Thursday, December 24, 2009

The Watchtower's false teaching against Christmas #2: Celebration of anyone's birth is pagan

Continuing from my Watchtower's false teaching against Christmas #1: Not celebrated by early Christians, with this part #2 of my

[Above (click to enlarge): "Angels announcing Christ's birth to the shepherds," Govert Flinck, 1639, Louvre, Paris: Wikipedia:

Lk 2:8-14. "And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger." Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, `Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.'"

As did the angels and shepherds on that first Christmas Day, I along with hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide, will be celebrating Jesus' birth tomorrow, Christmas Day 2009!]

working through the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's false teaching against Christmas in its 2005 book, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" pp.156-159, with its words in bold. Each part-quote is linked to the full quote near the end of this post.

"Even if Jesus' disciples had known the exact date of his birth, they would not have celebrated it. (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," p.157a). At least some of Jesus' early disciples would have known the exact date of Jesus' birth. As I pointed out in part #1:

1. the Bible specifically mentions angels celebrating the day of Jesus' birth, "Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you" (Lk 2:8-14) and Jesus' mother Mary and his brothers were founding members of the first church in Jerusalem (Acts 1:13-15).

2. the Bible indicates that early Christians were disputing over observing sacred days and religious festivals in Rom 14:5 "One man considers one day more sacred than another" and Col 2:16 "do not let anyone judge you ... with regard to a religious festival" and it is highly likely that this included commemorating the birth of Jesus (Christmas) and His death and resurrection (Easter), especially since those two dates coincided at first with the Jewish festivals of Hanukkah and Passover.

3. early Christians had by the 2nd-3rd centuries not only been celebrating Jesus' birth but they had been doing it on December 25.

Why? Because, as The World Book Encyclopedia says, the early Christians `considered the celebration of anyone's birth to be a pagan custom.' (p.157a). Without a reference from an authoritative early Christian source, this quote from an encyclopedia is merely the anonymous author's unsubstantiated opinion. That there is no such early Christian source is evident in that if there was one the Watchtower would quote it, not an encyclopedia!

The early Christians included many Jews and as the Jewish Encyclopedia states, "Birthday festivals were not considered by the Rabbis as ... customs of the heathen," "the Biblical text ... contains passages from which it may be inferred that the custom of remembering birthday anniversaries was not wholly unknown among the Jews" and "Birthdays ... were remembered by congratulations, as in modern times":

"There are no positive data in the Bible or in rabbinical literature concerning birthday festivals among the ancient Jews. This silence on the subject is, however, no warrant for the conclusion that the Jews altogether abstained from following a custom which was general among the Egyptians (Gen. xl. 20), Persians (Herodotus i. 133), Syrians, and Greeks ... Birthday festivals were not considered by the Rabbis as ... customs of the heathen ... A close study of the Biblical text shows ... it contains passages from which it may be inferred that the custom of remembering birthday anniversaries was not wholly unknown among the Jews. ... .Birthdays might not have been celebrated by the common people with great solemnity, yet they did not pass wholly unnoticed, and were remembered by congratulations, as in modern times. Jeremiah not only cursed the day of his birth, but wished that it should not be blessed (Jer. xx. 14), as though such had been the custom. It is said of Job, `and he cursed his day' (Job iii. 1). The emphatic and determining expression `his day' implies the idea that he, like everybody else, had a certain day of the year singled out for a certain purpose, which we learn further was the anniversary of his birth." (Adler, C. & Roubin, S., 2002, "birthday," Jewish Encyclopedia).

So since even Jewish rabbis did not consider "Birthday festivals" to be "customs of the heathen" and Jewish birthdays "were remembered by congratulations," therefore the Watchtower's encyclopedia quote above is false.

And even if it were true, Jesus is not just "anyone" and His birth was not just another birth. And celebrating an individual's birthday is not the same as commemorating Jesus' birth. Besides, as we have seen, by at least the 2nd-3rd centuries the early Christians were celebrating Jesus' birth!

The only birthday observances mentioned in the Bible are those of two rulers who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 40:20; Mark 6:21) (p.157a) Even if this were true, so what? That it was Pharaoh's and Herod's birthday is merely incidental to these accounts:

Gn 40:20-22. Now the third day was Pharaoh's birthday, and he gave a feast for all his officials. He lifted up the heads of the chief cupbearer and the chief baker in the presence of his officials: He restored the chief cupbearer to his position, so that he once again put the cup into Pharaoh's hand, but he hanged the chief baker, just as Joseph had said to them in his interpretation.

Mk 6:21-28. Finally the opportune time came. On his birthday Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. When the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests. The king said to the girl, "Ask me for anything you want, and I'll give it to you." And he promised her with an oath, "Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom." She went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for?" "The head of John the Baptist," she answered. At once the girl hurried in to the king with the request: "I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptist on a platter." The king was greatly distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. So he immediately sent an executioner with orders to bring John's head. The man went, beheaded John in the prison, and brought back his head on a platter. He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother.

and the Bible says nothing there or elsewhere about birthday celebrations themselves being wrong. Moreover "Herod was a Jew, not [a] pagan":

"When birthdays are mentioned in Scripture, the celebrations themselves are not condemned. There is not one word in Scripture saying that either of the two birthday celebrations mentioned was bad or should not have taken place. In the case of Pharaoh's birthday [Gn 40:20-22], there is nothing critical of the celebration. Neither is there anything critical of Pharaoh's actions on the day. ... In the case of Herod Antipas's birthday [Mt 14:6-11; Mk 6:21-28] ... it should be noted that Herod was a Jew, not pagan ... The mere mention of birthdays in these two texts does not allow one to infer that birthdays are being implicitly criticized. ... No firm conclusions can be drawn from a sampling of only two instances, as is the case here." (Evert, J., 2001, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," p.142).

albeit nominally, as even the Watchtower admits:

"HEROD. The name of a family of political rulers over the Jews. They were Idumeans, Edomites. They were nominally Jews, for the Idumeans had had circumcision forced upon them by the Maccabean ruler John Hyrcanus I in about 125 B.C.E., according to Josephus. ... It was Herod Antipas' adulterous relationship with Herodias that brought reproof from John the Baptizer. John could properly correct Antipas on this matter, for Antipas was nominally a Jew and professedly under the Law." (WB&TS, "Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1: Aaron-Jehoshua," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 1988, pp.1090-1091, 1095. Emphasis original).

As a professed Jew, and to avoid uprisings by his Jewish subjects, Herod Antipas would have had to, at least nominally, participate in all the Jewish ceremonies in "worship [of] Jehovah." Therefore it is a false claim by the Watchtower that "he [Herod Antipas] did not worship Jehovah."

And while Gn 40:20 & Mk 6:21, and the parallel in Mt 14:6-11, are the only places that our English Bible has the word "birthday," it is a false claim by the Watchtower that these are "The only birthday observances mentioned in the Bible", because as the Jewish Encyclopedia above states Job 1:4 refers to each of Job's sons celebrating "his own day," where the context makes clear that these were their birthdays:

"Although the actual word birthday appears only in connection with Pharaoh and Herod in most translations, the Bible does contain reference to such celebrations in godly families: In Job 1:4, it says of the patriarch Job's family, `And his sons went and held a banquet at the house of each one on his own day; and they sent and invited their three sisters to eat and drink with them' (NWT, italics added). That `his own day' refers to each one's birthday becomes clear when we read further: `It was after this that Job opened his mouth and began to call down evil upon his day. Job now answered and said: `Let the day perish on which I came to be born ...' ` (Job 3:1-3, NWT, italics added). The Living Bible's paraphrase of Job 1:4-5 expresses this thought: `Every year when each of Job's sons had a birthday, he invited his brothers and sisters to his home for a celebration. On these occasions they would eat and drink with great merriment. When these birthday parties ended... .'" (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," p.26).

Also, as the Jewish Encyclopedia quote above mentions, Jer 20:14-15 indicates that to the Old Testament Jews, the day that one was born was normally regarded as "blessed":

"Cursed be the day I was born! May the day my mother bore me not be blessed! Cursed be the man who brought my father the news, who made him very glad, saying, "A child is born to you-a son!"

and this "language of Jeremiah (20:14, 15) would seem to indicate that such occasions were joyfully remembered." (Unger, M.F., 1966, "Unger's Bible Dictionary," p.147).

Birthday celebrations were also held in honor of pagan deities. For example, on May 24 the Romans celebrated the birthday of the goddess Diana. On the following day, they observed the birthday of their sun-god, Apollo. (p.157a). That pagans celebrated the birthdays of their deities is actually evidence that the celebration of birthdays was normal in Gentile society also.

Hence, birthday celebrations were associated with paganism, not with Christianity." (p.157a). No. See above. The Watchtower has only cited one quote from an anonymous author of an article in an encyclopedia that "the early Christians" did not celebrate "anyone's birth," which is false at least for Jewish Christians. The Watchtower has not provided a quote from an authoritative early Christian source to that effect, which shows that if there was such a quote the Watchtower would use it endlessly and not have to resort to an unsubstantiated quote by an anonymous author in an encyclopedia.

This is just another example of the Watchtower's "guilt by association" and "warped logic":

"Jehovah's Witnesses say that since Herod the pagan celebrated a birthday and had John the Baptist executed on that day, then Christians shouldn't celebrate birthdays. To take part in celebrating a birthday is to associate oneself with a pagan practice and violate God's holy law. Hence, no true follower of Jehovah will celebrate a birthday ... Again, the Watchtower position is a clear case of guilt by association. Concluding that a particular day is evil simply because something bad happened on that day is warped logic. Matthew 14:6-10 proves only that Herod was evil, not birthdays." (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," p.394. Emphasis original).

"There is another reason why first-century Christians would not have celebrated Jesus' birthday. (p.157b). The Watchtower has not yet established that "first-century Christians would not have celebrated Jesus' birthday"!

As we saw in part #1 with Christmas, the Watchtower judges and punishes JWs who celebrate birthdays, up to and including disfellowshipping them, even for merely sending a birthday card:

"It is worth noting that, as with other teachings, it is not left up to the individual Witness to read the Bible and come up with this conclusion. Rather, the sect's secretive governing body has promulgated this official interpretation and uses its disciplinary procedures to enforce the policy on all Witnesses. For example, one elderly JW of our acquaintance in Massachusetts decided that he would send a birthday card to his non-Witness son, but his wife reported it to the local elders. They summoned him before a closed-door judicial-committee meeting and put him on trial for this offense. The seventy-year-old gentleman challenged them to show him one Scripture verse prohibiting sending a birthday card, but the committee went ahead and disfellowshiped him on the basis of the Watchtower Society's ruling. His Witness relatives now refuse him admittance to their home, and Witnesses who encounter him on the street turn away without even saying hello." (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.24-25).

His disciples likely knew that birthday celebrations were connected with superstition.(p.157b) No. The disciples would have known that birthday celebrations, even if only "remembered by congratulations, as in modern times" were normal in both Jewish and Gentile society.

Ironically the Watchtower's fear of anything even remotely connected with paganism, like "birthday celebrations," is itself a form of superstition! I have downloaded and listened to about a 100 ex-JW testimonies and a common theme in many of them is that as JWs they had a superstitious fear of demons, the cross, entering a church, reading Christian material, etc:
"It has been my own observation, as I have observed the behaviour of, and talked with Jehovah's Witnesses over the years, that many have an almost superstitious dread and fear of the cross shape." (McCann, V., 2005, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross." My emphasis).

Ex-JW Diane Wilson describes her and her fellow JWs superstitious fear of demons:

"The organization also instilled in me a terror of demons. The Witnesses I knew spent much time talking among themselves about Satan and the earthly activities of his invisible wicked spirit followers, the demons." (Wilson, D., 2002, "Awakening of a Jehovah's Witness," p.37).

"Some Witnesses were so fearful that they even left Watchtower magazines strewn about their homes, hoping to ward off demon attacks. ... When the brothers prayed audibly for the congregation, many used the name `Jehovah' repeatedly, almost superstitiously, throughout their prayer. During assemblies, brothers often told stories about demons attacking Witnesses who left the organization ..." (Wilson, 2002, pp.38-39. My emphasis).

"Telling demon stories was a favorite past-time at Witnesses' social gatherings. ... All such stories were told in hushed undertones, for fear the demons would overhear. .... The Witnesses lived in obvious fear of demons .... Hearing such stories about demons contributed towards my developing a phobia of ever leaving the organization." (Wilson, 2002, p.39).

"I noticed the Witnesses' obsessive fear of demons also manifesting itself while in the house-to-house preaching work. Occasionally a householder would want to give the Witness a religious pamphlet from her own church; ... as soon as we were out of sight of the householder, the pamphlet became like the proverbial `hot potato' - the Witness couldn't get rid of it fast enough! Some Witnesses feared that even touching the pamphlet could cause a demon to transfer itself from the pamphlet to themselves. .... I found it odd that Witnesses, who claimed to be representatives of God in doing His work, would be so frightened of a mere pamphlet." (Wilson, 2002, pp.39-40).

"Witnesses often frequented garage sales .... I noticed that Witnesses were fanatical about the articles they found at these sales, worrying that demons might have attached themselves to the items; bringing such things home would be an open invitation to demon attack. Often I watched as Witnesses, before buying something at a garage sale, peered into the eyes of the people selling the desired objects to see if they had the `special look' individuals who were demonized were thought to have. If they did, the Witness would immediately put the items down in order to avoid likewise becoming demonized, and would breathlessly beat a hasty retreat.." (Wilson, 2002, p.40).

"If a Witness ever showed symptoms of `spiritual sickness' (low witnessing hours, sporadic meeting attendance, not living in accordance with all of the Watchtower teachings), usually the elders' first course of action would be to physically go through the house of the Witness, searching for items that could have attracted demons-even helping the person to destroy any suspicious objects that they found. I puzzled over why Jehovah's Witnesses, ostensibly God's `name-people,' would be so worried about demons. God was certainly more powerful than demons, and surely He could protect His people. I wondered why the Witnesses seemed to have so little confidence that He would." (Wilson, 2002, p.40).

For instance, many Greeks and Romans of ancient times believed that a spirit attended the birth of each human and protected that one throughout life. `This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born,' says the book The Lore of Birthdays. (p.157b). What "many Greeks and Romans of ancient times believed" is simply irrelevant. It is ironic that the Watchtower claims to be opposed to paganism yet it is still influenced (if not controlled) by these ancient Greek and Roman pagans beliefs as though their gods are real and that humans today actually do "have a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born"! Otherwise, what is the Watchtower's point?

Jehovah certainly would not be pleased with any observance that would link Jesus with superstition. (Isaiah 65:11, 12) (p.157b). Celebrating a person's birthday, including Jesus' birth at Christmas, is hardly "setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck" and "filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny" which is what Isa 65:11-12 NWT is referring to:

"But YOU men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny. And I will destine YOU men to the sword, and YOU will all of YOU bow down to being slaughtered; for the reason that I called, but YOU did not answer; I spoke, but YOU did not listen; and YOU kept doing what was bad in my eyes, and the thing in which I took no delight YOU chose."

So the Watchtower is also guilty of to misquoting Scripture, i.e. "twisting ... the Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2Pet 3:16 NWT) in an attempt to make its anti-birthday, anti-Christmas, point.

Moreover, it is the Watchtower which is linking Jesus with superstition, and the Watchtower is correct about one thing: Jehovah (who is Jesus) would not be pleased with those who link Him with superstition, as the Watchtower does!

So how did Christmas come to be celebrated by many people?" (p.157b). Continued in "The Watchtower's false teaching against Christmas #3: Pagan origins of Christmas."

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin.


"When birthdays are mentioned in Scripture, the celebrations themselves are not condemned. There is not one word in Scripture saying that either of the two birthday celebrations mentioned was bad or should not have taken place. In the case of Pharaoh's birthday [Gn 40:20-22], there is nothing critical of the celebration. Neither is there anything critical of Pharaoh's actions on the day. It does mention that he had one of his former servants put to death on that day, but Scripture is silent about whether the man had done anything worthy of death. That question is not considered, and we are given no information about what the servant had done that led him first to be put in prison and then put to death. In the case of Herod Antipas's birthday [Mt 14:6-11; Mk 6:21-28] - and it should be noted that Herod was a Jew, not pagan-the implied criticism is that he made a rash promise and bowed to social pressure (Matt. 14:9), which together led him to have John the Baptist executed. Neither of these is a criticism of birthdays but of rash oaths and bowing to peer pressure. The mere mention of birthdays in these two texts does not allow one to infer that birthdays are being implicitly criticized. Good Bible interpretation does not permit taking a passage where something unpleasant is mentioned, finding a second element in the text, and from that alone inferring that the second element is being criticized. This is the case especially when one has a very limited number of samples from which to draw. No firm conclusions can be drawn from a sampling of only two instances, as is the case here." (Evert, J., 2001, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," Catholic Answers: El Cajon CA, p.142).

"There are no positive data in the Bible or in rabbinical literature concerning birthday festivals among the ancient Jews. This silence on the subject is, however, no warrant for the conclusion that the Jews altogether abstained from following a custom which was general among the Egyptians (Gen. xl. 20), Persians (Herodotus i. 133), Syrians, and Greeks. Even if not common among the people, yet kings and princes probably practised it, following the custom of their heathen contemporaries. Birthday festivals were not considered by the Rabbis as `h.ukkot ha-goyim' (customs of the heathen; see Maimonides, Yad ha-H.azak.h, 'Akkum we-H.uk.otehem, xi. 12), although Lightfoot held a contrary opinion ("Horæ Hebr." on Matt. xiv. 6). ... A close study of the Biblical text shows that the Bible is not altogether wanting in references to the subject; for, while it lacks positive accounts, it contains passages from which it may be inferred that the custom of remembering birthday anniversaries was not wholly unknown among the Jews. `The day of our king' (Hosea vii. 5), on which the princes made the king sick with bottles of wine, and the king himself `stretched out his hand with scorners,' alludes more probably to a birthday festival than to a solemn occasion, such as the anniversary of his installation, which would have been observed with more decorum (see Josephus, "Ant." xv. 9, § 6). Birthdays might not have been celebrated by the common people with great solemnity, yet they did not pass wholly unnoticed, and were remembered by congratulations, as in modern times. Jeremiah not only cursed the day of his birth, but wished that it should not be blessed (Jer. xx. 14), as though such had been the custom. It is said of Job, `and he cursed his day' (Job iii. 1). The emphatic and determining expression `his day' implies the idea that he, like everybody else, had a certain day of the year singled out for a certain purpose, which we learn further was the anniversary of his birth." (Adler, C. & Roubin, S., 2002, "birthday," Jewish Encyclopedia).

"It has been my own observation, as I have observed the behaviour of, and talked with Jehovah's Witnesses over the years, that many have an almost superstitious dread and fear of the cross shape. So convinced are they, of what the Watchtower has told them regarding this image, that many instantly associate it with paganism. This is most unfortunate because, as was seen, the evidence seems to clearly be in favour of this shape. When Christians use the cross of Christ in their decorations of churches etc. they use it as a symbol of victory over the forces of paganism. It also reminds Christians of the suffering which Christ endured for our sins. Some Witnesses may even think that Christians worship the cross. While there may be some individuals who may do this, this is certainly something which is not the norm in Christianity (particularly Protestant Christianity) and certainly something to be rejected, as indeed it is by the vast majority of Christendom." (McCann, V., "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross," Spotlight Ministries, 7 November 2005).

"Genesis 40:20-22 ... The Watchtower organization has prohibited birthday celebrations among its adherents, using Genesis 40:20-22 as a key part of the `scriptural basis' for this ruling. Their thought is that the word birthday appears in the Bible only in reference to Pharaoh of Egypt (as above) and King Herod of Galilee (Matt. 14:6 and Mark 6:21). [but]... Although the actual word birthday appears only in connection with Pharaoh and Herod in most translations, the Bible does contain reference to such celebrations in godly families: In Job 1:4, it says of the patriarch Job's family, `And his sons went and held a banquet at the house of each one on his own day; and they sent and invited their three sisters to eat and drink with them' (NWT, italics added). That `his own day' refers to each one's birthday becomes clear when we read further: `It was after this that Job opened his mouth and began to call down evil upon his day. Job now answered and said: `Let the day perish on which I came to be born ...' ` (Job 3:1-3, NWT, italics added). The Living Bible's paraphrase of Job 1:4-5 expresses this thought: `Every year when each of Job's sons had a birthday, he invited his brothers and sisters to his home for a celebration. On these occasions they would eat and drink with great merriment. When these birthday parties ended... .'" (Reed, D.A., 1986, p.26. Emphasis original).

"Jehovah's Witnesses say that since Herod the pagan celebrated a birthday and had John the Baptist executed on that day, then Christians shouldn't celebrate birthdays. To take part in celebrating a birthday is to associate oneself with a pagan practice and violate God's holy law. Hence, no true follower of Jehovah will celebrate a birthday ... Again, the Watchtower position is a clear case of guilt by association. Concluding that a particular day is evil simply because something bad happened on that day is warped logic. Matthew 14:6-10 proves only that Herod was evil, not birthdays. Ask... o Based on a reading of Matthew 14:6-10, isn't it more logical to conclude that it is Herod that is portrayed as evil and not birthdays? (If the Jehovah's Witness argues about this, ask:) o What is the source of the evil in Matthew 14:6-10 - Herod or the birthday?" (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, p.394. Emphasis original).

"Birthday (Heb. yom huledeth; Gen. 40:20; Gr, ta genesia, Matt. 14:6; Mark 6:21). The custom of observing birthdays was very ancient and widely extended. In Persia they were celebrated with peculiar honor and banquets, and in Egypt the king's birthday was observed with great pomp (Gen. 40:20). No reference is made in Scripture of the celebration of birthdays by the Jews themselves although the language of Jeremiah (20:14, 15) would seem to indicate that such occasions were joyfully remembered. By most commentators the feasts mentioned in Job. 1:13, 18, are thought to have been birthday festivals, but Delitzsch (Com., in loc.) believes them to have been gatherings each day in the home of one of the brothers. The feast commemorative of `Herod's birthday' (Matt. 14:6) may have been in honor of his birth or of his accession to the throne (Hos. 7:5). The later Jews regarded the celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship. In the early Church the term `birthdays' was applied to the festivals of martyrs, the days on which they suffered death in this world and were born to the glory and life of heaven." (Unger, M.F., 1966, "Unger's Bible Dictionary," [1957], Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, Fifteenth printing, 1969, p.147. Emphasis original).

"Even if Jesus' disciples had known the exact date of his birth, they would not have celebrated it. Why? Because, as The World Book Encyclopedia says, the early Christians `considered the celebration of anyone's birth to be a pagan custom.' The only birthday observances mentioned in the Bible are those of two rulers who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 40:20; Mark 6:21) Birthday celebrations were also held in honor of pagan deities. For example, on May 24 the Romans celebrated the birthday of the goddess Diana. On the following day, they observed the birthday of their sun-god, Apollo. Hence, birthday celebrations were associated with paganism, not with Christianity." (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, p.157a)

"There is another reason why first-century Christians would not have celebrated Jesus' birthday. His disciples likely knew that birthday celebrations were connected with superstition. For instance, many Greeks and Romans of ancient times believed that a spirit attended the birth of each human and protected that one throughout life. `This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born,' says the book The Lore of Birthdays. Jehovah certainly would not be pleased with any observance that would link Jesus with superstition. (Isaiah 65:11, 12) So how did Christmas come to be celebrated by many people?" (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, p.157b).

"The organization also instilled in me a terror of demons. The Witnesses I knew spent much time talking among themselves about Satan and the earthly activities of his invisible wicked spirit followers, the demons. One evening I was at a social gathering with other Witnesses, some of whom told of persons who were studying with Jehovah's Witnesses being attacked by demons who wanted to keep them in Satan's realm and out of the Truth. I was assured, though, that if I were ever assaulted by demons, shouting the name `Jehovah!' repeatedly would frighten them away." (Wilson, D., "Awakening of a Jehovah's Witness: Escape from the Watchtower Society," Prometheus: Amherst NY, 2002, p.37).

"Some Witnesses were so fearful that they even left Watchtower magazines strewn about their homes, hoping to ward off demon attacks. Even Witnesses' daily conversations were liberally sprinkled with the name `Jehovah' to keep the demons at bay. When the brothers prayed audibly for the congregation, many used the name `Jehovah' repeatedly, almost superstitiously, throughout their prayer. During assemblies, brothers often told stories about demons attacking Witnesses who left the organization, as they were then outside the realm of Jehovah's protection. Demons were said to cause them to go crazy, to become depressed, or to lead debauched, meaningless, poverty-stricken lives full of misery and sorrow. The Society reinforced this belief at nearly every assembly by featuring the testimony of a person who had either left the organization, or had been `disfellowshipped' (ousted from the organization) and had now been reinstated. Invariably, they would tell of how horrible life outside the organization had been, and how Satan had influenced them to become prostitutes, drug addicts, or to do all manner of immoral or illegal things. They would always emphasize that returning to the organization had been the only way to straighten out their lives and obtain relief from the demons. Watchtower Society literature at times even described how - their missionaries in remote foreign countries were the only missionaries able to stay alive despite deadly curses put on them by tribal witch doctors." (Wilson, 2002, pp.38-39).

"Telling demon stories was a favorite past-time at Witnesses' social gatherings. One sister exclaimed a demon once grabbed her while she was in the kitchen cooking dinner, and had spun her around in circles. Another said that the beautiful sofa her sister gave her was demonized, as everyone who sat on it developed an impulsive urge to kill someone. Yet another told of her Bible student who owned a blanket possessed by demons; whenever she would beckon it to cover her, it would creep up her body and snuggle itself up around her neck. All such stories were told in hushed undertones, for fear the demons would overhear. The Witnesses believed that anyone showing too much interest or curiosity about the demons would be the demons' next target. The Witnesses lived in obvious fear of demons; these stories always ended with the group agreeing how thankful they were to be Jehovah's Witnesses, as Jehovah would always protect them from these invisible adversaries. Telling and listening to these stories served to reinforce the need to stay closely involved in all organizational activities as a protection against these evil, invisible demonic forces. Hearing such stories about demons contributed towards my developing a phobia of ever leaving the organization." (Wilson, 2002, p.39).

"I noticed the Witnesses' obsessive fear of demons also manifesting itself while in the house-to-house preaching work. Occasionally a householder would want to give the Witness a religious pamphlet from her own church; while often the Witness would refuse to accept it on the basis that she already had the Truth, at other times another Witness might accept it. However, as soon as we were out of sight of the householder, the pamphlet became like the proverbial `hot potato'-the Witness couldn't get rid of it fast enough! Some Witnesses feared that even touching the pamphlet could cause a demon to transfer itself from the pamphlet to themselves. This fear stemmed from their belief that Jehovah's Witnesses represent the only true religion, thus all other religions are false and under the control of the Devil and the demons; consequently, they believe all literature from another religion to be contaminated with demonic forces. While some Witnesses insisted that burning the pamphlets was the only safe way to dispose of them in order to avoid demon attacks, others seemed relieved to simply drop them into the nearest trashcan. I found it odd that Witnesses, who claimed to be representatives of God in doing His work, would be so frightened of a mere pamphlet." (Wilson, 2002, pp.39-40).

"I observed many Witnesses become nervous and abruptly scurry away from talking to a householder who talked too much about Jesus, exclaiming: `Did you notice his eyes? He is obviously demonized!' Witnesses often frequented garage sales, as most Witnesses were not well off financially, in large part due to the brothers urging them to work only part-time so as to have more time for the witnessing work. I noticed that Witnesses were fanatical about the articles they found at these sales, worrying that demons might have attached themselves to the items; bringing such things home would be an open invitation to demon attack. Often I watched as Witnesses, before buying something at a garage sale, peered into the eyes of the people selling the desired objects to see if they had the `special look' individuals who were demonized were thought to have. If they did, the Witness would immediately put the items down in order to avoid likewise becoming demonized, and would breathlessly beat a hasty retreat. If a Witness ever showed symptoms of `spiritual sickness' (low witnessing hours, sporadic meeting attendance, not living in accordance with all of the Watchtower teachings), usually the elders' first course of action would be to physically go through the house of the Witness, searching for items that could have attracted demons-even helping the person to destroy any suspicious objects that they found. I puzzled over why Jehovah's Witnesses, ostensibly God's `name-people,' would be so worried about demons. God was certainly more powerful than demons, and surely He could protect His people. I wondered why the Witnesses seemed to have so little confidence that He would." (Wilson, 2002, p.40).

Saturday, December 19, 2009

The Watchtower's false teaching against Christmas #1: Not celebrated by early Christians

In the lead up to Christmas, I will begin working through the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's teaching against Christmas

[Above (click to enlarge): The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's last celebration of Christmas at its Bethel headquarters in 1926: "Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom," WB&TS, 1993, pp.198-199. The picture actually was used on a Christmas card sent by Watchtower President `Judge' Rutherford! So if celebrating Christmas is pagan as the Watchtower maintains (see future part #2 and #3 of this series), then by its own admission the Society indulged in that pagan practice from its founding in 1879 to 1926, i.e. 47 years, or over a third of its total existence!]

in its 2005 book, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" pp.156-159 (with its words in bold) and show that it is false. Each part-quote is linked to the full quote near the end of this post.

"CHRISTMAS-NOT CELEBRATED BY EARLY CHRISTIANS (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," p.156). Even if this were true. so what? There is no Biblical or logical reason why Christians today are bound by what early Christians did or did not do. But in fact neither the Watchtower, nor anyone, knows that Christmas was not celebrated by at least some (or even most) early Christians. And as we shall see, this Watchtower heading is not supported by what is in the section under it.

" ... Christmas supposedly commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ, " (WB&TS, 2005, p.156). There is no "supposedly" about it. Christmas does commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ:

"Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday, celebrated on December 25, that commemorates the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.." ("Christmas," Wikipedia, 16 December 2009).

irrespective of what non-Christians do or do not celebrate Christmas for.

"... and nearly every religion that claims to be Christian celebrates it. " (WB&TS, 2005, p.156). That nearly all Christian denominations celebrate Christmas means there are a minority who, for various reasons, do not. But they are free to do that, since the Bible teaches that "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" as to whether "one day [is] more sacred than another" and that Christians are to "not let anyone judge [them] ... with regard to a religious festival":

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." (Rom 14:5 NIV).

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." (Col 2:16 NIV).

The Watchtower's own New World Translation is substantially the same:

"One [man] judges one day as above another; another [man] judges one day as all others; let each [man] be fully convinced in his own mind." (Rom 14:5 NWT).

"Therefore let no man judge YOU in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath;" (Col 2:16 NWT).

But the Watchtower not only does not celebrate the birth of Jesus, it judges and then punishes Jehovah's Witnesses who do, in clear breach of "what the Bible really teaches in Rom 14:5 and especially Col 2:16! As former Jehovah's Witness elder David Reed recounts, "Participation in Christmas celebrations is not optional for Jehovah's Witnesses" because "judicial committees ... sit in judgment of any who celebrate" Christmas "even in some small way":

"Participation in Christmas celebrations is not optional for Jehovah's Witnesses. The ban is enforced by elders who make up judicial committees that sit in judgment of any who celebrate the holiday, even in some small way. During my 8 years as a JW elder I took part in such enforcement proceedings on a number of occasions.." (Reed, D.A., 1996, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," p.75).

So the Watchtower is, and has been for decades, in a state of deliberate disobedience of the Bible (even its own translation) in this.

"Yet, there is no evidence that the first-century disciples of Jesus observed such a holiday. " (WB&TS, 2005, p.156). Again, even if this were true, so what? The Bible makes it clear that Christians are free to observe "one day more sacred than another" (Rom 14:5) and that Christians are not to be judged by other Christians "with regard to a religious festival" (Col 2:16). But here the Watchtower is committing the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy, which is "an argument ... against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence ... for it":

"An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence." ( "Appeal to Ignorance," The Fallacy Files, 30 August 2007).

That is, the Watchtower has fallaciously converted "there is no evidence that the first-century disciples of Jesus observed such a holiday" (which is false - see next) into "Christmas" was not "celebrated by early Christians." But clearly, given that the vast majority of what the early Christians did or did not do has been lost, it is entirely possible that Christmas was celebrated by early Christians and yet there is no surviving evidence of them doing so.

But in fact there is evidence in the Bible that some 1st century Christians were considering "one day more sacred than another" (Rom 14:5) and observing a "religious festivals." (Col 2:16). And since Paul would not have condoned the Christian observance of pagan sacred days or religious festivals, they must have been either Jewish or Christian. And since in the early Church the celebration of Jesus' death and resurrection (Easter) then was the Jewish Passover, it is highly likely that Paul is including what later became Easter in his referring to Christians considering "one day more sacred than another" (Rom 14:5) and paying "regard to a religious festival" (Col 2:16).

And since the Bible specifically mentions angels celebrating the day of Jesus' birth, i.e. "Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you":

Lk 2:8-14. 8And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. 12This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger." 13Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 14"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

it is highly likely that at least some (if not most) early Christians were celebrating, at least in the sense of commemorating, the day of Jesus' birth, which they would know given that Jesus' mother Mary and his brothers (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) were members of the first church in Jerusalem :

Acts 1:13-15. 13When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Also, the Jewish festival of Hanukkah which Jesus celebrated:

Jn 10:22-23. Then came the Feast of Dedication [Hanukkah] at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade.

may occur at any time from late November to late December ":

"Hanukkah ... also known as the Festival of Lights, is an eight-day Jewish holiday commemorating the rededication of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabean Revolt of the 2nd century BCE. Hanukkah is observed for eight nights, starting on the 25th day of Kislev according to the Hebrew calendar, which may occur at any time from late November to late December in the Gregorian calendar." ("Hanukkah," Wikipedia, 18 December 2009).

was actually on December 25 in 4BC, the year that Jesus was probably born:

"It has been determined that ... due to the timing of the death of Herod ... Y'shua [Jesus] was born around Hanakkuh of 4 BC .... This places the First Day of Hanukkuh (24th day of the 9th month) ...if we use Your Sky - we see that Astronomical New Moon of the Ninth Month occured precisely on November 29th, 4 BC ... thus making December 1, 4 BC to be the First Day of the Ninth Month and that would place the First Day of Hanukkuh - the Twenty Fourth Day of the Ninth Month - to have occured, literally, exactly on December 25th, 4 BC .... Thus, Y'shua ben Y'hava [Jesus] was born precisely on December 25, 4 BC on the First day of Hanakkuh ...." (Theoferrum, 2009, "The First Noel: The Last Chronology").

Which fits with there being no room for Mary and Joseph in the inn (Lk 2:7), Bethlehem being only 10 kilometers (6 miles) from Jerusalem.

If so, it is highly likely that Paul was also including in Rom 14:5 and Col 2:16 1st century Christians disputing about whether to celebrate Hanukkah on the movable Jewish day "from late November to late December" or on the fixed December 25 which was Jesus' birthday.

Moreover, as I pointed out in my post, "Was Jesus born on December 25? #4: The case for," there is evidence that the early church commemorated Jesus' birth on December 25:

Hippolytus (ca. 165-235) wrote "The earliest record supporting the December twenty-fifth birth of Jesus":

"The earliest record supporting the December twenty-fifth birth of Jesus was written by Hippolytus (ca. 165-235 CE) in the early third century:
The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January, a Wednesday, in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, 5500 years from Adam. Commentary on Daniel 4:23.
The eighth day before the Kalends of January is December 25." (Doig, K.F., 2009, "Doig's Biblical Chronology).

Sextus Julius Africanus (ca. 180-250) in AD 221, identified December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth:

"December 25 was first identified as the date of Jesus' birth by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221 and later became the universally accepted date." (Hillerbrand, H.J., "Christmas," Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 17 December 2009).

He assumed that the date of Jesus' conception was the then Spring Equinox on March 25, and therefore Jesus' birth was 9 months later on December 25:

"A second view suggests that December 25 became the date of Jesus' birth by a priori reasoning that identified the spring equinox as the date of the creation of the world and the fourth day of creation, when the light was created, as the day of Jesus' conception (i.e., March 25). December 25, nine months later, then became the date of Jesus' birth."." (Hillerbrand, 2009, Ibid.).

But Sextus may merely have been proposing additional evidence to support an existing tradition of commemorating the birth of Jesus on December 25.

Chrysostom (347-407) in 386 stated of December 25 that "from long ago" it had been "a festival that was very well known and famous to those who dwell from Thrace [Turkey] to Gades [Spain]:"

"On the day itself, namely Dec 25 of the year 386, Chrysostom delivered the second sermon. ... He states that it was not yet ten years that the festival had been known to them. It was, however, transmitted to them as from long ago and from many years .... From long ago it was known to those who dwell in the West .... And from long ago it was a festival that was very well known and famous to those who dwell from Thrace to Gades ..." (Finegan, J., 1964, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology," p.256).

"The book Sacred Origins of Profound Things states: `For two centuries after Christ's birth, no one knew, and few people cared, exactly when he was born." (WB&TS, 2005, p.156). The Watchtower's here is again scraping the bottom of the barrel to find someone (anyone!) who agrees with it on a particular point. The Society is also being dishonest in concealing the name of the author of this book, "Sacred Origins of Profound Things: The Stories Behind the Rites and Rituals of the World's Religions" (1996). That is because he is Charles Panati, a former physicist, not a historian or a theologian, nor apparently even a Christian. The above quote is from page 216 of his book which is viewable online, That page reveals that Panati gives no references for the above quote and he just regurgitates the usual fallacies that Christians borrowed December 25 from the Roman pagans when in fact, as we shall see (again), the Roman pagans borrowed December 25 from the Christians!

A review in the New York Times of Panati's book, notes that Panati had not "actually read the New Testament" in his claim that "`Money is the root of all evil' is directly attributable in that very form to I Timothy 6:9-10" and for "falsely tracing the correct wording ('The love of money is the root of all evil') to ... J. P. Morgan!" The reviewer also accuses Panati of "breathtaking ignorance" in "that he believes Timothy was the author of I Timothy" when "as almost everybody knows" it "purports to be a letter to Timothy from the apostle Paul." The reviewer concludes with a warning to readers that "anything you would care to believe in `Sacred Origins of Profound Things' requires far more careful checking than Mr. Panati has been able to do":

"Previous reviewers of Mr. Panati's books have sometimes blamed him for silly mistakes on subjects concerning which they themselves were well informed. The pleasure of such superiority is now available to anyone who has actually read the New Testament. For example, Mr. Panati tells us that the expression `Money is the root of all evil' is directly attributable in that very form to I Timothy 6:9-10. .... Mr. Panati continues, falsely tracing the correct wording ('The love of money is the root of all evil') to a cynical wisecrack by J. P. Morgan! .... It is fearfully clear that anything you would care to believe in `Sacred Origins of Profound Things' requires far more careful checking than Mr. Panati has been able to do." (Ferrell, T., 1997, "Sacred Origins of Profound Things." Review, New York Times, January 12).

Another example of Panati's "breathtaking ignorance" in Christian things is evident on the very page the Watchtower's quote is on, where Panati writes that the words "Christ's Mass" originated in "274 CE":

"By the year 274 CE .... The Church, then, needed a December celebration. .... And to offer head-on competition to the sun worshippers' popular feast, the Church located the Nativity on December 25. The mode observance would be characteristically prayerful: a Mass; in fact, Christ's Mass. " (Panati, C. 1996, "Sacred Origins of Profound Things," p.216).

when in fact the term "Christ's Mass ... is derived from the ... Old English Cristes mæsse, a phrase first recorded in 1038:

"The word Christmas originated as a compound meaning "Christ's Mass". It is derived from the Middle English Christemasse and Old English Cristes mæsse, a phrase first recorded in 1038" ("Christmas: Etymology," Wikipedia, 16 December 2009).

To summarise this part #1, the Watchtower:

1. commits the Argument from Ignorance fallacy in converting its claim, "there is no evidence that the first-century disciples of Jesus observed" Christmas" into "Christmas" was not "celebrated by early Christians";

2. makes a false claim that "there is no evidence that the first-century disciples of Jesus observed" Christmas when there is evidence that Christians in the New Testament were disputing over considering "one day more sacred than another" (Rom 14:5) and were judging each other "with regard to a religious festival" (Col 2:16), these being highly likely to include the date of Jesus' birth (Christmas) and His death (Easter). Moreover, there is evidence in the 2nd-3rd centuries that Christians had not only been celebrating the date of Jesus' birth but they were doing it on December 25; and

3. quotes for support of its position an unsubstantiated statement in a book, "Sacred Origins of Profound Things," dishonestly not giving the author's name, Charles Panati, who is not a historian or a theologian, and who the New York Times in its review of that book, accused of not having "actually read the New Testament," "breathtaking ignorance" of 1Tim 6:10, and concluded by warning readers that "anything you would care to believe in" Panati's book, "requires far more careful checking than Mr. Panati has been able to do"!

Continued in "The Watchtower's false teaching against Christmas #2: Celebration of anyone's birth is pagan."

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin.


"The earliest record supporting the December twenty-fifth birth of Jesus was written by Hippolytus (ca. 165-235 CE) in the early third century:

The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January, a Wednesday, in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, 5500 years from Adam. Commentary on Daniel 4:23.
The eighth day before the Kalends of January is December 25. However, in 5 BCE December 25 fell on Sunday, not Wednesday. In 4 BCE it fell on Monday, in 3 BCE on Tuesday, in 2 BCE on Wednesday and in 1 BCE on Sunday. The dating of Augustus would be from August of 44 BCE and his forty-second year would fall in 3 or 2 BCE, depending on how Hippolytus reckoned. It would appear that Hippolytus' date for the nativity was Wednesday, December 25, 2 BCE. The difficulty with Hippolytus' dating is that it is unknown if part or all of his date is from an earlier tradition or from his own calculation. A common conclusion is that December 25 is not based on a historical tradition but on wrong calculations and a pagan festival on that day. However, such a conclusion is no more valid than the assumption that December 25 does have a historical basis independent of any existing festivals. Here the Wednesday in 2 BCE is the miscalculation." (Doig, K.F., "Doig's Biblical Chronology: Exact Dating of the Exodus and Birth and Crucifixion of Jesus," Chapter 9, December 5, 2009).

"Why are there 12 days of Christmas? What are the seven deadly sins, and who says so? Why don't Jews kneel to pray? Charles Panati, the author of `The Browser's Book of Beginnings' and `Panati's Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things,' is eager to raise and then to answer these and a great many more interesting questions about world religions and why their adherents believe and behave as they do. There's a lot of instructive stuff here; it had not occurred to me before that when I Chronicles attributes to Satan the temptation of King David to take a census of Israel -- a provocation II Samuel attributes to God -- we are well on the way to the quasi dualism so conspicuous in the New Testament. However: Previous reviewers of Mr. Panati's books have sometimes blamed him for silly mistakes on subjects concerning which they themselves were well informed. The pleasure of such superiority is now available to anyone who has actually read the New Testament. For example, Mr. Panati tells us that the expression `Money is the root of all evil' is directly attributable in that very form to I Timothy 6:9-10. This is a popular error, but not a forgivable one in a writer with access to Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. Mr. Panati continues, falsely tracing the correct wording ('The love of money is the root of all evil') to a cynical wisecrack by J. P. Morgan! (modern scholars gravely doubt that the real Paul wrote it). It is fearfully clear that anything you would care to believe in `Sacred Origins of Profound Things' requires far more careful checking than Mr. Panati has been able to do." (Ferrell, T., "Sacred Origins of Profound Things." Review of Sacred Origins Of Profound Things By Charles Panati. Penguin Arkana. New York Times, January 12, 1997).

"On the day itself, namely Dec 25 of the year 386, Chrysostom delivered the second sermon. Theodoret (A.D. c.393-453), bishop of Cyprus, later made two quotations from this sermon, saying that they were taken from the "birthday discourse" ... Herein Chrysostom says that it would be wonderful if the sun could come down from heaven and send forth its light on earth, and it is more wonderful that in the incarnation the sun of righteousness does in fact send forth its light from human flesh. With `the sun of righteousness' he is doubtless referring to Mal 4:2. Then he tells how long he had desired not only to experience this day but to do so in the company of a large congregation. He states that it was not yet ten years that the festival had been known to them. It was, however, transmitted to them as from long ago and from many years .... From long ago it was known to those who dwell in the West .... And from long ago it was a festival that was very well known and famous to those who dwell from Thrace to Gades ..." (Finegan, J., "Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1964, p.256).

"The precise origin of assigning December 25 as the birth date of Jesus is unclear. The New Testament provides no clues in this regard. December 25 was first identified as the date of Jesus' birth by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221 and later became the universally accepted date. One widespread explanation of the origin of this date is that December 25 was the Christianizing of the dies solis invicti nati ('day of the birth of the unconquered sun'), a popular holiday in the Roman Empire that celebrated the winter solstice as a symbol of the resurgence of the sun, the casting away of winter and the heralding of the rebirth of spring and summer. Indeed, after December 25 had become widely accepted as the date of Jesus' birth, Christian writers frequently made the connection between the rebirth of the sun and the birth of the Son. One of the difficulties with this view is that it suggests a nonchalant willingness on the part of the Christian church to appropriate a pagan festival when the early church was so intent on distinguishing itself categorically from pagan beliefs and practices. A second view suggests that December 25 became the date of Jesus' birth by a priori reasoning that identified the spring equinox as the date of the creation of the world and the fourth day of creation, when the light was created, as the day of Jesus' conception (i.e., March 25). December 25, nine months later, then became the date of Jesus' birth. For a long time the celebration of Jesus' birth was observed in conjunction with his baptism, celebrated January 6." (Hillerbrand, H.J., "Christmas," Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 17 December 2009).

"By the year 274 CE, Mithraism was so popular with the masses that Emperor Aurelian proclaimed it as the official state religion. In the early 300s, the cult seriously threatened Christianity, and for a time, it was unclear which faith would emerge victorious. Church fathers debated their options. It was well known that Roman patricians and plebians alike enjoyed festivals of a protracted nature. The Church, then, needed a December celebration. Thus, to offer converts an occasion in which to be pridefully celebratory, the Church officially recognized Christ's birth. And to offer head-on competition to the sun worshippers' popular feast, the Church located the Nativity on December 25. The mode observance would be characteristically prayerful: a Mass; in fact, Christ's Mass. " (Panati, C., "Sacred Origins of Profound Things: The Stories Behind the Rites and Rituals of the World's Religions," Penguin: New York, 1996, pp.215-216).

"Participation in Christmas celebrations is not optional for Jehovah's Witnesses. The ban is enforced by elders who make up judicial committees that sit in judgment of any who celebrate the holiday, even in some small way. During my 8 years as a JW elder I took part in such enforcement proceedings on a number of occasions. I recall that we elders even summoned for discipline a newly-married young man whose non-Witness wife hung an evergreen wreath on their apartment door. We told him that he had to take down the decoration or face punishment since God held him responsible as head of the house." (Reed, D.A., 1996, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1998, p.75).

"Now, lets take this all a little further. It has been determined that Y'shua had to have been born between 4 and 3 BC due to the timing of the death of Herod and, therefore, we can know that Y'shua was born around Hanakkuh of 4 BC (3BC would be too late) making him 33 Years old in 30 AD precisely, when he started his ministry. This places the First Day of Hanukkuh (24th day of the 9th month), according to one Site, on December 13, 4 BC. Now, however, if we use Your Sky - we see that Astronomical New Moon of the Ninth Month occured precisely on November 29th, 4 BC , and the actual sighting of the New Moon of the Ninth Month would have occured the next night, thus making December 1, 4 BC to be the First Day of the Ninth Month and that would place the First Day of Hanukkuh - the Twenty Fourth Day of the Ninth Month - to have occured, literally, exactly on December 25th, 4 BC and that, my friends, is just about the most incredible piece of Chronological Work I have ever seen in my entire life. Thus, Y'shua ben Y'hava was born precisely on December 25, 4 BC on the First day of Hanakkuh and he would have been circumcised on the Eighth Day of Hanakkuh." (Theoferrum, "The First Noel : The Last Chronology," Theologyweb, .December 7, 2009).

"CHRISTMAS-NOT CELEBRATED BY EARLY CHRISTIANS A person's worship could be contaminated by false religion as it relates to popular holidays. Consider Christmas, for example. Christmas supposedly commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ, and nearly every religion that claims to be Christian celebrates it. Yet, there is no evidence that the first-century disciples of Jesus observed such a holiday. The book Sacred Origins of Profound Things states: `For two centuries after Christ's birth, no one knew, and few people cared, exactly when he was born." (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, p.156. Emphasis original).

"Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday, celebrated on December 25, that commemorates the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. The date of commemoration is not known to be Jesus's actual birthday, and may have initially been chosen to correspond with either the day exactly nine months after some early Christians believed Jesus had been conceived, a historical Roman festival, or the winter solstice. Christmas is central to the Christmas and holiday season, and in Christianity marks the beginning of the larger season of Christmastide, which lasts twelve days." ("Christmas," Wikipedia, 16 December 2009).

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Was Jesus executed on a cross or a stake? #3D: Historical (3rd century BC)

Note: This is my last post in this uncompleted series, which became too `long-winded'. It is now superseded by my new series: Jesus was executed on a cross, not a stake!

[See also Introduction #1; Linguistic #2A, #2B, #2C; Historical #3A, #3B, #3C, #3D]

Belatedly continuing from #3C: Historical (5th-4th century BC), in this series, Was Jesus executed on a cross or a stake? See previous #1, #2A, Justus Lipsius, #2B, #2C, #3A, #3B and #3C. As

[Above (click to enlarge): Possibly the earliest depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus, dated ~200-600 AD: Hypotyposeis. Jesus is depicted in a crucifixion pose, with arms outstretched, but not (as far as I can see) on a cross. If the ~200 AD date is correct (which is disputed), then this would be more evidence that Jesus was executed on a two- beamed stake, and not a single- beamed stake, as the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) maintains.]

previously explained, this Part #3 Historical series is an extended refutation of Appendix 3C of the Watchtower's "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation," 1985, p.1149:

"In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake. `Cross' is only a later meaning of crux. ... Evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at right angles."

Again I acknowledge Leolaia's, "The facts on crucifixion, stauros, and the `torture stake'" which references I used to find and scan the passages in the books cited. Each quote is linked to a fuller version at the end of this post.

3rd century BC:
Livy. The Roman historian Titus Livius (Livy) (59 BC-AD 17), in his "History of Rome" (Ab Urbe Condita -"from the city's foundation"), wrote of the following 3rd century BC executions by stake (palum) and cross (crux):

Livy recounts that Vibius Virrius, a Roman who had led the revolt of the Italian city of Capua against Rome in 216 BC, speaking against the surrender of the city to the besieging Romans in 212 BC, vows that he will commit suicide rather than be "bound to a stake [ad palum deligatus], with my back mangled by rods" and "submit my neck to the Roman axe":

"I shall not see Appius Claudius and Quintus Fulvius, emboldened by their insolent victory, nor shall I be dragged in chains through the city of Rome as a spectacle in a triumph, so that I may then breathe my last in the prison, or else, bound to a stake [ad palum deligatus], with my back mangled by rods, may submit my neck to the Roman axe." (Livy, History of Rome, 26.13.15).

Note that Virrius expects he would be finally killed by beheading with "the Roman axe." That is because, being a Roman citizen, Virrius was "usually exempt from crucifixion" instead "dying more honorably by decapitation" ("Crucifixion: Roman Empire," Wikipedia). Since crucifixion on a cross was sufficient to kill a person (as it was with Jesus), this passage alone in Livy shows that there was a major difference between Roman execution on a stake (palum) and on a cross (crux).

In 217 BC the Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca (c. 248-183), during the Second Punic [Phoenician] War (218-203 BC), "crucified [crucem sublato]" a guide who led him astray:

"There Hannibal, looking round on the mountains and rivers that enclosed the plain, called up the guide and asked him where in the world he was. And only when the guide had answered ... did he perceive at last how the man had blundered ... Whereupon he scourged the guide, and, to terrify the others, crucified [crucem sublato] him ...." (Livy, History of Rome, 22.13.6-9).

In the same year the Romans "crucified [crucem acti]" twenty-five slaves who had conspired with the Carthaginians:

"At about this time a Carthaginian spy who for two years had eluded capture was caught in Rome, and after his hands had been cut of}, was allowed to go; and five and twenty slaves were crucified [crucem acti], on the charge of having conspired in the Campus Martius." (Livy, History of Rome, 22.33.1-2).

In 206 BC the Roman general Scipio (235-183 BC), in the same Second Punic War, punished Roman soldiers who had mutinied in Sucro, Spain, by binding them to a stake [Deligati ad palum], scourging (flogging) and beheading them:

"They were being dragged out into the centre stripped ... Bound to a stake [Deligati ad palum] they were scourged and beheaded ..." (Livy, History of Rome, 28.29.11).

In the same year, the Carthaginian general Mago Barca (243 BC-203 BC), a brother of Hannibal, "scourged and crucified" [cruci adfigi] Phoenician officials in Gades (Cadiz) because that city's gates had been closed to him:

"Mago, upon his return to Gades finding himself shut out of the city ... complained because the gates had been closed against him .... He thereupon enticed ... the highest magistrates among the Phoenicians - together with the treasurer to a conference and ordered them to be scourged and crucified [cruci adfigi]." (Livy, History of Rome, 28.37.3).

Scipio, after defeating Hannibal in the Battle of Zama in 202 BC, "crucified [crucem sublati]" Romans who had deserted to Carthage:

"The deserters were more severely treated than the runaway slaves, Latin citizens being beheaded, Romans crucified [crucem sublati]." (Livy, History of Rome, 30.43.12-13).

Valerius Maximus. The early first century Latin historical writer Valerius Maximus, using Scipio's later title "elder Africanus," confirmed that "he punished the Roman deserters" by "crucifying [crucibus adfixit]" them :

"The elder Africanus ... When he had conquered Carthage and brought into his power all those who had deserted from our armies to the Carthaginians, he punished the Roman deserters more severely than the Latins, crucifying [crucibus adfixit] the former as runaways from their country and beheading the latter as faithless allies." (Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, 2.7).

That "crucifying [crucibus adfixit]" is very different from "Being bound to a stake" [Deligati ad palum]" is evident in that Valerius continued by criticising as an "insult Roman blood," Scipio's use of the former to punish Roman citizens because "national sentiment" was that it was "the punishment of slaves":

"I shall not pursue this action farther, both because it is Scipio's and because there is no need to insult Roman blood that suffered the punishment of slaves, however well deserved, especially as I am free to pass to doings which can be narrated without injury to national sentiment." (Valerius Maximus, Ibid.)

The significance of these quotes by and about Livy is that they refute the Watchtower's claim that: "In the writings of Livy ... crux means a mere stake," because Livy made a clear distinction between execution by crux and by palus, i.e. "When Livy did refer to the crux simplex, he used the word palus":

"A careful examination of Livy's writings shows the historian never used crux the way the Society says he did, i.e. with specific reference to a crux simplex ... every one of these references to crucifixion are laconic and devoid of detail as to the manner of the execution; none of the six excerpts reveal any information indicating what the nature of the crux was like. When Livy did refer to the crux simplex, he used the word palus: `Bound to a stake (deligati ad palum) they were scouraged [sic] and beheaded' (28.29.11; cf. also (26.13.15). The Society's claim must therefore be dismissed as false." (Leolaia, 2005, "The facts on crucifixion, stauros, and the `torture stake," Jehovah's Witnesses Discussion Forum, 11 June).

Because crucifixion was such a distasteful subject, ancient historians (including the Gospel writers) did not go into details of what it involved, which helps the Watchtower's assertion above that all instances of execution on a crux, up to and including "the first century B.C.E.," means on "a mere stake," not "two pieces of timber placed at right angles." But playwrights (then and now) do take on distasteful topics and what's more their scripts spell out to the actors what they have to do to depict them.

Plautus. The 3rd-2nd century BC Roman playwright, Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254-184 BC), dealt with crucifixion in several of his plays, and these are devastating for the Watchtower's argument:

"... But I must keep my mind on this job, and my eye on this door. [He plants himself squarely across the door with arms outstretched, facing the door.] I'll stand this way. Nobody's going to make a mug of me ... You're just in the right position to be spread-eagled on a cross [dispessis manibus, patibulum quom habebis] outside the gate ... I know I'm going to end up on a cross; that's where I shall follow my ancestors .... " (Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 359, 376).

Here it is in another translation:

"... But I must mind what I'm about and watch this door. Here's how I'll block , it. (stands facing it, legs and arms outspread) Now, by heaven, they'll never fool me, that's sure! ... You'll soon have to trudge out beyond the gate in that attitude, I take it-arms outspread, with your gibbet on your shoulder [dispessis manibus, patibulum quom habebis]." (Plautus, The Braggart Warrior, 353,359).

Quite clearly, standing with "legs and arms outspread," and carrying a "gibbet" (patibulum) or cross-bar with "arms outspread," is intended by Plautus to depict what Roman crucifixion normally was in the 3rd-2nd century BC, affixed by each hand and foot outstretched on a two-beamed cross.

Two more devastating for the Watchtower quotes from different plays by Plautus are:

"... the hangmen will ... prod you full of holes as they run you down the streets with your arms on a cross bar [patibulatum] ..." (Plautus, The Haunted House, 55-57).

"Bearing my gibbet [patibulum] I shall be carried through the city; afterwards I shall be nailed to the cross [adfigatur cruci]." (Plautus, Carbonaria, 2).

These last two quotes confirm that carrying one's own cross (Mt 10:38; 16:24; 27:32; Mk 8:34; 15:21; Lk 9:23; 14:27; 23:26; Jn 19:17) means carrying the "cross bar [patibulatum]" or patibulum, not the upright pole (stipes) which the Watchtower claims is all the Roman crux was.

These passages in Plautus prove beyond reasonable doubt that Roman crucifixion in the 3rd - 2nd century BC was by "both arms outstretched" or "spread-eagled," which can only be on a two-beamed cross (i.e. on the patibulum crossbar part of a two-beamed cross).

Again, the Watchtower's claim has been shown to be false that:

"In ... the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake ... Evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at right angles."

To be continued in Part #3E Historical (2nd - 1st Century BC).

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & TheShroudofTurin


"staroo (in the sense `fence w. stakes' Thu. +) fut. stauroso; 1 aor. estaurosa. Pass.: pf. estaurmai: 1 aor. estaurothen nail to the cross, crucify (Polyb. 1, 86, 4; Diod. S. 16, 61. 2; Artem. 2, 53; 4, 49; Esth 7:9); 8:12 r: Jos. Ant. 2. 77; 17, 295). 1. lit. tina someone w. ref. to Jesus' crucifixion Mt 20:19; 23:34; 26:2; 27:22f, 26, 31, 35, 38; 28:5; Mk 15:13ff, 20, 24f, 27; 16:6; Lk 23:21, 23, 33; 24:7, 20; J 19:6a, b, c, 10, 15f, 18, 20, 23, 41; Ac 2:36; 4:10; 13:29 D; 1 Cor 2:8; 2 Cor 13:4; Rv 11:8; B 7:3, 9; 12:1; I Eph 16:2; GP 4:10; 12:52. Christos estauromenos I Cor 1:23; cf. 2:2; Gal 3:1. Also simply o estauromenos M Pol 17:2. o staurotheis GP 13:56. alethos estaurothe he was truly crucified (in contrast to the Docetic view that the Passion was unreal) I Tr 9:1. me Paulos estaurothe uper umon 1 Cor 1:13 - On the crucifixion of Jesus cf. Feigel, Weidel, and Finegan s.v. 'Ioudas 6: also) E.Bickermann. Utilitas Crucis: Rev. de l'Hist. des Rel. 112. '35. 169-241. 2. fig. oi tou Christou 'l. ten sarka estaurosan those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh w. its sinful desires Gal 5:24. Pass.: of the cross of Christ, di' ou emoi kosmos estaurotai kagi kosmo through which the world has been crucified to me, and I (have been crucified) to it, the believer who is inseparably united to his Lord has died on the cross to the kind of life that belongs to this world Gal 6:14. o emos eros estaurotai my desire (for worldly things) has been crucified I Ro 7:2. M-M." (Arndt, W.F. & Gingrich, F.W., 1957, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Fourth edition, 1952, Revised, pp.772-773. Emphasis original).

"But first it is only right, so we think, to record the punishment which was visited by the gods upon those who had committed the outrage on the oracle. For, speaking generally, it was not merely the perpetrators of the sacrilege but all persons who had the slightest connection with the sacrilege that were hounded by the inexorable retribution sent of Heaven. In fact the man who first schemed for the seizure of the shrine, Philomelus, in a crisis of the war hurled himself over a cliff, while his brother Onomarchus, after taking over the command of his people, now become desperate, was cut to pieces in a battle in Thessaly, along with the Phocians and mercenaries of his command, and crucified [estaurothe]. " (Diodorus Siculus, "Library of History," 16.61.2, Sherman, C.L., transl., 1952, Heineman: London, Vol. VII, Reprinted, 1967, p.409).

"But the difficulty experienced by Carthaginians in pronouncing Latin names caused the guide to [B.C. 217] understand Casilinum instead of Casinum; and quitting the proper road he led him down through the districts of Allifae, Caiatia and Cales into the Plain of Stella. There Hannibal, looking round on the mountains and rivers that enclosed the plain, called up the guide and asked him where in the world he was. And only when the guide had answered that he should lodge that night in Casilinum, did he perceive at last how the man had blundered, and that Casinum lay far off in another direction. Whereupon he scourged the guide, and, to terrify the others, crucified [crucem sublato] him, and going into camp behind entrenchments, dispatched Maharbal with the cavalry to ravage the Falernian country side." (Livy, "History of Rome," 22.13.6-9, Foster, B.O., transl., Loeb Classical Library, Heinemann: London, Vol. V, 1929, Reprinted, 1957, p.245).

"At about this time a Carthaginian spy who for two years had eluded capture was caught in Rome, [B.C. 217] and after his hands had been cut of}, was allowed to go; and five and twenty slaves were crucified [crucem acti], on the charge of having conspired in the Campus Martius. The informer was rewarded with freedom and twenty thousand sesterces." (Livy, "History of Rome," 22.33.1-2, pp.v:309, 311).

"Therefore since the immortal gods have made a contrary decision, inasmuch as I [Virius] ought under no circumstances to refuse death, I, while free and my own master, can escape tortures and insults which the enemy is preparing, by a death which is not only honourable, but also gentle. I shall not see Appius Claudius and Quintus Fulvius, emboldened by their insolent victory, nor shall I be dragged in chains through the city of Rome as a spectacle in a triumph [B.C. 211], so that I may then breathe my last in the prison, or else, bound to a stake[ad palum deligatus], with my back mangled by rods, may submit my neck to the Roman axe. Nor shall I sec my native city destroyed and burned, nor Capuan matrons and maidens and free-born boys carried off to be dishonoured." (Livy, "History of Rome," XXVI.13-15, Moore, F.G., transl., Loeb Classical Library, Heinemann: London, Vol. VII, 1943, Reprinted, 1958, pp.51,53)

"The herald's [B.C. 206] voice was heard, calling out the: names of those condemned in the war-council. They were being dragged out into the centre stripped, and at the same time everything requisite for punishment was being brought out. Bound to a stake [Deligati ad palum] they were scourged and beheaded, while the spectators were so paralysed by fear that not only was no fierce protest against the severity of the punishment heard, but not even a groan." (Livy, "History of Rome," 28.29.11, Moore, F.G., transl., Loeb Classical Library, Heinemann: London, Vol. VIII, 1949, Reprinted, 1955, p.123).

"Mago, upon his return to Gades finding [B.C. 206] himself shut out of the city, put in with his fleet to Cimbii, a place not far from Gades. He sent emissaries and complained because the gates had been closed against him, an ally and friend. The Gaditani tried to excuse themselves, saying it was done by a mob enraged on account of some looting committed by the soldiers as they were embarking. He thereupon enticed their sufetes-the highest magistrates among the Phoenicians-together with the treasurer to a conference and ordered them to be scourged and crucified [cruci adfigi]." (Livy, "History of Rome," 28.37.3, p.viii:149).

"Under these circumstances the Carthaginians were sent away from Rome, and having presented themselves to Scipio in Africa, they made peace upon the terms above mentioned. They surrendered warships [B.C. 201], elephants, deserters, runaway slaves, and four thousand captives, among whom was Quintus Terentius Cullco, a senator. The ships Scipio ordered to be put to sea and to he burned. Some historians relate that there were five hundred of them - every type of vessel propelled by oars; and that when the Carthaginians suddenly caught sight of the fire it was as doleful for them as if Carthage itself were in flames. The deserters were more severely treated than the runaway slaves, Latin citizens being beheaded, Romans crucified [crucem sublati]." (Livy, "History of Rome," 30.43.12-13, p.viii:533).

"Scel. ... But I must mind what I'm about and watch this door. Here's how I'll block , it. (stands facing it, legs and arms outspread) Now, by heaven, they'll never fool me, that's sure! ... Pal. (noting his position) You'll soon have to trudge out beyond the gate in that attitude, I take it-arms outspread, with your gibbet on your shoulder [dispessis manibus, patibulum quom habebis]." (Plautus, "The Braggart Warrior," 353, 359, in "Plays," Nixon, P., transl., Heinemann: London, Vol. III, 1957, pp.159, 161).

"Gr. Oh, I bet the hangmen will have you looking like a human sieve, the way they'll prod you full of holes as they run you down the streets with your arms on a cross bar [patibulatum], once the old man gets back! ... Tr. Shut up, and be off to the farm! I want to go to the Piraeus and see about some fish for supper for myself. To-morrow I shall send someone to the villa with (emphatically) your fodder for you. (as Grumio bridles) What ails you? What are you scowling at me for now, gallowsbird [furcifer]? (Plautus, "The Haunted House," 55-57, in "Plays," Nixon, p.295).

"SCELEDRUS: ... But I must keep my mind on this job, and my eye on this door. [He plants himself squarely across the door with arms outstretched, facing the door.] I'll stand this way. Nobody's going to make a mug of me. ... PALAESTRIO: You're just in the right position to be spread-eagled on a cross [dispessis manibus, patibulum quom habebis] outside the gate ... I know I'm going to end up on a cross; that's where I shall follow my ancestors - father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather. " (Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 359, 376, in "The Pot of Gold and Other Plays," Watling, E.F., transl., Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1965, pp.166-167. Emphasis original).

"Bearing my gibbet [patibulum] I shall be carried through the city; afterwards I shall be nailed to the cross [adfigatur cruci]." (Plautus, "Carbonaria," 2, fr., in "The Comedies," Riley, H.T., transl., Henry G. Bohn: London, 1852, p.518).

"The elder Africanus was the mildest of men. Yet for the confirmation of military discipline he thought proper to borrow some harshness from a cruelty quite alien to himself. When he had conquered Carthage and brought into his power all those who had deserted from our armies to the Carthaginians, he punished the Roman deserters more severely than the Latins, crucifying [crucibus adfixit] the former as runaways from their country and beheading the latter as faithless allies. I shall not pursue this action farther, both because it is Scipio's and because there is no need to insult Roman blood that suffered the punishment of slaves, however well deserved, especially as I am free to pass to doings which can be narrated without injury to national sentiment." (Valerius Maximus, "Memorable Doings and Sayings," 2.7, Shackleton Bailey, D.R., transl., Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, Vol. I, 2000, p.191).