Merry Christmas!! (A Contrary view)

[Robert Vermaat]

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.

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€

[M. Demetrius]

Well said. Laudum tibi.

[tlclark]

Just to be clear. I thought the article was interesting, I don't know that I necessarily agree with it though I will say this. We see similarities and our first response is to say "one must of copied from the other!" and then we usually end up debating which one came first in endless chicken and egg scenarios.

In my experience, when we see such things, rather than one copying the other, what we usually have is both emerging from a common milieu.

For example, the comparisons between Mithraism and Christianity are overplayed, but it isn't the case that Christianity copied Mithraism. Rather the truth is that they both emerged from the same cultural background.

We intrinsically underestimate the Christians. We see pagan influences in their art, their culture and think "They borrowed from pagans!" to which the 4th or 5th Century response would likely be "so what, big deal."

It's like looking at Japan and saying that since they all wear predominantly western clothes, Japan has no wish to preserve its unique cultural identity. A statement, that is preposterous on its face. Yet we make similar judgments against ancient peoples all the time. Again, we accuse them of syncretism, confusion, or incompetence, when the only confusion is on our part. Christians (and Jews for that matter) understood the difference between symbols and idols, reality and allegory.

The appropriation of pagan symbols by Christians does not represent any confusion on the part of Christians. Nor does it symbolize any affinity or secret attachment for pagan rites, traditions etc. Rather what we are dealing with is a culture making its own way from its own vocabulary. To the 2nd 3rd and 4th C. Christians, Roman themes were not "Pagan" they were just Roman, and so were they. Appropriation of those images themes is actually more natural and less problematic than american blue jeans on european teenagers.

Besides which, the similarities between Saturnalia and Christmas are purely superficial. Garlands and gifts persist, but the role reversals, the debauch revelry decidedly do not. Christmas is not just Saturnalia warmed over. Far from it, and it has always had a unique and separate tradition. Those flairs that are borrowed from Saturnalia are not unique to Saturnalia and were just common Roman custom, and asking a Roman, even a Christian one, to abandon them would have been as silly as asking Europeans to give up blue jeans because they were "American". It's just their culture and our obsession with labeling certain cultural practices as "pagan" would have seemed downright silly to them.

[tlclark]

Let look at this another way.

If the goal of Christmas is to appropriate Saturnalia from ignorant Christians who still yearned for Saturnalia, why not appropriate everything and not only some Saturnalian traditions?

Simple, because they were reasonable people and though opinions differed, everyone knew where the lines ought to be drawn.

[Magnus]

Who cares? Christmas should be about getting together with family and enjoying the holiday. Just like the original intent of the holiday was supposed to be about....

[Cornelius Quintus]

Ave Robert,

Luke 2,8 says: And there were shepherds living out in the fields near by, keeping watch over their flocks at night.

As far as I know, December is one of two month, when the cattle is (and was) usually kept inside. So the common Christmas celebration date might not have been the perfect choice.

However, only one Gospel reports that story in detail. The Christmas miracle is important, but the focus of the bible clearly points to Easter, when the Messiah changed the world. Due to the connection to Passah/Passover, the right Easter date is much easier to find out ;-) )

[Robert Vermaat]

However, only one Gospel reports that story in detail. The Christmas miracle is important, but the focus of the bible clearly points to Easter, when the Messiah changed the world. Due to the connection to Passah/Passover, the right Easter date is much easier to find out ;-) )

?
Did I somehow give the impression that I found Passover less important? My reaction was a reaction to the article to which Travis referred.

This is about history, and the (mis) use of sources.

Of course the dates of Passover are easier to ascertain!

[Robert Vermaat]

Just to be clear. I thought the article was interesting, I don't know that I necessarily agree with it though I will say this. We see similarities and our first response is to say "one must of copied from the other!" and then we usually end up debating which one came first in endless chicken and egg scenarios.

Just to be clear, too. I did not think that it was reflecting your views, Travis, although I wondered about the lack of comment, positive or negative.

As to the ‘copycat’ theory, I felt that the article was turning the tables unfairly, hence my in-depth comment. I’m not so sure if the gut reaction about who followed who is that wrong - after all, especially in this case Christianity was a newcomer to a world of era-old religions. But I agree that such fast conclusions are usually untrustworthy if not researched properly. That goes too, as the article showed, for a reaction that Christianity ‘must have’ been the original and the pagans the copycats.

Yes, Mr Chicken vs. Mr Egg discussions can be the result, but in the case of 25-12 I think it’s clear that it was not Christianity who first coined the event. Nor do I think it’s a question of underestimating Christianity for lack of originality, but more of finding the reasoning for some choices made by the early Church. Personally I fully understand the reason for the Church to ‘take over’ pagan festivals as well pagan religious sites, for which we can find thousands of examples. I don’t think that a negative aspect either, but that nonetheless becomes a negative aspect when people start denying it for some reason.

The reason for my reaction was never about who borrows from whom, but about the denial of what was an obvious process during the formation of the Christian Church as an institution, which was even documented. Denying that would come down to falsifying history

Lastly, of course the similarities between Saturnalia and Christmas are purely superficial - Christmas is not just Saturnalia, period. But then I think the question raised by the article was an artificial one, because not ‘everybody thinks that Christmas is Saturnalia warmed over’. The date was used (but then probably a myriad of religions used that date to some extent, as was the green stuff (and the Christmas tree clearly originated from other, probably Germanic, events). I bet the candles were taken from other traditions.

Like you say. Who cares?

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

While renewing my feast greetings to all, I just like to see the terms Pagans and Paganism with capital letters like Christianity and Christians. The pagan Gods too with capital letters as all the other Gods are written so today. It's a form of respect due to any religion, don't you think?
Moreover can I suggest to use the term "Gentiles" from "Gens" as a better indicative of the so called Pagans? Because "Paganus" from "pagus" (rural village) was almost exclusively a derogatory term. Since it's from this derivation of "villager" which we have the word "villain", as the expanding Christians called the Pagans of Northern Europe/Scandinavia. :wink:
Also because, for an inexplicable reason, today the term "Paganism" is often and ignorantly associated to the term "satanism". :? x cry:

Thanks.

Optime ualete,

[Cornelius Quintus]

?
Did I somehow give the impression that I found Passover less important? My reaction was a reaction to the article to which Travis referred.

This is about history, and the (mis) use of sources.

Of course the dates of Passover are easier to ascertain!

Ave Robert,

no, I've understood you right and you didn't give that impression.

Perhaps my comment was too short and misleading. I only wanted to say, that in the context of the bible (regarded as an ancient source), Christmas and Easter are connected, and the very main report (four gospels) is aiming to Easter.

So if there are the same 'revelations' each year, stating that Christmas is only a copy of other ancient celebrations without a unique own sense, that's rubbish in my eyes. Yes, perhaps the early Church chose the wrong date and implemented common customs. But that won't make the biblical Christmas-to-Easter text retroactively wrong or senseless.

So I completely agree with you, that only looking for similarities to other ancient celebrations will end up in a 'scientific' mismatch. Unfortunately, sometimes the intention of such authors seems to achieve a self fulfilling prophecy...

I wonder how much people know (or love to read), that the overall look of the popular modern 'Santa' was created by a soft drink company long ago... :lol:

[Cornelius Quintus]

Ave Robert,

sorry, I forgot an important line (Christmas stress :lol: ).
of course it's misleading, regardless if the claimed result is 'Christans copied others' or 'others copied Christians'...

[Avatar]

While renewing my feast greetings to all, I just like to see the terms Pagans and Paganism with capital letters like Christianity and Christians. The pagan Gods too with capital letters as all the other Gods are written so today. It's a form of respect due to any religion, don't you think?
Moreover can I suggest to use the term "Gentiles" from "Gens" as a better indicative of the so called Pagans? Because "Paganus" from "pagus" (rural village) was almost exclusively a derogatory term. Since it's from this derivation of "villager" which we have the word "villain", as the expanding Christians called the Pagans of Northern Europe/Scandinavia. :wink:
Also because, for an inexplicable reason, today the term "Paganism" is often and ignorantly associated to the term "satanism". :? x cry:

Thanks.

Optime ualete,

Agreed...

And on a sidenote of my own: who cares? There are planty of examples of stuff that Christian mythology has likely borrowed from others.

[tlclark]

While renewing my feast greetings to all, I just like to see the terms Pagans and Paganism with capital letters like Christianity and Christians. The pagan Gods too with capital letters as all the other Gods are written so today. It's a form of respect due to any religion, don't you think?
Moreover can I suggest to use the term "Gentiles" from "Gens" as a better indicative of the so called Pagans? Because "Paganus" from "pagus" (rural village) was almost exclusively a derogatory term. Since it's from this derivation of "villager" which we have the word "villain", as the expanding Christians called the Pagans of Northern Europe/Scandinavia. :wink:
Also because, for an inexplicable reason, today the term "Paganism" is often and ignorantly associated to the term "satanism". :? x cry:

Thanks.

Optime ualete,

Well this is a fun topic!!

My advisor routinely asks me to do just this thing, either render all dieties in lower case or all in caps. Somehow it just feels wrong to write "the virigin mary". hock: so I opt to capitalize everything in my dissertation.

It's the new post-modern trend as well. I don't capitalize Pagan usually because pagan does not describe any specific unified system of beliefs. The pagans of N. Europe are as distinct from the Pagans of the mediterranean as Christians are from Jews. I wouldn't captilize pagan anymore than I would captilize "animism" or "shamanism". These are not unified belief systems but aspects of larger traditions. So in most cases capitalizing "paganism" would be wrong unless you are referring to a specific cult (which I use in the clinically neutral way meaning a system of worship and not the unfortunately derogatory way it is used today) in which case, a more specific term should probably be used.

\\Pagan is a derogatory term, (even "Christian" is something of a misnomer as most early Christians prefered the term "saints" meaning "separated" )So if we are going to coin a neologism to describe the vibrant new "Pagan" communities, what term do we use? The new religions are not necessarily ancient paganism. I have heard some groups use "Vanya-tru" to describe revivals of northern beliefs.

What are people using these days?

Travis

[Virilis]

Life is sometimes simple for an agnostic like me :wink: !

[Cornelius Quintus]

Life is sometimes simple for an agnostic like me :wink: !

Ave Jyki,

I thought, if you'd have problems with anything, you'd just squeeze it to fit ;-)