The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-22-2005, 09:54 PM
ombre3 ombre3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Why is Christmas on December 25?

I understand that Jesus was probably born in the spring, most certainly not in December.

I also understand that the winter solstice has and had always been historically a time for a celebration of sorts. And that Christianity adopted the pagan "party time" winter solstice celebration as its own.

But the winter solstice occurs on the 21st of December. So why wasn't that date chosen as the birthdate of Jesus?

Why were they off by 4 days?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:00 PM
betenoir betenoir is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 3000 miles from home
Posts: 6,209
Ancient pagans were more skeptical then we give them credit for .

That is it say, the story I've heard is they observed the shortest day...then waited around a bit to confirm the sun was really coming back after all. Don't want to jump to conclusions here.

Once they were sure, then they partied. At least that's what I've heard.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:05 PM
BluePitbull BluePitbull is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Did the christians set christmas on the 25th to escape persecution?
Or did they set it up on the 25th to try to get the pagans on their side?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:54 PM
SnakesCatLady SnakesCatLady is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
My reading has led me to understand that the priests held the holy days of the Church on or near pagan holy days to give the people something to do instead of the pagan rites.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-22-2005, 11:34 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
As I understand it, December 25 is the first day when the daytime is perceptibly longer, after three months of progressively shortening daylight. That made it the appropriate day for Festa Solis Invicti. According to many, the Christmas celebration was a takeover of the pagan midwinter feast to subsume it into the new belief system. This, however, is only founded in the tendency of early Christians to syncretize the old into the new, and the coincidence of dates; AFAIK there's no explicit proof that that's what they did.

As to why the birth of Christ was assigned to that date, March 25 was the date of the Crucifixion according to somebody's accepted calculation. It was believed, for reasons I don't fully understand, that exactly 33 years elapsed between Jesus's conception and His crucifixion. Therefore his actual date of birth, by those calculations, would be nine solar months later, or December 25.

To what extent the latter is actually true and to what extent it's a bit of reverse explanation for the celebration, I'm not totally sure. But having encountered this explanation, I felt it only appropriate to report it as regards the answer here.

As to whether either of those explanations is on the mark, I'd say that the only fair verdict is a "Not Proven" to both.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:59 AM
Fish Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
This might help. Cecil speaks.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-23-2005, 04:10 AM
Declan Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by ombre3
I understand that Jesus was probably born in the spring, most certainly not in December.

I also understand that the winter solstice has and had always been historically a time for a celebration of sorts. And that Christianity adopted the pagan "party time" winter solstice celebration as its own.

But the winter solstice occurs on the 21st of December. So why wasn't that date chosen as the birthdate of Jesus?

Why were they off by 4 days?
When in doubt follow the money

Taxation

The one consistent about the nativity was that Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem for tax reasons.

Declan
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-23-2005, 04:35 AM
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,264
Quote:
The one consistent about the nativity was that Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem for tax reasons.
Actually the Roman census (taken for purposes of taxation) is only mentioned in Luke. Matthew is the only other of the gospels which places Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, and Matthew doesn't give any "reason" for Joseph and Mary being there; rather than explaining (as Luke does with the census story) why a family from Nazareth was in Bethlehem for the birth of their son, Matthew gives a reason for a family apparently from Bethlehem (where their son was born) being in Nazareth: Having fled Herod's massacre of the male children in Bethlehem (not mentioned in Luke or indeed in any other source) they first went to Egypt; when they returned to Palestine, they settled in Nazareth rather than back in Bethlehem, as they feared that Bethlehem still being ruled by a member of Herod's dynasty was too dangerous.

The other two gospels have very little to say about Jesus' birth and childhood. Mark doesn't mention Jesus being born in Bethlehem at all, and John actually implies that he wasn't.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-23-2005, 07:16 AM
smiling bandit smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
I recently heard that the whole "pagan festival" angle might be all wrong: that where the Christmas celebration occured, there's little evidence of any kind of notable festivities at that time. In fact, It suggested that the pagan festival may have been started by Christmas, actually trying to lure people back by having their own festival at that time!

Not being a real scholar of Rme, I have no idea. I heard it on NPR two weeks ago.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-23-2005, 07:30 AM
Rune Rune is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Christmas is on the 24th.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-23-2005, 08:36 AM
smiling bandit smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Christmas Eve is the 24th.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-23-2005, 09:48 AM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 21,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner
The other two gospels have very little to say about Jesus' birth and childhood. Mark doesn't mention Jesus being born in Bethlehem at all, and John actually implies that he wasn't.
I don't see how that implies he wasn't. It seems to show that people didn't know he was born in Bethlehem.

It's reasonable to assume most people didn't know he was born in Bethlehem. If you asked Jesus where he grew up, he'd probably say, "Egypt."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-23-2005, 10:19 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,213
Well, Christmas wasn't really celebrated much for centuries. At that point in time, several dudes decided to try and figure out the date. One of them calculated it as Dec 25th. There was debate, and the Church finally settled on that date. Note that the dude who calculated the date of Christ's birth did not in any way shape or form pick that date because of the Solstice, Saturnalia or Sol Invictus. He really calculated that date, and his calculations can be followed (we know now they are likely wrong, but they were thought pretty solid way back then).

Now, I guess it is possible that the Church Elders- faced with a choice of couple of 'calculated dates'- picked the one where there HAD BEEN a Holiday celebration near. But Dec 25th was NOT the Solstice, Saturnalia or Sol Invictus (that last being on the Solstice, of course, which has moved around a bit, but now in Dec 21st. Due to the Calendar being a bit off in those days, I think the Solstice was on the 23rd for a century or so, but I can't say for sure). Note that the Roman calendar was so full of Holidays that any day would have been within a couple days of a Roman pagan holiday.

Note also that by the time Xmas was starting to be a "big deal" - the Pagan holidays had pretty much died off. Christmas wasn't "competing" with anything- Christianity was the State religion by that time.

However, there is absolutely no records, dairies or anything which indicates that Christmas was selected on anything other than what was thought to be the correct 'calculated" date. The whole "Dec 25th was picked to compete with Pagan holidays" is either a educated guess or a UL. It is not backed by a single fact.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-23-2005, 10:22 AM
Spiff Spiff is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In the SPIFF Bunker
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
This might help. Cecil speaks.
Then the answer to the OP is clear. According to Cecil, Christmas is celebrated on December 25 because December 25 was the winter solstice in the Julian calendar.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-23-2005, 10:54 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,213
No, Cecil doesn't say that. He gives it as a Hypothesis only.

However, the Catholic Encyclopedia also gives that hypothesis credence:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

Apparently Natalis Invicti (not Saturnalia) was on Dec 25th in those years (that pesky Julian Calendar again, which is why some Churches celebrate Xmas on Jan 8th!) when they were debating which date to assign it to.

Still, the date of Dec 25th was a date that at that point in time- was legit thought to be (one of several possible) the right date due to calculations. No one really knows why they picked Dec 25th out of several choices of calculated dates. The Natalis Invicti hypothesis is as good as any- but it still remains a hypothesis.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-23-2005, 11:25 AM
leandroc76 leandroc76 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
The Pagan theory is the closest...

Google Mithraism.

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_R...stianity_i.htm
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-23-2005, 11:42 AM
Atticus Finch Atticus Finch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by leandroc76
Fascinating stuff, but do you have a more authoritative cite?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-23-2005, 12:15 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,213
Well, Mithraism was a Mystery religion, thus it's actual beliefs, sacraments and such were secret. Thereby, we don't know too much. Virtually nothing was written down by it's adherants. ROMAN Mitraism- which was 'as far we know" WAY different than Persian Mitraism- came after Christianity. Thus, it is just as possible that the parellisms between the two faiths were copied from Christianity, rather than the other way around. Although Matthew (whoever "Matthew" might have been) and the other writers might have well been influenced by Zorasterism (in fact, it is thought that Judaism had been), they certainly weren't influenced by Roman Mitraism- since it came after they wrote.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-23-2005, 12:27 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,213
Incidentally, be wary of sites that say that "Natalis Invicti was on Dec 25th". I used the date of Dec 23 as the one scholarly book I have found- based upon digs and period writings- used that date. Of course, under the Julian calendar, the Solstice (really Dec 21st) moved about a day a century (something that I forgot to take into account in my first post here!) . Thus, during the heyday of Roman Mitraism, it was Dec 23rd- more or less. By the time the Christians picked a day for Xmas, the Solstice had moved to Dec 25th (or so, depending on what year), and by the time Pope Gregory reformed the calendar, it was around Jan 8th, which is why some Churches still use that day.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-23-2005, 12:55 PM
Freddy the Pig Freddy the Pig is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Nay nay, you've got the drift going in the wrong direction. The Julian year is too long, so the solstice drifts forward. It was about the 25th when Christ was born, then drifted forward to the 21st in the Fourth Century and to around the 11th at the time the Gregorian Calendar was established. The Gregorian conversion permanently moved the solstice back to around the 21st, as it had been at the time of the Council of Nicaea.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:05 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by smiling bandit
I recently heard that the whole "pagan festival" angle might be all wrong: that where the Christmas celebration occured, there's little evidence of any kind of notable festivities at that time. In fact, It suggested that the pagan festival may have been started by Christmas, actually trying to lure people back by having their own festival at that time!
"...little evidence of any kind of notable festivities at that time..."? We present to you the Roman celebration of Saturnalia.

One would not encounter newborn ewes any time before mid-February. Christmas--as the birthday of young master Jesus--is yet another in a line of post-hoc rationalizations to retrofit the cultural belief system of (most) Christians to some semblence of alignment with the statements in the Christian bible.

Stranger
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:08 PM
Spiff Spiff is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In the SPIFF Bunker
Posts: 2,589
I don't think I overstated Cecil's point.

Yes, he calls it a hypothesis, but he also calls it "the most tenable hypothesis," which means that it's the one with the best evidence to support it (so far).

This means that this is the answer that Cecil is going with, bar any additional evidence to the contrary.

In a matter such as this, that's as good as it gets.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:33 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train
"...little evidence of any kind of notable festivities at that time..."? We present to you the Roman celebration of Saturnalia.

One would not encounter newborn ewes any time before mid-February. Christmas--as the birthday of young master Jesus--is yet another in a line of post-hoc rationalizations to retrofit the cultural belief system of (most) Christians to some semblence of alignment with the statements in the Christian bible.

Stranger
Saturnalia was quite a bit earlier in the year. See my cite from the Catholic Ency which dismisses the Saturnalia hypothesis out of hand. By the time the Christians wanted a Holiday for Christ's birth, Saturnalia was pretty well a dead letter, and had- to a extent- been replaced by Natalis Invicti, which was then replaced by Xmas.


Spiff- I agree it's a tenable hypothesis. In fact it's likely the best out there. But- it's not a fact as is commonly stated.

Freddy, I think that Julius reset the Calendar so that the Solstice was on the 21st (as is correct). And, it does drift by about a day a century under the Julian Calendar. By the time of Pope Gregory it was on Jan 8th.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:48 PM
Freddy the Pig Freddy the Pig is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
And, it does drift by about a day a century under the Julian Calendar. By the time of Pope Gregory it was on Jan 8th.
It drifts earlier each century, not later. At the time of Pope Gregory it was on 12/11. The Gregorian conversion skipped days; it didn't add days.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-23-2005, 04:53 PM
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth
I don't see how that implies he wasn't. It seems to show that people didn't know he was born in Bethlehem.

It's reasonable to assume most people didn't know he was born in Bethlehem. If you asked Jesus where he grew up, he'd probably say, "Egypt."
Nowhere else in John does the author or narrator of the gospel say that Jesus is born in Bethlehem, nor is anyone else quoted as saying "But Jesus was born in Bethlehem". Bethlehem is only mentioned in John in that one passage. Thus, the Gospel of John doesn't come right out and say "Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem", but it does imply that. (Or implies that as far as the author of the Gospel of John knows, he wasn't.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.