Who was St. Nicholas? Part 1: A Look at the Historical Figure
- Rubin
- Dec 3, 2022
- 8 min read
Updated: Apr 26, 2023
Christmas is a time full of festivities and wonder. It is a time to share presents between friends and family, put up lights, and decorate the Christmas tree. In all of the excitement surrounding the season, there is also a certain otherworldly allure to it. For those that are religious, it is an invitation to spiritually prepare for the birth of Christ and to anticipate his second coming. But like with most religious things, the practical and immediate replace moments of reflection and contemplation. This is understandable, as we all have experienced pressure to get our check-lists done while Christmas inches closer and closer. Along with the practical concerns, other traditional religious elements have been replaced by cultural and seasonal imagery like reindeer, snowmen, elves, and most ubiquitous of all, Santa Claus.
Santa Claus is a classic icon and staple of Westernized Christmas practice. He is depicted everywhere, in ads, movies, décor, and in our collective imagination. So much so, that for many of us, when we think of Christmas, we might immediately think of Santa Claus. This modern depiction of Santa Claus originated from a novel and innovative marketing scheme, attempting to maximize on the capitalistic impulses of consumers. Adam English argues in his work, The Saint who would be Santa Claus, that the Santa Claus, as a large white jolly man, with a white beard, was conceived of by Haddon Sundblom, who did marketing work for Coca-Cola in the mid 20th century. English comments, “Every movie or television or commercial depiction since is based in some degree on Sundblom’s vision.”[1]
But there is more to Santa Claus than a white beard, the north pole, and reindeer. Santa Claus is a derivation and amalgamation of many different traditions which have developed overtime into this enduring image. But underneath all of these ideas about the jolly present giver, is a kernel of historical truth. The historical figure gave generously to those in need, rejected the idols of his time, became the bishop of Myra, and attended the council of Nicaea. Consequently, there is much to learn from from an old saint like this. His name—Nicholas of Myra, the real Santa Claus.
Nicholas was born in the 4th century in the ancient city of Patara, located in modern day southern Turkey. Later in life he became the bishop of Myra, which was a town in ancient Lycia, also in southwest Turkey. Today that town is known as Demre. In biblical geographical terms, both the cities of Patara and Myra were situated southeast of Ephesus and west of Tarsus. Contrary to the contemporary residence of Santa Claus on the North Pole, Nicholas was much more acclimatized to the warmer Mediterranean temperatures.
We benefit from possessing extant sources about Nicholas. The earliest known biography written about him was by Michael the Archimandrite, who wrote in the early 9th century. When Michael went to compose his hagiographical[2] account of Nicholas, there were already fragments of his life in circulation for hundreds of years before.[3] One such account, entitled The Story of the Military Officers, represents an earlier tradition that informed Michael’s work, allowing us closer access to the historicity of Nicholas. One estimate by a scholar argues that this account might have been in circulation mid 4th century, while other scholars date it much later.[4]
But the historical veracity of Nicholas' life consists of numerous complexities, heighten by the variety of subsequent traditions and embellishments. English describes the historical puzzle of Nicholas like this, “The history of Nicholas presents a tantalizing riddle. There is no early documentation of the man—no writings, disciples, or major acts. Then, curiously, story fragments and rumors begin to surface like driftwood in the water.”[5] With this historical uncertainty, it is clear why some would hesitate to affirm the truthfulness of Nicholas’ life, with some even speculating that he was purely an invention. Yet, there is enough data, like those extant sources, that allow us to make a strong case for his physical existence.
Nicholas is also recorded in some sources as an attendant to the first Council of Nicaea in 325. Typically, those that possess longer lists, add Nicholas's name while the shorter lists do not. There is some variety within the sources, for example, Eusebius lists 250 names, Eustrathius 270, Athanasius and Galasius more than 300, Hilary of Poitier 318, and Emperor Constantine lists around 300.[6] Since Nicholas is not mentioned in some of the shorter lists, this might be explained by his relative prominence in the council. Yet, the fact that the brief accounts leave some people out is not definitive proof that they were not in attendance.
The council was convened by emperor Constantine, in Nicaea. He summoned 1800 bishops from across the Roman empire to join in this ecumenical fellowship to discuss pressing theological matters. Constantine invited the bishops to Nicaea because Byzantium (Constantinople) was under construction. So Nicholas, traveling from Myra to Nicaea made the over 400 miles trip to participate in this momentous event. One can only imagine the excitement that Nicholas and other bishops felt as they made the arduous journey to Nicaea. With the acute sense of responsibility on their minds and the anticipation building for this event, they must have felt that they were a part of something historic.
The major issue at the council revolved around the controversy of Arius and the nature of the Trinity. In short, Arius and his followers believed that Jesus was the mediator between God and man. Since God cannot share his unitary and monolithic nature with humanity, he required a mediator. Maintaining this theological idea entailed the belief that only something outside of God's unitary nature could stand in the gap between God and man. Thus, Jesus was a created being who existed outside of the physical reality of God. The Arians did, however, believe that Jesus was perfect and distinct, yet were inevitably at odds with those that believed that Jesus and God the Father were of the same substance and nature.
In writing about Nicholas, Michael the Archimandrite made sure that his readers understood that Nicholas had an orthodox position.
And he ministered the gospel of grace in perfect orthodoxy, apostolically teaching them to worship God the Father and his only-born Word and Son, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, and the Spirit, equal in power to him, and forming an essential part of the consubstantial and divine Trinity, one God known in three persons, co-eternal and undivided, whose three specific characters are not, because of the oneness of their nature, coalesced into one person, as foolish Sabellius would have it, nor is their divine and uncreated perfect divinity divided into three alien and unrelated essences because of their triple personhood, as accursed Arius would have it.[7]
In this, Michael explicitly writes that Christ is “equal in power too him” (of the Father) and each person of the Trinity is “consubstantial.” He even calls out specific false teachers by name, such as Sabellius and Arius. Michael's affirmation of Nicholas' doctrinal purity is significant as it designates him as a defender of orthodox faith. Already, Nicholas' legacy has developed from gift giver and bishop, to theologian and champion of orthodoxy.
Whatever Nicholas’ actual involvement in the council, more stories would evolve into elaborate traditions about his participation. One such tradition claims that at the council, Nicholas used a brick as an object lesson teaching that as the brick was made of difference substances but one—so was the Trinity. While teaching, the brick burst into flames and turned into dust, signifying divine approval.[8] Another tradition held that as Arius was declaring that the Son was not equal with the Father, Nicholas slapped him in the face.[9] The Nicholas presented here is a teacher, miracle worker, and a key participant in the council.
But as one scholar notes, these later traditions do not fully comport with earlier writings about Nicholas.[10] In these later traditions, Nicholas is portrayed as bold, fierce, and impetuous, as opposed to compassionate, thoughtful, and gentle. Bear in mind that contradictory images of someone is not uncommon. We only need to look in the mirror to see how divergent personas can co-exist. Dramatic events in our lives reveal how we can oscillate between poles of emotional stability and instability. A momentary lapse in judgement can easily be spurred on by a moment of irrational fear or cascading emotions. We often hold logically inconsistent positions and do not seek to reconcile or resolve them. If there is any truth to these traditions, they simply show that Nicholas was human, like all of us.
We have the benefit of possessing art of Nicholas from as early as the mid 600’s to the mid 700’s. Perhaps the only similarity Nicholas possesses to the contemporary image of Santa Claus is that they both have large white beards. The top two figures in the icon below, from left to right are Paul and Peter, with the bottom two from left to right being Nicholas and Chrysostom. It is incredible to see Nicholas, who did not write anything of his own and has left the larger Christian collective consciousness outside of residual traditions, alongside giants of the faith. To be featured along the likes of Peter, Paul, and Chrysostom is an incredible honor. This shows the impact that Nicholas had in his time and how subsequent generations of Christians regarded him.
Another element that has evolved from earlier traditions is the physical depiction of Nicholas. Similar to European depictions of Jesus that have taken over religious iconography, Santa Claus is shown to be a jolly oversized white man from the northern climes. There is nothing inherently wrong with this image, for instance, historical portrayals of Jesus have largely taken the features and styles of the artist and region. But, in order to better appreciate Nicholas, it is best to see him in his actual historical and cultural context. In this way, it is significant that Nicholas resided in a part the world vastly foreign to our western context today. He grew up in what is now known as southern Turkey. He was a 4th century Asian man who if by chance, passed us on the street with his dark complexion and large beard we might associate a whole list of assumptions about him, before actually getting to know him. Note the images below and how they are markedly different than how Santa Claus is typically portrayed today.
These pictures of Nicholas show the Asian origins of the historically celebrated figure, who was held in high regard with other figures like Paul, Peter, and Chrysostom. In part, this insistence to recognize the historic roots of Nicholas is iconoclastic. It is meant to tear down rooted assumptions and beliefs about Santa Claus. But even more so than the slightly euphoric feeling of disabusing others of the historically inaccurate images of Santa Claus, is the hope that we all gain a deeper appreciation of the historic legacy of saints like this. To understand Nicholas and others like him in their own context is to take their legacy seriously and honor them. Along with all of the festivities of Christmas and the joys of celebrating with friends and family, we can all think more deeply about Jesus' birth and the traditions of saints like this that have shaped how we commemorate the holiday.
*The second part of this blog will be devoted to a in depth look at Nicholas' life and his acts of giving.
ENDNOTES [1] Adam C. English. The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus: The True Life and Trials of Nicholas of Myra (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012.), 6. [2] Hagiography was an account of a saint’s life with the intention to praise, value, and esteem the virtues this saint exemplified. Hagiography was not necessarily concerned with historical accuracy. Also, an archimandrite was one who was tasked with overseeing a monastery or a collection of monasteries. [3] English. The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus, 30. [4] English. The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus, 142 [5] English. The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus, 3.
[6]English. The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus, 15. [7] Michael the Archimandrite, Life, 25. [8] English. The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus, 105–6. [9] English. The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus, 106. [10] English. The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus, 106.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Davis, Donald Leo. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787): Their History and Theology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1983.
English, Adam C. The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus: The True Life and Trials of Nicholas of Myra. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012.
Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. The Encyclopedia of Saints. NY: FactsOnFile, 2001.
Michael the Archimandrite. St. Nicholas of Myra: Life. Translated by John Quinn and Bryson Sewell. 2014.
Watkins Don Basil, OSB. The Book of Saints: A Comprehensive Biographical Dictionary. 8th edition. London: Bloomsbury, 2016.
Comments