The Reverend Harold A. Linn, Pastor

Christmas is Not Pagan - Part IV

By Dr. Richard P. Bucher

The Arguments Put Forth By Those Who Oppose Christmas

(3) The date of Christmas (December 25), and its many customs all come from pagan sources. Therefore Christmas is pagan.

It is when the "Christmas is pagan" literature examines the origin of the dating of Christmas on Dec. 25, that the anti-Christmas advocates become convinced that Christmas is wholly pagan. This is their strongest argument. The argument goes like this: Since no one knows when Jesus was born, where did the Church get the idea of celebrating it on Dec. 25? From the pagans who had several festivals the time of the winter solstice which honored pagan gods. Where did the pagans at the time of the Roman empire get the idea? It came from the paganism of ancient Babylon, a paganism begun by Nimrod and his wife.

One example of this argument is "Are Christianity and Christmas Compatible?" by Adam Wiemers:

Why is Christmas celebrated on Dec. 25th? The answer is rather surprising.

Just a little research reveals that Christmas was actually adapted from a Roman celebration called Saturnalia. The Encyclopedia Romana* explains that "at the time of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar), Saturnus, the god of seed and sowing, was honored with a festival." The encyclopedia goes on to state that "the Saturnalia did continue to be celebrated as Brumalia (from "bruma," winter solstice) down to the Christian era, when, by the middle of the fourth century AD, its rituals had become absorbed in the celebration of Christmas."

Isn't that alarming? The very ways that Christmas is celebrated are directly borrowed from a festival to a god of the Romans!

This is only partially true. It is certainly well known that the Bible does not tell us the exact date of Christ's birth. As we saw in the previous section, Christians have been trying to pinpoint that date since the early centuries of the Church. Nevertheless, no one can say for certain which date is accurate.

The Romans, like many other cultures at the time of the winter solstice, had various festivals. Saturnalia, was a festival that honored Saturn, the god of agriculture, from Dec. 17-24. It was the most popular festival of the year and did involve merrymaking, gift-giving, relaxed morality, and temporary freedom for slaves, who were allowed to do and speak whatever they wanted. But not unlike many of our Christmas feasts today, by the early Fourth Century, the religious aspect of Saturnalia had faded, and the secular merrymaking had come to the fore. It is not likely, however, that Christians chose Dec. 25 to celebrate Christ's birth on the basis of Saturnalia.

The earliest extant record of Christ's birth being observed on December 25 is the Chronography in 354 A.D. This document was based upon a calendar that dated it to about 336 (Herman Wegman, Christian Worship in East and West, New York: Pueblo Publishing, 1985, 103).The Chronography was a document of the Church of Rome that listed the various martyrs' feasts for the year. By the time that Chrysostom was Bishop of Constantinople (398-404), Christ's birth was being observed on Dec. 25 throughout Christendom, though the Church in Armenia observed it on January 6.

But how did it happen that the early Christians began observing Christmas on December 25? Why this date? There are two theories about why December 25 was chosen.

(1) The first theory holds that after careful research, Julius (337-352), Bishop of Rome, determined that Christ had been born on December 25; or at least he determined that December 25 was the best authenticated date in the Tradition. John Chrystostom states this in one of his writings (John Chrysostom, Homil. Diem Natal., 2; PL, 49, 552ff.). Chrysostom claims that Julius, after he had been requested by Cyril of Jerusalem, had the official records of the Roman census examined and determined that December 25 was the correct date. As Weiser points out, however, there is no evidence to back this up; in fact, "it was expressly stated in Rome that the actual date of the Saviour's birth was unknown and that different traditions prevailed in different parts of the world" (F. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs - New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1958, 61.).

(2) The second theory states that the Church of Rome deliberately chose December 25 as the date of Christ's birth to turn people away from a pagan feast that was observed at the same time. Since the time of the Roman emperor Elagabulus (218-222), the god Sol Invictus (he Unconquered Sun god), had been one of the chief deities worshiped by the Romans. When emperor Aurelian (270-275) came to power, he sought to restore the worship of the Sun god to prominence and make him the chief deity. In the last years of his reign, Sol was hailed as "The Lord of the Roman Empire." Sol, along, with Jupiter, appeared on the coins Aurelian had minted. In 274, the emperor built a magnificent temple to Sun god, and established a new college of senators which he named "the priests of the Sun god." Finally, December 25 was observed as "the birthday of the Sun god" (natalis solis invicti). Because the Sun god was identifed with Mithra, a popular Persian god that also was viewed as the Sun god, pagan celebrations occurred throughout the empire on Dec. 25 (see Clement A. Miles, Christmas, New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912, 23). The Church at Rome seems to have chosen this date to counteract this pagan feast of the sun god and turn people instead to the "Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings" (Malachi 4:2; Luke 1:78). Or put another way, Julius chose December 25 so that the Son of God rather than the Sun god would be worshiped. Though there no direct evidence that proves that the Church of Rome deliberately chose December 25 so that Christ's birth would replace "the birthday of the sun," we do have sermons from fathers of the church who soon after this used this line of reasoning. For example, Augustine (354-430) in his sermon 202 and Leo the Great (440-461 -- PL 54 Sources chrtiennes 22) gives this line of reasoning.

Therefore, the second theory seems to be the probable one. December 25 was chosen not because it had somehow been proven from extra-biblical sources that Christ was definitely born on December 25. Rather the date was chosen to counteract a very popular pagan holiday that already had been occurring on this date.

Given what we learned about emperor Constantine in the previous section, it is likely that his embracing of Christianity and example influenced the Church of Rome in doing what they did. But there is no evidence of Constantine's direct involvement.

Now does the fact that the Church of Rome chose the same date to celebrate Christ's birth as a popular pagan festival mean that "Christmas is based on a pagan festival" or that "Christmas is pagan"? I don't think so! What kind of reasoning is that? It simply means that they chose the same day - why, we don't exactly know. Perhaps they chose it to keep Christians from taking part in the pagan festivities, or perhaps to entice pagans to join the Christian faith. If a group of Christians chose to celebrate Christ's birth on Halloween or on some well known Satanic day, would it be fair or right to accuse them of basing Christ's birth on paganism, so that from then on Christmas would be forever pagan? Of course not! In this case the Christians might be doing this to give themselves something Christian to celebrate on the day. Is that wrong? Placing a Christian feast on a well known non-Christian day does not make the Christian feast non-Christian. They are merely sharing the day. We worship our God on Sunday, which in Roman times, was the day dedicated to the Sun-god. Does that make our worship on Sunday pagan? Perhaps we should worship on Saturday. But that day in Roman times was named in honor of the god Saturn. Would that make our festivals on Saturday pagan? Of course not. But this is the kind of faulty logic used by the "Christmas is pagan" crowd.

It gets worse. The "Christmas is pagan" argument typically asks a further question: Where did the Romans get their pagan festivals at the time of the winter solstice? Answer: From the paganism of ancient Babylon, which was initiated by Nimrod and his wife, Semiramus. A classic example of this argument is found in a tract by the World Wide Church of God entitled, "The Plain Truth About Christmas," here quoted at some length.

