the preceding meal was a full meal for satisfaction of odaivotq in v. 5).
10.1-7 1 When you have had your fill, give thanks this way:
2 "We thank you, holy Father, For your holy name, b. Prayer of Thanksgiving (Eucharist) (10.1-7) which you made dwell in our hearts.
And for the knowledge and faith and immor tality, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant.
To you be glory forever.
3 You, almighty Lord, created all things for the sake of your name, and you gave food and drink to human beings for enjoyment, so that they would thank you; But you graced us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life through <Jesus> your servant.
4 *For all things, we thank you. Lord, because you are powerful.
To you be glory forever.
5 Be mindful. Lord, of your church, to preserve it from all evil and to perfect it in your love.
And < .. . > gather it from the four winds, into the kingdom which you have prepared for it.
For power and glory are yours forever.
6 May grace come, and may this world pass by.
Hosanna to the God of David!
/ If anyone is holy, let him come.
If anyone is not, let him repent.
Maranatha! Amen."
7 Allow the prophets, however, to give thanks as much as they like.
(the first in v. 2, the second in vv. 3-4, and the third in Comment ■ 1 With 10.1 the Didachist returns to the quotation of his source. Verse 1 is a rubrical commentary on the litur gical agenda. The meal took place between chaps. 9 and v. 5), each introduced by an address (irotTep ajie in v. 2, heoTTora ixavTOnpaTop in v. 3, KVpce in v. 5), and con cluded by a doxology (ool 17 <5ofa eiq rovq aiavaq in vv.
10. The phrase pera he to eiA'K\rjodr)vai suggests that the preceding meal was a full meal for satisfaction of hunger (cf. John 6:12: wq he eueiv\riodr]oau).1
2 and 4; otl oou eoTtv r) hvvapiq Kai rj ho^a eiq rovq odaivotq in v. 5).
The model for this long prayer is (as has long been acknowledged) the Jewish prayer after meals, the Birkat
Ha-Mazon.2 This is introduced by the "invitational bless ing," after which the one who is to recite the benediction takes the cup of blessing, lifts it slightly from the table,
In Did. 10.2-5 the liturgy hands on the prescribed prayer of thanksgiving after the meal. It functions, at the same time, as the transition to the sacramental liturgy that follows. The prayer consists of three benedictions
Cf. also Luke 6:25; Acts 14:17, and perd to detirvrj2 om in 1 Cor 11:25. On the whole subject, see above, p. 143 n. 49. Klein ("Gebete," 142) refers to Deut
8:10; cf. Audet, Didache, 431. The passage plays a role as a scriptural basis for the Jewish table prayer
(cf. Holtzmann, Berakot, 79; Str-B 4.632), and the blessings that follow are, in part, constructed on the model of Jewish table prayer.
For the Birkat Ha-Mazon, see Holtzmann, Berakot, 78-79; Str-B 4.631-32; Klein, "Gebete," 140-41; and particularly Finkelstein, "Birkat Ha-Mazon,"
211-62; cf. also Middleton, "Eucharistic Prayers,"
263-67; Hruby, "Birkat Ha-Mazon," 205-22.
1. EvxapiOTOvpiev ool, 7rarep ayce, and recites the text of the prayer after meals.3 We may presuppose corresponding actions (with the exception of the invitational benediction?) for the ritual now before us. The text of the Jewish table prayer was expanded in the course of time, so that it would be diffi cult to attempt to re-create its original wording.4 The wit ness of Gamaliel II is important for establishing the extreme age of the original three benedictions (m. Ber.
2. virep tov ayiov ovoparoq oov, ov9 KaTeoKijvuoaq ev raiq Kapdiouq riotin', Kal virep rrjq yvipoeoiq Kal irioTeuq Kal afiavaoiaq, rjq eyvwpioaq ppxv dia 'h]O0v tov iraidoq oov
3. ooi ri do^a eiq rovq aitivaq.
The community praises God10 who has made the divine ovopa ("name") to dwell in it—namely (as we are probably meant to understand), through and since bap tism.11 ''Ovopa (more precisely: to ayiov ovopa oov)12 is
God's epiphany, God in person.13 KaTaoKrjvovv (for p®)14 plays on God's "dwelling," God's presence; in this way15 God makes a dwelling for the divine name— secretly and invisibly, but really and effectively—in our innermost being, ev Talq Kapbiaiq ripuv,19 that is, in the heart and center of a person.17 The continuation, Kal virep T-rjq yvwoeuq . . . , is parallel to virep tov ayiov dvopaToq . . . and continues the listing of the goods of salvation. We should probably understand this to mean that through this very indwelling of God (God's holy name, as the OT-flavored text says) we are given salva tion, knowledge, faith, and immortality. While the goods
6.8a).5 The fourth benediction is a later accretion (and yet it is old!).6 Still, the parts of the Jewish and Christian prayers do not correspond. The first part of the Didache prayer (v. 2) is constructed more according to the model in 9.2 and 9.3;7 only the second part (vv. 3-4) recalls, in its content, the first Jewish benediction (and yet v. 4 is a direct reflection of a passage in the second benedic tion); finally, the third part of the Didache prayer (v. 5) is reminiscent of the third Jewish benediction. Of course the motifs of the Jewish "model" have been fundamen tally reinterpreted.8 Even from a formal point of view, however, we may observe crucial differences.
■ 2 The first benediction is constructed according to the same scheme as the prayers in 9.2 and 9.3, with element
(2) doubled:
3 See the details in Str-B 4.627-34; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 110.
4 This is attempted by Finkelstein, "Birkat HaMazon," 223-35; Hruby, "Birkat Ha-Mazon,"
207-16.
5 Holtzmann, Berakot, 77-79.
6 The wording of the first three benedictions was, however, also expanded and changed over time. On this see Finkelstein, "Birkat Ha-Mazon," 261-62;
Hruby, "Birkat Ha-Mazon," 205-22. there and in Did. 10.2. See the further connections between Did. 10.2, 5 and John 17 described by Clerici (Einsammlung, 97), who correctly emphasizes that "despite these common themes ... no literary dependence [can be] established." Instead, we should think of a common liturgical tradition
(ibid.). Wengst (Didache, 81 n. 77) writes: "Both pas sages [Wengst is thinking of irdrep otyie in John
17:11 and Did. 10.2] make it likely that the address 'holy Father' is derived from liturgical language."
Cf. also Odes Sol. 31.5 (Charlesworth, 115-16); "Pater sancte," Acts of Peter (against Simon) 27
(Lipsius-Bonnet, 1.74).
7 Still, as a rule the first benediction in Didache 10 is paralleled with the second benediction of the Jewish prayer after meals. See Finkelstein, "Birkat
11 Wilhelm Michaelis, "KaTaoKf]v6u>," TDNT 7 (1971) 389; Rordorf, "Didache," 19; unrestrictedly: Knopf,
Lehre, 28.
Ha-Mazon," 216. Dibelius also ("Mahl-Gebete,"
122-23) paralleled Did. 10.2 with the Birkat Ha-Arez, but then suggested (in line with his hypothesis) that the text should be understood "as a Hellenistic development of the Hebrew prayer after meals" (p.
12 For to ayiov ovopa ("the holy name"), cf. ayiov Kal tpofiepov to ovopa avtov ("his holy and awe some name"), Ps 110:9; to ovopa to ayiov, Lev
122), or as "a prayer after meals used in Greek Judaism" (p. 123), and that this was then
18:21; (+ pov) 22:2; /cal ayiov to ovopa avrov, Luke 1:49; to peyaAoirpeireq /cal ayiov ovopa avrov
("his magnificent and holy name"), 1 Clem. 64.
13 Similarly Drews, "Apostellehre," 270; Knopf, Lehre, 28; Audet, Didache, 431. 'Ovopa here stands for what the Greeks would call ovola.
14 Cf. Michaelis, "/caraa/crjt'oa)," TDNT 7 (1971) 387.
15 KaraoKr]vovv is not intransitive, but transitive, or rather causative: cf. Ps 22:2; Jer 7:12; Ezek 43:7.
Christianized in the Didache. But these ideas are, altogether, quite arbitrary.
8 These differences are analyzed esp. by Finkelstein, "Birkat Ha-Mazon," 213-19, although I cannot agree with him at every point.
9 Attraction: cf. BDF, §294; BDR, §294.
10 ndrep ayie as in John 17:11. The expression is found in the NT and the Apostolic Fathers only
10.1-7 1. OV, beOKOTOC ir(XVTOKf)(XTOp, 2. eKTioaq toc navra. evenev tov ovopaToq aov,
Tpoiprjv T€ kotov ebunctq wlq otvdpwiroLq Gtg of salvation in 9.3 were fcorj ("life") and yvcpocq ("knowl edge"), now yvccoLq ("knowledge"), TtloTcq ("faith"),18 and ddocvaoia ("immortality") are named.19 The goods of salvation that God bestows are mediated and revealed through Jesus, the "servant."20 The next expressions, rjq eyvccptaaq ktX., and am rj 56%a eiq Tovq cddivaq, corre spond directly to the conclusions of the prayers in 9.2 and 3.21 The stylistic relationship of the three prayers in 9.2; 9.3; and 10.2 is quite clear. ocKoXavoiv, Iva ool eoxocpiOTpouaiv, rjplv be exapiou KvevpaTiKqv Tpoiprjv Ka'L kotov Kai fwi)v oduiviov bta Iqoov26 tov 7tacboq aov.
3. Kepi27 ■Kccvmv evxocplotovp.ev ooi, otl bvvaToq elnot28 r) 8o%a eiq Tovq altivaq.
The prayer first calls upon God, the beoKOTqq ttocvtoKpaTcop ("almighty Lord") who created all things. The address beoKora29 is made more explicit by the addition
■ 3-4 The second benediction then follows the motifs of the Jewish prayer after meals (see above),22 beginning with the Birkat Hassan. As reconstructed by Finkelstein,23 the oldest version of this benediction in the prayer was:
"Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, king of the universe, who feedest the whole world with goodness, with grace, and with mercy."24 It is uncertain to what extent the Jewish model for the Didache prayer had already been expanded beyond the reconstructed original form.25 The prayer in the Didache is constructed as follows:
21 Audet again conjectures apqv as a response (Didache, 401).
22 Dibelius, "Mahl-Gebete," 123, referred to m. Ber.
6.8b ("Whoever drinks water for his/her thirst speaks praise: 'through the word all things came to be'" [Holtzmann, Berakot, 81]) and unnecessarily regarded this reference as more important than that to the Birkat Hassan.
23 Finkelstein, "Birkat Ha-Mazon," 227.
24 The translation follows that in Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 110.
25 The clause later added (?—Hruby differs, "Birkat Ha-Mazon," 208), "blessed art thou, Lord, who nourishes all things," corresponds to the doxology in the Didache prayer: ooi q ktX. The phrase
"for the sake of [God's] great name," lacking in the reconstructed oldest form, appears to be attested already by the Didache. See below.
26 On this, see below, n. 37.
27 On this, see below, n. 46.
28 On this, see below, n. 41.
29 Addressing God as beo-Rorqq is something inherited from Hellenistic Jewish tradition. In the NT see
Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev 6:10; with reference to Jesus: 2 Pet 2:1; cf. Jude 4, and indirectly perhaps
16 H has mistakenly written vpdv; this was emended by Bryennios, Aiba\q, 37 and n. 4.
17 For this expression and its earlier history, cf. Jer 7:12: (eiq tov toitov ...) ov KaTeoKqvaoa to ovopa
[xov eeel epnpoodev ("the place where I caused my name to dwell previously"); Ezek 43:7: ev olq
KaTaoKqvdoec to ovopd pov ("among whom he will cause my name to dwell"); 2 Esd 11:9: KaTaoKqvdoca to ovopa pov ("to cause my name to dwell"); Ps.
Sol. 7.6: ev rd KaraoKqvovv to ovopa oou ev peoa r)pu>v e\erji)r}o6peda ("in causing your name to dwell among us we will be shown mercy"). Our text speaks of God's dwelling in our hearts, which is revealed through baptism. For the indwelling of God, Christ, and the Spirit, cf. Rom 8:9; 1 Cor
14:25; Jas 4:5; Barn. 16.9; Ignatius Eph. 15.3. For Christians as God's temple: 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor
6:16, and Ignatius Eph. 15.3.
18 In the Didache also at 16.2, 5.
19 Adavaoia appears only here in the Didache-, we find to dddvmov in 4.8. For ddavaoia, cf. Ignatius
Eph. 20.2 (in a eucharistic context); far) ev ddavao'ia ("life in immortality") as one of the 8 dp a too deov ("gifts of God"): 1 Clem. 35.2 (with 7rLoTiq). In Acts of John 109 (18) (22.1, p. 208.6 in Bonnet),
2 Tim 2:21. AeoiroTqq occurs only here in the Didache. As predicated of God in the Apostolic
Christ is called upon in the eucharistic prayer:
"Root of immortality and font of incorruption"
(pitqa T-qq ddavaoiaq Kai q irqyq rfjq aipdapoiaq).
20 Wengst (Didache, 80, following the Georgian), has deleted qpiv after eyvapioaq. But cf. the parallels in 9.2 and 3.
Fathers: Barn. 1.7; 4.3; Hermas Vis. 2.2.4-5; Sim. 1.9; and frequently in 1 Clement. Especially characteristic of the present context is 6 beaitOTqq Tdv dirdvrav,
1 Clem. 8.2; bqpiovpyoq Kai bea-noTqq Tdv avravTcov, 20.11; cf. 33.2; 6 beoiroTqq incdpxei Tdv anavToiv,
emphasized), and thereby farjv ocluplop ("eternal life").
This gift, in fact, occurs dta Ipoov tov troudoc; aou.37 of ttavTOKparop;30 as creator, God is at the same time the universal ruler over all creatures.31 God is not only the one who created all things "for the sake of the divine name,"32 however, but at the same time the creator is the one who graciously holds the world in being. The world here means especially human beings, who receive food and drink from God's hand33 precisely in order to give thanks to God.34 nvevfjLaTLKT) rpcxpr) or (TTPevpaTinbp) itotov is not a "spiritualizing" expression,38 but can be understood as a look ahead to the sacramental Lord's Supper, for which this prayer is a transitional preparation. The expression describes the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper as sacramental food. Compare the possibly pre-Pauline expressions TTPevpctTLKOP fiptipa and TTPevpaTLKOP ttopa in 1 Cor 10:3-4. In this, the sacramental food, all earthly food is perfected, elevated to the spiritual plane, and transformed. It conveys more than earthly life: it pro vides (cor) aiuPLoq.39
To this point the prayer does not follow the Jewish model word for word, but its motifs are certainly the same. With pplp de exotpiow ktA. ("you graced us, etc.") it deliberately steps beyond its Jewish model.35 God gives earthly food and drink to all people, but to us, namely, the Christians, God gives -npev par Lapp Tpo<pr)P nai ttotop36 ("spiritual food and drink"; TTPevpaTiKp is
■ 4 The benediction concludes with a phrase that (in comparison to the others) is somewhat expanded: ttepl
52.1; ov yap, beoiroTa, eirovpavce (3aoiXev rap aiuvuv, 61.2; cf. also Diogn. 3.2 and 6 yap beo-rroTpg nai bppiovpydg tup oXwp deog in Diogn.
8.7.
30 2 Cor 6:18; frequent in Revelation (1:8; 4:8, etc.); Jewish model that he posits. The first part that is again Christian would then be the final phrase
(p. 124). All this is said without any proof.
36 For Tpo<pr) Kai ttotop, BAGD, s.v. ttotov, refers to Josephus Ant. 7.159, and Longus 2.7.4
1 Clem. Title; 2.3; 32.4; 56.6 (from Job 5:17); 60.4; 62.2; Hermas Vis. 3.3.5; Polycarp, Phil. Title; Diogn.
7.2; then in the creeds: cf. Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum: definitionum et cleclarationum de rebus fidei et morum (Barcelona: Herder, 1963)
(Schonberger, 74): Kai ovt€ Tpo<pr)g ep.epprjp.Tpp ovTe ttotop Trpoae(pep6p,r]p ("I neither remembered food nor approached drink").
37 Note the sequence "food—drink" in contrast to Did.
9.2-3, but in harmony with 9.5. The prayer has regard for the eucharistic elements. For the contrast between "earthly" and "spiritual/sacramental," cf.
Ignatius Rom. 7.3 {'pftopa/a<p-dapTog)-, Justin 1 Apol.
66.2 (Goodspeed, 74-75); Irenaeus Adv. haer. 4.18.5
(SC 100.610-13). For the final phrase H has only bta tov Tcacbog oov, but Irjaov should be added, fol lowing the Coptic (cf. also the Georgian). Thus
Schmidt, "Koptische Didache-Fragment," 85, 97. Cf. the expressions in Did. 9.2, 3; 10.2.
38 Thus Dibelius, "Mahl-Gebete," 124; cf. n. 35 above.
In a different sense (namely, a Christian spiritualiz ing of the Jewish model): Finkelstein, "Birkat HaMazon," 214.
39 "Did. 10.3-4 extols the eucharistic gift as the fulfil ment of the gifts of creation which confer temporal life" (Leonhard Goppelt, "ttlpu ktA.," TDNT 6
[1968] 147).
40 For on bvparbg el, cf. Ps 88:9; Peterson ("Probleme," 171) refers to Karl Preisendanz, Papyri
Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (2 vols.; Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1928) 2.101
(13.275-76).
41 H's av should be emended: the Coptic has the equivalent of ool. Harnack (Lehre, 33) conjectured ov-ooi, which is possible but unnecessary. See
Niederwimmer, "Textprobleme," 126.
1-19. It occurs only here in the Didache.
31 Cf. 3 Macc 2:2: Kvpce, Kvpce, fiaocXeu tup oiipavuv nai beoiroTa iraorjg KTtaeug, ayue ep dyioig, popapxe, iraPTOKpamp ("Lord, Lord, King of the heavens and Ruler of all creation, Holy one among the holy ones, Monarch, Almighty"); Diogn. 7.2: 6 iraPTOKpaTup Kai iraPTOKTLOTrig teal aopaTog 'deog
("The all-ruling and all-creating and unseen God"); cf. also Const. 7.38.1.
32 The expression "for the sake of the divine name" recalls the Jewish model; cf. n. 25 above. It is true that this phrase is lacking in the reconstructed old est form of the Jewish prayer.
33 For eig anoXavoLP, cf. (6 deog 6 ttapexuv) r)plv iraPTa TrXovolug eig dtroXavotv ("God who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment"),
1 Tim 6:17; irpog diroXavoLP, 1 Clem. 20.10; BAGD, s.v.
34 Wengst (Didache, 80) (following the Coptic and Constitutions) has eliminated t.pa ool evXapLovpowaLP. But at this point Constitutions diverges altogether from its source, and the omis sion in the Coptic may be accidental.
35 Dibelius ("Mahl-Gebete," 123) differs. He supposes that the expression r)plp be exaplou TTPevpaTLKpp
Tpo(pi)p Kai 7totop "and possibly also Kai. £ar)p alwPLOp" comes from the spiritualizing Hellenistic
10.1-7 rraprup evyoplotovpep ool, otl bvparoq el:40 ctot4117 bo%a elq rovq alwpaq ("For all things, we thank you,
Lord, because you are powerful").42 Verse 4a could be regarded as a later addition,43 if it were not for the fact that there is evidence of a parallel in the Jewish prayer after meals (not in the first benediction, but in the sec ond): "And we praise you for all. . . ,"44 The reminis cence of the Jewish model45 suggests the reading attested by the Coptic version: irepi rraPTWP (rather than the 7rpo rrdtPTWP in H).46 Cf. also Mart. Pol. 14.3: bia. tovto nal rrepl 7tocptup oe alpu, oe evAoyti, oe bo^afoj
("Therefore for all things I praise you, bless you, and glo rify you"); and Const. 7.38.1: EvxopLOTOvpep ool rrepl rraPTUP, beorrora rraPTOK.pd.Top ("We give you thanks for all things, almighty master"); and 7.38.4: rrepl rrdpTup ool bra XpLorov evyotp lotov pep ("for all things we give thanks to you through Christ").47 upon thy altar and thy temple. Blessed art thou, O Lord, thou who buildest Jerusalem."49 Among the later expan sions (?) is the call for relief from all distress. With regard to the Didache prayer, finally, we should also recall an addition to the third benediction of the Birkat
HaMazon that is prayed on the Passover eve, in which the motif of remembrance has a role to play.50 It is true that the things that recall the Jewish prayer have been
Christianized in Did. 10.5. The Didache does not pray for Israel or Jerusalem, but for the church of God; the memento motif and the plea for redemption are adapted accordingly.51 The prayer is constructed as follows:
1. pprjofiriTL, Kvpce, 2. rrjq eKKArjolaq oov tov pvoao-daL avrqp arro rraPToq rroprjpov nal reAetcoom avr-qp ep rr) ayarrij oov, kocI ovpa^op avrrjp arro tup Teooapup avepup
< . . . >52 elq rrjp or)p j3aoLAelap, r)p qTolpaoaq avrij- ■ 5 The third benediction in the Didache prayer is dis tantly reminiscent of the third benediction in the Jewish prayer after meals. The original version reconstructed by Finkelstein48 is said to have been: "Have mercy, O Lord, our God, on Israel thy people, and on Jerusalem, thy city, and upon Zion, the dwelling place of thy glory, and 3. otl oov eoTLP 17 bvpapcq nal 17 6o|a elq Tovq alupaq.
The introductory pppodpTL, Kvpre, may recall the insertion, cited above, in the third benediction of the /_ 42 After aiupaq the Coptic adds 2xntm (and follows it 47 with a signum dispositionis). Dibelius ("Mahl-Gebete,"
Peterson, "Probleme," 171 and n. 86. Peterson (p.
171) calls attention also to the similar introductory formula creep rravruv. See the examples there.
Cf. the various versions and the analysis in Finkelstein, "Birkat Fla-Mazon," 230-33, 253-58.
The original text, as suggested by Finkelstein, is on pp. 230 and 233. So also Hruby, "Birkat Ha-Mazon,"
215.
The translation follows Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 122) and Koester (Synoptische Uberlieferung, 194) regard this as the original text. Audet also adopts it 48
{Didache, 401). In that case "amen" would be the response of the congregation. It is problematic, however; see Niederwimmer, "Textprobleme," 126.
43 Or is it out of order? Drews ("Apostellehre,"
270-71) suggested, following von der Goltz, that 49 rearrangements need to be made in vv. 3 and 4.
Knopf's opinion (Lehre, 28) is similar. This sugges50 tion is unnecessary. According to Lietzmann {Mass,
191-92) v. 4a is in the wrong place, "but we can no longer determine the original—which may not even have been in these prayers" (p. 236).
44 Cf. the text in its various versions: Finkelstein, "Birkat Ha-Mazon," 228, 247-48. According to Finkelstein (p. 229), this was a later insertion.
45 Observed already by Klein, "Gebete," 143 (although Klein read repo rrexvrwv . . .).
46 F01-rrepl: Dibelius, "Mahl-Gebete," 124; Klauser, Doctrina, 24; Wengst, Didache, 80. The old editions read repo, with H, but so does Audet, Didache, 236.
Rordorf and Tuilier {Doctrine 180) read repo, but 51 note (p. 181 n. 3) that the Coptic probably has the correct reading. On this question, see Niederwimmer, "Textprobleme," 125-26.
110.
Following Jeremias's translation {Eucharistic Words, 252): "Our God, and God of our fathers, may there arise, and come, and come unto, be seen accepted, heard, recollected and remembered, the remem brance of us and the recollection of us, and the remembrance of our fathers, and the remembrance of the Messiah, son of David, thy servant, . . . and the remembrance of Jerusalem thy holy city, and the remembrance of all thy people, the house of Israel.
May their remembrance come before thee, for res cue, goodness." According to Jeremias {Eucharistic
Words, 252), this addition "may go back in essence to the time of Jesus."
Dibelius, "Mahl-Gebete," 124-25: the original prayer concluded at 10.4, and 10.5 was a later addi tion, "a special prayer for the church" (p. 125). The doublet ovva^ov exvrqv kt\. (cf. 9.4) is said to show
it from all evil"), could possibly be related to a similar expression in the third benediction of the Jewish prayer after meals.59 One may also compare the expression quoted above from the Tefillah. But here the object of the prayer is the entiXpoia. The second petition, (tov)
TeXetwaai avTpv (sc. Tpv eKaXpoiav) ev tt? dyairri oov ("to perfect it in your love"), refers to the eschatological perfection of the church.60 TeXeiovv here means "to complete," "to bring to perfection."61 The perfection of the church is thought of either in a moral sense (in which case it is divine love62 by and through which the church reaches perfection, by being made holy),63 or— and this is more probable—in an eschatological sense (in which case we should understand ev rr) (xycacf] oov as the love of God that perfects the church in unity).64 The unity of the church in the end time is, in any case, the matter of the third and last petition: nai avva^ov avTpv
Birkat Ha-Mazon, but somewhat also the Shemoneh Esreh (Palestinian) 7: "Look upon our suffering . . . and save us for your name's sake."53 But the memento motif as such goes back much farther. The Lord is called upon in many ways to remember the covenant, Israel, and the Messiah, and to take action to save those who are God's own.54 The memento of the Didache is also within this tra dition, but the motif has been translated into a Christian context, as the continuation shows.55 In any case, the precondition for the prayer in the Didache is faith that God has entered into a covenant with the church and that promises are involved. When the community cries out to God nvr)(ydr}Ti, Kvpie, it prays for the fulfillment of the promises: "here we have . . . the primeval form of all the commemorations in the later liturgies."56
This is now made more concrete in three petitions (■tov pvoaofta.L avtt)p . . . reAetcaom avTpv . . . ovva^ov avTpv . . . ).57 The first petition, (tov) pvoaotfcu avrrjv
(sc. ttjv eKKXrjoiav) and irccvTog Tcovrjpov58 ("to preserve . . . ("gather it, etc."). We have already seen this motif in Did. 9.4. Compare: that this is an addition. It is true that there is a pos sibility of "Jewish influence" in pwqoOriTL ktA., but "in the content, we can no longer make a distinction between the Jewish foundation and the Christian superstructure" (ibid.).
52 I regard tt)v dytaodeioav (H) as a later gloss. See below.
5S Holtzmann, Berakot, 15.
54 Closest in language is Ps 73:2: pwriodriTi rrjg ovvayuyrjs aovVS eKTrjoa air' dpxvs ("remember your congregation, which you acquired long ago"). For more on this, see Otto Michel, "pip.vrjOKopai,"
TDNT 4 (1967) 675-76; G. Schmidt, "AfrijaiVi:
Eine liturgiegeschichtliche Skizze," in Viva vox Evangelii: Eine Festschrift fur Landesbischof D. Hans
Meiser zum 70. Geburtstag am 16. Februar 1951 (Munich: Lutherische Kirchenamt in Hannover,
BDF, §180.1; BDR, §180 (1); and the examples in BAGD, s.v. Of course, this is not a quotation from Matt 6:13 (Massaux, Influence, 3.162). John 17:15 has rqpelv avroiig tov irovrjpov ("to protect them from the evil one"), but there is no literary relation ship.
59 "Deliver us, deliver us, Yhwh, our God, with great haste from all our difficulties" (from the German translation by Holtzmann, Berakot, 79). According to Finkelstein's and Hruby's analyses (see above), this passage is one of the later additions.
60 Voobus (Liturgical Traditions, 126 n. 84) refers to Papyrus Egerton 5 (Harold I. Bell and Thomas C.
Skeat, eds., Fragments of an Unknown Gospel [London: British Museum, 1935] 58): eipr/uevoov, oii<ov6p.r]aov, reXLugov rfot'] Aa6[jJ ov eKTcaoi, tov
Actdv tov [7tfpLOvoiov ("Pacify, govern and perfect the people whom you have created, the special people"). The text is from the 4th-5th centuries
(p. 56).
1951) 259-64; Clerici, Einsammlung, 48-64; Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 166-69.
55 For the reforming undergone by the tradition, see Clerici, Einsammlung, 57, 60-63; and Voobus,
Liturgical Traditions, 168.
56 Lietzmann, Mass, 192. Lietzmann's remark (n. 2) that this topos did not appear in the OT and Jewish tradition has since been refuted.
57 The object of each petition is the church. In Did.
4.14 (didachistic redaction? see above, p. 113 n. 14) the reference is to the individual congregation, while in the prayers in 9.4 and 10.5 it is the entire community; similarly, in 11.11 it seems that ckkAt/oLa means the whole church.
58 For pvoaodaL Ttva air6 Tivoq (thus also in 8.2), cf.
61 Gerhard Delling, "reAoq ktX.," TDNT 8 (1972) 84.
62 In any case aydirrj oov is subjective genitive, not objective (as Clerici wanted to see it: Einsammlung,
96).
63 Cf. 1 Clem. 49.5: ev rr) dyd.itr\ eTeXeuidrioav Ttavreq oL enXeKToi tov deov ("All the elect of God have been perfected in love"). Cf. also 50.3: ot ev dyairri TeXeucdevTeq. See Voobus, Liturgical
Traditions, 127-29.
64 Cf. John 17:23. John 17 in part recalls the motifs of the Didache prayers, not because the Didache is dependent on John but because motifs from the
10.1-7 Did. 10.5
Kai avva^ov avvpp am tup Teaaapup apepup eiq rr)v app /3am,AeLap Did. 9.4
Excursus: The Difficulties of 10.6 ovtoi ovvax$VTa aov 17 6KK\r]oLa am tup mparup rrjq yrjq eiq rr)p ar\p PaocAeLap First of all it is clear that in 10.6 we are faced with a different type of discourse than in the preceding vers es. In that regard there is an obvious caesura between vv. 5 and 6. What follows in v. 6 is no longer part of the prayer of thanksgiving; its genre is that of ritual acclamation.72 The verse consists of a series of short sentences, apparently quite loosely connected. This observation also corresponds to the tradition-histori cal findings: while the preceding prayers make use of models drawn from the Jewish meal prayers, the same is not true of v. 6. Old Testament and Jewish tra ditions continue to play a role here, but the text that follows is no longer derived from concrete Jewish meal prayers, as were the prayers that preceded it.73
The Sitz im Leben of v. 6 is the ayaAAiaaiq of the primitive Christian meal celebration. These are jubi lant cries anticipating the vanishing of this world and the coming of the new, combined with invitation and warning associated with the eucharistic Communion.
We should by no means conclude from this doublet that 10.5 is a later addition.65 For the synaxis d7ro tccv reooocpuv avepuv ("from the four winds"), cf. especially
Zech 2:10 LXX; Mark 13:27 par.66 The appositional phrase that follows in H (tt)v ayiaotieloav, "once it is sanctified") is textually suspect.67 It is lacking in the Coptic and in the Apostolic Constitutions. In my opinion it represents a later gloss.68
The gathering of the church is an eschatological event, when the church will enter into God's basileia of the end time. The idea is that the reign of God is the future of the church. The church is seen as the people of God on pilgrimage, and the goal of their journey is the reign of God.69 The reign of God has been prepared for the church.70
With these eschatologically oriented, almost ecstat ic cries, the meal comes to an end—as has been sup posed. This opinion can, however, stand unassailably only for 10.6a. The expressions in 10.6b (the formula of invitation and warning) apparently do not belong at the end of the Communion but rather at the beginning. Thus v. 6 is an important indication that now, and only now, is the communion of the Lord's
Supper beginning—that is, that the preceding meal was an agape or a celebration similar to an agape.
Then follows the doxology, on aov eoriv 17 dvvapug Kai 17 56%a eig rovg aiuivag ("for power and glory are yours forqver"), which concludes the prayer,71 presumably to be understood as the response of the congregation.
■ 6 The eucharistic prayer has come to an end. We immediately expect the note that we now find in v. 7
(about the free prayer of the prophets). But before that comes v. 6, which, from both a literary and a material point of view, is one of the most difficult cruces interpretum in the Didache.
In addition, Lietzmann was probably right in think ing that the whole passage should be read as a dia logue:
Liturgist: EAdeTU Xdptq Kai irapeAderu 6 eoapoq ovToq.
Congregation: Ooappa tu via74 Aa(3i8.
71 The Coptic has again added 2XMHN, which Dibelius ("Mahl-Gebete," 122) and Audet (Didache, 236) regard as original. The Coptic again has a signum dispositions after qxhhn.
72 In the NT we might compare Eph 5:14b.
73 Finkelstein ("Birkat Ha-Mazon," 216-17, 234) dif fers. He sees in Did. 10.6 a reflection of the prayers beginning with pmn that follow the fourth benedic tion in the Jewish prayer after meals (cf. the transla tion in Str-B 4.632). This is quite unlikely.
74 This is the reading adopted by Lietzmann (Mass, 193). In the edited text (Mass, 188) he reads deu, with Aafiib in both places. H has the abbreviated proper name bab. liturgy have entered into John 17. Cf. above, p. 140 n. 8.
65 Thus Dibelius, "Mahl-Gebete," 125. Cf. n. 51 above.
66 See above, commentary on 9.4.
67 Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 93. Nevertheless, I cannot share Voobus's concerns and suggestions regarding the basileia clause here and in 9.4 (ibid., p. 90).
68 Niederwimmer, "Textprobleme," 119. Cf. now also Wengst, Didache, 82.
69 Massaux (Influence, 3.163) sees the expression fjp r\Toipaaaq avTQ as representing literary depen dence on Matt 25:34.
70 Voobus (Liturgical Traditions, 13) interprets this quite differently: he suspects an older predecessor form in which the unity of the church was not yet conceived eschatologically and was not connected with the coming of God's reign.
XOtpLq77 whose coming is implored is eschatological sal vation.78 The sentence eA$er<o x^P^Q k(XL 6
Koopoq ovroq ("may grace come, and may this world pass by")79 is formulated as a petition. The community cries out for redemption,80 that is, for the passing away of the present and the coming of the future world.81 The following cry, "Hosanna!" is the oldest example of the use of "hosanna" in Christian ritual.82 Oaavva (= WJJEfn for KD rtircin)83 is the acclamation found in Ps 118:25
(MT) that had retained a place in the Jewish liturgy for special feast days.84 Originally a plea for help, it had in the course of time become an expression of praise.85 It is apparently to be understood in the same way here. With a solemn "hosanna" the community rejoices in God,86
Liturgist: El Tiq ay tog ear lv, cpxeada' el riq ovk eoTLV, peTavoelra. MapavaPa.
Congregation: Apr\v?b This means, however, that we have here, in el tic, aycoq eoTiv . . . , the invitation to Communion, and in the next part a warning against unworthy participa tion in it.
With this transition to the sacramental Communion the celebration reaches its climax in the ritual acclamations.
Verse 6a, first of all, abruptly directs attention to the parousia. The community now gathered for the meal is the advance guard of eternity and—standing as it does immediately before the sacramental union—desires noth ing more deeply than the final disappearance of this world and the arrival of the one that is to come.76 The 81 After uxpe neiKOCMoc cini ("Let this cosmos pass away"), Coptic again has pxtnui (and signum dispositionis). This "amen" is accepted by Dibelius, "MahlGebete," 122; Audet, Didache, 236.
82 For "hosanna" in the Didache see Sandvik, Kommen des Herrn, 37-40.
83 Eduard Lohse, "daavva," TDNT 9 (1974) 682 n. 6 and 683 n. 14.
84 Str-B 1.845-47; Lohse, "daavva," 682; Sandvik, Kommen des Herrn, 37.
85 Lohse, "daavva " 682; Sandvik, Kommen des Herrn, 37.
86 The wording is uncertain:
(1) daavva ra Pea Aavld (H) (2) daavva ra oIkoi Aavld (Coptic; Audet, Didache, 62-67, 236, 420; Mattioli, Didache, 147)
(3) daavva rd via Aavld (Constitutions; Bryennios, Acdaxp, 38).
Reading (3) is probably a simple assimilation to Matt 21:9, 15. Reading (2) gives less meaning, in context, than reading (1). (Audet assesses the situa tion differently; on pp. 62-67 he gives an extensive argument for his decision.) It is understandable how the other readings may have been built up on the basis of (1). (For the reading Pea, see now also
Wengst, Didache, 82; cf. ibid., p. 83 n. 88.) Dibelius ("Mahl-Gebete," 126 n. 10) suggested as the original text daavva ra Pea o'Ikov Aavld (?). For the whole subject see Niederwimmer, "Textprobleme,"
126-27. The "hosanna" acclamation in the Didache does not come from Matthew's Gospel but from liturgical tradition: Koester, Synoptische
75 Lietzmann, Mass, 193. It is true that Lietzmann regards the dialogue "as a supplement to the main formulary."
76 For early Christian prayer for the parousia, or in turn for the delay of the eschaton, cf. the informa tion in Harnack, Lehre, 34-35.
77 Xapcq (H) is to be preferred to 6 Kvptoq, which is presumed by the Coptic version; Dibelius ("MahlGebete," 125) differs. Franz J. Dolger (Sol Salutis:
Gebet und Gesang im christlichen Altertum. Mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Ostung in Gebet und Liturgie
[LWQF 16/17; Munster: Aschendorff, 1972] 207-8) explains that xdpic is a designation for Jesus (see below n. 78), and this was still evident to the copy ist: "he deliberately substitutes the commonly understood formula for the secret name charis"
(p. 208).
78 The reference is said to be to "sacramental grace and hence the sum of Messianic salvation" (Hans
Conzelmann, "xalpa ktA.," TDNT 9 [1974] 400).
That charis is here synonymous with logos = Jesus (suggested by Dolger, Sol Salutis, 206-8; Lietzmann,
Mass, 193 n. 2; Kleist, Didache 9.161 n. 66) is some thing I join Conzelmann (TDNT 9.400) in regarding as less probable. The commentary on this passage may be found in 1 Pet 1:13: eAiclaaTe em rpv (pepopevpv vp.lv xdpt-V ev ccKOKaAijpeL Ipaov XpiaTov
("Hope in the grace brought to you by the revela tion of Jesus Christ"). Klauck (Herrenmahl, 360) thinks, as did Conzelmann, of the union of the sacramental and eschatological coming of charis.
79 For 7tapepxeaPat in this sense, cf. Mark 13:30 par., 13:31 par.; 2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet 3:10; less directly
Uberlieferung, 198; Lohse, "daavva," 684.
87 Differently Knopf, Lehre, 29: "Here Christ is the God of David."
1 Clem. 27.5. ATrrjAPav: Rev 21:1. 0 Koopoq ovroq (the central apocalyptic concept) appears only here in the Didache.
80 See Rom 8:23.
88 "The community experiences the meal as an antici pation of the parousia," writes Sandvik, Kommen des
10.1-7 who sends the Messiah, the son of David.87 Future and present eschatology are intertwined.88 has the tone of a warning. One who is holy, and only such a one, may approach. One who is not should do penance. In the Didache, ay Log describes either, in sim ple terms, the baptized person (in which case jueraIn contrast, v. 6b is not a jubilant cry, but an invitation and a warning. El Tig ay tog €Otlv, epyecrdw ("if anyone is holy, let him come") concerns the conditions for admission to the Lord's Supper.89 The formula appears to be ancient liturgical material, and to underlie 1 Cor voeLToo represents baptism)—this would make the content of this passage identical with Did. 9.5—or else (and this is more probable) this text appeals to those already bap tized to come as ayLOL to the Lord's Supper; this is not something that the status of baptizatus implies without further qualification.92 Thus I am unable to perceive any contradiction between 9.5 and 10.6.93
16:22 in a similar form:
1 Cor 16:22
Did. 10.6 el ng ay tog ear iv, epxlodw el tl<; ovk eoTiv, peTavoelrar papavada.90
The subsequent papavada ("Come, Lord")94 should probably be understood in terms of the immediate con text. That is, it does not refer directly back to v. 6a el ng ov iptAel tov Kvptov -qra ava.depa.
(eA$6Tco ktA.), but continues and deepens the warning expressed in v. 6b (peravoeLTw). Thus we can not arrive at an understanding of the expression in this passage directly by interpreting the Aramaic expres sion95 (although it is probable that it implies an impera tive sense in the present context as well);96 instead, the /lapavada.
The phraseology of the Didache is reminiscent of the acclamation in the later liturgies: ra ayia rolg ayioLg
("holy things for holy people") and especially John Chrysostom Homily 17.5 in Hebr. (PG 63.133): "Orav yap elm], Ta ayta rolg ayiotg, tovto Aeyef El Tig ovk eoTiv ay cog, prj itpooLTW ("For when he says, 'Holy things for holy people,' he means, 'If someone is not holy, let him not approach'").91 Here, as there, the cry
/ 90 Bornkamm, "Anathema," 164-76; Vielhauer, Geschichte, 38. Frequently Lucian Alexander 38
(Macleod, 2.348) is referred to as a parallel: El rig adeog fj XpLonavoq rj EiUKOvpeiog r)Kei KaraciKOTrog tuv dpyiuv, ipevyera ("If any atheist or Christian or Epicurean comes as a spy of our rites, let him flee").
91 Peterson, "Probleme," 172-73. For Peterson these observations support his thesis that in Did. 10.6 we find "only fragments of Mass texts and not, for example, rudimentary witnesses to a liturgy from apostolic times" (p. 172). Peterson also asks (in light of his hypothesis regarding the location of the Bryennios text) "whether the formula peravoelrw in the Bryennios text. . . does not, perhaps, pre sume a developed technical language in ascetic circles" (p. 173).
92 Cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29; Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine 69 n. 2.
93 Audet, Didache, 415; Bornkamm, "Anathema,"
171-72.
94 Written as a single word in H.
95 Cf. the methodological notes of Peterson, Elg deog, 131. That I am, nevertheless, inclined to understand
"maranatha" in Did. 10.6 differently from Peterson is a separate matter.
96 As is well known, analysis and interpretation of the Herrn, 40. Sandvik takes the same view in interpret ing "maranatha." I have some reservations about this; see below.
89 I must say that this opinion is not undisputed. Cf.
Harnack, Lehre, 36; Jacquier, Aidaxp, 130; Schaff, Church Manual, 61, 197; Knopf, Lehre, 29; Greiff,
Pascharituale, 50. In that case one might consider it a call to join the church. (Greiff, if I have under stood him correctly, seems to be thinking of an eschatological entry.) Against the interpretation stated above it is objected that the early church had no eucharistic procession. But epxeadcc can be understood in a broader sense. Audet's opinion
(Didache, 413) is arbitrary: "epxeadu is not necessar ily the equivalent of 7tpoaepxeadu)." The one who is
"holy" is said to be the one who is baptized, the call to repentance is a call to baptism for those who are not yet baptized, and the whole is a "rite of 'pas sage' between the 'breaking of bread' and the great
'eucharist'" (p. 415). The baptized are now invited to the great eucharist, the Eucharist proper, and in the meantime they must move from one room to another. According to Audet there is a contradic tion between Did. 10.6 and 9.5: 10.6 (the ancient liturgy) presupposes that even those who are not baptized participate in the breaking of bread, while
9.5 (the author) forbids it (Didache, 415).
of the Didache, however, the freewheeling charism of the prophets is still active, and, as I shall show, the Didachist makes an effort to show as much concern for these prophets as for the local officials.99 While the prayers in chaps. 9-10 offer a more or less obligatory text as para digm for the meal prayers of the local officials,100 the prophets were able to formulate their prayers freely:101 meaning is ultimately determined by the immediate con text.97 That context (v. 6b) has the character of a call to repentance. Accordingly, ixapa.va.fia probably calls for the Lord's coming and at the same time recalls that the eschatological advent of the Mar/Kyrios will be the advent of the judge. Thus (similarly to 1 Cor 16:22) this cry has a minatory character. It points to the eschatologi cal judgment of the Kyrios, who will bring his law into effect, and hence calls sinners to repentance: peravoeLroi—papavafial98 The "amen" that follows is the response of the congregation.
Tolq be TrpocprjTaiq eiaTpeirere evxotpiOTelv, oaa fieXovaiv. This clause can be understood to mean either that the prophets have the right to add their own, freely formulated prayers after those preceding, or (and this is more probable) that the prophets (as liturgists) simply have the right to formulate the meal prayers ad libitum and are not limited by the given paradigms. In any case
■ 71 consider v. 7 to be an added rubrical remark by the Didachist, applying to a problem that apparently was important to the communities for which he wrote. We are to understand that the preceding prayers are to be used as a paradigm for the meal celebration. As liturgists—not in the intention of the liturgy itself, but proba bly in the mind of the Didachist—one would ordinarily think of the episkopoi of 15.1 (q.v.). In the communities
10.7 reflects a situation that was typical for the Didachist, in which the community is still acquainted with the work of the prophets but is more and more often led by local, resident officials (the episkopoi)', cf.
15.1-2. The appearance, without explanation, of the key has no claim to originality. Lietzmann (Mass, 193) wished to find a double meaning: Our Lord, come!
(namely, for the parousia), and: Our Lord has come!
(namely, now, in the sacrament); so also Betz, "Eucharist," 271-72; Sandvik, Kommen des Herrn,
17, either: "Lord, come to your parousia, and come now, while we are gathered for the meal," or "Lord, as you are already here at our meal, come to your parousia."
98 Peterson (Eiq deoq, 130-31) has gone too far in supposing, wrongly, that the words "maranatha, amen" are used here in an apotropaic-exorcistic sense. Cf. Moule, "Reconsideration." Correctly against Peterson: Kuhn, "papavada," TDNT 4
(1967) 471 n. 47; Bornkamm, "Anathema," 170. I see the connections as follows: the maranatha for mula had its origins primarily in an invocation of Christ, calling for his parousia. Its original Sitz im
Lehen was the Eucharist. In 1 Cor 16:22 and Did. verb as (present) perfect or imperative are both pos sible in terms of the language itself. Joseph A.
Fitzmyer wishes to trace the expression to "an imperative with the elision of the reduced vowel and initial aleph because of the preceding long a"
("New Testament Kyrios and Maranatha and Their Aramaic Background," in idem, To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies [New York: Crossroad,
1981] 228). For "maranatha" in general, cf. Hans Georg Kuhn, "papavafiu," TDNT 4 (1967) 471-72;
Gerhard Schneider, "papavada," EDNT2 (1991) S85; Hans Peter Riiger, "Aramaisch im Neuen
Testament," TRE 5 (1978) 607; Peterson, Elq fieoq, 130-31; Bornkamm, "Anathema," 164-76; Charles
F. D. Moule, "A Reconsideration of the Context of Maranatha," NTS 6 (1959/60) 307-10; Siegfried
Schulz, "Maranatha and Kyrios Jesus," ZNW 53 (1962) 125-44; William F. Albright and Christopher
S. Mann, "Two Texts in I Corinthians," NTS 16 (1969/70) 271-76; Sandvik, Kommen des Herrn,
10.6b the formula appears to be present especially to sharpen the call for repentance. Cf. Bornkamm,
"Anathema," 170.
99 See below, commentary on 15.1.
100 Richard P. C. Hanson has shown that in the 2d cen tury, and until the middle of the 3d, if not even longer, the bishops exercised freedom in formulat ing the anaphora (as long as they maintained the conventions prescribed) ("The Liberty of the Bishop to Improvise Prayer in the Eucharist," VC 15
[1961] 173-76).
13-18; Matthew Black, "The Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14, 15 (1 Enoch 1:9)," in Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour ofC.F. D. Moule
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 189-96; Fitzmyer, "New Testament Kyrios," 218-35;
Klauck, Herrenmahl, 358-63.
97 After recording the prayer that the Lord come (nxpeq'i <n>xenxc), the Coptic also offers what amounts to an interpretive gloss, rix[c] xqi ("the Lord has come"). This interpretation, equivalent to the Greek 6 Kvptoq f)\dev (likewise the Georgian)
101 For ennpe-Keiv tlvL with the infinitive, cf. BAGD, s.v.
10.1-7 word TrpcHprjTaL ("prophets") reveals 10.7 as an addition by the hand of the Didachist.
Coptic ixepl be tov Xoyov tov pvpov (?) ovioiq evyaptOTpoaTe A eyovreqEvxaproTovpev ool, irdrep, virep tov pvpov (?) Constitutions Tlepl be tov pvpov ov'roiq euxapLOTrjaaTeExcursus: The Addition in the Coptic Version
EvxapLOTovpev ool, dee bppLovpye mv oXcov, The Coptic text has a famous insertion at this point:102
"But (be) because of the word of the oil of anointing (? [ct]iiioyc|i: see immediately below) give thanks, say ing: 'We thank you, Father, for the oil of anointing
Kal virep Trjq evoibiaq tov pvpov105 Kal virep tov adavarov aiZhvoq (? ctih[oy]c|i) that you have made known through Jesus your Son (ujHpi; the Coptic has the same word ov eyvdpLoaq qpZv bid Iqoov tov iraLboq oov ool ry 5o£a also in 10.3 end; but at this point, as in 10.3, the Coptic word was certainly intended to reflect iraZq).
Thine is (the) glory forever. Amen (dprjp).'"103
Schmidt ("Koptische Didache-Fragment," 85 and 94) rendered ctiiioyc|i as pvpov, and translated cynpi as iraiq. Thus he arrived at the following reconstruction: irepl be tov Xoyou tov pvpov ovmq evxapiaTqaaTe ov eyvdpLoaq r/pZv bra 'Ipoov tov iraLboq oov, otl oov eoTLP t) bo^a Kal r) bvvaprq eiq Tovq aiZovaq' dprju. eiq Tovq aidvaqapqv.
It is immediately apparent that the Apostolic Constitutions on the whole, although not necessary in every detail, contains the later form of the myron prayer.106 The church order of Hippolytus also has, immediately after the eucharistic prayers, a prayer of blessing for the presentation of the oil (Hippolytus
AeyovreqEvxapLOTovpev ool, iraTep, virep tov pvpov ov eyvdpraaq ppZv bra 'Ipoov tov iraLboq oov ool r) a eiq Tovq aidvaq' appp ("Concerning the word of the myron, give thanks in the following way, saying,
'We give you thanks, Father, for the myron which you have made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever. Amen").104
Trad. Apost. 5 [SC 11.54]); cf. also the Oratio pro oleis ✓_ Amazingly enough there is a quite analogous prayer at the same position in Const. 7.27.1-2. A syn opsis of the two prayers looks this way:
102 Col. 1,11. 15 (end)-20 (beginning). The text is most readily found in Lefort, Peres apostoliques, CSCO
106 Bihlmeyer (Apostolischen Vater, 20) reconstructed the original wording of the prayer (which he considered the genuine text of the Didache) as follows: irepl be
135.32 (on this, see Gero, "Ointment Prayer," 68 n.
4). For the whole of what follows, cf.
Niederwimmer,. "Textprobleme," 119-21.
103 From the German translation by Schmidt, "Koptische Didache-Fragment," 85, 87 (with a single alteration). The notes in parentheses (except for be and dp-qp) are mine.
104 Nevertheless, Schmidt supposed that the text of the Greek source deviated in part: "Koptische DidacheFragment," 95. For the question of the linguistic placement of the text, see above, Introduction, §4a. tov pvpov ovTaq evyapLOTr/oaTe• EvxapcoTovpev ool, iraTep rjpdv (or dyce), virep tov pvpov, ov eyvdpLoaq ppZv bra 'Ipoov tov iraLboq oov ool r) bo%a eiq Tovq aidvaq' (aprjp). Peterson differs
("Probleme," 157): Ilepl be tov pvpov ovTaq evXapLOTpoare. Evyaplotovpep ool iraTep virep Tr\q evabiaq tov pvpov Kal virep tov adaparov aiupoq, ov eypdproaq r\pZp bra Ipoov tov iraLboq, otl oov eoTLP r\ bo^a Kal r) bvpapLq eiq Tovq aidpaq appp.
Wengst (Didache, 82) reconstructs the text as fol lows: irepl be tov pvpov ovrcoq evxapLOTijoaTe evXapLOTOvpep ool, iraTep, virep Tf\q evoibiaq tov pvpov, ov eypdproaq rjpip bra Irjoov tov iraLboq oov ool r) 6o|a eiq Tovq aidpaq• appp. Wengst con siders this text the original ("at least. . . possibly,"
Didache, 59).
I do not venture to decide whether, in Or. 9271, we have a copy of a Coptic source or an attempt at a translation from the Greek. See above, p. 25.
105 Cf. 7.44.2: ov Kal vvv tovto to pvpov boq evepyeq yeveodaL eirl tu (SaitTipopevut, wore fUepaiap Kal
7myiov ev aind tt)p evoibiav peZvaL tov XpioTov oov, Kal ovvairodavoPTa avTOP ovpapaoTrjpaL Kal ov^rjoat avToi ("Grant now that the myron be visible on the baptizand, so that the sweet aroma of Christ might remain firm and settled in him, and so that, having died with him he might arise and live with him"). The virep rfjq evoibiaq tov pvpov in Const.
7.27 may be original (in contrast to the Coptic). So also Wengst, Didache, 82.
traveled from there into Const. 7.27.115 The myron prayer in the Didache would thus be a subsequent interpolation116 in line with later liturgical usage.
Voobus117 has pointed to the striking Xeyoureq (elimi nated by the Apostolic Constitutions), which does not correspond to the linguistic usage of the Didache rubrics.118 Another indication is even more impor tant. While the prayers of the Didache give thanks for the gifts of salvation, that is, for spiritual food and drink, the myron prayer in the Coptic gives thanks for the myron itself.119 Observations like these suggest that the myron prayer represents nothing but an imita tion of the table prayers.120 In addition, the compiler of Constitutions attempted (by introducing the phrase et aquis oblatis after Communion in the Euchologion of Serapion 17 (Funk, Didascalia, 2.179-80).
It is not clear whether the myron prayer in Did. 10.7
(Coptic) is a prayer of blessing over the oil of the sick (for the oil of the sick, cf. Mark 6:13; Jas 5:14-15),107 or whether it is a blessing of the oil used at bap tism.108 For example, Bihlmeyer109 thought primarily of the oil used for anointing the sick,110 while
Peterson111 referred it to the "oil for the postbaptismal anointing."112 The myron prayer undoubtedly gives (at first glance) the impression of antiquity, and for that reason the passage is occasionally regarded as a genuine element of the Didache text113 that was then suppressed by H (or its source) for one reason or another.114 Const. 7.27 can then be adduced to demonstrate that at the time of the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, the Didache still had a myron prayer at this point. Of course, the argumentation can be reversed. Hippolytus's church order and the Euchologion of Serapion indicate the tendency to add a prayer over the oil of anointing to the eucharistic formula. Such a prayer could also have been interpo lated into the Didache text (at a later date) and have
Kal vtt6p tov ddaparov aiuvoq) to accommodate the text more fully to the table prayers.121
This picture would change if Stephen Gero's suppo sitions were correct.122 His starting point is the key word ctihoymi, which shapes this whole section.123
Schmidt (inspired by the parallel in Const. 7.27.1-2) interpreted CTiNoyqt as the rendering of myron,124 and that has remained the dominant interpretation.
The first doubts were raised by Lefort,125 according 107 Serapion Euchologion 17 is a prayer over the oil for the sick. Its relationship to the prayer over the oil in Hippolytus Apost. Trad. 5 is uncertain. According to the Latin version, this was the oil for the sick.
108 For the topic of anointing the sick and the anoint ing with oil before and after baptism, as well as bap tism with oil, cf. Dolger, Taufritual, 137ff. (on the prebaptismal anointing); Heinrich Schlier,
"aXeiipa," TDNT 1 (1964) 229-32; Voobus, Liturgical Tradition, 43-44.
109 Apostolischen Vater, xx.
110 As does Wengst, Didache, 58.
111 "Probleme," 162.
112 Voobus (Liturgical Traditions, 45-50) treats the con nection between evabLa — p,vpov and baptism.
Const. 7.22.2-3 suggests that baptism is in view.
Here a distinction is made between the eXouov aycov of the prebaptismal anointing and the pvpov of the postbaptismal anointing. Schlier ("dXe'upa,"
115 From this it would then follow that the Constitutor already had an interpolated Didache text before him.
See above, Introduction, §5.
116 Schmidt, "Koptische Didache-Fragment," 95; Klauser, Doctrina, 25; Audet, Didache, 67-70;
Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine 48; Niederwimmer, "Textprobleme," 119-21; in detail, Voobus,
Liturgical Traditions, 54-56.
117 Liturgical Traditions, 56.
118 Previously Schmidt ("Koptische Didache-Fragment,"
95) had drawn attention to this, and also pointed to the problematic rrepi be tov Aoyov tov pvpov. Both are signs of interpolation. "Therefore it is my opin ion that this prayer was inserted by someone later, when the Didache began to be used in the liturgies of the Egyptian church" (ibid.). Cf. also Audet,
Didache, 69.
119 Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 56-57.
120 Peterson's argument ("Probleme," 158) that "the pvpov prayer [is] closely aligned stylistically with the prayers in chapters 9 and 10" would thus be super fluous; the characteristic variants show that we are simply dealing with an imitation. See Audet,
Didache, 69; Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 57.
121 Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 57.
122 Gero, "Ointment Prayer," 67-70.
123 "It is obvious that the exegesis of this passage depends entirely on the interpretation one gives to the word stinoufi" (Gero, "Ointment Prayer," 68).
124 Schmidt, "Koptische Didache-Fragment," 85: p.vpov, oil of anointing. More cautiously Horner, "New
Papyrus Fragment," 227: "the holy chrism, the
TDNT 1 [1964] 231 n. 8) suggested that in Did. 10.7
(Coptic) there might be "evidence ... of the conflu ence of water baptism with baptism in oil, as in Act.
Thom." That is off the mark.
113 Bihlmeyer, Apostolischen Vater, xx; Peterson, "Probleme," 156-68; Kraft, Didache, 169; considered as a possibility by Wengst, Didache, 59, 82 (text).
114 Peterson ("Probleme," 158-68, at 162) has expressed an imaginative idea about this: that the use of oil at baptism was suppressed, both in chap. 7 and in chap. 10, for dogmatic reasons. He suggests that in the Bryennios text it "may have something to do with a Novatianist recension of the Didache."
10.1-7 to whom one should expect cosn, not CTmoyqi, as the word corresponding to pvpov.126 Lefort translated revealed by God to God's own people "through Jesus." This important statement would scarcely be ctiiioymi, as in the past, with "perfume."127 For Gero this meaning makes clear that the Coptic blessing prayer cannot be a myron prayer, and any question able reference to the sacrament of baptism is also excluded. But in that case what does ctinoyc|1 mean?
Gero's thesis is that "the text is a prayer over incense burned at the solemn communal meal described in Didache 9 and 10."128 Gero is compelled to combine this theory with a series of further hypotheses.
Ultimately what results for him is the following pic ture: the meal depicted in chaps. 9-10 is an archaic community meal at which a prayer of blessing was spoken over incense, which was then burned.129 The Didache prayer is thus a blessing of incense and a gen uine element of the Didache. The Egyptian redactor of the Apostolic Constitutions took the text in a different direction. He no longer understood this archaism130 and arbitrarily reinterpreted the text. Now, for the first time, the incense was replaced by the baptismal myrow.131 Gero suspects a similar lack of understand ing of the archaic usage behind the archetype of H and the Georgian that ultimately led to the passage being eliminated entirely.132 applicable to incense. In addition, Gero ignores the observations of Schmidt, Audet, and Voobus about the imitative language indicating the secondary char acter of the Coptic prayer.133 Finally, Gero (like all the advocates of the hypothesis of genuineness) has difficulty in explaining the omission of this passage in H (and the Georgian).
The result is that, in spite of Gero's ingenious pre sentation, it is still preferable to hold to the judgment that the Coptic prayer of blessing is secondary, and that it was probably a prayer over the oil of anointing.
The linguistic difficulty of the use of the word CTiNoyqi for pvpov must still be taken into account.134
The development would therefore have been as fol lows. (1) In the original Didache the entire passage was not present. (2) At a relatively early time (ca. 200 c.E. or earlier?)135 the text of the Didache experienced an interpolation at this point, the interpolation of a myron prayer imitating the archaic language of the preceding prayers in the Didache. (3) The compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions had the interpolated text before him; he incorporated this passage, but not without changing some details, as was his custom. (4)
The noninterpolated text continued its independent existence and constituted the basis for the archetype of H and the Georgian.
Unfortunately this stimulating hypothesis is ham pered by certain difficulties. To begin with, it is clear that CTiNOYqi is certainly regarded as a saving gift
/_ 127 Peres apostoliques, CSCO 136.26 1. 6. Gero, "Ointment Prayer," 69 n. 12: "Stinoufi can be ana lyzed as sti, 'smell,' plus noufi, 'good.'" Thus the direct Greek equivalent would be e*'tablet.
128 Gero, "Ointment Prayer," 70.
129 Gero, "Ointment Prayer," 82-84.
130 An interpretation in terms of the eucharistic incens ing is excluded because that custom is postConstantinian. For a full discussion see Gero,
"Ointment Prayer," 74-80.
131 Gero, "Ointment Prayer," 81, 84.
132 Gero, "Ointment Prayer," 84.
133 See above, pp. 165-66.
134 This difficulty may possibly be resolved by noting that in the Greek text the interpolation in fact alter nated pvpov with evudia (as we now read in the text of the Apostolic Constitutions). Cf. Schmidt,
"Koptische Didache-Fragment," 95: "I suspect that the Greek Vorlage, like the Apostolic Constitutions, read virep Tfjq evwdiac; tov pvpov, because the Coptic has the same word for evadia and pvpov."
Cf. also the text in Wengst, Didache, 82.
135 On this, see Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 58. aroma or sweet-smelling pvpov" (with reference to Const. 7.27).
125 Peres apostoliques, CSCO 136.26 n. 13. In line with Lefort's reservations, Adam ("Herkunft," 31-35) developed a hypothesis of his own, based on the idea of a Syriac source, and supposing Syriac or rfAui-j as the basis for CTiNOYqi (with the mean ing "refreshment," here specifically the agape cele bration). According to this, the word simply refers to the preceding agape meal, and the prayer trans mitted by the Coptic is nothing but the "concluding prayer, expressing thanks for the whole celebration in the simplest words" (p. 33). See the critique of this position in Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 44-45; and Gero, "Ointment Prayer," 72 n. 29.
126 Gero ("Ointment Prayer," 69 n. 10) referred correct ly to Luke 23:56 (Sahidic)—although there pvpov is represented by ctoi, as noted already by Lefort,
Peres apostoliques, CSCO 136.26 n. 13—and Ezek 27:17 (Bohairic), where CTiNoyqi represents pvpov.
Walter E. Crum (Coptic Dictionary [Oxford:
Clarendon, 1962] 363A) includes both these ex amples (as well as a reference to the Didache pas sage), although placing them under the rubric
"fragrant substance, incense"; and Gero writes: "But Lefort is clearly correct in saying that a Coptic translator normally would not have chosen stinoufi to render myron" (ibid.).