Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 07-01-2006, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aso

The professor has an article in progress on the subject--hopefully we'll learn more when it's published.

I hope so too. I've emailed and asked when this might be.

Quote:

A couple questions that you could perhaps answer:

Did the fragment contain exclusively Asian ("foreign") words, or some arcane but perfectly greek words as well? the presence of the word "mithras" on a lexicon of foreign words doesn't seem to speak to the obscurity of the cult.

It's not so restricted, although a lot of words were of foreign origin or (as here) related to foreign things.

Quote:

what were some of the other names?

I only have a tiny part of the handout, as page 1 didn't reach me. A couple more:

Mithorg : a type of harmony among the Chaldaeans...

minodoloessa: numerical system among the Chaldaeans ... in Babylon. (cf Aramaic 'mann', to count)

misai: the fore-knowledge of the future among Chaldaeans [ -- in the ... book] of the work on Babylon. (cf. Sumerian "me-zu", to divine?)

But my memory is mainly of Greek dialect words.

Quote:

I'm new to this board, and i'm sure there have been thousands of posts about mithras already. plutarch's comment and early appearances of the tauroctony in greek art support the notion that mithraism had been introduced to the greco-roman world (i won't even hazard a guess as to its origin) by 50BCE. that's my own feeling.

The difficulty is that all the references in literature and art post date 50 AD, and the distribution of the archaeology spreads out from Rome among Roman citizens, suggesting an origin as a pseudo-Persian cult in Rome ca. that date. Plutarch's comment about the pirates of Cilicia is second century, and I read (in Manfred Clauss, "The Roman cult of Mithras") that it was probably simply a mistake for the cult of Perseus popular in those regions. (Whether we should thus reason I'm not sure).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

countjulian · 07-01-2006, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Plutarch's comment about the pirates of Cilicia is second century, and I read (in Manfred Clauss, "The Roman cult of Mithras") that it was probably simply a mistake for the cult of Perseus popular in those regions. (Whether we should thus reason I'm not sure).

Both yourself and Plutarch could be right, since all the forms of the Mithras cult we know of seemed to have had a great deal of syncretism with Perseus and other sun deities. Correct me if I am wrong, but was not one of the ranks of the Mithra cult "Perseus." I've been out of this stuff for too long.

Clivedurdle · 07-01-2006, 08:24 AM

[QUOTE=jgibson000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism

As Roger and others have noted previously, this Wiki article on Mithras and Mithraism, is hopelessly out of touch with modern Mithras scholarship, especialy on the issue of Roman Mithraism being derived from, and essentially a transplanted version of, Persian Mithraism.

But leaving that aside for the moment, if you, Clive, were to attempt to convince someone of the truth of its claims about Mithraism being widespread in Europe and (presumably known by Romans before the 1st century), what primary -- i.e., archaeological or textual -- evidence would you point to to do so? Indeed, what primary evidence convinces you that what the Wiki article says about Mithras and Mithraism is correct?

Jeffrey Gibson

Anyone is free to edit wiki instead of commenting it is hopelessly out of touch (or ignorant)!

And why assume a Greek lexicon is talking about Roman Mithraism? Who made claims about it being widespread in Europe before the ist century - wiki gives the dates up to 5th century?

jgibson000 · 07-01-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Anyone is free to edit wiki instead of commenting it is hopelessly out of touch!

That's not the point. The point is that you assumed that what that article says about Mithras and Mithraism is authoritative and decisive in the matter at hand and that you did not know that what you quoted is rubbish.

Quote:

And why assume a Greek lexicon is talking about Roman Mithraism?

When I asked for "textual evidence", I was not asking for "lexical evidence" (did I speak about a Greek lexicon?). I meant, as you should know, writings by Roman authors (let alone Roman Mithraists) on Mithras and Mithraism.

Quote:

Who made claims about it being widespread in Europe?

You did when, to make your point, you quoted the Wiki article which says "Mithras was known throughout Europe". Or don't you read the sources you site?

Jeffrey Gibson

Clivedurdle · 07-01-2006, 08:51 AM

And as I noted above it was known throughout Europe up to 500 AD! I was commenting it was known in Persia at the earlier date!

jgibson000 · 07-01-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

And as I noted above it was known throughout Europe up to 500 AD! I was commenting it was known in Persia at the earlier date!

Good for you. But I was asking you to provide me with your evidence for what you now admit is a claim of yours -- that Mithas and Mithraism was known throughout Europe at any time, let alone up through 500 ad.

What is your evidece?

Jeffrey Gibson

Clivedurdle · 07-01-2006, 08:59 AM

The Romans recruited soldierss from all the societies they were involved with. Those centurions would take their religious practices with them. The Romans encouraged that. What is the problem here?

jgibson000 · 07-01-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The Romans recruited soldierss from all the societies they were involved with. Those centurions would take their religious practices with them. The Romans encouraged that. What is the problem here?

That what you think clinches and substatiates your claim is an extremely weak argument, based as it is on inferences from suppositions, not on actual archaeological or textual evidence, and, more importantly, that you assume what needs to be proven -- that the Romans ever recruited any soldiers from Persia, that even if they did, these Persian soldiers (centurions?) were Mithraists, and that even if the were, they contined to practice their Mithraism once they were in the army, and that the Romans actually ecourged them to do so, let alone that anyone in the army who was not Roman would have taken up Persian Mithraism and not seen it as somehow a threat to Roman values.

What is your actual evidence that any of these things actually took place?

Jeffrey Gibson

Roger Pearse · 07-01-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Anyone is free to edit wiki instead of commenting it is hopelessly out of touch (or ignorant)!

I don't know about anyone else, but I find this 'defence' of Wikipedia (not yours, I know) more damning than anything that might be said against it. Reputable sources do not have to rely on such a feeble defence when found peddling nonsense.

This 'answer' is really a demand that Wikipedia must not be criticised: that a mere collection of hearsay must not be criticised because ... because any fool can edit it. I can't find the words to express my contempt for such a position, particularly when I know just what would happen if I tried.

Those of us who in the past have tried to edit it found ourselves very quickly in edit wars with people deeply ignorant and deeply bigoted. And who has time for that?

The only portions of Wikipedia that contain real knowledge are those where the weenies don't care, and where someone with some learning has written something.

Quote:

And why assume a Greek lexicon is talking about Roman Mithraism?

I'm afraid that I do not understand what you mean here.

Quote:

Who made claims about it being widespread in Europe before the 1st century - wiki gives the dates up to 5th century?

Again I don't understand -- sorry.

But of course if what you are saying is that you prefer Wikipedia to the primary sources, of course that is very much your choice. Surely you don't mean this, tho?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 07-01-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

That what you think clinches and substatiates your claim is an extremely weak argument, based as it is on inferences from suppositions, not on actual archaeological or textual evidence, and, more importantly, that you assume what needs to be proven -- that the Romans ever recruited any soldiers from Persia, that even if they did, these Persian soldiers (centurions?) were Mithraists, and that even if the were, they contined to practice their Mithraism once they were in the army, and that the Romans actually ecourged them to do so, let alone that anyone in the army who was not Roman would have taken up Persian Mithraism and not seen it as somehow a threat to Roman values.

What is your actual evidence that any of these things actually took place?

Agree entirely.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2006, 08:51 AM	#15
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	And as I noted above it was known throughout Europe up to 500 AD! I was commenting it was known in Persia at the earlier date!

07-01-2006, 08:59 AM	#17
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The Romans recruited soldierss from all the societies they were involved with. Those centurions would take their religious practices with them. The Romans encouraged that. What is the problem here?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.