Listen to the article
English Heritage Retracts False Claim About Christmas Origins After Historian Backlash
English Heritage has withdrawn a social media post claiming Christmas is celebrated on December 25 because early Christians co-opted a Roman sun god festival, following swift criticism from historians and theologians.
The heritage organization, one of Britain’s most prominent historical bodies, quickly removed the post from its X (formerly Twitter) account after experts pointed out the claim perpetuates a widely debunked historical theory. A spokesperson for English Heritage later acknowledged the error, stating: “We quickly realised we got this wrong and deleted the posts.”
The incident sparked immediate reactions from historical experts who expressed concern that such a prestigious institution would promote what many consider historical misinformation. Chris McBride, a historical researcher, publicly challenged the organization, writing: “You are one of the highest, most important historical bodies in the country. Guardians of historical knowledge. How can you still not know this is utter nonsense? This has nothing to do with why Christmas is on December 25th.”
Theologian Reverend Canon Andrew Davison also weighed in, questioning the organization’s commitment to accuracy: “I have no problem with Christianity adapting pagan insights – moving from the shadows of things to the things themselves – it’s just that the evidence is against this being an example of any such thing. English Heritage, are you interested in historical accuracy?”
Renowned historian Tom Holland, author of “Dominion” and co-host of The Rest is History podcast, expressed his frustration with the persistence of the debunked theory with a simple plea: “Please make it stop.”
The notion that Christians deliberately placed Christmas on December 25 to supplant pagan festivals has been increasingly challenged by historical scholarship in recent years. Dr. Bijan Omrani explained to The Telegraph why the theory is “extremely unlikely” to be accurate.
“December 25 appears to have been chosen because it was nine months after the day which early Christians believed Christ was conceived, March 25,” Dr. Omrani said. “There were also much more popular festivals to the sun on other days at that time, for example August 28 and October 22.”
He further elaborated that the supposed Roman festival would have had little significance in the first place: “It seems unlikely that the festival was prominent enough to be worth Christians taking it over: the day would have no particular attraction to pagans, and it also seems unlikely that Christians then would want an important festival intentionally to have a pagan association.”
The controversy highlights ongoing tensions between popular narratives about historical Christian traditions and what contemporary scholarship suggests. While the idea of Christianity absorbing pagan festivals has been a common explanation in popular culture, historians have increasingly questioned this interpretation, particularly regarding Christmas.
English Heritage, which manages over 400 historic monuments, buildings and sites across England, is generally regarded as an authoritative voice on historical matters. This incident serves as a reminder of the responsibility such institutions bear in communicating accurate historical information to the public.
The swift retraction suggests English Heritage recognized the potential damage to its reputation that could come from perpetuating historical misconceptions. However, the incident also demonstrates how persistent certain historical narratives can be, even when evidence suggests otherwise.
Recent data indicates Christmas church attendance has been rising in the UK, showing the continuing cultural and religious significance of the celebration, regardless of debates about its historical origins.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
As a history buff, I’m disappointed English Heritage would make such a mistake. Spreading inaccurate theories undermines public trust in these organizations. I hope they learn from this experience and recommit to providing well-researched, factual information going forward.
It’s concerning to see a prominent historical organization like English Heritage promoting dubious claims about Christmas origins. I’m glad they quickly retracted the post after historians pushed back. We need reputable institutions to uphold historical accuracy, not spread misinformation.
Kudos to the historians who swiftly pushed back against English Heritage’s false claims about Christmas origins. It’s critical that reputable organizations maintain high standards of historical accuracy, even on social media. I hope this leads to more rigorous fact-checking at English Heritage.
As someone interested in history, I’m glad to see experts calling out English Heritage for their inaccurate claims. Maintaining the integrity of historical knowledge is crucial, especially for prominent organizations. I hope this incident leads to positive changes in their research and editorial practices.
This incident highlights the importance of having knowledgeable experts review content before it’s published, especially for prestigious institutions like English Heritage. I’m glad they acknowledged the error, but it’s concerning they would promote a debunked historical claim in the first place.
While it’s good that English Heritage retracted the post, I wonder what their internal review process looks like. Promoting historical misinformation, even briefly, can undermine public trust. I hope they take steps to strengthen their content curation and fact-checking procedures.