after that date, could not be considered. As far as I can see, however, I have no
Preface More than one hundred years ago, in 1873, Philotheos Bryennios discovered the text of the Didache in an eleventh-century manuscript version. In 1883 he edited the manuscript for publication. The special fascination of this particular writing has not diminished in over a century of research.
The manuscript of the present commentary was completed in the spring of 1987. Literature on the Didache appearing since that time, or accessible to me only after that date, could not be considered. As far as I can see, however, I have no reason to correct my positions.
For individual references I have to thank my colleagues Georg Sauer and Alfred Raddatz in Vienna and Walter Potscher in Graz. The clean copy of the manuscript was admirably prepared by Irene Pernet. I owe special thanks to my colleague
Wilhelm Pratscher, who bore the principal burden of proofreading the manu script, and to whom readers are also indebted for the index. Finally, I am grateful to the "Word" society for their subvention of the publication costs.
Kurt Niederwimmer Vienna December 1988 xiii
Preface to the Second Edition The text of the second edition, which became necessary rather soon after the first, remains unchanged.
In this preface I would like to discuss briefly just one improvement, one addi tion to the list of testimonies, namely, two citations from the Didache among the papyri from Tura. In the Commentary on the Psalms (227, 26-27) from Tura, ascribed (although not without debate) to Didymus of Alexandria, the Didache is mentioned, in connection with Ps 34:20, as a {3L(3Aog rr/g KaTrjx^oewg ("Book of Catechesis"). The text also cites the maxim eLpppevaetg paxopepovg ("you shall reconcile those who quarrel") from Did 4.3 [Michael Gronewald, ed., Psalmenkommentar (Tura Papyrus), Teil III: Kommentar zu Psalm 29-34 (Papyrologische
Texte und Abhandlungen 8; Bonn: Habelt, 1969) 398]. Something similar occurs in the Commentary on Ecclesiastes, which is also ascribed, without any contention, to Didymus. At 78, 22, on Eccl 3:7a, appears the reference: ev rr) Atdaxv Trjg KfarryjX[)?]ctecog raw (xtwo[t]6Aup Aeyercu■ eipppevaecg paxopepovg [Michael Grone wald, ed., Kommentar turn Ecclesiastes (Tura Papyrus, Teil II: Kommentar zu Eccl. 3-4,
12 (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 22; Bonn: Habelt, 1977) 70]. I can not here treat the context of these passages. In general, cf. Bart D. Ehrman, "The New Testament Canon of Didymus the Blind," VC 37 (1983) 16-17 and 21, n 16; and Dieter Liihrmann, "Das Bruchstiick aus dem Hebraerevangelium bei Didymos von Alexandrien," NovT 29 (1987) 276.
The designation of the Didache as /3i/3Aog Trig xarr/x^crewg in fact recalls, as Liihrmann (p. 276) notes, the conceptuality of Athanasius, on which consult my treatment on p. 4. Ehrman comes to a different judgment. In his understanding
Didymus cites the Didache as a canonical work, belonging to the New Testament.
Only one more observation on the texts is worth making here: The second cita tion makes it obvious that Didymus, or Pseudo-Didymus, knew the writing under the title of dcdaxv tup utcootoAup.
So much for the two citations in the Tura papyri. I also call attention to the bibliographical supplement. In compiling that list I must thank my assistant
Markus Ohler for his help.
Kurt Niederwimmer Vienna October 1992 xv