Talk:Phanes (mythology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

{{

This article is supported by the Mythology WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Is that really Roman Mithras, "the Bull-Slayer" (2nd cty BC -- 5th cty AD), or rather Persian Mithra of the Zoroastrian (before Christ)?
Jorge Stolfi 04:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Regarding your question on whether Phanes is linked with the Persian Mitras or the Roman Mithras the current scholarly opinion seems to be that mitras wasn't the basis for Mithras, although given the Roman tactic of Syncretism it's possibly that they borrowed elements of him for their miThras - the Roman version is the one that makes him linked with the 'world egg', and certainly the persian version isn't linked with the sun (because of the Persian Ahura Mazda). Mithras is depicted emergng from the 'world' egg on the University of Newcastle website: found here

[edit] Placement of this article

I see no discussion of the *direct* reference to "Greek mythology", although this is rather questionable. Phanes is no mythological figure. I would suggest to first link to Orpheus, 2. to Neoplatonism (important) and only in 3d place to mythology, or leave that out altogether. Obviously the lemma has to be expanded also. Bibh wkp 20:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)