Hippolytus says,

And the bishop shall lay his hand upon them invoking and saying:

O Lord God, who didst count these thy servants worthy of deserving the forgiveness of sins by the laver of regeneration, (make them worthy to be filled with) Thy Holy Spirit and send upon them Thy grace, that they may serve Thee according to Thy will: (for) to Thee (is) the glory, to the Father and to the Son with the Holy Ghost in the holy Church, both now (and ever) and world without end.  Amen

After this pouring the consecrated oil from his hand and laying his hand on his head, he shall say:

I anoint thee with holy oil in God the Father Almighty and Christ Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

And sealing him on the forehead, he shall give him the kiss (of peace) and say:

The Lord be with you.

And he who has been sealed shall say:

And with thy spirit.

And so shall he do to each one severally.^[1]

Dr. Lampe confesses that if this is the authentic text of the Apostolic Tradition, “we should have to conclude that the treatise . . . actually affords early evidence of a divorce in orthodox circles of Spirit‑baptism from water‑baptism.”^[2]  He avoids this conclusion, however, by emphasizing that the Latin version of the Apostolic Tradition contained in the Verona MS.LV(53) does not contain the words, “Make them worthy to be filled with”, in the bishop’s prayer.  This version suits his argument admirably for it “appears to refer the gift of the Spirit to what has already taken place in the water‑baptism rather than to what is going to happen in the ‘confirmation’.”^[3]  Hence the value of the Apostolic Tradition in this discussion must depend on our answer to a problem of textual criticism.  Dix’s view was that the Latin version of the prayer is corrupt, the words in question having been omitted, and he based his reconstruction of the original on five other versions, viz.: T, Arab., Ethiop., Boh., and K, all of which agree in reading, “Make them worthy to be filled with thy Holy Spirit.”  Perhaps more may be said in support of Dix than is allowed by Dr. Lampe, for the Syriac Testament of Our Lord (T) and the Arabic Canons of Hippolytus (K) are both translations of Greek adaptations of Hippolytus’ treatise, while the extant Ethiopic and Boharic versions are based on a Sahidic text.  It is probable, therefore, that these versions are all independent of the Verona MS., which Dr. Lampe dates as “the late fifth or early sixth century”.  At least one of them, the Ethiopic, may be dated c. 500 A.D.  There is some justification for Fr. Crehan’s verdict that “The agreement of the Arian fragments with the Ethiopic version of Hippolytus is too remarkable to have been the result of later deliberate adaptation.”

If the other versions are correct some explanation must be given to account for the omission in the Latin version.  It is unlikely that the Latin text was deliberately altered; the

corruption must then have occurred accidently.  Dr. Lampe apparently considers that he has disposed of Dix’s suggestion of corruption by saying that the Latin text of the Verona palimpsest shows no sign of any major dislocation at this point, nor of any lacuna, and that the manuscript, “though admittedly difficult to read”, is reasonably clear.  But many students of early manuscripts must feel that Dr. Lampe has not sufficiently exhausted all the possibilities before rejecting the view that the Latin text is corrupt.