to Mithraism and Christianity - recognising those undoubeted influences on icongraphy and representation (as in the tower of St Peter-at-Gowts in Lincoln) - but also giving potential room for the long and dreary lists of "similariites betweeen Mithraism and Christianity".

TomHennell 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But in answer to your original point - I do not think that Roman Mithraism can easily be subsumed within an article on Mithras. We actually know very little about Mithras - for instance we do not know whether the lion-headed figure is a representation of Mithras, or of some other deity. Nor are we at all certain of the links between Mithras and Saturn, or indeed between Mithras and Sol. Our knowledge is basically about Mithraism - i.e. the mystery cult that was undertaken within Roman Mithrea.

We could subsume Zoroastrian Mithra-veneration within a Mithra/Mitra article, but it is better dealt with at length under Zoroastrianism. We would still need some discussion of Persian Mithra within Mithras/Mithraism, in order to present the debate on the origin's of Roman Mithraism.

In my view TomHennell 22:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Some remedial action needs to be taken. TomHennell's plan sounds the best, in large part because it is most sensitive to likely future edits. Above all, I would like to see the Roman cult covered here, not under Mithras, and I would like to see something said about Cumont's thesis, with easily seen reference to the article on Cumont for further information. "Influences" and "similarities" between Mithraism and Christianity are not going away, and if we try to remove them, they will reappear. Here's an idea: the Jesus as myth article overlaps with this topic. I don't suggest tranferrring the material there (the article is overlarge already), but is there scope for a new article on pagan/Christian parallels? It might relieve pressure on both the Mithraism and Jesus as myth articles. Maestlin 00:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then I say Tom's plan is the plan of action to go with. Just a "short" note with respect to the Asian cults:

• be careful with terms like "pre-Zoroastrian". :) Pre-Zoroastrian in Western Asia is pre-500 BCE; pre-Zoroastrian in Central Asia is pre-1000 BCE. This is important because it identifies the geographic vicinity and thus which syncretic influences are at play. In the west we have a conflation between Syrian Mitra (that is, a development of the Indo-Iranian god of the Mittani treaties), and Babylonian/Akkadian Shamash (thats where the Sun symbolism comes from, see Boyce Z2:30ff). As such, you have in Western Iran a god named Mithra that is derived from the Indo-Iranian one but that is more Semitic than not. Meanwhile, in the east we have Mithra, still very much the god of oath, also derived from the Indo-Iranian one, but without the Semitic syncretic influence, and having no sun/light features [yet].
• in 'B' its clear you mean the Western Achaemenids, in which case connecting 'E' to 'B' is risky business. In the east we have no evidence of a (temple) cult at all. Sure, the two are _nominally_ connected, but we also know that it was common practice in Bactria/Sogdiana to take the names of alien deities to express a particular construct. The name (or even the sun feature) is by itself no evidence that the two are actually connected, or that one derives from the other.
• on the other hand, B/C can be treated as one geographical loop that begins in Parsa/Susa in 450 BCE and ends in Parsa/Susa 300 CE. During the Zoroastrian Achaemenid era, i.e. 450 BCE+, the eastern and western Mithra get mashed together in the Western states, so in the Mihr Yasht you get Mithra appearing as yazata of the heavenly lights. This is Western Zoroastrianism, at this point still clearly distinguishable from the highly conservative and geographically remote Eastern brand. At about the same time we see the development of the (again Semitic-influenced) shrine cults, which under the patronage of the Achaemenid Persians spread to all corners of the empire. Now, the Achaemenids (at that stage) may have been Zoroastrians, but the gods of the shrine cults developed independantly, i.e. they were pagan cults (again). In Zoroastrianism itself (and this is probably from an eastern influence) we see an iconoclastic movement beginning ca. 400 BCE, probably (so Boyce, Zaehner) as a reaction to the iconic shrine cults. Then come the Hellenic Seleucid and Aracid/Parthian eras and the deities of the shrine cults (Mithra, Anahita, Verethregna, Tishtrya-Tira-Tir) take on Hellenic characteristics. By the late Parthian era (c. 200 CE) we only have evidence from Parsa (Persia proper) that the objects of veneration in shrine cults are still firmly connected to Zoroastrianism. In the east the shrine cult is not at all evident. In the rest of the empire the shrine cults have become more or less independant (in Armenia, Tiridates II still invokes Ahuramazda-Mithra-Anahita, but the Greek descriptions of the cults make them evidently un-Zoroastrian). After the Parthians, the Sassanids reestablish Zoroastrianism with a firm hand, so we get a brief swing from the neopagan cults back to a more hierarchical structure. But by the third or fourth generation (probably Bahram I onwards), the iconoclastic movement really takes off and the shrine cults are eclipsed (but evident even today in the term Dar-be Mihr, 'Mithra's Gate') by the firmly Zoroastrian fire cult.

Bottom line: 'A' falls away because its irrelevant to the cult of Mithra. 'B'/'C' as above; 'D' is as you identified it; and 'E' (like Vedic Mitra) has no business in an article on Western Asian/Mediterranean Mithra. -- Fullstop 09:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea that Mithraism did not influence Christianity is a lie generally spread by Christian apologists who believe that Christianity had no theological influences. Their idea of up to date scholarship includes intelligent design theory. In fact, the notion of theological influences on Christianity is widening every year, not shrinking, although Christian fundamentalism grows at the same time. Those offended might want to cite their sources and not pretend the whole world agrees with them. Anon166 07:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

When the Christian church emerged from out of the threat of persecution, into a state of dominance in the 4th century CE, it selectively appropriated much of the material apparatus of contemporary paganism, along with its best buildings. This particularly applied to iconography; images of the "Good Shepherd" and of the "Enthroned Christ" are recognisably derived from pagan archetypes. Not surprisingly, some borrowing came from Mithraism - e.g. in the depiction of the Magi, and of the ascent of Elijah. However, (and contrary to what is currently said in the article) there is no evidence for Christian re-use of Mithraic structures; perhaps they were none of them grand enough.

So, to suggest that there was no influence at all from Mithraism to Christianity is contrary to the findings of current scholarship. But theological influences from Mithraism are much harder to demonstrate - largely because we have no clear idea of what Mithraic theology actually was. Cumont believed the could reconstruct a lost source Iranian Mithraism by reverse-engineering from what he identified as "Oriental" characteristics within Roman antique cults, together with a highly creative re-reading of Zoroastrian texts, and an equally creative re-interpretation of the archeology. The trouble is that this process turned out to be circular - as can be seen in the common assertion that the birth of Mithras was attended by "shepherds". Cumont considered the Christian nativity tradition to be clearly "Oriental", so he read it back into his supposed Iranian sources. Later readers have then taken his speculations as established facts; and concluded that this demonstrates a proof of Mithraic influence on Christianity. But if Cumont's "Orientalist" thesis is no longer tenable, then the beliefs and practices of Roman Mithraism (whatever they may have been) are only evidenced from the end of the 1st Century CE (i.e. pretty much contemporary with our earliest surviving texts of Christian theology). So, if there was an influence from Ancient Mystery Cults on Christianity (and this is a thesis still maintained by a number of scholars of repute), the cults in question are most unlikely to have included the Mysteries of Mithras.

None of this has anything to do with Intelligent Design or Christian fundamentalism. It has much more to do with the collapse of early 20th century "Orientalism" as a scholarly tradition. TomHennell 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why they are properly suggested as parallels or similarities. To suppress them is religious censorship because someone's religious identity and claims are threatened by their existence. The reader is properly left to decide in these cases precisely because their religious prejudices are usually established by less evidence. Fundamentalism is related by analogy, and logical circularity is a poor way to describe what is already circular in literary circumstances. Miraculous stories of deities are presumed to be mythical when they aren't known to be historical, and so parallels apply. No religion is historically secured by its political dominance, that would be circular, so we should stop pretending that one of them here has the special status of being assumed correct. Anon166 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose if I understood that, I might disagree with it. But I don't. so I can't. TomHennell 20:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Views on remedial action

Tom's ideas seem sound, and far better than what we have now. Please start on these. But I would suggest that we don't try to state what the current academic consensus is (although it is indeed anti-Cumont), unless we can support that with a citation. How many Wikipedians know what the current consensus is? It's usually used as weasel wording, IMHO. What I suggest is that we simply state what the various positions are (without comment), and when the authors wrote. How does that grab people? I don't believe that Mithraism ever existed, by the way -- the term originates with Renan, who had no qualifications to invent it. The data we have about Mithras and his worshippers should really go in the Mithras article, IMHO, and the page be reduced to a stub linking to Renan and Mithras. I don't think 'Mithraism' is an English word, not really. If it is, perhaps we should have a reference? As for the 'similarities' -- why not have a section on this? But won't it be pure POV unless it also includes dissimilarities? (There is something in the style manual about this). Roger Pearse 14:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement - it is rather a big job. The current consensus is not that difficult to find - it is well represented on the editorial team of the Electronic Journal of Mithraic Studies http://www.uhu.es/ejms/team.htm

I prefer to llimit the description of the varieties of Mithraism to current studies (i.e. since the Manchester conference of 1971). The Cumont speculations should go in a separate section - they stand or fall together - and should not be included (in my view) in the general accounts of the cult.

As to whether Mithraism existed - the proceedings of the Manchester conference use the term extensively, and it stands for the "Mysteries of the Persians" which undoubtedly represented an distinct category of belief and practice in the Roman Empire between 100 CE and 400 CE. We know a great deal about who Mithraists were, and what they did when they were being Mithraists. We know much less with any certainty about Mithras.

TomHennell 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. I was aware of Richard Gordon's excellent pages (do we have a link?) But I fear that we must include the Cumont stuff in this page -- separate section or not --, or people will add it in here anyway. Better to preempt this. And, you know, there is a bit of a smell of revisionism about the current consensus. I agree that there isn't a good reason to link Mithra and Mithras; but the data is so limited, you know, that it may still be true. Anyhow, rather than argue with every new editor, I thought it best to incorporate both views. Cumont's Textes et Monumentes is fundamental, out of copyright, and should be online. (So should Vermaseren's corpus of inscriptions, but I can see the copyright problem).

I don't believe that the ancient data supports the idea of the cult of Mithras being distinct from paganism in a way not true of other mystery cults. Does any ancient text suggest otherwise? "Mithraism" sounds to me like a coinage of Renan. But if it's really being used extenstively, we must refer to it. But I'd still rather put all this under Mithras.

I've been pruning the page a bit of unnecessary material, but no major rejigs yet. Feel free to have a go. Roger Pearse 07:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Demise of Mithraism edit

This explains my edit on this. Much of the material in this section is factually correct, but discusses Sol Invictus, not Mithras. The same material is already present in that article, and there is no connection between the two cults (except that both were part of ancient paganism). It seems best to remove it, therefore. The section now indicates only material that can be justified from the archaeology. It's pretty short: but so is what we know. I hope that this is OK with everyone. We could use a citation on the 'Mitras in the 5th century' bit, which is new to me. Roger Pearse 14:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Found a ref -- in Cumont -- for the c.5 bit and added it. Roger Pearse 16:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert of change by 64.162.138.250

I've reverted this change (reluctantly) as it does not in fact add content, but merely moves words around. To move the word 'cult' around to that the text compares 'Mithra' (a deity) to the 'Cult of Christianity' (a system of worship) makes no sense; compare cult of Mithra with cult of Christ, surely? The original was better. All the other contribs by this editor seem to involve things like adding the words 'the Nazi' after 'Jesus', etc. I hope no-one minds. The section in question isn't very good, but this change makes it worse, not better. Roger Pearse 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Martin Larson-derived material

A fair bit of the material in the 'similarities' section seems to be from a book by Martin Larson. Larson was not a scholar, but a 'freethinker', and seems to be repeating all sorts of dubious material, probably derived from Graves "Pagan Christs" (one of the few books to have a health warning on Internet Infidels). I feel that all this material should be removed, as unlikely to be fact-based. Does anyone object if I do this? Roger Pearse 16:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to discuss the dubiousness of Larson's claims, but if the information is pertinent to the section then a properly cited reference should not be deleted simply because an editor is skeptical of the source. It probably wouldn't be too hard to come up with some alternate references to counter Larson's claims, IMHO. Other than that, I have no arguments with your edits. --Aelffin 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I understand the idea. But do we then include any material by anyone, however weird, so long as it has a reference to the source? This feels wrong to me. There must be a point below which a source which is neither ancient nor scholarly must get the bullet, I sort of feel. Cumont's views are out of fashion; but it would be wrong (IMHO) to ignore them. Roger Pearse 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the scale I use to judge questionable content:

Loony End	Reasonable End
Flat Earth > Jews for Jesus > Creationism > Lysenkoism > Aquatic Ape > Abiogenic Oil

I think Jesus-as-Myth is in the ballpark of Aquatic Ape/Abiogenic Oil, so I'd say we should look at how the paleoanthropology and petroleum geology articles treat their fringe theories. What do you think? --Aelffin 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Larson has nothing to do with the Jesus-myth. He believes that Jesus existed, but that his divine nature had pagan origins. I think your rant applies directly to those who believe Jesus was both. Anon166 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly so; but all this has little if anything to do with Mithraism - i.e. the subject of the current article - and so is properly treated in the Jesus and History series. Even if Larson's speculation is correct about Jesus, it proves nothing about the origins of Mithraism, which can only be determined with refernce the Mithraic archeological and documentary record. TomHennell 09:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It has everything to do with Mithraism, because among the many schools of thought on the pagan origins of the divinity of Jesus, and the cross-influences of doctrine, Mithraism still stands as exhibit one. An article on Mithraism needs to include the parallels or similarities for this reason, as they would include it for Manichaeism. Mithraism is key, if not all important in a comparative literary and religious context, which Larson was a respected expert in. Anon166 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not read Larson, so I do not know whether the views about Mithraism attributed to him in the article are accurately reported. But if they are, then they are entirely without support in the archeological record: "Mithraism, in Larson's view, was an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, and was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name". Firstly, Mithraism was emphatically not exclusive; individuals who are identified as Mithraic initiates, are also very commonly found as intiates in other mysteries (especially Jupiter Dolichanus), and also as regular participants in the civic cult. Most important, the Mithraeum entirely lacked the proper facilities for sacrifice (the Romans were very particular about such matters); and so any sacrificial offerings found in a Mithraeum must have been obtained by mutual arrngement through the sacrificial practice of some other cult. Secondly, Mithraism was highly conformist - the individual Mithraist was committed to personal integrity and fortitude, but there is no social critique in Mithraism at all (unlike Christianity). Thirdly, the archeological record is very clear that there was no evidence of assimilation of Mithraism to state-sponsored Christianity. There are - for example - numerous examples of Mithraea falling into disuse in the 4th Century CE, with new churches being built nearby (or even on top of them). But no examples at all have been found of mithraea continuing in Christian use (again a strong contrast to the well noted examples of assimilation of rites and buildings into Christianity from the civic cult).

The conventional wisdom is that they excluded women and that it was for the elect, not just anyone was expected to join, something closer to Calvinism perhaps. The social critique would have been esoteric to us for the same reason. I wouldn't assume anything about conformity among nobles, as you do. You are also arguing the lack of archaeological record based on censored demographics. While the archaeology may help you sacrifices, I don't see the point either. You might want to start quoting your sources, because your arguments make no sense. I for one don't care what your personal opinion is when compared to citations. Anon166 03:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. It is clear we are understanding the term "exclusive" in different ways. When early Christianity is described as "exclusive", we mean that Christians were forbidden from participation in non-Christian rites; and believed that only Christians would have access to salvation. The case for Mithraism is very directly contrary, in that we find many person identifed as Mithraists (on votive inscriptions in Mithraea) who are also found participating in other cults; and persons who are not Mithraists dedicating inscriptions to Mithras. Mithraism almost certainly did not admit women to initiation, but it is a moot point how far this is to be understood as being "exclusive"; as for example it is common to find wives and other female family members joining with male Mithraists in dedicating votive inscriptions. Other mystery cults distinguished between 'initiates', and 'worshippers'; the latter being admitted to the cult's festivals, but not to their communal meals. Many such cults allowed both sexes to be worshippers but restricted initiates to one sex only (male or female). But Mithraism had no festivals in this sense - only communal meals - so it is possible that the non-initiation of women should be understood rather as a matter of practicality and propriety, than as one of religious exclusion. It is clear from the votive inscriptions that Mithraists did not in any way believe that the the God's salvation was restricted only to Mithraic initiates (in strong contrast with Christianity). I am unaware of any reference to Mithraists as "elect" - certainly not in the Calvinist sense as pre-destined to salvation by God's choice.

As you say, I am limiting my observations to findings identified through the archeological and documentary record. This is indeed "censored", in that we can only generalise from those sites that have been excavated, and those texts that have been copied. But facts are like that, we can only state what has been observed. Everthing else is speculation (in my view)and, however interesting, is not really appropriates for inclusion in an encyclopedia

My sources can mainly be found in the works of Manfred Clauss and Roger Beck (as cited in the article); with some additions from Alison Griffith and Mary Boyce. TomHennell 16:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be that Larson is making a good point about Osiris - but if so his views should be reported in that article. But everthing that has been stated so far in this article as originating from Larson concerning Mithraism is entirely speculative, and without support in material evidence. Hence I cannot see that it merits inclusion. TomHennell 10:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar Errors

OK. Somebody explain me this: "..., but for the fact that the devotees were convinced that..." (in the paragraph "Principles of Mithraism"). Whatta hell is that. Pardon me for cursing. What the fact does the author talk about. I think, he tries confuse not only devotees of the past, but the readers of his article as well. And there many and many other silly grammar mistakes as the article goes on.

"the fact that" is a clumsy circumlocution rather than a grammatical error; often used in speech to pad out a statement to make it a bit more impressive. But the point is well made that the phrasing of the article need tightening

Here's another one: "Mithraism is the best documented in the form it had acquired in the Roman Empire." What form??? Is there a comma missing before it? Who can tell? And then it says that the religion was "passed from initiate (article "an"?) to initiate", however, later it says that it was limited and secret to initiated men. How can it be? It was passed from one to another, but was limited to both. Am I crazy?

Like other Greaco-Roman mystery cults, Mithraism took from the Eleusian Mysteries the principle that its practices and beliefs were unconcealed, but remained unspoken other than between initiates, and within the walls of the Mithraeum. There appears to have been a powerful religious attraction for a belief system that was known to be widely shared, but universally unspoken.

Now this: "...have gathered for a common meal along the reclining couches lining the walls." Lining on the walls? I apologize for my limited English, so, please, explain me what are those "lining the walls". I be not understanding that. Then there are some weird words as "so as to be". I believe it's either is or not. There shouldn't be no "so as". 

The Mithraeum was rectancular. There was a central aisle down the middle, with raised platforms on either side extending to the side walls. Mithriasts reclined on these platforms facing inwards (propped on their left elbows, with their bodies and legs extending behind and to their right) , and were served food by associates walking up and down the central aisle

What is soterism? (The 5th paragraph in "the mithraeum") "...mithraic soterism".

"soterism" is the form of salvation belief particular to a religion. In common with most antique belief systems, Mithraism saw salvation as deliverance from peril and assurance of benefit - irrespective of whether in this life or an after-life. Hence (and in distinction from Christianity), Mithriasm held no principle that suffering in this life would be rewarded with salvation in the next.

"It is noticed by some researchers that this movement, especially in the context of mithraic soterism, seems to stem from the neoplatonic concept that the 'running' of the sun from solstice to solstice is a parallel for the movement of the soul through the universe, from pre-existence, into the body, and then beyond the physical body into an afterlife." By what researchers and which context?

chiefly Roger Beck

Movement of what?

movement from one side of the mithraeum to the other

What is 'Mystagogue'?

someone who transmits the mysteries to an initiate

What is the Rite?

the initiation

I didn't get. Is it "Water Miracle" or it's not?

it is not - the Water Miracle is an event in the life of Mithras (and the reason why Mithraists drink water in most ceremonies (and have water pots built into their mithraea

And it said like hundred times through the whole article that this information is doubtful or incomplete. Why? Said it once and then say whatever you know.

all the above comes from comparitive analysis of archeological sites. No "Book of Mithras" has ever been found (and it is likely that there never was a single "Mithriac Scripture". In effect, the mithreaum iself is the Book of Mithras. But anything that is said from such evidence could be corrected and contradicted by a finding in the next excavated mithraeum (for instance if we were to find an inscription that made it clear that the standard dedicatory formula: D(eus) S(ol) I(nvictus) M(ithras), denoted not Mithras alone, but Sol and Mithras as a duality).

"Another more widely accepted interpretation takes its clue from the writer Porphyry, who recorded that the cave pictured in the tauroctony was intended to be "an image of the cosmos." According to this view, the cave depicted in that image may represent the "great cave" of the sky. This interpretation was supported by research by K. B. Stark in 1869, with astronomical support by Roger Beck (1984 and 1988), David Ulansey (1989) and Noel Swerdlow (1991). This interpretation is reinforced by the constant presence in Mithraic imagery of heavenly objects — such as stars, the moon, and the sun — and symbols for the signs of the Zodiac." OK. I understood, like, nothing out if this. What view? Of the cave? Is there a cave in the sky? What??? Is this some riddle? Caves are in the ground, not the sky.

In antiquity the heavens were seen as being like a a "vault" or "basin" (i.e. like a vast upturned pudding bowl, seen from inside). But the heavens have no "outside" - no external form. The Neo-platonists hit on the metaphor of "cave" as way of representing such concept - since caves also have an "inside" but no "outside". It is argued that the Mithriasts formed their places of worship as caves for the same reason.

aThe author must be hi. "One of the central motifs of Mithraism is the tauroctony, the myth of the slaying of a sacred bull." Tauroctony is not a myth. A tauroctony is an artistic depiction of the legendary hero and ancient religious icon Mithras ritually slaying a bull. (by wikipedia on tauroctony)

better to say "a representation of the myth"

TomHennell 16:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev 03:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Reverts 17 Oct. 2006

Something odd going on here, to my ignorant eyes. Tom, are you sure that you wanted to remove the careful "demise of Mithraism" (which confines itself to facts) and reinclude all the largely irrelevant tosh including stuff about Mithras being the state religion? (Or did this come along for the ride with something solid?) The version here by 166.70.243.229 and Anon166 seems better to me, but I wasn't clear what you didn't like about it. What am I missing? Roger Pearse 11:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the "state religion" bit - it goes very much into personal speculation, and is no better founded than much of the works it criticises. The "demise of Mithraism" does need to be extended though. My concern was that a substantial contribution was being reverted without sorting out with the contributor what was considered to be wrong with it, and how it might be improved. There is little point in Actually wasn't that 'additional material' a reversion itself? I'm fairly sure that I saw it before I started working over that section. I agree, tho, that we need to try to avoid massive undiscussed reversions, unless we all want to throw up our hands and give up. Roger Pearse 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)trying to remedy the things that are wrong here if the response is wholescale reversions. TomHennell 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Roger that the stuff your refering to has got indirectly caught up in the disputes over the changes to the similarities section that i made. it sounds like something else that was rightly deleted has been acidentally resurrected in the process of Tom trying to bring back the parts of 'similarities ' that i contributed and which were mucked about with.

