Revisiting The Origin Of Christmas & Sol Invictus

Stone image of the Roman  Sun god Sol Invictus, bearing the inscription: "The most holy and sacred Sun"

As usual in our culturally and socially polarized country, much hullaballoo is made every year over the celebration of Christmas, using the words "Merry Christmas". Not to mention the possibility those nasty atheists and secularists are trying to "destroy" the holiday. Very seldom do any inquiring minds chill out long enough to investigate the actual origins of the holiday - which dates back to antiquity.

For example, we know the first certain record associating December 25th with the birthday of Sol Invictus is the Roman Chronography of AD 354 where, in the part known as the Philocalian Calendar, VIII Kal. Jan. is identified as N INVICTI CM XXX (Natalis Invicti; CM abbreviates circenses missus or circus races)  "Natalis Invictii" refers to the birth of Sol Invictus, not Christ. (See graphic attached of a Roman rendering of Sol Invictus). The celebratory factor in the inscription is punctuated by the fact XXX (30) races were to be scheduled in the Roman Circus. This would never be done to commemorate the exclusive birth of a Jewish Messiah! Even given that the Edict of Milan was formalized some 40 years earlier.

Coincidentally, this is also the earliest reference to December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. In a commemoration of Christian martyrs, the notation for VIII Kal. Jan. is natus Christus in Betleem Judeae ("Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea"). Because the Depositio Martyrum was completed in AD 336, the first celebration of Christmas can be dated to that year as well. In the list of consuls, there also is the note: "Dominus Iesus Christus natus est VIII kal. Ian".

Note that although the first celebration can be dated to the year 336, it was not formalized! As I noted in a post from December, 2011, the formalization wasn't until 29 years after the Council of Nicaea, in 354 A.D. Then the newly liberated Christians formally claimed December 25th - the designated original birth date of the Sun god Mithras - as their own nativity for Christ. This exactly parallels the timing already in the Chronography of AD 354 where, in the part known as the Philocalian Calendar,  the date first emerges in a written record.  We see then a confluence between Christ,  Sol Invictus (the Roman Sun god) and Mithras.

Regarding Mithras' birth date (also on Dec. 25th), one should note that just as Jesus' date of birth was ahistorical, Mithras' was as well. The assignment of ancient god-man births to this date is understandable given the ancients investment in agriculture, and the Winter solstice marked the day of shortest daylight giving way to increasing lengths of day through Spring. (See my earlier post on the Winter solstice.) 

Some who complain about Mithraism in general insist there's no evidence that Mithras was a great teacher. But this is belied in Ized 28. (We were introduced to this in our Comparative Religion class at Loyola, in 1966). In brief passages we see Mithras teaching the multitudes about son-ship and stewardship and the Logos-Trinity.  One trope used to try to demean the import of Mithras as an ancient god Man is that he was said to have "been born of a solid rock".  Hence, is worthy of belittlement.

The notion of Mithras being "born of a solid rock" can probably be traced to certain writings of early Church Father Justin Martyr, who analogized Peter as the mystic "Rock" of the Church ("Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church") and to the emergence of Mithraism with Mithras. Researcher J.M. Robertson ('The Origin Of Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World') speculates that Martyr's ruminations are "in touch with the Graecized but probably Semitic myth of the Rock-born Agdestis, son of Jupiter". 

In other words, not peculiar to Mithraism proper, but a subsequent syncretic addition which then became distorted into a "rock birth" by early Christians. Not surprisingly, probably because of the Agdestis- connection, Mithras is derived from the Latin "rock born" and that concept has been perpetuated with the name.

A number of ancient authors (e.g. Porphyry) bemoaned the catastrophic destruction of many of the original works at the hands of the Christians.  Nonetheless, we do have enough in Ized 28 of the Zendavesta to document much of Mithras' mythological basis. Perusing it there is no mention of battling a "bull" - which likely originated from the Graeco-Roman version of the myth, which was probably distorted by re-translations over centuries (much the same way the Christian New Testament has been).

In the actual Izeds (#23- #28) there’s no record of any “Bull”. There is a peripheral reference (by Porphyry) to Mithras as "the Bull of Demiurgos and lord of generation". But again, no "battle" with such. (so it's likely corrupted over time). Robertson (p. 121) speculates Porphyry's reference is actually based on a conceptual error mixing up the Mithraic seat at the equinoctial table (assigned to the Ram, Aries) "which also bears the sword of the Ram." He adds (ibid.): "The sword of the Ram is simply figured as a cross, since the sword IS a cross".

A much older version, probably more accurate,  is cited in Robertson's 'Pagan Christs' (p. 119) wherein he notes that according to a (Vendedadic) legend "Mithras shoots an arrow at a rock, and water gushes forth where the arrow strikes". The passage is believed by some scholars of pagan mystery religions to refer to either an incident where Mithras saves his followers who are lost in the desert, or that he uses his arrow to reveal an analog to the Judaeo-Christian Decalogue.

Aspects of Mithraism that later filtered into the Graeco-Roman world (in the form of emergent Mithraic cults) undoubtedly came from this text (the Izeds, wherein “Mithras” was chief and ruler) as well as others likely destroyed with the burning of the library at Alexandria. (See, e.g. J.M. Robertson’s ‘Pagan Christs’, 1966) . Many scholars believe the greater details including Mithras’ disciples, the full recounting of his miracles: including walking on water, raising the dead, changing water to wine etc. were in those destroyed manuscripts.

According to Plutarch, Mithraism first arrived in the Roman Empire through the Cilician pirates whom Pompey subdued, then brought back to Rome as slaves. (Many were actually believed to have been soldiers for whom Mithraism would have been the religion naturally embraced).

Mithraism was a mystery religion, so its historical legends would have always been more accessible than its precepts. Rituals were held in strictest confidence – available only to the select few - as a secret society would. (Much like today’s Free Masons who maintain absolute silence as regards their rituals.) As Frank Zindler notes (American Atheist, Vol. XXI), "no specific works of Mithraism are known since like other Mystery Cults, it centered around a secret or body of secrets only known to those initiated into the rites. Most of our knowledge of it is derived from the iconography of its temples”.

Another common canard is that Mithraists copied from Christians to fabricate their god -Man not the other way around. This is totally false, and can be ascertained from Tertullian’s writings combined with just minimal reasoning ability. My class notes, e.g. from my Comparative Theology course,  are fortunately still in one of my old file boxes with Exegesis notes. The main theme, to summarize, is that the course was based on the original writings of Church fathers, including Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Julius Firmicus – all referencing Mithraic scriptures and references therein.

After describing the “Lord’s Supper’ for example, Justin Martyr evinces outrage as he writes (from my notes):

“WHICH THE WICKED DEVILS HAVE IMITATED IN THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA, COMMANDING THE SAME THING TO BE DONE”

Tertullian also bears this out, scolding:

“The Devil, by the mysteries of his idols, IMITATES EVEN THE MAIN PARTS OF THE DIVINE MYSTERIES. HE ALSO BAPTIZES HIS FOLLOWERS IN WATER THAT PURIFIES THEM OF THEIR SINS”

As the notes indicate, a careless Christian reader might jump to the conclusion that the Mithraists copied from the Christians, but this simply isn’t so, on closer examination. The refutation of this notion inheres in the language of the same trio of Christian Fathers. They all speak, for example, of resemblance of Mithraic rites to Christian rites as being “the imitation of devils”.

But why such an obscure use of language, when they could simply have stated the Mithraists IMITATED their own works, and done? Why the need to introduce devils? This presumes a supernatural influence over and above ordinary human copying.

An answer becomes manifest when we examine more closely the words of Justin Martyr, who expressly argued that "the demons ANTICIPATED the Christian mysteries and prepared PARODIES of them BEFOREHAND"! (Pagan Christs, p. 118).

As Justin Martyr further writes (cf. from Loyola Theology notes):

"When I hear that Mithra was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent also counterfeited this!"

(Addendum in Comparative Theology notes: No one pretends the Pagan virgin myth in general is LATER than Christianity. Justin’s own words: "ANTICIPATED the Christian mysteries" can mean only one thing: he KNEW the Mithraic version PRECEDED the Christian version. What he said also underscored the arguments from Tertullian and Firmicus. He was so incensed that the Mithraists trumped the Christians' Savior myth on the timeline, that he attributed this to demonic work, aka the "imitation of devils".)

Robertson (op. cit., p. 121) also cites other common symbols that the Christians appropriated from Mithraic traditions, including the Agnus Dei, or "Lamb of God". As he notes:


"The Christian assimilation of Mithraism is still more clearly seen in the familiar Christian symbol in which Christ is represented as a lamb, carrying by one forefoot a cross."

The takeaway here? Celebrate Christmas by all means, but bear in mind it is actually the celebration of the birth of Mithras-Sol Invictus and the date itself is consistent with that of the winter solstice - or the "rebirth of the Sun".   Christians later copied this ancient pagan template for the nativity of their own god-Man, Jesus.

Exposing More of Larry Schweikart's Lies About Liberals

"I fear that if you're an educated conservative, and you've had the misfortune of reading this book, you've already pulled a good deal amount of hair out of your head like I have........Forget that Schweikart is an abominable writer and harms the conservative movement by making it look like buffoonery. IN FACT.......you know what? .....Just forget this book ever came out"  - Reviewer on Amazon.com

"Schweikart discredits lies that he himself invented and attributed to liberals to make himself appear the hero. It is like the exterminator who releases mice into your house then charges you to get rid of them. "   Reviewer on Amazon.com

We now examine a few more of the ridiculous lies Larry Schweikart attributes to liberals in his book, '48 Liberal Lies About American History' .   

Lie #12: The Founders Envisioned a "Wall of Separation" Between Church and State, Keeping Religious Influence Out of Government

Well, Larry might be excused here, since most fundamentalist-leaning, right wing  radicals don't seem to be aware of Thomas Jefferson's (1802) letter to Danbury Baptists:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

It thereby became an unspoken, unwritten principle that has been practiced on many judicial levels since. And it pretty well embraced Jefferson's (and Madison's) vision of keeping religious influence out of government. The most famous ruling validating it? The 1962 case brought by Madalyn Murray O'Hair which has kept prayer out of the public schools - as it should be.

Lie #18: Senator Joseph McCarthy Concocted the "Red Scare," and There Was Nothing to Fear from Communist Subversives

Most of us, especially from Wisconsin, know the murky history of Joe McCarthy - but evidently this bozo doesn't. We know, for example, that he fomented hysteria about the "Red scare" that reached into almost every U.S. Dept. and agency and at one time bloviated in a Senate hearing about an astounding number of "communists" at  State  and in the military that ran "into the thousands".. He eventually discredited himself by his overreach and unsupported exaggerations, though he ruined hundreds of lives with his insane demagoguery. You can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

One more interesting fact: It was during the 'Red scare' hysteria of the early 50s  that the Children's Crusade 'Know your Commies' cards came out, e.g.

Lie #21: Columbus Was Responsible for Killing Millions of Indians

 Blatant exaggeration and red herring. Columbus himself did not "kill millions of Indians" and no liberal of any sense ever said he did. This is another case of what one reviewer described as Schweikart's tactic of inventing the lies himself than attributing them to liberals - analogous to the exterminator who releases mice in your home then charges you to remove them.  Those who want the lowdown on the effects of the arrival of the Europeans, including Columbus, on native Americans,  can consult James Loewen's excellent and quality book, 'Lies My Teacher Told Me'.

The key aspect to note? The Europeans brought smallpox with them to the New World, as well as other diseases (e.g. measles) which devastated native populations. But, as Loewen also notes, there was indeed a genocide waged but not over one limited period (i.e. Columbus' arrival) but over hundreds of years. (Culminating in the "Indian Wars" fought in the American West, punctuated by many massacres - such as at Sand Creek in Colorado.)

Lie #27: Richard Nixon Sent Burglars into the Watergate Office Complex

Schweikart can maybe be pardoned for this howler, because he wrote his screed before all the Nixon tapes were released (including new ones only recently). But even then he might have been able to obtain the deathbed account of E. Howard Hunt, one of the Watergate burglars,  who 'fessed up that  he'd been sent to the Watergate complex by....who else? Nixon!   Bottom line: 'Tricky Dick' basically hung himself by keeping a tape system originally installed by JFK, and using it to the point every nefarious word or plan was faithfully recorded.  By the time of the Watergate investigation in 1973 his 'goose' was basically cooked. (Though his supporters to this day hate to admit it.)

Lie #28: Neither Ronald Reagan's Election nor the "Contract with America" Proved the Triumph of Conservative Ideas

No liberal of any sense ever  "denied" (or proclaimed as a 'lie')  that Reagan's two terms "proved" the triumph of conservative ideas, because one can't deny what never existed in the first place. . What we have said is that too many millions got suckered by Reagan's "aw shucks"  demeanor into buying into conservatism more than they otherwise might. Much of this mental hijacking was superbly described by neuroscientist Robert Ornstein in his 'New World, New Mind'.

Ornstein noted how this "old Mind" (the regressive mind)  of a nation or people can be ramped up collectively and reinforced if its leaders also display and act on their own 'old Mind' predjudices, beliefs, etc. For example( p. 172):

"..the old mind has never been so much in evidence in American politics as in the second half of the Reagan administration"

Ornstein observed that Reagan's 'avuncular' persona and smile (which essentially disengaged too many  Americans' critical thinking centers) made it much easier for them to buy into the "morning in America" pap and swill he was busy feeding them. Never mind the half million tossed into the streets from mental hospitals, or the conversion of the U.S. to the world's foremost debtor and so on.

The populace' old Mind was its own worst enemy in perceiving the very real damage Reaganites were perpetrating (which has more recently been emulated by the Bushies as well as  Bushie leftovers- i.e. neocons, in Obama's State Dept.. ) Orstein points to the (then) 'Star Wars' program as yet another example of 'old Mind' workings (p. 169):

"The Star Wars program represents the continuation of a mind blindness to trends that have long made military thinking one of the clearest examples of old mind functioning. The rigid, unimaginative training of those who choose military careers apparently reinforces the brain's natural tendency to focus on the immediate and the near term and especially, to count on the environment to remain unchanged. So obvious is this effect that the comment that 'generals are always preparing to fight the previous war' has become a text book commonplace. "

The takeaway was that despite the face these assorted conservo  clowns have put on (e.g. Gee Dumbya) Americans bought into them in enough numbers to put them into power (or keep them there)  where they wrecked the economy even before Obama arrived! Sadly, those like Reagan, Bush Jr. et al have exploited Americans' dumb "faith in the future" i.e. that Repukes will do things better, despite the fact their very core plans (preserving massive tax cuts for the wealthiest) will do the opposite!

But let's go on:

Lie #30: George W. Bush Was Selected, Not Elected, in 2000, and Votes Were Stolen on His Behalf

This is the truth. The theft of the 2000 election was described in detail, including the publication of actual documents from Florida Secretary of State Kathleen Harris showing how Choicepoint was hired to put more than 53,000 black voters in Duval County on felons' lists (they weren't but they were put there, because Harris knew most black voters were democrats). The entire background and evidence is available - for those who want it  - in Chapter One of Greg Palast's 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.'

The unlawful elimination of all those black voters allowed Bush to take the 27 electoral votes of Florida, though he lost the popular vote by over a half million. Hence, the evidence is there that Harris, Jeb Bush et al, stole the election on his behalf.  The  Fla. recounts to try to show Gore actually won were doomed from the start because they didn't include all counties. In any case, the voter rolls would still have been short those 153,000 banned black voters.

Still, the  abrupt stoppage of the vote recount by the Supreme Court effectively halted the process and amounted to a "selection" of Bush Jr., as Vince Bugliosi pointed out in his book, The Betrayal Of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution and Chose Our President .

The truth is a bitch.

Lie #37: Global Warming Is a Fact, and It's a Man-made, American-Driven Problem

Actually, all the evidence shows that this is the case.  Anthropogenic warming  is certainly as much a fact as just about anything in science can be expected to be, and the evidence is all around us from collapsing ice sheets and glaciers, to the instability of the polar vortex, to increasing intense storms and heat waves to acidification of the oceans. As for being "American -driven", it largely is. It is also a fact that we are offloading many of the worst carbon-laden fuels and also coal, and tar sands oil to China. Hence, much of their CO2 output is actually derived from what WE have dumped on them!

Lie #47: The Reagan Tax Cuts Caused Massive Deficits and the National Debt

Again, this is true, though portrayed by Schweikart as "a liberal lie."  The fact is that before the Reagan era America was still largely a creditor nation, more capital inflows than outflows, holding more debt from other nations than debt owed to them. Reagan changed the dynamic by going on a $2,1 TRILLION spending spree, mainly for military hardware and toys as well as allowing ridiculous cost overruns for common materials (e.g. $75 hammers $3,000 each toilets).  In the wake, and coupled with Reagan's tax cuts, the country went from mainly creditor to debtor and the situation has remained the same since - as tax cutting has become a fetish with the Reepos.

Final Lie: History Textbooks Used in Schools Are Unbiased and Not Politically Correct

Again, this is true, though portrayed by Schweikart as a liberal lie. The problem is not, however, so much "political correctness" as the refusal to look at all the blemishes, fractures and conflicts of our history. In other words, our history books are overly sanitized, a point noted by James Loewen. Do any of the current history texts examine the duplicity of the Warren Commission in its findings on the JFK assassination? Of course not. Do any of them examine the My Lai massacre committed by American troops in Vietnam? No. Do any of them really examine the betrayal of native Americans in assorted treaties (concerning their land) and the many massacres ...such as at Sand Creek here in Colorado, or at Wounded Knee?  What about the nation's track of growing inequality? Is there any examination of the historical factors that have led to this? What about the origin of Army Security and spy programs and how they were mounted against unions, workers? I could go on and on, as Loewen does - which is why he refers to 'Lies My Teacher Told Me' - the title of his book.

But then teachers are constrained by their tepid history curricula and textbooks. If those are avoidant of the underbelly of American history, the history teacher will be averse to exploring it too. (One reason why any real American history teacher also needs Howard Zinn's text : "A People's History of the United States" as an accompaniment.

Our kids get bored senseless by history because it's taught as settled events and assorted dates to be memorized, as opposed to a sequence of conflicts, many of which are ongoing. The aim ought to be not to whitewash our history but to show it with all its boils, pustules and follies as well as internecine, unsettled conflicts and divisive issues.

We do our students a disservice by teaching them the nation's history is immaculate and getting them to buy that we are the "exceptional people of the world". We aren't!  We are no different from all other nations, and the delusional belief we are "special" merely feeds our hubris.