From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Denial of Persian sources[edit]

I have removed the section regarding the notion that Roman Mithricism was an Persian-independent product. Of course scholars may agree that the Roman beliefs were distinct, but it's plainly evident that they predominately sourced from Zoroastrian beliefs. For god sake, the Romans even admitted that their beliefs were based off of Zoroastrianism — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Many people have differing opinions on topics, especially topics such as this. That is why editors on Wikipedia are not allowed to engage in original research; adding unverifiable content or removing supported content is problematic.
The section of text you tried removing was supported by citations. That is why HLwiKi and Paul August both reverted your edits. If there is reason to challenge the source or its applicability, then you may discuss it here, but you cannot simply remove article content because you disagree with it.  —Sowlos  08:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC) ‎
This is a continuing issue in this article, and it seems to me to arise from editors over-reading "dissimilarities" and "distinct product" as if it says "has no relation whatever". "Admitted" is also the wrong word above: the assumption seems to be that claims of originality or invention were as important to the Romans as they are to modern nationalists. But in fact writers such as Arrian note that the Roman capacity for empire-building was based in part on their ability to absorb and build on what others invented. Moreover, the Romans valued the authority that came from tradition (per their obsession with the concept of mos maiorum), and felt that the older the tradition the better. So the Roman Mithraists advertised Persian origin because within Roman culture such claims granted their mysteries the authority of great antiquity (Zoroaster was considered one of the most ancient sages in Greco-Roman sources, and some considered him the most ancient of all).
Modern scholars, however, are skeptical of whether Mithraic rites practiced in some rocky cavern in the Ardèche were handed down in unbroken litany from the mouth of Zoroaster. In my personal opinion, they are overly skeptical regarding possible influence of communities from Asia Minor that developed in Rome in the latter 1st century BC as the result of the military adventurism of Lucullus, Pompey et al. (just as Carthaginian neighborhoods had earlier introduced religious elements). But the scholarly reasoning is exactly backwards from what you assume, scholars think that the Roman Mithraists exaggerated the extent to which they inherited their rites from an authentic and pristine Persian source, not that they grudgingly admitted it. Distinct product of the Roman Imperial world casts a wide net: for comparison, there are rites of Isis at Rome that are a "distinct product of the Roman Imperial world" in that they amalgamate Greek interpretations of Isis with Imperial cult. It would be a mistake to regard these rites as direct reflections of authentic Egyptian religion handed down untainted over the ages; they are products of their particular time and its religious syncretism. See also the Serapia festival: the cultus pertaining to Serapis drew its authority from its Egyptian origin, and yet Serapis was a distinct expression of the wider Greco-Roman world. This is the religious context in which the Mithraic mysteries develop at Rome. At any rate, Sowlos is right: you can't just delete properly sourced material. But you can present other views if you can cite sources that meet the standards for RS for this topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you covered all the angles and worded it well. Perhaps this could be better incorporated into the article for the layman readers' understanding?  —Sowlos  19:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
"the Roman Mithraists advertised Persian origin because within roman culture such claims granted their mysteries the authority of great antiquity"
The commonalities between roman Mythriasm and the Persian are undeniable. There is little relevance of the obscure source which you've mentioned here, who seems to have conjured an ad-hoc explanation to satisfy his centricity - and such is the likely explanation as to why 'Western' Scholars tend to underrate the influence of the Persians on Roman Mythriasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. What Cynwolfe mentioned is extremely relevant. To understand someone's meaning, you must understand what they are saying and why they are saying it.
  2. Calling the commonalities between roman Mythriasm and the Persian ... undeniable does not support any claim of ancestry. Similar does not mean decended from. To treat similarities as the justification for such claims is original research. We can only use statements from reputable reliable sources as justification for any claims made on Wikipedia.
  3. I'm sorry if you think 'Western' Scholars tend to underrate the influence of the Persians on Roman Mythriasm, but — as I already mentioned — we depend on academic sources for what goes into Wikipedia. If you disagree with modern scholarship on the matter, Wikipedia is not the place for you to have this debate. Discussions at Wikipedia do not influence academic research.  —Sowlos  11:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I sorta feel as if the IP misunderstood both me and the article in the first place. The article seems to me to say that the Roman Mithras was a reconceptualization of the Persian deity, and thus the connections are indeed "undeniable". But since the individual cults of Mithras themselves differed from each other in matters of liturgy and such, it's implausible to imagine that they directly preserve authentic Persian rites in an original form. Again, compare the ceremonies of Isis in the Roman Imperial world: an Egyptologist would be able to show how these were a distinct product of that world, and not an unadulterated replica of Isis worship in Egypt a thousand years prior to the Greco-Roman era.

What Cynwolfe and yourself mentioned, reflects the notorious aversion of historical facts. Wikipedia should not be about the making of history to suit our tastes (and with that I mean, not arbitrarily selecting sources that support personal opinions, no matter how fantastic). That is rather, self-delusion at it's finest. Of course, there is a lot of quackery that supports that Roman Mitriasm and Zorostarinism have nothing to do with each other. But all reality would suggest other wise. If you are stuck owing the entirety of your history, to ancient proto-Persians, then that is really your problem - don't take it out on the truth (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Or look at the varieties of Christian worship: how much resemblance would a neutral observer find between the services at a small Appalachian evangelical church on Sunday morning, and Christmas Eve mass conducted by the Pope? Other than invoking the name of Jesus Christ, the two ceremonies have so little in common that we might not identify them as the same religion. One is conducted in English, the other in Latin. The Appalachian minister may or may not wear a collar, but his dress would in no way resemble the robes of the cardinals. The physical houses of worship are vastly incommensurate. It's only because the history of Christianity is well documented that we can understand the connection. The history of the Mithraic mysteries is not well documented. Responsible scholars only make assertions based on evidence. They can assert that the Roman Mithraists believed they were heirs to the Persian tradition, and they can use comparative methodologies, but the origin of Mithraic mysteries among the Romans is simply not documented. There are no records of transmission. Our lack of knowledge is just an unfortunate fact.

If the IP would like to continue the discussion, (s)he should point out misleading sentences in the article and suggest an alternate wording. (I've found sentences in Mithraic articles that vastly overstate the more nuanced positions of the sources.) What sentences "deny" that the Mithraists said they based their religion on Persian traditions? How can we make more accurate statements? We need comments specific enough to be actionable. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

the OP and others seem to be unaware that the "Zoroaster" in modern perception is not the same as the "Zoroaster" in Greek/Roman/Hellenistic perception. The latter was a Hellenistic pseudepigraphic construct, a neo-pythagorean/neo-platonic product of their own creative fantasy (but of course, "real" for the Romans etc, perception does not imply reality). Cumont didn't cotton on to this difference either. But it would not fair to assume that Cumont should have known better, even though he was an authority on "Zoroaster-ian" pseudepigrapha. Cumont couldn't know the difference either because, like the Romans, he didn't have anyone he could ask. After all, in 1899, scholarship on Iranian subjects had not properly begun yet.
@Cyanwolfe: Borrowing of a few words via a neo-platonic fantasy tale does not constitute evidence of a "relationship", leave alone of continuity. Or to put it another way: if someone were to found a "Klingon religion", would that make the believers of the religion Klingons?
When magicians chant "abra cadabra", they are following the centuries-old practice of speaking Pseudo-Latin to play on the medieval beliefs that sacred language has magic potency. Many religions employ sacred words into their litanies to make them more solemn, more mystical, more magical. The "Persians" certainly did it (using Avestan, their sacred language, and which is where the name "Mithra" actually comes from), and evidently at some point a few words got picked up by the Romans too. We don't know where or when or how, but there is hard evidence that it happened. But that's the only evidence we have, and the few "abra cadabra"s and the like are by no means any meaningful evidence of similarity. And even if there was any similarity, there would also need to be evidence that the similarity was transmitted as part of a coherent theology or practice, and not just mimicked in isolation. (A parrot that mimics a songbird would sound like a songbird, but also needs to look and behave like a songbird to be considered a songbird). Proof is the rock of science, everything else is speculation.
In the paragraphs above, I've downplayed borrowing to properly distinguish it from evolution or continuity. There may well have been more borrowing than the evidence of four/five words indicates. Its possible. But hard evidence is all that scholars may legitimately go on. Everything else would be speculation. Speculative hypotheses like Cumont's are permissable to a degree, but they must eventually be substantiated by cold hard evidence. And that's where Cumont fails (very badly too, since his arguments are cyclical). Ok, in the 19th century scholarship was pretty sloppy, so he could be forgiven for that. But we live in the 21st century now, where peer-review and evidence are not forgiving. This is good science. Cumont's hypothesis is bad science.
One of the problems with this article is that the "origin" issue is given too *much* space (and, because it was all copy-pasted together, pretty bad space at that). The only valid answer to any "origin" question is "unknown, due to lack of evidence." There is nothing more to it. It is also utterly irrelevant to any understanding of the Roman cult. Including Mithraic perserie (which is a legitimate sub-topic that needs to be dealt with coherently, and not whilly-nilly zig-zagging as presently in the article). -- (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Cumont is someone later scholars often disagree with, but can't ignore. You've raised the topic of possible role of pseudo-Zoroastrian writings in the origin of the Mithraic mysteries. Perhaps the article could say more about this. But you've also complained that the article already gives too much space to the origin issue. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The "lets add it" attitude expressed in the comment immediately above this one (and elswhere on this page) is childish and silly. The encouragement of he-said-this, she-said-that encourages violations of WP policy (WP:VALID).
Moreover: The editors here [Cynwolfe excepted] simply do not have the wherewithal to evaluate sources correctly. The low education level of the editors here [Cynwolfe excepted] warrants the use of only secondary sources (summaries of what others have written), and the strict avoidance of primary sources (in which a writer expresses his own ideas).
As it so happens, the various "origin" issues have all been well summarized before. A detailed/extensive review has been made by Beck (ANRW II.17.4, 1984). More tersely, Gordon, who has summarized the "origin" issues several times: "Franz Cumont and the Doctrines ..." (1975) reviews the "continuity" approach of Cumont and others, and also reminds readers of the only thing that is important (the evidence); then "Who worshipped Mithras?" (JRA 7, 1994) in which Gordon reviews the "reinvention" approach of Nock, Nilsson, Merkelbach, Clauss, and again cautions readers to not lose sight of the evidence. Then Gordon in Rüpke (2006, 2011), a text for university students, in which Gordon summarizes the lack of evidence for both the "continuity" approach and the "reinvention" approach in a few sentences each. (one of the two passages is quoted verbatim at the top of this talk page).
  • Dismissing the comments of the OP with "we only use reliable sources" is absurd. The reliable sources -- including several cited by this article -- address the Roman perceptions very well. The problem is that the article's asinine he-said-this, she-said-that (encouraged by "lets add it" attitude) does not even come close to presenting the reliable sources accurately or coherently. The (unintentional) cherry picking that litters this article (due to the very obvious dependency on searching google books) makes it clear that the editors are not even familiar with the reliable sources -- including sources that the editors themselves "cite".
That the Roman perceptions of "Persian religion"/Zoroaster are not the same as the real McCoy is not rocket science. Nor is there anything exceptional about ancients having a different "reality" than others do/did. Nor is any of this new: Bidez & Cumont, Nock, Merkelbach, Gordon, Beck,... have all addressed it. Sources cited by this article refer to it as well (e.g. Beck/EIr). Also: In the form of colportage, the perceptions are the basic premise of all reinvention theories.
The difference in perception is *basic* background knowledge that editors writing about the Mithraic mysteries ought to have. That perceptions are not the same at all times and places should be plain as day for anyone dealing with history.
That the OP didn't have that background knowledge is one thing. That the respondents don't have it is ridiculous. Not knowing your own sources is pathetic.
-- (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Christianity and Mithraism again[edit]

I have tried to make reasonable edits in agreement with the majority of Mithraic scholars, however, these are constantly reverted by Apologetic editors. Please do not revert sensible edits, which are well referenced. If you wish to include a point, it has to be broadly, even if not unanimously, supported. Your inclusion of an arcane reference from Apologetics of the time, which implies that Christianity influenced Mithriasm, without allowing for the inclusion of the opposing view, is more likely giving the reader a misleading, if not backwards, impression of what is factually the case. While there are only a few sources that support the view that Christianity influenced Mitrhaism, there are dozens which suggest the opposite. 2601:882:100:EF90:71ED:61CE:DAA3:8613 (talk)

See the section further down (new stuff goes at the bottom). You cited sources that were not by historians at all, but apologeticists. You don't seem to understand what "apologetics" means. Mainstream historians are not apologeticists. Fly-fisher experts who decide to write a book about their beliefs on religion are apologeticists. You actually cited the latter, not the former. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Justin Martyr, was clearly an apologetic of the time. Your giving the impression that his view is somehow valid, when in fact it is Apologetic defense against what is a very reasonable view that Christianity was based on Mithraism. Why are including references to a few mainstream historians, and rejecting references to the plethora of Mainstream historians, which hold an opposing view (that Christanity was clearly influenced by Mithraism)? That can only suggest that the editors have a religious bias towards Christanity, defending against the inclusion of any sources which have opinions that are unfavorable to them, and no matter how reasonable. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually cite him, though, it cites mainstream historians who discuss his views. Your argument that one religion is based on the other (rather than being independent of each other or drawn from related earlier sources) is not supported by mainstream academia, or else you'd have no trouble finding academic sources instead of fundamentalist pablum that's just the New Atheist equivalent to Justin Martyr. It is your responsibility to back up any claims you make with reliable sources. Your accusation regarding other editors almost fails our policy on assuming good faith from other editors, and is honestly rather ridiculous if you actually knew anyone involved.
The discussion section below (titled "‎Regarding the edit warring by the IP editor") discusses the problems with your sources in detail.
And don't go mucking up the page again. There was seriously no point to that edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no trouble finding academic sources to support my view, a very widely supported one. These references were included somewhere along the line of edits to this article. And all of these were removed to support irrationally persistent view that Christianity had no influence from Mithriasm. (as one author said, denying such is 'pointless'). At present, your view is not consistent with the mainstream scholarly view. Despite your protestations, the article needs major work. 2601:882:100:EF90:CD5E:F0D:D5C4:D6F0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to be getting it: your sources were absolute garbage. They were worthless. Terrible. They sucked. They were no more academic that some half-literate hillbilly preacher's "inspired" misunderstanding of the Bible. You cited a book buy a fly-fishing expert. If it wasn't for the fact that Pfeiffer's book touches on Mithraism, the fact that you cited an authority on fly-fishing in this article would have been treated as vandalism.
The reasons why your sources are worthless have been explained in detail below, and you have completely failed to address any of those issues problems in any way. If anything, you seem to be the one who is hell bent on shaping the article toward a particular view instead of toward reliable sources.
You say that your view is supported by academic sources: present them. Put up or shut up, it's that simple. This is not a discussion board for you to go "nuh-uh!" over and over until everyone gets tired of you. Either present mainstream academic sources (not fundamentalilst pablum) or quit. And don't bother trying to present your own arguments, either, we don't use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Dacian/ Thracian influence?[edit]

There are similarities to the Thracian/ Dacian mystery cults, as well as the Samothracian cult of the Great Gods. Here are some points:

  • The Thracians were exposed to both Greek and Persian culture over the course of years. Dacia, the northern Thracian kingdom, was conquered by Rome in 1st century AD, and many of the Dacians have been moved to various regions of the Empire. The cult appears in Rome around that time.
  • The underground temples, stone-birth, and bull-sacrificing: We know from various sources, that the Thracians set up temples and shrines in caves, associating underground caverns with the Mother Goddess' womb (at least as far as the 4th century BC), later also creating mountain-top temples and shrines, to worship the sky/ sun 'son god' Zagreus (later replaced by the Phrygian Sabazius), with the advent of Orphism. The Samothracian cult of the Great Gods (assuming it was of Thracian origin) placed initiates in small cave-like rooms within the temple, where the revelation was bestowed upon them. Bulls, pigs, goats, or sheep were sacrificed to the Great Gods. In Roman times, the cave-like room was altered to be able to fit the bulls for sacrificial purposes (although the later may have been a conversion of the temple into a Mithraeum).
  • The depiction of Mithras: Mithras was depicted as a youth wearing a Phrigian cap (a common piece of attire with the Thracians), slaying a bull, being accompanied by a serpent, a dog, and a couple of men who carry torches. The Thracian Horseman, who is believed to be a depiction of Zagreus or Sabazius, was also depicted alongside a serpent and a dog, slaying a boar. The torch-bearers could be linked to the Greek athletes participating in the Bendidian torch-race. Bendidia was a festival dedicated to Bendis - a Thracian/ Dacian moon-goddess (this might also explain the appearance of Luna (Bendis) and Sol (Zagreus/ Sabazius) on the reliefs)
Mithras tauroctony Louvre Ma3441b.jpg

Thracian Horseman for comparison Alternatively, Mithras could be identified with either Orpheus, Rhesus, Strymon, or Zalmoxis, who brings sacrifice to the gods.

  • The Mithraic mosaic representing one of the degrees of initiation clearly depicts a spear, a Phrygian helmet and a sica (the one-handed Thracian sword), which were all used by the Thracians.
7th panel Mitreo di Felicissimus Ostia Antica 2006-09-08.jpg

Of course, it all sounds rather far-fetched, but it's still something to think about. (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but on Wikipedia it would be called original research. See WP:OR. In order for material to be included in an article, it must be from reliable, usually secondary, sources. See WP:RS. If you can find reliable sources that say these things, and you can paraphrase the material and provide the source, you might be able to add to the article. Corinne (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

the thracian thing is surprisingly spot on[edit]

the reality is that the roman cult of mithras correlates perfectly with the movement of sarmatian tribes (most notably the alans) into europe. perfect timing. perfect geography. there's consequently truly no mystery to it's origins, there's just a comical missing of the obvious: this iranian religion was brought into europe by iranian migrants, much as the "gypsy" religions moved in centuries later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Our articles are based upon what reliable sources say about the subject. Where are yours? Doug Weller talk 14:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: move section on Classical sources[edit]

The section on Classical sources doesn't fit well where it is now, in the section (currently 4.3) on the history of Mithraism. I propose it be put into its own section. Thoughts? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edit warring by the IP editor[edit]

I've left a note about reliable sourcing on their talk page, because that was reason enough to revert. Going over them individually:

  • Richard Gordon's remarks might be acceptable, if they were relevant, not taken out of context, and not used in an original research argument that goes well beyond the scope of what he meant.
  • The Existence of Christ Disproved by Irresistible Evidence is written by someone who can't even admit who he is. The title alone is apologetics, even if it is by a New Atheist apologist. That's honestly no better than citing some preacher, imam, or yogi. Also, the link provided was WP:REFSPAM plain and simple.
  • C. Boyd Pfeiffer's A Cure for Christianity is also New Atheist apologetics, not history. What's more, his credentials are for fly-fishing (see the Examiner, which is blacklisted and so not linked), not for any field of history. That's no better than citing one of my uncles. Hell, at least most seminaries want you to take some kind of course on ancient history, even if they are biased.

Given that the addition starts off with "you can't trust Christian apologists," I find it ironic (if not hypocritical) that it follows with two blatant apologists. This article should stick to historians, not apologists of any sort. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the IP editor is inserting apologetics into the article. None of the above problems was addressed in the slightest in the edits. No part of the addition can be defended with policy without complete misinterpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
As for Pfeiffer, the Amazon page on the book says he's self-educated, and you can see the list of fishing books he's written by clicking on his name there. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Now I'll grant that "self-educated" is probably sufficient to be an authority on fly-fishing (at least, in comparison to me), but that just about puts him on my level with regards to history (if we don't count any classes I took in college), and I sure wouldn't want anyone to cite me on the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
And the IP hopper is now disruptively editing, at first removing a random portion of a sentence and a reference, reverting the article to an outdated version that contains a variety of problems, twice. Were they not an IP hopper, I'd've filed a WP:3RRNB report by now. It's 1 am where I'm at, can someone else handle it? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Similarities with Hindu God Vishnu especially his avatar Narasimha[edit]

There are Quit a Lot Similarities between the Hindu God Narasimha and the Lion Headed figure as both have lion head and a human torso. Mithra is said to be born from rock and Narasimha is also born from rock. Also Mithra is Another name for Hindu sun god Named Surya ॐ मित्राय नमः Om mitrāya namah (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 
Hi. Thanks for your observations, but Wikipedia does not use original research. If you can find a professionally published, mainstream academic source that discusses these ideas, we might be able to include this information in this article or a related one. Wikipedia does not consider itself to be an academic source, or professionally published, so articles on this site do not count as acceptable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We appear to have a strong consensus that Mithraism is the more common name. After completing the move I'll also take a stab at the intro to clear up some of the confusion below; editors knowledgeable in the subject should also take a crack at it. Cúchullain t/c 18:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Mithraic mysteriesMithraism – The article is descriptive of a set of organized religious beliefs popular within the Roman Empire and to an extent practised today. My problem is that the title does not reflect this. While the article does comment on the inadequacies of our knowledge of it's practices, it is not the primary subject of the article. I might also point out that another article exists on Wikipedia entitled 'Mithraism and Christianity'. If one article refers to it by it's proper name and the main article does not this can easily lead to confusion. If people want to do a write up on the gaps in our knowledge of Mithraism then a second page must be made, because that is not the subject of the article. This article was called Mithraism initially and through looking at the archives the only reason for a change to 'Mithraic Mysteries' is due to a popular book called 'Mithraic Mysteries. This makes no sense. BrookDaCow (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Support - While the 'Mithraism and Christianity' article you're talking about is actually listed under a different name and 'Mithraism and Christianity' just leads to the article, I agree that the title as it stands does not reflect this article accurately. I second the suggestion. AlistairClassics (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems good. I could see the argument that our articles on Greco-Roman mysteries include the Dionysian Mysteries, Mysteries of Isis, and Eleusinian Mysteries but we do have Orphism and most of the other mystery religions are lumped into the article on the deity. Also, the article admits that most modern scholars just call it Mithraism (and per WP:COMMONNAME, so should we). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Support - I have never heard anybody refer to Mithraism as 'Mithraic Mysteries' outside of the context of this article. I don't understand why the name was changed in the first place or how they reached a consensus. I support the move. (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment We need to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Here's an Oxford University book The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries[1] Found it with this search.[2] Doug Weller talk 16:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Cambridge University Press book Mithraism and Christianity [3]. Also the book you source uses the word 'Mithraism' throughout. BrookDaCow (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't care which it is so long as we follow WP:COMMONNAME and not our preferences. I've removed the bit about modern historians from the lead because it wasn't backed by the source. And adding "primarily" seems to be pure original research which we don't allow, something I wouldn't expect a new editor to know. We would need several sources saying what modern historians call it if we want to do that, maybe attributed. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Preference? The Encyclopaedia Brittanica[4], Stanford University[5] and Cambridge University Press[6] all refer to the religion as 'Mithraism'. As do multiple academic studies[7][8], Religious study sites[9][10], and the original wikipedia article. [11] (archived). What I prefer is irrelevant, the community-at-large commonly uses Mithraism. The book you sourced also used the word Mithraism more commonly than Mithraic Mysteries if you discount the headers. BrookDaCow (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I support the move. I do recall the reason for the article being named 'Mithraic mysteries' originally; as 'Mithraism' was asserted by some eidtors as properly being specific to the cult of Mithra within Persian religion. TomHennell (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand. Yes, I support the move if that was the original reason. But not a statement about what the majority of historians call it unless it's sourced to people saying that. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.