vigiliae christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

Vigiliae
Christianae
brill.com/vc

The Origin of the Post-Nativity Commemorations

Hugo Mendez

University of Georgia
218 Sedgefield Overlook, Dallas, GA, 30157
mendez.hugo@outlook.com

Abstract
On a number of fourth and fifth century calendars, a block of feasts commemorating
Stephen, James, John, Peter, and Paul immediately follows 25 December. Contemporary
studies have lost sight of the rationale for its position. This paper defends a proposal of
Hans Lietzmann and suggests that the community that created the block recognized
Christmas as the starting point of the sanctoral cycle. This community elected to place
the memorials of Christianitys earliest confessors at the head of this annual order, symbolizing their historical priority over other martyrs. Stephen occupied the first of these
dates precisely so his commemoration could precede that of every other confessor on
the calendar, a position that illustrates the intensity of his cult in the late fourth-fifth
centuries. The study proceeds to develop this insight into a framework capable of
explaining similar commemorations on other early Christian calendars.

Keywords
martyr cult Christmas Saint Stephen protomartyr martyrology Christian year
calendar

1 Introduction
The well-known Syriac Martyrology1 of Edessa (c. 411 ce) reproduces a lost
Greek calendar from Nicomedia, dated to c. 360 ce.2 The martyrology begins in
December and runs to November, its first entry falling on 26 December and the
1 Also known as the Breviarium Syriacum; Syriac original published in: W. Wright, An Ancient
Syrian Martyrology, The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 8 (1865) 45-56.
English translation: W. Wright, An Ancient Syrian Martyrology, The Journal of Sacred
Literature and Biblical Record 8 (1866) 423-432. Discussion in: Mariani, Bonaventura,
koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 4|doi . / - 49

The Origin Of The Post-nativity Commemorations

291

last on 24 November. Only one great feast appears in the document: the day of
the Manifestation of our Lord Jesus, that is, the Epiphany, on its traditional 6
January date. A Commemoration of all the Confessors also appears on the
calendar for the Friday after Easter (between the 6 and 7 April entries).
Otherwise, all the entries on the calendar commemorate individual confessors and victors, and their days on which they gained crowns, with each entry
listing the name(s) of individual martyrs, the cities in which they died, and the
anniversaries of their deaths.
Most of the commemorations included on the calendar are extracted
from the local martyrological traditions of a number of churches, especially
Nicomedia, Alexandria, and Antioch.3 However, three entries commemorate
figures from the New Testament. These three entries are grouped together at
the very beginning of the calendar, occupying the 26-28 December dates:
The former Knn [December]
26. According to the reckoning of the Greeks. The first confessor, at
Jerusalem, Stephen the Apostle, the chief of the confessors.4
27. John and Jacob [James], the Apostles, at Jerusalem.
28. In the city of Rome, Paul the Apostle, and Simon Cephas [Peter], the
chief of the Apostles of our Lord.
Why do the names of New Testament figures appear only at the beginning of
the calendar? Why are they grouped together? The position of these entries
appears to be marked.5

Breviarium Syriacum seu Martyrologium Syriacum Saec IV iuxta Cod. SM. Rerum
Ecclesiasticarum Documenta (Rome: Herder. 1956) 3-25.
This is clear from the presence of martyrs of Nicomedia otherwise not universally venerated (Henry Chadwick, The Calendar: Sanctification of Time, Studies on Ancient Christianity
[Burlington, VT: Ashgate. 2006.] 106).
C. Erbes, Das syrische Martyrologium und der Weihnachtsfestkreis I in Zeitschrift fr
Kirchengeschichte 25 (1904) 330. A full listing of the local churches cited in the Syriac
Martyrology appears in: Mariani 1956, 6-9.
Here, I have edited W. Wrights translation, which omits a comma after the first confessor,
to conform to Marianis translation: confessor primus, Hierosolymis, Stephanus, Apostolous,
caput confessorum (Mariani 1956, 27).
It is also unusual that these first entries of the calendar fall so late in the month of December.
The first entry of all other months falls between the 1st-15th days of that month, with an average near the 3rd of the month. This question may be associated with the issue of Christmas
and the Syriac Martyrology (see sources cited in note 23).

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

292

Mendez

The unique character of these three entries, and their grouping at the head
of the calendar, suggest they form a distinct and integral block of festivals. This
suspicion is confirmed in their joint appearance on a number of other early
calendars (extant or reconstructed), in a more or less intact sequence, despite
changed surroundings. From the homilies of Gregory of Nyssa and Asterius of
Amasea, one can easily reconstruct a variant form of the same block for the
churches of fourth century Cappadocia:6
Nyssa and Amasea (c. 380)
Dec. 26 Stephen

27 Peter, James, John
28 Paul
The fifth-century lectionary of the church of Jerusalem provides yet another
variant:
Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem (c. 420)7
Dec. 27 Stephen8

28 Paul and Peter
29 James9 and John

6 Jill Burnett Commings, Aspects Of The Liturgical Year In Cappadocia (325-430) (New York:
Peter Lang. 2005) 99-100.
7 27 December. Of Saint Stephen....28 December. Commemoration of Paul and of Peter,
Apostles....29 December. Of the Apostle James and of John the Evangelist.... (Athanase
Renoux, Le codex armenien Jerusalem 121, PO 36,2:168 [Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols. 1971]).
The same tradition also situates a feast for James, the brother of the Lord, and David on 25
December. For an introduction to this feast, see: Stphane Verhelst, Liturgy of Jerusalem in
the Byzantine Period, Christians and Christianity in the Holy Land, ed. Ora Limor and Guy G.
Stroumsa (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols. 2006) 455. I plan to explore the interaction of this
feast with the block in an upcoming study.
8 A variant reading found in manuscript E of the Armenian Lectionary transfers the commemoration of Stephen to 26 December.
9 Although a commemoration of the apostle James appears on 29 December, distinct from
the commemoration of James [the brother of the Lord] on 25 December, the epistle reading
assigned for the 29 December feast is taken from James 1:1-12. Clearly, at some point in the
development of this lection, there has been a confusion of James, the son of Zebedee and
James, the brother of the Lord.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

The Origin Of The Post-nativity Commemorations

293

All three variants are relatively consistent with one another, with only minor
differences. Whereas the Syriac Martyrology unites the celebration of Peter to
that of Paul (28 December), the Nyssan and Amasean arrangements unite
Peter with James and John, creating a single feast in honor of the inner three
disciples of Jesus (27 December). The three feasts of the Jerusalem Lectionary
are identical to those of the Syriac Martyrology, except that they begin a day
later (27 December, rather than 26 December), and the second and third feasts
have switched positions. It is easiest to see secondary developments in the
block as presented in the Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem, beginning with
the position of the feast of Stephen on 27 December. Given the plurality of
early sources agreeing with the 26 December date (including: Gregory of Nyssa,
the Syriac Martyrology, the Calendar of Carthage, and the Hieronymian
Martyrology), the discrepant Jerusalem date must reflect a later shift.10
Evidently, the feast of Peter and Paul resisted this shift, steadfastly clinging to
its traditional 28 December date. To compensate, the Jerusalem church moved
the observance of James and John back another day (to December 29), reordering the final two elements of the sequence. The secondary positions of all these
feasts make it unlikely that the sequence attested in the Jerusalem Lectionary
is original.11 Instead, the original order of the feasts is preserved in the sequence
attested by either the Nyssan and Amasean churches or the Nicomedian
church. The following is a composite of these sequences, and a preliminary
reconstruction of the original position and sequence of these feasts:
Preliminary Reconstruction
Dec. 26

27

28

10

11

Stephen
(Peter) James, and John
(Peter) and Paul

The feast of Stephen also falls on 27 December on the Byzantine calendar, where 26
December represents the Synaxis of the Theotokos, a feast inspired by the Nativity celebration and in place by the eighth century (Franois Bovon, The Dossier on Stephen, the
First Martyr, Harvard Theological Review 96 [2003] 286; Margot Fassler, The First Marian
Feast in Constantinople and Jerusalem: Chant Texts, Readings, and Homiletic Literature,
The Study of Medieval Chant: Paths and Bridges, East and West, ed. Kenneth N. Levy and
Peter Jeffery [Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer. 2001] 25-88).
Consider the opposite scenario. The Nicomedian calendar would have to metathesize the
commemorations of James and John and of Peter and Paul without a clear motivation.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

294
2

Mendez

Survey of the Literature

The unity and wide provenance of these feasts has earned them a fair amount
of attention in the literature. Almost a century ago, Duchesne correctly recognized that there was no historical support for the late December position of
these feasts. No record identifying the dates of the deaths of Stephen et al.
survived apostolic times. Furthermore, it was not until 415 ce that the relics of
Stephen were discovered,12 decades after our earliest attestation of the
26 December feast. Consequently, the lead date of the block does not memorialize the discovery and transfer of his relics, nor the dedication of a church
under his patronage. Ultimately, Duschesne was forced to conclude that the
feasts were fixed arbitrarily, but never explained why they came to occupy
these positions in particular.13
In his classic work Comparative Liturgy, Anton Baumstark agreed that the
feasts were fixed arbitrarily to memorialize New Testament figures for whom
no historical anniversaries existed. There, he describes the series as a subtype of the concomitant feasts that brings together, immediately after a
great Feast in the Liturgical Year, a whole group of commemorations of New
Testament figures. Where parallel clusters in the East and West Syriac traditions immediately follow Easter, the 26-28 December block appears after
Christmas.14 Unfortunately, Baumstarks model was little more than descriptive, never identifying the cause for associating these feasts with Christmas
rather than another feast.
An attempt to isolate that cause would come decades later in Richard M.
Nardones discussion of the sanctoral cycle:
Before the end of the fourth century...it then became possible to honor
the great saints of the New Testament, even though their anniversaries,
and even their tombs, were unknown. The days following Easter would
have been suitable for their memorials, and in fact Easter Week was used
for that purpose in the church of Mesopotamia. But the Greek and Roman
churches preferred to keep all the feasts of the saints on fixed days of the
civil calendar. Since Easter was a movable feast, the alternative choice
was the octave of Christmas.
Stephen the First Martyr naturally came first, on December 26,
although the Eastern churches later gave that honor to the Virgin Mary.
12
13
14

So the account of the Epist. Luciani (PL 41,807-17).

Louis Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution (New York: Macmillan. 1919)
267.
Anton Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy, ed. Bernard Botte, tr. F. L. Cross (Westminster,
MD: Newman. 1958) 184-185.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

The Origin Of The Post-nativity Commemorations

295

The choice of Stephen shows that sainthood was still associated with
martyrdom. The next two days were originally assigned to the chief apostles: Peter and Paul, and John and James.15
Although Nardone correctly notes why Easter would be an impractical day to
anchor these feasts, he too quickly identifies Christmas as the alternative
choice for these celebrations.16 Why not select the Epiphany, a date already
associated with the inauguration of Jesus ministry?17 As late as 1995, Michael
Kunzler could accurately say, the reason for celebrating [Stephens] feast on
26th December remains unexplained.18
In fact, by treating Easter and Christmas on equal terms as open alternatives for these memorials, Nardone and Baumstark missed the true genius of
the fourth century calendars that pioneered the late December block of feasts.
A reconstructed start date on 26 December does not merely set this block of
commemorations beside Christmas, but beside a unique liturgical fault line:
the beginning of the church calendar in such fourth century cities as Rome19
and Nyssa, coinciding by design with the Nativity celebration. A century ago,
Hans Lietzmann explained the position of these feasts on precisely this basis.20
Unfortunately, his analysis has been widely overlooked in contemporary liturgical scholarship. With due deference to Lietzmanns work, I would like to provide a new defense of his fundamental insight, deviating in certain points from
his own conclusions. My goal, however, is not so much to explore these feasts
for their own sake, as to adapt my explanation of them into a new framework
capable of addressing related problems in early Christian liturgy.

15

16
17

18
19

20

Richard Morton Nardone, The Church of Jerusalem and the Christian Calendar, Standing
before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays in honor of John M.
Oesterreicher, ed. Asher Finkel and Lawrence Frizzell (New York: Ktav House. 1981) 242.
Worse, Nardone appears to anachronistically import the contemporary Western conception of Christmas and Easter as the two anchors of the church calendar.
That is, associated with his baptism (Thomas J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year
[Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. 1991] 125). In John, the call of the first disciples immediately follows the account of Jesus baptism (1:29-51).
Michael Kunzler, The Churchs Liturgy, tr. Placed Murray, Henry OShea, and Cilian S
(New York: Continuum. 2001) 418.
Talley 1991, 80, 85. The first entry of the Depositio Martirum (Chronography of 354) reads,
VIII kal. Ian. [25 December] natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae (Chronica Minora, vol. 1,
Momumenta Germaniae Historica, ed. T. Mommsen [Berolini. 1892] 71).
Hans Lietzmann, Petrus und Paulus in Rom: liturgische und archologische Studien (Bonn:
Marcus und Weber, 1915), 95-96.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

296
3

Mendez

Position of the Feasts

Already in 380 ce, Gregory of Nyssa interprets the meaning of this block precisely by virtue of its position at the head of the Cappadocian liturgical year:
In a wonderful manner God has established an order [taxis] and sequence
[akolouthia] by the feasts we commemorate each year. Our order of spiritual feasts...consists in having a knowledge of heavenly reality. [Paul]
says that at the beginning the Apostles enjoyed an order which formed
prophets together with shepherds and teachers. The order of yearly celebrations concurs with this apostolic sequence. However, the first [celebration] does not concur with the others because the Only-Begotten
Sons theophany through his birth from a virgin is instituted in the world
not simply as a holy feast but as the holy of holies and feast of feasts.
Therefore let us number those who follow this order which for us begins
with the assembly of apostles and prophets. Indeed people like Stephen,
Peter, James, John and Paul possess the apostolic and prophetic spirit
after whom comes the pastor and teacher [Basil] who belongs to their
order which marks our present celebration.21
For Gregory, the church year begins with the 25 December celebration of
Christs birth. It then proceeds immediately into a commemoration of the
assembly of the apostles and prophets on the next day22 (the feasts of
Stephen, Peter, James, John, and Paul), and then to a commemoration of pastors and teachers, which class embraces all post-apostolic figures. In this
21
22

Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. funeb. 1 (PG 46,787ff.), tr. Richard (Casimir) McCambly and David
Salomon.
So Gregory of Nyssas homily for 26 December: Yesterday the Lord of the universe welcomed us whereas today it is the imitator of the Lord [Stephen]. How are they related to
each other? One assumed human nature on our behalf while the other shed it for his
Lord....One was wrapped in swaddling clothes for us, and the other was stoned for him.
(Greg.Nyss., In Sanct. Steph. Protomartyris. 1 [PG 46,701ff.], tr. Richard [Casimir] McCambly
and David Salamon). The feast of Stephen also followed Christmas in the fourth-century
church of Asamea: How truly holy and beautiful is the cycle of events delightful to us.
Feast follows upon feast, the one celebration comes after the other. We are invited from
prayer to prayer: the birth of the Lord is followed immediately by the honour given to His
servant...the first of the martyrs, the teacher of suffering for Christ, the foundation of
the good confession. (Asterius of Amasea, A Homily on Stephen the First Martyr, 1-2
[PG 40,337ff.], tr. B. Dehandschutter in: Let us Die that We May Live, ed. Pauline Allen,
Boudewijn Dehandschutter, Johan Leemans, and Wendy Mayer [New York; Routledge.
2003] 177-78).

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

The Origin Of The Post-nativity Commemorations

297

e arliest attestation of the feasts of Stephen et al., their position at the head of
the church calendar is charged with significance, embodying the preeminence
of the apostles and prophets over other orders within the heavenly realities of the church.
In many respects, this interpretation of the church year parallels the apparent design of the Syriac Martyrology. As noted earlier, the feasts of Stephen,
James and John, and Peter and Paul occupy the first three dates on that calendar (26-28 December). Unlike the Roman and Nyssan sources, the Syriac
Martyrology lacks any reference to a 25 December feast. Evidently, Christmas
was not observed in Nicomedia c. 360 ce; instead, the church liturgically
commemorated the birth of Christ on the day of the Manifestation of our
Lord Jesus [the Epiphany] [6 January], as was the practice of the church of
Jerusalem into the sixth century.23 Nevertheless, the Syriac Martyrology still
begins in December, with the feast of Stephen as its first entry of record. That
our two earliest attestations of the feast of Stephen associate it with the beginning of the liturgical year is telling.24
The Syriac Martyrology gives us the added advantage of inspecting the liturgical year as a whole. One can divide that calendar into two parts, the first segment embracing feasts for apostolic figures (first three entries) and the rest
commemorating post-apostolic figures (elsewhere).25 The organizing principle here is not the spiritual hierarchy of the church (Gregorys heavenly realities) but historical antecedence. The deaths of Stephen, James, John, Peter,
23

24

25

Susan K. Roll, Toward the Origins of Christmas (Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos.
1995) 86. A discussion of Christmas the Syriac Martyrology appears in Erbes 1904; Erbes
1905. These studies are criticized for arguments fort subtils et peu convaincants in
B. Botte, Les origines de la Nol et de lpiphanie: tude historique (Louvain: Abbaye du
Mont Csar, 1932), 27. On the practice of the Jerusalem church see: Roll 1995, 199-200;
Talley 1991, 125; John F. Baldovin, The Liturgy in Ancient Jerusalem (Nottingham: Grove.
1989) 35-37.
The Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem is the only one of the three sources cited above
that does not situate this block of feasts at the beginning of the liturgical year. On that
calendar, the liturgical year begins in January, its first entry corresponding to the vigil of
the feast of the Epiphany (5 January). Of course, the absence of Christmas in the
Lectionary betrays the fact that the block of feasts could not have originated in
the Jerusalem church, and is a borrowing (so Nardone 1981, 242-43, who criticizes Dixs
claim to the contrary: Dom Gregory Dix, The Spirit of the Liturgy [Westminster: Dacre.
1945] 478).
There is some ironic truth in the medieval characterization of the 26-28 December feasts
of Stephen et al. as celebrations of the comites Christi (the companions of Christ, i.e.,
sharers in his sufferings). On the Syriac Martyrology, they are companions of Christ precisely as the only contemporaries of Jesus commemorated on the calendar.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

298

Mendez

and Paul (26-28 December) all date to the period of the New Testament, while
the deaths of all others commemorated on the martyrology cluster around the
century preceding the year 360 ce, with a few early exceptions.26 Even still,
this scheme is essentially consonant with Gregorys taxis. After all, only figures from the New Testament are apostles and prophets in later Christian
tradition. A late (i.e., post-apostolic!) figure like Basil can only be a pastor or
teacher. Even for Gregory, then, the distinction between Peter and Basil can be
considered one of time. In liturgical time, as in historical time, earlier saints
precede later ones.
Thus, although the positions of these feasts are artificial, they are not,
strictly speaking, arbitrary. There is nothing arbitrary about a position at the
beginning of a liturgical calendar. It is a marked position, here attracting
a marked category of feasts: the memorials of the earliest Christians. Even
today, the beginning points of liturgical calendars are unique and thematically charged boundaries that signal or license the values of origination and
antecedence.27 In the fourth century, a desire to exploit these values led at
least one early Christian community to organize a series of apostolic memorials around the 25 December axis.
It would not be surprising to learn that other clusters fitting Baumstarks
description follow a given feast (e.g., Easter, Epiphany, Christmas) because
that feast once stood at the beginning of the liturgical year. Surprisingly, one
of our three sources already gives us a parallel example for this phenomenon.
On the Jerusalem Lectionary, the Epiphany inaugurates the liturgical year.
Immediately following it, on the second day of its octave, is a second, r edundant

26

27

These are marked with the recurring formula, of the number of the ancient confessors,
a characteristic that also distinguishes them from the New Testament entries. A particularly early example of this type is Ignatius of Antioch (d. 105 ce; 17 October).
On the Byzantine calendar, for instance, these values thematically unite the Byzantine
Induction or New Year (1 September) and the feast Nativity of the Theotokos
(8 September), heightening the latters value of origination: Today, O people, is the first
fruit of our salvation. For behold, she who was chosen from all generations as Mother and
Virgin and habitation of God, comes forth in birth from a barren woman. (Sticheron at
the Litija, 8 September). In Western Christianity, the liturgical year begins on the first
Sunday of Advent, which is already associated to the beginning of salvation history by
its anticipation of the incarnation of Christ. Of course, the association of the feast of the
Nativity and the beginning of the liturgical year in the fourth century churches of Rome
and Nyssa depended on the same theme. (Compare the eschatological overtones of the
modern feast of Christ the King, which inverts these values from its position at the end of
the liturgical year, immediately preceding the boundary.)

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

The Origin Of The Post-nativity Commemorations

299

celebration of Stephen (7 January).28 Now, duplicate commemorations indicate that the calendar implied in the lectionary was already a conflation of at
least two earlier sources.29 Evidently, the church of Jerusalem absorbed the
26 December feast of Stephen from a community that celebrated Christmas as
the beginning of the liturgical year, but celebrated a second, native celebration
of the martyr, positioned at the beginning of its own liturgical year. (The institution of 7 January feast can be dated to a point after c. 415 ce, the discovery
of Stephens relics.)30 Thus, on 7 January we see a commemoration of Stephen
behind a live fault line of the calendar (6 January), and 27 December beside
a point unmarked on the surface, but relevant from a diachronic perspective
(25 December). Intriguingly, the position of both feasts can be explained by
their proximity to the beginning of a liturgical calendar, though this has been
obscured in the latter case. The 27 December feast stands as a relic, associated
with no obvious axis on the calendar. This is also its situation on contemporary
Christian calendars.
Admittedly, it is more difficult to see a similar arrangement in the 6th century
East Syriac lectionary Baumstark cites.31 That calendar begins on the Epiphany
but positions a cluster of New Testament commemorations behind Easter. It is
28

29
30

31

The stational liturgy of this, the second day of Epiphany, was held at the Martyrium of
St. Stephen, and utilized the same readings read on the 27 December feast of Stephen
(Psalms 5, 20; Acts 6:8-8:2; and the martyrological gospel, Jn. 12:24-26). Compare clearer
references to a post-Epiphany commemoration of Stephen in the later East Syriac
Lectionaries of the Church of the Forty Martyrs and of the Monastery of Azzel in Tur
Abdin. Note, however: the 7 January commemoration of John the Baptist on some of
these calendars has a distinct origin from the feast of Stephen, having been created as a
concomitant celebration to the commemoration of the Baptism of Christ on the
Epiphany.
Fredrick Cornwallis Conybeare and A. J. Maclean, Rituale Armenorum (Whitefish, MT:
Kessinger. 2005) 512.
Egeria, writing c. 381, describes a gathering at the Martyrium on the second day of the
Epiphany octave, almost thirty years before the construction of the Martyrium of Stephen.
Evidently, the enshrining of the bones of the citys most famous martyr was evidently
important enough to induce a change in the stational pattern; the commemorations
were relocated to the new Martyrium for Stephen (John F. Baldovin, The Urban Character
of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy, OCA 228
[Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute. 1987] 94, 282-283; also Baldovin 1989, 36-37). With
that change came a new set of readings drawn from the 27 December feast, creating a
second commemoration of Stephen (Talley 1991, 132).
This is the Mesopotamian calendar also cited by Nardone 1981, 242. It is reproduced in:
F. C. Burkitt, The Early Syriac Lectionary System, The Proceedings of the British Academy
10 (1921-23) 306ff.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

300

Mendez

conceivable that Easter once stood at the head of the Mesopotamian l iturgical
year. After all, the African churches inaugurated the sanctoral cycle around
Easter.32 The juxtaposition of both movable and immovable martyr commemorations on the East Syriac lectionary may reflect an earlier shift from a lunar
arrangement, anchored on Easter, to a solar arrangement, inaugurated on the
feast of the Epiphany. But even if we cannot confirm that Easter once stood at
the head of the Mesopotamian liturgical year, we can safely say that the block
was attracted to Easter as an axial element on the East Syriac calendar.33 If
that axis has not licensed the value of antecedence to these feasts, it has certainly imparted the notion of highest honor. Once again, we are again dealing
with no mere feast, but one sitting on a unique liturgical fault line with definite
thematic values to license. For this reason, Baumstarks categorization of this
type of feasts deserves reevaluation. Rather than say that these feasts characteristically follow immediately after a great Feast in the Liturgical Year, we
should say that they were positioned at key axes or boundaries on the calendar
precisely from an attraction to the particular values licensed by those boundaries (e.g., highest honor, antecedence, origination). This model allows us to
transcend Baumstarks merely descriptive approach to these feasts, and begin
to isolate the reasons why they have come to occupy their attested positions.
4

Sequence of the Feasts

4.1 Stephen
By failing to see the proximity of the 26 December feast of Stephen to the
beginning of the liturgical year, Baumstark also missed the most startling fact
about this feasts position in particular. On the Syriac Martyrology, Stephen is
not just first among the apostles; he is first among all saints. It cannot be coincidental that the martyrology begins with a commemoration of Christianitys
first martyr. In fact, the entry itself privileges his identity as the Protomartyr in
its description: the first confessor, at Jerusalem, Stephen the Apostle, the chief
of the confessors. The arrangement is striking. As the first-born of the
martyrs34 and the martyr of martyrs, Stephen sits at the head of days in the
32
33

34

Thus, the first entry on the Calendar of Carthage falls on 19 April.

Though Baby Varghese uses this expression with respect to the West Syriac tradition, it is
no less true of the East Syriac (Baby Varghese, West Syrian Liturgical Theology [Burlington,
VT: Ashgate. 2004] 143).
Hesychius of Jerusalem A Homily in Praise of Stephen the First Martyr 4, tr. Allen, P. in:
Let us Die that We May Live, ed. Pauline Allen, Boudewijn Dehandschutter, Johan Leemans,
and Wendy Mayer (New York; Routledge, 2003), 196.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

The Origin Of The Post-nativity Commemorations

301

Syriac Martyrology, presiding over the entire choir of martyrs that follows. This
is hardly surprising since at this stage, what girded the entire Christian calendar was the celebration of the martyrs.35 The Syriac Martyrology reveals a
time when the stature of Stephen was so great that his feast anchored the liturgical year itself.36
Stephen occupies no less of an exalted position on the Cappadocian calendars. With the conclusion of Christmas, the annual sanctoral cycle could begin.
The very first place within that cycle was accorded Stephen, the first to have
paved the way for the chorus of martyrs. In his homily for the feast,37Asterius
of Amasea (d. 410 ce) boldly defends the priority of Stephens feast over the
commemoration of the apostles celebrated on the next day. The intensity of
the Protomartyrs cult in the Amasean church is obvious:
...Stephen the thrice-blessed [was] first to sanctify the earth with his
own blood, by a pious context, second in time after the apostles but first
by his brave deeds.
Dont be displeased, Peter, dont be irritated, James, nor discontented,
John, if I not only compare the man with your love of wisdom, but even
want to assign him something more....
Yes, you are the elder of the disciples, holy Peter, proclaiming Jesus
Christ before all others. But when you were announcing the word of the
Gospel...this one entered the stadium, carrying off the crown of the
contest. He went to heaven and was glorified, even when you were still on
earth. And the climax was that the father Himself and the Son summoned
him by a wonderful vision....Let us also consider you, James, brother of
John. You were the preacher of Christ, His second prey, after Peter. Who
wouldnt admire your faith? You were simply called and without h
esitation
35

Vadiliki M. Lamberis, Architects of Piety: The Cappadocian Fathers and the Cult of the
Martyrs (New York: Oxford University. 2011) 14. Also, Nardones comment that in this
period, sainthood was still associated with martyrdom (Nardone 1981, 242).
36 Greg.Nyss., In Sanct. Steph. Protomartyris. 1 (PG 46,704). Notably, the same principle completes our understanding of the 7 January commemoration of Stephen on the Jerusalem
Lectionary. The rationale underlying Stephens position on the second day of the Epiphany
octave has escaped contemporary scholars (consider Talleys comment on the memorial:
the reason for this station so shortly after [the Epiphany] is less than clear [Talley 1991,
132]). The solution to this problem is immediately obvious in light of our discussion here.
Once again, Stephen occupies the first date following the beginning of the liturgical year
(which, for the Jerusalem church, fell on Epiphany). In this, we can recognize a deliberate
attempt to honor him before every other martyr.
37 On the attribution to Asterius, see discussion in Bovon 2003, 289, no. 61.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

302

Mendez

you followed. You left your boat, and your father Zebedee. You suffered
for faith eagerly, I recognise: Herod, the tyrant, slew you with the sword,
though much later than Stephen. But why should I name them one by
one? Our man took away before all other saints the prize of martyrdom,
being the rst to meet the devil in battle and to vanquish him....38
For Asterius, there is no need to extend the comparisons further. As the
Protomartyr, Stephen is first among the saints, and all other commemorations
must give way to his.
4.2
Martyrdom as Ordering Principle
Asterius comparisons suggest that the martyrological tone of Stephens feast
extended into the commemorations that followed it.39 Notably, all the names
united in the block suffered martyrdom, with one possible exception, John.40
Even still, the Persian sage Aphrahat would link the same five names together
in his list of martyrs, of confessors, and of the persecuted, ranking them in a
manner analogous to the late December order:
Great and excellent is the martyrdom of Jesus. He surpassed in affliction
and in confession all who were before or after. And after Him was the
faithful martyr Stephen whom the Jews stoned. Simon (Peter) also and
Paul were perfect martyrs. And James and John walked in the footsteps of
their Master Christ.41
From this it appears that Gregory was mistaken in his characterization of these
days as memorials of the apostles and prophets. More likely, our late
December block was instituted to memorialize New Testament martyrs, or
more broadly, confessors.42 This seems especially evident when we compare
38
39
40

41

42

Aster. Amas., A Homily on Stephen the First Martyr, 2-3.

Also review Greg. Nyss., Laud. Alt. S. Steph. Protomartyris, 1 (PG 46,721ff.), which is actually
a homily for the 27 December feast of Peter, James, and John.
That exception is, of course, John, who is generally not considered a martyr, except in
sources relying on a purported statement of Papias. (See Culpepper, R. Alan, John, the Son
of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000], 171ff.; cf. Greg. Nyss., Laud.
Alt. S. Steph. Protomartyris 1 [PG 46,731], cited later in the text of this study, which assumes
John did not die violently).
Aphrahat, Demonstrations XXI, On Persecution, 23 (NPNF 2-13). It is conceivable that
Aphrahats sequence reflects the order of a parallel group of commemorations known in
his community, though no records support this possibility.
For this reason, the Holy Innocents eventually found a place on this order (so the Calendar
of Carthage). Certainly, their presence is partly owed to their association with Christmas;

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

The Origin Of The Post-nativity Commemorations

303

Stephens position in this block to his position on the analogous block in the
East Syriac lectionary:
Sunday
The Great Sunday of the Resurrection [Easter]
Monday
John the Baptist
Tuesday
Peter and Paul, Apostles
Wednesday Holy Apostles
Thursday Bishops
Friday
Saturday Stephen43
The East Syriac order illustrates what one might expect of a block uniting New
Testament figures without a martyrological tone. It outlines the spiritual hierarchy of the church (cf. Gregory of Nyssa), opening with John the Baptist (the
greatest born of women [Mt. 11:11]), and continuing through the chief apostles Peter and Paul to the larger choir of apostles, down to the bishops. Stephen,
as a deacon, finds a place near the end of this block. Our block, on the other
hand, accords Stephen the highest place, and then moves through a series of
early confessors for the faith.
4.3
James, John, Peter, Paul
What scheme orders the elements in our block?44 Let us return to our preliminary reconstruction:
Preliminary Reconstruction
Dec. 26

27

28

43
44

Stephen
(Peter) James, and John
(Peter) and Paul

however, it may also follow their identity as innocent victims of violent death as a broadened expression of the original theme of martyrdom.
Adapted from Burkitt 1923, 310-11. Also compare the order of the Assyrian post-Epiphany
commemorations described in Duchesne 1919, 266.
This is a surprisingly neglected question in the literature, but one worth exploring. After
all, if the late December position of this block is artificial, the individual position of each
of its constituents is artificial, and in liturgy, artificial positions are rarely random. If we
can exclude external explanations for their individual positions within this self-contained
unit (e.g., historic anniversaries), then we have every reason to search for internal
explanations.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

304

Mendez

K.-H. Uthemann cited the multiple positions attested for Peter as evidence that
the block was still young in the late fourth century, noch nicht allzu sehr festgeschrieben und darum beweglich ist.45 Is it possible to penetrate beyond this
fluidity, and reconstruct the blocks original form? I believe so.
Peters memorial may have been (1) a core element of the block transferred
from one date to the other in local variations, or (2) a secondary addition to the
block, independently developed in (at least) two sites, which in turn selected
different dates for the feast.46 However, the latter seems unlikely due to Peters
stature among the apostles, and the fame of his martyrdom. His feast should
be an original element of either the 27 December or 28 December dates. Let us
consider the two possibilities descriptively. On the one hand, the Cappadocian
grouping of Peter, James, and John (the inner three disciples of Jesus) evokes
such episodes as the Transfiguration and Gethsemane.47 By privileging members of the Twelve over Paul, the ordering principle here is hierarchical. By
contrast, the Nicomedian grouping of Peter and Paul reflects martyrological traditions that united the two as far as Rome (cf. the joint 29 June feast
for Peter and Paul) and Mesopotamia (cf. Aphrahats pairing of the two), and
unites the two names in the block that died in Rome.48 In its favor, this variant is undoubtedly more peculiar, prioritizing James and John over apostles of
higher stature, namely, Peter and Paul. It is easy to imagine a scenario where
the commemoration of Peter was moved closer to the head of the order, given
his stature as chief of the apostles. Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable that
an original feast to Peter, James, and John could have been broken up by Peters
natural attraction to Paul, his fellow martyr in Rome.
I believe a comparison of the geographical range of each variant resolves
this stalemate. As a few studies have observed, the Cappadocian variant can
also be reconstructed for the church of Antioch at the time of Chrysostom. This
indicates a range extending from Central Turkey to at least Northern Syria. On
the other hand, the Nicomedian variant underlies the late December entries
of the Jerusalem Lectionary, as noted earlier. The block is also attested in sixth
45

46
47
48

K.-H. Uthemann Ein Enkomion zum Fest des Hl. Paulus am 28. Dezember. Edition des
Textes (CPG 4850) mit Einleitung. Philohistr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga
Septuagenarii, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 60 (Leuven: Peeters. 1994) 119-20.
Uthemann also cites evidence that a joint feast to Peter and Paul is not evinced in the
Antiochene homilies of John Chrysostom.
Only the first of these options would require further reconstruction.
Uthemann 1994, 119.
Ibid.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

The Origin Of The Post-nativity Commemorations

305

century North Africa.49 The widespread provenance of this variant strongly

suggests that it is the basic form of the block, which originally spread across
the world in the fourth century (otherwise, we might have to postulate multiple instances of the 27 to 28 December shift in far-reaching sites). It is also the
earliest attested form of the block, predating mention of the Cappadocian variant by some 20 years (given the reconstructed c. 360 date). The Cappadocian
variant, on the other hand, must be a secondary, regional variation of the
block, spreading between churches in direct contact. Secondary changes could
occur in this region because the liturgical year in use in (at least some of) these
churches, including Nyssa, began on 25 December. By preserving the axis
around which these commemorations were organized, these churches would
have best understood the consequences of shifting an element in the order as
heightening or reducing privilege. A desire to shift Peter forward in the block
to reflect his stature makes best sense in these communities.
This, then, is our definitive reconstruction of the basic form of the block:
Reconstruction
Dec. 26

27

28

Stephen
James and John
Peter and Paul

As noted above, the most peculiar aspect of this sequence is the position of
James and John above Peter and Paul. It is precisely this anomaly that betrays
the ordering principle of the block.
Can it be coincidental that the second day of the block commemorates
the second martyr identified in the book of Acts: the apostle James, the son
of Zebedee (Acts 12:1-2)? I propose that the martyrology tradition underlying
this sequence of feasts takes its inspiration from Acts, and assigns its first and
second entries to the purported first and second martyrs of Christian history:
Stephen and James. Only the honor of James as Christianitys second martyr
would justify a position in the sequence immediately following Stephen, but
preceding apostles of greater stature (Paul, and perhaps also Peter). In this
49

The Calendar of Carthage (c. 505-523) attests the block in an altered form, replacing John
the Evangelist with John the Baptist: 27 December. Of saint John the Baptist and of the
apostle James whom Herod killed (complete calendar in Acta Sanctorum 65 November
II.1, ed. Giovanni Battista de Rossi and Louis Duchesne [Brussels, 1894] 69-72). Additionally,
the feast of Peter and Paul appears only on its Western date (29 June), in its absence, a
feast to the Holy infants whom Herod killed has come to occupy the 28 December date.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

306

Mendez

light, it appears Johns claim to the 27 December feast is secondary to that of

his brother. John shares his brothers commemoration through his frequent
pairing with him in the gospels (e.g., Lk. 5:10; 9:54), and their blood relationship. This pairing occurs even in the record of James death in Acts ([Herod]
had James, the brother of John, killed with the sword; Acts 12:2). Nevertheless,
it is James death that is fundamental to the feast; the skeletal principle of the
block is historical order of martyrdom.
In the absence of a witness to a 27 December feast for James alone, I will
not reconstruct such a feast here. Nevertheless, that such a feast existed is not
outside the realm of possibility. At some point in this internal reconstruction,
John seems thematically superfluous. Furthermore, if martyrdom is an organizing principle of these feasts, John seems all the more out of place, since
many fourth century Christians did not consider him a martyr. Intriguingly,
the 27 December homily of Gregory of Nyssa highlights both the martyrological spirit of the late December commemorations and the dubious position of
John within that context:
Thus Peter radiates with much holiness and reverence when he is suspended upside down on a cross in order not to equal himself with his
Saviors glory....James was beheaded out of love for Christ his true head.
As the Apostle says, Christ is the head of man and the entire church.
Blessed John endured many, diverse conflicts and succeeded in various
positions foster the religion. He endured an unsuccessful drowning
attempt and was judged to be numbered among the martyrs chorus.
[John] was held in esteem not by his suffering but by his desire to undergo
martyrdom, a type of death that became an immortal tribute to the one
who by his death graced the churches.50
By taking great lengths to defend the commemoration of John as a martyr
after Stephen and beside Peter and James, despite his never having been killed,
Gregory betrays the anomalous position of John in this block of feasts.
Ironically, Johns higher profile in the Christian tradition eventually came
to eclipse James claim to the feast. The later Hieronymian Martyrology will
identify the date primarily with John, but neglect his brother James, confusing
or replacing him with James, the brother of the Lord:

50

Greg. Nyss., Laud. Alt. S. Steph. Protomartyris 1 (PG 46,729-31), tr. Richard (Casimir)
McCambly and David Salomon.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

The Origin Of The Post-nativity Commemorations

307

Adsumptio S. Joannis evangelistae; et Ordinatio episcopatus S. Jacobi fratris

domini, qui ab apostolis primus est Judaeis Hierosolymis est episcopus ordinatus et tempore paschali martyrio coronatus.51
In the current Roman Martyrology, 27 December is set aside for John the
Evangelist with no trace of James at all.
5

Origin of the Feast

At the end of our discussion, it is worth asking: which church developed this
block of festivals? Unfortunately, the definitive answer is probably lost to us.
Still our discussion at least narrows the possibilities. As noted earlier, the feast
of St. Stephen occupies 26 December precisely because this date represented
the first possible position for a martyr commemoration in the liturgical year.
Undoubtedly then, we are seeking a church that: (1) was already celebrating
the Nativity on 25 December some time before the year 360 ce (the date of the
Nicomedian source for the Syriac Martyrology), and (2) recognized that date as
the beginning of the liturgical year. We are also keen to avoid any community
that (3) does not attest this block of feasts by 360 ce, or (4) attests an established feast of Peter and Paul, as such a commemoration might have precluded
the development of the 28 December feast. The first constraint eliminates a
number of options, including Alexandria,52 Cappadocia,53 Constantinople,54
and two cities identified in previous studies as the source of the block:
Jerusalem (so Dix)55 and Antioch (so Nardone).56 The second and fourth constraints probably exclude a variety of sites in North Africa, including Carthage.57
The third and fourth certainly eliminate Rome.

51
52
53
54
55
56

57

Cod. Bernensis text; in Acta Sanctorum 63 November II.1, ed. Giovanni Battista de Rossi
and Louis Duchesne (Brussels, 1894), 2.
Talley 1991, 140-141.
Roll 1995, 174. Talley 1991, 138.
Talley 1991, 137-38.
See sources cited in note 21.
Nardone 1981, 242-43. In In Diem Natal., Chrysostom indicates that the feast was introduced to Antioch only ten years before: c. 375 ce (PG 49,351). See discussion in Talley 1991,
138. This is the most serious oversight of Nardones discussion.
As noted earlier, the Calendar of Carthage (c. 505-523 ce) begins on 19 April. Moreover, it
is clear the 29 June feast of Peter and Paul had spread to North Africa by the time of
Augustine (Kunzler 2001, 441).

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

308

Mendez

The early date posited for the block points us towards a place of origin in
or near the West. The 25 December Nativity feast originated the West,58 and
it is in Western Europe that we consistently find it inaugurating the liturgical
year.59 It is also safe to presume that these feasts developed some years after the
introduction of Christmas, through a later, deliberate expansion of the church
calendar to include the commemorations of apostolic martyrs. The first half
of the fourth century is the most appropriate window for these developments.
6 Conclusion
Our study began as an attempt to understand the position of three feasts of the
Christian year. At its conclusion, we have recovered the broader design of at
least two fourth century calendars. This disproportionate return speaks to the
forgotten profile of the post-Nativity commemorations, feasts that once
anchored liturgical life of thousands of fourth and fifth century Christians.
It also speaks to the forgotten profile of Stephen in particular. It is common
wisdom that Stephens cult catapulted into prominence with the purported
discovery of his relics in 415 ce. However, our findings suggest that this cult
was no less energized in a number of fourth century communities. It is perhaps in this climate that the later discovery of his relics is best understood. As
communities accorded Stephen the highest position in their sanctoral cycles
as the martyr of martyrs and chief of the confessors, the absence of his relics became unbearable. The responsibility to produce them weighed heavily
on the church of Jerusalem. In this light, we should understand the discovery
of Stephens bones, and their enshrinement at a dedicated Martyrium, less as
the cause of the Protomartyrs widespread fame than as its consequence.
Finally, our conclusions highlight the power of boundaries in ritual time
both to create and destroy symbolic design. In the fourth century, a liturgical
axis positioned at 25 December attracted a particular block of commemorations and established them among the most prominent celebrations of the
year. Unfortunately, the movement of that axis to other positions has long
since eroded the profile of those feasts. Today, Stephens feast is eclipsed by
the Nativity season that surrounds it except in a few nations with a special
attachment to the saint. Ironically, the post-Nativity position that once elevated the profile of this feast now undermines it. Unsurprisingly then, this
58
59

Talley 1991, 85-87. This is also the testimony of Chrysostom: this [feast], which has been
from of old to the inhabitants of the West and has now been brought to us (PG 49,351).
Charles K. Riepe, Beginning the Church Year, Worship 35 (1960) 147.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309

The Origin Of The Post-nativity Commemorations

309

commemoration has received far less attention in the literature than its
ancient prominence merits. I am confident that the exploration of the licensing processes and movements of parallel axes will resolve other outstanding
questions in the sanctoral cycle, and update more than a few incorrect or
incomplete answers to previous questions.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 290-309