At Traditio apostolica 41.5-6 we read:
And if indeed you are in your house, pray at the third hour and praise God. But if you are elsewhere and the occasion comes about, pray in your heart to God. For at that hour Christ was displayed nailed to the tree. For this reason also in the Old the Law prescribed that the shewbread should be offered at every hour as a type of the Body and Blood of Christ; and the slaughter of the speechless lamb is this, a type of the perfect lamb. For the shepherd is Christ, and also the bread which came down from heaven.
There is a variation in the Aksumite Ethiopic here. The text reads: “Pay careful attention to the time; for at that time we anticipate the return of Christ,” before going on to discuss the types of the shewbread and the lamb.
In any event it is hard to disentangle the logic here.
I have now come across the comments of Wenrich Slenczka, Heilsgeschichte und Liturgie: Studien zum Verhältnis von Heilsgeschichte und Heilsteilhabe anhand liturgischer und katechetischer Quellen des dritten und vierten Jahrhunderts (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 78; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000) at 27-29 (a catchy title if every I saw one.) This I missed, so must admit to an error of omission in the second edition of my commentary.
Slenczka suggests that the verse regarding the shewbread is a gloss on 42B.3 (the following chapter)
This (the protecting power of God) Moses showed in the paschal sheep which was slaughtered. He sprinkled the blood on the threshold and anointed the doorposts, and showed forth that faith in the perfect sheep which is now in us.
This, it must be admitted, is possible though, as Slenczka admits, would have occurred early in the process of transmission. My problem with the suggestion is that, although I can see the connection between Moses’s lamb and Christ (not hard) the logic of the shewbread is less obvious, and the connection between the placarding of Christ (which is the connection with the shewbread) and the protecting power of the blood (which is the context for the mention of the lamb and its blood in chapter 42) creates a tension almost as difficult as the crux of interpretation that the movement of the verse is meant to solve.
In my Ignatius I wrote that, since Hadrian arrived in Rome in 135, Ignatius might have been writing in 134. This is in the context of my suggestion that Ignatius travelled with Hadrian on his journey to Rome.
In revising my paper from the Oxford conference, dealing with Ignatius’ “docetic” opponents, I now realize that Hadrian was actually in Rome already in 134; I think I was confused because Hadrian’s salutatio imperatoria after the Bar Kosiba revolt took place in August of 135. In other words, my date for Ignatius’ correspondence needs to be revised by a year (or possibly two, as there is some obscurity over the date and direction of Hadrian’s last journey.)
Nonetheless, I continue to hold a Hadrianic date for Ignatius’ correspondence, and to read it in the light of the rupture brought about between Jewish Christ-believers and other Jews by the revolt. This is better than the traditional Trajanic date, and does not present the problems caused by seeing the whole correspondence as a forgery.
Nothing to do with church orders really, but the opportunity is too good to pass up, in an idle moment, to post the e-rrata for my Vita Polycarpi. And there are a lot of them… Especial thanks to Tony Gelston; his sharp eye is responsible for most of the observations. If the Greek diacriticals look a bit funny, try copying them and pasting to your word processor, altering the font to a decent Unicode Greek font.
P. 100, line 22 of chapter 7: for ἰβόλα read ἰοβόλα.
P. 102, line 9 of chapter 9: for ἐγμαθώρμισται read ἐγκαθώρμισται.
P. 104, line 16 of chapter 10: for προσηκόντας read προσηκόντως.
P. 129: the last sentence of the translation of chapter 24 should read: And insofar as you know that you are taught all these things by God as you search the divinely-inspired Scriptures, so may they remain inscribed on your hearts by the pen of the Holy Spirit, so that the commandments may remain in you ineffaceable.
P. 130, line 12 of chapter 25: delete entire line.
P. 132, line 34 of chapter 27: for ὁκνήσῃς read ὀκνήσῃς.
P. 136, line 14 of chapter 29: for ὑπεισῆλον read ὑπεισῆλθεν.
P. 141: the third sentence of the translation of chapter 31 should read: And he said to them: “Let us be mindful, brothers, of the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, ‘Ask and it shall be given to you’ (Matt 7:7).”
As already noted, the impetus for starting this was an error in my version of the Didascalia.
So here’s the correction, an e-rratum:
Page 189 (Didascalia Apostolorum 3.9.2): For “For were it lawful for a woman to be baptized…” read “For were it lawful for a woman to baptize…” This error is replicated in the introduction, on page 65, where this text is quoted.