I wrote this post as I went along, just so you know. Best to read it all the way through.
Also, Cobalt, this post addresses some of what you said that I promised I'd reply to, albeit through responses to Misty Rose here. Some of her sources had similar information--I do think I wind up covering a lot of yours though.
Quote: Christian sites, btw, don't count because they are biased compared to the sites showing otherwise, as it's very doubtful that those sites are run by Pagans, but it's pretty obvious who Christian sites are going to be run by.
Actually, Wikipedia stives for neutrality in point of view-biased information is bad information to Wikipedians. New Advent was my only Christian source as far as my research goes, and I used it briefly, but I relied on Wikipedia for fact checking.
Quote: But honestly, you're looking for every opportunity for me to slip up so you can declare a nice little victory, rather than dealing with content itself, desptie the hefty amount(quantity over quality) you provided.
And why do you figure that I'd do that, when in the very last post I stated my aims?! Again you chide me about "quantity over quality" without actually reading my post, as you admitted. I said I wanted to debate about this and hear other people's rebuttals and support.
I see that you tend to edit your existing posts to add or edit stuff like I do. In response to this:
Quote: Not only do most of your Wikipedia quotes contain irrelevant evidence which doesn't really contradict anything I've said, they're pretty hard to read through when you can't turn your ego down a notch.
Another attack on my character, I see? I explained that Battleship line in this post, last page, if you cared to look. If you haven't, please read it before assuming that I'm trying to make myself look awesome, because I'm not.
The information from my previous post where you quoted Constantine was referring to the school of thought that Constantine set Christmas to December 25th to give Christians and pagans a common holiday to celebrate. But Constantine lived and died without any such Christian celebrations like that being recorded, and a century prior Christians were using reasoning that put December 25th as the birth of Jesus. So no, it wasn't irrelevant.
Quote: You claim that Christianity took nothing from pagan celebrations and that everything else is "too similiar to be anything but coincidence", which is dirty, filthy rubbish, as I'm sure you'll see when you read the above resources.
I didn't claim that, Misty. What I claimed is that people often say Christians are, in some way or another, dirty holiday thieves. What I asked is if this is really true or not, or if it was something to be busted on Snopes. What I claimed from researching it is that some traditions, mostly from Scandinavia, are aborbtions from Norse paganism, but that other parts of the holiday have a Christian origin.
Read the first and last parts of my initial post again. It's all right there.
What I wanted was debate on this. What I have been getting up till now from primarily you (save for Cobalt, IantheGecko, Jikta, and Helmut, and StrongRad) is nothing but snide remarks and personal attacks. Now, however, you're finally making an effort to back up your stance with website references, but you keep snarking and snipping at my character, trying to villify me (and others!), and I feel you're trying to cast me as the Great Persecutor of Paganism, some sort of Lex Luthor to your SuperDebatorRosalie to defeat in front of cheering crowds.
I mean, look at what you've claimed of me! That I'm waiting for you to slip up so I can claim some kind of "victory" and that I'm trying to inflate my ego, and as you said earlier that I'm intolerant of pagans, when I've done nothing to persecute pagans in this thread, not ever! What do you and DeathlyPallor gain from calling people on the board "disobedient children?"
I noticed that you tend to repeat things DeathlyPallor says (his calling me an egoist, his calling Jikta and Christians of the forum in general "disobedient children") ... but then you go further, calling us "Xians" (which I have seen done deliberately in the past elsewhere to taunt and insult Christians). Claiming we're bible thumpers over asserting that Christians aren't worshipping a sun god or the solstice, but that the holiday--regardless of whether we lifted it wholesale from pagans--is a celebration of Jesus' birth? Then you have the gall to claim this is a form of intolerance and lack of courtesty! When IanTheGecko calls you on your hostility, you personally attack him as being prideful!
You're trying to rewrite this from being a fairly neutral discussion (I do admit to addressing you for much of the thread, but it was not out of active hostility that I did so) into this holy war you feel you must win--but for what? Your own satisfaction that someone isn't playing your game of "treat every thread posted in as a life or death struggle to be won at any cost?" Crushing a percieved "Great Christian Conspiracy to Stamp Out Paganism?" Making yourself look good in front of everyone else so you get voted as best debator?
I don't care if this discussion finally proves without a doubt that Christmas is completely and wholly lifted from paganism. I'm going to devil's advocate and debate over it, as I am admittedly skeptical about it. But, if I'm proven wrong, I'm proven wrong, and I learn more about how modern Christian traditions of the holiday came to be.
Thanks for actually bringing some links into this discussion, though. Let's go through it by the numbers, as you request.
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/christmas2.shtml
First off, this is the site of the Garner Ted Armstrong Association, which is an Evangelical Christian church. I thought you said Christian sites can't count? I mean, if you don't believe me that it's the site of a Evangelical Christian church, look here at these two pages:
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/ http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/statemen.htm
Concerning the actual article, I noticed it references Alexander Hislop a lot. He's a 19th century Scottish Protestant minister who published a book on the Roman Catholic church really being a pagan cult and Christmas being a pagan holiday that was grafted wholesale ... and this website uses Hislop's papers extensively for its source. Aside from interpretations of the Bible, Hislop is quoted very often, on Santa Claus, on the winter solstice being the actual reason for the season, and on the date of celebration. I wonder about this Hislop guy.
I looked him up (again, Wikipedia doing the second pass fact checking). Actually, lemme just quote Wikipedia on the Two Babylons, seems the better bet.
Quote: The book has been severely criticized for its lack of evidence, and in many cases its contradiction of the existing evidence: for instance, the Roman state religion before Christianity did not worship a central Mother Goddess, and Jupiter was never called "Jupiter-Puer." Likewise, Semiramis lived centuries after Nimrod, and could neither have been his mother, nor married him. Hislop also makes unacceptable linguistic connections and fanciful word plays, e.g. the letters IHS on Catholic Holy Communion wafers are alleged to stand for Egyptian deities Isis, Horus and Seth, but in reality they are an abbreviation for Ihsous, the Latin spelling of Jesus's name in Greek (Ιησους), although popularly, they stand for the Latin Iesus Hominum Salvator meaning Jesus, Savior of Mankind (which also fits the teaching of Transubstantiation, where the wafer and wine are said to become the body and blood of Christ).
I don't think a website which rests on statements written in Hislop's book is a very reliable account on Paganism being grafted onto Christianity, or Christmas.
http://de.essortment.com/christmaspagan_rece.htm
Hmm. A lot of this sounds like my own findings from the initial posts, but there's some differences. And some things that just don't sound right or mixed up.
As far as I understand, for example, it was the celebration of Sol Invictus that took place at the same time as Christmas, and Saturnalia was spread across it.
What really gets me is this--why is this saying Mithras was celebrated by Scandinavians as a sun god? Mithra wasn't a sun god to the Scandinavians as far as I know of Norse. Cobalt's sources from before mentions this, but Mitra (also known as Mithras), a god from Persian and Indic culture whom shares a few similarities with the Roman/Hellenistic Mithras (and is thought to have "migrated" to Rome that way), was considered *a* solar god, but not *the* sun god, and for the Romans he wasn't quite one either, I think.
http://paganwiccan.about.com/cs/aboutyule/a/paganxmas.htm
Again, this doesn't seem to bring any new information to the table. I was able to confirm, as you should have seen in my first post, that the Yule Log and many Scandinavian traditions were infused into Christmas upon their conversion, hence why they call Christmas "Yule" over there, and why it's sometimes used as an alternate name elsewhere.
It mentions and describes Saturnalia, but doesn't really say anything new, from either your link on Religious Tolerance or my own information. Like the above link it seems to imply that all Northern European cultures decorated evergreens for varying reasons, but what I was able to find out, the Germanic and Norse tribes consider oak to be sacred and used them to honor Odin or other Aesir, particularly Thor from what I was able to tell. I mean, Yggdrassil itself is percieved as a massive ash/oak tree.
So far the sources either consider mistletoe a ritual of the Romans or the Norse, but I dunno. The Norse explanation, which I've seen by looking up Mistletoe on Wikipedia--this story of Frigg weeping over the death of Baldr and when he was brought back to life, kissed people under the mistletoe after blessing it (or weeping over the mistletoe to purify its poison), is something I've never seen before in reading Norse myth. Typically the versions of Norse I see, Baldr dies and is not returned from Niflheim due to Loki's actions (who refused to weep for Baldr's death), and won't be reborn until after the end of the world.
Also, from what I know of the Druids, they didn't consider evergreens sacred either, but oaks. Wikipedia mentions this in the article about Druids, oaks being sacred to them.
Well, I did some looking up and now I understand why it's so confusing and roundabout.
As I've learned, oaks and ash trees both have species that are evergreens ("live oaks" being the evergreen okas). The only problem with this ... they are nowhere near Ireland or Scandinavia! They're found in southern and southwestern Europe at best. It might be possible that seeds were taken from them northward, but ... Such trees are not listed as being populous in the northern sections of Europe. Somehow I don't think they'd find such trees sacred if they couldn't find them there in the first place.
So, my theory is that non-evergreen ash and oak were the sacred trees which were decorated.
This website has a statement that actually agrees with what my statement about the tree decorating, that historians aren't sure where the modern origins of the Christmas tree came from.
http://www.zenzibar.com/Articles/christmas.asp
This site says that Scandinavians hug apples from evergreen trees at the winter solstice, and was a special plant of Baldur, their sun god. But Baldur/Balder/Baldr was the Aesir god of innocence, joy, purity, and peace. Quotes from the Gylfaginning mention Baldur is so bright that light shines from him, but is not presented as the sun. I'm not sure how the Norse would tie him in as being the sun anyway (if they did), since he was killed and wouldn't be reborn until Ragnarok occured, which is the end of the world.
Now, given the other website from Essortment claims these same Scandinavians decorated trees in honor of their sun god Mithra, whom was only a solar god to Persians and Indians, I am highly skeptical of the accuracy of this article.
Interestingly enough, this website also mentions the same celebration date shared by Mithra and Jesus, but it goes further to state that Christians took the date of Mithras' birth from Mithraism. I explained to Cobalt why I don't think that theory flies in the past thread, given the secrecy of Mithraism and that it was mainly a religion of the Roman army, from whom Christianity did not originate. Wikipedia doesn't say this is factually agreed upon, but cites this theory as coming from Martin A. Larson in his book on the origins of Christianity--however, he doesn't claim Mithraism inspired Christianity. Rather, he claims Mithraism and Christianity come from the savior cult of Osiris.
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p235.html
Well, I guess religious sites can count as sources, since this is the third one you've linked to on the subject (About.com's pagan site and the Evangelical Christian one being the other two), but wow, is that a lot of information on both Christmas AND Easter. Let's see what they got here ... A lot of sources cited. This, like the Evangelical site, claims that no Christian can celebrate either Easter or Christmas and be Christian as they are breaches of the word of the Bible. Hrm.
The evidence seems to draw heavily on Sir James George Frazer and his works, and as far as I can tell he's actually well recieved unlike Alexander Hislop.
Mithras is mentioned as a sun god of the Romans by Frazer ... but in my research, he wasn't officially identified with Mithraism. In 270 AD, Aurelian made worship of Sol Invictus as the priemer divinity rather than Saturn. Aurelian is said to have borrowed Mithraist concepts for his idea of Sol Invictus. It seems the feast for Sol Invictus on December 25th was started by him around .. 274. Ironically, an article on New Advent admits that this "has a strong claim" to the choosing of December 25 as the date for Christmas.
I checked New Advent out further, which I didn't do for the claim of Hippolytus. I think I should have, because there's something on here Wikipedia didn't mention when I read the articles--the validity of the manuscript concerning Hippolytus' claim is apparently disputed among scholars, and it looks like its validity is dismissed by New Advent itself as a forgery.
The reasoning is that Hippolytus got the names of some Roman counsels wrong, the age of Jesus' death in the passage is different from other Hippolytus documents, among a few other things that the encylcopedia finds incredible in the sense that it's unbelieveable.
I guess I didn't research this enough, and I should have cross-referenced New Advent more to make sure that evidence was right. So my own major point doesn't even hold up. You know what? I find it ironic that the Catholic dictionary would have this information when the open encyclopedia that's supposed to strive for NPOV doesn't. I guess I shouldn't rely wholly on Wikipedia ...
At any rate, I think that knocks down my major point on Christmas, specifically when Christians started celebrating it. And if Catholics themselves admit that Aurelian's festival was what caused this date to be December 25th, well, that says something.
In fact, New Advent gives a fairly detailed description of early theologician attempts to pin down when Christ was born, and it's not like what I saw from my own research. The whole article is pretty interesting. Here's some snippets of what New Advent has to say:
Quote: The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, xxi in P.G., VIII, 888) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). With Clement's evidence may be mentioned the "De paschæ computus", written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth. Clement, however, also tells us that the Basilidians celebrated the Epiphany, and with it, probably, the Nativity, on 15 or 11 Tybi (10 or 6 January). At any rate this double commemoration became popular, partly because the apparition to the shepherds was considered as one manifestation of Christ's glory, and was added to the greater manifestations celebrated on 6 January; partly because at the baptism-manifestation many codices (e.g. Codex Bezæ) wrongly give the Divine words as sou ei ho houios mou ho agapetos, ego semeron gegenneka se (Thou art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten thee) in lieu of en soi eudokesa (in thee I am well pleased), read in Luke 3:22.
Quote: Cyprus, at the end of the fourth century, Epiphanius asserts against the Alogi (Hær., li, 16, 24 in P. G., XLI, 919, 931) that Christ was born on 6 January and baptized on 8 November. Ephraem Syrus (whose hymns belong to Epiphany, not to Christmas) proves that Mesopotamia still put the birth feast thirteen days after the winter solstice; i.e. 6 January; Armenia likewise ignored, and still ignores, the December festival. (Cf. Euthymius, "Pan. Dogm.", 23 in P.G., CXXX, 1175; Niceph., "Hist. Eccl,", XVIII, 53 in P.G., CXLVII, 440; Isaac, Catholicos of Armenia in eleventh or twelfth century, "Adv. Armenos", I, xii, 5 in P.G., CXXII, 1193; Neale, "Holy Eastern Church", Introd., p. 796). In Cappadocia, Gregory of Nyssa's sermons on St. Basil (who died before 1 January, 379) and the two following, preached on St. Stephen's feast (P.G., XLVI, 788; cf, 701, 721), prove that in 380 the 25th December was already celebrated there, unless, following Usener's too ingenious arguments (Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Bonn, 1889, 247-250), one were to place those sermons in 383. Also, Asterius of Amaseia (fifth century) and Amphilochius of Iconium (contemporary of Basil and Gregory) show that in their dioceses both the feasts of Epiphany and Nativity were separate (P.G., XL, 337 XXXIX, 36).
Quote: In Antioch, on the feast of St. Philogonius, Chrysostom preached an important sermon. The year was almost certainly 386, though Clinton gives 387, and Usener, by a long rearrangement of the saint's sermons, 388 (Religionsgeschichtl. Untersuch., pp. 227-240). But between February, 386, when Flavian ordained Chrysostom priest, and December is ample time for the preaching of all the sermons under discussion. (See Kellner, Heortologie, Freiburg, 1906, p. 97, n. 3). In view of a reaction to certain Jewish rites and feasts, Chrysostom tries to unite Antioch in celebrating Christ's birth on 25 December, part of the community having already kept it on that day for at least ten years. In the West, he says, the feast was thus kept, anothen; its introduction into Antioch he had always sought, conservatives always resisted. This time he was successful; in a crowded church he defended the new custom. It was no novelty; from Thrace to Cadiz this feast was observed -- rightly, since its miraculously rapid diffusion proved its genuineness. Besides, Zachary, who, as high-priest, entered the Temple on the Day of Atonement, received therefore announcement of John's conception in September; six months later Christ was conceived, i.e. in March, and born accordingly in December.
From what I can understand of the New Advent article--it's really long winded and the wording is a little confusing to me--feasts held in honor of Jesus weren't because of Sol Invictus, but it turned out that way in the end due to the influence of Rome. And yet, the article also seems to say that the "Zachary's temple" reasoning for December 25th, while unreliable as a valid reasoning of when Jesus was born, was supported in antiquity, not just something later posited by finders of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Huh.
As Cobalt mentioned, Terullian is cast as a staunch opponent of partaking in the Roman pagan holidays--and New Advent also gives evidence that in the 300s there were attempts by other Christians to syncretize the holiday by reasoning that they were really celebrating the birth of Jesus, whom the syncretizer called the "sun of Justice."
Interestingly enough, New Advent says this at the same time:
Quote: Other theories of pagan origin: The origin of Christmas should not be sought in the Saturnalia (1-23 December) nor even in the midnight holy birth at Eleusis (see J.E. Harrison, Prolegom., p. 549) with its probable connection through Phrygia with the Naasene heretics, or even with the Alexandrian ceremony quoted above; nor yet in rites analogous to the midwinter cult at Delphi of the cradled Dionysus, with his revocation from the sea to a new birth (Harrison, op. cit., 402 sqq.).
See, at first, this made me go "Huh? I thought Sol Invictus took place during Saturnalia" because that's what was said on articles I checked, including some on Wikipedia.
But after checking again on Wikipedia on Saturnalia itself, reading through once more, and seeing that indeed Saturnalia was on the 17th of December, then expanded a week into a holy season leading up to the 23rd, but that the solstice within that period sometimes fell within Saturnalia due to the constant changes made to the Roman calendar, it made sense.
New Advent doesn't explain why the origin should not be sought in such holidays ... I suppose they're saying this because the information given early on in the article demonstrates that Jesus' birth was already being celebrated before then and on different dates across Europe and Africa, but as far as the final cementing of the date goes, they seem to admit this was due to Sol Invictus. Yet on Wikipedia's page on Saturnalia, it doesn't say that thisis the proven theory, just that this is the widely held one. Some claim that Aurelis fixed the feast of Sol Invictus to December 25 to co-opt the Christian celebration.
This all took place before Constantine's edict lifting persecution of Christians ... so that could be possible, but it's all foggy. There is no definite answer on what came first. The rest of the evidence for Christians' reasoning that Jesus was born on the 25th comes after the founding of Sol Invictus on the 25th, indeed even after the first recorded Christian feasts of that period. Either as a sort of triumphalism or syncretic move--but the Catholic encylopedia admits that the dualism with Sol Invictus is most likely anyway.
I'll try and go through the rest of what I haven't yet touched on in some way.
The Feast of Fools and the Lord of Misrule: Well, all my sources agree this was directly from Saturnalia. No objection I can offer except that this tradition died out after the middle ages, except in France where it died out in the 17th century. It's not a part of modern Christian tradition, at all! Frazier says Oxford's college also derived their "King of Beans" tradition from this. Oxford's "king of beans" tradition also died out during this time it seems (16th century), but it wasn't on the same date as the Feast of Fools or Saturnalia either ... happening sometime in November. The website notes that "much of the modern insanity" of Christmas comes from the USA and commercialism, interestingly enough, not trying to tie the feast of fools to modern Christmas tradition.
