The Watchtower's false teaching against Christmas #3: Origin of Christmas is pagan

This is part #3 of my working through the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's teaching against Christmas in its 2005 book,

[Above: Model of pagan Egyptian Great Pyramid on the gravesite of Watchtower Bible & Tract Society founder, Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916): Freeminds.org.

Note near the apex of the pyramid the Cross and Crown symbol, which featured prominently on the cover of Russell's Zion's Watch Tower and its successor The Watchtower, continuously from 1881-1931, i.e. for fifty years and then was discontinued because it was "Babylonish", i.e. pagan:

"Another change in viewpoint involved the `cross and crown' symbol, which appeared on the Watch Tower cover beginning with the issue of January 1891. In fact, for years many Bible Students wore a pin of this kind. ... `This to Brother Rutherford's mind was Babylonish and should be discontinued. ... Some three years thereafter, beginning with its issue of October 15, 1931, The Watchtower no longer bore the cross and crown symbol on its cover." (WB&TS, 1975, "1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses," p.148).

So if having pagan roots invalidates something being of God, as the Watchtower maintains, then the Watchtower itself is invalidated as being of God because it really does have pagan roots!]

"What Does the Bible Really Teach?," pp.156-159, and showing that it is false. See previous parts #1 and #2. The Watchtower's words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Each part-quote is linked to the full quote near the end of this post.

"THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTMAS It was not until several hundred years after Jesus lived on the earth that people began to commemorate his birth on December 25. (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," p.157. Emphasis original). The Watchtower here fallaciously conflates the earliest written record of Jesus' birth being on December 25, by Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236):

"The earliest record supporting the December twenty-fifth birth of Jesus was written by Hippolytus (ca. 165-235 CE) in the early third century: `The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January ... Commentary on Daniel 4:23.' The eighth day before the Kalends of January is December 25." (Doig, K.F., 2009c, "Doig's Biblical Chronology").

into the earliest commemoration of Jesus birth on December 25. But Christmas could have been commemorated on December 25, by the early church, and Hippolytus' writings being merely the earliest surviving written record of it.

And, as pointed out in parts #1 and #2, there is evidence even in the Bible of early Christians commemorating Jesus' birth:

1. Luke in Lk 2:8-16 records both angels and shepherds celebrating Jesus' birth, with the angel particularly emphasising His day of birth in v.11:

"Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Chris the Lord."

Additionally, Luke states in Lk 1:1-4 that he received the materials of his gospel "handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses" (v.2):

"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."

So at least one of the shepherd eyewitnesses presumably became a Christian and handed down his account to the early church and Luke. And if the day of Jesus' birth was not significant, neither the shepherd(s) nor the early church would have remembered it, to hand it down to Luke, who as he says above was not himself an original eyewitness, for inclusion in his gospel.

2. "Mary the mother of Jesus, and ... his brothers" being founding members of the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14), so they would have remembered the exact day of Jesus' birth and have been able to pass on to their fellow Christians;

3. there were disputes among members of the early Church regarding "one day" being " more sacred than another" (Rom 14:5) and judging each other "with regard to a religious festival" (Col 2:16) which highly likely includes at least some Christians commemorating the anniversary of Jesus' birth (Christmas), and His death and resurrection (Easter), especially if these dates originally coincided with the Jewish festivals of Hanukkah and Passover.

But that was not the date of Jesus' birth, for it evidently took place in October. * (pp.157-158). The Watchtower has not shown that "December 25 ... was not the date of Jesus' birth." The asterisk is to a footnote "See the Appendix, pages 221-2." But as can be seen below that Appendix does not even contain the word "October" and nor does it show that December 25 was not the date of Jesus' birth, it being mainly an argument about December in Jerusalem being too cold and wet for sheep to be out in the fields at night:

"No wonder shepherds living in that part of the world made sure that they and their flocks were no longer out of doors at night when December came around! The Bible reports, however, that shepherds were in the fields tending their flocks on the night of Jesus' birth. In fact, the Bible writer Luke shows that at that time, shepherds were `living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks' near Bethlehem. (Luke 2:8-12) Notice that the shepherds were actually living out of doors, not just strolling outside during the day. They had their flocks in the fields at night. Does that description of outdoor living fit the chilly and rainy weather conditions of Bethlehem in December? No, it does not." (p.221).

which is factually false:

"An ongoing objection to a December 25 nativity has been that this date fell in the winter. The objection is twofold, and related to `shepherds staying out in the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night.' (Luke 2:8) ... it has been argued, the sheep were brought in from the wilderness and kept in corrals, or sheepfolds, during the winter, and not out grazing. ... Thus, Jesus could not have been born in the winter. Such arguments are far from conclusive against a winter nativity. First, sheep would have been found in the fields. It could have been a mild winter. The average December temperatures at Jerusalem are 45-59° F .... The night temperatures are lower. Rainfall averages 3-4 inches ... with occasional light snow. By the end of December the first grass can be sprouting from early rains. Poor shepherds would have had their flocks out to glean the first fodder from the rains. .... Sheep were brought in from the wilderness during the winter, and these flocks could be found in the area of Bethlehem/Jerusalem. The presence of flocks around Bethlehem may indeed indicate that it was winter. The Mishna records that ... sheep, were around Jerusalem, including Bethlehem, year-round ... Many of these animals were required for the daily sacrifices at the Temple .... There also would be a large daily requirement for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The presence of sheep in the fields around Bethlehem in the early evening of December 25, 5 BCE would be expected." (Doig, 2009b).

In fact, this Christmas Eve 2009 a Christian posting from Bethlehem wrote:

"... here in Bethlehem we celebrate Christmas much like Christians throughout the world. .... In Shepherds' Field the sheep still graze ...." (Rishmawi, G., December 24, 2009, "Another bittersweet Christmas in Bethlehem,").

See also my "Was Jesus born on December 25? #1: Watchtower arguments against."

So why was December 25 chosen? This fallaciously begs the question that December 25 was "chosen" when there is good evidence for Jesus being born on December 25 and no good evidence against it.

There is a Biblical way of working out that the date (or at least the month) in which Jesus was born in that:

1. Mary conceived when her relative, Elizabeth, was "in her sixth month" of pregnancy with John the Baptist:.

Lk 1:35-43. The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God." "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her. At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

2. Elizabeth had conceived after her husband Zechariah had been chosen by lot to be the priest who offered incense in the temple:

Lk 1:5,8-13,23-24. In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. ... Once when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside. Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John. ... When his time of service was completed, he returned home. After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion.

3. Priests offered incense in the temple only once in their lifetime:

"[Lk 1:8-10] There were many priests and not enough sacred duties for them all, so lots were cast to see who would perform each function. .... A priest could not offer incense more than once in his entire lifetime (Mishnah, Tamid 5:2), and some priests never did receive the privilege.." (Morris, 1974, "The Gospel According to Luke," p.68).

"[Lk 1:8-9] There were some thousands of priests at the time .... As there were so many priests, it was not allowed that a priest should burn incense more than once in his lifetime. On that particular day the lot had fallen upon Zacharias and he had to attend to the burning of the incense." (Geldenhuys, 1950, "Commentary on the Gospel of Luke," pp.62-63).

4. The course of priests that Zechariah belonged to was the "division of Abijah":

"In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.... Once when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God" (Lk 1:5,8).

5. There were "24 classes of Jewish priests" which each "served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class" so from "the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70" (the division of Jehoiarib - see below) "and, "calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C." and "Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth nine months afterward" in December," so "there is no good reason not to accept the tradition' of March 25 conception and Dec. 25 birth" of Jesus:

"Last year, Inside the Vatican magazine also supported Dec. 25, citing a report from St. John Chrysostom ... that Christians had marked Dec. 25 from the early days of the church. Chrysostom had a further argument that modern scholars ignore: Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth she would bear John the Baptist. During the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth `with haste.' The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth nine months afterward. `Though it is not a matter of faith, there is no good reason not to accept the tradition' of March 25 conception and Dec. 25 birth, the magazine contended." (Ostling, R., "Why is Dec. 25 the date to celebrate Christmas? Two explanations compete," North County Times, December 22, 2004).

