-
ORIENTALIA CHRISTIANA ANALECTA254
THE ARMENIAN CHRISTIAN TRADITION
Scholarly Symposium in Honor of the Visit to the Pontifical
Oriental Institute, Rome
of His Holiness KAREKINI
Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians
December 12, 1996
edited by
Robert F. Taft, S. J.Vice Rector of the Pontifical Oriental
Institute
E S T R A T T O
PONTIFICIO IST1TUTO ORIENTALE PIAZZA S. MARIA MAGGIORE, 7
1-00185 ROMA 1997
-
Robert F. Taft, SJ.
The Armenian "Holy Sacrifice (Surb Partarg)" as a Mirror of
Armenian Liturgical History*
I . L i t u r g y a n d C u l t u r e i n A r m e n i a
The Armenian rite differs from the Roman, Byzantine, and other
rites because the lived expression of the Armenian Christian faith
now codi fied liturgically in the Armenian rite was forged in a
different cultural
* The author is indebted to his colleague and friend of many
years, Prof. Dr.Gabriele Winkler, and to his doctoral student Rev.
Deacon Michael Findikyan, forreading the text of this paper and
making helpful suggestions and corrections.Abbreviations:BELS =
Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae, Subsidia.Catergian-Dashian = J.
Catergian, Die Liturgien bei den Armeniem. Ftlnfzehn Texte und
Untersuchungen, hrsg. von J. Dashian (Vienna 1897), in
Armenian.Cowe = Commentary on the Divine Liturgy by Xosrov
Anjewac'i. Translated with an in
troduction by S. Peter Cowe. (Armenian Church Classics. A
Publication of the De partment of Religious Education, Diocese of
the Armenian Church, New York 1991).
EO = Echos dOrient.Findikyan, "Medieval Armenian Liturgy" = M.
Findikyan, "Bishop Step'anos Siwnec'i:
A Source for the Study of Medieval Armenian Liturgy"
Ostkirchliche Sttidien 44 (1995) 171-196.
Kdckert = Friederike Kbckert, Sowrb Patarag "Heiliges Opfer."
Texte und Untersu chungen zur Uturgie der Armenisch Apostolischeri
Orthodoxen Kirche (Dissertation [A] der Fakultat filr Theologie des
Wissenschaftlichen Rates der Martin-Luther- Universitat
Halle-Wittenberg zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades doctor
theologiae [Dr. theol.] Halle/Saale 1986).
LEW = F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford
1896).Nersoyan = Bishop Tiran Nersoyan (ed.), Pataragamatoyc'
hayastaneayc' arak'elakan
allap'ar ekelec'woy Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Apostolic
Orthodox Church (New York 1950). Armenian-English edition of the
Armenian Missal.
OC = Oriens Christianus.OCA = O rientalia C hristiana
Analecta.PO = Patrologia Orientalis.REA = Revue des itudes
armdniennes.Renoux, "Commentaires = Ch. Renoux, Les commentaires
liturgiques armenien-
nes," in A.M. Triacca, A. Pistoia (eds.), Mystagogie: pensee
liturgique d'aujourd'hui et Uturgie ancienne. Conferences
Saint-Serge, XXXIX' Semaine dfetudes liturgi ques, Paris, 30 juin -
3 juillet 1992 (BELS 70, Rome 1993) 277-308.
Taft, Beyond East and West = R. F. Taft, Beyond East and West.
Problems in Liturgical Understanding (Edizioni Orientalia
Christiana, Rome 19972).
Taft, The Christian East = id. (ed.), The Christian East. Its
Institutions & its Thought. A Critical Reflection. Papers of
the International Scholarly Congress for the 75th
-
176 ROBERT F. TAFT, S J .
matrix. What historians of liturgy call a "rite is a coherent,
unified cor pus of liturgical usages followed by Christian churches
within a single ecclesiastical conscription. Before the end of Late
Antiquity the process of the unification of local liturgical usages
into a single "rite" w as still un derway, and we can reconstruct
this process from its extant m onum ents only partially. For these
traces represent but a few sporadic footprints left over from a
long trek.
For Armenia, this journey began in the region of Lake Van, east
of Cappadocia, now on the eastern border of Turkey, north o f the
Syriac Christian cultural centers of Edessa and Osrhoene. The
evangelization of Armenia is traditionally attributed to St.
Gregory the Illuminator1 (ca. 260-ca. 328). St. Gregory received a
Greek education in Caesarea in Cap padocia, and was consecrated a
bishop there around 302. Between 279- 314 Christianity in Armenia
was declared the state religion.
But the principal historical sources concerning these origins
have been frequently reworked, and must be read with great prudence
as wit-
Anniversary of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, 30 May 5
June 1993 (OCA 251, Rome 1996).
Taft, Great Entrance = id., The Great Entrance. A History of the
Transfer o f Gifts and Other Preanaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of
St. John Chrysostom (OCA 200, Rome 197 82).
Taft, Hours = id., The Liturgy o f the Hows in East and West.
Tire Origins o f the Divine Office and its Meaning for Today
(Collegeville 19932).
Winkler, "Decline' = Gabriele Winkler, "Armenia and the Gradual
Decline of its Tradi tional Liturgical Practices as a Result of the
Expanding Influence of the Holy See from the 11th to the 14th
Century," in Lilurgie de Ieglise particulidre et liturgie de legUse
universelle. Conferences Saint-Serge 1975, XXIIe Semaine detudes
liturgi- ques, Paris30juin- 3 juillet 1975 (BELS7,Rome
1976)329-368.
Winkler "Geschichte = eadem, "Zur Geschichte des armenischen
Gottesdienstes in Hinblick auf den in mehreren Wellen erfolgten
griechischen Einfluss, OC 58 (1974) 154-172.
Winkler, Inidationsrituale = eadem, Das armenische
Initiationsrituale. Entwicklungsge- schichtliche und
liturgievergleichende Untersuchung der Quellen des 3. bis 10. Jahr-
hunderts (OCA 217, Rome 1982).
Winkler, Koriwn = eadem, Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop Maitoc'.
Obersetzung und Kommentar (OCA 245, Rome 1994).
Winkler, "Obscure Chapter = eadem, "An Obscure Chapter in
Armenian Church His tory (428-439), REA n.s. 19 (1985) 85-180.
Winkler, Ritus" = eadem, Der armenische Ritus: Bestandsaufnahmc
und neue Er- kenntnisse sowie einige ktlrzere Notizen zur Liturgie
der Georgier, in Taft, The Christian East 266-298. l.e., the
baptizer. In early Christianity or , "illumination," was a
synonym for baptism, which brings one out of the darkness of sin
into Christ, "the light of the world" (Jn 1:4-9, 8:12, 9:5,
12:45-46; 1 Thess 5:5; Heb 6:4, 10:32; Eph 5:14; Col 1:12-13; 1 Jn
1:15, 2:8-11; Rev 21:22-26; cf. Taft, Beyond East and West 171-180;
id., Hours 10, 14-15, 28-9,36-8,211-12, 285-90, 348-51.
-
TH E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" (SURB PATARAG) 177
nesses to history in the making.2 Much like the com m unist
historians, such early Christian sources modified history as they
went along in order to suit the shifting party line.3 We now know
that between the second and fourth centuries Syriac, not Greek
influence was predominant in the formation o f the Armenian rites
of Christian Initiation.4
In Armenia one sees a certain struggle for dominance between
these two strains of Christian culture, the Greek and the Syriac,
with the Greek ultimately gaining the upper hand. This struggle o f
cultures w as not without political overtones. Around 387 Armenia
was divided between the two superpowers o f the day, the Byzantine
and Persian empires, and
2 See the excellent review of the question in M. van Esbroeck,
S.J., "Perspectives pour l'itude des Eglises du Caucase," in Taft,
The Christian East 129-144; on the Ar menian historical sources and
their reinterpretation to bring them in line with the "received
account of Armenian Christian origins, see id., "Les Eglises
orientales non syriennes," Le Museon 106 (1993) 97-117; N.G.
Garsoian, The Epic Histories attributed to P'awstos Buzand
(Buzandaran Patmut'ivmk'). Translation and Commentary (Har vard
Armenian Texts and Studies 8, Cambridge, MA 1989) esp. 1-6, 24; and
R.W. Thomson's comments in his introductions (passim as well as the
pp. indicated) to: Agathangelos, History of the Armenians, trans,
and commentary by R.W. Thomson (Albany, NY 1976) vii-xviii; Moses
Khorenats'i, History o f the Armenians, trans, and commentary by
R.W. Thomson (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 4, Cambridge, MA
1978) 1, 58-61; R.W. Thomson, "Introduction to Moses Khorenats'i,
Pawmut'iwn Hayots' (History o f the Armenians') (Classical Armenian
Text Reprint Series, Delmar, NY 1981) v-xviii; Elishe, History o f
Vardan and the Armenian War, trans, and commen tary by R. W.
Thomson (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 5, Cambridge, MA 1982)
1-2; and Winkler, Koriwn, "Einleitung."
3 The same caution must be exercised with regard to what Winkler
has called "the rewriting of history" in the context of the 5th c.
christological controversy: Winkler, "Obscure Chapter," passim,
esp. 166-9; also eadem, "Die spatere llberarbeitung der armenischen
Quellen zu den Ereignissen der Jahre vor bis nach dem Ephesinum,"
OC 70 (1986) 143-180. For we know that in addition to the
Cappadocian-Greek influence, there was an even earlier, competing
wave of East-Syrian Christian influence from Syriac Osrhoene to the
south: Winkler, "Geschichte," 154-7.
4 Aramaic dialects were in widespread use even among official
scribes, and in the early Armenian documents they composed, "very
few Greek loanwords are to be found": G. Winkler, The History of
the Syriac Prebaptismal Anointing in the Light of the Earliest
Armenian Sources, in Symposium Syriacum 1976 (OCA 205, Rome 1978)
317-324, here 318-9. See also eadem, "Zur fruhehristliehen
Tauftradition in Syrien und Armenien unter Einbezug der Taufe Jesu,
Ostkirchliche Studien 27 (1978) 281- 306; "The Original Meaning of
the Prebaptismal Anointing and its Implications," Wor ship 52
(1978) 24-45; "Die Tauf-Hymnen der Armenier. Ihre Affinitat mit
syrischem Gedankengut, in H. Becker, R. Kaczynski (eds.), Liturgie
und Dichtung. Ein interdiszi- plinares Kompendium, 2 vols.
(Erzabtei St. Ottilien 1983) I, 381-419; and esp. her mag isterial
Initiationsrituale, with extensive further bibliography on the
topic (15-44) and a lengthy historical introduction on the origins
and early development of the Arme nian tradition (47-75); the same,
more succinctly, in eadem, Decline," esp. 329-36.
-
178 ROBERT F. TAFT. S.J.
was in danger of absorption into the Byzantine and Persian
cultures.5 The lions share, Armenia Major, fell under the
overlordship of Persia.
This struggle might not have been a bad thing, for it helped to
break the previous foreign cultural monopoly, fostering the
invention of the Armenian alphabet by the monk Mesrop Matoc at the
beginning of the fifth century, and with it the beginnings of the
Golden Age of Armenian literature.6 These developments led to the
evolution and fixation of a literary language, Grabar or classical
Armenian, suitable for liturgical use.7 Thereafter, liturgical
texts were translated into or composed in Grabar, and the Armenian
church was no longer beholden to foreign cultural centers for its
prayer life. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of
this breakthrough in the history o f Armenian Christian culture and
liturgy. Only from this date can one really speak of an Armenian
rite."
Greek influence did not, of course disappear. Byzantium and its
church exerted enormous cultural influence throughout the East, and
the Armenians and their liturgy were affected too.8 This influence
remained strong especially in the borderlands, where the Greek and
Armenian cultures met and mingled, and the Chalcedonian wing of the
Armenian church remained active right up until [the time of
Armenian Catholicos] John Odznetsi (ca. 650-728).9
But the churches of Byzantium and Persian Mesopotamia were not
the only cultural influences on the Armenian rite. Armenian
Christians carne into contact with the Crusaders as they passed
through Asia Minor on their way to the Holy Land, and from the
eleventh to the fourteenth
5 Winkler. 'Obscure Chapter," 89ff; P. Peters, "Pour 1'histoire
des origines de Tal- phabet arminien," REA 9 (1929) 113-237, here
207-17; N. Garsoian, Armenia between Hvzuntium and the Sasanians
(Variorum Collected Studies Series 218, London 1985) e\p l hapters
HI-IV, VIII-XII; KOckert 4.
6 Peters, "L'alphabet" (previous note) esp. 224-6; Winkler,
Koriwn 226-68; eadem, (rsihichte," 156-7.
Before this, it seems that at least the lections or Scripture
readings were ren dered orally into the vernacular during services:
Cowe 41 note 4, citing his forthcom ing studv "The Two Armenian
Versions of the Chronicles, their Origin and Transla- III.ii
Technique," REA 22 (1990-1991), in press.
* On Greek influence on the Armenian church and hence on its
liturgy see Winkler tjesehnhte and "Obscure Chapter," with the
relevant literature she cites. I respite Persian dominance and the
imposition of Syrian patriarchs to rule the Arme nian i him. h in
Persarmenia from 429 until 437, important groups in the Armenian i
him h continued to favor Byzantine Orthodoxy: Winkler, "Obscure
Chapter," passim, esp 88 IIJ9, 170
'Van ( shn k, "Perspectives" (note 2 above).
-
TH E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" {SURB PATARAG) 179
century we have Latin influence and even Armenian translations
from the Dominican rite of the Order of Preachers, whose members
were active in the area.10 In this matter, however, one must avoid
the common but unexamined and unchallenged historical
double-standard by which Latin influence on eastern liturgies is
always decried as baneful "latinization," whereas the far more
preponderant Byzantine influence one can far more readily speak of
the "byzantinization" of eastern liturgies than of their
latinization seems, for some reason, to be taken for granted.
Furthermore, Byzantine influence was just as heavy- handed as that
of the Latins.11
In summary, then, the Armenian church underwent the following
waves of liturgical influence during the formative period of the
Armenian rite:12
1. In the foundational period, the period of origins, there was
Mesopotamian-Syriac and Cappadocian-Greek influence.13
2. In the period of Late Antiquity, beginning with the fifth
century, we observe considerable hagiopolite influence on the
Armenian liturgy, es pecially in the lectionary and calendar of
feasts and commemorations.14
3. Later in the Middle Ages, from around the beginning of the
second millennium, there was a strong wave of Byzantine
influence.
4. Then, during the Crusades, contact with the Latin armies
passing through Asia Minor resulted in a substantial influx of
elements from the Latin liturgies.
This gives us a framework in which to work. We are dealing with
a compact, national church, limited geographically and ethnicly.
The Armenian Apostolic Church was the Christian church in Armenia
for the
10 Winkler, Decline," esp. 348-53 and 353ff passim; M.A. van den
Oudenrijn, Das Offizium des heiligen Dominicus des Bekenners im
Brevier der Fratres Unitores von Ost- Armenien. Ein Beitrag zur
Missions- und Uturgiegeschichte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Rome 1935).
On Dominican translations from the Latin in general, see L. Ter
Petrossian, Ancient Armenian Translations (New York 1992) llff.
11 Winkler, "Decline,' 329ff.12 The entire history is summarized
in Winkler, Initiationsrituale 47-101 and
"Geschichte"13 See Winkler, Obscure Chapter.14 As Renoux has
abundantly demonstrated in his seminal publications on the
topic: see the APPENDIX at the end of this study; also G.
Winkler, Ungeldste Fragen im Zusammenhang mit den liturgischen
Gebrauchen in Jerusalem, Handes Amsorya 101 (1987) 303-315.
-
180 ROBERT F. TAFT, S J.
Armenians. That sort of situation often spells involution,
cultural xeno phobia, a tradition distrustful of and closed to
others. Surprisingly, this was by no means true of the Armenian
church, and that is the first char acteristic of its rite that
strikes the historian of liturgy: its openness to cultural
exchange.
What resulted from all this is the liturgical tradition we know
as the Armenian rite. Like the Byzantine rite, it does not reach
its full shape until around the fourteenth century, but its basic
lineaments are already clear before the end of the first
millennium.
. T he S u r e Pa t a r a g
I believe that the present shape of the Armenian Surb Patarag (H
oly Sacrifice") or eucharist,15 mirrors to a remarkable degree this
history o f the Armenian rite.16 Since a definitive scholarly
investigation of th is eucharistic liturgy based on the manuscript
tradition and other sources lies ahead, I can offer here but a few
tentative pointers in the direction o f a history still to be
written.
7. Text:
The earliest literary witnesses to the Patarag betray that here,
unlike Baptism, among the two formative streams of influence in the
founda tional period of the Armenian rite, it was the Cappadocian
that predomi nated. Already by the beginning of the fifth century
we find in the Arm e nian Anaphora of Gregory the Illuminator an
early Cappadocian redac tion of the Liturgy of St. Basil translated
into Armenian.17 The wdde-
' 5 Patarag in classical Armenian or Grabar, the Armenian
Church's liturgical language still today, is the word used in the
Armenian Bible (ca. AD 435) to translate the Greek thysia,
"sacrifice," in the Septuagint Greek Old Testament and in the New
Testament as well. Cf. Gen 4:3-4, Ps 50/51:18-19, Lk 2:24. See
Mesrob K. Krikorian, Liturgie und Frfimmigkeit der Armenischen
Kirche, in E. Renhart, A. Schnider (eds.), Sursum corda.
Variationen einem liturgischen Motiv. Fur Philipp Harnoncourt zum
60. Geburtstag (Graz 1990) 58-65, here 58-9.
16 The best overview of scholarship to date, including the
eucharist, with relevant bibliography, is Winkler, "Ritus (on the
Patarag, pp. 274-7). For a review of the best literature on the
Armenian rite see the APPENDIX at the end of this study.
17 H. Engberding, Das eucharistiscke Hochgebet der
Basileiosliturgie (Theologie des christlichen Ostens 1, MUnster
1931) lxxxii; Winkler, "Geschichte, 157-159; J. R. K. Fenwick, The
Anaphoras of St Basil and St James. An Investigation into their
Common Origins (OCA 240, Rome 1992) 299-301 see, however, G.
Winkler's critical review o f
-
TH E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" (Si/RB PATARAG) 181
spread use of this text throughout the Armenian Church in the
fifth cen tury is attested by a long citation from the anaphora in
the history attrib uted to P'awstos (Buzandaran Patmut'iwnk'/Epic
Histories) V, 28,18 a source which tends to reflect not Greek
influence but a southern, Syrian- related provenance.19 The
antiquity of this precious witness to the Basil- ian text is proven
by its agreement with the ancient Sahidic Liturgy of St. Basil over
against the Byzantine and Syriac redactions, which betray a number
o f later developments such as assimilation to the biblical text.
Contrary to what the sixteenth-century Reformers liked to think,
literal fidelity to Scripture in early Christian liturgical texts
is a sign of later redactional adjustments: early liturgies used
Scripture with the abandon characteristic o f the New Testament's
use of the Old.20
Liturgical translations into Armenian proceeded apace in this re
markably productive Golden Age.21 By the end of the fifth century,
the Armenians had translated four other Cappadocian Greek
anaphoras.22
Fenwick in 0C 78 (1994) 269-77. The text is edited not always
reliably: cf. A. Renoux, L'anaphore armdnienne de saint Gregoire
l'llluminateur, in Eucharisties dOrient et d'Occident II (Lex
orandi 47, Paris 1970) 83-108, here 84 note 5 in Catergian-Dashian
120-59. French trans, and discussion in Renoux, L'anaphore
arm6nienne de saint Grdgoire," just cited above. A variant of this
early Armenian re daction of the Basil anaphora is the Anaphora of
Catholicos Sahak, son of the chief Armenian hierarch of the day,
St. Nerses, who was the great-great grandson of St. Gregory the
Illuminator himself: ed. Catergian-Dashian 222-43; Latin trans. P.
Ferhat, "Denkmaler altarmenischer MeBliturgie II. Die angebliche
Liturgie des hi. Catholicos Sahaks," OC n.s. 3 (1913) 16-32. Cf.
Cowe 19-20.
18 Garsoian, P'awstos (note 2 above) 207-9 with the notes on pp.
321-2. Cf. ibid. 23-24; Winkler, "Ritus," 275; Catergian-Dashian
130-5; Cowe 20. Renoux, "L'anaphore armdnienne de saint Gregoire
(previous note) 88-108, gives a French trans, of P'awtos text in
parallel columns with a French version of the anaphora itself.
19 Garsoian (previous note); Cowe 20.20 Engberding,
Basileiosliturgie (note 17 above) lxxff; Cowe 20.21 On Armenian
translations in antiquity, see Ter Petrossian, Translations (note
10
above); on liturgical books, esp. 9, 1 Iff.22 Cowe 20-21;
Winkler, "Geschichte," 159-61; Kokert 114-6. The attribution of
these translations to Catholicos Yovhannes Mandakuni (478-490)
need not be taken ad litteram, however. Two of these anaphoras are
variant recensions of the Liturgy of St. Basil: [1] an earlier
recension attributed to St. Sahak: Armenian text in Catergian-
Dashian 220-43; Latin trans. P. Ferhat, "Denkmaler altarmenischer
MeEliturgie II. Die angebliche Liturgie des hi. Catholicos Sahaks,
OC n.s. 3 (1913) 16-32; [2] a later one, closer to the later
Byzantine redaction, attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria:
Catergian-Dashian 256-67; Latin trans. A. Rucker, "Denkmaler
altarmenischer Mchli- turgie IV. Die Anaphora des Patriarchen
Kyrillos von Alexandreia," OC ser. 3.1 (1927) 143-157. A third is
attributed to Gregory Nazianzen: Catergian-Dashian 244-54; Latin
trans. P. Ferhat, Denkmaler altarmenischer MeEliturgie I. Eine dem
hi. Gregor von Nazianz zugeschriebene Liturgie," OC n.s. 1 (1911)
201-214. In addition to those al-
-
182 ROBERT F. TAFT. S.J.
One of them, attributed to St. Athanasius, would eventually
supplant a l l others in Armenian usage.* 2 * 23 Though Xosrovs
mid-tenth-century c o m mentary is our first witness to this
Armenian Anaphora of St. A thanasius, the formulary is obviously
older. By Xosrov's time it had apparently b e come the only
Armenian eucharistic prayer in general use, for it is th e only one
he takes the time to explain,24 * even if chapter 35 o f his C om m
en tary shows that he knew of the existence of other anaphoral form
ular ies.23
Nor did the Armenian eucharist escape being affected by the stro
n g influence Jerusalem exercised on the Christian liturgies of
Late A ntiq uity. The discovery of the Holy Places after the Peace
of Constantine in 312, ushered in the Holy Land pilgrimage era, and
in this period C hris tians from Armenia as elsewhere not only
translated the hagiopolite Anaphora of St. James,26 but also used
it for the model of m uch in th eir own eucharistic service. For
example, the structure of the preces after the lections follow a
hagiopolite rather than the Antiochene format u sed by the
Byzantines. As we shall see below, the same Jerusalem stam p
still
ready mentioned, there is an extant fragment of an Armenian
Anaphora of St. Kpiphanius: B. Botte, Fragments dune anaphore
inconnue attribuee a S. Epiphane," UMusfan 73 (1960) 311-315; G.
Garitte, 'line opuscule grec traduit de l'armdnien su r (addition
deau au vin eucharistique," Le Musion 73 (1960) 306-308; Cowe 42
note 13; Catergian-Dashian 300-3. Many of these anaphoras in Grabar
are translations from other traditions, including the Roman Mass.
Most of them are found in only one ms, /.vom arm. 17 (olim 15) (AD
1314), and it is by no means certain that these texts were widelv
used, even if the ms assigns the days on which this or that prayer
is to be used.
2i see J.-M. Hanssens, Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus
orientalibus II-III (Rome1930, 1932) III, 1497, 1566. Also H.
Engberding, Das anaphorische Fiirbittgebet der armenischen
Athanasiusliturgie," REA 4 (1967) 49-55. As Gabriele Winkler
(Tubingen) stated (note 33 above), this comer of the field is also
white for the harvest hut the laborers are few, and the Armenian
anaphoras await the results of the research presently underway
under her direction (see the APPENDIX at the end of this study). In
addition to the Armenian anaphoras mentioned in the previous note,
som e other Armenian anaphoras have been translated into western
languages; G. Aucher,"La versione armena della Liturgia di S.
Giovanni Crisostomo, in XPYCOCTOMIKA. Studi e ricerehe intomo a S.
Giovanni Crisostomo, a cura del comitato per il XV cente nario
della sua morte, 407-1907 (Rome 1908) 359-404; A. Rucker,
"Denkmaler altarme- msther Meflliturgie V. Die Anaphora des
heiligen Ignatius von Antiochien," OC ser. 3.5 (1930) 86-79.
24 Commentary 52ff = Cowe 138ff, cf. 21.Ct. Cowe 42 note 13.(
atergian-Dashian 435-50; Latin trans. A. Baumstark, "Denkmaler
altarmeni-
-,i lu/i MeKliturgie III. Die armenische Rezension des
Jakobusliturgie," OC n.s. 7-8 1 19)81 I 32; cf. Cowe 21. The Greek
text is edited critically in B.-Ch. Mercier (ed.), La I : de S.
Jacques. Edition critique, avec traduction latine (PO 26.2, Paris
1946).
-
THE AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE (SW tB PATARAG) 183
marks the twofold chant following lections, and the diptychs
during the anaphora.
A second wave of Greek influence follows the metamorphosis of
the Eastern Roman Empire into the Byzantine Empire. In the period
be tween 381-451 the Byzantine church rose to predominance and in
the course of the first millennium gradually spread its hegemony
throughout Asia Minor and the whole East. Towards the end of this
epoch, Byzantine influence on the Armenian eucharist will become
predominant, leading to a new wave of translations. We see this,
for instance, in the ninth and tenth centuries, when the Liturgy of
St. Basil in its later, more developed Byzantine redaction was
again translated into Armenian.27
2. Ordo:
But Greek influence was not limited to the translation of Greek
texts. We see it also in the Byzantinization of the Prothesis,
Enarxis, Great- Entrance, and Dismissal rites of the Patarag in the
same period. By the thirteenth century a translation of the
Byzantine redaction of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom had also
been made.28
A comparison between the Patarag ordo in the oldest sources and
its present structure provides a perfect mirror of the history I
have been describing. First of all, many of the available
eucharistic texts contain only the anaphoral section of the
Patarag. For the complete ordo we must turn to the Armenian
liturgical commentaries. Liturgical commentaries are explanations
of the liturgical services by church writers, usually monks or
bishops. Of the extant classic commentaries on the Armenian
liturgy,29 only three of the nine that deal with the eucharist30
have been published. The earliest is that of Xosrov Anjewac'i (ca.
900-ca. 963), bishop of Anjewac'ik' from around 950,31 who wrote it
as a sort of liturgi-
27 Winkler, "Geschichte, 170-172. An investigation of both
redactions has been undertaken by E. Renhart (see APPENDIX
below).
28 Ibid. 171, and Aucher, Laversione armena, (note 23 above).29
On the Armenian liturgical commentaries see Renoux, "Commentaires;
LEW
xcix-c.30 Cowe 87-92 lists them.31 Renoux, "Commentaires,"
299-303. This is the only Patarag commentary for
which a complete translation, in Latin, has been available: P.
Vetter, Chosroae magni episcopi monophysitici Explicatio precum
missae, (Freiburg im B. 1880). But we now have the new and
excellent re-edition of the Armenian text of the Venice edition of
1869 with English translation of this seminal primary source (see
Cowe). Cf. also S.
-
184 ROBERT F. TAFT. S.J.
cal catechism for the faithful of his diocese.32 The long and
critically important twelfth-century Commentary on the H oly
Sacrifice (Meknut'iwn Srhoy Pataragi) of the young Nerses
Lambronac'i (1152/3-1198) i.e., o f Lambron bishop of Tarsus in
Cilicia from 1175-1198, has been pub lished only in Armenian
(Venice 1847).33 N erses of Lambron was the nephew of Catholicos
Nerses Snorhali (d. 1173), whose liturgical reforms were inspired
by Byzantine and Latin models, and his nephew's com mentary
describes a highly-byzantinized form o f the Armenian Patarag,34
The third published commentary, by Yovhannes (Ospnaker) ArdiSeci
(ca. 1260-ca. 1330),35 though generally dismissed as little more
than a com pi lation of the two earlier commentaries, is actually
more original than once thought.36
Salaville, "Consecration et 6picldse daprds Chosrov le Grand,"
EO 14 (1911) 10-16; id., LExplication de la messe de I'armenien
Chosrov (950). Thdologie et liturgie," EO 39 (1940-1942)
349-382.
32 Salaville, "LExplication de la messe" (cit. previous note)
380; Kockert 112. Xosrov also wrote a commentary on the Divine
Office. See Renoux, "Commentaires, 295-7; V. Inglisian, Die
armenische Literatur = Handhuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung I: Der
nahe und der mitdere Osten, ed. B. Spuler (Leiden-Cologne 1963)
156-254, here 186; F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum (Oxford 1905)
502-7. There is also an older history of Armenian literature: F. N.
Finck, Geschichte der armenischen Literatur = Geschichte
derchristlichen Literatur, Bd. 7. Abt. 2. (Leipzig 1909).
33 Cf. Renoux, "Commentaires," 303-5. A French translation for
the collection Sources chrdtiennes, said to be in preparation for
decades, is yet to see the light of day, though sections of this
commentary, have appeared in translation in various studies; Alcuni
squarci del Commentario di S. N. Lambronense sulla Liturgia Armena
(Venezia 1851); . Dulaurier, Receuil des historiens des croisades.
Documents - niens, vol. 1 (Paris 1859) 569-78; Claudio Gugerotti,
L'interazione dei ruoli in una cele bratione come mistagogia (Caro
Salutis Cardo, Studi, 8, Istituto di Liturgia Pastora le, Abbazia
di S. Giustina, Padova 1991) passim. Cf. also S. Salaville,
"Consecration et ipiclese dans l'Eglise arminienne au Xlle sidcle.
Temoignage de saint Nersds de Lampron, EO 16 (1913) 28-31; J. Sab,
"La forma delleucaristia e l'epiclesi nella litur gia armena
secondo Nerses Lambronatzi, Studia Orientalia Christiana,
Collectanea 4 (Cairo 1959) 131-183.
34 B. L. Zekiyan, "Les rdlations armino-byzantines aprds la mort
de St. Nerses Snorhali," Jahrbuch der bsteneichischen Byiantinistik
32.4 (1982) 331-337, here 333-6; Winkler, "Decline," 338-41;
Kockert 113.
35 Cowe (91 notes 9, 12) lists four editions.3fi Ct. Renoux,
"Commentaires, 305-6. In addition, there is an 8th c.
commentary
on the lectionary by Grigoris ArSaruni, available in a modem
edition: Grigoris ArSa- mni. Meknut'iwn snt'erc'uaioc'
(Bibliothdque arminienne de la Fondation Caloustc (iiillx-nkian,
Venice 1964); id., Commentaire du lectionnaire. Traduction
frangaise, introduction et notes par. L. M, Froidevaux (Bibliotheca
Armeniaca Textus et Studia I. Venice-Sl. Lazarus 1975). The other
commentators, some of them from the turn of die 7th to the 8th e
extraordinarily early for the relatively rare genre of commenta-
lies on the hours, deal with the Divine Office, an area often
neglected in other
-
TH E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE (SURB PATARAG) 185
The commentary of Xosrov and the Anaphora of Gregory the Illum i
nator illustrate the truism that liturgies grow at their soft
points places where originally there was ritual activity
unaccompanied by chants or prayers37 and also at the beginning and
end. The reasons are obvious. Like nature, medieval liturgy
abhorred a vacuum. Besides, it is easier to insert things new into
the empty cracks of a service, or at its beginning and end, than to
mess with elements already a fixed part o f the existing text.
As I have shown elsewhere,38 the three principal soft points o f
the ancient structure of the eucharist as it emerges already ca. a
d 150 in Justin, Apology I, 65, 6739 the opening of the liturgy,
the transfer of gifts and preparation for the anaphora, and the
communion originally points o f action without words," eventually
came to be filled in every where by a threefold structure
comprising:
1. an action2. covered by a chant3. concluded by a prayer.
In the Armenian Patarag this process is visible especially in
the open ing rites, preanaphora, and dismissal, but less in the
communion rites. Let us examine these elements in the order in
which they occur in the Patarag.
a. The Enarxis40 41
Xosrov begins his commentary on the Divine Liturgy abruptly,
with the preanaphoral rites that follow the Gospel and Creed. Cowe
believed this was because Xosrov had already explained the Liturgy
of the Word in his commentary on the CaJSu zam.*' This Armenian
Midday Hour or
traditions especially at that early date. See Renoux,
"Commentaires," 289-98; Cowe 25; cf. Taft, Hours 219-220.
37 I develop and illustrate this principle in "How Liturgies
Grow, ch. 11 of Taft, Beyond East and West 203-32, esp. 204.
38 Ibid. 204 and chapter 11 passim.39 PG 6:428-9.40 A new study
on the Armenian Liturgy of the Word became available to me only
after this paper was completed: Ch. Renoux, "La celebration de
la parole dans le rite armenien avant le X' siScle," in A. M.
Triacca, A. Pistoia (eds.), L'eucharistie: celebra tions. rites,
pieties. Conferences Saint-Serge, XLP Semaine ddtudes liturgiques,
Paris 28 juin - 1 juillet 1994 (BELS 79, Rome 1995) 321-330.
41 Cowe 6-7, 24ff.
-
186 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J,
"synaxis" (Cas means, among other things, the midday repast) is
a serv ice analogous to the Byzantine Typika, a Palestinian m
onastic com m u n ion service.42 This is but one more proof of the
strong hagiopolite in flu en ce in the formation of the Armenian
rite, as amply demonstrated by R e - noux's monumental work on the
lectionary.43
But does it also, as Cowe theorizes, provide the key to an
aspect o f Xosrovs commentary that has long puzzled students o f
Armenian liturgy: the fact that Xosrov begins his commentary
abruptly with the interces sions following the lections and Creed,
without a word about th e Enarxis?44 Cowe argues that Xosrovs
commentary on the eucharist w a s meant to be accompanied by his
similar treatment of the hours:45 b o th were conceived as a single
work even if they have always been published separately. It is
there, Cowe says, in the commentary on the Divine Of fice, that
Xosrov treats the Enands material, which at that date w as already
a permanent fixture of the Patarag, as is evident from the eighth-
century commentaries treated immediately below.46 But Cowes theory
has been challenged by Michael Findikyan:
Xosrovs Commentary on the Office has been published only as part
of a redaction by MovsSs Erznac'i (d. 1323). This is a florilegium
in which we find Xosrov's Commentary on the Hours intercalated
among the writings of other liturgical commentators. The problem is
that in Xosrov's Commentary as given in this re daction, nowhere do
we find Xosrov commenting on anything resembling a Lit urgy of the
Word. Xosrovs discussion of the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours is
lim ited to his charactristic word-for-word commentary' of the
proclamations and prayers of those little hours with no mention of
scripture readings, alleluia, gos pel, Trisagion, the creed,
psalms, etc.
Consequently, Cowe's sketch ot the Liturgy of the Word47 is
based not on Xosrov, but on YovhannSs Ojnec'i, in whose
eighth-century commentary on the Office we do indeed find the ordo
of the Liturgy of the Word under the heading of
42 J. Mateos, "Un horologion inedit de S. Sabas. Le codex
sinai'lique grcc 863 (IX'-' siecle)," in Mdlanges E. Tisserant,
III. 1 (Studi e testi 233, Vatican 1964) 47-76, esp. 54- 5; cf. J.
Mateos, La cdlebration de la parole dans la liturgie byzcintine
(OCA 191, Rome 1971) 68-71. For further sources of what Baumstark
calls "the Old Palestinian Melkite Rite" see Baumstark, Comparative
Liturgy (Westminster, MD 1958) 223-4; R. F. Taft, The Byzantine
Rite. A Short History (American Essays in Liturgy Series,
Collegeville 1992)56-57 and the literature cited pp. 64-5: notes
26-31.
45 Relevant bibliography in APPENDIX below and Winkler, "Ritus,
265-6 (note 2), 297.
44 Cowe 24-8, cf. 97, 1.45 On this work, see also Renoux,
"Commentaires," 295-7.46 Cowe 25.47 Ibid. 26.
-
T H E AREM NIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" (.SURB PATARAG) 187
the Third-Hour Office on Sunday. This ordo is also found in
Movsgs Erznac'i'sflorilegiurn.48
Since O jneci (ca. 650-728) antedates X osrov (ca. 900-ca. 963)
by m ore than a century, X osrov cannot have been unaware of the
ritual Ojneci described. But the problem Findikyan has raised
remains: "Why does X osrov om it any reference at all to these
essentiallydefining elem ents of the Sunday Morning Office/Liturgy
of the Word?49 Possibly because this (fasu ia m W ord service could
be celebrated separately, and, like the Byz antine Typika, w as
doubtless originally designed for aliturgical days w hen the
eucharist was not celebrated. It had been prefixed to the Arme nian
Patarag since at least the beginning o f the eighth century, by the
tim e o f Step'anos Siwnec'i (ca. 680-735).50 Step'anos and
Catholicos Yovhannes O jneci (ca. 650-728) seem to have known the
same basic structure for this service, though Step'anos is m ore
detailed.51 And after the Creed, Step'anos adds to his outline of
the service the precious codicil: "and the H oly Mystery (surb
xorhurdn i.e., the eucharist) w hich is called dasazam n.52 Though
today the CaSu ia m is celebrated w ithout H oly Comm union on days
when there is no Patarag,53 it seem s originally to have been a
presanctified com m union service for non- eucharistic days. This
is obvious from its structure, which, like the Byzantine Typika,
com prises the Enarxis or opening part o f the full eucharist. The
Armenian service follows this with the lections and intercessions,
and then jumps to the com m union service: the Lords Prayer and its
doxology, the Sancta sanctis and its response, the psalm, the
Skeuophylakion Prayer of the Byzantine Chrysostom Liturgy i.e. the
com im inion and dismissal rites o f the Patarag, but, today,
omitting the m anual acts and com m union.54
Unlike the present Enarxis and Casu iam , however, the latter
service in the com m entary o f Step'anos Siwnec'i, Commentary on
the Liturgy o f
48 M. Findikyan, The Origin and Development of the Divine
Liturgy of the Armenian Church" (unpublished seminar paper 1993)
13.
49 Ibid.59 On Step'anos, see Findikyan, "Medieval Armenian
Liturgy," esp. 174ff.51 Ibid. 182-3.52 S. Amatowni (ed.),
Zamakargul'ean Meknut'iwn mdarfak ew hamarOt Step'anosi
Siwneac' Episkoposi (Ejmiac'in 1917) 64. The crucial passage
from the commentary on the hours by Yovhannes Ojnec'i concerning
the CaSu iam is translated by Cowe 26- 8 .
53 Nersoyan 119.54 Compare Nersoyan 35-53 with 118-21, and
82-101 with 122-5.
-
188 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J.
the Hours, chapter 6: How are the prayers of the Third Hour to
be un derstood?", has only one psalm before the Trisagion:55
Ps 92/93:1-5 Elevation of the Gospel "PfosxumS" (= )Procession
with Gospel and TrisagionLitanyPs 64/65:2Prophecy (= OT
Lesson)Mesedi (= Responsory)Apostle (= NT Epistle
Lesson)AlleluiaGospelCreedLitanyThe Holy Mystery (= Eucharist)
Todays Armenian Enarxis structure56 is much more complex, includ
ing the following elements. Those marked with a cross (f) are
additions borrowed from the Byzantine rite; those in boldface are
the only ones mentioned in the earlier Caiu zam as outlined by
Step'anos Siwnec'i:
flnitial Blessing2am am ut (= Introit: on Sundays the
fMonogenes)OremusDoxologyPeace to allInclinationf Prayer of
Antiphon ICaSu AntiphonfPrayer of Antiphon IItP rayer of Antiphon
IIIfln tro it PrayerElevation of the Gospel
55 Ed. Amatuni (note 52 above) 64-9; English translation and
thorough analysis in Michael FindiJcyan, Bishop Step'anos Siwnec'i
(c. 685-735) and the Armenian Liturgy of the Word (unpublished
Licentiate thesis, written under my direction at the Pontificio
Istituto Orientale, Rome 1994) text 22-8, cf. also 50; id.,
"Medieval Armenian Liturgy," 182ff.
56 Ncrsoyan 34-45; LEW 421-5.
-
T H E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" (SURB PATARAG) 189
ProsxumE (= )Intro it Trisagion fTrisagion Prayer LitanyfEktene
PrayerThe rest as above in Step'anos
The conclusion seems ineluctable: in Armenia, like everywhere
else, the original Introit Antiphon comprised one psalm, in this
case Ps 92/93, with its proper troparion or refrain. The fact that
Ps 92/93 is also the psalm of Antiphon of the Byzantine Enarxis on
ordinary days, I would consider purely fortuitous. In Armenia it
opens the service: Yovhannes Qjnec'i refers thus to the Casu
Antiphon for Sundays: And then the be ginning of the service: "The
Lord reigned, he is robed in majesty [Ps 92/92:l] .57 Had the
Armenians borrowed this opening Antiphon from Byzantium, they would
more likely have borrowed either the pristine Byzantine Introit
Antiphon (now Antiphon EH) Ps 94/95 or the Byz antine Antiphon I of
the later three-antiphon structure, Ps 91/92. But the choice of the
psalm of Byzantine Antiphon is inexplicable unless the Armenians
chose Ps 92/93 as their Introit not at all in imitation of the
Byzantines,58 but because of the suitability of the psalm text to
express the high christology and strong incamational stress of the
Armenian tradition ("The Lord reigned, he is robed in m ajesty...
he has girded himself with might... Thou art from everlasting...
The Lord on high is mighty...). This is reinforced by the fact that
the Armenian refrains with which the psalm is farsed take their cue
from the psalm incipit, and owe nothing to Byzantium.59
Later changes in the Armenian Enarxis are the result of massive
Byz antine influence, and one does not need to look far to see
where it came from. In the order of the Enands of the Patarag in
the commentary of Nerses of Lambron, bishop of Tarsus (1175-1198),
we see an even more heavily byzantinized ordo (the only native
Armenian elements are in boldface):
57 Catergian-Dashian 513-8, cited by Kdckert 149 and note 25.58
The Byzantine Enarxis has developed by the first half of the eighth
century
(Mateos. Citibration (note 42 above) 27-126, esp. 27-45; Taft,
Beyond East and West 206-17); the Armenian psalm is found in the
Casu iam in the earliest Armenian com mentators from roughly the
same period.
59 Kockert 150.
-
190 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J.
Deacon: "Bless, master,Priest: "Blessed is the
kingdom..."Deacon: Litany of 17 petitions, basically an Armenian
adaptation of th e
Byzantine Great Synapte.60Priest: Prayer of Antiphon I in
silence, w ith its doxology aloud at the en d
of the litany.Choirs: Ps 91/92:2, 16 + "Glory be to the
Father... + refrain "Glory to you
0 God, followed by the Monogenes.Deacon: Armenian adaptation of
the Small Synapte.Priest: Prayer of Antiphon II in silence,
doxology aloud.Peace to all!Prayer of Antiphon III.Choirs: Ps
92/93:la, lb + Refrain (verse 1 of todays 0aSu refrain,
tone 6 for Sundays); Ps 92/93:3, 2 (sic).Deacon:
"Prosxume!People: Trisagion.
This is for ordinary Patarag celebrations. At solemn feasts or
pontifi cal liturgies, the bishop enters the church to vest during
the Great Syn apte, but does not enter the sanctuary until the
singing of Ps 94/95 w ith alleluia, which is preceded by a Small
Synapte:
Deacon: Small SynapteArchpriest in sanctuary: Prayer of Antiphon
IIIChoirs: Ps 94/95: verse 1 + alleluia, verse 2 + alleluia, "Glory
be to the F a
ther... + alleluia, "Now and ever..." + alleluiaMeanwhile the
bishop and priests say the Introit Prayer in silence, befo re
entering the sanctuary.And when Ps 94/95:5b is sung, they enter
the sanctuary, and the p ries t
says Ps 94/95:6-7.Proper refrains sung while the bishop
incensesTrisagion and Trisagion PrayerLitany and prayerAscent to
the throneScriptural lections
This is simply an adaptation of the three-psalm (Pss 91/92,
92/93, 94/95) Enarxis of the Byzantine Liturgy61 with a few
armenianisms here
60 It is similar to but longer than the one in LW 424-5.Bl I
give a precis of its development in Taft, Beyond East and West
206-17.
-
THE AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE (SVRB PATARAG) 191
and there. And today's Armenian Enarxis ordo is just an
abbreviated form of the presbyteral ordo in Nerses. But if these
changes were already in place by the time of Nerses in the last
quarter of the twelfth century, they could not have been more than
a century old. Some of the byzantin- ism s e.g., the attribution of
the Prothesis Prayer to Chrysostom and th e Initial Blessing62
could not have existed before the turn of the mil lennium.63 And
the Armenians borrowed Byzantine Prothesis rite, with its borrowed
Byzantine Incense Prayer following the Prothesis Prayer,64 not
before it as in later Byzantine usage,65 exhibits a structure first
seen in the tenth-century Byzantine Uspensldj Euchology of codex
St. Peters burg Gr. 226.66
Furthermore, Renoux has shown in his recent study of the CaSoc'
or Armenian lectionary manuscripts that the liturgical unit of
three psalms plus alleluia at the beginning of the eucharist
appears only in lectionary manuscripts from Cilicia, beginning in
the thirteenth century.67 Earlier sources provide only one opening
psalm.
All this leads us back to the influence of the Byzantine rite
during the period of the Catholicosate of Cilicia, when relations
with the Byzantines intensified, the Chalcedonian doctrine was
widely accepted, and numer-
62 LEW 419.7-26, 421.9-11.63 Since the Liturgy of St. Basil was
the principal Byzantine eucharistic liturgy
during the first millennium, had the prayer been borrowed before
the Chrysostom liturgy had taken the lead and moved up to occupy
first place in the euchology mss, the prayer would doubtless have
been attributed to St. Basil. As for the opening bless ing (LEW
362.25-6), it was introduced in the 10th century: S. Parenti,
L'eucologio manoscritto .. IV (X. sec.) della Bihlioteca di
Grottaferrata. Ediiione (Excerpta ex Dissertatione ad Doctoratum,
Rome, Pontificio Istituto Orientale 1994) 4, 31; cf. also G.
Passarelli, "Osservazioni liturgiche," Bollettino della Badia Greca
di Grottafer rata 33 (1979) 75-85; id., L'eucologio Cryptense VII
(sec. X) (Analekta Vlatadon 36, Thessalonika 1982) 39-40. Kockert
(148) is wrong in asserting that the Initial Blessing is found in
the 8th c. codex Barberini 336, the oldest extant Byzantine
euchology. In his edition (LEW 310:12-13) Brightman took the
liberty to fill in what he considered lacunae" in this ms, thereby
disseminating endless confusion only now dissipated, for those who
have not read either the ms or Brightman s notes, with the new
critical edition of the Barberini text: S. Parenti and Elena
Velkovska (eds.), L'Eucologio Barberini gr. 336 (ff. 1-263) (BELS
80, Rome 1995) 1-2.
64LEW419.65 LEW 359.33-6, cf. 360.31-361.5.66 N. F.
Krasnosel'cev, Caedeum a nexomopux MtmypemecKux pyKonucsx
BamuKancKou
BuOmommi (Kazan 1885) 283-4; cf. also the 12th c. codex Oxford
Bodleian Auct. E. 5.13 (LEW 542-543), in contrast to the other
sources cited in LEW 539-49.
67 Renoux, Le lectionnaire de Jerusalem en Armenie (see APPENDIX
below) PO 44.4:477-80.
-
192 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J.
ous byzantinisms were introduced into the liturgy under
Catholicos Nerses IV Snorhali (1166-1173) and his successors.68 and
especially through the influence of Nerses of Lambron,
hymnographer, orator, li turgical commentator, and fervent exponent
of religious union with the Latins and Greeks, both of whose
languages he knew.69
b. The Preanaphoral Rites
The second "soft point'' of the liturgy falls in the
preanaphora. The li turgical material found between the Scripture
readings and the anaphora reflects the same symbiosis of Armenian,
Jerusalem (*), and Byzantine (t) elements:70
GospelCreedin tercessions with "Angel of Peace biddings*Peace to
allin c lin a tio n Prayer*DismissalstN em o dignusGreat-Entrance
Chant IGreat-Entrance Chant IIfGreat-Entrance Chant Transfer,
deposition, incensing of gifts*LavaboAccessus diakonika and prayer
Pax
Though one might be tempted to attribute to medieval Latin
influence the location of the Creed right after the Gospel, where
it occurs only in the Roman and Armenian rites, this is hardly
probable. As we saw above, the Creed is found here as early as
Yovhannes Ojnec'i (ca. 650-728) and
68 The "theopaschite clause" of the Trisagion is suppressed,
zeon (hot water) added to the chalice, olive oil introduced in
place of sesame for the chrism, and the Byzantine dates for
Annunciation (March 25 instead of the Armenian date of April 7,
calculated on the basis of Armenian adherence to the old Jerusalem
date of Nativity January 6), Circumcision, etc., imposed. See
Frangois Toumebidze, S.J., Histoire politique et religieusede
IArmenie (Paris 1910) 250ff; cf. Mansi 22:198.
69 Toumebidze (cit. previous note) 260-65.70 LEW 426-34.
-
T H E AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" {SURB VATARAG) 193
Step'anos Siwneci (ca. 680-735) at the turn o f the
seventh-eighth cen tury, long before we can postulate Latin
influence in Armenia.
c. The Preanaphoral Chants
The present system of three preanaphoral chants reflects the
same in fluences. The third chant is a late Byzantine borrowing.
The original Armenian structure had only two chants, obviously
derived from the hagiopolite preanaphora of the Liturgy of St.
James, with its two chants, the Lavabo chant after the lections,
and the Holies ( - vov ) or Sanctuary ( ) chant at the transfer o f
gifts.71 The fact that the latter is preceded by the diaconal
admonition to sing be trays hagiopolite provenance too, even if it
is misplaced, belonging instead before the first chant, which
preceded the dismissals o f the Lit urgy of James.72
Of the three Great Entrance chants in present use, only the
second is the native Armenian Hagiology chant. The first ("The body
of the Lord...") is an East-Syrian borrowing,73 the third is
Byzantine, as is the Nemo dignus prayer.74 Here, too, the
byzantinisms can be dated to after the turn of the millennium: this
Byzantine prayer is a medieval addition not found in the earliest
Greek manuscripts of the Chrysostom liturgy and missing even in two
tenth-century sources of the Liturgy of St. Basil.75
The present location of the Lavabo or handwashing following the
Deposition of the Gifts76 also reflects Byzantine structures
anterior to the twelfth century, when the Byzantine Lavabo began to
be moved up to its present place before the Great Entrance and was
ultimately restricted to the pontifical liturgy.77 The original
place o f the Lavabo in hagiopolite
71 On this whole question see H. Leeb, Die Gesange im
Gemeindegottesdienst von Jerusalem (vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert)
(Wiener Beitrage zur Theologie, Vienna 1970) 99-124; Taft, Great
Entrance 41, 70-76, 92-4, 99-102, 113-14; id., "The 'Bematikion ( )
in the 6-7th c. Narration of Abbots John and Sophronius" (in
press).
72 Compare 26:176.18ff, LEW 430-1.73 Compare LEW 267.33-268.2,
430.18-24.74 LEW 430. On the Byzantine origins of this chant and
prayer, see Taft, Great En
trance 68-76, 130-34.73 Taft, Great Entrance 121-30.76 LEW
432.
77 Taft, Great Entrance 166-170, 175-7. Kockert (111) takes me
to task For this comparison, but she has misunderstood my point. I
am not trying to show that the Armenian Patarag is an earlier form
of the Byzantine eucharist, but simply to hy-
-
194 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J.
usage was earlier, with the Lavabo chant at the very start of
the preana- phoral rites.78
d. The Diptychs
The diptychs accompanying the anaphoral intercessions also show
unmistakable signs of Byzantine and hagiopolite influence.79 From
Byz antium comes the ordering of the intercessions, with the dead
com memorated first, as found in Byzantine usage.80 This is foreign
to the Armenian anaphoral intercessions, which follow the structure
of the Liturgy of St. James. The influence of the same liturgy is
also reflected in the diptychs, by the way in which the remembrance
of the dead, then the living, concludes by returning again to the
dead, then the living, and fi nally everyone.81
e. The Commmunion and Final Rites
Though the Byzantine Elevation Prayer has entered the Armenian
communion rites,82 which, in common with Byzantium, have also pre
served the earlier christological response to the Sancta sanctis,83
the clos ing rites of the Patarag also betray later Byzantine and
Latin influence: the Final Blessing or Opisthambonos Prayer and the
Consummation Prayer are lifted right out of the Chrysostom
liturgy84 only to be fol lowed by the Last Gospel of the
pre-Vatican Roman Mass!85
pothesize that Byzantine influence on the Armenian Great
Entrance can probably be dated to around the tenth century, when
the Byzantine Great Entrance rites exhibited a simply structure
still reflected in the Patarag.
78 See references in note 71 above.79 See texts and analysis in
R. F. Taft, A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysos
tom, IV: The Diptychs (OCA 238, Rome 1991) 66-71.80 LEW
330-36.81 Compare PO 26:206.25-220.17, LEW 439.27-440.5, 442.35
(right col.)-443.37; cf.
Taft, Diptychs (note 79 above) 68.82 Compare LEW 341.7-11 with
448.6-17. On this prayer see R. F. Taft, "The
Precommunion Elevation of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, OCP 62
(1996) 15-52.83 Compare LEW 347.17-8, 447.13-4, and cf. R. F. Taft,
"Holy Things for the
Saints'. The Ancient Call to Communion and its Response, in G.
Austen (ed.), Foun tain o f Life. In Memory o f Neils K. Rasmussen,
O.P. (NPM Studies in Church Music and Liturgy, Washington, D.C.
1991) 87-102.
84 LEW 455.22-456.4 = 397.28-398.14.85 LEW 456.5-25.
-
THE AREMNIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" (SURB PATARAG) 195
m . Co n c l u s io n
So the Armenian Patarag, like other rituals of the Armenian rite
and, indeed, of any eastern rite, is like an archeological dig.
Slice through the tell and one finds a layer-cake of strata
mirroring the phases of Armenian cultural and religious history.
The first or lowest level is the Armenian Urgut derived from
East-Syrian Mesopotamia and Greek Cap padocia. Then, from the fifth
century, we observe a steady stream of hagiopolite borrowings,
especially in the calendar and lectionaiy. The second millennium is
characterized by heavy Byzantine and Latin influ ence.
What is most remarkable about Armenian religious culture viewed
in the mirror of the Patarag, is its receptivity to cultural
exchange. Since the Council of Chalcedon (451), Byzantium had had
doctrinal differences with the Armenians, and since the Quinisext
Council "in Trullo," held at Constantinople just over 1300 years
ago (691/2), the Byzantine Orthodox Church had consolidated its own
rite while turning its face against the different usages of its
principal neighbors, the Armenians and the Latin West.86 Though
busy holding off the Persians and those who succeeded them, and
coping with their powerful Christian neighbor Byzantium on their
doorstep, the Armenians, by contrast, were remarkably open to the
uses of other nations, absorbing Latin and Byzantine customs with
rela tive sang-froid. Xosrov's own receptivity often led him to be
considered a Chalcedonian, as were numerous Armenian ecclesiastics,
including Nerses Lambronac'i, in the centuries after that dolorous
misunder standing.
In view of the savage ethnic and religious tribalism rending
large parts of the world today, this could provide a lesson for us
all.
A p p e n d i x : S e l e c t s c h o l a r l y L i t e r a t u
r e o n t h e Ar m e n i a n L i t u r g y
On the Casoc' or typikon-Iectionary and the church calendar with
its cycle of feasts, see above all the studies of Renoux; Charles
(Athanase) Renoux, "Un manuscrit du lectionnaire armdnien de
Jirusalem (cod. Jerus. arm. 121)/ Le Musion 74 (1961) 361-3S5;
"Liturgie de Jerusalem et Iectionnaires armdniens. Vigiles et annee
litur- gique, in Mons Cassien, B. Botte (eds.), La Priere des
heures (Lex orandi 35, Paris 1963) 167-199; "LEpiphanie a Jerusalem
au IVe et au Ve sihcle d'aprts Ie lectionnaire armdnien de
Jerusalem," REA n.s. 2 (1965) 343-359 = Noel, Epiphanie, retour du
Christ (Lex orandi 40, Paris 1967) 171-193; Les catechdses
mystagogiques dans l'organisa-
86 Canons 32-33, 55-56, 81, 99, G. Nedungatt, M. Featherstone
(eds.), The Council in Trullo Revisited (Kanonika 6, Rome 1995)
106-1 1, 136-8, 161-2, 179-80.
-
196 ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J.
tion liturgique Hierosolymitaine du IVe et du Vc siecle," Le.
Musion 78 (1965) 355-359; "Les lectures du temps pascal dans la
tradition armenienne, REA n.s. 4 (1967) 63-79; "Les lectures
quadraggsimales du rite armdnien, REA n.s. 5 (1968) 231-247;
"L'hymne de loffice nocturne du rite armenien durant la grande
sdmaine, Bulletin de litterature ecclesiastique 2 (1968) 115-126;
"Le canon de la Pentecote dans Ihymnaire armenien," in Mdmorial
Mgr. Gabriel Kkouri-Sarkis (1898-1968) (Louvain 1969) 83-88; Le
codex anndnien Jerusalem 121. I. Introduction r.ux origines de la
liturgie Hierosolymitaine (PO 35.1 - No. 163, Tumhout 1969); II.
Edition comparee du texte et de deux autres manu- scrits (PO 36.2 -
No. 168, Tumhout 1971); Le triduum pascal dans le rite armenien et
les hymnes de la grande semaine," REA n.s. 7 (1970) 55-122; "Les
lectures bibliques du rite armdniens: de la Pentec6te a Vardavar,"
in Melanges offerts au R. Dom Bernard Botte O.S.B. (Louvain 1972)
477-498; Un rite penitentiel de la Pentecdte? L'office de la
genuflexion dans la tradition armenienne (Studien zur armenischen
Geschichte 12, Vienna 1973); Liturgie armdnienne et liturgie
hierosolymitaine, in Liturgie de Veglise particuliere et liturgie
de leglise universelle. Confdrences Saint-Serge 1975, XXIF Se maine
d'etudes liturgiques, Paris 30 juin - 3 juillet 1975 (BELS 7, Rome
1976) 275-288; "'Les fetes et les saints de IEglise Armenienne' de
N. Adontz," REA n.s. 14 (1980) 287- 305, 15 (1981) 103-114; La fete
de la Transfiguration et le rite arm6nien," in Mens concordet voci,
pour Mgr. A. M. Martimort (Paris 1983) 652-662; La fete de lAssomp-
tion dans le rite armdnien," in La Mire du Jesus-Christ et la
communion des saints dans la liturgie. Conferences Saint-Serge,
Semaine d'etudes liturgiques, Paris 25-28 juin 1985 (BELS 37, Rome
1986) 235-253; Le CaSoc', typicon-lectionnaire: origines et
evolutions," REA n.s. 20 (1986-1987) 123-151; CaSoc' et tonakan
arme- niens. Dependence et complementarity," Ecclesia Orans 4
(1987) 169-201; Les premieres manifestations liturgiques du culte
des saints en Arm6nie, in Saints et saintetd dans la liturgie.
Conferences Saint-Serge, XXXIIIe Semaine d'etudes liturgi ques,
Paris 22-26 juin 1986 (BELS 40, Rome 1987) 291-303; Le lectionnaire
de Jirusalem en Armdnie: le 0aJoc I. Introduction et liste des
manuscrits (PO 44.4 - No. 200, Tumhout 1989). On Armenian Vardavar/
Transfiguration see also M. van Esbroeck (ed)., Barsabee de
Jerusalem sur le Christ et les eglises (PO 41.2 - No. 187, Tumhout
1982) 168-171. See also the study of B. Botte, "Le lectionnaire
armenien et la fete de la Theotokos a Jerusalem," Sacris erudiri 11
(1949) 111-122.
On the rites of Christian initiation in the MaStoc' or Ritual,
see esp. G. Winkler, Initialionsrituale, and the other works cited
in note 4 above. Further litrature on the Ritual is cited in
Winkler, "Ritus," section 1; Arma S. ArevSatyan, "Le MaStoc' ou ri-
tuel: origines et evolution littSraire et musicale," REA n.s. 20
(1986-1987) 153-166 and the literature cited 165-6; and Andrea B.
Schmidt, Der Kanon der Entschlafenen. Das Begrabnisrituale der
Armenier (Orient. Bibl. et Christ. 5, Wiesbaden 1994). See also the
old but still useful F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenonim (Oxford
1905).
For the Armenian Liturgy of the Hours, see G. Winkler, A New
Study of Early Development of the Divine Office, Worship 56 (1982)
27-35; A Response to Paul F. Bradshaw, ibid. 266-267; "The Armenian
Night Office. 1. The Historical Background of the Introductory Part
of giSerayin 2am," Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 1
(1984) 93-113; The Armenian Night Office. II. The Unit of Psalmody,
Canticles, and Hymns, with Particular Emphasis on the Origins and
Early Evolution of Armenia's Hymnography," REA 17 (1983) 471-555;
"Nochmals das armenische Nachtoffizium und weitere Anmerkungen zum
Myrophorenoffizium, REA 21 (1988-1989) 501-519 (response to the
critique of C. Renoux, A propos de G. Winkler, The Armenian Night
Office IT, REA 18 (1984) 593-598); "Ungeloste Fragen im
Zusammenhang mit den lit- urgischen Gebrauchen in Jerusalem,"
Handes Amsorya (1987) 303-315; "Ritus, 277- 82, where Winkler also
reviews earlier studies on the Armenian Divine Office, and
concludes her overview (297): Es fehlen vor allem neuere
Monographien fiber die
-
TH E AREM NIAN "HOLY SACRIFICE" iSURB PATARAG) 197
Entstehungsgeschichte der armenischen Anaphoren und des
Horologions. Vieles ist noch zu tun ... See also Taft, Hours,
chapter 12.
The Armenian Patarag remains one of the least studied
eucharistic services of eastern Christendom. I know of only one
major work on the topic, Kockert, a doctoral dissertation written
in East-Germany before die Wende. I am grateful to Prof. G. W
inkler for making her copy of Kockerts thesis available to me. In
Part KSckert gives the historical evolution of the Armenian Patarag
insofar as it can be ascertained from the available sources without
delving into the ms tradition, on which see J.-M. Hanssens,
Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus orientalibus II-III (Rome 1930,
1932) , 1496-97, 1566; LEW xcviii-xcix; G. Kalemkiar, Catalog der
Handschriften in der kgl. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek zu Munchen
(Haupt-Catalog II. 1, Vienna 1892) 14-22. The mss had been examined
and edited, in part, in the still standard Catergian-Dashian. But
Catergian-Dashian is now outdated, and a systematic study of the ms
tradition is presently being undertaken in Tubingen, under the
direction of G. Winkler (cf. her study in this volume), by
Hans-Jurgen Feulner for the Anaphora of St. Athanasius, and by
Erich Renhart for the two Armenian redactions of the Anaphora of
St. Basil.
For the editions of the service books, which for the Armenians
began to be printed in the sixteenth century, see LEW xcvi-xcviii;
A. Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy (W estminster, MD 1958)
232-34.
Robert F. Taft, S.J.Pontificio Istituto Orientale Piazza S.
Maria Maggiore 7 00185 Rom e, Italy