pkropotkin

I realize that Zarathustra is the same as all those names, and that the book you referenced was the "book of Zarathustra". The quote is supposed to be Zarathustra talking about himself though, so there seems to be no direct connection to Mithra at all. For example, the quote is not supposed to be Zarathustra talking about Mithra. That was my point, the quote doesn't seem to be attributed to Mithra in any way, nor even about him.

There are many medieval Persian texts that mention Zarathustra and his words, so while it's possible the text you reference is supposed to be the one, it could well be another.

My guess though, if real, the quote is probably translated quite creatively.

As far as Cumont, there are a rather large number of publications other than "Texts and Monuments", for example "Les mages hellénisés" perhaps, though I think these were mostly Greek and Latin texts, also it's possible that the text was in "Mélanges Franz Cumont" which were the 2 volume proceedings of the The Institute of Eastern Philology and History, at the Free University of Brussels, published in 1936.

Does Vermaseren give this whole quote? and does he attribute it to be something that Mithra says? Only giving Cumont as a reference and nothing more specific, seems to reak of using a poor secondary source citing Cumont and not checking it out.

Toto

Googling Cumont medieval Persian etc. I found these on JSTOR (if you can get them from someone, I'd like to read them)

The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence , by David Winston, History of Religions, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Winter, 1966), pp. 183-216

Animal-Headed Gods, Evangelists, Saints and Righteous Men by Zofia Ameisenowa Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 12, 1949 (1949), pp. 21-45

Roger Pearse

From Vermaseren, pp.103-4:

Justin records that on the occasion of the meal the participants used certain formulae comparable with the ritual of the Eucharist, and in this connection mention may be made of a medieval text, published by Cumont, in which of Christ is set beside the sayings of Zarathushtra. The Zardusht speaks to his pupils in these words: 'He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation....' Compare this with Christ's words to his disciples: 'He who eats of my body and drinks of my blood shall have eternal life.' In this important Persian text lies the source of the conflict between the Christians and their opponents, and though of later date it seems to confirm Justin's assertion.

Thank you for the references to other works of Cumont. I'd hate to have to hunt through them all; although if they are indexed, 'Zardusht' should find it.

Ray Moscow

I only ran across the quote in TJM, which references Godwin (which I don't have).

It would be very interesting to see the primary references for this from Mithraic ceremonies.

Ray

Ray Moscow

How about this quote from Justin Martyr, of all people? http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/gar18.htm

GakuseiDon

Could that be the source of the confusion? Justin's quote was paraphrased by someone as a guess to what was in the "Mysteries and Initiations of Mithras", and someone else thought that it was actually the case? Some of Hoffman's paraphrases of Celsus occasionally pop up in the same way.

Roger Pearse

Again, can we not derail?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

pkropotkin

Thanks Roger

This seems to be the same text in the one paragraph of your first link in the OP. It seems, if this is straight from the book, that Vermaseren has some coherence problems in this paragraph, when I read it in the link in the OP, I had assumed someone copied a source incorrectly. This part makes no sense

"a medieval text, published by Cumont, in which of Christ is set beside the sayings of Zarathushtra"

unless it was meant to be

"a medieval text, published by Cumont, in which the sayings of Christ is set beside the sayings of Zarathushtra"

My other feeling is that there is a strong implication from this line, and the rest of the paragraph, that this medieval text has the words of both Zarathustra and Christ contained in it, though unfortunately it isn't written clear enough to be certain either way.

It does seem clear that Mithra or Mithraism seems to be largely uninvolved in this text, regardless if it is real or not. And if I'm right, about my point above, that this text puts the sayings of Zarathustra and compares them to Christ at some point in the medieval time frame, I'm not sure of it's relevance as proving any long tradition of Zarathustra saying such a thing. It's possible that Christian missionaries had made appeals to local religions, by forcing and exaggerating similarities supposedly between the two, to make Christianity seem like less of a change to some segment of the populace(or an appeal to Persian identity over Arab Islam), as this was not an uncommon practice of missionaries throughout the ages. The fact that this text seems to be comparing Zarathustra to Christ or vice versa, makes it seem like it could be such an appeal, that Christ was Zarathustra returned.

I wouldn't want to scour through Cumont's huge number of publications either, as it would be a fairly large task, which is why it sucks that this is how it was sourced.

Roger Pearse

Sorry, the link does give Vermaseren verbatim (I have a photocopy before me) but omitted the words I've added in bold above.

Me neither. Someone will have to, tho. Probably me, taking time from useful work.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

pkropotkin

Thanks, that makes more sense. Also isn't "Mithra, the Secret God" a translation?, could it be that the sourcing was better in the original? and I guess since Vermaseren was Cumont's student, it seems unlikely he would be using a secondary source referring to Cumont.