6. The early church therefore worked out the date of Jesus' conception (the Incarnation) "on about March 25, and then projected forward nine months" to "December 25" although "March 25 may have been derived by counting backwards nine months from December 25":

"The Annunciation All the evidence presented for the birth of Jesus on December 25 is based on His conception on about March 25, and then projected forward nine months. There were three proofs presented to support the Annunciation in March. The first established that the division of Abijah overlapped the Feast of Tabernacles, October 3 to 10, 6 BCE. With the conception of John the Baptist on October 10, the Annunciation fell about five and a half months later, or on March 25, 5 BCE. March 25 has been the Church's official day for the Annunciation since the sixth century. [However, in the sixth century March 25 may have been derived by counting backwards nine months from December 25.] Second, Luke records the Annunciation in the sixth month, which is interpreted to mean the sixth calendar month. According to Luke's Syro-Macedonian reckoning this lunar month fell from March 10 to April 7 in 5 BCE. The middle of that month was again March 25. .... Thus, there is evidence for the Annunciation on March 25, the day of the Vernal Equinox. Jesus' nativity followed on December 25, 5 BCE, the day of the Winter Solstice." (Doig, 2009a. Emphasis original).

7. Conclusion. "Based on the division of Jehoiarib having been on duty during the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE ... then John [the Baptist] was conceived about October 10, 6 BCE. The Annunciation of the conception of Jesus followed about five and a half months later, or about March 25, 5 BCE. Jesus was then born nine month later, about December 25, 5 BCE":

"Conclusion Based on the division of Jehoiarib having been on duty during the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, it is possible to establish the weeks in which the division of Abijah served during the time of Zacharias. When Zacharias burned incense the `whole multitude' were outside in prayer. It is expected that such a multitude would only be present at one of the three required feasts. In 6 BCE the Feast of Tabernacles overlapped the regular serving of the division of Abijah. It would be at this time that the angel Gabriel appeared to Zacharias. If Elizabeth became pregnant with John the Baptist shortly after Zacharias returned home, then John was conceived about October 10, 6 BCE. The Annunciation of the conception of Jesus followed about five and a half months later, or about March 25, 5 BCE. Jesus was then born nine month later, about December 25, 5 BCE." (Doig, 2007. Emphasis original).

Some who later claimed to be Christian likely `wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the 'birthday of the unconquered sun.' (The New Encyclopædia Britannica) Another quote from an encyclopedia, not from an authoritative early Christian source. But these "assertions that Christmas was timed to coincide with the celebration of Sol Invictus" are "never backed up by quotations from the early Christians" which would be "reflected in" the early Church's "writings, but it isn't":

"While one frequently encounters assertions that Christmas was timed to coincide with the celebration of Sol Invictus, these never seem to be backed up by evidence. In particular, they are never backed up by quotations from the early Christians saying, `We decided to time this celebration to coincide with Sol Invictus, and this is why ...' 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." (Evert, J., 2001, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," pp.145-146).

While even many (if not most) Christians uncritically accept that December 25 was chosen as the date of Christmas to coincide with the pagan Roman festival of the Unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus), the facts are that the Romans already had a different sun god, Sol Indiges, which was celebrated on August 9 and the earliest record of the official celebration of Sol Invictus on December 25 in Rome was in 274:

"Sol ... in Roman religion, name of two distinct sun gods at Rome. The original Sol, or Sol Indiges, had ... an annual sacrifice on August 9 ...The worship of Sol assumed an entirely different character with the later importation of various sun cults from Syria. The Roman emperor Elagabalus (reigned AD 218-222) built a temple to him as Sol Invictus on the Palatine and attempted to make his worship the principal religion at Rome. The emperor Aurelian (reigned 270-275) later reestablished the worship and erected a magnificent temple to Sol ...." ("Sol," Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 26 December 2009).

"Aurelian ... Roman emperor from 270 to 275. By reuniting the empire, which had virtually disintegrated ... He sought to subordinate the divergent religions of the empire to the cult of the Unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus) and so create the kind of religious unity ..." ("Aurelian," Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 26 December 2009).

but the earliest written record of December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth was by Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus in 221 (53 years earlier) :

"December 25 was first identified as the date of Jesus' birth by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221 ... by a priori reasoning that identified the spring equinox ... as the day of Jesus' conception (i.e., March 25). December 25, nine months later, then became the date of Jesus' birth." ("Christmas,"Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2009b).

See also my "Was Jesus born on December 25? #3: Paganism borrowed December 25 from Christianity!.

In winter, when the sun seemed weakest, pagans held ceremonies to get this source of warmth and light to come back from its distant travels. December 25 was thought to be the day that the sun began its return. While "pagans" in general held ceremonies" to celebrate the Northern Winter Solstice which was then on December 25 ("Winter Solstice," Wikipedia, 2009 ), the facts are that the Roman pagans did not celebrate this date on December 25 because Sol Invictus was a Syrian sun god and the existing Roman sun god Sol Indiges' festival was August 9. It was only in 274 (53 years after the earliest Christian reference to Jesus' birth being on December 25) that the Roman emperor Aurelius attempted to unite his tottering empire by instituting the feast of Sol Invictus on December 25.

