The Anaphora and the Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus: An Underestimated Testimony to the Anaphoral History in the Fourth Century

New critical text edition (with translation and a commentary) of the oldest extant manuscript containing a complete set of prayers, P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b–157b. This text is of prime importance for liturgical studies, especially of anaphoral development.

Anaphora, Egypt, Eucharist, liturgical studies, papyri, thanksgiving prayer

* * *

A 4^th-century papyrus codex, P.Monts.Roca inv.128–178¹, now in the library of the Abbey of Montserrat but originally in the possession of Ramón Roca-Puig, is yet to receive the scholarly attention it merits. The manuscript contains a few Latin texts as well as some Christian liturgical prayers in Greek², and a long Greek word-list³. The liturgical prayers fully occupy seven of its folia (154b–157b)⁴. These prayers comprise a complete anaphora; a thanksgiving prayer after Communion; two prayers for the sick; and an acrostic baptismal (?) hymn. This papyrus is in fact the oldest manuscript known to contain Christian liturgical prayers conserved in their integrity – while, for example, the famous Strasbourg papyrus, P Straßb. inv. 254, dates from the 4–5^th centuries⁵ and has many lacunae in its text, – giving our codex seminal importance for liturgical scholarship.

Surprisingly, these prayers are seldom cited in current scholarly literature. The main publications concerning them are those of Roca-Puig himself, to whom the academic community is indebted for the edition of the manuscript⁶. Very important contributions to the study of the anaphora of the Barcelona papyrus have been made by Sebastia Janeras⁷ and then by Kurt Treu and Johannes Dlethart⁸, who proved that two other 6^th-century fragments, the now lost Coptic parchment⁹ Louvain. 27 (Janeras) and the Greek papyrus¹⁰ PVindob. G 41043 (Treu, Diethart), contain parts of the same anaphora. The prayers for the sick from P.Monts.Roca inv. 155b–156b were studied by Wolfgang Luppe¹¹ and Cornelia Römer, Robert Daniel and Klaas Worp¹²; and the acrostic hymn from P.Monts.Roca inv. 157a–157b by Andrey Vinogradov, who supposed the hymn to be baptismal¹³. The anaphora and thanksgiving prayer from P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b–155b were studied by me in an article published in 2002¹⁴. Nevertheless, despite the plain fact that this papyrus, probably connected in some way with the Pachomian monastic community, is the oldest liturgical manuscript containing a full anaphora, its important testimony is almost completely neglected by modern liturgical scholars. It does not play a significant role even in the most notable recent reconstructions of the anaphoral history¹⁵, receiving at best brief mention.

Analysis of these prayers is hampered by errors in Roca-Puig’s edition of the papyrus. Erroneous readings in the prayers for the sick were already corrected by the scholars mentioned above; my preliminary reading of the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer appeared in an extensive review of Roca-Puig’s book in the journal Khristiansky Vostok¹⁶ together with Vinogradov’s reading of the acrostic hymn. In the present article I offer my reconstruction of text of the anaphora and the thanksgiving prayer, taking into account the former’s two other fragments, Louvain. Copt. 27 and PVindob. G 41043. Finally, I discuss briefly whether their evidence might shift current scholarly presuppositions about the 4^th-century anaphoral history.

In the edition of the Barcelona papyrus by Roca-Puig (hereafter: R.-P), the critical edition of the Greek text of the anaphora is preceded by a diplomatic edition of the text that transcribes every letter of the papyrus. Despite the fact that a diplomatic version should decipher the manuscript verbatim, in R.-P diplomatic edition of the anaphora its text is already divided into words. This rash division has unfortunately prejudiced R.-P’s reading of the papyrus. In fact a few of R.-P’s crucial conjectures in his critical edition of the prayers can be avoided just by choosing another word-division of the continuous papyrus text. R.-P substantiates his conjectures by many examples from other liturgical texts, but the clear evidence of the papyrus itself should undoubtedly prevail as the main criterion of its reconstruction.

In order to avoid prejudiced readings of the papyrus, I start by providing new diplomatic versions of the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer from the Barcelona papyrus, using the facsimile edition of the papyrus given at the end of R.-P’s book¹⁷.

[P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b]

ΕΙΣΘΕΟΣΪΗΣΟΥΣΟΚΥΡΙΟΣ

ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΕΙΑΣΠΕΡΙΑΡΤΟΥΚΑΙΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΫ

ΑΝΩΤΑΣΚΑΡΔΙΑΣΗΜΩΝΕΥΞΟΜΕΝΠΡΟΣ

ΚΥΡΙΟΝΕΤΙΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΘΗΣΟΜΕΝΑΞΙΟΝΚΑΙΔΙΚΑΙ

5 ΟΝΑΞΙΟΝΕΣΤΙΝΚΑΙΔΙΚΑΙΟΝΣΕΑΙΝΕΙΝΣΕ

ΕΥΛΟΓΕΙΝΣΕΥΜΝΕΙΝΣΕΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΕΙΝΔΕΣΠΟΤΑ

ΘΕΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡΤΟΥΚΥΗΜΩΝΙΥΧΡΥΟΠΟΙ

ΗΣΑΣΤΑΠΑΝΤΑΕΚΤΟΥΜΗΟΝΤΟΣΕΙΣΤΟΕΙΝΑΙ

ΤΑΠΑΝΤΑΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣΤΗΝΘΑΛΑΣΣΑΝΚΑΙΠΑΝΤΑΤΑ

10 ΕΝΑΥΤΟΙΣΔΙΑΤΟΥΗΓΑΠΗΜΕΝΟΥΣΟΥΠΑΙΔΟΣΙΥΧΡΥ

ΤΟΥΚΥΗΜΩΝΔΙΟΥΕΚΑΛΕΣΕΝΗΜΑΣΑΠΟΣΚΟΤΟΣ

ΕΙΣΦΩΣΑΠΟΑΓΝΟΣΙΑΣΕΙΣΕΠΙΓΝΟΣΙΟΝΔΟΞΗΣΟΝΟ

ΜΑΤΟΣΑΥΤΩΑΠΟΦΘΟΡΑΣΘΑΝΑΤΟΥΕΙΣΑΦΘΑΡ

ΣΙΑΝΕΙΣΖΩΗΝΑΙΩΝΙΟΝΟΚΑΘΗΜΕΝΟΣΕΠΙΑΡΜΑ

15 ΤΟΣΧΕΡΟΥΒΙΝΚΑΙΣΑΡΡΑΦΙΝΕΜΠΡΟΣΘΕΝΑΥΤΟΥ

ΩΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΙΝΧΕΙΛΙΑΙΣΧΕΙΛΙΑΔΩΝΚΑΙΜΥΡΙΑΙ

ΜΥΡΙΑΔΕΣΑΓΓΕΛΛΩΝΑΡΧΑΓΓΕΛΛΩΝΘΡΟΝΩΝ

ΚΑΙΚΥΡΙΟΤΗΤΩΝΥΜΝΟΥΝΤΩΝΚΑΙΔΟΞΑΛΟΓΟΥΝ

ΤΩΝΜΕΘΩΝΚΑΙΥΜΕΙΣΥΜΝΟΥΝΤΕΣΛΕΓΟΝΤΕΣ

20 ΑΓΙΟΣΑΓΙΟΣΑΓΙΟΣΚΥΡΙΟΣΣΑΒΑΩΦΠΛΗΡΗΣΣΟΥ

ΟΟΥΡΑΝΟΣΤΗΣΔΟΞΗΣΣΟΥΕΝΗΕΔΟΞΑΣΑΣΗΜΑΣΔΙ

ΑΤΟΥΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΟΥΣΟΥΚΑΙΠΡΩΤΟΤΟΚΟΥΠΑΣΗΣΚΤΙ

ΣΕΩΣΙΥΧΡΥΤΟΥΚΥΗΜΩΝΟΚΑΘΗΜΕΝΟΣΕΝ

ΔΕΞΙΑΤΗΣΜΕΓΑΛΟΣΥΝΗΣΣΟΥΕΝΤΟΙΣΟΥΡΑΝΙ

ΟΙΣΩΣΕΡΧΕΤΑΙΚΡΙΝΑΙΖΩΝΤΑΣΚΑΙΝΕΚΡΟΥΣ¹⁸

[P.Monts.Roca inv. 155a]

ΔΙΟΥΠΡΟΣΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΕΚΤΙΣΜΑΤΑΣΟΥΤΑΥΤΑΑΡ

ΤΟΝΤΕΚΑΙΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΝΑΙΤΟΥΜΕΘΑΚΑΙΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΟΥ

ΜΕΝΣΟΙΟΠΩΣΚΑΤΑΠΕΜΨΗΣΕΠΑΥΤΑΤΟΑΓΙΟΝΣΟΥ

ΤΟΑΓΙΟΝΣΟΥΚΑΙΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΤΟΝΣΟΥΠΝΕΥΜΑΑΞΙΩΝ

5 ΟΥΝΩΝΕΙΣΤΟΣΩΜΑΤΟΥΠΟΗΣΑΙΑΥΤΑΚΑΙΠΟΗΣΑΙ

ΤΟΜΕΝΑΡΤΟΝΣΩΜΑΧΡΥΤΟΔΕΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΝΑΙΜΑΧΡΥ

ΤΗΣΚΑΙΝΗΣΔΙΑΘΗΚΗΣΚΑΘΩΣ^ΚΑΙΑΥΤΩΣΗΝΙΚΑ

ΕΜΕΛΛΕΝΠΑΡΑΔΙΔΟΝΑΙΛΑΒΩΝΑΡΤΟΝΚΑΙΕΥΧΑΡΙ

ΣΤΗΣΑΣΚΑΙΕΚΑΛΕΣΕΝΚΑΙΕΔΩΚΕΝΤΟΙΣΜΑΘΗΤΑΙΣ

10 ΑΥΤΟΥΛΕΓΩΝΛΑΒΕΤΕΦΑΓΕΤΕΤΟΥΤΟΜΟΙΕΣΤΙΝΤΟΣΩΜΑ

ΚΑΙΟΜΟΙΩΣΜΕΤΑΤΟΔΕΙΠΝΗΣΑΙΛΑΒΩΝΠΟΤΗ

ΡΙΟΝΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΣΑΣΕΔΩΚΕΝΑΥΤΟΙΣΛΕΓΩΝΛΑΒΕΤΕ

ΠΙΕΤΕΤΟΑΙΜΑΤΟΠΕΡΙΠΟΛΛΩΝΕΚΧΥΟΜΕΝΩΝΕΙΣ

ΑΦΗΣΙΝΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝΚΑΙΗΜΕΙΣΤΟΑΥΤΟΠΟΙΟΥΜΕΝ

15 ΕΙΣΤΗΝΣΗΝΑΝΑΜΝΗΣΙΝΟΣΟΚΙΝΕΑΝΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ

ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣΣΟΥΤΗΝΑΝΑΜΝΗΣΙΝΤΟΥΑΠΟΥΜΥΣΤΗ

ΡΙΟΥΛΙΛΑΣΚΑΛΟΥΚΑΙΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣΚΑΙΣΩΤΗΡΟΣΗΜΩΝ

ΙΥΧΡΥΝΑΙΑΞΙΟΥΜΕΝΣΕΑΕΣΠΟΤΑΟΠΩΣΕΥΛΟΓΩΝ

ΕΥΛΟΓΗΣΗΣΚΑΙΑΠΩΣΑΠΑΣΗΣΤΟΙΣΠΑΣΙΝΕΞΑΥΤΩΝ

20 ΜΕΤΑΛΑΜΒΑΝΟΥΣΙΝΕΙΣΠΙΣΤΙΝΑΔΙΑΚΡΙΤΟΝΕΙΣΜΕΤΟ

ΧΗΝΑΦΘΑΡΣΙΑΝΕΙΣΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΝΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣΑΠΟΥ

ΕΙΣΚΑΤΑΡΤΙΣΜΟΝΠΙΣΤΕΩΣΚΑΙΑΛΗΘΕΙΑΣΕΙΣΣΥΝΤΕ

ΛΕΙΩΣΙΝΠΑΝΤΟΣΘΕΛΗΜΑΤΟΣΣΟΥΪΝΑΕΤΙΚΑΙΕΝΤΟΥΤΩ

ΔΟΞΑΖΟΜΕΝΤΟΝΠΑΝΕΝΤΙΜΟΝΚΑΙΠΑΝΑΠΟΝΟΝΟ

25 ΜΑΣΟΥΔΙΑΤΟΥΑΠΑΣΜΕΝΟΥΣΟΥΠΑΙΔΟΣΙΥΧΡΥΤΟΥ

ΚΥΗΜΩΝΔΙΟΥΣΟΙΔΟΞΑΚΡΑΤΟΣΕΙΣΤΟΥΣΑΚΗΡΑΤΟΥΣ

ΑΙΩΝΑΣΤΩΝΑΙΩΝΩΝΑΜΗΝ

[P.Monts.Roca inv. 155b]

ΕΙΣΘΕΟΣ

ΕΤΙΔΕΟΜΕΘΑΣΟΥΔΕΣΠΟΤΑΘΕΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡΚΑΙ

ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΟΥΜΕΝΣΟΙΕΠΕΙΤΗΜΕΤΑΛΗΜΨΙΤΟΥΑΡΤΟΥ

ΤΗΣΖΩΗΣΚΑΙΤΟΥΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΥΚΑΙΤΟΥΑΠΑΣΜΕΝΟΥΚΑΙ

5 ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΟΥΜΕΝΣΟΙΟΠΩΣΑΓΙΑΣΗΣΗΜΑΣΠΑΝΤΑΣ

ΤΟΥΣΜΕΤΕΛΗΦΟΤΟΣΥΠΑΥΤΩΝΠΡΟΣΤΟΜΗΓΕΝΕΣΘΑΙ

ΗΜΙΝΕΙΣΚΡΙΜΑΗΕΙΣΚΑΤΑΚΡΙΜΑΤΟΙΣΜΕΤΑΛΑΜ

ΒΑΝΟΥΣΙΝΑΛΛΑΜΑΛΛΟΝΕΙΣΑΠΑΝΣΑΡΚΟΣΚΑΙΨΥΧΗΣ

ΕΙΣΑΝΑΙΝΕΩΣΙΝΤΟΥΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣΗΜΩΝΕΙΣΠΙΣΤΙΝ

10 ΚΑΙΣΩΦΡΟΣΥΝΗΝΕΙΣΪΣΧΥΝΚΑΙΔΥΝΑΜΙΝΕΙΣΑΓΑΠΗΝ

ΚΑΙΦΙΛΛΗΛΙΑΝΕΙΣΣΥΝΤΕΛΕΙΑΝΠΑΝΤΟΣΘΕΛΗΜΑΤΟΣΣΟΥ

ΕΙΣΤΕΛΕΙΟΝΣΟΥΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΝΤΟΚΑΤΑΘΕΟΝΚΤΙΣΘΕΝΤΑ

ΪΝΑΩΜΕΝΤΕΛΕΙΟΙΚΑΙΚΑΘΑΡΟΙΑΜΑΧΥΝΤΟΙΣΕΣΩΣ

ΜΕΝΟΙΑΠΟΠΑΝΤΟΣΑΝΟΜΙΩΝΚΑΙΤΕΛΕΙΟΜΕΝΟΙΕΝ

15 ΠΑΝΤΙΘΕΛΗΜΑΤΙΤΟΥΘΥΚΑΙΠΡΟΣΚΥΗΜΩΝΙΥΧΡΥ

ΔΙΟΥΣΟΙΔΟΞΑΚΡΑΤΟΣΑΙΩΝΟΣΤΙΜΗΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΥΝΗ

ΚΑΙΝΥΝΚΑΙΕΙΣΤΟΥΣΣΥΜΠΑΝΤΑΣΑΙΩΝΑΣΤΩΝ

ΑΙΩΝΩΝΑΜΗΝ ΕΙΣΘΕΟΣ

Before proceeding with my reconstruction of the text of the anaphora and the thanksgiving prayer, I shall discuss the misspellings and mistakes committed by the scribe of the papyrus. They are mostly the customary iotacisms; many of R.-P.’s corrections of these are fully acceptable – but not all of them.

In line 154b, 2 R.-P reads ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΕΙΑΣ in the title of the anaphora as Εὐχαριστία, «Thanksgiving», which is certainly correct: such an interchange of ει and ι, a very common iotacism, is widely represented in the Egyptian papyri¹⁹.

In lines 154b, 3–4 R.-P. reads ΕΥΞΟΜΕΝΠΡΟΣ//ΚΥΡΙΟΝ as Ἔχομεν προς Κύριον, «We have [the hearts – M. Zh.] to the Lord». This is quite understandable –Ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Κύριον / Habemus ad Dominum is indeed a well known liturgical response²⁰.

In line 154b, 4 R.-P reads ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΘΗΣΟΜΕΝ as εὐχαριστήσομεν. He is certainly correct in replacing Θ with Τ (the case we have here is a false aspiration)²¹, but probably incorrect in interpreting this form as a future indicative (or an epic aorist, which is very unlikely). Instead it should be read as a regular aorist subjunctive: εὐχαριστήσωμεν – a replacement of ω by ο occurs frequently in the papyri²².

In line 154b, 7 R.-P reads ΘΕΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡΤΟΥΚΥΗΜΩΝΙYΧΡΥ as Θεὲ παντοκράτωρ, (Πάτερ) τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, «O God Pantocrator, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ». I do not see any need to interpret the text in this way. The text should be read exactly, as: Θεὲ παντοκράτωρ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, «O God Pantocrator of our Lord Jesus Christ». This is merely a sign of an archaic Christology – such expressions are well known from Sacred Scripture (cf. Eph. 1:17) and from many writings of the pre-Nicaean orthodox Fathers. Note that a similar address to God is found in another Egyptian anaphora, that ascribed to Athanasius:²³ Κύριε о Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, «O God Pantocrator of our Lord Jesus Christ»²⁴.

In line 154b, 9 R.-P reads ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣΤΗΝΘΑΛΑΣΣΑΝ as οὐρανούς, γῆν, θάλασσαν, «the heaven, the earth, the sea». Altough the reading οὐρανούς, τῆν θάλασσαν is also not improbable, I agree with R.-P’s conjecture, because the expression seems quite natural and also because οὐρανοὺς is written without an article – consequently, it is strange to expect an article before a homogeneous part of the sentence (θάλασσαν); but it should be noted that here R.-P. is mistaken already in his diplomatic version of the text (where he reads Γ instead of Τ), and thereby completely neglects to highlight his conjecture.

In line 154b, 11 R.-P. is right in reading ΟΣ as -ους in ΑΠΟΣΚΟΤΟΣ: ἀπὸ σκότους, «from darkness». An interchange of ου and ο occurs in the papyri, though rarely²⁵.

In lines 154b, 12–13 R.-P. corrects the scribe’s misspellings ΕΙΣΕΠΙΓΝΟΣΙΟΝΔΟΞΗΣΟΝΟ // ΜΑΤΟΣΑΥΤΩ, reading this sequence as εἰς επίγνωσιν δόξης ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, «unto knowledge of the glory of His name», which is certainly correct: a replacement of ου by ω in the papyri is a «frequent interchange, especially in final position»²⁶, and a replacement of ω by ο also occurs frequently²⁷. Only an insertion of a vowel after ι is uncommon.

In line 154b, 15 R.-P. renders ΣΑΡΡΑΦΙΝ as σεραφιν, «seraphim». While omitting the doubled Ρ is incontestable²⁸, there is no need to spell Α as Ε in σεραφιν: the form σαραφιν is also attested in the sources²⁹.

In lines 154b, 16–17 R.-P. corrects a few scribal misspellings in ΧΕΙΛΙΑΙΣΧΕΙΛΙΑΔΩΝΚΑΙΜΥΡΙΑΙ // ΜΥΡΙΑΔΕΣΑΓΓΕΛΛΩΝΑΡΧΑΓΓΕΛΛΩΝ, rendering this sequence as χίλιαι χιλιάδων καὶ μύριαι μυριάδων ἀγγέλων, ἀρχαγγέλων, «thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads of angels, archangels». Here, indeed, the scribe should have confused a noun (ἀγγέλων) and a participle (ἀγγέλλων), erroneously repeating Λ in ἀγγέλων and ἀρχαγγέλων; he also seems to have misspelled some forms of χιλίας – but which forms? While R.-P.’s conjecture (χίλιαι χιλιάδων) could be correct, it is less reasonable than a conjectural χίλιαι χιλιάδες, which:

1) is purely biblical (see Dan. 7:10);

2) leaves ΜΥΡΙΑΙ // ΜΥΡΙΑΔΕΣ without any conjecture at all;

3) is found in other known Greek anaphoras, including Egyptian ones – for example, in the anaphora of the Liturgy of Mark.

So I would suggest χίλιαι χιλιάδες καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες ἀγγέλων, ἀρχαγγέλων, with the same meaning as R.-P.’s.

In lines 154b, 18–19 R.-P rightly corrects a mistake in ΔΟΞΑΛΟΓΟΥΝ // ΤΩΝ: δοξολογούντων: the replacement of α by ο is a special feature of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods, and the presence of a liquid makes this interchange even more natural³⁰.

In lines 154b, 20–21 R.-P. reads ΠΛΗΡΗΣΣΟΥ // ΟΟΥΡΑΝΟΣΤΗΣΔΟΞΗΣΣΟΥ as πλήρης ὁ οὐρανὸς (καὶ ἡ γῆ) τῆς δόξης σου, «Heaven and earth are full of Your glory». If we take into consideration the text of the Barcelona papyrus only, this conjecture is unnecessary. The reading πλήρης σου ὁ οὐρανὸς τῆς δόξης σου, «Your heaven is full of Your glory», is a bit clumsy yet still acceptable, though this reading would attest that the anaphora contains not just a redaction of the biblical text, usual for Christian anaphoras (πλήρης ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ τῆς δόξης σου instead of the πλήρης πᾶσα ἡ γῆ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ of Is. 6:3)³¹, but also a complete replacement of the biblical ἡ γῆ by ὁ οὐρανὸς and a doubling of σοῦ replacing the biblical αὐτοῦ. But both the Louvain and Vienna fragments of the anaphora, which begin with the second part of the Sanctus hymn, do contain the word γῆ here. The Louvain fragment has it even twice – both in the Greek transcription of the hymn and in its Coptic translation:

In line 154b, 22 R.-P reads ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΟΥΣΟΥ as μονογενοῦς σου, correcting the omitted Σ, which is of course just a scribal oversight.

Line 154b, 25 of the papyrus is fairly complete, but both Louvain. Copt. 27 and PVindob. G 41043 add after νεκρούς: οὗ τὴν θανάτου ἀνάμνησιν ποιοῦμεν. I would insert this addition into the critical text of the anaphora because it is supported by two out of three witnesses to the text.

In line 155a, 1 R.-P reads ΠΡΟΣΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΕΚΤΙΣΜΑΤΑΣΟΥΤΑΥΤΑ as προσφέρομεν κτίσματά σου ταῦτα, «We offer these Your creations», not commenting at all on his omission of Ε after ΠΡΟΣΦΕΡΟΜΕΝ. This is highly inaccurate: the line could simply be read as is: προσφέρομεν ἐκτίσματά σου ταῦτα, «We offer these Your payments» – and this reading would have necessarily been preferred had the Louvain fragment been completely lost. But the Louvain fragment (the Vienna fragment is of no help here) gives

In lines 155a, 3–4 R.-P omits the doubling of ΤΟΑΓΙΟΝΣΟΥ. This is probably correct. But he also reads ΤΟΑΓΙΟΝΣΟΥ as τὸ ἅγιον, «Holy», which is an unnecessary conjecture. The text should be read as it stands: τὸ ἅγιόν σου, «Your Holy».

In lines 155a, 4–5 R.-P. reads ΠΝΕΥΜΑΑΞΙΩΝ // ΟΥΝΩΝ as Πνεῦμα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, «Spirit from heaven». I would not easily agree with a hasty reading of ΑΞΙΩΝ // ΟΥΝΩΝ as ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, because it is impossible phonetically to render ἐκ τῶν as ΑΞΙΩΝ. This obscure sequence could be read in other ways, either as ἄξιον, οὐράνιον, «worthy, heavenly», or as ἐκ Σιὼν οὐρανίου³³, «from heavenly Sion»: the rendering of ἐκ Σιὼν as ΑΞΙΩΝ is much more satisfactory phonetically than that of ἐκ τῶν. But R.-P’s reading here is supported by evidence of the Louvain fragment, whereas the Vienna fragment abruptly comes to an end a few words before:

In line 155a, 5 R.-P reads ΕΙΣΤΟΣΩΜΑΤΟΥΠΟΗΣΑΙΑΥΤΑ as τοῦ ἁγιάσαι αὐτὰ, «in order to sanctify them». I strongly disagree with this reading, because the text of the papyrus is quite clear here and needs no such guesswork. ΕΙΣΤΟ is in any case not τοῦ but, obviously, εἰς τὸ, and ΣΩΜΑΤΟΥΠΟΗΣΑΙ is very likely a slightly misspelled form of the regular Greek verb σωματοποιέω³⁵ – σωματοποιῆσαι. The transformation of οι into ο in different forms of ποιῶ (including ποιῆσαι) is very common in the papyri³⁶; and in line 154b, 11 of our papyrus we have already seen an example of an interchange between ου and ο (though in an opposite direction) – such interchange seems to rest on interference between Greek and Coptic³⁷. R.-P. finds support for his reading³⁸ in some liturgical sources of non-Egyptian provenance³⁹, but I consider my reading εἰς τὸ σωματοποιῆσαι αὐτὰ, «to represent them materially», decidedly, preferable, because it does not disturb the clear text of the papyrus itself, and because the term σωματοποιέω is used in connection with the Eucharist precisely in Egyptian Christian writings of the 3^rd c.,⁴⁰ as well as by Pseudo-Macarius and Justin⁴¹. Alas, the Louvain fragment, which could lend some support to my reading, is barely legible here. Th. Lefort, its editor, managed to read only the following letters: [.]

In lines 155a, 8–9 R.-P. reads ΕΜΕΛΛΕΝΠΑΡΑΔΙΔΟΝΑΙΛΑΒΩΝΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΑΙΕΥΧΑΡΙ // ΣΤΗΣΑΣΚΑΙΕΚΑΛΕΣΕΝΚΑΙΕΔΩΚΕΝ as ἔμελλεν παραδιδόναι ἑαυτόν, λαβὼν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας, ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν. While the insertion of ἑαυτὸν is quite logical, the omission of καὶ is of course unnecessary. In any case, rendering of ΕΚΑΛΕΣΕΝ as ἔκλασεν and not verbatim as ἐκάλεσεν, «having called», without any explanation, is unfounded. Of course, R.-P.’s rendering is supported by all variant redactions of the institution narrative⁴³, but here his reading is actually supported not by an external witness, but by the Louvain fragment, which has:

In line 155a, 10 R.-P. reads ΤΟΥΤΟΜΟΙΕΣΤΙΝΤΟΣΩΜΑ as τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα, «this is My body». While he is probably correct in interpreting ΜΟΙ as μού, and both the corresponding New Testament passages (Mt. 26:26, Mk. 14:22, Lk. 22:19, 1Cor. 11:24) and the Louvain fragment, which gives here

In lines 155a, 12–13 R.-P. reads ΛΑΒΕΤΕ // ΠΙΕΤΕΤΟΑΙΜΑ as λάβετε, πίετε·τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα, «Take, drink – this is My blood». While this reading is generally supported by the Louvain fragment, which has:

In line 155a, 13 R.-P. is right in inserting Ν⁴⁴ and correcting the misspelled Ο⁴⁵ in ΕΚΧΥΟΜΕΝΩΝ: ἐκχυνόμενον, «shed». The Louvain fragment abruptly ends shortly after this word.

In line 155a, 14 R.-F! rightly corrects H in ΑΦΗΣΙΝ: ἄφεσιν, «remission»⁴⁶. In lines 155a, 15–16 R.-P. reads ΟΣО́ΚΙΝΕΑΝΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ // ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣΣΟΥΤΗΝΑΝΑΜΝΗΣΙΝ as ὁσάκις ἐὰν συνερχόμενοι ποιῶμεν τὴν ἀνάμνησιν, «each time when we meet together, we shall make the remembrance». This reading is influenced by the following division into words in R.-P’s diplomatic version: ΟΣО́ΚΙΝ ΕΑΝ ΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΣΟΥ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΑΜΝΗΣΙΝ. But it is doubtful that the scribe has indeed rendered a conjectured ὁσάκις plus συνερχόμενοι ποιῶμεν as ΟΣΌΚΙΝ and ΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ // ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ respectively. Meanwhile, ΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ // ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ could be interpreted without any guesswork at all as οὖν ἔρχοντες ποιοῦντες, «when meeting together, making». Though, this seems to be a construction too complicated for a prayer. In sum, I suggest we read the sequence ΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ // ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ as συνέρχοντες, ποιοῦντες, supposing that the scribe confused Ο and Σ, which were written in a similar way. ΟΣΌΚΙΝΕΑΝ, then, could be read as ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἄν⁴⁷. We have already seen an example of the replacement of ω by ο in lines 154b, 4; 154b, 12 and 155a, 24 of our papyrus, while interchange between οι (or υ) and ε (or αι) in unaccented syllables occurs in the papyri many times and is probably a result of bilingual interference⁴⁸. So the reading I suggest is prefereable than R.-P’s (moreover, a pseudodiacritical mark above Ο could even be interpreted in the sense of a correction of a misspelled letter). This reading may seem a bit unnatural, especially in comparison with ὁσάκις ἐὰν / ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν in 1Cor. 11:25–26, the locus theologicus for this very place of the anaphora, but, I repeat, substitution of οσάκις with ΟΣόΚΙΝ is unlikely phonetically. Besides, a search query in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae gives no instance of a use of ὁσάκις ἐὰν together with a participle form (NB: here in the papyrus we have συνέρχοντες, ποιοῦντες), while there are a number of instances of the use of ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἄν with an aorist participle. One of these is found in Athanasius of Alexandria: ὡς ἂν ἐκεῖνοι μανέντες⁴⁹, i. e. in a work of an author of the same time and provenance as the Barcelona papyrus⁵⁰. Finally, I see no reason for omitting ΣΟΥ after ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ. Thus it seems that the whole sequence should read ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἄν συνέρχοντες, ποιοῦντές σου τὴν ἀνάμνησιν, «like those [i. e. the apostles], whenever we meet together, we make the remembrance of You».

Lines 155a, 19–20 show an obvious omission after ΑΓΙΑΣΗΣ in ΑΠΑΣΗΣΤΟΙΣΠΑΣΙΝΕΞΑΥΤΩΝ // ΜΕΤΑΛΑΜΒΑΝΟΥΣΙΝ. It seems that the scribe has omitted one or two lines here. R.-P. suggests filling the gap with an expression from the Byzantine anaphora of Basil⁵¹ and to read ΜΕΤΑΛΑΜΒΑΝΟΥΣΙΝ as an imperfect (μετελαμβάνουσιν): ἁγιάσῃς πάντας τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τούτων μετέχοντας, ὥστε γενέσθαι τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν μετελαμβάνουσιν, «You would sanctify all who have taken part from the bread and the cup, so that to all who have received Communion they [the bread and cup] will be...». I suggest reading ΜΕΤΑΛΑΜΒΑΝΟΥΣΙΝ without any alteration as μεταλαμβάνουσιν, «[those who] communicate». And while acknowledging an omission here, I would just mark it without filling in the gap, precisely because any conjecture here (and especially one based on a non-Egyptian source) would be a mere fantasy.

In lines 155a, 21–22 R.-P. reads ΜΕΤΟΧΗΝ // ΑΦΘΑΡΣΙΑΝ as μετοχὴν ἀφθαρσίας, «communication of incorruption». While he is probably right in his interpretation, taking into account the fact that the same construction (Acc.+Gen.) is repeated many times in the following enumeration of spiritual gifts (κοινωνίαν Πνεύματος... καταρτισμὸν πίστεως καὶ ἀληθείας... συντελείωσιν... θελήματος)⁵², it is also true that ΜΕΤΟΧΗΝ // ΑΦΘΑΡΣΙΑΝ could be read as μετοχὴν, ἀφθαρσίαν, «communication [and] incorruption», and this literal reading should not be passed over without commentary.

In line 155a, 24 R.-P. correctly reads ΔΟΞΑΖΟΜΕΝ as a conjunctive: δοξάζωμεν, «[will] glorify» (cf. lines 154b, 4; 154b, 12; 155a, 15; 155a, 24 of our papyrus).

In line 155a, 25 R.-P. reads ΑΓΙΑΣΜΕΝΟΥ as ἡγιασμένου, but I see no need to disturb the clear text of the papyrus, which contains the form ἁγιασμένου not only here, but also in the following prayer of thanksgiving after Communion, which occupies a part of the folium 155b of the papyrus.

In line 155b, 3 R.-P. rightly corrects iotacisms (cf. line 154b, 2 of our papyrus) in ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΟΥΜΕΝΣΟΙΕΠΕΙΤΗΜΕΤΑΛΗΜΨΙΤΟΥΑΡΤΟΥ –εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι ἐπὶ τῇ μεταλήμψει, «we offer you thanks for the Communion».

In line 155b, 4 R.-P reads ΚΑΙΤΟΥΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΥΚΑΙΤΟΥΑΓΙΑΣΜΕΝΟΥ as καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ, «and of the cup of sanctification». R.-P explains his conjecture by a reference to a Milanese papyrus edited by Ghedini⁵³. In his commentaries, R.-P also offers another conjecture: καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τοῦ ἡγιασμένου, «and of the sanctified cup», which he considers an «acceptable sense». For me, the literal reading of what the papyrus itself contains, καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τοῦ ἁγιασμένου, already is an «acceptable sense»: in the anaphora, He who is called ἁγιασμένος is Christ Himself – see my commentary on line 155a, 25 above. This means that Christ «is sanctified» either by God the Father or by Christians – and if the first interpretation, that Christ is eternally sanctified by God the Father, may seem dubious, the second finds its parallel in other Egyptian anaphoras, which depict Christian worship as a «sanctification» of God by the worshippers⁵⁴. So the line in question should be read literally: καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τοῦ ἁγιασμένου, «and of cup and of [Him, Who is] sanctified [i. e. Christ]».

In lines 155b, 5–6 R.-P is right in correcting three orthographic errors of the scribe: παρακαλοῦμέν σε, «we beseech You», (papyrus: ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΟΥΜΕΝΣΟΙ; cf. line 155a, 16 of our papyrus) and μετειληφότας ἀπ’ αὐτῶν, «those who have received a part from them [e. g. Holy Gifts – M. Zh.]» (papyrus: ΜΕΤΕΛΗΦΟΤΑΣΥΠΑΥΤΩΝ)⁵⁵.

In line 155b, 8 R.-P reads ΑΓΙΑΝ as ἁγνείαν, «purity», noting in his commentary that other readings could also be suggested, e. g. ἁγιωσύνη, ὑγίειαν, ὑγείαν, ἄδειαν. Of these, I would prefer ὑγείαν, «health», because it is more natural phonetically – to spell ὑγείαν as ἁγίαν, not ἁγνείαν; furthermore, a wish that Holy Communion should grant a communicant both bodily and spiritual health is very common in the thanksgiving prayers.

In lines 155b, 9, 11 and 12 R.-P rightly corrects three orthographic errors of the scribe: ἀνανέωσιν, «renewal» (papyrus: ΑΝΑΙΝΕΩΣΙΝ)⁵⁶, φιλαλληλίαν, «mutual love» (papyrus: ΦΙΛΛΗΛΙΑΝ)⁵⁷, ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα, «man who is created after God» (papyrus: ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΝΤΟΚΑΤΑΘΕΟΝΚΤΙΣΘΕΝΤΑ)⁵⁸.

In line 155b, 13 R.-P. reads ΑΜΑΧΥΝΤΟΙ as ἀναίσχυντοι, «shameless». I suggest ἀμάχητοι, «invincible», instead. My reading seems to be more satisfactory phonetically, because it needs no guesswork in replacing μ by ν and α with αι (stressed!), while an interchange of υ and η in the papyri «occurs frequently in all phonetic conditions throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods»⁵⁹, and insertions of nasals before stops are also «very frequent»⁶⁰.

Finally, in line 155b, 14 R.-P reads ΑΠΟΠΑΝΤΟΣΑΝΟΜΙΩΝΚΑΙΤΕΛΕΙΟΜΕΝΟΙ as ἀπὸ παντὸς (κακοῦ καὶ λελυτρωμένοι ἀπὸ πασῶν) ἀνομιῶν καὶ τέλειο(ι καὶ πεπληροφορη)μένοι, «from every evil and freed from all crimes and accomplished and plentiful». Both conjectures are explained as resembling some biblical verses. I see absolutely no need of either conjecture here, because the genitive plural ἀνομιῶν could be understood as a partitive genetive, and thus the literal text of the papyrus reads literally perfectly well as: ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀνομιῶν καὶ τελειομένοι, «from each of crimes, and being accomplished» etc.

There are also a few minor editorial errors in R.-P’s edition of both the anaphora and the thanksgiving prayer: in the anaphora διαθῆκης is written instead of διαθήκης (155a, 7), in the thanksgiving prayer the concluding Σ of line 155b, 13 is found in the beginning of line 155b, 14; conjectures are indicated only occasionally.

Finally, I should repeat that R.-P is usually right in correcting minor misspellings and scribal errors, while his main conjectured interpretations are often unnecessary and could be agreed with only when they are supported by the Louvain or the Vienna fragments. As a result, R.-P.’s edition of the text of the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer is unreliable. Having shown this, I will now present my own reconstruction of the text, based on all its three known manuscripts – P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b–155b, Louvain. Copt. 27 and P.Vindob. G 41043.

In providing the critical text of the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer I am adhering to the following principles. Wordings of the main manuscript witness (i. e. P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b–155b) are kept without any alterations as much as possible; when a conjecture is inevitable, the closest to the literal text of P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b–155b is chosen. Only once I omit a few words from the text of the main manuscript witness and on three occasions I insert a few words into it. These emendations were made only because both the Louvain and Vienna fragments agree together against the main papyrus; all these changes (the omission and insertions) are indicated by the angle brackets: (), as well as in the apparatus. A lacuna in line 155a, 19 is indicated by the square brackets: [ ]. Abbreviated Divine names are deciphered, but this is indicated by the parentheses: ( ). For the convenience of comparing the critical text with the diplomatic version, division into lines is kept exactly as is in the main papyrus; the apparatus is given after the anaphora and after the thanksgiving prayer separately. In the apparatus, the original readings of the Barcelona papyrus (B) are given whenever a conjecture is made; the variant readings of the Louvain fragment (L) are given without translation (i. e. in Coptic); the variant readings of the Vienna fragment (V) are given only when they are (at least partly) readable and are not pure conjectures themselves. In order to make the text clear all biblical and patristic references are given below, as footnotes to the English translation.

[P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b]

Εἷς Θεός – Ἰησοὺς о Κύριος

Εὐχαριστία περὶ ἄρτου καὶ ποτηρίου

Ἄνω τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν – Ἔχομεν πρὸς

Κύριον – Ἔτι εὐχαριστήσωμεν – Ἄξιον καὶ δίκαι-

5 ον. Ἄξιόν ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιον· σὲ αἰνεῖν, σὲ

εὐλογεῖν, σὲ ὑμνεῖν, σοὶ εὐχαριστεῖν, Δέσποτα

Θ(ε)ὲ παντοκράτωρ τοῦ Κ(υρίο)υ ἡμῶν Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ, ὁ ποι-

ήσας τὰ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι,

τὰ πάντα· οὐρανούς, γῆν, θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ

10 ἐν αὐτοῖς, διὰ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου σου παιδὸς Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ

τοῦ Κ(υρίο)υ ἡμῶν, δι’ οὗ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ σκότους

εἰς φῶς, ἀπὸ ἀγνωσίας εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν δόξης ὀνό-

ματος αὐτοῦ, ἀπὸ φθορᾶς θανάτου εἰς ἀφθαρ-

σίαν, εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ καθήμενος έπι ἅρμα-

15 τος χερουβὶν καὶ σαραφὶν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ·

ᾧ παριστᾶσιν χίλιαι χιλιάδες καὶ μύριαι

μυριάδες ἀγγέλων, ἀρχαγγέλων, θρόνων

καὶ κυριοτήτων, ὑμνούντων καὶ δοξολογούν-

των· μεθ’ ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμνοῦντες, λέγοντες,

20 Ἅγιος, Ἅγιος, Ἅγιος, Κύριος Σαβαώθ· πλήρης ()

ὁ οὐρανὸς (καὶ ἡ γῆ) τῆς δόξης σου· ἐν ᾗ ἐδόξασας ἡμᾶς δι-

ὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς σου καὶ πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτί-

σεως Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ, τοῦ Κ(υρίο)υ ἡμῶν· ὁ καθήμενος ἐν

δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης σου ἐν τοῖς οὐρανί-

25 οις· ὃς ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς (οὗ τὴν θανάτου ἀνάμνησιν

ποιοῦμεν·)

[P.Monts.Roca inv. 155a]

δι’ οὗ προσφέρομέν σοι κτίσματά σου ταῦτα, ἄρ-

τον τε καὶ ποτήριον· αἰτούμεθα καὶ παρακαλοῦ-

μέν σὲ ὅπως καταπέμψῃς ἐπ’ αὐτὰ τὸ ἅγιόν σου

καὶ παράκλητόν σου Πνεῦμα ἐκ τῶν

5 οὐ(ρα)νῶν· εἰς τὸ σωματοποιῆσαι αὐτὰ καὶ ποιῆσαι

τὸν μὲν ἄρτον σῶμα Χρ(ιστο)ῦ, τὸ δὲ ποτήριον αἷμα Χρ(ιστο)ῦ,

τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης· Καθὼς καὶ αὐτός, ἡνίκα

ἔμελλεν παραδιδόναι (ἑαυτόν), λαβὼν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαρι-

στήσας καὶ ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς

10 αὐτοῦ λέγων· Λάβετε, φάγετε, τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα.

Καὶ ὁμοίως, μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λαβὼν ποτή-

ριον, εὐχαριστήσας, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· Λάβετε,

πίετε τὸ αἷμα τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς

ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· Καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦμεν

15 εἰς τὴν σὴν ἀνάμνησιν, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἄν συνέρχοντες,

ποιοῦντές σου τὴν ἀνάμνησιν, τοῦ ἁγίου μυστη-

ρίου διδασκάλου καὶ βασιλέως καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν

Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χρ(ιστο)ῦ. Ναί, ἀξιοῦμέν σε, Δέσποτα, ὅπως εὐλογῶν

εὐλογήσης καὶ ἁγίως ἁγιάσῃς [...] τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν

20 μεταλαμβάνουσιν εἰς πίστιν ἀδιάκριτον, εἰς μετο-

χὶν ἀφθαρσίας, εἰς κοινωνίαν Πνεύματος ἁγίου,

εἰς καταρτισμὸν πίστεως καὶ ἀληθείας, εἰς συντε-

λείωσιν παντὸς θελήματός σου, ἵνα ἔτι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ

δοξάζωμεν τὸ πανέντιμον καὶ πανάγιον ὄνο-

25 μά σου, διὰ τοῦ ἁγιασμένου σου παιδὸς Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χρ(ιστο)ῦ τοῦ

Κ(υρίο)υ ἡμῶν, δι’ οὗ σοὶ δόξα, κράτος εἰς τοὺς ἀκηράτους αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· Ἀμήν.

154b

2 Ευχαριστία] ευχαριστειας B;

3 Ἔχομεν] ευξομεν B;

4 εὐχαριστήσωμεν] εὐχαρισθησομεν B;

9 γῆν] την B; 11 σκότους] σκοτος B;

12 ἐπίγνωσιν] επιγνοσιον B;

13 αὐτοῦ] αυτω B;

15 σαραφὶν] σαρραφιν B;

16 χίλιαι χιλιάδες] χειλιαις χειλιαδων B;

17 ἀγγέλων, ἀρχαγγέλων] αγγελλων αρχαγγελλων B;

18–19 δοξολογούντων] δοξαλογουντων B;

20 πλήρης] σου add. B;

20–21 πλήρης ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ τῆς δόξης σου] duplic. L;

21 καὶ ἡ γῆ] om. B;

21 τῆς] ἁγίας add. V;

21 σου]

22 σου] ου B;

22 σου]

22 καὶ] τοῦ V;

23 τοῦ Κ(υρίο)υ ἡμῶν] om. L;

24 σου] om. L;

25 οὗ τὴν θανάτου ἀνάμνησιν ποιοῦμεν] om. B.

155a

1 δι’ οὗ] om. L; προσφέρομεν] προσφερωμεν V;

1 σοι] ε B;

1 ταῦτα]

2 τε καὶ]

2 αἰτούμεθα] δεόμεθα V;

3 καταπέμψῃς ἐπ’ αὐτὰ] ε. α. κ. V;

3 τὸ] om. V;

3 τὸ ἅγιόν σου] duplic. B;

4 σου] om. L;

4 ἐκ τῶν] αξιων B;

5 σωματοποιῆσαι] σωματουποησαι B;

5 εἰς τὸ σωματοποιῆσαι αὐτὰ καὶ ποιῆσαι] (

6 Χρ(ιστο)ῦ... Χρ(ιστο)ῦ]

8 ἑαυτόν] om. B;

7 αὐτός] add. L;

8–9 καὶ... καὶ... καὶ...] om. L;

8–9 εὐχαριστήσας]

9 ἔκλασεν] εκαλεσεν B; 10 λέγων]

10 τοῦτό]

10 μού] μοι B;

10 σῶμα]

12 εὐχαριστήσας]

13 τὸ αἷμα]

14 ἄφεσιν] αφησιν B;

15 ὡς ἐκεῖνοι] οσοκινε B;

21 ἀφθαρσίας] αφθαρσιαν B;

24 δοξάζωμεν] δοξαζομεν B.

[P.Monts.Roca inv. 155b]

Εἷς Θεός

Ἔτι δεόμεθά σου, Δέσποτα Θ(ε)ὲ παντοκράτωρ, καὶ

εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι ἐπὶ τῇ μεταλήμψει τοῦ ἄρτου

τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου, καὶ τοῦ ἁγιασμένου· καὶ

5 παρακαλοῦμέν σε ὅπως ἁγιάσῃς ἡμας πάντας

τοὺς μετειληφότας ἀπ’ αὐτῶν· πρὸς τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι

ἡμὶν εἰς κρίμα ἢ εἰς κατάκριμα, τοῖς μεταλαμ-

βάνουσιν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εἰς ὑγείαν σαρκὸς καὶ ψυχῆς,

εἰς ἀνανέωσιν τοῦ πνεύματος ἡμῶν, εἰς πίστιν

10 καὶ σωφροσύνην, εἰς ἰσχυν καὶ δύναμιν, εἰς ἀγάπην

καὶ φιλαλληλίαν, εἰς συντέλειαν παντὸς θελήματός σου,

εἰς τέλειόν σου ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα·

ἵνα ὦμεν τέλειοι καὶ καθαροὶ, ἀμάχητοι, σεσωσ-

μένοι ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀνομιῶν καὶ τελειομένοι ἐν

15 παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ καὶ Π(ατ)ρὸς Κ(υρίο)υ ἡμῶν Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χρ(ιστο)ῦ·

δι’ οὗ σοὶ δόξα, κράτος, αἰῶνος τιμὴ, μεγαλωσύνη·

καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς τοὺς σύμπαντας αἰῶνας τῶν

αἰώνων· Ἀμήν. Εἷς Θεός.

3 ἐπὶ] επει B; μεταλήμψει] μεταλημψι B;

5 σε] σοι B;

6 μετειληφότας ἀπ’ αὐτῶν] μετεληφοτος υπ αυτων B;

8 ὑγείαν] αγιαν B;

9 ἀνανέωσιν] αναινεωσιν B;

11 φιλαλληλίαν] φιλληλιαν B;

12 τὸν] το B;

13 ἀμάχητοι] αμαχυντοι B.

[Anaphora]

– One God⁶².

– Jesus the Lord.

«Thanksgiving for the bread and the cup».

– Up our hearts.

– We have to the Lord.

– Let us also give thanks⁶³.

– Fitting and right.

It is fitting and right to praise You, to bless You, to hymn You, to give You thanks⁶⁴, o Master, God Pantocrator of our Lord Jesus Christ⁶⁵, Who created all things from non-existence into being, all: heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them⁶⁶, – through Your beloved child Jesus Christ, our Lord, through Whom You have called us from darkness into light⁶⁷, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name, from decay of death into incorruption⁶⁸, into life eternal⁶⁹;

Who sits on the chariot, Cherubim and Seraphim before it⁷⁰, Who is attended by thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads of angels⁷¹, archangels, thrones and dominions⁷², hymning and glorifying, with whom we are also hymning, saying:⁷³

«Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth! Heaven and earth are full of Your glory»⁷⁴, in which You have glorified us⁷⁵ through Your Only-Begotten, the firstborn of every creature⁷⁶, Jesus Christ, our Lord, Who sits on the right hand of Your greatness in Heaven⁷⁷, Who is coming to judge the living and the dead⁷⁸, (the remembrance of Whose death we do)⁷⁹.

Through Him we offer You these Your creations⁸⁰, the bread and the cup: we ask and beseech You to send onto them Your Holy and Comforter Spirit⁸¹ from Heaven, to represent them materiallyῦ⁸² and to make the bread the Body of Christ and the cup the Blood of Christ, of the New Covenant⁸³, – as He Himself⁸⁴, when He was about to hand (Himself), having taken bread and given thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples⁸⁵, saying:

«Take, eat, this is My body»⁸⁶; likewise after supper⁸⁷, having taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying:⁸⁸

«Take, drink the blood, which is shed for many for remission of sins»⁸⁹.

And we also do the same in Your remembrance⁹⁰, like those – whenever we meet together, we make the remembrance of You⁹¹, of the holy mystery of our Teacher and King and Savior Jesus Christ⁹².

Even so, we pray to You, Master, that in blessing You will bless⁹³ and in sanctifying sanctify... for all communicating from them for undivided faith⁹⁴, for communication of incorruption⁹⁵, for communion of the Holy Spirit⁹⁶, for perfection of belief and truth⁹⁷, for fulfillment of all Your will, so that in this and again we will glorify Your all-revered and all-holy name, through Your sanctified Child, our Lord Jesus Christ⁹⁸, through Whom glory [be] to You, power unto the unblended ages of ages.

Amen.

[Thanksgiving prayer]

– One God⁹⁹

Again we pray¹⁰⁰ to You, O Master, God Pantocrator, and give You thanks for the communion of the bread of life and the cup, and of the Sanctified, and we beseech You, so that You will sanctify all of us who have partaken of them¹⁰¹ – so that they will be to us, the communicants, neither for judgment nor for condemnation¹⁰², but rather for health¹⁰³ of body and soul, for renovation of our spirit, for faith and chastity, for strength and force, for love and mutual love, for¹⁰⁴ perfection of Your will, for your perfect man¹⁰⁵, who is created after God¹⁰⁶, – so that we will be perfect and clean¹⁰⁷, invincible, saved from each of crimes¹⁰⁸ and being accomplished in every will of God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

through Whom [be] to You glory, power, honor of aeon, greatness, now and unto all the ages of ages¹⁰⁹.

Amen.

– One God¹¹⁰.

Contents of the anaphora from the Barcelona papyrus can be outlined as follows:

I. Introductory dialogue (Εἰς Θεός... Ἄξιον καὶ δίκαιον: 154b, 1–5).

II. Preface (Ἄξιόν ἐστιν... εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον: 154b, 5–14), which includes:

А. four initial praise-verbs (σὲ αἰνεῖν... εὐχαριστεῖν: 154b, 5–6) introducing a direct address to God;

B. Creation narrative (ὁ ποιήσας... ἐν αὐτοῖς: 154b, 7–10);

С. Christological section (διὰ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου... εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον: 154b, 10–14).

III. Pre-Sanctus (ὁ καθήμενος ἐπι ἅρματος... λέγοντες: 154b, 14–19), Sanctus (Ἅγιος... δόξης σου: 154b, 20–21) and Post-Sanctus (ἐν ᾗ ἐδόξασας ἡμᾶς... ἀνάμνησιν ποιοῦμεν: 154b, 21–25).

IV. Oblation and Epiclesis I (δι’ οὗ προσφέρομέν... τῆς καινῆς διαθῆκης: 155a, 1–7).

V. Institution narrative (Καθὼς καὶ αὐτός... ἁμαρτιῶν: 155a, 7–14).

VI. Anamnesis (Καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦμεν... Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 155a, 14–18).

VII. Epiclesis II and/or petition for worthy Communion (Ναί, ἀξιοῦμέν σε... παντὸς θελήματός σου: 155a, 18–23).

VIII. Concluding doxology (ἵνα ἔτι... αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων Ἀμήν: 155a, 23–27).

This structure clearly belongs to the Egyptian anaphoral type, the main indication of which is the Sanctus=)Epiclesis I=)Institution narrative sequence. A short form of the Sanctus is also a well-known mark of Egyptian anaphoras¹¹¹. As was shown above¹¹², many of the anaphora’s expressions find close parallels in the works of Egyptian authors and in the known Egyptian anaphoras (especially, the anaphora from the papyrus from Dêr-Balyzeh), which stresses again the Egyptian provenance of our text.

Nevertheless, the contents of the anaphora show some peculiarities – an «Egyptian» direct link between the Sanctus and the Epiclesis I is interrupted here by a Christological Post-Sanctus (this resembles anaphoras of the «Antiochene» type which usually contain a Christological section after the Sanctus)¹¹³; the anaphora contains no intercessions; an initial greeting of the celebrant is replaced by the «Εἰς Θεός» acclamation (in this brief form once very popular in Egypt); Epiclesis II seems to contain a petition to sanctify the communicants, but not the Gifts.

The thanksgiving prayer, in its turn, seems to be a reworking of the last (VII and VIII) sections of the anaphora. This is quite clear from a comparison:

Both the anaphora (in its final form!) and the thanksgiving prayer are obviously no later than the 4^th century, when the papyrus containing them was written. But was the anaphora actually composed in that very century? Some features of the theological contents of the anaphora could suggest an earlier dating. Two of these features are the most striking: the anaphora uses the term παῖς as a name of Christ and develops the idea of knowledge given by Christ (section II. C) – both correspond to the well known «archaic» features of the Eucharistic prayers of the Didache¹¹⁴ as well as of some other monuments. Such irregularities in the anaphora (in comparison with the practices known from the 4^th century on) as the lack of intercessions, unelaborated Creation and Redemption narratives, shift of the address (from God the Father to Christ and back) in section VI ¹¹⁵, the use of the Εἷς Θεός acclamation in the introductory dialogue – all of these characteristics¹¹⁶ could also be taken as indications of an earlier dating than mid-4^th century, when we find a more developed anaphora of the Euchologion of Sarapion¹¹⁷.

But how should we evaluate the presence in this anaphora of the fully elaborated Sanctus, epiclesis and Institution narrative – i. e., of the parts which are taken by many current scholars to be the 4^th-century developments?¹¹⁸ The main argument that these parts were fully developed only in the 4th century is based on the evidence of the Strasbourg papyrus – but, as I will show below, in the light of the evidence of the Barcelona papyrus this hypothesis needs a revision, and this means that the dating of the anaphora considered here should not depend on the «4^th-century insertions» argument at all.

The thanksgiving prayer from the Barcelona papyrus, as has already been suggested, is a reworking of the last part of the anaphora. However, taken as a whole, the anaphora and the thanksgiving prayer form an archaic Eucharistic rite – with no other prayers than the anaphora and post-Communion prayer. This structure¹¹⁹ can be compared with the Eucharistic prayers of the Didache, with its prayers «concerning the Eucharist» (chapter 9) and «after the meal» (chapter 10) or, more precisely, with the reworking of these Didache prayers given in the VII^th book of the Apostolic Constitutions (chapter 25: anaphora; chapter 26: thanksgiving prayer)¹²⁰. Already by the middle of the 4^th century Egyptian Eucharistic rites were much more complex, as it is perfectly clear from the evidence of the Euchologion of Sarapion. This could once again suggest an early dating for our prayers. It should be noted, however, that the codex from which the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer come was written not for liturgical but for some scholarly purposes and thereby could present not a full Eucharistic rite but just a portion of it.

On the other hand, the anaphora contains several long citations from writings of the early Church fathers¹²¹, – hence, it appears that these insertions must have been the result of a deliberate work of some educated editor. A number of expressions in the anaphora find parallels in the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria¹²², so I very cautiously suggest that this hypothetical editor could be Athanasius himself. This hypothesis can be further strengthened by the fact that we possess an anaphoral fragment with precisely the same initial address to God, which is explicitly ascribed to Athanasius¹²³. Sometimes the hand of an editor of a prayer text can be discerned in his adherence to a set of particular verbal expressions or theological predilections (for example, Robert Taft has investigated a similar set of expressions in the anaphora of John Chrysostom, proving that this anaphora justly bears his name)¹²⁴, so this hypothesis deserves careful consideration.

Finally, using the cumulative argument, I argue for the 3^rd century as a probable dating for the Ur-text of the anaphora. In the first half of the 4^th century this Ur-text was somewhat expanded by the insertion of a few patristic citations, but we find no traces of the insertion of whole sections (such as the Sanctus or epiclesis). In any case, the anaphora would have achieved its final form no later than in the middle of the 4^th century.

This anaphora certainly was well known in Egypt: if other anaphoras of the Egyptian type are preserved only in a single manuscript (excluding, naturally, the anaphora of the Liturgy of Mark/Cyril), this one is preserved in three manuscripts (P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b–155a, Louvain. Copt. 27 and P.Vindob. G 41043). Also, if other anaphoras of the Egyptian type are known only in Greek¹²⁵ or Coptic¹²⁶, only the anaphora of Mark and our text are known both in Greek and in Coptic. But since in the later times neither Greek, nor Coptic practice knew this anaphora, so it must have fallen into disuse at an early date.

It is perfectly clear that the anaphora from the Barcelona papyrus is an important source for the liturgical scholarship in general and for the reconstruction of the history of the anaphoral development in particular.

However, could its testimony affect current scholarly views on the latter? The problem of the genesis of different anaphoras (and, more generally, of the anaphoral types) arose many centuries ago. Until the 20^th century this problem was usually solved by choosing one or another hypothetical source for the anaphora and claiming that all known anaphoras are further redactions of this source. Already in the 17^th century a few German scholars argued that this source should be Jewish¹²⁷ and since the end of the 19^th century the discussion regarding possible connections between liturgical practices of Judaism and early Christianity goes on continuously¹²⁸.

A very important step in liturgical scholarship was the publication of the Didache¹²⁹ with its thanksgiving prayers which bear a striking resemblance to the Jewish prayers after meals (birkat ha-mazon), and from the beginning of the 20^th century it became accepted by a number of scholars that the structure and pattern of these prayers were at the basis of the anaphoras¹³⁰. But as the Didache does not contain such elements of traditional anaphoras as Sanctus, Institution narrative or epiclesis¹³¹, this raises the question regarding the origin of these elements. Nowadays most scholars solve this question by assuming that all elements mentioned above were interpolated into the anaphora at a later date. The origin of the interpolated Sanctus is usually found in certain Jewish texts¹³², while the presence of the Institution narrative and epiclesis in the majority of traditional anaphoras (with a few well-known exceptions) is believed to be the result of an intense reworking of eucharistic prayers in the 4^th century, a reworking primarily based on theological grounds¹³³.

The weakness of the hypothesis regarding the interpolated character of these parts of the anaphora is the lack of any example of an actual 4^th century insertion into the anaphora. In other words, this hypothesis presupposes the existence of an anaphora which in its older layers did not contain the elements which we mentioned, while featuring these in its later strata. Nowadays such an anaphora is often identified with the anaphora of the Strasbourg papyrus (P.Straßb.Gr.inv. 254), in its full form known as the anaphora of the Liturgy of Mark. The Strasbourg papyrus is a badly preserved sheet of papyrus written in the 5^th century or maybe 4^th, broken into 6 parts and missing its top ⅓. It was edited and reconstructed in 1928 by M. Andrieu and P Collomp¹³⁴. The papyrus contains fragments of the Preface and Intercession which are very close to the corresponding sections of the anaphora of the Liturgy of Mark and which end with a short doxology.

Michel Andrieu and Paul Collomp as well as Klaus Gamber, Hieronymus Engberding, René-Georges Coquin considered the Strasbourg papyrus to be without any doubt just a first sheet of a set of several folia containing the full anaphora of Mark¹³⁵. But in 1974 Edward Kilmartin argued¹³⁶ that the Strasbourg papyrus is not a part of a bigger set, but that its text is already a complete «short» anaphora, which is to say that the other parts of the anaphora of Mark (Sanctus, Epiclesis etc.) are later additions. Geoffrey Cuming developed this idea further and many scholars agreed with him, so that nowadays the «testimony» of the Strasbourg papyrus is often used to prove the hypothesis of the interpolated character of certain anaphoral parts¹³⁷. Yet, other scholars do not agree that the papyrus contains a complete anaphora¹³⁸. Bryan Spinks has pointed out¹³⁹ that the presence of a doxology at the end of the intercessions in the Strasbourg papyrus – the only solid argument in support of the view that the papyrus contains a complete prayer text – is not necessarily a mark of a prayer’s end. Doxologies are found in the middle of the text in many archaic prayers – for example, in the anaphora of Addai and Mari or in the Roman canon. Therefore a suggestion that the text of the Strasbourg papyrus is an independent integral entity is by no means self-evident.

Any scholar of manuscripts is aware of countless fragments of wellknown literary compositions in the manuscript sources. When such a fragment is discovered, nobody claims straight off that this fragment is not just a fragment but the original nucleus of a corresponding composition – such idea deserves a very profound textological argumentation. Therefore, it was absolutely natural that Andrieu and Collomp took the Strasbourg papyrus as just a fragment of the well-known anaphora of Mark, and from the textological point of view there is no need to doubt their interpretation. But liturgical texts are not transmitted in the manuscripts in the same way as literary texts are. They are usually changing together with the changing practice¹⁴⁰. In other words, if a 4–5^th-century manuscript contains a liturgical prayer, it is quite natural to expect that the form of this prayer corresponds with the actual liturgical practice of the 4–5^th centuries. Consequently, while we knew little regarding the form of Egyptian Eucharistic prayers in the 4^th century¹⁴¹, the Strasbourg papyrus could have been interpreted as a stand-alone text of a complete Eucharistic prayer. But the publication of the Barcelona papyrus – which is older than the Strasbourg papyrus (the papyrus itself is not younger than the 4^th century and its text, as was shown above, is not younger than the mid-4^th century and may go back to the 3^rd) and is of Egyptian provenance as well – shows that at least in the mid-4^th century Egyptian liturgical practice already knew a much more elaborated form of Eucharistic prayer. Consequently, in the light of the evidence of the Barcelona papyrus, we have no longer any reason to interpret the Strasbourg papyrus, which is in fact a fragment of a well-known text, as a stand-alone nucleus of the latter: the doxology in the end of the Strasbourg papyrus, as was pointed out by Spinks, proves nothing, and, as a liturgical text, the prayer from the Strasbourg papyrus should have been mirroring the current Egyptian liturgical practice, which by the time of creation of this papyrus already knew the anaphoral Sanctus, epiclesis etc. The fact that the discovery of the Barcelona papyrus leaves the hypothesis of the Strasbourg papyrus’ integrity unfounded has been already noted by Heinzgerd Brakmann¹⁴². And, together with this hypothesis, it leaves the different variants of the «4^th-century interpolations» theory without any actual documentary proof.

Moreover, the archaic features of the theology of the liturgical texts from the Barcelona papyrus¹⁴³ indicate that Sanctus, Institution narrative and epiclesis have been already present in at least some 3^rd-century anaphoras (while some other anaphoras – like, for example, the anaphora of Addai and Mari or the anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition – could still lack all or some of these elements). That means, first, that these parts do not have an interpolated but an organic nature¹⁴⁴; and, second, that the idea of an initial pluriformity of early Christian liturgical practice¹⁴⁵ – the practice, which, in the end, knew not only such prayers as those of the Didache community meal or of the charismatic Eucharists depicted in the apocryphal Acts¹⁴⁶, but also such well packed anaphoras as those of the Apostolic Tradition or from the Barcelona papyrus¹⁴⁷ – is, in fact, working against the belief in the «4^th-century anaphoral interpolations». The 4^th century could be considered to be the time when the anaphoras of the great Episcopal sees were harmonized, i. e. when some anaphoras could indeed have been supplemented by some elements derived from the others, but solid evidence demonstrating any deliberate insertions into the anaphoras of the elements previously absolutely alien to the Eucharistic prayers, appears to be lacking.