New Years = Jesus' Bris?

[Hedda Rosa]

I spent all day yesterday thinking my mother-inlaw may be insane. The first thing she sad on the phone to us yesterday was "Happy Circumcision Day!" When I asked her what the heck she meant, she said that New Years Day is actually celebrating Jesus' bris.

A quick Googling this morning shows me that she's not alone in this idea - must have picked it up somewhere - but I don't find any cites as to why this is believed to be the reason for New Years.

I am not not not looking for a debate on circumcision itself (that is for another thread), just something substantive to either affirm or refute the idea that the "real" reason New Years Day is celebrated just after Christmas is because it is the aniversary of Jesus' Bris.

Twiddle

[Jman]

Sounds pretty odd to me, espcecially since Jesus' birth wasn't even on Dec 25. Most people put it in the March - April time frame. It was moved to December to coincide with Pagan rituals in order to try and bring them to Christianity.

[Northern Piper]

It is in some of the Anglican church calendars. Here's a link to the Table of Lessons from the 1922 revision of the Book of Common Prayer. You'll see that the feast day of the Circumcision fits right in between December 31 and the second Sunday after Christmas. Doesn't specifically say January 1, but I think that's the case.

Haven't found a more recent table of lessons than 1922, so don't know if still is. I would think probably. Revisions to the calendar normally relate to minor saints and matters of local import, not to commemorations of events in Jesus's life. They tend to stay in.

But to say that's the real reason New Year's Day is celebrated - I would say it only applies for those who are actually follow the idea of a liturgical calendar, and follow this particular liturgical calendar. I would think most people celebrate it for purely secular reasons.

I'd be interested to hear from some of posters of other denominations that follow a liturgical calendar, like Bricker or yBeaf.

[Northern Piper]

And here's a link to the Anglican Collect Epistle and Gospel for the Circumcision of Christ.

[Northern Piper]

Just checked the calendar of the Book of Alternative Services of the Anglican Church of Canada. January 1 is listed as the "Naming of Jesus". It's a holy day, which means it takes priority over the usual Sunday readings when it falls on a Sunday.

[Josh_dePlume]

There's no doubt that a baby boy born on Dec. 25 would, according to traditional Jewish law, be circumcised on Jan. 1 (unless, perhaps, it was a Saturday). It's not surprising that a liturgy would commemorate this. It does not follow that the reason for celebrating New Year's day is "really" Jesus' circumcision. This could just be coincidence, and it's not as though the New Year goes uncelebrated in other cultures with different calendars. I'm not sure whether the OP is suggesting that the year starts when it does because of the circumcision, or merely that the reason that we celebrate the day has more to do with the circumcision than with the New Year. It was certainly the first of the month long before Christianity came along.

[cmkeller]

Josh DePlume:

There's no doubt that a baby boy born on Dec. 25 would, according to traditional Jewish law, be circumcised on Jan. 1 (unless, perhaps, it was a Saturday).

Even if it's on a Saturday. Unless the time of birth was questionable (not certain if it was day or night, as days in Jewish law begin at nightfall), a healthy baby boy born on the Sabbath will have his bris on the following Sabbath.

[Polycarp]

It's the Feast of the Holy Name in the Episcopal Church, commemorating the eighth day of (one week after) Christmas, when Jesus was circumcized and received His name. For Catholics, it's a solemnity of Mary, though what its exact name is or why she happens to be honored that day in particular I don't have a clue.

(The way I figure it, if the Feast of Candlemas, commemorating Jesus's Presentation in the Temple and Mary's Purification after Childbirth, got taken over by a ground squirrel, the least we can do is to reclaim New Years Day for a Mohel!

[BobT]

January 1 used to be recorded as the Feast of the Circumcision in the Catholic Church, but it got changed to the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God as its primary name back as part of Vatican II changes IIRC.

The day always celebrated both events. Catholics enjoy having Marian feasts. Three of them are holy days of obligation (Jan. 1, Aug. 15, Dec. 8).

The Catholic Church also refers to January 1 as the International Day for Peace.

Most Catholics blow off church attendance on New Year's Day. We have our limits.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by BobT

January 1 used to be recorded as the Feast of the Circumcision in the Catholic Church, but it got changed to the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God as its primary name back as part of Vatican II changes IIRC.

Any clue why it's special to her? I sort of implied that question in the "Catholics" part of my earlier post. I can fully understand commemorating the Immaculate Conception, the Annunciation, the Assumption... but what about Jan. 1 is particularly oriented towards Mary?

