The Origins of Christian Christmas

It’s that time of year again and the Christmas season is over after today (the Twelve Days of Christmas). Many celebrated with their friends and families. Although, it wasn’t holly and jolly among everyone. Some people, especially those of the Hebrew Roots Movement and a vocal minority of fundamentalists, didn’t celebrate. It’s understandable why they take this position, but their points are often based on faulty claims. It usually is based on the claim that Christmas is essentially a pagan holiday. In this article, I will tackle these issues and demonstrate the Christian origins of the day and many of the customs associated with it.

First, let’s look at a history of Christmas in England and the New World. It’s a well-established fact that the early Congregationalist Puritans, Presbyterians, and Baptists either didn’t celebrate or outright banned Christmas. In fact, Christmas was banned in Presbyterian Scotland until 1958. Likewise, in the Puritan colonies of New England, Christmas didn’t become an official holiday until around the mid-1800s with the Dickens Christmas revival.

So, what were these Calvinists’ reasons for banning Christmas? Well, there are multiple reasons. Some early Puritans rejected Christmas for its perceived pagan roots, yet others had different reasons. One of the main reasons they rejected the holiday was the immorality that had become part of the festival. By the Middle Ages, the Christmas celebration had devolved into excessive drunkenness, crime, promiscuity, and even cross dressing! So, the hardline reformers did have good reasons for banning it. Most of the Puritans and Presbyterians also simply saw Christmas as a papist holiday that no true Protestant should celebrate.

Additionally, most of the English Calvinists held strictly to the “Regulative Principle.” Unlike the Lutherans and Anglicans, who tended to hold to what we call the “Normative Principle,” the Regulative Principle banned any practice not explicitly commanded in the Bible. Hence why some Presbyterian groups, like the RPCNA, don’t use instruments and only sing Psalms. As a result, since Christmas and any other “Catholic” holy days aren’t commanded in the Bible, they were forbidden. In fact, this is seen in the writings of a Presbyterian named Philip Fithian, who tutored at a Virginia plantation. In his writings, he describes the shock of Christmas being observed by his Anglican students.

The problem with the Regulative Principle is that there are many things that aren’t explicitly stated in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say what time to have church, or how long services should be. Even more jarring is the fact that Hanukkah and Purim are both man-made holy days, yet God nowhere condemns their observance. In fact, Jesus Christ observed Hanukkah (John 10:22). While one should not be forced to observe man-made holidays, it seems the Bible certainly gives us the liberty to do so.

So, what about the supposed pagan origins? Well, Saturnalia is often said to be the origin of Christmas. It is often said that there were great feasts and parties on this date and of much food and drink similar to Christmas. The problem is that Saturnalia was first held on December 17th, and later on December 19th, when Caesar instituted the Julian calendar. It never occurred on December 25th, the dates just don’t line up.

But others will say Bruma or even Brumalia are the origins of Christmas. The problem is that once again the dates do not correspond. The festival of Bruma took place on November 24th. Now, it is true that Bruma was the Roman name for the winter solstice, but there were no festivals of Bruma that ever happened on December 25th. Bruma eventually combined with Saturnalia and became Brumalia. But once again, it wasn’t observed on December 25th either. Instead, it lasted from November 24th to December 17th. Brumalia didn’t even exist until the sixth century. Even more damning is the fact that the Quinisext Council (692) forbad Christians from partaking in the festival of Brumalia.

Some might further say that Christmas comes from the Germanic/Scandanavian Yule. But this claim isn’t possible. While some customs like the Yule log likely come from pre-Christian paganism, the date certainly does not. Our first records of Yule come from around 700 AD by St. Bede in his work, De Temporum Ratione. This is way too late to have ever influenced the date of Christmas. According to Clement A. Miles in his book, Christmas in Ritual and Tradition, Yule, Jul, or Yuletide was a name used for the months of December and January. This is also similar to the name Easter (Ostern). In most Latin countries, Easter is simply called Passover or Pascha. This is also similar to how we refer to our days and months as Saturday (Saturn) or Thursday (Thor).

