Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

beowulf wrote:“The most complex case, however, is that of Mithras. In the midst of the second century AD two philosophers Numenius and Cronius, drawing upon earlier treatises of the cult, discussed Mithraism in the context of their own (Platonic and Pythagorean) philosophical views. These discussions have not survived; but they were used by the later philosopher Porphyry and are known to us through him.

Religions of Rome: Volume 1, A History.
Mary Beard , John North , Simon Price
Paperback: 476 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press; New Ed edition (9 July 1998)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0521316820
ISBN-13: 978-0521316828

Pages 277-80

What was Mithraism? Part 2 (continued)

“The Persian ‘origins’ of Mithras cannot, however, be take at face value: the picture is much more complicated than a simple diffusion of the cult from a Persian homeland to Rome .Mithras was an ancient Persian deity known to the Greeks from at least the fifth century BC; and this cult may indeed have become better known in Asia Minor from the first centuries BC and AD through the Persian settlements there. However, the form of the cult most familiar to us, the initiatory cult, does not seem to derive from Persia at all. ...”

bcedaifu wrote: I do not view your submissions in the same light, and I wish that I could persuade you, Roger, to adopt a slightly more flexible tone, regarding both Robert Tulip and Acharya S. They are both decent, honest folk, in my view, (as are you, Roger, in my opinion).

I acknowledge that I may be in error about Mithraism based on Mithra versus Mithras. I write not as savant, but as one impressed by the (meagre) evidence excavated in Syria and Turkey, at former Roman Garrison sites, and I draw from the photos I have seen of those sites of excavation, that the Roman army brought back to Rome, with them, the "worship" of Mithras, and as with most religious traditions, their summary was muddled, compared with the orthodox presentation.

Changes happen over time, and some of the traditions and customs of the Roman Army's practice of Mithraism may well be QUITE different from those of the orthodox practice and belief as Zoroastrianism evolved in India, Afghanistan, and Persia. But the question is, WHERE did the Roman Army come up with this crazy idea about Bulls and so on....

... I interpret Roman Mithraism as being a different variant of Zoroastrianism....

beowulf wrote:What was Mithraism? Part 3 continued.

The Christian cult is so similar to the cult of Mithras that the question of who was first and who was second is very important to some; did the Christians imitate Mithras? Was Mithraism imitating the Christians?

outhouse wrote:I just caught two of her followers in a blatant case of intellectual dishonesty regarding the 12 tribes.

(2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: "hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus" ("we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us"). It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochtonos (lambochtonos) and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence.
(3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well-known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty.

Roger Pearse wrote:

beowulf wrote:“The most complex case, however, is that of Mithras. In the midst of the second century AD two philosophers Numenius and Cronius, drawing upon earlier treatises of the cult, discussed Mithraism in the context of their own (Platonic and Pythagorean) philosophical views. These discussions have not survived; but they were used by the later philosopher Porphyry and are known to us through him.

Is there any reference to a specific primary source (presumably in Porphyry) linking Numenius and Cronius to Mithras? It all sounds rather dubious to me.

...Caves, therefore, in the most remote periods of antiquity were consecrated to the Gods, before temples were erected to them. Hence, the Curetes in Crete dedicated a cavern to Jupiter; in Arcadia, a cave was sacred to the Moon, and to Lycean Pan; and in Naxus, to Bacchus. But wherever Mithra was known, they propitiated the God in a cavern. With respect, however, to the Ithacensian cave, Homer was not satisfied with saying that it had two gates, but adds that one of the gates was turned towards the north, but the other which was more divine, to the south. He also says that the northern gate was pervious to descent, but does not indicate whether this was also the case with the southern gate. For of this, he only says, "It is inaccessible to men, but it is the path of the immortals."

10. It remains, therefore, to investigate what is indicated by this narration; whether the poet describes a cavern which was in reality consecrated by others, or whether it is an enigma of his own invention. Since, however, a cavern is an image and symbol of the world, as Numenius and his familiar Cronius assert, there are two extremities in the heavens, viz., the winter tropic, than which nothing is more southern, and the summer tropic, than which nothing is more northern...

For, as Eubulus says, Zoroaster was the first who consecrated in the neighbouring mountains of Persia, a spontaneously produced cave, florid, and having fountains, in honour of Mithra, the maker and father of all things; a cave, according to Zoroaster, bearing a resemblance of the world, which was fabricated by Mithra. But the things contained in the cavern being arranged according to commensurate intervals, were symbols of the mundane elements and climates.