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.
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.
RSS Feed