Talk:Mithraism: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (April 2004–Dec 2006) Archive 2 (Dec 2006–Oct 2009) Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Hello,

I'm sorry to tell you that the article is now very unreliable as a source of information about Mithras and Mithraic studies. I have added WP:RS and WP:POV tags, therefore, and it probably violates other policies as well. Let me say why we have a problem; why I haven't just waded in and fixed it; and where you should go to get better information.

My name is Roger Pearse. I am the editor of the Tertullian Project website, and of a number of other scholarly initiatives to make ancient sources freely and directly available online. I can be contacted at my blog, which is dedicated to the same purposes.

For the last few years I have been the major contributor to the Mithras page. I got interested after discovering how much sheer nonsense was circulating online. I've written or referenced much of the scholarly material in the article (at least as it was). What I've been trying to do, is to reduced the quantity of daft hearsay on this subject online, by ensuring that the article reflected only material referenced to scholars who have published peer-reviewed research on Mithras, and gave a balanced picture of that research, with enough links to and quotations from primary materials that none of us would be at the mercy of "authorities". I don't see how anyone benefits from getting the raw facts wrong; whatever their likes or dislikes.

Unfortunately three months ago a pair of editors turned up and seized control of the article, with the stated intention of rewriting the article to say that Mithras predates Jesus, and Mithraism is like Christianity. Yes, dear reader, we are dealing with an agenda. The approach taken was to introduce material from unreliable sources. Sadly I can't spend my days fighting with such people -- too much else to do.

At the moment, therefore, I must warn you that the article is thoroughly misleading, and thoroughly unreliable as a guide to Mithras studies, the ancient sources, or the consensus of modern research on them. Many references are neither neutral, nor reliable, because they have been chosen for POV rather than to inform. The article has been contaminated with irrelevant material relating to Persian Mithra. In addition useful material has been deleted, sometimes seemingly out of spite.

The best I can do is to give you some useful and reliable sources, from which you can access pretty much everything else. I suggest these:

• The last reliable version of the Mithras page is this one. It is not perfect, but it does reflect the consensus of modern Mithraic studies, without neglecting older views. I looked up the majority of the references myself, as far as possible, and I quoted them. The idea was so that you can see to what extent the reference supports the statement. So you should treat all edits subsequent to this as questionable, because sources are selected to support the POV, not to inform the reader.

• The next source you should use is Manfred Clauss' "The Roman cult of Mithras". This single volume text, translated from German by Richard Gordon, is an up-to-date review of the whole subject. Sometimes there is a Google Books preview of it available, at least in the US.

• I would recommend that you also get an idea of what the ancient sources actually say. To this end I have gathered English translations of all the primary literary sources here. Use these to check claims about what did or did not happen in ancient times -- "Mithras born on 25 Dec." is a favourite of the headbangers.

• An idea of what the inscriptional sources contain is also useful, although in fact most of them merely say "Sextus gave this to Mithras in fulfilment of a vow" or some such. Clauss will give you a good idea of the good stuff. The comprehensive reference is Vermaseren's Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae, but this is accessible to few. You will therefore have to rely on the Textes et Monumentes of Franz Cumont. These are a century old, and are linked from the reliable version at the bottom. (Note that Vermaseren's other publications such as Mithras: the secret god do not today pass WP:RS. The translator made some awful errors, and Vermaseren's views are merely those of Cumont. The English translator of Cumont is not to be trusted unreservedly either; the French contains much more, and better references).

That should be enough to allow you to ascertain the raw facts. I won't go through all the defects of the current article; that would be morose.

Please be aware that there is a real problem with Mithras material in books, even in some academic texts. The problem is that Mithras studies changed around 40 years ago. The founder of Mithras studies, the great Franz Cumont, believed that Mithras was the same as Persian Mitra, and the Romans called Mithras "the Persian god". But the archaeology discovered in the last 50 years makes that impossible, and the two are always treated as distinct today in reliable sources.

However not all scholars read the latest Mithras scholarship. So you can find the outdated views, often stated very crudely, in works really about other subjects. People wanting to "prove" Mithras predates Christ like the views of Cumont. People who want to advance those views like quoting "scholarship" from such sources, which are easy enough to find in Google Books. So WP:RS means being pretty careful what you use, unless you want to be misled. Don't trust any modern source written by anyone who is not publishing peer reviewed material on Mithras, except as a way to access ancient sources (and verify those).

I hope all this helps. Good luck! Roger Pearse (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see that the culprits, CivilizedEducation and Kalidasa, have also gamed the archiver, so as to move into Archive 4 the evidence of their misdeeds on the talk page. We need hardly ask why. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about not assuming bad faith, Rog? 'Misdeeds' indeed, pfft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.92.231 (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about replying to Roger's well-founded concerns, instead of acting cute and dismissive, Anon? "Assuming" indeed. pfft. Oh, and learn to sign your comments. You wouldn't want to come across as a lazy and/or cowardly troll, right?

I completely agree with everything Roger says. About a year back, this article was actually coming around and starting to reflect modern scholarship regarding the historicity of Mithras. Now, it's regressed into the same "pagan parallelism" nonsense that has been plaguing the academically illiterate corners of the Internet for years. And yeah, the edit pattern makes it abundantly clear that someone is deliberately deleting factual content in order to push their own views into the article. 85.228.97.208 (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you noticed relevant sourced factual material that got deleted (no matter why or how), why didn't you just put it back? (I did so myself recently, when I noticed a deleted citation from Roger Beck about Commagene.) Actually though, the substantial changes since February consist of additions of sourced factual material e.g. from Vermaseren, from David Ulansey, from Statius, Plutarch and Porphyry. Do you think these additions are a bad thing? If so, why? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have no problem with "sourced factual material", Kal; please keep that strawman away. What I do take issue with is the way the outdated and far from factual parallelist position has been pushed, replacing and overshadowing the modern, peer-reviewed scholarship that has long since debunked it. Read Roger's post above if you want it explained further. And as to why I'm not bothering trying to fix this mess, well, Roger's example has made it perfectly clear that some people make it nothing but a Sisyphean task. 85.228.97.208 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Pearse is a liar, has been inserting a number of OR sentences in the article. He has also been deleting sourced factual info. The latest deletions by IPs are actually handiwork of RP. It is perhaps as well that you do not want to do what Roger has been doing. Acting in a fraudulant way on WP is indeed a Sisyphean task.-Civilizededucation^talk 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Civ, but I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinion from the article's archived history. I don't care about what Robert may or may not otherwise have done, much less about the pissing-contest between the two of you. The point of contention is the article itself, and the so called "sources" it is currently based upon. And those, I find absolutely deplorable. 85.228.97.208 (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CivEd, please stop name-calling and stay focused on organizing and improving the content of the article. 85.228.97.208, please stop emoting about "deplorable, deplorable" and offer some actionable intelligence, as it were. Or at least be willing to stand up for your views by creating an identity under which you can edit and discuss; it's quite easy and quick to do. All the sources are worthless? Roger Beck, Richard Gordon, M.J. Vermaseren, Ugo Bianchi, Marvin Meyer, Walter Burkert? These are all recognizable names in the field of ancient religion, with abundant publication by scholarly journals and university/scholarly presses of the highest level. Whether you or I agree with any of them is beside the point; it is absolutely not in keeping with WP policy to exclude major contemporary scholars just because we think their thinking is outmoded or wrongheaded. What is it about this topic that makes you people behave so badly? More to the point, exactly what does each side think is wrong with the article? The article seems so entirely obsessed with "he said, she said" between scholars that it's hard to see how it couldn't represent a range of views fairly. The history of scholarship on a topic is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. As a classicist, I know that ideas can become unfashionable for a while, and then re-emerge. Hovering around here for a while, I've started to think that this is a simple case of POV-pushing under a particularly scholarly guise — that the goal is to suppress certain kinds of discussion normally associated with this topic. That won't do. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the article? Right now, in my opinion, there is far less wrong with the article than at times in the past — including the February version which Roger Pearse described as the "last reliable" one. The substantial difference between then and now, is not about the sources used, but how they are used. For instance, the Feb version said quite a bit about David Ulansey's views about Mithraism in relation to ancient astronomy, and that information is still there. The present version however, also refers to things said by the same David Ulansey about the name "Mithras", about Mithraism and the Cilicians, about Mithraism and Christianity. In my view, one reason the February version was not neutral is that editors had put in the stuff they liked from Ulansey, but not the stuff they didn't like. The current version comes closer to neutrality in that respect. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you, I see more clearly. Sorry for my tirade, but the squabbling was drowning out any discussion of content. The current section on Mithraism and Christianity is interesting to read, and I get more out of it than the February one. I agree with what you say about stuff liked and not liked. About those Cilician pirates: the web site that summarizes Ulansey is a bit confusing on that point. Servius may note that there was a community of the Cilicians settled in Calabria, but Pompey brought a crew to Rome in the 60s BC; they marched in his triumph. I'm unclear about the grounds for rejecting Plutarch's statement. The gap between the Cilicians in Italy and the appearance of the first physical evidence for Mithraism doesn't seem remarkable to me, partly because it would take time for the religion to take hold and spread, or perhaps the earlier cultic materials may have been less permanent than when they were "Romanized" into stone. Physical evidence for anything in the Republic is harder to come by than for the Empire. In this case, both the massive building program of Augustus and the Great Fire intervene. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you needed to say sorry — I think it's good that you reminded us what talk pages are supposed to be for! I'd agree that the page could say more on the topic of the Cilicians. In his book Origins of the Mythraic Mysteries, (page 94) Ulansey suggests a link between the astronomical symbolism in Mithraism, and the fact that ancient pirates "like all sailors, must have had a keen interest in the stars owing to their dependence on the heavens for navigation". Why are some moderns sceptical of Plutarch? Well, Maarten Vermaseren in his book Mithras: the Secret God (if I remember his point correctly) says that Plutarch was writing at a time when the Mysteries were popular, and it is possible that the ancient biographer, or his sources, may have projected that popularity back into the past. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some statement of the issues with the article -- not the personaalities? 95.147.145.85 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like that too.

I can understand skepticism toward Plutarch, of course, but why did he pick the Cilicians to attach this belief to? I don't know. He was interested in esoteric religious traditions, as his strange little works Isis and Osiris and On the E at Delphi indicate. So I'm reluctant to say "he just didn't know what he was talking about." And I do feel that the skepticism of modern scholars about certain things has been overstated here. The article has Richard Gordon in 1975 saying " the theory of Persian origins was completely invalid and that the Mithraic mysteries in the West was an entirely new creation." I don't have access to Gordon's contribution to that volume, but those adverbs are awfully emphatic; Gordon is characteristically skeptical, but in A Companion to Roman Religion (2007) he recognizes that "some Mithraists at least claimed that their cult had been founded by the prophet Zoroaster". While he maintains his skepticism on the role of the Cilicians and holds to the theory of invention in the 1st century AD (though he points out Mithraic vocabulary is Greek, not Latin), what he seems to be rejecting is any notion of an "authentic" unbroken tradition — not that the originators themselves didn't press the claim. This is an important distinction that can be difficult to nuance in an article: It isn't about whether these origins are real; it's about claims to authority, and this is the basis on which the claims were made. In the 1975 Mithraic Studies collection, the editor Hinnells says in his own essay, "I am not seeking to prove that Roman Mithraism was derived from any one Indo-Iranian ritual but rather … to show that Mithraic iconography accords with Iranian practice in such a way that the development of the one from the other is plausible, provided one gives full weight to the considerable influence of Graeco-Roman belief and symbolism" (p. 305). This is far more nuanced that "Roman Mithraism is a completely new creation that has nothing to do with anything that came before". If this religion did have a self-conscious founder, it seems unlikely that he would've succeeded by pulling a name out of the hat of theonyms arbitrarily, and developing a completely unrelated theology out of ignorance; he must've had reasons for his choices, even if these are unrecoverable. But that's why I think the article is best when it's describing what's known, such as iconography, instead of the "he said, she said" conjectures and interpretations. A WP article is not the first chapter of a doctoral dissertation nor an annotated bibliography: it needs to state the case and its gaps and complexities as clearly and briefly as possible, and not get bogged down so much in the pet views of individual scholars. That's what footnotes are for (and not to serve as a parallel text). OK, done, apologies for my own lack of concision. This is pretty much all the contribution I have to make here, so good luck to you all, and play nice. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cynwolfe. It is regrettable that you are no longer interested in this article. You looked like a knowledgeable and promising ed for this article. I agree with your views of scholarly opinions on plutarch. I too have the impression that Gordon is overly skeptical about how much can be said on this topic. IMO, Gordon may not be a particularly strong source for this article. He does not seem to have authored any published book. The one book which he seems to have authored has remained unpublished for decades now. And he seems to be dismissive of most other works and scholars. It appears that we have to use his views with care, even if he is an RS for this article.-Civilizededucation^talk 05:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cynwolfe, yes, my view is the same as yours — the article at present probably does overstate skepticism of modern scholars about Persian and Anatolian origins of the Mysteries. This is opposite of the criticism of it offered by Roger P. at the top of this thread — that the current version is the work of agenda-pushers who set about "rewriting the article to say that Mithras predates Jesus". (Roger himself did make a number of edits since writing that statement, doing what he could to correct what he perceived to be the article's bias.) Regarding Gordon's statement at the 1975 conference, I think you'll find the citation is correct, but, yes, more recent statements by Gordon have been less skeptical. Perhaps he has mellowed a little with age... There is an interesting FAQ by Richard G. on the website of the Electronic Journal of Mithraic Studies, where he says "I do think there are some feature sof the Roman cult of Mithras: his association with light, might and fertility, for example, and the moral stringency, which have old-Iranian origins- at any rate, they are all found in the Avestan Hymn to Mithra, composed in the second half of the fifth century BC." Your point that the article is best when describing what is known... Yes, I agree... And "what is known" is not only iconography. Ancient texts are also hard facts, e.g. however skeptical one may be of Plutarch, at very least his work gives us knowledge about what one well-educated Roman citizen of the 1st century AD believed about the origins of Mithraic Mysteries. Another point in the "what is known" category is one you've mentioned — the name Mithras itself, attested in inscriptions and in texts such as Plutarch, a name with well-known antecedents in Iran and Asia Minor and the Vedas. Civ and I put together quite a bit of info about the name, which Roger has recently moved to the page The name "Mithras". (See thread below.) I understand that you want to get away, but perhaps at some latter stage you might like to take a look at the material on The name "Mithras" and let us know how much of it, if any, you think ought to go back here. In any case, I do appreciate your contribs to this talk page and to the intro, and I hope you won't forget us altogether. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just say that careful distinction must be made between what the ancient Romans and Greeks themselves thought, and what the physical evidence can indicate. I myself value Gordon quite highly, and always use him if he's available as a source for a topic I write on. Though I don't plan to do active research on the page, I wouldn't like to see the good work that Roger Pearse did here go to waste, despite his poor behavior. His work was sound, if not perhaps inclusive enough in presenting perspectives. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the point about physical evidence is why some modern historians are skeptical about what Plutarch says about the mysteries being celebrated by the Cilician pirates. And lack of corroborative evidence from texts by other ancient scholars.

Regarding Richard Gordon, I agree he is important. To those who have doubts, I would point about that both he and Roger Beck are in the team of editors at the Electronic Journal of Mithraic Studies. I would say, though, that Gordon does seem to express himself rather forcefully at times, and not only about Cumont — for instance in his signed FAQ page at EJMS, he describes Ulansey's work as "a fantastic tower of nonsense", and as an instance of "the fantasies of scholars" (which at least acknowledges Ulansey as a scholar!). I'd suggest that like Roger Beck and David Ulansey and Cumont and for that matter Plutarch, Gordon's views are to be treated seriously, but not treated as being beyond question where others in the field disagree.

As for Roger Pearse, I'd agree that there is a danger of over-reacting... I think he did what he has accused others of doing — he cherry-picked bits of information to push an agenda (or as he saw it, to combat another agenda) — but that does not mean the information itself is wrong. Recently on his user page he said something about having become a research assistant for trolls... and he is right — I mean, in the sense that the rest of us really have benefitted from info he found, even if we don't like the mindset which leads him to call us "trolls".

Anyway, Cynwolfe, even if you can't do active research on this page, I think it would be great if you have a look at it from time to time, and let the rest of us know whether you think that we are getting it right or not... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with the page need to be resolved. Perhaps an independent third-party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.174.8 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the lengthy discussion that was conducted earlier this year, which was indeed led by an independent third party – Lord Roehm of the Mediation Cabal? You can see what happened at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-12/Mithraic mysteries. Roger P. chose to walk out of that discussion. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we care about who did what when. What about addressing the concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.145.85 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as the unaddressed concerns? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right 95.147.145.85... Roger's long statement above includes arguments which ought to be addressed...

Roger makes some general points which I am sure everyone here would agree with, e.g. "I don't see how anyone benefits from getting the raw facts wrong; whatever their likes or dislikes."

He calls attention to differences between the 13 February revision of the page, and more recent revisions. He says that the difference is that the February version is reliable, whereas later ones are not.

Is this really the difference?

The February version of this page contains

• plenty of raw facts about archeological finds from 1st century AD onwards,
• hardly any raw facts at all about the history of the name "Mithras";
• very little attention to the raw facts about the monumental statues of Mithras from 1st century BC Anatolia.

Later versions have added information about these points not previously mentioned. They also retain the information from the February version. The added raw facts comes largely from sources already used on the page in other contexts: sources such as Vermasaren and David Ulansey.

Roger's statement mentions that the February version was largely his own work, and also mentions that he was motivated by concern about popular misconceptions about Mithraism, which are widespread on the internet.

Is dispelling misconceptions a good reason for making edits on Wikipedia?

Maybe... but there is such a thing as over-compensating: selecting and highlighting bits of information that seem to say the exact opposite of the popular misconception.

An example of over-compensating, from outside Wikipedia... A lawyer has to defend a client popularly regarded as a leading gang-land boss. The defence lawyer works long hours, carefully assembling written testimonies by impressive witnesses to give the exact opposite picture... butter wouldn't melt in the boss's mouth. The lawyer is equal careful to avoid presenting any information which might mess up the intended portrait of the client.

Isn't that the exactly the job of a defence lawyer?

Probably yes...

But is that the job of Wikipedia? I don't think it is...

The February version of this page presents one side in a historical debate: a side that sees Mithras as springing fully formed out of purely Roman rock. The later versions no longer do this.

I have no objection to Roger developing a debating position on his own blog. His polemics are part of the life of the internet, even if not everyone likes what he says...

But WP is not Roger Pearse's blog.

It is time you understood that, Roger. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A statement from the project page Wikipedia:NPOV dispute... "ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wishing to get an accurate assessment of Roger Pearse, his intellectual level, and most of all his character, should just look at this page of his. And be sure to read the comments on the main blog post.

Pearse anti-semitic blog post

I came to this page unsure what to think of his point. Now I have no doubts. Eluard (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eluard. The blog page you mentioned is certainly polemical... In the February version of this WP page – the "last reliable version", according to Roger's long statement above — that polemical blog page was actually cited as a source. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beskow 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 embarrassing that the first one of these plaques was found in a woman's tomb." Roger Beck, Mithraism since Franz Cumont, Aufsteig und Niedergang der romischen Welt II 17.4 (1984), p. 2019: "Their iconography is significantly different from that of the standard tauroctony (e.g. in the Attis-like exposure of the god's genitals)." Clauss, p.156: "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."

This is the content of the current citation #108 in the article. The content attributed to Beskow seems to be referenced to "Roger Beck, Mithraism since Franz Cumont, Aufsteig und Niedergang der romischen Welt II 17.4 (1984), p. 2019:". But I could not find the material in that book??-Civilizededucation^talk 14:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the texts by Beskow or Beck in front of me, but looking at note 108, I think Beck's book is only being cited for the one sentence: "Their iconography is significantly different from that of the standard tauroctony (e.g. in the Attis-like exposure of the god's genitals)." The Beskow citation begins with the words "Beskow continues..." I would think that means it is a continuation from note 106, which deals with same topic, and cites the book Beskow, Per, The routes of early Mithraism, in Études mithriaques Ed.Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Thanks for the pointer.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although animal-headed figures are prevalent in contemporary Egyptian and Gnostic mythological representations, the Leontocephaline is entirely restricted to Mithraic art.[45]

Reading this line in the article, I first thought that it means that a man-lion deity is completely unique to roman mithraism. I assumed that "leontocephaline"=half man half lion. This sentence looked incorrect to me because there are other lion headed deities, eg. Narasimha. BTW, this deity also has a forehead mark, and emerged from a pillar, but of iron instead of rocks, has a multiheaded snake above, but not entwined around the body. Now, having done some more reading on this topic, I think "leontocephaline"=lion headed deity of roman mithraism. So, the italicized sentence should mean--"leontocephaline", which is defined as "the lion headed deity of roman mithraism" is unique to roman mithraism. Isn't this somewhat tautological, and, is it just me or is the sentence misleading? The italicized sentence is sourced from here. The source seems to be discussing several lion headed deities. Now, are we using this source to convey something which the source does not say? Does the sentence need some rewording?-Civilizededucation^talk 16:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the sentence should be reworded. The cited text, Hubert Von Gall, includes the words: "Exact parallels are missing..." which leaves open the possibility that there may be parallels which are not exact. (Apart from Narasimha, another that comes to mind is the Egyptian deity Sekhmet. Sekhmet was female though.) What I think Von Gall is saying is that Roman Mithraism involved a lion-headed youth with wings, keys and a sceptre, and that this combination of attributes is not found anywhere other than in Roman Mithraism. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the Funerary Stela from the bottom picture is funerary ara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.122.171 (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a scholarly treatment of Mithraic elements to be found in Michel Tournier's "Le roi des aule" or "The Ogre" of 1970. Is there interest in a section on mithraism in modern culture or such a link? Robert Shiplett G. Robert Shiplett 01:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Tournier's work, but I agree it would be good if WP could say something somewhere about direct references to Mithraism in recent culture. Not only in the 20th century, but in the last few centuries... E.g. Rudyard Kipling wrote a fairly well-known poem about Mithras. Going back a little further, Mithras is also mentioned in Thomas More's Utopia, as a deity worshipped in the fictional island republic... I am not sure whether it should a section here or another linked page... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a series of edits from an IP number, consisting of deletions of sourced information, and insertion of unsourced or inadequately sourced additions (authors or titled mentioned, but insufficient details for verification). The sourced material which the IP number wants to delete is about criticisms of Cumont. The unsourced and poorly sourced additions are half-baked allegations about Christianity imitating Mithraism. The net effect is to make the article less balanced and less informative. Is this another attempt at parody by someone who has issues about the article? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added a large picture of some Archaemenid architecture to the iconography section. According to the caption, the god Mithra is there somewhere, although he isn't clearly visible. In any case, I think it is important to remember that there is another page, which this one already links to from its introduction, specifically about the Iranian Mithra. There is also a more general page with the title Mitra. (Not to mention Mitra (Vedic).) So I suggest that this Mithraic Mysteries page should logically keep its focus on Roman Mithraism. Though a further link to Mithra, from the iconography section, might perhaps be helpful to some readers. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are good and should remain. 77.86.27.161 (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing your opinion. How about some reasoned arguments to back it up? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sneering at "my opinion". How about you explain why you reverted my edits without discussion? Not very civil of you. 209.68.2.181 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed archiver -- too low comment volume. Added controversial tag. 209.68.2.181 (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]