Skip Navigation

The Journal of Theological Studies 2006 57(1):76-93; doi:10.1093/jts/flj087
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mueller, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Post-Baptismal Chrismation in Second-Century Syria: A Reconsideration of the Evidence

Joseph G. Mueller, SJ

Marquette University

Correspondence: joseph.mueller{at}marquette.edu

Alastair Logan has argued for the existence of a post-baptismal anointing with ointment in parts of the ‘great church’ of second-century Syria and Asia Minor. He has proposed that this rite fell into desuetude but found new life in the fourth century. Logan's arguments depend especially on Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians 17.1, the blessing at the end of the Coptic Didache 10.7, and the version of this prayer in Apostolic Constitutions 7.27. However, Logan's evidence lacks convincing completeness for three reasons. First, Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians says too little about the anointing practised in communities he judged orthodox to serve as a witness for a post-baptismal ointment rite in these churches. Second, Logan's argument that the prayer at the end of the Coptic Didache 10.7 refers to ointment and is an original part of this document fails to answer sufficiently too many questions and counter-arguments found in the literature. Third, his argument for supposing that Apostolic Constitutions 7.27 proposes a ritual innovation considered essential by the redactor depends on the misreading of some passages and on the assertion of divergent interpretations of the baptismal ointment in this work which comparison with other Antiochene sources shows to be unjustified.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.