Roger Pearse

Appreciate the explanation -- you clearly know how these things can sound.

Aha! We are at cross-purposes! You think, perhaps that I am saying "we can ignore these people because they are prejudiced Romans". Not so! Sorry to be obscure!

These authors (and others) are proof positive that the Romans thought that Mithras was a Persian god, and the cult an importation from Persia. I'm sure that these people were quite genuine in what they had to say. That was their information, and they gave it.

But we have archaeology, and indeed most of our information about Mithras comes from the very distinctive archaeology. Now, if Mithras was *really* a Persian god, then we should expect (a) that Mithras appears in the archaeology first in Persia, then in the parts of the Roman world next to Persia, then elsewhere; (b) that the distinctive archaeology was present in Persia, and present before anywhere else and (c) that Persian sources give us the same sort of picture as Roman ones do.

But none of these things are true. We can tell the difference between Mitra and Mithras in the archaeology. The tauroctony is one sign, for instance, always present in every Mithraeum, up at one end. Now none of these reliefs are found in Persia. The earliest remains are all from Rome. The next earliest are by people who have come from Rome, and are spreading out from there. And the Persian sources, far from depicting Mithras as the Roman ones do, depict Mithras as "the lord of wide pastures" rather than "the unconquered sun" or the sun that shines underground.

You know, if Mithras was called "Fred" (or Fredius), would we suppose that he was identical with Mithra / Mitra? I have a feeling that we would not. Such is the magic of similar names!

Mithra, as I understand it -- I am no expert on Persian religion -- is a pre-Zoroastrian god who was incorporated into the Zoroastrian religion at an early stage. The Avestan texts (written down at the end of the 4th century AD during the Sassanid period and extant in copies of the 13th century AD or later) are mostly lost, but what remains shows both early material, and stuff obviously under Christian influence (I am told -- don't take any of this as gospel, for I have not researched it). Mithra has no real existence other than as part of Zoroastrianism. So ... where is Zoroaster? Where, come to that, is Ormazd?

These are the sorts of arguments that seem to me -- as an amateur -- very powerful against simply assuming that Mithras = Mitra.

The theory, then, is that what we are dealing with is an oriental import. Perhaps some Greek, with some knowledge of at least the terminology of Zoroastrianism, created his own version of the cult during the mid-first century in Rome. It was tailored for the western market (think of the gurus of the 60's, for an analogy), and proved very successful. That makes sense of most of the data that we have.

But it is only a theory. It is still possible that we simply lack enough information; that there really was a data flow. However, since we have these objections, and this is the data, we sort of have to go with that. And therefore we have to take the view that the authors you mention -- who were not doing research, after all -- are giving us what "everybody knew" at the time, but which is not actually accurate.

Does that explain better what I was (evidently incompetently) trying to suggest?

There's a lot of uncertainty here. We can say, I think, with certainty that anyone who says "Mitra = Mithras" is wrong; there is no evidence for this, and a lot against. But Mitra might be Mithras, in some distorted fashion. It's possible. But ... caution.

Zoroastrianism was practiced in caves? I thought it was interested in temples on high ground.

That's circular, tho.

I'm not sure that a solar connection is enough to distinguish things.

None whatever.

This is a bit of an odd query. Surely we both know that a lot of people DO think that if they can say "Mitra = Mithras", that it will cause the Christians problems?

But I think that I'd rather have the facts. Once I know what the facts are, then we can advance theories as to why some people are so foolish as to say something other than <insert theory here>. But facts first.

If Mithras WAS derived from Mithra, I'm not sure that in truth it matters to Christians. Isis was definitely pre-Christian, after all! But it matters to me to tread on the sort of myths that are (a) false and (b) circulated out of malice and (c) get in the way of those of us interested in the subject.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Not to mention that the Greek magical papyri also invoke the Hebrew god, I gather. All just ingredients for the stew...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thundril

Suppose some future researchers, (Lets sai in 3000 CE) found a few references to late 20th century paganism. Is there not a good chance that all the references they found describe the pagan beliefs as a continuation of British pre-christian religious beliefs? If the 20th Century sources had all based their reports on first-hand interviews with 'new-age' pagans, isn't this exactly what they would say?
And if these future researchers did find this consistent description, would they not be justified in supposing a continuity between the two 'faiths'?

Iskander

W. H. C. Frend in the rise of Christianity says “Socially Mithras, despite his Persian origin, was a unifying force”


You might be interested in this, perhaps.

http://www.public-domain-content.com...om/mom03.shtml

Roger Pearse

This is the problem: that the Cumontian theory has become widely disseminated, despite being no longer held by the Mithras scholars, and other scholars tend to repeat it, unaware that it is not longer correct. This is why you can't simply trust as reliable anything with a university press label on it. Frend is a very serious scholar of early Christian archaeology -- but on Mithras he is no better informed than you or I.

Thanks! This is actually part of an online version of the English translation of part of Cumont's book.

http://www.public-domain-content.com...om/mom00.shtml

Unfortunately it is a bad translation, omitting many of the notes, and all of the collection of data. It is, in short, really only the theory that Cumont put forward (which it does not evidence), rather than the massive and still-useful collection of data which the translator chose to omit.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yellum Notnef

I do not believe that Roger's Mithra opinions are uninfluenced by his belief in the divinity of Jesus. Roger has shown himself elsewhere to be too much of an opinionated God warrior for me to believe that his beliefs don't interfere with his conclusions.

Just sayin'

Iskander

Thank you.

avi

Hi Roger,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my verbose questions.

Well done, as usual.

We have, perhaps, a log in the road ahead, and it probably can be either moved, or cut with a chain saw, so as to eliminate our forward lack of progress, on this issue. I have read, now, your detailed, thorough, comprehensive explanations, and while I appreciate the detail, I find myself still in a state of disbelief....

I think this is the dividing point here.

I agree with and share your opinion, that Mithra was a "pre-Zoroastrian god". No argument on that point.

However, then, you have something that is either wrong, or else, I have seriously misread the references in that link, provided earlier.

"Mithra has no real existence other than as part of Zoroastrianism."
I disagree, based upon the text at the web site linked to, earlier in our exchange today.

Gosh, you are rejecting these authors because there has been no archaeological evidence in support of their claim.

That seems a bit harsh, given what we know about Islam. Hint: The buddha statues in Afghanistan, the Buddhist library in India, burned to the ground by the Muslim invaders.

It would certainly be interesting to learn what Alexander of Macedonia discovered about religious practices in Persia, on his voyage en route to and from Afghanistan. I wonder if there were any travel diaries kept by any of his compatriots, written in Greek, which remain hidden away somewhere in an ancient library?

Best chance may be the XinJiang desert, where several ancient manuscripts had been stored.....

I think it is surprising that the Roman army, with Greek speaking soldiers, practiced "Mithraism" of one type or another, while living in Dura Europos. Certainly, it was not on impetus from either the Roman government, nor from the military high command, that the ordinary soldiers practice this cult....

avi

mountainman

Does the same argument apply to the christian god?

avi

mea culpa.

Your thought had, indeed crossed my mind, when the ink flowed from my quill, as I read Roger's and dog-on's rejection of the half dozen odd authors claiming a Persian origin to Mithraism.

I would nevertheless profit from a more thorough repudiation of those authors, than simply repeating the two arguments thus far offered, for rejecting Plutarch et al:

a. absence of supporting archaeological evidence found in Persia itself; (yes, Pete, exactly, where's the supporting archaeological evidence for Paul, the gospels, the "patristic fathers' texts"?) Dura Europos? really? Hey, well then, if so, why couldn't the crude paintings found in the "house church" represent one soldier's efforts in the frantic few days of preparing for the coming onslaught, knowing full well, that no reinforcements were en route, and they were all destined to die, within the week?)

b. presence of a history of apparently shoddy journalism; (but, then, what about Tacitus? Suetonius? Josephus? Why isn't their journalism also suspect? Why decry half a dozen authors, and concurrently, praise another half dozen?)

avi