Talk:Mithraism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Images

Can someone tell if the following images, of ceremony helmets, are related to Mithra?

• No. No bull. 76.243.129.217 (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • all are conveying a blessing, via different motifs; and perhaps, a special blessing of protection upon the accompanying soldier/warrior...josephus the elder ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a good example of a bad reply on an interesting question. Unless it is simply meant, that it is probably not connected because there are no bulls in the images... I also have a question I hope may be elucidated: How is the peculiar Josephus Titus Flavius, the Jewish historian, , if connected, connected with the Mithraic Mysteries? I suddenly got a strong gut feeling that he somehow is involved with it. --Xact (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to compliment the editors who've worked on this article, which has just cleared up two misconceptions I had about Mithraism. The article is clearly written, well organized, and well maintained. It inspires me to think the same might be possible for some other articles I fret about. Good work. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 06:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. The key element is to remove all material that is not referenced to reliable sources, and to reference every statement in that manner. Also not to decide between the opinions of scholars, but to give them all. I couldn't have done much of this without being sent PDF's of various articles which helped to tie down various details. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert of "60s BC" edit

Someone edited the sentence that says Plutarch talked about origins of the Mithraic rituals in Rome "in his day" (i.e. 100 AD) to read "60s BC". I'm sorry but I had to revert this, because Plutarch doesn't talk about Mithraic rituals in Rome in 60s BC. All he does is talk about the Cilician pirates, as the article explains. So I presume this was a misunderstanding. If someone objects, let them discuss it; but it will need a footnote with the text of Plutarch in to justify it, and a reliable scholarly source to back up the interpretation. The existing wording commits us to nothing, since we do know that Mithraic rituals were happening in Rome ca. 100 AD, as the archaeology makes clear. But to assert they were happening in Rome in "60s BC"... no. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Make sense, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help! Roger Pearse (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cilician pirates instituted the secret rites of Mithras in the first Century BCE

Plutach's text:

"The power of the pirates had its seat in Cilicia at first, and at the outset it was venturesome and elusive; but it took on confidence and boldness during the Mithridatic war [The first war 88-84 BCE, the second war 83-81 BCE] ... [The pirates of Cilicia] offered strange sacrifices of their own at Olympus, and celebrated there certain secret rites, among which those of Mithras continue to the present time, having been first instituted by them... The war was therefore brought to an end [63 BCE] and all piracy driven from the sea in less than three months, and besides many other ships, Pompey received in surrender ninety which had brazen beaks...Some of them, therefore, were received and incorporated into the small and half-deserted cities of Cilicia..."

Plutarch, The Life of Pompey 28

Roger Pearse also removed the first century BC reference of: "five small terracotta figurines of a figure slaying a bull have been excavated near Kerch in the Crimea, and have been dated to the second half of the first century BC." by deleting “BC” which is in the original text he made it look like the first century CE.

Roger Pearse also removed yesterday the reference "around 70 BCE" from the: "The 4th century commentary on Vergil by Servius says that Pompey settled some of these pirates in Calabria" Original link to his web sites has the 70 BCE dating.

It appears that Roger Pearse is repeatedly removing all first century BC reverence from this page.

I notice these comments and claims are all unsigned. Please... create an account, so your edits are all tied to one person. It makes it easier for the rest of us, you see.

We cannot say "Cilician pirates instituted the secret rites of Mithras in the first Century BCE". That is an opinion. I have no opinion on the subject. But the article mustn't reflect opinions by anyone except reliable sources, which means specialists on Mithras. These discuss the Plutarch passage, and that is what we quote.

You say that I removed the first century BC reference for the Kerch stuff. Um, I inserted that text into the article in the first place. I didn't put BC (which must be wrong, since no archaeology from that period for Mithras is known -- see the references). I merely didn't accept your edit to redate it to BC. Have you checked the original book? Please post the quotation from Clauss that justifies that sentence, and your edit to it.

Finally I don't quite understand your last comment, relating to my website, but Servius does not say BC. Please post the quotation from my site that justifies your edit.

People tend to insert BC stuff, because of hearsay derived from Cumont. I remove it, (I would leave it if it was referenced to a reliable source) because the reliable sources say that there is no archaeology prior to about 80 AD, which means this stuff must be Mitra references; and the meaning of the literature is not agreed by the reliable sources. What the latter say is what we need to do, surely? Roger Pearse (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger, the photo caption on my edition of Clauss does date the figurine as BC. I actually think this may be a misprint, as I seem to recall these figures being described as AD elssewher, but cannot now find the reference. I am not sure the exact date is that important though, as these are clearly described as depicting Mithras in a standard text on Mithraism, and they are undoubtedly earlier than other Mithraic archeology. Should they rather be described as depictions of 'Mithra'? - but then Mithra is not otherwise known to kill a bull. Beck descibes them as 'collateral' to Mithraism - which is a fancy way of saying that they are related, but he does not know how? TomHennell (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, here is the full quote from Clauss page 157, fig. 114: Panticapaeum/Kerch', Crimean Peninsula: terracotta figurine of Mithras, assimilated to Attis, killing the bull (V II). Five such figurines are known; of the two from excavations, one was found, along with various statuettes of Aphrodite, in a woman's grave; the other in a coroplast's workshop. The model is the generalised classical and Hellenistic 'heroic slayer'. Date: ? second half of first cent. BC. Paul August ☎ 14:20, 20 January 2010(UTC)

Quite so; but this quote is from the site "Mithraism in History and Archeology", an seems to suggest that the reference schould be CE not BCE:

"Another possible piece of evidence is offered by five terracotta plaques with a tauroctone, found in Crimea and taken into the records of Mithraic monuments by Cumont and Vermaseren. If they are Mithraic, they are certainly the oldest known representations of Mithras tauroctone; the somewhat varying dates given by Russian archaeologists will set the beginning of the first century C.E. as a terminus ad quem, which is also said to have been confirmed by the stratigraphic conditions.5 TomHennell (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you every one for this. The quote is useful - thanks Paul. What we need to do, I think, is get some more info on this, and make sure the page says whatever the reliable sources say. At the moment all we have is Clauss, and there could be a misprint. If this is certainly Mithras, and certainly BC, then I don't quite understand how scholars can say that there is no archaeology before 80 AD (see refs in article). I haven't got my books here, but just did "Mithras Kerch" in Google, and came up with part of a Roger Beck article here. Some of the material may be collateral to the Mysteries, i.e. manifestations of local Mithra-worship not stemming from the Commagenian founding group.45 45. It is in this category that I would place the Kerch terracottas.... Unfortunately that is the only ref to Kerch in that book. I will look this evening. But it sounds as if this may not be Mithras. Again, we don't need to decide ourselves; only to report what people like Beck and Clauss and Merkelbach etc say. Roger Pearse (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(De-indenting)

I've found another reference online here in Aufsteig und Niedergang der romischen welt: ...the area [the Crimea] is of interest mainly because of the terracotta plaques from Kerch (five, of which two are in CIMRM as nos 11 and 12). These show a bull-killing figure and their probable date (second half of first-century BC to first half of first AD) would make them the earliest tauroctonies -- if it is Mithras that they portray. Their iconography is significantly different from that of the standard tauroctony (e.g. in the Attis-like exposure of the god's genitals). Roger Beck, Mithraism since Franz Cumont, ANRW II 17.4 (1984), p. 2019. Roger Pearse (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the quote you give is from Mithraism.org, which is quoting "Beskow". I couldn't access the footnote 5, tho -- can you post that? But this says "terminus ad quem" (not "post quem"; don't you hate the drop into Latin? I do), i.e. "before 1 AD", so backs the "BC" element. Beskow is also quoted here, possibly at more length.

Aha! I've had more luck still. The article by Per Beskow is partly online here, in The routes of early Mithraism, in Études mithriaques By Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin. p.14. Note 20 gives the publication as W. Blawatsky / G. Kolchelenko, Le culte de Mithra sur la cote spetentrionale de la Mer Noire, Leiden 1966, p.14f. The quote continues:

"The plaques are typical Bosporan terracottas... At the same time it must be admitted that the plaques have some strange features which make it debateable if this is really Mithra(s). Most striking is the fact that his genitals are visible as they are in the iconography of Attis, which is accentuated by a high anaxyrides. Instead of the tunic and flowing cloak he wears a kind of jacket, buttoned over the breast with only one button, perhaps the attempt of a not so skillful artist to depict a cloak. The bull is small and has a hump and the tauroctone does not plunge his knife into the flank of the bull but holds it lifted. The nudity gives it the character of a fertility god and if we want to connect it directly with the Mithraic mysteries it is indeed embarassing that the first one of these plaques was found in a woman's tomb."

So... to sum up.

1. The date of the plaques is 50-1 BC, possibly to 50 AD. Generally they are thought to be BC. For this we have Clauss and Beskow. 2. They may be Mithras, or maybe not, as the iconography is not standard. For this we have Beck and Beskow. 3. We should refer to the image in Clauss. 4. The uncertainties explain why the first *certain* depictions are ca. AD 80.

If people agree with this, I suggest we reword that sentence to reflect the doubt and reference it carefully. Does anyone want to have a go? (I'm really tied up at the moment) Roger Pearse (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have a go now. And I'm rather cross; the sentence "this must be Mithras" in the article, referencing Clauss, is bogus. Here's what Clauss says:

"In addition to such identification with solar deities, local influences might also affect the way in which Mithras was represented. A clear example of this is the amalgamation of ideas from the cult of Attis with Mithras. Phrygian Attis was the dying and reviving god of vegetation, and so the guarantor of life; in this aspect he was akin to Mithras. His cult had been established in the area of the northern Black Sea long before the Roman empire. I t is here, at Panticapaeum on the Thracian Chersonese (Kerch on the Crimean Peninsula), that we occasionally come across small terracotta figurines, which show a god in a phrygian cap kneeling on a bull (fig. 114). He is grasping one of the bull's horns with his left hand, and wrenching back its head; the right arm is raised to deliver the death-blow. So far, this god must be Mithras. But in sharp contrast with the usual representations, he is dressed in a jacket-like garment, fastened at the chest with a brooch, which leaves his genitals exposed - the iconography typical of Attis. Both deities were the focus of mystery-cults, both shared certain exterior attributes, such as the phrygian cap; and so it was an obvious step to assimilate them one with another. The cult of Mithras, or whatever remained of it, evidently spread in the Thracian Chersonese only in this syncretistic form, but was so popular that it was worthwhile for local artisans to make moulds to manufacture these little figurines of the god. This version of the cult did also have some effect on the area of the lower Danube: on a relief from there now in Paris, Mithras is represented with a very similar gesture after dealing the death-blow (fig. 60).

Fig 114. Panticapaeum/Kerch, Crimean Peninsula: terracotta figurine of Mithras, assimilated to Attis, killing the bull (V 11). Five such figurines are known; of the two from excavations, one was found, along with various statuettes of Aphrodite, in a woman's grave; the other in a coroplast's workshop. The model is the generalised classical and Hellenistic 'heroic animal slayer'. Date: ? second half of first cent. BC."

All he's actually saying is "these elements are like standard depictions of Mithras". The caption is merely summarising the paragraph above. Clauss does not discuss whether this IS Mithras; he just presumes it, without considering the chronology.

I'll have a go at this. I notice that the anonymous poster who want this changed is not contributing to this discussion, which is unfortunate. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of further muddying the waters, I checked in Gordon's collected articles: Image and Value in the Greaco-Roman World (1996). He gives a date of 50 BC to 50 AD for the Kerch terracottas. In his discussion he relates the fact that the bull-slayer is holding the bull by the horns (and not the nostrils), as pointing a similarity with the reference from Statius. If I understand his argument - it is that Statius cannot have seen an actual Mithras cult relief: a. because he would have had to go into a Mithraeum to do so, b. we have no evidence for actual Mithraea of that date. c. in any case his reference is literary, and must have a lost literary source. Gordon speculates that the source might be "Zoroastrian pseudopigrapha" i.e. Hellenic mystical texts borrowing the name of the Persian deity in order to gain an appearnce of antiquity. He theorises that an equivalent lost Z'Zoroaster text'may like behind both the Kerch bull-slayer figures, and be one of the sources drawn on by the propheic individual who tranfosrmed a mish-mash of cod persian/anatolian/danubian references into a formal mystery cult some time in the 1st century AD. So the terracottas are not part of Mithraism, but they do represent one Roman idea of what Mithra was about, which Sttius had also come across. "I do not agree with Will's view, exprssed in the second Mithriac Congress, that the figures have nothing to do with Mithra at all". TomHennell (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Urg. Can you think of a way to introduce that, while not turning this into the "Kerch" article?

Does Gordon discuss the date, or just mention it in passing? If the latter, let's ignore it. We need people who are addressing the issue, rather than mentioning it. It sounds as if Gordon needs an AD date, then, to make his stuff with Statius work. Do you have the article in PDF? I'd be interested to see it. Roger Pearse (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

doesn't discuss the date - simply takes it from Blawatsky and Kolchelenko I think (though that just about all he does take, he dismisses their explanations as untenable. The article was published in the Journal of Mithraic Studies 2, no 2; in 1977 (I think), so he makes reference to the Beskow paper (which had been delivered at the second Mithraic Congress) as forthcoming in publication. I don't think that Gordon needs an AD date for his theory, though I didn't go through it that thoroughly. He is hanging his argument on CIMRM 593 - the much restored Towneley statue in the British Museum; and broadly argues that this shows fully developes Mithraism, but in an early stage. He is supposing that whoever (and he tends to think of it as an individual) was the prophetic intelligence behind Mithraism, must have drwan on an existing corpus of mystery narratives - one of which involved Mithras/Mithra and a Bull. He sees this material as originating in part in Anatolia, and the Kerch figurines as drawing on the same corpus. But this mystery narrative is not validly Zoroastrian, but rather uses the names of Persian divinities as a token, imparing a flavour of Eastern wisdom. TomHennell (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting childish. Christians are clearly assigning a (rather bizarrely precise) date of 80 AD to mithraism and non christians earlier dates. Personally I don't know but I do know that I will not be taking this page as "gospel" if you pardon the pun. There should be some sort of disclaimer on this page. I'm a layman looking for some factual (as near as possible) information. The current layout basically says "look. you are wrong. it was after jesus" .

The very sudden appearance of Mithraism in the archeological record after 80 CE is an indubitable and real phenomenon that requires explanation. Contrary to your impression, there is nothing arbitray here about the specific date; as it relates to the destruction of Pompeii and Herculanaeum in 79 CE. Negative findings are tricky to evaluate as evidence, but here we have two substantial cities, which have been extensively excavated. The excavations have produced a great deal of material relating to Roman Mystery cults (notably the wall paintings in the 'Villa of the Mysteries'; but absolutely nothing Mithraic; even though the practices of Roman Mithraism were such as neccessarily to generate archeological remains. The same area 100 years later is rich with Mithraic archeology. Literary references to Mithraism also suddenly appear around the same date (Statius, Plutarch). Again, these may be contrasted with the absence of Mithraic references in the writings on religion of Pliny the Elder (who conveniently died in the same Vesuvius eruption). Against this, the Kerch terracottas would seem to indicate the existence of some sort of cultic practice assoicated with a bull-slaying Mithras in the 1st century BCE; but in the absence of any of the other of the characteristic features of the mature cult, it is reasonable to questionwhther these may properly be described as 'Mithraism'. The 'Christian' issue is a red herring. Essentially, early Christianity was Judeo-Greek and urban; while Mithraism was Latinate and strongly represented in frontier areas. Both seem to have been around for at least 100 years before either took any notice of the other. TomHennell (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes

Please don't just introduce material into this page without discussion, or unless referenced against a real Mithras scholar! There are oceans of opinions out there, some by scholars who are not specialists, and some simply opinion. This article has only recently been rescued from a status a little above rubbish.

There are no doubt areas in which it can be improved, but none of these undiscussed changes seemed to be an improvement. Most were unreferenced. By all means let's discuss them, if anyone disagrees?

One example: when we refer to Joseph Campbell, who makes a daft statement, it is relevant to say that he was not a Mithras scholar. It is useless to call him "a scholar of comparative religion"; whether true or not, he was no specialist and his statements are not held by anyone who is. Other changes seemed likewise to be weasel-wording.

One change was referenced, to an article by Jonathan David in Numen. Dr David is not a Mithras specialist, as his publication list makes clear. I think we'd want to see what he offers for this opinion, before we let it in the article, against the statement of Clauss. For now, I've removed it as not a reliable source.

Let me know what you think. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Second. Motion carries, all in favor? Damn, wait, Ian, this isn't a Baptist church general conferance. But yeah, agreed. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is no policy that article content is limited to specialists. If Campbell's daft claims have been refuted, then cite the refutation. That's easier than introducing a special policy for this article. — goethean ॐ 21:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is an infinite quantity of rubbish out there. By this I mean stuff that is not based on the archaeology, or on the literary record, nor in line with the best educated scholarly opinion. In other words, for Mithras, we have to consider what is a "reliable source". Do we think people who spend their lives on Mithras are not reliable? Do we feel up to reading thousands of papers by people who have no special knowledge? It's impossible, surely. So basically we can either use reliable sources; ancient ones, or modern specialists -- or simply reproduce hearsay by people with no special knowledge. Who would really want to do the latter? Roger Pearse (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the choices are quite so stark. Alternatively, we could decide through consensus which sources are reliable. I don't think that ancient sources should be used at all. That's using primary sources which is original research, in my opinion.

