Every year, the same claim resurfaces that Christmas is a pagan holiday, that the early church stole a festival, or that believers today are unknowingly participating in a disguised form of ancient idolatry. The repetition of the claim makes it feel credible, yet it collapses under actual historical evidence. Christmas was not built on paganism. The early church did not hijack a pagan celebration. The date was not chosen because of Sol Invictus or Saturnalia. The Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus grew out of internal Christian reasoning long before the supposed pagan connections existed.
The Real Origin Of December 25th
The earliest Christians were far more focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus than His birth. By the second and third centuries, believers became increasingly interested in the full scope of His incarnation. Several streams of thinking led Christians to propose dates for His birth. One of the strongest was the ancient Jewish belief that great prophets died on the same calendar date as either their conception or birth. Early Christians believed Jesus was conceived on the same date as His crucifixion. They dated the crucifixion to March 25th according to their calendar system. If conception happened on March 25th, a nine-month pregnancy placed His birth on December 25th.
This pattern did not come from Roman festivals. It came directly from Jewish interpretive logic. Early Christian writers used Jewish categories such as the connection between equinoxes, solstices, and key moments in salvation history. These ideas shaped the Christian liturgical calendar long before any Roman festival appeared on December 25th.
The earliest known Christian reference to December 25th as the birth of Jesus does not come from the era of Constantine and does not originate in Rome. The writing known as De Solstitia et Aequinoctia, likely from third-century North Africa, explicitly ties Jesus’ conception to March 25th and His birth to December 25th. Hippolytus, writing even earlier in his Commentary on Daniel, makes the same argument. These sources predate the first Roman reference to December 25th by more than a century, which means the Christian date stands independently and is not a reaction to paganism.
Saturnalia And Sol Invictus
The most common claim is that Christmas replaced Saturnalia or Sol Invictus, yet the historical record makes the timelines unmistakably clear. The earliest Roman calendars place Saturnalia on December 17th as a single day. Livy refers to this older form, while authors like Aulus Gellius and Macrobius describe how the festival eventually expanded to run from December 17th through December 23rd. Martial’s poems on gift giving during Saturnalia follow this structure. There is no ancient Roman source that places Saturnalia on December 25th, and no inscription or calendar ever extends it beyond the 23rd.
Sol Invictus is an even weaker argument. The festival of the Unconquered Sun on December 25th does not appear until the reign of Emperor Aurelian in the late third century. By that time, Christians had already connected March 25th and December 25th for theological reasons. This means any chronological relationship runs the opposite direction of the modern claim. The pagan feast appears after the Christian date, not before it. Aurelian was attempting to unify the empire under a solar cult, not merging pagan practice with Christian belief.
It is also important to note that the themes of Sol Invictus do not resemble the nativity. Sol Invictus did not celebrate a divine birth, an incarnation, or a savior entering the world. It was a political and military symbol of imperial strength. Its rituals do not parallel Christian worship or symbolism. When some modern writers blur Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, and New Year festivities together, they create a fictional composite that never existed in the Roman world.
The early Christians knew these pagan festivals well and openly condemned them. Tertullian rebuked Christians who participated in pagan winter festivals and insisted that followers of Jesus must reject them entirely. Athenagoras and other early apologists argued strongly against adopting any pagan ritual forms. Origen rejected birthday celebrations altogether because they were tied to the practices of kings and gods in pagan culture. Early Christians were not drawn toward adopting pagan holidays. They opposed them vigorously and refused to imitate them.
The Goals Of The Early Church
When the early church confronted pagan practices, it did not baptize them or disguise them. It condemned them, forbade them, and rejected them. Writings from the bishops and apologists consistently show open contempt for pagan festivals and rituals. Their stance makes it clear that they would not have quietly absorbed a pagan holiday into Christian worship. The celebration of the birth of Jesus grew from devotion to the incarnation and from the conviction that God entered history at a real moment in time, not from any attempt to align with Roman culture.
