WAS JESUS BORN ON DECEMBER 25TH?

(If you truly want to be clarified about this Christmas date controversy, you would be patient to read this well detailed (long) post. Grab a cup of coffee, sit back, read calmly, then share!)

- By Rev. Fr. Chinaka Justin Mbaerii, OSJ


It is that time of the year again when Traditional Christians are faced with heavy criticisms concerning the Christmas celebration on the 25th of December, rendering it a pagan celebration fixed by Catholics. The ugly and painful part of all these is the fact that the majority of these criticism comes from “Christians” from other denominations. If the criticisms were from non-Christians, it would have been better. However, it is an internal crisis.
Some days back, a friend sent me a post supposedly written by a Christian lawyer, Benjamin Yamah (of course, a non-Catholic) who laid his objections, in fact, weak and popular objections to the Christmas celebration circulating around this period. The point is, if true and sincere attention had been paid to history, Scripture, and Tradition, such objections would not have been written in the first place. However, I present this article in order to deflate his misconceptions and objections concerning our joyful Christmas celebrations. Therefore, to anyone (Christian or not) who respects piety, history, Scripture, and Tradition; we present our defence of Christmas.

From the post I read, the author, Benjamin, began by saying:
_________________________________________________
“The world today believes that “Christmas” is the birthday of Jesus Christ. But it should be noted that the word “Christmas” is derived from two words – “Christ” and “mas”. We Christians know that the word “Christ” means the Messiah or the One sent to redeem us from sin. On the other hand, the word “Mas”, according to James Gibbons, a Catholic scholar, is derived from the Catholic sacrifice of Mass (during Eucharist or Holy Communion celebration). Candles are usually burnt during the process. (See Faith of Our Fathers, page 355). Thus, it is clear that the word “Christmas” has nothing to do with a birthday. The word is, therefore, a misnomer for our Lord’s birthday as Christ and Mas do not connote Christ’s birthday. We, Christians must, therefore, separate our Lord (Christ) from Mass as the term, apart from lacking support of scriptures, does not mean birthday”.
_________________________________________________
RESPONSE:
It is so unfortunate that one who’s supposedly a lawyer could reason so low just to jettison the Christmas celebration and make it appear like some pagan stuff. I thought lawyers were intelligent; however, he has proved otherwise...
Reacting to the objections, I dare to say that Christmas (an English word) does not have an English origin. From its Latin root, it is known as “Dies Nativitatis/Natalis”. “Nativitatis” translates itself as “Nativity” in English, which means “birth”, while “dies” means day. Thus, combining these, we come to have “birthday”; thus, a way of wishing one a happy celebration of the Lord’s birthday in Latin (among other varied expressions) would be: “Felix Dies Nativitatis!” In Portuguese, Christmas is known as “Natal”, thus – “Feliz Natal” would be happy Christmas. In Spanish, it’s called “Feliz Navidad”; in Italian, Christmas is called “Buon Natale”. Looking at the Latin origins, Christmas has to do with birth; contextually, the “Birth of our Lord”. If this is so, how then did we have the word Christmas in English and not something similar (like nativity)? The word for Christmas in late Old English is “Cristes Maesse”, that is, the Mass of Christ, first found in 1038, and Cristes-messe, in 1131. No doubt, the word “Mass” in Catholic usage is the “Holy Sacrifice of Christ at the Last Supper” which was expressed in a bloody manner the next day on the cross at “Good Friday”, which Catholics celebrate in an unbloody manner as a command from our Lord: “Do this in memory of me...” (Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:18-20, 1Corinthians 11:23-25). Therefore, as a way of commemorating the Lord’s birth, the early Christians gathered to celebrate the Lord’s supper (Mass) in a more solemn way on 25th of December, as they always celebrated on other days. Early historical documentation is seen in the writings of Saint Telesphorus, Bishop of Rome, who reigned from 126-137 A.D, urged that the Lord’s Supper be celebrated on Christmas Eve (cf. ‘Afterword’ by John McGlone). Therefore, from the existing backdrop, the English man, sliding away from the Latin usage of the term “Natalis”, adopted the word “Christmas” in 1038 because of the celebration of the Lord's supper on that day.

