At the outset, something needs to be cleared up: Christmas — the celebration of Jesus’ birth — wasn’t really a feature of early Christianity. It doesn’t emerge as a special date in the faith’s calendar until the 4th century. Prior to that, Christmas was simply not a concern at all.
The main reason Christmas wasn’t “a thing” during Christianity’s first three centuries is that Christians generally didn’t celebrate birthdays at all. It was considered a pagan practice and shunned by most Christians. Origen, for instance, rationalized disparaging the celebration of birthdays on the basis of one’s birth being one’s introduction to the world of sin (I added the Biblical references):
Not one from all the saints is found to have celebrated a festive day or a great feast on the day of his birth. No one is found to have had joy on the day of the birth of his son or daughter. Only sinners rejoice over this type of birthday. For indeed we find in the Old Testament Pharaoh, king of Egypt, celebrating the day of his birth with a festival [Gen 40:20], and in the New Testament, Herod [Mk 16:21]. However, both of them stained the festival of his birth by shedding human blood. For the Pharaoh killed “the chief baker” [Gen 40:22], Herod the holy prophet John “in prison” [Mk 6:27]. But the saints not only do not celebrate a festival on their birth days, but, filled with the Holy Spirit, they curse that day. (Homilies on Leviticus VIII.3.2)
Other Church Fathers and Christian thinkers likewise made clear that birthdays weren’t Christian. There’s literally no reason they’d have wished to celebrate Jesus’ birth. Even after Christians began noting the anniversary of Jesus’ birth, St Augustine condemns the celebration of birthdays (in De doctrina Christiana II.21). So Christians’ rejection of birthdays persisted through the classical period.
A document called the Chronograph of 354 inscribed in that year mentions the date of Jesus’ birth in an entry stating: “VIII kal. Ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae.” This means, “the eighth day before the Kalends (or first day) of January was born Christ, in Bethlehem, Judaea.” The Chronograph itself included the content of older annals; this entry was one of those, and had originally been composed in 336.
This is significant, since in very few words this tells us two things: The claimed date of Jesus’ birth (i.e. December 25); and the first documented occasion it was noted by anyone had been in 336 CE. A lot has been said about this, including an assertion this meant that 336 was the first celebration of Christmas; but this sparse note isn’t sufficient to tell us it was actually “celebrated” by anyone in 336 CE. It only shows that Jesus’ birthdate was said, in 336, to have been on December 25. True Christmas celebrations aren’t otherwise in evidence until after then.
The selection of December 25 is curious, to say the least. This day doesn’t come from any earlier Christian texts (canonical or otherwise). None of them make any effort to report what day Jesus had been born. What’s in the gospels that gives any clue about it, is his birth was announced to shepherds who’d been “staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night” (Lk 2:8).
There’s long been an assumption that the December 25th date was an attempt by Christians to co-opt the existing Roman holiday Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (Birthday of the Unconquered Sun). This particular day had been promulgated by Emperor Aurelian in 274 and reinforced by the decrees of various later emperors, including Diocletian and Constantine I.
There is, however, another explanation for this date which had its origins in Christian legend and in much older traditions. Writing in the early 3rd century, Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus had asserted that Jesus’ conception had taken place on March 25.
This was about the time of the Vernal Equinox or first day of spring, which in many Near Eastern traditions also was the first day of the year. Thus, it was also considered the day of Creation itself.
Counting nine months from there leaves us at December 25th. All things considered, it’s a simple explanation. But it flies in the face of what’s said of Jesus’ birth in chapter 2 of Luke; in December, due to the cold, shepherds wouldn’t have had their flocks out in fields at night, they’d more likely be penned or even under cover of some kind.
There’s another date on the Christian calendar that had a lot of believers’ attention, and that was Epiphany. This name is from Greek επιφανεια (epifaneia) meaning “appearance” or “manifestation.”
The earliest mention of Christians celebrating Epiphany was left by Clement of Alexandria, who observed that Basilides and his followers had honored the baptism of Jesus of Nazareth on a day in early January. However, what Clement says suggests this was simply an event in Basilideans’ liturgical calendar. There’s no suggestion they “celebrated” it in any way other than having it included in readings for that week’s services.
It’s not until the middle of the 4th century that a Christian chronicler, Ammianus Marcellinus, mentions Epiphany as a Christian “feast.” Note, this was just a few years after the Chronograph of 354 had been penned. Also, it’s about this time that Epiphany was pegged specifically to January 6th, which happened to be 12 days after December 25th.
At this point, the meaning of Epiphany began to veer around. It may originally have been the day that Basilideans recalled Jesus’ baptism, and other Christians did the same, but others celebrated his birth on that day, as well as the day the wise men from the East arrived to see him. The latter is what’s celebrated in most of western Christianity, but in eastern Christianity, Epiphany (on January 6) is when Jesus’ birth is celebrated.
So far I’ve discussed the known mentions of Christmas in early Christianity. Students of early Christianity may wonder why I left out mention of the so-called 20,000 martyrs of Nicomedia, who in 303 reportedly were killed by Roman forces who set fire to the church in which they were celebrating Christmas. If true, this would be evidence Christians were celebrating Christmas decades prior to anything I mentioned above.
There’s a reason I left it out, however: This is a much-later legend that’s not otherwise documented during in the 4th century. There had been something of a persecution of Christians in Nicomedia in the early years of the 4th century, but it was far more targeted. There’s no evidence this particular atrocity occurred. While Nicomedia did have a Christian church, it appears to have been destroyed in early 303 (not in December of that year), and it’s not likely it was large enough to hold as many as 20,000 worshippers.
The only “holy day” observed in early Christianity prior to the middle of the 4th century was Easter, which celebrated of Jesus’ resurrection. Aside from that, holidays were not something the first centuries of Christians concerned themselves with.
Even the holidays Christians observed, when they began observing them, were not “holidays” in a sense we view them. The oldest accounts of Christmas “celebrations” consisted of a special Mass attended only by clergy and oblates (monks, nuns, etc.).
The manner in which holidays were observed within Christianity developed over a long period of time, from the 4th century onward. This is even true of Easter, which was first observed by the late 1st century. The many different traditions and trappings of the various holidays — especially Christmas — developed much later in Christianity’s history, during the Middle Ages and even beyond into modern times.
Yes, a lot of those “age-old” Christmas traditions aren’t really as “age-old” as most people think. Certainly none of them dates back to the classical era of Christianity.
This is something I touched on when I mentioned Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. Over the past century to century and a half, some scholars have speculated that Christians adopted holidays such as Christmas — and dated them when they did — as a way of replacing ancient and traditional Greco-Roman holidays, purging them of their pagan origins and thus using them to bolster the Christian faith. Effectively it allowed pagan converts to continue enjoying the same holidays they’d been celebrating for many generations and not lose out on them.
An example of this, in relation to Christmas, is Saturnalia.
The multi-day Greco-Roman holiday Saturnalia had been celebrated around the time of the Winter Solstice, however, it traditionally began on December 17. Initially it lasted only three days, ending on the 19th, but later was extended to the 23rd, making it a seven-day holiday. While it’s often been said that Christmas was also Christians’ effort to co-opt Saturnalia, that simply doesn’t mesh with the date of December 25th.
It is true that the traditional Yule celebrations held by the Germanic/Teutonic peoples were integrated into Christmas, but that happened during the Middle Ages (starting in the 10th century). By then, December 25th (or January 6th) had already been pegged as Jesus’ birthday on the Christian calendar for c. 600 years. That date can’t have been selected for the purpose of absconding with Yule. It’s certainly true the two holidays coincided, and Christianity took advantage of that, but that was as far as it went.
Let’s be honest about this: The prospect of losing out on a holiday or two can’t have been a major barrier to pagans converting to Christianity. Many other factors were in play, with regard to conversion, especially prior to the Edict of Milan in 313. Really, there’s no evidence that the first few centuries of Christians came up with dates for any of their earliest holidays with an eye toward “replacing” pagan holidays.
↵ Go back up to Early Christian History menu.