The Didache.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

You seem to be regarding that as your default position, whereas to my mind both positions are equally plausible in advance.

It sounds more or less like Isaiah, Paul elsewhere means the OT when he says that something is "as it is written"....

True, and in those other quotes he quotes something that we can find in our extant OT texts (LXX or Hebrew mainly); this quote is different in that it is mostly not from either of these sources. That bears explaining on any hypothesis.

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"....

It is already that, is it not?

Isaiah 64.3 LXX: ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν οὐδὲ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν εἶδον θεὸν πλὴν σοῦ καὶ τὰ ἔργα σου ἃ ποιήσεις τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν ἔλεον. / For from of old they have not heard nor perceived by ear, neither has the eye seen a God besides Thee, who acts in behalf of the one who waits for him.

Isaiah 65.17 LXX: ἔσται γὰρ ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καινή καὶ οὐ μὴ μνησθῶσιν τῶν προτέρων οὐδ᾽ οὐ μὴ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν. / For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind.

1 Corinthians 2.9: ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὗς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. / "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him."

There is more of the quote that does not come from Isaiah than that does; the Isaianic verses are more than a chapter apart; and the entire structure of the quote differs from both of them. How many Pauline quotations of the OT do that?

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."

Very true; and yet, after paraphrasing Didache 16 both the Constitutions and the Renunciation insert the same line.

Ben.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"There is more of the quote that does not come from Isaiah than that does; the Isaianic verses are more than a chapter apart; and the entire structure of the quote differs from both of them. How many Pauline quotations of the OT do that?"

I don't know and I'm curious to find out. But is it out of character for the NT to do this? Offhand, don't Matthew and Mark also give inexact (or uncertain) references to Isaiah (even if not so extreme)?

"...and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene" (Mt. 2:23).

"...as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 'I will send my messenger ahead of you,who will prepare your way — a voice of one calling in the wilderness, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him’” (Mk. 1:2-3).

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben wrote:

"There is more of the quote that does not come from Isaiah than that does; the Isaianic verses are more than a chapter apart; and the entire structure of the quote differs from both of them. How many Pauline quotations of the OT do that?"

I don't know and I'm curious to find out. But is it out of character for the NT to do this? Offhand, don't Matthew and Mark also give inexact (or uncertain) references to Isaiah (even if not so extreme)?

"...and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene" (Mt. 2:23).

"...as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 'I will send my messenger ahead of you,who will prepare your way — a voice of one calling in the wilderness, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him’” (Mk. 1:2-3).

It's easier for me to think that an individual like Paul or a gospel writer would misquote the OT than to think that a sect that emphasized observing the OT had this kind of error in their community rule.

Various NT books quote weird stuff from the OT, yes. But you were specifically bringing in Paul's quotation habits, pointing out that his "it is written" statements are always to OT texts. If you want to bring in NT quotation habits as a whole, then we can always look at 1 Timothy 5.18, which quotes from two bits of "scripture", one of them being (something like) Luke 10.7b, and definitely not anything that we currently know as an OT text. But I think your first instinct was good; Paul's habits are what is important, and I am saying that, compared to the rest of them, this one is already exceptional, since more than half of it does not really correspond to its OT templates. I am further saying that two different explanations may account for this:

1. Your seemingly default option, which appears to be that Paul combined two Isaianic verses and then freewheeled most of the actual wording.
2. My suggestion (or at least a variant of it), which is that Paul remembered something from (a text like) the Didache and quoted it as if it were Isaianic (because of the similarities), much how some modern Christians will quote Shakespeare as if it came from the Bible; it may be a written source, and something of an authoritative one at that, but it is not the Bible.

I am saying that both of these options are not really typical for Paul, simply because the quotation itself is not typical for Paul. We are running with an exception no matter what we decide. To your option, I might say, "Well, does Paul freewheel like that elsewhere in his quotations?" And to mine, you might say, "Well, does Paul confuse scripture with nonscripture elsewhere in his quotations?" A priori, then, they are on equal footing. One cannot simply default to one or the other.

Hope this makes sense.

Ben.

[John2]

Just out of curiosity I checked to see how exact the first OT verse that Paul cites in Romans is and, while that isn't exhausting research and it's not as "freewheeling" as 1 Cor. 2:9, Kruse points out that "The form of the quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 in [Romans] 1:17 differs from the forms found in the MT and LXX ... Paul's citation in both [Romans] 1:17 and Galatians 3:11 lacks the 'his' of the MT and the 'my' of the LXX" and he discusses the implications of this (however minor):

https://books.google.com/books?id=vWlyC ... A4&f=false

How much of 1 Cor. 2:9 is part of the quote anyway? As I was reviewing older posts on this thread I noticed that it looks like DCH is thinking along similar lines when he wrote on page one:

"From the standpoint of my own POV*, it seems that 2:9a is a quote, with 2:9b being an aside to the quote, and these two represent a unit ... 2:9a But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard," (Isa 64:4 RSV), 2:9b nor the heart of man conceived, 2:9c what God has prepared for those who love him..."

If this could be the case (and if I'm understanding DCH right), then the connection to Is. 64:4 would be only with 2:9a, not 2:9b or 2:9c, and that part seems fairly close to Is. 64:4, "For since the world began, no ear has heard and no eye has seen..."

In any event, this tendency to cite OT verses freely does not appear to apply to 1 Cor. 2:9 if it is a citation of the Didache that is reflected by the Apostolic Constitutions and pseudo-Boniface, because they look very similar in translation (if not word for word in Greek):

1 Cor. 2:9:

"But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”

Apostolic Constitutions 7.32:

"...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'”

Pseudo-Boniface Renunciation 15.5:

"...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."

Was Paul more precise in quoting the Didache than he was the OT? Or maybe the Apostolic Constitutions and pseudo-Boniface are quoting Paul and that is why they are all so similar.

[Ben C. Smith]

How much of 1 Cor. 2:9 is part of the quote anyway? As I was reviewing older posts on this thread I noticed that it looks like DCH is thinking along similar lines when he wrote on page one:

"From the standpoint of my own POV*, it seems that 2:9a is a quote, with 2:9b being an aside to the quote, and these two represent a unit ... 2:9a But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard," (Isa 64:4 RSV), 2:9b nor the heart of man conceived, 2:9c what God has prepared for those who love him..."

If this could be the case (and if I'm understanding DCH right), then the connection to Is. 64:4 would be only with 2:9a, not 2:9b or 2:9c, and that part seems fairly close to Is. 64:4, "For since the world began, no ear has heard and no eye has seen..."

I think this notion may founder on the way the verse ends. I have color coded the various passages:

Isaiah 64.3 LXX: ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν οὐδὲ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν εἶδον θεὸν πλὴν σοῦ καὶ τὰ ἔργα σου ἃ ποιήσεις τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν ἔλεον. / For from of old they have not heard nor perceived by ear, neither has the eye seen a God besides Thee, who acts in behalf of the one who waits for him.

Isaiah 65.17 LXX: ἔσται γὰρ ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καινή καὶ οὐ μὴ μνησθῶσιν τῶν προτέρων οὐδ᾽ οὐ μὴ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν. / For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind.

1 Corinthians 2.9: ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὗς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. / "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him."

Even if you get rid of any allusion to Isaiah 65.17 (the green stuff in the middle), there is still that apparent allusion to Isaiah 64.3 at the end; that is, "God preparing things for those who love him" seems to match up with "God doing things for those who await him" (as the Hebrew would have it) or "who await mercy" (as the LXX would have it). I cannot subscribe to this match-up being coincidental, and that means the entire verse is sandwiched by Isaianic material.

In any event, this tendency to cite OT verses freely does not appear to apply to 1 Cor. 2:9 if it is a citation of the Didache that is reflected by the Apostolic Constitutions and pseudo-Boniface, because they look very similar in translation (if not word for word in Greek):

1 Cor. 2:9:

"But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”

Apostolic Constitutions 7.32:

"...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'”

Pseudo-Boniface Renunciation 15.5:

"...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."

Was Paul more precise in quoting the Didache than he is with the OT? Or maybe the Apostolic Constitutions and pseudo-Boniface are quoting Paul and that is why they are all so similar.

Do you think they are both independently deciding to quote 1 Corinthians 2.9 here right after paraphrasing the advent, or do you think that pseudo-Boniface is cribbing from the Constistutions?

Ben.

[John2]

Jefford gives three reasons for why the Apostolic Constitutions "cannot represent the 'lost ending' of the Didache":

https://books.google.com/books?id=d4N1M ... he&f=false

And concerning Did. 16.4-5, he points out that the Apostolic Constitutions "diverges from the Didache in favor of the wording of 2 Thess 2:8-9" and that "It is unclear why the imagery of 2 Thessalonians ... was selected for inclusion at this point, though it is possible that the author either no longer understood the focus of the Didachist's argument or wished to approach the topic from another perspective," which shows that they could have similarly inserted a reference to 1 Cor. 2:9 after Did. 16.8.

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

But I think it all boils down to Hegesippus' remark against the "no eye has seen" expression. He was a Jewish Christian, non-Pauline and used a Matthew-type gospel (like the Didache) and lived in a time and place we would expect the Didache to be in circulation (Syria/Palestine), and he says that these are empty words and those who used them are liars (and he thinks it ultimately comes from Matthew and not the Didache), so it's hard for me to imagine they were in a Jewish Christian writing like the Didache.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"Do you think they are both independently deciding to quote 1 Corinthians 2.9 here right after paraphrasing the advent, or do you think that pseudo-Boniface is cribbing from the Constistutions?"

I need to look into pseudo-Boniface more as far as the latter option goes, but I guess it would have to be one or the other if the "no eye has seen" expression was not in the Didache.

What little I know about pseudo-Boniface so far though makes me think how odd it is to have to look for evidence for the end of a writing that was supposedly written in first century CE in a writing that comes from the time of Charlemagne.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"Even if you get rid of any allusion to Isaiah 65.17 (the green stuff in the middle), there is still that apparent allusion to Isaiah 64.3 at the end; that is, "God preparing things for those who love him" seems to match up with "God doing things for those who await him" (as the Hebrew would have it) or "who await mercy" (as the LXX would have it). I cannot subscribe to this match-up being coincidental, and that means the entire verse is sandwiched by Isaianic material."

Right, I noticed this too and tend to think it's all probably (very) loosely based on Isaiah (like it appears to be in 1 Clement).

[Ben C. Smith]

But I think it all boils down to Hegesippus' remark against the "no eye has seen" expression. He was a Jewish Christian, non-Pauline and used a Matthew-type gospel (like the Didache) and lived in a time and place we would expect the Didache to be in circulation (Syria/Palestine), and he says that these are empty words and those who used them are liars (and he thinks it ultimately comes from Matthew and not the Didache), so it's hard for me to imagine they were in a Jewish Christian writing like the Didache.

Yes, you have mentioned this several times now, and I keep staring at it, trying to understand what you are getting out of it that I am not. From my perspective, this argument engages in a pretty severe case of "block thinking" in which all Jewish Christians are imagined to think alike in joyful doctrinal unity. But my assumptions, and indeed my impressions of how the world works, are very far removed from that, unless I have misunderstood your point fairly drastically.

What little I know about pseudo-Boniface so far though makes me think how odd it is to have to look for evidence for the end of a writing that was supposedly written in first century CE in a writing that comes from the time of Charlemagne.

Why is it odd? Codex Hierosolymitanus itself dates to 1056, more than two centuries after Charlemagne. And the other potential source for the lost ending, the Constitutions, dates to well before Charlemagne.

[John2]

Sure, all Jewish Christians weren't exactly the same (if I recall correctly, some were even said to be more in line with the NT), but setting aside its disputed ending, the Didache has a lot in common with Hegesippus. They are both Jewish Christian, non-Pauline, use one Matthew-type gospel and possibly come from Syria/Palestine. And since Hegesippus was hostile to the "no eye has seen" expression and thought it was based on Matthew, is it a stretch to think that it wouldn't be in the Didache?

Good point about the dating of Codex Hierosolymitanus. I didn't consider that. I only assumed that all of its contents are older (unlike pseudo-Boniface). The Apostolic Constitutions at least has a Syrian provenance and, as you mentioned, dates well before Charlemagne so I'm a little more open to it than pseudo-Boniface for the moment.