“The liturgies, which the opinion of the early fathers has agreed upon, are three […] which were agreed upon over other liturgies preserved in the Church, said to be twelve in number.” This is how Ibn Sabbāʻ frames the reduction of the number of liturgies in the Coptic church to the triad known today, the liturgies of St Basil, Gregory, and Cyril, in chapter 58 of his liturgical commentary The Precious Jewel. This notice, alongside patriarch Gabriel II Ibn Turaik’s canon 26, which disapproves of the Southern use of more liturgies than the established three, are our only sources of medieval Northern awareness of the diversity of Southern eucharistic practice, which is amply documented by the Greek and Sahidic euchologia fragments from the fourth to the twelfth century. 

But where did Ibn Sabbāʻ take his number 12 from?

The manuscripts known to date document at least twenty different anaphoras in addition to the canonical three, alongside countless associated minor prayers (Nebengebete). The actual numbers must have been significantly higher, given the local character of late antique and early medieval liturgy. Though it is not clear how much of it (or rumors of how much) would have survived into the fourteenth century, when Ibn Sabbāʻ was writing, it seems unlikely that he references the total of local formularies available in his day. Instead, (unless his number is just a way of saying ‘many’), he may have taken this information from (rumors about) an authoritative collection that had 12 anaphoras. I would like to propose here the hypothesis that this was indeed the case, and that this collection was the Great Euchologion of the White Monastery, MONB.VE (or its potential derivatives).

First, if Ibn Sabbāʻ indeed referenced an authoritative Southern collection, the White Monastery would be the best candidate to have produced it. Around the turn of the millennium, it was a major cultural center in Upper Egypt and its library served as a repository for all sorts of literature available in Sahidic. In the field of liturgy, it also seems to have had an ambitious collecting and systematizing activity. Its liturgical indices witness a carefully crafted system of readings and songs, whereas its euchologion MONB.VF, which does not follow the structure of a given service, seems to have been an archival collection of prayers, a rare phenomenon among practically minded liturgical books. The Great Euchologion was also shaped by this Sammellust. Towards its end, right before the marriage ritual, it contained alternative minor prayers, which covered at least 42 pages (pp. 181-222). Since such prayers fill on the average ca. one page, this was a considerable collection of alternatives. The number of anaphoras is likewise impressive, prompting Quecke to raise the question whether all of them were actually used, and the deacon’s libellus in MONB.WA lends support to Quecke’s skepticism. It provides complete series of the deacon’s calls only for the ordo minor (identified with the liturgy of Basil) and the ordo maior (Gregory), whereas for the anaphoras of Mark and Severus it provides only the diaconica for the intercessions, and for the rest of the anaphoras a mixed sequence of diaconica for the intercessions, from which the deacon had to find the appropriate ones. This arrangement thus implies that the other anaphoras had less relevance for liturgical performance and perhaps more from a collector’s point of view. That in the Great Euchologion only the anaphoras of Basil and Gregory seem to have their own set of minor prayers points in the same direction. The sheer size of the Great Euchologion at 29x23 cm, which is only matched by MONB.VG among the Sahidic euchologia, also makes it a suitable candidate for such a liturgical collection. Finally, from beyond the ninth century, apart from the Great Euchologion, we only have one copy of an anaphora beyond the canonical three ('Crum 150' in London, BL, Or. 3580A f. 9 [olim Or. 3580 A7]), in contrast to three copies of Mark, three of Basil, and one of Gregory. This implies that by that time the South had begun to adopt the Northern triad (though later finds may qualify this observation), and that the Great Euchologion goes against the trends of its time. All this feeds into my hypothesis that the Great Euchologion was designed as a showcase of Upper Egyptian eucharistic variety. For such a project the number twelve could have been an appropriate guidance. 

But were there indeed twelve anaphoras in the Great Euchologion?

The unsatisfying answer is that there may as well have been, but we do not know because of the bad state of preservation of the manuscript. The table of contents in the edition by Emmanuel Lanne lists altogether 12 anaphoras, but the lacunas between them make it impossible to verify if these were the only ones in the volume (compare the overview below). First, the lost 18 pages between p. 82 and p. 101 might have contained only the end of the anaphora of Thomas and the beginning of the anaphora of Severus of Antioch, or there might have been a short anaphora in between the two, depending on the length of the anaphora of Thomas. Both options are possible; as a comparison, the only complete anaphora of the collection, that of Matthew, covers 10 pages (pp. 137-146), but the anaphora of St Basil in the front, of which all the intercessions were fitted on merely 2 pages, may have been as short as ca. 6 pages, whereas the otherwise unknown, lengthy anaphora addressed to Christ on pp. 113-116 and 121-122 was at least 13 (but rather 15-16) pages long. Second, the final line on p. 81, l. 1, counted as a separate anaphora by Lanne, may in fact have been the end of the anaphora of John of Bosra, which begins on p. 63. Though this would mean that the text stretches over 17.5 pages, it is not impossible. The anaphora of John of Bosra in its Syriac redaction is indeed a long one, longer than the anaphora of Severus, which in the Great Euchologion occupies ca. 13-15 pages (pp. 101-108 as well as at least one page after and 4-6 pages before). Third, we do not know if the anaphora attributed to James that begins on p. 148 was the last one of the collection; the lost 32 pages before the fraction prayer on p. 181 may have contained one or two more anaphoras. Thus, there is more than one way the Great Euchologion could have contained 12 anaphoras – and, accordingly, the possibility remains that it contained more or less than that, from 11 up to 15.

Altogether, there are some arguments that support my hypothesis that the Great Euchologion of the White Monastery once contained 12 anaphoras and that rumors of this collection (or of its derivatives) reached Ibn Sabbāʻ and led him to claim that there were once 12 liturgies in the Coptic church. Yet, given our fragmentary knowledge of Upper Egyptian liturgies, and of the Great Euchologion itself, this hypothesis eventually remains unprovable.

[1] A. Mikhail, Guides to the Eucharist in Medieval Egypt, New York 2022, 60-61.

[2] H. Quecke, “Zukunftschancen bei der Erforschung der koptischen Liturgie,” in The Future of Coptic Studies, Leiden 1978, 172.

[3] Some of these can be matched with extant anaphoral intercessions, e.g., the diaconicon for the apostle Matthew in MONB.WA, p. 136 (Paris, BnF, fol. 145, V), ll. 2-4 matches the intercession for the persona of the apostle in the anaphora of Matthew in MONB.VE, p. 147, ll. 5-7.

[4]  The anaphora of St Mark(/Cyril) may also have had its associated minor prayers, as we do not have its beginning or end. However, the space on the lost pp. 35-38 would probably be enough only for the end of the liturgy of St Gregory and the beginning of the anaphora of St Mark, but hardly for associated pre-anaphoral prayers. This is of course only a speculation, but one that is in line with the arrangement of the diaconica into ordo minor, ordo maior, and the rest in MONB.WA. The fourth, unknown anaphora on pp. 61-63 clearly does not have its own set of minor prayers, as it is immediately followed by the anaphora of John of Bosra, and the same can be assumed for the rest of the anaphoras.

[5] Lanne does not state any numbers. Claims about 13 anaphoras have been made by Diliana Atanassova (“The Primary Sources of Southern Egyptian Liturgy: Retrospect and Prospect,” in Rites and Rituals of the Christian East: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, Lebanon, 10–15 July, 2012, Leuven 2014, 68) and in my The Christian Liturgical Papyri: An Introduction, Tübingen 2019, 48. This count resulted from separating the anaphora on pp. 113-116 from the one on pp. 121-122, though since this anaphora is particularly verbose in its extant parts, Lanne is probably right that the altogether ten pages between pp. 113-122 belong to the same text.

The contents of MONB.VE
[1-12]: lost, probably ordo communis, pre-anaphora, beginning of the anaphora of St Basil
[13-14] (Cairo, CM, inv. 3911): anaphora of St Basil, intercessions and doxology
[15-16] (London, BL,  Or. 3580A, f. 13 (olim Or. 3580 A9)): fraction prayer of the liturgy of St Basil (Zanetti B), fraction prayers (Zanetti 3 and C)
[17-20] lost, further fraction prayers (with embolismos and inclination before communion?)
21-22 fraction prayer (Zanetti 43); two embolismos prayers; absolution of the Father
[23-26] lost, end of the liturgy of St Basil, beginning of the liturgy of St Gregory, beginning of the anaphora of St Gregory
27-28: anaphora of St Gregory, pre-Sanctus to post-Sanctus
[29-30]: anaphora of St Gregory, post-Sanctus and institution narrative
[31-32]: lost, end of anaphora of St Gregory
[33-34]: prooimion of the fraction, fraction prayer (unidentified)
[35-38]: lost, rest of the liturgy of St Gregory, beginning of anaphora of St Mark 
39-42: anaphora of St Mark, intercessions 
[43-60]: lost, end of the anaphora of St Mark, beginning of an unknown anaphora
61-63: unknown anaphora, intercessions and doxology
63-64: anaphora of John of Bosra, thanksgiving
[65-80]: lost, end of the anaphora of John of Bosra (and beginning of another anaphora?)
81: final line of an anaphora (of John of Bosra or other?) 
81-82: anaphora of Thomas, thanksgiving to post-Sanctus
[83-100]: lost, end of the anaphora of Thomas, beginning of anaphora of Severus of Antioch?
101-102: anaphora of Severus of Antioch, fruits of communion, intercessions 
[103-104]: lost, anaphora of Severus of Antioch, intercessions
105-108: anaphora of Severus of Antioch, intercessions
[109-112]: lost, end of the anaphora of Severus of Antioch, beginning of a lengthy unknown anaphora addressed to Christ
113-116: lengthy unknown anaphora addressed to Christ, post-Sanctus and institution narrative
[117-120]: lost, lengthy unknown anaphora addressed to Christ
121-122: lengthy unknown anaphora addressed to Christ, intercessions
[123-132]: lost, end of lengthy unknown anaphora addressed to Christ, beginning of other unknown anaphora
133-137: unknown anaphora with parallels to the Hagiopolite anaphora of St James, intercessions
137-146: anaphora of Matthew
[147-148]: end of the anaphora of St Matthew, beginning of an anaphora of St James (not the Hagiopolite)
[149-180]: lost
181-182: alternative prayers of fraction (Zanetti 60, 59)
[183-192]: lost, alternative minor prayers
193-194: alternative prayers of thanksgiving after communion
[195-214]: lost, alternative minor prayers
215-216: alternative final inclination prayers
[217-220]: lost, alternative final inclination prayers
221-222: alternative final inclination prayers, systile prayer (for the consumption of the gifts after the service)
[223-230]: lost, alternative systile prayers, beginning of the marriage ritual
231-234: marriage ritual