Talk:Mithraism

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)

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)

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 ~~ ~ ~

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. (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.)

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
• 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)

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?

- 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 (UTC)

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)

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)