The implicit part of the sentence was "why would I" "take Ulansey for granted"?Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:56 amAs a possible answer to your question. If Ulansey is correct and the Mithraists applied the phenomenon of precession to their cosmology (Mithras slaying Gavaevodata at the beginning of time; Mithras turning the wheel of the cosmos, etc), than Mithraism becomes an implicit reference to the assigning of the signs of the zodiac to "ages" or periods of creation and destruction.
Is it evidence, or is it assumption? Evidence that relies on an assumption is worth no more than the assumption.
And the assumption isn't evidence of anything.