xModem@io.com wrote:

On 12 Feb 2005 01:27:15 -0800,

If you had looked at my page, you would have seen that it is a
collection of *data*. You're welcome to collect the data yourself,

of

course; I put it there to be useful, and to introduce actual facts

to

discussions like these.

But surely this is not _all_ the data based on Mithra.

Actually it *is* all the data from ancient literature -- every
reference to Mithras, useful or not. I compiled it by going around the
web looking for every reference to a literary source, and then looking
at Clauss, Ulansey and Cumont, and making a list of their literary
sources, and then looking them all up. It's not much, is it? But it
is all there is.

What is NOT on that page is all the sculptures, inscriptions and the
like. This is mainly because I haven't got access to this, and also
because there is a lot. However I understand that the signal to noise
ratio is very low, judging from the analyses of it in Clauss and
Ulansey, as it mainly consists of things like "Centurion X gives Y to
Mithras in payment of a vow." I very much wish the corpus of Mithraic
inscriptions was online; but there are limits to what I can do by
myself. I have yet to see anyone even refer to an interesting sounding
inscription. The most interesting stuff is apparently the floor of a
Mithraeum in Ostia, which has pictures on it that have been interpreted
as relating to a series of grades of initiation (there is some stuff
about this in the literary texts). If I can get a photo of this, when
I go to Ostia, I will. Most of the sculptures are of Mithras slaying
the bull, like the one I took in Rome at the bottom of that page, but
not as well preserved.

This argument from omission does not disprove the disputed facts.

Surely it does, if those who assert the facts in question can offer
nothing by way of evidence for them?
It's entirely possible, of course, that there is more evidence. What
is clear, tho, is that none of those asserting this stuff about Mithras
and 25th of December know it. If you doubt me, see if they reference
their sources to an ancient text. They never do... <sigh>.

You know, I really do not see how it is useful to either of us --
whatever our religion -- to be served up with wrong facts. How can we
get anywhere with matters of opinion, unless we at least agree on the
things that can be looked up?

Again, all I am merely trying to say is this: there are numerous

sources that

show Mithraism was shown to have many features found in Christianity.

Are

they _all_ wrong?

The claim is a very general one. It would be necessary to make a list
of the defining characteristics of each to answer it. However, since
Mithraism was a syncretistic mystery cult, while Christianity is a
Jewish heresy, it seems rather specious to me. Pardon me if I don't
get into this, on which I think there might be more than one
legitimate opinion. I'm more concerned with getting the raw facts
straight.

I have just finished a piece by William Edelen on Religious

Illiteracy. In

the article, he supports almost every point previously made on Mithra

(born of

a virgin, etc.). He is not an atheist - he has a Masters degree in

Theology.

The article does not contain a bibliography that references ancient

citations.

Does this make it unbelievable?

Well, I think you shouldn't ask me whether this lack makes the text
unscholarly -- you should find a scholar and ask him. After all, why
is my opinion of use to you?

But I will give it: yes, this lack of proper reference brands the work
as a piece of general writing, not scholarship. I think you will find
any scholar will tell you the same.

But why do we need this Mr. Edelen? If he has information, let him
point us to the primary sources. If he does not do this... well, there
is usually a reason for this, in my experience. We are not, after all,
either of us, interested in the opinions of Mr. Edelen. We want the
DATA. Surely?

Are we to discount, out-of-hand, every bit of non-fiction written, if

it does

not include a bibliography?

Well, how willing to trust something are you, if it makes controversial
claims and can't back it up?

For that matter, how do you know that the works referenced on your

site are genuine?

How can you be sure the authors were not fabricating _their_ facts?

These objections either are invalid; or if valid mean that we know
nothing about antiquity. The latter position is obscurantism; but, if
so, doesn't that mean that everything cited in this thread by either
side is nothing more than imaginary?

Does the fact that a reference is ancient, automatically make it

believable?

No. But the fact that a reference is not automatically means it is
either wrong, or based on some ancient fact. In either case, we want
to get past the modern reference, surely?

Is my reference from Encyclopedia Britannica not to be believed?

Why should we rely on faith? Why should we not check for ourselves?

Encyclopedias are not authorities; merely compilations. If Britannica
really is committing itself to that proposition, I am astonished; but
it does not change the fact that the narrative is wrong. No disrespect
to Britannica, of course.

You see, I don't think anyone should rely on the opinions of others
about matters of religion or politics. Let's have the raw data
ourselves, and work out the facts. I know that there are limits to
this; but as you saw, it turned out to be no great task to assemble the
entire literary testimony to Mithras. I've found in the past that it
is often so, with factual stuff about antiquity; there just is not that
much raw data, and people build these huge edifices on it. So my
thought is, let's have the facts first.

I'm sorry if this sounds as if I'm having a go at you -- I'm not. I
know you posted that stuff in good faith. We've all done the same. It
was through doing this, and getting clobbered (much less politely than
I am trying to be here) that I came to be very annoyed with the people
spreading the myths (not you -- the people you cited) and to be pretty
insistent on the importance of getting to the raw facts. Too many
urban myths, IMHO. But just my opinion, of course.
All the best,

Roger Pearse

In article <d5ds015rkji4i02803amube1eefkogi9m9@4ax.com>,

On 12 Feb 2005 01:27:15 -0800,

I took a look at Pearse's web page

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras

He does give what purports to be original data (or to be more exact
translations of original data) which you can check at any reasonably
good university library. It does contain only literary references so
won't contain archaeological evidence and might not be complete (for
instance some documents may have come to light since the compilations
he uses or the compilers may just be unaware of them).

From what it gives it looks like Mithra was considered to have been
born of a rock not a virgin. No birthdate was given.

To substantiate a claim he was considered to be born of a virgin you
must provide some original cites. If you can only cite popular
articles provide one written by a reputable historian or classicist
who is a specialist in Mithraism (he or she has presumably written
some scholarly works that can be checked).

In article <d5ds015rkji4i02803amube1eefkogi9m9@4ax.com>,

On 12 Feb 2005 01:27:15 -0800,

If you had looked at my page, you would have seen that it is a
collection of *data*. You're welcome to collect the data yourself, of
course; I put it there to be useful, and to introduce actual facts to
discussions like these.

But surely this is not _all_ the data based on Mithra. This argument from
omission does not disprove the disputed facts.

Again, all I am merely trying to say is this: there are numerous sources that
show Mithraism was shown to have many features found in Christianity. Are
they _all_ wrong?

Numerous sources that claim that Mithraism has many features found in
Christianity. To show they must give evidence. Note I'm not
disagreeing that Mithraism doesn't have many features of
Christianity.

I have just finished a piece by William Edelen on Religious Illiteracy. In
the article, he supports almost every point previously made on Mithra (born of
a virgin, etc.). He is not an atheist - he has a Masters degree in Theology.
The article does not contain a bibliography that references ancient citations.
Does this make it unbelievable?

No but it does make it uncheckable. Just as a scientists when
presenting the results of their experiments should have available how
they set up and ran their experiments in order for other scientists to
replicate or evaluate so do historians have to give their sources so
others can check them.

He may well be right but I would ask before taking his opinion whether
he is an expert in that area or just depending on secondary sources.
I note his training is in horticulture, biology, and theology not
history or classics.

Are we to discount, out-of-hand, every bit of non-fiction written,
if it does not include a bibliography?

No but if a historical fact is to be shown then the evidence on what
it is based must be given.

For that matter, how do you know that the works referenced on your
site are genuine? How can you be sure the authors were not
fabricating _their_ facts? Does the fact that a reference is
ancient, automatically make it believable? Is my reference from
Encyclopedia Britannica not to be believed?

Yup, Britannica does make errors (take a look at some earlier
editions). Also many of its articles are tertiary. In other words
they are written by people who are relying on secondary sources for
information. Would I generally depend upon it, yes. Would I blindly
accept a fact in it if a question was raised about that fact, no.
Should someone cite Britannica in a research paper as a secondary
source, no (it might be cited as a original source for instance an
article on Africa in the 1911 edition might be used to show Western
attitudes of that time towards Africa). I also note that the article
you cited was on Christianity and not on Mithraism so the author was
quite likely not relying on his own research into Mithraism even if he
is an expert on Christianity.

You are correct that questions can and should be raised about whether
the ancient works are (a) in fact ancient and (b) accurate in what
they are relaying. However historians are well aware of the pitfalls
of relying on documents. For instance in Pearse's collection one
should be aware of the biases (anti, neutral, or pro Mithraism) and
the ability to know of various authors (initiate or not of Mithraism,
writing about times long past or places far away,...).

I took a look at Pearse's web page

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras

He does give what purports to be original data (or to be more exact
translations of original data) which you can check at any reasonably
good university library. It does contain only literary references so
won't contain archaeological evidence and might not be complete (for
instance some documents may have come to light since the compilations
he uses or the compilers may just be unaware of them).

From what it gives it looks like Mithra was considered to have been
born of a rock not a virgin. No birthdate was given.

To substantiate a claim he was considered to be born of a virgin you
must provide some original cites. If you can only cite popular
articles provide one written by a reputable historian or classicist
who is a specialist in Mithraism (he or she has presumably written
some scholarly works that can be checked).

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:33:18 -0500,

On 12 Feb 2005 01:27:15 -0800,

If you had looked at my page, you would have seen that it is a
collection of *data*. You're welcome to collect the data yourself,
of course; I put it there to be useful, and to introduce actual
facts to discussions like these.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

But surely this is not _all_ the data based on Mithra. This
argument from omission does not disprove the disputed facts.

That's one thing I've noticed. The religious sites ignore what doesn't
support their apologetics.

Three things wrong with this:

1. No proof it actually comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica 2005.

2. The year of the birth of Mithra is missing.

3. Jesus wasn't born on December 25.

From Encyclopedia Britannica 2005:

"Early Christianity appropriated mythological motifs and genres from the
Greek and Middle Eastern cultures that dominated the Hellenistic Age (c.
300
BC-c. AD 300). Among them was the miraculousbirth of a deity; the virgin
birth of a god or goddess was a theme common in the mythology of the
Hellenistic world. Aphrodite (Venus), the goddess of sexual love, for
example,
emerged from sea foam. Athena sprang, in full battle array, from the head
of
Zeus, her father. The legend of the virgin birth of Alexander the Great
(4th
century BC) from his mother, Olympias, whose reputation was notthat of a
virgin, demonstrated Alexander's divinity. MITHRA, the Iranian god of
light
and of sacred contracts, is described as a divine child of radiant heavenly
beams. MITHRA was born from the rock of a cave, the birth witnessed by
shepherds on a day (December 25) that was later claimed by Christians as
the
Nativity of Christ."

Three things wrong with this:

1. No proof it actually comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica 2005.

2. The year of the birth of Mithra is missing.

3. Jesus wasn't born on December 25.