——————————————————————————————————–—————————————————————–

JOURNAL OF BYZANTINE STUDIES (JOeB) /JAHRBUCH DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN BYZANTINISTIK, 72. Band/2022, 511–532
© by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1553/joeb72s511
——————————————————————————————————–—————————————————————–

ALEXANDER TREIGERa

The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem: New Evidence on the

Hagiopolite Communion Rite from Arabic Christian Sources
with one figure

ABSTRACT: The article focuses on eucharistic practices in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem prior to Byzantinization. An analysis of
a crucial testimony from Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida’s Adversus graecorum calumnias and a variety of Arabic Christi-
an sources—the Martyrdom of Anthony Rawḥ, Ṣāliḥ ibn Saʿīd’s Marginal Notes, and Elias of Nisibis’s Book of Demonstrati-
on—confirm that by the eleventh century, the Melkite Church in Jerusalem had abandoned the ancient practice of receiving
communion separately in two kinds (the consecrated Host in the hand and the Blood from the chalice) in favour of receiving
communion simultaneously in both kinds. Yet, in contradistinction to the Constantinopolitan practice of mixing both in the
chalice, in Jerusalem the pre-intincted consecrated Host was taken by the celebrant from the paten and placed directly into the
communicant’s mouth. The evidence of the Martyrdom of Anthony Rawḥ further suggests that this practice arose in the late
ninth or early tenth centuries.
KEYWORDS: Orthodox Liturgy, Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Hagiopolite Communion Rite, Eucharist, Humbert of Silva Candida,
Arabic Christian Literature

Arabic Christian Studies is a burgeoning field. Its significance lies in the fact that hundreds of texts
of first-rate importance—theological treatises, lives of saints, historical chronicles, and archival
documents—still lie unedited in medieval manuscripts dispersed across the globe, and even those
texts that have been edited and translated remain poorly known outside the still too narrow circle of
specialists in the field1. Many of these texts shed light on the liturgical practices of the Melkite
Church, i.e., the Middle Eastern branch of the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church comprising the pat-
riarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The purpose of the present contribution is to int-
roduce these texts and investigate what new information about Melkite liturgy and, specifically,
about the Hagiopolitan communion rite (i.e., about how the Eucharist was administered in Jerusa-
lem) can be gleaned from Arabic Christian sources.

INTRODUCTION: A BRIEF SURVEY OF THE SOURCES

A brief survey of the sources is now in order. The period with which I am concerned is the half a
millennium from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries. As we know from Daniel Galadza’s research,
the last three of these five centuries (ca. 1000–1300) witnessed a massive wave of Byzantinization,
a process whereby local Melkite practices of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusa-
lem were gradually adapted to and/or abandoned in favour of practices of Constantinopolitan ori-

—————
a Alexander Treiger: Dalhousie University, Department of Classics with Religious Studies and Arabic, 6135 University
Avenue, PO Box 15000, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada; atreiger@dal.ca.
1 Different versions of this paper were presented (by video-conference) at the conference “The Metaphysics and Theology of
the Eucharist,” Budapest (September 1, 2021), at the 18th Annual Conference of the European Association for the Study of
Religions, Pisa (September 3, 2021), and at the conference “The Liturgy of St. James: Origins, Contexts, and Reception in
East and West,” Regensburg (June 10, 2022). I am grateful to the organizers and participants of these conferences—
especially Stefanos Alexopoulos, Harald Buchinger, Daniel Galadza, Gyula Klima, István Perczel, Claudia Rapp, and Giu-
lia Rossetto—and to the peer reviewers at JÖB for their comments.
512 Alexander Treiger

gin2. The Byzantine reconquest of northern Syria—including Antioch—in the late 960s gave a
powerful impetus to these liturgical transformations3.
The relevant Arabic Christian sources from this period can be divided into five categories:

1. Liturgical manuscripts—this category includes Greek liturgical manuscripts with Arabic ru-
brics and/or marginalia (a good example is Sinai gr. NF Σ3, a Greek manuscript of the Lit-
urgy of Saint James dating to 1097/8)4, Arabic translations of Greek hymnography, Arabic
lectionaries, and (from the twelfth century on) Arabic liturgical manuscripts5;
2. Literary (especially, hagiographic) works that describe Melkite liturgy and the Eucharist—
one can mention, for instance, the Martyrdom of Anthony Rawḥ6 and the Arabic Miracle of
St. George and a Muslim7 (the latter ascribed in the Greek version to Gregory of Deka-
polis)8, both of which describe a eucharistic vision by a Muslim observer who is then bap-
tized and martyred, as well as Ṣāliḥ ibn Saʿīd’s autobiographic account of a liturgy at the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem9;

—————
2 D. GALADZA, Liturgy and Byzantinization in Jerusalem. Oxford 2018.
3 On Byzantinization in Antioch and on Antioch’s mediation of Byzantinization to the other Melkite patriarchates, see GA-
LADZA, Liturgy 110–112, 352.
4 G. ROSSETTO – A. TREIGER, Sinai gr. NF Σ3: A Dated Palestinian Manuscript of the Liturgy of Saint James (Ascalon,
1097/8), forthcoming in Byz 93 (2023).
5 For an orientation, see A. TREIGER, Section VI: Arabic, in: The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature, ed. S. Papaio-
annou. Oxford 2021, 642–662, at 653–655. See also R. TURNBULL, Arabic Gospel Lectionaries at Sinai. Collectanea
Christiana Orientalia 16 (2019) 131–166; U. ZANETTI, La liturgie de S. Marc dans le Sinaï arabe 237: Édition et traduction
annotée avec un état de la question par Heinzgerd Brakmann. Münster 2021.
6 D. VILA, The Martyrdom of Anthony (Rawh al-Qurashī), in: Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History [her-
einafter: CMR], ed. D. Thomas – B. Roggema. Leiden 2008, I 498–501; C. C. SAHNER, Christian Martyrs under Islam: Re-
ligious Violence and the Making of the Muslim World. Princeton 2018, 84–92; cf. GALADZA, Liturgy 283. This text exists
in Arabic in four recensions—see section “The Martyrdom of Anthony Rawḥ (Ninth–Tenth Century)” and the Appendix
below.
7 The Arabic text is unpublished. English translation: J. C. LAMOREAUX, Hagiography, in: The Orthodox Church in the Arab
World (700–1700): An Anthology of Sources, ed. S. Noble – A. Treiger. DeKalb 2014, 112–135, esp. 115–117 and 128–
134. In addition to the manuscripts mentioned by Lamoreaux, this text is also extant in two manuscripts of the Antiochene
Menologion for April in a collection of miracles of St. George: Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 402 (part of a
set dating to 1334), fols. 91r–95r and cod. ar. 403 (year 1258), fols. 267v–270v. Interestingly, the fourth miracle in this col-
lection is labelled “the last” (Sinai ar. 402, fol. 84r; Sinai ar. 403, fol. 260v); however, after it, several others are added (in
the older of the two manuscripts, Sinai ar. 403, they are added in another hand). The fifth miracle is the one translated by
Lamoreaux. This proves that this fifth miracle and those following it are not, originally, part of the Antiochene Menologion
as compiled in the first third of the eleventh century; nonetheless, they may go back, independently, to the eleventh century
or even earlier.
8 On the Greek text, see D. J. SAHAS, What an Infidel Saw That a Faithful Did Not: Gregory Dekapolites and Islam. Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 31 (1986) 47–67; D. J. SAHAS, Gregory Dekapolites, in: Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bib-
liographical History, ed. D. Thomas – B. Roggema. Leiden 2008, I 614–617; SAHNER, Christian Martyrs 106–108. The
Greek text is used in R. F. TAFT, Byzantine Communion Spoons: A Review of the Evidence. DOP 50 (1996) 209–238, at
226–227; R. F. TAFT, A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Volume VI: The Communion, Thanksgiving, and
Concluding Rites (OCA 281). Rome 2008, 291–293. According to the Greek text, the Body and the Blood were adminis-
tered to the faithful “with the spoon” (μετὰ τῆς λαβίδος). It is, however, important to note that the Arabic version, from
which the Greek seems to be derived, is more archaic in its depiction of liturgical practices and has no spoon (see Sinai ar.
403, fol. 268r–v; English translation: LAMOREAUX, Hagiography 129–130). The Arabic Miracle of St. George and a Mus-
lim thus nicely complements the evidence for the Jerusalemite practice of communion from the paten discussed below.
9 A. TREIGER, Ṣāliḥ ibn Saʿīd al-Masīḥī, in: CMR, V 643–650; M. BOUDIER – A. TREIGER, Salih ibn Saʿid, une vie dans les
marges des manuscrits (vers 980–vers 1050), in: La Palestine en portraits: De la préhistoire à nos jours (forthcoming). See
Section “Ṣaliḥ ibn Saʿīd (fl. 1020s–1030s)” below.
 The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem 513

3. Treatises devoted to Melkite liturgy and the Eucharist—the single most important document
of this genre is Ibn Buṭlān’s Treatise on the Eucharist (Maqāla fī l-qurbān)10; this treatise
was written in 1054 in Constantinople at the behest of the patriarch Michael Cerularius—the
author is thus a witness to, and a participant in, the dramatic events of the Great Schism;
4. Melkite canonical responsa—here the single most important source is Mark of Alexandria’s
Epistle to Abbot George of Damietta (ca. 1200)11 (another major representative of this genre,
Macarius of Sinai’s Responsum on Cheesefare Week, does not discuss the Eucharist in any
detail)12;
5. Non-Melkite Arabic Christian texts that polemicize against Melkite liturgical practices
and/or compare liturgical practices across the various Christian denominations—Elias of
Nisibis’ Book of Demonstration (Kitāb al-Burhān)13, the Copto-Arabic treatise Arrangement
of Priesthood (Tartīb al-kahanūt) falsely attributed to the tenth-century author Severus ibn
al-Muqaffaʿ14, and the anonymous Copto-Arabic treatise On the Characteristics of Each
Christian Confession15 fall within this category.

All these texts contain important information for historians of the liturgy and deserve a careful
study. This, however, is not possible within the limited framework of the present contribution.
Instead, in what follows I shall offer an illustration of how they can be used—drawing on sources
mainly from the categories 1, 2, and 5 of those listed above. Specifically, I shall demonstrate how

—————
10 Partial edition and translation: G. GRAF, Die Eucharistielehre des Nestorianers al-Muḫtār ibn Buṭlān (11. Jahrh.). Oriens
Christianus 35 (1938) 44–70, 175–191. On the manuscripts, see G. GRAF, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur.
5 vols. Vatican 1944–1953, II 193–194, to which the following should be added: Latakia, Orthodox Archdiocese, cod. 3
(year 1715); Latakia, Orthodox Archdiocese, cod. 34 (I am grateful to John Lamoreaux for this information). One of the
manuscripts—Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre ar. 12 (13th century), fols. 282v–293v—is accessible online: https://www.loc.
gov/resource/amedmonastery.00271070809-jo/?sp=286. Ibn Buṭlān’s Treatise on the Eucharist was incorporated by the
Copto-Arabic author Abū Šākir ibn al-Rāhib into his Book of Demonstration (Kitāb al-Burhān), chapter VIII.6—see Vati-
can City, Biblioteca Vaticana. cod. ar. 104 (autograph, dated 1282), fols. 75r–87v (online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/
MSS_Vat.ar.104); on Ibn al-Rāhib’s Book of Demonstration, see A. Y. SIDARUS, Ibn ar-Rāhibs Leben und Werk: Ein kop-
tisch-arabischer Enzyklopädist des 7./13. Jahrhunderts. Freiburg 1975, 97–182; A. Y. SIDARUS, Ibn al-Rāhib, in: CMR, IV
471–479, esp. 477–479.
11 A. TREIGER, Unpublished Texts from the Arab Orthodox Tradition (4): Canonical Responses of the Patriarch Mark III of
Alexandria to the Abbot George of Damietta. Chronos 41 (2020) 1–35 (edition and English translation); A. TREIGER,
Poslanie patriarkha Aleksandriĭskogo Marka III igumenu Georgii͡u Damiettskomu. Biblii͡ a i khristianskai͡ a drevnost’ 1 (9)
(2021) 26–69 (edition and Russian translation).
12 This treatise is unpublished. Russian translation: A. TREIGER, Makariĭ Sinait, O poste na syrnoĭ sedmit͡se. Vestnik PSTGU
III (53) (2017) 103–134. On Macarius of Sinai, see A. TREIGER, Who Was Macarius of Sinai, the Author of the Responsum
on Cheesefare Week?, in: Between the Cross and the Crescent: Studies in Honor of Samir Khalil Samir, S. J. on the Occa-
sion of His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Ž. Paša. Rome 2018, 137–145.
13 This treatise is preserved in the unicum manuscript Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, cod. ar. 180 (accessible online:
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ar.180). German translation: L. HORST, Des Metropoliten Elias von Nisibis Buch vom
Beweis der Wahrheit des Glaubens. Colmar 1886. Bishara Ebeid’s critical edition and English translation is forthcoming
with the Centre de Documentation et de Recherches Arabes Chrétiennes (CEDRAC) in Beirut (I am grateful to Habib
Ibrahim for this information). See Section “Elias of Nisibis (d. 1046)” below.
14 J. ASSFALG, Die Ordnung des Priestertums: Ein altes liturgisches Handbuch der koptischen Kirche Tartīb al-kahanūt. Cairo
1955; cf. Y. N. YOUSSEF, The Book Order of the Priesthood, by Severus ibn al-Muqaffaʿ Bishop of al-Ashmunein, Revisi-
ted. Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 45 (2006) 135–145.
15 This treatise is unpublished. It is preserved in the unicum manuscript Birmingham, Mingana Collection, Chr. Arab. 71
(accessible online: http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/119). English translation: N. N. SELEZNYOV, Franks and Eastern Christian
Communities: A Survey of their Beliefs and Customs by an Arabic-Speaking Coptic Author (MS Mingana Chr. Arab. 71).
Khristianskiĭ Vostok XII (6) (2013) 150–161; Russian translation: N. N. SELEZNYOV, Ot frankov do nubiĭt͡sev: ara-
boi͡azychnyĭ koptskiĭ knizhnik ob osobennosti͡akh khristianskikh soobshchestv (po rukopisi Mingana Chr. Arab. 71). Reli-
giovedenie 1 (2012) 7–15; reprint: N. N. SELEZNYOV, Pax Christiana et Pax Islamica: Iz istorii mezhkonfessional’nykh
svi͡azeĭ na srednevekovom Blizhnem Vostoke. Moscow 2014, 217–231.
514 Alexander Treiger

Arabic Christian sources shed significant new light on eucharistic practices in the Patriarchate of
Jerusalem prior to Byzantinization.

LAY COMMUNION FROM THE PATEN ALONE

IN THE PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM (ELEVENTH CENTURY)
Before we consider Arabic Christian sources, however, one crucial Latin account of Hagiopolite
liturgical practices needs to be examined. In his polemical treatise Adversus graecorum calumnias
(also known as Dialogus inter Romanum et Constantinopolitanum) written in 1053 in response to
Leo of Ohrid’s letter to John of Trani, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida writes as follows:

Quam reverendam angelis et hominibus institutionem etiam sancta Sion, prima scilicet ecclesia,
usque ad haec moderna tempora, sicut ab apostolis accepit, fideliter retinuit: adeo, ut quidam
Hierosolymitanorum pontificum datis epistolis significaverint, quantum illorum institutio
discrepit a Graecis. Sic enim scriptum reliquerunt: “Ex ipsa sancta civitate Hierusalem, quae et
sancta Hierosolyma, exiit fides Christiana: in ipsa quoque sancta Sion et sancta Resurrectio
primae ecclesiae dicuntur et veraciter habentur. In ipso sancto et venerabili loco adimpletur di-
vina et immaculata oblatio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, sicut decet per ordinem.” Et puto, quia
benefaciunt ibi, quod non nisi integras et sanctas ponunt ipsas oblationes in sanctas patinas,
nec, quomodo Graeci, habent lanceam ferream, qua scindant in modum crucis ipsam oblatio-
nem, id est proscomiden. Porro in praefatis sanctis ecclesiis, cum ipsa sancta patina sanctam
anaphoram, id est oblationem, exaltant. Etenim verae et aptae sunt ipsae oblationes tenuesque
ex simila. Lanceam vero ferream nesciunt, nisi quae latus Domini nostri Jesu Christi aperuit.
Cochlear vero cum quo communicent, sicut in ecclesia Graecorum, minime ha-
bent, quia non ita commiscent ipsam sanctam communionem in calice, sed sola
panis communione communicant populum. Itaque et in magnis et in parvis ecclesiis
hunc morem traditum sibi a sanctis apostolis habent omnes Christiani ipsius provinciae. Graeci
autem cohabitantes eis alii sic, alii qualiter a suis acceperunt.16
The Holy Sion, which is the first church, has faithfully preserved this institution [=the Eucha-
rist], revered by both angels and men, down to these modern times, in the same way as it had re-
ceived it from the apostles, so much so that some of the pontiffs of Jerusalem have indicated in
the epistles they sent how much their institution is different from that of the Greeks! For they
have left the following written account: “From the sacred city of Jerusalem, also [called] holy
Hierosolyma, the Christian faith has gone forth. It is here that the Holy Sion and the Holy A-
nastasis [=the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem] are called the first churches and are
truly located. In this sacred and venerable place, the divine and immaculate oblation of our Lord
Jesus Christ is performed as is fitting according to the [customary] order.” Thus, I think they do
well there that they do not place the oblations other than whole and intact on the holy patens,
nor do they, in the manner of the Greeks, have an iron lance, by which they cut the oblation, that
is, the proskomedia, in the shape of the cross. Then in these holy churches just mentioned they
lift the holy anaphora, that is, oblation, along with the holy paten. For indeed these oblations are
true, and proper, and more delicate than fine flour. An iron lance, however, they do not know,
except the one that opened the side of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nor do they have any spoon

—————
16 Humbert 33 (ed. C. WILL, Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saeculo undecimo composita
extant. Leipzig 1861, 109 = PL 143, col. 951–952). For bibliography on Humbert’s Dialogus, see https://www.
geschichtsquellen.de/werk/2960. I am not aware of a complete translation of this important text into any language.
 The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem 515

at all with which they communicate, as in the church of the Greeks, for they do
not mix the Holy Communion in the chalice like [the Greeks do] but communi-
cate the people by the communion of the Bread alone. Accordingly, all the Christians
of this province, in churches both small and great, keep this practice that was transmitted to
them by the holy apostles. As for the Greeks who live together with them, some of them act in
the same way, while others, in accordance with what they have received from their own people.

This passage is known to historians of the liturgy, but oddly enough, has been used only as evi-
dence for Constantinopolitan use of the spoon (Greek: κοχλιάριον [kochliarion] or, more common-
ly, λαβίς [labis])17; the crucial testimony it bears to the Jerusalemite liturgical practice of the mid-
eleventh century has been neglected.
If we are to trust Humbert’s testimony, communion in Jerusalem was prepared and distributed
differently than in Constantinople. There was no lance (Greek: λόγχη [lonchē], liturgical spear),
and consequently the celebrant did not cut the lamb out of the prosphora during the proskomedia
and did not cleave it crosswise. Instead, the prosphora was placed on the paten in its entirety. There
was, moreover, no spoon, and consequently Holy Communion was distributed to the faithful from
the paten rather than the chalice. Humbert seems to imply that the chalice was not brought out to
the faithful at all; instead, the faithful were given “the Bread alone.”
This does not necessarily mean, however, that the faithful communicated under one kind
(though this may be how Humbert understood this). The Body of Christ could have been intincted
and sealed with the precious Blood prior to communion. Indeed, there is now solid evidence from
the aforementioned manuscript of the Liturgy of Saint James, Sinai, Monatery of Saint Catherine,
cod. gr. NF Σ3 (year 1097/8), that this was indeed the case. On fols. 68v–69r of the manuscript, the
copyist provides the following Arabic rubric and Greek prayer:
‫ﻭﺍﺫﺍ ﺭﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻧﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﻳﻜﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻧﺔ ﻧﺼﻔﻴﻦ ﻳﻐﻤﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ )!( ﺑﻴﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺱ ﻭﻳﺮﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ ﻭﻳﺎﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻪ ﻛﻌﻤﻠﻪ ﺑﺎﻻﻭﻝ ﻭﻳﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻳﻐﻤﺲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻓﻴﻦ ﻭﻳﺮﺳﻢ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ‬،‫)!( ﻳﻤﺴﻜﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻳﺴﺎﺭﻩ‬
:‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﺫ ﺭﺳﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﻓﺸﻴﻦ‬

Ἕνωσις τοῦ παναγίου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος τοῦ Κ(υρίο)υ καὶ Θ(εο)ῦ καὶ
σ(ωτῆ)ρ(ο)ς ἡμῶν Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ.
And when [the priest] has lifted up the oblation for the second time and broken the oblation in
half, he dips the half which is in his right hand into the chalice and “signs” with it the half which
he holds in his left hand; then he takes the other half and does the same as he did with the first
half; then he joins the two together and dips both sides and “signs” the rest of the oblation, and
while “signing” says this prayer:
Union of the all-holy Body and the precious Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus
Christ.18

Therefore, the communion rite of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem at that time would have matched
that of the Syro-Jacobites (the Syrian Orthodox, as they are called today), where lay communion
takes place, also in modern times, without the chalice: the celebrant brings only the paten out, then
takes a piece of the consecrated host from the paten and places it directly into each communicant’s

—————
17 J. M. HANSSENS, Le cérémonial de la communion eucharistique dans les rites orientaux. Gregorianum 41.1 (1960) 30–62,
at 42; TAFT, Byzantine Communion Spoons 224–226; TAFT, History 288–290.
18 ROSSETTO – TREIGER, Sinai gr. NF Σ3; cf. A. K. KAZAMIAS, Hē Theia Leitourgia tou hagiou Iakōbou tou Adelphotheou kai
ta nea Sinaïtika cheirographa. Thessaloniki 2006, 61–65 (description of the manuscript) and 216, lines 7–8 (section E43 of
the liturgy).
516 Alexander Treiger

mouth; the host would have been previously (right after the fraction) intincted and signed with the
consecrated wine from the chalice19.
What do we make of Cardinal Humbert’s testimony? Is it to be trusted? To answer this question,
let us now consider some Arabic Christian sources.

THE MARTYRDOM OF ANTHONY RAWḤ (NINTH-TENTH CENTURIES)

The Martyrdom of Anthony Rawḥ was written in Arabic in the ninth century. According to the nar-
rative, Rawḥ al-Qurašī was an Arab Muslim nobleman from Damascus, who was granted a eucha-
ristic vision in the church of St. Theodore, converted to Christianity, became a monk with the name
Anthony, and suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Caliph Hārūn al-Rašīd (r. 786–809) in the
northern Syrian city of Raqqa (ancient Callinicum) on Christmas Day, December 25, 799. The
Martyrdom exists in four distinct recensions (A, B, M, and V), all of which go back to the ninth
and tenth centuries. Though a detailed study of the textual history of the Martyrdom remains a de-
sideratum, Recensions A and B appear to be the oldest (Monferrer-Sala has argued that B is more
archaic than A)20 and can thus be assigned to the ninth century. Recension M is an “embellished”
version that shares some features with both A and B, while Recension V is an “autobiographic”
account, in which Anthony Rawḥ speaks in the first person. Recension V is demonstrably derived
from M. Both M and V can be assigned to the tenth century at the latest, because the Georgian
translation of V is extant in two tenth-century manuscripts (for further details, see Appendix be-
low).
It is the eucharistic vision that will stand in the focus of our investigation. I shall cite the relevant
section in John Lamoreaux’s translation (with minor modifications), which follows Recension B.

Some days later, the festival of the holy Saint Theodore took place. Many clergy and lay people
from Damascus gathered in the church for prayer. When it was time for the liturgy, this young
man of Qurayš sat at his window, as was his custom. The priests came forth with the sacred
gifts. They carried the oblation on patens, chalices full of wine, an elevated cross, lit candles,
and incense rising up. The others in attendance were standing for the procession and were prai-
sing God, singing hymns to Him, and glorifying Him. As for this young man of Qurayš, he saw
on the Eucharistic paten something like a lamb. It was as white as snow and was kneeling.
Above it there was a dove hovering with its wings. This is what he saw, until they all reached
the altar. After the Eucharistic paten and the chalice had been placed on the altar and the oblati-
on had been covered, that dove ascended a bit. It hovered above the altar and above the heads of
the priests, as they were giving praise and singing hymns. As the liturgy continued, after they
had reached the Our Father, which they all recited together, and then had elevated the oblation,
while glorifying God and offering long prayers to Him, and the time for partaking of the holy
oblation had come, he then watched as the priest dismembered that lamb, limb by
limb, and as the people came forward to partake of it, from the hands of the
bishop, who offered them some of that flesh, one piece after another.
He was thoroughly astounded at this and began to reflect to himself, saying, “Glory be to God,
how astonishing is the Christian religion! In truth, it is a venerable and true religion.” The peop-

—————
19 For a detailed description of how this is done in the Syro-Jacobite context, see E. S. DROWER, Water into Wine: A Study of
Ritual Idiom in the Middle East. London 1956, 143–149. For a video of lay communion in the Syrian Orthodox Church in
Jerusalem, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwn2sKrrDUc (communion is distributed starting 1:41:20).
20 Edition and Spanish translation of Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 445: J. P. MONFERRER-SALA, Šahādat al-
qiddīs Mār Anṭūniyūs: Replanteamiento de la “antigüedad” de las versiones sinaíticas a la luz del análisis textual. MEAH:
Sección Árabe-Islam 57 (2008) 237–267; English translation: LAMOREAUX, Hagiography 113–114 and 117–123.
 The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem 517

le finished receiving the Eucharist. [The clergy] then took back into the sanctuary the last of the
sacred gifts and what was left of the oblation, as well as the other things. As this was happening,
the young man saw that the dove fluttered above them as they were in procession [back to the
sanctuary] and that the lamb had become whole again, restored to its initial state. Already as-
tounded, this caused him to be still more bewildered. He quickly descended from his residence
and stood at the door of the church. He began to inquire of the priests and lay people who were
leaving, “People, today I have seen a great wonder regarding your religion. It is contrary to what
I have seen on earlier occasions when you were celebrating your liturgy. Before today, I
used to see you partake of bread, plain and white. But just moments ago, I
watched as you partook of pieces of flesh and as you drank blood from the
chalice. I became astonished and certain that yours is a most venerable religion.”

This description leaves little room for doubt: during lay communion, the celebrant would come
out of the sanctuary with the paten and distribute small pieces of the Body of Christ (possibly, in-
tincted with the Blood, though the text does not mention this) to the faithful. In the first paragraph,
when lay communion is initially described, the chalice is conspicuously absent (it is mentioned
only in the context of the Great Entrance)21. It is only in the second paragraph, where Rawḥ addres-
ses the clergy and the faithful after the liturgy, that “dr[i]nk[ing] blood from the chalice” is mentio-
ned. But is this in reference to clergy communion or lay communion? The text is ambiguous. We
are thus in the dark as to whether the text describes lay communion in two kinds together (from the
paten) or in two kinds separately (the Body from the paten, then the Blood from the chalice).
Recension A brings some clarity to this question. There, the corresponding passage reads: “I
watched as you partook of pieces of flesh and as you drank something like blood from the
hands of the deacon” (raʾaytukum wa-antum tatanāwalūna qiṭaʿ laḥm wa-tašrabūna min yaday
al-šammās miṯl al-dam). The addition of “from the hands of the deacon” makes it certain that we
are speaking of lay communion. We can thus conclude that drinking from the chalice was still part
of lay communion in the period and milieu in which Recension A, and presumably also Recension
B, were created (i.e., the ninth century; we do not know where the text was written, but Palestinian
provenance seems likely)22.
The situation changes, however, as we consider Recensions M and V. In these recensions,
which we have dated to the tenth century, drinking from the chalice disappears completely. Though
this may be an accidental omission, it seems more likely that the editor of M (followed by V) de-
liberately left this detail out, because it no longer matched the liturgical realities of his time and
place. We can thus tentatively suggest that sometime in the late ninth or early tenth century a shift
would have taken place: instead of lay communion in two kinds separately (the Body from the pa-
ten, then the Blood from the chalice), the faithful were now communicated in two kinds together
(with the pre-intincted Body from the paten)23. Clearly, this shift was precipitated by the introduc-
tion of intinction prior to communion: once the Body had been pre-intincted, there was no longer a
perceived need to bring the chalice out to the faithful; drinking from the chalice thus became a
“privilege” of the clergy.

—————
21 On the Great Entrance see R. F. TAFT, The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Preanaphoral
Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Rome 1975.
22 Communion is distributed separately in two kinds among the Copts: the celebrant places a morsel of the consecrated bread
into each communicant’s mouth (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTGdP0IX2QQ, beginning 2:42:10); after that,
the communicant is given consecrated wine with the spoon. This is the mode of lay communion that we should envision
here as well, except that in the Martyrdom of Anthony Rawḥ (Recension A and presumably also Recension B) communi-
cants would have been given to drink directly from the chalice, without the spoon.
23 For complementary evidence from the Arabic Miracle of St. George and a Muslim, see n. 7 and n. 8 above.
518 Alexander Treiger

Figure 1: Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 589, fol. 68v
Ṣāliḥ ibn Saʿīd’s eleventh-century note on the liturgy at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem
(© Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, Egypt; I am grateful to Fr. Justin Sinaites for the photograph and permission to use it)

ṢĀLIḤ IBN SAʿĪD (FL. 1020S–1030S)

Ṣāliḥ ibn Saʿīd (monastic name: Christodoulos) was a Melkite Christian from Jerusalem. When he
was nine years old, his family moved to Cairo, where his father became a civil servant in the
Fāṭimid administration. Ṣāliḥ followed in his father’s footsteps and became a scribe (kātib) work-
 The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem 519

ing for the Fāṭimids. During Caliph al-Ḥākim’s (r. 996–1021) persecutions of Christians, Ṣāliḥ was
forced to flee Egypt24. He travelled all over Palestine, Syria, and Iraq (visiting Tiberias, Edessa,
Damascus, and even the Nestorian monastery Dayr Qunnā southeast of Baghdad) “strengthening
the faith” (as he tells us) of the Christian communities there. Eventually, he settled in Jerusalem
where he served as a priest in the Church of the Resurrection (the Holy Sepulchre), newly rebuilt
after it was destroyed on al-Ḥākim’s orders. Ṣāliḥ ended his life as a librarian at Sinai, where he
filled whatever blank spaces he could find in Sinai Arabic (and occasionally Syriac) manuscripts
with notes (several of them autobiographic) in a notoriously illegible handwriting. One of his auto-
biographic recollections appears on the last page of Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar.
589 (fol. 68v)—see Figure 1. It reads as follows25.
26
‫ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﺛﻴﻢ ﺍﺭﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺛﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍ ّﻣﺔ ﺍﺛﻴﻤﺔ ﻋﺪﻳﻤﺔ ﻣﻌﺠﺒﺔ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬ ّ ‫ﺍﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻘﱠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﻣﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﻴﺤﻲ‬
ّ
‫ﻻ ﺍﺳﻮﺍ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﻢ ﺍﻻﻋﻼ ﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻬﺎﻡ ﺗﻔﻀّﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺍﻻﻋﻼ ﻣﺨﻠﺼﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﷲ ﺍﻻﻋﻼ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪّﺳﺔ ﻭﻳﻌﺎﻗﺒﺔ ﻳﺤﻀﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻊ ﻭﻻ‬ ‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﻛﻨﺖ ﺍﺗﺤﻀّﺮ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ ﻭﺍﺳﻤﻌﻬﻢ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻀﻮﻥ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻻﺭﺫﻭﻛﺴﻴﺔ )!( ﻭﻳﻤﺘﺪﺣﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻵﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻫﻲ‬27‫ﺍﺩﺭﻱ َﻭ ْﺧ َﻴ ُﻬ ْﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺮﺏ ﻳﺼﻴﺮ‬‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺟﻼً ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻳﺎﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺰ‬ ّ ‫ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻴﻌﻘﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺮﺍﻧﻴﺔ‬28ً ‫ﻅﺎﻫﺮﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻥ ﺭﺟﻼً ﺣﺎﺩّﺍ ً ﻣﻦ‬ ّ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻟﺤﻤﺎ ً ﻳُﺮﻱ ﻋﺠﺒﺎ ً ﻣﻌﺠﺒﺎ ً ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻟﻴﻤﺤﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺫﺝ ﻣﻨّﺎ‬
‫ُﺼﻴﺒُﻨﻲ ﻣﻦ‬ ِ ‫ﺣﺮﺿﺘُﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﺎﺧﺮﺟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪّﺳﺔ ﻭﻛﺬﻯ ﻳ‬ ّ ‫ﺍﻻﺑﻮﺍﺑﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ ﻫﺮﻁﻴﻘﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻲ‬30‫ ﺍﺫﺍ ُﻛ ْﻨﺖَ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺣﻜﻢ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﺽ‬29،‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺤّﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ‬ ّ
‫ﺑﺨﻼﻑ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺤﻦ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﻟﻴﻘﻄﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﻓﺎﻋﻠَ ْﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
.‫ﺟﺎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻴﻌﺪﻡ )؟( ﺍﻟ ُﺤﻀ َﱠﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎ ُﻝ ﻓﺎ ِﻋ ْﺪﻩُ ﺑﺎﻗﻨﺎﻋﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻣ ّﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺟﻮﺍﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﻍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﺑﺪﺍﺕ )؟( ﻟﻠﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺬﺑﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪّﺳﺔ‬ ّ ‫ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﺫ ﺍﻧﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﺳﻘﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﻘﻴّﺔ ﻣﺎ‬ 31 ّ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ ﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺒﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺏ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺧﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻧﺒﺎ ﻻﻭﻥ ﺍﺳﻘﻒ ﺍﻻﺭﺩﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪّﺱ ﻭﺍﻧﺎ ﻓﻲ‬ َ ‫ﻗُ ِ ّﺮ‬
‫ﺭﺟﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﻴﺎ ﻋﺠﻼً ﻛﺎﻟﺮﺳﻢ ﺍﺫﺍ ﺑﺮﺟﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻊ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺑﻴﻴﻦ ﻭﺳﻮﺍﺫﺝ ﻣﻠﻜﻴﻴﻦ‬
ّ
‫ﺍﺣﻂ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﻣﺼﺪّﻗﻴﻦ ﻭﻟﻲ ﺑﺠﻬﻠﻬﻢ ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻥ‬ ّ ‫ﻭﻫﻢ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺎﺩﺣﻴﻦ ﻭﻟﺤﻴﻠﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺮﺏ ﻛﻌﺎﺩﺗﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻠﺪﻩ ﻣﻊ ﻛﻬﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻂ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺳﻘﻦ ﻟﻴﺒﺼﻖ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻟﺤﻤﺎ ً ِﻋ َﻮﺽ ﻣﺎ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻳﻔﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻔﺘﺨﺮﻳﻦ ﻓﻀﺮﺑﻨﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻠﺒﻲ ِﻣ ﱠﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻏﻴﻆ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﺫ ﻫﻮ ﻟﺮﺑّﻲ‬
‫ﻲ ﻟﻴﺮﻣﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻨﻴّﺔ‬ ّ ‫ﻭﻳﺘﻘﺮﺏ ﺍﻟ‬ ّ ‫ﺍﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻠﻌﻪ‬ ّ ‫ﻳﻘﻀﻢ ﺑﻔﻤﻪ ﻭﻳ َُﻮ ِ ّﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻣﺤﺘُﻪ ﺑﺎﻻﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ "ﻳﺎ ﻛﺬﺍﺏ" ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻤﻊ ﻳُ ْﺒ َﻬﺖُ ﺑﻜﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺼﺮ ِﻟ َﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ ﺑﻜﻼﻡ‬32‫ﻱ ﻋﺠﻠﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺗّﻠﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﱠ ﺧﻠﻂ‬ ‫ﺭﺍﺳﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻳﻢ ﻭﺍﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻳﺪ ﱠ‬
‫ﻀ َﺮ ﻣﻮﺑِّﺨﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺣ‬
َ َ َ ‫ﻦ‬ْ ‫ﻣ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ً ‫ﺍ‬ ‫ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ‬ 34
‫ "ﻛﺬﺍﺏ ﻟﻌﻴﻦ" ﻓﺎﺧﺴﻴﺘﻪ‬33‫ﺑﺤﺠﺎﺏ )؟( ﺷﻴﻄﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺳﺮﺍ ً ﻫﻮ‬ّ ً ‫ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺎﺧﺬﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺟﺴﺪﺍ ً ﻭﻟﺤﻤﺎ ً ﺣﻘّﺎ‬ ّ ً ‫ﺍﻧّﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺷﺎ ّﻛﺎ‬

—————
24 On Caliph al-Ḥākim, see P. E. WALKER, Caliph of Cairo: Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, 996–1021. Cairo 2009; P. E. WALKER,
Al-Ḥākim and the Dhimmīs. Medieval Encounters 21 (2015) 345–363.
25 For an earlier (unreliable) edition and translation of Ṣāliḥ’s note, see A. DRINT, The Mount Sinai Arabic version of IV Ezra
(CorpusSCO 564, Scriptores Arabici 49). Louvain 1997, xxvi–xxxii. The edition and translation below will provide a better
access to this important text, even as I must acknowledge that several words remain undecipherable and defy interpretation.
26 This last ‫ ﻫﻮ‬seems out of place. As it appears also at the end of the last line of the text, this may be a vignette to complete
the text.
27 ‫ ﻭﺧﻴﻬﻢ‬scripsi | ‫ ﻭﺣﺎﻫﻢ‬MS.
28 Sic! Read ‫?ﻅﺎﻫﺮﺓ‬
29 Written upside down.
30 ‫ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﺽ‬scripsi | ‫ ﻳﻌﺎﺭﺽ‬MS.
31 Written ‫ﺍﺫﺍ‬, then the last letter crossed out.
32 Sic! Read ‫?ﻳﺨﻠﻂ‬
33 Written upside down.
34 Classical Arabic: ‫ﻓﺨﺴﺄﺗُﻪ‬.
520 Alexander Treiger

A disgraceful spectacle which I saw from a disgraceful community, devoid of miracles

Nicknamed “the Christian” by the gentiles in the lands of Sinai and even in my own dwelling, I
am a priest and a monk unworthy of this exalted name. However, by the graceful inspiration of
the Supreme King, Our Saviour, I was present at God’s greatest monument, the Holy Anastasis
[=the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem]. Jacobites were present in the crowd. Though
I did not know their intentions, I overheard them raising objections against the Orthodox religi-
on and boasting of certain miracles, which [according to them] were being manifest at present
among the Jacobites, but not among the [Orthodox] Christians. A certain man among them
would partake of the Bread of the offering, and it would turn into meat in his mouth! He would
show this to us as an amazing miracle, to deceive the uneducated among us. There was a strong
man among the doorkeepers, and I stirred [this man] against him, and he kicked him out of the
Holy Anastasis. This happens to me at the instigation of the enemy and the deceiver, Satan
[…]35. When it was Holy Easter, I began (?) the exalted service at the altar of the Holy Ana-
stasis, in front of the Revered Tomb. When, after the liturgy was completed by Abba Leon, bis-
hop of the Holy Jordan, I brought out the paten, on which there was the remainder of the Com-
munion, and was about to quickly bring it back [into the altar], as is the custom, suddenly there
appeared a man amongst a crowd of Jacobites and uneducated Melkites. They were praising him
and believing his devilish trick. In their ignorance they demanded that I give him the paten, so
that he would spit out a piece of meat instead of what he had communed with—in accordance
with the custom of his own country, as he would do [in the past] with rural Coptic priests, who
were taking pride in him. I was struck by bitterness and a great anger against him in my heart,
for he was chewing on My Lord in his mouth and was pretending that [the piece] was too large
to swallow. He approached me to cast [the piece] out onto the paten, but I pushed him away
from the Holy [Gifts and shouted]: “You liar!” The crowd was astonished by my terse comment,
knowing that I had the precious Body above my head. Together with other priests, who came
rushing [to my help], we chanted “Accursed liar!” so that he would not be able to interfere (?)
with his devilish speech. I chased him away, and we reprimanded those present that there is no
one among us who doubts that what we partake of in communion is the very Body and Flesh [of
Christ] in reality, mysteriously.

Ṣāliḥ’s note is tremendously important. As far as I know, this is the only first-hand account of
lay communion in eleventh-century Jerusalem. Moreover, it is an informed account, penned by one
of the celebrating priests, not just a casual observer.
We notice that communion was administered from the paten. There is no mention of the chalice
being brought out; there is also no mention of a spoon. In fact, if the chalice was brought out sepa-
rately, the story would make no sense, for it would not have been possible for the Jacobite troub-
lemaker to spit the morsel out after having drunk from the chalice36. Yet, we get the impression that
the service was over when this was taking place: ergo, there must have been no bringing out of the
chalice. Moreover, when, at the end of the note, Ṣāliḥ speaks about the Eucharist, he describes it as

—————
35 The next section is unclear. I can venture only a tentative translation: “If you dispute with the heretic and use the most
elaborate argument about something [concerning which their belief] is contrary to ours [and ask] a question to cut off what
he requires [or: what is required] by means of what he does not require [or: what is not required], then you should know
where that [heretic?] came from so that his speech may defeat (?) those in attendance. Then turn him away by compelling
him to give up his statement by means of that which will bring his response to an end.”
36 What is unclear is why the Jacobite man was given communion in the first place (at the time, Syro-Jacobites were not yet
allowed to serve at the Holy Sepulchre and did not yet have a chapel of their own).
 The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem 521

Christ’s “Body and Flesh,” as if forgetting the Blood. This telling omission, too, is much easier to
explain on the assumption that the chalice was not brought out at all37.
Finally, we should notice the perfect correspondence of Ṣāliḥ’s description of lay communion
with Cardinal Humbert’s testimony. We remember that Cardinal Humbert argued that in Jerusalem
“they [do not] have any spoon at all with which they communicate, as in the church of the Greeks,
for they do not mix the Holy Communion in the chalice like [the Greeks do] but communicate the
people by the communion of the Bread alone.” This is precisely what we see in Ṣāliḥ’s description.

ELIAS OF NISIBIS (D. 1046)

The famous Nestorian theologian, philosopher, polemicist, and historian Iliyyā bar Šīnāyā, com-
monly known as Elias of Nisibis (d. 1046), has recently been called “undoubtedly the most signifi-
cant eastern Christian writer of the 11th century”38. His Book of Demonstration is extant in the uni-
cum manuscript Vat. ar. 18039. In chapter IV.1 of this treatise, Elias criticizes Melkite and Jacobite
liturgical practices. The discussion is quite long and elaborate, so I am just going to cite the key
passage:
40ً
‫ﺳﻘﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺍﺏ‬ ِ ‫ﻭﺍﻭﻟﻪ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻩ‬ّ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﻖ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ُﻣ ْﻔﻨَﺪﺍ ً ﻭﻟﺪ ﱠ‬
‫ﻱ ﻣﺰﻳّﻔﺎ‬ ّ ‫ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﻌﻘﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻋﺪﺍ‬
41 ّ ّ ّ
| ‫ﻳﻘﺮﺑﻮﺍ ﺍﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ‬ّ ‫ ﻭﺍﻥ‬،‫ﻟﻠﺤﻖ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻠﻮﻥ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ ُﺣﻔﺎﺓ ﻭﺑﻼ ﺳﺮﺍﻭﻳﻼﺕ‬ ‫ ﻭﻛﻬﻨﺘﻬﻢ ﻣﻊ ﺷﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺎﻟﻒ‬،‫ﺟﺎﺭﻳﺎﻥ‬ِ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻖ‬
‫ ﻭﻳﻄﻮﻓﻮﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺳﻮﺍﻕ‬،‫ ﻭﻳﺪﻓﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺒﻴﺎﻥ‬،‫ﻭﻳﻘﺮﺑﻮﺍ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻣﻔﻄﺮﻳﻦ‬ ّ ،‫ﻭﻳﺎﺧﺬﻭﺍ ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻮﺍ ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧﺎ ً ﺑﻼ ﻛﺎﺱ‬
‫ ﻭﻳﺨﺒﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺪّﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﻓﻴﻌﺮﺿﻮﻧﻪ‬،‫ﻏﻴﺮﻩ‬ َ ‫ﻳﻘﺮﺏ‬ ّ ‫ ﻭﻳﺎﺫﻧﻮﺍ ﻟﻠﻨﺴﺎ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻻ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻥ‬،‫ ﻭﺍﺧﺬَﻩ ﻭﺩﻓ َﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻜﺎﻫﻦ‬،‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﺕ‬
،"‫ﻗﺮﺍﻩ "ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﺗﻐﻴّﺮ ﻭﻻ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ‬ ّ ‫ ﻭﻳﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻨﺪ‬،‫ﻟﻠﺴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻔﻦ ﻭﺍﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭ ﻭﻏﻴﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﻓﺎﺕ‬
‫ ﺛ ّﻢ ﺍﻧّﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ‬،‫ ﻓﻴﻨﺤ ّﻞ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧُﻬﻢ‬،‫ﻲ‬ّ ‫ﻣﻐﻠ‬ ‫ﻣﺎء‬ ‫ﺛ ّﻢ ﺍﻧّﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻡ ﺍﺫﺍ ﻓﺮﻍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ ﻳُﻠﻘﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺱ ﻭﻳُﻠﻘﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ‬
‫ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪّﺳﺔ ﺗﺤﻈﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻭﺗﻤﻨﻊ ﻣﻦ‬،‫ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻡ ﻳﻘﺪّﺳﻮﻥ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺣﺪ ﺑﺮﺳﻢ ﺍﻻﺳﺒﻮﻉ ﻛﻠّﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳُﺨﺮﺟﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻛ ّﻞ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺎﺧﺬ ﻋﺪّﺓ ﻗﺮﺍﺑﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ‬،‫ ﻭﺍﻳﻀﺎ ً ﻓﺎﻧّﻬﻢ ﻳﺠﻌﻠﻮﻧﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻻﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﺛﺮﻳﺪﺍ ً ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺱ‬،‫ ﻟﻴﻠﺔً ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‬42‫ﺗﺒﻴﻴﺘﻪ‬
‫ ﻭﺍﻳﻀﺎ ً | ﻓﻘﺮﺑﺎﻧﻬﻢ ﺍﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﺘﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺳﻮﺍﻕ ﻭﺗﻌﺠﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎ ﻭﻳﺨﺒﺰﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺎﻟﻔﻮﻥ‬،ً‫ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻳﻮﻣﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺨﺒﻮﻧﻬﺎ ﻟﻐﻮﺍ ً ﻭﻋﺒﺜﺎ‬
‫ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻴﺢ‬43‫ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻫﺮ‬،‫ﻟﻠﻤﻠّﺔ ﻭﻳﻘﺪّﺳﻮﻧﻪ ﺑﻘﺪّﺍﺱ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﻋﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻭﺣﺴّﻨﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻋﻴُﻨﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﻤﻪ ﻟﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﺧﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ‬
‫ ﻳُﺴﺘﺪ ّﻝ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻘﻤﻪ ﻭﻓﺴﺎﺩﻩ ﻭﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺑﻴﻌﻘﻮﺏ‬44‫ﺑﺮﻱ ﻣ ّﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍ ﻭﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺸﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻲ ﻭﺍﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳُ ْﻌ َﻤ ُﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻛﺮﺍﻥ‬
ّ ‫ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﺎ ﺣ‬،‫ﻲ‬ ّ ‫ ﻓﻤﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻧّﻬﻢ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻭﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺒ‬،‫ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﺩﻋﻲ ﻣﻘﺪّﻡ ﺍﻟﻴﻌﻘﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﻳﻪ ﺍﺷﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻁﺐ‬ َ ‫ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﻼﻡ ﻳُﺨﺎ‬،‫ﺍﻟﺴﺮ‬ ّ ‫ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ‬،‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻬﺪ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻴﺢ‬45‫ﺕ‬ ْ َ‫ ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮﻭﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺻﻬﻴﻮﻥ ﻭﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺃ ُ ْﻧ ِﺠﺰ‬،‫ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺗﻰ‬
،‫ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﷲ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺮ‬،‫ ﻓﻴﺠﻌﻠﻮﻧﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﷲ ﺑﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ‬،"‫ "ﻭﺍﺫﻛﺮ ﻣﺮﻳﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﻟﺪﺗﻚ ﺑﻨﻌﻤﺔ ﺍﻳﺸﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ‬،ّ‫ﻋﺰ ﻭﺟﻞ‬ ّ ‫ﺑﻪ ﷲ‬
47 46
. ‫ﻱ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍء ﻭﺟﺬﺍﻑ ﺍﺷﺪّ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ‬ ّ ‫ ﻓﺎ‬،"‫ "ﻫﺬﺍ ﺟﺴﺪ ﷲ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺩﻡ ﷲ‬:‫ﺛ ّﻢ ﻳﺎﺗﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺎ ّﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﺮﻯ ﺍﺫﺍ ﺍﻋﻄﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ ﻵﺧﺬﻩ‬
—————
37 For a similar example in Mark of Alexandria’s Epistle to Abbot George of Damietta (written ca. 1200), see TREIGER, Un-
published Texts 28.
38 J. P. MONFERRER-SALA, Elias of Nisibis, in: CMR, II 727–741, at p. 727.
39 As mentioned in n. 13 above, the manuscript is accessible online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ar.180; Bishara
Ebeid’s edition and English translation of the Book of Demonstration is forthcoming. This treatise first became known in
Europe in the early eighteenth century—see G. S. ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana. Rome 1719–
1728, III.1 303–306. Due to the loss of the text’s beginning, the treatise is transmitted in the manuscript anonymously
(though it is preceded by two other treatises by Elias of Nisibis); for this reason, Assemani called it “Tractatus anonymi
adversus Mahometanos, Judaeos, Jacobitas et Melchitas.” Elias of Nisibis’ authorship was firmly established by Horst,
who also translated the treatise in its entirety into German: HORST, Des Metropoliten Elias von Nisibis Buch vom Beweis.
Apparently unaware of Horst’s work, Taft still refers to this treatise as “An Anonymous Nestorian Tract” and misdates it to
the twelfth century—see TAFT, Byzantine Communion Spoons 228; TAFT, History 294.
40 ً ‫ ﻣﺰﻳّﻔﺎ‬scripsi | ‫ ﻣﺮﻳﻔﺎ‬MS.
41 ‫ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻠّﻮﻥ‬scripsi | ‫ ﻳﺴﺘﺠﻠﻮﻥ‬MS.
42 ‫ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﺘﻪ‬scripsi | ‫ ﺗﺒﻴﺘﻪ‬MS.
43 ‫ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻫﺮ‬scripsi | ‫ ﺍﻟﻄﻬﺮ‬MS.
44 ‫ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬scripsi | ‫ ﺍﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬MS.
45 ْ‫ ﺃ ُ ْﻧ ِﺠﺰَ ﺕ‬scripsi | ‫ ﺍﺗﺤﺪﺕ‬MS.
46 =Syr. ‫ܕ‬ , “blasphemy.”
522 Alexander Treiger

How can I regard the communion (qurbān) of the Melkites and the Jacobites, the enemies of the
truth, except as false and counterfeit, given that both its beginning and its end are defective and
run contrary to what is proper and true? On top of holding abhorrent faith that is contrary to the
truth, their priests consider it legitimate to enter the altar barefoot and without trousers48. They
commune themselves and take and distribute communion without a chalice. They
distribute communion after having broken their fast. They hand the sacrament over to women
and children and make processions with it in the markets and in the houses. [They consider it
legitimate] to take it and hand it over to someone who is not a priest. They allow women and
those with no [ecclesiastical] rank to administer communion to others. They preserve [the sa-
crament] for a long time, thus subjecting it to larvae, worms, mould, being eaten by mice, and
other forms of damage. This contradicts the statement of Scripture [well known] to its readers:
“His Body was affected by neither change nor corruption” (Acts 2:31). Moreover, in the
lands of the Romans [Byzantium], after the liturgy is finished, they throw the
[remaining] sacrament into the chalice and pour boiling water over all this,
such that their sacrament gets dissolved therein. Also, during Lent they consecrate on
Sunday [an amount] sufficient for the entire week, from which they then take [a portion] every
day and communicate from it49; yet the holy canons prohibit this and forbid leaving any of it for
even a single night. Also, on some occasions they make porridge out of it in the
chalice. Some of them take communion several times in a single day both from the sacrament
of that day and from the preserved sacraments, for no reason, just for fun. On top of that, [the
wheat for] their sacrament is bought in the markets, women knead it, and those who are at odds
with [true] religion bake it. They consecrate it in a liturgy that Satan has invented
and has beautified it in their eyes by giving it the name of James, the brother
of Christ, yet this pure apostle has nothing to do with this liturgy and the
abominable fabrications and the sheer amount of nonsense it contains—all this
serves as evidence that [this liturgy] is defective and corrupt, and is rather
more similar to Jacob Baradaeus, the leader of the Jacobites, and his
abominable fabrications. For example, during [this liturgy] they commemorate the prophet
Elijah, yet Elijah is alive, while the sacrament and commemoration are meant for the dead [on-
ly]. They also mention during [this liturgy] the Church of Sion50, but it had not yet been comple-
ted during the time of the apostle James. In one of the secret [prayers], which is a statement
addressed to God mighty and glorious, they say: “And remember Mary who gave birth to You
by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Thus, they claim that she gave birth to God by the grace of Christ,
may God be exalted above this impious statement51! Then they commit the worst atrocity when
they distribute communion and say to its partaker: “This is the Body of God and this is the
Blood of God.” Is there any fabrication and blasphemy that is worse that this?!
—————
47 Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, cod. ar. 180, fols. 199v–200v; trans. HORST, Des Metropoliten Elias von Nisibis Buch
vom Beweis 98–100.
48 In Coptic and Ethiopian practice, clergy remove their shoes before entering the altar—in imitation of Moses at the Burning
Bush (Exodus 3:5; cf. Acts 7:33).
49 This is, obviously, in reference to the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. See S. ALEXOPOULOS, The Presanctified Liturgy in
the Byzantine Rite: A Comparative Analysis of Its Origins, Evolution, and Structural Components. Leuven 2009; cf. D.
GALADZA’s review. Theoforum 42.2 (2011) 285–288; R. MIKHAIL, The Coptic Church and the Presanctified Liturgy: The
Story of a Rejected Tradition. The Alexandria School Journal 3 (2016) 2–30.
50 L. KHEVSURIANI – M. SHANIDZE – M. KAVTARIA – T. TSERADZE – S. VERHELST, Liturgia Ibero-Graeca Sancti Iacobi: Editio
– translatio – retroversio – commentarii. Münster 2011, 86–87 (section 85.I). Cf. A. RÜCKER, Die syrische Jakobosanapho-
ra nach der Rezension des Jaʿqôb(h) von Edessa. Münster 1923, 24:7.
51 From the Nestorian perspective, Theopaschite expressions, such as “God was born,” “God died on the cross,” etc., and
hence also the Virgin Mary’s sobriquet “Theotokos” (Birthgiver of God), are objectionable, because they attribute suf-
fering to the Divine.
 The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem 523

There is a lot that is of interest in this passage to historians of the liturgy. It is unfortunate that in
his criticisms Elias does not differentiate between Melkites and Jacobites (the latter category, of
course, includes both the Syro-Jacobites in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq and the Copts in Egypt)52—it
is therefore not easy to disentangle these claims and assign them to the respective communities. For
example, it is tempting to see Elias’ diatribe against the Liturgy of Saint James as being concerned
specifically with the Jacobites, because he indicates that this liturgy reminds him of “Jacob Ba-
radaeus, the leader of the Jacobites, and his abominable fabrications.” Nonetheless, the Liturgy of
Saint James was also the standard Melkite eucharistic service in Jerusalem at the time53. As it hap-
pens, the prophet Elijah is mentioned in the Greek and Georgian versions of the Melkite Liturgy of
Saint James54 but not, so far as I could see, in the Syro-Jacobite Liturgy of Saint James, and so Elias
of Nisibis may have had in mind the former rather than the latter.
With this in mind, Elias’ accusation that his ecclesiastical rivals “commune themselves and take
and distribute communion without a chalice” (yuqarribū anfusahum wa-yaʾḫuḏu wa-yuʿṭū qurbān-
an bi-lā kaʾs) corroborates the view being argued for here that in the eleventh century lay commu-
nion in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was taking place in both kinds simultaneously from the paten
(with pre-intincted Body), without the chalice at all.

CONCLUSION
If all the above is correct, this means that by the eleventh century, the Melkite church in Jerusalem
had abandoned the ancient practice of receiving communion separately in two kinds (the conse-
crated Host in the hand and the Blood from the chalice) in favour of receiving communion simulta-
neously in both kinds (the pre-intincted consecrated Host was taken by the celebrant from the paten
and placed directly into each communicant’s mouth)55. The practice of mixing both in the chalice

—————
52 For an early example of the Copts self-identifying as “Jacobites”, see the tenth-century Copto-Arabic author Macarius of
Manūf al-ʿUlyā’s unpublished Epistle on Chrism: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, cod. ar. 100, fol. 173v [left-to-
right numbering]: naḥnu al-urtuduksiyya al-yaʿāqiba al-qibṭ; French translation: L. VILLECOURT, La lettre de Macaire,
évêque de Memphis, sur la liturgie antique du chrême et du baptème à Alexandrie. Le Muséon 36 (1923) 33–46, at 34:
“nous les Coptes Jacobites orthodoxes.”
53 GALADZA, Liturgy 157–219.
54 B.-Ch. MERCIER, La Liturgie de Saint Jacques: Édition critique du texte grec avec traduction latine (PO 26.2). Paris 1946,
214–215, apparatus (the names of the prophets, including Elijah, appear only in Messina, Biblioteca Regionale Universita-
ria “Giacomo Longo”, S. Salv., cod. 177 (Diktyon 40838), no longer extant; on this eleventh-century parchment scroll, see
GALADZA, Liturgy 377–378 and Index, 427); KAZAMIAS, Hē Theia Leitourgia 274 (also with reference to the Messina
scroll); KHEVSURIANI et al., Liturgia Ibero-Graeca 94–95 (section 87.IVb). “Commemorate” refers to the characteristic
μνήσθητι [mnēsthēti] of the Liturgy of Saint James—see GALADZA, Liturgy 157 and 210–211.
55 I do not believe that in the Melkite Church communion in this period was given to the faithful in the hand. Robert Taft has
presented (and dismissed) important evidence that this was no longer the case. According to him, “The earliest ms of hagi-
opolite Greek JAS [=Liturgy of Saint James], the 9th c. roll Vatican Gr. 2282, contains a precommunion prayer that has
been adduced as one of the earliest witness[es] to the shift from communion in the hand to communion in the mouth. The
prayer reads: ‘May the Lord bless us and make us worthy to receive with the pure tongs of our souls’ fingers the burning
coal and place it in the mouths of the faithful (ἀγναῖς ταῖς τῶν δακτύλων τῶν ψυχῶν λαβίσιν ἀναλαβεῖν τὸν ἐμπύριον
ἄνθρακα καὶ ἐπιθεῖναι τοῖς τῶν πιστῶν στόμασιν), for the purification and renewal of their souls and bodies, now and ever
and unto the <ages of ages>’. But I think it would be rash to take such a text literally, in the sense that the minister actually
placed the host in the communicant’s mouth rather than in the hand. What determines the prayer-text is not some material
correspondence with actual liturgical usage, but the parallel with Is 6:6–7, where the Seraph places the coal in the pro-
phet’s mouth. Such an interpretation is, in fact, what we see in a Holy-Thursday text of Ephrem (ca. 306–373), Sermon 3
[sic; read: Sermon 4], for the Night of the Fifth Day of Passion Week, 135–151, inspired by the same theme. … Obviously,
it would be wide of the mark at this early date to take Ephrem, who also refers in his writings to communion in the hand, as
describing another practice, and I suspect the same is true of the 9th c. JAS”—see TAFT, History 265–266. I believe the ar-
gument is problematic: Taft is right, of course, that the Vatican JAS manuscript uses imagery from Isaiah (on which Eph-
rem also depends), but the difference between this text and Ephrem is that in the Vatican JAS manuscript it is the priest
524 Alexander Treiger

and distributing communion with the spoon reflects Constantinopolitan usage (as indicated by
Humbert; Elias of Nisibis seems to allude to this, too, when he says that “on some occasions they
make porridge out of it in the chalice”). Its subsequent spread in the Middle East is, therefore, an
important—and hitherto neglected—aspect of Byzantinization.
I would like to be clear about what I am claiming here. According to Robert Taft:
In the second millennium the communion of the lesser clergy and ordinary laity has evolved in
the Byzantine eucharist from receiving the sacred species separately and in the communicants’
hands to receiving the gifts together via intinction. The consecrated bread is usually immersed in
the consecrated wine, then the sops are served by means of a spoon.56
I believe this does not tell us the whole story, as it skips an intermediate step as far as Jerusalem
is concerned. In Hagiopolite rite, this intermediate step is communion with both kinds simultaneou-
sly, but from the paten—from the pre-intincted Host taken by the celebrant from the paten and
placed in the communicant’s mouth in the manner characteristic today of the Syro-Jacobites. This
practice was current in the Church of Jerusalem in the eleventh century, as evidenced by Cardinal
Humbert and Ṣāliḥ ibn Saʿīd, as well as Elias of Nisibis (though in his case it is unclear whether he
is referring to Melkite or Jacobite practice). The evidence of the Arabic Martyrdom of Anthony
Rawḥ suggests that this practice may have arisen in the late ninth or early tenth centuries. It was
eventually (probably, ca. the twelfth–thirteenth centuries) replaced by the Constantinopolitan prac-
tice of mixing Holy Communion in the chalice and distributing it with the spoon, even as the Jeru-
salem liturgy itself—the Liturgy of Saint James—gradually gave way, in Melkite Hagiopolite prac-
tice, to the liturgies of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil57.

APPENDIX: THE FOUR RECENSIONS

OF THE ARABIC MARTYRDOM OF ANTHONY RAWḤ
The Arabic Martyrdom of Anthony Rawḥ exists in four recensions, as follows:
R e c e n s i o n A: Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 513 (10th c.) and London, BL Or.
5019 (11th c.), though the latter contains some features characteristic of Recension B58.
TITLE (Sinai ar. 513):
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻧﻄﻮﻧﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻣﺸﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻗّﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻬﺪ ﻫﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺷﻴﺪ ﻣﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ‬
INCIPIT (Sinai ar. 513):
... ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﺭﺟﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‬

—————
who prays that he may become the tongs that would put the Sacrament into the communicant’s mouth. This does seem to
reflect actual liturgical usage.
56 TAFT, History 262.
57 The twelfth-century Syro-Jacobite theologian and polemicist Dionysius bar Ṣalībī (d. 1171) seems to testify to the spread
of the Constantinopolitan-type communion rite among the Melkites (as well as to the use of the spoon among his own
community). According to him (Against the Armenians, chapter 9), “While the Syrians, the Greeks, the Romans [rūmāyē,
i.e., Byzantines], and the Egyptians take the mystical Coal [gmūrtā, i.e., the consecrated Host] with a spoon, the Armenians
take the Coal with their fingers from the chalice. This spoon symbolizes the tongs which Isaiah saw in the hands of the se-
raph and with which the latter took the live coal, which he laid upon the mouth of the prophet. … We also take the Coal
with a spoon in order that the hands of the priest may not be smeared with [the Eucharistic] blood”—A. MINGANA, The
Work of Dionysius Barsalībi against the Armenians (Woodbrooke Studies 4). Cambridge 1931, 98 [left column]–99 [right
column] (Syriac text) / 52–53 (English translation, modified here to clear inaccuracies in Mingana’s rendering of the text).
I am grateful to Gevorg Kazaryan for drawing my attention to this passage.
58 Edition and French translation of Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 513: I. DICK, La passion arabe de S. Antoine
Ruwaḥ, néo-martyr de Damas (†25 déc. 799). Le Muséon 74 (1961) 109–133; edition and Italian translation of the London
manuscript: B. PIRONE, Un altro manoscritto sulla vita e sul martirio del nobile qurayshita Rawḥ, in: Biblica et Semitica:
Studi in memoria di Francesco Vattioni, ed. L. Cagni. Naples 1999, 479–509.
 The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem 525

R e c e n s i o n B: Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 445 (year 1223) and Sinai ar.
448 (13th c.)59.
TITLE (Sinai ar. 445):
‫ﺧﺒﺮ ﺍﻧﻄﺎﻧﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻗّﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻳّﺎﻡ ﻫﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺷﻴﺪ‬
INCIPIT (Sinai ar. 445):
... ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻳﺎﻡ ﻫﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺷﻴﺪ ﺭﺟﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﻳﺴ ّﻤﺎ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﺑﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‬

R e c e n s i o n M (previously unrecognized as separate from the above): Sinai, Monastery of

Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 398 (year 1258), fols. 288v–292r (unnoticed by scholars) and Beirut, Bib-
liothèque Orientale 625 (17th c.)60.
TITLE (Sinai ar. 398):
‫ﺼﺔ ﺷﺎﻫﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﻓﺎﺭﺳﻪ ﺍﻧﻄﻮﻧﻴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺷﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻠّﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻘﻞ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻣﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴّﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ ِﻟ َﻤﺎ ﻋﺎﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ‬ ّ ‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﻗ‬
ّ ّ
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﻻﻫﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻳّﺎﻡ ﻫﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺷﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻟﻲ ﻟﺨﻼﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻨﻴﻔﻴّﺔ‬
INCIPIT (Sinai ar. 398):
‫ ﻧﻌﻠﻤﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﻛﻼﻣﻨﺎ ﺍﻧّﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﺭﺟﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬،‫ﻳﺎ ﺍﺣﺒّﺎ ﷲ ﻭﺍﺑﻨﺎ ﻛﻨﻴﺴﺘﻪ ﺍﻻﺭﺛﺬﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
... ‫ﻧﺎﺯﻻً ﺑﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‬

R e c e n s i o n V: the “autobiographic” recension of Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, cod. ar.

175 (14th c.), fols. 122v–127v61.
TITLE:
‫ ﺁﻣﻴﻦ‬،‫ ﺻﻼﺗﻪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ‬،‫ﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﺍﻧﺒﺎ ﺍﻧﻄﻮﻧﻲ‬
ّ ‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﻗ‬
INCIPIT:
... ‫ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﺮ ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺍ ً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻅﻬﺎﺭﻩ ﻟﻲ ﺳﺒﻴ َﻞ ﻁﺎﻋﺘﻪ ﺑﺮﺣﻤﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﺧﺮﺟﻨﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻨﻴﻔﻴّﺔ‬،‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺪ ﻟﻴﺴﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﺭﺑّﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﻫﻲ‬
All four recensions must have arisen in the ninth–tenth centuries. Recensions A and B seem to
be the oldest (as mentioned above, Monferrer-Sala has argued that B is more archaic than A). Re-
cension M is somewhat later. Recension V is derived from Recension M. The tenth-century Geor-
gian translation (extant in two tenth-century manuscripts Mount Athos, Iviron geo. 57 and Sinai,
Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. geo. 62) depends on Recension V62.
Here is a synoptic edition and translation of the relevant passage in all the four recensions. The
paragraph divisions follow Dick’s edition and translation.
—————
59 Edition and Spanish translation of Sinai ar. 445: MONFERRER-SALA, Šahādat al-qiddīs Mār Anṭūniyūs; English translation:
LAMOREAUX, Hagiography 113–114 and 117–123.
60 Edition and Latin translation of the Beirut manuscript: P. PEETERS, S. Antoine le néo-martyr. AB 31 (1912) 410–450. I
have called this recension “Recension M” because it is preserved in the Antiochene Menologion compiled in the first third
of the eleventh century, of which Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 398 is the December volume. On the Antio-
chene Menologion, see A. TREIGER, Sinaitica (1): The Antiochian Menologion, Compiled by Hieromonk Yūḥannā ʿAbd al-
Masīḥ (First Half of the 13th Century). Khristianskiĭ Vostok XIV (8) (2017) 215–252; H. IBRAHIM, Liste des vies de saints
et des homélies conservées dans les ms. Sinaï arabe 395–403, 405–407, 409 et 423. Chronos 38 (2018) 47–114; A. TREI-
GER, The Beginnings of the Graeco-Syro-Arabic Melkite Translation Movement in Antioch. Scrinium 16 (2020) 306–332
(redates the Antiochene Menologion to the early eleventh century). A critical edition of the abridged version (Sinai, Mo-
nastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 423) of the Antiochene Menologion is now available: ed. Ḥ. IBRĀHĪM, Yūḥannā ʿAbd
al-Masīḥ al-Anṭākī. Maʿīn al-ḥayāh, al-markab as-sāʾir fī mīnāʾ an-naǧāh, al-maʿrūf bi-Kitāb ad-Dūlāb, 2 vols. Beirut
2020–2021.
61 Accessible online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ar.175.
62 On the Georgian version, see I. A. KIPSHIDZE, Zhitie i muchenichestvo sv. Antonii͡a-Ravakha. Khristianskiĭ Vostok 2
(1913) 54–104 (the edition takes both manuscripts into account); cf. T. PATARIDZE, Patristique et hagiographie palestino-
sinaïtique des monastères melkites (IXe–Xe siècles),” in: Patristic Literature in Arabic Translations, ed. B. Roggema – A.
Treiger. Leiden 2020, 53–88, at p. 71. For a description of the Sinai manuscript, see G. GARITTE, Catalogue des manuscrits
géorgiens littéraires du Mont Sinaï. Louvain 1956, 197–209.
‫‪526‬‬ ‫‪Alexander Treiger‬‬

‫‪Recension A‬‬ ‫‪Recension B‬‬ ‫‪Recension M‬‬ ‫‪Recension V‬‬

‫‪Sinai ar. 513 (10th c.),‬‬ ‫‪Sinai ar. 445 (13th c.),‬‬
‫‪fols. 364v–366r / trans. Dick‬‬ ‫‪fols. 438v–440v (cf. Sinai ar.‬‬
‫‪448, fols. 96r–97r) / trans.‬‬
‫)‪Lamoreaux (modified‬‬
‫‪ ... .2‬ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﺟﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳّﺎﻡ‬ ‫‪ ... .2‬ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﻣﻀﻰ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﺩﺭﻙ ﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻫﺪ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻳّﺎﻡ ﻳﺴﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﺗّﻔﻖ ﻋﻴﺪ ﻣﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺭﻙ ﺛﻮﺍﺩﺭﺱ ﻓﺎﺟﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ‬ ‫ﺛﺎﺫﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﻳﺲ ﻭﺍﺟﺘﻤﻊ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺧﻠﻖ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﺳﺎﻗﻔﺔ ﻭﻛﻬﻨﺔ ﻭﻏﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ | ﻣﻦ ﻛﻬﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﺣﻀﺮ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﻻﺟﻴﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻗﺎﻣﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻫﻠﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﻛﻮﺭ ﺟﺎﻟﺲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻀﺮ ﻭﻗﺖ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﻠﺴﻪ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻠﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺷﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻭﺣﺴﻦ ﺯﻳّﻬﻢ |‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻁﺎﻗﺘﻪ ﻛﻌﺎﺩﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺧﺮﺝ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺗﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﻭ>ﺍ<ﺻﻮﺍﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺟﻴﺎ ﺣﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟـ>ﻟـ<ﺫﻳﺬﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺻﻴﻨﻴّﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺍﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ‬
‫ً ‪63‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺫ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺷﺒﻴﻪ ﺑﺤﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﻭﺱ ﻣﻤﺘﻠﻴﺔ ]ﺷﺮﺍﺑﺎ[‬
‫ﺍﺷﺪّ ﺑﻴﺎﺽ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻠﺞ ﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻠﻴﺐ ﻣﺮﻓﻮﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻤﻊ ﻳﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺭﻛﺒﻪ ﻭﻓﻮﻗﻪ ﺣﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻴﻀﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺨﻮﺭ ﻅﺎﻫﺮ ﻭﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ ﺑﺠﻨﺎﺣﻴﻬﺎ ﺣﺘّﺎ ﺻﺎﺭﻭﺍ‬ ‫ﻭﻗﻮﻑ ﻟﻌﺒﻮﺭﻫﻢ ﻳﺴﺒّﺤﻮﻥ ﷲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺟﻤﻌﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟ ّﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻬﻠّﻠﻮﻧﻪ ﻭﻳﻤﺠّﺪﻭﻧﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺖ ﺻﻴﻨﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺿ َﻌ ْ‬‫ُﻭ ِ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺷﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻴﻨﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﺷﺒﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺱ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﻌﺖ ﺗﻠﻚ‬ ‫ﺣﻤﻞ ﺍﺑﻴﺾ ﻛﺎﻟﺜﻠﺞ ﺑﺎﺭﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ |‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬ ‫ﺭﻛﺒﺘﻴﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺣﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺑﺠﻨﺎﺣﻴﻬﺎ ﺣﺘّﺎ ﺻﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﺑﺎﺟﻤﻌﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﻭﻫﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺍﺓ‬ ‫ﺖ‬‫ﺿﻌَ ْ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ُﻭ ِ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺠﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻮﺍ "ﺍﺑﻮﻧﺎ‬ ‫ﺻﻴﻨﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎ" ﻭﺩﻧﺎ ﻭﻗﺖ‬ ‫ﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻓﻮﺭﺍ‬ ‫ﻏ ِّ‬
‫ﻄﻴَ ِ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺱ ﻭ ُ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﻞ | ﻛﻴﻒ‬ ‫ﺍﺭﺗﻔﻌﺖ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺼﻞ ﻋﻀﻮﺍ ً ﻋﻀﻮﺍ ً ﻭﻛﻴﻒ‬ ‫ﻳُﻔ ﱠ‬ ‫ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﺘﻘﺪّﻣﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﻭﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﻭﺭﻭﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻳﺪ ﺍﻻﺳﻘﻒ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺠﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﺒﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﻭﺻﻠﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ]ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ[ ‪ 64‬ﺍﻟﻰ ﺑﺎﺗﻴﺮﻳﻤﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺎﻟﻮﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﺟﻤﻌﻬﻢ ﻭﺭﻓﻌﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﺼﻠﻪ ﻋﻀﻮﺍ ً‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺠﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻋﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺩﻧﺎ ﺍﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪّﺱ ﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫ﺼﻠﻪ‬‫ﺍﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﻞ ﻛﻴﻒ | ﻳُﻔ ِ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﻋﻀﻮﺍ ً ﻋﻀﻮﺍ ً ﻭﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻘﺪّﻣﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺮﺏ ﻟﻬﻢ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ‬ ‫ِّ‬ ‫ﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻻﺳﻘﻒ‬
‫ﻗﻄﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪Sinai ar. 398 (year 1258),‬‬ ‫‪Vat. ar. 175 (14th c.),‬‬
‫‪fol. 289r–v / my translation‬‬ ‫‪fols. 123r–124r / my trans-‬‬
‫‪lation‬‬
‫‪ ... .2‬ﻭﻟ ّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺪّﺓ‬ ‫‪ ... .2‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺣﻀﺮ ﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﻳﺲ ﺛﺎﻭﺩﺭﺱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﺍ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺟﺘﻤﻊ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻭﻛ ّﻞ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺪﻣﺸﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻬﻨﺔ ﻭﻏﻴﺮﻫﻢ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻳﺼﻠّﻮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺳﻤﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﺻﻠّﻮﺍ ﺳﺎﻋﺔً ﺍﺫ ﺍﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻥ ﺑﻠﻎ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ ﻓﺎﺷﺮﻑ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﺑﻘﺮﺑﺎﻧﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻮﺍﻧﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﻰ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﺷﺮﺍﺑﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻮﻭﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ‬
‫ﺧﺮﺟﻮﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺟﻴﺎ ﺑﺎﺟﻤﻌﻬﻢ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻧﺎ ﺟﺎﻟﺲ ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺣﺴﻦ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﻬﻢ ﻭﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻭﻗﺪّﺱ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺍﻧﺎ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﻓﺎﺧﺬﻩ‬
‫ﻳُ ْﺴ َﻤﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺮﺍﺁﺗﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻲ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻟﺲ ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‪ | ،‬ﻓﻨﻈﺮﺕ ﻋﻴﻨ ﱠ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺧﺮﺟﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﺰﺍﻧﺔ‬ ‫ﺧﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﺑﻴﺾ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﺽ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺑﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻨﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻮﻗﻪ ﺣﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻴﻀﺎ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺧﺮﻭﻑ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﺽ ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺑﻴﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻠﺞ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﺎ ً ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺨﺮﻭﻑ ﻭﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ )؟(‬
‫ﺭﻛﺒﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺣﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻴﻀﺎ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﺰﺍﻟﻮﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺍﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻬﻠﻴﻞ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﻭﺻﻠﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ ﻓﻮﺿﻌﻮﻩ ﻓﻮﻗﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺌﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺣﻮﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺭﺗﻔﻌﺖ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ً ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺑﺠﻨﺎﺣﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻢ ﺗﺰﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻝ ﺣﺘّﻰ ﻓﺮﻍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﻈﺮ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﻘﻒ | ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺮﻭﻑ ﻓﺬﺑﺤﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻠﻘّﺎ ﺩﻣﻪ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﺛ ّﻢ ﻓ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻀﻮﺍً‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻘﺪّﻣﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻣﺴﺔ ﻓﺎﺧﺬﻭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺳﻘﻒ‬
‫ﻛ ّﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ‪ ،‬ﺛ ّﻢ ﺧﺮﺝ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺎﺧﺬ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻟﺤﻤﺎً‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ]ﻳﺎﺧﺬ[‪ 65‬ﺧﺒﺰﺍ ً‬
‫ﻭﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺎﺧﺬ ﻓﺤﻤﺎً‪.‬‬

‫—————‬
‫‪63‬‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ ‪; Sinai ar. 448 has:‬ﻓﺮﺍﻣﺎ ً ‪ scripsi (cf. LAMOREAUX, Hagiography 310, n. 19). Sinai ar. 445 has the corrupt reading‬ﺷﺮﺍﺑﺎ ً‬
‫‪.‬ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻳﻢ‬
‫‪64‬‬ ‫‪.‬ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ‪; Sinai ar. 448 has:‬ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺓ ‪ scripsi (cf. LAMOREAUX, Hagiography 118: “liturgy”). Sinai ar. 445 has:‬ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ‬
‫‪65‬‬ ‫‪Restored based on the Beirut manuscript.‬‬

2. ... Après plusieurs
jours vint la fête du martyr
béni Théodore. Il se ras-
sembla autour de lui une
grande foule : évêques,
prêtres et autres gens. Quand
arriva la procession des sain-
tes (offrandes), Ruwah était
assis à son poste observant la
foule des gens et leur bon
ordre et écoutant les voix
agréables de leur psalmodie.
Il regarda la patène des ob-
lats, et voici qu’il s’y trouvait
une forme d’agneau plus
blanc que la neige accroupi
sur ses genoux, et au dessus
de lui une colombe blanche
voltigeait de ses ailes, jusqu’à
ce que tous (les ministres)
parvinrent à l’autel. Quand on
eut déposé sur l’autel la
patène des offrandes ainsi
que le calice, la colombe
monta quelque peu et se mit à
voltiger au dessus de l’autel
et de la tête des prêtres qui
étaient entrain de psalmodier
et de glorifier Dieu. Quand il
eurent dit « Notre Père qui
êtes au ciel » et que vint le
moment de la communion, il
regarda l’agneau, (et vit)
comment il était découpé
membre par membre et
comment les prêtres
s’approchaient et recevaient
de la main de l’évêque cha-
cun un morceau.
—————
66 For this motif of “threefold” Eucharist (flesh, bread, and living coal), see also the Syriac edifying tale Story of the Mystery
Hidden in the Eucharistic Offering; there we have fire instead of living coal, but the idea is the same—see S. MINOV,
Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Syriac Story of the Mystery Hidden in the Eucharistic Offering. Aramaic Studies 19
(2021) 198–214, esp. 202–203 (Syriac text) / 204 (English translation). This text may, in fact, depend on Version M of the
Martyrdom of Anthony Rawh (cf. MINOV, Christians, Jews, and Muslims 210–211).
The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem
2. … Some days later, the
festival of the holy Saint
Theodore took place. Many
clergy and lay people from
Damascus gathered in the
church for prayer. When it
was time for the liturgy, this
young man of Qurayš sat at
his window, as was his
custom. The priests came
forth with the sacred gifts.
They carried the oblation on
patens, chalices full of wine,
an elevated cross, lit candles,
and incense rising up. The
others in attendance were
standing for the procession
and were praising God, sin-
ging hymns to Him, and
glorifying Him. As for this
young man of Qurayš, he saw
on the Eucharistic paten
something like a lamb. It was
as white as snow and was
kneeling. Above it there was
a dove hovering with its
wings. This is what he saw,
until they all reached the
altar. After the Eucharistic
paten and the chalice had
been placed on the altar and
the oblation had been cover-
ed, that dove ascended a bit.
It hovered above the altar and
above the heads of the
priests, as they were giving
praise and singing hymns. As
the liturgy continued, after
they had reached the Our
Father, which they all recited
together, and then had ele-
vated the oblation, while
glorifying God and offering
long prayers to Him, and the
time for partaking of the holy
oblation had come, he then
watched as the priest dis-
membered that lamb, limb by
limb, and as the people came
forward to partake of it, from
the hands of the bishop, who
offered them some of that
flesh, one piece after another.
527
2. … Some time later, the 2. … This was an im-
festival of Saint Theodore portant day for the Christians,
took place. Many people and a big crowd assembled in
assembled, including all the the church. I was sitting on
clergy of Damascus and the flat surface by the
others. The people gathered window overlooking the
in the church, as was their temple, as the people of the
custom, and prayed till it was church were praying. After
time for the liturgy. This they had prayed for some
young man Rawḥ was wat- time, a group of them brought
ching them from his seat. out their offering on patens
They had all just come forth and their wine in chalices.
with the sacred gifts. He [They brought it] from
observed their beautiful another house different from
arrangement and [listened to] the church and went toward
what could be heard of their the altar. I sat and watched
reading. He watched the what they were doing. As I
priests as they were coming was sitting and watching, the
out of the sacristy, and saw priest took it and sanctified it,
on the paten, on which the and suddenly my eyes no-
oblation was placed, the ticed a white ewe that was
semblance of a ewe, whiter exceedingly white. Above it,
than snow, kneeling, and a there was a white dove that
white dove hovering over it. was exceedingly white; so-
They were still reading and metimes it would hover over
glorifying [God] until they the ewe, sometimes it would
reached the altar. Then they sit upon it.
put the [paten] upon it and
the chalices around it. The
dove ascended a bit and was
hovering with its wings
above the priests. It continued
doing this until the liturgy
was complete. Rawḥ then
watched how the bishop took
this ewe, slaughtered it, and
poured its blood into the
chalices. Then he dismem-
bered it, limb by limb. The
priests and the deacons came
forth and each of them recei-
ved a piece of that flesh from
the bishop. Then [the bishop]
came out to the people, and
some of them received from
him flesh, others bread,
others a living coal66.
‫‪528‬‬ ‫‪Alexander Treiger‬‬

‫‪ .3‬ﻓﻌﺠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺟﺪّﺍ ً ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﻳﺘﻔ ّﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻥ ﺩﻳﻦ‬‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪" :‬ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻥ ﷲ‪ّ ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺤﻖ ﺍﻧّﻪ ﺩﻳﻦ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺮﺍﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺮﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ﺎ‬‫ﻤ‬‫ّ‬ ‫ﻓﻠ‬
‫ﻭﺭﺟﻌﻮﺍ ﺑﺎﻻﺟﻴﺎ ﺛﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻨﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺍﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸ ّﻤﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﺫ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﻞ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ّﺍﻭﻝ ﺑﺪﻭﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺣﺘّﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺧﻠﻮﺍ ﺑﺎﺟﻤﻌﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺑﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺰﺍﺩﻩ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﺠﺐ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻬﺘﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺩﺭ ﻭﻧﺰﻝ |‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻠﺴﻪ ﻭﻭﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻣﻨﺼﺮﻓﻴﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﻍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺠﻌﻞ ﻳﺴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﻭﻋﺎ ّﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ‪" :‬ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﻗﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻧﻈﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻨﻜﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﺠﺐ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺧﻼﻑ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺖ ﺍﺭﻯ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻗﺪّﺍﺳﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻴﻜﻢ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻘﺮﺑﻮﺍ ﺧﺒﺰ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻢ‬
‫ﺍﺑﻴﺾ ﻭﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﻣﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺭﺍﻳﺘﻜﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻢ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻮﻥ ﻗﻄﻊ ﻟﺤﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺸﺮﺑﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺸ ّﻤﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﺰﺍﺩﻧﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﺠﺐ‬
‫ﺑﺤﻖ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻥ ﺩﻳﻨﻜﻢ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻜﺮ ﻭﺗﺤﻴّﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﻳﻒ ﺟﺪّﺍً"‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬ﻓﻌﺠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺫﺍﻟﻚ ﻋﺠﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﻳﻔ ّﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪" :‬ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻥ ﷲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻋﺠﺐ‬
‫ﺑﺤﻖ ﺍﻧّﻪ ﺩﻳﻦ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ﺩﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﻯ‪،‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﻳﻒ"‪،‬‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺮﺑﻮﺍ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﺎ‬‫ﻤ‬‫ّ‬ ‫ﻓﻠ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ"‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻭﺭﺟﻊ ﺍﻻﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻻﺧﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻘﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﻭﻏﻴﺮﻩ ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺑﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﻞ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺟﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪،‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ | ﻓﻲ ّ‬
‫ﻓﺒُ ِﻬﺖَ ﻭﺯﺍﺩﻩ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﺠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﺎﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻭﻧﺰﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻠﺴﻪ ﻓﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﻳﺴﺎﻳﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ ﻭﻋﺎ ّﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻭﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺼﺮﻓﻴﻦ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪" :‬ﻳﺎ ﻗﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻨﻜﻢ ﻋﺠﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺧﻼﻑ ﻣﺎ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺍﺭﻯ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻳﻮﻣﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺪّﺍﺳﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧّﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻘﺮﺑﻮﻥ ﻗﺒﻞ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ﻛﻨﺖ ﺍﻧﻈﺮﻛﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺧﺒﺰﺍ ً ﻧﻘﻲ ﺍﺑﻴﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻨﺬ‬
‫ﻄﻊ ﻟﺤﻢ‬ ‫ﺗﺘﻘﺮﺑﻮﻥ ﻗِ َ‬ ‫ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﺭﺍﻳﺘﻜﻢ ّ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺸﺮﺑﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ]ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺱ ﺩﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻥ[‪ 67‬ﺩﻳﻨﻜﻢ‬ ‫ﻓﻌﺠﺒﺖ ﻭﺗﺤﻘّﻘﺖ ّ‬
‫ﻟﺸﺮﻳﻒ ﺟﺪّﺍً"‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬ﻓﻌﺠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺭﻭﺡ‬ ‫‪ .3‬ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﺭﺍﻳﺖ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﻋﺠﺒﺎ ً ]ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺎً[‪ 68،‬ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﻓﺮﻍ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﻮﺗﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻫﺎﻟﻨﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﻬﻢ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭﺟﻌﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﻜﺜﺖ ﻣﺘﻔ ّﻜﺮﺍ ً ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻻﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﺎﺫ ﺫﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺲ‬‫ّ‬ ‫]ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻮﻥ[‪ 69،‬ﻓﻠ ّﻤﺎ ﺩﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻳﻒ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺨﺮﻭﻑ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﺩ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺎ ً ﻛﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺧﺮﻭﺟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻠﻚ‬ ‫ﺗﻔﺎﺭﻗﻬﻢ ﻓﻠﻢ ﺍﺯﻝ ﺟﺎﻟﺴﺎ ً ﺣﺘّﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻓﺮﻏﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻠﻮﺍﺗﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺍﻳﺖُ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﺷﺘﺪّ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻌﺠّﺒﻪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﻳﺎﺧﺬ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﻳﻔ ّﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺨﺮﻭﻑ ﻭﺍﻗﺒﻞ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ َﻣ ْﻦ‬
‫"ﻳﺠﺐ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﻯ‬ ‫ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ ﻳﺎﺧﺬﻭﻧﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺷﺮﻳﻒ"‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺰﻝ ﻣﺴﺮﻋﺎ ً‬ ‫‪70‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻳﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺛ ّﻢ ﻳﺬﻫﺒﻮﻥ ]‪،[...‬‬
‫ﺣﺘّﻰ ﺟﻠﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﺭﺍﺩﻭﺍ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻨﺼﺮﻓﻮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺰﻟﺖُ‬
‫ﻭﻛ ّﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺨﺮﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﻓﺪﻋﻮﺕُ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻼً‪" :‬ﺍﻋﻠﻤﻨﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﻳﻤﺎ ً ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟ ِﻘﻄﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻟﺤﻢ‬
‫َ‬
‫ﺗ ّﻢ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺑﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ"‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺨﺮﻭﻑ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﺤﻠﻔﺘُﻪ ﻭﺟﻤﺎﻋﺔَ‬
‫ﻓﻴﺤﻠﻔﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ‪" :‬ﺍﻧّﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻏﻴّﺮﻧﺎ ﺷﻲ‬ ‫"ﺑﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ‪،‬‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫َﻣ ْﻦ ﻣﻌﻪ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣ ّﻤﺎ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻧﻌﻤﻠﻪ"‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻬﻢ‪" :‬ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺑﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺒﺮﻭﻧﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ّ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺖ ﻛ ّﻞ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻴﻜﻢ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻧّﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺍﻳﺘُﻜﻢ ﻏﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺮﺑﻮﻥ ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧﺎ ً ﺧﺒﺰﺍ ً ﻭﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‬‫ّ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻌﺔ ﻭﻟﻢ ﺍﺭﺍﻛﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﺘﻢ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺭﺍﻳﺘﻜﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺭﻓﻌﺘﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺑﺢ‬ ‫ﺭﺍﻳﺖ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ"‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺎﻟﻮﺍ ﺟﻤﻴﻌﺎً‪:‬‬
‫ﺧﺮﻭﻓﺎ ً ﻭﺭﺍﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻢ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﻦ‬ ‫"ﻣﺎ ﺭﺍﻳﺖَ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ؟"‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻧﻜﺮﺕ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻨﻴّﺔ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﺎ ً ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫)؟( | ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻓﻘﻠﺖُ‬
‫ﺭﻛﺒﺘﻴﻪ ﻭﺣﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻴﻀﺎ ﺗﺮﻓﺮﻑ‬ ‫‪71‬‬
‫ﻟﻬﻢ‪" :‬ﻭﷲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ]ﺭﺍﻳﺘﻜﻢ[‬
‫ﻭﺭﺍﻳﺖ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺟﻨﺤﺘﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺗ ُ ْﺧ ِﺭ ُﺟﻭﻥَ ﻗﺭﺑﺎﻧﻛﻡ ﻓﺭﺍﻳﺕُ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﻘﻒ ﻟ ّﻤﺎ ﻓﺮﻍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﺍﺱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺻﻌﺔ ﺧﺭﻭﻑ ﺍﺑﻳﺽ ﺷﺩﻳﺩ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬ ‫ﻗﻄﻌﻪ ﺍﻋﻀﺎ ّ‬ ‫ﻭﻗﺪ ّ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺑﻳﺎﺽ ﻭﻁﻳﺭ ﺍﺑﻳﺽ ﺷﺩﻳﺩ‬
‫ﻛﻠّﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺭﺍﻳﺘﻜﻢ ﻭﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺑﻳﺎﺽ ﻳﺭﻓﺭﻑ ﻋﻠﻳﻪ ﺣﺗﻰ ﺑﻠﻎ‬
‫ﺭﺟﻌﺘﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﺰﺍﻧﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻣﺫﺑﺢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻭﺿﻌﻪ ﺣﺎﻣﻠُﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻧﺣّﺎ‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻁﺎﻳﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠ ّﻣﺎ ﺻﻠّﻳﺗﻡ ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﺫ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺑﺪّ ﻟﻜﻢ ﻣ ّﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺱ ﻳﻘﻁﻊ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﺧﺭﻭﻑ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺫ‬
‫ﺗﻜﺸﻔﻮﻥ ﻟﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ"‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺳ ّﻛﻳﻥ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻓﺭﺍﻳﺕُ ﺍﻟﻁﻳﺭ‬
‫ﻳﺭﺟﻊ ﻳﺭﻓﺭﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺧﺭﻭﻑ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺱ ﻗﻁﻌﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺍﻟﺧﺭﻭﻑ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ﻓﺎﺧﺫ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺳﺗﻁﻌﻣﻬﺎ ﻭﺩﻓﻊ ﻟﻛﻠّﻣﻥ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻛﻧﻳﺳﺔ ﻗﻁﻌﺔ ﻗﻁﻌﺔ"‪.‬‬

‫—————‬
‫‪67‬‬ ‫‪The bracketed words are present in the manuscript but are omitted for some reason in Monferrer-Sala’s edition.‬‬
‫‪68‬‬ ‫‪Restored based on the Beirut manuscript.‬‬
‫‪69‬‬ ‫‪ MS.‬ﺗﺼﻨﻌﻮﻥ | ‪ scripsi‬ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻮﻥ‬
‫‪70‬‬ ‫‪Here, I suspect, there is an unmarked lacuna: a section of the Arabic text must have fallen out, which is preserved in the‬‬
‫‪Georgian version. Not knowing Georgian, I translate the missing section from Kipshidze’s Russian translation: “while the‬‬
‫‪rest [the celebrant] distributed to all the people. When on that great day, the prayer of oblation was finished…” (KIPSHIDZE,‬‬
‫‪Zhitie i muchenichestvo 83). This is highly significant, because it indicates that those who were taking communion in the‬‬
‫‪hand were clergy, not laity.‬‬
‫‪71‬‬ ‫‪ MS.‬ﺍﺭﻳﺘﻜﻢ | ‪ scripsi‬ﺭﺍﻳﺘﻜﻢ‬
 The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem 529

3. Ruwaḥ en éprouva un
fort étonnement et se mit à
refléchir en lui-même et se
dit : « O merveille de Dieu!
La religion chrétienne est
vraiment une religion
vénérable ». Quand les gens
eurent communié et qu’on
ramena de nouveau les sain-
tes (offrandes), il regarda la
patène posée sur la tête du
diacre, et voici que l’agneau
était devenu entier comme au
premier transfert, et la co-
lombe voltigeait au dessus de
lui jusqu’à ce que tous (les
ministres) furent rentrés au
sanctuaire. Il en fut d’autant
plus étonné et ébahi. Il se
hâta dès lors et descendit de
son emplacement et se tint à
la porte de l’église, alors que
les gens s’en retournaient
après la fin de la messe ; il se
mit à demander aux prêtres et
au commun des fidèles : « O
gens, j’ai vu aujourd’hui de la
part de votre religion une
grande merveille ; à l’opposé
de ce que je voyais aupara-
vant alors que vous commu-
niez du pain blanc, je vous ai
vus, ce jour-ci, recevoir en
communion des morceaux de
chair e t b o i r e d e l a m a i n
du diacre comme du
s a n g. Ceci excita fort en moi
l’étonnement, la reflexion et
la perplexité. Vraiment votre
religion est très vénérable ».
3. He was thoroughly as-
tounded at this and began to
reflect to himself, saying,
“Glory be to God, how asto-
nishing is the Christian reli-
gion! In truth, it is a venerab-
le and true religion.” The
people finished receiving the
Eucharist. [The clergy] then
took back into the sanctuary
the last of the sacred gifts and
what was left of the oblation,
as well as the other things. As
this was happening, the y-
oung man saw that the dove
fluttered above them as they
were in procession [back to
the sanctuary] and that the
lamb had become whole
again, restored to its initial
state. Already astounded, this
caused him to be still more
bewildered. He quickly
descended from his residence
and stood at the door of the
church. He began to inquire
of the priests and lay people
who were leaving, “People,
today I have seen a great
wonder regarding your religi-
on. It is contrary to what I
have seen on earlier occasi-
ons when you were ce-
lebrating your liturgy. Before
today, I used to see you
partake of bread, plain and
white. But just moments ago,
I watched as you partook of
pieces of flesh and as y o u
drank blood from the
c h a l i c e. I became astonis-
hed and certain that yours is a
most venerable religion.”
3. Rawḥ was thoroughly
astounded at this. When their
oblation was complete, he
saw them as they had just
brought back the sacred gifts.
He looked, and behold, this
ewe became whole again,
exactly as it had been before
it was taken out, and the dove
was hovering over it as befo-
re. This caused him to be still
more bewildered. He began
to reflect to himself, saying,
“The Christian religion must
be great and venerable.” He
quickly descended and sat at
the door of the church. He
inquired of every priest co-
ming out [of the church],
“Tell me, what took place
today instead of the [usual]
offering?” They swore to
him, “We have not changed a
thing in what we have been
doing.” He said to them, “I
observed you every day
offering an oblation of bread,
but today I saw you lifting up
a ewe to the altar. I saw you
carrying it out on a paten: it
was kneeling, and a white
dove was hovering with its
wings over it. I saw how the
bishop, having completed the
liturgy, chopped [the ewe]
into pieces and gave commu-
nion to the people. After that,
I saw how you brought it
back to the sacristy, and [it
became] whole as before, and
the dove was hovering over it
as before. You have no
choice but to reveal this
[secret] to me.”
3. When I saw this, my
brothers in Christ, I was
frightened. I continued to
reflect and to watch what
they were going to do. As I
was still sitting, the priest and
those with him entered the
altar, and the assembly would
not leave until they finished
their prayers. I saw how that
priest took a piece of that
ewe, came forth, and gave it
piece by piece to those
around him. They would
receive it into their hands and
would walk away […]72.
They were about to leave,
and so I descended to them
and called upon the priest
who was standing and
handing out these pieces of
meat. I made him and all
those around him swear, “By
Christ, tell me what is it that
your offering was made of
today? I have observed you
on other occasions, and I
have never seen you do what
you did today.” All of them
said, “What did you see
today?” I left out (?) what
was before today and said to
them: “By God, I just saw
you carry out your offering.
In a bowl, I saw a white ewe,
which was exceedingly whi-
te, and a white bird, also
exceedingly white, was
hovering over it until it
reached the altar. The person
carrying it put it down, and
the bird flew to the side.
After you have prayed for
some time, the priest began to
chop this ewe with a knife
that he had. I saw how the
bird came back to hover over
the ewe. Then the priest took
a piece of the ewe, ate it, and
gave it to everyone at the
church, piece by piece.”

—————
72 See n. 70 above.
530 Alexander Treiger

BIBLIOGRAPHY

QUOTED MANUSCRIPTS
Beirut, Bibliothèque Orientale, cod. 625.
Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Mingana Collection, cod. Chr. Arab. 71.
Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre, cod. ar. 12.
Latakia, Orthodox Archdiocese, cod. 3.
Latakia, Orthodox Archdiocese, cod. 34.
London, British Library, cod. Or. 5019.
Messina, Biblioteca Regionale Universitaria “Giacomo Longo”, S. Salv., cod. 177 (Diktyon 40838).
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, cod. ar. 100.
Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 398.
Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 402.
Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 403.
Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 423.
Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 445
Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 448.
Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 513.
Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 589.
Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. gr. NF Σ3 (Diktyon 79508).
Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, cod. ar. 104.
Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, cod. ar. 175.
Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, cod. ar. 180.

SOURCES
Humbert, Dialogus, ed. C. WILL, Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saeculo undecimo composita
extant. Leipzig 1861.
Yūḥannā ʿAbd al-Masīḥ al-Anṭākī. Maʿīn al-ḥayāh, al-markab as-sāʾir fī mīnāʾ an-naǧāh, al-maʿrūf bi-Kitāb ad-Dūlāb, ed. Ḥ.
IBRĀHĪM. 2 vols. Beirut 2020–2021.

SECONDARY LITERATURE
S. ALEXOPOULOS, The Presanctified Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite: A Comparative Analysis of Its Origins, Evolution, and
Structural Components. Leuven 2009.
G. S. ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana. Rome 1719–1728.
J. ASSFALG, Die Ordnung des Priestertums: Ein altes liturgisches Handbuch der koptischen Kirche Tartīb al-kahanūt. Cairo
1955.
M. BOUDIER – A. TREIGER, Salih ibn Saʿid, une vie dans les marges des manuscrits (vers 980–vers 1050), in: La Palestine en
portraits: De la préhistoire à nos jours (forthcoming).
I. DICK, La passion arabe de S. Antoine Ruwaḥ, néo-martyr de Damas (†25 déc. 799). Le Muséon 74 (1961) 109–133.
A. DRINT, The Mount Sinai Arabic version of IV Ezra (CorpusSCO 564, Scriptores Arabici 49). Louvain 1997.
E. S. DROWER, Water into Wine: A Study of Ritual Idiom in the Middle East. London 1956.
D. GALADZA, Review of S. Alexopoulos, The Presanctified Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite. Theoforum 42.2 (2011) 285–288.
D. GALADZA, Liturgy and Byzantinization in Jerusalem. Oxford 2018.
G. GARITTE, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens littéraires du Mont Sinaï. Louvain 1956.
G. GRAF, Die Eucharistielehre des Nestorianers al-Muḫtār ibn Buṭlān (11. Jahrh.). Oriens Christianus 35 (1938) 44–70, 175–
191.
G. GRAF, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. 5 vols. Vatican 1944–1953.
J. M. HANSSENS, Le cérémonial de la communion eucharistique dans les rites orientaux. Gregorianum 41.1 (1960) 30–62.
L. HORST, Des Metropoliten Elias von Nisibis Buch vom Beweis der Wahrheit des Glaubens. Colmar 1886.
H. IBRAHIM, Liste des vies de saints et des homélies conservées dans les ms. Sinaï arabe 395–403, 405–407, 409 et 423. Chro-
nos 38 (2018) 47–114.
A. K. KAZAMIAS, Hē Theia Leitourgia tou hagiou Iakōbou tou Adelphotheou kai ta nea Sinaïtika cheirographa. Thessaloniki
2006.
L. KHEVSURIANI – M. SHANIDZE – M. KAVTARIA – T. TSERADZE – S. VERHELST, Liturgia Ibero-Graeca Sancti Iacobi: Editio –
translatio – retroversio – commentarii. Münster 2011.
 The Eucharist in Eleventh-Century Jerusalem 531

I. A. KIPSHIDZE, Zhitie i muchenichestvo sv. Antonii͡a-Ravakha. Khristianskiĭ Vostok 2 (1913) 54–104.

J. C. LAMOREAUX, Hagiography, in: The Orthodox Church in the Arab World (700–1700): An Anthology of Sources, ed. S.
Noble – A. Treiger. DeKalb 2014, 112–135.
B.-Ch. MERCIER, La Liturgie de Saint Jacques: Édition critique du texte grec avec traduction latine (PO 26.2). Paris 1946.
R. MIKHAIL, The Coptic Church and the Presanctified Liturgy: The Story of a Rejected Tradition. The Alexandria School
Journal 3 (2016) 2–30.
A. MINGANA, The Work of Dionysius Barsalībi against the Armenians (Woodbrooke Studies 4). Cambridge 1931.
S. MINOV, Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Syriac Story of the Mystery Hidden in the Eucharistic Offering. Aramaic Stu-
dies 19 (2021) 198–214.
J. P. MONFERRER-SALA, Šahādat al-qiddīs Mār Anṭūniyūs: Replanteamiento de la “antigüedad” de las versiones sinaíticas a la
luz del análisis textual. MEAH: Sección Árabe-Islam 57 (2008) 237–267.
J. P. MONFERRER-SALA, Elias of Nisibis, in: Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, ed. D. Thomas – A. Mal-
let. Leiden 2010, II 727–741.
T. PATARIDZE, Patristique et hagiographie palestino-sinaïtique des monastères melkites (IXe–Xe siècles),” in: Patristic Litera-
ture in Arabic Translations, ed. B. Roggema – A. Treiger. Leiden 2020, 53–88.
P. PEETERS, S. Antoine le néo-martyr. AB 31 (1912) 410–450.
B. PIRONE, Un altro manoscritto sulla vita e sul martirio del nobile qurayshita Rawḥ, in: Biblica et Semitica: Studi in memoria
di Francesco Vattioni, ed. L. Cagni. Naples 1999, 479–509.
G. ROSSETTO – A. TREIGER, Sinai gr. NF Σ3: A Dated Palestinian Manuscript of the Liturgy of Saint James (Ascalon, 1097/8),
forthcoming in Byz 93 (2023).
A. RÜCKER, Die syrische Jakobosanaphora nach der Rezension des Jaʿqôb(h) von Edessa. Münster 1923.
D. J. SAHAS, Gregory Dekapolites, in: Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, ed. D. Thomas – B. Roggema.
Leiden 2008, vol. I, 614–617.
D. J. SAHAS, What an Infidel Saw That a Faithful Did Not: Gregory Dekapolites and Islam. Greek Orthodox Theological Re-
view 31 (1986) 47–67.
C. C. SAHNER, Christian Martyrs under Islam: Religious Violence and the Making of the Muslim World. Princeton 2018.
N. N. SELEZNYOV, Ot frankov do nubiĭt͡sev: araboi͡azychnyĭ koptskiĭ knizhnik ob osobennosti͡akh khristianskikh soobshchestv
(po rukopisi Mingana Chr. Arab. 71). Religiovedenie 1 (2012) 7–15.
N. N. SELEZNYOV, Franks and Eastern Christian Communities: A Survey of their Beliefs and Customs by an Arabic-Speaking
Coptic Author (MS Mingana Chr. Arab. 71). Khristianskiĭ Vostok XII (6) (2013) 150–161.
N. N. SELEZNYOV, Pax Christiana et Pax Islamica: Iz istorii mezhkonfessional’nykh svi͡azeĭ na srednevekovom Blizhnem
Vostoke. Moscow 2014.
A. Y. SIDARUS, Ibn ar-Rāhibs Leben und Werk: Ein koptisch-arabischer Enzyklopädist des 7./13. Jahrhunderts. Freiburg 1975.
A. Y. SIDARUS, Ibn al-Rāhib, in: Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, ed. D. Thomas – A. Mallet. Leiden
2012, IV 471–479.
R. F. TAFT, The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Preanaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John
Chrysostom. Rome 1975.
R. F. TAFT, Byzantine Communion Spoons: A Review of the Evidence. DOP 50 (1996) 209–238.
R. F. TAFT, A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Volume VI: The Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding
Rites (OCA 281). Rome 2008.
A. TREIGER, Ṣāliḥ ibn Saʿīd al-Masīḥī, in: Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, ed. D. Thomas – A. Mallet.
Leiden 2013, V 643–650.
A. TREIGER, Sinaitica (1): The Antiochian Menologion, Compiled by Hieromonk Yūḥannā ʿAbd al-Masīḥ (First Half of the
13th Century). Khristianskiĭ Vostok XIV (8) (2017) 215–252.
A. TREIGER, Makariĭ Sinait, O poste na syrnoĭ sedmit͡se. Vestnik PSTGU III (53) (2017) 103–134.
A. TREIGER, Who Was Macarius of Sinai, the Author of the Responsum on Cheesefare Week?, in: Between the Cross and the
Crescent: Studies in Honor of Samir Khalil Samir, S. J. on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Ž. Paša. Rome
2018, 137–145.
A. TREIGER, The Beginnings of the Graeco-Syro-Arabic Melkite Translation Movement in Antioch. Scrinium 16 (2020) 306–
332.
A. TREIGER, Unpublished Texts from the Arab Orthodox Tradition (4): Canonical Responses of the Patriarch Mark III of Ale-
xandria to the Abbot George of Damietta. Chronos 41 (2020) 1–35.
A. TREIGER, Poslanie patriarkha Aleksandriĭskogo Marka III igumenu Georgii͡u Damiettskomu. Biblii͡ a i khristianskai͡ a
drevnost’ 1 (9) (2021) 26–69.
A. TREIGER, Section VI: Arabic, in: The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature, ed. S. Papaioannou. Oxford 2021, 642–
662.
R. TURNBULL, Arabic Gospel Lectionaries at Sinai. Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 16 (2019) 131–166.
D. VILA, The Martyrdom of Anthony (Rawh al-Qurashī), in: Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, ed. D.
Thomas – A. Mallet. Leiden 2008, I 498–501.
532 Alexander Treiger

L. VILLECOURT, La lettre de Macaire, évêque de Memphis, sur la liturgie antique du chrême et du baptème à Alexandrie. Le
Muséon 36 (1923) 33–46.
P. E. WALKER, Caliph of Cairo: Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, 996–1021. Cairo 2009.
P. E. WALKER, Al-Ḥākim and the Dhimmīs. Medieval Encounters 21 (2015) 345–363.
Y. N. YOUSSEF, The Book Order of the Priesthood, by Severus ibn al-Muqaffaʿ Bishop of al-Ashmunein, Revisited. Bulletin
de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 45 (2006) 135–145.
U. ZANETTI, La liturgie de S. Marc dans le Sinaï arabe 237: Édition et traduction annotée avec un état de la question par
Heinzgerd Brakmann. Münster 2021.

FIGURE
Figure 1: Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, cod. ar. 589, fol. 68v – Ṣāliḥ ibn Saʿīd’s eleventh-century note on the liturgy at
the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (© Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, Egypt).