Talk:Mithraism

Denial of Persian sources

I have removed the section regarding the notion that Roman Mithricism was an Persian-independent product. Of course scholars may agree that the Roman beliefs were distinct, but it's plainly evident that they predominately sourced from Zoroastrian beliefs. For god sake, the Romans even admitted that their beliefs were based off of Zoroastrianism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.88.228 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Many people have differing opinions on topics, especially topics such as this. That is why editors on Wikipedia are not allowed to engage in original research; adding unverifiable content or removing supported content is problematic.
The section of text you tried removing was supported by citations. That is why HLwiKi and Paul August both reverted your edits. If there is reason to challenge the source or its applicability, then you may discuss it here, but you cannot simply remove article content because you disagree with it.  —Sowlos  08:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC) ‎

This is a continuing issue in this article, and it seems to me to arise from editors over-reading "dissimilarities" and "distinct product" as if it says "has no relation whatever". "Admitted" is also the wrong word above: the assumption seems to be that claims of originality or invention were as important to the Romans as they are to modern nationalists. But in fact writers such as Arrian note that the Roman capacity for empire-building was based in part on their ability to absorb and build on what others invented. Moreover, the Romans valued the authority that came from tradition (per their obsession with the concept of mos maiorum), and felt that the older the tradition the better. So the Roman Mithraists advertised Persian origin because within Roman culture such claims granted their mysteries the authority of great antiquity (Zoroaster was considered one of the most ancient sages in Greco-Roman sources, and some considered him the most ancient of all).

Modern scholars, however, are skeptical of whether Mithraic rites practiced in some rocky cavern in the Ardèche were handed down in unbroken litany from the mouth of Zoroaster. In my personal opinion, they are overly skeptical regarding possible influence of communities from Asia Minor that developed in Rome in the latter 1st century BC as the result of the military adventurism of Lucullus, Pompey et al. (just as Carthaginian neighborhoods had earlier introduced religious elements). But the scholarly reasoning is exactly backwards from what you assume, 142.196.88.228: scholars think that the Roman Mithraists exaggerated the extent to which they inherited their rites from an authentic and pristine Persian source, not that they grudgingly admitted it. Distinct product of the Roman Imperial world casts a wide net: for comparison, there are rites of Isis at Rome that are a "distinct product of the Roman Imperial world" in that they amalgamate Greek interpretations of Isis with Imperial cult. It would be a mistake to regard these rites as direct reflections of authentic Egyptian religion handed down untainted over the ages; they are products of their particular time and its religious syncretism. See also the Serapia festival: the cultus pertaining to Serapis drew its authority from its Egyptian origin, and yet Serapis was a distinct expression of the wider Greco-Roman world. This is the religious context in which the Mithraic mysteries develop at Rome. At any rate, Sowlos is right: you can't just delete properly sourced material. But you can present other views if you can cite sources that meet the standards for RS for this topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you covered all the angles and worded it well. Perhaps this could be better incorporated into the article for the layman readers' understanding?  —Sowlos  19:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"the Roman Mithraists advertised Persian origin because within roman culture such claims granted their mysteries the authority of great antiquity"

The commonalities between roman Mythriasm and the Persian are undeniable. There is little relevance of the obscure source which you've mentioned here, who seems to have conjured an ad-hoc explanation to satisfy his centricity - and such is the likely explanation as to why 'Western' Scholars tend to underrate the influence of the Persians on Roman Mythriasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.88.228 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

1. What Cynwolfe mentioned is extremely relevant. To understand someone's meaning, you must understand what they are saying and why they are saying it.
2. Calling the commonalities between roman Mythriasm and the Persian ... undeniable does not support any claim of ancestry. Similar does not mean decended from. To treat similarities as the justification for such claims is original research. We can only use statements from reputable reliable sources as justification for any claims made on Wikipedia.
3. I'm sorry if you think 'Western' Scholars tend to underrate the influence of the Persians on Roman Mythriasm, but — as I already mentioned — we depend on academic sources for what goes into Wikipedia. If you disagree with modern scholarship on the matter, Wikipedia is not the place for you to have this debate. Discussions at Wikipedia do not influence academic research.  —Sowlos  11:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I sorta feel as if the IP misunderstood both me and the article in the first place. The article seems to me to say that the Roman Mithras was a reconceptualization of the Persian deity, and thus the connections are indeed "undeniable". But since the individual cults of Mithras themselves differed from each other in matters of liturgy and such, it's implausible to imagine that they directly preserve authentic Persian rites in an original form. Again, compare the ceremonies of Isis in the Roman Imperial world: an Egyptologist would be able to show how these were a distinct product of that world, and not an unadulterated replica of Isis worship in Egypt a thousand years prior to the Greco-Roman era.

