The Aaron Papers  www.the-aaron-papers.net 

THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

*-Appendix 1: On the Problem of Jewish Christianity/

With some (acr) comments:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/

/by Georg Strecker Translated by Gerhard Kroedel- In the preceding investigation, Walter Bauer posed for himself the task of examining critically the widely held view that "for the period of Christian origins, ecclesiastical doctrine ... already represents what is primary, while heresies, on the other hand, somehow are a deviation from the genuine"  

  (aaron - I would once again ask for your patience as we pursue a very difficult subject—the precise identification of God’s peoples. And as per my usual habit, I am critiquing the works of others in order to communicate what I have come to recognize as an Eschatological Imperative. What we are attempting to accomplish in this brief study, is to better understand this complex relationship between “Jewish Christianity”, the early Gentile Christian Church, and God’s first peoples Israel. These problems that we are pointing out here for the Christian Church, are essentially the consequence of our failure to properly discern the complex identification of God’s peoples. Therefore, these writings are offered in support of THE AARON PAPERS-A STUDY IN COVENANT THEOLOGY-Thesis statement- along with its supporting documentation.

Now it is here that we must closely examine the history of “the Church”, her designation of “heresy”, and just how this term was so generously applied to the others.)  

“He (Walter Bauer) concluded that this understanding of history which has dominated ecclesiastical historiography since Eusebius is not correct, but that for broad areas the heresies were "primary." It is surprising that he did not buttress this conclusion in extenso with reference to the problem of Jewish Christianity. This is especially remarkable because here the generalization drawn by the ecclesiastically approved view of history would be most clearly open to refutation -- Jewish Christianity, according to the witness of the New Testament, stands at the beginning of the development of church history, so that it is not the gentile Christian "ecclesiastical doctrine" that represents what is primary, but rather a Jewish Christian theology.[1]

[1] H. Koch's review of Bauer (see below, p. 287) with reference to the "most ancient Jewish Christianity in Palestine": "Here also the dogmatically determined historiography of the heresiarchs accused the 'Ebionites' of apostasy or of relapse into Judaism while in reality they were merely the conservatives who did not go along with the Pauline-hellenistic developments".”[1]  

  (aaron - This last statement is quite astounding when we take just a small step back in our attempt to look at the larger picture of God’s Universal Reconciliation. Here, we are being forced to view the Christian Church in more of a pre-Gentile scenario—looking at the Jewish Christians as our predecessors rather than a selected group of rejected heretics. Any failure in understanding the assigned roles that God has established for His individual people groups throughout His whole Universal Reconciliation, makes the resulting understandings very tenuous at best. Even the last portion of footnote [1] describes the heart of this difficult understanding. These differences were all realities of the time, just as they continue to be realities even today. I believe that if one closely follows the Apostle Paul’s writings in the New Testament, even though he was the Apostle to the Gentiles, he still remained very hopeful for his kinsmen and always attempts to explain the eternal hope that yet awaits them.)  

 “This fact was forgotten quite early in the ecclesiastical heresiological tradition. The Jewish Christians usually were classified as "Ebionites" in the ecclesiastical catalogues of sects or else, in a highly one-sided presentation, they were deprecated as an insignificant minority by comparison with the "great church." Thus implicitly the idea of apostasy from the ecclesiastical doctrine also was applied to them.[2]”

[2] Cf. among others Jerome Epistle 112.13: "As long as the Nazoreans want to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians." See also below, 272 ff.[2]  

  (aaron - It is very clear that the early Church—the “great church” as it was referred to above, levied very harsh judgments upon the others who might be doctrinally different from their own views and opinions. Here it is referred to as “the ecclesiastical heresiological tradition”. This is, I believe, a very long name for one group claiming the authority to harshly judge the others, the outsiders, as apostates and heretics. The statement made in footnote [2] "As long as the Nazoreans want to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians" could be seen as being very shortsighted at best. In that, there was absolutely no consideration being made for the difficult transition for the very first Christians who had come out of Judaism into the sect identified here as Jewish Christianity. This is an early glimpse of the natural problems that would exist between the various groups of God’s peoples. I would repeat that these are the very same problems that exist yet today, especially within Abrahamic religions. Our failure to understand the complexities involved in the identification of God’s peoples has given rise to this argument over the preeminence of one religion or denomination over another:)  

“The more recent treatments have for the most part followed the older pattern of ecclesiastical historiography without contradiction.[3]

[3] Cf. for example A. von Harnack, History of Dogma, 1 [ET by N. Buchanan from German 1894\3 ed.; London: Williams and Norgate, 1894; repr, New York: Dover, 1961): 290 f.; [= 4th German ed. of 1909, p. 313; but in this appendix on Jewish Christianity, Harnack does not point specifically to the year 70 as a watershed; see also p. 330 = ET 308 f.] cf. also H. Lietzman, History, 1: 183: after the destruction of Jerusalem "Jewish Christianity lacked not only a racial, but also a religious basis for its former claim, and thus was forgotten in the mainstream church. It sank into oblivion in the lonely deserts of east Jordan"; also O. Cullmann, ''Ebioniten'' RGG\3, 2 (1958): 297 f., speaks of a "process of retardation into a heretical sect"; M. Simon, Verus Israel: &EACUTEtude sur les relations entre Chrétiens et Juifs dans l'Empire Romain (135- 425) (Paris: Boccard, 1948; supplemented reprint 1964), p. 313, claims that "Jewish Christianity outside of Palestine, in view of its initial Israelite recruitment, represents only a rather sporadic phenomenon without much extent. In Palestine itself, the Ebionites are a minority in relation to the mainstream church, in uninterrupted regression and condemned by their position itself to disappear sooner or later." It is inexplicable that L. E. Elliott-Binns quotes this with approval (Galilean Christianity, Studies in Biblical Theology 16 [Chatham: SCM, 1956], p. 77 n. 4), even though he correctly recognizes the disparity between actual Jewish Christianity and the uniform characterization of it in the heresiological tradition (78; cf. also 50). The year 70 is usually regarded as the time of transition into the "sectarian situation" -- e.g. A. von Harnack, Mission\2, 1: 63; H.-J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1949), p. 7; J. Munck, ''Jewish Christianity in post-Apostolic Times,'' NTS 6 (1959-60): 103-116. The influence of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple on Judaism and on Jewish Christianity is quite often overestimated. Such influence was small wherever Jewish Christianity, like diaspora Judaism, had come to be largely independent of the temple cult. Naturally, Jewish Christianity like "official" Judaism, was capable of adapting itself to the new situation. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the tradition of the flight of the primitive Jerusalem community to Pella during the Jewish war is a legend without historical value and therefore may not be used in this connection; see G. Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen, TU 70 (1958), pp. 229 ff. The defense by Elliott-Binns of the historicity of that event (Galilean Christianity, pp. 65-71; in opposition to S. G. F. Brandon) cannot remove the fundamental doubts about the quality of the tradition. His thesis about a unification of the Jerusalem and Galilean communities in Pella (pp. 68f.) is pure speculation.{3]  

“From the fact that there is only a sparse tradition of Jewish Christian witnesses they incorrectly conclude that Jewish Christianity was actually insignificant, without taking into consideration that our knowledge is determined by the ecclesiastical tradition and that even the various titles of Jewish Christian literature[4] seem to demand some critical reservations with respect to the judgment of the mainstream church. Therefore no further justification is required for the attempt to apply Bauer's conception of history to Jewish Christianity as well.”

[4] Cf. G. Strecker, ''Ebioniten,'' RAC 4 (1959), pp. 492 ff.[4]  

(aaron - Even though—“The more recent treatments have for the most part followed the older pattern of ecclesiastical historiography without contradiction”, it would appear that there are at least some, Walter Bauer being one example, who are in favor of stopping this long train of historic events long enough to reexamine how we might relate to God’s first peoples Israel as well as those of the Jewish Christian sect. Though there might be some on the fringe that are willing to make this critical examination, I seriously doubt that “the great church” as a whole will also be as willing. Although, from my own inter-faith experience with the other religious sects, I believe that achieving any common understanding will still be a very long up-hill struggle for us all.

Additionally, I would like to comment on our present-day Jewish Christianity that is known as the Messianic Jewish Christian Sect. Though they believe in Yeshua-Messiah as the Son of God and the resurrected Savior, nevertheless, they continue to hold many of the Jewish traditions. Although there are probably many traditions to one degree or another, their practice of Saturday Sabbath worship would be one of the more obvious examples. And they, like the other Abrahamic religions, would believe that their form of worshipping Jehovah God is most correct.)  

“Jewish Christianity is, to be sure, a complex thing. It is found both in a Palestinian as well as a Hellenistic environment and it was subjected to various influences. Hellenistic Jewish Christianity does not represent a closed unity, but the transition from Jewish Christianity to gentile Christianity is fluid, as is shown on the one hand by the adoption of gentile Christian forms by Jewish Christians and on the other by the Judaizing of Christians from the gentile sphere. The latter process is not only to be assumed for the earliest period -- as a result of the direct effects of the Jewish synagogue upon the development of gentile Christianity -- but is also attested for the later period.[5]”

[5] Cf. John Chrysostom Adversus Judaeos (PG 48, 844 and 849 f.); Simon, Verus Israel, 379 f. The large-scale work of J. Daniélou, Theology of Jewish Christianity [ET by J. A. Baker from the 1958 French; Chicago: Regnery, 1964) has a misleading title. That sort of Jewish Christianity, the theology of which it attempts to present, never existed as an entity that can be identified in terms of the history of religions. Actually, this book is an undoubtedly worthwhile presentation of Semitic (Jewish) forms of life and thought within Christian theology. But even in this respect the book is incomplete and has not taken into consideration Hellenistic analogies nor the problem of the history of tradition. For a critical evaluation, see the valuable review by A. Orbe, ''Une théologie du judéo-christianisme,'' Recherches de science religieuse 47 (1959): 544-549; in addition, Munck, ''Jewish Christianity,'' 108 ff. [{add RAK}][5]  

(aaron - This paragraph is filled with the rich truths that surround the development of the early Christian Church. But we need only look to Acts chapter fifteen to readily see these distinct differences that existed between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. It is very unfortunate that the Christian Church has failed to understand that these two distinct and separate groups were never supposed to be the same!  

They were, by God’s design, of distinctively different offices, though with some overlapping characteristics. Now if they were supposed to have been the same as many contend, why were there two separate gospels dispensations given? Why was there a specific gospel dispensation given to Peter for the Circumcision, as well as a specific gospel dispensation given to Paul for the Uncircumcision? So when “the great church” made the decision that the Jewish Christian differences were some form of apostasy and thereby they judged them as heretics, they made a terrible mistake that has made absolute havoc of their theology. Consequently, with this flawed understanding that presently exists within “the great church”, it is not possible to correctly arrive at many necessary theological assumptions. Simply put, within the Christian Church there is no clear understanding of precisely who the peoples of God were, are, or will be. And I would also like to repeat this again a number of times-that a correct understanding of the complex identification of God’s peoples is an eschatological imperative.)  

“And to what extent can a boundary be drawn with precision between Palestinian and hellenistic Jewish Christianity? Further, there is the problem of genetic definition: if the Christians of Jewish descent are designated "Jewish Christians," it must be asked what criteria there are for so doing. Relationships at the level of the history of tradition should also be explored -- as, for example, between the later Jewish Christians and the primitive Jerusalem community or the Jewish Christianity of the New Testament.”  

(aaron - Now if one is able to grasp the larger picture of God’s Universal Reconciliation, and then begin to understand how all of the individual parts might best fit in together, then one will quickly recognize the futility of such an exercise in genetics as is being posed in the above statement. It is when we are able to ascertain the precise identification of God’s peoples, and the inclusive roles that God has intended for each part within this reconciliation, that the pure simplicity of God’s plan of redemption will become clearer to our understanding. And when considering the complexity that is involved in the identification of God’s peoples, the author here essentially says as much in his concluding statement:)  

“And is it possible to regard the Jewish Christianity of the New Testament as a unity? The testimony of the Pauline letters as well as the statements (admittedly questionable in particular instances) of the other New Testament writings suggest the opposite already in the early period.[6]”

[6] In taking up the thesis proposed by W. Lütgert, W. Schmithals has indeed argued that besides Pauline Christianity, there existed a comprehensive counter-church of Jewish Christian gnosticism; see the bibliography given below, p. 307 [the shorter studies on Galatians, Philippians, and Romans have now appeared in revised form in Paulus und die Gnostiker, Theologische Forschung 35 (Hamburg: Evangelisher Verlag, 1965), along with an article on ''Die historische Situation der Thessalonicherbriefe''] -- on 1 Thessalonians, see also p. 64 n. 123 of the article on Galatians. [248] On the problem of Philippians, cf. also the investigation by H. Koester listed below, p. 308, which modifies the conclusions of Schmithals somewhat.[6]  

“A multitude of problems that go far beyond the restricted range of an "appendix" arise. Thus some limitations must be set.

We shall deal with the legalistic Jewish Christianity situated in Greek-speaking Syria, and will examine from the perspective of this investigation

(1)               the indirect witness of the Didascalia and then

(2)               the Jewish Christian Kerygmata Petrou ("Proclamations" or "Sermons of Peter"; abbreviated KP) source of the pseudo-Clementines, and compare our results with

(3)               the so-called ecclesiastical position, which in this instance means with the statements about Ebionitism made by the ecclesiastical heresiologists.  

“1.The Didascalia. The author who, around the first half of the third century, wrote the Didascalia in Syria[7] claims that he is setting forth the "catholic doctrine" and that he represents the "catholic church, holy and perfect".”

[7] On this matter, see the following: P. Galtier, ''La date de la Didascalie des Apôtres,'' Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique 42 (1947): 315-351; B. Altaner, Patrology [ET by H. C. Graef from the German 1958 ed.; London: Nelson, 1960), p. 56 (see German 1960\6 ed. with A. Stuiber, p. 48); J. Quasten, Patrology 2: The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus (Utrecht: Spectrum, 1953), 147; G. Bardie, ''Didascalie des Apôtres,'' Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, 3 (Paris, 1955): 863-865; Harnack, Geschichte, 2 (Chronologie).2: 488 ff. (his suggestion of posf-Novatian interpolaions is not convincing). [In what follows, references to Didascalia are given according to its normal (broad) chapter divisions, with page and line from Connolly's ET (see below) and the equivalent passage from the Apostolic Constitutions (by book, section, and paragraph, following Funk's ed., listed below) appended in that order -- e.g. Didasc. 8 (80.21 = 2.27.7) means chapter 8 of Didascalia, material found on p. 80 line 21 of Connolly's ET, which parallels Apostolic Constitutions 2.27.7. The standard German translation by (H. Achelis and) J. Flemming, which is referred to by page and line in the original form of this appendix, has also been consulted at every point.] For the text of the Didascalia, reference has been made to the following editions and studies: P. Bötticher (P. de Lagarde), Didascalia apostololorum syriace (Leipzig, 1854); M. D. Gibson, The Didascalia Apostolorum in syriac, Horae Semiticae 1 (London, 1903); H. Achelis and J. Flemming, Die syriche Didaskalia, TU 10.2 (1904), with variant Syriac readings on pp. 225-235 [Achelis is responsible for the commentary on pp. 257-387; Flemming for the text, German translation, notes, and pp. 243-247]; F. X. Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum (in two volumes, Paderborn, 1905; reprint (1960), a reconstruction of the text in Latin according to the Latin and Syriac evidence, and a comparison with the Apostolic Constitutions; R. H. Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum: the Syriac version translated and accompanied by the Verona Latin fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), an ET of the Syriac text and comparison with the Latin fragments. Cf. also E. Tidner, Didascaliae Apostolorum Canonum Ecclesiasticorum Traditionis Apostolicae versiones Latinae, TU 75 (1963). [For an ET of the Ethiopic version, see J. M. Harden, The Ethiopic Didascalia (London: SPCK, 1920).][7]  

“The consciousness of catholicity appears to permeate the church of his time -- in any event it presents itself as such when the recommended practice of fasting is defended by reference to the custom "of all the faithful throughout the world", and becomes concrete in the dispute with the heretics, "who have erred by thinking that there are other churches" and "who with evil words blaspheme the catholic church which is the receptacle of the Holy Spirit".     

