Scholarly Reading
7/23/26
Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 6: The Patristic Eucharist and the Vestiges of the Primitive Eucharist: The Liturgies of Addai and Mari and of St. Hippolytus." (pp. 136-186). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame (Personal Library)
Bouyer asserts that written versions of liturgical prayers only came about in response to fears that tradition could be changed without a written safeguard (Bouyer 1968, p. 136). Thus he explains the existence of texts which codify prayers. He additionally asserts that the written versions were based on existing practice and that they left room for alteration in details but not for wholesale change (Bouyer 1968, p. 137).
This freedom for alteration in details means that we can expect to see a wide variety of eucharistic prayers, which can generally be sorted by region, but that they are very likely to have a common structure and many elements in common. This is what Bouyer finds, as he considers the difficulty in identifying specific roots of liturgical prayers in different locations (Bouyer 1968, p. 138). Rather than seeing liturgy as subject to central control, for instance, from Rome or Byzantium, the liturgy developed through a pattern of relatively voluntary borrowing and adaptation (Bouyer 1968, pp. 139-141).
Bouyer continues with an analysis of the West Syrian and Gallican-Mozarabic types of liturgy (Bouyer 1968, p. 143). He briefly details the structure, which is noteworthy due to its clarity of form.
Alexandrian and Roman eucharistic prayers follow a different order than those in the West Syrian tradition. The prayers are not so clearly focused on the persons of the trinity as on the creation and redemption of the living and the dead (Bouyer 1968, p. 144). In the Alexandrian tradition the intercessions are grouped near the beginning, while the Roman form has them more spread out (Bouyer 1968, p. 145).
Another type, from East Syria, follows the liturgy of Addai and Mari, more ancient than those previously discussed. Here the intercessions are grouped together and, unlike anywhere else, are between the anamnesis and the epiclesis (Bouyer 1968, p. 146). Bouyer takes the structure to be built from elements coming from different times, and that, apart from the prayers of the patristic period, it represents the oldest eucharistic composition we have (Bouyer 1968, p. 147). Yet the prayers are closely related to the Jewish prayers over the cup at the end of a meal.
Bouyer compares the anaphora of Addai and Mari to its descendants among Nestorian and Chaldean Christians (Bouyer 1968, pp. 147 ff). He considers the root material to be similar. By eliminating paragraphs which he thinks are later interpolations, it is possible to derive "a rather well formed prayer in three paragraphs" which correspond to the traditional Jewish cup prayer (Bouyer 1968, p. 150).
Though not a main feature of his argument, Bouyer makes a comment which is relevant to my studies. Footnote 18 on p. 149 cites "Dom Bernard Botte, "Problèmes de l'anaphore syrienne des apôtres Addaï et Mari," in L'Orient Syrien, vo. X, fasc. 1, 1965, pp. 89ff. The text is translated into French on pp. 91ff, after the Missale Urmiense (Rome) 1906. Brightman, op. cit., pp. 283ff. A better form of the text was published by W.F. Macomber, "Orientalia Christiana Periodica vol. xxxii, fasc. 2, 1966, pp. 336ff." Botten observed the absence of the Word of Institution in the liturgy. Bouyer summarizes Botte's argument as follows. "[T]he liturgical manuscripts where these words do not appear are legion, even in cases where there is not the least doubt, if only according to the commentators of the period, about their compulsory presence in the celebration. This is actually the case in the West, with all the texts of the Gallican liturgy, with all the earliest texts of the Mozarabic liturgy, and in the East with many Syriac manuscripts. particularly among the Maronites. We should simply suppose that every celebrant knew the customary formula in a given rite by heart." (Bouyer 1968, p. 152).
Having discussed at some length the liturgies descended from Addai and Mari, Bouyer attempts a reconstruction of what he would take to be the original form of the eucharistic text (Bouyer 1968, p. 154). He concludes that after his "restoration" the "prayer appears obviously with a character that is still fully Semitic" (Bouyer 1968, p. 155). The changes made have effectively made the prayers, though Christian, entirely Semitic in structure and phrasing. From this Semitic root, Bouyer postulates the later developments were added as a greater explanation of the sacrament (Bouyer 1968, p. 156).
Bouyer has suggested, by the fact that the eucharistic prayers are based on Jewish mealtime prayers, that the eucharist was a regular meal at first, then became detached from a meal. He sees this as the pattern found in the Apostolic Tradition, in which the (putative) author, Hippolytus, draws in archaic liturgical patterns to demonstrate the antiquity of the eucharist (Bouyer 1968, p. 158). Though readily admitting that a thorough evaluation of the matters of authorship, provenance, and text history is beyond the scope of this volume, Bouyer moves into an analysis of the text in terms similar to his evaluations above (Bouyer 1968, p. 159). However, before dealing with actual eucharistic prayers, Bouyer gives a lengthy discursus about the likely identity of Hippolytus and his philosophies, as well as can be postulated based on other works with the same attribution. Having concluded that Hippolytus was likely from a remote Syrian community and was trying to create a liturgy which would seem ancient, Bouyer provides the eucharistic portions as reconstructed by Dom Botte (Bouyer 1968, pp. 168ff).
It is significant at this point to note the text is "reconstructed" so as to say what it may have said before multiple accretions came into it. Bouyer gives his clear opinion that, as reconstructed, there is no clear epiclesis and that the text could seem incoherent at times (Bouyer 1968, p. 170). However, Bouyer presses on, summarizing Botte's defense of the Latin text as he reconstructed it (Bouyer 1968, p. 172). Though the argument for finding an original reading by translation of the Latin into Greek by way of Syriac is elegant, it is not clear whether it is actually helpful in confirming a historical context for the development of the theology in the eucharistic prayers.
Bouyer concludes, eventually, that since the eucharistic prayers of Hippolytus cannot be divided into the three separate berakoth of the Jewish meal prayers, even though they contain all the typical petitions in order, the eucharistic prayers would not represent anything which might have been prayed in the apostolic period (Bouyer 1968, p. 180). Rather, he views Hippolytus as a later, Hellenistic author, who is simply archaizing. I observe that though there is a claim of Hellenism on p. 180, on p. 167 Hippolytus was from a remote part of Syria.
Because of the similarity in organization of the eucharistic portions of Addai and mari with Hippolytus, Bouyer concludes that they had a common and ancient root, that of the last three berakoth used at a Jewish meal. They are separated in Addai and Mari, and combined into one in Hippolytus. The content is very similar, as is the order (Bouyer 1968, p. 182). Both liturgies point to God in Christ as the one who blesses his people and uses them as priests before him (Bouyer 1968, p. 183). Bouyer closes the chapter with several brief references to other, later liturgies which have preserved some or all of the elements found both in Addai and Mari and in Hippolytus.
7/23/26
Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 6: The Patristic Eucharist and the Vestiges of the Primitive Eucharist: The Liturgies of Addai and Mari and of St. Hippolytus." (pp. 136-186). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame (Personal Library)
Bouyer asserts that written versions of liturgical prayers only came about in response to fears that tradition could be changed without a written safeguard (Bouyer 1968, p. 136). Thus he explains the existence of texts which codify prayers. He additionally asserts that the written versions were based on existing practice and that they left room for alteration in details but not for wholesale change (Bouyer 1968, p. 137).
This freedom for alteration in details means that we can expect to see a wide variety of eucharistic prayers, which can generally be sorted by region, but that they are very likely to have a common structure and many elements in common. This is what Bouyer finds, as he considers the difficulty in identifying specific roots of liturgical prayers in different locations (Bouyer 1968, p. 138). Rather than seeing liturgy as subject to central control, for instance, from Rome or Byzantium, the liturgy developed through a pattern of relatively voluntary borrowing and adaptation (Bouyer 1968, pp. 139-141).
Bouyer continues with an analysis of the West Syrian and Gallican-Mozarabic types of liturgy (Bouyer 1968, p. 143). He briefly details the structure, which is noteworthy due to its clarity of form.
Alexandrian and Roman eucharistic prayers follow a different order than those in the West Syrian tradition. The prayers are not so clearly focused on the persons of the trinity as on the creation and redemption of the living and the dead (Bouyer 1968, p. 144). In the Alexandrian tradition the intercessions are grouped near the beginning, while the Roman form has them more spread out (Bouyer 1968, p. 145).
Another type, from East Syria, follows the liturgy of Addai and Mari, more ancient than those previously discussed. Here the intercessions are grouped together and, unlike anywhere else, are between the anamnesis and the epiclesis (Bouyer 1968, p. 146). Bouyer takes the structure to be built from elements coming from different times, and that, apart from the prayers of the patristic period, it represents the oldest eucharistic composition we have (Bouyer 1968, p. 147). Yet the prayers are closely related to the Jewish prayers over the cup at the end of a meal.
Bouyer compares the anaphora of Addai and Mari to its descendants among Nestorian and Chaldean Christians (Bouyer 1968, pp. 147 ff). He considers the root material to be similar. By eliminating paragraphs which he thinks are later interpolations, it is possible to derive "a rather well formed prayer in three paragraphs" which correspond to the traditional Jewish cup prayer (Bouyer 1968, p. 150).
Though not a main feature of his argument, Bouyer makes a comment which is relevant to my studies. Footnote 18 on p. 149 cites "Dom Bernard Botte, "Problèmes de l'anaphore syrienne des apôtres Addaï et Mari," in L'Orient Syrien, vo. X, fasc. 1, 1965, pp. 89ff. The text is translated into French on pp. 91ff, after the Missale Urmiense (Rome) 1906. Brightman, op. cit., pp. 283ff. A better form of the text was published by W.F. Macomber, "Orientalia Christiana Periodica vol. xxxii, fasc. 2, 1966, pp. 336ff." Botten observed the absence of the Word of Institution in the liturgy. Bouyer summarizes Botte's argument as follows. "[T]he liturgical manuscripts where these words do not appear are legion, even in cases where there is not the least doubt, if only according to the commentators of the period, about their compulsory presence in the celebration. This is actually the case in the West, with all the texts of the Gallican liturgy, with all the earliest texts of the Mozarabic liturgy, and in the East with many Syriac manuscripts. particularly among the Maronites. We should simply suppose that every celebrant knew the customary formula in a given rite by heart." (Bouyer 1968, p. 152).
Having discussed at some length the liturgies descended from Addai and Mari, Bouyer attempts a reconstruction of what he would take to be the original form of the eucharistic text (Bouyer 1968, p. 154). He concludes that after his "restoration" the "prayer appears obviously with a character that is still fully Semitic" (Bouyer 1968, p. 155). The changes made have effectively made the prayers, though Christian, entirely Semitic in structure and phrasing. From this Semitic root, Bouyer postulates the later developments were added as a greater explanation of the sacrament (Bouyer 1968, p. 156).
Bouyer has suggested, by the fact that the eucharistic prayers are based on Jewish mealtime prayers, that the eucharist was a regular meal at first, then became detached from a meal. He sees this as the pattern found in the Apostolic Tradition, in which the (putative) author, Hippolytus, draws in archaic liturgical patterns to demonstrate the antiquity of the eucharist (Bouyer 1968, p. 158). Though readily admitting that a thorough evaluation of the matters of authorship, provenance, and text history is beyond the scope of this volume, Bouyer moves into an analysis of the text in terms similar to his evaluations above (Bouyer 1968, p. 159). However, before dealing with actual eucharistic prayers, Bouyer gives a lengthy discursus about the likely identity of Hippolytus and his philosophies, as well as can be postulated based on other works with the same attribution. Having concluded that Hippolytus was likely from a remote Syrian community and was trying to create a liturgy which would seem ancient, Bouyer provides the eucharistic portions as reconstructed by Dom Botte (Bouyer 1968, pp. 168ff).
It is significant at this point to note the text is "reconstructed" so as to say what it may have said before multiple accretions came into it. Bouyer gives his clear opinion that, as reconstructed, there is no clear epiclesis and that the text could seem incoherent at times (Bouyer 1968, p. 170). However, Bouyer presses on, summarizing Botte's defense of the Latin text as he reconstructed it (Bouyer 1968, p. 172). Though the argument for finding an original reading by translation of the Latin into Greek by way of Syriac is elegant, it is not clear whether it is actually helpful in confirming a historical context for the development of the theology in the eucharistic prayers.
Bouyer concludes, eventually, that since the eucharistic prayers of Hippolytus cannot be divided into the three separate berakoth of the Jewish meal prayers, even though they contain all the typical petitions in order, the eucharistic prayers would not represent anything which might have been prayed in the apostolic period (Bouyer 1968, p. 180). Rather, he views Hippolytus as a later, Hellenistic author, who is simply archaizing. I observe that though there is a claim of Hellenism on p. 180, on p. 167 Hippolytus was from a remote part of Syria.
Because of the similarity in organization of the eucharistic portions of Addai and mari with Hippolytus, Bouyer concludes that they had a common and ancient root, that of the last three berakoth used at a Jewish meal. They are separated in Addai and Mari, and combined into one in Hippolytus. The content is very similar, as is the order (Bouyer 1968, p. 182). Both liturgies point to God in Christ as the one who blesses his people and uses them as priests before him (Bouyer 1968, p. 183). Bouyer closes the chapter with several brief references to other, later liturgies which have preserved some or all of the elements found both in Addai and Mari and in Hippolytus.
RSS Feed