Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Five: The Alexandrian Anaphora." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 177-218.
Mazza provides a summary of the structure of the Alexandrian Anaphora, which walks through a thanksgiving, a number of intercessions, a Sanctus, a brief epiclesis, the institution narrative, and a second epiclesis and doxology (Mazza 1995, 177). Mazza notes that the structure differs from the Antiochene pattern, to which we are accustomed. Yet the elements are all historically warranted. Mazza evaluates the anaphora to see how it may be derived from the Strasbourg gr. 254 Papyrus (Mazza 1995, 178). The question Mazza considers essential is whether or not the Strasbourg Papyrus represents a complete anaphora. Mazza follows the opinion of G.J. Cuming which says the Strasbourg Papyrus is in fact a complete anaphora, rather than representing a fragmentary work (Mazza 1995, 179). Mazza continues by reviewing both the work of G.J. Cuming and H.A.J. Wegman. Both conclude that the Strasbourg Papyrus represents an entire work and that it is rightly dated in the second or third century, thus being a source for interpretation of the later, 4th century works (Mazza 1995, 181). The difficulty in identifying influence from the Strasbourg Papyrus lies chiefly in the fact that the number of petitions may vary in future works, and that the petitions may or may not be followed by a doxology (Mazza 1995, 186).
Mazza concludes that "the Strasbourg Papyrus is a complete anaphora" (Mazza 1995, 186). He understands it to have the structure of a later anaphora, though it does not consistently have all the expected doxologies (Mazza 1995, 187). Mazza evaluates the various parts of the structure and finds conceptual unity, thus indicating that the Strasbourg Papyrus is consistent as a precursor to Apostolic Constitutions (Mazza 1995, 189ff). In addition to the variable nature of the doxologies, the embolism of the Last Supper account, which is present by the time of Apostolic Constitutions, exists in reference to Malachi 1:11, speaking of a sacrifice which pleases God. The embolism is in the same location relative to the whole (Mazza 1995, 192).
Having built a case for the Strasbourg Papyrus to represent a complete Alexandrian anaphora, Mazza evaluates the possible Jewish sources of the document (Mazza 1995, 194). The first strophe gives thanks for God's work of creation. Mazza finds this to parallel the Josser, one of the blessings which come before the Shemah, but here recast with a Christological interpretation (Mazza 1995, 195). Interestingly enough, within Judaism, the Josser already had a messianic interpretation. The difference in the Alexandrian anaphora is the specific application to Christ, not merely some unidentified Messiah (Mazza 1995, 196). The second strophe describes a sacrificial action of prayer, as well as Malachi 1:11 as an institution account. Here the sacrifice is not Christ, but is our prayers (Mazza 1995, 197). The third strophe, exactly as we would expect, is a petition for the Church, closing with a doxology (Mazza 1995, 198).
Mazza observes that the Alexandrian anaphora is built on a traditional root, but has a few elements inserted, namely, the additional intercessions, the Sanctus with an epiclesis, and the materials from the anaphora of James (Mazza 1995, 199). Mazza describes these elements in some detail.
The insertion of a Sanctus into the anaphora is a puzzle. However, Mazza identifies just such a move in the Mystagogical Homilies by Theodore of Mopsuestia (Mazza 1995, 205). He provides us with a liturgical commentary. Of special interest to Mazza, Theodore lists the elements of the ritual but them comments on them, including some elements not included in his original list. This suggests some evolution of the liturgy (Mazza 1995, 205). In particular, Mazza takes the Sanctus to have entered the liturgy by means of some liturgical materials which didn't contain such an eschatological element (Mazza 1995, 210). We do not know a definitive source for this material, however, Mazza suggests it arose from a source which had a greater eschatological eagerness. He does find a number of Jewish writings which fairly plainly show this concern with eschatology (Mazza 1995, 211). Further, there is a stream of thought which, viewing heaven as perfectly holy, would be expected to insert a Sanctus into other statements (Mazza 1995, 213). This insertion would seem perfectly reasonable, especially as the liturgy pertains to reception of heavenly gifts.