Everything we know about Jesus is
tangled in myth. The narrative of his birth and childhood are a complete
fiction. Even the narrative of his adult ministry, beginning around the year 30
CE, is imbued with metaphor and allegory, so much so that none of it is
reliable as history.
The narrative that we have received
from the tradition is so thoroughly syncretized to the broader cultural context
of the Near East that we do not even refer to him by his given name; Joshua son
of Joseph, instead we call him by a Greek variant that ignores his genealogy, calling
him Jesus of Nazareth instead.
If we desire to understand this
story (as we should), if we desire to understand how it came to be in the form we
have received it in, then we must engage that broader narrative. We must engage
the complete societal and theological context from which the Christian myth
emerged. We must journey beyond the Palestinian crossroads that was ancient
Judea, we must go beyond the Greco-Roman world, the great Pan-Hellenic
civilization, and we must go to Persia. That is where the story begins, with the
hero Mithra.
The “Cult of Mithras” is
understudied by historians. It is commonly regarded by scholars as merely one
of many religious movements that competed with the early Christian Church for
the devotion of the masses.
The Cult of Mithras was much more
than that.
Mithraic worship, as it was
practiced by the Romans, (principally by members of the Roman army) in the
first four centuries of the common era, has its roots in ancient Persia. It is an
offshoot of Zoroastrianism (c. 700 BCE),[1]
evolving through the centuries until it reached its final form as a “mystery cult”
within the Roman army.
Throughout its evolution, and propelled
by the extensive influence of the Persian Empire, Mithraism had a significant
impact on every society it encountered, and on every form of worship in the
Mediterranean region, the Near East and Southwest Asia.
This
essay is an attempt to communicate the multiple ways by which Mithraism has influenced
the development of other faith traditions, but most importantly the
Judea-Christian tradition, and most significantly our beliefs about Jesus,
including the mystery of his birth.
Scholarship
on Mithraism is scant. Most research tends to downplay the connection between the
form of Mithraism that was practiced by the Roman army, and the ancient form of
Mithraism that was practiced in the heart of Persia. To justify this, scholars
will site some obvious iconographic and liturgical differences between the two
forms of worship, as if to say that the presence of a few notable, but nevertheless
subtle differences is enough evidence to argue for a complete separation and distinction
between the traditions. These conclusions are commonly drawn despite the
greater number of obvious similarities between them.
The
following paragraph from David Ulansey’s book The Origins of the Mithraic
Mysteries illustrates this point clearly. He says:
“The Western mystery cult of
Mithraism as it appeared in the Roman Empire derived its very identity from a
number of characteristics which were completely absent from the Iranian worship
of Mithra: a series of initiations into ever higher levels of the cult
accompanied by strict secrecy about the cult’s doctrines; the distinctive cave
like temples in which the cult’s devotees met; and, most important, the
iconography of the cult, in particular the tauroctony. None of these essential
characteristics of Western Mithraism were to be found in the Iranian worship of
Mithra.[2]”
Some
of Ulansey’s predecessors have suggested that the differences between the
Persian-Iranian form of Mithraism and that of the Roman army are the product of
natural transformations that occur in all belief systems as they move from one
culture to another across great expanses of geography and time.
They
are correct.
Ulansey’s
particular criticisms have to do with extrinsic matters of form and ritual
activity, the types of structures that we would expect to change over time and
distance, as they incorporate the experiences of descending generations of
their adherents in them.
The
seven stages of initiation, the tauroctony (slaying of the bull), the codes of
secrecy, and the type of temple worship have little to do with the central tenets
of Mithraism, the closely held beliefs that had existed within the doctrine from
the earliest times in Persia, through its final incarnation as a Roman mystery
cult. The central teaching remains the same, the most significant of which are;
a belief in the immortality of the soul, and the notion of personal salvation.
In
the ancient Persian form Mithraism; Mithra is a demi-god. He is viewed as the incarnated
scion of Ahura-Mahzda, and Ahura-Mahzda is believed to be the source of all
goodness, creator of the Universe, a God of light and source of all-life.
Some
scholars believe that in its original form; Mithraism was strictly monotheistic
(perhaps the first truly monotheistic belief system), holding that Ahura-Mahzda
was the only deity, and that there were no others.
However,
if Mithraism was originally monotheistic, at some point in its early evolution the
belief system devolved into dualism. Mithraic doctrine established the
existence of another deity, as a counterpart to Ahura-Mahzda, and together they
formed a pantheon of sorts.
