Each year, numerous myths regarding Christmas emerge. Some stem from innocent misinterpretations of the Gospels, whereas others are overtly antagonistic.

A prevalent belief is that Christmas originates from a pagan festival, thus it is fundamentally “pagan” in nature.

This assertion is put forth by some secular individuals and even by specific Protestants. Prior to my conversion to Catholicism, I was acquainted with members of my Protestant church who chose not to observe Christmas due to its “unbiblical” pagan roots.

Let’s examine what the historical records reveal regarding some of these legends.

Not an issue of belief

Non-Christians who find joy in claiming that Jesus wasn’t born on Dec. 25 often appear to relish the notion that they are somehow challenging Christianity, but they aren’t.

The birth of Jesus on Dec. 25 isn’t a question of belief. While the Church commemorates Jesus’ birth on this date, it doesn’t fall under Catholic doctrine. It is rather a tradition.

As we will observe, several dates for the birth of Jesus were suggested in the early Church, and it continues to be commemorated on alternative days in certain areas of the Christian world.

Too cold for sheep

There are claims that Jesus could not have been born on Dec. 25, as Luke notes that shepherds were watching over their sheep on the night of his birth (cf. 2:8). December would be too chilly for this activity, suggesting that Jesus was likely born during a milder season.

This is absurd. To begin with, winters in Israel are gentle. Bethlehem is merely six miles away from Jerusalem, where the typical temperature on Dec. 25 fluctuates between 55 degrees during the day and 43 degrees at night. It remains comfortably above freezing.

Secondly, sheep thrive in cold conditions. This is the reason they are enveloped in wool! As a species, sheep developed in natural environments, and they have retained their ability to withstand low temperatures despite domestication. (If anything, humans have selected for even denser wool.)

When you search for “winter sheep care” on Google, you will come across websites suggesting that you should not confine your sheep indoors throughout the winter (they may become frustrated) and that you shouldn’t hesitate to let them outdoors (they are protected by their warm, water-repellent wool). Additionally, you will see numerous images of farmed sheep leisurely walking through the snow.

Another argument presented is that Jesus could not have been born in December due to the presence of lambs in the shepherds’ flocks, as lambing occurs in the spring. However, while certain sheep breeds do lamb in the spring, other varieties may breed throughout the year and do not follow a specific lambing period. Furthermore, at least in the English language, a sheep is typically called a lamb until it reaches one year of age, indicating that lambs may be found at any time of the year, even among breeds with defined lambing seasons. Most crucially, Luke makes no reference to lambs. They simply do not appear in the text. This notion stems from the creativity of people’s minds.

In conclusion, the shepherds in the vicinity of Bethlehem do indeed tend to sheep in the open, including on December 25. As stated in the “Handbook of Biblical Chronology” by Jack Finegan, “William Hendricksen references a letter from Jan. 16, 1967, received from New Testament scholar Harry Mulder, who was then teaching in Beirut. In this correspondence, Mulder recounts being in Shepherd Field at Bethlehem on the recently concluded Christmas Eve, stating: ‘Close by, a few flocks of sheep were huddled together. Even the lambs were present. … Thus, it is certainly not implausible that the Lord Jesus was born in December.’”

A pagan holiday

What can be said about the assertion that observing Christmas on Dec. 25 originates from a pagan festival?

Even if that is the case, what does it matter? When confronted with a widely-celebrated holiday that some individuals deem inappropriate, it is typical to establish an alternative, positive festivity.

For instance, certain Protestant congregations commemorate “Reformation Day” or engage in “harvest festival” festivities as substitutes for Halloween, and certain Catholics have their kids don costumes of saints instead of phantoms and creatures.

If initial Christians chose to observe Christ’s birth in contrast to a pagan festival to undermine it and provide Christians with a different, positive occasion to honor, that could be seen as beneficial.

Moreover, this wouldn’t imply that Christmas is “truly” pagan. It would suggest that Christmas is actually anti-pagan.

