A War on Christmas???

According to what I read there is a war being fought over Christmas, don't really know why. Reactionary white men with cable news shows and a penchant for the overly dramatic say that the secularists, the sodomites, and the terrorists are trying to bring down civilization one christian holiday at a time. Unbelievable you say? Hardly, this is nothing new, Hollywood and other heathens promoting the "Gay Agenda" have also tried to destroy marriage, that holy sacrament that is held in such high regard that you're more likely to be struck my lightening than get divorced... isn't that the statistic? Or, was that the lottery? NEwho back to Christmas, that most esteemed of Christian holidays. But wait, Christmas isn't a Christian holiday at all. That's right, I said it, it's not a Christian holiday, or at least that's not how it started. Forward this posting to Bill O'Reilly if you dare, but part of our work must be searching out truth, no matter its popularity.

Well, let's begin at the beginning, well not quite the beginning, but something near the beginning of Christmas as Christmas. The Bible, you see, doesn't give the birthdate of Jesus of Nazareth, later to be known as the King of the Jews (mostly by non-Jews) or Messiah or any number of titles which we don't need to go into right now. The Bible does say that he was born during the reign of King Harrod, who died in 4 BCE so the truth is that Jesus of Nazareth had to have been born before 4 BCE not in 1 CE or whatever year the world might recognize.

To narrow down the date one might look to the whole Star of Bethlehem thing, that astronomical super event that drew the three wise men (and gifts) to The Manger. Before we go on, let's first acknowledge the three "wise guys" issue. First, the book of Matthew is the only to mention their presence. It doesn't mention the number and it calls the Magi. Magi, plural for magus, referred, most likely, to the most advanced scholars of the day, the Zoroaster Persians. I have read that it was the third century theologian, Origen, that declared there to be three. Early Christians claimed as many as 12. Likely it was a fulfillment (real or not) of the prophecy of Isaiah (60:6) that Gentiles would bring "incense and gold" to the Messiah. Three Kings Day is celebrated to honor the coming of the Magi, however, it is celebrated 12 days after Christmas, making one wonder if Mary and Joseph would actually stay in a manger for 12 days. NEway, back to the date.

Maybe the Star was, as many believe, a one time occurrence that has no scientific or astronomical origin, maybe it was added post-birth to spice up the tale a bit, or maybe it was a real naturally occurring event. Let's take a quick look. The first one we'll ignore cause that's a matter of faith, and that's not the sort of thing that is truly debatable. The second is more likely considering that it appears only in Matthew and many stories of kings had astronomical anomalies associated with them. The Gospel of Matthew was likely written years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The authorship was declared in 130 CE by Papias and Conservative Church authorities date the book only a few years after the death of Jesus, while other, more let's say "impartial" experts date it to at least 85 CE. So, it can be assumed that the theory that the adding of the Star was done post-death is not totally incomprehensible.

The third proposition (the Star of Bethlehem being an actual astronomical event) has been studied and written about. Evidently this period of time was rich with astronomical events, between 7 BCE and 2 BCE there were a half-dozen or so events that could have been the Star of Bethlehem. So, there you go, maybe it was real but added later, or maybe it was really real. I think that trying to find historical or astronomical truth to the Biblical story might, in fact, be a waste of time, but alas, here I am. Either way, this isn't really the interesting part of Christmas. The really interesting part is when you try to answer the questions, "so where did December 25 come from?"

What the Bible does say is that "there were in the same country, watching over their flocks by night" (Luke 2:8) a couple shepards who packed up to follow word of a 'King of Kings.' Now, it's really unlikely that shepards had their flocks out in December 25 because as the Bible itself records, the Palestinian winters are far too cold. Not convincing you might say, maybe it was a really warm year, ok, I'll give you that. Who knows, but hear me out. We do know that Christmas wasn't celebrated until Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was, perhaps, a strange thing to do, considering that only 10% of the population was Christian. Forcing 90% of the population to adhere to a new, very different religion could cause some problems, so they had to ween the Roman Empire off of Paganism slowly or come up with some way to work Paganism into Christianity. Which is, of course, exactly what they did. The center of Pagan holiday livelihood was the celebration of Saturnalia (December 25) which marked the end of a week long celebration that would make Mardi-Gras look down-right Puritanical. We're talking massive sodomy and systematic, organized violence. This holiday was a celebration of the birth of Saturn, the all-important god of agriculture, and included both the Winter Solstice and Dies Solis Invictus (a day that celebrated the sun gods of Mithras, El Gabal, and Sol). In addition to sodomy and violence pine trees were cut down and hung in homes (sound familiar???). The decision to make Christmas (Mass of Christ) on the same day of Saturnalia isn't really surprising. It was a practical decision made out of necessity. The next question that might jump to mind might be, where did the Romans get their holiday from?

Research seems to suggest that the Romans inherited their holidays from Egypt, Greece, Persia, and Babylon. And Saturnalia and Dies Solis Invictus were such inherited holidays. In Persia there was the festival of Mithras (the son god). Mithras was said to be born of a virgin (sound familiar???) on the Winter Solstice (Dec. 25). Mithras was likely based on Nimrod. Nimrod was an early emperor of Babylon (supposedly the grandson of Noah). He was an evil and perverse emperor who married his own mother (some version of virgin birth might be read into this). This mother, Semiramis, was not much better and declared herself to be the mother of the heavens and was to be worshiped as such. Her son, Nimrod, was to be worshiped as the Son of Heaven (the SON of HEAVEN i.e. the SUN of HEAVEN). So it was that his "birthday," December 25, was to be the day of the Sun God. The truth is ancient civilizations have made the winter solstice a major part of their traditions for a very long time. The exact date or first celebration isn't really important. What's important is to see Christianity for what it is, one in a long line of mythologies that play mix-n-match with earlier traditions, and not the literal word of the divine. Such a view breads intolerance and an us vs. them mentality that is isolating at best and violent at worst.

It shouldn't surprise us that Christianity is a historical phenomenon, all religions are, however, we, Americans seem to be in a resurgence of mindless Biblical literalism and fanatical extremism (a corollary resurgence has occurred in most other religious traditions) so this might actually surprise some people. It seems likely that the sacrament of communion (wine and bread) was actually inherited from the Persians (who worshiped a sun deity called Mithra) as well as baptism (Persia as well). Truthfully, many early Christians didn't celebrate the birth of Jesus at all. Birthday celebrations were pagan affairs, and not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus. The preferred to focus on his teachings and his more metaphysical essence. In fact, the early Christians, and Jesus himself would likely not take kindly to the embrace of the Pagan holiday, not to mention the embrace of materialism. Origen (yes the same one that declared there to be only 3 wise guys) said that only sinners celebrated the birth of Jesus, and this was in 245 CE, not too long before Constantine officially "officialized" Christmas in 337 CE.

Puritans in England and North America took turns banning Christmas throughout the 17th Century, as it was celebrated in quite a raucous way. This ended in England when pro-Christmas rioters seized Canterbury for about a week.

Finally, maybe the most important question of the origins of Christmas is actually, so what's with Santa Claus? Santa Claus, as we all know, is Saint Nicholas, the modern incarnation is based on a Dutch folk tale about a gift giving nocturnal visitor named Sinterklaas who visited homes on December 6. This could be based on the 6th century Bishop of Myra who was extra generous around wedding time. There are hosts of origins for St. Nick/Santa, but in the US it's Washington Irving and Clement Clarke Moore who gave us the reindeer, the toys, and the other Christmas Eve stuff, and this was only in the early to mid-19th Century. The modern image of Santa has some origins in representations dating back to the 17th century, but it was the drawings of Thomas Nast at the turn of the 19th century (and were later crystallized in an ad campaign for Coca Cola) that gave us our jolly old man in a red suit.

I don't know how this will be taken by Bill and the other defenders of Christmas, but the point of this post is to remind us that Christmas is a human creation, and can thus be re-written. The movie The Mission ends with the exchange "thus is the world...no, thus have we made it, thus have I made it." So long as we act like this story and other "histories" are given to us by divine providence we remove agency and responsibility. The lessons of Christmas, of World War II, of anything else must be understood as historical creations, this will give us power to be critical participants in our culture, and our world and this will give us power.