Talk:Mithraism

Communion wafers

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

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

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

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

Warning

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

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

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

But, there are some big problems in this article.

Mithraism and Christianity both possess similar religious doctrines.

OK, but...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Galatians 5:21-23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

===Holidays and rituals===

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

[by User:Bacchiad]

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

edit war

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

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

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

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

I removed four external links--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern Mithraism

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Ahura Mazda vs Sol Invictus

The article says...

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

Isn't the crow sent by Sol Invictus?

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

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

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

The mithraeum

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

Mithras and Precession of the Equinoxes

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

OUTSTANDING ARTICLE

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

LWW

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

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

Nativity in a cave

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

Confused Chronology

The introduction contains the text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mithraeum

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

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

Connections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“soldier OF Christ”

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

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

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

Parallelism with Christianity, continued

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

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

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

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

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

Similarities

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

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

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

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

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

Born In a Cave?

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

Yes, born in a cave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7-day week

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

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

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

more comments about Mithras/Christ information

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

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

Some newer sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday as a Biblical Teaching

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

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

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

Sun vs Son

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

TomHennell 10:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sceptical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Mysteries

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

Age of Mithraism

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

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

Mithraism in Europe

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

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

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

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

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

TomHennell 15:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Warning II

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

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

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

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

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

Mithras picture

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

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

Removed details

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

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

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

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

First Principle

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

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

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

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

- End -

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

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

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

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

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

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

TomHennell 09:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

NPOV is what?

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

NPOV is...

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

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

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

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

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

TomHennell 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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