Posted on 12/07/2005 2:36:38 PM PST by Charles Henrickson
According to conventional wisdom, Christmas had its origin in a pagan winter solstice festival, which the church co-opted to promote the new religion. In doing so, many of the old pagan customs crept into the Christian celebration. But this view is apparently a historical myth—like the stories of a church council debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or that medieval folks believed the earth is flat—often repeated, even in classrooms, but not true.
William J. Tighe, a history professor at Muhlenberg College, gives a different account in his article "Calculating Christmas," published in the December 2003 Touchstone Magazine. He points out that the ancient Roman religions had no winter solstice festival.
True, the Emperor Aurelian, in the five short years of his reign, tried to start one, "The Birth of the Unconquered Sun," on Dec. 25, 274. This festival, marking the time of year when the length of daylight began to increase, was designed to breathe new life into a declining paganism. But Aurelian's new festival was instituted after Christians had already been associating that day with the birth of Christ. According to Mr. Tighe, the Birth of the Unconquered Sun "was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians." Christians were not imitating the pagans. The pagans were imitating the Christians.
The early church tried to ascertain the actual time of Christ's birth. It was all tied up with the second-century controversies over setting the date of Easter, the commemoration of Christ's death and resurrection. That date should have been an easy one. Though Easter is also charged with having its origins in pagan equinox festivals, we know from Scripture that Christ's death was at the time of the Jewish Passover. That time of year is known with precision.
But differences in the Jewish, Greek, and Latin calendars and the inconsistency between lunar and solar date-keeping caused intense debate over when to observe Easter. Another question was whether to fix one date for the Feast of the Resurrection no matter what day it fell on or to ensure that it always fell on Sunday, "the first day of the week," as in the Gospels.
This discussion also had a bearing on fixing the day of Christ's birth. Mr. Tighe, drawing on the in-depth research of Thomas J. Talley's The Origins of the Liturgical Year, cites the ancient Jewish belief (not supported in Scripture) that God appointed for the great prophets an "integral age," meaning that they died on the same day as either their birth or their conception.
Jesus was certainly considered a great prophet, so those church fathers who wanted a Christmas holiday reasoned that He must have been either born or conceived on the same date as the first Easter. There are hints that some Christians originally celebrated the birth of Christ in March or April. But then a consensus arose to celebrate Christ's conception on March 25, as the Feast of the Annunciation, marking when the angel first appeared to Mary.
Note the pro-life point: According to both the ancient Jews and the early Christians, life begins at conception. So if Christ was conceived on March 25, nine months later, he would have been born on Dec. 25.
This celebrates Christ's birth in the darkest time of the year. The Celtic and Germanic tribes, who would be evangelized later, did mark this time in their "Yule" festivals, a frightening season when only the light from the Yule log kept the darkness at bay. Christianity swallowed up that season of depression with the opposite message of joy: "The light [Jesus] shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5).
Regardless of whether this was Christ's actual birthday, the symbolism works. And Christ's birth is inextricably linked to His resurrection.
Or it could just be that there was no Jesus and as such any date chosen for his birth is just arbitrary.
"He points out that the ancient Roman religions had no winter solstice festival."
Saturnalia (from the god Saturn) was the name the Romans gave to their holiday marking the Winter Solstice.
______________________________________________
Next book he should write explains how Saturn'sDay, SunDay, and MoonDay are really not Roman at all.
/end sarcasm
"O.K., trivia question:
The Roman Emperor thought that the shortest day of the year was Dec. 25th. Yet we see it as December 20th or 21st. Why?
Hint: the observations of his astronomers was probably correct, as are ours."
Fascinating question, but to answer it requires asking questions.
When you say "the Roman Emperor thought that the shortest day of the years was December 25", do you mean by that, that if he consulted his Roman calendar of the time (this would have to be post-Augustus), that the solstice would have fallen on December 25? Or do you mean that if we were to project our calendar back to the Roman time, that the shortest day of the year would have been on December 25, by our reckoning of time, and not theirs?
Either your question relates to the change in the calendar, or it relates to the relative change in motion of the earth relative to the sun.
And in truth, a proper relates to both things. Even were the calendars identical then and now, and not have been changed at all in the interim, the precise times that certain celestial events occurred would differ, at least slightly, because things have moved about, the earth rotates a bit slower, the position of things relative to the sun is a little bit different, etc.
I don't know that 3000 years is enough to make for 3 days difference, but it will be interesting to hear your answer.
"I always thought that God rested on the seventh day."
Yes.
And the Seventh Day is Saturday.
Which is why the Sabbath, in the Bible and in Jewish practice, falls on Saturday.
The First Day is Sunday.
"Would there have been shepherds watching their flocks at night in the hills in December?"
In Israel?
Yes.
Not in Northern Europe, of course.
The original Christians were Jews who celebrated Christian holidays on Jewish dates, such as Passover giving rise to Easter.
IMHO, converting Hanukkah's date to Christmas was not a great stretch.
So why did Christians change it to Sunday?
"Regardless of whether this was Christ's actual birthday, the symbolism works. And Christ's birth is inextricably linked to His resurrection."
Bingo. Christ's birth, Christ's resurrection and Christ's relationship with mankind is what matters. Who cares if we got the date right? I never remember my wife's, either!
|
|
Blue laws. |
December 25 was the birthday of Mithras, who was also born of a virgin, in a cave, died for mankind and ascended into heaven about two centuries before Christ.
Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week. Thus it quickly became "the Lord's Day."
The only useful information that can be extracted from this piece is that it wouldn't be a good idea to major in history at Muhlenburg College.
Actually Worship on Sunday and the date for the Christmas Holiday comes from Emperor Constantine. When he converted to Christianity he sought to also convert his military forces. The primary religion of the Roman military at the time was Mithraism. Now Mithraism had some similarities to Christianity. He was born of a virgin, heralded by shepards, visited by magi, and had 12 disciples. He also taught similar moral lessons as the Christians.
What Constantine did was create a bit of confusion between Jesus and Mithra. He decided that Jesus needed a birth celebration. Mithra's birth was celebrated on December 25 and his worship day was Sunday (Mithra was a Sun god). Constantine declared these the holy days of Christianity.
There are several other really strange coincidences between Mithra Worship and Jesus. The Vatican is build on top of the temple of Mithra in Rome. Also some Masonic ceremonies are similar to ones in Mithraism. Mithra also had a rebirth celebration that occurred in the summer which corresponded with the traditional Easter ceremony as held in Scotland.
Maybe, but that is not clear. We know by daybreak that Mary Magdalene had discovered Him gone but we really don't know when.
And quite apart from all the sage observations other posters have made re the Winter festivals, this author complete fails to address and rebut the old Mithras/Christ parallels for this celebration...not saying I accept them but a serious article has to address them.
Also the early church said that the similarities between Mithraism and Christ was the work of Satan mocking the birth of the Messiah (the Mithra story came into Roman society 60 years before the birth of Christ).
I think it may be closer to what C.S. Lewis wrote in "Mere Christianity" that God was telling the pagans the good news and they knew the truth even before it was revealed through their own Mythology.
What are you babbling on about Narnia and what does that have to do with Christ's date of birth?
...and evergreen trees in Nazareth with faux snow on them would have been growing in the manger outside the inn. The innkeeper himself was a roly poly man with a thing for red flannel. And don't get us started about easter bunnies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
