The Didache.

[Ben C. Smith]

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?

There are just way too many variables. Even if all four points above were true (and Hegesippus' direct connection to Syria can by no means be assumed), there can be many varied responses to different phrases. The contradiction between "eyes have not seen, ears not heard" and "blessed are your eyes and ears" is exegetical; it need not have anything to do with Jewish or gentile parties or classes. If we are taking the most direct route with the evidence for Hegesippus, then do you not suspect he is reacting to the lines in 1 Clement, not necessarily in 1 Corinthians itself?

I see no way of demonstrating that Hegesippus knew or respected the Didache, nor that the particular "gospel of the Hebrews" or "Syriac gospel" that he apparently quoted from is connected to the Didache.

[John2]

I think Hegesippus is referring to 1 Clement (to judge from Eusebius), but he also says that those who used this expression are liars, and Paul uses it.

I agree that there's no way of knowing if Hegesippus knew the Didache, but I assume his gospel of the Hebrews was a Matthew-type text because the Church fathers tend to make this association, and so is the gospel in the Didache.

[MrMacSon]

Do we have a list of those 2nd or 3rd century people who 'knew' the Didache?

+/or lists of (ii) those who didn't know it; or (iii) may have known it?

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"Hegesippus' direct connection to Syria can by no means be assumed"

I understand that this is only speculation. As Stanton puts it, "From his language in regard to his journey to Rome it is evident he came from the East; and since he seems to have been not only a Jewish convert but also specially familiar with the traditions of the Palestinian Church, and as he knew the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and had at least some acquaintance with Hebrew and Aramaic, it is most probable that his home was in Palestine, or at least somewhere in Syria."

https://books.google.com/books?id=cBBWA ... NE&f=false

Regarding the provenance of the Didache, Mitchell notes that, "Most scholars have argued that the place of origin for the Didache is either Syria-Palestine or Egypt."

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

[John2]

I've been making some headway into Garrow's book and so far I notice that he defends the idea that 1 Cor. 2:9 is based on Is. 64:4 (though via the Didache), concluding on page 55 that, "It is preferable, therefore, to suppose that Const. 32.5c faithfully records the redaction of Is. 64.4 with which the Didache's apocalypse originally concluded."

https://books.google.com/books?id=8FMSB ... he&f=false

[Ben C. Smith]

I've been making some headway into Garrow's book and so far I notice that he defends the idea that 1 Cor. 2:9 is based on Is. 64:4 (though via the Didache), concluding on page 55 that, "It is preferable, therefore, to suppose that Const. 32.5c faithfully records the redaction of Is. 64.4 with which the Didache's apocalypse originally concluded."

https://books.google.com/books?id=8FMSB ... he&f=false

Yes, sorry, I did not realize that the ultimate Isaianic origin of 1 Corinthians 2.9 was ever in doubt. It was always my assumption that, if Garrow's proposed ending at Didache 16.9 is correct, the saying was a reworking of Isaiah 64.4.

Ben.

[DCHindley]

1 Cor 2:9 ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται· ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. (Isa 64:3; 52:15 OG)
1 Cor 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard," nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him, (Isa 64:4; 52:15 OG)
(BGT Isa 64:3) ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν οὐδὲ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν εἶδον θεὸν πλὴν σοῦ καὶ τὰ ἔργα σου ἃ ποιήσεις τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν ἔλεον
(LXE Isa 64:4) From of old we have not heard, neither have our eyes seen a God beside thee, and thy works which thou wilt perform to them that wait for mercy.
(BGT Isa 52:15 OG) οὕτως θαυμάσονται ἔθνη πολλὰ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ συνέξουσιν βασιλεῖς τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν ὅτι οἷς οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὄψονται καὶ οἳ οὐκ ἀκηκόασιν συνήσουσιν
(LXE Isa 52:15) Thus shall many nations wonder at him; and kings shall keep their mouths shut: for they to whom no report was brought concerning him, shall see; and they who have not heard, shall consider.

Let's compare those parallels to:

Didache 16.6 Καὶ τό τε φανήσεται τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας· πρῶτον σημεῖον ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ (something seen), εἶτα σημεῖον φωνῆς σάλπιγγος (something heard), καὶ τὸ τρίτον ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν· (something hoped for in the heart)
Didache 16.6. And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an out-spreading in heaven (something seen); then the sign of the sound of the trumpet (something heard); and the third, the resurrection of the dead (something hoped for in the heart);
Apostolic Constitutions 7.32 "... And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven;” (Isa 11:4, Matt 24, something seen) and afterwards shall be the voice of a trumpet by the archangel (1 Thess 4:16, something heard); and in that interval shall be the revival of those that were asleep (something hoped for in the heart).

I'm not feeling it, sorry. IMHO, Isaiah 64:4 (RSV) has it all over Ap.Const. 7.32.5 or Didache 16.6.

DCH

[John2]

Not to say that Garrow's knowledge of and line of thinking about the Didache isn't interesting (and it's been nice to get his point of view on the Apostolic Constitutions, pseudo-Boniface and 1 Cor. 2:9), but what stands out the most for me thus far is the amount of if/then speculation that his theory requires (or anyone else's, I suppose, given what we have to work with here), like this example from pg. 30-31:

"First, if 1 Cor. 2.9 contains a quotation of Did. 16.9 (as reconstructed in section 4 below), and if Galatians was written after 1 Corinthians, then Gal. 3.13 cannot be used to interpret Did. 16.5. Second, even if Did. 16.5 is, contrary to my argument in Chapter 13, a post-Pauline text, then it is unclear why Kaxa0E|ja should be used in Did. 16.5 if it depended on an idea expressed in Gal. 3.13, where Kaxapa is used. Third, if Did. 16.5 does rely on a Pauline interpretative key, then it is surprising that a closer relation to the Pauline tradition is not more evident in the remainder of the text."

It's annoying to not know what the ending of the Didache was and to have to resort to other texts that may or may not represent it and to thus hear others, not just Garrow, go on and on in this way about it. But, as I said, we're in "I think" territory here and this is what Garrrow thinks and there's plenty of room for everyone.

[John2]

I'm cool with whatever amount of 1 Cor. 2:9 being ultimately based on Isaiah. However, I still don't think it is based on the (supposed) ending of Didache 16. It's fishy that this would be the one time that Paul says something was "as it is written" and not mean the OT. It's fishy that 1 Cor. 2:9, the Apostolic Constitutions and pseudo-Boniface are so similar when Paul's (and the NT's) citations of the OT are less exact. It's fishy that a Jewish Christian sect, the one in first century Judea led by James no less, would use this kind of inexact citation of Isaiah (as opposed to Paul dictating letters while travelling or in prison), given their emphasis on the OT (as James 2:10 puts it, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

Garrow compares this supposed freewheeling use of Isaiah in the Didache with how Did. 16.7 and 8 combines "the Lord" of Zech 14:5 with Dan. 7:13 by not using the latter's "Son of Man," but I don't think this is on the same level as what he supposes Did. 16.9 did with Isaiah. It looks to me like it's more of a question of how much of Did. 16.8 is part of the reference to Dan. 7:13. Kirsopp Lake has it as:

"7 but not of all the dead, but as it was said, 'The Lord shall come and all his saints with him.' 8 Then shall the world 'see the Lord coming on the clouds of Heaven.'"

And Hoole:

"7 not of all, but as it has been said, The Lord shall come and all his saints with him; 8 then shall the world behold the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven."

Does the "see/behold the Lord" part have to be part of the reference to Dan. 7:13? Why not just the "coming on the clouds of heaven" part? After all, though Dan 7:13 mentions the Son of Man (and not "the Lord"), it doesn't exactly say "see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven," but rather, "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence."

I take "the Lord" in Did. 16.7 and 8 as a reference to Jesus and that Jesus, as "the Lord" of Zech. 14:5, was to come on the clouds of heaven like the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13, rather than seeing this as a reworking of the OT on the level of 1 Cor. 2:9.

[andrewcriddle]

Do we have a list of those 2nd or 3rd century people who 'knew' the Didache?

+/or lists of (ii) those who didn't know it; or (iii) may have known it?

Clement of Alexandria in http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm says

It is such an one that is by Scripture called a thief. It is therefore said, Son, be not a liar; for falsehood leads to theft.

see Didache 3 My child, be not a liar, since a lie leads to theft.
Origen says http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm

And therefore holy Scripture teaches us to receive all that happens as sent by God, knowing that without Him no event occurs.

see Didache 3 Accept whatever happens to you as good, knowing that apart from God nothing comes to pass.

Andrew Criddle