Christ

For years, we have repeated that Christmas is an invention. Not only does the Bible not specify that Jesus was born on December 25, it is that It is implausible that it was on that date. The gospels themselves detail that there were shepherds tending flocks outdoors (something unlikely in the Decembers of the time in Bethlehem), but the idea that the Romans were going to take a census on those dates is almost delirious. For this reason, we have repeated over and over again, the most reasonable explanation is that during the 4th century, the Church set the birth of Christ on December 25 to make it coincide (and in the process ‘Christianize’) the pagan festivities of Sol Invictus and Saturnalia. The only problem is that the latest available evidence goes in another direction: that of an obscure third century antipope who, obsessed with making a chronology of the scriptures, arrived at the date of the 25th independently. This is the story of how Hippolytus of Rome invented Christmas. The myth of the Christianization of Roman festivals Hail, Caesar! Io, Saturnalia! by Lawrence Alma-Tadema But let’s start by reviewing the best-known theory and seeing why some authors They have started to doubt them. As is often read on the Internet, this theory tells us that there is nothing coincidental about the December 25 election. On that date there was already a birthday, that of the “Unconquered Sun” (which would be the winter solstice for the Romans) and the Church, which during the 4th century struggled to — and would succeed — to become the official religion of the Empire, would have taken advantage of the pull of the pagan festival to place Christmas there. And the theory makes sense. However, it has a big problem; does not really resolve the question at hand: why 25? As explained Thomas C. Schmidta researcher at Princeton University, indeed the Roman Saturnalia fell on those dates, but not on that date. Certainly, it is difficult to be conclusive when we talk about that historical period, but everything seems to indicate that the strong day of Saturnalia fell closer to the 17th than to the 25th. In fact, if this approximation is true, we could not even say that it is the end of the ‘sigilarias’ (the celebrations – of a week – that followed the birth of the Unconquered Sun). Other festivities such as the Kalends (which were already celebrated in January) or the brumals (the solstice festival) do not fit well with the date in question either. That is to say, the idea that these Roman festivals are the origin of Christmas is, as I say, suggestive; but it still does not provide a convincing explanation as to why the Church chose the 25th. To answer that question we have to dig a little deeper. Since when is Christmas celebrated in “Christmas”? As says Schmidt.the first historical reference to December 25 as the day of the “birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea” can be found within the Filócalo Calendarin a document dated 336. It is a curious fact. And, although it is not something that explains the central issue of our question (the reason for December 25), it does give us a time frame: it tells us where to look for that explanation because, for practical purposes, we can assume that during the 4th century the festival was already relatively consolidated. That is, you would have to search a little before. Specifically to 222. In that year it is dated a statue of Hippolytus from Rome found in 1551 near the Via Tiburtina. The interesting thing about the statue is that, among its many inscriptions, it includes a lunar tablet that is kept today in the Vatican Library. Who is Hippolytus of Rome and what does he have to do with all this? Adoration of the Shepherds, by Gerard van Honthorst Hippolytus of Rome is a very multifaceted figure. Considered one of the great theologians and preachers of his time (in fact, Origen can be considered his disciple in some respects), he led a schism in 217 that led him to distance himself from the Church for a decade. He is, at the same time, the first antipope in history and a saint who, according to what is said, died martyred 235: he is, in fact, the only antipope canonized to this day. Well, we know that already in 220 after Christ, Hippolytus (in a commentary on the book of Daniel) defended that “The first coming of our Lord, in Bethlehem, was on Wednesday, December 25.” However, we also know that this text is manipulated. There are several versions with modified dates: among them, some that explain that the birth was in March or April. And the truth is that if Jesus was born in April many of our problems would be solved suddenly. However, looking only at the texts, it is not clear. That’s where the statue comes in. Because in the lunar table of the inscriptions, all past and future Easters appear calculated and, along with them, two key notes for us: the original Good Friday (which fell on March 25) and the “genesis” of the Lord (the year 2 AD) which fell on April 2. In the year 235, in a very ambitious work in which he traced the complete chronology of creation, Hippolytus It advanced that origin to March 25 for the simple (and, seen from today, absurd) reason that that was the date on which, according to their data, the world had been created. The true “genesis” of Christmas Paolo de Matteis But what does all this have to do with December 25? The answer is in the statue although I have overlooked it: specifically, in the word “genesis.” Because what is the “genesis” of a person? His birth or his conception? While it would be better for us if it were his birth (because it would fit with what the Bible says about Christmas), … Read more