1

The Prophetologion and the triple-lection Theory - the Genesis of a Liturgical Book1
Sysse Gudrun Engberg, University of Copenhagen
Bolletino delle Badia greca di Grottaferrata, Terza serie, vol.3, 2006, 67-92.

The Roman and the Byzantine church share the custom of reading only two Biblical lessons during
eucharist (Divine Liturgy): the first reading is from the Epistles of Saint Paul or the Acts, and the second
from the Gospels. Our earliest liturgical manuscript sources for these two rites have no trace of a reading
taken from the Old Testament (OT). Nevertheless, it is commonly accepted that the eucharist of the
ancient Roman and Byzantine church included the OT, and most scholars agree that there were three
lections read in the orderly pattern of one OT lection, one Epistle, and one Gospel lection. 2 In the
following I shall call this the triple-lection theory.

It is generally assumed that this OT reading disappeared, some say in the 5th century, others in the 7th or
8th century. In his handbook on the Byzantine Church Hans-Georg Beck stated:3

Die altbezeugte Prophetenlektion kennt die heutige Chrysostomos-Liturgie nicht mehr. Man nimmt
an, dass sie um das 8.Jahrhundert verschwand.

These OT readings were supposedly contained in a lectionary called Prophetes:4

Zur Ergänzung der Messformularien für die einzelnen Feste dienten der Apostolos und das
Euangelion mit den Episteln und Evangelien des Jahres, d.h. mit den Perikopen. (...) Etwa bis zum
8.Jahrhundert gehörte zu diesen Perikopen aus der Hl.Schrift auch der Prophetes, d.h. die Sammlung
der alttestamentlichen Perikopen, die jedoch um diese Zeit aus der byzantinischen Literatur
verschwanden.

The statement that the lectionary of OT lections disappeared in the eighth century is somewhat
astonishing, considering that the manuscript tradition of the OT lectionary (prophetologion) is said to
have begun in the eighth century. The same mystery remains in the entry prophetologion, written by
Robert F.Taft, in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium:

The prophetologion developed in the 7th-8th C. after the Old Testament lection had been eliminated
from the Constantinopolitan Eucharist in the 7th C. (Mateos, La parole 131-33) and achieved its final
form ca.800 (ODB, 1737).
____________

1 Christian Thodberg suggested to me a long time ago that this problem was worth looking into. For this, as well as
for his generous support of my studies into the prophetologion over the years, I am extremely grateful.
2 Cf. e.g. the article “biblical literature”, Encyclopedia Britannica Online: “As the liturgies grew longer and more
elaborate, the biblical readings were reduced, and the New Testament gradually displaced the Old Testament. (...) No
Old Testament lesson remained in the Greek or Russian liturgy or in the Roman mass”, or R.J.Mainstone, Hagia Sophia
- Architecture, Structure and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great Church, New York 1997, 277 (about the eucharistic liturgy in
Hagia Sophia at the time of Justinian): “At all events there would have been three readings, all from the ambo, by
appointed lectors and a deacon. First a reading from the Old Testament, then the Epistles, and then the Gospel”.
3 H -G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Byzantinisches Handbuch, 2.Teil,
1.Band, München 1959, 242.
4 Beck, op.cit. 249, with reference to: A.Rahlfs, Die alttestamentlichen Lektionen der griechischen Kirche,
Nachrichten der Ges. der Wissensch. zu Göttingen 1915, Heft 1; A.Baumstark, Nichtevangelische syrische
Perikopenordnungen des ersten Jahrtausends, Münster 1921; G.Kunze, Die gottesdienstliche Schriftlesung,
Göttingen 1947.
 2

This is a paradox: how, and why would the lectionary of the OT develop after the elimination of the
OT lection?

The presumed eucharistic OT reading

The origin of the assumption that an OT lection was read during eucharist in Constantinople is
difficult to trace. However, the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities from 1875-1880 regarded this as a
well-known fact:

The Old Testament was read, it is believed, universally at the celebration of the eucharist in the
first liturgic period. Thus Justin Martyr, A.D.140, describing that service: “the commentaries of
the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read as time permits” (Apol.1,67).5

The theory has been universally accepted. In 1908, de Meester6 described the liturgy of S.John
Chrysostom as it supposedly was before the eighth century, including the three lections:

Les lectures étaient faites par les anagnostes et se composaient de trois parties distinctes, étant
empruntées aux livres des Prophètes, aux épîtres des Apôtres et aux Saint Évangiles. Entre
chacune d’elles, les psaltes exécutaient quelques psaumes responsoriaux.

He states that the OT readings have diappeared, except in the liturgy of the Presanctified and in the
Great Vigils:

Les lectures de l’Ancien Testament ne sont plus d’usage aujourdh’ui, si ce n’est pas dans la
liturgie des Présanctifiés et aux grands vigiles de l’année, où l’office des Vèpres ne fait qu’un avec
la liturgie.

Some scholars seem to have overlooked the fact that the OT readings were quite well established in
the Byzantine church on the weekdays of Lent and during some vigils, the practice to which de
Meester refers. He apparently envisioned two separate systems:

1) a hypothetical system of OT lections at the eucharist in Constantinople, needed for the triple-
lection theory; this I shall call eucharistic OT reading

2) the system of OT lections read during Lent and at the eve (paramone) of certain feasts during the
year, a system still in existence today, which I shall call the prophetologion repertory.

It is not quite clear how de Meester imagined the exact relationship between the two systems to have
been, but he seems to imply that they co-existed until the moment when the eucharistic OT readings
disappeared, while the prophetologion repertory remained. Baumstark also refers to both systems in
the following quote, even if it is unclear what he means by “demgemäss”. Does he imply that they co-
existed, or that the prophetologion repertory was created in order to compensate for the early loss of
the eucharistic OT reading?
____________

5 Dictionary of Christian Antiquities: being a continuation of the Dictionary of the Bible, ed.Willian Smith &
Samuel Cheetham, 1875-1880, ii.1009, s.v. Prophecy, liturgical.
6 P.de Meester, “Les origines et les développements du texte grec de la liturgie de s. Jean Chrysostome”,
Χρυσοστομικα' - Studi e ricerche intorno a S. Giovanni Crisostomo, Roma 1908, 324 and 325.
 3

Die Perikopenordnung der orthodoxen morgenländischen Kirche (...) ist (...) wenigstens
unmittelbar die Ordnung Konstantinopels, das eine für seine frühchristliche Liturgie durch
Chrysostomos bezeugte regelmässige alttestamentliche Messperikope frühzeitig verloren hat. Eine
liturgische Verwendung des A.T. als Lesestoffes ist demgemäss hier wesentlich auf das kirchliche
Tagzeitengebet beschränkt.7

Other scholars seem to have presumed that the OT readings were simply rearranged and moved from
the eucharist into the evening services.

In his pioneer study of the prophetologion repertory, A.Rahlfs stressed that reading from the Old
Testament in Byzantium was (as it still is) restricted to the preparatory services,8 and he also showed
in some detail how the homilies of John Chrysostom reflect a daily reading from Genesis in the
evening service of Lent around the year 400 in Constantinople itself, even if he was not sure whether
this included Saturdays and Sundays at the time of Chrysostom. He did, however, maintain that the
OT reading must have belonged in the eucharist in an ancient universal usage, since it is found in the
Latin West (referring to Duchesne), in the Armenian church (attested by the Council of Dvin in
AD 527), and in the Syrian church (Jacob of Edessa c.AD 700); he also referred to the testimonies of
Justin Martyr, the Apostolic Constitutions, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximos Confessor
in support of the triple-lection theory.9 He dated the creation of the prophetologion repertory to the
seventh century, mainly on the basis of quite complicated and speculative considerations about the
length of Lent on the one hand, and on a reference to Maximos Confessor, on the other. He appears to
have thought that an extended recitation of OT lections every day, including Saturdays and Sundays,
which the Byzantine church originally knew, was gradually restricted to the usage which I have called
the prophetologion repertory.10

The presumed universal common Urform

The triple-lection theory is mainly based on the assumption that a universal common Urform of the
eucharist liturgy later diversified. It is supposed that in this process only a few churches retained the
original OT element of the eucharist, whereas it was lost or supplanted by NT lections in most
churches. In the words of Duchesne:

Il y avait toujours deux leçons à la messe, l’évangile non compris. La première (lectio prophetica)
était tirée de l’Ancien Testament, la seconde des Épîtres apostoliques. (...) L’usage de
Constantinople au temps de saint Chrysostome comportait aussi la triple leçon prophétique,
apostolique, évangéliaire.11

Duchesne seeks confirmation of the universality of the triple-lection system by parallels drawn to the
lectionary of Luxeuil, the Mozarabic practise, the sacramentary of Bobbio, and the Armenian church.
He suggests that the OT reading disappeared from the Roman and Byzantine church in the fifth
century12 and admits that there is no liturgical manuscript tradition, neither in Rome nor in
Constantinople, to support the triple-lection theory:
____________

7 Baumstark, Nichtevangelische, 2-3.

8 Rahlfs, Alttest.Lekt., 124: “Niemals kann das A.T. in einer Vollmesse gelesen werden”.
9 For a discussion of these sources, see below.
10 Rahlfs, Alttest.Lekt., 124-125.
11 L.Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, cinquième édition revue et augmentée, Paris 1920, 206.
12 Duchesne, op.cit., 178-179, even though he finds the existence of the eucharistic OT reading confirmed for
the seventh century in the Life of Theodore Sykeota, a contradiction that he does not try to explain.
 4

La suppression de la leçon prophétique, à Rome, a dû se faire dans le courant du cinquième siècle.

C’est vers le même temps qu’elle fut aussi opérée à Constantinople. La liturgie arménienne, qui est
une forme ancienne de la liturgie byzantine, comporte encore les trois leçons, tandis qu’il n’y en a
plus que deux dans les plus anciens livres liturgiques de rit byzantin.

The hypothesis of a universal Urform with three lections was implied in works by earlier scholars
such as Hammond, Swainson and Brightman, and subsequently taken for granted by Baumstark,
Hanssens, Jungmann, Mateos, Bornert, and Taft. To quote just one example, taken from the
fundamental work on Byzantine liturgy by Juan Mateos, where the passage from Maximos is the only
reference given for the claim:

L’église byzantine, en effet, possédait autrefois trois lectures à la Liturgie: prophétie, apôtre et
évangile, tout comme les Églises romaine, milanaise, hispanique, gallicane et arménienne. 13

However, the existence in other churches of a triple-, or multiple-lection system is no proof that it was
ever used in the Byzantine church or, for that matter, in the ancient Roman liturgy. In fact, the idea,
crucial to the triple-lection theory, of an original and universal Urform, from which all rites developed
and diversified, is problematic and rests on speculation. Rather, the opposite seems to be true: the
diversity of the early, local rites, known from the comments of Church fathers and Byzantine
historians, underwent an increasing standardization.

The idea of an original and universal triple-lection system, according to which three lections (Old
Testament, Epistle, Gospel) were eventually reduced to two (Epistle, Gospel) in the Byzantine and
Roman eucharist, has indeed been an axiom ever since Devreesse, Hanssens and Baumstark. Few
scholars have felt the need to refer to the sources on which this assumption rests, or to question its
validity. However, P.Batiffol pointed out already in 1920 that the triple-lection usage is not Roman,
but Wisigothic and Gallican,14 and Pierre-Marie Gy also voiced some doubts. More recently,
A.G.Martimort has claimed that the triple-lection theory lacks sufficient proof and that the sources
should be reexamined without preconceived notions.15 The Danish theologian H.Villadsen has studied
the homilies of Severian of Gabala, a contemporary of John Chrysostom, and found that they support
Martimort’s contention that the two NT readings (Epistle and Gospel) for the eucharist in
Constantinople are very old, whereas no proof of a eucharistic OT lection can be found. 16

The sources
Conceding that the assumption of an Urform, out of which the known liturgies would have developed
and which must therefore have contained all the elements of these later liturgies, is not by itself
sufficient proof of the theory, it becomes necessary to turn to an analysis of the early sources quoted
as proof of the triple-lection theory. Most of the sources were conveniently listen by Hanssens in
1932.17
Hanssens quotes the testimony of Justin Martyr, Apologia i.67 (c.150 AD) as proof of an early and
perhaps homogeneous reading practice which, as he admits, already from the first centuries must have
____________

13 J.Mateos, La célébration de la Parole dans la Liturgie byzantine - Étude historique, Roma 1971, 130 (OCA
191).
14 P.Batiffol, Leçons sur la messe, 1920, 128-129.
15 A.G.Martimort, “A propos du nombre des lectures à la messe”, Revue des sciences religieuses 58, 1984, 42-
51.
16 H.Villadsen, “Two, Three or Four Lessons in Constantinople in the Fourth Century?” Unpublished paper for
the Oxford Patristic Conference, August 2003.
17 J.M. Hanssens, Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus orientalibus, iii: De missa rituum orientalium, Pars altera
(Romae 1932), 160-163, nos. 939-942.
 5

delevoped into a great many different systems where selection of Biblical books and numbers of
readings varied from place to place. Hanssens lists five different groups: the Asiatic-Byzantine
including Constantinople, the Armenian, the Syrian including Jerusalem and Antioch, the Malabaric,
and the Egyptian.
The sources quoted by Hanssens for the Asiatic-Byzantine group and interpreted in favour of the
triple-lection theory are:

- the Council of Laodikeia, canon 16 and 59

- Basil the Great:
In sanctum Baptisma 1 (PG 31,425 AB)
In psalmum 28.7 (PG 29,304)
Homilia habita in Lacizis 1 (PG 31,1437 CD)
- John Chrysostom:
In epistolam ad Hebraeos homil.viii,4 (PG 63,75)
In Actus apost. homilia xxix,3 (PG 60,217)
In ii ad Thessalonicenses homilia iii (PG 62,485)
In Actus apost. homilia xix, 5 (PG 60,156)
In ii ad Thessalonicenses homilia iii (PG 62,484)
- Maximos Confessor:
Mystagogia 10, 23, 24 (PG 91,689 B, 700 A, 704 B)

The following passages, which some scholars quote as proof of the triple-lection theory, are by
Hanssens understood as sources for the Syrian rite:18

- Constitutiones apostolorum viii,5 and ii,57

- John Chrysostom, homilies held in Antioch:19
Ad populum Antiochenum vii,1 (PG 49,92-93)
In epist.ad Roman.xxiv,3 (PG 60,625)
In i ad Cor.xxxvi,5 (PG 61,313)
- Ps.Dionysios the Areopagite
De ecclesiastica hierarchia 3,2 (PG 3,425 B)

As to the Commentarius liturgicus, or Church History20 ascribed to Germanos, who was patriarch of
Constantinople AD 717-730, Hanssens cannot decide whether it should be taken in favour of a
eucharistic OT reading, or the opposite. However, most other scholars maintain that this text has no
sign of a prophetic reading and that it proves that the OT lection was absent by the time of Germanos.
In fact, Mateos and others refer to two key sources for the triple-lection theory: the one passage from
the Mystagogia of Maximos Confessor taken to prove that “the Law and the Prophets” were still read
during the eucharist in the 7th century, and the passage from Germanos which, according to the
traditional interpretation, shows that the OT reading “must have disappeared” from the eucharist in
the late 7th century, some time between these two church fathers.21
____________

18 Hanssens, op.cit., 164 (nos. 945-947).

19 Moreover, Hanssens refers to five passages, irrelevant for the present study: De baptismate Christi, 2 (PG
49,365), which only mentions an epistle of Paul; In psalm. 117,1 (PG 55,528), In psalm.144,1 (PG 55,464), In
Matth. ii,5 (PG 57,30), and In i Cor.xxxvi,7 (PG 61,315), which all refer to the singing of OT Psalms.
20 F.E.Brightman, “The Historia Mystagogica and other Greek commentaries on the Byzantine liturgy,”
Journ.Theol.Stud. 9, 1908, 257-267, 387-397; St.Germanus of Constantinople, On the Divine Liturgy,
ed.P.Meyendorff, 1984.
21 Mateos also interprets a few anomalies in the reading pattern of Hagia Sophia in the 10th century as proof of
the triple-lection theory, cf. La parole, 130-133, and Le Typicon de la Grande Église i, 153 n.4 (Christmas eve), 181
 6

Misunderstandings and ambiguities

Several factors blur the picture. Some of the scholars who developed the theory in the late 19th
century do not seem to have been aware of the fact that the Byzantine church had OT readings in
other services than the eucharist, i.e. the prophetologion repertory, and therefore they tended to
interpret any OT reading mentioned by the sources in favour of the theory, even if the source in
question does not place the OT reading in the context of the eucharist. Once the theory was
established, it seems to have blinded scholars to any other possible interpretation. The Life of
Theodoros of Sykeon, often quoted in proof of the liturgical OT reading in the early seventh century,
may serve as an example.22 Even if, as P.-M.Gy observes, the passage is relevant only for Asia Minor
where Theodore lived, and not for Constantinople itself,23 there is to my mind no reason to consider it
as referring to the eucharist at all.
The passage in question24 describes the hardships to which the saint subjects himself before Easter,
during an even longer period than the six weeks of Lent. Immediately after Epiphany (January 6), he
creeps into a dark cave dug under the bema of the church, and there he remains until Palm Sunday.
Yet, even before the beginning of this agony of isolation he tortures his flesh:

...in the night of Epiphany, when some clerics and laymen gathered around him, he would descend
with them from the martyrion to the passage at the brook (ε’ ν τη^, διαβα' σει του^ υ« δατος), and he
alone would descend into the water and stand there until the Prophet and the Epistle and Gospel
reading, as well as the rest of the liturgy, were over (ι«στατο ε« ως ου“ πα^ σα η‘ προφητικὴ καὶ
α’ ποστολικὴ καὶ ευ’ αγγελικὴ α’ να' γνωσις σὺν τη^, λοιπη^, λειτουργι' α, ε’ γι' νετο), and after the completion
of these elements he could barely pull his feet free from the mud and the ice crystals. Then he
would return to the oratory. And when the day broke, after celebrating the feast he would descend
into his subterranean trench (etc).

The moment when Theodore descends into the shallow stream is not during eucharist, but at the eve
(paramone) of Epiphany. Alone of all he enters25 into the water and stays there for so long that his
naked feet can barely be freed again of the mud and solid ice crystals in which they are encased. In
order to stress just how long Theodore stood in the cold water, his biographer tells us that he held out
through the Prophetic, the Apostolic and the Gospel readings and the whole liturgy. Far from
indicating that a Prophet lection was read during the liturgy, on the contrary the passage refers the
eve, known from 9th-century Constantinople and attested by the lectionaries, when twelve OT
pericopes were recited in succession followed by Epistle and Gospel, or perhaps only to the
____________

n.4 (Epiphany eve); ii, 75 n.5, 81 n.4, 87 n.1 (Easter eve). Yet, it is stretching the evidence too far to claim that these
few instances reflect an ancient usage, especially because in three cases (Easter, Epiphany and Christmas) this
depends on Mateos’ undocumented claim that the original number of OT readings was seven. The arrangement and
the number of OT readings for these three feasts is known from the 9th century and we can only guess how far back
this particular arrangement goes; however, in this form it depends heavily on the number three, not seven.
22 Duchesne, Origines, 178, note 4; J.A.Jungmann, Missarum Solemnia. Eine genetische Erklärung der
römischen Messe, 1949, 488 note 3: “Eine prophetische, eine apostolische und eine evangelische Lesung bezeugt
mehrfach Chrysostomus (...). Die prophetische Lesung ist noch erwähnt im Leben des hl. Theodor Sykeota”.
23 Pierre-Marie Gy, “La question du système des lectures de la liturgie byzantine,” Misc.lit. in onore
di..G.Lercaro, 1966-67, 261: La vie de S.Théodore Sykeota (...) apporte un témoignage solide pour l’Asie mineure
mais non pour Constantinople.
24 Vie de Théodore de Sykéon, i: Texte grec par A.J.Festugière, Bruxelles 1970, 13-14 (ch.16); also in
Θεο' φιλος ’ Ιωα' ννου, Μνημει^α α‘ γιολογικα' , Βενετι'α 1884. A Latin translation of the text is found in Acta Sanctorum
Aprilis iii, ch.16, p.36.
25 The imperfect past indicates that he did this every year.
 7

subsequent Blessing of the Waters followed by pannychis and orthros.26 The singular form,
προφητικὴ (α’ να' γνωσις), is easily understood as “the lump of OT readings”. The whole point of the
story is the length of Theodore’s sufferings with his feet in the cold water and, indeed, had there been
only one Prophet reading, his ordeal would not have been as great.

The term “prophecy”

Another factor which may confuse the reader is the tendency in medieval texts to refer to the OT
psalms as prophecies about Christ, something which modern scholars have interpreted as OT prophet
texts, instead of psalms. One early example is found in Egeria’s description of the rite of Jerusalem in
the late fourth century:

37.5: (part of Good Friday) is taken up with readings. They are all about the things Jesus suffered:
first the Psalms on this subject, then the Apostles (the Epistles or Acts) which concern it, then
passages from the Gospels. Thus they read the prophecies about what the Lord would suffer, and
the Gospels about what he did suffer.27

Egeria perceives both the OT psalms and the Epistle as “prophecies” about Christ, whereas the
Gospels relate directly to Christ.28 In the 5th century, Augustine mentions only two lections, both
from the NT, as the norm during the Mass and when he does talk about a third “lection” from the OT,
he thereby intends the OT psalm sung between the Epistle and the Gospel readings.29 In the same
vein, the essay ascribed to Germanos (7-8th c.) identifies the OT psalms as “prophecies”, whether
they function as antiphons or prokeimena:

The antiphons of the liturgy are the prophecies of the prophets, foretelling the coming of the Son
of God (ch.23)
The prokeimenon, on the other hand, indicates the revelation and prophecy of the prophets about
the coming of Christ (ch.28)30

Maximos Confessor
The passage perhaps most frequently referred to as proof of the triple-lection theory is ch.23 of the
Mystagogia by Maximos Confessor. The greater part of this treatise (ch.8-24) expounds the elements
of the eucharist on two levels, the “general” (γενικω
^ ς) and the “particular” (ι’ δικω
^ ς), working its way
through the liturgy five subsequent times. The readings are mentioned in four instances, as “the divine
readings from the all-holy books” (ch.10), “the recited divine readings (ch.23), “the divine sayings”,
____________

26 Cf. J.Mateos, Le Typicon de la Grande Église i, 176-184; Prophetologium i, 57-92.

27 In the translation by Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels, 1971, 137. The Latin text: “...aliud nichil fit nisi leguntur
lectiones sic: id est ita igitur primum de psalmis, ubicumque de passione dixit; legitur et de apostolo siue de epistolis
apostolorum uel de actionibus, ubicumque de passione Domini dixerunt; nec non de euangeliis leguntur loca, ubi
patitur; item legitur de prophetis, ubi passurum Dominum dixerunt; item legitur de euangeliis, ubi passionem dicit.”
(Égérie, Journal de voyage, ed. P.Maraval, 1982, 286f.)
28 It should be noted, however, that Maraval translates “item...item” differently from Wilkinson: “on lit ensuite
dans les Prophètes...enfin on lit dans les Evangiles”.
29 P.Batiffol, Leçons sur la messe, 1920, 102.
30 On the divine liturgy, ch.23: Τὰ α’ ντι'φωνα τη^ ς λειτουργι'ας ει’ σὶ τω
^ ν προφητω^ ν αι‘ προρρη' σεις
προκαταγγε' λλουσαι τὴν παρουσι'αν του^ Υι‘ ου^ του^ Θεου^ , and ch.28: Τὸ προκει'μενον μηνυ' ει πα' λιν τὴν τω ^ ν προφητω^ ν
ε’ κφαντορι'αν καὶ προμη' νυσιν τη^ ς του^ Χριστου^ παρουσι'ας, quoted from P.Meyendorff, op.cit., 72-73, and 78-79.
F.E.Brightman, op.cit., 248-267 and 387-397, prints a slightly different version of these two passages on pp.265 and
287, e.g. πα' λιν μηνυ' ει, which is better Greek and makes better sense.
 8

and “the recited readings” (ch.24).31 On the general level they are interpreted as signs, or symbols, of
God’s will and plan, on the particular level they point to the teaching and the progress in faith of the
congregation.32 These “readings”, referred to in general terms and without specification, are set apart
from the reading of the Gospel, which receives separate mention in all four instances.
Only once, and that in a very complex and intricate passage, is there explicit mention of the Old
Testament. In ch.23 Maximos treats the first entrance of the liturgy, understood as a symbol of the
virtues of the soul, and continues with the elements that follow upon the entrance, that is, “the
readings”, the chants, and the Gospel:33

There (the soul) learns, by symbols of the divine readings which take place, the principles of
beings and the marvelous and grand mystery of divine Providence revealed in the Law and the
Prophets, and it receives in each, by the beautiful instruction divinely given in them through the
holy angels who spiritually communicate to it the true understanding, the peaceful meanings with
the strengthening and preserving enchantment of the divine and ardent desire for God by means of
the spiritual appeal of the divine chants singing in it mystically. And consider again how the soul
passes beyond this and concentrates on the one and only summit, the holy Gospel (...)34

This is the crucial passage where the expression “the Law and the Prophets” is taken as proof that
there was an OT lection at the eucharist in Constantinople. Against this, it may be argued that
Maximos here refers to the divine Providence revealed in the OT, and not to the readings themselves,
and that the words “the Law and the Prophets” should not be taken too literally in the sense of
“OT lections”.
However, if this passage is indeed to be read as stage directions for the liturgy, the reading of two OT
lections, but no Epistle, would be highly anomalous, and it would not resemble any known reading
programme, except perhaps the one referred to in the second book of the Apostolic Constitutions
where it is stated that the catechumens must leave the church “after the reading of the Law and the
Prophets and the Gospel”.35 However, even if such a reading programme did exist, the liturgical usage
reflected in the Apostolic Constitutions is now generally presumed to be that of Syria. Based on what
we know, it seems extremely unlikely that the liturgy in 7th-century Constantinople should contain
two OT lections, but no reading from the Epistle.

Remains the puzzling fact that the Mystagogia does refer to readings, mentioned in the plural and
separately from the Gospel, and therefore difficult to identify with a single lection from the Epistles.
____________

31 Maximus Confessor, “Mystagogia”, PG 91, 689B: τὰς θει'ας τω^ ν πανιε' ρων βιβλι'ων α’ ναγνω' σεις (ch.10);
700A: τω ^ ν γινομε' νων θει'ων α’ ναγνωσμα' των (ch.23); 704B: τω ^ ν θει'ων λογι'ων and 705C: τὰ γινο' μενα α’ ναγνω' σματα
(ch.24).
32 PG 91, 705: γενικω^ ς με' ν, τὰ θει^α θελη' ματα' τε καὶ βουλη' ματα (...) ι’ δικω ^ ς δε' , τὴν κατὰ τὴν πι'στιν
διδασκαλι'αν καὶ προκοπὴν τω ^ ν πιστευσα' ντων (ch.24).
33 PG 91, 700: καὶ ω‘ ς διὰ συμβο' λων τω ^ ν γινομε' νων θει'ων α’ ναγνωσμα' των, τοὺς τω ^ ν ο» ντων (τὴν ψυχη' ν)
διδασκομε' νην λο' γους, και` τὸ θαυμαστὸν και` με'γα τη^ς ε’ν νο'μω, και` προφη'ταις δηλουμε'νης θει'ας προνοι'ας μυστη'ριον·
καθ’ ε«καστο' ν τε δεξαμε' νην, υ‘ πὲρ τη^ ς ε’ ν του' τοις καλη^ ς μαθητει'ας θεο' θεν διὰ τω ^ ν α‘ γι'ων δυνα' μεων, νοερω^ ς κατὰ
δια' νοιαν αυ’ τη^, διαλεγομε' νων, τὰς ει’ ρηνοδω' ρους σημειω' σεις, μετὰ τη^ ς ρ‘ ωστικη^ ς καὶ συντηρητικη^ ς θε' λξεως, τη^ ς
θει'ας καὶ διαπυ' ρου κατὰ Θεὸν ε’ φε' σεως, διὰ τη^ ς μυστικω ^ ς υ‘ πα, δομε' νης αυ’ τη^, νοητω ^ ς τω ^ ν θει'ων α’, σμα' των η‘ δονη^ ς.
Πα' λιν ε’ κ του' των μεταβαι'νουσαν, καὶ συναγομε' νην ε’ πὶ τὴν μι'αν καὶ μο' νην καὶ ε‘ νιαι'ως του' τους συλλαμβα' νουσαν
τοὺς λο' γους κορυφη' ν· λε' γω δὲ, τὸ α«γιον Ευ’ αγγε' λιον (κτλ).
34 Maximos Confessor, Selected Writings, transl. George C. Berthold, 1985, 2040. In the German translation
the crucial quote reads: “und wie durch gleichnishafte göttliche Lesungen die Sinngehalte der Dinge und das grosse
in Gesetz und Propheten geoffenbarte Geheimnis der göttlichen Vorsehung erlernt”, H.U.von Balthasar, Kosmische
Liturgie - Das Weltbild Maximus’ des Bekenners, 1961, 394.
35 Les Constitutions Apostoliques ii.39, ed M. Metzger i, 1985, 268 (Sources Chrétiennes 320).
 9

Maximos the Confessor (c.580-662) lived in Constantinople in his youth and even became the
secretary of the emperor Herakleios, but he withdrew to a monastery already c.613, and from c. 630
onwards he lived in northern Africa. The Mystagogia is thought to have been written at this later stage
and should perhaps not be read as a source for the rite of Constantinople.36 Yet another argument
against the usual interpretation of this passage is offered below.

Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite

The essay Ecclesiastical Hierarchy was thought to be the work of Dionysios the Areopagite, a
contemporary of the apostles, but in modern times it has become generally accepted that its author,
now called Pseudo-Dionysios, lived in the late fifth or early sixth century and may have been a native
of Syria. A passage in the second chapter of this work (PG 3, 425 B) is often listed as proof of the
triple-lection theory:

(The hierarch) begins the sacred singing of the psalms and the entire assembly joins him in the
holy language of the Psalter. Then the deacons begin the reading from the holy (hagiograph)
tablets, after which the catechumens leave the sacred precincts (Pseudo-Dionysius, the complete
works, transl. C.Luibheid, P.Rorem, R.Roques, 1987, 210, slightly modified)37

The “reading from the holy tablets” (η‘ τω

^ ν α‘ γιογρα' φων δε' λτων α’ να' γνωσις) must include the Gospel,
since the catechumens are sent away immediately afterwards, but do they also refer to an OT reading?
Hanssens seems to think so and, in fact, the expression hagiograph tablet is used later in the text, in
ch.iv (PG 3, 429C), about the entire Bible, both OT and NT. However, the adjective hierographos
appears in ch.v, which treats the same moment in the liturgy as the previous quote, and this time it
clearly refers to the NT alone:

When these sacred hymns, with their summaries of holy truth, have prepared our spirits to be at
one with what we shall shortly celebrate (...) then whatever resumé and whatever opaque outline is
offered by the sacred chanting of the psalmody is expanded by the more numerous, more
understandable images and proclamations in the sacred readings of the holy texts (hierograph
writings)... This is why it is right that in succession to the older tradition one proclaims to the
world the New Testament. It seems to me that this sequence, coming as it does from God and
prescribed as it is by hierarchical order, demonstrates how the one forecast the divine works of
Jesus, while the other described how he actually achieved them. The one wrote truth by way of
images, while the other described things as they happened. (Transl. C.Luibheid al., op.cit., 214.).38

____________

36 Pierre-Marie Gy also had his doubts as to the proof value of this passage, cf. “La question du système des
lectures de la liturgie byzantine,” Misc.lit. in onore di..G.Lercaro, 1966-67, 261: “le P.Hanssens a pensé trouver
dans la Mystagogie de S.Maxime la preuve qu’ il y avait encore trois lectures au viie s.; j’avoue que les textes
allégués me paraissent peu convaincants.”
37 PG 3, 425 BC: ‘Ο μὲν ι‘ ερα' ρχης (...) α’ πα' ρχεται τη^ ς ι‘ ερα^ς τω ^ ν ψαλμω^ ν μελω, δι'ας, συνα, δου' σης αυ’ τω ^, τὴν
ψαλμικη' ν ι‘ ερολογι'αν α‘ πα' σης τη^ ς ε’ κκλησιαστικη^ ς διακοσμη' σεως. ‘ Εξη^ ς δὲ διὰ τω ^ ν λειτουργω ^ ν η‘ τω^ ν α‘ γιογρα' φων
δε' λτων α’ να' γνωσις α’ κολου' θως γι'νεται· καὶ μετὰ ταυ^ τας ε» ξω γι'νονται τη^ ς ι‘ ερα^ς περιοχη^ ς οι‘ κατηχου' μενοι.
38 PG 3, 432 AB: «Οταν ου” ν η‘ περιεκτικὴ τω ^ ν πανιε' ρων υ‘ μνολογι'α τὰς ψυχικὰς η‘ μω ^ ν ε«ξεις ε’ ναρμονι'ως διαθη^,
πρὸς τὰ μικρὸν υ« στερον ι‘ ερουργηθησο' μενα (...), τὰ συντετμημε' να καὶ συνεσκιασμε' να μα^λλον ε’ ν τη^, νοερα^, τω ^ν
ψαλμω ^ ν ι‘ ερολογι'α, διὰ πλειο' νων καὶ σαφεστε' ρων ει’ κο' νων καὶ α’ ραρ’ ρ‘ η' σεων ευ’ ρυ' νεται ται^ς ι‘ ερωτα' ταις τω ^ν
ι‘ ερογρα' φων συντα' ξεων α’ ναγνω' σεσιν. (...) ο« θεν ει’ κο' τως ε’ ν κο' σμω, μετὰ τὴν α’ ρχαιοτε' ραν παρα' δοσιν η‘ καινὴ
Διαθη' κη κηρυ' σσεται, τη^ ς ε’ νθε' ου καὶ ι‘ εραρχικη^ ς τα' ξεως ε’ κει^νο, οι”μαι, δηλου' σης, ω‘ ς η‘ μὲν ε» φη τὰς ε’ σομε' νας ’ Ιησου^
θεουργι'ας, η‘ δὲ ε’ τε' λεσε, καὶ ω‘ ς ε’ κει'νη μὲν ε’ ν ει’ κο' σι τὴν α’ λη' θειαν ε» γραψεν, αυ« τη δὲ παρου^ σαν υ‘ πε' δειξε.
 10

Here there is talk of two elements of the liturgy, the psalms (the sacred hymns) on the one hand, and
the readings from the Scriptural texts, characterized by the adjective hierographos, on the other. The
psalms represent the older tradition, that is the Old Testament, which gives the congregation an
opaque outline of that which the subsequent reading from the New Testament shall reveal clearly; the
Old Testament is a preparation for the New, and therefore the sequence OT psalm - NT reading is
godgiven. It appears from this passage that for Ps.-Dionysios, as for Egeria and Germanos, the OT
psalms “prophecy” the events of the NT and are perceived as representative of the OT as such. The
passage also shows that hierographos may designate the NT alone. Consequently, there is no reason
why the hagiograph tablets of the first quote should include the OT.

The Mystagogia by Maximos Confessor is closely related to the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Maximos
even wrote a commentary to this work and in his scholion on the above-quoted passage from Ps.-
Dionysios he explains that the OT psalms foreshadow the readings of the Scriptures (η‘ τω ^ ν Γραφω
^ν
α’ να' γνωσις), i.e. the NT. In this scholion (PG 4, 140-141) the Psalms are referred to as synonymous
with the Old Testament, as fully representative of the old tradition which must be read before the New
Covenant is revealed. Maximos’s comment refers to the exact moment in the liturgy where the
eucharistic OT reading is supposed to have been placed. However, he only refers to OT psalms, while
not mentioning an OT reading with one word. If he had been familiar with a eucharist of the triple-
lection type, he would surely have mentioned it here.

The Apostolic Constitutions

The work called Apostolic Constitutions, divided into eight books, is a compilation of ecclesiastical
law and liturgical matters. It is thought to have been composed in Syria, maybe in Antioch (others say
Alexandria or Rome) in the late 4th century.39 The eighth book is based on the Apostolic Tradition of
Hippolytus, a 3rd-century ecclesiastical rite thought to reflect the early liturgy, the so-called “Clement
Liturgy”.

OT readings are mentioned five times in the Constitutiones apostolorum. One of these instances does
not refer to the eucharist but to Easter eve, for which it prescribes reading from “the Law, the
Prophets, the Psalms until the cocks crow” (v.19,3),40 in agreement with the traditional service for this
feast, both in Byzantine and other rites.

Readings from OT and Gospel - but not Epistle - at the eucharist are mentioned in two instances:

ii.39,4: the catechumens must leave after “the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the
Gospel41
ii.59,3-4: on Sunday (also on Saturday?), there are “readings from the Prophets and proclamation
of the Gospels” before the eucharist42

In ii.39 the Law and the Prophets are mentioned, in ii.59 only the Prophets, but both agree in not
mentioning the reading of an Epistle, thus resembling the passage from Maximos Confessor discussed
above. It is not clear whether this reflects an actual rite, or whether is is just an imprecise description.

____________

39 Metzger, Const.Ap., i.55-56.

40 Metzger, Const.Ap., ii.270: α’ ναγινω' σκοντες τὸν Νο'μον, τοὺς Προφη'τας, τοὺς Ψαλμοὺς με'χρις α’ λεκτρυο'νων
κραυγη^ς.
41 Metzger, Const.Ap., i.268: μετὰ τὴν α’ να'γνωσιν του^ Νο'μου και` τω^ ν Προφητω^ ν και` του^ Ευ’αγγελι'ου.
42 Metzger, Const.Ap., i.324-326: Προφητω^ ν α’ ναγνω' σεις και` Ευ’αγγελι'ων κηρυκι'α.
 11

The two passages quoted by Hanssens (ii,57 and viii,5) are more precise, but they do not quite agree,
neither with each other, nor with the first two quotes:

ii.57, 5: And let the reader stand in a lofty place and read the books of Moses, and of Joshua the
son of Nun, and of the Judges and the Kings, and the Chronicles, and the books after the return
from Babylon, furthermore from Job and Solomon and the sixteen prophets. And after the readings
have been recited two at a time, someone else shall rise up and sing the hymns of David, and the
people shall sing the refrains. Then our Acts shall be read, and the Epistles of Paul, our fellow
worker (and then the four Evangelists are read)43

viii.5,11, in the context of the ordination of a bishop: “the reading of the Law and the Prophets, our
Epistles and Acts and the Gospels”.44

Whereas the first two quotes mentioned only OT and Gospel, these texts agree in adding two more
NT readings chosen from the Acts and the Epistles (the sequence is reversed in viii.5: Epistles and
Acts). The shorter one (viii.5,11) brings to mind the syro-antiochene usage mentioned by Hanssens
(p.158) which, however, has three OT lections as opposed to the two of our quote.

The longer quote (ii.57, 5) is radically different from any of the others, and it has been interpreted
differently by various scholars. It prescribes recitation of a number of OT lections in blocks of two
and separated by OT psalms, followed by readings from Acts, Epistles, and all four Gospels. This
structure is otherwise unknown, and even though a massive reading program such as this is not in
itself impossible, it is difficult to imagine all these lections to be read in every single eucharist.
Probably the intention of this text is to make an inventory of all books from which readings might be
selected, not a list of prescribed lections for every service. At any rate, the OT books here specified
include some which are not part of the prophetologion repertory and a connection with the Byzantine
reading system is unlikely. No scholar places the origin of the Apostolic Constitutions in
Constantinople and the city is never mentioned in its text.45 The Council in Trullo of 691 condemned
almost the entire work as a heretical forgery, which makes it hard to believe that it could indeed
reflect the rite of Constantinople. If these texts are to be taken literally, they disagree so much
between themselves that they must reflect reading programs of different churches, and the chance that
the Apostolic Constitutions refers to the usage of Constantinople in very slim indeed.

Basil the Great

Basil the Great (c.329-379) was born and died in Caesarea in Cappadocia. He spent four or five years
in Constantinople and Athens in his youth, then became a Christian and subsequently travelled in
Syria and Egypt to seek out the most famous hermit saints. However, he soon settled in Pontos near
Roman Armenia where his family owned a monastery, and he must have spent a number of years here
before returning to Caesarea where he was ordained presbyter in 364/5 and bishop in 370/1.

____________

43 Metzger, Const.Ap., i.312: Με'σος δὲ ο‘ α’ ναγνω' στης ε’φ’ υ‘ψηλου^ τινος ε‘στὼς α’ ναγινωσκε'τω τὰ Μωυσε'ως και`
’Ιησου^ του^ Ναυη', τὰ τω^ ν Κριτω^ ν και` τω^ ν Βασιλειω^ ν, τὰ τω^ ν Παραλειπομε'νων και` τὰ τη^ς ’Επανο'δου, πρὸς του'τοις τὰ
του^ ’Ιὼβ και` τὰ Σολομω^ ντος και` τὰ τω^ ν ‘Εξκαι'δεκα προφητω^ ν. ’Ανὰ δυ'ο δὲ γενομε'νων α’ ναγνωσμα'των, ε«τερο'ς τις του^
Δαυι`δ ψαλλε'τω τοὺς υ«μνους, και` ο‘ λαὸς τὰ α’ κροστι'χια υ‘ποψαλλε'τω. (7) Μετὰ του^το αι‘ Πρα'ξεις αι‘ η‘με'τεραι
α’ ναγινωσκε'σθωσαν και` αι‘ ε’πιστολαι` Παυ'λου του^ συνεργου^ η‘μω^ ν.
44 Metzger, Const.Ap., iii.150: μετὰ τὴν α’ να'γνωσιν του^ Νο'μου και` τω^ ν Προφητω^ ν, τω^ ν τε ’Επιστολω^ ν η‘μω^ ν και`
τω^ ν Πρα'ξεων και` τω^ ν Ευ’αγγελι'ων.
45 Metzger, Const.Ap., i.56.
 12

Two of the three “proof-texts” quoted from Basil refer to a reading program containing OT lection,
OT psalm, Acts/Epistle and Gospel; the reversed sequence of the elements in the first passage
demonstrates that these quotes have a certain freedom of stylistic variation and should not be read as
an exact guide to the service:

In psalmum 28.7: recitation of (OT) psalm, prophecy, Gospel, preachings of the apostles46

In sanctum Baptisma 1 (PG 31,425 AB): prophecy (Isaiah 1.16), psalm (Ps.33.6), Epistle
(Act.2.38), Gospel (Mt.11.28).

In the sermon held “in Lacizis”, Basil refers explicitly to psalms and lections read in the morning:
OT psalms, Proverbs, “the histories” (i.e. the Law?), Epistle, Gospel.47 Two OT lections are
mentioned, but in general terms the pattern of this quote agrees with that of the first two texts.

Basil never lived in Constantinople after becoming a Christian, and considering that he spent most of
his life at the Eastern edge, or in the heart of Asia Minor, it is not likely that he, or his congregation,
should be intimate with the reading program of Constantinople. It has been suggested that his Homily
in Lacizis, an unknown location, belonged to those of Basil’s sermons that were preached in Roman
Armenia, perhaps in Satala (today: Sadagh), a town grown out of a Roman fortification.48 Apart from
the doubling of the OT lection in this sermon, all three passages imply a reading program similar to
that known from the Armenian church: OT lection, Epistle (or Acts), Gospel. Rather that reflecting
the distant Constantinople in his sermons, Basil might refer to the usage of a local church close to, or
even identical with the Armenian church.

John Chrysostom
Quotes from John Chrysostom have been used by Brightman, Duchesne, Baumstark and later scholars
as proof of the existence of a eucharistic OT reading.49 Chrysostom was bishop of Constantinople
around AD 400, and he is consequently a prime witness to the cathedral rite of Hagia Sophia. If
indeed he can be shown to refer to a eucharistic OT reading, the theory must be accepted as far as late
4th-century Constantinople is concerned. In reality, however, scholars have referred only to a handful
of passages, none of which has proof value, as I hope to be able to show in the following.

Each of the first five quotes forms part of a severe reprimand to the congregation for not paying
attention to the readings.

In Hebr.viii,4 (PG 63,75):

Even though these texts are read to us twice or three times a week, and the anagnostes, when he
has mounted (the ambon), starts out with the announcement of the author of the book (to be read),
____________

46 PG 29,304: Ψαλμὸν ε» χεις, προφητει'αν ε» χεις, ευ’ αγγελικὰ παραγγε' λματα, τὰ τω ^ ν α’ ποστο' λων κηρυ' γματα.
47 Homilia habita in Lacizis 1 (PG 31,1437 CD): ’Αναλε' ξασθε' μοι τὰς μνη' μας τω^ ν ε’ ξ ε‘ ωθινου^
παραναγνωσθε' ντων υ‘ μι^ν λογι'ων πνευματικω^ ν (..). Μνη' σθητε τω ^ ν ψαλμικω ^ ν διδαγμα' των· συναγα' γετε' μοι τὰς
παροιμιω' δεις υ‘ ποθη' κας· ε’ ρευνη' σατε τω^ ν ι‘ στοριω^ ν τὸ κα' λλος· προ' σθετε του' τοις τὰς α’ ποστολικὰς παραινε' σεις. ’ Επὶ
πα^σιν οι‘ ονεὶ κορωνι'δα ε’ πι'θετε τω
^ ν ευ’ αγγελικω ^ ν ρ‘ ημα' των τὴν μνη' μην (...).
48 S.R.Holman, “Rich City Burning: Social Welfare and Ecclesiastical Insecurity in Basil’s Mission to
Armenia,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 12:2, 2004, 213-215.
49 A.Baumstark (Nichtevangelische, 2) refers to: In Act.App. xix.5 and xxix.3, ii Thess.iii.4 and Hebr.viii.4;
Duchesne (Origines, 206) to: In Act.App.xxix.3.
 13

“From the prophet so-and-so”, or apostle, or evangelist... (Και' τοι καθ’ ε‘ κα' στην ε‘ βδομα' δα δὶς η› καὶ
τρὶς ταυ^ τα η‘ μι^ν α’ ναγινω' σκεται καὶ α’ νελθὼν ο‘ α’ ναγνω' στης λε' γει πρω
^ τον τὸ βιβλι' ον τι' νος ε’ στὶ, του^
δει^νος τυχὸν προφη' του, η› α’ ποστο' λου, η› ευ’ αγγελιστου^ ...)

In ii Thess. iii.4 (PG 62,485):

I would like to ask you, since you claim that you hear the same things every day, now tell me, from
which prophet is the reading taken and from which apostle or whose epistle? (’ Εβουλο' μην σου
πυθε' σθαι, ε’ πειδὴ τὰ αυ’ τὰ λε' γεις α’ κου' ειν καθ’ ε‘ κα' στην η‘ με' ραν, ει’ πε' μοι ποι' ου προφη' του ε’ στὶ τὸ
χωρι' ον τὸ α’ ναγνωσθὲν καὶ ποι' ου α’ ποστο' λου η› ποι' ου ε’ πιστολη^ ς;)

In Rom.xxiv,3 (PG 60,625):

...tell me which prophet, which apostle was read to us today, and what the contents were. But you
would not be able to tell. (ει’ πὲ τι' ς προφη' της, ποι^ος α’ πο' στολος ση' μερον διελε' χθη η‘ μι^ν, καὶ περὶ
τι' νων. ’Αλλ’ ου’ κ α› ν ε» χοις ει’ πει^ν·)

In Act. apost. xxix,3 (PG 60,217):

...so many prophets are conversing with you (i.e. recited to you) twice a week, so many apostles,
evangelists (τοσου' των μὲν προφητω
^ ν δευ' τερον τη^ ς ε‘ βδομα' δος υ‘ μι^ν διαλεγομε' νων, τοσου' των δὲ
α’ ποστο' λων, ευ’ αγγελιστω
^ ν...)

None of these four passages describes a reading program or places the readings in the context of the
eucharist, and Chrysostom does not imply that OT and NT books are recited in the same service. He
blames the congregation for not paying attention and his point is that the congregration has no excuse
for not knowing which texts are recited to them, because the anagnostes announces in advance which
Biblical book they are about to hear. When Chrysostom enumerates “prophet, apostle, (epistle),
evangelist”, this is a global expression underlining the universality of their lack of attention: no matter
which text is read to them, they do not listen. If a letter from the emperor were read in church,
everybody would pay attention, whereas nobody listens to letters coming from God, says Chrysostom:

In ii Thess. iii.4 (PG 62,484):

...letters coming from heaven are recited every day (...) (This one) comes from God, and the
prophet speaks from the heavens, and nobody listens
ε’ πιστολαὶ καθ’ ε‘ κα' στην η‘ με' ραν α’ πὸ του^ ου’ ρανου^ η« κουσαι α’ ναγινω' σκονται. (...) παρὰ δὲ του^ θεου^
η« κει, και ε’ κ τω
^ ν ου’ ρανω
^ ν φθε' γγεται ο‘ προφη' της, καὶ ου’ δεὶς ο‘ προσε' χων

One passage which deals with the contrast between pagan theater and Christian church does, however,
place a prophet in the context of the eucharist:50

Homilia iii de David et Saul, 2 (PG 54, 696-697):

...would you listen to the obscene talk of a whore with the same ears as you do when a prophet or
apostle is initiating you? would you receive the venomous poison, and the awe-inspiring and holy
offering (i.e. the eucharist), with the same heart?
ται^ς αυ’ ται^ς α’ κοαι^ς πο' ρνης α’ κου' ων αι’ σχρολογου' σης, καὶ προφη' του καὶ α’ ποστο' λου σε
μυσταγωγου^ ντος; τη^, αυ’ τη^, καρδι' α, τὰ δηλητη' ρια δεχο' μενος φα' ρμακα, καὶ τὴν θυσι' αν τὴν φρικτὴν
καὶ α‘ γι' αν;

But this passage does not necessarily refer to an OT prophet. Just like Egeria, Ps.-Dionysios the
Areopagite and Germanos, Chrysostom will sometimes designate the OT psalms “prophecies” and
____________

50 Referred to by Smith, Dictionary ii.1737.

 14

their author “prophet”, as when he introduces a quote from an OT psalm with the words “The prophet
, 51 The “prophecies” of the above quote may simply
says” (ο‘ προφη' της διαλε' γεται, ο‘ προφη' της βοα^).
refer to OT psalms.

In some cases Chrysostom does intend an OT prophet:

In Act.apost.xix.5 (PG 60,156):

the anagnostes begins the prophecy of Isaiah (α» ρχεται ο‘ α’ ναγνω' στης τη^ ς προφητει' ας ’ Ησαϊ' ου)

In i Cor.xxxvi.5 (PG 61,313):

when you hear the prophet saying “Thus says the Lord, ...” (ο« ταν α’ κου' ση, ς του^ προφη' του λε' γοντος,
Τα' δε λε' γει κυ' ριος...)

The setting in which the prophet reading appears is very similar to that of the cathedral rite of the 9-
10th century in Constantinople, as we know it from the Typicon of the Great Church or from the
prophetologion manuscripts. Again, Chrysostom does not connect these Prophet lections with the
eucharist; rather, they belong in the well-known context of the prophetologion repertory. There is
ample proof in Chrysostom’s texts of a daily reading from Genesis during Lent, e.g. “I shall talk about
the book (e.g. Genesis) which was read to you today”,52 and this must be a forerunner of the lenten
course reading from Genesis known from the 9th century onwards, perhaps even as early as the 6-7th
century.

The few passages from Chrysostom are normally quoted out of context as proof of the eucharistic OT
reading, but when regarded closely they do not, in fact, have proof value. However, it is obvious that a
thorough examination of the entire body of Chrysostom’s texts and of his use of the words
“prophecy” and “prophet” will be necessary in order to establish whether they may indeed contain
proof of the existence of such a reading.

Council of Laodikeia
The Council of Laodikeia in Asia Minor (4th century) established rules about the recitation of Psalms
and readings from the canonical books.

Canon 16: The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.

Canon 59: No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in
the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments

Canon 17: The Psalms are not to be joined together in the congregations, but a lesson shall
intervene after every psalm.53

____________

51 L. Brottier, Jean Chrysostome, Sermons sur la Genèse, 1998 (Sources Chrétiennes 433), 152 (Sermon i.111
= PG 54.583); 352 and 360 (Sermon viii.45 and 147 = PG 54.617 and 619).
52 Ad populum Antiochenum vii,1 (PG 49,92-93): τὸ ση' μερον η‘ μι^ν α’ ναγνωσθὲν μεταχειριου^ μαι βιβλι'ον.
53 Canon 16: Περὶ του^ ε’ ν σαββα' τω, ευ’ αγγε' λια μεθ’ ε‘ τε' ρων Γραφω ^ ν α’ ναγινω' σκεσθαι, Canon 59: ο« τι ου’ δει^
ι’ διωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς λε' γεσθαι ε’ ν τη^, ε’ κκλησι'α, , ου’ δὲ α’ κανο' νιστα βιβλι'α, α’ λλὰ μο' να τὰ κανονικὰ τη^ ς Παλαια^ς καὶ
Καινη^ ς Διαθη' κης, Canon 17: Περὶ του^ μὴ δει^ν ε’ πισυνα' πτειν ε’ ν ται^ς συνα' ξεσι τοὺς ψαλμου' ς, α’ λλὰ διὰ με' σου καθ’
ε«καστον ψαλμὸν γι'νεσθαι α’ να' γνωσιν.
 15

The main concern here is to prevent recitation of non-canonical books and singing of unauthorized
hymns in the church. Reference to readings is vague and inconclusive, and there is nothing which
implies that OT and NT texts were read during the same service.

Conclusion: the sources, the triple-lection theory and the Armenian connection
Out of the passages quoted in favour of the eucharistic OT reading and the triple-lection theory, most
can be dismissed as inconclusive or irrelevant. Some of them regard rites other than the
Constantinopolitan:
- Constitutiones apostolorum iii39.9; ii,57.5; ii,59.3-4, and viii,5.11 are now considered of
Syrian origin and may reflect a Syrian reading system
- Basil the Great, In sanctum Baptisma 1; In psalmum 28.7; Homilia habita in Lacizis 1 may
be interpreted as reflecting a local reading system, perhaps similar to that of the Armenian
church, to which Basil had close connections.

The reading system of the Armenian church, which alone of the Eastern churches has a triple-lection
program at eucharist, is universally referred to as proof that this was in use in the Byzantine church as
well. When the Armenian church then is said to be the only one to have retained the usage of the
Byzantine church, the circular argument is complete.54

Some texts use the term prophecy to indicate an OT psalm, not an OT reading:
- Ps.-Dionysios the Areopagite, Eccl. hier.3,2
- Maximos Confessor, scholion to Ps.-Dionysios, Eccl. hier.3,2
- probably also:John Chrysostom, In ii Thess. iii,4 (PG 62.484); Hom.iii de David et Saul

Other quotes are vague and inconclusive:

- Council of Laodikeia, canon 16, 17 and 59
- John Chrysostom, In Act.apost.xxix,3; In ii Thess. iii,4 (PG 62.485); In Hebr.viii,4; In
Rom.xxiv,3

A few quotes can be said with some certainty to refer, not to the eucharist, but to the prophetologion
repertory:
- John Chrysostom,In Act. apost.xix, 5; In i Cor.xxxvi,5; Ad populum Antiochenum vii,1
- Constitutiones apostolorum v,19.3 (Easter eve)
- Life of Theodore Sykeota 16 (Eve of Epiphany)

The only remaining source which could be interpreted as proof of a eucharistic OT reading is
Maximos Confessor, Mystagogia 23, which in its turn is contradicted by Maximos’s own scholion to
Ps.-Dionysios.

The prophetologion repertory and its lectionary

In fact, the theory of three lections at the eucharist rests on shaky ground, just as Hans-Georg Beck’s
Prophetes manuscript. However, the Old Testament was indeed recited from early on, not at the Holy
Mass, but mainly as preparation for baptism, and there did exist a lectionary containing these
readings, viz. the manuscript commonly known as Prophetologion, a term probably invented in the
____________

54 J.A.Jungmann, op.cit., 488: “Andere Liturgien haben wenigstens eine alttestamentliche Lesung neben zwei
neutestamentliche beibehalten, so die armenische, die hierin den älteren Brauch von Byzanz festgehalten hat”.
 16

18-19th century by a librarian or a scholar. This manuscript was fairly common in the 9th-14th
century, but its contents were gradually moved to other liturgical books, viz. the Triodion, the
Pentecostarion and the Menaia, and the Prophetologion went out of use. An edition of the Old
Testament lectionary was printed in Venice by Emmanouil Glynzounis in 1595/655 with the title
Βιβλι' ον λεγο' μενον ’Αναγνωστικο' ν (...), but it is apparent from its Preface that the editor was not
himself familiar with the book or supposed his readers to be so. However, that the lectionary was yet
far from extinct appears from the fact that Leon Allatios half a century later described the
prophetologion in a list of all three Greek lectionaries and their contents:56
1) the readings from the Gospels (the Evangeliarion),
2) the readings from the Acts and the Epistles (the Apostolos, or Praxapostolos), and
3) the readings from the Old Testament, a lectionary which Allatios calls α’ ναγνω' σεις, or
α’ ναγνω' σματα, in Latin Lectiones.

The liturgical book Prophetologion contains all the OT lections read in the Greek Orthodox church;
the Psalms do not belong in the OT lectionary since in the Cathedral rite they were never recited as
lections, but formed part of the sung repertory as prokeimena, hallelouia verses etc. The
prophetologion repertory is in many respects a tight-knit entity built around the lenten course readings
from Genesis, Proverbs, and Isaiah, and OT lections recited at the eve of selected feasts of the
movable and the fixed year. The repertory of the Byzantine OT lections became known to the
scholarly world only as late as 1981 with the completion of the edition of the Prophetologium,
initiated by Carsten Høeg under the auspices of the Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae, an edition on
which he worked until his untimely death in 1961. Unfortunately he never wrote a comprehensive
study of this liturgical book, which he may have had in mind when he stated that the prophetologion
could shed light on the text tradition of the Septuagint in Byzantium, the relationship between
tradition and renewal in Byzantine manuscript production, and the function of the ekphonetic notation
as guide to the understanding of the OT text,57 nor did he expand on the notion, set forth in the paper
“Remarks on the Prophetologion”,58 that the prophetologion repertory originated in Constantinople
and spread from there to the rest of the Byzantine Empire.

Carsten Høeg prepared the edition in collaboration with the Classical scholar Günther Zuntz, who
speculated on the origin of the Prophetologion in a paper read at the Byzantinological Congress in
Istanbul in 1955, and again in a reconstruction of a papyrus fragment of Proverbs from the third-
century59 where he attempts to establish a close relation between the papyrus text and the
corresponding Proverbs pericopes of the Prophetologion and reaches a surprising conclusion. Instead
of interpreting the similarity between Prophetologion and third-century papyrus as indication of an
____________

55 S.G.Engberg, “Greek Literacy and Liturgical Books: Manolis Glynzounis’ Edition of the “profetie” Venice
1595/96”, EPSILON 2 (1988), 31-41; cf. also Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Hellenic
Diaspora from Antiquity to Modern Times (Athens 26.-30.4.1988), Amsterdam 1991, Vol.II, 41-46.
56 Leo Allatius (Allacci), “De libris Ecclesiasticis Graecorum Dissertatio Prima”, in: Leonis Allatii De libris et
rebus ecclesiasticis Graecorum dissertationes et observationes variae, Parisiis 1646. Also in: Bibliotheca Graeca
J.A.Fabricii, Liber v, Hamburg 1712.
57 Carsten Høeg, “Sur le Prophétologium”, Atti del v congresso internazionale di studi bizantini, Roma 1936,
46-47; reprinted in Rome 1940, 488-489. He announced a second presentation for the congress in 1939, cf. his
summary “L’Ancien Testament dans l’Église grecque: quelques aspects de la question”, Sixième congrès
international d’ètudes byzantines, Alger, 2-7 octobre 1939: résumés des rapports et communications,
Nendeln/Liechtenstein 1978 (reprint), 107-109.
58 Quantulacumque. Studies presented to Kirsopp Lake (London 1937), 189-226.
59 Günther Zuntz, “Das byzantinische Septuaginta-Lektionar (‘Prophetologion’) - Memoria Istanbulensis,”
Classica et Mediaevalia XVII (1956), 183-198; idem,“Der Antinoe Papyrus der Proverbia und das Prophetologion”,
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 68, 1957, 124-184.
 17

early date for the origin of the OT lectionary, he assumes that the Prophetologion was created in the
8th century in Constantinople, based on an “old and venerable” manuscript of the OT, and that the
Restoration of Images in AD 787 was the occasion on which this program of OT lections for the
whole ecclesiastical year was composed, a hypothesis that must be rejected. Even though the
Restoration of Images does appear in the prophetologion repertory with a feast on 11 October, it plays
a very minor role: the feast is represented in only 31 manuscripts, quite few in comparison to the
celebration of the First Oecumenical Council found in almost 100 manuscripts. Had the
prophetologion been created on the occasion of the Restoration of Images in 787, the feast would
certainly have been found in as many manuscripts as that of the First Council at Nicaea in AD 325.

If Zuntz in 1955-1956 tried to date the creation of the prophetologion to AD 787, he had grown more
cautious in his - posthumously published - paper on Lukian,60 where he based his new date on two
assumptions: 1) that all three lectionaries, that of the Old Testament, the Epistle and the Gospel, were
created simultaneously in one all-embracing effort,61 and 2) that the OT lection, supposedly recited
during Holy Mass in the old times (based on the reference to Maximos), was abolished by the Council
‘in Trullo’ in AD 692, which necessitated a revision of the entire reading program.62

However, as I hope to have shown above, the quote from Maximos’ Mystagogia probably cannot be
used in proof of the eucharistic OT reading (and there is certainly no evidence for the abolition of
such hypothetical readings). Neither can the Acts of the Council in Trullo bear out such an
interpretation since the 52th Canon does not mention readings, but simply states that “The holy mass
of the Presanctified shall be celebrated every fasting day in holy Lent, save on Saturdays and Sundays
and the holy day of the Annunciation”. The implication of this rule in not clear, since we do not know
which service the liturgy of the Presanctified replaced, and at which geographical locations; maybe
the Canon just established that all Byzantine churches must adopt the usage of Hagia Sophia in
reading the liturgy of the Presanctified during Lent, so that this change happened in other parts of the
empire than Constantinople itself. At any rate the OT lections in the Lenten period were absolved
before the liturgy as such began and, consequently, the Canon would have had no effect on an already
existing OT reading system.

As I have argued elsewhere,63 the core of the prophetologion seems to be quite old, certainly older
than the sixth century, and there is no evidence to support the idea that all three lectionaries would
have been created simultaneously; in reality, it is highly unlikely that the entire lection system should
have been established in one single creative action and it is now generally accepted that the NT
lection system developed gradually, as I also believe the OT lection system of Constantinople to have
done. There is as yet nothing to contradict the theory that part of this system goes back to the times of
Chrysostom and nothing - except the one, highly ambiguous quote from Maximos Confessor - to
indicate that the OT was ever read af the Constantinopolitan eucharist, that is, in Hagia Sophia.
Perhaps more importantly, the fact that the OT lectionary manuscript is organized quite differently
from the two NT lectionaries should by itself be enough to kill the theory: the chronological
____________

60 G.Zuntz, Lukian von Antiochien und der Text der Evangelien, hrsg. B.Aland und K.Wachtel mit einem
Nachruf auf den Autor von Martin Hengel, Heidelberg 1995 (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Ph.-hist.Kl., 2.), 48-49.
61 “Die drei ‘Lesebücher’, zusammengehörige Teile der gesamten, genau festgelegten, Ordnung des
Gottesdienstes, wurden unvermeidlich zusammen, nach einem allumfassenden Plan, organisiert.”
62 “Noch zu Lebzeiten des Maximus Confessor (gest.620) enthielt der reguläre Gottesdienst (der in der Messe
gipfelte) Lesungen aus dem AT. Das wurde erst abgeschafft durch das Concilium Quinisextum (‘in Trullo’) im J.692,
und damit wurde eine Änderung des Lektionssystem nötig.”
63 PROFETIE-ANAGNOSMATA-PROPHETOLOGION, the history of a Greek liturgical book (forthcoming).
 18

arrangement of the OT lectionary differs so much from that of the other two lectionaries that it was
almost impossible for the scribe of the manuscript Athos Philotheou 6 to combine the three
lectionaries into one book. If the prophetologion had been created in one centralized effort and
simultaneously with the NT lectionaries, some order would certainly have been imposed on its
chronological system. As it is, the differences from one prophetologion manuscript to the next and the
displaced titles resulting from the re-arrangement of the OT lectionary’s chronological system rather
suggest an effort to adapt a very old book to the needs of newer times.