(aaron - We have presented here, two heresies that are being defined for us in very clear language. The first heresy is against those, "who have erred by thinking that there are other churches". Then the second heresy is against those "who with evil words blaspheme the catholic church which is the receptacle of the Holy Spirit". Consequently, with this determination by “the great church” that there is no other church except their-own, there is obviously no room at all left here for the Jewish Christian sect. Or, as a matter of fact, there is no room in their religious understanding for any others at all. Then this same thought process would probably be true for many of the other religions and denominations as well.)  

“In opposition to them, it is necessary to preserve the catholicity of the church by making a clear break with them and to deal with the believers who have fallen away to their side either by excluding them from the church's fellowship or by converting them from their error. The author supports the "catholic doctrine" which he represents through the apostolic claim made by his work in its title and in the fiction of apostolic authorship that it maintains throughout. Thereby he gains a legitimization that could not be achieved on the basis of his own authority, and at the same time his work acquires a universality corresponding to the presupposed missionary activity of the apostles. On the surface, it seems that the catholic ideal has been widely realized. In opposition to the dangers of heresy, a firmly established episcopal office guarantees the purity of the church.[8]

[8] Cf. the instructions for the office of bishop in chapter 4 (28 ff. = 2.1-6). It is significant that the admonition which is characteristic for the Didascalia, to use church discipline with moderation, is justified by reference to the dangers that threaten the outsiders from the side the heresies (7 [64.28 ff. = 2.21.2]).[8]  

(aaron - By establishing their monarchical episcopate power base system, “the great church” assured absolute control for themselves. They theorized that their  “established Episcopal office guarantees the purity of the church”. And although this is all well and good on the surface, with their desire to keep the church pure, it has an obvious tendency towards exclusivity. It could be understood here that their claim of monarchical episcopate for “the great church” is nothing more than self-imposed ruling authority within the Church. Whoever has the power, gets to establishes the rules.)  

“The reference to the "holy scriptures" is a polemical thrust at the heresies -- it is a familiar indication of a "catholic" self-understanding.[9]

[9] Didasc. 20 (172.12 = 5.7.14), 24 (204.12 = 6.12.2), 25 (212.39 = 6.14[18].7), 26 (242.13 f. and 244.7 ff. = 6.21[27].1 and 2); cf. Bauer, above, 195 ff.[9]  

“Even the triadic structure of the credo fits into this framework.[10]

[10] Didasc. 19 (167.3 ff. = 5.6.10), 24 (204.10 ff. = 6.12.1), 26 (255.13 ff. = 6.23[30].8 -- cf. the codices!) -- in pointed confrontation with the heretics; cf. especially the passage listed from 24, where the short form of the credo is attached to an implicit warning against the heresies.[10]  

“Thus in the Didascalia the claim of catholicity and the claim of orthodoxy go hand in hand. But are we dealing with anything more than a claim?  

“It is true that when the author speaks about traveling Christians he makes a distinction between adherents of the church and heretics, but the question remains completely open as to how extensive is the ecclesiastical background referred to here.

“Considering the forms in which the "catholic doctrine" of the Didascalia appears, it is striking that it diverges significantly from the character of "orthodoxy" with which we are familiar. To be sure a monarchial episcopate is presupposed, but the concept of succession that was for the most part simply taken for granted in the mainstream church of the third century is not mentioned. This is all the more surprising since the apostolic fiction maintained by the book plainly requires such a basis for the Episcopal office.[11]

[11] Cf. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, p. 270. The more or less contemporary "basic writing" that underlies the ps.- Clementines (see below, 258), on the other hand, reports the installation of Clement or of Zachaeus by the apostle Peter on the basis of a supposed order for the Episcopal consecration -- ps.-Clementine Epistle of Clement to James [ET in ANF 8: 218- 222), Hom. 3.60 ff., Rec. 3.65 f. (cf. Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 97 ff.). On this problem, see also [250] W. Ullmann, ''The Significance of the Epistula Clementis in the Pseudo-Clementines,'' Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1960): 295-317; this is an expansion of the presentation, ''Some Remarks on the Significance of the Epistula Clementis in the Pseudo-Clementines,'' Studia Patristica 4, TU 79 (1961): 330- 337. According to Ullmann the Epistle of Clement to James, which is in the form of a testament of Peter to Clement, endeavors to establish the legal basis for the transmission of Peter's authority to the papacy (''Remarks,'' 334 and elsewhere). Ullmann correctly recognizes that the Epistle of Clement to James presupposes the concept of apostolic succession, but he is wrong in his contention that the reference to the Roman community determines the character of the letter. From the viewpoint of literary analysis, the Epistle derives from the author of the "basic writing" behind the ps.-Clementines.

Correspondingly, its content relates directly to the ps.- Clementine story. As an introduction to the work, this epistle was fashioned in connection with the other introductory writing, the Epistle of Peter to James (below, 260 n. 57), and attempts to prepare for the significance of the speeches of Peter that are referred to in what follows, and at the same time to indicate that the journeys of Peter and Clement ended in Rome. Herein lies the purpose of the Epistle of Clement to James, not in the establishing of a foundation for the Roman claim, of which no indications are found elsewhere in the Clementine romance. How little the Roman claim lies in the background is disclosed through a comparison with the Episcopal installation of Zachaeus in Caesarea; Zachaeus is also the successor of Peter (Hom. 3.60.1, ant' emou!), and is even legitimated through being an eyewitness (Hom. 3.63.1). [11]  

“The use of the New Testament scriptures also is striking. The stereotyped reference to the "holy scriptures" is expanded as an exhortation to read "the holy scriptures and the gospel of God", or "the law, the book of the ~ngs and the prophets, and the gospel" or even "law, prophets, and gospel".  

“The designation "gospel" apparently means the gospel literature, which is the most important part of the New Testament canon for the author.[12]

[12] Achelis (-Flemming), Didaskalia, p. 333. In Didascalia 8 (81.29 f. = 2.25.1) the introductory formula ["in David and in all the prophets and in the gospel also, our savior prays for our sins..."] alludes to an episode from the story of Jesus (cf. Luke 23.34 [and the similar "gospel" material about how "our savior made intercession for sinners before his father," found in Didasc. 6 (52.14 ff. = 2.16.1); cf. also 24 (212.10 f. = 6.14[18].4)]), just as elsewhere the "gospel" introduces only synoptic material, and not quotations from the canonical epistles (the "apostolos"). [But see n. 14 below on possible "gospel" material from John.][12]  

“The gospel of Matthew is preferred.[13]

[13] Cf. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, pp. 318 ff. [and Connolly, Didascalia, lxx ff.]. Matthew is the only gospel cited by name (21 [182.11 = 5.14.11] -- "but in the gospel of Matthew it is written thus..."). This introductory formula can hardly be the result of an interpolation as was suggested by Connolly (ad loc. and p. lxxi); rather, it is confirmed by the content of the quotation. Reference is made to Matt. 28.1 f., which is part of the material peculiar to Matthew, and the quotation from Matt. 12.40 that follows has been shown to belong to the Matthean redactional material (see G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Matthäus, FRLANT 82 [1962]: 103 f.).[13]  

“But acquaintance with the gospel of Mark is not to be ruled out, and knowledge of Luke and of John is highly probable.[14] 

[14] Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, pp. 319 ff. [and Connolly, lxx f.]. According to Harnack, Geschichte, 2 (Chronologie).2: 492 f., the gospel of John was "not used as an evangelical platform," but the testimonies adduced by Achelis (pp. 241 and 320) should not be belittled. With a high degree of probability John 6.38 f. (in 11 [118.3 ff. = 2.55.2]), 7.24   (in 11 [114.23 f. =2.51.1]), and 12.25 (in combination with Matt. 10.39, in 19 [166.16 f. = 5.6.7]) are cited. Therefore one also will have to favorably evaluate allusions to John 13.4 f. and 14 f. in Didasc. 16 (150.10 ff. and 16 = 3.13.4 f. ["in the gospel"!]). To be sure, the Syriac manuscript Harrisianus does not contain a translation of this passage. However, this omission includes the larger context and is insignificant in view of the numerous omissions in this manuscript. Finally, the possibility also must be left open that the pericope concerning the adulteress in Didasc. 8 (76.16 ff. = 2.24.3) was accessible to the author because it was included in his copy of the Fourth Gospel (cf. certain manuscripts of John 7.53 ff.) -- contrary to Achelis(-Flemming), 319, and Connolly, lxxi f. Even though Papias and the Gospel of the Hebrews transmitted a similar narrative, according to the report of Eusebius (EH 3.39.17), there is still no proof that the Didascalia is dependent on them. The fact that the notice of Eusebius and the Didascalia agree in avoiding the word "adulteress" is not a sufficient argument. Against this hypothesis it can be argued (1) that no other connections can be established between the Didascalia on the one hand and Papias and/or the Gospel of the Hebrews on the other -- for the latter, such connections are not to be expected since the Gospel of the Hebrews is native to Egypt and not to Syria; and (2) that the content of the pericope as it was known to Papias and to the Gospel of the Hebrews cannot be determined any longer, but verbal agreements exist in part between Didascalia and John 7.53 ff.[14]  

“Thus caution is in order with respect to the conjecture that the author made use of a harmony of the gospels[15]

[15] Harnack, Geschichte, 2 (Chronologie).2: 494.[15]  

“-- in view of the freedom of the manner of quotation and the citation of mixed texts from Old and New Testament writings, the use of such a harmony can hardly be established. This holds true with one exception.

It is almost universally recognized that the author either directly or indirectly used the so-called Gospel of Peter,[16] a compilation based on the canonical gospels. 

[16] Cf. [Connolly, Didascalia, lxxv ff.;] C. Maurer in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 179 ff.; L. Vaganay, L'évangile de Pierre\2 (Paris: Gabalda, 1930), pp. 167-169; Harnack, Bruchstücke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus, TU 9.2 (1893\2). Harnack also attempts, without much success to trace John 7.53 ff. back to the Gospel of Peter; cf. on the contrary Vaganay, pp. 186 f.[16]  

“The surprising agreements in the account of Jesus' passion can hardly be explained otherwise, particularly the statement that it was Herod, not the procurator Pilate, who had Jesus crucified, but also in a more general way the exoneration of Pilate that immediately precedes this passage, the dating of the resurrection of Jesus in the night preceding Sunday, and the emphasis upon fasting during holy week.[17]

[17] Compare Didasc. 21 (190.6 ff. = 5.19.6), "thus it is fitting for you to fast on Friday and Saturday and also to take your vigil and watch on Saturday," and Gospel of Peter 5.27, "on account of all these things we fasted and sat there and cried night and day until Sabbath." See also below, 250 n. 26.[17]  

“The casual manner in which this gospel is used (formulas of citation do not occur[18]) is all the more significant since we are dealing with the gospel of "Syrian-Antiochian heretics" and Serapion of Antioch already devoted an official refutation to the book.[19]

[18] With the possible exception of 21 (183.4 ff. = 5.14.14-15), where the relationship to the Gospel of Peter is not entirely clear ["and he said to us, teaching us, 'Are you fasting...?'" These words are spoken in the presence of Levi after the resurrection -- cf. Gospel of Peter 14.60 and n. 25 below].[18]  

[19] EH 6.12 (see above, 115); Zahn, Geschichte, 1.1: 177- 179, and 2: 743 ff.; Harnack, Geschichte, 1.1: 11.[19]  

“As the Didascalia shows, Serapion's judgment was not able to prevail very quickly throughout the area of the Syrian church. The outlook of its author with respect to what may be considered "catholic doctrine" is rather different from that of the occupant of the bishop's throne in Antioch.[20] 

[20] Eusebius, on the other hand, later included the Gospel of Peter among the heretical writings; EH 3.3.2 and 3.25.6 ff.[20]  

“We will bypass the question of Didascalia's relation to the rest of the canon[21] and also the problem of its use of so-called agrapha, in which it does not go beyond the bounds of what is common in patristic literature of the third century.[22] 

[21] The number of canonical New Testament writings presupposed by Didascalia is not as extensive as Achelis had affirmed (Didaskalia, pp. 321 ff.). In addition to the four gospels, the Gospel of Peter, and the book of Acts, there is clear acquaintance with some Pauline epistles, especially the Pastorals (Achelis, pp. 322 f.; [cf. Connolly, lxii]). But in regard to the remaining canonical works, judgment must be reserved. The idea that the author knew Hebrews is not supported by any real evidence. Nor is it demonstrable that his Pauline corpus comprised fourteen letters, as Achelis supposed (323; [cf. Connolly, lxxii]). Knowledge of the catholic Epistles is also questionable. The parallel between Didascalia 12 (122.29 ff. = 2.58.4) and James 2.2 f. does not prove that James is being cited because, as Achelis himself acknowledged (322), it is precisely the colorful statements of the version in James that are absent from Didascalia. It is self-evident that use of 1 John cannot be inferred from the fact that the Johannine gospel is quoted. Only for a knowledge of 1 Peter is there some basis: Didascalia 1 (2.6 = 1. introduction) seems to refer to 1 Pet. 1.2, Didasc. 4 (32.26 = 2.3.3) to 1 Pet. 4.8, and Didasc. 9 (86.1 f. = 2.26.1) to 1 Pet. 2.9 (Achelis, 322; [Connolly, lxxii]).

