Christianity Paganism syncretism.

Scaevola

Banned
Jewish obviously, but aren't the pagan elements (Easter Bunny, major celebration of the winter solstice) just surface elements?
The biggest holiday (holy day) in Christianity, and commonly regarded as the birthday of the major prophet and Christian God in the flesh, Christmas, is a bit more than a surface element.
Similarly Easter (not just the Easter Bunny), a springtime celebration of rebirth, renewal, and fertility (eggs, bunnies which...f**k like bunnies, you know), and also the time that this same prophet and God in the flesh was sacrificed and then came back to life, is a bit more than a surface element. In fact both of these events/holidays, among other borrowings from paganism, are core features.
 
As an example of what this could look like, just take a look at some of these Scottish Prayers and Hymns. There are quite a lot of them about the saints in ways that are rather pagan in spirit, and in a number of places are extremely close to actual pagan prayers. So that would be a good source of inspiration, I think. :)

@Marc You do know that we have a number of actual pagans on the forums, some of which who happen to be polytheists. I am one of these members that is a polytheists btw.
 

Marc

Donor
As an example of what this could look like, just take a look at some of these Scottish Prayers and Hymns. There are quite a lot of them about the saints in ways that are rather pagan in spirit, and in a number of places are extremely close to actual pagan prayers. So that would be a good source of inspiration, I think. :)

@Marc You do know that we have a number of actual pagans on the forums, some of which who happen to be polytheists. I am one of these members that is a polytheists btw.

Modern paganism has little to do with the classical world, save for name borrowing and the better stories. Just as modern Judaism has little to do with pre-rabbicinal versions (Even the ultra orthodox choose to heavily reinterpret Deuteronomy). For those that are sentimental, I often suggest reading a good current translation of the Iliad and discovering how utterly non-spiritual the gods were in the eyes of those who believed in them. While Lattimore's translation is the modern benchmark, I usually suggest, if rarely asked, Caroline Alexander's version - gorgeous and understandable.

And as I noted, most of the people back then had their own space-specific cults which bore little resemblance to popular notions. And that persisted long after Christianity became dominant.



 
The biggest holiday (holy day) in Christianity, and commonly regarded as the birthday of the major prophet and Christian God in the flesh, Christmas, is a bit more than a surface element.
Similarly Easter (not just the Easter Bunny), a springtime celebration of rebirth, renewal, and fertility (eggs, bunnies which...f**k like bunnies, you know), and also the time that this same prophet and God in the flesh was sacrificed and then came back to life, is a bit more than a surface element. In fact both of these events/holidays, among other borrowings from paganism, are core features.

Well, Christian Easter takes place at the same time of the Jewish easter AFAIK. It happened that in Europe (as everywhere you have a (harsh) winter) you had different Spring celebrations, whose surface elements where taken to appease the newly converted people. This is outright pragmatism. You can hardly say that removing the Easter Bunny (which, btw, is not a thing outside the AngloSphere, apart from recent commercial reasons) gives a blow to the meaning of the Christian Easter. Besides, in Central Italy most pagan spring celebrations took place in a time frame relatively distant from Easter, late April (the Calendimaggio) or in May, and had to be christianized in a different fashion (look at the famous "Ceri di Gubbio). As for Christmas, the Gospel does not say the Day Jesus was born, so why not take over a different "birthday"? Again, pragmatism. Although, there are some controversial sources telling that December the 25th was chosen as the Natalis Christi around 70 years before Aurelianus officialized that very same day as the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, but I won't delve into this.
Classical Paganism was dying before Christianity displaced it.
In large part because it was a simplistic, misogynistic, and amoral system that had finally lost its appeal to the urban classes that were being exposed to more sophisticated theologies; and in the countryside the bulk of the population followed local cults that had little to do with Bullfinch's crowd.
Now I've toyed with the notion that a transfiguration might be possible of some of the Greco-Roman deities becoming beneficial spiritual aides, friendly daemons if you will. But that is in the context of a magical world. More real and to the point: Paganism with a capital P was the Dodo of theology.
I agree that Paganism was dying before the rise of Christianity, but there is a lot more to say about that. Roman Religion, for instance, was a civil religion, a contract with the Gods in order to secure, through the "Pax Deorum" ("Peace of the Gods", but I prefer the translation "Peace with the Gods"), the prosperity of the SPQR. This is way priests were at the same time "clergy" and officers. Might be crude from a theological point of view, but that's its right framework. I would say that one of the main reasons it was fading is that it wasn't able to keep the pace with the transformation of Rome from a small town in central Italy to one of the first "global" Empires. Julianus was aware of that, and tried to remedy to the situation with a more sophisticated theology and... copycatting some aspects of Christianity. He failed because of lack of time and because his go was an intellectual one. In many ways, Aurelianus' attempt with the Sol Invictus was way more successful.
 

Philip

Donor
Similarly Easter (not just the Easter Bunny), a springtime celebration of rebirth, renewal, and fertility (eggs, bunnies which...f**k like bunnies, you know), and also the time that this same prophet and God in the flesh was sacrificed and then came back to life, is a bit more than a surface element. In fact both of these events/holidays, among other borrowings from paganism, are core features.

Easter is a reinterpretation of the Jewish Passover.
 
The biggest holiday (holy day) in Christianity, and commonly regarded as the birthday of the major prophet and Christian God in the flesh, Christmas, is a bit more than a surface element.

What's more important for a religion? The holidays you celebrate (and celebrations don't have to be religious), or the rules you have to live by?

You can hardly say that removing the Easter Bunny (which, btw, is not a thing outside the AngloSphere, apart from recent commercial reasons)

Nonsense, e.g. Germany had this long ago.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense, e.g. Germany had this long ago.

My apologies. Wikipedia reports that the origin of the Easter Hare is in fact due to German Lutherans, and apparently its association with Eostre was firstly guessed by Jacob Grimm in 1835. But anyway, in Italy and the rest of Southern Europe is not a thing unless as of recent for commercial reasons. So, I apologize for identifying it with "Anglosphere", but this hardly makes my statement "nonsense".
 
Now I know that Christianity had in fact absorbed certain pagan elements into itself, but what would a religion that more fully blended Christianity with the various types of Paganism across Europe look like? would it be something similar to say Sikhism were it starts off as a sort of blend of two faiths that gains its own identity over time, or would it be something different?

So, back to the OP's original request, I had this in mind for a while. I was rereading some excerpts from Julian's "Hymn to King Helios" and it is striking how some theological ideas he put inside it were outright hijacked from the Christian Theology. For instance, Helios is the supreme mediator between God and mankind, in a fashion that is strikingly similar to Christ as "Logos". Also, Asclepius, his son, is labeled as "Universal Savior". In a book about Julian that I read recently, the author basically blames Julian's refusal of the Christian religion on the "bad teachers" he had in his youth, all of Arian faith and thus uninterested in the finest theological debates (disclaimer: I am reporting the authors ideas). So, assume that this is (ate least to some degree) correct. Let Julian have "better" teachers in his childhood exile, so he becomes a more convinced Christian young man, but leaving his love for the classical greco-roman culture intact. Assuming that he becomes Emperor on schedule and he still goes on with his reform, could this alternate reform be a real syncretistic attempt? I know it might sound crazy, but let's try. There is One God, who decided to reveal Himself to the Jews, but since He loves us all, he sent some of His Angels, disguised as Gods, to take care of the rest of mankind, the most powerful being Helios/Sol Invictus/Apollo. Then he sent His Son to live and die to redeem our sins. It happened in Roman Empire at the time of the first Caesars, for a reason: with only its own pietas and wits, the greco-roman world had achieved the highest peak mankind alone could achieve, and it was now ready for the final "salvation" step... a lot more than the original Chosen People. We may also see Christ taking its rightful place in Heaven... where always it had belonged: as Helios/Sol Invictus/Apollo/Christ. After all, the solar aspects of Christ are some of the reasons (or better said, justifications) why Christmas is on December the 25th. The sacrifices to the Pagan Gods could be kept with the same "escamotage" Catholics pray/give offers to the Saints: to get their intercession with God on a specific matter, not because they have power per se. In order to work it would require a longer reign of Julian and a decisive victory against the Sassanians, and the endorsement of some very influential bishop (I am thinking of Gregory of Nazianzus, who was schoolmate of Julian in Athens). Would not work, probably, but still...
 

Philip

Donor
I was rereading some excerpts from Julian's "Hymn to King Helios" and it is striking how some theological ideas he put inside it were outright hijacked from the Christian Theology. For instance, Helios is the supreme mediator between God and mankind, in a fashion that is strikingly similar to Christ as "Logos"

I would argue in this case that rather than Julian taking this idea from Christian thought, both are using the language of neo-platonism. It does seem that he intended to copy Christian hierarchy and missional approach.

In a book about Julian that I read recently, the author basically blames Julian's refusal of the Christian religion on the "bad teachers" he had in his youth, all of Arian faith and thus uninterested in the finest theological debates

The murder of his family by Constantius II was a major factor as well.
 
For the apocryphal version, there is a largely spread story that the Christian missionaries to the germanic peoples told them that their own mythology was actually the past world, our world being post ragnorok and Baldr being Yahweh/Jesus with the bible as this world's story.
Ive found a few references to this in history books, but when I follow the references it always seems to come to a dead end. So take that with a pinch of salt.
I am somewhat inclined to think that this might have happened based on two premises.
Firstly, it explains some of the christian themes present in the eddas and the portrayal of Baldr as somewhat christlike in a culture which didn't really have the same significance placed on such narritives.
The other is the existence of the second example.
Neat, not sure how this is supposed to fit in with Genesis and the Christian God being the only god. Unless this was like before the bible was adopted and codified?
 
Neat, not sure how this is supposed to fit in with Genesis and the Christian God being the only god. Unless this was like before the bible was adopted and codified?
It doesnt really, but thats nothing new in the history of syncretism.
I imagine the justification would play off of the term Elohim being one of many, with an understanding that Yahweh/Baldr is the supreme deity.
 
What's more important for a religion? The holidays you celebrate (and celebrations don't have to be religious), or the rules you have to live by?

The exact transliteration of the word Jesus, for a third option. People went to war with their own government and sought martyrdom over that kind of thing more readily than violations of canon law. Christianity is really that shallow and that petty.

I would argue in this case that rather than Julian taking this idea from Christian thought, both are using the language of neo-platonism.

Not only that but our everyday language is positively inundated with pagan mystic, theophoric, organisational (civic religions, remember! Bishops, dioceses, and deacons are pagan civic concepts) and cosmological ideas, most of which are found in those proper terms in pagan neoplatonic texts. Christian thought had a minuscule proportion of the same impact; it's mostly just parasitic on existing philosophy. I wouldn't call it syncretic though: it's inherently an exclusionary ideology and performed true to its promise when it was dominant.
 
Last edited:
I would argue in this case that rather than Julian taking this idea from Christian thought, both are using the language of neo-platonism. It does seem that he intended to copy Christian hierarchy and missional approach.
I agree. I used the word "hijack" because I think he was taught that Christ was the Logos well before he planned his reform, so likely he got some inspiration from there. But even more likely, he probably would have rejected had not it been pure Neoplatonic language. So to elaborate a bit, my point was: what if he intended to copy more than just hierarchy, missional approach, and care for the ones in need? Because his proposed religion was very much a philosopher's one, and lacked (from what I gather) the soteriological appeal of Christianity. So I was wondering how much of the Christian faith he could pour into his "Hellenism" in order to make it qualify as $Christian Pagan" syncretism. Although, here an even more interesting scenario would be "Julian, the Christian Reformer". From what I read, he could have potentially become one, and a good one at that.
 
Neat, not sure how this is supposed to fit in with Genesis and the Christian God being the only god. Unless this was like before the bible was adopted and codified?
It fits fine with most of the Old Testament, which is not "there is only one god" but "our god is the best god." (Some of the later-written parts of the OT are more monotheistic).

Doesn't fit so well with the NT, but it could be syncreticised if it was really desired.
 
Top