Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
    • Podcast Archives
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Greek Tutorials
  • Blog
  • Calendar
    • Events
  • Sandbox

Similar Ideas - Same Source?

12/18/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
12/18/19

Audet, Jean-Paul. “Literary and Doctrinal Affinities of the ‘Manual of Discipline’” pp. 129-147 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

Audet compares the second section of the Manual of Discipline (1QS 3:13-4:26) with the Two Ways narrative and the Shepherd of Hermas so as to weigh the Christian and, possibly more striking, Jewish tone (Audet 1996, 129). He considers the ongoing dialog between Jewish and Christian authors to be a substantive factor in the type of moral and ethical teachings of the primitive Church. He particularly notes that Christians tended to transcribe or adapt Jewish works to their purposes (Audet 1996, 130).

A key to this analysis may be the Duae Viae narrative. Audet considers the material, as found in the Epistle of Barnabas 18-20, to have the same stylistic and verbal elements as the rest of the Epistle. He concludes it is composed by the same author (Audet 1996, 131). The version in the Didache, while similar in content, draws from different soures and apparently engages in some revision. However, Audet immediately discounts the idea that the material as found in the Jewish Manual of Discipline could ever be adapted from a Christian source (Audet 1996, 132). The matter of dependence is not resolved, but it is Audet’s opinion that the concepts and even the arrangement was known to Barnabas from another source. This view is in contrast to the prominent statements of J.A. Robinson, who asserted Barnabas as the originator of the Two Ways (Audet 1996, 133).

Audet further considers the work of Funk in the late 19th century (Here Audet does not provide a first name, but refers to an 1887 edition of the Didache published by Henrici Laupp.).Funk assigned the Didachist as the author of the Duae Viae (Audet 1996, 134). Audet considers Funk’s assignation inadequate. He rather sees the Duae Viae may well have existed in different forms and different languages, being adapted by a number of authors, including the Didachist and Barnabas (Audet 1996, 135).

Audet follows a fairly conventional process of presenting texts next to one another, with the similar statements more or less parallel (Audet 1996, 136ff). The text from 1QS is significantly longer than the passage of Doctrina Apostolorum. Audet observes that the literary frameworks and developments of the two texts are very similar (Audet 1996, 141). This leads him in turn to look for a unifying principle in the historic faith of Israel. This pattern of light and dark, good and evil was found frequently in Jewish literature, and even in some Greek literature of the period (Audet 1996, 143).

Despite the existence of the themes in Jewish literature, Audet does not find the themes occurring together with one another in proximity anywhere else. Rather, he sees striking parallels between the Duae Viae and the Manual of Discipline (Audet 1996, 144). The similarities in structure, especially the proximity of “light and darkness, life and death” which Audet finds nowhere else, point him to a common source (Audet 1996, 144).

To show fairness in his analysis, Audet does list numerous difficulties in his comparison. There are various ideas which are not consistent in their treatment (Audet 1996, 145). It is a matter of interest that the two texts did not become progressively more uniform over time. Yet some divergence in structure and concepts is a commonly-found feature within Christian literature. The roots of two pieces of literature may be the same but we still find distinct literary works (Audet 1996, 146). 

Audet’s only conclusion, aside from similarity of the documents, is that both have a similarly early date, and that the Manual of Discipline probably dates to the early first century (Audet 1996, 147).

​
0 Comments

Identifying Oral Sources of Written Works . . .

12/13/2019

0 Comments

 
Culley, Robert. “Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies.” Oral Tradition 1:1 (1986), 30-65.

Culley focuses his review of the study of oral tradition and biblical studies by breaking it into three stages: first, up to the early 20th century, second, to about 1960, and third, up to the time of his writing (Culley 1986, 30). He observes that the term “biblical studies” is somewhat ambiguous because scholarship is often divided into Old Testament and New Testament studies. He also observes that the study of oral tradition as it overlaps with biblical studies is, by and large, a 20th century study (Culley 1986, 31). The study is complicated by the fact that we have very little definitive information about specifically how the biblical texts came to be written in their current form.

Culley first considers scholarship “up to the time of [Hermann] Gunkel (d. 1932)” (Culley 1986, 32). Specific debate about oral traditions as well as written source materials which could be used in the composition of biblical texts arose in the late 18th century, specifically in the work of Johann Gottfried Herder and Johann Christoph Nachtigal. About 100 years later, the work of Julius Wellhausen and Hermann Gunkel draws the attention of Culley (Culley 1986, 32). Wellhausen, best known for his postulation of the J, E, D, and P sources for the Pentateuch, assumed oral (and unreliable) sources for the stories gathered into the biblical texts (Culley 1986, 33). Gunkel took the texts to have a strong relationship to “folk literature” and to fit genres formed in an oral tradition. Culley finds Gunkel to have a relatively high opinion about accuracy of oral transmission, yet observes that he considered shorter narrative to be, by definition, older. He considered written transmission to be the only appropriate means of transmitting history (Culley 1986, 34). 

Culley next considers developments in scholarship up to the early sixties (Culley 1986, 35). He notes that relatively little scholarship emerged from Germany during the period, however, the work of Martin Noth recognized oral legends at the heart of aetiological stories. Noth frequently treated oral and written traditions as bearing equal weight (Culley 1986, 36). In Scandinavia, studies focused not only on oral tradition but also on the role of rites and sacral kings in Israel. Oral tradition was normally considered relatively accurate. Nyberg, in particular, saw the oral tradition as authoritative and the use of written texts primarily as props for memory (Culley 1986, 37). Other Scandinavian scholars considered that the methods of Nyberg and Gunkel needed to interact with one another. Particularly Culley mentions Sigmund Mowinckel, who considered writing to be essential to unchanging traditions and G. Widengren, who considered that Arabic poetry was not as much an oral creation as did Nyberg (Culley 1986, 38). This led Widengren to propose a robust written tradition in the Hebrew literature. The scholarly literature in North America at the time was not as extensive as that of Germany and Scandinavia (Culley 1986, 39). Culley does discuss William Foxewell Allbright and his view that oral and written traditions could coexist, with oral transmission continuing in cases of written literature which is disseminated orally (Culley 1986, 40).

Culley sees 1963 as the time of a major ground-shift in studies of oral tradition and the Old Testament (Culley 1986, 41). Much of this was related to an interest in Serbo-Croatian oral poetry as well as more archaic English classics. Culley’s working thesis at that point was that there were particular, often repetitive, patterns, which could be cataloged and identified in texts which depended heavily on orality.

Culley further considers attempts, beginning in the 1960s, to catalog the characteristics of Hebrew poetry. Most scholars agreed that Hebrew poetry is related in some ways to pairs of synonyms in different lines and to repeated phrases in different lines (Culley 1986, 42). The discussion is made more challenging because Hebrew does not make very clear distinctions between poetry and prose. Culley’s own work with biblical Psalms in 1963 and onward found stock phrases in traditional poetry from numerous cultures (Culley 1986, 43). The research continued into the 1970s as some scholars attempted to treat repetition of ideas, rather than repetition of phrases, as the structural unifying factor in Hebrew poetry (Culley 1986, 44). Oral formulas as a feature of composition was a popular field of study, especially among students of Frank Cross ad Harvard in the late 1960s. These students tended to find patterns which suggested an origin of Hebrew poetry in oral tradition.

One of the difficulties in the field, stated purposefully or not by Culley, is identification of formulae which would imply an oral origin. Culley’s statement of this may be telling of the discipline as a whole. “In selecting formulaic phrases, Urbock was less restrictive than I was, not demanding as great a measure of semantic identity” (Culley 1986, 45). An assessment of parallelism in ideas would predictably be highly subjective, and could be interpreted quite freely. This is affirmed by the fact that several scholars, through the 1970s and up to 1980, developed alternative theories about oral and written origins of precisely the same works, based on data gathered and analyzed in earlier years (Culley 1986, 46).

Culley next considers biblical Hebrew prose, beginning with the work of David Gunn, who, in the 1970s, produced articles analyzing prose. “In his approach to the biblical text he makes a distinction between what he calls traditional material, conventional for the author and his audience, and oral traditional material, where the mode of composition of the conventional material can be specified as oral” (Culley 1986, 47). Culley identifies the non-oral material as more elaborate motifs, and the oral material as short patterns. While this is an interesting analysis, it still does not provide definitive measures to identify oral and written sources. Culley goes on to describe his work with a blend of stable tradition and narrative variety (Culley 1986, 48). Other studies likewise apply tools to the biblical narratives, frequently using the methods applied to folklore, but without significant success in distinguishing among oral and written source material (Culley 1986, 49). This difficulty may have moved authors such as John Van Seters to seek written roots for virtually all texts (Culley 1986, 49-50).

Culley recognizes that interdisciplinary studies may be valuable, though they bear their own challenges. However, he does survey the work of two anthropologists, Robert R. Wilson and Burke O. Long (Culley 1986, 51). Both are cautious in their approach and note features such as repetition and variation in genealogical lists as signs of orality (Culley 1986, 52). The overall consensus, as observed by Culley, is that oral tradition is of questionable usefulness in reconstructing history. We simply know little about how it has been transmitted.

The New Testament has not been considered in terms of oral tradition as much as the Old Testament. However, Culley notes that Bultmann’s work with form criticism acknowledges both oral and written roots. “However . . . he makes the claim that one cannot distinguish in the end between oral and written traditions since the written material displays no specifically literary character” (Culley 1986, 53). Others, such as Birger Gerhardsson, in 1961, suggested that much of the New Testament was passed on orally, just as were many of the traditions of Judaism (Culley 1986, 53). Culley acknowledges that Gerhardsson’s work has been sharply critiqued, but still has redeeming characteristics. As we would expect, studies of orality and the New Testament have focused on the move from some sort of spoken tradition to a written manuscript. There is considerable difficulty in distinghishing the nature of oral and written sources which we don’t posssess (Culley 1986, 54).

In the late 1970s, work which may prove fruitful began as the nature of orality and textuality in the New Testament was studied. Of note to me, Culley mentions the work of Werner H. Kelber, with an article on oral tradition in 1979, followed by The Oral and the Written Gospel (1983), dealing with the interaction between oral and written texts (Culley 1986, 55).

In his concluding remarks, Culley restates the difficulties inherent in assessing oral roots of a written text, but does note there are numerous scholars who are beginning to sort out characteristics of orality and textuality. The interactions of oral and written sources can be a valuable means of understanding the nature and implications of many pieces of literature.

​
0 Comments

Tradition and Dependence

12/11/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
12/11/19

Tuckett, Christopher M. “Synoptic Tradition in the Didache” pp. 92-128 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

Tuckett observes that while much 20th century analysis assumes the Didache’s dependence on a Jesus tradition, for instance, a Q document, he and others would argue that the Didache actually depends on a finished version of Matthew’s Gospel (Tuckett 1996, 93). Because of the common view of a history of redaction, the dependence should be considered independently for the different segments. Tuckett notes that the use of other texts is mostly by allusion, not by direct quotation (Draper (ed.), 1996, 94). He considers that Köster does the best job of arranging texts to analyze possible dependence (Tuckett 1996,  95).

Didache 16 has numerous links to materials in the Synoptic Gospels. Tuckett notes that the links to Matthew24 may or may not include elements which scholars also tie to Mark (Tuckett 1996,  96). One of the difficulties in the analysis is that “the Didache and the synoptists could be reflecting standard eschatological motifs and using OT language” (Tuckett 1996,  96). The verbal links are not exclusively related to Matthew, but the parallel idea could be. Unfortunately, the overall pattern of connections throughout needs to be considered. It is possible that both texts drew from the same source material. Some scholars have made that conclusion (Tuckett 1996,  97). Tuckett walks through a number of the passages which show similarities. Of special note is Didache 16:3-5, where there is wording very similar to Matthew, especially 24:10-12, but not found in the other Synoptics (Tuckett 1996,  101). Tuckett acknowledges that the significance of the parallels is unclear. It may indicate a knowledge of Matthew on the part of the Didachist or common use of motifs (Tuckett 1996,  102-103).

Tuckett notes passages outside of Didache 16 as strongly parallel to Matthew as well. Didache 11:7 in its statement about unforgiveable sin agrees with Matthe w12:31. Further, the identification of a true prophet in Didache 13:1 is strongly similar to Matthew 10:10 (Tuckett 1996,  105). The love command and the golden rule statements from Didache 1:2 were fairly common ideas in Judaism. However, the formulation was not widely found except in Matthew 22:38f (Tuckett 1996,  106). Tuckett’s conclusion is that “these parallels can be best explained if theDidache presupposes the finished gospel of Matthew” (Tuckett 1996,  110).

Tuckett moves on to consider parallels of Didache 1:3-2:1 (Tuckett 1996,  110ff). The Two Ways narrative contains almost no specifically Christian content. However, Tuckett finds 1:3-2:1 as an interruption which emphasizes Christian doctrine (Tuckett 1996,  111). There is debate about the source of this doctrinal passage, as it does not clearly appear in the Gospels. Tuckett considers it a Q passage which was not preserved in a canonical Gospel (Tuckett 1996,  113). Tuckett arranges the various parts of Didache 1:3-2:1 into columns with similar ideas from Matthew and Luke in parallel. The ways in which the ideas are presented differ significantly. Tuckett considers that a Q document probably contained the ideas and language which may hve been adapted oonsiderably to suit the purposes of different authors (Tuckett 1996,  114). The ideas of these passages are somewhat problematic in terms of analysis. For instance. in Didache 1:3b, the text asks what good it is to love those who love you, then exhorts loving those who hate you. The theme is very common throughout the New Testament, but the wording may differ. Demonstration of dependence, as Tuckett would like to do, is nearly impossible (Tuckett 1996,  118-119). However, after perusing all the passages, Tuckett’s conclusion is that the Didache is written by an author or authors familiar with both Matthew and Luke in their final forms. I did not find his case to be conclusive.

​
0 Comments

Is There Such a Thing as Oral Literature?

12/6/2019

0 Comments

 
Fridays are for the Didache
​12/6/19

​Hoffman, Elizabeth A. “Exploring the Literate Blindspot: Alexander Pope’s Homer in Light of Milman Parry.” Oral Tradition 1:2 (1986), 381-397.

Hoffman observes that Alexander Pope, in his 1715 Iliad, recognized two categories of communication in the Iliad. She finds the preface says “one involves active, participatory communication fo ‘Hearers,’ the other passive, impersonal composition for readers” (Hoffman 1986, 381). This distinction, says Hoffman, was not well explored prior to the second half of the twentieth century. She sees this as a blind spot which has remained problematic.

Pope and his contemporaries assumed that “an original text of Homer’s work” existed (Hoffman 1986, 382). Hoffman finds that even in Pope’s comments on “a 3rd century BC relief, ‘The Apotheosis of Homer,’ by Archelaus of Prienne” (Hoffman 1986, 382), the only detail that escapes notice is a scroll in Homer’s hand, presumably ignored because it was a given that creative expression would be written. Though Pope and others knew of a pre-literate memory, Hoffman takes them to consider the lack of writing as a severe hindrance to creative and memorable work (Hoffman 1986, 384). Her view is that even through most of the 18th century public and private audible reading was the default, so orality came to be associated strongly with writing. Non-oral reading has possibly tended to separate print and orality in the twentieth century (Hoffman 1986, 385). In some ways, Hoffman sees Pope and the other poets of his time as recovering a sense of set oral forms which could bear meaning adequately (Hoffman 1986, 386). 

Pope observed the differences between Homer and Virgil, agreeing that some of the difference is between oral and literary foundations, even though, according to Hoffman, Pope thought genuine oral dependence belonged to a time period before Homer (Hoffman 1986, 386). However, Pope still thought Homer could turn people into hearers and Virgil could turn them into readers (Hoffman 1986, 387). Hoffman notes that Homer may be more akin to an oral composition, as described by Albert Lord in 1960 as something that was created in performance (Hoffman 1986, 389). Yet  neither A. Parry or Alfred Lord managed to identify markers of the difference between oral and written composition (Hoffman 1986, 390). 

Hoffman notes that Pope considered Homer as the superlative poet, also ascribing him credit as an historian and interdisciplinary specialist who could preserve the culture (Hoffman 1986, 390). She finds it worthy of note that Pope took “a change in the ‘Mode of Learning’” as a major contributor to the lack of invention in poetry after Homer (Hoffman 1986, 391). Plato himself speaks to a decay in learning as a result of the increased prevalence of writing in the time after Homer and before Virgil.

As readers, rather than listeners, Hoffman considers that our normal reaction is geared to written creations, rather than oral creations (Hoffman 1986, 392). For this reason it is very difficult to translate a piece of oral poetry into a meaningful written form, though Pope certainly did well. She notes that Pope himself found this a frustrating task (Hoffman 1986, 393). He further considered that much of his frustration was caused by artless use of print media. Hoffman notes Pope’s publication of the Dunciad, a parody of Homer, written for fools. Here intelligence is enslaved by dependence on print (Hoffman 1986, 395). 

By Hoffman’s accounting, Pope’s work with Homer is the last great work in English which can nearly capture Homer’s tone, and it does so because Pope understood orality (Hoffman 1986, 395). Hoffman suggests a concerted scholarly effort to recapture the power of orality in the pre-literate cultures so as to rightly understand the genres of the past.

0 Comments

Colliding Traditions

12/4/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
12/4/19

Draper, Jonathan. “The Jesus Tradition in the Didache” pp. 72-91 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

Draper, considering the general tone of the Didache, observes that “the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church’s order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the New Testament” (Draper 1996, 72). It was apparently widely used and was recommended reading for new converts until the 4th century. Draper notes that chapters 1-6 and the Epistle of Barnabas have considerable parallels. However, scholars are not in agreement about any direction of literary dependence (Draper 1996, 73).

The Manual of Discipline from the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS 3:13-4:26), in comparison to Doctrina Apostolorum, Barnabas, and the Didache suggests strongly that the Two Ways teaching was a pre-existing conceptual block of Jewish material (Draper 1996, 74). Draper, citing Audet but asserting that Audet’s conclusions are not entirely correct, identifies multiple layers of redaction in the text. He concludes that “[T[he Didache is a composite work, which has evolved over a considerable period, from its beginning as a Jewish catechetical work, which was taken up and developed by the Church into a manual of Church life and order” (Draper 1996, 74-75). Draper recognizes that some redaction may have continued up to the time of the 11th century manuscript which we have. Since there are no complete earlier manuscripts, our ability to compare an earlier time period is severely limited (Draper 1996, 75).

Draper continues to evaluate the “evidence concerning the Jesus tradition” (Draper 1996, 76). For this he looks primarily at 1:3b-2:1; 8, and 15:3-4. The use of the term “gospel” is not necessarily to be taken as a reference to a written cospel, which complicates matters. Draper finds that the Jesus tradition has largely not influenced the Two Ways, except at Didache 1:2b. Here, he finds the first . . . second . . . to be related to the Christian tradition from Matthew 22:37-39 (Draper 1996, 77). Again, dependence is not clearly demonstrable.

Didache 7 and 9-14, with their liturgical instruction, do not strongly reflect a Jesus tradition, though the Trinitarian formula in 7:1 is a clear reference to Jesus. Draper considers this a later redaction (Draper 1996, 78). He finds the eucharistic prayers in 9:10 similar to John 6:14, but more similar to the Jewish Berakoth (Draper 1996, 78). Draper further suggests that Didache 11:1-2 may ot have been dependent on Matthew 5:17-20, but that the dependence may have gone the other way. He thinks marks of dependence on a written gospel are “very faint” (Draper 1996, 79).

Didache 1:3-2:1, though somewhat similar to Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6, does not actually identify the ideas as teaching of Jesus (Draper 1996, 79). Draper considers this passage more similar to Justin Martyr’s Apology 1:16. Again, he is left uncertain as to the source, if any, of the material. Draper proceeds to lay out parallel passages from Didache 1, Matthew  5, Luke 6, and Justin, 1:15-16 (Draper 1996, 79-81). Draper considers the text of theDidache to be the most clumsy, therefore less likely to have been strongly influenced by other texts (Draper 1996, 82). The variations in wording of numerous passages suggest to Draper that the Didache was composed independently of the actual written Gospel accounts. Draper thinks it more likely that the Didache received influenes from “Q material, either in a written or an oral form” (Draper 1996, 85).

In Didache 8 Draper finds a strong influence, or at least a relationship to Matthew 6:1-6 and 9-13 (Draper 1996, 85). He also views it as a later insertion which interferes with a more natural flow of events. Draper briefly considers the difference in the wording of theLord’s Prayer as presented in the Didache and in Matthew (Draper 1996, 86).

The apocalyptic material in Didache 16 is similar in content to Matthew 24, but Draper considers it independent in composition (Draper 1996, 86). He finds the conceptual material in Exodus 12, but the actual compositions to be unrelated (Draper 1996, 87). This he demonstrates with parallel presentations of the texts, which are indeed not very similar.

Draper concludes, tentatively, that the Didache is relatively independent of the Synoptics. Dependence on a Jesus tradition is probably limited to materials found in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and Luke’s Sermon on the Plain, as well as Matthew 24. There is usually more similarity between the Didache and Matthew than with Luke (Draper 1996, 90). The Didache source seems more to be a Q document or some other oral or written collection of Jesus sayings. It is possible that this collection was known as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (Draper 1996, 91).

​
0 Comments

Baptism and Eucharist in Early Christianity

11/29/2019

0 Comments

 
Fridays are for the Didache
​11/29/19

Costanza, Jose Roberto daSilva. “Os Sacramentos na Igreja Antiga” Fides Reformata XVIII #1 (2013): 25-39.

Costanza observes that in western Christianity there is a divide between the Catholic and Protestant views of sacraments. To evaluate understanding, he provides an historical survey of the two which Catholic and Protestant churches agree upon, baptism and communion. The survey particularly includes apostolic fathers and church fathers (Costanza 2013, 25). In particular, Costanza is interested in the development of a sacramental theology prior to 590, with the eleation of Gregory I and the start of the Medieval period (Costanza 2013, 26).

The term “sacrament,” which does not appear in the biblical record, had three different connotations in the early first century. It could have to do with money set aside for return, such as in banking. In the military, it indicated a pledge to an authority. In a spiritual sense, it would speak to some sort of special and mysterious identity. Costanza observes that Augustine referred to it as “an external sign of an internal and spiritual grace” (my translation) (Costanza 2013, 26). 

Costanza, speaking of baptism, observes that there is no clear evidence of it in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament it is explicitly present in the Gospels. In the Epistles, Paul emphasizes it as the initiation of the Christian life (Costanza 2013, 26). It bears a relationship to the death and resurrection of Christ. The ritual is not described in detail in the New Testament, but it is in the Didache. Costanza draws a line of continuous practice from the Didache through Justin Martyr and Tertullian, where the trinitarian formula and a preference for running or at least fresh and cool water are the accepted norm (Costanza 2013, 27). There was little debate about baptism of infants, but most instruction pertained to the baptism of adult converts. Tertullian identified three specific benefits of baptism: “remission of sins, regeneration, and indwelling by the Holy Spirit” (my translation) (Costanza 2013, 28). These effects of baptism, according to Jaroslav Pelika, have not required revision since they were articulated in the second century. Costanza notes that the view of baptism remained the same in Irenaeus and in Cyril of Jerusalem, who had little to add in his catechesis for baptism. He did, however, recommend baptism by immersion (Costanza 2013, 29). Throughout the patristic period it was regularly agreed that rebaptism was inappropriate (Costanza 2013, 30). By the time of Augustine, the concept that baptism not only forgave original sin but also personal sin was accepted. This understanding continued. With this Costanza ends his review of baptism and moves to the Eucharist (Costanza 2013, 31). 

Costanza notes that the Eucharist, which term he uses interchangeably with “holy communion” or “the Lord’s supper” is rooted in the meal recorded in Matthew 26 and Luke 22 (Costanza 2013, 32). There is a clear tie to the Paschal celebration, but with Jesus’ statement that the bread and wine are his body and blood it is clear that Jesus is to be the substitute for the lamb. Fathers from Clement of Alexandria to Origen saw this as a recollection of the Old Testament sacrifices, which led to a view of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Costanza observes that Chrysostom was clear about the Eucharist as offering a sacrifice. In early Christianity Costanza finds the Eucharist as a fixed ritual (Costanza 2013, 33). Those who were not baptized were not admitted. The words of Jesus were used to consecrate bread and wine, which was distributed. Costanza specifically cites the Didache as a source of description, as well as Justin and Hippolytus. Ignatius is clear that in the Eucharist we receive Christ’s body. Justin Martyr further states that the bread and wine are transmuted, which Costanza says leads directly to the doctrine of transubstantiation (Costanza 2013, 34). The idea can also be found in Cyprian and in Jerome. The Council of Trent, much later, codified this understanding formally (Costanza 2013, 35). InIrenaeus, Costanza tells us, the idea of communion as nourishment for eternal life emerges, particularly in Against Heresies book 4 chapter xviii. Gregory of Nyssa describes communion as divine medicine, in his large catechism, chapter 37. Costanza finds very early evidence that the eucharist was celebrated every Lord’s Day (Costanza 2013, 36). By the third century there were moves to accept less frequent reception as well as more frequent celebration. There were, at least by the time of Cyprian, some locations where infants would be communed. Costanza points out that some Protestants consider the Eucharist as not necessary, but as a public confession of faith, in contrast to the Roman Catholic view as a sacrament (Costanza 2013, 37).

Costanza concludes that both baptism and the Eucharist have roots in the earliest time of the Church. Both rites are historically associated with spiritual gifts, with baptism imparting faith and communion nourishing it (Costanza 2013, 38). It may be pertinent for my overall research to observe that Costanza considers the Didache to describe rites which are perfectly consistent with the historic Christian understanding of both rites.
0 Comments

An Early Church Order

11/27/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
11/27/19

Schöllgen, Georg. “The Didache as a Church Order: An Examination of the Purpose for the Composition of the Didache and Its Consequences for Interpretation” pp. 43-71 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

Schöllgen observes that since 1883, the Didache has been recognized as following the structure of a “church order,” particularly in giving very specific directions for activities and in not speaking to the underlying theology of those activities (Schöllgen 1996, 43). Early works set a pattern of assuming the Didache was intended to speak to the entirety of church order. However, Schöllgen notes that the document’s silence on some counts doesn’t necessarily mean those were not part of Christian practice. It may well be that the Didache only spoke to selected topics (Schöllgen 1996, 44). To explore the thesis, Schöllgen considers the different segments of the Didache, its argument in each section, what the regulations mean to the overall life of the community, and how the sections may be connected with one another (Schöllgen 1996, 45). He initially walks through the text, dividing it into its sensible chunks, evaluating each.

Chapters 1-6 represent the Two Ways teaching, which seems a piece of pre-existing Christian tradition, with some customization. This is followed in 7:1-4 by a description of baptism. The preferred mode is immersion in running water, though there is an allowance for exceptions due to circumstances (Schöllgen 1996, 46). The trinitarian formula is to be used, possibly indicating that some baptisms were performed in another way. There is a time of fasting and prayer before the baptism (Schöllgen 1996, 47). The age, confession, or other specific circumstances are not mentioned. Schöllgen considers this as an indication that the Didache isnot attempting to draw a complete picture of the rite. Similarly, in 8:1, the routine fasting of Christians is assigned days, ut no other details are given (Schöllgen 1996, 49). 82-3 speaks to one part of prayer practice by specifying the Lord’s Prayer to be used regularly, but does not address other contexts in which we would expect to find people engaged in prayer.

The apparently eucharistic passages, in 9:1-10:7 and in chatpers 14-15 describe a communal meal, but it is not absolutely clear from the text what specific meals these may be (Schöllgen 1996, 49). There are some directions but not everything is spelled out. This suggests to Schöllgen that there was no intent to formulate all that was done, but to provide correctives on an “as needed” basis (Schöllgen 1996, 50).

Chapters 11-12 have an overarching theme of hospitality. The care of Christians for others may well have been abused by some who received hospitality. Those visitors who are teachers and pursue the truth are to be received (Schöllgen 1996, 51). Apostles and prophets, on their travels, are to be considered in accord with their teaching. The apostles are not to come and demand money (Schöllgen 1996, 53). Prophets, as those who by necessity speak from the Holy Spirit, are not put to the same test. However, their lifestyle is to be observed (Schöllgen 1996, 55). The prophets are not to demand money for themselves, but they may rightly urge giving for the poor in the community. Ordinary Christians who come to the community are to be received with hospitality. However, it is not to be indefinite in nature and the community is allowed to ascertain that their guests are in fact Christians (Schöllgen 1996, 56).

Didache 13:1-7, in Schöllgen’s view, uses some quotes from another source, in the second person, rather than the third person, speaking to the need of the community to care for the prophets and teachers who come to them (Schöllgen 1996, 57). This is for those who are actually settling in the community, not merely passing throguh. Schöllgen does observe that we are never told the specific tasks which prophets and teachers would do, for which they received provision. The original readers would have known, but we are left unsure (Schöllgen 1996, 59).

Chapter 14 turns our attention back to the Eucharist. It is to be celebrated in purity, with those in unreconciled conflicts excluded, and is to happen specifically on the Lord’s day (Schöllgen 1996, 59). “Again, it is clear that the text only regulates particular controversial points; from the point of view of liturgical studies, it raises more questions than it answers” (Schöllgen 1996, 60). There are only directions for parts of the whole.

Bishops and deacons are affirmed in 15:1-2. Schöllgen suggests that the text affirms those who were worthy, while rejecting people who were not worthy to be in the office (Schöllgen 1996, 61). Again, the specific duties of bishops and deacons are never given. The directions found in the Didache are partial. They give corrective instructions but do not attempt to explain Christian faith and practice fully (Schöllgen 1996, 62). For this reason, Schöllgen takes the Didache as a limited document speaking to a particular community to address particular shortcomings (Schöllgen 1996, 63).

Schöllgen concludes that his study should result in placing limitations on “wild hypotheses which try to gain more historical information from the text than it is able to provide” (Schöllgen 1996, 64). He goes on to illustrate the effect, using two stands he considers “controversial.” First, the origin of the text. Early interpreters normally assumed one author, while the majority recently have pursued a literary critical method, often dividing authorship adn the text in ways Schöllgen finds arbitrary. However, treating the text as a church order dealing with selected questions allows for the fragmentary nature without the need for a complicated scheme of redaction (Schöllgen 1996, 66). The stylistic changes are then easily treated as quotations of source material. Secondly, the church offices, which some see shifting from apostles, prophets, and teachers in chatpers 11-13 to bishops and deacons in chapter 14 (Schöllgen 1996, 68). This shift, however, is predicated on chapters 14-15 being added later, rather than a plain reading that suggests all the roles are present at the same time. The text does not see bishops and deacons as an innovation, but as gifts to be preserved (Schöllgen 1996, 69). 

In conclusion, Schöllgen holds that the Didache should best be treated as a partial and topical church order, probably written mostly by an individual who used some other source materials at times. It is intended to speak to particular problems but not to give a complete doctrinal or practical guide.

​
0 Comments

Illustrative but not Authoritative

11/22/2019

0 Comments

 
 Fridays are for the Didache
​11/22/19

Milavec, Aaron (2012) Review of O’Loughlin, Thomas. The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic; London: SPCK, 2010) xviii + 185” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74, 2012, pp. 619-620

Milavec’s primary understanding of the state of Didache scholarship is well summed up in his opening sentences. “Until recently, NT scholars could politely dismiss the Didache as a patristic document compiled in stages from pre-existing traditional material spliced together with minimal editing. Recent years have witnessed greater attention given to the internal unity of the Didache as revealing a form of Christianity that thrived at the same time as Paul’s mission and the canonical Gospels (in their oral form) were taking shape” (Milavec 2012, 619). O’Loughlin, whose work is primarily in the realm of New Testament scholarship, comments on the issues in the Didache “against the backdrop of the NT texts” (Milavec 2012, 619). His assumptions of dating and function are consistent with Audet and Milavec in placing it around the year 50 and focused on training Gentile converts to Christianity. The book poins up the view that the Didache is focused on practice rather than doctrinal explanation. O’Laughlin sees the Didache as an illustration of practices in one time and place within Christianity, not as a normative document. The underlying issues of unity in the Christian life are normative but the practices which reflect that untiy can and do change in time. As an example he uses the offering of first-fruits, which is practiced differently in many cultures and times but which is an outworking of the issue of giving and caring for others (Milavec 2012, 620). Milavec gives this book high praise.

0 Comments

Didache Research Overview

11/20/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
11/20/19

Draper, Jonathan A. “The Didache in Modern Research: An Overview” pp. 1-42 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

Draper’s article provides a survey of the research surrounding the Didache.The text, available in just one manuscript dating to 1056 C.E., was rediscovered by the Metropolitan Philotheos Bryennios “in the library of the patriarch of Jerusalem at Constantinople” (Draper (ed.), 1996, 1). It is in a collection of works. The Didache was published in 1883. In 1904, G. Horner found the text of 11:3-13:7 as well as 8:1-2 in an Ethiopic Church Order. The text of 1:3b-4a and 1:7b-3:2a was in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, published in1922. A Coptic fragment, 10:3b-12:2, has been published and corrected starting in 1924. Much of the text is also present in Apostolic Constitutions VII.1-32 (Draper (ed.), 1996, 2). There has also been debate whether the Epistle of Barnabas and the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum are related, either as sources or works influenced by the Didache. There has also been an Epitome, published in 1903. In 1959, E. Peterson seriously questioned the reliability of the Jerusalem text, calling for changes to conform to the Coptic version and Apostolic Constitution, which he thinks are more reliable. J.P. Audet has come out in agreement with Peterson. The critical editions of Audet and of K. Wengst attempt to trace development of the text over time. Wengst is “essentially affirmed” by B. Dehandschutter (Draper (ed.), 1996, 3). However, most critics essentially accept the Jerusalem manuscript. Draper notes that a critical text by Tuilier in Sources Chretiennes is a “clear, cautious and usable text with full notes on the variants” (Draper (ed.), 1996, 3).Draper observes that the Coptic fragment appears to be either a part of a roll used for liturgical purposes or a double leaf on which a scribe was exercising. The text is largely in agreement with that of the Jerusalem manuscript.

The Didache has two titles, either Didache or “The Teaching(s) of the (twelve) apostles.” Scholars have differed on which title may have been older and whether the “teaching” is singular or plural. Draper does not speculate, as his goal is to provide a summary of the scholarship (Draper (ed.), 1996, 4).

In early research of theDidache, Draper observes that Bryennios takes a relatively late date, with the Didache dependent on Barnabas and Shepherd (Draper (ed.), 1996, 5). In contrast, Harnack eventually argued it was much earlier, then, based on that conclusion, he attempted to settle disputes over church order, saying the Didache specifically defended Article 5 of the Augsburg Confession. Harnack saw apostles, prophets and teachers as the original design, and the development of bishops and deacons as a later and inferior structure (Draper (ed.), 1996, 6).Draper summarizes Harnack’s work in considerable detail. Harnack sees the Didache as describing a very primitive form of Christianity. Because he places the writing in the second century, he assumes an audience in a rural part of Egypt. He sees the Church (institution) as not completely formed, but Christianity as a living faith which formed communities (Draper (ed.), 1996, 7). Other critics have assigned an earlier date and have debated whether the community is Gentile or a Jewish Christian community (Draper (ed.), 1996, 8). Taylor and Harris reversed ideas of dependence, suggesting that the Didache was the source upon which second century authors depended (Draper (ed.), 1996, 9). By 1920, Rudolf Knopf articulated a scholarly consensus of composition between 90 and 150, probably in Syria or Palestine, in a rural area, with a source in Jewish catechesis (Draper (ed.), 1996, 10). 

Draper next considers the fact that 1920 gave us J.A. Robinson’s view that the Didache was a pious fiction drawing on ideas of Jesus’ teaching to be transmitted according to Matthew 28:20 (Draper (ed.), 1996, 11). This view sees the Didache asa rather clumsy collage of different sources. The door was thus opened for text-critical methods to be applied, as they were by 1028 in the work of James Muilenburg. In contrast, B.H. Streeter in 1929 made persuasive arguments for an early date, essential originality, and an early perception that the text was authoritative (Draper (ed.), 1996, 12).

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 had a strong influence on Didache scholarship. Specifically, research has been focused on the Two Ways passage. Scholars, especially Audet, have decided the Didache is an early and independent composition (Draper (ed.), 1996, 13). These decisions are based on the nuances of two ways passages in different literature. The Didache does not have the same level of determinative dualism found in some other literary traditions (Draper (ed.), 1996, 14). Draper suggests the Didache is more similar to a Jewish rabbinic document than to a philosophical treatise. This stands in contrast to Barnabas (Draper (ed.), 1996, 16). 

Because the Didache did not appear to be based on Barnabas, scholars around 1950 began considering its relationship to the Synoptic Gospels. “The earliest commentators on the text usually assumed the use of at least Matthew’s gospel, especially since the Didache itself four times refers to ‘the gospel’ in 8:2; 11:3; 16:3, 4” (Draper (ed.), 1996, 16). By 1957, though, Helmut Koster suggested that the Didache was not dependent on the Gospels but stood beside them independently (Draper (ed.), 1996, 17. Footnote refers to Synoptische Uberlieferung beiden apostolischen Vatern, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957). Audet made similar conclusions in his 1958 commentary. Despite numerous scholarly reviews, the interrelationship of Didache and the Gospels or traditions leading to them remains elusive (Draper (ed.), 1996, 18). 

Following Audet’s ork, more form-critical analysis has emerged. Since the Didache appears to be a church or community manual, there has been an assumption of “a complex and rather haphazard history of accumulation” (Draper (ed.), 1996, 19). However, Draper observes, the earliest documents we would recognize as church manuals did not arise until about the third century. The Didache is not in this tradition, though it may foreshadow it. There is also an assumption by scholars of church manuals that they are not as intentionally doctrinal in nature as is the Didache (Draper (ed.), 1996, 20-21).

A redaction critical approach to the Didache has sought to understand how the “Didachist” might have revised traditions to suit his own purpose (Draper (ed.), 1996, 22). These studies are chiefly dated in 1978 and after. A problem inherent in the approach is that we rarely have clear evidence for sources, so it is unclear whether materials have been adopted or adapted.

Studies of the Didache have always shown interest in the liturgical traditions (Draper (ed.), 1996, 24). The possible timing of a n anointing with oil at the time of baptism has drawn attention, ashas the use of running water (Draper (ed.), 1996, 25). The question of whether baptism in Judaism and Christianity are different, and which is described in the Didache also arises. Draper observes that the concentration on baptism has not been as extensive as that on the eucharist (Draper (ed.), 1996, 25). 

Studies on the Didache and eucharist have been fairly common (Draper (ed.), 1996, 26). Not only have scholars considered the prayers in comparison to Jewish rites and to the New Testament descriptions of the eucharist, but they have also given serious consideration to the references present both in chapters 9-10 and in chapter 14. Draper notesthat H. Lietzmann, in his Messe und Herrenmahl (Bonn: Marcus & Weber, 1926), translated by D.H.G. Reeve as Mass and Lord’s Supper (Leiden: Brill, 1953-1964) is very significant in its work to distinguish between a Pauline eucharist and an Egyptian eucharist, exemplified by the Didache (Draper (ed.), 1996, 27).The view is contradicted by those who identify an agape feast as opposed to a eucharist in this context (Draper (ed.), 1996, 28). Dix is an example of this view. Seeral moderating views have been expressed based on usage of the words present for giving of thanks and on the various Jewish rites (Draper (ed.), 1996, 29-30).

The radicalism of some spoken of in the Didache has received a good deal of study. The ascetics, apparently itinerant, have been looked at as models of truly dedicated Chrstians (Draper (ed.), 1996, 31). The ascetic tendency in Christianity may well have passed from Palestine to Syria as an outgrowth of the Essenes. It may further be reflected strongly in the Coptic fragment of the Didache (Draper (ed.), 1996, 32). The itinerant prophets, apostles, and teachers are normally assumed to be ascetics (Draper (ed.), 1996, 33). In contrast, the Pauline communities seem to have less itinerant activity.  The “Way of life” in the two way teaching may direct the community in their discipleship, moving them to a productive keeping of the law of God (Draper (ed.), 1996, 34). Scholars such as Kretschmar and Theissen have suggested such models. However, Draper notes they have not always used the redactional theories adequately so may have overlooked important factors in their analysis (Draper (ed.), 1996, 36). Niederwimmer finds that the leadership of worship gradually shifted from the hands of itinerant prophets into the control of a more established local community (Draper (ed.), 1996, 37). Various different nuances have been suggested which take different stances regarding the prophets and the local leaders, evaluating conflicts between the groups (Draper (ed.), 1996, 38). Many of the scholars propose a shift from itinerant radical teachers to community based bishops and deacons.

The apocalyptic passage of Didache 16 has received relatively little scholarly attention. It is not unusual for period moral teaching to draw eschatological conclusions. However, the passages are significantly separated in our record of the Didache (Draper (ed.), 1996, 39). Scholars have also made comparisons between the apocalyptic passage in the Didache and those in the Synoptic Gospels. Again, demonstrating dependence has proven elusive. The idea of resurrection and a millennium are not exactly the same as the New Testament view (Draper (ed.), 1996, 40). Rather than a universal resurrection, only the Christians are raised from the dead. This area of inquiry has possibly become more prominent in recent years (Draper (ed.), 1996, 41).

Draper closes his article by observing that sociological, anthropological, and studies based on the nature of oral tradition, as well as Jewish cultural roots have become more popular in recent scholarship, suggesting that the academic work will move that direction (Draper (ed.), 1996, 42).

​
0 Comments

Two Ways - Life and Death

11/15/2019

0 Comments

 
 Fridays are for the Didache
​11/15/19

Hutchens, S.M. “Good News or Dead End?” Touchstone Sept/Oct 2013, pp. 4-5

Hutchens, writing in response to comments that modern Christianity has been too concerned about relevance and not concerned enough about holiness, observes that this likely false dichotomy is not a new concern among Christians. Hutchens points us to the two ways passage of the Didache, saying the difference between life and death is enormous and should be obvious (Hutchens 2013, 5). His contention is that when we blur the lines of good and evil we are not helpful to those who are not entirely certain of the difference. Good leadership is authoritative and makes it clear that there is good and evil, sin and salvation, a way of life and a way of death.

Hutchens’ comments, though they are in a journal I greatly respect, and though they came up in a search about the Didache, are not of the nature to be of assistance in understanding much of th Didache. Rather, they provide some measure of critical analysis and enlightenment about our world.

0 Comments

Ancient Manuscripts and Reading Instructions

11/8/2019

0 Comments

 
 Fridays are for the Didache
​11/8/19

-- "Codex Sinaiticus as a Window into Early Christian Worship” Eleutheria 3:1, Fall 2014. Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary & Graduate School, pp. 2-19.  

This anonymous paper considers whether the ancient manuscripts of Scripture contained relatively standardized markings and formatting which would assist not only the reader but also the learner by setting apart particularly important portions of a “two ways” theme intended to teach a way of life and a way of death (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 1). Of special note is “a system of cross references . . . placed in the margins of Codex Sinaiticus, which appear to be roughly contemporary to the manuscript” (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 2). These were apparently developed by Pamphilius, whose work serves as a bridge between that of Origen and of Eusebius.

Reading ancient manuscripts is notoriously difficult, in part due to the lack of spacing between words and the lack of punctuation. Christian texts have a tendency to be prepared with more aids for reading aloud, but it remains challenging. The reader is helped by ekthesis, which resembles reverse indentation of new paragraphs, having a letter in the margin, as well as ending an old paragraph by leaving the remainder of the line blank (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 3). Markingso f punctuation also tend to be carried over from one manuscript to another, including some marks which appear to give phrasing guidance to the reader (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 4). In Codex Sinaiticus when a list is presented, each item on the list will appear on its own line, thus creating considerable blank space. The author of the paper considers a real possibility that the markings used may have been copied from earlier sources, dating back possibly into the second century (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 5). 

Because of generally low literacy rates in the Roman Empire, public reading of literature and other documents was a common feature of life. In the Church, public reading of Scripture was emphasized. We find these statements both in the New Testament, then as early as Justin Martyr (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 5). It is also clear that some liturgical forms could be identified at a very early time. By the time of Tertullian there were habits of repeated readings as well as chanting Psalms. It was important that reading be done well, particularly using tunes or other methods to insure good projection (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 7). The chanting would assist in both understanding and memory. This was considered part of having a proper reading. In comments of Irenaeus, even the individual sense units of the Greek were to be marked so as not to lose the sense of the text (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 8).

The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, along with several New Testament passages have “two-ways” passages or lists ofvirtue and vice. Codex Sinaiticus and Q84 both have formats in which one attribute is provided per line (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 10). A similar format appears in Luke 3, in lists of apostles, and at some places where lists of people being healed of various sicknesses appear. While some such formats may indicate a piece of a hymn or other liturgical music, the author of this article thinks the format would normally be used to remind a reader of a mnemonic method or a rhetorical rhythm (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 12). This practice, again, tends to point to a relatively early time period in which orality was prominent (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 13).

The paper, though it doesn’t actually prove anything, does demonstrate a possibility that different passages were highlighted for special attention in reading, and that those passages may have been set apart due to particular liturgical goals (“Codex Sinaiticus Window” 2014, 14).

0 Comments

November 01st, 2019

11/1/2019

0 Comments

 
Fridays are for the Didache
​11/1/19

 Henderson, Ian. "Didache and Orality in Synoptic Comparison." Journal of Biblical Literature 111, no. 2 (1992): 283-306. 

Henderson considers the nature of oral tradition, citing B. Gerhardsson’s research showing, “if rabbinic literature reflects a self-consciously mnemotechnical oral tradition, Synoptic literature does not” (Henderson 1992, 283). The models used in much scholarship lead to stereotypes of orality and literacy. Henderson considers the Didache as a good test case for identifying the interactions between orality and literary use (Henderson 1992, 284). This article deals with three questions. “What is the most comprehensive and economical description available for Didache?  What is the most powerfully explanatory level of analogy between it and NT literature? And how can increased sensitivity to the influence of oral/aural media enrich the study of early Christian literature?” (Henderson 1992, 284). A problem Henderson sees in NT scholarship and that of the Didache is the “tension between describing the text itself as communicative act and a prior interest in extracting social-historical data from it” (Henderson 1992, 285). The Didache can be, and is often, considered as a likely fiction, or even a forgery. Therefore, there is open and candid work to identify plot themes, which is done less openly with the NT literature (Henderson 1992, 285).

Henderson continues by looking for a unified plot, while seeking a coherent view of an author. This author he finds in the διδάσκαλος (Did. B.2, 15. 1-2). This figure seems to bridge the  gap between the highly itinerant apostle/prophet and the Christians, who are being instructed in their daily life (Henderson 1992, 287). The work of a didache would imply the presence of a didaskalos who would give oral and likely written confirmation of the truth. The contents of the Didache are very much imperative in nature (Henderson 1992, 287).

As to genre, Henderson observes the Didache is often considered a church order and compared to the Sermon on the Mount. However, it would be the first of its kind (Henderson 1992, 288). The text is generally non-literary, more similar to a transcript of oral instruction (Henderson 1992, 289). He does see a similarity between the form of a Gospel and the Didache. “(1) Both genres are episodic in character . . . (2) Both genres are, moreover, formally hybrid . . . (3) the two genres, gospel and church order, share a selectivity in the choice of topics and an economy in their development which imply that the rhetorical function of the former is not simply theological exposition and that of the latter not simply to regulate socially topical issues” (Henderson 1992, 289-290).

In this analysis it is necessary to seek a purpose of the composition. The author stresses an overall discipline and careful control of Christian discipline, but does so “without polemical or apologetic stress” (Henderson 1992, 291). The overall tone is more gentle than that of Matthew or of Paul’s letters (Henderson 1992, 292). Henderson emphasizes this irenic quality as coming from a time which was by no means devoid of stressors. It assumes a Christian predisposition to peace (Henderson 1992, 293).

Henderson further observes that though the Didache is a text and refers to written sources in general terms, it does not seem to expect it will be read by all, rather, that the content will be told to all (Henderson 1992, 293). The text itself does not feature many indicators of orality. It uniformly refers to the spoken and heard elements of the law and of the gospel, as opposed to the New Testament, which frequently refers to written authority (Henderson 1992, 295) The use of the Lord’s Prayer is introduced purely as an oral and liturgical element, not as a literary reference (Henderson 1992, 296). The logical arrangement of the Didache also points to orality. While a literary logical argument can refer to antecedents mentioned once some time ago, orality requires close association of ideas as found in this text (Henderson 1992, 298).

Henderson illustrates the interaction between literary and oral elements by examining unifying elements in 1.1-6.2 (Henderson 1992, 299-301). When compared to Romans 1:18-3:18, the Didache shows much more similarity to early oral works. The figures of speech used are much briefer and do not depend on literary quotes (Henderson 1992, 300). Furthermore, the overall structure of the work is based on repetitions of words or phrases, a distinctively oral framework (Henderson 1992, 301). Henderson describes several of these formulae on pp. 302-303.

In conclusion, Henderson states that the Didache should be considered as an oral work due to its oral categories, its conversational way of pulling the author and reader together, and the absence of extended logical arguments (Henderson 1992, 305).

0 Comments

Didache and Anointing

10/25/2019

0 Comments

 
Fridays are for the Didache
10/25/10
​
Ysebaert, Joseph. “The So-Called Coptic Ointment Prayer of Didache 10,8 Once More” Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002), pp. 1-10. Leiden: Brill.

Ysebaert had previously written a lengthy footnote on the Coptic Ointment Prayer in Didache 10, 8 (In Greek Baptismal Terminology). Here he expands his argument, partly in response to other scholars. The Coptic text, published by G. Horner in 1924, uses the word stinoufi, which Horner translates as “aroma (ointment).” Yesbaert notes that the Greek of the Coptic fragment appears also in Apostolic Constitutions 7, and that the text is largely a reworking of the Didache (Yesbaert 2002, 1). The thrust of the passage is thanksgiving to God for the ointment or myrrh given. The similarity of the passages to descriptions of an anointing for the sick has led many commentators to take the word to mean a fragrant ointment (Yesbaert 2002, 2). Yet some have observed that the Coptic word is more commonly used to describe a perfume for anointing, not something which would be applied to the sick (Yesbaert 2002, 3). The more common parallel Greek word is εὐωδία, a smell, as in 2 Corinthians 2:15.

Ysebaert considers whether the word could have taken on concrete meaning as the substance creating the good smell. He finds that this is a valid possibility (Yesbaert 2002, 4). This is fairly common in Coptic versions of the Old Testament. However, it is not used with any frequency as an anointing substance. Coptic dictionaries bear this out, as they do not classify it as an ointment but as a perfume (Yesbaert 2002, 5). Ysebaert takes Horner’s translation, then, to be based on the context which suggested to him an anointing even though the word really refers to a smell (Yesbaert 2002, 6). 

Yesebaert says, however, that when he originally commented in 1962, he did not observe the different meanings of εὐχαριστέω in different constructions (Yesbaert 2002, 6). With a dative object, the dative indicates the person receiving thanks. There may be a prepositional phrase indicating the reason as well. However, with an accusative object it indicates blessing or consecrating the accusative object. In this case, we give thanks to God for the good smelling object or substance. If that is the case, the author of Apostolic Constitutions is likely inserting τοῡ μύρου as an explanation of what the substance is, thus referring to oil used after baptism (Yesbaert 2002, 7). Ysebaert finds parallels for this in 2 Corinthians 2:15 (cf. 2:14 & 16), Ephesians 5:2, and Philippians 4:18. The outcome of that comparison is that the Coptic fragment has a prayer which gives thanks for the good aroma of Christ in the Christian gatherings.

Ysebaert closes with some comments about the dating of the Didache (Yesbaert 2002, 8). Harnack assumed the date to be around 130 due to the catholicity he found in the text. However, “it is generally agreed that at least many sections of the Didache are archaic, even if the final redaction should be dated after 100 AD” (Yesbaert 2002, 8). Particularly the references to the current activity of apostles suggests an early period. It seems to fit better in the period immediately after the stoning of Stephen and flight of most Christians from Jerusaelm. If this is the case, the εὐώδια statement probably predates 2 Corinthians (Yesbaert 2002, 9). Ysebaert therefore takes the text to belong to a very early period, a concept he intends to comment on in the context of the description of the Eucharist in the Didache. 

0 Comments

Eucharist and Prayer

10/18/2019

0 Comments

 
Fridays are for the Didache
​10/18/19
Koch, Dietrich-Alex. “Eucharistic Meal and Eucharistic Prayer in Didache 9 and 10.” Studia Theologica 64 (2010), pp. 200-218. Routledge.

Koch recognizes the meal described in Didache 9-10 as a ritual meal surrounded by prayers. However, he also sees the need to question whether the meal is to be understood “as a charity meal (a so-called Agape) or as a ritual (“sacramental”) meal in the proper sense” (Koch 2010, 200). The primary difficulties he identifies relate to the lack of Words of Institution similar to 1 Cor. 11:23-25, as ewll as the invitation found in Didache 10:6c, calling people to repent and come.