This
secondary deity was given the name Angra-Mainyu (from whose name we have derived
the term anger). Angra-Mainyu was believed to be the “uncreated” source of evil
in the world, whose agency was cast n diametric opposition to the light and
life of Ahura-Mahzda.
This
dualistic view of reality suggested that the drama of our lives on Earth is a
reflection of the struggle between these two cosmic powers. This clearly
defined dualism would be of great relevance to both Judaism and Christianity in
the centuries to come.
In
the later form of Mithraism, that of the Roman Empire, the demi-god Mithra is depicted
in that same relationship to the high God as in the Persian form. In this
cultural context, the high God is given the name Sol Invictus and is iconographically
represented as the sun. Mithra is the hero, demi-god and the offspring of Sol,
incarnated son.
While
this form of Mithraic worship is best understood as belonging to Rome, it
should be noted that the cult of Sol Invictus, was also prevalent in Gaul prior
to the Roman conquest of the Celts.
In
both the ancient Persian form of Mithraism and the Roman form of Mithraism, the
demi-god Mithra is seen as being sent to Earth by the deity responsible for the
creation of the universe. In the former tradition this is Ahura-Mahzda, in the
latter tradition this is Sol Invictus.
In
the Roman form of Mithraism the purpose of sending Mithra to Earth is for him
to slay the “Primal Bull.” Upon slaying the bull, Mithra and Sol Invictus feast
together from its flesh. This feast has the effect that Mithra and Sol become
con-joinedbecause they have dined together, they are now “one.”
Sol
and Mithra are joined together as one being with coextensive attributes, each
sharing the title Invictus, meaning unconquered. In Roman Mithraism this meal
was considered to be the effective means of salvation for all human beings, and
that by participating in a recreation of the sacred meal, properly sequenced through
the rites of initiation, the individual would become one with Mithra and therefore
one with Sol Invictus, thereby gaining access to the heavenly worlds of the
afterlife. This is nearly identical to the Christian theology underpinning the
sacrament of Communion.
As
I indicated earlier in my reference to Ulansey’s work, Persian Mithraism did
not depict Mithra as the “bull-slayer.” The narrative from Persia is as
follows:
Mithra
does not kill the primal-bull, rather Mithra and the bull are sent to Earth by
Ahura-Mahzda, where they are assailed by the “evil-one,” Angra-Mainyu, who
himself slays Mithra and the bull together in an act of violence.
Then
Angra-Mainyu attempts to destroy Mithra and the bull utterly, but his efforts are
frustrated by Ahura-Mazda. Through Ahura-Mazda’s power, stalks of wheat and the
grape vine spring from the carcass of the bull. All manner of good things and good
creatures flow from the god of light, through the bull to fill and populate the
created world, so that those good things and creatures may be used for the
benefit of human beings.
Ahura-Mahzda
trasforms the violence of Angra-Mainyu into a new creation. New life springs
from the bull, and Mithra is restored, returning to Ahura-Mahzda in the heavens.
There
is no significant discrepancy between these two forms of the myth.
In
both versions of the myth, Mithra is sent to Earth by a god of greater
authority than himself.
In
both versions of the myth, the bull is slain and its death is productive; both
of new life, and of all good things on the Earth.
In
the Roman version of the myth, the slaying of the bull is an explicit
sacrifice.
In
the Persian version of the myth, the intentionality of the sacrifice is
implicit.
The
Roman version is not etiological, it does not address the origins of life on
Earth, the Persian version is.
The
Roman version is primarily a teleological myth having to do with human destiny,
salvation, and the life of the immortal soul, it is teleological and
eschatological, insofar as it address the final resolution of evil in the world,
and the end to conflict. The Persian version balances these two concerns.
In
the Persian account, Mithra and the Bull are sent to Earth by the creator
deity; their death is a vehicle by which the drama of life on Earth begins,
making it a cosmogonic myth of origins.
The
death of Mithra and the primal-bull, while being the result of violence
perpetrated by the “evil-one” does not serve the interest of Angra-Mainyu, but serves
the interest of Ahura-Mahzda instead.
Mithra
does not die. His soul is immortal, and he returns to the heavens.
From
the body of the bull comes an abundance of life, demonstrating that Ahura-Mahzda
is greater than Angra-Mainyu, greater because the god of light not only has the
power to create goodness sui generous
(in itself), but also has the power to bring good out of evil; making the fruit
of the labor of Angra-Mainyu effectively nothing. This profound hope is
apparent within the structure of myth itself.
In
both the Roman and the Persian versions of the myth, the death of the primal bull
is emblematic of life for the world.
It
is the creation of life itself, and it is life restored.
The
principal actor in both versions of the myth is the creator god, figured as either
Ahura-Mahzda, or Sol Invictus in their respective cultures.
Whether
it is Mithra who kills the bull, or Angra-Mainyu, this does not matter. The
slaying of the bull serves the purpose of the principal actor, Ahura-Mahzda/Sol
Invictus, god of life, god of light, god of good.
Having
articulated some of the principle differences between the Persian and Roman
forms of Mithraism, let us now turn to what is most consistent and significant in
the worship of Mithra in both cultures, from c. 700 BCE through c. 400 CE, from
Rome to Persia.
This
is the belief in the immortality of the soul and the notion of personal
salvation.
In
Mithraism, this theology underwent a profound development that would have a
lasting and significant impact on other faith traditions in the Near East and
broader Mediterranean world
There
are several clues that we can follow to give us this story. These clues will
help us understand the significance of Mithraism in relation to other
Mediterranean religions; especially Judaism and Christianity, we do not have to
go any farther than the Hebrew and
Christian scriptures to see and understand this influence.
A
close study of the Hebrew scriptures reveals that the Jewish people did not
always have (and do not now have) a strong belief in either the immortality of
the soul, or the afterlife. However, there was a period of time in which these
beliefs did flourish, and in that time Christianity emerged.
After
the Babylonian exile, which began in 586 BCE, these beliefs enter the Hebrew
tradition, and over the next few centuries they become more clearly developed,
especially among those Jewish communities remaining in the diaspora, living
outside of Palestine, the former kingdoms of Israel and Judea.
Jews
living in the diaspora made up the majority of the Jewish people living in the
world at that time. At the time of Jesus, throughout Rome and its provinces it
is believed that Jews made up as much as ten percent of the total population of
free people, making the Jews of the diaspora a majority among their people.
When
the Jewish people were released from captivity in Babylon, it was the Persians
who had recently conquered that Babylonians, who granted them their freedom. It
happened during the reign of the Persian king Cyrus.[3]
Cyrus
is depicted by the Jewish people in the Hebrew scriptures, as a servant of their
God, Yahweh:
“22 In the first year of Cyrus king of
Persia—to fulfil the word of Yahweh through Jeremiah—Yahweh roused the spirit
of Cyrus king of Persia to issue a proclamation and to have it publicly
displayed throughout his kingdom. 23 ‘Cyrus king of Persia says this,
“Yahweh, the God of Heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has
appointed me to build him a Temple in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever
there is among you of all his people, may his God be with him! Let him go up.”’[4]”
This
passage does not shed any light on what Cyrus’s theological disposition might
have actually been, or what his personal beliefs were. Whatever that theology was
(or was perceived to be), we can surmise that his beliefs and the beliefs of
the Persian court did not present a significant conflict with Hebrew theology
at that time.
At
this time, the Persian court had been in full adherence to the principles and
teaching of Zoroastrianism for at one hundred and fifty years, which is to say
that they were Mithraites.
What
this passage indicates is that there was no essential antagonism between the
theological claims of the two cultures. Furthermore, it is likely that Cyrus or
his priests, or both, saw a considerable amount of compatibility between the
faiths of the two cultures and their systems of belief.
At
this time, Persian Mithraism and Judaism were both essentially monotheistic,
though neither of them were perfectly so. They were monotheistic faith systems
which held as a basic tenet of belief that creation was good, created by a good
god, for a good purpose, redounding to the benefit of humanity.
Mithraism
had a strongly held belief in the immortality of the soul. At this time Judaism
did not, but immediately following this period a movement within Judaism would
develop its belief in the immortality of the soul in profoundly consequential
ways. The adherents of this new movement within the Hebrew culture became known
as the Pharisees.
The
designation Pharisee, is derived from the name of the Persian priests of
Zoroaster who were called the Parsees. This serves as etymological evidence
that clearly shows the intimate connection between Pharisaic Judaism and the
religious traditions of the Persian Empire.
This
is not a causal relationship, but a relationship of influence.
Even
in Jesus’ time, 500 years after the Babylonian exile; belief in the immortality
of the soul had not fully entered the mainstream of Jewish life, especially
inside the borders of Palestine, in Samaria and Judea. This belief system was primarily
taught by the Pharisees, and the Essenes in the remote desert community of Qumran
(a pharisaic sect).
Belief
in the immortality of the soul was popular among Jewish people for whom the
synagogue was the center of their faith life, and not the temple in Jerusalem.
The Jewish Qabalah was also born in this popular tradition, the Pharisaic Judaism
of the diaspora.
In
addition to belief in the immortality of the soul, the Pharisees and the
Essenes of Qumran, also had significantly developed angelologies. This belief
in the existence of angels (divine messengers) was another matter that took a
long time to develop in Judaism, but which was already present in Mithraism at
the time of the Babylonian exile.
In
fact, our word “angel,” meaning divine messenger, comes to English, from the
Greek angelos, which is itself
derived from the Persian word, angaros, meaning
courier.
Many
scholars say that it is impossible to state with certainty that the Pharisees
received these teachings directly from the Parsees when they were exposed to
Mithraism at the time of the Babylonian captivity.
I
will tell you this, certitude may not be possible, but it is also impossible to
rule it out.
What
we can say for certain, is that the Pharisees came into existence just after
the Babylonian exile, and it is beyond reasonable probability to suggests that
Pharisaic beliefs developed independently of Mithraism, I do not believe in
that type of coincidence. Therefore we conclude that the Pharisaic movement
within Judaism is an example of pure theological syncretism, the cultural
purchase by the Hebrews of an earlier Persian theology.
The
Babylonian exile and the subsequent release of the Jewish people by the Persian
king Cyrus were the first of many major streams of influence that Mithraism
would have on the Judeo-Christian tradition. We will move slowly through a
discussion of the others.
Prior
to the Babylonian exile; a belief in angels and the immortality of the soul did
not exist as fully developed doctrines, but they did exist in germ, in a latent
form, insofar as they were the generalized beliefs permeating the Mediterranean
region and the Near East at that time.
It
should be noted that in most Mediterranean and Near Eastern traditions, the
concept of a blessed afterlife, to the extent that such ideas existed, included
the idea that those blessed places were reserved for people of notable and
heroic stature.
Because
common people, and slaves did not have the ability to lead a heroic or notable life,
they had no hope of enjoying a blessed state in the hereafter.
Mithraism,
and in more significant ways Christianity changed all of that; they changed
this basic paradigm by promising the hope of salvation to anyone, regardless of
gender and class, rank or status. Through these religions, common people and
outcasts were able to entertain hopes of a blessed afterlife if, and only if
they sought to align themselves with the god of creation, the god of light, and
the god goodness, through an initiation into their mysteries.
In
the first century BCE, the most important center for Mithraic worship in the
Hellenistic world was in the region of Cilicia, in the city of Tarsus. The
patron deity of this city was the Greek demi-god Perseus, officially. but as
Ulansey points out, Perseus, as he was worshipped in Tarsus, was identical to the
Persian Mithra in almost every way.
In
his journals, the Roman general Pompey points out the fact that the people of
Tarsus worship Mithra[5]
and this is the point of origin for the spread of the Cult of Mithra (from the East)
into the Roman world.
I
want to preface my discussion of the relationship between Mithra and Perseus
with an acknowledgement of the profuse pluralism at work in the Greco-Roman,
Pan-Hellenic world at this time. Parallels to Mithra and Perseus can be found
in the stories of many other heroes. Not all of the adventures attributed to
Perseus should be attributed to Mithra, and vice versa. In the Greco-Roman
world, the gods and heroes were regarded differently, in different cities, and
different regions, at different times. The heroes and gods in Greco-Roman
mythology are extremely malleable and blend with one another quite extensively.
However, in Tarsus the parallels between Mithra and Perseus go deep, and they
are important; as I will demonstrate:
“According
to Plutarch, Mithraism began among the pirates of Cilicia, the province
bordering on the southern coast of Asia Minor. These pirates, whose ships ‘numbered
more than a thousand, and the cities captured by them four hundred,’ and whom
Pompey was sent to subdue in 67 BCE, ‘offered strange rites of there 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.’…For our
purposes, the most important aspect of Plutarch’s evidence tracing the origins
of Mithraism to the region of Cilicia is the fact that Cilicia—and in
particular its capitol city of Tarsus—was the home of a deeply rooted cult of
the hero Perseus.[6]”
Among
the Greeks Perseus was considered to be the founder of the city of Tarsus, a
city bearing the name of the “Primal-Bull,” Taurus.
Let
us note that Perseus, like Mithra, is intimately linked to the sun, referred to
in the Greco-Roman myths as either: Apollo, Helios or Sol.
Sometimes
Apollo is depicted as making oblations before Perseus, just as Sol is sometimes
depicted as kneeling before Mithra. The order is reversed at other times, with
Mithra or Perseus kneeling before the deity representing the sun,[7]
this is done in keeping with the themes of mutuality, and co-extensive identity
between the god-hero, the hero and the god. The two are one.
