Misinformed On Mistletoe

[Note: this article was terribly long when I first published it, so I've condensed it.]

If you just google mistletoe without digging through old history books, you would seriously get the impression the entire history of mistletoe can be summed up as nothing else but, "The only reason we know about mistletoe is because Druids loved it and cut it at the winter solstice, and that's how it came to Christmas."

That is not even remotely the story about mistletoe.

Gonna be frank with you. I don't care much at all for the mistletoe tradition. My family did not pass the tradition to me. I am not particularly in need of an excuse to kiss fair maidens. I don't find cheap, plastic mistletoe to be all that attractive. I much prefer nutcrackers.

Then why write about it? Two reasons. First, I had meant to write something else but was side-quested by all the information on mistletoe. It was quite the adventure. There is more to it than I imagined. Second, because I was told something and now I want to know if it was true. Let me give you but two examples of the claims I grew up hearing.

"The traditional Christmas tree, the Yule log, the holly wreaths, and kissing under the mistletoe - all were borrowed from heathenism and used in a pagan religious orgy dedicated to the sun-god."
-Rod Meredith, "The Ten Commandments", 1972, p. 41

"Now where did we get this mistletoe custom? Among the ancient pagans the mistletoe was used at this festival of the winter solstice because it was considered sacred to the sun, because of its supposed miraculous healing power. The pagan custom of kissing under the mistletoe was an early step in the night of revelry and drunken debauchery - celebrating the death of the "old sun" and the birth of the new at the winter solstice."
-Herbert Armstrong, "The Plain Truth About Christmas", 1970, p. 15

Not very flattering! But are they correct? Let's find the answer to that.

Today, we are going to see the distant history of mistletoe, where it came from, and its surprising uses. Also, I will give some speculation on how it came to us. I present this post to you, dear reader, because mistletoe turns out to be a fantastic way to show how the things everybody knows to be true aren't always true.

Discussions about mistletoe tend to come around to Druids. So, might as well start there.

DRUIDS GALORE

You've heard about how the Druids held mistletoe in a particularly high regard. That's what the Romans said, anyway. That's what most everyone says. You can't have a good discussion about Druids without Pliny the Elder. He says quite a bit about mistletoe and Druids in his work "Natural History". For example:

"Upon this occasion we must not omit to mention the admiration that is lavished upon this plant by the Gauls. The druids - for that is the name they give to their magicians - held nothing more sacred than the mistletoe and the tree that bears it, supposing always that tree to be the oak."
-Pliny, "Natural History", book 16, chapter 95.

The Druids wrote nothing down, so we have to rely on the good word of others for details about them. So far as we know, Pliny wrote accurately. Pliny keeps proving himself in other quotes. I vote we trust him.

But Pliny did not say it was only the Druids who used mistletoe.

He spends four chapters on mistletoe and its particular details, but only one paragraph concerns the Celts. The way he makes it sound, most cultures in the west were incredibly well familiar with it and its uses.

It gets stranger. Pliny did not say all Druids used mistletoe.

Pliny only mentions the Druids in France (Gaul) loved it. It says nothing about Celts in general, who lived from Britain to Turkey. We have to be careful when we say things like "the Celts" or "the Druids" because those are more concepts than definite groups. Celts were divided up into tribes who fought each other all the time. It is merely an assumption that all Druids everywhere had the same practices. Why would we assume that? The Galatians, to whom Paul wrote his famous epistle, were every bit as Celt as the French. Were their cultures identical? No. As a matter of blatant fact, historians have known for some time that Celtic cultures and practices most definitely were not the same. And they differed over relatively small geographic areas.

Let's explore claims of pagan origin even further by looking at the solstice.

THE SOLSTICE

I get tired of careless claims on the internet like, "Why do Christians use mistletoe at Christmas? That's simple. Because Druids collected it at the solstice." No. That isn't true. This shows people have not thought this through.

But not all claims are careless internet commentors. Alison Wier, author of "A Tudor Christmas" (a book I own and appreciate quite a bit) says the same:

"The ancient Romans observed that the Druids of the British Isles used mistletoe in winter solstice ceremonies and in healing."
-Alison Wier, "A Tudor Christmas", 2018, p. 20

She continues on to talk about Pliny. Let's go back to quote directly from Pliny about Druids:

"The mistletoe, however, is but rarely found upon the oak; and when found, is gathered with rites replete with religious awe. This is done more particularly on the fifth day of the moon, the day which is the beginning of their months and years, as also of their time cycles, which, with them, are only thirty years. This day they select because the moon, though not yet in the middle of her course, has already considerable power and influence..."
-Pliny, "Natural History", book 16, chapter 95.

So, it was not the Druids in Britain but the druids in Gaul (France), and it was not the winter solstice but their new year. Was their new year at the winter solstice? Best data says no.

In our recent post "Samhain Was Not On October 31", we looked at the only known Druidic calendar. If you want more details, you may read that article.

At Halloween, people claim everything comes from the Druids, and Samhain was the Druidic new year. At Christmas, people claim everything comes from the Druids, and the winter solstice was the Druidic new year. Well, it can't be both. (And Ronald Hutton advocates for the mid-winter.)

There is no evidence at all the Druids had solstice or equinox celebrations. This is a misunderstanding arising from two thousand years of various traditions getting jumbled and confused together. They were a lunar society. Their calendar shows it and Pliny attests to it. 

"But Stonehenge measured the sun!" Not Druidic. All of the henge artifacts and burial mounds predate the Druids, in some cases by over a thousand years. (Yes. They're that old!) The same goes for other henges in other areas, such as Goseck in Germany. They far predate the civilizations we recognize and the times we are interested in here.

I want to point out that all of these things I have said about the Druids and the solstice also pertain to the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse. All had lunar calendars. None have known, verified solstice celebrations. Even Yule was not a solstice celebration until it was reinvented in the 20th century. We can be fairly sure they had mid-winter festivals, but not solstice festivals specifically.

Then there are the ubiquitous claims like, "Such and such originated in pagan celebrations of light at the solstice." Most everything is explained in this way. These very generic claims about "mistletoe comes from widespread solstice traditions" are not fact-based, make definite claims of speculation like "they could have taken from the Celts", confuses midwinter festivals with solstice festivals, draw conclusions based on broad generalizations like "greenery was used in many cultures", and are generally built on conditions as we see them today being anachronistically projected backwards in time.

See how this works? One person connects two dots that don't connect, and someone else repeats it, and it gets repeated over and over until you simply cannot get a straight answer anymore.

Here's a straight answer -
Mistletoe goes with the Druid new year, but their new year does not go with the solstice. Do you understand what that means? We have two options: Druids used mistletoe in October/November, or in mid-January, and neither one lends itself well to our records or traditions.
In short, people are just as wrong about Druids and Christmas as they are about Druids and Halloween.

NORSE

Upon this occasion we must not omit to mention the Norse.

If you do a simple google search, you will find careless claims, like, "Why do Christians use mistletoe at Christmas? That's simple. Because of Yule." And just like with the Druids, that is not exactly based on reality.

Understand the Norse (and the Germans) were not the Celts/Druids. Completely different culture.
In one of the Prose Eddas, Gylfaginning, is the death of Baldur, a son of Odin. In most but not all versions of the story of the death of Baldur, he was killed by an arrow made of mistletoe. This is why mistletoe had a foreboding, deathly reputation among the medieval Norse.

Does that sound like Christmas to you? It sure doesn't to me.

The timing of Baldur's death is also important.
Baldur is associated with mid-summer to late fall. His death would initiate Ragnarök, which is associated with winter. Therefore, the Scandinavian pagan traditions of death by mistletoe had nothing to do with Christmastime (nor Yule).

You will not get this from a mere google search. I can't tell you how many times I've read about Frigg, the goddess of love, wanting people to kiss under the mistletoe. Did you notice none of those claims come with sources cited, besides, "legends say...". That is because they are all baseless. You will get many tales of Norse using mistletoe at Yule, and mentions of love and happiness. But that is not how things were in the past. All of those pretty paintings of Vikings sitting outside in the snow having a mead under some mistletoe are beautiful, but rather inaccurate.

If you look around Scandinavian cultures today, the meaning of mistletoe is not deathly at all. Quite the opposite. It represents love and happiness.
How?
Not wanting to take weeks to research the evolution of Scandinavian cultures over the past 1,000 years, I just asked ChatGPT. I asked, "If mistletoe was used as a kenning for death in the Prose Edda, how did it become a symbol of happiness in modern Scandinavian culture?" It explained how their culture developed, then it said:

"From England, mistletoe's role as a Christmas decoration spread to other parts of Europe, including Germany and Scandinavia, during the 18th and 19th centuries, as part of the cultural exchanges spurred by Victorian England’s global influence."

Isn't that odd, now? It wasn't the Norse who brought mistletoe to the Christians, because to them it was deadly and ominous, but the Christians who changed mistletoe from death to life for the Norse. And it wasn't ancient but quite recent. From this change come the legends of Frigg wanting people to kiss under the mistletoe. They are not ancient legends.

Once again, just as with other studies we have done here at ABD, we see people taking things the way they are today and projecting that backwards in time, anachronistically, and reinventing the past.

Pagan ritual is only one part of the story. Mistletoe's pragmatic uses were far more popular and widespread.

MEDICINE AND BOTANY

Where we have a centuries-long gap in information about pagan uses, we have multiple sources for mistletoe's practical uses. Mistletoe is mentioned in older works for its medicinal value or else for sheer botanical interest.

Going back to Pliny, he says:

"The hyphear [mistletoe that grows on a larch] is the best for fattening cattle with; it begins, however, by purging off all defects, after which it fattens all such animals as have been able to withstand the purging. It is generally said, however, that those animals which have any radical malady in the intestines cannot withstand its drastic effects. This method of treatment is generally adopted in the summer for a period of forty days."
-Pliny, "Natural History", book 16, chapter 93.

The way Pliny talks about mistletoe, it is clear there was an incredible amount of knowledge already existing, which he was just gathering up. He finished writing "Natural History" in 77 AD. More than 2,000 years ago, they had it figured out to the point where they knew which mistletoe was better when it grew on which trees. Farmers used it on their cattle. Healers used it on people. This amazes me!
Other ancient authors wrote about mistletoe. Some of the more notable include Virgil in his "The Georgics" book 1, Galen in his "On The Power of Simple Drugs", and Ovid.

That knowledge remained. Several more recent authors have written about it, too.

In 1485, Jacob Meydenbach of Mainz, Germany wrote the "Gart der Gesundheit" (Garden of Good Health), which was greatly expanded and translated to Latin in 1491 under the title "Hortus Sanitatis" (Garden of Health). In it, he provides a drawn illustration of mistletoe, and describes its medicinal uses, including epilepsies, digestive issues, hemorrhaging, and as a general tonic. This is the oldest reference I could find on the practical uses of mistletoe, outside of Pliny. Clearly, it draws from widely-known uses and perhaps even earlier written works.
It is particularly remarkable for being the first known work where art was used to depict the natural world outside of a religious context. The first illustrated encyclopedia. It was widely popular and translated into several different languages in the following years, including English.

One other notable author is William Coles. In 1657, William Coles wrote "The Art of Sampling". He mentions various health benefits of mistletoe for man and beast, and quotes Sir Francis Bacon. Plus, he mentions the berries. I tried to find when mistletoe berries out. Apparently, it depends on the tree it grows on, but mistletoe produces berries from October to January, and those berries can linger until May. Yeah. That puts it in the range of Christmas.
Coles also wrote this: 

"I think the thing itself is better known, than the manner of its growing, because it is carried many miles to set up in homes about Christmas time, when it is adorned with a glistening berry."
(p. 41.)

And there you have the first mention of mistletoe at Christmas time that I was able to locate. He is not the first to mention mistletoe, but he is the first to mention its use at Christmas time. Centuries later than one would expect from a pagan coopt.

It is important to note that Coles did not say it was used for Christmas, only that it was collected at Christmas time. It berries out at that time, so naturally it would be collected at that time. But being collected at that time is different than being collected for that time. It is reasonable to conclude it was being hung to dry and sold at market.

And did you know mistletoe and its derivatives is used in modern medicine? It's true! It is used in both cancer and immuno-therapies, and is being considered for other uses.

Since the majority of the info we have is about medicine, why do so many people claim mistletoe was almost exclusively used by Druids for rituals? Bad info. Most people giggle because you kiss under mistletoe, and they really don't care about the stuff otherwise. It's the ones who obsess over "once pagan, always pagan" who seem to be confused about it. They see paganism in everything, and only want what affirms them. There is so much more to it than this.

FERTILITY

Kissing under the mistletoe is its most popular use. How many times have you heard mistletoe was an aphrodisiac? More than once, I'd wager. Recall how Rod Meredith and Herbert Armstrong blamed mistletoe on pagan rituals. If you read this blog at all, you will not be one bit surprised when I tell you everything they said there is false.

We do have a reference from Pliny that puts together Druids, mistletoe, and fertility. How dirty-minded were they? Let's take a peek.

"It is the belief with them that the mistletoe, taken in drink, will impart fecundity to all animals that are barren, and that it is an antidote for all poisons."
-Pliny, "Natural History", book 16, chapter 95.

They did believe it was a fertility drug ...for cattle.
But only if the animals could survive the process. Doesn't sound so debauched to me.

Other than that, the only other mention Pliny makes of kissing in that entire book is that Nero would kiss his favorite tree. That does sound a little debauched. Not at all in regards to anything we're talking about here, though.

Regarding kissing, there is no known record of kissing under mistletoe until the later-1700s. That means it developed in the late-1600s or early-1700s at the earliest. The first place mistletoe is found in a romantic context is in a song from a musical comedy called "Two to One", which was published in 1784.

When at Christmas in the hall
The men and maids are hopping
Cry, "What good luck has sent ye?"
And kiss beneath the mistletoe.

From that point on, it is found more and more often in a romantic context. And we see it spreading to other European cultures. What might have caused it? Look at the timing. It was immediately after the Puritan era.

It wasn't just a kiss under the mistletoe, per se, it was a young man got one free kiss from the maiden of his choice per berry on the mistletoe sprig. When the berries ran out, he got no more freebies.

No, not in heathen orgies. Not in drunken debauchery. Not an unbroken continuation of ancient fertility rites. That is entirely fabricated nonsense. "God's own truth," they called that. But false. Somewhat of a letdown there. We were promised things much more juicy than cow medicine and 18th century prudishness.

In short, the Druids are not the source of the kissing tradition. Nor was it some other unnamed group of ancient heathens caught up in unbridled passion. It was just the relatively modern Europeans.

The explanation for the kissing having been located, we have yet to see why mistletoe was a Christmas decoration in the first place.

MISTLETOE FOR CHRISTMAS

So, why do we have mistletoe at Christmas? Unfortunately, no one living knows for certain. The earliest records I have been able to find seem to say it was more of a medicinal thing, and never a part of corporate church celebration, except by accident, until the late 1600s. This tends to lead away from a pagan coopt. But the strongest evidence we have points to our Christmas traditions rising out of the English Puritan suppression of Catholic symbolism.

Going back to "Stations of the Sun", I will summarize what Hutton says in chapters 2 and 3.
The Scottish and then the English heavily suppressed Christmas from the mid-1500s to the mid-1600s. The popular choice in greenery changed as Protestants rejected many symbols from Catholicism, including holly and ivy. Much to their chagrin, suppressing the religious inflated the secular use of greenery. Rather than removing greenery altogether, it was only removed from churches, not the public square. Without the religious symbolism behind it, the greenery options expanded. Anything green at that time was used. Hence mistletoe at Christmas. This is the time period when we start seeing mistletoe used specifically as a Christmas decoration. Mistletoe was hung in defiance of Parliament's banning of Christmas in Great Britain during the 1650s. Mistletoe's role as a Christmas decoration spread into other parts of Europe, including Germany and Scandinavia, during the 18th and 19th centuries, as part of the cultural exchanges spurred by Victorian England’s global influence.

That sounds quite reasonable, but it could all be undone if there were some earlier reference. I searched long and wide for earlier references than Coles, but came up empty. Finally, I asked ChatGPT if it could find an earlier reference to mistletoe used at Christmastime, but it was unable.

The most reasonable conclusion is - there is nothing older to find, because it wasn't being used as a Christmas tradition.

This gap of mistletoe as a Christmas decoration is across the board. We have no mention of it in any culture - as a Christmas time tradition, specifically - until it appears in England in the late-1600s.
Add to this the fact that we see it first in England and then spreading out into other areas in the 18th and 19th centuries. Mistletoe as we know it today appears in all areas in the same time period.

What else can we say? Mistletoe either was not being used at Christmas at all until the late 1600s, or it was so rural and so unimportant that no one mentioned it. All of the evidence we have, or the lack thereof, lends support to Ronald Hutton's explanation. Nothing so far lends credence to the claim it came directly to Christmas from ancient paganism, especially the Druids. Pagan coopt is the weakest of all explanations by far. 

Perhaps that 1500-year gap is as it should be. Perhaps we have not lost information after all. Perhaps it is illusory, built from an insistence on some ancient pagan origin. It is quite reasonable to conclude we are searching for evidence of a pagan origin that never really happened. If mistletoe as a Christmas tradition really did start after the Reformation, then a 1,500-year gap should be there.

What the world needs is the discovery of some new literary source that fills in the missing pieces ...if there are missing pieces to begin with. In the meantime, all one can do is speculate based on the solid information we have in hand rather than insisting on theories we have no evidence for.

CONCLUSION

"The only reason we know about mistletoe is because Druids loved it and cut it at the winter solstice, and that's how it came to Christmas." False.
"Well, then it was because of the Norse and Yule." No.
"Well, then it was because of some unnamed culture's winter solstice rituals." Incorrect.

Do you recall those two quotes from the start of this post, the ones from Rod Meredith and Herbert Armstrong? Read them again quickly and see how they are just nonsensical. Once again, we see people passing off false history as "God's truth". That should come as absolutely no surprise to the readers here. The thing is, there is a lot of bad info out there. That's why we needed this post.
Mistletoe did turn out to be a fantastic way to show how the things everybody knows to be true aren't always true.

The history of mistletoe is a long, complex, and winding road. We may never get all the answers we seek. But we did get a few.
Today, we learned:

• Mistletoe was used medicinally and ritually throughout most of the western world since forever ago. It was also used to trap birds. Everyone seemed to use it.
• Pliny said mistletoe was used as an animal medicine especially in summer. Mistletoe is not just a winter thing.
• The first mention of mistletoe being collected at Christmas time was from 1657.
• Mistletoe was not popular in churches at all. English churches preferred holly and ivy.
• If mistletoe was not used in churches, that speaks against it being coopted from pagans by the church.
• We do not know exactly when mistletoe became associated with Christmas, but it appears to be during the Reformation, in the late-1600s.
• Mistletoe does not start appearing as a Christmas tradition in other nations outside the British Isles until the 18th and 19th centuries.
• Kissing under mistletoe did not start until the 1700s. The first mention was from 1784.
• Mistletoe was not an aphrodisiac ...except for animals.
• If the mistletoe tradition involved a continuation of a pagan practice, the Druids aren't the best candidate.
• Druids in France loved mistletoe, only when it grew on oak trees. We don't know much about Druids in other areas.
• French Druids most important use of mistletoe was at their new year, which was likely in fall, not at the winter solstice. And they were moon-based, not solar-based. Some say Druids had no solstice celebrations at all. Claims of Druids and solstice are likely to be false. Mistletoe was not particularly a winter tradition for them.
• Norse mistletoe was foreboding and deathly, and associated with Autumn. It changed after they imported the Christmas mistletoe tradition from the English.
• The Anglo-Saxons had no known mistletoe traditions.
• And there is quite a bit of misinformation floating around, started after the Reformation.

There sure is a lot more to mistletoe than I thought there was! Life is a funny thing. I sat down to write a very small and simple post about Christmas greenery, so light and easy to read with pictures from Pompeii, when all of this information about mistletoe starts pouring out of the internet at me. Oh, not easily, mind you. I had to dig, dig, dig for it. Next thing you know, I'm reading many esoteric histories, chasing down recursive series of sources cited one after the other, and even talking to software. At one point, I had five books open at the same time. I have nine tabs open in my other browser right now. But there is some good information out there if you have the determination to get it.

In the end, I think the simplest explanation for mistletoe is the best. People decorate all year around. Flowers in the spring and summer, produce in the fall, greenery in the winter. What truly seems to matter about mistletoe is that it is not only a useful plant, but is green and has pretty berries when it needs to. Everything boils down to that.

 

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

X-Mas Exasperations

I have a rant for you today! ♫It's my blog and I can cry if I want to...♪

For years, I have been writing posts that try to get to the historical origins of dates and traditions of the holidays. I happen to be writing a new one these past couple of weeks. Those posts usually come across in favor of holidays. That's just how the chips fall naturally. Look. I read history and I tell you what history says. Simple. Some people say holidays are pagan, we investigate and usually find that's not true, and we write about it. That makes us look like we are 100% pro-holiday. But we aren't 100%.

One of the things that makes As Bereans Did so effective at digging for truth is our insistence on facing our own biases (which everyone has) for the goal of staying neutral. Whether we love something or hate it, doesn't matter much. We want the truth. Regardless. The truth can take care of itself. To do this, one must consider both sides. Hence, you will see us saying people like Herbert Armstrong were right sometimes, or that we don't like certain Halloween traditions. That approach has an unfortunate side-effect of making one a Moderate. Nobody loves a moderate. Everyone adores a zealot (who agrees with them). Who would you rather have on your side - a zealot who will say anything no matter how ridiculous so long as it supports you, or a moderate who says, "Well... they have a point." ?? Thought so.

Today, I am going to play devil's advocate and purposefully rant about the negative side of modern Christmas in the United States of America and vent about some things I don't like. Today, I complain about modern Christmas in America. Pardonne moi, I mean X-Mas - because some people want "Christmas' to be an offensive word even as they celebrate it. For just one example, Neiman Marcus recently changed the name of their seasonal catalog, which had been called "Christmas Book" for 100 years, to "Holiday Book". I saw a door mat at Costco the other day that said something like "Happy Celebration". They couldn't even say holiday.

Oh, where to begin? There is so much to dislike!
Christmas is a wonderful time of year. But let's face it, "wonderful" in this world does not mean perfect.

SECULARLISM

I think the top complaint I personally have about Christmas in America is that it has been taken over by secularism. Everything else in my post seems to extend from this.

Author and researcher Ronald Hutton, in his book "Stations of the Sun", makes a strong case that the secularism in Christmas can be laid at the feet of two things. First, Protestants in England and Scotland. By trying to ban it in the 1600s to spite the Catholics, the Puritans only succeeded in stripping it of its religious nature. They inadvertently caused the rise of secular traditions. Second, the Industrial Revolution shoulders blame. The world is a very different place because of it.
I envy those nations who were never robbed of the special sacred nature of their day.

Martha wrote my personal favorite series in all of the ABD catalog, the "Falsely Accused?" series. So very well researched and written. She investigated the history of Christmas Trees. In one post, "Falsely Accused? Nazi Propaganda Lives On...", she demonstrated the Nazis played a big part in secularizing modern Christmas. It worked!
Thanks a lot, Adolf. You were just a peach. (He said, sarcastically.)

Christmas in the old days was twelve days long - the Twelve Days of Christmas. It wasn't the month-long behemoth we see now. In the past, people went to church on Christmas day, did a parade through town, maybe they would catch an instructional play put on by the church, they had a nice meal at home with family and friends or went to a lavish dinner at a Lord or King's estate, they would play some games and tell some stories - tales from the past and spooky ghost stories were very popular, maybe you would go caroling or souling to raise some money for the church or a charity, and that was about how it went. Gift-giving was not central. Gifts were the realm of St. Nicholas' Day or New Year's. I read a version of "Old Christmas" from Washington Irving every year because I like to think about how Christmas used to be celebrated in some places back before there was a Coca Cola or a Nazi propaganda machine. It was quite different from today. Basically, a more religious version of Thanksgiving.

Without Jesus at the center of Christmas, the celebration has no context. What is the context, then? It's not on the solstice. There is no natural purpose for it. It just becomes a winter festival, giving people something to drink about. Most claims of paganism are either completely false or they arose after December 25 was chosen by Christians. The day just becomes a day of nothing in particular, with traditions from the 1900s made ever bigger. Secular America took Christmas and said, "We can't find any good reason for this day, but we like the pretty lights and trees and songs, so we want to keep it around. But what do we do and why?? Hey! Let's make the day ABOUT the lights and trees and songs!"
So, you have a feast for the emotions and the senses, complete with Darth Vader ornaments, ugly sweaters, 25-foot-tall inflatable Santas, $10,000 synchronized LED light displays, and $60,000 luxury automobiles wrapped up in large red bows. Santa has completely replaced Jesus. The tree goes up a month before Christmas rather than on Christmas Eve. The twelve days of Christmas are gone. Only history nerds have ever heard of Twelfth Day. The tree and the ornaments simply exist for their own decorative sake rather than as symbols with specific religious meanings. And then tales of ancient pagan origins get tossed in there to explain it all apart from the Nativity, even though they are not accurate.

I am just expressing the sad fact that, in a post-Christian world, Christmas isn't even considered a Christian holiday by most of the people who celebrate it. Because many people who go about with Merry Christmas on their lips - excuse me, Happy Holidays, because how dare we speak Merry Christmas - would hardly even qualify as barely-churched. Harry Potter celebrates Christmas for crying out loud.

Some Christians say we should abandon the day because it has become too secular. Great idea. How'd that work out the first time with the Puritans? That's the main reason we're in this mess in the first place. And what does that mean, anyway? "Too secular." Is there some kind of a scale I am unaware of? Why should we abandon our day because secular people like it, too? Rome used to be "too secular". If we abandoned everything that is "too secular", we might as well go back into the catacombs. What's your alternative? Winter Family Fun Night? Right! As if whatever alternative you come up with is not also going to eventually be coopted by secularism. Then you're right back where you started.
I say we make a stand. I say we reclaim Christmas! Secularism may be my biggest complaint, but that doesn't mean I'm going to surrender to it. Quite the opposite!

All you have to do to get started is to make sure your Christmas is about Jesus. That's what I'm doing. You don't have to throw out your decorations or become a curmudgeon. Just focus it on Jesus. Next year, add in more charity. It's that simple!

Yeah, yeah. I know some people will mock the idea of "put Christ back in Christmas". "Christ never was in Christmas," they say. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Look here! This is the As Bereans Did blog. We've already done the homework. We are on year 14 of doing the homework. We have investigated pagan origins more times than we can count, and we feel completely justified in absolutely rejecting that as complete nonsense. Go sell "once pagan, always pagan" somewhere else. You want to insist Christians coopted Christmas? That's not a winning message. All that says to me is we did it once and we can do it again.

CONSUMERISM & EXCESS

I like Christmas gifts, but not the way we do it these days. As I said earlier, Christmas was not originally the big gift-giving holiday. True story! Thank the Protestant Reformation for that.
Thank you, Martin Luther. Thank you, King Henry VIII. You're both just a peach. (He said, sarcastically.)
*deep sigh*

All those overblown tales you hear about Christmas in the distant past being a wild and debauched day are not at all representative of the majority. Stories like that tend to rely on abandoned claims from the 1800s. You might find a group of people in some place at some time doing some questionable things. I'm not here to rant about the medieval French, though. The typical Christmas day was not like that on the whole.
Not any more!

I think this complaint about Christmas is less about Christmas, per se, and more about a certain disappointment with the world in general. It's the same complaint I could make about nearly anything. There is too much! And it's too commercial! I like modern medicine, but not drug commercials and suspicions that pills are more about keeping people manageably sick than truly healing them. I like grocery stores, but not highly processed foods and seed oils and et cetera that are cheap but terrible for you. I like the convenience of driving, but not used car sales people, cars that are designed to break, gambling on the right insurance coverage that might never pay out when you need it most, overcrowded highways, political manipulation of gas prices and road taxes, and a hundred other things. Do you see my point? Greed distorts everything it touches, not just Christmas.
But is has touched Christmas.

I got a comment recently correlating Christmas decorations and Herbert Armstrong's purchase of the Czar's golden flatware (and Steuben crystal, and $2,500 bottles of Remy Martin Lousi XIII cognac, and private jets, and mansions, and...). I disagree with the comment. It goes too far. But! It's not like that comment is entirely off the mark. The heart of that comment is about exploitation, and I think we all agree we are against exploitation (at least in theory). Christmas has become a festival of consumption. I am not an anti-Capitalist by any means, but some of those criticisms cannot be entirely dismissed. People seem to go bananas for spending all of their money on junk. Junk primarily made in Chinese sweat shops. Junk that does not honor Jesus. Junk that does nothing to aid in our Gospel message. Junk that brings no glory to God at all. How did that monologue go in the Jim Carey version of "How The Grinch Stole Christmas"?

"That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? That’s what it’s always been about. Gifts, gifts… gifts, gifts, gifts, gifts, gifts! You wanna know what happens to your gifts? They all come to me. In your garbage. You see what I’m saying? In your garbage! I could hang myself with all the bad Christmas neckties I found at the dump. And the avarice. The avarice never ends! ‘I want golf clubs. I want diamonds. I want a pony so I can ride it twice, get bored, and sell it to make glue!’"

I mean, he's not entirely wrong.

The car commercials, where the one comes home with an $80,000 Lexus in a bow, only to find the other got them a $90,000 truck in a bow. Or the jewelry commercials, where the man is encouraged to buy a $10,000+ engagement ring for the woman of his dreams. Who are these people anyway? Those commercials make me cringe. Can't afford a new 1,000 horsepower European hyper-car? We can accommodate you! Black Friday starts in early November now. There's pre-Black Friday, Black Friday, after-Black Friday, Cyber Monday, door busters, extended hours, and deep discounts on Chinese junk of every shape and hue.
Have you listened to the lyrics of "Up On The Housetop" lately? Little Will gets, "a hammer and lots of tacks, also a ball and a whip that cracks." Kids these days would burn down the house if that's what they got.

Let Neiman Marcus change the name of their catalog. I prefer it! Christmas isn't about what's in that book anyway.

I gotta hand it to ol' Herbert Armstrong; sometimes he had clever lines. (He was a detergent salesman after all.) One of his better lines was, "The way of give vs. the way of get." The secular, consumerist Christmas is fairly well in the "way of get" category. The people who say "Christmas is pagan" may be factually incorrect, so far as its origins go, but the people who say "Christmas is consumerist" are not.

I wish I had an "all you have to do" simple answer for this problem. What do you do about consumerism? Set a spending limit. Set expectations up front that you're not going to do Christmas that way anymore. Buy less junk. Give less gifts, and give more to charity. Notice that I didn't say, "Give no gifts." I just said give less gifts ...to people who already have, and give more to people who do not. Charity. It's the Christian way.

I want everyone who reads this blog to give me a Christmas gift this year. And the gift I want is for you to give is something to the poor. Donate, volunteer, whatever you can do. You give to me by giving to them. That's what I want for Christmas. It's the same thing Jesus asked for this year!

BUSY-NESS

The secularism leads to the consumerism, and the consumerism leads to the busy, busy, busy-ism. All the crowds, the traffic, the noise, the events, the family get togethers, the friends' get togethers, the work get togethers, this, that, and the other thing. GAH!

It's bad enough to have to fight through the crowds at every store to pick up a gift, but much more often than not I am only trying to do my regular, day-to-day shopping, and to fight the crowds just to get a gallon of milk and some bread adds insult to injury. This isn't a hurricane, people! I just want some milk and bread and I'm gone! ... GAH!

The streets are bumper-to-bumper from November to February. If people aren't shopping for gifts, they're returning gifts. Streets wouldn't be so very crowded and drivers so very angry if not for that one person who is moving at a crawl because they're so terrified of the traffic. If you are so terrified, then you are the very danger you fear! Perhaps car pool? GAH!

I do not want to see my co-workers any more often then I absolutely must, but I do want to see my family and friends. I do! No, I really do. Kinda. Just not at this time of year. Let's have some get togethers at other times. It's cold, the kids are cranky, I am cranky, the sun has been down since 4 PM, and I just want to sleep. GAH! 

In the words of Sweet Brown, "Aint nobody got time for that!"

Talking about this is giving me anxiety. Want to fix this? See the previous two sections. Moving on.

BAD MUSIC

Two words: Mariah Carey.

I even like Mariah's songs. (I said what I said.) But I'm so sick of them!

Have you ever noticed how music celebrities all seem to need to have a Christmas album? It's the same few songs that you've heard a billion times, but in their voice. That's what we needed! *ugh* I like Amy Grant and all, but her extremely popular album has no soul to my ears. Some celebrities even have multiple versions of the same songs. They're not even necessarily better versions.  Looking at you, Johnny Mathis. And please do not even get me started on the Beetles members! How is it the Eurythmics of all bands makes a vastly superior song than former members of the Beetles? Give me an Andrea Bocelli, or Nat King Cole, or Michael Bublé any day over a soulless cash grab. I am sick of Frank Sinatra's Christmas songs, too, but at least he pained over every last detail.

The songs play on constant repeat starting in November and going un-paused through to January. Over and over and over and over. No, I don't want Parson Brown to marry me off. No, I don't want it to snow me in. No, I absolutely do not want to do the jingle bell rock. No, I don't ever want another blue Christmas. And no, I absolutely, positively do not ever, ever want to hear "Last Christmas" ever again in all my natural-born life. The song is about an epically bad judge of character getting into serial relationships with abusers. How is that even a Christmas song? Hans Gruber falling off the Nakatomi Tower has more to do with Christmas than that. Given those options, I would much prefer to listen to "Natty Christmas" by Jacob Miller & Ray I, featuring their transcendent "All I Want for Ismas". Lol

And don't get me started on the televised parades. Less balloons, more stars, and all of them lip-synching. Your lips are half a second off on that line, celebrity - and it's your own song! You know why that microphone is so far away from your mouth? It's because you know it doesn't matter where it is! Milli Vanilli were ruined for less.

These new Christmas songs are all about romance, it seems to me. Once again, a tradition trying to find context. I guess with snow happening less and less in many places and half the world having Christmas in summer anyway, a secular Christmas song has to be about something. Is it strange that my favorite Christmas song lately is "Christmas Wrapping" by The Waitresses? Lol

What ever happened to hymns and carols? You know, the really old songs that glorified Jesus and told the story of the nativity of our Lord and Savior? Why are those songs a hundred years old or more? Bach, we need you! Make new ones! Yes, I do want a silent night. Yes, I do wish joy to the world. Yes, I do want ye merry gentlemen to remember Christ our Savior. Yes, I do want the herald angels to sing. Read these lyrics from "I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day" (I like the Sinatra version best):

I heard the bells on Christmas day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet the words repeat

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

I thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along th' unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head

"There is no peace on earth," I said,

"For hate is strong and mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good will to men."

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

"God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;

The wrong shall fail, the right prevail

With peace on earth, good will to men."

THAT is a Christmas song!

I wish Christian artists would make more original, faith-based Christmas music. Good stuff, though. Not that over-produced, formulaic stuff I usually hear on K-Love.

How do we fix this one? I don't think it really needs to be fixed. People like what they like. If people like romantic Christmas songs, so be it. To each their own. I just wish there was more in the way of hymns and carols is all. Perhaps let the artists know with your dollars that you prefer a more traditional Christmas song.

SANTA

Oh, here's one that's a touchy subject for many. Jolly old Saint Coca Cola advertisement.

I did in fact study the history of Santa Claus. I put some of the things I found into the Christmas FAQ. Look in the section on Other Traditions. Did you know Santa is not pagan in origin? It's true!

The tradition started harmlessly enough. Saint Nicholas was a real saint, and for very good reasons was arguably the most popular saint of all. There were some big changes after the Protestant Reformation. The original gift-giving day was the Feast of St. Nicholas on December 6, but Reformers couldn't have us honoring saints, so they moved it to Christmas and then created gift-givers like Father Christmas, and Christkindl, and the Weihnachtsmann. (Thanks again, Martin and Henry. Just peaches, you two.) And then things went sideways. The Dutch who still liked Saint Nicholas, transformed him into a magical, flying character to entertain the children. Then into a tiny character, because he needed to fit down stove pipes. And then he was a political instrument. He was relocated from New Jerusalem to the North Pole, to spite the Confederacy. And then, right when he was about to be abandoned, along comes a Coca Cola commercial. Now, he's just completely off the rails.
I imagine the real Saint Nicholas would not be on good terms with Santa Claus. Nicholas is the guy who allegedly punched Arius in the face at the Council of Nicaea, after all. Can you imagine Saint Nicholas punching Santa Claus? I find a small amount of comfort in that thought.

Secular Christmas is more about Santa than the Savior. That's a shame. Some people balked in 1965 when Linus recited some Bible verses in the animated special "A Charlie Brown Christmas". But no one has an issue with secular Santa. Most of the Christmas movies and shows these days are about Santa. It is far easier to find decorations of Santa or Santa themes than Jesus or Nativity themes. There are more popular "modern" songs about Santa than religious themes. Is Mariah Cary dressed like Mary Theotokos? No. She's dressed like Santa. People say Santa is the reason for the season. Santa Claus has in effect replaced Jesus in secular Christmas. This saddens me.

At the risk of giving aid and comfort to the Armstrongist propaganda machine - Santa Claus has gotten painfully close to becoming an idol for some people in our modern, secular Christmas.

I am not saying Santa crosses the line for all people in all instances. I enjoy some of the Santa movies and shows. I own the Lionel Polar Express train. The trick is to keep Santa in his place. Santa is nothing more than a character, like Mickey Mouse or Totoro or Captain Kirk (or Big Beak  Lol). Imaginary characters are not in and of themselves wrong. Santa Claus is not in and of itself wrong. A healthy imagination is a good thing. Let things be fantastical and magical and wonderful and playful in your life. Just keep it in perspective.

My suggestion to fix this one? Minimize Santa. I am not advocating ditching Santa, per se. I am advocating returning Santa to the status of a friendly character. He's a fictional character. Leave it at that. Personally, I much prefer those fuzzy gnome things with the massive beards. They're adorable!

I do like this Santa, though:

CONCLUSION

Alright. I think that's just about enough complaining for one day.

Christmas. It has issues. 

The issues, it seems to me, are really complaints about the world. If Christmas had never existed, all of these things would still exist in another context. I think they are fixable over time. No, I do not agree we should ditch Christmas, nor do I agree that any of these issues make it pagan. Not at all. If problems make things pagan, I refer you to the problems in your own life, and I refer you to the issues in your own church. I say it often and I will say it again - the definition of "pagan" used in groups like Armstrongism is expansive, unworkable, shifting, and self-serving. It accuses everyone on earth, including themselves, and you could argue it even accuses Jesus Christ. It's so expansive that it defeats itself. That's why it needs to shift, you see, so the accusers can excuse themselves. I disagree!

Christmas is a wonderful time of year all the same. Not in every way. Not for everyone. But what in this world is? I hope you find some way to make this year better than last, and next year better than this.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Only Pagans Observe Birthdays?

I just realized As Bereans Did has material on birthdays, but it is hidden all around here and there. We have no post specifically dedicated to the topic. About time I remedied that.

Growing up Armstrongist, we were taught never to celebrate birthdays. "It's pagan," they told us, "The only people in the Bible who celebrate their birthday were pagans, so you're a pagan if you do it, too. ...And don't wear makeup!" The Worldwide Church of God abandoned that position shortly after Herbert Armstrong died. Well, that wasn't official enough for some. I still get email asking about this topic. So, today, I want to investigate birthdays and find out whether or not we're pagan for celebrating them.

There isn't a whole lot of material to present, but I did run across some details I found to be interesting. Care to review birthdays with me? Oh, come on. What else did you have to do right now?

BIBLICAL BIRTHDAYS

In the interest of being thorough, let's see the three explicit instances of birthdays being celebrated in the Bible.

The birthday of Pharaoh (which Pharaoh is not known):

(GEN. 4: 20-22) 20 Now it came to pass on the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast for all his servants; and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants. 21 Then he restored the chief butler to his butlership again, and he placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand. 22 But he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph had interpreted to them.

Pharaoh's birthday is the only one mentioned in the entire Old Testament. That makes it the only birthday in the Jewish scriptures.

The birthdays of Job's children:

(JOB 1: 4-6) 4 Every year when Job’s sons had birthdays, they invited their brothers and sisters to their homes for a celebration. On these occasions they would eat and drink with great merriment. 5 When these birthday parties ended—and sometimes they lasted several days—Job would summon his children to him and sanctify them, getting up early in the morning and offering a burnt offering for each of them. For Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and turned away from God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular practice.

Job did not think his children having birthdays was a sin, he only conjectured that perhaps they might have sinned secretly in one way or the other while they were partying.

The birthday of Herod Antipas:

(MAT. 14: 6-7) 6 But when Herod’s birthday was celebrated, the daughter of Herodias danced before them and pleased Herod. 7 Therefore he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask.

(MAR. 6: 21-23) 21 Then an opportune day came when Herod on his birthday gave a feast for his nobles, the high officers, and the chief men of Galilee. 22 And when Herodias’ daughter herself came in and danced, and pleased Herod and those who sat with him, the king said to the girl, “Ask me whatever you want, and I will give it to you.” 23 He also swore to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half my kingdom.”

And don't forget this next one..

The birthday of Jesus:

(LUK. 2: 9-14) 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”

I prefer to include Jesus in the list of birthdays celebrated because the angels rejoiced at His birth, and because of the many people who will not have anything to do with birthdays mainly because of Christmas.

Was the incarnation of our Lord not a miraculous work of God, foretold by prophets, attended by angels, accompanied by signs (the star, the presence of John the Baptist, the visitations both to Mary and Joseph, born of a virgin, the death of the innocents), rich with prophetic imagery (the manger prophesying Jesus as true food from Heaven, the prophetic words of Elizabeth calling Mary the Mother of her Lord, the gifts of the Magi predicting Jesus' death), and did it not fulfill the specific timing as prophesied in Daniel?? The birth was no small event!

Some may balk since Jesus' birth was not a birthday celebration later in His life. I do recognize that and concede the point. Therefore, for the rest of the article I will try to leave it out. Today's post doesn't need it.

As an aside, there are some striking similarities between the accounts of Pharaoh and Herod Antipas. I think you would be very interested if you dug into that.

COMMONERS AND KINGS

If I were to ask you what is one thing all birthdays in the Bible have in common, what would you say? Probably that they are celebrated by pagans, I'd guess. Unfortunately, Job's children make off with that claim. Have you considered that they were celebrated by the wealthy and by kings..?

Job's children, Pharaoh, Herod Antipas - they were clearly advantaged. That is how things were until quite recently. According to the article "The Strange Origins of American Birthday Celebrations" on The Atlantic, until the 1800's, birthdays were rarely for common folk. How many of you honor President's Day in the United States? That was originally George Washington's birthday. Congress declared Washington's birthday a national holiday in 1879. In 1971, the federal holiday was moved from February 11 to the third Monday in February. There is also the slightly lesser-known Lincoln's Birthday. I mention these days because this is typical throughout history. Birthdays were usually for the societal upper crust.

That's just how things were. They had their way of doing things and we have ours, and the two are not the same. That doesn't make either one better or worse. It just makes groups of people think differently about birthday celebrations. It is possible people simply did not think of birthday celebrations as something common folk would do. You go to work on your birthday, peasant, that's what you do.

Society had structures, and most people who weren't in the appropriate social strata would not do those kinds of things. It's not just birthdays that were like this. People often didn't wear clothes of other social strata, or hold jobs, or use titles, or occupy the same spaces, or travel on the same level of the ship, or eat meat often, or any number of other things that were outside of their status. That's just the way the world was, and in many ways still is. It does not appear birthdays became the norm for common folk until the 1800's, when several societies started removing those social stratus barriers between the common and elite.

If you do a study into history, you will find some older practices that were really quite different from what we do today. That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not we are pagans. We aren't. I absolutely reject "once pagan, always pagan". We can place any guilt we may feel at the feet of an ancient Christian writer, Origen.

For more on the subject of "once pagan, always pagan" see our article "Peddlers of Paganism".

ORIGEN

Well, sadly, it seems we cannot have a conversation about birthdays in the Bible without mentioning Origen. That old Armstrongist quote-mining favorite. So, let's get this over with.

Origen touched on birthdays in two of his works from around the years 238-248 AD. Quite early! One I will quote, the other I will ignore. You can read the second quote, which I am ignoring, in his "Commentary on Matthew', available online at the Sacred Texts website. He just condemns birthdays as pagan and claims people who celebrate birthdays dance to the Devil. I just don't want to waste any more space on that than is absolutely necessary, so I will make you aware of it and move on back to Homilies on Leviticus.

On to quote 1....

Here are the actual words of Origen on the subject, from his "Homilies on Leviticus", translated into English:

"But Scripture also declares that one himself who is born whether male or female is not clean from filth although his life is of one day. 16 And that you may know that there is something great in this and such that it has not come from the thought to any of the saints; not one from all the saints is found to have celebrated a festive day or a great feast on the day of his birth. No one is found to have had joy on the day of the birth of his son or daughter. Only sinners rejoice over this kind of birthday . For indeed we find in the Old Testament Pharaoh, king of Egypt, celebrating the day of his birth with a festival, 17 and in the New Testament, Herod. ls However, both of them stained the festival of his birth by shedding human blood. For the Pharaoh killed "the chief baker 19 Herod, the holy prophet John in prison. 20 But the saints not only do not celebrate a festival on their birth days, but, filled with the Holy Spirit, they curse that day."
-Origen, "Homilies on Leviticus", volume VIII. 
Taken from Gary Wayne Berkley, "The Fathers of the Church A New Translation", volume 83, "Homilies on Leviticus 1-16", CUA Press, 2010, p.156.
(You can download a copy of your own for free from Zlip.pub.)

Now, you will want a little context. This entire section of Origen's homily is about this one verse:

(LEV. 12: 2) "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean."

Origen is trying to expound on the uncleanness of the woman and the child. Origen is making a case that normal humans, including the greatest prophets, are unclean because of their conception and their birth. Then, he makes the case how that does not apply to Mary, because she is a virgin and never conceived in the normal way (in some places, it seems like Origen believes she did not conceive at all, even though Matthew and Luke say she did). The exception applies to Jesus as well.
He makes his distinction for Mary and Jesus, and then he continues on about universal uncleanness for everyone else. That brings us to the where the quote above appears.

When Origen gets to this section I quoted above, he is trying to make the case that all humans are unclean from birth, and birth should not be celebrated by us because we are unclean. He goes on to show how we should curse our birth, even saying the Holy Spirit would lead us into cursing our own birth. (So, when Jesus says it would be better if the one who betrays him was never born, we should all feel that way about ourselves? I don't think so.) He gives examples of Job, David, and Jeremiah. Then, he explains this uncleanness is why the Church performs baptism even on infants. (Recall, he wrote Homilies on Leviticus between 238 and 244. Quite early!)

That is the context of the quote on birthdays.

Do you agree with all of that? I bet you don't. I certainly do not. I have three large issues with it.

1) Not moral uncleanness but ceremonial.

The first major problem I have with Origen's concept of uncleanness is he makes the uncleanness about moral uncleanness. You can see the concept of Original Sin hiding in here. I disagree that the uncleanness in Leviticus 12 is moral. Rather, the uncleanness is ceremonial.

Unclean people were not sinners, per se, rather, they were ceremonially impure and unfit to occupy sacred space or join in the sacred assembly. This uncleanness is taken care of by waiting a few days and offering sacrifices. Childbirth is directly in line with many, many other causes of ritual uncleanness described in the Old Testament, including such things as menstruation, touching a carcass or dead body, touching someone who was unclean, sickness, and etc. This same uncleanness affects animals and inanimate objects. Can dishes sin? No. None of these are moral; all of these are ceremonial. There was no need to go on and on about how we are all unclean from conception and birth, pleading a special exception for Mary and Jesus, because this was never permanent moral uncleanness to begin with. It was all temporary ceremonial uncleanness. And at the end of the day, it did apply to Mary and Jesus after all, as you can read in Luke 2:

(LUK. 2: 22-24) 22 Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

This is Mary obeying the law in Leviticus 12, which absolutely is about ritual impurity. For Origen to make a way that it did not apply to her is to contradict Luke. (There used to be a church holiday called Candlemas that honored this very event.)

But none of this applies to us in the New Covenant.

2) Ceremonial uncleanness not in the New Covenant.

The second major problem I have with Origen is that there is no ceremonial uncleanness in the New Covenant. That is entirely an Old Covenant thing. This objection needs no lengthy explanation. It really is as simple as that. Origen speaks out against birthdays because of a cleanliness system that does not apply to us. I go over ceremonial law a little more in the post "Is Ceremonial Law Removed?"
The entire foundation of Origen's argument is gone.

We are left with his claim that it was only observed in the Bible by pagans.

3) He left out Job's children.

The third major problem I have with Origen is that he only gives Pharaoh and Herod Antipas as his evidence. Except .. he left out Job's children. Given what we know about Job and how he would pray with his children, we can see they were clearly faithful people. Only, they were faithful people who knew how to party. That doesn't make them bad people or pagans.

About that paganism, notice Origen never calls Pharaoh or Herod "pagans". He calls them murderers. His complaint was they shed blood on their birthdays. Job's children definitely didn't do that. I would hardly say it is a compelling argument that no one should celebrate their birthday because Pharaoh and Herod had people killed on theirs. Well, better stop keeping Passover, then. Pilate had someone killed on that day.

The people who use Origen to support their condemnation of birthdays probably do not understand Origen to begin with, but I bet they would also have major problems with Origen if they did understand him. Many would certainly not agree with original sin or infant baptism. I personally hope they would not agree that the Holy Spirit would lead us to curse our birth. So, do they quote Origen as an authoritative source, or just because he is convenient? Clearly, they don't think he is authoritative if they think he is a pagan himself who professes heretical beliefs (heretical to their own systems, I mean). Therefore, it is clear they quote him only because he conveniently says a few words they agree with.

Is Origen as an example of what the early church believed about birthdays? I would not go so far as to hold Origen up as the standard for his time. He was influential and respected, but some of his ideas were unconventional. If this was typical, peddlers of paganism would find other authors of his time to quote.

And that, dear reader, is yet another in a long line of examples of how people will quote mine for things that want to hear regardless of all else.

HEROD ANTIPAS

I actually have a problem 3b.

You probably came here because you heard the only people in the Bible who celebrated their birthdays were pagans. That is what I was told in my days in Armstrongism. Is it true that in the Bible only pagans celebrate their birthdays? No. As we have already seen, Job's children were not pagans. But there is one other non-pagan to discuss: Herod Antipas.

Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great. He was half Edomite on his father's side and half Samaritan on his mother's. Was Herod Antipas a pagan? Surprisingly, no. He was religiously Jewish!

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Herod Antipas says this about him:

"It is true that, at least ostensibly, he complied with the more important ordinances of the Jewish faith, and that he went to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts."
-"Antipas (Herod Antipas)", Jewish Encyclopedia, 2015, https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7602-herod-antipas. Accessed Nov 3, 2024.

See? Jewish. Go ahead, Google what Herod's religion was. You'll find it was Jewish. It doesn't matter if you think Herod Antipas was a bad Jew. The fact remains he was a practicing Jew. Ergo, by definition he was not a pagan. At the very least, he was not a pagan in the same way Pharaoh was.

The Jewish Encyclopedia article goes on to show that Antipas was hated and did nothing to counter that. Origen, in his Homilies on Matthew, which I did not quote, says Herod Antipas was a worse man than Pharaoh. So, we can conclude Herod Antipas was universally seen as a bad Jew. But if you want to compare bad Jewishness, Solomon was arguably worse yet. So, there's that.
In Herod's defense, he did not want John the Baptist killed. He had carelessly walked into a trap. It was his wife and daughter that were the worse offenders here. Herod was just too weak to stand up and insist their request was unreasonable.

Therefore, the initial claim that the only people in the Bible who celebrated birthdays were pagans is false. Two out of three explicit references to birthday celebrations were non-pagans. That is all that some churches make their stand on against birthdays, and it's not even true.

That will be of little use against people dead set on the accusation of paganism. To them, everyone not in their own system are pagans. So, to them, Job's children and Herod were pagans, regardless. And so are you and I. Case closed.
I simply cannot and will not agree with that.

NOT IGNORED

The point in todays' article is to investigate birthday celebrations, but I want to make a very brief detour.

Understand that birthdays are not ignored by people in the Bible, or even by the Jews outside of the Bible. When I listed the birthdays from the Bible, what I gave you were the three explicit mentions of birthday celebrations. One might conclude that means those were the only mentions, and therefore birthdays were largely ignored. That is not so. What I have not given you are the many, many times ages were mentioned.

People knew how old they were. They had to know their birthday, or roughly know, in order to know how old they were.

Think of all the times you heard a person's age in the Bible. Also, one had to know their birthday to determine things like the age of accountability, the age of eligibility for military service, or coming of age celebrations like bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs (which are inherently a celebration of age), just to name three.

So, people did know their birthdays. They just didn't usually celebrate them.

The ones who lean towards birthdays being pagan will think this is a useless point to make. "Knowing their age is beside the point," they will say, "it is the celebration that is pagan not the knowledge." I hear this complaint. I agree this argument here is weak. But I do mention it for a reason. My reason is to nudge your thinking toward the idea that there is a lot more to the discussion of birthdays in the Bible than just three explicit mentions. There is a lot more to it even than what I've shown you here in this post.

I will recommend another item for you to read, which you can find for free online. There was once an online publication called "Halachically Speaking". They dive into detail on the Jewish perspective on birthdays in volume 9 issue 11, titled "Happy Birthday", dated 2015, written  by Rabbi Moishe Dovid Lebovits and reviewed by Rabbi Benzion Schiffenbauer Shlita. You can find it on the Wayback Machine.

There are some confusing terms in it for non-Jews, but overall it is easily understood. They touch on things it would take me far too much space and words to review, including such things as:

• Jews are not necessarily against birthdays,
• There are birthdays mentioned in the Bible indirectly,
• Birthdays were not ignored by people in the Bible,
• Birthdays in extra-biblical Jewish literature. 

NOT RELIGIOUS

I want you to keep in mind another very important point: Birthdays are not religious celebrations. If they are not religious, then they are not pagan. Pagan, by definition, has to do with religious matters. Pagans can celebrate their birthdays, but birthdays are not by nature pagan.

Birthdays are entirely secular. Birthdays are every bit as secular as the Fourth of July ...the birthday of America. Do you know anyone who condemns secular national holidays like Independence Day, Cinco de Mayo, and etc? I don't. (I'm sure someone out there does.) During my time in Armstrongism, I was never taught to avoid those days. What's the difference? There is none.

Birthdays are just anniversaries. Do you celebrate your wedding anniversary? Then don't throw rocks at birthdays.

Some people will not celebrate the birth of their Lord and Savior but they will celebrate the birth of their nation or their marriage. So, they are not against all birthdays, just specific ones. 

What's more, there are people who say we should not have any celebration that is not specifically commanded in the Bible. Where did they get that notion? Not from the Bible! (Please read Martha's article "Established and Imposed".)

But let's go with that. The new standard is, we can't do anything the Bible doesn't command us to do. Well, the Bible says nothing for or against birthdays. Condemning birthdays is not something we are commanded to do in the Bible! So, why are people doing it? The Bible is neither here nor there about birthday celebrations. It only mentions them as part of the narrative of events. It never says they are good or bad. It seems to me the weakest of all arguments to say if the Bible is against something, don't do it, but if the Bible is not against something, don't do it.

CONCLUSION

We have gone over some things today!

It is not true that in the Bible only pagans celebrate their birthdays. Job's kids were faithful. Herod Antipas was a Jew.
What is true, however, is that only people who explicitly celebrated their birthdays in the Bible were wealthy. Birthdays were for the upper echelons until quite recently, but not because they were rejected as pagan, rather because of societal norms. It seems reasonable to conclude it was the tearing down of social strata in the 1700s and 1800s that led to common birthdays.
Birthdays were not ignored in the Bible. Other birthdays besides the three explicit references are hinted at. Jews are not necessarily against birthdays.
Birthdays are not religious celebrations, they are secular, therefore they are not able to be "pagan" any more than Independence Day or wedding anniversaries.
Origen tried to apply guilt by association, but he misunderstood who kept a birthday in the Bible as well as what the nature of uncleanness is in Leviticus. We know the accusation that only pagans observed birthdays is false. We don't find it compelling to stop just because someone was killed on the day. We know the uncleanness was ceremonial only, and does not apply in the New Covenant. So, any guilt by association is removed.

What is left? Nothing much at all. I would say birthday celebrations come out rather clean in this investigation. Seems to me that makes the answer 'yes'. Yes, Christians may celebrate birthdays.

Were you accused of being a pagan for celebrating a birthday? You can see it was a baseless accusation, made by someone parroting something they heard but did not genuinely understand. People will accuse you of paganism for many things besides just birthdays. If you are considering giving up birthdays because someone accused you of paganism, don't fool yourself that it will help. You will only find you are accused for something else. It is an endless chase. In the end, will you find grace and peace?

I am not here to talk people into celebrating birthdays. My usual disclaimer for things like this is - if you feel guilty about it, don't do it. But research it to see if you feel guilty reasonably or unreasonably, rightfully or mistakenly. Hopefully today's post helped you do just that.

May God guide you to a life that glorifies Him, regardless.

Oh! And a happy belated birthday to you!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Samhain Was Not On October 31

One thing As Bereans Did has never put through the patented gauntlet is Halloween. I personally am not all too interested in researching Halloween. Well, until recently, that is.

Two things have changed my mind somewhat.
The first is, when the God Cannot Be contained blog put up their post "Samhain and Halloween", I found a small desire to comment on a few points. It's a good post! Check it out.
The second is, last evening I decided to sneak around the internet for Armstrongist material against holidays. (I sometimes wonder if I do this to punish myself.) I started at COGWA's "Life, Hope, and Truth" blog, where they currently have a couple articles on Halloween highlighted. I wasn't looking for a Halloween post. I was hoping for a Christmas one. But, ya work with what ya got, I suppose. I poked around in the one titled "Answering Four Excuses To Celebrate Halloween". It has some terrible information. Surprise! Bet you didn't see that coming.

Here is a quote from the article:

"Both Halloween and All Saints’ Day originate from the ancient pagan Celtic festival of Samhain. Notice what History.com writes about this pagan festival (still celebrated by many Wiccans today):

'This day marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31 they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth' (History of Halloween). 

The Catholics changed the celebration of the dead to the celebration of dead saints in heaven. But, as we see on Halloween, many of the dark themes have remained.'"

-Eddie Foster. (10-8-2024) "Answering Four Excuses To Celebrate Halloween". Life Hope and Truth. 

Here are two points of many that I didn't agree with:

• "Both Halloween and All Saints’ Day originate from the ancient pagan Celtic festival of Samhain."
  False!
  Halloween comes from All Saints Day, and All Saints has nothing to do with Samhain.
• "On the night of October 31 they celebrated Samhain."
  False!
  The Celts did not use the Roman calendar. No one knows how they calculated Samhain, but it was according to their own methods not the Roman.

As you can see, the blog post references History.com article "Halloween 2024", which used to bear the title "History of Halloween". https://www.history.com/topics/halloween/history-of-halloween
I like it that they at least cited something. Problem is, that article has some terrible information. We have seen that from History before.

Let's dig down into those points.

POINT #1 - ALL HALLOWS

Point #1 was: "Both Halloween and All Saints’ Day originate from the ancient pagan Celtic festival of Samhain." This is false. Let's explore.

Halloween comes from the Catholic holy day called All Saints Day. All Saints is also known as All Hallows and Hallowmas (hallow is an old word meaning holy). Halloween is the Eve of All Hallows. That is what Halloween means - All Hallows Eve. Halloween does not come from Samhain, it comes from All Saints Day. All Saints and All Souls together became known as Hallowtide and Allhallowtide.

All Saints Day shares absolutely no origins whatsoever with Samhain. All Saints has roots in the Jewish practice of honoring martyrs. (For more, read "Martyrdom in Jewish Tradition" at Boston College.) From the start, Christian martyrs were honored on the date they were killed. (For more, read "How the Early Church Viewed Martyrs" on Christianity Today.) Open persecution by the Romans made more martyrs than was reasonable to honor on their individual death-dates. So, various areas decided to create a single day to honor all their martyrs. Different areas, different days, same goal.
All Saints unified those various traditions and was enlarged to honor all the dead in Heaven. And that is why the day after All Saints is All Souls. Due to the doctrine of Purgatory, All Souls is dedicated to all faithful departed who have not yet entered Heaven.

Now that you have the summary, let's look at the details.

Pope Boniface IV consecrated the Pantheon in Rome (yes that Pantheon) to Mary and all martyrs on May 13 in 609 AD (Bede, "Ecclesiastical History of England", book II, chapter IV). That memorial was for the area of Rome only, and did not apply to the entire church. Various areas still held their own memorials. You can read about celebrations for all martyrs on days like April 20, or the first Sunday after Pentecost in Orthodox areas.

We can be confident Boniface IV did not do this to coopt Samhain, because 1) it was a church dedication, 2) to Christian martyrs, 3) it was half a year off, and 4) it was a local event to the region of Rome and had nothing to do with other areas.

The first time November 1st enters the equation is when Pope Gregory III dedicated an altar in a chapel in St. Peter’s Basilica to all saints on November 1, 735 AD. This changed the focus from martyrs to all saints in heaven. This is where the name All Hallows ultimately originates, because this dedication was not just about martyrs only but all saints -- all holies. And it still did not apply to the entire church. Notice that this did not necessarily "move" anything. The Pantheon is still dedicated to Mary and all martyrs to this day. If anything, all it did was duplicate days. There were two memorials in Rome now, one to martyrs and one to saints in Heaven, in addition to memorials in other areas.
We can be confident Gregory III did not do this to coopt Samhain, because 1) it was an altar dedication, 2) to Christian departed in Heaven, 3) he seems to have done it in protest to Emperor Leo III's iconoclasm, 4) he held a conclave to counter the Emperor's iconoclasm on that very same day, and 5) it was a local event to the region of Rome and had nothing to do with other areas.
(For more, read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope St. Gregory III. Also see Horace K. Mann "The Lives of the Popes" volume 1 part 1 p. 205.)

Finally, in 835 AD, Pope Gregory IV made November 1 the official date for the Feast of All Saints for the entire western church. Applying the feast to the whole church is what he did differently than his predecessors. He didn't do it coopt anything, since he chose a date that had been relevant in his own area for 100 years. He did it for uniformity. He was merging multiple scattered but related traditions into one.
We can be confident Gregory IV did not do this to coopt Samhain, because 1) all he did was unify all western traditions into one, and 2) he chose a day that already had this significance in his area.
(For more, see Horace K. Mann "The Lives of the Popes" volume 2 p. 230.)

To summarize what we just read:

• In 609 AD Pope Boniface IV created a memorial to all martyrs on May 13.
• In 735 AD Pope Gregory III created a memorial to all departed saints in Heaven on November 1, apparently as part of his dispute with the Byzantine Emperor.
• Lastly, in 835 AD Pope Gregory IV expanded the all saints memorial to the whole church.

That is how All Saints began. Notice how I said nothing about Samhain. It did not factor in.

A popular claim on the internet is that one or the other Pope Gregory moved the date to November 1 specifically to counter the popularity of Samhain. That seems to come from Sir James Frazer, author of "The Golden Bough". We talk about him in our Christmas articles. He was in the German History of Religions School, whose ideas are now all but rejected by modern researchers.

We've put ourselves into the shoes of an Italian. Now, let's briefly put ourselves into the shoes of these Celts we've been talking about. Particularly the Celts in the British Isles, because the Celts of the European mainland were thoroughly Christian.

The Celtic religion was heavily persecuted by the Roman Empire (itself extinct in the west by that time). The Romans were against the Celtic practice of human sacrifice. The Celtic native religion was in a state of heavy decline in areas of Roman control. It was becoming Roman. When the Romans evacuated from the Britain, the Celts fought amongst themselves. When Christian evangelists arrived in Britain, it was to a people generally in a state of religious confusion. Converting them wasn't "easy" per se, but it was successful. By the time the Pope created All Saints on November 1, the Druids were all but gone, the Celts in the British isles were being conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, they were both being invaded by the Norsemen, and the Christians had real structure. If anything, Samhain was getting less and less popular, not more.

As you can see, there are several problems with claiming All Saints comes from Samhain. The basic claim that Samhain was so popular the Pope felt threatened and had to coopt it is just not realistic.

POINT #2 - OCTOBER 31

Point #2 was: "On the night of October 31 they celebrated Samhain." This is false. Let's dig into why.

Samhain was not on November 1. Samhain was not on October 31 either. Hard to coopt a festival by getting the date wrong.

We can say Samhain was not on these dates because the luni-solar calendar the Celts used did not line up to the Roman calendar. I've said this so very many times in other articles, but here we go again. The Celts did not have an October or a November. The Celts had a luni-solar calendar that did not align to any of the Roman calendars. Nothing the Celts did was always on any particular Roman date. Judging from the only Celtic calendar we have, the Coligny Calendar, we can see their calendar was more like the old Jewish calendar than the Roman. No one knows exactly how the Druids determined when Samhain was to occur, but we don't have to know that. All we need is their calendar. We can be completely confident they didn't use the Roman calendar, ergo we can be completely confident nothing they did was always on such and such a Roman date. We will expand on this idea later on. But the point here is - that the Pope set a fixed date at all demonstrates he wasn't coopting Samhain. Some people look at the claims against Christmas, where they say Christmas coopted Natalis Invicti, and then they try to repeat that claim elsewhere, like Halloween coopted Samhain. But in the case of Christmas, we are talking about one holiday that used the Roman calendar supposedly coopting another holiday that used the Roman calendar. Samhain was not determined by the Roman calendar. So, setting a Roman date is not going to coopt anything from another culture that didn't use Roman dates.

CELTIC CALENDAR vs JULIAN vs GREGORIAN

I promised to come back to the calendar issue. We need to talk about this.

The popular claim is that Samhain was always on October 31, and that forced Pope Gregory III to move All Saints to November 1 to coopt it, and therefore Halloween/All Saints is really Samhain. None of that is true. Let's think about why not.

Before we do, I want to warn you that this is going to be a bit technical. I apologize in advance. To summarize what we will do next - I am going to walk you through three Roman calendars. The point is, no foreign calendar matched any one Roman calendar, let alone all three. This is the most important point in my entire article. This proves no Druidic festival was always on such and such a date.

Roman Republic Period

Imagine yourself going back in time. Back, back, way back. The year is 100 BC (a date I chose completely at random). The Druids are in their heyday. Celts populate central and western Europe and the British isles. They were also pushing southeast, to the Mediterranean and into Turkey (think Galatians). It is October 31 on the calendar of the Roman Republic.
Now I ask you - what calendar are the Romans using?
Answer: the pre-Julian calendar.

Why is that important? Because, as I've discussed in many other posts, that Roman calendar was a hot mess.

I will quote from my article "Quotes Before Christmas":

"Rome was founded in the 700's BC. For the first few centuries they had no winter months at all. In the 500's BC, February was in the place of December. Around 450 BC they moved December to the end of the year. After that, the calendar was regularly manipulated for political purposes. In 46 BC, Julius Caesar completely revamped the calendar. In 8 BC Augustus corrected the calendar."

Do you see how the Celtic calendar could not match up with the mess of a calendar used in the Roman Republic in such a way that we can say Samhain was always on such and such a date? You couldn't rely on the Roman calendar to be the same year to year. Samhain was not always on October 31 in this period. The farther back in time you go, the worse it gets. If it was, it was only in some years, only because of sheer dumb luck, and we can never know which years. We cannot be sure Samhain was ever on October 31. We cannot claim it never was, but we can be sure "Samhain was always on October 31" is not an option.

Julian Period

Now, we move forward in time. The year is 735 AD. Imagine yourself in that time. Pope Gregory III just dedicated a chapel in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome to all saints. The western Roman Empire has come and gone. Gregory III is in a dangerous struggle with Byzantine Emperor Leo III regarding icons. He has called a conclave from all areas of the west to protest the Emperors iconoclasm. The Celts in the British isles have been pushed north and west by the Anglo-Saxons. The Druids are practically extinct, except possibly in quite remote areas. It is 550 years since the first Christian King in Britain (Bede, "Ecclesiastical History of England", book I, chapter IV). The Venerable Bede is said to have just died. Charlemagne won't be born for 12 more years. Vikings will be coming to raid Britain in the next few years. It is November 1 on your Roman calendar.

Now, I ask you - what calendar are you using?
Answer: the Julian calendar.

Why is that important? Because you are now on your second Roman calendar system, and it loses time. 

The Julian calendar is not like the pre-Julian calendar. Dates on the Roman calendar have moved because the whole system was replaced. The entire math behind it is new, it went from lunar to solar, days were added, months were rearranged, it was an overhaul. Did that move Samhain? No. The Romans changing their calendar wouldn't affect any other calendar at all, including the Celts'. If there was any alignment between Samhain and October 31 before the Julian calendar, that alignment is now even harder to achieve. Not only that, but due to a flaw in the Julian calendar, the dates slip by one day every 130 years. November 1 to Pope Gregory is 5 days off from that of Julius Caesar. But dates are not moving around on the Celtic calendar. The farther forward in time you go, the farther apart they get.
Given these conditions, how can anyone say Samhain was always on such and such a date? They cannot.

Even if the Celts tied their festivals to the sun (which most people do not think they did), it still wouldn't match the Roman calendar because of what we just talked about.

Gregorian Period

Now, we move forward in time again. The year is 1582. Pope Gregory XIII has just implemented a correction to the Julian calendar that fixed its math problem and will stop the time drift the west has endured since 46AD. Most pagan groups in Europe are long gone. No one observes Samhain anymore. Chris Columbus has sailed the ocean blue. Martin Luther and King Henry VIII are dead, and the Protestant Reformation is in full swing. The date is Friday, October 15. And yesterday was October 4. (No, not 14th. Fourth.)
Now, I ask you - what calendar are you using?
Answer: The Gregorian calendar.

Why is that important? Because you are now on your third Roman calendar system, and this one is ten days off from the last. 

If Samhain could not match up to the first or the second periods, how much less the third? By 1582, the Julian calendar had lost almost 13 days. This was seriously affecting Easter. The Gregorian reform advanced the calendar by 10 days. The position of the year was reset back to the way it was in 325 AD, the year of the Council of Nicaea. Samhain didn't move, but October 31 and November 1 did. By ten days! Thursday October 4, 1582, was followed by Friday October 15. There was no October 5 through 14 that year. Not on the Gregorian calendar, anyway.

And the Gregorian calendar did not catch on all at once because the Protestants and Orthodox didn't care much for the Pope. It took centuries. People used the Gregorian or the Julian, depending on where they were. And they still do! The Orthodox Church still uses the Julian. Two October 31sts. Every year. Which is the right one?

The Samhain was always on such and such a date crowd are now faced with a terrible problem. If Samhain is on October 31 today, then it wasn't on October 31 when All Saints Day was established on November 1 in 735 AD. And if Samhain was on October 31 in 735 AD, then it isn't anymore today. Pick your fail.

Your only other alternative is to say Samhain was changed to match the Roman calendar, like Germanic days were (ie. Yule), which completely undermines the claim that All Saints was changed to coopt Samhain. It's literally the opposite. Consider how important a point this is. It also screams out loud that the original details of Samhain are unknown (which is true), and people should really stop making unfounded claims.

CELTIC CALENDAR

We have looked at the Roman calendars, now let's look at the Celtic.

In 1897, in Coligny, France, a bronze calendar was found. It is now called the Coligny Calendar. (I mentioned this earlier.) It was in pieces, apparently purposefully destroyed. The chief suspect in its destruction is Rome. As it turns out, this is the only known example of a Celtic calendar.

Coligny Calendar

I have done some reading on this calendar and I would like to give you some details on how it worked.

It seems to have been made in the second century AD. It is a luni-solar calendar - which means it is a lunar calendar with corrections meant to keep from drifting too far out of synch with the solar year. It is a peg calendar, much like the kind used in Rome around that time. It has roman numerals. So, it is definitely influenced by Rome. It has several measurements of time, including days and nights. It has 5-day weeks, six weeks in a month with either 29 or 30-day months (as any lunar calendar will), 12 months in a year, a 5-year annual cycle with leap-months every 2 1/2 years, and a 30-year great cycle (exactly as Pliny mentioned in his "Natural History"). It has names for the months. The month names have meanings, somewhat similar to the German calendar. It does list some festivals.

Some problems include, several pieces are missing, no one knows when the new year was (all claims are speculation only, but the top choice is in the fall), no one knows how the names of the months line up in the year (e.g., is the month of Samonios in the spring or the fall), and we know this calendar is not representative of all Celts.

And let us not overlook the fact that the Celtic calendar was luni-solar. That means leap-months - like our leap day, except it was a whole month. All lunar calendars need leap-months or they cannot stay in synch with the solar calendar. Just like the Jewish calendar has leap-months, the Celtic calendar did too. Leap months change dates. That's the whole point! That means the Celtic calendar was out of synch with the Roman solar calendars regularly.

You have a choice here. If Samhain was based on the Celtic calendar, then it was often a day out of synch with solar events like the equinox and the solstice. But if Samhain was based on solar events, then it was often a day out of synch with their own calendar. Pick your fail.

19-YEAR TIME CYCLES

You can tell from some of these details that the Coligny Calendar behaves similarly to the Jewish calendar. It also has the amazing ability to work in more than one way. If you work the calendar just so, it can count the nineteen-year time cycles necessary to keep the lunar year in alignment with the solar.

Does that phrase "nineteen-year time cycles" seem familiar to you? It was a favorite phrase of Herbert Armstrong's. He said understanding those time cycles was key to understanding prophecy. (For an example, read our post "All Systems Are Go!".) Yet, here we have the pagan Druids using nineteen-year time cycles. Doesn't that make it ... "once pagan, always pagan"?? So, the Worldwide Church of God went around promoting paganism?

I wonder how many people are trying to excuse away their belief in "once pagan, always pagan" right now. Well, welcome to the club! I've rejected it years ago.

UNBROKEN

I have one more small bone to pick with the "Answering Four Excuses" article.

In his article, Eddie Foster said, "Wiccans still celebrate Halloween today," as if to say it's an unbroken continuation. Not so. Wicca was invented in the mid-1900s. They take upon themselves old pagan practices from various cultures that they've read about in history books.
Some pagans in the United States and Europe have read through histories and decided to celebrate Samhain. Because they didn't think about the prior calendar changes (same as most everyone else), and because they didn't know much about the calendar the Druids used (same as most everyone else), they decide to just go with the current thing and put Samhain on October 31. They start spreading the idea that Halloween is Samhain.

Armstrongists come along and say, "Hey! We don't like Halloween anyway. This explanation affirms what we want to hear! Let's publish it like it's true." So, they sell you this story about how it was always like that. But it wasn't always like that. Because it couldn't be! So much for Life, Hope, and Truth.

Do you see how people today take what they see today and then project it backwards in time? That's not right. Don't do that. They also take what was in the recent past and project it backwards into the distant past. We will see that in the next section. That's not right, either. Don't do that.

SAMHAIN AND ETC.

If we are going to be on the subject of Samhain, we might as well hit a few of the highlights for good measure. My main point being demonstrated to death, I will give you a rapid-fire bunch of interesting facts and observations.

Samhain was a harvest festival at summer's end. Samhain was not a "celebration of the dead" as Eddie Foster quipped. They didn't celebrate the dead, they celebrated the harvest. Exactly when summer's end was to those people, no one knows for certain. Pliny, in his "Natural History" book 16 chapter 95, mentions mistletoe was collected, "on the fifth day of the moon, the day which is the beginning of their months and years..." So it appears they followed the moon and their calendar, not the sun. Makes sense. Even with that quote, we only know roughly, but not specifically.

I have read countless articles how Imbolc was February 1, Beltane was May 1, Lughnasa was August 1, and Samhain was ... October 31?? Why is that one always on the 31st, but the rest were on the 1st? Bias. Fact is, none of them were always on any of those dates.
Regarding those days, Ronald Hutton in "Stations of the Sun" page 411, says,

"The notion of a distinctive 'Celtic' ritual year, with four festivals at the quarter-days and opening at Samhain, is a scholastic construction of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries [ie. invented by James Frazer and repeated] which should now be considerably revised or even abandoned altogether."

Well. Isn't that interesting!

I've heard the festivals were calculated based on solar events. Even though it was a lunar culture? Well, let's go with that. The equinox is on September 22 and the solstice is on December 21. Those are the wrong dates for sure. So, what is the mid-point between the autumnal equinox and the winter solstice? That's 90 days. Well, what is 45 days after September 22? November 6. Why, that's the wrong date, too! Do you see how this game is played?

I have read some articles that speculate if Samhain was coopted by Catholics at all, it wasn't All Saints Day that replaced it but Saint Martin's Day (aka Martinmas). Saint Martin's Day, now abandoned, was once the largest festival in that corner of the year. Some sources say it was as big before the Protestant Reformation as Thanksgiving is to us now. It was the Protestant Reformation that killed it. An interesting proposition! But equally difficult to prove out.

Samhain might have had religious overtones, but its primary focus was harvest. It is possible to have a harvest festival with religious overtones and still say it was not a religious day. We do as much every year at Thanksgiving.

Some people say Samhain was a three-day festival. It takes time to kill animals, burn them, feast, and make textiles. No one knows this for sure, however. Perhaps in some areas it was and others it wasn't. Or, perhaps, people today are looking at Halloween, All Saints, and All Souls and using that to make unfounded assumptions that Samhain was three-days long.

You've no doubt heard about the bonfires. Do you know why bonfires are called bonfires? The word means "bone fires". They were large fires where animal bones were burned. Bone ash was used to make all sorts of useful things, including soap. Amos 2: 1 mentions the bones of a king being burned into lime. I want to point out that bone fires were not typically lit at night. They were daytime fires that might last into the night. It does not have to be nighttime to have a fire (have you ever camped?). The word bonfire did not come to mean a large celebratory fire until the 16th century. That is well after Druidic paganism was eliminated. These weren't party fires nor purely religious rituals. They were farming necessities. I am not saying there were no large celebratory fires before the 16th century. I am just saying people need to drop the notion that the word bonfire is always synonymous with a pagan ritual. Also, drop the idea that just because they had a large fire it had to be about fires and had to be at night.
This all reminds me of the Yule Log, which turns out to be a Christian tradition. (For more, see our post "Christmas FAQ" in the section "Does the Yule Log come from pagan Yule traditions?".)

There was no demon/deity named Samhain at all. That is completely false. Yet another example of something everybody needed to know that wasn't true at all. For example, take this quote from the Plain Truth Magazine:

"'The earliest Halloween celebrations were held' - not by the inspired early church, but - 'by the Druids in honor of Samhain, Lord of the Dead, whose festival fell on November 1.' (From Halloween Through Twenty Centuries by Ralph Linton, p. 4)"
-Herman Hoeh, "Halloween Where Did It Come From?", Plain Truth Magazine, Oct 1955, p. 7

Herman Hoeh, "the most accurately informed man in the world". Plain truth, they called it. Mind your sources!

Some people say Halloween is Samhain because of costumes, trick-or-treating, and jack-o'-lanterns. Well, about that....

The practice of dressing up in costume was called "guising" in England. Putting on costume and going around to entertain or to collect charity was called "mumming". Mumming was done at many holidays, especially Christmas. According to Ronald Hutton, in his book "Stations of the Sun", mumming is first mentioned in France in 1263 AD (p. 11). and it grew in popularity for centuries afterward (pp. 11-12). Most of the dressing up kids do today comes from an American tradition from the 1900s. Did some pagans also dress up? Some did. But commonality does not prove causality. It is not reasonable to punt to an ancient tradition when we have a more recent tradition available.

Going door-to-door asking for soul cakes, or prayers, or charity was called "souling". I will leave some links at the end of this post to some websites that discuss souling. That will help you understand that dressing up and going door-to-door is quite Christian. Same as with mumming, souling was done at many holidays, including Christmas. It was a convenient way to raise money for church or charity. Could that have been a Christian thing and a pagan thing? Sure, I guess, but that is not certain. Why would pagans who believe in reincarnation make cakes to get souls out of purgatory? They wouldn't. 

My point in mentioning guising and souling is that trick-or-treats is not prima fascia evidence that Halloween is from Samhain. These claims of pagan origin could be on their heads backwards. It could be pagans adopted Christian ideas. Or, it could be entirely Christian.

But you should know, our modern costume tradition is a purely American phenomenon which is merely inspired by past traditions. It is not a direct continuation. Somebody got the bright idea to dress kids up and send them trick-or-treating to keep them from causing trouble. It worked! For a while. That is your true history of trick-or-treating.

And you should know something about jack-o'-lanterns. Some people say they were pagan, and some people say they started with Guy Fawkes, and some people say they started in the 1700s. I don't know. But I do know this: it was not exclusively a Halloween custom. In the United States in the 1800s, people carved pumpkins for all Fall holidays - Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Halloween. Only later did the custom migrate to Halloween only. You can see this in old cookbooks that tell us how to decorate for the holidays. For example, take the following quote from the New York Times November 24, 1895 edition, titled "The Day We Celebrate; Thanksgiving Treated Gastronomically and Socially". The article is about how to host a good Thanksgiving. In a section about how to entertain the children, it suggests a scavenger hunt for nuts, then it says:

"A 'booby' prize, that never fails to please the children, is an old-fashioned jack o' lantern, made from a small pumpkin, and brought in lighted, on a salver, to be presented to the luckless nut hunter."

So, jack-o'-lanterns were ubiquitous in the Fall, therefore they are not evidence Halloween came from Samhain any more than Thanksgiving did. Pagan, maybe. Exclusive to Samhain, no.

Some people say Samhain incorporated elements from the Roman festival of Pomona, the fruit nymph, in November. There is no evidence at all for such a festival for such an obscure nymph. Yet, it circulates in some history books. I dismiss it. Others say Samhain incorporated the Roman festival Feralia, the Roman festival for the dead. However, Feralia was in February. I dismiss this, too. If it was going to adopt something from Rome, why not adopt from Bruma, the Roman festival at the start of winter which occurred on November 24? Alas, I have yet to hear anything like that.

Regarding the idea that during Samhain the dead walked among the living - it is definitely something the Irish really did believe, but probably not the Druidic pagan Irish, because it looks like it might be a later development.

The Druids, you may have heard, did not write anything down. They passed on most of their traditions orally. The only written traditions we have about the ancient Druids come from the Greeks and Romans. When we read what the Greeks and Romans wrote, we see they were under the impression the Druids believed in reincarnation. This leads people to speculate the Druidic religion and the Hindu religion are cousins, from a time when all people lived in deep-ancient Mesopotamia. After death, a soul could take on a new body, either of a human or an animal. I would say it is unlikely anyone would believe the dead walk among the living during a few days each year when they believe in reincarnation. (For more, read "Passing Through the Middle: Death and Reincarnation Amongst the Celts" on Owlcation. I don't usually link to sites like this, but I don't feel like digging up all the quotes for Julius Caesar, and this site seems to have a decent collection already in place.)

The tradition about the closeness of the worlds of the living and the dead come to us in pieces from the British isles, mainly Ireland, and from quite recently. Does that mean it is fake history? No. It just seems to indicate it could be a much later development. No one knows for sure. It might not even be Druidic. Remember, the Druids were Celts, but not all Celts were Druids. The Druids ended, but the Celts continue on to this day. Apparently, I am part Celt myself (if the ever-shifting claims from Ancestry.com can be believed). And most Celts became Christians a millennia ago. It is sometimes difficult to piece together what is later Celtic folklore and what is original Druidic belief. Am I speculating that the formerly reincarnationist Celts could have picked up this otherworldly closeness after converting to Christianity? Yes.

Samhain was not the only festival where the veil between the worlds of the living and the dead is thinned. Beltane, on the opposite side of the year around early May, also had this tradition. If anyone gives you the impression that Samhain was unique in its otherworldly closeness, that person is mistaken. Remember when we said Christians had memorials for all martyrs in late April to mid-May? Am I speculating that the formerly reincarnationist Celts could have picked up this otherworldly closeness after converting to Christianity? Yes.

You can be certain of one thing: precisely as people do with Nimrod, people make up definite claims based on imagination, speculation, and a bare minimum of information.

CONCLUSION

"Samhain was always on October 31" is not an option, so choose only one:
A) Samhain was never on October 31.
B) Samhain was accidentally on October 31 anciently, only sometimes, only before 46 BC.
C) Samhain was accidentally on October 31 in the past, only sometimes, for less than 130 years, only somewhere between 46 BC and 1582 AD.
D) Samhain is accidentally on October 31 today, but not every year, only since 1582, but nobody celebrated it during this period until recently.
E) Samhain was actually the one that was changed, so it could be on November 1.

With your choice, you automagically get these two bonus choices:
F) No one really knows exactly how Samhain worked, so we all should stop making unfounded claims.
G) All Saints Day has nothing to do with a Celtic harvest festival.

I declare the whole claim of Samhain always being on October 31, or November 1, or any day on our calendar for that matter, as well as the claim All Saints Day is a continuation of Samhain, did not survive the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet. It simply is not possible, given the details of the Celtic calendar and the three Roman calendars used in the past 2,700 years.

Once again, we see false history being passed off as true in Armstrongism. Once again, we see confirmation bias in place of responsible research. Once again, we see reliance on the un-biblical notion of "once pagan, always pagan". Once again, we see the people who say "the TEN COMMANDMENTS, God's great SPIRITUAL LAW" are bearing false witness against their neighbor. I think it is safe to say COGWA might want to rename their website to 'Life, Hope, and Fiction", or else actually start insisting on truth. Either way is fine with me.

Notice how this post relies mainly on simple logic and math - if one culture's calendar keeps changing, another culture's calendar cannot align with it. Simple. We didn't need to know lost details about Druids and their practices. All we needed was a teensy bit of common sense. Common sense also tells us that people are taking conditions as they see them now and applying them backwards in time thousands of years. We don't agree that's a good idea.

And, yet again, I am supremely disappointed with History (aka the History Channel). *facepalm*

I hope today's post helped you in some way. This is our first post about the whole Halloween thing. You may have noticed this post is not really defending modern Halloween. I spent time defending All Saints instead. Well, that's because I think secular Halloween decorations are disturbing, and I don't agree with them. Remember in my posts like "Where Do We Draw The Line?", I say things like, "If you want to know what my own personal line is, knowing what I know and having experienced what I have experienced, I draw the line at well-informed conscience. Not scrupulosity, but scruples. If I feel guilty about it, I don't do it. Easy peasy. But then I research it. I need to know if I feel guilty reasonably or unreasonably; rightfully or mistakenly." Well, truth is, parts of Halloween make me feel guilty. The bloody, demonic, frightening imagery of secular Halloween is not something I am comfortable with. I don't mind cute little comic book heroes and pretty princesses going trick-or-treating. I don't even mind the vampires and mummies. That doesn't bother me at all. I even read Washington Irving's "Legend of Sleepy Hollow" every year. I am not entirely against Halloween because I don't believe in "once pagan, always pagan". But the winged demons and axe murderers and bloody offal and such turn me off. I do not tend to defend Halloween because of all that. Today is the exception. I need to research and ensure I have a well-formed conscience. When I do, I inevitably find some Armstrongist peddler of paganism is out there making a mockery of the truth. For Eddie Foster to denounce it as dark, he had to first invent a way for it to be dark. Then he had to do something dark with it, by which I mean falsely accuse people of paganism. Seriously though, are you really going to go around calling people pagan for made up nonsense while you fail your own definition of paganism for talking about how great 19-year time cycles are? Pot, meet kettle. (Not just Eddie Foster, though, I mean all Armstrongist peddlers of paganism.)
My advice to you, dear reader, beloved of God, is to not offend your conscience. To the Lord do, or to the Lord do not do. But do not judge and condemn your fellow Christians who disagree with your choices. Have a happy Halloween if that's your custom, but I advise avoiding that dark stuff. No, you are not a pagan for keeping Halloween. Dedicate your celebration to Jesus and seek His glory, and it will be well with your soul.

I might as well toss in some helpful links as a parting gift:

"Is Halloween Pagan In Origin And Evil?" on Crosswalk.

"Halloween Hysteria" at Life After WCG blog.

"Halloween - Sifting Historical Facts vs 'Christian' Myths" at God of Green Hope blog.

"Samhain and Halloween" at God Cannot Be Contained blog.

"It's Time For Catholics To Embrace Halloween" on Word On Fire.

"The Origins of Halloween: A Catholic Celebration Rediscovered" on EWTN.

"Souling" on Medieval Histories.

"Souling for Cakes and Beer: The Catholic Tradition of Trick-Or-Treating" on Aleteia.

"Why Christians Can & Should Celebrate Halloween" from InspiringPhilosophy on YouTube. Thanks to ericsjca for this one.

"Is Halloween A Pagan Holiday (And Should We Celebrate It?)" from ShamelessPopery on YouTube.

"Ecclesiastical History of England" by Bede. Available on Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

"The Ancient Irish Get Far Too Much Credit For Halloween" on Ancient Origins.

"Samhain Is Not A God" on Learn Religions.

"'It’s all just a big joke': Halloween, Samhain, and Moral Panics in the 1980s" on Dig Podcast.

"Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages" volume 1 part 1, book by Horace K Mann, on Archive.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************