The overall content of Didache 7-10 is that of teaching on baptism and the Eucharist, which Koch takes as “two main ritual (“sacramental”) acts of the communities of the Didache” (Koch 2010, 201). He moves on to an analysis of the structure of Didache 9:1-5 and 10:1-7, presenting the text in Greek and English, in outline form, with the major points underlined (Koch 2010, 201-203). The eating and drinking each have prayers of thanksgiving associated with them. The meal appears quite real, as it speaks of being filled before a special giving of thanks (Koch 2010, 204). There are instructions interspersed in 10:5 and 10:7. Koch observes that the instructions are rather scant, but that the original audience would have found them as already known. Some prayers are specified while the prophets can add to the prayers. This may serve to protect the local climate while inviting the prophets to participation. “The author of the Didache clearly tends to strengthen the position of the leaders of the local communities in comparison with the prophets” (Koch 2010, 205). Koch also finds a number of interjected exclamations which could be spoken by the leader or the participants. Finally, there is an invitation to “holy ones” along with a request that others would repent (Koch 2010, 206).

Koch, summarizing the scholarship since 1883, finds two overall methods of interpreting the event. First, it may be that there was an Agape meal, with prayers included in the Didache, followed by a Eucharist for which the Didache does not include a liturgy (Koch 2010, 206). The weakness of this interpretation is the odd omission of Words of Institution, especially since the Didache provides other set statements such as the Lord’s Prayer (Koch 2010, 207). Other scholars argue that the entire ritual meal is present, and that the prayers are given as they were being used. The weakness of this interpretation is that it cannot adequately explain the presence of 10:6c, the invitation and call for repentance.

In an attempt to resolve this twin difficult, Koch compares the meal of Didache 9-10 and the Eucharist described in 1 Cor. 10-11. The meal in the Didache seems to be a liturgical event. 9:5 excludes those who are not baptized. 10:2-5 treats it as “spiritual food and drink.” Yet, since it speaks of being filled, there is clearly an actual meal. The central element in both the Didache and in 1 Corinthians is prayer, giving thanks to God. Koch therefore concludes “a basic correspondence” of the two descriptions (Koch 2010, 208). However, there are significant differences. The Didache prayers are those of thanksgiving while the prayers in 1 Cor. 10 are “prayers of praise.” The prayers in 1 Cor. specifically reference the partaking in Christ’s death, while the Didache really doesn’t speak of that. Koch sees this as less of a problematic distinction “if we realize that there is no positive argument for the traditional assumption that the Words of Institution were used in the liturgy of the κυριακὸν δεῖπνον in Pauline communities” (Koch 2010, 209). Koch argues that the words, though well known, were not necessarily considered a required part of the liturgy even until possibly the early 4th century (Koch 2010, 210). That the Words of Institution are missing from the Didache could be a normal feature of some 1st century practice.

The question remaining for Koch is from Didache 10:6c, where the reader/hearer is called to come if he is holy but otherwise to repent (Koch 2010, 211). Is there a fianl stage of the ritual? Who are the “holy ones?” Koch suggests that the context is more easily seen as a time after the ritual meal itself is ended and people are responding with thanksgiving and prayers. It makes sense that people would be invited but that those in need of repentance should do so before participating. The “holy ones” may well be the baptized (9:5), but much evidence suggests that people who were not baptized would already be absent. However, Didache 14:1-3 suggests that those baptized but in unresolved conflict would not partake of communion. They may well have been present but not participating (Koch 2010, 212). 

Koch concludes that both the Didache and the 1 Cor. meal are the Eucharist, that the doctirnal explanation in the liturgy was not identical or standardized, and that the invitation was to further prayer and thansgiving (Koch 2010, 213-214).

0 Comments

Jewish Roots of Christianity

10/11/2019

0 Comments

 
Fridays are for the Didache
​10/11/19

Rosenfeld, Ben Zion & Aryeh Levene. “Review of Didache and Judaism-Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work. by Marcello Den Verme. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, xv + 291 pp.” Review in Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012), 156-200. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.

Rosenfeld and Levene comment that the Didache is assumed to be of Syrian origin, probably between 90 and 100 C.E. They see it as “an ancient Christian manuscript that was most likely used as a behavioral and legislative codex among ancient Christian communities” (Rosenfeld & Levene 2012, 172). Del Verme’s work treats different ideas, each in its own chapter, inductively giving “his thoughts on the ancient Christian community in Syria” (Rosenfeld & Levene 2012, 172). Rosenfeld and Levene find it significant that Del Verme purposely distinguishes between the time of Jesus and the later period with established Christian communities. 

Chapter 1 builds a case for a study of Christianity to see its foundations in early 1st century Judaism. The second chapter analyzes chapter four of the Didache, focusing on verse 8, speaking about the growth of a communal society (Rosenfeld & Levene 2012, 172). Chapter 3 seeks to identify the “hypocrites and others” of Didache 8, finding a power struggle in progress. Chapter 4 considers Didache 13 and the rules for care for clerics and the poor, comparing it to late Second Temple Judaism. Chapter 5 identifies the eschatological contents of the final chapter of the Didache (Rosenfeld & Levene 2012, 173).

Rosenfeld and Levene consider Del Verme’s assertions open to challenge, especially the fact that he sees Christianity and Judaism largely as one until the end of the first century, rather than around 70 or even earlier, as they think likely (Rosenfeld & Levene 2012, 173). They also consider the Qumran communities and the Didache community to be significantly less seimilar than does Del Verme (Rosenfeld & Levene 2012, 174). Finally, Del Verme considers Jewish practices of giving to have been transferred to the Didache community, while Rosenfeld and Levene find those giving practices absent in Judaism at the time of the Didache, so consider the practice may have been adopted in Judaims from Christian examples (Rosenfeld & Levene 2012, 175).

Based on this review, Del Verme’s book is not one which will likely be of great value to the focus of my research. It pursues significantly different ideas than those which I wish to pursue.

0 Comments

Eucharist as a Meal of Purification

10/4/2019

0 Comments

 
Fridays are for the Didache
10/4/19
​
van de Sandt, Huub. “Why does the Didache Conceive of the Eucharist as a Holy Meal?” Vigilae Christianae 65 (2011), 1-20. Leiden: Brill.

Didache 9-10 describes a real meal surrounded by prayers and considered holy. Van de Sandt questions why the meal, though lacking the Words of Institution, seems to be considered a Eucharist in 9:5 (van de Sandt 2011, 1). The explanation of not giving holy things to dogs was typical language used for temple rituals and discussions of purity. Food which was set aside for a consecrated purpose was not to be used for any other purpose. This still leaves us with a question of the holiness of this meal. It was not specifically identified as Christ’s body and blood, so van de Sandt questions whether there is a sacrificial element (van de Sandt 2011, 2). He further observes that an association with a temple rite could case the food and drink to be holy, but again there is no temple rite suggested here. In most ways, it seems natural to assume this is perfectly normal food and drink (van de Sandt 2011, 3). Van de Sandt concludes that the holiness is ascribed to the meal as part of a divine service which would be treated as seriously as a temple service (van de Sandt 2011, 4).

First, van de Sandt observes the customs of food offerings and ritual purity have a strong relationship to temple worship. The purification rituals were taken very seriously, protecting a view of holiness in the sacrificial act (van de Sandt 2011, 4). While ritual uncleanness was a frequent feature of life, and was not necessarily an indicator of any moral failure, it was very important to complete he ritual purification before participating in the temple ritual (van de Sandt 2011, 5). 

Second, van de Sandt considers the Second Temple period and a concept of holiness as applied to activities apart from the temple, such as in synagogue and daily prayer (van de Sandt 2011, 6). In at least some communities and at some times, there is evidence that some aspects of ritual purification were pursued and sacred meals were held apart from the temple. Van de Sandt quotes a description of such an Essene meal from Josephus’ Jewish War 11, 129-131 (van de Sandt 2011, 7-8). Several elements were at least similar to the practice in the temple worship. By 100 B.C., van de Sandt finds in the Rule of the Community a ritual including priestly roles and ablessing of the food and drink to be consumed (van de Sandt 2011, 9). There was a certain reverence associated with the common meals taken with the Jewish leaders, similar to the reverence we might have associated with the temple (van de Sandt 2011, 10). It sas seen as bearing a holy dignity.


Van de Sandt observes that the rituals of purification also extended beyond the priests “bt also for broad groups all over Israel within the framework of their profane activities” such as dining together (van de Sandt 2011, 11). Immersion in pure water was a commonly held ritual, applied to people, dishes, and utensils. The meals were considered holy events (van de Sandt 2011, 12). This may well be reflected as well in Luke 11:38 when Jesus is asked about ceremonial washings, as well as the reference in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. A cultural expectation of ritual purity had apparently been applied to the general population, not only priests in temple service (van de Sandt 2011, 13). The finds of stone vessels and immersion pools, as well as stone cups (which would not become ritually impure) away from the temple reinforces this idea. Religious life, even away from the temple, included rituals of purity and suggested that the events including food and drink were considered holy (van de Sandt 2011, 14).

Actual moral impurity, or sin, would be considered defiling, thus interfering with ritual purity (van de Sandt 2011, 15). Van de Sandt observes that ritual washings were, at least in the Qumran community, seen as effective only “in the case of a person’s meek submission to all of God’s precepts” (van de Sandt 2011, 16). The inner disposition was of paramount importance in ritual purification.

Van de Sandt further observes that he considers the rituals in Didache 9-10 and in Didache 14 to be the same. Chapter 14 describes the same ritual as held in the context of “the Day of the Lord, most likely Sundays” (van de Sandt 2011, 18). The meal is considered a sacrifice and it is required that participants confess their sins so as to be considered ritually clean (van de Sandt 2011, 19). The unbaptized (Didache 9:5) and the impenitent (Didache 14) were not considered pure. Their impurity could pollute the meal and make it all unholy (van de Sandt 2011, 19).

Van de Sandt concludes that the meal was ultimately considered a holy ritual because it signified God’s presence. The language of sacrifice suggests a comparison to a temple ritual. The Didache community expressed its piety through this meal, making it, even away from the temple, “the locus for purity and sanctity. With or without a temple, one can maintain a viable religious life and experience the divine, in particular, in the communal meal itself” (van de Sandt 2011, 20). 

The text gives the author’s contact h.w.m.vdSandt@uvt.nl

​
0 Comments

Various Takes on Christianity in the 1st Century

9/27/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is for the Didache
​9/27/19

Boehme, Armand J. Reviews in Religion and Theology (2010). Blackwell Publishing, pp. 480-482. Review of Schwiebert, Jonathan. Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom: The Didache’s Meal Ritual and Its Place in Early Christianity. T&T Clark, 2008, xiii + 278 pp.

Boehme’s review of Schwiebert’s book notes a diversity of practice in early Christianity. Schwiebert assumes that there were multiple streams of thought in “the Jesus movement” and that they were relatively independent. Based on that concept of independence, Schwiebert compares “two meal traditions - the Didache’sritual tradition and that of the Pauline Jesus meal expounded in the New Testament” (Boehme 2010, 480). Schwiebert finds that different interpreters moved form an eschatological view of “the Jesus meal” toward  more of a memorial view which eventually developed into the Christian Eucharist (Boehme 2010, 481). He sees the Didache’s meal as very different than the meal described in the New Testament. Schwiebert assumes the Didache’ meal to be drawn from oral sources, from Q, and from the Gospel of Thomas, which do not emphasize Jesus’ suffering and his vincation. Of course, the only of those sources we actually hae is the Gospel of Thomas (Boehme 2010, 481). The ritual in Didache 7-10 is considered to be based on models for prayer, sayings of Jesus, and Jewish ethics. The focus is on Jesus’ teachings and his promised future coming, rather than on his death. 

Schwiebert sees the Didache as having little influence in places where Paul was well known, but that it was well received, especially in Egypt, before being replaced by a Pauline eucharist (Boehme 2010, 482). He considers that liturgical reforms in the fourth century led to uniformity of practice, but that there was more diversity in earlier periods.

​
0 Comments

September 20th, 2019

9/20/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is for the Didache
​9/20/19
Alesso, Marta. “Bautismo y Eucaristia Antes Del Christianismo: Raices Judias de la Didache” Circe de Clasicos y Modernos (13) (2009). Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de La Pampa, pp. 11-27.

Alesso considers the Didache and the features of Judaism which may underlie the text. The Didache, as an important book in early centuries of Christianity set the stage for catechesis and churchly order (Alesso 2009, 11). Though largely forgotten in the Middle Ages it was rediscovered and published in the late 19th century. Alesso then describes some of the publication history, as well as noting parallels of portions in “la carta del Pseudo Bernabe” (Alesso 2009, 12). The book is divided into moral teachings (ch. 1-6), liturgies (ch. 6-10), discipline (ch. 11-15), and eschatology (ch. 16). 

Alesso considers the actual thematic content of the work as more important than the redactional history (Alesso 2009, 13). The manuscript tradition also contributes to this conclusion, as the text is represented in a single Christian manuscript in Latin of part of the text, which compares generally well with the one Greek manuscript. Alesso believes the text to be from the first or second century and to have had at least some roots in an oral tradition before becoming a written work (Alesso 2009, 13). She discusses in some detail the fact that there are essentially two titles, one referring to “the Lord” and the other to “the [twelve] apostles.” The setting seems to be an isolated rural community, which she takes to be “in Egypt, Ethiopia, Asia Minor, or Syria” (Alesso 2009, 14, my translation). Though there is some early tradition that the work was originally written by Peter, Alesso thinks the work has a more “Jewish” character.

