What do you think?
Rate this book
Waiting for the Coming: The Liturgical Meaning of Advent, Christmas, Epiphany
128 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1994
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 19, 2023
A STUDY OF VARIOUS ISSUES, INCLUDING JESUS’ POSSIBLE BIRTH ON DECEMBER 25
J. Neil Alexander (who, at the time this book was written in 1993, taught liturgics at The General Theological Seminary in New York City) wrote in the Preface, “This study is offered as a small but I trust helpful contribution to the pastoral life of the church. It has been written with parish clergy, liturgical ministers, and pastoral h that it may be commended to clergy, students, and pastoral liturgists seeking an introduction to the Christmas cycle. My greatest hope is that this little book will find its way into the hands of a wide cross-section of the church’s faithful… I have attempted to call attention to some of the important theological and pastoral issues that those responsible for the worship life of the Christian community may find helpful to ponder.”
He acknowledges, “At present it is impossible to establish a direct relationship between the Roman fast of the tenth month, a fast before Christmas, and the origins of Advent as a specifically pre-Christmas fast in early Roman Christianity… Until the point at which a closer relationship between the two fasts can be established, perhaps the most that may be said is to simply recognize that the milieu established through several centuries by the Roman fast of the tenth month no doubt provided an acceptable environment in which the liturgical agenda of Advent could evolve.” (Pg. 17)
He states, “If the need for a birth narrative for Jesus arose only after the critical events of his public ministry and the redemptive triumph of his death and resurrection, then what was the motivation that inspired the evangelists to shape the narratives that begin the first and third Gospels?... Professor Raymond Brown… has offered a number of valuable insights… Two… particularly arouse our interest… the gradual emergence of a more refined Christology in the kerygma of the apostolic church, and the need of the evangelists to place the birth of Jesus in the larger context of the history of redemption in continuity with the witness of the Hebrew Scriptures… It was only … in the full light of the resurrection, that the revelatory events of Jesus’ baptism by John, his temptation and transfiguration, and finally his conception and birth, began to constrict the density of their understanding of who Jesus really was.” (Pg. 31-33)
He explains, “The question of the relationship of Christmas with Roman solar festivals, however, turns on one particular feast, ‘Dies Natalis Solis Invicti,’ the birth fest of the invincible sun. The Roman emperor, Aurelian, in 274 triumphed over Emes and honored that city’s solar deity as the new divine defender of the empire. Transferring the cultic center to the imperial capital at Rome, Aurelian built a temple for the worship of Sol Invictus and established a college of priests to perform its rites. The major liturgy of the cult took place annually on December 25, the birth feast of the Invincible Sun, the date observed at the time (although incorrect) of the winter solstice. We can now see the initial lines indicating the connections between this pagan feast and that of Christmas. What better time would there be for the Christians in late third-century Rome to choose for celebrating the birth of the Christ, the Sun of Righteousness? The emperor established a solar cult, and the Christians perceived an incredible opportunity for evangelism. They jumped at the chance to place the feast of the birth of Jesus over against its pagan counterpart…By the middle of the fifth century, however, it appears that this solar syncretism had gone too far…” (Pg. 47-49)
He also suggests, “Is it not possible to inquire if Aurelian’s new feast at Rome in 274 may have been an imperial response to an increase in the size and influence of the Christian movement? What if we were to find that the early Christians in Rome already knew of December 25 as the date that, by tradition if not in reality, was the date of the birth of Jesus? What if we were to find that the feast of Natalis Solis Invicti was the emperor’s reconstitution of the solar cult to counter the new, but increasingly popular, feast of the birth of Jesus?” (Pg. 51)
He continues, “The questions just posed lead us directly into an assessment of what is now the principal explanation of the origin of the date of Christmas, the so-called ‘computation hypothesis.’ According to this theory, the church arrived at December 25 as the date of the birth of Jesus on the basis of a rather straightforward computation based on the accepted date of Jesus’ passion and death. In the ancient world, human life, it was believed, began and ended on the same day so as to form a complete cycle. Knowing the day upon which Jesus died, one accepted that his conception, the beginning of his life, would have occurred on the same day… From a variety of sources representing both the east and west, and by means of reconciling the different calendars in use, it is possible to determine that March 25 was widely held to be the date of Jesus’ passion and death. Following the process of computation outlined above, if Jesus died on March 25, this day was also the day of his conception. A perfect nine months later yields a birthday of December 25.” (Pg. 51-52)
