Talk:Mithraism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Revising the Page

I see this page is semi-protected. I also see that it calls for an expert to rewrite it.

I might be willing to undertake that job, if someone would explain to me how to do so given the page’s status, also if they could answer some other questions about what would happen after that. About a month ago I finally got around to begin fixing the Pythia page here, which I had some time before noticed had been overrun by the crowd of quacks who managed to get into Scientific American and the Discovery channel (neither one exactly leaders in Classical Scholarship) the crackpot theory that the Pythia was in a hallucinogenic (benzene if you can imagine it!) induced trance while giving Apollo’s oracles. The first night I deleted all mention of that theory except a critical summary of its main points and made a few other fixes. The next night when I returned to work on it again, it had been put back the way it was. That was the end of my enthusiasm for the project.

So, if I fix this article, what will happen to it? I know of at least two people who would love to use this article to promote their own idiosyncratic agendas. What would prevent them eventually coming and rewriting it as they wished?Malkhos (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

from your comments here and below, you seem to have the requisite confidence your grasp of the material. Go ahead. There are a number who have tried before who would readily help you in the general thrust of what you may undertake. But there will be nothing to stop persons with idiosyncratic agendas making their own contributions. It has been suggested before that a re-write reflecting the main strands of current debate - Beck, Clauss, Griffiths, Boyce - should form the bulk of the article, but with sections into which idiosyncratic agendas could be "parked". I think we would need at least three - "Mithraism and Christianity"; "Mithraism and Iranian/Bactrian religion"; "Mithraism and New Age Religion". TomHennell (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Christianity & Mithraism

I'm moving this to the top even though it seems to be at least partially addressed later on this page. The deep relationship between Christianity and Mithraism is conspicuously and glaringly absent or buried within this article. Sure the relationship between the two religions is embarrassingly similar for Christendom, but the scholarship of this is not at all original, it is very mature and comes from very reputable scholars today, including Ehrman and many others. Is there some kind of "conspiracy" to keep this well-researched relationship out of the article? --Solascriptura 13:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Solascriptura; I have Ehrman's "Lost Christianities", and at Part 2 he discusses the profound difference (as he sees it) between Roman pagan religions and Christianity. He does not there explicity mention Mithriasm in this context - but I would certainly infer from his argument that he would deny that any "deep" relationship existed in either direction. So I am puzzled by the terms of your question. Bart Ehrman is certainly a scholar of repute in the field of Early Christianity, and if you can find views of his in support of a supposed relationship of the type you assert - then there may indeed be a case for summarising these at an approptiate Wikepedia article. Nevertheless, Ehrman does not, to my certain knowledge, claim any expertise in the field of Mithaic studies; so it remains an open question whether this discussion is proper to this article - rather than one on Christian Origins TomHennell 17:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with solarscriptura's sentiment. the current christianity and mithraism is completely gutted compared to the old one which was half the article. There should be some mention as to how christianity and mithraism are similiar or different in art, belief, etc. Instead, there is esoteric evaluation of curmont's ideas without really discussing what those ideas are or what the support for them might be. And tomhennell, just because ehrman doesnt mention it doesnt' mean it's not worth mentioning. Oizfar 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But soloscriptura is arguing Ehrman in support of a proposition, that so far as I know he does not hold. 02:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomHennell (talk • contribs)

A cool and amusing link, place where you think appropriate, but warms up the whole topic nicely... QI TV programme, Mithras —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caernunos (talk • contribs) 11:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that we link to that from the article, we can't because it's a probable copyright infringement and because it contains "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" ("Links normally to be avoided", no. 2). EALacey (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this entire section has been gutted (by decree?) by those who did not like the content. Much of the previous (silenced) version should be resubmitted/included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.25.68 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Help fix christianity and mithraism

I'm a wikipedia novice and I don't know how to edit very well. user fullstop deleted the whole section and replaced it with a link to the Jesus myth page which is hardly a worthy substitue. I couldn't undo it becuase of the intermediate edits that were added by the same user. In his own words, he replaced the "cruft" and what is written now is something along the lines of it being an occassionally postulated but academically unsubstaniated opinion. please help undo this. btw, his edit was 22:35, 22 August 2007. any help is appreciated. Oizfar 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop's activity is long overdue in my opinion, Oizfar. The section on Mithraism and Christianity was essentially about Christianity, not about the Roman cult of Mithras (which is properly the subject of this article). Academic discussion of these matters may well be appropriate in the context of "Jesus as Myth" - but in terms of Mithraism it is counter-productive; as it leads enthusiatic myth theorists to reverse-engineer supposedly "Christian" characteristics into Mithraism - that are actually nowhere substantiatied in the Mithraic archeolgical record, or in the scanty surviving literary evidence. The trouble is, that a number of Wikpedia contributors are primarily interested in Mithraism, only if it can be argued as a source for Christianity; so such speculations constantly recur, and removing them is contentious. The complication is that there are a limited range of characteristics of Christianity - especially iconographic - that do seem to owe something to Mitraism; albeit that the major iconographic debt appears to be to public Greaco-Roman civic religion. TomHennell 16:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

your point would be well-taken if there was no academic citation for theory, as mythological as it might be in your mind. Countless other wikipedia pages on religion have resigned themselves to accepting whatever entries enthusiastic myth-theorists can substantiate with a citation. The fact is as you have stated it, that wikipedia contributors, and people generally in academic and lay circles, only discuss mithraism because of whatever tenuous links to christianity it may have. it should not come as a surprise to you either since both religions existed at the same time among the same demographic. an academic comparison of the two is warranted, woudln't you agree? the section also was tagged as not neutral, shouldn't that be enough? The section on mithraism and christianity deserves to exist, and academic arguments against it deserve to be edited into the section. to remove the entire section dismissing it as "cruft" is vandalism and censorship plain and simple. the fact that half the article was removed is telling. please restore the section. Oizfar 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As it stood, the section needed to be largely re-written. It has been tagged for quite some time now, with uncited statements and unverified citations. An expert has even been requested to assess the section, because there is simply too much information within it which can not be easily verified, or what may be a synthesis of several sources. The section itself contradicted itself at least once, and in many other cases may have been tampered with. There is more to the restoration of the section than a simple re-addition. At this point, it should be rewritten entirely, with several parties monitoring its development, and reliable sources being clearly cited and reviewed. Reliable sources; i.e. a scholarly assessment from a published source would be suitable. I've seen one too many "reliable" sites that completely misrepresent information, to the point of lying outright, to prove their point. We need to agree on the sources, and then agree on the material itself.--C.Logan 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

About half of the page (59kB to 32kB) was deleted. Fullstop explained that this should be on Jesus_myth_hypothesis page, but did not add anything to it. It should be brought back to this page or added to the other one, otherwise this deletion borders vandalism.--123.243.50.22 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

not only did he not add anything to the Jesus myth page, but he got it wrong in saying that it belongs there. The citation that was primarly relied on in the christianity and mithraism section did not assert that there was not historical figure named Jesus, which is what the Jesus Myth page is primarily concerned with. please restore the section.Oizfar 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that relations between Mithraism and Christianity, including possible influences of one on the other, belong mainly on this page rather than Jesus myth hypothesis, since the consensus seems to be that that article should be about theories positing that there was no historical Jesus. However, I can't blame Fullstop for removing the previous treatment of the issue, which violated virtually every Wikipedia policy or guideline. I've reread it several times looking for material that could be restored, but I honestly think the section needs to be rewritten from scratch. Any editors who think they can rewrite any of the deleted section to comply with policy (especially WP:RS and WP:NOR) is welcome to try. Also, the section needs to be much shorter; there's no way that comparisons between Mithraism and Christianity account for half of Mithraic scholarship, and they shouldn't have half of this article devoted to them. EALacey 18:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The references to iconographic comparisons seemed like the least bad part of the deleted section, so I've tried to restore a summary, although it may still be longer than necessary. Fullstop states that other authors have reached different conclusions on this topic, so it should be easy enough to cite them for balance. EALacey 18:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

@EALacey: you should have collected your material first. As it stands, your re-addition is not only misleading, its also a lightning rod. And no, I did not say "other authors have reached different conclusions on this topic". Thats your interpretation of my statement that other authors have analyzed the same evidence and reach different conclusions. A "conclusion" does not imply a "conclusion that there is a connection to Christianity." -- Fullstop 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not yourself "balance" two discrete opinions. You can only use opinions that specifically disagree with each other. You may not legitimately compare two opinions that do not refer to one another (thats OR). This restriction effectively also defines "fringe", because a theory that is not acknowledged by a reliable source - even if only to refute it - has nothing that it can be contrasted with. Do you understand what I mean? Perhaps WP:FRINGE explains it better.

The corollary is: a theory is not reliable until acknowledged by an already established RS

Ergo: The stuff in iconography has to be acknowledged ("treated") by a reliable source before it may appear on WP.

-- Fullstop 20:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cumont and Vermaseren are unlikely to be the final word on any topic, but I didn't anticipate that either would be considered as a fringe theorist. (Both appeared on my university reading list for Mithraism, obviously along with more recent authors like Beck and Clauss.) Do you wish to exclude all references to sources published before a certain date? When you referred to "Bivar, Barnett, Bianchi - to mention only 'B's - who analyzed the same data, reached different conclusions and are not cited", I understood this as meaning that these authors had concluded that Mithraic art did not influence Christian art, and that they could therefore be cited as saying so. I don't believe that it's original research to write "Cumont thought X, while Bivar concludes not-X", even if Bivar doesn't specifically say "I am disagreeing with Cumont", as long as the topic is X rather than Cumont. (If the topic is Cumont, this would be likely to violate WP:SYN, but I can't see how that applies otherwise.) EALacey 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The theories that cite Cumont and Vermaseren are fringe theories, not (necessarily) the sources upon which the theories are based.
   Explanation: rather than collect evidence that would indicate that there is a connection between Christianity and Mithraism (as would be proper scientific procedure), in the case of "Christianity and Mithraism" it is necessary to presume that a relationship exists in the first place, and which then allows Cumont and Vermaseren to be cited.
   If however, one would follow proper scientific procedure, and first use all existing scholarship as a stepping stone, the "Christianity and Mithraism" bridge could not be built.
2. >> I don't believe that it's original research to write "Cumont thought X, while Bivar concludes not-X"
   It is original research when one of the opinions is not relevant to the context ("context" being whatever you are pulling that opinion in for). In a section titled "C" you can only compare opinions that have a direct bearing on "C".
   Example of what would be OR in the "Christianity and Mithraism" section:
   "Deman argued for similarities between images of the Mithraic tauroctony and Christian crucifixion. Cumont however argued that the Mithraic tauroctony represented a Zoroastrian cosmological legend."
   The "shared context" is the tauroctony which is only relevant to Christianity because Deman made it so. Cumont's theory in contrast with Deman's occurs only in the editor's head (hence OR). If they were actually related, the order of the two statements shouldn't matter, but watch what happens if you swtich them around:
   "Cumont argued that the Mithraic tauroctony represented a Zoroastrian cosmological legend. Deman however argued for similarities between images of the Mithraic tauroctony and Christian crucifixion."
   See?

-- Fullstop 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1. And if 'Jesus Myth hypothesis' is the wrong place for the parallelomania, I'm sure that the less choosy articles like Christianity and world religions, Christianity and Paganism, Jesus and comparative mythology, Christianised rituals are all more "appropriate" places that here.
   That 99% of all time, effort and discussion revolves around this hackneyed topic is sickening. Unbelievable but true: there is more to Mithraism than only the "parallels" to Christianity. So, why not let the parallelomania go somewhere where it will be amongst friends? It will be much happier there I'm sure.
2. This article is about Mithraism, not about Christianity and Mithraism. To consider that the subject "Christianity and Mithraism" should be dealt with here is as absurd a suggestion that it be dealt with on the main Christianity page.
3. Christianity only warrants a mention within the framework of Roman society, that is, the interactions between the followers of the Mysteries vis-a-vis followers of other Roman religions, including Christianity. That is indeed relevant to Mithraism.

-- Fullstop 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the articles you name would be appropriate places for material of the "Mithraic-Christian parallels" variety. And I agree that the topic doesn't merit 99% of the attention given to this article. But for any article on classical antiquity, a "legacy" or "reception" section is normal, and I can't see why possible Mithraic influences on later Christian art couldn't form part of the article in that context. (Likewise for ritual or doctrine, if reliable sources exist discussing those matters). Most of the material you removed certainly didn't deserve to be in the article ("Mithras and Jesus are really both Osiris", etc.), but the studies on iconography seem to me to be in a completely different category. EALacey 22:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

>> I can't see why possible Mithraic influences on later Christian art couldn't form part of the article in that [legacy] context

• Studies on Mithraic->Christian iconography has not been the subject of systematic treatment (at least not within the scope of Mithraic studies). There is *one* paper on the subject. That one - Deman's Mithras and Christ - was presented at the 1977 Mithraic Studies conference and has been met with deafening silence.^[*] The hype the we have today appears to be a product of the web and - evidently - works like Larson's "Story of Christian Origins" (thus my choice of 'Jesus myth hypothesis' as the more appropriate place for such discussion).
• Essentially, with the "Christianity and Mithraism" section, we - i.e. WP - are contructing a systematic treatment ("study") that does not already exist.
  • Besides this being OR (because we are connecting the dots ourselves),
  • such a section will by default be almost empty (because there are no "multiple views" with which to NPOVize),
  • and it gives everything in it undue weight (catch-22: the context does not allow us to cite other interpretations would be coatracking/out-of-context. Citing them anyway would render the Christianity-related opinions numerically/authoritatively insignificant).
• What we may however legitimately do is
  • include the various individual interpretations within the context of Mithraic iconography. Such interpretations - including the Christianity-related ones - are then in the proper relationship to one another. The problem then is how to give the Christianity-related ones a voice without compromising RS/undue weight.
  • Also legitimate would be a its treatment within the scope of 2nd-4th century relationships between (the followers of) various Roman religions.

-- Fullstop 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

^[*] "almost": the exception involves a rejection of Deman's novel interpretation of the crossed-legs symbolism of the torch-bearers. Deman's conclusions remain as unacknowledged as the crucifixion thing cited in the WP article.

Thanks for the lengthy reply. If I understand you correctly (please correct me if not), you're saying that some reliable sources on Mithraism have mentioned Christians in various contexts, but that assembling these in a section on "Mithraism and Christianity" amounts to promoting an overall argument not based on reliable sources, and thus constitutes original research. If it is the case that no reliable sources discuss "Mithraism and Christianity" as a topic, I can't disagree with your logic. I had the impression from some of my reading (esp. G. Lease, "Mithraism and Christianity: Borrowings and Transformations", ANRW II.23.2 (1980) 1306-1332, who rejects significant direct influence either way but clearly finds the possibility worth discussing), that the source material would exist for sich a section, but you're clearly better acquainted with the literature on Mithraism than I am, so I'm happy to defer to you at this point. EALacey 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Yep, you understood me correctly.
2. Your impression "that the source material would exist for such a section" is correct. It just wouldn't be what "Christianity and Mithraism" has been so far. Instead it would be - as I said before - a treatment within the scope of 2nd-4th century relationships between (the followers of) various Roman religions.
   That is precisely what ANRW II (in its entirety) covers, or as the secondary title of ANRW II phrases it: "Pre-Constantine Christianity: Relationship with the Roman state and heathen religion"

-- Fullstop 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been away for a while, and I'm having a little trouble sifting through the above comments, which don't seem to be in chronological order. So I may have got the wrong end of the stick. EALacey summarises (and agrees with) Fullstop's reasoning as follows: "some reliable sources on Mithraism have mentioned Christians in various contexts, but that assembling these in a section on 'Mithraism and Christianity' amounts to promoting an overall argument not based on reliable sources, and thus constitutes original research." I can't agree with that. By citing reliable authors and presenting the comparisons they make, we are not indulging in original research. We are not "promoting an overall argument"; we are not promoting anything!

