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.

Primitive Prehuman Ancestor's Newly Constructed Face "Mesmerizing" - But Does It Indicate Emergence Of a "Soul"? No

The first relatively reliable "human like" face of one of our primitive primate ancestors (cf. WSJ, 'Human Ancestor's Face Is Found', August 29, p. A3) is a remarkable milestone.  It's even been described as "mesmerizing"  by  one paleo-anthropologist. This is given that the reconstructed face (left side of image) is incredibly lifelike yet derived from a skull (right side)  of a creature nearly 3.8 million years old "that stood on the cusp of apes and humans."

As the cited WSJ article points out (ibid.):

"The fossilized head bones reveal for the first time the blunt snout, broad cheeks and narrow forehead of a distant human relation called Australopithecus anamensis, who may have vied for survival in the primeval scrub of East Africa at the same time as the iconic human ancestor 'Lucy' and her kin".

According to paleoanthropologist Yohannes Haile- Selassie of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, who led the international team that uncovered the nearly complete cranium in Ethiopia::

"What we see is a very primitive face."

Added William Kimbel, director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University:

"It helps fill out a picture of the earliest human skull in a period that until now has been almost vacant in the fossil record.  It provides a baseline from which we can eventually see the emergence of the human face."

Some religionists, of course, may also see this as the biological cue for the emergence of the human soul.  As I wrote in my recent published  letter to Physics Today,  e.g.

Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6

on science and religion and why they are so mutually antagonistic:

"Pope Francis, while he acknowledges Darwinian evolution, is still not prepared to accept the wholly naturalistic process dependent on natural selection—mutation. Instead we read, “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve,” and “He [God] created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws [emphasis added] that He gave to each one so they would reach fulfillment.”

In other words, Francis accepted Darwinian evolution, but with a proviso: that a deity had to allow humans to develop according to "internal laws He gave each one...to reach fulfillment" .  In other words the attachment of an essential "individuality" meant there had to be an interjection of a "soul" at some point. As I went on to write: 

"if the role of random evolutionary forces is neglected and the creation of “souls” is given prominence, then the door of inquiry is left open to supernatural agents."

But of course this was precisely the Pope's intention. Because minus  an individual "soul" there is no meaning or basis for an afterlife and without an afterlife the hold of mainstream religion collapses. Declaring "sins", advancing dogmas and so on then becomes an irrelevant pastime for the clergy of whatever religion.

Frank Zindler, in a piece in The American Atheist ('Spirits, Souls and Clones') wrote:

"Catholics must believe that only a scheming deity can make a human soul. They must believe that it is this soul that makes a body human.... If it be admitted that our bodies evolved from the bodies of animals possessed of neither souls nor spirits, and that injections of souls or spirits are unitary acts of a god operating within the limits of space and time, embarrassing questions leap to mind.

It is certain that we are descended, generation after generation, from ancestors who are less human-like as the line of descent is traced back to Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus, or even more primitive primates. Nevertheless, it is also clear that no particular generation in this line differed any more from its parent generation than do we from our parents. So how did god decide which generation had become just human enough to warrant the infusion of souls?"

As I also wrote in a blog post last month (July 12):

"As we all know, and can be grown-up enough to say, neither the descendants of apes, or apes themselves possess "souls". There is only a brain, but it is ample to generate consciousness as I already showed in my 'Materialist Model of Consciousness'. Thus, when a human (or ape) dies, that's it. He is gone and there is nothing left - nothing to "punish" and nothing to go on. This hard fact may be why so many evangelicals refuse to accept evolution: they don't want to accept: a) they have no souls, and b) when they're dead, that's it, finito.....

So the most primitive hominid ancestor (Ardipithecus Kadabba) depicted at the lower left, from 6 million years ago - possessed no soul - nor did the evolutionary continuum following onward, i.e. to Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens (upper right). Hence, when either died there would be nothing to go on, to survive in any afterlife.  Nor would there be some unexpected, magical "break out" point in between,  at which a soul suddenly manifests. "

The quotes  above highlight issues Mr. Zindler also  brought up in a previous American Atheist article, 'Spirit, Souls and Mind', i.e.  that the word "soul" like so many others ("demon", "ghost") was invented  but "refers to nothing in reality".    The central point made later in that article was (ibid.):

"The fact that nearly all words now meaning 'soul', 'spirit',  'life' etc. trace their origins to words meaning 'breath' or 'wind' leads me to conclude the derived meanings were an outgrowth of primitive people to solve a basic biological puzzle, namely, what constitutes the difference between a live body and a dead one?"

At a more fundamental level the answer is neural activity.  Live bodies have this, but dead ones don't.  If we then agree neural activity is mistaken for the presence of what had formerly been called "soul" we are getting somewhere. As this neural basis is more central than taking breaths or inhaling.   Did our prehuman ancestor display neural activity? Of course, at least while alive.  Did that mean it had a "soul" even given its more humanesque face (as opposed to ape face).? No.

Flash now to the announcement in today;'s WSJ ('Neural Activity Similar To Babies Observed In Engineered Models', p. A3)  that "miniature engineered reconstructions of the developing brain" have been made in a lab by which "patterns of neural activity" imitating very young brains, have been recorded.  This from "roughly half pea-sized balls of brain cells known as cerebral organoids"

Basically, "lab-grown human brain models"

These lab grown entities were extracted from human stem cells. Did they possess a "soul"? Well, no more than a human zygote in utero - which the RC Church raises Cain about in reaction to any abortion procedure - precisely became a soul is believed to exist therein.

We also learn:

"The work raises ethical concerns about eventually re-creating brain functions like pain perception and consciousness in the lab."

Raise ethical concerns though it may, the work gets closer to the Materialist Model of Mind I had posited nearly 9 years ago,  e.g.

A Materialist Model of Consciousness (III)

In which I proposed - as I had in my first book, The Atheist's Handbook To Modern Materialism, that :"soul' was rendered totally redundant and consciousness emerged from quantum considerations, in relation to certain molecular transport, for example of Ca ++ ions.   (Physicist Henry Stapp ('Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics') showed that application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to Ca+2 ions -involved in neural transmissions at body temperature- disclosed the associated wave packet dimension increases to many times the size of the ion itself.)   In other words, there was a role for quantum mechanics.

The takeaway from the cerebral organoid  lab experiments is that electrical- neural activity can be artificially induced in engineered model cells.  Though yes, it might be too early to ascertain whether these organoids resemble an actual developing brain, the experiments do solve one issue: that it is in fact feasible to imitate neural activity from rudimentary brain cells and which has no "soul" component to it.