I recently watched a new YouTube video that briefly and quite inadequately discusses how we historically arrived at a December 25 birthday for Jesus of Nazareth.1 During the video, the host plays clips from a different video that challenges a December 25 birthdate. The host of the first video then goes on to make a variety of claims about both Jesus’ birthdate and the possible connection to pagan winter solstice festivals that he apparently believes defends a December 25 birthdate. While the host (of the first video) indeed says, “Check the source material for yourself,” he never cites what the source material is, or the specific evidence supposedly included in said source material. The only thing approaching “citing a source,” comes from the “other” video, where the (other) host says, (that) “… ‘sometime around 336 CE,’ Pope Julius I, set December 25 as the birthdate for Jesus of Nazareth.” Everyone appears to need lessons in thorough research and citing their sources here. While it appears to be commonly agreed that Julius I was indeed the Pope who declared December 25 the day the mid 4th century Church would officially celebrate the birth of Christ, exactly what he said, and when he said it is uncertain. Papal decrees are usually accurately recorded, but no such decree can be cited for Julius I and December 25. It is therefore possible that Julius is not responsible for the official papal connection to a December 25 birthdate. The best “sources” we have for Julius being responsible for setting the December 25 birthdate are letters about Julian written several hundred years later. Furthermore, the content of these letters only reveal that a conflict existed over the precise date of Christ’s birth, not that a satisfactory conclusion could be reached. Based on what fragmentary information is available, the best conclusions we can reach about Julius’ decree are:
- Julius I appears to have issued a decree establishing December 25 as the official day of celebration of Christ’s birth not necessarily the precise date of his birth. This decree was apparently issued later in his life, circa 350 CE.
When we include additional evidence from other sources, the basic summary of the early Church’s position on the birth of Jesus of Nazareth is:
- The early church paid little to no attention to the date or practice of celebrating Jesus’ birth for approximately 200 years after his earthly ministry.
- The earliest “sources” regarding a possible December 25 birthdate are extremely low in number, fragmentary, and inconclusive.2 There simply isn’t enough verifiable evidence to draw reasonable conclusions about a December 25 birthdate. All we can say is that apparently due to Julius’ (or similar) decree, the birth of Christ became “standardized” as December 25 after circa 350 CE. This is however due to an unsubstantiated and unilateral decree with little to no supporting documentation.
- There is no substantive or authoritative evidence for a December 25 birthdate. It is pure conjecture.
So how and when did the December 25 date even become a possibility? These are the pieces of the puzzle as I see them.3
Jesus was born between 6:30–8:00 PM local time on September 11, 3 BCE (according to the Gregorian calendar)—the first day of Tishri, Yom Teruah, the Day of Trumpets on the Hebrew calendar. This is substantiated by the timing of the “course of Abijah” (Luke 1:5,8), the decree of Augustus Caesar and Roman festival of Concordia in February of 2 BCE (Luke 2:1), the corresponding conception and birth of John the Baptist, as well as the astronomical sign of Revelation 12:1. On this occasion, Jesus and his family were visited by shepherds who had been minding their flocks in nearby fields (Luke 2:8–20). While we are told that the shepherds “made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this child,” (v.17) and “all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds,” (v.18) it does not appear that this occasion made much of an impact beyond the small village of Bethlehem.4
In contrast however, when a large ambassadorial entourage of Parthian Magi with military escort arrived at the court of Herod the Great in Jerusalem in December of 2 BCE, this occasion got everyone’s attention.
When Herod the king heard {this}, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
[Matthew 2:3 NKJV, emphasis added]
In other words, the actual birth of Christ in September 3 BCE, went essentially unnoticed, but the arrival of the Magi created quite a ruckus. As a result, it appears this was the occasion everyone remembered and began to associate with the birth of the Messiah. Although far from conclusive, this is a reasonable assumption, and if this was the date the populace at large associated with the birth of Jesus because they did not know any better, it would make sense that an oral tradition and popular stories would spring up associated with this time of year. Later, when social and ecclesiastical demands made it necessary for those in power to select an official date, it makes sense that this time of year would be a prime candidate.
Glory to God in the highest. God Save the King.
- “No, Christmas Is NOT Pagan,” by Red Pen Logic. Posted December 20, 2021. Retrieved December 24, 2021. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nka7NJHawFw>
- Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel, Canon, and Chronicon. All from the early third century CE.
- See this author’s work Resetting the Chronology for the Birth of Jesus of Nazareth. <www.godsavetheking.org>
- Likely population, approximately 300. Anchor Bible Commentary: Matthew, Albright and Mann.