Fljotsdale wrote:Because the customes associated with those Roman feasts were adoped by Christianity into Christmas. As I said. And I also said that similar customs for the winter feasts from a variety of other 'pagan' faiths were also included.
Most of the customs associated in pre-Christian times with those two very different Roman holidays were not adapted across, however. And even if they all had been, that would not make the festivals anywhere near identical, because the three belief systems (which were a strong part of these three festivals) involving Saturn, Mithras, and Jesus Christ were totally unalike.
-But please read along before replying. I'm just dropping back here to add this note after having become aware of your source. 
PS: the Pelikan book is only available in French on Amazon, which is a pity because it looked the most useful.
You can get it on Amazon in the US, right here.
However, my main source of information was a book I read many years ago called The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop, first published in 1916. I am aware that much has been learned since then, and that Hislop had a huge chip on his shoulder! Hence my checking on the internet, which has verified my original source. Hislop seems to have his facts pretty right even if he was highly prejudiced against Roman Catholicism.
Eeeeee.
Yes: "The Two Babylons, or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife"! That had legendary status when I took part in a religious pre-net computer forum, years ago. The problem with Hislop (a distant relative of a fine opera tenor of the 1920s and 30s, btw, Joseph Hislop) is that he assumed the worst of anything involving the RCC, and since he hated non-Christians just about as much with a blind passion, this meant associating every RCC activity with non-Christians. He uses as sources people who really aren't good sources because they knew little, and were extremely prejudiced--such as Tertullian, who hated pagans and misinterpreted or lied about them to his audience, and (during the period Hislop quotes him) had become an anti-Orthodox apostate. Since Orthdox Christianity branched to Roman Catholicism, I suspect you can see where this is going.
I can see where using him, you would come to that conclusion regarding those three holidays. Hislop was a great hater, and he fulminates well from his pulpit. But he really had no knowledge about those "loathsome" pagans, and never bothered reading non-Patristic writings about them, which already were available in significant quantities during his lifetime. If he had, he would have realized that holidays are far more than just collections of dates and little habits of celebration which could be connected by the dots. (Or in his case, connected by dots when the connections were intuited.) Hislop never seemed to realize that the pagans had elaborate worshipping systems ever bit as complex as Christianity, much less completely different. He appears to have regarded them as little better than ignorant, eternally damned savages. (He also loathed the Church of England, whom he felt imitated the RCC and was therefore damned eternally, too, as were Jews.) And they were in any case simply fodder for his overwhelming hatred of the RCC.
You're far too smart to rely on Hislop, even though we disagree on several things. Ditch the old mad bugger!
Your references look interesting, though. I'll see if I can obtain at least one of them from Amazon. Which would you recommend?
"As The Romans Did--A Sourcebook in Roman Social History," is an excellent general but deep text on Roman everyday social modes and conduct, including religion. It is Ancient Roman source, and nothing but: no interpretation. There's a great deal in there, and it's a fantastic jumping off point. I'd suggest that. That particular volume of the entire Pelikan set is great for its in depth understanding of early Christian theological thought (which is even more convoluted than it became later, if possible), and inadvertently but repeatedly contradicts Hislop. (Who would have simply damned Pelikan, and his Eastern Orthodoxy.
) As for Ankarloo and Clark, their series is the closest I've seen to a scholarly look at non-Judeo-Christian European religions. It avoids zealous advocacy (or any kind of advocacy) and pop garbage, and was accomplished with a good amount of research.