But if we got Christmas from the Roman Catholics, and they got it from paganism, where did the pagans get it? Where, when, and what as its real origin? It is a chief custom of the corrupt system denounced all through Bible prophecies and teachings under the name of Babylon. And it started and originated in the original Babylon of ancient Nimrod! Yes, it stems from roots whose beginning was shortly this side of the Flood! Nimrod, grandson of Ham, son of Noah, was the real founder of the Babylonish system that has gripped the world ever since . . . . Nimrod built the tower of Babel, the original Babylon, ancient Nineveh, and many other cities. He organized this world's first kingdom. The name Nimrod, in Hebrew, is derived from "Marad," meaning "he rebelled." . . . Nimrod was so evil, it is said he married his own mother, whose name was Semiramis. After Nimrod's untimely death, his so-called mother-wife, Semiramis, propagated the evil doctrine of the survival of Nimrod as a spirit being. She claimed a full-grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a dead tree stump, which symbolized the springing forth unto new life the dead Nimrod. On each anniversary of his birth, she claimed, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. December 25th was the birthday of Nimrod. This is the real origin of the Christmas tree. Through her scheming and designing, Semiramis became the Babylonian "Queen of Heaven," and Nimrod, under various names, became the "divine son of heaven." Through the generations, in this idolatrous worship, Nimrod also became the false Messiah, son of Baal the Sun-god. In this false Babylonish system, the "Mother and Child" (Semiramis and Nimrod reborn) became chief objects of worship. This worship of "Mother and Child" spread over the world. The names varied in different countries and languages. In Egypt it was Isis and Osiris. In Asia, Cybele and Deoius. . . . Thus, during the fourth and fifth centuries, when the pagans of the Roman world were "accepting" the new popular "Christianity" by the hundreds of thousands, carrying their old pagan customs and beliefs along with them, merely cloaking them with Christian-sounding names . . . . The real origin of Christmas goes back to ancient Babylon. It is bound up in the organized apostasy which has gripped a deceived world these many centuries! In Egypt, it was always believed that the son of Isis (Egyptian name for "Queen of Heaven") was born December 25th. Paganism celebrated this famous birthday over most of the known world for centuries before the birth of Christ. December 25th is not the birthday of Jesus the true Christ!

So goes the argument, which is repeated by many different anti-Christmas authors. Where in the world did such an argument come from? This was the thesis of Alexander Hislop, who in the Nineteenth Century wrote a book entitled, "The Two Babylons: Or the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife." It was Hislop's thesis that the Roman Catholic Church was a direct descendent of the paganism of Nimrod and ancient Babylon. One of his arguments was that some of the chief holy days of the Roman Catholic Church, such as Christmas, prove this to be so. The stamp of Hislop's thesis is found all over most of the anti-Christmas literature that I've seen. But is his argument sound?

Hardly. I have no doubt that Hislop consulted a vast amount of sources in writing his book. This is obvious in reading it. But some of its key arguments are flawed. He makes many philological leaps of faith to prove his points. For example, his entire argument rests on making the Babylonian "Ninus" the same person as the Biblical "Nimrod." (Nimrod is mentioned in only three places in the Scriptures, Gen. 10:8-12, 1 Chr. 1:10, and Micah 5:6). Only then can he claim that the wife of Nimrod was Semiramis, and that both were worshiped as divine mother and son, etc. Hislop himself recognizes how important this is, in this very interesting sentence:

Now, assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that assumption explains what is otherwise inexplicable in the statements of ancient history greatly confirms the truth of the assumption itself (The Two Babylons, 25).

Got that? The point is that this turns out to be a big assumption. In other ancient literature, the father of Ninus was Bel, and it is said that he built the city of Nineveh. The Bible on the other hand says that Nimrod built Nineveh, and that Cush was his father. The way in which Hislop attempts to reconcile this contradiction is a truly remarkable example of literary gymnastics that is hardly convincing. He argues that Bel is the same as Hermes/Mercury, and the same as Janus/Chaos, which is the same as Cush. Right. (See for yourself by reading the "The Two Babylons," 25-29).

It is possible that Nimrod, the grandson of Cush, led people into pagan worship. But the argument that all paganism, and especially that all pagan festivals at the time of the winter solstice, can be traced back to Nimrod, just doesn't hold. To say it is a scholarly stretch is an understatement. Yet most of the "Christmas is pagan" literature bases its arguments on Hislop's thesis.

Isn't it more likely, that many primitive cultures and religions would choose to celebrate the birth of their gods at a time when the sun began to grow stronger, and thus be reborn? Isn't it much more likely that this is the reason that so many pagan religions have festivals at the time of the winter solstice? I'll let you decide which thesis is stronger.

The last part of the third anti-Christmas argument to be considered is that the origin of the customs were pagan and therefore Christmas is pagan. It is well known that most of the customs of Christmas were also observed in pagan culture and religion. Lights and mistletoe, trees and gift-giving, merry-making and revelry, yule logs and holly, and yes, Santa Claus, all found use or expression in ancient pagan religion and culture (The reader is encouraged to read my articles on "The Origin of the Christmas Tree," "The Origin of Santa Claus and the Christan Response," and the "Christian Customs FAQ.").

But is similarity the same as dependence or derivation? In other words, just because we use similar customs does it mean in every case that these are directly derived from pagan religions? Cultures all over the world have used lights and trees, gift-giving and revelry for their celebrations. Why is it assumed that because Christians use these things at Christmas that they have taken them directly from paganism? If it is discovered that pagans drank milk or hugged their families at their pagan festivals, does that mean that if Christians do so, they are engaging in paganism? But this is the kind of logic used by the anti-Christmas crowd.

Of course some Christmas customs are certainly taken from paganism. The use of the word yule and the various customs associated with it, for example, come from pagan culture. The word probably came the Anglo-Saxon geol, which meant "feast." It is thought that among the Anglo-Saxons, the time of the winter solstice was a time of a great feast.

But so what? Is everything that was once used by paganism centuries ago, now off limits when Christians apply them to Christmas or other Christian festivals? Are we prepared to strictly apply that to everything we do? Why can't we use some of the same words, symbols or customs, which long ago ceased to be used in the worship of false gods? We need to remember that before pagans coopted them centuries ago, God had given many of the things used in custom, as good gifts to be enjoyed by his people. Why then can Christians not redeem these good gifts for their use as they celebrate Christmas? In my opinion, it is sufficient to point out to people the origin of these customs, and distinguish these "winter customs" from the true Christmas celebration, which has to do with the birth of God's Son, Jesus Christ. In my perfect world, people would call all of those customs "winter customs" or "holiday customs" rather than "Christmas customs." "Christmas" would only be used to refer to the Christian holy day that remembers Christ's birth. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

We cannot and should not stop the peoples of the world from celebrating at the time of the winter solstice. There is obviously something in us that makes us want and need to celebrate at this time of the year. Therefore we should not be surprised that at this time of the year even non-Christians are celebrating "Christmas," that is, using many of the customs now called Christmas customs.

I have not written this essay to condemn the "Christmas is pagan" crowd. And I certainly haven't written it to convince them that they must celebrate Christmas. Christians have never been commanded to celebrate Christ's birth annually. Therefore they are free to do so or not do so. I have written this essay, however, to those dear Christians who have been falsely taught that celebrating Christmas is celebrating paganism, and they are wracked with guilt because of it. My message to them is: you are doing nothing wrong to celebrate the birth of God's Son; in fact, praising and thanking God for the gift of His Son is beautiful worship in the sight of God. There is also nothing wrong with using some of the winter customs, provided you keep them in perspective and don't allow them to bury the celebration of Christ's birth.

May all who read this, have a truly joyous Christmas celebration.

December. 14, 2001

Table of Contents

<<Previous

The Introduction (Part I)

"Christmas is Obviously Pagan Because:

There is No Biblical Command or Precedent for It (Part II)

Christians Did Not Celebrate Christ's Birth Until the Time of Constantine (313 AD) (Part III)

The Date of Christmas and its Many Customs Come from Paganism" (Part IV)

Sources

Armstrong, Herbert W. "The Plain Truth About Christmas." ~http://home.sprynet.com/~pabco/ptofxmas.htm

"Christmas." Encyclopedia Britannica 2001, CD Edition.

"Christmas." Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Hislop, Alexander. The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife. Loizeaux Brothers, 1990. Also at http://biblebelievers.com/babylon/

Meisel, Rick. "Tis the Season . . . FOR Pagan Worship." http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Despatch/vol94_xmas.html

Miles, Clement A. Christmas in Ritual and Tradition, Christian and Pagan. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912.

Reckart, Cohen G. "Christmas is Pagan."
http://www.jesus-messiah.com/html/christmas.html

"Saturn." Encyclopedia Britannica 2001, CD Edition.

Schneider, Michael. "Is Christmas Christian?" http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/xmas_ch1.htm

Wegman, Herman. Christian Worship in East and West. New York: Pueblo Publishing, 1985.

Weiser, Francis X. Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958.