Heortology

by K. A. Heinrich Kellner

The compiler clearly bears witness that Christmas existed already in Rome in 354, but not that it had then been only recently introduced there, still less that Christ was actually born on the 25th December. This statement is unsupported by evidence prior to 354, for the passage in Hippolytus is an interpolation, the Depositio Martyrum and the Depositio Episcoporum have been worked over by the hand of the same compiler, who may have made additions to them to the same effect without prejudice to their original contents.

Nevertheless attempts were made to maintain the 25th December on other grounds. As we have seen, Chrysostom made an attempt of this kind, and even in recent times there have been people who repeated the attempt, without falling into the mistake of making Zachary a High Priest. They reckoned as follows:—when the angel announced to Zachary his son’s birth, the course of Abia, to which Zachary belonged, was performing the service of the Temple.[313] At the dedication of the Temple under Solomon it was arranged that the twenty-four priestly families mentioned in 1 Paral. xxiv. 7-13 should relieve one another in orderly succession throughout the year, each being responsible for the Temple services for a week. The first course was that of Joiarib, the course of Abia being the eighth. After the return from exile, these courses of priests were re-established, and continued to discharge their functions as before, so soon as the new Temple had been dedicated.[314] According to the assertion of Josephus,[315] this arrangement survived to his own time, and was consequently in existence at the commencement of the Christian era.

Since the dedication of both Temples took place in autumn, it has been calculated that the course of Abia must have been on duty in the year of the Lord’s birth on the day of Atonement, which fell at that season. This was arrived at by calculating both forwards and backwards from the destruction of Jerusalem. But in the former case, beginning with the restoration of the Temple, the calculation is thrown into confusion by the fact that twice during the existence of the second Temple the regular performance of divine service was interrupted.[316] In the time of the Machabees, under Antiochus Epiphanes, the interruption lasted for three years. In this case what was to be done? The succession of the courses might be resumed after the interruption as if nothing had happened, or, at the re-establishment of worship, that course might undertake duty whose turn it was to serve at that particular time of the year, or, finally, one might start afresh with the course of Joiarib. In all these cases it would be said that the ancient order had been maintained, but which of the three possibilities just mentioned was actually chosen is not told us.

Even if it were told us, the reckoning would still be without solid foundation. For each course of priests served in turn twice a year, leaving however eighteen days, or in a leap-year twenty-nine, still to be accounted for. The difficulty is not lessened by the fact that during the week of the Passover, several courses were on duty in the Temple at once. Granted that the course of Abia was on service in spring and again in autumn, St Luke unfortunately does not inform us at what season of the year the angel appeared to Zachary, or even if this event happened during the Passover, when the course of Abia might quite possibly have been on duty as well.

We are no better off if we begin our reckoning from the destruction of Jerusalem, when the course of Joiarib is said to have been on duty,[317] for again we do not know in what season of the year the angel appeared. If we take the autumn as certain, then we assume what must be proved. Even if the difficulties are fewer in this method of proceeding, on account of the shortness of the period, it still remains a question whether, when the services of the Temple came to an end in A.D. 70, they ceased on the 8th Gorpiæos, when the citadel of Jerusalem was taken, or on the 10th Lous, the day of the destruction of the Temple itself.[318] It is impossible by these means to prove that the 25th December is really the day of Our Lord’s birth.[319]

It follows from this that there is no sort of existing proof that the Redeemer was actually born on this day. We may add, moreover, that even when this opinion had met with acceptance from many, and in times when Christmas had become one of the popular festivals, there were not wanting some here and there who expressed doubt on the question. This is the case in an ancient sermon on Christmas included among the spurious writings of St Jerome: “Whether our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized to-day, or whether He was born, has given rise to different opinions in the world, and according to the different traditions different views are maintained.”[320] Although this sermon is incorrectly attributed to St Jerome, it nevertheless certainly belongs to his time, for it refers to the gilded temples of Rome (aurata capitolia).

What then was the amount of knowledge possessed by antiquity concerning the true day of Christ’s birth? It may not be out of place to attempt to answer this question. There are only a few passages in which the oldest writers in the Church refer to the matter, but from these it is easy to see that, even in the earliest times, nothing was known for certain, and that those who were interested in the question did not agree among themselves. This was the case, for example, in Alexandria in the second century. A party existed there who regarded the 25th of the Egyptian month Pachon (i.e. 20th May) as the day of our Lord’s birth. The Basilidians of Alexandria, however, observed it on the 15th Tybi (i.e. 10th January), and passed the preceding night in devotional readings. The majority celebrated Christ’s birth on the 11th Tybi (i.e. 6th January).[321]

In a treatise of the third century formerly attributed to St Cyprian, which deals with kindred subjects, a very different view appears. The anonymous writer of this treatise (De Pascha Computus), which was composed in A.D. 243, inclines to the view that the 28th March was the true day of Christ’s birth,[322] and, contemporary with this, Hippolytus sets it down on the 25th of the same month, provided this is the correct interpretation of the inscription on his statue. In the fourth and fifth centuries, the view became prevalent that Christ was born on the 25th December, and St Augustine uses expressions which seem to imply he was of this opinion.[323]

The four gospels contain nothing in support of any of these dates. Their authors attached no importance to this point, although their aim in writing was to give information concerning our Lord’s life, and, even if the date was known to them, we must allow for the difficulty of fixing dates of past events in accordance with Jewish modes of reckoning time. However, it is possible that our Lord was born at the beginning of winter. The census which took place at the time of His birth, rendered it necessary that the inhabitants of Judæa should be enrolled each in his own city. On this account, the Roman authorities would see that the census was made at a season when agricultural work had ceased, such as the late autumn or early winter. There can have been no ecclesiastical tradition concerning the date of the Nativity, since in the earliest times it was commemorated by no special festival. The Epiphany, which commemorated several events, took the place of such a festival.