Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman ... I find it highly amusing that the argument of using the vacuum of prior archaeological evidence to reject the later literary evidence of the Christian religion assembled in the 4th century has been soundly criticised, skeptically questioned and rejected by Roger and others for years. And yet here, Roger uses that same argument to question the existence of Mithraism before the appearance of the archaeological evidence in the first century CE. Would anyone like to comment on this paradox of consistency besides Fenton Mulley Esq?

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.


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.

1.The first, called Mihryazd by the Persians, was the "The Living Spirit" (Aramaic rūḥā ḥayyā), a savior-figure who rescues the "First Man" from the demonic Darkness into which he had plunged.
2.The second, known as Mihr or Mihr yazd among the Parthians, is "The Messenger" (Aramaic īzgaddā), likewise a savior figure, but one concerned with setting up the structures to liberate the Light lost when the First Man had been defeated.