in defence of astrotheology

[Stephan Huller]

Let's cut to the chase - do you have any evidence that December 25th was celebrated as the birth of the sun before the time of the gospel or the veneration of December 25th as the date of the birth of Jesus? Or is this just a case of the cart leading the horse again?

[Clive]

We have 5000 year old evidence of December 21

http://www.newgrange.com

[Leucius Charinus]

From Sidereal_and_tropical_astrology ....

• The classical zodiac was introduced in the neo-Babylonian period (around the seventh to the sixth century BCE).
  At the time, the precession of the equinoxes had not been discovered. Classical Hellenistic astrology consequently
  developed without consideration of the effects of precession. The discovery of the precession of the equinoxes,
  is attributed to Hipparchus, a Greek astronomer active in the later Hellenistic period (ca. 130 BCE).
  
  Ptolemy, writing some 250 years after Hipparchus, was thus aware of the effects of precession.
  
  He opted for a definition of the zodiac based on the point of the vernal equinox, i.e., the tropical system.

So here the vernal equinox has a special significance in Ptolemaic astronomy.




LC

[Leucius Charinus]

We have 5000 year old evidence of December 21

http://www.newgrange.com

• Each year the winter solstice event attracts much attention at Newgrange. Many gather at the ancient tomb to wait for dawn, as people did 5,000 years ago. So great is the demand to be one of the few inside the chamber during the solstice that there is a free annual lottery (application forms are available at the Visitor Centre). Unfortunately, as with many Irish events that depend upon sunshine, if the skies are overcast, there is not much to be seen. Yet all agree that it is an extraordinary feeling to wait in the darkness, as people did so long ago, for the longest night of the year to end.

LC

[Stephan Huller]

Still no evidence for the 25th

[Robert Tulip]

But why do we assume that December 25th was the winter solstice when it wasn't?

I'd be happy in believing it were any day of the year so long as someone can produce an ancient source (preferably antedating the phenomenon we are trying to explain, i.e. Christmas observance) showing that people back then believed that, which is the most relevant issue here.

I certainly don’t assume 25 December was the solstice. There is a basic major problem of method in the insistence that documentary proof is the only criterion to assess what is most plausible in ancient belief. Extant data suffers from both the exigencies of moths and the indignities of censors. We have the selective sieved portion of the canon, chosen by its fit to the supernatural political agenda of the church and state, plus the fragments that were artfully concealed or that somehow managed to evade imperial destruction, as at Nag Hammadi. Accepting the premise that history written by the victors is reliable will give us a very distorted picture of the past. Insisting that it is “most relevant” to “produce an ancient source” perpetuates the violence of the empire and fails to examine the sources properly.

Instead of this imperial method of evidence alone, a better way to gain a more plausible account of what actually happened can start from subaltern methods such as Carrier’s use of Bayes Theory, constructing hypotheses as to whether the extant evidence coheres more with one or the other of rival conjectures (eg that Jesus did or did not exist, or that early Christianity was or was not a form of sun worship.) I have banged my head against the wall arguing this basic question of method with Neil Godfrey, who also insists (if I may just slightly exaggerate) that the criterion of imperial/empirical proof is the gold standard and nothing else need be even examined. Neil gets huffy and calls people who disagree with him bonkers or nuts, because of this basic conflict over method, regarding whether a rational explanation that hangs together can be preferred over an irrational account that resolutely avoids anything except the extant pieces.

In Jesus as the Sun, DM Murdock mentions the following New Testament solar verses:
Matthew 13:43: “The righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father."
Luke 1:78: “because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven”
John 1:9: “The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.”
John 8:12: “Jesus said “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Matthew 17:2: “he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun”
Mark 16:2, the empty tomb is discovered at sunrise on Sunday
Acts 26:13ff St. Paul sees in “heaven”—in other words, the sky—a blinding light, which is allegedly Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 4:6: “the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Against this abundant solar imagery, modern Christian faith was also motivated by comparing Jesus to the Sun. For example, Charles Wesley wrote “Christ, whose glory fills the skies, Christ, the true, the only light, Sun of Righteousness, arise, triumph o'er the shades of night; Dayspring from on high, be near; Daystar, in my heart appear.” The solar imagery here continues in further verses of this and other Methodist hymns.

There is a lot more in the New Testament where ideas are most coherently understood by seeing the supernatural myths as allegories for natural observation of the real source of light and life, the sun. Solar imagery is clearly at the root, but, on the example of King Josiah’s destruction of the chariots of the sun in the Israelite temple, (not unlike recent events in Mosul) the early church had strong iconoclastic phases, and the millennium of Christendom involved pervasive rejection of naturalistic heresy as a capital crime.

