THE UNILATERAL BOND OF THE LUNAR CALENDAR WITH THE JULIAN IN THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PASCHALION.
Having studied our Paschalion, we are irresistibly penetrated with awe at the ingenious work of the Alexandrian scientists who attained, in the Paschalion, an unalterable bond of the lunar with the solar Julian calendar. Alexandrian astronomers of the third century well knew the retardation of the Julian calendar from the sun. Nevertheless, they did not reject the Julian calendar, but wisely made use of its errors for a stable concordance with the lunar year, which lies at the basis of our Paschalion. The Julian calendar remains behind the true solar time, and the lunar one also remains behind together with the Julian calendar. "The lunar year is found to be eternally tied to the Julian one and a perpetual retardation of the former from the latter is not possible. The lag of the Julian year is equal to the lag of the lunar one. The equinox retards equally in both chronologies."
The difference between the lunar and our Julian calendar does not exceed an hour and a half in the lapse of a thousand years. We can see for ourselves how all the Paschal full-moons calculated for thousands of years ahead in our Paschalion fall precisely on all the indicated dates of the Julian calendar, but do not at all coincide with the Gregorian calendar.
The unalterable tie of the lunar calendar with the Julian is made especially vivid by the following constant, periodical phenomena: we know that the lunar cycle equals 19 years while the solar cycle equals 28 years. Let us analyze these numbers by primary multipliers: 19=1x19; 28=4x7. What happens when we cross- multiply them? 19x4=76, i.e., that period of 76 years upon whose lapse the beginning of the lunar year coincides in precision with the beginning of the Julian one (as shown in chapter three).
Now, if we multiply 76 by 7, we arrive at 532, i.e., that period upon whose lapse, Pascha again occurs on the same days and months on which it was celebrated from the very beginning and during the whole length of the indiction.
In view of such a stable bond of the lunar year with the Julian, there can be no talk of any change from the Julian calendar, for otherwise there would unavoidably occur a violation of the entire well-formed and harmonious system of our Paschalion and the introduction of a great confusion in all Paschal calculations.
Sorrowfully, the light-minded experiment of changing the Julian calendar was made in Rome and now one can see its pitiful consequences. (It has made obedience to the holy canons, given to the Holy Church by the Holy Spirit, impossible for Rome which was forced, by the new calendar to abandon the canonical Paschalion).
*** Christ Born on Dec. 25th (According to the Julian Calendar *** see above)
By John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPre, from WorldNetDaily, 12/24/2009.
The secularizers commonly defend the de-Christianiza-tion of Christmas by noting that America is a much more diverse nation than we used to be, that we shouldn't offend others, that saying "Merry Christmas" might be bad for business and that public Christmas observances might even violate the First Amendment. Then they deliver their crowning blow: "Besides, everybody knows Jesus wasn't born in December."
But saying "everybody knows" begs the question, as saying "all scholars agree" defines anyone who doesn't agree as a non-scholar. At the risk of flying in the face of this collective modern wisdom, we suggest that there is substantial, though not conclusive, evidence that Jesus was born in December.
The Biblical Evidence
What does the Bible say about the date of Jesus' birth? Luke 2:6 tells us that the days were accomplished that she should be delivered^ so we assume Jesus was a full-term baby, born nine months after His conception. Luke 1:26 says the angel Gabriel announced the conception of Jesus to Mary in the sixth month of her cousin Elizabeth's pregnancy with John the Baptist.
So Jesus was conceived about six months after John the Baptist was conceived. So when was John the Baptist conceived? That's more difficult, but the Scriptures suggest some answers. John's father was Zacharias, a Levite priest of the course of Abia [Abijah] (Lk 1:5). According to I Chronicles 24:7-19, King David had divided the priests into 24 orders, and these orders took turns serving in the temple for a period of eight days twice a year, separated from their wives and children. During their time Zacharias and the other priests of the course of Abia served during the 10th and 24th weeks of the Jewish year.
The angel of the Lord spoke to Zacharias while he executed the priests office before God in the order of his course (Lk 1:8), that is, while he was performing his service in the temple. After his course was finished he left the temple, returned to his wife, Elizabeth, and John was conceived (Lk 1:23-24). If this was after the second course, that is, the 24th week of the year, John would have been conceived around September or October and born around June or July. Jesus' conception six months later would have occurred around March or April and His birth around December or January. There is no certainty to this theory, especially given that the Jewish calendar (of only 360 days) may have been different from King David's time to Jesus' time. But based on the scriptural account of Zacharias's service in the temple, it is well within the realm of possibility that Jesus was born in December.
The Extrabiblical Evidence
St. John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.), argued strongly for a Dec. 25th birthdate because of the course of Zacharias' priestly service. But he also based his conclusion on the findings of Pope Julius. Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386 A.D.) had asked Pope Julius to ascertain the date of Christ's birth from the census documents brought by Titus to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Julius then determined the date of Christ's birth to be Dec. 25th.
Julius, Cyril and Chrysostom were not alone in their reliance upon the census documents. St. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.), in a detailed statement of the Christian faith addressed to Emperor Marcus Aurelius, stated that Jesus was born in Bethlehem as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing. (Apology, I, 34). Likewise, Tertullian (160-250 A.D.) wrote of the census of Augustus—that most faithful witness of the Lords nativity, kept in the archives of Rome Contra Marcion, Bk 4, 7).
Unfortunately, we do not have access to these census records today. But perhaps the better part of wisdom bids us to assume that these church fathers had access to information that we do not possess, and that they knew what they were talking about.
Some have said that Jesus couldn't have been born in December because shepherds did not keep their sheep in the fields past late autumn. But Alfred Edersheim, in his classic work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (1883), cites ancient Jewish sources to the effect that flocks of sheep "remain in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season, i.e., all the year round" (Book 2, p. 186). There was also a special class of Levitical shepherds who kept sacrificial lambs in the field all year round because they were used for sacrifice every month of the year.
Winters can be cold in Palestine, but they vary greatly, and some Decembers are rather mild. A recent study of stalagmites and stalactites in caves near Jerusalem strongly suggests that the average annual rainfall dropped nearly 50 percent fromabout 3 feet in 100 A.D. to about 1.6 feet in 700 A.D. Average winter temperatures may have varied as well. If Mary could have given birth to a baby in a Bethlehem stable, then hardy shepherds could have watched their flocks in the fields at the same time.
Edersheim concludes, "There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date (Dec. 25th). The objections generally made rest on grounds, which seem to me historically untenable." In the end, no one's Christian faith should depend upon whether Dec. 25th is the date of Jesus' birth, nor do such questions give us any reason to take Christ out of Christmas. We'd welcome responses from anyone who can prove or disprove this thesis. And, it is comforting, and even fun, to learn that ancient scholars and ancient traditions have been right all along. And Merry Christmas, one and all—on Dec. 25th!
*** Seems that Christmas IS only truly celebrated on December 25th according to the Julian reckoning ***
(From "Diakrisis Logismōn" or Deacon Christopher Banks)
