Sinai Greek NE 22 Late 9th Early 10th

BOLLETTINO
DELLA BADIA GRECA DI

GROTTAFERRATA
TERZA SERIE VOL. 8 - 2011

SIGLE
AASS = Acta Sanctorum (Antvepriae et alibi, 1643 e ss.) JÖB = Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik
AB = Analecta Bollandiana JThS = Journal of Theological Studies
ABl = ∆Anavlekta Blatavdwn LEW = F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, vol. I: Eastern Litur-
AB = ∆Anavlekta KruptofevrjrJh" gies, Oxford 1896 (1968).
ALW = Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft LQ = Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen
AOr = Anaphorae Orientales LQF = Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen
ASyr = Anaphorae Syriacae LTK = Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche
BBGG = Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata MMB = Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae
BBTT = Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations, Belfast 1991 ss. Mus = Le Muséon
BELS = Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae, Subsidia NPNF = A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
BHG, BHGa, BHGna = F. Halkin, Bibliotheca hagiographica Graeca, I-III (SH Church, ed. Ph. Schaff, Grand Rapids Michigan, series 2, 1952-
8a), Bruxelles 19573; Id., Auctarium BHG (SH 47), Bruxelles 1969; Id., OC = Oriens Christianus
Novum auctarium BHG (SH 65), Bruxelles 1984. OCA = Orientalia Christiana Analecta
BMFD = J. Thomas – A. Hero (edd.), Byzantine Monastic Foundation Docu- OCh = Orientalia Christiana
ments. A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testa- OCP = Orientalia Christiana Periodica
ments, 5 voll. (DOS 35), Washington, D. C. 2000. ODB = The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, edd. A. Kazhdan et alii, 3 voll.,
Byz = Byzantion New York/Oxford 1991.
BZ = Byzantinische Zeitschrift OKS = Ostkirchliche Studien
CC = Corpus Christianorum OLA = Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
CCG = Corpus Christianorum, series Graeca OSyr = L’Orient Syrien
CCL = Corpus Christianorum, series Latina PG = J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, 1-161, Paris
CPG = Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 5 voll., edd. M. Geerard, F. Glorie; vol. 3A 1857-1866.
ed. J. Noret; Supplementum, edd. M. Geerard, J. Noret, J. Desmet (CC), PB = Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика
Turnhout 1974-2003. PL = J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina, 1-221, Paris
CSCO = Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 1844-18656.
CSEL = Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum PO = Patrologia Orientalis
CSHB = Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae POC = Proche-Orient Chrétien
DACL = Dictionnaire d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie PTS = Patristische Texte und Studien
Dmitr I-III = A. A. Dmitrievskij, Описанiе литургическихъ рукописей храня- QL = Questions Liturgiques
щихся въ библиотекахъ православнаго Востока, I, Tupikav, Kiev 1899; REB = Revue des Études Byzantines
II, Eujcolovgia, Kiev 1901; III, Tupikav, Petrograd 1917 (Hildesheim 1965). ROC = Revue de l’Orient Chrétien
DOP = Dumbarton Oaks Papers RSBN = Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici
DOS = Dumbarton Oaks Studies SA = Studia Anselmiana
EEBS = ∆Epethri;" ÔEtairiva" Buzantinw'n Spoudw'n SC = Sources Chrétiennes
EL = Ephemerides Liturgicae SH = Subsidia Hagiographica
EO = Ecclesia Orans SL = Studia Liturgica
Goar = J. Goar, Eujcolovgion sive Rituale Graecorum…, Venezia 17302 (Graz ST = Studi e Testi
1960). S&T = Segno e Testo
GRBS = Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies ThQ = Theologische Quartalschrift
JAC = Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum
JLW = Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft
SINAI GREEK NE / ΜΓ 22:
LATE 9 /EARLY 10TH CENTURY EUCHOLOGY TESTIMONY
TH
OF THE LITURGY OF ST JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

AND THE LITURGY OF THE PRESANCTIFIED GIFTS
IN THE BYZANTINE TRADITION*
Gabriel Radle
In May of 1975, one of the most significant discoveries of manu-

scripts in recent history took place at St Catherine’s Monastery on the
Sinai, Egypt. While clearing out old debris from a part of the Tower
of St George, Archimandrite Sophronios uncovered an old deposit of
ancient and medieval manuscripts that had been stored there.1 The dis-
covery, not made public untilllllIl a few years later, included a wealth of
biblical, liturgical and patristic texts in Greek, Arabic, Syriac, Geor-
gian and Slavonic, both Cyrillic and Glagolitic.2 Many of the manu-
scripts still await a thorough scientific study and analysis.
This study seeks to shed light on one of the more interesting litur-
gical texts of the Greek New Finds, ΜΓ 22, a witness of the Liturgy
of St John Chrysostom (CHR) and the Liturgy of the Presanctified
Gifts (PRES) from the late ninth/early tenth century. This codex
makes a phenomenal contribution to our knowledge of Byzantine li-
turgical history, since it not only contains one of the oldest surviving
––––––––––
*
I would like to thank Archbishop Damianos and the monks of St Catherine’s Monastery,
particularly Fr. Justin, for their generosity and hospitality during my stay there. Further-
more, I thank the monastery for the permission granted to include photographic samples
of the manuscript in this study.
1
See P. G. Nikolopoulos (et al.), Τὰ νέα εὑρήματα τοῦ Σινᾶ (Athens 1998). For a good
recent overview of both the depository structure and its rediscovery, see also Hieromonk
Justin of Sinai and Nikolas Sarris, “The Conservation of and Photography of the Codex
Sinaiticus at Saint Catherine’s Monastery: Not Quite Finished,” talk given at the Codex
Sinaiticus Conference, British Library, 6-7 July 2009, publication forthcoming.
2
For relevant bibliography on the New Finds, see Géhin & Frøyshov, “Nouvelles Décou-
vertes” 167-8 and notes. One could also add more recent publications on the new finds: Z.
Aleksidze (et al.), Catalogue of Georgian Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St. Cather-
ine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai (Athens 2005); A. Kazamias, Ἡ Θεία Λειτουργία τοῦ
Ἁγίου Ἰακώβου τοῦ Ἀδελφοθέου καὶ τὰ νέα σιναϊτικὰ χειρόγραφα (Thessaloniki
2006); S. Frøyshov, “Les manuscripts de la bibliothèque du Sinaï: archives du monde
orthodox, trésor de la liturgie hiérosolymitaine,” Le Messager Orthodoxe 148 (2009) 60-
74; “Old Georgian Version” 16-17.
BBGG III s. 8 (2011), 169-221

170 GABRIEL RADLE
witnesses of CHR, but also the oldest extant complete witness to the
Constantinopolitan cathedral PRES.
The Codex
The codex is fragmentary, consisting of seventeen parchment fo-
lios (eight bifolios and one folio), devoid of binding. Although the
dimensions of the folios vary due to their damaged state, the original
average size of a folio can be measured as approximately 145-150 x
95-100 mm. The number of lines per page fluctuates, ranging between
eighteen (f. 4r) and twenty-three (f. 2v) lines. The ink employed is of a
dark brown color, significantly faded in many parts of the manuscript.
The script is primarily ogivale inclinata. However, for some smaller
sections, such as rubrical indications and diaconal intentions, the
scribe makes use of an ogivale diritta. The scribe also employs a wide
use of accents and aspirates.
After the discovery of these folios, Nikolopoulos catalogued them
as belonging to two quires.3 However, upon studying this codex in
detail, on the basis of both codicological and liturgical analysis I have
come to the conclusion that the folios actually comprise parts of three
quires, plus a single folio (the current f. 7) that does not belong to any
of the quires, but rather originates from an entirely different codex.
Because many of the New Finds were found in a scattered state,4
and because Nikolopoulos did not leave behind a detailed record of
his work on ΜΓ22, it is impossible to know whether or not folio 7
was found with the rest of this manuscript, or if it was simply included
by Nikolopoulos with the manuscript when the New Finds folios were
sorted, matched, and arranged. Judging by the fact that the first sev-
eral folios of ΜΓ22 are in disarray, the latter appears to be likely.
The reasons that might lead a conservator to include folio 7 within
ΜΓ22 can be summed up as follows: first, folio 7 contains a part of
the anaphora of CHR not contained in the other folios; second, the
script and ink are very similar to the other folios of ΜΓ 22; third, at
an initial glace, the dimensions of this folio appear to be similar to the
rest of the manuscript. However, the extraneous origin of folio 7 can
be ascertained by both codicological and textual analysis. First, alt-
––––––––––
3
Nikolopoulos (et al.) Τὰ νέα εὑρήματα 145.
4
See the images throughout the introduction of Nikolopoulos (et al.), Τὰ νέα εὑρήματα
to get an idea of the scattered state in which many of the manuscripts were found.
Nikolopoulos and the other conservators undertook a monumental task, which included
trying to match many fragments based on textual and paleographical indications.
SINAI GR. NE / MΓ 22 171
hough this folio is considerably damaged, its original length can still
be discerned as measuring approximately 130 mm, which is signifi-
cantly shorter than the average folio length of 145-150 mm. Second,
small indentations can be seen along the side of this folio, left by the
original binding. If these indentations are matched to the binding
holes of the other folios, the text of folio 7 would start an entire 13
mm. below the text of the adjacent folios, a significant difference for
such a small codex.
A third and final argument for excluding f. 7 from the rest of the
manuscript can be made by analyzing its text. While this folio con-
tains part of the anaphora of CHR, it is difficult to place its text
among the other folios containing CHR. For there exists a textual
break in the anaphora between ff. 7 and 8, but the lacuna is far too
short to merit the insertion there of another full folio into the codex.
Therefore, if folio 7 was indeed at some point added to the original
codex, there would have been a lacuna in the anaphora of CHR. All
this evidence points to a rather recent inclusion of folio 7 within this
manuscript by Nikolopoulos and the scholars who helped sort and ar-
range the New Finds. Nevertheless, because folio 7 contains an early
and significant testimony of the anaphora of CHR, we include it in
this study.
In addition to excluding folio 7 from the original codex, the first
quire needs to be entirely rearranged. Anyone who reads straight
through the folio arrangement of Nikolopoulos encounters a see-saw
effect, bouncing back-and-forth between CHR and PRES [Photo 1].
Through my analysis of the folios and the text of CHR and PRES, I
have come to the following conclusion as to their proper order (the
folio order below is my corrected arrangement, with the numbers
corresponding to the present-day arrangement of Nikolopoulos, and L
signifying where I have identified a lacuna in the text):
1 L 6 L 8 2 3 L 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (7)
Lacunae of at least a few folios each exist between ff. 1-6 and 6-8.
Furthermore, a smaller lacuna exists between ff. 3-4. In the upper
right-hand corner of f. 10, there is a ‘Δ’ designating the fourth quire.
In the upper right-hand corner of f. 1, an ‘Α’ is also discernable, des-
172
GABRIEL RADLE
Tav. 1 Sinai Gr. NE / MΓ 22, ff. 5v-6r
© Monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai, Egypt
ignating the first quire. In our reworked order of this manuscript, the
lacunae that exist between ff. 1-6 and 6-8 are textually long enough to
merit two distinct quires before f. 8. This means that CHR begins in
the first quire of the original codex (f. 1), and would have lasted
through until the third quire, where PRES begins with the current f. 4.
Unfortunately, significant damage to f. 8, makes it impossible to say
with certainty whether the vague markings in the upper corner of this
folio are indeed the remnant of a ‘Γ’ marking the third quire.
Date and Provenance

In the catalogue of the Greek New Finds, ΜΓ 22 is dated to the
ninth century.5 However, in their overview of the manuscripts pre-
sented in this catalogue, Géhin and Frøyshov doubt this dating as too
early “pour des raisons paléographiques et liturgiques.”6 Yet no paleo-
graphical justification is given by the authors for this doubt. Rather,
the motive cited for their hesitation is the presence of CHR in a Pales-
tinian euchology.7 While it may be true that Palestinian sources do not
testify to CHR before the tenth century, I believe that using the mere
presence of CHR as the primary basis for dating a manuscript is too
risky, especially considering that the amount of liturgical testimony
from that region prior to the tenth century is moderate at best.
What appears to be our earliest Greek euchology evidence from the
region, Sinai NE / ΜΓ 53 (eighth/ninth century), is fragmentary and
lacks any eucharistic liturgy.8 Our second oldest Greek euchology
from the Middle East, Sinai Gr. 957 (early tenth century), is also in-
complete and lacks any complete eucharistic formulary today.9 Even if
––––––––––
5
Nikolopoulos (et al.), Τὰ νέα εὑρήματα 145, 153.
6
Géhin & Frøyshov, “Nouvelles Découvertes” 178.
7
Ibid., note 44: “La présence en Palestine de CHR ne débute, selon nos connaissances ac-
tuelles, qu’au 10e s.”
8
See Nikolopoulos (et al.), Τὰ νέα εὑρήματα 150. See also Géhin & Frøyshov, “Nou-
velles Découvertes” 176-7. Christos Kanavas is currently writing his doctoral thesis on
this manuscript at PIO. See the official publication of PIO, Anno Accademico 2009-2010.
Atti 53. Kanavas is concurrently preparing for press a critical edition of this euchology,
which we are all awaiting anxiously. In addition to containing many prayers of local ori-
gin, this euchology also contains numerous Constantinopolitan prayers, showing that the
liturgical phenomenon known as the “Byzantinization” of the Middle Eastern Patriar-
chates was well in motion already in the ninth century. Daniel Galadza is currently ad-
dressing the phenomenon of Byzantinization in his doctoral research at PIO, a preliminary
result of which he shares in D. Galazda, “Liturgical Byzantinization in Jerusalem: Al-
Biruni’s Melkite Calendar in Context,” BBGG III s. 7 (2010) 69-85.
9
See Dmitrivesky, 1. See also G. Radle, “The Development of Byzantine Rites of Mar-
riage as Evidenced by Sinai Gr. 957,” publication forthcoming. The few quire signatures
174 GABRIEL RADLE
Georgian sources, known for conserving Hagiopolite liturgical prayers

and practices,10 only begin to show CHR in the tenth century,11 the
number of Georgian euchologies antecedent to the tenth century is too
sparse to make a definitive judgment excluding the presence of CHR
in the entire region of the Middle East prior to the tenth century. Ra-
ther, we should look first to paleographical evidence, and then try to
interpret the liturgical data together with that evidence.
ΜΓ 22 displays the characteristics of a provincial ogivale incli-
nata.12 The wide use of breathing marks and accents by the original
hand make it difficult to date the manuscript before the second half of
the ninth century.13 The use of diaeresis marks above any initial ‘ι’ or
‘υ’ instead of a rough breathing mark is characteristic of texts from
the ninth and tenth centuries.14 The script is rather unrefined and the
angle of the hand fluctuates throughout the manuscript. It is quite
likely that it was copied at a time when the majuscule was giving way
ever more to the minuscule. In fact, the ever-increasing influence of
minuscule among liturgical texts in the ninth and tenth centuries re-
sulted in the majuscule virtually disappearing as the main script of li-
––––––––––
contained in the manuscript indicate that nearly six quires are missing from the beginning
of the codex (the current f. 3r is where the original 6th quire began). A fragment of a PRES
Ambo Prayer (identical to the one found in ΜΓ22) on the current f. 1r indicates that the
beginning of this euchology was originally dedicated to eucharistic liturgies. See. G. Ra-
dle, Sinai Gr. 957 (Unpublished PIO Licentiate Thesis, Rome 2010), 10. This work is
being revised for publication.
10
See S. Frøyshov, “The Early Development of the Liturgical Eight-Mode System in
Jerusalem,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 51 (2003) 139-78, here 140. See also R.
Taft, Communion 679-680, and notes.
11
For example, Sin. Geo. N.54 or Sin. Geo. N.66. See Z. Aleksidze (et al.), Catalogue of
Georgian Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai
(Athens 2005) 413-4, 422. For other, later, examples of Georgian CHR, see the editions
of M. Tarchnišvili, Liturgiae ibericae antiquiores (CSCO 122, Louvain 1950) 64-83; A.
Jacob, “Une version géorgienne inédite de la liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome,” Mus 77
(1964) 65-199.
12
On the ogivale inclinata, see G. Cavallo, “Funzione e strutture della maiuscola greca tra
i secoli VIII-XI” in La paléographie grecque et byzantine. Paris, 21-25 octobre 1974
(Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 559, Paris
1977) 95-137, esp. 98-103; P. Canart, Lezioni di Paleografia e Codicologia (Vatican City
1980) 16-17.
13
P. Canart, Lezioni, 81-82; B. Fonkič, “Codici greci del secolo IX” in A. B. García and I.
P. Martín (eds.), The Legacy of Bernard de Montfaucon: Three Hundred Years of Studies
on Greek Handwriting (Bibliologia 31A, Turnhout 2010) 37-43, here 42-43; Elena V.
Uchanova, “Византийский унциал и славянский устав: проблемы источников и эво-
люции” in Монфокон: Исследования по палеографии, кодикологии и дипломатикe
(Moscow, St Petersburg 2007) 19-88, here 86.
14
P. Canart, Lezioni, 81-82.
turgical books by the end of the tenth century, save for Evangeliaria.15
Paleographically speaking, the original catalogue dating was not en-
tirely imprudent, but could be better limited to the late ninth century
and expanded to include the beginning of the tenth century.16
While we can ascribe a dating with a certain amount of security, it
is more challenging to attribute the manuscript to a specific region.
Although the script does not represent any clearly defined regional
type17 within the canon of ogivale inclinata, we can nevertheless ex-
clude a kinship with the features of the Italo-Greek type.18 There are
some characters that have affinity to the Syro-Palestinian type of ogi-
vale inclinata, and some have taken a Palestinian/Sinaitic origin for
granted.19 However, these affinities are not strong enough to assign a
provenance with absolute certainty.
Because ΜΓ22 faithfully copies the tradition of Constantinople, no
textual indications exist to strongly connect the euchology with a spe-
cific provincial region. However, in order to better attribute this
manuscript to a specific area, Géhin and Frøyshov suggested that re-
course can be made to another manuscript of the Sinai New Finds,
––––––––––
15
See E. Crisci and Paola Degni, La scrittura greca dall’antichità all’epoca della stampa
(Rome 2011) 129.
16
I would like to thank three paleographers in particular for lending their professional
opinions to the matter: Luca Pieralli (professor of Greek Paleography at the Vatican
School of Paleography and at PIO), Edoardo Crisci (professor of Greek Paleography at
the Università degli studi di Cassino), and Guglielmo Cavallo (professor of Greek Pale-
ography at the Università “La Sapienza,” Rome), all of whom believe that the most
prudent dating to assign the manuscript is late ninth/early tenth century. This dating cor-
responds with the opinion of Elena Uchanova, who gave it a range from the second half
of the ninth century to the first quarter of the tenth century. Uchanova, “Византийский
унциал и славянский устав: проблемы источников и эволюции” (cited above, note 13)
44 note 45.
17
I am using the word “type” as defined in G. Cencetti, Lineamenti di storia della scrit-
tura latina. Dalle lezioni di paleografia (Bologna a.a. 1953-54) (Bologna 1997) 55.
18
For Italo-Greek examples of ogivale inclinata, see Vatican Gr. 2627 and Grottaferrata
Ε.β. VII, photographic examples in G. Cavallo, “Funzione e strutture della maiuscola
greca tra i secoli VIII-XI” in La paléographie grecque et byzantine. Paris, 21-25 octobre
1974 (Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 559,
Paris 1977) 95-137, here 116. For a brief overview of the distinguishing types of ogivale
inclinata, see also Canart, Lezioni (note 12) 17.
19
Uchanova, “Византийский унциал и славянский устав” (cited above, note 13); Géhin
& Frøyshov, “Nouvelles Découvertes” 178.
176 GABRIEL RADLE
ΜΓ67.20 This manuscript was copied by a scribe of the same graphic

region as ΜΓ22, if not by the very same hand.21
ΜΓ67 contains a fragmented portion of the Byzantine Rite of Mar-
riage.22 Like ΜΓ22, the extant part of this rite shows a heavy depend-
ence on the liturgical practices of Constantinople, as it contains por-
tions of both the Constantinopolitan Prayer of Marriage and the Con-
stantinopolitan Kefaloklisia Prayer of Marriage. However, ΜΓ67 also
incorporates several non-Constantinopolitan elements that would sug-
gest a Melkite origin for the manuscript. These elements include an
alternative prayer for marriage (Εὐχὴ ἄλλη εἰς γάμους),23 a Middle
Eastern prayer for the Common Cup,24 and the marriage prokeimenon
attested to in Palestinian sources (Ps 8: 6b-7a).25
Given this data, it is not imprudent to suggest that ΜΓ22, along
with ΜΓ67, was likely copied within a Melkite region of the Middle
East. Such an hypothesis can also be supported by the testimony of
the euchology’s presence on Sinai. Not only was the euchology found
––––––––––
20
Géhin & Frøyshov, “Nouvelles Découvertes” 178. For a sample photograph of this ma-
nuscript, refer to the catalogue Nikolopoulos (et al.) Τὰ νέα εὑρήματα, photograph 83.
21
On the basis of the catalogue pictures, Géhin and Frøyshov already attributed these two
manuscripts to the same hand. While the axis angle in catalogue photograph of ΜΓ67
does appear more pronouned than that in ΜΓ22, a detailed analysis of the few folios that
make up ΜΓ67 shows that, like ΜΓ22, the angle varies throughout the manuscript. If not
copied by the same hand, these two manuscripts were certainly copied by scribes who had
been trained in the same graphic region.
22
Géhin & Frøyshov, “Nouvelles Découvertes” 177, erroneously refer to this rite as “le
rite hagiopolite du mariage”. Rather, ΜΓ67 presents the Constantinopolitan Rite of
Marriage, with some Melkite interpolations.
23
This Melkite prayer is found in early Italo-Greek manuscripts, such as Grottaferrata Γβ
VII and St Petersburg 226. The redaction of ΜΓ67 matches more closely that of St Pe-
tersburg 226, since the prayer contains an interpolation taken from the Constantinopolitan
Prayer of Marriage.
24
This rare prayer (Ὁ θεὸς ὁ φιλάνθρωπο ς ὁ τῇ σῇ οἰκονομίᾳ διοικῶν) was identified
in Italo-Greek sources by G. Passarelli, “L’Eucologio Athon. Panteleimonensis 77 alias
162 (1890),” OCP 48 (1982) 124-158, here 131-133. However, this does not mean that
the prayer was composed in Southern Italy. Rather, ΜΓ67 helps confirm that the prayer is
of Melkite origin, but that it also travelled to Southern Italy. See S. Parenti, “Un eucolo-
gio poco noto del Salento, El Escorial X.IV.13” publication forthcoming in Studi sull’O-
riente Cristiano.
25
The presence of this prokeimenon in ΜΓ67 is actually the only reason listed by Géhin
and Frøyshov for their attribution of both this manuscript and ΜΓ22 to Palestine. How-
ever, it should be noted that this prokeimenon is also strongly attested to in old Italo-
Greek sources of the Rite of Marriage, and taken by itself, the mere presence of this pro-
keimenon in a 9th/10th c. Rite of Marriage is not sufficient evidence for attributing that
manuscript to a specific local church.
among the New Finds, but in the upper and right-hand margins of the
first folio there is an Arabic text added in a darker ink. It reads:
This manuscript [?] a complete Euchologion; it is owned by Sa‘id b. Daniel b.

Bashar on Mt Sinai. He who steals it shall God-Almighty […] his hands, and
his sin shall be regarded as (that of) Judas Iscariot. Amen.26
Although the Arabic text was added later, the line is still very sig-
nificant, since it helps support the evidence of a Middle Eastern origin
and use. While the Arabic heading does link the manuscript with St
Catherine’s Monastery, it does not clearly confirm or deny the exact
place that it was copied.
As we stated in our introduction, the contents of ΜΓ22 are highly
Constantinopolitan. That might raise doubts about a Sinaitic origin
and use for our codex, since Sinai was under the Patriarchate of Jeru-
salem. However, it appears that by the late ninth century communica-
tion and strong ties between Sinai and Jerusalem had already begun to
diminish, a product of the Muslim occupation of the region.27 Yet,
bishop Konstantinos of Sinai is listed as having participated at the
869-870 Synod of Constantinople.28 Since there is evidence that the
community of Sinai still had some connection to Constantinople at a
time of increasing isolation, it is not unreasonable to imagine the in-
fluence of the Byzantine capital on St Catherine’s at the turn of the
ninth to tenth century.
Though still unable to ascribe with certainty a precise provenance
to our euchology, we can nevertheless sustain a Melkite origin. The
codex thereby helps to deepen our understanding of the gradual pro-
cess of the “Byzantinization” of the Middle Eastern Patriarchates.29
––––––––––
26
h[ā]dā ʾl-maṣḥaf <yn?m> ʾūḫūlūǧ[i]yūn kāmil | ḥabasahu Ṣāʿid bin Dānyal bin Bašar
ʿalà Ṭūr Sīnā | Fa man aḫraǧahu [˳˳˳] Allāh Taʿālà yadayhi wa-yuǧʿalu a [ā]h u maʿa
Yūdas al-Isqariyūṭ(a)s. Amīn. I would like to thank Delio Proverbio, Scriptor Orientalis
of the Vatican Apostolic Library, for providing this trascription and translation. I would
also like to extend by gratitude to Caterina Greppi, professor of Arabic Studies at PIO,
and Bishara Ebeid, doctoral candidate at PIO, for also helping me with the Arabic
translation.
27
A. Marinescu, The Hierarchs’ Catalogue of Monastery St. Catherine in Mount Sinai” in
Études byzantines et post-byzantines, IV (Bucharest 2001) 267-289, here 279 note 75.
28
Mansi, 16: 194: “Constantinus misericordia Dei episcopus Synai.” Cf. A. Marinescu,
above note 27; G. Fedalto, Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis. Series Episoporum Eccle-
siarum Christanarum Orientalium. II: Patriarchatus Alexandrinus, Antiochenus, Hero-
solymitanus (Padova 1988) 1044.
29
See above, note 8.
178 GABRIEL RADLE
The Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (CHR)
One of the first particularities of ΜΓ 22 is the location of CHR

within the original manuscript. As established by our codicological
analysis above, the codex begins with CHR. It is not preceded by the
Liturgy of St Basil (BAS), as is the case in several of our oldest sur-
viving Greek euchologies, the late eighth-century Barberini Gr. 336,
the tenth-century Palestinian Sevastianov 474 and the Italo-Greek St
Petersburg 226.30
ΜΓ 22 is also our earliest euchological witness that originally
contained the entire text of CHR, including the first part of the liturgy.
This is contrary to the older tendency, witnessed in Sevastianov 474,
where the first part of CHR is excluded simply because it is identical
to the first part of BAS, originally the primary Byzantine liturgy.
Since the celebrant could easily refer to the first part of BAS when
celebrating the first part of CHR from the same euchology, early
scribes could omit this section from CHR. Prior to this present study,
the earliest known manuscripts that copied an entire CHR were the
codices St Petersburg 226 (10th century) and Grottaferrata Γβ VII
(10th/11th century),31 along with the scroll Grottaferrata Γβ VI (late
10th century), which Jacob once thought to be “le plus ancien repré-
sentant de la nouvelle recension constantinopolitaine, dans laquelle
les prières manquantes de la recension primitive ont été empruntées à
la Liturgie de saint Basile.”32 That statement can now be applied to
ΜΓ 22.
Additionally peculiar to ΜΓ 22 is that, at least today, no sign of
BAS can be discerned. Based on our codicological evidence, we know
that CHR is immediately followed by PRES, and that BAS did not
precede CHR. If BAS was included in a missing part of the original
––––––––––
30
See editions by respective authors, cited in Abbreviations, below. On St Petersburg
226, see also A. Jacob, “L’euchologe de Porphyre Uspenski. Cod. Leningr. gr. 226 (Xe
siècle),” Mus 78 (1965), 173-214.
31
See Passarelli, Γβ VII § 1-35, and A. Jacob, “Quelques observations sur l’euchologe
Γ.β. VII de Grottaferrata. A propos d’une édition récente,” Bulletin de l’Institut historique
belge de Rome 53-54 (1983-1984) 65-98, here 87-93. Cf. S. Lucà, “Su origine e datazione
del Crypt. Β.β. VI (ff. 1-9). Appunti sulla collezione manoscritta greca di Grottaferrata”
in Lidia Perria (ed.), Tra oriente e occidente. Scitture e libri greci fra le regioni orientali
di Bisanzio e l’Italia (Testi e Studi Bizantino-Neoellenici XIV, Rome 2003) 145-224,
here 192.
32
A. Jacob, “Le plus ancien rouleau liturgique italo-grec,” Helikon 29-30 (1989-1990)
321-334, here 324.
codex, it was not assigned a primary position within the euchology,

and would have been placed after both CHR and PRES.
This euchological data immediately presents a problem for the
historian of the liturgy. We know from the contribution of Stefano
Parenti that around the turn of the ninth to tenth century CHR started
to be celebrated instead of BAS on most Sundays.33 However, Parenti
notes that this phenomenon is reflected in euchologies starting only in
the late tenth to early eleventh centuries,34 a position held widely in
the field of Byzantine liturgiology.35 What is the reason then for our
manuscript not giving precedence to BAS?
We have no pure Constantinopolitan euchology sources of BAS
and CHR from this early period. The first euchology sources that tes-
tify to CHR’s victory over BAS in the late tenth and early eleventh
century originate in the Byzantine periphery. However, the victory of
CHR over BAS was spearheaded at Constantinople.36 Since ΜΓ22
contains an entire Constantinopolitan PRES, including the cathedral
Vespers, it is clear that it was relying heavily on a Constantinopolitan
source for its composition. It should thereby come as no surprise that
this manuscript is also our first witness to the victory of CHR over
BAS.37 Parenti’s dating for the beginning of CHR’s dominance over
BAS at the turn of the ninth to tenth century is supported by ΜΓ22.
With this new source though, we can nuance Parenti’s conclusion and
add that this liturgical reform was reflected almost immediately in at
least some Constantinopolitan euchologies, like the source of ΜΓ22,
while other periphery euchologies were generally slower to reflect this
liturgical reform.
From this analysis, we can note two distinct structural changes in
early euchologies that resulted from CHR’s victory over BAS: 1)
CHR contains the entire liturgical formulary including the enarxis it
has in common with BAS, and 2) CHR is placed at the beginning of
––––––––––
33
See Parenti, “Vittoria” 34, and passim for the reasons behind this shift and its results.
34
Ibid.
35
See for example, Taft, Great Entrance xxxii, or, more recently, Taft, Communion 544,
note 208; Gabriele Winkler, “Preliminary Observations about the Relationship between
the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. James” in OCP 76 (2010) 5-55, here 6.
36
Parenti, “Vittoria” 42-6.
37
Even within Constantinople itself, the process of CHR taking precedence in the
euchology was likely also gradual, since Paris Coislin 213 (a. 1027), even though it is
devoid of eucharistic liturgies, still lists BAS before CHR. See J. Duncan, Coislin 213.
Euchologe de la Grande Église. Dissertatio ad Lauream, PIO (Rome 1983) vii.
180 GABRIEL RADLE
the euchology.38 Some of our early euchologies will include the first
change, while still holding on to the older position of BAS at the head
of the euchology.39 Sinai NE/ΜΓ 22 is our oldest extant euchology to
implement both structural changes.
There is one final element to note with regard to the absence of
BAS. As stated above, if BAS was found in the original ΜΓ22, it was
given less precedence than both CHR and PRES. We have asserted
that at the time of copying, BAS was already beginning to be confined
to the Sundays of Lent and major feast days. However, our document
was copied and used in Palestine/Sinai, a region which traditionally
celebrated the Liturgy of St James (JAS). Considering that at this time
BAS was relegated to more solemn and hence conservative periods of
the liturgical year,40 it is not unfathomable to think that JAS could
have still been celebrated on at least some of those occasions. In other
words, when speaking about the victory of ferial CHR over festal
BAS in such an early Melkite euchology, we must also bear in mind
the possibility, however small, that some sort of local festal relation-
ship was maintained with the Liturgy of St James in that region.
While most of what is still extant of ΜΓ 22 is devoted to PRES,
the manuscript preserves five folios of CHR, in addition to folio 7,
which contains part of the CHR anaphora from around the same pe-
riod. These folios allow us to gather additional insight into our
knowledge of CHR’s development.
The Beginning
In keeping with our earliest euchology evidence, the liturgy of
CHR has no title.41 ΜΓ22 begins with the Prayer of the Prothesis,
found already in BAS of Barberini Gr. 336 and other early eucholo-
gies. The long title of this prayer [1.1] is identical to that found in the
––––––––––
38
Parenti already distinguished these two separate phenomena of CHR’s victory in an ar-
ticle written in 1996 for the new volume of Prex Eucharistica. Studia that never appeared.
39
Examples include the previously cited tenth-century euchology, St Petersburg 226, and
Grottaferrata Γ.β. IV. On the latter, see S. Parenti, L’Eucologio manoscritto Γ.β. IV (X
sec.) della Biblioteca di Grottaferrata. Edizione. Unpublished PIO doctoral dissertation.
40
On the conservative nature of more solemn liturgical seasons, a principle formulated by
Adrian Fortescue and Anton Baumstark, see R.F. Taft, “Anton Baumstark’s Comparative
Liturgy Revisited” in R.F. Taft & Gabriele Winkler, Acts of the International Congress
Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark (1872-1948), Rome, 25-29 Sep-
tember 1998 (OCA 265, Rome 2001) 191-232, here 200, and note 6.
41
See the oldest extant euchology evidence of CHR in Barberini Gr. 336, Parenti-Vel-
kovska §23.
tenth-century Italo-Greek euchology St Petersburg 226, even if the

Prothesis Prayer in St Petersburg 226 is an Italo-Greek variant.42
The euchology then proceeds to the initial blessing of the liturgy.
The deacon says, “Master, Bless” (Εὐλόγησον δέσποτα), followed
by the priest’s response [2.1].43 In the case of ΜΓ22, the priest’s invo-
cation is not the typical “Εὐλογημένη ἡ βασιλεία…,” but rather
“Εὐλογημένη ὑπάρχει ἡ βασιλεία…,” also testified to in St Peters-
burg 226.44 The initial blessing for PRES [9.2], rather, is the more
typically witnessed blessing, without ὑπάρχει. ΜΓ22 is likely our
earliest extant witness to an initial blessing in CHR, since our oldest
extant euchology, the late eighth-century Barberini Gr. 336, does not
have it.
Antiphons
Following the blessing, ΜΓ22 gives the Prayer of the First Anti-
phon [2.3]. From ΜΓ22’s inclusion of diaconal litanies in other parts
of the manuscript, we can assert that there is no Great Synapte at the
beginning of this liturgy. The synaptai included elsewhere in the eu-
chology always frame the priestly prayers. All of the intentions before
Ἀντιλαβοῦ, σῶσον are placed before the prayer, while Ἀντιλαβοῦ,
σῶσον and any other petitions that follow are placed between the
priestly prayer and the ecphonesis. For the First Antiphon Prayer, the
––––––––––
42
See Koumarianos, §25. The prayer of St Petersburg 226 actually has its likely roots in
the Church of Alexandria, but is found in the Italo-Greek recension of CHR already in
Barberini Gr. 336, Parenti-Velkovska § 23. See A. Jacob, “La tradition manuscrite de la
liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome (VIIIe-XIIe siècles) in Eucharisties d’Orient et d’Oc-
cident (Lex Orandi 47, Paris 1970) 109-138, here 116-117. ΜΓ22 is thereby the oldest
source which evidences the Constantinopolitan Prothesis Prayer in CHR.
43
Sr. Dr. Vassa Larin is currently preparing an article on the history of the initial blessing
of the liturgy, and in anticipation of her study, we restrict our comments about the initial
blessing to those pertaining directly to ΜΓ22.
44
Koumarianos, §27. This form is also attested to in other Italo-Greek sources, such as
Ottoboni Gr. 344 (a. 1177) and Barberini Gr. 443 (early 13th c.), both from Salento.
These two codices use ὑπάρχει in the blessing found after the Prayer of the Trisagion.
See Strittmatter, “Notes” 86, note 6. Another witness from Salento, Grottaferrata Γ.β.
XVIII (14th c.), also has a blessing after the Prayer of the Trisagion, with ὑπάρχει (f. 9v).
Cf. G. Passarelli, “Osservazioni liturgiche,” BBGG n.s. 33 (1979), 81 note 33. On the
Salentine origin of this manuscript, see the table of André Jacob (erroneously attributed to
Stefano Parenti) in P. Canart & S. Lucà, Codici greci dell’Italia Meridionale (Rome
2000) 148. The inclusion of ὑπάρχει is also found at the beginning of Paschal Matins in
the Tetraevangelion Sinai Gr. 150 (11th c.). See S. Parenti, “La celebrazione delle ore del
venerdì santo nell’ Eucologio Γ.β. X di Grottaferrata,” BBGG 44 (1990) 81-125, here 97,
note 46; cf. S. Parenti, “Per l’identificazione di un anonimo calendario italo-greco del
Sinai,” AB 115 (1997) 281-287
182 GABRIEL RADLE
diaconal Oremus before the prayer contains only Ὀρθοί, ἐν εἰρήνῃ

τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν, indicating that the Great Synapte was not
said at this point. This is in keeping with the evidence Mateos exam-
ined years ago.45
Prayers of the Faithful

A lacuna breaks off the end of the First Antiphon Prayer and fast-
forwards us to the middle of the CHR First Prayer of the Faithful
[3.1]. Between this prayer and the ecphonesis we find the diaconal
Ἀντιλαβοῦ, followed by Σοφία. The Second Prayer of the Faithful is
preceded by a litany consisting of Ἔτι καὶ ἔτι and three other diaco-
nal petitions [4.1]. If we follow Strittmatter, this can be interpreted as
a remnant signalling the original location of the Great Synapte.46 Alt-
hough the section of CHR containing the Little Entrance and Trisa-
gion is currently missing from ΜΓ22, we noted the lack of a Great
Synapte at the beginning of the liturgy, and we observe here a short
synapte at the Second Prayer of the Faithful. This presents a case for
presuming the presence of an older form of the “Great Synapte”
before the Trisagion, as is found for example in St Petersburg 226
(Koumarianos § 32).
Anaphora
Most of the original anaphoral text of ΜΓ22 is missing, with only
a portion intact (f. 8 and the beginning of f. 2), which is quite frag-
mentary due to the ruined state of f. 8.47 This part of the anaphora is
original to the main corpus of ΜΓ22. Additionally, ΜΓ22 today also
contains the current f. 7, which is not original to the rest of the manu-
script, but nevertheless contains part of the CHR anaphora. In order to
better distinguish between the two different anaphoral texts, I have
separated them here in this study. I include f. 7 at the end of the edi-
tion, and shall discuss it more below (see below, § The CHR Anaph-
ora of Folio Seven).
––––––––––
45
Mateos, Parole 31; Strittmatter, “Notes.” Nevertheless, the work of Strittmatter and
Mateos on the history of the Great Synapte needs to be considered under the light of later
studies, like that of Elena Velkovska, “A Liturgical Fragment in Majuscule in Codex A2
in Erlangen,” Byzantinoslavica 56 (1995) 483-492.
46
A. Strittmatter, “Notes” 65-69; Id., “A Peculiarity of the Slavic Liturgy found in Greek
Euchologies” in K. Weitzmann (ed.), Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of
Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton 1955) 197-203. Cf. Mateos, Parole 161.
47
F. 8 is missing more than half of its lower portion.
The still extant part of the anaphora original to the main codex
contains the commemorations of the living, with this very curious line
after the commemoration of the bishop: Ὁ ἱερεύς⋅ Κύριε ἐλέησον ἐν
[μ]υστη[ρί]ῳ [5.4]. Because it is located immediately after the com-
memoration of the bishop, which served as the ecphonesis that histori-
cally opened the diptychs for the living,48 this priestly line should proba-
bly be interpreted as within the framework—or at least debris—of the
deacon’s reading of the names.
Post-Anaphoral Prayers
After the anaphora, ΜΓ22 contains the Precommunion Prayer,
framed by its accompanying litany [6.2-4].49 The litany begins with
Πάντων τῶν ἁγίων καὶ δι(καίων). The addition of “καὶ δικαίων,”
a variant not in the textus receptus, is witnessed mainly in a few an-
cient periphery sources such as St Petersburg 226 and Grottaferrata
Γβ VII.50
The Ὅπως ὁ φιλάνθρωπος petition is divided into two at Ἀντι-
καταπέμψῃ, a practice attested to in several early sources.51 The
prayer contains the old Constantinopolitan ending, μὴ δὲ εἰς κατά-
κριμα.52 The litany and prayer are followed by the Our Father and the
Prayer of Inclination. The Inclination Prayer [7.2] contains a variant in
the first line not found in any of the numerous manuscripts analyzed
by Taft.53
Immediately after the Prayer of Inclination we find the Respice
prayer (Πρόσχες, Κύριε) [8.1]. Taft identified various recensions of
this prayer, but points out that the textus receptus is observable “from
the 11th century on in mss of the new Constantinopolitan recension of
CHR.”54 However, we can now affirm that ΜΓ22 already presents the
“new Constantinopolitan recension of this prayer,” and does not con-
tain the more notable variants found in other manuscripts.55 For if
––––––––––
48
R. F. Taft, A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Volume IV: The Diptychs
(OCA 238, Rome 1991) 135; more generally on the Diptychs of the Living, see esp. ibid.
121-159.
49
On this litany and prayer, see Taft, Precommunion 74-128.
50
Koumarianos § 50.1; Passarelli § 29.1. Cf. Taft, Precommunion 76.
51
See Taft, Precommunion 78, note 10.
52
Ibid. 104.
53
See Ibid. 164-5.
54
Ibid. 202.
55
See for example the recensions of Barberini Gr. 336 (Parenti-Velkovska § 19), St
Petersburg 226 (Koumarianos § 7), or Sevastianov 474 (Koster § 25).
184 GABRIEL RADLE
other periphery euchologies conserve other recensions, ΜΓ22 already

contains at the turn of the ninth to tenth century the earliest example
of the “new Constantinopolitan recension” of this prayer, while sev-
eral later Palestinian sources continue to copy variants in the prayer.56
So ΜΓ22 was copied from the redaction already in use at Constanti-
nople at the turn of the ninth to tenth century, while other periphery
sources continued to conserve the variants of earlier or local redac-
tions.
Due to a small lacuna in the original codex, CHR ends abruptly in
the midst of the ancient call to communion, after the deacon proclaims
Πρόσχωμεν [8.3].
The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (PRES)

Sinai ΝΕ/ΜΓ 22, the second oldest known Greek euchology wit-
ness to PRES, is also a very important document for the history of this
liturgy.57 Given its recent discovery, this manuscript has never been
taken into consideration in previous studies dedicated to PRES.58 The
Greek euchology testimony of PRES that we have jumps from the late
eighth-century codex Barberini Gr. 336 to the manuscripts St. Peters-
burg 226 (10th c.), Sevastianov 474 (10th c.) and Grottaferrata Γβ VII
(10/11th c.).59 Therefore, Sinai NE/ ΜΓ 22 fills a large gap in the evi-
dence.
A particularly interesting aspect of ΜΓ 22 is its inclusion of the
Vesperal part of PRES, whereas other surviving early euchologies ex-
clude the Vesperal part, copying PRES instead as an appendix to Ves-
pers.60 But what is especially noteworthy about this PRES, is that it
presents a complete Constantinopolitan cathedral PRES text. The only
other Greek euchology to contain an entire Constantinopolitan cathe-
dral PRES is the twelfth-century Vatican Gr. 1554.61
The inclusion of the Vesperal part within the cathedral PRES of
ΜΓ22 could show an attempt to conserve a more ancient form of cel-
––––––––––
56
See Taft, Precommunion 203
57
The oldest is Barberini Gr. 336, Parenti-Velkovska § 42-48.
58
The most recent thorough study of PRES is S. Alexopoulos, The Presanctified Liturgy
in the Byzantine Rite. A Comparative Analysis of its Origins, Evolution, and Structural
Components (Liturgia Condenda 21, Leuven 2009), hereafter Alexopoulos, Presanctified.
For an overview of the previous literature on PRES, see the introduction to that work, 1-6.
59
See the list of manuscripts in Alexopoulos, Presanctified 335-339.
60
Ibid., 132.
61
Ibid., 136.
ebrating cathedral Vespers at a time when innovations or changes

were being made to the regular celebration of Vespers at Constantin-
ople. It could also be an attempt to make the Vesperal celebration of
PRES clearer, since the Kanonarion-Synaxarion of Constantinople
presumes a reduction of Vesperal psalmody and prayers when PRES
is celebrated.62 This also presents PRES as a complete, integral lit-
urgy, which would have doubtlessly proved helpful to a community of
Palestine/Sinai, where Vespers were not typically celebrated à la
Grande Église.
From the very beginning of PRES in ΜΓ 22, we are met with evi-
dence that challenges previous scholarly assumptions. The manuscript
entitles PRES a liturgy (Λειτουργία τῶν προηγιασμένων) [9.1].
Although this should come as no surprise since the Council in Trullo
(691-692) already calls PRES Λειτουργία,63 its appearance here con-
tradicts previous knowledge that the term was only employed in eu-
chologies from the eleventh century onward.64 Given this rediscovered
early testimony for entitling PRES a liturgy, it is no longer tenable to
hold the position that a gradual transition occurred from calling PRES
an Ἀκολουθία (Office/Order) to a Λειτουργία.65 Rather, the evi-
dence shows that different titles were used contemporaneously, with
“Liturgy” eventually winning out as the generally accepted one.
If we look at the provenance of most of the earliest sources using
the title Ἀκολουθία,66 we see that they are Palestinian.67 Because the
Council in Trullo already refers to PRES as a Liturgy, as does the
Constantinopolitan PRES in ΜΓ22, it seems more probable that “Lit-
urgy” was predominantly a Constantinopolitan title, while Ἀκολου-
θία was the title more frequently used in Palestine. Eventually, the
Constantinopolitan title won out.
This hypothesis corresponds with Jacob’s description of Sinai Iber.
89 (11th c.).68 This Georgian manuscript contains both a Byzantine
––––––––––
62
See Mateos, Typicon II, 4-6.
63
Canon 52 reads: Ἐν πάσαις ταῖς τῆς ἁγίας τεσσαρακοστῆς τῶν νηστειῶν ἡμέραις,
παρεκτὸς σαββάτου καὶ κυριακῆς καὶ τῆς ἁγίας τοῦ Εὐαγγελισμοῦ ὑμέρας, γινέ-
σθω ἡ τῶν Προηγιασμένων ἱερὰ λειτουργία. See Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Gene-
raliumque Decreta I: The Oecumenical Council from Nicaea I to Nicaea II, 325-787
(Turnhout 2006) 265.
64
See Alexopoulos, Presanctified 58.
65
This is the position of Alexopoulos, Ibid. 57.
66
See the useful breakdown given in Ibid., 55-56.
67
The earliest sources which call PRES an Ἀκολουθία (11th-13th century) are: Sinai Gr.
959, Sinai Gr. 962, Sinai Gr. 1036, Sinai Gr. 1101, Sinai Gr. 1097.
68
See A. Jacob, “Une version géorgienne” (op. cit. above note 11) 70.
186 GABRIEL RADLE
PRES and a non-Byzantine, Hagiopolite PRES (HagPRES).69 The

PRES is called a Liturgy, while the HagPRES is labelled instead an
Ordo (c’esi).70
Psalm 85
The opening prayer of PRES in ΜΓ 22 is followed by Psalm 85,
the standard Invitatory psalm of Constantinopolitan cathedral Ves-
pers.71 ΜΓ 22 follows the ancient Constantinopolitan cathedral style
of psalmody, as it includes an interpolated refrain between the psalm
verses,72 a rare example of its kind, as the only other euchology to rec-
ord this usage within PRES is Vatican Gr. 1554 (f. 39v).
In his study of Byzantine psalmody, Juan Mateos distinguishes two
types of Byzantine cathedral psalmody: responsorial and antiphonal.73
Responsorial, the more ancient form, consists in a biblical verse being
repeated after each verse of the psalm. The later antiphonal style, sung
between two choirs,74 consists of an opening refrain (sometimes sung
several times at the beginning) which is then repeated after each verse,
either in full or abbreviated form. The antiphonal refrain is more often
an ecclesiastical (non-biblical) composition, and the psalmody termi-
nated with the Gloria Patri.
The structure of Psalm 85 in ΜΓ 22 can be characterized as a sim-
ple antiphonal style of psalmody. The psalm contains the basic refrain
“Glory to you, O God” (δόξα σοι ὁ θεός), as is the case in Vatican
Gr. 1554 and later musical sources, and it ends with the Gloria Patri.
Let us look at the structure of the psalm with the interpolated verses as
recorded in ΜΓ 22 [10]:
––––––––––
69
On HagPRES see S. Verhelst, “Les Présantifiés de Saint Jacques,” OCP 61 (1995) 381-
405 and Alexopoulos, Presanctified 107-112.
70
This is also the same title given to the non-Byzantine PRES in Sinai Iber. 4. See
Tarchnišvili I: 93, and Tarchnišvili II: 71.
71
O. Strunk, “The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia,” DOP 9-10 (1956) 175-202, here
182. Hereafter, cited as Strunk, “Byzantine Office”. See also the useful comparative table
of Vespers in Alexopoulos, Presanctified 130-131.
72
See Strunk, “Byzantine Office.” See also R. F. Taft, “The Structural Analysis of Litur-
gical Units: An Essay in Methodology” in Beyond East and West. Problems in Liturgical
Understanding. Second Revised and Enlarged Edition (Rome 2001) 187-202, here 196-
199 and notes.
73
See Mateos, Parole 7-26, summed up in Taft, Great Entrance, 86-88.
74
Neil Moran shows that the practice of dividing singing between two choirs—one of the
characteristics of antiphonal psalmody—is already introduced at Constantinople in Chry-
sostom’s time. See N. Moran, “Byzantine Castrati,” Plainsong and Medieval Music 11
(2002) 99-112, here 101.
Κλῖνον, Κύριε τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἐπάκουσόν μου. (Verse 1a)

Δόξα σοι ὁ θεός.
Κλῖνον, Κύριε τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἐπάκουσόν μου, ὅτι πτωχὸς
καὶ πένης εἰμὶ ἐγώ. (1)
Φύλαξον τὴν ψυχήν μου ὅτι ὅσιος εἰμί, σῶσον τὸν δοῦλόν
σου, ὁ θεός μου, τὸν ἐλπίζοντα ἐπὶ σοί. (2)
Etc. (verses 3-6 recited the same as 1-2)
Δόξα πατρί…
Καὶ νῦν καὶ ἀεί…
Δόξα σοι ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, δόξα σοι.
ΜΓ 22 is one of the earliest liturgical books to include the struc-

ture and refrain for this psalm. Sources with actual musical notation
for this psalm are all later, the earliest one being Grottaferrata Γβ
XXXV from the twelfth century.75 Grottaferrata Γβ XXXV records a
slightly different structure for this psalm’s recitation, also witnessed in
the twelfth-century Typikon of Messina (Messina Gr. 115).76 Both of
these Italo-Greek manuscripts present the following outline for Psalm
85 at Vespers of Pentecost Sunday (Office of Gonyklisia):
Domestikos: Νεανες (Plagal Mode II)

Καὶ ἐπάκουσόν μου. Δόξα σοι ὁ θεός.
Deacon: Small Synapte
Priest: Ecphonesis
Domestikos: Κλῖνον, Κύριε
Choir: τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἐπάκουσόν μου.
People: Κλῖνον, Κύριε τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἐπάκουσόν μου,
ὅτι πτωχὸς καὶ πένης εἰμὶ ἐγώ. (1)
––––––––––
75
See the photograph in Strunk, “Byzantine Office” image 11.
76
See. M Arranz, “L’office de l’Asmatikos Hesperinos (“vêpres chantées”) de l’ancien
Euchologe byzantin,” OCP 44 (1978) 391-419, here 413.
188 GABRIEL RADLE

Φύλαξον τὴν ψυχήν μου ὅτι ὅσιος εἰμί, σῶσον τὸν
δοῦλόν σου, ὁ θεός μου, τὸν ἐλπίζοντα ἐπὶ σοί. (2)
Etc.
Here, the psalm is intoned before the Small Synapte by a soloist,

the Domestikos,77 when he sings the last part of verse 1a together with
the refrain. This practice is not recorded in ΜΓ22 nor in Vatican Gr.
1554. However, after the ecphonesis, the structure is similar to that of
ΜΓ22: verse 1a and refrain are chanted first, here by a soloist and
choir,78 followed by the entire first verse and refrain chanted by the
people. The psalm continues with each whole verse and refrain sung
by the faithful at large. Other sources like Florence Ashburnham 64
(ff. 258r-259r),79 together with the testimony of St Symeon of Thes-
saloniki,80 testify to the verses being sung by alternating choirs.
In his study of Festal Vespers of the Sung Office, Alexander Lin-
gas presents the structure for Psalm 85 in a slightly different way.81
He places the singing of the refrain after each half-verse, and mistak-
enly ascribes this structure to Grottaferrata Γβ XXXV.82 This is proba-
bly because the transcription of the manuscript Athens 2061 (15th cen-
tury) by Oliver Strunk suggests such a structure,83 and because the
––––––––––
77
For the positioning of each Domestikos and choir within Hagia Sophia, see N. Moran,
“Byzantine Castrati,” Plainsong and Medieval Music 11 (2002) 99-112, here 104, Fig. 2.
78
On the intonation of this psalm in Grottaferrata Γβ XXXV, see D. Conomos, “Music for
the Evening Office on Whitsunday” in Actes du XVe Congrès International d’Études
Byzantines I (Athens 1979) 453-469, here 457-462.
79
This codex was copied at Grottaferrata in 1288/9. See the facsimile edited by C. Høeg,
Contacarium Ashburnhamense (Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae IV, Copenhagen 1956).
80
De sacra precatione, PG 155: 625, 628, 629. Cf. Strunk, “Byzantine Office” 182.
81
A. Lingas, “Festal Cathedral Vespers in Late Byzantium,” OCP 63 (1997) 421-448,
here 429.
82
Ibid.
83
As can be seen from both the facsimile and Strunk’s transcription, after the Small Syn-
apte, verse 1a and refrain are sung, followed by a second, less florid singing of verse 1a
and refrain. However, the notation ends here, and we cannot say with certainty that the
stichometry intended in the rest of the psalm was indeed for half-verses. Furthermore, as
Simon Harris has pointed out, even the division of Athens 2061’s psalmody roles into
“Presenter” and “Choir” are additions of Strunk not evidenced in the manuscript itself.
Harris believes that the repetition of the half-verse is actually a “musically simpler repeti-
tion by the domestikos of his opening words, which does not appear in Italian manu-
scripts.” See S. Harris, “The Byzantine Office of Genuflexion,” Music & Letters 77
(1996) 333-347, here 334, note 6. If this were the case, then the stichometry structure for
the rest of the psalm cannot be gleaned from Athens 2061. ΜΓ22 and Grottaferrata Γβ
singing of the refrain after half-verses is also witnessed in other

sources like Vatican Gr. 1554.
However, the singing of half-verses with refrain is not the tradi-
tional structure of singing at Hagia Sophia. We know that the Hagio-
polite tradition divided the Psalter into 4,782 verses, whereas the “ec-
clesiastical” practice, that is, the tradition of the Great Church, divided
the Psalter into 2,542 verses: about one verse in Constantinople for
every two verses in Jerusalem.84 From the eleventh century onward,
however, we witness Constantinopolitan Psalters beginning to prefer
the Hagiopolite stichometry.85 This shows that any source used by
musicologists that divides Psalm 85 into half-verses is not a “pure” re-
presentation of the ancient Sung Office of the Great Church, but ac-
tually shows signs of an Hagiopolite-influenced adaptation of a more
original “ecclesiastical” stichometry, as evidenced in the earlier
sources of ΜΓ22 and Grottaferrata Γβ XXXV.
Our early evidence for the Vesperal use of Psalm 85 is very limit-
ed, making it difficult to situate ΜΓ22’s place in the early history of
the Sung Office of Constantinople. Like all of the sources cited above,
it only represents one local redaction of the psalm’s liturgical use, and
does not necessarily reveal the general norm of the Great Church. It is
far more likely an adaptation of the Great Church’s practice, as is evi-
denced by the fact that it reduces the length of the psalm to the first
six verses. Furthermore, ΜΓ22 is itself a euchology, a liturgical book
intended primarily for the priest, and not necessarily a reliable source
for revealing the details of what a choir or choirs may have been do-
ing. While it would be imprudent to try and draw major conclusions
here about the history of the Constantinopolitan Sung Office from
ΜΓ22, we can nevertheless assert the following:
1) ΜΓ22 structurally presents a simpler form for Psalm 85 than
that found in some of the later sources.
––––––––––
XXXV in fact both contain a half-verse at the beginning, but then proceed with complete
verses.
84
See S. Parenti, “Introduction” in J. C. Anderson, The Harvard Liturgical Psalter
(Houghton Library, MS Gr. 3), publication forthcoming. See also H. Schneider, “Die
biblischen Oden in Jerusalem und Konstantinopel,” Biblica XXX (1949) 433-452, here
442-445. On the “ecclesiastical”/“hagiopolite” distinction in psalmody, see also S.
Parenti, “The Cathedral Rite of Constantinople: Evolution of a Local Tradition,” deliver-
ed at the Third International Conference of the Society of Oriental Liturgy held in Volos,
Greece in May, 2010, in press in OCP 77 (2011).
85
Ibid.
190 GABRIEL RADLE
2) Nothing pertaining to the psalm is indicated before the end of

the priest’s ecphonesis, and the psalm was likely intoned here simply
by the initial half-verse, a psalmody practice attested to in other litur-
gical sources.86
3) ΜΓ22 gives no indications regarding soloists or choirs, leaving
us in the dark about who would have executed which parts of the
psalm. The psalm verses could have been sung by alternating choirs
with or without soloists, or, more simply, by the congregation at large,
as in Grottaferrata Γβ XXXV.
Κύριε ἐκέκραξα and Entrance

After Psalm 85 and its corresponding prayer, we find Psalm 140 –
Κύριε ἐκέκραξα – together with the Entrance Prayer [13]. Like
Psalm 85, Κύριε ἐκέκραξα also has a refrain, this time biblical (Ps
140:9b): From the snares of those who work iniquity against us, de-
liver us, O Lord (Ἀπὸ σκανδάλων τῶν ἐργαζομένων τὴν ἀνομίαν
ρῦσαι ἡμᾶς, Κύριε).87 Here too, Psalm 140 is given in an abbreviated
form. If we look at the Constantinopolitan stichometry for Psalm 140
presented in the Chludov Psalter (ff. 139v-140r),88 we see that ΜΓ22
gives every other verse of the psalm according to that stichometry.
The PRES Entrance Prayer in ΜΓ22 is included within the last part
of Psalm 140. The Entrance Prayer used here is not the typical Ves-
peral Entrance Prayer that accompanies Κύριε ἐκέκραξα normally at
Vespers (Ἑσπέρας καὶ πρωῒ καὶ μεσημβρίας αἰνοῦμεν89), but ra-
ther the Entrance Prayer common to BAS and CHR in Constantino-
politan sources (Δέσποτα Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ καταστήσας ἐν
οὐρανοῖς τάγματα καὶ στρατιὰς ἀγγέλων). The use of a eucharis-
tic Little Entrance Prayer here echoes the conception of PRES as an
actual eucharistic liturgy, as opposed to a communion service attached
to Vespers.
––––––––––
86
Mateos, Parole 14-15.
87
Grottaferrata Γβ VII gives refrains for Κύριε ἐκέκραξα to be sung on different days
during Lent, but none of these correspond to that given in ΜΓ22. See Passarelli § 259-
263. The same holds true for Vatican Gr. 1554. The presence of these refrains was indi-
cated in the Vatican catalogue, C. Giannelli, Bibliothecæ Apostolicæ Vaticanæ codices
manu scripti ... Codices Vaticani Græci. Codices 1485-1683 (Vatican City 1950) 136.
88
See the facsimile folios in Marfa V. Ščepkina, Миниатюры Хлудовской Псалтыри
(Moscow 1977).
89
The two oldest Greek euchologies, Barberini Gr. 336 (Parenti-Velkovska §56) and
Sinai NE/ΜΓ53 (f. 14r) both contain this prayer for accompanying Psalm 140 at Vespers.
While the choice of this particular prayer is significant, it is also

interesting that it is abbreviated, probably because it is a common
prayer found in its entirety earlier in the codex. This abbreviation is
part of a general practice in ΜΓ22, whereby prayers that are common
to CHR are abbreviated in PRES (see also 14.2; 20.1). Because CHR
is the primary liturgy in ΜΓ22, the use of this Entrance Prayer in
PRES makes a strong case for estimating that it was also the Entrance
Prayer of CHR, now missing from the codex.
This is important, because evidence shows that Southern Italy
during this period was freely using a different prayer at the Little En-
trance of CHR, Εὐεργέτα καὶ τῆς κτίσεως πάσης δημιουργέ, a
prayer common to the Palestinian liturgy of JAS.90 So while Italo-
Greeks were using a Palestinian JAS prayer in CHR at this time, those
in the Middle East using ΜΓ22 were more faithful to Constantino-
politan usage.91 The abbreviation of PRES prayers common to CHR is
also significant because it further confirms that ΜΓ22 included CHR
in its entirety.
Following the Entrance Prayer, ΜΓ22 contains a περισσή [12.9].
This perisse corresponds with the troparion prescribed by Grottafer-
rata Γβ VII for Wednesdays and Fridays at Κύριε ἐκέκραξα of
PRES.92 In keeping with a pure Constantinopolitan cathedral structure
of Vespers, there is no sign of the hymn “O Gladsome Light” (Φῶς
ἱλαρόν).93 Rather, the Entrance Prayer and conclusion of Psalm 140
are simply followed by the celebrant’s greeting of peace and the peo-
ple’s response “And to your spirit.”
––––––––––
90
See A. Jacob, “Zum Eisodosgebet der byzantinischen Chrysostomusliturgie des Vat.
Barb. gr. 336,” OKS 15 (1966) 35-38; Id., “La tradition manuscrite de la liturgie de Saint
Jean Chrysostome” in Eucharisties d’Orient et d’Occident. Semaine liturgique de
l’Institut Saint-Serge, II (Lex Orandi 47, Paris 1970) 109-138 here 117-118. See also
more recently R. Taft, “Is the Liturgy described in the Mystagogia of Maximus Confessor
Byzantine, Palestinian, or Neither?” BBGG III s. 7 (2010) 247-295, here 270-273. On the
use of this same prayer elsewhere in Slavonic sources, see M. Zheltov, “Чин Божествен-
ной литургии в древнейших славянских Служебниках,” Богословские Труды 41
(2007) 272-359, here 300-304.
91
This is further supported by the fact that our second oldest Palestinian CHR, found in
tenth-century Sevastianov 474, does not include this part of the liturgy within CHR, since
the prayer would have corresponded with the Constantinopolitan Little Entrance Prayer
found in BAS of the same manuscript. At the same time, the Italo-Greek euchologies
Grottaferrata Γβ VII and St Petersburg 226 both contain the alternative CHR prayer
found in Barberini Gr. 336.
92
Passarelli 153-154.
93
Mateos, Typicon I, xxii.
192 GABRIEL RADLE
Prokeimenon and Κατευθυνθήτω

After the Entrance, the prokeimenon Ps. 130:3 is given [13.2],
which corresponds to the second vesperal prokeimenon for Wednes-
day and Friday of Cheesefare Week in the Prophetologion.94 Prophe-
tologion sources though call for this prokeimenon to be sung instead
of the Κατευθυνθήτω (Dirigatur) during Cheesefare Week.95 The
Dirigatur is part of the structure of PRES for Lent, and therefore not
included within PRES of Cheesefare Week.96 A miracle story from
sixth-century Constantinople also confirms the lenten character of the
Dirigatur, since it states explicitly that the Dirigatur was pronounced
for the first time during the first week of Lent at the Church of St
Menas.97
Oddly enough though, ΜΓ22 includes the Κατευθυνθήτω right
after this Cheesefare Week prokeimenon. ΜΓ22 also contains only
one prokeimenon, whereas both Cheesefare Week and the days of
Lent have two prokeimena at Vespers. ΜΓ22 also gives no indication
of readings. Our manuscript shows thereby an awkward combination
of Prophetologion and Euchology material. Barring an outright mis-
take on the part of the scribe or an intended abbreviation of readings,
ΜΓ22 is likely simply including this one Cheesefare Week prokeime-
non as an example to show when the prokeimena and readings—
found in the Prophetologion—fit into the PRES.
Even though the Orthodox Church today does not celebrate PRES
during Cheesefare Week,98 PRES was definitely celebrated on Wed-
nesday and Friday of Cheesefare Week in the early Constantinopoli-
tan tradition.99 In fact, PRES could be celebrated on aliturgical days
––––––––––
94
See C. Höeg and G. Zuntz, Prophetologium. Fasciculus secundus (Copenhagen 1940)
114 and 119.
95
This is also confirmed in Patmos 226 (9th/10th c.). See Mateos, Typicon II, 6-7 and note
1. On this manuscript, see also A. Luzzi, “Precisazioni sull’epoca di formazione del
Sinassario di Costantinopoli,” RSBN 36 (2000) 75-91.
96
Gabriele Winkler, “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund” 196. On the celebration of PRES
during Cheesefare Week, see below, and notes 97-98.
97
See Taft, Communion, 225-226, although Taft incorrectly attributes the liturgical cele-
bration in question to a heterodox Monophysite communion. For a translation of the full
story together with a brief analysis, cf. M. Featherstone and C. Mango, “Three Miracle
Stories from Constantinople” in V. Ruggieri and L. Pieralli (eds.), Εὐκοσμία. Studi mis-
cellanei per il 75° di Vincenzo Poggi S.J. (Soveria Mannelli 2003) 229-242. For the
Greek text of Paris Gr. 1596 (11th c.), see F. Nau’s transcription in PO VIII.1, 174-5.
98
This is an influence of the Sabaitic tradition that explicitly forbids PRES during
Cheesefare Week. Alexopoulos, Presanctified 61.
99
There is sufficient testimony witnessing to the celebration of PRES on Wednesday and
Friday of Cheesefare Week at Constantinople, such as the Evergetis Typikon. On this and
(i.e. Wednesday and Friday) throughout the entire year.100 The non-
quadragesimal celebration of PRES is confirmed by our oldest refer-
ence to PRES, the seventh-century Chronikon Paschale.101 It is also
confirmed by the tenth-century Kanonarion-Synaxarion of Constan-
tinople contained in the manuscript Hagiou Stavrou 40. This manu-
script contains an appendix of Apostle and Gospel readings related to
the cross for proclamation at PRES or the full liturgy on Wednesdays
and Fridays outside of Lent.102 However, even if this manuscript evi-
dences the celebration of PRES outside of Lent, it nevertheless testi-
fies that the aliturgical nature of Wednesday and Friday was already
in decline, since this very source leaves open the possibility for the
full liturgy’s celebration.
While the non-Lenten celebration of PRES was already in decline
when ΜΓ22 was copied, Cheesefare Week had long been established
as an introduction to Lent.103 Even though Cheesefare PRES does not
structurally correspond to the Lenten PRES (i.e. it contains only one
reading, and has no Dirigatur), it nevertheless is conceived by ΜΓ22
as the beginning of the main period of PRES celebrations. The inclu-
sion of the Cheesefare Week prokeimenon is a sample for the euchol-
ogy, chosen simply because it is the main prokeimenon marking the
beginning of the “PRES season.” Therefore we should not be too
shocked if it is followed by the Dirigatur, since the Dirigatur is one of
the central features of Lenten PRES.104 Prophetologion sources that
explicitly state the Dirigatur is not to be sung during Cheesefare
Week do so in order to conserve the original (non-Lenten) structure of
that week. Precisely because Cheesefare Week was conceived of as
quasi-lenten, the natural inclination would be to include the Dirigatur
at a Cheesefare Week PRES.
The inclusion of the Dirigatur after the Cheesefare prokeimenon is
not the only peculiar aspect of this part of ΜΓ22. The Dirigatur is
––––––––––
other evidence, see Alexopoulos, Presanctified 61 and notes. See also Vespers of Cheese-
fare Wednesday and Friday in the Prophetologion (op. cit. note 94) where a Koinonikon
is given, further demonstrating the use of PRES on those days.
100
Alexopoulos, Presanctified 58-62.
101
PG 92: 989, reproduced in Greek with English translation in Alexopoulos, Presancti-
fied 41-42.
102
Mateos, Typicon II 188-189.
103
See Gabriele Winkler, “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund” 196.
104
Ibid. Our earliest reference to PRES, the Chronikon Paschale (7th c.), already refers to
the Dirigatur as a fixed part of Lenten PRES. See Alexopoulos, Presanctified 41-42. See
also the reference to the Dirigatur in the sixth-century Constantinopolitan miracle story
cited above, note 97.
194 GABRIEL RADLE
preceded by a note indicating that the priest sings it instead of the

Gospel: Ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ψάλλει ὁ ἱερεύς [13.3]. This is the
first manuscript that witnesses to the priest singing the Κατευθυνθή-
τω, and is anomalous in referring to the Κατευθυνθήτω as a re-
placement for the Gospel. Typically during Lent, a Gospel is not read
during PRES unless required by a particular feast. However, at the
time when PRES was celebrated in the Constantinopolitan tradition
outside of Lent, Gospel readings would have been a more common
feature of PRES. Since the Dirigatur is connected to Lent, it was not
sung on these non-Lenten occasions when a Gospel was proclaimed.
Instances of the Dirigatur being sung at a liturgy where the Gospel is
proclaimed are rare, and are not in agreement about how, or even if, to
incorporate the Dirigatur in these instances.105
The Dirigatur’s traditional position is immediately before the lita-
nies and Great Entrance of PRES.106 However, when there is a Gospel
at PRES, it takes the place of the Dirigatur. Thus, the rubrical indica-
tion of ΜΓ22 seems to affirm that the Gospel and Dirigatur are to
some extent incompatible liturgical units.
When studying the history of the Dirigatur then, it is risky to base
one’s analysis on indications taken from those rare occasions when
the Dirigatur is sung at liturgies with a Gospel reading. This was part
of the method followed by Alexopoulos when he recently argued that
––––––––––
105
During the celebration of the Vesperal liturgy (not PRES) of March 25, the Kanonar-
ion-Synaxarion of Constantinople includes the Dirigatur, but incorporates it instead as a
prokeimenon before the Apostle, an awkward attempt to maintain the fixed Lenten Diri-
gatur within a more complex system of readings for the feast day’s liturgy. See Mateos,
Typicon II: 254-5. On the feast day of the Forty Martyrs of Sebasteia (March 9), the
PRES is celebrated with the normal Old Testament Lenten readings, plus an Apostle and
Gospel for the feast. In this case, the Dirigatur is included between the Lenten readings
and the Trisagion, followed by the feast-day readings. Ibid., 246. When PRES is cele-
brated for the Feast of the Martyr Marinos and “Man of God” Alexios, together with the
commemoration of the 790 earthquake (March 17), the regular Lenten readings are re-
placed by the feast day’s readings, and no indication is given that the Dirigatur be sung.
Ibid., 250. The later Prophetologion Venice, St Mark’s Library Z 13 (11th c.) has a com-
pletely different structure than the Kanonarion-Synaxarion, and witnesses an attempt to
incorporate more Lenten elements like the Dirigatur. See Sysse Gudrun Engberg, Pro-
phetologium. Pars Altera. Lectiones anni immobilis (MMB: Lectionaria, Copenhagen
1980) 84-86.
106
This fixed position is attested already in the Chronikon Paschale, which states that the
PRES Great Entrance Chant was introduced after the Dirigatur. This position also con-
forms to our oldest euchological evidence of this part of PRES, found here in ΜΓ22.
the Dirigatur entered the Constantinopolitan tradition as a simple

prokeimenon that was only later ritualized.107
This current edition shows that the practice of the priest leading the
Dirigatur is already attested to at the turn of the ninth to tenth century.
The Prophetologion indications cited by Alexopoulos in support of a
cantor chanting the Dirigatur as a simple prokeimenon while the
priests sit are all based upon those exceptional days when a Gospel
trumps the standard position of the Dirigatur, and in which the Diri-
gatur actually functions as a prokeimenon before the Apostle.108 Even
Barberini Gr. 336 implies that the celebrant stood during the Diriga-
tur,109 and the sixth-century eucharistic miracle story from Constanti-
nople cited above also gives ritual significance to the execution of the
Dirigatur.110 Alexopoulos made a praiseworthy attempt to solve the
riddle of the Dirigatur, and much of what he states might very well
still be valid. After all, as he rightly affirms, a prokeimenon is just a
form of responsorial psalmody111 which the Dirigatur certainly is, and
is not necessarily tied to a reading. However, his theory of its ritual-
ized development needs to be further studied and nuanced, especially
in light of the new evidence in ΜΓ22.
The Litanies
As demonstrated by Stefano Parenti, early testimony to the peni-
tential Ektene, used during liturgical processions at Constantinople,
shows a structure composed of the following intentions:
Εἴπωμεν πάντες.
Ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς.
––––––––––
107
Alexopoulos, Presanctified 186. The idea that the Dirigatur is a prokeimenon was also
taken by Engberding half a century ago. See H. Engberding, “Zur Geschichte der Liturgie
der vorgeweihten Gaben,” Ostkirchliche Studien 13 (1964) 310-314, here 311-313. His
position was subsequently challenged by Winkler, who rightly pointed out that “kein Do-
kument Konstantinopels, weder das Chronicon Paschale noch Theodor Studita, be-
zeichnen das Dirigatur jemals als Prokeimenon.” See Winkler “Der geschichtliche Hinter-
grund” 193-196.
108
See Alexopoulos, Presanctified 186. His analysis of March 17 is based upon one 11th
c. manuscript that needs to be considered with the older, tenth-century Hagiou Stavrou
40. See note 105 above.
109
After the readings, the deacon and celebrant come before the altar, where the celebrant
blesses the people, followed immediately by the Dirigatur. See Parenti-Velkovska 286.4.
110
Τῇ οὖν πρώτῃ ἑβδομάδι τῶν ἁγίων νηστειῶν, τῆς συνάξεως ἐπιτελουμένης ἐν
τῷ ναῷ τοῦ ἁγίου Μηνᾶ, ἐκεῖσε γὰρ ἐν πρώτοις τὸ “κατευθυνθήτω” λέγεται, καὶ
πᾶσα ἡ πόλις αὐτόθι συνάγεται… See above, note 97.
111
Alexopoulos, Presanctified 189.
196
GABRIEL RADLE
Tav. 2 Sinai Gr. NE / MΓ 22, ff. 10v-11r
© Monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai, Egypt
Κύριε παντοκράτωρ.
Ὁ μὴ βουλόμενος.
Ἐλέησον.112
The use of the Ektene within the liturgy witnessed an inclusion of

other diaconal intentions (Ὑπὲρ…), some of them borrowed from the
Great Synapte.113 This expanded Ektene is found in St Petersburg 226
(10th century) and the Johannisberg Latin version of Pontifical BAS
(10th/11th century),114 and corresponds with ΜΓ22 [14.1].
Of particular note is the fact that ΜΓ22 contains the intention Καὶ
ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν χρῃζόντων, not found in the Johannisberg ver-
sion, but attested to in St Petersburg 226, along with another tenth-
century Italo-Greek euchology, Grottaferrata Γβ VII.115 Although
Parenti identifies this intention as Constantinopolitan, he nevertheless
considers its use at the Ektene to be “un punto di divergenza rispetto
alla contemporanea tradizione di Costantinopoli.”116 Given the new
evidence of ΜΓ22, which contains this intention at the Ektene within
the context of a Constantinopolitan PRES, the Ektene’s employment
of this intention could very well be of Constantinopolitan origin and
not an Italo-Greek particularity.
The Prayer of the Ektene (Εὐχὴ τῆς ἐκτενῆς) [14.2][Photo 2] is
abbreviated compared to the redaction found in early euchologies
starting with Barberini Gr. 336. Like the prayer of the Entrance for
PRES, this prayer is abbreviated because it was found in its entirety
within CHR which precedes PRES. As stated above, this is once again
further proof that a complete CHR formulary was included before
PRES.
Following the Ektene and its prayer, ΜΓ22 proceeds to the litany
and Prayer for the Catechumens [15]. The litany corresponds to that of
CHR in St Petersburg 226, with one significant exception. The final
petition before the diaconal instruction for the Catechumens to bow
their heads is Σῶσον, ἐλέησον, ἀνάστησον [15.3].
––––––––––
112
S. Parenti, “L’Ektenê della Liturgia di Crisostomo nell’eucologio St Peterburg gr 226
(X secolo)” in ΕΥΛΟΓΗΜΑ. Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, S.J. (SA 110, Analecta
Liturgica 17, Rome 1993) 295-318, here 309-10.
113
Ibid., 307.
114
See the texts given in ibid., 304-307. For a comprehensive analysis on the dating of
this source, see Taft, Communion 544-48 and notes.
115
Parenti, “L’Ektenê” (op. cit. above note 112) 310.
116
Ibid.
198 GABRIEL RADLE
In his volume on the Liturgy of the Word, Mateos showed that in

the Apostolic Constitutions, the deacon’s petition to “resurrect” (ἀνά-
στησον) those being prayed for is directly related to their physical act
of rising up from the prostrate position they had assumed for the
prayer.117 In fact, the Apostolic Constitutions also commands the cate-
chumens to bow their heads for the priest’s prayer immediately after
they have risen from their knees,118 just as we find in ΜΓ22. Accord-
ing to Mateos, this command to rise in the form of the ἀνάστησον
petition vanished as the practice of kneeling at the litanies disap-
peared, and ἀνάστησον was gradually replaced by ἀντιλαβοῦ (help),
the word used today.119
A remnant of the ἀνάστησον as a command to rise is still found
today in the Byzantine rite of Gonyklisia at Vespers of Pentecost Sun-
day, when kneeling is reintroduced for the first time after the fifty-day
pascal period following Easter.120 There are also a number of periph-
ery manuscripts from the eleventh-thirteenth centuries that record the
ἀνάστησον command also for the Prayers of the Faithful of PRES.121
However, ΜΓ22 does not include this practice for the two Prayers of
the Faithful, but only for the catechumens, indicating that the early
liturgical feature of litanic kneeling was already on its last legs by the
time that ΜΓ22 was copied, but suggesting that at Constantinople the
memory of litanic kneeling, at least in the corresponding diaconal
ἀνάστησον command, was retained longer for the litany of the Cate-
chumens than for the Litanies of the Faithful.
It is worth noting that today, the Litany of the Catechumens places
ἀντιλαβοῦ exactly where ΜΓ22 places ἀνάστησον, instead of putt-
ing it at the beginning of the petition, where it found at the Prayers of
the Faithful and elsewhere throughout the liturgy.
The Lavabo and Great Entrance

Immediately after the Second Prayer of the Faithful, ΜΓ22 gives
rubrics for the lavabo, followed by those for the singing of the Great
––––––––––
117
Mateos, Parole 165.
118
Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 6. See M. Metzger, Les Constitutions Apostoliques. Tome
III, Livres VII et VIII. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (SC 336, Paris
1987) 154.
119
Ibid.
120
On the Rite of Gonyklisia, see M. Arranz, “Les prières de la Gonyklisia ou de la Génu-
flexion du jour de la Pentecôte dans l’ancien Euchologe byzantine” in OCP 48 (1982),
92-123. See also S. Harris, “The Byzantine Office of Genuflexion” cited above in note
83.
121
Alexopoulos, Presanctified 205, 213-215.
Entrance Chant of PRES [18.1-2]. The presence of the lavabo is very

interesting, since its use at PRES is not attested to in other PRES
sources before the 15th century.122 The lavabo at PRES could very well
have been an ancient practice that had died out by the time our previ-
ously known early sources were composed, or it could also be a par-
ticular attempt to assimilate the transfer rites of PRES to those of
CHR. The lavabo of PRES in ΜΓ22 reflects a structure similar to the
one witnessed in our earliest euchology with the lavabo in CHR, St
Petersburg 226. In ΜΓ22, the PRES lavabo is placed immediately
before the Great Entrance Chant. Even if the celebrant “probably
washed his hands during the procession” of the transfer of gifts,123
ΜΓ22 evidences the lavabo at the beginning of the Great Entrance
rites, which corresponds to what we see in St Petersburg 226.124
In his epic volume on the history of the Great Entrance, Robert
Taft analyzes the lavabo of St Petersburg 226. He states that the
placement of the lavabo during the chanting of the Cherubicon could
mean that it took place “before, during, or just after the transfer of the
gifts because the chant covers this entire ceremony, and at that
time…the priest did not take part in the procession but remained in the
sanctuary to await the arrival of the gifts.”125
By itself, the lavabo indication of St Petersburg 226 fits with
Taft’s assertion. However, immediately after the lavabo, the eucho-
logy states, καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀποτιθέναι τὰ δῶρα ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ τραπέζῃ ὁ
διάκων θυμιαίνων λέγει⋅ Πληρώσωμεν…126 If there was a real
chance that the lavabo was performed “just after the transfer of the
gifts” in St Petersburg 226, then it would not make sense to place the
reference to the deposition of the gifts after the lavabo. If the lavabo
was really located after the transfer, then “καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀποτιθέναι
τὰ δῶρα ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ τραπέζῃ” would have logically been placed
before the lavabo. The new evidence provided by ΜΓ22 now con-
firms the practice of placing the lavabo before the deposition of the
gifts. If we take ΜΓ22 and St Petersburg 226 together, we can assert
that our earliest euchological evidence points to the lavabo occurring
at the beginning of the transfer rites, together with the beginning of
the Cherubicon chant, before the actual entrance with the gifts and
their accompanying deposition on the altar.
––––––––––
122
See Ibid., 229.
123
Taft, Great Entrance 169.
124
See Koumarianos § 43.
125
126
Koumarianos § 44.
200 GABRIEL RADLE
Other, slightly later pontifical sources of BAS, like the Johannis-

berg version and the Pyromalus Codex (10th/11th c.),127 place the lava-
bo after the entrance of the gifts,128 thereby contradicting our earliest
witnesses. As Taft states, though, “the lavabo is a wandering element”
in more than one liturgical tradition,129 and discrepancies exist in the
sources with regard to its placement. The differences found in many
manuscripts can—at least partially—be attributed to attempts to orga-
nize the transfer rites as they underwent various ritual elaborations,
such as the addition of the Nemo dignus prayer, and the development
of regular presbyteral participation in the transfer procession.130
Nevertheless, early Italo-Greek euchologies that place the lavabo
before the Great Entrance should no longer be interpreted as “signs of
a weakening in the tradition” of the lavabo.131 Instead, they corre-
spond with our oldest testified position of the lavabo in Byzantine eu-
chology sources, and keep it at the beginning of the transfer rites, be-
fore the deposition of the gifts on the altar. Even the Apostolic Con-
stitutions (VIII, 11-12) places the lavabo before the transfer of the
gifts.132 Despite a fluctuating history, the lavabo is still found at this
point in today’s Pontifical.
One final note on the Great Entrance of PRES in ΜΓ22 concerns
the Cherubicon. The chant given, Νῦν αἱ δυνάμεις, corresponds to
the hymn found in our earliest references to the PRES Great Entrance,
including the Chludov Psalter and the Chronikon Paschale, along with
––––––––––
127
On the dating of these sources, see above, note 114.
128
129
Ibid., 169.
130
Ibid., 169, 171. On the history of the Nemo dignus prayer and the procession see ibid.,
119-143, 203-206.
131
This was Taft’s assertion in Ibid., 168-9. Strittmatter, “Notes” 70 also seems to have
interpreted the lavabo after the Great Entrance as the more ancient location.
132
See M. Metzger, Les Constitutions Apostoliques, III (SC 336, Paris 1987) 176-178.
The placement of the lavabo before the tranfer of the gifts is also witnessed in ancient
sources of JAS, as well as the late sixth-century Syriac liturgical order found in Sharfeh,
Syrian Patriarchate 87. On this manuscript, as well as its liturgical ordo, see most
recently R. F. Taft, “Worship on Sinai in the First Christian Millenium: Glimpses of a
Lost World” in Sharon E. J. Gerstel and R. S. Nelson (eds.), Approaching the Holy
Mountain. Art and Liturgy at St Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai (Turnhout 2010) 143-
177, here 156-161 and notes.
manuscripts of the Prophetologion.133 ΜΓ22 is our earliest extant eu-

chology source that gives the entire hymn, and not just its incipit.134
The Communion Rites of PRES

After the Great Entrance, ΜΓ22 contains the “Angel of Peace” lit-
any with its corresponding prayer, the Our Father, and the Prayer of
Inclination [18.3-19.2]. Immediately after the Prayer of Inclination,
ΜΓ22 gives the Πρόσχες, Κύριε [20.1], the Prayer for the Elevation
of the Bread.135 While this short prayer is found in CHR and BAS of
Barberini Gr. 336, it is absent from PRES. In our other early periph-
ery euchology sources, this prayer is either absent, or an alternative
prayer is found in its place.136 The fact that the Constantinopolitan
PRES of ΜΓ22 contains this prayer at a time when other periphery
sources had yet to adopt it points to a Constantinopolitan origin for the
inclusion of this prayer in PRES. It also represents another attempt at
modelling PRES on the other eucharistic liturgies. The Constantino-
politan use of this prayer at PRES is confirmed by Vatican Gr. 1554
(f. 46r).
The Elevation prayer is only partially given, because it is found in
its entirety in CHR [8.1]. The Πρόσχες, Κύριε clearly demonstrates
once again that when prayers are common to CHR and PRES, ΜΓ22
will often abbreviate the PRES version, since the full prayer is given
in CHR of the preceding folios.
The call to communion in ΜΓ22 [20.2] consists of the ancient dia-
conal admonition Πρόσχωμεν, together with the PRES celebrant’s
acclamation, Τὰ προηγιασμένα ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις, found already in
Barberini Gr. 336 (Parenti-Velkovska §48). The Koinonikon [20.3],
“Taste and see how good the Lord is,” corresponds to that given for
PRES in the Prophetologion,137 as well as in our other surviving cathe-
dral PRES, Vatican Gr. 1554 (f. 46r).
––––––––––
133
For the Chronikon Pascale see PG 92:989. Cf. Alexopoulos, Presanctified 41 who
provides an English translation as well. For the Prophetologion, see C. Höeg and G.
Zuntz, Prophetologium (cit. note 94).
134
See Alexopoulos, Presanctified 228 for our previous knowledge on this subject.
135
On this prayer, see Taft, Precommunion 201-205.
136
Alexopoulos, Presanctified 248-9.
137
See for example, Cheesefare Week in the Prophetologion (op. cit. above note 94).
202 GABRIEL RADLE
The “Anti-Plerotheto” Troparion and Concluding Rites

After Communion, ΜΓ22 gives a troparion to be sung instead of
the Plerotheto (Ἀντὶ τοῦ Πληρωθήτω) [20.4].138 This “Anti-Ple-
rotheto” troparion is witnessed in PRES of several Italo-Greek manu-
scripts beginning with the tenth-century Grottaferrata Γβ VII.139 Be-
cause this troparion is found, with variants, in the Post-Communion
rites of JAS already from its earliest extant manuscript, Vatican Gr.
2282 (9th c.), Taft attributes this troparion to “one more Italo-Greek
‘orientalism’ of hagiopolite provenance.”140 Alexopoulos also accepts
this hymn’s use at PRES as a particularity of Italo-Greek practice.141
Although Taft himself points out that the Anti-Plerotheto is also called
for in PRES by the ninth-century Constantinopolitan Chludov Psal-
ter,142 neither he nor Alexopoulos makes any attempt to reconcile its
appearance at PRES outside of an Italo-Greek source. Faced with a
new, non-Italian testimony that uses the Anti-Plerotheto at PRES, I
will try to do just that.
Our earliest euchology source, Barberini Gr. 336, is limited pri-
marily to the presbyteral parts of the liturgies, and cannot be heavily
relied upon for hymnographical indications. Therefore, the lack of the
Anti-Plerotheto in Barberini Gr. 336 does not tell us whether or not it
was used in the eighth century. This means that the first solid wit-
nesses of the Anti-Plerotheto in Byzantine PRES are found in non-
Italo-Greek sources: the Chludov Psalter of Constantinople and
ΜΓ22.
Given that ΜΓ22 offers a Constantinopolitan cathedral PRES and
that the Chludov Psalter is of Constantinopolitan origin, the evidence
points to a Constantinopolitan use of the Anti-Plerotheto that begins to
appear in Italo-Greek sources from the tenth-century. The use of the
Anti-Plerotheto at PRES in Constantinople had died out by the time of
our earliest extant Constantinopolitan euchologies, but survived in
periphery sources.
As stated earlier, an adapted version of the Anti-Plerotheto is also
found in many of our early sources of JAS, and some might still be
––––––––––
138
On the history of the Plerotheto troparion, originally a perisse of the koinonikon, see
Taft, Precommunion 296-300.
139
Elena Velkovska, “Un eucologio del monastero di Grottaferrata il Vaticano Gr. 2111
(XIII sec. ex.),” BBGG n.s. 46 (1992) 347-390, here 352 note 29.
140
Taft, Precommunion 299.
141
Alexopoulos, Presanctified 268.
142
Taft, Precommunion 298. For the reproduction of this part of the Chludov Psalter, see
Archimandrite Amfiloxij, Археологическия заметки (Moscow 1866).
tempted to attribute a Palestinian origin to this troparion. However,

this adapted Anti-Plerotheto is also missing from some important
early witnesses to JAS.143 Furthermore, the Chludov Psalter of
Constantinople lacks the Phos Hilaron, a significant indication that it
was not using an Hagiopolite source for its hymnographical appen-
dix.144 The Anti-Plerotheto is also found in certain Slavic recensions
to this day.145 Far from being an Italo-Greek “orientalism,” the Anti-
Plerotheto should now be understood as a Constantinopolitan trop-
arion that was conserved longer in periphery sources. An adapted ver-
sion of this hymn was independently incorporated into the post-Com-
munion rites of JAS.146
This is not an isolated incident of a PRES practice finding a home
in JAS. The Prayer of Thanksgiving after communion used today at
PRES, Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι τῷ σωτῆρι τῶν ὅλων θεῷ, is found in
all of our earliest witnesses of PRES, including Barberini Gr. 336 and
ΜΓ22 [21.2]. However, it is also found as a thanksgiving prayer in
many JAS sources, beginning with Vatican Gr. 2282 (ninth cen-
tury).147 Given that this prayer is not found in important testimonies of
JAS, like the conservative twelfth-century Vatican Gr. 1970,148 along
––––––––––
143
It is missing from JAS in the conservative Vatican Gr. 1970 (12th c.), as well as in
Sinai ΝΕ/Χ 156 (11th c.) and Sinai ΝΕ/Ε 24 (11th c.). On Vatican Gr. 1970, see A. Ja-
cob, “L’euchologe de Sainte-Marie du Patir et ses sources” in Atti del Congresso interna-
zionale su S. Nilo di Rossano (28 sett. – 1 ott. 1986) (Rossano/Grottaferrata 1989) 75-118.
On the Sinaitic manuscripts, see A. Kazamias, Ἡ Θεία Λειτουργία τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἰακώ-
βου τοῦ Ἀδελφοθέου καὶ τὰ νέα σιναϊτικὰ χειρόγραφα (Thessaloniki 2006). It is
also missing from the Georgian versions found in Sinai Iber. 58/N (9th/10th c.) and Tblisi
A-86 (11th c.). See Verhelst, “La liturgie de saint Jacques” 225. On the manuscripts
themselves, see “Old Georgian Version” 18-20.
144
See the reproduction of the hymnographical appendix cited above in note 142.
145
See Peter Galadza’s review of Alexopoulos, Presanctified in Logos 51 (2010) 396-
401, here 400.
146
Although many of the JAS sources that contain this adapted Anti-Plerotheto suggest it
is a prayer recited by the priest or deacon, the original hymnographical nature of this
troparion can still be discerned in several JAS sources. Stéphane Verhelst recently pointed
out that this JAS prayer in Georgian sources is sometimes sung by the priest or assembly
at large, yet neglected to connect this hymographical character to the Anti-Plerotheto
troparion. See Verhelst, “La liturgie de saint Jacques” 375-376.
147
See B.-Ch. Mercier, La Liturgie de Saint Jacques: édition critique du texte grec avec
traduction latine (PO 26, Paris 1946) 115-256, here 234.
148
On this euchology, see A. Jacob, “L’euchologe de Sainte-Marie du Patir et ses
sources” in Atti del Congresso internazionale su S. Nilo di Rossano (28 sett. – 1 ott. 1986)
(Rossano/Grottaferrata 1989) 75-118.
204 GABRIEL RADLE
with early Georgian witnesses to this liturgy,149 its presence in many

JAS sources further demonstrates Constantinople’s early liturgical
influence in Middle East.
It is well-known in liturgiological research that our earliest Greek
JAS, Vatican Gr. 2282, already includes two Constantinopolitan pray-
ers that the manuscript attributes to St Basil, a sure sign that they were
borrowed from BAS.150 However, new analysis based on our study of
ΜΓ22 shows further influences on JAS, this time by PRES. Felt al-
ready in the ninth-century, they show that Constantinople’s PRES was
making an impact in the Middle East this early on. So it should come
as no surprise that we find in ΜΓ22 a Constantinopolitan PRES (or
CHR for that matter) copied in the Middle East at the turn of the ninth
to tenth century.151
In our manuscript, the Thanksgiving Prayer of PRES [21.2] and its
accompanying litany correspond to the classical form of the Byzantine
Postcommunion Prayer.152 It is likely that the Thanksgiving Prayer in
CHR of ΜΓ22, now missing, would have corresponded to this struc-
ture as well, albeit with its own appropriate CHR prayer.
The Opisthambonos Prayer in ΜΓ22 [23.2] is fixed and included
in the formulary of PRES, unlike in Barberini Gr. 336 where it is
found in an appendix.153 Our manuscript terminates during the
ecphonesis of this prayer.
The CHR Anaphora of Folio Seven

As we stated in our codicological analysis above, folio 7 does not
belong to the original codex. It is of different dimensions and does not
fit textually into the lacuna before f. 8. Folio 7 was likely included
among the fragments of ΜΓ22 by Nikolopoulos because of its simi-
larities with the text of the manuscript in script and content.154 There-
fore, the anaphora contained within folio 7 is not original to the rest of
––––––––––
149
The prayer is not found for example in the tenth-century JAS in Tarchnišvili I: 1-34
(II: 1-25). We also note its absence from many other Georgian sources recently presented
in “Old Georgian Version” and Verhelst, “La liturgie de saint Jacques.”
150
Parenti, “Vittoria” 34.
151
Although Vatican Gr. 2282 originated within the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Constan-
tinopolitan influences it manifests represent an early phase of a general trend that will be
felt throughout the region, as Constantinopolitan influences become ever-more prevalent
in Palestine.
152
Taft, Communion 486-7.
153
See Alexopoulos, Presanctified 275-277.
154
For a full description detailing the reasons for excluding f. 7 from the original codex,
see § The codex, above.
ΜΓ22. This means that our codex today actually has parts of two dif-
ferent CHR anaphoral texts. We include f. 7 within this present study,
since it is an early redaction of the CHR anaphora from around the
same time period as the rest of ΜΓ22, but place it at the end of the
edition [1*] in order not to confuse it with the other anaphoral folios
that are original to the rest of the codex.
The anaphora of folio 7 evidences some “Palestinianization” of the
Byzantine formulary, contrary to CHR and PRES of the original cor-
pus of ΜΓ22, which appear to remain fairly faithful to the Constan-
tinopolitan source that ΜΓ22 relied upon. Like the BAS anaphora of
tenth-century Palestinian Sevastianov 474,155 the CHR anaphora of
folio 7 includes the Ave Maria (Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη) and places it
before the Ἐξαιρέτως.156 Both the inclusion of the Ave Maria, and its
position before the Ἐξαιρέτως, can be attributed in this Sinai folio to
an influence of the regional liturgy of JAS, in which the Ἐξαιρέτως
follows the Ave Maria in the anaphora.157 While the Ave Maria is also
attested to in the CHR anaphorae of several Italo-Greek manuscripts,
the placement of the Ἐξαιρέτως after the Ave Maria is only found in
one Italo-Greek manuscript, the tenth-century Grottaferrata Γβ IV.158
One other aspect of folio 7 should be noted here. It concerns the
commemoration of “forefathers” among the various classes of saints
[1*.3]. Gabriele Winkler showed that the addition of προπατόρων to
the CHR anaphora, which represents a category not commemorated in
Barberini Gr. 336, shows a later stratum of development in this
anaphora.159 She also noted that the manuscripts Paris Coislin 214
(12th c.) and Ambrosiana Gr. 709 [R 24 sup.] (13th c.) used the word
––––––––––
155
See Koster, § 20.
156
On the use of the Ave Maria in the Chrysostom anaphora, see Gabriele Winkler, “Die
Interzessionen der Chrysostomusanaphora,” OCP 36 (1970) 301-336, here 324-327, 333-
336.
157
See B.-Ch. Mercier, La Liturgie de Saint Jacques: édition critique du texte grec avec
traduction latine (PO 26, Paris 1946) 115-256, here 212-214. See also “Old Georgian
Version” 94-95, and S. Verhelst, “La liturgie de saint Jacques: rétroversion grecque et
commentaires” in the same volume, 261-262. The anaphoral inclusion of the Ave Maria
followed by Ἐξαιρέτως can also be found in the Liturgy of St Mark. See Winkler, “Die
Interzessionen,” 327.
158
S. Parenti, L’Eucologio manoscritto Γ.β. IV (X sec.) della Biblioteca di Grottaferrata.
Edizione. Excerpta ex Dissertatione ad Doctoratum (PIO, Rome 1994) § 47. For further
examples of the use of the Ave Maria within the CHR anaphora, see the useful table in
Winkler, “Die Interzessionen,” 324-325.
159
See Winkler, “Die Interzessionen,” 315.
206 GABRIEL RADLE
προπατέρων instead of προπατόρων, stating that this variant “gibt

zu denken.”160
However, Winkler neglected to note that some of the oldest CHR
sources employed in her study, such as Grottaferrata Ζδ II (a. 1090),
actually use προπατέρων.161 The tenth-century BAS anaphora of Se-
vastianov 474 (f. 17v) also uses προπατέρων.162 In both Grottaferrata
Ζδ II and Sevastianov 474, the word is not abbreviated, and is there-
fore clearly προπατέρων. Other early sources, including folio 7 of
ΜΓ22, contain the abbreviation ΠΡΟΠΡΩΝ. The abbreviation
ΠΡΩΝ belongs to the nomina sacra, and is resolved as πατέρων, the
genitive plural of πατήρ.163 It seems fitting then that the abbreviation
ΠΡΟΠΡΩΝ in ΜΓ22, and any other manuscript for that matter,
should be resolved as προπατέρων, and not προπατόρων.164 Fur-
thermore, with the fresh testimony of ΜΓ22, we can confirm that
προπατέρων is more strongly attested to in the CHR anaphora of our
earliest sources.
Conclusions
While this study of Sinai ΝΕ/ ΜΓ22 does not seek to be in any
way exhaustive, we do draw some major conclusions. On the basis of
what is probably the second oldest Greek euchology witness to CHR
and PRES, we have been able to call into question many previous the-
ories about Byzantine liturgical development, which further studies
will need to address. I summarize below the key conclusions dis-
cussed in detail above:
––––––––––
160
Ibid. 316.
161
See the recent edition of V. Polidori, “L’eucologio criptense Ζ.δ. II,” BBGG III s. 7
(2010) 173-206, § 29.1.
162
See Koster, § 20.1. In his edition of this codex, Koster noted this word as “sic,” obvi-
ously under the influence of Winkler’s study.
163
The use of this form of abbreviation is widely attested to. For an example, see f. 32 v of
Barberini Gr. 336.
164
Many thanks to Prof. Stefano Parenti for checking some of the microfilmed
manuscripts in his private library and confirming the use of προπατέρων in the
anaphoras in several of the euchologies cited by Winkler. For example, the BAS anaphora
of Grottaferrata Γβ XV (11/12th c.) and Ottoboni Gr. 434 (a. 1174/5) both use
προπατόρων, written out in its entirety, while the CHR anaphoras of these same
euchologies employ the abbreviation ΠΡΟΠΡΩΝ, already found in f. 7 of ΜΓ22. This
confirms that ΠΡΟΠΡΩΝ should be regarded as the abbreviation for προπατέρων, and
that for an anaphora to definitely include προπατόρων, the word must be written out in
its entirety.
1) ΜΓ22 appears to rely on a Constantinopolitan source, since it

contains a Constantinopolitan cathedral PRES, and also evidences the
recent “victory” of CHR over BAS.
2) While JAS was still celebrated in the region of Palestine at the
turn of the ninth to tenth century, the celebration of the Byzantine lit-
urgy of CHR there at this time is nevertheless attested to by ΜΓ22.
3) ΜΓ22 is the oldest witness to the victory of BAS over CHR,
since it places CHR at the head of the euchology and includes the be-
ginning of the liturgy within CHR. This manuscript opens a new
question as to how that victory played out in the local Melkite regions
during the early period of their “Byzantinization.”
4) A comparison of CHR with PRES, in which prayers common to
CHR are abbreviated, shows that CHR contained a complete, indep-
endent formulary, filled in with Constantinopolitan prayers CHR has
in common with BAS. Because of lacunae in CHR, we can affirm this
in the following prayers: the Prayer of the Prothesis, the Prayer of the
First Antiphon, the Entrance Prayer, the Prayer of the Ektene, and the
Prayer of Elevation, which is our first witness to the new Constantin-
opolitan recension of this prayer.
5) Unlike Barberini Gr. 336, the initial blessing of the liturgy is
witnessed in CHR of ΜΓ22, showing that its use at Constantinople
for the liturgies had been established already in the late ninth/early
tenth century.
6) ΜΓ22 contains parts of two different CHR anaphorae: 1) the
anaphoral text that is original to the main corpus of the manuscript,
found today on ff. 8 and 2 [§5]; and 2) folio 7 [§1*], which originated
in an entirely different codex.
7) The CHR anaphora of f. 7 testifies to the influence of JAS, since
it contains the Ave Maria followed by the Ἐξαιρέτως.
8) There are clear signs of modelling PRES on the full eucharistic
Byzantine liturgy: the Entrance Prayer is taken from CHR/BAS in-
stead of Vespers; the Prayer of the Ektene is also common to CHR/
BAS); ΜΓ22 is the first manuscript to witness the use of the Πρό-
σχες, Κύριε at PRES, also borrowed from CHR/BAS).
9) Entitling PRES a “liturgy” is not a later innovation, but goes
back to an early period in the history of the celebration of PRES at
Constantinople, as evidenced by both the Council in Trullo and
ΜΓ22.
208 GABRIEL RADLE
10) In the vesperal psalms, ΜΓ22 uses the Constantinopolitan sti-

chometry, unlike some later sources of the Sung Office which give
witness to a stichometry of Hagiopolite influence.
11) The priest’s participation in “Let my Prayer Rise” is attested to
in ΜΓ22. This new evidence, taken together with my reanalysis of the
oldest sources of PRES suggest that Alexopoulos’s theories behind
the ritual development of the Dirigatur need to be studied further.
12) The lavabo of PRES in ΜΓ22 occurs at the beginning of the
transfer rites, before the entrance and deposition of the gifts on the
altar. This location of the lavabo, taken together with my reanalysis of
the lavabo in CHR of St Petersburg 226, show that Taft’s explanation
of the history of the lavabo’s position in the liturgy needs to be nu-
anced. Italo-Greek sources that place the lavabo before the Great En-
trance, as does today’s Pontifical, should no longer be seen as dis-
placing the lavabo’s original position.
13) The Anti-Plerotheto troparion is attested to at PRES in Con-
stantinople in the ninth century, evidenced by both the Chludov Psalt-
er and ΜΓ22, and should no longer be attributed to an Italo-Greek
peculiarity, or even a Middle Eastern influence on PRES. The Anti-
Plerotheto troparion’s presence in Italo-Greek sources should be at-
tributed rather to Southern Italian conservatism, and not to an Italian
affinity for orientalisms.
14) The use of the Anti-Plerotheto and the PRES Prayer of Thanks-
giving within Hagiopolite sources is a result of Constantinopolitan
liturgical influence on Palestine.
15) ΜΓ22 helps deepen our understanding of the broader pheno-
menon of liturgical “Byzantinization” in the Chalcedonian Patriar-
chates beyond Constantinople.
Abbreviations
Alexopoulos, Presanctified = S. Alexopoulos, The Presanctified Liturgy in the Byzantine

Rite. A Comparative Analysis of its Origins, Evolution, and Structural Components
(Liturgia Condenda 21, Leuven 2009).
BAS = The Byzantine Liturgy of St Basil the Great
CHR = The Byzantine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom
Géhin & Frøyshov, “Nouvelles Découvertes” = P. Géhin and S. Frøyshov, “Nouvelles
Découvertes Sinaïtiques: à propos de la parution de l’inventaire des manuscripts
grecs” in REB 58 (2000) 167-184.
HagPRES = The Hagiopolite Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts
JAS = The Liturgy of St James

Koster = S.J. Koster, Das Euchologion Sevastianov 474 (X Jhdt.) der Staatsbibliothek in
Moskau. Excerpta ex dissertatione ad doctoratum, Rome, PIO 1996.
Koumarianos = Il Codice 226 della Biblioteca di San Pietroburgo. L’Eucologio bizantino
di Porfyrio Uspensky. Excerpta ex Dissertatione ad Doctoratum, Rome, PIO (London,
Ontario 1996)
Mateos, Parole = La célébration de la Parole dan la liturgie byzantine. Étude historique.
(OCA 191, Rome 1971)
Mateos, Typikon I-II = id. (ed.), Le Typicon de la Grande Église. Ms. Sainte-Croix n° 40,
Xe siècle. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes, 2 vols. (OCA 165-166,
Rome 1962-1963).
Nikolopoulos (et al.) Τὰ νέα εὑρήματα = P. G. Nikolopoulos (et al.), Τὰ νέα εὑρήματα
τοῦ Σινᾶ (Athens 1998).
“Old Georgian Version” = Lili Khevsuriani, Mzekala Shanidze, M. Kavtaria and Tinatin
Tseradze, “The Old Georgian Version of the Liturgy of Saint James” in Liturgia
Ibero-Graeca Sancti Iacobi. Editio-translatio-retroversio-commentarii (Jerusalemer
Theologisches Forum 19, Münster 2011) 9-183.
Parenti, “Vittoria” = S. Parenti, “La ‘vittoria’ nella chiesa di Costantinopoli della liturgia
di Crisostomo sulla liturgia di Basilio” in id., A Oriente e Occidente di Costantino-
poli. Temi e problemi liturgici di ieri e di oggi (Monumenta Studia Instrumenta Litur-
gica 54, Vatican City 2010) 27-47.
Parenti-Velkovska = S. Parenti & Elena Velkovska, L’Eucologio Barberini gr. 336. Se-
conda edizione riveduta con traduzione in lingua italiana (BELS 80, Rome 2000).
Passarelli = G. I. Passarelli, L’Eucologio Cryptense Γ.β. VII (sec. X) (ΑΒ, Thessaloniki
1982).
PIO = Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Rome.
PRES = Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, always in reference to the tradition of the
Church of Constantinople.
Strittmatter, “Notes” = A. Strittmatter, “Notes on the Byzantine Synapte” in Traditio 10
(1954) 51-108.
Taft, Great Entrance = R.F. Taft, A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, vol. II:
The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Preanaphoral Rites
of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (OCA 200, Rome 20044).
Taft, Precommunion = id., A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, vol. V: The
Precommunion Rites (OCA 261, Rome 2000).
Taft, Communion = id., A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, vol. VI: The
Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding Rites (OCA 281, Rome 2008).
Tarchnišvili I-II = M. Tarchnišvili, Liturgiae ibericae antiquiores. Textus (CSCO, 122,
Iber. 1, Louvain 1950); Ibid., Liturgiae ibericae antiquiores. Versio (CSCO 132, Iber.
2, Louvain 1950).
Verhelst, “La liturgie de saint Jacques” = S. Verhelst, “La liturgie de saint Jacques: rétro-
version grecque et commentaires” in Liturgia Ibero-Graeca Sancti Iacobi. Editio-
translatio-retroversio-commentarii (Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 19, Münster
2011) 185-228.
210 GABRIEL RADLE
Winkler, “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund” = Gabriele Winkler, “Der geschichtliche

Hintergrund der Präsanktifikatenvesper” in OC 56 (1972) 184-206.
Winkler, “Die Interzessionen” = Gabriele Winkler, “Die Interzessionen der Chrysosto-
musanaphora,” OCP 36 (1970)
Edition of the text
I have sought to render the present edition of Sinai ΝΕ/ ΜΓ22 in

conformity with current standards used for medieval Greek liturgical
texts.165 The orthography of the manuscript has been normalized ac-
cording to standard Greek, with ioticisms and homophonies all cor-
rected. Particularities that are attested as medieval Greek usages were
kept. All abbreviations of nomina sacra have been resolved without
note, as have some commonly abbreviated words found in liturgical
manuscripts, such as διάκονος, δεηθῶμεν, εὐαγγέλιον, εὐχή, ἦχος,
ἱερεύς, λαός, and προκείμενον.
I maintain the folio numbering in the arrangement of Nikolopoulos
(see above, § The Codex), which corresponds to the order that the fo-
lios are found in today. Any decision to properly reorder the folios is
the prerogative of St. Catherine’s Monastery. Nevertheless, for obvi-
ous reasons, I have chosen to present the text in the current edition
according to its original, correct order. Thus, while the edition reads
properly, the first several folios will not have a consecutive number-
ing. Any resulting confusion should be clarified by the liturgical unit
numbering I have given throughout the text. It is according to this
numbering that the euchology is cited in my analysis above.
Critical Signs Employed in the Edition
() used to resolve abbreviations in the text

[] used to indicate text that has been lost due to physical damage of the
manuscript
<> used to indicate letters or words added to the text by estimation
––––––––––
165
See for example the introduction to Parenti-Velkovska 34-42; also the recent edition of
V. Polidori, “L’Eucologio Criptense Ζ.δ. ΙΙ,” BBGG III s. 7 (2010) 173-206, here 182-3.
1. 1) |1r Εὐχὴ τῆς προθέσεως τῶν δώρων ἀποτι[θε]μένου τοῦ ἱερέως

τοὺς ἄρτους ἐν τῷ διακονικῷ.
2) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ἐν εἰρήνῃ τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν.
3) Ὁ ἰερεύς⋅ Ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ τὸν οὐράνιον ἄρτον τὴν τροφὴν

τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου, τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ θεὸν
ἐξαποστείλας σωτῆρα καὶ λυτρωτὴν καὶ εὐεργέτην, εὐλογοῦντα
καὶ ἁγιάζοντα ἡμᾶς⋅ αὐτὸς εὐλόγησον τὴν πρόθεσιν ταύτην καὶ
πρόσδεξαι αὐτὴν εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιόν σου θυσιαστήριον⋅ μνημό-
νευσον, ὡς ἀγαθὸς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος, τῶν προσ- |1v -ενεγκάντων
καὶ δι᾽οὓς προσήγαγον, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀκατακρίτους διαφύλαξον ἐν τῇ
ἱερουργίᾳ τῶν θείων σου μυστηρίων. Ὅτι ἡγίασται καὶ δεδόξασται
τὸ πάντιμον καί.
2. 1) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Εὐλόγησον δέσποτα. Ὁ ἱερεύς⋅ Εὐλογημένη

ὑπάρχει ἡ βασι(λεία).
2) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ὀρθοί, ἐν εἰρήνῃ τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν.
3) Ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν εὐχήν⋅ Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, οὗ τὸ κράτος ἀνείκα-

στον καὶ ἡ δόξα ἀκατάληπτος, οὗ τὸ ἔλεος ἀμέτρητον καὶ ἡ φιλαν-
θρωπία ἄφατος⋅ αὐτός, δέσποτα, κατὰ τὴν εὐσπλαχνίαν σου
ἐπίβλεψον ἐφ᾽ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἅγιον οἶκον τοῦτον, καὶ ποίησον
με[θ᾽ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν συνευχομένων ….........].
3. 1) |6r [….........] ἔθου εἰς τὴν διακονίαν ταύτην, ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ

πνεύματός σου τοῦ ἁγίου ἀκαταγνώστως καὶ ἀπροσκόπως, ἐν
καθαρῷ τῷ μαρτυρίῳ τῆς συνειδήσεως ἡμῶν ἐπικαλεῖσθαί σε ἐν
παντὶ καιρῷ καὶ τόπῳ, ἵνα εἰσακούων166 ἡμῶν ἵλεος ἡμῖν ἔσω ἐν τῷ
πλήθει τῆς σῆς ἀγαθότητος.
2) Ἀντιλαβοῦ, σῶσον, ἐλέησον καί. Σοφία.
4) Ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκφωνεῖ⋅ Ὅτι πρέπει σοι πᾶσα δόξα, τιμή.
o
4. 1) Ἔτι καὶ ἔτι ἐν εἰρήνῃ τοῦ Κύρίου. Ὑπὲρ τῆς ἄνωθεν εἰρήνης
'
καὶ τ(ῆς). Ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἁγίου οἴκου τούτου καί. Ὑπὲρ τοῦ ῥυσθῆναι
ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πά(σης).
2) Εὐχὴ πιστῶν β´. Πάλιν καὶ πολλάκις σοὶ προσπίπτομεν καὶ σοῦ
δεόμε- |6v -θα, ἀγαθὲ καὶ φιλάνθρωπε, ὅπως ἐπιβλέψας ἐπὶ τὴν δέη-
σιν ἡμῶν, καθαρ[ί]σεις ἡμῶν τὰς ψυχὰς [καὶ] τὰ σώματα ἀπὸ παν-
––––––––––
166
Cod. εἰσακόυον
212 GABRIEL RADLE
τ[ὸς] μολυσμοῦ σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος, καὶ δὸς ἡμῖν ἀνένοχ[ον]

τὸν καὶ ἀκατάκριτον τὴν παράστασιν τοῦ ἁγίου σου θυσιαστηρίου⋅
χάρισαι δέ, ὁ θεός, καὶ τοῖς συνευχ[ο]μένοις ἡμῖν προκοπὴν βίου
καὶ πίστεως καὶ συν[έ]σ[ε]ως πνευματικῆς⋅ δὸς αὐτοῖς πάντοτε με-
τὰ φόβου κα[ὶ] ἀγάπης λατρεύοντάς σ[οι] ἀνενόχως καὶ ἀκατα-
κρίτως μετέχειν τῶν ἁγίων σου μυστηρίων καὶ τῆς ἐπο[υρανίου
...................].
5. 1) |8r [............ ὀρθοτο]μούντων τὸ[ν λόγον τῆς] σῆς ἀληθείας,

πα[ντὸς τοῦ] πρεσβυτερίου, τῆς ἐ[ν Χριστῷ δι]ακονίας καὶ παν-
τ[ὸ]ς [ἱερα]τικοῦ τάγματος.
2) Ἔτι προσφέρομέν σοι τὴν λογικὴν τ[αύ]την λατρεί[αν ὑπὲρ τῆς

οἰκου]μέν[ης ...........]
3) |8v ἐ[κφώνως]⋅ Ἐ[ν πρώτοις] μνήσθητι, Κύριε, τοῦ [πατρὸς καὶ

ἐπι]σκόπου ἡμῶν τοῦδε, ὃν χ[άρι]σαι ταῖς ἁγίαις σου ἐκκλησίαις ἐν
εἰρήνῃ σῶον, ἔντιμον, ὑγιῆ, μακροημερεύοντα, ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν
λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας.
4) Ὁ ἱερεύς⋅ Κύριε ἐλεήσον ἐν [μ]υστη[ρί]ῳ.
5) Μνήσθητι, Κ[ύριε, ..... ἐν] ᾗ167 παροι[κοῦμεν .........]
6) […..] |2r πενήτων, καὶ <ἐπὶ πάντας> ἡμᾶς τὰ ἐλέη σου ἐξαπό-
στειλον. Ἐκφώ<νως>⋅ Καὶ δὸς ἡμῖν ἐν ἑνὶ στόματι καί.
6. 1) Καὶ ἔσται τὰ ἐλέη τοῦ μεγάλου.
2) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Πάντων τῶν ἁγίων καὶ δι(καίων). Ὑπὲρ τῶν προσ-

κομισθέντων. Ὅπως ὁ φιλάνθρωπος θεὸς ἡμῶν ὁ προ(σδεξάμενος).
[Ἀ]ντικαταπέμψῃ ἡμῖν τήν. [Ὑπὲρ] τοῦ ῥυσθῆναι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πά-
σ(ης).
3) [Ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴ]ν εὐχήν⋅ [Σοὶ παρακ]ατατιθέμεθα [τὴν ζω]ὴν ἡμῶν

ἅπασαν [καὶ τὴν ἐ]λπίδα, [δέσποτα φιλάνθρωπ]ε[, καὶ παρα]καλοῦ-
μ[έν σε καὶ δεό]μεθα καὶ ἱκετεύο]μεν, καταξίωσον ἡμᾶς μεταλα-
βεῖν τῶν ἐπουρανίων σου καὶ φρικτῶν μυστηρίων ταύτης τῆς ἱερᾶς
καὶ πνευματικῆς τραπέζης |2r μετὰ καθαροῦ συνειδότος, εἰς ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν, εἰς συγχώρησιν πλημμελημάτων, εἰς πνεύματος ἁγίου
κοινωνίαν, μὴ εἰς κρίμα μὴ δὲ εἰς κατάκριμα.
––––––––––
167
Cod. ὶ, the fragmented previous letter appears to be the upper portion of a ‘ν’.
4) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ἀντιλαβοῦ, σῶσον, ἐλέησον καί. Τὴν ἡμέραν πᾶσαν

τελείαν ἁγίαν. Ἄγγελον εἰρήνης πιστόν ὁδ[(ηγόν)]. Συγνώμην καὶ
ἄφεσι[ν τῶν]. Τά καλά καὶ συμφέροντα [ταῖς]. Τὸν ὑπόλοιπον χρό-
νον τῆς ζω(ῆς). Χριστιανὰ τὰ τέλη τῆς ζωῆς. Τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς
πίστεως καί.
5) Ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκφώ<νως>⋅ Καὶ καταξίωσον ἡμᾶς, δέσποτα, μετὰ

παρρησίας, ἁκατακρίτως.
6) Ὁ λαός⋅ Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν. Ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκφ<ωνεῖ>⋅ Ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ

βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύ(ναμις). Ὁ λαός⋅ Ἀμήν.
7. 1) Ὁ ἱερεύς⋅ Εἰρήνη πᾶσιν. Ὁ λαός⋅ Καὶ τῷ πνεύματί σου. Ὁ

διάκονος⋅ Τὰς κεφαλὰς ἡμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ. Ὁ λαός⋅ Σοὶ Κύριε.
2) Ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν εὐχήν⋅ |3r Εὐχαριστοῦμεν σοι, βασιλεῦ ἀόρατε, ὁ τῇ

ἀμετρήτῳ σου δυνάμει τὰ πάντα δημιουργήσας,168 καὶ τῷ πλήθει
τοῦ ἐλέου<ς> σου ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα παραγαγών⋅
αὐτός, δέσποτα, βασιλεῦ ἀόρατε, οὐρανόθεν [ἔ]πιδε ἐπὶ τοὺς κεκλι-
κότας σοι τὰς ἑαυτῶν κεφαλάς⋅ οὐ γὰρ ἔκλιναν σαρκὶ καὶ
[αἵ]μ[ατι], ἀλλὰ σοὶ τῷ φοβερῷ θεῷ. Σὺ οὖν, δέσποτα, τὰ προκεί-
μενα πᾶσιν ἡμῖν εἰς ἀγαθὸν ἐξομάλισον κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου ἰδίαν
χρείαν⋅ τοῖς πλέουσιν σύμπλευσον, τοὺς νοσοῦντας ἴασαι, |3v ὁ ἰα-
τρὸς ψυχῶν τε καὶ σωμάτων. Ἐκφώ<νησις>⋅ Χάριτι καὶ οἰκτιρμοῖς
καὶ φ(ιλανθρωπίᾳ).
8. 1) Ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν εὐχὴν τῆς ὑψώσεως τοῦ ἄρτου. Πρόσχες, Κύριε

Ἰησοῦ Χριστὲ169 ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ἐξ ἁγίου κατοικητηρίου σου, καὶ ἀπὸ
θρόνου δόξης τῆς βασιλείας σου, καὶ ἐλθὲ εἰς τὸ ἁγιάσαι ἡμᾶς, ὁ
ἄνω τῷ πατρὶ συγκαθήμενος, καὶ ὧδε ἡμῖν ἀοράτως συνών⋅ καὶ
καταξίωσον τῇ κραταιᾷ σου χειρὶ μεταδοῦναι ἡμῖν τοῦ ἀχράντου
σου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου σου αἵματος, καὶ δι᾽ἡμῶν παντὶ τῷ
λαῷ.
3) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Πρόσχωμεν. Ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκ[φωνεῖ .........].
9. 1) |4r Λειτουργία τῶν προηγιασμένων.
2) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Εὐλόγησον δ(έσποτα). Ὁ ἱερεύς⋅ Εὐλογημένη ἡ β(α-

σιλεία).
––––––––––
168
Cod. ὄτι ἁμετρίτω σου δυνάμει τὰ πάντα δημϊουργίσας
169
Cod. XC
214 GABRIEL RADLE
3) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ὀρθοί, ἐν εἰρήνῃ τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν.
4) Ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν εὐχήν⋅ Κύριε οἰκτίρμων170 καὶ ἐλεήμων, μακρόθυμε

καὶ πολυέλεε, ἐνώτισαι τὴν προσευχὴν ἡμῶν καὶ πρόσχες τῇ φωνῇ
τῆς δεήσεως ἡμῶν⋅ ποίησον μεθ᾽ἡμῶν σημεῖον εἰς ἀγαθόν, ὁδήγη-
σον ἡμᾶς ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ σου τοῦ πορεύεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου⋅ εὔφρα-
νον τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν |4v εἰς τὸ φοβεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομά σου τὸ ἅγιον,
διότι μέγας εἶ καὶ ποιῶν θαυμάσια⋅ σὺ εἶ ὁ θεὸς μόνος, καὶ οὐκ
ἔστιν ὅμοιός σοὶ ἐν θεοῖς, Κύριε, δυνατὸς ἐν ἐλέει171 καὶ ἀγαθὸς ἐν
ἰσχύϊ, εἰς τὸ βοηθεῖν καὶ παρακαλεῖν καὶ σῴζειν πάντας τοὺς ἐλπί-
ζοντας εἰς τὸ ὄνομά σου τὸ ἅγιον.
5) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ἀντιλαβοῦ, σῶσον, ἐλέησον. Τῆς παναγίας ἀχράν-

του.
6) Ἐκφ<ώνησις>172⋅ Ὅτι πρέπει σοι πᾶσα δόξα τι(μή).
10. 1) Κλῖνον, Κύριε τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἐπάκουσόν μου. Δόξα σοι ὁ
θεός.
2) Κλῖνον, Κύριε τὸ οὖς |5r σου καὶ ἐπάκουσόν μου, ὅτι πτωχὸς καὶ
πένης εἰμὶ ἐγώ. Δόξα σοι ὁ θεός.
3) Φύλαξον τὴν ψυχήν μου ὅτι ὅσιος εἰμί, σῶσον τὸν δοῦλόν σου, ὁ
θεός μου, τὸν ἐλπίζοντα ἐπὶ σοί. Δόξα σοι ὁ θεός.
4) Ἐλέησόν με, Κύριε, ὅτι πρὸς σὲ κεκράξομαι173 ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν.

5) [Εὔ]φρανον τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ δούλου σου ὅτι πρὸς σέ ἦρα τὴν
ψυχήν μου. Δόξα σο(ι).
6) [Ὅ]τι σύ Kύριε χρηστὸς174 καὶ ἐπιεικὴς175 καὶ πολυέλεος πάσιν

τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις σε. Δόξα.
7) [Ἐ]νώτισαι, Κύριε, τὴν προσευχήν μου καὶ πρόσχες τῇ [φ]ωνῇ

τῆς δεήσεώς μου. Δόξ(α).
8) [Δό]ξα πατρί. Δόξα σοι ὁ [θεός⋅
––––––––––
170
Cod. ὁικτειρμων
171
Cod. ἐλέη
172
in margin
173
Cod. κεκράξωμαι
174
Cod. χριστος
175
Cod. επικεις
9) Κ]αὶ ν[ῦν καὶ] ἀεί. Δόξ(α).

10) |5v Δόξα σοι ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν δόξα σοι. Δόξα σοι ὁ θεός.
11. 1) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ἔτι καὶ ἔτι ἐν εἰρήνῃ τοῦ Κυρίου.
2) Ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν εὐχήν⋅ Κύριε, μὴ τῷ θυμῷ σου ἐλέγξῃς ἡμᾶς, μὴ δὲ

τῇ ὀργῇ σου παιδεύσεις ἡμᾶς, ἀλλὰ ποίησον μεθ᾽ἡμῶν κατὰ τὴν
ἐπιεικίαν σου, ἰατρὲ καὶ θεραπευτὰ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶ[ν], ὁδήγησον
ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ λιμένα θελήματός σου, φώτισον τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῶν
καρδίων ἡμῶν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς σῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ δὸς ἡμῖν διαφυ-
γεῖν καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν τῆς παρο[ύ]- |9r -σης ἡμέρας εἰρηνικὸν καὶ ἀνα-
μάρτητον, καὶ πάντα τὸν χρόνον τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν, πρεσβείας τῆς
ἁγίας θεοτόκου καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων σου.
4) [Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ἀ]ντιλαβοῦ, σῶσον, ἐλέησον [καί]. [Τῆ]ς παναγίας

ἀχράντου ὑ<περευλογημένης>.
6) [Ἐκφώνησις⋅ Ὅ]τι σὸν τὸ κράτος καὶ σοῦ.
12. 1) [Ἀπ]ὸ σκανδάλων τῶν ἐργαζομένων τὴν ἀνομίαν ρῦσαι

ἡμᾶς, Κύριε.
2) Κύριε ἐκέκραξα πρὸς σέ, εἰσάκουσόν μου⋅ πρόσχες τῇ φωνῇ τῆς

δεήσεώς μου ἐν τῷ κε[κραγ]έναι176 με πρὸς σέ⋅ (1)
3) Ἀπὸ σκ[ανδάλων].
4) [Θοῦ, Κύριε, φ]υλακὴν τῷ στόμ[ατί μου] καὶ θύραν περ[ιοχῆς

πε]ρὶ τὰ χείλη177 μ[ου]. (3)
5) [Σὺν ἀνθρώπ]οις ἐργαζο[μένοις τὴν ἀνομίαν,] |9v καὶ οὐ μὴ συν-

δυάσω178 μετὰ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτῶν. (4b)
6) Ὅτι ἔτι καὶ ἡ προσευχή μου ἐν ταῖς εὐδοκίαις αὐτῶν⋅ κατεπόθη-

σαν ἐχόμεν[α πέ]τρα οἱ κριταὶ αὐτῶν. (5b)
7) Εὐχὴ τῆς εἰσόδου. [Δέσποτ]α Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ημῶν, ὁ κατ[αστή-

σα]ς ἐν οὐρανοῖς τάγματα καὶ στρα[τι]ὰς ἀγγέλων εἰς λειτου[ρ]γί-
αν τῆς ἁγίας δόξης σου, ποίησον σὺν τῇ εἰσόδῳ ἡμῶν εἴσοδον ἁγί-
ων ἀγγέλω[ν…
––––––––––
176
Cod. κε[…]ενε
177
Cod. χήλε
178
Cod. συνδιασω
aτῆς
τοῦ ἀντικειμένου, καὶ προσκάλεσαι αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώ-
νιον, |11v φωτίζων αὐτῶν τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ τὰ σώματα, καὶ συγκαταρί-
θμισον αὐτοὺς τῇ λογικῇ σου ποίμνῃ ἐφ᾽ἣν τὸ ὄνομά σου τὸ ἅγιον
ἐπικέκληται.
3) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Σῶσον, ἐλέησον, ἀνάστησον. Οἱ κατηχούμενοι τὰς

κεφαλάς.
4) Ἐκφώ<νησις>⋅ Ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ σὺν ἡμῖν δοξά(ζωσιν).
5) Ὁ διάκονος ἀπλώνων τὸ εἰλητόν λέγει⋅ Ὅσοι κατηχούμενοι, προ-

έλθετε⋅ οἱ κατηχούμενοι, προέλθετε⋅ ὅσοι κατηχούμενοι, προέλθετε⋅
μή τις τῶν κατηχουμένων. Ὅσοι πιστοί.
16. 1) Εὐχὴ πιστῶν α´. Ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας καὶ αἰνετός, ὁ τῷ ζωοποιῷ

τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου θανάτῳ εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν ἡμᾶς ἐκ φθορᾶς μεταστή-
σας, σὺ πάσας ἡμῶν τὰς |12r αἰσθήσεις τῆς ἐμπαθοῦς νεκρώσεως
ἐλευθέρωσον, ἀγαθὸν ταύταις ἡγεμόνα τὸν ἔνδοθεν λογισμὸν ἐπι-
στήσας⋅ καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς μὲν ἀμέτοχος ἔστω παντὸς πονηροῦ βλέμμα-
τος, ἀκοὴ δὲ λόγοις ἀργοῖς ἀνεπίβατος, ἡ γλῶσσα καθαρευέτω ῥη-
μάτων ἀπρεπῶν⋅ ἅγνισον δὲ ἡμῶν καὶ τὰ χείλη τὰ αἰνοῦντά σε, Κύ-
ριε, τὰς χεῖρας ἡμῶν ποίησον τῶν μὲν φαύλων ἀπέχεσθαι πράξεων,
ἐνεργεῖν δὲ μόνα τὰ σοι εὐάρεστα, πάντα ἡμῶν τὰ μέλη καὶ τὴν
διάνοιαν |12v τῇ σῇ κατασφαλιζόμενος χάριτι.
2) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ἀντιλαβοῦ, σῶσον, ἐλέησον. Σοφία.
3) Ἐκφ<ώνησις>⋅ Ὅτι πρέπει σοι.
17. 1) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ἔτι καὶ ἔτι ἐν εἰρήνῃ τοῦ.
2) Ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν εὐχήν⋅ Δέσποτα ἅγιε, ὑπεράγαθε, δυσωποῦμέν σε

τὸν ἐν ἐλέει πλούσιον ἵλεων γενέσθαι ἡμῖν τοῖς ἁμαρτωλοῖς, καὶ ἀ-
ξίους ἡμᾶς ποιῆσαι τῆς ὑποδοχῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦ σου υἱοῦ καὶ θεοῦ
ἡμῶν, τοῦ βασιλέως τῆς δόξης⋅ ἰδοὺ γὰρ τὸ ἄχραντον αὐτοῦ σῶμα
καὶ τὸ ζωοποιὸν αὐτοῦ αἷμα κατὰ τὴν παροῦσαν |13r ὥραν εἰσπο-
ρευόμενα, τῇ μυστικῇ ταύτῃ προτίθεσθαι μέλλει τραπέζῃ ὑπὸ πλή-
θους στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου ἀοράτως δορυφορούμενα, ὧν τὴν μετάλη-
ψιν ἀκτακρίτως ἡμῖν δώρησαι ἵνα δι᾽αὐτῶν τὸ τῆς διανοίας ὄμμα
καταυγαζόμενοι180, υἱοὶ φωτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας γενώμεθα.
3) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ἀντιλαβοῦ, σῶσον, ἐλ(έησον). Σοφία.
––––––––––
180
Cod. καταυαζώμενοι
218 GABRIEL RADLE
4) Ἐκφ<ώνησις>⋅ Κατὰ τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου μεθ᾽οὗ εὐλο-

γητὸς εἶ.
18. 1) Καὶ νίπτεται λέγων⋅ Νίψομαι ἐν ἀθῴοις τὰς χεῖρας μου καὶ
κυκλώσω τὸ θυσιαστήριόν σου, Κύριε.
2) |13v Καὶ ἄρχεται τὸν ὕμνον⋅ Νῦν αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν σὺν
ἡμῖν ἀοράτως λατρεύουσιν⋅ ἰδοὺ γὰρ εἰσπορεύεται ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς
δόξης, ἰδοὺ θυσία μυστικὴ τετελειωμένη δορυφορεῖται⋅ πίστει καὶ
πόθῳ προσέλθωμεν ἵνα μέτοχοι ζωῆς ἀιωνίου γενώμεθα. Ἀλλη-
λούϊα.
3) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Πληρώσωμεν τὴν δέησιν, Ὑπὲρ τῶν προτεθέντων,

προαγιασθ(έντων). Ὑπὲρ τῶν εὐσεβεστάτων καί. Ὑπὲρ τοῦ συμπο-
λεμῆσαι καί. Ὑπὲρ τοῦ ῥυσθῆναι ἡμᾶς.
4) Ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν εὐχήν⋅ Ὁ τῶν ἀρρήτων καὶ ἀθεάτων μυστηρίων

θεός, παρ᾽οὗ οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς |14r σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀπόκρυ-
φοι, ὁ τὴν διακονίαν τῆς λειτουργίας ταύτης ἀποκαλύψας ἡμῖν, καὶ
θέμενος ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἁμαρτωλούς, διὰ πολλήν σου φιλανθρωπίαν, εἰς
τὸ προσφέρειν σοι δῶρα καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτημάτων
καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων⋅ αὐτός, ἀόρατε βασιλεῦ, ὁ ποιῶν με-
γάλα καὶ ἀνεξιχνίαστα, ἔνδοξα τὲ καὶ ἐξαίσια, ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρι-
θμός, ἔπιδε ἐφ᾽ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀναξίους δούλους σου τοὺς τῷ ἁγίῳ σου
τού- |14v -τῳ θυσιαστηρίῳ, ὡς τῷ χερουβικῷ σου παρισταμένους
θρόνῳ, ἐφ᾽ᾧ ὁ μονογενής σου υἱὸς καὶ θεὸς ἡμῶν διὰ τῶν προκει-
μένων φρικτῶν ἐπαναπαύεται μυστηρίων, καὶ πάσης ἡμᾶς καὶ τὸν
πιστόν σου λαὸν ἐλευθερώσας ἀκαθαρσίας, πάντων ἡμῶν ἁγίασον
τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ τὰ σώματα ἁγιασμῷ ἀναφαιρέτῳ ἵνα ἐν καθαρῷ
συνειδότι181, ἀνεπαισχύντῳ προσώπῳ, πεφωτισμένῃ διανοίᾳ, τῶν
θείων τούτων μεταλαμβάνοντες ἁγι- |15r -ασμάτων, καὶ ὑπ᾽αὐτῶν
ζωοποιούμενοι, ἐνωθῶμεν αὐτῷ τῷ Χριστῷ σου τῷ ἀληθινῷ ἡμῶν
θεῷ τῷ εἰπόντι⋅ Ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν
ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, ὅπως ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐνπεριπα-
τοῦντος τοῦ λόγου σου, Κύριε, γενώμεθα ναὸς τοῦ παναγίου καὶ
προσκυνητοῦ σου πνεύματος, ἐλευθορούμενοι πάσης διαβολικῆς
μεθοδίας ἐν πράξει ἢ λόγῳ ἢ κατὰ διάνοιαν ἐνεργουμένης, καὶ
τύχωμεν τῶν ἐπηγγηλμέ- |15v -νων182 ἀγαθῶν σὺν183 πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις
σου τοῖς ἀπ᾽αἰῶνος σοὶ εὐαρεστήσασιν.
––––––––––
181
Cod. συνϊδότι
182
Cod. ἑπιγγηλμένων
183
Cod. σὺμ
5) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ἀντιλαβοῦ, σῶσον, ἐλέησον καὶ δ(ιαφύλαξον). Τὴν

ἐσπέραν πᾶσαν τελείαν ἀγί(αν). Ἄγγελον εἰρήνης, πιστὸν ὁδηγόν.
Συγνώμην καὶ ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμ(αρτιῶν). Τὰ καλὰ καὶ συμφέροντα
ταῖς. Τὸν ὑπόλοιπον χρόνον τῆς ζω(ῆς). Χριστιανὰ τὰ τέλη τῆς
ζωῆς. Τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως καί.
6) Ἐκφώ<νησις>⋅ Καὶ καταξίωσον ἡμᾶς, δέσποτα, μετὰ παρρησίας

ἀκατακρίτως.
7) Ὁ λαός⋅ Πάτερ ἡμῶν. Ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκφω<νεῖ>⋅ Ὅτι σοῦ ἐστὶν ἡ βα-

σιλεία, καὶ ἡ δύ(ναμις). Ὁ λαός⋅ Ἀμήν.
19. 1) Ὁ ἱερεύς⋅ Εἰρήνη πᾶσιν. Ὁ λαός⋅ Καὶ τῷ πνεύματί σου. Ὁ διά-

κονος⋅ Τὰς κεφαλάς.
2) Εὐχὴ τῆς κεφαλοκλισίας⋅ Ὁ θεός, ὁ μόνος ἁγαθὸς καὶ εὔσπλαγ-

χνος, ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατοικῶν καὶ τὰ ταπεινὰ ἐφορῶν, ἔπιδε εὐ-
σπλάγχνῳ |16r ὄμματι ἐπὶ πάντα τὸν λαόν σου καὶ φύλαξον αὐτόν,
καὶ ἀξίωσον πάντας ἡμᾶς ἀκατακρίτως μετασχεῖν τῶν ζωοποιῶν
σου τούτων μυστηρίων⋅ σοὶ γὰρ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ὑπεκλίναμεν κεφαλάς,
ἀπεκδεχόμενοι τὸ παρὰ σοῦ πλούσιον ἔλεος. Ἐκφώ<νησις>⋅ Χάριτι
καὶ οἰκτιρμοῖς καὶ φιλα(νθρωπίᾳ).
20. 1) Εὐχὴ τῆς ὑψώσεως τοῦ ἄρτου. Πρόσχες, Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χρι-
στέ, ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ἐξ ἁγίου κατοικητηρίου σου, καὶ ἀπὸ θρόνου
δόξης τῆς βα(σιλείας).
2) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Πρόσχωμεν. Ὁ ἱερεύς⋅ Τὰ προηγιασμένα ἅγια τοῖς

ἁγίοις. Ὁ λαός⋅ Εἷς ἅγιος, εἷς Κύριος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, εἰς δό(ξαν).
3) Κοι(νωνικόν)⋅ Γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος. Ἀλλη-

λούϊα.
4) |16v Ἀντὶ τοῦ Πληρωθήτω⋅ Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Χριστὲ ὁ θεός, ὅτι

ἠξίωσας ἡμᾶς μετασχεῖν τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου
αἵματος τῆς οἰκονομίας σου. Ἀλληλούϊα.
21. 1) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Ὀρθοί, οἱ μεταλαβόντες τῶν.
2) Ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν εὐχήν⋅ Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι τῷ σωτῆρι τῶν ὅλων

θεῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς παρέσχου ἡμῖν ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ μεταλήψει τοῦ
ἁγίου σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου⋅ καὶ δεόμεθά σου, δέ-
σποτα φιλάνθρωπε, φύλαξον ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τὴν σκέπην τῶν πτερύγων
σου, καὶ δὸς ἡμῖν μέχρι τῆς ἐσχάτης ἡμῶν ἀναπνοῆς ἐπαξίως μετέ-
[….]τα[…..θεοτό]κου Μαρ[ί]α[ς…].
[ἀ]σωματω[.…], τοῦ ἁγ[ίου Ἰωάννου τ]οῦ προφήτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἁγίων

πανευ[φήμω]ν ἀποστόλων [...........]
Summary
This article presents both the text and an analysis of one of the most im-
portant liturgical manuscripts of the Sinai New Finds, MG22. Dated to the
turn of the ninth to tenth centuries, this manuscript gives us one of our most
ancient witnesses to the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of
the Presanctified Gifts in the Byzantine tradition. Due to the disordered state
that the folios are found in today, the author presents a detailed codicological
study of the manuscript, together with a reanalysis of the dating originally
ascribed to it. Through an in-depth investigation of its content, the author has
nuanced many widely-held views in the field of Byzantine liturgiology, not
only about the history of the the two eucharistic liturgies contained in the
codex fragment, but also about the history of the Byzantine Rite at large.
Addendum
After submitting this article for publication, I came across another testimony
of PRES that has been neglected by liturgiologists writing on the subject,
including myself in the present article. The Italo-Greek pontifical manuscript
Vatican Gr. 1872 (12th c.) contains a PRES that displays a heavy dependence
upon the cathedral tradition of Constantinople (ff. 11v-20v). However, it
represents a later phase in development, since it begins with Psalm 103.
Nevertheless, this is followed by Psalm 85, together with the refrain Δόξα
σοι ὁ θεός. Like Grottaferrata Γβ VII, the manuscript includes varying tro-
paria for Κύριε ἐκέκραξα, one of which corresponds to that found in ΜΓ
22: Σαρκὶ παθὼν ἐσταυρώθης, Κύριε [12.9].
INDICE
SIGLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 3
V. Barillari, Gli sticheraria Cript. E.α. II e Cript. E.α. V. Sulla datazione e

locazione dei codici . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 5
R. Cantore, Eros in Gregorio di Nissa. Una forma dell’agápe effetto della

trasformazione dell’epithymía dopo la tenebra luminosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 51
S. Corso, Giorgio la Piana (1878-1971) carteggi e scritti di un siciliano

modernista d’America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 71
S. Parentiv, La preghiera della cattedra dell’eucologio Barberini gr. 336. . . . . p. 149
G. Radle, Sinai Greek NE / MΓ 22: Late 9th/Early 10th Century Euchology Tes-
timony of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of the Presancti-
fied Gifts in the Byzantine Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 169
R. F. Taft, Is the Liturgy Described in the Mystagogia of Maximus Confessor

Byzantine, Palestinian, or Neither?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 223
R. F. Taft, Were There Once Old Testament Readings in the Byzantine Divine
Liturgy? Apropos of an Article by Sysse Gudrun Engberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 271
NOTE
V. Polidori, Le fonti neotestamentarie del rito nuziale bizantino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 313
RECENSIONI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 323
PUBBLICAZIONI RICEVUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 329
NORME PER I COLLABORATORI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 334
PUBBLICAZIONI DEL MONASTERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 336
INDICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 339
Redazione
Ieromonaco Matteo Kryptoferritis
Amministrazione
Corso del Popolo 128
00046 Grottaferrata (Roma)
tel. (39) 06.945.93.09
fax (39) 06.945.67.34
e-mail: bollettino@abbaziagreca.it
website: www.abbaziagreca.it

Sinai Greek NE 22 Late 9th Early 10th

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sinai Greek NE 22 Late 9th Early 10th

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BOLLETTINO

DELLA BADIA GRECA DI

TERZA SERIE VOL. 8 - 2011

OF THE LITURGY OF ST JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

In May of 1975, one of the most significant discoveries of manu-

BBGG III s. 8 (2011), 169-221

Date and Provenance

Georgian sources, known for conserving Hagiopolite liturgical prayers

ΜΓ67.20 This manuscript was copied by a scribe of the same graphic

This manuscript [?] a complete Euchologion; it is owned by Sa‘id b. Daniel b.

The Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (CHR)

One of the first particularities of ΜΓ 22 is the location of CHR

codex, it was not assigned a primary position within the euchology,

tenth-century Italo-Greek euchology St Petersburg 226, even if the

diaconal Oremus before the prayer contains only Ὀρθοί, ἐν εἰρήνῃ

Prayers of the Faithful

other periphery euchologies conserve other recensions, ΜΓ22 already

The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (PRES)

ebrating cathedral Vespers at a time when innovations or changes

PRES and a non-Byzantine, Hagiopolite PRES (HagPRES).69 The

Κλῖνον, Κύριε τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἐπάκουσόν μου. (Verse 1a)

ΜΓ 22 is one of the earliest liturgical books to include the struc-

Domestikos: Νεανες (Plagal Mode II)

Δόξα σοι ὁ θεός.

Here, the psalm is intoned before the Small Synapte by a soloist,

singing of the refrain after half-verses is also witnessed in other

2) Nothing pertaining to the psalm is indicated before the end of

Κύριε ἐκέκραξα and Entrance

While the choice of this particular prayer is significant, it is also

Prokeimenon and Κατευθυνθήτω

preceded by a note indicating that the priest sings it instead of the

the Dirigatur entered the Constantinopolitan tradition as a simple

The use of the Ektene within the liturgy witnessed an inclusion of

In his volume on the Liturgy of the Word, Mateos showed that in

The Lavabo and Great Entrance

Entrance Chant of PRES [18.1-2]. The presence of the lavabo is very

Other, slightly later pontifical sources of BAS, like the Johannis-

manuscripts of the Prophetologion.133 ΜΓ22 is our earliest extant eu-

The Communion Rites of PRES

The “Anti-Plerotheto” Troparion and Concluding Rites

tempted to attribute a Palestinian origin to this troparion. However,

with early Georgian witnesses to this liturgy,149 its presence in many

The CHR Anaphora of Folio Seven

προπατέρων instead of προπατόρων, stating that this variant “gibt

1) ΜΓ22 appears to rely on a Constantinopolitan source, since it

10) In the vesperal psalms, ΜΓ22 uses the Constantinopolitan sti-

Alexopoulos, Presanctified = S. Alexopoulos, The Presanctified Liturgy in the Byzantine

JAS = The Liturgy of St James

Winkler, “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund” = Gabriele Winkler, “Der geschichtliche

Edition of the text

I have sought to render the present edition of Sinai ΝΕ/ ΜΓ22 in

Critical Signs Employed in the Edition

() used to resolve abbreviations in the text

1. 1) |1r Εὐχὴ τῆς προθέσεως τῶν δώρων ἀποτι[θε]μένου τοῦ ἱερέως

3) Ὁ ἰερεύς⋅ Ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ τὸν οὐράνιον ἄρτον τὴν τροφὴν

2. 1) Ὁ διάκονος⋅ Εὐλόγησον δέσποτα. Ὁ ἱερεύς⋅ Εὐλογημένη

3) Ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν εὐχήν⋅ Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, οὗ τὸ κράτος ἀνείκα-

3. 1) |6r [….........] ἔθου εἰς τὴν διακονίαν ταύτην, ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ

τ[ὸς] μολυσμοῦ σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος, καὶ δὸς ἡμῖν ἀνένοχ[ον]

5. 1) |8r [............ ὀρθοτο]μούντων τὸ[ν λόγον τῆς] σῆς ἀληθείας,

2) Ἔτι προσφέρομέν σοι τὴν λογικὴν τ[αύ]την λατρεί[αν ὑπὲρ τῆς

3) |8v ἐ[κφώνως]⋅ Ἐ[ν πρώτοις] μνήσθητι, Κύριε, τοῦ [πατρὸς καὶ

5) Μνήσθητι, Κ[ύριε, ..... ἐν] ᾗ167 παροι[κοῦμεν .........]

6. 1) Καὶ ἔσται τὰ ἐλέη τοῦ μεγάλου.