What Cynwolfe and yourself mentioned, reflects the notorious aversion of historical facts. Wikipedia should not be about the making of history to suit our tastes (and with that I mean, not arbitrarily selecting sources that support personal opinions, no matter how fantastic). That is rather, self-delusion at it's finest. Of course, there is a lot of quackery that supports that Roman Mitriasm and Zorostarinism have nothing to do with each other. But all reality would suggest other wise. If you are stuck owing the entirety of your history, to ancient proto-Persians, then that is really your problem - don't take it out on the truth 167.1.146.100 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Or look at the varieties of Christian worship: how much resemblance would a neutral observer find between the services at a small Appalachian evangelical church on Sunday morning, and Christmas Eve mass conducted by the Pope? Other than invoking the name of Jesus Christ, the two ceremonies have so little in common that we might not identify them as the same religion. One is conducted in English, the other in Latin. The Appalachian minister may or may not wear a collar, but his dress would in no way resemble the robes of the cardinals. The physical houses of worship are vastly incommensurate. It's only because the history of Christianity is well documented that we can understand the connection. The history of the Mithraic mysteries is not well documented. Responsible scholars only make assertions based on evidence. They can assert that the Roman Mithraists believed they were heirs to the Persian tradition, and they can use comparative methodologies, but the origin of Mithraic mysteries among the Romans is simply not documented. There are no records of transmission. Our lack of knowledge is just an unfortunate fact.

If the IP would like to continue the discussion, (s)he should point out misleading sentences in the article and suggest an alternate wording. (I've found sentences in Mithraic articles that vastly overstate the more nuanced positions of the sources.) What sentences "deny" that the Mithraists said they based their religion on Persian traditions? How can we make more accurate statements? We need comments specific enough to be actionable. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

the OP and others seem to be unaware that the "Zoroaster" in modern perception is not the same as the "Zoroaster" in Greek/Roman/Hellenistic perception. The latter was a Hellenistic pseudepigraphic construct, a neo-pythagorean/neo-platonic product of their own creative fantasy (but of course, "real" for the Romans etc, perception does not imply reality). Cumont didn't cotton on to this difference either. But it would not fair to assume that Cumont should have known better, even though he was an authority on "Zoroaster-ian" pseudepigrapha. Cumont couldn't know the difference either because, like the Romans, he didn't have anyone he could ask. After all, in 1899, scholarship on Iranian subjects had not properly begun yet.

@Cyanwolfe: Borrowing of a few words via a neo-platonic fantasy tale does not constitute evidence of a "relationship", leave alone of continuity. Or to put it another way: if someone were to found a "Klingon religion", would that make the believers of the religion Klingons?

When magicians chant "abra cadabra", they are following the centuries-old practice of speaking Pseudo-Latin to play on the medieval beliefs that sacred language has magic potency. Many religions employ sacred words into their litanies to make them more solemn, more mystical, more magical. The "Persians" certainly did it (using Avestan, their sacred language, and which is where the name "Mithra" actually comes from), and evidently at some point a few words got picked up by the Romans too. We don't know where or when or how, but there is hard evidence that it happened. But that's the only evidence we have, and the few "abra cadabra"s and the like are by no means any meaningful evidence of similarity. And even if there was any similarity, there would also need to be evidence that the similarity was transmitted as part of a coherent theology or practice, and not just mimicked in isolation. (A parrot that mimics a songbird would sound like a songbird, but also needs to look and behave like a songbird to be considered a songbird). Proof is the rock of science, everything else is speculation.

In the paragraphs above, I've downplayed borrowing to properly distinguish it from evolution or continuity. There may well have been more borrowing than the evidence of four/five words indicates. Its possible. But hard evidence is all that scholars may legitimately go on. Everything else would be speculation. Speculative hypotheses like Cumont's are permissable to a degree, but they must eventually be substantiated by cold hard evidence. And that's where Cumont fails (very badly too, since his arguments are cyclical). Ok, in the 19th century scholarship was pretty sloppy, so he could be forgiven for that. But we live in the 21st century now, where peer-review and evidence are not forgiving. This is good science. Cumont's hypothesis is bad science.

One of the problems with this article is that the "origin" issue is given too *much* space (and, because it was all copy-pasted together, pretty bad space at that). The only valid answer to any "origin" question is "unknown, due to lack of evidence." There is nothing more to it. It is also utterly irrelevant to any understanding of the Roman cult. Including Mithraic perserie (which is a legitimate sub-topic that needs to be dealt with coherently, and not whilly-nilly zig-zagging as presently in the article). -- 95.116.186.1 (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Cumont is someone later scholars often disagree with, but can't ignore. You've raised the topic of possible role of pseudo-Zoroastrian writings in the origin of the Mithraic mysteries. Perhaps the article could say more about this. But you've also complained that the article already gives too much space to the origin issue. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• The "lets add it" attitude expressed in the comment immediately above this one (and elswhere on this page) is childish and silly. The encouragement of he-said-this, she-said-that encourages violations of WP policy (WP:VALID).

Moreover: The editors here [Cynwolfe excepted] simply do not have the wherewithal to evaluate sources correctly. The low education level of the editors here [Cynwolfe excepted] warrants the use of only secondary sources (summaries of what others have written), and the strict avoidance of primary sources (in which a writer expresses his own ideas).

As it so happens, the various "origin" issues have all been well summarized before. A detailed/extensive review has been made by Beck (ANRW II.17.4, 1984). More tersely, Gordon, who has summarized the "origin" issues several times: "Franz Cumont and the Doctrines ..." (1975) reviews the "continuity" approach of Cumont and others, and also reminds readers of the only thing that is important (the evidence); then "Who worshipped Mithras?" (JRA 7, 1994) in which Gordon reviews the "reinvention" approach of Nock, Nilsson, Merkelbach, Clauss, and again cautions readers to not lose sight of the evidence. Then Gordon in Rüpke (2006, 2011), a text for university students, in which Gordon summarizes the lack of evidence for both the "continuity" approach and the "reinvention" approach in a few sentences each. (one of the two passages is quoted verbatim at the top of this talk page).

• Dismissing the comments of the OP with "we only use reliable sources" is absurd. The reliable sources -- including several cited by this article -- address the Roman perceptions very well. The problem is that the article's asinine he-said-this, she-said-that (encouraged by "lets add it" attitude) does not even come close to presenting the reliable sources accurately or coherently. The (unintentional) cherry picking that litters this article (due to the very obvious dependency on searching google books) makes it clear that the editors are not even familiar with the reliable sources -- including sources that the editors themselves "cite".

That the Roman perceptions of "Persian religion"/Zoroaster are not the same as the real McCoy is not rocket science. Nor is there anything exceptional about ancients having a different "reality" than others do/did. Nor is any of this new: Bidez & Cumont, Nock, Merkelbach, Gordon, Beck,... have all addressed it. Sources cited by this article refer to it as well (e.g. Beck/EIr). Also: In the form of colportage, the perceptions are the basic premise of all reinvention theories.

The difference in perception is *basic* background knowledge that editors writing about the Mithraic mysteries ought to have. That perceptions are not the same at all times and places should be plain as day for anyone dealing with history.

That the OP didn't have that background knowledge is one thing. That the respondents don't have it is ridiculous. Not knowing your own sources is pathetic.

-- 77.183.182.130 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The "insulter" editor and the article are corrupted by western centrism and the original editor is right. A systematic denial of non-greek sources for greco-roman culture occurs and is more than evident here. The "modern" invention that greeks only worshipped a "pseudo" Zoroaster "invented by themselves and completely different from the iranian one" is an obvious relic of modern western eurocentrism. Of course the ancients "deceived" themselves with the legitimacy of persian philosophy, while actually they were geniouses and completely original! Such unparallelled culture invented absolutely everything, even things we think come from other cultures are no more than original and 100% greek! (TM) --181.30.109.170 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Christianity and Mithraism again

This discussion was over two years old. If you have something new to say (based on professionally-published mainstream academic sources), start a new section.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have tried to make reasonable edits in agreement with the majority of Mithraic scholars, however, these are constantly reverted by Apologetic editors. Please do not revert sensible edits, which are well referenced. If you wish to include a point, it has to be broadly, even if not unanimously, supported. Your inclusion of an arcane reference from Apologetics of the time, which implies that Christianity influenced Mithriasm, without allowing for the inclusion of the opposing view, is more likely giving the reader a misleading, if not backwards, impression of what is factually the case. While there are only a few sources that support the view that Christianity influenced Mitrhaism, there are dozens which suggest the opposite. 2601:882:100:EF90:71ED:61CE:DAA3:8613 (talk) See the section further down (new stuff goes at the bottom). You cited sources that were not by historians at all, but apologeticists. You don't seem to understand what "apologetics" means. Mainstream historians are not apologeticists. Fly-fisher experts who decide to write a book about their beliefs on religion are apologeticists. You actually cited the latter, not the former. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Justin Martyr, was clearly an apologetic of the time. Your giving the impression that his view is somehow valid, when in fact it is Apologetic defense against what is a very reasonable view that Christianity was based on Mithraism. Why are including references to a few mainstream historians, and rejecting references to the plethora of Mainstream historians, which hold an opposing view (that Christanity was clearly influenced by Mithraism)? That can only suggest that the editors have a religious bias towards Christanity, defending against the inclusion of any sources which have opinions that are unfavorable to them, and no matter how reasonable. 73.21.249.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC) The article doesn't actually cite him, though, it cites mainstream historians who discuss his views. Your argument that one religion is based on the other (rather than being independent of each other or drawn from related earlier sources) is not supported by mainstream academia, or else you'd have no trouble finding academic sources instead of fundamentalist pablum that's just the New Atheist equivalent to Justin Martyr. It is your responsibility to back up any claims you make with reliable sources. Your accusation regarding other editors almost fails our policy on assuming good faith from other editors, and is honestly rather ridiculous if you actually knew anyone involved. The discussion section below (titled "‎Regarding the edit warring by the IP editor") discusses the problems with your sources in detail. And don't go mucking up the page again. There was seriously no point to that edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC) There is no trouble finding academic sources to support my view, a very widely supported one. These references were included somewhere along the line of edits to this article. And all of these were removed to support irrationally persistent view that Christianity had no influence from Mithriasm. (as one author said, denying such is 'pointless'). At present, your view is not consistent with the mainstream scholarly view. Despite your protestations, the article needs major work. 2601:882:100:EF90:CD5E:F0D:D5C4:D6F0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC) You don't seem to be getting it: your sources were absolute garbage. They were worthless. Terrible. They sucked. They were no more academic that some half-literate hillbilly preacher's "inspired" misunderstanding of the Bible. You cited a book buy a fly-fishing expert. If it wasn't for the fact that Pfeiffer's book touches on Mithraism, the fact that you cited an authority on fly-fishing in this article would have been treated as vandalism. The reasons why your sources are worthless have been explained in detail below, and you have completely failed to address any of those issues problems in any way. If anything, you seem to be the one who is hell bent on shaping the article toward a particular view instead of toward reliable sources. You say that your view is supported by academic sources: present them. Put up or shut up, it's that simple. This is not a discussion board for you to go "nuh-uh!" over and over until everyone gets tired of you. Either present mainstream academic sources (not fundamentalilst pablum) or quit. And don't bother trying to present your own arguments, either, we don't use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC) I just happened on this article while doing some cursory research on Mithras. After reading the article and the talk here, I find the complete lack of any mention of Paul of Tarsus' brand of Christianity wholly alarming. Yes, it is controversial that Paul lifted his version of "Jesus" from Mithraism while living in "Arabia" and that Paul's hometown of Tarsus was but a stone's throw from Antioch, the main center of Mithraic worship in the first century. This is NOT original research by any stretch of the imagination. It has been speculated on by both apologists, theologians and historians for centuries. This entire article is highly BIASED, unreasonable in its deliberate omissions; furthermore the excuses of this or that published author being an "apologist" vs. "historian" is beyond weak if the facts presented are corroborated with other sources. The gatekeepers of this article should be reprimanded by Wikipedia for blatant censorship while misusing Wikipedia's guidelines as their excuse for their bias. I'm reporting this article. Beau.Beauchamp (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

ERA

- I reverted the change from BCE to BC for the following reasons:

• WP:ERA states, “Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change.” Consensus was not sought.
• The change to BC has been made and reverted to BCE at least 6 times: in May, 2018; three times in December, 2017; in November, 2017; and October, 2017; indicating a strong preference for BCE/CE.
• The archived Talk discussion referenced in the edit does not justify the change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mithraism/Archive_5#BCE_or_BC).
• There are no direct quotes using BC/BCE within the article.
• There are direct quotes using BC/BCE in References; however, the direct quotes cannot be used as guidelines as there is no consistency in the sources. I was only able to verify two sources: Turcan (note 22) uses BC, while Beck (notes 119 & 169) uses BCE – so there are conflicts in the Referenced quotes. It is not clear if BC or BCE is used in the other sources due to changes and reversions. The other unverified uses of BC/BCE in direct quotes in References are Hopfe (note 4); Vermaseren (note 105); Barnett (notes 109 & 110); Legge (note 210 – in title of work, not on page cited).
• As the worshipers of Mithras were not Christian it makes more sense to use a secular dating system, in accordance with Neutral Point of View. – cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Re the WP:ERA requirement that consensus should be sought: It's not me who changed from the established era style. The original was BC/AD, somebody else changed it without seeking a new consensus, and (as I said in my edit summary) I was restoring. Re the number of times that there have been reversions: I do not understand how that shows a preference, since the number of edits and the number of reversions must have been the same. Re the archived talk discussion: The justification for the restoration, as stated in the discussion, was "it is apparent that other editors, who have contributed a lot to the article in the past, prefer BC-AD. So I think that perhaps we should stay with that", with reference to WP:ERA, and the resulting consensus was for the established era style, i.e. BC/AD. Re direct quotes: Whoever made the changes from BC/AD to BCE/CE caused errors. Example #1: the book title "Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, Being Studies in Religious History from 330 B.C. to A.D. 330" was changed to "Forerunners and rivals of Christianity: being studies in religious history from 330 BCE–330 AD". Example #2: The direct quote of Robert Turcan's words "We find him invoked with Varuna in an agreement concluded c. 1380 BC ..." was changed to "We find him invoked with Varuna in an agreement concluded c. 1380 BCE". Re Christianity: The Wikipedia archives have long discussions about whether the guideline is proper, and the place for such discussions is the talk page of the Wikipedia guideline that includes WP:ERA. Epinoia was wrong to re-insert, according to that guideline. Anyone else have an opinion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan is correct that we should not change era styles that are in titles of works cited or in direct quotes. As for which system to use elsewhere, we can start a discussion on the subject. I personally prefer BC/AD dates, but I do not feel strongly enough on the subject to be willing to embroil myself in a huge argument over it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ERA states, "Exception: do not change direct quotations, titles, etc", which means it is ok to have exceptions to the main article style in direct quotations, thus, the era style of direct quotes does not determine the article style - Peter Gulutzan points out that Turcan was changed from BC/AD, but he neglects to include that his edit changed direct quotes by Beck from BCE/CE to BC/AD - all the references need to be restored to their original source style - and for clarification, "the number of edits and the number of reversions must have been the same" - the majority of edits to BC/AD were from anonymous IP accounts, while the reversions to BCE/CE were made by established editors, showing a clear preference for BCE/CE among established editors - also, "Epinoia was wrong to re-insert" - it's not about being right or wrong, but what is most appropriate for the article - this article is best served by following the scholarly convention of BCE/CE, rather than the traditional style of BC/AD, as the reconstruction of Mithraism has been the result of scholarship, not traditional knowledge - Epinoia (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Roger Pearse, who inserted the material in note 119, quoted Beck as using "BC" and "AD". Are you saying that he misquoted and Beck (bizarrely) wrote "BCE" and "AD", which is what you re-inserted? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Orion sun god?

I noticed this sentence in the other religions section:

Michael Speidel, who specializes in military history, associates Mithras with the Sun god Orion.

But Orion is not a sun god is he? Does anyone have access to the source that can clarify what this means? Is it a misinterpretation of the text, is the author mistaken, or am I wrong? Ashmoo (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Orion isn't normally regarded as a sun god; any solar characteristics in Speidel's proposed linking of Mithras with Orion would have come from Mithras's side of the equation. I note that this wording seems to have been added in this edit by an IP editor who was pretty certainly a problem editor I've encountered before.

The reason for Speidel's suggestion is that other figures in the bull-slaying scene are widely agreed to represent constellations that are near the celestial equator, but if Mithras himself is a constellation, it's not clear which one. Speidel argued that Orion was the best candidate. All of that needs to be better explained in the article—it needs a major reorganization for clarity, as was pointed out by the IP editor 77.183.182.130 in the section at the top of this talk page. A. Parrot (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Raised by Wolves

Is it worth mentioning (and are there any interesting/useful sources) that this is the religion in the HBO sci-fi series Raised by Wolves? I honestly didn't even know this was a real historical religion and had thought it was made up for that show. Wclark (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like there may be some good sources that have written about this.. this article on den of geek Wclark (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)