What do you think?
Rate this book
The Origins of the Liturgical Year: Second, Emended Edition
In this definitive work, Thomas Talley draws on all the resources of historical scholarship to examine and unravel the complications brought to liturgical time by the blending of local traditions.
255 pages, Paperback
First published January 16, 1986
5 people are currently reading
119 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 6, 2025
I saw this book cited by Michael Jones, aka Inspiring Philosophy on YT and TikTok, who argues against a commonplace belief that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday or at least, that Christians chose December 25 to counteract a pagan Roman holiday (usually claimed to be Saturnalia or Sol Invictus).
This book covers much more than the dating of Christ’s birth, and I found it fascinating. It is a scholarly work, though, and makes for very dense reading, which is one reason why my reading of it spanned about 8 months.
Basically, the book traces how the Church began to recognize and commemorate certain events, particularly Christ’s birth, death and resurrection, as well as how the Church prepared candidates for baptism.
Many - probably most - modern American evangelicals wouldn’t know what a liturgical year even is. I know I didn’t for the first 30 or so years of my life even though my family was at church every time the doors were open. But then I’ve always loved history in general and Church history is no exception. So, if you’re at all interested in Church history, or why Easter and Christmas are celebrated how and when they are celebrated, you might enjoy this book.
This book covers much more than the dating of Christ’s birth, and I found it fascinating. It is a scholarly work, though, and makes for very dense reading, which is one reason why my reading of it spanned about 8 months.
Basically, the book traces how the Church began to recognize and commemorate certain events, particularly Christ’s birth, death and resurrection, as well as how the Church prepared candidates for baptism.
Many - probably most - modern American evangelicals wouldn’t know what a liturgical year even is. I know I didn’t for the first 30 or so years of my life even though my family was at church every time the doors were open. But then I’ve always loved history in general and Church history is no exception. So, if you’re at all interested in Church history, or why Easter and Christmas are celebrated how and when they are celebrated, you might enjoy this book.
November 19, 2023
A DETAILED STUDY OF ISSUES SUCH AS THE BIRTH DATE OF JESUS
Thomas J. Talley (who, at the time this book was published in 1986, was professor of Liturgics at the General Theological Seminary in New York) wrote in the Preface, “The work presented here has developed over the past seven years, although it rests upon a much older fascination with the liturgical year and with the liturgical articulation of time in general. My original intention was … to provide an updated replacement for Allan McArthur’s ‘Evolution of the Christian Year’… McArthur suggested a bold hypothesis … and the principal point [was]… the beginning of the course reading of the fourth gospel from the Epiphany at Ephesus in the second century, has, with slight alteration, been embraced and expanded upon here, suggesting (albeit hypothetically) much earlier roots for the liturgical year than have been proposed in most manuals of liturgical history.”
In the first chapter, he notes, “ambivalence toward annual festivals (and other cultic aspects of the Law) such as we see in Paul makes it difficult to account for the Christian adoption of Pascha except as a continuity with Passover. There would have been less diffidence toward that continuity in the primitive community at Jerusalem, and there, we can believe, the observance of Passover continued, its ancient theme of redemption transformed by the triumph of the Paschal lamb of the Covenant renewed.” (Pg. 5)
In a section on ‘The Earliest Evidence for Christmas,’ he explains, “Our earliest documentary evidence for the observance of the nativity of Christ on December 25 shows it to be such a turning point of the liturgical year. This document is the Chronograph of 354, an almanac presenting…. Lists of Roman holidays… and two lists of burial dates, one of Roman bishops and another or martyrs… That calendar ran, as did the ‘Depositio Martyrum,’ from December 25 to December 25, the date to which the martyrs’ list assigns the nativity of Christ at Bethlehem. From 336, then, we may say that at Rome the nativity of Christ on December 25 marked the beginning of the liturgical year. That is the earliest clear and certain datum for the festival of the nativity. Can we get behind it? Hippolytus… took March 25 to be the actual date of the passion. This datum… is repeated in Hippolytus’ ‘Commentary on Daniel’ 4.23, where the text notes as well that the nativity occurred on Wednesday, December 25… Hilgenfeld offered the opinion that the reference to December 25 was a subsequent interpolation… and that assessment seems to have been shared by most patrologists.” (Pg. 85-86)
He continues, “Augustine, in an Epiphany sermon (Sermon 202), says that the Donatists … do not celebrate ‘with us’ the feast of the Epiphany… Since in North Africa as at Rome it seems certain that Christmas was established before the Epiphany, one is left with the strong sense that the Donatists did celebrate Christmas. In such a case, that festival must antedate the Donatist schism, and the date of its establishment would thus be earlier than 311.” (Pg. 86-87)
He argues, “If we … place the establishment of the nativity of Christ on December 25 prior to the Donatist schism, and therefore prior to Constantine’s … protection of the Church, it becomes much more difficult to understand the adoption by a still only tentatively tolerated Church of a relatively new pagan festival… and one that had significant counter-Christian associations. The likelihood of such adoption of Aurelian’s festival would surely become still more remote after the beginning of Diocletian’s persecution in 303… we must… view with a much more cautious eye the standard explanation that the nativity of Christ on December 25 is only a Christina adoption of the pagan Roman ‘Dies natalis solisa invicti.’ … such a festival would … represent the Church’s accommodation to less than friendly imperial religious sentiment…” (Pg. 90)
He says of the ‘computation hypothesis’ of Louis Duchesne, “We have seen above that rabbinic thought had a tendency to set the births and deaths of the patriarchs on the same day… The argument begins… with the conception of the Baptist, identifying the time of the annunciation to Zechariah by reference to his priestly duties… This sets the conception of the Baptist at the autumnal equinox, and that is the ‘historical’ anchor of the entire scheme. That autumnal conception places the birth of John at the summer solstice. However, since Gabriel at the annunciation to Mary announced that Elizabeth was in the sixth month of her pregnancy, the conception of Jesus was six months from the Baptist’s conception, that is, at the spring equinox. The birth of Jesus, therefore, was nine months later, at the winter solstice.” (Pg. 93-94)
He acknowledges, “Although the derivation of Christmas from the ‘natalis solis invicti’ rests upon conjecture, its popularity in the literature is neither surprising nor unaccountable. We must be impressed with the fact that there was a Roman public festival on December 25 by the time of our clear historical evidence for the Christian festival at the same place on that same date… The very precision on that attribution of the festival to the city where we also find the pagan festival’s institution lends a degree of verisimilitude to the supposition of interplay between the two, which we cannot always accord to more generalized assertions regarding the derivation of other Christian festivals from much less well-defined pagan institutions.” (Pg. 102-103)
He states, “Prior to the adoption or the festival of December 25… it seems clear that from Constantinople, through Cappadocia, to Syria, the Epiphany celebrated both the nativity and the baptism of Jesus.” (Pg. 125)
This book will be of great interest to those seriously studying the origins of holidays such as Christmas.
Thomas J. Talley (who, at the time this book was published in 1986, was professor of Liturgics at the General Theological Seminary in New York) wrote in the Preface, “The work presented here has developed over the past seven years, although it rests upon a much older fascination with the liturgical year and with the liturgical articulation of time in general. My original intention was … to provide an updated replacement for Allan McArthur’s ‘Evolution of the Christian Year’… McArthur suggested a bold hypothesis … and the principal point [was]… the beginning of the course reading of the fourth gospel from the Epiphany at Ephesus in the second century, has, with slight alteration, been embraced and expanded upon here, suggesting (albeit hypothetically) much earlier roots for the liturgical year than have been proposed in most manuals of liturgical history.”
In the first chapter, he notes, “ambivalence toward annual festivals (and other cultic aspects of the Law) such as we see in Paul makes it difficult to account for the Christian adoption of Pascha except as a continuity with Passover. There would have been less diffidence toward that continuity in the primitive community at Jerusalem, and there, we can believe, the observance of Passover continued, its ancient theme of redemption transformed by the triumph of the Paschal lamb of the Covenant renewed.” (Pg. 5)
In a section on ‘The Earliest Evidence for Christmas,’ he explains, “Our earliest documentary evidence for the observance of the nativity of Christ on December 25 shows it to be such a turning point of the liturgical year. This document is the Chronograph of 354, an almanac presenting…. Lists of Roman holidays… and two lists of burial dates, one of Roman bishops and another or martyrs… That calendar ran, as did the ‘Depositio Martyrum,’ from December 25 to December 25, the date to which the martyrs’ list assigns the nativity of Christ at Bethlehem. From 336, then, we may say that at Rome the nativity of Christ on December 25 marked the beginning of the liturgical year. That is the earliest clear and certain datum for the festival of the nativity. Can we get behind it? Hippolytus… took March 25 to be the actual date of the passion. This datum… is repeated in Hippolytus’ ‘Commentary on Daniel’ 4.23, where the text notes as well that the nativity occurred on Wednesday, December 25… Hilgenfeld offered the opinion that the reference to December 25 was a subsequent interpolation… and that assessment seems to have been shared by most patrologists.” (Pg. 85-86)
He continues, “Augustine, in an Epiphany sermon (Sermon 202), says that the Donatists … do not celebrate ‘with us’ the feast of the Epiphany… Since in North Africa as at Rome it seems certain that Christmas was established before the Epiphany, one is left with the strong sense that the Donatists did celebrate Christmas. In such a case, that festival must antedate the Donatist schism, and the date of its establishment would thus be earlier than 311.” (Pg. 86-87)
He argues, “If we … place the establishment of the nativity of Christ on December 25 prior to the Donatist schism, and therefore prior to Constantine’s … protection of the Church, it becomes much more difficult to understand the adoption by a still only tentatively tolerated Church of a relatively new pagan festival… and one that had significant counter-Christian associations. The likelihood of such adoption of Aurelian’s festival would surely become still more remote after the beginning of Diocletian’s persecution in 303… we must… view with a much more cautious eye the standard explanation that the nativity of Christ on December 25 is only a Christina adoption of the pagan Roman ‘Dies natalis solisa invicti.’ … such a festival would … represent the Church’s accommodation to less than friendly imperial religious sentiment…” (Pg. 90)
He says of the ‘computation hypothesis’ of Louis Duchesne, “We have seen above that rabbinic thought had a tendency to set the births and deaths of the patriarchs on the same day… The argument begins… with the conception of the Baptist, identifying the time of the annunciation to Zechariah by reference to his priestly duties… This sets the conception of the Baptist at the autumnal equinox, and that is the ‘historical’ anchor of the entire scheme. That autumnal conception places the birth of John at the summer solstice. However, since Gabriel at the annunciation to Mary announced that Elizabeth was in the sixth month of her pregnancy, the conception of Jesus was six months from the Baptist’s conception, that is, at the spring equinox. The birth of Jesus, therefore, was nine months later, at the winter solstice.” (Pg. 93-94)
He acknowledges, “Although the derivation of Christmas from the ‘natalis solis invicti’ rests upon conjecture, its popularity in the literature is neither surprising nor unaccountable. We must be impressed with the fact that there was a Roman public festival on December 25 by the time of our clear historical evidence for the Christian festival at the same place on that same date… The very precision on that attribution of the festival to the city where we also find the pagan festival’s institution lends a degree of verisimilitude to the supposition of interplay between the two, which we cannot always accord to more generalized assertions regarding the derivation of other Christian festivals from much less well-defined pagan institutions.” (Pg. 102-103)
He states, “Prior to the adoption or the festival of December 25… it seems clear that from Constantinople, through Cappadocia, to Syria, the Epiphany celebrated both the nativity and the baptism of Jesus.” (Pg. 125)
This book will be of great interest to those seriously studying the origins of holidays such as Christmas.
April 4, 2018
Very interesting and informative. If you are looking to understand how we got the Christian liturgical calendar this book will help clear up the confusion. Definitely worth reading and this is the kind of book you will come back to because of all of the information it contains.
December 2, 2025
More of a reference book than a leisure read, but interesting nonetheless.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews