Friday Scholarly Notes
10/4/24
Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "II: The Liturgy.(7.1-10.7)" In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (125-167). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).
Niederwimmer sees the Didache to engage in a completely different kind of task in 7.1-10.7 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). The pre-baptismal catechesis is over. Now there is what we could consider an "agenda." "In it the Didachist apparently makes use of liturgical traditions and probably had a fixed, written set of instructions as his source. To the old tradition (i.e., the source) he adds passages from his own pen" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). Niederwimmer divides this material into a section on baptism (ch. 7), and one on the Eucharist (9-10), with instructions about fasting and prayer inserted as an excursus tied to baptism.
Nitederwimmer takes the transitional statement "having said all this beforehand" in 7.1, as well as the concessions about the method of baptism to be the work of a redactor, not the original source material used by the Didachist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). The introduction, "but about baptism, baptize this way" is likely from the source used by the Didachist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 126). Niederwimmer considers it uncertain whether there was a recitation of Didache ch. 1-6 before a baptism, even while he considers it certain that additional instruction took place before baptism. There is a three-part ritual formula in Didache 7, which is identical in nature to that in Matthew 28:19 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 126). He considers this agreement to be best explained by both authors depending on the same liturgy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 127). The water is expected to be "flowing, fresh spring water," which Niederwimmer notes as the normal water used in Jewish purification ceremonies. Though "living water" is the norm, Niederwimmer takes the redactor to have relaxed the standard, allowing other types of water in verse two. The threefold pouring of water on the head is acceptable if other water is not available. Niederwimmer comments that the beginning of the process is trinitarian in nature, as is the end.
Niederwimmer notes that there were Jewish classifications of water for ceremonial worship. Though "the effect of baptism is unquestioned" it was still preferable to have the pure running water if possible (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 128-129).
Didache 7.4 speaks of fasting before baptism. Niederwimmer takes this to come from the liturgical source the Didachist used. Again, fasting is a common practice in Jewish and early Christian tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 129). The command to have others join in the fast was possibly more rigorous and declined early. Niederwimmer bases his opinion on this matter on the fact that a community fast is not absolutely required (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 130).
Didache 8.1 digresses slightly from the pre-baptismal fast to identifying appropriate days for routine practices of fasting. no motive is given for the fast. However, the Christian practice is to differ in some substantive way from the Jewish practices (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 131). Niederwimmer considers the reference to "the hypocrites" as encapsulating all Jews, not just one class, such as Pharisees. This statement does signal that the Christian and Jewish communities are in closer proximity, but are distancing themselves from one another at the time (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 132). The Jewish community may well have had prescribed fast days. The Christians did not have them prescribed, but were urged to make a difference in their fasting (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 132-133).
Didache 8.2-3 draws us into prayer. Again, Niederwimmer observes the prayer customs of the Christians should differ from those of the Jews (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 134). The reference to praying as the Lord commanded in his gospel strikes Niederwimmer as being a clumsy insertion into the pre-existing liturgical tradition. This "gospel" may have been an oral or a written tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 135). The prayer is almost identical to that used in Matthew. Niederwimmer doubts literary dependence on Matthew, preferring instead a common liturgical tradition. Niederwimmer details the difference between the prayer in the Didache and in Matthew 6 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 136). He also observes that "Adolf Schlatter and Joachim Jeremias have instructed us. . . that the our Father was one of the prayers 'with the "seal," i.e., with a freely formulated conclusion'" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 136). Over a period of time a fixed form of a doxology could become permanently attached to a prayer. The doxology which attached itself to Matthew is distinct from the one in the Didache. While the Matthean prayer gained "kingdom, power, and glory" the Didache has simply "power and glory" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 137). The doxology on the prayer in the Didache (8.2) occurs again at 10.5, and with a slight variation at 9.4 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 138). The prayer is to be used three times daily (8.3) but the specific times of the day are apparently not yet set. At least they are not mentioned in the Didache.
The eucharistic segment of the Didache goes from 9.1-10.7. Niederwimmer notes this is "the oldest formula for the Christian eucharistic liturgy" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 139). The passage has been studied extensively. There is no clear description of the liturgical elements. However, we have prayers, acclamations, and rubrics. Chapters 9 and 10 have strong parallels to each other, as Niederwimmer illustrates by setting the material in parallel columns. The prayers throughout this section follow the model of Jewish prayers (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 140).
Niederwimmer observes that the reader expects the eucharist as presented to be the Lord's Supper essentially as it might be practiced today. However, the elements are in the opposite order than normal modern practice would expect. Further, there is no institution narrative. The prayers also contain little, if any, reference to the passion of Christ. Finally, it appears this may be a full meal (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 140). Niederwimmer catalogs proponents of three possible positions: a eucharistic celebration introducing an agape meal, an agape meal with its prayers, or two versions of a eucharist (one with a special circumstance of baptism, one representing a regular Sunday observance) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 141). Another suggestion is that the prayers for the community meal may be followed by a eucharist, or that the eucharist and agape meal had not been distinguished from one another (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 142). Niederwimmer attempts to resolve the difficulty by starting with a view of Didache 10.6 as a text to precede the "sacramental Communion" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 142). This would require that the eating introduced in 10.1 is a community meal, resolving the difference in the order of the elements. If this is the case, the blessing in 9.2-4 can be seen in the same way as that in 10.1 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). Niederwimmer's view requires his argument that εὐχαριστία in 9.1 is not yet used as a term for the sacrament but can be applied to other acts of giving thanks (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). The omission of the institution narrative has been explained in two ways, which Niederwimmer finds unsatisfying. Either it was entirely well known or it may have been retained unwritten to guard secrecy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). Niederwimmer does not suggest an alternative. Rather, he goes on to specific comments on the content.
Didache 9.1, like 7.1, is an introductory rubric. Here it signals a move to speak about εὐχαριστία (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 144). Niederwimmer does not take it to refer to the Lord's Supper, as mentioned above. In verse two, Niederwimmer notes the Jewish custom of a meal starting with a cup, over which each participant states a blessing. The structure of the blessing is parallel to common Jewish meal prayers (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 145). Niederwimmer takes the admittedly cryptic giving of thanks for "the holy vine of David" as a metaphor for salvation, revealed through Jesus (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 146). The term παῖς, applied to both David and Jesus in this passage, is routinely interpreted as "servant" rather than "child." Niederwimmer contends (though without proofs in this instance) that the term would not have been interpreted as "child" by this time, but took on the significance later (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 147). The doxology, at the end of 9.2, could well be a response of the community (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 148).
The reference to bread in Didache 9.3 often draws comment due to its unusual wording. The use of the word κλάσμα rather than ἄρτος is curious. Niederwimmer takes it to be the broken bread, as opposed to a whole loaf (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 148). This may signal a later stage of redaction, as well as possibly indicating an Egyptian emendation, as the word was more common in Egyptian eucharistic usage. The structure of the prayer is parallel to that used earlier over the wine. Niederwimmer considers the reference to "life" and "knowledge" to be forceful, indicating a fullness of life and knowledge (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 149). In Didache 9.4 a second prayer follows, desiring an eschatological unity of Christians, as the bread is a unity of many grains. Niederwimmer again emphasizes that the evidence in the Didache represents the oldest known example of liturgy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 150).
Niederwimmer engages the actual text of the prayers in a brief excursus. The eschatological hope is a well established Old Testament concept The structure of the prayers also follows a well established pattern for Jewish prayers. Yet the language used is clearly reflective of a Christian confession, that not only the people of God's covenant with Israel, but the entire Church will be gathered together in the last day (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 151). An appropriate liturgical response to such a prayer is found in the doxology ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 152).
Niederwimmer sees Didache 9.5 as a rubrical comment. Those who have not been baptized are not partakers of the meal (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 152). Again, it is not clear to Niederwimmer whether this refers to the entire meal or to simply the particular foods, and whether this meal is considered a sacramental Lord's Supper. He considers the meal in chapter ten to be more clearly a sacramental Lord's supper, and that the rubric here separates the unbaptized from the sacrament (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 153). The prohibition, predicated on a saying of the Lord, uses the exact words of Matthew 7:6, however, in a vastly different context from Matthew's use of the statement. Niederwimmer considers that this usage does not reflect use of Matthew's Gospel, but from some other collection of Jesus' statements due to the very different context (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 153).
While Niederwimmer considers the material just discussed to contain significant redaction of an original source on the part of the Didachist, at 10.1 he considers the Didachist to have returned to his original source (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 155). The meal in question has been eaten. Now that everyone's hunger has been satisfied, a prayer of thanksgiving follows. Niederwimmer observes that "the prayer consists of three benedictions…, each introduced by an address…, and concluded by a doxology" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 155). The prayer follows the pattern of the Jewish Birkat Ha-Mazon. However, the parts do not correspond with each other. The first part has no parallel in content, while the second part of the Didache prayer shows similarity in content to the first Jewish benediction, and the third part of the Didache prayer resembles the third Jewish benediction (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 156). Niederwimmer notes the element of praise to God who dwells in his people's hearts with his name. In 9.3 God gave gifts of life and knowledge, but here he gives knowledge, faith, and immortality (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 157). He is addressed as the creator of all, and the one who acts in a gracious manner. The giving of "spiritual food (and) drink" is understood by Niederwimmer to look forward to the sacramental meal, which follows the more substantial and filling meal which has been eaten together before the prayer (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 158). Didache 10.5 bears some similarity in content to the third benediction in the post-meal prayers of Jewish tradition. God is present among his people. Rather than recognizing him in Jerusalem and the people of Zion, the prayer in the Didache asks God to remember his church and bring them into his kingdom, a clearly Christian understanding of restoration (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 159). Again there is a doxology, which Niederwimmer sees as the likely congregational response (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 161).
Niederwimmer finds Didache 10.6 to present difficulties in interpretation. The verse moves from the prayer which precedes it to a ritual acclamation. It presents a number of short and not strongly connected sentences (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 161). The material shows a strong eschatological orientation, and cries out to God in praise. This is more fitting for the introduction of a sacramental meal than for the conclusion of a meal. Niederwimmer, then takes the passage as a dialogue introducing the sacramental eucharist, which follows after chapter 10. The dialogue both invites the Lord's presence and those who are holy to come, but prohibits those who are not holy, calling them to repentance (Niederwimmer 1998, pp. 162-163).
Didache 10.7 appears to Niederwimmer as a rubric, guiding the community in their reception of prophets, who will act in different ways from the local elders (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 164). The prophets may pray freely in the eucharistic setting. This may apply to their choice to use or not use the earlier specified liturgical prayers, or it may be understood as permission to add prayers to those already used in the liturgy.
Niederwimmer next considers the brief insertion found in the Coptic version of the Didache. He provides a Greek version of the Coptic text at this point, along with a parallel Greek text of Apostolic Constitutions' corresponding passage (7.27.1-2) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 165). The prayer is a blessing on myron, which is often assumed to be special scented oil. This is variously considered something used in baptism or in anointing of the sick (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 166).
10/4/24
Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "II: The Liturgy.(7.1-10.7)" In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (125-167). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).
Niederwimmer sees the Didache to engage in a completely different kind of task in 7.1-10.7 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). The pre-baptismal catechesis is over. Now there is what we could consider an "agenda." "In it the Didachist apparently makes use of liturgical traditions and probably had a fixed, written set of instructions as his source. To the old tradition (i.e., the source) he adds passages from his own pen" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). Niederwimmer divides this material into a section on baptism (ch. 7), and one on the Eucharist (9-10), with instructions about fasting and prayer inserted as an excursus tied to baptism.
Nitederwimmer takes the transitional statement "having said all this beforehand" in 7.1, as well as the concessions about the method of baptism to be the work of a redactor, not the original source material used by the Didachist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). The introduction, "but about baptism, baptize this way" is likely from the source used by the Didachist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 126). Niederwimmer considers it uncertain whether there was a recitation of Didache ch. 1-6 before a baptism, even while he considers it certain that additional instruction took place before baptism. There is a three-part ritual formula in Didache 7, which is identical in nature to that in Matthew 28:19 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 126). He considers this agreement to be best explained by both authors depending on the same liturgy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 127). The water is expected to be "flowing, fresh spring water," which Niederwimmer notes as the normal water used in Jewish purification ceremonies. Though "living water" is the norm, Niederwimmer takes the redactor to have relaxed the standard, allowing other types of water in verse two. The threefold pouring of water on the head is acceptable if other water is not available. Niederwimmer comments that the beginning of the process is trinitarian in nature, as is the end.
Niederwimmer notes that there were Jewish classifications of water for ceremonial worship. Though "the effect of baptism is unquestioned" it was still preferable to have the pure running water if possible (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 128-129).
Didache 7.4 speaks of fasting before baptism. Niederwimmer takes this to come from the liturgical source the Didachist used. Again, fasting is a common practice in Jewish and early Christian tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 129). The command to have others join in the fast was possibly more rigorous and declined early. Niederwimmer bases his opinion on this matter on the fact that a community fast is not absolutely required (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 130).
Didache 8.1 digresses slightly from the pre-baptismal fast to identifying appropriate days for routine practices of fasting. no motive is given for the fast. However, the Christian practice is to differ in some substantive way from the Jewish practices (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 131). Niederwimmer considers the reference to "the hypocrites" as encapsulating all Jews, not just one class, such as Pharisees. This statement does signal that the Christian and Jewish communities are in closer proximity, but are distancing themselves from one another at the time (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 132). The Jewish community may well have had prescribed fast days. The Christians did not have them prescribed, but were urged to make a difference in their fasting (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 132-133).
Didache 8.2-3 draws us into prayer. Again, Niederwimmer observes the prayer customs of the Christians should differ from those of the Jews (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 134). The reference to praying as the Lord commanded in his gospel strikes Niederwimmer as being a clumsy insertion into the pre-existing liturgical tradition. This "gospel" may have been an oral or a written tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 135). The prayer is almost identical to that used in Matthew. Niederwimmer doubts literary dependence on Matthew, preferring instead a common liturgical tradition. Niederwimmer details the difference between the prayer in the Didache and in Matthew 6 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 136). He also observes that "Adolf Schlatter and Joachim Jeremias have instructed us. . . that the our Father was one of the prayers 'with the "seal," i.e., with a freely formulated conclusion'" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 136). Over a period of time a fixed form of a doxology could become permanently attached to a prayer. The doxology which attached itself to Matthew is distinct from the one in the Didache. While the Matthean prayer gained "kingdom, power, and glory" the Didache has simply "power and glory" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 137). The doxology on the prayer in the Didache (8.2) occurs again at 10.5, and with a slight variation at 9.4 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 138). The prayer is to be used three times daily (8.3) but the specific times of the day are apparently not yet set. At least they are not mentioned in the Didache.
The eucharistic segment of the Didache goes from 9.1-10.7. Niederwimmer notes this is "the oldest formula for the Christian eucharistic liturgy" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 139). The passage has been studied extensively. There is no clear description of the liturgical elements. However, we have prayers, acclamations, and rubrics. Chapters 9 and 10 have strong parallels to each other, as Niederwimmer illustrates by setting the material in parallel columns. The prayers throughout this section follow the model of Jewish prayers (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 140).
Niederwimmer observes that the reader expects the eucharist as presented to be the Lord's Supper essentially as it might be practiced today. However, the elements are in the opposite order than normal modern practice would expect. Further, there is no institution narrative. The prayers also contain little, if any, reference to the passion of Christ. Finally, it appears this may be a full meal (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 140). Niederwimmer catalogs proponents of three possible positions: a eucharistic celebration introducing an agape meal, an agape meal with its prayers, or two versions of a eucharist (one with a special circumstance of baptism, one representing a regular Sunday observance) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 141). Another suggestion is that the prayers for the community meal may be followed by a eucharist, or that the eucharist and agape meal had not been distinguished from one another (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 142). Niederwimmer attempts to resolve the difficulty by starting with a view of Didache 10.6 as a text to precede the "sacramental Communion" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 142). This would require that the eating introduced in 10.1 is a community meal, resolving the difference in the order of the elements. If this is the case, the blessing in 9.2-4 can be seen in the same way as that in 10.1 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). Niederwimmer's view requires his argument that εὐχαριστία in 9.1 is not yet used as a term for the sacrament but can be applied to other acts of giving thanks (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). The omission of the institution narrative has been explained in two ways, which Niederwimmer finds unsatisfying. Either it was entirely well known or it may have been retained unwritten to guard secrecy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). Niederwimmer does not suggest an alternative. Rather, he goes on to specific comments on the content.
Didache 9.1, like 7.1, is an introductory rubric. Here it signals a move to speak about εὐχαριστία (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 144). Niederwimmer does not take it to refer to the Lord's Supper, as mentioned above. In verse two, Niederwimmer notes the Jewish custom of a meal starting with a cup, over which each participant states a blessing. The structure of the blessing is parallel to common Jewish meal prayers (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 145). Niederwimmer takes the admittedly cryptic giving of thanks for "the holy vine of David" as a metaphor for salvation, revealed through Jesus (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 146). The term παῖς, applied to both David and Jesus in this passage, is routinely interpreted as "servant" rather than "child." Niederwimmer contends (though without proofs in this instance) that the term would not have been interpreted as "child" by this time, but took on the significance later (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 147). The doxology, at the end of 9.2, could well be a response of the community (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 148).
The reference to bread in Didache 9.3 often draws comment due to its unusual wording. The use of the word κλάσμα rather than ἄρτος is curious. Niederwimmer takes it to be the broken bread, as opposed to a whole loaf (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 148). This may signal a later stage of redaction, as well as possibly indicating an Egyptian emendation, as the word was more common in Egyptian eucharistic usage. The structure of the prayer is parallel to that used earlier over the wine. Niederwimmer considers the reference to "life" and "knowledge" to be forceful, indicating a fullness of life and knowledge (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 149). In Didache 9.4 a second prayer follows, desiring an eschatological unity of Christians, as the bread is a unity of many grains. Niederwimmer again emphasizes that the evidence in the Didache represents the oldest known example of liturgy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 150).
Niederwimmer engages the actual text of the prayers in a brief excursus. The eschatological hope is a well established Old Testament concept The structure of the prayers also follows a well established pattern for Jewish prayers. Yet the language used is clearly reflective of a Christian confession, that not only the people of God's covenant with Israel, but the entire Church will be gathered together in the last day (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 151). An appropriate liturgical response to such a prayer is found in the doxology ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 152).
Niederwimmer sees Didache 9.5 as a rubrical comment. Those who have not been baptized are not partakers of the meal (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 152). Again, it is not clear to Niederwimmer whether this refers to the entire meal or to simply the particular foods, and whether this meal is considered a sacramental Lord's Supper. He considers the meal in chapter ten to be more clearly a sacramental Lord's supper, and that the rubric here separates the unbaptized from the sacrament (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 153). The prohibition, predicated on a saying of the Lord, uses the exact words of Matthew 7:6, however, in a vastly different context from Matthew's use of the statement. Niederwimmer considers that this usage does not reflect use of Matthew's Gospel, but from some other collection of Jesus' statements due to the very different context (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 153).
While Niederwimmer considers the material just discussed to contain significant redaction of an original source on the part of the Didachist, at 10.1 he considers the Didachist to have returned to his original source (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 155). The meal in question has been eaten. Now that everyone's hunger has been satisfied, a prayer of thanksgiving follows. Niederwimmer observes that "the prayer consists of three benedictions…, each introduced by an address…, and concluded by a doxology" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 155). The prayer follows the pattern of the Jewish Birkat Ha-Mazon. However, the parts do not correspond with each other. The first part has no parallel in content, while the second part of the Didache prayer shows similarity in content to the first Jewish benediction, and the third part of the Didache prayer resembles the third Jewish benediction (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 156). Niederwimmer notes the element of praise to God who dwells in his people's hearts with his name. In 9.3 God gave gifts of life and knowledge, but here he gives knowledge, faith, and immortality (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 157). He is addressed as the creator of all, and the one who acts in a gracious manner. The giving of "spiritual food (and) drink" is understood by Niederwimmer to look forward to the sacramental meal, which follows the more substantial and filling meal which has been eaten together before the prayer (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 158). Didache 10.5 bears some similarity in content to the third benediction in the post-meal prayers of Jewish tradition. God is present among his people. Rather than recognizing him in Jerusalem and the people of Zion, the prayer in the Didache asks God to remember his church and bring them into his kingdom, a clearly Christian understanding of restoration (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 159). Again there is a doxology, which Niederwimmer sees as the likely congregational response (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 161).
Niederwimmer finds Didache 10.6 to present difficulties in interpretation. The verse moves from the prayer which precedes it to a ritual acclamation. It presents a number of short and not strongly connected sentences (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 161). The material shows a strong eschatological orientation, and cries out to God in praise. This is more fitting for the introduction of a sacramental meal than for the conclusion of a meal. Niederwimmer, then takes the passage as a dialogue introducing the sacramental eucharist, which follows after chapter 10. The dialogue both invites the Lord's presence and those who are holy to come, but prohibits those who are not holy, calling them to repentance (Niederwimmer 1998, pp. 162-163).
Didache 10.7 appears to Niederwimmer as a rubric, guiding the community in their reception of prophets, who will act in different ways from the local elders (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 164). The prophets may pray freely in the eucharistic setting. This may apply to their choice to use or not use the earlier specified liturgical prayers, or it may be understood as permission to add prayers to those already used in the liturgy.
Niederwimmer next considers the brief insertion found in the Coptic version of the Didache. He provides a Greek version of the Coptic text at this point, along with a parallel Greek text of Apostolic Constitutions' corresponding passage (7.27.1-2) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 165). The prayer is a blessing on myron, which is often assumed to be special scented oil. This is variously considered something used in baptism or in anointing of the sick (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 166).
RSS Feed