Meatros

Okay, the title is a bit cryptic, but the thought occurred to me today, Apologists often claim that pagan parallels only occurred one way.

The birthday of Jesus might be a counter point.

Now, it's my understanding that Mithras was born on Dec 25, as were various other gods. I *think* I read that the Christians, wanting to attract Pagans (or something - I'm not very clear) incorporated various dates into their mythologies. Dec 25 being one of them. I'm not sure when this happened (300 - 400 AD?).

It's not mentioned in scripture or the earliest traditions, but it is an example of borrowing from the Pagans.

Yet to hear apologists talk, this never happened.

Certainly this doesn't show that all of the Christ mythos was taken from the pagans (I don't believe this - I think a lot of Christianity was interpretation of Hebrew scripture with some pagan flavoring). I also think there might have been a historical person who was mythologized.

Meatros

So, how recent was the adoption of Dec 25?

GakuseiDon

From the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia (the on-line edition is a bit dated):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.21) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). With Clement's evidence may be mentioned the "De paschæ computus", written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth...

On the date of 25 Dec:

Natalis Invicti

The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date... Mommsen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 12, p. 338) has collected the evidence for the feast, which reached its climax of popularity under Aurelian in 274...

The present writer in inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and though the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date, the same instinct which set Natalis Invicti at the winter solstice will have sufficed, apart from deliberate adaptation or curious calculation, to set the Christian feast there too.

RichGriese

It's best to just completely avoid apologists. If you are trying to study Christian history, spending any time with delay your learning of the subject. It is already a difficult subject to learn, since even in the academic community many if not most are apologists in disguise. I have developed some tricks for saving time, and avoid all the apologetical kooks. I think that is why I am making progress in understanding the history of Christianity.

Cheers! http://RichGriese.NET

-----

Minimalist

If I recall correctly part of the problem is that it was not adopted at the same time in all places.

I recall the date 336 in Rome but Eastern Xtian centers...involved in a pissing contest with Rome for supremacy did not jump on the bandwagon.

Kapyong

Hmmm...

But isn't the first evidence for Mithras being born on Dec. 25th from the 4th century ?

AND isn't the first evidence for Jesus being born on Dec 25th ALSO from the 4th century ?

Who borrowed from whom?



K.

spamandham

You need to be careful trying to link parallels between Mithraism and Christianity, because there is a hell of a lot of misinformation out there.

That said, I think it's clear enough that Dec 25 was an afterthought. It just so happens, that Dec 21 is the winter solstice, and for 3 days the sun appears to remain in the same section of the sky (at dusk or dawn). On Dec 25, it has moved enough to declare that days are for sure getting longer.

So there is clear solar theology involved in Dec 25, regardless of how it exactly entered Christianity.

Meatros

That's an interesting counter point - I have no idea. If true, then obviously I couldn't argue that there was never any Christian borrowing.

Meatros

Yes, thank you for reiterating that. I'm aware that there is a lot of crap out there. I was just trying to find something that definitely was borrowed. Granted, it seems like this might be in contention.

True.

Roger Pearse

Just a general point: the type of argument "this looks like that, therefore this is connected to that, thus this is derived from that, indeed this is that" is a fallacy. It's used by Atlantis cultists to argue that pyramids in Egypt and pyramids in Mexico prove the existence of Atlantis, for instance. The problem with it is the easy availability of false positives.

This is a myth -- sorry. It tends to arise from people like Acharya S. There is no ancient source that gives any date for a birthday of Mithras (although Mithras was definitely born; a number of sources describe him as "rock-born" and he is depicted emerging from a rock wearing a phyrgian cap and bearing a dagger and a flame).

There is a reference on 25 Dec. to "Natalis Invicti" in the Philocalian calendar, part 6 of the Chronography of 354 (which is online). The calendar lists the official festivals at that period. But this refers to the official late Roman sun god, Sol Invictus, not the private cult of Mithras.

Sol Invictus is the only one I know of, and I'm wary of the other claims because I believe them to be undocumented. Check for ancient references, when you see the claims. Even Sol Invictus is not a simple "birthday" but is related to the "new sun" idea, and perhaps really means "anniversary of the temple dedication." (pardon my brevity -must rush)

Be sceptical. Seek out ancient sources before believing a word of this. I've been looking at Attis lately, and it is depressing how much sheer tosh is talked.

All the best,

Roger Pearse