For brevity sake, I will summarize the subsequent objections of the lawyer.

The next objection could be seen below:
_________________________________________________
That December 25 was chosen by a Bishop named Liberius in 354 AD 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. The lawyer also added (another popular objection) which avers that December 25 was chosen to replace the pagan Roman holiday “Natalis Solis Invicti” which means “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun.”
_________________________________________________
RESPONSE:
It is true that Saturnalia the pagan celebration of Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture and time was celebrated in Rome during the winter Solstice – December time; however, it was not celebrated on December 25. Historically speaking, Winter Solstice falls on December 22, and Saturnalia celebration was around 17th of December and extending to 23rd of December. Therefore, the date of Saturnalia and Christmas were never the same; thus, there is no replacement here. Averring that that Christmas was introduced by a Bishop named Liberius on December 25 in 354 AD and justifying it with World Book Encyclopaedia is the worst hoax (fake news) in history. This shows the level of prejudice and sentiments in the documentation of data. There are historical shreds of evidence illustrating that the Christmas celebration dated before 354 AD. Let us consider the following: Theophilus (115-181 AD) was a Bishop in Caesarea who lived under the reign of the Roman Emperor Commodus. Within 100 years of the Apostles, he wrote: “We ought to celebrate the birthday of our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen.” (cf. Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de orign Festorum Chirstianorum). We also have Hippolytus of Rome (170-240 AD), in his commentary on Daniel, wrote this in regards to the date of our Lord’s Birth: “The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the calends of January, a Wednesday, in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, 5500 years from Adam.” (Commentary on Daniel 4:23). The eighth before the calends of January is the twenty-fifth day of December, and the forty-second year of Augustus counting from the death of Julius Caesar was 2 BC.

With regards to the worship of the Sun, let it be known that the Unconquered Sun was not likely a popular deity in the Roman Empire. The “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” holiday (according to Dr Taylor Marshall - a renowned scholar and theologian) was scarcely traditional and hardly popular. Saturnalia (mentioned above) was much more popular, traditional, and fun. In explaining this, Taylor delves into history and reflects that the cult of the “Unconquered Sun” was introduced by Emperor Aurelian in Rome in the year 274 A.D. Aurelian found political traction with this cult because his own name Aurelian derives from the Latin word aurora denoting “sunrise.” In fact, Emperor Aurelian called himself the “Pontifex Solis” (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 THIS CELEBRATION ON DECEMBER 25 PRIOR TO 354 A.D. In the fourth century, an Emperor who reigned at that time named Julian became an Apostate; that is, he had been a Christian but who had apostatized and returned to Roman paganism. History reveals that around mid-fourth century, when a majority of the Roman empire was actually becoming Christian, Julian the Apostate had attempted to introduce a pagan holiday in order to replace the Christian one. Thus, the date of December 25th only became the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” under the Emperor Julian the Apostate in 345 A.D., an attempt to paganize the Christian celebration of Christmas which was already celebrated long before that time as already shown above.

Another objection raised by the lawyer is:
_________________________________________________
Moreover, it should be noted that from the Bible point of view, Jesus could never have been born in December going by the account of Lk. 2:1-8. This is because, in verse 8 of that passage, we read that when Christ was born, Shepherds were seen abiding in the field keeping watch over their flock. Those who are familiar with the city where Christ was born, know that Shepherds are not normally seen in the field during winter, which is the period of December.
_________________________________________________

RESPONSE:
I dare to say that this kind of objection must be precipitated by ignorance of Geography and history. It is worthy of note that since Jesus’ time the overall area has undergone gradual desertification, a process through which once-fertile land becomes desert (typically due to natural factors such as drought or through inappropriate agriculture). This leads to less water, less arable land, more warmer days, etc. The chief human contributors to this gradual change have been wars (very common in Palestine) and poor land management. In the words of Dr Taylor Marshall, Palestine/Israel (where Christ was born) in those days is not England, Russia, or Alaska as seen today. Bethlehem is situated at the latitude of 31.7. The 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 (a Jesuit priest and exegete of Sacred Scripture, 1567-1637) remarks during his lifetime, one could still see shepherds and sheep in the fields of Italy during late December, and Italy is at a higher latitude than Bethlehem. Therefore, to say that there were shepherds at the fields in Bethlehem at December at the time of Christ’s birth is valid and sound


