SL 35 (2005) 129-47

Lent and the Catechetical Program

in Mid-Fourth-Century Jerusalem
EldMAHUa
by
V/CTORiA'~; iC' ','. '-."
,/, ..... ,'\;;,/1 y
Juliette Day*
;-:,'-..-. ~ -" r.-..."'-
, "'I,J J j

There have been as many attempts to distribute the Catechetical~~~~~Y

St-- '
Cyril of Jerusalem (hereafter Cat.) during Lent as there have been commentators
upon them, and this is yet one more contribution to that debate. Formulating a
coherent distribution pattern, which is faithful to the hints which Cyril himself
provides, is complicated by the unresolved issue of the length of Lent in fourth-
century Jerusalem, the indications of a different catechetical program given by
Egeria, and the presence of an additional lecture in the Armenian Lectionary.! The
relevance of these sources for the practice of mid-fourth-century Jerusalem2 has
been a key criterion in the evaluation of the evidence and thus we will address
these related issues before addressing the issue directly.

I. How long was lent in Fourth-Century Jerusalem?

Determining the length of Lent in this period is complicated by the contradic-

tory evidence given in the sources. Cyril consistently refers to "the forty days,"
but gives no indication of the number of weeks over which these forty days might
be distributed. 3 Egeria tells us that Lent, quadragesima (she also gives the "local
name," heortae), lasted eight weeks including Holy Week. 4 John of Jerusalem gives
"forty days."5 AL gives a Lent (k'arasnordk'Ik'arasnerord-derived from "for-
tieth" 6) of six weeks plus Holy Week. 7 Sozomen tells us that Lent ('teJeJUpUKOeJ'ti])

* Dr Juliette Day (j.day@lamp.ac.uk) is Director of Open Learning Theology, University of Wales

at Lampeter, Ceredigion SA48 7ED, United Kingdom.
I Introduction and text in A. Renoux, Le Codex Armenien Jerusalem l21, 2 vols, Paris 1969 &

1971; hereafter referred to as AL.

2 Various dates from 348 onwards have been suggested for Cat.; however, A. Doval has pre-

sented the most convincing evidence so far for 351 ("The Date of Cyril of Jerusalem's Catecheses,"
Journal of Theological Studies 48 [1997] 129-32).
3 See, for example, Procatechesis 4; Cat. 1.5.
4 1tinerarium Egeriae 27.1.
5 Jerome, Against John of Jerusalem 13 (PL 23:365).
6 AL 2:183.

129
lasted six weeks in Illyria and the West, Libya, Egypt and Palestine, but seven
weeks in Constantinople and neighboring regions. 8 Socrates, who does not men-
tion Palestine, tells us that there was a three-week fast before Easter in Rome and
the West, but a seven-week Lent (tcrcrapaKocr'tT]) in Illyria, Greece and Alexan-
dria. 9 This confused picture informs us that the period during which Cat. was deliv-
ered might have been six, seven or eight weeks, depending upon which of the
above one considers most applicable to mid-fourth-century Jerusalem.
Egeria's account of an eight-week Lent is clearly anomalous in the context of
the other sources. She informs us that "the eight weeks, less eight Sundays and
seven Saturdays ... make forty-one fast days" and that there was no instruction
in Holy Week;lO Cat. might, then, be distributed over seven weeks on Mondays
to Fridays only. But, if we are to accept an eight-week Lent in c. 384, II we would
need to explain why Cyril, towards the end of his life, would have increased this
period by up to two weeks and why John and his successors would subsequently
have reduced it to seven weeks, despite the increase in stational and other com-
memorations to which AL bears witness. 12 Additionally, there is no province
known to Socrates or Sozomen which has an eight-week Lent; it would have been
a point worth noting in their resumes of Lenten practices, particularly as Sozomen
was brought up in Palestine. 13 It is more than likely that here, as in other matters
relating to the initiation process in Jerusalem, Egeria is mistaken. The source of
her mistake may result from the attempt to spread the forty days over weekdays
alone, on the presumption that the Western custom of not including Saturdays and
Sundays applied in the East as well; or, as Renoux proposed, she is referring to
the practice of strict ascetics who pre-empted the (seven-week) fast by one week
in order to make the number of fast days add up to forty.14 John Baldovin's
? AL XVIII-XLIV (2:239-311).
8 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 7.19 (PG 67:1477).
9 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 5.22 (PG 67:632B-633A).
10 Itinerarium Egeriae 27.1; 46.4. English translation from J. Wilkinson, Egeria 's Travels (3rd ed.,
Warminster 1999) 148.
II For the date of Egeria's residency in Jerusalem, see P. Devos, "La date du voyage d'Egerie,"
Analecta Bollianda 85 (1968) 165-94.
12 Thomas Talley did consider this to be the "less perilous" option, despite noting the "improb-
ability of so many shifts in such a short time" (The Origins of the Liturgical Year [2nd ed., College-
ville 1991) 173-74).
13 Frans van de Paverd has, however, suggested that Antioch had an eight-week Lent in 387,
based on his distribution of sermons preached by John Chrysostom in that year (St John Chrysostom,
The Homilies on the Statues [Rome 1991) 210-16, 250-53), but there is no other Antiochene source
which might corroborate this suggestion.
14 AL 2:183.
130
suggestion that she is describing an "experiment which did not last" 15 would seem
to be unlikely, for the reasons given above and the lack of corroborating evidence.
Having discounted Egeria' s evidence, we must next consider whether the seven-
week Lent attested by AL and Sozomen was established in the mid-fourth century
when Cat. was delivered. The lectionary provides lections for weekday synaxes
in a Lent which begins in the seventh week before Easter and ends on the Friday
before Palm Sunday, where a rubric indicates that the readings for Lent have been
concluded: 16 Lazarus Saturday to the Easter Vigil forms a distinct unit and is not
part of Lent per se. The nineteen lections of the "enseignement de ceux qui sont
inscrits sur le livre pour le saint careme et qui se preparent arecevoir le bapteme"
are listed separately, with no indication of how they should be distributed during
Lent. I?
In an article published in 1969, which has had considerable influence upon later
commentators, M. F. Lages suggested that the seven-week Lent of the early fifth
century had evolved from a three-week pre-Easter fast, for which evidence was
provided in the weekday Lenten lections of AL.18 Based upon an "hypothese de
travail" that Chavasse' s conclusions about a Roman three-week Lent had a bearing
upon investigations into hagiopolite practice, he subjected the Lenten lections to
a rigorous structural analysis. The specific evidence which directed him to a
three-week Lent from the end of the third century until at least 335 were: (i) the
psalmody for the Wednesday and Friday synaxes in weeks 4 to 6; and (ii) the
location of the Wednesday and Friday synaxes in weeks 1 to 6.
AL provides lections for synaxes on Wednesdays and Fridays in weeks 1 to 6,
which would appear to have been organized as a block because of the lectio
continua of the readings from Exodus and Joel on Wednesdays, and Deuteronomy,
Job and Isaiah on Fridays. Each synaxis had an appointed antiphonal psalm: in
weeks 1 to 3, Pss 50, 40, 56, 64, 70 and 74; in weeks 4 to 6, Pss 76, 82, 83, 84,
85, 87. In order to show the distinctiveness of the latter weeks, Lages was forced
to "corriger deux erreurs structurales," 19 namely that Ps. 40 did not belong in the
series and that 86 should be re-inserted. His reconstructed psalmody for weeks 1
to 3 was Pss 50, 56, 64, 70, 74, 76; and that for weeks 4 to 6, Pss 82, 83, 84, 85,
15 J. F. Baldovin, The Urban Character ofChristian Worship: The Origins, Development and Meaning
of Stational Liturgy (Rome 1987) 92, n. 37.
16 AL XXXII (2:255). Renoux comments: "Cette rubrique ... ne peut signifier que le careme est
acheve."
17 AL XVII (2:233).
18 M. F. Lages, "Etapes de I'evolution du Careme a Jerusalem avant le Ve siecle," Revue des
Etudes Arnufniennes 6 (1969) 67-102.
19 Ibid., 82.
131
86,87.20 He was thus able to conclude that the psalmody for the last three weeks
"temoigne d'une unite liturgique primitive differente des trois premieres semaines
du careme."21
The structural analysis of these sections of AL is extremely illuminating; how-
ever, Lages' conclusions suffer by not reading the fruits of the analysis within the
context of the lectionary as a whole. The lections for the Wednesday and Friday
synaxes are a separate and distinct series in which the psalmody is only one
element. Thus, although the psalmody for weeks 4 to 6, as it is presented in AL,
is almost sequential, the lections which preceded them in each synaxis were not.
Had the compiler of AL, or the model from which it is drawn, wished to maintain
the "primitive unity" of these weeks, one might expect this to be reflected in the
prescribed readings for the synaxes and not merely in the psalmody. It is clear that
the lections for Wednesdays were arranged separately from those for Fridays, and
from that perspective the allocation of psalmody appears arbitrary (except for a
certain desire to maintain a sequential order). To conclude from the sequential
psalmody of weeks 4 to 6, which in any case Lages had to amend to fit his
hypothesis, that there was sufficient evidence for a three-week Lent in Jerusalem
is to claim more than the evidence supports.
The second week of Lent has a different structure from the others, with addi-
tional synaxes on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday: these have a distinct pattern
of readings (from Kings, Proverbs, and Jeremiah), non-sequential psalmody which
does not relate to that of the other weekday synaxes, and they are celebrated at
the Anastasis. 22 Clearly in structure and content they are distinct from the arrange-
ment of Wednesdays and Fridays, but, as Lages shows, in the choice of readings
from Proverbs and location, they share a similarity with the synaxes for Holy
Monday to Holy Thursday. Lages suggested that the organization of Holy Week
probably predated that of the synaxes in week 2, thereby making the second week
one of the latest elements in the organization of the lectionary.23 Anton Baumstark
had earlier proposed that this series of daily synaxes in week 2 might well indicate
that this was originally the first week of Lent, before an extra week was added
owing to the elaboration of Holy Week. 24 Renoux, too, found this a plausible
20 For some reason Lages (ibid., 83), found his reconstruction corroborated by the Georgian Lec-
tionary, which replaced Ps. 40 with Ps. 56 (although has a lacuna where 56 occurs in AL), despite
having Pss 76, 82, 83, 87, 102 and 87 again in weeks 4 to 6. Thus the insistence he had placed upon
the psalmody being continuous in weeks 4 to 6 is undermined rather than upheld.
21 Ibid., 84.
22 AL XX-XXIV (2:240-45).
23 Lages, "Etapes de I'evolution du Careme 11 Jerusalem avant le Ve siecle," 91.
24 Anton Baumstark, Comparative Liturgy (London 1958) 196, n. 5, and elsewhere.
132
explanation, but, in contradiction to Lages, said that week 2 and Holy Week "garde
les traces d'une epoque Oll le careme avait une organisation differente"; i.e., that
it pre-dates the organization of the Wednesday and Friday synaxes. From content
too, Renoux further suggested that these readings were "parfaitement adaptes a
un debut de careme."25 In light of our following reflections upon the significance
of the location of these synaxes, this seems a more credible conclusion.
AL gives Sion as the location for all the Wednesday and Friday synaxes in weeks
1 to 6, whereas the additional synaxes on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday of week
2 were held in the Anastasis. From this, Lages concluded that the latter were
established after the construction of the Holy Sepulchre complex (327-335), and
that the rest "devaient etre deja tres fermement constituees pour qu'elles ne
subissent pas les effets de la reorganisation de la liturgie hierosolymitaine faite
apres 335."26 Is this necessarily the only conclusion which can be drawn from
locating the Wednesday and Friday synaxes at Sion? AL as a whole witnesses to
the increasing historicization of the Jerusalem liturgy, demonstrated ultimately in
the stationalliturgy prescribed for Holy Week, where events are commemorated
in their original location. Might it not rather be the case that the choice of Sion
for the weekday synaxes in Lent was also due to this historicization, by reserving
the commemorations of the final events to the Holy Sepulcher complex alone? The
choice of Sion, far from being a pre-Constantinian element, should be considered
alongside the elaboration of the Holy Week liturgies.
Lages' article usefully highlighted the distinct structures within the Lenten
observances of AL, but the chronological arrangement of these structures cannot
be as he suggested. A series of daily synaxes in week 2 makes little sense as a late
introduction to the program; it is much more probable that Baumstark and Renoux
are correct in their identification of this as the original first week of Lent. When
Holy Week took on a more distinct liturgical character, it became separated from
Lent itself and, in order for the period of preparation still to last forty days, an
additional week was added at the beginning. The synaxes for Wednesday and
Friday are more likely to come from the time when Lent increased in length, given
that they run coherently throughout the six weeks, and their introduction caused
the pre-existing lections to be suppressed on these days in week 2.
Sozomen and Socrates indicate that 't<J<JcxPCXll:o<J'tT] can refer to 6 or 7 weeks.
Cyril too uses 't<J<JCXPCXKO(j'tT], but also specifically mentions the "forty days,"
from which we infer that these forty were a numerical reality; he did not mean
by it any less than forty, regardless of the number of weeks over which they are
25 AL 2:184; 241.
26 Lages, "Etapes de I'evolution du Careme 11 Jerusalem avant le Ve siecle," 88.
133
spread. AL separates Lent from the "Easter fast': ~f Holy Week, which fits Pa~ck
Regan's distinction between Lent, as a time of spmtual combat, an~ the fast, WhICh
is properly attached to EasterP By the time in which AL or Its sou:ces was
compiled, the addition of the Holy Week cycle, calle.d the "fast," necessItated the
addition of an extra week at the beginning of Lent III order for the forty days to
be fulfilled. There is no indication in Cat. of such a Holy Week, merely of the fast
immediately preceding Easter (Cat. 18.17). It seems more likely, therefore, th~t,
in Jerusalem in the mid-fourth century, the "forty days" were counted over SIX
weeks , Which ran from the First Sunday of Lent until the end of Holy Thursday
and which included Sundays.
Table 1: The Length of Lent at Jerusalem
hearing and in that of the whole Church, such views respecting the faith and
all the doctrines of the Church as by the grace of God I unceasingly teach in
the Church, and in my catecheticallectures."28
Egeria corroborates the creedal framework to the catechesis but, alone of all the
sources, suggests that it was prefaced by systematic instruction on the Bible:
His [the bishop's] subject is God's Law; during the forty days he goes through
the whole Bible, beginning with Genesis, and first relating the literal meaning
of each passage, then interpreting its spiritual meaning. He also teaches them
at this time all about the resurrection and the faith.... After five week's teaching
they receive the Creed, whose content he explains article by article in the same
way as he explained the Scriptures, first literally and then spiritually.29

If we are to believe Egeria, then, in our distribution of the lectures during Lent,
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 we must allow for considerably more instruction than is presented in the eighteen
Holy Week extant Catechetical Lectures. Attempts to reconcile her words with the content of
Sunday Day 1 8 15 22 29 36 Cat. have been made by Ferdnand Cabrol, A. A. Stephenson, and Maxwell Johnson.
Monday 2 9 16 23 30 37 Cabrol assigned Cat. 6-18 to the second course of instruction desclibed by Egeria,
Tuesday 3 10 17 24 31 38 which would have required daily instruction for the last two weeks ofLent, including
Wednesday 4 11 18 25 32 39 Saturdays; Cat. 1-5 he distributed over the first five weeks. 30 Johnson, being con-
Thursday 5 12 19 26 33 40 vinced by Lages, proposed that "the general arrangement and content of Cyril's
Friday 6 13 20 27 34 [Cat.] are adhering to a pattern set in that same period of the late third or early
Saturday 7 14 21 28 35 fourth century for which Lages argues a three-week Lent." It becomes possible,
then, for Johnson to locate the handing over of the creed at the end of the fifth
week and for "the remaining weeks [to be] filled with daily instruction in the Bible."31
11. The Program of Instruction Baldovin, too, presumes that Egeria accurately reports a change in the syllabus
for 384, but that it was part of this "experiment which did not last."32 The only
The syllabus for the Lenten catecheses in Jerusalem was relatively unchan~~d
obvious impetus to such a change would be the expanded clauses concerning the
during the latter half of the fourth century: the lections which head each of ~y~l s Holy Spirit which appear in the Creed of Constantinople, but as Cat. 16-17 already
lectures are found also in AL from the beginning of the fifth century. The pnnclpal contains thorough teaching on the Spirit, this would have been unnecessary.
content of Cat. is a line-by-line explanation of the creed (Cat. 6-18), preceded by The attempts to "reconcile" the evidence of Egeria and Cyril founder on lack
an introduction (Cat. 1), teaching on repentance (Cat. 2), on baptism (Cat. 3), a of evidence and we might do better to question her understanding, as Stephenson
summary of Christian belief in ten points (Cat. 4) and "on faith" (Cat. 5). At the
end of the century (c. 397), a disparaging reference to John of Jerusalem by Jerome 28 Jerome, Against John of Jerusalem 11 (PL 23:379); English translation from Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, 6:430.
also indicates a creedal basis for the Jerusalem syllabus:
29Itinerarium Egeriae 46.2-3; English translation from Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 162.
And yet let us note with what wisdom, modesty, and humility t~is pillar of truth
and fait~ ... alludes to himself. "One day I was speaking in hIS presence: an~,
30Ferdnand Cabrol, Les Eglises de Jerusalem: La discipline et la liturgie au IVe si(xle (Paris
1895) 143-59, here at 157.
taking occasion from some words in the lesson for the day, I expressed, III hIS 31 Maxwell E. Johnson, "Reconciling Cyril and Egeria on the Catechetical Process in Fourth-
Century Jerusalem" in Paul Bradshaw, ed., Essays in Early Eastern Initiation (Nottingham 1988)
18-30, here at 27 & 28.
27 Patrick Regan, "The Three Days and the Forty Days," Worship 54 (1980) 10-11. 32 Baldovin, Urban Charactel; 92, n. 39.

134
135

demonstrated, using Cyril' s own words in which he would appear to disc~u~t such
a course on "the Bible." 33 Stephenson cited Cat. 4.33-36, whe.re , w~en hstmg the
canon, Cyn'l makes no allusion to any previous lectures on thIS subject; and . later
he seems to exclude it altogether: "For since not all are able to read the scnptures,
but some are hindered by a lack of education, others by an inaptitude for knowl-
edge' so that the soul is not destroyed out of ignorance, we encompass the whole
doctrine of the Faith in a few lines" (Cat. 5.12). Stephenson rightly conclude~ that
"it is difficult to suppose that these words of Cyril were addressed to an audience
which had either just attended, or was about to attend, a five-week course of
lectures on Scripture."34 Cyril himself indicates that the creed forms the whole
syllabus (Procatechesis 11; Cat. 18.32), and Stephenson hi~hlighted the contra-
diction in Egeria, where topics are assigned to the first, scnptural ~ourse (res.ur-
35
rection, faith) when they appear in the second, creedal course. HIS concluslOn
is that Egeria misunderstood the process:
In view, then, of the apparent impossibility of reconciling Etheria's with ~th~r
accounts of the Lenten syllabus at Jerusalem, it seems possible that Ethena m
this passage was reporting an oral statement which she had not fully. under-
stood, and that her informants, in speaking of "scripture, the resurrectlOn ~nd
faith" as well as of "the Symbol," were making so many attempts to descnbe
the unchanged syllabus of the Catechetical Lectures, i.e. the Creed; and that
what they really told her was that the Creed was delivered, not after the fif~h
week, but-what would have been very surprising to a Westerner-early m
Lent, at the end of the fifth lecture. 36
Cyril does present his teaching with close and frequent reference to .scripture,
which he explains is the source and proof (a1t08ci~Eo)C;) of all doctnne~ (Cat.
4.17), and here may lie Egeria's mistake. It is above all, though, ~he conSistency
of the Jerusalem sources to a series based upon the creed WhiCh leads .us to
conclude that Cat. does present the complete course of instruction in ~ne particular
year in the mid-fourth century and that the search for an accompanymg course on
scripture is unnecessary.
The pericopes of the eighteen lectures in Cat. correspond to only th~ ~rst
eighteen of the nineteen lections for Lenten catechesis given in AL. 37 WI1ham
33 A. A. Stephenson, "The Lenten Catechetical Syllabus in Fourth Century Jerusalem," Theo-
logical Studies IS (1954) 103-16, here at 108.
34 Ibid., 108.
35 Ibid., liS.
36 Ibid., 116. . f h I
37 Apart from the nineteenth lection and a slightly shorter readmg from Hebrews or tee even
lecture, the lections are identical.
136
Telfer suggested that in less rushed years during Cyril's episcopate, there would
normally have been nineteen lectures and that Cat. 18 compresses two lectures. 38
He found proof in the hiatus caused by the recitation of the creed and a change
of subject at 18.22, and that part of the nineteenth lection (1 Tim 3: 14-16) is cited
in Cat. 18.25;39 this would account for the length of Cat. 18, in which Cyril
complains that he is running out of time (Cat. 18.30). Clearly, it is somewhat of
a mystery why Cyril would ask them to recite the creed half way though a lecture
when he still had one more article to explain. The quotation from 1 Timothy
cannot, though, be used to demonstrate that the latter part of Cat. 18 formed a
separate lecture. In every lecture there are liberal quotations from scripture, but
only minimal reference to the designated lection; in fact, rarely does Cyril expound
the preliminary reading, and even more rarely does he do so outside the opening
paragraphs. 1 Tim 3:15 is neither explained nor presented in a way which would
indicate that it had any particular importance in the discussion of "The Church"
over and against any of the other scriptural examples. Cyril is obviously struggling
to complete his program in the eighteen occasions permitted to him, and thus it
would be perfectly understandable for the program to be increased to nineteen
lectures; however, Cat. 18 gives no indication that a lecture has been or will be
omitted and it seems only proper to conclude that, in 351, Cyril gave eighteen
addresses to the candidates and it is these eighteen which we need to distribute
during the forty days of Lent.
There are two further possible additions to the program which need to be
explored: firstly, the relationship between the Procatechesis (Procat.) and Cat.; and
secondly, the hints in 18.32 of a "rehearsal" for the initiation rite. Procat., although
not forming part of the catecheticallectures, has generally been considered to have
been preached before this series started.40 Only Telfer has suggested that Cat. and
Procat. were preached in different years, whilst maintaining that there was indeed
an (another) introductory lecture before Cat. 1 in 350.41 There are many over-
lapping themes in Procat. and Cat. 1: expectation of the candidates' transformation
(Procat. 1; Cat. 1.1); their change of status (Procat. 12; Cat. 1.4); forty days'
preparation (Procat. 4; Cat. 1.5); encouragement to attend instruction and exor-
cism (Procat. 9; Cat. 1.5); a warning against impure motivation (Procat. 2-4; Cat.
38 William Telfer, Cyril ofJerusalem and Nemesius ofEmesa (London 1955) 34. Stephenson also
found this a plausible suggestion (The Works of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem [Washington, DC 1969] 4).
39 Telfer, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa. 35, n. 42.
40 See Antoine Augustin Touttee in PG 33:327-28; E. W. Gifford in Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers. 2nd series, 7:xliv.
th 41 Telfer, Cyril ofJerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa. 34. Telfer (ibid., 37-38) had concluded that
Cat. was delivered in 350.
137
 shows considerable variation. The preceding comments about the length of Lent
1.3); the imagery of the bridal feast and "torches" (Procat. 1; Cat. 1.1); moral
and the extent of the catechesis are obviously important factors which affect when
injunctions (Procat. 4; Cat. 1.2). Cat. 1, though, lacks the ex~ortatory ton~ of
and how lectures can be assigned to different days or weeks; in addition, as we
Procat. and it does not make any allusions to the baptismal lIturgy. There 1S a
shall see, the reliance placed upon Egeria's account of the Lenten catechetical
possibility, but not one that can be demonstrated with any certainty, that Procat.
program and conclusions drawn from the evidence provided inAL must be assessed
may have been the equivalent of the first lecture in some other year, but, on the
for their congruence with Cat. itself. Clearly, as Cat. was delivered in "live time"
that is, during the very Lent in which we wish to distribute it, the evidence whi~h
evidence available to us, we are only able to conclude that it precedes the Lenten
preparation. . . it provides must be given priority and this we will present and review first. The
Cat. 18.32 and 18.33 present separate, but near identical, lists of thmgs wh1ch
specific indicators for the distribution given in Itinerarium Egeriae and AL, as well
the candidates will be told in the near future; the latter clearly refers to the
as instances where they corroborate or confound the evidence of Cat., also require
post-baptismal mystagogy, but 18.32 has been considered to be either a duplicate
consideration as to their relevance to the mid-fourth-century program, and these
of 18.33, or to refer to a rehearsal for the baptismal ceremonies. Even though these
will be assessed before drawing conclusions.
lists are similar there are aspects of 18.32 which are essentially practical and which
would not warrant a mystagogical interpretation. The candidates are to be told how
they are to enter the baptistery, what each aspect of the rite represents, a~d how Table 2: Distribution Patterns for Cat.
they are to proceed from the baptistery to the "altar," i.e., to the Martynu~ for
the celebration of the eucharist. The movement from one place to another 1S not Cat. Gifford (348)44 Cabrol 45 Telfer (350)46 Baldovin 47 Johnson48 Dova149
a topic for mystagogy and it is not the theological and spiritual significance of the 1 Week 1 Week 1-5 Week 1 Week I Week 5
rite which is to be explained, but simply the performance of it. It would seem, Monday Monday Monday
therefore, that E. W. Gifford's identification of this as a rehearsal on Holy Saturday 2 Week 1-? Week 1-5 Week 2 Week I Week 5
is correct. 42 There are only allusions to the baptismal rite in Cat., but no systematic Tuesday Tuesday
explanation of what they will do or what it means. Even though ~ystag~gy is 3 Week 1 Week 1-5 Week 2 Week 1 Week 5
reserved until after Easter, the essentially practical instruction on the1r role m the Friday Thursday Wednesday
liturgy would not have compromised whatever understanding of the ~isciplina 4 Week 2/3 Week 1-5 Week 3 Week 1 Week 5
Sunday Saturday Thursday
arcani was effective in Jerusalem in 351.43 We conclude, therefore, that m 351 the
5 Week 2/3 Week 5 Week 3 Week 2 Week 5
candidates heard a preliminary exhortation (Procat. or something like it) on the
Monday Friday Saturday Friday
Saturday before the First Sunday of Lent, eighteen catecheticallectures during the
6 Week 2/3 Week 6 Week 4 Week 3 Week 5
forty days, and attended a rehearsal probably on Holy Saturday. Monday Saturday
Tuesday Monday
7 Week 2/3 Week 6 Week 4 Week 3 Week 6
Ill. The Distribution of Cat. during lent Wednesday Tuesday Tuesday Monday
It is possible to assign much of Cat. to particular days or stages in Len~; however, 8 Week 2/3 Week 6 Week 4 Week 3 Week 6
the distribution pattern of different commentators, which we present m Table 2, Thursday Wednesday Thursday Thesday

42 "The additional instructions here promised were to be given on the same day as the last lecture
44 Gifford, xliii-xlv.
. . . that is on Easter Eve immediately before Baptism. For it was forbidden to reveal the mystenes Cabrol, Les Eglises de Jerusalem, 143-59.
of Baptism, Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist to the uninitiated and yet it wa~ necessary t~at t~e
45
46 Telfer, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa, 34-36.
candidates should not come wholly unprepared to perform what would be reqmred of them (Glf- 47 Baldovin, Urban Character, 92-93.
ford, xlv). . 48 Johnson, "Reconciling Cyril and Egeria," 27.
43 The content of the disciplina arcani was not fixed either within or between provInces. See my
49 Doval, "The Date of Cyril of Jerusalem's Catecheses," 130.
"Adherence to the Disciplina Arcani in the 4th Century," Studia Patristica 35 (2001) 266-70.

139
138
 Week 2/3 Week 6 Week 5 Week 3 Week 6
immediately before or on the first day of Lent. Egeria describes an enroll-
9
Friday Thursday Saturday Wednesday ment on the day before Lent begins, and a first meeting with a scrutiny on
10 Week 4 Week 6 Week 6 Week 4 Week 6 the first day of Lent (45.1-4). The latter would appear to be excluded by
Tuesday Friday Monday Monday Thursday Cyril's reference to a rather lax recruitment policy (Proeat. 4-5), but there is
11 Week 4 Week 6 Week 6 Week 4 Week 6 no way of determining conclusively whether Proeat. was delivered on the
Wednesday Saturday Tuesday Tuesday Friday Saturday before Lent began, or the first Sunday of Lent.
12 Week 4 Week 7 Week 6 Week 4 Week 6 o Cat. 1.4 refers to the candidates' recent change of status and explains what

Thursday Monday Wednesday Thursday Saturday is expected of them during the period of "the forty days"; it must, therefore,
13 Week 4 Week 7 Week 6 Week 4 Week 7 must have been delivered shortly after enrolment at the very beginning of Lent.
Friday Tuesday Friday Saturday Monday o Cat. 2 also belongs early in the process: Cat. 2.7 asks, "Do you see God's love

14 Week 5 Week 7 Week 7 Week 5 Week 7 Holy towards humanity, you who have just recently (VEOYtt) come to the cate-
Monday Wednesday Monday Monday Tuesday Monday chesis?"
25th
o Cat. 3 gives no indication when it was delivered, but is referred to in the next
March
lecture.
15 Week 5 Week 7 Week 7 Week 5 Week 7 Holy
Tuesday
o Cat. 4, too, was delivered early in Lent: Cat. 4.3 refers to "the intervening
TueslWed Thursday WedslThurs Wednesday Tuesday
period of the days of holy Lent."
26th
o In Cat 4.32, Cyril reminds the candidates of the instruction on baptism (Cat.
March
16 Week 6 Week 7 Holy Week 5 Week 7 Holy 3) which they had heard "rcPO:lTIV." This word is more naturally translated as
(Holy Week) Friday Monday Thursday Thursday Iwednes- "the day before yesterday," although it can also be the less precise "lately"
day or "just now."50 Stephenson preferred the less precise indication: "For since
27th we have already spoken sufficiently of the laver of baptism...." 51 Cyril, how-
March ever, is making a specific reference to a lecture which was not given "yes-
17 Holy Week 7 Holy Week 5 Week 7 Holy terday," but two or at the most three days ago; however we understand rcpwy]v,
Thursday? Saturday Wednesday Saturday Friday Thurs- the implication is that there is no greater gap than this.
day
o Cat. 5 and 6 give no indication in themselves when they were delivered, although
28th
Cat. 6 is referred to in Cat. 7.
March
o In Cat. 7.1 and 8.1, Cyril reminds the candidates of what they had heard in
18 Good Fril Palm Good Friday Week 6 Week 7 Good
Holy Sat Sunday Monday Saturday Friday
the catechesis "yesterday" (EV 1:11 xeeC; l],.uipa). Baldovin has argued that "one
before 29th cannot make a hard and fast case that the 6th-8th and 10th-12th lectures were
Palm March given on consecutive days since what can be translated as 'yesterday's lecture'
Sunday from the Greek can also mean 'the previous lecture' ."52 Again, "previous"
(19) Saturday Week 6 would not be the most natural rendering of xeeC;, and, preferring "yesterday,"
evening Tuesday we conclude that Cat. 6, 7 and 8 were preached on consecutive days in the
same week.
1. Evidence for the Distribution in Cat.
50 See H. G. Liddell & R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed., Oxford 1992) 1543.
o Procat. I states that the candidates have been enrolled and Procat. 4 that the 51 Stephenson, The Works of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, 134.
forty days are ahead of them, which would indicate that it was delivered 52 Baldovin, Urban Character, 92.

140 141

o Cat. 9 provides no infonnation about its position, except that it was obviously
delivered between Cat. 8 and 10.
o In Cat. 10.14, Cyril reminds the candidates that he had preached on the priest-
hood of Christ "on the Lord's day." This appears to be an indication that Sunday
was not yesterday, but that this lecture was given sufficiently early in the week
for the candidates to recall the sermon.
o Cat. 11.1 and 12.4 both refer to what had been delivered "yesterday" (X8i:C;)
and thus we can place 10, 11 and 12 on consecutive days in the same week.
o Cat. 13 provides no indication of when it was delivered, although Gifford sug-
gested that the article of the creed, "was crucified and buried," upon which
Cyril spoke, would be well suited to a Friday lecture. 53 This cannot be demon-
strated from Cat. 13 alone, but may be corroborated by Cat. 14.1.
o Cat. 14 was clearly preached on a Monday from Cyril's references in 14.24
and 14.26 to the appointed readings for the Sunday synaxis pennitting him
to speak about the Ascension.
o We can also determine that Cat. 14 was preached several days after Cat. 13:
Cyril says in 14.1 that, having concluded with the death and burial of Christ,
he had left the candidates sorrowing "these past days" (EV 'tatC; napEA80ucratC;
il~patc;) as they waited for the lecture on the Resurrection. This indicates that
Cat. 13 was delivered before the weekend, most probably, as Gifford suggested,
on the Friday.
o In Cat. 14.10 Cyril says that the month of Xanthicus had recently begun; it was
spring and the equinox had been a few days before. The spring equinox nor-
mally occurs on March 25, although Louis de Mas Latrie noted that there was
some shift in dates in the fourth century. 54 Doval used this infonnation to deter-
mine that Cat. was delivered in 351. He assigned Cat. 14 to Monday of Holy
Week, although he does not give his reasons for doing so; in 351, this was on
. 55
March 25, the second day of Xanthicus and three days af ter the equmox.
o In Cat. 14.27, 15.33, and 16.32, Cyril mentions the time constraints which
prevent him from saying all that he wishes. This would indicate that these
lectures belong to the end of the period allocated for catechesis; using Cat.
17 and 18 we are able conclude that it is because Easter approaches, rather
than Holy Week.
o Cat. 16 and 17 would appear to belong together because of Cyril's frequent
insistence upon the unity of the topic (the Holy Spirit), even though he had
Gifford, xlv.
53
In 325, it occurred on March 21 and in 341 on March 19: Louis de Mas Latrie, Tresor de chronolo-
54
gie d'histoire et de geographie pour l'etude et l'emploi des documents du moyen age (Paris 1889) 6~.
55 Doval, "The Date of Cyril of Jerusalem's Catecheses," 129-32. This is not as conclUSive as it
appears: from the dates of Easter between 347 and 352, Doval's three conditions for arriving at 351
could be met for 348 or 350 if Cat. 14 had been preached in the week before Holy Week.
142
spread the instruction over two occasions (Cat. 17.1, 5, 20). We infer from
this that they were preached on consecutive days.
o Cat. 17.20 expressly states that Easter approaches, a clear indication that it
was delivered in Holy Week.
o Cat. 18 was delivered at a time when the candidates were wearied by "the
extended fast of preparation and the vigils" (18.17). Egeria provides vital
clues as to which fast and vigil Cyril refers and we will discuss this below.
o Cat. 18.32 indicates that this lecture was given at the end of Lent: Cyril
comments that the candidates have received as much instruction as possible
"throughout these days of Lent" and that Easter approaches. This is further
evidence for delivery in Holy Week.
2. Egeria's evidence for the distribution of the Lenten catechetical program
Egeria describes for the benefit of her "sisters" the manner in which candidates
are prepared for baptism; not all this information, however, is compatible with that
from other Jerusalem sources.
o Egeria claims that the candidates were instructed throughout the forty days
(46.1-4). In our discussion of the catechetical program, we found it unneces-
sary to search for additional lectures in order that it could be demonstrated that
Cyril instructed the candidates every day for forty days. Telfer, following Egeria' s
statement that sennons and readings received a simultaneous translation (47.4),
proposed that he preached in Greek and Aramaic on separate days in order that
the number of lectures would add up to forty, but he himself admitted this was
only a "tentative" suggestion. 56
o Egeria says that the creed was delivered at the end of the fifth week (46.3).
It is clear that those who have trusted this statement (Cabrol and Johnson) have
been forced to ignore other more credible evidence (e.g., that Cat. 14 was
delivered on a M?nday) in order to accommodate it. Stephenson convincingly
demonstrated that Egeria was mistaken over the syllabus57 and so this cannot
be considered as a reliable indication of when the lectures were delivered.
o It may be possible to place Cat. 14 after Palm Sunday using Egeria's descrip-
tion of the stationalliturgy for that day. She says that at the seventh hour the
congregation went up the Mount of Olives: first to the Eleona, and then at the
ninth hour they went higher up to the Imbomon (31.1-5). The latter is identi-
fied as "the place from which the Lord ascended into heaven," and here there
were hymns, antiphons, and prayers "appropriate to the place and the day." 58
In Cat. 14.23 CyriI refers to the Mount of Olives and to some of the readings
56 Telfer, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa, 35.
57 Stephenson, "The Lenten Catechetical Syilabus in Fourth Century Jerusalem," 103-16.
5X Itinerarium Egeriae 31.1; English translation fromWilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 151.
143
 about the Ascension which they had heard the previous day. It may well be
that the event which Egeria describes existed already in some form in the middle
of the century, and that in Cat. 14 Cyril is not referring to the Palm Sunday
sermon, but to an address given at a station at the Imbomon.
Egeria says that there was no instruction in Holy Week: "in the eighth (week)
... there is no time for them to have their teaching if they are to carry out all
the services I have described."59 We have shown already, by the references
in Cat. 17 and 18 to the imminent celebration of Easter, and by the identi-
fication with the sermon preached the day before Cat. 14 as that of Palm Sun-
day afternoon, that in the time of Cyril there was indeed catechesis in Holy
Week. It is most likely that the commemorations which she describes for Holy
Week evolved during the latter half of the fourth century and only elements
of it existed in c. 351.
Egeria wrote that Saturdays and Sundays were non-fasting days (27.1) and the
implication has been made that neither was there catechesis. The two ref~rences
to Sunday sermons in Cat. 10.14 and 14.24 and the gap of several days III C~t.
14.1 (quoted above) would indicate that this was an unchanging element III
the program. It seems unlikely that there would be a lecture on Sundays, although
the candidates were expected to attend the synaxis (Cat. 1.6).
Pierre Maraval found a parallel between Egeria' s description of the final scrutiny,
recitation of the creed, and the bishop's notice of the mystagogicallectures
(It. Eg. 46.5-6), and Cat. 18.33: this address "s'agit de paroles liturgiqu~s, que
l'eveque repete chaque annee ala meme occasion." 60 Egeria quotes the bishop's
final words of exhortation, which, if they have any parallel in Cat., are to be
found in Cyril's final words (exhortation) to the candidates to receive b~ptism
worthily (18.34-35). The ceremonies described by Egeria for the conclu~lOn of
the catechesis would seem not to have been in place when Cat. was delIvered:
there is no indication anywhere of scrutinies at any stage and the creed was
recited by the group repeating the clauses after the bishop, not privately.
Egeria mentions two fasts and vigils in Holy Week: an "official".fast by ~very
one from Holy Thursday evening to the morning of Good Fnday, with the
congregation processing from the Mount of Olives to Golgotha, via Gethse-
mane 61 and then a voluntary one undertaken by the healthier clergy and the
youn~ from the end of dismissal on Friday evening to Saturday morning, in
59 ltinerarium Egeriae 46.4; English translation fromWillcinson, Egeria's Travels. 162.
60 Pierre Maraval, Egerie: Journal de Voyage (Paris 1982) 312, n. 1. . . .
61 ltinerarium Egeriae 35-36. AL XXXIX also gives stations on the Mount of Ohves and a VIgil
for Holy Thursday (2:269-70).
144
62
the Martyrium. It seems highly likely that the fast and vigil to which Cyril
refers is that of Thursday night to Friday morning for two reasons. First, the
location for the main office is the Eleona built upon the cave which the local
church had long identified as the place where Christ gave his final discourse
to the disciples;63 the probability that this Constantinian construction formed
part of the embryonic stationalliturgy is extremely high. Second, Egeria describes
the condition of the congregation on Friday morning in terms similar to Cyril:
"fatigati de uigiliis et ieiuniis cotidianis lassi. "64 This leads us to allocate Cat.
18 to the morning of Good Friday, in the space between the end of the vigil
and the afternoon synaxis.
3. AL and the distribution of Cat.
Baldovin proposed a distribution of Cat. based upon the liturgical arrangements
during Lent given in AL: of the forty days of Lent (he presumes six weeks
including Holy Week for the middle of the fourth century, although AL gives six
weeks plus Holy Week) there were only nineteen days which did not have a Lenten
synaxis and it is to these that we should assign Cat. 65 AL, however, is most
unhelpful in this respect, as the lections for the catechetical lectures are listed
separately from those for Lent, unlike the mystagogicae, which are assigned to
particular days in Easter Week. 66 Baldovin's distribution pattern (see Table 2
above) ignores the indications of delivery on consecutive days in Cat. 7 and 8,
and 11 and 12, and is dependent upon the stationalliturgy given in AL being in
place in the mid-fourth century. AL, dated to between 417 and 439 in its various
recensions, bear~ witness to an increase in liturgical events even from the rather
full timetable given by Egeria for 384, and it does not seem safe to us to presume
that the liturgical program of the early decades of the fifth century was that of the
mid-fourth century. AL is, therefore, of little use in determining the distribution
of Cat.
IV. Conclusions
As the celebration of Easter and baptisms at the Easter Vigil are the fixed
conclusion to the lectures, it would seem more sensible to start there and work
backwards to the beginning of Lent. After our discussion of the allocation of each
lecture, we summarize our conclusions in Table 3.
62 ltinerarium Egeriae 37.9.
63 ltinerarium Burdigalense 595.5; Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3.43.3.
64 ltinerarium Egeriae 36.2; cf. Cat. 18.17.
65 Baldovin, Urban Character, 92-3. This follows a suggestion made by Renoux (AL 2:233, n. I).
66 AL LII (2:237-331).
145
 The references to the proximity of Easter in Cat. 17 and 18, rather than the that these four lectures, Cat. 10 to 13, should be distributed over the week pre-
approach of Palm Sunday or Holy Week, indicate that these were delivered in Holy ceding Holy Week but it would be impossible to determine whether they were
Week. Cat. 18 followed an extended fast and vigil, which we have identified as preached on Monday to Thursday, Tuesday to Friday, or Monday to Wednesday
that of the evening of Holy Thursday until the morning of Good Friday. Egeria and Friday.
records that, after the dismissal at dawn on Friday, the congregation was sent away There is no indication in Cat. 9, but 6 to 8 were delivered consecutively. Cat.
to rest until reconvening "Before the Cross" at the second hour (36.5). Although 6 does not imply that it was delivered on a Monday. There is no correspondence
the ceremonies she describes for Good Friday afternoon may not have been between Cat. 9 and 10, as there is with 13 and 14, and so, although it could be
practiced in the middle of the century, that there was a period devoid of liturgy argued that Cat. 6 to 8 and Cat. 9 were delivered in different weeks, given Cyril' s
can be presumed to have existed. This free time would permit the delivery of Cat. concerns about the lack of time in the later lectures it is unlikely that he would
18; that the candidates had to stay behind to hear it would be reason enough for have permitted a light fourth week. The pattern of four lectures a week replicates
that proposed for week 5 and it is more than probable that Cat. 6 to 9 were delivered
Cyril's sympathy for their physical state. Gifford suggested that it might have been
in the fourth week of Lent.
delivered in the small hours, but nothing in the text suggests that. 67
Although it seems that Cat. 1 was given shortly after enrolment and Cat. 2 early
There is only circumstantial evidence for the distribution of Cat. 15, 16 and 17.
in the process, the distribution of Cat. 3 to 5 cannot be discerned. They may have
Cat. 17 was also delivered close to Easter and there is little reason to put any
been distributed over more than one week and there is no necessity that Cat. I and
distance between it and Cat. 18. Cat. 16 and 17 together concern the Holy Spirit
2 be delivered on the first and second days of Lent, although the implication is
and appear to form a block of teaching; we can therefore place 16 and 17 close
that they were delivered in week 1.
to each other. Cat. 16 was delivered towards the end of the time remaining for
catechesis; on its own this does not necessarily mean that Easter is close, but when Table 3: The Distribution of Cat. during Lent 351
seen in conjunction with Cat. 17 we find that it can also be placed in Holy Week.
Cat. 15 provides no evidence to link it either to Cat. 16 or Cat. 14.
DaylWeek Week before Lent 1 2 3 4 5 Holy Week
Cat. 14 yields more clues to its position that any other lecture and thus is crucial
Sunday - - - - -
in the distribution of the whole series. It was clearly preached on a Monday in the
Monday 3 6 - 14
week following that in which 13 was delivered and the day after Cyril had spoken
Thesday 1 7 10 15
about the Ascension. We have identified the latter with an address on the Mount Wednesday 2 4 8 I1 16
of Olives on Palm Sunday and concluded that Cat. 14 was delivered on Holy Thursday 5 9 12 17
Monday. Thus, contrary to the assertions that there was no instruction in Holy Friday 13 18
Week in mid-fourth-century Jerusalem, it would appear that the candidates were Saturday Procat. - - - - - Rehearsal
instructed daily. This would presume that the elaborate historical and topographi-
cal commemorations of the late-fourth- and fifth-century sources had not yet been
developed.
We cannot be sure that Cat. 13 was delivered on a Friday,68 although it was
clearly before a weekend, as the two indications in Cat. 14.1 and 14.24 suggest.
Cat. 10,11, and 12 were preached on consecutive days, and although Cat. 10 refers
to the Sunday sermon, it is not obvious that it was preached on the Monday. Unless
Cat. 13 was preached in a week when there was only one lecture, it would seem

67 Gifford, 7:xlv.
68 See ibid.

146 147