12-17-2006, 11:29 PM
I thought this important enough to start a new thread. I won't discuss the possible reasons behind that article since discussing modern religion and politics is against forum policy. So I've kept to discussing sources.
Well, I read it but I'm not that blown away by it. To the contrary, I find this a piece of dangerous historical falsification, in disregard even of what we read in the Bible about Jesus’ birth.
1) Winter solstice is a natural phenomenon that will have attracted the attention of ancient peoples millennia ago - it's the time the nights get shorter again, so that's bound to have had some influence, right? Stonehenge and other megalithic monuments are now thought to have been aligned on the winter solstice (not the summer solstice). Even so (what the article missed), it's the equinoxes that were celebrated far more in Roman times. But that’s just details.
Most of the arguments below were found here:
http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm
2) According to the article, the 'proof' of 25-12 being the Christian choice of Jesus' birthday well before Aurelian started the feast of Sol Invictus on that day would be because 30 years earlier, Hippolytus said Jesus' birth "took place eight days before the calends of January," that is, Dec. 25."
That's all good and well, but that's not what the Bible says (and you can read below that Hippolytus was just voicing one option at the time, but I'll come to that later).
All of us who actually read the Bible have easily found out the circumstances of the shepherds in the field and other details cannot possibly point to a midwinter birth of Our Lord. The sheep were in the fields at night, and as long as we don't believe in an exceptionally warm winter in the year 1 AD (or more likely 7 or 6 BC), that meant that it was late winter or early spring. Also, a census was not likely to have been called in the midst of winter, but more likely in post-harvest season. There’s more to be found in the Bible – we can be quite sure when Elizabeth was pregnant with John the Baptist, and therefore we can be quite sure that the time at which she was 6 months pregnant and Mary visited her was in December during Hanukah. That would mean a September date for Jesus’ birth.
So why did Hyppolytus write that significant claim? Same thing as the reason the Sol invictus folks chose the date of 25-12, and same reason the folks looking after Mithras did - it had some universal significance to others.
3) I have read no real evidence that all of the Church suddenly followed Hyppolytus when he wrote that, or earlier than that. To the contrary. In fact, the fixing of the date of the birth was a real controversy in which no less than 8 different posssible days over 6 months were proposed, since the Bible itself does not propive us with a single date for the birth. In 243 (that's right about when Hippolytus wrote), the official feast calendar of the time, De Pascha Computus, places the date of Christ's birth as March 28. Clement of Alexandria mentioned already in 200 the speculations about Christ's birthday, but he said nothing about a celebration on that day. He casually reported the various ideas extant at that time: "And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day..., the 25th day of Pachon... Furthermore, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of the moth Pharmuthi".
It was therefore by no means a fact that 25-12 was the Christian day of choice when Aurelian started the feat of Sol Invictus.
4) This Tighe fellow turns things around - he wants us to believe that through that Jewish Porphet tradition early Christians started to believe that Christ was not born on 25-12 after all, but at Easter since that was (undeniably) his death day. But may I refer to point 2 again? The Bible itself is clear on that - no midwinter.
In fact, this is from The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "Though speculation as to the time of year of Christ's birth dates from the early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria suggesting the 20th of May, the celebration of the anniversary does not appear to have been general till the later 4th century. The earliest mention of the observance on Dec. 25th is in the Philocalian Calendar, representing Roman practice of the year 336. This date was probably chosen to oppose the feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti [nativity of the unconquerable sun] by the celebration of the birth of the 'Sun of Righteousness' and its observance in the West, seems to have spread from Rome" (1983 edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1983, p. 280, "Christmas").
5) Therefore, I see this article as an attempt to turn the tables and declaring pagans the copycats of Christians, where in fact the sources (including the Bible!) speak otherwise. Nothing new, during Roman times the Christians said the same about comparable details in both Mithraism and Christianity: “the Mithraics must have copied Christianityâ€
Quote:Merry Christmas!!
(A Contrary view)
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2006_12_01 ... 9750997638
Well, I read it but I'm not that blown away by it. To the contrary, I find this a piece of dangerous historical falsification, in disregard even of what we read in the Bible about Jesus’ birth.
1) Winter solstice is a natural phenomenon that will have attracted the attention of ancient peoples millennia ago - it's the time the nights get shorter again, so that's bound to have had some influence, right? Stonehenge and other megalithic monuments are now thought to have been aligned on the winter solstice (not the summer solstice). Even so (what the article missed), it's the equinoxes that were celebrated far more in Roman times. But that’s just details.
Most of the arguments below were found here:
http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm
2) According to the article, the 'proof' of 25-12 being the Christian choice of Jesus' birthday well before Aurelian started the feast of Sol Invictus on that day would be because 30 years earlier, Hippolytus said Jesus' birth "took place eight days before the calends of January," that is, Dec. 25."
That's all good and well, but that's not what the Bible says (and you can read below that Hippolytus was just voicing one option at the time, but I'll come to that later).
All of us who actually read the Bible have easily found out the circumstances of the shepherds in the field and other details cannot possibly point to a midwinter birth of Our Lord. The sheep were in the fields at night, and as long as we don't believe in an exceptionally warm winter in the year 1 AD (or more likely 7 or 6 BC), that meant that it was late winter or early spring. Also, a census was not likely to have been called in the midst of winter, but more likely in post-harvest season. There’s more to be found in the Bible – we can be quite sure when Elizabeth was pregnant with John the Baptist, and therefore we can be quite sure that the time at which she was 6 months pregnant and Mary visited her was in December during Hanukah. That would mean a September date for Jesus’ birth.
So why did Hyppolytus write that significant claim? Same thing as the reason the Sol invictus folks chose the date of 25-12, and same reason the folks looking after Mithras did - it had some universal significance to others.
3) I have read no real evidence that all of the Church suddenly followed Hyppolytus when he wrote that, or earlier than that. To the contrary. In fact, the fixing of the date of the birth was a real controversy in which no less than 8 different posssible days over 6 months were proposed, since the Bible itself does not propive us with a single date for the birth. In 243 (that's right about when Hippolytus wrote), the official feast calendar of the time, De Pascha Computus, places the date of Christ's birth as March 28. Clement of Alexandria mentioned already in 200 the speculations about Christ's birthday, but he said nothing about a celebration on that day. He casually reported the various ideas extant at that time: "And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day..., the 25th day of Pachon... Furthermore, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of the moth Pharmuthi".
It was therefore by no means a fact that 25-12 was the Christian day of choice when Aurelian started the feat of Sol Invictus.
4) This Tighe fellow turns things around - he wants us to believe that through that Jewish Porphet tradition early Christians started to believe that Christ was not born on 25-12 after all, but at Easter since that was (undeniably) his death day. But may I refer to point 2 again? The Bible itself is clear on that - no midwinter.
In fact, this is from The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "Though speculation as to the time of year of Christ's birth dates from the early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria suggesting the 20th of May, the celebration of the anniversary does not appear to have been general till the later 4th century. The earliest mention of the observance on Dec. 25th is in the Philocalian Calendar, representing Roman practice of the year 336. This date was probably chosen to oppose the feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti [nativity of the unconquerable sun] by the celebration of the birth of the 'Sun of Righteousness' and its observance in the West, seems to have spread from Rome" (1983 edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1983, p. 280, "Christmas").
5) Therefore, I see this article as an attempt to turn the tables and declaring pagans the copycats of Christians, where in fact the sources (including the Bible!) speak otherwise. Nothing new, during Roman times the Christians said the same about comparable details in both Mithraism and Christianity: “the Mithraics must have copied Christianityâ€
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
