Anders Ekenberg

THE PRAYERS
IN THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTI ONS 7.25–26 *

The Apostolic Constitutions (CA, Constitutiones Apostolorum) are one of the most extensive
“church orders” from early Christianity.1 The document was composed, on the basis of earlier texts
of similar kinds, in a non-Nicene environment in Antioch in the years immediately preceding the
council of Constantinople in 381. The same author or redactor who composed it has also left us a
commentary on the book of Job from c. 360 and the famous longer (interpolated) version of the
letters of Ignatius.2
Three sections in the Apostolic Constitutions deal with the Eucharist: a brief passage in book 2
giving a survey over the order of the celebration, based on material from the church order
Didascalia Apostolorum from the early third century (2.57); the passage to be discussed here (7.25–
26), containing a modified version of Didache chapters 9–10; and finally the ample and often
treated eucharistic liturgy in book 8 (8.5–15), in earlier research frequently called the “Clementine
Liturgy”.3 (The Apostolic Constitutions as a whole are based on the fiction that it is Clement who,

* Revised and enlarged version of a paper presented at the 16th International Conference of Patristic Studies, Oxford,
8–12 August 2011.
1
The issue of genre when it comes to this category of texts cannot be discussed here. Cf. for differing views on this
matter esp. G. Schöllgen, “Die Didache als Kirchenordnung”, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 29 (1986),
1–26; id., “Die literarische Gattung der syrischen Didaskalie”, in IV Symposium Syriacum 1984: Literary Genres in
Syriac Literature: Groningen–Oosterhesselen 10–12 September. Ed. H. J. W. Drijvers (Orientalia Christiana
Analecta, 229; Roma: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987), 149–159; B. Steimer, Vertex
traditionis: Die Gattung der altchristlichen Kirchenordnungen (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 63; Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 1992); G. Schöllgen, “Der
Abfassungszweck der frühchristlichen Kirchenordnungen: Anmerkungen zu den Thesen Bruno Steimers”,
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 40 (1997), 55–77; J. G. Mueller, “The Ancient Church Order Literature:
Genre or Tradition?”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 15 (2007), 337–380. I consider the notion “church order”
relatively reasonable, but there is need for clarification of it, taking recent discussions on literary genre (in literary
theory) into account. On the ancient church orders in general, see esp. the convenient survey in P. F. Bradshaw, The
Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy. 2nd ed. (London:
SPCK, 2002), 73–97. – The edition of the Apostolic Constitutions used in this essay is Les Constitutions
apostoliques. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par M. Metzger (3 vols.; Sources chrétiennes, 320,
329, 336; Paris: Cerf, 1985–1987).
2
For introductory information on the Apostolic Constitutions and the other works by the same author, see esp.
Metzger, Constitutions, 1, 13–62, and D. Hagedorn, Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian (Patristische Texte
und Studien, 14; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), esp. xxxiv–lxvii. Whether the Constitutions were composed by a single
individual or rather, as Metzger proposes, by a team in an “atélier”, is a question which can be left open here
(though I tend to think, like Hagedorn, of an individual). In order to simplify things I will speak of “the author” or
“the redactor”.
3
Recent literature on the eucharistic prayer in book 8 includes, e.g., L. Bouyer, Eucharistie: Théologie et spiritualité
de la prière eucharistique (Tournai: Desclée, 1966), 239–272; M. Metzger, “Les deux prières eucharistiques dans
les Constitutions apostoliques”, Revue des sciences religieuses 45 (1971), 52–77; W. H. Bates, “The Composition
of the Anaphora of Apostolic Constitutions VIII”, Studia Patristica 13 (1975), 343–355; R. Graves, “The Anaphora

1
on behalf of the Apostles, delivers the prescriptions contained in the writing.) The anaphora in 8.12
uses material from the Apostolic Tradition chapter 4 but is incomparably longer than that text and
also contains many structural elements which can be recognised from eucharistic prayers of the so-
called Antiochene or West-Syrian type from the fourth centuries and later. The redactor has
invested enormously in the formulation of this prayer, which gives expression to most of the
specific theological perspectives that characterise the Apostolic Constitutions in its entirety.4
The seventh book as a whole is based on different sources: chapters 1–32 on the Didache,
chapters 33–38 on a collection of prayers similar to Jewish synagogue prayers, and chapters 39–49
possibly on an already existing collection of other liturgical texts. The prayers in 7.25–26 are
markedly different from the eucharistic prayer and prayer after communion in book 8 as well as
other prayers found in the same book. There are, however, a large number of both thematic and
linguistic similarities between the prayers in book 7 and book 8, respectively. Unlike the anaphora
in book 8, the passage 7.25–26 has not been studied very much, but it has been given some attention
during the last decades.5
The problem on which this article is focused is the question in how far the prayers found in
7.25–26 represent a reworking of Didache made by the author or redactor of the Constitutions
himself, and in how far they may perhaps stem from a still earlier reworking. This question has a
certain bearing on how to write the early history of Christian eucharistic praying in general. The
idea that 7.25–26 mirror earlier tradition has been argued by, e.g., Enrico Mazza, who, without
excluding that the text contains some redactional material, calls CA 7.25 a “palaeoanaphora”, i.e. an
ancient eucharistic prayer indeed.6 The opinion that the reworking was made by the author of the
Constitutions himself has, on the other hand, been defended by Robert Cabié, but without a detailed

of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions”, in Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistic Prayers. Ed. by P. F.
Bradshaw (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 173–194.
4
Metzger, Constitutions, 3, 179 (footnote): “Cette longue anaphore constitue, à tous points de vue, la pièce la plus
importante de la compilation.”
5
See esp. M. Metzger, “Les deux prières eucharistiques”; E. Mazza, “La ‘gratiarum actio mystica’ del libro VII delle
Constituzioni Apostoliche: Una tappa nella storia della anafora eucaristica”, Ephemerides liturgicae 93 (1979),
123–137; A. Verheul, “Les prières eucharistiques dans les ‘Constitutiones Apostolorum’ ”, Questions liturgiques
61 (1980), 129–143; G. Rouwhorst, “Bénédiction, action de grâces, supplication: Les oraisons de table dans le
judaïsme et les célébrations eucharistiques des chrétiens syriaques”, Questions liturgiques 61 (1980), 211–240; R.
Cabié, “Les prières eucharistiques des Constitutions apostoliques sont-elles des témoins de la liturgie du IVe
siècle?”, Bulletin de littérature écclésiastique 84 (1983), 83–99; E. Mazza, The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer
(ET Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995), esp. 42–61; J. Schwiebert, Knowledge and the Coming
Kingdom: The Didache’s Meal Ritual and Its Place in Early Christianity (Library of New Testament Studies;
London & New York: T.&T. Clark, 2008), 243–247.
6
Mazza, Origins, 42–61.

2
comparative analysis of the text and its language with other relevant texts.7 Such an analysis is
contained in the present article.

The structure of the passage

The passage starts with an introductory general exhortation to giving thanks (25.1a). After this
exhortation comes a first main section introduced by a kind of rubric over the following (25.1b,
μέν), followed by a three-part prayer over the eucharistic gifts (25.2–4) comprising a thanksgiving,
a petition and a second thanksgiving; this is in turn followed by prescriptions regarding the
partaking of the eucharistic gifts (25.5–7). After that comes a second main section, which starts with
a brief introduction (26.1, δέ), followed by a two-part prayer after communion (26.2–4) comprising
a thanksgiving and a petition; some liturgical acclamations and supplementary prescriptions (26.5–
7) conclude this section.

The adaptation of Didache 9–10

The material from the Didache has been rather heavily reworked, as can be seen from the synopsis
in the Appendix to this article.
1. The prayers, acclamations and prescriptions contained in the passage are preceded by a
general admonition to give thanks to God: γίνεσθε δὲ πάντοτε εὐχαριστοί, ὡς πιστοὶ καὶ
εὐγνώμονες δοῦλοι (25.1a). It is clearly influenced by New Testament passages (cf. in particular
1 Thess 5:20; Col 3:17; Matt 24:45) but is not an exact New Testament quotation.
2. The subtitle περὶ τῆς εὐχαριστίας κ.τ.λ. in Did. 9.2a has been left out (and the remainder of
9.2b has not been taken up here; though cf. below on 7.25.4), as has also the subtitle at the
beginning of Did. 9.3. The background to these modifications is obviously that the Apostolic
Constitutions 7.25–26 do not any more, as Did. 9–10 do, presuppose an order of the eucharistic
celebration consisting of introductory thanksgiving over the cup + thanksgiving over the bread +
satisfying meal + thanksgiving,8 but a liturgy consisting of thanksgiving prayer + communion +

7
Cabié, op. cit.
8
Despite, e.g., K. Niederwimmer, Die Didache (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern, 1; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 176–180, the discussion in earlier literature on which kind of meal is referred to
in Did. 9–10 may be regarded as concluded: Did. 9–10 treats the Eucharist, celebrated in the form of a satisfying
meal. The Eucharist treated in chs. 9–10 is, more precisely, a baptismal Eucharist; chapters 7–10 survey the
different stages of Christian initiation, culminating in the eucharistic meal. See, e.g., H. Feld, Das Verständnis des
Abendmahls (Erträge der Forschung, 50; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976), 78 f.; M.
Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern (Texte
und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 13; Tübingen & Basel: Francke, 1996), 373–492; J. Draper, “Ritual
Process and Ritual Symbol in Didache 7–10”, Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000), 121–158; P. F. Bradshaw,
Eucharistic Origins (Alcuin Club Collections, 80; London: SPCK, 2004), 24–42; H.-U. Weidemann, “Taufe und
Taufeucharistie: Die postbaptismale Mahlgemeinschaft in Quellen des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts”, in Ablution,

3
thanksgiving after the communion, i.e. that pattern of the celebration of the Eucharist which would
come to be the normal one, particularly after (and perhaps because) one started to celebrate the
Eucharist in the morning.9
3. Several doxologies in Did. 9–10, corresponding to Jewish chatimōt, have been left out: Did.
9.3 and 10.4 σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, and 10.5 ὃτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς
αἰῶνας. Likewise, 10.4 περὶ πάντων εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι ὅτι δυνατὸς εἶ has been deleted. These
modifications have undoubtedly been caused by a general change of the shape of prayers at the
Eucharist: one does not any longer say different thanksgiving prayers at different occasions during
the meal but instead more coherent prayers, both before and after the reception of the gifts. It
should, however, be observed that CA 7.25.2–4 unlike most other early anaphoras known to us is
not formed according to the general pattern thanksgiving–petition but has a very particular shape:
thanksgiving–petition–thanksgiving.
4. The thanksgiving for the work of Christ, 7.25.2, has been made more detailed than in the
Didache thanks to the addition δι᾽ οὗ […] τὴν ἀνάστασιν τῶν νεκρῶν. The addition is remarkably
tight, from a linguistic point of view, by containing an introductory clause (on Christ as the medium
for creation) introduced by δι᾽ οὗ, three clauses (on the incarnation, the death and the
resurrection/elevation) introduced by ὅν, and a concluding clause (on the resurrection promise) once
again introduced by δι᾽ οὗ. The formulation of these added clauses strikingly reminds of
formulations used in early Christian creeds.10
5. The prayer for unity in the coming Kingdom, 7.25.3, has been enlarged through an
introductory phrase, σὺ δέσποτα παντοκράτορ, θεὲ αἰώνιε, whose first member is taken over from

Initiation and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Ed. by D. Hellholm, T. Vegge,
Ø. Norderval & C. Hellholm (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft [etc.] 176:2; Berlin &
New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 2, 1492–1499 (1483–1530). Did. 14, on the other hand, treats the regular eucharistic
meal on Sundays. The discussion on the nature of the meal supposed in chs. 9–10 was for a long time confused
because of the assumption a priori that a “real” Eucharist in early Christianity must includ the recitation of the
“words of institution”, i.e. an express reference to the institution of the Eucharist and the words of Jesus at that
occasion. We now know that this assumption was wrong. See, e.g., R. E. Taft, “Mass Without the Consecration?
The Historic Agreement on the Eucharist between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East
Promulgated 26 October 2001”, Worship 77, 2003, 490 (482–509). On p. 490 f. Taft provides a convenient list of
early eucharistic liturgies without the “words of institution”.
9
The transition from the earlier full meal shape of the Eucharist into “the Mass” has been discussed lately against the
background of a better understanding than earlier of that ancient Mediterranean meal culture out of which the
sacred meals of early Christianity developed. See, e.g., Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl, esp. 499–522; D. E. Smith,
From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), esp.
285–287; Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins, esp. 76–80; V. A. Alikin, The Earliest History of the Christian
Gathering: Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries
(Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 102; Leiden: Brill, 2010), esp. 79–102.
10
On the similarities between early eucharistic prayers and creeds, see, e.g., A. Hamman, “Du symbole de la foi à
l’anaphore eucharistique”, in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten. Ed. by P. Granfield & J. A. Jungmann, 2
(Münster: Aschendorff, 1970), 835–843. The topic would be worthy of a fuller investigation.

4
Did. 10.3 (= the Apostolic Constitutions 7.26.3). This introduction contributes to making the
petition in 7.25.3 more poignant.
6. The introductory thanksgiving over the cup in Did. 9.2 for the revelation of “the holy vine of
your servant David” has been replaced by a thanksgiving, at a point somewhat later in the text, for
Christ’s blood and body (7.25.4). It runs as follows:

A ἔτι εὐχαριστοῦμεν, πάτερ ἡμῶν,

B 1a ὑπὲρ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος ᾽Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ
1b τοῦ ἐκχυθέντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν,
2 καὶ τοῦ τιμίου σώματος,
C 1 οὗ καὶ ἀντίτυπα ταῦτα ἐπιτελοῦμεν,
2 αὐτοῦ διαταξαμένου ἡμῖν καταγγέλλειν τὸν αὐτοῦ θάνατον.

The accent is here rather on the blood than on the body: the blood is mentioned first, and through
the attribute τοῦ ἐκχυθέντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (cf. Matt 26:28 with parallels) the blood is slightly more
stressed than the body. A grammatical problem may, however, also seem to be found here. It has
been said that the singular relative pronoun οὗ is not congruent with the antecedent τοῦ … αἵματος
… καὶ τοῦ … σώματος. That both the blood and the body were mentioned in the text already as it
was formulated around 380 C.E. is shown by the immediately following prohibition for the
unbaptised to take part of “them” (αὐτῶν); that is to say that the unit B2 above cannot have been
interpolated later. But I will return to the grammatical issue in 7.25.4 below.
In the reference to the command of Christ (αὐτοῦ διαταξαμένου κ.τ.λ.) – which corresponds to
the function of the “words of institution” in several other early eucharistic prayers: stating the
reason for the celebration of the Eucharist – words taken from 1 Cor 11:26 are used. In First
Corinthians itself, these words constitute Paul’s interpretation of the meal. There are, however,
plenty of parallels in eucharistic prayers, among others the Apostolic Constitutions 8.12.37, to how
the words are used here, viz. as a command given by Jesus himself.11
7. Since the introductory and the concluding thanksgiving are no more, as they are in the order
of the Eucharist presupposed in the Didache, separated by a satisfying meal, 10.1 μετὰ δὲ
ἐμπλησθῆναι has been rephrased into μετὰ δὲ τὴν μετάληψιν (7.26.1). The expression μετάληψις is
a common patristic term for communion, the reception of the eucharistic gifts.

11
For examples, see Prex Eucharistica: Textus e variis liturgiis antiquioribus selecti. Ed. A. Hänggi & I. Pahl
(Spicilegium Friburgense, 12; Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1968), e.g. 112 (Alexandrian anaphora of Mark),
126 (Dêr Balyzeh fragment), 236 (Byzantine anaphora of Basil), 248 (Greek anaphora of James); 266 (Syriac
anaphora of the twelve Apostles); 468 (Gallican Post pridie). When the words from 1 Cor 11:26 are quoted as
words of Jesus himself, the utterance is of course slightly modified, often more or less with this result: ὅσακις ἐὰν
ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατόν μου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθω. It not seldom
occurs that these words and the admonition in 1 Cor 11:25c (“Each time as you drink of it …”) are combined into
one and the same utterance of Jesus, without any distinction between 11:25c (or parallels) and 11:26 whatsoever.

5
 8. The concluding prayer (Didache chapter 10) has been modified so as to consist in 7.26 only
of two, not three parts. Material from the second part of the original prayer is used in the lengthy
introduction to the second paragraph, 7.26.3–4. The thanksgiving in Did. 10.2–3 to God for having
created the world and procured human beings with food but above all for having given spiritual
food and drink to “us” has been transformed into a thanksgiving to God for having created the
world and all that is in it, planted his Law in “our” souls and made it possible for humans to partake
of the eucharistic gifts; after that a completely new paragraph has been added (ὁ θεὸς τῶν ἁγίων
[…] ἀνελεῖν). The reworking has as a consequence that one now intercedes for the church (7.26.4,
αὐτὸς καὶ νῦν μνήσθητι κ.τ.λ.) invoking that God has created everything, implanted his Law into
the souls, granted the eucharistic gifts, shown fidelity from the time of the patriarchs and sent Jesus
Christ to be incarnated and to save. Still another a basis for the petition for the church is found in
the addition ἣν περιεποιήσω τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ χριστοῦ σου (cf. Acts 2:20; 1 Peter 1:19).
9. The prohibition for the unbaptised to take part of the Eucharist has been reformulated in
more than one way in 7.25.5. The words of Jesus that the Holy must not be given to the dogs (cf.
Matt 7:6) have been left out. Furthermore, the unbaptised are now called ἀμύητοι, “uninitiated”, and
baptism itself is no longer called a baptism “in the name of the Lord” but instead a baptism “into the
death of the Lord” (cf. Rom 6:3–11). Finally, prescriptions have been added in 7.25.6–7 how one is
to behave in case unbaptised people do receive communion despite the prohibition.
10. The sequence between the acclamations in Did. 10.6 is changed in the Constitutions 7.26.5,
and an addition has been made, εὐλογημένος […] ἐν σαρκί (cf. Ps 117/118:27; 1 Tim 3:16). The
ἐλθέτω χάρις καὶ παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος has been replaced by μαραναθά.
11. The admonition in Did. 10.7 to let the prophets say thanks as much as they wish has been
reformulated in 7.26.7 into an admonition to let the presbyters also (i.e. not only the bishops) say
the thanksgiving, i.e. conduct the celebration of the Eucharist. Prophets as leaders of celebrations –
if that is how the prophets were presupposed by the Didache to act – do not any longer exist toward
the end of the fourth century.
12. Some more reformulations occur: 7.25.1b οὕτω λέγοντες, without a repetition of words on
εὐχαριστ-; 7.26.6 among other things a modification of ἐρχέσθω into προσερχέσθω and of
μετανοείτω into γινέσθω διὰ μετανοίας. The attribute ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων Did. 9.4 has been deleted.
The grammatical forms have in some cases been changed, without producing any real difference in
terms of content, e.g. τοῦ ῥύσασθαι, τελειώσαι and σύναξον into ῥῦσαι, τελείωσον and συνάγαγε
7.26.4. Further minor additions could be mentioned, e.g. καὶ ἀγάπης 7.26.2 and καὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου
7.26.4.

6
A reworking by the author of the Constitutions
As was mentioned before, it has been assumed that the reworking of Didache found in our text
would on the whole have been made considerably earlier than c. 380. However, if one makes a
detailed comparison between the language and contents of 7.25–26 with the rest of the
Constitutions, particularly in passages which we, for one reason or another, know are redactional
(e.g., reworkings of the Didascalia, of other parts of the Didache or of the Apostolic Tradition), and
if one, furthermore, compares with the ways of expression in the same author’s Commentary on Job
and the interpolations found in the longer version of the Ignatian letters, then one has to conclude
that the adaptation of Didache found in 7.25–26 was made by the author of the Constitutions
himself.12
1. The introductory general exhortation to thankfulness/thanksgiving, 7.25.1a (γίνεσθε […]
δοῦλοι), has in all likelihood been formulated by the redactor, that is to say not until the material in
7.25–26 was introduced into the Constitutions. The very position of this exhortation makes this
likely, to say the least, though linguistic parallels to the exhortation in other redactional passages in
the Constitutions are missing.13
2. To most of the language in those parts of the detailed thanksgiving for the work of Christ in
7.25.2 which have not been taken over from Did. 9.3, there are good parallels in redactional
passages in the Constitutions and in the other writings of our author. In the comparative material
there is a repeated talk about how Gud created the world or the universe, τὰ ὅλα, through (διά)
Christ;14 similarly it is rather often stressed that he cares for it in his providence, his πρόνοια15 –

12
Such redactional expressions are in the following often marked with the abbreviation R. Redactional parts of the
Apostolic Constitutions are sometimes referred to with the abbreviation CAR. The longer Ignatian letters are
indicated solely by the abbreviations Trall., Tars., Philipp. etc. (with the abbrevation R for redactional passages).
13
But cf. the description of how the saints of the Old Testament, Abel and others, sacrificed voluntarily ἀπὸ γνώμης
εὐχαρίστου, 6.20.4R. Thankfulness is here related to that correct attitude which causes God to receive prayers and
offerings gracefully. See also Comm. in Iob 9.19–21 (ἀλλ’ ὁσιοῖ αὐτὸν εὐχαριστῶν ὡς κηδεμόνι τῆς αὐτοῦ ζωῆς.
πρὸς γὰρ τῇ τοιαύτῃ πληγῇ εὐγνωμόνως φθέγγεται); 13.22–23 (οὕτως ἐν πᾶσιν εὐγνώμων ὁ θεῖος οὗτος ἀνὴρ καὶ
πρὸς τὸν θεὸν <τὸ> δίκαιον φυλάττων). On thankfulness as a necessary propriety in God’s servants, see also
Comm. in Iob 1.18–19; 1.22; 2.3 (on the δοῦλος πιστός and what characterises him); 2.8; 2.9E; 2.10α-γ; 2.10δὲ
27.3–4; 41.25–26 (the Devil influenced Cain and made him murder Abel διὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν δικαίαν καὶ πρόσφορον
εὐχαριστίαν); 42.10γ; 42.12.
14
See 2.14.11 = Didasc. 6 ([τοῦ] πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων); 2.59.3R? (τῷ θεῷ τῷ ποιήσαντι τὰ ὅλα διὰ ’Ιησοῦ); 6.11.3R (ἕνα
δημιουργὸν διαφόρου κτίσεως διὰ χριστοῦ ποιητήν); 7.26.3R (ὁ θεὸς τῶν ὅλων); 7.27.2R (δημιουργέ τῶν ὅλων);
7.34.1R? (ὁ δὶα χριστοῦ ποιήσας τὰ ὅλα); 7.36.1R? (κόσμον ἔκτισας διὰ χριστοῦ); 7.38.9R (τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεόν);
7.41.5R? (δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς); 7.44.2R? (ὁ τῶν ὅλων κύριος); 8.5.2R (ὁ
δημιουργὸς τῶν ὅλων δῖ αὐτοῦ); 8.9.8R? (δέσποτα τῶν ὅλων […] ὁ τὸν ἄνθρωπον κόσμου κόσμον ἀναδείξας διὰ
χριστοῦ); 8.12.7R ([ὁ τὰ πάντα παραγαγὼν] διὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦ υἱοῦ σου); 8.12.8R? (σὺ γὰρ, θεὲ αἰώνιε, δι’ αὐτοῦ τὰ
πάντα πεποίηκας καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ τῆς προσκούσης προνοίας τὰ ὅλα ἀξιοῖς); 8.12.14R? (τὸν ὐπὸ σοῦ διὰ χριστοῦ
γενόμενον κόσμον); 8.37.2R? (ὁ τῶν ὅλων ποιητὴς διὰ χριστοῦ); 8.38.5R? (ὁ τὸ εἶναι ἡμῖν διὰ χριστοῦ
παρασχόμενος). See also (τὰ ὅλα, and God as creator of τὰ ὅλα) Comm. in Iob 4.10–11; 12.16; 15.11–13; 26.10α;
28.12–13; 28.24; 36.12; 36.27–28A; 37.9–13; 37.22β–23α; 38.1; 42.6; Trall. 3R; Tars. 2R; Philipp. 1R; 7R; Smyrn.

7
though some of these passages in the Constitutions are or may have been taken over from older
sources. The formulation ὃν καὶ ἀπέστειλας ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρα γενέσθαι ἄνθρωπον is
obviously not significant, since it concurs with so universally attested early Christian usage.16 The
expression ὃν καὶ συνεχώρησας παθεῖν καὶ ἀποθανεῖν is, on the other hand, more original. The
same thought, the thought that God “accepted” or “suffered” the passion and death of his Son is
expressed through exactly the same verb, συγχορέω, in two other redactionally reformulated
passages in the Constitutions.17 The same transitive use of the verb ἀνίστημι with Christ as object as
in ὃν καὶ ἀναστήσας εὐδόκησας δοξάσαι occurs in at least one more redactional passage in the
Constitutions.18 Likewise, there is at least one redactional parallel to the line in the text where
importance is paid to the resurrection promise given through Christ (δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐπηγγείλω ἡμῖν τὴν
ἀνάστασιν τῶν νεκρῶν); if this parallel is relevant, what is more exactly meant is probably what
Christ did when he raised Lazarus and others from the dead, i.e. a “promise” in action.19 On the
other hand it may of course also be taken as an allusion to utterances of Jesus in the gospels such as,
e.g., John 6:40, 44; 12:26; 14:3; 17:24, and in book 7 there are two (other) redactional passages
saying that Christ has promised “the resurrection” or “the life” to those who believe in him.20

9R; Hen. 7R; Ef. 7R. The creation of the world through Christ/the Son/the Logos: Comm. in Iob 1.7α; 33.4; Tars. 4R;
Filipp. 1R.
15
See 6.14.4R (πρόνοια); 7.35.10R? (God as ὁ προνοίας χορηγός); 7.38.1R? (the providence of God, here however not
expressed with the words πρόνοια or προνοούμαι); 7.39.3R (ὅπως τε προνοούμενοῦ […] ὁ θεός κ.τ.λ.); 7.43.4R?
(διαφόροις καιροῖς διαφόρους προνοίας ἐποιήσατο); 8.5.2R (ὁ προνοητής); 8.12.8R? (σὺ γὰρ, θεὲ αἰώνιε, δι’ αὐτοῦ
τὰ πάντα πεποίηκας καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ τῆς προσκούσης προνοίας τὰ ὅλα ἀξιοῖς); 8.12.30R? (πρόνοια). In 7.25.2, unlike
7.39.3, the active form of the verb is used (προνοεῖ). That the redactor could change between the active and the
middle voice is, however, demonstrated by the fact that the same active form is used in Comm. in Iob 23.8–9 (ὅτι
μὲν γὰρ προνοεῖ ἐξ ὧν ὁρῶ πέπεισμαι) and 36.27–28A (οὗτοῦ προνοεῖ γυναικὸς κ.τ.λ.), as also in Philad. 9 (ἅγιος ὁ
λόγος, ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς υἱός, δι’ οὗ ὁ πατὴρ τὰ πάντα πεποίηκεν καὶ τῶν ὅλων προνοεῖ). Πρόνοια is an important
Leitmotiv and an ever-recurring expression in Comm. in Iob; see Prol.; 1.16; 2.10δε; 4.19γ–21; 5.5; 5.8–10; 5.15β–
16; 5.27; 8.11–12; 9.10; 9.22–24β; 10.10–12; 11.7–10; 12.4–5; 12.6; 12.7–9; 12.14–15; 12.17; 12.23–25; 13.1–2;
13.6–10α; 14.16–17; 20.4; 21.14–16; 21.25–26; 22.15–16; 22.21–22; 22.23–25; 23.8–9; 23.1–5β; 24.22α; 26.14;
27.1–2; 29.5α; 28.28; 29.10–13; 31.9–12; 31.40γ–32.1; 33.14–18; 33.23; 35.11; 36.12; 36.27–28A; 38.7; 38.39–40;
38.41; 39.1β–3α; 39.5–8; 42.7; 42.14; 42.17Bγ; 42.17Zγ-ε. See also Philad. 5R; 9R.
16
Cf. for instance 2.59.3R (καὶ αὐτὸν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐξαποστείλαντι κ.τ.λ.); 7.39.4R? (κατέπεμψεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν
μονογενὴ χριστόν, ἵνα σώσῃ τὸν ἄνθρωπον); 7.43.2R? (ἀπέστειλεν ἐνανθρωπῆσαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ δι’ ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ἡμᾶς
σώσῃ); 7.43.4R? (ἀπέστειλεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἄνθρωπον γενέσθαι δι’ ἀνθρώπους).
17
See 2.24.3R (συνεχώρησεν παθεῖν τὸν τῇ φύσει ἀπαθῆ); 2.59.3R (καὶ [αὐτὸν] συγχωρήσαντι παθεῖν). The verb
συγχωρέω is strikingly common in Comm. in Iob; see 1.17; 2.6; 2.10δε; 9.22–24β; 12.7–9; 13.3–5; 13.6–10α;
16.11α; 22.1–2; 23.16–17; 24.12γ–14α; 25.5; 26.1–2α; 26.7–9; 30.11; 30.28α; 31.38–40β; 42.16αβ. The saying in
the Constitutions that God did “accept” or “suffer” his Son’s passion has a good parallel in Comm. in Iob 2.6:
nobody is handed over (παραδίδωμι) to suffering unless God accepts/suffers it (συγχωρέω).
18
See 2.59.3R (καὶ [αὐτὸν] ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστήσαντι). The same transitive use of the verb also occurs in Trall. 10R
(= Ps 41:10); Tars. 7R (a redactional Eigenformulierung); Ant. 2R (= Deut 18:15).
19
See 5.7.12 (πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πιστεύομεν γίνεσθαι τὴν ἀνάστασιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ κυρίου ἀναστάσεως· αὐτὸς γάρ
ἐστιν ὁ καὶ Λάζαρον ἀναστήσας τετραήμερον κ.τ.λ.). The verse is based on an utterance in the Didascalia, but the
greater part of it is redactional.
20
See 7.38.5 (τὴν ἀναστασιν ἐπηγγείλω); 7.38.9R (ζωὴν ἐπαγγειλαμένου τοῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ πιστεύσασιν εἰς τὸν τῶν ὅλων
θεόν).

8
 3. The talk in 7.25.4 about Christ’s “precious blood”, ὑπὲρ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος ᾽Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ,
has good parallels in a number of instances in the Constitutions; in some cases, the expression has
been taken over from the Didascalia or other sources, but several of them are clearly redactional.21
Speaking about the blood and about Christ’s death as (the giving of) his “precious blood” is without
doubt a favourite expression of the redactor, though it was also found in the sources which he used.
Also worthy of remark is the fact that the adjective τίμιον is in early Christian texts normally used
about the blood of Christ (cf. 1 Peter 1:19), but in 7.25.4 it is also used about his body. Similarly,
8.14.2 also speaks about his τίμιον σῶμα and his τίμιον αἷμα. This supports the suggestion that at
least the phrase καὶ τοῦ τιμίου σώματος in 7.25.4 is redactional.
When the gifts or the celebration are in 7.25.4 mentioned using the noun ἀντίτυπα, “symbols”,
it is not per se quite certain that the mode of expression is redactional; the notion ἀντίτυπον is used
only at one more occasion in the Constitutions and is there taken over from the Didascalia.22
However, the reference to the institution of the Eucharist using the verb διατάσσομαι (αὐτοῦ
διαταξαμένου ἡμῖν καταγγέλλειν τὸν αὐτοῦ θάνατον) have a number of good redactional parallels
in the Constitutions. There seems to be no objection to the assumption that the redactor formulated
this reference to the command of the Lord.23
4. The somewhat casuistic reworking of Did. 9.5 in CA 7.25.5–7 has in all likelihood been
made by the redactor and therefore mirrors circumstances around the year 380. The words
μεταλαμβάνω and μετάληψις are, as mentioned earlier, well-established in early Christian
vocabulary as terms for communicating (at the Eucharist) and (eucharistic) communion. But they
are also standard expressions for the same thing in (other) redactional passages in the
Constitutions.24 The vocabulary used twice in 7.25.5–7 when saying that the one or those who is/are

21
See 1.prol.2 = Didasc. 1 (ῥαντίσματοῦ μέτοχοι τοῦ τιμίου καὶ ἀθώου αἵματος τοῦ χριστοῦ); 2.33.2R (τοὺῦ τοῦ
σωτηρίου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος ἀξιώσαντας ὐμᾶς); 2.57.20R (τὸν λαόν σου […] ἣν ἐκτήσω καὶ
περιεποιήσω τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ χριστοῦ σου); 2.57.21R (μεταλαμβανέτω […] τοῦ κυριακοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ
τιμίου αἵματος); 5.17.1R (τοὺς τῷ τοῦ χριστοῦ ἐξηγορασμένους τιμίῳ αἵματι); 8.11.5R? (ὃν ἐξηγόρασας τῷ τιμίῳ
τοῦ χριστοῦ σου αἵματι); 8.12.40R? (ἣν περιεποιήσω τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ χριστοῦ σου); 8.14.2R (μεταλαβόντες τοῦ
τιμίου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος τοῦ χριστοῦ); 8.41.8R? (ἣν περιεποιήσω τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ χριστοῦ σου).
22
6.30.2 = Didasc. 26 (τὴν ἀντίτυπον τοῦ βασιλικοῦ σώματος χριστοῦ […] προσφέρετε).
23
Cf. esp., on Jesus’ command to celebrate the Eucharist, 8.12.35R? (τὴν διάταξιν αὐτοῦ πληροῦμεν); 8.12.38R?
(προσφέρομεν […] κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ διάταξιν κ.τ.λ.); 8.46.14R (ἡμῖν διετάξατο μόνοις τοῦτο ποιεῖν); 8.46.15R
(προσενεγκότες κατὰ τὴν διάταξιν αὐτοῦ θυσίαν καθαρὰν καὶ ἀναίμακτον). With regard to other prescriptions
διατάσσομαι and διάταξις/διατάξεις are frequently employed in the Constitutions: 3.9.3, 4; 5.19.7; 5.20.2; 7.22.6
(twice); 7.24.1; 7.36.1; 7.45.4; 8.4.2; 8.5.11 (and several times in the following, on the prescriptions issued by the
Apostles); 8.46.14; 8.47.2. The title of the Constitutions in Greek is Διαταγαὶ τῶν ἀγίων ἀποστόλων διὰ
Κλημέντος; cf. 8.47.85 (αἱ διαταγαὶ ὐμῖν τοῖς ἐπισκόποις δι’ ἐμοῦ Κλημέντος ἐν ὄκτῳ βιβλίοις προσπεφωνημέναι).
Cf. also, in accordance with the use of language in the authentic Ignatian letters (the middle recension), Trall. 4R;
7R; Philad. 4R; Ef. 3R; Rom. 4R.
24
See 2.57.21R (μεταλαμβανέτω […] τοῦ κυριακοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος); 8.13.16–17R (ψαλμὸς δὲ
λεγέσθω ὁ λγ´ ἐν τῷ μεταλαμβάνειν πάντας); 8.14.2R (μεταλαβόντες τοῦ τιμίου σώματος καὶ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος

9
ἀμύητος/ἀμύητοι must not receive communion, the unbaptised are spoken of in terms regularly
recurring in the Constitutions: baptism is presented as a (mystery) “initiation”, i.e. an act which
draws a sharp line between those inside and those outside, “the uninitiated”.25 Similarly, when the
baptised are called οἱ βεβαπτισμένοι εἰς τὸν τοῦ κυρίου θάνατον, this concurs with the baptismal
theology in the Constitutions as a whole, not least in redactional passages: baptism is interpreted,
against the background of Rom 6:3–11, as a baptism “into the death of Christ”. This paradigm for
interpreting Christian baptism was not particularly often embraced before the fourth century, and
baptism is not interpreted in this war neither in the Didache nor in the Didascalia nor in the
Apostolic Tradition. But this paradigm dominates the theology of baptism in the
Constitutions; similarly, it occurs several times in the longer version of the Ignatian letters.26 At the
time of writing of the Constitutions, this way of regarding baptism was probably rather widespread
among Christians, but it may be worth reminding of the fact that it, for a certain period of time, was
especially characteristic for Anomoian Christians, who replaced baptising with the traditional
baptismal formula “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” with baptising
“in the name of the Creator and into the death of Christ” and performed one single immersion

τοῦ χριστοῦ […] μεταλαβεῖν τῶν ἀγίων αὐτοῦ μυστηρίων); 8.15.2R (κατηξίωσας ἡμᾶς μεταλαβεῖν τῶν ἀγίων σου
μυστηρίων); 8.47.9R (μὴ παραμένοντας […] τῇ ἀγίᾳ μεταλήψει).
25
See 6.15.3R (οὔτε μὴν οἱ βαπτισθέντες ὐπ’ αὐτῶν μεμύηνται); 7.22.6R (ὁ […] εἰς τὸν αὐτοῦ θάνατον μυούμενος
πρότερον ὁφείλει νηστεῦσαι); 7.39.1R (οἱ κατὰ χριστὸν μεμυημένοι […] τοὺς ἀμυήτους); 7.42.3R? ([ἄξιοῦ] τῆς
μυήσεως); 8.6.7R? (διὰ τῆς μυήσεως); 8.6.13R? (καταξίωσον αὐτοὺς τῆς ἀγίας μυήσεως); 8.8.2R? (μυηθέντας εἰς τὸν
τοῦ χριστοῦ θάνατον); 8.47.50R? (τρία βαπτίσματα μιᾶς μυήσεως).
26
See 2.7.1R (οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου ’Ιησοῦ οὐκέτι ὁφείλουσιν κ.τ.λ.); 3.17.1–3R (ἔστι τοίνυν τὸ
μὲν βάπτισμα εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ υἱοῦ διδόμενον, τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ ἀντὶ ταφῆς, τὸ ἔλαιον ἀντὶ πνεύματος ἀγίου, ἡ
σφραγὶς ἀντὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ, τὸ μύρον βεβαίωσις τῆς ὁμολογίας. τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ μνήμη ὡς αἰτίου καὶ ἀποστολέως, τοῦ
πνεύματος ἡ συμπαράληψις ὡς μάρτυρος. ἡ κατάδυσις τὸ συναποθανεῖν, ἡ ἀνάδυσις τὸ συναναστῆναι); 5.6.8R (real
[the martyrs’] vs. symbolic [= baptism, τύπῳ] death with Christ); 5.16.7R (βαπτισθέντες γὰρ εἰς τὸν τοῦ κυρίου
θάνατον καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὐτοῦ); 6.15.1, 2R (ὁμοίως καὶ βαπτίσματι ἐνὶ ἀρκεῖσθαι μόνῳ τῷ εἰς τὸν τοῦ κυρίου
θάνατον δεδομένῳ […] ὡς γὰρ εἷς ὁ θεὸς καὶ εἷς ὁ χριστὸς καὶ εἷς ὁ παράκλητος, εἷς δὲ καὶ ὁ τοῦ κυρίου ἐν σώματι
θάνατος, οὕτως ἓν ἔστω καὶ τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν διδόμενον βάπτισμα (Metzger: “qu’il n’y ait ainsi qu’un seul baptême
donné dans cette mort”); 6.23.5R (ἀντὶ μὲν καθημερινοῦ ἓν μόνον δοὺς βάπτισμα τὸ εἰς τὸν αὐτοῦ θάνατον);
7.22.2–3R (βαπτίσεις ὕδατι […] ἵνα […] τὸ […] ὕδωρ σύμβολον τοῦ θανάτου […]. εἰ δὲ μήτε ἔλαιον ᾖ μητὲ μύρον,
ἀρκεῖ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ πρὸς χρῖσιν καὶ πρὸς σφραγῖδα καὶ πρὸς ὁμολογίαν τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ἤτοι συναποθνήσκοντοῦ);
7.22.6R (ὁ […] εἰς τὸν αὐτοῦ θάνατον μυούμενος πρότερον ὁφείλει νηστεῦσαι); 7.39.4R (εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι […]
θανάτου τοῦ χριστοῦ […] νεκρωθῇ τῇ ἀμαρτίᾳ); 7.43.3R (τὸν ὐπὲρ πάντων θάνατον διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ, οὗ τύπον
ἔδωκεν τὸ βάπτισμα τῆς παλιγγενεσίας); 7.43.5R? ([δὸς χάριν καὶ δύναμιν] ὥστε τὸν βαπτιζόμενον κατ’ ἐντολὴν
τοῦ χριστοῦ σου αὐτῷ συσταυρωθῆναι καὶ συναποθανεῖν καὶ συνταφῆναι καὶ συναναστῆναι […] τῷ νεκρωθῆναι
μὲν τῇ ἀμαρτίᾳ, ζῆσαι δὲ τῇ δικαιοισύνῃ); 7.44.2R? (ὥστε […] συναποθανόντα αὐτὸν συναναστῆναι καὶ συζῆσαι
αὐτῷ); 7.45.1R (συναποθανὼν τῷ χριστῷ καὶ συνεγερθεὶς ἕστηκεν); 7.45.2R? (καὶ αὐτὸς οὖν συναποθανὼν τῷ
χριστῷ καὶ συνεγερθεὶς ἕστηκεν); 8.8.2R (μυηθέντας εἰς τὸν τοῦ χριστοῦ θάνατον); 8.47.50R? (ἓν βάπτισμα τὸ εἰς
τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου). See also Trall. 2R (ἵνα πιστεύοντες εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος κοινωνοὶ
τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ γένησθε); Philipp. 1R (ἓν δὲ καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, τὸ εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου διαδιδόμενον).
– On the theology of baptism in the Apostolic Constitutions as a whole and in the long Canon 50 among the
“Apostolic Canons” at the end of the eighth book, 8.47, see further M. F. Wiles, “Triple and Single Immersion: The
Baptism in the Arian Controversy”, Studia Patristica 30 (1997), 337–349; E. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early
Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI & Cambridge, UK:
Eerdmans, 2009), 564–573, 575–576.

10
instead of three. For this reason, the council of Constantinople considered Anomoian baptism
invalid.27
5. That the reworking of Did. 10.1 in 7.26.1 is redactional seems self-evident. Cf. above on the
use of μετάληψις as terminus technicus in connection with communion.
6. The expansion, as it were, of the address in 7.26.3, from σύ, δέσποτα παντοκράτορ (Did.
10.3) into σύ, δέσποτα παντοκράτορ, ὁ θεὸς τῶν ὅλων, ὁ κτίσας τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ δι᾽
αὐτοῦ, is probably also to be regarded as redactional; cf. above on 7.25.2 (God as God of τὰ ὅλα;
the creation of the universe through Christ).
7. 7.26.3 continues with an interesting formulation: καὶ νόμον καταφυτεύσας ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς
ἡμῶν. The idea about that natural Law, ὁ φυσικὸς νόμος or (more similar to 7.26.3) ὁ ἔμφυτος
νόμος, which the Creator has inplanted into the innermost of humans, is so heavily stressed in
redactional parts of the Constitutions that it can hardly be doubted that this line is also redactional.
The expression νόμος in 7.26.3, then, does not mean the Mosaic Law but a law which is innate in
all humans.28 The redactor of the Constitutions has from the Didascalia taken over the thought that
it is necessary to distinguish between “the first law” (more or less = the Decalogue and the moral
law) and, on the other hand, “the second legislation” (ἡ δευτέρωσις, more or less = the cultic laws
and diet laws in the Old Testament); the latter is not to be observed by Christians. The
Constitutions, unlike in its source, the Didascalia, stress the thought that the first law, which God

27
See First council of Constantinople, can. 7, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Ed. by N. Tanner. 1 (London &
Washington D.C.: Sheed and Ward & Georgetown Univ. Press, 1990), 35. Cf. the works by Wiles and Ferguson,
mentioned in the previous note.
28
See esp. 1.6.8R (νόμος φυσικός); 6.19.2 (Didasc. 26 revised; the revision in the Constitutions here marked with
underlines): δέδωκεν νόμον ἀπλοῦν εἰς βοήθειαν τοῦ φυσικοῦ); 6.20.1–4 (Didasc. 26 revised: νόμος δεκάλογος
[…] οὗτος δὲ δίκαιός ἐστιν, διὸ καὶ νόμος λέγεται, διὰ τὸ φύσει δικαίως τὰς κρίσεις ποιεῖσθαι […] φυσικῷ δὲ νόμῳ
κινηθέντας ἀφ’ ἐαυτῶν προσενέγκαι θυσίαν θεῷ); 6.20.10R (τὸν νόμον τὸν ὐπ’ ἐμοῦ τῇ φύσει καταβληθέντα πᾶσιν
ἀνθρώποις); 6.22.5R (οὐκ ἀνελὼν τὸν φυσικὸν νόμον); 6.23.1R (τόν τε γὰρ φυσικὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀνεῖλεν, ἀλλ’
ἐβεβαίωσεν); 6.25.2R (τῶν φυσικῶν πανταχοῦ ἀμεταθέτων φυλασσομένων); 7.1.3R (φυσικὴ μὲν ἔστιν ἡ τῆς ζωῆς
ὁδός); 7.33.3R? (ὐποδείξας δὲ ἐκάστῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς ἐμφύτου γνώσεως καὶ φυσικῆς κρίσεως καὶ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ
νόμου ὐποφωνήσεως, ὡς πλούτου μὲν οὐκ ἀΐδιον τὸ κτῆμα); 8.9.8R? (ὁ […] νόμον δοὺς […] ἔμφυτον καὶ γραπτὸν
πρὸς τὸ ζῆν αὐτὸν ἐνθέσμως ὡς λογικόν); 8.12.17R? (διὸ καὶ πεποίηκας αὐτὸν ἐκ ψυχῆς ἀθανάτου καὶ σώματος
σκεδαστοῦ […] καὶ δέδωκας αὐτῷ κατὰ μὲν τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν λογικὴν διάγνωσιν, εὐσεβείας καὶ ἀσεβείας διάκρισιν,
δικαίου καὶ ἀδίκου παρατήρησιν); 8.12.18R (νόμον […] ἔμφυτον); 8.12.25R (τὸν φυσικὸν νόμον, twice); 8.12.30R
(μετὰ φυσικὸν νόμον […] τὸν φυσικὸν νόμον). The redactor of the Constitutions could perhaps have got the idea to
develop the theme “natural law” from the kephalaion and the title of chapter 1 in the Didascalia, provided that
these elements were already found in that copy of the Didascalia to which he had access. – See further Comm. in
Iob 1.20–21 (ὁ τῆς φύσεως […] νόμος); 28.12–13 (ἔχει γὰρ δύναμιν ἡμῶν ἡ ψυχὴ εἰς τὸ γνωρίζειν τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ
οὕτως αὐτὴν δημιουργήσαντος, ὅθεν καὶ ὐπὸ τὴν ἐντολὴν ἐλθοῦσα ἢ κρίνεται μὴ δικαίωῦ παρελθοῦσα ἢ ἀπολαύσει
ἀσφαλῶς τῆς ἐπαγγελιας φυλάξασα τὸ νομοθετηθὲν αὐτῇ); 33.30A (καὶ γὰρ τὸ εἶναι ἡμῖν παρέσχεν … νόμους τε
ὐμηγόρευσε τὰ μὲν προστάττοντας βασιλικῶς); 37.14–16 (ποιήσας ἄνθρωπον τὸ λογικὸν ζῷον καὶ δοὺς αὐτῷ
νόμον); 38.7 (καὶ πῶς ὁ μὲν νομοθετεῖ ὡς καταδεεστέρῳ, ὁ δὲ <ὡς> ὐποκείμενοῦ δέχεται τοὺς νόμους οὐ
φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις;); 41.11–13 (καὶ ὡς ὃν εἴποι τις οὐδὲν ἕτερον αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ ζωτικὴ δύναμις ἢ
τὸ ἔμφυτον ἐν αὐτῷ θερμόν); 42.17A (κριθῆναι δὲ ὡς δεξάμενον νόμον καὶ τὴν τοῦ δικαίου διάγνωσιν. | νόμον δὲ
λέγω νῦν οὐ τὸν γραπτόν, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἔμφυτον, οὐ τὸν ἐν πλαξὶ λιθίναις, ἀλλὰ τὸν εν ψυχαῖς καταγεγραμμένον, οὗ
διάκονος καὶ δημιουργὸς οὐ Μωυσῆς ἀλλὰ ὁ πρὸς πάντα ὐπηρετησάμενον θεός, ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ καὶ υἱός).

11
first gave on Mount Sinai, is in perfect harmony with those moral demands and with that moral
discernment ability which God has implanted into the innermost of humans; therefore the moral
law, the Decalogue, is nothing purely external to humans or something negatively coercing.
8. The address to God as the God of the fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the following in
7.26.3 (ὁ θεὸς τῶν ἁγίων καὶ ἀμέμπτων πατέρων ἡμῶν, ᾽Αβραὰμ καὶ ᾽Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾽Ιακώβ, τῶν
πιστῶν δούλων σου), might per se have been taken over from that version of the Didache which
was known to the redactor. This way of addressing God also frequently recurs in the “Jewish
Christian” “synagogue” prayers in 7.33–38. But the phrase is also used in redactional passages in
the Constitutions, and therefore it is not implausible to regard it is redactional in 7.26.3 also.29
9. God is in 7.26.3 invoked as ὁ δυνατὸς θεός, ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινὸς καὶ ἀψευδὴς ἐν ταῖς
ἐπαγγελίαις. This way of expression has very good parallels in (other) redactional passages in the
Constitutions. It is therefore reasonable to regard these words in 7.26.3 as redactional.30
10. The expression used about Christ in 7.26.3, θεὸν ὄντα λόγον ἄνθρωπον, i.e. God the Word
or the Divine Word (θεὸς λόγος) who has become/is human, has so many very pertinent parallels in
both redactional parts of the Constitutions, the Commentary on Job and redactional passages in the
longer version of the Ignatian letters that one can hardly avoid the conclusion that it is redactional
here as well.31

29
See 2.22.12 (Didasc. 7 = the prayer of Manasseh: ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, τοῦ ’Αβραὰμ καὶ ’Ισαὰκ καὶ ’Ιακώβ);
7.33.2 (ὁ θεὸς πάντων τῶν ὄντων καὶ θεὸς τῶν ἀγίων καὶ ἀμέμπτων πατέρων ἡμῶν τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν, ὁ θεὸς ’Αβραὰμ
καὶ ’Ισαὰκ καὶ ’Ιακωβ); 7.33.4 (’Αβραάμ […] ’Ισαάκ […] ’Ιακώβ); 8.40.2 (ὁ θεὸς ’Αβραὰμ καὶ ’Ισαὰκ καὶ
’Ιακώβ); 8.41.2 (ἀνειμένων εἰς κόλπους ’Αβραὰμ καὶ ’Ισαὰκ καὶ ’Ιακώβ); 8.41.4 (ὁ θεὸς ’Αβραὰμ καὶ ’Ισαὰκ καὶ
’Ιακώβ).
30
See 5.7.1 (Didasc. 20 revised: κατὰ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀψευδῆ); 5.7.24 (Didasc. 20 revised: ἐπαγγελια […]
ἀψευδὴς γὰρ ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος); 7.35.10R? ([ὁ θεὸς] οὗ ἀδιάψευστος ἡ ἐπαγγελίὰ 8.18.1R (ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ
ἀληθινὸς καὶ ἀψευδής).
31
See 2.24.3R (τὸν θεὸν λόγον); 5.16.2R (λόγον θεόν); 5.20.13R (θεὸν λόγον); 6.11.10R (τὸν χριστὸν οὐ ψιλὸν
ἄνθρωπον ὁμολογοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ θεὸν λόγον καὶ ἄνθρωπον); 7.36.6R? (τὸν θεὸν λόγον); 8.1.10R? (ὁ πρὸ αἰωνίων
μονογενὴς […] ὁ θεὸῦ λόγοῦ); 8.12.7R (υἱὸν μονογενῆ, λόγον θεόν); 8.12.31R? (ὁ θεὸς λόγος). Cf. also 2.60.3 =
Didasc. 13 (τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ λόγου); 6.5.4 = Didasc. 23 (πᾶσαν […] δύναμιν λόγου καὶ ἐνέργειαν); 8.33.6R (ὁ τοῦ
θεοῦ λόγος); 8.41.2R? (διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγου). See further Comm. in Iob 37.22β-23α (on what the λόγος is and is
not); 38.16–17 (εἰς τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ […] ὁ μονογενής); 40.6 (διὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς μόνου προσφθέγγεται
with context, on the revelation of the Monogenēs in Old Testament times etc.); Trall. 9R (θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος.
ἀληθῶς ἀνέλαβε σῶμα· ὁ λόγος γὰρ σὰρξ ἐγένετο); 10R (ἀληθῶς ἐγεννήθη ὁ θεὸς λόγος ἐκ τῆς παρθένου); Magn.
6R (ἦν λόγος θεός, μονογενὴς υἱός); 8R (διὰ ’Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος, οὐ ῥητὸς, ἀλλ’
οὐσιώδης); Tars. 4R (θεὸς λόγος); 6 (οὐχὶ θεὸς λόγος καὶ μονογενὴς υἱός; ’Εν ἀρχῇ γὰρ ἦν ὁ λόγοῦ κ.τ.λ.); Philipp.
2R (εἷς δὲ καὶ υἱός, λόγος θεός. ’Ο μονογενὴς γάρ, φησίν, ὁ ὢν εἰς τοὺς κόλπους τοῦ πατρὸς κ.τ.λ.); 5R (θεὸς καὶ
ἄνθρωπος […] ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, ὁ λόγος ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ κατοικήσας); 9R (διὰ μὲν τοῦ πρώτου
ἔδειξεν, ὅτι θεός, διὰ δὲ τοῦ δευτέρου, ὅτι καὶ ἄνθρωπος); Philad. 4R (εἷς μονογενὴς υἱός, θεὸς λόγος καὶ
ἄνθρωπος); 6R (οὐχὶ θεὸν μονογενῆ καὶ σοφίαν καὶ λόγον θεοῦ […] θεὸς λόγος ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῳ σώματι κατῴκει, ὢν
ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ λόγος); Smyrn. 1R (τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ υἱόν, τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, τὸν θεὸν λόγον, τὸν μονογενῆ
υἱόν); Hen. prol.R (ἀπὸ τοῦ παντοκράτορος θεοῦ καὶ χριστοῦ ’Ιησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ
υἱοῦ); 7R (καὶ τἰς τὸν μονογενῆ υἱόν); 9 (τοῦ μονογενοῦς); Ef. 7R (ὁ τῶν ὅλων κύριος, τοῦ δὲ μονογενοῦς πατὴρ καὶ
γεννήτωρ· ἔχομεν ἰατρὸν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν θεὸν ’Ιησοῦν τὸν χριστόν, τὸν πρὸ αἰώνων υἱὸν μονογενῆ καὶ λόγον,
ὕστερον δὲ καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου· ὁ λόγος γὰρ σὰρξ ἐγένετο); 16R (ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ μονογενὴς υἱός); 20
(τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως).

12
 11. The end of 7.26.3 says that Christ has come into the world in order to uproot error (καὶ τὴν
πλάνην πρόρριζον ἀνελεῖν). This concurs with a theme that is found in (other) redactional passages
in the Constitutions: both aim and effect of the work of Christ were to eradicate and/or confute
error, both Jewish disbelief and pagan idolatry.32 When this theme occurs in the eucharistic prayer,
everything supports the contention that it is there as a result of a redactional modification of the
Didache text.
12. The transition to the second main part of the prayer in 7.26.4, with the phrase αὐτο;ς καὶ
νῦν, uses a phrase which is very common in the prayers in the Constitutions as a whole.33 The
phrase καὶ νῦν, which has an Old Testament origin,34 recurs frequently in the prayer language of
early Christianity, and it may very well have been found already in the prayer traditions which have
been reworked in the Constitutions.35
13. The subordinated clause ἣν περιεποιήσω τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ χριστοῦ σου in 7.26.4 (about
the church) has some almost exact parallels in redactional passages elsewhere in the Constitutions,
and it is reasonable to assume that it has been added here by the redactor.36
14. As we have already seen, the acclamations from Did. 10.6 have been reworked rather
profoundly in the Constitutions 7.26.5. At which stage in the history of the Didache text ἐλθέτω
χάρις καὶ παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος may have been replaced by μαραναθά, taken from the end of
Did. 10.6, is not easily discerned.37 It is also difficult to judge at wich stage ὡσαννὰ τῷ θεῷ Δαυίδ
(Did)38 has been replaced by the series of acclamations now found in the text:

ὡσαννὰ τῷ υἱῷ Δαυίδ (Matt 21:9; Ps 117/118:25)

εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου: (Matt 21:9; Ps 117/118:26)
θεὸς κύριος ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν ἐν σαρκί. (Cf. Ps 117/118:27: θεὸς κύριος καὶ
ἐπέφανεν ἡμῖν; 1 Tim 3:16 ἐφανερώθη
ἐν σαρκί)

32
See esp. 5.15.1R, in a reworking of Did. 14.1 (τὴν ἀναστάσιμον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμέραν, τὴν κυριακήν φαμεν,
συνέρχεσθε ἀδιαλείπτως, εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐξομολογούμενοι ἐφ’ οἷς εὐηργέτησεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς διὰ
χριστοῦ ῥυσάμενος ἀγνοίας, πλάνης, δεσμῶν); 7.38.7 R? (πεπλανημένης ἀγνοίας ἠλευθέρωσας); 7.39.3R? (ὅπως τε
προνουύμενος οὐκ ἀπεστράφη ὁ θεὸς τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ πλάνης καὶ ματαιότητος εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν
ἀληθείας ἐκάλησεν κ.τ.λ.); 8.12.33R, in a modification of phrases from the anaphora in the Apostolic Tradition
chapter 4 (ἵνα […] ῥύσηται τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐκ τῆς ἀπάτης αὐτῶν); 8.12.39R, in an adaptation of the epiclesis from
the same (ἵνα οἱ μεταλαβόντες αὐτοῦ […] τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς πλάνης αὐτοῦ ῥυσθῶσιν).
33
See the phrase αὐτὸῦ καὶ νῦν in exactly the same position in 7.37.1; 8.5.5 R (revision of chapter 3 in the Apostolic
Tradition); 8.6.12; 8.16.3, 4; 8.20.2; 8.21.4; 8.22.3; 8.22.4 (without αὐτός); 8.29.3; 8.37.2, 6; 8.38.4; 8.41.5.
34
See A. Laurentin, “We cattâh – kai nun”, Biblica 45 (1964), 168–195, 413–432.
35
See 7.37.5 (καὶ νῦν οὖν πρόσδεξαι κ.τ.λ.).
36
See 2.57.20R (ἣν ἐκτήσω καὶ περιεποιήσω τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ χριστοῦ σου); 8.12.40R (ἣν περιεποιήσω τῷ τιμίῳ
αἵματι τοῦ χριστοῦ σου); 8.41.8R? (ἣν περιεποιήσω τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ χριστοῦ σου). Cf. above on other phrases
with “the precious blood of Christ”.
37
How μαραναθά should be interpreted – as an indicative or as an imperative – cannot be discussed here.
38
The phrase τῷ θεῷ Δαυίδ may of course already before the composition of the Constitutions have been altered into
τῷ υἱῷ Δαυίδ; cf. Matt 21:9.

13
The Apostolic Constitutions 8.13.11–13 contain prescriptions for the eucharistic liturgy, of which
the great eucharistic prayer in book 8 is part. It is said in these prescriptions that the intercessory
prayer following after the anaphora (8.13.1–10) – probably intended to fill out the time gap created
by the breaking of the breads and intended to make this a moment filled with reverence – is to be
followed by a preparation for communion consisting of the following: the deacon is to call to
attention, after which the bishop is to say loudly (“cry”) τὰ ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις (”The holy gifts for the
holy ones”) and the people is to respond (8.13.13):

εἷς α{γιος, εἷς κύριος, ᾽jΙησοῦς χριστός, (Eph 4:5; Phil 2:11)
εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός, ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι: (Phil 2:11)
εὐλογητὸς εἶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. (Cf. Od. 8:52 ff. LXX = Dan 3; Rom 1:25)
δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη, (Luke 2:14)
ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία.
ὡσαννὰ τῷ υἱῷ Δαυίδ: (Matt 21:9; Ps 117/118:25)
εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου: (Matt 21:9; Ps 117/118:26)
θεὸς κύριος καὶ ἐπέφανεν ἡμῖν: (Ps 117/118:27; see above)
ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις. (Matt 21:9)

The adaptation of Did. 10.6 in the Constitutions 7.26.5 seems to be aimed at rapproaching the
Didache text to this liturgical order, but it is difficult to explain why the harmonisation with 8.13.13
is not complete. That the concluding ὡσαννὰ κ.τ.λ. is missing at 7.26.5 may perhaps be accidental.
More enigmatic is the fact that 7.26.5 contains a modification of Ps 117/118:27 not found at
8.13.13. One cannot consider it a proven fact that the reworking of the Didache at 7.26.5 is wholly
redactional. Anyhow, the lack of full agreement between 7.26.5 and 8.13.13 seems to indicate that
the text in 7.26.5 is not intended to be used in actual worship. If this is true, than this is most
probably valid when it comes to the text (7.25–26) as a whole.
15. In CA 7.26.6, the end of Did. 10.6 has been slightly revised, with, i.a., προσερχέσθω
instead of ἐρχέσθω and with μετανοείτω having been replaced by the slightly clarifying γινέσθω διὰ
μετανοίας. Both changes can be explained as redactional; προσέρχομαι is one of the terms regularly
used of full participation in the Eucharist in CAR,39 and much attention is paid in several chapters
(heavily characterised by redactional language) to repentance, μετάνοια, as a necessary prerequisite
for such participation, and to penitential discipline.40

39
See 8.10.2 (μήτις τῶν μὴ δυναμέων προσελθέτω); 8.12.2 (οἱ τὴν πρώτην εὐχὴν εὐχόμενοι προσέλθετε). These
passages deal with the question who may “come forward” and gather near the altar in order to participate in the
very celebration of the Eucharist. However, this is identical to their ability to receive communion, since all
participants are, at least in principle, expected to receive communion.
40
See the analysis in Metzger, Constitutions, 2, 97–105 (§§ 390–402).

14
The comparison in retrospect
The introductory exhortation in 7.25.1a without any possible doubt stems from the author of the
Constitutions; if he has reworked the following text extensively – we have seen that he has –, then it
is logical to assume that the very introduction is his own. Reasonably good parallels to 7.25.1a are
found in the comparative material. Furthermore, most of those themes and expressions in 7.25.2
which are not found in the Didache have very good parallels in redactional sections of the
Constitutions and in the other writings of the same author. Some of the expressions, for instance ὃν
καὶ συνεξώρησας παθεῖν καὶ ἀποθανεῖν, are characteristic for our author. Speaking of the blood of
Christ as “precious” (7.25.4) is of course not uncommon in early Christian texts (cf. 1 Pet 1:19), but
using the same adjective, τίμιος, for his body is; and precisely this has significant parallels in a
number of passages which can be shown to represent the thought and language of the author
himself. The rules in 7.25.5–7, adapting Did. 9.5 to new pastoral circumstances, obviously represent
a late-fourth-century situation. Furthermore, the expression ἀμύητος/ἀμύητοι, “uninitiated”, for the
non-baptised is a favourite expression of the author. The baptismal theology mirrored here –
baptism as an initiation ”into the death of the Lord “– also corresponds, though of course not
uniquely, to the baptismal theology of our author. The motif from Romans 6 recurs several times in
the Constitutions, mostly in demonstrably redactional passages, as well in the longer version of the
Ignatian letters. It occurs rather seldom in texts before the second half of the fourth century.41
That the formulation in 7.26.1 is redactional is more or less self-evident, because of the
placement of the paragraph in question. To mention another significant detail, when 7.26.3 speaks
about the law which God has “implanted in our souls”, i.e. “the natural law”, ὁ φυσικὸς νόμος, a
favourite theme in the author’s reworking of the Didascalia in the earlier books of the Constitutions
is picked up. The christology in 7.26.3 corresponds perfectly to the christology as formulated in
demonstrably redactional passages in the Constitutions, in the Commentary on Job and in the
interpolations into the Ignatian letters.
As one immediately sees, Did. 10.6 has been rather heavily re-edited in 7.26.5. On which stage
in the history and pre-history of the text some of these modifications were made is difficult to say.
But there is hardly any doubt that the intention behind the reworking of the Didache found here has
been to bring the eucharistic order into closer similarity with the author’s own ideal eucharistic
liturgy, the one described in book 8 of the Constitutions. What is found in 7.26.5 does not, however,
correspond fully to the wording of the acclamations found at 8.13.11–13, where the liturgy is
described in detail. The lack of full harmony between the two passages is most easily explained if

41
See K. McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in Jordan: The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press 1996), passim; M. E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and
Interpretation (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), esp. 33–88.

15
one assumes that 7.26.5 is not intended to be used in worship, but is rather a kind of literary
construct. However, supposing this one must also assume that the text as a whole is of the same
character – i.e. not really meant to be used in worship in the author’s and the first readers’ own
situation around the year 380.

The syntax in 7.25.4

The comparisons above indicate that the reworking of Did. 9–10 found in 7.25–26 is to be ascribed
to the author of the Constitutions himself. We have, however, briefly touched upon a grammatical
issue which has caused Enrico Mazza to regard 7.25–26 as a reworking of an intermediate text, i.e.
a still earlier reworking of the Didache. More specifically, he has spoken of (the basic contents of)
7.25 as a “paleoanaphora” which would be one of the oldest preserved Christian eucharistic prayers,
perhaps dating from as early as the second or third century.42
The linguistic detail on which this hypothesis is built is the fact that the singular pronoun οὗ in
the latter part of 7.25.4 may seem not to be fully congruent with its plural antecedent:

ἔτι εὐχαριστοῦμεν […]

ὑπὲρ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος ᾽Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ […]
καὶ τοῦ τιμίου σώματος,
οὗ καὶ ἀντίτυπα ταῦτα ἐπιτελοῦμεν […]

The singular pronoun οὗ would have been preserved, for whatever reason, from an earlier version
where only the blood had been mentioned. Correct grammar would require a plural pronoun, ὧν.43
However, Greek grammar in fact permits the use of the singular in a case like this. This is
amply demonstrated in grammatical literature, and many examples are found in the texts. The
singular pronoun can indeed refer to a plural antecedent, namely if the antecedent expressions in
question are meant as a collective or “singular” entity.44 The “blood and body” of Christ is without
doubt such an antecedent, and therefore the οὗ is perfectly normal. Accordingly, the singular οὗ is
not a valid argument for the assumption that 7.25.4 would be dependent on an earlier, different
revision of the Didache text.

42
Mazza, Origins, 42–61.
43
Mazza, Origins, 57–59.
44
See esp. R. Kühner & B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. 3.
Aufl. (Hannover: Hahn, 1904), 1, 52 f.; 2, 339–442; E. Schwyzer & A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik.
2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2:1:2; München: Beck, 1950), 604. I
owe these references and valuable comments on the grammatical issue to Prof. Jerker Blomqvist, Lund.

16
Conclusion
The results of this investigation concur with the hypothesis of Robert Cabié: the adaptation of
Did. 9–10 in 7.25–26 was made by the author of the Constitutions; and the resulting text was
probably not expected to be used in practice. This means that 7.25–26 cannot be used as a
witness to what eucharistic prayers would have looked like earlier.

Newman Institute, Uppsala, Sweden

17
Appendix
Did.9-10 & c41.25-26
7.25 1 Tiveo0e öå rcdvtote eö{riprotot, öq ntotor rsr
eöyvrr4roveq öoö}.ot,

9 1 nepi öe tflq eöloptotiog, nepi påv tflg eöloprotioq

oötrrrq eö{oprotftoote' oötor l,6Tovte6'

notnoieo:
2 nptiitov nepi toö
eötsprotoöpdv oot, n<itep npöv, (Cf. infra, T .25 .4)

önöp dg oytos
ripn6),ou Åoutö roö rotö6q oou,
fiq eyvorptoo-q npiv 6ro'Inooö toö norööq oou'
ooi n !ö(q€tgjsus si(t)yqg.
3 neoi Eä toö ciprou'
eöloprotoöpöv oor, rultep f1pdv, 2 e'}yapwroötrr6v oor, ndtep r1p6v,
öEåp tqq (onq, önep tr1q (rrrfrg,
frq eyvoptoaq l1prv Erd
'Iqoo0 toö rcor66g ooo' frq eyvöproo6 flprv 6rd'Iqooö toö notöö6 oou,
ooi iröö(qer§lsuEst ! S.
6i oö rsi td rcrivts enorriooc
roi rriv öl"rov npovoeiq.
öv rcoi sn6oter),oq åni orrltnpiq tfr åuet6po
yeveo0or civ0prrrnov,
öv roi ouveyr6pnooq no0eiv roi onoOovelv.
öv rai qvootnoog eö6örnoo-q Eo(rioor
rsi erci0rooq er< öe(r«iv oou,
6r' oö rcoi ermTyeil"r» tui.v titv ovriotoo'rv t6v vercpöv.

(ltr Did. 10.3 / C47.26.3) 3 oö ö6onots nsvtorpritop, Oee oi<rlvre,

4 öorcep fiv to0to öreoroprcropdvov endvrrl tdiv öoerrrv öonep frv toöto öreoropnropdvov
roi ouvo10öv öydveto eiq ciptog, roi ouvo10åv åy6veto elq äptoq,
oöto4 ouvs{0ntrrl oou f1 årr<},qoio oötroq ouvrilTsye oou tiyv årrl,qoiov
onö t6v neprittrlv rnq Trlq eig tty o"i1v Boot)"eiov' dnö t6v nepritolv ri6 yrlg ei6 tilv orlv Boorleiov'

[2 eöloproro6pdv oor, ndtep r1pöv, 4 öu e$yaptotoöpev, rcdtep qp6v,

önåo tflq oyioc dufi6),ou Aout8 toö fiorö66 oou, önäo toö trpiou sipotoq'Inooö Xprotoö
fic öyv«optooc, nuiv örd'Inooö to0 nor66q oou] toö år{u0åvtoq önäp npöv
rsi. toö trpiou orrtpstog,
o6 Ksi ovtituns ts0to å[rte],oöpev,
aöto6 öroto€,opåvou iul.v roroTyell.erv töv sötoö 0rivotov'
ör oötoö yrip oor rcoi fl 66(o eig toög ci6vo6' opnv.
ötr oo0 åotrv f1 öö(o roi f1 öövoprq eiq toöq oi6voq.
5 pqöeig 6e eo0r6trrl
5 p4öeig öö Ooydtol un8å ntdtrrl e€ oötdv t6v dpuritrrlv,
ono thq eu{optotioq ÖUöv. «i)"}"d pövor oi 0e0orctroudvot eiq töv toö rupiou Ocivotov.
o),I oi 0ontro0ävtes eis övopo rupiou'

rcoi Tdp nepi toötou e'ipnrev ö röproq' pit ö6te tö öTtov 6 ei 66 trc ouöntos rptvoc ösutöv petol.dFor, rpi&q
toiq ruoiv. oirrrvrov öriyetor, ött pn öv rfrq eic Xptotov rtoteo)q
uet6i,o0ev röv oö 06urq, ei6 rprooiav esutoö.
7 ei E6 trq rotd ciTvorov peto),ri0or, toötov toruev
otor{e r(,ioovte-q purioote, öros pi rorsö povntis å(6},0or.

7.26 l perd, öå tiv uercil,nvrv oötrrlg eöloprotrioote'

2 eöloprotoöpdv oor, ö 0eö_q roi notirp 'Inoo0 to6 orotflpo§
fru6v,
10 petd 6ö tö åpn),noOflvsr oötroq eöloprotr]oate'
1 önåp to6 oyiou övdpotdq oou,
7,
2 eöloprotoöp6v oot, nritep äyre, ou K0'[eoKqv(0o0q ev nplv,
roi önåp tflq prrloerrlq roi nioteo4 roi riydnn§

18
öruäp
7,
toö oyiou öv6pot6q oou, roi oOovooiog,
oö roteor(vrrloog åv tois rqpöiot-q tu6v. frg ä6rorog lplv örd'lqooö toö nor6öq oou'
rcoi önäp tflg yvrrloeorq roi nioterrlq
tcoi oOovooioq, 3 oö, ödonoto rcovtorpcttop, ö 0eö-q triiv ö)"rrlv,
frq eprrlprooq Erd'Iqooö to0 norö6q oou' ö rtioqc töv r6ouov roi td åv oötdi öi oöroö
ooi q öö(o eiq toög oidivoq. rsi vöpov rstoöuteöoo_q åv tolc Vux:slq nuöv
3 oö, Eöonoto novtorcpcitop, roi to rcpöq petri),nvtv rcpoeutpenioqq ov0prönorq,
årttooq to nrivto åverev toö övopot6q oou,

tpoöriv te rcor notöv äöcrlrcoq toi,q ovOprrlnor"q eiq ondlauotv,

nuiv öä åtopioo nveuuottrciv tpoönv
roi noröv rcoi (rrltw oirrrvrov ö OeöE töv syirrlv rcoi opdpmrrov nqtdpolv ipdv,
öto 'Inooö roö norö6q oou, 'A0poop rcoi 'Ioosr roi 'Iarcto0, t6v nrotdv öoöl,rrlv oou,
ö öovstöc 0eö§, ö nrotoq rsi o),n0rvo-q roi oveuöis ev tsI§
ånoyye)"iorg,
ö orcooteilsg åni TfrE'Iooöv töv Xprotöv oou svOptrrrcorq
ouvsvsotpoQfr vot öq civOprorcov,
Oeöv övto ).öyov äv0p@4qtt
roi tiv d"rivnv np6ppt(ov ovel.elv,

4 ruepi" ncivtrov eöXoplq1olptlysqL

ötr öuvqtöc eI. 4 oötöq roi vöv pvrloOrltr
ooi i otövoq.
ö6(s eis toöE ulqayiaq oou årcr).qoiog toutng,
5 pvrjoOrpr, röpre, iiv neprercornorrr tQ trpi.rp s't|.rort toö Xprotoö oou,
tflq ercrl,4oioq oou rsi ööoqr oötr1v ono novtöq novqpoir
roi tei,eirrloov oötflv åv tfl oyrinq oou
toö ööosoOor oötqv oruö rowög novrlpoö roi tfr o)"n0eig oou,
Koi te),er6osr oötr1v ev tfl oyrirql oou, roi oovriyoye ndvtoq rlpdq
eiq dyv oqv Bootl"eiov, ijv fltoipooog oötfl.
roi oövoEov oöti1v åv tfl oydru11 oou
ei6 trlv orlv Boorleiov, i1v rltoipooog oötfl'
ötr ooö eotrv i Erivoplq roi n ö6Eo eiq roöq, oi6vo€.
5 popovoOci'
6 å)"06tro {riorq rcoi rcope}.0eto ö rc6ouoq o6toq. öoqwa trrr uiQ Aouiö'
eö).oTnu6vos ö åp1öpevos öv övöuotr rcopiou'
öoowd tq Oea Aourö. 0eö-q rriproq ö ånrQoveiq ruriv åv oooKi.
6 ei uq ciyrdq, npooep{6o0co'
ei trq oör åonv, ytv6o0ro 6rd uetovoioq.
ei trq äyr6q åotrv, epx6o0rrl' (Jfr ovan)
ei trq oör åotrv, [erovoeitor. 1 ånrtpånete öe roi toi6 npeoButäporq öpdv
popovoOo. ritrrr1v. eÖloptoteiv.
7 toTq öe rpoQritor-q åmrpånere
eöloprotelv öos 06X.ouorv.

t9