Talk:Christmas/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Order of the hypotheses

In the section "Choice of date", surely the "History of religions hypothesis" should come before the "Calculation hypothesis" (like this). For three reasons:

• The History of Religions hypothesis was proposed first, in the 17th-18th centuries, as the article says
• The History of Religions hypothesis has historically been the majority opinion among scholars, as the article says
• The article flows better this way. The "Choice of date" section begins by discussing the link to the winter solstice, so it makes sense to follow that by discussing the link to the Roman winter solstice festival. It doesn't make sense to start talking about the solstice, interrupt that with an unrelated theory, then go back to talking about the solstice.

Ramos1990, what arguments are there for putting them the other way round (like this)? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 22:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No, the Calculation Hypothesis is much older than the History of Religions theory, which originated in a time when certain scholars were trying to claim that Christian holidays had a pagan past. The Biblical Archaeology Society says [1]:

Around 200 C.E. Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus diedc was equivalent to March 25 in the Roman (solar) calendar.9 March 25 is, of course, nine months before December 25; it was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation—the commemoration of Jesus’ conception.10 Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25.

There is no need to change the order of hypotheses, especially since this is an article about a Christian holiday. It is much more adequate to give the Christian theory of origin first. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The "Calculation hypothesis" isn't mentioned anywhere in that quote. Tertullian only dated Jesus's death to 14th Nisan, he never actually said Jesus's birth was on 25th December. Your quote even says "it was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation". Also, the "History of Religions" hypothesis isn't "non-Christian"; even early Christian writers acknowledged the link with the solstice and welcomed it. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 09:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Ramos that the Calculation Hypothesis must be placed first. The Biblical Archaeology Society may not use the precise terms "Calculation Hypothesis, but the Calculation Hypothesis is precisely what they're explaining. Also, around 204 CE, Hippolytus mentions the date of Christ's Birth in Bethlehem as December 25th. "one of the earliest (in the opinion of many, including Pope Benedict XVI, the earliest) written Christian confirmations that the birthdate of Jesus was believed to be on December 25th. It came from the Church father Hippolytus (c. 170 – c. 235):" For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th. (Commentary on Daniel [4.23.3; written in 204 AD]" [[2]] NishantXavier (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should read that way. The Encyclopedia Britannica is a good example of the ordering of such information. In its Christmas article, the Calculation Hypothesis is mentioned first and like Ramos1990 said, it is much much older.Durziil89 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

NishantXavier, that reasoning doesn't work either. Our article notes: "A passage in Commentary on the Prophet Daniel (AD 204) by Hippolytus of Rome identifies December 25 as Jesus's birth date, but this passage is considered a later interpolation". So it wasn't actually written that early, and it doesn't have anything to do with the calculation hypothesis either, because no dates are being calculated. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 09:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The Britannica source structure makes more sense since it is a professionally written general encyclopedia. We should follow that. Ramos1990 (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient consensus here to retain the ordering that places the Calculation Hypothesis first. There should be some edits made to clarify that this hypothesis is much older than the article makes it seem. Ramos, could you take care of this? Durziil89 (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

But the Britannica article on Christmas begins with the History of Religions hypothesis:

One widespread explanation of the origin of this date is that December 25 was the Christianizing of the dies solis invicti nati (“day of the birth of the unconquered sun”) ...
A second view suggests that December 25 became the date of Jesus’ birth by a priori reasoning that identified the spring equinox as the date of the creation of the world ...

You reasoned that we should follow their structure. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at Brittanica's article. It says: "December 25 was first identified as the date of Jesus’ birth by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221 and later became the universally accepted date." Now, since our own article says this: "It honored the sun god Sol Invictus, whose cult was revived by the emperor Aurelian in AD 274.", doesn't that alone suggest the attestation for Christmas precedes that of Sol Invictus (and therefore, if any borrowing happened, it was more likely pagans borrowing from Christians, i.e. Sol Invictus borrowing from Christmas, than the other way around)? Secondly, the Encyclopedia Brittanica article notes a significant shortcoming of the History of Religions, or Borrowing, Hypothesis: "One of the difficulties with this view is that it suggests a nonchalant willingness on the part of the Christian church to appropriate a pagan festival when the early church was so intent on distinguishing itself categorically from pagan beliefs and practices." So, on balance, I would say, the article as it stands, with the Calculation Hypothesis in first place, overall does a fair job of summarizing the current state of scholarship on the matter, giving the pros and cons of each view.NishantXavier (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sextus Julius Africanus didn't give a date for Jesus's birth, nor was he an influential writer at the time. Dies Natalis Solis Invicti is attested from the year 274; the earliest evidence of Christmas on 25th December is from the year 354 (although the text was probably written in 336), nearly a century later. This is all explained in the article. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 09:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Asarlai. Ok, so to be clear, do you accept Brittanica as a source, or are you arguing against it? Because, Brittanica says: "December 25 was first identified as the date of Jesus’ birth by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221 and later became the universally accepted date." Secondly, Sextus does give a date for Christ's birth, by implication of saying His Conception was on March 25th. That fits with a Birth 9 Months later on December 25th, as explained here: "Contemporary with the Computus[around 243], another North African, Sextus Julius Africanus, introduced a theological variant on March 25 ...Keeping the anniversary of the creation, he argued that on March 25 Jesus had become incarnate via his conception in his mother’s womb at the annunciation by Gabriel. Following the Jewish exact-dating theory, Sextus believed Jesus had been born precisely nine months later on December 25." https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/159119.pdf NishantXavier (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Britannica is a questionable source:

"There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources".

Our sources in the article note that Africanus did not give a date for Christ's birth, for example Hijmans (who argues for the Calculation Hypothesis) says:

"[Several authors] claim that as early as 221 Julius Africanus calculated the date as December 25 in his fragmentarily preserved Chronicle, but provide no reference. Wallraff, who directed the project that recently produced the first critical edition of all preserved fragments of the corpus of Julius Africanus (Wallraff 2007), has kindly informed me that he does not know of any such calculation by Africanus".

I wouldn't count your other source as reliable either. The quality of sources matter. And the good-quality sources in our article say that the Calculation Hypothesis came later. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 09:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Response: "Reputation

Since the 3rd edition, the Britannica has enjoyed a popular and critical reputation for general excellence.[10][11][13]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica#Reputation

Next, the author of that EB article has reputable credentials: "Professor Emeritus of History and Religion, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Author of The Division of Christendom: Christianity in the Sixteenth Century and Men and Ideas in the Sixteenth Century and others." https://www.britannica.com/contributor/Hans-J-Hillerbrand/4599

Finally, Africanus certainly gave a date for Christ's Birth, because he gave the date for Christ's Conception. In a related article, Brittanica notes: "There are at least three possible origins for the December date. The Roman Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus dated Jesus’ conception to March 25 (the same date upon which he held that the world was created), which, after nine months in his mother’s womb, would result in a December 25 birth." https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is-christmas-in-december

Let me cite a reference: "Although HRT is nowadays used as the default explanation for the choice of 25 December as Christ’s birthday, few advocates of this theory seem to be aware of how paltry the available evidence actually is." NishantXavier (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothaft, C. Philipp E. (2013). "Early Christian Chronology and the Origins of the Christmas Date". Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy. NishantXavier (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That is an excellent academic source NishantXavier. Thanks for mentioning it here. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

As Hijmans said, "[Several authors] claim that as early as 221 Julius Africanus calculated the date as December 25 in his fragmentarily preserved Chronicle, but provide no reference". So could you provide a quote from Africanus where he says Jesus was born on 25th December? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 09:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

Please update the 20th and 21st century history of Christmas to include the following information:

"In 2023, due to the war in Gaza, Christmas was cancelled in Bethlehem, the city synonymous with the birth of Jesus. Palestinian leaders of various Christian denominations cited the devastating war in Gaza in their unanimous decision to cancel public Christmas celebrations."

Source: "There's no Christmas in Bethlehem this year. With war in Gaza, festivities are off," NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/12/16/1219245873/bethlehem-christmas-gaza-israel Maroo530 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Added but not sure if this warrants inclusion; the section is limited and this topic may not be of a scope worth including in such a small section with only major points about the holiday in the 21st century covered. It may be more appropriate for Observance of Christmas by country#Israel_and_State_of_Palestine. Others can add their arguments for whether it should stay or go.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Maroo530 (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)