Rodopoulos that the anaphora contains deliberate anti-Arian concepts, he nevertheless accepts Botte's contention that the author was a Pneumatomachian, and thus refers to the compiler as Tseudo-Sarapion'.
Mazza then returns to the thanksgiving at the commencement of the anaphora.
Accepting that this latter is a complete anaphora, even though it has no sanctus, he argues that the first strophe was based upon the yoser Synagogue berakah.
Maxwell Johnson examines the anaphora of Sarapion as the last main chapter of a study of the whole prayer collection which was based on the suggestion made by Geoffrey Cuming and others that the prayers are not all from the same hand, and can be grouped together in a number of strata, some on chronological grounds, and others on literary grounds.
Johnson states his intention as being to show that Sarapion's anaphora represents preservation rather than `innovation', and that nothing within the anaphora suggests that it ought to be dated later than the middle of the fourth century.
Ever since the discovery of the prayers attributed to Sarapion of Thmuis in the eleventh century Greek manuscript (Ms Lavra 149) by Dimitrievskij in 1894, and their publication by Georg Wobbermin, short and extended articles have appeared questioning the original sequence of the prayers, their authorship and orthodoxy, and, inevitably, the `original form' of the anaphora
The next section of the book deals with the origins of the anaphoras of the Alexandrian and Roman traditions.
Second, he seems to force all of the anaphoras he treats into a tripartite scheme and appears entirely to dismiss the research on the origins of thanksgiving sacrifice (zebach todah) made popular by C.
deals with the anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition.
goes on to link the remainder of the Alexandrian anaphora of Mark with the West Syrian anaphora of James, arguing that the latter tradition is responsible for the Sanctus-epiclesis-embolism block.
One might also ask whether too much reliance has been put on Syrian Basil, given that many Syrian anaphoras have been influenced by Syrian James.
The conclusions are most helpful, and illustrate how fourth-century anaphoras grew.
The assertion of Proclus that St Basil had abbreviated an anaphora had long misled scholars, and it was not until it was shown that this assertion was not from Proclus but from a sixteenth-century forger, together with Engberding's study in 1931, that it became obvious that the longer Byzantine version of Basil and the other versions are later than the Alexandrian recension.
Fenwick tests the thesis that James represents a conflation of the anaphora of the Mystagogical Catecheses with Basil.
The conclusion of this study demonstrates two types of anaphoral construction in the fourth century - one by expansion and insertion (the versions of Basil) and the other by slotting in large blocks of material from one anaphora into another (James = MC + blocks of Basil).