When a Protestant congregation observes Reformation Day to honor the release of Martin Luther’s 95 theses on October 31, 1517, they are not genuinely commemorating phantoms and creatures. They are truly celebrating the Reformation; they are merely engaging in it as a counter to a pop culture celebration of ghosts and monsters.

In a similar manner, if Christians scheduled Christmas to coincide with a pagan festival, they wouldn’t be honoring a pagan god. They were celebrating the birth of Christ! This would render their actions anti-pagan.

Which pagan holiday?

If Christmas were scheduled to rival a pagan festival, which one might it have been?

Certain sources associate Christmas with the Roman celebration of Saturnalia, a festival dedicated to the deity Saturn. During Saturnalia, individuals would close their shops, don celebratory attire, host feasts, indulge in excessive drinking, partake in gambling, switch roles (like having masters act as servants), exchange presents (typically inexpensive novelty items), and appoint a mock “king of Saturnalia” to oversee the celebrations.

However, there is a significant issue with asserting that Christmas serves as a substitute for Saturnalia. This Roman celebration was initially observed on Dec. 17, but by the era of the Republic, it was prolonged until Dec. 23. Consequently, Christmas did not take place until after Saturnalia had concluded.

Sol Invictus

Currently, numerous writers associate Christmas with the birth of Sol Invictus — specifically, the sun deity Sol, who was referred to as Invictus or “the Unconquerable.” This was commemorated on Dec. 25.

However, there are no early Christian documents stating, “We chose to commemorate Christmas on Dec. 25 to rival Sol Invictus.” This indicates that the concept is purely conjecture, lacking any supporting evidence.

It’s not even reasonable conjecture, as the sole similarity between the two festivities is the date, but that does not imply that one is derived from the other.

For Christians to aspire to rival Sol Invictus, the latter celebration would need to be something of significance that warrants competition.

This could be true if Sol Invictus were a prominent Roman deity, if the December 25 festivities held significant importance, and if they had been a traditional and deeply rooted part of Roman society — thereby generating societal pressure for Christians to seek a different option.

However, none of those statements are accurate. Sol Invictus was not a significant Roman god. Sol wasn’t even the most renowned solar deity (that title belongs to Apollo), and researchers today lack substantial information regarding the veneration of Sol since the Romans rarely discussed him. He just wasn’t that significant.

Dec. 25 was not a significant holiday for the god Sol. It was a one-day event, while Sol had longer festivities in both August and October.

Dec. 25 was not a traditional festival either. The earliest known observance of Sol took place in August, and there is no indication of Dec. 25 being acknowledged as the birth of Sol Invictus prior to A.D. 274. Certain historians contend that this observance was established by Emperor Aurelian when he consecrated a temple to Sol in that year.

Sol Invictus seems to be a relatively new festival; it was considered a minor one, and Sol was not regarded as a significant god. Christians likely didn’t see a necessity to rival it by situating the birth of Jesus in opposition to it.

Christmas first

If it is accurate that Sol Invictus was established only in A.D. 274, then we possess proof that the date of Christmas could not have been influenced by it, as it is evident that Christians were already observing the holiday on Dec. 25.

Circa A.D. 204, St. Hippolytus of Rome composed a commentary on the Book of Daniel, in which he asserts, “For the initial coming of Our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25.”

We additionally possess a historic statue of Hippolytus — uncovered in 1551 — that features his astronomical computations engraved upon it, which also reference Christ’s birth on Dec. 25.

These pieces of proof suggest that certain Christians had begun celebrating Christ’s birth years prior to the establishment of Sol Invictus.

Why Dec. 25?

Might the direction of the causal arrow be reversed? Is it possible that the Romans established Sol Invictus on the date of Christmas?

Likely not. There existed another, quite clear rationale as to why Romans would consecrate a temple to Sol or commemorate his birth on Dec. 25 — it marked the occasion of the winter solstice.

The winter solstice represents the shortest day of the year, following which the days start to lengthen — marking a significant occasion for sun worshippers globally.

From a technical standpoint, the Julian calendar’s minor inaccuracies in calculating the year’s duration caused the astronomical winter solstice to shift slightly from Dec. 25. However, this date was traditionally acknowledged, making it the significant one for rituals in Rome.

