Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/810

 CHRISTMAS

726

CHRISTMAS

Kirchengesch., XXVI, 1905, 20-31) that the feast was brought in by Constantine as early as 330-35.

At Rome the earliest evidence is in the Philocalian Calendar ( P. L., XIII, 675; it can be seen as a whole in J. Strzygowski, Kalenderbilder des Chron. von Jahre 354, Berlin, 1888), compiled in 354, which con- tains three important entries. In the civil calendar 25 December is marked "Natalis Invicti". In the " Depositio Martyrum " a Ust of Roman or early and universally venerated martyrs, under 25 December is found "VIII kal. ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae". On "VIII kal. mart." (22 February) is also mentioned St. Peter's Chair. In the list of consuls are four anomalous ecclesiastical entries: the birth and death days of Christ, the entry into Rome, and mar- tyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul. The significant entry is "Chr. Caesare et Paulo sat. XIII. hoc. cons. Dns. ilis. XPC natus est VIII Kal. ian. d. ven. luna XV," i. e. during the consulship of (Augustus) Caesar and Paulus Our Lord Jesus Christ was born on the eighth before the calends of January (25 Dec), a Fri- day, the fourteenth day of the moon. The details clash with tradition and possibility. The epact, here XIII, is normally XI; the year is a. d. c. 754, a date first suggested two centuries later; in no year between 751 and 754 could 25 December fall on a Friday; tradi- tion is constant in placing Christ's birth on Wednes- day. Moreover the date given for Christ's death (duobus Geminis coss., i. e. a. d. 29) leaves Him only twenty-eight and one-quarter years of life. Apart from this, these entries in a consul list are mani- fest interpolations. But are not the two entries in the " Depositio Martyrum " also such? Were the day of Christ's birth in the flesh alone there found, it might stand as heading the year of martyrs' spiritual natales; but 22 February is there wholly out of place. Here, as in the consular fasti, pop- ular feasts were later inserted for convenience' sake. The civil calendar alone was not added to, as it was useless after the abandonment of pagan festi- vals. So, even if the "Depositio Martyrum" dates, as is probable, from 336, it is not clear that the calen- dar contains evidence earlier than Philocalus himself, i. e. 354, unless indeed pre-existing popular celebra- tion must be assumed to render possible this official recognition. Were the Chalki Ms. of Hippolytus genuine, evidence for the December feast would exist as early as c. 205. The relevant passage [which ex- ists in the Chigi MS. without the bracketed words and is always so quoted before George Syncellus (c. 1000)] runs: 'H yap irpwrrj irapovaia rod Kvptov TjpQv ij evaapKos [iv rj yeytw-qrai] £v Be0W/i t 4ytvero \jrpb 6ktw Ka\av5uv iavovapluv ijutpa rerpd5t] /^atnXeiWros AuyovffTov [retrtra- paKourbv Kal bevrepoi' eros, airb 5t ' A5a^t] iretTaK«rxt\too"r£ Kal TT€vraK0(7L0(rT(p era- iiradev bt TptaKOtjTQ Tptrip [irpb 6ktuj KaXavdCiv airptXlw, rjp.^pa tt apaa Kei'7), OKTUKaibeKarcfi Irei Tt^t]piou Kattrapos, virarttiovros 'PoOtpov Kal 'PovficWiuji'Os] (Coram, in Dan., iv, 23; Brotke, 19) — "For the first corning of Our Lord in the flesh fin which He has been begotten], in Bethlehem, took place [25 December, the fourth day] in the reign of Augustus [the forty-second year, and] in the year 5500 [from Adam]. And He suffered in His thirty-third year [25 March, the para- sceve, in the eightecnt h year of Tiberius Caesar, during the consulate of Rufus and Hubellio]." Interpolation is certain, and admitted by Funk, Bonwetsch, etc. The names of the Consuls [which should lie Fufius and Hubellius] are wrong; Christ lives thirty-three years; in the genuine Hippolytus, thirty-one; minute data are irrelevant in this discussion with Severian millen- niarists; it is incredible that Hippolytus should have

known these details when his contemporaries (Clem- ent, Tertullian, etc.) are, when dealing with the mat- ter, ignorant or silent; or should, having published them, have remained unquoted. (Kellner, op. cit., p. 101. has an excursus on this passage.)