Even more common is the claim that Christians simply stole the date from the pagan holiday of Sol Invictus (or Dies Natalis Solis Invictus). This is actually surprisingly false. When one looks at the history, one would find that the opposite is quite likely true! The Emporer Aurelian first introduced the cult of Sol in the year 274 AD. Yet, there is no evidence that the holiday ever took place on December 25th. In fact, the only known feast days of Sol at this time occurred on August 8/9th, August 28th, and December 11th. This is confirmed by Steven Hijmans’ book, Sol – the Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome. In Volume I, chapter 9, page 588 he writes:

The contention that December 25th was an especially popular festival for Sol in late antiquity is equally unfounded, as is as the notion that this festival was established by Aurelian when he supposedly instituted a new cult of the sun. Aurelian did of course build the sun a magnificent new temple and he raised the priests of Sol to the level of pontifices. A new festival on December 25th would not have been out-of-place in this context, but it must be stressed, pace Usener, that there is no evidence that Aurelian instituted a celebration of Sol on that day. A feast day for Sol on December 25th is not mentioned until eighty years later, in the Calendar of 354 and, subsequently, in 362 by Julian in his Oration to King Helios.

This is not only pure conjecture, but goes against the best evidence available. There is no record of celebrating Sol on December 25 prior to CE 354/362. Hijmans lists the known festivals of Sol as August 8 and/or 9, August 28, and December 11. There are no sources that indicate on which day Aurelian inaugurated his temple and held the first games for Sol, but we do know that these games were held every four years from CE 274 onwards. This means that they were presumably held in CE 354, a year for which perchance a Roman calendar, the Chronography of 354 or calendar of Filocalus, has survived. This calendar lists a festival for Sol and Luna on August 28, Ludi Solis games for Sol for October 19–22, and a Natalis Invicti birthday of the invincible one on December 25. While it is widely assumed that the invictus of December 25 is Sol, the calendar does not state this explicitly. The only explicit reference to a celebration of Sol in late December is made by Julian the Apostate in his hymn to King Helios written immediately afterwards in early CE 363. Julian explicitly differentiates between the one-day, annual celebration of late December 362 and the multi-day quadrennial games of Sol which, of course, had also been held in 362, but clearly at a different time. Taken together, the evidence of the Calendar of Filocalus and Julian’s hymn to Helios clearly shows, according to Hijmans and others, that the ludi of October 19–22 were the Solar Games instituted by Aurelian. They presumably coincided with the dedication of his new temple for Sol.”

The first known to ever associate Sol Invictus with December 25th was actually Emperor Julian the Apostate, who likely stole December 25th from the Christians. Julian was a former Christian who had apostatized and converted back to Roman paganism. He wanted to re-paganize Rome, because he seems to have held the view that Rome must return to their gods to regain its former greatness. The claim that Christians stole the date from Sol Invictus is also unlikely. So we have clear records that the Christians had the date in the early 200s, long before it was ever associated with Sol. Unless one has an irrational hatred of Christmas or Catholics, I would say that the date is not of pagan orgin. For more detail check out these links: one, two and three.

Now, I will prove that the Christian Church had the date of December 25^th before Sol Invictus ever became associated with it. When one looks into Church history, one actually finds that the date for the birth of Christ is actually a byproduct of the date of his death. The reason I say this is that there was a common idea in the early Church of integral age. This was a Jewish idea that great prophets were often conceived or born on the same day they died. Thus, the early Christians were able to calculate the birth by adding nine months to the conception date of March 25th – add nine months and you get December 25th.

The early Christians were primarily concerned with celebrating the death and resurrection. And, although the records don’t prove with certainty that anyone celebrated the birth before 336 AD, the date itself was known early on. The earliest possible record comes from St. Telesphorus in the early 2^nd century. In his writing The Liber Pontificalis he is credited with the origination of midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. If authentic, this would be the earliest reference to Christmas on record. The problem is that it’s a highly disputed document among scholars. Likewise disputed, we have a possible record of Theophilus (A.D. 115-181) of Caesarea who says,

We ought to celebrate the birthday of Our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen.

The first clear and generally credible record we have of the December 25th date comes from Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel, written just after AD 200:

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.

Some detractors will say Hippolytus commentary is a forgery, but scholars like Yale’s T.C. Schmidt note that five of the seven manuscripts contain December 25th as the date for Jesus’ birth. So, there is fairly good reason to believe in its authenticity. Additionally, Hippolytus was ultimately martyred for his faith, so it’s very unlikely that he was big on compromise. Furthermore, Julius Sextus Africanus claimed the same date in his Chronographiai, which was written around the same time as Hippolytus. Around the same time Clement of Alexandria gives the date of March 25th as the date of the conception of Jesus in his Stromata. Both illustrate the idea that Jesus’s death would have happened on the same day as his conception.

From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus are, in all, 194 years, 1 month, 13 days. And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Savior’s genesis, but even the day, which they say took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus on the 25th of Pachon… 

Stromata 1.21.145-146

Clement also mentions that the followers of the heretic Basileides (2^nd Century) observed Epiphany on Jan 6. Epiphany would become the date that most of the Eastern Orthodox would celebrate Christmas on. Eventually, the East would adopt December 25th, as well as, January 6th, as the Western Church would likewise adopt Jan 6th. Hence, the 12 Days of Christmas. In fact, Augustine notes that the Donatist (300s) heretics rejected the Jan 6th date, for they saw it as novel. Instead, they only celebrated the December 25th date, which they saw as ancient and apostolic. Though in all likelihood, the January 6th date seems to be the older date – possibly from the mid-100s. Either way, I never hear pagan explanations for the East’s date of January 6th, and it seems that the idea of integral age seems to be the plausible explanation.

The difference in dates comes from the Greek calculation of April 6th as Christ’s conception using a local calender that was different than the West. Add nine months to April 6th and you get January 6th. Since the advent of the Gregorian calendar in 1582, things get more confusing to some. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both start on Christmas Day (December 25th) and end on the Epiphany (January 6th). The Eastern Orthodox Christians start December later than the West does because they are still going by the Julian calendar. Later Church Fathers continued to use the method of integral age to date Christ’s birth. Augustine (400 AD) says,

For He 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 nor since. But He was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.

During the 4^th Century, some Church Fathers also were able to find the date of December 25th by reading the Gospel of Saint Luke. Taylor Marshall has a great article on this – Luke says that Zacharias served in the “course of Abijas” (Lk 1:5), which is the eighth course of the twenty-four priestly courses (Neh 12:17). Each shift of priests served one week in the temple for two times a year. Josef Heinrich Friedlieb believes this course served on Day of Atonement (anywhere from September 22th – October 8th). So, how do we get Jesus’ birth from this? Well, it is likely that Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist immediately after Zacharias served his course. This means that John the Baptist would have been conceived around the end of September. This would mean John would have been born at the end of June. Scripture then records that Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth, who was six months pregnant with John the Baptist. So, John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus. You add six months to June 25th and you get December 25th as Christ’s birth.

This method was famously used by St John Chrysostom in Antioch, in his Christmas sermon preached in 386 AD.

Now, this method does have its weaknesses. Since the priests served twice a year, there are two courses of Abijah. As a result, there are other people who use the same method but come up with different dates. I think the course did serve in September, but it is debatable. Nevertheless, whether accurate or not, this was one of the methods used by the Church Fathers to calculate Christmas. There is simply no indication from the Church Fathers that paganism was a reason for the Christmas date. It’s much more reasonable to conclude that the date originated from the Christians, considering the available evidence. But, even if the paganism conspiracy were true, would it really be sinful for Christians to provide an alternative of going to church, instead of partaking in pagan degeneracy?

Now, what about the customs associated with Christmas? While some might have pagan origins, many are common to both, and many actually have Christian origins. Many customs are simply things people do in cold climates. These things would include stockings hanging by the fireplace to dry, sleigh bells, rain deer, ginger bread, snowmen, candy canes, hot cider, eggnog, ales, roast goose/turkey, and fruit cakes. You can also see that none of these are essential to Christmas. They are simply particular cultural customs of Northern Europe and North America. A traditional Christmas in Greece, Syria, Jerusalem, North Africa, or Italy wouldn’t even include the above.

Furthermore, many of the other Christmas traditions have likely Christian origins. The holly, with its small red berries, symbolizes the bloody crown of thorns. Lights represent God, and God is often described as the light of the world. Lights have been used among God’s people since very early on. Candles were used and commanded in temple worship (Exodus 25: 31-37). And, they were used in the synagogue as well, and continued to be used in the Christian Church throughout its history. Wreathes are crowns and Jesus received a wreath in the crown of thorns. The wreath, ultimately, symbolizes victory over death in Christ’s resurrection. The star on top of Christmas tree is derived from the Gospel account, as the Star of Bethlehem that leads wise men.

And, even things like the Christmas tree seem to have their origins in the late medieval creation and paradise plays, where the tree represented the Trees of the Garden of Eden. The ornaments were originally fruit. The tree was usually an evergreen, since the plays were performed in the winter. Eventually, they began to use glass fruit, which turned into the modern ornaments. Bernd Brunner talks about the Paradise Tree in his book, Inventing the Christmas Tree:

A link can be made between the ritual of our Christmas tree and the paradise play, which had existed since the Middle Ages, even before the nativity play,” Brunner writes (p. 15-16). “At a time in which many people couldn’t read and books were a valuable possession, biblical stories were dramatized as mystery plays, illustrating doctrinal episodes from creation to damnation to redemption.

The paradise plays eventually faded away in the late Middle Ages, but the Paradise Tree eventually moved into private homes. The Christmas tree became very popular among Germans, and eventually among the Brits when Prince Albert introduced the custom. Eager to copy their cousins across the pond, Americans adopted the Christmas tree as well. Furthermore, the Bible even goes so far in actually looking upon evergreen decorations in a favorable manner,

“The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.”

Isaiah 60:13

In Hosea 14:8, God even describes himself as an evergreen tree:

“O Ephraim, what have I to do with idols? It is I who answer and look after you. I am like an evergreen cypress; from me comes your fruit.”

Then, we have Santa Claus. The most acceptable explanation for Santa Claus that I’ve found is that he is loosely based on Saint Nicholas and Father Christmas. Some people want to say that Santa Claus is based on Odin, but the resemblance is superficial at best. Ultimately, Santa Claus is a creation of 20th century Coca Cola advertisements, who only really bears a shallow resemblance to his past.

Now, it is likely that some customs might have some pagan origins. Both the mistletoe and the Yule log seem to fall in this category. These are most likely from pre-Christian paganism. And, there are yet many other things mentioned that are likely common to both. Pagans likely also decorated with evergreens (although, there’s no evidence they had Christmas trees), they would have feasted at their festivals, and they probably used lights.

But, even if the date or some of the customs of Christmas were of pagan origin, would that make them inherently evil? I wouldn’t say so. Much of paganism is a perversion of what our first parents received in the garden. For example, the pagans distorted biblical sacrifice and instituted abominable practices like child sacrifice. The Devil isn’t creative, he would rather distort the good. Even some of the religious practices in the Old Testament, like temple worship and the Jewish (Babylonian) calendar, were first used by pagans. The Bible even uses solar symbolism in describing God (Malachi 4:2, Isaiah 60:19-20, Psalm 84:11, John 3:19-21, 2 Samuel 23:3-4).

The root of the problem is, ultimately, idolatry. If a pagan practice violates the moral law, or involves committing idolatry, then it’s sin. This is what synergistic religion is in a nutshell. If you adapt a Christian veneer, but in your heart are still worshipping Zeus, then you are living in sin. The anti-Christmas crowd often sites Deuteronomy 12:30-31 to support their ideas,

Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

But, once again, if looked at in context, the pagan practice God forbids is their immoral child sacrifice. Columns, art, or decorations are not the issue.

Unsurprisingly, it seems that Paul was battling similar issues in his day, as we are now, with Christmas. In 1 Corinthians 8, the issue of meat sacrificed to idols comes up. Ultimately, Paul says the the idols have no power, for there is but one God. He concludes that one should abstain if he is weak in the faith and his conscience is likewise bothered. But, for those who are mature in the faith, meats aren’t an issue.

I think I’ve addressed most of the main arguments against Christmas. It’s certainly understandable why many do not celebrate, but I think I’ve demonstrated the Christian origins of the day. It seems likely that there will continue to be attacks by atheists, skeptics, pagans, wiccans, SJWs, and other oddballs. But, that’s why I wrote this article. I hope I have given you a new perspective, and that you had a great Christmas season!

-By Dixie Anon