EASTERN CHRISTIAN STUDIES 18

STUDIES ON THE LITURGIES OF

THE CHRISTIAN EAST
Selected Papers of the Third International Congress
of the Society of Oriental Liturgy
Volos, May 26-30, 2010

Edited by
Steven Hawkes-Teeples, Bert Groen
and Stefanos Alexopoulos

PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA
2013
 CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

Stefanos ALEXOPOULOS, Praying while Praying: A Unique Office

of Holy Communion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Emmanuel FRITSCH, Concelebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy in

the Ethiopian Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Stig Simeon R. FRØYSHOV, The Resurrection Office of the First

Millennium Jerusalem Liturgy and Its Adoption by Close
Peripheries. Part I: The pre-Gospel Section . . . . . . 31

Peter GALADZA, Translating the ‘Septuagint’ Psalter into English for

Use in Byzantine Christian Worship: The State of the Question
and Several Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Ivan S. IVANOV, Byzantine and Slavonic Musical Treatises and the

Bulgarian Orthodox Tradition: The Rila Monastery Musical
Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Maxwell E. JOHNSON, Sharing ‘The Cup of Christ’: The Cessation

of Martyrdom and Anaphoral Development . . . . . . 109

Pavlos KOUMARIANOS, Personal Initiative vs. Synodical Institution-

alization: Establishment of Catholicity within the Liturgical
Tradition Process and the Problem of Translating Liturgical
Texts into Modern Greek in the Church of Greece Today . . 127

Clemens LEONHARD, Why Does Theodore of Mopsuestia Interpret the

Liturgies in an Allegorical Way? . . . . . . . . . . 141

André LOSSKY, Temps et eschatologie dans le rite byzantin: le témoi-

gnage des Typica sabaïtes . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
VIII CONTENTS

Poulose MANIYATTU, Inculturation of the East Syrian Liturgy of

Marriage by the St. Thomas Christians in India . . . . . 165

Chrysostom NASSIS, The Eucharist, the Presanctified Liturgy and

Great Lent: Two Contemporary Decisions of the Patriarchal
Synod of Constantinople . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Christos PANAGOU, The Rite of Adelfopoiia: A Fresh Look at the

Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Thomas POTT, ‘De Ceremoniis’ et mise en scène: le rituel comme

‘tradition’ de mémoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Gerard ROUWHORST, The Liturgical Background of the Crucifixion

and Resurrection Scene of the Syriac Gospel Codex of Rab-
bula: An Example of the Relatedness between Liturgy and
Iconography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Bryan D. SPINKS, Carefully Chosen Words? The Christological

Intentionality in the Institution Narrative and the Epiclesis of
the Syriac Anaphora of St. James . . . . . . . . . 239

Robert F. TAFT, Eucharistic Concelebration in Greek Orthodoxy

Yesterday and Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Theodore X. YIANGOU, From the ‘Untestified’ to ‘Instituted’ Litur-

gical Practice: The Quest of Nikon of the Black Mountain . . 279
 THE RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE FIRST MILLENNIUM
JERUSALEM LITURGY AND ITS ADOPTION
BY CLOSE PERIPHERIES
PART I: THE PRE-GOSPEL SECTION1

Stig Simeon R. FRØYSHOV

Introduction2

The Sunday Vigil of the Jerusalem cathedral of the Resurrection was

a significant ritual in first millennium Christianity. It celebrated one of
the major objects of the Christian faith, the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
at the spot where it was believed to have taken place. The Resurrection
cathedral was built here in the 4th century: the Martyrion basilica next to
Golgotha, and the Anastasis rotunda over Christ’s tomb. With the diffusion
of the Hagiopolite rite, the Sunday Vigil spread beyond the cathedral,

1
PART II will appear in a Festschrift being prepared for Charles Athanase Renoux to
be published by Gorgias Press.
2
Abbreviations:
AI = Ancient Iadgari (AI edition: უველესი იადგარი (The Most Ancient Iadgari),
eds. E. Metreveli, C’. Cankievi and L. Xevsuriani (Tbilisi, 1980)).
AI-B = Sinai Georgian O.18 (AI witness; O = Old, to be distinguished from the N of
the 1975 New Finds)
AI-C = Sinai Georgian O.40
AI-D = Sinai Georgian O.41
AI-E = Sinai Georgian O.34
AI-F = Sinai Georgian O.26
Ainoi = A÷noi, pss 148-150 (Matins)
GEO = The ancient, ‘Georgian’ Horologion of Sinai Georgian O.34 (edited in Stig R. Frøy-
shov, L’Horologe «géorgien» du Sinaiticus ibericus 34: Edition, traduction et
commentaire, unpublished doctoral thesis, Paris IV-Sorbonne (Paris, 2003; cor-
rected redaction, 2004). (Publication in the CSCO in preparation).
HS 43 = Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre 43, A.D. 1122 (the so-called ‘Anastasis Typikon’;
HS 43 edition: ˆAnálekta ïerosolumitik±v staxuologíav, t. 2, ed. A. Papado-
poulos-Kerameus (Saint Petersburg, 1894)
IE = Itinerarium Egeriae
KyrEk = Kúrie êkékraza, pss 140 etc. (Vespers)
OW = (Armenian) Office of the Oil-Bearing Women
RO = Resurrection Office
SIN 47 = Sinai Georgian O.47
For Romanisation of non-Latin alphabets I use the ISO standards: 9984 (Georgian),
9985 (Armenian) and 9:1995 (Russian).
32 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

first of all to the rest of Palestine, to Armenia and Georgia, and to Byzan-
tium, places functioning as close liturgical peripheries in relation to the
Jerusalem cathedral.
The Sunday Vigil of Jerusalem was formed as a string of offices, some
distinct and others less so, some public and others intended primarily for
ascetics, zealots or monks.3 Its principal part, ‘the Resurrection Office’,
to use the name coined by Juan Mateos in a seminal study of 1961,4 was
a public office celebrated by the bishop, according to the Itinerarium
Egeriae: it started with a Gospel section (psalmody, litany, pericope and
hymn) in the Anastasis and on the way to the Cross, and ended with a
station of praise and episcopal blessing at the Cross.
The excellent description by Egeria forms the starting point for the
historical study of the Hagiopolite Sunday Vigil. There is close agreement
between Egeria and the ‘Anastasis Typikon’, a fact which suggests a
conservative continuity of the office from the 4th to the 10th century. The
reconstructed outline of this Vigil, in its mature form as it was suppos-
edly celebrated in the Resurrection cathedral in, let us say, the 6th century,
is the following:5
1. Entrance to the Anastasis
a) the bishop enters the Anastasis and goes to the cave
b) entrance prayer
2. Pre-Gospel psalmody at the Anastasis
a) three psalms
b) each followed by a prayer
c) litany (old position)
d) prayer (old position)
3. Gospel at the Anastasis tomb, with hymn on the way to the Cross
a) the Resurrection Gospel read by the bishop at Christ’s tomb6
b) post-Gospel hymn sung during procession to the Cross

3
In present Byzantine usage (except in a large part of the Greek Church) the ‘Vigil’
(ˆAgrupnía) service is composed of Vespers (or Great Compline) and Matins. In the IE
the Sunday Vigil starts at night, separated from Vespers. To some extent this is still the case
in the continuous Vigil of HS 43, which reserves the term ‘Agrypnia’ for the part following
Vespers and starting with Theos Kyrios (HS 43 edition, p. 3,29). Here I shall use ‘Vigil’ in
both senses.
4
J. Mateos, ‘La vigile cathédrale chez Egérie’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 27
(1961), pp. 281-312, on pp. 286-287, 289-292 (‘l’office de la résurrection’).
5
This part I of the article concerns points 1-2.
6
Below I discuss the possibility of prayers before and after the Gospel. Because of
their meager and uncertain documentation I do not include them here.
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 33

4. Station at the Cross

a) psalm 133
b) with hymnography
c) litany (new position)
d) prayer (new position)
e) blessing
f) dismissal

A structural discrepancy in an intermediary source needs to be explained.

The Ancient Iadgari, the Georgian version of the Jerusalem hymnal,
while in agreement with the above schema at points 1-2 for the elements
it contains, does include element 3b) but at a completely different place.
In the AI, instead of following the Gospel section, element 3b) figures
between KyrEk and the canticles. This discrepancy belongs to a compli-
cated, larger problem of the history of the Jerusalem Sunday Vigil which
calls for an independent study. Since we here limit ourselves to the RO
it is sufficient to hypothesise that the Georgian rite to which the AI
belongs, in its peripheral position and maybe for topographical reasons,
had separated the Cross station from the Gospel section, and possibly
also eliminated the procession and other elements.7 That the psalm 133
hymnography of AI originally belonged to the RO is, as we shall see,
strongly suggested by Sinai Georgian O.47.8
The purpose of this two-part essay is twofold: first, to establish as far
as is possible the structure and development of the Sunday Vigil of the
Resurrection cathedral and, secondly, to describe the adoption of the Jeru-
salem RO in the close peripheries of the Palestinian, Armenian,9 Georgian,
and Byzantine traditions. The acknowledged number of strictly Hagiopo-
lite sources of the RO, that is, Greek liturgical books observing the rule
(kanÑn) of the Resurrection cathedral or descriptions of its liturgical life,
is at present very limited (IE and HS 43).10 The sources of the close
peripheries will serve to shed light on both the central rite from which
they derive and the adoption of the central rite in each particular tradition.

