The Prayers of Sarapion of Thmuis: A Literary, Liturgical, and Theological Analysis.

By Maxwell E. Johnson. Pp. 298. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 249.) Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1995. ISBN 88 7210 307 x. Paper n.p.

Ever since the discovery of the prayers attributed to Sarapion of Thmuis in the eleventh century Greek manuscript (Ms Lavra 149) by Dimitrievskij in 1894, and their publication by Georg Wobbermin, short and extended articles have appeared questioning the original sequence of the prayers, their authorship and orthodoxy, and, inevitably, the `original form' of the anaphora. In this thorough study of the prayer collection, based on a microfilm of Ms Lavra 149 rather than previous printed texts, Maxwell Johnson subjects the whole euchology to a full literary, liturgical, and theological analysis, and the result is a paradigm for this sort of liturgical research. However, the claim made when this work was still in manuscript form, that the only complete English translation is that of Wordsworth in 1899, was superseded in 1993 with the publication of all the prayers with, albeit in much briefer format, notes, and discussion by R. J. S. Barrett-Lennard. Though slight in comparison to this study, it is most unfortunate that no reference to Barrett-Lennard is made, even if only a note in the Introduction if it was too late to incorporate changes into the main text. Indeed, liturgical scholars will need to compare Johnson's discussion with that of Barrett-Lennard. Johnson first reviews previous treatments of this euchology or parts of it--Wobbermin, Wordsworth, Drews, Brightman, Capelle, Rodopoulos, Botte, and Cuming. The study takes its inspiration from the insights of Geoffrey Cuming that, contrary to the idea of previous editors, the prayer sequence makes sense from the manuscript without rearrangement to fit a preconceived more logical order; the prayers are a collection, and seem to be from different hands; and that a compiler/redactor, who could well be Bishop Sarapion, even if not a fully paid-up avant garde Athanasian, was not an Arianiser or a Pneumatomachian. Johnson agrees almost entirely with Cuming on the sequence of the prayers, 15-30, 1-14. His next task is to subject the prayers to a close analysis in terms of whether they are all from the same hand. With the help of a computer check, he agrees with Cuming that prayers 15-17 represent a separate and independent stratum of the text. In the ordination prayers, 12-14, 13 seems to stand apart from the other two, but does have a literary relationship with prayers 7-11. His overall conclusion is that we can identify four general strata:

(1) 1-6,7-1 1,13,19,21,24-30

(2) 15-17 (concerned with oil)

(3) 12 and 14 (Diaconal and Episcopal ordination), 20,22, and 23.

(4) 18 (burial)

It is a collection of various and diverse prayers. This should have been obvious, but this careful analysis should remove any doubt. However, it does presuppose a certain consistency in style and theology by prayer writers, and one wonders, for example, what a comparable check on the Book of Common Prayer would yield.

Johnson next turns to the question of whether the prayers in this collection fit what we know of liturgy in the mid-fourth century, and particularly Egyptian liturgy. One of the major problems here is that, as the recent study by Griggs has suggested, early Christianity in Egypt was apparently diverse and lacked central authority. The other major problem is that we know very little about the liturgy within this diversity. Johnson elects to use the Canons of Hippolytus and the Testament Domini as well as the liturgy of St. Mark for the main comparisons. Prayer 2, called the `fraction', is more concerned with worthy communion than `fraction', and perhaps the heading was added later. Prayer 6 has the form of a `missa' (liturgical dismissal). The prayers for oil, 15-17, and the baptismal prayers, 7-11 are next subjected to scrutiny. Having already placed 15-17 in a different stratum from 7-11, Johnson then argues from the studies of Kretschmar, Winkler, and Bradshaw that the older Egyptian tradition knew only a prebaptismal anointing (based on the model of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan). This argument would have been accepted by most scholars in 1992, but the recent work of Alistair Logan on the Gnostic texts has shown that Antioch and other areas did know of a post-baptismal chrism, and that the two patterns existed side by side in the same areas. Given the importance of Gnosticism in Egypt, which apparently was not differentiated from `orthodoxy' until quite late, it is highly likely that both patterns were found here too. The difference of style does not necessarily mean that one set is greatly older than another. Furthermore, Winkler's idea of the importance of the baptism of Jesus in establishing a pattern seems to have overlooked that at the Jordan the sequence is baptism-Spirit. A better parallel for anointing (Spirit)-baptism is with incarnation and baptism.

The discussion of the ordination prayers suggest that prayer 13 for presbyters may reflect the earlier collegiate role of presbyters in Egypt, a suggestion made by Bradshaw and accepted by Barrett-Lennard. The burial prayer has themes in common with a Coptic prayer, and seems to lie behind the Coptic version. Prayers 19-30, also subjected to careful analysis, seem to be a variety of prayers which could be drawn upon for different liturgical contexts.

Johnson treats the anaphora at great length, and here he seems to take more literary and liturgical license than with any of the other prayers, and approaches the task with certain a priori views on anaphoral development. Like many liturgical scholars, he has not been able to resist the temptation of peeling off layers to reveal a `more original' form. Thus, finding in the Preface-sanctus section a chiastic pattern in the first set of apophatic adjectives, he wishes to exclude some of these as anti-Arian interpolations in order to reveal an A,B,A pattern. After considering a dual meaning of sacrifice in this and other Egyptian anaphoras, Johnson next launches an assault on the sanctus-epiklesis unit. This, he concludes, is a later addition, together with the four petitions of the preface. Preferring Taft's story of the sanctus to my own, he finds Origen's theology of the Son and Spirit as the two seraphim behind the petition `Let the Lord Jesus speak in us and let holy Spirit also hymn you through us'. Yet this petition simply reflects the indwelling of the Son and Spirit found in passages such as John 14: 14,23; 15:4; 17:23; Rom. 8:11, Gal. 2: 10, Eph. 5: 19, Col. 3:16, and Rev. 8:10-11. The anaphora does not explicitly identify the Son and Spirit with the seraphim, and neither does any other Egyptian anaphora. Origen's exegesis which he learned from his Hebrew teacher has to be read into the text. It is more natural to interpret the text in the light of Origen's teaching of In Lucam Hom.xxiii; Duplex hic adest ecclesia, una hominum, altera angelorum. No doubt, however, fascination with the teaching of Origen's Hebrew teacher will continue to encourage the more speculative interpretation. Continued fascination with the Didache as playing a central role in anaphoral evolution seems to account for Johnson's enthusiasm for the views of Louis Bouyer, and Enrico Mazza in terms of the significance of Didache 9:4 which has been used in the middle of the institution narrative in this anaphora, as also in the Deir Balyzeh fragment. Suggestions that this institution narrative links us to an early anaphoral tradition seem to ignore the simpler explanation that, even for Didymus the Blind, the Didache was regarded as canonical scripture in Egypt, and the quotation is probably no more significant than the compiler's other quotations from canonical scripture. Far more useful is the identification of parallels in the intercessions with Strasbourg Papyrus Gk.254. Overall he agrees with most liturgists that the text of the anaphora reflects an amalgamation of Alexandrine and Antiochene anaphoral structures, and since a version of Basil was used in Egypt, both structures were probably known to the compiler. Yet even so, Johnson feels compelled to offer a reconstruction of an earlier form of this anaphora. Why should not a compiler--Sarapion himself perhaps--have composed such a prayer as this as it stands? Apparent seams and jagged edges are often a sign of originality before later users have smoothed away the rough edges. Those who have had the task of compiling modern anaphoras, albeit in committees, will be a little less ready to find `earlier versions' within this anaphora. It differs from Strasbourg papyrus Gk.254 and St. Mark; it is different from Basil; yet it has things in common with both. But why shouldn't that be the case? This rather speculative dismembering of the anaphora is likely to be the least enduring part of this impressive study.

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:	Spinks, Bryan D.
Publication:	The Journal of Theological Studies
Date:	Oct 1, 1997
Words:	1447
Previous Article:	L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti: Epitome Divinarum Institutionum.
Next Article:	La lecture liturgique des Epitres catholiques dans l'Eglise ancienne.
Topics:	Books Book reviews