[tomndebb]

Feast of the Circumcision

Since the 1960s, the RCC has seemed pretty ambivalent about what they want to celebrate on January 1 (at least in the U.S.). They changed the name from Circumcision to "Feast within Octave of Christmas" for a while and I have a vague memory of some other feast name being wedged in there for a year or two before it became "The Octave Day of Christmas: Solemnity of the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God." (There has never been any pretense that the religious feasts were the "reason" for the celebration.) I have never heard why we began de-emphasizing the circumcision on this day. (Neither the "octave" not the Solemnity of Mary are really a problem; as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes in my link, there has always been a tradition of recognizing Mary in the ceremonies of this feast and for years the formal title was In Circumcisione Domini et Octav Nativitatis.

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Feast of the Circumcision I have never heard why we began de-emphasizing the circumcision on this day.

Probably because, to most modern Catholics, Jesus' circumcision doesn't seem like a terribly noteworthy event. Certainly not as important as his birth, his death, or his resurrection.

As to what the Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God celebrates: It's really just a generic Marian holy day. At least, that's the way it's been treated in every New Year's service I've ever been to. I really think that it's little more than a replacement for the Circumcision of Jesus.

[JRDelirious]

Also, Catholic parents probably got tired of evading their children's question as to what was that "circumcision" thing. Serious moment when they can avoid the subject no longer, I'm telling ya...

[Cunctator]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Any clue why it's special to her? I sort of implied that question in the "Catholics" part of my earlier post. I can fully understand commemorating the Immaculate Conception, the Annunciation, the Assumption... but what about Jan. 1 is particularly oriented towards Mary?

The celebration of the feast of the Circumcision was first downplayed in 1960 when the motu proprio of Pope John XXIII, Rubricarum Instructum, declared 1 January to be the Octave Day of the Nativity of the Lord.

Later, post Vatican II, the liturgical status of 1 January was altered again, to become the solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God. This feast (celebrating Our Lady's status as Theotokos, as defined in 431 at the Council of Ephesus) had previously (pre Vatican II) been celebrated as a second class feast on 11 October.

[yBeayf]

Orthodox keep it too -- new calendar folk on Jan. 1, and old calendar folk on Jan. 14. It's also the feast of St. Basil. It's not a major feast, but most parishes celebrate it, if only because there's so many Orthodox named Basil / Vasili.

[CalMeacham]

It may have been de-emphasized by Vatican II, but I recall it being taught to us in Catholic school throughout the 1960s that Jan. 1 was the Feast of the Circumcision. This, naturally, prompted us inquisitive youngsters to ask what a "circumcision" was. The nuns utilized the same elaborate sidestep they used when explaining to us what the sixth commandment was ("Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" -- and before you say anything, note that the Catholics humber the commandments differently than the Protestants or Jews). "Circumcision," they said, means "He was offered up to God." It was years before I found out what "circumcision" really meant, and that I had, myself, been circumcized.


Still, it surprised the hell out of Pepper Mill when I told her about what Jan. 1 was.

[Cunctator]

Originally Posted by BobT

Most Catholics blow off church attendance on New Year's Day. We have our limits.

My parish church is always very crowded on 1 January. And it's not even a holy day of obligation in Australia.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by Twiddle

I am not not not looking for a debate on circumcision itself (that is for another thread), just something substantive to either affirm or refute the idea that the "real" reason New Years Day is celebrated just after Christmas is because it is the aniversary of Jesus' Bris.

The ancient Romans originally established New Year's Day as January 1. Since Jesus hadn't been born yet, his bris obviously played no part in this selection.

During subsequent centuries, however, most of Europe seems to have drifted away from this practice. England celebrated New Year's on March 25, and other countries used March 1 or April 1 or sundry other dates.

At some point, everybody reverted to the earlier Roman practice. I'm not sure when or why. The shift back is often attributed to the changeover from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, which happened in Catholic countries in 1582. However, the papal bull establishing the Gregorian calendar is silent as to New Year's Day.

By the time Great Britain made the change in 1752, the two conversions were definitely synchronized--the same law ordering the change from Julian to Gregorian also moved New Year's Day to January 1. The reason given was that the March New Year's "differs from the Usage of neighbouring Nations".

So the question remains, when and why did the Catholic countries revert to New Year's on January 1? If it was in fact ordered by the Church, they may have cited the religious association with the "octave of Christmas" as a justification. If anyone has a cite one way or the other, I'd love to see it.

[Phnord Prephect]

More importantly, why would Jesus need to be circumcised at all?

Really.

Think about it.

[dotchan]

All part of His submission to the laws and all that. It's the same reason He submitted to John's baptism, years later.

[elmwood]

Originally Posted by Twiddle

I spent all day yesterday thinking my mother-inlaw may be insane. The first thing she sad on the phone to us yesterday was "Happy Circumcision Day!" When I asked her what the heck she meant, she said that New Years Day is actually celebrating Jesus' bris.

