Roger Pearse

And, if we look at the Calendar of 354, we find a festival "N(atalis). Invicti" listed for 25 Dec. with 30 chariot races.

The difficulty is that both Julian and the Calendar post-date the celebration of Christmas on this date in Rome. What we need to see, as I was saying earlier in the thread, is data that suggests that it wasn't simply a pagan reaction to Christmas. At the moment I'm not sure that there is any. (NB: this is not a signal for people to reiterate "of course they celebrated it, because it's the winter solstice and they *must* have celebrated it. What I want to see is data that, in fact, they did).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Phlox Pyros

Interesting. Natalis? Doesn't that mean something like "Invincible Birth"? I though it was Sol Invictus, or "Invincible Sun"... What does Natalis Invicti represent? Or is that the problem?

I understand. I'd have to go back and look, but did Julian imply that it was celebrated long before he made the address?

I think it is more likely that it was first celebrated as Sol Invictus rather than the birth of Christ for the obvious reasons that you stated, but you are likely right that this is little to no solid written proof of this.

Donnmathan

How about data of the hardest form? All mytsicism aside, Stonehenge was apparently built at least in part as a calander; it marks the solsices both pretty accurately. Given that we know that some holiday (Yule, or one of a half dozen other names) was celebrated around that time every year in northern Europe, doesn't that give us a pretty good indication just how far back it goes? For the Romans, it would be the Saturnalia, which I believe has some pretty strong records supporting it. Moving to areas I know more about, Cahokia (post circle), the Aztec Templo Mayor, Caracol Tower in Chichen Itza, and the Big Horn Medicine Wheel all have/had ways of indicating the winter solstice. In short, it seems that almost every culture in the world with a bit of astronomical savvy at least marked, if not celebrated, the solstice. Why is it so hard to believe the early Christians would have moved their holiday marking the birth of their "Son" to a date near that of an existing, and in the Cetlic tradition similar, holiday in an effort to absorb those cultures?

I won't dwell on the fact that the reason so little record exists for many cultures is because the Christians had a tendancy to destroy most of the records of their religions...

Lógos Sokratikós

I examined the site at the link you provided (http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html) says ... and, well, that discourages you from the start. On the other hand, the juxtaposition of the Jesus and Madonna with their pre-common era counterparts looks neat. Here, truly, you can actually agree with Madonna's "like" a virgin. :grin: Actually, Jesus looks "like" a god, pagan, to be exact.

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure that I see how a prehistoric monument can be evidence as to Roman official holidays.

Such as?

I'm not being difficult here. Macrobius ''Saturnalia'' is pretty good on these things. But since Julian the Apostate tells us that Saturnalia finished before the 25 Dec., it can't be relevant.

It isn't. But what are the FACTS?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Donnmathan

Never said it was - it's evidence of the age of a similar Celtic holiday. In no way was the discussion limited to Roman holidays.

So...a difference of two days (it ended the 23rd) totally invalidates, eh? I think I see where this is going...

I see - so without the minutes of the meeting at which the Church decided to move the holiday, you won't buy that's what happened? I guess what I'm asking is, what level of evidence are you going to require to be convinced?

Chris Weimer

Natalis Invicti means "Birth of the Unconquerable [Sun]". Natalis is the word used for someone's birthday, and Invicti is in genitive; solis is implied.

Proof is for mathematics. We accept what is more probable instead.