|
|
|
Mithraism
Lendering
states:
“Sometimes, Farrokh's praiseworthy attempts to stress the historical
importance of Iran lead to absurdity. What to think of the statement
that "Western scholarship has yet to acknowledge or investigate
the role of Mithraic influence on the formation of European culture
and Christianity"? This is ridiculous, since Cumont and
Vermaseren wrote at great length on this subject, and were more
than willing to accept Iranian influence on the rise of Christianity.
In fact, western scholarship is now returning from its overconfident
first identifications.” Technically, Lendering’s statement is false.
[1] Farrokh is reporting on the sate of post-Cumont Mithraic scholarship.
Lendering withholds this information in his report. Note Farrokh’s statement:
“The late French
historian Ernest Renan has noted that “if Christianity had been stopped at its birth
by some mortal illness, the world would have become Mithraic” (Renan, 1923, p.579.).”
Renan and Cumont belong to the late 19th and early 20th
centuries – Vermaseren wrote in the early 1960s; their writings are no longer considered mainstream
in western historiography.
Farrokh’s statement regarding post-Cumont Mithraic scholarship is
as follows: “Renan’s statement remains
controversial nearly a century later, western scholarship has yet to
acknowledge or investigate the role of Mithraic influence on the formation
of European culture and Christianity.” Lendering believes that this is not the case. This misconception
is because of his lack of information
regarding the trend of post-Cumont Mithraic Studies, especially
after the early 1970s. As noted by Ulansey:
“Despite the problems with
his Iranian hypothesis, Cumont’s vision of the nature of Mithraism remained
virtually unchallenged for a full seventy years. But the flaws of Cumont’s
theory [regarding an Iranian origin for European Mithraism] could not
go unnoticed forever, and things reached a head in 1971 at the First
International Congress of Mithraic Studies held at Manchester University…the First International Congress…presented devastating
critiques of Cumont’s Iranian hypothesis, which had hitherto served
as the unquestioned foundation for all Mithraic studies. Of more importance
in the long run was…R.L. Gordon, who argued that Cumont’s
interpretations of Mithraism were virtually useless and that Mithraic
studies essentially had to start from scratch.” [Ulansey, 1989, p.10; The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology
and Salvation in the Ancient World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
As
can be seen above, Lendering’s
description of the state of Mithraic Studies and the importance of Cumont
is in the west is completely false.
Let
us now return to Farrokh’s discussion on Mithraism states: “What has attracted the
attention of western scholarship is the curious European cult of Mithraism,
known as the Mithraic mysteries, which had certain rituals which different
from the cults in Persia… Interestingly western
scholarship, Ulanssey in particular, has expended much effort in attempting
to differentiate the Mithraic mysteries from Iran…There have been no
academic investigations as to why, excepting a few details, the stories
of Jesus Christ son of God, and Mithras son of Mazda are so strikingly
identical…”
Lendering
has carefully omitted mentioning the fact that western scholarship is
indeed silent with respect to the parallels between Mithras and Christ.
Instead he distracts readers by citing outdated references (i.e. Cumont)
and providing false information.
[2] Lendering's statements indicate that he may be unaware of the distinction between European and Iranian Mithraism, not to mention the Mithraism of the Indo-Iranians (i.e. Mittani), Hindu India or the remnants of the religion in Iraqi Kurdistan today.
Some
very good sources regarding the diversity of Mithraism, especially in
Iraqi Kurdistan in clude: |