Maybe the traditional ball drops are smbolic of that fateful event.

elmwood <-- :wally

[yBeayf]

If it was in fact ordered by the Church, they may have cited the religious association with the "octave of Christmas" as a justification. If anyone has a cite one way or the other, I'd love to see it.

The Church New Year is Sep. 1, which is when the year count from the beginning of creation (five thousand, seven hundred something years ago, according to the Orthodox reckoning) increases another year.

[panache45]

And what do they serve at the Feast of the Circumcision, calamari?

[yBeayf]

And what do they serve at the Feast of the Circumcision, calamari?

Since it's also the feast of St. Basil, it's customary to eat a lot of dishes cooked with basil, and fresh basil as well.

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Any clue why it's special to her? I sort of implied that question in the "Catholics" part of my earlier post. I can fully understand commemorating the Immaculate Conception, the Annunciation, the Assumption... but what about Jan. 1 is particularly oriented towards Mary?

Hey, imagine you're a Mom, watching your baby boy get clipped... wouldn't you be damn solemn!?!

[MaceMan]

I thought Jewish law required circumcision eight days after a boy's birth. I guess this is another one of those times where the ancients would have said he was already one day old at the moment of birth? I marvel at the fact that people were able to live without the concept of zero for so long.

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

Also, Catholic parents probably got tired of evading their children's question as to what was that "circumcision" thing. Serious moment when they can avoid the subject no longer, I'm telling ya...

I remember the modest young nun who was my first grade teacher, being confusingly evasive when trying to explain what the feast celebrated. Apparently it was about snipping off a piece of skin "near His thighs," as she put it.

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by Jman

Sounds pretty odd to me, espcecially since Jesus' birth wasn't even on Dec 25. Most people put it in the March - April time frame. It was moved to December to coincide with Pagan rituals in order to try and bring them to Christianity.

That has been the conventional wisdom for some time. But the opposite may have been true.

[cmkeller]

MaceMan:

I thought Jewish law required circumcision eight days after a boy's birth.

No, it requires circumcision on the baby's eighth day of life, which would be seven days after the birthday, which is the first day of life.

I marvel at the fact that people were able to live without the concept of zero for so long.

Living without the concept of using a mathematical placeholder in a decimal number system does not mean that not having a concept of "nothing" or, in this case, "no time."

[Freddy the Pig]

Here is some more information. Between the Dark Ages and the Sixteenth Century, almost all Christian countries drifted away from celebrating New Year's on January 1. The Catholic Church seems to have encouraged this drift, since January 1 was associated with earlier pagan New Year rites. Beginning in 1508, however, a wave of countries began reverting to January 1:

Germany, Venice, Alsace, 1508 on
Hungary, 1520 on
Rome, 1525
Holland, 1533 on
France in part, 1563 (edict of Charles IX)
France, 1567 (year 1566, 14 Apr-31 Dec)
Low Countries, 1575
Burgundy, 1576
Beauvais, Louvaine, 1580
Scotland, 1600, but used Old Style calendar

These switches (except for the last) predated the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, and were not driven by the Catholic Church. The Church didn't get around to recognizing January 1 as New Year's until 1622.

It's easy to see why standardization might have been desirable in the 1500's; it was an early era of globalization what with the printing press and increasing international trade. But why January 1? Europe rediscovered its pre-Christian heritage during the Renaissance, and pagan models seemed less disreputable during this era (as can be seen in Renaissance art and architecture). It may be that reverting to the Roman New Year's presented the easiest compromise among the hodgepodge of medieval New Year dates. But I'm not sure; research continues.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

This, naturally, prompted us inquisitive youngsters to ask what a "circumcision" was. The nuns utilized the same elaborate sidestep they used when explaining to us what the sixth commandment was ("Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" -- and before you say anything, note that the Catholics humber the commandments differently than the Protestants or Jews).

Oh, and that was another good one in my context... in Spanish, when using the archaic language of the official version of the catechism, that commandment is "No fornicar" (the Latin fornicatio referring generically to all forms of nonmarital or extramarital sex).

Boy was THAT one the parents had to run from

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

Oh, and that was another good one in my context... in Spanish, when using the archaic language of the official version of the catechism, that commandment is "No fornicar" (the Latin fornicatio referring generically to all forms of nonmarital or extramarital sex).

Boy was THAT one the parents had to run from

Meaning of course the archaic ritual Spanish that my parents and teachers learned it in -- I lived thru when it changed to "Do not commit impure acts" (more obfuscation).

And of course, a whole bunch of us wee ones started off believing "Virgin" was actually just Mary's first name, not really a word that described anything...