The Didache.

[MrMacSon]

and the link to Milavec A (2003) Synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited Journal of Early Christian Studies, 11:4; pp.443-480

Abstract
"This study reexamines the evidence for and against the claim that the creators of the Didache made use of Matthew's gospel. In the past, scholars were content to list parallel texts by way of establishing the case for dependence. More recently, however, more insightful criteria have been defined. Even in cases of exact verbal agreement, for example, one has to explore to what degree contexts and meanings overlap. Furthermore, one has to explore whether shared issues (fasting, praying, almsgiving, correcting, offering 'sacrifice') are resolved along parallel lines. Likewise, textual dependence can no longer disregard orality and oral transmission. In the end, this study concludes that Matthew's gospel and the Didache reveal two religious systems that grew up independently of each other. Should Didache scholars come to accept this, the way would be open for an early dating of the Didache and for its interpretation as a self-contained religious system that must be allowed to speak for itself without appealing to any known gospel. A new era of Didache studies would thus lie open before us."

[Ben C. Smith]

Milavec is saying he [Milavec] also has argued that the Didache predates the written Gospels: those citations seem to be Milvec's.

It seems Milavec disagrees with some of Garrows points or arguments, though.

Link to The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E on Amazon

Ah, I see what you are saying now. Yes, quite a few Didache experts are of the opinion that (at least parts of) it predates the canonical gospels. Garrow is not alone in this.

But Garrow has definitely forged his own path in that direction; his observations are not just copycat versions of the others', so of course there is going to be disagreement on the specifics.

[MrMacSon]

... quite a few Didache experts are of the opinion that (at least parts of) it predates the canonical gospels. Garrow is not alone in this.

But Garrow has definitely forged his own path in that direction; his observations are not just copycat versions of the others', so of course there is going to be disagreement on the specifics.

Which will create discussion which, in turn, along with discussions around the Marcion texts, is good for helping to discern the evolution of early Christianity.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"I really think that Didache 16 (or something like it) preceded Mark 13 and Matthew 24."

And Kunigunde wrote:

"It is also my impression that parts of the Didache or something like it preceded Mark."

And Ben wrote:

" Garrow argues that (most of) the Didache predates Matthew, Mark, and Luke."

I've been (and am still) digesting this argument. But one of the things that stands out so far is the uncertainty of the ending of the Didache. I don't think pseudo-Boniface is reflective of the ending of the Didache because it uses the Pauline expression "no eye has seen" and the Didache is otherwise non-Pauline and Jewish Christian (and Hegesippus, who is also non-Pauline and Jewish Christian, said that these are empty words and that those who used them are liars).

But I actually have no problem with the idea that (parts of) the Didache could pre-date Matthew, Mark and Luke, I would only add that the original Hebrew Matthew (if there was one) could have pre-dated all of four of these Greek writings; in this scenario the Didache would then have unique translations of it, and the canonical Matthew and Greek Jewish Christian gospels would be others; it would also explain the non-Markan material in the Didache.

And I'm not on board yet with the idea that there is direct contact between Paul's letters and the Didache. The pseudo-Boniface ending portion seems iffy to me, but I need to do more research on pseudo-Boniface. Paul and the Didache mention the coming of the Jesus on the clouds of heaven, but I don't think this necessarily means that Paul knew the latter (or that the latter existed pre-70 CE).

Take Did. 6:3, the proscription against eating food sacrificed to idols, as an example again. This is mentioned in the letter that is sent out to Gentiles from Jewish Christians in Acts 15 and 21 and by Paul (which indicates the "beyond Jewish" milieu of the Didache), but I don't think this means there was any literary contact between the Didache and Acts or Paul. I see this info as being more "in the air" during the first century CE, landing here in Paul, there in Acts, here in the Didache (and in the letter that was sent out by Jewish Christians in Acts, if it existed).

The same goes for the idea of Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven in the Didache and Paul and Acts. They all mention this, as do Hegesippus and Mark and other early Christian writings. I see the Didache as being one of these early writings that mentions this idea (after 70 CE) but that it was otherwise only "in the air" during Paul's time. No one would have needed the Didache to know about this idea because it ultimately comes from Daniel.

Another issue thus far is one noted in this review of Garrow's book:

"The fourth layer potentially could be damaging for Garrow's thesis, since the three brief texts ,which according to Garrow constitute this layer (Did 8.2b; 11.3.b; and 15.3-4) all mention 'the Gospel' in a sense that most naturally appears to refer to a written document. Garrow argues that this material forms a later addition, attached after the Didache (layers 1-3) had been utilized by the first evangelist. One does wonder, however, whether layer 4, the gospel layer, would have been identified as a separate entity if it were not required by the hypothesis which is being advanced."

http://ext.sagepub.com/content/116/3/98.1.extract

But again I'm still in processing mode.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Take Did. 6:3, the proscription against eating food sacrificed to idols, as an example again. This is mentioned in the letter that is sent out to Gentiles from Jewish Christians in Acts 15 and 21 and by Paul (which indicates the "beyond Jewish" milieu of the Didache), but I don't think this means there was any literary contact between the Didache and Acts or Paul. I see this info as being more "in the air" during the first century CE, landing here in Paul, there in Acts, here in the Didache (and in the letter that was sent out by Jewish Christians in Acts, if it existed).

The same goes for the idea of Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven in the Didache and Paul and Acts. They all mention this, as do Hegesippus and Mark and other early Christian writings. I see the Didache as being one of these early writings that mentions this idea (after 70 CE) but that it was otherwise only "in the air" during Paul's time. No one would have needed the Didache to know about this idea because it ultimately comes from Daniel.

Agreed. It's not so easy to make a convincing case. My interest in the Didache is rather directed towards other themes.

In GMark Jesus is often called „teacher“ (by the disciples, the „rich young man“, „the good scribe“, Pharisees, Herodians, Sadducees). One of my ideas is that Mark reflected here about an early tradition of Christians and that his own opinion on that was „good, but not good enough“. On the one side in the Didache Jesus is on a par with David. Both are called παῖς (pais) of God. I would prefer the translation „child“ because it's not the traditional term „Son of God“ (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). On the other side Jesus is clearly honored as an important teacher of knowledge and faith and immortality („which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus“).

ΔΙΔΑΧΑΙ ΤΩΝ ΔΩΔΕΚΑ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ Codex Hierosolymitanus	Teaching of the Twelve Apostles English Translation
Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.	Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles.
IX 1 Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας, οὕτω<ς> εὐχαριστήσατε· 2 Πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου· Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Δαβὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου· σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 3 Περὶ δὲ τοῦ κλάσματος· Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου· σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 4 Ὥσπερ ἦν τοῦτο <τὸ> κλάσμα διεσκορπισμένον ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων καὶ συναχθὲν ἐγένετο ἕν, οὕτω συναχθήτω σου ἡ ἐκκλησία ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν· ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ...	9 9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks. 9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. 9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. 9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever. ...
X 1 Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι οὕτως εὐχαριστήσατε· 2 Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἁγίου ὀνόματός σου, οὗ κατεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου· σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 3 Σύ, δέσποτα παντοκράτορ, ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός σου, τροφήν τε καὶ ποτὸν ἔδωκας τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν, ἵνα σοι εὐχαριστήσωσιν, ἡμῖν δὲ ἐχαρίσω πνευματικὴν τροφὴν καὶ ποτὸν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ τοῦ παιδός σου. ...	10 10:1 But after it has been completed, so pray ye. 10:2 We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name, which thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. 10:3 Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for the sake of thy name, and hast given both meat and drink, for men to enjoy, that we might give thanks unto thee, but to us thou hast given spiritual meat and drink, and life everlasting, through thy Son. ...

The Didache could reflect an early tradition or a later Judeo-Christian traditon. Both are possible and it cannot be judged by itself.

But I think that Markan pericopes like the calming of the storm would make perfect sense if the Didache is early or cognate with an early tradition. (“Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”)

This is just one example. But I do not wish to convince anyone. It's just my impression.

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi, John. You make some valid points, and I should stress that little of this is certain in any way. The indicators are subtle, the directions in which they point slight. I will respond to one important point from which you have omitted something important from open consideration.

I've been (and am still) digesting this argument. But one of the things that stands out so far is the uncertainty of the ending of the Didache. I don't think pseudo-Boniface is reflective of the ending of the Didache because it uses the Pauline expression "no eye has seen" and the Didache is otherwise non-Pauline and Jewish Christian (and Hegesippus, who is also non-Pauline and Jewish Christian, said that these are empty words and that those who used them are liars).

Recall that pseudo-Boniface is only a secondary witness to the lost ending of the Didache. If it alone contained the "eyes have not seen, ears not heard" phrase, we should suspect that it cribbed from 1 Corinthians 2.9 or from 1 Clement 34.8. But, as things stand, the primary witness is Apostolic Constitutions 7.32. Garrow notes that "there are a number of points of contact between Renunciation and the Didache. First, they are both explicitly presented as pre-baptismal catechesis. Second, they both preserve the negative form of the golden rule. Third, they both include reference to the return of Christ/the Lord and the resurrection of the dead. It is also striking that both Renunciation and Const, should combine this type of material with almost identical visions of the final judgment and reward - despite the lack of any other sign that Boniface had knowledge of Const." (Obviously much depends on the Renunciation not having cribbed from the Constitutions.)

And I'm not on board yet with the idea that there is direct contact between Paul's letters and the Didache. The pseudo-Boniface ending portion seems iffy to me, but I need to do more research on pseudo-Boniface. Paul and the Didache mention the coming of the Jesus on the clouds of heaven, but I don't think this necessarily means that Paul knew the latter (or that the latter existed pre-70 CE).

The article I sent you is where the argument is made that 1 Thessalonians depends on Didache 16. But remember also that Paul claims to be quoting something. He does not take the credit for crafting 1 Corinthians 2.9 out of Isaianic material.

Also, for some reason any contact or overlap between Paul and Jewish Christianity for some reason seems problematic for you, whereas for me it is the most natural thing in the world. We must be approaching that matter from very different positions.

For convenience, here is a comparison of the passages for the "eye has not seen, nor ear heard" line:

Apostolic Constitutions 7.32	Didache 16	Renunciation
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and afterwards shall be the voice of a trumpet by the archangel; and in that interval shall be the revival of those that were asleep.	6 And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first the sign of the appearance in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead, 7 -- not of all, but as it has been said, The Lord shall come and all his saints with him;	-
And then shall the Lord come, and all His saints with Him, with a great concussion above the clouds, with the angels of His power, in the throne of His kingdom, to condemn the devil, the deceiver of the world,	8 then shall the world behold the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven....	5. Believe in the advent of Christ,
and to render to every one according to his deeds. Then shall the wicked go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous shall go into life eternal,	-	the resurrection of the body, and the judgment of all men. For then the impious shall be separated from the just, the one for the everlasting fire, the others for the eternal life.
-	-	Then begins a life with God without death, a light without shadows, a health without sickness, a plenty without hunger, a happiness without fear, a joy with no misgivings. Then comes the eternal glory, in which the just shall shine like suns,
to inherit those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, such things as God has prepared for them that love Him; and they shall rejoice in the kingdom of God, which is in Christ Jesus.	-	for no eye has ever seen, no ear has ever heard, no heart has ever dreamed, of all that which God has prepared for those whom he loves.

Ben.

[John2]

Kunigunde,

I think the "teacher/teaching" aspect of Christianity is important and that it has roots in the Dead Sea Scrolls sect (which was led by someone called the Teacher of Righteousness). As James 3:1 puts it, "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." Regarding this, Witherington notes that "first person verbs are quite rare in James and, apart from hypothetical questions (Jas. 1:13; 2:18; 4:13, 15), occur in this homily only at James 3:1-3 and James 5:11 ... here James self-identifies as a teacher, and since he does not refer to himself as an apostle or prophet this seems quite significant."

https://books.google.com/books?id=--nHj ... es&f=false

This teaching aspect is even more pronounced in the Pseudo-Clementines (which I think have a Jewish Christian Grundschrift). As Patrick notes, "No teacher is to be believed unless he brings from Jerusalem a testimonial from James the Lord's brother (Recog. iv. 35). Every Apostle, teacher, or prophet must be shunned who does not compare his teaching with that of James (Homilies, xi. 35)."

https://books.google.com/books?id=cgQQA ... es&f=false

And the Epistle of Peter to James says that these teachings should be based on correct (i.e., Jewish Christian) interpretations of the OT:

"For, according to the rule delivered to them, they endeavour to correct the discordances of the Scriptures, if any one, haply not knowing the traditions, is confounded at the various utterances of the prophets. Wherefore they charge no one to teach, unless he has first learned how the Scriptures must be used. And thus they have amongst them one God, one law, one hope."

http://biblehub.com/library/unknown/epi ... eserve.htm

And of course didache means "teaching" and it is generally regarded as a non-Pauline writing.

Compare this with Paul's attitude towards the issue of needing letters of recommendation from anyone (and the "dis" against Moses) in 2 Cor. 3:1-3:

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"But remember also that Paul claims to be quoting something. He does not take the credit for crafting 1 Corinthians 2.9 out of Isaianic material."

Right, but... as I pointed out earlier, in other instances where Paul says "as it is written" he cites or alludes to the OT:

http://biblehub.net/searchepistles.php? ... is+written

And the context of the expression in 1 Clement (which knows Paul) is clearly Isaiah:

"For the scripture saith, Ten thousand times ten thousand stood beside him, and thousands of thousands served him; and they cried, Holy, holy, holy Lord of Sabaoth! all creation is full of his glory. And let us, being gathered together in harmony and a good conscience, cry earnestly, as it were with one mouth, unto him, that we may become partakers of his great and glorious promises; for he saith, Eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, neither hath there entered into the heart of man, what things he hath prepared for them that wait for him" (34:6-8).

If there is an(other) example of Paul citing something "written" that is not in (or appear to be in) the OT I will reconsider the possibility that he is citing the Didache in 1 Cor. 2:9.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben wrote:

"But remember also that Paul claims to be quoting something. He does not take the credit for crafting 1 Corinthians 2.9 out of Isaianic material."

Right, but... as I pointed out earlier, in other instances where Paul says "as it is written" he cites or alludes to the OT:

http://biblehub.net/searchepistles.php? ... is+written

And the context of the expression in 1 Clement (which knows Paul) is clearly Isaiah:

"For the scripture saith, Ten thousand times ten thousand stood beside him, and thousands of thousands served him; and they cried, Holy, holy, holy Lord of Sabaoth! all creation is full of his glory. And let us, being gathered together in harmony and a good conscience, cry earnestly, as it were with one mouth, unto him, that we may become partakers of his great and glorious promises; for he saith, Eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, neither hath there entered into the heart of man, what things he hath prepared for them that wait for him" (34:6-8).

If there is an(other) example of Paul citing something "written" that is not in (or appear to be in) the OT I will reconsider the possibility that he is citing the Didache in 1 Cor. 2:9.

But the point is that 1 Corinthians 2.9 is not in Isaiah. It is based on something in Isaiah, but is not a quote from Isaiah. Did Paul add the extra words and phrases to it and call it a quote? Or did Paul remember an Isaianically phrased passage and quote from memory, confusing "real" Isaiah with the modified version?

[John2]

Ben,

You asked:

"Did Paul add the extra words and phrases to it and call it a quote? Or did Paul remember an Isaianically phrased passage and quote from memory, confusing "real" Isaiah with the modified version?"

I think he just added or confused the extra words. It sounds more or less like Isaiah, Paul elsewhere means the OT when he says that something is "as it is written" (a more exhaustive list is here: http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1125.htm), and 1 Clement knows Paul and uses this expression in an Isaianic context. If the Didache added these words to Isaiah and that was Paul's written source, it would be (as far as I can tell) the lone instance of Paul saying something besides the OT was "as it is written" and would also be contrary to Hegesippus's hostile remarks about the expression and people who used it.

As for the Apostolic Constitutions and the ending of the Didache, I'm having trouble being certain of anything here too because, as this book notes, "the basic text of the Didache [in the Apostolic Constitutions] has been amended thoroughly. On account of the frequent paraphrases, citations from both testaments in the bible and interpretations, the text reads more like a commentary. The compiler repeatedly adjusted the text to bring it into harmony with the contemporary church in his own situation."

https://books.google.com/books?id=jm7S_ ... he&f=false