Dec. 25th: just 'who's birthday is it' anyway? Mithra, or the other guy?

Let’s take a gander at a couple of dieties.  Uh, guys.  No, Prophets.  Sigh.  Use whatever label makes you comfortable, Dear Reader.

A Near Eastern god, Mithra, was born of the earth (a rock, actually) bearing a torch and a knife--note the duality here, i.e. light and dark. Jesus of Nazareth was of woman born, in a manger.  HOWEVER, notice one similarity here:  both figures were born of what each religion held to be sacred-- Mithra from the earth (goddess?), and Jesus from a divine and sexless birth, yet still using a woman as the vessel.  Remember, though, that Mithra was a mythical figure, whereas Jesus was most likely a man living in Nazareth, a city in a province of the Roman Empire--Judea.

But, were both guys were born on the same day?

Well...that's what some scholars think.

First and foremost:  allow me to wish you all Happy Holidays.  But, since this entry is around December 25th…

NOTE:  as an historian, I am predictably anti-social, and completely agnostic.  

Therefore, please DON'T read this if you find secular explanations of particular occasions irritating or offensive.  

Hopefully, I have addressed all issues with these disclaimers....  Can we tell that I am a little nervous?

So! Where were we? Ah, yes.  Mithra.  

Are you noticing a trend in these various images?  Bulls, anyone?

Mithra's origins are shadowy, but current scholarship holds that it was likely in India, where he was known as Mitra (ca 1400 BCE).  His worship likely extended, through the engines of war and trade, from India to the Near East.  His worship included:  the sun, justice, war, and business contracts.  Interesting array that.  All of this suggests that the religion was widespread.

Dear Reader, remember that the ancient world was primarily polytheistic, rather than our current monotheistic trend.  Mithra was just one of the popular gods, whose worship would reach across many countries within the Roman Empire.  To put it into American terminology, think Quetzalcoatl.  

What makes Mithra pertinent to our discussion, is that his high holiday occurred in mid-to-late December, and it later often clashed with the celebration surrounding Jesus of Nazareth.  both gods were quite popular in the late Roman Empire, and their religions often came to symbolic ‘blows’ during the winter months, particularly in Rome.

So, what did Mithra represent? You might find the subsequent description of this deity’s characteristics both interesting and familiar from a Judeo-Christian perspective, Dear Reader.

It is said, that right after his birth (under a sacred tree, beside a sacred stream), Mithra rode a bull--quite a feat for such a young man--which he later killed, using it in a ritual of renewal and life.  In such rituals, the blood of the bull cleanses and encourages fertility in the man participating in the rite.  This is one of the reasons why he was associated with that animal.  

Note:  while we don't have specific descriptions of the ritual, we have some.  One description, popular in some scholarly circles, is that the man performing the rite of sacrifice, slit the throat of the defenseless bull (which was hung from it's hind legs, head pointing downward), and stood under the fall of its' blood, bathing in it.

Poor guy.

As I've already told you, Mithra was all about legality, relationships through contract, and war.  He was also variously represented as a sun god as well as an underworld deity (so basically everything, everywhere, all at once)--yet, all aspects tend towards a patriarchal, manifestation.  

Male gods were typically central to Near Eastern cultures, and this trend continued throughout the Greco-Roman periods.  While there were female deities (in some ways equally powerful), they were definitely and symbolically subordinate to their male counterparts.  It's important to remember this patriarchal flavor, as it is something that Near Eastern faith systems had in common with Judeo-Christianity. 

The bull, as an integral symbol to Mithra's worship, typically represented both fertility and masculinity. I know, right? Fertility? Huh.  And yet, in the ancient world, fertility was a spiritual issue directed by both sexual identities.  But in partriarchal cultures (i.e. Near Eastern and Judeo-Christian) sexuality was a confusing issue.  Let me try to explain it this way:  if a couple produced a lot of healthy male children, with a smattering of girls, then male was praised.  The mother was a secondary person, and yet as a proven fertile breeder, she was doubtlessly valued.  Confounding, right?

SIDE NOTE:  In such cases where male offspring were not produced, the mother was blamed.  Odd, isn't it, since we know now that it is the sperm which determines the sex (and possibly most of the genetic code) of the child.  I wonder what Henry VIII would've said about that.

In Henry's world, it was not the male's fault if the woman couldn't produce male offspring.  It was HER failure.  As strange as this world view is, it's important to remember that women were viewed as a vessel in the birth of any godling,  For example, Mithra and Jesus--the latter through a human woman, the former through the Earth Mother.  However, remember the word 'vessel'.  Women were only the conduit, innately NOT responsible for the creation of our two boys. 

Are you confused yet?  Me too.

  

Isolating specific rituals associated with Mithraism are exceedingly difficult, as this faith system is viewed  by classical scholars as one of the "mystery cults" which are defined as:  

(I am going to be EEEEEEEEEEEEEvil here, and UNSCHOLARLY, and give you the nice little definition from the good old Encyclopedia Britanica:)

Mystery religion, any of various secret cults of the Greco-Roman world that offered to individuals experimental religions not provided by the official public systems of worship. They originated in tribal ceremonies that were performed by primitive peoples in many parts of the world. Whereas in these tribal communities almost every member of the clan or the village was initiated, initiation in Greece became a matter of personal choice. The mystery religions reached their peak of popularity in the first three centuries AD. Their origin, however, goes back to the earlier centuries of Greek history.

Within this context, the cult of Mithras has been defined as:

    it was a mystery cult, our understanding of Mithraic religion derives mainly from archaeological evidence and, fortunately for us, quite a bit has been recovered. Over four hundred Mithraea (singular, Mithraeum), the temples in which the rites of Mithras were celebrated, have been found, the majority of them in two places: around Rome and its port city Ostia, and along the northern frontiers of the Roman Empire formed by the Rhine and Danube Rivers. This geography ties in well with the no-women, no-nobles feature of Mithras worship attested elsewhere, because the city of Rome and the frontiers of the Empire were places where working-class Roman men lived in sizable numbers.

https://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320hist&civ/chapters/12cults.htm

There is an interesting general discussion on the nature of Greek/Roman mystery cults in the following article:

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/myst/hd_myst.htm

Oh, I know, I know.  This doesn't really have much to do with the nativity so far, as we think of it in the modern world, does it?  Yet, to my mind, it does.  One similarity with the mystery cults, was the celebration of both male and female.  A symbiosis.  The mystery rituals additionally celebrated regeneration--one figure coming from the primordial darkness (reminiscent perhaps) into the light of the mortal world (for a time, at least), returning again to that same darkness.  BUT, this ritual was continued on a yearly basis (Uh, Easter, anyone)? The classic nativity scene (you know, with the plasticine figures thrown up around churches, private houses, stores...wow...crap, OK, everywhere).

Shall we, for a moment only, take a stroll through some traditional nativity scenes?

Allow me to show you this from one of my favorite Chuck Heston movies:

Don't you just love how the star-searchlight floats through the sky, showing the three kings (mostly white) to the horse stall?  You gotta love Hollywood.

A word on the nativity scene, if I may....  Nativity scenes are everywhere right now:  on your front lawn, the neighborhood church, Walmart.  The modern variations of the nativity scene are eccentric, and reflective -- hopefully-- of our changing time:

Let's go with the "traditional" (gack) nativity scene:

Alright, so the above images are familiar (comforting?) for many of the current generation...ah, but the current generation is changing the perspective of Christmas, aren't they?  Take a look at these:

Umm, OK.

???????

Alright.  This one is just ....

And these ones below perhaps truly display the irreverent present:

 

OK, Dear Reader, this one's my absolute favorite.

I gotta tell ya that when I found this set on the net, my head exploded (with humor).  Best for last, eh?

Alright, let's get back to it.  The birth of both gods were inherently sexless in the traditional missionary sense.  You MUST have noticed by now, the sexless nature of each birth.  You must also have noted that both figures were born from divine intervention--MALE-directed divine intervention.  Unfortunately, our modern culture is still mainly patriarchal, therefore perceptions regarding the nativity, Christmas, etc., are inherently patriarchal.  And yet, perhaps the above images show that we are becoming a little suspicious of traditional mores and sex roles.  Perhaps we're becoming a little less rigid in our perception of sexuality?

This scene caused an uproar recently in Italy.  Look closely.  Do you see anything a little odd? Something different from the traditional? Of course you do.  Apparently, in Italy, people were nearly rioting in the streets.  I really don't understand why.  As I said, perceptions of traditions change (sometimes radically) over time.  It's the nature of any cultural beastie.

So, to sum up, Mithra (born from a rock, and divine intervention), and Jesus (born from an intercourse-free 'union'), do have some striking similarities.  I suppose what all this means, is that NO TRADITION starts in a vacuum.  Cultures are very like electric blenders, you throw all kinds of things into the gadget, turn it on, and drink.

Obviously, this subject matter is complex, and I really didn't do it justice.  But, I've gotta go wrap my daughter's Christmas present, Dear Reader, which I am planning to do while enjoying an egg nog.  Have a wonderful day, whichever way you celebrate it.