Tag Archives: history

Why Fact-Checking Matters

Posted on by
Reply
Fact Check – road sign concept

I recently heard a historical quote preached in a sermon by from what I assume is a well-intentioned man. The quote was claimed to be from a third century bishop named Cyprian of Carthage:

"Oh, how wonderfully Providence arranged that on the day the sun was born, Christ should be born."

It was then claimed that the date of December 25 was clearly stolen from paganism, and that a Christian in good conscience shouldn’t celebrate on this day. After all, “a third century bishop was actively aligning Sol Invictus’s[1] birth with Jesus’ birth.” Therefore, we must “accept the possibility that early Christians borrowed that date.”

* * * * *

Every day on social media, we are presented with “facts” and “quotes” and “evidence” designed to shape our thoughts and behavior. Sometimes those “facts,” “quotes,” and “evidence” align with our preconceived ideas (Did you hear, AOC ate a baby), and we accept them without question. Other times they challenge our beliefs—we usually ignore those ones.

But rather than blindly accept or blindly ignore these things, we should instead think critically about these claims.

I am admittedly a lover of Christmas. While I acknowledge that Jesus probably wasn’t born on December 25 (though there’s a 0.274% chance He was), I think it’s a good thing for two billion Christians to take over the world every December and proclaim the good news of Jesus.

But when I heard the above quote, my first thought wasn’t “There’s NO WAY that’s true—after all, it challenges my worldview. How could that possibly be right?” I also didn’t think, “Well, that’s unfortunately, let’s make sure we suppress that in our memory, so we don’t feel convicted next December 1.” Instead, I decided to take five minutes to verify the claim.

The first issue I noticed was the timing. December 25 was calculated as the birthdate of Jesus by Hippolytus in 204 AD—a full seventy years before the Birthday of Sol Invictus in 274 AD.[2] So regardless of whether Cyprian really made this statement, the timing didn’t fit.

That bagged the question: Did Cyprian actually make this statement? I looked it up, and Cyprian died in 258 AD—sixteen years before Sol Invictus’ feast day was instituted. How could Cyprian have possibly referenced “the day the sun was born” if that holiday didn’t yet exist? I dug a little deeper, and sure enough, Cyprian never made this quote. Historians have universally agreed that this statement was made by some anonymous writer and then falsely attributed to Cyprian.

After only a few minutes’ research, I had discovered that this quote wasn’t actually made by a third century bishop, that it was supposedly made decades before the Feast of Sol Invictus was invented, and that—even were it a genuine quote—it could only possibly demonstrate that Sol Invictus had borrowed from Christmas, not the other way around.

But now I was on a roll, so I kept on going.

I decided to look up the original quote to understand the full context. The letter was called Computus de Pascha (On the Computing of Passover), attributed to Pseudo-Cyprian. Unfortunately, it has never been fully translated into English—so I had to rely on the original Latin (found here).

In Latin, the text reads,

“O quam praeclara et divina Domini providentia! ut in illo die quo factus est sol, in ipso die nasceretur Christus, V kl. apr. feria IV, Et ideo de ipso merito ad plebem dicebat Malachias propheta: ‘Orietur vobis sol justitiae, et curatio est in pennis ejus.’”

In English,

“Oh, how glorious and divine providence of the Lord! that on that day on which the sun was made, on that very day Christ would be born, 5 kl. Apr. feria IV, And therefore of that merit the prophet Malachi said to the people: ‘The Sun of justice shall arise for you, and healing is in His wings.’”

I immediately noticed a few differences between the quote as presented and the actual translation. First, it doesn’t reference “the day the sun was born,” but rather “that day on which the sun was made.” Even looking at the Latin phrasing, the word describing the inception of the sun is factus, meaning “to create” or “to make.” This is different from the word describing the day Jesus was “born”—nasceretur. This quote isn’t referring to the “birthday” of the sun but the “creation day” of the sun, with the originator of the quote intentionally changing the word.

Next I noticed a jumble of abbreviations and numbers—”5 kl. Apr. feria IV.” This was a calendar date. Pseudo-Cyprian didn’t just say that the creation day of the sun was the same day Christ was born—he gave us the exact date! And what was that date?

“5 kl. Apr. feria IV.” Five days before the Kalends of April, Weekday Four. Wednesday, March 28.

Not only was Pseudo-Cyprian not claiming that Jesus was born on Sol Invictus’ birthday—he was claiming He was born in March, months after December 25!

So if Pseudo-Cyprian thought Jesus was born in March, why did he make the connection to Sol Invictus? He didn’t! As we already mentioned, there was no celebrated birthday to Sol Invictus yet. So what was Pseudo-Cyprian referring to?

Exactly what he told us: the creation of the sun.

Third century Christians believed that Jesus had been crucified on March 25—their estimation of the Passover. Well, they believed that if new life for the Israelites occurred on Passover and if new life for Christians occurred on Passover, then new life for planet earth must’ve also occurred on Passover. So they dated the creation of the universe to Passover—March 25.

And in Genesis 1, we read that the sun was made on the fourth day of creation. So if March 25 was Day 1, March 28 would have been Day 4—the day on which the sun was made. Pseudo-Cyprian then concludes by quoting from the prophet Malachi: “The Sun of justice shall arise for you, and healing is in His wings.”

 Cyprian never claimed any connection between Christmas and Sol Invictus. Cyprian didn’t even author this letter. And the claim was that Jesus was born in the spring, on the same day the sun was created by God.

* * * * *

This post isn’t about Christmas. Like I said, the date ultimately doesn’t matter. This post is about liars bent on deceiving you.

The originator of this quote knew the truth. He knew it wasn’t talking about Sol Invictus—that’s why he took the liberty to change the word “created” to “born.” He also knew it wasn’t talking about December 25—the original quote was cut off mid-sentence to hide the fact that it was talking about March 28. A deceitful man decided to fabricate a quote, cut out relevant information, and change words to make it sound like a holiday celebrated by billions of Christians was secretly a pagan ritual.

And tons of people fell for it.

The man who sent me the quote probably didn’t know any better. But it aligned with a supposed “truth” he wanted to believe in—namely, that much of Christianity is pagan in origin—and so rather than spend five minutes to fact-check his source, a congregation was taught a convenient lie that reinforced a lie they all wanted to hear.

It’d be easy to point fingers at this congregation for believing their desired lie. But every day I see the same thing on facebook and twitter. People who hate Trump spreading lies to reinforce their hatred of Trump. People who love Trump spreading lies to reinforce their love of Trump. Things that are so obviously not true that anyone with a brain should be able to see through it—but they don’t, they can’t, they won’t.

So next time you see something on the internet, before you retweet it or share it or declare it to an entire church, take a few minutes and verify that it’s true. We are the people of the truth, after all.  

[1] Sol Invictus was the Roman god of the sun, whose feast day was instituted on December 25 in the year 274 AD.

[2] Additionally, the Birthday of Sol Invictus isn’t actually attested to in history until 354 AD—a full 150 years after Hippolytus’ calculation.

Did Constantine Ruin Christianity?

Posted on by
Reply

Is Christianity as we know it today an invention of Emperor Constantine and a perversion of the true faith handed down from Jesus to His disciples?

In recent decades, many allegations have been leveled at the infamous emperor, including:

  • He handpicked which books would be included in the Bible
  • He invented the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity
  • He forced the Church to abandon their calendar
  • He enacted antisemitic laws that forced Jews away from Christianity

Which of these accusations, if any, are true, and how did it shape the Christianity we practice today?

Who Was Constantine?

Constantine was a Roman emperor in the early fourth century. On October 27, 312 AD, he supposedly received a vision from the Christian God, who promised him victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Sure enough, his forces won the battle the following day.

Constantine eventually converted to Christianity and legalized Christianity (and all other religions). And in 325 AD, he assembled the Council of Nicaea, which (among other things) declared Arianism a Christological heresy and announced that Christians would calculate the dates of Passover independently from the Jewish community.

Did Constantine Create the Bible?

No, Constantine did not have any impact on what books were included in the Bible.

The twenty-seven books of the Old Testament were written prior to 400 BC and their canonicity was agreed upon hundreds of years before Constantine was born. Furthermore, the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written and in circulation before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD—over two centuries before Constantine’s reign and the Council of Nicaea.

A document called the Muratorian Fragment dates to around 175 AD (150 years before Constantine and Nicaea) and, while portions of the document are missing and difficult to translate, provides a list of New Testament books that were generally accepted and read in churches. This list largely coincides with the New Testament books we have today, and importantly doesn’t make any mention of the false gospels that are sometimes claimed to have been banned by Constantine.

So, what did Constantine and the Council of Nicaea have to say about the canon of scripture? Nothing. This was not one of the topics of discussion at the Council, and there is no historical evidence that Constantine was involved in deciding which books should be included.

Why, then, were some books (such as the Gospels of Thomas and Bartholomew) rejected? Because they were written long after the life of Jesus and the other New Testament writings, because they were falsely attributed to apostles who had long since died, and because they made fantastical claims at odds with the other New Testament writings[1] and contained obvious political messaging[2] that ran contrary to the rest of scripture.

Did Constantine Invent Jesus’ Divinity?

One reason Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea was to clarify Christian doctrine related to the divinity of Jesus. While this seems like an obviously biblical belief nowadays, in the fourth century a man named Arius was promoting the idea that Jesus was just a human, not God in the flesh.

Did Constantine suppress Arius’ heart-felt belief and promote Jesus to the Godhead? No. In fact, Constantine actually leaned towards Arianism. The idea that a mere human could achieve god-like status (rather than the biblical doctrine that Jesus was and is eternally God) was much more attractive to Constantine’s Roman upbringing, so Constantine entered the Council of Nicaea supportive of Arius’ heresy.

Over the course of the three-month council, hundreds of bishops (led by a man named Athanasius) bravely opposed Arius—and Constantine—to espouse the Bible’s teaching that Jesus was and had always been God. And rather than oppose the bishops and demand that they agree with him, Constantine submitted to their leadership and expertise, and the Council of Nicaea affirmed the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity.

Later in life, Constantine continued to flirt with Arianism, even being baptized by an Arian bishop at the end of his life. After he passed, Constantine’s successors persecuted Athanasius over the issue of Jesus’ divinity, exiling him an astounding five times. However, the bishops remained firm, submitting to the Scriptures rather than the emperors, and today the doctrine of the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity is firmly established—without any influence from Constantine.

Did Constantine Force Christians to Abandon the Biblical Calendar?

After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, the Jewish community changed how they determined the dates of Passover. For over 800 years, there were many competing methods for structuring the calendar, none of which were the system in place during the time of Jesus.

During this time, the Christian community struggled to find consistent dates to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus (which they called Pascha, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Pesach, meaning Passover). Many churches relied on their Jewish neighbors for these dates, but this wasn’t ideal. For one, many Christians distrusted the synagogues, which had persecuted the Church for almost a hundred years, had forced the Christians out of their communities by declaring them heretics, and had taught that Jesus was a false sorcerer who had been sent to hell for His sins. Additionally, Passover in one synagogue might be as much as a month off from the synagogue in the next town, leading to churches from town to town celebrating at different times.

For hundreds of years prior to Constantine’s reign, Christians debated the proper time to observe Passover. So when the Council of Nicaea was finally called to address the Arian heresy, the subject of the timing of Passover was also discussed.

While a dating method was not determined, the bishops agreed that all Christians should celebrate on the same day and that this day should be calculated independent from the Jewish community.

Later that century (and long after Constantine’s death), the Church finally agreed on a way to determine the date of Passover. Passover would always be celebrated after the first full moon that fell after the spring equinox—the same method that was in place during Jesus’ life, according to Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, Jewish scholar Philo, the translators of the Septuagint, and several other ancient Jewish teachers.[3]

Constantine did not force the Church to change the calendar, nor did he dictate when Passover would be celebrated, though the Christians of the day agreed that the calendar needed to be corrected and eventually made that correction.[4]

Did Constantine Enact Anti-Jewish Laws?

Constantine did indeed enact what could be considered an anti-Jewish law. On October 18, 315, Constantine made it illegal for Jews to “attack with stones or any other kind of violence” fellow ethnic Jews who had converted to Christianity. According to the law, there had been recent instances of Jews committing violence against converts to Christianity, so Constantine outlawed this practice and made it punishable by “immediately being given over to the flames and burned” (Codex Theodosianus 16.8.1[5]).

Constantine did enact several other laws related to the Jews as well. In addition to making Judaism a legal practice with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, he also exempted Jewish leaders from compulsory military service (16.8.2) and public service (16.8.4); preserved the rights of Jews to serve on municipal councils (16.8.3); and prohibited recent Christian converts from “disturbing Jews or inflicting any injury on them” (16.8.5).

Based on the historical record, Constantine did not actually enact any laws that could be interpreted as oppressive towards the Jewish people, other than preventing them from oppressing Christian converts—and even then, he also outlawed Christian converts from oppressing Jews as well. Additionally, he passed several laws that protected the Jewish clergy and preserved the roles of the Jewish people in civil society. If anything, it could be said that Constantine enacted laws that actually protected the Jewish people in the increasingly Christianized empire.

Was Constantine a Good Person?

The purpose of this article was not to comment on Constantine’s morality or to conclude whether he was a genuine Christian. The goal was simply to clarify the role that Constantine played in the development of Christianity.

And from the historical record, Constantine did not directly influence Christianity as we know it today, nor did he subvert what Christianity was prior to his conversion. He simply got out of the way. He prevented the enemies of the Faith from persecuting God’s people and allowed Christians the freedom to practice their religion in peace.

When Constantine held doctrinal views contrary to the Church, he submitted to their theology rather than demand they cave to his. And despite tensions that had flared between Christians and Jews for hundreds of years, he prohibited violence from either side, allowing both to serve in the empire so long as they did so in peace.

The Faith that Christians practice today—what is sometimes called Nicene Christianity—is the same faith Jesus passed on to His disciples. It is Biblical Christianity, and no historian can reasonably claim that Constantine had a hand in creating it.

[1] As an example, the so-called Gospel of Bartholomew (tells a story where Jesus pulled up the earth like a carpet and led the devil out on a leash in the presence of the disciples, who immediately died out of fright and had to be resurrected one at a time.

[2] The Gospel of Thomas, for instance, makes disparaging claims about women, suggesting that they aren’t fully human.

[3] As you can see, the correction of the calendar was based almost exclusively on Jewish writings. Whether ancient Jewish scholars (translators of the Septuagint), Jewish scholars of Jesus’ day (Philo), or a Jew-turned-Roman historian (Josephus), all testify that of the proper calendar dating method. Additionally, the Talmud (a compilation of oral Jewish tradition formalized shortly after the Council of Nicaea) affirms there were many varying methods for determining Passover, none of which matched the system in place during Jesus’ ministry or in place today.

[4] While on the subject of Passover, Constantine also didn’t invent Christmas or Valentine’s Day. He did, however, make Sunday a civil day of rest in 321 AD, allowing Christians to continue the practice of Sunday worship (established in the Book of Acts) without interfering with their work.

[5] Source: https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Constitutiones/CTh16.html.