- This topic has 5 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
Sextus Julius Africanus refers to December 25th as the time of celebrating Christ’s birth by the year by 221 A.D., and what I found interesting in the piece was that the early Christian writer Origen didn’t seem to like the idea:
The identification of the birthdate of Jesus did not at first inspire feasting or celebration. In 245, the theologian Origen denounced the idea of celebrating the birthday of Jesus “as if he were a king pharaoh.” He contended that only sinners, not saints, celebrated their birthdays.
I wonder if his rationale was that with the afterlife being more important than the beginning of life (a “forward” outlook), celebrating one’s beginnings did not have merit.
I'm thinking Origen was speaking of the new birth per Christ's lecture to Nicodemus. He was de-emphasizing our physical birthday in favor of our spiritual birthday obtained by coming to know Christ.
I was always under the impression the 25th was the date because it coinsided with the winter solstice. Maybe he didn't like the Paganism being interjected into Christianity.
Correct Stumpfoot. Christmas replaced the festival of the Winter Solstice or Epiphany. Epiphany is now regarded as the climax of the Christmas season. The Romans Christianized many old pagan holidays to assimilate the “heathen” into the new state religion.
Correct Stumpfoot. Christmas replaced the festival of the Winter Solstice or Epiphany. Epiphany is now regarded as the climax of the Christmas season. The Romans Christianized many old pagan holidays to assimilate the "heathen" into the new state religion.
I think that also applies to many of the symbols of Christmas as well. The tree, the yule log, wreaths ,mistletoe and others.
I heard yesterday that Thomas Nast had taken the story of St. Nicholas and got it mixed up with a legend of a Norse god to come up with the story of Santa Claus. That's why he's depicted as living in the North Pole, whereas the real-life St. Nicholas was from Myra, Turkey.
I found that the date of December 25th was the day of celebration of Natalis Invicti, a sun feast during the days of the Roman Empire which peaked in 274 during Aurelian's reign. In my understanding, it seems that the Christians in essence adopted a date already celebrated for pagan reasons and simply changed the underlying reason for the celebration:
The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in Cypr., "De pasch. Comp.", xix, "O quam pr?clare providentia ut illo die quo natus est Sol . . . nasceretur Christus." - "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born." ... Already Tertullian (Apol., 16; cf. Ad. Nat., I, 13; Orig. c. Cels., VIII, 67, etc) had to assert that Sol was not the Christians' God; Augustine (Tract xxxiv, in Joan. In P. L., XXXV, 1652) denounces the heretical indentification of Christ with Sol. Pope Leo I (Serm. xxxvii in nat. dom., VII, 4; xxii, II, 6 in P. L., LIV, 218 and 198) bitterly reproves solar survivals....
This adoption of a pagan event for a Christian holiday does not appear to have been unique; I believe the festival of Lupercalia was similarly adopted and later used for the feast of St. Valentine in February.
The Romans first adopted Greek festivals and then the Christian Roman rulers did it again. Old Roman trick I suppose. 🙂
This is probably a subject for a different forum but I think that it calls into question a religions integrity when they adopt non-Christian traditions to appease the masses, even if the bible condemns such traditions.
This is probably a subject for a different forum but I think that it calls into question a religions integrity when they adopt non-Christian traditions to appease the masses, even if the bible condemns such traditions.
Good point. Christ made this very point when he decried the traditions and feast days made by men and not God. Religion and ritual are of man, God usually has little to do with it. 😉
It's a fact that many holiday traditions (not just Christmas) have their roots in pagen traditions, and I was wondering how a church of any kind could promote those traditions knowing there not Christian.
This is probably a subject for a different forum but I think that it calls into question a religions integrity when they adopt non-Christian traditions to appease the masses, even if the bible condemns such traditions.
Not so much a lack of integrity but a wealth of salesmanship; the big goal was to Christianize the pagans... if one can sell them on Christianity by showing them a festival that parallels their own Christianity is less strange and threatening the pagans are more likely to give it a try. If not then they could be killed. Conversion or death, net result less pagans. Sorry if that sounds harsh but seems to have been the end result in too many cases.On a brighter note the sales pitch used by Patrick in Ireland was pretty heady; got the Celts to sign on by simply buying into the idea of Confession that the Celts functioned under (see Cahill; How the Irish Saved Civilization for details).Wally
I don't think I'd go with the idea that it was “conversion or death”, if only because when these original Roman pagan festivals would be held Christians would likely not have held any political power at all, and even under Constantine I don't think that non-Christians were persecuted as the Edict of Milan dealt with tolerance rather than instituting one and suppressing the others. But I do agree that what Christians did may have been a savvy form of marketing, whether intentional or not. Establishing a parallel feast likely allowed new Christian converts to continue traditional activities of merry-making on certain dates within their new religion, albeit for a different reason. A good question to explore would be whether this kind of "capturing" of another group's traditions or institutions was unique to Christianity. I think it was probably not, and I think it was simply the way civilizations operated back then. Actually, people still operate in this manner today; look at the modern celebration of Kwaanza, which seems to have been conveniently instituted among the festive time of Christmas and New Years. I don't think that was an coincidence.
I don't think I'd go with the idea that it was "conversion or death", if only because when these original Roman pagan festivals would be held Christians would likely not have held any political power at all, and even under Constantine I don't think that non-Christians were persecuted as the Edict of Milan dealt with tolerance rather than instituting one and suppressing the others.
I was thinking New World here....
But I do agree that what Christians did may have been a savvy form of marketing, whether intentional or not. Establishing a parallel feast likely allowed new Christian converts to continue traditional activities of merry-making on certain dates within their new religion, albeit for a different reason.
Just my point.
A good question to explore would be whether this kind of "capturing" of another group's traditions or institutions was unique to Christianity. I think it was probably not, and I think it was simply the way civilizations operated back then. Actually, people still operate in this manner today; look at the modern celebration of Kwaanza, which seems to have been conveniently instituted among the festive time of Christmas and New Years. I don't think that was an coincidence.
Agreed. Again smart marketing, eh?
