Every now and then the accusation is levelled - usually by atheists or satanists but sometimes by ill-informed adherents of other religions and by amateur religious historians - that the ancient religion of Mithra was plagiarised by the early Christians/Messianics. And whilst it is, of course, true that Roman Catholicism incorporated many aspects of the pagan religions of the day (particularly in the realm of festivals) in order to make it easier for pagans to convert to their later version of Christianity when Constantine made it the state religion of Empire, the false accusation is often made that fundamental truths were deliberately lifted from this cult. As I shall hopefully demonstrate in this brief article, this is the stuff of ill-informed amateurs. The kindest that I can say to this allegation is, as interesting as the cult of both the Vedic Mitra and the Avestan Mithras is to historians, Mithraism allegedly being the inspiration for many aspects of Christianity has been 'greatly exaggerated'...and that's putting it kindly.

A survey of the literature on this subject quickly reveals that the claim that the Christian story is an adaptation of pagan Mithraism is rarely made by serious religious historians but it is regularly asserted by amateur internet theorists. The idea that Mithraism had any substantial influence on Christianity has been rejected by actual specialists in the field for at least half a century. As Manfred Clauss states in his chapter on the relations between Mithraism and Christianity:

"Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced to common origins in the Greco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world. The similarities do not at all suggest mutual influence" (Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras, pp 168-69).

The idea that Mithraism substantially influenced Christianity was popularised by Franz Cumont (1869-1947), who worked from the assumption that the Roman cult of Mithras was one and the same with the Indic and Persian cults of the god's namesake Mithra. He therefore decided that anything that could be said about the Indic/Persian god could also be said about the Roman equivalent. This greatly multiplied the potential for parallels between aspects of all three cults and that of Christianity. Modern Mithraic scholars, however, have rejected the idea that there was substantial overlap between the Roman and Indic/Persian cults, noting that there is actually no connection between the inscriptions, iconography or any cultic practices of the two other than the god's Persian-style Phrygian cap (imitated in our times by the French Revolutaries and Russian Bolsheviks) and his name. In 1975 the findings of the First International Congress on Mithraic Studies concluded that Roman Mithraism was actually "a new creation using old Iranian names and details for an exotic colouring to give a suitably esoteric appearance to a mystery cult".

Analysing the evidence, Clauss and others have concluded that the Roman Mithraic cult had its origin in or near Rome itself sometime in the First Century AD and spread from there throughout the Empire. So far from giving rise to Christianity, it was actually coming into being in the west of the Roman Empire at around the same time Christianity was developing in the east. In other words, the cult of Mithra could just as easily have been an adaptation of Christianity, not the other way round, capitalising on that new religion's rising star of popularity.

The popular idea that Mithraism has some kind of profound effect on Christianity is usually based on an internet meme that lists a number of supposedly substantial overlaps between the two cults, such as the one below:

Let's take a look at some of these supposed 'correspondences'.

Mithras was actually depicted as being born, fully grown, from a rock and as having no mother at all. This element of his myth, called the petra genetrix, was one of the most common themes of Mithraic iconography. There was no myth about Mithras being born of any woman, let alone a virgin.

This persistent idea has been described by Mithraic scholar Roger Beck as "that hoariest of 'facts'". Despite regular repetitions, there is no evidence to support the idea that 25 December was a Mithraic feast. It certainly was the main feast of the solar cult of Sol Invictus (the 'Invincible Sun'), the god of the sun who was often seen as a companion of Mithras and who most Mithraists would also have worshipped, but 25 December was not associated with Mithras himself in any way. That the Roman Catholic stole 25 December from other pagans (the solar cult of Rome) is not, of course denied, and is the true origin of the false 'Christmas' observation, but it has nothing to do with Mithraism.

Mithras was regularly depicted with two companions, the torch-bearers Cautes and Cautopatres who probably symbolised sunrise and sunset. His iconography also often depicted him with several animals, including a dog, a snake, a lion and a scorpion. But there is no evidence of any twelve disciples at all.

In the absence of any surviving Mithraic texts, it's hard to know what was claimed about him. The main depiction of the god shows him slaying a cosmic bull and others show him shooting a bow at a rock to bring forth water (possibly borrowed from the Old Testament of the Jews living in Rome who had had a colony there from way back), but beyond that there is little evidence of any legendary actions by him at all, let alone anything that could be described as 'miracles'.

Again, there is no evidence to support this. The only 'sacrifice' associated with Mithras is the bull-slaying scene that forms the most common depiction of the god, but that involves him (if anything) 'sacrificing' something else, not himself. There is no reference to or evidence of Mithras dying in any way.

See above. Since there is no reference to Mithras dying, there is also none of him 'rising' either. This is simply fantasy.

Mithras' temples have inscriptions that call him many things. None of these titles are amongst them.

There were a few minor similarities between Mithraism and Christianity which are the origin of Tertullian and Justin Martyr's comments noted in the question above. In both faiths men called each other 'brother' (in Christianity members called female believers 'sister', but Mithraism totally excluded women). And in both the higher initiates were called 'father'. And both met on Sundays (a Roman Catholic innovation, not a part of original Christianity - see the Sabbath website) and shared a communal sacred meal of bread and wine, though given that these were staples of any meal in the ancient Mediterranean, this is hardly a surprise. That's where the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity begin and end. As noted above, the idea that either substantially influenced each other is not accepted by modern scholars.

There is also a persistent idea that Mithraism and Christianity were bitter rivals and that if Christianity had not prevailed, Mithraism would have taken its place as the main religion of the western world. This is actually highly unlikely. While there was certainly a rivalry between the two cults and an often savage repression of Mithraism once Roman Catholic 'Christianity' gained the political upper hand, Mithraism was never a popular mainstream cult the way Christianity was.

While Christianity was open to anyone, including women, slaves and the poor, Mithraism was an exclusive club, closed to women, which could be joined only by invitation by a current initiate, rather like Freemasonry. It prided itself on its exclusivity and the select nature of its membership, which meant while it was widespread across the Empire, it was never large in terms of numbers. This explains its rapid disappearance once Christianity became adopted by the Roman emperors.

I could mention some other details of the cult, but as should by now be obvious, I hope, any similarities with Christianity are bogus upon closer examination. For instance, Mithras is supposed to have received the visit of wise men upon his birth, but that is not backed by any document, and as I have already pointed out, he was supposedly created fully grown out of a rock anyway - the critics can't have it both ways.

The idea that Mithraism had 'a profound influence' on the origins of Christianity as claimed by the online pop 'experts' is, well, quite simply a myth and should be consigned to the trash heap. Unfortunately, the internet is awash with junk such as the claim that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism. It didn't. But gullible and uncritical people will believe anything they are told.

Copywrite © 1987-2025 NCAY - All Rights Reserved