Neil List

Does anyone know how the various dates for the Didache were arrived at? I've seens dates quoted between 50AD and mid 2nd Century? Also does anyone know if it was included in any of the earliest Canons and if so how it came to be removed?

And apologies if this has already been covered previously somewhere - I'll assume the "newby" defence...

Toto

Welcome to the forums, Neil List.

You might want to take a look at this thread: Garrow and the Didache (for Jake Jones IV and Steve Avery).

hatsoff

Well, Clement of Alexandria quoted it in c. 182-202 AD, so we know it could not have been written after that time. Clement and Origen both seem to treat it as on par to the rest of the NT or close to it, but Eusebius places it under the "spurious," or undoubtedly non-authoritative works.

Evidence for an early date such as c. 50 AD seems to be largely internal. The document uses very primitive theology and language both. It shows some literary interdependence with both the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of Barnabas, both of which are also relatively early works. Sources quoted by ECW seem to suggest a scholarly majority for a c. 90-110 dating. However, such estimates don't seem to be particularly strong. The wider range of c.50-200 seems more appropriate from my perspective.

Roger Pearse

I don't know what the opinions of NT scholars are, but here is how I think about it.

The Didache refers to apostles and prophets, rather than bishops and presbyters, which means that it can't very well refer to a date later than the former disappear. Since the NT and the Didache are the only documents that refer to such, while the apostolic fathers do not, it would seem safe to posit a first century origin.

It also is based on a pre-existing Jewish catechism, also used by the author of Barnabas. This again tends to point to an early date, probably before the final split between the church and synagogue.

It can't very well predate the establishment of a system of wandering apostles and prophets, and contains rules for checking the latter, which means we have to allow some time to occur after around 40 AD for this system to become established.

I would tend to infer from this (without pushing the date in any direction) something between 55-60 AD as the low end and around 75-80 at the high end. Earlier than this, and you have to ask whether there is really time for the experienced-sounding regulations to evolve. Later than this, and you have to ask whether churches were really based around apostles and prophets at this date, given the picture in Clement of Rome and Ignatius.

Don't be influenced by the date of first reference, in Clement of Alexandria; some works from antiquity never are mentioned at all in antiquity (such as Hermias). A work can't be later than the date of first reference, but can easily be much earlier.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

robto

It is likely that it was composed by several writers, at different times. For instance, Did 9 and Did 10 contain different versions of the Eucharist. It seems to have been a document that was changed and adapted as the needs of the community changed. Thus, parts may be very early and other parts may be late.

I think a lot of the variation in dates comes from differences of opinion on whether Didache is dependant on Matthew. Dependence, of course, means a date later than Matthew.

Neil List

Thanks for the feedback to the earlier thread - very informative.
The thing that fascinates me about the Didache is how orthodox it appears - i.e. lacking in the "lift a stone I am there" style dogma - pantheism or gnostism. Doesn't this suggest that it has an earlier 1st C date than later by which point non orthodox views were a dime a dozen? Also picked up on the point re apostles / prophets as opposed to bishops. The passages on the appointment of elders deacons seems fairly consistent with the Timothy / Titus elder/deacon appointment passages and the Clement of Rome elder/deacon appointment passages which would to my mind also suggest a date of late first century. Does anyone have a link relating to why Eusibius considered the Didache to be apocryphal?

andrewcriddle

I think that Eusebius was simply noting the consensus of his day that although the Didache was orthodox and edifying it was definitely not part of the New Testament.

(As distinct from a/ works like the four Gospels that everyone accepted as part of the NT b/ orthodox works like Jude and 2 Peter that people argued about whether they were part of the NT or not and c/ outrightly heretical works like the Gospels of Peter and Thomas.)

The section in which Eusebius discusses the canon including the Didache is
Eclesiastical History Book 3 chapters 24-25
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...m#P1497_696002

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Ellegard, notes p 35

robto

I think the important criterion for Eusebius was: was this written by an apostle? The title ("Didache", long version "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles") implies that it was. Eusebius (as well as modern scholarship) believes it was not.