Butler, B.C. “The Literary Relations of Didache, ch. XVI.” Journal of Theological Studies 11:2 (October 1960), 265-283.
Butler, observing that the work of Glover (1958) and Audet (date not cited, La Didache, Instructions des Apôtres) places the didache around the middle of the first century, with literary sources other than the canonical Gospels or the Epistle of Barnabas (Butler 1960, 265). Butler here considers chapter 16 and possible relations of that apocalyptic passages with the canonical works and Barnabas.
Butler first compares Didache 6:1 with Luke 12:35-40. While Butler thinks this, as well as Didache 1:3-5, shows influence from Luke, Audet considers the passages to draw on some other tradition (Butler 1960, 266). Others suggest most of the passage depends on Matthew 24:42-44 or that it is related to “Q.” Butler observes that all the material essential to Didache 16:1 is present in Luke 12:35-40.
The passage in Didache 16 uses some words from the start of the Luke 12 passage, then jumps to the end, omitting parabolic language in the middle. Butler spends considerable effort demonstrating that the passage from Luke is derived from a coherent source. His language makes it clear that he presupposes composition by means of copying sentences or phrases word for word from other sources. With this presupposition, Butler concludes that the passage in the Didache had to depend on Luke (Butler 1960, 268).
As a second example butler compares Didache 16:2-3a with barnabas 4:9-10. While Glover sees evidence of Barnabas using the Didache or its source, Butler observes that the passage could equally well be a reference to Sophocles, as it is very common language also used by him (Butler 1960, 269). The passage, in Butler’s opinion, has good internal logical coherence (Butler 1960, 270). The passage in Didache is also sigbificantly different in meaning, though not in words, than the passage in Barnabas. They are simply not talking about the same idea. The passage in Barnabas, however, shows similarities in both meaning and vocabulary to other passages in Barnabas (Butler 1960, 272).
Butler further considers Didache 16:5b. The term κατάθεμα is a rarely used one, not appearing in the Septuagint and used only in the New Testament in Apocalypse 22:3 (Butler 1960, 275). Audet takes the word (“a laying down”) as a reference to death. Butler considers this a problematic interpretive move on the part of Audet.
A fourth passage considered by Butler is Didache 16:6 (Butler 1960, 276). The passage indicates an opening of the sky, a concept also present in Apocalypse 6:14, though using different words. Butler observes that the language used in Didache 16 is more commonly used for a “spreading out” rather than “opening a gap” (Butler 1960, 276). Butler does consider that the concept has a parallel in Matthew 26:30. In the passage there is mention of a sign of the Lord. Butler takes this to be the sign of the cross (Butler 1960, 278).
Butler extrapolates from these passages that the remaining verses in Didache 16 are dependent on the Greek version of Matthew, since he does not consider Mark to have been a significant influence on the Didache (Butler 1960, 281).
Butler, observing that the work of Glover (1958) and Audet (date not cited, La Didache, Instructions des Apôtres) places the didache around the middle of the first century, with literary sources other than the canonical Gospels or the Epistle of Barnabas (Butler 1960, 265). Butler here considers chapter 16 and possible relations of that apocalyptic passages with the canonical works and Barnabas.
Butler first compares Didache 6:1 with Luke 12:35-40. While Butler thinks this, as well as Didache 1:3-5, shows influence from Luke, Audet considers the passages to draw on some other tradition (Butler 1960, 266). Others suggest most of the passage depends on Matthew 24:42-44 or that it is related to “Q.” Butler observes that all the material essential to Didache 16:1 is present in Luke 12:35-40.
The passage in Didache 16 uses some words from the start of the Luke 12 passage, then jumps to the end, omitting parabolic language in the middle. Butler spends considerable effort demonstrating that the passage from Luke is derived from a coherent source. His language makes it clear that he presupposes composition by means of copying sentences or phrases word for word from other sources. With this presupposition, Butler concludes that the passage in the Didache had to depend on Luke (Butler 1960, 268).
As a second example butler compares Didache 16:2-3a with barnabas 4:9-10. While Glover sees evidence of Barnabas using the Didache or its source, Butler observes that the passage could equally well be a reference to Sophocles, as it is very common language also used by him (Butler 1960, 269). The passage, in Butler’s opinion, has good internal logical coherence (Butler 1960, 270). The passage in Didache is also sigbificantly different in meaning, though not in words, than the passage in Barnabas. They are simply not talking about the same idea. The passage in Barnabas, however, shows similarities in both meaning and vocabulary to other passages in Barnabas (Butler 1960, 272).
Butler further considers Didache 16:5b. The term κατάθεμα is a rarely used one, not appearing in the Septuagint and used only in the New Testament in Apocalypse 22:3 (Butler 1960, 275). Audet takes the word (“a laying down”) as a reference to death. Butler considers this a problematic interpretive move on the part of Audet.
A fourth passage considered by Butler is Didache 16:6 (Butler 1960, 276). The passage indicates an opening of the sky, a concept also present in Apocalypse 6:14, though using different words. Butler observes that the language used in Didache 16 is more commonly used for a “spreading out” rather than “opening a gap” (Butler 1960, 276). Butler does consider that the concept has a parallel in Matthew 26:30. In the passage there is mention of a sign of the Lord. Butler takes this to be the sign of the cross (Butler 1960, 278).
Butler extrapolates from these passages that the remaining verses in Didache 16 are dependent on the Greek version of Matthew, since he does not consider Mark to have been a significant influence on the Didache (Butler 1960, 281).
RSS Feed