Appearance      Marker   

 

<<

Contents

>>

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

Introductory Notice by Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D.

____________________

section 1.—the discovery of the codex, and its contents.

In 1873 Philotheos Bryennios, then Head Master of the higher Greek school at Constantinople, but now Metropolitan of Nicomedia, discovered a remarkable collection of manuscripts in the library of the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople. This collection is bound in one volume, and written by the same hand. It is signed “Leon, notary and sinner,” and bears the Greek date of 6564 = a.d. 1056. There is no reason to doubt the age of the manuscripts. The documents have been examined by Professor Albert L. Long of Robert College, Constantinople;^[2358] and some of the pages, reproduced by photography, were published by the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, April, 1885. The jealousy of its guardians does not imply any lack of confidence in the age and value of the Codex. The contents of the 120 folios (240 pp.) are as follows:—

The last part of fol. 120a contains the signature and date; then follows an account of the genealogy of Joseph, continued on the other page of the leaf.

Schaff (p. 6) gives a facsimile of fol. 120a.

Of these, I. supplies some unpublished portions, and furnishes matter for textual criticism. II. gives the second Greek copy of Barnabas, also furnishing new readings. III. is very valuable; the text of both Epistles is now complete. Two-fifths of that of the second was previously unknown.^[2359] The value for purposes of textual criticism is also great. IV. is the Teaching, the value of which is discussed below. V. and VI. both belong to the Ignatian literature, and furnish new readings, which have already appeared in the editions of Funk (Opera Patr. Apost., ii., Tübingen, 1881) and Lightfoot (Epistles of St. Ignatius, London and Cambridge, 1885).

section 2.—publication of the discovered works: the effect.

In 1875 Bryennios, who had been chosen Metropolitan of Serræ during his absence at the Old Catholic conference in Bonn, published at Constantinople the two Epistles of Clement, with prolegomena and notes; giving the text found in the Jerusalem Codex, as he termed it. All patristic scholars welcomed his work, which bore every mark of care and learning; showing the results of his contact, as a student, with German methods. Bishop Lightfoot and many others at once made use of this new material. The remaining contents of the Codex were named in the volume of Bryennios, and some interest awakened by the mention of the Teaching. The learned Metropolitan furnished new readings from other parts of the Codex to German scholars. At the close of 1883 he published in Constantinople the text of the Teaching, with prolegomena and notes. A copy of the volume was received in Germany in January, 1884; was translated into German, and published Feb. 3, 1884; translated from German into English, and published in America, Feb. 28, 1884; Archdeacon Farrar published (Contemporary Review) a version from the Greek in May, 1884. Before the close of the year the literature on the subject, exclusive of newspaper articles, covered fifty titles (given by Schaff) in Western Europe and America.^[2360]

section 3.—contents of teaching, and relation to other works.

In the Babel of conflicting opinions, it is best to notice first the obvious internal phenomena. The first part of the Teaching (now distinguished as chaps. i.-vi.) sets forth the duty of the Christian; in chaps. vii.-x., xiv., we find a directory for worship; chaps. xi.-xiii., xv., give advice respecting church officers, extraordinary and local, and the reception of Christians; the closing chapter (xvi.) enjoins watchfulness in view of the coming of Christ, which is then described.

The amount of matter is not so great as that of the Sermon on the Mount.

The peculiarities of language are marked, but can only be indicated here in footnotes. They point to a period of transition from New-Testament usage to that of ecclesiastical Greek. The citations from the Scriptures resemble those of the Apostolic Fathers. The Gospel of Matthew is most frequently used, especially chaps. v.-vii. and xxiv.; but some of the passages fairly imply a knowledge of the Gospel of Luke. There are some remarkable correspondences with expressions and thoughts found in the Gospel of John, while there is good reason for inferring the writer’s acquaintance with all the groups of Pauline Epistles. His allusions to the other New-Testament books are less marked. There is nothing to prove that he did not know all of our canonical books. If an early date is accepted, the tone of the whole opposes the tendency-theory of the Tübingen school.

