[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Ἡ δὲ τοῦ θανάτου ὁδός ἐστιν αὕτη·
And the way of death is this:

πρῶτον πάντων πονηρά ἐστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή·
First of all, it is evil and full of cursing,
   φόνοι,
   murders,
   μοιχεῖαι,
   adulteries,
   ἐπιθυμίαι,
   lusts,
   πορνεῖαι,
   fornications,
   κλοπαί,
   thefts,
   εἰδωλολατρίαι,
   idolatries,
   μαγεῖαι,
   magical acts,
   φαρμακίαι,
   potion use,
   ἁρπαγαί,
   robberies,
   ψευδομαρτυρίαι,
   false witnessing,
   ὑποκρίσεις,
   hypocrisy,
   διπλοκαρδία,
   double-heartedness,
   δόλος,
   fraud,
   ὑπερηφανία,
   pride,
   κακία,
   malice,
   αὐθάδεια,
   stubbornness,
   πλεονεξία,
   greediness,
   αἰσχρολογία,
   obscenities,
   ζηλοτυπία,
   jealousy,
   θρασύτης,
   arrogance,
   ὕψος,
   haughtiness,
   ἀλαζονεία.
   boastfulness.

διῶκται ἀγαθῶν,
Persecutors of the good,
μισοῦντες ἀληθειαν,
haters of truth,
ἀγαπῶντες ψεῦδος,
lovers of falsehood,
οὐ γινώσκοντες μισθὸν δικαιοσύνης,
not knowing the reward of righteousness,
οὐ κολλώμενοι ἀγαθῷ
not cleaving to the good
   οὐδὲ κρίσει δικαίᾳ,
   nor the righteous judgment,
ἀγρυπνοῦντες οὐκ εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν,
not caring for the good,
   ἀλλ ̓ εἰς τὸ πονηρόν·
   but [caring for] the evil:

ὧν μακρὰν πραΰτης καὶ ὑπομονή,
From whom gentleness and patience are far removed,
μάταια ἀγαπῶντες,
lovers of vanity,
διώκοντες ἀνταπόδομα,
pursuers of reward,
οὐκ ἐλεοῦντες πτωχόν,
not having mercy for the poor,
οὐ πονοῦντες ἐπὶ καταπονουμένῳ,
not toiling for the one who is downtrodden,
οὐ γινώσκοντες τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτούς,
not knowing who has made them,
φονεῖς τέκνων,
murderers of children,
φθορεῖς πλάσματος θεοῦ,
seducers of God's creatures,
ἀποστρεφόμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμενον,
rejectors of the ones in need,
καταπονοῦντες τὸν θλιβόμενον,
oppressors of the afflicted,
πλουσίων παράκλητοι,
defenders of the rich,
πενήτων ἄνομοι κριταί,
lawless judges of the poor,
πανθαμάρτητοι·
people steeped in sin:

ῥυσθείητε, τέκνα, ἀπὸ τούτων ἁπάντων.
Be delivered, children, from all such as these.

Notes

Recall Did 1.1: "There are two says, one of life and one of death; there is great difference between the two ways". From 1.2 through the end of section 4, the first way — the way of life — was discussed. In this chapter the way of death is discussed. And it is done in, essentially, two lists. The first is a list of qualities that reflect actions, preferences and values of those who are following the way of death. The second is a list of sorts of people that are following the way of death. These people and the values they espouse are to be avoided. Irenaeus hints at this in his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching when he writes,

For the road of all those who see is a single upward path, lit by heavenly light; but the ways of those who see not are many and dark and divergent. The former road leads to the kingdom of heaven by uniting man with God, but the others bring down to death by severing man from God. Therefore must both you, and all those who look after the salvation of souls, make your way by faith, without deviation, with courage and determination, lest through lack of tenacity or perseverance you remain at a standstill in material passions, or even be led astray and turn aside from the straight path. (Irenaeus, Proof, paragraph 1)

The Didachist is making this same point. The way of life, discussed in §§1-4, is that which brings us closer to God. The way of death, discussed here, is that which leads us away from God. This is why the Didachist's closing plea in §5 is that the baptismal candidates be as far removed from those on the way of death as possible. The straight path, the path of life, is preferred.

As far as the qualities and sorts of people on these lists, not much can be said. Translating lists like this, particularly where there are similar items and qualities listed (and infrequently used words to boot) is a difficult slog that is never well rewarded. There is always semantic overlap so choice of translation is a bit of a pain. The thing to remember in these lists is that each item points toward painting the picture of the sorts of people and the kinds of actions that those who profess Christ are to avoid being influenced by.

Next we get into Did 6, which is a transition of sorts.

I need to preface this post by saying that I've read enough about linguistics and discourse analysis to be dangerous. This is just about something I noticed, I'm not making an assertion about how the text should be read. Working through things by writing is one of the primary methods I use to think about an issue and to assimilate data regarding an issue or question. So that's what this post is doing. I suppose this is why I find blogging so helpful, because it means I can get feedback on these preliminary sorts of thoughts as well. Also note that I haven't checked commentaries; I like to work through something and then check the commentaries because then I feel I can really interact with them — as opposed to letting them, intentionally or not, direct my study.

Before we start, here's the text in the ESV:

¹² We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, ¹³ and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. ¹⁴ And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. ¹⁵ See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. ¹⁶ Rejoice always, ¹⁷ pray without ceasing, ¹⁸ give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. ¹⁹ Do not quench the Spirit. ²⁰ Do not despise prophecies, ²¹ but test everything; hold fast what is good. ²² Abstain from every form of evil. (1Th 5.12-22)

I'm sure that many folks have noticed the string of imperatives in 1Th 5.14-22. At present (and this will likely change) I see a few sections in 1Th 5.12-22. They can be laid out thusly:

1. vv. 12-13a*
2. vv. 14-22
   • vv. 14-15a
   • vv. 15b-18
   • vv. 19-22

I think there is cohesion between the first two parts because the main verbs of each part (Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί and Παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί) were used together earlier in 1Th 4.1 (Λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ).**

It's what happens in verse 15 where I noticed something that I hadn't noticed before. After realizing there was a plethora of imperatives in the passage, I was slowly working through the syntax of the passage using the OpenText.org clause annotation (inside of Logos Bible Software 3, of course) and I noticed the position of the imperatives. In vv. 14-15a, the imperatives are at the front of the clause, which (depending on what you think about constituent order in Hellenistic Greek) is standard order with the verb first. In v. 15, though, the verse is split by the conjunction ἀλλὰ, providing contrast from the first part of v. 15 to the second part of v. 15, and this is how it is translated: "Ensure that nobody repays anybody evil for evil, but always pursue the good for one another and for everybody" (my own translation). In the Greek, "ensure" is at the front of its clause. But the second clause (joined to the first by the conjunction ἀλλὰ) has its imperative "pursue" at a later position in the clause, then further modified by two prepositional phrases.

After this, through v. 22, each clause has its imperative at the end of the clause. This visualisation I copied from the OpenText.org GNT in Logos Bible Software 3 shows it a little better. Note the highlighting of the imperatives (done using Logos' "Visual Filters" feature). 'P' is for Predicator, 'C' is for Complement, 'S' is for Subject, and 'A' is for Adjunct. The lines are broken into clauses and secondary clauses.

So I began thinking: Does the conjunction ἀλλὰ in v. 15 serve to connect the clauses in v. 15 but also serve a larger function in the discourse? Why, after that point, are adverbs, prepositional phrases, and objects fronted in their clauses with their predicators (here imperative verbs) following.

Admittedly, there are a few options. Here are the ones I thought of.

Option 1: Coincidence. That is, nothing intentional is going on here, this could just be the way the text was written and transmitted. Or the shift in constituent order in v. 15 could be incidental. Or the shift in v. 15 could be intentional, but the following constituent order difference could be coincidental.

Option 2: Focus. In vv. 14-15a, the focus is on the action itself. In vv. 15b-18 the focus is on how the action is carried out, in vv. 19-22 the focus is on to whom the action is done.

Option 3: Recipients of Action. In vv. 14-15a, the action involves things that those in the fellowship are to do to others. In vv. 15b-22, the action involves things that those in the fellowship do in relation not to people, but to ideas or practices.

I'm interested to know what others think regarding the idea that  ἀλλὰ in v. 15 may function both to join the clauses in the verse and perhaps may function at a larger level, joining two paragraphs/pericopes/whatever together. Feel free to comment, send email, whatever. Note I still need to read Denniston's Greek Particles to see if he lists this sort of function as possible for ἀλλὰ.

Whatever the split between vv. 14-15a and 15b-22, the further division of 15b-22 mentioned above is for reasons of subject matter, not strictly due to structure of section.

vv. 15b-18 involve things in relation to worship and obedience to God. The question, of course, is determining the 'this' of "for this is the will of God". What does that include? I don't have that answer at present (whether it is immediate content and therefore vv. 15b-18 or if it goes all the way back to v. 14) so we won't go there.

vv. 19-22 involve negatives, but I think it also proceeds from verse 18. Paul just laid down what the will of God is, vv. 19-22 (still using imperatives, here with fronted objects instead of fronted adjuncts) instruct the Thessalonians how to live now that they have a guide to the will of God: Don't squelch whatever comes, but test it to see if it is the will of God. Embrace it if it is of the will of God, squelch it if it isn't.

* More on 1Th 5.12 on the Logos Bible Software blog ...

** Note that 1Th 4.3 (Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ) compares favorably with 1Th 5.18 (τοῦτο γὰρ θέλημα θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς). Thus we have good evidence of cohesion between that portion of chapter 4 and this part of chapter 5.

It was two weeks ago today (er, Monday ... yeah, I'm postin' late) that my sweetie and I put the wedding invitations in the mail. And tomorrow (that's Tuesday) we'll be going to the county auditor's office to pick up the marriage license! Did you know that the state of Washington has a three day waiting period for marriages? And that the license is only good for 60 days? And that they're more expensive than drivers licenses, even though they're only good for a 60 day window?

In recognition of all of this I figured I'd post some pics of the mailing of the wedding invitations. Enjoy!

That's the happy couple, with scads of invites!

We mailed the invitations in Lynden, WA ... so this
Dutch boy had to get a picture under the sign with
the wooden shoe and tulips!

Kudos and thanks to my future father-in-law Ted for taking the pics and for passing along the files!

Watch out, I'm in "corporate schill" mode again.

Just noticed that Logos Bible Software (my employer) has announced an "Introduction to Biblical Greek Collection" on its pre-pub program. This includes two books:

• Swetnam's Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek
• Zerwick's Biblical Greek, Illustrated by Examples

How cool is that?!

Update (2006-06-21): Logos added another pre-pub: Moulton-Howard-Turner's four volumes on Greek Grammar, including another volume from Turner on Grammatical Insights.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Οὐκ ἀρεῖς τὴν χεῖρα σου ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ σου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς θυγατρός
Do not lift your hand against your son or against your daughter
   ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ νεότητος διδάξεις τὸν φόβον τοῦ θεοῦ.
   but from their youth teach them the fear of God.

οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις δούλῳ σου ἢ παιδίσκῃ,
Do not command your male or female slaves
   τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν θεὸν ἐλπίζουσιν,
   who are hoping in the same God,
   ἐν πικρίᾳ σου,
   in your bitterness,
   μήποτε οὐ μὴ φοβηθήσονται τὸν ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέροις θεόν·
   lest they cease to fear the God who is over you both.
   οὐ γὰρ ἔρχεται κατὰ πρόσωπον καλέσαι,
   For he does not call according to circumstance,
      ἀλλ’ ἐφ’ οὓς τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν.
      but [calls] those whom the Spirit has prepared.

ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι ὑποταγήσεσθε τοῖς κυρίοις ὑμῶν ὡς τύπῳ θεοῦ
And you who are slaves be subject to your masters as to a copy of God
   ἐν αἰσχύνῃ καὶ φόβῳ.
   in reverence and fear.

Μισήσεις πᾶσαν ὑπόκρισιν καὶ πᾶν ὃ μὴ ἀρεστὸν τῷ κυρίῳ.
Hate all hypocrisy and all that is not pleasing to the Lord.

οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἐντολὰς κυρίου,
Do not forsake commandments of the Lord,
   φυλάξεις δὲ ἃ παρέλαβες,
   but guard that which you have received,
      μήτε προστιθεὶς
      neither adding
      μήτε ἀφαιρῶν.
      nor taking away.

ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐξομολογήσῃ τὰ παραπτώματά σου,
Confess your wrongdoings in the church,
   καὶ οὐ προσελεύσῃ ἐπὶ προσευχήν σου ἐν συνειδήσει πονηρᾷ·
   and do not enter into your prayer with an evil conscience.

αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς.
This is the way of life.

Notes

There are several groups within this overall section. The first has to do with interaction with others, it is broken into two groups. The first group is children. Christian parents are not to instill fear of themselves into children, they are to instill fear of God into children. A child might obey if punishment from a parent is feared. But this is not proper for the baptismal candidate. Instead, his children must fear God because in fearing God children will honor parents and glorify God.

A similar plea is made to the second group, slaves. Christians who have slaves that are believers must treat those slaves as brothers and sisters. For God is the one who places people into their respective situations. There is nothing prohibiting slaves from becoming believers, so if they are confessing brothers and sisters they must be recognized as such. This, however, is not a free pass for slaves. Slaves, likewise, have been placed in their circumstance by God so they should honor their masters and therefore honor God.

After the instruction on slaves and children comes a statement that helps in transitioning to a new section: "Hate all hypocrisy and all that is not pleasing to the Lord". This is transitionary because it applies to the previous section — parents who instill fear of parents into children, masters who mistreat slaves, and slaves who disonor masters, if they claim to be Christian, are hypocrites. Their actions do not align with their confession. Similarly, points that follow outline proper action and the baptismal candidate should not depart from them.

The following section, then, builds off of this with two primary points:

• keep the commandments
• confess transgressions

But these really boil down to the same thing: Obey, and confess when you don't obey. The emphasis is obedience. The hypocrite is the one who professes to obey but doesn't, and then doesn't confess his disobedience as wrong and seek forgiveness.

Each of these primary points is augmented a bit. Only the commandments received are to be adhered to; the baptismal candidate should be wary of the one who comes bringing new commandments to obey. Likewise, the commandments that are given are not to be subtracted from. If a teacher comes along professing that commandments do not apply, the baptismal candidate should be wary.

Regarding confession, it is interesting that wrongdoings (or transgressions) are to be confessed in the church. There is, it appears, some accountability and public confession going on. The baptismal candidate is to take responsibility for his wrongdoings and confess of them. He is also to not "enter into his prayer with an evil conscience". This is interesting as well. Is this directly related to his confession? Does this mean that as he confesses, he is not to do so with haste and disgust or even hatred at those keeping him accountable? Perhaps.

The whole section (from Did 1.2 through Did 4.13) ends with an inclusio, repeating the same text that started the section: "This is the way of life". This bounds the whole section, so we know that the Didachist's life-giving teaching ends here.

The next section will begin the flip side: the way of death.  

After reading Hill's stuff (see post below) I'm convinced, once again, that I need to do some serious reading of Irenaeus.

The problem is that I have no idea what a good modern edition of Irenaeus would be. I'd like something that doesn't sound like the KJV. If it has the Greek and notes that is bonus. Something like a Loeb edition with a modern translation would be perfect, but I'd also go for a cheap (but good) modern English translation and a recommendation as to which Greek edition to pursue (assuming the organizing schemes between the two editions are compatible).

Any help? Any ideas? Feel free to leave a comment or email me with edition citations.

Thanks!

Update (2006-06-13): I purchased two volumes. One is Irenaeus' Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. The other is Book I of Irenaeus' Against the Heresies. Both are volumes from Paulist Press' Ancient Christian Writers series. Note they only have Book I of Against Heresies, I guess I'll find another edition to cover the balance unless they rush out with the balance of it. If anyone has any leads on decent English editions of others of Irenaeus' works, please feel free to let me know, either via email or through comments on this post (comments are preferred).

About six weeks ago, I blogged about the first part of Charles E. Hill's book From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, where he argues (somewhat convincingly) that Polycarp is the source of Irenaeus' anonymous presbyter in AH 4.27-32.

I read the second part of the book today. Amy is at a bridal shower, so after I got some chores 'round the house done (mowed the lawn, pressure-washed the driveway and front walk) I figured I could sit down with a book for awhile and get lost. Since I'd been meaning to get back into Hill's book (disclaimer: I took a year of Greek and a class on the Johannines from Dr. Hill when he was at Northwestern College) it seemed the thing to pick up.

As Hill himself mentions, the links between Polycarp and the work known as the Epistle to Diognetus (henceforth ad Diognetum) are largely circumstantial and cannot, with current data, be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That said, Hill makes a strong case. As a result of reading his work, I'm more ready to say that the work likely came from a Smyrnaean milieu, though a specific, direct tie to Polycarp is another matter.

For me, there are just too many jumps to make in order to get there. Each step seems legitimate, but as a group the whole seems rickety. Granted, there are few if any other theories about the authorship of ad Diognetum that do as well as Hill's in covering bases. But the textual jumps are, I think, too strained. They could be used as evidence with other more certain proof, but standing on their own they are inconclusive.

What are they? I'll say first off that Hill has many more parallels (textual, cultural, epigraphic, and geographic) than I'll list here. If you're interested, you need to read the book.

The primary jump -- the initial one Hill makes, anyway -- seems to be from the Martyrdom of Polycarp to chapters 11-12 of ad Diognetum. Hill makes a strong case that Polycarp was known as a "disciple of the apostles", language in common between Martyrdom of Polycarp and ad Diognetum. But from here we have to jump back from the Martyrdom -- an account of Polycarp's death with some reported speech that may or may not be accurate -- to Polycarp himself. And we have to jump over the large lacunae between chapters 10 and 11 of ad Diognetum.

Hill does this well. He makes a strong case for the unity of the ad Diognetum, positing that the lacunae are missing sheets from the same document, not a work of someone else pasted on the end of the ad Diognetum.* Hill also then makes the case that ad Diognetum is protreptic, that is, it is a work that was read by the author in the presence of Diognetus; it wasn't a letter. Hill finds other similarites between reported speech of Polycarp in the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

And again, it all could be, but to me it seems too stretched to stand on its own. Hill's thesis is worthy of consideration, but it, with current knowledge, cannot be proven. Even Hill admits that. In his preface he writes:

At the outset I will state that the two cases [i.e., Polycarp as source of AH 4.27-32 and Polycarp as source of ad Diognetum] rest on quite different sets of evidence; each case is presented and should be evaluated separately. The first will render results which, I will suggest, may be treated as a certainty. The results of the second rest, I believe, high in the realms of probability, though perhaps not quite at the same level as the first.

From my perspective, I can agree with this. That is, I think Polycarp as source of ad Diognetum is within the realms of probability as a result of reading Hill's work; but I do think it is still far from certain.

If you have an interest in the Apostolic Fathers, particularly in Polycarp, the ad Diognetum, or Irenaeus; or if you have an interest in authorship studies or general texutal analysis, I recommend Hill's work with enthusiasm.

Update (2006-06-04): Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) asks about where Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians fits into this whole theory. It does fit in, but Hill finds more parallels in the martyrdom because it is more contemporary with ad Diognetam in Hill's view. The martrydom happened in 155 or 156 (likely); Hill places ad Diognetam in the 140s. The epistle, however, is much earlier (30 years earlier, at least, perhaps 40). Hill also sees differences in genre. The epistle is just that, an epistle. The ad Diognetam is apologetic and intended to be given as an address to convince. This is why Hill focuses more on the reported speech sections of the Martyrdom; if they are accurate of Polycarp's style of debate and presentation, then they will likely show more parallels. Hill does have a whole section (pp. 136-140) on the corresponences between Polycarp's epistle and ad Diognetam. One major item of correspondence is discussion of Christ's atoning as substitutionary, which Hill says "is not at all comon elsewhere in the second century": Poly 1.2, Poly 8.1, Poly 9.2 compared to Diog 9.2-5.

* I think the case is strong enough that the adherents of the general consensus that chaps 1-10 and 11-12 are from different documents need to respond to the case presented by Hill.