|
|
The worship of Mithra had been carried to completion under the Arsacids, whose language was Pahlavi, whose religion was Zoroastrian, and who founded the Parthian Empire in 248 B.C.E. Mithraism issued from the heart of Zoroastrianism, but absorbed various Chaldean (Babylonian) characteristics, including much zodiacal and astrological symbolism, and was profoundly influenced by the ubiquitous mystery-cults of Asia Minor, particularly that of Attis-Cybele, which, as we have seen, flourished in Phrygia, a territory in the domain of the Arsacidae.
When Christianity arose two centuries later, it did so independently of Mithraism; yet Christianity and Mithraism were astonishingly similar, because they were composed of elements which were the common possession of Asia Minor. Renan declared that had Christianity not conquered, Mithraism would have emerged victorious; our own opinion is that the child of Mithraism known as Manichaeism would have become the faith of the ancient world.
Here then we have the world's second great religious synthesis. Because of its similarity to Christianity, the fathers could only declare that the devil had established Mithraism for the sole purpose of sowing confusion;
Justin Martyr declared: "Jesus took bread, and . . . said, 'This do ye in rememhrance of me, this is my body'; and, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is my blood'; and gave it to them . . . Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithra, commanding the same thing to be done'' (First Apology, LXVI).
Tertullian was certain that all rival cults were the devil's handiwork: "Washing is the channel through which they are initiated into the sacred rites of some notorious Isis or Mithras, . . . at the Eleusinia they are baptized to achieve regeneration, and the remission of their sins. Which fact being acknowledged, we recognize here also the zeal of the devil rivalling the things of God, while we find him, too, practicing baptism"(On Baptism, V).
Tertullian states that Mithra "in the kingdom of Satan, sets his marks on the forehead of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of resurrection.... What also must one say to Satan's limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, his proficients in continence.... Satan has shown such emulation in . . . administration of Christ's sacraments" that he has "succeeded in adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints" (Prescription Against Heretics, XL).
And again: "Blush . . . to be condemned by some soldier of Mithras.... Let us take note of the devices of the devil, who is wont to ape some of God's things with no other design than, by the faithfulness of his servants, to put us to shame" (De Corona, 15).
The fact is that the parallel between Mithraism and Essenism and apostolic Christianity was actually far more extensive than any of the early Fathers implied:
Answer for yourself: Where did these doctrines which were shared by all three (Mithraism, Essenism, and primitive Christianity) come from? Well, have you read the previous articles? If you did, then you know know for yourself how religious synthesis of these beliefs originated and and were handed down and assimilated by succeeding nations.
We need not be surprised at these similarities, since we know that Mithraism and Christianity were alike based upon universal doctrines and practices already ancient with age before these cults appeared.
Christianity borrowed significant elements from Mithraism after they had become active competitors:
And so when the Christians made December 25 the birthday of their savior also, they made as great a concession to the Mithraists as they had previously made to the Attis-Cybele cult when they accepted March 22-25 as the date of Christ's passion.
Although Mithraism does not seem to have made much progress among the Greeks, it spread rapidly among the Romans and the barbarians. We learn from Plutarch (Life of Pompey, 24) that the cult was introduced into the Roman Empire in 67 B.C.E. by pirates. It was attractive to the emperors and the nobles, because it taught that kingly authority is granted by Ormazd: it counted Nero, Commodus, Aurelian, Diocletian, Galerius, Licinius, Julian, and many senators among its devotees. Since Mithra was the invincible god of battle, soldiers were his particular favorites; and, with Mithra's his cross branded upon their foreheads, they carried his cult to the farthest limits of the Empire. Since Mithra taught the necessity of stable government, civil servants were among his ardent supporters. And, since he thundered against social injustice and preached the brotherhood of man, the poor, the exploited, and the slaves embraced his worship by myriads, prepared to die for the faith. Mithraism, then, encouraged by the state, spread among the poor, through the army, and everywhere in the civil service. Hundreds of Mithraeums were established along the trading routes of Africa, Italy, Gaul, Spain, Germany, Britain, and the Orient. Slaves from the Middle East, transported to Rome and the provinces, sang hymns to Mithra from the Indian Ocean to points beyond the Pillars of Hercules.
The power of Mithraism lay in 4 areas:
The weakness of Mithraism in 3 areas:
Each of the above strengths and weaknesses you now have seen in the prior articles as we chronicled the development of pagan mysteries from nation to nation; some mysteries had some of the above religious tenants, while not all; and others had their own compliment but none included all of the above religious beliefs. Again, let us understand that these pagan mysteries were "flexible" and this ensured their success and spread throughout the peoples.