What about Christians? Might the occurrence of Dec. 25 coinciding with the winter solstice have influenced their recognition of it as the birthday of Jesus?

Malachi 3:20 states that for those who reverence God, “the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings,” and early Christian writers interpreted this as a representation of Jesus.

One could hence hypothesize that, perceiving Jesus as “the sun of justice,” they opted to commemorate his birth on the winter solstice for the same rationale as the Romans did.

Nevertheless, an alternative perspective has been suggested within academic discussions.

The theory of computation

The simplest date to determine in Jesus’ life is the date of his death, as the Crucifixion took place on a Friday alongside Passover.

Researchers have estimated that the most probable date is April 3, A.D. 33, although a few have proposed April 7, A.D. 30. Nevertheless, in the classical era, numerous early Christian writings believed it to be March 25.

Similarly, Dec. 25 marked the winter solstice, while March 25 — three months after — represented the spring equinox, and the date of Passover was established based on the spring equinox.

Recognizing that Jesus was executed during Passover, it was straightforward for ancient people to determine that he perished around March 25, which then became the accepted date.

For early Christians, Easter held significantly greater importance than Christmas, leading some scholars to suggest that the date of Jesus’ death was employed to determine the date of his birth.

In what manner would they have accomplished that?

We possess proof that, at least during specific historical eras, numerous Jewish and Christian writings adhered to what is known as the “integral age” theory. This concept suggests that significant individuals such as prophets and saints experienced “perfect” lives — with “perfect” signifying a lifespan composed of whole years.

If you were that type of figure, you would pass away on the exact day of your birth, meaning you reached precisely that many years old, with neither excess nor deficiency.

For proponents of integral age, Jesus may have been born — or possibly conceived — on the very day he was crucified.

This could be the reason we observe March 25 as the Annunciation, which is generally regarded as not only the moment when Gabriel visited Mary but also the date of Jesus’ conception. If you add nine months to March 25, you arrive at Dec. 25.

Certain academics have therefore suggested that the timing of Christmas was determined based on what was perceived as the day of Jesus’ crucifixion.

The tradition theory

The theory of computation is conjectural and relies on several unverified premises.

Similar to the absence of Christian documents stating, “We established Christmas on Dec. 25 to rival a pagan celebration,” we likewise lack records that assert, “We determined the date of Christmas utilizing the date of Christ’s passing.”

Moreover, there is no proof of Christians adhering to the integral age theory prior to the commencement of the celebration on Dec. 25 — only subsequent to that — and one would need to consider Christ’s integral age not from his birth but from his conception.

The theory of calculation exists, but another perspective is also feasible — that early Christians merely possessed a tradition stating this was the day Jesus was born.

If that’s the case, it wasn’t the sole tradition. Various dates were suggested in the late second century, such as Jan. 6 and 10, April 19 and 20, May 20 and Nov. 18.

The two dates that garnered the greatest backing were Dec. 25 and Jan. 6th (the latter of which is occasionally considered as the winter solstice), and both eventually came to be observed as Christmas in various regions worldwide. (It is important to mention that Jan. 6 is still commemorated as the feast of the Epiphany, or arrival of the Magi, in the Roman calendar.)

Consequently, we lack a conclusive method for determining the day when Christ was born.

Nevertheless, what we can assert is that it definitely might have been Dec. 25 (the sheep do not exclude that possibility), that we possess early Christian references backing this date, and that it was not derived from a pagan celebration.

The initial Christians who advocate for December 25 do so because they genuinely believed that was the date of Christ’s birth.

Examining the Gospels

Although the exact calendar date of Jesus’ birth remains uncertain, the Gospels offer us reliable details regarding the Nativity.

Matthew and Luke tell us that it occurred in Bethlehem, and Luke mentions that, when the moment arrived, Mary “delivered her firstborn son. She enveloped him in swaddling garments and placed him in a manger, since there was no accommodation for them in the inn” (2:7).

