Early Christian Ebionaen Canon

[ebion]

(moved the followups to the thread because the Didache is in the canon.)

From what I can gather from Wikipedia (search made in 2019), the Apostolic Constitutions drew from the following five main sources:

• Books 1 to 6 are a free re-wording of the Didascalia Apostolorum
• Book 7 is partially based on the Didache.
• Book 8 is composed as follows:
o chapters 1-2 contain an extract of a lost treatise on the charismata
o chapters 3-46 are based on the Apostolic Tradition, greatly expanded, along with other material
o chapter 47 is known as the Canons of the Apostles and it had a wider circulation than the rest of the book.
• Books 7 & 8, besides that which derives from the sources indicated above, are interspersed with 16 prayers that bear striking similarity to Jewish Synagogal prayers: Book 7.26.1-3 (1); 33.2-7 (2); 34.1-8 (3); 35.1-10 (4); 36.1-7 (5); 37.1-5 (6); 38.1-8 (7); 39.2-4 (8); Book 8.5.1-4 (9); 6.5-8 (10); 9.8f (11); 12.6-27 (12); 15.7-9 (13); 16.3 (14); 40.2-4 (15) and 41.2-5 (16).

Unfortunately, like all things Wiki, there is confusion.
• When I [at that time, went] to to the Wiki pages for the Didascalia Apostolorum and the Apostolic Canons, they were both said to derive from the Didache in some way.
• The Apostolic Tradition seems to have not survived in Greek, only Syriac and Ethiopic.
• What passes for the Ethiopic of the Didascalia may be a "Readers' Digest" version of the Greek Apostolic Constitutions. [Some of this has been reformatted since original BC&H post in 2019]

Unfortunately, like all things Wiki, there are agendae. If the Bryennios manuscript is as fake as Sinaiticus is then you can expect Wickedpaedia to peddle the establishment fraud and censor anything contrary. They seem to have reduced the Codex Hierosolymitanus page to a bare minimum.

A standard translation of the Didache is by Charles Holland Hoole (1836?-1902) who was an English divinity student who translated a number of Early Christian writings including:

1. The Shepherd Of Hermas (1870)
2. The Epistles Of St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Barnabas, St. Polycarp: Together With The Martyrdom Of St. Ignatius And St. Polycarp (1872)
3. The Didache Teaching of the twelve apostles restored to its original state from various sources with an introduction and notes 1894)
   [

The choice of works is significant as this covers almost all of the Codex Hierosolymitanus (H) (Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistles of Clement) and the non-NT parts of Sinaiticus (Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd Of Hermas); this translation was done shortly after S and H were published, So Hoole essentially specialized in S and H and was well aware of the Didache and Apostolic Constitutions link.

He writes:

An examination of the text as published by Bryennius, printed at the end of the introduction, with the passages not previously known marked with brackets, will show that practically the whole of the treatise, with the exception of a few of the directions given for the reception of apostles and prophets, was already known, and had been in the hands of scholars for some time; so that the chief importance of the discovery would seem to be its enabling us to identify the passages in the "Epistle of Barnabas" and the "Apostolic Constitutions," and to refer to their proper period and source what had hitherto been doubtful.

What, then, was the source from which the various writers, whose work we find in the "Epistle of Barnabas," "The Shepherd of Hermas," "The Apostolic Constitutions," and "The Epitome of the Holy Apostles," drew the doctrines and regulations which we find for the first time collected in the "Didache" of Bryennius? And the answer would seem to be this: There existed at a very remote period, most likely before the end of the first century, a work handed down by oral tradition which was supposed to embody the verbal teaching of the first Apostles...

At a period a little later, the compiler of the "Apostolic Constitutions" included this traditional work, which had already partly appeared in writing, in his collection of precepts supposed to have been given by the Apostles themselves, so that in the seventh book of the "Apostolic Constitutions" we find the doctrine of the Duæ Viæ [Two Paths of the Didache] worked out at length, with precepts for the administration of the Sacraments and the appointment of Christian ministers. ...

This completes the series of works parallel with the Didache, and by comparing them with the Constantinople manuscript it will be seen that nearly every sentence in the Didache of Bryennius occurs in one or other of the four works cited. So that the question arises whether the Didache was the source from which the other writers drew their sentiments, or whether it was not an epitome or collection made by an anonymous writer, who selected what he considered to be the primitive doctrines of the Apostles, omitting what he considered to be of later date or less importance, and forming out of their teaching a short manual of duty. The shortness of the treatise published by Bryennius seems to suggest the latter view, which will make the work somewhat resemble the Syriac version of Ignatius, which is now acknowledged to be an bridgment of the Greek. 1

Hoole's conclusion is very clear:

After a good deal of consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the Didache [of Bryennius] is not an original work, but a compilation or series of excerpts from the treatises already quoted. Any one who will compare the Didache of Bryennius with the passages taken from Barnabas, Hermas, the Judicium Petri, and the Apostolic Constitutions, will find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the author of the Didache had these works in his hands, and compiled from them what he supposed to be the primitive doctrine of the Apostles; and the position of his work is not that of an original to an enlarged and completed copy, but that of a condensation and compilation from a number of other works. There seems some reason to suppose that the work thus composed underwent a further abbreviation, ...

So it looks like Bryennius' Didache was a compendium or meddley of major components of the codicies that just happened to be in H and S, the author of the Didache had these works in his hands when he wrote the Didache, leaving open the possibility that it was authored by the same team or techniques that produced the S & H.

This vindicates the great quote by Donaldson

It might well be urged that if a Tischendorf were inclined to forge a manuscript, ... we cannot therefore but think it a grave error both in Tischendorf and Bryennius that they have not adduced external testimony to the history of their manuscripts.

So I suspect that the Codices Hierosolymitanus and Sinaiaticus were produced at about the same time, and perhaps in the same place. And we note that neither has been AMS C-14 dated.

Unlike Tischenduper and Bryennius, I trust Whiston, so I'll go back to his Apostolic Constitutions, but maybe I'll avoid the version "improved" by Donaldson. But we still don't know what manuscript Whiston was working from, although he includes the greek that he translated in his book. Unfortunately the version on the Internet Archive is a poor version to OCR, because of the middle English font and dual-Greek columns.

Does anyone know of an OCRed version of Whiston's Apostolic Constitutions?

[schillingklaus]

The Phaulines are perfectly Christian, as they attempt subliminally to sell non-Jewish rites as fulfillment of the Law and the prophets of the Old Testament, centred around the Messiah as the preteneded institutor of the rites; and this is the very purpose of Christianity.

[Steven Avery]

Unlike Tischenduper and Bryennius, I trust Whiston, so I'll go back to his Apostolic Constitutions, but maybe I'll avoid the version "improved" by Donaldson. But we still don't know what manuscript Whiston was working from, although he includes the greek that he translated in his book. Unfortunately the version on the Internet Archive is a poor version to OCR, because of the middle English font and dual=greek columns.
Does anyone know of an OCRed version of Whiston's Apostolic Constitutions?

Your Internet Archive url is faulty, so try these (better to go to the page than the PDF)

Primitive Christianity reviv'd : in four volumes - Volume 2
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
https://archive.org/details/primitivech ... 5/mode/2up

Primitive Christianity reviv'd : in four volumes - Volume 3
An Essay on the Apostolical Constitutions
https://archive.org/details/primitivech ... 1/mode/2up

The Grabe response is here

An essay upon two Arabick manuscripts of the Bodleian library,
and that ancient book, call'd the Doctrine of the Apostles, which is said to be extant in them; wherein Mr. Whiston's mistakes about both are plainly prov'd / (1711)
by John Ernest Grabe.
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008734705

Earlier I mentioned the Arabic manuscripts, e.g. there is background information here:

Scripture and Scholarship in Early Modern England (2006)
https://books.google.com/books?id=P0bObTmMazAC&pg=PA112
Whiston announced that he had, with the assistance of Simon Ockley, soon to be Sir Thomas Adams’s professor of Arabic at Cambridge and a distinguished orientalist whom Toland also knew, recovered a version of this ancient Christian work amongst the manuscripts in the Bodleian Library. Whiston believed the work to have been extracted from the Apostolic Constitutions and therefore worthy to be esteemed canonical.101

The Genre and Development of the Didache: A Text-linguistic Analysis (2012)
By Nancy Pardee
https://books.google.com/books?id=bYtCRH--HMwC&pg=PA33

So I tend to doubt that you are matching up a Greek text with a Didache portion in 1711. I am just trying to get the basic paramenters right here.

[Steven Avery]

Hoole's conclusion is very clear:

It does sound like Hoole was very close to accusing Bryennius of a forgery here.
Your extracts are good. Although a later one seems to accept authenticity.

"the Didache discovered by Bryennius, which was no doubt the same as that mentioned by Nicephoros in the ninth century, was a shortened form of the Didache mentioned by Athanasius"

“ . No other manuscript or version of it has been found, but there is no reason to doubt that it A genuine manuscript”

I do plan some more study on this history.

========================

Tischendorf's involvement does not seem likely. '
He would have be in Constantinople and he had his plate full topping off the Sinaiticus Con Tank.

========================

The quote from Donaldson is rather amazing.

[ebion]

Hoole's conclusion is very clear:

It does sound like Hoole was very close to accusing Bryennius of a forgery here.

Especially when you consider that this is 19th century English, in a published book. Published in a country which had absurdly liberal libel laws. Same with Donaldson. My reading of both of those quotes is that they are calculated invitations to a libel suit that they hope to loose a farthing on.

And everyone who was anyone in England would conclude that Donaldson and Hoole won much more than a farthing when they didn't get sued.

"the Didache discovered by Bryennius, which was no doubt the same as that mentioned by Nicephoros in the ninth century, was a shortened form of the Didache mentioned by Athanasius"

“ . No other manuscript or version of it has been found, but there is no reason to doubt that it A genuine manuscript”

Yes it's a little mealy mouthed, but after the damage has been done, and the conclusion is uneqivocal. Remember also that Hoole was a divinity student and Bryennius was a senior bishop (Metropolitan); there may be ecclesiastical deference. I'd say the Jerusalem Patriarchate was the most respected one in Christendom, much more than the Church of England or Rome for example.

I think what he's hinting at is that the "Bryennius manuscript" is not Bryennius' - he knows that a Metropolitan would do nothing without the Patriarch. Hoole knows that Bryennius is only acting on the Patriarch's instructions, who was the previous Metropolitan of Sinai!

Tischendorf's involvement does not seem likely. '
He would have be in Constantinople and he had his plate full topping off the Sinaiticus Con Tank.

I think the opposite. I'll flesh it out soon.

Recall that Tischenduper spent a Hebrew year in Italy/at the Vatican with cardinals Mai (S.J.) and Mezzofanti, with private papal audiences (pl.), before he proceeded directly to Ste. Katherines, with enough funds to travel, stay at Ste. Katherines, and then proceed on to Constantinople.
Might he have spent his entire time in Italy at the Vatican library, learning Vaticanus?

The quote from Donaldson is rather amazing.

And doubly libelous under English law: of both T and B, much more senior figures.

PS: What was the time delay/excuse/narrative by Bryennius justifying the later appreance/discovery/waiting-for-the-ink-to-dry of the Didache? It was a couple of years at least was it not? Are there any descriptions of the physical state of the manuscript? And of course, as always, has it been AMS C-14 dated or has the ink been spectraed?

[ebion]

So I tend to doubt that you are matching up a Greek text with a Didache portion in 1711. I am just trying to get the basic paramenters right here.

I don't understand your English here: the (corrected - thanks) link
https://archive.org/download/primitivec ... 02whis.pdf
is to the 4 volumes which are 2 column Greek and English, in 1711.

It's what makes them very hard to OCR.

[Steven Avery]

Primitive Christianity reviv'd : in four volumes - Volume 2 - 588 pages
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
https://archive.org/details/primitivech ... 5/mode/2up

Primitive Christianity reviv'd : in four volumes - Volume 3 - 718 pages
An Essay on the Apostolical Constitutions
https://archive.org/details/primitivech ... 1/mode/2up

Your 588 page PDF is the same as what I have a Volume 2 of the 4-Volumes above.
However, the PDF file does not allow you to link directly to a page.

====================

The Essay, Volume 3, is a separate 718 pages and gives you background information.

If you search "Arabick" in there you will get discussion of the Arabic Didascalia (Didache) manuscripts.
Arabick - 18 hits
didafcalia - 4 hits
Didaicalies - 1 hit

Sample
https://archive.org/details/primitivech ... didafcalia
"I shall here in the Second Place Present the Reader with an Account or Index of the Contents of the Ethiopick or Coptick, and of the Arabick Didascalia, the former of.which is evidently either the very same with, or an exact Abridgment of the latter."

I can't say yet exactly where he uses the Arabick manuscripts as his base, and whether those sections show Greek. However, he is using Arabick manuscripts, possibly he translates them to Greek?

[Steven Avery]

PS: What was the time delay/excuse/narrative by Bryennius justifying the later appreance/discovery/waiting-for-the-ink-to-dry of the Didache? It was a couple of years at least was it not? Are there any descriptions of the physical state of the manuscript? And of course, as always, has it been AMS C-14 dated or has the ink been spectraed?

Bryennius said he went back to the manuscript and found the Didache, which he had missed on pass one, this was about 10 years later. Definitely a quirky account.

"And, although the MS was discovered in 1873, the findings of the Didache were not made public until 1883."
Shawn Wilhite
https://www.shawnjwilhite.com/blog/2017 ... he-didache

In 1922 two Greek fragments were found in Egypt which were textually very close to that found in Istanbul, thus verifying its accuracy
https://prophecytoday.uk/study/resource ... dache.html

Especially important are two Greek fragments, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1782, dated to the "late fourth century" and published by Greenfell and Hunt in 1922 (12-15). These tiny scraps, about two inches by two inches apiece, contain verses 1:3c-4a and 2:7-3:2. Despite small differences, the wording on those scraps is very close to Byrrenios's text. That is very important confirmation for the basic accuracy of Codex Hierosolymitanus 54, given the gulf of centuries between it and the earlier fragments
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

Very little description but there are some possibly related urls.

Panagios Taphos 54. John Chrysostom: Synopsis of the Testaments; Apostolic Fathers. 1056 A.D.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonast ... =1&st=list

Pinakes
Jerusalem Patriarchikê bibliothêkê Panaghiou Taphou 054
https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/cote/35291/

Pinakes gives the next three urls.

Hierosolymitikē bibliothēkē
https://archive.org/details/hierosolymitikb00papagoog/

Hierosolymitikē bibliothēkē : hētoi katalogos tōn en tais bibliothēkais tou hagiōtatou apostolikou te kai katholikou orthodoxou patriarchiou thronou tōn Hierosolymōn kai pasēs Palaistinēs apokeimenōn Ellēnikōn kōdikōn syntachtheisa men kai phōtotypikois kosmētheisa pinaxin (1891)
https://archive.org/details/hierosolymitikb01papagoog/

https://www.ponomar.net/data/paleograph ... oulos4.pdf

Here is the Greek by David Robert Palmer
https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/didache.pdf

[Steven Avery]

To summarize, if the POxy text is very close to Sinaiticus, that really closes the issue of authentic its.

Sometimes such claims are overstated or simply false.

That happened with a James White claim about papyri and Sinaiticus. He claimed in the debate with Chris Pinto that Sinaiticus matched singular readings in later papyri thousands of times, to “win” a debate. However, it is hard to find ANY such variants, much less thousands.

While it would be good to find a paper that looks at the POxy fragments compared to the Btyennius ms., my sense is that the conclusion bolstering authenticity is probably sound.

[Steven Avery]

To summarize, if the POxy text is very close to Sinaiticus (correction, the Bryennius Didache), that really closes the issue of authentic its.

Sometimes such claims are overstated or simply false.

That happened with a James White claim about papyri and Sinaiticus. He repeatedly claimed in the debate with Chris Pinto that Sinaiticus matched singular readings in later papyri thousands of times, to “win” a debate. However, it is hard to find ANY such variants, much less thousands.

While it would be good to find a paper that looks at the POxy fragments compared to the Btyennius ms., my sense is that the conclusion bolstering authenticity is probably sound.

To summarize, if the POxy text is very close to Sinaiticus, that really closes the issue of authentic its.

Sometimes such claims are overstated or simply false.

That happened with a James White claim about papyri and Sinaiticus. He claimed in the debate with Chris Pinto that Sinaiticus matched singular readings in later papyri thousands of times, to “win” a debate. However, it is hard to find ANY such variants, much less thousands.

While it would be good to find a paper that looks at the POxy fragments compared to the Btyennius ms., my sense is that the conclusion bolstering authenticity is probably sound.