The words that qualify for being the antecedents of an anaphora are said to be accessible (Arnold 2010).
Psycholinguistically, it is advantageous to conceive anaphora and its antecedent as an accessibility relation.
Pronominal anaphora is by default expressed as the null anaphora in Croatian.
According to Lust (1987) there are two ways of studying anaphora developmentally.
The last Vatican decree on sacramental wording occurred in 2001 when the congregation and other offices ruled that the eucharistic prayer, or "anaphora
," used by two sister churches in the Eastern Syrian liturgical family was valid even though it did not include the traditional words of institution used by the Western church.
Dimitrievskij in 1894, and Georg Wobbermin in 1898, short and extended essays have periodically appeared questioning the original sequence of those prayers, their authorship and orthodoxy, and the integrity of the anaphora.(1) The publication of an article by Geoffrey Cuming in 1980 seems to have been something of a watershed, at least in terms of the sequence of the prayers and authorship.(2) Cuming argued that no great rearrangement was needed.
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'.(5) Mazza begins his discussion of the anaphora with the institution narrative, noting its use of `likeness' (homoioma) and a petition for the Church from Didache 9.4 which follows the words relating to the bread.
Mazza then returns to the thanksgiving at the commencement of the anaphora. He suggests that the author was guided by his own precise doctrinal design.
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.
Ligier, who asked how the institution narrative became appropriated into the tradition of the Christian anaphora or eucharistic praying, M.
deals with the anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition.
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, following Dix and the more recent study of Cutrone accepts that the Mystagogical Catecheses give a full sequence of the Jerusalem anaphora, i.e.
Johnson treats the anaphora
at great length, and here he seems to take more literary and liturgical license than with any of the other prayers, and approaches the task with certain a priori views on anaphoral development.