Category: Didache - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

The Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions book 7

7/8/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
7/8/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 6. "Die Bearbeitungen der Διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων und ihre Geschichte in der kirchenrechtlichen Literature" pp. 170-268
“1. Die Διδαχήund das 7. Buch der apostolischen Constitutionen.” pp. 170-192.

Harnack dates book seven of the Apostolic Constitutions to the years 340-380, originating in Syria or Palestine (Harnack 1884, 170). He sees this as an important time of the development of church orders and symbolic formulae, most of which arise from contentions in the Church.

The discovery of the Didache made it clear to scholars that much of the material of book seven of the Apostolic Constitutions, particularly chapters 1-32, is adapted from the Didache (Harnack 1884, 171). This, in turn, has led to further insight into the accuracy of different manuscript traditions of the Apostolic Constitutions. Specifically, in Harnack’s opinion, the Constantinopolitan manuscript of Apostolic Constitutions gives a whole transcript of the Didache, without interpolations (Harnack 1884, 172). Harnack therefore lists a few, in fact only six, small conrrections he thinks should be made to Apostolic Constitutions based on the Didache.

Harnack is most interested that the inclusion of the Didache gives a picture of the development, or possibly rather the stability, of Christianity over the two hundred years between 150 and 350 (Harnack 1884, 173). In numerous ways, detailed by Harnack, the Didache is affirmed in the Apostolic Constitutions.

While chapters 1-6 of the didache were basically transcribed into the Apostolic Constitutions, chapters 7-10 had more commentary added, along with some passages omitted (Harnack 1884, 176). Chapters 11-16 are reproduced with very little change or comment.

Harnack continues his work with the Greek text of Apostolic Constitutions VII.1-32 (Harnack 1884, 178-192).

Purposes for Oral vs. Written Communication

7/3/2020

Bakker, Egbert J. “Activation and Preservation: The Interdependence of Text and Performance in an Oral Tradition.” Oral Tradition 8:1 (1993), 5-20.

Bakker observes that linguistic studies have typically compared ideas to a package of information and the expression of the ideas as a conduit, used primarily as a method to transmit the ideas to others, in a process by which the sender delivers ideas to a receiver. He finds this concept to have inadequacies, which he sets out to demonstrate using several examples (Bakker 1993, 5). He further suggests that the inadequacies may be rooted in a presupposition of written communication rather than oral communication.

One of the challenges in our analysis of communication is the fact that the simple, most basic function of written text is to transmit information (Bakker 1993, 6). In writing, then, there is a sense in which Bakker would argue that there is no need to repeat information which may already be known. For this reason we tend to prize originality in writing. On the other hand, it is frequently useful to build context with “old” information so the “new” can be understood (Bakker 1993, 7).

When Bakker considers speech events, he observes that the information may not need to be new. “In fact, effective speech is transmitted to a hearer. Speakers do much more than just transmit new information to one another, and the speaker whose conversational skills do not go beyond the ‘informative’ level is the ultimate bore” (Bakker 1993, 8). The work of speaking and listening is normally more concerned with interpersonal involvement than with delivery of information. Speech, then, according to Bakker, is “an instance of human behavior” (Bakker 1993, 9). The proper analysis, then, may be the relationships between active concepts which may be new or may merely be inactive.

To consider this thesis, Bakker directs our attention to epic poetry. Epic poetry, as a re-enactment and re-activation of a known story or event serves as an example of the involvement described above (Bakker 1993, 10). The epic re-enactment is simultaneously old and new. The performance is not created from nothing, but it is an expression of something already known to most, if not all, listeners (Bakker 1993, 11). For instance, the death of Patroklos in the Iliad is known and expected. Yet it remains both meaningful and moving (Bakker 1993, 12).

Bakker notes that the moving nature of a poetic account of a death is one thing, but that the mention of a hero by name or epithet is also an important feature of the reactivation of an idea (Bakker 1993, 13). In this way, a heroic reputation is preserved. Bakkereven notes that etymologically the Greek word for “true” means “free from forgetfulness (ἀ Λήθης) (Bakker 1993, 14).

How, then, does written text fit in with the ideas enunciated in performance? Bakker observes that writing, in archaic Greece, was a codification of that which was known. It fixes an oral account in a definitive form (Bakker 1993, 16). In this way Bakker takes the writing of epic poetry as an attempt to preserve the message, not to create literature (Bakker 1993, 17). A reason for codifying the Iliad remains elusive, but Bakker concludes it was not in the interest of making the text literary rather than oral.

The Speculative Nature of Dating the Didache

7/1/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
7/1/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 5. “Die Gemeindezustände. Zeit und Ont der Διδαχή.” pp. 88-170. Die Quellen der Schrift.” Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884.
“II. Zeit und Ort der Διδαχή” pp. 158-170.

Harnack freely admits that dating the Didache is controversial, to say the least. Speculations may be based on Clement of Alexandria, Barnabas, and Hermas. He suggests the text comes from the end of the first century to the middle of the second (Harnack 1884, 158).

The place of composition is also difficult to identify. The text seems to have been known first in Egypt (Harnack 1884, 159). However, there is also some evidence that suggests it circulated widely in Syria. Harnack considers the similarities to be greater with some Egyptian works.

As to internal evidence, Harnack finds the dating very complex. He finds elements which reflect very early time periods and some which he thinks may have been added later (Harnack 1884, 160). There is, however, no suggestion of a knowledge of a New Testament canon, no clear idea of a rule of faith or “symbol” guiding its doctrine, no idea of a monarchical view of bishops or elders, and no clear order of worship rocognized (Harnack 1884, 161). The instructions about communion, the divine service, and the prayers are not always clear (Harnack 1884, 162). The symbolic actions around baptism are not present, and there is no account for baptism of children. The chief festivals of the year are absent. The ban on eating blood and strangled things is included, as well as teaching on both giving and excommunication. There is teaching on prophets but no evidence of the existence of Montanism (Harnack 1884, 163). The false teachers are mentioned but there are few details of their teaching. Because of the elements included and missing, Harnack takes the text certainly to be prior to the second half of the second century. When asking whether the Didache is of greater antiquity, Harnack says he finds no internal evidence which places it extremely early. He does suggest that based on form and content the text may fit better between 80-120 than 120-165 (Harnack 1884, 165). But there is no direct and definitive internal evidence which requires such a date.

The suggestions of an earlier date include the apparent presence of apostles and prophets, the judgment of prophets based on actions, the suggestions of different levels of morality among Christians rather than a blanket assessment as Christian or not, a description of some Jews as “hypocrites” rather than a sharp distinction between Jews and Christians, and an eschatology which makes no reference to Matthew 24 (Harnack 1884, 166).

Because there are no suggestions within the Didache of locality, Harnack recognizes we are entirely dependent on external evidence (Harnack 1884, 167). While Harnack observes that Asia Minor is clear as a location in the works of Polycarp and Ignatius, yet Irenaeus does not assign Asia Minor to the Didache, Harnack’s conclusion that Asia Minor is ruled out may be an overstatement. Likewise, because Lucian does not recognize itinerant prophes in Syria, Harnack assumes the Didache cannot comes from tha region, a conclusion he recognizes as somewhat speculative. Palestine would be a candidate, but the text seems to point strongly toward a Gentile audience, which seems unlikely (Harnack 1884, 168). Harnack thinks there are two primary arguments for the text to come from Egypt. First, the recognition of teachers as “apostle” continued for a relatively long time in Egypt (Harnack 1884, 168). Second, the use of the Lord’s Prayer with the doxology at the end is more common in Egyptian manuscript tradition than elsewhere (Harnack 1884, 169).

While Harnack does not find definitive answers to the problem of time and location of composition, he does think Egypt is a probable source.

How to Discuss a Newly-Discovered Text

6/26/2020

Grosvenor, Edmund A. & Schaff, Philip. “Bryennios (Bishop) and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” The Century Magazine vol. 30, 1885, New York: Theo. L. De Vinne & Co., 167-171.

Grosvenor and Schaff, in turn, provided open letters regarding Bryennios and the Didache, recently published, for the 1885 Century. Grosvenor describes the Greek district of Istanbul (then Constantinople) and its “Jerusalem Monastery of the Holy Sepulchre,” home of the Metropolitan Bryennios (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 167). Grosvenor describes the Metropolitan’s residence, particularly his study, in some detail, as well as Bryennios’ appearance and manner of greeting his visitors with warmth and respect. Grosvenor’s interview with Bryennios focused on the recently published Didache, which Grosvenor notes is not the same work as the then well-known Apostolic Constitutions (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 168). Bryennios, in 1873, had come across a volume in the monastery library, in which he had initially noted with great interest a manuscript copy if 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and the Epistle of Barnabas. It was not until 1880 that he noticed the volume also included the Didache, which he published in 1883 (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 169). Grosvenor goes on to describe the library itself, containing approximately 1,000 volumes. It is unclear from his description whether that includes or is in addition to 400-600 manuscripts. The volume which includes the Didache was copied by one “Leo, notary and sinner,” and dates to the year 1056 (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 169). Grosvenor observes that he has only been allowed to see or handle the manuscript twice, due to security limitations at the library (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 170). He does, however, provide photos of parts of two pages.

Schaff continues with a discussion of the contents, which Bryennios divided into chapters. The text itself is on “about ten octavo pages” (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 170). Schaff classifies it as a Church Manual, the earliest example of such a work known to us. Chapters 1-6 are a doctrinal section, in a parabolic form, discussing the Way of Life and the Way of Death. Schaff identifies the form as consistent with Matthew 7:13-14, Jeremiah 21:8, and Deuteronomy 30:15, which all speak of the ways of life and death. He also observes a similarity to Matthew 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 170). A description of ritual pertaining to baptism and the eucharist follow in chapters 7-10. Schaff notes the text speaks of baptism by sprinkling or pouring but makes no reference to infants as recipients of baptism (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 170). Chapters 11-15 make various comments about church polity, particularly about true and false apostles and teachers (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 170-171). Finally, chapter 16 makes eschatological warnings, reminiscent of Matthew 24 and possibly 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 171). Schaff sees the Didache as “a witness of catechetical teaching and ecclesiastical usages at the close of the first or the beginning of the second century” (Grosvenor & Schaff 1885, 171).

Elders vs. Beginners

6/24/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
6/24/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 5. “Die Gemeindezustände. Zeit und Ont der Διδαχή.” pp. 88-170. Die Quellen der Schrift.” Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884.
“4. Die Beamten der Einzelgemeinde: Episkopen und Diakonen” pp. 140-158.

Harnack observes that bishops and deacons are the two offices described specifically in the Didache as locally governed offices. They had relatively clearly defined qualities (Harnack 1884, 141). Harnack does note that these are qualities, as opposed to duties. The only duty actually articulated is that of speaking God’s Word. Harnack emphasizes that the bishops are to be respected, that they are treated as fathers, and that they have a corresponding responsibility to engage in right teaching (Harnack 1884, 142).

Harnack’s strong opinion is that originally bishops and deacons were identical but that their roles differentiated rather quickly (Harnack 1884, 143). Probably the earliest differentiation came about in the matter of care for the poor, which became more closely related to a diaconal role. The bishops and deacons serve as guides and leaders for the people. Yet there is a sense in which the teaching and care of the leaders continues to be carried out in the community as a whole (Harnack 1884, 145). Harnack also considers that in the Didache the role of the bishop is not magisterial in nature. The importance, rather, is that these people have a responsibility in service to God’s Word (Harnack 1884, 146). The difference he sees, then, between the “elders” and the “novices” has to do with their experience in God’s Word. This difference may well have placed them in roles corresponding to the Roman concepts of Patron and Client, respectively (Harnack 1884, 147). Harnack goes on to describe the numerous roles the Fathers would identify for various people, roles which do not denote authority but do describe functional differences. The more specific idea of a magisterial episcopacy, Harnack concludes, probably arose within Gnostic beliefs, rather than from any concept found in the Didache (Harnack 1884, 153). The concept appears to infiltrate Christianity rather later, showing up in Hippolytus and in Apostolic Constitutions (Harnack 1884, 156).

Early Reviews of the Didache

6/19/2020

Lincoln, Heman. Reviews of Didache editions. Baptist Quarterly Review VII (1885), 375-378. New York: The Baptist Review Association.

In 1885 the Baptist Quarterly Review reviewed three editions of the newly released Didache, one by Canon Spence (London: James Nisbit & Co., 1885), one by Roswell Hitchcock and Rancis Brown (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885), and one by Philip Schaff (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1885) (Lincoln 1885, 375). Lincoln considers Spence’s edition, which describes the different offices of the church in detail and which ascribes authorship to Symeon of Jerusalem, immediately after James, to be superior to Hitchcock’s work. However, he considers Schaff’s edition the best, as it includes the comparable documents in Greek and English, as well as having numerous illustrations. The text is 33 chapters in length (Lincoln 1885, 376).

The Didache, though probably not as important a discovery as Codex Sinaiticus or Hippolytus’ On All the Heresies, had attracted more attention than either of those recent discoveries (Lincoln 1885, 376). Dating and authorship of the document were the two areas of greatest controversy. Lincoln summarizes the different stances taken by scholars on both date and author, thus compiling a substantial list (Lincoln 1885, 376).

Lincoln considers the Didache to have little value and to only speak to one doctrine, that of the second coming of Christ (Lincoln 1885, 377). He is disappointed that the Two Ways is merely ethical teaching which, in his opinion, Plato or Seneca would have known, and that the teaching about baptism and the eucharist focus on practice rather than doctrine. He finds only ritual and no “spiritual truths” (Lincoln 1885, 377). He views it as useless in giving genuine spiritual teaching. Lincoln is further disappointed, as a Baptist, because the Didache could be used to endorse a paedo-baptist point of view, which he considers inadequate. However, Lincoln suggest this was Hitchcock’s interpretation, but that the Didache itself teaches adult baptism and a symbolic and non-sacramental view of communion (Lincoln 1885, 378).

Doctrinal Review as a Community Effort

6/17/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
6/17/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 5. “Die Gemeindezustände. Zeit und Ont der Διδαχή.” pp. 88-170. Die Quellen der Schrift.” Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884.
“3. Die Einzelgemeinde” pp. 137-140.

Harnack evaluates the role of the community, as described in the Didache. The community has a responsibility to evaluate wanderers, to determine which are false teachers and which should be recognized as prophets and teachers (Harnack 1884, 137). It is based on a preservation of correct teaching. The community also sees that those who would settle there could have appropriate work, so there should be no unemployment, as well as guarding against offenses and disputes. The community, according to Harnack, is obligated to judge fairly, without regard to appearance (Harnack 1884, 138). This applies specifically to their understanding of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which must be administered in an orderly and proper manner.

All in all, Harnack finds that the governance belongs to the community, rather than to one or more leaders of the community (Harnack 1884, 139). He thinks the Didache creates this unified community concept through a common agreement on the Sunday worship, the work of bishops and deacons, and the practice of establishing peace and reconciliation. All of this may well be solidified by the regular public reading of God’s Word.

An Accidental Discovery

6/12/2020

Grosvenor, Edwin A. “An Interview wih Bishop Bryennios - The Discovery of the ‘Teaching’.” Andover Review II, July-December 1884, pp. 515-516.

Bryennios described his finding of the manuscript of the Didache as an accident, as he leafed through the volume located in the Monastery of the Holy Supulcher in Jerusalem (Grosvenor 1884, 515). He was most interested in 1 and 2 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas, which he worked with from 1873-1880 (Grosvenor 1884, 516). It was not until 1880 that he read over the Didache in the same manuscript and realized what it was. He worked until 1883 to bring it to press, at which time the scholarly community received it very enthusiastically.

Apostles and Prophets in Early Christianity

6/10/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
6/10/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 5. “Die Gemeindezustände. Zeit und Ont der Διδαχή.” pp. 88-170. Die Quellen der Schrift.” Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884.
“I. Die Organisation der Gesammtkirche und der Gemeinde nach der Διδαχή unter Vergleichung der anderen Urkunden.” “2. Die Geehrten in der Christenheit: Apostel, Propheten und Lehrer.” pp. 93-137.