Removing Campbell's "daft" remark would do a disfavor to our readers, who might be looking for how those remarks relate to contemporary scholarly discussions. That Campbell is not a Mithras specialist is probably an unsourcable statement which should be removed. — goethean ॐ 22:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell how well-informed you are about Mithraism. Would you mind clarifying for us what your knowledge of Mithraism is based on, and which of the specialist scholarly sources you have read? It will be difficult for us to reach consensus, you see, if you are merely expressing an opinion based on general knowledge. The article is currently based very closely on either major scholarly sources, or the primary data which these quote (you are certainly welcome to add more scholarly sources in the footnotes for these statements if you like). You see, none of the edits you made was referenced, you know. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell how well-informed you are about Mithraism.

Nor I you. Conveniently, your credentialism has no place in Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 20:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The object of the article is to present NO opinion about the subject. Instead we're trying to give a fair, balanced picture of what the major scholarly sources say, with the various theories that these offer (attributed explicitly to the scholar in question), and the data on which these base their claims. It would be nice to have better illustrations of the major themes of the cult. Unfortunately none seem to exist online, which means that someone will have to take a camera and make some and donate them to wikipedia. One day, perhaps! Roger Pearse (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And Roger Pearce's revertion of "undiscussed changes" should be reverted, as he gave no valid rationale in the edit summary. — goethean ॐ 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree either as per goethean's argument. And the topic is not controversial, it is not covered by a territorial ownership (which does not exist on Wikipedia), and the PLEASE READ THIS statement at the top should not be there, if the article would be controversial then please use the proper template Template:Controversial at the top. I will object against discussing linguistic editorial changes that removes ambiguities and confusing orders of clauses, unless the text is properly marked Controversial at the top. This text is the territory of none, and that's the way of Wikipedia. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! I agree that improving the flow of the English is a good idea. Some sections of the article are in real need of it, and I have never got to them. If you can straighten the syntax please do. But we do need to discuss these things, because otherwise the article will rot and fill up with POV-pushing and hearsay. Would you really want that? Anyone can edit it, certainly; but let's see if we can do so in a way that improves the article. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)There was a white bull in which Mithrais killed and Merlin saw. 74.166.79.106 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted two more edits. One of these was a spammer, consisting solely of a US telephone number unless I mistake. The other one didn't add any information, but seemed to be opinion-based edits, all unreferenced. Incidentally please don't ask whether a reference is correct -- go and find out! That's what I have had to do (and I have verified nearly all the references, which is why they contain verbatim citations). Roger Pearse (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just one question for Roger Pearse: can you please clearly define the term "real Mithras Scholar"? For example, does a "real Mithras scholar" possess at least one refereed journal article which relates to Mithras? What I am hoping for is a definition by which any rational person can test an author's credentials. As someone comparatively ignorant of Mithras myself, it is not clear to me by which criteria you are selecting or rejecting authors. You have rejected authors on the basis of "daft remarks", having no "special knowledge", being "no specialist", having not "spent their lives on Mithras", etc., but these appear to be personal judgements. I would like you to provide a definition, and then allow that definition to be used on the complete list of sources. Your personal opinion as to the quality or otherwise of the research, or the level of specialisation or otherwise of each author should not arise in the decision unless that can be unambiguously encoded in the definition itself. If your own edits have been truly impartial, such a definition would settle the argument clearly in your favour. As it stands right now, I don't see how the argument could possibly be closed.

My personal experience is in biomedical articles. I would judge an article acceptable to reference if it is published in a refereed journal indexed by PubMed. That is a very simple boolean (yes / no) inclusion criteria, about which there can be very little uncertainty. It doesn't involve things such as my estimate of the level of experience of the author, what their major field is, whether I believe their claims, whether their claims appear to be widely accepted, etc. (although of course, some of these things may be worth commenting on, if other references are present to support those comments!). If you would care to provide such a criteria for the sources that you choose to include, it would help people like myself (outsiders who wish to check the validity of those inclusions) with a clear definition against which we can check inclusion, without possessing any "special knowledge" ourselves. 220.253.18.136 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon; I didn't see this until now. I'd archive a lot of this talk page if I knew how.

By a "real Mithras scholar" I mean a specialist; someone holding a research position at a major university whose research interest is Mithras. This doesn't mean that no-one else counts; it's purely a sanity measure to reduce the quantity of hearsay crap (to which scholars in other areas are just as prone as anyone else), and ensure that we are reproducing and quoting as authorities people whom NO-ONE can question are Authorities.

I'm not, of course, making a personal judgement on the value of their opinions. Roger Pearse (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Persian changes

Two changes have been suggested to this article. The first consists of giving a Persian language form of Mithras, and is inappropriate; there is no evidence of Mithras in Persia.

The other is a link to the Encyclopedia Iranica, where there is an online article by Roger Beck here. This is already being used as a source in the article, tho.Roger Pearse (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: This may very well be an idea (turned religion) from Persia. A deity killing a bull scream Gilgamesh to me. Sentrix (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Sentrix

No account of Mithras in Persia? Are you kidding. Mithra(s) is a PIE diety, he can be traced all throughout Iran. Not to mention the sacrifice of a bull to create life is the quintessential Indo-Iranian creation myth adopted from the PIE Manu and Yema myth.71.190.182.22 (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cumont and paganism

The text reads: 'Cumont said that after the triumph of the church over paganism, artists continued to make use of stock images originally devised for Mithras in order to depict the new and unfamiliar stories of the bible. The "stranglehold of the workshop" meant that the first Christian artworks were heavily based on pagan art, and "a few alterations in costume and attitude transformed a pagan scene into a Christian picture".'

This summary of quite a bit of verbiage by C. is mine. I notice that people started to edit "paganism" to various things, none of which Cumont said. This sentence (well, two sentences, because I couldn't get all this into one) is reproducing Cumont's view, not expressing a view by us. So if people want to revise it, I think we need to look at what he said, verbatim, and work from that.

If someone would like to retrieve that text and paste it here, we could discuss it. (Once we're done, we could include the verbatim material in abbreviated form in the footnote as evidence). But I'm quite sure that Cumont in 1911 said "paganism" without modifiers. In the mean time I've reverted the changes, until we can agree what they should be. Roger Pearse (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Payam Nabarz

I see that someone has again inserted material by Payam Nabarz into this article, perhaps for promotional purposes. It adds no value to the article, brings no facts; merely the opinion of Nabarz. But since Nabarz is not a Mithras scholar, holds no chair of Mithraic studies, but is simply the author of a book with no more claim to reliability than anyone else, he is not a reliable source. Please ... would whoever keeps adding this stop doing this? Whether he is right or not, his stuff is not right for this article. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Beck's View of Mithraism's Origins

Currently, under "Possible origins of the mysteries of Mithras, Modern theories", the following position is attributed to Beck:

Beck believes that the cult was created in Rome, by a single founder who had some knowledge of both Greek and Oriental religion, but suggests that some of the ideas used may have passed through the Hellenistic kingdoms: "Mithras — moreover, a Mithras who was identified with the Greek Sun god, Helios, ... was one of the deities of the syncretic Graeco-Iranian royal cult founded by Antiochus I, king of the small, but prosperous "buffer" state of Commagene, in the mid first century BC.

The relevant passage in Beck 2002 is:

Discontinuity’s weaker form of argument postulates re-invention among and for the denizens of the Roman empire (or certain sections thereof), but re-invention by a person or persons of some familiarity with Iranian religion in a form current on its western margins in the first century CE. Merkelbach (1984: pp. 75-7), expanding on a suggestion of M.P. Nilsson, proposes such a founder from eastern Anatolia, working in court circles in Rome. So does Beck 1998, with special focus on the dynasty of Commagene (see above). Jakobs 1999 proposes a similar scenario.

However, this passage itself does not claim a "single founder" as Beck's view, but rather a "person or persons". Beck 1998 is a long elaboration of Beck's view that it is possible that a group founded the mysteries, not a single individual:

The foundation of the Mysteries, it is here argued, did indeed occur in a synthesis of Iranian religion and Greek learning, and that synthesis was no less the product of invention than of evolution. [...] My principal departure from Merkelbach is to stress creation within a relatively limited group rather than by a single individual of genius.

--Ryan Baumann (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the author of the words in question, and I accept the correction. Let's by all means change it, and incorporate these quotations. Roger Pearse (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mithra is a Thracian god. even the characters in the relief are dressed like Dacians (Thracian tribe) Are people blind?.isn`t it obvious? (0reZero (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Uhmm, Mithra(s) is an PIE god. Mithra in Iran and the Vedas of India, Mithras in the West. His myths can all be traced back to PIE or Indo-Iranian sources. Read Lincoln or other like reputable sources.71.190.182.22 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ulansey's comparison of Christiany and Mithraism

Why was the short intro to the Christianity section removed? I think it is relevant, as currently the article doesn't state adequately WHY the two religions should be compared. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I pruned the article fairly heavily of anything that was opinion by us, or wasn't adequately referenced. I removed that because it seemed very wishy-washy, and didn't add anything. But I take your point; I wonder how we might address it? Roger Pearse (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article dives into very specific technical details on the supposed similarities between Mithraism and Christianity. I think it first should be explained, before going further, that both religions are Hellenistic salvation cults with a central savior figure, and that the faiths spread in the Mediterranean Basin roughly around the same time. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and insert something; though you might review your terminology first. I am fairly sure that there are no grounds to regard Mithraism as "Hellenistic". And it is questionable at best to call it a 'faith'; or to regard Mithras as a 'savior' in any sense that a contemporary Christian might have recognised. TomHennell (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The astrological basis of the cult and its Oriental iconography (bull, lion, snake, zodiac) speak of Hellenistic syncretism.
Turcan uses the terms 'faith', 'doctrine' and 'belief' when referring to the Mysteries. As for Mithras being a savior, see Lincoln, B. (1982) "Mithra(s) as Sun and Savior" 80.221.43.22 (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"I think it first should be explained, before going further, that both religions are Hellenistic salvation cults with a central savior figure, and that the faiths spread in the Mediterranean Basin roughly around the same time." We mustn't do this. We mustn't express an opinion, still less an religious opinion, still less a highly controversial religious opinion. Once we do that, we're lost. We must report what the specialists say. Remember there is any amount of crap around. It's not enough that someone says it; it must be a reliable source. That's the great benefit of what we currently have; it may be detail, but it's all accurate, scholarly and verifiable.

"Hellenistic salvation cults with a central savior figure"... um, isn't there just one single inscription that uses "servavisti"? And doesn't make clear what it means? This all sounds highly dubious to me, you know. That's not a description of Graeco-Roman religion that I recognise, nor of mystery cults. It all sounds rather Acharya S to me. I'd be interested to see the article, tho; do you have it in PDF form? Roger Pearse (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln's article is available on Google Books 80.221.43.22 (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this! From the book it seems clear that Lincoln is not a specialist Mithras scholar, and holds no chair of Mithraic studies or whatever. Mithras is just one peg on which he is hanging some generic theories about religion -- if you look at the table of contents of the other articles in the book, none is to do with Mithras. Also it is clear that he is working from the theories of Cumont, now well outdated, and using stuff about Mithra -- all those quotes from Zoroastrianism. So ... unless anyone feels different, I don't see that we need take any notice of his paper. Note how it is filled with stuff that has nothing to do with Mithras -- that's a pretty good clue.

I hope that doesn't seem too dismissive? But we could easily fill up the article with tat, "referenced" against scholars with no special expertise, whose expertise is elsewhere and are merely repeating stuff they read in passing which is of no special relevance to them or their article.

Did you even read the paper? Because from your comment it sounds like you just skimmed it and jumped to conclusions based on your own vies. Note how it is filled with stuff that has nothing to do with Mithras -- that's a pretty good clue. Really? 'Cause all that "fluff" which you dismiss is his evidence for a PIE origin for one of the Motif's in the Mithras cult. Lincoln is not arguing for an Iranian (or even PIE origin) for the cult itself, but the origin of one of the themes within the cult. In fact, he says in the beginning of the paper that he is not working from Cumont's but jumping off of the theories of John Hinnels. He's not repeating stuff in passing with no relevance to his article. Lincoln is well regarded for his theories on PIE religion and what he's referencing and arguing deal specifically with that.71.190.182.22 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You also made a reference to a book by Robert Turcan. Is that accessible somewhere? Roger Pearse (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln's paper is mentioned by Clauss in Roman Cult of Mithras and was originally published in Bianchi & Vermaseren (both highly respected Mithraic scholars) La Soteriologia dei Culti Orientali nell'Impero Romano. I don't see why it should be ignored.

I know. But the same would apply to any amount of rubbish. At bottom, he's not a Mithras scholar, and he's peddling views now obsolete. He's just not a reliable source.

I find it quite absurd that we should reject sources that are used by major Mithras scholars. If Lincoln is good enough for Bianchi, Vermaseren and Clauss, I don't understand why he isn't authoritative enough for Wikipedia. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Turcan's terminology is described in Beck's The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire, page 55 (the original is in French). 80.221.43.22 (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is; and Beck is dismissive of it as derived too unthinkingly from Cumont. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln not reliable, are you kidding me? He may not be specifically a Mithras scholar but he is well respected for his theories on PIE religion, and that's exactly what his article is about. It traces the Mithra sun-savior motif back to a PIE origin. Not Cumont's Zoroastrianism theory, but Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indo-European religions. That's why none of the other articles in the book are about Mithras, as it's a book on PIE religion. Lincoln is not arguing Cumont's theories, but that a specific theme found within the cult is of PIE and possible Indo-Iranian origin, which guess what, even if Mithra didn't begin in Iran, Rome was still Indo-European, so it's entirely possible PIE themes could be in the cult. In fact, he says in the beginning of the paper that he is not working from Cumont's but jumping off of the theories of John Hinnels. Again, Lincoln is not arguing for an Iranian (or even PIE origin) for the cult itself, but the origin of one of the themes within the cult (Which is why the quotes from Zoroastrianism and other sources, he's tracing back myths with a PIE origin). To top it off, Lincoln does offer linguistic evidence. There is no reason to reject him as a source for Wikipedia, based on an editor's opinion of him. In fact, I'm pretty sure it is against Wiki policy to exclude a source because one editor thinks he's unreliable, when actual scholars on the subject even quote from him.71.190.182.22 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but at best peripheral to the article. The subject here is "Mithraism"; not "Proto-Indo-European religion". If, as you say, Lincoln is not arguing for an origin for the cult itself in Iranian Religion, but rather for some iconographic elements in the tauroctony, then to my mind his views (if relevant) would be appropriate for those Wikipedia articles, not this one. Whatever Mithriasm was, and there are many theories; in the form we find in the archeological record, it was brand new around the end of the first century CE. Tracing back the various elements of this new form of religious expression to their previous users tells us very little about Mithraism itself. TomHennell (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Josephus?

How is the peculiar Josephus Titus Flavius, the Jewish historian, , if connected, connected with the Mithraic Mysteries? I suddenly got a strong gut feeling that he somehow is involved with it.--Xact (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Last few edits

I've looked through the last few edits, and accepted one and reverted most of the others, all unreferenced.

1. I saw that we had someone start removing AD. I think it is generally agreed in Wikipedia that CE/AD wars are not a useful contribution to an article. What we need is good quality material about Mithras.

2. Someone else changed "Five small terracotta figurines of a figure slaying a bull have been excavated near Kerch in the Crimea, and have been dated to the second half of the first century" to read "...dated to the second half of the first century BC." The reference does NOT say "BC", but AD, so this is factually wrong.

3. The same editor introduced a change to the reference to Servius to introduce some phrase about "BCE"; but the text of Servius does not say this, as the reference which gives it makes clear. In this case the *events* themelves do relate to BC; but I think this is already clear. If anyone feels different, let's discuss it.

4. Another change clarified "Cumont's hypothesis" as referring to Zoroastrian origin. That was indeed Cumont's idea, and I don't mind making it more explicit. Does anyone feel otherwise?

5. Tom Hennell reverted a change to start talking about Mithra; I agree with that, that there is a separate article on this.

Is that the lot? Shout if I missed anything. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed some "AD"s as unnecessary (per WP:ERA: "Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it." The rest of my edits were simple copy edits: [1]. Does anyone object to any of these? Paul August ☎ 19:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I have reinserted the other edits; these were all sound, and thank you.

On the AD point; it is fairly important to the article to indicate that all the data is AD. There is considerable confusion about this point around on the web; but in fact there just is no data from archaeology or literature prior to about 80 AD. Re: the policy, I agree with it. But I had read it as "don't wrote 2010 AD all the time, when we all know it as 2010". I suspect that most articles from about 300 BC to 400 AD would generally be well advised to use AD or CE fairly liberally, in order to avoid confusion with "first century" meaning either BC or AD. Just my thought, tho. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I think writing "second to third century", "from the 1st to 4th centuries" and "c. 80–120" all obviously imply AD/ CE. As for the rest of my changes there were several you missed (they are hard to spot in a diff) But that's ok I'll just do them again, as I assume you don't object to any of them. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for redoing the copy edits -- all look good! Roger Pearse (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More "Mithras=Jesus" crap

I have removed two sections added to the "Mithras and Christianity" section and moved them here. Both rely on references to Beck, a perfectly sound source. Unfortunately the reference makes Beck say something he doesn't say.

Thanks for calling my edits "crap". 80.221.43.22 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Friend, if you post crap, it's best not to get all upset when it gets called such. Particularly when you post anonymously.

Little courtesy would still not do any harm. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There we agree entirely. Roger Pearse (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the first one.

"The Tauroctony and the Crucifixion of Jesus According to Beck, the centrality of the tauroctony scene in the Mithraic system is analogous to the image of crucified Jesus in Christianity. "

Now Beck does not say this. He is discussing what we can know about Mithras. He says it isn't much. So he uses, as a guide, things we know about Christianity. What does he say?

"The argument for the centrality of the tauroctony is sound, and in fact there are no nay-sayers. Again, an analogy with the interpretation of Christianity (though not in its most antique forms) is germane. The siting of the image of the cruciWed Jesus in the sanctuary above the altar persists as a norm in Western church design from the Middle Ages onwards. From it one could infer, even in default of all other evidence, the centrality of the crucifixion in the Christian system. So it is with the image of the bull-killing Mithras and the event which it both represents and proclaims. Although, for good reason, I select a different entry point into the mysteries, we must and shall pay no less attention to the icon of the tauroctony."

Rather a different point being made here, to what the above paragraph would lead the ordinary reader to suppose.

"Again, an analogy with the interpretation of Christianity (though not in its most antique forms) is germane." is what is stated in my edit. Tauroctony an Crucifixion are analogous, according to Beck. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw what you wrote, you know. But Beck doesn't say this. That's why I posted what he DOES say. Roger Pearse (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet, he specifically says the the two cases are analogous, i.e. they are comparable. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that is what you think he means. But that isn't what he is saying. The point you think he is saying is one he is not discussing. We need to read the whole passage he wrote, because I can see that his argument is not coming through (which is a subtle but impressive one, and not what you seem to think). Roger Pearse (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that he is equating the crucifixion with the tauroctony. Analogous is the key word here: The crucifix is located above the altar of Christian churches, and from this arrangement one can see the centrality of the scene it represents in the Christian system. Similarly the Tauroctony is both physically and theologically in the center of Mithraism. I still fail to see how my initial edit is false. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the second addition from our anonymous editor:

"The Banquet and the Christian Eucharist In Mithraic praxis, the mythological banquet of Mithras and Sol was replicated by the initiated in cult meals. In a similar fashion, the story of Jesus' 'last supper' became the charter myth for the Christian cult meal and the liturgy of the eucharist. Beck identifies the Mithraic banquet not only as a meal shared by the initiates, but as a sacrament. "

Again this misrepresents what Beck is saying. Beck is trying to make an argument that what we see in the reliefs can used as a guide to what cultists of Mithras believed. Since we don't know what they believed, he backs up this argument by taking elements from Christian practice, and showing that we can infer what Christians believe from what they do; and so that interpreting the monuments of Mithras in the same way will give us valid data.

"Thirdly, the iconography conducts us, both directly and via the myth, to Mithraic praxis. The tauroctony in relief form sometimes carries on its reverse a second scene, in which Mithras and the Sun god feast together.14 The two gods recline on the hide of the slaughtered bull. Their banquet, then, is manifestly the next episode in the myth. It follows immediately on the bull-killing. But is it just an event of myth, a culmination in a story told of the gods? Again, it is the iconography, not the texts, that tells us otherwise. The banquet of the gods, so the monuments make clear, was replicated in the cult meal which the initiates celebrated together on the ubiquitous side-benches which are the mithraeum’s deWning feature. In other words, the story of the banquet of Mithras and Sol is the charter myth of the initiates’ cult meal.

"In an analogous fashion, the story of Jesus’s ‘last supper’ is or, more precisely, became the charter myth for the Christian cult meal and the liturgy of the eucharist which developed from it. The diVerence is that while we discern the relation of myth to ritual in certain forms of early Christianity from the literary sources (i.e., the gospels, their antecedents, and the Pauline epistles),15 for Mithraism we discern it from the iconography, notably from those representations of the banquet which elide the celestial and mythic event into the terrestrial and actual. This they do by intimating in one way or another that the participants and attendants are not only deities (Mithras, Sol, Cautes, Cautopates) but also initiates of various grades in the hierarchy. The banquet transpires at both levels or in both worlds simultaneously: it is the heavenly feast of Sol and Mithras, but it is also the feast of their earthly surrogates, the Father and the Sun-Runner, with Mithraic Lions and Ravens in attendance.16 From the iconography, then, we may reasonably deduce that the Mithraic cult feast was not simply a meal shared and enjoyed by the initiates—though it was certainly that too and never less than that17—but also a sacrament, if by ‘sacrament’ we may understand a ceremony whose participants understand it to reach, through symbols, into a world beyond that in which it was performed.

"Starting, then, from the iconography, one can establish Wrst the link between two crucial events in the Mithras myth, the bull-killing and the banquet, and then the link, which is a charter relationship, between the events of myth and Mithraism’s normative ritual.18 These are huge pieces of the mysteries...."

Beck compares the Eucharist and the Banquet. They are are analogues. My edit states that. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

.... Roger Pearse (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"the story of the banquet of Mithras and Sol is the charter myth of the initiates’ cult meal. In an analogous fashion,..." Beck says the Banquet and the Eucharist are both charter myths and thus comparable. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have misread Beck's argument. We have to read the context. The point you think he is making is not one he is discussing. Roger Pearse (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I perfectly well understand his argument. The fact is that Beck compares the Eucharist and the Banquet, as you said, to demonstrate that one can understand the myth and ritual of the cult from deciphering the iconography, in the same way Christian myth and ritual are understood through literary sources. I never claimed Beck is saying that "banquet=eucharist", rather he draws parallels between the two. My edit just states that the myth became the ritual in the case of Mithraism, which is parallel to the case of Christianity. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I greatly fear that both these edits are simply quote-mining of Beck's book.

Feel free to improve the sections, if you wish. It would be a bit more productive than removing everything, don't you think? 80.221.43.22 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the only thing to do with such material is to remove it. After one corrects all the mistakes, there is nothing there. Roger Pearse (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we remember clearly what this article is about? It is NOT about "reasons why Christianity is shit". It is about Mithras. Stuff about Christianity is basically extraneous here. There is no connection between the two, except via unscholarly or obsolete views of Mithras, or anti-Christian propaganda. Neither is useful here.

I never stated that Christianity "is shit" or anything hostile or negative about any faith. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question as to why people edit wikipedia to say "Jesus=Mithras"!

I never said "Jesus=Mithras" nor did I write anything even remotely suggesting that. You are imagining things. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If so, of course I apologise. But ... what else is the point of your edits here, then? What do they tell us about Mithras? What are you trying to say? Roger Pearse (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Clauss states that the banquet offers the clearest parallel with Christianity. The article doesn't mention this parallel at all. I thought it would be a good idea to include something about the issue. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And ... mr. Anonymous ... why are all your edits about Christianity? Roger Pearse (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very wrong. I have written extensive sections of this article. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the history show this? Roger Pearse (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The banquet, Leontocephaline, the all of the tables, many images, large parts of the Ritual imitations and Tauroctony sections and Mithras and Helios/Sol are done by me. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the history doesn't say so. That is the penalty you pay for chosing to be anonymous. If you want to claim your edits, you need to register an account. That's what I have done, and anyone can see what I am doing with this article. Not doing so makes it difficult for the rest of us to know whether you're a one-shot mindless troll, or someone making a real contribution, or somewhere betwixt and between. You don't have to use your real name, you know! Why else do you think I bang on about it? I don't care who you are, after all. But without a name to tie stuff together, I can't tell more about you than one last set of edits. I have to guess each time who I'm dealing with. And one-shot anonymous posters editing the "Mithras and Christianity" section are all dubious. Someone has to resist the flow of crap-posting of ignorant nonsense, and currently that is me (although not forever, I hope). Do YOU want to do it? Roger Pearse (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. You can read my edit history, as I have a static IP. 80.221.43.22 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(Deindenting)

Sorry about the delay in responding, but I've been and am still unwell. Lucky you to have a static IP address. I see the leontocephaline stuff. My apologies; most anonymous posters have only one thing in mind. That was useful material.

Parallels... do you really feel that we need something here? But if you do, well... let's see what we can do. What do we want to say here, roughly? That... a ritual meal in Mithras is parallel to the Christian communion? (just thinking aloud). Not sure what that means, or how it helps. Why Christian communion, rather than pagan ritual meals generally? Can we digest Clauss and Beck on this down to something that has meaning and tells us something about Mithras, and will not be understood to crudely endorse the "Jesus=Mithras" rubbish we see all over the web? Roger Pearse (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Thanks Tom for reverting the AD->CE change in accordance with WP:ERA.

The "Clauss argues" rather than "Clauss shows" is a good change. Roger Pearse (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The exhausted bull

A recent editor has removed references to the bull being 'exhausted' at the moment of sacrifice. Does Mithras wrestle the bull outside the cave, before carrying it into the cave for the actual sacrifice? That Mithras carries the bull into the cave is certain from the Mithraic hymn found at Santa Prisca, which would imply that the bull must already be exhausted or otherwise insensible. There are several representations of Mithras riding a bull, but the one that most approximates to "wrestling" the bull may be that at Neuenheim - and that it not clear. I think that the reference to the bull being 'exhausted' should be restored, but perhaps the reference to the preliminary struggle should be rewritten to remove the direct reference to 'wrestling'. But what do others think? TomHennell (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit was done by me. The entry is conjecture. We don't know if the bull is dead, exhausted, drugged, knocked insensible or simply overpowered. (Overpowered is the best guess.) Please note that in ancient Roman ritual an actual bull was drugged, bludgeoned and then bled. This means a slicing action and not an impaling action of a blade. - Eric Pijeau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.166.155 (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and I hope you think that the wording is now better. I am not sure how far you are correct in saying "We don't know if the bull is dead, exhausted, drugged, knocked insensible or simply overpowered.". The bull certainly isn't dead when dragged into the cave - the flow of blood shows that, as does the commonly twitching tail. But it is far from lively, and nor does it appear to be struggling. If Mithras had bludgeoned the bull, we would expect him to be depicted with a club, equally if the bull were drugged. Clauss/Gordon uses the term 'exhausted' and that seems a good enough basis for the article. Your observations on the practice of Roman bull-sacrifice are interesting, but perhaps not relevant as Roman Mithraists do not appear to have sacrificed actual bulls (or at least we have no archeological evidence for such a practice in or around excavated mithraea). The most distinctive aspect of Mithas worship was that it was exclusinve to intiates; there was a complete absence of any 'public' ceremonial or 'open' festivity. Which pretty much precluds sacrifice of an entire bull, as there would simply not be enough mouths to counsume the resulting meat. TomHennell (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being so 'testy'; my intention is not to engage in hair-splitting. But in my research I have found a great deal of speculation, interpretation and conjecture by 'experts.' And yet when those outside the discipline do so they are called to order. The only primary text that describes Mithras' actions, to the best of my knowledge, refers to Mithras 'turning the horns of the bull.' Clearly this is not what is being done in the image. I very carefully read page 79 of my copy of Clauss/Gordon and found no reference to the word "exhausted." Perhaps we have different editions. I did however find the following: "At Rome there is a statue which we may take as typical of free-standing images: it conveys the impression that the bull has been overcome not so much by sheer strength as by a kind of psychic superiority." I presented the point about how a real sacrifice was done simply to underline that the tauroctony was not, I think, meant as a realistic portrayal of an actual sacrifice. I believe it is an emblematic representation of a geocentric cosmology. - Eric Pijeau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.166.155 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - it's page 77. TomHennell (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mithraic iconography

I see the section of iconography has been moved to the comparitive mythology article. I don't think this is helpful, but I won't move it back until after the rationale has been explained. TomHennell (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Accident, didn't mean to include that chunk. Thanks for moving it back. NJMauthor (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mithra, Mitra, iranian source not seleucid or hellenic

Mithra is the same as the common persian female name "mitra", has eastern scythian roots , was a pre-hellenic/greek god or goddess and absolutely has no greek or hellenic roots.

Mithra might also be related to 'mehr'.

92.42.52.23 (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp

Removed material

I happened to see the following change:

After the death of Julian, however, a series of angry mobs and legal changes began to drive the religion out of Italy. These culminated in AD 377 with the consul Gracchus decreeing that the followers of Mithras be banned from Rome.<reff>Franz Cumont, Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux Mystères de Mithra (Bruxelles: 1896), vol. 1, p. 172; cf. Franz Cumont, Les myst&egraveres de Mithra (Bruxelles, 1913), pp. 215-17</reff> By the time of the accession of Theodosius (AD 394), the religion had been driven from Italy and most Christian (and Roman) provinces, and there is

There are several problems with this. First, the author imagines that there was a "religion" of Mithras. This is anachronistic, as the article indicates elsewhere.

Secondly the references given do not seem to reflect the claims made (and the sources are not quoted). I have examples vol. 1 of Cumont (1899), and p.172 does not contain this. There is no reference anywhere to some supposed edict of a "consul Gracchus", not least because Gracchus was urban prefect (see p.347), and issued no edict: he merely demolished a Mithraeum. The latter information we gain from Jerome, as Cumont informs us; the rest is not referenced and relies on Cumont's speculation. Vol. 1. is on Archive.org. Here is what he says.

Bientôt une série de constitutions impériales frappèrent directement la secte reprouvée. Dans les provinces, les soulèvements populaires devancèrent souvent l'action des magistrats '. La foule saccageait les temples et les livrait aux flammes avec la complicité des autorités. Les ruines des mithréums attestent la violence de cette fureur dévastatrice Il. A Rome même, en 377, le préfet Gracchus, désirant obtenir le baptême,' donna des gages de la sincérité de sa conversion en 1( renversant, brisant, bouleversant" une crypte' avec toutes les statues qu'elle contenait s. Souvent, pour soustraire au pillage leurs grottes restées inaccessibles, les prêtres en murèrent l'entrée", ou bien ils mirent à l'abri dans des cachettes sû.res leurs images sacréesB, convaincus que l'orage qui avait fondu sur eux était passager, et qu'après les jours d'épreuves leur dieu ferait luire pour eux celui du triomphe final.

It is of course possible to read the evidence of the rolling collapse of paganism -- not of "Mithraism", which certain was the victim of a series of edicts. But none of this is specific to Mithras, and so is irrelevant. (I have generally found it best to quote the authorities, not merely claim that they support some claim, precisely because online references are often unreliable; if anyone really wants to retain some of the above, they would do well to quote what their authorities say word for word.)

Finally these references are all very elderly, and yet not ancient. If Cumont made these claims, we could only say "Cumont said that...". We can quote ancient sources, of course. Also the key assertions above are unreferenced. So I think we must revert this paragraph. I hope that is alright by everyone. Roger Pearse (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

One afterthought. There is an argument that sources relating to the destruction of Mithraea should be listed, and the action of Gracchus among them, with the proper reference to Jerome (and a quotation). I always saw the "end of the cult" section as being the very end, not the decline. The article could use more work here. But only so long as it is *quality* work! Roger Pearse (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Mithra

Is Mithras the same person as the Persian man Mithra? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.100.173 (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

read the article; but the consensus of current scholarship is that the originators of Mithraism took from Mithra the name, and certain iconographic features (Phrygian cap, Persian handshake greeting), but that the key charactersitic actions of Mithras (bull slaying, water miracle, being born from rock) had no basis in Persian religiouis traditions, TomHennell (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mitra is the name of the Hindu sun god, the Roman Mithra is related to the sun-god Hellos, is that a mere coincidence? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Most probably, yes it is; Persian Mithra was not a sun god, but rather the god of the dawn light. Mithras, confusingly, both is a sun god, and also goes about with Helios - also a sun god. UIt is esy to point to similarities, but any sort of robust theory also needs to give an explanation for the differences. TomHennell (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bogus reference

The following passage is given in the article: "Consequently it has been argued that most Mithraic rituals involved a re-enactment by the initiates of episodes in the Mithras narrative [77], a narrative whose main elements were; birth from the rock, striking water from stone with an arrow shot, the killiing of the bull..."

Reference 77 is about 40 pages of Clauss, which is way too vague, and consists of "the sacred narrative". Does anyone know whether there is a more precise reference for this claim? Roger Pearse (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find a much better reference in chapter 9, "Rituel" page 102-103, in "The Roman Cult of Mithras" by Manfred Clauss, translated by Richard Gordon (New York, 2000).

There is a good description of what the initiated might went through, before being fully accepted into the cult. (KT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.0.154 (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Commentary by Eric Pijeau

I wanted to present a commentary regarding the Mithras entry in Wikipedia.org site: I have noticed several changes to this article regarding Mithras after the posting of my article “An Analysis of the Tauroctony (Mithraic Bull-Slaying) and the Resultant Corollaries,” which can presently be found at www.tauroctony.com[2]. I have noticed that although I am not ‘allowed’ to post my conclusions in the Wikipedia.org article on Mithras nor post an external link to the www.tauroctony.com [3] site, my article has actually influenced both the content and the structure of the Wikipedia.org ‘Mithras’ page.
(By the way, the reasons given for not being granted permission to post my findings are that I am not a bonafide Mithras scholar – despite the fact that I have spent thousands of hours in legitimate and serious study of the tauroctony and other associated images. Also, I lack a doctorate in the field and I am not associated with any formal, higher institution of learning. By the way, this exclusion violates one of the basic rules for evaluating the merit of a logical argument. That is, an argument should not be measured based on the credentials or status of its presenter, but rather by the merit of the argument alone.)
What’s worse is that you are not consistent in your treatment of who gets in and who doesn’t. You clearly deem Ulansey as not being a “true” Mithras scholar and yet his content is there for all to see. If your application of your editorial guidelines were consistent then all of Ulansey’s ideas would be struck from this article!
I understand that you make the point that the purpose of Wikipedia.org pages is not to be a forum for academic discussion in any particular field. Rather, Wikipedia.org’s purpose is to present the existing consensus on any particular topic. I am sorry, but in the matter of Mithraic studies, this does not work very well. The main reason is that there is really no existing forum for that kind of discussion. If you doubt this then go visit the site for the online journal of Mithraic studies at www.uhu.es/ejms/ [4]. You will see that the last paper was posted in 2004. That the last update was done in 2004 and that there is no upcoming conference. (In fact, according the postings, there has never been a conference in relation to this journal.) By all reckoning, this seems to be a dead discipline. So in this blaring vacuum, your page within Wikipedia.org, has become the de facto forum for dialogue and discussion. This is why you find yourselves inundated with modifications and additions from every quarter. (Some of which you may find rather spurious.)
This is an unfortunate state of affairs and is made all more difficult by the fact that in a vacuum of any realistic and tenable solution, Mithraic studies has become a flypaper for every conceivable conspiracy theory and variant of new-age confabulation imaginable. (A reading of my paper will clearly show that my thesis is neither; rather it is a direct attempt at a sober explanation of the known facts.)
By the way, I have actively pursued feedback from these “official” scholars. I have received no reply other than a genial email from Doctor Gordon indicating that he had not read my paper in full but what he had read, he found the theory “ingenious.” (Note that I have not submitted to any peer-reviewed journals or publishers since, quite frankly this route is a non-starter. Again, I lack credentials and the requisite associations; I wouldn’t make it past the front door.) I would be more than willing, no delighted, to enter into dialogue with anyone regarding serious examination of the paper. It has been scrutinized by astronomers and in that vein finds ready acceptance. My objective is to improve and refine its contents.
But again, it is gratifying to note that, although not credited, my ideas are finding their way into your Wikipedia.org article. Examples: you remark that the banquet scene is the “second most important scene after the tauroctony.” Where did you get this idea? Certainly not from your list of the “legit” Mithras scholars. You cite Beck, but to in my review of his essays there is nothing of the kind stated there. Clauss only mentions the banquet scene as an afterthought regarding the ritual meal of the “Mithraists.” In my article I underline the fact that this image is often verso to the tauroctony and that this fact is very material. Funny how this has found its way into your Wikipedia.org article.
Another example: to best of my knowledge no analysis of Sol or Luna, in relation to the tauroctony, has ever noted that he is often depicted with his emblematic quadriga and Luna with her biga. Some sources mention chariots and little more. To find references to quadrigas and bigas, one must go further afield, say, the studies regarding the Sol Invictus of Elagabalus or Aurelian. But, you will, however, find mention of this emblematic use in my analysis. And you follow in kind, noting that Sol is often depicted with his quadriga and Luna with her biga.
So you have used the article, if not for information, then at the very least for direction, and yet I am not deemed suitable to be cited. Doesn’t seem fair to me.
- Eric Pijeau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.166.155 (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot comment on your remarks on the state of current Mithraic scholarship; though Roger Beck does seem to be publishing regularly. However, as to your final para, I think most of the edits your refer to were added originally by me. Certainly the comments on Sol and Luna and their respective rolling-stock. In all these cases, I seem to recall that my sources were amongst the papers presented at the 1971 Manchester Congress; mostly from Hinnells own paper on the bull-slaying scene, and on Deman's paper on Mithraic iconography. Your paper (which I first read today) makes a number of acute observations, but most if not all of them, have been made and published independently by others. TomHennell (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct: Beck is regularly publishing. You indicate that you only first read the paper today. That's the problem. Where can I get my points credibly vetted? You are the first and you claim that, "Your paper makes a number of acute observations, but most if not all of them, have been made and published independently by others." It would surprise me greatly to find that someone else has previously claimed in a published paper that one of the tauroctony's primary purposes is to show the faithful of the cult that the Perseid meteor shower is a manifestation of the god Mithras and to instruct the faithful on how to view the Perseid meteor shower. Where is this paper and who drew these conclusions first? If you can identify the paper then I would gladly second their claim! - Eric Pijeau.

I'm sorry, I wasn't referring specifically to the Perseid meteor shower, but rather to the general practice of seeking to identify aspects of Mithraic iconography with particular and regular astronomical observations. The paper by Lentz at the Manchester congress explores a number of issues around the possibility of mithraea being astral 'observatories'. The Perseid shower theory is certainly interesting, but (purely at first reading) I think you should consider a more rigorous cross-reference with the archeological evidence. It's not difficult to pile up observations that support similarities and consistencies; a rigorous theory ought to also to treat with apparent dissmilarities and inconsistencies. For example, how far does the astral calender implied by your theory coincide with the festal calender implied by excavated food residues? Someone who is observing the night sky in December might be eating apples, whereas an observer in June is more likely to be eating cherries, and an observer in October might be eating grapes. There does seem to be quite a lot of evidence accumulating to suggest that late June was a key date in the Mithraic calender (the Virunum album, the plethora of cherry stones). Are the Perseids consistent with that, or are they a month too late?. Moreover the depiction of Luna and Sol in the tauroctony is commonly presented (e.g by Vermaseren) as indicating a date around the Spring equinox - when the Sun and Moon are observed to rise to the same elevation in the sky. In July (in northern Europe), the Sun is a lot higher than the moon. But on the tauroctony, Sol and Luna are invariably at the same level - with Sol's quadriga going upwards, and Luna's biga going downwards.

On your general point, I can understand your frustration at finding it difficult to get your ideas into the field of academic discourse. But I must warn you that Wikipedia itself cannot be regarded as the answer. The rule "No original research" is not arbitrary, but inherent in the nature of the whole project. Articles are constantly being added to and subtracted from wihtout restriction; so it would undermine Wikipedia altogether if particular content came to be regarded as a 'fixed' record, to which reference could confidently be made in academic debate. What we would find is that editors would seek to police articles so that 'their' original contributions were protected from subsequent removal or change. Where this happens (as indeed does occur though it shouldn't), the articles rapidly become incoherent and unusable. TomHennell (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me touch on your points one by one. I do make numerous references to archeological evidence. I even make predictions and possible tests for validation. Your specific examples are interesting. To answer your question, are the Perseids consistent with that [festival in late June], or are they a month too late? Well, as stated in the paper, the Perseids are bound to the sidereal year (star time) and not the tropical year (the seasons). The precession of the equinoxes (there’s that “P” word again!) moves the date of the Perseids later in the calendar by about 20 minutes each year. (Calculation: 20 minutes x 2000 years / 60 minutes per hour / 24 hours per day) So in antiquity it was a little less than month earlier than it is now. Around the date of the Summer solstice. (In fact, in my paper, I note that in the instances where the tauroctony has Cautopates is to the left of the Mithras-bull pair and Cautes to the right, this “date” marked by the arc formed by three constellations of Scorpius, Hydra and Canis Minor is simply being reiterated. That at around sunset the part of the celestial sphere that marks the Summer solstice is setting and the Winter solstice is rising making the point of the equinox “overhead.”) So the question is, if there was a special festival at this time then what was being marked, the advent of the Perseids or the Solstice? Or were the faithful in awe of the fact that this event started at the Solstice and they connected the two to each other? In my opinion the solstice is no big secret. The event of greater import is an event that was seen as the rebirth of souls!

Your point about Sol and Luna has some strange astronomy involved! Correct me if I am wrong but the Moon’s orbit is ‘aligned’ with the ecliptic (off by about 5 degrees) and not with the Earth’s equator (celestial equator). So the observation of Sun being higher than Moon is not accurate. (The Moon does have what are called Lunar Nodes but this is driven by the lunar orbit and not the solar.) Even if this were true then their motion in their respective ‘chariots’ has to be seen within the context of the canon. Most representations of Sol and Luna do not have them portrayed with their ‘vehicles.’ What is part of the canon is their direction of motion or intended motion, and the fact that one is rising and the other is setting. Both are moving from left to right. This in my mind is a far more straightforward reading (as per Occam) than deducing that both bodies are marking a time of year with their orbital paths. If the elevation thing is true (which it isn’t) then it would be part of the canon and would be seen consistently portrayed.

I acknowledge the rule of ‘"No original research." This is why I have added nothing of my work to any of the Wikipedia.org sites. However, I do deem the work published and reviewed. (Remember, I did invite comment from the ‘experts,’ and, for that matter, any reader who wishes to do so.) – Eric Pijeau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.166.155 (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Eric, you make lots of good points, and you're clearly well-informed. But there are so many cranks out there (who would all claim the same, and with much less reason) that we have to draw a line somewhere. Limiting the content to statements by people holding teaching posts in Mithras studies seems like a natural way to control this. It does, admittedly, mean that we have to be a bit self-denying! Roger Pearse (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Legio III Gallica link to Mithraic origins

The wikipedia article Legio III Gallica is my source. Key notes include the Gallic 3rd Legion's dates of activity (49 BCE to early 4th century CE), their legion symbol (the bull), their support of Elagabalus (Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) at the Battle of Antioch 218 BCE, their description as exhausted by 219 by the new Emperor's excess (and having fought every major engagement from Julius Caeser's time onward), their disbandment by Emperor Elagabalus and their later reformation by Alexander Severus and stationing again in Syria where records fade after 323 CE.

The Elagabalus main wikipedia article describes the Syrian-Romano priest and his worship of sun god El-Gabul in town of Emesa. He was pushed forward as heir to assassinated Caracalla by Caracalla's mother and aunt. The 3rd Gallic legion was stationed there and was essentially bought to support Elagabalus' claim to the Empire.

Of extremely interesting note:

"In the year of the four emperors 69, the legion, and the rest of the Danubian army, aligned first with Otho, then with Vespasian. They were instrumental in the final defeat of Vitellius in the second Battle of Bedriacum and in the accession of the Flavians to the throne of Rome. This legion during its service in Syria had developed the custom of saluting the rising sun, and when dawn broke at Bedriacum they turned east to do so. The Vitellian forces thought that they were saluting reinforcements from the east and lost heart." quoted from the main Legio III Gallica article.

My theory is that these Romano warriors formed a warrior-brother cult focused around Sol and a patron warrior god (which may have been inspired by King Mithradates II the Great during the legions Parthian/Armenian campaigns) to ensure their legion was favored with victory and possibly in honor of the fallen. King Mithradates II reopened the Silk Road with China and so may have been venerated by the merchant population that honored Mithras. Mithradates II would be the "Persian" link.

Posted by Jason E. Coleman

206.53.76.117 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is just a summary of sources. You may want to read the reliable source and the no original research guidelines. Basically, you need a book or article from a magazine (not a wiki of any sort) as a source, and if you want your own theories here, you would have to find a published source that already presents them, or actually get them published yourself (and even then the work might not be accepted here). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Jason, there is so much written about Mithras, that we have to draw a line somewhere, whether the above is so or not. Only statements by professional Mithras scholars seems like a good line to draw. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Low quality source?

The fact that the author of the last comment quoted in this article thinks 1882 is "nearly 150 years ago" doesn't give much confidence in his precision with regard to anything else. Elroch (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But I think we can safely leave the reader to evaluate that for themselves. This is the great thing about not expressing any opinions of our own, and just giving what scholars (and widely read amateurs) say, with a footnote with a proper reference and a word-for-word quote. It's purely factual, and there's no room to agree or disagree with what the article says. What conclusions we draw from it, of course, remains as open as ever. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Leontocephaline

Someone added the following to the end of the Leontocephaline section. It is unsourced and contradicts the previous paragraph, which says scholars aren't sure who this figure represenets

It's another name for Zurvan The Persian god of infinite time and space. He decides the fate. He is traditionally represented as being without gender (neuter), passions, and neutral in regard to good and evil. Zurvan is The primordial god in Persian religion. According to some Vedai Sources, Zurvan is the father of the good God Ahura Mazda and the Evil God Ahreeman (Angra Mainyu). With children representing the two opposites, Zurvan himself is regarded as a neutral god; one for whom there is no distinction between good or evil. Zurvan is also said to be the god of destiny, light and darkness. Zuvan is Gender-less and Neutral.

thx1138 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's right to remove it, given that no reference is given to any professional Mithras scholar who holds this view (or, indeed, any reference at all). It may well be true, but I don't think it shouldn't be accepted into the article unless or until that information is forthcoming. The article is very well referenced -- let's keep it that way. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Six month clean-up

I wrote much of this article last year, and in particular added nearly all the referenced material. Today I happened by and thought that I would look at what had happened to it since my last edits in August 2010. The verdict is encouraging -- while there has been no useful new content added by anyone since then, there has been no real damage.

Naturally one edit changed some of the AD to CE. My own view on this is that the person who is making serious contributions to the article gets to decide. But otherwise it is just ideology to change it. Another had changed the summary to paste in "Mithras=Persian", evidently without reading any of the article which it contradicted. Another edit didn't understand the word "cult" (cultus, worship) and had substituted "religion", which does not useful describe the state and mystery cults of antiquity. A couple of direct quotes had been altered, probably without the editor realising they *were* direct quotes. At one or two points, some hearsay was added. Finally someone added a link to some amateur rosicrucian website. None contained any referenced content from professional Mithras scholars. These changes -- of no real significance, except to degrade the article -- I reverted.

About "reliable sources" for this article. The view I took when I worked last on the article, and the view I think we should all take, is that there is so much hearsay around that we must not take on board anything not given by a professional scholar; that we should name the scholar referenced; and that we should report what they say, not give our own views. I think we're pretty much doing that.

A small number of formatting changes were made. These are a matter of indifference, and I didn't change any of them.

The really encouraging thing is that the substance of the article remained intact over a period of 6 months. I fully expected someone to paste hearsay into the summary, but it could have been far worse. So ... good news for us all.

If anyone feels really passionately about any change I made, please put a note on my talk page and we can discuss it. I don't have the time to come by more than occasionally, but we can try to reach consensus. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read this...

PLEASE READ THIS, BEFORE MAKING CHANGES TO THIS ARTICLE.

Please make sure any material you add is one of the following:

• Referenced precisely to a statement in the ancient sources
• Referenced precisely to a monument, with publication details
• Referenced precisely to a book or article by a modern professional Mithras scholar like Roger Beck, Manfred Clauss, Boyce, Merkelbach.

If it does not fall into that category please do not add it. It may be true, it may be attractive. But there is so much hearsay rubbish going around on the web, which keeps finding its way in here. Please do not add any more. Roger Pearse (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to ask that we keep to this, guys. The article is in pretty good shape -- let's keep it that way. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please also note that Wikipedia has specific sourcing policies like WP:V, WP:RS, and also WP:NPOV, WP:OR. Please refer to them to get an understanding of what constitutes a reliable source, etc. It is undesirable that articles should revolve around a few authors only. We also have policies like WP:Bold. Please feel free to edit this article if you think there is some way of improving it. It is acceptable that one may make some mistakes. Mistakes can be fixed. That everyone should be free to edit on Wikipedia is foundational to the ethos of Wikipedia.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On the whole, you are encouraged to edit this article, as long as you think you have some way of improving it.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Norse

I have reverted a number of anonymous edits linking Mithraism with supposed similarities with Old Norse sources. I suppose it could be argued that the article does have a section on Similarities with Christianity, so why not Similarities with Enid Blyton or whoever else. But at least the Christian parallels are contemporary, these have no clear overalap in time or space - so far as I can see. TomHennell (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No overlap in time or space? Germanic mythology dates from a time before Christianity, so there is an overlap! Also Germanic peoples often worshipped Mithras when serving in the legion...not to mention that Mithraism, being Indo-European, has closer parallels with Germanic heathenism than Christianity. 86.132.6.112 (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

By the time Roman culture and Norse culture came into contact, Rome had given up Mithraism for Christianity. There is a bit more to time than "pre-Christian" and "Christian," and "pre-Christian" in one nation is "Christian" in another. Mithraism lasted til roughly 300 CE in southern Europe (Italy, Greece, Turkey), where it was most popular. Christianity was in southern Europe til about 400 CE, then a lot of Europe til 700 or so, and it shared northern Europe with Norse paganism until about 1100. Norse paganism didn't start going south until 700 or so. While Mithraism and Norse paganism were both around before Christianity, they were not in the same areas (Norway and Greece were really distant to the ancient world). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed so; but a more specific point perhaps is that we can generally tell what other gods Mithriasts venerated from stautes and images in the Mithreaum. Mithras (unlike Christ) didn't demand or expect exclusivity. If Odin, Freya, and Thor really were current gods of choice in, say, Rhineland Roman settlements, we would expect to find their votive statues in Mithraea, and indeed neighbour temples and shrines. TomHennell (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)