There is no denying the existence of these parallels. Moreover, the material in Didasc. 4 is presented as a direct quotation. But surprisingly, the quotation is said to be spoken by the "Lord," so that one must ask whether this logion was actually transmitted to the author of the Didascalia as part of 1 Peter, or whether it may not have been independent of that document. This supposed evidence also is compromised by the discovery that the passage ultimately derives from an Old Testament text (Prov. 10.12) even though the wording in Didasc. 4 is closer to the text of 1 Peter [253] than to that of the Old Testament. The same applies to the material in Didasc. 9, where the text that supposedly is cited (1 Pet. 2.9) actually is an indirect quotation of Exod. 19.6 and 23.22 (LXX). As was true in the case of Didasc. 4, the wording of Didasc. 9 is closer to the New Testament text than to the Old Testament. But this is hardly decisive. The text in question appears in a series of ecclesiological predications, which were well known and probably orally transmitted. The same is true of Didasc. 1, where the wording of 1 Pet. 1.2 is not reproduced exactly either. The conclusion that the author of Didascalia knew 1 Peter is not compelling, to say the least. Finally, with reference to the Apocalypse [cf. Connolly, lxxiii], even Achelis recognized that the few allusions do not go beyond the stock of commonly used liturgical formulae in the ancient church (323 f.). There is thus no reason for assuming that the author of the Didascalia knew and used the Apocalypse.[21]  

[22] Cf. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, pp. 336 ff; [Connolly, lxxiii; and above, n. 12].[22]  

“But in connection with what has been said, we must refer to the relation of the author of the Didascalia to Judaism.[23]

[23] Details in Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, p. 361; C. Schmidt, Studien zu den Pseudo-Klementinen, TU 46.1 (1929): 252; L. Goppelt, Christentum und Judentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1954), pp. 205-207. [Cf. also Connolly, lxxxviii f.][23]  

“Of course, one should not overestimate the evidence that will be cited here. The fact that the author speaks of the Jews as "brothers" in chapter 21 is based on the Old Testament[24] and perhaps goes back to a literary source that could also have contained the idea of intercessory fasting for the brethren from the Jewish people.[25]

[24] The former passage continues: "For even if they hate you, we must call them brothers, for thus it is written for us in Isaiah, 'Call those who hate and despise you "brothers," because the name of the Lord is praised'" (Isa. 66.5).[24]  

[25] In terms of its content, Didasc. 21 (180.29 f. = 5.13.1, "when you fast, pray and intercede for those who are perishing, as we also did when our savior suffered") has parallels in the Gospel of Peter 5.27 (see above, 248 n. 17). The later citation in Disasc. 21 (183.5ff. = 5.14.15) seems to be a resumption of the same tradition, which Achelis already claimed was part of the Gospel of Peter (327) -- "but he [the Lord] said to us, teaching us, 'would that you not fast these days for my sake; or do I have need that you should afflict your soul? [cf. Isa. 58.4-5].

But for the sake of your brothers you did it, and you will do it on these days on which you fast, on the fourth [day] of the week [= Wednesday] and on Friday, for all time'" [see also above, n. 18]. The possibility that a source lies behind this material becomes more probable in view of the way it differs from its present context; it refers to fasting on Wednesday and Friday, [254] but immediately thereafter Didasc. 21 (183.18 ff. = 5.14.17) speaks of fasting during the holy week, from Monday "till the night after the Sabbath." With respect to the designation of the Jews as "brothers" it follows that it was originally contained in the source which was either closely related to or identical with the Gospel of Peter (above, and n. 18), and was placed into the larger context by the author of the Didascalia. Accordingly, it is on the basis of this source used in chap. 21 (180.29 f. = 5.13.1, and 183.5 ff. = 5.14.15) that the intercession was made to relate to the Jewish people even in the subsequent treatment (184.22 = 5.14.22, 185.3 ff. = 5.14.24, 185.10 f. = 5.15.1), without being limited to them, as is clear from the earlier reference to gentile unbelievers (180.10-181.1 = 5.12.4-5.13.1).[25]  

“Behind it lies an understanding of the history of salvation that concentrates primarily upon the past and less upon the current situation. Nevertheless, this assessment of Judaism also has a root in the author's present experience, as is indicated by the fact that the Didascalia betrays a detailed acquaintance with Jewish customs and teachings. The following examples will suffice: the unusual etymological derivation of the Jewish name from the Hebrew root YDH in chapter 13 (126.22 = 2.60.3 -- "'Jew' means 'confession'"); the precise presentation of Jewish Sabbath customs;[26] 

[26] Didasc. 21 (191.4 ff. = 5.20.1 ff.). However, the injunction for Sabbath observance "you shall not lift your foot to do any work, nor shall you speak a word with your mouth" (191.16 ff. = 5.20.5) is not derived from a Jewish tractate (Achelis) but from Isa. 58.13; see Connolly, lxxviii [following Funk, ad loc.].[26]  

“the distinction between the Passover and the feast of the unleavened bread,[27] 

[27] Didasc. 21 (192.18 = 5.20.10); cf. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, p. 361; Josephus Antiq. 3.(10.5.)248 f.[27]  

“the dating of the lament over the destruction of Jerusalem on the ninth of Ab.[28] 

[28] Didasc. 21 (191.23 = 5.20.6), it is true that a clear distinction between Jewish and Jewish Christian influence cannot always be made. Thus some of the texts that have been cited may have derived from Jewish Christian influence (see below). Nevertheless, the distinction itself should not be abandoned -- it is suggested by the author of Didascalia when on the one hand he can speak of the "Jews" (13 [126.22=2.60.3] or of "the people" (21 [189.19, 190.26 f., 191.7 ff. = 5.19.2 and 9, 5.20.2 ff.], etc.), and on the other of the "dear brothers" who came "from the people [and] became believers" (26 [233.7 f. = 6.18 (23).11]).[28]

“These are statements which one may not explain simply by assuming that the author had been of Jewish origin. Such a hypothesis cannot be based upon observations that in reality do nothing more than to identify various items of information.[29] 

[29] Contrary to Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, pp. 384 f., and Quasten, Patrology, 2: 147. Even though the author knows of a replacement of Israel by the church in the development of salvation history (21 and 23; see above, 249 f.), he does not reveal any special sympathy for the fate of the Jewish people -- in contrast to Rom. 9-11, for example.[29]  

(aaron - There is a supposition that is being made here in the Didascalia—“the author knows of a replacement of Israel by the church in the development of salvation history”, that is somewhat misleading in our understanding of the relationship between God’s first peoples Israel and the Christian Church. But then the author here rightly points to Romans chapters 9-11 as a contrast to this replacement theology proposition that we find in Didascalia.)  

“Hence it is more probably the case that there was an active relationship between Christians and Jews in the author's world. Even though with regard to particulars the question of the extent to which such a contact contributed significantly to the development of the outlook of the author and the practice of his community must remain open,[30] 

[30] Goppelt, Christentum und Judentum, p. 206, states that the instructions to the bishop, the "juridical functions," and the community's "simple ideal for living" are examples of the "high estimation" for the "Jewish tradition." But with respect to the orders of office and community the author is primarily dependent on Christian traditions as is indicated, for example, by his extensive use of the pastoral Epistles.[30]  

“it is quite clear that the Syrian environment of the Didascalia supports an intensive influence of Jewish thought and conceptual material.  

“The "catholic doctrine" of the Didascalia unfolds itself in the controversy with the "heresies." This problem is treated in chapter 23, "On Heresies and Schisms". Already at the beginning of the Didascalia the problem of heresy is mentioned,[31] and it is called to mind repeatedly in what follows.[32] 

[31] Didasc. 5 (38.1 = 2.6.17). The sinners have "fallen into the pernicious corruption of the heresies concerning which the decisive word is (still) to be spoken."[31]  

[32] Didasc. 7 (64.28 ff. = 2.21.3), 12 (120.32 = 2.58.1), 13 (128.16 = 2.62.3), 23 (194 ff. = 6.1.1 ff.), 25 (210.20 ff. = 6.14[18].1).[32]  

“The heresies form a constant danger to the church. Hence the warning at the start of chapter 23,  

"guard yourselves against all hateful, reprehensible, and abominable heresies and flee them as you would a blazing fire", and the instruction in chapter to have no fellowship with the heretics.  

“Nor are references to the frightful ultimate fate of the heretics lacking in these contexts.  

“Apparently the author presupposes the existence of a number of heresies. 

“This is not merely part of the fictitious character of this work, with its apostolic claim addressed to the church's past, present, and future, but is also based on actual experiences (cf. chaps. 7 and 12, above n. 32).  

“What actual picture emerges?

