So tired myths about Christian holy days

I had a wonderful Christmas. My wife and I spent time with kids, kids-in-law, and grandkids. We gained weight (oops), but it was delicious weight. Unfortunately, we also had to hear again about how (haw, haw) Christians took over a pagan celebration in order to convince the dumb pagans that there was really no change. I have several problems with the approach taken in various of these now-accepted ideas.

Easter

The most famous myth is the one that says that Easter is named after the goddess Eostre (Eastre, Ostara), and that the eggs used at Easter are simply an adopted part of the fertility worship of the Germanic area. There are several problems with this supposition.

The use of eggs connected with Pascha is documented before the Germanic region was ever evangelized and before any English Christian customs could have come down into the Empire. There is no possible link with Eostre. (Note: there was an Internet meme making the rounds that tried to claim that Ishtar was the inspiration for Eostre, that she had twelve apostles, etc., etc. That was shown to be a completely made up meme, but what else is true about many Internet memes?) In fact, some even doubt that Eostre, as such, existed, because she is mentioned as that in only one passage and that one is by a Christian historian, the Venerable Bede. At least one scholar has said:

Writing in 1972, John Andrew Boyle cites commentary contained within an etymology dictionary by A. Ernout and A. Meillet, where the authors write that “Little else […] is known about [Eostre], but it has been suggested that her lights, as goddess of the dawn, were carried by hares. And she certainly represented spring fecundity, and love and carnal pleasure that leads to fecundity.” Boyle responds that nothing is known about Eostre outside of Bede’s single passage, that the authors had seemingly accepted the identification of ?ostre with the Norse goddess Freyja, yet that the hare is not associated with Freyja either. Boyle writes that “her carriage, we are told by Snorri, was drawn by a pair of cats — animals, it is true, which like hares were the familiars of witches, with whom Freyja seems to have much in common.” However, Boyle adds that “on the other hand, when the authors speak of the hare as the ‘companion of Aphrodite and of satyrs and cupids’ and point out that ‘in the Middle Ages it appears beside the figure of Luxuria’, they are on much surer ground and can adduce the evidence of their illustrations.”

So unclear was it that Eostre even existed that in 1835, in Deutsche Mythologie, Jacob Grimm has to defend that Eostre existed:

Addressing skepticism towards goddesses mentioned by Bede, Grimm comments that “there is nothing improbable in them, nay the first of them is justified by clear traces in the vocabularies of Germanic tribes.”

But, here is a final problem for those who have fun with the Easter / Eostre claim. It is only in Germanic / Anglo-Saxon countries that the word Easter is used. Everywhere else, it is still called Pascha. So, first, there is doubt that Eostre existed. Second, at best one can only claim that Christians from a particular linguistic group may be using the name that used to be used by a particular Teutonic goddess. Third, eggs and rabbits may not have even been associated with Eostre. Fourth, the goddess Eostre was not even known in Old Rome, and the use of eggs around Pascha dates from before any possible Teutonic influence. I could go on for a couple of more points, but, you get the idea.

So, how on Earth, did the myth get started that, haw haw, Christians have adopted Eostre worship practices and are involved in pagan worship? One, sadly, it suits the Evangelical / Fundamentalist arguments against Liturgical worship. They have been more than happy to spread a supposition by a liberal German scholar from the 19th century. It is sad that they have clearly adopted the attitude that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In more than one myth, there is an alliance of Fundamentalists, Liberal Theologians, and skeptics, that is shameful to behold. Two, let’s face it, it is entirely plausible to suppose that Easter comes from Eostre. However, if the Eostre story by the Venerable Bede is not true, then the whole supposition falls apart. Third, to base an entire accusation on only one quote that is not found before that and not repeated after that is an extremely unsound scholarly technique.

Christmas

Many doubt that Christmas could have happened on Christmas Day, as funny as it is to phrase it that way. They claim that the evidence in Scripture points to a warm Christmas. The description of the empty stable with the shepherds and the flocks in the field is that of warm weather. In cold weather, particularly if there was any snow on the ground, the flocks are brought in. More than that, no ruler would take a census during weather in which travel would be difficult enough that he would encounter civil disobedience. No census would have been taken in winter is the claim. The counter-argument is that precisely winter is when the census would have been taken so as not to interrupt the planting and harvest cycles. And, a Roman Emperor did not care about his people enough to be concerned about a winter census.

Frankly, Christmas was not an early celebration. It is not mentioned by Ireneaus and Tertullian in their lists of feasts of the Church. The first mention of the feast is around the year 200, by Saint Clement of Alexandria, who actually has a negative comment about it, speaking of those in Egypt whom he says are carried away with trying to know the exact month and day of Our Lord’s birth! In passing, he says that some placed it as happening on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the 28th year of the reign of Augustus. Others reached a date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). In 243, a pseudo document placed the birth on 28 March. It should be said that the Basilidians celebrated it on or about 6 January as did the Cypriots. By the year 380, Saint Gregory of Nyssa is preaching sermons about Christmas on 25 December.

However, in Jerusalem, we have evidence from the writings of Etheria that 25 December was not observed as Christmas there. The date for the Octave of Christmas starts on 6 January. But, she does not mention Christmas by name as a high festival! Only Easter and Epiphany are mentioned that way. In fact, we have correspondence between Pope Julius I (337-352) and Cyril in which Cyril states that Jerusalem cannot do a double procession from Jerusalem to Bethlehem on one day in order to have separate processions for both Christmas and Epiphany. In other words, Christmas and Epiphany were celebrated on the same day (6 January). Saint Jerome records that as late as 411, Jerusalem still celebrated Epiphany / Christmas on 6 January.

In Antioch in 386, Saint John Chrysostom is preaching that part of the community observes Christmas on 25 December and part on another day. But, the interesting thing to note is that he states that the West (Rome) is keeping Christmas on 25 December. He argues that 25 December is the correct date because Zachary, as high-priest, entered the Temple on the Day of the Atonement, received the announcement of John’s conception in September. He interprets Scripture as saying that Jesus was conceived six months after John, therefore John was conceived in March and born in December. He wins the day based on this Biblical argument and Antioch begins to switch to a 25 December Christmas.

Spain had not yet switched to 25 December. The Council of Saragossa in that year still ignores 25 December and tends to have a joint Nativity / Epiphany celebration on 6 January. Vienne in Gaul in 361 still observes Epiphany / Nativity on 6 January. By the time of Saint Augustine in the 400’s, 25 December is the Christmas date, but it is not listed as a first-class festival. After that (in the 400’s) the West uniformly has December 25 as the date, the change has been made. In Constantinople, the change did not take place until 379. Eventually, Christianity standardized on 25 December. Note that Saint Boniface in the 700’s still grumbles a bit about Christmas. It is unclear whether it is about Christmas or about some of the “decadence” in Rome while observing the Twelve Days of Christmas.

However, here are some things to note. First, there is no mention of the Feast of the Sol Invictus anywhere in the discussion. Second, probably the largest part of Christianity celebrated Christmas on 6 January. Third, there is no decree by either Emperor or Council to force the changeover. Fourth, at least one of the arguments for a winter birth on 25 December is based on Scripture itself, counting from the announcement to Zacharias, assuming that Elizabeth got pregnant the same month that the angel came and that Mary became pregnant six months later (some people say that she became pregnant three months later, depending on how you interpret a couple of Scriptures).

So, from where does the myth come about Christians taking over the Feast of the Sol Invictus at the order of both Emperor and Council? Ahh, frankly it was not until the 12th century that a scribe writes in a marginal notation to a manuscript by a Syrian bishop that alludes to the Christians taking over the Feast of the Sun on purpose. However, this is many centuries after the actual events, and is written by a person not aware of all the history. So, guess when it became popular to believe that myth? Yes, the late 18th and early 19th century again. The very same people as began the myth of Eostre are the same people who promulgated this one. Worse, it is the very same Evangelicals / Fundamentalists who quickly adopted the secularist insulting view and promulgated it as an attack against liturgical Christianity.

Conclusion

Yes, our supposed brothers and sisters who uphold Scripture and argue that six-day creationism is the only historical alternative have been quite willing to ignore history if it helps them in their fight against their liturgical brethren. Couple them with secularists, who are quite happy to poke fun at Christianity and you have an unholy alliance between those who ought to uphold truth and those who claim to uphold truth. There are multiple over myths about Christianity that were promulgated in the 19th century by secularists and adopted by Evangelical / Fundamentalists. These are but two of them.