The twelve days of Christmas, cakes, beans and money: This is a kind of strange subarticle. It roundabout lists various local traditions on Christmas in Europe, many related somehow, many not, but doesn't come to a definite conclusion on much of it. It manages to tie a few to the King of Beans, and then attribute that to the Lord of Misrule, but even the article is not definite where Frazier is not quoted. The thing is, they admit several customs they can't try and trace a connection to. For example, nothing is given relating the bean-in-the-cake custom to Saturnalia, just that it "seems to be" ... yet in all my reading I didn't come across such a custom celebrated by the Romans. The idea that this is related to putting coins in Christmas pudding also seems a little strenous, but I can see the relation. The mention of Wassaling as being ancient, I couldn't find enough information about this through Wikipedia, which doesn't claim anything about it being pagan or religious, just a cultural tradition.
The Origin of Candles: Okay, I don't get this. Candles being pagan in tradition? C'mon, it's widespread and used even by the Jews on the Menorah, as this ironically notes. The article acts as if incense should be what is used since it's a Jewish practice, but incense is used in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as well. Consider the following a form of exasperated sarcasm directed at the CCG: Hey guys, Eastern religions like Shinto and Buddhism use incense! Would we go so far as to say Christianity stole the usage of incense from them? That kind of mentality irks me--because someone else did it, whomever else does it must have copied/stolen it from the other. Like Thomas Edison and other lightbulb inventers such as Joseph Wilson Swan, Henrich Gobel, and Alexander Lodygin.
Weather: This covers a local custom in the Deutschphere that I was never aware of (Switzerland, Austria, and Germany)--cutting an onion into twelve slices, sprinkling salt, and determining the weather for the next year by how much moisture is left. Something about the way the article is written hints that this is an old custom no longer practiced. It proceeds to relate this being a pagan religious custom done all over Europe in one way or another, usually twelve days sometime in between the two years representing the weather for the twelve months. As this is something I've never heard of till now, I'm jus going to have to take them at their word. What's supicious though, is that there is a sparse amount of citation in this subarticle. No backup from Frazier from what I can tell.
The Goat and Drum: It's funny how right off the bat the CCG calls this tradition mumming, like from Saturnalia, and seems to be a more general attempt to link pagan traditions from around Europe to mumming in Saturnalia, then attribute that to the Yule Goat in Scandinavia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule_Goat
Yule Logs and Ivy and Mistletoe: Well, what can I say? I already relented from the very first post that Scandinavian traditions like yule logs were absorbed from pagan rituals. This attriubtes it more to Germanic traditions, however. The use of Frazier's books to tie in the importance of mistletoe to all the European cultures of the period I wonder about the tying it to the Indic culture of the Aryans, however ... Doing some searches it seems only Frazier has come to that conclusion and supports it--other websites that do use Frazier and his book, the Golden Bough, as backing. Hmm.
The Christmas Tree: I think the CCG article is the ONE source you have provided, even over Religious Tolerance, which makes a serious play at connecting modern Christmas trees to pagan rituals ... Pine does exist in the Meditteranean, and this Attis mystery religion is from that region apparently--this explains why some of the earlier sources mentioned referred to Greek pagans decorating evergreens. Only this is more specific and has factual sources backing it up ... Once again from Frazer. Where it seems all other cultures did something with a type of oak or ash, they did it with pine. What interests me, however, is that this is another mystery religion, one whose customs wouldn't be readily apparent save to insiders. I tend to question how such a closed religion can influence one that is open. The other thing is, most historians agree that the modern Christmas tree started with the Germans, and that's where the trail ends. The similarities are way too interesting to ignore here, but the situation of it seems odd.
The Epiphany: Interestingly enough they use New Advent itself to support their claim. The festival of Befana is mentioned briefly at New Advent (quoted by the CCG), but Wikipedia says nothing about this ... hm. All that is really said by New Advent is that the name of Epiphany ("a god's visible manifestation to humans") comes from the Roman festival then ... but says little else. The ironic thing is that the CCG dismisses Hippolytus (and, by the way, it looks like they refer to a genuine article by Hippolytus rather than the forgery) because they claim "theophaneia" is used rather than "epiphaneia" ... but theophany is pretty much the same thing--God visibly manifesting to humans, but it's more specific from what I understand. In fact, the Orthodox church celebrates Epiphany this way, calling it the Theophany. Therefore I wouldn't dismiss what Hippolytus said based on that claim alone. At any rate, they don't really do anything to explain their dismissal of evidence at New Advent other than claiming a different word being used in some of the evidence, and they cite no other sources on the Befana festival to support their implication that it's a robbed pagan tradition.
Santa Claus: The one thing I've noticed about their claims that "Sinterklass" is directly derived from Norse traditions and not Saint Nicholas ("Sinterklass" is a Dutch contraction of Saint Nicholas) is the lack of any citing of sources. This article typically backs up their claims with books, but this ... doesn't. In fact ... one uncited claim is totally wrong, concering the origin of piggy banks. The CCG claims piggy banks come from a children's Holland tradition of saving up money or the annual pig. Wikipedia and other sources (including The Straight Dope) say otherwise. Piggy banks actually derived from Middle English "pygg jar." Pygg was a type of clay used for making objects like jars. People, not just children, would save money in them, and call them "pygg jars." The actual name and its origin has nothing to do with the pig itself like the CCG claim. As for Santa Claus, the CCG says that Odin is the direct influence of Santa Claus/Sinterklaas. However, Wikipedia and other sources disagree--attributing AT BEST that Odin exerted a mild influence, but is not the dominating factor. Others, like New Advent, say he is fully derived from the merits of St. Nicholas. Personally I think that Odin had nothing to do with it--if any sort of syncreticism occured with the modern myth, it was likely Ded Moz, Father Frost, another similar tale of a gift giving man--but Ded Moz was developed over time, so ...
http://www.denofheathens.com/2004_nov.html
There's not much infromation here that has been said in other links you've posted or my initial post. But there is one part I'd like to address: The website says "Yule" means wheel, as in Wheel of the Year, and is a symbol of the sun god. This is what Neopagans celebrate, but Wikipedia, New Advent, and the Oxford Dictionary disagree about the etymology. Wikipedia has this to say:
Quote: Of the contested origin of Jól, one popular but factually unlikely connection is to Old Norse hjól, wheel, to identify the moment when the wheel of the year is at its lowpoint, ready to rise again. Linguists suggest that Jól has been inherited by Germanic languages from a pre-Indo-European substrate language and borrowed into Old English from Old Norse.
New Advent says:
Quote: The term Yule is of disputed origin. It is unconnected with any word meaning "wheel". The name in Anglo-Saxon was geol, feast: geola, the name of a month (cf. Icelandic iol a feast in December).
So, here's my impressions.
What I saw from most of your resources were statements that couldn't even agree on facts, and from the Evangelical one, quotations from a Scottish Protestant minister who's been largely criticized for lacking evidence and going against existing evidence. You chide me about quantity over quality and then throw a lot of links like that at me.
The only source you linked to that had real potency, was worth considering after doing fact/credibility checking, and got me to uncover falsities in my own findings was the Church of God article. That was your only quality article, ironically by a Christian website, the very kind you said couldn't count due to Christian bias. It was, for the most part, a fordmidable and well backed article.
It's enough for me, concerning the date on which Christmas is celebrated, that Catholics concede that the celebration of Sol Invictus is "most likely" responsible with the date cementing on December 25th, but at the same time they provide evidence that the birth of Jesus itself was being celebrated across the Empire at different times by different groups, until Rome's influence homogenized it. You, Rose, snarkily noted that most of my evidence "didn't contradict yours." But do you see me hiding in a corner whimpering or throwing a fit? Nope. As I've said what feels like a thousand times, I didn't go into this trying to prove Christmas was wholly free of pagan traditions, or even somewhat free. I just wanted to get some factual basis for it all--FAR from being a bible thumper or intolerant to pagans.
|
