4 Cf., e.g., Klein, "Gebete," 133-46. 240-43) also advocated the dependence of Did. 9.4
voe'iTupapotvaddc appv.
(9.5) , (10.7) *H reads nXdapaToq. For the emendation to aprov, see the com mentary on 9.3. rrjq evxocpLOTiaq ("As for the thanksgiving"), the reader of a later era expects to find directions for the sacra ment of the Eucharist, and that expectation-is height ened by the context. Chap. 7 described baptism, and chaps. 9-10 are to deal with the Lord's Supper. But what emerges in chaps. 9-10 is surprising in a number of ways. The sequence of elements appears to be reversed.
The liturgical directions begin with the prayer of bless ing over the wine (9.2), and only then follows the bless ing of the bread (9.3-4).9 Still more striking is that the words of institution are absent; it is also questionable whether the prayers of blessing contain any reference at all to the kerygma of the passion.10 In addition, the expression in 10.1 (pera be to epirXpoftpvaL) implies a full meal. Under these circumstances the question arises whether chaps. 9-10 really deal with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. This has been one of the crucial problems in Didache research from the outset.
2. Very early it was noticed4 that, in a whole series of passages, the meal prayers in the Didache have Jewish prayers as their models.5 (See the details in the commen tary below.) We must suppose that the ties of the com munity tradition expressed in these prayers to the Judaism of their environment were still very strong.6
This is true, in any case, for the liturgy and the commu nities behind it. We may say, with a grain of salt, that the table prayers in the Didache rest to a great extent on Jewish models, although those had been strongly Chris tianized.7 The literary findings reflect the social situa tion of the Jewish-Christian group from whose ranks these prayers originally issued.8 To what, however, do the prayers really refer?
3. After the introductory liturgical formula nepl be 4 Cf., e.g., Klein, "Gebete," 133-46.
5 Vokes was unwilling to accept the influence of Jewish liturgy (in line with his fiction theory);
240-43) also advocated the dependence of Did. 9.4 on John 6. Finally, Lucien Cerfaux ("La multiplica tion des pains dans la liturgie de la Didache," Bib 40
[1959] 943-58), in agreement with Goodenough and Moule, has posited references in the table prayers to John 6 and John 11:52. But the situation may be as follows: (1) The relationships between the table prayers and John 6 and 11:52 are superficial and accidental; literary and tradition-historical rela tionships are excluded; (2) in some places (see above, p. 48 n. 40]) there are distant parallels to individual motifs in the Gospel of John, esp. chap. instead, he attempted to have recourse to NT expressions as models, and to assert that the prayers in the Didache bore only a distant resem blance to Jewish prayers. Cf. Vokes, Riddle, 179-82,
185-86, 193, 203. In fact, there is only one problem in this regard: possible relationships to the Gospel of John. For this, see below.
6 Betz ("Eucharist," 245, 253) assigns the prayers, in their original form, to Aramaic-speaking communi ties. This is unnecessary. Their home is rather a Hellenistic Jewish Christianity.
7 Betz ("Eucharist," 256) finds wisdom traditions determinative for the prayers. This is questionable.
It is certainly wrong, however, to conclude from this, as he does, that the prayers cannot be "a prod uct of Hellenistic thought" ("Eucharist," 258).
Rordorf ("Didache," 7) remarks correctly that the prayers constitute "the hinge" between the Jewish tradition of prayer and the eucharistic anaphora prayers of a later time.
8 A separate problem is whether Johannine texts or motifs have influenced Didache 9-10. On this, see above, p. 47 n. 35, and p. 48 n. 40. In modern research, Erwin R. Goodenough ("John a Primitive
Gospel," JBL 64 [1945] 173-75) has tried to find in Didache 9-10 (besides dependence on Jewish litur gy) reminiscences of the narrative of the miraculous multiplication of loaves in John 6 (interpreted eucharistically by Goodenough). Moule ("Note,"
17 and 11:52, although contextual differences are determinative in each case; the common features may be adequately explained by common depen dence on a third entity, namely, the language of the Christian liturgy. Betz ("Eucharist," 255-56) consid ers the possibility not of literary but of tradition-his torical kinship, esp. with John 6, 15, and 17; cf. the list on p. 255.
9 1 Cor 10:16-17 is not a parallel. Klauck, Herrenmahl, 262: "the cup-bread sequence does not indicate a different liturgical praxis, . . . but rests on a reversal by Paul (as in v. 21)."
10 This is asserted by Sandvik, Kommen des Herrn, 59-60; "life" in Did. 9.3; 10.2-3 is said to refer to the resurrection and "servant" to Jesus' suffering.
There would thus, in fact, be an anamnesis of Jesus' passion, "but here the accent is on his resurrection, not on his death" (p. 60).
11 Harnack, Lehre, 28-36; idem, "Prolegomena,"
58-60. Harnack thought that the Eucharist was cele-