day, lent ant the catechetical program in mid-fourth century jerusalem.pdf

8/11/2019 Day, Lent ant the Catechetical Program in Mid-Fourth Century Jerusalem.pdf

1/10


2/10

lasted six weeks in Illyria and the West, Libya, Egypt and Palestine, but seven

weeks in Constantinople and neighboring regions.

8

Socrates, who does not men

tion Palestine, tells us that there was a three-week fast before Easterin Rome and

theWest, but a seven-week Lent (tcrcrapaKocr tT]) in Illyria, Greece andAlexan

dria.

9

This confused picture informs us that theperiod duringwhich

Cat

was deliv

ered might have been six, seven or eight weeks, depending upon which

of

the

above one considers most applicable to mid-fourth-century Jerusalem.

Egeria s

account of an eight-week Lent is clearly anomalous in the context of

the other sources. She informs us that t he eight weeks, less eight Sundays and

seven Saturdays

make forty-one fast

days

and that there was no instruction

in Holy Week;lO Cat might, then, be distributed over seven weeks on Mondays

to Fridays only. But,

if

we are to accept an eight-weekLent in c. 384,

we would

need to explain why Cyril, towards the end

of his life, would have increased this

period by up to two weeks and why John and his successors would subsequently

have reduced it to seven weeks, despite the increase in stational and other com

memorations to which

bears witness.

Additionally, there is no province

known to Socrates

or

Sozomen whichhas an eight-week Lent; it would have been

a pointworth noting in theirresumes of Lenten practices, particularly as Sozomen

was brought up in Palestine. 3 I t is more than likely that here, as in other matters

relating to the initiation process in Jerusalem, Egeria is mistaken. The source

of

her mistake may result from the attempt to spread the forty days over weekdays

alone, on the presumption thatthe Western custom

of

not including Saturdays and

Sundays applied in the East as well; or, as Renoux proposed, she is referring to

the practice

of

strict ascetics who pre-empted the (seven-week) fast by one week

in o rde r to make the numbe r of fast days add up to forty 4 John Baldovin s

?

XVIII-XLIV

(2:239-311).

8 Sozomen,

Ecclesiastical History

7.19 (PG 67:1477).

9 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 5.22 (PG 67:632B-633A).

10 ItinerariumEgeriae 27.1; 46.4. Englishtranslation fromJ. Wilkinson, Egeria s Travels (3rd ed.,

Warminster 1999) 148.

For

the date

of Egeria s

residency in Jerusalem, see

P

Devos, a date du voyage

d Egerie,

Analecta Bollianda

85 (1968) 165-94.

12 ThomasTal ley did consider this to be the less perilous option, despite noting the improb

ability of so many shi ft s i n sucha short time The Origins of the Liturgical Year [2nd ed., College

ville 1991) 173-74).

13

Frans van

de

Paverd has, however, suggested that Antioch had an eight-week

Lent

i n 387 ,

based on his distribution

of

sermons preached by John Chrysostom inthatyear St John Chrysostom

The Homilies on the Statues

[Rome 1991) 210-16, 250-53), but there is no otherAnt iochene source

which might corroborate this suggestion.

2:183.

130

suggestionthat sheis describing an experimentwhichdid not

last

15 would seem

to be unlikely, for the reasons given above and the lack

of

corroborating evidence.

Havingdiscounted Egeria s evidence,we mustnextconsider whethertheseven

weekLent attested by and Sozomen was established in themid-fourth century

when

Cat

was delivered. The lectionary provides lections for weekday synaxes

in a Lent which begins in the seventh week before Easterand ends on the Friday

before PalmSunday, where a rubric indicates thatthe readings for Lent have been

concluded:16 Lazarus Saturday to the Easter Vigil forms a distinct unit and is not

part of Lent

per

se. The nineteen lections of the enseignement de ceux qui sont

inscrits surle livre pour le saint careme et qui sepreparentarecevoirle bapteme

are listed separately, with no indication

of

how they should be distributed during

Lent. I?

In an article published in 1969, which has had considerableinfluence upon later

commentators, M.

Lages suggested that the seven-week Lent of the early fifth

century had evolved from a three-week pre-Easter fast, for which evidence was

provided in the weekday Lenten lections of AL 8 Based upon an hypothese de

travail that Chavasse sconclusionsabout a Romanthree-week Lenthad a bearing

upon investigations into hagiopolite practice,

he

subjected the Lenten lections to

a rigorous structural analysis. The specific evidence which directed him to a

three-week Lent from the end of the third century until at least 335 were: (i) the

psalmody for the Wednesday and Friday synaxes in weeks 4 to

6;

and (ii) the

location of the Wednesday and Friday synaxes in weeks to

6

provides lections for synaxes on Wednesdays and Fridays in weeks

1

to 6,

which would appear to have been organized as a block because of the lectio

continua of thereadings from Exodus andJoel onWednesdays, andDeuteronomy,

Job and Isaiah on Fridays. Each synaxis had an appointed antiphonal psalm: in

weeks 1 to 3, Pss 50, 40, 56, 64, 70 and 74; in weeks 4 to 6, Pss 76, 82, 83, 84,

85, 87. In order to show the distinctiveness

of

the latter weeks, Lages was forced

to corriger deux erreurs structurales,

9

namely thatPs. 40 did not belong inthe

series and that 86 should be re-inserted. His reconstructed psalmody for weeks 1

to 3 was Pss 50, 56, 64, 70 , 74, 76; and that for weeks 4 to 6, Pss 82, 83, 84, 85,

5 J. F Baldovin, TheUrban CharacterofChristianWorship: TheOrigins, Developmenta ndMeaning

of

Stational Liturgy

(Rome 1987) 92, n. 37.

6

XXXII

(2:255). Renoux comments:

Cette

rubrique

ne peut signifier que le careme est

acheve.

17

XVII (2:233).

18

M.

F

Lages,

Etapes

de I evolution du Careme

a

Jerusalem avant

le

Ve siecle,

Revue des

Etudes Arnufniennes

6 (1969) 67-102.

9 Ibid., 82.

3


3/10

86,87.20He was thus able to conclude that the psalmody for the last three weeks

temoigne

d une

unite liturgiqueprimitive differente des trois premieres semaines

du careme. 21

The structural analysis

of

these sections

of

is extremely illuminating; how

ever, Lages conclusions suffer by not reading the fruits

of

the analysis within the

context

of

the lectionary as a whole. The lections for the Wednesday and Friday

synaxes are a separate and dist inct ser ies in which the psalmody is only one

element. Thus, although the psalmody for weeks 4 to 6, as it is presented in

AL

is almost sequential, the lections which preceded them in each synaxis were not.

Had the compiler

of AL or

the model from which it is drawn, wished to maintain

the primitive unity of these weeks, one might expect this to be reflected in the

prescribedreadings for the synaxes and notmerelyin the psalmody. isclearthat

the lections forWednesdays were arranged separately from those for Fridays, and

from that perspective the allocation

of

psalmody appears arbitrary (except for a

certain desire to maintain a sequential order). To conclude from the sequential

psalmody

of

weeks 4 to 6, which in any case Lages had to amend to fit his

hypothesis, that there was sufficient evidence for a three-week Lent in Jerusalem

is to claim more than the evidence supports.

The second week

of

Lent has a different structure from the others, with addi

tional synaxes on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday: these have a distinct pattern

of

readings (fromKings, Proverbs, andJeremiah), non-sequential psalmody which

does not relate to that

of

the other weekday synaxes, and they are celebrated at

theAnastasis.

22

Clearly in structure and contentthey are distinct from the arrange

ment

of

Wednesdays and Fridays, but, as Lages shows, in the choice

of

readings

from Proverbs and location, they share a similarity with the synaxes for Holy

Monday to Holy Thursday. Lages suggested that the organization

of

Holy Week

probably predated that

of

the synaxes in week 2, thereby making the secondweek

one

of

the latest elements in the organization

of

the lectionary.23Anton Baumstark

hadearlierproposed that this series

of

daily synaxes in week2 mightwell indicate

that this was originally the first week

of

Lent, before an extra week was added

owing to the elaboration

of

Holy Week.

24

Renoux, too, found this a plausible

2

For some reason Lages (ibid., 83 found his reconstruction corroborated by the Georgian Lec

tionary, which replaced Ps. 40 with Ps. 56 (although has a lacuna where 56 occurs in AL despite

having Pss 76, 82, 83, 87 102 and 87 again in weeks 4 to 6.Thus the insistence he had placed upon

the psalmody being continuous in weeks 4 to 6 is undermined rather than upheld.

21

Ibid., 84.

22 XX-XXIV (2:240-45).

23

Lages, Etapes de I evolution

du

Careme

Jerusalem avant le Ve siecle, 91.

24

Anton Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy (London 1958) 196,

n.

5, and elsewhere.

132

explanation, but, in contradiction toLages, said that week2 andHolyWeek garde

les traces

d une

epoque

Oll

le careme avait une organisation differente ; i.e., that

it pre-dates the organization

of

theWednesday and Friday synaxes. From content

too, Renoux further suggested that these readings were parfaitement adaptes a

un debut de careme. 25 In light of our following reflections upon the significance

of the location

of

these synaxes, this seems a more credible conclusion.

givesSion as thelocationfor all theWednesdayand Fridaysynaxes in weeks

to

6

whereas the additional synaxes onMonday, Tuesday, andThursday

of

week

2 were held in the Anastasis. From this, Lages concluded that the latter were

established after the construction

of

the Holy Sepulchre complex (327-335), and

that the rest devaien t etre deja t res fermement consti tuees pour qu el les ne

subissent pas les effets de

la

reorganisation de la liturgie hierosolymitaine faite

apres 335. 26 Is this necessarily the only conclusion which can be drawn from

locating the Wednesday and Friday synaxes at Sion? as a whole witnesses to

the increasing historicization

of

the Jerusalem liturgy, demonstrated ultimately in

the stationalliturgy prescribed for Holy Week, where events are commemorated

in their original location. Might it not rather be the case that the choice

of

Sion

for the weekday synaxes in Lent was also due to this historicization, by reserving

the commemorations

of

the final events tothe Holy Sepulchercomplex alone?The

choice of Sion, far from being a pre-Constantinian element, should be considered

alongside the elaboration

of

the Holy Week liturgies.

Lages article usefully highlighted the distinct structures within the Lenten

observances

of

AL but the chronological arrangement

of

these structures cannot

be as he suggested.A series of daily synaxes inweek 2 makes little sense as a late

introduction to the program; it is much more probable that Baumstark andRenoux

are correct in their identification of this as the original first week

of

Lent. When

Holy Week took on a more distinct liturgical character, it became separated from

Lent itself and, in order for the period

of

preparation still to last forty days, an

additional week was added at the beginning. The synaxes for Wednesday and

Friday aremore likely to come from the time when Lent increasedin length, given

that they run coherently throughout the six weeks, and their introduction caused

the pre-existing lections to be suppressed on these days in week

2.

Sozomen and Socrates indicate that

t


4/10

spread.

AL

separates Lentfrom the Easterfast : HolyWeek, which fits

Regan s distinction between Lent, asa time of spmtual combat, thefast,WhICh

is properly attached to EasterP By the time in wh ich

AL

or Its sou:ces was

compiled, the addition of theHoly Week cycle, calle.d the

fast,

necessItated the

addition

of

an extra week at the beginning

of

Lent order for the forty days to

be fulfilled. There is no indication in

Cat

of such a Holy Week, merely of the fast

immediately preceding Easter

Cat. 18.17).

seems more likely, therefore,

t ~ t

in Jerusalem in the mid-fourth century, the forty days were counted over SIX

s Which ran from the First Sunday of Lent until the end of Holy Thursdayee ,

and which included Sundays.

Table 1: The Length

of

Lent at Jerusalem

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6

Holy Week

Sunday Day 1

8 15 22

29 36

Monday 2 9 16 23 30 37

Tuesday

3

10 17

24

31

38

Wednesday 4

18

25

32

39

Thursday

5 12 19

26 33

40

Friday

6 13

20

27 34

Saturday

7

14

21

28 35

11 The rogram of nstruction

The syllabus for the Lenten catecheses in Jerusalem was relatively u n h n ~ ~ d

during the latterhalf

of

thefourth century: the lections which headeach

of ~ y ~ l

s

lectures are found also inAL from the beginning of the fifth century. The pnnclpal

content of

Cat.

is a line-by-line explanation

of

the creed

Cat.

6-18 , precededby

an introduction

Cat.

1), teaching on repentance

Cat.

2), on baptism

Cat.

3), a

summary of Christian belief in ten points

Cat.

4) and on faith

Cat.

5). At the

end of thecentury (c. 397), a disparaging referenceto Johnof Jerusalemby Jerome

also indicates a creedal basis for the Jerusalem syllabus:

Andyet letus note with what wisdom, modesty, and humility t ~ i s pillar of truth

and

f i t ~

alludes to himself. One day I was speaking in

hIS

presence:

taking occasion from some words in the lesson for the day I expressed,

hIS

27 Patrick Regan,

The

Three Days and the Forty Days, Worship 54 (1980) 10-11.

134

hearing and in that of the whole Church, such views respecting the faith and

all the doctrines of the Church as by the grace of God I unceasingly teach in

the Church, and in my catecheticallectures. 28

Egeria corroborates the creedal framework to the catechesis but, alone of all the

sources, suggests that it was prefaced by systematic instruction on the Bible:

His [the bishop s] subject is God s Law; during the forty days he goes through

the whole Bible, beginning with Genesis, and first relating the literal meaning

of each passage, then interpreting its spiritual meaning. He also teaches them

atthistime all about the resurrectionand the faith After five week s teaching

they receive the Creed, whose content he explains article by article in the same

way as he explained the Scriptures, first literally and then spiritually.29

If

we are to believe Egeria, then, in our distribution

of

the lectures during Lent,

we must allow for considerably more instruction than is presented in the eighteen

extant

Catechetical Lectures.

Attempts to reconcile her words with the content of

Cat

havebeen madeby FerdnandCabrol,

A.A.

Stephenson, andMaxwellJohnson.

Cabrol assigned

Cat.

6-18

tothe secondcourse

of

instruction desclibed by Egeria,

which would have required daily instruction for thelasttwoweeks ofLent, including

Saturdays;

Cat

1-5 he distributed over the first five weeks.3 Johnson, being con

vinced by Lages, proposed that the general arrangement and content of Cyril s

[Cat ] are adhering to a pattern set in that same period of the late third or early

fourth century for which Lages argues a three-week Lent. becomes possible,

then, for Johnson to locate the handing over of the creed at the end of the fifth

week andfor theremaining weeks [to be] filledwithdaily instruction in theBible. 31

Baldovin, too, presumes that Egeria accurately reports a change in the syllabus

for 384, but that i t was part of this experiment which did not last. 32 The only

obvious impetus to such a change would be the expanded clauses concerning the

Holy Spiritwhichappearin theCreed

of

Constantinople, but as

Cat 16-17

already

contains thorough teaching on the Spirit, this would have been unnecessary.

The attempts to reconcile the evidence

of

Egeria and Cyril founder on lack

of evidence and we might do better to question her understanding, as Stephenson

28 Jerome, Against John of Jerusalem

11

(PL23:379); English translation from Nicene and Post-

Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, 6:430.

Itinerarium Egeriae 46.2-3; English translation from Wilkinson, Egeria s Travels, 62

30

Ferdnand Cabrol, Les Eglises de Jerusalem: La discipline et

la

liturgie au IVe si xle (Paris

1895) 143-59, here at 157.

31

Maxwell E. Johnson, Reconciling Cyril and Egeria on the Catechetical Process in Fourth

Century Jerusalem in Paul Bradshaw, ed., Essays

in

Early Eastern Initiation (Nottingham 1988)

18

30, here a t 27

28.

32

Baldovin, Urban Charactel; 92, n. 39.

135


5/10

demonstrated, using Cyril s ownwords inwhichhe would appear to

d i s c ~ u ~ t

such

a course on

th e

Bible.

33

Stephensoncited at 4.33-36,

whe r

e

,

hstmg the

Cyn

l makes no allusion to any previous lectures on thIS subject; and later

canon, .

he seems to exclude it altogether: For since not all are able to read the scnptures,

but some are hinderedby a lack of education, others by an inaptitude for knowl

edge so that the soul is not destroyed out of ignorance, we encompass thewhole

doctrine of the Faithin a few lines

Cat.

5.12). Stephenson rightly c o n c l u d e ~ that

i t

is difficult to suppose that these words of Cyril were addressed to an audience

which had either just attended, or was about to attend, a five-week course of

lectures on Scripture. 34 Cyril himself indicates that the creed forms the whole

syllabus Procatechesis

11;

Cat. 18.32), and Stephenson h i ~ h l i g h t e d the contra

diction in Egeria, where topics are assigned to the first, scnptural ~ o u r s e res ur-

rection, faith) when they appear in the second, creedal course.

35

HIS concluslOn

is that Egeria misunderstood the process:

In view, then, of the apparent impossibility of reconciling Etheria s with ~ t h ~ r

accounts of the Lenten syllabus at Jerusalem, it seems possible that Ethena m

this passage was reporting an oral statement which she had not fully.under

stood, and that her informants, in speaking of scripture, the resurrectlOn

faith as well as

of

th e Symbol, were making so many attempts to descnbe

the unchanged syllabus

of

the

Catechetical Lectures,

i .e. the Creed; and that

what they really told her was that the Creed was delivered, not after the

week, but what would have been very surprising to a

Westerner early

m

Lent, at the end of the fifth lecture.36

Cyril does present his teaching with close and frequent reference to.scripture,

which he explains is the source and proof a 1 t 0 8 c i ~ E o C ;

of

all

d o c t n n e ~

Cat.

4.17), and here may lie Egeria s mistake.

is above all, though, conSistency

of

the Jerusalem sources to a series based upon the creed

WhiCh

leads us to

concludethat

Cat.

does present the complete course of instructionin particular

year in themid-fourth century and that the search for an accompanymg course on

scripture is unnecessary.

The pericopes of the eighteen lectures in at correspond to only t h ~ ~ r s t

eighteen of the nineteen lections for Lenten catechesis given in L37 WI1ham

33

A. A. Stephenson, Th e Lenten Catechetical Syllabus in Fourth Century Jerusalem,

Theo-

logical Studies

IS (1954) 103-16, here at 108.

34 Ibid., 108.

35 Ibid.,

liS.

36 Ibid., 116. . f h I th

37 Apart from thenineteenthlection and a slightly shorter readmg from Hebrews or even

lecture, the lections are identical.

136

Telfer suggested that in less rushed years during Cyril s episcopate, there would

normally have been nineteen lectures and that

at

18 compresses two lectures.

38

He found proof in the hiatus caused by the recitation of the creed and a change

of subject at 18.22, and that part of the nineteenth lection Tim

3:

14-16) is cited

in

at

18 25;39 this would account for the length of

Cat.

18, in which Cyril

complains that he is running out

of

time Cat. 18.30). Clearly, it is somewhat of

a mystery why Cyril would ask them to recite the creed half way though a lecture

when he still had one more article to explain. The quotation from 1 Timothy

cannot, though, be used to demonstrate that the latter part

of at

18 formed a

separate lecture. In every lecture there are liberal quotations from scripture, but

only minimal reference to thedesignatedlection; in fact, rarely does Cyril expound

the preliminary reading, and even more rarely does he do so outside the opening

paragraphs. 1Tim 3:15 is neither explained nor presented in a way which would

indicate that it had any particular importance in the discussion of The Church

over and against any of the otherscriptural examples. Cyril is obviously struggling

to complete his program in the eighteen occasions permitted to him, and thus it

would be perfectly understandable for the program to be increased to nineteen

lectures; however, Cat. 18 gives no indication that a lecture has been or will be

omitted and it seems only proper to conclude that, in 351, Cyril gave eighteen

addresses to the candidates and it is these eighteen which we need to distribute

during the forty days of Lent.

There are two fur ther possible addit ions to the program which need to be

explored: firstly, therelationshipbetweentheProcatechesis Procat. and Cat.; and

secondly, thehints in 18.32of a rehearsal for theinitiation rite.

Procat.,

although

not forming partof the catecheticallectures, has generally been considered to have

been preached before this series started.

4

OnlyTelfer has suggested that

Cat.

and

Procat. were preached in different years, whilst maintaining that there was indeed

an (another) introductory lecture before Cat. 1 in 350.

4

There are many over

lappingthemes in

Procat.

and

at

1: expectationof the candidates transformation

Procat.

1;

Cat.

1.1); their change of status

Procat.

12;

Cat.

1.4); forty days

preparation

Procat.

4;

Cat.

1.5); encouragement to attend instruction and exor

cism Procat. 9; Cat. 1.5); a warning against impure motivation Procat.

2 4;

at

38 WilliamTelfer, Cyril

Jerusalem and Nemesius Emesa (London 1955) 34. Stephenson also

found this a plausible suggestion The Works Saint Cyril Jerusalem [Washington, DC 1969] 4).

39 Telfer,

Cyril

Jerusalem and Nemesius

Emesa.

35, n 42.

40 See Antoine Augustin Touttee in PG 33:327-28; E W Gifford in

Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers.

2nd series, 7:xliv.

41 Telfer,

Cyril


Emesa.

34. Telfer (ibid., 37-38) had concluded that

at

was delivered in 350.

137


6/10

1.3); the imagery of the bridal feast and torches Procat. 1; Cat. 1.1); moral

injunctions Procat. 4; Cat. 1.2). Cat. though, lacks the e x ~ o r t t o r y t o n ~ of

Procat.

and it does not make any allusions to the baptismal lIturgy. There a

possibility, but not one that can be demonstrated with any certainty, that Procat.

may have been the equivalent of the first lecture in some other year, but, on the

evidence available to us, we are only able to conclude that it precedes the Lenten

preparation. . .

Cat. 18.32 and 18.33 present separate, but near identical, lists

of

thmgs wh1ch

the candidates wil l be told in the near future; the lat ter clear ly refers to the

post-baptismal mystagogy, but 18.32 has been considered to be either a duplicate

of 18.33,or torefer to a rehearsal for thebaptismal ceremonies. Eventhough these

lists aresimilarthere areaspectsof 18.32whichare essentiallypracticaland which

would notwarrant amystagogical interpretation. The candidates are to be toldhow

they are to enter the baptistery, what each aspect of the rite represents, how

they are to proceed from the baptistery to the altar, i.e., to the M a r t y n u ~ for

the celebration of the eucharist. The movement from one place to another not

a topic for mystagogy and it is not the theological and spiritual significance

of

the

rite which is to be explained, but simply the performance of it. would seem,

therefore, thatE. W Gifford s identification

of

this as a rehearsalon Holy Saturday

is correct.

42

There areonlyallusions to the baptismalrite inCat. but no systematic

explanation of what they will do or what i t means. Even though ~ y s t a g ~ g y is

reserved until after Easter, the essentially practical instruction on the r role m the

liturgy would not have compromised whatever understanding of the ~ i s i p l i n

arcani

was effective in Jerusalem in 351.

43

We conclude, therefore, that m 351 the

candidates heard a preliminary exhortation Procat. or something like it) on the

Saturdaybefore the First Sunday of Lent, eighteen catecheticallectures during the

forty days, and attended a rehearsal probably on Holy Saturday.

Ill The istribution of

at

during nt

is possibleto assignmuchof at toparticulardaysor stagesin

e n ~

however,

the distribution pattern of different commentators, which we present m Table 2,

42 Th e

additional instructions here promised were to be given on thesameday as the last lecture

. . . that is on Easter Eve immediately beforeBaptism. For it was forbidden

to

reveal the mystenes

of Baptism, Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist to the uninitiated and yet it necessary

candidates should not come wholly unprepared

to

perform what would be reqmred

of

them (Glf-

ford, xlv). .

43

The content of the

disciplina arcani

was not fixed eitherwithin or between provInces. Seemy

Adherence to the

Disciplina Arcani

in the 4th Century,

Studia Patristica 35

(2001) 266-70.

138

shows considerable variation. The preceding comments about the length of Lent

and the extentof the catechesis are obviously importantfactors which affect when

and how lectures can be assigned to different days or weeks; in addition, as we

shall see, the reliance placed upon Egeria s account of the Lenten catechetical

program andconclusions drawn from theevidence provided in mustbe assessed

for theircongruence with at itself. Clearly, as at was deliveredin live time

that is, during the very Lent in which we wish to distribute it, the evidence

w h i ~ h

it provides must be given priority and this we will present and review first. The

specific indicators for thedistribution given in

Itinerarium Egeriae

and

AL

as well

as instances where theycorroborate or confound the evidence

of Cat.

also require

consideration as to their relevance to the mid-fourth-century program, and these

will be assessed before drawing conclusions.

Table

2:

Distribution Patterns for

Cat.

at

Gifford (348)44

Cabrol

45

Telfer (350)46

Baldovin

47

Johnson

48

Dova

49

1

Week 1 Week

1 5

Week 1 Week I Week 5

Monday Monday Monday

2

Week

1 ?

Week

1 5

Week 2 Week I Week 5

Tuesday

Tuesday

3

Week 1 Week

1 5

Week 2 Week 1 Week 5

Friday Thursday Wednesday

4 Week 2/3

Week 1 5 Week 3 Week 1 Week 5

Sunday

Sat urday Thursday

5 Week 2/3


Week 5

Monday

Friday Saturday Friday

6

Week 2/3

Week

6


Tuesday Monday

Monday Saturday

7

Week 2/3 Week

6

Week 4 Week 3 Week

6

Wednesday Tuesday

Tuesday Monday

8

Week 2/3 Week

6

Week 4 Week 3 Week

6

Thursday

Wednesday

Thursday Thesday

44 Gifford, xliii-xlv.

45

Cabrol,

Les Eglises

de

Jerusalem 143-59.

46

Telfer,

Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius

of

Emesa 34-36.

47 Baldovin,

Urban Character 92-93.

48 Johnson, Reconciling Cyril and Egeria, 27

49 Doval,

The

Date of Cyril of Jerusalem s Catecheses, 130.

139


7/10

9

Week 2/3

Week 6 Week 5 Week 3 Week 6

Friday Thursday Saturday Wednesday

10

Week 4 Week 6 Week 6 Week 4 Week 6

Tuesday Friday Monday Monday Thursday

Week 4 Week 6 Week 6 Week 4 Week 6

Wednesday Saturday Tuesday Tuesday Friday

12 Week 4 Week 7 Week 6 Week 4 Week 6

Thursday Monday Wednesday Thursday

Saturday

13 Week 4 Week 7 Week 6

Week 4

Week 7

Friday Tuesday Friday Saturday Monday

14 Week 5

Week 7

Week 7

Week 5

Week 7

Holy

Monday Wednesday Monday Monday

Tuesday

Monday

25th

March

15

Week 5 Week 7 Week 7 Week 5 Week 7 Holy

TueslWed Thursday WedslThurs

Tuesday

Wednesday

Tuesday

26th

March

16 Week 6 Week 7 Holy Week 5 Week 7 Holy

(Holy Week)

Friday Monday Thursday Thursday Iwednes-

day

27th

March

17

Holy Week 7 Holy Week 5

Week 7

Holy

Thursday? Saturday Wednesday Saturday Friday Thurs-

day

28th

March

18 Good

Fril

Palm Good Friday Week 6 Week 7 Good

Holy Sat

Sunday

Monday

Saturday

Friday

before

29th

Palm

March

Sunday

(19) Saturday

Week 6

evening

Tuesday

Evidence

r

the Distribution

in

Cat.

o

Procat. I states that the candidates have been enrolled and Procat. 4 that the

forty days are ahead of them, which would indicate that it was delivered

140

immediately before or on the first day

of

Lent. Egeria describes an enroll

ment on the day before Lent begins, and a first meeting with a scrutiny on

the first day

of

Lent (45.1-4). The latter would appear to be excluded by

Cyril s reference to a rather lax recruitment policy Proeat.

4-5 ,

but there is

no way of determining conclusively whether Proeat. was delivered on the

Saturday before Lent began, or the first Sunday of Lent.

o

Cat. 1.4 refers to the candidates recent change

of

status and explains what

is expected of them during the period of the forty days ; it must, therefore,

must have beendeliveredshortlyafter enrolmentat the very beginning ofLent.

o Cat. 2 also belongs early in the process: Cat 2.7 asks, Do you see God s love

towards humanity, you who have just recently

VEOYtt)

come to the cate

chesis?

o Cat. 3 gives no indication when it was delivered, but is referred to in the next

lecture.

o Cat 4, too, was delivered early in Lent: Cat 4.3 refers to the intervening

period of the days of holy Lent.

o In Cat 4.32, Cyril reminds the candidates

of

the instruction on baptism

Cat.

3) which they had heard rcPO:lTIV. This word is more naturally translated as

the day before yesterday, although it can also be the less precise lately

or just now. 50 Stephenson preferred the less precise indication: Fo r since

we have already spoken sufficientlyof thelaver of baptism Cyril, how

ever, is making a specific reference to a lecture which was not given yes

terday, buttwo or at the most three days ago; however we understand rcpwy]v,

the implication is that there is no greater gap than this.

o

Cat

5 and6 give noindication in themselves when they were delivered, although

Cat

6 is referred to in Cat.

7

o In Cat. 7.1 and 8.1, Cyril reminds the candidates of what they had heard in

the catechesis yesterday

EV

xeeC

l],.uipa).

Baldovinhas argued that

one

cannot make a hardand fast casethat the 6th-8th and 10th-12th lectures were

givenon consecutive days since what canbe translated as yesterday s lecture

from the Greek can also mean the previous lecture . 52 Again, previous

would not be the most natural rendering of

xeeC

and, preferring yesterday,

we conclude that Cat 6, 7 and 8 were preached on consecutive days in the

same week.

50

See H. G. Liddell

R

Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed., Oxford 1992) 1543.

5

Stephenson,

The Works

Saint Cyril

Jerusalem 34

52 Baldovin, Urban Character 92

141


8/10

o Cat 9 provides no infonnation about its position, except thatit was obviously

delivered between Cat. 8 and 10.

o

In Cat 10.14, Cyril reminds the candidates that he had preachedon thepriest

hood

of

Christ

o n

the Lord s day. Thisappearsto be an indication thatSunday

wasnot yesterday, but thatthis lecture was given sufficientlyearlyin theweek

for the candidates to recall the sermon.

o Cat 11.1 and 12.4 both refer to what had been delivered yesterday X

8

i:C;)

and thus

we

can place 10,

11

and 12 on consecutive days in the same week.

o

Cat. 13

provides no indication of when it was delivered, although Gifford sug

gested that the article of the creed, was crucified and buried, upon which

Cyril spoke, would be well suitedto a Friday lecture.

53

Thiscannotbe demon

strated from Cat.

13

alone, but may

be

corroborated

by Cat

14.1.

o Cat. 14 was clearly preached on a Monday from

Cyril s

references in 14.24

and 14.26 to the appointed readings for the Sunday synaxis pennitting

him

to speak about the Ascension.

o We can also determine that

Cat.

14 was preached several days after

Cat.

13:

Cyril says in 14.1 that, having concluded with the death and burial

of

Christ,

he hadleftthe candidates sorrowing

these

pastdays

EV

tatC;

napEA8 ucratC;

i l ~ p a t c as they waitedfor thelecture on theResurrection. This indicates that

Cat 13

wasdeliveredbefore theweekend, mostprobably, asGiffordsuggested,

on the Friday.

o In Cat. 14.10Cyrilsays thatthe month

of

Xanthicus hadrecentlybegun; it was

spring and the equinox had been a few days before. The spring equinox nor

mally occurs onMarch 25, although Louisde Mas Latrie notedthatthere was

some shiftin dates inthe fourthcentury.

54

Doval used this infonnation to deter

mine that Cat. was delivered in 351. He assigned Cat. 14 to Monday

of

Holy

Week, although he does not give his reasons for doing so; in 351, this was

on

f

h

55

March 25, the second day

of

Xanth icus and three days a ter t e equmox.

o In Cat. 14.27, 15.33, and 16.32, Cyril mentions the time constraints which

prevent him from saying all that he wishes. This would indicate that these

lectures belong to the end

of

the period allocated for catechesis; using Cat.

17 and 18

we

are able conclude that it is because Easter approaches, rather

than Holy Week.

o

Cat. 16 and 17 would appear to belong together because of Cyril s frequent

insistence upon the unity of the topic (the Holy Spiri t) , even though he had

53

Gifford,

xlv

54 In 325, itoccurredon March 21 andin 341 onMarch 19: Louis deMasLatrie,

Tresor

de

chronolo-

gied histoire et

de

geographie pourl etude et l emploi desdocuments du moyen age

(Paris 1889)

55

Doval, The Date

of

Cyril

of

Jerusalem s Catecheses, 129-32. This is not as conclUSive as it

appears: from the dates

of

Easterbetween 347 and 352, Doval s three conditions for arriving at

351

could be me t for 348 or 350

if

Cat. 14

had been preached in the week before Holy Week.

142

spread the instruction over two occasions Cat. 17.1, 5, 20). We infer from

this that they were preached on consecutive days.

o Cat. 17.20 expressly states that Easter approaches, a clear indication that it

was delivered in Holy Week.

o Cat 18 was delivered at a time when the candidates were wearied by t he

extended fast of preparation and the vigils (18.17). Egeria provides vital

clues as to which fast and vigil Cyril refers and we will discuss this below.

o

Cat 18.32 indica tes tha t this lec ture was given a t the end

of

Lent: Cyril

comments that the candidates have received as much instruction as possible

throughout these days

of

Lent and that Easter approaches. This is further

evidence for delivery in Holy Week.

2 Egeria s evidence

r

the distribution

the Lenten catechetical program

Egeria describes for thebenefit

of

her sisters the mannerin which candidates

arepreparedfor baptism; notall this information, however, is compatible with that

from other Jerusalem sources.

o

Egeria claims that the candidates were instructed throughout the forty days

(46.1-4). In our discussion

of

the catechetical program, we found it unneces

sary to searchfor additional lectures in order that it could be demonstrated that

Cyril instructed thecandidates everyday for forty days. Telfer, followingEgeria s

statement thatsennons and readingsreceived a simultaneous translation (47.4),

proposedthat he preached in Greek andAramaic on separate days in order that

the number of lectures would add up to forty, but he himself admitted this was

only a tentative suggestion.

56

o Egeria says that the creed was delivered at the end of the fifth week (46.3).

isclearthat those whohave trusted this statement(Cabrol andJohnson) have

been forced to ignore other more credible evidence (e.g. , that Cat. 14 was

delivered on a M?nday) in order to accommodate it. Stephenson convincingly

demonstrated that Egeria was mistaken over the syllabus

57

and so this cannot

be considered as a reliable indication

of

when the lectures were delivered.

o

may

be

possibleto place

Cat

14 after Palm Sunday using Egeria s descrip

tion of the stationalliturgy for that day. She says that

at

the seventh hour the

congregation went up theMountof Olives: first to theEleona, and then at the

ninth hour they went higherup to the Imbomon (31.1-5). The latter is identi

fied as t he

place from which the Lord ascended into heaven, and here there

were hymns, antiphons, and prayers appropriate to the place and the day.

58

In Cat 14.23 CyriI refers to the Mount

of

Olives and to some

of

the readings

56

Telfer,

Cyril


Emesa, 35.

57

Stephenson,

The

Lenten Catechetical Syilabus in Fourth Century Jerusalem, 103-16.

5X Itinerarium Egeriae

31.1; English translation fromWilkinson,

Egeria s Travels,

5

143


9/10

about the Ascension which they had heard the previous day.

It

may well

be

thatthe eventwhichEgeriadescribesexisted alreadyin someform in themiddle

of

the century, and that in

Cat.

14 Cyril is not referring to the Palm Sunday

sermon,

but

to an address given at a s ta tion at the Imbomon.

Egeria says that there was no instruction in Holy Week: i n the eighth (week)

there is no t ime for them to have their teaching if they are to carry out all

the services I have descr ibed. 59 We have shown already, by the references

in

Cat

17 and 18 to the imminent celebration of Easter, and by the ident i

fication with the sermonpreached the day before

Cat.

14as that of Palm Sun

day afternoon, that in the t ime

of

Cyril there was indeed catechesis

in

Holy

Week.

It

ismost likely that the commemorations which she describesfor Holy

Week evolved during the lat ter half of the fourth century and only elements

of

i t exi st ed in c. 351.

Egeria wrote thatSaturdaysand Sundays were non-fastingdays (27.1) andthe

implicationhas beenmade thatneither was there catechesis. The two

r e f ~ r e n c e s

to Sunday sermons in

Cat

10.14 and 14.24 andthegap

of

several days

C ~ t

14.1 (quoted above) would indicate that this was an unchanging element II I

the program.

It

seems unlikely thattherewouldbe a lecture on Sundays, although

the candidates were expected to attend the synaxis

(Cat. 1.6).

Pierre Maravalfound a parallel betweenEgeria s description

of

the final scrutiny,

recitation

of

the creed, and the bishop s not ice

of

the mystagogicallectures

It Eg

46.5-6), and

Cat.

18.33: this address s agit de paroles l i t u r g i q u ~ s que

l

eveque repetechaque annee

a

lameme occasion. 6 Egeria quotes thebishop s

final words of exhortation, which,

if

they have any paral lel in

Cat.,

a re to be

found

in

Cyril s final words (exhortation) to the candidates to receive

~ p t s m

worthily (18.34-35).The ceremoniesdescribed by Egeria forthe

c o n c l u ~ l O n

of

the catechesiswould seem not tohavebeenin place when

Cat

was delIvered:

there is no indication anywhere

of

scrut inies at any stage and the creed was

recited by the group repeating the clauses after the bishop,

not

privately.

Egeria mentionstwo fasts andvigils in HolyWeek: an official .fast

by ~ v e r y -

one f rom Holy Thursday evening to the morning of Good Fnday, with the

congregation processing from the Mount

of

Olives to Golgotha, via Gethse

mane

6

and then a voluntary one undertaken by the healthier clergy and the

y o u n ~

f rom the end of dismissal on Friday evening to Saturday morning, in

9 ltinerarium Egeriae

46.4; English translation fromWillcinson,

Egeria s Travels. 162.

60 Pierre Maraval,

Egerie: Journal de Voyage

(Paris 1982) 312, n

1

. . .

ltinerarium Egeriae

35-36.

AL

XXXIX also gives stations on the Mount of Ohves and a VIgil

for Holy Thursday (2:269-70).

144

the Martyrium.

62

It

seems highly l ikely that the fas t and vigil to which Cyril

refers is that of Thursday night to Friday morning for two reasons. First, the

locat ion for the main office is the Eleona bui lt upon the cave which the local

church had long identified as the place where Christ gave his final discourse

to the disciples;63 the probability that this Constantinian construction formed

part

of

theembryonic stationalliturgyis extremelyhigh. Second, Egeriadescribes

the conditionof the congregation on Fridaymorning in terms similar to Cyril:

fatigati de uigiliis et ieiuniis cotidianis lassi.

6 4

This leads us to allocate

Cat

18 to the morning of Good Friday, in the space between the end of the vigil

and the afternoon synaxis.

3 AL and the distribution of Cat.

Baldovin proposed a distribution of

Cat

basedupon the liturgical arrangements

dur ing Lent given in AL: of the forty days of Lent (he presumes s ix weeks

including Holy Week for the middle

of

the fourth century, although

AL

gives six

weeks plus HolyWeek) there were only nineteendayswhich did nothavea Lenten

synax is and it is to these that we shou ld assign

Cat.

6

AL,

however , is most

unhelpful in this respect , as the lections for the catechetical lectures are l is ted

separately from those for Lent, unl ike the mystagogicae, which are ass igned to

par ticular days in Easter Week.

66

Baldovin s dis tr ibut ion pat tern (see Table 2

above) ignores the indications

of

delivery on consecutive days in

Cat

7 and

8

and 11 and 12, and is dependent upon the stat ional l iturgy given in

AL

being in

place in the mid-fourth century.

AL,

dated to between 417 and 439 in i ts var ious

recensions, witness to an increase in l iturgical events even from the rather

full t imetable given by Egeria for 384, and i tdoes not seem safe to us to presume

that the liturgical program of the early decades

of

the fifth century was that

of

the

mid-fourth century.

AL

is, therefore,

of

little use in determining the distribution

of Cat

V onclusions

As the celebration of Eas ter and bapti sms at the Eas ter Vigil are the fixed

conclusion to the lectures, i t would seem more sensible to s tart there and work

backwards to the beginning of Lent. Afterour discussion of the allocation of each

lecture, we summarize our conclusions in Table 3.

62 ltinerarium Egeriae 37.9.

6 ltinerarium Burdigalense

595.5; Eusebius, Vita

Constantini 3.43.3.

64

ltinerarium Egeriae

36.2; cf.

Cat 18.17.

65 Baldovin,

Urban Character,

92-3. This follows a suggestion made by Renoux

(AL

2:233,

n

I).

66

AL

LII (2:237-331).

145


10/10

The references to the proximity

of

Easter in

Cat 17

and 18, rather than the

approach

of

PalmSundayor HolyWeek, indicate that thesewere deliveredin Holy

Week. Cat 18 followed an extended fast and vigil, which we have identified as

that of the evening of Holy Thursday until the morning of Good Friday. Egeria

records that, after thedismissal at dawn on Friday, the congregationwas sent away

to rest until reconvening Before the Cross at the second hour (36.5). Although

the ceremonies she describes for Good Friday afternoon may not have been

practiced in the middle of the century, that there was a period devoid of liturgy

can be presumed to have existed. This free time wouldpermit the delivery

of Cat

18; that the candidates had to stay behind to hear it would be reason enough for

Cyril s sympathy for their physical state. Gifford suggestedthatit mighthave been

delivered in the small hours, but nothing in the text suggests that.

There is only circumstantial evidence for the distribution of Cat 15, 16and 17

Cat 17 was also delivered close to Easter and there is little reason to put any

distance between it and Cat 18. Cat 16 and 17 together concern the Holy Spirit

and appear to form a block

of

teaching; we can therefore place 16 and

17

close

to each other.

Cat

16 was delivered towards the end

of

the time remaining for

catechesis; on its own this does not necessarily mean that Easter is close, butwhen

seen in conjunction with

Cat 17

we find that it can also be placed in HolyWeek.

Cat

15 provides no evidence to link it either to

Cat

16 or

Cat 4

Cat 14yieldsmore clues to its positionthat any other lecture andthus is crucial

in the distribution

of

the whole series. It was clearly preached on a Monday in the

week following that in which 13 was delivered and the day after Cyril had spoken

about the Ascension. We have identified the latter with an address on the Mount

of Olives on Palm Sunday and concluded that Cat 14 was delivered on Holy

Monday. Thus, contrary to the assertions that there was no instruction in Holy

Week in mid-fourth-century Jerusalem, it would appear that the candidates were

instructeddaily. This would presume that the elaborate historical and topographi

cal commemorations of the late-fourth- andfifth-century sources had not yet been

developed.

We cannot be sure that

Cat 13

was delivered on a Friday 68 although it was

clearly before a weekend, as the two indications in Cat 14.1 and 14.24 suggest.

Cat 10,11, and 12werepreachedon consecutivedays, andalthough Cat 10refers

to the Sundaysermon, it is not obvious that it waspreached onthe Monday. Unless

Cat

13 was preached in a week when there was only one lecture, it would seem

Gifford 7:xlv

8

See

ibid.

146

that these four lectures, Cat 10 to 13, should be distributed over the week pre

ceding Holy Week but it would be impossible to determine whether they were

preached on Monday to Thursday, Tuesday to Friday, or Monday to Wednesday

and Friday.

There is no indication in Cat 9, but 6 to 8 were delivered consecutively. Cat

6 does not imply that it was delivered on a Monday. There is no correspondence

between

Cat

9 and 10,

as

there is with

13

and 14, and so, although it could be

argued that Cat 6 to 8and Cat 9 were delivered in different weeks, given Cyril s

concerns about the lack

of

t ime in the later lectures it is unlikely that he would

have permitted a light fourth week. The pattern

of

four lectures a week replicates

that proposedfor week 5 and itis more thanprobablethat

Cat 6

to9 weredelivered

in the fourth week

of

Lent.

Althoughit seems that

Cat

1was given shortly after enrolmentand

Cat

2 early

in the process, the distribution of Cat 3 to5 cannot be discerned. They may have

been distributed over more than one weekand there is no necessity that Cat I and

2 be delivered on the first and second days

of

Lent, although the implication is

that they were delivered in week 1

Table : The Distribution

Cat. during Lent 35

DaylWeek

Week before Lent

1

2

3

4

5

Holy Week

Sunday

Monday

3 6 -

Thesday

1 7 1 15

Wednesday

2

4

8

I1

16

Thursday

5

9

12 17

Friday

13

18

Saturday

Procat

-

-

Rehearsal

147

day, lent ant the catechetical program in mid-fourth century jerusalem.pdf

Documents