The Diminishment of Christmas

 As I gaze on the scene depicted above, presumably a painting of Victoria and Albert and a gaggle of children arrayed around what seems to be a large Norfolk Island Pine festooned (my word of the day) with ornaments, I find myself inclined to wonder whether Christmas has, or should, become unimportant.

Soon Albert would be dead, and the children parented, if one can call it that, by the grim Queen who it seems wasn't at all fond of them or of children generally.  Some or for all I know all of the children shown or their cousins would soon enough hurl the world into a horrific war.  And each year they would gather around some other tree to celebrate Christmas, as we do still, wars or no wars.  Usually wars, as they've been fairly constant since the First World War, which was supposed to end them.

If this post is noted by anyone Christian and conservative in the vulgar sense the word now has in our Great Republic, they would likely consider it part of the fabled "War on Christmas."  But it isn't.  The celebration of Christmas is perfectly fine with me.  Nor do I have any problem with those who wish to do so keeping Christ in it.  It's interesting that Christians themselves may have waged war on Christmas more effectively than non-Christians.  I refer to the Puritans, or Roundheads, who banned the celebration of Christmas (along with other things) during Oliver Cromwell's reign as Lord Protector of England, and the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who made celebrating Christmas punishable by fine.

Of course, Christmas as celebrated has little to do with Jesus.  But for the manger scenes one sees in homes or rather ostentatiously in public, there's nothing in the appearance of Christmas celebrations which evokes him.  The Christmas tree, the Yule log, the laurels, all are pagan in origin.  There's nothing whatsoever even suggesting Jesus was born on December 25th, though we know that date was associated with pagan deities who were said to be born at that time or around the winter solstice, and born by a virgin mother.  The date was selected as his birthday several centuries after he is said to have lived, to coincide with pagan celebrations of the birth of Sol Invictus, to name one such god, and the season of celebrations connected with the winter solstice by pagans, such as the Roman Saturnalia to name one of them.

There's also nothing of substance supporting the claim he was born in Bethlehem.  Two of the canonical Gospels say nothing regarding his birth.  The claim that that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem for purposes of a census ordered by Augustus also lacks credibility.  There's no record of such a census, and the Romans were prodigious record-keepers.  And why the Imperial government would have required people to travel to their birthplaces to be counted, with the resulting chaos in travel, housing and administration, is unexplained.  Though it may be explained because Bethlehem is where David was born, and it was necessary for Joseph to be among the House of David.

All this is well-known, though not very often noted.  Perhaps then, following Aristotelian or Thomist metaphysics, the claim is that keeping Christ in Christmas refers to the substance of Christmas rather than its appearances.  

But in what sense are the teachings of Jesus followed or celebrated, even on Christmas day or during the holiday season, let alone the rest of the year?  There's a good amount of lip service to that affect, but even that seems to be declining.  Maudlin Christmas movies, TV shows or stories continue to be shown or read, but this seems to be due to a sense of obligation rather than due to any popularity, and those seem to be declining as well.  It may be because of the fact Christmas this year fell on a Sunday, but I saw far more football than I did dramatisations of Dickens and even of Capra's work we all know far too well.

The fact that families are more widespread than in the past has led to a decline in familial celebrations; traveling home for Christmas seems onerous in many respects, now more than ever.

Finally, let me put my (Christmas?) cards on the table.  I suggest that there is less Christmas cheer or spirit than there has been in the past because people have become less and less likable.  Our public figures in politics, the media, entertainment (name them) are craven and selfish, crabbed, mean, angry, rude, boorish, hypocritical, self-righteous...one runs out of derogatory words when trying to describe them.  So are most of us if social media is any guide.  There is less and less good will being given.  There's less and less comfort and joy available. 

One has to wonder whether there will come a time when Christmas will seem surreal to most of us.  Perhaps Christmas in time will seem so different from our reality that we'll be unable to accept it anymore.

Never There In the First Place

 

If you give it some thought, Christmas is a holiday which invites skepticism regarding Christianity.  It may in that sense almost be called "Anti-Christian."   This isn't merely because it's become almost entirely about making and spending money, about marketing, about sanctimony and relentless religious posturing.  Rather, it's because there's nothing about it that has anything to do with a historical Jesus, and everything about it is either manufactured or based in pagan myth and tradition.  It's a great Christian holiday which isn't in the least bit Christian in nature or origin, but Christians have chosen it and describe it as Christian, and insist that it be treated as peculiarly Christian. 

The Christian story of Christmas, to the extent that it purports to be accurate, clearly isn't accurate.  The trappings of Christmas--the tree, the Yule Log, the exchange of gifts, mistletoe, etc.--don't have their origins in Christianity.  Why, then, do Christians insist on it, and make it their greatest holy day?

We begin with what should be known by all, but perhaps is not.  That is, that there is no evidence, no report, and indeed nothing, indicating or even suggesting Jesus was born on what we now call December 25th.  The Roman Church began celebrating it as the day of the birth of Christ in 336 C.E., more than 300 years after the event is said to have taken place.   There is considerable evidence, however, that it was the date on which the birth of pagan gods such as Sol Invictus and Mithras was celebrated, and was within the season during which the great pagan celebration of Saturnalia took place, which involved gift-giving and parties, and featured roleplay in which slaves and servants become masters and their masters slaves and servants.

As might be expected of a day celebrating the birth of sun gods such as the Roman ones I referred to, it occurs very near to the winter solstice.  The winter solstice was celebrated by pagans of all kinds long before Jesus is said to have been born, as the time at which the sun ceases "dying" and is in effect "born" and the days slowly become longer and brighter.

Then there is the story of Christmas described in the Gospels.  According to that of Luke, Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus, in Bethlehem, because of the requirements of a census taken while Quirinius (Publius Sulpicius Quirinius) was governor of the Roman Province of Syria, which included Palestine.  The census supposedly required all to travel to the town of their birth, to be counted.  According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

The early Christians seemingly kept poor records, but the Romans were great record-keepers.  The census of Quirinius was taken several years after the death of Herod.  No Roman census required everyone to travel to their ancestral home--a requirement which would likely have caused chaos in travel and administration, and would have been a dramatically large burden to all concerned.  Why, then, does Christianity claim that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem?  Because it was the City of David, and Jesus through his father Joseph was claimed to be a descendent of David and the messiah was supposed to be born there.  

Then there is the manger problem.  The nativity scene or setting we're familiar with involves a stable, a manger, various animals and shepherds.  Early Christians maintained Jesus was born in a cave, though.  That would seem to be the case according to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where the place at which Jesus was born is depicted by the star in the photograph at the head of this post, and is referred to as a "grotto."  That place along with other locations and objects important to Christianity was discovered by Helena, the very busy and industrious mother of the Emperor Constantine, who roamed the Holy Land in search of such things, and is considered a saint according to the Catholic Church.

We have heard, and still hear, many urge that we should "keep Christ in Christmas."  But it can fairly be maintained that he was never there in the first place, and isn't there much now.  Instead, he's been inserted, in a rather shameless, brazen fashion, into an ancient time of celebration made significant for reasons having nothing to do with him or Christianity.

It's harmless enough, of course, to create a holiday and designate it as a time for special celebration of a particular person or event.  This is done with some frequency, in fact.  If that is what Christians have done in creating Christmas, who could complain?  But a religion such as Christianity cannot be doubted, and that is especially the case where holy books are concerned. 

If we give it some more thought, perhaps in fact Christmas isn't Anti-Christian, but peculiarly Christian in the sense that it is contrived, a pretence, much like being a Christian is, today, and likely has been forever, sadly.  If to be Christian is to follow the teachings of Jesus, Christians are mostly frauds.

We should by all means celebrate the Christmas season.  It's great fun, and always has been, since long before Christ and Christianity.  The winter solstice has always been significant as well.  But one with think the pious and self-righteous should have some decency, and restrain themselves from insisting we stop treating the Christmas season as being solely something which it clearly is not. 

Homage to Krampus

Christmas is somewhat dreary again this year, courtesy of the pandemic and those astounding individuals who, unconsciously imitating those who feared vaccines for preposterous reasons long ago, have made certain it continues to be a problem.  There were fears in the past that those vaccinated would become like the animals from which some ingredients of the vaccine were derived, and it seems that fears now are similar in quality.

It seems appropriate that in less than merry Christmases, the remarkable figure of Krampus should be given some respect and attention.  Perhaps that should be the case even during happier holidays.  Not Krampus as depicted in the movies which have been made more or less recently, which are inevitably crass and horrific, but Krampus the legend, a companion of sorts to Saint Nicholas.  

I'm fascinated by Krampus.  I don't know how he came to be associated with the figure of Nicholas, who has become Santa Claus.  It seems Krampus was known in Central Europe and the Balkans.  Being a demonic figure in looks if not in character, it's been thought by some that he's a remnant of pagan beliefs, pagans being naturally drawn to demons in Christian tradition if not demons themselves.  For some reason, he follows or perhaps accompanies Saint Nicholas in his December travels.  Nicholas dispenses gifts to good little girls and boys.  Krampus, carrying chains with him, punishes naughty little girls and boys, usually by smiting them with birch branches or rods.  Sometimes he merely leaves them as a kind of gift for parents of naughty children, who are encouraged to wield them in punishment themselves.  He's also depicted as chasing after women, a randy fellow, possibly because he's part goat.   It seems he was a popular part of the Christmas season in 19th century Europe.  This post features a Krampus card, similar to a Christmas card.

Just how Saint Nicholas came to be part of the European Christmas tradition is unclear (to me at least) as well.  He was a bishop in what is now Turkey.  It seems he miraculously saved children from peril in one or two instances.  He was also said to distribute gifts to children and others, at or around the time of his feast day, December 5th.  His myth traveled to Europe for one reason or another, where he eventually served as the inspiration for what we know as Santa Claus.

It seems somehow appropriate that Krampus would visit houses with or just after Nicholas this time of year.  Santa is said to make lists of who is naughty or nice.  I imagine that the Saint would have one list, Kampus another.  In the likely event that a house would contain both good and bad children, Nicholas would give gifts to some and Krampus would whack the others with his birches. 

Thus, children would learn directly and emphatically the rewards for being good and the punishment for being bad.  These would be made perfectly clear.  Nicholas handing out gifts while Krampus chases children round the Christmas tree, chains clanking as his rods whistle through the air, is an image which could not be forgotten.  It's unfortunate that Krampus isn't charged with punishing the stupid as well as the bad, in which case many parents would be beaten by him as well.

There's justice in this legend.  Even Oliver Cromwell, who banned the celebration of Christmas as frivolous when he became Lord Protector, would have approved.  Well, of the part with Krampus in it in any event.  Perhaps we should keep Krampus in Christmas along with Christ.

 

The Birthday of the Sun

Not to contribute to or perpetuate the purported War on Christmas, but the early Church, or someone, was wise to co opt (or usurp?) this season of ancient celebration and designate it the Christmas season.  But if it signifies the birth of anyone or anything, history tells us it is the birth of the Sun that is celebrated in the northern, or at least the northwest, hemisphere at this time of the year.

It's clear that this is time of the winter solstice.  The Romans thought that it took place on what we call December 25, and that date was considered the birthday of Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun, the god of Aurelian and even of Constantine for a time.  But long before them great significance was accorded that day when the Sun became stronger and stronger, and the daylight became longer and longer.  Light was once again dominate over the Dark.

It's always been clear that we owe our own existence to the Sun, and that all life we know is dependent on it.  Why not substitute the Sun, the giver of life, with the Son (of God)?  Why not speak of the resurrection of the Son of God (and of other savior-gods) as we spoke and still speak of the resurrection of the Sun?

Even someone as pragmatic when it comes to religion as Napoleon said that if he was to worship a god, it would be the Sun, the giver of life, the ruler of the sky.  It gives us food and warmth, it allows us to see what's before us.  It's hardly surprising ancient people worshipped it, even to extreme lengths as did the ancient Mesoamerican civilizations.  It would be surprising if they didn't.

And now we know that the Sun, being a star, is undoubtedly a creator; of the solar system, of us as we are the stuff of stars, true children of the universe and made of the same substances as all else within it.  The Sun may not have said "Let there be light" but it made light and created our world more completely than the God of Genesis, and its part in that creation can be established with much greater certainty than the Genesis story.

So we're right to celebrate this time of year, and should do so, call it what we will.  It is a rebirth of sorts, and a celebration of life, literally and figuratively.  It's worthy of reverence if not worship by a Stoic, even; or perhaps even especially by a Stoic, who knows that the universe is divine and that we partake in it.

The Christmas Conglomerate

Let's escape, however briefly, the vast Fun house of our national politics and the distorted images of human beings (the candidates) lurking there for our amusement and dismay.  It's time, once again, to consider--or at least appear to consider, or say we're considering--the True Meaning of Christmas.

Just what the True Meaning of Christmas (TMOC)  is may be a subject of some dispute.  Generally, though, it's thought to have something to do with Jesus Christ, or Christianity in one form of another, and may actually be about them for that hour or two many of us attend church services.  They of course are also subjects of some dispute, and have been from the beginning.

So the popular claim we should "put Christ back in Christmas" provides little guidance to those seeking or saying they seek TMOC.  It's unclear, though, that those who demand Christ be "put back" believe they require any guidance in this respect, and it's likely they're unaware of any dispute regarding Christ or Christianity.  Arius, Pelagius and the many others disputants are probably unknown to most of them.  We may be reasonably certain they've heard of Martin Luther and John Calvin, however, and some even of John Wesley.

Also generally, TMOC is thought to have something to do with peace on earth and good will towards men, possibly even by those who don't think Christ needs to be put back in Christmas or anywhere else.  In any case, TMOC is normally believed to have little if anything to do with Santa Claus or anything commercial, as such things, though they may have meaning in themselves and indeed are prevalent, even omnipresent, at this time, nonetheless lack True Meaning.  In fact, TMOC is said to be significant because it has nothing to do with them.

But it's hard to ignore what has become increasingly clear regarding Christmas, its celebration, iconography and mythology.  That is, that we humans have been involved in celebrating this time of the year for countless thousands of years and were doing so long before Jesus or even Abraham were heard of, and that those celebrations had much in common with what takes place now.  Christmas is a relatively new development with very old features.  Christmas is in fact a relatively new way of characterizing a very old tradition and celebration; one that was old when Christianity came to exist.

It's doubtful anyone living believes Jesus was actually born on December 25.  It was decided his birth should be celebrated on that date long after he died.  The early Christians were diligent, even ruthless, in their suppression of pagan beliefs, but could do nothing to alter the arrival of the winter solstice or the fact that it had been celebrated for many, many years as the time at which Light inexorably began its triumph over Dark, and the Sun born or reborn.

The winter solstice had long been considered for obvious reasons a time for celebration of Helios, Sol Invictus, Mithras and other gods associated with the Sun.  These gods were worshiped during Christianity's development in the Roman Empire; other Sun gods were worshiped outside the Empire, and before it.

Early Christian leaders and thinkers were no doubt aware of the fact that Mithras was claimed to have been born on December 25th, in the presence of shepherds and three kings.  The Church Fathers were disturbed by many things about the worship of Mithras, which included a sacred communal meal of bread and wine, the bread marked with crosses according to certain depictions of the ritual.  They were also no doubt aware the winter solstice was a time for gift-giving, for the Saturnalia in fact, when the roles of master and slave were reversed.

I'm not one who thinks that but for an accident or two, Mithras would have become universally worshipped in the West rather than Christ.  Males only were allowed to become initiates to his mysteries, and it seems clear women played a significant role in Christianity's triumph over its rivals.  I don't think we would be setting up figurines of Mithras and his bull, Helios, Cautes and Cautopates instead of manger scenes if things went a bit differently 1700 years ago.

So I doubt December 25 was chosen as the day of Christ's birth solely because it was the birthday of Mithras.  But as the winter solstice was a time for universal celebration in the society in which Christianity was born and, as it were, raised, it made considerable sense for the early Church to choose it as the time at which Christ's birth would be celebrated.  It was plainly a major social and cultural event already, with significant religious overtones; it was ideal for the purpose.  And like Christianity itself, Christmas took on aspects of pagan worship and culture.  In a sense, Christ was put into Christmas, or Christmas-time, long ago.  There was a time when Christ was new to the party; a latecomer.  The Christmas we know is a conglomerate, as is Christianity.

Helios/Sol Invictus/Mithras/Jesus and their predecessor gods have been part of what we call Christmas-time for thousands of years.  The religious tone of the time is well-established and unquestionable.  More interesting is the association of Christmas-time with "peace on earth, good will towards men."

That phrase is claimed to have been part of a statement made by angels to duly astonished shepherds during the Annunciation; the announcement of the birth of Jesus.  Here there is also a dispute, however.  The dispute is over the correct translation of what was said by the angels from the original Greek of the New Testament.  Pagans of the time thought the Gospels to have been written by persons whose Greek was very bad, but I don't know if that was truly the case or whether it would make a difference in this case.

It seems that more ancient versions of the text are believed by scholars to be more appropriately translated as "peace to those men with whom God/Jesus is pleased" or words to that effect.  Peace, therefore, is bestowed on those who have the good will of God/Jesus.  This is a different sentiment of the season than that with which most of us are familiar.  If we're to have good will towards men (instead of God having that good will), it may be we shouldn't have good will towards all men at Christmas-time, but only to those men who please God.  As the statement is made in connection with the birth of Jesus, it would seem those who please God are those who believe in Jesus as God.

If this is correct, TMOC wouldn't be good will, friendliness towards, or tolerance of all, but only of Christians.  A sobering thought for those of us who have believed good will was to be extended to all at this time of the year, but one that may make more sense given the context in which the Gospel was written.  Is this in fact the True Meaning?

Merry Christmas to all.  Perhaps.  But whether the good will we're supposed to feel at this time of the year is towards all or only a portion of humanity, we may be grateful, as the great Tom Lehrer sang regarding National Brotherhood Week, that Christmas-time doesn't last all year.

Pondering the Holiday Season

A fairly impressive snow storm which is keeping me in my house and deprived it of electrical power for about seven hours has reminded me that I live in the northern region of these incomparable united states, and leads me to wonder while I still do so.  It has also served to remind me, along with many other things, that it is what we like to call the Holiday Season, or perhaps I should say the Christmas Season, in order to mesh more fully with those who amuse themselves (and others, I suspect) with the belief that there is a "War on Christmas."  As most if not all of the wars in which we Americans have involved ourselves since 1945 have been long, grim and futile (one thinks of the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs" if not the wars in which our combat troops engage), I'm inclined to believe the "War on Christmas" if there is such a thing will be much the same.

"Christmas" most appropriately rhymes with "Mithras", the Persian God who was born, of a virgin mother, on December 25th while shepherds watched even as other shepherds were apparently watching the birth of the Christ-child.  These two contemporaneous and happy events were a source of confusion in ancient times gradually rectified with the triumph, as it were, of Christianity.  This should be common knowledge, just as it should be common knowledge that the propensity to exchange gifts and engage in festivities this time of year has its foundation in a variety of pre-Christian holidays and rituals.  Historians scratch their heads over the claim that Caesar ordered all in his empire to return to their places of birth for census purposes and various other claims made in those remarkable documents we call the New Testament, but ultimately this and the other oddities which make up the traditional Christmas Story (I can't help but wonder where the little drummer boy came from) are not pertinent to my purpose.

We've celebrated this season for quite some time, which I think is well and good.  There is nothing wrong with celebrating.  It can even be fun.  It can be great fun for children, especially.  It can make us feel good about each other, and even dream of world peace, for a time, much like a good stiff drink or two.  Why not leave it at that?

I'm not sure just what those who ask us to remember the "true meaning" of Christmas intend, frankly.  This may be a result of the fact that I'm not inclined to take what is called the Christmas Story literally.  However, if I did take it literally, I'm not sure just how this would effect my conduct or that of others.  I would presumably be joyous, just the same, and in much the same way.  Would I be less inclined to buy presents for people, attend Christmas parties, etc.?  I don't think so.  Perhaps I would spend more time in church, sing certain songs more feelingly.  After all, it's not time to feel bad yet; that comes with Good Friday, or perhaps Lent, but then we're supposed to be joyful on Easter, in any case.  Sad, then glad; glad, then sad.  That's the way of it.

I rather doubt there is any "true meaning" and think we err in searching for it in Christmas just as we err in seeking it elsewhere.  It's all true, in the sense that it all happens, good and bad.  We may ponder "true meaning" all we like, but would be better off acting as if we believed in peace and brotherhood than if we were waiting for someone to come and impose it on us.

A problem in believing in saviors is that we wait to be saved.

Ruminations on Walking in New York City during the Christmas Season

I must assume Christmas is not the best time to visit this remarkable metropolis.  To do otherwise would be unfair, I think.

I will say, though, that I am glad to have escaped it before New Year's Eve (no comparison with Snake Plissken or his New York is intended).  I am no stranger to big cities, and the holiday crowds which can infest them, and am enormously fond of the city of my birth, Chicago, which I will say with Norman Mailer is a great American city--indeed, I will go so far as to say Chicago is the great American city.  But unless you are fond of being part of a vast, slow moving, confused, and often unresponsive herd (there is no better word) of people, you would be well advised to avoid certain parts of Manhattan during the festive holiday season.

Well advised to do so if it is your desire to walk, that is, from one location to another.  The mere presence of crowds was not surprising.  What I found surprising was the fact that so many in the crowds seemed to have no intention of going somewhere.

For all I know, the herds roaming the streets and sidewalks of the wonderful town between the Bronx and the Battery this time of year are made up primarily, if not entirely, of tourists.  So, they may be taken up with gaping at the sites, or photographing the many signs in Times Square.  Real New Yorkers may find them appalling, and avoid parts of the city during this season like the plague.  One has to make exception, though, for the many vendors and hawkers who block passage so effectively.  They, presumably, are not mere tourists.

There is something perverse, I think, in simply being on a sidewalk, stationary, preferably in the middle of it, generally encumbered with a large backpack, or perhaps holding onto a stroller encasing an infant catatonic with fear or confusion, while those who want actually to walk try to do so by bouncing off you and others like so many pinballs.  Perhaps worse yet are those who seek to walk but do so in a horizontal file which often extends the entire width of all available space.

This is something I haven't experienced before.  For example, even on Michigan Avenue at its most crowded the majority of people using the sidewalk walk north and south with genuine regularity, and according to a discernable pattern--those going north use one portion of the sidewalk, those going south use another.  During the Christmas season in New York, though, they seem to move, or stand, without purpose or intent; if they move, they do so sporadically, and then in various directions which cannot be anticipated, causing collisions.

I was reminded horribly of an episode of the original Star Trek series, about a planet so over-populated that they created a mock-up of the Enterprise (who knows why) and sent Kirk there where he encountered the usual beautiful female alien who was placed with him in the hope and expectation that he would pass along to her some kind of disease which would kill some of them off.  Every once in a while he would get a glimpse of the people of the planet, pressed up against one another, slowly trying to move but being nearly prevented from doing so.  That's what I was reminded of, tripping over people, if not the lights fantastic, on the sidewalks of New York.