7
Another possibility is that the AI actually reflects a temporary change in the structure
of the Hagiopolite Vigil itself and that the latter towards the end of the first millennium
was restored to its earlier structure, for instance by influence from the conservative periphery
of the Great Lavra, whose liturgical authority was steadily growing.
8
SIN 47 places ps 133 within the RO (but without prescribing ps 133 hymnography).
9
The Armenian material needs a much closer examination than I have given it in this
study.
10
It is for instance possible that the Jerusalem Tropologion Sinai NE MG 53-5 and
other documents of the Sinai New Finds may yield information on the RO.
34 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

The Resurrection Office has been the object of only a limited number
of studies. Among early Russian studies of the Resurrection Office we
must emphasise the relevant pages of Skaballanovic’ complete review of
the All-Night Vigil, which is still helpful for its insights and manuscript
knowledge.11 Mateos’ above-mentioned study represented a methodologi-
cal breakthrough because of his attempt to identify traces of the Jerusalem
RO of Egeria in several other rites: in their Sunday Vigils he pointed
out at least a group of three psalms or canticles and a Gospel. Mateos
concluded greater or lesser resemblance and several later scholars have
disclosed errors in Mateos’ identifications. In an important study, Jeffery
expresses a legitimate criticism: ‘But in many cases these [Mateos’] iden-
tifications have little to recommend them besides the fact that they share
a common underlying pattern of three (or more, or fewer) psalms or
canticles followed (usually) by one or more readings. These similarities
are not enough to prove a derivation from Egeria’s Resurrection Vigil.’12
An example of Mateos’ problematic analogies can be seen in his iden-
tifications of corresponding elements in the Egerian RO and the Armenian
‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’. Whereas he matched the three psalms
with the three Armenian biblical canticles, Khajag Barsamian (1986)13
and Gabriele Winkler (1987)14 corrected him by placing the correspond-
ence, more logically, between the three psalms of the two offices.15
Recently Michael Daniel Findikyan has reviewed the dossier from the
viewpoint of the Armenian ‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’, pointing
out among other things that in the preserved Armenian material there is a
tendency towards two ‘real’ pre-Gospel psalms rather than three.16

11
Mihail Skaballanovic, Tolkovxî tipikoné (The Typikon Explained), vol. II (Kiev,
1913), pp. 240-249. There is hardly anything on the RO in N.D. Uspenskij, ‘Win vseno-
Ïnogo bdeniq (¨J ˆAGRUPNIA) na pravoslavnom vostoke i v russkoî cerkvi
(The ordo of the All-Night Vigil (¨J ˆAGRUPNIA) in the Orthodox East and the Russian
Church)’, part I, Bogoslovskie Trudy 18 (1978), pp. 5-117.
12
Peter Jeffery, ‘The Sunday Office of Seventh-Century Jerusalem in the Georgian
Chantbook (Iadgari): A Preliminary Report’, Studia Liturgica 21 (1991), pp. 52-75, on
p. 67.
13
Khajag Barsamian, ‘The Armenian Office of Myrophores’, in Order of Oil-Bearing
Women of the Armenian Church (in Armenian) (New York, 1986), pp. 54-60, on pp. 57-58
(ref. in Michael Daniel Findikyan, The Commentary on the Armenian Daily Office by
Bishop Step‘anos Siwnec‘i (†735): Critical Edition and Translation with Textual and
Liturgical Analysis, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 270 (Rome, 2004), p. 388, n. 250).
14
G. Winkler, ‘Ungelöste Fragen im Zusammenhang mit den liturgischen Gebräuchen
in Jerusalem’, Handes amsorya 101 (1987), pp. 303-315, on p. 307, point 1.
15
This correction presupposes Winkler’s distinction, with which I agree, between psal-
mus/hymnus and antiphona in the language of the IE.
16
Findikyan, Siwnec‘i (see n. 13), pp. 380-398, 403-404.
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 35

As regards correspondence with the Byzantine rite, Mateos proposed

to identify the three psalms of Egeria with the Polyeleos (which he iden-
tified with the three pss 134-136) or the Amomos (ps 118, in three
stases).17 Winkler agreed with Mateos’ first suggestion, the Polyeleos.18
However, as was pointed out by Gabriel Bertonière, the Polyeleos (and,
I would add, the Amomos) belong not to the RO but to another, preceding
part of the Vigil, a part which seems originally to have been an ascetic
or non-public part.19
Concerning the 10th century tradition of Jerusalem, Gaga Shurgaia
claimed in a study of the Palm Sunday celebration in Jerusalem that the
three psalms and prayers of the IE had not been preserved as a unit in
the ‘Anastasis Typikon’, but that there was now a multitude of psalms in
this document.20 However, like Winkler and Jeffery before him, and
Findikyan after him, Shurgaia overlooked the fact that Gabriel Berto-
nière, in his excellent 1972 monograph on the Greek Easter Vigil, origi-
nally a doctoral work directed by Mateos, had already pointed out an
astonishingly close structural correspondence between the RO of Egeria
and that of HS 43, including the three psalms figuring in both.21
Peter Jeffery in a 1991 article made a significant advance in the appre-
ciation of continuity between Egeria and the later Palestino-Byzantine
tradition. Although not entirely successful in all details, he pointed out the
overall correspondence between Egeria, later Hagiopolite liturgy (accord-
ing to the Georgian versions), HS 43, and the Byzantine rite.22

17
Mateos,’La vigile cathédrale chez Egérie’ (see n. 4), p. 302: ‘Chez les Byzantins, il
est appelé troisième stichologie’, which is explained in idem, ‘Quelques problèmes de
l’orthros byzantin’, Proche-Orient Chrétien 11 (1961), pp. 17-35, 201-220, on p. 205: ‘Dans
la troisième on chante, selon un des huit modes, des psaumes accompagnés du répons
alleluia, le polyéleos (ps. 134, 135 et 136) ou le ps. 118. Ces psaumes sont au nombre de
trois, ou bien un seul divisé en trois sections’.
18
Winkler, ‘Ungelöste Fragen’ (see n. 14), p. 305.
19
Gabriel Bertonière, The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related
Services in the Greek Church, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 193 (Rome, 1972), p. 87.
This is evident in the Palm Sunday Agrypnia of HS 43; see PART II, table 2, and also
below n. 99. Jeffery disagrees with Mateos not from positive arguments that the Polyeleos
fails to be the corresponding element, but from identifying other psalms as such elements
(see next paragraphs).
20
Gaga Shurgaia, ‘La struttura della Liturgia delle Ore del Mattino della Domenica delle
Palme nella Tradizione di Gerusalemme’, Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano 1 (1997), pp. 79-107,
on p. 106.
21
Bertonière, The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in
the Greek Church (see n. 19), pp. 80-91, Charts B-1, B-2, B-3.
22
Jeffery, ‘Sunday Office’ (see n. 12), pp. 65-69. Concerning the three psalms: ‘Clearly,
in each of these traditions, the prokeimena correspond to the three psalms of the Resur-
rection vigil that Egeria described’ (p. 66).
36 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

The RO of Egeria, then, has been found by other scholars to correspond

to a number of posterior documents belonging to several traditions: Hagi-
opolite, Palestinian, Armenian and Byzantine. My task here will be to
bring together these findings, as well as to add results from my own
research, thereby making a stronger case. I shall usually start with the
IE as I treat each element of the Resurrection Office of the Hagiopolite
Sunday Vigil. The most important contribution of this essay will be drawing
on the Georgian RO material. Significantly, comparison with the Nocturns
service of the oldest preserved Georgian Horologion lends support to the
view that the RO constitutes a Sunday Nocturns office (PART II).

Sources of the First Millennium Palestinian Resurrection Office

The RO is known from a number of sources with first millennium

content, stretching from the pilgrimage diary of Egeria (381-384) to the
‘Anastasis Typikon’ (10th c. content). These two documents stand out as
reflecting the worship of the Resurrection cathedral itself. All the others,
it seems, represent peripheral sources, retaining Hagiopolite tradition
but possibly diverging from it to some degree. Egeria’s description of the
RO23 almost consistently corresponds with later sources, albeit not with
all of them for each liturgical element, a fact nevertheless confirming the
precision of her description and the representative character of the office
she describes.24 Among the Georgian sources I shall first of all be using
Sinai Georgian O.47, which is a manual of Palestinian (mostly Sabaite)
RO.25 Other Georgian sources are the Ancient Iadgari hymnal (AI) and the
‘Georgian’ Horologion (GEO), both of which are versions of Greek litur-
gical books of Jerusalem and the content of which is datable basically to
the 6th century.26 As we have seen, the AI displays a variant RO structure

23
Primarily IE, 24,9-11; some data in 27,2 and 43,1.
24
For the full text of the Egerian RO and its breakdown into units, see PART II, table 3.
Earlier studies of the Egerian RO include the following: Mateos, ‘La vigile cathédrale
chez Egérie’ (see n. 17), particularly pp. 286-292; Rolf Zerfass, Die Schriftlesung im
Kathedraloffizium Jerusalems (Münster, 1968), pp. 15-20, 28-30; Enrique Bermejo Cabrera,
La proclamación de la escritura en la liturgía de Jerusalén: Estúdio terminológico del
‘Itinerarium Egeriae’, Studium Biblicum Fransciscanum: Collectio Maior 37 (Jerusalem,
1993), passim and table 2 (overview).
25
The commentary of the AI edition (pp. 908-910) gives a brief overview of other
Georgian manuscripts than the AI, containing Sunday material.
26
AI includes the chant and the hymnography of the RO: the three (alternatively two
or four) psalms, the post-Gospel stanza gardamot’kumay and the ps 133 hymnography
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 37

that possibly reflects a divergence from the Hagiopolite tradition. Both

the AI and the GEO are closely related to their Jerusalem models, but a
priori, even as very close periphery, they represent documents primarily
of the ancient Georgian rite; the possibility of local adaptations and alter-
ations must constantly be kept in mind. GEO belongs to Sinai Georgian
O.34, a manuscript for the most part copied, and bound, by the erudite
monk Iovane Zosime at the Great Lavra of St. Sabas; GEO carries very
few marks of Sabaite liturgical tradition, but the manuscript on the whole,
which in addition to many other pieces also contains the Ancient Iadgari,
is considered an ‘encyclopaedia of the Sabaite daily office’.27 A last
Georgian source is the liturgical manual Sinai Georgian O.53, copied at
St. Sabas and datable to the 9th-10th century.28 In addition, Byzantine
Lectionaries and Euchologies will be relevant. Finally, a precious branch
of the historical persistence of the RO is the Armenian version, called the
‘Office of the Oil-Bearing Women’, which is found primarily in the
Armenian Horologion (ժամագիրք, Zamagirk‘)29 and secondarily is implicit
in a remarkable body of Armenian mystagogical commentaries and litur-
gical expositions attributed to Yovhannes Ojnec‘i (650-728) and those of
Step‘anos Siwnec‘i (680?-735).30 Two major sources need to be pre-
sented in detail: HS 43 and SIN 47.

The Resurrection Office of Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre 43 (the ‘Anastasis

Typikon’)

The precious codex Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre 43 was copied in 1122,

during the Latin occupation of Jerusalem. Its content is conventionally
situated in the period before the destruction of churches in 1009 by

(ak’a akurt’xevdit’sa). However, the AI has a puzzling order of Sunday Vigil in that ps
133 (and its hymnography) seems displaced (see PART II, ch. ‘Psalm 133 hymnography’).
27
For more about its Sabaite character, see Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, ‘The Georgian
witness to the Jerusalem liturgy: new sources and studies’, in Inquiries into Eastern Christian
Worship: Selected Papers of the Second International Congress of the Society of Oriental
Liturgy, Rome, 17-21 September 2008, eds. Bert Groen, Steven Hawkes-Teeples, and
Stefanos Alexopoulos, Eastern Christian Studies 12 (Leuven, 2012), pp. 227-267.
28
Description in R. Gvaramia et al., ქართულ ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა. სინური
კოლექცია, ნაკვეთი III (Description of Georgian Manuscripts: The Sinai Collection,
vol. III) (Tbilisi, 1987), pp. 55-58, the RO material is on p. 57, no. VI.
29
For an English version, see The Book of Hours or the Order of Common Prayers of
the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church (Evanston, 1964), translated from the 1955 Jeru-
salem edition.
30
These documents are presented and examined in Findikyan, Siwnec‘i (see n. 13).
38 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

Caliph al-Hakim, but it cannot be excluded that its liturgical content evolved
between 1009 and 1122.31 The manuscript contains the full texts of hymns,
prayers and Scripture readings (psalms in incipit only) of all services during
the weeks before and after Easter. Its explicit topography connects the
document intimately with the Jerusalem Cathedral. HS 43, which is then
really an ‘Easter book’, contains an Agrypnia service of Palm Sunday
which is remarkable for the history of the Hagiopolite RO due to its
closeness to Egeria’s description.
What matters for our purposes is to establish the ritual structure of the
Palm Sunday RO of HS 43 and to discern whether it contains regular
Sunday elements. Below follows a translation of the RO part of Palm
Sunday, with inserted structure rubrics when the manuscript does not
have them (the full text of the hymnography is not given):32
‘[Entrance psalm] Immediately they chant the “Acknowledge the Lord”
[ps 117:1], mode 4. When there begins “This is the gate of the Lord; right-
eous ones shall enter in it” [ps 117:20], then enter the patriarch, the bishops
and the presbyters to the Holy Anastasis and go into the Sepulchre of the
Lord, the deacons before the life-giving Sepulchre. And the archdeacon
does a synaptê.
[First antiphon.] Then they chant the epakousta, mode 3. “Blessed is the
one who comes [ps 117:26]33 to loosen the curse of sin, and who receives
the praise of children. Hosannah in the highest”.
Verse 1: “Your kingdom, Christ, is a kingdom of all ages” [ps 144:13].
Second antiphon. “There is none like you among gods, O Lord, and there
are no works like yours. All the nations, as many as you made, shall come
[ps 85:8-9a] with palms crying to you: Hosannah in the highest.”
Verse: “O God, transgressors of the law rose up against me, and a band of
strong ones sought my soul” [ps 85:14a].
[Third antiphon.] Instead of “Let all breath” [ps 150:6] is said “The Lord is
God, and he showed us light” [ps 117:27]. Verse: “Acknowledge” [ps 117:29]
[Gospel] After this is read the Resurrectional Gospel, for at the Holy Anasta-
sis there is no Sunday that it is not read, but it is always read [on Sundays]:
Gospel 11 from John [21:15-25].

31
Cathedral worship must have continued somehow in the decades in which there
was no Anastasis church (until its rebuilding by Constantine Monomachos), and likewise
during Crusader domination. Preservation of pre-1009 topography, which was logical in
view of the hope of restoration, does not preclude liturgical evolution.
32
The Greek text is found in HS 43 edition, pp. 10,33-12,26. At lines 22-25 the ele-
ments obviously relating to Matins are omitted.
33
For English version of the LXX I use the NETS translation (online at: http://ccat.
sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/24-ps-nets.pdf).
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 39

[Post-Gospel hymns] Then they say this troparion instead of “We have seen
the resurrection of Christ”: “We have seen the holy feast of palms …”
Immediately “Glory”, mode 4 plagal: “Having showed himself to the dis-
ciples, the Saviour …”
And immediately Litia to the Holy Kranion, while they sing sticheron, mode 2
plagal: “Today the grace”.
[Ps 133] And the patriarch ascends to the Holy Golgotha to incense, and the
protopapas remains below with the clergy, to sing “In the nights lift up your
hands to the holy precincts, and bless the Lord” [ps 133:2]. Verse: “The Lord
will bless you from Sion” [ps 133:3].
[Dismissal] And immediately the patriarch descends, … and then Litia to
the Holy Anastasis. … The patriarch and the clergy ascend to the “Catechu-
mens” [a high place in the Anastasis], from where he dismisses.’

According to a rubric (p. 11,6) the group of three psalms proper starts
with the three first words of ps 117:26 (‘Blessed is he who comes’).
Before this, the same ps 117 is sung from verse 1, apparently including
all verses until verse 20, ‘This is the gate of the Lord’, at which the
patriarch and his clergy enter. However, the identity of the two psalms
seems to be a coincidence. Ps 117:1-20 is obviously chosen for its
aptness to the patriarch’s entrance (‘gate’), and its continuous style of
psalmody contrasts with the selected psalmody of the three psalms.
Ps 117 therefore functions as the patriarchal entrance psalm, seemingly
for all Sundays.34 In no other source, however, is there mention of an
entrance psalm.
After the entrance follow the three psalms, called either antiphons35 or,
more frequently, êpakoustá. The first, ps 117:26, festal, has as its verse
ps 144:13, a verse taken from one of the traditional resurrectional pre-
Gospel psalms (mode 3, authentic and plagal; see table 1 below). The
second antiphon, ps 85:8-9a, is not found in the Georgian-Palestinian
corpus of RO psalms (see table 1 below); on the contrary, it is clearly
festal (Palm Sunday), since its theme, that the nations shall worship
before God, is interpreted as a prophecy of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.36

34
Bertonière, The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in
the Greek Church (see n. 19), p. 91 compares this with the patriarchal entrance at the
Easter Vigil (119:22-30) to the same verse (in fact, at v. 19 sung right after v. 20), but ps
117 here appears in the form of selected verses (these two verses only) and not the whole,
continuous psalm as at Palm Sunday.
35
Only the second psalm has a rubric designating it an antiphon (‘antiphon 2’).
36
This is confirmed by two of the Ancient Iadgari witnesses (AI-BD), which prescribe
the same ps 85:8-9, with verse 95:12-13 as ‘psalmuni of the Gospel’, m4, at Palm Sunday
Matins (AI edition, p. 172,32-35). Both AI-BD and HS 43 have the same non-psalmodic
40 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

The third antiphon, actually Qeòv Kúriov, is again festal, taking

the place of Pasa pnoê (‘Let all breath’, ps 150:6) as stated by a rubric.
The only certain thing the Palm Sunday epakousta have to tell us about
the content of regular Sunday epakousta is that the third antiphon is
always Pasa pnoê.
The particular Gospel pericope indicated in HS 43 belongs to the series
of eleven readings, which is the third and latest stage in the development
of the Sunday Vigil Gospels, while seemingly betraying a Byzantine
origin (see chapter on this in PART II).
After the Gospel the rubric informs us that Anastasin Christou is the
regular Sunday post-Gospel hymn, followed by a processional sticheron,
‘Today the grace’, which is festal. Nothing is said about a regular Sunday
processional sticheron.

A Resurrection Office Manuscript of Greek Sinaitic Usage: Sinai Georgian

O.47 (977)

A largely unknown source, precious for our purposes, is SIN 47, a

small (14,2 ≈ 12) liturgical manual of 91 fol. written by Iovane Zosime
at Mount Sinai in 977.37 This codex is entirely devoted to the Resurrec-
tion Office:38 primarily containing the Gospel readings, at the same time
it includes all the other elements of the RO. In the long colophon at the
end, Zosime defines the book in this way: ‘I wrote … these holy Matins
(or: morning; საცისკრონი) Gospels of the holy Sundays in all modes
with all prescriptions (განგებითავე) in full (სრულიად), as it is in the
Greek manner (ბერულად, lit. ‘Greekly’) at Holy-Sinai’.39 It is clear
that Zosime intended to present the full ordo of the Gospel readings and
their surrounding elements. The colophon also indicates that the RO

ending: ‘with palms crying to you: Hosannah in the highest’. The analogous prokeimenon of
the present Byzantine rite is another: ps 8:3 (verse 8:1), as in the Studite Typikon of Messina
(Le Typicon du monastère du Saint-Sauveur à Messine: Codex Messinensis gr 115. a.D.
1131, ed. Miguel Arranz, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 185 (Rome, 1969), p. 228,7-8).
37
SIN 47 is supplemented by Birmingham Mingana Georgian 6, which represents the
3rd folio of its 7th gathering, containing a part of one of the Gospel readings (Mc 16:12-14);
cf. Gérard Garitte, ‘Les feuillets géorgiens de la collection Mingana à Selly Oak (Birming-
ham)’, Le Muséon 73 (1960), pp. 241-259, on pp. 253-254.
38
With the exception of the second litany and exclamation (fol. 84v-87r), which
belong the Divine Liturgy; however, the rubric ‘other’ tells that the document considers
it an alternative to the proper RO pre-Gospel litany and prayer.
39
წძიდანი ესე სახარებანი საცისცრონი წძიდათა კჳრიაკეთანი ყოველთა ჴძათა
ზედა ყოვლითავე განგებითა სრულიად, ვითარცა არს ბერულად სინაწძიდას შინა
(fol. 88rv; Gvaramia, The Sinai Collection, III (see n. 28), p. 55).
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 41

office of SIN 47 is identical to that of the Greek monks of Mount Sinai

in 977; in other words, it is of Sinaitic tradition.
The manuscript is described in detail in the Georgian catalogue of 1987;40
the following is a presentation of its content, based on this description
and on my own reading of the manuscript (microfilm), with a preliminary
analysis:41
– Fol. 1rv: A full-page cross on each page.
– Fol. 2r-7r: Two prayers. The first prayer (fol. 2r-5v), ‘Lord our God,
eternal King’, is according to both its title42 and content a prayer of
access to the altar. It is practically identical to a prayer of the Euchology
Sinai Georgian O.12, entitled ‘Prayer of the წარდგოძაჲ, cardgomay,
of Vespers and Orthros of Sunday’.43 The prayer of Sinai Georgian
O.12 has the same exclamation as that written on fol. 7r, after the
second prayer. The short second prayer (fol. 5v-7r), ‘You who are God
before the ages’, which has the rubric ‘Second prayer’, is inserted
between the body and the exclamation of the first prayer. Thematically
it speaks of God’s power and resurrection. It is worth noticing a blending
of two psalm phrases of resurrectional theme, ps 16:13 and ps 43:27.44
The latter psalm may have been the original first, invariable psalm (see
below).
– Fol. 7v-12v: The pre-Gospel psalms, modes 1-8. Title: ‘The წარეძართენი,
caremart’eni, and განიღჳენი, ganigvijeni, of the holy Gospel’. The
choice of psalms comes very close to that of AI-E and Sinai Georgian
O.53, both copied at the Great Lavra of St. Sabas. After Pasa pnoê in
mode 3, and before ps 145:10, follows this exclamation: ‘For [He] is
the light of the world, the life, and the resurrection’.45 This could
belong to a prayer of the third psalm. But why only at m3?46

40
Gvaramia, The Sinai Collection, III (see n. 28), pp. 52-55. The content of the codex
is also briefly described by Jankieva in the commentary to the Ancient Iadgari edition
(AI edition, pp. 908-909).
41
The manuscript deserves an edition and a more thorough study than what is pre-
sented here.
42
‘At Matins (or: In the morning) of Holy Sundays. When the priest ascends the altar,
before the ganigvije he says this prayer’.
43
Gvaramia, The Sinai Collection, III (see n. 28), p. 39, no. V.18.
44
Sinai Georgian O. 47, fol. 6v-7r: არაძედ შენ აღსდეგ, უფალო, უსწარ ძათ,
დააძჴუენ იგინი (ps 16:13) და ძიჴსნენ ჩუენ სახელისა შენისათჳს (ps 43:27: აღდეგ,
ღძერთო, შეძიწიენ ჩუენ და ძიჴსნენ ჩუენ სახელისა შენისათჳს).
45
რაძეთუ ნათელი არს სოფლისაჲ, ცხორებაჲ და ადგოძაჲ.
46
See my suggestion below, in the paragraph on the ‘pre-octotonal stage’ of the three
psalms (p. 50).
42 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

– Fol. 12v: Incipit of two exclamations of pre-Gospel prayers. The full

exclamations figure at the end of the manuscript (fol. 82r-87r). The
first exclamation belongs to the prayer before the Sunday morning
Gospel, the second (სხუაჲ, ‘other’) to the prayer before the Gospel of
the Sunday Divine Liturgy.
– Fol. 13r-72r: The Resurrection Gospels, modes 1-8. Title: ‘In the name
of God, at Holy-Sinai the Gospels of the Holy Resurrection at Matins
of holy Sundays, in all modes, in succession thus.’
– Fol. 72v: A full-page cross.
– Fol. 73r-81r: The post-Gospel hymn, modes 1-8. Title: ‘The gar-
damot’kumani of the Holy Resurrection, at Matins (or: in the morning,
ცისკრად) of the holy Sundays, after the holy Gospels, in all modes,
in succession’. This hymnography belongs to the Ancient Iadgari.
The manuscript has only one stanza for each mode, unlike the AI in
which the number varies between witnesses and modes. Each
gardamot’kumay is followed by the same rubric: ‘psalm: 133:2, verse:
133:1’.
– Fol. 81v: A full-page cross.
– Fol. 82r-84v: ‘Kuerek’si47 of the Holy Resurrection, at Matins (or: in
the morning) of the Holy Sundays’, with the full exclamation of the
prayer before the Sunday morning Gospel. The kuerek’si (litany) con-
sists of eleven petitions, each ending by ‘we beseech you, o Lord,
hearken and have mercy on us’.48 The last four petitions (8-11) are
given by incipits only. Petitions 1-7 and 9 (Sin. O.12) or 11 (Sin. O.54)
are identical to the full kuerek’si of the same title of the two 10th cen-
tury Euchologies Sinai Georgian O.1249 and Sinai Georgian O.54.50
Petition 8 starts with the same phrase as petitions 6 and 16 of the
‘Catholic kuerek’si’,51 petition 10 is seemingly the pre-Gospel petition

47
The term (pl. kuerek’sni), which derives probably from kßruziv, denotes various
types of litany. See discussion of the term in Stéphane Verhelst, ‘La «kéryxie catholique»
de la liturgie de Jérusalem et le Shemoneh ‘Esreh’, Questions liturgiques 81 (2000), pp. 5-47,
on pp. 25-26. A kuerek’si does not contain a prayer, but is always followed by one.
48
გევედრებთ შენ, უფალო, ისძინე და შეგჳწყალენ ჩუენ.
49
Fol. 18v-19r. Cf. Gvaramia, The Sinai Collection, III (see n. 28), p. 34, no. III.17
and Bernard Outtier, ‘Un nouveau témoin partiel du lectionnaire géorgien ancien (Sinaï
géorgien 12)’, Bedi kartlisa 41 (1983), pp. 162-174, on p. 163, no. 17.
50
Fol. 21v-22r. Cf. Gvaramia, The Sinai Collection, III (see n. 28), p. 59, no. III.15
and Bernard Outtier, ‘Un témoin partiel du lectionnaire géorgien ancien (Sinaï géorgien
54)’, Bedi kartlisa 39 (1981), pp. 76-88, on p. 773, no. 24.
51
See Bernard Outtier and Stéphane Verhelst, ‘La kéryxie catholique de la liturgie de
Jérusalem en géorgien (sin. 12 et 54)’, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 42 (2000), pp. 41-64,
on pp. 46 and 55.
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 43

‘And that we may be counted worthy’, and the last, as in very many
kuerek’sni, is ‘Save, O Lord, your people’. I have so far not found the
body of the prayer following the litany.
– Fol. 84v-87r: ‘Kuerek’si of the Holy Resurrection, at the Liturgy’,
with the full exclamation of the prayer before the Gospel of the Sunday
Divine Liturgy of St. James. The kuerek’si consists of nine petitions
and is practically identical to that of the same title of Sinai Georgian
O.1252 and O.54.53 The last petition, as in the first litany, is ‘Save, O
Lord, your people’ (this time the O.12 kuerek’si also has it). The
exclamation which follows immediately is that of the prayer before the
Gospel in JAS.54 This kuerek’si is not the ‘Catholic kuerek’si’ but one
after the Halleluia. It is prescribed by rubric in two witnesses, Sinai
Georgian N.22 and Graz Univ. Libr. 2058-4, copied by the same
Iovane Zosime.55
– Fol. 87r: A 3⁄4 page cross.
– Fol. 87v-91r: A long colophon which includes the information that the
Gospel series follows the Greek usage of Sinai (rendered in full in the
catalogue).
– Fol. 91v: A full-page cross.

The large crosses have the function of separating sections or elements

of the RO: a) the first part leading to the Gospel reading, b) the
gardamot’kumay hymn, and c) the kuerek’sni, to which is added d) the
colophon. It is noteworthy that the modal numbering consistently goes

52
Gvaramia, The Sinai Collection, III (see n. 28), p. 34, no. III.18.
53
Fol. 22r. Cf. Gvaramia, The Sinai Collection, III (see n. 28), p. 59, no. III.16 and
Bernard Outtier, ‘Un témoin partiel du lectionnaire géorgien ancien (Sinaï géorgien 54)’,
Bedi kartlisa 39 (1981), pp. 76-88, on p. 773, no. 24.
54
Edited in Lili Khevsuriani et al., eds., Liturgia Ibero-Graeca Sancti Iacobi: Editio –
translatio – retroversio – commentarii, Greek retroversion by Stéphane Verhelst, Jerusa-
lemer Theologisches Forum 17 (Münster, 2011), pp. 50-53.
55
The ms, accessible online in a colour photography
(http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etca/cauc/ageo/liturg/litjak/litja.htm), has been edited
twice: by Tarchnisvili (see below) and by V. Imnaishvili in უველესი ქართული
ხელნაცერები ავსტრიაში (The Most Ancient Georgian Manuscripts in Austria) (Tbilisi,
2004), pp. 266-294; the latter is employed by the online Titus edition. Graz Univ. Libr.
2058-4 has the following sequence (fol. 5r): ‘alleluia – kuerek’si – Gospel prayer’. The
word ‘kuerek’si’ has been added with larger letters, possibly by Zosime himself (the letters
are somewhat different from those of the text, but Zosime’s handwriting varied consider-
ably in the course of his life), partly in the open end of the line, partly in the margin, and
slightly above the writing base-line. Tarchnisvili has interpreted this slightly higher position
as if the word figured at the end of the previous line, which is highly improbable (Michael
Tarchnisvili, Liturgiae ibericae antiquiores, CSCO 122 [Louvain, 1950], p. 2,30).
44 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

from one to eight,56 excluding the division into two series, authentic and
plagal; it appears that this system may well be a novelty at the time.
By contrast, other features of SIN 47 seem to be archaic. First, it indi-
cates a litany at the ‘old’, Egerian position before the Gospel. Secondly,
as in Egeria, there is no hymnography at ps 133. Thirdly, like Egeria but
unlike the Ancient Iadgari,57 it places ps 13358 in the RO; this is surpris-
ing since the AI was copied and used within the same Georgian monastic
community of Palestine as was SIN 47.
The document’s partial affinity (selection of three psalms) with manu-
scripts copied at St. Sabas is also interesting inasmuch as one of these,
Sinai Georgian O.53, has the archaic feature of four Gospels instead of
eight.59 But further examination of this manual and the AI-E is needed
in order to draw any conclusions from this correspondence.60 In any case,
according to the colophon, SIN 47 is a direct source of the late 10th century
Greek rite of Sinai.
The scope of the manuscript is significant because it shows that the RO
in the consciousness of the scribe Iovane Zosime (and everything suggests
he is a representative case) constitutes a whole, particular liturgical unit.
All in all, SIN 47 proves to be a liturgical document of high value.

The Three Pre-Gospel Psalms and Their Prayers

The Identity of the Three Psalms

The first textual element of the Egerian RO is the group of three

psalms, all of which are performed not by chanter or choir, but by clergy
(presbyter, deacon, one of the clergy). The three psalms of HS 43 are
festal, related to Palm Sunday. All the sources I know of providing the
identity of three pre-Gospel Sunday psalms are peripheral. In the case of
some of these sources it is necessary first to identify in which psalmic
element they are to be found.
As noted above, it has been established that the three pre-Gospel
psalms in Egeria correspond structurally with those of the Armenian OW.

56
As in the Russian tradition.
57
The AI does not expressly mention ps 133, but it is presupposed by the ak’a
akurt’xevdit’sa hymnography (see PART II).
58
Egeria does not identify the psalm.
59
Sinai Georgian O.53, written at St. Sabas in the 9th-10th century, has four, not eight
resurrection Gospels. See PART II for a discussion of the development of the Gospel series.
60
A priori, it could be, for instance, that AI-E reflects Hagiopolite rather than Sabaite
liturgy (as does GEO, which also is part of Sinai Georgian O.34).
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 45

However, Findikyan has disclosed ‘a more complicated set of circum-

stances’ in the Armenian material than hitherto thought.61 Two psalms
are very stable: ps 43:26, with verse 23,62 and ps 145:10, with various
verses; as we shall see shortly, the Georgian material confirms these as
ancient pre-Gospel psalms. The third psalm is a problem. Not only does
a commentary attributed63 to Yovhannes Ojnec‘i, De magna die (7), refer
to the two above-mentioned psalms only, but the third psalm found in
other sources for various reasons can hardly constitute real, resurrectional
pre-Gospel psalms. Ps 112:1-3, the first psalm according to the Zama-
girk‘ from the earliest (A.D. 1284)64 manuscripts onwards, is absent from
both the Georgian material and the early Armenian commentaries and
also has a different form (doxology at the end); everything suggests it is
a late addition. The second psalms referred to by Yovhannes Ojnec‘i and
Step‘anos Siwnec‘i, ps 53:3 and ps 69:1 respectively, seem to be neither
very ancient nor resurrectional: they are absent from the (resurrectional)
Georgian material and they lack resurrectional themes.65 Significantly,
ps 53:3 figures as a first, fixed pre-Gospel psalm in the non-resurrectional66
Vigil ordo of a ‘Sabaite Cell Horologion’, a text contained in Sinai Geor-
gian O.34.67 It seems that the Armenian RO had only two pre-Gospel
psalms by the 8th century; given the general closeness of the structure
and the content of the OW to Hagiopolite and Palestinian documents, this
can only mean that a third psalm already had been lost.
Peter Jeffery has argued a correspondence of the Egerian RO with
later Palestinian and Byzantine sources. However, Jeffery treats the AI
indiscriminately as one single document;68 in fact, the edited AI is a

61
Findikyan, Siwnec‘i (see n. 13), pp. 388-389, quotation on p. 388.
62
Corresponding to vv. 27 and 24 in the Greek and Georgian Psalters, respectively.
63
Dubiously so, but it is probably a later compilation of excerpts from his works; see
Findikyan, Siwnec‘i (see n. 13), p. 267.
64
Venice San Lazzaro 629 (olim 677), employed as ms a in F. C. Coneybeare, Rituale
Armenorum (Oxford, 1905), on p. 454, §30.
65
Ps 69:1 could be explained as one of the many non-resurrectional or Lenten-resur-
rectional elements that Siwnec‘i incorporates into his commentaries; for instance, in the
RO section of his longer commentary (SS-L) he quotes a post-Gospel verse for Sundays
of Lent (Findikyan, Siwnec‘i [see n. 13], p. 132, n. 109).
66
Celebrated (the night before) Thursday and Saturday.
67
See a short presentation of this text in Frøyshov, ‘The Georgian witness to the Jeru-
salem liturgy’ (see n. 27).
68
In table IV (Jeffery, ‘Sunday Office’ [see n. 12], p. 75) he lists all pre-Gospel psalms
included in the AI edition without specifying from which manuscripts they have been
taken. On p. 65 he claims, ‘After the prokeimenon from the appropriate mode is recited,
it is invariably followed by Ps. 150:6, which the Iadgari includes in every mode.’ It is
true that the conglomerate Iadgari does that, but not every witness does (see table 1
46 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

conglomeration of several manuscripts, five in the case of the RO. It is

necessary to treat each AI manuscript separately. Admittedly, I shall be
arriving at the same general conclusion as Jeffery, but through a more
substantial procedure.
Again as noted above, Mateos and Winkler suggested that the cor-
respondents are the Polyeleos or the Amomoi.69 However, Gabriel Ber-
tonière’s uncovering of the structural analogy between Egeria and HS 43,
in the first place, shows that they are mistaken. Bertonière demonstrated
that the three psalms of Egeria correspond to the three psalms called by
HS 43 ‘epakousta’ or ‘antiphons.’ In the second place, the identity of the
third antiphon at the 10th century Resurrection cathedral (Pasa pnoê) gives
us a clear indication of what is the corresponding part of the Palestinian
and Byzantine Vigil. The Pasa pnoê of Palestinian and Byzantine Vigil
is therefore structurally identical with the third antiphon of HS 43 and,
since HS 43 corresponds closely with Egeria, with the third IE psalm.
This identification indicates that the Ancient Iadgari, in its Sunday
hymnography section,70 has preserved the three pre-Gospel psalms of the
RO.71 The liturgical structure to which they belong fits perfectly with
Egeria: they are followed by the gardamot’kumay hymn, just as the
Egerian Gospel is followed by a processional hymn.72 Finally, as we shall
see shortly, their title in some cases links them directly to the Gospel.
The Georgian material of the three psalms includes the AI73 and two

below). Cf. a similar statement concerning ps 145:10 on p. 66 and concerning both ps

150:6 and 145:10 on p. 68.
69
One could also think of the three Anabathmoi antiphons as a possible correspondent
to the three psalms of Egeria, but these certainly constitute a later addition.
70
AI edition, pp. 379-380, 395, 414-415, 435-436, 454-456, 472-473, 489, 505-506.
The Sunday Oktoechos of witness AI-B (which includes the RO), Sinai Georgian O.18,
has been translated into French: Charles Renoux, Les hymnes de la resurrection, 1: Hym-
nographie liturgique géorgienne. Introduction, traduction et annotation des textes du
Sinaï 18 (Paris, 2000). The AI witness Sinai Georgian O.20 does not include the pre-Gospel
psalmody in its Sunday Oktoechos.
71
Jeffery’s argument, that the resurrectional theme of the psalms shows that they
constitute pre-Gospel psalms, is not sufficient, since all psalmody and hymnography of
the Sunday Vigil had such a theme (Jeffery, ‘Sunday Office’ [see n. 12], pp. 67-69).
72
Strangely, Jeffery does not identify the gardamot’kumay with the hymn of IE, 24,11:
‘ducitur cum ymnis ad Crucem’ (Jeffery, ‘Sunday Office’ [see n. 12], table III, p. 74).
73
Sinai Georgian O.20 (AI edition, ms G) excludes the odes (‘canon’) and the three
pre-Gospel psalms. Tbilisi NCM H-2123 (AI edition, ms A), copied in Palestine in the
9th-10th c., contains a fragmentary Sunday Oktoechos (to a large extent incipits only,
and m1 and beginning of m2 only). The three pss of m1 are: 34:23, 81:1 and 150:6
(AI edition, p. 535,4-14), in other words, the same m1 selection as AI-F and Sinai Geor-
gian O.53.
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 47

other manuscripts: SIN 47 and Sinai Georgian O.53. The following table
gives all the Georgian data:74
TABLE 1. COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE THREE PRE-GOSPEL PSALMS OF THE
ANCIENT GEORGIAN RO ACCORDING TO PALESTINIAN WITNESSES

The psalm indicated is the refrain verse. In addition comes a verse usually taken from
11111the same psalm; that verse often varies between witnesses.757677787980

Mode AI-B AI-C AI-D AI-E AI-F SIN 47 Sin. O.53 Byzantine Armenian
76
mode 1 34:23 lacuna lacuna 34:23 34:23 34:23 34:23 11:6
81:8 81:8 81:8 81:8 81:8 150:6 All
150:6 145:10 150:6 150:6 150:6 modes:
145:10 150:677 145:10
m2 9:33 –79 7:7-8 7:7-8 58:580 58:5 58:5-6 7:7-8 43:2678
145:10
11:6 9:33 9:33 9:33 9:33 9:33 150:6
145:10 145:10 150:6 145:10 150:6 150:6 (the 8th c.
145:10 145:10 material
m3 43:27 43:24 43:24 43:24 43:24 43:24 43:24 95:10 has 3 pss,
73:22-23 43:27 43:27 43:27 73:22-23 43:27 43:27 150:6 with 69:1
144:13 73:22-23 73:22-23 150:6 150:6 150:6 150:6 or 53:3
as
144:13 150:6 144:13 144:13
second
144:13 psalm
m4 3:8 56:9 56:9 56:9 56:9 56:9 56:9 43:27 between
56:9 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:8 150:6 the two
145:10 145:10 145:10 150:6 145:10 150:6 150:6 above)
145:10 145:10

74
A list of the psalms of the AI is given in the commentary of the AI edition (pp. 888-
889) but, like Jeffery’s table IV, it is useless because it fails to distinguish between the
witnesses.
75
Verse numeration follows Mzekala Sanije, ფსალძუნის ველი ქართული
რედაქციები (The Ancient Georgian Redactions of the Psalter) (Tbilisi, 1960). There are
slight differences between the verse numerations of the particular Psalter versions.
76
The first eight folios of AI-C have been found (Sinai Georgian N.29), but are still
unpublished.
77
AI edition, p. 380, has the reverse order of the two last pss: ‘150:6-145:10’, as in
all the other modes of AI-E and as in all modes of SIN 47. However, on fol. 5r of the
manuscript Leipzig Univ. Libr. Cod. Ms. V 1096, whose part II contains fragments iden-
tified to Sinai Georgian O.34, it is clear that ps 145:10 has been added by Iovane Zosime
after writing the main text, since it figures partly in the right margin and with the rubric
სხუაჲ, ‘other’, supra lineam. The order of the other modes strongly suggests that the
order of m1 is the ‘lesser correct’ one of AI-E and it is further a fact that, incidentally,
Zosime copied m1 in full text at another place in the same codex and perhaps at later time
than the rest of the modes. At the same time, the case of m1 indicates that ps 145:10 for
Zosime had a less statutory position than ps 150:6, as shown also by its 4th and irregular
(descending ps order) position in the other modes.
78
Corresponds to Georgian 43:27.
79
No lacuna, but for some reason the cardgomani are lacking. The same is the case
with AI-D and AI-F, m3pl, and Sinai Georgian O.53, m2pl and m3pl.
80
Verse: ps 7:2.
 48 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

Mode AI-B AI-C AI-D AI-E AI-F SIN 47 Sin. O.53 Byzantine Armenian
mode 1 82:2-3 9:33 9:33 82:2-3 82:2-3 82:281 121:2 9:33 +
plagal 121:2 121:2 121:2 121:2 121:2 121:2 43:2482 37a All
145:10 145:10 150:6 150:6 150:6 150:6 modes:
145:10 145:10
43:26
m2pl 58:5-6 58:5-6 58:5-6 96:11 58:5-6 96:11 – 79:3 145:10
82:6 82:6 82:6 82:6 82:6 82:6 150:6
145:10 145:10 150:6 150:6 (the 8th c.
145:10 145:10 material
has 3 pss,
m3pl lacuna 73:22 – 73:22 – 73:22 – 9:33 with 69:1
43:27 43:27 43:27 150:6 or 53:3
150:6 150:6 150:6 as
144:13 144:13 second
psalm
m4pl lacuna 43:27 43:27 43:24 43:27 43:24 43:24 145:10 between
101:14 101:14 101:14 101:14 101:14 43:27 150:6 the two
145:10 145:10 150:6 145:10 150:6 150:6 above)
145:10 145:10
8182

The headings of the Georgian psalms vary between and within wit-
nesses. There are three main terms: წარდგოძაჲ, cardgomay; ფსალძუნი,
psalmuni; განიღჳჱ, ganigvije83. To these terms is sometimes added ‘of
Matins’ (could also be translated ‘of the morning’), or ‘of the Gospel’,
or both: ‘of the Matins (Holy) Gospel’ (could also be translated ‘of the
(Holy) Gospel of the morning’).84
In spite of a relatively significant variation between witnesses, an
analysis of the Georgian pre-Gospel psalmody shows that the overall
picture is not chaotic. The agreements between witnesses are sufficient
for us to suppose that behind them there lies a stable, single tradition, of
which two principles emerge (in addition to the selection of psalms).
First, although there are several examples to the contrary, there is a clear
global tendency for the psalms to follow each other in ascending order.
Second, the number of psalmic entities varies between two and four, in one
case even five, but it is probable that the number of actually performed

81
Incipit only.
82
This refrain has been omitted in the catalogue, which has only its verse 43:27 (Gvar-
amia, The Sinai Collection, III [see n. 28], p. 57)
83
This designation constitutes the first word of several psalm verses used in the
Georgian material: 34:23, 43:24, 56:9, and 58,5-6. The term წარეძართჱ, caremart’e, of
SIN 47 is unique – and strange. There is no relevant Psalter verse containing this word;
however, the word preceding the refrain ps 58:5-6 is the same except for one infix letter:
წარძეძართჱ, carmemart’e. It seems that Zosime here for some reason just added it to the
technical term. In any case, caremart’e is not a technical term.
84
წარდგოძანი ცისკრისანი, წარდგოძანი ცისკრად, წარდგოძანი სახარებისანი
ცისკრად, ფსალძუნი, ფსალძუნი ცისკრისანი, ფსალძუნი ცისკრად წძიდისა
სახარებისანი, განიღჳე, საცისკრონი განიღჳენი.
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 49

psalms was always three. In fact, the diverging numbers may easily be
explained: in the case of two psalms the missing psalm is always the
third, which was fixed (see below) and therefore seemingly presupposed;
in the case of four psalms there are two psalms that otherwise figure as
third psalm, in other words two third psalms, probably through the addi-
tion of a new fixed psalm (150:6, see below).
There is something peculiar about modes 3 and 3 plagal. The latter is
simply omitted in three of the six preserved Georgian witnesses. The two
modes are the only ones to lack ps 145:10, the last psalm of the OW,
but (like m4pl) mode 3 starts with ps 43 (24/27), the first one of the OW.
Iovane Zosime, after writing the first psalm of mode 3 plagal in AI-E,
simply refers the rest to the authentic mode: ‘all the rest [is] of mode
3’.85 It seems that the two first psalms of mode 3 plagal, 73 and 43,
following in descending order contrary to the general tendency, are just
the reverse of pss 43 and 73 of the authentic mode 3, found in several
witnesses.
One of the terms used in HS 43 to designate the three psalms, ântí-
ƒwnon, implicitly suggests a feature of their nature. Admittedly, Egeria
does not use this term here, while using it frequently for other rites, but
rather just psalmus. But there is strong evidence according to which ‘anti-
phon’ was a technical term designating the smaller units, today known
as the 60 doxai, of the Hagiopolite Psalter from an early age.86 And as a
matter of fact, many of the pre-Gospel psalms are identical to the first
psalm of an antiphon of the Hagiopolite (= Byzantine) and Armenian
Psalters: first of all the two Armenian psalms, 43 and 145; further, pss
7, 9, 11, 34, 58, 82 and 101 of the Georgian material.87 These correspond-
ences suggest that the three pre-Gospel RO psalms to begin with embraced
not only one single psalm but a whole antiphon. However, quite early the
antiphon was reduced to the first psalm and the link between pre-Gospel
RO psalms and the Psalter antiphons weakened to the effect that new RO

85
სხუაჲ ყოველი გ ჴძისაჲ (AI edition, p. 489, n. **). He does exactly the same in
SIN 47: სხუაჲ ყოველი გ ჴძისაჲ იძსახურე, ‘[for] all the rest, use [that] of mode 3’
(Gvaramia, The Sinai Collection, III [see n. 28], p. 53).
86
For sources and a broader study I refer to my article in progress on the early Psalter
divisions of the Palestinian and Antiochian liturgical spheres, to appear in Hristianskiî
Vostok in 2012. Let me here mention just one source for the term ‘antiphon’ designating
the smaller Psalter units (in the Byzantine rite called ‘doxai’), the 9th c. Hagiopolite Psalter
Sinai Greek 30.
87
These pss do not constitute the first ps of an antiphon of the Hagiopolite and Arme-
nian Psalters: 3, 56, 73, 81, 96, 121, 144 and 150.
50 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

‘antiphons’ would be chosen that were not the first psalms of Psalter
antiphons.88

Development of the Selection of Three Psalms

It is known that the Gospel reading introduced by the three psalms

underwent a development in which the Gospel series increased from four
to eight (see next chapter); one would suspect a similar development for
the pre-Gospel psalmody. In fact, the Armenian tradition suggests an even
earlier first stage consisting of three fixed psalms. The following consid-
erations, based on the existing peripheral sources, aim at reconstructing
the development of the three pre-Gospel psalms of the Hagiopolite RO:
a) Pre-octotonal stage: three fixed psalms. A suggested dating would be
until the 4th-5th century. Presumably, the whole psalm was sung. The
Armenian OW reflects such a stage. Mode 3 of the Georgian wit-
nesses, which sticks out in the first quadruple mode series, could rep-
resent the original, pre-octotonal melody and psalm selection: pss 43,
73, and 144. The first psalm of mode 3, ps 43, is also the first of the
OW.89 In SIN 47 the second prayer before the three psalms quotes ps
43:27, which suggests that in spite of its position it was actually the
prayer of this psalm. The first word of v. 23 is identical to one of the
Georgian titles of the three psalms (ganigvije), the only title taken
from a psalm, a fact also suggesting that ps 43 was pristine.90 Other
particular RO features of mode 3 confirm the impression that this
mode constituted the original set:
– in mode 3 only, Pasa pnoê is followed by a prayer exclamation in
SIN 47;
– the particular length of the post-Gospel hymn in mode 3 (see PART II);
– mode 3 seems to be the single original ‘mode’ of the ps 133 hym-
nography (see see PART II);
– in several cases mode 3 plagal equals mode 3, as if mode 3 was so
important that one did not want to ‘disturb’ it by a different plagal
mode.

88
For more details again I refer to my article in progress.
89
But it is should be observed that there exist two different refrains taken from this
ps: 43:24 and 43:27 and that the one for m3 is not the same as the Armenian one. It is
difficult to say whether this divergence is important. In several cases the 2nd m3 ps is
exactly 43:27; perhaps there was some vacillation between them.
90
The two OW psalms are also found in three Georgian m4 pl, but in my view the
series pss 43, 101, and 145 is less likely to have been the fixed, pre-octotonal psalms.
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 51

b) Early-octotonal stage: four modes of three psalms. As for the quad-

ruple Gospel series91 a 5th century dating is probable. The octotonal
system was now working, the four modes just being repeated in weeks
5-8. As far as I know, no quadruple series of three psalms has been
preserved, unlike that for the Gospel. But we probably come close to
it in the case of Sinai Georgian O.53, in which the psalms are followed
by a quadruple Gospel series. This witness omits plagal modes 2 and
3, its mode 4 plagal is nothing but a copy of mode 3, and its mode 1
plagal is strange in light of the relative stability of that of all the other
witnesses. Modes 1-4 of Sinai Georgian O.53, to which the corre-
sponding modes of AI-CDEF and SIN 47 come very close (AI-B here
stands somewhat apart), could then possibly be linked with the sec-
ond, four mode stage of Jerusalem. The fact that ps 145:10 figures
last in all modes except modes 3 and 3 plagal,92 in all the Georgian
material except AI-F, suggests that it was now the fixed third psalm
of modes 1, 2 and 4. It is also the third psalm of the OW, which in
that case would mean that not all the pre-Gospel psalmody of the OW
is pristine, in spite of its pre-octotonal nature.
c) Fully-octotonal stage: eight modes of three psalms. A suggested dat-
ing would be the 6th century (based on the dating of the AI). In the
creation of four new modes some psalms were reused. In a group of
witnesses Pasa pnoê is the third psalm of all eight modes: AI-E, SIN 47,
and Sinai Georgian O.53; the other witnesses have it once or twice.93
When Pasa pnoê (ps 150:6) figures it comes in most cases second
to the last, followed by a psalm with a (necessarily) lower number
(ps 145:10, 144:13 in modes 3 and 3pl); it is the rule in AI-E and
almost always in SIN 47. This seems to indicate that Pasa pnoê was
imposed at a later stage, pushing the existing last psalms to a fourth
position.94 The introduction of Pasa pnoê as the fixed third psalm
could also have been local; the preserved sources indicate the Resur-
rection cathedral (HS 43, 10th c.) and possibly St. Sabas (AI-E and the

91
Stig Simeon R. Frøyshov, ‘The Early Development of the Eight Mode Liturgical
System in Jerusalem’, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 51 (2007), pp. 139-178, on
pp. 158-161, 172.
92
And, strictly speaking, except AI-E, m1 (cf. n. 77 above).
93
Lacunas prevent us from knowing exactly how many.
94
The procedure appears most clearly in mode 4 plagal; if one removes ps 150:6 from
the two that have it, all four AI witnesses have almost (the verse of ps 43 differs) identical
three psalms. The presence of ps 150:6 in AI-E is further a systematic difference between
AI-D and AI-E, which otherwise are mostly similar.
52 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

9th-10th c. Sinai Georgian O.53, both copied at the Great Lavra). How-
ever, the copying of a manuscript at the Great Lavra of course does
not necessarily mean that its content is of Sabaite tradition, and fur-
ther research on the AI part of the mostly Sabaite manuscript AI-E is
needed in order to determine whether it reflects a Sabaite practice.95
The New Iadgari does not seem to contain the RO material; neither
does the earliest Greek Oktoechos source.96

Not only the Pasa pnoê of HS 43 but also the Georgian material helps
us to understand what is the correspondent in Byzantine Sunday Matins
to the three Hagiopolite psalms. Like in HS 43 and the three Georgian
witnesses, Pasa pnoê is fixed in a last or third position.
Before Pasa pnoê there is a prokeimenon, and with the exception of
two psalms (79:3 and 95:10), all of them are represented in the various
Georgian sources.97 The two pre-Gospel responsorials of the contempo-
rary Byzantine rite therefore represent a shortened form of three psalms.98
There is one particular match between the present order and one of the
sources: AI-E at mode 2; further, in two cases, mode 2 and mode 1
plagal, the prokeimenon is identical to the first Georgian psalm. In addi-
tion to the prokeimenon, Pasa pnoê, as already said, is consistently pre-
sent as the last psalm before the Gospel in two of the Georgian sources.
The appendix reflecting the Byzantine rite which was added to the
10th century Jerusalem Holy Cross 40 (Typikon of the Great Church), has
the same psalms as in the present Byzantine rite: prokeimenon (8 modes)
and Pasa pnoê.99

Prayers of the Three Psalms

Egeria clearly describes the reading of a prayer following each psalm,

without specifying who reads them. In light of the clear presence in the
IE of such prayers the meager evidence of them in later sources is sur-
prising. While HS 43100 and, seemingly, the Armenian material have no

95
As noted above, GEO, a part of this codex, does not have a Sabaite character.
96
A 9th c. manuscript divided into three: Sinai Greek 1593 – London British Library
Add. MS 26113 – Sinai Greek 776.
97
As noted by Jeffery, ‘Sunday Office’ (see n. 12), p. 65.
98
This is proof that the Polyeleos and Amomos do not belong to the RO.
99
Le Typicon de la Grande Eglise, vol. II, ed. Juan Mateos, Orientalia Christiana Ana-
lecta 166 (Rome, 1963), pp. 170-174. Note that plagal modes 3 and 4 have three psalms.
100
The RO of HS 43 actually does not positively prescribe any prayer at all.
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 53

trace of prayers after the three (or two) psalms, the Palestinian and Byz-
antine ones do have some trace. As we have just seen, the second prayer
of SIN 47, ‘You who are God before the ages’, in spite of its location in
the manuscript before the three psalms, is probably the prayer of ps 43:27,
one of the first psalms, possibly the original (pre-octotonal) first psalm.
Within Byzantine tradition, the exclamation ‘ÊOti †giov e˝, ö Qeòv
™m¬n’, figuring usually after the pre-Gospel prokeimenon, occasionally
after Pasa pnoê,101 seems to presuppose the preceding body of a prayer,
that is, a prayer of one of the three psalms.

Pre-Gospel Litany and Prayers

The section of the RO between the 3rd psalm and the Gospel is quite
complicated and the identification of units and structures in the different
sources requires a deeper analysis than what has been possible in this
work. The question of prayers before and after the Gospel will be treated
here because of the difficulty of distinguishing clearly between litany
prayer and pre-Gospel prayer.
The evidence would allow the reconstruction of several more or less
ideal sequences of liturgical elements. At the one end of the scale,
although no single source contains it, I would for the later first millennium
(7th-8th c. onwards) RO set up as the fullest possible pre-Gospel prayer
sequence the following: ‘3rd ps – prayer – litany – prayer – pre-Gospel
prayer – Gospel – post-Gospel prayer’. At the other end of the scale one
may envisage a sequence in which there is a single, ‘multi-functional’
prayer: ‘3rd ps – litany – prayer – Gospel’. In the latter case the litany
could be seen as extending the short dialogue commonly preceding
prayers, ‘Let us pray to the Lord’ — ‘Lord, have mercy’, and the prayer
has the triple function of relating to both the third psalm, the litany and
the Gospel, in a way analogous to Baumstark’s view that the Egerian
commemoratio omnium belongs to the prayer of the third psalm.

Litany with Prayer

Egeria reports a ‘commemoration of all’: ‘fit et oratio et commemoratio

omnium’ (24,9), which does seem to represent a litany. The commemo-
ratio omnium is separated from the preceding prayer of the third psalm

101
As the 12th-13th c. Sabaite Typikon Sinai Greek 1095, fol. 9r.
54 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

by ‘et’, which suggests that the two elements are distinct, while in
Egeria’s résumé that follows immediately she speaks only of the three
psalms just ‘said’ and the three prayers just ‘done’ (24,10). Baumstark
interprets this as if the prayer of the third psalm and the litany coalesce.102
Concerning the nature of the commemoratio, Mateos admits two possi-
bilities: a simple episcopal commemoration, as in daily Matins (24,2) or
a diaconal litany, as in daily Vespers (24,5).103 I do not agree with Mateos
that there is necessarily a quantitative difference between the bishop’s
and the deacon’s commemoration; in both cases there seems to be a
‘certain’ number of names commemorated. In these three cases the same
noun, commemoratio (RO and Vespers), is used, or the corresponding
verb, commemoro (Matins), and the function of this kind of intercession
in the IE is to commemorate persons by name and to pray for each one.
The place of the commemoratio in Egerian Matins and Vespers is towards
the end of the offices. In fact, in the same two offices of GEO there is a
‘Catholic kuerek’si (litany)’ towards the end (fol. 2r8 and 24r13); the
nature of this litany is precisely prayer for a number of people, as well
as for various good things. Baumstark was certainly right in interpreting
the ‘commemoratio omnium’ of the Egerian RO as ‘das große litanei-
mäßige Gebet allgemeiner Fürbitte’.104
While the Armenian material has no evidence of a litany or prayer at
this place of the RO,105 the Georgian one does. Significantly, as noted
above, at this very same place of the RO, or almost, SIN 47 implicitly
locates a Sunday morning kuerek’si (litany). Thematically this kuerek’si
relates both to Sunday, to the Gospel and to general intercession. Peti-
tions 1-7, practically identical to those of Sinai Georgian O.12 and O.54
and seemingly constituting a stable unit, have the following themes: spir-
itual illumination (1-3), resurrection (4-5), and the Gospel (6-7). The
following four petitions of SIN 47, marked only by incipit, have limited
correspondence in the similar kuerek’sni of the two other witnesses (peti-
tions 9 and 11 respectively). The theme of petition 8 concerns the Fathers,
especially hierarchs, of petitions 9 and 11 - general intercession. Petition
10 of the kuerek’si of SIN 47 consists of the phrase ‘And that we may
be counted worthy’, without doubt pointing to the Gospel (‘… of hearing

102
Anton Baumstark, Nocturna Laus (Münster, 1956), p. 82.
103
Bermejo Cabrera, La proclamación (see n. 24), does not deal with this word.
104
Baumstark, Nocturna Laus (see n. 102), p. 82.
105
But the OW has a proclamation (litany) towards the end (see PART II).
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 55

the Holy Gospel’).106 The content of petition 10 is found at the same

place in Sinai Georgian O.53, in which after the three psalms107 follow
the rubrics ‘უფლისა ძიძართ [ვილოცოთ]’, which translates ‘ToÕ
Kuríou [dejq¬men]’, normally to be followed by ‘Kúrie, êléjson’
(absent from this ms.), and ‘ღირს ყოფად [ჩუენდა სძენად წძიდისა
სახარებისა]’, which translates ‘Kaì üpèr toÕ kataziwq±nai [™m¢v
t±v âkroásewv toÕ ägíou Eûaggelíou.]’.108
We note, then, that the litany of SIN 47 partly has a resurrectional
character and partly, somewhat as the commemoratio omnium of Egeria,
has an element of general intercession; also the exclamation of the
following (lost) prayer is resurrectional and, as hypothesised above, the
prayer might not have been related to the Gospel. For this reason we may
consider this kuerek’si as ‘post-psalmic’.
HS 43 also prescribes in its RO a litany, called synaptê (11,5-6); it
comes before and not after the three psalms. It is possibly related to the
Egerian commemoratio omnium, but in that case it has been relocated in
a manner opposite to the way I interpret the SIN 47 kuerek’si to have
been relocated. The latter question will be discussed in the second part
of the article.

Gospel Prayers

One could expect there to be both a pre- and a post-Gospel prayer in

the RO, like in the Divine Liturgy of St. James.109 But to my knowledge
only one document, whose tradition is not even ascertained at present
but could be Palestinian, contains such prayers. The newly discovered
Euchology Sinai Greek NE MG 53, dated to the 8th-9th century,110 has
two prayers with titles attaching them to the Gospel (Megaleion) of an

106
The ms. reads ღირს ყოფად და სძენად, but there is no doubt that this should be
corrected to ‘ღირს ყოფად [ჩუენ]და სძენად’. However, the phrase is absent from the
same kuerek’si in the redaction of Sinai Georgian O.12.
107
In all six modes included by the document except m1pl (Gvaramia, The Sinai Col-
lection, III (see n. 28), p. 57, no. VI, erroneously excludes mode 1).
108
The fact that this phrase in Byzantine practice receives a triple ‘Lord, have mercy’
suggests that it has a litany character. It therefore seems that the Byzantine rite here pre-
serves a debris of the early pre-Gospel litany.
109
Khevsuriani et al. eds., Liturgia Ibero-Graeca Sancti Iacobi (see n. 54), pp. 50-55.
110
Archbishop Damianos et al. (eds.), Tà néa eürßmata toÕ Sin¢ (Athens, 1998),
p. 150, photo 75. Only the edition and thorough study of this document will determine the
tradition to which it belongs, but it seems to be Palestinian.
56 S.S.R. FRØYSHOV

office called Nykterinê: ‘Eûx® toÕ megaleíou toÕ nukterinoÕ’ and

‘Eûx® metà tò megaleíon toÕ nukterinoÕ’.111 A Nykterinê office with
a Gospel could hardly be anything other than the RO.112
Neither the Armenian nor the Georgian material, as for instance the
Georgian version of the Jerusalem Euchology (Sinai Georgian O.12,
O.54 or O.66), is known to have preserved a pre- or post-Gospel prayer
of the RO. The only Georgian document which could possibly have a
pre-Gospel prayer is SIN 47. However, it is impossible to say whether
the exclamation found in SIN 47 belongs to a prayer of the Gospel or just
of Sunday since the body of the prayer is found neither in SIN 47 nor in
any Euchology. SIN 47 places the incipit of this exclamation between the
psalms and the Gospel. As noted above, the text of the full exclamation
is found towards the end of the manuscript, directly preceded by the
Sunday morning kuerek’si (litany). The exclamation may be translated
thus: ‘For you are the true Light and the eternal King, who rose from the
dead and illumined our souls by your resurrection [a few undeciphered
letters], and to you we offer glory, with the Father and the Holy Spirit,
now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen’ (fol. 84rv). What we do find
in this exclamation is the theme of resurrection, but it cannot be excluded
that the body of the prayer relates to the Gospel. However, the absence
in the ancient Georgian Euchology of a prayer for the Sunday morning
Gospel would suggest that the prayer in question was not a pre-Gospel
prayer. In the same direction points the irregular addition of the JAS pre-
Gospel kuerek’si and prayer; this addition could be interpreted as provid-
ing what the Sunday morning prayer was not, a pre-Gospel prayer.
It would also seem that the Sunday morning pre-Gospel prayer, found in
Sinai Greek NE MG 53, was composed in Jerusalem after the translation
of the ancient Georgian Euchology. In other words, it seems that the
Jerusalem RO did not have a Sunday morning pre-Gospel prayer (and
presumably no post-Gospel prayer) during the 5th-6th century.
In Byzantine material the prayer of the psalms appear somehow blurred
with a pre-Gospel prayer. A number of Byzantine113 Euchologies from

111
Dechiphered by myself at Mount Sinai (the codex was not paginated).
112
No other night office has a Gospel reading, and the Sunday Gospel is primary to
that of feasts. The very early date of this Euchology manuscript corroborates another
implication: that the daily office presupposed by it dates from before the fusion of Noc-
turns (with Hexapsalm and ps 133) and Matins.
113
The presence of a Gospel prayer shows that the divine office presupposed by the
Euchology in question is that of the Palestinian tradition, since the rite of Constantinople
did not have a Sunday Matins Gospel.
 RESURRECTION OFFICE OF THE JERUSALEM LITURGY 57

the 10th century onwards contain a prayer before the Gospel,114 ‘‰Ellam-
con ên ta⁄v kardíaiv ™m¬n’,115 and another after it.116 The location of
the pre-Gospel prayer did however vary, figuring sometimes after the
prokeimenon as in the 13th century Greek Euchology Patmos 105,117
sometimes after Pasa pnoê as in the 16th-17th century Georgian Euchol-
ogy Tbilisi NCM A-450.118 The fact that the prayer ‘‰Ellamcon ên ta⁄v
kardíaiv ™m¬n’, which directly relates to the Gospel reading through
the phrase ‘t¬n eûaggelik¬n kjrugmátwn’, could figure before the last
psalm signals rather the collapse of original structures.

(Continuation and conclusion in PART II).

114
Their identity emerges from Arranz’ listing of 92 Euchologies, in which he employs
the Gospel prayer as a distinguishing criterion in his typology of witnesses (Miguel Arranz,
‘Les prières presbytérales des matines byzantines’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 38
(1972), pp. 64-115).
115
Edited in L’Eucologio costantinopolitano agli inizi del secolo XI, ed. Miguel Arranz
(Rome, 1996), p. 94.
116
For instance Sinai Greek 959 (A. A. Dmitrievskij, Opisanåe liturgiweskihé
rukopiseî, hranqÏihsq vé biblåotekahé Pravoslavnogo Vostoka, vol. II [Kiev,
1901], p. 52).
117
Ibid., p. 163; also the 16th c. Georgian Euchology Tbilisi NCM 208 (Kornilij Keke-
lidze, Liturgiweskåe gruzinskåe pamqtniki vé otewestvennxhé knigohraniliÏahé
i ihé nauwnoe znawenåe (Liturgical Georgian Documents in National Libraries and Their
Scientific Significance) [Tbilisi, 1908], p. 165).
118
Kekelidze, Liturgiweskåe gruzinskåe pamqtniki (see n. 117), p. 145.