align="center">
2.3 Origen
Harald Buchinger observes that Origen “gives no unambiguous testimony for the connection of the celebration of the Eucharist with a Liturgy of the Word”1. Nevertheless, circumstantial evidence shows that Origen may already have known this connection as well as the performance of one single Eucharistic prayer over bread and wine following—not preceding—a Liturgy of the Word. It may be inferred from Origen’s extant homilies that Gospel pericopes were read on Sundays and could be preceded by readings from other books.2 According to Buchinger, “every further reconstruction remains simply a projection of later conditions”3. Origen’s church most probably performs a common prayer of all faithful and the kiss of peace before the celebration of the Eucharist.4
Apart from all uncertainty, Origen seems to presuppose that Eucharistic celebrations were preceded by Liturgies of the Word. If this custom should go back to a kind of first century Christianity, it becomes inexplicable why congregations in the Christian East could have been living for centuries in ignorance of this custom. If Liturgies of the Word containing the reading of Gospel texts should be an innovation of the early third century, one would need to postulate a powerful hierarchy that could enforce world-wide liturgical reforms. The reconstruction of such an institution would be anachronistic. However, one may imagine a powerful movement in Early Christianity whose adherents would propagate liturgical customs on their own initiative. The opposition against Marcion could have been such a movement uniting diverse writers without orchestration from an established authority.
2.4 Tertullian
At this point, two texts from Tertullian’s oeuvre must be mentioned as it seems that this author is talking about a Liturgy of the Word that precedes the consumption of the Eucharistic meal as the typical form of Christian meeting.1 In De anima 9, Tertullian mentions visions of a prophetess during dominica sollemnia.2 The prophetess derives subjects for her prophecy from the readings of scripturae (leguntur), the singing of psalms, or the performance of sermons. The reading of a Gospel text and the Eucharist are not mentioned.3 The list contains activities at a Christian—in this case, a Montanist—meeting. Even if the list does not testify to a complete repertoire of ritual elements of Christian gatherings, a Gospel reading within a Liturgy of the Word and preceding the Eucharist is nothing but mere conjecture.
Similar observations can be collected from Tertullian’s (pre-Montanistic) Apologeticum 39, a chapter that contains a bright description of the Christian Eucharistic meeting against the background of the dark depiction of other groups’ disgusting behavior at meals. Tertullian mentions prayer, the exposition of scriptural texts, and sermons that lead up to ethical topics. This chapter does not describe the reading of scriptures.4 Tertullian does not, likewise, mention that Gospels are read as part of Eucharistic or non-Eucharistic meetings. He does not, moreover, refer to a ritual link between the meal and a kind of meeting that may be devoted to learning and study. The sequence of liturgical actions does not, furthermore, reflect the structure of any single liturgical performance. The chapter discusses diverse topics in a polemical way.5 While theological topics would of course be discussed as parts of the table-talk in Tertullian’s congregations, the ritualized performance of scripture readings was not an integral part of Eucharistic celebrations.
With these observations, the search for Liturgies of the Word comes to an end. Christians of Tertullian’s time are interested in the Holy Scriptures including the Gospels.6 Nevertheless, they do not perform Liturgies of the Word connected with the celebration of their Eucharists. Liturgies of the Word apparently emerged only after the demise of sympotic Eucharists—a process that had only begun in Tertullian’s church.7 Testimonies for early readings of the Gospels locate those readings in Liturgies of the Word. Liturgies of the Word emerge in the third century. This observation does not, of course, silence the question whether there could have been other forms of ritualized Gospel readings.
3 Liturgical Functions of the Gospels in the Gospels and in
1 Corinthians?
Going back in the history of Christian liturgies, the typical and technical Liturgy of the Word that contained a reading of the Gospels makes its appearance in the middle of the third century. Christian groups were used to engaging in the reading and exegesis of the Bible before that time. One may thus ask whether or not this activity was an integral component of Christian meals before the sources mention the Gospels as part of Liturgies of the Word. Thus, two passages of the Gospel of Luke and the last chapters of the First Letter to the Corinthians may point to more ancient liturgical needs for Gospel texts than the late fourth century Eucharistic liturgies.
3.1 Marcion/Luke 22 and 24
Read as texts from the second century, the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper (especially Luke’s) corroborate these observations. Marcion/Luke 22 describes Jesus’ last celebration of Pesach as a typical symposium. The account does not have any interest in a historical reconstruction of customs how to celebrate Pesach in Jerusalem in late Second Temple times. It is devoid of anything that points to a first century celebration of a pilgrim festival in Jerusalem. As any etiology, it is created in the image of the celebration that it should furnish with a dignified prehistory. As an etiology for the performance of Eucharists, it is entirely uninterested in Easter. If Eucharistic celebrations should always have been preceded by a liturgy of word, Marcion/Luke 22 would totally fail in this function. For, Jesus and his disciples enter the room and begin to eat their dinner immediately. There is not the slightest trace of reading or talking about scripture before the meal.
In a sympotic event, it befits a host to invite his guests to a learned conversation after the conclusion of the dinner. According to Marcion/Luke 22, Jesus abides by this rule.1 They discuss several stereotype topics of the literary repertoire of ancient table-talk. This chapter shows that Christians met for communal meals. They may have read and/or discussed biblical and exegetical topics after the meal. Sympotic Eucharists could not have been connected with a Liturgy of the Word preceding the meal. The etiology for the Eucharist does not support celebrations preceded by a Liturgy of the Word. Whatever the time of composition of the Gospels, their authors could not yet envisage a celebration like the third/fourth century combination of a Liturgy of the Word with a Eucharist.
Justin’s use of a paraphrase of the institution narratives corroborates this understanding. His group does not celebrate a form of sympotic Eucharist that could claim to derive from Jesus’ institution. For Justin, the institution narrative is only used in order to legitimize the exclusion of people who do not belong to his congregation from the consumption of the Eucharistic elements.2 Justin is not interested in an etiology for his celebration (which does not fit to the Gospel texts, especially not to Luke) but in a bit of scriptural support for the exclusion of non-members from the participation in the food.
This is corroborated by the observation that Justin could have used an alternative etiology for his celebration: the account of Jesus’ discussion with Emmaus and Cleopas after Jesus’ resurrection (Marcion/Luke 24:13–35). Yet, he does not quote this pericope for this purpose. The verse that makes Jesus discuss passages from “Moses and all the Prophets” (Luke 24:27) is Luke’s expansion of Marcion’s text.3 The idea that Jesus expounded the Torah and the Prophets in front of the two disciples on their way from Jerusalem and thus before they reclined for dinner did not occur to Marcion. However, Luke was interested in a purely theological, anti-Marcionite argument regarding the integration of Jesus’ life and death into a kind of Old Testament salvation history. Luke did not want to talk about the Eucharist, let alone about a compulsory Liturgy of the Word preceding it. This is borne out by the fact that Marcion/Luke 24 does not end in a meal. Jesus vanishes and the meeting is disrupted completely before the beginning of a meal. Neither for Marcion nor for Luke is the story of Emmaus and Cleopas an etiology for the
