Originally posted by Raphael
View Post
I've actually seen a good argument for a December 25th / January 8th date that comes from a Jewish belief that a prophet departs this world on the same day of the year that he was conceived. When Jesus crucified? Passover. Which is on overage (depending on the lunar cycles) 9 months before Christmas.
It was in an old Parchment and Pen blog can't find it now, but here is another one that argues for the date for other reasons:
http://credohouse.org/blog/on-what-date-was-christ-born
This old Biblical Archaeology Review article delves into it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091214.../christmas.asp
It was in an old Parchment and Pen blog can't find it now, but here is another one that argues for the date for other reasons:
http://credohouse.org/blog/on-what-date-was-christ-born
This old Biblical Archaeology Review article delves into it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091214.../christmas.asp
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
To elaborate, from something I wrote in response to some Jesus Mythers on another website a few years ago (and I might have posted here later):
A festival for Sol Invictus on Dec. 25 was only established c. 274 or 275 AD by an emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.
OTOH, Christians had been marking the birth of Christ as taking place on December 25th since at least 204 AD, as the Commentary on the prophet Daniel[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th[2]. Back then it was assumed that truly righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He was must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.
The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)[3]1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.
2.3.
OTOH, Christians had been marking the birth of Christ as taking place on December 25th since at least 204 AD, as the Commentary on the prophet Daniel[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th[2]. Back then it was assumed that truly righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He was must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.
The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)[3]1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.
2.3.
Comment