|
See also: Church, the festival of the nativity of Jesus Christ
.
The
See also: history of this feast coheres so closely with that of See also: Epiphany (q.v.), that what follows must be read in connexion with the article under that heading
.
The earliest See also: body of gospel tradition, represented by Mark no less than by the See also: primitive non-Marcan document embodied in the first and third gospels, begins,not with the See also: birth and childhood of Jesus, but with his See also: baptism; and this See also: order of accretion of gospel See also: matter is faithfully reflected in the See also: time order of the invention.of feasts
.
The See also: great church adopted See also: Christmas much later than Epiphany; and before the 5th century there was no general consensus of opinion as to when it should come in the See also: calendar, whether on the 6th of See also: January, or the 25th of See also: March, or the 25th of
See also: December
.
The earliest See also: identification of the 25th of December with the birthday of Christ is in a passage, otherwise unknown and probably See also: spurious, of See also: Theophilus of See also: Antioch (A.D
.
171—183), preserved in Latin by the See also: Magdeburg centuriators (i
.
3, 118), to the effect that the Gauls contended that as they celebrated the birth of the See also: Lord on the 25th of December, whatever See also: day of the week it might be, so they ought to celebrate the Pascha on the 25th of March when the resurrection befell
.
The next mention of the 25th of December is in See also: Hippolytus' (c
.
202) commentary on Daniel iv
.
23
.
Jesus, he says, was See also: born at See also: Bethlehem on the 25th of December, a Wednesday, in the See also: forty-second See also: year of See also: Augustus
.
This passage also is almost certainly interpolated
.
In any See also: case he mentions no feast, nor was such a feast congruous with the orthodox ideas of that age
.
As See also: late as 245 See also: Origen, in his eighth See also: homily on See also: Leviticus, repudiates as sinful the very idea of keeping the birthday of Christ " as if he were a See also: king
See also: Pharaoh." The first certain mention of Dec
.
25 is in a Latin chronographer of A.D
.
3J4, first published entire by See also: Mommsen.i It runs thus in See also: English: " Year r after Christ, in the consulate of Caesar and Paulus, the Lord Jesus Christ was born on the 25th of December, a Friday and 15th day of the new See also: moon." Here again no festal celebration of the day is attested
.
There were, however, many speculations in the 2nd century about the date of Christ's birth
.
See also: Clement of Alexandria, towards its close, mentions several such, and condemns them as superstitions
.
Some chronologists, he says, alleged the birth to have
In the Abhandlungen der stichsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (185o)
.
Note that in A.D
.
1, Dec
.
25 was a See also: Sunday and not a Friday.occurred in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, on the 25th of Pachon, the See also: Egyptian See also: month, i.e. the loth of May
.
These were probably the Basilidian gnostics
.
Others set it on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi, i.e. the 19th or loth of See also: April
.
Clement himself sets it on the r7th of See also: November, 3 B.C
.
The author of a Latin See also: tract, called the De Pascha computus, written in See also: Africa in 243, sets it by private See also: revelation, ab ipso deo inspirati, on the 28th of March
.
He argues that the See also: world was created perfect, See also: flowers in See also: bloom, and trees in leaf, therefore in spring; also at the equinox, and when the moon just created was full
.
Now the moon and See also: sun were created on a Wednesday
.
The 28th of March suits all these considerations
.
Christ, therefore, being the Sun of Righteousness, was born on the 28th of March
.
The same symbolical reasoning led Polycarp2 (before 160) to set his birth on Sunday, when the world's creation began, but his baptism on Wednesday, for it was the analogue of the sun's creation
.
On such grounds certain Latins as early as 354 may have transferred the human birthday from the 6th of January to the 25th of December, which was then a Mithraic feast and is by the chronographer above referred to, but in another See also: part of his compilation, termed Natalia invicti See also: solis, or birthday of the unconquered Sun
.
Cyprian (de orat. dom
.
35) calls Christ Sol verus, See also: Ambrose Sol novus mister (Sermo vii
.
13), and such rhetoric was widespread
.
The Syrians and Armenians, who clung to the 6th of January, accused the See also: Romans of sun-worship and See also: idolatry, contending with great probability that the feast of the 25th of December had been invented by disciples of See also: Cerinthus and its lections by See also: Artemon to commemorate the natural birth of Jesus
.
See also: Chrysostom also testifies the 25th of December to have been from the beginning known in the West, from See also: Thrace even as far as Gades
.
Ambrose, On Virgins, iii. ch
.
1, writing to his See also: sister, implies that as late as the papacy of Liberius 352—356, the Birth from the Virgin was feasted together with the See also: Marriage of See also: Cana and the Banquet of the 4000 (See also: Luke ix
.
13), which were never feasted on any other day but See also: Jan
.
6
.
Chrysostom, in a See also: sermon preached at Antioch on Dec
.
20, 386 or 388, says that some held the feast of Dec
.
25 to have been held in the West, from Thrace as far as Cadiz, from the beginning
.
It certainly originated in the West, but spread quickly eastwards
.
In 353—361 it was observed at the See also: court of See also: Constantius
.
See also: Basil of Caesarea (died 379) adopted it
.
See also: Honorius, emperor (395—423) in the West, informed his See also: mother and See also: brother See also: Arcadius (395-408) in See also: Byzantium of how the new feast was kept in See also: Rome, See also: separate from the 6th of January, with its own troparia and sticharia
.
They adopted it, and recommended it to Chrysostom, who had long been in favour of it .See also: Epiphanius of Crete was won over to it, as were also the other three patriarchs, Theophilus of Alexandria, See also: John of Jerusalem,
See also: Flavian of Antioch
.
This was under See also: Pope See also: Anastasius, 398—400
.
John or Wahan of See also: Nice, in a letter printed by CombefisinhisHistoriamonottrelitarum, affords the above details
.
The new feast was communicated by See also: Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople (434—446), to Sahak, Catholicos of Armenia, about 440
.
The letter was betrayed to the Persian king, who accused Sahak of See also: Greek intrigues, and deposed him
.
However, the Armenians, at least those within the See also: Byzantine pale, adopted it for about See also: thirty years, but finally abandoned it together with the decrees of See also: Chalcedon early in the 8th century
.
Many writers of the See also: period 375-450, e.g
.
Epiphanius, Cassian, Asterius, Basil, Chrysostom and See also: Jerome, contrast the new feast with that of the Baptism as that of the birth after the flesh, from which we infer that the latter was generally regarded as a birth according to the Spirit
.
Instructive as showing that the new feast travelled from West eastwards is the fact (noticed by Usener) that in 387 the new feast was reckoned according to the Julian calendar by writers of the province of See also: Asia, who in referring to other feasts use the reckoning of their See also: local calendars
.
As early as 40o in Rome an imperial rescript includes Christmas among the three feasts (the others are See also: Easter and Epiphany) on which theatres must be closed
.
Epiphany and Christmas were not made judicial non See also: dies until 534•
2 In a fragment preserved by an Armenian writer, See also: Ananias of Shirak
.
For some years in the West (as late as 353 in Rome) the birth feast was appended to the baptismal feast on the 6th of January, and in Jerusalem it altogether supplanted it from about 36o to 440, when See also: Bishop Juvenal introduced the feast of the 25th of December
.
The new feast was about the same time (440) finally established in Alexandria
.
The quadragesima of Epiphany (i.e. the feast of the presentation in the See also: Temple, or hupapante) continued to be celebrated in Jerusalem on the 14th of See also: February, forty days after the 6th of January, until the reign of Justinian
.
In most other places it had long before been put back to the 2nd of February to suit the new Christmas
.
Armenian historians describe the riots, and display of armed force, without which Justinian was not able in Jerusalem to transfer this feast from the 14th to the 2nd of February
.
The grounds on which the Church introduced so late as 350-440 a Christmas feast till then unknown, or, if known, precariously linked with the baptism, seem in the See also: main to have been the following
.
(I) The transition from adult to infant baptism was proceeding rapidly in the See also: East, and in the West was well-nigh completed
.
Its natural complement was a festal recognition of the fact that the divine See also: element was See also: present in Christ from the first, and was no new stage of spiritual promotion coeval only with the descent of the Spirit upon him at baptism
.
The general adoption of See also: child baptism helped to extinguish the old view that the divine See also: life in Jesus dated from his baptism, a view which led the Epiphany feast to be regarded as that of Jesus' spiritual rebirth
.
This aspect of the feast was therefore forgotten, and its importance in every way diminished by the new and See also: rival feast of Christmas
.
(2) The 4th century witnessed a rapid diffusion of Marcionite, or, as it was now called, Manichaean propaganda, the chief tenet of which was that Jesus either was not born at all, was a See also: mere phantasm, or anyhow did not take flesh of the Virgin Mary
.
Against this view the new Christmas was a protest, since it was peculiarly the feast of his birth in the flesh, or as a See also: man, and is constantly spoken of as such by the fathers who witnessed its institution
.
In Britain the 25th of December was a festival long before the conversion toSee also: Christianity, for See also: Bede (De temp. rat. ch
.
13) relates that " the See also: ancient peoples of the See also: Angli began the year on the 25th of December when we now celebrate the birthday of the Lord; and the very See also: night which is now so See also: holy to us, they called in their See also: tongue modranecht (m8dra niht), that is, the mothers' night, by reason we suspect of the ceremonies which in that night-long See also: vigil they performed." With his usual reticence about matters See also: pagan or not orthodox, Bede abstains from recording who the mothers were and what the ceremonies
.
In 1644 the English puritans forbad any merriment or religious services by See also: act of Parliament, on the ground that it was a See also: heathen festival, and ordered it to be kept as a fast
.
See also: Charles II. revived the feast, but the Scots adhered to the Puritan view
.
Outside Teutonic countries Christmas presents are unknown
.
Their place is taken in Latin countries by the strenae, French etrennes, given on the 1st of January; this was in antiquity a great
See also: holiday, wherefore until late in the 4th century the Christians kept it as a day of fasting and gloom
.
The setting up in Latin churches of a Christmas creche is said to have been originated by St See also: Francis
.
|
|
|
[back] SIR ROBERT CHRISTISON |
[next] CHRISTMAS ISLAND |
There are no comments yet for this article.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.
Links to articles and home page are encouraged.