Why December 25? The origin of Christmas had nothing to do with paganism

WORLD Magazine ^ | Dec 10, 2005 | Gene Edward Veith

[Charles Henrickson]

According to conventional wisdom, Christmas had its origin in a pagan winter solstice festival, which the church co-opted to promote the new religion. In doing so, many of the old pagan customs crept into the Christian celebration. But this view is apparently a historical myth—like the stories of a church council debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or that medieval folks believed the earth is flat—often repeated, even in classrooms, but not true.

William J. Tighe, a history professor at Muhlenberg College, gives a different account in his article "Calculating Christmas," published in the December 2003 Touchstone Magazine. He points out that the ancient Roman religions had no winter solstice festival.

True, the Emperor Aurelian, in the five short years of his reign, tried to start one, "The Birth of the Unconquered Sun," on Dec. 25, 274. This festival, marking the time of year when the length of daylight began to increase, was designed to breathe new life into a declining paganism. But Aurelian's new festival was instituted after Christians had already been associating that day with the birth of Christ. According to Mr. Tighe, the Birth of the Unconquered Sun "was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians." Christians were not imitating the pagans. The pagans were imitating the Christians.

The early church tried to ascertain the actual time of Christ's birth. It was all tied up with the second-century controversies over setting the date of Easter, the commemoration of Christ's death and resurrection. That date should have been an easy one. Though Easter is also charged with having its origins in pagan equinox festivals, we know from Scripture that Christ's death was at the time of the Jewish Passover. That time of year is known with precision.

But differences in the Jewish, Greek, and Latin calendars and the inconsistency between lunar and solar date-keeping caused intense debate over when to observe Easter. Another question was whether to fix one date for the Feast of the Resurrection no matter what day it fell on or to ensure that it always fell on Sunday, "the first day of the week," as in the Gospels.

This discussion also had a bearing on fixing the day of Christ's birth. Mr. Tighe, drawing on the in-depth research of Thomas J. Talley's The Origins of the Liturgical Year, cites the ancient Jewish belief (not supported in Scripture) that God appointed for the great prophets an "integral age," meaning that they died on the same day as either their birth or their conception.

Jesus was certainly considered a great prophet, so those church fathers who wanted a Christmas holiday reasoned that He must have been either born or conceived on the same date as the first Easter. There are hints that some Christians originally celebrated the birth of Christ in March or April. But then a consensus arose to celebrate Christ's conception on March 25, as the Feast of the Annunciation, marking when the angel first appeared to Mary.

Note the pro-life point: According to both the ancient Jews and the early Christians, life begins at conception. So if Christ was conceived on March 25, nine months later, he would have been born on Dec. 25.

This celebrates Christ's birth in the darkest time of the year. The Celtic and Germanic tribes, who would be evangelized later, did mark this time in their "Yule" festivals, a frightening season when only the light from the Yule log kept the darkness at bay. Christianity swallowed up that season of depression with the opposite message of joy: "The light [Jesus] shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5).

Regardless of whether this was Christ's actual birthday, the symbolism works. And Christ's birth is inextricably linked to His resurrection.

[Just mythoughts]

Sorry for the delay in responding, had to deal with at least 10 to 12 inches of snow yesterday.

IChronicles 24 lays out the divisions and service by lot and then vrs. 7-18 lists the courses.

Abijah, was the eighth course which Luke 1:5 describes (Abia), Zacharias belonging to.

Companion Bible Appendix 179 gives a more in-depth description I. Parallel Datings of the Times of OUR LORD.
II. Dates of the "The Begetting" and the Nativity, ETC.
III. "The Course of ABIA". I have not looked to see if this can be found on the internet.

I put forth the following under "The Course of ABIA" as to why Luke gives what he did in Luke 1:5, as there must be a reason why we are given what we are.

" This was the eighth of the priestly courses of ministration in the Temple (Chron. 24:10), and occurred, as did the others, twice in the year.

The "Courses" were changed every week, beginning each with at Sabbath. The reckoning commenced on the 22nd day of Tisri or Ethanim (the First month of the civil year) This was the eighth and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles = The "Great Day of the Feast" (John 7:37), and was a Sabbath (Lev. 23:39).

The first course fell by lot to Jehoiarib, and the eighth to Abia or Abijah (IChron.24.10).

Bearing in mind that alll the courses served together at the three Great Feasts, the dates for the two yearly "ministrations" of Abiah will be seen to fall as follows:

The first ministration was from 12-18 Chisleu = December 6-12.

The second ministration was from 12-18 Sivan = June 13-19.

The announcement therefore to Zacharias in the Temple as to the conception of John the Baptist took place between 12-18 SIVAN (June 13-19), in the year 5 B.C. After finishing his "ministration", the aged priest "departed to his own house" (Luke1:23), which was in a city in the "the hill country" of Juda (verse 39).