The most striking internal phenomena are, however, the correspondences of this document with early Christian writings, from a.d. 125 to the fourth century. With the so-called Epistle to Barnabas, chaps. xviii.-xx., the resemblances are so marked as to demand a critical theory which can account for them. A few passages in the Shepherd of Hermas show some resemblance; but only two sentences, in Commandment Second, are verbally the same. There is a still greater agreement with the so-called Apostolical Church Order, of Egyptian origin, probably as old as the third century. It is now known in the Coptic (Memphitic), and also in Arabic and Greek.^[2361] The first thirteen canons correspond quite closely, both in order and words, with chaps. i.-iv. of the Teaching

Most noteworthy, however, is the parallel with the Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 1–32, which contain more than half the Teaching, in precisely the same order, with very close verbal resemblances. The parts omitted are in most cases such as had lost their pertinence in the fourth century, while they seem appropriate to a much earlier period. The details will be found in the footnotes to the Teaching in this volume. These phenomena have called forth voluminous discussions, and are the most important facts in determining the authenticity and age of the Teaching

section 4.—authenticity.

By this is meant, in this case, the substantial identity of the recently discovered document with the work known and referred to by early Christian writers under the same (or a similar) title. Of apostolic origin no one should presume to speak, since the text of the document makes no such claim, and internal evidence is obviously against such a suggestion. On the other hand, there is no reason for doubting the age of the Codex, or the accuracy of the edition published by Bryennios.

Eusebius (d. 340) of Cæsarea, in the famous passage of his history (iii. 25) which treats of the canonical books of the New Testament, names among the “spurious” works (νόθοι) “the so-called Teachings of the Apostles” (τω̑ν ἀποστόλων αἱ λεγόμεναι διδαχαί). The plural form does not forbid a reference to the work under discussion, since Athanasius (d. 373) has a notice clearly pointing to the same writing, in which he uses the singular (Festal Epistle, 39). Rufinus (d. 410) speaks of a brief work called The Two Ways, or The Judgment of Peter; and this fact, in view of the contents of the Teaching, furnishes one of the most important data for the critical discussion. The last notice of the Teaching was made by Nicephorus (d. 828) more than two hundred years before Leon made this copy. Clement of Alexandria (d. circa 216) and Irenæus (mart. 202) use expressions that may indicate an acquaintance with this writing. The more extended correspondences with Barnabas and later disciplinary works are noticed above (sec. 3). The existence of an old Latin translation of the Teaching, of the tenth century, a fragment of which has been preserved, furnishes general evidence to the authenticity of the Greek copy, but by its variations suggests the presence of many textual corruptions. Its closer correspondence with Barnabas has led to the theory that the translator used both documents. Others suppose that its form points to a document which was the common source of the Greek form of the Teaching and of Barnabas.

The various theories based on the above facts cannot even be stated. The following positions seem, on the whole, most tenable:—

1. The Greek Codex presents substantially the writing referred to by Eusebius and Athanasius.

2. Owing to an absence of other copies, we cannot determine the purity of the text; but there is every probability of many minor corruptions.

3. This probability calls for care that we do not infer too much from verbal resemblances.

4. The resemblances to book vii., Apostolic Constitutions, are, however, of such a character as establish, not only a literary connection between the two works, but also the priority of the Teaching

5. In the case of Barnabas, the resemblances can be accounted for (a) by accepting the priority of the Teaching, or (b) by assuming a common (earlier and unknown) source, or (c) by accepting the priority of Barnabas, and assuming such corruptions in the Greek copy of the Teaching as will account for the supposed marks of its priority. Despite the general adoption of (a), there remains a strong probability that (b) is the correct solution of the problem.

6. The Duæ Viæ, spoken of by Rufinus, may be the common source. We have no positive evidence, but the “two ways” form so prominent a topic in most of these documents which indicate literary relationship, as to encourage this theory. If there was a common source, it probably contained only matter similar to chaps. i.-v., which was variously used by the subsequent compilers. Here a number of theories have been suggested.^[2362] None of them, however, necessarily call for a very late date of the Teaching, or compel us to deny that Eusebius and Athanasius referred to substantially the same work as that now existing in the Codex at Constantinople. Many resemblances have been noticed in other works. Probably in the course of a few years all the data will have been collected, and a well-defined result based upon them. But, even in this period of discussion, there is remarkable agreement among critics in regard to the main question of authenticity.

 

 

 Search Comments 

 

This page has been visited 0003 times.

 

<<

Contents

>>