## Happy Birthday, dear Jesus..! ##Had another decision been made, and scholarly reason trumped marketing savvy, today might be Christmas Day. Then again, if that were the case it might also be something that next to no one here in the 21st century would recall.
And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, "Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!"(Ooo! Almost felt like Linus for a sec.)
Scholars of the early Christian church, mostly during the late third century and into the fourth, came up with many prospective dates for the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth. January 1st, 6th, March 25th and May 20th the most prominent among them. May 20th became the favored date based largely on the Gospel of Luke, referenced above. Sheep were only watched day and night during lambing time, in the spring. During any of the earlier dates they would have been kept in corrals, unwatched by any but the loneliest of shepherds looking for a little something to take the edge off.
See, for the first couple centuries after Christ's birth people generally didn't think or talk about when he was born. Death days were a focus, not birthdays. This was moreso the case for Christ, whose divine nature was a central tenet of the young church. It was decreed that it was sinful to observe Christ's birthday as it bade to rank Christ as if he were a mere Pharaoh -- some earthly king. So it was that for a couple centuries the matter remained largely unremarked outside of hushed discussions between hardcore religious history geeks.
What changed it? Competition.
The Romans -- and Rome ruled the known, Western world back then -- enjoyed protracted festivals and holidays. Additionally, they were mostly what the spiritually smug Christian minority referred to derisively as pagans. More specifically, especially around late December, the average Roman was heavily into Mithraism. Come December 25th they were celebrating Natalia Solis Invicti, "Birthday of the Invincible Sun God", Mithras.
By 274 AD Mithraism -- based on observances and practices going back to ancient Persia, and a seminal tradition for the Romans since 753 BC, with King Romulus and the founding of Rome -- Emperor Aurelian proclaimed it the state religion. (Consider that -- something that had been a part of Roman life for over 1000 years and was still growing in popularity.) Add in the celebrations for the Saturnalia - Saturn, god of agriculture - and the pagan Romans were parading, feasting and generally celebrating for a nice chunk of December. Good, good times.
So, by the early 300s the Christian church was in serious trouble of winking out by simply failing to be popular and interesting enough.
In much earlier times, as an oppressed, edgy, trendy, upstart religion, Christianity was able to gain and keep converts largely on the strength of that. Try to keep something away from someone, moreso try to take it from them once they've held it, and they'll fight to keep it. Tell people some knowledge is forbidden and they'll be hungry for it. Ignore it, on the other hand, and many will lose interest.
The pagan majority had their happy times and festivals of nature's renewal, and if the relatively glum Christians wanted to keep to their Heavenly-minded, abstemious observances, who gave a fig? The Romans were alive and wanted to enjoy it.
The church fathers convened to debate options, and while I'm certain there were conservative voices raised in protest and dire warnings of sullying the divine with base observances, in the end the boys in marketing won out. They needed a December celebration to offer converts so they could be pridefully celebratory while their fellow citizns are wooping it up. Oh, to be sure, it would be a prayerful celebration -- literally Christ's Mass -- but it would be actively doing something. In terms of a community spirit it's not so far off from the Church Lady's dance of moral superiority.
Quickly adapting and rationalizing, by the 320s one Christian theologian wrote:
"We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it."
## Our God's bigger than your god, our God's smarter than yours... ##
Well, for better or worse --
as I contemplate the huge steps backwards in scientific knowledge, medicine and even basic hygiene between the mortification of the flesh and the eschewing of a base and transient earthly existence, driving down the human race for over a millenium that followed, I'd bet heavily on the "worse"
-- it worked. The December 25th Feast of the Nativity gave them something grand to build around, something that seemed simultaneously celebratory and high-minded. The Church Lady danced in the early 4th century, and many people jumped into step, at least in part as a matter of fashion. By 337 the Roman Emperor Constantine fell for it, was baptised and made Christianity the official state religion. Before long the Holy Roman Empire would put any pagan history of religious intolerance, oppression and persecution the Romans might have had to absolute shame, but that bloody swath of history is for consideration at another time.
By 354 AD Bishop Liberius of Rome reemphasized the importance of celebrating Christ's birth, not only his death. (Something the kids on South Park tried teaching Mel Gibson, as I recall.)
Preach on, huckster.
As for me, I think I might decide to remember Mithras next December 25th instead.
(And, yes, I know the scene up top is the jelly doughnut one, not the Christmas one. It was as close as I could get off the cuff.)
Comments
I wonder what century this would be were it not for the Church's own McMahon & Tate.
How close have the major religions- as broad a term as that's become- been to obscurity over time?
Yours in L. Ron...