So exactly where did Christmas come from? World Scope Encyclopedia (1960 vol.3) states, "Christmas, the festival observed by the Christian Church on the 25th day of December in commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ. No certain knowledge of the birthday of Jesus Christ exists and its observance was not established until some time after the organization of the first churches. The 25th day of December was advocated by Julius 1, Bishop of Rome from 337 to 352, as the most suitable time to commemorate the birth of Christ. The day was finally placed on December 25th, which made it possible for all nations to observe a festival of rejoicing that the shortest day of the year has passed. Moreover, the newly converted peoples found it convenient to get a kind of substitute for their original celebrations of the solstice".
Well, in the first place, looking into the work, multiple sentences are cut out from your quote... without any ellipsis to show they were cut out.
But there are some errors in this. Unfortunately, there have been some notable errors about this issue of Christmas's date that were even being repeated in encyclopedias this late. For example, the claim that it was "advocated" by Julius is, from what I can tell, without historical foundation... I am not aware of any historical record from that period that says such a thing, or at least no one ever points to. It sounds more like the fact that the first certain Christmas celebration is dated to the 330's and then someone tried to later on just assume Julius referneced it.
The birth of Jesus the Christ was assigned the date of December 25th, because on this day, as the sun began its return to the northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the invincible sun).
This is not part of your quote, and it's where we run into several issues that, while repeatedly made, have big issues with them. These claims were, unfortunately, even repeated in various scholarly material, though fortunately the proper knowledge is catching up.
The evidence that the "pagan devotees of Mithras" had any special affinity for December 25 is scant indeed. This article goes through the issue:
The great Franz Cumont, the founder of Mithraic studies, was not well served by his publisher. The latter permitted an English translation to be made, not of the whole Textes et Monumentes -- which would have been of great use -- but instead of merely the last portion of only tome 1, the Conclusion
www.roger-pearse.com
The "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti" had nothing to do with Mithras, and was actually a festival of the god
Sol. There was some overlap between the two to be fair, but it was about Sol, not Mithras. But someone could say that even if it was Sol rather than Mithras, that doesn't change things much. On the whole no, but it shows the out of date nature of your claim. However, even in regards to Sol, the claim that it was chosen because of the Sol festival has issues. Namely, the fact there is no reference to this celebration
prior to the celebration of Christmas.
One possibility for the first mention of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti comes from what is called the Chronograph of 354.
On one page, it mentions how on December 25, there were chariot races in honor of "N Invicti" (Natalis Invicti, meaning Birthday of the Invincible). But is this a reference to Dies Natalis Solis Invicti? No mention of Sol occurs, only "Natalis Invicti" even though other things are explicitly said to be held in honor of Sol. Steven Hijmanns put forward an argument that this is not in any reference to any Sol celebration at all, and the first reference only comes later on, and this argument is discussed here:
Most of us are aware that the 25th December is labelled as the "Natalis [solis] Invicti" in the Chronography of 354; specifically in the 6th part, which contains the so-called "Calendar of Philocalus" (online here), listing the state holidays. Sol Invictus was introduced into Rome by Aurelian in 27
www.roger-pearse.com
After that, we have a reference in 362 by Emperor Julian--sometimes called Julian the Apostate due to his attempt to return the Roman Empire to paganism--referring to a Sol celebration on December 25.
Here is where we come to the big issue. The Chronograph of 354--in a portion usually dated to the 330's--mentions Christmas. It's
right here, on December 25 ("VIII kal. Ian." meaning the 8th of the kalends of January was the needlessly convoluted way they said December 25 back then). Do you see the problem? The first reference to Christmas is in the same document that is the first references to Solis Invicti. But again, this is the same document--and, indeed, a portion of the document dated to being
earlier than the one mentioning Natalis Invicti--so this provides no evidence that any Natalis Invicti was celebrated
prior to Christmas. And this is assuming the 354 reference
is to Sol anyway.
One thing appealed to sometimes to show an earlier start of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti is that Aurelian apparently dedicated a temple to Sol on December 25 of 274, which puts it before the 330's celebration of Christmas... but as noted in the above link, there is no mention of any
holiday to Sol occurring as a result, so this is speculative. Thus, believe it or not, despite how common a statement that Christmas was just taken from Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was,
there is no clear reference to Dies Natalis Solis Invicti prior to that of Christmas, despite it being such a common talking point. It is therefore entirely possible that, if there was any copying at all, it was Dies Natalis Solis Invicti copying Christmas.
Even if we were to suppose that Aurelian did set up a Sol Invictus festival in that year to be celebrated on December 25--which is again speculative--it should be noted there are references--even if disputed--to Jesus's birth being December 25 prior to even that. For example, there are references to a December 25 birth for Jesus in Hippolytus's Commentary on Daniel (this is one of disputed ones as to whether it is original, but Thomas Schmidt makes what seems a good argument for its originality
here).
But the bottom line is simple: There is no reference to a Dies Natalis Solis Invicti on December 25
prior to when we know Christmas was celebrated on December 25. Could it have dated back further? Possibly. But that's speculative, and Christmas could have gone back further also. Thus, bottom line:
The claim that Christmas was taken from any celebration of Sol or Mithras rests on shaky foundations.
The history book a Pictorial History of the Italian People states, "Saint Gregory was repelled by Graeco-Roman civilization and, paradoxically, did more than anyone else to facilitate the absorption of pagan residues into Italian Christianity. Through that process of absorption, any paganism hostile to Christianity remaining in Italian rural communities faded away". Check your history, you'll find that the customs associated with Christmas were celebrated some 2000 years before Jesus.
Even if we were to accept this claim--evidence and examples are not provided--unless one can point to the specific practices that were incorporated, and show they were incorporated at a time when the pagans were doing it (most modern Christmas practices actually developed
long after paganism was gone), this odesn't mean anything.
This must be stressed. If someone is going to claim that "pagans did this thing and that's where Christians took it from" one must provide evidence of the following:
1) Evidence that the pagans actually did this
2) Evidence that the pagans did this at a time and place where Christians could have known about it
3) Evidence that Christians adopted those practices at the time and plae where they could have known about it
4) Evidence that the pagan practice
predates the Christian practice
Now, up until this point your claims have, while problematic, still largely based on things that one can find actual historians say in the past. It may be out of date in regards to scholarship, but it isn't completely made up or anything. That changes with the next section:
But if we got Christmas from the Roman Catholics, and they got it from paganism, where did the pagans get it? Where, when, and what was its real origin? It started and originated in the original Bablyhon of ancient Nimrod. Nimrod, grandson of Ham, son of Noah built the tower of Babel. Nimrod married his own mother, whose name is Semiramis. After Nimrod's, Semiramis claimed a full grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a dead tree stump, which symbolized the springing forth unto new life of the dead Nimrod. On each anniversary of his birth, she claimed Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. December 25th was the birthday of Nimrod. This is the real origin of the Christmas tree.
All of this is
entirely made up. I know I say that about a bunch of things you claim, but only because it's true. It's why no evidence is offered by you or your sources. If it is true, then offer the evidence. Show the primary sources! Show us anyone in the time of the Bayblonians or even time shortly after them that makes any reference! But people don't, because that evidence doesn't exist. And this claim of Nimrod and Semiramis is historically impossible. Semiramis was a legendary figure, but one based on Shammuramat, who lived in the 9th/8th centuries BC. How precisely could she marry Nimrod when Nimrod would have lived over a thousand years beforehand? Was time travel involved?
Further, even if we were to suppose that this claim of yours was true, Christmas trees did not emerge until around the 16th century or so. Some long-dead Babylonian tradition (which there is no actual evidence for) could not have possibly influenced it.
More useful information here:
asbereansdid.blogspot.com
So while your article starts with some claims that, while out of date, at least were things reasonable people were saying in the past, this final portion is just nonsense.
