Toto

BAR has an interesting article online that seems to have everything known about setting Christmas on Dec 25: How December 25 Became Christmas by Andrew McGowan.

It is popularly believed (and accepted by many Christians) that the Dec 25 date was chosen to coopt pagan celebrations of the solstice, or the birthdate of Sol Invictus, and it is indisputable that many elements of the Christmas celebration are pagan (the Yule log, Christmas trees, etc.) The author of this article notes, however, that the first reference to December 25 comes from the Donatists, who preserved traditions from the early fourth century, at a time when the Christian Church was more inclined to distinguish itself from the surrounding pagan culture that to assimilate their practices.

He posits that Dec 25, or the solstice, was chosen for mystical reasons: that Jesus' death was set at Passover, and theologically he must have been conceived on the same date in the calendar that he died. (There are similar ideas in the Talmud.) This works out to a birth date 9 months later, or Dec 25.

Failte

Seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to "make" it work out ("must have been conceived on the same date..." Um, why?) for something that has a perfectly reasonable explanation already.

The Dagda

Because the Roman festivals of Io Saturnalia and Celtic festivals of the solstice fell around that time and they wanted to supplant them.

Same reason Easter falls on the first Friday and Sunday after the equinoxes first full moon.

It's propaganda.

It just so happens that Celtic festivals fall on the same day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter

I don't buy that that is a coincidence myself...

The name Easter is based on a middle Eastern God, and is pagan so it's obvious.

Eostur-monath?

Easter Month, based on a Germanic festival.

lintrap

[to the tune of Deck the Halls]

They stole Christmas from the Pagans

Fal-la-la-la-la-la-fa-fallacy

Anyone who denies is fakin

Fal-la-la-la-la-la-fa-fallacy

The Dagda

Amen.

ApostateAbe

The theory with the most evidence wins, and there seems to be no evidence to connect Christmas with Sol Invictus, except maybe the shared date? Since Christians at the time made the pagan religions the enemy and tried to make Christianity distinct, it is unlikely that they borrowed the pagan holiday. If there was evidence for the theory, then it would overrule the improbability. The author has this line of evidence for his theory:
The footnote reads:

FrankH

Sing it brother!

Alleluia!

The Dagda

Well that's a thread killer.

Good post.

Roger Pearse

Remember that this is the ancient world, not the modern one. Such thinking was to become characteristic of the middle ages.

avi

I acknowledge being more than a little dense.

I am having trouble understanding these ideas.....

First problem: Passover: how do we know when that occurred? Do the Donatists provide a specific date, one which is correlated back three hundred years to the time of Jesus' supposed execution?

Second problem: Even assuming that the Donatists correctly identified the precise date in April when the execution took place, why would they suppose, (i.e. what is the "theological" rationale?) that n years plus nine months earlier, obviously not "later", the "holy spirit" impregnated Mary? If the Holy spirit impregnated her, why would Mary be required to wait nine months to deliver the god/man? Nine hours, or nine weeks, or nine seconds would suffice just as easily...

Final problem: what is very mysterious to me, is that our solar calendar employs 12 months, about 30 days each, but the Jews, and thus the early Christians, used a lunar calendar, with 13 months, each 28 days duration....So, how does the number 25 figure in their calculations???