As historian William J. Tighe pointed out, "the choice of December 25th ... had nothing to do with pagan festivals. Rather, the pagan festival of the `Birth of the Unconquered Sun' instituted ... on 25 December 274, was ... an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. ... the `pagan origins of Christmas' is a myth without historical substance" :

"Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ's birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes ... who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus' birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals. Rather, the pagan festival of the `Birth of the Unconquered Sun' instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the `pagan origins of Christmas' is a myth without historical substance." (Tighe, W.J., 2003, "Calculating Christmas," Touchstone, December).

The myth was created by "two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries ... Jablonski" and "Hardouin" to whom, because "the winter solstice fell on December 25th" it "seemed obvious ... that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one" but "in fact the date had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian's time" and "none of these cults ... had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes":

"The idea that the date was taken from the pagans goes back to two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant ... [and] Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk .... In the Julian calendar, created in 45 B.C. ... the winter solstice fell on December 25th, and it therefore seemed obvious to Jablonski and Hardouin that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one. But in fact, the date had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian's time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him. There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which ... celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. ... none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes." (Tighe, 2003).

Aurelian "who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275 ... promoted the establishment of the festival of the `Birth of the Unconquered Sun' ... on December 25th" which "co-opted the Christian celebration":

"... Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and ... promoted the establishment of the festival of the `Birth of the Unconquered Sun' as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual `rebirth' of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in .... In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for `rebirth,' or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire ... If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better. ." (Tighe, 2003).

In an effort to convert pagans, religious leaders adopted this festival and tried to make it seem `Christian.' Even if Christians did this (and there is no evidence that they did), it would be to replace a pagan festival for a Christian one, and the "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' ... and `sun of righteousness':

"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, 2001, p.146).

But as the Encyclopaedia Britannica observes of the "explanation .... that December 25 was the Christianizing of the ... 'day of the birth of the unconquered sun'" that "One of the difficulties with this view is that it suggests a nonchalant willingness on the part of the Christian church to appropriate a pagan festival when the early church was so intent on distinguishing itself categorically from pagan beliefs and practices":

"One widespread explanation of the origin of this date is that December 25 was the Christianizing of the dies solis invicti nati ('day of the birth of the unconquered sun'), a popular holiday in the Roman Empire that celebrated the winter solstice as a symbol of the resurgence of the sun, the casting away of winter and the heralding of the rebirth of spring and summer. Indeed, after December 25 had become widely accepted as the date of Jesus' birth, Christian writers frequently made the connection between the rebirth of the sun and the birth of the Son. One of the difficulties with this view is that it suggests a nonchalant willingness on the part of the Christian church to appropriate a pagan festival when the early church was so intent on distinguishing itself categorically from pagan beliefs and practices." ("Christmas," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2009).

To be continued (next Christmas 2010) in "The Watchtower's false teaching against Christmas #4: Saturnalia played a part in the choice of December 25.

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin.

---

"The Annunciation All the evidence presented for the birth of Jesus on December 25 is based on His conception on about March 25, and then projected forward nine months. There were three proofs presented to support the Annunciation in March. The first established that the division of Abijah overlapped the Feast of Tabernacles, October 3 to 10, 6 BCE. With the conception of John the Baptist on October 10, the Annunciation fell about five and a half months later, or on March 25, 5 BCE. March 25 has been the Church's official day for the Annunciation since the sixth century. [However, in the sixth century March 25 may have been derived by counting backwards nine months from December 25.] Second, Luke records the Annunciation in the sixth month, which is interpreted to mean the sixth calendar month. According to Luke's Syro-Macedonian reckoning this lunar month fell from March 10 to April 7 in 5 BCE. The middle of that month was again March 25. Last, according to Chinese astrological records there was a nova that appeared on about March 25, 5 BCE, which continued to be visible for seventy days. This would have been the first appearance of the Star of the Magi, which coincided with Jesus' conception, not His birth. Thus, there is evidence for the Annunciation on March 25, the day of the Vernal Equinox. Jesus' nativity followed on December 25, 5 BCE, the day of the Winter Solstice." (Doig, K.F., 2009a, "Doig's Biblical Chronology: Exact Dating of the Exodus and Birth and Crucifixion of Jesus," Chapter 9, December 5. Emphasis original).

"An ongoing objection to a December 25 nativity has been that this date fell in the winter. The objection is twofold, and related to `shepherds staying out in the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night.' (Luke 2:8) First, it has been argued, the sheep were brought in from the wilderness and kept in corrals, or sheepfolds, during the winter, and not out grazing. Second, the only time that shepherds watched their flocks at night was during and after lambing, in the spring and early summer. Thus, Jesus could not have been born in the winter. Such arguments are far from conclusive against a winter nativity. First, sheep would have been found in the fields. It could have been a mild winter. The average December temperatures at Jerusalem are 45-59° F., comparable to Houston or San Francisco, but with less rain. The night temperatures are lower. Rainfall averages 3-4 inches, comparable to Athens or Rome, with occasional light snow. By the end of December the first grass can be sprouting from early rains. Poor shepherds would have had their flocks out to glean the first fodder from the rains. Also, semi-nomads will often leave a belt of grass un-grazed around permanent winter settlements during summer to provide winter fodder. Jewish shepherds may have practiced such in earlier days. The sheep would not necessarily have been kept under cover. Un-corralled sheep would have to be watched at night, whether at lambing, or any other time of the year. Sheep were brought in from the wilderness during the winter, and these flocks could be found in the area of Bethlehem/Jerusalem. The presence of flocks around Bethlehem may indeed indicate that it was winter. The Mishna records that cattle, including sheep, were around Jerusalem, including Bethlehem, year-round ... Many of these animals were required for the daily sacrifices at the Temple, and they were always available. There also would be a large daily requirement for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The presence of sheep in the fields around Bethlehem in the early evening of December 25, 5 BCE would be expected." (Doig, 2009b).

"The earliest record supporting the December twenty-fifth birth of Jesus was written by Hippolytus (ca. 165-235 CE) in the early third century:

The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January .... Commentary on Daniel 4:23.

The eighth day before the Kalends of January is December 25. However, in 5 BCE December 25 fell on Sunday, not Wednesday. In 4 BCE it fell on Monday, in 3 BCE on Tuesday, in 2 BCE on Wednesday and in 1 BCE on Sunday. The dating of Augustus would be from August of 44 BCE and his forty-second year would fall in 3 or 2 BCE, depending on how Hippolytus reckoned. It would appear that Hippolytus' date for the nativity was Wednesday, December 25, 2 BCE. The difficulty with Hippolytus' dating is that it is unknown if part or all of his date is from an earlier tradition or from his own calculation. A common conclusion is that December 25 is not based on a historical tradition but on wrong calculations and a pagan festival on that day. However, such a conclusion is no more valid than the assumption that December 25 does have a historical basis independent of any existing festivals. Here the Wednesday in 2 BCE is the miscalculation." (Doig, 2009c).

"Sol ... in Roman religion, name of two distinct sun gods at Rome. The original Sol, or Sol Indiges, had a shrine on the Quirinal, an annual sacrifice on August 9, and another shrine, together with Luna, the moon goddess, in the Circus Maximus. Although the cult appears to have been native, the Roman poets equated him with the Greek sun god Helios. The worship of Sol assumed an entirely different character with the later importation of various sun cults from Syria. The Roman emperor Elagabalus (reigned AD 218-222) built a temple to him as Sol Invictus on the Palatine and attempted to make his worship the principal religion at Rome. The emperor Aurelian (reigned 270-275) later reestablished the worship and erected a magnificent temple to Sol in the Campus Agrippae. The worship of Sol as special protector of the emperors and of the empire remained the chief imperial cult until it was replaced by Christianity." ("Sol," Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 26 December 2009).

"Christmas Is Christmas a pagan celebration merely because it is celebrated at the same time of the year as ancient pagan feasts honoring a sun god? ... the Watchtower seeks to convince the world that to win the favor of pagans, the early `apostate Church' established Christmas at the time of the pagan feast of Sol Invictus. This feast of `the unconquerable sun' celebrated at the time of the winter solstice-was when the sun began to return to the northern skies and the days grew longer. It was essentially a celebration of the return of sunlight. While one frequently encounters assertions that Christmas was timed to coincide with the celebration of Sol Invictus, these never seem to be backed up by evidence. In particular, they are never backed up by quotations from the early Christians saying, `We decided to time this celebration to coincide with Sol Invictus, and this is why ...' 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." (Evert, J., 2001, pp.145-146. Emphasis original).

"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 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 (Table 25) 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, 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.257-258).

"[Lk 1:8-9] There were some thousands of priests at the time, and it was arranged that each course should in turn send a number of priests to the temple for a week to execute their office there. In this particular week it was the turn of the course of Abijah, and Zacharias was one of the priests of that course who had to serve. Each day the lot was cast to assign the various duties of the priests for the day. As there were so many priests, it was not allowed that a priest should burn incense more than once in his lifetime. On that particular day the lot had fallen upon Zacharias and he had to attend to the burning of the incense. This incense-offering had to be brought twice a day-early in the morning and again at about three o'clock in the afternoon (Exod. xxx. 7, 8). Thus Zacharias had entered the temple after the lot had fallen upon him. The actual temple-building or sanctuary proper consisted of the holy place and the holy of holies. Into the latter apartment only the high priest was allowed to go (and that but once a year, on the Great Day of Atonement), while the officiating priests might enter the holy place." (Geldenhuys, J.N., 1950, "Commentary on the Gospel of Luke," Marshall Morgan & Scott: London, Reprinted, 1961, pp.62-63).

"December 25 was first identified as the date of Jesus' birth by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221 and later became the universally accepted date. One widespread explanation of the origin of this date is that December 25 was the Christianizing of the dies solis invicti nati ('day of the birth of the unconquered sun'), a popular holiday in the Roman Empire that celebrated the winter solstice as a symbol of the resurgence of the sun, the casting away of winter and the heralding of the rebirth of spring and summer. Indeed, after December 25 had become widely accepted as the date of Jesus' birth, Christian writers frequently made the connection between the rebirth of the sun and the birth of the Son. One of the difficulties with this view is that it suggests a nonchalant willingness on the part of the Christian church to appropriate a pagan festival when the early church was so intent on distinguishing itself categorically from pagan beliefs and practices. A second view suggests that December 25 became the date of Jesus' birth by a priori reasoning that identified the spring equinox as the date of the creation of the world and the fourth day of creation, when the light was created, as the day of Jesus' conception (i.e., March 25). December 25, nine months later, then became the date of Jesus' birth. For a long time the celebration of Jesus' birth was observed in conjunction with his baptism, celebrated January 6." (Hillerbrand, H.J. , 2009a, "Christmas," Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 26 December).

"Lk 1:8-10] There were many priests and not enough sacred duties for them all, so lots were cast to see who would perform each function. The offering of incense was regarded as a great privilege. A priest could not offer incense more than once in his entire lifetime (Mishnah, Tamid 5:2), and some priests never did receive the privilege. Thus the time when Zechariah offered the incense was the most important moment in his whole life. Luke does not say whether he offered at the morning or the evening sacrifice. In either case he would go into the holy place with other priests. But they would retire, leaving him alone. When the signal was given he would offer the incense. The worshippers waited in the outer court until the priest discharged this duty (10)." (Morris, L.L., 1974, "The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1986, p.68).

"Bethlehem, Palestine, is a special place to celebrate Christmas. It's home to the Church of the Nativity and the field where shepherds, tending their flocks by night, spotted the star heralding Jesus' birth. But apart from the historical mystique, here in Bethlehem we celebrate Christmas much like Christians throughout the world. We hang lights from the rooftops. We erect a tree in Manger Square. We host a Christmas market. Our children carol and perform Christmas pageants. Christmas in Bethlehem, as elsewhere, is a time for family, peace, love and joy. But our joy is mixed with melancholy, for we have been living under Israeli military occupation for 40 years. While children elsewhere re-enact the story of Christmas against backdrops of starry night skies, we'll celebrate in the shadow of a 20-foot high wall that surrounds us on three sides and separates us from Jerusalem. In Shepherds' Field the sheep still graze, but the ground is being eaten away by Israeli settlement expansion. The Israeli government tightly controls construction on our native land so we can only build vertically." (Rishmawi, G., "Another bittersweet Christmas in Bethlehem," The Daily News Tribune, December 24, 2009).

"Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ's birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus' birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals. Rather, the pagan festival of the `Birth of the Unconquered Sun' instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the `pagan origins of Christmas' is a myth without historical substance. A Mistake The idea that the date was taken from the pagans goes back to two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ's birth on December 25th was one of the many `paganizations' of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many `degenerations' that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel. In the Julian calendar, created in 45 B.C. under Julius Caesar, the winter solstice fell on December 25th, and it therefore seemed obvious to Jablonski and Hardouin that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one. But in fact, the date had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian's time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him. There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which (maintained by the clan into which Aurelian was born or adopted) celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. But both of these cults fell into neglect in the second century, when eastern cults of the sun, such as Mithraism, began to win a following in Rome. And in any case, none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes. As things actually happened, Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and appears to have promoted the establishment of the festival of the `Birth of the Unconquered Sun' as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual `rebirth' of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in the face of internal unrest, rebellions in the provinces, economic decay, and repeated attacks from German tribes to the north and the Persian Empire to the east. In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for `rebirth,' or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire, resulting from the maintenance of the worship of the gods whose tutelage (the Romans thought) had brought Rome to greatness and world-rule. If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better. " (Tighe, W.J., 2003, "Calculating Christmas," Touchstone, December).

"Another change in viewpoint involved the `cross and crown' symbol, which appeared on the Watch Tower cover beginning with the issue of January 1891. In fact, for years many Bible Students wore a pin of this kind. By way of description, C. W. Barber writes: `It was a badge really, with a wreath of laurel leaves as the border and within the wreath was a crown with a cross running through it on an angle. It looked quite attractive and was our idea at that time of what it meant to take up our `cross' and follow Christ Jesus in order to be able to wear the crown of victory in due time.' Concerning the wearing of `cross and crown pins,' Lily R. Parnell comments: `This to Brother Rutherford's mind was Babylonish and should be discontinued. He told us that when we went to the people's homes and began to talk, that was the witness in itself.' Accordingly, reflecting on the 1928 Bible Students convention in Detroit, Michigan, Brother Suiter writes: `At the assembly the cross and crown emblems were shown to be not only unnecessary but objectionable. So we discarded these items of jewelry.' Some three years thereafter, beginning with its issue of October 15, 1931, The Watchtower no longer bore the cross and crown symbol on its cover." (WB&TS, "1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 1975, p.148).

"THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTMAS It was not until several hundred years after Jesus lived on the earth that people began to commemorate his birth on December 25. But that was not the date of Jesus' birth, for it evidently took place in October. So why was December 25 chosen? Some who later claimed to be Christian likely `wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the 'birthday of the unconquered sun.' (The New Encyclopædia Britannica) In winter, when the sun seemed weakest, pagans held ceremonies to get this source of warmth and light to come back from its distant travels. December 25 was thought to be the day that the sun began its return. In an effort to convert pagans, religious leaders adopted this festival and tried to make it seem `Christian.'" (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, pp.157-158. Emphasis original)

"Was Jesus Born in December? THE Bible does not tell us when Jesus was born. However, it does give us sound reason to conclude that his birth did not take place in December. Consider the weather conditions at that time of the year in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. The Jewish month of Chislev (corresponding to November/December) was a month with cold and rainy weather. The month after that was Tebeth (December/January). It saw the lowest temperatures of the year, with occasional snows in the highlands. Let us see what the Bible tells us about the climate of that region. The Bible writer Ezra shows that Chislev was indeed a month known for cold and rainy weather. After stating that a crowd had gathered in Jerusalem `in the ninth month [Chislev] on the twentieth day of the month,' Ezra reports that people were `shivering ... on account of the showers of rain.' Concerning weather conditions at that time of the year, the congregated people themselves said: `It is the season of showers of rain, and it is not possible to stand outside.' ( Ezra 10:9, 13; Jeremiah 36:22) No wonder shepherds living in that part of the world made sure that they and their flocks were no longer out of doors at night when December came around! The Bible reports, however, that shepherds were in the fields tending their flocks on the night of Jesus' birth. In fact, the Bible writer Luke shows that at that time, shepherds were `living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks' near Bethlehem. (Luke 2:8-12) Notice that the shepherds were actually living out of doors, not just strolling outside during the day. They had their flocks in the fields at night. Does that description of outdoor living fit the chilly and rainy weather conditions of Bethlehem in December? No, it does not. So the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth indicate that he was not born in December." (WB&TS, 2005, pp.221-222. Emphasis original).