Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines
This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.
This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.
Forum Rules: Here
This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Dating the Didache
Collapse
X
-
Dating the Didache, by J. A. T. Robinson
Originally posted by John Reece View PostNone of this can be more than a matter of probability. It is impossibible to be dogmatic about the source of quotations. But I find the presumption against literary dependence to be strong. Yet, though dependence could knock out a very early dating (depending of course on the date of the gospels), independence cannot establish it. The case must rest on the genuine primativeness of the the many indications in the Didache which point to a stage in the life of the church which is still that of the New Testament period itself.
We are in the first Christian generation born of the Gentile mission, at little distance, it seems, in time if not in space, from 1 Cor. 8―10; Rom. 14; Col. 2.16, 20-30; and 1 Tim. 4.3Last edited by John Reece; 07-12-2015, 11:57 AM.
Comment
-
Dating the Didache, by J. A. T. Robinson
Originally posted by John Reece View PostAudet examines these at length and we cannot go over his arguments in detail, some of which are more convincing than others. The prayers and thanksgivings are full of archaic terminology, echoing not only the servant (παῖς) Christology of the early speeches of Acts (Did. 9.2f; 10.2f; cf. Acts 3.13,26; 4.27,30), later abandoned, but what I have ventured to call 'the earliest Christian liturgical sequence' (Did. 10.6; cf. 1 Cor. 16.22-4). In Did. 9.1-3 the eucharistic cup still precedes the bread, as in 1 Cor.10.16 and Luke 22.17-19, Audet argues that the terminology relating to baptism (7.1; 9.5) is similarly primitive, and that the regulations about food (6.3) presuppose a period and a milieu where the dietary question is still genuinely posed:
We are in the first Christian generation born of the Gentile mission, at little distance, it seems, in time if not in space, from 1 Cor. 8―10; Rom. 14; Col. 2.16, 20-30; and 1 Tim. 4.3
Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved; for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers. Therefore despise them not for they are your honorable men with the prophets and teachers (15.1f.).
Comment
-
Dating the Didache, by J. A. T. Robinson
Originally posted by John ReeceAbove all, we are in an age of itinerant apostles, prophets and teachers (11―13), where 'apostles' designate not a closed body but any men commissioned as missionary preachers and 'prophets' exercise a high charismatic ministry (10.7; 13.3) more honored that that of local appointments. It is still the world reflected in such incidents as that of Acts 19.13-20, where strolling Jewish exorcists might be encountered by any congregation. But we are also 'at a point of transition from the ministry of prophets and teachers to that of bishops and deacons' when the former are not available for regular ministry in the local church:
Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved; for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers. Therefore despise them not for they are your honorable men with the prophets and teachers (15.1f.).
The 'Teaching', then, represents a stage or organization intermediate between the Corinthian and the Ephesian letters: parallel, let us say roughly to the Epistle to the Philippians with its earliest mention of episcopi and deacons. It follows from this, that, if the 'Teaching' is to be a factor in the series of the full current of Church development, it ought to be placed about the year 60.
He hastened to guard himself by saying that 'it does not follow that so early a date is inevitable' but said 'a date between 80 and 100 AD is as late as we are prepared to admit'.
Comment
-
Dating the Didache, by J. A. T. Robinson
Originally posted by John ReeceThis is not the later transition from a presbyterial to a monepiscopal ministry but the much earlier one from the primacy of the charismatic to the recognition (and that by congregational appointment) of an establish ordained ministry. It is a transition already presupposed by Philippians (1.1) and the Pastorals in the late 50s. In an astonishingly percipient review-article of Harnack's original edition of the Didache, first published in the Church Quarterly Review of 1887, C. H. Turner said:
The 'Teaching', then, represents a stage or organization intermediate between the Corinthian and the Ephesian letters: parallel, let us say roughly to the Epistle to the Philippians with its earliest mention of episcopi and deacons. It follows from this, that, if the 'Teaching' is to be a factor in the series of the full current of Church development, it ought to be placed about the year 60.
He hastened to guard himself by saying that 'it does not follow that so early a date is inevitable' but said 'a date between 80 and 100 AD is as late as we are prepared to admit'.
With the state of the ministry goes the general theological character of the book. It is content (like the epistle of James) to leave doctrinal issues on one side. There is no polemic (as, for instance, in the Pastorals) against heterodox or gnostic tendencies within the church―merely a concern to maintain a practical mark of difference between Christians and Jews. The final chapter on eschatology breathes much the same apocalyptic atmosphere as I and II Thessalonians (with which it has many parallels) and may represent one of the many fly-sheets of this kind, combining dominical and traditional Old Testament materials, which seem to have been produced by the early church between 40 and 70. Yet in contrast with the synoptic apocalypses (but not Thessalonians), there is no attempt to fuse this material with predictions of the destruction of the temple or the fall of Jerusalem. This suggests that it is composed well before or well after these events. But, in notable distinction from the Epistle of Barnabas or the Jewish apocalypses of Baruch or II Esdras, there is no hint of any such event lying in the past. It seems much easier to see it as early rather that late. Indeed of the book in general I would agree with the assessment of J. A. Kleist:
If we admit an early date of composition, all the evidence is in favour of it; if we insist on a late date, we have a mass of conjectures and hypotheses.
Comment
-
Dating the Didache, by J. A. T. Robinson
Originally posted by John Reece View PostWith the state of the ministry goes the general theological character of the book. It is content (like the epistle of James) to leave doctrinal issues on one side. There is no polemic (as, for instance, in the Pastorals) against heterodox or gnostic tendencies within the church―merely a concern to maintain a practical mark of difference between Christians and Jews. The final chapter on eschatology breathes much the same apocalyptic atmosphere as I and II Thessalonians (with which it has many parallels) and may represent one of the many fly-sheets of this kind, combining dominical and traditional Old Testament materials, which seem to have been produced by the early church between 40 and 70. Yet in contrast with the synoptic apocalypses (but not Thessalonians), there is no attempt to fuse this material with predictions of the destruction of the temple or the fall of Jerusalem. This suggests that it is composed well before or well after these events. But, in notable distinction from the Epistle of Barnabas or the Jewish apocalypses of Baruch or II Esdras, there is no hint of any such event lying in the past. It seems much easier to see it as early rather that late. Indeed of the book in general I would agree with the assessment of J. A. Kleist:
If we admit an early date of composition, all the evidence is in favour of it; if we insist on a late date, we have a mass of conjectures and hypotheses.
finis
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment