The early Christians were
more interested in the Resurrection than the birth of Jesus so it took “Christmas” a
while to develop. The first development toward
what we now know as “Christmas” was Epiphany,
celebrated on January 6 in the east (Turkey, Syria, Palestine, etc.). This Christian feast remembered Jesus’ birth,
His circumcision, the visit of the Magi, His baptism—all the events up to His
first miracle at Cana. The separate December 25 feast developed in
the western part of the Roman empire (Italy, Rome,
Greece etc.)somewhere in the early. The first actual
mention of “December 25” as Christmas was in 354 in Rome, though that probably
reflects practice as early as 336. Both feasts survived with the January 6 Epiphany
spreading to the west and December 25 “Christ-mass” spreading to the east
resulting in the celebration of both days—Christmas and Epiphany—and the
“twelve days of Christmas” in between.
So, why December 25? Of course Jesus was probably
not actually born in December since the “shepherds in the fields” indicate
another season. So, why December 25? There are two competing theories among
scholars—which one do you prefer?
1. The Calculation Theory
The
calculation theory is based on the notion that a person’s died on the same date
as they were conceived. Thus if Jesus
dies on March 25then he was conceived on March 25 and thus was born nine months
later on December 25. This theory sounds
like lunacy to us modern folk sounds The Jews had been known for such fanciful
theories, and so were some early Christians, so this is at least a possible
theory for the December 25th date.
2. The competition theory
The
second theory is that the Roman Christians simply set their feast to remember
Christ’s birth on a day that would intentionally compete (and eventually
defeat) a pagan feast. In 272, the
Emperor Aurelian had established a feast for the Commemoration of Emesa
dedicated to the Syrian sun god. It was
on this day—the winter solstice—that the sun was at its lowest point on the
horizon, from which it would be “reborn” to return throughout spring. (The Julian calendar by this time was four
days off the actual winter solstice, thus explaining the December 25
date.) This theory proposes that Christians
decided to simply “overprint” the pagan feast of the re-birth of the sun with a
feast celebrating the birth of Jesus. Eventually
Christmas would win and the pagan feast in the Roman Empire.
I
prefer the competition theory, though the calculation theory has some scholarly
support. It makes sense to me that Christians would not have celebrated the
pagan feast, but would have celebrated a Christian spin on the same day. The church still competes by Christianizing secular
feasts like 4th of July, Memorial day, and
even Super Bowl Sunday. When a whole
culture is celebrating humans celebrate too one way or another. This is the reason for Jewish people in
Christian cultures often inflate the minor Jewish feast of Chanukah—so it can
compete with the feast in culture.
What’s ironic is how
unbelievers have reversed this process. If you live
in America it is hard to ignore Christmas.
But what do you do if you reject Christ and are completely secular? You do exactly what the early Christians in
Rome did—you invent your own competing feast. Voila! We have the competing secular feast—a secular Christmas
complete with its own myths and rituals.
In some ways the secular
feast of Christmas is larger today then the religious feast. Or, at least they compete
fairly evenly. Which brings Christians today
a similar challenge to the Christians of AD 300—how do you compete with a pagan
holiday held on the same day? And a
related question most parents face is: How
much of the pagan myths and rituals do we weave into our Christian celebration?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this
column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury
December 21, 2010