Most of us are aware that the 25th December is labelled as the “Natalis [solis] Invicti” in the Chronography of 354; specifically in the 6th part, which contains the so-called “Calendar of Philocalus” (online here), listing the state holidays. Sol Invictus was introduced into Rome by Aurelian in 274 AD as a state cult, and it seems reasonable to suppose that this state holiday was introduced at the same time. The Chronography also lists the saints’ days, in another calendar dating from 336 (online here), including Christmas on 25 December. It is often supposed, therefore, that the date of Christmas was selected precisely to coincide with this solar holiday. This theory was advanced by H. Usener in his book Das Weihnachstfest (1889, rep. 1911) with a follow-up in his posthumous article on Sol Invictus in 1905.
However I have lately seen claims that, far from Christmas being located on the date of a pagan holiday, the truth is that Julian the Apostate (or someone) established a solar festival on the pre-existing date of Christmas! These claims seem to derive from an interesting article by Steven Hijmans, “Usener’s Christmas”. Hijman is a revisionist, so it is necessary to be wary, but I thought that it might be useful to review some of the evidence.
In the Chronography of 354, in the “Filocalian calendar”, some holidays – all associated with emperors or gods – are marked by chariot races (circenses missus). These are also in multiples of 12 races, with one exception. The sole exception is the entry for 25 December:
Which is the natalis of Invictus (rather than Sol) and 30 races, rather than a multiple of 12. It is, therefore, an anomalous entry.
Hijmans makes some very interesting points about this.
- Firstly, he argues that celebrating festivals with chariot races rather than sacrifices was an innovation of Constantine, introduced after Constantine defeated Licinius in 324. It’s not an ancient thing. So all these chariot races were introduced then.
- Secondly, since all the ancient festivals were multiples of 12, it is clear that no festival of Sol existed on 25 December at that time. If it had, it too would be a multiple of 12. Therefore it is a later addition; as the irregular naming also indicates.
- Thirdly he speculates that this entry may not even have been present in the original copy made in 354, but added later.
- This leaves the first definite mention of a solar festival on this date to Julian the Apostate’s Hymn to King Helios, in December 362.
This is an interesting argument indeed. What do we make of it?
Hijmans does not detail his first point, merely referring to M. Wallraff, Christus Verus Sol (2001), p.132, “citing Eusebius”. Unfortunately the Wallraff volume is inaccessible to me. So we have to leave this point unchecked.
The second point relies on the accurate transmission of numerals in copies of the Chronography. I am not clear whether this is actually reliable, or whether the text printed by Mommsen – which is the basis for the online version – is a critical text or not. The Dec. 25 date could really have read “XXXVI” for all we know.
Obviously speculation, as in the third point, is not evidence. I would suggest that we should not infer interpolation without need.
All the same this is a very interesting point. Is it really possible that this was the case?
- H. Usener, “Sol Invictus”, RhM 60 (1905) pp. 465-491.↩
- Steven Hijmans, “Usener’s Christmas: A contribution to the modern construct of late antique solar syncretism”, in: M. Espagne & P. Rabault-Feuerhahn (edd.), Hermann Usener und die Metamorphosen der Philologie. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2011. 139-152. Online here, although the online version appears to be a draft. However Hijmans’ full thesis, with extensive plates, is online here.↩
12 thoughts on “Was there no festival of Sol on 25 December before 324 AD?”
Your initial skepticism seems warranted. Quite a backstory with the Romans — a temple to Sol Indiges said to date back to 8th century BC… more than 1000 years before 324 CE.
Christian and scientist Isaac Newton clarified the history in his book on Daniel and the Apocalypse chapter XI — the later Christians “afterwards took up with what they found in the [Roman] Calendars.”
“THE times of the Birth and Passion of CHRIST, with such
like niceties, being not material to religion, were little
regarded by the CHRISTIANS of the first age. They who
began first to celebrate them, placed them in the cardinal
periods of the year ; as the annunciation of the Virgin
MARY, on the 25th of MARCH, which when JULIUS CAESAR
corrected the Calendar was the vernal Equinox ; the feast
of JOHN Baptist on the 24th of JUNE, which was the
summer Solstice ; the feast of St. MICHAEL on SEPT. 29,
which was the autumnal Equinox, and the birth of CHRIST
on the winter Solstice, DECEMB. 25, with the feasts of St.
STEPHEN, St. JOHN and the INNOCENTS, as near it as they
could place them. And because the Solstice in time re-
moved from the 25th of DECEMBER to the 24th, the 23d,
the 22d, and so on backwards, hence some in the following
centuries placed the birth of CHRIST on DECEMB. 23, and
at length on DECEMB. 20 : and for the same reason they
seem to have set the feast of St. THOMAS on DECEMB. 21,
and that of St. MATTHEW on SEPT. 21. So also at the
entrance of the Sun into all the signs in the JULIAN Calendar,
they placed the days of other Saints ; as the conversion
of PAUL on JAN. 25, when the Sun entred AQUARIUS ; St.
MATHIAS on FEB. 25, when he entred PISCES ; St. MARK
on APR. 25, when he entred TAURUS ; CORPUS CHRISTI
on May 26, when he entred GEMINI ; St. JAMES on
JULY 25, when he entred CANCER ; St. BARTHOLOMEW
on AUG. 24, when he entred VIRGO ; SIMON and JUDE
on OCTOB. 28, when he entred SCORPIO”
Interesting to see Newton advocating the Calculation Theory for the dates of Christian festivals.
I’ve been investiganting a bit about Hijmans’ thesis, so these question has made me found your excellent blog (I cannot even stress how fabulous is to treat Patristics and sources in an objective way). I have to say I’m not a big Hijmans fan, I think he seems biased trying to force a discussion that is barely there. But here I went, trying to read every source and give a more plaussible explanation. Well, yes, maybe the Natalis Solis is not as old as the emperor Julian tried to imply, making it of republican origins, but I kinda resist to believe is has not to do with Aurelian, maybe I’m the biased but thanks to this now I have some information that seems to contradict second point. As you did, I basically compared the Phillocalus in the Momssen CIL, but also I compared with the Fasti Praenestini. In the Philocalus entry for March, the first day is the Natalis Marti, it has XXVIII charriot races (Not a multiple of 12), also the Feria Marti appears in the Fasti Praenestini, so we can assure it’s “old” enough to come from the Julius Dinasty, so this gives the question if it’s the exception…or it’s just that ussing multiples of 12 were some fashion and it’s just happens it has nothing to do with a theoretical antiquity. Or maybe in this case the Philocalus commited a wrong…
Anyways. Good Blog.
Thanks for your answer.
Addenda: I’ve consulted Mommsen CIL volume in which the Philocalus is, not the digital version. The digital base has “Corrected” the number XXVIII in March to XXIIII. Mommsen himself says in the volume note “Scribendum puto XXIIII”. So I searched any previous version of the Fasti of Philocalus to have a better understainding if it was a true wrong made by Philocalus or maybe came from previous versions. At least 2 versions maintains the number XXVIII as it is. But the most interesting one is the explanation of the edition of Fr. Xysto Schier about why that festival had 28 charriot races instead of 12 or 24. He cites Ovid’s Fasti, in the part where we can read: “And now two nights of the second month are left, and Mars urges on the swift steeds yoked to his chariot. The day has kept the appropriate name of Equirria (“horse-races”), derived from the races which the god himself beholds in his own plain.”. So, at least to my understanding, Xysto inference is that at least the number is correct and and it can be explained as a consecuence of february two left days avoiding it to have 30, which also could explain Ovid’s rhyme.
Have a good day.
I appreciate your research here. This is very interesting, isn’t it. Very thin threads of data tho.
I’m embarrassed to speak but i don’t know if it’s because my english is rusty or because the post didn’t want to reach a conclusion as to whether “Christmas is pagan” but… after all, does Christmas have anything to do with a “pagan” festival?
The post is about whether the pagan festival recorded in 354 actually was created then, by Julian, rather than in 274 by Aurelian.
We don’t actually have any ancient evidence at all on why Xmas appears on 25 Dec. We certainly have no evidence that it was “copied” from a pagan festival, and it is unthinkable that such a thing would have been done in this period.
Oh okay. It’s just that since you said that we should be careful with Hijman (since he is a revisionist) i thought there was some chance that Christmas was created to replace a pagan festival. Could you please suggest me some other author who refutes this “pagan Christmas” claim? Thanks for the explanations 🙂
Are Schmidt and Nothaft reliable references to debunk this idea that Christians deliberately stole a pagan holiday and Christianized it? Could you please suggest me some other author who refutes this “pagan Christmas” claim?
Generally I respond to anyone making such a claim is to ask which ancient source records such “stealing”. They can’t produce one. Often they claim that Xmas is stolen from “pagan solstice” celebrations. I point out that Xmas is not on the solstice, and the Romans did not celebrate the solstice anyway, but Saturnalia, on Dec. 17.
yeah! If i’m not mistaken, the solstice is on the 21st, right? why do some keep trying to associate events that bear no resemblance? sorry if the insistence was inconvenient is that whenever this month comes, social networks and news sites are full of these statements and i don’t know where i can confirm them since they don’t usually cite sources. I think the most mentioned ones are yule, saturnalia, mithras or they just say it was a sun god festival. I’m preparing for the “accusations” by looking for authors who talk about these accusations. So… did they really define that December 25th was going to be Christmas based on calculus? Thank you for your work and for answering my questions 🙂