Friday, December 25, 2020

Joseph F. Kelly – Catholic scholar and author of The Origins of Christmas

 


An online article—“The Birth of Christmas” (link)—by Joseph F. Kelly, that I had read a little over a week ago, prompted me to order a book referenced therein by the same author: The Origins of Christmas.

I received the above book earlier this week and finished reading it this morning. The book—as too the aforementioned article—validates a number of elements concerning Christmas that I had been taught as a child and young adult. The elements of which I speak include: Jesus beyond any reasonable doubt WAS NOT born on December 25th; speculation on when Jesus was born did not start until the 3rd century; from the writings of the 3rd century that have survived only one undisputed author mentioned Dec. 25th as the possible date of Jesus’ birth—Sextus Julius Africanus; Dec. 25th was most likely adopted by Christians in the 4th century to compete with/counter three pagan feasts—the cult of Deus Sol Invictus, that of the Persian deity Mithra, and the feastival of Saturnalia which honored Saturn, the god of prosperity.

From past experience, I suspect few Christians will take the time to delve into Dr. Kelly’s research. Personally speaking, I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the origins of Christmas, and to date, have found no substantial data to negate Dr. Kelly’s assessments.


Grace and peace,

David

9 comments:

David Waltz said...

Confirmation concerning a number of the issues raised by Joseph F. Kelly—in his above referenced article and book—can be found in the following Catholic Encyclopedia entry:

Christmas


Grace and peace,

David

leeseykay said...

Dave, hey.

I read the article to which you linked. I found Kelly's analysis of the extant literature to be reasonable. I have not read the book. Since you remarked that "Jesus beyond any reasonable doubt WAS NOT born on December 25th" I was expecting arguments from beliefs about shepherds in December, or John the Baptist necessarily being born who knows when. I saw nothing in the article though, that would make Dec. 25 to be less likely than any of the other 365 or 366 days of the year. Does the book give some reason why late December is impossible?

On another note, you mentioned that you found that the book "validates a number of elements concerning Christmas that I had been taught as a child and young adult. Would these teachings that you had received include an interpretation of the facts which necessarily proves that the Roman Catholics were guilty of synthesizing paganism with Christianity? I also read the Catholic Encyclopedia article. I believe it was published in 1913. Long before either of us were born, the Catholic Church was fearlessly approving of this material. Joseph Kelly appears to be Catholic. The authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia would presumably be Catholic. My point in mentioning this is that even if the Roman Christians deliberately introduced Dec. 25th in conjunction with a pagan festival, it remains to be demonstrated that this implies sinister motives.

Do you find that what Prof. Kelly published a few years ago and what the Catholic Encyclopedia published over a 100 years ago, is problematic for Catholics? Would it likely mean that the early Roman Church compromised the faith? Unless Kelly's book has more explosive information against Dec. 25th, I would tend to think that of all of the 365 or 366 choices, if I had to guess, I would say Christ was born on Dec. 25th. This would be in consideration of Julius Africanus, and other well-known arguments that are inconclusive, and most of all my faith in the Roman Catholic Church. I am not saying it is defined teaching at all. It is undefined. But lots of true things are undefined...and that's okay!

God bless, and Merry Christmas!

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for taking the time to share some of your thoughts on my new post; you wrote:

==I have not read the book. Since you remarked that "Jesus beyond any reasonable doubt WAS NOT born on December 25th" I was expecting arguments from beliefs about shepherds in December, or John the Baptist necessarily being born who knows when. I saw nothing in the article though, that would make Dec. 25 to be less likely than any of the other 365 or 366 days of the year. Does the book give some reason why late December is impossible?==

First, “beyond any reasonable doubt” is not the same as “impossible”; impossible excludes a Dec. 25th date with 100% certainty, whilst the former concludes that when all the data/facts is objectively examined, the probably that Jesus was born on 25th is extremely weak.

Second, Dr. Kelly’s book goes beyond the article in providing the historical development found within the writings of the Church Fathers concerning the birth of Jesus. When all the germane data is examined, the probability that Dec. 25th was the actual date of the birth of Jesus becomes extremely low. Personally speaking here, I would say even lower than the probability that the resurrection of Jesus was a hoax fabricated by his apostles.

Have more to share concerning the rest of your post, but alas, it will have to wait until my return from our biweekly shopping trip over the river—the Lord willing.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Rory,

Continuing where I left off earlier today, you also wrote:

==On another note, you mentioned that you found that the book "validates a number of elements concerning Christmas that I had been taught as a child and young adult. Would these teachings that you had received include an interpretation of the facts which necessarily proves that the Roman Catholics were guilty of synthesizing paganism with Christianity?==

Yes, it was one of the examples provided in the apologetic arsenal of the WTB&S that was employed to demonstrate that the original, pure Christian teachings had been corrupted by the adoption of practices and teachings from paganism.

==…even if the Roman Christians deliberately introduced Dec. 25th in conjunction with a pagan festival, it remains to be demonstrated that this implies sinister motives.==

I certainly do not believe that the adoption and promotion of Jesus’ birth on Dec. 25th was done so with any notion of "sinister motives” by those who did so; just the opposite, I suspect that those who introduced and promoted it thought some sort of ‘good' would come from it.

But then, I would have the say the same concerning John Paul II’s—and many other influential post-Vatican II Catholics—overt embracing, and emphasis, on the so-called ‘truths' contained in non-Catholic religions.

One could also point to the push to eliminate capital punishment—I suspect Pope Francis and the legions of other folk promoting this reversal of former teaching on the subject are convinced that ‘good' will come from it, and that there are no “sinister motives” behind the move.

== Do you find that what Prof. Kelly published a few years ago and what the Catholic Encyclopedia published over a 100 years ago, is problematic for Catholics?==

No, and this because there has been in place a long standing Catholic tradition that the Church has the authority to adopt and ‘Christianize’ aspects of paganism. John Henry Newman addressed this tradition with the following:

>>Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted ; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found ; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class.>>( An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pp. 371, 372 - bold emphasis mine.)


Grace and peace,

David

leeseykay said...

If you do not know, we are now celebrating the Octave of the Epiphany which is a feast celebrated in the East and West with a longer pedigree even than Christmas. It is on this day, and the weeks following that we observe, the Visit of the Magi, Jesus' Baptism in the Jordan, and the Wedding Feast of Cana. I thought you might find it interesting that without entering in to details, Dom Gueranger cites what he considers credible research, which claims that the Magi visited on Jan. 6th, and also that the date of Jesus' baptism was on the same day:

We read:

But did these three Mysteries really take place on this day? Is the Sixth of January the real anniversary of these great events? As the chief object of this work is to assist the devotion of the Faithful, we purposely avoid everything which would savour of critical discussion; and with regard to the present question, we think it enough to state that Baronius, Suarez, Theophilus Raynaldus, Honorius de Sancta-Maria, Cardinal Gotti, Sandini, Benedict XIV, and an almost endless list of other writers, assert that the Adoration of the Magi happened on this very day. That the Baptism of our Lord, also, happened on the Sixth of January, is admitted by the severest historical critics, even by Tillemont himself, and has been denied by only two or three. The precise day of the miracle of the marriage feast of Cana is far from being as certain as the other two mysteries, though it is impossible to prove that the Sixth of January was not the day. For us the children of the Church, it is sufficient that our Holy Mother has assigned the commemoration of these three manifestations for this Feast; we need nothing more to make us rejoice in the triple triumph of the Son of Mary.

---The Liturgical Year, Vol. 3, P. 109, By Dom Prosper Gueranger, OSB, St. Bonaventure Publications (2000)

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Yesterday, in the combox of another thread (link) you wrote:

==So did you miss my post about Epiphany, with the claims that the date is Jan. 6, with significant support from the scholars? I have different questions depending on whether you accept, deny, or at least find plausible what I quoted from Dom Gueranger. You have stated your position about Christmas. What about the date for Epiphany, especially the visit of the Magi, which is on the Christmas thread?==

First, I read your Jan. 10th comment the day it was posted; but at that time, did not think a response was expected—clearly I got that wrong (there goes my perfect year ). Second, I have not researched the Epiphany as deeply as I have Christmas; as such, I am going to rely on what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say—note the following:

>>I. HISTORY.—As its name suggests, the Epiphany had its origin in the Eastern Church. There exists indeed a homily of Hippolytus to which (in one MS. only) is affixed the lemma eis ta hagia theophaneia [not epiphaneia: Kellner]; it is throughout addressed to one about to be baptized, and deals only with the Sacrament of Baptism. It was edited by Bonwetsch and Achelis (Leipzig, 1897); Achelis and others consider it spurious. The first reference about which we can feel certain is in Clement (Strom., I, xxi, 45, in P.G., VIII, 888), who writes: "There are those, too, who over-curiously assign to the Birth of Our Savior not only its year but its day, which they say to be on 25 Pachon (May 20) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. But the followers of Basilides celebrate the day of His Baptism too, spending the previous night in readings. And they say that it was the 15th of the month Tybi of the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. And some say that it was observed the 11th of the same month." Now, 11 and 15 Tybi are 6 and January 10, respectively. The question at once arises: did these Basilidians celebrate Christ's Nativity and also His Baptism on 6 and January 10, or did they merely keep His Baptism on these days, as well as His Nativity on another date? The evidence, if not Clement's actual words, suggests the former. It is certain that the Epiphany festival in the East very early admitted a more or less marked commemoration of the Nativity, or at least of the Angeli ad Pastores, the most striking "manifestation" of Christ's glory on that occasion. Moreover, the first actual reference to the ecclesiastical feast of the Epiphany (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXI, ii), in 361, appears to be doubled in Zonaras (XIII, xi) by a reference to the same festival as that of Christ's Nativity. Moreover, Epiphanius (her., li, 27, in P.G., XLI, 936) says that the sixth of January is hemera genethlion toutestin epiphanion, Christ's Birthday, i.e. His Epiphany. Indeed, he assigns the Baptism to 12 Athyr, i.e. November 6. Again, in chapters xxviii and xxix (P.G., XLI, 940 sq.), he asserts that Christ's Birth, i.e. Theophany, occurred on January 6, as did the miracle at Cana, in consequence of which water, in various places (Cibyra, for instance), was then yearly by a miracle turned into wine, of which he had himself drunk. It will be noticed, first, if Clement does not expressly deny that the Church celebrated the Epiphany in his time at Alexandria, he at least implies that she did not. Still less can we think that January 6 was then observed by the Church as holy. Moreover, Origen, in his list of festivals (Contra Celsum, VIII, xxii, P.G., XI, 1549), makes no mention of it

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

That the Epiphany was of later introduction in the West than the Christmas festival of December 25, has been made clear in the article Christmas. It is not contained in the Philocalian Calendar, while it seems most likely that December 25 was celebrated at Rome before the sermon of Pope Liberius (in St. Ambrose, De virg., iii, I, in P.L., XVI, 231) which many assign to December 25, 354.>> (LINK - print edition: Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909, V.504, 505—italics for book titles and bold emphasis mine.)

It sure seems to me that the general acceptance of Jan. 6th for the Epiphany is about as late as Dec. 25th for the birth of Jesus.


Grace and peace,

David

leeseykay said...

Dave, hey.

I have known for some time that a more or less universal calendar was centuries in the making. Whether or not these dates are precisely accurate, the Church eventually determined that they were the most appropriate for an annual review for the faithful of all of the historical record of the life, death, Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, and the historical record of His Church in time, from Pentecost to Judgment Day.

We do know when Jesus was crucified and rose again. Everything else has to be "fitted" around that known event if the Church is to give her children a sense of the chronology of their religion. In my opinion, if the exact dating of Christmas was never revealed to the Apostles, the Holy Ghost moved the Church to gradually introduce a program of catechesis for her faithful, that is appropriately miraculous, and could never be attributed to random dating.

I have had company for two weeks and although they just left, I am invited to a party that begins shortly. If interest continues, perhaps I could explain more thoroughly at some other time, why I think Catholics would lose much natural revelation that corresponds with supernatural revelation, if the celebrations connected to the mysteries of our faith were placed in different seasons than they have been now for close to 2,000 years.

Thanks,

R

PS: I have met a guy at work who played basketball at a Division 2 school in Alabama. But he is from Idaho and has played pick up games with Adam Morrison, John Stockton, and Stockton's kids. He loves Gonzaga, and says they are having a great year. I wouldn't mind getting interested in sports again. I have watched virtually nothing since the Covid started. Maybe the Bulldogs could do the trick?

Take care.

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

So glad you were able to make it back. Earlier today, you wrote:

==We do know when Jesus was crucified and rose again. Everything else has to be "fitted" around that known event if the Church is to give her children a sense of the chronology of their religion. In my opinion, if the exact dating of Christmas was never revealed to the Apostles, the Holy Ghost moved the Church to gradually introduce a program of catechesis for her faithful, that is appropriately miraculous, and could never be attributed to random dating.==

The above brings two points to mind; first, our Lord's promise to His apostles:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 16:19 – KJV)

Because Catholicism maintains that the bishops are rightful successors to the apostles (i.e. apostolic succession) the formation of a liturgical calendar that would become an integral aspect of the life and worship of the Church makes sense to me.

The second point I have in mind flows from the first and concerns the issue of sola scriptura. If one rejects apostolic succession—and the traditions that are developed/formed by the successors to the apostles—the celebration of Christmas sure seems to have no warrant. As such, I cannot help but maintain that the sola scripturian has no antidote to Origen’s negative exegesis.

==I have had company for two weeks and although they just left, I am invited to a party that begins shortly. If interest continues, perhaps I could explain more thoroughly at some other time, why I think Catholics would lose much natural revelation that corresponds with supernatural revelation, if the celebrations connected to the mysteries of our faith were placed in different seasons than they have been now for close to 2,000 years.==

I am quite interested to learn exactly how and what aspects of natural revelation would be lost.


Grace and peace,

David