Jesus, Christmas, and Saturnalia
Over the past few centuries, an increasingly popular line of critical thought in the West has sought to discredit Christianity by debunking its historical foundations. The intent of the critics is certainly understandable: If one can separate Christian belief and practice from its historical claims concerning the uniqueness of Jesus Christ—his divinity, incarnation, vicarious suffering and death, and especially his resurrection from the dead—then Christianity is relegated to the curious level of just one more human belief system among numerous competitors, and in the minds of many to the historical dustbin.[1] Among the better-known forms of this onslaught was the Jesus Seminar of the 1980s-90s, which attempted to determine the historically credible words and acts of Jesus by the votes of its members. The result was the admitted attempt to separate the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.”[2]
Another familiar critique heard near the end of every calendar year in the popular media is that the Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth on 25 December actually began as a crude political power-play by Roman Emperor Constantine I (r. 312-337). As the critique goes, sensing the increasing popularity of Christianity and its potential as a galvanizing social force in a Roman world desperately in need of unity following a period of internal warfare, Constantine invented a story about a vision of the cross, announced himself a Christian, and made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Furthermore, in order to enforce the practice of Christianity among the Roman populace, he deliberately replaced popular pagan festivals with Christian festivals. According to this theory, the pagan New Year festival at the Spring equinox was replaced with the myth of Christ rising from the dead. Most notably, however, Constantine replaced the Roman festival of Saturnalia and the birthday of the sun at the Winter solstice with the celebration of Jesus’ birth.
What are Christians to make of such accusations? Is there any truth in these claims? What does it mean for the Christian observance of Christmas—the celebration of the birth of the Messiah? We shall begin by reviewing early Christian evidence for the feast of Christmas, and continue by investigating possible connections between Christmas and Saturnalia.
Christmas Among Early Christians
The writings of several early Christian leaders point to the likelihood of widespread adoption of 25 December (or perhaps 6 January) as the birthdate of Jesus by the early third century. Evidence for festal celebration of his birth is, however, more scanty. The earliest known citation of 25 December as the birth date of Jesus is found in the Commentary on Daniel (4.23) by Hippolytus, where he stated that Christ was born on the eighth day of the kalends of January—which by Roman calculation is 25 December—and that it was a Wednesday. Just over a century later came the Chronograph of 354, an almanac of unknown authorship designed for use by Christians around Rome. The notation of “natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae” for VIII Kalends Ianuario is found at the beginning of a list of commemorative dates for Christian martyrs.[3] While these are the earliest known specific links of 25 December with the birth of Christ, in both documents this linkage is presented simply and forthrightly with no emphasis or explanation, which implies that the feast was already well known and that Christians around Rome had been celebrating Jesus’ birth on this date for some time.
But why 25 December? As is also the case with those who argue in favor of 6 January as the birth date of Jesus, it is not because of the date itself, but because of its relationship with another date nine months previous—which in this case is 25 March. It was stated perhaps most clearly by Augustine (354-430) of Hippo, who asserted not only that Christ “is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March,” but that it was “upon [this] day he also suffered,” and later that “He was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.”[4] Another example is found in the Canon of Hippolytus, where he specifically associated 25 March with the beginning of creation, and in one place even with the date of Christ’s birth.[5]
In the minds of many ancient peoples, including the Romans, 25 March was the vernal equinox, and was therefore viewed as the beginning of a new year. Many ancient peoples also understood the vernal equinox as marking the day of creation. In other words, the vernal equinox reflected the creation as it was at the very beginning—fresh from the hands of God, with all things in balance, and moving into the season of nature’s production. So for early Christians it only made eminent sense that God would likewise begin the re-creation of a redeemed humanity through the incarnation of his Son in human form on the same date.
An alternate way of understanding this (and, in the mind of this author, more theologically defensible from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint) is to assert the possibility that the incarnation of Christ occurred on the Jewish feast of Passover—which was 30 March in 3 BC, the most likely year of Jesus’ birth.[6] Although a few days after the date of the vernal equinox, placing the incarnation on Passover provides a more theologically grounded date for the beginning of the earthly life of Christ, since he was likewise crucified on Passover thirty-five years later. And 30 March is still essentially nine months before the assumed date of his birth on 25 December.
Christmas and Saturnalia
Saturnalia was popularly celebrated by the Romans on the several days surrounding the Winter Solstice, typically 17-23 December. Many have assumed that the choice of 25 December as the birthday celebration of Christ was a political power play by Constantine and his successors to enforce their new religion on the general populace. Commonly cited in this argument is the fact that Emperor Aurelian (r. AD 270-275) built a temple in Rome to “Sol Invictus” (the Unconquerable Sun) in AD 274—nearly a half-century before Constantine.[7] This assertion was popularized more recently by Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.
Unfortunately for its proponents, the theory of Christmas as a political power play and/or Christian overlay for a pagan holiday possesses some glaring weaknesses. First of all, evidence from early Christian sources indicates that Christians were already celebrating the birth of Christ long before Aurelian’s construction of the Sol Invictus temple. For instance, the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles—a document of unknown authorship, but which originated from Asia Minor in the late second to early third century—lists the birth of Christ along with several other feasts observed by Christians.[8] In addition, even the casual observer can see that the dates of Saturnalia do not exactly match that of Christmas, meaning that one is engaging in rather sloppy calendrics to assert so simply that Christmas was merely a Christian overlay intended to replace a pagan festival.
More evidence from patristic sources indicates that Christians were generally offended by the level of feasting, revelry, and sexual license which accompanied Saturnalia. For ancient Christians, the birth of Christ often meant fasting rather than feasting.[9] In addition, while Saturnalia may have been observed by numerous tribal groups before the lifetime of Jesus, it appears that Aurelian was the first to give it official Roman recognition. While the death of Aurelian likely prevented his persecution of Christians from advancing very far, his attempt to give political and societal backing to Saturnalia shows nonetheless that he was no friend of Christianity. [10]
In fact, the complete lack of a specific connection between Saturnalia and the date of the celebration of Jesus’ birth in the writings of early Christians betrays the probable falsehood of the theory. It is therefore likely that the liberal critique of the origin of the celebrations surrounding the birth of Christ is dependent on a skewed interpretation of historical facts— that in fact the Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth predated the official recognition of Saturnalia, not vice-versa. While numismatic evidence of the period appears to affirm the claim that Constantine indeed suppressed the cult of Sol Invictus[11], the prior popularity of the Christmas celebration means that there was no need for him to attempt a simple Christian replacement of Saturnalia. Hence, it appears that this is at least equally a case of a pagan Roman ruler of the third century trying to counteract the growing popularity of Christianity, as it is a case of a Christian Roman ruler of the fourth century trying to counteract the popularity of a pagan practice.
Speaking of Christians who were offended by the antics of those who participated in Saturnalia, one early Christian author who did make specific mention of Saturnalia was Tertullian (AD 145-220) in his On Idolatry. Understandably, Tertullian’s primary concern was to warn Christians against participation in the patently sinful activities of Saturnalia—gluttony, drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and especially pagan worship rituals. Tertullian made no specific mention, however, of Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth, whether at the same time of the year or any other. Some Christians—including Puritan minister Increase Mather (1639-1723)—have perceived a veiled reference to Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth in Tertullian’s challenge to his readers: “Not the Lord’s day, not Pentecost, even if…[non-Christians]… had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians. [Yet] We are not apprehensive lest we seem to be heathens!”[12]
In all fairness to Mather (and to Tertullian), we should remember that one of the prime reasons for their feelings of revulsion against the popular practices of Saturnalia is that before the invention of modern refrigeration in the early twentieth century, December was traditionally a period of feasting in nearly all societies North of the Tropics. Since December is after the major harvest of grains and vegetables, and after the major hunting season of the year, it was often celebrated with feasting (fresh food tastes better!) before the majority of the food stuffs were salted away and stored for future months. Unfortunately, this also means that December became known for gluttony, drunkenness, and the consequent rowdiness and other behaviors which resulted from this setting. These became the behaviors associated with Saturnalia and other cultural celebrations of the Winter Solstice—behaviors which are inadvisable for anyone seeking to follow Jesus.
The possibility that Tertullian was referring to Saturnalia in this comment without mentioning it specifically is debatable at best. (He does specifically mention Saturnalia and some other cultural festivals elsewhere in the same document, but here he mentions none of them specifically.) Even if it is true, however, that Tertullian is here referring to Saturnalia, what seems to have escaped the notice of Mather (and of anyone who would see this as historical evidence of the use of Christmas as a Christian overlay of Saturnalia) is the very chronology involved. In other words, if Tertullian was indeed referring to Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth, then it is further evidence of Christmas as a public Christian event in the early third century—a half-century before the construction of the Sol Invictus temple by Aurelian and a full century before Constantine and the legalization of Christianity in the Roman world. In other words, it constitutes solid textual evidence of the exact opposite of what Mather and others wish to assert.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that Christians were intermittently persecuted during Tertullian’s lifetime and for another century thereafter until the rise of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity. (Witness Tertullian’s own Apology addressed to “Rulers of the Roman Empire.”[13]] Under such circumstances, Christians would have had little opportunity or the political weight required to attempt the cultural conversion from Saturnalia to Christmas. On the other hand, however, Tertullian—the first Christian writer to clearly delineate the doctrine of one God in three persons[14]—would have had every reason to urge fellow-believers to remain faithful to their confession of the one true God and therefore to avoid any pollution of their faith by participation in culturally popular activities.
This was the same challenge facing the first generation of Gentile Christians, who were strongly encouraged by the letter from the apostles following the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29) to avoid 1) eating meat from animals sacrificed to idols, 2) drinking blood, 3) eating meat from strangled animals, and 4) sexual promiscuity—all features of pagan worship rituals. And perhaps this is the same challenge facing Christians in a modern Western world in which the cultural forces incessantly encourage ever more consumer spending—to practice more uniquely Christian ways of celebrating the birth of the Messiah.
Notes
[1] Especially notorious in this regard are John William Draper, History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009 [1874]) and Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (2 vols. New York: D. Appleton, 1896). Analysis of the influence of the Draper-White “conflict thesis” and the evolving relationship between religion and science over the past few centuries is found in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, “Introduction,” God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (Lindberg and Numbers, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 1-18. Since the late twentieth century the conflict thesis has been largely rejected by academicians and serious historians, although it has lingered in the popular media.
[2] Cf., Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Scribner, 1993) and The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do? (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1998).
[3] Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 325; Roger Pearse, “The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 12: Commemorations of the Martyrs.” MGH Chronica Minora I (1892), 71– 72, http:// www.tertullian.org/ fathers/ chronography_of_354_12_depositions_martyrs.htm.
[4] On the Trinity IV, 5; NPNF1, III, 74.
[5] ANF V, 179ff. Ogg concludes from Hippolytus’ Canon and Chronicle that he later identified AM 5502 as the year of Christ’s birth. It is also surmised that the single occurrence of Hippolytus’ association of 25 March with the birth date of Christ may be more properly a reference to his incarnation. See George Ogg, “Hippolytus and the Introduction of the Christian Era,” Viligiae Christianae 16, No.1 (March 1962): 2-18.
[6] For more on the likely date of Jesus’ birth and the historical matters of debate, see Steven L. Ware, When Was Jesus Really Born?: Early Christianity, the Calendar, and the Life of Jesus (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2013), 11ff.
[7] See, for instance, Stefan Heid, “The Romanness of Roman Christianity,” A Companion to Roman Religion (Jörg Rüpke, ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 417; “Saturnalia: the Carnival Celebration that Became Christmas and New Year’s Eve,” http://www.carnival.com/saturnalia/. See also the review of literature of literature and arguments by Anthony McRoy, “Pagan Festival or Christian Celebration?,” http://www.answering-islam.org/pagan/christmas.html.
[8] “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,” V, III; ANF VII, 443.
[9] Gregory of Nazianzen, “On the Theophany, or Birthday of Christ,” NPNF2, VII, 346.
[10] Both Eusebius (Church History VII, 30) and Lactantius (Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died VI) interpreted Aurelian’s murder by officers of the Praetorian Guard as divine judgment for persecution of Christians. See NPNF2, I, 316; ANF VII, 303.
[11] Jonathan Williams, “Religion and Roman Coins,” A Companion to Roman Religion, 160-161 (Figure 11.38).
[12] Tertullian, “On Idolatry,” XIV; ANF III, 70. See also Increase Mather, A Testimony Against several Prophane and Superstitious Customs now Practiced by some in New-England (London: 1687); http://www.covenanter.org/IMather/increasemathertestimony.htm.
[13] Tertullian, “Apology”; ANF III, 17ff.
[14] Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” ANF III, 597ff.
Another familiar critique heard near the end of every calendar year in the popular media is that the Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth on 25 December actually began as a crude political power-play by Roman Emperor Constantine I (r. 312-337). As the critique goes, sensing the increasing popularity of Christianity and its potential as a galvanizing social force in a Roman world desperately in need of unity following a period of internal warfare, Constantine invented a story about a vision of the cross, announced himself a Christian, and made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Furthermore, in order to enforce the practice of Christianity among the Roman populace, he deliberately replaced popular pagan festivals with Christian festivals. According to this theory, the pagan New Year festival at the Spring equinox was replaced with the myth of Christ rising from the dead. Most notably, however, Constantine replaced the Roman festival of Saturnalia and the birthday of the sun at the Winter solstice with the celebration of Jesus’ birth.
What are Christians to make of such accusations? Is there any truth in these claims? What does it mean for the Christian observance of Christmas—the celebration of the birth of the Messiah? We shall begin by reviewing early Christian evidence for the feast of Christmas, and continue by investigating possible connections between Christmas and Saturnalia.
Christmas Among Early Christians
The writings of several early Christian leaders point to the likelihood of widespread adoption of 25 December (or perhaps 6 January) as the birthdate of Jesus by the early third century. Evidence for festal celebration of his birth is, however, more scanty. The earliest known citation of 25 December as the birth date of Jesus is found in the Commentary on Daniel (4.23) by Hippolytus, where he stated that Christ was born on the eighth day of the kalends of January—which by Roman calculation is 25 December—and that it was a Wednesday. Just over a century later came the Chronograph of 354, an almanac of unknown authorship designed for use by Christians around Rome. The notation of “natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae” for VIII Kalends Ianuario is found at the beginning of a list of commemorative dates for Christian martyrs.[3] While these are the earliest known specific links of 25 December with the birth of Christ, in both documents this linkage is presented simply and forthrightly with no emphasis or explanation, which implies that the feast was already well known and that Christians around Rome had been celebrating Jesus’ birth on this date for some time.
But why 25 December? As is also the case with those who argue in favor of 6 January as the birth date of Jesus, it is not because of the date itself, but because of its relationship with another date nine months previous—which in this case is 25 March. It was stated perhaps most clearly by Augustine (354-430) of Hippo, who asserted not only that Christ “is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March,” but that it was “upon [this] day he also suffered,” and later that “He was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.”[4] Another example is found in the Canon of Hippolytus, where he specifically associated 25 March with the beginning of creation, and in one place even with the date of Christ’s birth.[5]
In the minds of many ancient peoples, including the Romans, 25 March was the vernal equinox, and was therefore viewed as the beginning of a new year. Many ancient peoples also understood the vernal equinox as marking the day of creation. In other words, the vernal equinox reflected the creation as it was at the very beginning—fresh from the hands of God, with all things in balance, and moving into the season of nature’s production. So for early Christians it only made eminent sense that God would likewise begin the re-creation of a redeemed humanity through the incarnation of his Son in human form on the same date.
An alternate way of understanding this (and, in the mind of this author, more theologically defensible from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint) is to assert the possibility that the incarnation of Christ occurred on the Jewish feast of Passover—which was 30 March in 3 BC, the most likely year of Jesus’ birth.[6] Although a few days after the date of the vernal equinox, placing the incarnation on Passover provides a more theologically grounded date for the beginning of the earthly life of Christ, since he was likewise crucified on Passover thirty-five years later. And 30 March is still essentially nine months before the assumed date of his birth on 25 December.
Christmas and Saturnalia
Saturnalia was popularly celebrated by the Romans on the several days surrounding the Winter Solstice, typically 17-23 December. Many have assumed that the choice of 25 December as the birthday celebration of Christ was a political power play by Constantine and his successors to enforce their new religion on the general populace. Commonly cited in this argument is the fact that Emperor Aurelian (r. AD 270-275) built a temple in Rome to “Sol Invictus” (the Unconquerable Sun) in AD 274—nearly a half-century before Constantine.[7] This assertion was popularized more recently by Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.
Unfortunately for its proponents, the theory of Christmas as a political power play and/or Christian overlay for a pagan holiday possesses some glaring weaknesses. First of all, evidence from early Christian sources indicates that Christians were already celebrating the birth of Christ long before Aurelian’s construction of the Sol Invictus temple. For instance, the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles—a document of unknown authorship, but which originated from Asia Minor in the late second to early third century—lists the birth of Christ along with several other feasts observed by Christians.[8] In addition, even the casual observer can see that the dates of Saturnalia do not exactly match that of Christmas, meaning that one is engaging in rather sloppy calendrics to assert so simply that Christmas was merely a Christian overlay intended to replace a pagan festival.
More evidence from patristic sources indicates that Christians were generally offended by the level of feasting, revelry, and sexual license which accompanied Saturnalia. For ancient Christians, the birth of Christ often meant fasting rather than feasting.[9] In addition, while Saturnalia may have been observed by numerous tribal groups before the lifetime of Jesus, it appears that Aurelian was the first to give it official Roman recognition. While the death of Aurelian likely prevented his persecution of Christians from advancing very far, his attempt to give political and societal backing to Saturnalia shows nonetheless that he was no friend of Christianity. [10]
In fact, the complete lack of a specific connection between Saturnalia and the date of the celebration of Jesus’ birth in the writings of early Christians betrays the probable falsehood of the theory. It is therefore likely that the liberal critique of the origin of the celebrations surrounding the birth of Christ is dependent on a skewed interpretation of historical facts— that in fact the Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth predated the official recognition of Saturnalia, not vice-versa. While numismatic evidence of the period appears to affirm the claim that Constantine indeed suppressed the cult of Sol Invictus[11], the prior popularity of the Christmas celebration means that there was no need for him to attempt a simple Christian replacement of Saturnalia. Hence, it appears that this is at least equally a case of a pagan Roman ruler of the third century trying to counteract the growing popularity of Christianity, as it is a case of a Christian Roman ruler of the fourth century trying to counteract the popularity of a pagan practice.
Speaking of Christians who were offended by the antics of those who participated in Saturnalia, one early Christian author who did make specific mention of Saturnalia was Tertullian (AD 145-220) in his On Idolatry. Understandably, Tertullian’s primary concern was to warn Christians against participation in the patently sinful activities of Saturnalia—gluttony, drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and especially pagan worship rituals. Tertullian made no specific mention, however, of Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth, whether at the same time of the year or any other. Some Christians—including Puritan minister Increase Mather (1639-1723)—have perceived a veiled reference to Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth in Tertullian’s challenge to his readers: “Not the Lord’s day, not Pentecost, even if…[non-Christians]… had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians. [Yet] We are not apprehensive lest we seem to be heathens!”[12]
In all fairness to Mather (and to Tertullian), we should remember that one of the prime reasons for their feelings of revulsion against the popular practices of Saturnalia is that before the invention of modern refrigeration in the early twentieth century, December was traditionally a period of feasting in nearly all societies North of the Tropics. Since December is after the major harvest of grains and vegetables, and after the major hunting season of the year, it was often celebrated with feasting (fresh food tastes better!) before the majority of the food stuffs were salted away and stored for future months. Unfortunately, this also means that December became known for gluttony, drunkenness, and the consequent rowdiness and other behaviors which resulted from this setting. These became the behaviors associated with Saturnalia and other cultural celebrations of the Winter Solstice—behaviors which are inadvisable for anyone seeking to follow Jesus.
The possibility that Tertullian was referring to Saturnalia in this comment without mentioning it specifically is debatable at best. (He does specifically mention Saturnalia and some other cultural festivals elsewhere in the same document, but here he mentions none of them specifically.) Even if it is true, however, that Tertullian is here referring to Saturnalia, what seems to have escaped the notice of Mather (and of anyone who would see this as historical evidence of the use of Christmas as a Christian overlay of Saturnalia) is the very chronology involved. In other words, if Tertullian was indeed referring to Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth, then it is further evidence of Christmas as a public Christian event in the early third century—a half-century before the construction of the Sol Invictus temple by Aurelian and a full century before Constantine and the legalization of Christianity in the Roman world. In other words, it constitutes solid textual evidence of the exact opposite of what Mather and others wish to assert.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that Christians were intermittently persecuted during Tertullian’s lifetime and for another century thereafter until the rise of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity. (Witness Tertullian’s own Apology addressed to “Rulers of the Roman Empire.”[13]] Under such circumstances, Christians would have had little opportunity or the political weight required to attempt the cultural conversion from Saturnalia to Christmas. On the other hand, however, Tertullian—the first Christian writer to clearly delineate the doctrine of one God in three persons[14]—would have had every reason to urge fellow-believers to remain faithful to their confession of the one true God and therefore to avoid any pollution of their faith by participation in culturally popular activities.
This was the same challenge facing the first generation of Gentile Christians, who were strongly encouraged by the letter from the apostles following the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29) to avoid 1) eating meat from animals sacrificed to idols, 2) drinking blood, 3) eating meat from strangled animals, and 4) sexual promiscuity—all features of pagan worship rituals. And perhaps this is the same challenge facing Christians in a modern Western world in which the cultural forces incessantly encourage ever more consumer spending—to practice more uniquely Christian ways of celebrating the birth of the Messiah.
Notes
[1] Especially notorious in this regard are John William Draper, History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009 [1874]) and Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (2 vols. New York: D. Appleton, 1896). Analysis of the influence of the Draper-White “conflict thesis” and the evolving relationship between religion and science over the past few centuries is found in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, “Introduction,” God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (Lindberg and Numbers, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 1-18. Since the late twentieth century the conflict thesis has been largely rejected by academicians and serious historians, although it has lingered in the popular media.
[2] Cf., Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Scribner, 1993) and The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do? (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1998).
[3] Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 325; Roger Pearse, “The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 12: Commemorations of the Martyrs.” MGH Chronica Minora I (1892), 71– 72, http:// www.tertullian.org/ fathers/ chronography_of_354_12_depositions_martyrs.htm.
[4] On the Trinity IV, 5; NPNF1, III, 74.
[5] ANF V, 179ff. Ogg concludes from Hippolytus’ Canon and Chronicle that he later identified AM 5502 as the year of Christ’s birth. It is also surmised that the single occurrence of Hippolytus’ association of 25 March with the birth date of Christ may be more properly a reference to his incarnation. See George Ogg, “Hippolytus and the Introduction of the Christian Era,” Viligiae Christianae 16, No.1 (March 1962): 2-18.
[6] For more on the likely date of Jesus’ birth and the historical matters of debate, see Steven L. Ware, When Was Jesus Really Born?: Early Christianity, the Calendar, and the Life of Jesus (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2013), 11ff.
[7] See, for instance, Stefan Heid, “The Romanness of Roman Christianity,” A Companion to Roman Religion (Jörg Rüpke, ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 417; “Saturnalia: the Carnival Celebration that Became Christmas and New Year’s Eve,” http://www.carnival.com/saturnalia/. See also the review of literature of literature and arguments by Anthony McRoy, “Pagan Festival or Christian Celebration?,” http://www.answering-islam.org/pagan/christmas.html.
[8] “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,” V, III; ANF VII, 443.
[9] Gregory of Nazianzen, “On the Theophany, or Birthday of Christ,” NPNF2, VII, 346.
[10] Both Eusebius (Church History VII, 30) and Lactantius (Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died VI) interpreted Aurelian’s murder by officers of the Praetorian Guard as divine judgment for persecution of Christians. See NPNF2, I, 316; ANF VII, 303.
[11] Jonathan Williams, “Religion and Roman Coins,” A Companion to Roman Religion, 160-161 (Figure 11.38).
[12] Tertullian, “On Idolatry,” XIV; ANF III, 70. See also Increase Mather, A Testimony Against several Prophane and Superstitious Customs now Practiced by some in New-England (London: 1687); http://www.covenanter.org/IMather/increasemathertestimony.htm.
[13] Tertullian, “Apology”; ANF III, 17ff.
[14] Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” ANF III, 597ff.