Yes, Christ Was Really Born on December 25: a Defense of the Trad Date for Christmas

taylormarshall.com ^ | December 11, 2014 | Dr. Taylor Marshall

[NYer]

The Catholic Church, from at least the second century, has claimed that Christ was born on December 25. However, it is commonly alleged that our Lord Jesus Christ was not born on December 25. For the sake of simplicity, let us set out the usual objections to the date of December 25 and counter each of them.

Objection 1: December 25 was chosen in order to replace the pagan Roman festival of Saturnalia. Saturnalia was a popular winter festival and so the Catholic Church prudently substituted Christmas in its place.

Reply to Objection 1: Saturnalia commemorated the winter solstice. Yet the winter solstice falls on December 22. It is true that Saturnalia celebrations began as early as December 17 and extended till December 23. Still, the dates don’t match up.

Objection 2: December 25 was chosen to replace the pagan Roman holiday Natalis Solis Invicti which means “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun.”

Reply to Objection 2: Let us examine first the cult of the Unconquered Sun. The Emperor Aurelian introduced the cult of the Sol Invictus or Unconquered Sunto Rome in A.D. 274. Aurelian found political traction with this cult, because his own name Aurelianderives from the Latin word aurora denoting “sunrise.” Coins reveal that Emperor Aurelian called himself the Pontifex Solis or Pontiff of the Sun. Thus, Aurelian simply accommodated a generic solar cult and identified his name with it at the end of the third century.

Most importantly, there is no historical record for a celebration Natalis Sol Invictus on December 25 prior to A.D. 354. Within an illuminated manuscript for the year A.D. 354, there is an entry for December 25 reading “N INVICTI CM XXX.”  Here N means “nativity.” INVICTI means “of the Unconquered.” CM signifies “circenses missus” or “games ordered.” The Roman numeral XXX equals thirty. Thus, the inscription means that thirty games were order for the nativity of the Unconquered for December 25th. Note that the word “sun” is not present. Moreover, the very same codex also lists “natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae” for the day of December 25. The phrase is translated as “birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea.”[i]

The date of December 25th only became the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” under the Emperor Julian the Apostate. Julian the Apostate had been a Christian but who had apostatized and returned to Roman paganism. History reveals that it was the hateful former Christian Emperor that erected a pagan holiday on December 25. Think about that for a moment. What was he trying to replace?

These historical facts reveal that the Unconquered Sun was not likely a popular deity in the Roman Empire. The Roman people did not need to be weaned off of a so-called ancient holiday. Moreover, the tradition of a December 25th celebration does not find a place on the Roman calendar until after the Christianization of Rome. The “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” holiday was scarcely traditional and hardly popular. Saturnalia (mentioned above) was much more popular, traditional, and fun. It seems, rather, that Julian the Apostate had attempted to introduce a pagan holiday in order to replace the Christian one!

Objection 3: Christ could not have been born in December since Saint Luke describes shepherds herding in the neighboring fields of Bethlehem. Shepherds do not herd during the winter. Thus, Christ was not born in winter.

Reply to Objection 3: Recall that Palestine is not England, Russia, or Alaska. Bethlehem is situated at the latitude of 31.7. My city of Dallas, Texas has the latitude of 32.8, and it’s still rather comfortable outside in December. As the great Cornelius a Lapide remarks during his lifetime, one could still see shepherds and sheep in the fields of Italy during late December, and Italy is at higher latitude than Bethlehem.

Now we move on to establishing the birthday of Christ from Sacred Scripture in two steps. The first step is to use Scripture to determine the birthday of Saint John the Baptist. The next step is using Saint John the Baptist’s birthday as the key for finding Christ’s birthday. We can discover that Christ was born in late December by observing first the time of year in which Saint Luke describes Saint Zacharias in the temple. This provides us with the approximate conception date of Saint John the Baptist. From there we can follow the chronology that Saint Luke gives, and that lands us at the end of December.

Saint Luke reports that Zacharias served in the “course of Abias” (Lk 1:5) which Scripture records as the eighth course among the twenty-four priestly courses (Neh 12:17). Each shift of priests served one week in the temple for two times each year. The course of Abias served during the eighth week and the thirty-second week in the annual cycle.[ii]However, when did the cycle of courses begin?

Josef Heinrich Friedlieb has convincingly established that the first priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the destruction of Jerusalem on the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av.[iii]Thus the priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the second week of Av. Consequently, the priestly course of Abias (the course of Saint Zacharias) was undoubtedly serving during the second week of the Jewish month of Tishri—the very week of the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of Tishri. In our calendar, the Day of Atonement would land anywhere from September 22 to October 8.

Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist immediately after Zacharias served his course. This entails that Saint John the Baptist would have been conceived somewhere around the end of September, placing John’s birth at the end of June, confirming the Catholic Church’s celebration of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.

The second-century Protoevangelium of Saint James also confirms a late September conception of the Baptist since the work depicts Saint Zacharias as High Priest and as entering the Holy of Holies—not merely the holy place with the altar of incense. This is a factual mistake because Zacharias was not the high priest, but one of the chief priests.[iv]Still, the Protoevangelium regards Zacharias as a high priest and this associates him with the Day of Atonement, which lands on the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tishri (roughly the end of our September). Immediately after this entry into the temple and message of the Archangel Gabriel, Zacharias and Elizabeth conceive John the Baptist. Allowing for forty weeks of gestation, this places the birth of John the Baptist at the end of June—once again confirming the Catholic date for the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.

The rest of the dating is rather simple. We read that just after the Immaculate Virgin Mary conceived Christ, she went to visit her cousin Elizabeth who was six months pregnant with John the Baptist. This means that John the Baptist was six months older that our Lord Jesus Christ (Lk 1:24-27, 36). If you add six months to June 24 you get December 24-25 as the birthday of Christ. Then, if you subtract nine months from December 25 you get that the Annunciation was March 25. All the dates match up perfectly. So then, if John the Baptist was conceived shortly after the Jewish Day of the Atonement, then the traditional Catholic dates are essentially correct. The birth of Christ would be about or on December 25.

Sacred Tradition also confirms December 25 as the birthday of the Son of God. The source of this ancient tradition is the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. Ask any mother about the birth of her children. She will not only give you the date of the birth, but she will be able to rattle off the time, the location, the weather, the weight of the baby, the length of the baby, and a number of other details. I’m the father of six blessed children, and while I sometimes forget these details—mea maxima culpa—my wife never does. You see, mothers never forget the details surrounding the births of their babies.

Now ask yourself: Would the Blessed Virgin Mary ever forget the birth of her Son Jesus Christ who was conceived without human seed, proclaimed by angels, born in a miraculous way, and visited by Magi? She knew from the moment of His incarnation in her stainless womb that He was the Son of God and Messiah. Would she ever forget that day?[v]

Next, ask yourself: Would the Apostles be interested in hearing Mary tell the story? Of course they would. Do you think the holy Apostle who wrote, “And the Word was made flesh,” was not interested in the minute details of His birth? Even when I walk around with our seven-month-old son, people always ask “How old is he?” or “When was he born?” Don’t you think people asked this question of Mary?

So the exact birth date (December 25) and the time (midnight) would have been known in the first century. Moreover, the Apostles would have asked about it and would have, no doubt, commemorated the blessed event that both Saint Matthew and Saint Luke chronicle for us. In summary, it is completely reasonable to state that the early Christians both knew and commemorated the birth of Christ. Their source would have been His Immaculate Mother.

Further testimony reveals that the Church Fathers claimed December 25 as the Birthday of Christ prior to the conversion of Constantine and the Roman Empire. The earliest record of this is that Pope Saint Telesphorus (reigned A.D. 126-137) instituted the tradition of Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. Although the Liber Pontificalis does not give us the date of Christmas, it assumes that the Pope was already celebrating Christmas and that a Mass at midnight was added. During this time, we also read the following words of Theophilus (A.D. 115-181), Catholic bishop of Caesarea in Palestine: “We ought to celebrate the birthday of Our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen.”[vi]

Shortly thereafter in the second century, Saint Hippolytus (A.D. 170-240) wrote in passing that the birth of Christ occurred on December 25:

The First Advent of our Lord in the flesh occurred when He was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, which is five thousand and five hundred years from Adam. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls.[vii]

Also note in the quote above the special significance of March 25, which marks the death of Christ (March 25 was assumed to corresponded to the Hebrew month Nisan 14 – the traditional date of crucifixion).[viii] Christ, as the perfect man, was believed to have been conceived and died on the same day—March 25. In his Chronicon, Saint Hippolytus states that the earth was created on March 25, 5500 B.C.  Thus, March 25 was identified by the Church Fathers as the Creation date of the universe, as the date of the Annunciation and Incarnation of Christ, and also as the date of the Death of Christ our Savior.

In the Syrian Church, March 25 or the Feast of the Annunciation was seen as one of the most important feasts of the entire year. It denoted the day that God took up his abode in the womb of the Virgin. In fact, if the Annunciation and Good Friday came into conflict on the calendar, the Annunciation trumped it, so important was the day in Syrian tradition. It goes without saying that the Syrian Church preserved some of the most ancient Christian traditions and had a sweet and profound devotion for Mary and the Incarnation of Christ.

Now then, March 25 was enshrined in the early Christian tradition, and from this date it is easy to discern the date of Christ’s birth. March 25 (Christ conceived by the Holy Ghost) plus nine months brings us to December 25 (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem).

Saint Augustine confirms this tradition of March 25 as the Messianic conception and December 25 as His birth:

For Christ is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.[ix]

In about A.D. 400, Saint Augustine also noted how the schismatic Donatists celebrated December 25 as the birth of Christ, but that the schismatics refused to celebrate Epiphany on January 6, since they regarded Epiphany as a new feast without a basis in Apostolic Tradition. The Donatist schism originated in A.D. 311 which may indicate that the Latin Church was celebrating a December 25 Christmas (but not a January 6 Epiphany) before A.D. 311. Whichever is the case, the liturgical celebration of Christ’s birth was commemorated in Rome on December 25 long before Christianity became legalized and long before our earliest record of a pagan feast for the birthday of the Unconquered Sun. For these reasons, it is reasonable and right to hold that Christ was born on December 25 in 1 B.C. and that he died and rose again in March of A.D. 33.

Taylor’s new book The Eternal City also makes an argument in defense of the traditional BC/AD dating as being 100% accurate.

---

[i] The Chronography of AD 354. Part 12: Commemorations of the Martyrs.  MGH Chronica Minora I (1892), pp. 71-2.

[ii] I realize that there are two courses of Abias. This theory only works if Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist after Zacharias’ second course – the course in September. If Saint Luke refers to the first course, this then would place the birth of John the Baptist in late Fall and the birth of Christ in late Spring. However, I think tradition and the Protoevangelium substantiate that the Baptist was conceived in late September.

[iii] Josef Heinrich Friedlieb’s Leben J. Christi des Erlösers. Münster, 1887, p. 312.

[iv] The Greek tradition especially celebrates Saint Zacharias as “high priest.” Nevertheless, Acts 5:24 reveals that there were several “chief priests” (ἀρχιερεῖς), and thus the claim that Zacharias was a “high priest” may not indicate a contradiction. The Greek tradition identifies Zacharias as an archpriest and martyr based on the narrative of the Protoevangelium of James and Matthew 23:35: “That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.” (Matthew 23:35)

[v] A special thanks to the Reverend Father Phil Wolfe, FSSP for bringing the “memory of Mary” argument to my attention.

[mountn man]

Agreed.

The date isn't important.

Ones salvation doesn't hang on when one celebrates, or if one celebrates, a certain date of Jesus' birth or crucifixion.

For centuries, believers celebrated what Christ did, without knowing the proper dates.

We still do so today.

[kiryandil]

Taoists don’t have to worry about such frivolities.

[outofsalt]

Embrace the Sukkot? lol

[Arlis]

Paul commended the Bereans because they did their own research to find out if what he said is true.

No matter what I provide for sources, no one will be influenced by my providing them, and it would only lead to an endless series of my providing evidence that many would reject.

I would rather do what Paul did. Anyone serious about knowing the truth will do their own research - and then come to their own conclusions based on that research. If they do it themselves, they will have reason to change an opinion.

For almost 50 years of ministry, one of my main focus points is to encourage believers to not accept anything because some man says it, but to “search the scriptures” for themselves. Few Christians get their knowledge directly from scripture or personal study, but their pastor, Sunday school teacher, or a book or video. Accordingly, I don’t want anyone to accept anything I say, but to do their own research.

One of the prime reasons for the spiritual poverty of so many who claim to be Christians is that all their knowledge is second hand (pre-digested - like baby food) and very little is first hand study of scripture and personal relationship with the Lord and seeking Him.....not the “meat of the word.”

Another matter is scripture itself tells us to “not go beyond what is written....” Where scripture is silent, we can only surmise - and if it is not important enough to be addressed directly by scripture, it’s not something we should focus on or argue about. We should major in the major issues, not peripheral ones........like the precise date of Christmas.....

[mountainbunny]

The Catholic Church has never taught that Christ’s birthday was December 25th.

Never. The census wasn’t held during the winter months.

Try again.

[mountn man]

[kiryandil]

All disharmony aside, I did learn what a lulav & an etrog are.

So I got that going for me...

[AppyPappy]

Exactly. It is the celebration of His birth, not His birthday.

[SkyDancer]

Great. More: It is a mitzvah to wave the lulav on each of the first seven days of Sukkot. The proper time is in the morning—either before the Morning Service or during the service immediately before the Hallel. A meditation (found in the Siddur) is recited prior to the blessing (this has many kabbalistic secrets concealed within it).

[SkyDancer]

[GreyFriar]

Or perhaps not until 380 AD

EDICT OF INTOLERANCE

379 The Emperor Theodosius. Gratian appointed a Spanish general named Theodosius to replace Valens as Emperor of the East (19 January). His parents were Nicenes, which is not surprising since Bishop Hosius had great influence in Spain. Theodosius led a successful campaign against the Visigoths, forced them to sue for peace, and proceeded to Thessalonica (a city in northeastern Greece) at the end of the year. There he became seriously ill, and believing he was about to die, he was baptized by the Nicene Bishop Ascholius. While he was recuperating from his illness, he was told that all the churches farther to the East, with the exception of Jerusalem, were in the hands of “Arians”. Upon hearing this, “Theodosius enacted a law at Thessalonica [27 February 380], which he caused to be published at Constantinople, well knowing that it would speedily become public to all the other cities, if issued from that city, which is as a citadel of the whole empire.” [Sozomen VII, ii & iv]
Edict of 380

It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation, and second, the punishment that our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven, shall decide to inflict. [Theodosian Code XVI.1.2; and Sozomen, VII, iv]

As soon as I saw this edict, I realized it was one of the largest missing pieces, the first authoritative definition of Catholicism. Thus 27 February 380 is the birth date of the Catholic Church; despite all claims to the contrary, it did not exist prior to that time. Like the edict itself, church historians claim longevity for the Church retroactively, by pointing back to the Council of Nicea and the Apostle Peter.

By this edict, Theodosius reversed the policy of his predecessors, from tolerance to intolerance of religious diversity. The last sentence was a declaration of war that pre-justified religious persecution as the will of God. Here, then, is the original charter of the inquisitions, the crusades, and the burning of heretics all over Europe. The next time we see tolerance of religious diversity proclaimed as official state policy is 1300 years later, in Pennsylvania.

The Trinitarian formula imposed by the Edict of 380 is not the Nicene Creed of 325; it is the Athanasian Creed of 362. Thus, overnight, Theodosius made Athanasian heresy orthodox and the current orthodox faith “Arian” heresy.

the above excerpted from: History of the State Church of the Roman Empire at http://www.bswett.com/1998-05Church300.html

[editor-surveyor]

Actually, it was 364 AD, the council of Lao Dicea that defines the birth of the present day Roman church.

[outofsalt]

If December 25th was accepted as the birthday of Christ in the Julian Calendar why not celebrate it on that day after 1582? The Gregorian calendar omitted ten days to compensate for the miscalculated (by minutes) solar year and return the seasons (equinoxes and solstices) to better harmonize with New Years Day. Regardless, If they accepted and celebrated December 25 we can too (though folks alive then would have thought of that day as Dec 15)

[editor-surveyor]

To the obedient, the date is obvious, and not in question.

There is no commandment to celebrate his birth, but his birth was on a commanded feast day anyway: Sukkot.

What you brought up in your post was your salvation, i.e. entering into Yehova’s rest. Willful Disobedience is the definite disqualifier for that.

That matters!
.

[The_Reader_David]

Actually the Orthodox Church celebrates the Feast of the Nativity on December 25th.

Those on the Old (Julian) Calendar — Russia, Serbia, Georgia, Jerusalem — just happen to have the Julian December 25th coincide with the civil and Gregorian calendars’ January 7th — for now — the drift caused by the Gregorian calendar skipping leap years at the beginning of some centuries will push it to January 8th eventually.

Those on the New “Reformed Julian” Calendar (which coincided with the Gregorian until, should the Lord tarry, the 26th century when it will diverge, becoming more astronomically accurate, again absent intervening calendar reforms) celebrate on December 25th on that calendar, which coincides with December 25th on the civil and Gregorian calendars.

[Up Yours Marxists]

“There is no mention in this article about the adoption of the Julian calendar or the later change to the Gregorian calendar.”

It’s irrelevant actually. Because the Julian calendar was introduced in 46 BC. Since the Julian calendar is only .002% off per year compared to its Gregorian replacement, in Anno Domini when Jesus was born, the difference was about 8 hours compared to the Gregorian calendar, if that calendar was used in its place.

[Kackikat]

So do you believe Christ was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday?

[The_Reader_David]

Even if someone has doctrinal differences with Catholicism, they ought to have the decency to recognize that the Catholic church was the sole custodian of Christian tradition from the time of Emperor Constantine until the Reformation, a period of more than 1000 years.

Oh, really? Sole custodian of Christian tradition?

[:-)===== (Orthodox monastic smiley.)

Of course, I guess it might depend on how you use the word "Catholic" -- but you seem to be crediting the Latins' claim to the name by attaching it to the forces at Lepanto and Vienna.

You might also want to show a little gratitude for the Orthodox who fell on the Field of Kosovo, those who fought the long defeat to keep the Roman Empire, eventually dwindled to a city state, alive until 1453, and to Vlad Tepes for turning back the armies of Mehmet the Conqueror, or much of Europe outside the Balkans would have fallen in the 15th century.

[The_Reader_David]

Of course. And that is not supposed to trigger your posting one of those long and tiresome attacks on the traditional dating Our Lord's Passion that have become popular in some protestant and secularist circles. I haven't the patience to craft a reply laying out the reasons the Fathers of the Church judged the traditional alignment of the events of the Passion and the Resurrection with the days of the week, and do not carry on discussions by cut-and-paste except when an extended quotation is appropriate.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

I have taught many of these objections over the years, but it’s a moot point. Jesus’ death and resurrection is what’s important, not His birthday.