This declaration has led to well-known illustrations of the nativity, like Christmas cards showing Jesus being born in a stable (due to the manger) and Joseph and Mary being denied entry from what would be the historical equivalent of hotels (because of the inn) — frequently set in a frigid, snowy landscape.

Nevertheless, these images are likely incorrect.

As previously stated, the typical temperature in the Jerusalem region on Dec. 25 is significantly above freezing, making snow a possibility, but an improbable one.

Moreover, the Greek word that is rendered as “inn” is kataluma, and it signifies a location where individuals reside. It’s a broad term and does not specifically imply an inn.

There exists a more specific term for inn — pandocheion — and Luke employs that expression in the story of the good Samaritan (see 10:34).

Kataluma might indicate a location where individuals resided inside a house — such as a living area or visitors’ quarters. Therefore, the “upper room” where Jesus partakes in the Last Supper is designated as a kataluma (cf. Mk 14:14-15, Lk 22:11).

Given that Joseph’s relatives hailed from Bethlehem, it is probable that he and Mary were residing with family. However, it might also be the case that a large number of relatives were gathering for Caesar’s census (cf. Lk 2:1), causing the living space to be crowded, prompting Mary to opt for another section of the house to give birth.

Family quarters were situated on an upper level, therefore Mary must have descended to the lower section of the house, the area designated for animals, as suggested by the existence of the manger.

What types of animals might they have been? We cannot be certain, although cattle, sheep, and goats were typically raised. In any case, Jesus was probably born in the lower section of a home, and — quite probably — within a cave.

In areas where caves are present, the Israelites utilized them by constructing their dwellings above and within them, and there are references from the second century suggesting that Jesus was born in a cave.

Consequently, the Grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem is honored as the birthplace of Jesus to this very day.

The arrival of the Wise Men

Nativity displays frequently illustrate the Magi arriving on the evening of Jesus’ birth — similar to the shepherds (see Lk 2:8-12). Nevertheless, this did not occur.

Although they are commonly called “three kings,” the Magi were not actually kings. “Wise Men” is a more accurate description, but Matthew employs the precise term magoi for them (cf. 2:1).

The Magi initially constituted a Persian tribe assigned with religious roles (similar to the Jewish tribe of Levi), but as time progressed, the definition expanded and came to refer to anyone who engaged in ritual practices perceived to be akin to those of the magi. Consequently, we find references to Jewish Magi such as Elymas bar-Jesus (cf. Acts 13:6-8).

The Magi who came to see Jesus traveled from a land in “the east” (Mt 2:1) — potentially Babylonia or Persia — and they arrived as much as two years following Jesus’ birth.

We understand this as, when they did not return with a report to Herod the Great, he slaughtered “all the boys in Bethlehem and its surroundings who were two years old and younger, in line with the period he had determined from the magi” (Mt 2:16).

The Magi had informed Herod when they first observed the star of Jesus (cf. Mt 2:7), which would have occurred about one to two years prior. (Herod probably rounded the estimate to two years to guarantee that his actions would lead to the demise of the right child.)

In any case, the Magi did not come on the evening of Jesus’ birth but significantly later, and the Holy Family was either still in Bethlehem or had come back for another visit. They were probably residing with the same relatives, and Matthew notes that the Magi discovered the Baby Jesus with his mother in a “house” (2:11).

Conclusion

There exists a vast array of misconceptions regarding Christmas. Certain viewpoints arise from skeptics, including individuals who claim Jesus could not have been born on Dec. 25 and argue that this date was selected to rival a pagan celebration.

Other myths originate from Christians themselves, including artistic portrayals that often condense all elements of Jesus’ birth into a single image, depicting the shepherds and the magi together in a stable on a wintry night.

It’s customary for Christians to depict the birth of our Savior in various forms of art; however, we must be mindful of distinguishing between what the Gospels truly convey and instances where artistic freedom is being exercised.

Setting myths aside, it is still accurate that our Savior was indeed born into this world, and on Christmas, we celebrate the reality of this occurrence. Merry Christmas!

Jimmy Akin is the senior apologist at Catholic Answers. He writes from California.