Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
  • Calendar
    • Calendar
    • Events
  • Blog
  • Recording Archives
  • Resources
    • Bible Study - John's Gospel
    • Greek Tutorials
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Position Papers
  • Sandbox

Eucharist in Didache

2/24/2023

0 Comments

 
2/24/2023
Scholarly Reflections

LaVerdiere, Eugene. "Chapter Nine: On the Lord's Day: The Eucharist in the Didache." The Eucharist in the New Testament and the Early Church. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press (Pueblo), 1996, 112-147.

LaVerdiere asserts that the Didache underwent a process of collecting, collating, and redacting statements amounting to about fifty years, resulting in the form of it which we now have (LaVerdiere 1996, 128). The eucharist appears in chapters 9-10 and 14, along with a reference to "the Lord's Day." Because of its early representation of Christianity outside of the canonical tradition, the Didache is a valuable witness.

Of interest to LaVerdiere is the fact that the eucharistic prayers in the Didache "were not integrated into the New Testament while so many other traditions were" (LaVerdiere 1996, 129). Traditions, however, exist only within a community. For this reason, it is important to identify the community and its relationship with other communities such as those which are related to the canonical writings. LaVerdiere asserts that, while the community surrounding Matthew's Gospel was open to change, the Didache community was not (LaVerdiere 1996, 130-131). Traditions were held and were not to be altered.

LaVerdiere reviews the traditional scholarly view of development of the Didache in several redactional layers (LaVerdiere 1996, 132ff). The various sections are considered earlier or later based on how explicitly they discuss Christology. LaVerdiere thinks the ideas brought in at the different stages were not new. Their incorporation was intended to deal with particular problems the community had at the time (LaVerdiere 1996, 138). 

The eucharistic prayers, like other parts of the Didache, incorporate traditional materials (LaVerdiere 1996, 139). They surround a meal, which would have already been a meaningful context within a Jewish or early Christian community. LaVerdiere considers that the prayers from Didache 9-10 come from the early development of the community (LaVerdiere 1996, 139). These prayers fit into Jewish patterns, particularly a Kiddush and an Amidah (LaVerdiere 1996, 140). The prayers are simple and straightforward. In the second stage of the development of the community, still referring to chapters 9-10, LaVerdiere considers there to be some minimal insertion of Christological elements (LaVerdiere 1996, 141). Finally, LaVerdiere sees the material about true and false apostles and prophets, including what they do in the eucharist on the Lord's Day as development in the third stage (LaVerdiere 1996, 143). Though LaVerdiere is not convinced that this passage describes a eucharist as celebrated today, he does take the event to be, in the minds of the community, a eucharist, but that it was not understood in terms of the passion and resurrection of Christ, so was not "a real Eucharist" (LaVerdiere 1996, 145). 

​
0 Comments

Matthew and the Didache

2/10/2023

0 Comments

 
2/10/23
Scholarly Reflections

Massaux, Éduard. "Chapter Seven: The Didache." The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus: Book 3: The Apologists and the Didache. (Translated by Norman J. Belval and Suzanne Hecht. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1993, 144-182.

Though Massaux admits freely that dating of the Didache is unclear, he classes it with the later second century works. As he has done elsewhere, he begins with an evaluation of passages that show a strong relationship to Matthew's Gospel (Massaux 1993, 144). The opening line seems, in many ways, to continue directly from the command of Jesus i nMatthew 28:18-20, constituting what the apostles taught the nations. Though the Didache seems to come from an early time, Massaux notes tha at four points it refers  to "the gospel" and that it is at least tempting to understand that as reference to a written document. Massaux contends that there is a clear literary contact between the Didache and Matthew (Massaux 1993, 145).

Massaux begins his analysis with litearry contact between the Didache and Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (Massaux 1993, 145). The command to love God and the neighbor (1.2) is a clear echo of a biblical command. While Massaux finds the wording equally close to Matthew and Mark, he thinks it is drawn from Matthew, since elsewhere the author does not borrow from Mark (Massaux 1993, 146). This command is followed immediately by a negative statement of the Golden Rule, from Matthew 7:12. The wording is more similar to that of Matthew than to Luke (Massaux 1993, 147). Further, Massaux notes that, like Jesus in Matthew, the Didache ties the rule to two different ways, one of life and one of death. In Didache 1.3, then, the author speaks of blessing and praying for your opponents. Massaux finds parallels in Matthew and Luke, but not identity of wording (Massaux 1993, 147-148). This is the normal process for the Didache. Massaux observes, "whenever the author refers to the text of Mt, he does not cite it literally, except for the Lord's Prayer" (Massaux 1993, 149). A paraphrase is par for the course.

Didache 1.4 and 5a presents a number of slightly discrete commands. Massaux compares these with statements foudn in the Sermon on the Mount (Massaux 1993, 150-151). Based on similarity of vocabulary Massaux sees strong evidence of literary contact. As to the remainder of Didache 1.5, there is a strong similarity to Jesus' warning of Matthew 5:25-26.

Massaux observes that the Didache does not borrow woodenly from sources. The material leading up to Didache 3.7 follows a pattern of Hellenistic Jewish moralistic teaching with a list of vices, then contextualizes the list with an almost direct quote of Matthew 5:5, "the meek shall inherit the land" (Massaux 1993, 152-153). This demonstrates comfort on the part of the author. Massaux continues with 6.2 which artfully draws on Matthew 11:29-30; 19:21; and 5:48.

The Didache makes connections which are similar to those in Matthew. In chatper 8, where the Lord's Prayer is presented, it is placed in a very similar context and nearly identical form to that used in Matthew, as opposed to the usage in Luke (Massaux 1993, 154). 

In Didache 9.5 the author claims a quotation directly from the Lord. This specific statement is only in Matthew 7:6, "Do not give that which is holy to dogs" (Massaux 1993, 156). The context shows creativity, as the Didache speaks about teaching around the Eucharist which must be preserved. However, the quotation clearly shows dependence on Matthew. Another passage only found in Matthew speaks to the importance of reconciliation. It must be completed or the sacrifice/offering we bring is defiled (Massaux 1993, 156). Finally, Massaux observes that "prayers and alms" in Didache 15.4 strongly recalls Matthew chapter 6. Of importance is the reference to doing everything in accord with the "Gospel of our Lord." Because of the other references to passages in Matthew, Massaux takes the statement as a reference to a written Gospel account (Massaux 1993, 157).

Massaux next reviews passages from the Didache which are related to Matthew's Gospel but not the Sermon on the Mount. Didache 5.1-2 has a substantial catalogue of sins. Massaux provides a side-by-side chart of this passage, of Barnabas 20.1-2, and of statements from Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21 (Massaux 1993, 158-159). While there is some apparent contact with Matthew, the real similarities are between the Didache and Barnabas (Massaux 1993, 160). The same holds true for a catalogue of sinners which follows.

Didache 10.5-6 has multiple points of contact with Matthew. The arrangement suggests to Massaux a liturgical segment. The citations of Matthew are scattered broadly (Massaux 1993, 162).

Didache 11.3-9 again shows contact with various passages in Matthew. The instruction is to act toward apostles "according to the doctrine of the Gospel" (Massaux 1993, 163). While Massaux doesn't find any word for word quotation in the material, he finds many possible allusions. He reviews the five statements which follow individually (Massaux 1993, 164-166). Each shows some sign of literary contact with Matthew.

Didache 13.1-2 refers verbatim to Matthew 10:10, where the worker is worthy of his food (Massaux 1993, 166). Finally, in Didache 15.3 resolution of conflicts is very similar to Matthew 5:22 and especially Matthew 18:15-17 (Massaux 1993, 167). Massaux again sees evidence of the author of the Didache being familiar with, but not always quoting Matthew.

Massaux deals with Didache 16 verse by verse, identifying parallels in columns (Massaux 1993, 168ff). Because this chapter is less directly connected to my research interests I will not provide much detail of his investigation. The various statements show considerable relation the thought processes in Matthew.

Massaux finally moves briefly to texts which, while they may show a relationship to Matthew, he finds it doubtful (Massaux 1993, 174). Didache 2.1-3 speaks of a "second command" but it is not so much related to a first command of loving God and a second of love for neighbor. Didache 7.1 and 7.3 present a baptismal formula. The trinitarian formula, found in Matthew 28:19, is present. However, Massaux thinks the passage may have simply picked up the typical wording from common baptismal ritual (Massaux 1993, 175). Massaux concludes, then, that the author of the Didache was familiar with and even dependent on Matthew, though he did not reliably choose to make direct quotations (Massaux 1993, 175-176).

Massaux briefly reviews passages in which the Didache shows evidence of contact with other New Testament writings. An exception he notes is that the Didache does not seem influenced at all by Mark's Gospel (Massaux 1993, 177). Contact with Luke and John is minimal. Massaux does find a number of passages which may have some similarity in ideas to Acts, the Pauline epistles, the Petrine writings, and the general epistles, as well as Revelation. however, the passages are not lengthy, and are generally common ideas.

​
0 Comments

Literary Connections and Didache

2/1/2023

0 Comments

 
2/1/23
Scholarly Reflections

Jefford, Clayton. "Chapter Three: Related Investigations." The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Leiden: Brill, 1989, 93-145.

Jefford here asks whether Didache chaper six is more connected to chapters 1-5 or to chapters 7-15 (Jefford 1989, 93). He finds strong evidence for an influence of a source other than that of chapters 1-5, and particularly a source related to Paul. He takes from this a level of redaction which, unlike for chapters 1-5, had Paul's epistles as a source.

An important element to Jefford is the reference in Didache 6.2 to "the yoke of the Lord" (Jefford 1989, 95). While the word is used in Matthew 11:28-30, the context doesn't seem to point the same direction. In the Didache, the Christian is assumed to take on the yoke of the Lord in whatever way he is able. Didache 6.3 goes on to speak of food sacrificed to idols, a concept which first comes up in Paul (Rom. 14, 1 Cor. 8, 1 Cor. 10) (Jefford 1989, 96). The Didache speaks of this matter only briefly, while it is addressed at greater length in the biblical texts.

Jefford moves on to an exploration of Didache 6.2-3 and Acts 15:23-29 (Jefford 1989, 96ff). Paul's involvement in the council of Acts 15, and his interactions with the concept of the decree, suggests a connection between his thought and Didache 6 (Jefford 1989, 97).

Considering the connections between Paul's thought and that of the assumed redactor of Didache 6, Jefford speaks of the importance of world view in analysis of writings. Chaptesr 1-5 of the Didache can express an understanding of the community as part of established Judaism, while chapers 7-15 may see the community in terms of Hellenistic Christianity (Jefford 1989, 98). With this feature in mind, Jefford moves on to analyze the major sections of the Didache and probe the redactional worldviews.

In chapters 1-5, Jefford finds a rigid dualism, which he considers to be characteristic of much of Judaism and early Christianity (Jefford 1989, 100). The presence of the decalogue, but with significant alterations, refins the picture. In this, Jefford finds the cultural isolationism of Judaism when faced with opposition. The rpesece of some elements from early traditions about Jesus moves us to understand the community in terms of nascent Christianity which still considers Torah as its foundational code (Jefford 1989, 101).

In chapters 7-10 Jefford finds a shift from a concern of the creedal nature of the decalogue to a concern with correct ritual observance (Jefford 1989, 103). This shift is consistent with the early Christian move toward liturgical traditions, a pattern which Jefford finds in Paul (Jefford 1989, 104). Interestingly, Jefford applies the teaching requirement and the trinitarian formula of Didache 7 to this concept, understanding the liturgical element to be more important than what it represents (Jefford 1989, 104). Likewise, the prayers surrounding the eucharistic meal are treated as bearing importance, whihe the content of the meal and its underlying significance seems less important (Jefford 1989, 105). In this, Jefford says, "I disagree with the observation of Peters (Harvest, 492), who teands to see this eucharistic liturgy in the Didache as already 'fairly sophisticated.' Indeed, the perspective of the Didache is quite divergent from the 'Christ cult' idea of eucharist that is found both in the Pauline and in the Synoptic traditions" (Jefford 1989, 105, footnote, cf. Peters, Francis E. The Harvest of Hellenism: A History of the Near East from Alexander the Great to the Triumph of Christianity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1970). The liturgical concern is accompanied by a lack of specific Christology, which moves Jefford to assign an early date to the Didache (Jefford 1989, 106). He further takes the material in chapters 7-10 as representing a ritual manner in which the precepts for chapters 1-5 could be applied.

Jefford identifies yet another change in worldview in Didache chapters 11-15 (Jefford 1989, 108). Here, the bishops, deacons, and resident prophets are discussed in their relationship to wandering apostles and prophets. Jefford sees here the development of a local identity and governing structure which, without direct reference to Torah, would be able to deal with external societal pressures (Jefford 1989, 109). The heart of dealing with these pressures is seen as holding to orthodox teaching. True prophets are to be recognized and false prophets are not. Overall, the chapters focus on a coherent social order within the community (Jefford 1989, 112). This is similar to chapters 1-5.

Jefford's next investigation deals with chapter 16 and 1.3b-2.1. Some commentators suggest the two passages belong to the same redactional layer, while others are less certain (Jefford 1989, 113). The passages contain relatively densely packed phrases and concepts which are clearly tied to New Testament material.

The question of a heirarchy within the community is significant. Jefford observes that Matthew makes some assumptions of heirarchy in ecclesiastical leadership (Jefford 1989, 118). Jefford sees Peter's role as a lead apostle to be a creation which emphasizes heirarchy and a departure from the Judaism which recognizes the educated elite (Jefford 1989, 119). Yet the Christian community stll has a heirarchy, with apostles, prophets, regular discioples, and others.

One of the puzzles in our attempts to harmonize the progress of early Christian development is the fact that the Didache identifies bishops and deacons, but not presbyters (Jefford 1989, 123). The role of a bishop could possibly be the same as that of a presbyter, with a distinction arising at a later date. Yet the term for presbyter, rooted in Judaism, would seem the most intuitive to use in a document with such clear Judaic roots (Jefford 1989, 124). A challenge which Jefford notes in all of the possible explanations of the heirarchy is that the instruction in the Didache is for the community, not the leaders, to baptize and appoint bishops and deacons (Jefford 1989, 125). The leaders are discussed in functional terms - what they do, rather than in terms of character. This is also a challenge, as one would assume the function of baptizing and appointing officials would belong to the officials (Jefford 1989, 127). This all contributes to a rather complex view of the community.

In his attempt to identify a community, Jefford suggests a set of Jewish-Gentile interactions around Antioch prior to 70 AD, as Christianity was growing and becoming distinct from Judaism (Jefford 1989, 128). Jefford then reviews salient issues in reconstructing the community. These include a tradition of the Decalog and Jewish wisdom and sayings traditions (Jefford 1989, 129). There are influences from a Matthean source, though not necessarily the Gospel (Jefford 1989, 130). There are certainly common elements in the thought of the Didache and of Matthew's Gospel. Jefford compares some specifically, in terms of review. Jewish and Gentile Christianity are not entirely in agreement (Jefford 1989, 133). Language and terminology usage are also similar. Jefford finds this to be the case particularly in regard to ritual and traditional elements, suggesting a strong affinity between the wo traditions (Jefford 1989, 135). Jefford particularly describes the similar views on baptism (Jefford 1989, 13), fasting, prayer (Jefford 1989, 137), and table fellowshiop (Jefford 1989, 138). As those have all been discussed earlier in this book, he presents them only in a brief summary here.

Jefford's overall conclusion is that the Didache uses sayings from a Jesus tradition and other early Judeo-Christian sources extensively (Jefford 1989, 142). He sees the work developed in several stages, gradually showing more sophisticated Christian theology.

​
0 Comments

Source and Purpose of Two Ways Texts

1/31/2023

0 Comments

 
1/31/23
Scholarly Reflections

Jefford, Clayton. "Chapter Two: Review of Texts." The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Leiden: Brill, 1989, 22-92.

Jefford observes that the opening of the Didache, asserting two differing ways, one of life and one of death, leads scholars to assume a source of information about the ways, one on which the first five chapters of the Didache would be predicated (Jefford 1989, 22). This has further led scholars to assume chapters 1-5 and possibly 16 are built on this source, and that the other chapters were created separately and later. Jefford notes that chapters 6-15 seem unrelated to chapters 1-5 and 16 (Jefford 1989, 23). The model of a source for the Two Ways material is made more clear by recognition of Two Ways material in  Barnabas which appears related but more likely in the manner of having a common source.

Jefford notes that dualism of a positive and negative way of life is common in both the Old Testament and the Apocrypha (Jefford 1989, 24). He further notes statements in Matthew 7:13-14 (Luke 13:23-24) which present the same idea. He finds it generally absent in Luke, which suggests to him a source in "the Matthean version of the Q saying" (Jefford 1989, 25). However, Jefford is not certain that in and of itself the Two Ways material is dualistic to the extent we might assume from the Synoptic Gospels. He takes it to be better informed by Old Testament wisdom passages (Jefford 1989, 26).

The fact that the baptismal materials in the Didache follows on the heels of the Two Ways suggests to many that the Two Ways serve as a dualistic catechesis (Jefford 1989, 26). Once one subscribes to the way of life he would be baptized. This seems reasonably consistent with Jewish patterns of catechesis, particularly as recorded in 1QS 3.13-4:26 (Jefford 1989, 27). However, Jefford takes the material to be more akin to an ethical gathering of community rules which may or may not be associated with baptism.

Jefford moves on to a comparison of Didache 1.2a-b with Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:30-31, and Luke 10:27, then Didache 1.20 with Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31, presenting Greek text in parallel columns (Jefford 1989, 29-30). His subsequent analysis is couched in terms of redactional choices of one word over another, possibly signaling a source for a reading. The investigation hopes to find a definitive source for the Didache's language of loving God and loving the neighbor (Jefford 1989, 31). The Gold Rule in Didache 1.2c is found in a negative form, common in Jewish and Hellenistic thought (Jefford 1989, 33). Jefford notes that the positive form, from Matthew and Luke, is the exception. Jefford suggests that the Didache normally depended on the Sayings Gospel Q, but that here the author consciously departs. Jefford further suggests at least three sources for the redactor (Jefford 1989, 34). The conclusion is that the Didachist must have borrowed consciously from some tradition other than Q, and that Matthew may have been a source for the double love command but not for the Golden Rule (Jefford 1989, 38).

Didache 1.3b-2.1 is a passage which sparks debate, as it is more distinctively Christian in nature and doesn't appear to be the result of a long strand of tradition (Jefford 1989, 39). Jefford considers each saying individually, attempting to trace a source and a role in the Didache as a whole, after his parallel comparison (Jefford 1989, 39-42). Again, it is not clear that specific language has been borrowed consistently from Matthew, Luke, or the hypothetical Q source (Jefford 1989, 43). Jefford does identify an association of ideas of praise, of prayer, and of fasting. This can be identified in veraious sources, on the level of ideas, if not in specific language usage (Jefford 1989, 44). Though the wording cannot be identified, Jefford continues to seek out scenarios by which it could have been derived. Jefford's analysis of giving from Didache 1.5 follows the same pattern (Jefford 1989, 48ff). The saying of 1.6 follows (Jefford 1989, 51ff), likewise yielding an opinion that the saying was probably common within early Christianity but that a source can't be positively identified for the exact wording.

Jefford continues with an analysis of Didache 2.2-7, which he considers an older level of the text (Jefford 1989, 53). He evaluates the possibility of the material being drawn from an Old Testament text or possibly some later source, modified to serve Christian purposes (Jefford 1989, 54). As before, Jefford presents chunks of parallel text and analyzes them. The material is generally tied to the Decalog, however, it shows expansion and rearrangement (Jefford 1989, 56). Again, while Jefford finds conceptual parallels in various places, he doesn't find sources for exact wording, and assigns the work to a redactor who drew from numerous sources, adjusting them all (Jefford 1989, 61-62).

As Jefford movs into Didache chapter three he finds the material to serve as protection for the principles in chapter two (Jefford 1989, 63). A significant feature is the presence of two separate lists of admonitions, one of which has a parallel in Banabas 19.7. Didache 3.2-6 has no parallel in Barnabas and is arranged in a "strophic pattern that is not revealed elsewhere in the Didache" (Jefford 1989, 64). The concepts are generally assumed to be drawn from Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, and Matthew 5. Jefford observes that this emphasis on the Mosaic Law as a given suggests a time period before the rise of substantial Gentile Christianity (Jefford 1989, 68). Verses 8-10, with a strong parallel in Barnabas 19.3-6, suggest use of a source common to the Didache and Barnabas (Jefford 1989, 69). Jefford evaluates the statements which are prallel in the two documents. The statement of 3.7 "be meek…" has a clear parallel in Psalm 37 and Matthew 5 (Jefford 1989, 73). Jefford sees the realization that poor people should be cared for as a relatively late concept. The statement in Matthew 5 has an alteration in structure, which Jefford thinks disconnects it from Didache 3.7 (Jefford 1989, 75-76). In the end, Jefford concludes that the concept was meaningful within the community and that the Didachist sought the passage out in Psalm 37 or in whatever text served as a source for Matthew 5.5 (Jefford 1989, 80-81).

As Didache 3 served as a protective fence around the Decalog, Jefford finds chapters 4-5 to serve as another fence (Jefford 1989, 81). In chapters 4-5, the catechumen is presented with positive attitudes and behaviors which will keep him from entering into sin (Jefford 1989, 82). Jefford finds extensive parallels with Barnabas 19-20, but not with Matthew. Much of the ordering is similar to that of  Barnabas, but the Didache contains a number of elements which are not present in Barnabas (Jefford 1989, 83-84).

Jefford finally visits Didache 16, the apocalyptic passage (Jefford 1989, 85ff). He finds the task of tracing Old Testament or other Jewish foundations unclear, but finds numerous parallels for the ideas within the Synoptic traditions. Jefford's parallel comparison of texts underlines the difficulty of finding parallel wording among these passages (Jefford 1989, 85-87). This leads Jefford to suggest a dependence on a source which would have been available both to the Didachist and the Synoptic redactors (Jefford 1989, 88). Jefford briefly tips his hat to the presence of oral tradition, but his effort as a whole is focused on a literary model (Jefford 1989, 90). In conclusion, Jefford finds thematic and structural similarity with other texts but cannot identify a specific source for the material in Didache 1-6 and 16. He assumes it to be a source which was also used for other materials. 

0 Comments

Where Did the Didache Come From?

1/30/2023

0 Comments

 
1/30/23
Scholarly Reflections

Jefford, Clayton. "Chapter One: Introduction." The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Leiden: Brill, 1989, 1-21.

Jefford describes the time of the discovery of the Didache as a time when biblical scholarship was moving into new and exciting fields of inquiry (Jefford 1989, 1). The Didache represented a document which tied the inquiries into biblical texts and patristic history together. In the rush of studies, Jefford observes that dating and origin of the text has not been resolved adequately, leaving students to build further theories about the Didache on a foundation which is not stable (Jefford 1989, 2).

Assumptions of date and origin have centered around the sayings found in Didache chapters 1-5 and 16 (Jefford 1989, 3). The content of the sayings is normally assumed to be found in Didache 7-15, which may represent the last stage of the composition process. Jefford says of the methodology, "Rarely are the sayings examined and then dated according to their own merits, and rarely is the nature of that community which produced the Didache judged according to the traditio-historical and sociological parameters under which these sayings materials appeared" (Jefford 1989, 4). In other words, the sayings are not considered as important in their own right.

Jefford goes on to discuss the three main schools of thought about the text of the Didache. In the French school, Sabatier (1885) took it to be a church manual which shows extensive signs of early Judaic Christianity and which antedated Paul's epistles (Jefford 1989, 4). Massaux (1950) suggested an influence of Matthew upon the Didache. Audet (1958), on the other hand, rejected an influence of the Synoptic Gospels and argued for an earlier date, while identifying three stages of redaction (Jefford 1989, 5). Since that time, Stanislas Giet, Willy Rordorf, and André Tuilier have further emphasized an early date and a Syrian origin, possibly in Antioch (Jefford 1989, 6).

The German school, represented first by Harnack (1884), sees the text as influenced by four sources, including "the Old Testament; . . . the Gospel of the Egyptians; the Epistle of Barnabas; and, the Shepherd of Hermas" (Jefford 1989, 7). Harnack placed the text after 120, originating in Egypt. Others substituted other sources of "gospel" information. Some have suggested a knowledge of various New Testament texts (Jefford 1989, 8). The sources postulated have led German scholars to a date in the second century, though in 1957 Helmut Köster made a persuasive argument for dependence on oral, rather than written, tradition. This could push the date somewhat earlier as the emergence of written sources would not be necessary (Jefford 1989, 10).

British and American scholarship has been mixed as regards date and origin of the Didache (Jefford 1989, 11). They have largely agreed that there is a strong Jewish element and, for the most part, have suggested a relationship with Barnabas, Hermas, and Matthew (Jefford 1989, 12). Many have taken the work to be early second century and to have drawn on some sort of a Gospel harmony. The polity which could lead to the community described seems archaic in nature, particularly the view of the episcopacy (Jefford 1989, 13). Dating was a matter of discussion through the first half of the 20th century, with scholars searching out possible influences which could be dated. This has resulted in suggestions ranging from the late first century to the fourth century (Jefford 1989, 15).

Jefford notes that recent studies of newly discovered manuscript traditions, such as the the Nag Hammadi and Qumran materials, have urged investigation into the interaction of ideas in the world of the first century. The Didache may belong among this material, but scholars have made assumptions about date and provenance without adequate background information (Jefford 1989, 18). He suggests that a number of the assumptions deserve careful questioning and clarification. Specifically, Jefford intends to survey the different "sayings" material so as to attempt to understand a source and how these materials fit into the Didache and the early church.

​
0 Comments

Origins of Eucharistic Prayers

1/27/2023

0 Comments

 
1/27/23
Scholarly Reflections

Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 2: On the Rite of the Eucharist." "Chapter Five: Prehistory of the Eucharistic Prayers." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 159-171.

Voöbus closes his book with an attempt to trace the origins of the eucharistic prayers, which strike him as being "very archaic" in some elements (Voöbus 1968, 159). Terms such as "the vine of David," the reference to "the Name," and the idea of God "tabernacling" with His people are among these. The elements seem to indicate Jewish thought, including that of the earliest Christian groups. Voöbus takes this to be the case especially in the designation "Servant" for Jesus (Voöbus 1968, 160).

Though it is tempting to take the prayers as adapted Jewish table prayers for an agape meal, this is not acceptable to Voöbus. He is not sure we could prove that Christian liturgical needs could be supplied by Hellenistic Judaism, a proposition which has not been well demonstrated (Voöbus 1968, 161). Moreover, the entire proposition is based on drawing material from different sources bit by bit rather than the more natural composition of new material inspired by older material.

Rather than follow this pathway, Voöbus looks for actual conceptual background elements. The prayer over the cup follows the pattern of a traditional Jewish thanksgiving over a cup. However, in the Didache it has been thoroughly re-purposed to reflect on the gift of salvation in Christ (Voöbus 1968, 163). Likewise, the prayer over the bread takes its start from a Jewish thanksgiving. However, here it is so repurposed the bread is not important. Rather, the invisible gifts of God are at the center (Voöbus 1968, 164). The significance of God's dwelling among his people is similarly present in Jewish thought but it has been amplified in Christian thought to the point of God not only dwelling in the temple but in the blievers (Voöbus 1968, 164). Again, the work of God to draw people into unity is clearly a Jewish idea. However, it now takes on a spiritual significance, with the unity being on the spiritual plane rather than the physical (Voöbus 1968, 165).

The prayer of Didache 10.5 has been compared with the Jewish Birkat hamazon, but Voöbus observes in the Didache there is an introductory fomula which is not found in conjunction with the Jewish prayer (Voöbus 1968, 166). He concludes that the prayer is not borrowed, though the schema is familiar from Jewish thought. It bears a resemblance to a zekor from the Hebrew Psalter (Voöbus 1968, 167). The pattern, which would have been a well knwon form, was adapted, but adapted thoroughly to Christian use (Voöbus 1968, 168).

​
0 Comments

Eucharist as a Gathering

1/26/2023

1 Comment

 
1/26/23
Scholarly Reflections

Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 2: On the Rite of the Eucharist." "Chapter Four: The Source of Didache IX.4." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 137-157.

The history of the liturgical prayer in Didache 9.4 has been a matter of some debate. Voöbus discusses a presumption that there is a relationship between John's Gospel and the Didache, which might help understand the context of the prayer (Voöbus 1968, 137). However, as Voöbus describes, if the concept of gathering the scattered grain in the Didache comes from Jesus' gathering of he bread fragments from feeding the multitude, the entire message is changed. It ecomes no longer a sign of unity but a sign of multiplied provision (Voöbus 1968, 138). To evaluate the passage, Voöbus takes the elements one at a time.

The grain, in Didache 9.4, is viewed as "scattered." The critical argument which associates this with John says that in John 11:52 the people are described as scattered (Voöbus 1968, 139). The word is not in doubt, but its meaning might be. In Matthew 25:24, the same word is used in a sense of "sowing" or "planting." This is a sharply different metaphor, as planting is a purposeful placement of seed. Taking it solely as a destructive dispersal is unwarranted (Voöbus 1968, 140).

Didache 9.4 further says the grain is "gathered" in the bread. Because the term can be used of many stages of the progress from standing grain to having bread, Voöbus is hesitant to declare a clear equivalent with the use in John (Voöbus 1968, 141). In a wide variety of early Christian writings, the gathering into one is not used for picking up fragments to put them in a basket (Voöbus 1968, 142).

Didache 9.4 speaks of the grain scattered "in the mountains." The scholarship which attempts to find parallels with John looks to John 6:3, where the setting is on a mountain (Voöbus 1968, 144). Voöbus observes that the mention of mountains in the two passages serves a completely different function. The image does not create any sort of parallel, a fact which forcefully undermines the argument for dependence (Voöbus 1968, 145).

The word "fragment" used in Didache 9.4 is used to suggest dependence on John. The Didache uses it in the singular, while John describes multiple fragments. Of greater importance to Voöbus is the fact that the parallel in Apostolic Constitutions uses ἄρτος (bread) rather thank κλάσμα (fragment) (Voöbus 1968, 147). This move suggests that any influence of John didn't seem strong over time. In fact, "bread" is typically used rather than "fragment." Voöbus concludes that the Didache reading is the secondary use, rather than a primary (Voöbus 1968, 148).

In conclusion, Voöbus finds that the gathering in John is looked at from a completely different orientation than that in Didache 9. He does not think there is adequate evidence for dependence (Voöbus 1968, 149). The subjects are not the same.

Voöbus concedes that there are significant "affinities" between the Didache ajd John's Gospel (Voöbus 1968, 152). There are many characteristic terms in common. Yet Voöbus maintains the terms and even metaphors which are used to describe early Christianity will rather naturally appear in multiple works (Voöbus 1968, 153). Their roots likely exist throughout the underlying concepts of Christianity which antedate all these documents. Voöbus takes the concepts of the Lord's Supper to be among these early liturgical drivers of metaphor and vocabulary (Voöbus 1968, 156). 

​
1 Comment

Images in the Eucharist

1/25/2023

0 Comments

 
1/25/23
Scholarly Reflections

Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 2: On the Rite of the Eucharist." "Chapter Three: Eucharistic Imagery." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 113-135.

Voöbus finds a number of interesting themes within the eucharistic portions of the Didache. In this chapter he explores seven of them. First, 10.1 speaks of God's name tabernacled in our hearts. Voöbus takes the concept to already be archaic, based on the way it is referred to (Voöbus 1968, 113). Voöbus understands reference to the "Name" as a claim of Christ, who here is the world's creator (Voöbus 1968, 114). Interestingly, Voöbus does not connect the concept of "Name" with the Trinitarian formula, as many have done in an analysis of baptism. On the contrary, he urges caution in interpretation. It may be an instance of eisegesis to read additional concepts into the prayer (Voöbus 1968, 116). Rather, we may need to be content with a simple understanding of the Name o God as His self revelation. We are not told what aspect of His self-revelation is to be our focus, but we know He is present (Voöbus 1968, 117). Voöbus further concludes that God's presence is in us, as well as in the rest of creation (Voöbus 1968, 119). In practical terms, then, God's presence in His people draws them to unity in their hope of eternal life.

In addition to the gift of life, the thanksgiving over the loaf acknowledges knowledge as a gift (Voöbus 1968, 120). This is a concept fraught with problems, as Voöbus acknowledges. While we embrace the value of knowledge, the term became a catchword which described the Gnostic heresies (Voöbus 1968, 121). Yet in the Didache there is no hint of Gnosticism. The knowledge is mediated by the presence of the Messiah, not by our special enlightenment.

A third concept is that of life, also acknowledged in the first thanksgiving over bread as a gift from the Father (Voöbus 1968, 122). Life here is eternal, bringing us immortality. Voöbus notes that eternal life is not a concept found in Jewish prayers. However, it is clearly associated with the eucharist. Voöbus even associates it "as a catchword for all that the Christian religion embodies" (Voöbus 1968, 123). Of importance is that the life is not pictured as future, but as already present.

Fourth, Voöbus discusses the concept of "the vine of David," which he considers "very archaic" (Voöbus 1968, 124). The term, which is relatively obscure, may refer to the Messianic role of Jesus, the son of David. Yet, Voöbus does not take it to refer to Jesus (Voöbus 1968, 125). It rather seems to be a gift brought or manifested by Him, but distinct from Him. The vine typically served as an image of Israel or the process of the history of salvation. Voöbus finds this as a common symbol in Judaism (Voöbus 1968, 125). The imagery in early Christianity was of the Christian community replacing Judaism (Voöbus 1968, 126). This is applied to the eucharist in the passage.

A fifth concept is that of perfection, as the prayer is that God would perfect His people in His love (Voöbus 1968, 126). Voöbus considers this text to require us to consider "perfection" in biblical and Semitic terms rather than through Greek philosophy. "[I]t is a purely religious term for total devotion to the way of God" (Voöbus 1968, 127). As God purifies His people, they grow as a community which is obedient to Him. The concepts of holiness, perfection, and God's love are clearly linked not only in the Didache but also in the Fourth Gospel, which is of interest to Voöbus (Voöbus 1968, 128).

Sixth, Voöbus notes the centrality of unity in the eucharist. Within the whole prayer, the unity of the church is a recurring theme (Voöbus 1968, 129). Gathering people as the grain of many hills is gathered in bread is a striking image. Voöbus sees this not in the Gnostic view of scattered souls being enlightened but rather in the view of the remnant of Israel dispersed and then gathered (Voöbus 1968, 130). The whole community of the church is gathered as God's remnant.

Voöbus finally directs us to consider the overall profile of the eucharistic passages (Voöbus 1968, 132). Of note, the rite seems to have no focus on the body and blood of Jesus, but rather on the unity of His people. The sacrifice of Jesus is absent (Voöbus 1968, 133). As eucharistic liturgy developed, this apparent oversight was quickly brought in. At the time of the Didache, the thanksgiving was for being together in Christ, receiving His gifs (Voöbus 1968, 134). 

​
0 Comments

Eucharistic Celebration in the Didache

1/24/2023

0 Comments

 
1/24/23
Scholarly Reflections

Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 2: On the Rite of the Eucharist." "Chapter Two: Celebration of the Eucharist." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 85-112.

In this chapter Voöbus reviews the Didache's description of the eucharist in detail. He considers the document "priceless" because it "is unique in granting us a more complete idea of the celebration of the Lord's Supper than any of the most ancient documents at our disposal" (Voöbus 1968, 85).

The material opens with a thanksgiving for the cup. While Voöbus would like to trace any materials from which this grew, he cannot identify any means to do so (Voöbus 1968, 86). He then moves on to a rubric and prayer pertaining to the loaf. The themes of "life and knowledge" may have been substituted for one theme, "resurrection." "Knowledge" is absent from the Apostolic Constitutions and may have been added to the Didache text later. While "resurrection" may have been present where "life" now appears is a matter of speculation, as "life" is represented both in the Didache and Apostolic Constitutions (Voöbus 1968, 86) The third prayer asks that God's people would be gathered together as the scatterd κλάσμα was gathered from fields (Voöbus 1968, 87). The term is surprising as it was not the typical description of bread, but rather as a fragment of a consecrated wafer used in liturgy (Voöbus 1968, 88). Further, it is rare in antiquity to refer to a gathering "into the kingdom" using the term βασιλεία. Voöbus considers this a challenging problem (Voöbus 1968, 89).

After the actual meal the liturgy concludes witha  threefold prayer, each part ending with a doxology (Voöbus 1968, 90). Voöbus notes that a thanksgiving for knowledge may be an insertion, as it is not present in Apostolic Constitutions. There is some question whether the concept in the second petition should be that of God giving food to "man" or to "men" (Voöbus 1968, 91). This usage may reflect an Aramaic background. It is not plural in the Coptic fragment. The third petition is not strongly parallel with the first two. Voöbus finds a similarity to Greek liturgies but does not htink they influenced this prayer. He thinks, rather, the idea is of an older origin (Voöbus 1968, 92). The extent of an explanation he gives is a reference to Peterson, Probleme der Didache-überlieferung, p. 172.

Again, Voöbus notes a distinction between use of the word βασιλεία as opposed to ἐκκλησία in prayers for the church (Voöbus 1968, 93). He considers it a matter of later adjustment to the text.

The eucharistic liturgy in the Didache has a number of details which Voöbus considers important. First is the absence of any Words of Institution (Voöbus 1968, 94). He considers this an indicator of a very early form of liturgy. A second feature Voöbus notes is the centrality of the bread in the liturgy (Voöbus 1968, 95). Third, the ritual begins with the cup. This is not the pattern normally found in antiquity, which begins with the bread. The order in the Didache suggests a period during which there may have been variation in the order. Fourth, the lack of a consecration formula is noteworthy (Voöbus 1968, 96). Voöbus does not necessarily consider this a problem. In his evaluation, the prayers of the epiclesis indicate something central to the eucharist - the presence of Jesus (Voöbus 1968, 97-99). This may be an answer to the practice he sees prevalent of reading significance of a later liturgical development back into an earlier period.

The eucharistic celebration can be identified through the text of the Didache. Voöbus finds in the text a prayer of invocation, one over the cup, and a larger prayer over the loaf (Voöbus 1968, 100). Voöbus observes that in some Jewish meal traditions the bread is mostly distributed but some is set aside for later. This would allow for a scenario in which the bread comes before the cup. The meal is described as satisfying. Voöbus maintains that we can easily conceive of a eucharistic celebration within the confines of a fellowship meal (Voöbus 1968, 101).

There may be evidence in the prayers of a liturgy including congregational response. The three prayers contain doxologies which Voöbus considers may represent a congregational respons (Voöbus 1968, 102). Based on practices which are later described we can expect the prayers and responses may well be rather a thumbnail sketch of what actually happened, includign the possibility of hymnody, chanted Psalms, etc. (Voöbus 1968, 103). The variation of wording among the Greek and Coptic record, as well as variations in the Latin of Apostolic Constitutions suggests some latitude in the understood practice (Voöbus 1968, 104). 

Voöbus finds the requirement of holiness for participation to be striking (Voöbus 1968, 106). If one should depart from holiness, that holiness is restored through repentance. Voöbus takes this to be a factor of the unified nature of the church. The people have been called into unity. If that unity is broken it is a problem for the entire community (Voöbus 1968, 107). Within an understanding of a unified Christian community, the concept of "sacrifice" is applied to both the eucharist and to the overall sacrifice for sins. Damaging the purity which is present in the sacrificial life is tantamount to harming the whole body (Voöbus 1968, 108). Confession and purification restores the unity of the community. This explains the concept of holiness being placed parallel to confession of sins, also a prerequisite for participation in the eucharist (Voöbus 1968, 109).

We are given little information abotu the actual administration of the Eucharist. The most clear rule is that prophets could pray however they wanted (Voöbus 1968, 110). Bishops, however, were togoven the liturgy, though Voöbus considers this to still have an element of congregational preference (Voöbus 1968, 111). The eucharist is on the Lord's day, but possibly on other occasions as well. All in all, the directions are not terribly specific.

​
0 Comments

Source of Eucharist in the Didache

1/23/2023

0 Comments

 
1/23/23
Scholarly Reflections

Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 2: On the Rite of the Eucharist." "Chapter One: The Character of the Source." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 63-83.

Voöbus questions what is actually represented in the Didache's eucharistic passages. It is clearly a ritual meal. Is it the eucharist proper or rather an agape meal (Voöbus 1968, 63)? Some analysis which has been done has reached conclusions without adequate evidence. Voöbus therefore attempts to evaluate the actual material evidence in the text.

In Voöbus' analysis, both of the Didache's eucharistic prayers are constructed the same and have extensive parallelism. He takes them to be essentially identical (Voöbus 1968, 65). If they have to do with an agape meal, then, the question must be raised. Why is there no teaching about the rite of communion (Voöbus 1968, 66)? For this reason, Voöbus concludes they must be related to communion.

The language describes something which is clearly to be considered sacred. The imagery of the bread of life suggests the eucharist rather clearly (Voöbus 1968, 67). Voöbus further sees the placement of this material after baptism to reflect not only the logical place in the life of the Christian, but also the typical liturgical order. The second prayer specifically speaks of food and drink leading to eternal life (Voöbus 1968, 68). It is a holy meal of great importance.

Voöbus observes that the importance extends to the point of the exclusion of outsiders, including catechumens. Those who are not baptized are not a part of this meal (Voöbus 1968, 69). This further suggests the communion, rather than a fellowship meal. Though there are elements of what is apparently a physically satisfying meal, Voöbus sees no reason to insist that the meal proper and the sacramental rite of communion were necessarily separated muych earlier than the mid second century (Voöbus 1968, 70). To do so is arbitrary and unnecessary based on the data.

Voöbus observes that some scholars impose later practice upon Didache 10.6, and relocate it to be prior to 10.5, as an instruction for the congregation to approach the altar and receive communion (Voöbus 1968, 71). Of importance is our understanding of "let him come." Voöbus sees the move to treat it as a direction for reception as an unnecessary confusion (Voöbus 1968, 72). He takes it to refer rather to a coming together around the whole eucharistic act. Those who come are called to be repentant. It is a matter of preparation to receive the sacrament (Voöbus 1968, 73).

Didache XIV may make reference to the eucharist, in that it mentions a breaking of bread (Voöbus 1968, 75). In chapter 14 it is clear that a confession of sins must be present. The participant is to be holy. This does not differ from the materials in chapters 9-10 in essence, but it is spelled out differently. Here the event is called a sacrifice (θυσία), while it is not so called earlier (Voöbus 1968, 76). Yet it is common for prayers or observance of a holy life to be considered a sacrifice. This term does not necessarily set chapter 14 apart.

Voöbus concludes, then, that the language in chapters 9-10 and 14 refer to a rite of commnion, and that there is no compelling reason to drive a possibly arbitrary distinction between the different descriptions (Voöbus 1968, 77). The existence of chapter 14 and its position in the work remains a significant question, but not a quest for a different ritual. Voöbus finds a possible reason for the location of the chapter 14 material to be the author's tendency to touch on a theme, depart to a seemingly tangential theme, then return to the original one (Voöbus 1968, 78). This could well explain the structure of this material also.

The redaction history of the Didache prayers may also shed light on the purpose. Voöbus notes that the apparent later insertion of the prayer concernying myron is significant. Its location with these prayers of thanksgiving and its content indicates an understanding of a ritual eucharist as opposed to a fellowship meal (Voöbus 1968, 79). This understanding in the Apostolic Constitutions signals continuity with the earlier understanding. The liturgical tradition also ties the prayers to the eucharist, as they appear in the consecration in Serapion's anaphora (Voöbus 1968, 80). Voöbus finds additional eucharistic prayers which maintain the same structure. Amid this evidence there is one instance in Pseudo-Athanasius where the structure is used for a table prayer (Voöbus 1968, 81). However, Voöbus considers it possible that a eucharistic prayer could be modified for this use.

While liturgy tends to resist change, Voöbus does observe that changes occur. A eucharistic prayer could certainly become a table prayer. Yet, in general, the prayers from Didache 9, 10, and 14 retain their force as eucharistic prayers in use over time (Voöbus 1968, 82). This is further consistent with a view that eucharist and an agape meal were once together and gradually became distinct from one another.

​
0 Comments

Baptismal Anointing Prayer

1/20/2023

0 Comments

 
1/20/23
Scholarly Reflections

Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 1: On the Rite of Baptism." "Chapter Four: Prehistory of the Ointment Prayer." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 51-60.

In this chapter Voöbus asks whether it is possible to trace an older form of the ointment prayer in the Coptic fragment of the Didache. E. Peterson proposed a reconstruction, strongly influenced by the Apostolic Constitutions. Voöbus considers the dependence  proposed by Peterson to be too great Voöbus51). The Coptic papyrus itself is deserving of consideration. Voöbus thinks the recension of the Apostolic Constitutions represents an explication of the Coptic prayer (Voöbus 1968, 52). Yet this does not necessarily confirm that the Coptic version is the original. Nor does it confirm that the prayer was originally part of the Didache.

If the ointment prayer is an original part of the Didache, Voöbus considers how it would fit in (Voöbus 1968, 54). The form is very like a eucharistic prayer. Omission itself seems surprising. Some have suggested it was antiquated and no longer served a liturgical purpose. This could result in its suppression (Voöbus 1968, 55). Yet it would have made more sense for a redactor to simply edit the prayer to be in harmony with current practice.

Voöbus notesthat the prayer is introduced with, "thus as we say" (Voöbus 1968, 56). This suggests the prayer, already in existence, was inserted here. The wording of the prayer is relatively awkward. Yet in its words it clearly states the availability of a number of sacramental gifts. These gifts are given to the people of early Christianity as something precious (Voöbus 1968, 57). The prayer is located in a group of topically related prayers identified as eucharistia (Voöbus 1968, 58). This, to Voöbus, does not seem entirely consistent with the pattern of the rest of the Didache. He considers it may not have been original, or that it could have been moved for some reason in the editorial process. This process is largely invisible to us. However, Voöbus considers the various statements about baptism, from chapter seven, to be evidence of layers of editorial work (Voöbus 1968, 59). In Voöbus' view, as the rituals grew and changed, statements which acknowledged those practices were added. He sees this as following different patterns in different locations (Voöbus 1968, 60). 

​
0 Comments

Prayer for Baptismal Anointing

1/19/2023

0 Comments

 
1/19/23
Scholarly Reflections

Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 1: On the Rite of Baptism." "Chapter Three: The Ointment Prayer." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 41-50.

Voöbus observes that, in conjunction with the baptismal ritual, an anointing with oil appears in the Apostolic Constitutions (Voöbus 1968, 41). This is also reflected in a Coptic papyrus fragment of the Didache, where a prayer for anointing appears appended to chapters 9-10. In both instances the prayer is associated with allowing prophets to pray as they wish.

The prayer is associated with an aromatic ointment or a perfume (Voöbus 1968, 42). The interpretation is not clear, according to Voöbus, expect that the text of the Apostolic Constitutions identifies it as a prayer associated with the aroma. The question of what specific use of ointment is meant is more difficult (Voöbus 1968, 43). Voöbus discusses the common use of anointing and praying for the sick. This would not intuitively be connected with the Eucharist, where the passage appears. However, ointment was also associated with baptism. Voöbus finds such an association in Jewish baptismal practice, as well as in Jewish ceremonial meal practices (Voöbus 1968, 44). Unfortunately, this fails to create clarity in the view.

A search for the function of the anointing is not immediately rewarding. Voöbus finds that the Apostolic Constitutions makes mention of "the immortal eon" (Voöbus 1968, 45). This does suggest the dichotomy between the present, fallen age and that of immortality. From this foundation, Voöbus is able to move to the concept of baptism, where one moves from the former to the latter (Voöbus 1968, 46). When asking about a reason for the choice of a word related to fragrance, Voöbus finds more associations. A Syriac version of Acts describes a fragrance along with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Voöbus 1968, 46). Paradise is regularly described in terms of aromatic plants. Voöbus thus finds good smells as related to moving into the heavenly realms as one does in baptism (Voöbus 1968, 47). Fragrance therefore can be well seen as a concomitant with baptism. Voöbus notes that the ointment prayer was grouped with various prayers of thanksgiving, the meaning of εὐχαριστία (Voöbus 1968, 49). When used in later documents, "oil of the eucharistia" is descriptive of anointing at baptism. 

​
0 Comments

Baptismal Ritual

1/18/2023

0 Comments

 
1/18/23
Scholarly Reflections

Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 1: On the Rite of Baptism." "Chapter Two: Prehistory of the Tradition." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 29-39.

Voöbus opens this chapter with the question of a Jewish origin for Didache chapter seven. He calls in the view of E. Peterson, who "contends that the discussion on various kinds of water has nothing to do with baptism at all but with the washings for purification" (Voöbus 1968, 29). It is possible that the formulaic patterns for ceremonial washings could be borrowed from Judaism. The case may further be made for a relationship to Jewish baptism of proselytes (Voöbus 1968, 30). On the other hand, Voöbus does suggest that making the compiler of the Didache dependent on sources for all his specific wording is an insult to his abilities as an author.

Peterson had further suggested that Didache chapter seven was a revision instilling a particular dogmatic change, by which an anointing with oil was removed from the chapter (Voöbus 1968, 31). Voöbus observes that Peterson considered the concession of baptism by affusion to be introduced in an illogical way. In comparison with the Apostolic Constitutions, we see the Constitutions speaking of two different ointments. This is in contrast to the Didache's use of two types of water for baptism. Yet Voöbus does not consider it necessary to make a claim that Apostolic Constitutions contains everything that the Didache once held (Voöbus 1968, 32). The simple fact is that we don't have adequate information to make such a claim.

Because redaction history is arelatively controversial topic, Voöbus proposes further study, but in the realm of comparative analysis of the process in similar documents for which some of the redactional details can be identified (Voöbus 1968, 33). This would allow scholars to evaluate existing texts without calling them into undue question. In particular, Voöbus considers it unlikely that additions or omissions would be carried on in a haphazard manner. Redactors should be assumed to be competent and thoughtful.

Even as we question the type of redaction which may have taken place, it is necessary to recognize that the very nature of a liturgical manual suggests redaction. Voöbus does not in any way suggest the materials were invented for use in the Didache (Voöbus 1968, 34). The problem he sees is application of adequate tools to identify various layers. The concession of baptism by affusion may or may no tbe a later interpolation.

The Trinitarian formula of baptism may shed light on the redaction history. Voöbus note that outside of Matthew's Gospel, the New Testament does not reflect a specific instance of the Trinitarian formula in use for baptism (Voöbus 1968, 35). Evidence of the Didache's dependence on Matthew for the formula is inconclusive. Voöbus would prefer to view the record in the Didache as influenced by actual ritual practice rather than Scriptural statements (Voöbus 1968, 36). Underlying the formulaic wording Voöbus finds an alternate wording which is well represented in Scripture. Didache 9.5 identifies people as "baptized into the name of the Lord" (Voöbus 1968, 38). Voöbus recognizes that the statement of 9.5 is likely older and is certainly simpler. It describes the exact same action. Further, it appears in Paul and in Acts. The Lord is identified clearly with Jesus, and, provided the understanding of a Trinity is present, the natural conclusion one would make is that the referent is identical (Voöbus 1968, 39). This fits with our understanding of the liturgucal practice and the theology it represents. An addition of a Trinitarian statement would represent a clarification, not a theological change.

​
0 Comments

Baptismal Tradition and the Didache

1/17/2023

0 Comments

 
1/17/23
Scholarly Reflections

Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 1: On the Rite of Baptism." "Chapter One: Tradition Regarding Baptism." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 17-27.

Voöbus notes that the Didache's chapter pertaining to baptism (chapter seven) is relatively short, and, further, it gives relatively little indication of the nature of catechesis preparatory for baptism (Voöbus 1968, 17).  While there is a statement about speaking the materials from chapters 1-6, it is unclear whether that is a part of the baptismal ceremony or an outline for prior catechesis. Voöbus takes the command as an indication of catechetical instruction (Voöbus 1968, 18). This would be consistent with what we know from other sources about catechesis in Jewish proselyte baptism or Jewish Christianity. Of note to Voöbus is that the material content of the catechesis is moral in nature, not dealing with Christ and the atonement or other highly theological elements (Voöbus 1968, 19).

The purpose of a fast prior to baptism is not made clear, but the duration of one or two days is, as well as the call for as many involved in the baptism as can participate in the fast. This is more clear guidance than is found in other sources(Voöbus 1968, 20-21).

