Roger Pearse

I can hardly comment on an article that I have not seen. I refer you to Clauss for the details of the archaeology of Mithras, and to the articles referenced in the link above.

The remainder of your points I have already responded to.
As I said, I prefer evidence to assertion, and this you don't seem to have.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

The obvious reason to doubt it is the length of time between the supposed event and Plutarch's report thereof.
The date of this Mithraeum seems disputed see for example
http://www.ajaonline.org/pdfs/book_r...102_Downey.pdf However it quite possibly was founded during the Jewish war or very slightly later.

The first signs of Roman Mithraism in the last third of the first century CE may possibly support an origin of Roman Mithraism before the reign of Tiberius, I honestly can't see how it can support a date before the middle of the 1st century BCE.

Andrew Criddle

spin

OK, so you won't continue to tout 'old' scholarship.

I prefer to have my eyes open.


spin

Cheerful Charlie

Origen blew it. Sol Invictus was another god entirely. Sol Invictus came to Rome in a big way with the Roman emperor Elagabalus, one of Rome's oddest emperors. Various Egyptian religions were also popular in Rome, inclduing sun gods like Re. The worship of all these sun gods was combined together and worshipped on an official sun god religious holiday celebrated on December 25th. Saturnalia was on December 22. Christmas started life as a day of worship of Sol Invictus.

Cheerful Charlie

spin

If it were by itself then, I can understand that, but we have to deal with a number of issues. How did Mithras get to Rome? It certainly wasn't a Roman cult and had to have come from a Persian context eventually, ie from the east. Plutarch's report fits the necessary scenario. Mithras clearly had a following in Asia Minor, given the frequent use of the name Mithridates for kings of various realms. In the same general area as Cilicia there was known Mithras worship in Commagene.

Beck's date is derived from Caesarea Maritima: The Pottery and Dating of Vault 1, the Joint Excavation Report 4 (1987) by Blakeley et al., pp.62 & 103, as well as a dissertation, Mithraism and the Religious Context of Caesarea Maritima, R.J. Painter, Southern Baptist Theological Seminar, 1994.

How quickly do you think it would take a religion introduced into Rome by ex-pirates cum slaves to catch on within the Roman armies then spread through legions which were not stationed in Rome by the last quarter of the 1st c.?


spin

Roger Pearse

Nor me, in the absence of other evidence. A gap of 150 years to our first evidence, for a cult mainly known from archaeology? It's a bit extensive, to me.

But as I understand it, the case is based simply on the archaeology. Mithras has very distinctive underground temples. Being underground, these tend to be preserved. These appear together with inscriptional evidence in the late first century, and with clear links to an origin fanning out from Rome. We must allow a period between the creation of the cult and the first remains of it known to us; but IIRC we have quite a lot of first century archaeology, all over the empire.

How long should that period be? Well, IMHO at least a generation, but it could be longer. Literary sources can be pretty patchy, after all; but then, we're not really using these here because they are too patchy.

But if we place the origins of the cult, not in the imperial period (where it meshes well with the syncretism of the times) but in the age of Pompey, well... why should we?

Unless, of course, we accept the testimony of Plutarch. But then how does that work, when the archaeology tells us of a Roman, not a Cilician origin? Much as I feel pretty hesitant about rejecting literary testimony, I can see how Plutarch could make a one-word mistake, Mithras for Perseus. It's a lot of weight to put on one word, isn't it.

Remember also, that the Cilician origin really is a hang-over from Cumont's idea that Mitra=Mithras, because the word is the same in Roman/Greek sources. But the lack of Mithraea in Persia killed that idea, and so we need not seek an Eastern source for Mithras, however 'Persian' it pretended to be.

I'm sure that we have had this discussion before. The last time around someone pointed to Pompey settling people in Italy as a possible resolving connection between Cilician pirates and an early imperial origin. Unfortunately I can't find this post; does anyone recall the details?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

I would expect such a religion either to simply die out (IMHO the most likely option) or to become publicly visible in less than a hundred years. (Maybe nearer 50 than a hundred)

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Baal of Emesa, the god for whom Elagabalus was high-priest before his elevation, was indeed called "unconquered sun" (sol invictus). But this is not the same as the state Sol Invictus cult founded by Aurelian in 274 AD.

The dies natalis solis invicti is first recorded in 354 AD, some time after Christmas had begun to be celebrated, tho. It's listed in the Chronography of 354.

The statements above about 'combination' are new to me. From where do they derive? Or are they just some modern bit of invention, as so much on this subject seems to be?

I agree that the dies is probably an earlier creation, and probably by Aurelian. Late 4th century writers tend to suppose that celebrating Christmas on that date was a response to the celebration of the dies natalis solis invicti -- although why then, rather than the massively more popular Saturnalia, is not explained. Nor is it explained how one 'is' the other, if they share a day in the calendar. Can anyone tell me how the Heliaea was marked? I doubt that we know.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

So this is argument by guessing, Andrew. (I don't find your guess at all convincing.)

How did Mithraism infiltrate both the middle upper echelons of Roman society (such that towns like Ostia could have a dozen mithraea) if not through the influence of the temporarily outed Commagene aristocracy and how did it inflitrate the military (such that legions could found mithraea in the extremes of the empire before the end of the 1st c.) if not through the Cilician pirates? And try to make it with better documented opportunities and better trajectoried.


spin

Ratel

Wondering if those with knowledge in this area could list the similiarities and differences between the Asiatic Mithra, who we know to have been worshipped in Anatolia in ancient times and the Roman Mithras, whose temples are apparently very late?

Is it safe to say that while the "character" of Mithras was derived from Mithra, the liturgy and organization of the Mithras religion was a novel invention?

Where does one find details on the religious practices of the Anatolian Mithras worshippers, so one can decide if there is a "genetic" connection between them?


Another thought- is the Roman religion of Jesus Christ, with its complex rituals and soaring Gothic and Renaissance "Christaeums"- [heh, I made that word up] the same as the Judean religion of Yeshu? I can see a parallel case being made to the Mithra/Mithras debate- Roman "Jesus Christ" is only the religion of Yeshu in name and superficial trappings.