Is Christmas Pagan?

[ChristineM]

I misspoke. I meant Sol Invictus.

Sol Invictus has been around since at least the 3rd century BC Syria. There were at least 3 temples in Rome dedicated to Sol dating from the early republic. But it was Aurelian who made it an official religion in 274 AD, funnily enough on 25 December 274 AD

 

[sealchan]

Santa Clause Christmas trees elves etc..................................is it Pagan?

I see it as post-Christian materialism

 

[Augustus]

that it lines up with the Winter Solstice is suggestive that having a Christian festival during this time was important.

The problem with this idea is that the dating had nothing to do with celebrating Christmas. It was simply theological musing to do with Easter.

It seems like it wasn't celebrated until many decades later.

I am quite sure they willingly gave up all their pagan customs completely in those centuries after Charlemagne politely asked them to. Likely, the traditions developing in Germany didn't arise from nowhere and claiming they were simply new Christian traditions without any folk influence is totes sus.

If they had appeared a century or so later that might be plausible.

That these "pagan" traditions didn't appear until the best part of 1000 years down the line is certainly totes sus.

Consider also that one of the reasons given for conifers being the chosen tree is the story of Saint Boniface chopping down a sacred Oak to have a conifer grow in its place.

Were that the reason (which is unlikely), then it would indeed be Christian.

Kind of like Christianity?

Traditions do change, but that doesn't mean some don't survive, especially when the tradition is tied to some psychological need or is an element of the environment it grew it.

Christianity changed massively and it was organised and supported by multiple major institutions and underpinned by a comprehensive written tradition.

"Paganisms" were dead religions without institutional support or written tradition.

That authentically "pagan" traditions survived 1500 years in folk memory alone then reappeared and blossomed is somewhat fantastical.

Certain elements such as conifers, gift-giving, supernatural beings that ride the sky judging folks (and doing good deeds or giving gifts) or visiting your home and requiring offerings have very separate origins from Christian mythology (even if there are traditions that developed in Christian celebrations) and reflect the mythology of other cultures.

I find it hard to see some 19th C yank writing a poem as the resurrection of an ancient pagan tradition. The Romantic and "Volkish" traditions may have struved towards reviving "pagan" traditions, but they were mostly contrived rather than authentic.

Giving gifts is just too generic to belong to any culture.

It's like saying when someone today lights a candle or gives some flowers because they like the aesthetics they are somehow engaging in pagan ritual.

That's okay. How do you define "pagan"?

Other than as a shorthand for diverse pre-Christian "religions" it's pretty meaningless.

Even if you look at specific paganisms it's hard to differentiate "religious" practices from general culture or behaviour. Even the concept of religious and secular is Christian.

It's a Christian term that makes little sense outside of a Christian worldview.

 

[Augustus]

I'm sure if I spent a couple of hours perusing the internet, I could find more, and better, sites to document this. It's not worth that sort of effort to me. I hope this will be good enough.

I agree with all of those points regarding the dating of Christmas, which I discussed in another thread here

The one thing I disagree with though is that the purpose of dating Christmas was to celebrate it as a feast day.

Easter was the big celebration, and the dating of Christmas was an offshoot of that.

It took a long time before the dating of Christmas to 25 Dec led to 25 Dec becoming a day of celebration (celebrating birthdays wasn't really the done thing).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You mean other than being held on the same dates, and using similar iconography, and symbolism? Or the fact those pagan festivals were widespread for centuries before those same cultures adopted monotheistic Christianity?

Solstice is Dec 21. Christmas is Dec 25

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sol Invictus has been around since at least the 3rd century BC Syria. There were at least 3 temples in Rome dedicated to Sol dating from the early republic. But it was Aurelian who made it an official religion in 274 AD, funnily enough on 25 December 274 AD

Sol Invictus has been around since the later third century. But some churches were celebrating Jesus nativity in the early third century. Earlier today I uploaded a post that gave Hipplatus as an example of one of the early third century theologians that placed Christmas on Dec 25. However, at this time, there were competing dates. My point is only that SOME had chosen Dec 25 for Christmas before Sol Invictus became a holy day for pagans. see my post at Is Christmas Pagan?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree with all of those points regarding the dating of Christmas, which I discussed in another thread here

The one thing I disagree with though is that the purpose of dating Christmas was to celebrate it as a feast day.

