The Anaphora of St. Thomas the Apostle Translation and Commentary*

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. THOMAS THE APOSTLE TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY*

If Bohairic has suffered undue neglect in the field of Coptic linguistics while Sahidic has commanded most of the attention1, the opposite is true in the field of liturgical studies. Because, after the twelfth century, Bohairic replaced Sahidic as the dominant liturgical language in Upper Egypt and because, therefore, the vast majority of extant liturgical manuscripts survive in Bohairic2, scholars have devoted much of their attention to the liturgical texts of this dialect. As the late Emmanuel Lanne pointed out in 1953, Sahidic liturgical texts have received less attention than not only the Bohairic texts of the Coptic tradition, but also the Greek, Arabic, and Ethiopic ones3. Lanne attributed such neglect to the state of the texts at the time: fragments scattered across various collections, many not even yet catalogued4. One of the most important – though by no means the only – Sahidic liturgical text of interest is a euchologion of the White Monastery5, a monastery founded in the fourth century near modern-day Sohag whose most famous monk remains Shenoute of Atripe, the third abbot of the monastery6. Despite the fact that modern encounters with the fragments of this Sahidic euchologion have repeatedly been marked with excite- ment and immediate acknowledgement of their great significance, the history of such encounters has also been, for the most part, marked with neglect.

* Research for this article was supported in part by a grant from The Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans. The Program is not responsible for the views expressed. 1 See the introduction in A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Stud- ies in the Bohairic Dialect, Dudley, MA, 2007. 2 H. BRAKMANN, Neue Funde und Forschungen zur Liturgie der Kopten (2000-2004), in A. BOUD’HORS – D. VAILLANCOURT (ed.)‚ Huitième congrès international d’études coptes (Paris 2004), (Cahiers de la Bibliothèque copte, 15), Paris, 2006, p. 127-149, p. 137-141 (= BRAKMANN, Neue Funde 2004). 3 E. LANNE, Les textes de la liturgie eucharistique en dialecte sahidique, in Le Muséon, 68 (1955), p. 1-12. 4 Ibidem, p. 6. 5 That is, one of two euchologia known to us from the White Monastery. See BRAK- MANN, Neue Funde 2004, p. 138n43 for information on (what remains of) the unedited euchologion. 6 S.L. EMMEL, Shenoute’s Literary Corpus (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orien- talium, 599), vol. 1, Louvain, 2004, p. 9-10.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 317317 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 318 M. FARAG

In 1927, Heinrich Goussen announced that he had acquired photographs of Sahidic liturgical manuscripts of the White Monastery and that he intended to publish and translate them7. Listing the contents, he paid especial attention to the anaphoral fragments, crowning them “the jewel of the collection”. His death in April of that same year8, however, left his intentions to posterity. Also in that same year, Anton Baumstark announced that Goussen’s photograph collection was available in the Goussen Library of Bonn University9. Like Goussen, Baumstark listed the contents, conferring especial distinction to the anaphoral fragments. He remarked that the “ganz freie Art” of the anaphoras’ incipits evinced the rather great antiquity of their composition. According to Baumstark, Angelicus Kropp was to be entrusted with publishing the edition Gous- sen had himself intended to make, with the first installment already expected in the subsequent volume of Oriens Christianus. All that was in fact to appear, however, was Kropp’s 1932 edition, German translation, and short commentary on the only more or less complete anaphora in the photograph collection, the Anaphora of Matthew10. Baumstark’s own groundbreaking Liturgie comparée of 193911 passed over the collection in silence12. It was not until the late 1950s that the texts of the “hochbedeutsamen” photographs, to use Baumstark’s terms, would return to light and meet their first, and as yet only, milestone. Lanne had already called attention to the Sahidic euchologion in the same 1955 article referred to above regarding the neglect of Sahidic eucharistic texts. On the basis of pale-

7 H. GOUSSEN, Über einen neuen orientalisch-liturgischen Fund, in Oriens Christianus, 23 (1927), p. 174. 8 A. BAUMSTARK, Obituary of Heinrich Goussen, in Oriens Christianus, 24 (1927), p. 356-360. 9 IDEM, Saïdische und griechische Liturgiedenkmäler, in Oriens Christianus, 24 (1927), p. 379-380. While Goussen’s library is still available at Bonn University, the photographs do not currently form a part of that collection. They are presumably lost. See H. KAUFHOLD, Die Sammlung Goussen in der Universitätsbibliothek Bonn, in Oriens Christianus, 81 (1997), p. 213-227, p. 219-220. 10 A.M. KROPP, Die koptische Anaphora des heiligen Evangelisten Matthäus, in Oriens Christianus, 29 (1932), p. 111-125 (= KROPP, Matthäus). See also the comments and corrections to Kropp’s article in the following piece: W. HENGSTENBERG, Review of Oriens Christianus, 29, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 36 (1936), p. 162-165. 11 A. BAUMSTARK, Liturgie comparée. Conférences faites au Prieuré d’Amay, Cheve- togne, 1939. 12 Baumstark does mention Kropp’s edition of the Anaphora of Matthew in his bibli- ography of Coptic liturgical texts (see note 11). With regard to Baumstark’s role in the use of Goussen’s photographs, see H. BRAKMANN, Zwischen Pharos und Wüste. Die Erfor- schung alexandrinisch-ägyptischer Liturgie durch und nach Anton Baumstark, in R.F. TAFT – G. WINKLER (ed.), Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark, Rome, 2001, p. 323-376, p. 330-335.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 318318 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 319

ography and codicological features, he noted that many other leaves, quite apart from Goussen’s photograph collection, belonged to the euchologion, eleven of which had even been previously published in the 18th and 19th centuries. A couple of years later, using a microfilm of Goussen’s photographs13, Käte Zentgraf published 20 pages of the euchologion in three installments from 1957 to 1959, with German translation and commentary14. Coinciding with Zentgraf’s publications, in 1958 Lanne published all 58 pages that he could codicologically identify as part of the same euchologion, achieving the first milestone in the euchologion’s academic history15. In consultation with L.-Th. Lefort, Lanne dated the euchologion to an interval W.E. Crum had suggested16: between the tenth and eleventh centuries17. Although Lanne and Zentgraf had both provided some commentary on the prayers of the euchologion, Hieronymus Engberding and Gérard Godron expressed the need for much more detailed studies of such important texts. In 1959, Engberding himself published a commentary on pages 21 and 22 of the codex18. As for Godron, in 1964 he reviewed Lanne’s publications on Sahidic liturgy, concluding with the hope and expectation that the new publications would herald further studies19. Much as Goussen and Baumstark’s announced hopes were dashed for a long time, Godron’s hopes too have not been realized (with very few exceptions20) for over half a century now since Lanne’s publication of

13 Ibidem, p. 333. 14 K. ZENTGRAF, Eucharistische Textfragmente einer koptisch-saidischen Handschrift, in Oriens Christianus, 41(1957), p. 67-75; 42 (1958), p. 44-54; 43 (1959), p. 76-102 (= ZENTGRAF, Textfragmente). 15 E. LANNE, Le Grand Euchologe du Monastère Blanc, in Patrologia Orientalis, 28,2 (1958) (= LANNE, Euchologe). 16 H.W. CODRINGTON, Anaphora Syriaca Severi Antiocheni (Anaphorae Syriacae, 1,1), Rome, 1939, p. 52 (= CODRINGTON, Severi). 17 LANNE, Euchologe, p. 273. This interval has recently been confirmed by Alin Suciu, who identified the same scribal hand of the euchologion in a colophon found in the Vati- can’s Coptic collection. The colophon is dated 25 January 990. See A. SUCIU, À propos de la datation du manuscrit contenant le Grand Euchologe du Monastère Blanc, in Vigiliae Christianae (forthcoming). 18 H. ENGBERDING, Untersuchungen zu den jüngst veröffentlichten Bruchstücken Òa’idischer Liturgie, in Oriens Christianus, 43 (1959), p. 59-75. 19 G. GODRON, Quelques travaux récents sur la liturgie en dialecte sahidique, in Bul- letin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 62 (1964), p. 5-13 (= GODRON, Quelques travaux récents). 20 Corrections to Lanne’s edition have been published: see GODRON, Quelques travaux récents and the following article: J. BARNS, Review of Le Grand Euchologe du Monastère Blanc by E. LANNE, in Journal of Theological Studies, 11 (1960), p. 192-194. An Italian translation and commentary on the Anaphora of Matthew has also been published: G. MAESTRI, Un contributo alla conoscenza dell’antica liturgia egiziana: Studio dell’anafora del santo

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 319319 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 320 M. FARAG

the euchologion. This fact becomes even more striking when one reflects that Lanne’s efforts expanded the size of the euchologion to almost twice the amount Goussen and Baumstark had fathomed in all their enthusiasm. The extant 58 pages of a much larger original parchment codex, which must have contained a minimum of 227 inscribed pages21, mostly consist of eucharistic prayers, preserved in whole or in part, though the last four pages of the text contain the prayers of a Coptic marriage rite22. Many of the anaphoral fragments are of the West Syrian/Antiochene- type, such as the Anaphora of Severus of Antioch or the Anaphora of John of Bosra, while others are of the Egyptian/Alexandrian-type, such as the Anaphora of Cyril. Most significantly, however, the euchologion includes several unidentified anaphoras as well as two hitherto unknown anaphoras: the Anaphora of Thomas and the Anaphora of Matthew. As mentioned above, the Anaph ora of Matthew survives almost entirely intact and has been edited and published23. On the other hand, the Anaph ora of Thomas survives only from the beginning up to the initial lines of the post-Sanctus. Even (1) with Lanne’s edition and French translation of the euchologion, along with several other editions of various fragments with translations into Latin, German, Italian, and Russian published both before and after Lanne’s work, (2) with the inestimable worth repeatedly ascribed to the Sahidic prayers, and (3) with Engberding and Godron’s calls for deeper studies, somehow the prayers of the White Monastery’s euchologion have nevertheless remained relatively unknown to the research and conversations of liturgical scholars. Some recent works mention the existence of the euchologion and its anaphoras, but neither they nor any

evangelista Matteo, in Studi de antichità Cristiana, 48 (1992), p. 525-537 (= MAESTRI, Matteo); as well as a Russian translation and commentary on the Anaphora of Thomas: M. ZHELTOV, Anafora ap. Fomx iz Evhologiq Belogo monastxrq [The Anaphora of the Apostle Thomas from the Euchologion of the White Monastery], in M.V. GRATSIANSKII – P.V. KUZENKOV (ed.), KANISKION: Ùbileînxî sbornik v westà 60-letiq prof. I. S. Wiwurova [KANISKION: Anniversary Collection in Honor of the 60th Birthday of Professor I.S. Chichurov], Moscow, 2006, p. 304-317 (= ZHELTOV, Thomas). 21 This minimum is largely based on Lanne’s reconstruction of the codex (see LANNE, Euchologe, p. 273) with some modification. On the basis of pagination, Lanne argued that the fifth and sixth of at least 15 choirs must have been irregular in size. However, it is more probable that the choirs were all regular, containing 16 pages each, and that the errors rather lie in the scribe’s pagination sequence. There were, therefore, at least 15 sixteen-paged choirs. As Lanne assumed, the first two pages of the first choir were left blank. Of the last choir, at present one can only be certain that at least five pages were inscribed, making a total minimum of 227 inscribed pages. 22 LANNE, Euchologe, p. 274-275. 23 See KROPP, Matthäus and MAESTRI, Matteo.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 320320 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 321

other studies examine the hitherto unknown anaphoras or situate them in the currently debated topics of liturgics. In an effort to ameliorate such a situation, I present here an English translation of the Anaphora of Thomas24, a proposal for dating the prayer, and a two-part commentary. In Part I, I compare Thomas to other anaphoras, especially Egyptian ones, in order to establish the anaphora’s Egyp- tian character. In Part II, I situate the anaphora within the context of Jewish merkavah mysticism in order to draw out the implications of the anaphora for our understanding of eucharistic prayer elements, especially the Sanctus.

1. Translation of the text (Coptic p. 81:3-82:33)25

The Anaphora of Saint Thomas the Apostle

Preface (81:4-82:7) Who can make his mind heavenly and place his thoughts in Paradise and place his heart in the heavenly Jerusalem and see God the invisible, the incomprehensible, the unattainable, the uncreated, the immeasurable? As for He who accurately measured26 the entire creation27, His workmanship no one comprehends, except He Himself and [His] good Father and the Holy Spirit. [These] three are one, a single divinity, a single lordship, three hypostases, a perfect Trinity in a single divinity. (81:16) These three are one28: He who collected all the waters that were upon the earth into a single gathering and called it the sea29 and estab-

24 To date, there are three editions and translations of the Anaphora of Thomas. For a French translation, see LANNE, Euchologe, p. 308-311. For a German translation and a short commentary, see ZENTGRAF, Textfragmente 1958, p. 44-47. For a Russian translation and a short commentary, see ZHELTOV, Thomas. The Sahidic Anaphora of Thomas is not to be confused with the Syriac Anaphora of Thomas of Heraclea, which has sometimes been attributed to the Apostle Thomas. See H.-J. FEULNER, Zu den Editionen orientalischer Anaphoren, in H.-J. FEULNER – E. VELKOVSKA – R.F. TAFT (ed.), Crossroad of Cultures: Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler, Rome, 2000, p. 252-282, p. 273. 25 This translation is based on a collation I made of Lanne and Zentgraf’s editions of the Anaphora of Thomas with the parchment manuscript Paris copte 12920 f. 123rv at the Bibliothèque nationale de France. For the editions, see LANNE, Euchologe, p. 308-311 and ZENTGRAF, Textfragmente 1958, p. 44-47. 26 This word was incorrectly transcribed by Lanne as mntreue (LANNE, Euchologe, p. 308). The manuscript reads mytreue as per ZENTGRAF, Textfragmente 1958, p. 44. 27 Cf. Is 40:12. 28 Zentgraf calls attention to the affinity of this trinitarian doctrinal profession to the Comma Johanneum (1 Jn 5:7-8). See ZENTGRAF, Textfragmente 1958, p. 46-47. 29 Cf. Gn 1:9-10.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 321321 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 322 M. FARAG

lished the four river-branches30 flowing into it31, (a sea that) can neither become overfilled nor lack (for water), He who bounded the waters in three parts and placed one part in heaven, one part upon the earth, and one part under the earth32, He who created the sun and the moon and the stars and appointed the sun to shine upon His creations by day and the moon by night33, the evening [star] and Arcturus and the morning star to shine upon the earth34. (81:31) And You also created the angels and the archangels, the principalities and the authorities, the powers35 and all the powers that are in the heavens. And by Your hands, along with Your good Father and the Holy Spirit, You also created man according to Your image and according to Your likeness36. And You also created Paradise and placed the man whom You had created in it to cultivate it and to praise You37,

Pre-Sanctus (82:7-26) You whom the angels praise, You whom the archangels worship,

(82:9) Those who are seated stand38. You whom the powers hymn, You whose holy glory the authorities sing, You to whom the thrones sing the doxology of victory,

(82:13) Look towards the east39. You before whom stand Your two honored creatures40, the Cherubim and the Seraphim, each of them with six wings, with two wings they cover their faces on account of the great glory of Your divinity, and with

30 Here, one would expect the Coptic to read tevtoe narxy to reflect the Greek of Genesis 2:10 (téssarav ârxáv). However, at the end of line 19, the manuscript reads tevtoen. The ending epsilon and nu are both barely visible. The final strokes suggest a nu, but do not exclude the possibility of a mu. The beginning of line 20, on the other hand, clearly reads monarxy, rendering the entire phrase: tevtoe nmonarxy. The use of monarxy for arxy here is very peculiar. 31 Cf. Gn 2:10-14. 32 Cf. Gn 1:6-7. Genesis only mentions one division of water (resulting in two parts), rather than two (resulting in three parts as this anaphora describes). 33 Cf. LXX Ps 135:8-9. 34 Cf. Jb 9:9. The star Arcturus is mentioned only here in the Septuagint. 35 See note 96. 36 Cf. Gn 1:26. 37 Cf. Gn 2:8, 15. 38 The phrase “Those who are seated” in Greek is in rubrics and abbreviated in the ms. as oi kaq(ymenoi anasqyte). 39 The phrase “Look towards the east” in Greek is in rubrics and abbreviated in the ms. as eis anatolas (blecate). 40 Cf. Hb 3:2.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 322322 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 323

two they cover their feet on account of the great fire emanating from around Your throne41, O God, the Creator,

(82:22) Let us attend42. and with two they fly, while hymning and praising You, glorifying You with unwearying mouth and unceasing tongue and never-silent lips, hymning You, glorifying You, saying,

Sanctus (82:26) Holy holy holy, Lord Sabaoth. Heaven and earth are full of Your holy glory43.