Even if there was evidence that John 3:30 “He must increase, I must decrease” was the early basis of the post-solstice feast days of Christ and John, when the year begins to increase and decrease, we would expect that such evidence would have been redacted away by the untender mercies of faithful scribes. It is entirely wrong as a matter of method to say that the absence of explicit material makes this natural connection implausible. There is simply no more likely way to explain the meaning of this esoteric statement, given that literalist accounts are so implausible.

It is just wrong to assert that a hypothesis of astral coherence and causal integrity in the evolution of Christianity is a sale of one’s birthright, as Peter Kirby recently implied by allusion to Esau’s shortsightedness. Instead, seeing the solar allegory as providing the original driving intent provides a means to recover an original meaning that has been lost in the rubble of Christendom.

Considering the origin of 25 December with its links to the invincible sun, a more accurate forensic analysis is more likely to arise from questions like why the dog did not bark, to explore the curious incident of the descent of the holy spirit like a dove from heaven, and other equally inscrutable biographical details of our blessed eternal Lord and Saviour.

The New Testament contains an abundance of precessional, annual and daily solar imagery. Unfortunately, it seems an insistence rather like the claim that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia is sufficient to prevent people from seeing it.

[Clive]

But isn't the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere the rebirth of the sun? If there is a relationship to the birth of Christ, why jan 6 as well?

[Ulan]

But why do we assume that December 25th was the winter solstice when it wasn't?

I'm not arguing for astrotheology here (I think it lacks any tangible evidence), but if December 25th was the Roman festival of Sol Invictus, arguing against a solar connection of this date becomes somewhat of a moot point.

Regarding the date, I actually found the reasoning that had been recently linked, which argued that Christ's conception and death were put on the same day, thereby getting this December date as birthday (or January 6, depending on the calendar used), more convincing. That still doesn't mean the date itself had no solar connection.

[Stephan Huller]

But all of this is unsubstantiated speculation regarding THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of events. That December 25th BECAME a solar date is beyond dispute. But the question is - WHEN did this occur? WHAT is the historical chronology at play?

Already Hippolytus acknowledges the birthdate of December 25th. We have seen Basilides is even earlier. The January 6th date is clearly related to December 25th. There is no evidence at this pre-Aurelian period that this date has anything to do with the sun or the birth of the sun.

That Aurelian tried to unify all the influential mystery cults and religions under the banner of the sun is beyond question. But we are mistaking cause and consequence. At first December 25th was related to something else undoubtedly the desecration of the temple. In the third century and fourth century this line of explanation became less and less important and the influence of Imperial monarchianism with its solar imagery and symbolism became ever more prevalent. In other words:

1. pre-Aurelain December 25th was associated with the desecration of the temple in Christianity
2. Aurelian in order to unify the religions under the banner of monarchianism took the Christian date and artificially assimilated it with the cult of the birth of the sun

How can this be denied? With evidence that December 25th was the date of the birth of the sun before Aurelian. This is what these theosophists have to come up with to rescue their theory. I have said it many times before these people need to read Allen Brent's book in order to separate cause and consequence with regards the solar imagery in later Christianity and the Imperial cult. Of course they won't do anything of the sort because they are engaging in exactly the same kind of post-Christian revisionism as the Emperors.

[Ulan]

But all of this is unsubstantiated speculation regarding THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of events. That December 25th BECAME a solar date is beyond dispute. But the question is - WHEN did this occur? WHAT is the historical chronology at play?

Already Hippolytus acknowledges the birthdate of December 25th. We have seen Basilides is even earlier. The January 6th date is clearly related to December 25th.

Yes, and December 25th was relatively unknown as celebration of Jesus' birthdate before 400 CE, except with Donatists. Clement of Alexandria lists May 20, March 21, April 15, April 20 and April 21 as known days for birthday celebrations, and he seems not to know anything of December 25 or January 6. Tertullian mentioned how you can calculate December 25 from the 14th of Nisan (Adversus Iudaeos 8).

There is no evidence at this pre-Aurelian period that this date has anything to do with the sun or the birth of the sun.

As I said, we don't differ in the main point of the discussion: The solar connection is late. Whatever you accept as reason why December 25 became Christmas, a connection to the sun or winter solstice can be safely excluded. I was purely commenting on the date itself, which was fit to become the main solar holiday, just after the Saturnalia.