Did you know that Christmas is a pagan holiday? It’s one of those “facts” that gets passed around during the Christmas season every year. Most people simply take it at face value. But this fact is a creation of the 19th century. It arose at the same time the myth that Easter was inspired by pagan celebrations was created.
So, if Christmas isn’t based on a pagan holiday, how did it come to be? For the first couple of centuries after the birth of Jesus, the celebration, or even acknowledgement of his birthday wasn’t of importance. When speaking of Jesus, what was important wasn’t the birth, or even the death, but the resurrection.
But even then, a specific date wasn’t the focus of the celebration. While the death, and thus resurrection of Jesus was firmly set within the calendar year, the concept of the resurrection was celebrated throughout the year.
Christianity would grow though, and with that, traditions formed. The birth of Jesus would never take on the theological significance that his death and resurrection did. Afterall, as according to Paul, it was the resurrection specifically on which this new faith was founded on.
Nevertheless, the birth of Jesus would take on some smaller significance. Enough so that by the early third century, there were different attempts to establish the date on which Jesus was born. December 25th wasn’t in that mix though.
Our earliest proposals for the date of Jesus’s birth are related to us by Clement of Alexandria. Clement gives us a couple of dates that were proposed. Some said Jesus’s birth was on the 25th day of the Egyptian month, Pachon, which would be May 20th. Others said he was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi, or April 20th or 21st. Clement himself leaned more towards November 18th.
The earliest views we have on when Jesus was born were largely focused in the Spring. Now, one may conclude that this was based on the birth narratives, and the idea of shepherds being out in their fields, but instead it was theologically motivated.
A spring date for the birth of Jesus was proposed due to the idea that creation was formed in the Spring. As on the first day of creation, as per Genesis, light and darkness were split into equal parts, it was argued that this meant creation began on the vernal equinox, when day and night become equal.
While the vernal equinox falls on March 21st according to our modern calendar, as per the Roman calendar, it would have been March 25th. This in turn coincided with the death of Jesus. This was a theologically pleasing view as Jesus represented a new creation, so his birth being on the same day that creation began made sense. More so though, it added a completeness to the life of Jesus. As Jesus was seen as perfect, he wouldn’t have lived a partial year, but instead, his life would have been full. He would die on the same day of the year in which he was born. It added a nice symmetry to the theology.
A different view would eventually win out though, even though it was still fueled by the same theological concepts. Instead of a spring birth though, Julius Africanus would make the claim that it was actually December 25th that Jesus was born. He reasoned that the actual beginning of the life of Jesus was not his birth, but his conception. This would put the conception of Jesus on March 25th, and 9 months after that, his birth would have been on December 25th.
This idea of living full years is rooted within Judaism. The Talmud tells us that God calculates and completes the lifespan of a righteous person. This is taken from Exodus 23:26, where it’s written that “I will complete the number of your days.”
The view was that each one of us is entrusted with a mission when we are born. A righteous person will live their life to their fullest potential, and in turn, they will complete their mission in the most perfect way possible. This perfection is shown with that individual finishing the mission they were endowed with on the very same day it had begun.
However, that is only part of the story. While the birth of Jesus would be set on December 25th, that was only in the western church. In the eastern portion of the church, a different date had been chosen, January 6th.
January 6th being observed as the birth of Jesus, or more specifically here, Christ, pre-dated the western celebration of December 25th. For those in the eastern church, it was the celebration of the Epiphany, the day in which Jesus became incarnate, the day in which the spirit of God entered Jesus. It was the day that Jesus became the Christ.
In the eastern church, this day for the birth of Christ has remained in several areas. So why did the east choose this date instead? For the same reason the west chose December 25th. It was supposed to be nine months after the death of Jesus. While the west calculated that date as March 25th, the east placed it on April 6th.
Either way, the rationalization behind the date of the birth of Christ remained the same. It was theologically motivated in order to demonstrate the perfection of the mission Jesus was entrusted with. As a truly righteous individual, it only made sense that his life began on the same day that it ended.