C
Curious_Hobbit
Guest
Why did the early Christians choose December 25th to celebrate the birth of Jesus?
- Status
G
GIR
Guest
As I understand it, Christmas was originally in early January (it still is in the Oriental Orthodox church) but it was changed to provide a wholesome alternative to a pagan mid-winter festival.
R
redrosetea
Guest
I have read many different reasons why…I think it is a good choice
C
centurionguard
Guest
January 6th is often referred to as Old Christmas Day. Not only in Oriental Orthodox but Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox as well among a few others I can’t remember at this time.
newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=22329
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
There is also an interesting tradition that Christ died, not on His ‘birthday’, but on the date of His conception. . .literally making the same day both His ‘first’ and His "last’ appearance on earth. . .literally, “Womb to tomb.”
Since the tradition is that Christ died during Passover, and thus approximately the date of March 25, that would make His actual birth date 9 months later. . .December 25.
Since the tradition is that Christ died during Passover, and thus approximately the date of March 25, that would make His actual birth date 9 months later. . .December 25.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Blessed A.C. Emmerich states, based on her private revelation, that Jesus was born on November 25th.
Biblical chronologists do not agree on the time of year of Jesus’ birth.
St. John Chrysostom argued, in his so-called birthday sermon, that Jesus was born on December 25th. He based this on a calculation that relies on when Zechariah was in service in the Temple, just prior to the conception of John the Baptist, and on the difference in months between his conception and Christ’s virgin conception/Incarnation.
There is no substantial support among Biblical chronologists for a date of March 25 for the Crucifixion. It is too early in the year, since Passover has to occur in the middle of the lunar month and after the spring equinox.
Biblical chronologists do not agree on the time of year of Jesus’ birth.
St. John Chrysostom argued, in his so-called birthday sermon, that Jesus was born on December 25th. He based this on a calculation that relies on when Zechariah was in service in the Temple, just prior to the conception of John the Baptist, and on the difference in months between his conception and Christ’s virgin conception/Incarnation.
There is no substantial support among Biblical chronologists for a date of March 25 for the Crucifixion. It is too early in the year, since Passover has to occur in the middle of the lunar month and after the spring equinox.
R
redrosetea
Guest
I recall vaguely reading Pope Sylvester was reported to have read a Roman tax collection account…The Romans were very good record keepers
A prophet dies on the day he was conceived…I am not sure if this is from scripture or tradtion
A prophet dies on the day he was conceived…I am not sure if this is from scripture or tradtion
C
centurionguard
Guest
…
Agreed. But is it really clear that the only viable reason as to why the Catholic Church changed to calender date was to offset heathens who celebrated their feast on or near the Winter Solstice? Nothing seems quite clear and most of what we hear today is surrounded by conjecture.
But in the end I don’t believe its necessary that we know the exact date other than to believe in Jesus Christ and that He did come to this world as a babe.
Recently I read a Jewish website of no surprise usurping the true meaning of Christmas.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm
Of course what is written below is also based on conjecture.
N
NHInsider
Guest
Christmas is later in the Orthodox churches because they calculate on the Julian calendar rather than the Gregorian one. No evidence that the Nativity was scheduled in January - however, many cultures celebrated Epiphany which is later.
Christmas was not celebrated in the earliest years of the Church, and when it was added to the calendar it was likely intentionally scheduled to usurp/absorb the winter solstice festivals.
Earliest recorded reference to the liturgical celebration is the *Chronology of 354 *which dates the Dec. 25 celebration to 336. Same document also notes the solstice feast of “Invictus” presumed to mean “Sol Invictus” the Unconquered Sun.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
I’ve studied this topic of Biblical chronology, and I know of no such extant tax collection records giving the month or day of the birth of Christ. Handbook of Biblical Chronology by Jack Finegan and Chronos, Kairos, Christos I and II have no such claim either.
There is nothing in Scripture or in Tradition that states a prophet dies on the day of his conception.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
According to Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan
“While replacement of pagan festivals may have been a factor, historical tradition about the actual time of year of the birth of Jesus may have been more important. The winter solstice and the beginning of an increase of the light may also have seemed an appropriate time to remember the coming into the world of “the sun of righteousness” (Mal 4:2).”
Finegan then goes on to cite very early sources in the Church for the date of Christ’s birth, which give a wide range of different months and days.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
My comments are added to the lettered quoted points below.
“A. Popular myth puts his birth on December 25th in the year 1 C.E.”
1 AD is considered too late for the birth of Jesus by the vast majority of biblical chronologists. Herod sought to kill the Christ Child. But the latest date given for the death of Herod is early in the year of 1 B.C.
Dionysius (c. 525 AD), who gave the Christian calendar its starting point considered that the Incarnation of Jesus (and His birth) occurred in the year prior to the year he numbered as 1 ab incarnatione Domini. So in effect he thought that Jesus was born in 1 BC.
“B. The New Testament gives no date or year for Jesus’ birth. The earliest gospel – St. Mark’s, written about 65 CE – begins with the baptism of an adult Jesus. This suggests that the earliest Christians lacked interest in or knowledge of Jesus’ birthdate.”
The date of 65 AD for the Gospel of Mark is not agreed by scholars; there is no agreed date for the writing of the Gospels. My opinion is that 65 AD is far too late. Also, the reason that Mark did not include the infancy narratives is likely that his audience, Roman converts who were not Jews or Hebrews, had no interest in those events. Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience, so he emphasized the infancy narratives and the events concerning Herod. Some of his readers would have remembered the reign of Herod the great; others would have heard of it from their parents or grandparents.
C. The year of Jesus birth was determined by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk, “abbot of a Roman monastery. His calculation went as follows:
** I don’t believe that point “C” accurately describes the work of Dionysius. **
D. Joseph A. Fitzmyer – Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America, member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and former president of the Catholic Biblical Association – writing in the Catholic Church’s official commentary on the New Testament[1], writes about the date of Jesus’ birth, “Though the year of Jesus birth is not reckoned with certainty, the birth did not occur in AD 1. The Christian era, supposed to have its starting point in the year of Jesus birth, is based on a miscalculation introduced ca. 533 by Dionysius Exiguus.”
Yes, it is probable that Dionysius miscalculated. But he place the birth of Jesus in the year prior to the year he numbered 1. So year 1 (AD 1) would be the calendar year which contains the one year annversary of his Incarnation (not His birth). The dates would therefore indicate the age of Jesus counting from the Incarnation.
“E. The DePascha Computus, an anonymous document believed to have been written in North Africa around 243 CE, placed Jesus birth on March 28. Clement, a bishop of Alexandria (d. ca. 215 CE), thought Jesus was born on November 18. Based on historical records, Fitzmyer guesses that Jesus birth occurred on September 11, 3 BCE.”
There are many sources giving a wide range of dates for the Birth of Jesus.
“A. Popular myth puts his birth on December 25th in the year 1 C.E.”
1 AD is considered too late for the birth of Jesus by the vast majority of biblical chronologists. Herod sought to kill the Christ Child. But the latest date given for the death of Herod is early in the year of 1 B.C.
Dionysius (c. 525 AD), who gave the Christian calendar its starting point considered that the Incarnation of Jesus (and His birth) occurred in the year prior to the year he numbered as 1 ab incarnatione Domini. So in effect he thought that Jesus was born in 1 BC.
“B. The New Testament gives no date or year for Jesus’ birth. The earliest gospel – St. Mark’s, written about 65 CE – begins with the baptism of an adult Jesus. This suggests that the earliest Christians lacked interest in or knowledge of Jesus’ birthdate.”
The date of 65 AD for the Gospel of Mark is not agreed by scholars; there is no agreed date for the writing of the Gospels. My opinion is that 65 AD is far too late. Also, the reason that Mark did not include the infancy narratives is likely that his audience, Roman converts who were not Jews or Hebrews, had no interest in those events. Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience, so he emphasized the infancy narratives and the events concerning Herod. Some of his readers would have remembered the reign of Herod the great; others would have heard of it from their parents or grandparents.
C. The year of Jesus birth was determined by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk, “abbot of a Roman monastery. His calculation went as follows:
** I don’t believe that point “C” accurately describes the work of Dionysius. **
D. Joseph A. Fitzmyer – Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America, member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and former president of the Catholic Biblical Association – writing in the Catholic Church’s official commentary on the New Testament[1], writes about the date of Jesus’ birth, “Though the year of Jesus birth is not reckoned with certainty, the birth did not occur in AD 1. The Christian era, supposed to have its starting point in the year of Jesus birth, is based on a miscalculation introduced ca. 533 by Dionysius Exiguus.”
Yes, it is probable that Dionysius miscalculated. But he place the birth of Jesus in the year prior to the year he numbered 1. So year 1 (AD 1) would be the calendar year which contains the one year annversary of his Incarnation (not His birth). The dates would therefore indicate the age of Jesus counting from the Incarnation.
“E. The DePascha Computus, an anonymous document believed to have been written in North Africa around 243 CE, placed Jesus birth on March 28. Clement, a bishop of Alexandria (d. ca. 215 CE), thought Jesus was born on November 18. Based on historical records, Fitzmyer guesses that Jesus birth occurred on September 11, 3 BCE.”
There are many sources giving a wide range of dates for the Birth of Jesus.
E
Erich
Guest
Here is a short paraphrase of an article on the subject; a fuller excerpt follows later at the same link.The earliest celebrations of Jesus’ birth that we know about (c. 250-300) come in a period when Christians were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character. This would change later, some years after Constantine converted to Christianity (312 C.E.).
Surprisingly, the key to dating Jesus’ birth may lie in the dating of Jesus’ death at Passover. Jesus was believed to have been conceived on the very date that he was later crucified, March 25. The birth was calculated by adding nine months: hence, December 25. Note that this is the explanation given by St. Augustine.
In the East, too, the dates of Jesus’ conception and death were linked. But the Eastern Church used a different (Greek) calendar, and thus came up with a different date. The crucifixion, and hence the conception, were reckoned to have taken place on April 6. Adding nine months brings us to January 6, the Eastern date for Christmas.
Thus, we have Christians in two parts of the world calculating Jesus’ birth on the basis that his death and conception took place on the same day.
F
FaithJoy
Guest
The Roman’s worshiped the sun god before Christ. His birth day was Dec. 25. In that area, Dec. 25 was the day that they calculated to be were daylight started to become longer, hence the sun god’s birthday. They gave presents, used the evergreen tree ( wasn’t effected by winter or season’s) and used wreaths on doors, because they were the shape of the sun. Sound familiar? The holiday was as popular as Christmas is to us here today. The Roman’s couldn’t do away with it. Just like we couldn’t today. But, I see it as Jesus conquering the pagan sun god. Jesus took over from there on out, as far as gov’t recognition is concerned.
T
thistle
Guest
Frankly, the date of Jesus’ birth is irrelevant as is the date we choose to celebrate it.
It has absolutely no bearing on our faith or salvation.
It has absolutely no bearing on our faith or salvation.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Totally and absolutely agree. and I think every true devout Catholic should know that.But I don’t see anything wrong against researching tidbits of history even if it does end up being conjecture. ** It doesn’t change the true meaning of Christmas, nor will it ever.
**
I thought the following website was interesting
Natalis Solis Invicti Nothing so happy about Solis Invicti a Pagan Festival
jmendham.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/happy-sol-ivictus-dies-natalis-solis-invicti/
B
Barbkw
Guest
Interesting celestial reason.
Keplar’s Laws of Planetary Motion, when set into a computer program, indicate that on December 25th, over Bethlehem, a “star” went into retrograde motion (the star appear to stand still when seen from a position on Earth).
bethlehemstar.net/dance/dance.htm#stop
“On this scale of time, Jupiter did stop. On December 25 of 2 BC as it entered retrograde, Jupiter reached full stop in its travel through the fixed stars. Magi viewing from Jerusalem would have seen it stopped in the sky above the little town of Bethlehem.”
Keplar’s Laws of Planetary Motion, when set into a computer program, indicate that on December 25th, over Bethlehem, a “star” went into retrograde motion (the star appear to stand still when seen from a position on Earth).
bethlehemstar.net/dance/dance.htm#stop
“On this scale of time, Jupiter did stop. On December 25 of 2 BC as it entered retrograde, Jupiter reached full stop in its travel through the fixed stars. Magi viewing from Jerusalem would have seen it stopped in the sky above the little town of Bethlehem.”
B
Barbkw
Guest
bethlehemstar.net/
If given the chance to watch this video (EWTN aired a showing of it) it will open your mind to the greatness of God.
From the Bethlehem Star website:
“A Coronation”
"JUPITER. The name of the greatest god of Roman mythology. And the name of the largest planet of our solar system. Jupiter has been known from ages-old to the present as the King Planet.
This greatest of planets is a “gas giant,” approximately eleven times the size of Earth and over 300 times more massive.
It circles the Sun far beyond Earth, in an orbit of about twelve years duration. In ancient times, planets like Jupiter were considered “wandering stars.” Since humans have assigned kingly qualities to this giant wanderer for dozens of centuries, might it have something to do with our Star announcing the birth of a king? That will be our working theory.
It’s not enough to have a kingly name and reputation, of course.
To be Matthew’s Star, Jupiter as viewed from Earth would have to do peculiar things.
More precisely, as considered by a magus viewing from the Middle East during the years 3 and 2 BC, Jupiter’s movements would have to satisfy all nine identifying characteristics of the Star.
In September of 3 BC at the time of the Jewish New Year, Rosh ha-Shanah, Jupiter began to do just that.
A magus watching Jupiter that September saw two objects moving so close that they appeared to touch. This close approach of celestial bodies is sometimes called a ‘conjunction.’
Our Middle Eastern viewer saw Jupiter coming into a close conjunction with the star, Regulus.
Regulus takes its name from the word root which yields our word ‘regal.’
The Babylonians called Regulus Sharu, which means ‘king.’
The Romans called Regulus Rex, which means ‘king.’
So to start things, at the beginning of the new Jewish year, the Planet of Kings met the Star of Kings. This conjunction may have indicated kingship in a forceful way to a Babylonian magus (satisfying one qualification for the Star), but would it have startled him?
Probably not.
Jupiter glides slowly past Regulus about every 12 years.
Let’s assume our magus enjoyed a 50-year career, say from age 20 to age 70. We don’t know how old the Magi were, but if our man was in the second half of his career, he might have seen such a pass two or three times before.
Jupiter’s orbit wobbles relative to Regulus, so not every conjunction is as close as the one he saw in 3 BC. Perhaps our magus recorded this event with some interest, but it is hard to imagine great excitement. Not from this alone. But, of course, there is more."
Continued at: bethlehemstar.net/dance/dance.htm#coronation
If given the chance to watch this video (EWTN aired a showing of it) it will open your mind to the greatness of God.
From the Bethlehem Star website:
“A Coronation”
"JUPITER. The name of the greatest god of Roman mythology. And the name of the largest planet of our solar system. Jupiter has been known from ages-old to the present as the King Planet.
This greatest of planets is a “gas giant,” approximately eleven times the size of Earth and over 300 times more massive.
It circles the Sun far beyond Earth, in an orbit of about twelve years duration. In ancient times, planets like Jupiter were considered “wandering stars.” Since humans have assigned kingly qualities to this giant wanderer for dozens of centuries, might it have something to do with our Star announcing the birth of a king? That will be our working theory.
It’s not enough to have a kingly name and reputation, of course.
To be Matthew’s Star, Jupiter as viewed from Earth would have to do peculiar things.
More precisely, as considered by a magus viewing from the Middle East during the years 3 and 2 BC, Jupiter’s movements would have to satisfy all nine identifying characteristics of the Star.
In September of 3 BC at the time of the Jewish New Year, Rosh ha-Shanah, Jupiter began to do just that.
A magus watching Jupiter that September saw two objects moving so close that they appeared to touch. This close approach of celestial bodies is sometimes called a ‘conjunction.’
Our Middle Eastern viewer saw Jupiter coming into a close conjunction with the star, Regulus.
Regulus takes its name from the word root which yields our word ‘regal.’
The Babylonians called Regulus Sharu, which means ‘king.’
The Romans called Regulus Rex, which means ‘king.’
So to start things, at the beginning of the new Jewish year, the Planet of Kings met the Star of Kings. This conjunction may have indicated kingship in a forceful way to a Babylonian magus (satisfying one qualification for the Star), but would it have startled him?
Probably not.
Jupiter glides slowly past Regulus about every 12 years.
Let’s assume our magus enjoyed a 50-year career, say from age 20 to age 70. We don’t know how old the Magi were, but if our man was in the second half of his career, he might have seen such a pass two or three times before.
Jupiter’s orbit wobbles relative to Regulus, so not every conjunction is as close as the one he saw in 3 BC. Perhaps our magus recorded this event with some interest, but it is hard to imagine great excitement. Not from this alone. But, of course, there is more."
Continued at: bethlehemstar.net/dance/dance.htm#coronation
R
rolazaraberin
Guest
There’s compelling evidence to show that Jesus was indeed born on December 25:
December 25th Birth Of Christ
youtube.com/watch?v=UQS_Wc4Bnoc
The following video is very reasonable, logical, scientific, historical, and biblical in it’s approach showing that the first Christmas was celebrated on December 25, 2 BC. This is the 7-part video:
The Real Star Of Bethlehem
youtube.com/watch?v=aCLmRB-OpGE
O
onlyvoice
Guest
I’m surprised why no one has used the Catholic Encyclopedia for reference. Is that source unreliable? Here’s what it says in its article on Christmas:
"Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church (not part of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” - Jude 1:3). Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts.
“Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday.”
“Concerning the date of Christ’s birth the Gospels give no help; upon their data contradictory arguments (Bible contradictory?) are based… Authorities moreover differ as to whether shepherds could or would keep flocks exposed during the nights of the rainy season.”
“The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date…”
In conclusion, the article says that,
“The present writer is inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and although the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date, the same instinct which set Natalis Invicti at the winter solstice will have sufficed, apart from deliberate adaptation or curious calculation, to set the Christian feast there too.”
"Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church (not part of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” - Jude 1:3). Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts.
“Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday.”
“Concerning the date of Christ’s birth the Gospels give no help; upon their data contradictory arguments (Bible contradictory?) are based… Authorities moreover differ as to whether shepherds could or would keep flocks exposed during the nights of the rainy season.”
“The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date…”
In conclusion, the article says that,
“The present writer is inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and although the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date, the same instinct which set Natalis Invicti at the winter solstice will have sufficed, apart from deliberate adaptation or curious calculation, to set the Christian feast there too.”
- Status