On Ancient Liturgical Interpretations

Historical criticism in general, and in particular the criticism of historical sources, has now received very wide development. Any scientist who is at all serious and wants to stand up to scientific requirements, when starting any historical work, considers himself obliged, first of all, to strictly examine his sources. This is a mandatory requirement from which no scientist has the right to evade. Modern science has already done a lot in this direction, but much remains to be done. In some departments of history, for example, Byzantine, the development of sources is still far from perfect; This explains the fact that the efforts of modern Byzantine scholars are largely directed in this direction. Despite everything, however: despite the extreme caution, conscientiousness and critical tact of modern scientists, in a number of numerous historical sources, to this day there are those that are considered authentic and trustworthy documents, not at all by right - often solely on the basis of tradition and guesses of scientists of old times. There are even more of these sources that, although authentic, have reached our time in a very corrupted and altered form. In order to use them with a clear conscience, it is necessary to carefully and strictly review their text, to free this text from numerous and multi-temporal interpolations, etc. There are especially many sources of this latter kind in the field of the history of church life and liturgical rites. We can say that almost all of them are sources of this kind. The sources here are: 1) records of liturgical rites, or rituals, and 2) interpretations of the liturgy and other rites. Both the first and the second often bear the names of famous church figures and teachers of the church, for example, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Herman, etc. The name of one or another famous or famous teacher of the church, placed on one or another literary work, always contains a fairly accurate indication of the time of origin of this work, its merits and one or another of its importance. In the field of liturgical sources, unfortunately, this is not always the case. The liturgical rites compiled by one or another father, upon their publication, became the common property, the property of the church, which, in the person of its representatives, always considered itself to have the right, as required by certain circumstances, to make whatever changes and additions it desired to the text. Thanks to this circumstance, it is now very difficult to discover the true form of these ranks or the one in which they came out of the hands of their compilers, whose names, however, they bear. We see almost the same thing in the interpretations of liturgical rites. The most popular and widespread of them have been subject to numerous additions at different times by different authors, so that it is extremely difficult to say what about them belongs to the original author, what about others and to whom exactly. Therefore, often the same interpretation is inscribed with different names, sometimes Vasily, sometimes Cyril, sometimes Herman, and sometimes several names at once. Sometimes names are placed above these summary interpretations that raise serious doubts and, by their inconsistency with the content of the interpretations, greatly undermine their scientific value. We will deal with some of these interpretations in this article. In 1840, the famous scholar cardinal and librarian of the Vatican Library Angelo Mai, in two volumes (third and fourth) of his Spicilegium Romanum, published a very significant number of newly discovered works of St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 7th century (praise and story about the miracles of St. Cyrus and John, Anacreontic poems, triodion and others) and between them a new interpretation of the liturgy, supposedly completely different from the one that was known until that time under the name of Herman of Constantinople. This interpretation has the following title: ἐκκλσιαστικὴν ἄπασαν ί στορ ί αν καὶ λεπτομερῆ ἀφ ή γησιν πάντων τῶν ἐν τ ῇ θε ίᾳ ί ερουργ ίᾳ ταλούντων – i.e. “Sophronia of the Patriarch of Jerusalem is a word containing the entire church history and a detailed explanation of everything that happens in the divine sacred rite." The publisher says about this work that he unexpectedly found it in one of the codices of the Ottobonian department of the Vatican Library, but does not indicate the number of this codex, or its composition, or even its age, which is very important. The delighted publisher, apparently, did not doubt at all that this work actually belonged to St. Sophrony and expresses only regret that it has not reached us in its entirety and breaks off halfway, precisely at the explanation of the great entrance to the liturgy. To establish the authenticity of the work, the learned publisher made only a small note to the text of Sophronius' undoubtedly authentic work on the miracles of Sts. Cyrus and John 2. In this note, Mai points out the similarity of the teaching about the Eucharist expressed in the subject place with what is said about this subject in the liturgical interpretation. But this indication cannot have any special significance in relation to the question of whether the work in question actually belonged to Sophronius, since the doctrine of the Eucharist expressed here is the oldest church teaching and it can be found in the same form both in the fathers contemporary with Sophronius, as well as in later ones, as well as in earlier ones. Meanwhile, even in the text of the work itself there are passages that should have aroused some suspicions among its publisher. So in the first chapter, when listing the liturgies most commonly used, the liturgy of St. James 3, which was in greater use in Jerusalem even much later than Sophronius, and in another place the practice of the Church of Constantinople is prescribed, which allowed the performance of proskomedia by a deacon 4. All this is quite unexpected to come across in the work of the 7th century Patriarch of Jerusalem. As we will see below, this is indeed the essence of later interpolation. On the other hand, the fact of writing St. Sophronium of liturgical interpretation could seem very probable. Already on the basis of the works of St. published by Mai in the mentioned two volumes of Spicilegium Romanum. Sophrony, one can think that the liturgical and literary activity of this patriarch was outstanding. But, besides, about St. Sophronia knows - and this is confirmed by both handwritten and printed liturgical books, as well as some other evidence - that, in addition to the Trisongs, he composed many other hymns and several entire liturgical rites. So in the manuscripts the following are attributed to him: 1) the sequence of hours on the eve of the Nativity of Christ - τροπάρια ψαλλ ό μενα τ ῇ παραμον ῇ τῶν Χριστοῦ γεννέων, εὶς τὰς ὥ ρας. ποιημα Σοφρονίου ̒ Ιεροσολύμων 5, and 2) the sequence of hours on Great Friday. This last one, published by A. A. Dmitrievsky in the Rules of the Jerusalem Divine Service for Holy Week according to the 10th century edition, is inscribed as follows: αυἡ ἀκολουθία τῶν ώρῶν καὶ τῶν ? Ιεροσολύμων καὶ φιλοσοφ ό υ 6. In all likelihood, the sequence of the consecration of water for the Epiphany belongs to him; at least some stichera and prayers in this sequence are inscribed: “Σοφρονίου πατριάρχου ̒ Ιεροσολύμων” 7. But what is especially important in this case is the fact that, according to the legend of St. Sophronius was involved in the compilation and editing of the Church Charter, or a summary description of all church services, as evidenced by the Byzantine liturgist of the 15th century. Simeon of Thessalonica on the basis of other more ancient evidence that is still found in ancient copies of the Church Charter. According to Simeon, “when the charter of St. Sava, after the devastation of that region by the barbarians, was destroyed, then our holy father Sophronius, the patriarch of the holy city, painstakingly outlined it, and after him our divine father John of Damascus, experienced in theology, updated it and committed it in writing.” 8 There are still preserved in the manuscripts such Typicons or Charters that are inscribed with the name of Sophronius. So in the Koaleneva library, at the direction of Montfaucon, there is a type with the following inscription: τῆς ἐν ἱεροσολύμοις άγίας λαύρας τοῦ δσίου καὶ θεοφ ό ρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σάβα συντεθὲν καὶ συγγραφὲν παρὰ τοῦ άγιωτάτου πατρὸς καὶ κυρού Σοφρονίου . λοιπαῖς τῶν ̒ Ιεροσολύμων άγίαις μοναῖς “ 9 . An even more remarkable typicon in this regard is in the possession of A. A. Dmitrievsky in Kyiv. This parchment typicon dates back to the 12th-13th centuries. and is inscribed like this: „ Τυπικὸν τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἀκολουθίας τῆς εὐαγοῦς λαύρας τοῦ ἐν άγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ θεοφ ό ρου Σάβα, συγγραφὲν "10. If all this news about the liturgical activity of St. Sophronius is reliable - and there is no reason to doubt this - then, of course, one cannot find anything incredible in the fact that he could also write an explanation of the liturgy. Based, in part, on this consideration, and also, and perhaps mainly, on the authority of the learned publisher, both Western and Russian church-historical scholarship treated the newly discovered work as undoubtedly genuine, as a document in many respects precious and, as such, began to use it in many cases. Indeed, if the work published by Cardinal Mai is genuine, then this is very important. On it is the name of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the 7th century. gives us a firm and definite date, and this date, in turn, gives us a firm basis for establishing some very important points in the history of the development of church rituals and art, as well as for establishing the true meaning and meaning of many ancient Christian rites, the time and reason for the origin of many very important details in these rites, etc. Of the interpretations of worship, which had a more or less real character, until that time only the following was known: “ ἱστορἱα ἐκκλησιαστικὴ “, inscribed with the name of St. Herman, Patriarch of Constantinople, 8th century. published for the first time by Dim. Ducoy in Rome, in 1526, and then Morellius in Paris in 1560 and later others, but this work was published in such a corrupted and interpolated form that without a preliminary strict review of its text it was impossible to look at it other than a later document, the 15th-16th centuries. Then the same ἱστορἱα ἐκκλησιαστικὴ was known in the shortest edition, published in 1703 by Thomas Millesius in Oxford under the name of St. Cyril of Jerusalem 11. But this article was so suspected by the scientists of the 18th century that one of them, Tutteus, who again published the works of St. Kirill in Paris in 1720 12 and placed in his publication all the works of St. Cyril, published by Millesius, even forged ones, decisively armed himself against the said article and threw it out in his publication. Since then it was forgotten and no one wanted to use it. It is not surprising, therefore, that the work of the supposed Sophronius, published by May, was accepted by scientists with such readiness and received such authority. It is also not surprising that any liturgist-historian would be extremely sorry to be disappointed in the scientific significance of this work. 12 years after the publication of Sophronius’s interpretation, the same scientist, Cardinal Ange. Mai in her other publication in Nova bibliotheca partum. t. VI p. 545 sq. In 1853 he published another liturgical work, also very important, but belonging to a later and, moreover, very little known author, namely: “Theodore Bishop of Andida, a brief discussion on the secrets and images of the divine liturgy, compiled at the request of the God-loving Basil, Bishop of Phytia” - Θεοδώρου ἐπισκ ό που ΄ Ανὁίδων προθεωρία κεφαλαιώδης περί τῶν ἐν τ ῇ θεία λειτουργία γινομένων συμβ ό λων καὶ μυστηρίων πονηθεῖσαἐκ ?? Βασιλείου. This work was known before, but only from excerpts from it by Leo Allation. Cardinal May found it in three ancient codes, one of which dates back to the 12th century. It is found quite often in manuscripts of other libraries of the 13th, therefore, it was quite widespread, not like the work of the supposed Sophronius, but, however, not like the more popular ίστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ especially with the name of Vasily or Herman. The greater prevalence and popularity of this work, apparently, was greatly hindered by the fact that quite a long time ago all almost the most important liturgical explanations of Theodore were included entirely and without the name of the author in Hermann's ίστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, so that their existence in the form of a special work became, as it were, unnecessary. As for the scientific spheres, here it, even after the publication of its Mai, remained in complete disregard and did not enjoy any authority, although it deserved a completely different fate. The reason for the inattention of scientists to him is that his author is too little known, since none of the ancient church writers have any news about the time or place of his life and activity. Of course, it would be very good if we could know exactly the time of the author’s life and the time of publication of his interpretation, but in this case we can be content with an approximate solution to the issue. And there is sufficient data for such a decision. Leo Allatius, a deep expert in Byzantine antiquities and literature, at the beginning of the 17th century called Theodore of Andida a writer not recent, but quite ancient (non recentem sed satis antiquum 14), and in the diatribe de Theodoris places him among the writers of the 9th century next to Theodore the Studite 15. If Allatius wanted in this way to more accurately express his opinion about the time of Theodore’s life, then it is very unfortunate that he did not provide any evidence to support it. Judging by some internal signs, Theodore lived, in any case, after the era of iconoclasm, but not too far from it. In the third chapter of his work, in order to prove his idea that in the liturgy one should see the fullness of the symbols relating to the history of the incarnation and redemption, he points to “the tradition honestly and reverently preserved by all churches, i.e. on sacred images painted with paints, in which the pious contemplate all the mysteries of the incarnation of Christ our God, beginning with the gospel of the Blessed Virgin by the Archangel Gabriel and ending with the Ascension of the Lord and His second coming.“ 16. In the era of iconoclasm, this, of course, could not have been written, nor could it have been written immediately after the triumph of Orthodoxy over iconoclasm, since the restoration of icons in churches, especially provincial and poor ones, in which, apparently, Theodore was bishop, and, moreover, on such a scale as he indicated, it could hardly have been completed in a short time. We know that in the capital, in the main Byzantine church of St. Sophia, it was possible to begin the restoration of icon decoration only after about 25 years 17. The extensiveness of the iconographic cycle noted by Theodore indicates a later time, the time of the secondary prosperity of the Byzantine. art, most likely in the era of Constantine Porphyrogenitus or even later, no later than the end of the 11th century. Since Theodore’s work is found in manuscripts even of the 12th century, then, of course, it cannot be dated further than this century. Most likely, it appeared at the end of the 11th century. An indication of the 11th century can also be seen in Theodore’s polemics with the Euchites or Messalians, who seem to be heretics, as if contemporary with the author - and these, of course, are not the ancient Euchites of the 4th-5th centuries, but the later ones - those who were interested in Byzantium in the 11th century (M. Psellus) and who represented a connecting link between the Paulicians and Bogomils. In a word, the 11th century is the most probable time of Theodore’s life and the writing of his interpretation, and this is quite important. As for the place where Theodore was bishop, this question greatly confused previous scholars, since the bishopric of Ανδίὸων was not listed in the lists of bishops of the Eastern Church. Episconia of Thythia (Φυτείας), where Basil was bishop, who turned to Theodore with a request to write an interpretation of the liturgy for him, is listed in the so-called Φρύγια Σαλουτάρια in Sinnad (Σύναδα) metropolis Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Asian District. Judging by the frequent references to the liturgical practice of the Great, i.e., Church of Constantinople, available in the text of Theodore’s work 18, one must think that his bishopric was also within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in the sphere of influence of the Great Church and, probably, but in the vicinity of the bishopric of Thythia, since the appeal of the Bishop of Thythian with a request for guidance to Theodore - a person who, by all indications, is little known in the highest church spheres - It can most conveniently be explained by the proximity of the dioceses and the personal acquaintance of both archpastors. Lequien 19 looked for the dioceses of 'Ανδίὸων in the second Pamphylia and intended to identify it with the bishopric of Σανδίδων in the Perga (Πέργη) metropolis; but Mai rightly noted to this that the inscription 'Ανδίὸων is too clear in many lists and does not leave any room for such an assumption 20. There really is no need for such an assumption. Recently, the famous Byzantine scholar De Boor published in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 1892 a new list of Notitiae episcopatuum based on the manuscript of the Paris Library No. 1555 A. fol. 23. The list of bishops contained in this manuscript, according to the publisher, is undoubtedly younger than the notitiae of Epiphanius, but older than the seventh ecumenical council and, therefore, dates back to the first half of the 8th century. 21 In this list, the diocese of 'Ανδίὸων is listed in the third Cappadocia in the Mokissian (Μωκιοὸς μηιτροπολις) metropolis. The bishoprics of Φυτείας and Ανδίὸων thus find themselves in very close proximity (Σανδίδων would be further), and the latter also finds itself in quite close proximity to Armenia, and to Persia, and in general to the hotbed of Paulicianism and Euhitism, which is also not without significance. As for why the diocese of 'Ανδίὸων is not listed in those lists that were known to Lequien, and those that were subsequently published by Partey, this, of course, must be seen as an indication that the diocese of 'Ανδίὸων was destroyed in the era of the origin or new editing of these lists. But when exactly? If it were ever possible to find accurate information about this, then the chronology of Theodore’s life would be on more solid ground and this would be very important for the scientific value of his work. However, we cannot help but appreciate him even with the information we now have about him. It, of course, belongs to an era later than in which Sophronius of Jerusalem lived, but to a fairly definite era, no less interesting and no less in need of clear illumination with the help of reliable and authentic documents. Theodore's work is one of such documents. It is one of those relatively few liturgical interpretations that not only were not subject to almost any interpolation, but themselves served as a source from which additions and explanations were borrowed and inserted into the text of other more popular interpretations. In the text of this work, according to various lists, one can, of course, find a significant number of variants 22, depending on the copyists, but in general these variants are insignificant and the text of the work has nothing in common with the mosaic that the texts of works inscribed with the names of saints represent. Vasily, Herman and Sophrony. The study of Theodore's work in connection with these interpretations, as well as in connection with other mostly unnamed interpretations of a compilative nature, turns out to be extremely important, since it often provides a solid basis for a scientific review of their text, for distinguishing the oldest parts from the latest ones and for an impartial assessment of their scientific significance. This turns out to be especially important in relation to the text of the work published under the name Sophronius. The fact is that when carefully studying the work of Theodore in connection with the work of Sophronius, one cannot help but notice the very close dependence of one of them on the other. Many sections of the work of Sophronius have an extraordinary similarity with the work of Theodore. In order not to be unfounded, we will give examples. The examples given are completely sufficient to see what kind of similarity there is between the work of the alleged Sophronius and the work of Theodore of Andida. The similarity here is obviously literal, and it should be noted that it is far from being exhausted by the examples given. Upon a detailed comparison of both works, we find that in the work of Sophronius, consisting of the 21st chapter, 12 contain a more or less significant number of places that are literally similar to various places in the work of Theodore. Some chapters, such as chapters 1, 10, and 12, are so similar from beginning to end. The extent of this similarity can be more clearly defined as follows: out of the 512 lines of Sophronius’s work according to the edition of Mai, 232, i.e., almost half, are literally repeated in the work of Theodore 23. What conclusion should be drawn from the observed similarities? The similarity here, as we said, is literal, and such similarity can only be explained by the borrowing of one author from another. The question arises: who borrowed from whom - Sophronius from Theodore or vice versa? Assuming that the work published under the name Sophronius is genuine, the answer is not difficult: the writer of the 7th century. could not borrow from a writer of the 11th century. and next, all those places in the work of Theodore that are similar to the work of Sophronius were borrowed by the former from the latter. But, unfortunately, a detailed study of Theodore’s work does not allow even the thought of such borrowing. On the contrary, it leads to the opposite conclusion, which is very unfavorable for the supposed Sophronius. The work of Theodore, as can be seen from its title, was written on a special impulse, as a result of the urgent request of Basil, Bishop of Phytia, and therefore is already partly imprinted with a rather sharp character of individuality both in presentation, and in arrangement, and in its task. The author in the introduction (chapters I-V) formulates the task of his work in a very clear, but completely unfavorable way for the thought of any borrowing. He says that, contrary to the prevailing view of the liturgy before him, as depicting only the suffering, burial and resurrection of Christ ταφῆς καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ), he will prove in his essay that “she “depicts in the most perfect way the entire economy of our salvation, starting from the conception of the Voice and the Word... and ending with His last ascension into heaven and the second coming from there, depicts not fragmentarily and incoherently, but putting everything in mutual connection.” Having declared his task as such, the author further asks his readers not to be embarrassed if they find some of his explanations dissimilar to those hitherto accepted and available to other interpreters (εἴ τις ... εὑρήσει τινὰ ἑτέρως ὀνομασθέντα παρὰ τινος καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἐςήγησιν μηδαμῶς ξενιζέσθω – Chapter IV). As for these other interpreters, he knows their interpretations, especially the interpretation with the name of Basil the Great, but he considers it unnecessary to repeat them in his work and omits even those of them that would be very useful to cite. “If,” he says, “we passed by in silence regarding the episcopal vestments, or other things established in the church, then we did this not without a decent reason. For, having found an explanation of these objects, inscribed with the name of Basil the Great, we considered it unnecessary to talk about the same thing, as well as regarding what we needed to talk about, but about which we found any explanations and interpretations from the previous fathers,” 24 to which the author invites Bishop Basil to turn, who encouraged him with his requests to write this essay. Is it possible that the author, who so decisively declared his attitude towards previous interpreters, from the very next chapter (VI) began to literally write out interpretations inscribed with the name of such a famous father as St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, without identifying the source. The latter is completely inconsistent with the methods of the author, who displays in his work complete conscientiousness and accuracy regarding references to sources. Several times, to support his thoughts or opinions, he makes extracts from the works of some fathers, namely: Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory the Theologian, but each time he names the names, and sometimes gives the names of those works from which he makes extracts, for example, in the third chapter he calls the Conversation of St. Gregory the Theologian on the Nativity of Christ (cf. 13, ch. 28, 38). All this shows that those places in Theodore’s work that turn out to be literally similar to the work of the supposed Sophronius belong to Theodore himself, and that the idea of ​​​​borrowing these places from anywhere cannot be allowed in any way. Consequently, the borrowing was not made by Theodore from the supposed Sophronius, but on the contrary, which is confirmed in part by the very nature of the borrowings, since some of these borrowings correspond very little to what we could expect from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, 7th century. These are the places mentioned above, which contain a list of liturgies with no mention of the liturgy of St. James and indications of the peculiarities of Constantinople liturgical practice. And if this is so, then there is no doubt that the work published by Mai under the name Sophronius, at least in the form in which it was published, cannot belong to Patriarch Sophronius, 7th century. If we also take into account the fact that in the text of this work, in addition to extensive borrowings from the work of Theodore of Andida, there are many other borrowings from other sources, then one cannot help but come to the conclusion that this work is the work of some compiler who lived no earlier than the 12th century. that is, after the work of Theodore of Andida appeared. We expressed all of the above, in a more general form, back in 1885 in the book “Information on some liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library. Kazan, pp. 311–315.” The evidence of the non-authenticity of the work published by Cardinal Mai seemed so convincing to us that we considered this question, although not completely settled, but, in general, finally resolved; and if even after this our archaeologists and liturgists continued to refer to it as a genuine work of Sophronius, 7th century, then we attributed this not to the inconclusiveness of the evidence, but to their obscurity, which stemmed from the low distribution of the book. In reality, however, it turned out not quite so. In the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for April 1892, 25 Professor N.P. Kondakov placed a short note about one scientific debate in which the question we are treating was raised. Having pointed out our conclusions, he expresses distrust of them and a clear reluctance to agree with them, arguing that there are various external and internal reasons on the basis of which it is necessary to recognize St. Sophronius (VII century) author of the work published by Mai. Then, in recent times, one young theologian, who wrote a “Historical sketch of the order of proskomedia,” based mainly on our book and, therefore, well acquainted with our evidence and conclusions, says that, nevertheless, he is far from completely denying the authenticity of Sophronius’s interpretation, that in this interpretation, without a doubt, parts belonging to St. himself were preserved. Sophronia; you just need to select these parts. 26 And in fact, if the work being analyzed cannot belong to St. Sophronius in its present form, then perhaps the text that remains after highlighting the interpolations taken from Theodore of the Andes can be attributed to him? Such a thought must naturally arise from comparing the results of the investigation concerning interpolations with the evidence of the title of the work and with the opinion of the learned publisher. This idea is of great importance and requires careful examination. Indeed, no matter how extensive the borrowings included in this work from Theodore’s interpretation, there still remains something in it that Theodore does not have, and if it could be proven that this something really belongs to St. Sophronius, then this would be a great acquisition for historical and archaeological science. Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove this. We will try to look at the issue more carefully. For clarity and convenience, we reprint here the text of Sophronius’s work, having previously cleared it of borrowings from Theodore, and marking in smaller print those places in it that also seem to us to be borrowed only from another source. Σωφρονίου πατριάρχου Ί εροσολύμων λ ό γος περιέχον τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ἄπασαν ἱστορίαν καὶ λερτομερῆ ἀφήγησιν πάντων τῶν ἐν τῇ θεία ἱερουργία τελούντων . Sophronia of the Patriarch of Jerusalem is a word containing the entire church history and a detailed explanation of everything that happens in the divine rite. 2. Since we have to talk about what happens in divine services, it is necessary to say in advance what the church is and with what sign the concha, co-throne, vault, etc. will be arranged. The Church is so called because the Orthodox gather and are convened into it; it is also called περιοχή because it contains the miracles of God. Concha corresponds to the cave of Bethlehem and the cave in which Christ was buried. The co-throne is the image of the throne of the Lord, on which the Lord sat, having conquered the world and ascended with the flesh; It is called a co-throne, and not a throne, because the Son sits with the Father. The other seats of the co-throne signify the honor that the righteous receive after the resurrection, according to the words of Scripture: “I am God of nature” (Is. 81:6). The priests are seated on the altar, as if they were crucified. Christ with passions and lusts, while the deacons appear in the form of angels. (The holy meal signifies the holy tomb in which (Christ) was buried, and the holy offering signifies the place of execution on which he was crucified, which is why (the lamb) is eaten on it. (The ciborium forms the ark of Noah; for κιβ means the ark, and ωριον is its structure. The pillars of the ciborium will be built in the image of the four animals that the prophet saw. 3. The altar is called (the throne) in correspondence with the heavenly and mental altar: with it the earthly priests represent the spiritual and immaterial authorities, and therefore should be “like a scorching fire”; or in accordance with the holy tomb of Christ, where he sacrificed himself to God and the Father. The vault above the altar is an image of the first heaven; and the ceiling above the rest of the church signifies the visible sky, having burning censers beneath it instead of stars. The altar elevation will be built in the likeness of the heavenly altar: just as the angels of God serve there, so in the holy altar the earthly priests are always appointed to stand and serve the Lord; and therefore the priest must be like a scorching fire, pure and free from all uncleanness and all vice. The priests are likened to archangels: for just as Seraphim took coal and gave it to Isaiah, so the priests take bread, that is, the body of the Lord, and teach it to the people. Let no one think that the holy gifts are images of the body and blood of Christ, but let everyone believe that the bread offered is offered into the body and blood of Christ. Otherwise: the altar elevation is a throne place and indicates the second coming, since he who sits on the throne has to judge the living and the dead. 4. The cosmit corresponds to the Old Testament sacred cosmium, representing an image of the crucified Christ decorated with a cross; sometimes the cosmite is eliminated into the image of a veil. The bars are an image of the fence of the tomb; it is made of copper, so that no one enters carelessly. They also indicate the place of prayer, serving as a sign that the space outside them is accessible to the people, and inside them there is the Holy of Holies, accessible only to the priests. Solea - depicts a river of fire separating sinners from the righteous, according to the words of Paul: “The fire will tempt anyone’s work” (1 Cor. 3:13). The pulpit is the stone on which the angel, having rolled it away, sat near the door of the tomb when he announced the resurrection to the myrrh-bearers. The steps of the pulpit mark Jacob's ladder. The women's section was designed so that wives would be separated from their husbands, just as the myrrh-bearing women did not enter the tomb with Joseph and Nicodemus, but stood outside (the tomb) and wept. The porch is built for the people standing outside (the sanctuary) during the censing. The Katihumen remind us of the angels who do not descend to earth, but from heaven approach the sacred rites performed on earth, or they are done in accordance with the words of Scripture: “take the gates.” 5. The beat signifies the angelic trumpets, which the angels will blow on the last day and with their sound will awaken all nations. Indity marks the womb of the Mother of God. Iliton - the shroud in which (the Lord) was laid in the tomb. The paten in a small form represents clouds. The chalice is the cup about which (Christ) said: “Drink, all of you.” Liar - recalls the words of the prophet Isaiah: “one was sent to me from the seraphim” (Isa. VI. 6), and also marks the Virgin, when the most heavenly bread rises. The star, like four animals, covers the celestial corner; It is also arranged, by the way, so that particles do not cling to the cover of the paten, as well as the net so that anything foreign does not fall into the holy chalice. The lamp and candles are an image of eternal light, and also mean the light with which the righteous shine. Sunday is so called because on this day Christ was resurrected, and his name means healing from the Lord, since on this day the Lord healed Adam’s illness. We do not kneel on this day as a sign that the sacrament of faith has been restored by the resurrection of Christ. We do not kneel until the week of Pentecost, because it contains the seven days taken seven times after Holy Pascha: seven times seven equals forty-nine, and Sunday is the fiftieth day, which is an image of the age to come. We pray, turning to the east, both for other reasons, and especially because we hope to enjoy the heavenly food planted in the east. 6. The bishop is the image of the Lord: for as the Lord sends angels, so does the bishop of the priests. The bishop dresses in white clothes in the image of the highest powers, that is, the Lord, as John (Mark) says: “his robe is white as snow” (Mark 9:3). He wears a three-sloped omophorion because he serves the Trinity. The circular cutting of the hair on the priest's head means the crown of thorns, and the double crown formed by the hair depicts the honest head of the supreme apostle, which those who did not believe in mockery cut off for him and which Christ blessed; The top of the twelve stones is the Apostle Peter. The fiery color of the priest’s clothing corresponds to the words of the prophet: “make angels your spirits” (Ps. 103.4), and again: “who is this one who came from Edom” (Is. 63.1), which means scarlet, and is also used because Christ wore a scarlet mantle during His suffering. The elders wear on themselves the likeness of seraphim, covering themselves with their clothes like wings, and with the two wings of their mouths they sing songs (to God) and receive a mental coal - Christ, who is lifted up into the sanctuary, held in their hands, as if in tongs. 7. And the deacons, depicting the angelic forces with the light wings of linen orars, like ministering spirits sent to serve, go around (the church). The surplice is so called because the grace of God abides in it and represents the flesh of Christ, being white, like human flesh. It also has slits under the sleeves as a sign of a rib (of Christ) pierced by a spear. The trimmings on the sleeves signify the bonds of Christ’s hands, in which they took him to Annas and Caiaphas, for they tied him not from behind, but from in front. The mantle of the surplice serves instead of a belt. The priest is girded as a sign that he is girded in the spiritual life and that his mind is focused. The phelonion is a seamless tunic, woven from the grace of the Holy Spirit, and at the same time it also symbolizes the scarlet mantle. Enchirius is lention. If the surplice and phelonion are the color of fire, then this is in accordance with the words of Scripture: “Thy vestments are like scarlet.” If they are white, then they indicate the transfiguration and the fact that the angel appeared to the wives in white clothes, signifying the light of the resurrection with whiteness. The cane of the whole people (?) 0mophor corresponds to Aaron’s clothing, which was worn by the subordinate bishops, having small sudari on the left side. 8. Cutting the hair on the head (of the deacon) means, like that of the priest, that a crown of thorns has been placed on the head (of Christ). The circular cut of his head is the basis of the Cherub throne; for Cherubim rest on his head; also means a vision of angels. His surplice is white, like an angel's; and the orarion depicts angel wings; therefore, it descends to the feet and reclines on the left shoulder, pointing to the two covenants, with the front part the new one, and the back part the old one. Therefore, if the deacon, during communion, does not connect the Old Testament with the new, then he does not partake. The Enchiridia, which are worn by deacons, are the monks of the flesh of the apostles. Having thus examined all this in advance, let us now talk about the body sacrificed by the priest. Our Lord Jesus Christ, daily sacrificed for the life and salvation of the world, just as he was crucified on the place of execution, is also eaten by the priest in a holy offering; it is devoured by a spear, so that we do not forget the most pure ribs, which, during the holy suffering of the cross, were pierced by a spear, and immediately flowed out, into incorruption and renewal of the whole world, blood and water, which the priests sacrifice for the people. 9 . What we are now talking about is called by many names - namely, it is called: blessing, offering, firstfruits, bread...... The great Vasily betrayed the sign of the prosphora with a cross. The prosphora will be prosphora for the inclusion of the people, when everyone is given a portion; if there are a lot of people, then you need to split the parts. Having kneaded the bread and placing it on the paten, as if on a cloud, we say in this way: “Like a sheep led to the slaughter.” 11. Thus, the deacon says: “bless the master,” turning to the celebrant, that is, to God, with a prayer for the divine mystery; priest, was called to intercede for the inspiration of St. Trinity at the sacrament, says: “Blessed is the kingdom,” and the people, as if seized with sacred horror, like the apostles during the Transfiguration (of the Lord), answer with joy and fear: “Amen,” that is, truly... 13. …… The priest comes out (from the altar), bearing the gospel, like Christ the cross; if the deacon carries it, then he represents Simon, on whom the cross was laid. The lamps offered at the time of entry signify divine light.... 14. The deacon carries St. the gospel and presents it to the leaders of the faithful people, as the divine law of the king, and the priest goes behind and in his clothes represents all the circumstances of the crucifixion, as an object of praise in humility of heart. Then the singers ascend to the pulpit and sing: “Come, let us rejoice in the Lord”; Those standing below also sing along with them, thereby forming an agreement between angels and men…. 15. At the end of the antiphons, the triholy hymn is immediately sung, proclaiming the divine hypostasis of the Son, as well as the Father himself and the life-giving Spirit... 16. After the Trisagion, the bishop ascends to the co-throne, supported by the deacons, like angels, and the priests ascend with him, just as the apostles ascended with Jesus to the Mount of Transfiguration...... Sitting on the throne signifies that the Son of God is the flesh that he bore, and the sheep that he took on his shoulder, (which is signified by the omophorion), that is, Adam's nature, exalted him above all beginning, and power, and dominion, and brought him to God and the Father. And how one (the Son of God) deified, and the other, that is, the assumed human nature, was burned: then, for the sake of the dignity that he offered and the purity of what was offered, God and the Father accepted him (Jesus Christ) as a sacrifice and a favorable offering for the human race. Or: the bishop and priests sit on the co-throne in accordance with the words of the prophet David: “as they sat on the throne for judgment” (Ps. 121.5). And when they stand on the altar, the bishop, depicting the divine transfiguration before the people, stretches out his hand and makes the sign of the cross three times over the priests, as Christ blessed his disciples. 17. After the execution of the Trisagion, the priest blesses the people, saying: “peace to all,” that is, be at peace with each other, before the divine meal...... After (the bishops and priests) sit down, the so-called prokeimenon is read in connection with the readings from the Old and New Testaments... Following this, Paul appears as a kind of leader and offers his teaching to the people, or more precisely, he offers the reading of the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles... 18. Then, after reading the Apostle, David sings: “Hallelujah”; αλ means “has appeared,” ηλ means “God,” ουια means “praise the living God.” At the last “hallelujah” the bishop’s omophorion is removed as a sign that the Old Testament law has ceased and that the bishop is celebrating new grace...... After “Alleluia,” the priest or deacon, taking the most pure Gospel, like a sent angel, ascends with this divine law to the pulpit and, thus, fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: “About the high mountain, bless” (Is. 40.3). The open arms of the people mean their gratitude for receiving such miracles. The priest with the cross reveals the law and proclaims it to the people, while everyone stands in silence like Moses, Elijah and all the prophets when God spoke with them, and like the apostles when (Jesus Christ) said to them: “And here I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11). After reading the Gospel, the reader, bending it, comes down and gives it to everyone to kiss, like children. The Gospel points to the coming of Christ the Son of God, when He was seen by us not in fortune telling, but clearly... 19. The four gospels correspond to the four-shaped animals on which the God of all will sit, “sitting, as they say about him, “on cherubim.” These animals have four faces: the first is like a lion, the second is like a calf, the third is like a man, the fourth is like an eagle. The first face of the lions signifies His (Jesus Christ) power and authority (Is. 9.6); the second indicates His sacred ministry; the third represents His coming and appearance in the flesh, and the fourth, like a flying eagle, signifies the descending power of the Holy One. Spirit. Thus the Gospel of John tells of His sublime, actual, and glorious birth from the Father; for it writes: “in the beginning without a word.” The Gospel of Luke presents a picture of His priestly ministry; for he begins with the priest Zechariah, who performed incense. Matthew tells of His birth according to the flesh: “the book of the kinship,” he says, of Jesus Christ. This gospel is, as it were, humanoid. And Mark began with the prophetic Spirit descending on people from above, saying: “The gospel was conceived, which was written in the prophets,” and thereby pointed to the winged image of the Gospel, intending to bury the Lord himself. It says three times: Go forth with a catechumen, and in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be spoken. By bowing during prayer, the priest thereby expresses his submission (to the Lord). Then the deacon exclaims: wisdom, that is, God, and the priest cries out to God: “Yes, under Thy power.” Then the singers, like a swarm of angels, call the people to the cherubic song... 20. The making of the sign of the cross, which the bishop teaches to the people, indicates the second coming of Christ, which is to take place in 6505, as evidenced by the addition of the fingers, showing six thousand and five. The deacons unfold the orithon, like Joseph and Nicodemus, when they. The fact that the singers sing this song together with the people means that the angels sing together in heaven. 21. The vessel in which the proskomedia occurs means the place of the forehead, as it was depicted by Abraham when he laid the wood and laid his son and slaughtered the ram. The priest, standing alone in the church, while singing the Cherubic song, represents the image of the Father who meets the walking Son. The Ripides appear in the form of cherubim and seraphim, and sceptres and swords appear as royal signs. The archdeacon, carrying the omophorion, passes like an angel, carrying the old grace that precedes the new grace. The deacons pass by like clouds, with a body, as if with a deity, resting on a high cherubic throne. The holy gifts pass from the offering to the altar in the image of the earthly life of Christ until his burial and as a sign that God himself brought the Magi to see His saving coming to us in the flesh... After reading this purified text, one cannot help but see that this is a rather coherent, albeit unfinished interpretation, so it seems quite likely that, before being subjected to interpolations based on the work of Theodore of Andides, it could have existed in this form. But at the same time, one cannot help but see that this interpretation is compilative or consolidated. This is evidenced by the very title of the interpretation. The title says that the word or work of Sophronius contains: 1) the entire church history (ἅ πασαν ἱστορίαν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν) i.e. the interpretation of the church, its components and accessories - “legend” ecclesiastical,” as this term is translated in Slavic, and 2) the presentation (ἀφήγησιν) of the divine rite, i.e., the liturgy. Both of these parts belong to St. Sophronia, or which one? Or, perhaps, neither one nor the other part belongs to him? Regarding the author of the second part, i.e. presentation of the liturgy, it is difficult to say anything positive, since it, interrupted by the Cherubic song, exists here in a too incomplete and fragmentary form. As for the first part, that is, the interpretation of the church and church accessories, it probably does not belong to St. Sophronia. Most of the interpretations contained in it literally coincide with the same interpretations found in one very ancient and completely independent work, which in one of its later editions is known under the name of St. Herman of Constantinople (VIII century) and which for the most part is called: (ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ). If we combine together the places we noted in small print in the text printed above, then we will get this text in almost its entire form (ἅ πασα ἱστορία) in one of its ancient editions, and in it will include all those places in which the author reveals a close acquaintance with the topography of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, and which, therefore, could most likely be attributed to St. Sophronia. But maybe this “history” is not older than the ancient work of Sophronius and is something other than an extract from it? This assumption is made by Mr. Muretov 28, but it cannot be allowed in any way. The essay entitled: ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ does not at all have the nature of extracting from anything, or abbreviating anything. It exists in countless lists, as a completely independent work, more or less spoiled by insertions and additions, but always retaining its main text and character. In addition to the name of Herman, it is inscribed with the names of other fathers, most often the name of St. Basil the Great, and sometimes St. Cyril of Jerusalem. One of the most ancient and short editions of this work is known in print under the name of the latter. In this edition it was printed in 1703 by Millesius in Oxford from a 14th-century manuscript. Bodleian Library, in the collected works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, between the doubtful 29. This is the first edition, the shortest and, in all likelihood, the earliest known hitherto. Another edition of the same work, a later, or better middle, edition, was published by us in the book: "Information about the liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library based on the manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library. This edition, most likely, can be revered by Herman's, although in the manuscript the name of Herman is not included in the interpretation. The third, later, XIV-XV centuries, the edition, the most widespread, was published several times, as we mentioned above (p. 9) - the last time by Minem (Patrol. t. 98). If we compare and compare all these editions, adding to them the ancient Slavic one, which we published in the book mentioned above, then the general composition and character of the ancient work, completely independent, which served as the basis for all these editions, will appear quite clearly. This is obviously the same work that Theodore of Andida mentions under the name of St. Basil, and which he characterizes as an interpretation of sacred clothing and some other things related to the church. The special content of this work is the interpretation of the church, its components and accessories, and only some sacred actions that precede the liturgy and associated with the use of various liturgical things or accessories. When and by whom was this work compiled - ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, or “church legend”? If the names appearing in manuscripts above various kinds of works, almost always, with a few exceptions, contain the first and most important indication of the author, and, consequently, the time and place of origin of the work, then in this case, we must look for indications of the author and the time of origin of the interpretation that occupies us in the name displayed in its title. But here we encounter a considerable difficulty, since many and different names are exhibited here: St. Basil, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Herman of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom; sometimes several names are read on the same list. What does this mean? This means, obviously, that many authors worked on the processing of this interpretation, one way or another, supplementing and editing it. Oh St. Germana even knows this positively, since in addition to the inscription of his name, which is extremely common, we have the testimony of Anastasius the librarian, 9th century, who visited Constantinople and was well aware of this matter. 30 It is difficult to say anything positive about the extent and features of the editing of this interpretation by the different fathers mentioned in its title, but which of them was the first to compile the interpretation that served as the basis for subsequent fathers for additions and revisions - this can be determined with high probability. Since the oldest of the fathers indicated in the title is St. Basil the Great, then we should focus on him as the more likely first author of this interpretation. This idea is very much confirmed, on the one hand, by the antiquity and prevalence of the legend, since the name of St. Vasily is found in the mentioned interpretation more often than any other names, not excluding Herman, and on the other hand, there are some signs in the text itself that have survived to the present day, although interpolated, interpretation. Some of the interpretations contained here turn out to be completely similar in thought, and sometimes in letter, with the same interpretations contained in the original works of St. Vasily. These are the interpretations of the customs: when praying, turn your face to the east, do not bend your knees on Sunday and at all times of Pentecost. In his essay about St. Spirit to St. Amphilochius Vasily dwells in some detail on these customs and interprets them in exactly the same way 31 as they are interpreted here, so it is very likely that both interpretations belong to the same author. The same should be said about some other interpretations, for example, about the interpretations of clothing adopted by different degrees of the church rank and monastics, as well as the meanings of the degrees themselves. In Slavic manuscripts, an article with the title is extremely common: “St. Basil’s explanation of the priestly rank, what a priest is, and why a priest is said, and what the cutting of his head is.” This article contains mainly an interpretation of the sacred vestments assigned to the deacon, priest and bishop, and is undoubtedly a translation from Greek, and a very ancient one at that. But it is no longer found in Greek manuscripts, at least not by any of the publishers of the works of St. Vasily, did not point to her. Obviously, it has long since fallen out of use and has, as it were, been lost, or better yet, lost its independent meaning, having included its most important parts in other more detailed and widespread interpretations. Considering that the name of St. Basil is invariably found in this article and that its text is unusually stable, one can think that this is a real, although of course not in all its integrity, preserved work of St. Vasily. If this is so, then traces of the interpretive work of St. Basil's interpretation was preserved even in later editions, known under the name ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ. At the very least, there is no doubt that almost all interpretations of St. clothes contained in ἱστορία are built on the basis of those found in the Slavic translation of the lost Greek article. Some interpretations are even literally similar. Here's an example: However, in general, based on the inscription alone, the idea that St. Vasily actually compiled a brief interpretation of church and liturgical subjects, which served as the basis for subsequent interpretations, and can be accepted completely safely. But what was this interpretation? Isn't the Slavic article a genuine part of it? Unfortunately, it is impossible to resolve these issues. One thing is certain: this interpretation was very brief and, so to speak, one-sided; otherwise there would be no need to constantly supplement and rework it. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a younger contemporary of St. Vasily was, apparently, the first complement to Vasily’s work, but what his additions were is very difficult to decide. In all likelihood, those interpretations that reveal in the author a close acquaintance with the topography of the Church of the Resurrection should be attributed to him, although St. Vasily. So, unfortunately, we do not have exact information about the composition of the original edition of the interpretation. This edition is currently unknown, and those editions that are known, even the shortest ones, such as the one published by Millesius with the name of St. Cyril, as well as the one that could be restored on the basis of a comparison of all editions, are already a consolidated and interpolated work, with references to the 6th century, as a term before which they could not have appeared in this form. In the most refined edition, we can clearly notice the layering of three different interpretations of the church. The first of these interpretations is, so to speak, the Old Testament interpretation, compiled in relation to the concept of the Old Testament church and cult, as a prototype of the New Testament, Christian church and cult. According to this interpretation, the Christian church is built like a tabernacle of information, the altar is the Holy of Holies, the ciborium is the image of the ark of the covenant, the cosmit is the image of the Old Testament cosmius, the priest’s robe is the image of Aaron’s subdir, also the omophorion, etc. This interpretation must be the most ancient. Traces of it are found in the Apostolic Constitutions, in Eusebius and other ancient fathers. The second interpretation is historical and topographical. It is compiled in relation to the concept of liturgy as the remembrance of the suffering, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. According to this interpretation, the church represents (ἀντιτυποῦσα) the crucifixion and the tomb, and the resurrection, the concha is an image of the cave where Christ, St. the meal is the place where Christ was laid in the tomb, the ciborium depicts the place where Christ was crucified, the bars depict the bars around the cave of the tomb in the Church of the Resurrection, the pulpit depicts the stone rolled away from the door of the tomb, the priest's clothing is the crimson robe that Christ wore during his suffering, the stripes on the sleeves of the surplice mean the bonds of Christ, and on the sides - the blood that flowed from the rib, epitrachelion - a rope around the neck of Christ, oriton - a shroud with which the body of Christ was wrapped in the tomb, etc. This interpretation, in its most characteristic parts, could have appeared no earlier than the second half of the 4th century, when a magnificent church was erected by Constantine over the places of the crucifixion and burial of the Savior and when the topography of the main Christian shrines became accessible and understandable to everyone. The third interpretation can be called mystical or apocalyptic. It is compiled in relation to the concept of Christian worship, as an image of serving the God of heavenly powers. According to this interpretation, the church is the earthly sky in which the heavenly God dwells, the bells are angelic trumpets, the altar is the image of the heavenly and mental altar, at which the serving priests represent the mental ethereal hierarchy of the highest powers, the altar elevation (βῆμα) is the throne on which the king of all Christ sits with his apostles, the elders are the image of the seraphim forces, deacons are an image of angelic forces, the great entrance is an image of the second coming of Christ, etc. This interpretation, which has its foundations partly in the Apocalypse, is found in a fairly developed form in Eusebius of Caesarea (IV century), who in his “Solemn Oration on the Building of Churches,” spoken on the occasion of the consecration of the church built in Tire by Bishop Paulinus, explains at great length that the Christian church will be built in the image of the invisible church and is essentially likened to it, that it is “a mental image that which is above the firmament" 33. But this interpretation was carried out with particular consistency in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, which became known in the church from the 6th century. and in the writings of St. Maximus the Confessor - a writer of the 7th century, who was strongly influenced by the works of Dionysius. And in general, those forms of expression of this interpretation, in which it appears in ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, are closer to the interpretations of Dionysius than to the interpretations of Eusebius. All these three methods of interpretation are already merged even in the shortest edition, and each of them sacrifices many of its details in favor of one or another of the other methods. This fact indicates that in the oldest editions known to us of the monument we are examining, we no longer have the original edition, but the later, consolidated edition. And since in all the copies of this edition we invariably find an interpretation of the Trisagion, which appeared in church services in the 5th century, around 439, and the Cherubic song, which began in the 6th century, in 573, under Emperor Justin II 34, it is clear that in the form in which As we have the mentioned edition, it could not have appeared earlier than the end of VI. - In the same VI century. indicates, contained here, a chilistic interpretation of the autumn by the bishop of the people with the sign of the cross after reading the Gospel. At the same time, a special sign was used in autumn, denoting the number 6500 - the year of the expected second coming of Christ and the end of the world. This kind of interpretation could hardly have appeared earlier than the 6th century, since until the end of the 5th century, that is, before the seventh thousand years from the creation of the world, chilistic aspirations had a different character. According to the views of the ancient followers of chiliasm, for example. St. Justin 35, St. Irenaeus 36 and Lactantius 37, the second coming of Christ and His new kingdom were supposed to come with the onset of the seventh thousand years, which they likened to the seventh day of creation, when God rested from his works. At the end of the 5th century. the expectation of the second coming of Christ actually existed. But when this expectation was not justified, the chiliastic doctrines for determining the time of the second coming of Christ put forward another consideration, based on the text of the Apocalypse, that Satan is bound by Christ for 1000 years (Apoc. ch. 18) and that, therefore, his actions among people as the Antichrist should be revealed around the year 1000 after the birth of Christ, and then there should be a second coming and death peace. As for the edition of the “legend” that was used by the author of Sofroniev’s “word”, it contains signs of even more recent origin. This edition contains a detailed interpretation of the fourfold number of gospels. This interpretation, very important in iconographic terms, belongs to the father of the 2nd century. St. Irenaeus of Lyons and taken from his work “Against Heresies” 38 and, therefore, in itself not only cannot speak in favor of the late origin “from testimony,” but, on the contrary, should indicate its antiquity. But since the works of St. Irenaeus were very little widespread in the east, due to which their Greek original has not survived to this day, with the exception of passages cited by some ancient fathers, then the idea arises that the mentioned interpretation could have been borrowed not directly from the original, but from the writings of some later father, for example, Anastasius Sinaita, who alone preserved the corresponding Greek text of the work of St. Irenea 39. If this is so, then the interpretation of the fourfold number of the gospels could appear in the text of the “legend” only at the end of the 7th century. or even later. Peter 40 believes that Germanus borrowed from Anastasius in the 8th century. and that, consequently, that edition of ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, which contains this interpretation, appeared later than St. Sophronia. This idea is very probable, since the translation of Anastasius the librarian published by Pitra proves that this interpretation was indeed part of the original German edition of ἱστορία, although as for the source from which Herman borrowed it - directly from the original, or from Anastasius's Questions and Answers - one can think differently. However, no matter how late the edition of the “legend” that we have in mind occurred, it appeared, in any case, earlier than the “word,” since the author of the latter undoubtedly used the “legend” as a ready-made, pre-existing composition. That this was exactly the case, i.e. that the “legend” served as a source for the “word”, and not vice versa, is clear from some signs contained in the text itself of both. So, under the assumption that the “word” published under the name of St. Sophronius, served as a source for the “ecclesiastical legend” or ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, one would expect that those interpretations in which the author’s close acquaintance with the topography of the Jerusalem Temple of the Resurrection is manifested, and which therefore could be attributed primarily to Sophronius or to whom or another Patriarch of Jerusalem, will have a sharper character in the “word” than in the “legend” and even more: in the “legend”, which, at least in its later edition, has a Constantinople origin, these interpretations will either be completely thrown out or significantly discolored and freed from the sharpest topographical features. In reality, however, we see exactly the opposite. Here are examples. In the oldest edition of the "legend" the ciborium is interpreted as follows: "the ciborium marks the place where Christ was crucified. Nearby were this place and the cave where He was buried." In a later edition it was added: "in the church it (the ciborium) is placed in order to serve as an abbreviated image of the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It also corresponds to the ark of the covenant of the Lord, which contained the Holy of Holies and its shrine, and at which God commanded to place two cherubim; for κιβ means ark, and ωριον – illumination of the Lord.” - In the "word" of Sophronius, this interpretation is briefly stated as follows: "the ciborium forms the ark of Noah; for κιβ means the ark, and ωριον - its structure. The pillars of the ciborium will be arranged in the image of the four animals that the prophet saw." Thus, here there is a complete absence of topographical interpretation and, in addition, there is a strange confusion between the ark of the covenant and the ark or ark of Noah. Another example, no less expressive, is the interpretation of grids. In the “legend” the bars are interpreted as follows: “the bars indicate the place of prayer, serving as a sign that the space outside them is accessible to the people, and inside them there is the Holy of Holies, accessible only to the priests. Indeed, the holy tomb also has copper bars, so that no one enters behind them carelessly, and as it happens." - The author of the “word” edits this interpretation somewhat differently: “the bars are an image of the fence of the tomb; they are copper, so that no one enters (behind them) carelessly. They also indicate the place of prayer, serving as a sign that the space outside them is accessible to the people, and inside them there is sacred saints, accessible only to priests." Here the precious indication is completely omitted that at the time the interpretation was compiled, the copper bars around the holy tomb in Jerusalem still existed - μνῆμα κάγκελλα χαλκ ᾶ. These copper gratings are clearly mentioned by pilgrims of the 4th century. and they, undoubtedly, were in the church built by Constantine, and Patriarch Sophrony could still see them, since he had been in this church before its destruction; but whether they remained in the church built by Patriarch Modest on the site of the Church of Constantine destroyed by Khosroes is unknown. The later pilgrims who saw this church and described in detail the tomb of Christ, for example, Arculf (about 670), Bede (about 720) and Bernard (about 870) do not mention them. The latter claims that there were 9 columns around the tomb of the Lord, inter quas consistent parietes ex optimis lapidibus 41. Doesn't this mean that the author of ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ lived before the author of λ ό γος τοῦ ἁ γίον Σωφρονίου? And doesn’t this mean that this latter author borrowed from the first, and not vice versa? To prove the last thought, we will give a few more examples. From St. Sophronius, the famous liturgist and philosopher, we should expect that when editing ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ he would eliminate from it unnecessary repetitions, ambiguities and contradictions resulting from the layering of various later additions onto the original text. But in reality we don't see this. We see, on the contrary, that in the work being analyzed there is everything that is found in later compilation editions of ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, i.e., repetitions, ambiguities, and contradictions, even sometimes to a greater extent than there, which clearly indicates the finished product that was in the hands of the compiler an essay which he, however, did not know how to handle properly. So: 1) in Chapter II. we encounter the interpretation of the sentence - πρ ό θεσις. This is the place of execution where Christ was crucified, which is why the lamb is eaten on it. The same interpretation, indicating the sacrifice of Abraham, as a prototype of the New Testament sacrifice, is repeated in the 21st chapter in connection with the interpretation of the Cherubic song, as is usually the case in the consolidated editions of ἐκκλησιαστικὴ. As there, here πρ ό θεσις is called σκευοφυλάκιον. 2) in Chapter III. we find the same interpretation repeated twice with minor cancellations in the application to θυσιαστήριον and to βῆμα. This indicates that the compiler had at hand either one consolidated edition or two, of which in one the mentioned explanation was attached to θυσιαστήριον, in the other to βῆμα. But the compiler did not pay attention to the identity of interpretation. 3) In ch. VI we encounter a strange abbreviation of the text ἱστορίας ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, indicating the negligence and ineptitude of the compiler, as well as the fact that he undoubtedly had at hand a ready-made text ἱστορίας, which he sometimes abbreviated on his own consideration. Above pages 29, 9 we read: Πέτρος. This phrase here has no connection either with the previous or with the subsequent one, and the Russian translators rightly came to great confusion from it, suggesting that “here something was introduced in the work of the Holy Father after and without any need” 42. But if we compare this place with the original text of ἱστορία or “ecclesiastical legend”, printed below pp. 68. 11–69. 2, as well as with the Old Slavic translation, we will clearly see that this is nothing more than a trace of a sloppy abbreviation. 4) Among the same kind of careless and sloppy abbreviations should be included the phrase: ὁ δὲ κάλαμος ἐστὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, which we read at the end of Chapter VII, page 30. 16. In its present in form it makes no sense; and the text ἱστορία, neither short nor medium, does not give us any data for guessing, for it does not contain anything of the kind. But in the text of the Slavic article printed above, we are talking about a cane, which means a prayer book written with a cane; the text of the extensive edition of Herman’s work also speaks of the cane with which Christ was beaten, and which is symbolized by one of the sides of the stole. It is possible, therefore, that the text ἱστορία that the compiler had at hand also spoke about a cane. What exactly is unknown; but this constituted one of the features, a trace of which can be seen in the remaining phrase. 5) This desire for abbreviations is also found in other places in the essay. There they are more successful, but everywhere they testify to the same thing, i.e. that ἱστορία served as a source for λ ό γος, and not vice versa, and that it was precisely ἱστορία, and not something else. So the interpretation of the fourfold number of the Gospels, as we said, belongs to St. Irenaeus of Lyons and is given by St. Anastasius Sinait in his Questions and Answers. But if we compare the text of this interpretation contained in λ ό γος - 36.5 - 37.5 with the text given by Anastasius, and with the text of ἱστορία, then it will be discovered that it was borrowed not from Anastasius, but from ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, where the text of the interpretation, in comparison with that found in Anastasius, has some features (depending on abbreviations), which, however, are repeated in the more abbreviated presentation of the author λ ό γος. It seems to us that these examples and the considerations and comparisons we cited above are quite sufficient to affirm with certainty: 1) that the basis of the work published under the name of Sophronius is another more ancient and completely independent work - the so-called ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ or “ecclesiastical legend”, 2) that this ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ was at the hands of the author in an edition that was no longer the original, although ancient, but supplemented or revised no earlier than the end of the 7th century, and maybe in the 8th century. St. Herman, and 3) that this edition, in its general composition, was close to the one published by Millesius under the name of St. Kirill; but, as for the details, in this respect it was more extensive and came closer to the later Hermanov edition. In relation to the composition, it is not uninteresting to note here the fact that the work of pseudo-Sophronius ends exactly at the place where ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ends, published by Millesius, i.e. on the interpretation of the Cherubic song, the great entrance and ripid (we do not take into account monastic robes). Having exhausted his entire main source, having placed in his work ἅ πασαν ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, the author stops, as if in indecision, what to take as the basis for his further presentation. Apparently, he decided to give preference to Theodore of Andida; at least the last lines ending his unfinished work are taken from Theodore. If it were possible to take for certain that the edition of ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, which underlies the purified text of the pseudo-Sophronius work we have given, dating back in origin to a time no earlier than the end of the 6th century, does not go back at the same time and later than the beginning of the 7th century, then there would not be There are no particular obstacles to recognizing Sophronius as at least his editor or even his author in the same sense as is asserted about St. Herman of Constantinople, who also only owns an edition or a new adaptation of an old, but very widespread, work. But, unfortunately, this cannot be proven. On the contrary, as we have seen, there are very good reasons to think that St. Sophrony could not even be the author of this work, since it was compiled on the basis of an edition that bears traces of revision made later than the life of St. Sophronia. This is also confirmed by the fact that the author, obviously, placed very little value on indications of the topography of St. places in Jerusalem contained in the “legend” and, if possible, discolored them and even threw them out completely, which cannot be expected from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who sang in verse the shrines of Jerusalem. As for those parts of the above text of the work of pseudo-Sophronius that cannot be explained by parallel passages in the “legend,” they not only do not contain anything that would make it likely that they belonged to St. Sophronia, on the contrary, contains in himself quite a few things that cannot be attributed to him; such, for example, are the strange and intricate interpretations: κυριακὴ (κυρίου ἄκος) and surplice (ἐστὶ χάρις). 43 The only place that Mai points to as characteristic, justified by other places from the undoubtedly authentic writings of St. Sophronia, a place containing the doctrine of transubstantiation and that St. gifts are not ἀντίτυπα, it can be even more conveniently explained by comparing it with chapter 23 of the guidebook, (ὁδηγὀς) of St. Anastasia Sinaita, where the same teaching is presented and in almost the same expressions. So, it is most likely to think that the work published by Mai under the name Sophronius is the work of a later unknown compiler who lived no earlier than the 12th century, that is, later than Theodore of the Andes, or two: one who lived no earlier than the 8th century. and another, no earlier than the 12th century. This work, as Peter 44 rightly thinks, is the same ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, which, in a more or less processed and interpolated form, is found in Byzantine literature extremely often, sometimes without the name of the author, sometimes under different names: Vasily, Cyril, Herman, Chrysostom, and sometimes under the name of many fathers at once, which, for example, is the example “legends” or ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, indicated by Montfaucon in the Coalene Library 45. It remains for us to try to resolve only one more question in relation to the interpretation published by May: how the name of St. appeared on it. Sophrony, if Sophrony didn’t write anything like that? Is this a deliberate forgery, or a compiler’s consideration that has some valid reason? There is no reason to suspect fraud; Therefore, only the latter is true. But what considerations could the compiler be guided by when putting the name Sophronius on his compilation? Considerations could be the following. We have already indicated above that St. Sophronius is credited with the restoration and edition of the Jerusalem Church Typikon, originally compiled by St. Savva, and that some of the Jerusalem Typicons that have survived even to this day are inscribed with the name of St. Sophronia Σωφρονίου. The composition of the Jerusalem Typicons was sometimes very complex and varied. In addition to the charter, or statement of day and night services, they sometimes contained special regulations for the liturgy and even interpretations of it. Thus, in one of the Typiks stored in the Patriarchal Library in Jerusalem (formerly the Monastery of St. Sava No. 305) of the 15th century, the statute of proskomedia and liturgy is placed in chapter 138 - περὶ διατάξεως τῆς θείας προσκομιδῆς καὶ λειτουργίας - published by me in Materials for the history of the rites of the liturgy (Kazan, 1889, pp. 80–93), and then, in the 140th chapter, ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ with the name of St. Cyril of Jerusalem - τοῦ ἐν ἁ γίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Κυρίλλου ἐπισκ ό που τῶν ῾ Ιεροσολύμων ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ καὶ μυσταγωγία περὶ ὲκκλησίας 46. In other Typika ἱστορία could be placed without the name of Cyril or anyone else, and in this case, as an integral part of the charter, it could not without reason be attributed to Sophronius, especially if the name of Sophronius was in the general title of the Charter or Tinikon. In all likelihood, the unknown compiler we mentioned used this article, having found it in the Typikon with the name of St. Sophronius, and attributed it to him based on the common title. However, since different lists of this article bear the names of different fathers, why not assume that there were lists with the name Sophronius, inscribed in this way for the same reasons given now. We have proven, we hope, that the interpretation published by Mai is undoubtedly based on the ancient ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστική. But it also underlies the interpretation of Herman and numerous other compilations of this kind. From this it is easy to understand how extremely important it would be to have at hand this work in its oldest and most pure form. Since of all the hitherto known editions of it, the oldest and purest must be recognized as the one published by Millesius, and since this edition is currently an inaccessible rarity, we decide to reproduce this edition here with some very important additions. Millesius in his edition of the works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem – Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera, quae supersunt Omnia. Edit. Th. Milles. 1703. Oxoniae, pp. 325 – 331, – published ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ under the following title: τοῦ ἐν ἁ γίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Κυρίλλου ἐπισκ ό που ῾ Ιεροσολύμων ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ καὶ μυσταγωγκή . When printing, he had the following manuscripts at hand: 1) Bodleian Library Codex Barokisian of the 14th century. according to Cox catalog No. 27, φ. 103 – 106. The short text contained here with the name of St. Kirill is the basis for the publication; 2) Libraries of the College of St. Magdalene of the 15th century. Here ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ is placed under the following title: τοῦ ἐν ἁ γίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Βασιλείου ἀρχιεπισκ ό που Καισαρείας Καππαδοκίας ἱστορία μυσταγωγικὴ ἐκκλησιαστική. This edition, compared with the first, is widespread and, apparently, completely similar to the one we published in the appendices to the Information on Vatican Manuscripts, but in the manuscript of the College of St. Magdalene contains only a part of it, corresponding to the first 10 chapters of the Bodleian manuscript. However, Millesius compares both manuscript texts, and those additions that appear in the manuscript of the College of St. Magdalene, enters with a reservation into the main text. 3) Then, in addition, he compares both handwritten texts with the printed edition of Duceus (in Anctario Duceano t. II, p. 131 under the title: τοῦ ἐν ἁ γίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἀρχιεπισκ ό που Κωνσταντινουπ ό λεως ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἢ μυστικὴ θεωρία), of course, only in those departments that correspond to the printed widespread text. In our edition we had in mind to leave everything as printed by Millesius, but then, remembering that in the Royal Vienna Library there is a list of ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ, apparently completely similar to the one published by Millesius according to the Bodleian Codex (see Soch, Catal. cod. Barros. No. 27. Lambecii comment. IV. col. § IX), we asked academician and professor I. V. Yagich to look at the Viennese manuscript and indicate to us the differences between the text contained in it and the text published by Millesius. Our request was satisfied with the usual readiness and sympathetic courtesy, even on a larger scale than we dared to expect, for which we here offer our deepest gratitude to the highly esteemed professor. Now we have the opportunity to add to Millesius’s comparisons a new comparison of the main text with the text of the Vienna list. This list, in its general composition, turns out to be completely similar to the Bodleian one; the differences are minor and concern only some details in the text. This is very important for judging the merits of the published edition, its reliability and stability. Additions from the manuscript of the College of St. We print the Magdalenes in small print and do not make new additions to them, with the exception of one containing an interpretation of the fourfold number of the Gospels with options from Anastasius Sinaita. We found this addition useful for comparison. We take the translation, for the most part, ready-made from the collection of liturgical interpretations published by the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. In the notes we use the following abbreviated instructions: B - means Bodleian manuscript, B - Viennese, M - St. Magdalene, D – edition of Dutsey. T οῦ ἐν ἁ γίοις Κυρίλλου ἐπισκ ό που 47 ῾ Ιεροσολύμων ἱστορ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ καὶ μυσταγωγκή 1. The Church is the church of God, a sacred place, a house of prayer, a meeting of the people, the body of Christ, (His name), the bride of Christ, (purified by the water of His baptism and sprinkled with His blood, sealed with the anointing of the Holy Spirit according to the prophetic word: “thy name is poured out with ointment, and we flow into the stench of thy ointment” (P. Canto. I. 2. 3); for (he) is like ointment that descends from the head to the bard of Aaron. The Church is the earthly heaven in which the heavenly God lives and dwells, (It serves as a reminder of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, it is glorified more than the Mosaic tabernacle of information, in which the purification and the Holy of Holies. It was foreshadowed by the patriarchs, foreshadowed by the prophets, founded on the apostles and adorned by the hierarchs. 2. Concha corresponds to the Bethlehem cave where Christ was born (and the cave where he was buried), as the evangelist says: “The cave was hewn out of stone, and there they laid the Lord” (Mark, XV. 46). 3. The Holy Table is (the place) where they laid Christ in His tomb. On it lies the true and heavenly bread - Christ in a mysterious and bloodless sacrifice, sacrificed as a man according to his flesh and blood, offered to the faithful as food for eternal life. (She is also the throne of God, on which God, carried by the cherubim, rested bodily. At such a meal Christ sat among his apostles and, during his last supper, and taking bread and wine, said to them: “Take, eat and drink from her; this is my body and my blood” (Matthew 26. 26/28). She was transformed and the table of the law, in which the manna was kept, which is Christ who came down from heaven. 4. Ciborium depicts Mount Kraineva, where Christ was crucified; for this place and the cave where he was buried are close to one another. (in the church it is supplied in order to serve as an abbreviated image of the crucifixion and burial and resurrection of Christ. It also corresponds to the ark of the covenant of the Lord, in which, as they say, the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place were contained, in which God established there to be two cherubim facing both directions. For κιβ means ark, and ουριον - illumination Lord, the light of God). 5. The altar corresponds to the holy tomb of Christ, on which he offered himself as a sacrifice to God and the Father, through the offering of his body, like a slain lamb, (and like a bishop and the son of man, sacrificing and sacrificing, sacredly slain in a mysterious and bloodless sacrifice and in verbal service to the faithful, through which we became partakers of eternal and immeasurable life. This lamb was transformed in Egypt by Moses, on the Easter evening, with the blood of him (the lamb), turning away the destroying angel from killing the people. For that evening means that in the evening the true lamb was slain - Christ, who took away the sin of the world on his cross, because “Christ was devoured for us” (1 Cor. U. Ch.). The service to the Lord by earthly and fleshly priests depicts the mental services of the ranks of the disembodied and higher powers. Therefore, they too must be “like a scorching fire”; for the Son of God and the judge of all established earthly orders and regulations according to the model of heavenly ones). 6. The altar elevation is a stepped place and a throne on which the king of all will sit with his apostles, as it is said to them: “You will sit on the twelveth throne (Matthew xix. 28). It points to the second coming, when He will come, sitting on the throne of glory, to judge the world (as the prophet says: “For there they sat on the thrones for judgment in the house of David.” . The cosmit corresponds to the subordinate holy cosmium, representing the image of the crucified Christ decorated with a cross. On their outer side they define the place where the people enter, and on the inner side they define the holy of holies, accessible only to the priests, just as there are indeed copper bars in the holy tomb, so that no one penetrates through them carelessly and as it happens). ? μενὸς εἰς μυστὶκὶν καὶ ἀναὶμακτον θυσὶαν , καὶ λογικήν λατρεἰαν τοὶς πἰστοὶς ἱεροθτοῦμὲνος , δὶ ἣ ς μέτοχοὶ γεγὸναμεν ϛ ω ἣ ς αὶωνίου καὶ ἀθανἀτου . Ὃ νπερ ἀμνὸν καὶ προετῦωπσέν Μωυσ ἣ ς πρ ό ς ἑσπέραν ἑν Αὶγύπτφ , καὶ τφ 5 αὶματὶ αύτο ὓ τὸν δλοθρευ τἡν ἀγγελον ἀπέστρεφε τοῦ θανἀτ ὣ σαὶ τὸν λαὸν . Т ὸ γὰρ πρ ό ς ἐσπέραν σημαὶνει , δτὶ καὶ πρ ό ς ἐσπέραν ἐσφαγιἀσθη δ άληθιν ό ς ἀμνὸς τοῦ κοσμου 54 , δ αϊρων τἀς ἀμαρτίας ἑν τφ σταυρῷ αὐτοῦ Χριστὸς καὶ γὰρ τὸ πἀσχα ήμ ὣ ν ύπέρ ήμ ὣ ν ἐθὸθη Χριστὸς . Θυσιαστήρι ό ν ἐστιν καὶ λέγεται κατἀ τὸ ἑπουράνι ό ν καὶ νοητὸν θυσὶαστἡρι ό ν, ἑν 10 ὣ ν ἀΰλων καὶ ἀνω δυνάμεων * καὶ οὶ ἐπὶλγεται καὶ ἒ νυλοι ἱερεἱς παρεστ ὣ τες καὶ λατρἐυοντες τῷ κυρἱῷ δὶα παντὸς, ὣ στε καὶ τοοἱν τούς 55 δεὶ εἱναι ώς πΰρ φλἐγον . (p.327) ἐπὶγεὶων διἀταέιν δ υὶὸς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κριτής τ ὣ ν ἀπἀντων ἐνομοθετήσεν 15 ξ. B ήμἀ εστήν δπὸβαθρος τὸπος καὶ θρὸνὸς , ἐν ῷπερ δ παμβασιλεύς προ Ϟ ἀθηται μετἀ τ ὣ ν αύτοΰ ἀποστὸλων , ώς δ πρ ό ς αύτούς λ ό γος 56 ὂ τι καθὶσεσθε ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρὸνων 57 . ύποδεικνύει δἐ τἡν δευτἐραν παρουσὶαν , καθ ἣ ν έλευσεται 58 ?? Δαβίδ . Κὸσμὶτης ἐστὶ κατἀ τὸ νομικὸν καὶ ἂ γιον κὸσμιον τοῦ σταυρωθέντος Χριστοῦ ἐκσφρἀγισμα , διἀ τοῦ σταυροῦ κὸσμούμενον. Κἀγκελλά εἰσι τὸν τής προσευχ ἥ ς τὸπον δηλοῦντα, ἐν οἱς σημαὶνει τἡν μεν ἔξωθέν τοῦ λαοῦ ε ἳ σοδον, τἡν δἐ ἔσωθεν τἀ ἂ για τ ὣ ν άγὶων ύπάρχουσαν , καὶ μὸνοις το ἳ ς ἰερεῦσιν οῦσαν ἔπἰβατὸν, ώς άληθώς 59 εἱς τὸ ἂ γιον μν ἣ μα 10 ἔτυχεν. ξ. Ὁ ᾄ μβων 60 ἐστἱν δ φέρων 61 τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ λὶθου τοῦ άγὶου μνἡματος 62 δν δ ἂ γγελος ἀποκυλὶσας 63 ἐκἀθητο ἐπ ′ ὄγκφ αύτοῦ 64 ἀναβο ὣ ν τἡν άνάστασιν κυρὶου τα ἳ ς μυροφὸροις Ἒ στὶ δἐ καὶ κατά τὸν λέγοντα ἐπ ′ δρούς πεδινοῦ ᾃ ρατε οημεἰον, ἀνάβηθι δ εὐαγγελιζόμενον. ή. T ό κατά ἀνατολάς εϋχεσθαι , παραδεδομενον έστἰν 65 7. Amboi serves as an image of a stone at the holy tomb, on the edge of which, at a distance from it, an angel sat, announcing to the myrrh-bearers the resurrection of the Lord. (It also reminds us of the words of the prophet: “Establish a sign on the mountain; go up and preach good news to Zion and lift up your voice”; for this mountain is located in the place of valleys and plains) (Jer. XXVI. 18). 5 παρά τ ὣ ν άγἰων άπὸστολων , καὶ ἔστιν οϋτως * διά τὸ τὸν ἣ λιον νοητὸν τής δικαιοσύνης Χριστὸν τὸν θεὸνἡμ ὣ ν ἐπὶ γ ἣ ς φανἡναι ἐν τοἳ ς μέρεσι τῆς ἀνατολῆς τοῦ αὶσθητοῦ ἣ λἰον κατά τὸν εἰπὸντα προφήτην * ἀνατολῆ ὃ νομα αὐτ ᾢ, καὶ 66 ? οὑρανοῦ 10 κατ * ἀνατολἀς, καὶ προσκυνήσωμεν εὶς τὸν τὸπον, οὑ ἒ στωσαν οὶ πόδες αὐτοῦ, καὶ παλιν * στήσονται οὶ πόδες τοῦ κυρὶου ἐπὶ τὸ δρος τ ὣ ν ἐλαι ὣ ν κατά ἀνατολάς . T αῦτα φασὶν οὶ προφῆται , καὶ διἀ τὸ ἀποκαραδοκεὶν ἡμ ἅ ς παλιν τὸν Ἐδἐμ παράδεισον κατά ἀνατολάς ἀπολαμβάνειν , καὶ ὼ ς ἐκδεχομένους τήνἀνατολἡν τῆς φωτοφανεὶας τοῦ Χριστὸῦ παρουσὶας. 8. Pray to the east is a tradition from the holy apostles and means the following. This is because the mental sun of righteousness, Christ our God, appeared on earth in those countries where the sensual sun rises, in accordance with the words of the prophet: “East is my name” (Zech. UI. 12) and: “Worship the Lord, who has ascended into the heavens of heaven to the east, and let us worship in the place where His feet stood” (VIc. LXV40; P. 34), and again: “ The feet of the Lord will be on the Mount of the Lord of Olives in the east” (Zech. XIU. 4). This is what the prophets say because in the east we hope to again receive the Edenic paradise and meet the east of the light manifestation of the second coming of Christ). 9 . Not bending the knee on Sunday means that on the Day of the Lord our fall into sin is corrected by the three-day resurrection of Christ. Not kneeling before Pentecost means that seven days after St. 15θ′. T ὸ μὴ κλὶνειν γόνυ 67 ἐν τ ῇ ἡμέρ ᾳ τῆς άγὶας κυριακῆς τ ῇ (p.328) ἐπανόρθωσιν, 69 διἀ τῆς τριημέρου τοῦ Χριστὸῦ άνατάσεως. T ὸ δἐ μἐχρι τῆς πεντηκοστῆς μἡ κλὶνειν γόνυ ἔστι τὸ τάς ἐπτά ἡμἐρας 70 μετά τὸ ἄγιον πάσχα ἐπταπ 5 λουμἐνας κρατε ἳ ν τῆ άκις διακινησὶμ ᾢ* τὸ ἐπτακις ἐπτά τεσσαράκοντα ἐννέα , καὶ ἡ κυριακἡ πεντἡκοντα. ι '. ′About ἐν τ ῇ κεφαλ ῇ τοῦ ὶερέως περικεὶμενος διπλοῦς στἐφανος διἀ 71 τῆς τῶν τριχ &#8182#8182; ν σημει ὼ σεως εὶκονὶςει τἡν τοῦ ἀποστὸλου κορυφαὶου πμὶαν κάραν, ῆνπερ 72 άποσταλεὶς ύπο τοῦ 10 κυρὶου ἐν τᾢ κηρὐγματι ἐκάρη ὑπὸ τῶν ἀπειθούντων, ὼ ς ? , καὶ ἐποὶησε τἡν ἀτιμὶαν τιμἡν , καὶ τἡν χλεὐην δόἐαν , καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τἡν κεφαλἡν αύτοῦ στέφανον , οὑκ ἐκ λὶθων τιμὶων , ἀλλἀ τ ᾢ λὶθω καὶ τ ῇ πέτρα τῆς πὶστεως αύτοῦ , ἐκλάμπουσαν δπέρ χρυσὶον καὶ τοπάςὶον 73 καὶ λὶθους τιμὶους . κορυφἡ 74 γάρ ἐστι καὶ στἐφανος τοῦ δωδεκαλὶθου , οἴτινες 75 ὶο ἀποστολοι. ιά. Ἤ στολἡ τοῦ ὶερέως ἐστι κατά τὸν ποδήρη Ἀαρών , τὸν μέχρι 76 τ ὣ ν ποδ ὣ ν , ὄς ἐστιν ἔνδυμα ὶερατικὸν τιμιω᾿ τατον . Easter multiplied by seven is the continuation of Easter week. Seven seven forty nine, and with Sunday fifty. 10. The double crown, marked by hair, lying on the head of the priest, depicts the honest head of the supreme apostle, which, when he was sent by the Lord to preach, was shaved, as if in mockery by the opponents of his word, but the teacher Christ blessed this (mockery) and turned dishonor into honor, and reproach into glory, and placed on his head a crown not made of precious stones, but one that shines with the stone and rock of faith more gold, topaz and precious stones. For he is the head and crown of the twelve stones, which are the apostles. 11. The priest's clothing corresponds to Aaron's undershirt, which went down to his feet, a sacred robe, most precious. It is fire-like, as the prophet says: “angels make their spirits and their servants burn with fire” (Isa. Ssh. 4); and again: “Who is this who came from Edom?” For Edom means: both earthly and chosen (and scarlet); then he adds: “Your scarlet robe is from Bozor, and: like your scarlet robe and your garments, clearly from the trampling of the press” (LХШ. 1-3), meaning the robe of Christ’s flesh stained with blood on the most pure cross. At the same time, since Christ wore a scarlet robe during his suffering, now the priests show through what kind of bishop they are servants. 5 τούς άγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα, καὶ τούς λειτουργούς αὐτοῦ πυρός φλόγα. καὶ πάλιν * τὶς οὐτος δ παραγενόμενος ἐξ Ἔ δω᾿ μ ; Ἔ δω᾿ μ γάρ ἐρμηνεύεται γήϊνος , ἢ ὲκλεκτὸς 77 Ἔἳ τα ἐπάγει , ἐρύθημα ὶματὶων αὐτοῦ ἐκ In οσω᾿ ρ * 78 καὶ διατὶ σου ἐρύθράτά 79 τἡν βαφειτοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς σαρκός στολἡν , ἐξ αιἐν τ ᾢ ἀχάντω σταυρ ᾢ αὐτοῦ. ἂ μα δἐ ὂ τι 80 κοκκὶνην χλαμύδα ἐφόρεσεν ἐν τ ᾢ πάθει δ ?? εὶσὶν δπασπισταὶ. ιβ ′. T ό δέ ἀπεςωσμένους τούς διακόνους 81 περιπατεϊν 82 δεικνύει ὂ τι καὶ δ Χριστὸς εὶς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι ἀπερχόμενος, 12. The fact that the deacons walk without girded means that this is how Christ went to suffer, carrying his cross. The trimmings of the surplice, which on the sleeves signify the bonds of Christ with which he was bound when they led Him to Caiaphas* and Pilate. The trimmings on the sides are an image of the blood flowing from the side of Christ on the cross. The epitrachelion is the rope with the help of which Christ, being tied by the neck and drawn, was led to the crucifixion. The omophorion is in the image of Aaron's clothing, which was worn by the subordinate bishops, placing long towels on the left side (shoulder). 13. The bread offered, that is, consecrated, is the overabundant riches of God’s grace, since the Son of God, having become man, offered himself, and sacrificed both the offering and the deliverance and the cleansing of his body for the life of the world, as he says: “I am the bread that came down from heaven, and if my flesh shall live forever” (John VI. 51). 0 with which the prophet Jeremiah says: “Come, let us put wood in his bread” (Jer. XI. 19), pointing to the wood of the cross nailed to His body. 5 ου ἧ ν περιπατ ὥ ν 83 καὶ βαστάςων τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ . Т ἀ λω᾿ ρια τοῦ στιχαρὶου, τά ἐν τ ῂ χειρὶ 84 ἐμφαὶνουσι τὸν 85 καὶ P ιλάτον. T ά δέ λω᾿ ρια , τά εὶς τά πλάγια εὶσὶ κατά τὸ αὶμα τὸ ῤ εῦσαν ἐκ τῆς πλευρ ᾶ ς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τ ᾢ σταυρ ᾢ. 10 T ό δέ ἐπιτραχἡλιὸν 87 ἐστι τὸ φακεω᾿ λιον , καθ οὐ ὀ Χριστὸς (p.329) δηθεὶς 88 ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον , καὶ συρόμενος ἢ γετο εὶς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι. T ό ὼ μωφόριὸν 89 ἐστι , κατά τἡν στολἡν τοῦ Ἁ αρ ὼ ν 90 καὶ γάρ καὶ οὶ ἐν νόμφ ἀρχιερεἴς σουδάρια μακρά τ ᾢ εὐωνύμ ᾢ μέρει περιθέντες ἐφόρουν. ιγ '. Ὁ ἂ ρτος τῆς προθέσεως ἢ τοι 91 δ ἀποκαθιερόμενος ἐμφαὶνει τὸν δπερβάλλοντα πλοῦτον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ * ὅ τι ὀ υὶός τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος γέγονε καὶ ἐαυτὸν προέθηκε καὶ προσήνεγκε 92 θυσὶαν καὶ προσφορἀν καὶ ἀντὶλυτρον καὶ ἐξὶλασμα 14. Wine and water are blood and water that flowed from His side. The bread and the cup are truly and truly in the likeness of the bread of that secret supper, at which Christ took the bread and the cup and said: “Take, eat and drink of it, all of you; this is my body and my blood,” showing that he makes us partakers of his death and his glory. 15 The anipphons of the liturgy are prophetic prophecies, announcing the coming of the Son of God from the Virgin to earth and crying: “Our God has appeared on earth.” The entry of the gospel marks the coming and entry of the Son of God into the world. The Trisagion Song means the following: there the angels said: glory in the highest and the Magi brought gifts: here we, like the Magi, bringing gifts - faith, hope, love, like gold, Lebanon and myrrh, we proclaim the song of the disembodied truly: “Holy God.” 16. The accession of the bishop to the co-throne and the sign of the people means the following: The Son of God, finishing the dispensation for us according to the flesh, raised his hands and blessed the disciples, saying to them: “Peace I leave with you.” Sitting means that the Son of God raised the flesh that he bore and the sheep that he raised on his shoulder (i.e., Adam’s nature, which is signified by the omophorion) above all beginning and power and dominion of the highest powers and brought him to God and the Father. The prokeimenon reveals prophetic insight. Or heralds the coming of the king. The apostle and witness and servant of Christ calls out, proclaiming his kingdom and saying: “Christ has come, the bishop of the good things to come” (Heb. IX, 11). Through “Hallelujah” David cries out and says: “Our God will pass by in reality.” Hallelujah in Hebrew means the following: all means coming, il - God, uga - praise, or sing songs to the living God. 5 τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ὐπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς , ω᾿ ς λέγει * 93 ἐγω ὀ ἂ ρτος ὀ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς * καὶ ὀ τρώγων ἐμοῦ τἡν σάρκα 94 ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αὶῶνα . περὶ οὑ καὶ ὀ προφήτης Ἱ ερεμὶας λέγει * δεῦτε καὶ ἐμβάλλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἂ ρτον αὐτοῦ, δεικνὑς τὸ ξύλον τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἐν τ ᾢ σώματι παγέν 95 10 ιδ′. Ὁ δέ ο ἶ νος , καὶ τὸ ΰδωρ , ἐστὶ 96 τὸ ἐκ τῆς πλευρ ἂ ς αὐτοῦ ἐξελθὸν αὶμα καὶ ΰδωρ. Ὁ ἂ ρτος καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ἐστι 97 κυρὶως καὶ ἀληθῶς κατά μὶμησιν τοῦ μυστικοῦ ἐκεἰνου ἂ ρτου 98 τοῦ δεὶπνου, ἐν ᾢ ὀ Χριστὸς ἔλαβε τὸν ἂ ρτον καὶ 99 τὸ ποτήριον, καὶ ε ἶ πε * λἀβετε, φάγετε, καὶ πὶετε εξ 17. The censer signifies the humanity of Christ, filled with the fire of the deity, and the fragrant smoke signifies the preceding fragrance of the Holy Spirit. Spirit. The censer is interpreted as fragrant joy. The Holy Gospel is the coming of the Son of God, when He was seen by us no longer in darkness and fire and the sound of trumpets, as Moses did on the mountain, but as a true man, a meek and peace-loving king, who descended like rain without noise on the fleece; and hearing (His) word and believing, we cry out: “Glory to you, Lord.” Four are the essence of the gospels because there are four main winds or in accordance with the four prominent animals on which the God of all rests. From here it is revealed that God, who sits on the cherubim and contains all things, having appeared, gave us a fourfold gospel, but permeated with one spirit; for there are four faces, and with these faces the activity of the Son of God is depicted. “The first animal is like a lion” (Apoc. VI. 7) characterizes His strength, power and royal dignity; the second, similar to a calf, marks His sacred service and priestly rank; the third, having a human face, clearly depicts His coming as a man; and the fourth, like a flying eagle, indicates the clarifying gift of the Holy Spirit from above. The gospels correspond to these animals on which Christ rests. For the gospel of John sets forth His sovereign, effectual, and glorious birth from the Father. The Gospels of Luke, which have a priestly character, begin with the priest Zechariah burning incense (altar). Matthew announces His human birth: “the book of kinship”; So, this gospel is human-shaped. Mark begins from the prophetic spirit descending on people from above, saying: “The gospel of Jesus Christ has conceived, as it is written in the prophets: Behold, I send my angel,” pointing to the winged image of the gospel. 15 δεικνὐς , ὅ τι κοινωνούς ὴμ ᾶ ς ἐποὶησε τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς δ ό ξης 100 αὐτοῦ . ιέ. 101 ἐισὶ τὣ ν προφητῶν αὶ προ ῥῥ price * 104 * 104 τῆς γῆς ὣ φθη . ᾗ 105 ε ἳ σοδον τοῦ υὶοῦ τἡν εὶς τὸν κ ό ομον . 106 * ἐνταῦθα 10 δέ ἡμεἴς ώς οὶ μάγοι φέροντες τ ᾢ Χριστ ᾢ δῶρα, πὶστιν, ελπκαὶ λὶβανον καὶ σμύρναν ἀσώματον 107 ᾂ σμα βοῶμεν πιστῶς * 108 ἂ γιος ὀ θε ό ς . ις '. Тό ἀνελθε ἲ ν 109 εὶς τὸν σὑνθρονον τὸν ἀρχιερέα καὶ σφραγὶσαι τὸν λαὸν , τοῦτὸ δηλοἴ * ὀ υὶὸς τοῦ θεοῦ μέλλων 110 πληροῦν 111 111 ό γησε τούς μαθητάς, 113 λέγων αὐτοῖς * εὶρ ή νην ἀφὶημ ὑμῖν. Тό δέ καθὶσαι ἐστὶν , ὂ τι 114 ὀ υὶὸς τοῦ θεοῦ , ἢ ν ἐφ ό ρησε σάρκα καὶ τὸ πρ ό βατον, ὄ ἀνελαβεν ἐπὶ τῶν ὤ μωνι 5 (r. 330) τητος τῶν ἂ νω δυνάμεων καὶ προσήγαγεν αὐτὸν 116 τ ᾢ θε ᾢ καὶ πατρὶ. Тό δέ προκεὶμενον 117 δηλοῖ τἡν τῶν προφητῶν ἐκφαντορὶαν , 118 ἢ προεμήνυσε τἡν ἔλευσιν τοῦ βασιλέως Χριστοῦ. 10, κηρύσσων τἡν βασιλεὶαν αὐτοῦ καὶ λέγων * Χριστ ό ς παραγέγονεν ἀρχιερεύς τῶν μελλ ό ντων ἀγαθῶν. Διἀ τοῦ Ἀλληλού ἳ α, βο ᾷ ὀ Δαβὶδ καὶ λέγει * ὀ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐμφανῶς ἢ ξει. Ἕ στι δέ τὸ Ἀλληλού ἳ α τ ῇ Ἑ βρα ἳ δι διαλέκτ ῳ οΰτως * τὸ 119 (A λλ) ἔρχεται * τὸ (ηλ) ὀ θεὸς * τὸ (ουια) αὶνε ἳ τε, ἢ ὐμνε ἳ τε τὸν ζῶντα θεὸν. ιζ. 120 ὐποδεικνύει τἡν ἀνθρωπ ό τητα τοῦ Χριστοῦ πυρὶ τῆς θε ό τητος ἐνωθε ἳ σαν , καὶ ὀ εὐώδης καπνὸς 5 τἡν εὐωδὶαν μηνὐει τοῦ ἀγὶου πνεύματος προπορευομένην. ἐρμηνεύεται 121 δέ θυμιατἡρ εὐωδέστατος εὐφροσύνη . Тό &##7938; 122 ἢ ν ὡ ράθη ἡμῖν οὐκ ἓ τι διά γν ό φου , καὶ πυρὀς καὶ σαλπι᾿ γγων , ὡ ς τῷ M ωΰσεῖ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὂ ρους , ἀλλ ’ ὡ ς ἄνθρωπος ἀληθἡς, ὀ πραῦς 10 καὶ ἡσύχιος βασιλεύς , ὀ καταβάς ὡ ς ύετος ἀφοφητὶ ἐν π ό κ ῳ* ? κύριε. T έσοαρα δέ εἰσἰ τἀ εὐαγγέλια , ἐπειδή καὶ τέσοαρα εἰσἰ καθολικά πνεύματα ἢ διά τἀ τετράμορφα ζῶα , ἐν οἰς 123 κάθηται ὀ τῶν δλων θεὸς, ἐξὠ ν φαὶνεται, ὅ τι ὀ καθήμενος 15 ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τετράμορφον τὸ εὑαγγέλιον , ἐνἰ δέ πνεύματι συνεχ ό μενον καὶ γάρ τετραπρόσωπά εἰσι * καὶ τά πρόσωπα αύτῶν εἰκονἰζουσι τἡν πραγματεὶαν τοῦ υὶοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ . T ό μἐν γάρ πρῶτον ὄμοιον λέοντι , τὸ ἕ μπρακτον αύτοῦ καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν χαρακτηρὶζον. Тό δεύτερον ὄμοιον 5 μόσχ ῳ τἡν ἰερουργικὴν καὶ ἰερατικἡν τάξιν ἐμφαὶνον. Тό δέ τρἰτον ἕ χον πρόσωπον ἀνθρωπου, τἡν κατά ἃ νθρωπον αὐτοῦ παρουσὶαν φανερῶς ὀιαγράφον. Тό τέταρτον ὄμοιον ἀετῦ πετομέν ῳ, τἡν τοῦ ἀγὶου πνεύματος ἐφιπταμένην δόσιν σαφηνὶζον. To αὶ τά εὐαγγέλια τούτοις σύμμορφα εἰσιν , ἐν οἰς κάθηται ὀ Χριστ ό ς . Тό μέν γάρ καὶά Ἱ ωάννην εὐαγγέλιον τἡν ἀπὀ 10 times γέννησιν διηγεὶται. Тό δέ κατά Λουκ ᾶ ν ἂ τε ἰερατικοῦ χαρακτῆρος ὑπάρχον ἀπὀ τοῦ Z αχαρὶου ιερέως θυμιῶντος ἂ ρχεται . M ατθαὶος δέ τἡν κατά ἃ νθρωπον αὐτοῦ διηγεὶται γέννησι * βίβλος γενεσεως * ἃ νθρωπόμορφον ουν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο 125. Μάρκος δέ ἀπὀ τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος ἐξ ὔ φους 15 * ὶδού ἐγω ' ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἂ γγέλον μου, τἡν πτερωτικἡν εἰκὸνα τοῦ εὐαγγέλιον δεικνος 126 ιή. About ὶ κατηχούμενοι ἐξέρχονται , ὡ ς ἀμύητοι τοῦ θεἰου βαπτὶσματος καὶ τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μυστηρἰων . Т ὸ σφραγὶσαι 5 τὸν ἀρχιερέα τὸν λαὸν ὐποδεικνυσι διἀ τῆς τῶν δακτύλων διατυπ ὡ σεως , ὄτι ἐν τ ᾢ ἐξακισχιλιοστ ᾢ πεντακοσιοστ ᾢ ἒ τει ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσὶα γέγονε . Т ὸ εἰλητὸν σημαὶνει τἡν σινδ ό να , ἐν ῂ ἐνειλὶχθη 127 τὸ σῶμα ὀ Χριστ ό ς 128 ἐκ τοῦ σταυροῦ καταβίβασθεὶς 129 καὶ ἐν μνημεὶ ῳ τεθεὶς. 130 Ἠ γινομένη προσκομιδή 10 ἐσταυρ ὠ φη ὀ Χριστ ό ς . Ὁ χερουβικὸς ὓ μνος ἐμφαὶνει διἀ τῆς τῶν διακὸνων προοδοποιήσεως, καὶ τῆς τῶν ῥ ιπιδίων, ἢ τοι τῆς τῶν ? 131 ? 133 ἐν τ ῂ ἀναιμάκτ ᾢ καὶ ἀτμὶδι καπνοῦ εὐ ώ δους * τ ᾢ 134 μέν πυρὶ (p. 331) δεικνων τἡν θε ό τητα , 5 τ ῂ δ ’ ἀτμὶδι τοῦ εὐ ώ δους τἡν παρουσὶαν αὑτοῦ ἐπελθ ό ντος 135 ἀναιμάκτου λατρεὶας τῆς διά τοῦ σταυροῦ καὶ θανάτου τοῦ Χριστού τελεσιουργουμένης 136 10 ιθ′. T ὸ δισκοκάλυμμά ἐστιν ἁ ντὶ τοῦ σουδαρὶου, ὄ ἡν ἐντεταλιγμένον 137 ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αύτοῦ ἐν τ ᾢ τάφφ . 138 138 138 κηδευσάντων Χριστ ό ν 140 Ἐμφαὶνει 141 δέ καὶ κατά ἂ λλον τρ ό πον ὀ δὶσκος * ὄτι ἐν μικρ ᾷ περιγραφ ῂ σ ώ ματος ὀ νοητὸς ἢ λιος Χριστ ό ς ὀ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐχωρήθη . Т ὸ ποτήριον δέ ἐστὶν ἀντὶ τοῦ σκεύους , ὄ ἐδέξατο ἐκχυἐν 142 ἐκ τῆς αὶμαχθεὶσης αὐτοῦ ἁ χράντου πλευρ ᾶ ς αὶμα καὶ ὕ δωρ . To αὶ ἅ λλως δέ πάλιν κατα᾿ τὸν κρατῆρα, ὄν γραφικῶς 143 ἠ σοφὶα, ἢ τοι ὁ υὶὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐκέρασε 18. The catechumens come out as if they have not been sanctified by baptism and the sacraments of Christ. The bishop’s signification of the people, through the folding of his fingers, shows that in the year 6500 there was (?) the coming of Christ. Iliton signifies the shroud with which the body of Christ was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb. The proskomedia, found in a vessel guard, denotes the cranial place where Christ was crucified. The Cherubic Hymn, preceded by deacons and ripids or seraphim images, marks the entrance of all the saints and righteous, accompanied by the Holy of Holies, lifted up by mortal hands. Along with them, the Holy Spirit goes ahead in a bloodless and verbal sacrifice, mentally contemplated under the guise of fire, incense and fragrant smoke; for fire indicates the divinity (of the Spirit), and fragrant incense indicates His presence, who invisibly came and fragrant us through the mysterious and bloodless ministry accomplished through the cross and death of Christ. 5 τὸ αῖμα αὐτοῦ , ἀντὶ οἴνου 144 προτιθεὶς ἐν τ ῇ ἀγὶ ᾳ τραπέζ ῃ, καὶ λέγων τοῖς π ᾶ σι * πὶετε τὸ αῖμα᾿ μου. Т ὸ καταπέτασμα , ἢ τοι ὁ ἀήρ , ἐστὶν ἀντὶ τοῦ λὶθου μεθ ’ ο ὖ ἠ σφαλὶσατο 145 ὁ I ωσ ἠ φ τὸ μνημεῖον , ὄνπερ καὶ ἐσφράγισεν ἠ τοῦ P ιλάτου κουστωδὶα . Т α᾿ δέ ῤ ιπὶδια καὶ οὶ δια᾿ κονοι ἐμφαὶνουσι τἡν τῶν ἐξαπτερυ᾿ γων 10 σεραφὶμ 146 ἐμφέρειαν , ὄτι κατα᾿ τἡν τῶν ἐπουρανὶων δια᾿ ταξιν ο ὕ τως μιμοῦνται καὶ τα᾿ ἐπὶγεια . κ'. T ὸ μοναχικὸν σχῆμά ἐστι κατα᾿ μὶμησιν 147 τοῦ ἐρημοπολὶτου καὶ βαπτιστοῦ Ἰ ωα᾿ ννου, ὄς ε ἶ χε τὸ ἒ νδυμα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τριχῶν καμη᾿ λου καὶ ζω᾿ νην δερματὶνην περὶ τον ὀσφύν αὐτοῦ. 15 T ἀποστο᾿ λου 19. The disk cover is an image of the towel that was placed on the head of Him (Christ) in the tomb. The paten is an image of the hands of Joseph and Nicodemus, who buried Christ. The paten is also explained in another way, (namely) that in the small volume of the body the mental sun Christ our God is seen. The chalice is the image of a vessel that received the blood and water that flowed from His pierced clean ribs, and otherwise it is also an image of a cup, which is depicted by Wisdom or the Son of God. He dissolved his blood, offered it instead of wine at the holy meal and said to everyone: “Drink my blood.” The upper cover or air is an image of the stone with which Joseph sealed the tomb and which was sealed by Pilate's guard. The Ripides and deacons represent the image of the six-winged seraphim, since the earthly (ministry) will also be organized according to the heavenly order. 20. The monastic attire is designed in imitation of the desert dweller and baptist John, who had a robe made of camel's hair and a leather belt around his loins. Shaving of the entire head in imitation of James, the brother of God and Paul the Apostle and others. The Anavols imitated the clothes they wore. Kukuli agrees with the words of the Apostle, who says: “The world was crucified to me and to the world” (Gal. VI 14). Mantle: with its free development, it depicts the wingedness of angels, and therefore is called angelic clothing. The belt, since it is made of dead skin and tightens the loins and lower back, means mortification (of the flesh) through abstinence, and therefore must always be worn in view of the strength and effectiveness of evil. Ἰ ακω᾿ βου τοῦ ἀδελφοθέου, καὶ P αύλου τοῦ ἀποστο᾿ λου, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν T α᾿ δε᾿ ἀναβο᾿ λαια ἃ περ ἐκεῖνοι ἐφο᾿ ρουν ὶμα᾿ τια . * ἐμοὶ δ κοσμος ἐσταυ᾿ ρωται , κἀγω᾿ τῷ κοσμ ῳ. Δια᾿ δε᾿ τῆς τοῦ 5 μανδυλὶου 148 ἀπολελυμε᾿ νης ἀπλω᾿ σεως , * διο᾿ περ 149 καὶ ἀγγελικο᾿ ν σχῆμα λε᾿ γεται . Ἡ δε᾿ ζω᾿ νη, ἐπεὶ ἀπο᾿ νεκρῶν δερμα᾿ των γὶνεται, ?? , τἡν δια ' τῆς ἐγκρατεὶας , καὶ ὥ ς χρη ' ταυ᾿ την ἐπικεῖσθαι ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τε τ ῂ τῆς 10 κακὶας δυνα᾿ μει καὶ ἐνεργεὶ ᾳ. κα '. Ὁ δε᾿ ἀνα᾿ λαβος , ἐπειδη ' ἒ μπροσθεν καὶ ὂ πισθεν το᾿ ν ? μη᾿ μο᾿ νον σταυρωθῆναι ἡμ ᾶ ς τῷ κο᾿ σμ ῳ ἀλλα᾿ καὶ το᾿ ν κο᾿ σμον (р. 332) ἡμῖν * ἴνα φευ᾿ γοντες το᾿ ν κο᾿ σμον μηδε᾿ ν ἐμποδω᾿ ν ἔχωμεν, μηδε ' 15 τ ῂ προ᾿ ς αὐτο᾿ ν σχε᾿ σει δια᾿ τῆς ἐπιφαινομε᾿ νης ἀπα᾿ της ἐκρατηθῶμεν. T ο᾿ δε ' κουκου᾿ λιον τἡν φρουροῦσαν καὶ σκἐπουσαν το᾿ ν νοῦν ἡμῶν χα᾿ ριν τοῦ θεοῦ * δ γα᾿ ρ ἀποκειρα᾿ μενος τἀ τοῦ κοσμου νοη᾿ ματα ', τἡν περικεφα᾿ λαιαν δε᾿ χεται τοῦ σωτηρὶου . Т α᾿ δε᾿ σανδα᾿ λια τοῦτο᾿ ν ἔχει το᾿ ν λο᾿ γον * ἐπει ὂ η ἐκ νεκρῶν δερμα᾿ των εὶσὶ , μικρῷ δε ' με᾿ ρει τοῦ σω᾿ ματος ὑπο᾿ κεινται, το᾿ ν αὐτο᾿ ν τρο᾿ πον, ὂ νπερ το ' ὂ λον σω᾿ μα προ᾿ ς ? ματι κεχρῆσθαι καὶ του᾿ τ ῳ νεκρῷ παρἀ φυ᾿ σιν . Т ο᾿ δε᾿ με᾿ λανα τα᾿ ἐνδυ᾿ ματα ' ἡμῶν ε ἶ ναι , ὂ τι χρη ' ἡμ ᾶ ς ἀφανεῖς ε ἶ ναι τῷ κο᾿ σμ ῳ, ὡ ς το᾿ πολὶτευμα ἔχοντες ἐν οὐρανῷ. M ανδυ᾿ ας , ἐπειδη᾿ τετρα᾿ γωνος ἐστὶν , δηλοῖ , ὂ τι καὶ δ κο᾿ σμος ἐκ τεσσα᾿ ρων στοιχεὶων ἐστὶν * εὶ δε᾿ τις 10 το ' τοιοῦτον πα᾿ λιν , ως τετρα᾿ γωνον ὂ ν , εὶς τα᾿ ς τε᾿ σσαρας γενικα᾿ ς ἀρετα᾿ ς ἐκλα᾿ βοι , φρο᾿ νησιν , ἀνδρεὶαν , σωνροσυ᾿ νην καὶ δικαιοσυ᾿ νην φημὶ, τοῦ εὶκο᾿ τος οὐχ ἁ μαρτη᾿ σεται. 21. Analav, since it has a cross in front and behind, means that, according to the Apostle, we must not only crucify ourselves with the world, but also peace with ourselves, so that, while fleeing the world, we would not have any obstacle, so that in relation to it we would not be carried away by its deceptive charm. Kukuliy is the grace of God, protecting and covering our mind. And he who turns away from worldly thoughts will receive the helmet of salvation. Sandals have this meaning: since they are made of dead skin and are placed under a small part of the body, in such a way that the entire body rests on the footprints of the sandals, this is how the soul should use the body, this dead (it is alive) contrary to nature. Our black clothes are because we must be invisible in the world, since we have residence in heaven. Since the mantle has four corners, this means that the world also consists of four elements, or, if anyone wants to accept its quadrangularity in the sense of indicating the four main virtues, that is, prudence, courage, temperance and justice, then he will not sin. In conclusion, we will make one remark that specifically relates to the monument we republished, i.e. to the short edition of ὶστορὶα ἐκκλησιαστικη '. We have repeatedly called this edition the shortest known and the most ancient. In our opinion, this edition originated from the previously widespread German edition and served as the basis for this latter. But is this really so? Shouldn't we think, on the contrary, that it is an abbreviation of a lengthy edition and therefore occurred later than it? It seems to us that this question should be answered in the negative, since in its composition there are quite clear signs of its seniority compared to the lengthy edition. In the field of expository literature, the tendency towards abbreviations did exist to a fairly significant extent, especially after the 14th century, when a variety of interpretations accumulated. How this desire was realized can be observed in the many compilative interpretations found in manuscripts and, incidentally, in the pseudo-Sophronius interpretation printed above. It manifested itself mainly in the reduction of the text of the interpretations, but not at all in the reduction in the number of objects interpreted (this number usually increased), while they tried to preserve the diversity of meanings. In a short version with the name of St. Kirill we see something different: here the number of interpreted objects is reduced - for example, there are no interpretations of cosmitis, lattices, beaters - but the variety of meanings is also almost completely absent here. Then, in our opinion, not unimportant proof of the seniority of this edition can be its last two chapters, containing interpretations of monastic robes. These two chapters obviously represent two separate small works, having only an indirect relation to ὶστορὶα ἐκκλησιαστικη '. He is attached to it completely mechanically. In some manuscripts, a special title is even written above them. So in the Jerusalem Patriarchal Library (formerly the monastery of St. Sava), there is a manuscript from the 13th century. No. 366, where after the beginningless ὶστορὶα ἐκκλησιαστικη ' the chapters we indicate under the title are placed: μερικη᾿ λυ᾿ σις καὶ ἐρμηνεὶα τοῦ ἀγὶου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ οχη᾿ ματος . Beginning T ο᾿ μοναχικο᾿ ν οχῆμα ἔστι κατα ' μὶμησιν κτλ . In the later Germanovsky edition of ὶστορὶα ἐκκλησιαστικη ' these chapters (or rather, one 20th) were introduced into the text itself and merged with it, so to speak organically, as an inevitable component of it, complementing the interpretation of hierarchical clothes. From here, in our opinion, it follows that ὶστορὶα ἐκκλησιαστικη ' in a brief edition appeared earlier than the merger with this “history” of the essay on monastic robes and therefore earlier than Germanov’s edition. Spicileg. Roman. t. IV, p.VI. Praef. Spicileg. Roman. t. III, p. 391 Spicileg. Roman. t. IV, p. 31–32, sar. 1 Biblioth.Vind. cod. theol. 303. Lambecii Comm. lib. 5, p. 568. Divine service Jerus. Church Room When Right Interview, p. 146. We find something similar in the Viennese hand mentioned above. L. 223 Σοφρονίου Αρχιεπισκ ό που ̒ Ιεροσολύμων Filaret Chern. Review. Pesnoscribes. Black 1864, p.232. Migne, Patrol. Curs. S. gr. t. 155.col. 556 conf. col .900. Spicil. Roman. t. IV, p.VII.Praef. Dmitrievsky A.A. Travel to the East and its scientific results. 1890, Kyiv, rev. 174. Note: in 1850, the work was translated into Russian and published in the 1st volume of the Collection of Scriptures of the Fathers, relating to the interpretation of worship, ed. St. Petersburg Theological Academy. From there we take the translation of part of this work, placed below. S. Cyrilli Hierosol. opera, ed. Milles. Oxoniae. 1703, p. 325–332. S. patris nostri, Cyrilli Hierosol. Opera. Cura et studio Tuttee. Vincent, 1720, We still know the following. three copies of this work: 1) in a manuscript belonging to V.I. Savvaitov in the described Arch. Arseny with Christ. Reading 1884 No. 7–8 Manuscript. XVII century Article 12; 2) in the bombicide manuscript of the 14th century. Athos Panteleimon Monastery; 3) in the manuscript of the Vatopedi Monastery of the 16th century, No. 449 under the title: Προθεωρία .... τοῦ ιεροτατου ἐπισκ ό που Φιλοθἑου. If in the last word we see the name of the famous Patriarch of Constantinople, then this can serve as an example of how sometimes the titles were erroneous. See Dmitrievsky A.A. “Journey to the East and its scientific results,” Kyiv, 1890, p. 45. In addition, in the Vatican Library, in addition to the bishops indicated by Mayo, there are others, for example. No. 640 and 1151. Patrum nova biblioth. ed. A.Maio.Roma.1853. t, VI. p. 545. Four Discourses of Photius, ed. Rev. Porfiry. St. Petersburg 1864, p. 34. Patrum nova biblioth. ed. Maio.. t, VI. p. 556, 559. Le Quien.Oriens Christ. l.I, col. 844. Patrum nova biblioth. t, VI. p. 545. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, herausgeb. v. Brieger. B. XII, hel. 3–4.1892. o. 519 ff. unzweifelchaft junger als die Notitia des Epiphanius, alter als das siebente ökumenische Cjnzil. Here is a list of dioceses of the Mokiss Metropolis: ά Μωκιοὸς μηιτροπολις, β᾿ δ Ναζιανζου, γ ΄ δ Κολωνίας, ε᾿ δ Παρνασοῦ, ε᾿ δ Δωάρων, ς ΄ δ Μαγίβων, ζ ΄ δ ᾿Ανδίβων. Having at hand a copy from the list of the Library of the Vatopedi Monastery (belonging to A. A. Dmitrievsky, to whom we express our deep gratitude for reporting it), we will indicate here some of the most important options in comparison with the text published by Mayo. The Vatopedi list has been shortened, but in some places the printed text is corrected. Here's the most important fix. In XXV In the printed text we read about the spiritual meaning of the word “all” in the text: “drink from it, all of you” - πνευματικῶς δέ ώς οἱ θε ό πται ἀπ ό στολοι καὶ θεῖοι πατέρες. t εῖτα λεκτέον κ . τ. λ. The Vatopedi list complements the obvious omission: ντοωνώς νὀμον έθέσπισαν ρητέον οῦν τὀ καθ᾿ ίστορίαν δηλούμενον πρ ό τερον, εῖτα λεκτέον τὸ πνευματικ ό τερον. In other places, most of the abbreviations are noticeable, starting from Chapter XIV. In this chapter, an explanation of the so-called rivers on the platform of the Great Church is released. End of Chapter XV shortened (in the last 9 pages of the edition of May, p. 562), and the interpretation of the bishop’s signification of the people was moved to Chapter XVII. The end of the XVII chapter. also abbreviated (the last 14 pages are missing from Mayo r. 563–64). The end of the XVIII chapter, containing an interpretation of the ciborium and the vault over St. a meal of 37 lines is reduced to 4 (Majo r. 564–65) in the XIX ch. the last 12 lines and several above are missing (p. 566). In XX chapter. no last 8 pages (p. 567). Chapter XXII, containing a discussion about the renunciation of St. Petra has been released completely. In the XXVII chapter. released at the beginning of 18 lines containing an explanation of the difference between the liturgies of St. Basil and Chrysostom regarding the words: “poured out for the worldly life” (p. 573). In other places no words of any significant difference are noticeable. It should be noted, however, that most of the omitted places are still found in the interpolations of Pseudo-Sophronius and Herman. It is strange that Mai, when publishing the works of Theodore, did not notice or pay attention to this fact. Only in one place, in a note to the 32nd chapter of Theodore's work, which is literally similar to the first chapter of Sophronius's work, does he briefly note this similarity, saying: ita etiam sanctus Sophronius apud nos Spicil. Rom.t. IV, p. 31, but does not draw any conclusions from this (Patrum nova biblioth. t. VI, p. 577), and he does not mention other points of similarity at all. Patrum nova biblioth. t. VI, p. 551–552 ? λ ό γου πρέπονιες δέδρακεν εύρ ό ντες γὰρ περἰ τούτων ἐκ ον ό ματι τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ἑρμηνίαν τινα γεγραμμένην, οὐδὲ φθένξασθαι περὶ τοὑτων δέσν εὐλογισάμεθα. ῶατε εἰ καὶ περὶ ῶν εἰπεῖν ὴναγκάσθημεν , εὑρεῖν ὴδυνήθημεν ? ἐκείνην αὐτὸν ἡμ ᾶ ς συνωθοῦντα ἀρχιερέα παραπεμψάμεθα . Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. April, 1892, p. 439. Readings at the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1893 Dec. With. 590 The Latin translator in Minh (Patrol. curs. t. 87.3. col. 3999–4000) translates this passage as follows: Quae evangelicam lectionem subsequitur, benediction pontificis fasta in populum ostendit futuram Christi praesentiam anno 30000 fore testimonium enim digitorum sexies quinque millia indicat. It would be more correct to admit a malfunction in the text here, namely, an omission before πεντε πεντακοσια, according to the digital designation. Readings at the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1893 Dec. page 598. S. Cyrilli Hieros. opera, ed. Millesii.Ox. 1703 p. 325–332. Another list of the same interpretation with the name of St. Cyril is known to us from the manuscripts of the Royal Vienna Library. We found the third in one of the manuscripts of the Jerusalem Patriarchal Library. A Latin translation of Herman's work has also been preserved from Anastasius. Excerpts from it were published by Pitrou in Juris eccl. Grace.hist et monum.t. II p. 298. In addition to this passage, which I reprinted in the Sved. about your hands. Wat. bib., p. 322, Peter published two more passages: on the conversion to the east (ibid. t. I, p. 222. Not. 20) and on the fourfold number of the Gospels (Analecta, t. II, p. 205). See Rules of St. Fathers with interpretation, ed. Society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment. vol. III, pp. 427–435. We place here this small monument in its entirety (according to the manuscripts: Solovetsky Library of the 16th century, No. 858, l. 248–251 and Synodal Library of the 15th century, No. 316 (951) l. 334, with a mark of those places that find a complete, or very close, correspondence in the Greek text. “St. Basil. The meaning of the priestly rank, what a priest is, and why it is said the priest, and that the cutting of his head is: - The reader is a martyr's pillar, the ecclesiastical hymn is. The pillar is the angelic deacon, the surplice is the garment of the shining angel sitting on the stone of the Holy Sepulcher. The hemmed sticheral belt, the girdle of the Holy Spirit, the unfinished bosom, the rib wound, the urarion is there, with which the Lord is bound. In the hands of God alone, the laying of the urarium is like the old one, the only one who has been clothed, for this reason, for communion, he combines the old law and the new one. The priest's rank is the pillar of the Archangel, the top of the priest is the pillar head, the Cherubim throne, rests on the faith of the Erios and Seraphim and bears divine power, the tonsure of his head Peter the leader is a charter, and you will place a crown of thorns on the head of the Savior, and the surplice of the worn-out ancestral pond, in heaven his thanksgiving is with us. There is an unfinished subsinus and a rib ulcer. The last thing to have is Adam falling from a height to the ground, the necklace rub is a batozhnaya wound, the wrist is tied with it, the hand is tied in front. Patrakhil also led him to the crucifixion, and then he put the cloth on his neck, having tied both ends, and so he led it. Aphelon is a scarlet robe, or an unsewn hose, in a white robe, in the image of the Most High, as the euangelist said, and his robe was white like light, and a cane and a prayer book written in his hand with a cane. And the way out with the Gospel is the charter of the one who bears the cross. The pillar of the cherubim is likewise, for its clothing is fire-like, according to the cherubim’s six-winged powers. Mnikh popin, and he ordered me to cut my head. The statute is that of Jacob the brother of the Lord. Hierome of the chief. You said that grace does not come from me, but through the process of the Holy Spirit, and the theologian with boldness reclined on his chest at the supper. So the monk priest, having cleansed himself, performed the service and was not forbidden, and moreover, cleansed himself from the divine supper. The Church of God is, like James and John, with the boldness of the verbosity, pleasing the creature. The bishop is a high hill, a pillar of dominion, just as the ruler sends the archangels, and the bishop heria, creating the angels of his spirits and his servants, scorching his fire, carefully lays on his omophorion, as he is clothed with the Trinity. Amophor is in the image of Aron, so about the daahu sacrifice to God of the law. A shoulder pad will be placed on the frame, and it will be called Efud. The name is on both frames, two zmaraglov stones, with honest gold chained to it, and a plaque on the perch is nailed to it. . various stones. . - my poems. . the tribe bears the burden on itself, the different human will, wanting to God for those, praying to the Lord, purely on the basis of words. It signifies the soul and body, but in the new omophorion there is, like the lost sheep, our savior is left behind. . And. . on the mountains and Sind for the search, and you found it, and brought it to your father on your frames for this sake, omophorion, created not from flax, but from the will (in the Synod. Tsrkbavd.), He punishes the sheep's skin, the hedgehog the Lord found the lost one and on his frames. Eusebii Histor. Eccles.Lib. X. cap. IV. Filaret Chern. Review of songs. Black 1864, pp. 187 and 216 Adversus haeres.Lib.V.c. 23. Lactant. Instit.divin. Lib.VII. c. 14 Against heresies, book III ch. 8 lane Preobrazhensky, p. 311. Quest. et Resp. CXLIV ed. Migne t. 89. p. 797. Pitra, Analecta spicil. solesm. parata t. II p. 205–210. Rom.1884. Tobler, Itinera Hierosolymitana, p. 146, 316, 314. A very curious topographical indication of a legendary nature is still available in the middle edition of ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ. In ch. 18 it is said here that there is a tradition about the place of Christ’s crucifixion, that under it was laid the skull of our forefather Adam προπάτορας ἡμῶν ᾽ Αδὰμ. But this indication could be a later insertion that was not in the edition of ἱστορία used by the author of Sophronius’s word. This legend was first mentioned in the 12th century. at Zewulf. See Palest. Collection T.H. issue. I. St. Petersburg 1891. Pomyalovsky Note. to Theodosius, p. 61. Essay of the fathers, rel. to interpretations. Divine service, vol. I, p. 271. However, as for ἐστὶ χάρις, the expression about the surplice found in the above Slavic text: “his thanksgiving is with us” is not an indication of the antiquity of this interpretation? Peter expressed his opinion by placing in his list all the bishops known to him under different names, as well as a list with the name Sophronius Pitra Juris eccl. grace. history et monumenta. t. II, p. 297. ῾ Ιστορία ἐκκλησιαστικὴ καὶ έξήγησις τῆς θείας λειτουπγίας καὶ μυστικὴ ἔκθεσις πρὸς θεωπίαν συντεθείσα παρὰ τοῦ ᾽ Ιακώβου ἀδελφοθέου, παρὰ τοῦ Βασιλείου τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ παρὰ ᾽ Αθανασίου καὶ Κυρίλλε τῶν ᾽ Αλεξανδρίας ἀρχιεπισκ ό πων Κωνσταντινοπ ό λεως τοῦ Χρυσοστ ό μου. Migne, Patrol. curs.t. 98. p.15. Φ ό λλ . 2478. According to the Description of the Jerusalem Patriarchal Library recently published by the Orthodox Palestine Society Κεραμέως Πετρουπ . 1894 Τομ σ . 624–628. Manuscript No. 635). We examined this article during our stay in Jerusalem in 1887. The text of the interpretation in it is more extensive than that published by Millesius and ends with an explanation of the “Our Father.” See materials for the history of the liturgy. Kazan. 1889, p. 81 δνομα αὐτου, omitted in B and C, are added on the basis of M and D. Both this and other sections of the text, printed on a new line and in small print, are additions taken from M and D; in B and C they are not. In D. it reads: τὴν σταύρωσιν, καὶ τὴν ταφὴν, καὶ τὴν ᾶ ναστασιν. V. ἑαυτὸν προσήγαγε M. and D. ἑαυτὸν ὁ Χριστὸς προσήγαγε τῷ . M and D τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ . D. δ τοῦ κὸσμου αἱρων τήν ἀμαρτἱαν ὣ. M. and D. ώς λέγει προς αύτούς . in M. after the word θρὸνων the words follow: κρὶνοντες ᾽ Ισραἡλ, and in D. the words: κρὶνοντες τἀς ιβ ′ φυλἀς τοῦ Ισραἡλ. M. and D. V. ἔπἀνω αύτού M. and D. ἔπἀνω αύτού πλησἱον τῆς θυρἀς τοῦ μνἡματος. V. ὼ ς καὶ τά λοιπά ἐκ τ ὣ ν V. καὶ προσκυνε ἳ τε. M. and D. καὶ πάλιν προσκυνήσατε. В. τ ὣ ν ( κυριακ ὣ ν ?) ἡμέρ ὣ ν οημαὶνει . M. and D. γενσμἐνην ανόρθωσιν. B. πολυπλασιαςομἐνας ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐπτάκις ἐπτά καὶ κρατε ἳ ν καὶ τιμἀν τῆς N* – οῦσης. M. and D. καὶ καρθεὶς ῦπο, with the difference that in D. instead of καρθεὶς it is read καρεὶς. D. κορυφἡ γάρ κεκαλλωπισμένη γάρ στέφανος V. τινές εὶσὶν. This is where the comparison with M ends; further we will deal only in B and D. D. ποδ ὣ ν τὸτιμιωτατον, D. ἢ ὲκλεκτὸς, ἢ κοκκὶνὸ, εϊτα. V. ἐμφαὶνει D. ἐμφαὶνοντος . In, ὶερεἴς διακόνους. D. ὶερεἴς. V. περιπατειἐν φελωνὶοις. D. πρὸς Καϊάφαν τὸν ᾶ ρχιερἐα καὶ τὸν P ιλάτον . V.D. this place reads like this: τὸ περιτραχἡλιὸν ἐστι, τὸ φακεω᾿ λιον, μεθ * οῦ ἐπεφέρετο δπὸ τοῦ ᾶ ρχιερἐως , δεδεμένος , καὶ συρόμενος ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσθεν ἐπὶ τᾢ τράχηλ ᾢ δ Χριστὸς ἐν τ ᾢ πάθει αὐτοῦ ἀπερχόμενος. V. μεθ * οῦ δ Χριστὸς δεθεὶς. D. ? τοῦ Χριστοῦ. V. μοῦ τἡν σάρκα. D. τοῦτον τὸν ἂ ρτον. D. τὸ ἐν τ ᾢ σώματι ἐμπαρέν . D. ὀ ο ἶ νος ὀμοῦ καὶ τὸ ΰδωρ, ἐισὶ. V. ο ἶ νος τὸ ΰδωρ ἐστὶ . D. καὶ τῆς ᾶ ναστάσεως καὶ τῆς δ ό ξης . V. and D. προκαταγγέλλουσαι. V. ἐκ παρθένου ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ βοώντων * B. Ὁ τοῦ εὑαγγελὶου ε ἳ σοδος . D. τ ὣ ν ἀσωμάτων ᾂ σμα . D. τἡν κατά σάρκα ἡμῶν οὶκονομὶαν. D. τούς ἀγιους αὐτοῦ μαθητάς . D. ὄ ἀνελαβεν ἐπὶ τῶν ὤ μων, ὂ περ σημαὶνε τὸ ὠ μοφ ό ριον, ὂ ἐστι τὸ ἀδαμιαῖον φὑραμα, ἀνεβὶβασεν ύπεράνω. D. τὸ προκεὶμενον μηνὐει. D. D. τὸ (αλλ) ἔρχεται, ἐφανη. D. ὀ γἀρ θυμιατος ἐστὶν εὐωδέστατος We place here this section, taken from the middle or German edition, for the sake of comparison with what was printed above, p. 37. The words: πρακτικἡν are not in the text found in Anastasius Sinaita (Mign. Patrol. Curs. t. 89 col.798), but, judging by the ancient Latin translation, it is characteristic of the original. Anastasia does not have the words: ἃ νθρωπόμορφον ουν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο, but they are characteristic of the original. Anastasia does not have the words: τἡν πτερωτικἡν εἰκὸνα τοῦ εὐαγγέλιον δεικνος, but they are in the original. D. ἐν τ ῂ ἀναιμάκτ ᾢ θυοὶα, καὶ λογικ ῇ λειτουργὶα. D. εὐ ώ δους καπνοῦ τἡν παρουσὶαν . D. V. Χριστοῦ τελεσιουργουμένην. D. τελεσιουργουμένην αὑτοῦ οὶκονομὶαν. D. V. τοῦ κοδευσάντ (ος) Χριστ ό ν. D. , Χριστ ό ν ἐν τ ᾢ ἁ ρτ ᾢ ἁ ρ ώ μένον. D. χειρῶν καὶ ποὄῶν τοῦ Χριστού ἀποκύρισμα . V. and D. δν γραφει κύριως η᾿ ὀσφὶα . D. D. ἐμφέρειαν. You might be interested in: