"How December 25 Became Christmas"

[Jane-Q]

This issue has been debated here before, with many pointing out that December 25 was a pagan holiday.
But Andrew McGowan's article in Biblical Archaeology "How December 25 Became Christmas" comes to a different conclusion, one based within Jewish Monotheism.

Here is the setup:

The Bible offers few clues: Celebrations of Jesus’ Nativity are not mentioned in the Gospels or Acts; the date is not given, not even the time of year . . .

The extrabiblical evidence from the first and second century is equally spare: There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time. As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point.

Finally, in about 200 C.E., a Christian teacher in Egypt makes reference to the date Jesus was born. According to Clement of Alexandria, several different days had been proposed by various Christian groups. Surprising as it may seem, Clement doesn’t mention December 25 at all . . . [May 20 in our calendar] . . . [April 20 or 21] . . .

By the fourth century, however, we find references to two dates that were widely recognized—and now also celebrated—as Jesus’ birthday: December 25 in the western Roman Empire and January 6 in the East (especially in Egypt and Asia Minor) . . .

The earliest mention of December 25 as Jesus’ birthday comes from a mid-fourth-century Roman almanac that lists the death dates of various Christian bishops and martyrs. The first date listed, December 25, is marked: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae: “Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.” In about 400 C.E., Augustine of Hippo mentions a local dissident Christian group, the Donatists, who apparently kept Christmas festivals on December 25, but refused to celebrate the Epiphany on January 6, regarding it as an innovation . . . they seem to represent an older North African Christian tradition . . .

In the East, January 6 was at first not associated with the magi alone, but with the Christmas story as a whole.

So, almost 300 years after Jesus was born, we finally find people observing his birth in mid-winter. But how had they settled on the dates December 25 and January 6?

There are two theories today: one extremely popular, the other less often heard outside scholarly circles (though far more ancient).

The most loudly touted theory about the origins of the Christmas date(s) is that it was borrowed from pagan celebrations . . . Saturnalia festival in late December; barbarian peoples of northern and western Europe kept holidays at similar times. To top it off, in 274 C.E., the Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), on December 25 . . .

Despite its popularity today, this theory of Christmas’s origins has its problems. It is not found in any ancient Christian writings . . .

There is another way to account for the origins of Christmas on December 25 . . .
​

I'll let you read the rest of the article, to find out what McGowan concludes is the more probable answer:

A non-Hellenistic conclusion. A conclusion, from within Jewish Monotheism.
A conclusion I tend to agree with.

 

[2ndpillar]

Jane wrote:
By the fourth century, however, we find references to two dates that were widely recognized—and now also celebrated—as Jesus’ birthday: December 25 in the western Roman Empire and January 6 in the East (especially in Egypt and Asia Minor) . . .

Dear Jane,
The 4th century was the period of the establishment of the Roman Church, deriving from the Nicaea Council, convened by Constantine. Constantine established the church, under his authority, to unite the pagans with the "Christian" type of church. The first recorded date of Christmas being on the 25th December, was in 336 AD, during Constantines' rule. This would coincide with the birthday of Mythra, his pagan gods' birth date. It would also coincide with the birthday of Nimrod, the founder of Babylon, which was where the god heirarchy of Babylon the Great was conceived. http://www.whychristmas.com/customs/25th.shtml

 

[Thomas]

The 4th century was the period of the establishment of the Roman Church, deriving from the Nicaea Council, convened by Constantine.

No, this is quite wrong. The structure of the Church at this time was universal rather than 'Eastern and Western' — 800 bishops from the west were invited, 1,000 from the east, but the actual number present was probably around 300, and the majority were from the east — less than a dozen representing the rest of the Empire, and the Latin-speaking provinces list just five bishops present.

But to think of the institution as 'the Roman Church' is a popular error, promulgated by those who really have a very shallow understanding of Church history. It was an Eastern Council in terms of the numbers present, and in terms of the 'major players'.

Indeed, Canon 6 of the Council states:
"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges."
The Canon indicates that, at that time, there was no concept of a single, universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. When the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West, and accorded him a special respect because Peter and Paul died in Rome. The Bishop of Jerusalem was likewise accorded a singular respect even though, by this time, Jerusalem played no significant role in the development of the Church since its destruction circa 70AD.

Constantine, of course, was not seen as the head of the Church by anyone present.

The first recorded date of Christmas being on the 25th December, was in 336 AD, during Constantines' rule.

No. Read Jane-Q's link.

This would coincide with the birthday of Mythra, his pagan gods' birth date.

No ... that's another invention. Very little is known about Mithraism, but it's generally agreed that if a birthdate of Mithras was to be celebrated, it would coincide with the Roman Sol Invictus, as Mithraism in the West borrowed heavily from Roman cults, and later from Christianity.

It would also coincide with the birthday of Nimrod, the founder of Babylon, which was where the god heirarchy of Babylon the Great was conceived.

Another piece of invention, I think.

A piece of advice: Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Double-check where you can.

 

[Thomas]

A non-Hellenistic conclusion. A conclusion, from within Jewish Monotheism.
A conclusion I tend to agree with.

So do I.

Nice post, by the way.

 

[2ndpillar]

No, this is quite wrong. The structure of the Church at this time was universal rather than 'Eastern and Western' — 800 bishops from the west were invited, 1,000 from the east, but the actual number present was probably around 300, and the majority were from the east — less than a dozen representing the rest of the Empire, and the Latin-speaking provinces list just five bishops present.

But to think of the institution as 'the Roman Church' is a popular error, promulgated by those who really have a very shallow understanding of Church history. It was an Eastern Council in terms of the numbers present, and in terms of the 'major players'.

Indeed, Canon 6 of the Council states:
"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges."
The Canon indicates that, at that time, there was no concept of a single, universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. When the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West, and accorded him a special respect because Peter and Paul died in Rome. The Bishop of Jerusalem was likewise accorded a singular respect even though, by this time, Jerusalem played no significant role in the development of the Church since its destruction circa 70AD.

Constantine, of course, was not seen as the head of the Church by anyone present.


No. Read Jane-Q's link.


No ... that's another invention. Very little is known about Mithraism, but it's generally agreed that if a birthdate of Mithras was to be celebrated, it would coincide with the Roman Sol Invictus, as Mithraism in the West borrowed heavily from Roman cults, and later from Christianity.


Another piece of invention, I think.

A piece of advice: Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Double-check where you can.

Dear Thomas,
You might want to not believe everything that comes from the church. Any critical thinking was burnt.

As for the Mithraic Sol Invictus, the sun god, his birthday is associated with 25 December, and he is associated with with Mithras. Sol Invictus was inscribed on Roman coins. This was their sun god, and 25 of Dec was his supposed birthdate. Roman festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun",

As for the Roman church being non Roman, tell that to the nun's that taught me the name of the church was the Holy Roman Catholic Church, or was that only 20th century thought? The Roman church went out of its way to keep people in the dark. The mass was in Latin, a Roman language, not spoken by the apostles at the "last supper". The Roman church had a hissy fit when Luther wanted to translate the bible into the language of the people. And now you think that people are not to trust anyone but the church. The Roman churches' bishops are not trusted today, nor should their bishops of yesterday be trusted. They are all grounded in the false prophecy of a Pharisee, and all are linked to rotten fruit. (Mt 7:16) Your Holy Constantine decreed that anyone having been found possessing writings from Arian, was to be burnt. Although I am not sure, but I think only the Eastern Church declared Constantine holy. Maybe he should call another Council to get the two churches on tract?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

2ndpillar, if you would leave your personal opinions out if it you would get one or two neat sentences that is easy enough to follow. Friendly advice from someone who is starting to skip through the wall of text and go straight to the people responding.

 

[wil]

My kids asked me about all these Santa Clauses and is there a real Santa Claus, is Santa Claus real?

I say, I said.."YES!!" Santa Claus, Christmas, is a concept, an idea, a feeling a real feeling, real idea, real concept.... of Peace on earth goodwill toward men...a reminder that we should be more giving, a reminder that we should be more caring...

It is one day, that we should expand to all year long...

The celebration of the birth of Jesus...quite similar to the celebration of the resurrection of his body....is a reminder, a time to remember, to put the mind of Christ in our Mind....a reminder of that spark of divinity within all of us....a reminder to let our light shine....it ain't a day, it ain't the devil....it is an opportunity to grow closer toward spirit by caring and thinking about our fellow man.

I give a new commandment to you.... Condemn others ways of being and tell them that only you know the true way.