Was Jesus Born on the 25th of December?

Long thought to be sacrosanct, but is there sufficient proof to prove that Jesus Christ was born on the 25th of December, the well-accepted day of the Western Christian Christmas?


By: Vanessa Uy


To believers and non-believers alike, very few would question the fact that Jesus’ birth falls on the 25th of December, unless they want to open themselves to ridicule. But research studies conducted over the years suggest that the widely accepted day of Jesus’ birth – the 25th of December – which proves that surprisingly, only has a tenuous basis in reality. And there is strong evidence that what we accept today as Christmas Day, was arbitrarily selected in the name of “scheduling expediency”.

The 25th of December date of Christmas – according to very early Roman Catholic Church documents – became widely accepted by Western Christianity only when after the first “Christ-Mass” was officiated by Pope Sixtus III. Probably as an expedient way to replace the former pagan Roman gods’ feast days since December 25 was the feast day of the Roman Sun god. As documented by the early Roman Catholic writer Mario Righetti in order to speedily “facilitate the acceptance of the Christian faith by the pagan masses” majority of which are either Roman or of Persian ethnicity.

The written gospels of former disciples of Jesus also cast doubts about Christ’s date of birth falling on the 25th of December. In Luke chapter 2 verse 8 notes that the birth of Jesus coincided with the Roman census. This administrative survey of the Roman Empire’s annexed territories was conveniently timed after harvest season usually between September and October around the Mediterranean Region and Sinai Peninsula. The reason for this is that as winter season sets in during the month of December, roads in this region becomes so muddy and impassible that people prefer to stay indoors rather than travel. Which might serve as a proof that Jesus was born no later than October since Joseph and Mary journeyed into Roman administered Bethlehem in compliance with Augustus Caesar’s decree of Roman census.

If hard scientific facts are considered, Israeli meteorologists had known for sometime that the month of December couldn’t had been the month of Jesus’ birth. Since given that the climatic conditions of the area around the Sinai Peninsula remained more or less constant for the last 2,000 years. It would had been a very difficult month to for travelling since the primitive roads of the time would have been rendered impassible via assorted winter-season precipitation like freezing rain, hail, or even snow. Plus the shepherds portrayed in the widely accepted accounts of the nativity scene only could have happened no later than the month of October.

Given that the now well-accepted 25th of December being set-aside as the birth of Jesus, it's only fair to ask if this was done only out of sociological-political expediency, rather than the date having true holy significance. But since most Western / Christian countries lie near the Arctic Circle, the coincidence of convenience and / or political expediency of choosing the 25th of December as the birth of Jesus does have it’s obvious advantages. Since Christmas has traditionally become the season of giving, the needy of the geographic high-latitudes had now less chances of dying in the cold since their more affluent brethren are now freely providing them their basic needs. Even other faiths falling under the classification of Abrahamic Theology have major feast days that seem to coincide near the 25th of December. Convenience or not, a 25th of December Christmas seems to benefit a wide spectrum of adherents – from the spiritual to the commercial.

The “X” in “Xmas”: An Irreverent Commercial Contrivance?

During the Reagan Years – which I admittedly lived through, the word “Xmas” was targeted by Catholic priests during their “Yuletide” sermons as a sure sign of the commercialism of Christmas. Is this true?


By: Ringo Bones


If there is one redeeming quality that can be said about then US President Ronald Reagan is that he managed to rally a so-called “united front” against the then Soviet Union. He even managed to convince present day al-Qaeda and Taliban thugs to fight for him back then. But despite his charisma, Reagan did create an unpleasant conservatism fervor during the 1980’s that favors demagoguery over erudite reasoning.

Take the use of the word Xmas as a common interchangeable substitute for Christmas. An overwhelming majority of Catholic priests during the 1980’s describe the word “Xmas” as either an irreverent commercialized contraction of the word Christmas where Christ was replaced by an “X” signifying the almighty mammon that made the “Christmas Season a materialistic rather than a holy and charitable season”. Or in relation to the previous argument a space-saving journalistic invention for the convenience of headline writers. But it was only during the “enlightenment” of the Clinton era that the truth behind the word “Xmas” was finally freely divulged to the general public.

Maybe it was one of the episodes of the Discovery Channel that I found out that “Xmas” is indeed reverent. The use of the word Xmas originated in the early Greek Church - read that: early Greek Church, probably the origin of the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greek letter “X” which is pronounced “Chi” is the first letter of Christ’s name in Greek, and it was frequently used as a holy symbol. If you have any doubts about this, just arrange for a packaged tour by your friendly neighborhood travel agent. Since Greece is currently peaceful and their old Greek Orthodox Churches are a prime tourist spot, you can document / observe those various old iconic portraiture of Christ and note the Greek writings. All it takes is a few thousand dollars in airfare and other expenses by the way.

Given that the Catholic Church – despite proving us with the Nativity Scene as their contribution to the symbolism of the Christmas Season, She (or Her as the Catholic Church / Vatican is referred) seems to be critical of other Christmas “Iconography” that originates from other Christian sects. Like Santa Claus which everyone in the West ascribe to European Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christianity, and the word “Xmas” which has Greek Orthodox origin. I mean belief in Santa Claus has never harmed anyone. It’s not like Father Angus MacGyver can no longer perform the miracle of turning stone into bread in some refugee camp in Darfur, Sudan if all of Christendom continues to believe in Santa Claus. Does it?

Is Santa Claus from Kyrgyzstan?

No, its not a premise for a Borat Christmas Special, but an idea that gained some validity after the BBC’s investigative reporters began interviewing some Kyrgyz citizens back in 2007. Santa Claus, but not as we know him?


By: Vanessa Uy


Back in December 22, 2007, the BBC ran a feature news story about how Santa Claus might be from Kyrgizstan(sometimes spelled as Khyrghizstan). The BBC investigative were following the trail of facts, hunches, and other “credible evidences” – like academic studies on old Khyrghiz folk tales – suggesting that Santa Claus – the man behind the generosity of gift-giving during Christmas – is from Kyrgyzstan. If the facts uncovered by their investigation really merits further study, then what’s the problem?

During the airing of that BBC investigative news feature story / news segment back in 2007, the whole Western World was still reeling from the “diplomatic embarrassment” created by the movie Borat – a “Gonzo Journalism” influenced film starring Sacha Baron Cohen which pokes fun at the country of Kazakhstan. The runaway success of Borat capitalized on the Western World’s – or the majority of her inhabitants’ – ignorance about former Soviet-block countries like Kazakhstan. Confusing Kyrgyzstan with Kazakhstan, the West probably viewed the idea that Santa Claus having Khyrgyz origins simply as an April Fool’s joke that came somewhat late – at Christmastime no less.

But that same BBC news feature did create a new cultural phenomenon in our local Sufi Muslim community. Since the concept of generosity is one of the ideals universally held in high esteem to the adherents of Abrahamic Theology, then an idea of a Kyrgyzstan-born Santa Claus is a good thing to them after all. Plus, given that our local Sufi community is probably the only one who appreciates the “artistically better” aspects of American Heavy Metal music, they probably assume that the idea of a Kyrgyz Santa Claus goes seamlessly with the Christmas Heavy Metal Band Trans-Siberian Express. Which is probably the only place where I live that the band has a very significant Southeast Asian fanbase. And besides, a Silk Road savvy Santa Claus really does explain away his somewhat over the top generosity when compared to the accepted generosity norms of Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

If the concept of a Kyrghyz Santa Claus ever becomes widely accepted all over the world, will this forever change the face of Christmas? Well, given that the Catholic Church is probably one of the staunchest critics against Santa Claus and his somewhat materialistic-leaning gift-giving role during the Christmas Season, this particular idea will probably be met with stiff ecclesiastical resistance. After being admonished first-hand by our local Catechism teacher for holding the view that Saint Nicholas is Santa Claus and knowing that those before me had met the same fate during the Reagan era / 1980’s, the Catholic Church will be one of Kyrgyz Santa’s staunchest critics.