Editing Mithraism (section)

====Criticisms and reassessments of Cumont====
Cumont's theories came in for severe criticism from John R. Hinnells and R.L. Gordon at the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies held in 1971.{{efn|
In the course of the First International Congress, two scholars in particular presented devastating critiques of Cumont's Iranian hypothesis ... One, John Hinnells, was the organizer of the conference ... Of more importance in the long run, however, was the even more radical paper presented by {{nowrap|R.L. Gordon ... — Ulansey (1991)<ref name=Ulansey-1991-Origins/>{{rp|style=ama|p= 10}} }}
}} John Hinnells was unwilling to reject entirely the idea of Iranian origin,<ref>John R. Hinnells, "Reflections on the bull-slaying scene" in ''Mithraic studies'', vol.&nbsp;2, [https://books.google.com/books?id=eBy8AAAAIAAJ&q=Since+Cumont%27s+reconstruction+&pg=PA303 pp.&nbsp;303&ndash;304]: "Nevertheless we would not be justified in swinging to the opposite extreme from Cumont and Campbell and denying all connection between Mithraism and Iran."</ref> but wrote: "we must now conclude that his reconstruction simply will not stand. It receives no support from the Iranian material and is in fact in conflict with the ideas of that tradition as they are represented in the extant texts. Above all, it is a theoretical reconstruction which does not accord with the actual Roman iconography."{{efn|"Since Cumont's reconstruction of the theology underlying the reliefs in terms of the Zoroastrian myth of creation depends upon the symbolic expression of the conflict of good and evil, we must now conclude that his reconstruction simply will not stand. It receives no support from the Iranian material and is in fact in conflict with the ideas of that tradition as they are represented in the extant texts. Above all, it is a theoretical reconstruction which does not accord with the actual Roman iconography. What, then, do the reliefs depict? And how can we proceed in any study of Mithraism? I would accept with R.&nbsp;Gordon that Mithraic scholars must in future start with the Roman evidence, not by outlining Zoroastrian myths and then making the Roman iconography fit that scheme. ... Unless we discover Euboulus' history of Mithraism we are never likely to have conclusive proof for any theory. Perhaps all that can be hoped for is a theory which is in accordance with the evidence and commends itself by (mere) plausibility."<ref name=HinnellsReflections>{{cite book |first=John R. |last=Hinnells |chapter=Reflections on the bull-slaying scene |title=Mithraic Studies |year=1975 |volume=2 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=9780719005367 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eBy8AAAAIAAJ&q=Since+Cumont%27s+reconstruction+&pg=PA303}}</ref>{{rp|style=ama|pp= 303–304}} }} He discussed Cumont's reconstruction of the bull-slaying scene and stated "that the portrayal of Mithras given by Cumont is not merely unsupported by Iranian texts but is actually in serious conflict with known Iranian theology."{{efn|
"Indeed, one can go further and say that the portrayal of Mithras given by Cumont is not merely unsupported by Iranian texts but is actually in serious conflict with known Iranian theology. Cumont reconstructs a primordial life of the god on earth, but such a concept is unthinkable in terms of known, specifically Zoroastrian, Iranian thought where the gods never, and apparently never could, live on earth. To interpret Roman Mithraism in terms of Zoroastrian thought and to argue for an earthly life of the god is to combine irreconcilables. If it is believed that Mithras had a primordial life on earth, then the concept of the god has changed so fundamentally that the Iranian background has become virtually irrelevant."<ref name=HinnellsReflections/>{{rp|style=ama|p= 292}}
}} Another paper by R.L.&nbsp;Gordon argued that Cumont severely distorted the available evidence by forcing the material to conform to his predetermined model of Zoroastrian origins. Gordon suggested that the theory of Persian origins was completely invalid and that the Mithraic mysteries in the West were an entirely new creation.<ref>{{cite book |first=R.L. |last=Gordon |year= |section=Franz Cumont and the doctrines of Mithraism |editor-first=John R. |editor-last=Hinnells |title=Mithraic Studies |volume=1 |pages=215 ff}}</ref>

A similar view has been expressed by Luther H. Martin: "Apart from the name of the god himself, in other words, Mithraism seems to have developed largely in and is, therefore, best understood from the context of Roman culture."<ref>{{cite book |last=Martin |first=Luther H. |year=2004 |section=Foreword |title=Beck on Mithraism: Collected works with new essays |location=Aldershot |publisher=Ashgate |isbn=0-7546-4081-7}}</ref>{{rp|style=ama|p= xiv}}

According to Hopfe, "All theories of the origin of Mithraism acknowledge a connection, however vague, to the Mithra/Mitra figure of ancient [[Aryan]] religion."<ref name="RichardsonHopfe1994-4"/> Reporting on the Second International Congress of Mithraic Studies, 1975, Ugo Bianchi says that although he welcomes "the tendency to question in historical terms the relations between Eastern and Western Mithraism", it "should not mean obliterating what was clear to the Romans themselves, that Mithras was a 'Persian' (in wider perspective: an Indo-Iranian) god."<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.hums.canterbury.ac.nz/clas/ejms/out_of_print/JMSv1n1/JMSv1n1Bianchi.pdf | title = The Second International Congress of Mithraic Studies, Tehran, September&nbsp;1975 | access-date = 2011-03-20 | last = Bianchi | first = Ugo | quote = I welcome the present tendency to question in historical terms the relations between Eastern and Western Mithraism, which should not mean obliterating what was clear to the Romans themselves, that Mithras was a 'Persian' (in wider perspective: an Indo-Iranian) god. | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110724230041/http://www.hums.canterbury.ac.nz/clas/ejms/out_of_print/JMSv1n1/JMSv1n1Bianchi.pdf | archive-date = 2011-07-24 | url-status = dead }}</ref>

[[Mary Boyce|Boyce]] wrote, "no satisfactory evidence has yet been adduced to show that, before Zoroaster, the concept of a supreme god existed among the Iranians, or that among them [[Mithra]] &ndash; or any other divinity &ndash; ever enjoyed a separate cult of his or her own outside either their ancient or their Zoroastrian pantheons."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Boyce|first=Mary|year=2001|title=Mithra the King and Varuna the Master|journal=Festschrift für Helmut Humbach zum 80|location=Trier|publisher=WWT}} pp. 243, n.18<!--(239–257)--></ref> She also said that although recent studies have minimized the Iranizing aspects of the self-consciously Persian religion "at least in the form which it attained under the Roman Empire", the name ''Mithras'' is enough to show "that this aspect is of some importance." She also says that "the Persian affiliation of the Mysteries is acknowledged in the earliest literary references to them."<ref name=Boyce-Grenet-1975/>

Beck tells us that since the 1970s scholars have generally rejected Cumont, but adds that recent theories about how Zoroastrianism was during the period BCE now make some new form of Cumont's east–west transfer possible.{{efn|
"Since the 1970s scholars of western Mithraism have generally agreed that Cumont's master narrative of east-west transfer is unsustainable"; although he adds that "recent trends in the scholarship on Iranian religion, by modifying the picture of that religion prior to the birth of the western mysteries, now render a revised Cumontian scenario of east-west transfer and continuities now viable."<ref name=Beck-2004-Zoroastrianism>{{cite book |last=Beck |first=Roger B. |year=2004 |section=Cumont's master narrative |title=Beck on Mithraism: Collected works with new essays |location=Aldershot |publisher=Ashgate |isbn=0-7546-4081-7 |page=28 |section-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SIYTfTYrs1UC&q=generally+agreed+that+Cumont%27s+master+narrative+of+east-west+transfer+is+unsustainable&pg=PA28 |access-date=23 February 2023 |archive-date=4 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230504001153/https://books.google.com/books?id=SIYTfTYrs1UC&q=generally+agreed+that+Cumont%27s+master+narrative+of+east-west+transfer+is+unsustainable&pg=PA28 |url-status=live }}</ref>
}} He says that

<blockquote>... an indubitable residuum of things Persian in the Mysteries and a better knowledge of what constituted actual Mazdaism have allowed modern scholars to postulate for Roman Mithraism a continuing Iranian theology. This indeed is the main line of Mithraic scholarship, the Cumontian model which subsequent scholars accept, modify, or reject. For the transmission of Iranian doctrine from East to West, Cumont postulated a plausible, if hypothetical, intermediary: the Magusaeans of the Iranian diaspora in Anatolia. More problematic &ndash; and never properly addressed by Cumont or his successors &ndash; is how real-life Roman Mithraists subsequently maintained a quite complex and sophisticated Iranian theology behind an occidental facade. Other than the images at Dura of the two 'magi' with scrolls, there is no direct and explicit evidence for the carriers of such doctrines. ... Up to a point, Cumont's Iranian paradigm, especially in Turcan's modified form, is certainly plausible.<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Beck | first1 = Roger | title = The Religion of the Mithras cult in the Roman empire | url = https://archive.org/details/oxfordworldheroi00libg | url-access = limited | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2006 | location = Great Britain | pages = [https://archive.org/details/oxfordworldheroi00libg/page/n62 48]–50| isbn = 978-0-19-814089-4 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2006/2006-12-08.html | title = Roger Beck, The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun. Reviewed by Peter Edwell, Macquarie University, Sydney | access-date = 2011-06-14 | last = Edwell | first = Peter | quote = The study of the ancient mystery cult of Mithraism has been heavily influenced over the last century by the pioneering work of Franz Cumont followed by that of M.&nbsp;J.&nbsp;Vermaseren. Ever since Cumont's volumes first appeared in the 1890s, his ideas on Mithraism have been influential, particularly with regard to the quest for Mithraic doctrine. His emphasis on the Iranian features of the cult is now less influential with the Iranising influences generally played down in scholarship over the last thirty years. While the long shadow cast by Cumont is sometimes susceptible to exaggeration, recent research such as that of Robert Turcan demonstrates that Cumont's influence is still strong. | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110810203356/http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2006/2006-12-08.html | archive-date = 2011-08-10 | url-status = dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1 = Belayche | first1 = Nicole | title = A Companion to Roman Religion | chapter = Religious Actors in Daily Life: Practices and Related Beliefs |editor = Jörg Rüpke |editor-link = Jörg Rüpke | page = 291| quote = Cumont, who still stands as an authoritative scholar for historians of religions, analyzed the diffusion of "oriental religions" as filling a psychological gap and satisfying new spiritualistic needs (1929:&nbsp;24&ndash;40).}}</ref></blockquote>

He also says that "the old Cumontian model of formation in, and diffusion from, Anatolia ... is by no means dead &ndash; nor should it be."<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Beck | first1 = Roger | title = Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity | chapter = On Becoming a Mithraist New Evidence for the Propagation of the Mysteries |editor = Leif E. Vaage |display-editors=etal | page = 182 | quote = The old Cumontian model of formation in, and diffusion from, Anatolia (see Cumont 1956a, 11&ndash;32; cf. pp.&nbsp;33&ndash;84 on propagation in the West) is by no means dead &ndash; nor should it be. On the role of the army in the spread of Mithraism, see Daniels 1975.}}</ref>