 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture Francine Nicholson asked: >My impression is that this was part of the theological justification, as >opposed to the motivation of replacing Sol Invictus with Jesus' birth. Given >the chronology in Luke (iirc), once Jesus' birth was settled at 25 Dec., J >the B had to be six months earlier. > >Was this subject discussed on the list a few years ago? I had asked about this a year ago (I think). I wondered why June 24, rather than 25, having forgotten that: 1) June has 30 days, and 2) the kalends would have been calculated from the following month. I do not recall any discussion of the dating of the feast of the nativity, although there was mention of it last December. What do the people here make of Thomas Talley's argument (in "Origins of the Liturgical Year") that the dating was derived from the quartodeciman date for Easter? Phil Feller ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html