avi

Thank you. Well written.

Playing Devil's advocate: On the other hand, for all we know, the ROMANS ALSO wanted to destroy Mithraism BEFORE Theodosius, but had been unable to do so, because Mithraism had become so entrenched within the military....

ALSO, we should consider the possibility that the Romans sought to dismantle Mithraism precisely because it was Persian, not Roman at all, at a time of increased "barbarian" invasions of Rome itself, and enormous pressure on the frontier. The empire was under attack. All things foreign had to be eradicated. In that scenario, far from serving as evidence that Mithraism in the Roman empire was distinct from the Persian flavour, this action serves to underscore the opposite: Mithraism as practiced among the soldiers of Rome, was not separate and distinct from the version practiced in Persia.

Though Dura Europos was buried in the mid third century CE, that does not mean that the temple of Mithra, excavated there in the twentieth century, dates from that time. The paintings found therein, could have been created centuries earlier....

Question: Was this "Temple of Mithra" a more substantial batiment, than the converted house: the so called "house church"?

Parthian, Roger? dog-on?

avi

dog-on

Avi, I am not sure how this does anything but validate my position. Perhaps you can point out exactly what you believe to be the issue.

avi

The issue is here:

Roger's point, with which you seem to be in agreement, was that there is no solid archaeological data to support the theory, as elaborated by a tiny handful of ancient authors, that Mithraism, as practiced in the Roman Empire, was substantially similar to that practiced in the Persian empire.

The painting in the Mithraic temple excavated at Dura Europos, lays that objection (absence of archaeological data) to rest, in my opinion. The temple itself, from Hopkins' description, appears to have been designed and constructed, from the outset, as a place of worship of Mithras, rather than a mere house, subsequently converted into a place of religious worship, as apparently may have been the case for the infamous "Christian house-church" of Dura Europos. I write "infamous", because I doubt the designation for that particular building. The dwelling's intimate proximity to the Jewish Synagogue, at a time in history when members of the two religions were killing one another, seems anomalous. It strikes me as far more probable that if the building were not used as a guest house for traveling Jewish Rabbis, then it may have belonged to someone practicing Ebionism, for example, or some other Jewish/Christian sect, no longer extant today.

By illustrating Parthian dress, it is clear that the soldiers of that fortress, engaged in religious practices, praising the power of Mithras, did so, mindful of a "Persian" origin to the religion.

If this had been a purely Roman invention, then, one should have observed, upon excavation, some symbol, sign, design, portrait, coin, or other image, within the temple itself, suggesting a purely Roman motif--a likeness of Caesar, for example. These were after all, Roman soldiers. Why not an image of a Roman General, like Caesar, if this were a purely Roman origin cult, completely autonomous from, and independent of, Mithraism as practiced in the Persian empire.

I think it is a bit silly to argue that Roman Empire Mithraic religious practices were unique, and distinct from the ancient traditions, as elaborated in the several thousand year old Hittite clay tablets.

Again, I ask, Roger, in particular, why it is so important for Christianity, to insist that the widespread practice of Mithraism in the Roman Empire was divorced from its practice in the Persian Empire?

I simply cannot imagine how this issue affects our understanding of the evolution of earliest Christianity.

a. purely Roman, as Roger and other academicians have proposed;

b. same religion both in Rome and Persepolis, as Plutarch and others of his era maintain, and which I believe to be the case;

How does a decisive conclusion regarding (a) versus (b) lead to a change in our understanding of earliest Christianity?

I fail to perceive a relationship, one to the other....

avi

dog-on

Ah Avi, perhaps you misunderstood my quips. I was simply saying that we have nothing from the Persians to verify that what the Romans practiced was similar to what the Persians practiced. I am pretty sure, however, that the Romans tended to take bits from other cultures and remake these bits into new things, though claiming historical precedent, which the Romans found important. Again, just like I think that they did with Judaism.

Toto

I've split this bit of confusion out so it will not spread. Theodosius was a Christian emperor who suppressed non-Christian religions. This has nothing to say about the status of Mithraism 3 centuries before him.

aa5874

You also have NOTHING from the Romans to verify that what the Romans practiced was different from the Persians.

The Romans that may have done what they did to Judaism may be the very Romans that may have wanted to ERADICATE Mithraism and not remake it.


Now, can you show me the source of antiquity that show that the Romans practiced a different version of Persian Mithraism?

You have GATHERED NOTHING from any sources of antiquity about what the Romans practiced.

And what did the Romans do to Judaism?

mountainman

c.315 CE Constantine legislated that nobody was allowed to join Judaism, and that "Any Jew who stones a Jewish convert to Christianity shall be burned".. There was a war going on. The servants of Jesus had all picked up swords at once. As a result times were tough everywhere.

aa5874

So Romans did NOT practice any form of Judaism??

I want dog-on to show me what the Romans did to Judaism AND HOW HE GATHERED that "Roger nailed it".