Bombadil's Athenæum

Forwarded from The Daily Pour

Santa, wreaths, mistletoe, and many other modern Christmas traditions may not necessarily have much to do with the ancient Christian celebration, but they also don’t have anything to do with overt paganism.

I don’t doubt that the Reformed Puritans and Alexander Hislop himself were well intentioned in their desire to weed-out paganism from Christian belief and practice (aside, of course, from Hislop’s fabrication of nearly all of ancient history). However, their understandings of many of the traditions they endeavoured to critique were often shallow, misguided, or fabricated wholesale.

Some of these critiques against Christmas sound like they could be spoken from the pages of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, where very similar accusations are made. For example, Sir Leigh Teabing, the distinguished professor from Dan Brown’s novel, retorts that “Nothing in Christianity is original! The pre-Christian god Mithras — called the Son of God and the Light of the World — was born on December 25th” (The Da Vinci Code, 55.28-29).

Brown thus portrays early Christianity as a group who were knowingly and purposefully appropriating the traditions of the pagans in order to coerce them into conversion. In their effort to win out against both the pagans and the growing Christian heresies, early Christianity is depicted as somewhat of a predatory religious movement, willing to dismantle and appropriate other cults for its own growth and wellbeing.

However, if you actually study what really took place within early Christianity that portrayal couldn’t be any further from the truth. To be sure Christianity did stand its ground against paganism and heretical factions, but their portrayal as a proverbial religious bully on the playground is complete fiction.

What does the historical record tell us?
The reality is that modern Christmas traditions are far less sensational and nefarious than all that and the date was not stolen from neighbouring pagans. It is true that many other pagan festivals did happen around the Winter Solstice, but correlation does not equal causation and when it comes to paganism and Christmas the evidence for causation is very weak.

While there were other festivals taking place on ancient Roman and European calendars, these had nothing to do with the Christians’ choice for choosing December 25th as the date to celebrate the incarnation.

The origin of December 25th as the date for Christmas finds its beginnings in the late second and early third century with the historian Sextus Julius Africanus. Africanus, wrote a volume titled Chronographiai, an early Christian treatise that attempted to chronologically cover world history from creation to his own day. Based on calculations from his reading of Luke and Matthew’s Gospels, Africanus concluded that Jesus was conceived on March 25th. For the birth then, he counted nine months ahead which landed him on the date of December 25th (Sextus Julius Africanus, De solstitia et aequinoctiaconceptionis et nativitatis Domini nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae).

Africanus wasn’t alone on his dating of Jesus’ birth. A contemporary of Africanus, Hippolytus of Rome, wrote a commentary on the book of Daniel in the early third century in which he too states that Jesus was born on December 25th (Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel 4.23.3.).

It is true that Sol Invictus, the festival commemorating the Roman sun God, fell on December 25th. However, our earliest inscriptions concerning this festival place it at the beginning of December not at the end. In his work The Origins of the Liturgical Year, historian Thomas Talley argues that “[i]t is more likely that the Roman Emperor Aurelian moved Sol Invictus to December 25th to compete with the growing rate of Christianity” (The Origins of the Liturgical Year, 88-91).

www.group-telegram.com/jp/DomainsRepository.com/1296

119 viewsDec 22 at 06:00

Santa, wreaths, mistletoe, and many other modern Christmas traditions may not necessarily have much to do with the ancient Christian celebration, but they also don’t have anything to do with overt paganism.

I don’t doubt that the Reformed Puritans and Alexander Hislop himself were well intentioned in their desire to weed-out paganism from Christian belief and practice (aside, of course, from Hislop’s fabrication of nearly all of ancient history). However, their understandings of many of the traditions they endeavoured to critique were often shallow, misguided, or fabricated wholesale.

Some of these critiques against Christmas sound like they could be spoken from the pages of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, where very similar accusations are made. For example, Sir Leigh Teabing, the distinguished professor from Dan Brown’s novel, retorts that “Nothing in Christianity is original! The pre-Christian god Mithras — called the Son of God and the Light of the World — was born on December 25th” (The Da Vinci Code, 55.28-29).

Brown thus portrays early Christianity as a group who were knowingly and purposefully appropriating the traditions of the pagans in order to coerce them into conversion. In their effort to win out against both the pagans and the growing Christian heresies, early Christianity is depicted as somewhat of a predatory religious movement, willing to dismantle and appropriate other cults for its own growth and wellbeing.

However, if you actually study what really took place within early Christianity that portrayal couldn’t be any further from the truth. To be sure Christianity did stand its ground against paganism and heretical factions, but their portrayal as a proverbial religious bully on the playground is complete fiction.

What does the historical record tell us?
The reality is that modern Christmas traditions are far less sensational and nefarious than all that and the date was not stolen from neighbouring pagans. It is true that many other pagan festivals did happen around the Winter Solstice, but correlation does not equal causation and when it comes to paganism and Christmas the evidence for causation is very weak.

While there were other festivals taking place on ancient Roman and European calendars, these had nothing to do with the Christians’ choice for choosing December 25th as the date to celebrate the incarnation.

The origin of December 25th as the date for Christmas finds its beginnings in the late second and early third century with the historian Sextus Julius Africanus. Africanus, wrote a volume titled Chronographiai, an early Christian treatise that attempted to chronologically cover world history from creation to his own day. Based on calculations from his reading of Luke and Matthew’s Gospels, Africanus concluded that Jesus was conceived on March 25th. For the birth then, he counted nine months ahead which landed him on the date of December 25th (Sextus Julius Africanus, De solstitia et aequinoctiaconceptionis et nativitatis Domini nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae).

Africanus wasn’t alone on his dating of Jesus’ birth. A contemporary of Africanus, Hippolytus of Rome, wrote a commentary on the book of Daniel in the early third century in which he too states that Jesus was born on December 25th (Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel 4.23.3.).

It is true that Sol Invictus, the festival commemorating the Roman sun God, fell on December 25th. However, our earliest inscriptions concerning this festival place it at the beginning of December not at the end. In his work The Origins of the Liturgical Year, historian Thomas Talley argues that “[i]t is more likely that the Roman Emperor Aurelian moved Sol Invictus to December 25th to compete with the growing rate of Christianity” (The Origins of the Liturgical Year, 88-91).

BY Bombadil's Athenæum