HOW THEN DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REALIZE DECEMBER 25?
According to the traditional defence coupled with Marshall’s explanation (rooted in the Bible), the gospel of Luke gives us some clues. We were told that Zachariah the father of John the Baptist was a high priest of the division of Abijah among other priestly divisions at that time (cf. Luke 1:5). This priestly division served in the temple twice a year on the 8th and 32nd week. It was the turn of the Abijah division to serve, and they had to select a priest from this section; thus, according to the Bible, they cast lots and it fell on Zachariah (cf. Lk. 1:8-9). It was in this course of service, undoubtedly during the second week of the Jewish month of Tishrei—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. Thus, it could be deduced that John the Baptist was conceived around late September, and consequently born (9 months later) towards the end of June; little wonder the Church celebrates the birth of John the Baptist on June 24. The Bible reveals that the John the Baptist was 6 months older than Christ in the flesh, for it was 6 months later that the same angel Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin Mary (Lk. 1:26). Now, if John was born towards the end of June (24), then with the addition of roughly 6 months, we’ll have roughly December 25; subtracting nine months from December 25, we will have March 25 as the date of the angel’s Annunciation to Mary.

RESPONSES TO OTHER OBJECTIONS
It was noted that the lawyer made other assertions with regards to the Catholic Church not being the mother Church, that the first Church was established at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. This becomes laughable as I’m deeply sure he has no knowledge of the meaning of the word Catholic. The word Catholic is derived via Late Latin "Catholicus, which springs from the Greek adjective καθολικός (Katholikos), meaning "universal" which could also mean "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole" The term Catholic was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universality and wholeness; that is, when referring to the Christian Churches in various regions at that time, the term “Universal (whole) Christian Church” was used, and this is known as the Catholic Church. If it is true that the Catholic Church wasn’t the mother Church, where are the traces of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles along the historical lane? Or was it the case that it died off and reappeared in the 16th century? This becomes even more laughable and implausible because the Protestants and the Evangelical Churches we have today all came out from the Catholic Church. Go to Jerusalem today, and you would discover that the earliest Christian Churches were Catholic.


The lawyer seemed to stick everything on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) and that whatever isn’t stated therein should not be accepted. My question to him remains: who selected the biblical books if not the Catholic Church? Did he know that for the first 400 years in history A.D, the Church was without a written Bible, but only fragments of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, and more of the Oral Tradition (Teachings) transmitted? Besides, the Church gave it the name “Bible”; thus, if we are to go by “Sola “Scriptura”, then we should begin by rejecting the name Bible because it is nowhere written therein; however, this would make no sense.

Above all, the lawyer, in trying to jettison the idea of Christmas, stated: “Moreover, statistics have shown that the sins of fornication, drunkenness and reckless driving leading to unwarranted accidents are more during the so-called Christmas celebration. Can this be the best way to mark the birthday of the One who came to seek and save the lost and saved us from our sins?” My simple and humble response to him remains that negativity cannot be used as a base to determine the value or legitimacy of a concept or culture without considering the essence. If we are to base only on negativity, then even Religion itself should not be allowed to thrive because of the negative and ill results obtained day-in, day-out, ranging from the religious leaders to the members. Therefore, that should not be the case.

In conclusion, the Catholic Church commemorates the Birth of the Son of God (Jesus Christ) because of the joy it brought to the world, which was first celebrated by the host of angels singing “Glory to God in the highest…” (Cf. Luke 2:13-14) and also as a result of the authority and power conferred on the Church by Christ: “whatever you bind on earth, shall be considered bound in heaven, whatever is loosed on earth, shall be considered loosed in heaven” (Mat. 16:19; Mat. 18:18)

Shalom!

I WISH YOU ALL A MERRY CHRISTMAS CELEBRATION. GOD BLESS YOU!

Kindly Share!!!

Gush!! Would be easier to read a copy of the Nigerian constitution booklet.

Great scholarship

Beautiful.