The part about the Finns/Lapps/Saami is very interesting. I had never heard of this connection. I have an Estonian friend I'll have to ask. (Estonians and Finns are close cousins, with closely related languages.)
The theory that Christmas falls on December 25th because of a pre-existing pagan holiday -- a theory dating from the Renaissanc…
The part about the Finns/Lapps/Saami is very interesting. I had never heard of this connection. I have an Estonian friend I'll have to ask. (Estonians and Finns are close cousins, with closely related languages.)
The theory that Christmas falls on December 25th because of a pre-existing pagan holiday -- a theory dating from the Renaissance and still used by radical Protestants to reject the holiday -- is almost certainly wrong. Surprisingly, the pagan festivals of Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (the Undefeated Sun) date in Roman history as official holidays in the city and empire of Rome no earlier than the late third century, well after the establishment of the date of Christmas, before the end of the second century.
In fact, it's likely that the authorities in late pagan Rome, in a desperate attempt to stave off the "new" religions from the East (including Christianity), promulgated these holidays as rivals. Classical paganism was in full collapse at that point in any case. It was only a matter of which of these "new" religions would fill the resulting void. There were others, like Mithraism (popular in the Roman army, featuring Sun worship) and Manicheanism, both strongly influenced by the Persian religion of light and darkness (Zoroasterianism).
The connection of the birth of the savior to the darkest day of the year is unlikely to be accident, but it has no clear connection with any existing pagan holiday. The most likely original reason was that Jesus was commonly assumed to have been conceived around Passover, in late March, just after the vernal equinox. Nine months later is the winter solstice.
(Note this does not jibe with the account in the Gospel of Luke, which speaks of shepherds in the fields and the birthing season for lambs -- of theological significance -- which sounds like March or April in Israel. The implication is of Jesus being *born* in the spring, not conceived. Nonetheless, the later Christian church did not accept this line of reasoning, but instead the aforementioned.)
The part about the Finns/Lapps/Saami is very interesting. I had never heard of this connection. I have an Estonian friend I'll have to ask. (Estonians and Finns are close cousins, with closely related languages.)
The theory that Christmas falls on December 25th because of a pre-existing pagan holiday -- a theory dating from the Renaissance and still used by radical Protestants to reject the holiday -- is almost certainly wrong. Surprisingly, the pagan festivals of Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (the Undefeated Sun) date in Roman history as official holidays in the city and empire of Rome no earlier than the late third century, well after the establishment of the date of Christmas, before the end of the second century.
https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/48/4/6
In fact, it's likely that the authorities in late pagan Rome, in a desperate attempt to stave off the "new" religions from the East (including Christianity), promulgated these holidays as rivals. Classical paganism was in full collapse at that point in any case. It was only a matter of which of these "new" religions would fill the resulting void. There were others, like Mithraism (popular in the Roman army, featuring Sun worship) and Manicheanism, both strongly influenced by the Persian religion of light and darkness (Zoroasterianism).
The connection of the birth of the savior to the darkest day of the year is unlikely to be accident, but it has no clear connection with any existing pagan holiday. The most likely original reason was that Jesus was commonly assumed to have been conceived around Passover, in late March, just after the vernal equinox. Nine months later is the winter solstice.
(Note this does not jibe with the account in the Gospel of Luke, which speaks of shepherds in the fields and the birthing season for lambs -- of theological significance -- which sounds like March or April in Israel. The implication is of Jesus being *born* in the spring, not conceived. Nonetheless, the later Christian church did not accept this line of reasoning, but instead the aforementioned.)
Merry Christmas to all celebrating!