Mithraism elevated the most dynamic deity of the Zoroastrian pantheon into a position of pre-eminence. Mithra was a very ancient deity; and, since he appears in the oldest myths of both Persia and India, we know that he antedated 2000 B.C.E. Although he was not an Ameshaspenta, that is, one of the original seven divine powers, he was one of the greatest creations; and he must have grown progressively with the imperial expansion under Cyrus and the Achaemenides. He was the lord of heavenly light always identified with the sun; he was the god of truth, cattle, agriculture, and the wide pastures; he was also the god of battle, the protector of the good men of Ahuramazda, and one of the judges who met all souls at the Kinvad Bridge. He was, finally, the power or agency by which Ahuramazda created mankind and all other good creatures which live upon the earth; he became the Logos, for he is called "the incarnate Word" (Mihir Yast, VII, 25). Mithra became so great that he was at last substantially equal to Ahuramazda himself; and we read in the sacred scriptures of Zoroaster: "We sacrifice unto Mithra, the lord of all countries, whom Ahuramazda made the most glorious of all the heavenly gods. So may Mithra and Ahura, the two great gods, come and give us help!" (Mihir Nyayis).
Mithra granted every benefit to the righteous and visited the wicked with condign punishment (Mihir Yast, VIII, 29); he was "victory-making, army-possessing, and all-knowing'' (Ibid., ix, 35); he smote all his adversaries, the unbelievers, the creatures of Ahriman (Ibid., XIII, 59); he was the just and merciful god "whom the poor man, who follows the good law, when wronged and deprived of his rights, invokes for help, with hands uplifted" (Ibid., XXII, 84); he was the god who kept and protected his devotees in this world and gave them salvation in the next (Ibid., XXIII, 93); he required sacrifices from the faithful, who must first prepare themselves with lustrations and penitential stripes (Ibid., XXX, 122); he was the god of immortality, who confers everlasting mansions upon the true believers.
Such was the Mithra of Zoroaster.
The new mystery-cult retained Ormazd and Ahriman, but abandoned the old Ameshaspentas and Yazatas; it accentuated the metaphysical dualism of Zoroastrianism, emphasized and re-oriented its eschatology, and absorbed a variety of foreign elements. Thus panoplied, it set forth to win dominion over the human mind.
As no Mithraic scriptures or documents are extant, our analysis of the cult must be based upon fragmentary references and upon sculptures, inscriptions, and basreliefs. All this material has been gathered into a single monumental work (Tests & Monuments, Figures, Reliefs And Mysteres Of Mithra, by Franz Cumont), from which the following reconstruct lion emerges.
The new Mithra was born miraculously, in a cave, on the 25th of December; this event was witnessed only by some shepherds, who brought gifts and adored the new-born god, a mythology reproduced in Luke 2:8-20. Having grown into a sturdy youth, he set out to become the master of the earth. First he made the sun subject to his will and was therefore associated with this luminary; he was also identified with the bull, or ox, of Zoroastrianism, which it became his duty to capture and slay. He did this reluctantly, since it was the pristine creation of the good god; but the sacrifice was imperative, because from the soul of the bull arose all the celestial spheres and from his body sprang all the life of earth, including man. From the carcass of the bull grew all useful herbs; from its spinal marrow, wheat; from its blood, the grape, which furnished the wine used in the mysteries; and from its seminal fluid issued all animals serviceable to mankind. In many of the reliefs depicting the slaying of the bull, ears of grain sprout either from its body or from the wound, somewhat as was the case with the slain Osiris; and we find Mithra holding a drinking horn in his left hand and receiving a bunch of grapes from the sungod. The bull was sacrificed that mankind might have the bread of life, and Mithra drank his wine-blood eucharist.
Through identification with the slain bull, therefore, Mithra became the creator of all good creatures, and of all the beneficent things that grow upon the earth, as well as the progenitor and savior of man. But now Ahriman entered upon his role as the Great Adversary; and Mithra became the protector of all good men, of all useful creatures and herbage, as well as the mediator between Ormazd and the human race. When Ahriman sent a terrible drought that would have destroyed mankind, Mithra saved it by shooting an arrow into a rock from which copious streams of water emerged. When Ahriman sent a great flood, and later a great fire, Mithra enabled the human race to survive. His work now complete, Mithra celebrated ceremonially a Last Supper and returned to Ormazd (Heaven); but continued from the celestial mansions to protect and encourage his devotees.
Mithraism retained the basic cosmogony and metaphysics of Zoroastrianism; that is, it conceived of the material world as the domain of Ahriman, which Mithra had invaded to reclaim it for Ormazd. The soul of man comes from the celestial sphere, but his body from darkness. All that is physical is of Ahriman, all that is spiritual of Ormazd. All useful creatures and beneficent forces are the gifts of the latter through the agency of Mithra; all those which bring disaster or destruction are the counter-creations of Ahriman.
The central element in the Mithraic myth is the slaying of the bull, which is replete with Osirian soteriology; this made of it a mystery-cult and of Mithra a savior-god. The event is depicted in countless friezes and bas-reliefs which have been found in the ruins of Mithraeums. Mithra is represented as a powerful youth thrusting his sword into the side of the sacred bull: the scorpion and the serpent, creatures of Ahriman, are depicted as attacking and attempting to drink the blood of the animal and thus to prevent the birth of mankind.
In the Mithraic system, as in the Zoroastrian, there is a constant struggle between good and evil, light and darkness, the spiritual and the physical. In this bitter war, man can hope for victory only by the ceaseless aid of Mithra, and by suppressing and mortifying his Ahrimanic nature; he must employ constantly the sacraments of baptism, lustration, and the communion of bread and wine to achieve mystical union with the god. As the slaying of the bull was the central element in the soteriology of the cult, it practiced the taurobolium in the same manner as the cult of Cybele. Initiates were placed under a grating, above which the sacred animal was ceremonially slain; thus incarnadined, the newly-inducted member was drenched and so saved in the blood of the bull.
The Mithraic congregations were not communal groups like the Pythagorean thiasoi; except that they contained no female communicants, they were quite similar to modern church congregations. Each was small, comprising perhaps a hundred members; as the number of converts increased, new units were established. Since Mithra was born in a cave, the "churches" themselves were built underground, or at least so as to simulate subterranean conditions.
Jerome informs us that the Mithraic mystic passed through seven degrees or orders (Epistle, XVII, 2), which reflect Chaldean influence. They succeeded one another as follows: Corax, or Raven, signifying a messenger; Cryphius, or Hidden, indicating esoteric; Miles, or soldier, symbolizing the warfare of good against evil; Leo, the Lion, representing fire; and then in order, Perses, Heliodromus, and Pater, or Father, which consisted of the order of priesthood.
Actual initiation into the order, however, began with the degree of Miles, when the member was branded in the forehead with the figure of a cross. Thereafter, the communicant was inducted into the higher mysteries: he took an oath never to reveal the secrets of the order and he underwent frequent purificatory lustrations. When inducted into the degree of Leo, he was purified with honey, and baptized, not with water, but with fire, as John the Baptist declared that his successor would baptize. After this second baptism, initiate. were considered participants, and they received the sacrament of bread and wine commemorating Mithra's banquet at the conclusion of his labors.
Mithraism, like Platonism, taught that all souls pre-exist in the ethereal regions. At the birth of each new human being, one of these descends into a human body and by this process a portion of Ormazd is imprisoned in the cofl~n-clay of Ahriman. Only the human body, the material prison-house, perishes at death.
At birth begins for every human being the great struggle between spirit and matter, light and darkness, good and evil, soul and body, the indwelling Ormazd and Ahriman, which must go on until death. Those members of mankind in whom the lower elements prevail are Children of Darkness; those in whom the higher are victorious, the Children of Light. This is the same metaphysical dualism which permeated Pythagoreanism, Essenism, and the Pauline theology, all of which called for the suppression of material, carnal, or worldly desires; in short, for an asceticism based not upon economic but upon metaphysical imperatives.
The eschatology of Mithraism was in part similar to but also in part different from that of Zoroastrianism. Neither had an eternal hell: but Mithraism was not universalist: again, its doctrine in this respect was that of Paul. At death, the elect souls are sent by Mithra direct to heaven; others are consigned to a con. dition of sleep until the final consummation, when Mithra will appear to reawaken them. A great and wonderful bull, like that pristine bovine, will appear; Mithra will separate the good from the bad, judge all according to the deeds they have done, slay the sacrificial bull, serve to the redeemed a final and immortalizing eucharist prepared from this animal, and send these fortunate ones to reside forever with the Elect. The terrestrial universe will then be consumed by a great conflagration in which all the wicked, including Ahriman and his demons, will be annihilated.
Mithraism, therefore, divided the human race into three classes: first, the spiritual, the Elect, the higher initiates into that cult, who were to be admitted to heaven immediately upon death; second, the wicked, the evildoers, the incorrigibly material, who will be destroyed in the final holocaust; and, third, the lesser Mithraists, who strive for the higher things but succeed only in part, and those essentially good members of mankind who have not participated in the communion. The souls of these will sleep during the ages which intervene between death and the final consummation (a doctrine later known as soul-sleeping); their grossness will then be purged away and blessed immortality conferred upon them by the ultimate eucharist.
