|
Written by David Gaddy
|
|
Wednesday, 16 December 2009 12:54 |
Part 3: Jesus wasn't even born on Christmas day
Was Jesus born on December 25th? If not, then why was December 25th chosen as the day to celebrate Christ's birth? Was it adopted from the Roman festival of Saturnalia? Let's just start by saying, the Biblical text does not give us much to go on in determining the date of Jesus' birth. There are a couple of clues to the time of the year. One is the mention of shepherds in the fields with their sheep (Luke 2:8). Some use this as a reason why it could not have been December. They say that December is too late in the season for shepherds to have been in the fields. I'm not too sure why this is overly convincing. Sure, in the winter there is less open field grazing but the temperature in Israel is not too prohibitive in December. I've been in Israel in December and was quite comfortable in a light jacket at night. I also saw and took photos of sheep in the open field. Some might think the text indicates that it was lambing season, which was in the spring, but it would be just as realistic to suppose the shepherds would have been corralling sheep in December. At any rate, many believe this issue of the sheep is not a good indicator to determine the time of year.
Let's look at the historical records for Jesus' birth date. There are hundreds of writings of early Christians, dating all the way back to the New Testament time. None of them mention a date of Jesus' birth until Clement of Alexandria in 200 AD. According to Clement various groups had associated differing dates to the birth, oddly December 25th isn't in his list. He mentioned May 20th and April 20th. Clearly, it was not certain by this time yet many were taking interest in finding a date. By the year 312 AD, we can find two primary dates were being used as Jesus' birthday. This still predates the actual establishment of the Catholic religion by about 100 years. The two dates were December 25th in the Western part of the Roman Empire and January 6th in the Eastern part. Most have now dropped the January 6th date (with the exception of the Armenian Christians). But the 12 days between those dates are often referred to as the "12 Days of Christmas". Hence that long and annoying Christmas Carol. The earliest mention we can currently find of December 25th being the birth date of Jesus comes from a Roman Almanac dated about 350 AD. We also find recorded at about 400 AD the record of the Donatists celebrating December 25th as Christ's birth, but refusing to celebrate January 6th because they considered it an "innovation of man". This sort of predates the practice, since history shows the Donatists to be a strict traditionalist sect dating back to to 312 AD. As staunch traditionalists, it is unlikely they would have changed their practices since then.
But the question remains, why December 25th? Who chose it and why? The answer is, no one knows. Let me repeat that: The facts are inconclusive and no one knows who first chose December 25th and why. However there are a couple of theories. One of which is the most popular and the one I mentioned in my first article on this subject. It is also the one Alexander Hislop leaned on so heavily in his famous book on the subject, "The Two Babylons". This theory is that the date was borrowed from pagan traditions and festivals, most specifically the Roman Saturnalia festival. By 275 AD, the birth of Sol Invictus (the unconquered sun) was celebrated on December 25th by decree of emperor Aurelian. The theory goes that early Christianity chose the date in order to supplant the pagan festival with Christian practices in an attempt to help spread Christianity throughout the pagan world.
Although this is the most used theory, it is not without it's problems. The fact is, once again we have hundreds of Christian writings available to us from this time frame and none of them mention this type of decision. Some mention the December 25th date, but none of them critique it as being established by the church to promote Christianity over paganism. Debates during this time were rampant on all kinds of topics. Surely some Christian groups would have opposed this move and condemned it in writing, but the record is completely absent of any such talk. Some writers in fact, implied the similarities between Jesus' birth date and pagan festivals as providential proof that God was placing His son over pagan religions. It wasn't until the 12th century, that it was even suggested in writing that the date was purposefully chosen to replace paganism. This was some margin notes in a manuscript by Dionysus. This theory in general also has date issues. It seems December 25th was in use before the Catholics started Christianizing many pagan practices. Who is to say that emperor Aurelian did not chose December 25th as Sol Invictus because Christians claimed that date for Jesus' birth? It is just as plausible since during that time Christianity was still illegal and Rome was doing their best to eradicate it.
There is another theory not often looked at. But the theory is basically this: God put Jesus on this earth and removed him from this earth on the exact same day of the year. Talk of this is recorded as early as 200 AD when Tertullian calculated the date of Jesus' death (the 14th of the Jewish month of Nisan) during the year of His death to be on March 25th of the Roman Calendar. So if God placed Jesus on the earth on March 25th as well, then that would be the date of his conception in Mary, which just happens to be exactly nine months before December 25th. Augustine confirmed this in his writings as well around 400 AD. In the Jewish faith, the Babylonian Talmud mentions the month of Nisan as an important month for God. Great things happen in it say the Rabbis. They feel the Earth was created in Nisan, the passover happened in Nisan, and if the Rabbis are right about God's pattern, then it is plausible that Jesus would enter the womb during Nisan. After all we know for a fact that he died and was resurrected during Nisan. We also know God used the date before, not only at the Passover in Egypt, but also the date when Noah stepped off of the ark is given to us in scripture and translates to the 17th of Nisan (the pre-anniversary of Jesus' resurrection).
So in the end, our questions still remain. Was Jesus born on December 25th? If not, why was it chosen? We may never know for a fact. We should just not be too harsh in our condemnation of December 25th without any facts. And just maybe the date has more to do with God's patterns and the Jewish passover than it does any pagan festival. Ultimately, it is unimportant to our soul salvation if we know Jesus' birthday or not, or if we celebrate it on December 25th or not. Yet, it is infinitely important to know that He was born and became God with us, so that through Him, the lost might be saved.
To be continued in Part 4: Jesus Never Instituted Christmas Celebration |
|
|
Written by David Gaddy
|
|
Tuesday, 15 December 2009 13:25 |
Part 2: Jeremiah and the Christmas Trees
As we saw in our first article, most of the supposed origins of Christmas traditions (whether we know it or not) come from Alexander Hislop's book, "The Two Babylons" (1853) which used very large leaps of logic to link traditional practices to pagan roots based solely on perceived similarities in practices. There is in fact, very little concrete historical evidence that some of these specific pagan practices even existing. If these practices did exist, Hislop failed to provide the exact ties binding them to the modern Christmas traditions. Instead he speculated that they must've come from Babylon simply because of noted similarities. The Christmas tree was one direct target. In Hislop's book, he attempted to tie any pagan practice involving trees to the Christmas tree specifically. This is simply not good history. His references to the palm trees used by Roman pagans does not substantiate a relationship to Christmas trees. There is a lot of talk in his book concerning the word "yule" in relationship with the Christmas tree because of the old traditions of burning a "yule-log" and replacing it in the morning with the Christmas tree. The word "yule", in norse means "wheel", however Hislop claimed it came from an older Chaldean word, "eol" which is Chaldee for infant or child. There is no historic evidence to link "eol" to "yule" at all, but Hislop assumed they were synonymous, therefore the burning of the yule-log was a symbol of child sacrifice by fire. This also allows him to tie in the supposed worship of Tammuz, the child God who dies and is resurrected every year (hence, the burned log becomes a trimmed tree). Even if yule did mean child or infant, it still makes sense if the focus was on Jesus' birth instead of child sacrifice. Other uses of the word like "yuletide joy", do not imply child sacrifice. The yule seems be honored in this phrase. The facts are, the origin of these traditions remains a mystery.
Since the time of Hislop, these claims have been passed around so much, they have started to be accepted as fact. So much so, that now many of us may know these stories and do not even know who Alexander Hislop was. People have taken these theories as fact and have used scriptures to try and bolster the claims. To drive the point home, Jeremiah 10 is often quoted as proof that Babylon was using the Christmas tree and that God condemned the practice.
First let's look at the passage in question:
"Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good."
-Jeremiah 10:1-5
Sounds like a Christmas tree right? And God is clearly condemning the practice mentioned here through his prophet Jeremiah. There are several problems with this interpretation. First, it is out of context. Jeremiah was God's prophet living in Jerusalem during the occupation of their land by the Babylonians. His goal was to convince the Jews that their oppression by the Babylonians was by God's spoken design and to help them refrain from the practices of the Babylonian religion. Now regardless of what Alexander Hislop said in "The Two Babylons", there is no historical evidence that the Christmas Tree originated in Babylon. The custom of erecting a Christmas tree can be traced to 16th century Northern Germany, though neither an inventor nor a single town can be identified as the sole origin for the tradition. The custom appears to have come from Christians who first decorated trees to represent the Tree of Life in combination with another tradition of decorating corner shelves with ornaments and a star on top in honor of the Star of Bethlehem. This is some 2000 years after the days of Jeremiah. So, if the Christmas tree originated in the 16th century, then what is Jeremiah condemning?
Let's look at the text closer and pull in some surrounding verses. Some of the confusion is in the wording. If we look at the original language for help we can see it more clearly. For example in verse 3 the term "workman" is not a lumber-jack, he is an artisan or a wood-carver. The word "axe" is used here in reference to a carving tool. So verse 3 tells us that a tree from a forest is carved into a work of art. In verse 4, they deck it with silver and gold. This is not a reference to tinsel. It is talking about pliable metal being molded around the carving. The hammers and nails are not fastening the tree to a stand so the tree doesn't move, they are fastening the gold and silver onto the carving so the gold and silver doesn't move. But verse 5 is the most telling in this passage. The result stands upright like a man would but has no power to speak. It has to be carried because it can not walk and it cannot do good or evil. Why? Because it is simply a carving of wood. This entire passage is talking about the construction of idols to be worshipped, not tree decorating. Verse 5 implies that the final result has the image of a living entity, not simply a tree with ornaments on it. If we continue reading, the rest of the passage confirms this. Verse 9:
"Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men."
So the silver for this work is in plates (to be pounded onto the idol with a hammer). The gold is there by the hands of an artisan. The result is the work of cunning men (talented artists). And verse 11 drives the point further by tying this work to false gods:
"Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."
Then verse 14-15 tell us in no uncertain terms that Jeremiah is talking about idols (graven images):
"Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish."
In short, Jeremiah 10, like many other passages in the Bible is simply condemning idol worship and has absolutely no reference at all to Christmas trees. We have simply projected that image upon the text because the wording of the text sounded familiar to us, even though Jeremiah had never seen a Christmas tree in his life. In fact, no one did until 2000 years or so later. Hislop never even used this passage to make his point, and you'd think he would have if it were condemning Christmas trees. In the 1966 book, "Babylon Mystery Religion" by Ralph Woodrow, Woodrow mentions it to make his point against Christmas trees, but then he admits it is simply a reference to idol worship. He would later expound of the improper use of this passage in his later book, "The Babylon Connection?".
To be continued... Part 3: Jesus wasn't even born on Christmas Day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 2 of 16 |