Matt Lavender

(Matt, you can add your id using four "~" characters). That could be so. The "similarities" section is mostly tosh, so I didn't look at it. But I do feel that anything by Martin Larson should get the bullet, as he shows no sign of familiarity with the data; only with stuff from "Pagan Christs" books Roger Pearse 08:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i agree vis a vis Larson. If you look to the top of the page you'll see we've been have a discussion regarding doing a wholesale revision of this section. However, we havnt started yet because it seems that any changes we make gets reverted immediately, so before we do a great big edit were trying to get the pro similarities people to agree to discuss their point of view here, rather than just undo any changes we make. Hopefully we can get it sorted out soon, and have the page resembling some sort of reality. Mattlav 16:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "Cult"?

I see that we have arguments about whether the word 'cult' can be used here. Wikipedia is a collection of hearsay, and words bear their commonplace meaning as a rule. While correct, I think we all are aware that the word 'cult' as used on TV has a very specific pejorative meaning in normal use. It also implies something rather alien to ancient paganism -- something like the Moonies. I don't believe that ancient mystery religions worked like that. But the difficulty is to find another term which denotes "worship dedicated to one deity or group of deities primarily within the context of ancient polytheistic paganism." As the text stands, I think it will mislead. Thoughts? Roger Pearse 17:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "religion" is also problematic, as it implies, in common parlance, a distinct and self-consistent faith system. There are some who still hold this to be a characteristic of Mithraism, but that is not the modern consensus of scholarship - which would consider "ancient polytheistic paganism" as the "religion"; while the activities associated with the worship of Dionysos or Isis etc would be "cults". We know it was common (and probably normal) for individuals to participate in many different such "cults"; some of which were public (i.e. the "civic cult"), and some selective (i.e. the "mystery cults"). Probably the best analogy to Mithriasm (in the consensus view) would be a special religious observance, like a pilgrimage; or a religious association, like the Knights of Columbus. I would propose the introductory term "mystery religion or religious confraternity" - but I suppose that may also have unwelcome baggage for US contributors. Therafter refer to it (as the Romans did) as a "mystery" TomHennell 15:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the use of the term 'religion' is also liable to mislead (and does mislead, as I can see in usenet). The absence of useful terms is a real problem, I think. Roger Pearse 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use the term that scholars use, which I assume is "cult". Paul August ☎ 03:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not just scholars, perfectly ordinary readers understand what is intended in the phrases "the cult of Apollo at Delphi" or "Bernard of Clairvaux and the cult of the Virgin." I think everyone understands that "cult' is only an aspect of "religion", though an important one. The educationally disadvantaged can easily catch up by reading the article Cult (religion). --Wetman 05:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a look at Cult might clarify things? Is it really useful to use a word which is only ever used by most people in a sense that is (a) pejorative and (b) irrelevant? Why not find another? Is there some reason to risk misunderstanding, and if so what is it? Roger Pearse 16:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand,...

AFAIK, there is no alternative word for "cult" that fulfills what is also understood by it. See also Aredvi Sura Anahita where "cult" is (I think) the only possibly applicable word.

Then, evident in the two dictionaries quoted at Cult#Dictionary_definitions_of_.22cult.22, the negative/pejorative sense is not the primary meaning of the term.

Also, IMO, the phrases "mystery cult", "shrine cult", "temple cult" are sufficiently 'enhanced' to make it evident that the derogatory sense of "sect" is not the one being used here.

Then, there is the question of the scholastic use of the term, and it should be remembered that everything that is known about Mithraism is only through scholarship.

And its simply not a good idea to avoid a term that fits precisely only because it might be misunderstood. Someone, somewhere, is going to misunderstand no matter what word is used.

On the other hand,...

In the case of Mithraism, I think the term could be avoided altogether: in Roman Mithraism, the cult is not distinguishable from (and independent of) the religious movement. Moreover, Mithraism was also a cult in the sense that it was not a mainstream religion.

-- Fullstop 06:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a mainstream religion??? Perhaps you should do some more research. Just a thought. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman Mithraism was not a universal religion in even the remotest sense of the term. Indeed, the opposite is true: it was highly selective and highly secretive (think "mystery religion"). That doesn't mean that it wasn't popular. It was - within the very clear boundaries of certain segments of the population. -- Fullstop 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote for mystery religion where the main focus is on the containment/protection of the sacred and a progressive revelation of spiritual truths and I agree with the characterization of WP as hearsay, but that page still gives the major points). I think it is accurate, non-pejorative and yet maintains a distinction between it and what are commonly understood as world religions. I also have no objection to mystery cult, but my pref. is for religion. Regardless of what we know to be appropriate use of the term "cult" I think "religion" is better. Less of a cultural bias.Phyesalis 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mystery religion is accurate, cult can be viewed as pejorative. Unless you plan to change Christianity and every other religion to "cult" then per NPOV we must characterize all religions as religions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote Intro

Hi, I edited the intro a little to contain facts that were more accurate and had clear, reliable and verifiable citations (I have to go back to clean those up a little). Can someone explain to me more clearly what the difference between this and the Mithra article is? I don't want to go smashing about in the dark. Thank you. Phyesalis 10:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks - but I would not think that the "New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia" is worth a reference on this topic. The internet version is the 1917 edition transcribed.

this is especially problematic in the case of Mithraism, as scholarship predating 1971 is heavily influenced by the scholarship of Franz Cumont - which is now wholly superceded in the specialist field (though still represented by a number of Wikipedia contributors). Cumont's approach to Mithraism (and indeed to ancient mystery cults in general) was determined by his consistent orientalism. He held that the Roman civic cult was moribund in the 1st century CE, and that believers were increasingly attracted to "oriental" religious cults - Isis, Mithras, Cybele, Christianity - which offered personal religious satisfaction and mystical experience. see: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/orrp/index.htm

Cumont's theories were seen in Belgium as anti-clerical - and he was scandalously blocked from appointment to a Professorial Chair. But his general approach subsequently proved highly congenial to Christian scholarship (once Christianity was excepted from the "oriental" category). Christians tended to be very pleased with a view of Roman religion that regarded civic paganism as crude and primitive, and mystery cults as "superior" rival religions . But the distinction between Roman and Oriental is not a hypothesis that more recent historians would regard as sustainable - and without it, the whole architecture of Cumont's system falls apart.