Why The Myth Persists
The myth persists because it is simple to repeat and feels edgy. It appeals to those who want to undermine Christianity by portraying it as a copycat religion. The problem is that pagan myths do not resemble the incarnation. Ancient fertility festivals do not resemble the humility of God taking on flesh. No pagan deity becomes human in order to redeem humanity. The earliest Christian hymns and liturgical texts for Christmas draw entirely from the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels and contain no echoes of pagan myth or practice. The nativity readings come from Luke, Matthew, Isaiah, Micah, and the Psalms. The worship surrounding Christmas is rooted in biblical theology, not pagan symbolism.
Loyalty To Yahweh Has Always Defined Faith
One of the most consistent threads running through Scripture is that relationship with Yahweh rests on loyalty. Israel was called to worship Him alone, to trust His character, and to reject the gods of the nations. The prophets repeatedly confronted Israel not only for immoral behavior but for divided allegiance. When the people turned to other gods, they broke the covenant. When they stayed faithful to Yahweh even imperfectly, He remained steadfast toward them.
This perspective helps expose how misguided the pagan origin claim truly is. Celebrating the birth of Jesus is an act of allegiance to Yahweh. It does not draw on pagan worship. It does not honor pagan deities. It does not replace a pagan festival. It directs attention to the incarnation of the Messiah, which is the ultimate revelation of Yahweh’s loyalty to His people.
Conclusion
Christmas is not a pagan invention. It is the celebration of the incarnation of the Son of God, grounded in early Christian thought, Jewish calendrical reasoning and an unbroken tradition of rejecting pagan worship. Once the actual dates of Saturnalia and Sol Invictus are understood, the entire pagan origin theory collapses. Saturnalia ended on December 23rd. Sol Invictus appears on December 25th only after Christians were already marking the day for theological reasons. Early Christian writers condemned pagan winter festivals and would never have repurposed them. The liturgy of Christmas is built entirely from Scripture and contains no trace of pagan mythology. The birth of Jesus deserves to be celebrated with confidence, clarity and gratitude.
Discussion Questions
- Why do simple myths often replace well-documented history in popular culture?
- How do the historically verified dates of Saturnalia and Sol Invictus expose the weakness of the pagan origin claim?
- Why is the early Christian rejection of pagan winter festivals significant for understanding the development of Christmas?
- How does the biblical focus on loyalty to Yahweh challenge the idea that Christmas is pagan?
- What are effective ways for Christians to address the pagan origin myth when it resurfaces each year?
Want To Know More
- Andrew McGowan, Ancient Christian Worship
McGowan provides a clear picture of how the earliest Christians worshiped and how their practices grew from Jewish traditions rather than from Roman festivals. His work demonstrates that the early church actively distanced itself from pagan customs, which helps clarify why Christmas could not have been borrowed from Saturnalia or Sol Invictus. - Thomas J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year
Talley’s research is foundational for understanding how early Christian feast days developed. He details the Jewish calendrical reasoning behind March twenty-five and December twenty-five and shows how these dates emerged from Christian theology long before any pagan festival appears on December twenty-five. - Paul F. Bradshaw, Early Christian Worship: A Basic Introduction
Bradshaw explains the formation of early Christian liturgical life and shows how it was grounded in Scripture and the synagogue rather than in Greco Roman religious practices. His discussion of early feast days reinforces that Christmas emerged from biblical reflection, not cultural borrowing. - Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Ferguson offers a comprehensive view of the cultural, religious and political world of the early church. His analysis makes it clear that the themes and rituals of Roman paganism do not align with Christian celebrations and that early believers sharply rejected pagan festivals rather than adapting them. - Joseph F. Kelly, The Origins of Christmas
Kelly traces the historical development of Christmas and carefully evaluates claims about its connection to paganism. His research shows that the Christian use of December twenty-five precedes the Roman Sol Invictus festival and arises from theological reasoning rather than cultural assimilation.
About the Author