Persian power gradually rose and can be considered to have peaked during the reign of Xerxes, from 486 B.C.E to 465 B.C.E. This is the time, also, when the portents of decline occured. When Xerxes' invasion of Greece failed, the military loss was of such calibre that the Persians never again undertook a major military operation against the Greek mainland - also, this signalled the defeatability of the Persian troops that had hitherto been continuously victorious. This was, however, not sufficient to dislodge the Persian Empire just yet. With Darius II Greece finally fell under Persian rule through several clever political and military actions - it was, however, not military superiority that conquered Greece, but exploitation of the Greek inter-city-state strife that allowed Persia to move in successfully. As the reign of Artaxerxes II came to a close during the last years of the 5th century B.C.E. the empire suffered a rise in anarchistic behaviours by small prinicipalities. This was, however, completely surppressed when the vicious reign of Artaxerxes III began. He crushed all rebellions and the empire reached its former glory as it had been under Xerxes little less than a hundred years earlier. This Persian dominance ended with the rise of Alexander who with his superior army of phalanx, following the assassination of his father, Philip of Macedon, began to fulfill his dream for world conquest. With the Macedonian victory at Gaugamela on October 1, 331 B.C.E. the Persian empire essentially ceased to exist. However, the reign of Alexander was short lived, and with his death in Babylon on June 13, 323 B.C.E. another series of wars arose between his generals for dominance, as Alexander had left no heirs. In less than 20 years, Seleucus succeeded in gaining control, beginning the short reign of the Seleucid empire. This, empire, however, did not include all of the Persian empire - the eastern fronteirs west of the Indus were lost, as well as small kingdoms in Media, Armenia (in the southern Caucasus), Pontus and Cappadocia. For several years, the Seleucid kings attempted to maintain the empire, but, because of its great expanse, enemies had too many points of attack that the Seleucid armies could not maintain at once. However, eventhough constant war plagued the empire, Mazdaism, and what was now the cult of Mithra - that is Mithraism - gained its Hellenistic veneer and through the Greek veins of the empire, was able to spread and properly root itself in centers in Armenia and Cappadocia. If one is to discount the ancient Aryan origins, then indeed, this is the time and place that Mithraism can be said to have it's birthing place. However, as eventhough throughout the following centuries, Mithraims maintained a thick Hellenic and Chaldaean skin, its inner mysteries remained fully Iranian in nature, and as such, the link between the Mithraism of the 4th century B.C.E. can not be severed with that of the ancient Aryan deity worship. One of the most significant Hellenic contributions of this time was that of iconography. The Mithraic preists in step with the traditions of Mazdaism and Zoroastrianism did not utilize symbolic representations of their gods. This radically changed with the advent of Hellenic influences which culminated in a distinct iconography for the Mithraic followers. It can be surmised that at this time the images of the tauroctony, that is, the bull slaying, that form one of the central scenes within the later Roman mithraeums (real or artificial cave structures in which the Roman Mithraists worshipped) were being formed. Unfotunately, as so few documents have survived on Mithraism, save the passages from Porphyry (3rd century Greek historian), Dio Christosom (2nd century Greek philosopher) and the polemics of the early church fathers, the origins and nature of many of the Mithraic images that have survived can only be analyzed in terms of educated speculation. Some images can be traced back to their origins more effectively than others; we have for instance the birthing scene of Mithra. In Armenian legends Mithra was born in a cave of a virgin mother, Anaitis - which earlier legends posited as his sexual partner, although, her personification as Ishtar, could have easily mutated in various fashions throughout the centuries; also, in Mazdian legend, as related to us by Porphyry, Mazdian was to have concecrated a special cave for the worship of Mithra; and it is known, symbollic caves were not uncommon in the ancient world. We also have the scene of the birth of Mithra from a rock or sea of water, the latter of which can be clearly traced back to Mazdian creation mythology.
By the mid 2nd Century B.C.E. the Seleucid empire was beginning to crumble and a general chaos began to errupt. Various districts bid for independence; the most priminent break away kingdoms was that of the Arsacids. In the east, under the leadership of Mithradates I, they wrested regions of Bactria away and in the west Media was subdued. Also, by the beginning of the first century B.C.E. the Romans began making their bids for regions on Anatolia. In the east Scythian tribes began to cleave territories away. It was not until Mithradates II and Phraates III that the empire was restored to a reasonable order. This was the Parthian Empire. However, even as it maintained the visage of an empire, there were significant structural differences between it and the Achaemenid dynasty of a few centuries before - primarily, it was much weaker, as can be seen its lack of effort in assimilating the various smaller states within the empire into a single fuctional unit, as had been done by the Achaemenids.
What are of primary interest here are four points:
As the cult of Mithra bolted throughout the channels of military command and contact it was able to quickly reach the farthest regions of the Roman Empire. Rome itself became a prominent stronghold of the faith by the first century C.E. and mithraeums can be found as far north as Britain. Also with the traffic of oriental slaves, the faith was constantly reinforced by contact with believers from the east, which bolstered the mystery status of the religion; and this also openned up the faith to non-military Roman citizens through contact with their slaves. However, in its early stages within the Roman Empire, Mithraism was primarily a cult of the poor and lower classes - essentially a solder's and slave's religion, and it wasn't until the late second and third centuries C.E. that it had reached a high enough status that imperial interest began to be noticed. But even with the initiation of emperor Commodus (C.E. 180 - 192) it was no more than a passing fancy. It wasn't until C.E. 274 that Mithraism gained a more prominent status when Aurilian declared the institution of a Roman State Cult of Sol Invictus (The Unconquerable Sun); he erected a magnificent temple to Mithra in Rome and coins of the time reflect the awesome power with which the Mithraic Unconquerable Son bore with the inscription declaring that the Sun is the Lord of the Empire. The Romans naturally associated Mithra with the sun as Mithra had since Zoroastrian times been associated with the rise of the sun - and indeed, the sun in Avestan scriptures was understood as his chariot - and now this symbolic fussion of Mithra and the Sun reflected Mithraism's final dialect - that is, it's Romanization. Finally in c. 307 Mithra's prominence within the Roman Empire was solidified by Diocletian by his public dedication to Sol Invictus Mithras, acclaiming him as "protector of the empire." However, Mithra's reign within the empire was not long - the pagan aristocracy began to fade under furthering Christian conversions and finally in 394 under Theodosius the cult all but disappeared. However, Mithraism's descent from history - eventhough it's tenets survived into the middle ages in other sects such as that of Mani (Manicaenism) would not come without its bearing its final stamp upon the world - its impression upon Christian Doctrine.
The Roman Mithraism that so spread across the stretches of the empire was a fascinating instance of a Mystery Religion. At a time when people [in Rome] were becoming disillusioned by an obviously impotent deity structure, Mithraism offered unto its adherents a sense of being in touch with an ancient arcane knowledge; by this time, all that was of oriental nature bore a great fascination - a fascination that even to this day is seen in the west. And it was less than coincidence that the later Christian Mysteries would furnish rites and understandings of the divine equally compelling to the populace throughout the Roman Provinces. By the first century C.E. Mithraism within the Empire had been spreading for several decades and by the beginning of the second century was firmly rooted within the Roman military circles. The particular synthesis that came to be known to the Romans as Mithraism owed many of it's aspects to it's earlier formations as were known to still be worhsipped within much of Anatolia, Armenia, and what was to become the Sassanid Empire. Although, the romanized version had a thick coating of Hellenic iconography, it's central tenets were wholly Mazdaic in origin; for instance:
The rendition of Mithras (as the Romans called him, as opposed to the Persian Mithra or Mihr) riding a chariot of the sun across the heavens, overseeing the world, which can be seen constantly upon numerous Roman monuments dedicated to the god, was a direct adoption of his protrayal within the Avesta.
Indeed, unlike some have claimed that Mithras was linked to his Iranian origins by name only is a grave mistake. By the time the cult of Mithras had migrated to eastern Asia Minor, namely within Pontus and Cappadocia, and following the Macedonian triumph, the famous Mithraic scholar, F. Cumont, agrees Mithraism took on it's final forms, donning a Hellenic coat and a western visage. And it is this form that diffused throughout the Roman Empire. A primary aspect of Mithraic worship was that of the Mithraeum - that is, a grotto or cave, or as was more often the case, an underground crpyt with vaulted ceiling - represting the place of birth of Mithras. It was a tightly controlled structure insofar as the entrance of light was considered, clearly so as at key points in the liturgy control symbollic beams of light could be made to shine through. It was the place of initiation for new members into the religion and a place for members to congregate and pray together. It consisted of a narrow isle flanked on both sides by a broad raised bench on which the worshippers, rarely more than 50 in number, could kneel or recline. At one end stood the representation of Mithra slaying a bull with a raven watching from above; a dog and snake would be shown leaping into the bull's wound, and a scorpion would be shown at the bull's genitals. This symbolic icon would universally present in all Mithraeums found from the British isles to Rome. Also, this imagine of the Tauroctony would be surrouded by smaller images filled with mythical scenes or symbolic figures. The interepretation of the Tauroctony has long been a point of contention among scholars. It is known that the bull was a symbol in Zoroastrian lore, as is clearly found in the Avesta, a symbol of nature's fruitfulness; upon it's death from within it's corpse sprung out a myriad of vegitation that filled the world. Mithra's position within the Avesta as "lord of the pastures" could have been captured symbolically in this iconography as his causing the growth of the fields, just as does the sun, by killing the bull. Other scenes present within the images surrounding the Tauroctony are his springing for from a rock, shooting an arrow at a cliff to bring forth water, chasing the bull, feasting with his twelve apostles right before his ascension into the sky upon his chariot of the sun. As the Greek philosopher Porphyry relates to us, there was also a Mithraic rite utilizing honey which was connected to symbolism of great antiquity. He writes, "The Ancients moreover used to call the priestesses of Mother Earth Bees, in that they were initiates of the Terrene Goddess, and the Maid herself Bee-like. They also called the Moon the Bee, as Lady of Generation; and especially because [with the Magians] the Moon in exaltation is the Bull, and Bees are Ox-born - that is, souls coming into birth are Ox-born - and the God [Mithra] who steals the Bulls occulty signifies generation." There is a more astronomically based interpretation of the Tauroctony currently being championed by David Ulansey. His interpretation rests primarily on astronomical data and then it's application to the symbolic organization of the Tauroctony's images. The main crux of his analysis is that the organization of the Tauroctony's images symbollizes the Zodiac's precession from the age of the Taurus to the age of Pisces, and that during the constellation's precession, during the age of the Taurus, the organization of the Zodiac's constellations, namely, Canis Minor (dog), Hydra (snake), Corvus (raven), Scorpio (scorpion) and of course, that of Taurus the Bull, were alligned directly with their corresponding images within the Tauroctony. Considering the influence of Chaldaean astrology upon Mazdaism and as such upon Mithraism it is not difficult to reason that between the connexion of the Tauroctony's symbollic similarities with Avestan lore and the astrological significance of the organization of the imagery, that this was one of the many points at which Iranian mythology created a peculiar syncretism with one of the many influences that bore upon its travel west - namely that of Chaldaean astrology. There was also a ritual baptism of blood performed by Mithraists, where a bull was slain and whose blood was allowed to drip into a pit below, drenching an initiate. This ritual was believed to hold redemptive and regenerative powers; it is also known that during the Mithraic liturgy there was a communion of bread, sombolizing the body of Mithras and wine, which, has been recognized by cultures long the antecedents of Mithraism, as a symbol for blood and its power. There was a ritual sacrifice held during the vernal equinox. And, finally, Mithraists, like that of many other pagan faiths, celebrated December 25 as the birth period of their god. For the initiate there were seven levels to ascend: Corax (Raven), Nymphus (Male Bride), Miles (Soldier), Leo (Lion), Perses (Persian), Heliodromus (Sun-runner), and Pater (Father), each associated with their own celestial body. Men and boys of all ages were allowed for initiation; although women were strictly forbidden. As one passed through each level, one had to undergo an ordeal, each filled with symbolic meaning, for instance, the Miles had to undergo a branding upon the forehead of the symbol of the cross, which symbolized the sun and an affirmation that only Mithras was his crown. One of the primary understandings of a Mithraist was that Mithras was his savior, mediator between the eternal god and the men below him, and through his salvation could be reached heaven - this, a direct adoption from the Avestan scriptures; it was his [the Mithraist's] understanding that through this salvation his soul would once again return to heaven, whence it had come when he was born into this world. Through prayer, following a strong moral code, and maintaining oneself pure, through such rituals as the baptism of blood, this could all be acheived.
That Zoroastrian beliefs made an impression upon the religion of the Judeans is apparent. Although the complete extent to which this imfluence played is debatable, there are several points of interests concerning this Zoroastrian influence, four of which, shall be mentioned here.
As to the means of influence, some suggest that the sect of the Pharisees derived it's name from "Farsi" the Iranian name for the district Parsa, which might indicate direct Zoroastrian preistly influence in the region, however, this can not be confirmed with certainty, although it is not impossible; another possible etymology of the term is that it originated from the term for "heretic" or that of "separatist" as initially the Pharasaic movement was a vastly outnumbered sect within the Judean community.
One clear adaption from Zoroastrian doctrine was the Judean conception of god. The idea of a universal, non-partisian, monotheistic deity was the result of their contact with the Zoroastrian Ahura-Mazda, which allowed them transcend the tribal, henotheistic conception of god that they had hitherto espoused. This can be seen in the literary works of the time of the Persian occupation; at that time they began to more clearly talk of a single god as opposed to pronouncing their god as the greatest among many other gods - which was clearly the conception espoused by Abraham, Moses and other mythical figures from their ancient past.
Another significant manner in which Judaism was affected by Zoroastrian doctrines was in the concept of an enemy to God; the Judean conception of Ha-satan, that is - Enemy - did not occur until its mention in Zechariah during the late 6th century B.C.E. under Persian rule and the influence of Zoroastrian dualism - that cosmic fight between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman.
Yet another adaptation from Zoroastrian belief was that of Ge-hinnom (valley of Hinnom) or Hell, which was a doctoring of the earlier Judean conception of sheol (grave) such that sheol became only the upper most level of a multi-level underworld - a clear account of which is given in the creation myth of the Haggadah (collection of non-canonical legends). Although there can also be seen Egyptian themes in the Judean conceptions of hell, it can be confidently argued that, at the least, Zoroastrian ideas of hell influenced Judean religious development coupled with Egyptian influences, while at the most they were the primary influence in the formation of these beliefs. This significant grafting on of the concept of monotheistic god, the adversary Ha-satan and of hell would prove instrumental in the later Christian conceptions of Satan and hell. As such, apart from direct influences with Mithraism and the Zoroastrian dualism imbedded within it upon the later Christian community, we can see a distant influence many centuries earlier upon Christianity through the Judean adoption of Ha-stan, Ge-hinnom, and the 'One God.'
The cult of Mithras affected early Christianity in two fashions.
Firstly, although doctrinally speaking it was not one of the most significant impressions, it was vital to the spread and survival of Christianity. It was with Constantine I that Christianity finally became tolerated within the Roman Empire, a window of opportunity through which it was able to ultimitately gain supreme say within the empire to the unfortunate fate of everything deemed un-christian. Constantine himself was born into the Romanized Mithraic religion of Sol Invictus following in the religion of his father and, indeed, much of Rome at the time adopted the same faith. Diocletian who had, for ease of management of an empire too bloated, divided it into two regions, giving caesarship of the Western half to Constantine's father - Constatius - also in religious affairs, contrary to popular monotheistic tendencies of the people, reverted to a worship of the old gods of Zeus, et cetera, although, without dismissing newer deities such as that of Mithras. Diocletians distaste of all that was Christian and opposed the old order of gods, which seems to have been more a politically motivated distate rather than a philosophical or religious one, was epitomized in severe persecutions, the last of which, before his demise, ocurred in C.E. 303. Constantine's devotion to his religion can be noted when immediately following his father's death, references to the older Zeus-class of gods was removed from the coinage and in their stead were places references to Sol Invictus. Now, to understand Constantine's conversion to Christianity one must understand Constantine himself. Scholars agree that he had a mysticized impression of the Sol Invictus and considered himself doing the bidding of the sun, that is, Mithras. His was a character of confidence, ambition, and drive for success - altho, a man given to calm delicate mannerisms, as was shown several years later in his presence at the Nicean Council. He inhereitted a strong character, yet clear tolerance of the Christian community from his father, under whom, during the purges of Diocletian, the Western half of the empire remained essentially without persecution. When on the eve of battle in September of C.E. 312 of the Milvian Bridge Constantine found in his dream the visage of Christ approach him, telling him how to act in order to secure victory in the battle the following day, it is clear that Constantine understood this mystical encounter in terms of his own Sol Invictus sending him a messenger in the form of the Christian deity. Having secured victory, Constantine did indeed convert to Christianity, but not upon the virtue of any words the historical Christ may have uttered in his travels in Judea, but in the understanding as Christ a force of victory and triumph in the battlefield and so on. Constantine, upon having received his dream, neither requested baptism nor even indoctrination into any of the rites a new convert would take and, indeed, it would not be until his deathbed that he would receive baptism. Also, during the schismatic dilemmas during the early 4th century C.E. that the church was suffering through splintering of dogma, Constantine took little interest, only after the trouble had escalated and involved his own districts, following the defeat of Licinius, both his brother-in-law and caecar of the Eastern Empire, did Constantine dispatch letters to the leaders of the opposing Christian camps: that of the Alexander in Egypt, representing the Roman Based Christian faction, and that of the Antiochan based camp of Arius. Even in this letter Constantine's near indifference to the significant arguments concerning Christian doctrine could be seen, which furthers the conclusion that Christianity - namely Christ - for him was no more than a instrument of the one god, Sol Invictus. It can be assumed that he fell back on no other religious background than that which he was born in as obviously his interest in the religious tenets of Christianity was quite lax and the only apparent interest that Christ bore for him was as a deitific messenger of what Constantine understood as his own manifest destiny. However, even with this personalized interpretation of the Christian god, Constantine's conversion bore two vital results for the Christian community. Firstly, with his Edict of Milan, in 313 C.E. persecution of the Christians was halted, and practice in the faith could go without the fear of governmental retribution; secondly, Constantine's calling of the Nicean Council to dispel strife between various Christian factions allowed for a solidified Christian doctrine to be forged, particularly in the dispelling of various "heretical" movements, and in the construction of the Nicean Creed, which henceforth would herald the trinitarian nature of Christianity and sound as the official testamant of all Christians. This was, however, a crystalizating of only one of the many flavours of Christianity being preeched at this time. It must be understood a canonical New Testamtent although in the working was not formalized yet; there were a score of different Gospels being circulated at the time, each written to appeal to the people of the region in which it was found, and also influenced by various philosophical and religious movements of the time. For instance, when the Gospel of John was written sometime around the end of the 2nd Century C.E. (the earliest mention of the Gospel is in 180 C.E.) it was clearly influenced by Greek philosophical ideas of the "logos" -clearly a very Hellenized work. Also, Constantine's Mithraic interpretation of the Christ influenced the usage of the symbol of the Cross as a sign of victory and triumph as opposed to one of hulimity and even disgrace that was felt by many of the Christian community - his order for the painting of the Cross onto the shields of his soldiers drove in a deep psychological effect. As influences of Mithraism still deeply resided within the Roman armies, and the Cross, definitely not a symbol distinct to Christianity, but one of much greater antiquity, also was a reminder of Mithras' own sacrifice and ascension unto heaven. And this, both unto the enemies that would oppose Constantine in the battlefield, and for the soldiers fighting under his sovereign word would inflict profound psychological reactions - either that of increased bravery or that of increased fear. And this would in turn, through the boroughs having already been incised by Mithraic belief, allow Christianity yet another avenue by which to engage the hearts of the people.
Early followers of the Christ, Paul, and Mithraism To understand the second, and by far doctrinally the more profound of Mithraic influences upon Christianity, we must go back to the burgeouning years of the faith. To understanding Mithraic influence here, one must realize that it was a Mithraic world that Christianity bore itself into. The first years of Christianity and indeed, the years of the Christ himself are shrowded in mystery. It was, however, clearly a time of prophets. the Christ, if he were to have existed, was not the only preacher of the day spreading words of a new kingdom. The Gospels themselves having been written many years following the time the Christ was to have lived can not be used as accurate historical accounts for this, their tardy arrival on the world scene, and also because of spirit behind the pens that wrote them. Scholars are in vast agreement that the original Christian community was convinced upon a quick return of the Christ; this is the primary reason a general lack of interest in compiling a New Testament plagued them. And this also, as is the case with other religious Gospels from different faiths, as well must be suspect with regard to historical accuracy: exaggeration was a primary technique employed throughout history simply for the virtue of conversion. In the case of many ancient Roman and Greeks religious texts, it was common place for their dates to be increased by a thousand years and their authorship attributed to some personage of great antiquity. Likewise, the Gospels were attributed to historical figures such as Matthew, Luke, John even when they had been written many decades following their deaths - and it was the semblance of antiquity that was the primary criteria by which documents to be included in the New Testament were eventually chosen. There were dozens of Gospels other than the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John that were being circulated at the time - and apart from the few bits of literature finally chosen as canonical, a whole treasure of Christian literature was ignored. Even what was to be included in the New Testament was fiercly debated - each Christian center, from Alexandria, to Antioch, to Nicodemia, to Jerusalem, to Rome, to Carthage used their own particular host of Christian literature to pass on the faith. And one must not forget that within this encompassing term "Christian" also many Gnostic works were being circulated and proved very influential. Such was the drive to encapsulate their own scope of doctrinal writings that some early Church officials worked towards excluding any piece of literature simply if it on a non-polemical note referenced within itself some other work that was not wholly recognized as authoritative. Such was the scene on the Christian religious front during the late 2nd and 3rd centuries C.E. Clearly, the works that were finally chosen reflected a religious system of belief that was not representative of the entire Christian community, and moreover, they reflected beliefs that were themselves influenced over the course of nearly two centuries by the various unique positions of a host of different sects. Also, in efforts to convert, the earliest Christians were faced with a pagan world heavily imbued in Mithraic doctrine - particularly in the regions of Anatolia and Armenia. And it was in the southern Anatolian town of Tarsus that Paul did much of his spreading of the good word. There are a few clear references to Mithraism within his letters and it is not so far as to construe that in efforts to convert the Mithraicists in the region that he may have condoned certain religious understandings of theirs to remain perhaps because for their expedient conversion and their beliefs in a savior god did not much contradict what he himself believed - as such, allowing a mutated version of his Christianity to become accepted and henceforth affect future Christian doctrinal movements; and it is reasonable, considering some of the stark similarities concerning, for instance, the Mithraic Communion or Baptism and later Christianity, or in the terming of the Christ as the "light of this world" - a clear grafting on of the title bestowed upon Mithra - that such fundamental aspects of the Christianity of the second and third centuries if not in spirit then at least in form were adopted in part from this ancient Mystery Religion.
That Mithraism was a virulent competitor of Christianity is proved by the hatred which the latter exhibited toward it and the terrible persecution which it perpetrated against it after the accession of Constantine. The followers of Mithra were hounded with such pertinacity that no one even dared to look at the sun, and farmers and sailors dared not observe the stars for fear of being accused of the heresy. Julian attempted to re-establish the cult; but after his untimely murder, the onslaught of the Christians became more furious than ever. Nevertheless, Mithraism was not easily extirpated: its temples were numerous from India to Scotland, and it numbered sincere devotees among slaves, laborers, merchants, soldiers, and senators, who were alike inspired by the ethical elevation of its teachings and the assurance of the immortality which it promised. But the persecution was persistent, sanguinary, and indiscriminate; the great Mithraeum at Alexandria was razed by the Arian George in 358 (Sozomen, Eccl. Hist, V, vii); Theodosius took the most extreme measures against the cult after his accession in 379 (Socrates, V, xvi); and after the fourth century, it seems to have had no organized existence.
Since it was exclusive, Mithraism was not equipped to do battle against a priest-state; it accepted only the dedicated and the Elect who would consecrate their lives to virtue and devotion. Since its objective was not to control the government, it was tolerant of other creeds and disciplines. It invited all men, but persuaded no one, to reject the temptations of the world. The struggle between Catholicism on the one hand and the esoteric mysterycults on the other proved once and for all that any religion which becomes the state will most certainly destroy all its competitors and, at the same time, every vestige of freedom. And one of the first to fall before the Church Trimphant was the cult of Mithra, to which Christianity owed so much.
That such an effective and elaborate synthesis could have been developed only by a religious genius or by a very resourceful group of priests is obvious; but, since the cult glorified Mithra alone and sought to invest the new creation with primordial authority, the founder or originators remained forever unknown. And this was one of the basic weaknesses of Mithraism: it had no historical founder. Manichaeism, its child, had no reputedly divine originator: and it paid Christianity the ultimate tribute by incorporating into its system both its Jesus and His Gospel, without which it could never have mounted its assault upon the ramparts of the Catholic Church.
bennoah1@airmail.net