Sol Invictus

[guy]

It is debatable whether the Sol Invictus festival on December 25 was the source for the December date of the Christmas Holiday.

 

Nevertheless, coins with the image of Sol Invictus are among the most fascinating Ancient coins:

Quote

 

Sol on Roman coins is sometimes referred to as Sol Invictus, which means the Unconquered Sun, with the full name, Deus Sol Invictus, meaning the Unconquered Sun God. On earlier Roman coins, at least from the time of Nero, who reigned from 54 to 68 AD, Sol was referred to as Oriens, though these are different names for the same god. Sol/Oriens originated from the Greek god Helios, frequently depicted on ancient Greek coins, with Helios in turn thought to have had a Mesopotamian origin. Just as with Helios, Sol wears a radiate crown, the spikes representing the rays of the Sun. Just as in the earliest of times, the Sun no doubt was seen as the source of light, warmth, and life, with Sol bringing forth that light, warmth, and life and thereby being worthy of worship. The official worship of Sol ended with the outlawing of paganism by Theodoseus I in 380 AD.

Among the most interesting coins featuring Sol are Constantine the Great bronzes having a reverse depicting Sol holding a globus and reaching out with his other hand. The globus, often referred to with the English word "globe," is also often misinterpreted on these coins, regarded as depicting the Earth, as globes typically do today. In actuality this globus is a celestial orb or sphere, which was an ancient depiction of the Cosmos, the Earth being at its center. This is clear from the way it's decorated, which is evident on well-engraved, well-struck, and well-preserved specimens. The markings on it are not of any known land masses at the time but instead represent an equinoctial cross, with the crossing two lines signifying the spring and autumnal equinoxes, the two days of the year in which day and night are equally long. In some cases stars are depicted on the globus as well. The meaning of the design on these coins is Sol, the Sun God, presenting the Cosmos to Constantine, thereby granting him the power to rule everything, a charming example of ancient symbolism.

 

 

http://rg.ancients.info/constantine/Sol_other.html

 

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_sol.html

Edited September 8, 2022 by guy

[Ursus]

It is debatable whether the Sol Invictus festival on December 25 was the source for the December date of the Christmas Holiday.

 

 

It is? I thought it was pretty much a given. There doesn't seem to have been any other important event on Dec 25 other than the commemoration of the grand temple to Aurelian's last patron god.

[guy]

It is? I thought it was pretty much a given. There doesn't seem to have been any other important event on Dec 25 other than the commemoration of the grand temple to Aurelian's last patron god.

 

Personally, I have no problem with what you have written. That said, there are other views:

 

http://blog.ancient-future.net/2007/12/09/...s-of-christmas/

 

Here are sone of the key paragraphs to the article's argument:

 

I had the pleasure of hearing a lecture by Dr. Joseph F. Kelly of John Carroll University at the Ohio Catholic Education Association conference this year. According to his research, summarized in his book The Origins of Christmas, the main reason early Christians chose December 25th for the date of Christmas relates to the date of the creation of the world. Jewish thought had placed the date of creation on March 25th, and it was early Christian writer Sextus Julius Africanus who suggested that Christ became incarnate on that date (it makes great symbolic sense!). According to Sextus Julius, since Christ became incarnate from the moment of his conception, this means that, after 9 months in the Virgin Mary

Edited July 10, 2011 by guy

[Klingan]

It is debatable whether the Sol Invictus festival on December 25 was the source for the December date of the Christmas Holiday.

 

 

It is? I thought it was pretty much a given. There doesn't seem to have been any other important event on Dec 25 other than the commemoration of the grand temple to Aurelian's last patron god.

 

Remember that the 24th was the last day of The Saturnalia - the 25th would thus become important date. I would be instead interested in why Sol Invictus was celebrated on the 25th (the winter solstice should be the 21st or 22nd of December).

[sylla]

It is debatable whether the Sol Invictus festival on December 25 was the source for the December date of the Christmas Holiday.

 

 

It is? I thought it was pretty much a given. There doesn't seem to have been any other important event on Dec 25 other than the commemoration of the grand temple to Aurelian's last patron god.

 

Remember that the 24th was the last day of The Saturnalia - the 25th would thus become important date. I would be instead interested in why Sol Invictus was celebrated on the 25th (the winter solstice should be the 21st or 22nd of December).

December 25th was set as the date of the winter solstice by the Julian calendar (46 BC); by the XVI century, the actual date of the astronomic solstice was December 12th.

The Gregorian calendar in 1582 was referred for its correction to the Council of Nicea (325); therefore, the ten day error accumulated from the IV to the XVI centuries AD was indeed corrected, but not so the three day error from the I century BC to the IV century AD.

 

There is actually no evidence that December 25th played any role at all in Aurelian

Edited December 23, 2009 by sylla

[Ursus]

Remember that the 24th was the last day of The Saturnalia - the 25th would thus become important date. I would be instead interested in why Sol Invictus was celebrated on the 25th

 

 

It is generally accepted that is the consecration date of Aurelian's new temple (in 274 CE) to Sol Invictus.

[sylla]

It is generally accepted that is the consecration date of Aurelian's new temple (in 274 CE) to Sol Invictus.

Far as I

Edited December 23, 2009 by sylla

[Ursus]

It is generally accepted that is the consecration date of Aurelian's new temple (in 274 CE) to Sol Invictus.

Far as I

[sylla]

It is generally accepted that is the consecration date of Aurelian's new temple (in 274 CE) to Sol Invictus.

Far as I

[Klingan]

More or less like Cumont's ideas on Mithra, it seems that a lot of what we used to take for granted on Aurelius & Sol Invictus actually lacks any substance.

 

That seems to go for a lot of things these days, lots of stuff like this popping up lately.

[Maladict]

My tertiary source is a paper by SE Hijmans, " Sol: The Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome" (2009), which seems to be a thorough review on the state of the art of this issue.

I actually quoted him above almost verbatim.

Please read it if you can; you won't regret it.

 

Interesting, I particularly like this bit (Ch9,p588n20):

On the evidence currently available we cannot exclude the possibility that, for instance, the 30 chariot races held in honor of Sol on December 25th were instituted in reaction to the Christian claim of December 25th as the birthday of Christ. In general, the extent to which late pagan festivals copied, incorporated, or responded to Christian practices, elements, and dates deserves far more attention than it has received;

[sylla]

Interesting, I particularly like this bit (Ch9,p588n20):

On the evidence currently available we cannot exclude the possibility that, for instance, the 30 chariot races held in honor of Sol on December 25th were instituted in reaction to the Christian claim of December 25th as the birthday of Christ. In general, the extent to which late pagan festivals copied, incorporated, or responded to Christian practices, elements, and dates deserves far more attention than it has received;

Me too; my impression (just that) is that the Christian-Pagan road worked finely multiple times in both ways.

[Ursus]

Are you kidding?

Verifying and questioning all our sources is exactly what is expected from any of us here.

 

Well, as I am sure our moderators have impressed upon you by now, it is not for you to lecture to us what is expected of us. It is not for you to lecture us at all, for that matter, which you seem to do constantly.

 

In other words, we're here to engage in friendly discussion and information sharing. We're not here to score perceived points against strangers in some kind of debating club of sophistry.

 

I realize scholars aren't the last word on anything - that scholarly views are overturned regularly by other scholars. And that is fine. However, I still trust established scholarly views more than I trust the sophistry of some random, haughty, lecturing, internet handle. In other words, your opinion is not as great as you seem to think it is, and I see no reason to dispute the issue based on your musings.

 

(This post made with permission of a moderator)

Edited January 3, 2010 by Ursus