Easter was the big celebration, and the dating of Christmas was an offshoot of that.

It took a long time before the dating of Christmas to 25 Dec led to 25 Dec becoming a day of celebration (celebrating birthdays wasn't really the done thing).

What do you think they were dating teh nativity for if not for a feast day? If we were talkiong about the second century, I would agree, no one was looking for a nativity feast day. But clearly that changed in the early third century.

 

[Augustus]

I misspoke. I meant Sol Invictus.

More importantly, Sol "Invictus" didn't actually exist.

It was just plain old Sol/Helios. The epithet Invictus was applied to many gods.

Counterintuitively, he was also not a "solstice" god, and feast for Sol happened in April, August, October, etc. at various times.

As you know, the idea there was an established feast on 25 Dec for Sol Invictus is not supported by any evidence. The earliest source that claims this also notes 25 Dec as Christmas.

It is likely 25 Dec as a feast for "Sol Invictus" was actually a response to Christmas rather than the origin.

 

[Augustus]

What do you think they were dating teh nativity for if not for a feast day? If we were talkiong about the second century, I would agree, no one was looking for a nativity feast day. But clearly that changed in the early third century.

If you think your god was born a human, you might well care about what day that was.

Early Christians didn't celebrate birthdays though but they were interested in the theological question.

They also calculated when John the Baptist was born and all kinds of other trivia that has nothing to do with feasts.

Later people wanted a feast day, and looked at what had been calculated previously.

The point is that they didn't calculate it for the purpose of creating a feast day.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you think your god was born a human, you might well care about what day that was.

Early Christians didn't celebrate birthdays though but they were interested in the theological question.

They also calculated when John the Baptist was born and all kinds of other trivia that has nothing to do with feasts.

Later people wanted a feast day, and looked at what had been calculated previously.

The point is that they didn't calculate it for the purpose of creating a feast day.

My god? I think you have a misunderstanding here. I am not a Christian, and I do not celebrate Christmas, since I am a Jew. That doesn't mean I don't know the history of Christmas.

 

[Rival]

My god? I think you have a misunderstanding here. I am not a Christian, and I do not celebrate Christmas, since I am a Jew. That doesn't mean I don't know the history of Christmas.

He is using the generic 'you'.

 

[Augustus]

My god? I think you have a misunderstanding here. I am not a Christian, and I do not celebrate Christmas, since I am a Jew.

He is using the generic 'you'.

This

 

[Augustus]

But none of this makes them Pagan

Do you even science, bro?

Revelry is pagan. Winter flora is pagan. Gifts are pagan. Having fun in winter is pagan.

Scientific fact.

 

[Rival]

Do you even science, bro?

Science is Pagan.

 

[Augustus]

Science is Pagan.

Going by the logic of some here we also should consider pederasty, theft, murder and genocide pagan.

Bloody pagans ruining our chances at utopia

 

[The Hammer]

Hammer, Indo-Aryans divided the year in two parts - Devayana and Pitriyana. Devayana (Path of Gods) extended from Vernal equinox to autumnal equinox, and Pitriyana (Path of the Fathers) from autumnal equinox to vernal equinox.
Later Hindus divided the year into two parts, Uttarayana and Dakshinayana. Uttarayana extends from winter solstice to summer solstice and Dakshinayana from summer solstice to winter solstice.
'Dies Natalis Invicti' is a corrupted rendition of the older system. Hindus adopted the later system because otherwise the rituals would have to be started in a wrong season. The Greeks and later the Romans carried on without caring for seasons.

Again I wouldn't say it's corrupted, so much as adjusted for the location and latitude it's taking place. While Indo-European views come from a common background, they didn't all grow out of Hinduism moving eastwards. It follows the growing season (which is most important) and the cycle of the sun, relevant to ones location.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The problem with this idea is that the dating had nothing to do with celebrating Christmas. It was simply theological musing to do with Easter.

It seems like it wasn't celebrated until many decades later.

Where's the problem? Given the other dates thrown about, as well as Biblical clues that suggest the Nativity occurring during times more likely for shepards to be out with flocks and censuses being taken, it seems like placing a special importance on the solstice played a part. St. Augustine alluded to this in a sermon:

"Hence it is that He was born on the day which is the shortest in our earthly reckoning and from which subsequent days begin to increase in length. He, therefore, who bent low and lifted us up chose the shortest day, yet the one whence light begins to increase."

Augustine's Sermon 192

If they had appeared a century or so later that might be plausible.

That these "pagan" traditions didn't appear until the best part of 1000 years down the line is certainly totes sus..

Didn't appear as in they weren't documented by Christian writers?

Likely they survived in folk traditions or in synchronizing traditional beliefs or customs with the new religion. This isn't uncommon; the African diaspora religions are a good example of how ancient beliefs can survive time and attempts to destroy them.

Were that the reason (which is unlikely), then it would indeed be Christian.

It is a folk legend concerning the Donar's Oak, attesting to the importance of tree worship in pre-Christian Europe. The argument for the conifer tree that I have heard (and I thought was connected to Martin Luther) was that the triangle shape of the tree relates to the Trinity.

Regardless, I haven't read much opposition to the point that bringing in evergreens and even decorating them predates Christianity, even if it wasn't a full tree.

Christianity changed massively and it was organised and supported by multiple major institutions and underpinned by a comprehensive written tradition.

"Paganisms" were dead religions without institutional support or written tradition.

That authentically "pagan" traditions survived 1500 years in folk memory alone then reappeared and blossomed is somewhat fantastical.

The Saxons weren't converted until the 7th to 8th century, and the Scandinavians were mostly pagan right into the 11th century. And, as I stated earlier, conversion, forced or otherwise does not mean loss of cultural elements. These often become a part of folklore.

I find it hard to see some 19th C yank writing a poem as the resurrection of an ancient pagan tradition. The Romantic and "Volkish" traditions may have struved towards reviving "pagan" traditions, but they were mostly contrived rather than authentic.

Clement-Moore was inspired by Irving's depiction, and both writers wrote partially based on romanticizing European culture, particularly Dutch.

And, what the Romantics were doing may have been contrived, but there wasn't much of a choice in the matter. That doesn't remove the inspiration to look beyond Christian tradition.

Giving gifts is just too generic to belong to any culture.

It's like saying when someone today lights a candle or gives some flowers because they like the aesthetics they are somehow engaging in pagan ritual.

We're talking in the context of gift-giving associated with winter festivals. Gift-giving certainly is an old custom, and how does being generic not relate it to something besides Christianity? My point is in showing how Christmas traditions need not be connected solely to Christianity.

Other than as a shorthand for diverse pre-Christian "religions" it's pretty meaningless.

Even if you look at specific paganisms it's hard to differentiate "religious" practices from general culture or behaviour. Even the concept of religious and secular is Christian.

It's a Christian term that makes little sense outside of a Christian worldview.

It used to be a Christian term, and specifically a Roman Christian term. But, as language has a habit of doing, we use the term today with various but related meanings. Luckily, dictionaries provide us with guidance:

Definition of PAGAN

It makes sense today, where Christianity is the dominant Western religion, to describe both non-abrahamic religions (historical and modern) and cultural and spiritual practices that are primitive, or "nature based" as "pagan."

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Going by the logic of some here we also should consider pederasty, theft, murder and genocide pagan.

Bloody pagans ruining our chances at utopia

<Whistles nonchalantly>

 

[ChristineM]

Sol Invictus has been around since the later third century. But some churches were celebrating Jesus nativity in the early third century. Earlier today I uploaded a post that gave Hipplatus as an example of one of the early third century theologians that placed Christmas on Dec 25. However, at this time, there were competing dates. My point is only that SOME had chosen Dec 25 for Christmas before Sol Invictus became a holy day for pagans. see my post at Is Christmas Pagan?

Wrong. Sol invictus It was proclaimed an official religion in 275ad. It exist as an unofficial Roman religion long before that. In the roman republic it was one of many reliions observed in Rome. The republic ended in 27bc.
Even before that it was a major Syrian rellgion.

 

[Augustus]

<Whistles nonchalantly>

Should we consider them specifically pagan?

They predate Christianity and are pretty universal human practices after all.