h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Any internet search with "Mithras" and "Christmas" will turn up a wealth of information on the connections between the two. I'll post the link to the Snopes page on my links page, since Snopes is one of the most reliable myth debunkers (I use them regularly to sniff out e-mail hoaxes).

As for the bit on dying gods, and more on Mithras, an outstanding source is Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith." You'll also find nuggets about Christianity embedded in pretty much any text on the Templars, which almost universally end up evolving into a criticism of Christianity and an in-depth investigation of its true origins, in a manner far more objective than you're likely to encounter:
- "The Hiram Key"
- "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (just try to ignore the silly conspiracy theory)
- "The Messianic Legacy" (ditto, it's the sequel)
- "The Templar Revelation"

As for the connection between Mithras and Tarsus, for that I relied on a book on Mithraism who name escapes me right now, and I'm rather far from my library at the moment. However, I've located a website that appears, at first glance, to be Christian Apologist, but does a fairly good job of describing Tarsus. That one will be on my links page, as well. My links page can be reached via my homepage, listed in the "Cool Things Not Intended For the Guide" list box.

Okay, well I picked up a few books at the Uni Library on Mithraism to see what it's all about; including "The Roman Cult of Mithras" by Manfred Clauss, "The Mysteries of Mithra" by Franz Cumont, and "The Origins Of The Mithraic Mysteries" by David Ulansey.

After a half an hour in Clauss's book, I immediately notice a few things. Namely that the original Persian deity Mithras is seen as completely separate from the Mithras that dominates the Roman mystery cult. Also that the earliest references from archaeology in the Roman Empire are from about 90 AD. The first dated reference doesn't surface until the middle of the second century.

That's my findings so far, make what you will of them.

Oh, and Clauss also seems to think Mithraism developed out of Ostia, so far no mention of Tarsus except that it issued a coin depicting Mithras about 238-244 AD.

Also that site you listed is definitely not by an apologist, quite the opposite.

Anyway, I'll continue hitting the books, and keep you posted on what I find.

I just glanced through the site I referenced. I read it through a bit more carefully, and you are correct, it was not an apologist.

As for the rest, I'll have to do some more research myself.

Oh good, more research is always good. I wonder if we couldn't turn this into a guide entry down the road.

Some further bits from my reading:
Clauss never mentions a virgin birth, but explains (with numerous photographs of archaeological finds that support this) that legend had it that Mithras was born from a rock. I suppose one might classify the rock as a "virgin", but it hardly makes much sense to do so. There is also no mention of astrologers visiting Mithras at birth (for one thing he is usually shown as being born full grown from the rock). However, there was a short discussion (complete with drawing) of a lead medallion found in Italy with the familiar scene of baby Jesus being visited by the three atrologers, except that the three figures look suspiciously like followers of Mithras (the Phrygian caps are a dead giveaway). This of course supports the apparently well-founded claim that Christianity and Mithraism were in stiff competition with each other.

I have read the whole book now, and the last chapter is a very interesting section on the relationship between Mithras and Christ. Some of the material I reference above comes from there, but there was also a pretty good treatment of the documented similarities between the two belief systems. There is talk of the December 25 connection, but its basically the same as the snopes reference you posted, which I'm sure you'll agree is not necessarily supportive of the claim you put forth (Christianity coming from Mithraism, that is). Also, there is a short discussion of Mithras or "Sol Invictus" and Christ both being referred to as light, Mithras portraying the more normal pagan sun god idea, and Christ evoking more of a light of righteousness or purity. The most well documented similarity appears to be the wine and bread offering common to both faiths. Two early Christian writers, Tertullian and Justin Martyr, both accuse the Mithraists of stealing the communion supper, both the wine/bread and the language used while eating and drinking. Clauss notes here that the offering of bread and wine is common in ancient religion, and that he doesn't think there was necessarily any copying done by either side. He also goes in a good bit about the persecution and possible absorbtion of the Mithraists by Christianity. He even cites later evidence in the Catholic church of continuing sun worship becoming a problem.

So anyway, that's Clauss's view of the matter. I'll start in on Cumont next and see what he has to say. (BTW, if you're looking to add to your library, the Clauss book is pretty good about sticking to archaeological findings, and was a pretty good read as well.)

I don't know if *we* could turn this into a Guide entry, but you may feel free to. I don't do guide entries.

I never claimed that Christianity came from Mithraism. Christianity came from Judaism. It is my contention that Paul borrowed heavily from Mithraism, and his view of Christianity was skewed by it. The snopes entry discusses the origin of Christmas, not of Christianity, which was the point I wanted to make at that time.

Looking back, it seems that the primary problem between Claus' research and the things I've read (and the bit about astrologers is probably an error, I post exclusively from work nowadays, so I don't have the benefit of my library... as for the virgin birth, gods were being born of virgins left and right in those days, so I may be mistaken about Mithra being one of them) is a question of sequence. My readings place Mithraism in Tarsus by the 3rd century AD, after migrating in from Persia, where it was born of Zoroastrianism.

The question becomes, which came first? Mithras or Jesus? If Mithras came first, Jesus is the fake. If Jesus came first, then it is Mithras who is a fake. Tertullian and Justin Martyr would naturally have accused the Mithraists of stealing their practices, because they were on their particular side of the intense rivalry. It's all too easy to see the Mithraists accusing the Christians of the same thing. However, if Mithras came after Jesus, then why would the Catholics have to say that the devil went back in time and planted Mithraism as an attempt to undermine Christianity?

When did they say that? (date, I mean)

Apparently, Justin Martyr said it. I've been going through websites, since I don't have my library handy. I've got a few choice ones for you already, especially this quote, from a Catholic site: "The practices, beliefs and offices and hierarchies of the cult of Mithra were largely absorbed by the Catholic Church, from the Pope as the high priest to Communion to baptism to its celebrations. Thus, Babylon's survival through the Persian cult of Mithra survives still in Roman Catholicism."

I'll comb through them all and update my links page, and let you know when I've finished. I'm still looking for actual dates concerning the origin of Mithraism. It seems most people just trace it back to Zoroastrianism, and put it back in 550 BCE. I'm having trouble finding distinctions between the birth of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism.

Mission accomplished. Check out the links, starting with the one that provides evidence of Mithriac practices in Cilicia nearly a century before the crucifixion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A532289

Tarsus is I believe in what is now Turkey...

Paul (or rather Saul as he was originally known) was jewsish but a Roman citizen (citizenship inherited from his father upon whome the honor was originally bestowed for unspecified services to Rome). He was sent into Palastine to seek and destroy the extremists and fundementalists - to give a somewhat dubious modern feel to the story - in the area, a group that that conspicuously included the early the Christian church. However, on the road to Damascus......

I guess you know the rest.

Deebank

PS: There were other interestng characters around at the time eg the vilified Simon Magus whose preachings and practises were said to be somewhat gnostic. He was later bad mouthed in the New Testament and even compared to the devil... chapter and verse escape me.

Tarsus is indeed in what is now known as Turkey. Back then, it was Asia Minor, and Tarsus was in an Asia Minor country known as Cilesia. Since this was the era of history that preceeded the Ottoman Turks, the area was largely settled by Greek descendants, and its culture was Hellenic in nature.

I have yet to see any evidence to support the claim that Saul was originally a Jew. Given his status as a Roman citizen, and how Jews in general regarded Rome (pagan state, usurper of church and national sovereignty), and the nature of his home city of Tarsus, I have strong convictions to the contrary.

Bear in mind that Roman citizenship could be confered as a reward or privilege on non-Romans for services rendered and that there were many 'collaborators' at the time. Herod was half-jewish and the Sanhedrin were quite willing to toe the Roman line if they maintained the status quo - ie, the Sanhedrin still in power - a situation that was shortly to go'pear-shaped'.

And circumstancially, Saul is certainly a jewish (Davidic even) name.

The implication is Saul of Tarsus was part of the Romano/Jewsish establishment (the infamous 'seekers after smooth things'from the dead sea scrolls) sent in to quell the fundementalist rumblings that the followers (and family) of Jesus rightly or wrongly found themselves at the centre of. Perhaps he was sent in to infiltrate the movers, shakers and political leaders in this group - you really can't divorce the Holy Land of legen from what was actually happening in palestine at the time - and if this was the case he certainly succeeded, while admittedly 'going native' to a certain extent.

TO modern eyes it would appear that we (as in the modern West) would have more in common with the baddies in this little tale than the righteous - a bunch of fundementalist terrorist zealots (and I use the word knowingly!) Many of whome would later commit mass suicide at Masada rather than submit to the Roman yoke. Does it all sound horribly at least slightly familiar?

Paul, however had by this time gone off evangalising by this time around the Roman world and so his committment to the cause of jewsish nationalism was never put to the test.

MD

If your best evidence for Saul's Judaic descent is his name, then I'm not convinced. It's quite possible that it was always Paul, and Peter and the disciples simply referred to him as Saul. As Jews themselves, they may have Jewized (for lack of a better term) his name, in the same way that many names were Americanized as people entered at Ellis Island, for a variety of reasons (will of the immigrant, whim of the immigration official, misheard spellings, alien pronounciations that the speakers were too illiterate to spell themselves, etc.).

I think the best evidence for Paul being a jew is that he claims to be and the author of Luke and Acts corroborate it. Period.

As for your mission being accomplished, hardly. All writing indicating strong links between early persian worship of Mitra and the Roman cult of Mithras are based on the early work of Franz Cumont. His work has since been doubted not only by Christians(as one of your web references states), but also by the general scholarly community. It is praised as enthusiastic but later archaeology has discredited much of the link between persian and Roman religion. In fact, some scholars believe the Roman Mithras to have evolved out of the myth of Perseus.

And as I've already pointed out, most of the so called connections don't have all that much substance to them. Where then is the justification for your statement (if you don't mind my quoting you):

"The question becomes, which came first? Mithras or Jesus? If Mithras came first, Jesus is the fake. If Jesus came first, then it is Mithras who is a fake."

You've made quite a lot of claims here. Firstly, I don't believe that every bit of scholarship here is based on Cumont... lots of others have corrected his work.

Archaeology has disproved the connection between Zoroastrianism and Mithriasm: references?

As for the justification for that statement, I should think it would be obvious. If one came first, then the other is a plagiarism. Or do you think that two authors, without any contact between the two of them, would both be able to write conspicuously similar versions of War and Peace?

Where are the similarities? So far the only thing that has held up is the communion supper?

It's more like two different books that both happen to mention a similar meal that was common at the time period or setting.

Similarities, Literal:
- Virgin birth
- Manger birth
- Birth visit by shepherds.
- Birth on December 25.
- Star on horizon signifying birth.
- Last meal similarities.
- Sacrificed self for world.

Don't tell me the Christmas connection didn't hold up, because you know better.

It is my contention that dying and rising gods were very popular in the early Christian world, and Jesus was nothing but the newcomer to a long tradition. Christianity did steal some of the minor details from him, just as they stole details from everyone.

Only the meal similarity has anything behind it.

The Christmas connection:
-Mithra was born from a rock, not a virgin
-I found nothing about shepherds
-Jesus wasn't born on December 25, nobody with any sense claimed he did
-nothing about stars
-He sacrificed a bull, wasn't sacrificed himself

A search on "Mithras" and "virgin" will lead you to a wealth of sites to contradict your claim about the rock. Or search on this phrase for a very good site from Iran (unless you wish to remain in denial about his Persian origins): "Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation."

Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, but his birth is celebrated on that day. The early church claimed it as his birthday. Then again, I've never accused any theist of having any sense.

Mithras died after killing the bull. Self-sacrifice.

They say this because they're referring to the Persian deity. The Roman Mithras was born from a rock. They're two separate deities.