From steve.hayes@f20.n7106.z5.fidonet.org Sat Jan 1 22:43:10 1994 Received: from kudu.ru.ac.za by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA04379; Sat, 1 Jan 94 22:43:10 EST Received: by kudu.ru.ac.za (Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0pGJib-000MkLC; Sun, 2 Jan 94 05:43 EET Message-Id: Date: 01 Jan 94 06:50:05 To: christian@cs.rutgers.edu From: Steve.Hayes@f20.n7106.z5.fidonet.org Subject: Views of history To: christian@cs.rutgers.edu In a note of <28 Dec 1993 00:37>, John D. Kirszenberg wrote: JDK>We don't really know what day Christ was born. Eastern JDK>orthodox JDK>Christianity celebrates his birth several weeks after we do. JDK>Some hundreds JDK>of years ago, we were celebrating his birth in March, because JDK>the JDK>calaendar went out of sink. The 1/4 days per year adjusted on JDK>leap years JDK>was unknown. Today we celibrate his birth in December, JDK>because He JDK>represents the light of man (astrologically the Winter JDK>Solstic!). JDK>Our celebration of Easter is also dependent upon the lunar and JDK> JDK>astrological calendar. JDK> JDK>Our view of history is distorted and presented to us based JDK>upon the JDK>bias of the historian. Have you ever noticed that in the JDK>school courses JDK>on world history, only the western Christian views are JDK>presented? There are some distortions caused by the bias of the historian, yes. The Enlightenment ideal of presenting history "as it actually happened" is probably unattainable. All historical writing is subjective. But in the bit I have quoted above the distortion goes beyond this, by distorting easily ascertainable facts. The Gregorian and Julian calendars differ by 13 days. At the moment Christians who follow the Julian calendar celebrate Christmas on 7 January (Gregorian). The Gregorian calendar was first introduced in 1582 by the Roman Catholic Church, and Protestants and Orthodox did not accept it until much later. The Russian Orthodox Church still follows the Julian calendar, so in Russia Christmas will be celebrated on 7 January. These are easily ascertainable facts and could be checked in most almanacs and encyclopaedias. On less certain grounds, it may be noted that Christians probably did not celebrate the birth of Christ much before the fourth century, and when they did, the celebration of his birth was linked to his baptism, which was celebrated on January 6. The Armenian church still takes this line, I believe, and they celebrate Christ's birth on that date in the Julian calendar (January 19 Gregorian). So there are thus three Gregorian dates on which Christians may celebrate the Nativity - 25 December (most Western Christians and New Calendrist Orthodox), 7 January (Old Calendrist Orthodox) and 19 January (Armenians). As far as I know, none of them have celebrated it in March. There has been much speculation about why Christians began celebrating the birth of Christ in the 4th century apart from his baptism. There seems to be little historical evidence for ANY of the speculations - they are mainly guesswork on the part of the speculators. The one that seems most plausible to me is that the Nativity began to be celebrated at about the time of the Arian controversy, and this also coincided with a relaxation of the persecution of Christians, which made it possible for Christians to visit the scenes of Jesus' earthly life, and therefore stimulated a greater interest in the events of his earthly life. The mother of the Emperor Constantine took the lead in this, and claimed to have discovered the corss that Jesus was crucified on. I believe that these two factors led to the birth of Jesus becoming a separate celebration apart from his baptism. The evidence for this is circumstantial, not direct. As for the date, it may be noted that the Jewish New Year usually falls on or about 25 September. Luke 1:26 could be read as implying that Jesus was conveived 6 months later - March 25, when Christians celebrate the feast of the Annunciation. The normal human gestation period is about 9 months, which takes it to December 25. I have NO historical evidence for that theory whatsoever, but none of the other theories I have seen put forward have been supported by historical evidence either. The date of Pascha is more certainly determined by the Jewish calendar. The difference between Eastern and Western Christians here is more conspicuous, because in the East Pascha is always set to follow 14 Nisan, and may not precede it. In the West Easter sometimes precedes 14 Nisan, and hence the Orthodox Pascha is often celebrated later than the Western Easter. There is no historical evidence that the Christian church ever taught reincarnation. Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: palo@netcom.com (Gerry Palo) Subject: Re: "Proper" date to put out Nativity scene? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) References: <5737h8$hbh@geneva.rutgers.edu> <57dpat$3uf@geneva.rutgers.edu> <57j3b6$aor@geneva.rutgers.edu> <57tk4p$dlg@geneva.rutgers.edu> Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article <57tk4p$dlg@geneva.rutgers.edu>, Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote: >In article <57j3b6$aor@geneva.rutgers.edu>, > palo@netcom.com (Gerry Palo) wrote: >snip > >>All in all, whatever the astronomical coincidences and parallels to pagan >>festivals might have been, the evidence for a December 25 Nativity is as >>strong or stronger than for any other time of year. I will post the >>details about the course of Abijah if anyone is interested. > > >Gerry, please do. > >This is interesting and totally new to me.... Here it is, Gerry There is indication in Luke that, together with extant records, can pinpoint the December date more exactly, namely the temple schedule containing the course of Abijah, in which Zecharias served at the time the annunciation of the birth of John was made to him. According to the Old Testament, this would place the birth of John some time in spring, with that of Jesus six months later in the fall. But, as Ormond Edwards shows, a contemporary record, from AD 70, puts the birth of John at the end of June. >From Ormond Edwards' "The Time of Christ: A Chronology of the Incarnation" Floris Books, Edinburgh. ISBN 0-86315-030-6. Copyright The Christian Community, 1986: John the Baptist "We shall first examine a little more closely the timing of the annunciation of John's birth. Luke (1:5,8) states that tat the time John's father Zechariah was serving in the Temple belonging, as he did, to the priests' course of Abijah. Chronological interpretation of this statement is not unproblematic. According to the First Book of the Chronicles (24:7-9) the first course to serve in the rota was Jehoiarib, which was appointed to serve for a week commencing on the sabbath, before being relieved by the next course. The course of Abijah, to which Zechariah belonged, was the eighth of twenty-four courses. Unfortunately we are not told the time of year when each course served. Jewish date Julian date Course Ab 8-14 August 5-11 1 Jehoiarib Ab 15-21 August 12-18 2 Jedaiah Ab 22-28 August 19-25 3 Harim Ab 29-Elul 6 Aug 26-Sep 1 4 Seorim Elul 7-13 September 2-8 5 Malchijah Elul 14-20 September 9-15 6 Mijamin Elul 21-27 September 16-22 7 Hakkoz Elul 28-Tishri 4 September 23-29 8 Abijah Table 5. Priests' courses due to serve in AD 70. "We do know, however, that the first course of Jehoiarib was serving on Ab 9, August 6, AD 780 when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. In both Talmuds, the Tosefta (A Tannaitic collection only less ancient than the Mishnah) and in the Chronicle Seder Olam Tabbah, Rabbi Jose ben Halafta (c. AD 150) is reported on this point (Beckwith 1977). 'Rabbi Jose said, "Fortunate things happen on a fortunate day, and evil things on an evil day. For as the first temple was destroyed on a Sunday, the year after a sabbatical year, when the course of Jehoiarib was on duty, on Ab 9, so it was with the second temple".' Had the Temple not been destroyed in AD 70, they would have continued to serve as in Table 5. "... Each course served one week twice a year, apart from the joint participation of all courses at the time of the pilgrim festivals. Table 5 shows that Abijah was due to serve at the new year in the autumn of AD 70. Assuming that the pattern repeats each year Zechariah also would have served at new year in 2 BC. This corresponds to a birth at the traditional midsummer. "Luke informs us that a large number of people were present while Zechariah was making the offering, ' the whole number of people' presumably implying that the day was of more than ordinary importance. Early Christian writers sometimes treated Zechariah in an unwarranted fashion as the high priest entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, Tishri 10. Table 5 would identify the special day as the autumn new year's day Tishri 1, October 1, 2 BC. John's birth would then follow nine months later around AB 9, June 30, 1 BC. Jesus of Nazareth "Luke (1:26) places the annunciation of the birth of Jesus six (lunar) months after that of John, that is on Nisan 1, March 26, 1 BC. The resultant date of the Nativity, which was in antiquity reckoned to follow after a gestation period of 10 sidereal months (273 days) is Tebeth 9, December 25, 1 BC." -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado palo@netcom.com