The dates of Saturnalia (and Sigillaria!) and Christmas

Posted on December 18, 2010 by Tom

Yesterday we looked at Macrobius’s account of the origin of the Festival of Saturnalia to see if it’s origins influenced Christmas, as some claim.  Macrobius gave several different stories and none of them seem to have anything to do with the birth of anyone. Now Saturnalia occurred in the month of December, but did it occur on December 25, or as the Romans would say Eight days before the Kalends of January?

the following is taken from Saturnalia Book 1.10.1-23 and I give the entire chapter, but I will bold the most important parts. This is taken from the Davies translation (1969).

[ 1 ] But to return to our account of the Saturnalia. It was held to an offense against religion to begin a war at the time of the Saturnalia, and to punish a criminal during the days of the festival called for an act of atonement. [2] Our ancestors restricted the Saturnalia to a single day, the fourteenth before the Kalends of January, but, after Gaius Caesar had added two days to December, the day on which the festival was held became the sixteenth before the Kalends of January, with the result that, since the exact day was not commonly known—some observing the addition which Caesar had made to the calendar and others following the old usage —the festival came to be regarded as lasting for more days than one.
And yet in fact among the men of old time there were some who supposed that the Saturnalia lasted for seven days (if one may use the word “suppose” of something which has the support of competent authorities); [3] for Novius, that excellent writer of Atellan plays, says: “Long awaited they come, the seven days of the Saturnalia” [Ribbeck, II, 328]; and Mummius too, who, after Novius and Pomponius, restored the long-neglected Atellan to favor, says: “Of the many excellent institutions of our ancestors this is the best—that they made the seven days of the Saturnalia begin when the weather is coldest” [Ribbeck, II, 332].
[4] Mallius, however, says that the men who, as I have already related, had found protection in the name of Saturn and in the awe which he inspired, ordained a three-day festival in honor of the god, calling it the Saturnalia, and that it was on the authority of this belief that Augustus, in his laws for the administration of justice, ordered the three days to be kept as rest days.
[5] Masurius and others believed that the Saturnalia were held on one day, the fourteenth day before the Kalends of January, and their opinion is corroborated by Fenestella when he says that the virgin Aemilia was condemned on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of January; for, had that day been a day on which the festival of the Saturnalia was being celebrated, she could not by any means have been called on to plead, [6] and he adds that “the day was the day which preceded the Saturnalia,” and then goes on to say that “on the day after that, namely, the thirteenth day before the Kalends of January, the virgin Licinia was to plead,” thereby making it clear that the thirteenth day too was not a festival.
[ 7 ] On the twelfth day before the Kalends of January there is a rest day in honor of the goddess Angeronia, to whom the pontiffs offer sacrifice in the chapel of Volupia. According to Verrius Flac-cus, this goddess is called Angeronia because, duly propitiated, she banishes anxiety (angores) and mental distress. [8] Masurius adds that an image of this goddess, with the mouth bound up and sealed,1 is placed on the altar of Volupia, because all who conceal their pain and care find, thanks to their endurance, great joy (voluptas) at last. [9] According to Julius Modestus, however, sacrifices are offered to Angeronia because, pursuant to the fulfillment of a vow, she delivered the Roman people from the disease known as the quinsy (angina).
[10] The eleventh day before the Kalends of January is a rest day in honor of the Lares, for whom the praetor Aemilius Regillus in the war against Antiochus solemnly promised to provide a temple in the Campus Martius.
[11] The tenth day before the Kalends is a rest day in honor of Jupiter, called the Larentinalia. I should like to say something of this day, and here are the beliefs generally held about it.
[12] In the reign of Ancus, they say, a sacristan of the temple of Hercules, having nothing to do during the rest day challenged the god to a game of dice, throwing for both players himself, and the stake for which they played was a dinner and the company of a courtesan. [13] Hercules won, and so the sacristan shut up Acca Larentia in the temple (she was the most notable courtesan of the time) and the dinner with her. Next day the woman let it be known that the god as a reward for her favors had bidden her take advantage of the first opportunity that came to her on her way home. [ 14] It so happened that, after she had left the temple, one Carutius, captivated by her beauty, accosted her, and in compliance with his wishes she married him. On her husband’s death all his estate came into her hands, and, when she died, she named the Roman people her heir. [15] Ancus therefore had her buried in the Velabrum, the most frequented part of the city, and a yearly rite was instituted in her honor, at which sacrifice was offered by a priest to her departed spirit—the rest day being dedicated to Jupiter because it was believed of old that souls are given by him and are given back to him again after death. [16] Cato, however, says that Larentia, enriched by the profits of her profession, left lands known as the Turacian, Semurian, Lintirian, and Solinian lands to the Roman people after her death and was therefore deemed worthy of a splendid tomb and the honor of an annual service of remembrance. [17] But Macer, in the first Book of his Histories, maintains that Acca Larentia was the wife of Faustulus and the nurse of Romulus and Remus and that in the reign of Romulus she married a weajthy Etruscan named Carutius, succeeded to her husband’s wealth as his heir, and afterward left it to her foster child Romulus, who dutifully appointed a memorial service and a festival in her honor.
[18] One can infer, then, from all that has been said, that the Saturnalia lasted but one day and was held only on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of January; it was on this day alone that the shout of “Io Saturnalia” would be raised, in the temple of Saturn, at a riotous feast. Now, however, during the celebration of the Saturnalia, this day is allotted to the festival of the Opalia, although the day was first assigned to Saturn and Ops in common.
[19] Men believed that the goddess Ops was the wife of Saturn and that both the Saturnalia and the jOpalia are held in this month of December because the produce of the fields and orchards are thought to be the discovery of these two deities, who, when men have gathered in the fruits of the earth, are worshiped therefore as the givers of a more civilized life. [20] Some too are of the opinion that Saturn and Ops represent heaven and earth, the name Saturn being derived from the word for growth from seed (satus), since such growth is the gift of heaven, and the name Ops being identified with earth, either because it is by her bounty (ops) that life is nourished or because the name comes from the toil (opus) which is needed to bring forth the fruits of trees and fields. [21] When men make prayer to Ops they sit and are careful to touch the earth, signifying thereby that the earth is the very mother of mortals and is to be approached as such.
[22] Philochorus says that Cecrops was the first to build, in Attica, an altar to Saturn and Ops, worshiping these deities as Jupiter and Earth, and to ordain that, when crops and fruits had been garnered, the head of a household everywhere should eat thereof in company with the slaves with whom he had borne the toil of cultivating the land, for it was well pleasing to the god that honor should be paid to the slaves in consideration of their labor. And that is why we follow the practice of a foreign land and offer sacrifice to Saturn with the head uncovered.
[23] I think that we have now given abundant proof that the festival of the Saturnalia used to be celebrated on only one day, the fourteenth before the Kalends of January, but that it was afterward prolonged to last three days: first, in consequence of the days which Caesar added to the month of December, and then in pursuance of an edict of Augustus which prescribed a series of three rest days for the Saturnalia. The festival therefore begins on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of January and ends on the fourteenth, which used to be the only day of its celebration.5 [24] However, the addition of the feast of the Sigillaria has extended the time of general excitement and religious rejoicing to seven days.

