We're seeing more and more of the self appointed mall cops of Christianity blowing their gumball machine found whistles and disputing the notion that Jesus was born on December 25th.
What are some of the things they say?
Well, they'll tell you that shepherds would not have been in the field near Bethlehem tending their sheep when Christ was born. Too cold in the winter, they say. I bought into this for some time, but a quick visit to the weather channel ( www.weatherchannel.com ) will show you that overnight lows average in the mid 40's in Bethlehem in late December. Go to the weather channel website and type in Bethlehem, West Bank and see for yourself. So that argument goes into the can...
Next, you'll often hear that Christmas was actually a "pagan" feast, Saturnalia by name, and that the Catholic Church decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus this time of year to hopefully keep new Christians from reengaging the pagan festivities. Saturnalia was celebrated on the 17th of December, however, not the 25th. And even when Saturnalia got so popular that they extended the drunken orgies for a week, it was still over by the 24th.
What reportedly did occur on December 25th, on 165 BC (according to Charles Ryrie's research), was the temple was cleansed by the Maccabees and the menorah burned for eight days on a small amount of oil--reportedly enough to burn the lights for only one day! A miracle of God, according to the Jewish people. And I believe they are right, it was a miracle. :) note: as will be mentioned later, it can be a bit cantankerous to transfer the 365 day calendar date to the Jewish calendar date, but Ryrie's notes are still worth considering).
So here we have the Jewish festival Hanukkah instituted by a miracle which some scholars say happened on December 25th! What is mildly amusing is the fact that many Judiazers (those who like to force law keeping onto Christians as a requirement of their salvation) like to mock Christmas as pagan for being held on Saturnalia's date (which it isn't, of course)... but they keep the Hanukkah celebration faithfully--perhaps not realizing Hanukkah's December 25th connection.
Jesus attended the Feast of Dedication, or the "festival of lights" as it's often called, in John chapter 10. This was Hanukkah, there is little dispute. So if we understand that Hanukkah is the festival of lights, and that Jesus is the light of the world, what more appropriate time for Him to come into His creation than during the festival of lights? :) Jesus went about fulfilling prophecy, and He fulfilled Passover, First Fruits, and by the institution of the church He fulfilled Pentecost on the occasion of His first coming. Perhaps His attendance of the Feast of Dedication (festival of lights) in John chapter 10 was a subtle fulfillment of the Jew's feast of Hanukkah. The True Light walked right into their feast of lights... but most did not notice, as they did not know the time of their visitation (Luke 19)...
Some try to use the priestly courses laid out in 1 Chronicles 24 to reckon the birth of John the Baptist, son of Zechariah, whose priestly course of Abijah had just ended shortly before John the Baptist's conception. Since Jesus was born six months after John the Baptist, they work out a date of Christ's birth based on John's. This is a very problematic manner in which to estimate the timing of John the Baptist's birth, for several reasons. Foremost among them is that these courses occurred twice each year, and the Jewish calendar was a 360 day calendar, rather than the Gregorian 365 day calendar we use today. We do not know which of his two courses Zechariah had just returned from, nor do we know how soon after his course was finished that John the Baptist was conceived, nor can we be sure how to juxtapose the Jewish calendar to the Gregorian calendar to arrive at a Gregorian date. We don't even know exactly how long each mother carried her child. So it's really a mess to even attempt such a vain effort.
As an aside... history does show which priestly course was in session when the temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. By counting backwards to a suspected birth year of 4 BC (I believe it was), they affirm a late December birth of Christ. Even though one may agree on the late December date (as I do), we still should not put too much stock in calculations based on the priestly courses.
One other point to note is the census by Caesar Augustus. It is generally reported that the Roman government would call for the census after the harvest season, and of course much like our tax season people had a few weeks to comply. It would not be unreasonable at all to find many citizens in Bethlehem in late December, there to be taxed for the census.
But the most compelling evidence for the December 25th birth date of Christ is the source of the early church fathers. Hippolytus, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Jerusalem all affirmed the 25th of December as Christ's birthday. Cyril of Jerusalem actually wrote to the Roman government, asking that the record of Jesus' birth be checked, and the date confirmed. Cyril reported that Rome sent back the December 25 date. Interestingly, there are no known writings from any credible early church fathers that suggest any other date than December 25th--that date was not questioned by anyone!
Think about it this way. If I were to write a paper of some sort and within the context of that paper I mention that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on August the 5th, I wouldn't get far with my proliferation of that document until I had been soundly corrected by a chorus of people, both scholar and lay, pointing out that December 7th was the Pearl Harbor attack date--NOT August 5th. So it should follow that with at least three early church fathers setting forth the December 25th birthday of Christ in their writings, were that not factual, we would see some derision or dissent coming from someone. In truth, were that not the actual date (December 25th), and if that date were in question at all, these early writings would have fallen from favor as unreliable, being replaced with more credible sources. But that did not happen--because no one apparently questioned the late December birthday of Jesus.
Not until very recent years did we even begin to see the December 25th date come into question. And oddly, this was not because some new, smoking gun style document was uncovered. The naysayers regarding the late December date base their notion on suppositions such as "too cold for shepherds to be in the field in December" or the priestly course calculations, both points that have been sitting there unappealed to for nearly two thousand years. Is it just that after all this time we're finally "smart" enough to question what the church has not questioned for two millennia? I think not. I think it's more sinister than that, unfortunately. It all goes toward making Christians look foolish, that we could be duped into believing a lie.
What you have in Christianity today is a "body" of so called believers, about 3/4's of whom are not yet even saved, attending and working in our churches, teaching in seminaries, and publishing documents calling everything sacred into question. We must be careful not to be led astray by those who masquerade as teachers, but whose true commodity is doubt. Satan deceived Eve by introducing doubt (Did God really say...?) ...
Granted, the actual birthday of Jesus is not recorded in the Bible, and we are not even told to celebrate it (any more than the Jews were commanded to celebrate Hanukkah), but what we do with sincerity unto the Lord, is honored by Him (see Romans 14).
One last point. There's some work you'll find on the internet using astronomical computation software to go back to 4 BC to show a convergence of several heavenly bodies that would "explain" the star of Bethlehem. This software pins down a September birth date for Jesus. I don't buy the notion for several reasons, but the foremost of which is that the Bible said it was "A" (singular) star, not "stars"... I'm a biblical literalist, and I believe it was ONE star, of a very special and singular design.
Let us be ever careful of deception, no matter how inconsequential it may seem on its face. Where subtle and seemingly harmless error creeps in, there is generally more "not so harmless" deception to follow.
Dan Newberry
