> I think Christianity has a different feel than Mithraism, as you said, because they are different religions with only superficial similarities.
The argument has never been that Christianity is the same as Mithraism. The argument is that much of what we call Christianity today is derived from Mithraism. The "superficial" similarities are astounding. They form a good answer to claims of people like James Carroll (Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History) who claim the Church went out of its way to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. The Church did in fact do so, but at a much later date and for different reasons.
When you have an almighty emperor who has the title of "High Priest" [of Mithra?] presiding over the council to decide what is and is not Christianity. And when there is so very little of Christian scripts left to negated him, I find it very likely that he would incorporate as much of Mithraism in as he liked.
Carrol got one thing right. Christianity was Constantine's sword. What he is guilty of is "survivor bias". In other words, he went back and looked at Christianity from the eyes of 20th C. person and believed that what is important today must have been just as important 2000 years ago. But the Roman Legionnaires were mostly Mithraists. If Constantine was to keep his "sword" sharp, he had no choice but not to contradict them too much.
To be sure there are some big differences between Christianity and Mithraism. Chief among them is that Mithraism is a religion for men. You could argue that RCC, especially in older times, was the same. And I think Mithraism did have an effect on that front. But Mithra was a lot more male oriented. It was primarily the religion of soldiers and statesmen.
Another difference is that Mithraism had considerably more rituals and secret ceremonies than any sect of Christianity ever did. This is also one of the reasons why the details of Mithraism are not well known; you had to be one of the in crowd to get know it. Mithraism was not an evangelical religion.
However, I would argue that temporal proximity makes Mithra in the context of Zoroastrianism more important than its purer and more archaic form.
> One last thing about Mithraism. It seems difficult to pin down exactly what Mithraism was because we have no scriptures from that religion laying out what its beliefs were.
I have heard this argument in a number of "research" papers that first concluded the connection does not exist and then went ahead and found reasons for it. But I can make the same argument about Christianity. There is no text left from Jesus himself. And very little of New Testament can be traced to its first century. Paul was on a very different mission than Christ. He was from a different culture and faced different enemies. He was not converting the Jews and had to explain his understanding in a different context. So can I also use this line about Christianity?
On the other hand, Zoroastrianism is still alive and well. Modern emphasis on trying to understand Mithraism is too narrowly focused and too shallow. With the introduction of Zoroastrianism around 600 BC, Mithra became just one of many gods (or guardian angels if you will) of the more encompassing religion. It would be wrong for us to try to fully understand the cult of Apollo without taking Zeus & Co. into account. Since Zoroastrianism has survived to this day, the important outlines of Mithraism is not as hard to come by as you are led to believe.
> Was Anahita Mithra's mother or consort?
Quite possibly both. Certainly she had the title " Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras, and Benefactor of Humanity", which sounds very similar to Mary's. It was not unusual for Greek gods to be sister/mother and wife, and (for lack of better term) Iranian gods were no different. In fact, it was more common. Here is an explanation, which I know you have read:
Iranian-origin Sumerians were skilled astronomers, attaching each of the gods to certain star or planets. The mother goddess was sometimes attributed to the moon and some times to Venus. The reason behind this duality lies in the tradition of incest, which was not only allowed, but also sanctified in ancient Iran. According to this tradition which dates back to the cave dwelling period, the kings and noble men of Iran had to marry their close relatives, the offspring of such marriages enjoying priority to inherit the crown. The same tradition was observed among the divinities, so much so that the ancient goddesses appear alternately as the mother, the sister or the wife of the masculine god, having different ranks. That is why Anahita, the Iranian goddess, sometimes appears as mother earth and the goddess of fertility and birth, and sometimes as Venus, the goddess of music, love, jealousy and coquetry. Nahid is alternately the wife, the sister or the mother of god. However, when she is the wife and mother of god, her symbol is the moon, and when she represents the goddess of love and music, the planet Venus.
> I just can't see anything in Christianity except superficial things like the timing of Christmas as being related to Mithraism.
I am afraid you are contradicted here by Christian missionaries. I saw this in a TV documentary and am not sure if I can find a reference on the net. But the gist of it was that when British missionaries went to India, they met Parsis (who are the direct extension of Mithraists). After studying them and trying to convert them, the missionary concluded that they were Christian in all but name. Consider these similarities:
- Belief in being born again. "Spirit of Spirit, if it be your will, give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again - and the sacred spirit may breathe in me." -- Prayer to Mithraism
- Heaven and Hell (note, Romans did not believe in Heaven; everyone went to Hell) All the wicked, the rejected and unapprised would be destroyed by Mithra by fire, and those accepted into Paradise would live with Mithra forever with eternal life.
- and later Purgatory
- Belief in the Judgment Day: The faithful to the Mithra believed they would live in bliss after death until the Judgment of mankind. Mithra would then unlock Paradise for the faithful and come to Earth and kill all the unapprised. All the dead would return from their graves to be judged.
- The persona of Mary is almost identical to that of Anahita
- Baptism
- Virgin Birth
- taking the wine and the bread at mass
- The calendar (before the changes by decree. October means the 8th month and not the 10th)
- Using songs and hymns as a method of prayer
- Sunday as the Sabbath (the day of honoring the Sun god)
- December 25th was declared the birthday of Mithra
.
They hardly seem superficial.
Sun Tzu |