Harnack notes that aside from the role of the bishop and deacon, the other roles which have been widely researched are the apostle, prophet, and teacher (Harnack 1884, 93). The role of bishop and deacon, because of ongoing church polity, have received more attention. In contrast, the Didache describes the apostles, prophets, and teachers in action, with little attention given to bishops and deacons (Harnack 1884, 94). Harnack observes that in the time of the Lutheran Reformation the heirarchy of the Church was an important issue. The Augsburg Confession allowed for flexibility in modes of governance. This seems consistent with the fact that the Didache could be an example of considerable diversity in organizational structure (Harnack 1884, 96). Harnack further sees that the three “offices” of apostle, prophet, and teacher are divided into two classes, with the prophet and teacher together (Harnack 1884, 97).

Harnack points out that the bishops and deacons are never said to be elected, but that they are appointed by laying on of hands. The New Testament speaks of apostles, prophets, [evangelists,] pastors and teachers as gifts from God (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11). Harnack further observes that some prophets are identified by name in Acts, and that Saul and Barnabas are identified among the apostles (Harnack 1884, 97). The work of prophet or teacher may have been considered uunder one general category, keeping too many from engaging in the preaching office and urging people to engage especially in teaching.

In the text of the Didache it becomes apparent that there are apostles, prophets, and teachers, working in an itinerant manner in at least Greece and Asia Minor (Harnack 1884, 98). While Harnack recognizes that there were significantly fewer people known as apostles than as prophets or teachers, he does not particularly speculate at this point about an end to the apostolic office (Harnack 1884, 99). Harnack considers that the Didache may have been written about 100 years after the time of Paul, but that the role of an apostle was still a present reality, although he admits we don’t know what may have happened in the intervening years (Harnack 1884, 99). The roles of apostle, prophet, and teacher, according to Harnack, are given in a ranked order, with apostle being the office of greatest respect (Harnack 1884, 100).

Harnack briefly entertains the possibility that the Didache is very old, even composed before Ephesians (which he considers to be not Pauline), but such a proposition he considers too hasty (Harnack 1884, 101). Yet the Didache recognizes both apostles and prophets, while Hermas has only prophets. This could suggest a very early date. Yet Harnack admits we simply don’t know enough about the step by step development of the Church to say (Harnack 1884, 102).

An attempt to recapture apostolic practice in Christianity tends to return the Church to an idea of the appointed office. This most often is manifested in a high view of the preaching office, or that of the pastor, but rarely in the apostle, prophet, and teacher. Harnack doesn’t find this threefold office in the Fathers (Harnack 1884, 103). Though they are given great honor in the New Testament and in the Didache, they largely disappear from discussion rather early. Harnack considers it possible that, as church order and a knowledge of catholicity spread, the work of apostles and prophets would become less important (Harnack 1884, 105). We have clearer information about the organization of Christianity in the third century and beyond, when it seems an episcopacy is governing matters (Harnack 1884, 109).

Apostles and prophets, in Didache 12, are to be examined according to their doctrine (Harnack 1884, 111). Harnack observes that in the later chapters, prophets and teachers are treated together. Harnack observes that the prophets are said to wander without possessions. This may also be the case with the apostles (Harnack 1884, 113). Harnack suggests this is not necessarily the Christian custom such as a Franciscan view of poverty for spiritually serious people, but more as a qualification for those called to the preaching ministry. The expectation Harnack finds in Eusebius is that an apostle would work tirelessly for the Gospel, even if it cost him all he had (Harnack 1884, 114). The idea in the Didache of providing hospitality for just two days may point to the idea of a true apostle, doing his work and moving on without thought of enduring comfort (Harnack 1884, 114). If he wanted money rather than bread, he was a false apostle or a false prophet. Harnack observes this would prevent people from seeking apostleship out of any sort of covetousness. The apostles were devoted to the mission (Harnack 1884, 115). In defense of the idea of a multiplicity of apostles, Harnack notes that Paul was not one of the twelve and that he refers to “all the apostles,” as well as recognizing there are “other” apostles referred to (Harnack 1884, 116). The extrapolation Harnack makes is that there are some special apostles, called “the twelve” to distinguish them from the rest of the apostles. He suggests that the Seventy sent by Jesus in Luke’s Gospel may well be considered apostles (Harnack 1884, 117).

The prophets are considered after the apostles in the Didache. Like the apostles, these are itinerant people who seem to be lacking in possessions (Harnack 1884, 119). Prophets are spoken of more than apostles or teachers in the Didache, with 15 mentions as opposed to three mentions of apostles. They are compared in their role to high priests. Unfortunately, Harnack notes that their function is not described (Harnack 1884, 120). We do see that the prophets, like the apostles, did not settle in the community, but visited it for a short time. While in the community, however, the prophets were given gifts of the firstfruits. Yet, rather than drawing a profit, the prophets were to give to the poor (Harnack 1884, 121). Harnack sees that false prophets may be recognized and rejected based on a refusal to live according to the rules in the Didache or based on false teaching, which would be evaluated in the community (Harnack 1884, 122). Harnack reviews the likely views of the prophets’ work and background, then concludes that the roles described in the Didache are not unlike those described in other early Christian literature (Harnack 1884, 125). For that matter, these prophets bear a striking resemblance to the canonical accounts of John the Baptizer and Jesus (Harnack 1884, 126). Harnack also notes that many of the church Fathers used terms such as prophet freely to speak of people in similar functions, whether or not it was an office of the church.

Barnabas and Two Ways

6/5/2020

Connolly, R.H. “The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache” Journal of Theolgoical Studies 35 (1934), 113-146.

Connolly introduces his article with reference to a proposed enlarged edition of Armitage Robinson’s Barnabas, Hermes, and the Didache, an edition short-circuited by Robinson’s death (Connolly 1934, 113). The edition would reconsider literary dependence. After Robinson’s death in 1933, Connolly received papers which Robinson had prepared, consisting of an extensive revision of the first and third chapters of the book (Connolly 1934, 114), a few minor changes to the second chapter, and some notes indicating that the fourth chapter, dealing with literary dependence, needed to be thoroughly revised, based on new evidence (Connolly 1934, 115). Connolly takes notes in the Appendix section to indicate that, while Robinson had originally considered the Two Ways narrative to depend on an earlier Jewish source, he was now considering it dependent on the canonical Gospels.

Because Robinson’s work was by no means complete, Connolly sought publication of the revised portions in a journal rather than as a partially revised book (Connolly 1934, 117). Robinson’s material follows, on pp. 118-146, with promise of another chapter to follow in the next issue of JTS.

Robinson introduces the topic of dating and influences on the Didache by noting the original theory of dependence on the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. That theory was called into question in 1886 by the work of C. Taylor, suggesting a rabbinic source for the Two Ways material (Connolly 1934, 118). Subsequently, there were suggestions that the specifically Christian material in the Two Ways was a later interpolation. This theory allowed dating in the first century, with later insertions. Robinson asserts of Barnabas “that its closing chapters which treat of the Two Ways are wholly in character with the rest of the book, and are undoubtedly the original composition of this rabbinically minded author” (Connolly 1934, 119-120). He considers Hermas and the Didache to draw on Barnabas. Robinson further takes the intent of the Didache as to present the form of Christianity presented by the apostles and active at the author’s time.

Robinson goes on to address the Epistle of Barnabas as a source for the Didache. He observes that the canonical Hebrews and the non-canonical Epistle of Barnabas both addressed the same issue, that of Christians who were not Gentiles, and their life in Christianity, which was coming to be dominated by Gentiles (Connolly 1934, 121). The entire relation between Christians and the Old Testament was under consideration. Early Christians accepted as fact that Jesus, the Christ, affirmed the validity of the Old Testament. At the same time, in a sense, they viewed it as having become obsolescent (Connolly 1934, 122). Hebrews, addressed to Jewish Christians, resolved the problem by showing Jesus as the fulfiller, the completer, of the Old Testament. The Epistle of Barnabas, addressed primarily to Gentiles, and referenced widely in early Christianity, uses the Old Testament as a text of moral instruction (Connolly 1934, 123). The text is variously dated between about 79 and 130 A.D. (Connolly 1934, 124).

Robinson proceeds to summarize the content and main arguments of Barnabas. From the start, the commands and the knowledge of God are important themes (Connolly 1934, 124). These are seen in contrast to the powers of the evil one, referred to in various terms. By learning God’s will, we eventually reach an understanding of the truth (Connolly 1934, 125). Barnabas sees spiritual sacrifices and worship as the true spirituality. For this reason he rejects the sacrificial system of Judaism. Barnabas sees the people of Israel as having fallen from the promises and commands of God (Connolly 1934, 126). Robinson traces a number of Barnabas’ arguments for allegorical understandings of th eOld Testament. Through special secret knowledge comes an understanding of Christ (Connolly 1934, 127ff). Barnabas further describes all the Old Testament ceremonies as actually being the property of Christianity because the Jewish scriptures pointed to a future fulfillment (Connolly 1934, 129).

After making this argument, Barnabas turns to the Two Ways narrative. Robinson considers this to be a not unexpected transition, as the author has already made numerous rapid jumps to apparently disjointed ideas (Connolly 1934, 130). Robinson proceeds to give a translation of the Two Ways material with comments interspersed. Robinson particularly notes that the text distinguishes between “knowledge” and “power,” with “knowledge” being the positive characteristic (Connolly 1934, 132). I observe that the text proceeds with commands not to do certain things, which would be the way of death. This contrasts with the Didache which simply describes the way of death. Robertson notes a great deal of Barnabas’ material has roots in Ephesians, an opinion which he elaborates on in some detail (Connolly 1934, 135). Particularly Robinson notes the conceptual similarity of Barnabas 19.7 and Ephesians 6.5ff, as both speak to the relationship between masters and slaves (Connolly 1934, 136-137).

Barnabas’ conclusion is that it is good to “learn the ordinances of the Lord” (Connolly 1934, 141). He speaks in many passages of a need to be familiar with the Scripture, and his writing shows many quotations and allusions. Robinson’s assessment of Barnabas is “as a man of earnest piety, claiming no position as a leader or teacher, yet accustomed to pour out his peculiar wisdom for the edification of such as would hear him” (Connolly 1934, 144). He seems to think like an Alexandrian Jew, but he does not think Judaism has any understanding of God (Connolly 1934, 145). Robinson’s conclusion about the Two Ways material in Barnabas is that it was composed by the author, showing the same characteristics as the rest of the text (Connolly 1934, 146).

What Is Unity of Faith?

6/3/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
6/3/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 5. “Die Gemeindezustände. Zeit und Ont der Διδαχή.” pp. 88-170. Die Quellen der Schrift.” Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884.
“I. Die Organisation der Gesammtkirche und der Gemeinde nach der Διδαχή unter Vergleichung der anderen Urkunden.” “1. Die Christenheit oder die Kirche.” pp. 88-93.

Harnack observes that the Didache never specifies any one community but rather speaks of Chrsitianity as if it is addressing a universal whole (Harnack 1884, 88). This attitude is similar to that of Tertullian, who views Christianity as a body joined by a particular faith and unified practice. Harnack considers both Tertullian and the Didache to describe a relatively universal form of Christianity, as opposed to a localized form (Harnack 1884, 89). The text of the Didache even speaks to numerous life situations common to all, from instruction to baptism, to prayer, reception of the Sacrament, Christian living in the community, and finally an eschatological hope.

Harnack recognizes that unity of the faith does not always indicate uniformity of practice (Harnack 1884, 90). The idea of a guest-friendship, for example, may be carried out in different ways according to needs and abilities. Harnack also sees a variety of practices which, while considered Christian, may have more tendencies toward Enthusiasm, different views of order and worship, and differing approaches toward community life (Harnack 1884, 92).

Little Clues to Similar Sources

5/29/2020

Dix, Gregory. “Didache and Diatessaron” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933), 242-250.

The non-retaliation statement, “if someone strikes you on your (right) cheek,” from Matthew 5:39-41 and Luke 6:29-30 also appears in Didache 1:4 and in Tatian’s Diatessaron. Dix observes that “a collection ‘Moral Maxims’ ascribed to Isaac of Nineveh’ (Dix 1933, 242), re-works the Two Ways narrative, but takes this passage in Tatian’s reading, which omits the word “right.” The word “right” does appear in Apostolic Constitutions vii, and is also present in the tradition of the Didache which made it through to 1056, the date of the manuscript discovered by Bryennios (Dix 1933, 243). However, the “Moral Maxims,” dating to the seventh century, when apparently quoting the Didache, omits the word. Dix concludes that it would be very unlikely for a scribe or author to omit that word. He also thinks it highly likely that the Didache used the Diatessaron to obtain that unusual reading. This would place the Didache no earlier than 175 A.D.

Dix details a variety of sources for this passage - the Bryennios Didache, the Didascalia in Syriac and in Latin, Apostolic Constitutions vii.2.2, the Georgian Didache, papyrus Ox. 1782, 1., and Isaac of Nineveh (Dix 1933, 244). Dix also brings in Pesudo-Athenasius’ syntagma Doctrinae and St. John Climacus Scala Paradisi as possible sources. The text history is relatively confusing, yet Dix finds it quite possible, though not definitively proven, that the Didache served as a source for many of the others, and that it drew on a collection of sayings which has not been recovered (Dix 1933, 247). Taken together, both the passage about being struck on the cheek and the passage (Did. 1:5a) about lending money suggest significant similarities (Dix 1933, 248). A common source could explain those similarities.

Similarity? Dependence?

5/27/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
5/27/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 4. “Die Quellen der Schrift.” Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884, pp. 63-88.

Speaking to the source of the text, Harnack immediately sings its praises, particularly in originality. He considers it far and away the best and oldest example of extracanonical literature of early Christianity (Harnack 1884, 63). Haarnack catalogs references in the Didache to the Old Testament, to the overall ideas of the Gospel, to the letter of Barnabas, and to the Shepherd of Hermas (Harnack 1884, 65). It seems to Harnack that the references to New Testament ideas but not texts suggest knowledge of traditions but not of a defined New Testament canon. This could reasonably push the author to give such detailed explanations of both doctrine and practice to the readers (Harnack 1884, 66). Harnack provides a detailed list of passages with references to other works of early Christian literature (Harnack 1884, 66-68). He follows it with a chart of statements from the Didache in parallel columns with the synoptic gospels and with other early witnesses (Harnack 1884, 70-76). Of the 23 segments, Harnack observes that 17 are dependent on Matthew’s Gospel (Harnack 1884, 76). Many are related to Matthew and nothing else. Harnack proceeds to speak about each segment and its comparisons to other passages in turn. While Harnack sees a clear relationship between the Didache and Matthew, he also sees a close relationship with the Episle of Barnabas (Harnack 1884, 82), especially in its moral teaching. Harnack goes into some detail, specifically and frequently comparing passages in chapter 19 of Barnabas. It is interesting, though addressed almost as an afterthought by Harnack, that no Pauline letters are referred to in the Didache (Harnack 1884, 87). There are certainly many topics which are common to both Pual and the Didache, but here is no evidence of interaction. Harnack does provide a list of passages which would lend themselves to comparison (Harnack 1884, 88).

Evaluating Comparisons

5/22/2020

5/22/20

Connolly, R.H. “Didache and Diatessaron” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933),346-347.

Connolly here reviews an article by Dix, making a comparison of Isaac of Nineveh, the Apostolic Constitituions, and the Didache. Connolly concludes that Dix failed to “see what is surely so evident, viz. that Isaac was using the Apost. Const. and, for all that appears, knew the Didache only in the greatly altered form which it has there” (Connolly 1933, 346). Connolly illustrates this dependence by showing, briefly, that in places where Apostolic Constitutions removes some of the language used in the Didache and expands it using other language, Isaac never uses the didache wording. In instances where the wording of the Didache is retained, it is also the wording used in the canonical Scripture, which could well influence many more texts (Connolly 1933, 347).

Organization of the Didache

5/20/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
5/20/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 3. Die Disposition und der Inhalt der Schrift” Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884, pp. 37-63.

Harnack sets out in section three to evaluate the structure of the Didache. He finds it to have a strong and orderly arrangement, comparable to other documents from early Christianity (Harnack 1884, 38). Harnack provides a detailed outline without elaboration (Harnack 1884, 38-40). This he follows with some comments about the content. Harnack observes that major sections typically begin with a prepositional phrase, such as, “about baptism” or “about the eucharist” (Harnack 1884, 41). Harnack also notes that the concern for catechesis is very serious. The convert is called without question to take on “the whole yoke of the Lord” (Harnack 1884, 43). The tone may change at some point, as Harnack observes that there is a shift between the “two ways” or chapters 1-6 and writing more akin to a church order in chapters 7-15. Although there could be other ways of dividing the text, Harnack finds this division the most natural (Harnack 1884, 44). He then comments on the different parts of the text in more detail.

The first main portion, chapters 1-6, speaks of the way of life and the way of death. This seemed clear to Harnack (Harnack 1884, 45). The way of life is characterized as a way of loving one’s neighbor, rooted, according to Harnack, in love for God. It is further the love of God which enables one even to love his enemy (Harnack 1884, 46). Harnack finds this same idea in other early Christian writings, particularly in the openings of 2 Clement and Hermas. Care for the neighbor regularly seems to spring from love for God (Harnack 1884, 47). Harnack elaborates on this idea at length, concluding that love for one’s neighbor is a fundamental societal good. This is how we can live in society with those who disagree with us (Harnack 1884, 50). Further, Harnack takes the “whole yoke of the Lord” from 6:2 to be a natural deduction from the idea of loving our neighbor. Much of the material in the “way of Death” can be linked easily to the second table of the Decalog (Harnack 1884, 51). Therefore, love for neighbor includes avoiding the actions in the Way of Death. Harnack even suggests that the commands in this portion of the Didache may have been seen by some as a Christian replacement for the Decalog (Harnack 1884, 52). However, since the ability to speak authoritatively to the issue is not clear, the matter of any replacement list of commands is left open to discussion. It is clear that the Didache assumes the current existence of apostles, bishops, deacons, and prophets tho can give guidance (Harnack 1884, 55).

Harnack considers chapters 7-10 as a second division of the first part of the book. Here, the Way of Life is seen applied through reception of the convert by means of baptism (Harnack 1884, 57). After receiving instruction then participating in fasting and prayer, the convert is baptized and participates in the life of prayer. This is followed, in chapters 9-10, by the eucharist (Harnack 1884, 58). Harnack notes that the instructions given for the eucharist differ at points from the emphasis in the accounts of the New Testament. Particularly Harnack observes that the death of Christ is not adduced, but there is thanksgiving for the “offspring of David.” Harnack thinks this reflects a very early view of the eucharist (Harnack 1884, 60).

Harnack identifies chapters 11-15 as the second part of the Didache. Here we read about wandering prophets and other Christians who come in contact with the community (Harnack 1884, 61). It is clear that there are bishops and deacons. They speak God’s Word to the people and are to be respected, but they don’t seem to have the magisterial role which develops later (Harnack 1884, 62).

The third, and last, part of the Didache is chapter 16, in which there is a brief eschatological exhortation. Harnack finds similarities to the eschatological passages in Matthew but also in other, non-Christian works. He makes few comments on this passage (Harnack 1884, 63).

Finding Relationships among Ancient Documents

5/15/2020

5/15/20

Connolly, R.H. “The Didache in Relation to the Epistle of Barnabas.” Journal of Theological Studies 33:3 (1932), 237-253.

Connolly notes that most Didache scholarship has been based on conjectures which consider dating in comparison with development of churchly authority structures and growing clarity of articulation of the Eucharist. These studies have normally placed the text “very early in the second century, or even well within the first” (Connolly 1932, 237). However, Robinson’s lectures, published as Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache (1920) began to treat the issue of dating through literary criticism, in a method similar to that used in considering the synoptic problem.

Robinson particularly concentrated on the Two Ways portion of the Didache, as that is the area of greatest overlap with both Barnabas and Hermas (Connolly 1932, 237). Robinson’s conclusion was that Barnabas was the source of the Two Ways narrative, that Hermas used it as a source, and that the author of the Didache used both
(Connolly 1932, 238).

Connolly sets out to apply Robinson’s methods in detail to the second part of the Two Ways, the Way of Death (Connolly 1932, 238). To make matters more straightforward, he compares only the Didache and theEpistle to Barnabas, rather than working with a three way comparison.

Connolly’s comparison begins with a rendering of Barnabas 20:1 and Didache 5:1 in parallel columns, with the elements of the Way of Death cross-referenced for easy comparison (Connolly 1932, 239). Connolly then observes the significant distinctions between the two lists (Connolly 1932, 240). The one in Barnabas has no hint of organization, while that in the Didache has some level of classification, particularly between acts (all plural) and the mantal states (all singular). Connolly observes that the Didachist lists sins in the same order as Matthew 15:19 (also plural) (Connolly 1932, 241).

Connolly continues then by considering each of the elements of the list of sins found in Didache but not in Barnabas (Connolly 1932, 242). He draws detailed comparisons of those two works to mentions of the same sins in the canonical Scriptures, regularly understanding the Didachist to have taken the languagefrom the Scripture.

When he considers the overall content of the list of sins, Connolly points out that Barnabas has relatively little internal self-reference, but that the Didache does. Precepts brought up in one place are almost always referenced later, in the same terms and the same order (Connolly 1932, 244). He observes, then, with Harnack, that if Barnabas borrowed from the Didache, he seems to have systematically stripped it of much of its order and all of its genuine Gospel (Connolly 1932, 245).

Harnack’s view of the matter was that both Barnabas and the Didache took the Two Ways material from an older, Jewish source. Connolly proceeds to test that theory (Connolly 1932, 246). For this test, rather than looking for differences, Connolly looks for similarities which would not be likely accidents. He provides the text of Barnabas 20:2 and notes the differences found in Didache 5:2. The differences arefew and normally insignificant. What is striking to Connally is that “they have this long and amorphous list of evil persons in exactly the same order” (Connolly 1932, 247). Connally considers this as evidence that the two documents are in a direct relationship to one another. The earlier evidence persuades Connolly that Barnabas existed first and that the Didachist elaborated and re-organized some of the material (Connolly 1932, 247).

Connolly next traces a number of other statements from various locations in Barnabas which are supported by similar statements in the Didache (Connolly 1932, 248-252). With discursive remarks inserted in the list Connolly notes catch phrases used by both texts, as well as similarities in the context surrounding the different statements.

Connolly concludes that there is adequate evidence, even merely from Barnabas 20:2, that the Didache is dependent on Barnabas (Connolly 1932, 252). He also thinks, but has not explored in detail, the parallel texts show origin in Barnabas and editorial development in Didache.

Early Catechesis (training)

5/13/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
5/13/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 2. Der Title, die Adresse und der Zweck der Schrift” Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884, pp. 24-37.

Harnack observes the dual titles of the Didache, noting that early references to the text make mention of both titles. He considers that the longer title was certainly the older (Harnack 1884, 24). His reasoning is that a longer title is easily shortened in common usage, but a short title is very unlikely to be lengthened (Harnack 1884, 25). He further considers that Papias appeared to think the text had apostolic origin. Because of Papias’ time, writing in the early 2nd century and having contact with at least the generation immediately after the 12 apostles, Harnack thinks Papias’ sense of the matter is reliable (Harnack 1884, 26). Justinian also took the text to originate with the apostles. Harnack also makes an argument from silence, that he finds no subsequent writings that claim authorship by the 12 apostles. He then goes so far as to suggest that Acts 2:42, and possibly also Acts 13:12, 1 Cor. 14:6, Tit. 1:9, and 2 John 9-10 make reference to this work.There may also be hints of the Didache in Barnabas 16:9 and in Justin Apol. 1:4 (Harnack 1884, 27).

The address “to the Gentiles” is a further challenge. Harnack finds the sharp distinction between Jew andGentile to be a feature of the earliest period of Christianity, almost entirely passing away by about the third generation of Christians (Harnack 1884, 28). The apparent use of the text for catechesis of adult converts also seems to indicate a setting in which Christianity had not spread very widely. Again, this points to an early date. The Christian culture does not seem established to the point of being common knowledge to the original audience (Harnack 1884, 29).

Harnack concludes that the purpose of the Didache is catechetical, which classifies it in genre with James, Jude, 1 &2 Peter, Hebrews, and the letter of Barnabas (Harnack 1884, 30). It addresses Gentiles, not mentioning Jews until chapter 8, and there suggesting they are”hypocrites.” The question may well arise whether there was a sharp distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christianity at the time. The fact that the Didache is written “for the Gentiles” suggests so, but not necessarily with an implication of conflict. The Gentile converts would reasonably be assumed to need a different level of catechesis than would Jewish converts (Harnack 1884, 31). The goal of catechesis is that Christians can live a faithful life in their society. Harnack, particularly citing the Younger Pliny’s misunderstanding of Christianity, acknowledges that there would be a significant understanding gap between Christianity and the pagan culture (Harnack 1884, 32). The challenge was to communicate what Christians need to know in brief terms. Harnack sees this as a challenge especially in the light of the rising Gnosticism, which would reinterpret statements to make them fit its own philosophies (Harnack 1884, 34). For this reason it was very important to reinforce the apostolic teaching. Harnack notes especially the Trinitarian nature of the Didache, the emphasis on the Sacraments, and the idea of Jesus as the fulfillment of the promise to David as ways it reinforces apostolic teaching (Harnack 1884, 36).

A Written Document from an Oral World

5/8/2020

Henderson, Ian H. “Didache and Orality in Synoptic Comparison” Journal of Biblical Literature 111:2 (1992) 283-306.

I observe that I had previously made some notes on this article, in 2019, but that these notes are more substantial.

Henderson notes that studies of the Synoptic Gospels and their possible oral sources have been, on the whole, deficient, based on methodology and presuppositions about the source material. For this reason, he suggests “working out a more balanced approach to early Christian and especially Synoptic literature” using the Didache as test material (Henderson 1992, 284). As Henderson pursues questions about the nature of the Didache, its analogical relationship to the New Testament, and an understanding of orality he hopes to move toward clarity in study of other early Christian writings.

From a literary standpoint, attempts to classify the Didache have ranged from considering it as myth to fiction to social commentary. Identifying source materials is made more difficuult by this confusion (Henderson 1992, 285).

An analysis of authorship could prove useful. Henderson, as we might predict, finds this difficult. The work is essentially anonymous, though it claims the teaching comes from the apostles. Henderson asks, though, whether the “teacher” who can be found in the text is the implied author or not (Henderson 1992, 286). The roles of apostle and prophet in the Didache seem to be largely as an inspiration to readers, while the teacher imparts more concrete guidance (Henderson 1992, 287). Henderson compares the role of the teacher to that of a scribe in Matthew (cf. Matt. 13:52; 23:34-39), noting that the two figures both take written material and interpret it into useful for for others.

The literary genre also bears investigation. Henderson considers the idea that the Didache was an early church order, in fact, the earliest we know of. If this is so, Henderson observes that “it was once one of a kind” (Henderson 1992, 288). In that case, it would not be influenced by other similar works. While there were existing antecedent sources for many of the ideas, the actual genre may not have existed previously. This is a similar situation to that of the canonical Gospels. The first to be written was very likely one of a kind (Henderson 1992, 289).

Henderson compares the Didache and the Gospels by listing three similarities, which he also says combine “positive characters of orality and of literacy: (1) Both genres are episodic in acharacter . . . (2) Both genres are, moreover, formally hybrid. . . (Henderson 1992, 289) (3) the two genres, gospel and church order, share a selectivity in the choice of topics and an economy in their development” (Henderson 1992, 290).

The genre of the Didache also has an interaction with oral sensibilities. If the teacher and author are the same, the overall idea is certainly that the written work is based on and used in an oral context. It is arranged around particular topics which could be the basis of contentions, much like the letters of Paul to the Corinthians (Henderson 1992, 292). Henderson does observe that the tone of the Didache is not as contentious as that of Matthew or of Paul. Yet it remains a text which makes normative statements. The identification of the Didache’s tone in speaking to potential conflicts applies to our understanding of the biblical iterature as we realize tone and approach to problems may be unified but not monolithic (Henderson 1992, 293). Henderson finds a range of legitimate ways to discuss problems.

Henderson further considers source material, observing that there is use of material which almost certainly existed in literary form, such as the Two Ways material. However, the whole document seems reflective of an oral world, not a literary one. Henderson observes that much study of orality as applied to early Christian works still depends on the tools used for exegetical study of literary texts (Henderson 1992, 294). Finding the tension and relationshiops between orality and literary usage is important to our understanding and interpretation of our texts.

To gain further insight into orality and literacy in the Didache, Henderson looks for “medium-specific references” - statements about speaking or hearing as opposed to those about writing or reading (Henderson 1992, 295). He concludes that although reading and writing were certainly known to the people, the text speaks as if in an oral context. The New Testament, on the other hand, dwells in a strongly literate context. Henderson also notes that references which may also be quotations appear using the language of orality, probably the Lord’s Prayer as presented in Didache and in Matthew 6 serving as the best example (Henderson 1992, 296). Henderson goes on to cite oblique references to “the Lord” and to “the gospel’ without making clear the identity or location of a source (Henderson 1992, 297). While Henderson acknowledges that this is common in antiquity, he considers the Didache to obscure the sources of information more deliberately than other writings do. This suggests a strong context of oral authority rather than written authority (Henderson 1992, 298).

Henderson considers the “oral sensibility” in the Didache is not only shown through the repetitive patterns and episodic nature, but that there are internal unifying factors which point more to an oral than a literary environment (Henderson 1992, 298). As an example of symbolic and formulaic unity, Henderson reviews the Two Ways material of 1.1-6.2. Of special note to Henderson is the statement in 7.1 which implies all the teaching which follows will build on what came before (Henderson 1992, 299). Henderson’s view is that the size of the portion indicated, as well as the variety of material found in 1.1-6.2, is more indicative of an oral than a literary setting (Henderson 1992, 300). He concludes “the passage is structured cumulatively rather than inductively” (Henderson 1992, 301). The discussion leads to a conclusion not by a logical argument but by comparison of multiple scenarios. Henderson continues by showing use of formulaic statements as transitions and introductions to different sections in the text. This is another strong indicator of orality (Henderson 1992, 302-304).

Henderson concludes that the Didache is properly described as an oral work to a greater extent than many others. It uses a strongly oral and poetic sensibility. The interactions it develops are conversational rather than syllogistic. It also seems to assume this sensibility is the norm, thus presupposing a predominantly oral culture (Henderson 1992, 305).

History of the Didache

5/6/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
5/6/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 1. Die Geschichte der Διδαχή in der Kirche und ihre überlieferung in der constantinopolitanischen Handschrift” Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884, pp. 5-24.

Harnack identifies the Didache as one of the texts which Eusebius referred to among the antilegomena, an identification which certainly attests to the antiquity and influence of the writing (Harnack 1884, 5). Harnack goes on to observe that Eusebius’ treatment also implies that he considered the work consistent with apostolic thought and not an heretical production. Eusebius classifies it with disputed writings rather than false doctrines (Harnack 1884, 6). In Alexandrian tradition, also, Harnack is able to find record of a writing called Didache, classified among “writings” rather than holding a clear place in the canon (Harnack 1884, 7). Harnack also asks why Eusebius would group the Didache with Barnabas in a publication. This has suggested to some that the time of composition is similar, particularly since the documents have remained together over the years (Harnack 1884, 8). A generation after Eusebius, Athanasius published a similar list of antilegomena. Harnack observes several changes, specifically by some writings falling off the list, but that the Didache remained present (Harnack 1884, 9). Athanasius further identified the Didache as a patristic work, classifying it with other texts we now consider part of the patristic corpus. Harnack cites another list of antilegomena by Nicephorus of Constantinope near the beginning of the 9th century. Again, it was classed as apocryphal and not among the heretical writings. By the time of Justinian, the Didache was firmly classed as an apocryphal writing (Harnack 1884, 10). After this time Harnack does not find reference to the Didache. Harnack observes that in the last 200 years there havebeen theories of the Didache including the prominent one which says it was absorbed, in content, into Apostolic Constitution (Harnack 1884, 10).

The text of the Didache appears to have faded into obscurity, though the title remained known. However, in 1875 (note Harnack’s work was published in 1884), Bryennios the Metropolitan transcribed a table of contents of a codex in Constantinople. His interest was in the text of 1 and 2 Clement in the book. However, the Didache immediately followed 2 Clement in the text (Harnack 1884, 11). Because Bryennios and the other scholars working with the codex were interested in other writings, Harnack says, they failed to investigate the Didache until 1883, when Bryennios released a typeset edition of the Didache. Again, we observe that Harnack’s book is dated 1884, after the text had arrived in Germany in January of 1884. The early consensus of scholars was that the text as presented reflects a setting around the end of the 2nd century. However, Harnack observes that Clement seems to make allusions to the Didache (Harnack 1884, 15).

Harnack notes particularly the rather unconventional language of “the cluster of David” found in both texts, probably not characteristic of Clement’s usage (Harnack 1884, 16). Due to the linguistic irregularities, Harnack hypothesizes that the text originated in Egypt and was used as a catechetical document for a long time, sanctioned by church leaders such as Athanasius (Harnack 1884, 17). Harnack then suggests the text was brought to Syria and became incorporated in the Apostolic Constitutions (Harnack 1884, 18). The text itself appears to have become more difficult to find after this time, thoguh Harnack refers to a possible Latin translation he thinks likely to have existed. This he quotes, in a fragmentary manner, from Cyprian (Harnack 1884, 20). Harnack finds many sources and comparisons of the general ideas expressed, but does not find wholesale copies. This pattern of similar ideas raises many interpretive questions but answers relatively few of them (Harnack 1884, 22). Likewise, the title, ascribing the work to the twelve apostles, is unclear. It may, as an apocryphal work, be claiming their authority. It may simply be asserting orthodoxy (Harnack 1884, 23). In the end, Harnack leaves several questions open, still to be answered by the Didache and scholars who investigate the text.

Traces of the Didache in Ongoing Catechesis

5/1/2020

Draper, Jonathan A. “Lactantius and the Jesus Tradition in the Didache.” The Journal of Theological Studies. 40:1 (1989), 112-116.

Draper questions whether Two Ways material in Lactantius’ Divinae Institutiones vi.3 and Epitome 59-60 depends on material from the Didache or on other sources of a Two Ways tradition. Draper here considers the fact that Lactantius has what Draper considers “unmistakeable use of the Jesus tradition contained in Did. i.3-ii.1” (Draper 1989, 112). Since lactantius almost always uses Scripture as quoted by Cyprian, rather than showing a direct use of the New Testament, Draper considers this a definite reference to the Didache. He displays the similarities in columns of Latin and Greek. “The key items in the Didache are set out in the same order” in Lactantius (Draper 1989, 113). Further, some linguistic oddities which are found in Luke and Justin but not in Matthew, as well as oddities found in the Didache, strongly suggest dependence on that material (Draper 1989, 114).

Draper supposes that some of the material, including a command for perfection (Matt. 5:48, Lk. 6:36) is from a Q source, but that a language change in Lactantius has no precedent in Matthew or Luke. It is found, though, in the Didache (Draper 1989, 114-115). Likewise, teaching that charity needs to be given to “suitable” men, in the terms described in Didache i.5-6, is contradicted in similar terms in Lactantius in vi.12 (Draper 1989, 115).

Draper’s conclusion is that Lactantius appears to be conversant with the Didache, possibly from his own time of catechesis. This suggests continued use of the text in the third and fourth centuries.

First Exposure - Didache

4/29/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
4/29/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Text and Indices” Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884, 3-70.

Harnack’s edition of the Didache opens with a typeset version of the Greek, in parallel columns with a German translation (Harnack 1884, 3-64). Copious footnotes give citations for biblical and patristic references. For my purposes, the footnotes are invaluable, since they provide a starting point for my search for biblical allusions or, for that matter, the possible points where the biblical text may be making allusions to the Didache. We also note that Harnack has, at a few points, suggested corrections to the Greek text as published by Bryennios. The apparatus will bear significant review in the near future as I work on my project.

The text, translation, and apparatus are followed by a list of specific biblical citations (Harnack 1884, 65) and a number of indices to other literature (Harnack 1884, 66-70). At that point, in a relatively confusing move on the part of the publishers, pagination begins again with a prolegomena section which we will address later.

Why An Apocalypse?

4/22/2020

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/22/20

Seeliger, Hans Reinhard. “Considerations on the Background and Purpose of the Apocalyptic Conclusion of the Didache” pp. 373-382 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Seeliger observes that scholarship on apocalyptic texts has not recently been popular, though it is perhaps regaining some footing (Seeliger 1996, 373). In this chapter he aims to discuss how apocalyptic theology is formed and how it can be understood, eventually usggesting a purpose fo the last chapter of the Didache (Seeliger 1996, 374).

He finds that apocalyptic writing was commonly done in Christian and Jewish circles through the second century, not only in the form of discrete works but also as shorter segments within other works (Seeliger 1996, 375). In Didache 16 there is an apocalyptic message, but no information about the messenger or the means of revelation. Seeliger does see chapter 16 as an original part of the work, based on the smooth transition and catch phrase in 16:2b (Seeliger 1996, 376).

Seeliger does not see the eschatological portion as merely a reinforcement of the earlier ethical instruction. The exhortation, based on the presence of God as the final judge, provides a reason for careful attention to all the teaching. The emphasis is on the presence of God as our reason for obedience, not on God’s presence as a disparate threat (Seeliger 1996, 377).

Seeliger further sees the Didache’s picture of resurrection of only the saints to be a significant difference from John 6, Luke 20, and Revelation 20-21. For this reason, he sees the text as a “relatively old tradition in the history of the development of theology” (Seeliger 1996, 378). Similarly, the description of Christ as a “curse” points to a very early tradition (Seeliger 1996, 379). Seeliger does note that the coming eschaton seems to be seen as slightly remote in time, which contradicts the popular view that immediacy was originally expected and that more distant future hopes developed at a later time (Seeliger 1996, 380).

Seeliger concludes that the apocalyptic chapter of the Didache would have been seen as a prophetic warning against false prophets, likely giving exmaples of the preaching of the prophets (Seeliger 1996, 381). The true and false teaching are exemplified in the chapter, allowing the learner to know what is and is not sound doctrine.

Patterns of the End

4/15/2020

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/15/20

Bammel, Ernst. “Pattern and Prototype of Didache 16” pp. 364-372 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Bammel, considering the overall structure of the Didache, finds it fairly common in other literature, particularly in the Jewish tradition, for a text to end with some sort of eschatological exhortation (Bammel 1996, 365). Bammel cites a number of catechetical works in which a closing portion is similar to the eschatological secitono f the Didache. Bammel concludes, however, that it is not altogether clear whether chapter 16 was more or less original, attached to the Two Ways discourse, or was appended at a later time (Bammel 1996, 368).

The content of the chapter may be of assistance. Bammel observes that the eschatological passages attached to Two Ways narratives are of two types. “The one type is directed towards the blissful goal, the other points to judgment and only in that context to the μισθός” (Bammel 1996, 368). When the eschatological passage describes bliss, it is appended to a “way of life” rather than a “way of death.” Bammel sees the Didache speaking of judgment, consistent with a catechetical work including the “way of death” (Bammel 1996, 369). He furtehr ties the content to Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2, which he considers to have a Jewish antecedent. Bammel further considers the idea of ethical righteousness as existing first in the text, then a digression about eschatological events to have been added. Here he makes comments which provide a clear illustration of a schema by which an author or document cannot speak of two matters which bear some sort of logical connection, even a tenuous one (Bammel 1996, 369-370). Bammel finally takes Didache 16:3-8 as Jewish, with the eschatology as a Chrsitian insertion (Bammel 1996, 371). The individual ethical demands, which he says are older, give way to apocalypse, which he sees as a newer stage of development (Bammel 1996, 372).

Apostles in the Didache

4/8/2020

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/8/20

Draper, Jonathan A. “Torah and Troublesome Apostles in the Didache Community” pp. 340-363 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Draper sets out to consider the theme of apostles as described in the Didache, noting that the descriptions themselves may be illustrative of the real situation of traveling apostles as they interacted with the local congregations. Draper considers how these interactions, though possibly somewhat obscured in the process of redaction, may be well understood, especially with the help of comparisons to the materians present in Matthew’s gospel (Draper (ed.), 1996, 341).

Didache chapter 11 may have seen considerable redactional change, as Draper acknowledges, specifically commenting on the 1989 commentaries of Niederwimmer and Jefford. Both hypothesize redactions made by insertaion of explanatory paragraphs within chapter 11 (Draper (ed.), 1996, 342). The comments are frequently predicated on an idea of a “decline” or a “divergence” from the canonical text of Matthew. However, Draper trenchantly observes the idea “begs the questions in assuming that a work inside the canon of Scripture must be prior to a work outside it. It is more likely that teachings emerge out of the concrete life-situations of a community in a rudimentary and unattractive form, and are later developed and refined theologically into a consistent whole (Draper (ed.), 1996, 342). Draper considers the materials pertaining to apostles to be of a more primitive nature than those which speak of prophets. For this reason, he argues that the depiction of apostles is more likely to be tied to the actual movements of the first apostles (Draper (ed.), 1996, 344). Further, the idea of receiving apostles ὡς κύριος was increasingly avoided as time passed, presumably because of the authoritative role of Scripture in the subapostolic period (Draper (ed.), 1996, 345).

As he proceeds to explore the treatment of apostles, Draper seeks out information about the local issues which may have led to the Didache’s comments about apostles. He says, “The Didache is a ‘Q’ community, and draws on the same tradition as does Matthew, although it cannot be shown to be dependent on Matthew as we have it” (Draper (ed.), 1996, 346). It seems that much of the Didache reflects teaching generally known to the Christian community, but that the teaching at some point, particularly by the time of 15:4, which he sees as a later insertion, is superseded by a written “gospel” account (Draper (ed.), 1996, 347). On the whole, Draper’s view is that the Didache and Matthew may have arisen through dialectic between the Didache in the genre of a “community rule” and Matthew in the genre of a “gospel.” He then compares the statements of Didache 11:1-2 and Matthew 5:17-20, in which both texts require orthodoxy of teaching, consistent with the message held in the past (Draper (ed.), 1996, 348). In both passages we are cautioned about a teacher who makes claims which are inconsistent with Torahd or other received doctrine. This teacher is not to be received, though neither text denies that person’s claim to be a Christian. Both passages use an uncommon word, καταῦσαι, to describe the violation of orthodox teaching (Draper (ed.), 1996, 349). Similarly, in both passages, δικαιοσύνη is used to describe teaching or ethical behavior which illustrates the goodness of God in the Torah (Draper (ed.), 1996, 350). Draper concludes that “in the Didache we can observe the development still in process, which comes to full theological expression in Matthew” (Draper (ed.), 1996, 351). The Didache, then, likely represents a layer of teaching in which some Christians, even possibly some apostles, are failing to work out the details of Christianity in a manner consistent with the Torah. This appears to have been largely resolved in the community represented by Matthew’s Gospel (Draper (ed.), 1996, 352).

Draper further looks at Didache 6:1-3 in relation to apostles, as it speaks of the need to guard the specific content of the teaching. The passage, not found in this form in other “Two Ways” passages, seems to divide Christians into those who strive for and achieve an earthly perfection and those who simply do what they can but don’t escape carnal pleasure (Draper (ed.), 1996, 353). There is a clear element in the passage of the need to avoid worship of idols. Draper makes an interesting observation in that Torah is seen as a “yoke” but that here it is “the yoke of the Lord,” strongly suggesting an interpretation of Torah by or through Christ (Draper (ed.), 1996, 354). The requirements Draper finds in the New Testament, specifically in Acts 15:10 and Galatians 2:11-13, make it clear to him that the discpute was more over dietary laws than circumcision, as the dietary signs were the indicator that the Gentile and Jewish Christians could worship together (Draper (ed.), 1996, 355).

Draper further considers the idea of “perfection,” referring to the Greek term τέλειος as used in Didache 6:2. At issue here, and in Matthew 5:48, is whether the Christian is to keep all of Torah so as to be recognized as righteous (Draper (ed.), 1996, 37). The Didache seems to require that Christians keep Torah or they will be considered “second class Christians” (Draper (ed.), 1996, 358). A failure to teach this point of view, however, is a matter of contradicting God. Draper finds it essential in the Didache that Christians keep all the Jewish Torah, as interpreted by Jesus (Draper (ed.), 1996, 359).

The eschatology of Didache 16 also brings insight into the situation. In 16:2, the proselyte is required to perfect himself (Draper (ed.), 1996, 359). Draper finds the same pressure for those who are converting to Judaism, as they are also told to keep all of Torah including the laws of food. In Didache 16, the same faithfulness to Torah is required as to the Two Ways in 6:1 (Draper (ed.), 1996, 360). Those who teach otherwise are called in 16:2 “false prophets” but in 11:1-6 the term is apparently used for false apostles. These are seen as wolves who arise within the community.

Draper’s overall conclusion is that these concepts point to the Didache coming from a community in which Torah is pre-eminent, though some are advocating abolishing Torah. These are the false teachers who need to be removed from the community. Draper sees this as the essential dispute, and Matthew’s Gospel as the beginning of reconciliation of the parties to the dispute (Draper (ed.), 1996, 363).

Radical Teachers

4/1/2020

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/1/20

Niederwimmer, Kurt. “An Examination of the Development of Itinerant Radicalism in the Environment and Tradition of the Didache” pp. 312-339 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Niederwimmer states as a given that within early Christianity “we find groups of homeless missionaries and prophets of the new movement who travelled from place to place” (Niederwimmer 1996, 321). He even suggests that this phenomenon may have been more significant than the settled Christian communities. The movement may have sprung up from those who wished to continue the itinerant discipleship found among those receiving Jesus’ teaching prior to the crucifixion. In Syria he finds “an independent branch of early Christianity’s developmental history emerges, important among other things for casting light upon the transition . . . from the original atmosphere of eschatological immediacy to the early catholic mentality” (Niederwimmer 1996, 322). Niederwimmer attempts to distinguish between traditional material and the ideas of the Didachist so as to identify stasis and change in the Christian practice of that place and time.

Niederwimmer sees Didache 11:1 as an important transition point, as there is a shift from the description of the community to an explanation of how to deal with visiting teachers (Niederwimmer 1996, 323). During the course of chapters 11-15, there are what Niederwimmer considers to be newer and older ideas, a feature he catalogs without many specifics (Niederwimmer 1996, 325). He goes on to lay out a chart of the passage, showing transitions from traditions to the redactor’s work (Niederwimmer 1996, 326-327). The Didachist’s view and the recognized traditions seem to be related to a community of Christians in a particular place, not to the itinerant teachers.

The traditional view, from 11:4-12, shows communities of Christians living in close proximity. The itinerants, who seem charismatic in nature, arrive in the community but do not stay very long (Niederwimmer 1996, 328). These travelers do not demand care but receive it anyway. They have renounced their own property and appear to live a life of voluntary poverty (Niederwimmer 1996, 329). Apostles are treated differently than the prophets (Niederwimmer 1996, 330). These apostles do not appear to be “the twelve” but they are treated as special emissaries of the Lord (Niederwimmer 1996, 330). There are also prophets, itinerant spiritual people who speak for God. These too appear to be wanderers who are received briefly and then are sent on their way (Niederwimmer 1996, 331). It was important to identify the true and false prophets for everyone’s protection. The existence of the apostles, teachers, and prophets was accepted but the particular individuals were to be tested (Niederwimmer 1996, 333).

Niederwimmer sees a very different situation in the Didachist’s ideas, which he details from 11:1-3; 12; 13; 15 (Niederwimmer 1996, 333). He thinks it unclear whether there are actual established communities in view. There are all sorts of itinerants, not just apostles, teachers, and prophets. Teachers are only incidental in importance (Niederwimmer 1996, 334). Niederwimmer also considers a shift of culture in which some prophets wanted to join communities. Care for hem was a matter of uncertainty (Niederwimmer 1996, 335). Further, the required selection of bishops and deacons, in chapter 14, suggests a further change of community culture. The bishops and deacons, rather than the apostles and prophets, would have the role of leadership in regular worship. Niederwimmer sees this as a shift to the dominance of the established community (Niederwimmer 1996, 338).

Niederwimmer sees this shift as a move toward “catholicization” with a stabilization of the community. This is not an entirely bad move. It is necessary to develop a structure for life. “The solution does not lie in the disappearance of the eschaton as motivation, but in finding ways of living that allow for eschatological motivation on the one hand and life under the conditions of social reality on the other hand” (Niederwimmer 1996, 339). This allows eschatological hope to be passed on through history.