I appreciate the distaste that you must have at seeing historically inaccurate theories and arguments presented, however if they come from reputable or influential sources (such as Cumont, who according to earlier versions of the article drew a lot of parallels with Christianity) then they should really be presented, since they have been hugely influential in the development of the subject. There's another argument you might raise, which is that presenting Cumont but not later, contradicting, sources is biased; well, please help us fill in these later theories and arguments. Rome wasn't built in a day, and we can't expect the article to come together all simultaneously. Just about every article in Wikipedia is currently requiring improvement, and purposely leaving pertinent information out just because other information hasn't been added yet is not going to achieve anything.

Further, regarding lightning rods: A lightning rod is a good thing, providing a safe and appropriate channel for energy to earth itself rather than randomly hitting any part of the structure. People are going to arrive here expecting to see some comparison between Mithraism and Christianity, and when they don't? They'll google those two words, finding a page such as this (first google hit), and add this information throughout the article. If, however we have a section discussing how the religions have been compared, then they will go there, and read it, and probably not change anything, since they will either find what they expected to find, or they will be educated!

With that in mind, I'm going to try adding back a little of what was removed. Again, sorry if I've misunderstood anything, but feel free to edit what I add, or remove it (with clear explanation addressing my above points). Please also correct me on any points of fact if I get them wrong. Thanks for your help. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm also open to the idea of trimming the restored section down, particularly once it's a little more mature and we get an idea of what the balance of information in it is going to be (what info is available and admissible). Especially useful will be modern authoritative sources which summarise the development of these theories; if we had such a source, we could briefly summarise it and be done with the rest. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. "Gee whiz, I wasn't there before, but I wanna play now" doesn't cut it. Life is not a sandbox, and we don't turn the clock back to the mid-afternoon simply because you want to play now. Further, since you were aware of the discussion, it would have been more appropriate to say something here first, and await the response, and not leave us staring at your dirty dishes. And finally, laziness (not bothering to read the discussion) doesn't provide you with any privileges either. And yes, the discussion is in chronological order.
2. "Not promoting anything"? You are quite specifically promoting the notion that a viable comparison of Christian and Mithraic iconography exists. It. does. not. You are making the comparison.
   Example: So, when one looks at Christian sarcophagi, mosaics, and miniatures from the third to the fifth centuries, one can see images of the Heavens, the Earth, the Ocean, the Sun, the Moon, the Planets, signs of the Zodiac, the Winds, the Seasons, and the Elements.
   That is utter bullshit! There is no "So," that could lead you up to that conclusion. Cumont (who you also miscite) never said anything from which you could possibly derive that "Christian sarcophaic blah blah" have *generally* anything whatsoever to do with Mithraism. This is not derivation or paraphrasing, this is your own conclusion, which occurred entirely in your own head. This is OR, pure and simple, and "promoting" that something exists which does not.
3. "Pertinent"? None of that cruft you just re-added is pertinent to Mithraism. Hello? Go put it on the Christianity main page and find out just how "pertinent" it is.
4. >>"They'll google those two words, finding a page such as this (first google hit), and add this information throughout the article."
   So? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia cater to the peanut gallery or that it become itself a peanut gallery? Flat earth theorists abound, doesn't mean an article on earth need contain any references to that idiocy.
5. >>feel free to edit what I add, or remove it
   Wrong way around, pal. Given the lengthy discussion (which you happily choose to ignore), you have to justify your revert, and with more than "it exists on the web so its real." Wikipedia is not a webhost or a sandbox or a publisher of original thought.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, I am super pissed-off. Not because you readded the cruft (which is disrespectful but thats another story) but because of your justification "gee, I wasn't there and now I'm too lazy to read so now I justifyably can do anything I want." Get real! -- Fullstop 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Stop, get a cup of tea, and WP:KEEPCOOL. I have been perfectly WP:CIVIL, and you should do the same. You're misinterpreting my actions. You're also telling me I don't have a right to edit or revert, which is just plain wrong. Remember, this is not your article.

First off, that is not my composition that I've added; it was present in the lengthy section that you removed, and was written by other editor(s). I reduced its size and remove what seemed to unsourced extrapolation and speculation, but what I ended up with looked to me like it was credibly-well referenced. If Cumont really didn't say any of these things then I agree with and approve of its removal. In my experience, though, when editors go to the bother of referencing something, they may be wrong in details, but they are almost never completely making it up. The small section I added was to get some information from you about what the factual issues are; the most I can ascertain from your response is that Cumont may have been misrepresented and you are unpleasant to deal with.

Secondly, I haven't been away for very long, but a lot has been discussed in the meantime, and you seem to be under the impression that some consensus has been established in that small space of time and I have no no right to question it. Editors always have the right to question anything, and insulting and intimidating responses like yours are anathema to Wikipedia's principle of friendly collaboration.

Now, however you argue it, I find it suspicious that any mention of similarities between Jesus and Mithras has been virtually eradicated from this encyclopedia, when clearly this is a notable theory that has been argued by multiple scholars, including, if the deleted sections of the article are correct (which you seem to deny), Cumont, who was at one stage considered to be the world authority in the field. It is also clearly a theory that is popularly believed by a great number of people, given the number of webpages devoted to this theory; while this establishes nothing in terms of historical reality, it makes me more convinced that we need to at least present the basics of this theory so we can say why it's wrong. There must be reliable sources we can cite who debunk the myth. I am also aware that there are a significant number of Christian editors who would like to see any comparisons between Mithraism and Christianity effaced from the store of human knowledge, regardless of historical support, hence, partly, my vigilance.

Furthermore, I don't agree with your reasoning for not presenting any comparisons (given 22:25, 28 August 2007 above and clarified by EALacey 23:10, 28 August 2007); I have given my arguments, and I can clarify them for you if you wish...

And of course your entire response to me above seems to be based on the mistaken view that these are all my ideas, rather than those of Cumont, etc., whom they are attributed to. It's very hard for me to respond to a lengthy post like that that's completely misunderstanding my edit. However what I can gather is that you believe Cumont has been severely misrepresented here. OK, that's something I can go on.

Finally, I'm sure you realised what you were getting into when you halved the article's size amid cries of horror and "help!" from other editors; you knew it would be controversial and you'll just have to deal with that as gracefully as you can. I'm not an expert in Mithraism, but I'm an experienced editor responding to that cry for help; I expect to be treated civilly and respectfully, and not like a naughty child. Making things tough for me is only liable to make me doubt your motives. Thanks, and I expect an apology and a better attempt at addressing my concerns... Fuzzypeg☻ 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, considering that the theory is considered in some academic literature alone warrants inclusion of those citations in the article - I agree with fullstop that the page is not here to cater to random google search results, but I do not agree that including a section on an academic comparison between mithraism and christianity is the same as citing a flat-earth theorist, although including a flat-earth theorist on a section on earth is not completely inappropriate for wikipedia. I also fail to see why an article on mithraism is the wrong place for a section of a comparison between christianity and mithraism, despite whatever effect mithraism did or did not have on christianity, christianity almost certainly had a large impact on mithraism. The literature offers several possibilities for various influences one might have played on the other, and this is the best place for it. a section at the end would not taint the article. I agree it needs to be trimmed down and the sources should be checked, but removing it completely is unwarranted. i don't want to make unfounded accusations, but fullstop, your frustrated tone and angry words certainly make you sound like a vandal :( 204.235.237.65 16:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

@fuzzypeg:

1. The only thing I've told you is that you need to read what has gone on here before. None of your "concerns" are new, and none of your "concerns" remains unadressed.
2. >> First off, that is not my composition that I've added; it was present in the lengthy section that you removed
   So, you decided that almost everything was cruft, but remarkably (!) two references were not. Did no alarm bells ring to tell you that if 95% of what you had was rotten, then the remaining 5% had a 95% chance of being rotten too? Or did you just ignore those alarms and decided that *some* of it just had to be legitimate?
3. >> Secondly, I haven't been away for very long,
   You haven't been away at all. Your edit history quite plainly indicates that you are watching this page, that you were aware of my edit, and that you (intentionally, it seems) chose not to step into the discussion which occurred primarily on two days on which you were active on WP.
4. >> I find it suspicious that any mention of similarities between Jesus and Mithras has been virtually eradicated from this encyclopedia
   If you had actually *READ* the article, and *READ* the discussion, you might find that "virtually eradicated from this encyclopedia" is not even remotely accurate.
5. >> we need to at least present the basics of this theory so we can say why it's wrong.
   What precisely in WP:OR policy do you not understand? What precisely in my explanation to YOU on 17 August did you not understand (but still chose not to respond to)? What precisely in the discussion up to here did you not understand? Oh, wait! Riiiiight. You haven't read that.
6. >> intimidating responses like yours are anathema to Wikipedia's principle of friendly collaboration
   What on earth did you think we were doing here before you decided to grace us with your presence? We were *working* on the principle of friendly collaboration. Your choice to ignore the time and effort that people have invested is one matter (quite your own), but the discussion certainly did exist. This is of course, the stuff you hadn't read because, what, oh yes, you have "a little trouble sifting through the above comments," which contain - as far as I am aware - nothing that a native speaker of the english language wouldn't be able to comprehend. They do however require a thorough understanding of the concept of no original research. But as an "experienced editor", I'm sure you know all this already and have understood that NOR is of critical importance to the perception of reliability - of an article and of wikipedia - and that it doesn't take very much practice to recognize OR from a mile away.
7. >> I'm an experienced editor responding to that cry for help
   Spare us the righteousness. You have - on this talk page - had posted (16 August) precisely the same "concern" you have just reiterated again, but which you did not follow up on after my response of 17 August. Your claim that you are now "responding to a cry for help" is bull, this is old hat for you.
   Further, you and I and everyone else knows you have no actual interest in Mithraism beyond its putative connection to Christianity. Your sphere of interest is esoterica, which is great, but please don't abuse our intelligence by suggesting that your "vigilance" extends to anything beyond the putative connection to Christianity. (cf for instance your edits of 2 July which are the only contributions you have made to this article)
8. >> [there are those] who would like to see any comparisons between Mithraism and Christianity effaced from the store of human knowledge, regardless of historical support, hence, partly, my vigilance.
   You are assuming several things here: a) that there is a conspiracy b) that all "Christian editors" (whatever those are supposed to be) are radical or illiterate or fringe, c) that there is much "historical support" for anything in the Mithraic Mysteries, d) your "vigilance" is appropriate or necessary or desirable.
   Again, if you had actually bothered to read the article or even inform yourself from a reliable source, you might have determined that almost everything that is known of the Mysteries is based on interpretation of the art in the mithraea. This is not "historical support", this is subjective interpretation, most of which is rejected because of the lack of supporting data and only a tiny fraction of which is "connected" to Christianity.

Further, I have twice mentioned the framework within which the so-called iconographical legacy may be legitimately referred to. *Reading* may help find these statements.

-- Fullstop 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

@204.235.237.65:

1. >> considering that the theory is considered in some academic literature
   What "theory" is considered in "what" academic literature?
2. >> I do not agree that including a section on an academic comparison between mithraism and christianity
   Then please provide a reference to that "academic comparison between mithraism and christianity", as well as to the undoubtedly huge pile of follow-up academic literature that such a comparison undoubtedly generated.
3. >> christianity almost certainly had a large impact on mithraism
   Perhaps you need to sort that out with Fuzzypeg. He seems to be certain it was the other way around, so between the two of you I'm sure you can actually assemble a section citing well established opinion for one or the other direction. This would undoubtedly be based on a reliable source that already assembles it for you, after all we wouldn't want anyone - heaven forbid - rejecting your comparison as original research or anything like that.
4. >> i don't want to make unfounded accusations
   Then don't make them.

-- Fullstop 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The tone this discussion has taken makes me rather unwilling to participate. I see nothing wrong with being interested in specific aspects of a topic that may relate to one's other interests, nor in adding one's thoughts to a discussion a while after other people – we all have lives outside Wikipedia. I also note that Fuzzypeg referred to "having a little trouble sifting through the above comments" (since you think I've mininterpreted some of what you've written, I could presumably say the same), but I don't see what in his posts justifies your accusation of "not bothering to read the discussion". I suggest that you reread your replies to Fuzzypeg's comments and see if "intimidating" isn't really an accurate description.

As for the deleted sentences' representation of Cumont: Cumont's precise words include "[T]his art, extremely refined despite its imperfections, exercised a lasting influence. It was united to Christian art by an affinity of nature, and the symbolism which it had popularized in the Occident did not perish with it. Even the allegorical figures of the cosmic cycle which the devotees of the Persian god had reproduced in great profusion (for nature was for them divine throughout) were adopted by Christianity, although in essence they were diametrically opposed to its spirit. So with the images of the Heavens, the Earth, and the Ocean, of the Sun, the Moon, and the Planets, and of the signs of the Zodiac, of the Winds, the Seasons, and the Elements, so frequent on the Christian sarcophagi, the mosaics, and miniatures." (The Mysteries of Mithra 227-228).

This is not part of a systematic comparison of Christianity and Mithraism; in fact it comes near the end of a chapter on "Mithraic art". However, Cumont does clearly say that Christian artists "adopted" cosmic imagery from Mithraic art (and he goes on to say that Christian artists illustrating Biblical scenes drew "inspiration" from motifs in Mithraic art). He doesn't say that Christian sarcophagi "have *generally* anything whatsoever to do with Mithraism", if by "generally" you mean "always", but he does say that the Christian cosmic imagery he compares to Mithraic imagery is "frequent". It seems to me that the deleted sentences' paraphrase of Cumont is manifestly not "utter bullshit", and if it constitutes original research it's only by associating them with other views in the deleted section rather than by anything it says about Cumont's position. Now Cumont's suggestions about influence on Christian art are only a couple of paragraphs at the end of a longer chapter, and don't deserve a paragraph to themselves, but if someone wanted to add a sentence to the "Legacy" section along the lines of "Cumont thought that some Christian artists had taken inspiration from Mithraic iconography", I don't think that would be objectionable. EALacey 11:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1. >> I also note that Fuzzypeg referred to "having a little trouble sifting through the above comments" (since you think I've mininterpreted some of what you've written, I could presumably say the same), but I don't see what in his posts justifies your accusation of "not bothering to read the discussion".
   • I didn't refer to Fuzzypeg as "having a little trouble ...". I quoted him; he said that of himself.
   • "not bothering to read the discussion" applies not only to what went on here in this "Help" section, but also to a discussion that previously occurred Fuzzypeg and myself. (13 Aug-17 Aug). The issues regarding "[inclusion of] all notable information, from both scholarly and unscholarly sources" (Fuzzypeg/14 Aug); why "[o]f course articles should include unscholarly sources!" (Fuzzypeg/15 Aug) is not right; and why its not legitimate for us to "point out the problems with [the theories]" (Fuzzypeg/Aug 16) were addressed by me a week and more before I removed the text.
     You might observe that Fuzzypeg did not pursue those issues (or otherwise indicate that he continued to adhere to those points of view) even after communication continued into an unrelated realm.
2. >> if someone wanted to add a sentence to the "Legacy" section along the lines of [...] [wouldn't be objectionable]
   On the face of it, that wouldn't be objectionable in the "Legacy" section at all, because Cumont did indeed think that (good catch btw).
   However, even such an innocuous statement takes on a different meaning when you consider that there are people who believe that there is a continuity between the symbolicism of the one belief system and that of the another. That note is then no longer just an observation.
   But, thats my personal take on this sordid matter, and if you believe that what Cumont thought is worthy of note (and - ideally - the thought can be inhibited from taking on a life of its own), then by all means go with it.

-- Fullstop 10:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

without wishing to get incorporated into this lively exchange of views; if the section on "Legacy" is to be include refrence to academic studies of iconographic influence, then an important point to make is that - in all other respects - Mithraism had no continuing legacy at all. The last Mithraea appear to have been destroyed around 400 CE; and within 50 years, it seems that all memory of Mithraism as a cult had died. This is in notable contrast to other late forms of Roman religion. Late antique Christian scholars might find references to the Mithras cult in patristic works - but no one at that time associated these with the odd statues of bull-slaying that occasionally turned up in the ground. Consequently, a substantial element of the aparent continuation of Mithriac iconographic forms in Christian representations, arose precisely because the Christian artists were unaware of their Mithriac provenance (The Mithriac statue in St Peter at Gowt in Lincoln being the classic exaample).

So personally, I would see no reason not to include some reference to the legacy of Mithraic imagery within Christian iconography - but carefully qualified. The more general Wikipedia problem - which I fully support Fullstop in attempting to limit - is the propensity for contibutiors to insert into this article wild and fanciful theories linking Mithraism with the origin of Christianity. It is not difficult for these contributors to find plentiful support for their opinions in published works on Christian Origins of a certain bent. However - and without exception so far as I can ascertain - none of these published works rests on any actual Mithriac findings later than Cumont, and specifically The Mysteries of Mithra. In effect all these references are one reference - and that a work over 100 yeas old, that its author later acknowledged to be very inadaquate in respect of the points at issue. TomHennell 23:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I find myself misrepresented by Fullstop above. Regarding my editorial actions or the sincerity of my previous statements I will answer to these in a different thread if anyone's interested, however I'm concerned that this discussion keeps getting steered away from editorial issues towards issues regarding the editors themselves.

My concern here simply comes down to this: I have read enough to know that there is a widespread theory that Christianity and Mithraism have some relationship. This is so widespread that for many this may be the context in which they first hear the word "Mithras" or "Mithraism". I'm quite willing to believe that this supposed relationship is not based on fact (and Fullstop mischaracterises me above with "He seems to be certain it was the other way around [Mithraism had a big influence on Christianity]").

However I expect the article to inform me about this, about why this supposed relationship is a fiction. This is where I naturally come to be informed, and it doesn't inform. The article now links to more sources of info in other articles, and I see that indeed mentions of Mithraism/Christianity connections are not "nearly absent" in the wider encyclopedia; however the quality of some of these sections seems debatable, and even between them they don't explain how the current academic viewpoint has evolved. Also, this information would be much more readable if it were succinctly summarised in this article, rather scattered through several articles.

Basically I expect the editing of an article to either add, correct or clarify/condense information, but in this case the information has simply been obliterated. I started adding some info back that looked like it was convincingly referenced (but only a small amount, due to time restrictions), to see what the arguments with this material actually are. Since these sections I added are actually correct, according to EALacey's comments above, I would like, if time permits, to add them back, possibly changing/reducing them in light of EALacey's suggestions regarding Cumont. If I do this I will first carefully read through all recent comments to make sure I've understood the various criticisms, and I once again encourage anyone to add in more modern material that refutes the views of these academics and reflects the current academic consensus. And I repeat, someone must have written an authoritative work on the subject that summarises the various theories that have developed and been discarded; if we could summarise such a work and be done with it, that would be ideal. If you don't want me to add material back, please explain why, bearing in mind that EALacey's evidence firmly contradicts Fullstop's claim that it was "utter bullshit".

One other thing I need to clear up: Fullstop quotes me arguing "why its not legitimate for us to 'point out the problems with [the theories]'". I believe I was arguing exactly the opposite: that it is useful for us to quote highly notable (and only highly notable) discredited theories and clearly show why they have been discredited; thus if someone comes to the article labouring under a common misconception they will hopefully be educated by the time they leave. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The leading experts on Mithraism--Gordon, Beck, Clauss, Merkelbach--see little but the msot general connections between Christianity and Mithraism. Older scholars--especially those who were mostly interested in Christianity, saw all sorts of connections, but those have not been substantiated. If anyone can cite an extensive discussion of connections by specialists, please let him do so.Malkhos (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; but as you say, the view that there was indeed a connection was once academic orthodoxy, and those who maintain it have no difficulty in quoting scholarly books to support their views, especially since these are likely to be out of copyright and hence readily accessible on the internet. Nor is the issue entirely dead in specialist discussion - Beck in particular tends to draw parallel between Mithraism and Christianity; even though he may not be positing any direct influence. And the re-use of Mithraic iconography (and occasionally objects) in Christian contexts is readily demonstrable. Some recognition of this should be made in the article 10:55. TomHennell (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All I can say, is the article states Mithraism was probably founded around 70-71 AD by a few Roman Soldiers up near Greece. Christianity existed before that and was founded in a completely different region. Besides that, Mithraism hardly spread until the 2nd and 3rd century, while Christianity had already spread throughout the empire by the end of the 1st century. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century accused them of copying many Christian rituals. With the historical facts presented through Wikipedia, I'd come to the conclusion that Christianity influenced Mithraism, not vice-versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.177.223 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Justin Martyr is scarcely an unbiased witness. It would be more accurate, I think, to consider Mithraism and Christianity as pretty much exact contemporaries. The earliest surviving demonstrably Christian objects date from around the reign of Hadrian, which is only a little later than the earliest non-Christian notices of this new religion (in the Younger Pliny). For Mithraism, the earliest literary refrences are about the same date, but the earliest archeology is a little earlier. But these were in different parts of the empire, and in widely different population groups. The evidence suggest that, by the time Christians and Mithraists noticed one another, they were both well established in their substantial forms. However, there seems little doubt that the later Mithraism of the 4th century pagan revival was influenced by Chrstianity, in that it was exlicitly promoted as a possible rival. Equally, there is little doubt that the Christianity of that date absorbed significnt elements from paganism (especially in relation to iconongraphy), and that Mithraism was among these sources (though far from the main one). TomHennell (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to the essays question

I can think of one reason why 'non scholarly' essays would perhaps be suited to this page. Mithraism unlike many other ancient religions left nothing 'solid' behind to read except perhaps for a few scribblings on the walls of their temples, as such most of the information we have about Mithraism today is probably fragmented with truth and fabrication - scholarly or not.

Writing a scholarly paper on Mithraism and adding it to the site in reality would be as 'verified' as a scholarly paper on invisible Unicorns. - They both share about the same amount of 'hard data' from which to base a conclusion. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.202.138 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I think there's a little more evidence surrounding Mithraism than there is surrounding invisible unicorns.

This article should include all notable information, from both scholarly and unscholarly sources; of course the majority of unscholarly sources will probably also be non-notable. Where there are notable but controversial opinions on the subject, the controversy should be explained in the article. If there is significant uncertainty surrounding some detail of Mithraism, you should be able to find a notable and scholarly source who questions it. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1. actually,... while there is a little more evidence, its only a very little bit more. Try this for starters: we don't actually know the name of the deity those Romans were worshipping.
2. NO. Articles should *never*, *ever*, *EVER* include unscholarly sources, irrespective of how "notable" they are. The White House view on evolution is "notable," but not scholarly. That is - in a nutshell - what wikipedia "reliable sources" policy is all about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collector of information.

-- Fullstop 09:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Take an example: Margaret Murray, who wrote about the witch trials and theorised that there was a highly organised pan-European witch cult in operation in the early Modern Age, has been thoroughly debunked, and is regarded by pretty much the whole of academia as "unscholarly". And yet you will find her theories mentioned in several related articles, such as Witchcraft, Wicca, Witch-hunt and so on. The reason is that she and her theories are highly notable, since they had a huge influence on popular and even academic understandings of the witch trials. She's an important part of the history of this subject. Of course wherever her theories are mentioned it is made clear that they have little academic support.

I realise that taking this approach expands the scope of the article a little. In my Margaret Murray example, this means that now you have an article that is not only about witchcraft historically and anthropologically, but also takes in the history of the study of the subject. This is actually quite practical in terms of maintaining the article, because a significant number of non-academics still believe the Murray thesis and would try to "correct" the article if it didn't clearly inform them why their views were wrong. Not to mention that it makes the article much more useful and informative.

So that's why I stressed notable information in my previous post; if common beliefs regarding Mithras are based on unscholarly sources then we still want to know about these sources and why popular belief has developed along these lines. We have to identify what the popular theories are to be able to say that they're wrong, don't we?

Wikipedia policy only requires that cited sources be unbiased, scholarly and true, if we present them as unbiased, scholarly and true. Otherwise all it requires is that they be notable. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

1. popularity/notability and "reliable sources" are not contradictory. For any non-pop-culture subject (the Mysteries of Mithras are unquestionably a non-pop-culture subject), *the* only measure of popularity is whether that subject has been acknowledged (even if only to refute it, or to acknowledge it as a cultural phenomenon) by reliable sources.

No, we do not "have to identify what the popular theories are to be able to say that they're wrong."

• a theory that has not been acknowledged is by definition not a popular theory.
• a theory that has not been acknowledged as a theory may not been identified as a theory on WP.
• WP editors may not themselves identify whats wrong with a theory.

Margaret Murray is citable on WP because academics acknowledge (even if only to reject) her contribution/the cultural phenomenon surrounding her work.[1] Contrast this with the "sources" cited in this article's "Mithras and Christianity" cruft.[2][3][4][5]

2. Even if the "influence on Christianity" crap were a cultural phenomenon, it would warrant at most line or two under "Popular Culture." Or do you think J.K. Rowling's views on witchcraft and wizardry belong in main article space at Witchcraft? Murray may warrant a couple of lines under the articles you noted, but do you the "influence on Christianity" crap should constitute half of this article's space?

3. Even though I'm not familiar with Murray or witchcraft, her opinion evidently contributes to the subject of those WP articles. Unlike the "influence on Christianity" crap, which is not at all about the Mysteries. And why are these putative "origins" of certain Christian practices not over in the article on Christianity where they belong? Right! Because they would spontaneously combust over there.

-- Fullstop 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

1. So it seems like we're in agreement. As you say, non-scholarly sources are still notable if they have been notably acknowledged by reliable sources, even if only to refute them. Please don't think that I'm defending any particular source associated with this article, because I'm not. I can't even remember what they are. 2. Well, if it really is "crap", then the mention need only be as long as necessary to point out the problems with it, or to direct the reader to an easy source of information. I'm under the impression that it's not quite as cut and dried as you're making out, though; are there no reputable authors who claim that Mithraism was a big influence on Christianity? Am I one of the misled populace? Even so, JK Rowlings' ideas on witchcraft would belong in the Witchcraft article if they had substantially altered the popular perception of witchcraft. Which they haven't, of course.

So what I'm interested in now is, why is this "influence on Christianity" stuff "crap"? I realise there are many Christian scholars who have attempted to refute suggestions of the Christian mythos originating (partly) in Mithraism; of course there are also many Christian scholars trying to disprove evolution between species. Unfortunately if there are well-regarded authors who hold both views then we can't label either view as crap, but must treat it as an unsolved debate. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1. yep. with a minor note: a) sources (scholarly or not) are only notable if they have been acknowledged by reliable sources. b) any subject only becomes notable when they've been so acknowledged. cf. WP:FRINGE by the way.

2. the mention need only be so long as to say "its a common notion in some circles, but is not an academically recognized one." And no, there are there no reputable authors who claim that Mithraism was a big influence on Christianity. It cannot "only be as long as necessary to point out the problems with it," because pointing out those problems would be OR.

*All* Roman religion had an influence on *all other* Roman religion. Such was *all* Roman religion. They imported gods and godesses from all over the place and they were all then (to some degree) blended with existing notions and the previously imported god. What came out at the end was pure Roman religion, with or without an exotic veneer.

What the essay in the article has done is a) blow it all out of proportion, and b) treat it as if there were some special relationship, and c) synthesise stuff that is totally unrelated.

In response...

• ... to your last point: See second-last section of this talk page.
• As for "well-regarded authors," that depends on who is doing the regarding. No "well-regarded" scholar who cares about his reputation is ever going to say what this article says. At least none that intend to stay well-regarded. There are simple standards that are inviolable, *regardless* of the subject. These standards also exist on Wikipedia as policies.

L. Ron Hubbard is a "well-regarded author," but you will not find his "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" quoted in any psychology or psychiatry journal or - for that matter - on any Wikipedia article related to those subjects.

And, if you read an article on cancer, you probably will not want to find a reference to an article by a "well-regarded author" telling me that orange juice will "cure" it; or an article on the Earth where a "well-regarded author" tells you that the earth is flat - even if it is only in a by-note.

The idea of a lightning rod to deflect the less-discerning to some forum where they can do all the damage they want is not bad, but it requires constant vigilance that someone doesn't turn the lightning rod into a full fledged essay. That is namely what happened to this article.

-- Fullstop 04:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the name of the deity, you should find plenty of mentions at this page. Plutarch certainly mentions his name, as well as a number of Christian authors. Or have I missed your meaning? I admit I don't know this subject extraordinarily well... Fuzzypeg☻ 02:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

While "Mithras" is mentioned in several classical sources, but we don't actually know whether this is the name of the deity worshipped in what non-adherents (!) called the "Mysteries of Mithras". The followers of the cult kept the name of their deity secret. As they did everything else.

Consequently, we actually don't know what the relationship between "Mithras" and the Mysteries is. Sure, "Mithras" could be the name of the deity of the Mysteries (and for the sake of convenience, is also assumed to be that), but "Mithras" could also have played some ancilliary role within the cult (which was then actually devoted to another godhead), or even have been the name of some kind of "office" held by a celebrant.

We simply don't know.

-- Fullstop 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, classical sources such as Plutarch and also the anti-"heathen" polemicists (the ones you are presumably referring to with "Christian authors") are not citable on Wikipedia: Not only are they primary sources, it takes quite a bit of training and background knowledge to interpret them correctly.

But then we don't know the actual names of most of the classical gods. "Jupiter", for instance, or "Aphrodite" are titles; popular use-names perhaps, but not their actual names. Their names were kept secret, and we can only hazard guesses in a very small number of cases as to what these might have been. That doesn't prevent us from knowing quite a lot about them, their cult, their mythology and their rituals.

And I agree, we should mostly be relying on secondary sources for interpretation of these primary sources. I was merely responding to your statement that we don't know Mithras' name, and since I found a nice selection of examples all in one place, I thought I'd show you. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Noooo, Jupiter and Venus (or Zeus and Aphrodite) were not objects of a mystery religion. These are old old old gods, native to the Greco-Romans and very well documented. Quite different from the "vocational" gods of the mysteries.

If, with "titles," you mean that they were hypostasic entities and as such we wouldn't know their "real" names, well, most names of gods and godesses are like that. The titles/epithets/attributes are also proper names. But there is no secrecy involved.

Jupiter is "father god" because he (Zeus) was the head honcho. No other reason.

Ditto Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Poseidon, Pluto ...

-- Fullstop 04:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

non-scholarly essays? Why?

Why would anyone want a list of non-scholarly essays? What's the point of this section? Zeusnoos 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Because otherwise the weenies would bespatter the list of real material with this crap. The section exists merely to keep the rubbish out of the way. Roger Pearse 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard that word in some time. Why should Mithraism be treated so special in wikiland that it caters to agendas? Other articles related to religion, beliefs, philosophy, and science are constantly battling this sort of thing rather than giving in. The section should be deleted since reliable sources is supposed to be the rule. Zeusnoos 17:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(( Newly found archaeological evidence in iran is supporting this story. This is very recent as they have only discovered it this month and will be continuing research for another year before any statements are released. )) - DEC 26 2006

If that is the case, then any notions that Mithraism started in Persia should be removed from the article since it violates wikipedia's Original Research policy. The evidence claims have not be scrutinized by Mithraic scholars yet. Zeusnoos 17:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Persian origin

This article (Mithraism) refers to the article Mithra when saying that the Persian origin of Mithraism is uncertain. Looking at Mithra, in turn, one is referred again to this article! I think this should be corrected. Moreover, I have seen recent scholarly books which claimed with near certainty that Mithraism is of Iranian (but not necessarily of Zoroastrian) origin. see here. Shervink 10:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)shervink

Actually, with the rather marginal exception of Bivar, no contemporary Mithraic specialist thinks there is any but the most superficial connection between Mithraism and iranian religion. Beck's Commagene theory needs to be discussed more fully in this connection.Malkhos (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If we define Mithraism purely in terms of the Roman Mithraic mysteries, I think you are right. There is I believe, scholarly debate relating to contemporary Mithra cults in Bactria etc; and how far these may have influenced Roman Mithraism, or been influenced by it TomHennell (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

These rites as those of Mithras and most all others were spread across the globe via global commerce and so likely were from always earliest Egypt: but even then, they predate earliest Egypt. See also Narmer lil Mithras Jr, aka willy mo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.196.169 (talk • contribs)

Huh? Could you explain what you're talking about? This is unintelligible. Fuzzypeg★ 22:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I should add this one as well: "From "Mithras: Mysteries and initiation rediscovered" by D. Jason Cooper (1996, Samuel Weiser, Inc., York Beach, Maine. $12.95). Pages 1-8: When the Aryan tribes swept down from the Russian steppes they brought their gods with them. Some time between 2000 and 1500 B.C.E., these tribes entered India and Iran, bringing with them one particular deity. These people, the Mitanni, gave us the first written reference to Mitra in a treaty between themselves and the Hittites. Signed about 1375 B.C.E., the treaty calls on divine witnesses to pledge its terms. The Hittites called on the sun go. The Mitanni called on Mitra.

Mitra had been worshipped by the Iranians for centuries when Zarathustra (we call him Zoroaster, the Greek version of his name) founded the first revealed religion. Zarathustra announced the primacy of Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, who was served by the Amentas Spenta, or bounteous immortals. Among these was Mithra, whom Ahura Mazda declared to be "as worthy of worship as myself." Thus Zarathustrian reform did not replace Mithra in the Iranian Pantheon. It merely changed his role.

Mithra may also have been worshipped by the Mani. Some branches of Manicheism identified Mithra as the ruler of the second or third emanation (an occultist would say "ray," "aeon," or "sepheroth"). But whether there were actual rites of worship dedicated to him or whether he simply functioned as an anthropomorphic principle is impossible to say.

In the Roman Empire, this same deity was called Mithras, and was the central figure of a mystery religion that for almost five hundred years vied with Christianity for dominance. Roman Mithrasism differed so markedly, however, from other traditions that some scholars have claimed Mithras to be a unique deity, distinct from Mitra or Mithra. Although this book deals primarily with Mithrasism in its Roman form, it will demonstrate that there is good reason to connect the Roman Mithras with his other forms in other traditions.

In the beginning was a word

The names Mitra, Mithra and Mithras all derive from the Indo-European root "Mihr," which translates both as "friend" and as "contract." While both translations are correct, however, neither gives a full account of the word. "Mihr" itself derives from "mei," an Indo-European root meaning "exchange." But Aryan society did not use the word "exchange" to describe a transaction.

Ancient societies were hierarchical. Neither the concept of an exchange between equals after which a relationship ended (our meaning of contract), nor the concept of an open-ended exchange between equals (our meaning of friendship) were contained in the original meaning of the word "Mihr" or "Mei." (For our concept of friendship, the Rg Veda uses the word "sakhi.") The friendship or contract offered by Mihr, or Mitra as he became known, was an exchange between unequal partners with Mitra as a just lord. Like any feudal relationship, this "friendship" imposed certain obligations on both sides. Mitra oversaw the affairs of his worshippers. He established justice for them. In return, his worshippers had to be upright in their dealings with others. Mitra was thus "lord of the contract" (a title frequently applied to him)...

The Iranian Mithra and Zarathustra

As the Aryan tribes swept south, they split into two major branches, the Indian in the east and the Iranis in the west. Both Worshipped the god of the contract in similar ways. Like the Indians, the Iranis sacrificed cattle to Mithra. They invoked him to preserve the sanctity of the contract. They associated him with fire. And like both Indian and Roman worshippers, the Iranis concluded contracts before fires so that they might be made in the presence of Mithra. Like Mitra, Mithra saw all things. The Avestan Yast (hymn) dedicated to him describes him as having a thousand ears, ten thousand eyes, and as never sleeping. And like Mitra, Mithra has a partner, Apam Nepat, whose name means Grandson of Waters. (Note that the same elemental connection of fire and water is maintained as in the Indian tradition.)

Mithra was a moral god, upholding the sanctity of the contract even when the contract was made with one who was sure to break it. His primary responsibility was to the rightness of the action. In this he stood above the various national gods of the time, who had little function other than to look after the welfare of the state and its wealthiest members. In fact, Mithra was the first such moral deity and stands above the notions of many worshippers of many gods today...

The Iranis had a deep reverence for Mithra, as is proved by their reception of the prophet, Zarathustra. Zarathustra is the most important person in the recorded history of religion, bar none. The first man to promulgate a divinely revealed religion. He influenced the religions of Judaism, Christianity, Mithrasism, Islam, Northern (Mahayana) Buddhism, Manicheism, and the pagan Norse myths. Over half the world has accepted a significant portion of his precepts under the guise of one or another of these faiths.

At the age of about forty, Zarathustra, a priest in the traditional Irani rites, received a revelation. In it, the many gods of the Iranis were supplanted by a new deity who was the supreme deity of the Good. This deity became known as Ahura Mazda, or the "Wise Lord." Opposed to Ahura Mazda was Aingra Mainyu or Ahriman, the "Angry Spirit," the chief deity of evil. Both deities had underlings and partners. The chief allies of Ahura Mazda were the "Amentas Spenta." Created by the "Wise Lord," these "Bounteous" or "Holy Immortals" included Mithra.

There was a hymn to Mithra in the Zarathustrian holy work, the Avesta. It is a beautiful hymn or Yast, and Ilya Gershevitch is right to lament that it is not more widely known. In it, Ahura Mazda addresses the prophet Zarathustra, saying that when he created Mithra, he made him as worthy of worship as himself. This accolade is given to no other Amenta Spenta or Yazata. Historians have argued that this distinction indicates only that the cult of Mithra was so important that Zarathustra had to give its god special concessions to convert its members. Some have even argued the popularity from the concessions. But there is another theological reason for the special attention given to Mithra by Zarathustra...

Mithra is a much more fully developed image than the rather ethereal Mitra. Unlike the Indian god, we actually have a relief of the Iranian deity. Reconstruction shows Mithra shaking hands with King Antiochus. It is Mithra's attire, however, that is important to the current study. Mithra wears the Phrygian cap, Persian trousers, and a cape. His hat is star speckled (from textual evidence his chariot is similarly decorated). Rays of light emerge from Mithra's head much like a halo. His choke collar is a serpent. This image, or one very like it, will appear again in Rome." There are also a wide range of Iranian feasts that are still celebrated that go back to the time where mithraism was dominant there, like Yalda,... And the sculpture of Mitra is still there in the Temple of Anahita in the mountains of Zagros in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.209.10 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Mithric Rites

Mithras is a living entity who does throw a dart striking doodes, leading to the beginning of various mutiple phases leading towards evolution (i.e. enlightenment). (This dart throwing occurs after some longer meditation across the area Mithras resides.) And the many symbols involving Mithras are all detailing important points along that evolutionary path. (see also the many double ax symbols of ancient Crete - double ax symbol is a diagram of the location / area.)

Having such rites in Mythric cults vaults seems self defeating and preventing that evolution, but then, if adepts were passing along info via laying on hands, blesssings, mental and energy transfers that could be in a vault, cave or where ever.

consider (not necessarily in any set order but as you achieve)

• dart
• sword
• bull leap
• stairs
• horus eyes/ Wedjet (eyes)
• hammer
• grail
• etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.196.169 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC) cincu, cmdr in chief kong of hong clan 99.165.196.169 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "living entity", "striking doodes", "various multiple phases", "evolution", "meditation", "area" and "resides". Then explain what you expect us to think of when we consider the items you've listed. I can't make any sense whatsoever out of what you've written. Fuzzypeg★ 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• "living entity" , in heaven , i.e. an aspect of God
• "striking doodes" - the "Mithras dart" hits an aspiring devotee,
• "various mutiple phases" as referring to esp years of meditations
• "evolution" that we are discussing is enlightenment...
• "meditation" - hours of area specific connections
• "area/areas" - most ancient depictions are in fact diagrams of areas to meditate upon etc
• "resides" is a well known area to the adept sometimes referred to as the 'philospher's stone' ... where Mithras is - Pater Sr Harumph 69.121.221.97 (talk)

Wow

I just starting reading this from the beginning, and it is insanely out of touch with scholarship. Beck is given a nominal mention on only a specific point, and anyone else after Cumont is absent. Where is Lease, Gordon, Martin, Betz, and Griffiths to name a few? This business of tagging unsupported statements with [citation] is too mild a measure for poorly supported claims. Zeusnoos 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I clearly agree. This article is in serious need of attention, and verification of content is a primary point of attention. If, as I can conclude from your statement above, you have more than a passing knowledge of the subject, please either perform the changes you deem necessary yourself, or, if you so desire, contact me regarding the points that you would add or subtract in the article. I acknowledge that my own knowledge of the subject is some years old, and that I might not be able to attend to it immediately, but will try to within the next week or so. Badbilltucker 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I studied this a few years ago, and have not yet read Beck's new book, though I've heard his essay collection from 2004 is better. Unfortunately, the free time I thought I would have until mid-January has been taking away, and I can't contribute much myself. The main problem with the article is the conflation (perhaps intentional by some editors) of Persian/Zoroastrian god Mithra and the Roman catacombic practice of the Mithraic mystery cult. Scholars are in agreement, as are the ancient sources (that's another issue) that the Romans borrowed the name of Mithra and some Persian-related items (the cap, the grade called "the Persian" etc) in the creation of this syncretic cult. It gives it an exotic veneer. But the issue of origins is another matter - as the cult was practiced, the Mithraeams (sp?) show 1st century bc or ad origin. To say that it has a Persian origins is incorrect (as of to date) for it implies a continuity, whereas the whole thing about the rock, the wheat growing out of the wound, the 7 grades, the cave, the raven, persian, bridegroom, etc, is not only lacking Persian evidence, and is likely created, yes, created and orchestrated, by a Roman dignitary. Every scholar of antiquity knows that ancient sources that claim origins must be treated cautiously. Esp. because oftentimes origins were made up or sought after (either Persian, "Chaldaean" or Egyptian) to give an idea a sense of venerability and authority. Because Mithra was known in late antiquity to be a Persian god, and because the Mithraic cult itself wished to portray itself as Persian, the literary sources sometimes say it is Persian. Zeusnoos 21:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, that agrees with what I know of the (now archaic?) statements from the Scientic American article whose age I hesitate to mention because it would date myself. However, as I remember even in the myth as stated in that article, the origin myth as presented in that article specifically stated that Mithras was not in fact the true name of the "god" being venerated, and that his real name was being hidden. If that statement is still held valid, then the Roman Mithras is clearly a separate entity entirely. (As I remember, it's supposed by them to be the god of the constellation Perseus, although that might have changed in recent edits.) Badbilltucker 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The identity of Mithras is not necessarily a god, but it need not not be a god :). We simply don't know for sure whether he is a god or not. However, in polemic sources such as Celsus and Firmicus, he is treated as either a god or a masculine aspect of god. Ulansey is the source that Mithras is to be identified with Perseus (because of the cap Perseus wears in later constellation representations that suggest a relation between the name "Perseus" with Persia). Zeusnoos 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what are the chances that one of the above writers is a Christian and another, a Muslim? Each can source his point of view with centuries-old documentation, I am sure. Please don't confound an article on religion with an agenda borne of the current geopolitical East/West situation. 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, suppose this argument is between a Christian and Muslim, both motivated by their religion to slant evidence in a particular way. Why would a Muslim be interested in the 'origin' of a Roman mystery cult? What value does that contribute to Islam? Likewise, why would a Christian (one again motivated by Christianness of some sort) care whether a Roman cult long extinct originated in Persia or not? On the other hand, if someone wishes that this Roman mystery cult (of which there is archaelogical and textual evidence in the Roman empire) be of Persian origin and continuing a Persian tradition into late antiquity, doesn't this sound more like a matter of national pride rather than religion? Such as pride of being Iranian? Or better yet, of being of Persian identity in Iran? Zeusnoos 21:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say i agree with the trend that the discussion between zeusnoos and badbill seems to be taking in the correct way to interpret mithras, as essentially a roman creation alluding to a largely invented persian past, for the purposes of giving their cult more prestige. Like eveyrone else unfortuneately, i dont have the time to give this article the throough editing and reworkng it needs and deserves. the very last part, all about the ideas of cumont and larson, is simply appalling, in both style and content, and should probably be deleted entirely. I would do it myself, but i havnt got the guts or the patients to take on whichever out of date fool put it in there, and who would doubtless be outraged over my removing the total rubbish that they have written.Mattlav 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps, what is person writing about christian and muslim on? what is he talking about? who is he talking about? if its zeusnoos and badbilltucker then its a very strange thing to write indeed; since they seem to be largely agreeing with each other, and going ovr a few points; i cant understand what would make him think this is some kind of manifestation of east-west hatred.Mattlav 18:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous Mithras Worshippers

Is this section real? Doesn't look in and the one blue link gives no mention of him being a Mithras worsipper (can't remember the adjective). Loathe to take it out if its real though 86.140.196.47 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to log in NatashaUK 00:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that section. Both these individuals are apparently living people, and so WP:BLP applies. Unsourced claims should be removed aggressively when they deal with living people, and as these claims have been unsourced for nearly three months, I figured it was time to clear them out. Additionally, it's a little unnecessary, and if we really wanted to list famous Mithraists, why wouldn't we start with individuals from the first few centuries AD?--C.Logan 16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Relation of Mithraism to Christianity

some very interesting references added by user Marmanyu; though as an individual essay, it does reflect rather more original research than is usually considered proper for Wikipedia. Still this article as a whole is scarcely a paragon of Wiki-propriety. Perhaps Marmanyu could edit it down a bit?

A few queries for Marmanyu:

- you mention examples of house churches converted from disused mithrea, can you be specific with names, as I am unaware of any such? There are several examples where churches are erected over the sites of demolished mithraea - but that is a differnt case. Christians - from the 4th century onwards - commonly re-used pagan temples; but they seem to have made an exception with mithraea.

- in general early christianity happens in places where mithraea generally aren't; i.e. Greece, Egypt, Asia-minor, Syria. The only places where they coincide are in North Africa (where Tertullian is clearly aware of mithraism), and Rome/Ostia. Examples of influence really only seem apparent from the 4th Century - when Pagan Revivalists seem to have promoted Mithraism in an attempt to counter-act Christianity (see on this Alison Griffiths). Remember that Mithraism is something that you have to do in a mithraeum, whereas a Christian is a Christian everywhere. Would it not appear that Mithraic representations were pretty well established long before Mithriasts were likely to be aware of Christianity - and vice versa?

Your trying to argue that religion in a poly theistic culture could have no bearing on a monotheistic one. I think you need to go back and re-examin you logic.

- Mithraism appears to have disappeared completely in the early 5th century. Christian re-use of Mithraic sites, images and iconography at a later date (e.g. St Peter at Gowts in Lincoln, or even Santo Stefano Rotondo) may well reflect ignorance rather than relationships - e.g. "this looks like it might represent St Michael - lets stick it on the wall". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomHennell (talk • contribs) 09:35, April 2, 2007

The Christianity in the early holy roman empire was nothing more than a system to control power. The fact that that vatican stands on the same site as the temple to Mithras reflects this consolidation of polytheism into monotheism. Story's such as St Pauls redemption have direct parallels. Were not even going to get into the fact that Mithras died for our sins, was resurrected 3 days later, claimed we should only worship one god... etc.

sorry TomHennell 11:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the article contradicts itself on the question of whether Mithra was born of a virgin or not.

It looks like someone beat me to it. I noticed that two. It is mentioned in a listing of similarities that "both were born from virgins". Well, a few paragraphs later, it says "Mithras had no mother... he was born from a rock". O-kay...

Additionally, the article seems to misrepresent some sources. For example it is claimed that the feast of Epiphany (here claimed to have Mithraic origins) was not adopted by the Church until 813. Well, knowing this as a contradiction to the Epiphany article, I analyzed the source- the Epiphany has been celebrated at least since 361, but it was simply not celebrated a separate feast from the 12 days of Nativity's celebrations until 813. There's a big difference between initial adoption and the rearranging or moving of celebrations.

I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I smell OR and POV-distorted additions. I'll be adding a tag concerning statements which do not reflect the sources, and I may make some changes if I see any clear problems.--C.Logan 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

the conclusion you jumped to was (IMO) right on the money. :) The whole section reeks. Given that Marmanyu hasn't bothered to respond to Tom's remarks, and the (pseudo-)legacy bit is altogether outrageously unscientific, I vote that the whole section be made to vanish. Straw poll anyone? -- Fullstop 14:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's had that 'Need expert opinion' tag for some time, and I'm a little hesitant to delete anything without a second opinion- much of the information, specifically from that section, is based on published sources- which is great, but a little difficult to check. Anyone can add an irrelevant reference to add weight to a personal idea they're presenting. How can we be certain that this is what the sources say? If the remark about Epiphany can be misrepresented, how can we be certain the entire section is not? Someone needs to clean this section up if they really consider this information to be essential. If not, it may need to be rewritten entirely.--C.Logan 17:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Even if the "Mithraism and Christianity" part were based on a reliable source (not just a "published source"), yes, the interpretation of that source is very evidently WP:OR, in all its forms. That begins with the inclusion of material that say nothing whatsoever about Christianity that are then misused to buttress some other (originally unrelated) argument, the inclusion of numerous scattered remarks suggesting "evidence", and concluding with two (!) "similarities" sections that provoke the impression that Mithraism and Christianity are joined at the hip.
2. That begins already with "Mithraism is most famous for suggestions and some evidence that it is the origin of much of today's Christian doctrine." 'Some evidence ... much of' is patently absurd. The purported "evidence" is tangential at best, and many of these pieces of "evidence" are in fact synthetic, creatively grafted onto what little is actually known of Mithras worship. Its the sort of stuff that made Dan Brown a multi-millionaire.
3. This doesn't of course mean that Mithras worship didn't influence Christianity (and/or vice-versa), but to suggest continuity (which the section does) is downright rotten. Of course there were syncretic influences flowing in both directions, but thats a far, far leap from the section's message that "Mithraism is most famous for [...] some evidence that it is the origin of much of today's Christian doctrine."
   The Romans - if nothing else - were very pragmatic in their adoption of "alien" forms of worship, in line with the philosophy that "there may be something to religion/deity/philosophy xyz, so lets include it/him/her too to be on the safe side." This was not just for Christianity, but for all Roman religious beliefs. Thats how Isis worship ended up in Mainz, but Roman Isis worship is not even remotely anything like it was in Egypt. (I mention Isis because that article has precisely the same problem as this one, cf. Isis#Parallels_in_Catholicism_and_Orthodoxy)
4. Above all, the weight given to the "Christianity and Mithraism" section is way beyond all reasonable mention of syncretic influences. Its "parallelomania" (using a term from the section itself) at its worst. Giving it its own top-level section is already too much. It may be worthy of a by-note in a general discussion of Roman religion (cf Religion in ancient Rome#Absorption of foreign cults), but it does not belong in an article on Mithras worship, and nothing warrants a rambling (longer than the rest of the article!) discussion of how Mithraic practices intersected with Christian ones.

-- Fullstop 09:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

ps: as Tom already pointed out, the article as a whole 'Needs expert opinion'. What the "Christianity and Mithraism" section needs is the inclusion (in the section) of all of {{Disputed-section}}, {{Essay-opinion}}, {{Synthesis}}, {{Weasel section}}, {{Onesource}}, {{Recentism}}, {{OR}} and {{POV}}, the last because the section does not conform to WP:UNDUE.

Agreed on all points, essentially. Thank you for pointing out the Isis article, although the problem here is considerably worse (although that section also deserves attention). Hopefully I'll have the time to work on all this. In the mean time, I will add the tags, although this may look a bit like an overkill. Either way, I'm too tired to flesh out this comment, so I'll just do so at a later time. Thanks for the numbered analysis.--C.Logan 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates

These templates are overkill. Please explain to me why we need ALL FIVE of the "add citations", "original research", "fact", "POV", and "essay" templates, which all basically say the same thing. And explain to me how the section suffers from "recentism", and where it exhibits tendencies of "synthesis" and "weasel words". Really- two templates should be enough to get the idea across the the section needs work. johnpseudo 18:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The section won't be fixed by adding templates unless you start referring to specific claims that exhibit POV and need references. johnpseudo 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see all those tags as redundant, though the "fact", "citations" and "OR" trio may be. As far as I'm concerned, the entire section needs to be scrapped and re-organized. I first noticed a problem in the section when I caught the contradiction within the section concerning how Mithra was born. Virgin, or rock? After some points, it became apparent that some of the information presented is strongly POV and tries to greatly overextend beyond what the sources actually say.

The main problem here is that we really need expert involvement, as the tag at the top of the article reflects. There are a few sources involved in the section in question, but how much the text reflects any of those sources, and how reliable the sources may be in the first place, is entirely unknown.

Therefore, I'm hesitant to make any changes, even though the section is essentially an essay which focuses strongly on recent theories and ignores historical perspective for the most part. I noticed a similar problem in another article (concerning Jesus, but I can't remember the specific title), where the entire section was thoroughly cited, but upon noticing a clear error, I inspected the other citations to find that almost the entire section was falsified, synthesized information which either outright fabricated information or tied tenuous facts together to paint the picture intended.

I feel that such is the case with this article (though to less of an extent), but the sources are not as readily available (read: from my seat) so it is rather difficult to verify certain things.--C.Logan 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to assume that the entire section is falsified because you find one or two incorrect claims. Do not remove content without explaining why first. Instead, make incremental changes as you find sources to support those changes. I'm going to remove a few templates so as to make my eyes burn a little less when I scan the article. johnpseudo 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm inclined to assume the entire section is falsified because those source I can check either

a) don't say a word about Christianity - hence {{OR}} - or

b) date from over a century ago (and are discarded theories), again {{OR}},

c) patch together sources to reach conclusions that the cited sources themselves do not reach (ergo {{synthesis}})

Then, as the author himself noted somewhere, it was a copy of his own high-school {{essay}}. The author has since not been following this talk (or been ignoring it), and has failed to respond to pointed questions regarding his edits.

Further, and as I had already noted above, all Roman religion was highly syncretic (a fact that the author was evidently unaware of), and it is simply not possible to attribute element X, Y or Z of one religion to element A, B, or C of another. There is very little hard data on Mithraic worship (even less than mystery religions in general), and a great deal of what is "known" of the cult is actually circumstantial inference. To then take that to explain facets of Chrisitianity is itself questionable (as in not WP:RS), but it has been done, which is apparently the stuff that the author was digging into when he came up with his essay. However, to then build a WP section that is in length greater that what the article actually is about is massively WP:UNDUE.

Its not the "one or two incorrect claims" thats an issue. Much of the whole shebang - in substance and in extent - is just. plain. bad. Its flat earth theory and creationism all over again, but worse because the author is himself reaching conclusions - or - he's making the cardinal mistake of not citing his source, but citing his source's sources.

--

In quick time, (its late, and I'm tired and sick to boot)

1. Beginning with the intro: "Mithraism is most famous for suggestions and some evidence that it is the origin of much of today's Christian doctrine." Uuuh. Actually, older versions of that sentence did not have "and some evidence" in it, and if one carefully reads the rest of that intro, its obvious that what follows was tacked on (squeezed in) as well. There is no "evidence." There are no images of Christ on the cross in Mithrae. What there are are interpretations of archaelogical data, which is so slim that its not even certain what "Mithras" is.
2. The "Theories regarding the origin of similarities" runs into trouble with the title onwards. Not because the substance is outrageous (its actually quite sane in comparison to the rest) but because its pretty much a given that all Roman beliefs were syncretic. No rocket science involved and no need for essays on who/how/when/where/why borrowed from whom. And absolutely no reason for it being in an article on Mithraism because the substance holds true for every other Romanized religion as well.
   What the section does however try to reinforce in this article's context is that Mithraic worship and Christianity were close, which - when at all supportable from extant data - again could also apply to any other Roman religion.
   Two points in the first few lines to illustrate the lack of respect for context: "Franz Cumont agrees with the view [that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism]." This is actually amusing since Franz Cumont is the great-granduncle of that idea but he later vehemently disavowed his connection to it. Another one: "Clauss also recognizes the fact that there was undoubtedly an interaction between the two groups." Gee, whiz. White bread is white too but deemed worthy of a quote because its a quotable paraphrase to support the notion that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism (which Clauss certainly does not say).
   The whole section goes on in that vein. Watch who is saying what to support who else and its apparent that the whole thing is a paraphrase of Laeuchli, which - while perhaps valid in some other article - hardly has a place in this one.
3. The "Some iconographical similarities" section is based on Cumont, Vermaseren and Deman (not "Derman" as mis-cited) all of which (like Bivar, Barnett, Bianchi - to mention only 'B's - who analyzed the same data, reached different conclusions and are not cited) reached conclusions that have not been accepted on the grounds that the data set is too slim to sustain meaningful interpretation.
   Some of the section (as also the "Other similarities" section) is based solely on Cumont's now long-rejected theory that Mithraism was an outgrowth out of Zoroastrianism and Cumont's explanations of Mithraic features in light of Zoroastrian elements. Even iff Cumont's extrapolations were valid, what that might even possibly have to do with Christianity is anyone's guess.
4. The "Other similarities" section is unredeemably non-RS, based it seems on one Larsen who is not cited on JSTOR (there isn't a review of his book). The section also contradicts itself.

-- Fullstop 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how/if to include this in the article, but David Icke 6minute video compares Mithra to Jesus (and Horus) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsndEjU1TdY 199.214.24.41 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New York based organisation

I removed the link to the New York based organisation supposedly based off the principles of Mithraism because, after viewing their website, it is clearly not related to Mithraism in any meaningful fashion.

Might want to include the recent research that hypothesizes that Mithraism was a response to precession, so that people would not have to accept the fact that the earth was not the center of the universe. This reasearch was founded, I believe, upon the observation that each temple had common markings upon their walls in the same regions, and all the elements of which were relatable to the zodiac and the constellations. Mithros linked to Perseus, the bull linked to Taurus (the end of the last era, astronomically speaking), and so on.

If someone else has already pointed this out, I do apologize.

76.231.44.11 03:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Theology?

Er, this may be a bit of an awkward question, but where is the data on what Mithraism actually states to be true? This total gap is rather strange. Does anyone have an explanation? --Cyclone231 14:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if you combine Hellenistic astrology and Neoplatonism, you won't be too far off. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no written records of Mithraic dogma, so any description here would be speculative. Anarchangel23 (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

more precisely, there is no evidence that Mithraism had a dogma - or indeed a theology - distinct from those commonly found in antique paganism. Copious Mithraic texts survive - but as inscriptions and graffiti, not as tracts or books; even where (as in Dura Europos) archeoleological conditions are such as to favour the preservation of manuscript fragments. TomHennell (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Accounts survive of their rituals and core beliefs. They had a strong following in the military. This article has been decimated by christians who jump at anything that underminds their concept of their religion being 'original'. From what i remember reading latin texts, it is described as 'coming from the east' with no specific mention of where. I suggest this article has the improperly deleted sections restored and the article be locked. After all, they are just sock puppets, and as we all know, wiki is at war with sock puppets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.231.3 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Iconographical similarities POV

The section only presents the point of view that alleges similarities, and does not present criticism, disagreement, or alternative viewpoints. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked repeatedly for such contrasting opinions to be presented. Please, if you know good authors to draw on, add some of that info to this page, with citations. What would be particularly handy is if you can find an author who summarises the various theories to date, and gives an overview of current academic consensus (or lack thereof) on the subject. Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 22:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Does such disagreement exist? There have been some quite opinionated people saying it does, but it's been months (and months) since I added this section back in and requested that dissenting views be added; this still hasn't happened. Sticking a POV tag over the text is not really the appropriate way to deal with this, especially since the text is all written in neutral language, with all ideas clearly attributed to their authors. Instead, if you believe you can cite some alternate viewpoints, then please do so!. Otherwise the POV tag becomes simply a way for contrary editors to cast doubt on an article without offering a scrap of evidence in their own favour.

The correct use of the POV tag is to indicate there is editorial disagreement over the weighting or wording of different ideas, and there is no such disagreement here, since I am enthusiastically in favour of opposing viewpoints being added.

I'm sure there have been dissenting views, but I can't add these in myself, because I don't know what they are, whether they're notable, or what parts of these theories they supposedly refute. I need your help for this, and a POV tag is not helpful.

I'm removing the POV tag, and please, instead of simply replacing it, add in whatever text you believe is missing. If you really can't do that it's probably indicating that whatever opinion you hold is just that, opinion, and unsuitable for the article. Fuzzypeg★ 21:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong about the tag. It also applies to content. Just because no one has added any opposing viewpoints doesn't mean that there aren't any. That's what the tag is supposed to alert readers of. I'll admit this isn't my area of expertise, and I added the tag hoping some expert would add other viewpoints, because as of now, the section is quite unbalanced. I know that they're floating around there... in reliable sources, but I wasn't going to bother with adding them. But if you insist, I'll take it upon myself. I have it to-do listed, and should be getting to that in about 2 weeks. In the meantime, I don't see the problem with keeping the tag. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems unbalanced to me too. Until an expert comes along, I think that the tag should stay. Roger Pearse 16:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

You're clearly both expert enough to have some idea that the existing text is "unbalanced". I'd really love it if someone would cite their source. Some source, any source, and I'll have some idea of what we're working with. Currently all I'm getting from you guys is "It doesn't sound right to me". That's really annoying because there's no way for me to evaluate whether you're right, whether your sources are right, or what the points of contention are. I should hasten to say I'm more annoyed with work today than I am with you guys, but please give me something to work with.

To give you a little background, I replaced this section following cries for help from another user. One of the editors here had removed a large amount of info relating to similarities with Christianity, some of which was fairly dubious, but some of which was seemingly valuable. I carefully checked these paragraphs and added them back, and had to argue hard against the editor who had first removed them. He claimed that they were a load of hooey, mis-quoted, not relevant, and anything else he could think of. You can see that little (*irony*) conversation above at #Help fix christianity and mithraism. So, it turned out that his arguments came to nothing. I don't know why he was so firmly convinced that this material should stay out of the article, but he was.

So, I'm experiencing a mild deja vu now, and wondering why you're both so convinced when you've so far given me zero evidence? The discussions above seemed to conclude that these iconographical similarities are not particularly controversial (see TomHennel's closing statement in that section, for instance). I'm not an expert though, so I'm happy to wait a while longer, but I expect you to come up with the goods fairly soon or else drop it. Fuzzypeg★ 05:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure to get to it by the end of the month. I ran into a lot of things to do, and this is lower than a lot of things on my list as it is. If I don't get to it by the end of the month, you can just remove the tag. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert on iconography. But I can see at once that the section is based purely on selections from three authors; Cumont; Vermaseren (Cumont's pupil); and this 'A. Deman'. Now the opinions of Cumont and Vermaseren were once orthodoxy. But they were found ill-grounded in the data (surprising, given that both *collected* the data), and scholarly opinion has moved away from their ideas. So such dependence instantly (to me) marks this as questionable. The standard modern study of Mithras is Manfred Clauss, "The Roman cult of Mithras."

Now the next thing that strikes the eye is whether we can sensibly have a section dedicated to "iconographical similarities with Christianity", but no discussion of *Iconography*? Wouldn't the former naturally be a subset of the latter? In the absence of a section on iconography, from that consideration alone this section must be unbalanced. And... how reliable are the references?

In fact I have just had an attack of scepticism, and gone to look at Cumont, in response to footnote 25. The article says that early christians borrowed from Mithraic art to show Moses. I find that this is misrepresentation of what Cumont says (p.225-7); that the workshops of late Rome continued to use iconographical themes from paganism in order to depict the new and unfamiliar bible stories. Rather a difference, eh? How anyone could get what the article said, from what Cumont wrote, I don't like to think; probably whoever contributed it just copied it from someone who copied it... etc. So I've revised that sentence to reflect what Cumont actually says. Roger Pearse 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous! The next footnote is 24, referencing p.141 of Cumont. But I can see at once that the material with that reference comes from the same pages as note 25; pp. 225-7. In fact it's the same statement. Looking at p.141, it doesn't contain any such statements. How many of these 'references' are just bunk, I wonder? I'll rework that stuff now. Roger Pearse 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry if I have introduced any errors; it was a long time ago now, but I thought I had checked the references fairly carefully when I added this section back in. Looking at footnote 24, I obviously didn't.

But the other fault you raise is one I don't quite understand. You say Cumont didn't say that early christians borrowed from Mithraic art to show Moses. So what does he mean by this: "A few alterations in costume and attitude transformed a pagan scene into a Christian picture. Mithra discharging his arrows against the rock became Moses causing the waters of the mountain of Horeb to gush forth". It seems straight-forward to me. What am I missing?

By the way, I'm just as happy with your altered wording; I just don't understand what distinction you're trying to make. Fuzzypeg★ 05:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I had not realised this section was by you. Sorry if I was rude. Let me address your query, and explain what I was thinking when I revised that. The bit about "early christians" -- to me this phrase usually means people living before 313 AD, when Christianity was legalised. Once we introduce the phrase, we'll be understood to be talking about Christian origins, I think. After 313 we get an inrush of people into Christianity as it became fashionable and financially advantageous, worries about nominalism, and all sorts of stuff which marks out a different historical period. After 390 we get the shut-down of paganism beginning. Now, if I understood him correctly, Cumont's point is that all this use of pagan imagery happens post 313. So it isn't "Christians borrowing" so much as workshops -- probably staffed by the usual mix of Christians, non-Christians and riff-raff -- simply adapting the usual stock images to fulfil the new demand for biblical scenes. To say that this is "early Christians" doing this will tend to mislead: some people reading this will have in their minds the idea that floats around that Christianity is a rip-off of Mithraism. But on that subject the iconography can't be any evidence at all, since we're discussing a phenomenon taking places 3 centuries after the origins of both. I felt that I should be careful not to inadvertantly push people that way, unless it was actually evidenced. Does that make sense of what I did to this bit? One other thought: do you have the Vermaseren, and the other guy? I can't consult them, but am suspicious. Roger Pearse 13:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Larson/Capmbell: neither is/was a Mithras scholar. Campbell should have verified his assertion, if he really said that, although I suspect he was following a very careless note by Franz Cumont (in fact there is no record of any Virgin birth attributed to Mithras in antiquity; I spent quite some time looking for it, hence my irritation with Cumont). Larson was, as far as I know, merely a polemicist no better educated than you or I (he may have had some qualification in English Lit.). But I'm not going to edit this article further, so do as you see fit. Roger Pearse 13:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

You did an excellent job as the voice-of-reason, but I quite empathize with your desire to throw in the towel. Been there. Done that.

Since this talk section is titled "Iconographical similarities POV" and since it is me who Fuzzypeg is sniping at above, I ought to explain the issue that appears to be difficult for some to understand: A section titled "similarities with Christianity" has to forever remain a biased section. A section with such a premise is quite impossible to balance, not because there are no alternate opinions, but because those alternate opinions either do not mention Christianity in their interpretation or do not mention the mysteries. In either case they are therefore inadmissible. So, a section titled "similarities with Christianity" can only refer to sources that actually draw "similarities with Christianity". The bias is pre-programmed.

With respect to your observation that there is no general iconography section... If such a thing existed (and if common-sense and policy were followed) the "similarities with Christianity" stuff would vanish. With a generic iconography section A-says-christian could theoretically be cited alongside B-says-whateverelse. But that is only theoretical because A will very likely be either obsolete or fringe or inappropriate because they don't discuss Mithraic symbols/artifacts but Christian ones.

So, since the single-minded devotion to "similarities with Christianity" precludes any legitimate development of this article (or even for a proper "Relationship to Christianity"), for the moment it is more productive to leave the chinashop to the bull. A tauroctony is easy enough to do. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop, there is a very common conception (or misconception) that Christianity is in some way related to Mithraism. Most people never hear the name of Mithras except by way of this theory! My only intention with this article is that this conception (or misconception) be explained. I'm not trying to push any other agenda. I'm quite happy for this to be explained in a differently-titled section, as long as it is explained and not hidden away. A lot of people who come to this article will be looking for precisely that explanation, and if we can tell them why it's a myth with no historical foundation, then we should do so.

I'm not convinced by your argument about the impossibility of balancing with alternate opinions. Some reasonably influential authors starting with Cumont have discussed similarities with Christianity, or at least with Christian iconography, and this in turn has generated a large amount of public speculation about the two being linked. I find it extremely unlikely that no notable scholars of Mithraism have ever attempted to refute this. If there really are no refutations or alternative interpretations, then we can presumably treat it as fact! Fuzzypeg★ 23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. First of all, you are not explaining anything, but constructing an inductive argument that a similarity between the Mysteries and Christianity exists. This would be legitimate in an academic publication, but it is not legitimate in an encyclopedia; someone else has to have already done what you are doing now.
   Even then (and only if that primary source were an authority), only that source's conclusion may be cited in the article. One sentence. The premises of that inductive reasoning (== your "explanation") can in this case even be summarized in one sentence too, but that too is actually off-limits since the article is not about the arguments for/against similarity between the Mysteries and Christianity.
2. The notion that the world-at-large needs/does anything is not only an projection of your values on to the peanut gallery. The "everyone-does-it-so..." is a logical fallacy, an argumentum ad populum. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collector of information.
3. You only find it "extremely unlikely" that there are no refutations from "notable scholars" because you don't know what is likely. For one, "notable scholars" do not refute fringe; it would give the fringe credibility. For another, the academic environment today is one very different from the one that prevailed in 1900, and scholars today are not given to blue-eyed speculation. Third, you are horrifically dependent on the web, which isn't a good place to find material from "notable scholars", but even if you did find something, you do not have the wherewithal to evaluate it correctly.
4. The notion that "If there really are no refutations or alternative interpretations, then we can presumably treat it as fact!" is incorrect, as noted in the comment immediately above the one that contains this second fallacy of yours.
5. All these points are not new; they don't suite your picture, so for you they aren't there. You don't want to hear anything to the contrary, even after having turned this talk page into a forum. Even in your response immediately above this one, you changed the subject rather than address my assertion that "a section titled 'similarities with Christianity' has to forever remain a biased section". On Wikipedia we call this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The persistent "overlooking" of policy and guidelines contraindicates your "I'm not trying to push any other agenda." You are indeed. Loud and clear. You have simply convinced yourself otherwise.
   You knew nothing when you started 'editing it down'; what you had in hand was your formative picture, and thats all you will ever have until you start educating yourself. Until then, you'll have done a marvelous job of propagating the junk to those people you allegedly feel the great need to educate. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The section in question does not contain synthesis, or none that I've had any hand in.
2. You have mistaken an argument for notability for an argument for reliability.
3. That's ridiculous. Cumont, Vermasaren and Deman are not "fringe"; also reputable scholars do refute fringe theories when such theories are widely held. You seem to feel you have some expertise in this subject, so I've been waiting for you or another editor to provide citations that will better explain current scholarly opinion. So far you've come up empty-handed; perhaps we'll just have to wait for someone who knows the literature better.
4. Which fallacy of mine? (i.e. I stand by what I said)
5. I'm no fool and I'm not new to research. I'm also quite capable of casting a critical eye on myself. I am not 'overlooking' WP policy, however much I remain unconvinced by your inventive approach to its interpretation. I also think you should stick to discussing the material rather than speculating about me and my motivations. You're being rude and unpleasant. Fuzzypeg★ 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I didn't exactly "write" that section; rather I edited it down from a much larger group of (mostly rather dodgy) assertions about parallels with Christianity. A lot of it disappeared, because it was unreferenced, or easily established as false; this small amount of text actually seemed to be well referenced. It was a while ago now, but I thought that I actually checked the references somehow (it would have been over the internet, since I haven't visited the local Uni library for this subject); obviously I didn't check them well enough, as your example of mis-citation above demonstrates. I'll have a look again and see whether I can easily confirm the Vermaseren and Deman citations. Fuzzypeg★ 23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

When you do go to the library (about time!) take a look into a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica from the late 60s or 70s. While the scholarship that the article is based on is outdated in some respects (e.g. "Persian" and "god"), it is new enough to know that astrological speculations were the cornerstone of the religion, and it has a reasonably good (though also partly outdated) "Relationship with Christianity" section. Although unusable for formal reasons (as is also the current web-edition), it will give you an idea of how to properly write a "Christianity" doodad. Clue: The section, which is almost a whole column long, devotes exactly one sentence to "similarities", and couches it with the word "superficial". -- Fullstop (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you feel you have your finger on the pulse, would you like to "properly write a 'Christianity' doodad"? I'm perfectly happy for it to be short, and I'm perfectly happy for it to be buried in another section, as long is it fairly represents scholarly consensus and any notable remaining controversy on the subject. Give it a go! Fuzzypeg★ 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(Replying to Roger Pearse a long way above.) The article does in fact have a section on iconography. It's (perhaps confusingly) placed under Rituals and worship; see The tauroctony and Other iconography. As for whether the "Iconographical similarities" section belongs in the article, I favoured keeping it before as the only sourced part of what was once a much longer and much worse section. I was hoping somebody would use more recent scholarship to bring it up to date, but that hasn't happened and Fullstop seems to believe it would be impossible, so I'm very happy for the section to disappear. EALacey (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But then, Fullstop also claims that Cumont, Vermasaren and Deman are fringe theorists and that no notable modern scholar would attempt to address any of their ideas for fear of lending them credibility. Based on that, I think what Fullstop "believes would be impossible" might not actually be quite as impossible as he thinks. Fuzzypeg★ 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. I did not claim anything of the kind. It is also probably inappropriate for you to presume to you know what I think.

Incidentally, I distinguish between a physical impossibility and an ethical one. It is physically possible to propagate cruft. But it is not ethical to do so.

Btw... it so happens that I have Deman -- your single not-outdated and not-fringe source -- open in front of me right now, and I can recommend the sentence beginning with "Unfortunately" on page 508, the last paragraph on page 510, the first paragraph on 511, and the last paragraph (conclusion) on 517. Oh wait! I forgot that you don't actually have those "sources" that you are mouthing off about. Dang. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you. I was saying that if Cumont, Vermaseren and Deman had expressed controversial theories then it was extremely unlikely that no notable scholars had tried to refute them. Your response was "'notable scholars' do not refute fringe; it would give the fringe credibility." I implied from that that you're calling them "fringe".

Perhaps I would understand you better if you put more effort into clear communication of facts and less into being mysterious ("I have the source and you don't; what do you think it says?"), crafting insulting innuendo and scoring points. Go on, try it: tell me why we shouldn't report these theories, rather than telling me I'm too stupid to understand. And keep the invective out of it. If we're business-like in our dealings we can save each other a lot of time and emotion, not to mention saving other editors from having to read this awful stuff. Fuzzypeg★ 03:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Header summary contradicts body of article

I've removed from the header a referenced assertion that the cult of Mithras was derived from Persia. As the body of the article makes plain, at much greater length, this is a subject of considerable scholarly controversy. I don't think that the header should contain a statement as fact which the body of the article indicates is very doubtful. Roger Pearse 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It didn't actually say that, of course. It said that it was a mystery religion based around the Persian god Mithra. But I agree, it was unclear, and what you've replaced it with is preferable. Fuzzypeg★ 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Roger Pearse 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

I agree that this is the subject of considerable scholarly controversy . in the article of Encyclopedia Iranica there's a section named "From Iranian Mithra to Roman Mithras: Continuity versus re-invention" which discuss this matter but finally the author says:

We may now turn finally to the similarities between western Mithraism and Iranian Mithra-worship and to the scholarship which has argued, in the Cumontian tradition, for significant continuity. (The scholarship up to the time of writing is surveyed in Beck 1984: pp. 2059-75).

That Roman Mithras was a Persian god in more than just the perception and self-definition of his Roman initiates is indisputable. To say that he was "the same" god, or that he "came from" Iran is equally true, though it begs as many questions as it appears to answer

Britannica defines mithraism as : the worship of Mithra, the Iranian god of the sun, justice, contract, and war in pre-Zoroastrian Iran. Known as Mithras in the Roman Empire during the 2nd and 3rd centuries ad

I think this article is just presenting an original research and there is no parallel between this article and the article in britannica and iranica. -- Transparagon (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

The relationship between this article and the EIr article is limited to the limitations of the EIr article itself. The EIr article is excellent, but is limited to one -- and only one -- aspect of the Mithraic mysteries, and that is the relationship of the Mysteries to Iran. This article depends on the Iranica article for that information, and both will disappoint if one suffers from the idee-fixe that the Roman religion is an Iranian religion.

--

Even though the EB article (correctly) states "Roman Mithraism was practically a new creation", there is practically no relationship between the Britannica article and this article or the EIr article, or between the Britannica article and the general academic agreement about Mithraism. This is not least because -- in its entirety -- the Britannica article is downright bad. It is riddled with self-contradictions, unsupported speculations, argumentation, gross lapses that -- while it has some merit -- as a unit it is worse than the EB articles from the 1960s, or the Catholic encyclopedia article from 1911s. A quick gloss...

• the notion of Mithra as the "pre-Zoroastrian" god of war/sun (and "Mithra was the most important of their gods") have been dead for over 40 years.
  The oldest evidence of Iranian religion are Zoroastrian texts. Mithra does not appear at all in the very oldest of these. He first appears in the Younger Avesta, and in which he is comparable in both features and phrasing to his Vedic counterpart. Neither Avestan Mithra, nor Vedic Mitra is a god of the sun, nor of war. In fact, Mithra/Mitra is benevolent, kind and gentle, a protector of cows, of pastures, of truth, of oath, of contract. He is imminently fair and impartial. Even for the Greeks and Romans, he is meson, "in the middle".
  The fanciful notion of Mithra as a god of war (and "most important of their gods") is from H. S. Nyberg's notorious speculations (Die Religion des alten Iran, 1928) about the word "Mithra" deriving from the Avestan word *mithraz "blood", and Nyberg imagined bands of nocturnal blood/Mithraz worshiping bands of raiders who indiscriminately slaughtered cows etc.
  Thanks to Nazi esoterica ("blood brotherhood" etc), this now-defunct hypothesis even flourished for a time, but the final nail in its coffin was driven home by W. B. Henning in 1949. By 1972 and the Mithraic Studies conference it did not even warrant a mention in any of the contributions.
• on the EB's notion that "sacrifice of the bull" was Zoroastrian or pre-Zoroastrian see Nybergianism in the previous point, and the equally defunct theory of H. Lommel.
• "Darius and his successors did not intend to create political difficulties by attempting to eradicate the old beliefs still dear to the heart of many nobles"
  Search the web for "Daiva inscription", or read what I have written.
• "When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire in about 330 bc, the old structure of society appears to have broken down completely and about the worship of Mithra in Persia no more is heard." This is immediately contradicted by "Local aristocrats in the western part of the former Persian Empire retained their devotion to Mithra."
  Note also that a Mithra "cult" (and a few others) probably did exist within Zoroastrianism itself. This is not dissimilar to, say, a Mary "cult" in Catholicism, and to this day Zoroastrians individuals, or (extended) families adopt a patron divinity from within the pantheon. We know for sure that these patronage cults have existed since at least Arsacid Parthian times (i.e Hellenistic times), but may (Boyce says "did") have existed even as early as 404 BCE, which is when Mithra first appears in an inscription. Patronage is -- according to Boyce -- why that appellation to Mithra in that inscription appears at all (incidentally, the name appears after Mazda's, a fact that the EB conspicuously fails to note)

Note that none of the above-mentioned EB stuff appears in the Encyclopedia Iranica article.

--

Three issues in the EB article needs to be addressed separately:

• the EB article contains Merkelbach's theory that Mithraism had a 1st century founder. The appearance of this theory is not surprising because the EB article is itself (edited) by Merkelbach.

In his book Mithras, Merkelbach postulates that there was a single founder of Mithraism, and that this "religious genius" came from the Pontus or thereabouts, settled in Rome around 100 CE, and designed a new religion for the imperial bureaucracy in that city. This theory, though unaccepted by the general community, agrees with the consensus in one key point, i.e. that Mithraism was a construct of Roman thought.

BUT parallel to the "religious genius" idea, Merkelbach has a remarkable transfer scenario. In his view (this is only alluded to in the EB article), platonic ideas were allegedly first imported by *Iranians*, and then (he supposes) the Romans adopted it back. In short, Merkelbach supposes that the Roman Mithraism is Greek Platonism that made a temporary stop-over in Iran.

Other than to note that one of the ideas allegedly adopted by Iranians was that Zoroaster worshiped Mithra in a cave (I return to this below), I won't go into the problems with this theory here. Those who are interested in Merkelbach's theory may read the brief chapter at pp. 75-77 in Merkelbach's Mithras (1984), or Beck's review of it in Phoenix, 41 (3), 1987, pp. 296-316.

Like Merkelbach's book, the EB article is completely oblivious to what the rest of academia thinks.

• The EB (and since recently, this article also) regurgitates the "hoary" (Beck's word) notion about December 25th.
  In reality, a December 25th festival is first documented in the 4th century (by which time Christmas already existed). This was also a festival of Sol Invictus, who is not necessarily (Beck: "not even probably") Sol Invictus Mithras.
  Moreover ... a person familiar with Iranian festivals would know that the feast of Iranian Mithra is a harvest festival and was/is in around early October, and not in late December. The reason why this was/is so is because ... Mithra is in the middle, and 16th day of the 7th month (30/2+1 = 16, 12/2+1 = 7) of the Zoroastrian calendar was/is (around) 2 October. Middle, duhhh!
  Unlike Merkelbach, the Greco-Romans cottoned on to meson "in the middle" just fine.
• Shocking but true: The EB article does not even contain the words "astral" or "astrology".

--

So -- rhetorically speaking -- where did Mithraism come from? The EB gives us this: "The worship of Mithra, however, never became popular in the Greek world, because the Greeks never forgot that Mithra had been the god of their enemies the Persians."

But the Romans were also enemies of the so-called "Persians" (Parthians, with whom the Romans continuously waged war), and so should -- according to Merkelbach's logic -- never have had Mithraism.

In contrast to the EB, the Encyclopedia Iranica reflects general consensus: The Greeks were practically obsessed with the Magi, and dozens of Greek sources write about them. Especially of Zoroaster, whom the Greeks seem to have treated as a rock-star might be treated today. He was -- for the Greeks -- founder of the Magi, and they attributed to (their image of) Zoroaster everything from the "invention" of magic and astrology to the ability to raise the dead. The Greeks attributed reams of literature (Pliny: "two million lines") to this Pseudo-Zoroaster, asserted that his knowledge is the "best" kind of knowledge, asserted that Plato plagiarized from him, and even considered him to be the incarnation of a star (literally: "Zo-ro-astr" == "living-flux(of)-star").

It is this fanciful image of Zoroaster that is the basis of Mithraism. As the Iranica article puts it: whatever moderns might think, the ancient Roman Mithraists themselves were convinced that their cult was founded by none other than Zoroaster, who "dedicated to Mithras, the creator and father of all, a cave in the mountains bordering Persia," an idyllic setting "abounding in flowers and springs of water" (Porphyry, On the Cave of the Nymphs 6).

Indeed, the WP article used to say something to that effect, and quoted the Iranica verbatim, but "someone" didn't like it.

--

Above I referred to Merkelbach's idea that Iranians imported the idea that Zoroaster worshiping Mithra in a cave. Well, as the Iranica points out, it was the Greeks who thought Zoroaster worshiped Mithra in a cave. This is generally thought to be the reason why the Romans had Mithraea. In effect, the Romans were convinced that they were following a religion founded by Zoroaster. This was not really founded by the real Zoroaster, as Cumont had it ("la forme du romaine mazaismé"), this was just the Greco-Roman image of him. What I quoted above is the general consensus on what caused the perserie in Mithraism.

--

So, (again asking rhetorically) where does Mithra fit in in all of this? Roman Mithras is of course nominally none other than Zoroastrian Mithra, just as Greco-Roman "Zoroaster" is nominally none other than Zoroastrian Zoroaster. The "god" known to the Greeks as the meson "in the middle" is an all-round nice-guy, not a martial war-like fellow, and not a god of the sun until much later (perhaps through influence of Shamash, who is like Mithra a divinity of justice, or through influence of Apollo, with whom Mithra is conflated during Parthian times). But Roman Mithras is not the same as Iranian Mithra, just as Greco-Roman "Zoroaster" is not the same as Zoroastrian Zoroaster. What follows is a direct quotation from what Beck says in the EIr article, which I have merely reformatted for better comparison:

Predictably, the similarities mostly cluster around the person of Mithra/Mithras (remarkably, the second two of the three given here are not so much similarities as inversions):

1. Roman Mithras was identified with the Sun (see above);
   Iranian Mithra was a god of the dawn light.
   When and how the Iranian god became the Sun, as eventually he did, has been much debated (Lommel 1962; Gershevitch 1975, Gnoli 1979, Lincoln 1982; see above on the solar Mithras of Commagene; see below on M. Weiss's theory of the non-solarity of Mithra/Mithras both East and West).
2. Iranian Mithra was a god of cattle and pastures;
   Roman Mithras was a "cattle-thief" (explicitly so called, e.g. Porphyry, On the Cave of the Nymphs 40), all the more outrageous an inversion because Iranian Mithra was a god of righteousness whose very name means "contract."
3. Most importantly, Roman Mithras, as his mightiest and most beneficent deed, sacrifices a bull (see above);
   while Iranian Mithra was not himself a bull-killer, the act of bull-killing does figure prominently in the Zoroastrian cosmological narratives. In the first instance it was an act of evil: Ahriman slew the primal Bull of creation. However, the destructive act was turned to good, when from the bull's sperm, purified in the moon, sprang the domestic animals. The second and future event is entirely beneficial. A savior figure, Saoshyant, will sacrifice a bull from whose fat, mixed with hôm, the drink of corporal immortality will be prepared.
   The bull-killing of Mithras can be construed as the Roman translation of either — or indeed of both — of the Iranian cosmogonic and eschatological myths. Certain of the compositional details of the tauroctony resonate with the former: the bull's tail metamorphosed into the wheat ear, the scorpion at the bull's genitals, the presence of the Moon as well as the Sun.

These three points are the points of comparison between Iranian/Zoroastrian Mithra and Roman Mithras. Besides the name and the relatively close "Sun" / "dawn light" (search this article for "morning star"), there isn't much to go on. Certainly nothing to suppose that Mithra and Mithras are the same.

The Avestan hymn to Mithra is the longest Yasht there is (for the authoritative study of it, see Gershevitch, Avestan hymn to Mithra, 1975), and in it there are dozens of points of comparison (sometimes even the same or similar phrases) with Vedic Mitra, and yet no one in his right mind would suppose they are the same. And yet, Roman Mithras is sometimes alleged to be "the same" as Iranian Mithra, but there is only one point of (semi-)equivalence. Needless to say, that's stretching things to breaking point.

Did I mention that EB article does not even contain the word "astral" or "astrology"? Yeah, well even the 1960s EB had that crucial piece of elementary information. -- Fullstop (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced false claim

Cumont did not endorse this position, as far as I know, so it shouldn't be in the article: "This characterization of Mithraism and Christianity as "deadly rivals" became mainstream in the early 20th century with Cumont's endorsement, but was later criticized as too sweeping." Roger Pearse 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"bloody band" theory and two separate cults

There have been a number of reverts citing the discrediting of a "bloody band" theory and claiming that the Roman Mithras is largely unrelated to the Iranian Mithra. I can't find a single mention of this theory in google search, and perhaps Fullstop could give us an explanation of what this is about. And whatever arguments there are against the Roman and Persian Mithras/Mithra being closely related need to be better explained in the article. Some of the claims about parallels with Christianity are based on the Persian Mithra. The claim that he was born of a virgin mother (Anahita) is based on the god's Anatolian cult, for instance. That the name Mithras is just a gloss to give an exotic feel to the religion seems to be the unstated assumption of the article, but this needs to be clearly explained and rationalised for our readers. Fuzzypeg★ 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

the understanding of Mithriaism as exclusively Roman is the current scholarly consensus, supported by Roger Beck, Alison Griffiths, Mary Boyce and Manfred Clauss. As such it rejects the theories proposed by Franz Cumont 100 years ago. In particular modern scholarship would characterize as "Mithraism" only that cult of worship undertaken in a mithraeum; hence the worship of Mithra or Mitra in Persian, Bactrian and Indian religion is seen as connected only in name and iconography. Mithraea are highly distinctive, and tend to be well preserved in the archeological record; consequently the absence of any such structures found outside the Roman Empire represents strong negative support for the current consensus. The only possible exceptions to this observation are the two mithraea discovered in Doliche, but though this territory may not have been under Roman rule, the strong Roman characteristics of the associated cult of Jupiter Dolichanus only emphasizes the point. See http://eawc.evansville.edu/essays/mithraism.htm. TomHennell (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image sequence on wall (or floor?) of Mithraea

I remember that in reading about the Mithraeic mysteries a while ago, I ran across a reference to a sequence of twelve images or scenes which were depicted along the walls, or perhaps in a U-shape on the floor (I don't remember exactly), of all Mithraea. I tried to locate a description of these again, but haven't been able to track them down... Could anyone point me to the right article for that? ExOttoyuhr (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mithraism has its origins in Persia

There should be added that mithraism was originated in persia, in avesta theres a character named mithra, who slains a sacred bull and from the blood of that sacred bull emerges all the beneficial animals and plants and in about 6th century BC mithra is associated with sun god, hence, the greeks of asia minor associate him with greek sun god Helios, in the process helping the cult to grow in europe and roman empire.

So there is no doubt about the origin of this mystry cult and should be added in the main artical. Mystar 123 (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the idea that Persian Mitra is the origin of Roman Mithras is controversial. Read the article and you'll see who says what. Just having similar names is not evidence of connection. And... does Mitra slay the sacred bull? Really? 62.136.105.212 (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Duplicate info (and "holes") exist at Mithraeum#Notable_mithraea and this page, Mithraic_Mysteries#Places_of_interest. I propose merging -- separate out the Notable mithraea along with any additional info from Mithraic Mysteries Places of interest into a "main article: Notable mithraea and Places of interest, and refer to that article in Mithraeum and Mithraic_Mysteries. -- Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin A Larson

One problem with this article is material from a certain Martin A. Larson, quoted as a reference and authority. But Larson was not a Mithraic scholar, and I can see problems with material that he states. I think he should be removed from this article, as not a reliable source. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to do that. Let's stick with scholars who specialise in Mithras. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, take it out. And while you're at it, take out anything else you consider problematic. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Virgin birth

The article incorrectly and without citation stated

“ Joseph Campbell described the birth of Mithras as a virgin birth, like that of Jesus. Yet Mithras was not thought of as virgin born in any ancient source; rather, he arose spontaneously from a rock in a cave. ”

I have added a citation regarding the temple in Iran with the inscription "Anahita, as the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithra" which is dated 200B.C. The 200B.C. text Immaculate Virgin Mother clearly refutes the statement on Wikipedia claiming that Mithras birth was not thought of as a virgin by any historical source. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia has a reliable sources policy that does not permit us to publish extraordinary claims like that. Sorry. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi '78.105.234.140'. Glad that you gave a reference, and it is to "Payam Nabarz. The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief That Shaped the Christian World. Inner Traditions. ISBN 1594770271." But this does not seem to be an academic text. So it is probably merely repeating hearsay. And... we need to remember the Mitra/Mithras are not the same god. So I think Fullstop did right to revert this change. On the other hand, if there is some solid info to be had, we should include it.

This raises the whole problem; what is a "reliable source" for this article? This is why I removed Campbell; whatever his merits, he is not a Mithras scholar.

Can I suggest that we omit all material unless we can reference it to an ancient source or a professional scholar of Mithraic studies? There is so much crud around, that otherwise we will inevitably end up with a crud article. Just my thoughts. Roger Pearse (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider any of these reliable sources for the article?

Well, I'll do my best. The criteria we should adopt, I suggest are (a) an ancient source and (b) a modern professional Mithras scholar such as Clauss, Beck, Merkelbach, Ulansey, etc.

I am not suggesting that all followers believed in the virgin birth myth, or that it was the majority view, but I do find the idea that some followers in the west adopted the myth (leading to the Armenian reports) plausible.

I'm willing to believe it, but only if someone can point me to an ancient source that says so. This, as far as I know, does not exist; and I've never seen such a theory in any reputable source, so I am very, very dubious about this.

Even if the following sources have since been refuted, it would be useful to include the refutation in the article.

I think you're right. Common views have to be mentioned, with the scholarly refutation. But ... one problem with Mithras is the quantity of hearsay. We see a lot of it in what follows.

• M. J. Vermaseren - The Miraculous Birth of Mithras Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 4, Fasc. 3/4 (1951), pp. 285-301

Vermaseren states that the idea of Mithras being born naturally from a woman was attested to by some Armenian writers in 1933 and 1944, but did not become "traditional".

Interesting; but Armenian literature doesn't come into being until after the cult of Mithras has ceased to exist! So something is wrong here. Now I cannot access this article from behind my corporate firewall, unfortunately: if you can, would you email it to me at roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk? This sounds extremely dubious, however. Some of Vermaseren's material is still extremely valuable; but some of his stuff relies on the theories of Cumont which are no longer held. In some cases his books were translated extremely badly into English, and the Dutch original must be consulted.

• Arthur Drews - The Christ Myth (Westminster College-Oxford Classics in the Study of Religion) - 1910

'she appears among the Persians as the "Virgin" mother of Mithras.'

Nothing Drews says needs to be considered. He was never a Mithras scholar; and 1910 is far too long ago.

• Gerald L. Berry - Religions of the World - Barnes and Noble; New York - 1964

"As Mithraism moved westward it proved a fertile ground for the addition of mystic meaning. Practically all of the symbolism of Osiris was added to the Mithraic cultus, even to the fact that Isis became the virgin mother of Mithras."

Not a Mithras scholar, and the statement is nonsense.

• Edward Carpenter - Pagan and Christian Creeds - 1921 p.20

Not a Mithras scholar, and again very, very old. Erm, did you not look at the Wikipedia article?

"Mithra was born in a cave, and on the 25th December.[1] He was born of a Virgin.[2]"

Unfortunately none of this is correct.

[1] The birthfeast of Mithra was held in Rome on the 8th day before the Kalends of January, being also the day of the Circassian games, which were sacred to the Sun. (See F. Nork, Der Mystagog, Leipzig.)

Complete rubbish, I'm afraid. This date is 25th December, and the state feast is that of Sol Invictus, not Mithras.

[2] This at any rate was reported by his later disciples (see Robertson's Pagan Christs, p.338).

"The saviour Mithra, too, was born of a Virgin, as we have had occasion to notice before; and on Mithraist monuments the mother suckling her child is not an uncommon figure."

Robertson was a crank, not a Mithras scholar, and again very long ago. All this sounds dubious; which monuments show such a thing, I wonder? Who is "the mother" in this?

• John M. Robertson - Pagan Christs: Studies in comparative hierology - 1903

Writing in 1903, I wonder whether Robertson even had access to Cumont, who pretty much started the whole discipline of Mithras.

"Given these identities, it was inevitable that, whether or not Mithra was originally, or in the older Mazdean creed, regarded as born of a Virgin, he should in his western cultus come to be so regarded.

The statement that Roman Mithraism was a Roman version of Persian Mazdaism was that of Cumont. It wasn't (although Cumont thinking so was forgiveable).

As a result of all these myth-motives, we find Mithra figuring in the Christian empire in the fourth and fifth centuries, alongside of the Christ, as supernaturally born of a Virgin-Mother"

No, we do not.

• John E. Remsberg - The Christ- 1909.

In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts."

(quoting Chambers Cyclopaedia): "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."

Remsburg is not a Mithras scholar, and all this is tripe.

78.105.234.140 (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope that answers your question? I.e. None of these people except Vermaseren have any claim to be heard on this page. Surely we need either primary sources, or else people who are modern and specialise in Mithras? In fact so little is definitely known, that perhaps we ought to have a section on "history of the scholarship" which outlines the respectable views? That might be a good way to address some of the older ideas. Just my thoughts, of course. The article, as it stands, is *dreadful* Roger Pearse (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Vermaseren's article is about the petra genetrix. He is not lending any weight to the virgin birth thingie. On the contrary, his "did not become traditional" is a dismissal of it. The reason he mentions it at all is because the context is the then-current equation of Mithra and Mithras, and in the article Vermaseren is trying to find an Iranian niche/"explanation" for the petra genetrix.

In any case, I fail to see the purpose behind the list of references anon has posted. The article already says "Joseph Campbell described the birth of Mithras as a virgin birth, like that of Jesus." The list that anon provided adds nothing to that.

And yes, the article is dreadful. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been working the article over. It's far too full of verbiage which adds nothing. I'm unhappy about Campbell being in there, but he is so widely quoted that we probably have to keep him. I'm also unhappy about Yamauchi; he isn't a Mithras scholar either, but is necessary for balance of Campbell. We need a good, scholarly source on the "virgin birth of Mithras" stuff, and we're not likely to get it because no scholar pays any attention to it. So I suppose we can make do with this pair. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Virgin birth take 2

See just above, a page and a half of discussion about searching for a source, when not a single one read the 4th line of this section which gave as ANCIENT PROVEN SOURCE, an inscription dated to 200 BC on a temple in Iran ...., then there follows that page and 1/2 of babble... also, not a single one has thought through that mystics able to accurately read the future may have created the story of Mithras birth of a virgin mother, via seeing the future such birth of Christ from virgin mom ... OR esp the story of the Second Coming, now upon us, and so the Mithras story then may be about a prediction of that Second Coming, via a birth of a virgin mom OR re-birth via Mithras and his sacred dart, CAUSING a re-birth or birth anew, etc - d'artagenon IX 69.121.221.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for your comment! (which I've split into a new section to avoid loads of indenting). I didn't quite understand what you were saying. But you mention an inscription dated to 200 BC in Iran. Do you have a reliable reference to this, or to a serious modern Mithras scholar who agrees? If not, we have to ignore this as likely hearsay. Beware the confusion between Mitra and Mithras! If it's 200 BC, it's going to be Mitra, not Mithras. But tell me more! If we have some facts, then we can work out where to put them. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see it: "Payam Nabarz. The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief That Shaped the Christian World. Inner Traditions. ISBN 1594770271." But ... this isn't an academic source, published by a mainstream academic publisher. We can't use this sort of reference, I'm afraid. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Further reading section

This is filled with stuff which seems of dubious value. It's clearly been used as a dumping ground, since Roger Beck appears twice. I'm going to prune it down to a few, critical studies, and perhaps we can go from there? Roger Pearse (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mithraea material

There is a lot of stuff in this article about the locations of different Mithraea. This is not useless; but it clutters the article terribly. It really all belongs in a different article, and it really tells us little about Mithras. I'm going to prune it hard, therefore. Do we not have an article named "Mithraeum"? We ought to, if so. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mithraeum. And yes, the list belongs there. As for how little they tell us about Mithras... They tell us at least one thing: that all Mithraists knew about the "fecund rock" :) -- Fullstop (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'm done for tonight, and can't face another edit. I've tried to follow the principles above and stick to stuff which can't (a) be on a subpage, (b) has an ancient source or (c) has a modern scholar of Mithras behind it, and him named and referenced. Take a look and see what you think. It's a lot shorter, less waffly, but I don't know how it would strike a newbie (whom we also need to cater for). Roger Pearse (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Gayomart/Gavaevodata

The article twice or thrice refers to "Gayomart" when it should be referring to Gavaevodata (MP: gawiewdad) instead. Similar names and primordial-ness, but two different things; the former is the primordial man, the latter is the primordial animal (:=a bovine by name and tradition).Roger Pearse (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We need some citation for this, and fortunately following the link Gavaevodata takes us to this: "But Ahriman assaulted the sky and Ormuzd fed the bovine "medicinal mang" (mang bēšaz[n 3]) to lessen its suffering (GBd IV.20). The bull immediately became feeble, and then dies." The source is the Bundahisn, GBd is the "Greater Bundahisn", which is online here. Chapter 4, verse 20:

20. Before his coming to the 'Gav', Ohrmazd gave the healing Cannabis, which is what one calls 'banj', to the' Gav' to eat, and rubbed it before her eyes, so that her discomfort, owing to smiting, [sin] and injury, might decrease; she immediately became feeble and ill, her milk dried up, and she passed away.

But... the bull has milk?? This seems to be a bovine, but not in fact a bull. I'll try to condense all this in a footnote. Roger Pearse (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I gather Gavaevodata is a hermaphrodite; which explains all. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Luther H. Martin

Luther H. Martin is quoted twice, but the name of the book itself seems to have got lost. Only the date -- 1989 -- survives. However I can find no book by that author of that date. There is Hellenistic religions from 1987. What we need to do, of course, is look up the references in it. Does anyone have access to do so? Roger Pearse (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking back to old versions I find this: "Luther H. Martin, Roman Mithraism and Christianity, Numen (1989)." Not a book, it seems, but a journal article. I find this on the web: "Luther, Martin H. (1989). “Roman Mithraism and Christianity”, in Numen, 36 no. 1 (June, 1989). Numen. pp. 3-5." Numen is published by Brill, here, so is a scholarly journal. I will reinstate the stuff; but I would still like to see the article! Roger Pearse (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not least because of this: Luther H. Martin (1989) characterized the rivalry between 3rd century Mithraism and Christianity in Rome as primarily one for real estate in the public areas of urban Rome.[60] which is a very odd-sounding statement, and at odds with what we find elsewhere. Roger Pearse (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following statement, since I have now read Luther H. Martin's article, and it does not contain anything which justifies the following: "Luther H. Martin (1989) characterized the rivalry between 3rd century Mithraism and Christianity in Rome as primarily one for real estate in the public areas of urban Rome.[ref]Luther, Martin H., "Roman Mithraism and Christianity", in Numen, 36 no. 1 (June, 1989), pp. 4f."[/ref]" the vagueness of the page number is a giveaway. The article in fact discusses the possible number of Mithraea and Mithraists in Rome, where Mithraea were located, and how they ended up underneath churches. He rather rejects the "rivalry" theme. At all events, this claim has no place in the Wiki article. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Edwin Yamauchi

I stated earlier that Yamauchi is not a Mithras scholar. This does not seem to be quite correct. He isn't a specialist, but has published academic papers on the subject, e.g. "Mithraism and pre-Christian Gnosticism" in J. Duchesne-Guillemin (ed), Etudes mithraiques (Acta Iranica N.S. IV) Leiden-Teheran 1978, pp. 553-555 at least. This is referenced by Vermaseren in Mithriaca: the Mithraeum at Marino (here). The quotes from him all over the web seem to come from non-scholarly books, tho. I think they are right; that "Renan knew very little about Mithras", but I would rather have a reliable published academic source to dismiss the assertion of Renan. If anyone has one, I'd be interested to see it. Roger Pearse (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with iconography and influence on Christian art section

I was sent an email which added some interesting thoughts on this section. It read:

(The section) cites (in excruciating detail) Vermaseren and Cumont and Deman but manages to overlook that (in the very same paper being cited) Deman dismisses Cumont as patchwork analysis taken out of context, and also notes that Vermaseren had retracted. It also fails to note that Deman repeatedly stressed that he could/would not say whether similar symbolism implied theological continuity, or merely craftsmanship tradition. It fails to acknowledge a footnote in Deman's paper in which a longish Cumont quote points out that "similarities" derived from craftsmanship tradition, and were not necessarily an indication of theological continuity.

This suggests that the section is not accurately representing the views of the authors. I have read the Cumont material myself; but not the Vermaseren or Deman material. The section is also too long. I will see if I can find the Deman paper and get a view of it. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've found most of the paper online, and had a fresh go at that section. What is NOT made clear by the old version is that the "similarities" are in Christian art of the middle ages, not ancient Christian art. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Material by David R. Fideler

Someone anonymous has added in stuff from David Fideler. Although I appreciate his publishing efforts, Fideler is not a Mithras scholar. So I have deleted this material. If it is valid, by all means re-add it; but with references to scholarly sources. (NB: it would help if you discussed your changes here, and logged in - some of the other stuff you added is very welcome indeed).

The other thing that bothers me is the size of this article. There is endless scholarly discussion of the meaning of the tauroctony. I have left in the material added, although I have not verified the new references. But... shouldn't much of this go into the tauroctony article? Roger Pearse (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - go for it. You're right about the tauroctony; it's too important to ignore. Careful about Fideler tho; I used him myself at one point, because his summary was just so concise and exactly what I needed. I then got clobbered by One Who Knows, who pointed out (with references) that Fideler was wrong! All his books are self-published, apparently. Pity really.

Ritual Mimesis: Is 'Ritual imitation' or 'Sacred imitation' better?

Much! Sounds good.

AD→CE: just to make the article more neutral

Can't stomach CE myself. Someone somewhere, probably in Israel (where it would make sense) invented this, and decided to foist it on the rest of us. I don't like that sort of thing - changes to the environment of us all should be democratically decided, not done by silent conspiracy, which is what it feels like. "Neutral" is just part of the marketing for it, I think; for which of us decided it was neutral? I've never met anyone over here who uses it. Sorry if that's too much, but I don't like it. I don't mind it in articles about Israel tho; they probably invented it (because I can just imagine the early Israelis needing to use AD and not wanting to!).

The Louvre relief should be removed from the beginning, as the banquet scene is described later with the same image.

I see the logic, and I saw the second image. But don't you think that the tauroctony in that image is the right sort of thing (and nice and small!) to have at the top? (I quite liked the other image, but it's very large, and not quite so distinctively Mithraic). NB: I really liked the Mithras-from-the-rock image - nice!

Perhaps some discussion about the similarities between the Mithraic 'Feast of the initiates' and the Christian Eucharist? Beck talks about this in 'Beck on Mithras'.

80.221.43.22 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, if it's solidly referenced. Just be wary of invoking the demon JesusIsMithras, who will crap all over the page. I wish we could think of a way to move all that Mithras and Christianity stuff into a separate article, as most of it has little to do with Mithras. But if we did, we'd get crude stuff all over the page again!

By the way, why not register an login (as 'fred' or whatever, if you don't want to use your own name)? You realise your IP address will probably change next time, and it's nice to know whose doing what.

Thank you for having a go at this, by the way. Someone who has read Beck and can do solid stuff is exactly what we need. I sort of ran out of energy and couldn't really face doing much about the tauroctony section. I liked your tabulation of elements, tho - nice! Roger Pearse (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disappear for a day or so; it's late here and I have commitments tomorrow. Go ahead and see what you can do! Roger Pearse (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Next round of revisions

I have some books coming in, and I'll look then at the whole balance of the article. We need to ensure that we are devoting the right amount of stuff to various elements of the cult, as well as the 'crowd-pleaser' issues. I'll work on it some more then. We need more on the documentable history of the cult, for instance. Roger Pearse (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)