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. John Hinnells was unwilling to reject entirely the idea of Iranian origin,John R. Hinnells, "Reflections on the bull-slaying scene" in Mithraic studies, vol. 2, pp. 303–304: "Nevertheless we would not be justified in swinging to the opposite extreme from Cumont and Campbell and denying all connection between Mithraism and Iran." 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." 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." Another paper by R.L. 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.
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. john hinnElls wAs UNwIlliNg tO reJecT enTiReLY the IDEa Of iraNian oRigiN,jOHn r. hinnElls, "rEflectiOns oN THe bull-slAyiNG SceNe" IN MIthRaiC sTUdiEs, voL. 2, pP. 303–304: "nEvertheleSs we wouLd noT bE jUstifieD iN swiNGing to the OppoSITe Extreme from CumonT And campbEll aNd denying alL cOnnEcTion BetwEEn mithrAism And iraN." 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." 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." anOther PaPer by r.L. 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.