Following a general warning about heresies in chapter 23, the author presents the "beginning of heresies," namely, the appearance of Simon Magus from his confrontation with the apostles in Jerusalem (!) to the macabre contest of the miracle workers (Simon Magus and Peter) in Rome. Of course, this does not permit us to draw an inference as to the present situation of the author. The presentation is rather reminiscent of the accounts of the apocryphal acts of the apostles.[33] 

[33] Cf. Lipsius, Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, 2: 59 ff., 321, 328 (but here the text of the Didascalia is regarded as an abbreviation of the report found in Apostolic Constitutions 6.9). Hegesippus already associated Cleobios with Simon Magus (Eusebius EH 4.22.5; cf. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, p. 32; F. X. Funk, Die Apostolichen Konstitutionen (Rottenburg, 1891), p. 74, [and also his Didascalia 1: 317 f.].[33]  

“But even the summary presentation of the heresies that follows in Didasc. 23 is not immune to criticism. In a very schematic manner "all heresies" are accused of rejecting "the law and the prophets," blaspheming "God almighty," and denying the resurrection.  

(aaron - once again we are given definition to heresy. Here it is said—‘In a very schematic manner "all heresies" are accused of rejecting "the law and the prophets," blaspheming "God almighty," and denying the resurrection.’ Now it is not clear if one must be guilty of all of these to be considered a heretic or just be guilty of any one of them. Most likely the latter would be the case. Nevertheless, it would more than appear that the heretics of that era were identified most likely on the basis of their association with a different religious group outside of “the great church”.)  

“In addition there are the false teachings of particular groups -- "many of them taught that a man should not marry, and said that if one did not marry, that would constitute sanctification"; -- others of them taught that a man should eat no meat ...". These assertions, like the preceding portrayal of the heresy of Simon Magus, do not seem to presuppose the existence of an actual situation of controversy, but remain remarkably schematic and lack concreteness. Similarly, they are taken up again only in brief summary statements, without the addition of more specific information.[34]

[34] Cf. Didasc. 24 (202.23-204.4 = 6.11.1-2, 204.9 ff. = 6.12.1), 26 (240.22 ff. = 6.20[24].1).[34]  

“Apparently the author follows an established pattern of presentation that does not reveal any connection with his own situation. This leads to a further observation -- the false teachings to which Didascalia refers can be identified with the Gnostic~~theological ideas opposed by the "great church."[35]

[35] It suffices to refer to the summary treatments of Hilgenfeld, especially with regard to the teaching of the Syrian Gnostic Credo (Ketzergeschichte, pp. 316 ff. and especially 332 f.). According to Harnack, the characterization found in Didascalia conforms to "the Marcionites" (Marcion\2, p. 341*). However, it is difficult to make a distinction between Gnostic and Marcionite outlooks here, as is often true with such isolated assertions. Against Harnack it can be argued that Marcion does not seem to have rejected explicitly the idea of an eschatological resurrection; and further, that in our passage the Didascalia ascribes the prohibition of marriage and of eating meat not to one single group but to different heretical groups.[35]  

“But in the actual body of the Didascalia Gnostic influences can be confirmed neither in a positive nor in a negative (antithetical) manner.  

“The heresiological statements summarize material formulated and transmitted in the church tradition. 

“It is a different matter with the last part of the heresiological characterization that is given in Didasc. 2~ -- "others said that one should abstain only from the flesh of swine, and should eat what the law declares to be clean, and ought to be circumcised according to the law".  

(aaron - This controversy over which requirements in the Law were to be practiced by the Gentile Christians was, I believe, clearly explained for us in Acts 15:1-35—the first Jerusalem Conference. But the things that “the great church” seemed to have overlooked in these teachings, is the evident differences between the practices associated with the Jewish Christians and the practices associated with the Gentile Christians. The required practices for each were never designed to be the same. Then the thought that the Gentile Christian practices were to replace the Jewish Christian practices is not quite as simple as it might appear to the casual observer. I do not believe that one will find a single instruction within the Holy Bible that excuses the Jews from following the requirements of the Law. I am speaking especially about the initiatory rite of circumcision.)  

“In contrast to the Gnostic rejection of the Old Testament, the ceremonial law of the Old Testament is here expressly acknowledged as binding. In a subsequent section the author will apply to the above-mentioned "heresy" a notion peculiar to him concerning the "second legislation". This makes it likely that the former passage contains a reflection of a concrete situation. While the question may remain open whether this notice originally was attached to the older traditional formulation -- the above-mentioned repetition of the basic wording in chapter 24 would support this -- or whether it was composed by the author, it is certain that the author connects the relevant doctrinal position to the present.

Thus we are here provided with the clue by means of which we can reconstruct the "heresy" opposed by the author of the Didascalia. It has already become clear that the heretical group under discussion is not to be characterized as a vegetarian Jewish Christianity that rejected marriage, the eating of meat, and the Old Testament, such as is attested by Epiphanius.[36] 

[36] Cf. Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, pp. 355 f.; Schoeps, Theologie, pp. 179 n. 3, and 191.[36]  

“Instead, the fundamental acknowledgment of the Old Testament law is assured. Of course, the author can also clothe his polemic in the kind of Old Testament terminology that does not allow us to recognize its actual setting. The assertion that in the true law "no distinctions with regard to food, no burning of incense, no sacrifices and burnt offerings" were mentioned can be regarded only as literary decoration at a time subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem.[37] 

[37] Cf. also Didasc. 9 (98.15 ff. = 2.35.1), and perhaps 26 (216.3 f. = 6.15.1, and 252.3 f. = 6.22[28].1)?[37]  

“But in other respects the dependence on the Old Testament still can refer to current situations. The ritual baths after sexual contamination; reflect Lev. 15.16 ff. without being derived in a literary sense from that passage. The explicit nature of the controversy and also the direct or indirect address to the heretics indicate a current situation.  

“The observance of the Sabbath is also counted among the characteristic features of the heretics, as the context attests; probably this is true also of circumcision, to which not only the last part of the statement quoted above refers but also the emphatically positive description of ecclesiastical life, "spiritual circumcision of the heart"; "Uncircumcision").  

(aaron - We are given additional elements involved in defining heretical acts. Which in this case is simply referring to the Law—such as the Jewish practice of physical circumcision. But what becomes most interesting here, is this final statement—‘the emphatically positive description of ecclesiastical life, "spiritual circumcision of the heart"; "Uncircumcision").’ I wonder, do I understand this statement correctly? That they are supposing here that the "spiritual circumcision of the heart" = Uncircumcision"?

Without any reservations, that speculative statement that "spiritual circumcision of the heart" = Uncircumcision", being completely void of any direct support from the Holy Scriptures, is totally in error! The reason for their error, is because they are simply addressing this complex invisible disposition from God—the circumcised heart that is applicable to both the Old and New Testaments, from just a Gentile Christian perspective.)

“Finally, it is possible that the observance of the Old Testament food laws is to be included here, although it is mentioned only in the summary passages in chapters 23-24. According to Connolly and W. C. van Unnik,[38]  

the heretics of the Didascalia were "Judaizing Christians" who had adopted some aspects of Jewish observance but not the totality of Jewish regulations.

[38] Van Unnik, ''De beteeknis van de mozaische vet voor de kerk van Christus volgens de syrische Didascalie,'' Nederlandisch Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenes 31 (1939): 65-100. [Connolly, lxxxiii, does not explicitly argue for such an interpretation, despite Strecker's claim, but seems to leave the question open.][38]

“Therefore they did not actually live in association with Judaism and are not to be designated as Jewish Christians.[39] 

[39] Van Unnik, ''Beteeknis,'' pp. 95 ff. Cf. similarly J. Thomas, Mouvement baptiste, pp. 406 f.; Simon, Verus Israel, pp. 362 ff.[39]  

“But while it cannot be denied that Syriac Christianity exhibits strong Judaizing tendencies, one should not connect the people addressed in the Didascalia with such trends. Since they are interested in Jewish observances, they are explicitly designated "heretics,"[40]  

[40] Didasc. 23 (202.17 ff. = 6.10.4), 24 (203.23 ff. = 6.11.1 f.); in 26, compare also 242.6 = 6.21(27).1 with 240.22 ff. = 6.20(24).1.[40]

“a verdict which would be extraordinary with respect to Judaizing Christians, whose basic mistake did not so much involve questions of faith as questions of ecclesiastical discipline. The same can be said with reference to their practice of circumcision, which provides tight bonds to Judaism and goes far beyond mere "Judaizing."[41]

[41] The objection that no christological heresy is mentioned (van Unnik, ''Beteeknis,'' p. 96) does not carry much weight, because first of all it is doubtful whether the author of the Didascalia, in view of his very practical purpose, would even be aware of such a deviation; second, it is not impossible that the Jewish Christians who are addressed were in agreement with the community of the Didascalia in christological matters.[41]  

“Therefore, the deduction is more likely that we are dealing here with Jewish Christians. It is not accidental that the author, at the beginning of his instruction about the "second legislation" (or "repetition of the law") in chapter 26, spoke to those who "from among the people have turned to faith in God our savior Jesus Christ", just as in chapter 21 he also interpreted the quotation from Isaiah 9.1 f. by referring it to the church made up of Jews and gentiles. In spite of the apparent close connection between the Jewish Christian "heretics" and the community of the author, it is not to be assumed that they actually belong to the community of the Didascalia.[42] 

[42] Contrary to Schmidt, Studien, pp. 253, 260.[42]  

“It is striking that where the order of the congregation and its spiritual life is especially treated, a Jewish Christian peril is not mentioned. 

“Controversies concerning the authority of the bishop and the other office holders would hardly be absent in the event of a struggle within the community.  

“The question of how "catholic doctrine" is to defend itself against heresy is not concerned with the problem of the inner life of the community, but the community is presupposed as a self-contained entity that seeks to defend itself against sin and apostasy.  

(aaron - We can, in a very limited sense here, define the early Church’s attitude on heresy with the self-identification as this—“community is presupposed as a self-contained entity that seeks to defend itself against sin and apostasy”. Thus, heresy, in its very basic sense, is simply determined in the eye of the beholders as they identify the sin and apostasy that is perceived by them within the others. So one can easily see how convenient it becomes to identify some individuals or groups as heretics. Then highest on this ladder of importance, is the authority that is requisitioned by the “great church”. This is seen in this quote—“Controversies concerning the authority of the bishop and the other office holders would hardly be absent in the event of a struggle within the community.” It was precisely this idea that this—“community is presupposed as a self-contained entity that seeks to defend itself against sin and apostasy”, that would naturally lead to their imposed judgments upon the outsiders as apostates and heretics. And this same attitude continues on even into today’s Church. That is, some within the “great church” would say that if you do not submit to our self-proclaimed sovereign authority you are automatically judged as a heretic. According to their established rules, you have fallen away from the true faith.)  

“The Jewish Christian "heretics" stand outside the community of the Didascalia. With this result we have reached a point of departure for the question concerning the relationship between heresy and Catholicism in the world of the Didascalia. Apparently a complete separation was not involved; rather the previously mentioned contacts permit the assumption of a lively relationship in which the leading role of "catholic doctrine" was not considered to lie incontestable. The powerful language with which the faithful are warned against "heresy" in chapter 23 is eloquent proof of this. The statements made by the author about the form and content of the Jewish Christian "heresy" make it seem questionable that it formed an actual sect.[43] 

[43] Cf. Didasc. 26 (240.1 = 16.19[24].3) -- they live "in the dispersion among the gentiles." Of course, this also applies to Judaism after the year 135. But the context refers to Jewish Christianity.[43]  

“It is instructive to note that it is in his confrontation with his Jewish Christian opponents that the author develops the theory, so central for the Didascalia, of the "second legeslation" (or "repetition of the law") -- i.e. the contrasting of the Old Testament decalogue [= the "real" law] with the ceremonial rules (the deuterosis or "second legislation") which had been added after the generation in the wilderness worshipped the golden calf.  

Although it cannot be established as probable that the author himself constructed this theory in dependence upon a Jewish Christian theological concept,[44] since a corresponding interpretation of the Old Testament had long been used even in ecclesiastical circles in the controversy with Judaism,[45] its pointed application to the Jewish Christian situation shows that the Jewish Christian "heretics" had a special importance in the world of the Didascalia. 

[44] Contrary to Schmidt, Studien, pp. 262 ff., and Schoeps, Theologie, p. 180. The theory of false pericopes, which is found in the "KP" document of the ps.-Clementines (see above, 244, and below, 257 f.), cannot be considered as a predecessor since it shows no dependence on Exod. 32; nor does it contrast two stages of written law, but rather, contrasts the falsification of the law with the oral revelation of "the true prophet" (see Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 162 ff.). The criticism of the Old Testament in the Didascalia comes somewhat closer to the Jewish Christian "AJ II" source of the ps.-Clementines [= Rec. 1.33-44.2 and 53.4\b-71, according to Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp. 221-254, and in Hennecke- Schneemelcher, 2: 106], which like the Didascalia sees the starting point of the outdated legislation in the veneration of the golden calf by the generation in the desert (Rec. 1.36), and holds that sacrifice is replaced by baptism (1.39). However, the author of the Didascalia thinks, among other things, of the elimination of the ritual baths through Christian baptism (cf. 26 [224.17 f. = 6.17(22).1, and 248.10ff. = 6.21(27).7]), while for the "AJ II" source the Jewish ritual laws of purification do not belong to the "second legislation." [For an extended discussion of the concept deuterwsis or "second legislation" in the Didascalia, see Connolly, lvii-lxix.][44]

[45] As is pointed out correctly by van Unnik, ''Beteeknis,'' pp. 86-95.[45]  

“We can even go a step further; the fact that the author addresses the Jewish Christian "heretics" with the term "dear brothers" can now no longer be understood as a self-evident ~~caVtatio Lcnccole)itiac [attempt to gain good will] resulting from pastoral concern, but can also include the acknowledgment that the Jewish Christian "heresy" actually predominates. The reckoning of the dates for fasting as observed in the author's community is expressly traced back to the reckoning by "believing Hebrews". Since the designation "believers" in a similar context means only Christians and not Jews, this statement can only be referred to Jewish Christians.[46]

[46] It could be argued that the proceeding sentence, "begin [your fasting] when your brothers who are of the people keep the Passover" (187.7 f. = 5.17.1), already should be considered as a reference to the Jewish Christian opponents. This accords with the reading in Epiphanius (Her. 70.10.2 -- oi( adelfoi u(mwn oi( ek peritomhs), which, however, is regarded as doubtful by Connolly (note, ad loc.), following Funk (Didascalia 2: 7). That the author of the Didascalia recognized the connection between the Jewish Christian practice of fasting and the Jewish practice is revealed also by the instructions, "thus you must fast when that people is celebrating the Passover" (21 [192.16 f. = 5.20.10]). Therefore a serious objection against the available textual tradition cannot be raised.