The work, starting with the “two ways,” seems consistent with moral views of the Old Testament. Again, Alesso finds some parallels with the Epistle of Barnabas 20:1-2 when the Didache speaks of the “way of death” in 5:1-2 (Alesso 2009, 15). Many of the elements can be found in the Decalog, though some, such as “pederasty, abortion, or exposure of newborns” are not present in the Septuagint. Some are present in Philo of Alexandria, so the ideas were present in Jewish ethics (Alesso 2009, 15). There are certainly commonalities between the Jewish ethic and early Christian ethics as well.

Alesso also considers the Christology of the Didache. She finds it to be strongly dependent on the Pentateuch and specifically on the structure of the commandments from Exodus 2- and Deuteronomy 5, as well as the restatements of commands in Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20 (Alesso 2009, 16). The overall picture Alesso gets is that the moral views of the Two Ways come from relatively old Jewish traditions.

Baptism is the topic of Didache 7 (Alesso 2009, 17). While Alesso finds Paul’s concern to be the death to sin and raising to new life, the Didache seems more concerned with baptism as an initiation ritual which prepares someone for communion. The trinitarian formulation is given in chapter 7, but is not clearly reported. However, Alesso notes that as the trinity is also stated in Matthew 28:19, the other instances of baptism in the New Testament do not speak as clearly (Alesso 2009, 18). She sees the passages which are not so clearly trinitarian as likely abbreviated. Again, Alesso finds in baptism a Jewish ceremony by which one would enter the community (Alesso 2009, 19). 

The Eucharist, in the Didache, is reserved for those who have been baptized. This is described in Didache chapters 9-10. Alesso finds no comparison made to the last supper of Jesus. It appears more like a communal meal. Therefore, she sees if it is more like a Jewish ritual meal or a Greek symposium (Alesso 2009, 19). The parallels to Jewish celebratory meals are easily found. The specific Christology of the institution in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians is not present in the Didache (Alesso 2009, 20).

Alesso also considers the Greek syposium as a source of the meal in Didache 9-10. However, since there is thanksgiving involved, she thinks it bears more similarity to a Christian celebration (Alesso 2009, 21). The New Testament presents the Eucharist in different terms and different places, which suggests the same may be happening in the Didache. This is similar to Irenaeus’ slightly oblique references to the Eucharist (Alesso 2009, 22).

Chapter 14 of the Didache speaks of a sacred day of the Lord. This seems to have been the common reference to the first day, not the Sabbath, prior to at least the second century (Alesso 2009, 23). On this day, members of the community are to confess their sins, in a way similar to that described in the New Testament. It seems to be done fairly publicly (Alesso 2009, 24), possibly in a manner similar to that of Numbers 15:30. These are, according to Alesso, rather like traditional juridical practice, where confession and penalty may belong in the context of the community (Alesso 2009, 25).

The article ends with a fairly comprehensive bibliography intended to allow the reader to begin further investigation. Alesso’s article does not delve very deeply into the content, but does provide a brief overview. She does not discuss the multiple chapters which deal with the relationships of the community and prophets or other travelers.

0 Comments

A Love Feast or Eucharist?

9/13/2019

0 Comments

 
Fridays are for the Didache
9/13/19
van de Sandt, Huub. “Review of Schwiebert, Jonathan. Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom. The Didache’s Meal Ritual and its Place in Early Christianity. (Library of New Testament Studies 373), London - New York: T&T Clark, 2008, xiii + 278 pp.” Review in Vigilae Christianae 64 (2010). Leiden: Brill, pp. 189-211.

Van de Sandt speaks of the meal in the Didache differing from New Testament accounts of the Last Supper. For this reason, many have taken the meal in Didache 9-10 as not being the eucharist. While it is possible to attempt a harmonization based on the Didache’s omission to mention some elements, Schweibert’s work suggests that Jesus’ death was not necessarily an important part of the first century Eucharist based on the lack of such an emphasis in the Didache (van de Sandt 2010, 189). Further, he questions whether the meal traditions in the New Testament and the Didache are describing the same liturgical event.

Schwiebert further contends “that the meal tradition was received and transmitted orally rather than textually” (van de Sandt 2010, 189). If this was the case, it would need to be studied more as folklore rather than as an historic text. For this reason, the internal logic would become more important than the text history or its redaction.

The first part of Schwiebert’s book analyzes the oral structure of each tradition, seeking out the logic of the ritual. The second part analyzes the functional role of the meal in early Christianity (van de Sandt 2010, 190). The New Testament accounts are clearly similar in their references to bread and wine, receiving the elements, and having a relationship to Christ’s death and his return. The order of events, bread and wine or wine and bread, has some variation, but the overall picture is similar. Didache 9-10 seems centered more on prayers, with two before a meal and one afterward (van de Sandt 2010, 191). Both rituals involve a meal. However, Schwiebert finds that the New Testament Eucharist centers conceptually on “living between Jesus’ death and the arrival of the kingdom in the End Time. The Didache’s ritual, on the other hand, is detached from a specific story in the past” (van de Sandt 2010, 191). It does focus on dependence on God, but not necessarily on the work of Jesus.

The second portion of Schwiebert’s book looks at the implications and the trajectory of the elements of the prayers. They do seem to be related to elements in Jewish culture, but not to specifics in the accounts we have of Jesus’ life (van de Sandt 2010, 192). Schwiebert considers that the Two Ways, from the opening of the Didache, may provide the specific theological framework needed to make sense of the ritual. However, it does not appear to make “the Jesus tradition” sufficiently clear for this purpose. Therefore, he turns to sources such as Q or the Gospel of Thomas. Yet these also do not give a very full picture of Jesus (van de Sandt 2010, 193). Van de Sandt questions whether Schwiebert’s sharp avoidance of the idea of “sacrifice” in considering Jesus’ words at the Last Supper is entirely correct, as there is a sacrificial element in the act of eating (van de Sandt 2010, 194). It is not necessarily a movement away from the idea of a temple cult. The involvement of the Coptic fragment of the Didache and the stinoufi prayer suggests that the practice may have been developmental in nature. This leads Schweibert to the idea that the ritual logic of the prayer would contribute to liturgical developments of a broader nature. However, he does not find this to be the case except possibly in Egypt (van de Sandt 2010, 195). There, the prayers seem to have been borrowed, with some adjustment, by the fourth century, to operate in the Eucharist.

Van de Sandt considers the book helpful but thinks it tends to fragment the ideas of the Didache more than is necessary (van de Sandt 2010, 196). 

​
0 Comments

An Anointing Prayer

9/6/2019

0 Comments

 
Fridays are for the Didache
​9/6/19
Kurek-Chomycz, Dominika A. “The Sweet Scent of the Gospel in the Didache and in Second Corinthians: Some Comments of Two Recent Interpretations of the Stinoufi Prayer in the Coptic Did. 10:8.” Vigilae Christianae 63 (2009), 323-344. Leiden:Brill

The Coptic fragment of the Didache contains an anointing prayer (Coptic stinoufi) in 10:8, where the Greek manuscript moves without pause from 10:7-11:1. The fragment apparently dates to the fifth century and seems to be a translation from Greek into a Coptic dialect (Kurek-Chomycz 2009, 324). Though it is not the main point of this article, a related question is whether the text of 10:8 was originally part of the Didache or was added. Kurek-Chomycz provides a helpful footnote showing the discovery of the fragment in 1923 and its catalog in the British Museum as OR. 9271. It has been published in Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1924) 225-231 and in Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 24(1925), 81-99 (Kurek-Chomycz 2009, 324). Assessment of the authenticity of either text is a challenge as there is relatively little material that can be used for comparison.

A similar prayer does appear in Const. Ap. 7:27.1-2, presented for us by Kurek-Chomycz in parallel with the Coptic and a Greek version of 10.8 (Kurek-Chomycz 2009, 325). While the Coptic fragment gives thanks “for the sweet scent” the prayer in Apostolic Constitutions makes it a thanksgiving for “the sweet scent of the ointment” and for the “age of immortality” through Jesus (Kurek-Chomycz 2009, 326). There is a further challenge in the actual translation of “ointment” as it could be some other substance with a pleasant scent. Several sources for further evaluation follow (Kurek-Chomycz 2009, 327). Kurek-Chomycz also notes the efforts to interpret the prayer in a metaphorical sense similar to 2 Corinthians 2:14-16, where “the fragrance of God” is considered a sweet smell to some, but the fragrance of death to others (Kurek-Chomycz 2009, 328). Some have gone so far as to propose additional interpolations in the Didache as well as Apostolic Constitutions and even the text of 2 Corinthians 2 so as to clarify the idea. It is further certainly plausible to associate prayer, scent, and God’s wisdom (Kurek-Chomycz 2009, 329). In that context, the word of God which is the smell of God’s wisdom, is the object of thanksgiving. It is altogether possible that the author saw the mealtime prayers of the Didache as, in part, a confession  that God is the personification of wisdom, as well as being the one who nourishes people with his wisdom (Kurek-Chomycz 2009, 330). In this context, Kurek-Chomycz questions whether the boundaries between the adherents to the Temple rituals and the wisdom cults were actually clearly drawn. To examine the issue, she reviews Sirach 24 and compares some of the instructions for worship preparations found in Exodus 30. The anointing and the associated smells all are overwhelmintly used in the contxt of the temple or tabernacle cult (Kurek-Chomycz 2009, 332). The idea of wisdom and a sweet smell is closely associated with temple ritual and sacrifice. For this reason, Kurek-Chomycz concludes that “good smell was a sign of divine presence and life” (Kurek-Chomycz 2009, 334). So the prayer, while associated with a meal, very likely bears liturgical significance as well.

0 Comments

Toward or from Matthew?

8/30/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is for the Didache
8/30/19

France, Dick. Evangelical Quarterly 79.4 (2007). “Review of The Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache by Alan J.P. Garrow, Journal for the Study of New Testament Supplement Series 254, London: T&T Clark International, 2004. xxiii + 272 pp.

France’s review of Alan Garrow’s 2004 book describes a scholarly consensus. The Didache “is generally agreed to have a specially close relationship with the Gospel of Matthew, and scholars have divided as to whether it shows direct literary dependence on Matthew or whether both depend on common traditions. Alan Garrow now weighs in with the novel proposal that there is indeed a direct literary dependence, but that it goes the other way: Matthew depended on the Didache” (France 2007, 357). France observes the text of the Didache printed in Greek in the book does contain some misprints. He also notes that the book is very detailed and intended for a specialist reader. The first, longer part of the book speaks of a “compositional history.” “Everyone agrees that it is a composite text involving a variety of sources and stages of redaction, but there is little agreement on the details. Garrow proposes five layers or stages of composition” (France 2007, 358). French compares the analysis method to that used of the Pentateuch in the mid 20th century, assuming “a predominantly literary process of composition, with little allowance for oral influences” (France 2007, 358). He takes Garrow’s argument to be novel and to have some weaknesses, especially in that the materials which seem to lead to Matthew’s Gospel are all in the alleged latest layer and may have been drawn from Matthew. The second part of the book walks through the passages which show contact between the two documents. The premise of the book is interesting and France considers the arguments worthy of careful review (France 2007, 359).
0 Comments

Lifestyle, Mentoring, and Charity

8/23/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
8/23/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
“Epilogue. The Spirituality of the Didache: Modern Reflections” p. 839-909.

In his epilogue, Milavec attempts to draw overarching conclusions based on the closer analysis of the parts which he has already presented (Milavec 2003, 842). He notes that the Christians found in the Didache are very different from those in his own time. He will hope to prpose ways that modern Christianity could be closer to discovering “the familiar joy and the familiar pain in the heart of the first-century believer” (Milavec 2003, 842).

To begin, Milavec seeks a meaning of spirituality itself. The term has been applied with every imaginable religious group’s name as an adjective. In early Christianity, the term was regularly used to contrast the “spiritual” person from the “natural” person. The spiritual was characterized by application of scriptures and a consciousness of an inner life (Milavec 2003, 843) Milavec seems to expect that spirituality involves a certain, slightly undefinable, inner perception which is linked to emotive suffering in some way (Milavec 2003, 844). It is the factor he thinks underlies texts, rites, and movements.

To explore the actual spirituality behind the Didache community, Milavec looks for an all-encompassing question. He wants to know, at its root, what the Didache is about (Milavec 2003, 845). This is more easily said than done. The overall thrust would have been clear to the whole community so it is not explained in the text. It seems clear that the Didache walks through the training of a gentile convert joining the Christian community. But Milavec thinks there is a more significant underlying message (Milavec 2003, 845). The order of topics guides people through a process one step at a time. Milavec thinks the steps are important and that the interactions at each stage would be used to be sure “that not only the words but also the deep meanings of the Way of Life were being suitably assimilated and applied at every step of the way” (Milavec 2003, 846). At heart, Milavec finds the priority of loving God and neighbor (Didache 1:2). All the progammatic motion can be seen in terms of these two fundamental relationships.

Milavec finds several areas of special interest in the Didache, which he addresses in order. First is ‘The Genius of Mentoring” (Milavec 2003, 847). Because becoming a Christian was ot like other religious moves in the first century, it was important that converts have mentors. Christianity, unlike many other religions, called for a very thorough reorientation. Without mentoring, it could be very difficult to learn how to live as a Christian (Milavec 2003, 847). A learner would be assigned to a mentor and they would work in a systematic manner. The attitudes and desires of the convert required evaluation and guidance. Milavec notes this as being strikingly similar to the character development of a child under care of a parent (Milavec 2003, 848). Milavec notes further that some Christian catechetical materials to this day indicate that in baptism a change is made, moving someone through a transformation which extends to the inner person (Milavec 2003, 849). However, speaking of his own baptism and Christian upbringing, Milavec was led to understand that God would protect people and might communicate silently and mystically to humans, but did not seem as concrete as the real world (Milavec 2003, 849-850). Over time, Milavec came to see God as real, though largely speaking silently and mystically. On the other hand, some Christian see conversion as more of a result of their hard work to  change (Milavec 2003, 851). In either case, the transformation normally involves an extended period of time absorbing the reality of the changed way of life. For this, a model of mentorship is normally used (Milavec 2003, 852). Milavec considers the idea of baptism actually washing sins as a late development, and, additionally, a “Pollyanna confidence” (Milavec 2003, 853). Rather, he looks for conversion through an adult decision followed by years of discipleship. This is the pattern he also sees throughout the Didache (Milavec 2003, 853). He does not find it treated as a sacrament or instituted by Christ.

Milavec does catalog ways in which the Didache has a different view of life than that held by Milavec. He notes a very sober view of Jesus, who does not appear in divine majesty or as the savior of the world (Milavec 2003, 855). The Didache also takes a very sober view of the church. It is, granted, the gathering of those called by the Spirit, but functions for the most part as a mentoring society rather than as God’s victorious people (Milavec 2003, 856). Further, the Didache does not imagine a life in which more prayer or spiritual disciplines will make one specially suited for a heavenly reward. In the whole, the community does not seem to emphasize progress in the faith (Milavec 2003, 857). Likewise, the Didache, though it does prescribe times for prayers and days of fasting, does not see those as burdensome duties but as joyful opportunities (Milavec 2003, 858).

Milavec further considers that the Didache describes a spirituality transmitted from person to person through oral means. The gospel is given not through a text but through speech (Milavec 2003, 859). This may well serve to make personal connections between the speaker and the hearer. Milavec considers the personal relationship to be the key. As proof he compares conversion rates of people to Eastern religions in the 20th century. Those which emphasized a mentoring relationship produced many more converts than those which simply presented written materials (Milavec 2003, 861).

Milavec compares the mentoring relationship with encounger grups he participated in while a graduate student in Berkeley. The trust and vulnerability he developed with others in his group was suprising to him. Later, he found a similar level of trust among some participants in a Christian group (Milavec 2003, 862). Milavec finds this same communal conversation in the Didache descriptions of gathering to pray (Milavec 2003, 863). It does not seem to occur to Milavec that his leaderless encounter groups had de facto leaders or that the Didache community would likely have looked to the mentors as leaders. Rather, he finds a radically egalitarian atmosphere where there would be no shows of authority such as preaching (Milavec 2003, 864).

Milavec has previously drawn a sharp distinction between the more normal members of the Didache communities and the prophets, whom he sees as being hurt and slightly dysfunctional. The Didache affirmed the rather mundane holiness which most people could practice (Milavec 2003, 864). It was in the routine of the Christian life that Christians would find rest and strength. The prophets and teachers were clearly present. However, they were not held up as the example to be emulated (Milavec 2003, 865). Milavec finds mch of the comfort associated with the idea that God is present for His people in the world. Didache 1:2 refers to “God who made you.” Milavec takes this to govern the community’s concept of God. He also reads this into various Old Testament passages to assert that God’s work in people is primarily in the realm of incarnation. God’s making and giving birth to his people is significant because all are made alike (Milavec 2003, 866). The personal address of God to each member of the community can also be seen as part of the creative work of the God who is present (Milavec 2003, 867).

Milavec notes that the Didache expects a coming of the Lord. He therefore asks if the community had a particular plan as they waited for the Lord. Many groups with a strong exchatology also have a plan of world influence. However, the Didache simply expects people to live in community, not necessarily to change it. The people were not sufficiently powerful to change society (Milavec 2003, 868). The exception was an expectation of giving to those who asked (Milavec 2003, 869)

Charity has regularly been a part of Christian piety. Milavec has a nontraditional view of giving, though. “Above all, however, charity has been tied in with the prospect of gaining leverage with the Lord in the life to come. For this, of course, Jesus’ parable of the final judgment (Mt 25:31-46) is normally cited for support” (Milavec 2003, 869). Milavec sees a contrast in the Didache, which endores care for the poor because of their humanity, as opposed to the view in Matthew that it is done in service to Christ (Milavec 2003, 870). Milavec issues a corrective to the interpretation of the passage in Matthew 25, observing that it is Jesus who views service as done for him. The people who are rewarded are surprised because they were simply helping people. This reader (Spotts) does not think Milavec’s first statement of a popular interpretation of Matthew 25 bears consideration by most Christians. His dichotomy appears false.

Milavec further comments that the sharing of resources from the Didache does not seem akin to the prosperity preaching often heard. The Didache does recognize a sort of giving which is expected to reap a reward (4:7) (Milavec 2003, 872). However, in general giving is viewed as a good deed done as a messenger of God who wants to supply needs.

The economy in the Didache is centered around a family worship, which Milavec contrasts to workshops staffed by slave labor in the first century (Milavec 2003, 872). The norm was to be profitable labor which allowed broad sharing of wealth.

Milavec does observe that the orientation toward sharing and giving was not a way of showing great business sense. Success in business is often related to persisting in amassing wealth and power to the detriment of others (Milavec 2003, 874). The Didache paints a polar opposite picture of success. The orientation of sharing is foreign to this concept of earthly power. Milavec notes that in modern economies mass production of crops or goods can normally put small producers out of business (Milavec 2003, 875). In developing econimies children have often been pressed into the work force. Milavec speaks of the injustice of such plans in detail, in the context of modern American policies (Milavec 2003, 877-878). He notes that many big businesses have no incentives to treat employees fairly. This is a parallel to the ancient world (Milavec 2003, 879). In their effort to remain in business, many business leaders will adopt practices which can result in what Milavec sees as oppression (Milavec 2003, 880). Rather than a forceful response against economic exploitation, the Didache simply assumes that God will care for the oppressors. Meanwhile, members of the community concentrate on doing what is good and right (Milavec 2003, 881). The causes of suffering are acknowledged but they are out of bounds only within the community.

Although the Didache communities have an element of forgiveness, Milavec notes they are not extravagant in this practice (Milavec 2003, 882). Milavec uses terminology of victimization, peaking of the community protecting those who have been victimized. He specifically denies the idea of a universal substitutionary atonement and salvation by grace through faith, not only in the Didache but also in any genuinely Christian community (Milavec 2003, 882). In Milavec’s view the idea of free forgiveness is simply preposterous. At the same time, the community does expect a world where the gentle will inherit the earth (3:7).

Milavec goes on to consider “Jesus’ atoning death and solidarity with victims” (Milavec 2003, 884). Some of the commentators with whom Milavec is fmiliar are uncomfortable seeing Christian suffering as a means by which we identify with Christ. These scholars would blame abuse in society on a desire to identify with Jesus (Milavec 2003, 885). Likewise, Milavec finds some voices of those who would commend the Holocaust as a way in which people could come to understand Christ’s suffering (Milavec 2003, 886). Milavec forcefully rejects suh ideas, observing that ultimately suffering is evil and contrary to God’s nature. Yet his affirmation of the mercy of the God who hates suffering denies and dnegates any historic Christian understanding of the death of Christ. He rejects the idea that Jesus’ death could accomplish anything but grieving God the Father (Milavec 2003, 887). He sees the rending of the veil of the temple (Matt. 27)51) as God’s tearing of his clothes in grief (Milavec 2003, 888).

Milavec considers whether the Didache “envisioned two key sacramental ries, baptism and eucharist, ‘just as we do today’” (Milavec 2003, 888). Yet the understanding and practice may not have been the same as ours today. Baptism, Milavec sees, is “a rite of passage” (Milavec 2003, 889). He does not find the baptism as a mystical or effectual act, but as a sign of one’s standing. The eucharist he sees as another sign of unity with the particular community (Milavec 2003, 890).

Milavec observes that the Didache doesn’t promise personal or social advantage. Rather, members of the community will face opposition (Milavec 2003, 891). Milavec sees this as a sort of powerlessness which must be embraced, because there is no hope given for change. Furthermore, he sees in the Didache indications that the church, in the end of days, would cease to exist and that people would be gathered into God’s kingdom (Milavec 2003, 892). The members of the community learn to endure wrong without taking vengeance. Milavec adds that the Didache community would expect God to refrain from taking vengeance himself, because he would act in a way consistent with what he reveals to his poeple (Milavec 2003, 893). Milavec simply finds no place in the Didache for punishment (Milavec 2003, 894).

Oddly enough, after his assertions against vengeance and punishment, Milavec continues, “The Didache championed an end-times scenario in which evildoers living in the final generation would be utterly destroyed (16:5), while dead evildoers imply remained dad and were exempt from eternal punishments (Milavec 2003, 894). The nature of punishment and vengeance in Milavec’s mind is left unclear. He goes on to provide some examples of other ancient descriptions of a fainal judgment. They tend to be more graphic in the descriptions of torments.

The vulnerability of the member of the Didache community would extend to his relationship with God. Milavec describes this vulnerability in terms of accepting divine commands and the plan of God to bring history to its conclusion in the end (Milavec 2003, 96). Milavec is clear that he finds no means by which the vulnerability or acts of obedience or faith would remove sins (Milavec 2003, 897). The Lord would save those he wished to save by grace.

Milavec finds that the early Christians lived in a world full of sorrow and disappointment. In response to it, they created a radically egalitarian community based on trust in God (Milavec 2003, 898). He sees the eucharistic celebration as not containing any sort of “bodily or sacramental presence of Jesus” (Milavec 2003, 898). Milavec expects that modern readers who endure economic and political oppression are likely to appreciate the eschatological views, while the oppressing class cannot. For more modern examples of a Didache community he therefore looks to liberation theology in Latin America (Milavec 2003, 899). Those who have found poverty increased by the commercial activities of others will readily relate to the eschatological hopes of the Didache or of Revelation (Milavec 2003, 900).

Milavec compares Western culture to a totalitarian machine of oppression which will trample everything in its way (Milavec 2003, 902). He sees this as the move of societal victors in every generation. The process of oppressing the planet, in Milavec’s lengthy diatribe, began to collapse in the 1960s when the negative effects of chemical pesticides came to light (Milavec 2003, 904). However, Milavec concludes it is too late to rescue the planet and its societies from the oppressive greed and victimization of the totalitarian industrial society (Milavec 2003, 905). The scarcity and social decline which this economic crisis will spur will push some people to rediscover a functioning community like the Didache describes (Milavec 2003, 908). This, in Milavec’s view, will bring the coming of the Lord who has rejected Western civilization and all its trappings (Milavec 2003, 909).

​
0 Comments

Salvation in Didache

8/16/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
8/16/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 15, “Whether the ‘Burning Process of Testing’ (Did. 16:5) Offers Evidence for the Dual Functioning of Eschatological Fire” pp. 809-838.

In this chapter Milavec seeks “to reexamine the long standing practice of finding in Did. 16:5 an implicit reference to the saving activity of the crucified Christ” (Milavec 2003, 811). Milavec’s contention is that in the Didache communities the saving activity resided in the Father and that Pauline theology is entirely foreign to the writers of the Didache.

The canonical Scriptures frequently picture final judgment as a fire which destroys evil (Milavec 2003, 811). Milavec finds no evidence of the fire purging remaining sins from Christians. This, he notes, was one of the points of contention at the time of the Reformation (Milavec 2003, 812). While Rome tends to consider purgatory as an understanding which grew logically from Christian roots, they will admit that it was not fully developed until the twelfth century (Milavec 2003, 812). The idea of a purufication can be found, at least to some extent, as early as Clement of Alexandria and Origen (Milavec 2003, 813). Because the concept of eschatological fire has some early application as a purging of sin, Milavec asks if that root goes back as far as Didache 16.

In Didache 16 the end times will require faithfulness in gathering as people who hope in the Lord. Those who could make people fall away fom the Way of Life are to be feared an defended against. The hope is the coming judgment, resurrection, and the personal coming of the Lord (Milavec 2003, 813).

To begin his evaluation of the situation, Milavec first looks at the linguistics of Didache 16:5 (Milavec 2003, 814). Here, those who remain are saved “by the curse itself” (16:5). The term in question, katathema, appears to be a variant of anathema, more often used for a ban or curse (Milavec 2003, 814). “Historically, the overwhelming judgment of scholars has been that ‘the curse’ is a veiled reference to Christ” (Milavec 2003, 815). Milavec considers a variety of stated nouns in the text to which “the curse” could refer. He also finds that 16:4 gives negative and positive results of the burning process (Milavec 2003, 816). Milavec concludes that the final fire may effectively burn away the impurities of the faithful (Milavec 2003, 817).

Milavec does grant that once we are accustomed to understand a text in one way it is hard to identify alternatives (Milavec 2003, 817). Didache 16:5, assumed as a reference to Christ, was quickly taken as the authoritative interpretation. Milavec notes several authors in the early part of the modern scholarship of the Didache who described the “accursed one” as Jesus. Milavec finds that there are three primary weaknesss in the view. First, it is problematic to assert an idea which depends on a text that it may not have been aware of (Milavec 2003, 819). If the interpretation depends on Paul and the Didache does not, the interpretation is unreliable. Second, if Christianity was as diverse as Milavec maintains, it may be unlikely to depend on multiple authors drawing on the same tradition of interpretation. Third, a text should be interpreted based primarily on its own text (Milavec 2003, 820). Because Milavec doesn’t find a view of salvation based on Christ becoming accursed in the Didache, he does not think it likely that it would be the case here (Milavec 2003, 821).

