Was Jesus born on December 25? #4: The case for

Continuing belatedly from part #3: Pagans borrowed December 25 from Christians!," with this final part #4 of a four-part series,

[Above (click to enlarge): The Roman Empire in 3rd century AD: J. Vanderspoel, University of Calgary. From Thrace (Bulgaria) to Gades (Cadiz, Spain), circled in red, is the extent to which in AD 386 the "festival .. of the bodily birth of Christ. ... On ... Dec 25 ... from long ago ... was a festival that was very well known and famous to those who dwell from Thrace to Gades" (see below).]

"Was Jesus born on December 25?," in which I will present the case for Jesus having in fact been born on December 25.

1ST CENTURY

Jesus' mother and brothers were Christians and would have passed on His day of birth to the early Church.

After Jesus' ascension, "Mary the mother of Jesus, and ... his brothers" were among the "about a hundred and twenty" foundation members of the Jerusalem church:

Acts 1:13-15. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty).

Jesus' brothers included the apostles James (not James the son of Zebedee), and Jude (Judas):

Mt 13:55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"

Mk 6:3 "Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?"

1Cor 9:5 "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?"

Gal 1:19 "I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord's brother."

Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ."

Also after Jesus death, His mother Mary was taken in by the apostle John ("the disciple whom Jesus loved"):

Jn 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son,"

The apostle John was Jesus' cousin and his mother Salome was Jesus' mother Mary's sister:

"This means that Salome is, on the one hand, the sister of the Lord's mother - that is to say, Jesus' aunt; and ... mother of the two leading disciples, James and John. This makes John first cousin to Jesus." (Wenham, 1984, "Easter Enigma," pp.34-35).

So even if Jesus was just another man and His birth just another birth, his near relatives, who probably lived in the same small village, Capernaum (Mt 4:13-21) would all have known and have celebrated His birthday (probably at least 30 times - Lk 3:23)! But Jesus was not just another man and His birth was not just another birth. His was the birth of "the Word" who "was God" who "became flesh" (Jn 1:1,14). His birth was of "God with us" (Mt 1:21-25). His birth was announced by angels (Lk 2:7-20).

And those near-relatives of Jesus, His mother Mary, his brothers the apostles James and Jude (and probably his other brothers and sisters), his cousin the apostle John, who would have known Jesus', birth-date, would have passed it on to the earliest Christian congregations. And those earliest Christian congregations would have wanted to know all about Jesus' background, including His birth-date.

Jesus' birthday was known to the earliest Christians

The New Testament has several references, both directly and indirectly to Jesus' birthday, which shows that it was passed on by Jesus immediate family to the early church.

The account of the announcement by the angels to the shepherds actually says "is born this day" (Gk. etechthe umin semeron "was born to you today"):

Lk 2:10-11 "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Lk 2:21-24 records that Jesus was circumcised "on the eighth day" after His birth day and "when the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed" which was a further "thirty-three days" (Lev 12:1-4), i.e. 40 days after Jesus' birth day "Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord." It is inconceivable that Luke who stated that "I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning":

Lk 1:1-4 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

which included details of Jesus' birth that he could only have obtained from Mary:

"... Mary [is] the source of .. the Lucan infancy narrative ... Did the author of the Gospel himself come into contact with the mother of Jesus? .. That view .. is perfectly possible ..." (Machen, 1930, "The Virgin Birth of Christ," pp.200-201).

that Luke would not have asked her what day Jesus was born, been told by Mary and then shared it with other Christians who did not already know.

2ND CENTURY

Old Christian tradition of a midwinter birth

There is:

"a relatively old tradition of a midwinter birth, therefore a date in December ... is not in itself unlikely." (Hoehner, 1975, "Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ," pp.26-27).

Hippolytus (c. 165-235)

The writings of the early church father Hippolytus of Rome (c. AD 165-235) contains the first recorded mention of that tradition that Jesus was born on December 25:

"The traditional date for the birth of Christ from as early as Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 165-235) has been December 25th" (Hoehner, 1975, Ibid, pp.26-27).

Hippolytus wrote that "Jesus' birth `took place ... Dec. 25" which was "three decades before Aurelian launched his festival":

"However, the definitive `Handbook of Biblical Chronology' by professor Jack Finegan ... cites an important reference in the `Chronicle' written by Hippolytus of Rome three decades before Aurelian launched his festival. Hippolytus said Jesus' birth `took place eight days before the kalends of January,' that is, Dec. 25. Tighe said there's evidence that as early as the second and third centuries, Christians sought to fix the birth date to help determine the time of Jesus' death and resurrection for the liturgical calendar long before Christmas also became a festival." (Ostling, R., "Why is Dec. 25 the date to celebrate Christmas? Two explanations compete," North County Times, December 22, 2004).

Jewish Talmud

The Jewish Encyclopedia notes of references in the Talmud to "birthday of the king" ... indicating Christian festivals of the early Church" including "Christmas" being among "the observance of Christmas to the second century:

"... birthday anniversaries of heathen kings ... are considered by the rabbis of the Talmud .. by ... 'birthday of the king' .. mention is also made of ('the day of birth and the day of death'). ... All these difficulties and differences may be obviated if [birthday of the king] be explained as indicating Christian festivals of the early Church. .. Christmas .. and ...Easter .. observance of Christmas to the second century..." (Adler & Roubin, 2002, "Jewish Encyclopedia").

3RD CENTURY

Christian calculations

There is evidence from "the second and third centuries" that "Christians attempted to figure out the date of Christ's birth long before they began to celebrate it liturgically:

"... there is evidence from both the Greek East and the Latin West that Christians attempted to figure out the date of Christ's birth long before they began to celebrate it liturgically, even in the second and third centuries. The evidence indicates, in fact, that the attribution of the date of December 25th was a by-product of attempts to determine when to celebrate his death and resurrection." (Tighe, 2003, "Calculating Christmas").

But it does not necessarily follow that because Christians arrived at "the date of December 25th" for the birth of Jesus, that it was "a by-product of attempts to determine when to celebrate his death and resurrection." A traditional date of the birth of Jesus on December 25 could have been what led to the assumption that Jesus was conceived and died on March 25 (see below).

4TH CENTURY

In AD 336 (or earlier) the festival of the birth of Christ was held on December 25 in Rome

In an AD 354 Roman city calendar, there is a list of the martyrs which dates from AD 336. The sequence of festivals in the church year begins with: "on which day it was remembered that Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea" which equates to "the twenty-fifth day of December":

"In the Roman city calendar for the year 354 ... there is a list of the burial places of the martyrs (depositio martyrum) in the order of the days of the year on which festivals were held in their honor. ... the original ... was probably compiled in 336 ... the sequence of festivals in the church year begins with the item: VIII Kal. Ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae The eighth day before the Kalends of January, on which day it was remembered that Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, was the twenty-fifth day of December. Since the list for the entire year begins with this date ... it seems evident that in Rome in A.D. 336 the festival of the birth of Christ was held on Dec 25." (Finegan, 1964, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology," pp.255-256).

But as we saw in part #3, the earliest record of December 25 being celebrated by Roman pagans, was AD 354:

"Aurelian ... the emperor Aurelian [c. 214-275] introduced an official cult of Sol Invictus ... and dedicated a temple to Sol Invictus in 274. ... the festival ...`birthday of the undefeated Sun' ... is recorded in 354 ... celebrated on the 25th December; but no earlier reference to it exists." ("Sol Invictus: Aurelian," Wikipedia, 19 December 2008).

Chrysostom (345-407)

In a sermon preached in AD 386, the Archbishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) stated that December 25th is the correct date:

"However, Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) in 386 stated that December 25th is the correct date and hence it became the official date for Christ's birth in the Eastern Church." (Hoehner, 1975, Ibid, pp.26-27).

In the same and a second sermon preached in AD 386 Chrysostom stated that the festival of the birth of Christ on December 25 had been from long ago very well known and famous from Bulgaria to Spain:

"At Antioch in A.D. 386 John Chrysostom ... delivered two sermons .. In this [first] sermon he says that a festival is approaching, namely that of the bodily birth of Christ. ... On the day itself, namely Dec 25 of the year 386, Chrysostom delivered the second sermon. ... He states that ... the festival ... was ... transmitted to them as from long ago and from many years .... From long ago it was known to those who dwell in the West .... And from long ago it was a festival that was very well known and famous to those who dwell from Thrace [Bulgaria] to Gades [Cadiz, Spain]..." (Finegan, 1964, Ibid, p.256).

A straightforward explanation for the birth of Christ having been celebrated on December 25 long before AD 386 over such a large area from Bulgaria to Spain, is that December 25 was the birth-date of Jesus and it had been remembered and commemorated in predominantly Gentile churches from the very beginning of Christianity.

Moreover, Chrysostom independently worked out that December was the month of Jesus' birth, based on his exegesis of Lk 1:5-40 that John the Baptist was conceived in October and his mother Elizabeth was six months pregnant with him when Mary conceived. Therefore Mary must have conceived in April and so Jesus was born nine months later in December (Finegan, 1964, Ibid, p.256).

"Later in the sermon Chrysostom introduces an exegesis of scripture to support the date of Dec 25. This is based on Lk 1 ... The promise to the priest Zechariah that his wife Elizabeth would bear a son to be named John came at the time Zechariah had entered the temple to burn incense (Lk 1:9). ... assuming ... this was ... the Feast of Tabernacles. ... the one day of the year when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies ... This feast, says Chrysostom.. was ...celebrated toward the end of Gorpiaios [September] ... This was the date, then, of the conception of John the Baptist ... (Lk 1:13). Counting from this time ... it was in the sixth month (Lk 1:26) .. the conception of Jesus is to be dated. .. Chrysostom ... concludes that it was in the next month, Xanthikos (= Apr) that the conception of Jesus is to be placed. From that point he counts nine months inclusively to the birth of Jesus ... The last, Apellaios (= Dec), was the month in which the birthday celebration was even then being held at which Chrysostom was preaching." (Finegan, 1964, pp.257-258).

This is ingenious but it doesn't work because in fact the average human gestation is 266 days, not "nine months" which is 274 days (365/12=30.4 days x 9 months) and there are 275 days between 25 March and 25 December.

So this calculation (like presumably that of Sextus Julius Africanus - see part #3 which has been lost), is more likely an attempt to arrive at the existing well-known traditional date of December 25, by counting back nine months to find a suitable date for the conception of Jesus. But the fact that Africanus and Chrysostom used two different starting points (the Spring equinox on March 25 and six months before the birth of John the Baptist, respectively), yet that the end-point, the birth of Jesus on December 25, stayed the same in both calculations, shows that it is that date both calculations are aimed at supporting.

JESUS "THE SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Mal 4:2).

Finally, there is actually an Old Testament prophecy, Mal 4:1-2:

"`Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,' says the LORD Almighty. `Not a root or a branch will be left to them.But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall.'"

which, together with Lk 1:76-79:

"And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace."

church fathers interpreted as supportive of Jesus being born on December 25, the first day in the northern hemisphere that the sun's life-giving rays began to increase:

"On the day itself, namely Dec 25 of the year 386, Chrysostom delivered the second sermon. ... Chrysostom says that it would be wonderful if the sun could come down from heaven and send forth its light on earth, and it is more wonderful that in the incarnation the sun of righteousness does in fact send forth its light from human flesh. With `the sun of righteousness' he is doubtless referring to Mal 4:2. ..." (Finegan, 1964, Ibid, p.256).

"As to the reason for the selection of this exact date [Dec 25], the reference by Chrysostom ... to `the sun of righteousness' (Mal 4:2) may give a clue. ... Dec 25 was ... the winter solstice. From this point began the increase of the light and the day. It was appropriate that the time that the light of the natural sun began to increase was also the time that the `sun of righteousness' came into the world." (Finegan, 1964, Ibid, p.258).

Baldwin comments, "the imagery of wings representing the sun's rays recalls the winged sun disc which appears on many Near Eastern monuments":

"[Mal 4:]2. .. The Lord addresses personally you who fear my name ... For them the sun ... will be the sun of righteousness, bringing health and healing to those who love righteousness ... Only here in the Bible does the term `sun of righteousness' occur, and the imagery of wings representing the sun's rays recalls the winged sun disc which appears on many Near Eastern monuments.." (Baldwin, 1972, "Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi," p.250).

But according to the New Testament, this term "sun of righteousness" was no accident but like all prophecy, its ultimate Author is the Holy Spirit:

Acts 28:25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: `The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 2Pet 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

As Evert points out, while there is no evidence that the early church took over a prior pagan festival to a sun god, but if they had done so, it would be "supplanting it with a celebration of the birth of the true God. .. the true .. `sun of righteousness':

"If the early Church had deliberately decided to time the celebrations to coincide .. What message would be communicated by holding a Christian celebration on the same day as a prior pagan one? ... Instead of trying to woo the pagans, the early Church's taking the sun god's feast day would have been supplanting it with a celebration of the birth of the true God. Ancient pagans would not consider it a compliment to their sun god that his birthday party had been replaced by one for the true .. `sun of righteousness' (Mal. 4:2) , Jesus Christ." (Evert, 2001, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," p.146).

So of all the days of the year that Jesus, the true "sun of righteousness" could have been born, December 25, the Winter solstice, when the sun's light began to increase, and pagan sun-god festivals held on that day would be supplanted, would have been the perfect day!

Therefore, for all the reasons given in this four-part series, I assume that Jesus was born on December 25.

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & TheShroudofTurin

---

Lev 12:1-4 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over.

Lk 2:1-7. 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to his own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Lk 2:4-11 (KJV) 4 and Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. 6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. 8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Lk 2:21-24. 21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. 22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord" which was 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord"[Ex 13:2,12]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."[ Lev 12:8]

"... birthday anniversaries of heathen kings ... are considered by the rabbis of the Talmud as legal heathen holidays, which count among those holidays on the three days preceding which Jews are by Talmudic law required to abstain from concluding any business with a heathen (Mishnah 'Ab. Zarah i. 3). About the meaning of the Mishnah, which seems to correspond with ... (LXX., Gen. xl. 20), some doubts have been raised because, by the side of ('birthday of the king') mention is also made of ('the day of birth and the day of death'). In the Babylonian Talmud ('Ab. Zarah 10a) the decision is reached in favor of as meaning `the day of coronation.' It is accepted by Maimonides (see Commentary to the Mishnah, and Yad ha-Hazakah, 'Akkum we-Hukotehem, ix. 5). The glossary `Kesef Mishneh,' ad loc., thinks that Maimonides may have read ('assembly') for . Rashi explains as equivalent to `the birthday of the king'; while the Talmud Yerushalmi ('Ab. Zarah i. 39) explains as `birthday.' This agrees with the use made of the word in many instances (Gen. R. lxxxviii.; Ex. R. xv.; Yer. R. H. iii. 8; Yalk., Job. 584; Compare Rashi, Gen. xl. 20). Graetz (in `M. G. Y.' 230) is of the opinion that means the day of death of the king. All these difficulties and differences may be obviated if [birthday of the king] be explained as indicating Christian festivals of the early Church. By may be understood the Nativity, or Christmas, and by Easter, or the Resurrection. Cave (in `Primitive Christianity,' part 1, vii. 194, cited in McClintock and Strong's `Cyclopedia,' s.v. `Christmas') traces the observance of Christmas to the second century, about the time of the emperor Commodus. According to David Ganz ('Zemah David,' i., year 3881), Commodus reigned 183-185, at the time of Rabbi Meïr of the Mishnah, who counted those days as legal holidays." (Adler, C. & Roubin, S., "Birthday," Jewish Encyclopedia.com, 2002. Emphasis original).

"[Mal 4:1-2]. Malachi had used the imagery of a refining fire (3:2) but now speaks of a destructive fire. The day will be one of tropical heat, when parched vegetation suddenly catches fire and dry fields become one vast oven in which even the roots of the plants are reduced to ash. The arrogant and all evildoers who refuse to repent will find no escape. 2. The metaphor now changes. The Lord addresses personally you who fear my name (cf. 3:16), that is, those who have repented and long to see His cause triumph and right prevail. For them the sun which caused the heath fire (verse 1) will be the sun of righteousness, bringing health and healing to those who love righteousness (Is. 57:18,19). Like calves released from their stall into the sunlight they will leap about with sheer relief and exuberance that right has triumphed. Only here in the Bible does the term `sun of righteousness' occur, and the imagery of wings representing the sun's rays recalls the winged sun disc which appears on many Near Eastern monuments. It is a particularly apt figure to claim for the Lord of hosts as He reveals Himself as judge in all His power." (Baldwin, J.G., 1972, "Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries," Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Reprinted, 2003, p.250).

"If the early Church had deliberately decided to time the celebrations to coincide, this ought to be reflected in its writings, but it isn't. Witnesses never produce quotes from early Christians saying that Christmas was timed to coincide with a pagan festival. That is sheer speculation. But let's suppose for a minute that there is evidence for such an idea. What message would be communicated by holding a Christian celebration on the same day as a prior pagan one? Would it be an endorsement of paganism? Hardly! Instead of trying to woo the pagans, the early Church's taking the sun god's feast day would have been supplanting it with a celebration of the birth of the true God. Ancient pagans would not consider it a compliment to their sun god that his birthday party had been replaced by one for the true `light of the world' (John 9:5; RSV:CE) and `sun of righteousness' (Mal. 4:2) , Jesus Christ." (Evert, J., 2001, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," Catholic Answers: El Cajon CA, p.146).

"DECEMBER 25 ... In the Roman city calendar for the year 354, edited by Filocalus and described above ... there is a list of the burial places of the martyrs (depositio martyrum) arranged in the order of the days of the year on which festivals were held in their honor. [Lietzmann, H., "The Three Oldest Martyrologies," KLT 2, 1904, pp.3-5] The list can of course not be later than the calendar itself which is shown to belong to A.D. 354 by the facts that the lists of consuls and prefects extend to 354, and that the list of bishops extends to Liberius whose accession was in 352 but of whose banishment in 366 nothing is said. But the original depositio episcoporum was probably compiled in 336 and revised in 354 for it runs in order through the church year and through the death of Sylvester in 335, and then Marcus (who died in 336) and his immediate successors are added-out of order as far as the months of the church year are concerned-at the end of the list. If the same is true of the depositio martyrum, it may also be dated in A.D. 336. In the depositio martyrum the sequence of festivals in the church year begins with the item: VIII Kal. Ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae The eighth day before the Kalends of January, on which day it was remembered that Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, was the twenty-fifth day of December. Since the list for the entire year begins with this date and since the following dates are those when festivals were held in honor of the persons named, it seems evident that in Rome in A.D. 336 the festival of the birth of Christ was held on Dec 25. Also the last item on the list is a festival on the Ides of December, i.e., on Dec 13. Therefore the beginning of the liturgical year was between Dec 13 and Dec 25. The depositio episcoporum agrees by making its last and first items respectively Dec 8 and Dec 27." (Finegan, J, 1964, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, pp.255-256).

"At Antioch in A.D. 386 John Chrysostom (born at Antioch A.D. c.345, preacher at Antioch and later [A.D. 398] bishop of Constantinople, died A.D. 407) delivered two sermons with which we are here concerned. On Dec 20 he spoke in memory of Philogonius, a former bishop of Antioch. In this sermon he says that a festival is approaching, namely that of the bodily birth of Christ. This is basic in its significance, he says, to the other great festivals of the Christian year, for if Jesus had not been born he would not have been baptized as is celebrated on Epiphany, he would not have been crucified and raised as is celebrated at Easter, and he would not have sent the Spirit as is commemorated at Pentecost. To this festival which will be celebrated in five days he therefore looks forward eagerly and urges the congregation to do the same. On the day itself, namely Dec 25 of the year 386, Chrysostom delivered the second sermon. Theodoret (A.D. c.393-453), bishop of Cyprus, later made two quotations from this sermon, saying that they were taken from the "birthday discourse" ... Herein Chrysostom says that it would be wonderful if the sun could come down from heaven and send forth its light on earth, and it is more wonderful that in the incarnation the sun of righteousness does in fact send forth its light from human flesh. With "the sun of righteousness" he is doubtless referring to Mal 4:2. Then he tells how long he had desired not only to experience this day but to do so in the company of a large congregation. He states that it was not yet ten years that the festival had been known to them. It was, however, transmitted to them as from long ago and from many years .... From long ago it was known to those who dwell in the West .... And from long ago it was a festival that was very well known and famous to those who dwell from Thrace to Gades ..." (Finegan, 1964, p.256).

"Later in the sermon Chrysostom introduces an exegesis of scripture to support the date of Dec 25. This is based on Lk 1 and runs as follows. The promise to the priest Zechariah that his wife Elizabeth would bear a son to be named John came at the time Zechariah had entered the temple to burn incense (Lk 1:9). Evidently assuming, incorrectly [sic] as far as we know, that Zechariah was the high priest and that this was the most important event possible, Chrysostom explains that this was the time of the Fast and of the Feast of Tabernacles. The Fast was the Day of Atonement, the one day of the year when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, and the date of it was the tenth day of the seventh month (Lev 16:29), i.e., Tishri 10. The Feast of Tabernacles followed shortly on the fifteenth day of the seventh month and continued for seven days (Lev 23:34). This feast, says Chrysostom, the Jews celebrate toward the end of the month Gorpiaios. In A.D. 386 there was a new moon on Sep 10. Since the month Tishri falls normally in Sep/Oct this new moon presumably marked Tishri 1. Tishri 1 (the Day of Atonement) was therefore approximately Sep 20 in that year, and Tishri 15-21 (the Feast of Tabernacles) was approximately Sep 25-Oct l. In the later correlation of the Syro-Macedonian calendar with the Julian ... the month of Gorpiaios began on Sep 1. The Feast of Tabernacles was accordingly celebrated toward the end of Gorpiaios exactly as Chrysostom says. This was the date, then, of the conception of John the Baptist as announced to Zechariah (Lk 1:13). Counting from this time (Gorpiaios = Sep), it was in the sixth month (Lk 1:26) that annunciation was made to Mary and the conception of Jesus is to be dated. Here Chrysostom carefully names and counts six intervening months (Hyperberetaios, Dios, Apellaios, Audynaios, Peritios, and Dystros) and concludes that it was in the next month, Xanthikos (= Apr) that the conception of Jesus is to be placed. From that point he counts nine months inclusively to the birth of Jesus, namely the months Xanthikos, Artemisios, Daisios, Panemos, Loos, Gorpiaios, Hyperberetaios, Dios, and Apellaios. The last, Apellaios (= Dec), was the month in which the birthday celebration was even then being held at which Chrysostom was preaching." (Finegan, 1964, pp.257-258)

"As to the reason for the selection of this exact date [Dec 25], the reference by Chrysostom ... to `the sun of righteousness' (Mal 4:2) may give a clue. As we saw from Epiphanius... Dec 25 was the date accepted at this time for the winter solstice. From this point began the increase of the light and the day. It was appropriate that the time that the light of the natural sun began to increase was also the time that the `sun of righteousness' came into the world. It was also not unimportant that the pagan feast of the sol invictus, the `invincible sun,' was observed on this date, and the Christian festival could replace it. Ultimately the full equation with the solar year was completed in that the conception and the crucifixion were both placed on Mar 25 as well as the birth on Dec 25. Thus Augustine writes: `For He is believed to have been conceived on the twenty-fifth of March, upon which day also he suffered.... But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the twenty-fifth.' [Augustine, "On the Trinity," IV, 5. NPNF III, p.74]" (Finegan, 1964, p.258).

"THE DAY OF CHRIST'S BIRTH There have been lengthy discussions on the day of Christ's birth. Those who have studied the question, have advocates for almost every month of the year. Since it is beyond the scope of this chapter to do a detailed study of the day of Christ's birth, only the two traditional dates will be mentioned. The traditional date for the birth of Christ from as early as Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 165-235) [Hippolytus Comentarii in Danielem iv. 23. 3] has been December 25th. In the Eastern Church January 6th was the date for not only Christ's birth, but also the arrival of the Magi on Christ's second birthday, His baptism in His twenty-ninth year, and the sign at Cana in His thirtieth year. However, Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) in 386 stated that December 25th is the correct date and hence it became the official date for Christ's birth in the Eastern Church (January 6th was still considered the day for the manifestations of the coming of the Magi, the baptism, and the sign at Cana). Although the exact date may not be pinpointed it seems that there is "a relatively old tradition of a midwinter birth, therefore a date in December or January is not in itself unlikely." [Finegan, J., "Handbook of Biblical Chronology," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1964, p.259]" (Hoehner, H.W., 1975, "Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Fifth printing, 1981, pp.26-27).

"It is probably a true instinct that has led many readers to suppose that Joseph is the source of the narrative in Matthew and Mary the source of that in Luke. In the latter case, the indications seem to be particularly clear. In the Lucan infancy narrative, Mary's inmost thoughts are revealed-not, it is true, in an indelicate or verbose manner, but in a way quite consonant with the character that is here attributed to the mother of the Lord. And the whole narrative is presented from her point of view. Of course these facts might conceivably be explained by the inherent importance of Mary for the events that are here narrated, an importance which would appeal to some other narrator as well as to Mary herself. And yet such an explanation does not seem to go quite the whole way. There is such delicacy in the touches by which Mary's part in the events is set forth, and such intimacy in the glimpses which are granted into her inmost soul, that the sympathetic reader will hardly be able to rid himself of the conviction that this narrative is derived mediately or immediately from her. ... Of course, even then the exact course of the transmission will still be in doubt. Did the author of the Gospel himself come into contact with the mother of Jesus? Even that view is perhaps not altogether impossible. Or was it an earlier writer of a Jewish Christian source who received the essentials of the story from Mary's lips? That view again is perfectly possible .... The womanly touch in the narrative is perhaps adequately explained by the supposition that the information came ultimately from Mary, whether or not it passed through other lips before it was finally put into literary form. What really stands firm is that the narrative is written from Mary's point of view, and therefore in some sort claims to come from her. We see no reason whatever to reject that claim." (Machen, J.G., 1930, "The Virgin Birth of Christ," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1974, Fourth printing, pp.200-201).

"To the casual reader Matthew's `other Mary' [Mt 27:61; 28:1], Mark's `Salome' [Mk 15:40; 16:1] and John's `Clopas' [Jn 19:25] seem obscure and rather unimportant figures. To the careful student, however, they prove exceptionally interesting. A key to their identification is to be found in the descriptions of the women at the crucifixion given by Matthew, Mark and John.' Matthew and Mark (whose accounts at this point run parallel) identify three women watching at a distance, while John mentions Jesus' mother and three other women standing by the cross. It is natural to suppose that the same three women are referred to in each case and that they came forward with the Lord's mother to support her in the final farewell. If the women are the same in each case, we get the following descriptions: 1. Mary Magdalene - so called in all three gospels. 2. One called by Matthew: `the mother of the sons of Zebedee' [Mt 27:56]. by Mark: `Salome' [Mk 15:40] . by John: `Jesus' mother's sister' [Jn 19:25]. Mary, called by Matthew: `the mother of James and Joseph' [Mt 27:56] ... or `the other Mary'. [Mt 27:61; 28:1] by Mark: `the mother of James the younger and of Joses' [Mk 15:40] or `the mother of Joses' [Mk 15:47] or `the mother of James' [Mk 16:1]. by John: `the wife of Clopas' [Jn 19:25]. ... This means that Salome is, on the one hand, the sister of the Lord's mother - that is to say, Jesus' aunt; and, on the other hand, mother of the two leading disciples, James and John. This makes John first cousin to Jesus." (Wenham, J.W., 1984, "Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Stories in Conflict?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, Reprinted, 1987, pp.34-35).

"Luke. (light-giving). Luke or Lu'cas, is an abbreviated form of Lucanus. ... The name Luke occurs three times in the New Testament - Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24 - and probably in all three, the third evangelist is the person spoken of. Combining the traditional element, with the scriptural we are able to trace the following dim outline of the evangelist's life. He was born at Antioch in Syria, and was taught the science of medicine. ... He was not born a Jew, for he is not reckoned among those `of the circumcision' by St. Paul. Compare Col 4:11 with Col 4:14. ... He joined St. Paul at Troas, and shared his Journey into Macedonia. The sudden transition to the first person plural in Act 16:9 is most naturally explained ... by supposing that Luke, the writer of the Acts, formed one of St. Paul's company from this point. As far as Philippi, the evangelist journeyed with the apostle. The resumption of the third person, on Paul's departure from that place, Act 17:1, would show that Luke was now left behind. During the rest of St. Paul's second missionary journey, we hear of Luke no more; but on the third journey, the same indication reminds us that Luke is again of the company, Act 20:5, having joined it apparently at Philippi, where he had been left. With the apostle, he passed through Miletus, Tyre and Caesarea to Jerusalem. ch. 20:5; 21:18. ... He probably died a martyr, between A.D. 75 and A.D. 100. He wrote the Gospel that bears his name, and also the Book of Acts." (Peloubet, F.N. & M.A., eds, 1990, "Smith's Bible Dictionary," [1863], Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1987, Revised, pp.366-367).

"A By-Product It is true that the first evidence of Christians celebrating December 25th as the date of the Lord's nativity comes from Rome some years after Aurelian, in A.D. 336, but there is evidence from both the Greek East and the Latin West that Christians attempted to figure out the date of Christ's birth long before they began to celebrate it liturgically, even in the second and third centuries. The evidence indicates, in fact, that the attribution of the date of December 25th was a by-product of attempts to determine when to celebrate his death and resurrection." (Tighe, W.J., "Calculating Christmas," Touchstone, December, 2003).