The earliest clear indication that in the eucharist of the early church the bishop was at liberty to improvise in making the long prayer (later to be called the anaphora) after the offerings of bread and wine had been brought to him is perhaps to be found in Justin Martyr's First Apology (67.5). Here, in his description of the normal Sunday eucharist, Justin says: xat 6 o'oeargq eVX xa a ev3aQartagQ, 6ar nSa,pt; avtcl, davaiZ,U e, al 6 Aaad Enevp9lierl A8ycov td 'Ayrv. Here the phrase d6'a SvaptL avirC suggests that the contents and expression of the prayer of the president (who is clearly the bishop) are determined by his ability. Next, Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses (1.7.2) tells us that in his juggling pseudo-eucharist the heretic Marcus nozrQeta otvco xxeQaFueva neoanotovtevog evXaltaretl, xati l nitov EXTeivcwv ?rv AOyov r7RS e'm:bAaelo. This suggests that the celebrant could decide the length of the great prayer, unless Marcus arrogated to himself the right of improvising prayer as well as the right of producing faked miracles during the eucharist. Not much later Tertullian says that Christians pray manibus expansis, quia innocuis, capite nudo, quia non erubescimus, denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus (with hands outstretched because they are innocent, with head uncovered, because we are not ashamed, finally without a prompter because we pray from the heart). In official ceremonies of the Roman religion, a prompter would be employed on public occasions to ensure that the proper formulae were correctly repeated. Tertullian is speaking of praying for the Emperor, and it seems likely that he is referring to Christian public prayer, i.e. the celebration of the eucharist, because nobody could imagine that a monitor would be required in private prayer (Apologeticus 30.4). The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus provides very clear evidence on this point (ed. and tr. G. Dix, 10.4, 5). It tells us:
Read full abstract