Friday Scholarly Notes
9/13/24
Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "Introduction." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (1-54). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).
In his introduction to the Didache, Niederwimmer first describes the major divisions of the work, in a conventional manner (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 1). He identifies 1.1-6.3 as a "tractate on the two ways;" a liturgical section in 7.1-10.7, divided into material about baptism, fasting and prayer, and eucharist; a church order section from 11.1-15.4; and an eschatological conclusion from 16.1-8. He observes that a variety of genres exist, with each of the major divisions fitting into a different literary genre. He takes the whole to be compiled from different types of materials (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 2). Niederwimmer particularly notes that the work is not a work of theology but rather a handbook "for ecclesiastical praxis" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 2). He takes the work to have sprung from some local situation "in a time of transition and its author is clearly making an effort to harmonize ancient and revered traditions of the church with new ecclesial necessities (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 3).
The Didache was known by mention in a variety of ancient witnesses (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 4). Eusebius (H.E. 3.25) classifies it among spurious works which are generally well known. Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 listed it among noncanonical works which are good for reading (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 4-5). Niederwimmer goes on to cite a number of later references, giving less detail. Additionally, he considers a few quotations in early church literature to be conclusively genuine citations rather than statements which are similar but not quotations (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 6). The difficulty, as Niederwimmer illustrates using Clement of Alexandria's Stromata 1.20; 100.4, is that while there is close correspondence, in this case, to Didache 3.5, there is no mention of Clement quoting a statement of another work. He may have obtained the wording elsewhere and may have any of a variety of different levels of regard for the statement's source (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 7).
Liturgical texts may at times show a close resemblance to portions of the Didache, but Niederwimmer takes them to be similar due to a common tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 9). There is a Latin quotation in Pseudo-Cyprian which also states it is "in doctrinis apostolorum." "This quotation is a welcome proof of the existence of a Latin translation of the Didache (and not merely of the tractate on the 'ways') around 300 (in Africa?), as well as of the title it bore: 'doctrinae apostolorum'" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 9).
Niederwimmer evaluates a number of other Latin texts which may make a reference to the Didache but which may equally be drawing an idea from another source. The references are normally only a few words long (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 10 ff). Significantly, Niederwimmer discusses Augustine's use of the concept of allowing an offering to sweat in your hand (Did. 1.6), though he thinks it may have reached Augustine through a non-literary path (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 12). Niederwimmer additionally finds possible references to the Didache in Syrian witnesses. Niederwimmer considers these quotations may well have been derived from a Syriac version of the Didache (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 13).
Niederwimmer goes on to evaluate a number of references to the Didache in later church orders (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 13). Proof of actual literary dependence is elusive. A knowledge of a Latin version of the Two Ways, however transmitted, can be documented as recently as the 11th century (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 15). There is a clear connection between the Didache and the Didascalia apostolorum from the third century, both in Syriac and Latin. Niederwimmer illustrates this with a number of quotations from the works, in parallel columns (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 15-16). Niederwimmer's conclusion is that the Didache was known and may have been used for a variety of other works, but that the precise usage is unclear (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 17).
Niederwimmer finds evidence of knowledge of the Didache among Byzantine authors in the 12th to 14th centuries (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 17). However, the knowledge seems to be based on writings of Athanasius, not on the Didache itself (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 18).
The identification of the Didache in the 19th century brought to light a document which had been known, but not through clear firsthand evidence for many centuries (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19). Niederwimmer provides a brief biographical sketch of Bryennios, who found the manuscript in a parchment codex in the "Jerusalem Monastery" in Constantinople. The text is noted as being completed on Tuesday, June 11, 1056, by one "Leon, notary and sinner" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19). Niederwimmer provides a table of contents for the entire codex, as follows.
"1. Ps. Chrysostom Synopsis Veteris et Novi Testamenti (cf. PG 56.313-86): fol. 1a-38b
2. Epistle of Barnabas: fol. 39a-51b
3. 1 Clement: fol. 70a-76a
5. A list of the ὀνόματα τῶν βιβλίων παρ' ἑβραίοις ("names of the books of the Hebrews"), with the Hebrew and Aramaic titles in Greek transcription, followed by the Greek titles of the respective book: fol. 76a
6. Didache: fol. 76a-80b
7. The letter of Maria of Cassoboloi to Ignatius of Antioch: fol. 81a-82a
8. Twelve letters of Ignatius (recensio longior): fol. 82a-120a; the text of the letters of Ignatius is followed by the colophon (see above)
Finally, there is:
9. a discussion of the genealogy of Jesus: fol. 120a-120b."
Note the colophon is the notice referring to the scribe Leon.
Bryennios' edition of the Didache was published in 1883.
Niederwimmer mentions the double title at the start of the Didache as well as the abrupt ending followed by seven blank lines ((Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19-20). He considers it "obvious" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 20) that the text is incomplete due to the overall structure of the apocalypse and the conclusions provided in Apostolic Constitutions as well as a Georgian version. Niederwimmer observes that there is scholarly disagreement about the quality of the manuscript, whether it is a late and possibly inaccurate version or a faithful copy from a relatively early period. Without a substantial collection of other manuscripts this challenge cannot be resolved (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 20).
The two fragmentary leaves of Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1782 from the fourth century include Didache 1.3a-1.4a and 2.7b-3.2a (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 21)). Niederwimmer considers the book to have originally contained the entire Didache, and to have been written by someone who was not highly proficient. The pages are important because they date to "approximately the time when the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions was copying the Didache into book 7" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 22). Niederwimmer considers the documentation of the passage which some take as a later, specifically Christian, gloss to be important. The alterations in the text also suggest that the work may have had some instability. Niederwimmer illustrates this in parallel columns of the Jerusalem version and the Oxyrhynchus remains (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 22). He describes the significance of the individual variants as well.
A Coptic fragment was identified in 1923, published subsequently in several editions. After discussing the unusual format and the date in the 5th century Niederwimmer identifies the text as Didache 10.3b-12.2a (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 24). Niederwimmer notes the various debates regarding the provenance of the text and the purpose of its presentation. There are numerous oddities in layout and dialect (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 25).
An Ethiopic version exists, possibly translated from either Greek or Coptic (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 25). The text of Didache 8.1-2 and 11.3-13.7 exist, not in a copy of the Didache but as an element in a church order (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 26). Niederwimmer does not consider the work helpful in establishing a text, as it appears to be paraphrased.
Niederwimmer describes a Georgian version of the Didache, copied in 1923 from a manuscript containing Georgian and Armenian texts. The manuscript is said to have been early 19th century, and to have been destroyed since 1923 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 27). This tradition, in Niederwimmer's view, is not reliable and tells us little about the history of the work.
An indirect witness to the Didache text is found in Apostolic Constitutions when the compiler "copied the whole of the Didache in the first, major part of book 7, making some changes in the text of the source and sometimes paraphrasing. The extent of this dependency is visible in the edition by Funk" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 28, reference to Funk Didascalia 1.386-423). Niederwimmer describes the work's use of the Didache to be essentially a copy with added commentary. Niederwimmer describes a number of the editorializing elements found in Apostolic Constitutions.
Niederwimmer moves on to consider the relationship between the Didache as a whole and the Two Ways tractate. The tractate, appearing in similar form in a number of other early Christian works, makes up the beginning of the Didache, but appears in different locations in other works (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 30). Literary relationships of these works seem likely, but the direction of the influences is an elusive matter. The material in Barnabas other than the tractate seems unrelated, in Niederwimmer's view (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 31). The tractate as found in Doctrina Apostolorum is more similar. Niederwimmer notes the publication history of Doctrina Apostolorum in some detail (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 31). He considers this work and the Didache to depend on a common source. The Doctrina Apostolorum, like Barnabas, does not contain Didache material other than the tractate. There is a partial instance of the tractate in the Apostolic Church Order (Can. 4.1-13.4 or 14), attributed to various different apostles (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 32). Again, Niederwimmer takes this to have come about through use of common source material (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 33).
Niederwimmer briefly mentions the Life of Shenoute of Atripe, the Syntagma doctrinae, and Fides patrum, which use some form of the tractate but almost certainly apart from the Didache (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 34).
Research on the Didache has long been predicated on an hypothesis of a basic source document (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 35). Niederwimmer suggests the Two Ways material is based on a Jewish base document (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 36). He sees this as being adopted, with a variety of modifications, as an early Christian work (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 38). A number of different works could have drawn on different recensions of the two ways tractate. Niederwimmer hypothesizes three different versions leading to the witnesses we have, and presents a chart for the influence of the various forms (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 40).
Niederwimmer attempts a reconstruction of the Didache's origin. He takes it almost certainly to have originally been Greek, rather than Syriac (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 41). Counter to Audet's hypothesis of a number of phases of redaction and interpolation, Niederwimmer thinks a "model of the evolution of the work in stages at the hand of one and the same author (to whom is added the interpolator)" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 42) is more likely. The Didachist drew from a number of sources, including the two ways material, tradition about baptism and eucharist, tradition about reception of itinerants, and apocalyptic information (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 44). He compiled the material, expanding it as necessary, and interpreted the ideas. Niederwimmer continues by giving a detailed version of the possible steps of assembly and growth. The sources and redaction of materials from Didache 7.1 on is less clear, as we really don't have much information about a possible source. Niederwimmer considers a good deal of it as redactional in nature (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 45). Niederwimmer considers much of 11.4-15.4 to come from a written document, with only brief interventions by the author (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 46). The eschatological conclusion appears to come from a fairly old tradition.
Niederwimmer questions whether actual New Testament texts are in use in the Didache. He observes that any New Testament allusions or quotations would be found at the end of the redaction process (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 48). It is, however, unclear whether the Didachist actually used the New Testament. Niederwimmer briefly analyzes the four passages which use the term εὐαγγέλιον (8.2, 11.3, 15.3, 15.4) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 49). The references are all similar in form and express the same idea (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 49). The content given of the gospel in the Didache refers not to christology, but to words of Jesus (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 50). The source may be an oral tradition, though Niederwimmer considers this less definite in 15.4 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 51). Niederwimmer considers whether the source referenced is the same in all four instances. If so, it is possible the source is a written gospel.
The time and place of composition for the Didache is challenging, in part because of its apparently composite nature (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 52). The component sources may come from different times and places. Due to the lack of clearly defined distinctions among the different church offices, Niederwimmer thinks we "cannot move too far into the second century" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 52). He is willing to suggest 110-120 C.E., but as a hypothesis (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 53). The place of composition is less distinct. Egypt, Syria, and Palestine all emerge as plausible locations (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 53).
9/13/24
Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "Introduction." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (1-54). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).
In his introduction to the Didache, Niederwimmer first describes the major divisions of the work, in a conventional manner (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 1). He identifies 1.1-6.3 as a "tractate on the two ways;" a liturgical section in 7.1-10.7, divided into material about baptism, fasting and prayer, and eucharist; a church order section from 11.1-15.4; and an eschatological conclusion from 16.1-8. He observes that a variety of genres exist, with each of the major divisions fitting into a different literary genre. He takes the whole to be compiled from different types of materials (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 2). Niederwimmer particularly notes that the work is not a work of theology but rather a handbook "for ecclesiastical praxis" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 2). He takes the work to have sprung from some local situation "in a time of transition and its author is clearly making an effort to harmonize ancient and revered traditions of the church with new ecclesial necessities (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 3).
The Didache was known by mention in a variety of ancient witnesses (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 4). Eusebius (H.E. 3.25) classifies it among spurious works which are generally well known. Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 listed it among noncanonical works which are good for reading (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 4-5). Niederwimmer goes on to cite a number of later references, giving less detail. Additionally, he considers a few quotations in early church literature to be conclusively genuine citations rather than statements which are similar but not quotations (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 6). The difficulty, as Niederwimmer illustrates using Clement of Alexandria's Stromata 1.20; 100.4, is that while there is close correspondence, in this case, to Didache 3.5, there is no mention of Clement quoting a statement of another work. He may have obtained the wording elsewhere and may have any of a variety of different levels of regard for the statement's source (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 7).
Liturgical texts may at times show a close resemblance to portions of the Didache, but Niederwimmer takes them to be similar due to a common tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 9). There is a Latin quotation in Pseudo-Cyprian which also states it is "in doctrinis apostolorum." "This quotation is a welcome proof of the existence of a Latin translation of the Didache (and not merely of the tractate on the 'ways') around 300 (in Africa?), as well as of the title it bore: 'doctrinae apostolorum'" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 9).
Niederwimmer evaluates a number of other Latin texts which may make a reference to the Didache but which may equally be drawing an idea from another source. The references are normally only a few words long (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 10 ff). Significantly, Niederwimmer discusses Augustine's use of the concept of allowing an offering to sweat in your hand (Did. 1.6), though he thinks it may have reached Augustine through a non-literary path (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 12). Niederwimmer additionally finds possible references to the Didache in Syrian witnesses. Niederwimmer considers these quotations may well have been derived from a Syriac version of the Didache (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 13).
Niederwimmer goes on to evaluate a number of references to the Didache in later church orders (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 13). Proof of actual literary dependence is elusive. A knowledge of a Latin version of the Two Ways, however transmitted, can be documented as recently as the 11th century (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 15). There is a clear connection between the Didache and the Didascalia apostolorum from the third century, both in Syriac and Latin. Niederwimmer illustrates this with a number of quotations from the works, in parallel columns (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 15-16). Niederwimmer's conclusion is that the Didache was known and may have been used for a variety of other works, but that the precise usage is unclear (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 17).
Niederwimmer finds evidence of knowledge of the Didache among Byzantine authors in the 12th to 14th centuries (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 17). However, the knowledge seems to be based on writings of Athanasius, not on the Didache itself (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 18).
The identification of the Didache in the 19th century brought to light a document which had been known, but not through clear firsthand evidence for many centuries (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19). Niederwimmer provides a brief biographical sketch of Bryennios, who found the manuscript in a parchment codex in the "Jerusalem Monastery" in Constantinople. The text is noted as being completed on Tuesday, June 11, 1056, by one "Leon, notary and sinner" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19). Niederwimmer provides a table of contents for the entire codex, as follows.
"1. Ps. Chrysostom Synopsis Veteris et Novi Testamenti (cf. PG 56.313-86): fol. 1a-38b
2. Epistle of Barnabas: fol. 39a-51b
3. 1 Clement: fol. 70a-76a
5. A list of the ὀνόματα τῶν βιβλίων παρ' ἑβραίοις ("names of the books of the Hebrews"), with the Hebrew and Aramaic titles in Greek transcription, followed by the Greek titles of the respective book: fol. 76a
6. Didache: fol. 76a-80b
7. The letter of Maria of Cassoboloi to Ignatius of Antioch: fol. 81a-82a
8. Twelve letters of Ignatius (recensio longior): fol. 82a-120a; the text of the letters of Ignatius is followed by the colophon (see above)
Finally, there is:
9. a discussion of the genealogy of Jesus: fol. 120a-120b."
Note the colophon is the notice referring to the scribe Leon.
Bryennios' edition of the Didache was published in 1883.
Niederwimmer mentions the double title at the start of the Didache as well as the abrupt ending followed by seven blank lines ((Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19-20). He considers it "obvious" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 20) that the text is incomplete due to the overall structure of the apocalypse and the conclusions provided in Apostolic Constitutions as well as a Georgian version. Niederwimmer observes that there is scholarly disagreement about the quality of the manuscript, whether it is a late and possibly inaccurate version or a faithful copy from a relatively early period. Without a substantial collection of other manuscripts this challenge cannot be resolved (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 20).
The two fragmentary leaves of Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1782 from the fourth century include Didache 1.3a-1.4a and 2.7b-3.2a (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 21)). Niederwimmer considers the book to have originally contained the entire Didache, and to have been written by someone who was not highly proficient. The pages are important because they date to "approximately the time when the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions was copying the Didache into book 7" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 22). Niederwimmer considers the documentation of the passage which some take as a later, specifically Christian, gloss to be important. The alterations in the text also suggest that the work may have had some instability. Niederwimmer illustrates this in parallel columns of the Jerusalem version and the Oxyrhynchus remains (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 22). He describes the significance of the individual variants as well.
A Coptic fragment was identified in 1923, published subsequently in several editions. After discussing the unusual format and the date in the 5th century Niederwimmer identifies the text as Didache 10.3b-12.2a (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 24). Niederwimmer notes the various debates regarding the provenance of the text and the purpose of its presentation. There are numerous oddities in layout and dialect (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 25).
An Ethiopic version exists, possibly translated from either Greek or Coptic (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 25). The text of Didache 8.1-2 and 11.3-13.7 exist, not in a copy of the Didache but as an element in a church order (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 26). Niederwimmer does not consider the work helpful in establishing a text, as it appears to be paraphrased.
Niederwimmer describes a Georgian version of the Didache, copied in 1923 from a manuscript containing Georgian and Armenian texts. The manuscript is said to have been early 19th century, and to have been destroyed since 1923 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 27). This tradition, in Niederwimmer's view, is not reliable and tells us little about the history of the work.
An indirect witness to the Didache text is found in Apostolic Constitutions when the compiler "copied the whole of the Didache in the first, major part of book 7, making some changes in the text of the source and sometimes paraphrasing. The extent of this dependency is visible in the edition by Funk" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 28, reference to Funk Didascalia 1.386-423). Niederwimmer describes the work's use of the Didache to be essentially a copy with added commentary. Niederwimmer describes a number of the editorializing elements found in Apostolic Constitutions.
Niederwimmer moves on to consider the relationship between the Didache as a whole and the Two Ways tractate. The tractate, appearing in similar form in a number of other early Christian works, makes up the beginning of the Didache, but appears in different locations in other works (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 30). Literary relationships of these works seem likely, but the direction of the influences is an elusive matter. The material in Barnabas other than the tractate seems unrelated, in Niederwimmer's view (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 31). The tractate as found in Doctrina Apostolorum is more similar. Niederwimmer notes the publication history of Doctrina Apostolorum in some detail (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 31). He considers this work and the Didache to depend on a common source. The Doctrina Apostolorum, like Barnabas, does not contain Didache material other than the tractate. There is a partial instance of the tractate in the Apostolic Church Order (Can. 4.1-13.4 or 14), attributed to various different apostles (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 32). Again, Niederwimmer takes this to have come about through use of common source material (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 33).
Niederwimmer briefly mentions the Life of Shenoute of Atripe, the Syntagma doctrinae, and Fides patrum, which use some form of the tractate but almost certainly apart from the Didache (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 34).
Research on the Didache has long been predicated on an hypothesis of a basic source document (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 35). Niederwimmer suggests the Two Ways material is based on a Jewish base document (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 36). He sees this as being adopted, with a variety of modifications, as an early Christian work (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 38). A number of different works could have drawn on different recensions of the two ways tractate. Niederwimmer hypothesizes three different versions leading to the witnesses we have, and presents a chart for the influence of the various forms (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 40).
Niederwimmer attempts a reconstruction of the Didache's origin. He takes it almost certainly to have originally been Greek, rather than Syriac (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 41). Counter to Audet's hypothesis of a number of phases of redaction and interpolation, Niederwimmer thinks a "model of the evolution of the work in stages at the hand of one and the same author (to whom is added the interpolator)" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 42) is more likely. The Didachist drew from a number of sources, including the two ways material, tradition about baptism and eucharist, tradition about reception of itinerants, and apocalyptic information (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 44). He compiled the material, expanding it as necessary, and interpreted the ideas. Niederwimmer continues by giving a detailed version of the possible steps of assembly and growth. The sources and redaction of materials from Didache 7.1 on is less clear, as we really don't have much information about a possible source. Niederwimmer considers a good deal of it as redactional in nature (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 45). Niederwimmer considers much of 11.4-15.4 to come from a written document, with only brief interventions by the author (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 46). The eschatological conclusion appears to come from a fairly old tradition.
Niederwimmer questions whether actual New Testament texts are in use in the Didache. He observes that any New Testament allusions or quotations would be found at the end of the redaction process (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 48). It is, however, unclear whether the Didachist actually used the New Testament. Niederwimmer briefly analyzes the four passages which use the term εὐαγγέλιον (8.2, 11.3, 15.3, 15.4) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 49). The references are all similar in form and express the same idea (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 49). The content given of the gospel in the Didache refers not to christology, but to words of Jesus (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 50). The source may be an oral tradition, though Niederwimmer considers this less definite in 15.4 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 51). Niederwimmer considers whether the source referenced is the same in all four instances. If so, it is possible the source is a written gospel.
The time and place of composition for the Didache is challenging, in part because of its apparently composite nature (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 52). The component sources may come from different times and places. Due to the lack of clearly defined distinctions among the different church offices, Niederwimmer thinks we "cannot move too far into the second century" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 52). He is willing to suggest 110-120 C.E., but as a hypothesis (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 53). The place of composition is less distinct. Egypt, Syria, and Palestine all emerge as plausible locations (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 53).
RSS Feed