TomHennell 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the NACE is of questionable value in this case, just trying to provide evidence from multiple perspectives. I'll fix that. But regardless of differentiations between Roman and earlier forms of Mithraism, it is generally accepted that there were Hellenic and Persian incarnations of the cult. With the exception of NACE, my sources were reliable and verifiable. Please allow the facts to speak for themselves. Introduced facts, not points of view. Other than attributed positions, WP articles should allow the reader to draw their own conclusion. I think you are dismissing Cumont's work rather summarily. Perhaps you aren't aware of the scholarly articles in peer-review journals from the late 80's on, or scholarship outside of a Western perspective consistently reaffirming the basic principle of his ideas, that Roman Mithraism is a syncretization of various Iranian, Greek and Mesoptamian influences. I think the article in it's current state is conflating several complex concepts, all of which are matters of dispute in the academic world. My understanding is that the majority of international scholars acknowledge a clear syncretic link between Roman Mithraism and Hellenic and Persian Mithraism. Each incarnation has differences based on geographical and cultural contexts. This is the primary characteristic of syncretism: the synthesis of two or more cultures coming in close contact, with distributions of power often influence which group absorbs what. No scholar thinks they are the exact same religion. Just like no scholar thinks Dahomey, Orisa and Christianity are the same. But when African and Haitian slaves came in contact with white Christian imperialists, they all mixed into Voodoo. Now a lot of scholars will argue over which religion/cultural group contributed how much of what, but that's what scholars do. As for your majority POV consider what Ulansey himself says about the mid-70's revolution in thought:

Starting in the mid-1970's, several scholars (including Roger Beck of the University of toronto, Stanley Insler of Yale University, Michael Speidel of the University of Hawaii, Alessandro Bausani of the University of Rome and me) put forward new interpretations of the tauroctony (and of Mithraism) based on the hypothesis that the picture is actually a star map. http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sciam.html

Interesting, I wonder of your using your two Beck refs and Ulansey to support the contention that their own theory is the "dominant" view? Because not only would that be a gross mischaracterization, it would be a painful conflict of interest. Certainly these five and the other scholars you quoted constitute a school of thought, but they are by no means the majority view among the diverse groups of scholars who weigh in on this subject. This article has a clear POV. Please allow me to contribute my facts. I'm going to revert my original contribution, minus the NACE source. This is not Cumont, it is common knowledge and verifiable data. Please allow to stay. Once I get the intro improved, I'm going to find some refs for the citations that currently need them and address some of the weasel words.

Also please note that current standards of "good articles" require the mandatory use of inline citations. Those articles not conforming are being delisted Wikipedia:citing sources. As the article now stands, it contains what I consider to be obvious original research, technical plagiarism, and is way too difficult for the average user to confirm. (You expect them to have to read all those books just to find some facts?) It is sub-standard documentation. Please present page numbers and attribute specific sources to both opinion and fact. Oterwise, I think this should be tagged for neutrality and original research, as well as overall citation. Thank you.

Phyesalis 08:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your explanation Phyesalis - and for removing the NACE references. As you say, the article as it stands is "conflating several complex concepts, all of which are matters of dispute in the academic world". However, I am not sure that your further proposition is defensible in the form you put it: "international scholars acknowledge a clear syncretic link between Roman Mithraism and Hellenic and Persian Mithraism". Firstly, there is no such thing as "Hellenic Mithraism" - with the possible exception of the "Mithraic Liturgy" (which Cumont himself totally rejected). One of the most striking and consistent features of the archeological evidence is the absence of Roman Mithraism altogether from mainland Greece, and its rarity in Greek-speaking parts of the Roman world (e.g. Calabria). Secondly, Persian (i.e. Zoroastrian) veneration of Mithra has little if any correspondence with Roman Mithraism (on this see Mary Boyce).

In general, I think it is important to differentiate the speculative reconstructions of Roman Mithraic astrology (as in Beck and Ulansey), from the current academic consensus on what may be said on the the sources and origins of Roman Mithraism (as summarised by Alison Griffith, Richard Gordon and Manfred Clauss) - which broadly summarises, and does not go beyond, the archeological record. One can be agnostic about the former, but still be confident of the latter. I would be very interested to see your references to alternative views on the evidence - but the value of such views is limited unless they can point to specific Mithraea or other archeology, where artefacts or inscriptions supporting their theories have been documented.

TomHennell 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, first, they are ALL speculative. Here's a link to a review in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, on the recently published papers of "Studies in Mithraism: Papers associated with the Mithraic Panel organized on the occasion of the XVIth Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions" by John R. Hinnells, 1994. Both Beck and Ulansey are in there, you might be intereseted to know what the rest of the academic community actually thinks about Mithraism and Roman Mithraism. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1995/95.09.10.html Please read it carefully. Depending on your resources, you can probably get the papers themselves at a University library or find its essays on a database. Because, I say this as respectfully as possible, I'm starting to wonder if some of the "Anti-Cumont" editors have actually done any real research on this issue. I wonder if some haven't just cobbed a bunch of superficial bytes off the web, without actually reading any significant amount of primary research or peer-reviews, or having a basic/solid education in the discipline. Because if they did, the first thing they would know is that there is hardly ever a consensus on things like this (since this particular debate, what were the syncretic influences on Roman Mithraism, has been raging for mmm, ever). I have no issues with the tauroctony/astrology theory, I just think it out to be presented in a neutral manner, representing the spectrum of positions. Thank you for response. Phyesalis 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And to be fair, my use of the term Hellenic, as in "Hellenic and Persian Mithraism" refers to Mithraism as it was practiced in the Hellenic world/age, part of which was the Persian Empire after Alexander conquered it (350 years after a date we all apparently acknowledge as having produced evidence of Mithraic activity). Phyesalis 11:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you for the Bryn Mawr reference. The point I would wish to make, is the one that is explicit in the review you cite; that a certain body of material about Roman Mithraism is NOT speculative (at least not in current scholarship:

"A reader seeking one paper that would provide a sober assessment of what can be known about "our Mithraism" -- Roman Mithraism -- and what can reasonably be inferred from the known facts would make no mistake in turning first to "The expansion of Mithraism among the religious cults of the second century" by Wolf Liebeschuetz (195-216), which takes up point by point the major issues: the scarcity of Mithraic sites in the East and in Greece, the possibility of a single founder in the West, the existence of four scattered areas in which sites are concentrated, with Ostia/Rome as probably the earliest, the role of the legions and the customs service in spreading the cult (and the non-role of merchants and traders), possible reasons for the absence of persecution (high regard for fides on the part of Mithraists and Roman society in general?), the importance of households and guilds in establishing Mithraea, regional variations in technical vocabulary, the sporadic evidence for all seven grades of initiation, and the irrelevance for this cult of the survival of the soul after death. "The conclusion is unavoidable: the benefits of Mithraic initiation were expected in this life" (214). The reader will turn from this paper to the others with a firm basis on which to judge the degree of probability of various hypotheses."

with the exception of the last point - which I think needs to be somwhat qualified in view of the subsequent discovery of the Virunum Album - I think all of this remains in the consensus of current scholarship, and is appropriate for the Wikipedia article.

the astrological theories of Beck and Ulansey are certainly speculative; and the papers reviewed attempting to re-assert a Persian / Mesopotamian / Vedic origin are evaluated as even more so, as see the comments quoted:

Astrological speculations dominate several papers. "In the place of the Lion: Mithras in the tauroctony," by Roger Beck (29-50), in addition to taking issue with Ulansey's 1989 publication, identifies Mithras as the Sun in Leo. The late Ioan P. Couliano, in "The Mithraic ladder revisited" (75-91), discusses the effect of Gnostic doctrine on late antique mysteries in which the ascent of the soul to heaven was widespread, concluding that the doctrine of the planetary journey (reported by Celsus as Mithraic) was especially popular among Platonists. Plato also looms large in Ulansey's contribution, "Mithras and the hypercosmic sun" (257-64), which attempts to account for the distinction between Helios and Mithras by tracing a theory of the hypercosmic sun (= Mithras) to passages in the Republic and Phaedrus, as interpreted by Platonizing Mithraists, who were influenced by such intervening sources as Philo and the Chaldean Oracles.

The hazards of Mithraic scholarship are illustrated by several papers in which "one may wonder whether," "it is possible to see," "it is easy to suppose" and similar phrases introduce a host of speculations unsupported by solid evidence. A. David Bivar ("Towards an integrated picture of ancient Mithraism," 60-73) provides a useful summary of current views of Mithraism, from the Vedic Mitra to Roman times, with emphasis on the astral significance of the tauroctony and a strong defence of the deep-rooted eastern origins of Roman Mithraism (68). The paper concludes with wide-ranging speculation about possible Mithraic connections on the part of Plato, Alexander the Great, the god Sarapis, and later Sasanian rulers. The evidence for Plato as here presented depends on two items: the lionheaded being in Republic IX ("it is hard to believe that so characteristic a simile could be wholly independent") and the fact that coins of his namesake, Plato King of Bactria, displayed as reverse types solar deities identifiable with Mithra (65).

But I do not think that "speculations unsupported by solid evidence" should have a prominent place in the article. Is that your view too?

I take your clarification as to "Hellenic", but still feel the usage is misleading. In so far as there are precursors to Roman Mithraism, they appear very specific to Commagene, and Doliche in particular. "Anatolian" would be better.

TomHennell 12:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Now Tom, let's not be disingenuous. I added emphasis to your quote of my source to avoid a bunch of re-quoting. If this is offensive to you, please let me know and I won't do it again. I'm not trying to be rude, but it seems that either you are being willfully obtuse or you just don't understand the context of the review. Are you really going to make me parse out the whole review? And apparently what constitues "majority" view - this isn't evolution or the Holocaust, it's the Humanities. The clear "minority" view on this subject would be someting like "Roman Mithraism was syncretized from Pictish culture", or that they brougt it back post-Hadrian's Wall. Don't you get that? I will parse out the whole review if necessary, but I doubt anyone wants that. Let's just limit ourselves, for the time being to the last paragraph, ith some more contextualizing of the stuff you either didn't understand or find relevant, From the beginnng of the review:

• "The Foreword by Ugo Bianchi offers a brief statement about the principal concerns dealt with at the conference: the place of Mithraism in the context of ancient mystery cults and the impact of astrological speculations.(me - That means that they all accept a solid origin in mystery cults and that the astrological theories are the most speculative of the two - but that's where NPOV would certainly help the "Ulansey" faction.) The Introduction by John R. Hinnells, who organized the conference and edited the Proceedings, sketches in greater detail major trends, popular and unpopular topics, and changing fashions in the interpretation of archaeological and literary sources. He also calls attention to topics needing further investigation, perhaps at a Toronto conference in 1996, which would mark the centenary of Cumont's ground-breaking Textes et Monuments." (Yep, they've moved real far away from him!)
• "This review will confine itself for the most part to a selection of papers that offer the most substantive (if sometimes controversial) contributions to the understanding of current Mithraic scholarship, and will keep in mind particularly what they have to offer to the non-specialist, since interest in Mithras is widespread among classicists in general." (That would be for the academics who study more than just "Roman Mithraism" and, perhaps, have a broader understanding of how all the RM specialists' work fits into the greater pattern of comparative religions and the study of syncretic evolutions of those religions. You don't actually see the word much because everyone knows it is understood that that's what they are doing. "Persian Mithraism" was absorbed into the Hellenistic Civilization, no one disputes this. Hellenes, that would be the entire Mediterranean, and the product of that vast and encompassing Hellenic culture greatly influenced Roman Mithraism, be it through the transmitting of older Pre-Hellene thought, Egyptian influence, or the other Mesopotamian/Anatolian connections. What they dispute are the specific routes of mimetic migration.)

• And you left out the best paragraph, "Several writers represented here were deeply impressed by the 1989 monograph by David Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World, and accept, though not without qualifications, his theory that Mithras personified the force responsible for the precession of the equinoxes (discovered by Hipparchus in the second century B.C.). None had as yet had an opportunity to consider the review of Ulansey's book by N.M. Swerdlow in Classical Philology 86 (1991) 48-63, which is likely to engender second thoughts, especially about the identification of the torchbearers in the tauroctony with the equinoxes. (This alone requires the precession to be invoked, in order to place the equinoxes in Taurus and Scorpio, as was the case c. 4,000-2,000 B.C., and justify the identification of Mithras with the constellation Perseus, located just above Taurus in the sky.) Criticism of Ulansey's principal thesis is expressed at some length in this collection, by Beck (29-50) and Waldman (265-77)." So, several, 3-4?, out of 20 writers agree that his theory has validity, not that it is the single correct interpreation, they give credence to the specific examples he uses to trace the mimetic shift, BTW from Pre-Hellenic sources that were absorbed into and transmitted to Roman Culture at large through Hellenic sources.

• The reviewer then goes on to highlight another paper which provides another plausible explanation for an alternative Hellenic source of the torchbearers:

"An entirely different approach to the dadaphoroi, and much else, is taken by Howard M. Jackson, who traces them to such torchbearing erotes as flank Dido in the Dido mosaic from Low Ham (Plate XVIII) and finds a precedent for the zodiacal hoop familiar in the Modena Pantheus (Plate I) and the Housesteads Rock-Birth (Plate II) in the hoops bowled by Greek youths, such as Ganymede or Eros himself on red-figured vases of the fifth century B.C. (Plates XIX-XXI). (So do you see how both papers conflict, and yet both are valid within the "majority view" as stated by the intro paragraph)Whether or not these novel theories find general acceptance, most readers will be grateful for the accumulation of bibliographical notices and the generous illustrations that help track, not only the zodiacal hoop, but the cosmic, demiurgic god Aion through an intricate genealogy beginning with the shield of Achilles and including the column base of Antoninus Pius (Plate III), numerous mosaics of imperial Roman date, and an aureus of Hadrian (Plate XIc), which initiates the allegory of the hoop-rolling Aion so popular in imperial iconography. This paper, "Love makes the world go round: the Classical Greek ancestry of the youth with the zodiacal circle in Late Roman Art," (131-64) is the only one not actually delivered at the conference in Rome." (But was still peer-reviewed, and then included as a useful and substantial contribution by the reviewer, Helen H. North)

• To go back to your last quoted paragraph... So the reviewer acknowledges that Bivar provides "a useful summary" which emphasizes both tauroctony and Eastern origins. The critique comes at the end, where the one reviewer takes exception with some conclusions drawn from the useful premises established at the beginning of the paper, regarding particular syncretic links. That doesn't necessarily mean that Bivar is wrong, just that he makes a poor case for it. If all it took was one critique of some conclusions to relegate one to a "minority view" than Ulansey would be in the dog house because Beck spent a large part of his paper critiquing U's theories on tauroctony. We have all sorts of room for compromise on the Anatolian/Hellenic debate. But none for one clear "majority view", because to profer one single majority view would be someone doing original research/exegesis on what I am guessing are a handful of books published for public consumption (and I'm being generous giving the person who started this whole "Anti-Cumont" "majority view" nonsense the benefit of the doubt that the person actually read them, because it seems like a slap-dash synthesis of some of the religious propaganda sites I've seen as resources elsewhere - and there are no page numbers). Because the diversity presented by this brief collection of essays, in total, represents the majority view, not any one of them. Simply put, if they're in the conference, they're within the boundaries of the pluaralistic "majority" view for Roman Mithraic studies.

• I'm sorry if I have misinterpretted your posts/objections, and come off as rude, but this kind of exclusive exegesis is totally inappropriate for Wiki articles. Thanks for keeping up the dialogue though.

Phyesalis 15:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So I just read that over, and let me just restate it like this, unless someone can whip out their PUBLISHED doctoral thesis with peer reviews which also happens to be a comprehensive study of the international scholarly community's sum total works on all of Roman/Mithraism along with some fancy statistical analysis, none of us is qualified to naysay papers presented at a respected conference, because the papers presented have already been acknowledged as within the purview of the "MV" having gone through the peer-reviewed selection process. All we can do is present the facts and positions equally. Besides, what if a later "ground-breaking" text comes along and you're permanently archived as pressing what is then a "largely discredited" theory as some have asserted here about Cumont? And we can talk about how effectively Ulansey's contribution to the syncretic theory of Mithraism has "discredited" Cumont's overarching and "ground breaking" theories when they're noting the 100th anniversary of Ulansey's "ground breaking text". Comprenez-vous? Again, thanks. Phyesalis 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your point - but I think you are wrong. The object is to contribute to an encyclopaedia article, not to provide a conspectus of the whole of recent scholarly opinions. That does mean being selective - even within the field of peer-reviewed papers. Or at least, to seek to ensure that those theories that are largely speculative (and these are well represented in peer reviewed literature, as the quoted review demonstrates) are not being given the same degree of space as those papers that summarise findings based on solid archeological or literary evidence. If we take the report of the 1990 Congress as a basis - this implies a triage:

- content that must be summarised in detail in a Wikepedia article, as representing the broad consensus of currently agreed findings. This, I suggest is broadly co-extensive with the points summarised by Wolf Liebeschuetz above, updated to take into account findings since 1990 - e.g. the Virunum Album and the Doliche Mithraea.

- content that should be summarised in brief, if at all; as "speculations unsupported by solid evidence". Wikipedia is open to all, but contributors do have a responsibility not to give undue space and attention to theories that may have been advanced on occasion, but not attracted a significant body of support. To take the 1990 Congress again, I would suggest that there is no need for Wikpedia to take note of possible Mithraic parallels suggested in the writings of a 12th Century CE Armenian bishop.

- content that does not yet command broad agreement, but which represents a major arena of current debate. Such papers should be summarised in sufficient detail for the key points in dispute to be clear to the reader. Examples in the 1990 congress papers would include the contributions by Beck and Ulansey in respect of possible astrological readings of Mithraic structures.

Clearly the theories Cumont advanced in 1900 need to be discussed in the first category, in so far as these views are the starting point for modern Mithraic Studies - but with the qualification that this is now superceded scholarship (not the least in Cumont's own subsequent archeological excavations and writings). This is indeed the majority view - and stating it is not "nonsense". There are indeed Mithraic scholars who continue to explore possible sources for Roman Mithraism in the Persian and Bactrian reverence for Mithra (and this should indeed be recognised in the Wikipedia article). But no scholars that I am aware of still defend the specific theses advanced in Cumont's early work, even though they are still apparently much in favour in pro-Christian and anti-Christian controversialist literature. Certainly no one was doing so at the 1990 Congress.

TomHennell 02:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not actually arguing for Cumont, I'm sorry, it does read that way. None of my last post (except for one or two admittedly cranky comments) was actually about Cumont in particular. I just think that if it is about Mithraism in general, maybe we should make clear distinctions between "Mithraism" and "Roman Mithraism" (or "our Mithraism" as the conference called it), since clearly the inclusion of tauroctony makes it a unique syncretism (of various sources). I don't care if there's tons about Roman Mithraism, I just think the presentation is skewed. Does that sound like a workable compromise? Phyesalis 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

yes indeed - agree 100%. A bit earlier in this dicussion page, I sketched five "Mithraisms"

"I would suggest that "Mithaism" covers five distinct belief systems, (of which the first is only really understood speculatively) these are:

A - The pre-Zoroastrian cult of Mitra (source from Mary Boyce, but noting that it is really only known in remains in later belief systems).

B - Zoroastrian reverence for Mithra (as evidenced in the Mhir Yasht, again mainly from Mary Boyce, but coming down to the present in Iranian Mithra festivals).

C - the Anatolian cults of Mithra - chiefly as evidenced in Nemrud Dagh and other sanctuaries in Commagene, but also including Trapezus, Pontus, the Cilician pi:rates, Armenia, and possibly the Crimea.

D - Roman Mithraism - as evidenced in the extensive archeological record, and soley as found within the Roman Empire between 90 CE and 400 CE.

E - The Bactrian Mithra cult of the Sun (again as found in the archeological record, but surviving within Central Asian Buddhism in the Mithra frescoes at Bamiyan (destroyed by the Taliban))."

I think I can infer from your arguments in this thread, that you are also wishing to ensure that the article does not only treat Roman Mithraism - but also the wider Mithraisms; and I would be keen for you to explain how you would wish to classify these, if the above taxonomy is unsatisfactory. Your point about syncretism in Roman Mithraism related to the tauroctony is interesting, but I feel you need to expand it a bit. If what you are saying is that Roman Mithraism drew on a wide range of non-Mithraic Graeco-Roman, Anatolian and Crimean sources - in addition to any Mithraic borrowings from Persia/Commagene - then I am sure you are right.

TomHennell 15:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think the A,B,C,E,D order is a good idea, best to end with Roman as it seems to have the most research (as you suggested earlier in the page). I also think that the word "putative" should be changed. And as for similarities, how about "The relationship between Mithraism and Christianity" because there clearly was chronological and geographical overlap, a relationship existed we just don't know what it was. Also, I have no problem with discussing how some scholars have taken exception with some apsects of his work, but let's try to avoid such mischaracterizations that he has fallen out of favor or has been discredited in anyway. He is still the father of modern Mithraism. As far as I know, most of his work is still very well respected. What has been called in to question are his position on the M v. C rivalries and speculations to that end as well as the specific theories that account for tauroctony. Just because some of his theories have been questioned (Beck, Ulansey et al) does not mean he has fallen out of favor or is doubted by the whole field. The astrological/tauroctony group are "popular", but by no means the majority. Even 20 years after the idea was introduced, there are still many critics of the a/t theory, Beck being one of them. We should be more judicious in our characterizations and dismissals of people's work. This too is a field where one achieves great heights by standing on the shoulders of giants, Cumont is one of them. And yes, I think this article should have a broader scope of Mithraism to avoid the conflation of all Mithraism with Roman Mithraism. Thanks. Phyesalis 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been away for a bit and was very surprised to find the intro of the Mithraism article now attempting to reflect something that it cannot possibly be. Taking on the points one by one:

> Mithraism is a religious myth system based around the Indo-Iranian god Mitra (Sanskrit for covenant or friend), also known as Mithras (Greek) or Mithra.

Sez who? Even assuming a Cumont slant here, what Cumont did say was ... deriving from Iranian Mithra. Moreover, Cumont does not equate Mithra with Mitra with Mithras, which is what this intro is unequivocally doing.

> The earliest existing evidence for Mithraism is a mention of him in a copy of the Vedas dating from 1400 B.C.

And then even "cites" a page that does not say anything of the sort. To quote from the cited source: "The Roman army first encountered the cult of Mithras in Persia ... although its origins in India have been traced back to 1400 BC." Note: the cult of Mithras, not "Mithraism". Or are we back to equating Mithraism with the cult of Mithras and not with Cumont's view expressed just sentence earlier? Moreover, in that linked article, the author is evidently either a supporter of the Out-of-India theory (i.e. that the Indo-Iranians didn't split into Indic and Iranian branches, but that the Iranian branch originated in India) or that the cult of Mithras is a development from Mittanic Mitra (and not from Iranian Mithra). Both theories are on extremely shaky grounds.

> The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia states that Mithraism's origins date back to early Indo-Iranian culture.

First: Since when is the 100 year old CathEnc a reliable source for a non-Catholic religious movement? Second: So, we are talking about Cumont's theory now are we?

> Mithra is mentioned in both the Vedas and the Avesta.

