7/26/24
Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "Chapter One: Introduction to the Didache." In The Didache: A Commentary. (37-62).. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).
Wilhite notes the flurry of scholarly interest and activity surrounding the Didache's discovery in 1873 (Wilhite 2019, p. 37). After the text was released to the public in 1883, Wilhite notes no less than six major publications regarding it within three years. The manuscript was discovered in the 11th century Codex Hierosolymitanus (H54), but was overlooked in the initial review of the volume. Wilhite provides a list of the other contents of the codex (Wilhite 2019, p. 37). Wilhite references Pardee's observation that the text has materials which complement those of the New Testament (Wilhite 2019, p. 38). He also observes the work of coalitions of scholars who have come together from 2003-2015 to produce commentaries, monographs, and numerous scholarly articles exploring the text (Wilhite 2019, p. 38). Dating, editorial history, function, and relationship to the New Testament documents remain important areas for research.
Wilhite notes that the manuscript tradition is challenging, with the Codex Hierosolymitanus representing "the only surviving and generally complete MS" (Wilhite 2019, p. 39). Fragments from the fourth and fifth century contain 1.3c-4a; 2.7-3.2; and 10.3b-12.2. The last segment is Coptic. Wilhite discusses the various manuscripts in turn.
The Jerusalem Manuscript is dated 11 June 1056, by one "Leon, notary and sinner" (Wilhite 2019, p. 39). The fourth century Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1782 provides two fragments, as noted above (Wilhite 2019, p. 40). The text is significantly different in wording. Wilhite provides the text in parallel to the Jerusalem version of the passage (Wilhite 2019, p. 40-41). The fifth century Coptic fragment of 10.3b-12.2a notably contains a "myron" prayer, an anointing liturgy, not found in the Jerusalem manuscript (Wilhite 2019, p. 41). An Ethiopic version which cannot be dated and which is no longer extant contained 8.1-2 and 11:3-7 (Wilhite 2019, p. 42).
The Didache was attested in early Christianity and was apparently quoted and considered by some as part of canonical Scripture (Wilhite 2019, p. 42). Wilhite concedes that the references may be open to debate, but that the text was apparently known. He reviews two mentions in Clement of Alexandria which are similar to 3.5 of the Didache (Wilhite 2019, p. 42). Another apparent reference in numerous works of Clement is Didache 2.2-3, which is an expansion on the concepts inherent in the command against sexual immorality in Exodus 20 (Wilhite 2019, p. 43). Wilhite sees Origen making a statement (De princ. 3.2.7) which is similar to Barnabas 19.6 and Didache 3.10 (Wilhite 2019, p. 44). Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.25.4) suggests the Didache as a book which is rejected from canonical usage. However, he considers it orthodox and useful (Wilhite 2019, p. 45). Wilhite observes that Eusebius' list places the Didache together with Barnabas, where it appears in the Jerusalem Manuscript. Athanasius, in his Festal Letter 39, describes the Didache as a useful instructional text (Wilhite 2019, p. 46). Rufinus, in Expositio symboli 36 may list the Two Ways as a book which is non-canonical but helpful to the faith (Wilhite 2019, p. 47). The Latin construction at that point in his discussion is slightly vague. Pseudo-Cyprian may make a Latin paraphrase of Didache 14.2 and 15.3b in De aleatoribus 4 (Wilhite 2019, p. 47). Wilhite notes with Niederwimmer that this suggests a Latin version of the Didache in the late 3rd century, not restricted to the Two Ways material (Wilhite 2019, p. 48). Pseudo-Cyprian further may use Didache 6.2 in De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima 14 (Wilhite 2019, p. 48). Wilhite provides a fairly exhaustive catalog, which I have tried to encapsulate thoroughly, at risk of giving too much detail.
Wilhite moves on to attempt to identify a date and provenance for the Didache, admitting the opinion of van de Sandt and Flusser that it cannot be more than a guess (Wilhite 2019, p. 48). Dating estimates vary based on the assumption of sole authorship or a composite process. After extensive and detailed review of a variety of dating schemes, Wilhite suggests a relationship between Didache and Matthew, a composite text, and a setting which may well fit the second century (Wilhite 2019, p. 50). He places it in the window of 80-110 CE (Wilhite 2019, p. 51) though there may have been some accretions after that time.
Wilhite moves on to discuss structural matters in the Didache while admitting to its complexity (Wilhite 2019, p. 51). Outlines prepared by various scholars reach varied conclusions about the structure. Though most find four basic categorizations of material the divisions are not absolutely clear and there is considerable disagreement regarding subcategories. Wilhite reviews in turn the models of Claire Rothschild, Klaus Wengst, and Nancy Pardee before proposing his own version of an outline (Wilhite 2019, p. 51-57). Wilhite will use his outline throughout the commentary so we will not attempt to describe the details of the others at this point.