Scholarly Reflections
Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 1: On the Rite of Baptism." "Chapter Two: Prehistory of the Tradition." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 29-39.
Voöbus opens this chapter with the question of a Jewish origin for Didache chapter seven. He calls in the view of E. Peterson, who "contends that the discussion on various kinds of water has nothing to do with baptism at all but with the washings for purification" (Voöbus 1968, 29). It is possible that the formulaic patterns for ceremonial washings could be borrowed from Judaism. The case may further be made for a relationship to Jewish baptism of proselytes (Voöbus 1968, 30). On the other hand, Voöbus does suggest that making the compiler of the Didache dependent on sources for all his specific wording is an insult to his abilities as an author.
Peterson had further suggested that Didache chapter seven was a revision instilling a particular dogmatic change, by which an anointing with oil was removed from the chapter (Voöbus 1968, 31). Voöbus observes that Peterson considered the concession of baptism by affusion to be introduced in an illogical way. In comparison with the Apostolic Constitutions, we see the Constitutions speaking of two different ointments. This is in contrast to the Didache's use of two types of water for baptism. Yet Voöbus does not consider it necessary to make a claim that Apostolic Constitutions contains everything that the Didache once held (Voöbus 1968, 32). The simple fact is that we don't have adequate information to make such a claim.
Because redaction history is arelatively controversial topic, Voöbus proposes further study, but in the realm of comparative analysis of the process in similar documents for which some of the redactional details can be identified (Voöbus 1968, 33). This would allow scholars to evaluate existing texts without calling them into undue question. In particular, Voöbus considers it unlikely that additions or omissions would be carried on in a haphazard manner. Redactors should be assumed to be competent and thoughtful.
Even as we question the type of redaction which may have taken place, it is necessary to recognize that the very nature of a liturgical manual suggests redaction. Voöbus does not in any way suggest the materials were invented for use in the Didache (Voöbus 1968, 34). The problem he sees is application of adequate tools to identify various layers. The concession of baptism by affusion may or may no tbe a later interpolation.
The Trinitarian formula of baptism may shed light on the redaction history. Voöbus note that outside of Matthew's Gospel, the New Testament does not reflect a specific instance of the Trinitarian formula in use for baptism (Voöbus 1968, 35). Evidence of the Didache's dependence on Matthew for the formula is inconclusive. Voöbus would prefer to view the record in the Didache as influenced by actual ritual practice rather than Scriptural statements (Voöbus 1968, 36). Underlying the formulaic wording Voöbus finds an alternate wording which is well represented in Scripture. Didache 9.5 identifies people as "baptized into the name of the Lord" (Voöbus 1968, 38). Voöbus recognizes that the statement of 9.5 is likely older and is certainly simpler. It describes the exact same action. Further, it appears in Paul and in Acts. The Lord is identified clearly with Jesus, and, provided the understanding of a Trinity is present, the natural conclusion one would make is that the referent is identical (Voöbus 1968, 39). This fits with our understanding of the liturgucal practice and the theology it represents. An addition of a Trinitarian statement would represent a clarification, not a theological change.