In the baptism itself, the candidate is baptized "into the name" of the Lord. Voöbus sees this as indicating a transfer into the service of the Lord (Voöbus 1968, 21). If possible, the baptism is to use "living water." Voöbus interprets this as being either water from a stream or from a well (Voöbus 1968, 22). If living water is not available, it is possible to use other water, whether cold or warm. Voöbus notes that some scholarship suggests it is warmed for children or the sick (Voöbus 1968, 23). However, he finds a prevailing pattern within Judaism to refer to water which has lost its original temperature as "warm." This would apply to water in a reservoir or a cistern (Voöbus 1968, 24). A mode of baptism, such as immersion, is not specified. However, if no adequate supply of water is present, water may be poured over the head three times (Voöbus 1968, 26).

Voöbus observes that we are not told who would perform a baptism, or whether there was a consecration of the water (Voöbus 1968, 26). We are also not told what to expect as far as the meaning of baptism. Though it is a prerequisite for communion, we are not given any additional expectations (Voöbus 1968, 27). 

​
0 Comments

Conclusions about Barnabas and Didache

12/19/2022

0 Comments

 
12/19/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Ten: Conclusion." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 165-168.

Muilenburg finds that the overall question is one of a literary relationship between Barnabas and the Didache. The solution, as he sees it, is a recognition that Barnabas preceded the Didache and represents a piece of fervent teaching, while the Didache is a measured compendium of Christian teaching (Muilenburg 1929, 165). Barnabas is taken to be the composition of one author, while the Didache appears to be a composite work (Muilenburg 1929, 166). The materials adapted in both are overwhelmintly Jewish, but have been adjusted in places to have a Christian outlook. They were recognized in their period and after as Christian works (Muilenburg 1929, 167).

​
0 Comments

More Comparisons of Barnabas and Didache

12/16/2022

0 Comments

 
12/16/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Nine: Parallels Outside of the Two Ways." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 159-164.

Muilenburg concedes that Barnabas and the Didache do not have many parallel passages outside the Two Ways material, but he does survey some which strike him as important. He views these mostly as moralistic rather than theological statements since, in his opinion, theological statements lose their significance with changing times and conditions (Muilenburg 1929, 159).

In considering similarities of eschatological passages, again, Muilenburg considers it a forgone conclusion that the Didache borrowed its views and themes from Barnabas. He cites numerous conceptual parallels (Muilenburg 1929, 160). Muilenburg does consider whether the Didache may have drawn the concepts from the Old Testament. However, he rejects this idea in favor of a borrowing from Barnabas due to the relative similarity of other passages and the assumption that the Didache has borrowed from Barnabas elsewhere (Muilenburg 1929, 161-162). The more obscure statements are also occasionally expanded in Barnabas.

​
0 Comments

Comparison of Texts - Barnabas and Didache

12/15/2022

0 Comments

 
12/15/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Eight: Comarison of the Two Ways Chapters of the Teaching and the Epistle of Barnabas." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 140-158.

Muilenburg here returns to his initial and central question, that of the nature of the literary relationship between Barnabas and the Didache (Muilenburg 1929, 140). Because Muilenburg considers the work of Barnabas to be a literary unity, and the Didache a composite work, he concludes that the Two Ways material is original to Barnabas and adopted by the Didache (Muilenburg 1929, 141). Though the imagery used in the Didache is often more vivid and original than that used in Barnabas, Muilenburg takes this to show the editorial work of a superior intellect (Muilenburg 1929, 143).

Muilenburg continues with a comparison of various lines from the Two Ways, highlighting possible sources and the editorial revisions made (Muilenburg 1929, 143ff). Muilenburg's opinion, indicated repeatedly, is that the Didache is a later, more literary work than Barnabas, and depends on the earlier work.

Muilenberg's conclusion is that the works are significantly different in nature, though they deal with similar material (Muilenburg 1929, 158). The Didache is a church manual, written with an eye to artful order, while  Barnabas is a more enthusiastic and hastily composed exhortatory letter.

​
0 Comments

Literary Integrity of Barnabas and the Didache

12/14/2022

0 Comments

 
12/14/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Seven: Literary Integrity." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 109-139.

Muilenburg reviews theories in which Barnabas is seen to have been heavily interpolated (Muilenburg 1929, 109). His view is that it shows literary unity but a greater breadth of ideas than criticis wish to admit. Muilenburg takes an analysis of th,e Two Ways passage to illustrate the literary unity of Barnabas. Attempts to analyze the passage in terms of a series of interpolations prove to create enough logical gaps that Muilenburg does not find them plausible. He illustrates this by discussing the theoretical classification if Windisch (1920) in detail (Muilenburg 1929, 110ff).

A significant unifier, in Muilenburg's estimation, is the use of transition sentences (Muilenburg 1929, 113). They tend to emphasize the importance of γνῶσις, and treat knowing as a recurring theme throughout all 21 chapters. Both the first portion (ch. 1-17) and the second (18-21) are tied together by the theme. "Walking" in the way of righteousness and such knowledge is an essential part of the entirety of the teaching (Muilenburg 1929, 114). Muilenburg illustrates this with numerous sentences pulled from the text. The picture he develops is that of an author who reiterates ideas so as to make internal references to the same topic throughout a work. Muilenburg further notes consistent references to Isaiah and to Ephesians, again, spread throughout the Epistle (Muilenburg 1929, 119, 1212). Muilenburg's analysis is lengthy and detailed.

In conclusion, based on internal evidence, Muilenburg concludes that the same author is responsible for chapters 1-17 and 18-20. The portions of chapter 19 which are sometimes thought to be an insertion are drawn from earlier chapters in a way similar to the other portions of the text (Muilenburg 1929, 130).

Muilenburg continues by analyzing the Epistle's 21st chapter to see if there is a divergence from the prior patterns (Muilenburg 1929, 130ff). In fact, again, as he walks through the material line by line, he finds consistency in themes, self-referential statements, and manner of expression.

Muilenburg briefly considers whether the Didache shows integrity in its composition (Muilenburg 1929, 135ff). He finds the same compositional techniques in operation in 1-6 and in 7-16, including methods of abridging sources, simplicity of expression, and overall catecetical purpose (Muilenburg 1929, 136). While the Didache has literary unity, Muilenburg is quick to define that unity. "Literary unity of the Teaching means, briefly, that the compilation is the work of one hand" (Muilenburg 1929, 137). He does conclude that the work is composite in nature. Muilenburg provides samples of internal statements and reviews which point up the careful work of creating literary unity and consistency throughout the work. While Muilenburg does not define a date, he suggests the work comes from the time of Barnabas or earlier (Muilenburg 1929, 139).

0 Comments

Cultural Character of the Writings

12/13/2022

0 Comments

 
12/13/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Six: Jewish Character." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 98-108.

Muilenburg finds in Barnabas strong statements against the 'old covenant' of the Jews, along with his apparent understanding of the intricacies ofJewish customs, a strong suggestion that the author is a recent convert to Christianity from Judaism (Muilenburg 1929, 98). Some of the cultural markers suggest the author is more familiar with Judaism as practiced in Alexandria than in Palestine (Muilenburg 1929, 99).

The Didache may well be compared to Barnabas as having a particular Jewish character. Muilenburg compares it to "a Talmud, probably the kind of manual or handbook employed by Jewish missionaries among proselytes" (Muilenburg 1929, 102). The Two Ways material is certainly rooted in Old Testament teaching. Muilenburg goes farther, by tracking down likely Jewish parallels for numerous ideas from Didache 7-15 (Muilenburg 1929, 105ff). This signals to me the level of continuity between Judaism and Christianity, where Christianity may be seen as a fulfillment of, rather than a sharp departure from, Judaism. 

​
0 Comments

How Does It Use the Bible?

12/12/2022

0 Comments

 
12/12/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Five: Employment of Scripture." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 85-97.

Muilenburg considers the Old Testament usage in Barnabas to be "profuse" and similar in nature to the patterns found in Philo of Alexandria (Muilenburg 1929, 85). He uses it as his authoritative source of proof for arguments. While he mostly uses the wording of the Septuagint, he also feels free to make alterations in wording so as to expose what he considers the true significance. Muilenburg provides several examples of uses of the Old Testament in which Barnabas is faithful to essential ideas but not to specific wording (Muilenburg 1929, 86-87). The type of exegesis used suggests to Muilenburg a familiarity with the Hebrew Old Testament and a rabbinic approach to symbolic and allegorical interpretation (Muilenburg 1929, 88-89). Because of the type of Old Testament usage, and the lack of clearly Gnostic elements despite extensive references to γνῶσις, Muilenburg, with Harnack, takes the text to be dated about 130, and to stem from Alexandria (Muilenburg 1929, 90).

The Didache also has a large amount of quotation and paraphrase of Scripture. However, unlike Barnabas, the Didache mostly seems drawn from the New Testament (Muilenburg 1929, 91). Muilenberg identifies eight quotations, discussing some of them in detail (Muilenburg 1929, 91ff). A challenge in analysis is the terse style of the Didache, which results in truncated quotations. Mulienburg discusses the variations in language and briefly entertains the possibility of an early date of composition, but then suggests "8:2, 15:3, and 15:4 seem rather to imply a written record" (Muilenburg 1929, 93). He does not explain what makes that implication. Muilenburg notes that Harnack finds as many as 23 places where the Didache uses the New Testament, with 17 of them from Matthew (Muilenburg 1929, 9). Muilenburg considers many passages to show traces of New Testament content, but notto be very clear.

Muilenburg concludes that the use of biblical texts is very different in the Didache and Barnabas, and that neither author seems to know or directly use the other (Muilenburg 1929, 96-97). 

​
0 Comments

Literary Character of Barnabas and the Didache

12/9/2022

0 Comments

 
12/9/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Four: Literary Character." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 48-84.

Muilenburg moves his inquiry toward identifying the specific literary character of the Epistle of Barnabas and of the 
Didache (Muilenburg 1929, 48). He takes the Epistle to be quite literally a letter addressed to a real Christian community, though perhaps not expressed as warmly and naturally as it would be by some authors (Muilenburg 1929, 49). Barnabas suggests the former Law of God as expressed in the Old Covenant has been replaced by a new law in Jesus (Muilenburg 1929, 53). The writing throughout has a rabbinic tone in its organization and use of argumentation. Muilenburg gives numerous examples of the type of exegesis used in the Epistle, presumably demonstrating that it is similar in method to rabbinic examples (Muilenburg 1929, 55ff). Muilenburg also finds the Epistle of Barnabas to have a characteristically Jewish construction, not incoherent at all. He continues by presenting an outline (Muilenburg 1929, 59). Barnabas is characterized by considerable verbal parallelism and restatement of ideas, another common Jewish literary technique (Muilenburg 1929, 60ff). Muilenburg provides lists of parallelisms in some detail, particularly on pp. 65-66. Though we might expect the Hebraisms to point to a work translated from Hebrew, Muilenburg notes that the passages are almost all drawn from the Septuagint (Muilenburg 1929, 67). After reviewing peculiarity in word choice, Muilenburg sums up the style as clumsy (Muilenburg 1929, 68), zealoous for the distinction between Jewish and Christian thought (Muilenburg 1929, 69), and expressed throughout by odd phraseology (Muilenburg 1929, 70-71).

The Didache finds broad scholarly agreement about its literary character (Muilenburg 1929, 72). It is apparently gathered from a number of sources, compiled for catechesis and use as a church order. Muilenburg provides a detailed outline, referring to sources of material where possible (Muilenburg 1929, 73-77). The text has a clear arrangement throughout, showing a desire for orderliness (Muilenburg 1929, 77). It is brief and memorable, focused on the catechetical goals (Muilenburg 1929, 79). From a linguistic standpoint, Muilenburg finds numerous Hebraisms, and a vocabulary which may suggest the Didache preceded Barnabas (Muilenburg 1929, 80). Where we find parallel passages in Barnabas, however, the Didache makes them more orderly. This suggests Barnabas preceded the Didache (Muilenburg 1929, 83). 

​
0 Comments

Evaluation of Textual Integrity

12/8/2022

0 Comments

 
12/8/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Three: Early Literary History." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 22-47.

External evidence for the dating of both the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache is necessary. The Epistle has only two possible internal references which could indicate a date, and they are not clear. The Didache has no internal indicators of a date (Muilenburg 1929, 22). However, Muilenburg is cautious, noting that some parallel wording or ideas do not necessarily signify dependence but may simply point to a similar commitment to like ideas. He goes on to list numerous similarities between the Epistle and other deatable works, but finds the similarities not to make one certain of literary dependence (Muilenburg 1929, 23). Then again, a relationship which does not demonstrate dependence may still be of value. It is a challenging matter to assert the value of a given parallel (Muilenburg 1929, 24). Muilenburg provides numerous examples of similarities. He finds that Clement of Alexandria, probably about 215-216, mentions the Epistle clearly (Muilenburg 1929, 25). Tertullian makes a possible reference, but may be conflating it with Justin Martyr. Psueudo-Cyprian and Hippolytus make possible allusions, but they are not clear references. Origen does seem familiar with the Two Ways (Muilenburg 1929, 26). The fragmentary Latin Didache has several passages in which there seems to be a familiarity with the Epistle, particularly 18. and 18.2 (Muilenburg 1929, 27). We observe, however, that the bulk of these indications of familiarity are relatively late and provide no help in identifying a date of composition.

Muilenburg further evaluates the integrity of Barnabas. Some of the passages which are not present in all the versions are also absent in parallels with Clement of Alexandria (Muilenburg 1929, 28). The letter is only known in Alexanddria prior to the fourth century and is ascribed by Clement and Origen to Barnabas, the companion of Paul (Muilenburg 1929, 30).

Muilenburg asserts that "The literary relations between the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and the Epistle of Barnabas, on the one hand, and between the Teaching and the Shepherd of Hermas, on the other, constitute one of the most complex problems which extra-canonical Christian literature has bequeathed to us (Muilenburg 1929, 32). There is specific debate about priority between Hermas and the Didache. Muilenburg specifically reviews some of the arguments of Schaff, which he does not always consider sound (Muilenburg 1929, 32ff). Likewise, Muilenburg considers the attempts to demonstrate that Clement ws familiar with the Didache to be "questionable" (Muilenburg 1929, 36). Muilenburg details the alleged parallels between the Didache and works of Clement. He then continues with citations of Eusebius and Athanasius as they identified writings to be accepted or rejected (Muilenburg 1929, 38-39). This does not particularly add to  discussion of literary relationships, but it does make it clear the writings were known. One of the challenges, which is not often stated (includin by Muilenburg), but which appears in repetitive use of language, is that the works speak of a way of good and a way of evil. These themes are routinely present in literature, especially of a religious nature, thus confusing the field of inquiry.

Two Ways documents were known in early Christianity. The Didache contained one, but, as Muilenburg observes, was not limited to that. This was apparently recognized by Athanasius, who cited the Two Ways and other parts of the Didache (Muilenburg 1929, 42). Yet, for some reason, scholarly attention has focused on the Two Ways material.

​
0 Comments

Comparing Ancient Manuscript Streams

12/7/2022

0 Comments

 
12/7/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter Two: The Text." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 10-21.

Muilenburg reviews the manuscript evidence available at his time for the Epistle of Barnabas (Muilenburg 1929, 10ff). There are eight Greek manuscripts which seen derived from the same source, based on missing portions. Additionally there is a Latin version, which also contains the chapters missing from the Greek version (Muilenburg 1929, 12). The epistle is also complete in the Codex Sinaiticus, also containing parts of the Old Testament, the entire New Testament, and a portion of the Shepherd of Hermas (Muilenburg 1929, 14). Another witness is the same Jerusalem Codex which contains the Didache. Muilenburg, with the majority of scholars, considers the Latin version to be defective. However, on the whole, he considers the Greek versions sound (Muilenburg 1929, 15-16). 

The Didache is preserved for us in only one Greek version (Muilenburg 1929, 17). The text, in Muilenburg's estimation, is comprehensive and sound. A Latin version of 1.1-2.6 has also been discovered. The Latin fragment is not considered an important witness. However, some have considered the selection of that passage as an important insight into catechesis and the center of early catechesis (Muilenburg 1929, 18). Versions of portions are also to be found in the Apostolical Church Order (Muilenburg 1929, 18), and the Apostolical Constitutions (Muilenburg 1929, 19), along with an Arabic version of some portions in the Life of Schnudi. Muilenburg also notes two more recently discovered fragments, one of 64 words from 1.3-1.4 and 2.7-3.2, another on one large sheet containing 10.3-12.2 (Muilenburg 1929, 20). These texts do not significantly clarify any textual questions.

​
0 Comments

Why Compare the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas?

12/6/2022

0 Comments

 
12/6/22
Scholarly Reflections

Muilenburg, James. "Chapter One: Introduction: History of the Problem." The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929, 1-9.

Muilenberg observes that, while dating of documents is of primary importance in developing an adequate chronology of Church history, the dates are often elusive. Use of stages of doctrinal development may be of assistance, but developments occur at different rates in different communities (Muilenburg 1929, 1). The same holds true of linguistic characteristics. Muilenburg considers the relationship of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache to be a case in point. The Epistle of Barnabas has been placed as early as 50 and as late as the fourth century (Muilenburg 1929, 2).

The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache have considerable material in common but also have significant doctrinal and literary differences (Muilenburg 1929, 3). In particular, Muilenburg notes the Two Ways material was alternatively considered inspired by the Sermon on the Mount or to have inspired it (Muilenburg 1929, 3-5). It is significant to Muilenburg that outside of the Two Ways material there are not significant parallels (Muilenburg 1929, 7). The question of actual dependence of one whole text on the other remains elusive, though the Two Ways material may be largely similar.

Muilenburg's work deals almost exclusively with literary relationships rather than doctrinal relationships (Muilenburg 1929, 8). He appears interested by the Talmudic nature of Barnabas. The rabbinic character of the early Christian writings informs his analysis at many points.

​
0 Comments

1 Corinthians 10 and the Didache

5/27/2022

0 Comments

 
5/27/22
Scholarly Reflections

Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Three: The Eucharist of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 as Related to Didache 9-10." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 66-97.

Mazza observes that three significant studies (Koster 1957, Audet 1958, Glover 1958) have concluded that the Didache shows no familiarity with the canonical texts of the New Testament (Mazza 1995, 66). At the most, we can assume knowledge of some Christian traditions and/or writings which informed the New Testament authors.

To explore this concept, Mazza analyzes 1 Corinthians, which Mazza understands as being focused on "whether or not eating flesh sacrificed to idols is lawful or unlawful" (Mazza 1995, 67). While in the early part of the Epistle, Paul allows for eating and drinking anything, even things sacrificed to idols, he later points out that in light of the Eucharist and its effect toward eternal life, it is folly to participate in eating and drinking with idolatrous intent (Mazza 1995, 68). The center of Paul's argument, as Mazza sees it, is that the Eucharist is the participation in Christ, creating communion. The eucharistic passages are thus central to the letter, particularly 1 Cor. 10:14-22.

Mazza notes that 1 Cor. 10 descri bes the eucharist in cup-bread order, while chapter 11 orders it bread-cup. 1 Cor. 10 is the parallel to Didache 9 (Mazza 1995, 69). Mazza considers it important to identify the actual order in Corinth so as to determine if there is a true structural analogy to Didache 9. After considering various scholarly studies, Mazza concludes that 1 Cor. 10 and 11 may be speaking of current eucharistic practice and the Last Supper, respectively. However, these are theologically and doctrinally identical, though the order of events is different, hence the order becomes irrelevant (Mazza 1995, 72)

The argument of 1 Cor. 10:16-22 then becomes an argument for unity with Christ, Mazza concludes, after a review of the important research on Paul's use of the words for body in the passage. The critical word in the argument becomes koinonia (Mazza 1995, 77).

Mazza returns to his earlier question about the reason for the inversion of the sequence of elements. It is apparently not tied to the overall argument of Paul (Mazza 1995, 78). Mazza concludes that the cup-bread sequence must have been "a liturgical fact that Paul derived from the actual structure of the Eucharistic celebration of the Church at Corinth" (Mazza 1995, 79). Mazza sees this as capable of confirmation with a pre-existing liturgical text. This is found in the Didache, which alone presents the sequence of cup-bread.

Mazza finds and evaluates five similarities between Didache 9 and 1 Cor. 10:16ff: "(1) the rite of the cup; (2) the rite of the bread; (3) the theme of unity; (4) the cup-bread-unity sequence . . .' ant (5) the literary form of the embolism" (Mazza 1995, 80). He discusses each in turn.

The rite of the cup is referred to in 1 Corinthians as the "cup of blessing." Mazza finds from rabbinic practice that this implies a cup of wine with a specific prescribed benediction (Mazza 1995, 82). The blessing rite of the cup and of the bread were treated as independent rites, evidenced by Paul, Luke, and rabbinic practice. This is also the practice in Didache 9.2, in which the cup has its own blessing which can stand alone (Mazza 1995, 83).

Mazza describes the rite of the bread in less detail, as it is strongly homologous to the rite of the cup. However, the term used in the Didache and in Paul issignificant. Paul refers to the breaking of the bread (κλάω), while the Didache does not use the verb but refers to the bread as "fragments" (κλάσματα) (Mazza 1995, 84). Mazza observes that in Jewish tradition bread had to be broken for sharing, so the word for fragment became common. A "breaking of bread" then was early taken to be the particular celebration of the Lord's Supper (Mazza 1995, 85).

The prayer of Didache 9 seeks unity based on the bread, just as 1 Cor. 10:17 expresses unity based on the bread (Mazza 1995, 85). The outcome in both texts is the same, a unity of the body of Christ.

Mazza notes that both Didache 9 and 1 Cor. 10 have the prayer over the cup, over the bread, and for unity, in that order. He sees this construction of three prayers with rubrics introducing only the parts for the cup and the bread to be distinctive and to show a relationship of the texts (Mazza 1995, 86-87). 

Mazza's reference to an "emobolsim" on unity may require some explanation. Mazza uses the term for an insertion of an idea. Here, the idea of unity is not an autonomous statement, but in both 1 Cor. 10 and Didache 9 it is inserted into the ritual of bread. It does not have an introductory statement setting it apart (Mazza 1995, 87).

Mazza turns to the dating of the text of the Didache. If it is earlier than the date known for 1 Corinthians we may at least have a terminus ad quem (Mazza 1995, 90). The texts both contain descriptions of the eucharist. However, it is only in 1 Cor. 10, not in the Didache, that we have theological explanations of the body and blood of Christ (Mazza 1995, 91). This suggests that 1 Cor. 10 is a later development of the ideas in Didache 9. Mazza notes that liturgy normally evolves more slowly than theology (Mazza 1995, 92). This can epxlain, for instance, the liturgy based on the cup-bread pattern, while practice followed the berad-cup pattern. As Christianity spread, κλάσμα tended to turn into ἄρτος. However, the Didache retained κλάσμα (Mazza 1995, 93). The Didache also shows an early understanding of unity as that in the exchaton, while Paul has the (typically later) view of unity in the earthly community of Christ.

Mazza finally adduces 1 Cor. 10:1-4, which typologically takes Christ as the spiritual rock which accompanied Israel in the desert, tying him to both baptism and eucharist (Mazza 1995, 94ff). Mazza concludes that this interpretation may be tied to Didache 10.3. This suggests to Mazza that Paul knew and used both Didache 9 and 10 in his argument, thus dating at least that portion of the Didache prior to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, which is probably around 57. The eucharistic practice seems already secure at that point, suggesting that it was intiated some time earlier, probably when Paul evangelized the Corinthians during the period 50-52 (Mazza 1995, 97). This is consistent with Mazza's earlier argument based on the "vine of David" passage that the Didache was composed prior to the council at Jerusalem.

​
0 Comments
<<Previous

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Samuel
    1 Thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2 Chronicles
    2 Corinthians
    2-john
    2 Kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent 3
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent 4
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Akagi 2016
    Alesso-2009
    Alexander 1999
    Allegory
    Allitt-2010
    All Saints' Day
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Anaphora
    Anointing
    Anunciation
    Apollinaris Of Hierapolis
    Apostolical Constitutions
    Aristides Of Athens
    Aristotle
    Aryeh 2021
    Ascension Day
    Ash Wednesday
    Athenagoras Of Athens
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Bakker 1993
    Balabanski 1997
    Bammel 1996
    Baptism
    Baptism Of Christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Bardy 1938
    Baron 2019
    Baron & Maponya 2020
    Bauckham 1984
    Bauckham 2006
    Bauckham 2007
    Beale 1984
    Belief
    Belonging
    Ben-Amos 1999
    Betz 1996
    Biesenthal 1893
    Bigg 1904
    Bigg 1905
    Blogcation
    Blomberg 1984
    Boehme-2010
    Botha 1967
    Botha 1993
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Butler 1960
    Caneday 2017
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carr 2010
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Cerfaux 1959
    Chilton 1984
    Chrismation
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas Dawn
    Christmas-day
    Christmas Eve
    Christmas Midnight
    Chronicles
    Circumcision And Naming Of Christ
    Cody 1995
    Colossians
    Conditions
    Confession Of Peter
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constanza-2013
    Cooper & Lioy 2018
    Costa 2021
    Court 1981
    Culley 1986
    Cyprian
    Daly 1978
    Daniel
    Danielou 1956
    Davids 1984
    Davis 1995
    DeHalleux 1996
    Dehandschutter 1995
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Divine Fellowship
    Dix 1933
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Doane 1994
    Draper
    Draper 1984
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1995
    Draper-1996
    Draper-1997
    Draper-2000
    Draper-2006
    Dube 2016
    Due 2003
    Easter-2
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-day
    Easter-monday
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Easter-sunrise
    Easter-tuesday
    Easter-wednesday
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria2014
    Elman-1999
    Ephesians
    Epiphany
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Epistle Of Barnabas
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Eve-of-the-circumcision-of-christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Experiential Reading
    Eybers 1975
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Farrell-1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser-1996
    Forde-2007
    Fraade-1999
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Garrow 2004
    Gender
    Genesis
    Gero 1977
    Gibbins 1935
    Gibbs 2006
    Glover-1958
    Goga & Popa 2019
    Gonzalez-2010
    Good-friday
    Gospels
    Grosvener-schaff-1885
    Grosvenor-1884
    Guardian-of-jesus
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hagner 1984
    Harnack-1884
    Harris 1887
    Harris 1984
    Hearon 2004
    Hearon 2010
    Hebrews
    Heilmann 2018
    Henderson1992
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson 1995
    Hezser 2010
    History
    Hoffman-1986
    Holy Cross Day
    Holy-innocents
    Holy-saturday
    Horsley 2010
    Hosea
    Hutchens2013
    Hymes-1994
    Ignatius Of Antioch
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    Jaffee-1999
    James
    James Of Jerusalem
    James The Elder
    Jefford 1989
    Jefford 1995
    Jeffreys-1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Jones & Mirecki 1995
    Joseph
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Jungmann-1959
    Justin Martyr
    Kelber-1987
    Kelber-1995
    Kelber 2002
    Kelber 2010
    Kelber & Sanders 2010
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Kloppenborg 1979
    Kloppenborg 1995
    Koch2010
    Kok 2015
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lake 1905
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-c
    LaVerdiere 1996
    Layton 1968
    Lectionary
    Lent-1
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Lincoln-1885
    Lindemann 1997
    Literary Character
    Liturgy
    Livesey 2012
    Long-2009
    Lord-1986
    Lord-1987
    Lord's Prayer
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Maccoull-1999
    Maier 1984
    Malachi
    Manuscripts
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Martyrdom Of John The Baptist
    Martyrs
    Mary Magdalene
    Mary Mother Of Our Lord
    Mason-1998
    Massaux 1993 (1950)
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mazza 1995
    Mazza-1996
    Mazza 1999
    Mbamalu 2014
    McDonald 1980
    McDonnell & Montague 1991
    McKean 2003
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Middleton 1935
    Milavec 1995
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec2012
    Miller 2019
    Missional
    Mitch-2010
    Mitchell 1995
    Molina-evers-1998
    Monday-in-holy-week
    Montenyohl-1993
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller-2006
    Muilenburg 1929
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Neufeld-1999
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Niditch-1995
    Niditch 2003
    Niebuhr 1956
    Niederwimmer-1982
    Niederwimmer 1995
    Niederwimmer-1996
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Olsen-1986
    Ong-1987
    Ong-1988
    Ong-1995
    Oralit
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Pardee 1995
    Parks-1986
    Passionb
    Patterson 1995
    Pearce-1993
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost-14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost-15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost-16c
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost 17C
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost 18 C
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost 19 C
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost 20 C
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost 21 C
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost 22 C
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost 23 C
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Pentecost Eve
    Pentecost Monday
    Pentecost Sunday
    Pentecost Tuesday
    Petersen 1994
    Peterson2010
    Peterson 2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Picirilli 1988
    Pick 1908
    Pieper1924
    Pieper 1924
    Pieper 1968
    Piper 1947
    Powell 2000
    Prayer
    Preaching
    Presentation Of Our Lord
    Proctor 2019
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Psalms
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Rabbinic Character
    Real Presence
    Receptivity
    Reed 1995
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reinhartz 2018
    Resurrection
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Rhoads 2010
    Richardson & Gooch 1984
    Riggs 1995
    Ritual Meal
    Romans
    Rordorf 1996
    Rosenberg 1986
    Rosenberg 1987
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Russo 1994
    Ruth
    Sacrament
    Sacrifice
    Saenger 1999
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Sale 1996
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 1886
    Schaff 1888
    Schaff 1889
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Schwarz 2005
    Scriptural Usage
    Seeliger 1996
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Simon And Jude
    Smith-2009
    Smith 2018
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    St. Andrew
    Stark 1997
    St. Barnabas
    St. Bartholomew
    St. John
    St. John The Baptist
    St Luke
    St Mark
    St Matthew
    St. Matthias
    St Michael And All Angels
    St. Paul
    St. Peter And Paul
    St Philip And St James
    Strawbridge 2017
    St. Stephen
    St. Thomas
    St. Titus
    Sunday Of The Passion
    Tatian
    Taylor 1888
    TDNT
    Teaching
    Telfer 1939
    Tertullian
    Textual Comparison
    Textual Integrity
    Theophilos 2018
    Theophilus Of Antioch
    Thielman 2010
    Thursday In Holy Week
    Timothy
    Titus
    Transfiguration
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity 1
    Trinity 10
    Trinity 11
    Trinity 12
    Trinity 13
    Trinity 14
    Trinity 15
    Trinity 16
    Trinity 17
    Trinity 18
    Trinity 19
    Trinity 2
    Trinity 20
    Trinity 21
    Trinity 22
    Trinity 23
    Trinity 3
    Trinity 4
    Trinity 5
    Trinity 6
    Trinity 7
    Trinity 8
    Trinity 9
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Trinity Sunday
    Tsang 2009
    Tuckett
    Tuesday In Holy Week
    Tuilier 1995
    Twelftree 1984
    Two Ways
    Ty 19
    Van Der Merwe 2017
    Van Der Merwe 2019
    Van Der Watt 2008
    Van De Sandt 2002
    Van De Sandt 2007
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Van De Sandt & Flusser 2002
    Van Deventer 2021
    Varner 2005
    Vatican II
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Vikis-Freibergs 1997
    Visitation
    Voobus 1968
    Voobus 1969
    Warfield 1886
    Wasson & Toelken 1998
    Wednesday In Holy Week
    Wenham 1984
    Wenham 1992
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Wolmarans 2005
    Wright 1984
    Young 2011
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly