Cheers for criticizing the "Santa Claus" silliness.
Forty weeks is about 10 lunar months, but closer to nine of the months we use today (nine months is almost exactly 39 weeks). However they were counting according to whichever more ancient calendar they used, the translation to our modern methods would have a March conception result in a December birth.
OK, found your Substack and followed. Excellent to meet another writer exploring some of these same anarchist themes from a Christ perspective!
On the months and the math: There are almost exactly four weeks to a lunar cycle, so 40 weeks is roughly 10 lunar cycles. The months in our modern calendar are, on average, 4.33 weeks to a month. Almost negligible over the span of one month (especially if it's February, heh), but adds up quickly over longer chunks. You can see how translating calendars was difficult in the 200s and why it's not surprising that they didn't get it quite right. I agree that what the Early Church gave us was more valuable than a calendar hack :-)
And that's an interesting video. Thanks for sharing it!
I read an article years ago that sought to explain some of those Hebrew aspects to Christians, and it dealt with the Hebrew calendar of priestly duties, trying to determine when John the Baptist's father would've been serving at temple. From there, there's a guess that Jesus was conceived six months after John.
I appreciate the effort required to dig into these things. But ultimately, they're attempts to retroactively notarize Jesus' birth certificate. I think we agree that there's a more meaningful motivation for creating a Feast of the Nativity of Christ.
I took part in a conversation recently that started with a meme about Early settlers in Concord banning Christmas because it was "pagan".
I'm of the opinion that the Pagan's weren't a big enough influence in the New World for them to worry about it, but they were against the Paganism found in the Catholic Church.
I also know that during this exact same time they hung my 11th Great Grandmother in Boston for refusing to stop spreading Quaker ideas. It seems more likely to me that their primary concern was that Christmas celebrations were simply too rambunctious and didn't promote the right way of celebrating such an important event. Not that the holiday itself was of Pagan origin.
So where they worried about Pagans and did they believe Christmas celebrations were themselves Pagan in 1630 or where they just anti-any-religion but their own and didn't want to see anyone having a good time?
Cheers for criticizing the "Santa Claus" silliness.
Forty weeks is about 10 lunar months, but closer to nine of the months we use today (nine months is almost exactly 39 weeks). However they were counting according to whichever more ancient calendar they used, the translation to our modern methods would have a March conception result in a December birth.
Are you a writer yourself?
OK, found your Substack and followed. Excellent to meet another writer exploring some of these same anarchist themes from a Christ perspective!
On the months and the math: There are almost exactly four weeks to a lunar cycle, so 40 weeks is roughly 10 lunar cycles. The months in our modern calendar are, on average, 4.33 weeks to a month. Almost negligible over the span of one month (especially if it's February, heh), but adds up quickly over longer chunks. You can see how translating calendars was difficult in the 200s and why it's not surprising that they didn't get it quite right. I agree that what the Early Church gave us was more valuable than a calendar hack :-)
And that's an interesting video. Thanks for sharing it!
I read an article years ago that sought to explain some of those Hebrew aspects to Christians, and it dealt with the Hebrew calendar of priestly duties, trying to determine when John the Baptist's father would've been serving at temple. From there, there's a guess that Jesus was conceived six months after John.
I appreciate the effort required to dig into these things. But ultimately, they're attempts to retroactively notarize Jesus' birth certificate. I think we agree that there's a more meaningful motivation for creating a Feast of the Nativity of Christ.
I took part in a conversation recently that started with a meme about Early settlers in Concord banning Christmas because it was "pagan".
I'm of the opinion that the Pagan's weren't a big enough influence in the New World for them to worry about it, but they were against the Paganism found in the Catholic Church.
I also know that during this exact same time they hung my 11th Great Grandmother in Boston for refusing to stop spreading Quaker ideas. It seems more likely to me that their primary concern was that Christmas celebrations were simply too rambunctious and didn't promote the right way of celebrating such an important event. Not that the holiday itself was of Pagan origin.
So where they worried about Pagans and did they believe Christmas celebrations were themselves Pagan in 1630 or where they just anti-any-religion but their own and didn't want to see anyone having a good time?
The early settlers of Concord sound like the ones who embrace paganism a little too much, with their worship of government.
Good point.