The metaphoric use of fire in Didache 16 also deserves reconstruction. In the Old and New Testaments fire frequently functions as God’s means of judgment (Milavec 2003, 821). Fire is also used to show God’s protection. He brings his people through fire safely. Milavec finds this concept helpful in understanding both the righteous and sinners passing through the fire (Milavec 2003, 822).

Milavec notes that the New Testament passages of 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, 1 Peter 1:5-7, and 1 Peter 4:12-13 may suggest a use of fire to purify the Christians (Milavec 2003, 822). Other early Christian writings do tend to capture a function of purifying the Christians. Milavec describes Shepherd of Hermas at several locations (Milavec 2003, 823-824). Another work, the Sibyllines, from the second entury, has righteous and impious together passing through the same fire, which destroys the impious and purifies the righteous (Milavec 2003, 825). Fire seems to become an agent of purification, that which leads to salvation (Milavec 2003, 826).

Milavec further mentions Lucius Lactantius, a fourth century convert to Christianity who wrote a treatise explaining Christianity. The text has parallels to the Didache. Milavec finds the same fire destroying the sinners and purifying the elect (Milavec 2003, 826).

Another difficulty to address in the Didache is whether it originally had an ending which we no longer have (Milavec 2003, 828). There is a purification which prepares for a resurrection. This is common in apocalyptic literature. Milavec, considering Jonathan Draper (1997), evaluates the possible interplay with Zechariah 14:5 (Milavec 2003, 829). It is relatively rare to see this passage used to indicate a resurrection of the righteous but not a general resurrection (Milavec 2003, 830). According to Milavec, Draper finds the prophets to be martyrs and thus the holy ones who are resurrected. However, Milavec questions a requirement of martyrdo to be among the righteous. He also notes that Zechariah 14:5, when used by the rabbis, does not define the “holy ones” as prophets. This is the case throughout Draper’s study (Milavec 2003, 831). At the same time, the burning judgment of 16:5 is applied to the followers of the Way of Death as a penalty and to followers of the Way of Life as purification. Therefore, an appearance of the Lord in 16:8 would not be to bring judgment.

To add to the difficulty, we must recognize the common scholarly opinion that some sort of additional ending may have existed on the Didache. The manuscript, from 1056, has seven blank lines after 16:8. There is no other text which the copyiest is known to have copied with such a space (Milavec 2003, 833). Then again, Milavec observes, the next item in the manuscript starts at the top of a page. The evidence of a doubtful Gregorian version and of Apostolic Constitutions book seven possibly show longer endings, but these are not necessarily identical works. Milavec notes that Apostolic Constitutions does not have the earlier judgment so delays all until God’s coming. Further, eternal punishment rather than destruction awaits the unrighteous (Milavec 2003, 834).

Milavec also considers and rejects the idea that Matthew 24 is intended as a parallel for Didache 16, providing the longer ending (Milavec 2003, 834). The context and signs are divergent in enough ways Milavec considers them thoroughly independent of each other (Milavec 2003, 835). He finally concludes that we do not know what, if any, additional portions may have existed at some point (Milavec 2003, 836).

In conclusion, Milavec finds Didache 6 to be consistent with the expectation of prayer found in the Didache. The prayers found in chapter ten express the same exchatological hope found in chapter 16 (Milavec 2003, 837). The community looks forward to a coming rule of God.

​
0 Comments

Didache and Temple Observance

8/9/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
8/9/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 14 “Whether the ‘Hypocrites’ Were Promoters of Temple Sacrifice” pp. 783-808.

Milavec, citing several statements in the Didache where members of the community were told not to be like the “hypocrites,” asks why fasts and prayers of these people were so objectionable. Milavec’s specific problem in identifying the hypocrites is that the Didache does not seem particularly hostile to the most likely suspects, such as Jews in general or Pharisees in particular (Milavec 2003, 785). However, Milavec does find a purposeful move away from the temple cult and toward the eucharist. Although the idea of sacrifices in temples was common to Jews and Gentiles, Milavec finds five passages in the Didache which seem to pull away from the temple. He discusses 4:6, 8:2, 14:1-3, 13:3, and 16:3-8 in brief (Milavec 2003, 786). He also finds that there may have been a move during the two centuries before Christ toward spiritualization of the temple. This would set the stage of at least ambivalence and possibly some level of hostility toward the temple (Milavec 2003, 787). Milavec adduces practices of the Pharisees, including recited prayers, home observance of holidays, and extensive discussion of the Torah, which together reshaped Jewish life. All these practices tended to move the religious life away from the temple and into the home and community (Milavec 2003, 788).

In addition to the theological reasons, Milavec finds some social and political motivations for people in the first century to distance themselves from the temple cult (Milavec 2003, 790). An increasing sense of heavy-handed political control of Jerusalem and the temple could effectively increase the sense of oppression felt by Jews. Political tensions tended to run high. Violence broke out increasingly as the first century progressed (Milavec 2003, 791).

In contrast, Milavec finds Jesus as resistant to the customs of the temple cult (Milavec 2003, 791). Specifically, Milavec, following E.P. Sanders, sees the allegations that Jesus would destroy the temple to be compelling. Jesus also does not appear to participate in sacrifices. His appearance regularly disrupts the operation of the temple (Milavec 2003, 792). Some scholars see Jesus as setting up an alternative to the temple, especially with his teaching about pursuing justice rather than making sacrifice. Miilavec also notes “Jesus’ intention to create a provisional substitute to the temple cult at his last supper” (Milavec 2003, 793). This i to last until the Lord comes again to rebuild His temple and establish a kingdom.

Milavec traces the possible controversy about the temple to the book of Acts. Following the work of James D.G. Dunn (1991), he finds a disagreement between “Peter Christians” (Milavec 2003, 794), who seemed accepting of worship in and around the temple, and those more like Stephen, who spoke against the temple in Acts 6:11 and 14. Milavec does, however, note “that Luke-Acts fails to distinguish between the Peter Christians, who routinely prayed and preached in the temple, and those, like Stephen, with anti-temple perspectives, who were singled out for persecution” (Milavec 2003, 794). Milavec concludes that those who were more open to the traditions around the temple would be in the minority and would be called “hypocrites” in the Didache (Milavec 2003, 795).

Milavec does find some expectation of a restored temple or temple area in Jewish thought. However, he finds little expectation of a specially restored or consecrated temple (Milavec 2003, 796). On the contrary, there is an expectation of a return and ingathering of Jews. The Didache does not speak of ideas such as the Sabbath or circumcision. Milavec considers it significatn that the idea of the temple does appear (Milavec 2003, 797). Sinc ethe temple had great importance after the mid second century B.C., and since the temple and its area were renovated in the late first century B.C., one would have expected Judaism to be very enthusiastic about the temple (Milavec 2003, 798). Philo particularly tells details of conflicts over the possible desecration of the temple (Milavec 2003, 800).

The opposition in the Didache, regardless of other identification, is referred to as “the hypocrites” (Milavec 2003, 800). Milavec asks how this word is understood. He does not think the identification found in Matthew’s Gospel can hold true. The Didache gives different days for fasting and different prayers. Milavec finds it highly significant that the Lord’s Prayer makes no mention of the temple (Milavec 2003, 800). Milavec does admit that we hae no record of daily prayers from the first century, so the actual content is a matter of speculation. Possibly they included mention of the temple, possibly not. However, Milavec  thinks Didache 2:6 and 5:1 may be of value. They both shed light on the kind of behaviors and attitudes which might be found in the hypocrites (Milavec 2003, 801). Milavec immediately ties the character qualities which he mentions to an arrogant trust in the security of the temple. From this standpoint, Milavec asserts that the hypocrisy would consist in a high opinion of the temple and the priesthood, since these are not in the focus of the Didache and its prayers (Milavec 2003, 802).

In conclusion, Milavec finds that the Didache does not emphasize the religious aspects of Judaism which hee would expect. It does not have a focus on the priesthood, temple, sacrifices, or festivals (Milavec 2003, 802). Rather, it sets up an alternative mode of prayer. Milavec finds this to be a very significant move.

Milavec does contrast the Didache’s view of the temple with the view found in Hebrews (Milavec 2003, 803). Milavec denies any sort of Pauline influence on the theology of Hebrews (Milavec 2003, 804). He also notes the unique language of “priest” being applied to Jesus. Milavec finds in Hebrews a Jesus who, by his choices, becomes the acceptable sacrifice. He does not consider this a natural given, but a result of Jesus’ choices (Milavec 2003, 804). Milavec further rejects any claim that Hebrews considers the Last Supper as a sacrifice or as part of the work of a priesthood of Jesus (Milavec 2003, 805). He finds that an idea of a consummation of history involving the temple is absent from Hebrews (Milavec 2003, 806). If Hebrews dates from after the destruction of the temple in 68-70, it makes perfect sense. However, Milavec sees the issue as more important to the writers of the Didache, since the temple was still functioning. It would have been necessary to avoid faith in the temple so as to keep faith in Jesus.

Nevertheless, the temple was instrumental as the unifying force of Judaism during the mid first century. Milavec sees this as the reason that Jesus’ disruption of the temple operation would hve resulted in his condemnation (Milavec 2003, 807). In short, the crucifixion of Christ was the attempt on the part of the priests to protect the status quo, not simply in terms of religion, but in economic and political terms as well (Milavec 2003, 808).

​
0 Comments

Is the Didache a Judaizing Document?

8/2/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
8/2/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 13, “Whether Final Perfection Requires Observance of the Torah” pp. 769-782.

Jonathan Draper, in 1991, held a position that the Didache pushes proselytes to become fully Jewish and obedient to Torah in order to attain salvation (Milavec 2003, 771). Milavec examines this position in some detail.

Draper recognizes a significant connection between the Didache and Matthew’s Gospel, finding similarities even in theology and structure (Milavec 2003, 771). Milavec maintains that no dependence in either direction can be demonstrated, while Draper considers Matthew and the Didache to come from the same community, with the Didache coming after the composition of Matthew (Milavec 2003, 772).

The key to Draper’s understanding is an interrelationship among Didache 16, 6:2, and 11:1 (Milavec 2003, 772). Particularly, 6:2, which calls for careful attention to the Way of Life and prohibits food sacrificed to idols is seen by Draper as the minimal requirement “for baptism and table fellowship” (Milavec 2003, 773). Beyond this, for full perfection, Draper considers “the Torah as maintained and interpreted in the Chistian community” to be necessary (Milavec 2003, 773). This is a quote from Draper 1991:365. Draper sees a parallel between the way God-fearing gentiles could be received into synagogues and the way converts would be received into the Didache community. Draper’s conception is that the community was “within the ambit of faithful Torah-observant Jewish Christianity” (1991:367) (Milavec 2003, 773). Milavec then finds Draper to expect a fuller form of perfection in Didache 16 (Milavec 2003, 774). Draper further identifies the apostle who would tear down the body in 11:1-6 as Paul, because he affirmed gentiles were saved apart from Torah (1991:370) (Milavec 2003, 774).

The heart of Draper’s argument is whether the “yoke” of Didache 6:2 is the Torah. This argument depends on a recognition in Matthew of Draper’s understanding of the yoke of the Lord (Milavec 2003, 774). Milavec doubts the agreement because of his assumption that Didache refers to God (the Father) but that Matthew 11:29-30 has Jesus referring to himself (Milavec 2003, 775). Further, Jesus refers to his yoke as “light” compared to the Didache’s apparent view of the yoke as being a challenge.

Milavec considers the rhetorical and logical implications of Didache 6:2 in some detail so as to evaluate Draper’s thesis. First, 6:2 is the close of the section on the Two Ways. Milavec finds this as an indication that the “whole yoke of the Lord” is in fact the Way of Life, not the Torah (Milavec 2003, 776). Second, the Way of Life is presented as a whole Law, even though it differs in some details from the Torah. Third, one would expect if 6:2 were adding rules, this would be disclosed at earlier points, saying that a more perfect way would be explained later. This, however, is absent (Milavec 2003, 777). Fourth, Didache 4:13-14 and 6:1-2 make it clear that the stated rules are adequate. We should not, then, expect a greater burden (Milavec 2003, 778). Fifth, Didache 11:1-2 speaks to the value of holding to the earlier teaching in the Didache. While someone who kept the Torah zealously might be admired, it would not be acceptable to make requirements beyond those stated in Didache (Milavec 2003, 779). Sixth, Draper both calls for the mark of perfection in Didache 16:2 to be Torah and to be the basic teaching of the Way of Life. This is an internal contradiction (Milavec 2003, 780). Finally, Draper, referring to Didache 16:5, asserts the curse we are saved from is the Torah, but also that it perfects us (Milavec 2003, 781).

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-thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    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
    Alesso-2009
    Allitt-2010
    Amos
    Aristotle
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Baptism-of-christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Belonging
    Boehme-2010
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas-day
    Chronicles
    Circumcision-and-naming-of-christ
    Colossians
    Confessions
    Constanza-2013
    Culley 1986
    Daniel
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Draper
    Draper 1996
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria-2014
    Ephesians
    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
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Flew-2007
    Forde-2007
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Genesis
    Gonzalez-2010
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hebrews
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson-1992
    History
    Hoffman 1986
    Hosea
    Hutchens-2013
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    James
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Justin-martyr
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Koch-2010
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last Sunday Of The Church Year C
    Lectionary
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Long-2009
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Malachi
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec-2012
    Mitch-2010
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Passionb
    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
    Peterson2010
    Peterson-2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Pieper1924
    Pieper-1924
    Preaching
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Quintilian
    Receptivity
    Reformation
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Romans
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Ruth
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Sermon
    Smith-2009
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    Teaching
    Thielman-2010
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Tuckett
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly