Cutrone, The Liturgical Setting of the Institution Narrative in the East Syrian Tradition

5/19/2018 Cutrone, The Liturgical Setting of the Institution Narrative in the East Syrian Tradition

1/6

6

The

Liturgical Setting of

The Institution Narrative

in

the

Early Syrian

Tradition

Emmanuel

Cutrone

SINCE THE 1966 PUBLICATION

1

OF THE MAR ESA lA TEXT OF THE

ANAPHORA OF

Addai

and

Mari by William Macomber debate has continued over the

presence of

an

institution narrative in the early Syrian eucharistic

prayer

2

Macomber comparing Addai

and

Mari with Maronite Sharar

concludes that the ancient eucharistic prayer did have the narrative

which

was

removed

at

a much later date Others have argued that the

Mar Esa

ya

text of Addai and Mari is a true representation of a tradition

which did not originally have the narrative Recently

E

Mazza has add-

ed his voice to those who maintain that the Syrian eucharistic tradition

knew an anaphora which did not contain an institution narrative

He

concludes that

as

late as 392 in Antioch Theodore of Mopsuestia com-

ments

on

a eucharistic prayer without

any

mention of the words Christ

spoke

at

the Last Supper

5

Since Sharar

an

anaphora which shares antiquity with Addai

and

Mari

and

postolic

onstitutions

VIII

which is contemporary with Cyril

of Jerusalem

and

Theodore of Mopsuestia are two Syrian anaphoras

which certainly have the narrative it

must

be demonstrated that in the

same liturgical tradition some anaphoras

had

the narrative while others

did

not this cannot be done then it seems that those who argue for the

continual presence of the narrative must

be

correct

and

the evidence of


2/6

106 THE INSTITUTION NARRATIVE

Cyril of Jerusalem and Theodore of Mopsuestia must

be

read differently

from above.

J.-P. Audet sparked a new line of inquiry with his structural analysis

of Jewish prayer forms as the basis for Christian eucharist.

6

Many have

amplified

and

redefined this line of research? Thomas Talley s clarifica

tion of the distinction between

eulogein and

eucharistein

and

his structu

ral

and

thematic analysis have made major contributions to the under

standing of the early evolution of Christian eucharist.

8

As profitable

as

this has been, there still is not agreement

on

the place of the institution

narrative in the early development of the anaphora. The research seems

to indicate that there is nothing in the structure of the prayer which ei

ther demands

or

eliminates the inclusion of the narrative. While strong

arguments have been

made in

both directions,9 it seems necessary to

move the investigation elsewhere.

Beginningwith the New Testament,10 it seems clear that, from the very

start, the institution narrative was part of eucharistic worship. Leon

Dufouris the latest voice to present a strongargument that theinstitution

narratives come into Scripturefrom two different liturgical traditions: the

Antiochene: I Corinthians 11:23-26/Luke

22:15-20

(Pl/Lk)

and

the Mar

kan: Mark 14:22-25/Matthew

26:26-29

(Mark/Matthew).l1 This is biblical

v i ~ n that in the most influential center of the Syrian church, Antioch,

the Institution narrative was used in a liturgical setting prior to the com

positionof I Corinthians. But this does not necessarily mean that the nar

rative was incorporated into the eucharistic prayer. Even though Leon

~ u r

does discuss various types of religious meals

and

gives special

Importance to the todah meal, he refuses to specify the liturgical

manner

in which the narrativewas used or to suggest any particularsof the struc

ture of the eucharistic prayer. Of course, the passages as given are not

blessings

or a ny

other form of prayer; they truly are narratives.

But

since they are descriptive of a salvific event, they could have been incor

porated into a larger prayer context as

an

embolism, but they could

not

have s tood alone as a prayer. As an embolism the use would have been

limited to special occasions, but not the weekly eucharistic liturgy,13 Bou

ley suggests that they first functioned as Christian haggadah. 4

Whereas Ignatius of Antioch

5

makes reference to both eucharist and

agape, he does not even allude to the institutionnarrative. Didache 9

and

10 give texts of prayers which most agree have the structure

and

content

of a valid eucharistic prayer, yet the narrative is not found. Since Addai

and

Mari does not have the eucharistic words, this means that in the Syr

ian tradition the first time the institution narrative appears outside of

Scripture isin theanaphora ofSharar which isa companionprayer to the

anaphora ofAddai and Mari dating from at least the third century.16

The Narrative in Sharar

the liturgical setting of the institution narrative in the Syrian tradi

tion is the eucharistic prayer, the earliest witness to that narrative should

reflect strong influence of the Antiochene tradition (Pl/Lk). The text of

the narrative as it appears in Sharar follows:

Inthe night in which you

were betrayed to

the Jews, Lord, you took bread

in

your pure

and holy

hands and

lifted your eyes to heaven

to

your glori

ous

Father; you blessed, sealed, sanctified, Lord, broke, and gave it to

your

disciples

the

blessed Apostles,

and

said to

them

This

bread

is

my

body,

which is broken and given for the life of the world, and will be

to

those

who take i t for forgiveness of debts and pardon of sins;

take

and eat from

it, and it will be to you for eternal life. Likewise

over

the

cup

Lord, you

praised, glorified, and said, This cup is my

blood

of t he n ew covenant,

which is

shed

for many for forgiveness

of

sins; take and drink from it, all

of

you

and

it will be to

you

for pardon

of

debts and forgiveness of sins, and

for eternal life.

Amen

As often asyou

eat

from this

holy

body and drink

from this cup

of

life

and

salvation,

you

will

make the

memorial of

the

death and

resurrection

of

your Lord, untilthe great day

of

his coming.

17

Obviously this text does not come from Scripture, nor does it appear

to be a simple expansion of theAntiochene (Pl/Lk) tradition.

An

analysis

of the text indicates the following: 1 The bread

and

the cup statements

are constructed so that the description of the action is parallel. Both state

ments have a relative clause after the identification: ... my body

which

is

broken

and

given ...

my

blood of the new covenant,

which

i s shed for

many ... Both statements say that the elements are for the forgiveness of

s ns

Both statements are accompanied

by

a directive,

take

and

eat

from

it, and it will be to you for eternal life ... take and drink from itall ofyou

and

it wi ll be to

you

for pardon of debts

and

forgiveness of sins,

and

for

eternal life. Neither the Antiochene (Pl/Lk) nor the Markan (Mk/Mt)

narratives parallel their statements in this fashion. 2 The account draws

from all four of the biblical narratives,

and

not just one tradition,

and

at

t imes includes things that are found in none of the four accounts. The

bread statement, took ... blessed ... broke ...

and

gave to

your

disciples

... is closer to the Markan tradition (Mk/Mt). This bread is

my

body

is in none of the biblical accounts. And the statement which follows,

which isbroken

and

given ... is from the Antiochene tradition (Pl/Lk).

The cup statement definitely favors Mark/Matthew. Sharar s This

cup

is

my

blood of the new covenant ... is closer toMark s, This is ... blood

. .. thanto

Paul/Luke

which has, Thisis ... covenant ... Nowhere in

Sharar is found anything close to the command, Do this for

my

remem-


3/6

The passages agree that it is proper to assign

an

important liturgical

function to a visiting bishop. But the passages also differ because the

cup

described in

Didascalia

12?

First the text of the passage: in Funk the

Latin reads, Et in gratia agenda ipse dicat; si autem,

cum

sit prudens et

honorem tibi reservans, non velit, supercalicemdicat 21 Brock translates

the section as follows:

. .. i f a b ishop, le t

him

sit

with the

bishop,

a nd be

allowed

the

same honor

with himself; and thou, 0 bishop, shalt desire him

to

speak to the people

words of

instruction ... Thou shalt also permit him

to

offer the Eucharist;

but

if,

out o f

reverence

to

thee, and a s a wis e man,

to

preserve the honor

belonging to thee,

he

will not offer, at least

thou

shalt compel him to give

the

blessing to the people.

26

109

MMANUEL

J

CUTRONE

And i he

(the visiting minister) is a bishop, let

him

sit with

the

bishop,

who

should accord to him the honor of his rank, even as himself. And

do

you, the bishop, invite him to give a homily to your people . .. And when

you

offer the oblation, let him speak

the

words;

but

if he is wise and gives

the

honor to i fu

and

is unwilling to offer, at least let him speakthe words

over the cup.

The passage calls for proper respect to a visitingbishop, who is to be

offered a very important function within the liturgical celebration. Brock

does not comment

on

the passage,

but

his translation suggests thismean

ing: when the eucharistic prayer is said the visiting bishop should

be

in

vited to speak that portion of the prayerwhich recalls the words ofJesus

at the Last Supper, but i he prudently declines this honor, he should at

least speak the cup statement of the eucharistic prayer. This suggests a

concelebration. F.x. Funk interprets the passage differently. He thinks it

means that the visiting bishop should be invited to recite the complete

eucharistic prayer,

but

if not the whole prayer, then

at

least the words

over the chalice.

23

Connolly thinks that this

cup

blessing is in a totally

different liturgical celebration.

He

says that the tactful visiting bishop,

who refuses to offerthe eucharistic prayer, should

at

least offer the bless

ingoverthe

cupat

the agape 24

Theparallel passage in postolicConstitutions II,7 can be helpful in un

derstanding the nature of this

cup

blessing. Books I-IV of postolic Consti-

tutions

are, for the most part, a reproduction of Didascalia with minor

changes reflecting liturgical evolution.

25

As a rule, then, when

postolic

Constitutions agreeswith

Didascalia

there hasbeen a continuationof the li

turgical tradition.Theydisagreewhen therehas been a liturgical change.

The parallel passage to

Didascalia

12

is as follows:

brance ... which is unique to Paul/Luke.

On

the whole, then, the narra

tive as it appears in Sharar does not come under the heavy influence

of

the Antiochene biblical narratives

as

mightbe expected.

Conclusions. There is widespread agreement among biblical scholars

that the institution narrative (Pl/Lk) has a liturgical setting

in

Antioch

prior to the writing of I Corinthians.

Our

analysis of the anaphora of

Sharar strongly indicates that the narrative was not originally

in

the eu

charistic prayer from

New

Testament times because i i t were

we would

expect to find the early textual tradition of the anaphora heavily influ

enced

by

that Antiochene tradition (Pl/Lk). But as we have seen above,

that is not the case. t is possible, then, that the original setting of the in

stitution narrative was outside the eucharistic prayer. A suggestion will

be

made

below. At a rather early date

under

influencesbeyond the Anti

ochene tradition a narrative was incorporated into the anaphora of Shar

ar,

but

not into the Addai

and

Mari, so that

at

one

and

the same time the

Syrian liturgy knew a eucharistic tradition which sometimes

did and

sometimes

did

notinclude the narrative

in

the eucharistic prayer. Indica

tions are that this condition remained

down

through Cyril

in

Jerusalem

8

and

Theodore in Antioch.

9

Liturgical Use

of

the

Narrative Another

Possibility

While several Church Fathers do appeal to the institution narrative

as

they discuss the eucharist, none of these early authors clearly place the

narrative within the eucharistic prayer. When Justin Martyr quotes the

words, this is my body ... thisis

my

blood ... 20 he isnot describing the

baptismal eucharist found

in

I pology 65

or

the Sunday celebration

elaborated in I pology

67 but

he is explaining the special character of

the elements received at communion.

I

pology 66

has any ritual con

text, it must

be

the communion rite,

and

not the eucharistic prayer. Simi

larly, the direct references to the narrative in Cyril s

Mystagogical

Cateche-

ses

IV and Theodore s Mystagogical

Catecheses

IV 1-14 also address the

nature ofthe elementsand the food ofcommunion.When Cyril

and

The

odore discuss the eucharistic prayer no reference is made to the narra

tive. Like Justin, their comments are independent of the anaphora. This

suggests that the earliest liturgical setting of the institution narrative

was

in o ~ t i o n with the communion rite

and

not the eucharistic prayer.

There Ssome further evidence that points in this direction.

Didascalia postolorum12

and

the parallel passage in postolic onstitu-

tions

II givewitness to a blessingwhich should be allowedonly to a visit

ingbishop. In

Didascalia

the blessingis over the cup,

and

in

postolicCon-

stitutions the blessing is over the people. What is this blessing over the



4/6

When the

bishop has

concluded the Eucharistic Prayer

in

this way, he bless-

es the

people

and wishes them peace; all present make the usual

response

with

heads bowed in

due reverence

When the prayer is completed and a ll a re in

tent on receiving Holy Communion, the Church herald proclaims Let us at-

tend ... The bishop announces What is holy for the holy. For our Lord s body

and

blood, which are

our

food, are indeed

holy and

immortal

and

full of

holiness, since

the Holy

Spirit

has

come down

upon them

. .. This i s why

the

bishop says: What is holy

for

the holy, and urges everyone to recall the

dignity ofwhat is laid on the altar ...

30

What was previously a blessing over the cup for communion has now

become a blessing of the people which Theodore describes as for peace.

I

am

correct that the original blessing over the cup served the purpose

of identifying the nature of the elements, a change

in

that practice would

be possible if the elements were sufficiently identified at another place in

the eucharistic liturgy. As-we know from Apostolic Constitutions VIII, the

eucharistic prayer now has an institution narrative which offers very spe

cific identification of the elements as the body and blood ofChrist for for

giveness of sins and for covenant. The conclusion of

B

Spinks on sacri

fice in the East Syrian anaphora is also very suggestive. He sees a

ing, or memorial. This prayer, over the bread and the cup, is a commun

ion prayer. The theme of the prayeris the Passover of Christ to which the

communicant can identify by receiving the elements. As such it serves

the important function of identifying the eucharistic elements in much

the same way Justin did in I Apology 66 and Cyril and Theodore did in

the

Mystagogical

Catecheses The themes here are similar to portions of the

narrative that appear in Sharar, ...

my

blood of the new covenant which

is shed for many for forgiveness of sins; take and drink from it, all of

you,

and

it will be to you for pardon of debts and forgiveness of sins,

and for eternal life. Such a prayer would fit the category of a blessing

over the cup that is described in Didascalia 12 Even though there is no

textual evidence, a variation

on

this communion prayer could very well

have included the institution narrative. this is the case, the early Syrian

eucharistic tradition knew a communion blessing which at least con

tained themes from the Passover of Christ and possible the institution

narrative.

As indicated above, by the time of

Apostolic

Constitutions this blessing

ofthe cup became a blessing of the people. In the Mystagogical Catecheses

of Theodore there is specific mention of a blessing of the people after the

eucharistic prayer and before communion. The explanation of that bless

ing by Theodore contains themes similar to those found in the prayer of

Jude Thomas.

111MMANUEL

J

CUTRONE

blessing over the cup in Didascalia has become a blessing over the people

in

Apostolic

Constitutions

The context indicates that this blessing takes

place within the eucharistic celebration, and not at another liturgical

gathering. Even though the agape is still practiced at this time

27

there is

no indication in Apostolic Constitutions tha t the blessing refers to the

agape. In Book VIII there is further evidence that a visiting bishop was

assigned four eulogies at the eucharistic celebration.

28

Thus, it isnot unu

sual to have the presiding bishop share different prayers of the eucharis

tic liturgy with a visiting bishop, a condition already practiced at the

time of Didascalia This

l s s i n ~

originally of the cup and later of the

people, must have taken place dUring the eucharistic celebration, and not

during

the agape.

On

the strength of the paralle l passage in

Apostolic

Constitutions 11 Didascalia 12

can be interpreted as follows: the visiting

bishop is invited to pray the eucharistic prayer, but if he refuses to say

the eucharistic prayer, let him then at least say the blessing over the cup,

which is a blessing that takes place at another time, but still within the

eucharistic celebration. Is it possible to identify this blessing further?

There is evidence in the Syrian li turgical tradit ion of prayers

and

blessings which are directly related to the distribution of the elements.

First of all, the Acts ofJude Thomas gives a description of a blessing

at

the

table with the newly baptized.

And after they had been baptized and were come

up he brought bread

and the mingled cup; and spake a blessing over it and said: The holy

Body, which was crucified for our sake, we eat, and Thy life-giving Blood,

which was shed for our sake, we drink. Let thy Body be to us for life, and

thy Blood for the remission of sins. For the gall which thou drankestfor us,

let the bitterness of our enemy be taken away from us. And for thy drink

ing

vinegar for

our

sake, let

our

weakness be strengthened.

And

(for)

the

spit which thou didst receive for us, let us receive

thy

perfect life. And be

cause Thou didst receive the crown of thorns for us, let us receive from

thee the crown that withereth not. And because Thou wast wrapped in a

linen cloth for us, let us be girt with Thy mighty strength, which cannot be

overcome. And because Thou was buried in a

new

sepulchre for

our

mor

tality, let us too receive intercourse with thee

in

Heaven.

And

as

Thou

didst arise, let us be raised, and let us stand before Thee at

the

judgment of

truth. And he

brake the Eucharist,

gave

to Vizan and Tertia, and to Mana

shar

and Sifur

and

Mygdonia

a nd t o t he

wife and

daughter

of Sifur and

said: Let this Eucharist be to

you

for life and rest and joy and health, and

for the healing ofyour soul and ofyour bodies. and they said, Amen;,,29


This prayer, which is a series of petitions, does not correspond to any

known structure of a eucharistic prayer. There is no blessing, thanksgiv-


5/6

Notes

now

be understood as the first anaphora

in

the Syrian tradition to incor

porate the institution narrative into the eucharistic prayer. But for a long

time the Syr ian tradition was satisfied to leave the narrative as a com

munion statement. This explains a tradition known by Cyril of Jerusa

lem and Theodore of Mopsuestia who seem to be the last witnesses of

an

earlier form of the eucharistic prayer. By the fifth century the narra

tive migrates from the communion statement into the eucharistic prayer.

Only the Anaphora of Addai and Mari remains as a vest ige of an an

cient tradition.

1.

William F. Macomber, ''The Oldest Known Text

of

the Anaphora of the

Apostles Addai and Mari,

Orientalia Christiana

Periodica 32 (1 6) 335-371.

2.

For the bibliography on Addai and Mari prior to 1966, confer my article,

' 'The Anaphora of the Apostles: Implications ofthe Mar Esa 'ya Text, Theological

Studies 34 1973 624642;

and

for a good presentation of the present issues see,

Brian

D.

Spinks,

Addai

and

Mari the

Anaphora

of

the Apostles:

A Text for Students

GroveLiturgical Study

24

(Bramcote Notts, 1980).

3.

William Macomber, ''The Maronite

and

Chaldean Versions

of

the Anaph

ora

ofthe

Apostles, Orientalia

Christiana

Periodica 37 1971 55-84; ''The Ancient

Form of

the

Anaphora of the Apostles, East of Byzantium:

Syria and

Armenia

in

the Formative Period (Dumbarton Oaks Symposium, 1980) (Washington D.e,

1982) 73-88.

4. Herman Wegman, Genealogie hypothetiques de la priere eucharis

tiques, Questions liturgiques 61 1980 263-278.

5. Mazza concludes, Non abbiamo elementi per dire che la liturgia com

mentata

da

Teodoro avesse il racconto dell'istituzione, inteso come racconto

dell'ultima cena che comporta le parole stesse del Signore. Enrico Mazza, La

Struttura dell'anafora nelle Catechesi

di

Teodoro

di

Mopsuestia, Presiedere

alIa

Caritti: Studi

in

onore di S E

Mons

Giberto Baroni

E. Mazza e D. Gianotti, eds. (Ge

nova, 1988) 66-93. I have argued that Cyril's Mystagogical Catecheses demonstrate

the same conditionexisted inJerusalem toward the end ofthe fourth century. RJ.

Cutrone, Cyril's Mystagogical Catecheses and the Evolution of the Jerusalem

Anaphora, Orientalia

Christiana

Periodica 44 1978 52-64.

6. J.-P. Audet, LiteraryForms and Contents of the Normal eucharistia in the

First Century, Studia Evangelica 1957 643-662.

7. The list of scholars isvery long. includes: Botte, Bouyer, Ledogar, Ligier,

Talley, Cuming, Wegman, Spinks, Giraudo, Mazza, just to mention a few.

8. Two of the more significant articles of Talleyon this subject are: From Be

rakah to Eucharistia: A Reopening Question, Worship 50

1976

115-137; The

LiteraryStructure of the Eucharistic Prayer, Worship 58 1984 404-420.

9. Enrico Mazza,

The

Eucharistic

Prayers

of

the

Roman

Rite trans., Matthew

J.

O'Connell (New York,

1986 22-29.

10. In 1973 L. Ligier suggested that it might be possible to begin with the

113MMANUEL

J.

CUTRONE

Summary


connection between offering and the recital of the words of institution in

both the anaphora of Nestorius and that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

31

could be that themotivation for the introduction of the narrative into the

eucharistic prayer is related to greater attention to the themes of offering

and sacrifice. A cup statement similar to that found in Jude Thomas

or

one that contained an institution narrative would be redundant. Rather

than

eliminate the blessing altogether, since it is not normal liturgical ev

olution to simplify, the blessing takes on a new function which still

stands in relation to communion the people, not the elements are

blessed.

From the sources it is possible to establish the following.

1

The insti

tution narrative has a liturgical setting in the Syrian tradition from the

very earliest times. 2 The first instance of the institution narrative in a

Syrian anaphora (Sharar) does not demonstrate heavy influence from the

Paul/Luke

narrative.

3

At

an

early time there was an important bless

ing over the cup which took place dUring the eucharistic liturgy. 4 The

Syrian tradition also knew a communion blessing over the elements

which has strong themes of the passion of Christ.

5

By the

end

of the

fourth century the communion blessing changed to a blessing over the

people. 6 The Mystagogical Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem and Theo

dore of Mopsuestia make direct reference to the insti tution narrative

only when they discuss the elements and/or communion.

In light ofthe above, and because of the strong evidence that the Syri

an

tradition

did

know a eucharistic prayer without

an

institution narra

tive (Addai and Mari, and the witness of Cyril of Jerusalem and Theo

dore of Mopsuestia), I suggest the possibi li ty of the following: the

blessmg over the elements before communion originally contained the

institution narrative. This prayer served the function of specifying the

nature of the elements

and of communion. Toward the end of the fourth

century the narrative migrates from the communion blessing into the eu

charistic prayer, possibly to further highlight the sacrificial character of

eucharistic worship. The blessing before communion is redefined as a

blessing of the people.

. While the evidence to

support

the above suggestion is rather tenuous,

It does help clarify several nagging problems in the Syrian eucharistic

tradition. First, it explains how the narrative could have been in the Syri

an

liturgical tradition from the very beginning and not part of the eu

charistic prayer. Second, it offers a further explanation of the absence of

the narrative from the anaphora of Addai and Mari. Third, Sharar

can


6/6


narrative as it appears in the anaphora and attempt to trace its function back to

the

New

Testament. But Ligier admitted that such

an

approach

has

serious limi

tations. Louis Ligier, The Origins of

the

Eucharistic Prayer: From

the

Last

Sup-

per

to

the

Eucharist,

Studia Liturgica

9 (1973) 161-185.

11. Xavier Leon-Dufour Sharing the Eucharistic Bread: The Witness of the New

Testament

(New York, 1986) 82-101.

12. Bouley,

From Freedom to

Formula 73

13. Roger Beckwith, Daily and Weekly

Worship: Jewish

to Christian

Alcuin

Grow

Liturgical Study 1 (Bramcote Notts, 1987) 32.

14. Bouley,

From Freedom to

Formula 74

15

Smy. 7

16. Bryan D. Spinks, The Original Form of the Anaphora of the Apostles: A

Suggestion in Light

of

Maronite Sharar, Ephemerides

Liturgicae

91

(1977) 146-161.

17. R eD Jasper and G.J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed

third edition, revised and enlarged (NewYork, 1987)

48.

18. Cutrone, Cyril's Mystagogical Catecheses and the Evolution

of

the Jerusa-

lem Anaphora, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 44 (1978) 52-64.

19. Mazza, La Struttura ... di Mopsuestia.

20.

Apology 66

21. EX. Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum (Paderborn, 1905) 168.

22.

Sebastian Brock and Michael Vasey, The Liturgical Portions of the Didascalia

Grove Liturgical

Study

29

(Bramcote Notts, 1982) 16.

23. Episcopus peregrinus ergo, sinon eucharistiam totam celebrabat, saltem

calicem consecrare debeat. F.X. Funk, Didascalia et

Constitutiones Apostolorum

(Paderborn, 1905) 168-169, nt.

24. R. Hugh Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version Translated and

Accompanied by the Verona Latin

Fragments

(Oxford)

liiL

25.

See David

A.

Fiensy, Prayers

Alleged to

be

Jewish: An Examination of

the

Con-

stitutiones Apostolorum Brown Judaic Studies

65

(Chico, CA, 1985) 20-21.

26. AC

11,7,58.

Ante Nicene

Fathers

vol. 7, 422. Also found

in

Funk, Didascalia et

Constitutiones Apostolorum 168

27. Roger Beckwith, Daily and Weekly

Worship: Jewish

to Christian Alcuin

Grow Liturgical

Study

1 (Bramcote Notts, 1987) 35-36.

28. Those eulogies which remain

at the

mysteries, let

the

deacons distribute

them among the clergy, ... to a bishop, four parts; to a presbyter, three parts; to a

deacon,

two

parts; and to the rest of

the

sub-deacons, or readers, or singers,

or

dea-

conesses, one part. For this is good

and

acceptable in the sight of God that every

one

be

honored according to his dignity; VIII, 31.

Ante Nicene

Fathers vol. 7, 494.

29.

No. 158.

s ofJude

Thomas

A.

Klijn, ed. (Leiden, 1 2) 149-50.

30. V, 22. From Edward Yarnold,

The

Awe Inspiring Rites of Initiation: Baptismal

Homilies of the Fourth Century (London, 1971) 251.

31. Bryan D. Spinks, Eucharistic Offering in

the

East Syrian Anaphoras,

Orientalia Christiana Periodica 50 1984 362-365.

Cutrone, The Liturgical Setting of the Institution Narrative in the East Syrian Tradition

Documents

Transcript of Cutrone, The Liturgical Setting of the Institution Narrative in the East Syrian Tradition