Post-Sanctus (82:27-33) Holy are you, holy are you, holy are you, Lord Sabaoth. Truly heaven and earth are full of Your holy glory44. Fill now this sacrifice also with the joy of Your Holy Spirit45. You placed the man whom You had created in the paradise of delight and commanded him that from every tree in […]46.

2. Date

Before delving into a detailed comparison of Thomas with other anaphoras and the problem of Thomas’ geographical provenance, it is important to address the fundamental question of date. While the parchment fragment itself, the only extant witness to the Anaphora of Thomas, was copied at the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century, the prayer reflects a controversy of the late fourth century and was probably composed around that time. More specifically, Thomas’ trinitarian profession, understood alongside the two sentences preceding it, provides a terminus post quem. The trinitarian profession reads: “[These] three are one, a single divinity, a single lordship, three hypostases, a perfect Trinity in a single divinity. These three are one”. The two properties specified in this statement as

41 Cf. Is 6:2 with regard to the sets of wings. Cf. Dn 7:9 and Ez 1:27 with regard to the fiery throne. 42 The phrase “Let us attend” in Greek prosxwmen is in rubrics in the manuscript. 43 The phrase “Holy holy holy” etc. in Greek is in rubrics and abbreviated in the ms. as agios. 44 Cf. Is 6:3. 45 Cf. 1 Thes 1:6 and LXX Ps 103:15. 46 Cf. Gn 2:8, 15-16. Manuscript pages 83-100 are wanting.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 323323 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 324 M. FARAG

common to all the hypostases of the Trinity, divinity and lordship, particularly come to the fore in two controversies of the fourth century: the Marcellan and Eunomian controversies. At the crux stands the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6: “there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live” (NKJV). Because the verse refers to the Father as qeóv (God) and êz oœ tà pánta (of whom are all things), whereas the Son is kúriov (Lord) and di’ oœ tà pánta (through whom are all things), the question arises as to what extent this text dif- ferentiates Father from Son and God from Lord. For the Neo-Arians, who claim that the Son is unlike (ânómoiov) the Father, or rather (to use their terms) that the generated (gennjtóv) is unlike the ingenerate (âgén- njtov), this verse is something of a favorite proof-text47. In polemic against the Neo-Arian Eunomius, John Chrysostom uses the verse to argue just the opposite: that the Son is not inferior or unlike the Father48. In polemic against Marcellus of Ancyra, who was charged with modal- ism, Eusebius of Caesarea uses the verse to show that the Son’s hypos- tasis is distinct from that of the Father’s, and Apollinaris of Laodicea uses the verse to show that although divinity and lordship are properties shared by all three hypostases, divinity is particularly proper to the Father and lordship to the Son49. While from Thomas’ trinitarian profession alone, it is impossible to determine whether the confession belongs to an anti-Marcellan context, to an anti-Eunomian context, or to no polemical context at all, its exact position as the conclusion of a question-response pair reflects the flow of logic found in John Chrysostom’s anti-Eunomian polemic, his homilies On the Incomprehensible Nature of God 50. Indeed, though the trinitarian statement appears to interrupt the prayer and though

47 T. KOPECEK, A History of Neo-Arianism (Patristic Monograph Series, 8), vol. 2, Cambridge, MA, 1979, p. 536 (= KOPECEK, Neo-Arianism 2). 48 See the fifth homily in Jean Chrysostome, Sur l’incompréhensibilité de Dieu. Tome 1 (Homélies I-V), Introduction de J. DANIÉLOU, texte critique et notes de A.-M. MALINGREY, traduction de R. FLACELIÈRE (Sources chrétiennes, 28 bis), Paris, 1970, p. 276-293 (= MALINGREY – FLACELIÈRE, Chrysostome). 49 K. SPOERL, A Study of the katà mérov pístiv by Apollinarius of Laodicea, PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, 1990, p. 234-235 (= SPOERL, Apollinarius). Spoerl’s very fine dissertation examines Apollinaris’ trinitarian theology on the basis of a work that has survived the waves of transmission by consistent manuscript attribution to Gregory Thaumaturgus. Caspari convincingly showed that Apollinaris was its author; see C.P. CASPARI, Alte und Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubens- regel, Christiana (Oslo), 1879, p. 25-146 (= CASPARI, Glaubensregel). Spoerl dates the text to 358-362 and argues that Apollinaris played an important role in the development of trinitarian theology in that he provided the necessary groundwork for the Cappadocian solution. 50 MALINGREY – FLACELIÈRE, Chrysostome.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 324324 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 325

the question’s response does not appear to address the question at all, all three sentences cohere perfectly with one other when read in the light of John Chrysostom’s homilies. The initial question and its response insist respectively on the invisibility and incomprehensibility of God, major points of contention between pro-Nicenes and Neo-Arians51. Whereas Aetius and his student Eunomius maintain that God’s essence is knowable, the Cappadocians, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret of Cyrus argue that it is incomprehen- sible52. To insist on the incomprehensibility of God, anti-Eunomian polemic capitalizes on a “correlation of sight and cognition”53 in which seeing entails comprehension54. For John Chrysostom’s homilies, deliv- ered in Antioch in the year 38655, âóratov (invisible) and âkatáljptov (incomprehensible) are two key terms that appear hand-in-hand56, much as they appear hand-in-hand not only once, but twice in Thomas. They comprise the first pair of apophatic terms attributed to God in Thomas’ list and comprise the central concern of the initial question and its response. The opening question asks whether anyone can see God and the immediate response claims that God cannot be comprehended by anyone, except by his own triune self. Whereas, at the surface, the anaphora’s second sentence does not appear to bear any relationship to the

51 A. CHRISTMAN, “What Did Ezekiel See?” Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus to Gregory the Great, Leiden, 2005, p. 79 (= CHRISTMAN, Ezekiel’s Vision). According to Thomas Kopecek, “one important theological conviction which was of crucial importance for Neo-Arianism [was] the conviction that God could be known and comprehended by the human mind”. See T. KOPECEK, A History of Neo- Arianism (Patristic Monograph Series, 8), vol. 1, Cambridge, MA, 1979, p. 72 (= KOPECEK, Neo-Arianism 1). 52 See chapter 3 of CHRISTMAN, Ezekiel’s Vision. 53 Ibidem, p. 68-69. This correlation, however, is much older. Christman notices it already in the anti-Gnostic polemic of Irenaeus. 54 John Chrysostom explicitly states that seeing is knowing: ºrasin dè êntaÕqa t®n gn¬sin e˝nai nómihe (Understand that sight here means knowledge). See MALINGREY – FLACELIÈRE, Chrysostome, p. 246. 55 John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, Trans. by P.W. HARKINS (Fathers of the Church, 72), Washington, DC, 1984, p. 27 (= HARKINS, Chrysostom). 56 As mentioned in Section A of the Commentary Part I below, the two terms also appear in the anaphora attributed to John Chrysostom. For a defense of this attribution and an argument that John Chrysostom made anti-Eunomian emendations to an existing Anti- ochene anaphora, see R. TAFT, The Authenticity of the Chrysostom Anaphora Revisited. Determining the Authorship of Liturgical Texts by Computer, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 56 (1990), p. 5-51. Note that one should also wrestle with the fact that titles in antiquity served a multiplicity of functions, and thus there remains the possibility that John Chrysostom himself did not redact an Antiochene anaphora, but rather that someone well versed in his writings did and gave the resulting anaphora an honorific and dedica- tory title. After all, John Chrysostom’s deposition, exile, and tortuous death were a great scandal that eventually led to an especial veneration of his memory.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 325325 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 326 M. FARAG

question it answers, the synonymous use of “sight” and “comprehensibility” in the polemical writings of patristic authors demonstrates that the second sentence on comprehensibility is in fact an appropriate response to the question posed regarding vision. Because no one can see God, it follows that no one can comprehend him. The question-response pair furthermore mirrors one of the scriptural proof-texts cited and interpreted among Neo-Arians and pro-Nicenes alike: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him” (Jn 1:18, NKJV)57. However, rather than asserting God’s invisibility like the first line of John 1:18, the anaphora questions whether a person can see the invisible God. The response, like the second line of John 1:18, attributes unique knowledge to the Son, though it quickly qualifies the statement with an affirmation that the Father and Holy Spirit are not excluded from the Son’s knowledge. Of crucial importance here is the fifth homily of John Chrysostom’s series On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, two of whose logical moves Thomas follows. After expounding upon John 1:18 in his fourth homily, Chrysostom begins his fifth by arguing for the same qualifica- tion found in Thomas: that the “no one” of John 1:18 does not exclude the Holy Spirit from full and perfect knowledge of God, but rather crea- tures58. Chrysostom argues that “no one” effectively means “no creature” by juxtaposing 1 Corinthians 2:11 with John 1:18. According to John 1:18, no one knows God except the Son, but according to 1 Cor- inthians 2:11, no one knows God except the Holy Spirit. In combina- tion, these two verses show that when knowledge is attributed to the Son, the Holy Spirit is not excluded, and vice versa. Therefore, the “no one” of John 1:18 does not exclude the Holy Spirit, but rather creatures alone. Taking “no one” as his hinge-point, Chrysostom then proceeds to his second logical move: he uses the “one” of 1 Corinthians 8:6 to shift his anti-Eunomian polemic from the topic of the incomprehensibility of God to the topic of divinity and lordship in the Trinity. According to Chrysostom, the use of “one” in 1 Corinthians 8:6 has the same function as the use of “no one” in John 1:1859. In John 1:18, “no one” excludes creatures, but not the Trinity, and likewise “one” in 1 Corinthians 8:6 refers to the Trinity and thereby excludes creatures60. Therefore, calling

57 CHRISTMAN, Ezekiel’s Vision, p. 97. 58 See MALINGREY – FLACELIÈRE, Chrysostome, p. 273-277 for Chrysostom’s argument that John 1:18 does not exclude the Holy Spirit from knowledge of God. 59 Ibidem, p. 276-277. 60 Cf. HARKINS, Chrysostom, p. 140n13.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 326326 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 327

the Father one God and the Son one Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6 neither excludes the Son from divinity nor the Father from lordship. As proof, Chrysostom cites scriptural passages in which God is referred to as “Lord” to maintain that the Father as God must also be Lord and the Son as Lord must also be God. In this way, Chrysostom argues against the Neo-Arian claim that 1 Corinthians 8:6 proves the inferiority of the Son to the Father61. Thomas can be interpreted as reflecting the same exegesis of the two biblical proof-texts and as rhetorically following John Chrysostom’s logical pattern of argument. It begins with a question-response pair reflecting John 1:18 to insist that God is incomprehensible. The prayer then qualifies the purport of “no one” with a statement that the Holy Spirit is not excluded from the knowledge that the Son and Father share, just as John Chrysostom more extensively argues. Finally, Thomas rhetorically makes John Chrysostom’s logical step of shifting from the theme of God’s invisibility/incomprehensibility to a defense of the Trinity with the terms “no one” and “one”. With “no one” bearing the same effect as “one”, Thomas transitions from mmnlaau (no one) to oua (one) to affirm that the members of the Trinity share the same divinity and lordship, as per the pro-Nicene interpretation of 1 Corinthi- ans 8:6. Affinity to anti-Eunomian polemic is not, however, confined to the first three lines of Thomas. As will become significant for Part II below, Thomas describes the fiery throne of Ezekiel’s vision, a vision that assumed a place of importance in the Eunomian controversy. Angela Christman even proposes the possibility that Ezekiel 1 may have consti- tuted one of Eunomius and his followers’ proof-texts62. Whatever role the vision may have played in Neo-Arianism, pro-Nicenes utilized Eze- kiel’s repetition of Üv (like) and ömoíwma (likeness) to argue that Ezekiel did not see God himself or his glory itself, and to insist that Ezekiel’s caveats provide the key for understanding all Old Testament theophanies. These four reflections of anti-Eunomian polemic in Thomas (use of Ezekiel’s vision, the properties of divinity and lordship in the Trinity, Jn 1:18, and the (in)visibility and (in)comprehensibility of God) both reveal the coherence of Thomas’ initial lines and provide a benchmark for dating. The Anaphora of Thomas is most likely a composition of the

61 See MALINGREY – FLACELIÈRE, Chrysostome, p. 276-293 for Chrysostom’s argument regarding divinity and lordship in the Trinity. 62 CHRISTMAN, Ezekiel’s Vision, p. 97.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 327327 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 328 M. FARAG

end of the fourth century or of the fifth: that is, no earlier than the Euno- mian controversy in the second half of the fourth century, yet no later than the controversy’s immediate relevancy, which quickly declined in the first half of the fifth century63. Though the reflection of anti-Eunomian polemic does provide a terminus post quem, it does not however provide any further evidence (than that presented in the commentary below) for Egyptian or Syrian influence on the prayer. Although Antioch was, at least at the beginning, the Neo- Arian controversy’s home base, so to speak, Aetius and Eunomius quite consciously stirred agitation in Alexandria and formed a coalition with Athanasius’ rival George. Aetius purposely traveled to Alexandria on the occasion of Athanasius’ return in 348 and remained teaching there until 351. Eunomius sought him in Alexandria, met him for the first time there, and became his student64. In 357, Aetius returned to Alexandria with his student and secretary Eunomius and formed a Neo-Arian ecclesial party with George’s help65. Since both Alexandria and Antioch were significant for furthering the Neo-Arian cause, the identification of anti-Eunomian polemic in Thomas unfortunately does not contribute any further clarity to the geographical question addressed in the following section.

3. Commentary

Part I: The Anaphora of Thomas as an Egyptian Anaphora As Lanne noted in his edition, the Anaphora of Thomas possesses a very striking Egyptian element in its resumption of “full” from the Sanc- tus to introduce a post-Sanctus epiclesis66. Yet, at the same time, with the repetition of the Sanctus (adding “truly”), the post-Sanctus is also resumed by the typically Syrian “holy”. The post-Sanctus transitional phrases, therefore, are at once Egyptian and Syrian. The last surviving line also presents a very Syrian feature: the beginnings of a christological thanksgiving, comparable to the beginnings of the corresponding section in the Anaphoras of James or Basil. Is the anaphora then Syrian or Egyptian? Or a hybrid? A comparative analysis of each section will shed further light on the issue.

63 KOPECEK, Neo-Arianism 2, p. 542-543. 64 Ibidem, p. 105-106. According to Richard Vaggione, Aetius may have been sent back to Alexandria in 348 on account of protests against his ordination to the diaconate. See R.P. VAGGIONE, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution, Oxford, 2000, p. 27. 65 KOPECEK, Neo-Arianism 1, p. 138 and 145. 66 LANNE, Euchologe, p. 276.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 328328 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 329

A. The Preface Aside from the list of apophatic descriptions, the first three sentences of Thomas’ preface bear little correlation with either Egyptian or Syrian anaphoras. In fact, it is one of very few anaphoras to begin with a ques- tion67. Most early anaphoras resume the opening dialogue with ideas of worthiness, based on the phrase “meet and right”. Even the preface of Addai and Mari, which Macomber argues bears no close relationship with the opening dialogue68, begins with the word “worthy”69. Other anaphoras resume another strand of the Sursum Corda, “let us give thanks”, such as the Apostolic Tradition and its daughter anaphora Testamentum Domini, both beginning, “We render thanks to you”70. Thomas’ preface, on the other hand, uniquely resumes the image of lifting up one’s mind and heart. Yet it is not even clear that Thomas would have been preceded by such an opening dialogue, even though the opening question clearly bears a relationship with the line after which the Sursum Corda is named. As it stands, the Anaphora of Thomas questions the very possibility of lifting up one’s mind or heart and even empha- sizes the impossibility of this with a string of apophatic terms, including atönratv (unattainable). It would be very strange indeed to follow up the imperative, “Lift up your hearts”, with an interrogative questioning the very possibility. The Anaphora of Thomas thus either replaced the opening dialogue with a question or simply never knew the opening dialogue.

67 The Anaphora of St. Matthew the Evangelist in the same euchologion also begins with a question: “What corporeal language or what human mind can express your mar- vels, O God the Creator of all?” See LANNE, Euchologe, p. 344-345. The Anaphora of Severus of Antioch asks a strikingly similar question to that of Matthew: “Qualem cogi- tationem adhibentes aut qualem virtutem sermonis assecuti doxologiam te decentem, Rex regum et Deus omnium, sursum mittamus?” See CODRINGTON, Severi, p. 63. According to Baumstark, the Anaphora of Severus was originally composed in Egypt. See A. BAUM- STARK, Die syrische Anaphora des Severus von Antiocheia, in Jahrbuch für Liturgiewis- senschaft, 2 (1922), p. 92-98, p. 97-98. Compare also the eucharistic prayer in chapters 109 and 110 of the Acts of John: “What praise or what offering or what thanksgiving shall we name as we break this bread, but thee alone, Lord Jesu?” See E. HENNECKE – W. SCHNEEMELCHER (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R.McL. WILSON, vol. 2, London, 1965, p. 255-256. See also B. VARGHESE, Prayers Addressed to Christ in the West Syrian Tradition, in B.D. SPINKS (ed.), The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer, Colle- geville, MN, 2008, p. 88-111, p. 97-98. 68 W.F. MACOMBER, The Maronite and Chaldean Versions of the Anaphora of the Apostles, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 37 (1971), p. 55-84. 69 B.D. SPINKS, Addai and Mari – the Anaphora of the Apostles: A Text for Students (Grove Liturgical Study, 24), Cambridge, 1980 (= SPINKS, Addai and Mari). 70 R.C.D. JASPER – G.J. CUMING, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, New York, 1987, p. 35 and 139 (= JASPER – CUMING, Prayers of the Eucharist).

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 329329 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 330 M. FARAG

Even while opening with a question, rather than a dialogue, Thomas’ preface does share a key feature in common with other anaphoras: the use of apophatic terms piled one right after the other. Though Thomas’ list bears no exact correspondence with that of any particular anaphora, each one of the terms can be found in another anaphora’s list. The first two terms, piatnau erov and peiatta#ov, which respectively translate âóratov and âkatáljptov, appear as the final two terms of the Byzantine Anaphora of John Chrysostom71, a fact significant for the discussion above on dating the anaphora. The second two terms peiatönratv and pagenytos, which respectively translate âne- zixníastov and âgénjtov, are found in the opposite order as the first two terms of the Anaphora of Sarapion72. The final term, which, like the latter one, is a Greek loan word, pamytritos (âmétrjtov), appears in the Anaphora of Gregory (which also contains the very first apophatic term in Thomas)73. Usually these apophatic descriptions, however, receive the vocative case, as addresses to the Father. In Thomas, on the other hand, the address is neither vocative nor descriptive of the Father; rather, much of the preface is expressed in the third person, describing not the Father, but the Son. That it is the Son who is described – and later addressed – is clear from two instances of the phrase “with the/Your good Father and the Holy Spirit”. Thomas, therefore, joins Sharar74 and Gregory as anaphoras addressed entirely to the second person (though there are other anaphoras that address the Son in certain paragraphs, such as the Addai and Mari75). Two things, however, complicate this view of the anaph-

71 F.E. BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western, Oxford, 1896, p. 322 (= BRIGHT- MAN, Liturgies Eastern). The Anaphora of Severus of Antioch also pairs these two terms, but not as part of a string of apophatic attributions: “trementes a divinitate tua quae neque videri nec intelligi potest”. See CODRINGTON, Severi, p. 64-65. 72 M.E. JOHNSON, The Prayers of Sarapion of Thmuis (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 249), Rome, 1995, p. 46 (= JOHNSON, Prayers of Sarapion). 73 For the Greek, see A. GERHARDS, Die griechische Gregoriosanaphora, Münster, 1984, p. 22 (= GERHARDS, Die griechische Gregoriosanaphora). For the Bohairic, see E. HAMMERSCHMIDT, Die koptische Gregoriosanaphora, Berlin, 1957, p. 22-23 (= HAMMER- SCHMIDT, Die koptische Gregoriosanaphora). For the Sahidic (in P. Vindob. K. 4854), see J. HENNER, Fragmenta Liturgica Coptica, Tübingen, 2000, p. 41 (= HENNER, Fragmenta). For a thorough review of the latter book, see H. BRAKMANN, Fragmenta Graeco-Copto- Thebaica: Zu Jutta Henners Veröffentlichung alter und neuer Dokumente südägyptischer Liturgie, in Oriens Christianus, 88 (2004), p. 117-172. 74 SPINKS, Addai and Mari includes the text of Sharar by way of comparison. 75 Ibidem, p. 16. On the topic of prayers addressed to Christ, see J.A. JUNGMANN, Die Stellung Christi im liturgischen Gebet (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und For- schungen, 19-20), Münster, 1962. See also the following recent response to Jungmann’s

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 330330 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 331

ora’s address. The use of “God” in the first sentence and the trinitarian doctrinal confession may both indicate that the anaphora actually oscil- lates between describing the entire Trinity and the Son more specifically. The opening question refers generally to “God”, while the second sentence refers specifically to the Son by mentioning “the good Father and the Holy Spirit”. The doctrinal confession clearly refers to the entire Trinity, suggesting that the rest of the paragraph’s rehearsal of creation history speaks of the entire Trinity as creator. However, once the preface switches from third person to second person, another instance of “your good Father and the Holy Spirit” arises, again suggesting a more specific reference to the Son. The trinitarian confession itself would render Thomas our earliest record of an anaphora that explicitly insists upon the unity of the Trinity, if dating the anaphora to the end of the fourth century or to the fifth is correct, as suggested above. Later anaphoras that do so include that of the Testamentum Domini B76, Jacob of Sarug, Severus of Antioch, and John of Bosra. All four reflect much more advanced trinitarian reflection than Thomas does. That of Jacob of Sarug77 is the only one to include its trinitarian confession in the same position as that of Thomas (i.e., in the preface), whereas John of Bosra’s78 stands in the pre-Sanctus, while in

thesis: B.D. SPINKS (ed.), The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer: Trinity, Christology, and Liturgical Theology, Collegeville, MN, 2008. 76 That is, one of the Arabic witnesses of the Testamentum Domini. For the sigla assigned to the manuscripts of the Testamentum Domini, see R.-G. COQUIN, Le Testamen- tum Domini. Problèmes de tradition textuelle, in Parole de l’Orient, 5 (1974), p. 165-188. See also the following recent article and the extensive bibliographical information therein: T. CHRONZ – H. BRAKMANN, Fragmente des Testamentum Domini in georgischer Überset- zung, in Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum, 13 (2009), p. 395-402. 77 “[…] pater et genitor Domini nostri Iesu Christi Filii tui dilecti, [qui est] prolis tua instar tui, unigenitus similis tibi, persona ex essentia tua, prolis laudabilis maiestatis tuae, manifestatio lucis tuae et effulgentia ardoris tui, splendor gloriae tuae et imago essentiae tuae et tenens omnia virtute verbi tui, qui ex te natus est ab aeterno et sine initio, et est tecum mirabiliter et sine fine, in quo et per quem creasti saecula gratia tua. Nos quoque, Domine mi, te et illum et Spiritum tuum sanctum adoramus et confitemur et glorificamus qui unus es tripliciter sine divisione”. See H. CODRINGTON, Anaphora Syriaca Iacobi Saru- gensis (Anaphorae Syriacae, 2,1), Rome, 1951, p. 15. 78 “[…] tibi qui unum principium es, una natura et una substantia, qui in tribus personis agnosceris, quae totam amplitudinem Dei complectuntur, et universim absque illis nihil quidquam factum est; a quibus, et ab unaquaque earum, ab ea et ad eam unitur Deus substantia et natura, tanquam Domino, et in rei veritate secundum illam ipsam eamdem divini- tatem, non per solam communicationem, aut introductionem. Pater enim, et Filius, et Spiri- tus sanctus, una substantia, et una natura divinitatis, secundum operationem et veritatem sunt, non secundum imaginationem aut figmentum heterogeneum humanae mentis; quam naturam trine sed indivisim distinguimus, unice, non per effusionem fieri tenemus […]”. See E. RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio, vol. 2, Frankfurt, 1847, p. 422.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 331331 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 332 M. FARAG

the Testamentum Domini B79 and Severus80, it is placed in the post- Sanctus. While Thomas’ trinitarian doctrinal reflection is paralleled mainly in the Syrian tradition, the anaphora’s emphasis on creation and, above all, its attribution of creation to the Son reflect a feature of Egyptian anaphoras. Like most Egyptian anaphoras, Thomas focuses the preface on acts of creation, especially the creation of various water-bodies. All Egyptian anaphoras with extant prefaces, namely the so-called Barcelona81, the Strasbourg Papyrus82, Greek Mark, Coptic Mark, and Egyptian Basil remember specific acts of creation. The sole exception is the Anaphora of Sarapion, whose preface praises the Father for his Son, but is otherwise quite intercessory in nature. Barcelona, Strasbourg, Greek Mark, Coptic Mark, and Egyptian Basil praise God as maker of heaven, earth, the sea, and everything in them, borrowing from Psalm 145:6 and/or Nehemiah 9:6. Although such biblical verses only mention the creation of one type of water-body (seas), Strasbourg, Greek Mark, and Coptic Mark each elaborate on this aspect of creation, Strasbourg adding “rivers”, Greek Mark adding “springs, rivers, lakes”, and Coptic Mark adding “the rivers, the fountains, the lakes”. All except Greek Mark add further that the act of creation was through “your beloved child Jesus Christ our Lord”83, or “through your wisdom, the light [of?] your true

79 “Sanctus (es) Deus Pater et sanctus (est) Filius tuus unicus et sanctus Spiritus tuus bonus, trinitas personarum, quae est in una deitate et una substantia et uno rege et uno dominatore et una voluntate et una opinione et re vera plena sunt coelum et terra gloria tua sacra”. See A. BAUMSTARK, Eine ägyptische Mess- und Taufliturgie vermutlich des 6. Jahrhunderts, in Oriens Christianus, 1 (1901), p. 1-45. 80 “Tu enim, ut in veritate, sanctus es, Deus et Pater, principium omnium, et qui ex te [est] Filius, coaeternus, Sapientia unigenita, qui ex essentia tua ortus est non temporaliter, in adscriptionibus cunctis Deum decentibus aequalis. Sanctus vero et sanctissimus et Spiritus tuus vivificans, in omnibus perfectus, qui ex te, Pater, sine initio et sine tempore procedit. Ideo et virtutes supernae glorificant te et unigenitum Filium tuum Spiritumque tuum sanctum; unus enim es tu in tribus”. See CODRINGTON, Severi, p. 65. 81 The manuscript of the fourth-century anaphora commonly referred to as “the Bar- celona papyrus” is no longer held in Barcelona, but rather in Montserrat with the following call number: P.Monts.Roca I, inv. 128-178+292+338. Throughout this article, I nevertheless refer to the anaphora as “Barcelona”. 82 The Strasbourg Papyrus has been newly edited by Jürgen Hammerstaedt. See J. HAMMERSTAEDT, Griechische Anaphorenfragmente aus Ägypten und Nubien (Papyro- logica Coloniensia, 28), Wiesbaden, 1999, p. 22-41. 83 S. JANERAS, L’original grec del fragment copte de Lovaina núm. 27 en l’anàfora de Barcelona, in Miscellània litúrgica catalana, 3 (1984), p. 16. For the most recent study of the Barcelona anaphora, see M. ZHELTOV, The Anaphora and the Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus: An Underestimated Testimony to the Anaphoral History in the Fourth Century, in Vigiliae Christianae, 62 (2008), p. 467-504 (= ZHELTOV, Barce- lona). Zheltov suggests that the papyrus codex may have belonged to a Pachomian community and that the anaphora may have been edited by Athanasius.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 332332 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 333

Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”84, or “through thy wisdom, thy true light thine onlybegotten [sic] Son our Lord and our God and our Saviour and the king of us all Jesus Christ”85. Finally, Greek Mark and Coptic Mark not only recall the creation of heaven, earth, and water, but also the creation of man “according to your image and likeness”, with Greek Mark adding that man was granted the delight of paradise. It is, therefore, a particularly Egyptian feature for the preface to remember creation, especially of water-bodies, and remember it as occurring through the agency of the Son. Thomas clearly shares such a feature, though it is otherwise entirely unique in its wording and address. Borrowing neither from Psalm 145:6 nor Nehemiah 9:6, it recollects the creation of the sea, four rivers, and the division of water from water. In its description of the latter, the Anaphora of Thomas appears to present a slightly different cosmology from that of Genesis 1, since Genesis 1 describes a twofold division of water above the firmament and water below the firmament, whereas Thomas describes a threefold division: “one in heaven, one upon the earth, and one under the earth”. Following the description of water- bodies, Thomas recalls the creation of celestial bodies and angelic orders. Whereas other Egyptian anaphoras are content to say something to the effect of “heaven and all that is in it” (borrowing from Psalms and/or Nehemiah), Thomas details the creation of “all that is in it”, namely stars86 and angels. On the other hand, just like Greek and Coptic Mark, Thomas quotes Genesis 1:26 to remember the creation of man. The point on which Thomas drastically departs from most other Egyptian anaphoras, however, regards the role of the Son in creation. While most Egyptian prefaces address the Father and speak of him creating through his Son, Thomas addresses the Son and speaks of him creating in concert with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Anaph- ora of Gregory’s post-Sanctus extensively describes the creation of earth and of man in direct address to the Son. Thomas addresses the Son as dumiourgos and Gregory says to him êpoijsáv me/ akqamioi87 (You created me). While attribution of creation directly to the Son may sound foreign to the Nicene-schooled ear, for which the

84 JASPER – CUMING, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 53. 85 BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern, p. 165. 86 In its specific mention of stars, Thomas quotes three of the four in Job 9:9, while the Anaphora of Timothy of Alexandria quotes all four. See A. RÜCKER, Anaphora Syriaca Timothei Alexandrini (Anaphorae Syriacae, 1,1), Rome, 1939, p. 15 (= RÜCKER, Timothei Alexandrini). 87 For the Greek, see GERHARDS, Die griechische Gregoriosanaphora, p. 26. For the Bohairic, see HAMMERSCHMIDT, Die koptische Gregoriosanaphora, p. 28.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 333333 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 334 M. FARAG

Son’s agency in creation is always expressed by a di’ oœ (through whom) clause, there does exist a handful of creeds that reserve the article of faith on creation to the Son and call him creator. For instance, according to the Canons of Hippolytus, “Verbum est filius Dei, qui est creator omnis creaturae, visibilis et invisibilis”88. The short creed in Apollinaris of Laodicea’s katà mérov pístiv (Sectional Confession of Faith), which Caspari surmises is a free adaptation of Laodicea’s bap- tismal creed89, calls the one Lord Jesus Christ djmiourgòn pántwn örat¬n te kaì âorátwn (creator of all things visible and invisible)90. The creed attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus calls the one Lord t±v ºljv ktísewv poijtjkß (maker of the entire creation)91. Aside from creeds, for Origen Christ is demiurge92, and for Gregory of Nyssa, Christ’s role in creation forms an important point in his contention with Eunomius: ö dè pánta poi¬n ö monogenßv êsti qeóv, kaqÑv kjrússei tò eûaggélion (He who creates all things is the onlybegotten God, as the gospel proclaims [Contra Eunomium 3.7.5])93. These authors and creeds show that Thomas and Gregory are not alone in their forthright address to the Son as creator, even though such attestations are few and far between the number of texts that attribute creation to the Son by means of a “through whom” clause, following John 1:3. While acknowledging trinitarian cooperation in creation by means of the phrase “with your good Father and the Holy Spirit”, Thomas underscores the Son’s agency by addressing him. In this way, Thomas renders the typical Egyptian anaphora’s “through your Son” in a relatively unique way: via address.

88 A. HAHN, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der Alten Kirche, Hildesheim, 1962, p. 8 (= HAHN, Symbole). 89 CASPARI, Glaubensregel, p. 132-146. 90 HAHN, Symbole, p. 280. 91 Ibidem, p. 254. Concerning the issue of attribution, see L. ABRAMOWSKI, Das Bekenntnis des Gregor Thaumaturgus bei Gregor von Nyssa und das Problem seiner Echtheit, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 87 (1976), p. 145-166 along with M. VAN ESBROECK, The Credo of Gregory the Wonderworker and its Influence through Three Centuries, in Studia Patristica, 19 (1989), p. 255-266. 92 See E. MOORE, Christ as Demiurge: The Platonic Sources of Origen’s Logos Theol- ogy in the Commentary on John, in Philotheos: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology, 8 (2008), p. 200-207. 93 W. JAEGER, Contra Eunomium Libri (Gregorii Nysseni Opera, 2), Leiden, 1960, p. 216. Eunomius and Gregory both understood the Son to be the demiurge. For Euno- mius, however, the Son is himself a unique creature delegated by God to create. For Gregory, the Son creates as a participant in the productive, divine nature. As Michel René Barnes has shown, Eunomius and Gregory’s views result from their respective stances on divine productivity. See M.R. BARNES, Eunomius of Cyzicus and Gregory of Nyssa: Two Traditions of Transcendent Causality, in Vigiliae Christianae, 52 (1998), p. 59-87.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 334334 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 335

Thus, we witness again and again how the Anaphora of Thomas reflects known Egyptian features of an anaphoral preface in novel ways. Yet despite its correlation with Sarapion in the use of apophatic terms and its correlation with all other Egyptian anaphoras in its stress on creation through the agency of the Son, particularly the creation of water-bodies and man, the Anaphora of Thomas lacks an important Egyptian feature, one common to the textual history of Greek and Coptic Mark: mention of offering that leads into intercessory prayers. Cuming, in his extensive work on the manuscripts of Greek Mark, notes that “throughout the history of MARK […] offering takes place in the Preface”, from the earliest attestation of Strasbourg until the sixteenth century manuscript known as Pegas94. Although Sarapion’s preface does not mention offering, it does possess several intercessory prayers. The only member of the Egyptian family (with an extant preface) in which, like Thomas, there is neither offering nor intercession in the preface is Barcelona95. Although offering and intercession remain significant Egyptian-preface characteristics, it is not Thomas alone that lacks such features; rather Thomas and Barcelona stand alongside one another. Moreover, Thomas and Barcelona share another peculiarity independent of the rest of the Egyptian family, as the following section on the pre- Sanctus shall show.

B. The Pre-Sanctus The pre-Sanctus begins with a list of seven angelic ranks and describes the way in which they render praise to God. Neither this pre-Sanctus list nor the shorter list in the preface96 directly quotes the typical Egyptian choice of Ephesians 1:21 or the typical Syrian choice of Colossians 1:16. Unlike all other extant Egyptian pre-Sanctus prayers (Barcelona,

94 G.J. CUMING, Liturgy of St. Mark, Rome, 1990, p. 107 (= CUMING, Liturgy of St. Mark). 95 As a matter of fact, Barcelona contains no intercessions. 96 Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s Celestial Hierarchy offers two interesting, but inconclusive, parallels to Thomas’ angelic lists. Thomas’ second list reflects the same hierarchical order presented in Pseudo-Dionysius’ treatise, but only lists seven of Pseudo- Dionysius’ nine ranks. The first list in the preface mentions the same angelic ranks in the same order as the following sentence in the Celestial Hierarchy: oï gàr ãggeloi kaì prò t¬n âggélwn ârxággeloi kaì ârxaì kaì êzousíai metà tàv dunámeiv üpò t±v qeologíav tattómenoi katà koinoÕ pollákiv üf’ ™m¬n ömoÕ ta⁄v ãllaiv ägíaiv oûsíaiv oûrániai dunámeiv âpokaloÕntai (For the angels, and the archangels before the angels, and the principalities, and the authorities which are ranked by theology after the powers, are often called by us “celestial powers” like all the other holy beings). See G. HEIL – A. RITTER, Corpus Dionysiacum II (Patristische Texte und Studien, 36), Berlin, 1991, p. 41.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 335335 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 336 M. FARAG

Sarapion, Deir Balyzeh97, Greek Mark, and Coptic Mark), Thomas does not introduce the angelic lists with the “thousands” and “myriads” of Daniel 7:10. Furthermore, Thomas dovetails its rehearsal of acts of creation into the second list of angelic orders in a singular manner. With the exception of Barcelona, all other surviving specimens of Egyptian pre-Sanctus prayer transition from the intercessions into the pre-Sanctus with the phrase, “for you are above” and proceed to quote the angelic ranks of Ephesians 1:21. Thomas, on the other hand, introduces the pre-Sanctus by altering a quote from Genesis 2:15. Whereas in Genesis, God “took the man whom he had formed, and placed him in the garden of Delight, to cultivate and keep it”98, for Thomas, “You also created Paradise and placed the man whom You had created in it to cultivate it and to praise You” (italics are mine). This notion of praise as one of the original purposes of man introduces both the angelic praise and the anaphora’s praise. In describing the angelic brigades and their praise, Thomas is at once typically Egyptian and unparalleled. According to Thomas, the thrones “sing the doxology of victory”. Among the few early texts for which thrones are themselves angelic beings (as opposed to the seats of angels), namely Colossians 1:16, 2 Enoch 20:1[J], and Testament of Levi 3:899, only the last of these depicts the thrones as singing praise, but mentions nothing of a “doxology of victory”100. The phrase refers to the Sanctus, which the Apostolic Constitutions 7.35, Matthew, James, Greek Mark, and Timothy of Alexandria also describe as tòn êpiníkion (triumphal ode)101. On the other hand, like the pre-Sanctus prayers of Sarapion, Deir Balyzeh,

97 C.H. ROBERTS – B. CAPELLE, An Early Euchologium: The Dêr-Balizeh Papyrus Enlarged and Reedited, Louvain, 1949 (= ROBERTS – CAPELLE, Early Euchologium). 98 Translation from L.C.L. BRENTON, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and Eng- lish, Peabody, MA, 2003, p. 3 (= BRENTON, Septuagint). 99 S.M. OLYAN, A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism, Tübingen, 1993, p. 61-66 (= OLYAN, A Thousand Thousands Served Him). 100 The thrones also sing in Gregory. In Greek Gregory, the thrones send up praise (t®n eûfjmían), and in Bohairic Gregory, they send up honor (pitaio). See the synop- sis of Sahidic, Greek, and Bohairic Gregory in HENNER, Fragmenta, p. 46. Henner points out that Thomas and Gregory both list how each rank of angels praises God (Fragmenta, p. 68-69). The angelic lists are not identical, but both begin with the angels and archangels and end with the thrones. 101 Les constitutions apostoliques. Vol. 3, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par M. METZGER (Sources chrétiennes, 336), Paris, 1987, p. 76-77; KROPP, Matthäus, p. 112-113; A. HÄNGGI – I. PAHL, Prex Eucharistica (Spicilegium Friburgense, 12), Fri- bourg, Switzerland, 1998, p. 246; CUMING, Liturgy of St. Mark, p. 37 and C.A. SWAINSON, The Greek Liturgies, trans. C. BEZOLD, New York, 1971, p. 48-49 (= SWAINSON, Greek Liturgies); RÜCKER, Timothei Alexandrini, p. 17. Daniélou notes that John Chrysostom uses the term êpiníkiov as a designation for the Sanctus in his writings. See MALINGREY – FLACELIÈRE, Chrysostome, p. 55.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 336336 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 337

Greek Mark, and Coptic Mark, Thomas describes the two creatures of Habbakuk 3:2 and explains that the purpose of the three pairs of wings are for their face (or “the face” in Sarapion and Deir Balyzeh), for their feet, and for flying. However, Thomas engages in a lengthier explanation as to why the creatures cover their face and feet, an explanation paralleled by Coptic Mark only with respect to the former. According to Coptic Mark, they cover their faces “by reason of thy godhead which none can gaze upon nor comprehend”102, and for Thomas, similarly, they “cover their face on account of the great glory of Your divinity”. Thomas further explains the need for the creatures to cover their feet, in a manner unrelated to any other anaphora but Barcelona: “on account of the great fire emanating from around Your throne, O God, the Creator». Although Bar- celona does not even mention the wings of the Cherubim and Seraphim, it describes God as seated upon a chariot with the cherubim and seraphim in front and hosts of other angelic ranks standing beside: ö kaqßmenov êpì †rmatov xeroubìçn kaì sarafìn ∂mprosqen aûtoÕ· ˜ç parist¢sin xíliai xiliádev kaì múriai muriádev âggélwn, ârxag- gélwn, qrónwn kaì kuriotßtwn103 Who sits on the chariot, Cherubim and Seraphim before it, Who is attended by thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads of angels, archangels, thrones and dominions […]104.

This merkavah (throne-chariot) image shared between Thomas and Barcelona, two Egyptian anaphoras lacking pre-Sanctus intercessory prayers, will become significant in Part II of this commentary, in which I consider the implications of the Anaphora of Thomas for discussions on the role and origin of the Sanctus in eucharistic prayers. After portraying one pair of wings as protecting the creatures from the fire emanating around God’s throne, the anaphora addresses “God, the Creator”. Such an address may lend further credence to the aforemen- tioned suggestion that Thomas vacillates between addressing the Son and the entire Trinity, unless the address simply attributes the two titles “God” and “Creator” to the Son. Although the latter title would only further stress the Son’s agential role in creation for this anaphora, it very clearly abandons the “through whom” language of the New Testament and Nicene Creed. The rest of the pre-Sanctus prayer describes the two creatures as hymning, praising, and glorifying God “with unwearying mouth and

102 BRIGHTMAN, Eastern Liturgies, p. 175. 103 ZHELTOV, Barcelona, p. 484. 104 Ibidem, p. 488.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 337337 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 338 M. FARAG

unceasing tongue and never-silent lips”. Since, among all the Egyptian anaphoras Cuming examined, Greek Mark alone possesses the phrase “unwearying mouths and never-silent lips”105, Cuming conjectures that the anaphora at this point is borrowing from James’ “unwearying mouths and never-silent hymns of praise”106. However, it is clear that the phrase in the thirteenth century manuscript of Greek Mark, edited by Cuming, more exactly parallels the phrasing of the tenth/eleventh century manuscript of Thomas, though it omits the words “unceasing tongue”. Cuming further notes that such a phrase, along with the long series of participles, “singing, proclaiming, etc.”, in some manuscripts results in the “private recitation of the Sanctus by the priest”, while other manuscripts “avoid repetition by substituting the Trisagion as the priest’s acclamation”107. Thomas also includes a private recitation of the Sanctus by the priest, adding the word “truly”, but after the collective acclamation, not before as in Greek Mark. Additionally, unlike Greek Mark, the priest recites the Sanctus in a different language from that of the collective acclamation: the assembly sings in Greek, the priest in Coptic.

C. The Sanctus and Post-Sanctus The collective acclamation in Thomas is indicated merely by the word agios (holy) written in red ink, just as the three diaconal responses interspersed within the pre-Sanctus are indicated with abbreviations in red ink. The priest’s repetition, however, provides us with the Sanctus text, which is characteristically Egyptian in its use of “holy glory”. Fol- lowing the priest’s Coptic repetition of the Sanctus, the Anaphora of Thomas presents the primary distinctive element that identifies the Egyp- tian anaphoral family: an epiclesis resuming the word “full” from the Sanctus. At the same time, Thomas adds a unique variant to our current repertoire of “fill”-epicleses. The John Rylands Parchment108, the British Museum Tablet109, Greek Mark, and Coptic Mark all ask for the sacrifice to be filled “with the blessing from you through your Holy Spirit”

105 CUMING, Liturgy of St. Mark, p. 37 and SWAINSON, Greek Liturgies, p. 48-49. 106 JASPER – CUMING, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 91. 107 CUMING, Liturgy of St. Mark, p. 120. The replacement of the priest’s recitation of the Sanctus with the Trisagion is quite evident in the corrections of Sinaiticus Graecus 2148’s redactor. See H. BRAKMANN, Zur Bedeutung des Sinaiticus Graecus 2148 für die Geschichte der melchitischen Markos-Liturgie, in Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzan- tinistik, 30 (1981), p. 239-248, p. 245-246. 108 R.-G. COQUIN, L’anaphore alexandrine de Saint Marc, in Le Muséon, 85 (1972), p. 307-356. 109 H. QUECKE, Ein saïdischer Zeuge der Markusliturgie, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 37 (1971), p. 40-54.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 338338 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 339

(though they differ in exactly how they express “through your Holy Spirit”). Deir Balyzeh presents the following sanctificatory epiclesis, “Fill us also with the glory from (you)”110, followed immediately by a consecratory epiclesis. Sarapion asks, “Fill also this sacrifice with your power and with your participation”111. Thus, most of the “fill”-epicleses are consecratory and ask for “blessing”, while Sarapion asks for “power” and “participation”. Deir Balyzeh alone formulates its “fill”-epiclesis as a sanctificatory epiclesis, asking for “glory”. Like most of the “fill”- epicleses, Thomas asks for the “sacrifice” to be filled, giving off the impression of a consecratory epiclesis. However, it neither asks for blessing, power, participation, nor glory, but rather for “joy”. Since the idea of filling the elements of bread and wine with joy makes little to no sense, the referent of qusia (sacrifice) in this epiclesis must be the Sanctus as a sacrifice of praise or the entire eucharistic celebration. That the eucharistic celebration and, more generally, the entire day of the Lord (Sunday) should be joyous is even enjoined in Apostolic Constitu- tions 5.20.19112. Those who fast or are sad on the Lord’s day are explicitly censured as guilty of sin. In what is referred to as the first Greek Life of Pachomius, Sunday is the “Sunday of joy”113. Lanne suggests that perhaps the Coptic translator misread an original Greek xárin as xarán114. If such were the case, even though there is no evidence apart from the exegetical difficulty of raje (joy), Thomas would nevertheless supply a new variant to the current collection of “fill”-epicleses. After such a distinctively Egyptian Sanctus-epiclesis, the Anaphora of Thomas, however, does not then proceed to use offering language and/ or to recite the institution narrative. Instead, the prayer begins with the same biblical quotation that opens Basil and James’ christological thanksgiving, Genesis 2:15: “You placed man, whom you had created, in the paradise of delight”. The anaphora thus seems to present a distinc-

110 ROBERTS – CAPELLE, Early Euchologium, p. 24. The translation is taken from JASPER – CUMING, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 80. 111 JOHNSON, Prayers of Sarapion, p. 46-47. On this epiclesis, see M.K. FARAG, Dúnamiv Epicleses: An Athanasian Perspective, in Studia Liturgica, 39 (2009), p. 63-79. 112 Les constitutions apostoliques. Vol. 2, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par M. METZGER (Sources chrétiennes, 329), Paris, 1986, p. 284-285. 113 Theodore is buried “at the dawn of the Sunday of joy” in paragraph 147 of the first Greek life: prwÚ dè t±v kuriak±v t±v xar¢v êntafiásav ∂qacen aûtón, callóntwn t¬n âdelf¬n. See F. HALKIN, Le corpus athénien de saint Pachôme (Cahiers d’orientalisme, 2), Geneva, 1982, p. 70. According to Festugière’s translation, “Et à l’aube du dimanche de la joie, après lui avoir fait la toilette funèbre, Théodore l’enterra en compagnie des frères chantant des psaumes”. See A.-J. FESTUGIÈRE, La première vie grecque de saint Pachôme (Les moines d’orient, 4,2), Paris, 1965, p. 242. 114 LANNE, Euchologe, p. 311.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 339339 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 340 M. FARAG

tive Syrian feature. However, the correlation with Basil and James is not exact, since the latter two continue with the words, “and when he trans- gressed your commandment and fell…”115, whereas Thomas continues the biblical narrative with an adaptation of the next verse, Genesis 2:16: “and commanded him that from every tree in […]”. It is here that the fragment breaks off, and, therefore, we simply do not know whether the final line of our fragment would have developed into a christological thanksgiving along the lines of Basil and James or whether it would have taken a wholly different direction. With a text as unique as the Anaphora of Thomas, it is unwise to make an assumption one way or the other. The most that may be said, therefore, is that the Anaphora of Thomas appears to possess the Syrian structure, in which christological thanksgiving follows the Sanctus. What is certain is that Thomas does not adhere to the Egyptian sequence of placing offering and/or institution narrative after the Sanctus-epiclesis.

To return to the initial question of this analysis: to which anaphoral family does Thomas then belong? The only possible Syrian features are the christological thanksgiving with which the last line of the fragment is conjectured to begin and the resumption of “holy” from the Sanctus. The latter, however, is merely the result of repeating the entire Sanctus, leaving us only with the conjectured christological thanksgiving as an indication of Syrian structure. On the other hand, Thomas portrays multiple distinctive Egyptian features: a preface focusing on creation of both water-bodies and man by the agency of the Son, the phrase “two honored creatures”, the proclamation of “holy glory” in the Sanctus, and the inclusion of a “fill”-epiclesis. Still, despite the abundance of Egyptian attributes, glaringly absent are some significant Egyptian features: nota- bly, the mention of offering in the preface, followed by the intercessory prayers leading into the Sanctus. Such a situation permits only three pos- sibilities: (1) Thomas is an Egyptian anaph ora with noticeable influence from the Syrian family, (2) Thomas redefines our conception of the Egyptian family, or (3) both. The evidence of Barcelona suggests the third of these as the most likely possibility, since Barcelona is a non-intercessory Egyptian anaphora, but it does follow the Sanctus with offering language. Thus, Barce- lona and Thomas both represent a non-intercessory116 branch of the

115 Quotation taken from James in JASPER – CUMING, Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 91. 116 Here and throughout, by “non-intercessory” I only mean that the prayers do not infix petitions between the preface and the Sanctus. While Barcelona contains no intercessions at all, the same claim cannot be made for Thomas, since the entire anaphora is not

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 340340 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 341

Egyptian family, though the last line of Thomas appears to betray some Syrian influence. As Part II below argues, this shared testimony of Thomas and Barce- lona to a non-intercessory type of Egyptian anaphora and the two anaphoras’ shared merkavah image are both significant for current debates on the evolution of eucharistic prayers, particularly the problem of the interpolation of the Sanctus into eucharistic prayers.

Part II: Contextualizing the Anaphora of Thomas within Merkavah Mysticism As this topic of the evolution of eucharistic prayer structures continues to be one of the main fields, if not the main field, of inquiry in studies in Christian liturgical history, Paul Bradshaw has summarized the approach taken by scholars today. Instead of considering eucharistic prayers to be “unitary creations”, scholars over the past several decades have considered ancient eucharistic prayer texts to be “simply continuing a tradition of combining smaller units together that was at the heart of many ancient compositions”117. In the study of Hekhalot literature, Peter Schäfer has coined the terms “microform” and “macroform” to describe the kind of fluid relationship between smaller units and larger compositions to which Bradshaw alludes118. Not only, however, do the studies of eucharistic prayers and Hekhalot literature coincide in terms of approach, but a certain thematic pattern of eucharistic prayers, epitomized in Thomas, bears a close relationship to patterns of prayer attested in the Hekhalot text of Ma‘aseh Merkavah119.

extant. Of course, there are Egyptian versions of West Syrian-type anaphoras, which also do not infix petitions between the preface and the Sanctus, such as Egyptian Basil and the Testamentum Domini B. There are even versions of Mark/Cyril that rearrange the placement of intercessions to accord with West Syrian structure. 117 P.F. BRADSHAW, Eucharistic Origins, New York, 2004, p. 122. 118 The idea is developed in P. SCHÄFER, Tradition and Redaction in Hekhalot Litera- ture, in Hekhalot-Studien, Tübingen, 1988, p. 8-16. However, the terms “microform” and “macroform” do not appear until P. SCHÄFER, The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism, trans. Aubrey Pomerance, Albany, NY, 1992, 6n14 (= SCHÄFER, Hidden and Manifest God). 119 The text was first published in full in Appendix C of G.G. SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnos- ticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, New York, 1960, p. 103-117. The text constitutes sections 544-596 in P. SCHÄFER, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, Tübingen, 1981 (= SCHÄFER, Synopse). Two English translations have been published: N. JANOWITZ, The Poetics of Ascent: Theories of Language in a Rabbinic Ascent Text, Albany, NY, 1989, p. 29-81; and M.D. SWARTZ, Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism: An Analysis of Ma‘aseh Merkavah, Tübingen, 1992, p. 224-251 (= SWARTZ, Mystical Prayer). I use the latter translation throughout this article.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 341341 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 342 M. FARAG

Efforts in the study of eucharistic prayer units, or “microforms”, have thus far been concentrated on two units: the Institution Narrative and the Sanctus, mainly because some anaphoras do not contain one or the other. With its opening question, Thomas already sheds light on yet a third microform, the Sursum Corda, as Section A of Part I above argues. But Thomas also sheds light on the Sanctus, the microform to which, by far, the most attention and detailed study has been accorded. The first comprehensive study of eucharistic Sanctus hymns was published by Bryan Spinks120, and, since his work, Robert Taft121 and Gabri- ele Winkler122, among others123, have continued to debate the issue and propose new theories. One of the three possible theories Spinks proposed, however, has not at all received the extensive attention it deserves. According to Spinks, [a] possible origin may have been the very same diffuse tradition which led to the use of the qedussah in the Synagogue berakot – merkavah mysticism. Amongst the diverse strands which made up the early Church, Rev- elation 4 and 5 bear witness to the fact that merkavah mysticism was one of them. How widespread this tendency was and how typical we do not know. Its continued influence is found in the Passio of Perpetua, and in Aphrahat; furthermore, many of the Pseudepigraphical books which show merkavah influence were preserved and copied by Christian groups. Could it be, therefore, that amongst such groups the sanctus came to play an important part in their eucharistic prayers?124

Briefly tracing merkavah mysticism in Christianity from Revelation to the Passio of Perpetua to Aphrahat to the preservation of pseudepigraph-

120 B.D. SPINKS, The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer, New York, 1991 (= SPINKS, Sanctus). 121 R.F. TAFT, The Interpolation of the Sanctus into the Anaphora: When and Where? A Review of the Dossier, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 57 (1991), p. 281-308; 58 (1992), p. 83-121 (= TAFT, Interpolation 1992). 122 G. WINKLER, Das Sanctus: Über den Ursprung und die Anfänge des Sanctus und sein Fortwirken, Rome, 2002 (= WINKLER, Sanctus). See also Heinzgerd Brakmann’s important evaluation of one of Winkler’s central theses: H. BRAKMANN, Schwarze Perlen aus Henochs Erbe? Zu „Sanctus“ und „Benedictus“ der äthiopischen Apostel-Anaph- ora, in Oriens Christianus, 91 (2007), p. 56-86. 123 Maxwell Johnson provides an overview of the main contributions: M.E. JOHNSON, The Origins of the Anaphoral Use of the Sanctus and Epiclesis Revisited, in H.-J. FEULNER – E. VELKOVSKA – R.F. TAFT (ed.), Crossroad of Cultures: Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler, Rome, 2000, p. 405-442. Since Johnson’s paper, two further articles have been published on the question of origins: H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, Holy, Holy, Holy: The Story of a Liturgical Formula (CORO: Zentrum für semitistische und verwandte Studien, 1), Berlin, 2008; and A.A.S. TEN KATE, L’origine du Sanctus, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 83 (2007), p. 193-201. Ten Kate argues that an original two-fold exclamation of “holy” in Isaiah 6:3 was displaced by a Christian three-fold exclamation reflecting trinitarian thought, a development that widely circulated, permeating even manuscripts of Isaiah. 124 SPINKS, Sanctus, p. 113.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 342342 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 343

ical writings, Spinks suggested that the use of the Sanctus in eucharistic prayers arose in this tradition. Given that Hekhalot scholarship has located the center of early Jewish mysticism in Babylonia, Spinks further suggested that the Sanctus entered Christian prayers first via the Christian tradition in closest contact with Babylonian Jewish communities: the East Syrian tradition. In support of such a thesis of East Syrian origin by way of merkavah mysticism, Spinks invoked two pieces of evidence, one from the East Syrian anaphora of Addai and Mari, the other from Basil. As regards Addai and Mari, Spinks noted a parallel juxtaposition of praising God’s “name” with qedushah both in a prayer in Ma‘aseh Merkavah and in Addai and Mari125. As regards Basil, Spinks noted its reference to the throne of glory in introducing the Sanctus hymn. Although Basil is an Egyptian anaphora, its West Syrian structure and Cappadocian attribution attests to Syrian influence, permitting the inference that the throne- of-glory reference is also of Syrian origin. One text, however, that complicates the proposition of an East Syrian channel, but further supports the merkavah mysticism thesis, is Barce- lona, which Spinks himself discussed, but only in his section on Egyp- tian eucharistic prayers. Like Basil, Barcelona contains a clear reference to the merkavah in introducing the Sanctus, as quoted above in Section B of Part I. Since no Syrian anaphoras refer to the merkavah, the presence of a merkavah image in this Egyptian anaphora suggests that the same image in Basil is of Egyptian provenance, not a conjectured Syrian one. Along with Basil and Barcelona, Thomas also bears a clear reference to the merkavah126. In addition, however, Thomas attests further dimen- sions of Jewish mystical speculation, which bear profound implications

125 Ibidem, p. 39, 60, and 113. Winkler later notices the same parallel, further noting that it is also found in the Ethiopic Anaphora of the Apostles and in one of the Gregorian anaphoras of the Ethiopian tradition. See WINKLER, Sanctus, p. 129-136. 126 There are six anaphoras that contain a merkavah reference in the context of the Sanctus: Barcelona, Egyptian Basil, Byzantine Basil, Thomas, John of Bosra, and the Armenian Anaphora of Cyril of Alexandria. The last-mentioned is the only one to place the reference after the Sanctus rather than before. According to Rücker, Armenian Cyril has nothing in common with Greek Mark/Coptic Cyril except for its attribution, but shows unmistakable affinities with Greek and Coptic Gregory and Byzantine Basil. Rücker provides a brief introduction to the Armenian anaphora along with a Latin translation: A. RÜCKER, Denkmäler altarmenischer Messliturgie: Die Anaphora des Patri- archen Kyrillos von Alexandreia, in Oriens Christianus, 23 (1927), p. 143-157. For present purposes, I reduce the list to four anaphoras with a merkavah reference (namely, Barcelona, Egyptian Basil, Thomas, and John of Bosra), since Byzantine Basil is ultimately based on (the source of) Egyptian Basil, and Armenian Cyril is in turn related to Byzantine Basil.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 343343 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 344 M. FARAG

for Spinks’ proposition of merkavah mysticism as a context from which the Sanctus became interpolated into eucharistic prayers. Comparing Thomas to Ma‘aseh Merkavah, a Jewish mystical text, reveals that they share an identical thematic progression, which further suggests that the two are related, though in an indeterminable way. This relationship not only indicates that merkavah mysticism played a role in the interpolation of the Sanctus into eucharistic prayers, but also that the Sanctus’ interpolation is tied to the interpolation of both the Sursum Corda and a creation-centered preface. While constituting evidence for the influence of merkavah mysticism on anaphoras, on the one hand, on the other hand Thomas also inexora- bly complicates the issue of provenance. Though, as argued throughout Part I above, it is an Egyptian anaphora, the attribution to “Saint Thomas the Apostle” points to Syria, and, thus, the very same anaphora that contains the most evident relationship to merkavah mysticism in and of itself ties Egypt and Syria together, frustrating any attempt to tease the two locations apart. In order to demonstrate (1) the parallels between Thomas and Jewish mystical thought, (2) the inextricable link between the Sursum Corda, a creation-centered preface, and the Sanctus, and (3) the impossibility of deciding between Egypt and Syria as “originators” of the Sanctus in eucharistic prayers, what follows proceeds along the following course: I first present a detailed comparison of Thomas with the content of Ma‘aseh Merkavah before placing the identified parallels within the context of especially Michael Swartz’s work on the Hekhalot text; I then address the geographic problem.

A. Comparison of Thomas with Ma‘aseh Merkavah

1. Sursum Corda Thomas begins with the following question: Who can make his mind heavenly and place his thoughts in Paradise and place his heart in the heavenly Jerusalem and see God the invisible, the incomprehensible, the unattainable, the uncreated, the immeasurable?

As discussed in Section A of Part I above, Thomas’ opening question, though it is not a dialogue, nevertheless bears a relationship to the Sur- sum Corda. This relationship is concentrated on the line after which the Sursum Corda is named: “Lift up your hearts”, a line inviting ascent, much as Thomas speaks of placing one’s heart in the heavenly Jerusa- lem.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 344344 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 345

Significantly, Thomas frames the Sursum Corda as a question, not at all unlike the questions posed in Ma‘aseh Merkavah (hereafter MM). Two types of questions are posed in MM: one type in the narrative frames and the other in the prayer texts. The latter will become significant for the next section, but it is the eight questions of the narrative pericopes that relate to Thomas’ Sursum Corda. All eight questions (544, 547, 552, 554, 569, 570, 592, and 595127) request the prayer text that one may recite in order to ascend128 and/or see the merkavah. The most significant one with respect to Thomas reads: Rabbi Akiba said: Who can contemplate the seven Hekhalot, and gaze at the highest heavens, and see the inner chambers, and say, “I have seen the chambers of YH?” (554)

Thomas and R. Akiba’s questions relate in the following four ways: both ask (1) who (2) is capable (3) of contemplating (4) and seeing God and/or his chambers. The fourth concept in the above list, “seeing God” (nau epnoute), comprising the ninth and tenth words of a sixteen-word sentence, stands at the center of Thomas’ question. Likewise, sight is both repeated three times in R. Akiba’s question and is the most common feature of Hekha- lot literature. In fact, in his efforts to delineate precisely the relationship of Gnosticism and merkavah mysticism to apocalypticism, Ithamar Gruenwald identified vision as the defining element in merkavah mysticism: “Although it may seem a bit dogmatic, it appears that we are not far from the truth when we say that Gnosticism linked itself to the ‘gnostic’ side of apocalyptic, while merkavah mysticism is mainly connected with the ‘vision’ experience of apocalyptic”129. However, unlike MM, the verb of vision in Thomas introduces a paradox in its juxtaposition with five apophatic names or epithets of God, the first being “the invisible” (piatnau erov). Although this resulting immanence versus transcendence tension does not arise in MM, it is

127 I cite the paragraph numbers used in SWARTZ, Mystical Prayer, who in turn follows the numeration assigned in SCHÄFER, Synopse. 128 Scholars of Hekhalot literature have expended much ink on the phraseology of texts such as Hekhalot Rabbati, which speak of descent to the merkavah, not ascent. One book is even devoted to the topic: A. KUYT, The ‘Descent’ to the Chariot, Tübingen, 1995. It has also influenced the following title: J.R. DAVILA, Descenders to the Chariot, New York, 2001. C.R.A. MORRAY-JONES summarizes the various suggestions that have been offered in his article The Temple Within, in A. DECONICK (ed.), Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism, Atlanta, GA, 2006, 171n109. 129 I. GRUENWALD, Knowledge and Vision: Towards a clarification of two ‘gnostic’ concepts in the light of their alleged origins, in Israel Oriental Studies, 3 (1973), p. 63- 107, p. 101 (= GRUENWALD, Knowledge and Vision).

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 345345 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 346 M. FARAG

certainly a significant characteristic of Hekhalot literature in general. Hekhalot Rabbati, for instance, employs similar paradoxical language: “when they see that which no eye sees” (18.5)130, which Ira Chernus alternatively translates as a question: “When will he see what no eye has seen?”131 In his detailed study of this tension in Hekhalot literature, Chernus concludes that most merkavah mystics thought it possible to see God. The references that appear to imply an impossibility of seeing God actually describe the endeavor as fatally perilous, not impossible, so that ultimately “the dangers facing the mystic serve to affirm, rather than deny, the possibility of seeing God”132. Schäfer goes so far as to say that the very purpose of Hekhalot literature’s ascents is to disclose the immanence of God: “The purpose of the heavenly journey is precisely to span the spatial distance between heaven and earth, man and God, and to penetrate the transcendence of God on his throne in heaven. The message of the Hekhalot literature is that this is possible”133. Only one text actually unmistakably denies the possibility, and it is ironically the Shiur Komah, the very text that delineates anthropomorphic measurements of God134 in order to establish an “identity between the divine image and the human image”135. Thus, with the exception of the Shiur Komah, the immanence/transcendence paradox in Hekhalot literature resolves itself on the side of immanence, especially emphasized in MM by the very lack of any paradoxical language with regard to vision136. For Thomas, on the other hand, the paradox resolves itself on the side of transcendence in accordance with anti-Eunomian polemic, but its presence nevertheless constitutes a thematic parallel between Thomas and merkavah mysticism. This goal of seeing God, whether possible or impossible, is directly dependent upon one’s mind, thoughts, and heart for both MM and Thomas. For Thomas, the mind (noÕv) is to make its way to heaven, the

130 D.R. BLUMENTHAL, Understanding Jewish Mysticism: A Source Reader, vol. 1, New York, 1978, p. 65. 131 I. CHERNUS, Visions of God in Merkabah Mysticism, in Journal for the Study of Judaism, 13 (1982), p. 123-146, p. 137 (= CHERNUS, Visions of God). 132 Ibidem, p. 131. 133 SCHÄFER, Hidden and Manifest God, p. 148-149. 134 CHERNUS, Visions of God, p. 139-140. 135 N. DEUTSCH, The Gnostic Imagination: Gnosticism, Mandaeism and Merkabah Mysticism, New York, 1995, p. 141 (= DEUTSCH, Gnostic Imagination). 136 For a discussion of the continuity between merkavah mysticism’s approach to the immanence versus transcendence paradox and those represented in the Bible, Jewish apocalypticism, and Rabbinic sources, see E.R. WOLFSON, Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism, Princeton, NJ, 1994, p. 74-98.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 346346 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 347

thoughts (meeue) to paradise, and the heart (#yt) to the heavenly Jeru- salem in a poetic triple parallel. In the third section of MM, R. Ishmael describes the very question he asks of R. NeÌuniah ben Ha-Qannah as causing a vision of light in his heart. The heart is attributed with seeing: Rabbi Ishmael said: When I heard this utterance from Rabbi NeÌuniah ben Ha-Qannah, my teacher, I stood on my feet and asked of him all the names of the Princes of Wisdom, and from the question I asked, I saw a light in my heart like the waters of heaven. (580; italics are mine)

In order to achieve such vision in the heart, the heart must have “purity and holiness” (544). In addition, the heart must have the praise of God within it in order to learn the secrets of God (547). In the second section of MM, it is twice mentioned that the heart should possess understanding in order to conjure the Angel of the Presence (562, 565). Finally, R. Ishmael describes himself as occupying his “mind” daily as he engaged in a fast to see the Prince of the Torah. Although at a linguistic level the use of especially “heart”, but also “mind” and “thoughts/understanding” reflect the poetic nature of both MM and Thomas since they are used metonymically and not necessarily literally, at a thematic level such use also serves to underscore the contemplative nature of the vision sought. 2. Preface Such a contemplative emphasis represents one of the ways in which the larger theme of knowledge is inscribed in MM. Although, as Gruen- wald’s description of Gnosticism and merkavah mysticism’s respective inheritances from apocalypticism encapsulates, it was Gnosticism that was influenced above all by apocalypticism’s theme of knowledge, the theme does also play an important role in merkavah mysticism, one that can be differentiated from gnostic preoccupations in terms of both purpose and content. Focusing specifically on the Shiur Komah, Nathaniel Deutsch shows that the knowledge sought by the merkavah mystic is knowledge of God as creator, in stark contrast to Gnosticism, for which knowledge of God is precisely not that of the demiurge137. In further contrast to merkavah mysticism, the purpose of knowledge in Gnosti- cism impinges directly on salvation: “it is not only a religious or philo- sophical preoccupation, but, and mainly so, a soteriological event”138.

137 DEUTSCH, Gnostic Imagination, p. 148-150. 138 GRUENWALD, Knowledge and Vision, p. 87. Gruenwald undertakes a much more detailed study of the interrelationship between apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and merkavah mysticism in his two volumes: I. GRUENWALD, Apoalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, New York, 1980; and I. GRUENWALD, From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism: Studies in Apoca-

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 347347 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 348 M. FARAG

For both apocalypticism and merkavah mysticism, on the other hand, knowledge is not pursued for purposes of redemption, but in anticipation of the afterlife139. In the light of such differentiation, the theme of knowledge in MM can be appreciated without suggesting any tension with its primary apocalyptic theme of vision. As mentioned in Section A.1 above, questions arise in MM both in the narrative frames and in the prayer texts. Whereas the questions of the narratives correlate with Thomas’ Sursum Corda as Sec- tion A.1 argues, the questions of the prayer texts illuminate MM’s theme of knowledge, which correlates with Thomas’ statement on knowledge in the first line of the preface. All the questions are inspired by Exodus 15:11’s twice repeated question “Who is like You?”, with one question (562) even directly quoting the full verse. In two of these questions is the theme of knowledge directly juxtaposed with the divine uniqueness implied by Exodus 15:11’s rhetoric: Who is like You, God great and awesome, Who formed the universe? You formed Magnificent Ones of wisdom, who have permission to bring down the secrets of wisdom by the authority of Your name; for You are king of the universe. (562; italics are mine) Who is like You, magnificent on high? Let me succeed in all my limbs, and may I discourse in the gates of wisdom, and may I examine the ways of understanding, and may I gaze into the chambers of Torah, and may I discourse in the storehouses of blessing, and may they be stored for me. For wisdom is before You. (569; italics are mine) In both prayers, praise of God’s uniqueness as originator of wisdom seg- ues into a supplication for such wisdom to be granted (569) or into a reminder that God has the power to send down such wisdom (562). Sim- ilar prayers are also inspired by Daniel 2:20-23’s blessing and thanksgiving to God for the secret of the king’s dream. What is significant for Thomas, however, is that although such prayers reveal a quest for secret wisdom like the biblical figure of Daniel, the uniqueness of God’s knowledge is always underlined: You know the secrets of above and below. There is none like You, none like Your Might,

lypticism, Merkavah Mysticism and Gnosticism, New York, 1988 (= GRUENWALD, From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism). 139 GRUENWALD, Knowledge and Vision, p. 87. Deutsch, however, argues that for the Shiur Komah knowledge is in fact redemptive: Gnostic Imagination, p. 147-150.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 348348 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 349

none like Your deeds, none like Your mercy, none like Your great name for ever and ever. (549)

One passage additionally suggests that uttering the three letters which furnish the key to wisdom is unendurable: And when you say another prayer, pronounce the three letters that the wheels of the Merkavah pronounce when they recite song before the Throne of Glory: H∑ PZ YP’ HP Y’W GHW’ SBYB’. This is the acquisition of wisdom; everyone who pronounces them acquires wisdom forever. And can anyone endure it? (564; italics are mine)

In this way, a near paradox arises in the theme of knowledge mirroring that of immanence versus transcendence in the context of vision. Just as vision of God is possible yet fatally perilous, so too is acquisition of his knowledge or wisdom possible yet practically unendurable. By contrast, Thomas, reflecting anti-Eunomian polemic, unequivo- cally states, “As for He who accurately measured the entire creation, His workmanship (djmiourgía) no one comprehends (sooun), except He Himself and [His] good Father and the Holy Spirit”. This statement’s outright insistence on the uniqueness of God’s knowledge, specifically his knowledge of his creation, corresponds to the similar emphasis on uniqueness in MM. Yet whereas MM’s emphasis dovetails into requests to share in that knowledge even in the face of unendurability, Thomas denies the possibility of such participation. Despite this denial, however, after a brief doctrinal profession reflecting 1 Corinthians 8:6, Thomas then proceeds to rehearse the acts of God’s workmanship (djmiourgía): the creation of various types of water bodies, the creation of great lights, the creation of celestial beings, and the creation of man. Before drawing parallels between these and the theme of creation in MM, it is worth noting here that in seaming together biblical passages on creation, Thomas does not remain faithful to those passages, but in a minor way reflects the well-known phenomenon of “rewritten Bible” in apocalypticism, what Gruenwald calls apocalypticism’s “radical exegetical attitude towards Scripture”140. As mentioned in Section A of Part I above, whereas Genesis 1:6-7 only mentions one division of water, separating “the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament” (NKJV), Thomas describes God as “He who bounded the waters in three parts and placed one part in heaven, one part upon the earth, and one part under the earth”, thereby reflecting a slightly different cosmology from that of

140 GRUENWALD, From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism, p. 57.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 349349 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 350 M. FARAG

Genesis. After echoing Psalm 136:8-9 in describing how the sun rules by day and the moon by night, Thomas adds a very specific reference to the star Arcturus, which is mentioned only once in the LXX (Jb 9:9), perhaps reflecting something of apocalypticism’s astronomical concerns. Finally, in quoting Genesis 2:15, Thomas rewords “to cultivate it and keep it”141 as “to cultivate it and praise You” (italics are mine), thus changing the purpose of man’s placement in Eden. Although these changes do not compare to the extent of rewritten scripture encountered in apocalyptic texts, the difference in cosmology in particular may betray some sort of apocalyptic background to the text. As for MM, it certainly does reflect apocalyptic cosmology in its por- trayal of seven hekhalot (554, 581, and 595) and of celestial rivers and storehouses (546). Such cosmology, however, is rarely reflected in any of MM’s prayers rehearsing God’s creation, though they do focus on the creation of the celestial sphere. Every prayer consists of at least a line or two on creation, but only two are relatively elaborate: You stretched out the heavens and established Your Throne, and Your great name is adorned at Your Throne of Glory. You spread out the earth; You founded in it a seat for your footstool, Your glory fills the world. (548) Blessed are You, YY, one God who creates His world with His one name who forms everything with one speech. In the heights of heaven You have established Your throne You have placed Your dwelling in Your lofty heights; You have placed Your Merkavah in the upper levels; You have planted Your heaven among the ’Ofanim of beauty. (596)

Both prayers depict the creation of both heaven and earth, but in the first the order develops from heaven to earth, while the opposite is true of the second. In describing the creation of heaven, both prayers focus specifically on the merkavah, God’s dwelling. None of the prayers refer to the creation of humanity, but one prayer does refer to the creation of angelic beings: “In Your magnificence You have created Troops” (592). By contrast, Thomas is most expansive in its delineation of the creation of earth and various stars. Like MM 592, Thomas mentions the creation of angelic beings, but it also stresses the creation of humanity. Abstracting away from these differences, however, the correlations between Thomas and MM not only consist of rehearsals of creation in every prayer, but also of the prominence of God’s title as creator and the

141 BRENTON, Septuagint, p. 3.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 350350 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 351

refrain of the phrase “heaven and earth”. Practically every prayer in MM contains at least one instance of the phrase “heaven and earth”, with particularly the end of section 548 repeating it six times in a row. Such repetition establishes a parallelism between both realms significant for both Thomas and MM. God as specifically the creator of both realms is also highly significant for both texts. The only title Thomas invokes for God is precisely “Creator”, besides the apophatic epithets in the Sursum Corda question. “Creator” and various variants such as “Former of creation” (551), “Maker of all” (558), and “Creator of all” (587) recur amply throughout MM’s prayers, establishing God’s role as creator as of utmost significance for the text. 3. Pre-Sanctus and Sanctus Such a focal point, God as creator creating two parallel realms of heaven and earth, bears considerable implications for the second and related primary focal point of the prayers: praise. In Thomas, the praise of the Sanctus is introduced (1) by naming a catalogue of angelic ranks (2) with the inclusion of thrones as singing angels142, (3) by detailing the throne as “fiery”, (4) by twice emphasizing the “glory” of God’s divinity, (5) by the proliferation of various verbs of praise, and (6) by the insistence on the posture of praise: standing and looking eastward. All six of these features find illuminating parallels in the prayers of MM. Due to the difference in language, it is difficult to determine whether Thomas and MM share much of their catalogue of angels or are describing different traditions of the divine entourage. The two texts certainly share the ranks of seraphim, cherubim, and thrones, but whereas Thomas, along with most eucharistic prayers, represents the seraphim and cherubim in tandem, the two ranks are never juxtaposed in MM. Like all the angelic ranks, the thrones sing. For MM, the Throne of Glory itself sings: and Your throne of Glory presents before You song, and hymn, singing, praise, and laudation, and says before You every day: Who is like You, King of the Universe, like Your name? (552)

But MM also depicts angelic ranks of thrones that sing praise. Sec- tions 554-555 portray innumerable “Merkavot of fire” that render praise. In the first and second hekhal, they sing the qedushah pre-

142 For a discussion of thrones as angels, see OLYAN, A Thousand Thousands Served Him, p. 61-66.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 351351 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 352 M. FARAG

cisely as worded in Isaiah 6:3, whereas in all the other hekhalot they sing the berakah of Ezekiel 3:12 (LXX). In Thomas, it is the Throne of Glory that is depicted as fiery, and the angelic ranks of thrones “sing the doxology of victory”. MM similarly describes the praise as victorious: For You established at Your throne, singing, melody, song, praise, and hymnody, psalm, adornment, and victory. (594; italics are mine) Thomas’ repetition of “glory” and proliferation of verbs of praise are already paralleled in the prayer lines quoted above, but are also abun- dantly evident throughout MM’s prayers. Finally, the diaconal instruc- tions in Thomas that the participants stand and look toward the east find elucidation in MM. Besides verbs of praise, verbs of standing are also consistently employed to portray the angels in every prayer, with section 581 in particular stacking multiple uses of this verb: R. Ishmael stands, as does every single angel in the seven enumerated hekhalot143. One narrative section of MM further prescribes that praise be recited at sunrise: “He revealed to him that this great secret is revealed to anyone of flesh and blood who has the praise of RWZYY YWY, God of Israel in his heart. He must recite it every day at sunrise” (547; italics are mine). Gruenwald argues that the particular insistence on praise at the time of dawn is scriptural in origin: “In general, the idea of the angelic song as it appears in Scripture, rather than teaching us about the content of the song, tells us of the circumstances under which it is uttered: especially in the morning as part of the song of praise of the created world to its Creator”144. Thomas’ instruction to look eastward suggests what was likely the morning setting of the eucharistic prayer. Gruenwald’s characterization of such morning praise as that “of the created world to its Creator” displays the relationship between the rehearsal of God’s creative acts and the angelic hymnody as represented in both Thomas and all the prayers of MM. The rehearsal of creation, however, does more than set the purpose of morning praise: it also underscores the human right to join the praise, as created beings. Indeed, Schäfer nuances the aim he attributes to Hekhalot literature quoted above in Section A.1, saying, “the aim of the heavenly journey is not so much the vision of God on his throne, but more so the participation in the cos-

143 Cf. A. BUDDE, Die ägyptische Basilius-Anaphora, Münster, 2004, p. 267: “Besonders die Abfolge der Formulierungen ö kaqßmenov êpì qrónou – oï kaqßmenoi ânástjte – ˜ç parastßkousin ãggeloi zeigt, dass die von der Gemeinde geforderte Körperhaltung der geschilderten Szenerie bereits inhärent ist”. 144 GRUENWALD, From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism, p. 149.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 352352 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 353

mic praise. […] His [the yored merkavah’s] heavenly journey serves the purpose of incorporating the earthly community into the heavenly liturgy and thereby turning it into a truly cosmic event, encompassing heaven and earth, angels and man”145. MM and Thomas illustrate this cosmic quality of the praise event by leveling the differences between heaven and earth: both heaven and earth are creations containing created beings who praise their Creator. In Swartz’s words, the prayers emphasize “the parity of angels and human beings, especially in their right to praise God”146. Thomas’ rewriting of Genesis 2:15 especially insists upon this parity. According to Thomas, not only were the angelic hosts created for the purpose of praise, but that was also the very purpose of placing human beings in paradise.

B. The Relationship between Ma‘aseh Merkavah and the Anaphora of Thomas The foregoing comparison of MM’s collection of prayers and the fragment of Thomas’ eucharistic prayer reveals a confluence of a number of themes in both texts: Vision of God (and the tension between immanence and transcendence) The state of one’s heart/mind/thoughts Knowledge and its endurability God as specifically creator Creation of heaven and earth Angelic retinue including thrones Fiery throne The glory of God Abundant verbs of praise Standing facing eastward at sunrise Human and angelic participation in the Sanctus/qedushah

Such thematic confluence, however, does not thereby indicate a genetic relationship between the prayers. Throughout the analysis of the previ- ous section it was even shown that Thomas and MM differ in several respects. In addition, as a eucharistic prayer, Thomas would be prayed in a communal setting, whereas MM represents its prayers as private and individual. As some of MM’s prayer quotations above have already dis- closed, MM’s prayers further bear theurgic elements, secret names of angels and God, which are completely absent from Thomas. These differences dissolve, however, in the light of Swartz’s form-critical analy-

145 SCHÄFER, Hidden and Manifest God, p. 164. 146 M. SWARTZ, Mystical Texts, in S. SAFRAI et al. (ed.), The Literature of the Sages, vol. 2, Minneapolis, MN, 2006, p. 409.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 353353 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 354 M. FARAG

sis of MM, which also sheds light on structural parallels between MM and Thomas. Although theurgic elements, particularly in the form of divine names, appear in many of MM’s prayers, Swartz notices that they are concentrated in section II (560-570) and that, furthermore, they constitute the focal point of section II’s prayers, since “they are all organized around theurgic or Divine names, which are framed by passages of praise and petition”147. This leads him to conclude that, for section II, theurgic elements were integral to the original compositions. The stark contrast between the central role of the Name of God and theurgic names in section II and the accessory inclusion of such names in all the other prayers constitutes one of a few major factors indicating that these “specific magical names were added by redactors who wished to invest the prayers with incantatory power”148. Another major factor leading to such a conclusion is the fact that all the other prayers manifest the influence of two stylistic models of prayer: liturgical prayer of late antique Juda- ism and Hekhalot prayer. The “strings of synonyms” and “litanies of the attributes of God” in MM derive from the latter149. The incorporation of known statutory prayers, namely ’atah yodea‘ raze ‘olam from the Yom Kippur liturgy150 and ‘Alay le-shabbeaÌ from the daily liturgy151, displays the influence of the former, though for the most part the evident liturgical context of the prayers is unidentifiable152. Thus, with the exception of section II, Swartz determines one stratum of development in MM’s prayers: the addition of magical names. By comparing “the language in the prayer and the function ascribed to the prayer”, Swartz identifies a second stratum: narrative. Swartz observes that, were it not for the narration, the prayers of MM would not in and of themselves obviously pertain to Hekhalot literature. The narrative is “perfunctory and mechanical”, and that is what largely “places Ma‘aseh Merkavah into the category of the literature of Merkavah mysticism. In the narrative, the prayer passages are trans- formed from liturgical expressions of the corresponding communities of angels and human beings to active instruments for attaining the vision of the upper worlds”153.

147 SWARTZ, Mystical Prayer, p. 142. 148 Ibidem, p. 19. 149 Ibidem, p. 14. 150 Ibidem, p. 116-117. 151 Ibidem, p. 118-125. 152 Ibidem, p. 16. 153 Ibidem, p. 22.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 354354 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 355

By analyzing the prayers, therefore, outside of their present narrative and theurgic contexts, Swartz distinguishes a specific thematic progression consistent among all the prayers of MM, with the exception, of course, of section II. Swartz summarizes the pattern as follows: 1. God is addressed or blessed by the worshipper. This address is often followed by a list of God’s attributes or other form of praise. 2. This leads to the theme of God’s establishment and creation of heaven and earth, or some description of the heavenly scheme. 3. The discussion of the heavens leads to a description of the praise by the angels. Frequently, these angels are said to present (magi‘im) praise to God or to pronounce (mazkirim) His name. At this point a qedushah, eulogy, or doxology often appears. 4. In certain prayers, the worshipper himself declares his praise of God in participation with the heavenly hosts, or pronounces a Divine name. 5. The prayers conclude with closing berakhot, which often express the themes of the prayers154.

With the exception of (5), the closing berakhot (since Thomas’ prayer does not end at this juncture), Thomas precisely follows Swartz’s structural schema. In Thomas, (1) an opening question lists apophatic attributes of God, (2) leading into the theme of God’s creation of heaven and earth, (3) dovetailing into a description of angelic praise, (4) until the worshippers pronounce the Sanctus/qedushah in tandem with the heavenly hosts. In following this progression, Thomas does not solely employ second person address, but begins in the third person and shifts mid-way into the second person, much in the same way that the prayers of MM which follow the thematic pattern “shift back and forth between the second and third persons”155. Swartz also notes that the thematic progression does not include petitionary prayers156, something Thomas also lacks, though it is an otherwise common feature of Egyptian anaphoras. With respect to both thematic structure and specific thematic content, then, Thomas converges with the prayer collections of sections I, III, and IV of MM, rendering it rather plausible that they are related. The fact that both Thomas and MM “are written exemplars of prayers which were originally formulated for oral recitation”157 would locate them within closely related oral traditions. Swartz hypothesizes that MM “began as a

154 Ibidem, p. 182. 155 Ibidem, p. 12. 156 Ibidem. 157 Ibidem, p. 13.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 355355 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 356 M. FARAG

corpus of prayers depicting God’s creation of heaven and earth, the praise of God by the angels, and acknowledging the worshipper’s participation in this heavenly praise. These prayers were probably composed in Palestine from the fourth to seventh centuries, C.E., from models developed from the third to fifth centuries”158. Thomas either belonged to such a corpus of prayers or was highly influenced by them, whether directly or indirectly.

C. The Geographic Problem Swartz hypothesizes that the corpus of prayers was Palestinian in origin, and it is clear that, though there is no direct quotation between the texts, Thomas bears far too many similarities to MM’s prayer corpus for the two to be unrelated. However, as demonstrated in Part I above, from the content and structure of the eucharistic prayer, Thomas very dis- tinctly belongs to the Egyptian anaphoral family. Thomas would thus appear to be an Egyptian anaphora, the pattern of which from Sursum Corda to Sanctus derives from or bears some relation to a Palestinian prayer corpus. 1. Attribution to “St. Thomas the Apostle” Yet the matter of provenance is still more complicated than that of an Egyptian anaphora with Palestinian influence. The appellation of the anaphora must also be taken into consideration. The attribution to “St. Thomas the Apostle” presumably points to Syria, given Edessa’s claim to Thomas’ relics and given the general consensus that Thomasine literature has its home in Syria. The anaphora, however, bears no clear relationship to any other text ascribed to the same apostle159. The prayer, at least what remains of it, lacks the salient features that characterize one or more Thomas-text: it is by no means gnostic, is not markedly ascetic, calls Thomas neither Didymus nor Judas, and does not reflect a theology of divine twinship. In drawing connections between the anaphora and Jewish mysticism, the argument presented above offers interesting parallels to April DeConick’s thesis on the Gospel of Thomas, but these parallels remain inconclusive for hypothesizing any relationship between the gospel and the anaphora, let alone a Thomasine community behind both160. The most that can be claimed without trespassing into the realm

158 Ibidem, p. 11. 159 Cf. ZHELTOV, Thomas, p. 315n49. 160 April DeConick argues that the Gospel of Thomas reflects a mystical Thomasine community. See her published doctoral dissertation: A. DECONICK, Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas, New York, 1996; and the follow-

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 356356 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 357

of speculation is that the anaphora’s appellation may constitute further reason (beyond what is presented in Part I above) for recognizing Syrian influence upon the prayer. Otherwise, the significance of the anaphora’s attribution to Thomas remains shrouded in mystery. The prayer adds yet another text to the already diverse collection of Thomasine literature. 2. An Unanswerable Question Through its title, the Anaphora of Thomas may be associated with Syria, through its content and structure, with Egypt, and through its thematic progression, with Palestine, revealing a rather cosmopolitan eucharistic prayer. By its clear reflection of characteristic merkavah speculation, this cosmopolitan anaphora pinpoints Jewish mysticism as the likely influential source not only of the Sanctus, but of the entire unit of Sur- sum Corda, creation-centered preface, and Sanctus. To return now to the question introduced at the beginning of Part II above: Spinks, Taft, Winkler, and Johnson have all been recently engaged in a question of provenance: “in which geographical location did the Sanctus first enter eucharistic prayers?” Their answers have focused on two possible options: Egypt or Syria, with Spinks and Wink- ler arguing for the latter, though on completely different grounds, and Taft and Johnson for the former, also on completely different grounds. However, if in fact Jewish merkavah mysticism were the source of the Sanctus in eucharistic prayers, then the cosmopolitan nature of the anaph oras reflecting that source suggests that the question of provenance is not one for which our evidence can provide an answer. Recall from the beginning of Part II above that, in addition to Thomas, Egyptian Basil,

ing articles: ‘Blessed are those who have not seen’ (Jn 20:29): Johannine Dramatization of an Early Christian Discourse, in J. TURNER – A. MCGUIRE (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library after Forty Years (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 44), New York, 1997; and John Rivals Thomas: From Community Conflict to Gospel Narrative, in T. THATCHER – R. FORTNA (ed.), Jesus in Johannine Tradition: New Directions, Louisville, 2001. While DeConick certainly brings an important set of literature to bear on the Gospel of Thomas, the hypothesis of a community behind Thomasine literature has become controversial. The following essays call the matter into question: M. JANSSEN, “Evangelium des Zwill- ings?" Das Thomasevangelium als Thomas-Schrift, in J. FREY – E. POPKES – J. SCHRÖTER (ed.), Das Thomasevangelium (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissen- schaft, 157), Berlin, 2008, p. 222-248; R. URO, The Social World of the Gospel of Tho- mas, in J. ASGEIRSSON – A. DECONICK – R. URO (ed.), Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 59), Leiden, 2006, p. 19-38; P. SELLEW, Thomas Christianity: Scholars in Quest of a Community, in J. BREMMER (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, Leuven, 2001, p. 11-35; and P.-H. POIRIER, The Writings Ascribed to Thomas and the Thomas Tradition, in J. TURNER – A. MCGUIRE (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 44), Leiden, 1997, p. 295-307.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 357357 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 358 M. FARAG

Barcelona, and John of Bosra also contain references to the merkavah in the context of the Sanctus, constituting a collection of four anaphoras intimating their Jewish mystical influence161. While John of Bosra is Syrian and Barcelona is Egyptian, Egyptian Basil and Thomas are both Egyptian anaphoras with Syrian appellation and, in the case of especially Basil, Syrian influence. Thus, the repertoire of evidence does not tease the two geographic locations apart. Yet what separates Egypt and Syria for Spinks and Taft is primarily two form-critical matters. The Egyptian form of the Sanctus hymn dif- fers from the forms used in all other eucharistic prayers, which were considered by Taft and Spinks to be of Syrian origin162:

Egyptian Sanctus-Epiclesis “Syrian” Sanctus Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth; Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of your holy heaven and earth are full of your glory. glory. Full in truth are heaven and earth of Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he your holy glory […]. Fill this who comes in the name of the Lord. sacrifice also with […]. Hosanna in the highest.

Whereas the Egyptian Sanctus uses the phrase “holy glory” and dovetails an epiclesis into the Sanctus with the link-word “fill”, the Syrian Sanctus juxtaposes the qedushah with a berakah from the Matthean narrative of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Taft, in particular, has argued that, form-critically, the Egyptian Sanctus-Epiclesis unit is tightly integrated, while the Syrian Sanctus possesses a loose juxtaposition, thereby suggesting the Egyptian type as more original163.

161 See note 126. 162 Juliette Day has recently argued that the origins of the anaphoral Matthean benedictus lies in fourth- and fifth-century Jerusalem rites. See J. DAY, The Origins of the Anaphoral Benedictus, in Journal of Theological Studies, 60 (2009), p. 193-211 (= DAY, Origins). Day notes that the idea, as opposed to the precise form, of inserting a Christian benedictus after the Sanctus was influential. I propose here in Section C.2 that this idea was not merely one of replacing the Jewish benedictus of Ezekiel 3:12 with the Chris- tian one of Matthew 21:9, as Day (following Taft) suggests, but rather the result of exegeting Jesus’ triumphal entry or “coming” in the light of Ezekiel 3:12. In this con- nection, note that Ezekiel 3:12 does not denote a “‘static’ understanding of God” in contrast to the “coming” in the gospel narratives’ entry-into-Jerusalem benedictions (DAY, Origins, p. 210). The benedictus of Ezekiel certainly praises God upon his throne or “in his place”, but that throne/place is a moving one: the throne-chariot, made up of wheels that are even angelified in Jewish literature as the Ofanim. For a discussion of the Ofanim as an angelic rank, see OLYAN, A Thousand Thousands Served Him, p. 34-41. 163 TAFT, Interpolation 1992, p. 118.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 358358 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 359

However, there is in fact a sense in which the Syrian juxtaposition of qedushah with berakah is just as well integrated as the Egyptian juxtaposition of qedushah with a “fill”-epiclesis. The prayers of MM consistently describe the angelic praise as either the qedushah of Isaiah 6:3 or the berakah of Ezekiel 3:12 (LXX). Sections 551, 556, 558, 569, and 596 all quote Isaiah 6:3 as the celestial praise. Section 553, however, portrays the Ofanim, the Holy Creatures, the Seraphim, and the Wheels of the Merkavah as singing Ezekiel 3:12, saying “Blessed be the Glory of YY from the place of His Shekhinah”. In section 555, the Merkavot of fire sing Isaiah 6:3 in the first two hekhalot and sing Ezekiel 3:12 in the third through seventh hekhalot. Although MM’s prayers thus only depict the angels as singing either Isaiah 6:3’s qedushah or Ezekiel 3:12’s berakah164, the Syr- ian Sanctus must be a juxtaposition of the two praises. The chosen berakah, however, is not that of Ezekiel 3:12, but that which the gospels depict as sung to Jesus upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The kind of exegetical reflection that conditioned such a choice may be as follows. Accord- ing to the canonical gospels, Jesus rode a colt as he entered Jerusalem and as the triumphant berakah was sung to him. Imaging Jesus as the divinity would render his colt a throne-chariot and the berakah sung to him a hymn of praise before such an earthly merkavah. Under this interpretation, the Syrian Sanctus would strikingly drive home the parallel between the celestial creation and the earthly creation by juxtaposing the celestial praise of God (by heavenly hosts before God enthroned on the merkavah) with the earthly praise of God (by human beings before Jesus enthroned on a colt)165. Therefore, there is an interpretation under which the Syrian form of qedushah plus berakah is no less integrated than the Egyptian qedushah plus “fill”-epiclesis. A form-critical assessment of the Sanctus hymn thus fails to tip the scale in the direction of either Egypt or Syria. Spinks has offered another form-critical argument, which analyses the role of the Sanctus in its larger prayer context166. Because Egyptian

164 Winkler notes that the Sanctus occurs without any benediction following it in Hekh alot literature more generally. She suggests that this fact could perhaps serve as a criterion for supposing that the Sanctus is an older unit of eucharistic prayers than the Benedictus. See WINKLER, Sanctus, p. 123. 165 Such an interpretation would be highly plausible from the perspective of scholars who consider early Christian christology to have developed under the influence of Jewish mysticism. Jarl Fossum has championed this view: J. FOSSUM, Jewish-Christian Christol- ogy and Jewish Mysticism, in Vigiliae Christianae, 37 (1983), p. 260-287; IDEM, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Chris- tology (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 30), Göttingen, 1995. See also T. ESKOLA, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkavah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, Tübingen, 2001. 166 SPINKS, Sanctus, p. 93.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 359359 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 360 M. FARAG

eucharistic prayers recite the Sanctus in the context of petitionary prayers, wherein lengthy petitions precede the Sanctus and an epiclesis follows the Sanctus, as a song of praise the hymn contrasts starkly with its context. Syrian anaphoras, on the other hand, do present the Sanctus hymn in the context of praise. Spinks thus argues that the Syrian form is original. Barcelona and Thomas, however, together witness to an Egyptian tradition of eucharistic prayers that do not infix petitionary prayers between the creation-centered preface and the Sanctus, as all other Egyp- tian anaphoras do. Barcelona and Thomas are Egyptian eucharistic prayers in which the Sanctus is couched in a larger praise context, thus obviating this second form-critical argument’s Egypt/Syria distinction.

Conclusion

Therefore, neither form criticism nor the geographical locations of the anaphoras can resolve the issue of provenance. This fact suggests that scholars are asking the evidence a question for which it can provide no answer. The question of geographical context is best abandoned in favor of a question restricted to thematic context. The hypothesis proposed here is that the original thematic context of the Sanctus in eucharistic prayers is that of creation. This hypothesis is based entirely upon a comparison of the Anaphora of Thomas to Ma‘aseh Merkavah. Because the two texts share a number of themes and share the same sequential progression of such themes, the Anaphora of Thomas was probably influenced by the Jewish mystical prayer corpus underlying Ma‘aseh Merkavah. Jewish merkavah mysticism was thus the source of one entire prayer unit: a “Sursum Corda” inviting ascent/vision, a creation-centered preface emphasizing that humanity is part of the same creation as angels, and the Sanctus hymning the Creator from both heaven and earth. Not only Thomas, but any anaphora that progresses from a Sursum Corda to a creation-centered preface leading into the Sanctus preserves this influential context of merkavah mysticism. Such anaphoras, however, are not confined to any specific geographic region, with the prime example of Thomas especially defying confinement to a particular locale. By indicating the mystical context to which Sursum Corda, preface, and Sanctus owe their origins (as Part II argues), the fourth/fifth century anti-Eunomian Anaphora of Thomas clearly demonstrates the importance that Lanne attributed to Sahidic Coptic witnesses of eucharistic prayers. By its Egyptian character, not only in the language in which it

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 360360 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50 THE ANAPHORA OF ST THOMAS 361

survives, but also in comparison to Egyptian anaphoras (as Part I argues), Thomas also enlarges our repertoire of the Egyptian anaphoral family. In so doing, it joins Barcelona in attesting a branch of Egyptian eucharistic prayers that lacks the pre-Sanctus intercessory prayer unit which has come to characterize Mark/Cyril, the quintessential member of the Egyp- tian anaphoral family. Thomas thus bears significant implications for the small sphere of its Egyptian family and also for the grander sphere of inquiry into the history of eucharistic prayers’ formation167.

Department of Religious Studies, Mary K. FARAG Yale University P.O. Box 208287 New Haven, CT 06520-8287 [email protected]

Abstract — This article offers an English translation of the Anaphora of Thomas and a two-part commentary on this much neglected Sahidic eucharistic prayer of probably the fourth or fifth century. Part I of the commentary argues that the Anaphora of Thomas is Egyptian in character and therefore should be considered a member of the Egyptian eucharistic prayer family. Part II analyzes the themes and structure of the anaphora in the light of Jewish merkavah mysticism, particularly the text Ma’aseh Merkavah. Such an analysis elucidates the anaphora’s contribution to the ongoing question of eucharistic prayer origins, especially with regard to the Sanctus unit.

167 I owe an inexpressible debt of gratitude to Heinzgerd Brakmann, Tinatin Chronz, and Stephen Emmel for their innumerable insights and for their generosity on multiple occasions, to Dylan Burns for his thoughtful advice and recommendations, and, last but by no means least, to Bryan Spinks, my teacher in liturgical studies. It is my hope that their brilliance is reflected in this piece, but it should go without saying that any and all shortcomings remain exclusively my own.

993899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd3899_Mus2010_3-4_04__ME.indd 361361 112/01/112/01/11 11:5011:50