Is Christmas Pagan?

[Augustus]

I don't know what you mean by that. "Pagan" is already a generic term. So, yes. Christianity hung painted tarps over the old pagan signs until enough people had either died out or forgotten.

People's confidence in their assumptions regarding this topic seems entirely unconnected to their ability to provide any actual evidence of this process happening.

The dating is unlikely to be "pagan" and most traditions are modern and only emerged many, many centuries after the Christianisation of Europe.

 

[Augustus]

On the dating of Christmas (all quotes from peer-reviewed scholarly journals/texts):

Among the more popular, but also less credible, claims that have subsequently been associated with HRT is the idea that the transformation of the Dies natalis solis invicti into Christmas was decreed by Constantine the Great as part of his general program of elevating Christianity to the main religion of the Roman empire, while fusing it with his own solar piety. Aside from the lack of source evidence, this thesis completely fails to account for the fact that Constantinople, the city inaugurated by Constantine himself in 330 as the new capital of his empire, had to wait until 380 for the actual introduction.

That studies emphasizing the "pagan" roots of Christmas have been fraught with a certain tendency towards confirmation bias, has recently been argued by Steven Hijmans, whose research into the iconography of the sun in Roman religion has paved the way for a critical re-evaluation of HRT. Using numismatic, archaeological, epigraphic and literary evidence from the second to fourth centuries, Hijmans is able to show that the idea of Christmas being preceded by a popular and important feast dedicated to the sun god is to a considerable extent founded on anachronisms and a view of Roman religion that rests on nineteenth-century constructs rather than hard facts. His skeptical and revisionist conclusions also demolishes the thesis that "Sol Invictus" was a new and distinct deity, whose cult was imported from the East in the third century and became the occasion of a major festival on December 25.

The Origins of the Christmas Date: Some Recent Trends in Historical Research
C. P. E. Nothaft

We have no firm evidence for a festival for Sol on December 25th until Julian wrote his hymn to Helios in December of 362. The entry in the calendar of 354 is probably for Sol, although only the epithet invictus is used (above, n. 4), and probably dates to 354, although it was possibly added later. Circumstantial evidence suggests that a festival of Sol on the winter solstice was not yet included in such calendars in the late 320s. As the Christian celebration of Christmas on December 25th can be attested in Rome by AD 336, at which point it may already have been well-established and the celebration of Sol on that day cannot be attested before AD 354/362 and had not yet entered the calendar in the late 320s, it is impossible to postulate that Christmas arose in reaction to some solar festival. There is quite simply not one iota of explicit evidence for a major festival of Sol on December 25th prior to the establishment of Christmas, nor is there any circumstantial evidence that there was likely to have been one. There is only Julian’s overly emphatic insistence that the celebration was as old as Numa… which is a fabrication and his convoluted explanation for the date is impossible.
S Hijmans - Usener’s Christmas: A contribution to the modern construct of late antique solar syncretism


Thanks to the paschal table of Hippolytus, we can be sure that 25 March played an important role in Christian chronology as the date of the crucifixion since at least the early third century, thus laying the ground for an influential calendrical tradition in the Western church.

Since it was established early on that Jesus died on 25 March, and since it was also assumed, based on Luke’s annunciation narrative, that he was born in winter, early Christians would have been tempted to re-interpret 25 March as the day of conception, whereby they could then arrive at 25 December as the date of the nativity. The attractiveness of 25 March and 25 December – the vernal equinox and the winter solstice – as cardinal points in the life of the Savior was naturally further underscored by a widespread solar symbolism, which viewed Christ as the “sun of righteousness” and is clearly present in chronological texts such as De pascha computus and the aforementioned On the solstices. CP Nothaft - Early Christian Chronology and the Origins of the Christmas


A couple of sources, Hippolytus and Julius Africanus seem to propose 25 Dec as the date of Jesus’ birth and are discussed in TC Schmidt’s Calculating December 25 as the Birth of Jesus in Hippolytus’ Canon and Chronicon.

He notes:

We must remember that when analyzing the works of Christian chronologists, like Hippolytus [, we enter a place quite different from the realm of commentaries, liturgies, homilies, canon law, and theological speculation. Instead we find ourselves in a confusingly complex and unremittingly exact mathematical and astronomical world where chronologists debate not only about the year in which the earth was created, but on what day of the month, and even over what hour of which day the moon was created and in what phase.

It's also worth noting that these scholars utilised highly allegorical and symbolic frameworks for analysing the theological calendar, which is why we get the importance of the solstices (which are tangible astronomical phenomena, which are no more intrinsically ‘pagan’ than the sun is).

Hippolytus tells us in his Chronicon that Jesus was conceived on the Passover and that this was exactly 5,502 years from creation. Because the Canon and the Chronicon use the same chronological system, we can calculate backwards 5,502 years from the ‘γένεσις of Christ’ in the Canon to find Hippolytus’ date for the first Passover. Counting the annual cycles in the Canon inclusively, we do in fact reach Thursday, March 29.

Because our calculations above show that Hippolytus believed that the very first Passover occurred on March 29, Thursday, the 5th day of the week, he must have therefore marked Sunday, March 25 as the first day of creation. This agrees exactly with what the anonymous computist said about his predecessors. Therefore, Chronicon §686-688 appears to claim that Jesus was born 5502 years and 9 months from this point, which corresponds with December 25…

Hippolytus’ use of the Roman calendar and its placement of the Vernal Equinox on March 25 is therefore a key reason why he seems to have chosen December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. While it seems probable that Hippolytus himself chose December 25, if he did not, then it is clear that the slightest manipulation of his methods would have easily resulted in its selection.

Nothaft in Early Christian Chronology and the Origins of the Christmas Date has also recently argued that Julius Africanus most likely also chose December 25 in 221 CE using similar methods. This, coupled with Hippolytus’ probable choice around the same time, further argues that the selection of December 25 as the birthday of Jesus occurred sometime in the early third century, more than 100 years before its earliest explicit attestation in the Chronography of 354


More here: Christmas 25 Dec: Scholarly views

 

[Augustus]

On why simply saying "XYZ looks pagan therefore it must be pagan" leads to a misunderstanding of history:


A problem with most of the "X is pagan" arguments is that they are just a form of post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption.

They conflate the idea that because something like a tree or the sun or a solstice has been used in pagan worship, they are therefore fundamentally pagan in nature and have remained so in perpetuity.

The sun is still just the sun though, and a tree is still a tree. Their uses, impacts and symbolism extends far beyond being an object of pagan veneration.

That people whose lives were massively impacted by the seasons noticed the sun and solstices is hardly surprising. That people will use seasonal flora for decoration is also eminently predictable.

In classical antiquity, even pagan iconography representing the Sun wasn't necessarily pagan, it was just decoration. This serves as a good example for how things that just because pagans venerated X, it doesn't mean all uses of X must be intrinsically or meaningfully "pagan":

In the Roman Empire. the nature of Sol was ambiguous. As a heavenly body. the sun was often used-together with Luna-as a cosmic symbol or allegory for eternity...

This symbolic use of Sol and Luna was common in a wide range of religious contexts in the Roman Empire: we find it on Jupiter Dolichenus triangles. Mithraic reliefs, Danubian rider plaques. the ependytes of Aphrodite of Aphrodisias. Jupiter columns. etc

In all these images Sol is clearly not depicted as a god to be celebrated with feast days and chariot-races, but as a cosmic body whose presence contributes to the framing and defining of the nature of the main scene...

Sol and Luna, then. not only symbolize Eternity but also explain how cosmic stability can be sustained despite temporal fluctuations...

That this was the case should not surprise us. The cosmic reality and astronomical predictability of Sol was and is incontestable-not a matter of religion but a matter of fact. It was to those incontestable aspects of the sun and moon to which Sol and Luna or Sol alone refer. directly as well as metaphorically, in the contexts we have just discussed. It is also those aspects of Sol which are important in. for instance. the mosaic floors of the late antique synagogues of Hammath Tiberias. Beth Alpha. and elsewhere. In the large. central panel of the floor of the main nave we find Sol in the traditional Roman iconography on a frontal chariot within a zodiac and with the four seasons in the corners.

[This] anthropomorphic representation of the visible "planet," and as such is a cosmic symbol rather than a polytheistic god. further emphasized by the zodiac around him and the four seasons accompanying him. This is the most plausible interpretation-given the problems which would arise if we were to treat these as images of the Roman polytheistic sun god. forcing us to explain why he dominated the floors of no fewer than four synagogues-and any lingering doubts about that interpretation were removed by the recent discovery of yet another mosaic floor of this type, in which the head of Sol was replaced by a radiant disc

The most prolific imagery related to Sol (and Luna) treats the sun not as a god but as symbol. and despite the polytheistic religious source of the anthropomorph iconography employed. the actual cosmic-symbolic connotations of this imagery were so well understood that it could be employed without significant variations by pagans. Jews, and Christians alike...

The astronomical reality of the sun and the moon precluded such symbolism from being exclusively pagan. and the evidence of the De solstitiis. as well as the numerous passages from a wide range of homilies collected by Heim (1999). suggests that it was readily adopted by Christians. It is cosmic symbolism of this type which inspired the Church leadership in Rome to elect the winter solstice. December 25. as the birthday of Christ. and the summer solstice. June 25. as that of John the Baptist. supplemented by the equinoxes as their lrespective dates of conception. While they were aware that pagans celebrated a festival in honour of Sol Invictus on that day. this did not concern them. and it certainly did not play any role in their choice of date for Christmas.

S Hijmans- Sol Invictus, the winter solstice. and the origins of Christmas

 

[ppp]

People's confidence in their assumptions regarding this topic seems entirely unconnected to their ability to provide any actual evidence of this process happening.

What is the process that you think needs evidence of?
Was that Sol Invictus post supposed to be relevance to my position? I hope not. Because your post assumes a holiday, a date, and a time frame that have little to do with my position.

First: I am perfectly aware that there is no firm historical attachment between Dec 25 and Christmas. It is a relatively recent standardization, and hardly ubiquitous. On the outer banks of NC, about 30 min from where I grew up, Christmas was celebrated by a lot of people on Jan 6. Just like the Copts. So, if you are assuming I am trying to pin something down to a specific date, please perish the thought. Major Christian Churches celebrated on assorted dates from Dec 25 to Jan 19, inclusive.

Second: The winter was littered with pagan holidays across Europe. For instance, Yule, Saturnalia, Lenaea, and assorted solstice bonfire festivals. We have firm evidence of all of those predating Christianity. The goal of the church was to convert from pagan practices to Christian practices. Part of doing that is necessarily to get people to stop their much more fun pagan winter rites and come to church. Replacing one celebration with another does not require it be on the Exact Same Day.

Third: I am not talking about edicts. I am talking about practices of conversion. Marketing is a practice of conversion.

 

[stvdv]

I know I put this up every year, but I think it's a complicated topic.

Is Christmas Pagan?​

No !!!

Spirituality is between you and "God"
No one has the right to claim things
Not a Relgious group nor a Church

 

[1213]

I know I put this up every year, but I think it's a complicated topic.

Why do you think it is complicated?

I think it is clear, if you have it like a pagan, then it is pagan. i think it should not be pagan, because it is a Christ mass.

 

[Augustus]

What is the process that you think needs evidence of?

That re Christmas "Christianity hung painted tarps over the old pagan signs until enough people had either died out or forgotten." Should we not base historical argument on historical evidence rather than assumption?

Which "pagan" customs continued from pagan to modern times regarding Christmas? What evidence is there for any of this?

Was that Sol Invictus post supposed to be relevance to my position? I hope not. Because your post assumes a holiday, a date, and a time frame that have little to do with my position.

No, which is why it was not in the same post and didn't tag you. Was just pasting some stuff from the previous annual versions of this thread.

Second: The winter was littered with pagan holidays across Europe. For instance, Yule, Saturnalia, Lenaea, and assorted solstice bonfire festivals. We have firm evidence of all of those predating Christianity. The goal of the church was to convert from pagan practices to Christian practices. Part of doing that is necessarily to get people to stop their much more fun pagan winter rites and come to church. Replacing one celebration with another does not require it be on the Exact Same Day.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

All cultures develop seasonal festivals of various kinds, simply asserting that later ones must have been copied as a marketing ploy would require evidence.

Saturnalia and Christmas were celebrated in the same societies alongside each other for centuries. One did not "replace" the other.

What is the "firm evidence" for pre-Christian Yule?


The earliest source to mention Yule is a calendar of saints’ days dating to the 500s. This text, in Gothic, is in a palimpsest held at the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan. It contains the phrase fruma jiuleis, which means either ‘first part of Yule’ or ‘before Yule’. It’s often reported that the phrase is a gloss of the word ‘November’, equating the Roman month to a Gothic season: Landau (2006) has shown that ‘November’ doesn’t appear in the manuscript, though he accepts, on other evidence, that fruma jiuleis probably does refer to November or December anyway.
Yule was probably a season, and we have no evidence suggesting there was a celebration until the 8th C..

Where does the word jiuleis itself come from? Its linguistic origins are disputed. Landau argues (2009) that it’s derived from the biblical Jubilee (via Greek Ἰωβηλαῖος), and that already in the Gothic calendar it’s used as a nomen sacrum to refer to Jesus. That neglects the fact that some later forms of Yule in other languages display a velar fricative: Old English geohhol, Old Finnish (loanword) juhla. It’s more usual to infer an Indo-European origin (e.g. Koivulehto 2000). On the other hand, Landau is right to point out that Gothic jiuleis appears in a firmly Christian context, and centuries before any evidence of a non-Christian festival. I don’t think we have enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion on this point.

Our next reference to Yule appears in Bede’s De temporum ratione (‘on time-reckoning’), written around 730 in northern England, two centuries after the Gothic palimpsest. At §15 Bede lists off names of the lunar months in the English calendar. He states that giuli corresponded to two months, not one, namely December and January, and mentions that the English calendar was reckoned as starting on 25 December.

By the time of the Old English Martyrology, around the late 800s, 25 December itself is referred to as ‘the first Yule day’ (þone ærestan geohheldæg: Martyrology 25 Dec.), and December and January are known as ‘former Yule’ and ‘after Yule’ respectively (ærra geola, æftera geola: Martyrology start of Dec., 1 Jan.).

The use of Yule for month names is perhaps more suggestive of a season than a festival. Bede does mention something that looks like a pagan festival, though. He tells us that the New Year in the English calendar, corresponding to 25 December in the Roman calendar, was called modranicht or mothers’ night. Not mother’s night, as it’s often reported: Old English modra is plural. Now, Bede can’t be trying to cast modranicht as a fixed date in the Julian calendar, or equate modranicht and Christmas in any religious sense. What he’s saying is that modranicht was the New Year; the New Year was reckoned as starting on the winter solstice; and the solstice is 25 December, which also happens to be the date of Christmas. (See above on the solstice being traditionally reckoned as 25 December in the Julian calendar.)

Evidence about Yule customs appears from the late 800s onwards, in Old Norse texts. At this point we also start to see distinctly pagan features. I don’t just mean Norse sagas: the sagas have tons of references to Yule (Old Norse jól), but they’re half a millennium after Bede. The earliest references are in poetry. The first is in the Hrafnsmál (raven’s song), reliably dated to the second half of the 800s. Stanza 6 refers to the custom of drinking a toast at Yule. Another less direct reference appears in the Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar (poem of Helgi Hjorvarth’s son), which is a patchwork of multiple sources, probably mostly dating to the 900s. This poem mentions the custom of drinking a toast too, along with a vow made over the pledging-cup, at stanza 32. The Helgakviða doesn’t name the festival: jól only appears in the prose frame-narrative, written later; it also refers to a ‘sacred boar’ (sónargölt-).

source

 

[ppp]

That re Christmas "Christianity hung painted tarps over the old pagan signs until enough people had either died out or forgotten." Should we not base historical argument on historical evidence rather than assumption?

Which "pagan" customs continued from pagan to modern times regarding Christmas? What evidence is there for any of this?

You seem to think that I am arguing that Christmas is a pagan holiday. What I am arguing is that when Christians invented their festivals that they placed them deliberately at the times that they did. And while I am not arguing that Christmas is a pagan holiday, it is the creation of people who already had a culture of which they were part. And that they placed their festivals for multiple reasons including how those choices would best serve their very aggressive (and ongoing) campaign of conversion.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

All cultures develop seasonal festivals of various kinds, simply asserting that later ones must have been copied as a marketing ploy would require evidence.

Again, not talking about copying. I am talking decisions on placement. Deliberate decisions that are informed by the Christian foundational and driving mandate of conversion.

Saturnalia and Christmas were celebrated in the same societies alongside each other for centuries. One did not "replace" the other.

Augustine, Bede, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom all documented pre-existing pagan festivals, complained bitterly about the enduring popularity of these customs even after Christianization began.

Of course it took centuries. Cultural subsumption and erasure takes centuries. It is either naive or disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise.

The earliest source to mention Yule is a calendar of saints’ days dating to the 500s.

You are confusing the mention of the word 'Yule' for documentation of the activity. A simple google shows that while Tacitus did not document the word 'Yule', he did document the rituals, sacrifices, festivals, and communal gatherings consistent with Yule in his Germania written in 98CE.

For that matter, Christian historians routinely documented local cultural practices throughout the Christian diaspora.

 

[metis]

Simply, Christmas is not pagan--period.

 

[Augustus]

You seem to think that I am arguing that Christmas is a pagan holiday. What I am arguing is that when Christians invented their festivals that they placed them deliberately at the times that they did. And while I am not arguing that Christmas is a pagan holiday, it is the creation of people who already had a culture of which they were part. And that they placed their festivals for multiple reasons including how those choices would best serve their very aggressive (and ongoing) campaign of conversion.

This assumes that the reason for dating Christmas was to create a festival, however the evidence does not support that.

The dating of Christmas to 25 December seems to significantly predate any actual festivities on 25 December. It is tangentially related do the dating of Easter, and this is related to the dating of Passover.

It also likely dates to a period when Christians were still being persecuted for not adopting pagan practices.

Augustine, Bede, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom all documented pre-existing pagan festivals, complained bitterly about the enduring popularity of these customs even after Christianization began.

Pagans had festivals.

Agrarian societies had seasonal festivals.

No one is doubting that.

If people assert that this means Christian festivals must have been copying these as a marketing ploy then that would require evidence.

Can you name any traditions that existed in pagan winter festivals, medieval Christian festivals and modern Christmas?

Arguments tend to be “Druids liked mistletoe, we know that 1500 years later people were using mistletoe for a Christmas decoration, therefore they must have got it from the druids.”

So the dating seems not to be based on a marketing ploy and while we can speculate about traditions, most things we associate with Christmas seem to be far more modern.

Cultural continuity is possible, but not really backed by much evidence. People in similar environments independently finding different symbolic meanings in their environs is also very plausible.

You don’t need to appropriate the idea fire and light matters in cold, dark, deadly winters.

You are confusing the mention of the word 'Yule' for documentation of the activity. A simple google shows that while Tacitus did not document the word 'Yule', he did document the rituals, sacrifices, festivals, and communal gatherings consistent with Yule in his Germania written in 98CE.

For that matter, Christian historians routinely documented local cultural practices throughout the Christian diaspora.

We certainly know Yule had nothing to do with the dating of Christmas as this didn’t happen in Northern Europe.

What evidence do you think exists that links what Tacitus says about Germanics to the evolution of Christmas and its traditions?

 

[Kathryn]

I think it depends entirely on one's focus.