1. No. Mithra is the Avestan name. The Sanskrit name is Mitra.
2. Indo-Iranian origins notwithstanding, Avestan Mithra is hardly the same as the Indic Mitra. And here we have a removal of only 1000 years from the common Indo-Iranian source. But in the intro of the Mithraism article someone is proposing that NO modifications occurred during the 3000 years between the Indo-Iranian split and Graeco-Roman Mithras! Hello? Is there anything in common anymore (other than a similarity of names)? Incongruously enough, the author then has a problem with a mere 2 century difference between Plutarch and Strauss' dates.

> Mithraism spread throughout Hellenic culture as a mystery religion after Alexander the Great's conquest...

Either the author is implying that Mithraism is a Greek thing exported to the Iranians, or that Iranian culture was imported into the Hellenistic world. Um. Which is it?

Iranian culture certainly was not imported into the Hellenic world on any scale like that (perhaps being) suggested. Indeed the opposite is true, which is why the Seleucid and Parthian eras are considered Hellenistic. Second, why should this happen *after* the conquest? The Achaemenids exported Zoroastrianism to all corners of the Empire, including to Asia Minor and to the occupied portions of Greece. But they supposedly forgot to export Mithra? Yeah, right.

And if some god was exported during the Hellenistic periods, then why Mithra? Why not Bahram, the hypostasis of victory or some other martial divinity of the Zoroastrian (or Iranian) pantheon?

> [Roman Mithraism], too, was centered around worship of the god Mithras

Now I'm floored. Roman Mithraism is apparently not some other (not otherwise defined) kind of Mithraism. Ergo Mithras is not the object of worship of the Mithraists. Or is he? No?

Cripes. What on earth has happened here? -- Fullstop 11:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Refs

The intro seems to be using the footnotes as notes not citing sources. References should give the source of the information or view, not merely commentary on that information or view. Please update the refs in the intro - thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Types" of Mithraism

Tom, earlier you wrote:

A - The pre-Zoroastrian cult of Mitra (source from Mary Boyce, but noting that it is really only known in remains in later belief systems).

which Mary Boyce source do you have in mind? Neither her landmark "On Mithra's part..." (BSOAS 32.1, 1969) nor her (AFAIK) last position on Mithra suggest that Boyce ever proposed that was a "pre-Zoroastrian cult of Mithra".

Although there are scholars who do propose such a theory (Zaehner 1961, repeated without attribution in Widengren 1965), Boyce is certainly not among them. Indeed, the opposite is true.

Not only is the theory quite brutally rejected in the 1969 "On Mithra's part" (available on JSTOR so I won't dwell on it here), Boyce's last words on the subject are absolutely unambiguous:

No satisfactory evidence has yet been adduced to show that, before Zoroaster, the concept of a supreme god existed among the Iranians, or that among them Mithra - or any other divinity - ever enjoyed a separate cult of his or her own outside either their ancient or their Zoroastrian pantheons.

-- Boyce, 2001:243.n18 in "Mithra the King and Varuna the Master". Festschrift für Helmut Humbach zum 80.: 239–257. Trier: WWT

-- Fullstop 14:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to "A History of Zoroastrianism, 3 vols. 1975, 1982, 1991, vol. 3 with Frantz Grenet" - especially the discussion of Mithraism in vol 3. I was not suggesting that Boyce defends the thesis that there was a pre-Zoroastrian Mithraism; rather that this work is the best source for a discussion of whether an early Mitra cult existed; and if so, what its characteristics were. Boyce produces (to me) convincing arguments that Mitra in the pre-Zoroastrian period was nowhere seen as a supreme deity distinct from the Iranian pantheon; but - by the same token - she argues that Mitra was always a central figure within that pantheon; and as such was the object of veneration and worship, which can be traced within Avestan texts that post-date Zoroaster himself. For Boyce, it is precisely because the veneration of Mitra as a subsiduary deity was ubiquitous in the various Zoroastrianisms of the Achaemenid through to the Sassanian periods; that the proposition that there may have also been a distinct Iranian "Mithras" religion (perhaps surviving from a previous age), can confidently be rejected. TomHennell 02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

d'accord. But..., as you say, "a distinct Iranian "Mithras" religion [from a pre-Zoroastrian age] can confidently be rejected", is there any justification for Type-A Mithraism?

I note also that you rightly distinguish between 'cult' and simply being an object of veneration and worship. By that measure, isn't it rather arbitrary to count every veneration of Mitra/Mithra/Maitreya as a "Mithraism"? When precisely does veneration qualify as an ism though evidently not used to mean distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice? Why is the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary not Maryism?

Do you see what I'm getting at? On the one hand you have Roman Mithraism, unquestionably an -ism. Then you have these other (completely hypothetical) syncretic origins of Roman Mithraism, that are all suddenly (and independently) elevated/classified as Mithraisms too? And these then all warrant enumeration/expansion as equal partners under one article title? entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem?

-- Fullstop 07:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

the justification for having the category, is that there are a number of contributors who would wish to put something in it. We are potentially back to the cult/religion debate; and the Mitraism/Mithras debate too. Those who wish to emphasise the significance of Mitra veneration and worship outside the Roman World do not lack academic support (e.g. from Franz Grenet at: http://www.uhu.es/ejms/Notices/Lyon%20Colloquium.summary.doc ) - and I cannot see that those of us who are more interested in Roman Mithraism should exclude these contributions, if they are indeed academically robust. TomHennell 11:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is any pagan belief system, regardless of how many followers it had or has, a cult? If the religion of the majority is an actual religion and smaller relious groups are 'cults', consider this: Judaism itself, the parent religion of all forms of Christianity, is not more than a few thousand years old. Before that time, all religious beliefs were 'pagan' according to the dictionary definition of the word. Therefore, not all pagan belief systems could be rightly considered 'cults'.

See my comments above on the likely meaning of "cult" as read by ordinary people. I am pleased to have it verified (contra various people) that it is indeed misleading. Roger Pearse 20:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism was certainly a distinct religion, as was Zoroastrianism, in so far as persons who were Jews/Zoroastrians recognised themselves as different from adherents to other belief systems; and that belonging to their religion excluded them from participating in other religious rites. Christianity - at first - appears to be a cult within Judaism; though by beginning of the 2nd century Christian believers were beginning to define themselves as clearly distinct. For those who saw Mithraism as the Roman religious expression of a form of Zoroastrianism; then this belief system too might properly be called a "religion" - and writers of the last century would talk of Mithraic 'congregations', 'scriptures', 'acraments', etc. But more recent archeology tends to confirm that those who may be recorded in Mithraea as initiates also tend to be found in other contexts of belief - in other mystery cults (Isis, Cybele), or in the civic cults (Jupiter, Venus). The key issues are self-sufficiency and self-definition, not numbers of adherents TomHennell 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This will only be here until the first reader deletes it, but it's worth it to say it. Anyone who honestly veiws any mythology, including the Bible, as factual, is impossible to debate sanely with as they are arguing in favor of something that can never be proven. You cannot prove or disprove a belief, or an effectively imaginary being like a God. They will try very hard to appear to be rational, objective people, but because that is not what they are, the debate will go on into perpetuity as they fight for the utterly impossible task of legitimizing and defending their beliefs in the realm of reality and fact.

What should be presented of Mithraism are indeed facts (i.e. archeological and literary findings) and the variant interpretations of those facts. You are right to observe that persons who come to the facts with a confessional agenda (and that includes secular atheists), may be predisposed to favour particular bodies of interpretation - but that does not make these interpretations any the less valid as explanatory observations. Exactly the same could be said of adherents to rival schools of economic theory. TomHennell 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

4.159.107.13 12:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC) C. Lewis