St. Ambrose (de virg., iii, 1 in 1'. I,., XVI, 219)

preserves the sermon preached by Pope Liberius in St. Peter's, when, on Natalis Christi, Ambrose' sister, Marcellina, took the veil. This pope reigned from May, 352 until 366, except during his years of exile, 355-357. If Marcellina became a nun only after the canonical age of twenty-five, and if Ambrose was born only in 340, it is perhaps likelier that the event occurred after 357. Though the sermon abounds in references appropriate to the Epiphany (the marriage at Cana, the multiplication of loaves, etc.), these seem due (Kellner, op. cit., p. 109) to sequence of thought, and do not fix the sermon to 6 January, a feast un- known in Rome till much later. Usener, indeed, argues (p. 272) that Liberius preached it on that day in 353, instituting the Nativity feast in the December of the same year; but Philocalus warrants our sup- posing that it preceded his pontificate by some time, though Duchesne's relegation of it to 243 (Bull, crit., 1890, 3, pp. 41 sqq.) may not commend itself to many. In the West the Council of Saragossa (380) still ignores 25 December (see can. xxi, 2). Pope Sirieius, writing in 385 (P. L., XIII, 1134) to Himerius in Spain, distinguishes the feasts of the Nativity and Apparition; but whether he refers to Roman or to Spanish use is not clear. Ammianus Marcellinus (XXI. ii) and Zonaras (Ami., XIII, 11) date a visit of Julian the Apostate to a church at Vienne in Gaul on Epiphany and Nativity respectively. Unless there were two visits, Vienne in a. d. 361 combined the feasts, though on what day is still doubtful. By the time of Jerome and Augustine, the December feast is established, though the latter (Epp., II, liv, 12, in P. L., XXXIII, 200) omits it from a list of first-class festivals. From the fourth century every Western ' calendar assigns it to 25 December. At Rome, then, the Nativity was celebrated on 25 December before 354; in the East, at Constantinople, not before 379, unless with Erbes, and against Gregory, we recog- nize it there in 330. Hence, almost universally has it been concluded that the new date reached the East from Rome by way of the Bosphorus during the great anti-Arian revival, and by means of the orthodox champions. De Santi (L'Orig. delle Fest. Nat., in Civilta Cattolica. 1907), following Erbes, argues that Rome took over the Eastern Epiphany, now with a definite Nativity colouring, and, with an increas- ing number of Eastern Churches, placed it on 25 December; later, both East and West divided their feast, leaving Epiphany on 6 January, and Nativity on 25 December, respectively, and placing Christmas on 25 December and Epiphany on 6 January. The earlier hypothesis still seems preferable.

Origin of Date. — Concerning the date of Christ's birth the Gospels give no help; indeed, upon their data contradict ory arguments are based. The census would have been impossible in winter: a whole popu- lation could not then be put in motion. Again, in winter it must have been; then only field labour was suspended. But Rome was not thus considerate. Authorities moreover differ as to whether shepherds could or would keep flocks exposed during the nights of the rainy season. Arguments based or. Zachary's temple ministry are unreliable, though the calcula- tions of antiquity (see above) have been revived in yet more complicated form, e. g. by Friedlieb (Leben J. Christi des Erlosers. Minister, 1887. p. 312). The twentv-four classes of Jewish priests, it is urged, served each a week in the Temple; Zachary was in the eighth class. Abia. The Temple was destroyed 9 Ab, a. d. 70; late rabbinical tradition says that class 1, Jojarib, was then serving. From these un- trustworthy data, assuming that Christ was born a. u. c. 749, and that never in seventy turbulent years the weekly succession failed, it is calculated that the eighth class was serving 2-9 October, a. i. c. 748, whence Christ's conception falls in March, and birth presumably in December. Kellner (op. cit., pp. 106,