ORIENTALIA CHRISTIANA ANALECTA254

THE ARMENIAN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Scholarly Symposium in Honor of the Visit to the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome

of His Holiness KAREKINI

Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians

December 12, 1996

edited by

Robert F. Taft, S. J.Vice Rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute

E S T R A T T O

PONTIFICIO IST1TUTO ORIENTALE PIAZZA S. MARIA MAGGIORE, 7

1-00185 ROMA 1997

Robert F. Taft, SJ.

The Armenian "Holy Sacrifice (Surb Partarg)" as a Mirror of Armenian Liturgical History*

I . L i t u r g y a n d C u l t u r e i n A r m e n i a

The Armenian rite differs from the Roman, Byzantine, and other rites because the lived expression of the Armenian Christian faith now codi fied liturgically in the Armenian rite was forged in a different cultural

* The author is indebted to his colleague and friend of many years, Prof. Dr.Gabriele Winkler, and to his doctoral student Rev. Deacon Michael Findikyan, forreading the text of this paper and making helpful suggestions and corrections.Abbreviations:BELS = Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae, Subsidia.Catergian-Dashian = J. Catergian, Die Liturgien bei den Armeniem. Ftlnfzehn Texte und

Untersuchungen, hrsg. von J. Dashian (Vienna 1897), in Armenian.Cowe = Commentary on the Divine Liturgy by Xosrov Anjewac'i. Translated with an in

troduction by S. Peter Cowe. (Armenian Church Classics. A Publication of the De partment of Religious Education, Diocese of the Armenian Church, New York 1991).

EO = Echos dOrient.Findikyan, "Medieval Armenian Liturgy" = M. Findikyan, "Bishop Step'anos Siwnec'i:

A Source for the Study of Medieval Armenian Liturgy" Ostkirchliche Sttidien 44 (1995) 171-196.

Kdckert = Friederike Kbckert, Sowrb Patarag "Heiliges Opfer." Texte und Untersu chungen zur Uturgie der Armenisch Apostolischeri Orthodoxen Kirche (Dissertation [A] der Fakultat filr Theologie des Wissenschaftlichen Rates der Martin-Luther- Universitat Halle-Wittenberg zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades doctor theologiae [Dr. theol.] Halle/Saale 1986).

LEW = F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford 1896).Nersoyan = Bishop Tiran Nersoyan (ed.), Pataragamatoyc' hayastaneayc' arak'elakan

allap'ar ekelec'woy Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church (New York 1950). Armenian-English edition of the Armenian Missal.

OC = Oriens Christianus.OCA = O rientalia C hristiana Analecta.PO = Patrologia Orientalis.REA = Revue des itudes armdniennes.Renoux, "Commentaires = Ch. Renoux, Les commentaires liturgiques armenien-

nes," in A.M. Triacca, A. Pistoia (eds.), Mystagogie: pensee liturgique d'aujourd'hui et Uturgie ancienne. Conferences Saint-Serge, XXXIX' Semaine dfetudes liturgi ques, Paris, 30 juin - 3 juillet 1992 (BELS 70, Rome 1993) 277-308.

Taft, Beyond East and West = R. F. Taft, Beyond East and West. Problems in Liturgical Understanding (Edizioni Orientalia Christiana, Rome 19972).

Taft, The Christian East = id. (ed.), The Christian East. Its Institutions & its Thought. A Critical Reflection. Papers of the International Scholarly Congress for the 75th

176 ROBERT F. TAFT, S J .

matrix. What historians of liturgy call a "rite is a coherent, unified cor pus of liturgical usages followed by Christian churches within a single ecclesiastical conscription. Before the end of Late Antiquity the process of the unification of local liturgical usages into a single "rite" w as still un derway, and we can reconstruct this process from its extant m onum ents only partially. For these traces represent but a few sporadic footprints left over from a long trek.

For Armenia, this journey began in the region of Lake Van, east of Cappadocia, now on the eastern border of Turkey, north o f the Syriac Christian cultural centers of Edessa and Osrhoene. The evangelization of Armenia is traditionally attributed to St. Gregory the Illuminator1 (ca. 260-ca. 328). St. Gregory received a Greek education in Caesarea in Cap padocia, and was consecrated a bishop there around 302. Between 279- 314 Christianity in Armenia was declared the state religion.

But the principal historical sources concerning these origins have been frequently reworked, and must be read with great prudence as wit-

Anniversary of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, 30 May 5 June 1993 (OCA 251, Rome 1996).

Taft, Great Entrance = id., The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer o f Gifts and Other Preanaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (OCA 200, Rome 197 82).

Taft, Hours = id., The Liturgy o f the Hows in East and West. Tire Origins o f the Divine Office and its Meaning for Today (Collegeville 19932).

Winkler, "Decline' = Gabriele Winkler, "Armenia and the Gradual Decline of its Tradi tional Liturgical Practices as a Result of the Expanding Influence of the Holy See from the 11th to the 14th Century," in Lilurgie de Ieglise particulidre et liturgie de legUse universelle. Conferences Saint-Serge 1975, XXIIe Semaine detudes liturgi- ques, Paris30juin- 3 juillet 1975 (BELS7,Rome 1976)329-368.

Winkler "Geschichte = eadem, "Zur Geschichte des armenischen Gottesdienstes in Hinblick auf den in mehreren Wellen erfolgten griechischen Einfluss, OC 58 (1974) 154-172.

Winkler, Inidationsrituale = eadem, Das armenische Initiationsrituale. Entwicklungsge- schichtliche und liturgievergleichende Untersuchung der Quellen des 3. bis 10. Jahr- hunderts (OCA 217, Rome 1982).

Winkler, Koriwn = eadem, Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop Maitoc'. Obersetzung und Kommentar (OCA 245, Rome 1994).

Winkler, "Obscure Chapter = eadem, "An Obscure Chapter in Armenian Church His tory (428-439), REA n.s. 19 (1985) 85-180.

Winkler, Ritus" = eadem, Der armenische Ritus: Bestandsaufnahmc und neue Er- kenntnisse sowie einige ktlrzere Notizen zur Liturgie der Georgier, in Taft, The Christian East 266-298. l.e., the baptizer. In early Christianity or , "illumination," was a

synonym for baptism, which brings one out of the darkness of sin into Christ, "the light of the world" (Jn 1:4-9, 8:12, 9:5, 12:45-46; 1 Thess 5:5; Heb 6:4, 10:32; Eph 5:14; Col 1:12-13; 1 Jn 1:15, 2:8-11; Rev 21:22-26; cf. Taft, Beyond East and West 171-180; id., Hours 10, 14-15, 28-9,36-8,211-12, 285-90, 348-51.

TH E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" (SURB PATARAG) 177

nesses to history in the making.2 Much like the com m unist historians, such early Christian sources modified history as they went along in order to suit the shifting party line.3 We now know that between the second and fourth centuries Syriac, not Greek influence was predominant in the formation o f the Armenian rites of Christian Initiation.4

In Armenia one sees a certain struggle for dominance between these two strains of Christian culture, the Greek and the Syriac, with the Greek ultimately gaining the upper hand. This struggle o f cultures w as not without political overtones. Around 387 Armenia was divided between the two superpowers o f the day, the Byzantine and Persian empires, and

2 See the excellent review of the question in M. van Esbroeck, S.J., "Perspectives pour l'itude des Eglises du Caucase," in Taft, The Christian East 129-144; on the Ar menian historical sources and their reinterpretation to bring them in line with the "received account of Armenian Christian origins, see id., "Les Eglises orientales non syriennes," Le Museon 106 (1993) 97-117; N.G. Garsoian, The Epic Histories attributed to P'awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut'ivmk'). Translation and Commentary (Har vard Armenian Texts and Studies 8, Cambridge, MA 1989) esp. 1-6, 24; and R.W. Thomson's comments in his introductions (passim as well as the pp. indicated) to: Agathangelos, History of the Armenians, trans, and commentary by R.W. Thomson (Albany, NY 1976) vii-xviii; Moses Khorenats'i, History o f the Armenians, trans, and commentary by R.W. Thomson (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 4, Cambridge, MA 1978) 1, 58-61; R.W. Thomson, "Introduction to Moses Khorenats'i, Pawmut'iwn Hayots' (History o f the Armenians') (Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series, Delmar, NY 1981) v-xviii; Elishe, History o f Vardan and the Armenian War, trans, and commen tary by R. W. Thomson (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 5, Cambridge, MA 1982) 1-2; and Winkler, Koriwn, "Einleitung."

3 The same caution must be exercised with regard to what Winkler has called "the rewriting of history" in the context of the 5th c. christological controversy: Winkler, "Obscure Chapter," passim, esp. 166-9; also eadem, "Die spatere llberarbeitung der armenischen Quellen zu den Ereignissen der Jahre vor bis nach dem Ephesinum," OC 70 (1986) 143-180. For we know that in addition to the Cappadocian-Greek influence, there was an even earlier, competing wave of East-Syrian Christian influence from Syriac Osrhoene to the south: Winkler, "Geschichte," 154-7.

4 Aramaic dialects were in widespread use even among official scribes, and in the early Armenian documents they composed, "very few Greek loanwords are to be found": G. Winkler, The History of the Syriac Prebaptismal Anointing in the Light of the Earliest Armenian Sources, in Symposium Syriacum 1976 (OCA 205, Rome 1978) 317-324, here 318-9. See also eadem, "Zur fruhehristliehen Tauftradition in Syrien und Armenien unter Einbezug der Taufe Jesu, Ostkirchliche Studien 27 (1978) 281- 306; "The Original Meaning of the Prebaptismal Anointing and its Implications," Wor ship 52 (1978) 24-45; "Die Tauf-Hymnen der Armenier. Ihre Affinitat mit syrischem Gedankengut, in H. Becker, R. Kaczynski (eds.), Liturgie und Dichtung. Ein interdiszi- plinares Kompendium, 2 vols. (Erzabtei St. Ottilien 1983) I, 381-419; and esp. her mag isterial Initiationsrituale, with extensive further bibliography on the topic (15-44) and a lengthy historical introduction on the origins and early development of the Arme nian tradition (47-75); the same, more succinctly, in eadem, Decline," esp. 329-36.

178 ROBERT F. TAFT. S.J.

was in danger of absorption into the Byzantine and Persian cultures.5 The lions share, Armenia Major, fell under the overlordship of Persia.

This struggle might not have been a bad thing, for it helped to break the previous foreign cultural monopoly, fostering the invention of the Armenian alphabet by the monk Mesrop Matoc at the beginning of the fifth century, and with it the beginnings of the Golden Age of Armenian literature.6 These developments led to the evolution and fixation of a literary language, Grabar or classical Armenian, suitable for liturgical use.7 Thereafter, liturgical texts were translated into or composed in Grabar, and the Armenian church was no longer beholden to foreign cultural centers for its prayer life. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this breakthrough in the history o f Armenian Christian culture and liturgy. Only from this date can one really speak of an Armenian rite."

Greek influence did not, of course disappear. Byzantium and its church exerted enormous cultural influence throughout the East, and the Armenians and their liturgy were affected too.8 This influence remained strong especially in the borderlands, where the Greek and Armenian cultures met and mingled, and the Chalcedonian wing of the Armenian church remained active right up until [the time of Armenian Catholicos] John Odznetsi (ca. 650-728).9

But the churches of Byzantium and Persian Mesopotamia were not the only cultural influences on the Armenian rite. Armenian Christians carne into contact with the Crusaders as they passed through Asia Minor on their way to the Holy Land, and from the eleventh to the fourteenth

5 Winkler. 'Obscure Chapter," 89ff; P. Peters, "Pour 1'histoire des origines de Tal- phabet arminien," REA 9 (1929) 113-237, here 207-17; N. Garsoian, Armenia between Hvzuntium and the Sasanians (Variorum Collected Studies Series 218, London 1985) e\p l hapters HI-IV, VIII-XII; KOckert 4.

6 Peters, "L'alphabet" (previous note) esp. 224-6; Winkler, Koriwn 226-68; eadem, (rsihichte," 156-7.

Before this, it seems that at least the lections or Scripture readings were ren dered orally into the vernacular during services: Cowe 41 note 4, citing his forthcom ing studv "The Two Armenian Versions of the Chronicles, their Origin and Transla- III.ii Technique," REA 22 (1990-1991), in press.

* On Greek influence on the Armenian church and hence on its liturgy see Winkler tjesehnhte and "Obscure Chapter," with the relevant literature she cites. I respite Persian dominance and the imposition of Syrian patriarchs to rule the Arme nian i him. h in Persarmenia from 429 until 437, important groups in the Armenian i him h continued to favor Byzantine Orthodoxy: Winkler, "Obscure Chapter," passim, esp 88 IIJ9, 170

'Van ( shn k, "Perspectives" (note 2 above).

TH E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" {SURB PATARAG) 179

century we have Latin influence and even Armenian translations from the Dominican rite of the Order of Preachers, whose members were active in the area.10 In this matter, however, one must avoid the common but unexamined and unchallenged historical double-standard by which Latin influence on eastern liturgies is always decried as baneful "latinization," whereas the far more preponderant Byzantine influence one can far more readily speak of the "byzantinization" of eastern liturgies than of their latinization seems, for some reason, to be taken for granted. Furthermore, Byzantine influence was just as heavy- handed as that of the Latins.11

In summary, then, the Armenian church underwent the following waves of liturgical influence during the formative period of the Armenian rite:12

1. In the foundational period, the period of origins, there was Mesopotamian-Syriac and Cappadocian-Greek influence.13

2. In the period of Late Antiquity, beginning with the fifth century, we observe considerable hagiopolite influence on the Armenian liturgy, es pecially in the lectionary and calendar of feasts and commemorations.14

3. Later in the Middle Ages, from around the beginning of the second millennium, there was a strong wave of Byzantine influence.

4. Then, during the Crusades, contact with the Latin armies passing through Asia Minor resulted in a substantial influx of elements from the Latin liturgies.

This gives us a framework in which to work. We are dealing with a compact, national church, limited geographically and ethnicly. The Armenian Apostolic Church was the Christian church in Armenia for the

10 Winkler, Decline," esp. 348-53 and 353ff passim; M.A. van den Oudenrijn, Das Offizium des heiligen Dominicus des Bekenners im Brevier der Fratres Unitores von Ost- Armenien. Ein Beitrag zur Missions- und Uturgiegeschichte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Rome 1935). On Dominican translations from the Latin in general, see L. Ter Petrossian, Ancient Armenian Translations (New York 1992) llff.

11 Winkler, "Decline,' 329ff.12 The entire history is summarized in Winkler, Initiationsrituale 47-101 and

"Geschichte"13 See Winkler, Obscure Chapter.14 As Renoux has abundantly demonstrated in his seminal publications on the

topic: see the APPENDIX at the end of this study; also G. Winkler, Ungeldste Fragen im Zusammenhang mit den liturgischen Gebrauchen in Jerusalem, Handes Amsorya 101 (1987) 303-315.

180 ROBERT F. TAFT, S J.

Armenians. That sort of situation often spells involution, cultural xeno phobia, a tradition distrustful of and closed to others. Surprisingly, this was by no means true of the Armenian church, and that is the first char acteristic of its rite that strikes the historian of liturgy: its openness to cultural exchange.

What resulted from all this is the liturgical tradition we know as the Armenian rite. Like the Byzantine rite, it does not reach its full shape until around the fourteenth century, but its basic lineaments are already clear before the end of the first millennium.

. T he S u r e Pa t a r a g

I believe that the present shape of the Armenian Surb Patarag (H oly Sacrifice") or eucharist,15 mirrors to a remarkable degree this history o f the Armenian rite.16 Since a definitive scholarly investigation of th is eucharistic liturgy based on the manuscript tradition and other sources lies ahead, I can offer here but a few tentative pointers in the direction o f a history still to be written.

7. Text:

The earliest literary witnesses to the Patarag betray that here, unlike Baptism, among the two formative streams of influence in the founda tional period of the Armenian rite, it was the Cappadocian that predomi nated. Already by the beginning of the fifth century we find in the Arm e nian Anaphora of Gregory the Illuminator an early Cappadocian redac tion of the Liturgy of St. Basil translated into Armenian.17 The wdde-

' 5 Patarag in classical Armenian or Grabar, the Armenian Church's liturgical language still today, is the word used in the Armenian Bible (ca. AD 435) to translate the Greek thysia, "sacrifice," in the Septuagint Greek Old Testament and in the New Testament as well. Cf. Gen 4:3-4, Ps 50/51:18-19, Lk 2:24. See Mesrob K. Krikorian, Liturgie und Frfimmigkeit der Armenischen Kirche, in E. Renhart, A. Schnider (eds.), Sursum corda. Variationen einem liturgischen Motiv. Fur Philipp Harnoncourt zum 60. Geburtstag (Graz 1990) 58-65, here 58-9.

16 The best overview of scholarship to date, including the eucharist, with relevant bibliography, is Winkler, "Ritus (on the Patarag, pp. 274-7). For a review of the best literature on the Armenian rite see the APPENDIX at the end of this study.

17 H. Engberding, Das eucharistiscke Hochgebet der Basileiosliturgie (Theologie des christlichen Ostens 1, MUnster 1931) lxxxii; Winkler, "Geschichte, 157-159; J. R. K. Fenwick, The Anaphoras of St Basil and St James. An Investigation into their Common Origins (OCA 240, Rome 1992) 299-301 see, however, G. Winkler's critical review o f

TH E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" (Si/RB PATARAG) 181

spread use of this text throughout the Armenian Church in the fifth cen tury is attested by a long citation from the anaphora in the history attrib uted to P'awstos (Buzandaran Patmut'iwnk'/Epic Histories) V, 28,18 a source which tends to reflect not Greek influence but a southern, Syrian- related provenance.19 The antiquity of this precious witness to the Basil- ian text is proven by its agreement with the ancient Sahidic Liturgy of St. Basil over against the Byzantine and Syriac redactions, which betray a number o f later developments such as assimilation to the biblical text. Contrary to what the sixteenth-century Reformers liked to think, literal fidelity to Scripture in early Christian liturgical texts is a sign of later redactional adjustments: early liturgies used Scripture with the abandon characteristic o f the New Testament's use of the Old.20

Liturgical translations into Armenian proceeded apace in this re markably productive Golden Age.21 By the end of the fifth century, the Armenians had translated four other Cappadocian Greek anaphoras.22

Fenwick in 0C 78 (1994) 269-77. The text is edited not always reliably: cf. A. Renoux, L'anaphore armdnienne de saint Gregoire l'llluminateur, in Eucharisties dOrient et d'Occident II (Lex orandi 47, Paris 1970) 83-108, here 84 note 5 in Catergian-Dashian 120-59. French trans, and discussion in Renoux, L'anaphore arm6nienne de saint Grdgoire," just cited above. A variant of this early Armenian re daction of the Basil anaphora is the Anaphora of Catholicos Sahak, son of the chief Armenian hierarch of the day, St. Nerses, who was the great-great grandson of St. Gregory the Illuminator himself: ed. Catergian-Dashian 222-43; Latin trans. P. Ferhat, "Denkmaler altarmenischer MeBliturgie II. Die angebliche Liturgie des hi. Catholicos Sahaks," OC n.s. 3 (1913) 16-32. Cf. Cowe 19-20.

18 Garsoian, P'awstos (note 2 above) 207-9 with the notes on pp. 321-2. Cf. ibid. 23-24; Winkler, "Ritus," 275; Catergian-Dashian 130-5; Cowe 20. Renoux, "L'anaphore armdnienne de saint Gregoire (previous note) 88-108, gives a French trans, of P'awtos text in parallel columns with a French version of the anaphora itself.

19 Garsoian (previous note); Cowe 20.20 Engberding, Basileiosliturgie (note 17 above) lxxff; Cowe 20.21 On Armenian translations in antiquity, see Ter Petrossian, Translations (note 10

above); on liturgical books, esp. 9, 1 Iff.22 Cowe 20-21; Winkler, "Geschichte," 159-61; Kokert 114-6. The attribution of

these translations to Catholicos Yovhannes Mandakuni (478-490) need not be taken ad litteram, however. Two of these anaphoras are variant recensions of the Liturgy of St. Basil: [1] an earlier recension attributed to St. Sahak: Armenian text in Catergian- Dashian 220-43; Latin trans. P. Ferhat, "Denkmaler altarmenischer MeEliturgie II. Die angebliche Liturgie des hi. Catholicos Sahaks, OC n.s. 3 (1913) 16-32; [2] a later one, closer to the later Byzantine redaction, attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria: Catergian-Dashian 256-67; Latin trans. A. Rucker, "Denkmaler altarmenischer Mchli- turgie IV. Die Anaphora des Patriarchen Kyrillos von Alexandreia," OC ser. 3.1 (1927) 143-157. A third is attributed to Gregory Nazianzen: Catergian-Dashian 244-54; Latin trans. P. Ferhat, Denkmaler altarmenischer MeEliturgie I. Eine dem hi. Gregor von Nazianz zugeschriebene Liturgie," OC n.s. 1 (1911) 201-214. In addition to those al-

182 ROBERT F. TAFT. S.J.

One of them, attributed to St. Athanasius, would eventually supplant a l l others in Armenian usage.* 2 * 23 Though Xosrovs mid-tenth-century c o m mentary is our first witness to this Armenian Anaphora of St. A thanasius, the formulary is obviously older. By Xosrov's time it had apparently b e come the only Armenian eucharistic prayer in general use, for it is th e only one he takes the time to explain,24 * even if chapter 35 o f his C om m en tary shows that he knew of the existence of other anaphoral form ular ies.23

Nor did the Armenian eucharist escape being affected by the stro n g influence Jerusalem exercised on the Christian liturgies of Late A ntiq uity. The discovery of the Holy Places after the Peace of Constantine in 312, ushered in the Holy Land pilgrimage era, and in this period C hris tians from Armenia as elsewhere not only translated the hagiopolite Anaphora of St. James,26 but also used it for the model of m uch in th eir own eucharistic service. For example, the structure of the preces after the lections follow a hagiopolite rather than the Antiochene format u sed by the Byzantines. As we shall see below, the same Jerusalem stam p still

ready mentioned, there is an extant fragment of an Armenian Anaphora of St. Kpiphanius: B. Botte, Fragments dune anaphore inconnue attribuee a S. Epiphane," UMusfan 73 (1960) 311-315; G. Garitte, 'line opuscule grec traduit de l'armdnien su r (addition deau au vin eucharistique," Le Musion 73 (1960) 306-308; Cowe 42 note 13; Catergian-Dashian 300-3. Many of these anaphoras in Grabar are translations from other traditions, including the Roman Mass. Most of them are found in only one ms, /.vom arm. 17 (olim 15) (AD 1314), and it is by no means certain that these texts were widelv used, even if the ms assigns the days on which this or that prayer is to be used.

2i see J.-M. Hanssens, Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus orientalibus II-III (Rome1930, 1932) III, 1497, 1566. Also H. Engberding, Das anaphorische Fiirbittgebet der armenischen Athanasiusliturgie," REA 4 (1967) 49-55. As Gabriele Winkler (Tubingen) stated (note 33 above), this comer of the field is also white for the harvest hut the laborers are few, and the Armenian anaphoras await the results of the research presently underway under her direction (see the APPENDIX at the end of this study). In addition to the Armenian anaphoras mentioned in the previous note, som e other Armenian anaphoras have been translated into western languages; G. Aucher,"La versione armena della Liturgia di S. Giovanni Crisostomo, in XPYCOCTOMIKA. Studi e ricerehe intomo a S. Giovanni Crisostomo, a cura del comitato per il XV cente nario della sua morte, 407-1907 (Rome 1908) 359-404; A. Rucker, "Denkmaler altarme- msther Meflliturgie V. Die Anaphora des heiligen Ignatius von Antiochien," OC ser. 3.5 (1930) 86-79.

24 Commentary 52ff = Cowe 138ff, cf. 21.Ct. Cowe 42 note 13.( atergian-Dashian 435-50; Latin trans. A. Baumstark, "Denkmaler altarmeni-

-,i lu/i MeKliturgie III. Die armenische Rezension des Jakobusliturgie," OC n.s. 7-8 1 19)81 I 32; cf. Cowe 21. The Greek text is edited critically in B.-Ch. Mercier (ed.), La I : de S. Jacques. Edition critique, avec traduction latine (PO 26.2, Paris 1946).

THE AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE (SW tB PATARAG) 183

marks the twofold chant following lections, and the diptychs during the anaphora.

A second wave of Greek influence follows the metamorphosis of the Eastern Roman Empire into the Byzantine Empire. In the period be tween 381-451 the Byzantine church rose to predominance and in the course of the first millennium gradually spread its hegemony throughout Asia Minor and the whole East. Towards the end of this epoch, Byzantine influence on the Armenian eucharist will become predominant, leading to a new wave of translations. We see this, for instance, in the ninth and tenth centuries, when the Liturgy of St. Basil in its later, more developed Byzantine redaction was again translated into Armenian.27

2. Ordo:

But Greek influence was not limited to the translation of Greek texts. We see it also in the Byzantinization of the Prothesis, Enarxis, Great- Entrance, and Dismissal rites of the Patarag in the same period. By the thirteenth century a translation of the Byzantine redaction of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom had also been made.28

A comparison between the Patarag ordo in the oldest sources and its present structure provides a perfect mirror of the history I have been describing. First of all, many of the available eucharistic texts contain only the anaphoral section of the Patarag. For the complete ordo we must turn to the Armenian liturgical commentaries. Liturgical commentaries are explanations of the liturgical services by church writers, usually monks or bishops. Of the extant classic commentaries on the Armenian liturgy,29 only three of the nine that deal with the eucharist30 have been published. The earliest is that of Xosrov Anjewac'i (ca. 900-ca. 963), bishop of Anjewac'ik' from around 950,31 who wrote it as a sort of liturgi-

27 Winkler, "Geschichte, 170-172. An investigation of both redactions has been undertaken by E. Renhart (see APPENDIX below).

28 Ibid. 171, and Aucher, Laversione armena, (note 23 above).29 On the Armenian liturgical commentaries see Renoux, "Commentaires; LEW

xcix-c.30 Cowe 87-92 lists them.31 Renoux, "Commentaires," 299-303. This is the only Patarag commentary for

which a complete translation, in Latin, has been available: P. Vetter, Chosroae magni episcopi monophysitici Explicatio precum missae, (Freiburg im B. 1880). But we now have the new and excellent re-edition of the Armenian text of the Venice edition of 1869 with English translation of this seminal primary source (see Cowe). Cf. also S.

184 ROBERT F. TAFT. S.J.

cal catechism for the faithful of his diocese.32 The long and critically important twelfth-century Commentary on the H oly Sacrifice (Meknut'iwn Srhoy Pataragi) of the young Nerses Lambronac'i (1152/3-1198) i.e., o f Lambron bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia from 1175-1198, has been pub lished only in Armenian (Venice 1847).33 N erses of Lambron was the nephew of Catholicos Nerses Snorhali (d. 1173), whose liturgical reforms were inspired by Byzantine and Latin models, and his nephew's com mentary describes a highly-byzantinized form o f the Armenian Patarag,34 The third published commentary, by Yovhannes (Ospnaker) ArdiSeci (ca. 1260-ca. 1330),35 though generally dismissed as little more than a com pi lation of the two earlier commentaries, is actually more original than once thought.36

Salaville, "Consecration et 6picldse daprds Chosrov le Grand," EO 14 (1911) 10-16; id., LExplication de la messe de I'armenien Chosrov (950). Thdologie et liturgie," EO 39 (1940-1942) 349-382.

32 Salaville, "LExplication de la messe" (cit. previous note) 380; Kockert 112. Xosrov also wrote a commentary on the Divine Office. See Renoux, "Commentaires, 295-7; V. Inglisian, Die armenische Literatur = Handhuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung I: Der nahe und der mitdere Osten, ed. B. Spuler (Leiden-Cologne 1963) 156-254, here 186; F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum (Oxford 1905) 502-7. There is also an older history of Armenian literature: F. N. Finck, Geschichte der armenischen Literatur = Geschichte derchristlichen Literatur, Bd. 7. Abt. 2. (Leipzig 1909).

33 Cf. Renoux, "Commentaires," 303-5. A French translation for the collection Sources chrdtiennes, said to be in preparation for decades, is yet to see the light of day, though sections of this commentary, have appeared in translation in various studies; Alcuni squarci del Commentario di S. N. Lambronense sulla Liturgia Armena (Venezia 1851); . Dulaurier, Receuil des historiens des croisades. Documents - niens, vol. 1 (Paris 1859) 569-78; Claudio Gugerotti, L'interazione dei ruoli in una cele bratione come mistagogia (Caro Salutis Cardo, Studi, 8, Istituto di Liturgia Pastora le, Abbazia di S. Giustina, Padova 1991) passim. Cf. also S. Salaville, "Consecration et ipiclese dans l'Eglise arminienne au Xlle sidcle. Temoignage de saint Nersds de Lampron, EO 16 (1913) 28-31; J. Sab, "La forma delleucaristia e l'epiclesi nella litur gia armena secondo Nerses Lambronatzi, Studia Orientalia Christiana, Collectanea 4 (Cairo 1959) 131-183.

34 B. L. Zekiyan, "Les rdlations armino-byzantines aprds la mort de St. Nerses Snorhali," Jahrbuch der bsteneichischen Byiantinistik 32.4 (1982) 331-337, here 333-6; Winkler, "Decline," 338-41; Kockert 113.

35 Cowe (91 notes 9, 12) lists four editions.3fi Ct. Renoux, "Commentaires, 305-6. In addition, there is an 8th c. commentary

on the lectionary by Grigoris ArSaruni, available in a modem edition: Grigoris ArSa- mni. Meknut'iwn snt'erc'uaioc' (Bibliothdque arminienne de la Fondation Caloustc (iiillx-nkian, Venice 1964); id., Commentaire du lectionnaire. Traduction frangaise, introduction et notes par. L. M, Froidevaux (Bibliotheca Armeniaca Textus et Studia I. Venice-Sl. Lazarus 1975). The other commentators, some of them from the turn of die 7th to the 8th e extraordinarily early for the relatively rare genre of commenta- lies on the hours, deal with the Divine Office, an area often neglected in other

TH E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE (SURB PATARAG) 185

The commentary of Xosrov and the Anaphora of Gregory the Illum i nator illustrate the truism that liturgies grow at their soft points places where originally there was ritual activity unaccompanied by chants or prayers37 and also at the beginning and end. The reasons are obvious. Like nature, medieval liturgy abhorred a vacuum. Besides, it is easier to insert things new into the empty cracks of a service, or at its beginning and end, than to mess with elements already a fixed part o f the existing text.

As I have shown elsewhere,38 the three principal soft points o f the ancient structure of the eucharist as it emerges already ca. a d 150 in Justin, Apology I, 65, 6739 the opening of the liturgy, the transfer of gifts and preparation for the anaphora, and the communion originally points o f action without words," eventually came to be filled in every where by a threefold structure comprising:

1. an action2. covered by a chant3. concluded by a prayer.

In the Armenian Patarag this process is visible especially in the open ing rites, preanaphora, and dismissal, but less in the communion rites. Let us examine these elements in the order in which they occur in the Patarag.

a. The Enarxis40 41

Xosrov begins his commentary on the Divine Liturgy abruptly, with the preanaphoral rites that follow the Gospel and Creed. Cowe believed this was because Xosrov had already explained the Liturgy of the Word in his commentary on the CaJSu zam.*' This Armenian Midday Hour or

traditions especially at that early date. See Renoux, "Commentaires," 289-98; Cowe 25; cf. Taft, Hours 219-220.

37 I develop and illustrate this principle in "How Liturgies Grow, ch. 11 of Taft, Beyond East and West 203-32, esp. 204.

38 Ibid. 204 and chapter 11 passim.39 PG 6:428-9.40 A new study on the Armenian Liturgy of the Word became available to me only

after this paper was completed: Ch. Renoux, "La celebration de la parole dans le rite armenien avant le X' siScle," in A. M. Triacca, A. Pistoia (eds.), L'eucharistie: celebra tions. rites, pieties. Conferences Saint-Serge, XLP Semaine ddtudes liturgiques, Paris 28 juin - 1 juillet 1994 (BELS 79, Rome 1995) 321-330.

41 Cowe 6-7, 24ff.

186 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J,

"synaxis" (Cas means, among other things, the midday repast) is a serv ice analogous to the Byzantine Typika, a Palestinian m onastic com m u n ion service.42 This is but one more proof of the strong hagiopolite in flu en ce in the formation of the Armenian rite, as amply demonstrated by R e - noux's monumental work on the lectionary.43

But does it also, as Cowe theorizes, provide the key to an aspect o f Xosrovs commentary that has long puzzled students o f Armenian liturgy: the fact that Xosrov begins his commentary abruptly with the interces sions following the lections and Creed, without a word about th e Enarxis?44 Cowe argues that Xosrovs commentary on the eucharist w a s meant to be accompanied by his similar treatment of the hours:45 b o th were conceived as a single work even if they have always been published separately. It is there, Cowe says, in the commentary on the Divine Of fice, that Xosrov treats the Enands material, which at that date w as already a permanent fixture of the Patarag, as is evident from the eighth- century commentaries treated immediately below.46 But Cowes theory has been challenged by Michael Findikyan:

Xosrovs Commentary on the Office has been published only as part of a redaction by MovsSs Erznac'i (d. 1323). This is a florilegium in which we find Xosrov's Commentary on the Hours intercalated among the writings of other liturgical commentators. The problem is that in Xosrov's Commentary as given in this re daction, nowhere do we find Xosrov commenting on anything resembling a Lit urgy of the Word. Xosrovs discussion of the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours is lim ited to his charactristic word-for-word commentary' of the proclamations and prayers of those little hours with no mention of scripture readings, alleluia, gos pel, Trisagion, the creed, psalms, etc.

Consequently, Cowe's sketch ot the Liturgy of the Word47 is based not on Xosrov, but on YovhannSs Ojnec'i, in whose eighth-century commentary on the Office we do indeed find the ordo of the Liturgy of the Word under the heading of

42 J. Mateos, "Un horologion inedit de S. Sabas. Le codex sinai'lique grcc 863 (IX'-' siecle)," in Mdlanges E. Tisserant, III. 1 (Studi e testi 233, Vatican 1964) 47-76, esp. 54- 5; cf. J. Mateos, La cdlebration de la parole dans la liturgie byzcintine (OCA 191, Rome 1971) 68-71. For further sources of what Baumstark calls "the Old Palestinian Melkite Rite" see Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy (Westminster, MD 1958) 223-4; R. F. Taft, The Byzantine Rite. A Short History (American Essays in Liturgy Series, Collegeville 1992)56-57 and the literature cited pp. 64-5: notes 26-31.

45 Relevant bibliography in APPENDIX below and Winkler, "Ritus, 265-6 (note 2), 297.

44 Cowe 24-8, cf. 97, 1.45 On this work, see also Renoux, "Commentaires," 295-7.46 Cowe 25.47 Ibid. 26.

T H E AREM NIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" (.SURB PATARAG) 187

the Third-Hour Office on Sunday. This ordo is also found in Movsgs Erznac'i'sflorilegiurn.48

Since O jneci (ca. 650-728) antedates X osrov (ca. 900-ca. 963) by m ore than a century, X osrov cannot have been unaware of the ritual Ojneci described. But the problem Findikyan has raised remains: "Why does X osrov om it any reference at all to these essentiallydefining elem ents of the Sunday Morning Office/Liturgy of the Word?49 Possibly because this (fasu ia m W ord service could be celebrated separately, and, like the Byz antine Typika, w as doubtless originally designed for aliturgical days w hen the eucharist was not celebrated. It had been prefixed to the Arme nian Patarag since at least the beginning o f the eighth century, by the tim e o f Step'anos Siwnec'i (ca. 680-735).50 Step'anos and Catholicos Yovhannes O jneci (ca. 650-728) seem to have known the same basic structure for this service, though Step'anos is m ore detailed.51 And after the Creed, Step'anos adds to his outline of the service the precious codicil: "and the H oly Mystery (surb xorhurdn i.e., the eucharist) w hich is called dasazam n.52 Though today the CaSu ia m is celebrated w ithout H oly Comm union on days when there is no Patarag,53 it seem s originally to have been a presanctified com m union service for non- eucharistic days. This is obvious from its structure, which, like the Byzantine Typika, com prises the Enarxis or opening part o f the full eucharist. The Armenian service follows this with the lections and intercessions, and then jumps to the com m union service: the Lords Prayer and its doxology, the Sancta sanctis and its response, the psalm, the Skeuophylakion Prayer of the Byzantine Chrysostom Liturgy i.e. the com im inion and dismissal rites o f the Patarag, but, today, omitting the m anual acts and com m union.54

Unlike the present Enarxis and Casu iam , however, the latter service in the com m entary o f Step'anos Siwnec'i, Commentary on the Liturgy o f

48 M. Findikyan, The Origin and Development of the Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church" (unpublished seminar paper 1993) 13.

49 Ibid.59 On Step'anos, see Findikyan, "Medieval Armenian Liturgy," esp. 174ff.51 Ibid. 182-3.52 S. Amatowni (ed.), Zamakargul'ean Meknut'iwn mdarfak ew hamarOt Step'anosi

Siwneac' Episkoposi (Ejmiac'in 1917) 64. The crucial passage from the commentary on the hours by Yovhannes Ojnec'i concerning the CaSu iam is translated by Cowe 26- 8 .

53 Nersoyan 119.54 Compare Nersoyan 35-53 with 118-21, and 82-101 with 122-5.

188 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J.

the Hours, chapter 6: How are the prayers of the Third Hour to be un derstood?", has only one psalm before the Trisagion:55

Ps 92/93:1-5 Elevation of the Gospel "PfosxumS" (= )Procession with Gospel and TrisagionLitanyPs 64/65:2Prophecy (= OT Lesson)Mesedi (= Responsory)Apostle (= NT Epistle Lesson)AlleluiaGospelCreedLitanyThe Holy Mystery (= Eucharist)

Todays Armenian Enarxis structure56 is much more complex, includ ing the following elements. Those marked with a cross (f) are additions borrowed from the Byzantine rite; those in boldface are the only ones mentioned in the earlier Caiu zam as outlined by Step'anos Siwnec'i:

flnitial Blessing2am am ut (= Introit: on Sundays the fMonogenes)OremusDoxologyPeace to allInclinationf Prayer of Antiphon ICaSu AntiphonfPrayer of Antiphon IItP rayer of Antiphon IIIfln tro it PrayerElevation of the Gospel

55 Ed. Amatuni (note 52 above) 64-9; English translation and thorough analysis in Michael FindiJcyan, Bishop Step'anos Siwnec'i (c. 685-735) and the Armenian Liturgy of the Word (unpublished Licentiate thesis, written under my direction at the Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Rome 1994) text 22-8, cf. also 50; id., "Medieval Armenian Liturgy," 182ff.

56 Ncrsoyan 34-45; LEW 421-5.

T H E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" (SURB PATARAG) 189

ProsxumE (= )Intro it Trisagion fTrisagion Prayer LitanyfEktene PrayerThe rest as above in Step'anos

The conclusion seems ineluctable: in Armenia, like everywhere else, the original Introit Antiphon comprised one psalm, in this case Ps 92/93, with its proper troparion or refrain. The fact that Ps 92/93 is also the psalm of Antiphon of the Byzantine Enarxis on ordinary days, I would consider purely fortuitous. In Armenia it opens the service: Yovhannes Qjnec'i refers thus to the Casu Antiphon for Sundays: And then the be ginning of the service: "The Lord reigned, he is robed in majesty [Ps 92/92:l] .57 Had the Armenians borrowed this opening Antiphon from Byzantium, they would more likely have borrowed either the pristine Byzantine Introit Antiphon (now Antiphon EH) Ps 94/95 or the Byz antine Antiphon I of the later three-antiphon structure, Ps 91/92. But the choice of the psalm of Byzantine Antiphon is inexplicable unless the Armenians chose Ps 92/93 as their Introit not at all in imitation of the Byzantines,58 but because of the suitability of the psalm text to express the high christology and strong incamational stress of the Armenian tradition ("The Lord reigned, he is robed in m ajesty... he has girded himself with might... Thou art from everlasting... The Lord on high is mighty...). This is reinforced by the fact that the Armenian refrains with which the psalm is farsed take their cue from the psalm incipit, and owe nothing to Byzantium.59

Later changes in the Armenian Enarxis are the result of massive Byz antine influence, and one does not need to look far to see where it came from. In the order of the Enands of the Patarag in the commentary of Nerses of Lambron, bishop of Tarsus (1175-1198), we see an even more heavily byzantinized ordo (the only native Armenian elements are in boldface):

57 Catergian-Dashian 513-8, cited by Kdckert 149 and note 25.58 The Byzantine Enarxis has developed by the first half of the eighth century

(Mateos. Citibration (note 42 above) 27-126, esp. 27-45; Taft, Beyond East and West 206-17); the Armenian psalm is found in the Casu iam in the earliest Armenian com mentators from roughly the same period.

59 Kockert 150.

190 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J.

Deacon: "Bless, master,Priest: "Blessed is the kingdom..."Deacon: Litany of 17 petitions, basically an Armenian adaptation of th e

Byzantine Great Synapte.60Priest: Prayer of Antiphon I in silence, w ith its doxology aloud at the en d

of the litany.Choirs: Ps 91/92:2, 16 + "Glory be to the Father... + refrain "Glory to you

0 God, followed by the Monogenes.Deacon: Armenian adaptation of the Small Synapte.Priest: Prayer of Antiphon II in silence, doxology aloud.Peace to all!Prayer of Antiphon III.Choirs: Ps 92/93:la, lb + Refrain (verse 1 of todays 0aSu refrain,

tone 6 for Sundays); Ps 92/93:3, 2 (sic).Deacon: "Prosxume!People: Trisagion.

This is for ordinary Patarag celebrations. At solemn feasts or pontifi cal liturgies, the bishop enters the church to vest during the Great Syn apte, but does not enter the sanctuary until the singing of Ps 94/95 w ith alleluia, which is preceded by a Small Synapte:

Deacon: Small SynapteArchpriest in sanctuary: Prayer of Antiphon IIIChoirs: Ps 94/95: verse 1 + alleluia, verse 2 + alleluia, "Glory be to the F a

ther... + alleluia, "Now and ever..." + alleluiaMeanwhile the bishop and priests say the Introit Prayer in silence, befo re

entering the sanctuary.And when Ps 94/95:5b is sung, they enter the sanctuary, and the p ries t

says Ps 94/95:6-7.Proper refrains sung while the bishop incensesTrisagion and Trisagion PrayerLitany and prayerAscent to the throneScriptural lections

This is simply an adaptation of the three-psalm (Pss 91/92, 92/93, 94/95) Enarxis of the Byzantine Liturgy61 with a few armenianisms here

60 It is similar to but longer than the one in LW 424-5.Bl I give a precis of its development in Taft, Beyond East and West 206-17.

THE AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE (SVRB PATARAG) 191

and there. And today's Armenian Enarxis ordo is just an abbreviated form of the presbyteral ordo in Nerses. But if these changes were already in place by the time of Nerses in the last quarter of the twelfth century, they could not have been more than a century old. Some of the byzantin- ism s e.g., the attribution of the Prothesis Prayer to Chrysostom and th e Initial Blessing62 could not have existed before the turn of the mil lennium.63 And the Armenians borrowed Byzantine Prothesis rite, with its borrowed Byzantine Incense Prayer following the Prothesis Prayer,64 not before it as in later Byzantine usage,65 exhibits a structure first seen in the tenth-century Byzantine Uspensldj Euchology of codex St. Peters burg Gr. 226.66

Furthermore, Renoux has shown in his recent study of the CaSoc' or Armenian lectionary manuscripts that the liturgical unit of three psalms plus alleluia at the beginning of the eucharist appears only in lectionary manuscripts from Cilicia, beginning in the thirteenth century.67 Earlier sources provide only one opening psalm.

All this leads us back to the influence of the Byzantine rite during the period of the Catholicosate of Cilicia, when relations with the Byzantines intensified, the Chalcedonian doctrine was widely accepted, and numer-

62 LEW 419.7-26, 421.9-11.63 Since the Liturgy of St. Basil was the principal Byzantine eucharistic liturgy

during the first millennium, had the prayer been borrowed before the Chrysostom liturgy had taken the lead and moved up to occupy first place in the euchology mss, the prayer would doubtless have been attributed to St. Basil. As for the opening bless ing (LEW 362.25-6), it was introduced in the 10th century: S. Parenti, L'eucologio manoscritto .. IV (X. sec.) della Bihlioteca di Grottaferrata. Ediiione (Excerpta ex Dissertatione ad Doctoratum, Rome, Pontificio Istituto Orientale 1994) 4, 31; cf. also G. Passarelli, "Osservazioni liturgiche," Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottafer rata 33 (1979) 75-85; id., L'eucologio Cryptense VII (sec. X) (Analekta Vlatadon 36, Thessalonika 1982) 39-40. Kockert (148) is wrong in asserting that the Initial Blessing is found in the 8th c. codex Barberini 336, the oldest extant Byzantine euchology. In his edition (LEW 310:12-13) Brightman took the liberty to fill in what he considered lacunae" in this ms, thereby disseminating endless confusion only now dissipated, for those who have not read either the ms or Brightman s notes, with the new critical edition of the Barberini text: S. Parenti and Elena Velkovska (eds.), L'Eucologio Barberini gr. 336 (ff. 1-263) (BELS 80, Rome 1995) 1-2.

64LEW419.65 LEW 359.33-6, cf. 360.31-361.5.66 N. F. Krasnosel'cev, Caedeum a nexomopux MtmypemecKux pyKonucsx BamuKancKou

BuOmommi (Kazan 1885) 283-4; cf. also the 12th c. codex Oxford Bodleian Auct. E. 5.13 (LEW 542-543), in contrast to the other sources cited in LEW 539-49.

67 Renoux, Le lectionnaire de Jerusalem en Armenie (see APPENDIX below) PO 44.4:477-80.

192 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J.

ous byzantinisms were introduced into the liturgy under Catholicos Nerses IV Snorhali (1166-1173) and his successors.68 and especially through the influence of Nerses of Lambron, hymnographer, orator, li turgical commentator, and fervent exponent of religious union with the Latins and Greeks, both of whose languages he knew.69

b. The Preanaphoral Rites

The second "soft point'' of the liturgy falls in the preanaphora. The li turgical material found between the Scripture readings and the anaphora reflects the same symbiosis of Armenian, Jerusalem (*), and Byzantine (t) elements:70

GospelCreedin tercessions with "Angel of Peace biddings*Peace to allin c lin a tio n Prayer*DismissalstN em o dignusGreat-Entrance Chant IGreat-Entrance Chant IIfGreat-Entrance Chant Transfer, deposition, incensing of gifts*LavaboAccessus diakonika and prayer Pax

Though one might be tempted to attribute to medieval Latin influence the location of the Creed right after the Gospel, where it occurs only in the Roman and Armenian rites, this is hardly probable. As we saw above, the Creed is found here as early as Yovhannes Ojnec'i (ca. 650-728) and

68 The "theopaschite clause" of the Trisagion is suppressed, zeon (hot water) added to the chalice, olive oil introduced in place of sesame for the chrism, and the Byzantine dates for Annunciation (March 25 instead of the Armenian date of April 7, calculated on the basis of Armenian adherence to the old Jerusalem date of Nativity January 6), Circumcision, etc., imposed. See Frangois Toumebidze, S.J., Histoire politique et religieusede IArmenie (Paris 1910) 250ff; cf. Mansi 22:198.

69 Toumebidze (cit. previous note) 260-65.70 LEW 426-34.

T H E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" {SURB VATARAG) 193

Step'anos Siwneci (ca. 680-735) at the turn o f the seventh-eighth cen tury, long before we can postulate Latin influence in Armenia.

c. The Preanaphoral Chants

The present system of three preanaphoral chants reflects the same in fluences. The third chant is a late Byzantine borrowing. The original Armenian structure had only two chants, obviously derived from the hagiopolite preanaphora of the Liturgy of St. James, with its two chants, the Lavabo chant after the lections, and the Holies ( - vov ) or Sanctuary ( ) chant at the transfer o f gifts.71 The fact that the latter is preceded by the diaconal admonition to sing be trays hagiopolite provenance too, even if it is misplaced, belonging instead before the first chant, which preceded the dismissals o f the Lit urgy of James.72

Of the three Great Entrance chants in present use, only the second is the native Armenian Hagiology chant. The first ("The body of the Lord...") is an East-Syrian borrowing,73 the third is Byzantine, as is the Nemo dignus prayer.74 Here, too, the byzantinisms can be dated to after the turn of the millennium: this Byzantine prayer is a medieval addition not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Chrysostom liturgy and missing even in two tenth-century sources of the Liturgy of St. Basil.75

The present location of the Lavabo or handwashing following the Deposition of the Gifts76 also reflects Byzantine structures anterior to the twelfth century, when the Byzantine Lavabo began to be moved up to its present place before the Great Entrance and was ultimately restricted to the pontifical liturgy.77 The original place o f the Lavabo in hagiopolite

71 On this whole question see H. Leeb, Die Gesange im Gemeindegottesdienst von Jerusalem (vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert) (Wiener Beitrage zur Theologie, Vienna 1970) 99-124; Taft, Great Entrance 41, 70-76, 92-4, 99-102, 113-14; id., "The 'Bematikion ( ) in the 6-7th c. Narration of Abbots John and Sophronius" (in press).

72 Compare 26:176.18ff, LEW 430-1.73 Compare LEW 267.33-268.2, 430.18-24.74 LEW 430. On the Byzantine origins of this chant and prayer, see Taft, Great En

trance 68-76, 130-34.73 Taft, Great Entrance 121-30.76 LEW 432.

77 Taft, Great Entrance 166-170, 175-7. Kockert (111) takes me to task For this comparison, but she has misunderstood my point. I am not trying to show that the Armenian Patarag is an earlier form of the Byzantine eucharist, but simply to hy-

194 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J.

usage was earlier, with the Lavabo chant at the very start of the preana- phoral rites.78

d. The Diptychs

The diptychs accompanying the anaphoral intercessions also show unmistakable signs of Byzantine and hagiopolite influence.79 From Byz antium comes the ordering of the intercessions, with the dead com memorated first, as found in Byzantine usage.80 This is foreign to the Armenian anaphoral intercessions, which follow the structure of the Liturgy of St. James. The influence of the same liturgy is also reflected in the diptychs, by the way in which the remembrance of the dead, then the living, concludes by returning again to the dead, then the living, and fi nally everyone.81

e. The Commmunion and Final Rites

Though the Byzantine Elevation Prayer has entered the Armenian communion rites,82 which, in common with Byzantium, have also pre served the earlier christological response to the Sancta sanctis,83 the clos ing rites of the Patarag also betray later Byzantine and Latin influence: the Final Blessing or Opisthambonos Prayer and the Consummation Prayer are lifted right out of the Chrysostom liturgy84 only to be fol lowed by the Last Gospel of the pre-Vatican Roman Mass!85

pothesize that Byzantine influence on the Armenian Great Entrance can probably be dated to around the tenth century, when the Byzantine Great Entrance rites exhibited a simply structure still reflected in the Patarag.

78 See references in note 71 above.79 See texts and analysis in R. F. Taft, A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysos

tom, IV: The Diptychs (OCA 238, Rome 1991) 66-71.80 LEW 330-36.81 Compare PO 26:206.25-220.17, LEW 439.27-440.5, 442.35 (right col.)-443.37; cf.

Taft, Diptychs (note 79 above) 68.82 Compare LEW 341.7-11 with 448.6-17. On this prayer see R. F. Taft, "The

Precommunion Elevation of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, OCP 62 (1996) 15-52.83 Compare LEW 347.17-8, 447.13-4, and cf. R. F. Taft, "Holy Things for the

Saints'. The Ancient Call to Communion and its Response, in G. Austen (ed.), Foun tain o f Life. In Memory o f Neils K. Rasmussen, O.P. (NPM Studies in Church Music and Liturgy, Washington, D.C. 1991) 87-102.

84 LEW 455.22-456.4 = 397.28-398.14.85 LEW 456.5-25.

THE AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" (SURB PATARAG) 195

m . Co n c l u s io n

So the Armenian Patarag, like other rituals of the Armenian rite and, indeed, of any eastern rite, is like an archeological dig. Slice through the tell and one finds a layer-cake of strata mirroring the phases of Armenian cultural and religious history. The first or lowest level is the Armenian Urgut derived from East-Syrian Mesopotamia and Greek Cap padocia. Then, from the fifth century, we observe a steady stream of hagiopolite borrowings, especially in the calendar and lectionaiy. The second millennium is characterized by heavy Byzantine and Latin influ ence.

What is most remarkable about Armenian religious culture viewed in the mirror of the Patarag, is its receptivity to cultural exchange. Since the Council of Chalcedon (451), Byzantium had had doctrinal differences with the Armenians, and since the Quinisext Council "in Trullo," held at Constantinople just over 1300 years ago (691/2), the Byzantine Orthodox Church had consolidated its own rite while turning its face against the different usages of its principal neighbors, the Armenians and the Latin West.86 Though busy holding off the Persians and those who succeeded them, and coping with their powerful Christian neighbor Byzantium on their doorstep, the Armenians, by contrast, were remarkably open to the uses of other nations, absorbing Latin and Byzantine customs with rela tive sang-froid. Xosrov's own receptivity often led him to be considered a Chalcedonian, as were numerous Armenian ecclesiastics, including Nerses Lambronac'i, in the centuries after that dolorous misunder standing.

In view of the savage ethnic and religious tribalism rending large parts of the world today, this could provide a lesson for us all.

A p p e n d i x : S e l e c t s c h o l a r l y L i t e r a t u r e o n t h e Ar m e n i a n L i t u r g y

On the Casoc' or typikon-Iectionary and the church calendar with its cycle of feasts, see above all the studies of Renoux; Charles (Athanase) Renoux, "Un manuscrit du lectionnaire armdnien de Jirusalem (cod. Jerus. arm. 121)/ Le Musion 74 (1961) 361-3S5; "Liturgie de Jerusalem et Iectionnaires armdniens. Vigiles et annee litur- gique, in Mons Cassien, B. Botte (eds.), La Priere des heures (Lex orandi 35, Paris 1963) 167-199; "LEpiphanie a Jerusalem au IVe et au Ve sihcle d'aprts Ie lectionnaire armdnien de Jerusalem," REA n.s. 2 (1965) 343-359 = Noel, Epiphanie, retour du Christ (Lex orandi 40, Paris 1967) 171-193; Les catechdses mystagogiques dans l'organisa-

86 Canons 32-33, 55-56, 81, 99, G. Nedungatt, M. Featherstone (eds.), The Council in Trullo Revisited (Kanonika 6, Rome 1995) 106-1 1, 136-8, 161-2, 179-80.

196 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J.

tion liturgique Hierosolymitaine du IVe et du Vc siecle," Le. Musion 78 (1965) 355-359; "Les lectures du temps pascal dans la tradition armenienne, REA n.s. 4 (1967) 63-79; "Les lectures quadraggsimales du rite armdnien, REA n.s. 5 (1968) 231-247; "L'hymne de loffice nocturne du rite armenien durant la grande sdmaine, Bulletin de litterature ecclesiastique 2 (1968) 115-126; "Le canon de la Pentecote dans Ihymnaire armenien," in Mdmorial Mgr. Gabriel Kkouri-Sarkis (1898-1968) (Louvain 1969) 83-88; Le codex anndnien Jerusalem 121. I. Introduction r.ux origines de la liturgie Hierosolymitaine (PO 35.1 - No. 163, Tumhout 1969); II. Edition comparee du texte et de deux autres manu- scrits (PO 36.2 - No. 168, Tumhout 1971); Le triduum pascal dans le rite armenien et les hymnes de la grande semaine," REA n.s. 7 (1970) 55-122; "Les lectures bibliques du rite armdniens: de la Pentec6te a Vardavar," in Melanges offerts au R. Dom Bernard Botte O.S.B. (Louvain 1972) 477-498; Un rite penitentiel de la Pentecdte? L'office de la genuflexion dans la tradition armenienne (Studien zur armenischen Geschichte 12, Vienna 1973); Liturgie armdnienne et liturgie hierosolymitaine, in Liturgie de Veglise particuliere et liturgie de leglise universelle. Confdrences Saint-Serge 1975, XXIF Se maine d'etudes liturgiques, Paris 30 juin - 3 juillet 1975 (BELS 7, Rome 1976) 275-288; "'Les fetes et les saints de IEglise Armenienne' de N. Adontz," REA n.s. 14 (1980) 287- 305, 15 (1981) 103-114; La fete de la Transfiguration et le rite arm6nien," in Mens concordet voci, pour Mgr. A. M. Martimort (Paris 1983) 652-662; La fete de lAssomp- tion dans le rite armdnien," in La Mire du Jesus-Christ et la communion des saints dans la liturgie. Conferences Saint-Serge, Semaine d'etudes liturgiques, Paris 25-28 juin 1985 (BELS 37, Rome 1986) 235-253; Le CaSoc', typicon-lectionnaire: origines et evolutions," REA n.s. 20 (1986-1987) 123-151; CaSoc' et tonakan arme- niens. Dependence et complementarity," Ecclesia Orans 4 (1987) 169-201; Les premieres manifestations liturgiques du culte des saints en Arm6nie, in Saints et saintetd dans la liturgie. Conferences Saint-Serge, XXXIIIe Semaine d'etudes liturgi ques, Paris 22-26 juin 1986 (BELS 40, Rome 1987) 291-303; Le lectionnaire de Jirusalem en Armdnie: le 0aJoc I. Introduction et liste des manuscrits (PO 44.4 - No. 200, Tumhout 1989). On Armenian Vardavar/ Transfiguration see also M. van Esbroeck (ed)., Barsabee de Jerusalem sur le Christ et les eglises (PO 41.2 - No. 187, Tumhout 1982) 168-171. See also the study of B. Botte, "Le lectionnaire armenien et la fete de la Theotokos a Jerusalem," Sacris erudiri 11 (1949) 111-122.

On the rites of Christian initiation in the MaStoc' or Ritual, see esp. G. Winkler, Initialionsrituale, and the other works cited in note 4 above. Further litrature on the Ritual is cited in Winkler, "Ritus," section 1; Arma S. ArevSatyan, "Le MaStoc' ou ri- tuel: origines et evolution littSraire et musicale," REA n.s. 20 (1986-1987) 153-166 and the literature cited 165-6; and Andrea B. Schmidt, Der Kanon der Entschlafenen. Das Begrabnisrituale der Armenier (Orient. Bibl. et Christ. 5, Wiesbaden 1994). See also the old but still useful F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenonim (Oxford 1905).

For the Armenian Liturgy of the Hours, see G. Winkler, A New Study of Early Development of the Divine Office, Worship 56 (1982) 27-35; A Response to Paul F. Bradshaw, ibid. 266-267; "The Armenian Night Office. 1. The Historical Background of the Introductory Part of giSerayin 2am," Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 1 (1984) 93-113; The Armenian Night Office. II. The Unit of Psalmody, Canticles, and Hymns, with Particular Emphasis on the Origins and Early Evolution of Armenia's Hymnography," REA 17 (1983) 471-555; "Nochmals das armenische Nachtoffizium und weitere Anmerkungen zum Myrophorenoffizium, REA 21 (1988-1989) 501-519 (response to the critique of C. Renoux, A propos de G. Winkler, The Armenian Night Office IT, REA 18 (1984) 593-598); "Ungeloste Fragen im Zusammenhang mit den lit- urgischen Gebrauchen in Jerusalem," Handes Amsorya (1987) 303-315; "Ritus, 277- 82, where Winkler also reviews earlier studies on the Armenian Divine Office, and concludes her overview (297): Es fehlen vor allem neuere Monographien fiber die

TH E AREM NIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" iSURB PATARAG) 197

Entstehungsgeschichte der armenischen Anaphoren und des Horologions. Vieles ist noch zu tun ... See also Taft, Hours, chapter 12.

The Armenian Patarag remains one of the least studied eucharistic services of eastern Christendom. I know of only one major work on the topic, Kockert, a doctoral dissertation written in East-Germany before die Wende. I am grateful to Prof. G. W inkler for making her copy of Kockerts thesis available to me. In Part KSckert gives the historical evolution of the Armenian Patarag insofar as it can be ascertained from the available sources without delving into the ms tradition, on which see J.-M. Hanssens, Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus orientalibus II-III (Rome 1930, 1932) , 1496-97, 1566; LEW xcviii-xcix; G. Kalemkiar, Catalog der Handschriften in der kgl. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek zu Munchen (Haupt-Catalog II. 1, Vienna 1892) 14-22. The mss had been examined and edited, in part, in the still standard Catergian-Dashian. But Catergian-Dashian is now outdated, and a systematic study of the ms tradition is presently being undertaken in Tubingen, under the direction of G. Winkler (cf. her study in this volume), by Hans-Jurgen Feulner for the Anaphora of St. Athanasius, and by Erich Renhart for the two Armenian redactions of the Anaphora of St. Basil.

For the editions of the service books, which for the Armenians began to be printed in the sixteenth century, see LEW xcvi-xcviii; A. Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy (W estminster, MD 1958) 232-34.

Robert F. Taft, S.J.Pontificio Istituto Orientale Piazza S. Maria Maggiore 7 00185 Rom e, Italy