[The point being argued by Funk and Connolly is that Epiphanius has paraphrased the original Syriac, which they accept as a satisfactory text.][46]

(aaron - This last statement is very interesting as it is making a contrast between Christians and Jews—“Since the designation "believers" in a similar context means only Christians and not Jews, this statement can only be referred to Jewish Christians.” To make the statement that the Jews are not “believers”, is, in all reality, attempting to define God’s peoples from only the Gentile Christian perspective. To begin, we must be reminded that this term ”believer” does not appear anywhere in the Holy Bible. Believer has become a strong Christian term, and in some cases, very divisive as well. Even throughout Christianity up to this day, the definition of what a “believer” is remains in the measured eye of the beholder. I do not believe that it is intended for us to understand that the Jews did not believe in the Creator God, but that the Jews did not believe in Jesus as the Christ. But I ask this, do we turn a blind eye to the sovereign will of God towards His first peoples Israel? If we do, we are as blinded as are the Jews. For us to expect God’s first peoples Israel to respond to the Messiah in the same way as does the Christian Church, we have failed to receive the prophetic truths given by Jesus for Israel’s marked distinction to the Christian Church. For the progress of the Gospel in fulfillment of God’s promise to father Abraham—that through his seed all of the families of the earth would be blessed, God’s first peoples Israel were, by God‘s sovereign design, blinded to the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. Ref.Mat.13: looking particularly at verses 10-17; Isa.6:9-10; 1Pe.1:1-12)  

“The influence of the Jewish Christian "heresy" on the "catholic" ecclesiastical orientation of the Didascalia is evident there. The author presupposes Jewish Christian influences. Furthermore, he considers the possibility that the "heretics" might accept those who have been excluded from the church or that they themselves might even take part in the worship in his community.[47] 

[47] Didasc. 12 (120.31 f. = 2.58.1). The fact that these statements are formulated in the plural ("heresies") does not, in view of the tremendous influence of the Jewish Christians, exclude the possibility that they are primarily under consideration.[47]  

“As a result, the notion that the "heretical" Jewish Christians were the ones who separated themselves from the church seems much less probable than that the church of the Didascalia itself was faced with the task of separating itself from the "heretics."[48]  

[48] Cf. also Achelis(-Flemming), Didaskalia, p. 357.[48]

“The opposite view is no longer as self-evident as the heresiological outlook would like to imagine, and it is not difficult to conclude that in this part of Syria, Jewish Christianity occupied a dominant "orthodox" position superior to "Catholicism."  

(aaron - I would like to briefly comment on this statement—“As a result, the notion that the "heretical" Jewish Christians were the ones who separated themselves from the church seems much less probable than that the church of the Didascalia itself was faced with the task of separating itself from the "heretics.” This suggestion that the Jewish Christians separated themselves from “the great church” would seem to be the common practice on how “the great church” generally positions their opposition. They cast the others as apostates and heretics simply because they might resist their monarchical rule and pattern of domination. And in addition to the Jewish Christians being tagged as heretics, this same practice continues even today with respect any form of Christianity, especially the Protestants, that is not submissive to the early Christian Church and their monarchical rule. By using this inventive practice of judging any and all opposition as apostates and heretics, they have made Christianity more of an exclusive religion rather than an inclusive one. They act a bit like the Pharisees that Jesus talked about in Mat.23:13—They shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you go not in yourselves, nor do you allow them that are entering to go in.

But then can you imagine removing the very foundation of “the great church” out from her midst? That is, it is a fact that the very earliest constituents of “the church” were almost entirely Jewish Christians. So tell me this, how has the group that originally formed “the church”, now become heretics within their-own Church? I believe that I would have to call that—taking complete control of the situation. To sight the Jewish Christians as heretics is almost hilarious if it were not such a serious matter. Because by falling to this grievous error, “the great church” as it is known around the world, is blindly wandering in this wilderness of misunderstanding. That is, “the great church” lacks the specific understanding when it comes to the complex identification of God’s peoples. Which becomes painfully evident when we observe their judgment of the Jews and the Jewish Christians as heretics.)

2.

The "Kerygmata Petrou" Source

 “We would not be able to draw this conclusion with confidence if we were not in the position of being able to appeal to a direct witness for Jewish Christianity in Greek speaking Syria. The Kerygmata Petrou source (= KP, "Proclamations of Peter --) contained in the "basic writing" that underlies the pseudo-Clementines contains a Jewish Christian theology that is approximately contemporaneous with the author of the Didascalia or perhaps a few decades earlier. This document, which was literary in character but can be reconstructed only in part, is especially valuable for our inquiry since we cannot assume that it was literarily dependent on the Didascolia or vice versa, in spite of their geographical proximity.[49] 

[49] Cf. above, 256 n. 44; Strecker, Judenchristentum, p. 215 n. 2.[49]

“KP is a pseudo-Petrine treatise. It contains material about             (1) the "true prophet," how he passed through the world, and his relationship to the hostile female prophecy; also about

(2) the exposition of the law by the "true prophet" with material about the "false pericopes"; connected with this are                          (3) anti-Pauline statements, which attempt to show Paul as an opponent of Peter and as one who was not approved by James, the representative of the true doctrine and bishop of Jerusalem; finally                          (4) material about baptism is given in which the strongly legalistic character of the work becomes evident.[50] 

[50] For a treatment of various details as well as a reconstruction of the "basic writing" and the KP source, cf. Strecker Judenchristentum, passim. A summary presentation with selected texts in translation is found in Strecker ''The Kerygmata Petrou,'' in Hennecke-Schneemelcher 2, 102-127 [in the same volume, see also J. Irmscher's introduction to the ps- Clementines on 532-535].[50]  

(aaron - I would like to comment on number(3) “anti-Pauline statements, which attempt to show Paul as an opponent of Peter and as one who was not approved by James, the representative of the true doctrine and bishop of Jerusalem”.

Even though I have touched on this subject a number of times before, because of it importance to “the church”, I would like to visit it yet once again. It is only from our observation of the apostles Peter along side the apostle Paul, that we begin to understand the intended differences between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. These intended difference that are best explained in Paul’s letter to the Galatians—where we must direct our concentration especially onto chapter four. It is there that we are told that these two apostles were assigned two distinctively different tasks. The apostle Peter was assigned to the gospel dispensation to the Circumcision, and the apostle Paul was assigned the gospel dispensation to the Uncircumcision. Now it is important for us to understand, that these two dispensations were never intended to be the same: otherwise Peter would never have separated him self from the Gentiles when his Jewish brethren came from Jerusalem. Then at the very same time, it is obvious that the Jewish Christians who were still holding to some of their traditions from Judaism were never directly rebuked for their practice by anyone from the Jerusalem Church. Nor is there any rebuke for this liturgical blending by the Jews found within the Holy Scriptures themselves. It would seem that the liberating letter for the Gentile Christians that was composed and sent from the Jerusalem Church [Acts 15], was intended to explain some to the transitional differences between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians.)  

“An important piece of evidence for establishing geographical lines and orientation in terms of the history of theology is the testimony a writing gives with respect to the New Testament canon. The KP source is acquainted with the four canonical gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, Galatians and 1 Corinthians.[51] 

[51] Strecker, Judenchristentum, p. 218.[51]  

“It is significant that neither the catholic epistles nor the Apocalypse are known. Thus there is a basic distinction between the attitude of the Kerygmata and the situation that obtained in the West and in wide areas of the East at that time, in which the catholic epistles were in use and the validity of the Apocalypse was only partially contested.[52] 

[52] Cf., among others, J. Leipoldt, Die Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 1 (Leipzig, 1907): 58 f.[52]  

“However, even at a later period these writings were slow to find acceptance in northern and eastern Syria.[53] 

[53] Zahn, Geschichte, 1: 373 ff.; Leipoldt, Entstehung, pp. 74, 222; Bauer, Der Apostolos der Syrer, pp. 76 f.[53]  

“Even the Didascalia does not yet show acquaintance with the catholic epistles and the Apocalypse, as was noted above. This establishes a relation between the KP document and the Didascalia, and confirms the view that both are to be placed in a Syrian locale.

It is noteworthy that, in contrast to the assumption of the ecc