yummyfur

The word is well known, Xenophon, Strabo, everybody in Asia Minor and the Near East who has had numerous contact with the Parthian empire and Armenian kingdoms, probably knew the word. This would not mean the word would not appear in this glossary, because as a name for a foreign diety, it's origin would definately remain.

Also you miss the point that the first entry is a synonym for Prometheus, or possibly merely foresight, this entry is there because it is most certainly an unusual and probably rare word for this. It also happens to be a homograph of a well known word for a foreign diety, so I doubt the glossary writer could let that other meaning via foreign loan pass by.

Finally, since Mithras was a well known foreign diety, I doubt the glossary writer neccasarily felt compelled to go into any detail.

Why would they have to mention bull slayer for it to be connected to the mystery religion? While he is often depicted in images as slaying a bull, I don't know of any inscriptions calling him "bull slayer" though I know of several Roman inscriptions that call him "invincible sun". In fact I would say in his earlier Persian conception, Mithra was not conclusively identified with the sun, which seems more of a later concept from Romanization. So the fact that the glossary calls him the Persian god of the sun, seems to show knowledge of the diety, possibly through some knowledge of the mystery cult.

andrewcriddle

I don't know much about Ancient Persian religion but IIUC Mithras in Persian thought is clearly the god of light even if not specifically a sun god.

In the Xth Yasht Mithras is described as god 'of the dawn that rises over mount Hara and embraces in his gaze the whole country of the Aryans.'

In Plutarch's Life of Alexander (which IMO is unlikely to be influenced here by western Mithraism) a character is charged on oath by 'the light of Mithras'.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I looked this up you're right that Mithras is never given the title 'bull-slayer'.

However according to Burkert's 'Ancient Mystery Cults' (pps 73-74 and notes) Mithras is referred to as bouklopos 'cattle-thief' by Porphyry and Firmicus Maternus.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Isn't its presence in a glossary of unusual words evidence to the contrary?

This is a modern inference (by you!), which this suggests should take precedence over the evidence. But should inference be placed on the same level -- or a higher one -- than evidence? Surely not.

The glossary is not a list of foreign words, tho, but of rare ones.

There is nothing in the entry that suggests any existence of a Roman cult; the presence of the entry suggests that it did not exist. Had a well-known Roman cult existed, the name of Mithras could hardly have appeared here; if it did, it would have been qualified in some manner that identified it with something familiar, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

Roger, I would like to see you respond to dartsec's post #35. Thanks.

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that that poster is on my ignore list, so I didn't see the post. Having looked at it, I remember why. All that need be said is that the poster has failed to grasp that the comments I reported are not mine -- how could I have any opinion on such things? --, but those of Dr Schironi.

The only point of interest -- and of interest it is! -- is that some images of portions of the papyrus are online, and can be found from the Oxyrhynchus online website by typing in the papyrus number, 1802.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

I'll be looking at the papyri tomorrow, as its late here. Something doesn't sound right, but I'll look into it. This isn't already translated on the web before I have a knock at it, is it?

Roger Pearse

Not that I know. Indeed as far as I know the papyrus is unpublished.

What do you think is amiss? (Curious)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

darstec

I didn't fail to grasp anything Roger. You did not disagree with those comments so you apparently agreed with them. So support your assertions (though you spoke them through Schironi's mouth).

Roger, why do you always post links in reply to me that I first posted myself? Time and time again you have done that. I provided the sum total of the entire lexicon. Why do you want the reader to believe there is more to them? And by following those links I provided one does not have to go through all your gyrations.

And by the way, since you cannot read Greek, my questions were of course rhetorical. I amazes me to no end that readers of this forum think you are a scholar simply because you built a webpage, when in fact you cannot read the original of most of what is contained on your site, and most probably never read the English translations either. Quoting RC Catechism 101 does not make you a scholar any more than parroting medical terms makes an actor into a doctor. In fact in Biblical criticism it does exactly the opposite.