Our discussion today is on three Christmas-related matters that Christians find greatly controversial. The first one being Santa Claus, the second on Christmas tree—having no connection whatsoever with Nativity, obscuring and tainting the true meaning of Christmas—and the third and most recent case, the December 25th dating system, which originated from pagan European beliefs during the 1st century onward. For example, the cult of the sun during the Roman Empire is believed to determine the dating of December 25th (Sol Invictus). Thus, based on the said arguments, Christians argue that such a paganistic dating system should be disregarded. Or should we?
DISCLAIMER
Today's discussion is not intended to attack the opposing argument. It is never our objective to observe how others reason, but how we reason. Let us remember to carry such a state of mind as we begin our discussion. Today, I would like us to understand that the issues are far more complex than they seem on social media and the articles we read. Today's discussion should allow us to be still and meditate on how this discussion may impact us, instead of blasting it on social media with the pride of knowledge. As a disclaimer, we pursue not the answer to whether Christmas trees and Santa Claus are permissible or not. If shortly we find out that the December 25th dating and Christmas trees are products of Christianity-baptized pagan cultures, this will not and should not shake our faith. I have previously discussed on another occasion the use of the term evangelism and how it is derived from the word Evangelion (Roman), which means the good news of the birth of a new Roman emperor. The term, Evangelion, being more than just a historical term, is very much actually a religious and pagan term, for the emperor was considered the highest among gods. Yet to our surprise, the Bible has never avoided the term Evangelion despite its origin. If the Bible disregards the stigma of using pagan cultures or elements for the sake of the gospel, our view should be the same in terms of Christmas tree or the dating of December 25th. In fact, I do not completely believe December 25th to be the exact date of Christ's birth anyway.
Ω
DECEMBER 25TH
The dating of December 25th is claimed to be originated from the pagan calendar of Sol Invictus (the invincible sun, a cult of the sun sect of the Roman Empire. Aurelian, a Roman Emperor of the year 270-275 AD, dedicated December 25th particularly to worship the sun god in a temple. So, December 25th is just a title we give as opposed to the actual birth date of Christ. But is the claim that such dating is adopted from paganism true?
My material today is based on Thomas J. Talley's "The Origin of the Liturgical Year". Talley discovered that the claim that December 25th is of pagan origin in the 17th-18th century, because of the scholars named Jablonski and Hardwin. Both scholars used this data to support two different ideas. Jablonski wrote, "see how the Christians have compromised and begin to adopt pagan dating, therefore we must avoid the date December 25th". On the other hand, Hardaway wrote, "see how the Christians and the church contextualize with the local culture without causing herself to be unclean". Talley observed that this culture does not originate from the church fathers, yet in both of these scholars' writings, we capture one common idea; the specialty of the date December 25th.
The use of the date December 25th began in 45 BC (Before Christ), during the reign of Julius Caesar (according to the Julian calendar), when the date December 25th was marked as the winter solstice. Winter solstice is a solar equinox, a day when the duration of day increases as compared to the duration of night. As the day shortens, we would not have 12 hours of day and 12 hours of night, but perhaps 11 hours of day and 13 hours of night. By then, the winter solstice was a significant phenomenon in astronomy, but not in religion. Not until Aurelius Caesar set that particular date in Rome as a date to worship the sun (Sol Invictus) in 274 AC (After Christ). We then later discover that the first record of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th was in the year 336 AC. It is clear that the date December 25th was first used for religious purposes during the era of Aurelian and that Christians adopted it afterward.
This is the data which we obtain from Jablonski and Hardaway, but Talley discovered one other fact: between 45 BC and 274 AC, the date December 25th was no longer used for the purpose of Sol Invictus or any other religious purposes. In fact, it was written on the walls of the two Roman temples before the era of Aurelian, and that the dedication towards Sol Invictus was celebrated on August 9th and 28th anyway, instead of December 25th. So, December 25th paganistic significance must have occurred after the era of Aurelian. Such was Talley's first discovery.
Second, he discovered the difference between the celebration and the dating calculation. True that Christians first celebrated Christmas on December 25th in 336 AD after the era of Aurelian, yet the question that Talley raised was whether or not Christians have used the December 25th dating before Aurelian set the date as Sol Invictus in 274 AD. Could Christians have used the December 25th dating before Aurelian's era, but not the Christmas festival? If we could prove that Christians have done so before Aurelian did, we may then claim that Christians did not adopt this dating system from paganism. It turns out that Talley found out that both the eastern and western churches, the churches of Alexandria or Constantinople have attempted to calculate the birth date of Jesus before Aurelius did, which was in the 2nd century (Aurelian's dating was in 274 AC, which was equivalent to the 3rd century).
This fact is well-supported by textual evidence. In the year of 170-20 AD, before Aurelius commented on the book of Daniel, Hippolytus said that God was born in Bethlehem 8 days before the Kalends of January (December 25th). This is interesting because the calculation was done by the western church, while the eastern and western churches date Christmas differently. The eastern church, which we know today as eastern orthodox, considers January 6th or 7th as Christmas day, which has also been proven to be calculated before the Aurelian era. This was written by Clement of Alexandria, a bishop, from the book The Stromata / Miscellanies, according to his discovery in the year 200 in his very own eastern church. We now know through textual evidence that Christians have calculated the dating of December 25th despite not celebrating it. But why did they not celebrate it? Because interestingly, their attempt to calculate one's birth date is merely to point to one's death and resurrection days. This is because, for the church in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, the most fundamental day for Christianity is not the birth of Christ, but His death and resurrection. Knowing this fact, they began to wonder if they could too calculate one's birth. Their initial purpose was so they could celebrate good Friday and easter, it was much later that they began to calculate Christ's birth date as well.
This is the reason why there is a discrepancy between the date calculation and the celebration. During the era of Tertullian in 155 AD (before Aurelian), the western church set Friday, March 25th in 29 AD as the date of Christ's birth, while the eastern church on April 6th in 29 AD. These calculations yield the dates December 25th and January 6th. Calculating one's birth date by figuring out one's death day is a concept called integral age in Judaism. This is not based on the Scripture, but merely on how people think at the time. They also had a belief that the great prophets died on the same date as the date they were conceived. So, they set March 25th as the annunciation day (conception day), because they believed March 25th was the day Christ died. Add 9 months from the conception day, you would have December 25th. The eastern church held the same belief: Adding 9 months to April 6th would give us January 6th.
In conclusion, the main purpose of this study is not a matter of historical accuracy. We merely attempt to find out whether December 25th is derived from a Christian-baptized pagan culture. Yet it is not the case according to Talley's research, for such calculation has been dated to be conducted prior to 274 AD, although the celebration was held afterward. Therefore, it could be concluded that Aurelius was the one who adopted the date from Christians and not vice versa.
In conclusion, the main purpose of this study is not a matter of historical accuracy. We merely attempt to find out whether December 25th is derived from a Christian-baptized pagan culture. Yet it is not the case according to Talley's research, for such calculation has been dated to be conducted prior to 274 AD, although the celebration was held afterward. Therefore, it could be concluded that Aurelius was the one who adopted the date from Christians and not vice versa.
In the present-day context, we need to learn that such claims are mere hypotheses. The point of all this discussion is not so we hate Jablonski and Hardwin, to support Talley, nor to mock the pagans for adopting our date. We have just seen the data and our theses may differ, this is called science, and science grows. Through this discussion, we do not wish to decide which date is correct. What we wish is to learn the reason behind labeling such dating as pagan or as Christian. All the hypotheses which we have just discussed will continue to grow in time. We should not be satisfied with either conclusion A or conclusion B, and that we have to ceaselessly learn different interpretations. This is the true definition of a reformed church, semper reformanda, consistently re-form-ing. If one day, there is another Biblical teaching that rather opposes that of Calvin's, we must be bold to refrain from Calvin. Our heart is constantly in search of one sole unchanging individual, one sole unchanging theory, but this is the very Roman Catholic principle which Luther was against. Taking hold of tradition without having a reforming heart is not being reformed after all. We have to constantly evaluate and correct our interpretations.
CHRISTMAS TREE
Some Christians often sneer at the sound of Christmas Trees and Santa Claus for they have the danger of shifting us into idolatry. This is based on realistic reasoning for it may indeed fade away the true meaning of Christmas. We have witnessed this in the world of commercialism, how people around the world, regardless of their beliefs, may celebrate Christmas without having anything to do with Christ, and by so have drifted us away from the true meaning of Christmas.
First of all, what is idolatry? Which should we consider an idol and which should we not? Being raised such a question, our mind would often be focused on the object which may be associated with idolatry, for instance for us Indonesians, the ash of Mount Kawi. Regardless of its user, the ash itself holds a mystical sense of idolatry. Or try to make sense of the following sentence: An idol is something good, in fact, the better something is, the more prone it will be to become an idol. We even focus on the object in the previous sentence, and not on its user. Today, I would like you to see how the image of idolatry is not as simple as observed in light of the Biblical paradigm.