In
Greek mythology Perseus is strongly connected with the Persian Empire.
The
Greeks believed that Perses, the son of Perseus and Andromeda, was the founder
of the Persian Empire. Furthermore, Perseus is always depicted as wearing a
Phrygian cap indicating his Asiatic (read Persian) origins.
“The
evidence for a connection between the figures of Mithras and Perseus is of
three kinds: first, there is the astronomical evidence consisting of the fact
that the constellation Perseus occupies a position in the sky exactly analogous
to that occupied by Mithras in the tauroctony; second, there are a number of striking
iconographical and mythological parallels between the two figures, such as
Perseus’ Phrygian cap, his connection with Persia, and the fact that like
Perseus, Mithras always looks away from his victim; third there is the
historical-geographical evidence linking the origins of Mithraism with Cilicia,
the site of an important Perseus cult.[8]”
The
astronomical evidence cited above concerns the fact that the constellation
Mithra-Perseus is located directly above the constellation of Taurus the bull, making
it so that if the two constellations are viewed together the figure of
Mithra-Perseus is seen kneeling on the back of the bull, sword in hand, ready
to make the ritual cut while looking away from the sacrificial victim, just as
Mithra is always depicted in Mithraic artwork depicting the Tauroctony in
Mithraic temples.
These
similarities are too many to ignore.
The
Cults of Mithra, and Perseus were the dominant cults of the city. Each of these
Gods are depicted time and time again on Tarsian coins. Perseus is the patron
deity of the city, and the city itself is named after the “Primal Bull” of
Mithraic worship.
In
the city of Tarsus, Mithra is Perseus, at least insofar as the way in which they
were worshipped. The city of Tarsus also figures prominently in the syncretism
between Mithraism and Christianity.
Tarsus
is an old town, it originated as a Hittite city in the second millennium BCE. The
Greek historian and geographer Strabo[9]
notes that by the first century BCE, it was a significant intellectual center
“surpassing Athens and Alexandria.” It was known for its astronomers and
produced the renowned philosophers Athenodorus and Nestor.[10]
More significant to our thesis is this, it was the birthplace, and home of Saint
Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, a Jew and a Pharisee, and the most prominent
writer of the early Christian Church.
There
is no research explicitly stating that Paul was aware of, or was influenced by
Mithraism, but to suggest that Paul would not have been aware of the basic
tenets of belief promoted by the major Cult of the city he called home, that
would be improbable in the extreme.
Paul
was a learned man, and a figure of authority. In addition, Paul was a Pharisee.
As I have already indicated in my introduction to the origins of the Pharisaic
sect; the beliefs that Pharisees and Mithraites shared included beliefs about
the immortality of the soul, the notion of personal salvation and the ministry
of angels.
If
Paul was not directly influenced by Mithraism he was indirectly influenced by
Mithraic ideas, a conclusion we may draw simply by virtue of the fact that Paul
was a Pharisee.
Furthermore,
the prominence of his ministry, and its influence on Christian doctrine,
constitutes a second infusion of Persian cosmology and theology, and of Persian
soterieology into the Judeo-Christian tradition, the first being located within
the timeframe of the Babylonian exile, and subsequent diaspora.
I
do not contend that through Mithraism anything substantially “new” was imparted
to the burgeoning Christian movement, but that the prevailing ideas of the
“Persian-Mithraic worldview” were syncretized and concretized by the early
church in a way which made it compatible with the form of Mithraism that had
been spreading in the Roman Empire.
By
the fourth century CE Mithraism had spread both through the travel of merchants,
and through the Roman army, spreading as far North as Hadrian’s wall in
Bremenium, and as far West as Olisipo on the Western coast of Spain; it had
permeated the Roman provinces of North Africa and Egypt, and it was thriving in
its home land of Persia; stretching its influence all the way across the Persian
Empire to India.
As
much as two percent of the population of the Roman Empire may have been
initiated into the mysteries of the Cult of Mithra.
The
traditional date to celebrate the birth of Mithra, going back as far as 750
BCE, is a date significant in the Roman calendar also, known as the Saturnalius,
December 25th. This date is also the celebrated birthday of
such notable people as Julius Caesar, his son by adoption Caesar Augustus, as
well as the first Christian emperor, Constantine; and most famously Jesus of
Nazareth.
The
fact that all of these people shared the same birthday does not constitute
proof of anything regarding the relationship between Mithraism and Christianity.
The Romans used a different calendar in those days, and in that time December
25th was the date of the winter solstice. The solstice was
celebrated in nearly every culture in the Northern hemisphere, because it is that
point in the yearly cycle that the light returns, the days get longer, and the
deepest dark of winter recedes.
Among
the Romans, the Cult of Mithra was a “mystery religion,” meaning that it was
secretive, it was closed to anyone that did not go through a significant ritual
of initiation, and like other mystery religions, it purported to disclose to its
initiates the mysteries of the universe.
Outside
of Persia, the main adherents of the Cult of Mithra were members of the Roman
army. There is no evidence that Mithraites were ever persecuted as Christians
were, but like a number of other closed societies in ancient Rome, they had to
keep to themselves and guard their secrets out of concern for the paranoid
mindset of the Roman emperors. All manner of private groups, trade guilds, and
burial societies, were periodically outlawed by one emperor or another, on
account of the fact that most of the emperors were insecure in their power, and
were constantly suspicious of treason.
The
fact that the Cult of Mithra recruited many of its members from the Roman army
probably spared it from persecution because the emperors always ruled by fragile
alliances, and loose coalitions with the army insofar as they were always
dependent on its power. If the emperors were to alienate large groups of their
supporters (the army) through a persecution of their faith, it was guaranteed
that they would be unable to hold onto their rule.
As
I noted earlier, Ulansey saw the secrecy of the cult of Mithra, as practiced in
the Roman Empire, as something distinct from the Persian form of Mithraism. There
are differences between the two systems of belief, but not so great as to merit
the claim that they are distinct from one another. A close look at the
structure of these religious systems; their icons, rituals and beliefs will
reveal crucial things about that relationship and how close it was, as well as the
close relationship between Mithraism and Christianity.
AS
I have noted already, in the Persian form of Mithraism (also referred to as
Zoarastrianism), the priests were called Parsees, while outside of Persia they
were known as the Magi. It is from the Magi that we have derived the term magic.
The
Magi are of historical significance to the history of Christianity.
The
Magi are present in the infancy narrative of Matthew. They give witness to the
birth of Jesus. In the Gospels they were presented as wise men, and astronomers,
just as the priests of Mithras and Zoroaster were in actuality.
Because
the infancy narrative of Matthew is myth, which is to say that it is not an
accurate retelling of history, rather it is a composed and tightly controlled theological
statement, allowing us to conclude that the presence of the Magi in this
narrative is not accidental. It is purposeful and therefore indicative of the
sympathetic relationship between early Christians, and first century CE
Mithraites.
Why
would a sympathetic relationship exist?
Both
Christians and Mithraites believed in the immortality of the soul, the reality
of personal salvation, the ministry of the angelic host, a god of goodness and
light, as well as the expectation of a final battle with the cosmic forces of
darkness, sin and evil.
In
the Roman world, by the first century CE, Mithra had taken on the aspect of the
incarnate son, Sol Invictus. Furthermore, in his exalted state, after the feast
he prepared from the flesh of the “Primal Bull,” Mithra is seen as being
identical to Sol.
Mithra
like Christ is seen as being a mediator between Heaven and Earth, responsible
for guiding the souls of the elect to paradise. The iconographic similarities explain
the sympatico between the two faiths.
Ulansey
stated that the worship of Mithra in caves, as it was done among the Romans,
was markedly distinct from the Persian form of worship, saying that we cannot
explain this as something that occurred by way of a natural syncretic transformation.
However, to dispute Ulansey’s claim, we can easily identify a path of
transformation through the cult of Perseus, the patron deity of Tarsus.
Note
well, as stated earlier, in the iconography of the city of Tarsus, Perseus and
Mithra are one and the same entity.
Perseus
is the son of the Titan Zeus, king of the Olympians and the human Danae. The
symbolism in their union is profound. When Zeus impregnates Danae he comes to
her in the form of a shower of gold; not in the form of a human being, or any other
type of animal (as was often the case with Zeus). The impregnation of Danae by
a shower of gold is the only scene like this depicted in all of the Greek mythologies.
This is to say that Zeus impregnates Danae in his spirit form, through the exalted
and ephemeral medium of a “golden-mist.” This is the most idealized and
spiritual form Zeus could take.
The
impregnation of Danae in this manner, and the subsequent birth of Perseus, is
the closest thing in all of the Greek mythologies to a “virgin birth.” It is a
conception narrative analogous to that of Mary conceiving Jesus by the Holy
Spirit. Danae subsequently gives birth to Perseus in an underground cavern, she
remains a virgin, never having been touched by the hands of men.
