Category: Didache - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Alleged Dependence

9/18/2020

Vööbus, A. “Regarding the Background of the Liturgical Traditions in the Didache: The Question of Literary Relation between Didache IX, 4 and the Fourth Gospel.” Vigiliae Christianae 23 (1969), 81-87.

Vööbus considers the Didache and alleged dependence on the Fourth Gospel, partly as a response to contentions begun by J.A. Robinson, who considered the liturgical passages especially dependent on the Fourth Gospel. Vööbus asks, “what basis is there for the contention of literary dependence and of what value is it?” (Vööbus 1969, 81). He grants that there is a reference to mountains and fragments. This is not unique to John 6:3. It is also important that the passage in the Didache speaks of scattered grain, while John’s passage has the mountain as a setting for teaching (Vööbus 1969, 82).

The strong connection between John 6:3 and Didache 9:4 is the word κλάσμα. Vööbus asks whether the term was taken from John, which uses the word here in the plural. He considers this a tenuous relationship at best (Vööbus 1969, 82). The prayer, at least as it is found in other resources thought to depend on the Didache, uses ἄρτος rather than κλάσμα. (Vööbus 1969, 83). Vööbus therefore rejects dependence. He further reminds us that the Greek manuscript of 1056 may well have undergone some changes in wording over the centuries.

Because the Didache material is largely taken over into Apostolic Constitutions, Vööbus considers this relationship as well. He sees no reflections of the Fourth Gospel in this passage (Vööbus 1969, 84). The same is true in Serapion and in Athanasius. When there are differences from the Didache text, Vööbus finds them referring to making bread, rather than any reference to John’s Gospel (Vööbus 1969, 85).

Vööbus further considers that the author of the Fourth Gospel was certainly sophisticated enough to use one basket and a gathering together if he had intended to make such a point in the narrative (Vööbus 1969, 85). The idea of the passage, rather, is that preservation of all parts is important to God. Vööbus concludes that John’s Gospel does purposely use the feeding of the multitude to make us remember the eucharist (Vööbus 1969, 86).

Vööbus asks whether the passage in Didache 9:4 also is governed by the idea of a foreshadowed eucharist (Vööbus 1969, 86). The prayer speaks of gathering the scattered people of God, rather than gathering bread. In John, the sacred material of the sacrament is gathered. “In the Didache however the subject matter is not the sacramental substance but the congregation itself” (Vööbus 1969, 87). Therefore, Vööbus concludes that Didache 9:4 and John 6:3 are not dependent on each other in any way.

Literary Dependence Proves Theoretical Yet Again

9/11/2020

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).

Theorizing a Common Source

9/4/2020

Glover, Richard. “The Didache’s Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels.” New Testament Studies 5:1 (1958), 12-29.

Glover observes that the Didache has been broadly recognized as having a close connection to the canonical Gospels. However, Glover thinks the commentators beg some questions. “If Matthew was the gospel the Didachist knew and quoted, why should he so often support Luke’s readings against it? Or if he is a witness to Luke also, why should he support Justin Martyr against the text of both synoptics?” (Glover 1958, 12). Glover theorizes that the Didachist actually is using the same sources used by the Synoptic Gospels and by Justin. To document his theory, Glover studies excerpts in order, compiling a considerable collection which consumes approximately half his article. The list is worthy of study and consideration, but his comments are brief enough that to make comments on them would cease to be an article summary but would turn into an exposition in itself.

After his review of 26 passages, Glover turns to analyze the information he has gathered. He recalls that much of Mark’s Gospel is present in Matthew, some 90% of it. “But the Didache shares common material with mark only on occasions when Luke and Matthew found that material both in Mark and in some other source as well (Glover 1958, 25). In these locations, the Didache apparently reflects the source other than Mark. The fact that many quotes or allusions are related to Matthew, but the wording consistently differs, suggests to Glover that the Didache does not depend on Matthew but on a source common to both works. The apocalyptic teachings as well as the sayings of the Lord not found in the Gospels suggests this same conclusion (Glover 1958, 26). The discussion of the Eucharist also has significant departures from the canonical texts. Further, the Didachist seems to know little or nothing of Paul, though the work is addressed to Gentiles (Glover 1958, 27). Glover’s conclusion, then, is that the work is very old and used sources common to Matthew’s Gospel in composition.

Social Developments as Indicators of Time

8/21/2020

Didache and the Apostolic Synod of Antioch (part 2).” Journal of Theological Studies (40) 1939, pp. 258-271.

Telfer continues his argument from his earlier 1939 article. His intention is to demonstrate tha there is no reason to assume that the Didache needed to come from the first third of the second century. He builds his argument in part on an assertion that prayer, as presented in Matthew 6:5-16, is liturgical in nature. The topic of prayer is taken up in a similar way in Didache chapters 7-9 (Telfer 1939, 259).

The order of events given in the Didache for the eucharist is different from that in 1 Corinthians. Telfer considers that the Didachist must have known about Paul, especially by the second century. The concept of eucharist seems to Telfer essentially the same as in Paul, but the implementation is significantly different (Telfer 1939, 261). Telfer considers that this may have been an effect of some development over time, such as a move from the offering of bread and wine being just enough for the Eucharist to a less sacramental reception of the elements. The liturgy itself, so far as it goes, seems to Telfer essentially the same as in the earliest liturgies known (Telfer 1939, 263).

Telfer considers the visits to the community by apostles and prophets. Though the apostles and prophets are described in the Gospels as visiting, the Didache is not so concerned with receiving true apostles and prophets as with identifying imposters (Telfer 1939, 264). The type of imposters described in the New Testament strike Telfer as less “blatant” than those described in the Didache (Telfer 1939, 265). He sees this activity described more commonly by the third century, as opposed to the first or second centuries. It is more the type of activity which emerges when Christians are found to be present in larger numbers and with some economic prosperity (Telfer 1939, 266). In this age, also, Telfer finds that the priest or prophet is known to need support. There is a commitment emerging to sending and receiving ministers and providing them with support (Telfer 1939, 268). Telfer sees this as a development which occurs later in rural areas than urgan areas. He would suggest this leads to an interpretation of a slightly later time period.

Perhaps a Late Date for the Didache?

8/14/2020

Didache and the Apostolic Synod of Antioch (part 1).” Journal of Theological Studies (40) 1939, pp. 133-146.

Telfer lays out an argument for the composition of the Didache later than about the year 130. His thesis follows. “The Didachist was a leader in the church of Antioch, and an elder contemporary of Theophilus. In his days Docetism was moribund, and Antioch had not yet felt the impact of Marcionism and Montanism” (Telfer 1939, 133). Telfer’s argument begins with the observation that the harmful effects of the Montanistic prophecy was not widely discussed in literature prior to about 180. The Didachist, however, was concerned with the erosion of standards of holiness and was calling for a return to primitive Christianity, while also identifying with rather strict asceticism. Telfer sees this developing in the third century. In fact, he even considers it to be a more serious development early in the fourth century (Telfer 1939, 134).

Telfer considers the Didache to have self-consciously spoken, drawing on Peer’s authority as the apostle to the Gentiles, addressed to Gentiles in Syria and Cilicia, “parallel with and superseding the Jerusalem encyclical of Acts XV” (Telfer 1939, 134). Because of the failure of Judaizers, the Gentile church needed to establish its own church order. For this reason, Telfer sees the author as instituting the table prayers and some other liturgical practices (Telfer 1939, 135). Telfer sees this as an example of pseudipigraphy typical of writings from the late third or early fourth centuries.

Telfer considers the Didache to be strongly dependent on the Epistle of Barnabas. He is not clear on its location of origin, but he recognizes Barnabas as being from no earlier than 130, and thinks it was in circulation for some time before inspiring the Didache (Telfer 1939, 135). This leads Telfer to conclude that the Didache could not have been composed before 140, and probably more like 170 (Telfer 1939, 136).

Barnabas as a character is not terribly important in the New Testament. It is not surprising, then, that his letter would not become immediately and widely known. However, in Antioch, the community was interested in Barnabas. They seem to have considered their church to be established based on apostolic directives, and to be ordered by writings which go beyond Scripture (Telfer 1939, 138). Church orders are first seen in Antioch. Telfer sees this as support for his thesis.

The title of the Didache, identifying the Twelve, could be misunderstood. Telfer considers the number twelve to be a later addition (Telfer 1939, 139). It is unclear exactly how Telfer considers this observation to further his thesis.

Telfer draws a sharp distinction between a Pauline emphasis on free grace and a Petrine emphasis on obedience to the Law. Because of the Two Ways material, he takes the Didache to be from the Petrine school (Telfer 1939, 139). This idea, according to Telfer, was common in Syria and Cilicia, hence the acceptance both of Barnabas and of the Didache. The ideal was to call the Gentiles back to the commands of the apostles (Telfer 1939, 140). Again, Telfer considers the Didache, particularly the Two Ways portion, to depend on Barnabas. He goes on to find numerous additional parallel expressions with Barnabas (Telfer 1939, 141-142).

Telfer makes much of the Didache’s idea that the Christian really should pursue the whole law (ch. 6). He sees this as a different law than the Mosaic Law, as it is “the law of the Lord” (Telfer 1939, 143). This, again, would be a way of rejecting the Judaizers, who would have Christians bound to Moses.

Telfer considers the rite of baptism provided, observing that it is not an actual instruction about the rite but about water and the surrounding gatherings (Telfer 1939, 143). This fits a context in which baptism itself is already familiar to the readers. Telfer does think the instructions about the water suggest a Syrian context, as the Syrians had wide access to warm baths (Telfer 1939, 144).

Finally, the Didache’s mention of the fasts of the “hypocrites” suggests to Telfer that the hypocrites are Judaizers, not merely the Jewish Christians. He draws on Galatians 2:13 for this view. Monday and Thursday were market days and not typically used as fast days except by Jews who wished to make a grand show of their piety (Telfer 1939, 145).

Though Telfer’s argument does not conclusively date the Didache, it shows that a later date is not an impossibility. He will continue his argument in a second article, to be reviewed later.

Didache, Barnabas, and Ephesians

8/7/2020

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

Connolly opens this article in much the same way he did his 1933 article on the same topic, by introducing the interrupted work of Dr. Armitage Robinson, who died while workingo n a new edition of his book, Barnabas, Hermes, and the Didache (Connolly 1934, 113). While engaged in significant revisions, Robinson contracted influenza and died. His widow passed his papers on to Connolly, who elected to publish updates as journal articles rather than as a new book (Connolly 1934, 114). Connolly describes Robinson’s character and interactions with him in some detail.

Robinson introduces the Didache and its modern publication in brief, noting the publication by Bryennios in 1883 and by Harnack in 1884 (Connolly 1934, 118). The relationship with the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas was easily recognized, and a view of the Didache’s dependence on Barnabas was quickly accepted, though the work of C. Taylor in 1886 suggested the work originally consisted of the ‘Two Ways’ material and the ortions related to Matthew 5-7 and Hermas were later interpolations 118). This idea allowed scholars to consider even dates in the first century.

Robinson considers that the Two Ways material in Barnabas was composed by that author, not adopted from elsewhere 119-120). He sees the Two Ways in the Didache as adapted from and dependent on the material in Barnabas.

Robinson describes the situation in which Gentiles, by the middle of the 1st century, were coming to a prominent position in Christianity 121). The validity of Judaism and the Old Testaent became an issue, as Christians debated the relationship of Old and New Testaments.

The Old Testament was highly regarded by the apostles, by the testimony of Jesus, and throughout the New Testament writings. It could not simply be abandoned. Robinson recognizes that the Epistle to the Hebrews solves the problem by showing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament 122). The Epistle of Barnabas, on the other hand, addressing Gentiles, rejected Judaism but did not make a case for a high Christology 123). Robinson considers that the specifics of Barnabas have largely been neglected but his overall ideas spread through many interpreters and have had a profound influence on Old Testament interpretation 124). Barnabas has been variously dated from 79-130, but not with much confidence 124).

Robinson identifies the two main themes of Barnabas as “the ordinances of God” and “knowledge” 124). Barnabas sees the conflict between God and the devil to be very present and real. In this battle, we are aided by various forces. “The helpers of our faith in this extremity . . . are fear and patience; our allies are longsuffering and self-restraint. If we have these, then in joyful train come wisdom, understanding, learning, knowledge” 125). This involves a rejection of the sacrificial system and a replacement of physical sacrifices with spiritual commitment.

Robinson continues with a fairly detailed survey of the Epistle of Barnabas, quoting and commenting on main points. The Two Ways material comes after other exhortations to leave behind the futility of Hebrew practice and to turn to true inner knowledge. In this, Robinson sees a Pauline structure, as the work makes theological introduction followed by concrete application 130). Robinson gives a word for word translation of the Two Ways, interspersing his comments, largely in the form of a grammatical/exegetical commentary. Of potential interest are marginal cross references, not only to barnabas but also to biblical texts. I note that many of the references are to Ephesians. This is also Robinson’s conclusion, as he observes that Barnabas almost certainly wrote the Two Ways material but based many of its ideas on Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 138).

After the way of life material, Robinson notes that Barnabas goes on with a smattering of other commands, not clearly organized 139). but describing the way of death. The closing of the Two Ways is couched in terms of finding knowledge, though obedience is somehow tied up in the concept 142). There follows a brief conclusion and benediction.

Robinson observes that the goal of Barnabas is to urge moral purity, which is found through gaining a grasp of the true knowledge of God. Robinson sees this as acocmplished through use of an Alexandrian allegorical exegesis of the Old Testament 145).

Connolly concludes with a brief statement that a chapter specifically dedicated to the Didache will follow in a subsequent issue of Journal of Theological Studies.

Didache Ideas in Latin Passages

8/5/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
8/5/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Ein übersehenes Fragment der Διδαχή in alter lateinischer übersetzung.” pp. 275-286. Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884.

In 1747, Martin Kropff’s Bibliotheca Mellicensis made note of a passage in Latin recognized as a Two Ways document (Harnack 1884, 275). By the time of Harnack there was little doubt that this was anything other than a portion of a Latin version of the Didache. The passage is within a manuscript sermon of Saint Boniface, and is published in Migne Patrologia Latina 89, columns 870 and following (Harnack 1884, 276). Harnack reproduces the Latin text, in part, beginning on p. 277. The text does appear at least very like a Latin translation of the Greek original (Harnack 1884, 278). Not only does Harnack observe that, but he also makes comparisons with the Epistle of Barnabas and the Apostolic Constitutions (Harnack 1884, 279-280), also noting the ideas are very present in the Synoptic Gospels.

A natural question to ask is whether there is a Latin version of the Didache. As of Harnack’s time, none had been found (Harnack 1884, 282). However, in Lactantius, there is a version of theTwo Ways, in Latin, found in the Epitome of the Divine Institutes which shows great similarities to both Barnabas and the Didache (Harnack 1884, 283ff). Harnack provides some in parallel columns. The conclusion is that the texts are related and certainly carry the same message. This suggests also ongoing knowledge and use of the Didache into the Middle Ages.

Harnack’s book closes with a detailed bibliography of the works used in preparation of his various chapters.

Summary and Attempts to Identify Influence of the Didache

7/31/2020

Biesenthal, Norman. Die Urchristliche Kirche in Lehre und Leben nach der ΔΙΔΑΧΗ ΤΩΝ ΔΩΔΕΚΑ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ. Interburg: Druck von C.R. Wilhelmi, 1893.

Biesenthal compares the discovery of the Didache manuscript to that of Codex Sinaiticus in importance. The apparent early date of composition provoked an immediate interest. Biesenthal is also struck by the brevity and importance of the message, in a document approximately the length of Ephesians (Biesenthal 1893, 1).

Sadly, the copy of this work which I obtained is missing pages 2-3, then continues with page 4. At this point, Biesenthal is making an extended quotation with numerous ellipses, of someone note identified on page 4. The quotation shows rather a stream-of-consciousness narrative of how the text drives the speaker to a return to the central elements of the New Testament (Biesenthal 1893, 4).

In his first section, “Der Gedankengang der Διδαχή,” Biesenthal notes there are three titles for teh Didache (Biesenthal 1893, 4), though he observes that Harnack only catalogs two. Biesenthal does not elaborate, however, and the bulk of scholarship identifies just two titles. The first six chapters are identified as the description of the way of life and death. In essence, Biesenthal sees the way of life to be consistent with following the Commandments of the Bible, acting in love for and service to the neighbor (Biesenthal 1893, 5). The way of death takes much less space, just one chapter.

The second part of the Didache, chapters 7-10, speak of culture, including the sacramental life around baptism and eucharist (Biesenthal 1893, 5). It describes the rituals and prayers.

Chapters 11-16, constituting the third part, speak primarily about reception of traveling apostles and prophets (Biesenthal 1893, 6). Traveling Christians are welcomed. Prophets and teachers may be guests, to be received as if high priests. Chapter 14 returns briefly to the eucharist, then chapter 15 speaks of caring for bishops and deacons.

Biesenthal finds the first clear quotation of the Didache in Clement of Alexandria, about the year 220 (Biesenthal 1893, 6). Eusebius, about 340, lists the text among the antilegomena. Athanasius, about 373, makes a brief reference to the text. From that time on, it seems references are made more to Apostolic Doctrine, though the Didache seems to stand as the source behind the ideas (Biesenthal 1893, 7).

The relationship between the Didache and the Letter of Barnabas is important to Biesenthal. His general opinion is that both texts are dependent on a common ancestor, which is now lost (Biesenthal 1893, 8). Biesenthal summarizes the major arguments from various scholars.

Again, the Didache may have some relationship to the Shepherd of Hermas (Biesenthal 1893, 10). Although there are some similarities in the discussions of elders and deacons, Biesenthal does not find a conclusive case for dependence.

An attempt at dating the Didache could be made based on the doctrinal maturity seen. Biesenthal views the doctrine to be very early, noting that at times it is even “naive” in nature (Biesenthal 1893, 11). It seems to know little of any doctrinal disputes. The concept of God shown in the Didache is that of majesty and glory, but God is not portrayed as intimately involved in the lives of his people (Biesenthal 1893, 12). Further, the doctrine of Jesus as the Messiah and both God and Man does not seem thoroughly developed (Biesenthal 1893, 13). Jesus is seen very much as king, Messiah, and Son of David, but not so much in terms of his deity or as the one who makes propotiation for sin (Biesenthal 1893, 15).

Biesenthal further analyzes the varieties of sins which are addressed in the Didache. The patterns of sinful activity do not seem to address a broader culture (Biesenthal 1893, 16). One may observe that the Didache routinely commands avoidance of sin and downplays the role of repentance and forgiveness.

Prayer and fasting seem common themes in the Didache (Biesenthal 1893, 17). Biesenthal notes the similarity between the Lord’s Prayer in the Didache and in Matthew, and that the prayer is described as having liturgical use, as it is prayed three times daily. This practie is seen first in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian (Biesenthal 1893, 17).

The final chapter of the Didache bears a similarity to Matthew 24, but with material Biesenthal takes to be related to Luke’s Gospel (Biesenthal 1893, 19). The eschatological urgency is great, especially since the time of Christ’s return is unknown.

Biesenthal considers the Didache’s view of baptism and the eucharistic table. He sees it rooted in the Lord’s teaching (Biesenthal 1893, 20). Baptism is specifically trinitarian in nature. It may be significant that the person performing the baptism is referred to in the second person singular. This suggest sthat there was an individual responsible, rather than a whole community (Biesenthal 1893, 21). Biesenthal does observe the thanksgiving which addresses Jesus as the vine of David (Biesenthal 1893, 22). The body and blood of Jesus are not clearly referred to, merely the bread and wine. Biesenthal compares this with the seventh book of Apostolic Constitutions, which makes a clarification. He questions whether the meal described in the Didache is a eucharist or an Agape feast (Biesenthal 1893, 23), concluding that the meal is presented as the eucharist, with sacramental significance.

The Christian community as described in the Didache places hospitality in an important role, especially hospitality toward traveling Christians (Biesenthal 1893, 24). Biesenthal notes that it is not a long term reception of strangers, but that it would give a person a little time to find work if staying in the community.

Biesenthal observes that the roles of apostle, prophet, and teacher are important at a very early time of Christianity (Biesenthal 1893, 25). These people are assumed to be active in the Didache. The apostolic office seems focused on teaching the Gospel. Prophets also work with God’s word, but Biesenthal sees them as having a greater role in performing the liturgy (Biesenthal 1893, 26). Teachers, also mentioned in the Didache, were to instruct people in God’s word, possibly as catechists. The Didache further mentions bishops and deacons (Biesenthal 1893, 27). Biesenthal observes that while apostles and prophets were itinerant, bishops and deacons seemed tobe more permanent parts of the community (Didache ch. 15).

Much of Biesnethal’s conclusion is obliterated in my copy by the presence of a scanning measurement device superimposed over p. 27.

The Didache as a Pietistic Reform Document

7/29/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
7/29/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Excurs: Die Διδαχή und die Waldenser.” pp. 269-274. Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884.

Harnack observes that the conditions of society and the church naturally changed over time (Harnack 1884, 269). He particularly notes the greater institutionalization and organizational structure as limitations on the preaching and teaching. However, from the 3rd until the 15th century, there were moves to restore some sort of apostolic order. For this reason, it is interesting to consult a church order as old as the Didache, which was apparently not used a great deay beyond the 4th century, to evaluate later reform movements. Harnack consulted with an archivist in Munster, Dr. Keller, about a not-yet-released book entitled The Reformation and the Older Religious Parties (Harnack 1884, 270). Harnack finds that the Waldensian reform movement, in attempting to return to early Christian practices, did not create a system very similar to that described in the Didache. They met from house to house, relatively secretly, and pooled their resources so as to provide the best to their teachers. These habits were really not what the Didache describes from the early Christian period. The structure of the divine service is very different (Harnack 1884, 271). They also adopted a different view of bishops and deacons (Harnack 1884, 272).

Harnack considers that a pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic bias may influence reform movements, which react to their biases rather than to actual evidence of historic doctrine or practice, including a fair reading of the New Testament. The Waldensians specifically seem to have been influenced by the Baptist sects of their time (Harnack 1884, 274). The enthusiasm of the prophets, the anticlerical sentiments, and the desire for a vigorous Christianity all fit with that movement but do not necessarily reflect the earliest Chrsitians, who would not be reacting against a supposed less emotive and more hierarchical structure.

Yet Another Didache Edition

7/24/2020

Schaff, Philip. “Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum.” The Presbyterian Review IX, 1888. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 148-149.

Schaff reviewed an 1887 edition of the Didache which included an introduction, annotations, and a Latin version (Funk, Francis Xavier, Tubingen: Henrici Laupp, 1887). While the review is focused on the Funk edition, Schaff mentions that the bibliography provided is inferior to those in some American editions, and that publications have been released very quickly. Funk’s edition is to be considered important, especially his introduction. “The Prolegomena discuss the origin, genuineness, time and place, contents, editions and versions of the Didache and its relation to the cognate documents…” (Schaff 1888, 149). Funk dates the Didache in the first century.

Though this is a brief review it is helpful in evaluating the usefulness of the Funk edition.

Didache, Didascalia, and the Letters of Ignatius

7/22/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
7/22/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 6. "Die Bearbeitungen der Διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων und ihre Geschichte in der kirchenrechtlichen Literature" pp. 170-268
“3. Die Διδαχή, die Διδασκαλία τῶν ἀποστόλων, die Ignatiusbriefe und der Interpolator dieser Schriften.” pp. 241-268. Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs, 1884.

Harnack observes that Bryennios identified similarities between the Didache and some parts of the Didascalia (Harnack 1884, 242). Dating from the last third of the third century, Harnack considers that the Didascalia may have used the Didache as a source or that the two works drew on a common source. Likewise, the spurious letters of Ignatius follow a similar pattern (Harnack 1884, 243). The question which arises in Harnack’s mind is what the actual source could be. The question is made more complicated by the fact that considerable interpolation has taken place in both the Didascalia and the letters of Ignatius (Harnack 1884, 244).

Ussher suggested that the interpolator of the Didascalia and the letters of Ignatius was the same person, according to Harnack, citing the same region, time period, extent of interpolations, and some unusual symbolic usage (Harnack 1884, 246). Harnack illustrates Ussher’s argument in some detail (Harnack 1884, 247-253). Harnack concludes that the idea is credible. Yet it is entirely possible that there were two interpolators and that Pseudo-Ignatius knew the Didache. It is also possible that Pseudo-Ignatius is responsible for the interpolations, including those in the Didache (Harnack 1884, 254).

Regardless of the actual identity of the interpolator, Harnack finds it likely that Ussher’s hypothesis about the interpolator being the same is correct (Harnack 1884, 256). Harnack goes on to make his own arguments for the interpolator being one person, mostly by comparing the different interpolations with one another.

Harnack observes that Ussher’s hypothesis has not been universally accepted (Harnack 1884, 259). Harnack traces the objection of Zahn in some detail. The objection seems to be centered around a view of younger men serving as bishops in some source material and not other places. The objection does not seem to persuade Harnack (Harnack 1884, 261). It depends on changes which were not made, though they could have been made. Harnack illustrates this with several parallel passages (Harnack 1884, 262-263).

Harnack concludes by summarizing the point of view he adopted, very like Ussher’s, described above (Harnack 1884, 266 ff). There are sufficient similarities in the interpolations among these documents that they certainly seem to have received treatment by the same redactor, probably in the 3rd or 4th century.

An English Edition of the Didache

7/17/2020

Taylor, C. “Review of the Johns Hopkins Edition of the Didache” The Classical Review Vol. 2 No. 9 (Nov. 1888), pp. 283-286.

The Didache was published in an edition by J. Rendel Harris in 1887, by Johns Hopkins University. Taylor, while praising the edition, does make several exegetical comments, about the labor which results in the ability to give alms in chapter one (Taylor 1888, 283), about chapter 10 and “Hosanna to the God of David,” about chapter 11 and the true earthly prophets (Taylor 1888, 284), and a brief note about perseverance from chapter 16.

Taylor notes that the edition provides numerous secondary authorities for the Didache, including the important witness in the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (Taylor 1888, 284). Dating and matters of literary priority were not well analyzed yet in 1887, which leaves Harris and Taylor with considerable doubt about literary dependence. Taylor tends to think some passages in Hermas show a familiarity with the Didache, while he thinks Barnabas and the Didache may have drawn on a common source (Taylor 1888, 285).

The fact of the two titles remains a matter of discussion, but Taylor considers the longer title as the real title and the shorter as a brief summary (Taylor 1888, 285).

All in all, Taylor considers the Harris edition a valuable resource which he endorses enthusiastically.

Relation of the Didache and the Apostolic Church Order

7/15/2020

Wednesday is for Bits and Pieces
7/15/20

Harnack, Adolf. “Prolegomena, § 6. "Die Bearbeitungen der Διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων und ihre Geschichte in der kirchenrechtlichen Literature" pp. 170-268
“2. Die Διδαχή und die sog. apostolische Kirchenordnung.” pp. 193-241.

The tradition of a “church order” comes from Eastern Christianity. Harnack, seeing that the Didache also comes from the East, asks whether it is an example of a church order (Harnack 1884, 193). Harnack provides a review of some church orders, which has been collated and combined at various times, gathering the common statements, from different sources (Harnack 1884, 194-195). He finds reference to works such as Apostolic Constitutions, the Didache, writings of Hippolytus and Clement, among others. This points to early roots of the content (Harnack 1884, 196). The content is consistent with early 3rd century writings. Harnack, along with other scholars, would readily admit that the various documents and traditions exercised an influence on others.

A question arose in 1854 whether the Didache might have been translated into Latin as part of the ‘Duae viae vel iudicium Petri” of Rufinus (Harnack 1884, 198). Though comparative studies could be made, without a Greek manuscript of the Didache, it was impossible to be certain. A further challenge has been the actual presence of the Latin work, which was attributed in antiquity to various authors, and seems to come possibly as early as the second century (Harnack 1884, 203).

In 1883 a new edition of the Apostolic Church Orders was released. Harnack notes that in this edition, Lightfood concludes that the Ethiopic text tradition seems to follow that from Thebes, probably beint a translation of the Thebaic manuscript (Harnack 1884, 205l The etiology of the Two Ways narrative is thus pushed back to a possible Egyptian source, though there is a claim that the idea came from Peter. The proximity of the church order and the epistle of Barnabas is made more plausible (Harnack 1884, 206). The source becomes more clearly earlier than the time of Apostolic Constitutions (Harnack 1884, 207). Harnack takes all this analysis to urge a very early existence of the Two Ways material. His assumption, probably valid, is that the narrative was in circulation somehow before being adopted by a number of sources, apparently around the second century (Harnack 1884, 208).

Based on the conclusions he has made of the early time and place likely for the Two Ways narrative, Harnack provides a series of further conclusions or propositions for debate. They center around the material common to different documents, the possibility that any or all could be based in reality or a literary fiction, and what work or works may have influenced others (Harnack 1884, 210-211). He asks how much influence on the Church Order there may be from the Didache, outside of the Two Ways narrative, as well as what parts of either document may be original or the work of an interpolator (Harnack 1884, 212). If, in fact, the Church Order is largely a compilation of material from the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and other unspecified texts, by the end of the 2nd century, the editorial selection and choice of texts could be very enlightening to our view of early Christianity (Harnack 1884, 216).

Harnack continues with a discussion of the manuscript tradition of the Church Order and the codices in which it is found. He also considers the documentation of the title to some degree. The claims to apostolic origins are a matter of considerable debate. They also, clearly, would have an influence on the authority granted to the text. Harnack does not consider that dispute to be one which can be resolved definitively (Harnack 1884, 223). The time span between the time of the apostles and the earliest evidence of a title is too great to be certain.

The section closes with a text of the Apostolic Church Order in Greek (Harnack 1884, 225-237). There follows a table of the probably literary influences leading to the Apostolic Church Order (Harnack 1884, 237-238). Harnack concludes that there is an influence, dating back at least nearly to the apostolic period, but that the credit of particular apostles for different segments is probably an overstatement (Harnack 1884, 240).

Elements to Suggest Literary Dependence

7/10/2020

Warfield, Benjamin B. “The Didache and its Kindred Forms.” The Andover Review VI, July-December 1886, 81-97.

Warfield notes two discussions of the Didache which he thinks could bear further examination based on their results and methods, in particular reference to the Two Ways material (Warfield 1886, 81). Dr. Bratke, writing in Jahrbücher für protestantich Theologie (1886, i. 302-31) takes the Didache as an old example of the “Two Ways” material taken from a Latin version (Warfield 1886, 82). Warfield is not certain that the borrowing as described by Bratke is entirely the case, but that, at least in general terms, he is correct. Warfield does recognize that, in the absence of complete evidence, it is not possible to have absolute certainty about what document influenced what others (Warfield 1886, 84).

Warfield refers to the work of a Dr. McGiffert, who considers the existence of a common source of the Two Ways material, influencing both the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas (Warfield 1886, 84). McGiffert assumes an influence from Baranabas on a Latin version later used by Lactantius. Warfield does not think an adequate case for this can ever be built (Warfield 1886, 85). The underlying issue is whether one can prove a source of particular arrangements of ideas. Warfield gives examples of argument from absence, which are not persuasive (Warfield 1886, 87).

Warfield next turns to the suggestion that the original Two Ways omitted much of i.3-ii.1, as well as the possibility that chapter vi. is not original (Warfield 1886, 89). The omission of these passages in Barnabas, while they are present in other witnesses, suggests that Barnabas was drawing on different source material (Warfield 1886, 90).

Quotations of the Didache by various authors further suggest to Warfield that the authors had different versions of the material, some with or without various features. Further, estimates of the size of the Didache vary in authors who comment on its size (Warfield 1886, 92). Yet among these different versions Warfield observes that where “chapters i.-vi. are known, something from the latter part of the Didache seems to be known also” (Warfield 1886, 93). Other portions are either quoted or alluded to. Warfield documents these allusions in numerous different authors (Warfield 1886, 95).

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).