2 - Jesus was not born on December 25th

The majority of scholars that studied the Bible admit that Jesus was not born on 25^th December.

During the first two centuries Christians did not celebrate Christmas. They only became interested in Jesus’ birthday when they decided to organize the year by basing themselves on Jesus’ life. Ancient manuscripts inform us that at the end of the second century there was a controversy regarding the different dates for Jesus’ birthday (6^th or 10^th January, 19^th or 20^th April, 20^th May, 18^th November), and that some years later the theologian Origen of Alexandria said that only sinners celebrated the birthdays of their kings, whereas Christians celebrated the dates on which their martyrs had died, since that was when they entered heaven. This shows that the first Christians neither celebrated Jesus’ birthday nor knew exactly when he had been born.

Scholars assume that the date of 25^th December was imposed by the Roman emperor Constantine, who was interested in having one religion for all Roman citizens. At that time there existed another monotheistic religion, Mithraism, also called Sol Invictus (the Unconquerable Sun), which celebrated the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year, when the sun is reborn. In those days, when the Julian calendar was in use, this day was 25^th December. For practical reasons, the Christian authorities agreed to celebrate Jesus’ birthday on that day.

Christianity also adopted other characteristics from that other monotheistic religion. Sol Invictus also caused Christians to change their traditional weekly day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, the day of week which in several languages is dedicated to the sun. The English word ‘Sunday’, for instance, means ‘day of the sun’.

Christian authorities later explained these decisions in a different way. In relation to Jesus’ birthday, they pointed out that in the year 221 Sextus Julios Africanus referred to 25^th March as being the day of both the Annunciation and the Passion of Jesus, which, with a nine-month pregnancy, points to 25^th December as his birthday. And with regard to the celebration of the weekly mass, they pointed out that Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday.

When was Jesus really born? To find out, some have studied the Gospels. After analyzing all the information (the fact that the shepherds who worshipped Jesus had slept in the open suggests it was not winter / winter is not the best time to organize a census), they offered a certain date. However, all that information is not necessarily correct. Since several details relating to Jesus’ birth come from religions that predate Christianity, the authors of those gospels may simply have added certain information on purpose in order to convince the Pagans that Jesus was the ‘saviour of the world’ they were awaiting.

So do we not know when Jesus was born? There is a good reason for assuming that he was born on 1^st January. Why? Because when we reflect upon the Christian calendar we see that it is logical to start it with both the year and the day of Jesus’ birth.

One would expect a society that attaches so much importance to the winter solstice to start the year on that day, as this would give them a calendar in which the first three months correspond to winter, the next three to spring, the following three to summer and the last three to autumn. The fact that we celebrate the winter solstice (Christmas) but do not start the year on that day seems to indicate that, even though the Christian authorities agreed to celebrate Jesus’ birthday on that day, they did not want to lose sight of when he was really born: the day on which they started the new year.

When we now look at the Calendar of Saints, we see that on 1^st January, the first day of the year, Christians celebrate the name of Jesus, which is also Immanuel or Manuel, which shows that the Christian authorities did indeed associate that day with Jesus’ birthday.

1 - A rational response to the dogma of the virgin birth

Christians (2.200 billion) and Muslims (1.6 billion) believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. Sceptics reject this idea because it contradicts science, and therefore they consider that Christians and Muslims, who together make up almost half of the world’s population, are ignorant. Settling the matter of Jesus’ virgin birth in this way makes sceptics feel good, because it allows them to think of themselves as superior. However, they should ask themselves whether it is a good idea to let so many people continue to believe in something that they assume to be a lie, and also whether considering believers to be ignorant might not in fact be a major cause of mutual animosity, something which, in the long run, could create problems for everyone concerned.
 
How can believers accept an idea that science has proved to be false? Believers respond by saying: “It is a matter of faith”. This reply, which is basically the same as saying ‘we believe it because we believe it’, is unanswerable, but it doesn’t explain anything and is very similar to the reply ‘that’s just the way things are’ which adults tend to give their little children when, fed up with their constant questions, they can’t find the right answers.

Believers claim to have faith, but it is not the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth or other similar ideas that they have faith in, but in the religious authorities that defend those ideas. Therefore, when we try to convince believers that some of the ideas of their religion go against science, we should not address them, but instead the religious authorities in question. However, the problem is that when we talk to them about Jesus’ virgin birth they also tend to say: “It is a matter of faith”, which means that the only thing we can do to make believers change their mind about the dogma of Jesus’ virginal conception is to investigate its origin.

A study of early Christianity shows that the first Christians did not believe in this idea. So where does it come from? What made the religious authorities –so many decades after Jesus’ death– believe that he was born of a virgin?

When we consult the New Testament we find that Jesus never claimed to have been born of a virgin, and that only two of the four gospels refer to Jesus’ mysterious birth. If Jesus really was born of a virgin, why do the other two gospels not mention this at all? And why does Saint Paul, who wrote 13 of the 27 books that form the New Testament, not mention it either?

When we look for the answers to these questions we see that it is logical to assume that the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth must have something to do with the two gospels that do associate this event with a mystery. It just so happens that these two gospels are also the only ones that offer genealogies for Jesus, but as these lists do not coincide, neither in all the names nor in the number of generations, they add even more mystery to Jesus’ birth.

 

All this mystery may surprise those who think that a sacred book tells nothing but the truth, but not those who know that calling a book ‘sacred’ originally meant recognizing that it held secrets. Therefore, the existence of these mysteries in the Bible simply confirms that it is indeed a sacred book.