Ted Hoffman

Request for Contributions

I have never been interested in Mithras (Roman) or Mitra(Persian) until yesterday when I posted on the subject and CX argued that my post was based on a misunderstanding of certain key issues.

Now, evidently, there is a lot of confusion, and for good reason, regarding the idea that Xstianity borrowed ideas/concepts from Mithraism. There is paucity of documentation and early scholars seem to have assumed a lot.

The only thing I hate to see is the perpetuation of this ignorance by those that seem to have read something about the subject. A number of threads are started from an immature position and I have seen plenty of threads left hanging.

There is strong language - like "this is total crap", "Cumont commits iredeemable errors", "Ulansey is a crackpot", "Modern Mithras scholarship has moved on from these outdated ideas" and so on and so forth.

I would like this thread to be definitive for those still confusing Sol Inviticus with Mithraism and for those interested in understanding where Cumont erred and the position of Modern Mithras scholasrhip on the issue and those surroinding it.
I will mention points that confused me and points I think are important regarding this subject. I hope this thread will uncloak the shroud of mystery about the so-called Mithraic scholars and why they have differed with their predecessors.

There are questions that have gone unanswered. For example. Someone posts 'xstianity was a mystery religion'. Another says 'this is total BS. Christianity embraced Jews and Pagans alike. And was not based on secrecy of its teachings'. His repondent says: 'Well, christianity had many signs of mystery religions: Jesus taught using parables which were used to hide the teachings from outsiders, he had 12 initiates, they spoke in tongues, they ate bread that symbolized his body, initiates had to go through steps like baptism etc etc'. Then other opponent keeps quiet. And the thread is left to wilt.

I would like this thread not to be a discussion or debate (though you can do that if you want) but about contribution of relevant data, about guiding people venturing in this field, about errors people make, about authors and about how scholars have reached their conclusions.

I would like it to be informative. Thats my objective and I am sure everyone has some 2$ somewhere to chip in. And if someone chips in false information, show how its false or unreliable. Please. Feel free to extend my FAQs - forgive the simplicity of some of the questions. The admins can later collate them if this is found valuable. My desire is to see this topic shut once and for all. Let us bring the scattered factoids together. Pick one question and provide the answer if you know it and correct any false perceptions that could have brought about the question.

And Please, be sure about your sources (98% of websites are based on Archaya's ideas, Cumont's ideas and Freke and Gandy's ideas). I have indicated here some errors that Cumont is believed to have made. Don't repeat them here please. We want to move on. If you are not sure, a link to Cumont's online text version is below.

As much as possible, be sure that you clearly grasp a difference between Iranian Mithraism, Roman Mithraism and the Sol Invicti cult before you contribute. I have attempted to bring out the difference but it will be clearer as we proceed.

FAQs

• Did Christianity borrow from Mithraism?
  
• We know Mark has no virgin narrative and that Matthew borrowed elements of his virgin narrative from the birth of Moses and placed the birth of Jesus during Herod's reign so that he could use Herod to create drama around the life of Jesus. We know that Herod's baby-killing antic was created based on Moses' birth story where, likewise, the pharaoh was killing Hebrew male infants. We also know that the virgin birth idea (Matthew 1:22,23) was borrowed from Isaiah 7:14 (and this is not the place to discuss parthenos and almah)....
  But from where was the idea of the Magi and the stars derived?
  
• Was Mitras' birth characterized with virgin birth magi, and stars?
  
• Was membership to Roman Mithraism confined to the Roman soldiers only? Weren't the Roman rulers also members?
  
• What is the different between Sol Inviticus and Roman Mithraism if any?
  
• What is the identity of sol in the Sol Inviticus cult?
  
• If Roman Mithras is not related to or not borrowed from Iranian Mithras, did it emerge ex nihilo?
  
• Why the name Mithras if not from Mitras?
  
• What are the differences in characteristics between Iranian Mitra and Roman Mithras?
  
• Who are the Modern Mithras scholars?
  
• What errors did Franz Cumont commit in his 1903 work The Mysteries of Mithra what errors do Acharya S, Ulansey and Freke and Gandy commit in this area of inquiry?
  
• Didn't christianity borrow the icon of madonna (Mary with baby Jesus), Christmas Day, the eating of wafers, and Sunday as a day of worship from Mithraism?
  
• What historical sources, textual or otherwise, inform Mithra scholars about Mithra and Mithraism?
  
• Isn't the christian symbol of the cross derived from sun-worshipping cults?
  
• Didn't Mitra (ths sun god) have 12 satellites who were considered his 12 disciples as stated by Swami Prajnanananda, Christ the Saviour and Christ Myth(1961)?
  

Allow me to start:

What problems do people encounter when studying Mithraism and its relationship with christianity?

The main problem, especially if one is using the internet:

(a) There are hundreds of sites that are referring to Cumont, Archaya, Freke and Gandy or Ulansey who comitted certain errors which will be indicated in this thread.

(b) When using the internet, many sites do not quote their sources thus its not easy to gauge their reliability or to verify their claims.

What errors did Franz Cumont commit in his 1903 work The Mysteries of Mithra?
Cumont assumed that Roman Mithraism (which has statues with Mithra slaying a bull) was a continuation of Persian/Iranian Mithraism.

It is alleged that because Cumont assumed continuity of Roman Mithraism from Persian Mithraism, he assumed that the latter must have done some bull-slaying and subsequently sought out evidence to support this thesis.

Dectractors argue that bull slaying was done as Cumont found out. But it was done not by Iranian Mithra, but by Ahriman.

The First International Congress for Mithraic studies in the early seventies, after finding no Iranian/Roman link, concluded that Roman Mithraism was "a new creation using old Iranian names and details for an exotic coloring to give a suitably esoteric appearance to a mystery cult"

Ulansey has argued that the Romans chose the name of Mithra (a Persian god) so as to conceal the identity of Perseus (who was often associated with Persia). Ulansey argued that Roman Mithras was Perseus in the star map(zodiac).

NB: Archaya S, disputes these arguments that dissociate Roman Mithraism and the Iranian one.

What are the differences in characteristics between Mitra and Mithras?

Information from Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975 ($89.29 at Amazon - sheesh) seems to indicate that a treaty dated 1400 BCE is the first document with a deity named Mithra.

He was known as one of the Iranian gods in the Zoroastrian pantheon who was warrior-like and gave orders and assembled people.

In the East, he was associated with fidelity and agriculture. In Vedic hymns, Mitra is invoked together with Varuna (lord of the cosmic rhythm of the celestial spheres). In Babylon, Mithra was identified with Shamash, the sun god.
He was strong and immune to illness and aging. Other sources indicate that he was called omniscient, undeceivable, infallible, eternally watchful, and never-resting god of light and heat.

Mithraism itself is believed to have originated in Persia about 400 BC (the Hellenistic era) and Mitra was identified as the son of Anahita. In Itan, the Seleucid temple at Kangavar is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras"
The birth of Mithra was celebrated at the eve of the winter solstice, considered appropriate with the god of light.

In the Persian Empire, Mithra was worshipped as a god who brought victory.
Mithraism was popular among Roman soldiers probably becaise of its millitaristic black and white/good and evil dichotomy accompanied by a final judgement in the afterlife.
During the first century in the Roman Empire, Mithra was associated with the sun alongside Apollos and Hermes.

In 270 AD, Aurelian, a Roman army officer rose to be emperor and united the Roman Empire through military might. In 274 AD he attempted to unite the empire's religions under the state cult of Sol invictus ("unconquerable Sun"). Aurelian's new temple enshrined the Sun gods of Babylonia (Baal, Bel or Marduk). Mithras was not formally acknowledged under Sol Invictus and Natalis solis invicti ("birth of the unconquered sun") was on December 25th.
Roman Emperor Constantine accepted Xstianity in 325 AD, in the eve of a battle, after he had a vision of a cross of light superimposed upon the sun. Persecution of Christians ended. He then sought to unify Christianity and sun-worship by creating a monotheistic state religion. In 321 AD Constantine made Sunday rather than Saturday (Saturn's Day - what some argue is the sabbath day) the weekly holiday of the state religion. In 325 AD, he declared December 25th as an Immovable Feast for the whole Roman Empire. This day was later known (from 1038), in old English as Cristes Maesse, the Mass of Christ. It became modern day Christmas day.

The Roman Mithras was known for his act of slaying a bull while Persian Mitra is not known to have slaughtered a bull.

Recommended sites:

Caveat Lector. I don't trust Holding because he is a raving apologist and is often not objective with issues that cast Christianity in a light he perceives as bad. But I recommend his site because in all the sites I have seen, at least he indicates his sources. Take everything he says with a pinch of salt unless he is quoting a source verbatim.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html

This one has a long reading list:
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/mithra6.htm

Archaya S's disputations:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA, by Franz Cumont, [1903]
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/

Rick Sumner

I'd suggest that the virgin birth idea is actually a combination of factors. Isaiah was just used to confirm an already existing belief that Jesus, the new son of God had trumped all Israel, the prior son (eg. Ex.4.22), once again. The development of such a belief is pretty easily tracable, as "son of God" became less and less metaphorical through progressive texts. That just makes more sense as a source to me--Matthew is drawing his infancy from Moses, not from Isaiah.

The Magi foreshadow Jesus' later rejection by Jews (Herod) and acceptance by Gentiles (the Magi). There's also a verse somewhere (I keep thinking Test.Levi, but don't quote me on it, I'll track it down ASAP), where aged men bring gifts to a somebody-or-other. One of which was myrrh. I'm not entirely persuaded that they're dependent, however. Bringing gifts seems a pretty standard treatment.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Editted to add:
On the list of errors Cumont commits, we can add the taurobolium, which Mithraists never seem to have practiced. Cumont created a Mystery School that looked a lot like Cumont thought a Mystery School should look.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Rick, that was helpful. Matthew quotes Isaiah verbatim and it can be argued that that was then a dubious lead by Matthew (a prophecy slut) whilst his ideas originated elsewhere. But thats a discussion for another day.

I had pointed out the tauroctony (an icon depicting Mithras slaying a bull) as a major departure of Roman Mithraism from the Persian one.

You have suggested Cumonts association of taurobolium with Mithraism as another error. Taurobolium was a rite with the bull as sacrificial victim where, as Guignebert describes, "A deep pit was sunk in the precincts of the temple into which the initiated descended and it was then covered over with a grating upon which a bull was solemnly sacrificed; its blood flowed like red rain into the pit and fell on the naked person of the novitiate, endeavoring to bathe all parts of his body in it. This baptism accomplished, the genital organs of the animal sacrificed were deposited in a sacred vessel to be presented as an offering to the goddess, after which they were buried beneath a memorial altar."

There is no evidence that ancient Mithraists (assuming we have any such thing) ever practiced taurobolium even though Archaya and like-minded theorists (Robertson, M Goguel, C Guignebert, Weigall etc. [they are mostly French] yes, even A Loisy) argue that it was practiced in the Phrygian cult of Cybele and Attis and in various other Asiatic cults - which is totally beside the point.

What historical sources, textual or otherwise, inform Mithra scholars about Mithra and Mithraism?

Literary evidence of Mithraism and Mithras is scarce. Some have attributed this to the idea that Mithraism was a mystery religion like the Eleusinian mysteries where information was passed from initiate to initiate within the cult under strict secrecy, and hence very little written documentatory evidence survives.

Some Historical Snippet

The earliest known occurence of the word Mitra/Mithra is in a treaty inscription between the Hittites and the Hurrian kingdom of the Mitanni in the area southeast of Lake Van in c.1400BCE. The treaty is guaranteed by five Vedic gods: Indra, Mitra, Varuna and the twin horsemen, the Ashvins or Nasatya (Joseph Campbell, Occidental Mythology).

It also appears that Mithra as a god, was never worshipped alone. An inscription from Susa of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–358 BC) says:
Note that Darius the Great, a Persian king who reigned between 521–485 BC, following zoroaster's teachings, was a strict monotheist for whom Ahuramazda was the only one god. But his successor and son, Artaxerxes II, as we see from the quote above, departed from that. It is believed that his reign saw a revival of the cult of Mithra after being dead for centuries.

In 334 BC, when Alexander the Great was crossing over into Asia Minor to begin his conquest of Persia, the Persian empire was the greatest empire on earth: it covered Asia Minor, the Middle East, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Iran. After a series of battles, in January of 330 BC, Alexander entered Babylon, he had conquered Persia. Enter the Hellenistic culture which was to see a rebirth of Mithraism as Mithras embraced Roman and Greek mythology as we shall see later and which would culminate later to Roman Mithraism and ultimately Sol Invictus which involved worship of a pantheon of sun gods (Greek Helios, Roman Sol etc). We will come to this later.

What scholars have used as sources are outsiders such as early Church fathers, who mentioned Mithraism in order to attack it, and Platonic philosophers, who attempted to find support in Mithraic symbolism for their own philosophical ideas. We have people like Clement of Alexandria and Appion (according to who, Mithra was also Apollo), Plutarch says that in 67 BC Plutarch says that in 67 B.C., a band of pirates based in Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras. Herodotus, the Greek Historian, mentioned the 'Persian Mitra' c.430 BCE, on the Customs of the Persians (though he refers to Mitra as a godess). Hesychous in 6th century referred to Mithras as 'the sun of Persia'.

Material evidence for Mithraism has been found in many Mithraic temples. Archaeologists have found artifacts scattered throughout the Roman empire, from England to Palestine. These temples, called mithraea by scholars, were usually built underground in imitation of caves and were filled with elaborate iconography: carved reliefs, statues, and paintings, depicting a variety of enigmatic figures and scenes.

This iconography in subterannean temples has been the primary source of knowledge regarding Mithraic beliefs and practices.

Look at how this Wikipedia article can mislead someone. Cumont's roots dug very deep and wide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism

Lafcadio

As I know none of them is a sun god stricto senso, rather a central figure of the pantheon at a given time and culture.
The babylonian Marduk, though came late in the mesopotamian pantheon, it was quickly integrated into myths regarding the beginning of times and creation of the earth. It was a central figure, god of earths and heavens. He created the waters and the skies from the two-sliced body of Tiamat, legitimated Shamash (the sun god) and created Babylon and rised a lot of temples. He is no more Sun god than Jupiter of romans.
He's mentioned many times along with Bel (which may be his brother, but also a title for Marduk - the name means "lord") which in Canaan's culture became Baal, a god of lightning, thunder, skies, earth - again similar to Jupiter - being a central figure in canaanites pantheon.

IMHO Aurelian's "enshrinement" seems to centralize the most important figures of the oriental pantheons rather than Sun gods (so here's the a difference you asked between Sol and Sol Invictus). If this was not intentionally (and I believe it was not) it may happen that the Sol Invictus cult to be the result of a cultural/religious sincretism. Between the powerful symbol of the sun and the cultural and mysterious force of important oriental deities. Lacking the data, cannot know if this sincretism happened in the last period of the original cultures (assiro-babylonian or canaanitean), or in the roman culture, as the newly formed cult.

Rick Sumner

The tauroctony is the slaying of the bull itself, not the icon, to my understanding. It appears on a sizable percentage (somebody or other--it might be Ulansey--cites an exact number) of Mithraic icongraphy.

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that Cybelle and Attis practiced it, there's just no evidence that it was related to Mithraism before the early twentieth century CE.

What historical sources, textual or otherwise, inform Mithra scholars about Mithra and Mithraism?

There is considerable iconographic evidence, as well as numerous Mithraeums. Ironically, much information on Mystery Schools come from their Christian opponents.

The Plutarch reference is from Pompeii, 24.7.

"They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time, having received their previous institution from them."

Whether or not the continuity is as clear as Plutarch seems to think it is is debatable. I'd suggest it's unlikely that there's no connection whatsoever, for what my opinion is worth.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

seeker

I don't want to get too off topic from the subject you are trying to explore so if you feel it isn't relevant I'll accept that. I'm going to suggest though that a lot of these mystery cults really come out of the deification of Julius Caesar, whose life, once it became mythologized set the tone for much of the beliefs that surrounded many of the mystery religions and whose real story parallels much of what appears in the gospels.

Again I don't want to be out of line in this suggestion so if anyone feels it is a bad direction for this discussion I would understand but I don't think the topic can be fully discussed without bringing it up.

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Rick for that a helpful post. That Life of Pompey, 24.7. reference is the kind of info we really need. It has been argued that there is little info regarding the old Mitra because it was detroyed by the early church. It has also been argued that it is because mithraism was a mystery religion.

It is possible that Plutarch was better informed via reliable means (not yet detsroyed by the church) that Hellenistic Mithraism was a continuation of the Persian one and it is also possible that Plutarch was assuming continuity based on the similarity of names like Cumont.

Lets hope that we will be able to get more information on that soon.

Ulansey's statement reads: "by far, the most important icon in the Roman cult was the tauroctony...this icon was located in the mostimportant place in every mithraeum, and therefore must have been an expression of the central myth of the Roman cult"
Thus 'tauroctony' is used (at least by ulansey) as the name of that icon where Mithra is the tauroctone (killer of the bull). I have found no reference to support the idea that the tauroctony is the slaying of the bull itself. In any event, can the act be isolated from the icon?

ichabod crane

Hello Jacob, just a quick question. Can you give me a reference for this information where it is argued in detail? I'd be most grateful.

Thanks!

Ichabod.

Rick Sumner

The icon is a representation of the act, presumably. You are correct, incidentally, I'm mixing up my terms.

http://altreligion.about.com/library...tauroctony.htm

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Celsus

Don't know if this has been linked yet in any of the various mystery topics we're having at the moment:

Polish excavation in Syria sheds new light on ancient cult
Joel