What do you think?
Rate this book
Toward the Origins of Christmas [Liturgia Condenda 5]
Christmas exerts an enormous attraction today even apart from its Christian character as a celebration of the incarnation of God in the Person of Jesus. Even marginal or indifferent Christians crowd the churches on Christmas Eve and in highly commercialized and technologized Western societies the Christmas season is celebrated with enthousiasm. Yet Christmas entered the calendar of feasts relatively late, by 336 C.E., and the reason for its introduction and quick spread remain speculative and based on fragmentary evidence. contemporary Western celebration of Christmas, and its deep historical roots in the church of the fourth century. The book presents a thorough investigation of the patristic texts and evidence cited by liturgical scholars in the late 19th and 20th centuries to support two main the Calculation theory and the History of Religions theory. This historical research is set in the framework of the contemporary experience of Christmas; the dynamics of time and the liturgical year; the inculturation of liturgy; and underlying elements of dualism and patriarchal power paradigms which linger beneath the often commercial and sentimental character of Christmas today.
296 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 16, 2021
A fascinating look at the origin(s) of the Christmas feast in the Christian liturgical calendar. Roll presents some heavily academic arguments here, turns to sermons and pilgrimage accounts from the early church, and concludes that Christmas still spills over with meaning for Christians today.
Roll emphasizes that Christmas, Pascha (Easter), the feast of St John the Baptist, and the feast of St Michael the Archangel fall intentionally on the solstices and equinoxes (according to time-reckoning in the ancient world, which was not undisputed, and lingers in the different dates on which Eastern and Western Christians observe Christmas and Pascha/Easter). Roll argues further that Christmas was chosen for the winter solstice because it is the point in time when days begin to grow longer, when the heavens enact the increase of "the light who has come into the world." Thus, the feast of St John the Baptist fit on the summer solstice, when days begin to grow shorter, playing out "he must increase, but I must decrease." In recent decades, a popular argument is that Christians simply replaced pagan solstice festivals with their own religious festival. However, Roll pulls us back from that. Solstices are naturally occurring, and Jewish festivals also follow the seasons. Christmas was long established and practiced before Constantine could make it official for the whole empire. Christmas, then, is not just a baptized Sol Invictus feast, but is its own unique holiday that happened to choose the same time as Yule, Sol Invictus, and any number of other holidays, for the same reason of being the shortest day of the year. Until Christianity was blessed by the institution around the time of Constantine, Christians did not need Roman approval for the times in which they marked their worship. Sunday in the Roman Empire was not a weekend day like it is now, and was chosen for its religious meaning (the day of the week on which Jesus was resurrected) rather than its convenience.
A particularly interesting argument that Roll records here, but does not necessarily endorse herself, is that liturgical observances should be flip-flopped to accommodate the southern hemisphere's experience of time. Roll notes that civil calendars have already bowed to the "liturgical imperialism" of the northern hemisphere, and thus it would be very hard to enact this change. Yet, I am arrested by the idea that the church should follow the seasons of the year depending on location, rather than by the centuries of tradition that took place in only one hemisphere of the globe. How time is marked, and how that shapes humanity, threads throughout Toward the Origins of Christmas, and is something I've been thinking about for a long time.
Roll doesn't spend much time on Pascha/Easter except as it relates to Christmas, but I am intrigued to see how a different scholar would discuss the date of that. She does point out that Pascha/Easter is the only early Christian holiday that has a marked date in the New Testament narrative. I wish she spent more time discussing Advent and the feast of the Annunciation, which lingers on March 25 though Pascha/Easter has become a moveable feast. I was also chuffed to learn that clergy were complaining about the commercialization of Christmas all the way back in the fifth century; dear Charlie Brown, you were scooped.
Since this book is so heavily academic, I'd recommend Timothy Larsen's article, "No One Took Christ out of Christmas," in the December 2021 edition of Christianity Today for those who don't want to attempt several hundred pages of History of Religions arguments. Larsen writes, "I live in the Chicago area, and there is a radio station here that uses the standard rock format for most of the year. But for about the last ten percent of the year, you can tune in and hear, 'Joy to the world! The Savior reigns,' or be invited to 'cast out our sin' and let Jesus enter in, or be offered 'tidings of comfort and joy' because 'Christ our Savior was born on Christmas Day.' We should be grateful that for six weeks during every year, even pop stations sometimes play songs that proclaim salvation through Jesus Christ."
To that I would add, it is a remarkable thing that folks from Michael Jackson to Dan Fogelberg to Sting take the time to sing of this ancient holiday and its mysteries. (I was today years old when I discovered Dan Fogelberg's beautiful Christmas album, including some original, theologically astute carols.) Evangelical Christians often fuss over things as innocent as disposable coffee cups, when we can be grateful that the basic message of the Gospel is being spread through the holiday, even with (in!) all of its commercialization. In-house, Larsen argues, we can "figure out what we need to change to make our own Christmas celebrations more Christ-centered. No one is stopping us from emphasizing worship, prayer, and Scripture as part of our celebrations." Learning the ancient origins of Christmas is helping me appreciate the continuity of Christmas in church history, and knowing that (in the Western church) it has been celebrated on the same day for millennia is truly special. This year, I'm incorporating more of those haunting, ancient Christmas carols into my playlists to remind me that darkness is what compels the light to come.
"No amount of commercial kitsch even when deeply embedded in the culture can erase the fundamental human need for meaning-giving structures, for interpersonal intimacy, or for affirmations of human dignity which transcend mere functionality and confirm one's basic God-created goodness." (273)
"...most significantly the Christian feast of Christmas, rather like a cactus which grows and thrives under apparently inhospitable environmental conditions, affirms the inner goodness of human perceptiveness concerning God's presence among us, most radically in the incarnation but routinely and rhythmically in our everyday lives. It affirms as well the God-given ability to touch and respond to God's wisdom: a wisdom embodied once in history, and perpetually reembodied down through the course of time." (273)
Roll emphasizes that Christmas, Pascha (Easter), the feast of St John the Baptist, and the feast of St Michael the Archangel fall intentionally on the solstices and equinoxes (according to time-reckoning in the ancient world, which was not undisputed, and lingers in the different dates on which Eastern and Western Christians observe Christmas and Pascha/Easter). Roll argues further that Christmas was chosen for the winter solstice because it is the point in time when days begin to grow longer, when the heavens enact the increase of "the light who has come into the world." Thus, the feast of St John the Baptist fit on the summer solstice, when days begin to grow shorter, playing out "he must increase, but I must decrease." In recent decades, a popular argument is that Christians simply replaced pagan solstice festivals with their own religious festival. However, Roll pulls us back from that. Solstices are naturally occurring, and Jewish festivals also follow the seasons. Christmas was long established and practiced before Constantine could make it official for the whole empire. Christmas, then, is not just a baptized Sol Invictus feast, but is its own unique holiday that happened to choose the same time as Yule, Sol Invictus, and any number of other holidays, for the same reason of being the shortest day of the year. Until Christianity was blessed by the institution around the time of Constantine, Christians did not need Roman approval for the times in which they marked their worship. Sunday in the Roman Empire was not a weekend day like it is now, and was chosen for its religious meaning (the day of the week on which Jesus was resurrected) rather than its convenience.
A particularly interesting argument that Roll records here, but does not necessarily endorse herself, is that liturgical observances should be flip-flopped to accommodate the southern hemisphere's experience of time. Roll notes that civil calendars have already bowed to the "liturgical imperialism" of the northern hemisphere, and thus it would be very hard to enact this change. Yet, I am arrested by the idea that the church should follow the seasons of the year depending on location, rather than by the centuries of tradition that took place in only one hemisphere of the globe. How time is marked, and how that shapes humanity, threads throughout Toward the Origins of Christmas, and is something I've been thinking about for a long time.
Roll doesn't spend much time on Pascha/Easter except as it relates to Christmas, but I am intrigued to see how a different scholar would discuss the date of that. She does point out that Pascha/Easter is the only early Christian holiday that has a marked date in the New Testament narrative. I wish she spent more time discussing Advent and the feast of the Annunciation, which lingers on March 25 though Pascha/Easter has become a moveable feast. I was also chuffed to learn that clergy were complaining about the commercialization of Christmas all the way back in the fifth century; dear Charlie Brown, you were scooped.
Since this book is so heavily academic, I'd recommend Timothy Larsen's article, "No One Took Christ out of Christmas," in the December 2021 edition of Christianity Today for those who don't want to attempt several hundred pages of History of Religions arguments. Larsen writes, "I live in the Chicago area, and there is a radio station here that uses the standard rock format for most of the year. But for about the last ten percent of the year, you can tune in and hear, 'Joy to the world! The Savior reigns,' or be invited to 'cast out our sin' and let Jesus enter in, or be offered 'tidings of comfort and joy' because 'Christ our Savior was born on Christmas Day.' We should be grateful that for six weeks during every year, even pop stations sometimes play songs that proclaim salvation through Jesus Christ."
To that I would add, it is a remarkable thing that folks from Michael Jackson to Dan Fogelberg to Sting take the time to sing of this ancient holiday and its mysteries. (I was today years old when I discovered Dan Fogelberg's beautiful Christmas album, including some original, theologically astute carols.) Evangelical Christians often fuss over things as innocent as disposable coffee cups, when we can be grateful that the basic message of the Gospel is being spread through the holiday, even with (in!) all of its commercialization. In-house, Larsen argues, we can "figure out what we need to change to make our own Christmas celebrations more Christ-centered. No one is stopping us from emphasizing worship, prayer, and Scripture as part of our celebrations." Learning the ancient origins of Christmas is helping me appreciate the continuity of Christmas in church history, and knowing that (in the Western church) it has been celebrated on the same day for millennia is truly special. This year, I'm incorporating more of those haunting, ancient Christmas carols into my playlists to remind me that darkness is what compels the light to come.
"No amount of commercial kitsch even when deeply embedded in the culture can erase the fundamental human need for meaning-giving structures, for interpersonal intimacy, or for affirmations of human dignity which transcend mere functionality and confirm one's basic God-created goodness." (273)
"...most significantly the Christian feast of Christmas, rather like a cactus which grows and thrives under apparently inhospitable environmental conditions, affirms the inner goodness of human perceptiveness concerning God's presence among us, most radically in the incarnation but routinely and rhythmically in our everyday lives. It affirms as well the God-given ability to touch and respond to God's wisdom: a wisdom embodied once in history, and perpetually reembodied down through the course of time." (273)
November 19, 2023
A STUDY OF THE ORIGIN AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTMAS FEAST
Susan K. Roll (who, at the time this book was published in 1986, taught at Christ the King Seminary in Buffalo, New York) wrote in the Introduction. “While the incarnation of God among humans is a profound mystery, and the historical origins of the Christian feast remain largely a mystery to scholarly investigation, this study is in fact constructed with a very definite literary structure. The subtitle, ‘The Origins of Christmas from a Contemporary Pastoral Perspective’ contains two distinctive components. The ‘Contemporary Pastoral Perspective’ predominates in the first and the fifth chapters, while the ‘Origins of Christmas’ are found in the central three chapters. The reason why two theories are spread over three chapters is due to the fact that the History of Religions hypothesis actually contains two components or subtheses: 1) That Christmas was instituted in some way parallel to, if not derivative from, the civil Roman cult of Sol Invictus, and 2) that the practice of celebrating Christmas spread throughout the Empire, and particularly from West to East, in the wake of Christological disputes and multiple splinter-movements within Christianity.”
She explains, “The fourth century witnesses profound shifts in the stability, safety and establishment of the Christian church. Those which impact most directly upon festal time include: --A shift from private, sheltered worship to public worship, with the end of persecution… --A surprising number of pagan cultic elements, once anathema to the countercultural young Christian church, were being absorbed uncritically from the surrounding culture: symbols, altars, incense, certain verbal formulas, vestments... –corporate worship became progressively clericalized and hierarchicalized, reflecting the political organization of the Roman Empire…” (Pg. 28)
She notes, “Christians suffered periodic, often severe persecution in the first three centuries of this era in the Roman Empire. The issue is quite different in regard to the re-inculturation of the Christmas feast in postindustrial society, because the opposing social force is no longer persecution, but indifference.” (Pg. 52-53)
She states, “The practice of celebrating, in whatever manner, the 25th of December as the birth anniversary of Christ was not taken up uniformly nor within a short span of time in the various local churches… To summarize the evidence from some of the sources most often cited by the Calculation hypothesis proponents as pivotal in the reckoning of the date of Christ’s birth: --Tertullian, 160-225: 25 March = the passion of Christ; --Hippolytus, 203-204: 2 March = the spring equinox… and the passion of Christ… --Sextus Julius Africanus, before 221: … 25 March = both the annunciation and the resurrection; --..De Pascha Computus: 28 March = … the first of Christ… De (solstitiis et) aequinoctiis, 2nd half of the 4th century: 25 March = the conception and the passion of Christ.” (Pg. 87)
She acknowledges, “It is one thing to say that the textual evidence … from the early centuries of Christianity indicates that some importance was attached to ascertaining the anniversary of the passion and death of Christ… so as to continue to celebrate the central founding event of Christianity on a cyclical basis. It is quite another to reverse the research process, to try to master the mentality of the early church from the vantage point of the twentieth century, and to read back into the often fragmentary evidence some coherent overall structure which would explain the emergence of the feast of Christmas.” (Pg. 87)
She continues, “The Calculation hypothesis … represents an attempt to extrapolate from some of the data concerning how early Christians dealt with the concepts of astronomical time, festal time and symbolic numbers a theory for how they ascertained a date for Christ’s birth. While historically the minority opinion concerning the origins of Christmas, and vulnerable to the charge that it raises more questions than it answers due to its highly conceptual structure, this hypothesis has nonetheless enjoyed two revivals of support from eminent liturgical historians during this century, and at the present moment it is taught in graduate liturgy programs as a thoroughly viable hypothesis… The Calculation hypothesis postulates that the symbolic number systems which the early church fathers considered so appropriate to the action of God in the world… [stated that] Great personages could only live a whole number of years, implying that the person died on his or her birthday, or in the case of Christ, the day of his conception… If Christ as believed to have suffered and died on the fourth day following the spring equinox, 25 March, his conception should then have taken place on the same day some 30 years before; Christ’s birthdate could then be placed a perfect nine months afterward, 25 December.” (Pg. 87-88)
She admits, “No liturgical historian, whatever his or her position on the concrete causes of the development and institution of the Christmas feast, goes so far as to deny that it has any sort of relation with the sun, the winter solstice and the popularity of sun worship in the later Roman Empire.” (Pg. 107)
She argues, “The second related point concerns the evidence that Christmas was not established at Constantinople until considerably later, approximately 380… no extant evidence proves that Constantine himself intended to replicate that legislation by superimposing a Christian ‘dies natalis’ over the ‘Natalis Solis Invicti’ in either city. More conclusively, Gregory Nazianzen in his sermon … on Epiphany 381 refers to himself as the … originator, of the feast just twelve days previously, a time-line consistent with that of John Chrysostom’s ... 386 sermon at Antioch. Therefore Christmas would have taken a minimum 54 years after its 336 attestation at Rome to reach Constantinople, again clearly ruling out any definitive role for Constantine in its institution.” (Pg. 117)
She says, “with no relevance to the Roman origin of Christmas but adduced by a few scholars as a precondition enabling the inrooting of the Christian feast of Christmas once it spread north, are various Gemanic and Scandinavian winter feasts which may have given their name to Christmas under the folk nomenclature of ‘Yule.’” (Pg. 127)
She reports, “With regard to the specific ground of the History of Religions hypothesis, Botte supports the INFLUENCE of ancient solstice feasts on the determination of 25 December as the feast date of Christ’s birth… for Botte influence is not the same as borrowing a practice wholesale, and there are degrees of subtlety in the process. The church ‘christianized’ certain non-Christian practices, and tolerated others as the lesser of two evils. In this case, according to Botte, the church intended to set up a counterfeast in regard to the pre-Christian feast.” (Pg. 141)
She summarizes, “We may conclude generally that the persistence of references to the sun or the significance of light as linked to Christ in Christmas sermons and hymnody over several centuries, not only in the West but to some degree in the East, suggests to scholars that much of the deeper meaning of sun and light symbolism at the winter solstice remained valid when taken over by Christians in their own faith context.” (Pg. 162-163)
This book will be of interest to those seriously studying Christmas, and its origin.
Susan K. Roll (who, at the time this book was published in 1986, taught at Christ the King Seminary in Buffalo, New York) wrote in the Introduction. “While the incarnation of God among humans is a profound mystery, and the historical origins of the Christian feast remain largely a mystery to scholarly investigation, this study is in fact constructed with a very definite literary structure. The subtitle, ‘The Origins of Christmas from a Contemporary Pastoral Perspective’ contains two distinctive components. The ‘Contemporary Pastoral Perspective’ predominates in the first and the fifth chapters, while the ‘Origins of Christmas’ are found in the central three chapters. The reason why two theories are spread over three chapters is due to the fact that the History of Religions hypothesis actually contains two components or subtheses: 1) That Christmas was instituted in some way parallel to, if not derivative from, the civil Roman cult of Sol Invictus, and 2) that the practice of celebrating Christmas spread throughout the Empire, and particularly from West to East, in the wake of Christological disputes and multiple splinter-movements within Christianity.”
She explains, “The fourth century witnesses profound shifts in the stability, safety and establishment of the Christian church. Those which impact most directly upon festal time include: --A shift from private, sheltered worship to public worship, with the end of persecution… --A surprising number of pagan cultic elements, once anathema to the countercultural young Christian church, were being absorbed uncritically from the surrounding culture: symbols, altars, incense, certain verbal formulas, vestments... –corporate worship became progressively clericalized and hierarchicalized, reflecting the political organization of the Roman Empire…” (Pg. 28)
She notes, “Christians suffered periodic, often severe persecution in the first three centuries of this era in the Roman Empire. The issue is quite different in regard to the re-inculturation of the Christmas feast in postindustrial society, because the opposing social force is no longer persecution, but indifference.” (Pg. 52-53)
She states, “The practice of celebrating, in whatever manner, the 25th of December as the birth anniversary of Christ was not taken up uniformly nor within a short span of time in the various local churches… To summarize the evidence from some of the sources most often cited by the Calculation hypothesis proponents as pivotal in the reckoning of the date of Christ’s birth: --Tertullian, 160-225: 25 March = the passion of Christ; --Hippolytus, 203-204: 2 March = the spring equinox… and the passion of Christ… --Sextus Julius Africanus, before 221: … 25 March = both the annunciation and the resurrection; --..De Pascha Computus: 28 March = … the first of Christ… De (solstitiis et) aequinoctiis, 2nd half of the 4th century: 25 March = the conception and the passion of Christ.” (Pg. 87)
She acknowledges, “It is one thing to say that the textual evidence … from the early centuries of Christianity indicates that some importance was attached to ascertaining the anniversary of the passion and death of Christ… so as to continue to celebrate the central founding event of Christianity on a cyclical basis. It is quite another to reverse the research process, to try to master the mentality of the early church from the vantage point of the twentieth century, and to read back into the often fragmentary evidence some coherent overall structure which would explain the emergence of the feast of Christmas.” (Pg. 87)
She continues, “The Calculation hypothesis … represents an attempt to extrapolate from some of the data concerning how early Christians dealt with the concepts of astronomical time, festal time and symbolic numbers a theory for how they ascertained a date for Christ’s birth. While historically the minority opinion concerning the origins of Christmas, and vulnerable to the charge that it raises more questions than it answers due to its highly conceptual structure, this hypothesis has nonetheless enjoyed two revivals of support from eminent liturgical historians during this century, and at the present moment it is taught in graduate liturgy programs as a thoroughly viable hypothesis… The Calculation hypothesis postulates that the symbolic number systems which the early church fathers considered so appropriate to the action of God in the world… [stated that] Great personages could only live a whole number of years, implying that the person died on his or her birthday, or in the case of Christ, the day of his conception… If Christ as believed to have suffered and died on the fourth day following the spring equinox, 25 March, his conception should then have taken place on the same day some 30 years before; Christ’s birthdate could then be placed a perfect nine months afterward, 25 December.” (Pg. 87-88)
She admits, “No liturgical historian, whatever his or her position on the concrete causes of the development and institution of the Christmas feast, goes so far as to deny that it has any sort of relation with the sun, the winter solstice and the popularity of sun worship in the later Roman Empire.” (Pg. 107)
She argues, “The second related point concerns the evidence that Christmas was not established at Constantinople until considerably later, approximately 380… no extant evidence proves that Constantine himself intended to replicate that legislation by superimposing a Christian ‘dies natalis’ over the ‘Natalis Solis Invicti’ in either city. More conclusively, Gregory Nazianzen in his sermon … on Epiphany 381 refers to himself as the … originator, of the feast just twelve days previously, a time-line consistent with that of John Chrysostom’s ... 386 sermon at Antioch. Therefore Christmas would have taken a minimum 54 years after its 336 attestation at Rome to reach Constantinople, again clearly ruling out any definitive role for Constantine in its institution.” (Pg. 117)
She says, “with no relevance to the Roman origin of Christmas but adduced by a few scholars as a precondition enabling the inrooting of the Christian feast of Christmas once it spread north, are various Gemanic and Scandinavian winter feasts which may have given their name to Christmas under the folk nomenclature of ‘Yule.’” (Pg. 127)
She reports, “With regard to the specific ground of the History of Religions hypothesis, Botte supports the INFLUENCE of ancient solstice feasts on the determination of 25 December as the feast date of Christ’s birth… for Botte influence is not the same as borrowing a practice wholesale, and there are degrees of subtlety in the process. The church ‘christianized’ certain non-Christian practices, and tolerated others as the lesser of two evils. In this case, according to Botte, the church intended to set up a counterfeast in regard to the pre-Christian feast.” (Pg. 141)
She summarizes, “We may conclude generally that the persistence of references to the sun or the significance of light as linked to Christ in Christmas sermons and hymnody over several centuries, not only in the West but to some degree in the East, suggests to scholars that much of the deeper meaning of sun and light symbolism at the winter solstice remained valid when taken over by Christians in their own faith context.” (Pg. 162-163)
This book will be of interest to those seriously studying Christmas, and its origin.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews