If Saturnalia was a solstice holiday, and Xmas adopted for Saturnalia, why is xmas on the 25th, 4 days away from solstice?
I thought it might be due to the Julian calendar problem, but I read that when the Gregorian calendar was adopted Easter was 10 days off (?).
Do we no what day Saturnalia was on in the roman calendar?
Perhaps because the calander has changed numerous times since the days of the Romans?
Or maybe the early Christian church wanted to fix the date of Christmas near, but not exactly at, the pagan holiday so as to avoid any pagan associations. Also note that there were, and are no Christian festivals with any precise association with astronomical events…soltices or equinoxes. I imagine these events were associated with the former state pagan religion, and earlier nature-worship. As such they might have been associated with the gods represented by the visible planets, and hence shunned by the Christians. Hence, Christmas was fixed a few days off the solstice.
Dec. 25th was the solstice when the date for Xmas was fixed. The solstice continued to drift before the Gregorian calender halted it. Easter is calculated using the lunar calender.
Really, sqweels? I have read a few articles about this, and it seems like the Solsice was off by a few days even then. Some of the old Christian theologians had come up with some convoluted equations for calculating the birth of Jesus, based upon many things- but none of them were simply based upon the Solstice.
It really seems like the early Church, using dates given- did try & figure a date for the birth- and the date they came up with was the 25th of Dec- and not because it was close to the Solstice or Saturnalia. Afterall, with the Roman calendar having so many holidays, the Birthday would have to be close to or on at least ONE of them, no matter what date they picked. (Easter is also near several large Spring holidays) Now, that does not mean they were RIGHT in their calculations, of course. Just sincere.
So, the probem with the logic is more like “Xmas was adopted for Saturnalia”, since by the time they were figuring the Birth of Jesus for use as a Holiday- Saturnalia (not the biggest Roman Holiday, anyway) was pretty well a thing of the past, anyway. There was no need to supplant Saturnalia with Christmas- as Saturnalia was already on it’s way out.
Note that I am not saying that the date they came up with is right, but there is exactly no evidence that the early Church fathers had any thoughts along those lines when they came up with the date. In fact, the opposite. We discussed this in “comments on cecils columns” in Dec of last year, if I remember correctly.
Javaman—
Easter is on the first sunday after the first full moon after the the solstice
Christmas was not placed on Dec 25 because of Saturnalia. Rather, it was the date of Sol Invictus, which was the celebration of the birth of Mithra. Mithra was more-or-less the Zoroastrian equivalent of Jesus, basically the representative of Azura-Mazda in human form on Earth.
Mithraism was the main compeditor of Chritianity in the Roman Empire (the old pantheon was effectively dead). So Christianity did take over another religion’s feast, but it wasn’t Saturnalia.
According to this site, Saturnalia was celebrated on Dec. 17-23
Here’s a link to Bill Thayer’s Saturnalia page.
From this page and everything else I’ve ever read on the subject it does appear that some Saturnalia customs worked their way into the Christmas celebration. However, Dtilque, you’re right about 12/25 being the birth of Mithra.
After the Vernal Equinox, you mean. The solstices are in June and December.
To all
Wif me 'at in me ‘and ‘n’ a tug at me forlock Oy stan’ c’rected.
I don’t dispute that some of the customs of Saturnalia were adopted for Christmas. I’m just saying that the actual date was taken from Mithraism, which was the main competition to early Christianity. For a while, Mithraism was the official religion of the Empire.
Again- other than the coinidence in dates, and the fact that Christmas did take on a few of the customs involved with both- (also Yule and several other pagaon holidays celebrated around that time)there is no evidence whatsoever that the early Church fathers picked Dec 25th becuase it was close to or on any Pagan Holiday. As I said- no matter what date they came up with- it was bound to be on or near a Roman Pagan holiday. Look how many Holidays there were in the late Pagan Empire, and try to find a date that is a week or more away from one.
And I think that Sol Invictus wasn’t celebrated on exactly Dec 25 either, but a few days prior. (again, they used a lunar calendar to set the date, so it would vary when compared to our modern calender. But rather than being precisely one week before or after 12-25, it is usually several days before).
True, Mithraism was a serious competitor to early Christianity, but by the time they got around to celebrating Xmas, it had been dead for many generations. Thus no need to pick a date to “compete” with their pagan Holiday, as darn few were celebrating it by then. Merely a coincidence, made stronger by a few customs that were absorbed.
Except that the general themes of the Christmas celebration are remarkably similar to those of the pagan holidays around that time of year. Jesus is frequently referred to as “the Light of the world,” etc., and midwinter/solstice pagan celebrations are all about the return/birth/rebirth of the Sun (generally associated with a male deity), bringing light and renewal to a dark world.
Awfully remarkable coincidence. 
The article in the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia on Christmas explicitly links it to Sol Invicta as the most probable (although not undisputed) origin of the date selected. (Scroll to or do a find on “Natalis Invicti” just a bit past the mid-point of the article.) It notes that several Christian scholars of the time drew direct parallels between the imagery of the two feasts.
Good link. The actual phrase is “strong claim”. But, if you read the article in int’s entirity, it seems obvious that they really were trying to come up with the “correct” date for Xmas, and they had that “correct” date usually (altho as they said- there is NO month that some expert didn’t claim was the “right” month) around late December/early January. So- MAYBE- the date was moved a week or so to bring it in line with another holiday. However, if you read the article it is very clear that simply saying “Oh, they choose Dec 25 to compete with Sol Invitus” is way, way too simplistic, and no one really knows. Certainly, no one has found Pope “X”'s diary that sez “Hmm- can’t figure out good day for Xmas. Those naughty Mithraists havn’t been totally represed yet. So, have decided to put Xmas on Dec 25th to over-shadow their holiday” <g> Some parallels between Sol Invictus & Xmas were likely stolen from Christianity- rather that the other way around. ( remember- Mithraism was popular AFTER the start of early Christianity- not before.)
But the author rejects out of hand the old “Saturnalia= Xmas” idea. As I pointed out- by AD400 or so, they had gotten rid of the old Pagan worship to a large extent. However, after reading that article, i will concede a possible moving of the “estimated right date” by a week or so to compete/coincide with a rival Sun/Son Holiday.
But no one really knows for sure.