Every year around this time, you’ll find dozens of articles and blog posts talking about the “real date” of Christmas. There are a variety of approaches to this, but almost all of them have in common the claim that December 25 is not the real day of Christmas. To be fair, the exact date of Christmas is not some all-important dogma. It should not shake our faith if it turns out Jesus was born in the middle of June or whenever else. On the other hand, it could strengthen our faith to find out that maybe, just maybe we can trust the Church’s tradition after all. The Church celebrates Christmas on December 25 because that is the tradition, it’s what She has done as long as anyone can remember and she does so because ancient generations before us told us that when it was done. Unlike a child’s game of telephone, the Church’s tradition is not hearsay and mere human rumors. It is an important point of contact with Jesus who was, after all, really born into this world all those centuries ago.
So, what makes me say Jesus’ actual birthday is December 25? In part, because the arguments against it are so bad. One common argument is this claim that “The Church often takes pagan feasts and Christianizes them. That’s what she did with the pagan holiday Saturnalia and the other pagan holiday Sol Invictus.” First, it is true that the Church sometimes “baptizes” pagan practices and festivals to make them Christian. That doesn’t prove that she did that for Christmas. There are three main problems with this. First, most cultures have some kind of winter festival near the time of the equinox. The fact that there is an overlap doesn’t prove one stole from the other, just that human beings across cultures have some common inclinations regarding the seasons. Having an ancient winter feast also doesn’t prove that Jesus wasn’t born then. It just proves that there was an ancient festival. Secondly, Saturnalia falls on the winter solstice, which is never on December 25. It makes no sense to say we chose that date to “steal” Saturnalia when that’s not even when it happens. Thirdly, Sol Invictus didn’t exist until after Christmas. The earliest record of it is 354 AD. We have records of Christmas being a big public feast in Rome in December 25, 336 AD, almost 20 years before Sol Invictus. In fact, Sol Invictus wasn’t on December 25 until after the emperor Julian put it there. Julian is called Julian the Apostate because he, unlike the previous emperor, abandoned Christianity. He hated Cgristianity. It actually kind of looks like Julian created the pagan holiday as an attempt to cover over the Christian one rather than the opposite claim people make today. Another argument against December 25 is that the gospel mentions shepherds being in the field and it would have been too cold in December for shepherds to be outside. Bethlehem, for reference, is on nearly the same latitude as Alexandria. Like us, winter in the Holy Land is very mild, and snow is very rare. It less humid than here, so even colder temperatures do not feel as harsh. I’ve been in the Holy Land in the winter. It does not stop people from being outside at night.
Well, what is the argument in favor of December 25? The dates of major Jewish feasts. We know from Luke that, before Mary was pregnant, Elizabeth her cousin was pregnant. An angel appeared to Zechariah while he was serving in the temple to tell him he would have a son. We know which division of priests Zechariah belonged. That division served in the temple around September. Jesus is born 6 months after John the Baptist and John the Baptist was born about 9 months after Zechariah served in the Temple. That brings us to December. The other important point is that , after Jesus’ Ascension, Mary lived with the Apostles for over a decade at least. She would know the date and tell the Apostles. Something like the birthday of your savior and leader is easily remembered and handed on. It is unlikely that, even in persecution and hiding, we would forget a single important date like that.
As a bonus, there’s also recent evidence that tradition even had the year right. 1 AD is the traditional year. The problem is that another historical record said Herod (who died after Jesus was born, according to the Gospel) died near a lunar eclipse. A historian in the 1800s thought it was the lunar eclipse in 4 BC, which would mean Jesus’s birth had to be before that (5-6 BC). More recent astronomical research shows that the eclipse in 4 BC wouldn’t have been visible in Jerusalem, but that one did happen around the year 2-3 AD, meaning Jesus birth in 1 AD fits perfectly in time for Jesus to be born and then brought to Egypt before Herod dies.
Again, if Jesus was born on some other day, it wouldn’t change the truth about salvation. But what these things do show, however, is that we shouldn’t be so quick to jump on the latest “new evidence” that claims to discredit the Church’s tradition. Though many of her members are unreliable, the Church as a whole is our trusted source for the truth about Christ. Let’s try to keep that trust.