 

[Altfish]

I know I put this up every year, but I think it's a complicated topic.

My Xmas is pagan

 

[Kathryn]

My Xmas is pagan

And mine is not at all!

 

[ppp]

This assumes that the reason for dating Christmas was to create a festival.

That sentence does not even make sense, let alone reflect what I said.

Pagans had festivals.

Agrarian societies had seasonal festivals.

No one is doubting that.

Correct. Correct. Correct.

If people assert that this means Christian festivals must have been copying these as a marketing ploy then that would require evidence.

Why? When FedEx bought Kinko's, they changed the sign to FedEx Kinkos for about a decade before just changing it to FedEx. During hat time they slowly changed the internal workings of those stores to ingrate them into the overall FedEx multinational institution. No one would argue that was not marketing. I see no substantive difference. If you do, then put words to it.

Can you name any traditions that existed in pagan winter festivals, medieval Christian festivals and modern Christmas?

This seems like an idle question just to make me type stuff. If there is a common tradition in all three, then how does that disprove your position? If there is no common tradition in all three, how does that disprove my position?

Arguments tend to be “Druids liked mistletoe, we know that 1500 years later people were using mistletoe for a Christmas decoration, therefore they must have got it from the druids.”

You are still on the copying schtick. As I have said several times, I am not talking about copying. You do not seem to get that.

I am not talking about copying.
I am not talking about copying.
I am not talking about copying.

If you cannot adjust to that, then there is no point in your replying.

 

[Augustus]

That sentence does not even make sense, let alone reflect what I said.

You claimed:

they placed their festivals for multiple reasons including how those choices would best serve their very aggressive (and ongoing) campaign of conversion.

The dating of the day Jesus was born seems to have been done because people wanted to calculate the date Jesus was born.

If this is the case then it has absolutely nothing to do with any marketing ploy.

It is not surprising that some Christians may have been interested in working out when their saviour was born simply to know this.

People actually starting to celebrate this day seems to have been a later development a century or so later.

I am not talking about copying.

The coopting of local festivals by New rulers is standard operating procedures for invaders of any religion or non religions. That just good PR and marketing.

If neither the date or the activities were “co-opted”then they are hardly hanging “painted tarps over the old pagan signs”

You simply have old traditions dying out and new ones emerging.

There were festivals at any time of the year, so it would be impossible to not find specious similarities even between entirely unconnected traditions.

 

[ppp]

The dating of the day Jesus was born seems to have been done because people wanted to calculate the date Jesus was born.

[shrug] maybe. maybe not. I guess some wanted to calculate. I guess some didn't. I don't see that it matters. Also, you are still stuck on specific dates. As my position does not hinge on specific dates, it has nothing to do with me.

If this is the case then it has absolutely nothing to do with any marketing ploy.

Your leap of logic escapes me. There is no connective reasoning between your if and your then.

If neither the date or the activities were “co-opted”then they are hardly hanging “painted tarps over the old pagan signs”

Winter festival A coopts winter festival B. Are they on the same date? Who cares?
Also, Christmas does not have a specific date. You are confusing what you are used to with the historic record.

You simply have old traditions dying out and new ones emerging.

Not passively. Christianity actively and aggressively worked to stop out completing traditions via cultural, political, and violent methods through almost its entire tenure on the planet. Stomp. Stomp. Stomp. Let's not pretend that Christians were not actively working to kill those traditions through any and every mean at their disposal.

 

[ppp]

There were festivals at any time of the year, so it would be impossible to not find specious similarities even between entirely unconnected traditions.

Indeed there are. And the festivals tend to reflect the tradition associations that people make with that time of year. Jesus as the source of divine light and hope reentering the world of darkness. A quick search shows that Clement, Origen and Justin Martyr all expounded on Jesus bringing divine illumination to a spiritually darkened humanity and Jesus being the "Sun of Righteousness" who renews and guides humanity toward divine truth.

You don't have to copy previous holidays. Just make the themes of your holiday familiar enough to resonate with the existing populace. Light, hope, and the yielding darkness is thematically ubiquitous

 

[England my lionheart]

I know I put this up every year, but I think it's a complicated topic.

I say yes,many festivals match the phases of the moon used by the early farmers,makes sense.

 

[Augustus]

Also, you are still stuck on specific dates. As my position does not hinge on specific dates, it has nothing to do with me.

The dating to winter seems to have been a calculation derived from Easter via the annunciation (and ultimately Passover).

Nothing about the date, season, approximate time of year etc has anything to do with pagan customs or marketing ploys.

Your leap of logic escapes me. There is no connective reasoning between your if and your then.

If the dating of Christmas was the result of theological speculation unconnected to any actual desire to create a major festival (something that only emerged centuries later), then they didn’t place it in Winter as a marketing ploy as you claimed.

It is in winter because that's when they thought it happened.

Not passively. Christianity actively and aggressively worked to stop out completing traditions via cultural, political, and violent methods through almost its entire tenure on the planet. Stomp. Stomp. Stomp. Let's not pretend that Christians were not actively working to kill those traditions through any and every mean at their disposal.

Some were, others weren't.

A somewhat facile reduction of diverse, centuries long processes in wide geographic areas with vastly different cultures and institutions.

There was no singular "Christianity" or "The Church" as pre-modern society lacked the communication and transportation infrastructure to create uniform, centralised entities.

Even if we assume they were all at it all of the time, you would still need to provide some evidence that either the timing or the festivities were an attempt to "co-opt local festivals".

Easter is in the spring, people had spring festivals too. The dating for easter comes from Passover though, so this is a coincidence not co-opting.

You don't have to copy previous holidays. Just make the themes of your holiday familiar enough to resonate with the existing populace. Light, hope, and the yielding darkness is thematically ubiquitous

And to become thematically ubiquitous, it likely required numerous independently evolving trends as people find new ways to create meaning from things in their environment. As such the assumption that they are purposely crafting narratives as a crude marketing ploy is not the default assumption.

Any religion is going to contain cultural features based on the society it emerged from, that is obvious, that is simply the wellspring on which to draw from, and connecting Jesus to light and hope happened before people celebrated Christmas anyway.

As noted previously regarding Sol:

[This] anthropomorphic representation of the visible "planet," and as such is a cosmic symbol rather than a polytheistic god. further emphasized by the zodiac around him and the four seasons accompanying him. This is the most plausible interpretation-given the problems which would arise if we were to treat these as images of the Roman polytheistic sun god. forcing us to explain why he dominated the floors of no fewer than four synagogues-and any lingering doubts about that interpretation were removed by the recent discovery of yet another mosaic floor of this type, in which the head of Sol was replaced by a radiant disc

The most prolific imagery related to Sol (and Luna) treats the sun not as a god but as symbol. and despite the polytheistic religious source of the anthropomorph iconography employed. the actual cosmic-symbolic connotations of this imagery were so well understood that it could be employed without significant variations by pagans. Jews, and Christians alike...


Assuming that Jews must have been using iconography of Sol as a "marketing ploy" to attract pagans, or as an attempt to "coopt” would be incorrect. It's just a decoration drawn from a common cultural heritage.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I know I put this up every year, but I think it's a complicated topic.

I was just remarking to my son yesterday that 'tis the season for the usual plethora of "Christmas is pagan" stuff. Here are my usual thoughts.

1. When you take a tradition and repurpose it, it becomes a new tradition. I think Christians have a very good point that they took evergreens and yule logs and "baptised" them. What was pagan for pagans is now Christian for Christians.

2. There is usually someone arguing that December 25 celebrates the birth of Mithras, and this is why it was chosen for Christmas. My research found this NOT to be the case. One has only to understand that 4th century Christians were very superstitious about the vernal equinox which on the Julian calendar was March 25: they believed that the world was created on that day, that Jesus died on that day, and that Mary conceived on that day. December 25 aka the winter solstice is simply nine months later, if you see the reasoning. IOW, nothing to do with Mithras or Sol Invictus.