In
astronomy the figure of Taurus (the Primal Bull) is the primary symbol of
earth. Insofar as Mithra is transformed and exalted through the death and
“new-life” of the bull, Mithra is also born of the earth.
As
a result, the iconographic narratives of the births of both Perseus and Mithra,
often depict them as emerging from a rock, and it is not unreasonable to
suppose that the underground worship of Mithra served to highlight these
features.
Symbolically,
the earth is the womb wherein we are nurtured, from which we are born, like
Mithra and like Perseus, from the womb of the earth we are born into new life.[11]
Practically,
the worship of Mithra in underground caverns had the effect of limiting
Mithraic circles to small groups of people. The worship of Mithra is thought to
have been exclusively male, though some scholars believe that in some regions
women had their own form of Mithraic devotion.
In
army outposts on the fringes of the Empire, the worship chambers were often
very small, consisting of a narrow room with rows of benches, and not
necessarily undeground.
In
urban centers the size and splendor of the temples varied with the demographics
of the cities they were in, from simple to ostentatious. However, it remains
the case that most Mithraic worship places were small, and intimate. The
intimacy of these temples bears a close similarity to the “house churches” of
the early Christians. Many of the Mithraic temples found in Roman cities, such
as Ostia, were converted to Christian worship after the Emperor Constantine’s
conversion to Christianity.
As
noted, among the Romans, Mithraism, like Christianity was centered in the
“house church.” The practice was carried out among people who were intimate
with one another. Individual practitioners believed that initiation into the
mysteries allowed them to receive immortality through Mithra, but also as a
part of a community.
Mithraism,
like Christianity promoted the notion that its teachings would transform the
individual spiritually, while leaving them in the same social position. The
transformation of the individual was interior. It took place in the heart. It manifested
itself in their position in the life of the Mithraic temple or Mithraic shrine as
they advanced through the stages of initiation, but that did not mean that
their status, or rank outside of the Mithraic community would change. A slave
would remain a slave, a plebian would remain a plebian.
The
activities of the cult were closed to the general society, they were secret and
mysterious, and therefore not a cause for disturbance in the social order
outside of the community.
In
Roman Mithraism there were seven stages of initiation; the Crow, the Griffin,
the Soldier, the Lion, the Persian,
the Helio-Dromus (or Sun-Runner), and
finally the Father. The symbolism of the number seven should not be lost on us,
as in Christianity, there are seven sacraments, seven virtues, seven deadly
sins etc…
The
Order of Initiates were grouped in two classes; those in the first four stages
counted as one class, and the last three stages counted as another class. An
initiate would move through the stages of initiation until he became one with
the Father, in so doing the initiate would become the Father himself.
At
each stage of initiation, the initiate would learn a secret code that later,
after death, would be used to get him into the heavenly realm appropriate to his
rank. This belief in ranked heavenly planes and secret passwords that would allow
the individual through the gates of paradise, was widely believed among
practitioners of the Hebrew Qabalah (coming out of the Pharisaic Sect), as well
as among groups of Christians who had fallen into the heretical errors of
Gnosticism.
A
ceremony of initiation was called a Telete,
from the Greek word telos, meaning
goal or end. In the ceremony of initiation, the initiate would first kneel
before the Father. The Father would then perform a “laying on of hands,”
followed by a rite similar to baptism, wherein the Father would pour water over
the head of the initiate from the horn of a bull. Sometimes the rite of water
would be done through full immersion.
In
cases where the ceremony of initiation was accompanied by an actual animal
sacrifice, the initiate would be splattered with the blood of the sacrificial
animal or slapped in the face with a shank of meat. In other cases the blood
would be replaced by wine.
This
rite of blood, wine, or water is referred to as the purgation. This was a ritual
cleansing of the individual from the corruption of sin. Sometimes the ceremony
of purgation would be completed by passing a torch over the head of the individual,
or even touching the individual with the torch in order to symbolize a baptism
of both fire and water.
The
purgation would be followed by the consecration or coronation, in which a
golden crown would be placed on the head of the initiate; this crown was called
the “solar crown.” Iconographically the solar crown was analogous to the Christian
halo, which term is derived from the Greek; meaning disk of the sun.
There
is much in this symbolism that recalls Christian rituals of initiation; so much
that I will not even make an argument for how intimately linked the two systems
of ritual initiation are. I will simply let the record speak for itself…
It
is the same ritual system.
In
Roman Mithraism, the initiation ceremony would be followed by a feast meant to
symbolize the feast shared by Mithra and Sol.
Ideally,
the sacred feast would come from the sacrifice of a bull, but this was not
required. While the sacrifice of a bull was central to Mithraic worship, as the
cult spread through the empire, and as worship became confined to house
churches, it is thought the sacrifice of the bull was replaced with a symbolic
alternative. Any sacrificial animal could serve for the feat, or even a meal of
bread and wine could be sufficient.
Such
compromises were theologically sound because the death of the “Primal Bull” was
productive of all “good things” on the Earth; any of those “good things” that
come from the bull were suitable to be used in the sacred meal. This meal itself,
much like the Christian Eucharist, was thought to be an effective means of
salvation for the worshippers of Mithra.[12]
In Conclusion
Among
the Romans, the first Christian emperor was Saint Constantine, Constantine the
Great, who, prior to his death-bed conversion to Christianity, was also a
devotee of Mithras-Sol Invictus. When Saint Constantine was made emperor, the
first coins struck in his honor depicted his face with the inscription Sol
Invictus.
This
is evidence that Saint Constantine thought that he was himself, an incarnation
of Sol Invictus. This may seem somewhat confusing considering that it is a
matter of historical record that Saint Constantine attributed his victory over
his enemies to Jesus Christ, it is understood that Saint Constantine’s famous
vision of the Christian symbol, the Chi-Ro (Px), at the battle of the Milvian
bridge (312 CE), enabled his victory when his army was at the gates of Rome.
However,
in the minds of many practitioners of Mithraism, Jesus and Mithra may have been
considered to have been the same person; believing that Jesus was an
incarnation of Mithra.
If
this is true, it begs the question; if Constantine thought he was Mithra-Sol
Invictus, and if Jesus was also believed to be an incarnation of Mithra, did Saint
Constantine the Great, think that he was an incarnation of Christ, Christ
returned, the Second Coming?
I
recommend that you look to the annals of Saint Eusebius his biographer in order
to answer that question. What you find may surprise you.
There
is one thing that I know for certain, Christianity and Mithraism, both as
religious systems and spiritual philosophies, they are both filled with hope: Hope
for the life of the individual; hope that the individual will ultimately
experience justice. Belief that God is good, and that God has given a light to
humankind that will guide us along the
way to paradise.
Mithraism
was less accessible to the average person than Christianity. Its adherents wanted
to keep to its secret ways at a time when Christianity was opening itself to
the world, defining the terms of its orthodoxy and rooting out those groups of
heretics, the Gnostics, who had those same tendencies that Mithraites did toward
secrecy and exclusivism.
Bibliography
Mithraic
Iconography and Ideology,
by Leroy A. Campbell, published by E. J. Brill, 1968
Mithraic
Studies, edited by
John R. Hinnells, published by Manchester University Press, 1975
Mithraism
in Ostia, edited
by Samuel Laeuchli, published by Northwestern University Press, 1967
The
Mithras Liturgy,
edited and translated by Marvin W. Meyer, published by Scholars Press, 1976
Mysteries
of Mithras, by
Franz Cumont, translated by Thomas J. McCormack, published by The Open Court
Publishing Company, 1903
The
New Jerusalem Bible,
Standard Edition, published by Doubleday, 1989
The
Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries,
by David Ulansey, published by Oxford University Press, 1989
The
New Oxford Companion to the Bible,
edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, published by Oxford
University Press, 1993
The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone,
published by Oxford University Press, 1997
[1] By
700 BCE the Royal court of Persia had fully converted to the religion of
Zoroastrianism and its demi-god Mithra. However, Zoroastrianism likely emerged sometime
between 2500 – 1200 BCE.
[2] The
Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, by David Ulansey, pg. 8, par. 4
[3] The
New Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael
D. Coogan, pg.72, par. 3
[4] The
New Jerusalem Bible, standard edition, Doubleday, 2 Chronicles 36: 22-23,
pg. 448, col. 2, par. 2
[5] The
Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, by David Ulansey, pg. 40, par. 1
[6] The
Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, by David Ulansey, pg. 40, par. 1 and pg.
41, par. 3
[7] The
Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, by David Ulansey, pg. 44, par. 1
[8] The
Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, by David Ulansey, pg. 45, par. 2
[9] Strabo 64 B.C.E. – 21 C.E.
[10] The
Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, by David Ulansey, pg. 68
[11] The
Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, by David Ulansey, pg. 34-36
[12] Mithraic
Iconography and Ideology, by Leroy A. Campbell, pgs. 291-305
No comments:
Post a Comment
I am very interested in your commentary, please respond to anything that interests you.