 |
| Part of "Syrus" text, as cited by K-A. Credner in 1833 |
"It was a custom of the pagans to celebrate on the same Dec. 25 the birthday of the sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity …Accordingly, when the church authorities perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnized on that day".
Note the ellipsis, and the end of the quote.
In both cases the quote from "Syrus" implies that the date and feast of Christmas was created to take over the date and the festivities of the cult of Sol Invictus. Temple's second-hand version, making Syrus a "scribe", more strongly implies he was an ancient authority, helping the author draw back the curtain on an ancient con job.
But who is the mysterious "Syrus"?
Those with even middle-school Latin will see this isn't really a name at all, but a descriptive epithet referring to someone's nationality. "Syrus" is a Syrian. So even if this had been someone from the ancient world known as "X the Syrian", like the Church Father Ephrem Syrus, the name "Syrus" would be a bit of a clanger, like Dan Brown calling Leonardo da Vinci "Da Vinci" (unfortunately Temple does just this in the same Age review). We may have to put up with future historians citing "Your name here" who filled out some form or other...
In reality the writer was a Syrian, but not Ephrem, and not a particularly ancient source. And he didn't say what Cohen has him say.
The passage quoted is a marginal note by an unknown twelfth-century scribe on a manuscript of the slightly earlier author Dionysius (James) Bar Salibi, 12th century bishop of Amida (some other citations of this same text I have come across attribute the quote to Dionysius himself, which would be more interesting in a way, but is just wrong).
The text, written in Syriac, was first published in a remarkable collection of eastern Christian manuscript material from the medieval period, assembled with Latin translations by Lebanese scholar Joseph Assemani in the Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementina-Vaticana.
The unknown annotator on Dionysius Bar Salibi became the mythical "Syrus" through citation of Assemani's edition, or rather its Latin translations, by later scholars. The influential article "De Natalitiorum Christi" by German scholar Karl-August Credner in the Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie of 1833 refers to the scribe as "auctor quidam Syrus" when citing from Assemani's collection. This just means "some Syrian author", but "Syrus" was born thus, and apparently reared in awkward subsequent citations of Credner's article. For instance Gaston Halsberghe's 1972 study The Cult of Sol Invictus (Brill, 1972) cites a "Scriptor Syrus" (still literally "a Syrian writer", but sounding now like the holder of some vague dignity or office), from Credner's citation of Assemani...and so it goes on.
So one part of the mystery is solved. "Syrus" is not an ancient authority at all, but an unknown medieval scribe offering a gratuitous opinion in the margins of Bishop Dionysius' treatise. Yes, the marginal scribbler was a scribe and a commentator, for what it's worth. But he wasn't an ancient observer. Comment on fourth-century events from the twelfth century is evidence for twelfth-century opinions, not fourth-century history.
But what did he say anyway? The edited Cohen quote implies Christmas was invented to exploit the possibilities offered by the cult of Sol Invictus. In full "Syrus" actually said something like this:
The reason, then, why the fathers of the church moved the January 6th celebration to December 25th was this, they say: it was the custom of the heathen to celebrate on this same December 25th the birthday of the Sun, and they lit lights then to exalt the day. Even Christians were participants in these rites and ceremonies. When, therefore, the teachers of the Church saw that Christians inclined to this custom, they established a plan. The true Natal feast would be celebrated on this day, and Epiphany on January 6th..."Syrus" was not referring to the origins of Christmas at all, but to a change of its date from January 6 to December 25. "He" seems not to have known that there were two different dates for Christmas when first celebrated, December 25 predominantly in the Western Mediterranean, and January 6th in the East. An easterner himself - from a tradition which even today celebrates Christmas still on January 6th - he was seeking to explain the "oddity" of Western tradition. For the first time we know of, he struck upon the idea that has since become a sort of Wiki-orthodoxy: that the December date was arbitrarily, or cunningly, hit upon only to exploit the existing festive associations of an existing solar festival.
Not that "Syrus" was completely off the mark. Of course the celebration of Christmas was encouraged by the associations with existing feasts, and Christians did borrow freely from them. But "Syrus" had imagined the Westerners as innovators, and the Easterners as true conservatives. In fact both feasts were close enough to the turn of the year to have been influenced by and attracted to existing solstice observances, but neither date is likely to be explained by "Syrus'" ingenuity or its more recent successors, since both dates were probably older than the liturgical feast. On that issue, see further here.
The odd story of the "Syrus Code" illustrates the sheer momentum of ideas that suit. "Syrus", having made it into the New York Times and the Melbourne Age, now has a new lease of life; he is being bought drinks in Brooklyn and Brunswick, even as we speak. "His" semi-informed thoughts about the calendar of a Church that was as ancient to him as he is to us, have now appeared at dinner table conversation over the weekend, invested with glib authority.
The supposed hypocrisy or cynicism of Christian or Constantinian or Catholic ("your prejudice here") appropriation and corruption isn't always that simple. But if we repeat it often enough, we not only convince ourselves and mishandle texts, but even invent new authorities. This isn't quite Dan Brown, but it's closer than we or Richard Cohen might want to admit.
Well done Andrew. Nothing like facts and scholarship to spoil a good prejudice.
ReplyDeleteBruce
This is fascinating. I am wondering...was the belief that Christmas Day was appropriated from the Sol Invictus cult based on more than the writings of "Syrus"? Was there any other corroborating evidence?
ReplyDeleteKind regards,
Ruth McFarlane
One of the pleasures of visiting Rome in January is to witness Befana. She is variously a saint, an old woman, or a witch who delivers presents to children on the eve of Epiphany. Exactly where Befana came from befuddles the experts, with some saying her name is a corruption of the word Epiphany itself, others that she is descended from a pagan winter goddess. She seems to be the Italian folk equivalent of Santa Claus, though one wonders what the good people of Bari think of that, Saint Nicholas being their main man. It reminds us though that even in contemporary Catholic Italy, Epiphany is the time when presents are exchanged. Epiphany is a public holiday in Italy. Meanwhile at the Vatican and elsewhere we see big evidence of the 25th of December as something out of the ordinary, with mighty pine trees covered in lights in St Peter’s Square, direct cultural imports from across the alps. More amazing are the whopper recreations of the nativity scene in temporary houses that are literally as large as some average Australian suburban dwellings, standing in Roman squares. I saw one such presepi, as the Neapolitans call them, in a side chapel of St Peter’s Basilica, which just reminds us of just how huge that building is. One thing though is quite clear from all of this. In 2011, Christmas and Epiphany are the main events and Romans are interested in being inclusive about their celebration.
ReplyDelete-- Philip Harvey