The following the end of the "Course of Abia" being a Sabbath (Sivan 19), he would not be able to leave Jerusalem before the 20th.

The thirty miles journey would probably occupy, for an old man, a couple of days at least. He would therefore arrive at his house on the 21st or 22nd. This leaves ample time for the miraculous "conception" of Elizabeth to take place on or about the 23rd of Sivan - which would correspond to June 23-24 of that year. ...."

Interestingly these dates associated with the miraculous "conception" of John the Baptist, the "Forerunner", do show up this day on "man's" calendars.

[Just mythoughts]

Thank you for the post.

Seems that since the birth of Christ there has been and continues to be an argument about dates.

[redheadtoo]

This festival, ... was designed to breathe new life into a declining paganism.

Sounds a lot like Kwanzaa.

[AlGone2001]

Thanks for all of that good info.

One big question is how the use of the Jewish "leap months" play into the mix.

It just doesn't seem so easy to attribute a certain Jewish day (from the lunar year) to our current day (following the solar year), especially when the leap months now are in play to more closely align the days.

Were they in use then, and if they were, how do we know that this particular course if Abijah lined up with with our calendar the same way it does now?

In fact, I am suspicious that the courses (and most Jewish holidays) rarely fall on the same day on our calendar, since they use the New Moon to begin the month, and we do not.

[Just mythoughts]

I would encourage you to continue digging into what the differences in the early Hebrew calendar versus what we see here today. While some may consider things of pagan origin, rightly or wrongly should not detract others from digging through heaps of history.

You have a good day.

[Verginius Rufus]

The Gospel according to Mark is usually considered to be the oldest of the four. At the beginning of chapter 16 it says:

"And when the sabbath was past, Maria Magdalene and Maria the (wife? mother?) of Jacob/James and Salome bought spices in order to go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week they were going to the grave when the sun had risen."

My translation from the Greek. Evidently they had to wait until after sunset on Saturday to buy the spices, because of the Sabbath. Their walk to the tomb was very early on Sunday morning. The tense of the participle anateilantos (rising) is aorist, so the sun is not rising simultaneously with their walking (no doubt it would take them more minutes to walk to the tomb that it takes for the disk of the sun to emerge above the horizon), but the sunrise had just happened.

St. Jerome translates 16.2 as et valde mane una sabbatorum, veniunt ad monumentum, orto iam sole: "and very early in the morning on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb, the sun already having risen." (Veniunt is present tense, but I take it to be an historical present, so translated as a past tense.)

[Verginius Rufus]

The feast of the nativity of St. John the Baptist is celebrated on June 24 (the eighth day before the kalends of July), exactly six months before Chirstmas (which falls on the eighth day before the kalends of January). Obviously it was put there after the date of December 25 had been established as the celebration of the nativity of Jesus.

I believe St. John's, Newfoundland, was so named because John Cabot discovered it on June 24, 1497, the feast of St. John.

[Diego1618]

Your Polycarp-Passover-Easter post, for example, repeats almost verbatim an article in a "Church of God" publication. Likewise, in many of your other posts, there are distinctive phrases that most closely resemble various "Church of God" and other "Sabbath-keeping" articles. This is too much to be a coincidence.

so......what is your point? Are you saying scripture is in error? You are attempting to connect me to something of which I don't belong. Why? Is the scripture I presented in error? If so, enlighten me.....please.

And please explain Matthew 28:1-6 to your way of thinking.

[editor-surveyor]

If you visit your local jewish book store, or many Bible college book stores, you can get books on how the Hebrew calendar works, and you can also buy calendars that show both systems. The hebrew calendar has run in accordance with the lunar phases, at least since the time of Moses; perhaps even since Abraham (this is a point of some controversy).

[Vicomte13]

"I only represent the word of God."

Have you spoken direclty with Him or with one of His angels?

[AHerald]

Appreciate the link to the Touchstone article. Very interesting. Thanks.

[antisocial]

"Why are you so special that you should pick another day and not be there with your fellow creatures?"

Luke 4:16 - Jesus observed the Sabbath, why do Catholics think they are so special that they have the authority to
change from what G-d commanded?

[antisocial]

"This is especially true, since we need to use some form of new math to make Sunday come three days after Friday."

Too many here on this forum have been sold on the doctrine of Christian revisionism (Christians replacing Jews as the chosen ones). One must read the entire bible from the perspective of the time and culture of the characters to find the true meanings.
Thank you for your post that might just make some here look at these events from a new perspective.

[antisocial]

"If God doesn't care, who are we too?"
Genesis 2:2
Leviticus 23:3
Deuteronomy 5:12

Those verses would lead one to believe that He does care.

[Vicomte13]

"Luke 4:16 - Jesus observed the Sabbath, why do Catholics think they are so special that they have the authority to
change from what G-d commanded?"

God did not command the Sabbath for anybody but Jews.
And the Apostles themselves worshipped on Sunday.
Christians have ALWAYS worshipped on Sunday as the Lord's Day. Including the Apostles, Christians who were dealing directly with the resurrected Jesus. He obviously didn't withhold his grace from them, did he?

So, what's the big deal?
That 2000 years later someone can strain a gnat out of a bunch of texts and assert that the Apostles were wrong and that their interpretation of some texts is right?

[AlGone2001]

After all, Jesus explicitly said that there were those alive at the time who would see him come again in glory.

It is certainly clear in it's entire context:

LUKE 9

27 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
The Transfiguration

28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray.

29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning.

30 Two men, Moses and Elijah,

31 appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem.

32
Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him.

........................................................

There was no reason at all for Luke to mention that eight days had passed, except that he was tracing the activity on the Mount of Transfiguration with the statement Jesus made.

These three men saw the kingdom, just as Christ had stated.

No... The resurrection has not yet occurred.

Christ did not say that some would see Him come again, as you stated. He stated that some would see His kingdom. There is a major difference.

The same thing is true of this event from Mark 9:

1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
The Transfiguration

2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them.

3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.

4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.
............................................................

Once again, the writer states a certain number of days before the transfiguration occurs. Both of these books make sure to count the days from the promise.

No offense, but your use of the verse is greatly out of place.

[Diego1618]

And the Apostles themselves worshipped on Sunday.

This is scripturally untrue and is a tradition only begun to legitimize the Roman "Venerable Day of the Sun".

The Council of Laodicea was convened in 364 A.D. and Canon XXIX stipulates that Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the "Lord's Day"; and if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

This is very common knowledge and anyone with a computer may "Google" it to confirm. Why do you suppose that over 300 years after the crucifixion, resurrection and formation of the Church on Pentecost the Catholic Church is still attempting to convince the folks about Sunday?

You can blame it on the Jews and the "Judaizers" all you want....but when push comes to shove you will not find Scripture authorizing the change from Sabbath to Sunday.... anywhere. What you will find is an early subverting of the word expressed in scripture to agree with the Hellenistic and Roman traditions of the day.

[AlGone2001]

'You can blame it on the Jews and the "Judaizers" all you want....but when push comes to shove you will not find Scripture authorizing the change from Sabbath to Sunday.... anywhere.'

I agree completely, but that doesn't make it right or wrong to assemble any particular day of the week.

If we render Saturday as the Sabbath (which it is), but declare it is the day for which we are bound by law to worship, we must keep the entire law.

There really is no way around that.

Incidentally, here is a particular reference to the disciples meeting on the first day of the week:

John 20:19

That evening, on the first day of the week, the disciples were meeting behind locked doors because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Suddenly, Jesus was standing there among them! "Peace be with you," he said.

Here is another:

Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week, we gathered to observe the Lord's Supper. Paul was preaching; and since he was leaving the next day, he talked until midnight.

In all truth though, they met every day and completely dedicated their lives to preaching the gospel. We sit around and fight about what is the best day, or specifically, has the Shabbat been replaced. In doing so, we make ourselves look like fools to the lost.

We ought to be preaching the gospel of Christ, and quit trying to be so right. Being right is not a fruit of the Spirit.

[A. Pole]

True, the Emperor Aurelian, in the five short years of his reign, tried to start one, "The Birth of the Unconquered Sun," on Dec. 25, 274. This festival, marking the time of year when the length of daylight began to increase, was designed to breathe new life into a declining paganism. But Aurelian's new festival was instituted after Christians had already been associating that day with the birth of Christ. According to Mr. Tighe, the Birth of the Unconquered Sun "was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians." Christians were not imitating the pagans. The pagans were imitating the Christians.

Bump!

[Diego1618]

That evening, on the first day of the week, the disciples were meeting behind locked doors because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders.

I must disagree. The reason they are meeting is For fear of the Jews, [John 20:19 KJV]

On the first day of the week, we gathered to observe the Lord's Supper. Paul was preaching; and since he was leaving the next day, he talked until midnight.

I must also disagree here again: The original Greek says they are meeting to "Break Bread". This is not a Lord's Supper, Communion Service or any thing of that nature. They are having a meal! Do you notice since Paul was leaving the next day he spoke until mid night. This first day of the week get together is what is commonly called a "Havdalah" meal.... Something a lot of folks do on Saturday night after Sabbath services. They are gathering on Saturday night and Paul spoke until mid night. Saturday night would be the first day of the week to the Apostles.

Again, I will stipulate, there is no scripture that will show or allude to the fact that the early church specified Sunday worship.