Macrobius does an excellent job summarizing authorities that were available to him, most of which I think have been lost. His conclusion is quite clear, Saturnalia originally was one day and occurred on the 14th day before the Kalends January, but when Caesar altered the calendar it was extended to three days and started on the 16th, later a new Festival of Sigillaria extended the celebrations to complete seven days, meaning that the Festival ended on either the 10th or ninth day before the Kalends of January depending on how we count. Of course neither of these days fall on the eighth day before the Kalends of January, that is December 25.

And to make all things complete, does the Festival of Sigillaria have anything to do with Christmas?  Not really:

I must now deal briefly with the Sigillaria, for I would not have you think that I spoke of a matter calling for a smile rather than reverence.
[47] Epicadus relates that Hercules after killing Geryon drove his herds in triumph through Italy and from a bridge (now known as the Sublician Bridge), which had been built for the occasion, cast into the river a number of human figures equal to the number of the comrades he had chanced to lose on his journey, his object being to ensure that these figures might be carried by the current to the sea and so, as it were, to restore to their ancestral homes the bodies of the dead.8 This is said to have been the origin of the practice, which has persisted, of including the making of such figures in a religious rite. [48] In my opinion, however, a truer account of the origin of this practice is that which, I remember, I recently recalled,” namely, that, when the Pelasgians learned, by a happier interpretation of the words, that “heads” meant heads of clay not heads of living men and came to understand that φωτος meant “of a light” as well as “of a man,” they began to kindle wax tapers in honor of Saturn, in preference to their former ritual, and to carry little masks to the chapel of Dis, which adjoins the altar of Saturn, instead of human heads. [49] Thence arose the traditional custom of sending round wax tapers at the Saturnalia and of making and selling little figures of clay for men to offer to Saturn, on behalf of Dis, as an act of propitiation for themselves and their families. [50] So it is that the regular use of such articles of trade begins at the Saturnalia and lasts for seven days. These days, in consequence, are only rest days (feriatos), not all of them are festivals. For we have shown that the day in the middle, namely the thirteenth day before the Kalends of January,10 was a day for legal business; and this has been attested by other statements made by those who have given a fuller account of the arrangement of the year, months, and days, and of the regulation of the calendar by Gaius Caesar.-Saturnalia 1.11.46-50

One wonders why people made such claims about the Festival of Saturnalia when it clearly has nothing to do with Christmas.  If however another ancient author contradicts Macrobius, please post a comment and let me know.

Tomorrow I will post Macrobius’s account of presenting an infant at the winter solstice, December 25.


Posted in Christmas | 2 Comments

The Origins of Saturnalia and Christmas

Posted on December 17, 2010 by Tom

I was inspired to look at an English translation of Macrobius’s Saturnalia after reading Roger Pearse’s post that mentioned that Macrobius claimed that an infant was presented on the winter solstice as a representation of the Sun.  Saturnalia was a Roman feast which occurred in middle or late December, and many have tried to draw ties between this feast and the institution of the date of Christmas.

The Saturnalia by Macrobius (wrote early 5th century) is really a dinner conversation by several interlocutors that is set during the festival Saturnalia. The lengthy dialogue covers all manner of Roman culture and the festival of Saturnalia is only one of the many, many topics. The translation I used is the one by Percival Vaughn Davies published in 1969 by Columbia University press. Loeb just came out with the only other translation; it uses a superior text and I assume has better editors. The Davies translation does not even include quotation marks!

In this work there are some very good, but lengthy quotes about the origins of Saturnalia and its customs and dates, so I will publish it all in two or three blog posts.

We begin in Saturnalia 1.7.18 which discusses the origins of the festival:

[18]…The laws of religion, he said, allow me to disclose the origin of the festival of the Saturnalia so far as the account of its origin is a matter of mythology or is made known to all by the physicists…

In the omitted section Macrobius discusses, through an interlocutor, how Saturn and Janus coreigned in Italy.

[24] It was during their reign that Saturn suddenly disappeared, and Janus then devised means to add to his honors. First he gave the name Saturnia to all the land which acknowledged his rule; and then he built an altar, instituting rites as to a god and calling these rites the Saturnalia—a fact which goes to show how very much older the festival is than the city of Rome. And it was because Saturn had improved the conditions of life that, by order of Janus, religious honors were paid to him, as his effigy indicates, which received the additional attribute of a sickle, the symbol of harvest.
[25] Saturn is credited with the invention of the art of grafting, with the cultivation of fruit trees, and with instructing men in everything that belongs to the fertilizing of the fields. Furthermore, at Cyrene his worshipers, when they offer sacrifice to him, crown themselves with fresh figs and present each other with cakes, for they hold that he discovered honey and fruits. Moreover, at Rome men call him “Sterculius,” as having been the first to fertilize the fields with dung (stercus). [26] His reign is said to have been a time of great happiness, both on account of the universal plenty that then prevailed and because as yet there was no division into bond and free—as one may gather from the complete license enjoyed by slaves at the Saturnalia.

Then Macrobius adds a second tradition about the origins of the festival:

[27] Another tradition accounts for the Saturnalia as follows. Hercules is said to have left men behind him in Italy, either (as certain authorities hold) because he was angry with them for neglecting to watch over his herds or (as some suppose), deliberately, to protect his altar and temple from attacks. Harassed by brigands, these men occupied a high hill and called themselves Saturnians, from the name which the hill too used previously to bear, and, conscious of the protection afforded to them by the name of Saturn and by the awe which the god inspired, they are said to have instituted the Saturnalia, to the end that the very observance of the festival thus proclaimed might bring the uncouth minds of their neighbors to show a greater respect for the worship of the god.

Macrobius then adds a third account:

[28] I am aware too of the account given by Varro of the origin of the Saturnalia. The Pelasgians, he says, when they were driven from their homes, made for various lands, but most of them flocked to Dodona and, doubtful where to settle, consulted the oracle. They received this reply: “Go ye in search of the land of the Sicels and the Aborigines, a land, sacred to Saturn, even Cotyle, where floateth an island. Mingle with these people and then send a tenth to Phoebus and offer heads to Hades and a man to the Father.”8 Such was the response which they received, and after many wanderings they came to Latium, where in the lake of Cutilia they found a floating9 island, [29] for there was a large expanse of turf—perhaps solidified mud or perhaps an accumulation of marsh land with brushwood and trees forming a luxuriant wood—and it was drifting through the water by the movement of the waves in such a way as to win credence even for the tale of Delos, the island which, for all its lofty hills and wide plains, used to journey through the seas from place to place. [30] The discovery of this marvel showed the Pelasgians that here was the home foretold for them. And, after having driven out the Sicilian inhabitants, they took possession of the land, dedicating a tenth of the spoil to Apollo, in accordance with the response given by the oracle, and raising a little shrine to Dis and an altar to Saturn, whose festival they named the Saturnalia.
[31] For many years they thought to propitiate Dis with human heads and Saturn with the sacrifice of men, since the oracle had bidden them: “Offer heads to Hades and a man (<pfi>xa) to the Father.” But later, the story goes, Hercules, returning through Italy with the herds of Geryon, persuaded their descendants to replace these unholy sacrifices with others of good omen, by offering to Dis little masks cleverly fashioned to represent the human face, instead of human heads, and by honoring the altars of Saturn with lighted candles instead of with the blood of a man; for the word (porta means “lights” as well as “a man.” [32] This is the origin of the custom of sending round wax tapers during the Saturnalia, although others think that the practice is derived simply from the fact that it was in the reign of Saturn that we made our way, as though to the light, from a rude and gloomy existence to a knowledge of the liberal arts. [33] I should add, however, that I have found it written that, since many through greed made the Saturnalia an excuse to solicit and demand gifts from their clients, a practice which bore heavily on those of more slender means, one Publicius, a tribune, proposed to the people that no one should send anything but wax tapers to one richer than himself.

Here another interlocutor interrupts and talks about different traditions that were added at a later time:

[34] I find, Praetextatus, interposed Albinus Caecina, a substituted sacrifice, such as that which you have just mentioned, made in later times at the rites of the Compitalia, when games used to be held at crossroads throughout the city, that is to say, on the restoration of these games by Tarquinius Superbus, in honor of the Lares and of Mania, in accordance with an oracle of Apollo. For that oracle ordained that offering should be made “for heads with heads,” [35] and for some time the ritual required the sacrifice of boys to the goddess Mania, the mother of the Lares, to insure the safety of the family. But after the expulsion of Tarquinius, Junius Brutus, as consul, determined to change the nature of the sacrificial rite. By his order heads of garlic arid poppies were used at the rite, so that the oracle was obeyed, in so far as it had prescribed “heads,” and a criminal and unholy sacrifice was discarded.10 It also became the practice to avert any peril that threatened a particular family by hanging up woolen11 images before the door of the house. As for the games themselves, they were customarily called “Compitalia” from the crossroads (compita) at which they were held. But I interrupted you. Pray go on.

Then Macrobius’s main interlocutor for this section continues with his conclusion:

[36] You have referred, said Praetextatus, to a parallel instance of a change for the better in the ritual of a sacrifice. The point is well taken and well timed. But from the reasons adduced touching the origin of the Saturnalia it appears that the festival is of greater antiquity than the city of Rome, for in fact Lucius Accius” in his Annals says that its regular observance began in Greece before the foundation of Rome. [37] Here are the lines:
In most of Greece, and above all at Athens, men celebrate in honor of Saturn a festival which they always call the festival of Cronos. The day is kept a holiday, and in country and in town all usually hold joyful feasts, at which each man waits on his own slaves. And so it is with us. Thus from Greece that custom has been handed down, and slaves dine with their masters at that time.

So, lots of traditions about the origin of the festival of Saturnalia, but none of them seem to have to do with the birth of anyone. Tomorrow I will post Macrobius’s discussion on the various dates Saturnalia was celebrated and we will see if according to Macrobius it was ever celebrated on December 25.

Posted in Christmas | 3 Comments

Clement of Alexandria and the Original date of Christmas as December 25th

Posted on December 3, 2010 by Tom

Previously I posted a summary of my article which I added as an appendix to my translation of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentary on Daniel.  In it I argue that Hippolytus did in fact believe that Jesus was born on December 25. After I wrote this appendix  I added a shorter appendix on Clement of Alexandria which I am posting online here. Below is the article itself but without footnotes, I didn’t have nearly as much time to research this article as I had with the previous one, comments are welcome.

Aside from Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria (wrote 193-215 AD) is the other writer with a claim to being the earliest person to date the birth of Jesus.  In his work entitled “Stromata” he writes:

From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus are, in all, 194 years, 1 month, 13 days. And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Savior’s genesis, but even the day, which they say took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus on the 25th of Pachon… And treating of his passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the 25th of Phamenoth, but others the 25th of Pharmuthi and others say that on the 19th of Pharmuthi the Savior suffered. Indeed, others say that he came to be on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi.” ~Stromata 1.21.145-146 [my translation]

Here is a summary of the dates Clement gives for Jesus, conception, birth, and death:

Conception=24th or 25th of Pharmuthi;   25th of Pachon
Birth=194 years, 1 month, 13 days from the death of Commodus
Death=25th of Phamenoth; 19th or 25th of Pharmuthi

Clement’s dates for Jesus’ life are difficult to determine because he may have used a mobile Egyptian calendar  and because he gives different dates for Commodus’ reign in other places in this work .  However, one can safely conclude that Clement seems to be using the same method of calculating Jesus’ conception, birth, and death as Hippolytus.

Clearly Clement believed that Jesus died on the Passover which, like Hippolytus, he places on either the 25th of Phamenoth, the Vernal Equinox in the Egyptian Calendar, or the 19th or 25th of Pharmuthi.

He further believes that Jesus was conceived on the 25th of Pachon or the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi, of which the latter two dates correspond closely to two of the three dates of the Passover he gives for Jesus’ death, just like Hippolytus.  (Clement clearly believed that the term “genesis” referred to conception because he says so specifically in the same work “It is not therefore frequent intercourse by the parents, but the reception of it [the seed] in the womb which corresponds with genesis.” ~Clement of Alexandria Stromata 3.12.83.2)

Lastly, like Hippolytus, he believes Jesus was born sometime in late fall or early winter, given Commodus’ date of death. [Dio Cassius (73.22.4-5) says that Commodus died on December 31st 193 AD. Using this date Clement would have believed Jesus was born in mid November. However if he was using the Egyptian mobile calendar he could have been referring to as late as early January. This calendar only had 365 days and no leap years so it lost roughly one day ever 4 years. See Mosshammer (2008) p.18.]

Now because Clement believed Jesus was conceived on the 24th or 25th of a month it seems likely he would place his birth on the 24th or the 25th of a month, which could very well correspond to December 25th.

In summary Clement seems to quote sources which used the same method as Hippolytus himself to calculate Jesus’ conception, birth, and death .  Clement, like Hippolytus, dates Jesus’ death to the Passover and possibly also the Vernal Equinox, he seems to date his conception to the Passover, and he dates his birth to late fall or early winter.  He also gives 4 different dates that are on the 25th of a month, coinciding with Hippolytus’ belief that Jesus was conceived, born, and died all on the 25th of a month.  Given that Clement is quoting from several sources it is quite possible that one of his sources actually includes Hippolytus himself.

In a few weeks I hope to post some new testimonies that I’ve discovered concerning Papias.  I have never seen them published before, they are nothing earth shattering but interesting nonetheless.

Posted in Christmas, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus | 3 Comments

Hippolytus and the Original Date of Christmas

Posted on November 21, 2010 by Tom

***Update-see my new post on Clement of Alexandria and Christmas December 25th****

Around this time last year I put up a blog post pointing out that Hippolytus of Rome names December 25 as the birthday of Jesus in his Commentary on Daniel (written probably between 202-211 A.D.)

The passage reads as follows:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years.  He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls. ~Commentary on Daniel 4.23.3

According to this passage Jesus was born on December 25 (the winter solstice according to the Julian calendar)  3 or 4 BC (depending on how we count for the incorrect implementation of the Julian calendar) and that Jesus died on the Passover of March 25 (which was the vernal equinox in the Julian calendar) of 29 A.D.  (see my article for details on this)

However the manuscript tradition for this passage is contradictory and most scholars believe that the date of December 25 was added by a later scribe and that Hippolytus did not record it himself.

When I finished translating Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel I decided to look into this matter fully because there were some details that I needed to sort out.  I published the resulting article as an appendix to my translation which I have now placed online. It’s rather long and complex and deals with mathematical calculations and the nuances of the Greek language, so here is a quick summary.  Please see the article for all of the details and for complete explanations.

There are six Greek manuscripts and a medieval Slavonic translation which contain the passage at hand:

A=10th Century
B=15th/16th Century
G1=13th Century
G2=14th Century
J=11th Century
P=13th Century
S=Old Slavonic translation 11th Century (4 manuscripts exist)

All of these contain the date of December 25 except for manuscript J, which contains no date. However Manuscript A mysteriously contains two dates, December 25 and another fragmentary date in either late March or early April. In essence manuscript A does not make any sense. (my article has the original Greek of the manuscripts for comparative purposes) Also, George Syncellus (9th century) claims that Hippolytus believed Jesus was born on December 25 but George of Arabia (8th century) quotes the passage according to manuscript J which omits any date for Jesus’ birth.

Furthermore Hippolytus talks about Jesus’ birth and death in two other works, his Canon (a table of 112 rotating dates for the Passover which I reproduce in my article) and his Chronicon.  The Canon claims that the “Genesis” (γένεσις) of Jesus was on the Passover of April 2 2BC and that Jesus died on the Passover, March 25 29 A.D (the date of death agrees with the Commentary)

The Chronicon does not give a specific date for his birth or death but the years that it gives match with 2 BC and 29 A.D. for the birth and death of Jesus respectively. Both of these works also claim that Jesus was born 5502 years from the creation of the world, whereas the Commentary on Daniel claims that he was born 5500 years from the creation of the world.

These two works (seem to) contradict the Commentary on Daniel in two ways; they move Jesus’ date of birth two years forward, but keep the same date of his death, so that he loses two years in age (Jesus died at 30 years as opposed to 32) and is born two years later (5502 verses 5500 years from the creation of the world). Secondly, if we interpret the term “Genesis” as referring to birth than  Jesus is also born on a different calendar day (April 2 versus December 25), however if we interpret it as referring to conception then this would agree with the Commentary on Daniel because April 2 is roughly 9 months before December 25 (thus it would match a regular gestation period)

Scholars have taken the above evidence and decided to solve this problem in three ways. One is to accept the date given by manuscript J and George of Arabia. The problem with this is that it does not explain the contradiction between the age of Jesus and the age of the world given in the Commentary on Daniel and those same dates as  given in his other two works (Manuscript J does not have the date of December 25 but it does say that Jesus was in his 33rd year when he died, in other words he was 32 years old when he died.)

The second method is to reconstruct the fragmentary date in Manuscript A to agree with what Hippolytus says of Jesus’ birth in his Canon and in his Chronicon. This theory claims that the term “Genesis” refers to “birth.” This is an ingenious solution, but it requires that the age of Jesus given in every manuscript and by George of Arabia be altered by two years (technically Manuscript B has a lacuna here). It also does not take into account testimony in Hippolytus’ Chronicon and does not account for the linguistic evidence for the meaning of the term “Genesis.” I will discuss both these points below.

The third method has never been fully developed until now, but some groundwork was introduced by G. Salmon in (1892) and it was supported by Bonwetsch (1895). First let’s start with the term “Genesis.” I did an exhaustive search of this term in the works attributed to Hippolytus using the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae database, I also searched for contemporary usages of this term. “Genesis” is a difficult term to define and it can mean either birth or conception, however conception seems to be the favored definition. See my article for a full discussion and references.

Here is a reference from Against All Heresies, a work written by Hippolytus or a member of his community.

“They draw [a horoscope] from the genesis of the people who are being examined from unquestionably the depositing of the seed and conception or from birth.” ~Against All Heresies 4.3.5

As you can see there are two possible meanings for the term “genesis” but the author appears to favor conception because he adds the particle “unquestionably.” The great physician Galen, Methodius, and the famous Christian Clement of Alexandria all use “genesis” to describe conception as well.  Here is one of two quotes I found from Clement

It is not therefore frequent intercourse by the parents, but the reception of it [the seed] in the womb which corresponds with genesis. ~Clement of Alexandria Stromata 3.12.83.2

Furthermore “genesis” is used in the Gospel of Matthew 1:18 where it appears to refer to Jesus’ conception  (I realize that all major translations translate this term as birth, my point is simply to show that conception can fit within this context and perhaps that it is indeed the better translation):

The genesis of Jesus Christ happened in this way. After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child by the Holy Spirit. ~Matthew 1:18

Given the above evidence it seems that the Canon does in fact support a date around December 25 for the birth of Jesus. And in the least it certainly does not contradict this possibility.

Secondly when I was looking at my translation of the Chronicon I realized that it contains an important clue that has gone unrecognized. It does not claim that Jesus was born 5502 years from the creation of the world, but rather that he was born 5502 years and 9 months from the creation of the world.

…from Adam until the transmigration into Babylon under Jeconiah, 57 generations, 4,842 years, 9 months. And after the transmigration into Babylon until the generation of Christ, there was 14 generations, 660 years, and from the generation of Christ until the Passion there was 30 years and from the Passion up until this year which is year 13 of the Emperor Alexander, there is 206 years. Therefore all the years from Adam up until year 13 of the Emperor Alexander make 5,738 years. ~Chronicon §686-688

This means that Jesus was born 9 months from the anniversary of the creation of the world and was therefore likely, in the mind of Hippolytus, conceived on the very anniversary day of the creation of the world.

If we compare the calculations given in the Chronicon and in the Canon it is clear that Hippolytus believed the world was created on March 25 the vernal equinox (see my article for full details) nine months after this date is of course December 25 the winter solstice, meaning that the Chronicon claims that Jesus was born on December 25 and therefore agrees exactly with the Commentary on Daniel!

One final contradiction remains. Though both the Canon and the Chronicon seem to agree with the Commentary on Daniel in claiming that Jesus was born on December 25, there is a two year difference between them and the Commentary concerning the year in which Jesus was born. This two year difference, as first pointed out by G. Salmon, is explained by looking at the method in which Hippolytus calculated the dates of various Passovers in his Canon.

Now the Canon is a table of 112 dates and is meant to show all Passovers past and future (calculating the dates of Passovers is very complex and Hippolytus failed in his attempt). To use the table, the reader finds the place in the table that corresponds with the year of interest and date of the Passover and the day of the week is given in that place. (see my article for a full description and the table of Passovers, it will help to visualize what is going on here)

When we look at the Canon, we see that it claims that Jesus was conceived on the Passover of 2 BC, which corresponds to April 2. However, if we increase Jesus’ age by two years but keep the same date of his death, as is done in the Commentary on Daniel, we see that, amazingly, the Canon indicates that Jesus would have been conceived on March 25 4 BC. This agrees exactly with the implication in the  Commentary on Daniel because if Jesus was born on December 25 4BC it implies that he was conceived on March 25 4BC, exactly 9 months earlier.

This demonstrates either a profound coincidence or  that Hippolytus was using the same mathematical calculations in both works and shows exactly why he chose the date of April 2 when he altered the age of Jesus by two years.  Because Hippolytus believed that Jesus was conceived on the Passover, he simply changed the date of Jesus’ conception along with the changed date of the Passover (the Passover is on a different date every year). However he did not change the date of Jesus’ birth because in the Chronicon, which was written 20-30 years after the Commentary on Daniel and 13 years after the Canon, he claims that Jesus was born nine months after March 25 (as shown above).

It is important to point out that even if we disregard all of the evidence in favor of the December 25 date in the Commentary on Daniel, it still stands that in the Chronicon Hippolytus indicates that Jesus was in fact born on December 25 because he claims that Jesus was born nine months from the anniversary of the creation of the world.  Because the Chronicon indicates that the world was created on March 25, the vernal equinox, nine months from this date is of course December 25.

From this we can safely say that, sometime between 202 and 211 AD, Hippolytus marked December 25th as the birthday of Jesus.  This clearly had nothing to do with Pagan festivals, but was derived from the idea that Jesus was conceived on the Passover.
This date was chosen because it aligned precisely with the idea that the earth was created on the Vernal Equinox and that Jesus was conceived and killed on that very same day, March 25th which also coincided with the Passover.  Later Hippolytus changed his mind and made the date of Jesus’ conception April 2, so that it no longer fell on the vernal equinox, but still fell on the Passover of that year.

None of this, however, seems to be based off of any historical tradition about Jesus, but instead is based off of incorrect retrograded calculations concerning the dates of previous Passovers.   (I could perhaps be persuaded that there was historical tradition about  how Jesus was conceived on the Passover because this seems to be a fairly universal theme amongst the fathers of the church, however because Hippolytus, a fan of apostolic tradition himself, always appeals to mathematical reasons for this date and not tradition, I doubt that this is true)

Soon I will post my second appendix, which briefly talks him about how I believe that Clement of Alexandria, (c193-215 AD), the only person with a claim of setting the date of Jesus’ birth before Hippolytus, is probably dependent upon Hippolytus and how he himself also  may support the date of December 25 for Jesus’ birth.

Posted in Christmas, Chronology, Hippolytus | 16 Comments

Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentary on Daniel PUBLISHED!

Posted on October 15, 2010 by Tom

Last October I began translating Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentary on Daniel from Greek to English.  One year later the translation has been completed and published.  It is a fascinating and inspiring commentary, covering issues like the persecution of Christians, prophecy and the date of Jesus’ birth. It is also the oldest Christian commentary that survives; it was written most likely between 202 and 211 AD.  This is the first complete English translation.

I am posting it here for free.  I would rather have the translation available for everyone than risk having it sit unused and unknown in a few dozen libraries.  I am sure Hippolytus would agree.  For those interested you can make a donation or purchase a printed copy.  Printed copies are available at Amazon.com and at Createspace.com (where I get a significantly higher royalty than on Amazon).  The free PDF is formatted to fit the 5.5×8.5 inch book, which is why its text does not fill the whole pdf page.

I spent the past several months researching two appendixes for the translation.  As some of you are aware, Hippolytus, according to some manuscripts of the Commentary on Daniel, says that Jesus was born on December 25th.  The accuracy of this statement is disputed by scholars, some of whom think that Hippolytus originally did not give this date.  In the first appendix I exhaustively (I hope)  investigate all of the evidence (internal evidence, manuscript evidence, and ancient testimonies) regarding this disputed passage.  The second appendix is a short investigation into Clement of Alexandria’s claims about Jesus’ birth.  These two appendixes are available with the printed edition.  I will post the appendixes online for free at a later time.

Below I have posted the introduction:

Continue reading →

Posted in Hippolytus, Translation | 11 Comments

Chronicon of Hippolytus 2nd edition

Posted on May 2, 2010 by Tom

Nick Nicholas has laboriously and generously made extensive edits, suggestions and improvements to the first edition.  These are all incorporated into this edition, though a final draft has not been completed.  I am pleased to welcome him as a coauthor with myself and am very thankful for his help.  The 2nd edition can be found here.

Unfortunately, my translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel will be delayed again for a while as it is receiving a thorough editorial scrubbing!  Thanks for your patience.

Posted in Hippolytus, Translation | 5 Comments

Papias quote from Apollinarius (Apollinaris) of Laodicea

Posted on April 22, 2010 by Tom

Someone has asked a question about Apollinarius’ quotation of Papias:

Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated.  And the acts of the apostles show this, that falling head long he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.  This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the disciple of John, and the fourth book of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord as follows:

Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where hay wagon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely.  They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far have they sunk from the surface.

His genitals appeared entirely disfigured, nauseous and large.  When he carried himself about discharge and worms flowed from his entire body through his private areas only, on account of his outrages.  After many agonies and punishments, he died in his own place.  And on account of this the place is desolate and uninhabited even now.  And to this day no one is able to go by that place, except if they block their noses with their hands.  Such judgment was spread through his body and upon the earth.

-A catena compiled by Cramer vol 3 p12

Here are the details.

The quotation exists in multiple forms, some longer than others.

The longest, which is what is translated above, is given in a catena found in Cramer vol 3 p12 and also by Theophylact in his  Exposition on the Acts of the Apostles PG125 p522.  However Theophylact does not attribute the first paragraph to Apollinarius but Theophylact makes it seem as if they are his own words.  He quotes Papias directly in paragraphs two and three.

Oecumenius does the same as Theophylact but omits the last sentence in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles PG118 p57.

Another catena is quite similar to the passage at hand but omits the last sentence,  it is  given in Anecdota Graeca volume 2 p464. I scanned this page myself.

A similar but not identical catena ascribes only the first sentence of the second paragraph to Papias and the rest of the three paragraphs to, seemingly,  Apollinarius Cramer vol 1 p.231

A scholia on Acts 1.18 compiled in S. Lvcae Actvs apostolorvm graece et latine Riga 1782 p. 304 by Matthai gives a shortened variation of the first and second paragraph and attributes it to Apollinarius, and also has a different passage associated with Eusebius, but neither mention Papias.

Kirsopp Lake The Beginning of Christianity p24 says that Bar-Salibi quotes Papias in a fragment in the American Journal of Theology vol 4.3 1900 p501.

Zigabenus alludes to the passage at hand in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles PG129 p.1280 and Matthai p294-295.

What does this mean?  Did  Theophylact (11th/12th century) and Oecumenius (early 7th century) use Papias directly?  Or did they use Apollinarius and omit his name (perhaps due to his heretical history)? Or were they using a catena like the one translated from Cramer above?  Its impossible to know, but Oecumenius’ early date (early 600′s) suggests that he was not using  a catena, but either used Apollinarius or Papias.  However Oecumenius’ date and authorship are disputed, so if he wrote several centuries later (or if someone else wrote the work ascribed to Oecumenius) then a catena could have easily been used.    There are other possibilities, like if Oecumenius quoted Papias and in the course of time a catena falsely attributed it to Apollinarius, or both Oecumenius and Apollinarius quoted Papias independently, etc. It seems likely to me that Apollinarius quoted Papias and that his name was slowly dropped out due to his heretical association.  Oecumenius likely quotes from Apollinarius directly because the first paragraph of his quote is essentially Apollinarius’ wording.  However Oecumenius could be using a catena .  There are obviously many other possibilities as well.

Posted in Papias | 5 Comments

Interesting article on the Chronicon of Hippolytus

Posted on March 26, 2010 by Tom

Yancy Smith has pointed me to this interesting article

Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronik: Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik. Edited by Martin Wallraff. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Especially the article by Osvalda Andrei, “Dalle Chronographiai di Giulio Africano di Giulo Africano alla Synagoge di ‘Ippolito’: Un debattio sulla scrittura cristiana del tempo,” 113-45

According to Yancy this article claims that there is some interdependence between Hippolytus’ and Julius Africanus’ Chronicles and also Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel. I’ll have to ILL this thing and see how well I can get through the Italian.

Thanks Yancy!

Posted in Chronology, Hippolytus | 3 Comments

Chronicon Completed (Finally!)

Posted on March 24, 2010 by Tom

I have posted the final version of Hippolytus of Rome’s Chronicon here.  Though I essentially finished in 2009, it took me a while to get posted.  I would like to thank Roger Pearse, Nick Nicholas, and Yancy Smith for their help, advice and encouragement.  I would also like to thank my brother and my wife for helping me type up a rather monotonous text!  Still, there are some good interesting bits in it, I can’t say that my translation lacks errors, I’m sure some are there, with all of the hundreds of place names and proper names its nearly impossible to get them all right without a small team of people.  Let me know what you all think of this.

My translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel should be posted in the next 4 weeks (I promise!).

Here is my introduction to the text:

Hippolytus wrote his Chronicon in the year 235AD as he himself tells us.  His goal seems to have been threefold: to make a chronology from the beginning of the world up until his present day, to create a genealogical record of mankind, and to create a geographical record of mankind’s locations on the earth.  For his task Hippolytus seems to have made use of the Old Testament, to research the chronology and genealogies, and a nautical dictionary, to research the distances between locations in and around the Mediterranean Sea.

Though Hippolytus published his Chronicon several years after Julius Africanus published his own Chronicon, Hippolytus does not, as far as I can tell, reference his contemporary’s work nor does he seem to write in response to it.  Despite not gaining the level of prestige as Africanus, Hippolytus’ Chronicon seems to have been fairly successful.  Many historians made use of it, such as the author of the Chronography of 354, Epiphanius of Salamis, the author of the Chronicon Paschal, and George Syncellus.

For this translation the GCS (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller) series number 46 was used.  From lines 1 to 613 the Greek of two manuscripts H1 and H2 were used.  From lines 614-720 the Latin translation from the Liber Generationis 1 of the Chronography of 354 was primarily used.  Whenever this was nonsensical, I attempted to compare it with a German translation of the Armenian or the Liber Generationis 2. From lines 721-741 a Greek fragment was used, and from lines 742-778 the Latin from the Liber Generationis 1 was used again.

The footnotes are not exhaustive, they are meant only to point out difficult readings, suggest possible translations of people groups and locations not found in William Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, and occasionally provide references to other ancient authors.  The maps by Heinrich Kiepert can be used to find many of the people groups and locations mentioned in this work.  These maps are in the public domain can be found on many websites.

The form we have the Chronicon in today contains errors and the reader is cautioned against using Hippolytus’ dates, names, and locations without further research. Additionally, this is my first attempt at translating a work from Greek and Latin into English, and no doubt many of the errors are due to my own inattentiveness and not the editors of the GCS or Hippolytus.

This translation needs one more revision using the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) database to truly ensure a proper translation, but I do not have the time for such a task at the moment.

I would like to thank Nick Nicholas and Yancy Smith for their help and advice, Roger Pearse for his inspiration, which led me to take up this task, and my brother Mike, for recording my dictation.  Lastly, and most of all, I thank my very pregnant wife, who spent countless hours typing up a work that, by any standard, is not a pleasant read!

T.C. Schmidt

-Update-

I am already noticing errors in my text, so I am noting them and then will incorporate corrections into my next edition.  Nick Nicholas also made several good suggestions which I forgot to include and will put these into the next edition as well.  If any of you notice errors please email them to me.  My address can be found here

Posted in Chronology, Hippolytus, Translation | 4 Comments

Update on Commentary on Daniel and Chronicon

Posted on March 14, 2010 by Tom

Though I have not been able to update my blog recently, I have been making great progress on the translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel.  I have completed the rough draft translation and gone over it several times and am now in the final editing stage.  I hope to have this posted for you all in May.

I am also working on getting Hippolytus’ Chronicon online as well, but I need to check it over one more time.

Posted in Hippolytus, Translation | Leave a comment