He goes on, “In the Latin tractate, ‘De Solstitiis et Aequinpctiis,’ the writer assigned the conception of John the Baptist to the autumnal equinox, his birth taking place at the summer solstice … the conception of Jesus is assigned to the spring equinox, his birth taking place at the winter solstice, believed to be December 25. The possibility that the date of Christmas was derived by computation, and the original lines of argument, were first put forth late in the nineteenth century by the French liturgical historian, Louis Duchesne… Bernard Botte … attempted conclusively to undo Duchesne’s computation theory …In 1949, however, the German Benedictine scholar, Hieronymous Engberding… successfully reopened the question… It has received… attention principally in the work of Thomas Talley… He has shown with great clarity that March 25… was widely acknowledged as the date of the passion, and the security of that dating would have yielded no other choice for the birth of Jesus but December 25…” (Pg. 52-54)
He adds, “Talley has offered two additional pieces of evidence that further support the hypothesis… Talley notes … a sermon of St. Augustine that suggests that the Donatist community of North Africa was celebrating Christmas on December 25… before the schismatic rupture of 311… Talley argues that … the earlier one can detect the celebration of Christmas on December 25… the more likely it is that the date was based on a computation from the date of Jesus’ death, and the less likely it is to be an accommodation to imperial pressure. The second piece … Talley brings … derives from the third-century (243) North African source, ‘De Pascha Computus’… In this work, the date of the passion is given as March 25… Talley summarizes… ‘the author does not tell us the source of that march date for the nativity, but it is clear that he sees it already as ‘natalis solis iustitiae,’ over three decades before the establishment at Rome of the Natalis Solis Invicti… [This] does strongly suggest that the celebration of a birth feast in North Africa may reach back at least as far as 243… I suspect we will find ourselves less willing to see in these ritual coincidences a cause-and-effect relationship; we will be less willing to believe that the celebration of Christmas on December 25 was the result of the INTENTIONAL CHRISTIANIZATION of Natalis Solis Invicti.” (Pg. 54-56)
He observes, “Christmas is about families… That’s why the altars are full on Christmas Eve. Everyone’s looking for a family… The altars are packed on Christmas Eve because the church is getting another chance to be just such a household, OF GOD. We are given one more opportunity to be family, not on our terms, but on God’s: the place where no one is ultimately a stranger, where no one is ever really alone… nobody cares whether you[re naughty or nice, but only that you’re HOME for Christmas.” (Pg. 61)
This book will be of great interest to those seriously studying Christmas.
J. Neil Alexander (who, at the time this book was written in 1993, taught liturgics at The General Theological Seminary in New York City) wrote in the Preface, “This study is offered as a small but I trust helpful contribution to the pastoral life of the church. It has been written with parish clergy, liturgical ministers, and pastoral h that it may be commended to clergy, students, and pastoral liturgists seeking an introduction to the Christmas cycle. My greatest hope is that this little book will find its way into the hands of a wide cross-section of the church’s faithful… I have attempted to call attention to some of the important theological and pastoral issues that those responsible for the worship life of the Christian community may find helpful to ponder.”
He acknowledges, “At present it is impossible to establish a direct relationship between the Roman fast of the tenth month, a fast before Christmas, and the origins of Advent as a specifically pre-Christmas fast in early Roman Christianity… Until the point at which a closer relationship between the two fasts can be established, perhaps the most that may be said is to simply recognize that the milieu established through several centuries by the Roman fast of the tenth month no doubt provided an acceptable environment in which the liturgical agenda of Advent could evolve.” (Pg. 17)
He states, “If the need for a birth narrative for Jesus arose only after the critical events of his public ministry and the redemptive triumph of his death and resurrection, then what was the motivation that inspired the evangelists to shape the narratives that begin the first and third Gospels?... Professor Raymond Brown… has offered a number of valuable insights… Two… particularly arouse our interest… the gradual emergence of a more refined Christology in the kerygma of the apostolic church, and the need of the evangelists to place the birth of Jesus in the larger context of the history of redemption in continuity with the witness of the Hebrew Scriptures… It was only … in the full light of the resurrection, that the revelatory events of Jesus’ baptism by John, his temptation and transfiguration, and finally his conception and birth, began to constrict the density of their understanding of who Jesus really was.” (Pg. 31-33)
He explains, “The question of the relationship of Christmas with Roman solar festivals, however, turns on one particular feast, ‘Dies Natalis Solis Invicti,’ the birth fest of the invincible sun. The Roman emperor, Aurelian, in 274 triumphed over Emes and honored that city’s solar deity as the new divine defender of the empire. Transferring the cultic center to the imperial capital at Rome, Aurelian built a temple for the worship of Sol Invictus and established a college of priests to perform its rites. The major liturgy of the cult took place annually on December 25, the birth feast of the Invincible Sun, the date observed at the time (although incorrect) of the winter solstice. We can now see the initial lines indicating the connections between this pagan feast and that of Christmas. What better time would there be for the Christians in late third-century Rome to choose for celebrating the birth of the Christ, the Sun of Righteousness? The emperor established a solar cult, and the Christians perceived an incredible opportunity for evangelism. They jumped at the chance to place the feast of the birth of Jesus over against its pagan counterpart…By the middle of the fifth century, however, it appears that this solar syncretism had gone too far…” (Pg. 47-49)
He also suggests, “Is it not possible to inquire if Aurelian’s new feast at Rome in 274 may have been an imperial response to an increase in the size and influence of the Christian movement? What if we were to find that the early Christians in Rome already knew of December 25 as the date that, by tradition if not in reality, was the date of the birth of Jesus? What if we were to find that the feast of Natalis Solis Invicti was the emperor’s reconstitution of the solar cult to counter the new, but increasingly popular, feast of the birth of Jesus?” (Pg. 51)
He continues, “The questions just posed lead us directly into an assessment of what is now the principal explanation of the origin of the date of Christmas, the so-called ‘computation hypothesis.’ According to this theory, the church arrived at December 25 as the date of the birth of Jesus on the basis of a rather straightforward computation based on the accepted date of Jesus’ passion and death. In the ancient world, human life, it was believed, began and ended on the same day so as to form a complete cycle. Knowing the day upon which Jesus died, one accepted that his conception, the beginning of his life, would have occurred on the same day… From a variety of sources representing both the east and west, and by means of reconciling the different calendars in use, it is possible to determine that March 25 was widely held to be the date of Jesus’ passion and death. Following the process of computation outlined above, if Jesus died on March 25, this day was also the day of his conception. A perfect nine months later yields a birthday of December 25.” (Pg. 51-52)
He goes on, “In the Latin tractate, ‘De Solstitiis et Aequinpctiis,’ the writer assigned the conception of John the Baptist to the autumnal equinox, his birth taking place at the summer solstice … the conception of Jesus is assigned to the spring equinox, his birth taking place at the winter solstice, believed to be December 25. The possibility that the date of Christmas was derived by computation, and the original lines of argument, were first put forth late in the nineteenth century by the French liturgical historian, Louis Duchesne… Bernard Botte … attempted conclusively to undo Duchesne’s computation theory …In 1949, however, the German Benedictine scholar, Hieronymous Engberding… successfully reopened the question… It has received… attention principally in the work of Thomas Talley… He has shown with great clarity that March 25… was widely acknowledged as the date of the passion, and the security of that dating would have yielded no other choice for the birth of Jesus but December 25…” (Pg. 52-54)
He adds, “Talley has offered two additional pieces of evidence that further support the hypothesis… Talley notes … a sermon of St. Augustine that suggests that the Donatist community of North Africa was celebrating Christmas on December 25… before the schismatic rupture of 311… Talley argues that … the earlier one can detect the celebration of Christmas on December 25… the more likely it is that the date was based on a computation from the date of Jesus’ death, and the less likely it is to be an accommodation to imperial pressure. The second piece … Talley brings … derives from the third-century (243) North African source, ‘De Pascha Computus’… In this work, the date of the passion is given as March 25… Talley summarizes… ‘the author does not tell us the source of that march date for the nativity, but it is clear that he sees it already as ‘natalis solis iustitiae,’ over three decades before the establishment at Rome of the Natalis Solis Invicti… [This] does strongly suggest that the celebration of a birth feast in North Africa may reach back at least as far as 243… I suspect we will find ourselves less willing to see in these ritual coincidences a cause-and-effect relationship; we will be less willing to believe that the celebration of Christmas on December 25 was the result of the INTENTIONAL CHRISTIANIZATION of Natalis Solis Invicti.” (Pg. 54-56)
He observes, “Christmas is about families… That’s why the altars are full on Christmas Eve. Everyone’s looking for a family… The altars are packed on Christmas Eve because the church is getting another chance to be just such a household, OF GOD. We are given one more opportunity to be family, not on our terms, but on God’s: the place where no one is ultimately a stranger, where no one is ever really alone… nobody cares whether you[re naughty or nice, but only that you’re HOME for Christmas.” (Pg. 61)
This book will be of great interest to those seriously studying Christmas.
January 4, 2018
I did not love this book. In the intro J. Neil Alexander admits that this book is a hodgepodge ranging from an academic paper to material presented at a church adult forum. And indeed that is how this book reads. The first section on Advent is the least accessible, the bit on Christmas more accessible and the last part on Epiphany a mix between the two. The major insights I appreciated are that Advent can be seen as a season in its own right about the 2nd coming of Jesus and not just preparation for Christmas; that the celebration of Christmas on December 25 does not necessarily originate with the Christianization of a pagan holiday but may be connected to the calculation of Jesus’ birth based on the ancient belief that a person died and was conceived on the same day; and epiphany was a unitive feast of God revealed in Jesus and not just an add on to Christmas. Honestly though I found the Epiphany chapter pretty confusing. I found the introduction to these holidays very interesting but I would welcome an easier to read and comprehend treatment of them.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews