Category: Didache - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Eucharistic Prayers in the Didache

1/1/2026

Academic Reading
1/1/26

Jasper, R.C.D. & Cuming, G.J. (1990). "Chapter 3: The Didache." (pp. 20-24). In Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed. 3rd Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. (Personal Library)
   The Didache, which Jasper and Cuming take to date around A.D. 60, contains three chapters which preserve prayers that accompany meals, whether the ceremonial agape, the eucharist, or both. "[C]hapter 9 may be an agape and chapter 10 a eucharist. Chapter 14 is clearly a eucharist" (Jasper & Cuming 1990, p. 20). In chapters 9 and 10, the cup is blessed before the bread. Chapter 10 indicates eating one's fill, as in a regular meal. There is no institution narrative based on the Last Supper.
   Chapters 9 and 10 may also be taken as a eucharist, reflected by the opening of chapter 9, "περὶ τῆς εὐχαριστίας" (Jasper & Cuming 1990, p. 20). The Liturgy of St. Mark refers to eating one's fill in communion (Jasper & Cuming 1990, p. 21). Further, the Apostolic Constitutions, which shows a strong influence of the Didache, takes the prayers as eucharistic in nature.
   Jasper and Cuming observe that the prayers in the Didache have strong Jewish roots both in structure and in vocabulary used (Jasper & Cuming 1990, p. 21). The Eucharist, which chapter 14 directs to occur on Sunday, is to be a holy event. The text addresses it as a "sacrifice," but there is some doubt whether this refers to a blood sacrifice or to the concept of prayer as a sacrifice (Jasper & Cuming 1990, p. 22).
   Jasper and Cuming provide a brief bibliography (Jasper & Cuming 1990, p. 22) followed by an English version of Didache chapters 9, 10, and 14.

Brief Conclusions - the Didache

10/25/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
10/25/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "Afterword." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (pp. 228-229). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

Niederwimmer draws a number of brief conclusions from his study of the Didache. He takes it to be a church order intended to help Christians order their lives, probably in or near Syria about the end of the "first or beginning of the second century" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 228). The writing does very little explication of his theological point of view. However, it is clear to Niederwimmer that delivered tradition is an important element, as evidenced by his extensive quotation of existing teaching.

A Picture of the End

10/18/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
10/18/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "IV: Eschatological Conclusion." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (pp. 207-227). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

   Niederwimmer divides Didache chapter 16 into two sections, with paraenesis in verses 1-2 and apocalyptic material in verses 3-8. He considers the abrupt stop at the end of verse 8 to indicate the actual end is missing (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 207). Niederwimmer observes a common view that the material in chapter 16 was originally a conclusion of the Two Ways material from chapters 1-6. However, documentation to defend this view is lacking. There may be dependence on Matthew 24, influence from Luke or Barnabas, or various portions of the Old Testament (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 209). Niederwimmer provides charts for comparison of ideas according to a number of possible theories.
   Didache 16:1-2 rather abruptly calls for vigilance, without any signal of that vigilance being required due to anything previously introduced (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 214). The image of a burning lamp is used, along with that of not relaxing a belt. Both indicate the need to remain prepared for action (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 215).
   The time of the end will be recognized by the presence of false prophets and corruption leading to strife (16.3-4a) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 217). Niederwimmer notes the language used is fairly typical of discussion of the troubles of the last days. Of significance is the change of Christians into non-Christian enemies (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 218).
   Didache 16.4 goes on to describe the coming of an Antichrist, who will do miracles and deceive the world (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 219). He takes over the rule of the world, committing godless works. The result, in verse five, is that humans will endure a time of testing, which will bring destruction on many (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 221). The destruction seems to Niederwimmer to refer to a falling away from the truth. However, the timing and nature of the destruction of some and the preservation of others is not entirely clear (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 222).
   The apocalypse continues as there are signs detailed in Didache 16.6-7. Niederwimmer comments that the first sign, "a spreading out" in heaven is not altogether clear, but may likely refer to a cross (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 223). The second sign, a trumpet call, is more easily understood. The third sign is a resurrection of the dead, but not all of the dead (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 224). Rather, this resurrection, which Niederwimmer notes references Zechariah but repurposes it somewhat, is only of the dead in Christ (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 225). Finally, in verse eight, "the world will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 226). This is a relatively common apocalyptic motif, which Niederwimmer thinks is more similar in its form to that in Matthew than in other sources.

Church Operations

10/11/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
10/11/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "III: The Church Order (11.1-15.4)." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (pp. 169-205). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

   Niederwimmer classifies Didache 11.1-15.4 as a form of a church order, as it provides a series of specific instructions about relationships. He takes the Didachist to have, as in earlier sections, "an ancient text that deals with situations within the Christian community that have significantly (although not entirely) changed" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 169). These instructions are updated by the Didachist's redaction. He sees this particularly in the somewhat complex interactions with apostles, prophets, teachers, elders, and deacons, particularly in their classification as charismatic itinerant individuals and resident leaders. While some commentators consider this segment of the Didache to require two different redactional phases, Niederwimmer finds one to be adequate, assuming that the Didachist not only edits material but also provides fairly extensive expositions (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 170).
   Didache 11.1-2 instructs that those who come to the community with teaching consistent with the earlier portions of the Didache is to be received. However, they are to be evaluated in terms of their teaching and, if the teaching is not sound, they are to be rejected (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 171). Knowledge and righteousness are to be increased by right teaching. Therefore, those teachers whose words and deeds further those qualities are to be received. They are considered as if the Lord himself were present (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 172).
   Niederwimmer considers Didache 11.3 to be added to the source document by the Didachist, serving as a transition to speaking about the apostles and prophets in turn (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 173). 11.4-6 then provides instructions about apostles. Niederwimmer sees this passage as coming from the source document, due to its possibly archaic discussion of apostles and prophets bringing the gospel from place to place (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 175). The group of apostles does not appear to be limited to the Twelve, yet are messengers of the Lord. Niederwimmer describes them as "homeless messengers without property" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 175). Though they are received as the Lord himself, in verse five they may only stay for a very limited period of time. The assumption is that they will continue to be itinerant, proclaiming the gospel to the whole world, not one single community (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 176). A person who attempts to stay a third day is a "false prophet." In verse six the itinerant apostle is to be sent on his way with just what is absolutely necessary to continue a journey for one more day, and not with money, but only food. This is reminiscent of Mark 6:8, Luke 9:3, and Matthew 10:9, in which Jesus directs his servants not to take money with them as they go on a journey for his sake (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 177).
   The discussion shifts from apostles to prophets in Didache 11.7-12. As with the apostles, the prophets are also itinerant. There is a substantial shift of assumptions in Didache 13.1-7, where the text discusses prophets who wish to settle, rather than continue as itinerant workers (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 178). The prophets speak in the spirit. They are not to be tested or judged when speaking in the spirit. Rather than judging the words, in verse eight the prophets are to be evaluated by their manner of life. Their deeds are considered. If the prophet has a lifestyle which is not consistent with that of Jesus, he is to be rejected (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 179). The Didachist provides two examples of inconsistency. The first of those examples, found in verse nine, is difficult to interpret. If he orders a meal and partakes of it, he is to be rejected. Niederwimmer considers that this may well refer to ordering a meal for needy people in the community. Yet he concedes that it is not clear. The second example is easier to judge. If the prophet's actions are not consistent with his teaching, he is a false teacher (Didache 11.10-11).
   Niederwimmer considers Didache 11.11 to be a crux interpretum, as the Coptic and Ethiopic versions may suggest their translators had difficulty understanding the text. The Greek text may well suggest that the prophets in the Didache clarify their witness through symbolic actions (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 180). There is a mention of a "cosmic mystery," which may be the relationship of Christ and the Church. However, it is not entirely clear. Niederwimmer suggests that possibly a prophet would arrive with "a Christian woman with whom he lives in a spiritual marriage" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 181). This would be assumed to be some ascetic union which is intended to reflect the relationship of Christ and Church. Niederwimmer views this as having a typological relationship to the life of Old Testament prophets.
   Didache 11.12, compared to verse 11, is relatively easy to interpret. If a prophet demands money or other goods, he is a false prophet. It is permissible for a prophet to demand money or goods for the needy, but not for himself (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 182).
   Niederwimmer considers there to be a significant change in topic in Didache 12.1, as it speaks of πᾶς δὲ ὁ ἐρχόμενος - everyone coming (to you). He takes this to indicate that, counter to apostles and prophets, who are charismatics, this refers to noncharismatic Christians (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 183). The newcomer is received, but then evaluated. This testing "presumes that there have been bad experiences connected with Christian hospitality" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 184). The Didache gives no criteria for the testing, but rather assumes that the Christians will have insight sufficient to evaluate the newcomer.
   The text continues in 12.2 with another example of a person who would come to the community. This is someone who is traveling and stops on the way somewhere. The traveler is to be assisted generously (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 185). However, the traveler is not to stay for long, two or three days if needed.
   Some people arrive and wish to settle in the community. This is the subject of Didache 12.3-5. Niederwimmer notes that these directives set out three scenarios of a Christian responsibility for others. First, if the newcomer is skilled in some way, he should feel free to practice that skill like anyone else. Minimal assistance is needed. Second, if the newcomer is unskilled, the community should use insight to be sure the person finds work, rather than remaining in idleness. Third, if the person is unwilling to work, that person is trying to profit from the (false) claim of being a Christian. The community is to guard against that (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 186). Niederwimmer has a brief excursus about the term χριστέμπορος, one who makes a living by dealing in Christ's name, seeking personal enrichment (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 187). The term appears to be a neologism of the Didachist. It was subsequently used fairly widely to describe a category of people who must be condemned.
   Didache 13.1-7 discusses both prophets who wish to settle in the community as well as the duty we may have toward teachers. Niederwimmer repeats his point of view that itinerant apostles were no longer expected to come to the community, but prophets and teachers are in the area. (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 188). True prophets and teachers are deserving of support, at least in the form of food. The worker is worthy of his keep. Niederwimmer takes this to indicate that there is a "principle that locally resident Christians are obligated to provide a livelihood for the prophets who desire to settle among them. The office of prophet itself is adequate reason for this obligation of support" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 189). The prophet, and, in 13.2, the teacher, is to be provided for, rather than being sent to work with his hands. Niederwimmer takes the teachers discussed here and in 15.1-2 to have started as itinerant charismatics and to now desire to settle in a community (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 190).
   Didache 13.3-7 speaks in more detail about the nourishment to be given to the "charismatics" - they are to receive firstfruits of agricultural products, as would the high priests in the Old Testament (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 191). Niederwimmer observes that the prophets are only specifically mentioned here, though teachers had been present in verse 2. The prophets are taking on the role which high priests had held in Israel, therefore they should receive the same kind of offerings. Niederwimmer notes that there is some lack of clarity whether the prophets led the community in worship or whether that was the role of the local elders (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 192). If prophets are not present in the community, according to verse 4, the firstfruits should go to the poor. Contributions to the prophets should also include bread, wine, and oil, as well as appropriate clothing (verses 5-7). Whatever is needed is to be provided, "as you think best" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 193).
   Niederwimmer takes Didache 14.1-3 to be redactional in nature. While it begins with mention of a Sunday worship service, it is really about "the particular issue of confession, or reconciliation, as precondition for the purity required for the carrying out of the sacrifice that is brought before God in the meal celebration" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 194). He sees the passage to command the Eucharist on every Lord's day, with the breaking of bread (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 195), and that the expectation is probably, as he found earlier, a meal celebration followed by the sacramental breaking of bread in the Eucharist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 196). However, Niederwimmer finds the focus of this passage to be on the need for the congregation to confess their sins to one another. This was already called for in 4.14. He notes that the confession is to happen "before" the beginning of the Eucharist. and that the confession is a "precondition for the purity of the sacrifice presented at the meal" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 196). Niederwimmer, speaking of the language of sacrifice, considers that the giving of thanks may be seen as the sacrifice referred to, rather than viewing the bread and wine as the sacrifice, as was done by Justin Martyr (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 197). Regardless, reconciliation is key to moral purity, and is extended to ritual purity as well. Niederwimmer finds it striking that the Didachist refers to Malachi 1:11, 14 rather than Matthew 5:23-24 to support the call to reconciliation.
   The need for reconciliation extends beyond the average member of the congregation. Niederwimmer sees Didache 15.1-2 as a digression seeking resolution between the charismatics and the local leadership (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 200). The people are able to select leaders, in this case, bishops and deacons. These are plural, indicating that the tradition at this point is not to have just one bishop in each community. Niederwimmer notes that there is no mention of πρεσβύτεροι here, but only of ἐπίσκοποι and διάκονοι (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 200). The text gives some very brief qualifications in verse 1b. Of note in 1c-2 is that the local clergy and the itinerant charismatics are to function alongside each other and overcome their friction, as they have similar functions in the community (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 201). Verses 3-4 return to the concepts from 14.1-3, suggesting to Niederwimmer that it is redactional in nature. The community of Christians, not a broader community outside of the church, is to participate in its own correction and reconciliation (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 203). The passage concludes with an appeal to pray and show mercy in all that is done, as we might find in the gospel (though it is not clear what that gospel is) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 204).

Liturgy for Baptism and Eucharist

10/4/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
10/4/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "II: The Liturgy.(7.1-10.7)" In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (125-167). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

   Niederwimmer sees the Didache to engage in a completely different kind of task in 7.1-10.7 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). The pre-baptismal catechesis is over. Now there is what we could consider an "agenda." "In it the Didachist apparently makes use of liturgical traditions and probably had a fixed, written set of instructions as his source. To the old tradition (i.e., the source) he adds passages from his own pen" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). Niederwimmer divides this material into a section on baptism (ch. 7), and one on the Eucharist (9-10), with instructions about fasting and prayer inserted as an excursus tied to baptism.
   Nitederwimmer takes the transitional statement "having said all this beforehand" in 7.1, as well as the concessions about the method of baptism to be the work of a redactor, not the original source material used by the Didachist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 125). The introduction, "but about baptism, baptize this way" is likely from the source used by the Didachist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 126). Niederwimmer considers it uncertain whether there was a recitation of Didache ch. 1-6 before a baptism, even while he considers it certain that additional instruction took place before baptism. There is a three-part ritual formula in Didache 7, which is identical in nature to that in Matthew 28:19 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 126). He considers this agreement to be best explained by both authors depending on the same liturgy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 127). The water is expected to be "flowing, fresh spring water," which Niederwimmer notes as the normal water used in Jewish purification ceremonies. Though "living water" is the norm, Niederwimmer takes the redactor to have relaxed the standard, allowing other types of water in verse two. The threefold pouring of water on the head is acceptable if other water is not available. Niederwimmer comments that the beginning of the process is trinitarian in nature, as is the end.
   Niederwimmer notes that there were Jewish classifications of water for ceremonial worship. Though "the effect of baptism is unquestioned" it was still preferable to have the pure running water if possible (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 128-129).
   Didache 7.4 speaks of fasting before baptism. Niederwimmer takes this to come from the liturgical source the Didachist used. Again, fasting is a common practice in Jewish and early Christian tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 129). The command to have others join in the fast was possibly more rigorous and declined early. Niederwimmer bases his opinion on this matter on the fact that a community fast is not absolutely required (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 130).
   Didache 8.1 digresses slightly from the pre-baptismal fast to identifying appropriate days for routine practices of fasting. no motive is given for the fast. However, the Christian practice is to differ in some substantive way from the Jewish practices (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 131). Niederwimmer considers the reference to "the hypocrites" as encapsulating all Jews, not just one class, such as Pharisees. This statement does signal that the Christian and Jewish communities are in closer proximity, but are distancing themselves from one another at the time (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 132). The Jewish community may well have had prescribed fast days. The Christians did not have them prescribed, but were urged to make a difference in their fasting (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 132-133).
   Didache 8.2-3 draws us into prayer. Again, Niederwimmer observes the prayer customs of the Christians should differ from those of the Jews (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 134). The reference to praying as the Lord commanded in his gospel strikes Niederwimmer as being a clumsy insertion into the pre-existing liturgical tradition. This "gospel" may have been an oral or a written tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 135). The prayer is almost identical to that used in Matthew. Niederwimmer doubts literary dependence on Matthew, preferring instead a common liturgical tradition. Niederwimmer details the difference between the prayer in the Didache and in Matthew 6 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 136). He also observes that "Adolf Schlatter and Joachim Jeremias have instructed us. . . that the our Father was one of the prayers 'with the "seal," i.e., with a freely formulated conclusion'" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 136). Over a period of time a fixed form of a doxology could become permanently attached to a prayer. The doxology which attached itself to Matthew is distinct from the one in the Didache. While the Matthean prayer gained "kingdom, power, and glory" the Didache has simply "power and glory" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 137). The doxology on the prayer in the Didache (8.2) occurs again at 10.5, and with a slight variation at 9.4 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 138). The prayer is to be used three times daily (8.3) but the specific times of the day are apparently not yet set. At least they are not mentioned in the Didache.
   The eucharistic segment of the Didache goes from 9.1-10.7. Niederwimmer notes this is "the oldest formula for the Christian eucharistic liturgy" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 139). The passage has been studied extensively. There is no clear description of the liturgical elements. However, we have prayers, acclamations, and rubrics. Chapters 9 and 10 have strong parallels to each other, as Niederwimmer illustrates by setting the material in parallel columns. The prayers throughout this section follow the model of Jewish prayers (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 140).
   Niederwimmer observes that the reader expects the eucharist as presented to be the Lord's Supper essentially as it might be practiced today. However, the elements are in the opposite order than normal modern practice would expect. Further, there is no institution narrative. The prayers also contain little, if any, reference to the passion of Christ. Finally, it appears this may be a full meal (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 140). Niederwimmer catalogs proponents of three possible positions: a eucharistic celebration introducing an agape meal, an agape meal with its prayers, or two versions of a eucharist (one with a special circumstance of baptism, one representing a regular Sunday observance) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 141). Another suggestion is that the prayers for the community meal may be followed by a eucharist, or that the eucharist and agape meal had not been distinguished from one another (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 142). Niederwimmer attempts to resolve the difficulty by starting with a view of Didache 10.6 as a text to precede the "sacramental Communion" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 142). This would require that the eating introduced in 10.1 is a community meal, resolving the difference in the order of the elements. If this is the case, the blessing in 9.2-4 can be seen in the same way as that in 10.1 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). Niederwimmer's view requires his argument that εὐχαριστία in 9.1 is not yet used as a term for the sacrament but can be applied to other acts of giving thanks (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). The omission of the institution narrative has been explained in two ways, which Niederwimmer finds unsatisfying. Either it was entirely well known or it may have been retained unwritten to guard secrecy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 143). Niederwimmer does not suggest an alternative. Rather, he goes on to specific comments on the content.
   Didache 9.1, like 7.1, is an introductory rubric. Here it signals a move to speak about εὐχαριστία (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 144). Niederwimmer does not take it to refer to the Lord's Supper, as mentioned above. In verse two, Niederwimmer notes the Jewish custom of a meal starting with a cup, over which each participant states a blessing. The structure of the blessing is parallel to common Jewish meal prayers (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 145). Niederwimmer takes the admittedly cryptic giving of thanks for "the holy vine of David" as a metaphor for salvation, revealed through Jesus (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 146). The term παῖς, applied to both David and Jesus in this passage, is routinely interpreted as "servant" rather than "child." Niederwimmer contends (though without proofs in this instance) that the term would not have been interpreted as "child" by this time, but took on the significance later (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 147). The doxology, at the end of 9.2, could well be a response of the community (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 148).
   The reference to bread in Didache 9.3 often draws comment due to its unusual wording. The use of the word κλάσμα rather than ἄρτος is curious. Niederwimmer takes it to be the broken bread, as opposed to a whole loaf (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 148). This may signal a later stage of redaction, as well as possibly indicating an Egyptian emendation, as the word was more common in Egyptian eucharistic usage. The structure of the prayer is parallel to that used earlier over the wine. Niederwimmer considers the reference to "life" and "knowledge" to be forceful, indicating a fullness of life and knowledge (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 149). In Didache 9.4 a second prayer follows, desiring an eschatological unity of Christians, as the bread is a unity of many grains. Niederwimmer again emphasizes that the evidence in the Didache represents the oldest known example of liturgy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 150).
   Niederwimmer engages the actual text of the prayers in a brief excursus. The eschatological hope is a well established Old Testament concept The structure of the prayers also follows a well established pattern for Jewish prayers. Yet the language used is clearly reflective of a Christian confession, that not only the people of God's covenant with Israel, but the entire Church will be gathered together in the last day (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 151). An appropriate liturgical response to such a prayer is found in the doxology ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 152).
   Niederwimmer sees Didache 9.5 as a rubrical comment. Those who have not been baptized are not partakers of the meal (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 152). Again, it is not clear to Niederwimmer whether this refers to the entire meal or to simply the particular foods, and whether this meal is considered a sacramental Lord's Supper. He considers the meal in chapter ten to be more clearly a sacramental Lord's supper, and that the rubric here separates the unbaptized from the sacrament (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 153). The prohibition, predicated on a saying of the Lord, uses the exact words of Matthew 7:6, however, in a vastly different context from Matthew's use of the statement. Niederwimmer considers that this usage does not reflect use of Matthew's Gospel, but from some other collection of Jesus' statements due to the very different context (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 153).
   While Niederwimmer considers the material just discussed to contain significant redaction of an original source on the part of the Didachist, at 10.1 he considers the Didachist to have returned to his original source (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 155). The meal in question has been eaten. Now that everyone's hunger has been satisfied, a prayer of thanksgiving follows. Niederwimmer observes that "the prayer consists of three benedictions…, each introduced by an address…, and concluded by a doxology" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 155). The prayer follows the pattern of the Jewish Birkat Ha-Mazon. However, the parts do not correspond with each other. The first part has no parallel in content, while the second part of the Didache prayer shows similarity in content to the first Jewish benediction, and the third part of the Didache prayer resembles the third Jewish benediction (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 156). Niederwimmer notes the element of praise to God who dwells in his people's hearts with his name. In 9.3 God gave gifts of life and knowledge, but here he gives knowledge, faith, and immortality (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 157). He is addressed as the creator of all, and the one who acts in a gracious manner. The giving of "spiritual food (and) drink" is understood by Niederwimmer to look forward to the sacramental meal, which follows the more substantial and filling meal which has been eaten together before the prayer (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 158). Didache 10.5 bears some similarity in content to the third benediction in the post-meal prayers of Jewish tradition. God is present among his people. Rather than recognizing him in Jerusalem and the people of Zion, the prayer in the Didache asks God to remember his church and bring them into his kingdom, a clearly Christian understanding of restoration (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 159). Again there is a doxology, which Niederwimmer sees as the likely congregational response (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 161).
   Niederwimmer finds Didache 10.6 to present difficulties in interpretation. The verse moves from the prayer which precedes it to a ritual acclamation. It presents a number of short and not strongly connected sentences (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 161). The material shows a strong eschatological orientation, and cries out to God in praise. This is more fitting for the introduction of a sacramental meal than for the conclusion of a meal. Niederwimmer, then takes the passage as a dialogue introducing the sacramental eucharist, which follows after chapter 10. The dialogue both invites the Lord's presence and those who are holy to come, but prohibits those who are not holy, calling them to repentance (Niederwimmer 1998, pp. 162-163).
   Didache 10.7 appears to Niederwimmer as a rubric, guiding the community in their reception of prophets, who will act in different ways from the local elders (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 164). The prophets may pray freely in the eucharistic setting. This may apply to their choice to use or not use the earlier specified liturgical prayers, or it may be understood as permission to add prayers to those already used in the liturgy.
   Niederwimmer next considers the brief insertion found in the Coptic version of the Didache. He provides a Greek version of the Coptic text at this point, along with a parallel Greek text of Apostolic Constitutions' corresponding passage (7.27.1-2) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 165). The prayer is a blessing on myron, which is often assumed to be special scented oil. This is variously considered something used in baptism or in anointing of the sick (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 166).

Before Baptism

9/27/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
9/27/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "I. Baptismal Catechesis: The Tractate on the Two Ways: 1.1-6.3." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (59-124). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

   Niederwimmer takes the opening of the Didache's Two Ways tractate as having an abrupt start, and being drawn from an earlier Christianized source. What is of special note to him is that the Two Ways seems repurposed for pre-baptismal catechesis (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 59). The overall theme is expressed in 1.1 as the alternative ways placed before humans: a way of life and a way of death. The moral choice was not a new idea in moral philosophy, as can be shown from various Greek philosophers. Niederwimmer notesthat parallels can be found within Islam and Buddhism as well (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 60). I observe as a matter of course that Islam developed significantly after this time period. Niederwimmer supplies a wealth of references to similar concepts expressed in Judaic writings. He evaluates statements in the Fathers in more depth. In some instances the disparate ways are subject to two spirits or angels. In others, they are broad and narrow ways (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 62). Niederwimmer observes that by Didache 7.1 it becomes clear that the choice also involves a decision to live as a Christian and receive baptism or not (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 63).
   Didache 1.2-4.14 describes the Way of Life. This way is summed up by the command to love God and the neighbor, from 1.2-3a. Niederwimmer compares this statement with Mark 12:30-31, Matthew 22:37-39, and Luke 10:27, but concludes that the phrasing in the Didache does not depend on any of the Synoptic sources. It is significantly shorter, and lacks any narrative framework such as we find in the Gospels (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 64). The statement of the "Golden Rule" which follows in Didache 2c appears in negative terms, which is the more common way to phrase it, in comparison to the positive phrasing in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 66).
   Niederwimmer considers the source material for the Didache to have continued immediately with the prohibitions found in Didache 2.2-7 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 67). The Didachist may well have inserted the brief explanation of 1.3a and the more particularly Christian interpolation of 1.3b-2.1.
   The material in 1.3b-2.1, in Niederwimmer's view, is clearly an insertion in the overall Two Ways material (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 68). It appears only in the Didache and tractates which were derived from it, and nowhere else. Niederwimmer takes this passage to be original to the Didachist, rather than representing a later interpolation. Niederwimmer evaluates a possible source for the sectio evangelica. He concludes that it was most likely inspired by Luke's Gospel or its source, either in a written or oral tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 72). While Niederwimmer does not specifically say so, his description of the material as allusive strongly suggests the Didachist adopted a thought rather than a text .
   Didache 1.3b introduces the concept of loving one's enemies. Niederwimmer observes the passage is arranged in a series of couplets expressing parallel ideas (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 74). The requirement of repaying love for hatred is distinctly countercultural, yet is considered the norm for Christians. Niederwimmer notes numerous parallels to these ideas as found in the Synoptic gospels. However, the statement that such love for enemies will eliminate enemies is not found in the Gospels (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 75). Niederwimmer proceeds to observe several statements not found in other Two Ways tractates, which he interprets as interpolations in the Didache's use of the source material (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 76).
   From 1.4b-5a, Niederwimmer finds clear parallels in contiguous passages of the Synoptics (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 78). The overriding concept in all these statements is a renunciation of vengeance and retribution. Niederwimmer concludes that the audience consists of "exploited and helpless people who cannot and will not defend themselves" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 80). The change of life which Christians engage in is something fulfilling. The result is becoming τέλειος.
   Didache 1.5b-2.1 turns attention to giving of alms. Niederwimmer notes the ideas are not known from the gospels or other Jesus traditions, but that they do appear in Hermas (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 81). Niederwimmer does not take the similarity to show dependence, rather, to signal a common source (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 82). The emphasis in giving alms is to distribute them as God's gifts, and that they should be used by a person in need. The gifts should be given "according to the commandment," though what specific commandment is not clear (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 83). The person who receives alms is responsible for rightly evaluating his need. Receiving unworthily will have consequences. At v. 6 a proof is given which purports to be from Scripture (meaning the Old Testament). However, Niederwimmer cannot provide a definitive reference. In question is the command to "let your alms sweat into your hands: (personal translation of ἱδρωσάτω ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη σου εἰς τὰς χεῖράς σου) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 84). He does consider a number of possible, but not certain, parallels. The quotation is well known by the time of Augistine, as Niederwimmer demonstrates with numerous citations (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 84-85).
   Didache 2.1 is introduced by a transitional statement, referencing δευτέρα δὲ ἐντολὴ τῆς διδαχὴς (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 86). Niederwimmer takes this as a transition from the sectio evangelica back to the Two Ways material which already existed. Niederwimmer takes the transition and the ordering to show a lack of forethought and finesse, calling it an "emergency construction" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 87).
   Didache 2.2-7 appears to be drawn from the Two Ways source, providing a list of prohibitions (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 88). Niederwimmer, following Audet, considers the basic structure of the passage to be loosely based on "the second table of the Decalogue" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 88), though adapted with considerable freedom. The vices listed in chapter five serve as a parallel, in terms of content (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 88-89). Niederwimmer observes the strong abhorrence held by Jews against Gentile sexual offenses and practice of magical arts. The magical arts prohibition in Didache chapter two departs from the second table of the Commandments (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 89). Niederwimmer further notes that verse two "offers the oldest explicit Christian instance of the prohibition of abortion" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 89-90). However, he considers abortion to have been rejected by Jews and Christians uniformly. While verse two spoke primarily about actions, verses 3-5 speak primarily about words (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 90-91). Verses 6-7 move on to speak about offense against the neighbor, reminiscent of the 9th and 10th commandments (8th-10th) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 92). Verse seven concludes with a strong statement about caring for one's neighbor.
   Didache 3.1-6 moves into a series of statements addressed to the τέκνον, "my child" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 94). Niederwimmer notes that this passage has no parallel in Barnabas (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 94). "The primary intention of the series is to reveal apparently minor vices as, in fact, dangerous temptations, which (if one surrenders to them) lead to serious sins" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 95). The teacher here takes the role of the parent, while the student has the role of the child. Niederwimmer observes that this is a typical style for Jewish teaching (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 96). The warning of Didache 3.1 is to flee from every evil thing and everything like it. While the "evil" could be masculine, implying an evil person, Niederwimmer takes it more likely to be a neuter. The next verse gives an example of an evil thing - anger (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 97). All the evils can be seen to lead to more serious acts, such as murder. Likewise, verse three describes lust leading to acts of sexual immorality (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 97). Verse four describes pagan superstition leading to idolatry (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 98). Lying, in verse five, leads to theft (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 98). Niederwimmer finds this surprising, but takes the logic which follows lying to suggest not merely making false statements but particularly practicing deception or treachery. The final teknon saying is that grumbling can lead to blasphemy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 99).
   Didache 3.7-10 changes from the brief aphorisms of 3.1-6 and describes a quiet faithfulness. The humble people are to hope in the Lord, rather than grumbling. Niederwimmer ties this to "socioeconomic oppression" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 100). He finds allusions here to Barnabas 19, Matthew 5, and Psalm 36. The piety described here is lived out in the community of the faithful who are eager to hear the word of God (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 101).
   Niederwimmer observes that the ideal of accepting whatever happens has many parallels both in Jewish and Chrsitian traditions as well as in Stoic philosophy (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 102).
   Didache 4.1-11 details rules for living in society. Niederwimmer observes that the structure is clearly the same in Didache and Doctrina, but very different in Barnabas 19 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 103). At the end of the passage there is some structural similarity to the "household codes" but it appears to be incidental in its similarity. Verses 1-2 speak to the relationship of learners to their teachers, who Niederwimmer assumes to be resident in the community, rather than a peripatetic group (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 104). There is an expectation that the pupil and teacher should both be dedicated to piety, and that the teacher would be honored as a master (κύριος, the standard reference to Jesus) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 105). The teaching is to be sought out on a daily basis (v. 2). Not only is this to be a matter of individual dedication, but in verses 3-11 it is to pervade the community. Niederwimmer notes that respect also calls for an impartial application of accountability (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 106). There is no place for doubt or regret about right teachings and decisions (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 107). Verses 5-8 extend the standards to charity and care for the poor, an important commitment in Jewish and Christian traditions. Almsgiving is closely related to forgiveness of sins (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 108).
   Niederwimmer considers whether the commitments to charity in Didache 4.8 represent a community of possessions (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 108). An alternative to this view is a commitment to use possessions, which are still private property, for the benefit of the community. While both views can be defended based on the Old Testament, as well as passages in Acts chapters two and four, Niederwimmer sees no clear point of view in the mind of the Didachist (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 109). He does, however, see that giving in charity is considered a matter of joy, rather than a burden. Verse 8c emphasizes that it is appropriate to share earthly goods since we willshare eternal goods later.
   Verses 9-11 shift the focus slightly from the community to the household (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 109). Parents are to bear responsibility to bring up their children. Niederwimmer observes this is a common commitment expressed in early Christianity, as well as the Jewish world (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 10). Masters are not to be harsh to slaves, especially as they are called to believe on the same God as the master. Both free and slave are called by the same Lord. Niederwimmer notes the language here may not fit in the Jewish source of the tractate but presumably reflects a Christian adaptation (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 110-111). In 4.11, slaves are likewise to respect and honor their masters, as they also have a heavenly master.
   The Way of Life closes with a brief epilogue in Didache 4.12-14. Commands are to be kept, rather than being neglected or departed from. They are not to be changed or falsified (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 112). In verse 14, the person who has failed in the commands is to repent and confess the sin so as to be received back into the fellowship of the way of life (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 113).
   Didache 5.1-2 moves us to the Way of Death (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 114). The transition statement is a parallel to the introduction found in 1.2a. The language is strong, stating clearly that it is evil and accursed. Verses 1b-2 list 23 vices and 19 groups of evildoers. Niederwimmer notes that these lists are not repeated in the same terms in Barnabas or Doctrina (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 115). The sins listed are largely arranged on the same pattern as the mentions of sins to avoid in Didache 2, following the pattern of the second half of the Decalogue (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 116). The list of evildoers, from 5.2, has parallels in Barnabas 20. Niederwimmer notes the structure includes several parallelisms (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 117-118). 5.2 closes with an admonition to avoid evil in the way of death (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 119).
   Didache 6.1-3 may be seen as a brief epilogue and appendix to the Two Ways (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 120). Niederwimmer considers the epilogue to have been longer in the original tractate, similar to that found in Doctrina. He believes the Didachist abbreviated it, then appended a few statements that he had found useful in baptismal catechesis. The "whole yoke of the lord" (6.2) is to be taken up if possible. However, the person who is not able "should concentrate on the part of the commandments that he or she is able to fulfill" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 121). Niederwimmer concedes that we don't know what the "whole yoke" entails. He does review several possibilities, then agrees with Rordorf and Tuilier, who consider it to be "the law of Christ,a s the Didacheist had revealed at the beginning in the sectio christiana sive evangelica" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 122). Further, in verse three, while dietary laws may be relaxed, the Didachist does not make an exception for meat offered to idols (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 123). Distance from idolatry is required.

A Book with Two Titles

9/20/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
9/20/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "The Title." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (56-57. (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

Niederwimmer considers the double title found in the Jerusalem manuscript of the Didache. The short title is set apart above the start of the text, while the longer title is presented on the first line, followed by the start of the main text, also begun on the first line. He considers it "probable . . . that neither title is original" and that the short title without the number "twelve" was original (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 56). This would explain the title as it is referred to in early Christian writings. A remaining problem is that the document has no internal claims to apostolicity. He considers the titles, then, to be superimposed on the document, possibly from an origin as a superscription placed on the Two Ways tractate, therefore not indicative of a way in which the Didache is to be interpreted (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 57).

A Detailed Introduction to Study of the Didache

9/13/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
9/13/24

Niederwimmer, Kurt. (1998). "Introduction." In The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache. (1-54). (Original German 1989). Fortress Press. (Personal Library).

   In his introduction to the Didache, Niederwimmer first describes the major divisions of the work, in a conventional manner (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 1). He identifies 1.1-6.3 as a "tractate on the two ways;" a liturgical section in 7.1-10.7, divided into material about baptism, fasting and prayer, and eucharist; a church order section from 11.1-15.4; and an eschatological conclusion from 16.1-8. He observes that a variety of genres exist, with each of the major divisions fitting into a different literary genre. He takes the whole to be compiled from different types of materials (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 2). Niederwimmer particularly notes that the work is not a work of theology but rather a handbook "for ecclesiastical praxis" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 2). He takes the work to have sprung from some local situation "in a time of transition and its author is clearly making an effort to harmonize ancient and revered traditions of the church with new ecclesial necessities (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 3).
   The Didache was known by mention in a variety of ancient witnesses (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 4). Eusebius (H.E. 3.25) classifies it among spurious works which are generally well known. Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 listed it among noncanonical works which are good for reading (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 4-5). Niederwimmer goes on to cite a number of later references, giving less detail. Additionally, he considers a few quotations in early church literature to be conclusively genuine citations rather than statements which are similar but not quotations (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 6). The difficulty, as Niederwimmer illustrates using Clement of Alexandria's Stromata 1.20; 100.4, is that while there is close correspondence, in this case, to Didache 3.5, there is no mention of Clement quoting a statement of another work. He may have obtained the wording elsewhere and may have any of a variety of different levels of regard for the statement's source (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 7).
   Liturgical texts may at times show a close resemblance to portions of the Didache, but Niederwimmer takes them to be similar due to a common tradition (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 9). There is a Latin quotation in Pseudo-Cyprian which also states it is "in doctrinis apostolorum." "This quotation is a welcome proof of the existence of a Latin translation of the Didache (and not merely of the tractate on the 'ways') around 300 (in Africa?), as well as of the title it bore: 'doctrinae apostolorum'" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 9).
   Niederwimmer evaluates a number of other Latin texts which may make a reference to the Didache but which may equally be drawing an idea from another source. The references are normally only a few words long (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 10 ff). Significantly, Niederwimmer discusses Augustine's use of the concept of allowing an offering to sweat in your hand (Did. 1.6), though he thinks it may have reached Augustine through a non-literary path (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 12). Niederwimmer additionally finds possible references to the Didache in Syrian witnesses. Niederwimmer considers these quotations may well have been derived from a Syriac version of the Didache (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 13).
   Niederwimmer goes on to evaluate a number of references to the Didache in later church orders (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 13). Proof of actual literary dependence is elusive. A knowledge of a Latin version of the Two Ways, however transmitted, can be documented as recently as the 11th century (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 15). There is a clear connection between the Didache and the Didascalia apostolorum from the third century, both in Syriac and Latin. Niederwimmer illustrates this with a number of quotations from the works, in parallel columns (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 15-16). Niederwimmer's conclusion is that the Didache was known and may have been used for a variety of other works, but that the precise usage is unclear (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 17).
   Niederwimmer finds evidence of knowledge of the Didache among Byzantine authors in the 12th to 14th centuries (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 17). However, the knowledge seems to be based on writings of Athanasius, not on the Didache itself (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 18).
   The identification of the Didache in the 19th century brought to light a document which had been known, but not through clear firsthand evidence for many centuries (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19). Niederwimmer provides a brief biographical sketch of Bryennios, who found the manuscript in a parchment codex in the "Jerusalem Monastery" in Constantinople. The text is noted as being completed on Tuesday, June 11, 1056, by one "Leon, notary and sinner" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19). Niederwimmer provides a table of contents for the entire codex, as follows.

"1. Ps. Chrysostom Synopsis Veteris et Novi Testamenti (cf. PG 56.313-86): fol. 1a-38b
2. Epistle of Barnabas: fol. 39a-51b
3. 1 Clement: fol. 70a-76a
5. A list of the ὀνόματα τῶν βιβλίων παρ' ἑβραίοις ("names of the books of the Hebrews"), with the Hebrew and Aramaic titles in Greek transcription, followed by the Greek titles of the respective book: fol. 76a
6. Didache: fol. 76a-80b
7. The letter of Maria of Cassoboloi to Ignatius of Antioch: fol. 81a-82a
8. Twelve letters of Ignatius (recensio longior): fol. 82a-120a; the text of the letters of Ignatius is followed by the colophon (see above)
Finally, there is:
9. a discussion of the genealogy of Jesus: fol. 120a-120b."

Note the colophon is the notice referring to the scribe Leon.

Bryennios' edition of the Didache was published in 1883.

   Niederwimmer mentions the double title at the start of the Didache as well as the abrupt ending followed by seven blank lines ((Niederwimmer 1998, p. 19-20). He considers it "obvious" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 20) that the text is incomplete due to the overall structure of the apocalypse and the conclusions provided in Apostolic Constitutions as well as a Georgian version. Niederwimmer observes that there is scholarly disagreement about the quality of the manuscript, whether it is a late and possibly inaccurate version or a faithful copy from a relatively early period. Without a substantial collection of other manuscripts this challenge cannot be resolved (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 20).
   The two fragmentary leaves of Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1782 from the fourth century include Didache 1.3a-1.4a and 2.7b-3.2a (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 21)). Niederwimmer considers the book to have originally contained the entire Didache, and to have been written by someone who was not highly proficient. The pages are important because they date to "approximately the time when the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions was copying the Didache into book 7" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 22). Niederwimmer considers the documentation of the passage which some take as a later, specifically Christian, gloss to be important. The alterations in the text also suggest that the work may have had some instability. Niederwimmer illustrates this in parallel columns of the Jerusalem version and the Oxyrhynchus remains (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 22). He describes the significance of the individual variants as well.
   A Coptic fragment was identified in 1923, published subsequently in several editions. After discussing the unusual format and the date in the 5th century Niederwimmer identifies the text as Didache 10.3b-12.2a (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 24). Niederwimmer notes the various debates regarding the provenance of the text and the purpose of its presentation. There are numerous oddities in layout and dialect (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 25).
   An Ethiopic version exists, possibly translated from either Greek or Coptic (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 25). The text of Didache 8.1-2 and 11.3-13.7 exist, not in a copy of the Didache but as an element in a church order (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 26). Niederwimmer does not consider the work helpful in establishing a text, as it appears to be paraphrased.
   Niederwimmer describes a Georgian version of the Didache, copied in 1923 from a manuscript containing Georgian and Armenian texts. The manuscript is said to have been early 19th century, and to have been destroyed since 1923 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 27). This tradition, in Niederwimmer's view, is not reliable and tells us little about the history of the work.
   An indirect witness to the Didache text is found in Apostolic Constitutions when the compiler "copied the whole of the Didache in the first, major part of book 7, making some changes in the text of the source and sometimes paraphrasing. The extent of this dependency is visible in the edition by Funk" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 28, reference to Funk Didascalia 1.386-423). Niederwimmer describes the work's use of the Didache to be essentially a copy with added commentary. Niederwimmer describes a number of the editorializing elements found in Apostolic Constitutions.
   Niederwimmer moves on to consider the relationship between the Didache as a whole and the Two Ways tractate. The tractate, appearing in similar form in a number of other early Christian works, makes up the beginning of the Didache, but appears in different locations in other works (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 30). Literary relationships of these works seem likely, but the direction of the influences is an elusive matter. The material in Barnabas other than the tractate seems unrelated, in Niederwimmer's view (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 31). The tractate as found in Doctrina Apostolorum is more similar. Niederwimmer notes the publication history of Doctrina Apostolorum in some detail (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 31). He considers this work and the Didache to depend on a common source. The Doctrina Apostolorum, like Barnabas, does not contain Didache material other than the tractate. There is a partial instance of the tractate in the Apostolic Church Order (Can. 4.1-13.4 or 14), attributed to various different apostles (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 32). Again, Niederwimmer takes this to have come about through use of common source material (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 33).
   Niederwimmer briefly mentions the Life of Shenoute of Atripe, the Syntagma doctrinae, and Fides patrum, which use some form of the tractate but almost certainly apart from the Didache (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 34).
   Research on the Didache has long been predicated on an hypothesis of a basic source document (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 35). Niederwimmer suggests the Two Ways material is based on a Jewish base document (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 36). He sees this as being adopted, with a variety of modifications, as an early Christian work (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 38). A number of different works could have drawn on different recensions of the two ways tractate. Niederwimmer hypothesizes three different versions leading to the witnesses we have, and presents a chart for the influence of the various forms (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 40).
   Niederwimmer attempts a reconstruction of the Didache's origin. He takes it almost certainly to have originally been Greek, rather than Syriac (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 41). Counter to Audet's hypothesis of a number of phases of redaction and interpolation, Niederwimmer thinks a "model of the evolution of the work in stages at the hand of one and the same author (to whom is added the interpolator)" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 42) is more likely. The Didachist drew from a number of sources, including the two ways material, tradition about baptism and eucharist, tradition about reception of itinerants, and apocalyptic information (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 44). He compiled the material, expanding it as necessary, and interpreted the ideas. Niederwimmer continues by giving a detailed version of the possible steps of assembly and growth. The sources and redaction of materials from Didache 7.1 on is less clear, as we really don't have much information about a possible source. Niederwimmer considers a good deal of it as redactional in nature (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 45). Niederwimmer considers much of 11.4-15.4 to come from a written document, with only brief interventions by the author (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 46). The eschatological conclusion appears to come from a fairly old tradition.
   Niederwimmer questions whether actual New Testament texts are in use in the Didache. He observes that any New Testament allusions or quotations would be found at the end of the redaction process (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 48). It is, however, unclear whether the Didachist actually used the New Testament. Niederwimmer briefly analyzes the four passages which use the term εὐαγγέλιον (8.2, 11.3, 15.3, 15.4) (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 49). The references are all similar in form and express the same idea (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 49). The content given of the gospel in the Didache refers not to christology, but to words of Jesus (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 50). The source may be an oral tradition, though Niederwimmer considers this less definite in 15.4 (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 51). Niederwimmer considers whether the source referenced is the same in all four instances. If so, it is possible the source is a written gospel.
   The time and place of composition for the Didache is challenging, in part because of its apparently composite nature (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 52). The component sources may come from different times and places. Due to the lack of clearly defined distinctions among the different church offices, Niederwimmer thinks we "cannot move too far into the second century" (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 52). He is willing to suggest 110-120 C.E., but as a hypothesis (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 53). The place of composition is less distinct. Egypt, Syria, and Palestine all emerge as plausible locations (Niederwimmer 1998, p. 53).

A Church Order

9/6/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
9/6/24

Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "III: Didache 11.1-15.4." In The Didache: A Commentary. (229-248). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).

   Wilhite identifies Didache 11.1-13.7 as containing "a generally incoherent message" (Wilhite 2019, p. 229). The people discussed are not very clearly identified, nor are their relationships with one another and with the community as a whole. However, Wilhite does see reasonably clear guidance on how to receive them, when to ignore them, and why some should be received. Those who teach the things found in the Two Ways narrative as presented in chapters 1-6, or possibly those who teach things found in Didache 1-10 are to be received. On the contrary, in 11.2 teachers who teach otherwise are not to be listened to. Wilhite takes this refusal to listen to extend further to refusing "lodging, food, and other provisions from the community" (Wilhite 2019, p. 230).
   Wilhite takes the instructions for receiving or not receiving teachers to imply an authority in the Didachist. This teaching is presented as correct and must not be violated (Wilhite 2019, p. 230). Wilhite notes that this is consistent with the insistence on the specific teachings of the Two Ways made previously in 4.13.
   In Didache 11.3-12 Wilhite notes that those referred to as teachers seem to be distinguished from apostles and prophets by the fact that teachers live in the community, while apostles and prophets are itinerant. He does not find a very precise difference between apostles and prophets (Wilhite 2019, p. 231). Wilhite is not convinced that the apostles and prophets are the same people, but takes them more likely to have a similar relationship to the community. In this passage, There are rules of conduct, cited in Didache 11.3, dependent on the "gospel," but the passage does not point to a specific source. The work of an apostle or prophet must be consistent with the gospel, though exactly what facet of the gospel this is remains unclear (Wilhite 2019, p. 232). Those who are received, as with the local teachers, are to be received "as the Lord." There is therefore implied authority.
   The identification of a false prophet is described in more detail than a true prophet. In Didache 11.5 the person is not to stay very long, generally only one day, and possibly two (Wilhite 2019, p. 232). The prophet is not to ask for financial assistance (11.6). He simply asks for lodging, then plans to move along to the next location. The prophet is not to partake of a meal. "Even with purity and in the right way, prophets may still not request and partake of food" (Wilhite 2019, p. 232). Wilhite does not comment on whether this is a reference to a public meal gathering or if the itinerant prophet is also to refuse all nourishment. Finally, the prophet is not to live a life which is inconsistent with his teaching (Wilhite 2019, p. 233). Wilhite notes a difficulty in this passage in that the community is to be perceptive of who a true or false prophet is, however, in 11.7 the community is not to test or judge the prophets. Wilhite takes the prohibition against judging the prophet to be specifically related to speech which is recognized as "in the Spirit" rather than any normal speech. The prophet is given time to expose false teaching or conduct, but is not led through questioning. God is the one who judges the prophets (11.1) (Wilhite 2019, p. 234). Yet, a difficulty remains as the community is not to imitate the prophet, though the prophet is someone who should be emulated. The passage is simply opaque, as it is unclear both how to evaluate a prophet and what type of emulation is appropriate (Wilhite 2019, p. 235).
   In Didache 12.1-5 traveling Christians are to be examined. Wilhite observes three primary ideas in this passage. First there is a welcome for a traveler. Second, assistance may be given. Third, it is necessary to evaluate those who would stay in the community. It is not clear who these travelers are. "The Didachist most likely has both Christian travelers in general and the prophets in particular in mind" (Wilhite 2019, p. 236). These people are traveling "in the name of the Lord" (Didache 12.1). All these people are to be evaluated, while in chapter eleven it was not appropriate to evaluate a prophet. These travelers could stay up to three days, as opposed to the two days of a prophet (Wilhite 2019, p. 237). And if the traveler does stay, the role is not the same as that of a prophet.
   If the traveler is simply passing through, the community is to extend whatever hospitality is possible. If the traveler stays for a little while, there is also an expectation of hospitality. If the traveler wishes to stay permanently and has a craft of some sort, it can be practiced in the community. If the traveler is not skilled in some way, the community can seek out some way for the traveler to be a productive member of society (Wilhite 2019, p. 237). The important element is that the person who comes to the community should live as a Christian and not be idle. Those who wish to be idle (Didache 12.5) are apparently attempting to profit from the association with Christ. The community is to beware of this group.
   Didache 13.1-7 turns the attention back to prophets, but here there are some different customs associated with reception of the prophets (Wilhite 2019, p. 238). In 13.1 the prophet may choose to stay in the community permanently. The prophet is treated as a teacher, thus receiving provisions of food. The firstfruits of the people are given to the prophets who are settling in the community. Wilhite sees a connection between this practice and those recorded in Deuteronomy 18, Numbers 18, Ezekiel 44, and Nehemiah 10. The community provides the needs of the teacher/prophets. They are treated in some way as high priests were treated in the Old Testament (Wilhite 2019, p. 239). If there is no such population in the community, the firstfruits are given to the poor (Didache 13.4-7). Wilhite observes that the community is to give "according to the commandment"(13.5, 7), but no specific commandment is mentioned. The community apparently had a concept of caring for the poor and were able to implement it.
   In Didache 14.1-15.4 the focus shifts to the interior community, here those who are partaking of Eucharist. Wilhite notes this is the end of the ethical instruction (Wilhite 2019, p. 240). On the Lord's Day, there is an assembly to break bread, preceded by a confession of sins (14.1). Wilhite notes that this is on the Lord's Day, not the Sabbath Day. It is clear in his mind that this was the first day of the week, a fact made more expressly apparent in Apostolic Constitutions VII, 30, 1 (Wilhite 2019, p. 240). Wilhite takes this chapter to describe a meal as well as a breaking of bread, which regularly symbolizes the eucharist. The eucharistic setting is consistent with that in Didache 9-10, though the instructions are not entirely repeated. Of importance to this gathering is a corporate confession of sins, which serves to guard the purity of the "sacrifice," here likely the prayers or the bread. Wilhite observes that in the earlier eucharistic passage the event is in conjunction with baptism. Here it is not, yet confession is required (Wilhite 2019, p. 241). Those who do not resolve quarrels will not receive the eucharist. At this point, the Didahist makes reference to Malachi 1:11 and 14, speaking of a community who have been reconciled to one another and to God so are ready to receive the eucharist. Wilhite notes this is a weekly eucharist (Wilhite 2019, p. 242).
   Didache 15.1-2 adds bishops and deacons into the mix of local leadership. Wilhite observes that these people are selected from within the community (Wilhite 2019, p. 242). They are appointed by the entire community. The bishops and deacons (notice not elders) are to be males and to have character qualities which are similar to those in the New Testament at Acts 6:3, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, 8-13, Titus 1:6-9, and 1 Peter 5:1-3. The bishops and deacons hold an "equal status with the prophets and teachers" (Wilhite 2019, p. 243). Their work is also very similar to that previously identified for prophets and teachers. A challenge Wilhite observes is that by this point of the Didache there are prophets, apostles, teachers, bishops, and deacons, all in some sort of hierarchy which is not clearly spelled out (Wilhite 2019, p. 243).
   In the end, we read that there is to be an ethic that is consistent with the gospel, here probably the content of the preached word, rather than a specific textual reference (Wilhite 2019, p. 243). Those who have done wrong are corrected in peace (Didache 15.3). Correction is not done in anger. In cases of harm, the community defends the one who has been harmed and excludes the person who caused the harm, seeking repentance (Wilhite 2019, p. 244). This is all done not only to bring the offender to repentance but also to protect the community as a whole. Finally, in Didache 15.4 all that is done is to follow the patterns laid out "in the gospel of the Lord" (Wilhite 2019, p. 244). Prayer, almsgiving, and everything else that is done is to be accomplished as "in the gospel." Wilhite discusses the phrase "in the gospel" in some detail. The gospel is referred to four times (8.2; 11.3; 15.3, 4). "Three of the uses directly correspond to the Gospel of Matthew" (Wilhite 2019, p. 244). However, there are no explicit mentions of Matthew's gospel, but for the Lord's prayer from Matthew 6:5-13. Wilhite does find that the statements of "in the gospel" all suggest material found in the Sermon on the Mount (Wilhite 2019, p. 245).
   Wilhite continues with some statements which may shed light on the relationship between the Didache and Matthew. "Though a Matthean text may exist at the time of the Didache's composition, I remain unconvinced that a comprehensive Matthean document must be present in the hand of the didachist or in the community. I am of the persuasion that the Didachist and the Matthean redactor share some material and the interchange of material reflects the more lengthy composite forms of the Didache. Sermon-on-the-Mount motifs appear near the "in the gospel" phrase and the nature of the evidence does lend itself to the idea that at least the Sermon on the Mount (and possibly the Olivet Discourse [cf. Did. 16.3-8; Matt 24-25]) have shaped the identity of the Didachist and their teaching" (Wilhite 2019, p. 245).

Liturgy in the Didache

8/30/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
8/30/24

Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "II: Didache 6.3-10.7." In The Didache: A Commentary. (195-229). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).

Wilhite notes as a matter of housekeeping that he finds a formulaic indication of structure in this portion of the Didache. The significant segments are delineated with the use of δέ followed by a prepositional phrase, or alternatively περί δέ or μετά followed by an infinitive. He provides a list of occurrences of this indicator (Wilhite 2019, p. 195). He notes that there is a serialization indicated as well, with the subsections indicated by the transitional language.
   In regards to Didache 6.3, Wilhite notes that different communities had different customs of food (Colossians 2:16), as did the community of the Didache (Wilhite 2019, p. 196). There was apparently some freedom, however, eating meat offered to idols was prohibited. Wilhite notes that the ethic is not provided. He does suggest "the actions may hint towards religious identity" (Wilhite 2019, p. 196). There is a reference to "dead gods," which suggests that a reason to avoid that meat would be to remain distant from the idea of making a meat sacrifice to God, but from a pagan point of view. The instruction bears a strong similarity to material in Acts 15 (Wilhite 2019, p. 197). However, Wilhite does not pursue this similarity except to identify it. He makes no suggestion of a dependence of the topic either on the part of the Didache or on the part of Acts.
   Didache chapter seven moves on to discuss baptism. Wilhite sees this as a natural progression of thought, from catechesis to "model scenarios" (Wilhite 2019, p. 197). The Two Ways material is to be reviewed with the person who is to be baptized. While this may not have been a universal use of the Two Ways, it is the way indicated by the Didachist (Wilhite 2019, p. 198). Wilhite considers briefly whether the instructions pertaining to food in 6.3 are among the things to be reviewed or not. His conclusion is that the material reviewed ends at 6.2, primarily based on the markers described on p. 195. The review of the Two Ways he considers not to be a matter of the catechumen memorizing it, but being able to recall it for purposes of repentance and confession (cf. 10:6) (Wilhite 2019, p. 198). Wilhite takes this to be the case, in part, because the contents of the Two Ways are primarily ethical, not doctrinal in nature. This suggests use for consideration in preparation for confession. Second, the teaching is proverbial in nature, and creates a scenario of a parent and child. The instructor seems to be the one who baptizes, so would know the position of the catechumen. Third, the mentorship would often seem to indicate adult relationships, in which Wilhite considers a recitation would be possible, but not necessarily done in practice (Wilhite 2019, p. 199). Finally, if baptism is seen as a symbolic washing which confirms identification with the community, the recitation is not as important as the baptism itself.
   Wilhite notes that the process of baptism itself is described in some detail. In Didache 7.1 there is a trinitarian statement similar to that in Matthew 28:19 (Wilhite 2019, p. 199). Wilhite notes that this writing precedes the trinitarian debates found in the third and fourth centuries (Wilhite 2019, p. 200). The types of water to be used are ranked from best to worst, from cold running water to water for pouring. Wilhite notes that the trinitarian statement from 7.1 is also present in 7.3b. This indicates to me that we would expect the trinitarian pattern to be included in all the different forms. In all cases we observe that the text makes no indication of a reason for the preference of use of cold running water. The thrust of the passage is that the washing is necessary as the entryway to community life and inclusion in the various "sacred practices" (Did. 9.5) (Wilhite 2019, p. 200). The lack of a specific reason for the ritual indicates to Wilhite that some sort of reason was commonly known and did not need to be made clear. Wilhite notes that the fasting instructions in Didache 8.1 likewise are not accompanied by a reason. There is a presupposition that fasting is a normal practice. It could well be that participation in the fast by others in the community "possibly aided the acceptance of the catechumen into the community" (Wilhite 2019, p. 200). The period may also have been an occasion for the recitation of the Two Ways material, further serving to create a sense of community.
   Baptism is accompanied by fasting and prayer, which serve as the topic for chapter eight. As he has noted before, Wilhite finds the transitional statement including δέ at 8.1 (Wilhite 2019, p. 201). The Didachist prescribes fasting on Wednesday and Friday, rather than on Monday and Thursday, as was the practice of the "hypocrites." Wilhite notes that while Matthew 6:16-17 and 7:16-17 focus on the appearance of fasting people, the Didachist focuses on the schedule of fasting. This demonstrates a concern for the identity of the community and its distinctive society (Wilhite 2019, p. 202). The differences prescribed raise three questions in Wilhite's mind. "First, who are the hypocrites? . . . from whom does the community separate? Second, what remains particularly unique about Monday, . . . and Thursday? . . . and, third, what remains particularly unique about the two new days for the Didache's Christian community -Wednesday . . . and Friday?" (Wilhite 2019, p. 202). Based on the Matthean tendency to equate hypocrisy with scribes and Pharisees, along with Herodians, Wilhite takes those people to be the likely group identified as "hypocrites." Wilhite further finds Mishnaic tradition that Monday and Thursday were the prescribed days of fasting. Therefore, he considers the reference may be to Judaism which receives rabbinic counsel (Wilhite 2019, p. 203). Wednesday and Friday may additionally be symbolically important days, with Wednesday marking Jesus' betrayal and Friday his day of death.
   Didache 8.2-3 presents the Lord's prayer Wilhite observes that not only does the community not fast as the hypocrites do, but they also pray differently (Wilhite 2019, p. 203). Wilhite's observation about the prayer is that it "is the one explicit section where I remain a bit more persuaded of an existing Matthean text to construct this Didache practice" (Wilhite 2019, p. 204) since it is done "just as the Lord commanded in his Gospel" (ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ ἐυαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ). The term "Gospel" was appended as an identification of the works which were later recognized as the canonical Gospels relatively early. This prayer, as we easily observe, is virtually identical to the form found in Matthew's Gospel. Wilhite does concede that the prayer, as a liturgical element used on a daily basis, may well be resident in the community's memory. Wilhite continues by comparing the text from the Didache and Matthew (Wilhite 2019, pp. 204-205). He particularly notes that the Didache uses two different doxologies, a longer (8.2; 9.4; 10.5) and a shorter one (9.2, 3; 10.2, 4) at the closing of pieces of liturgy (Wilhite 2019, p. 205).
   The Eucharist is the topic for Didache 9.1-10.7. Wilhite observes that these liturgies "possess more theological reflection than any other literary section in the Didache" (Wilhite 2019, p. 206). After listing a number of themes, he goes on to say, "With a possible exception in Did. 16, the Didachist deeply and theologically reflects more in these two chapters than anywhere else in the book" (Wilhite 2019, p. 206). A prime difficulty is how one views the material in chapters nine and ten. Wilhite is not strongly convinced of any of the conclusions we may reach. However, he is inclined to take the descriptions as referring to a meal which includes a celebration of the Eucharist. There is a clear use of bread and wine, as seen in Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; and Luke 22:17-20. There is a formal giving of thanks, along with liturgical prayers. There is a satisfying meal (Did. 10.1). There is further a particular order, which breaks from some of the tradition known, as it begins with the cup (Wilhite 2019, p. 207).
   There are both fixed and variable elements in the liturgical material. Wilhite notes "four fixed liturgical features appear: (1) a verbal clause "we thank you, Father"; (2) relative clauses "which you made known to us . . . "' (3) a petition to "gather"; and (4) shorter and longer doxologies" (Wilhite 2019, p. 207, citing Schwiebert, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom, 78).
The initial thanksgiving in the first "cup" liturgy offers thanks to the Father. "To offer thanks to the Father implies a form of worship to one member of the Trinity. Yet the use of "Father" theologically implies a Son and also conveys, at the least, an incipient form of binitarianism" (Wilhite 2019, p. 207). Oddly, the reason for the thanksgiving is "on behalf of the holy vine of David" yet "Jesus undergirds the means through which they express thanksgiving" (Wilhite 2019, p. 207). The theological logic is therefore unusual, as the thanksgiving is both on behalf of and through Jesus. For this reason, Wilhite considers that "the holy vine of David" is a symbolic reference to something other than Jesus.   Wilhite notes that Niederwimmer views this as an eschatological element, which Wilhite takes to be "a form of eschatological presence" (Wilhite 2019, p. 208, emphasis his). His inclination is that this, then, is a reference to the wine in the cup, possibly reminiscent of Amos 9:11-15). "The wine in the chalice symbolically refers to the Davidic kingdom of God that is now made manifest in the person of Jesus, which is revealed in and through the chalice" (Wilhite 2019, p. 208). I observe that Wilhite, coming from a baptistic background, would be unlikely to make the connection which I would make from a Lutheran point of view, that the reference could be to the real presence of Jesus' blood in the wine found in the chalice.
   The thanksgiving for the bread is similar to that for the cup. Here we find "life and knowledge," while in Didache 10.2 "knowledge, faith, and immortality have been made known through Jesus" (Wilhite 2019, p. 209). Wilhite sees possible relations to the way of life in Didache 1-4, as well as a possible connection with the travelers' realization of Christ in Luke 24:30-31. Again, as with the liturgy of the cup, Wilhite sees at least a binitarian relationship, with the Father revealing life through Jesus. He takes παῖς as a reference to "servant," but to speak of Jesus as well as David (Did. 9.2) (Wilhite 2019, p. 209). The idea of Jesus' suffering is not present in the passage. However, the term παῖς is used in numerous places within the New Testament to refer to Christ as the servant of the Father. The breaking of the bread in Didache 9.4 refers specifically to the gathering of the church, as the grain used in the bread was gathered. This may easily be seen as an eschatological image, as the church is gathered into the kingdom. Wilhite notes the eschatological image is more clear in Didache 10.5, where the Lord is asked to remember and deliver the church (Wilhite 2019, p. 210).
   Wilhite observes that the Didache does not mention a new covenant, the death or blood of Jesus, language of inauguration or remembrance, soteriology, or a relationship of the bread to the body of Jesus (Wilhite 2019, p. 211).
   Didache 9.5 speaks to how the Eucharist is administered and for whom. It is not part of the liturgy, but is set apart from it, as a community instruction. The use of the markers περί plus the genitive and the doxologies at the ends of segments creates a sense of the overall outline of the liturgy (Wilhite 2019, p. 211). Only those who have been baptized are partakers of the Eucharist. Therefore, Wilhite sees a connection between Didache 7.1-4 and Didache 9.1-4. Ritual cleansing is essential for reception of the Eucharist (Wilhite 2019, p. 211). Here, in Didche 9.5b, the Eucharist is seen as a holy thing which is not to be given to dogs. Wilhite sees the clear reference to Matthew 7:6. However, in Matthew 7, as well as Matthew 15:26-27, "dogs" refer to gentiles. Here the "dogs" are people who have not been baptized, and the "holy things" are the Eucharistic elements (Wilhite 2019, p. 212). In each instance, there is a reference to an inside and an outside group. The application to the Eucharist indicates that it is necessary to be a holy person so as to receive a holy thing. Wilhite, considering the parallel expression in Didache 10.6, sees repentance and baptism as the prerequisites (Wilhite 2019, p. 212).
   Didache 10 provides more liturgical material. Wilhite takes the material to be reconstructed in "the following order: (1) initial or opening Eucharist remarks; (2) immediately followed by or accompanied with the cup and broken bread; (3) followed by or accompanied with a corporate meal; (4) upon finishing the meal, closing Eucharist comments; (5) a concluding corporate liturgy with Μαραναθά. Ἀμήν" (Wilhite 2019, p. 213). As in other transitions, Wilhite sees a literary marker, this time μετά plus an infinitive. There has been a meal along with the chalice and bread. Now the community gives thanks. Here the adjective "holy" is used with the Father. Wilhite takes this to convey the trinitarian concept used in Didache 7.1, 3; 9.5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 213). There is further a concept of either the Name or the Triune God dwelling "within those partaking the Eucharist" (Wilhite 2019, p. 214). Wilhite considers whether this may "be incipient theosis and Johannine union with God" (Wilhite 2019, p. 214). It is not entirely clear in his mind, yet there is an element of being baptized "into the name of God" and there does appear to be a transformation, preparing the people to receive the Eucharist. Here in chapter 10, knowledge, faith, and immortality are interconnected with the Eucharist. Yet Wilhite questions whether it is safe to assume that immortality is applied only to those in the way of life, but not to the way of death (Wilhite 2019, p. 214). Wilhite notes that in the second century Ignatius (Eph. 20.2) and Acts of John (109) refer to the bread of the Eucharist with immortality (Wilhite 2019, p. 215).
   In Didache 10.3-4 God is addressed as the creator. Wilhite sees this as a means of indicating that God is the one who can provide for all humans (Wilhite 2019. p. 216). Because this obligates all people to give thanks to God, those on the way of death, though they are provided for, do not give thanks to God. They receive food, "but the spiritual food is given to those partaking hte Eucharist (Did. 10.3)" (Wilhite 2019. p. 216, emphasis his). The identity of the participants of the Eucharist is separated from that of those who do not partake. Didache 10.5 then asks God to remember and gather his church. This is a form of rescue, akin to the Lord's Prayer's plea for deliverance from evil. Wilhite observes that this pray references the theme of "perfection" from Didache 6.2, an eschatological outlook (Wilhite 2019. p. 217).
   Wilhite finds Didache 10.6-7 to make an odd ending to the liturgies. Verse 6 calls for grace to come and for the world to end. The use of "Hosanna" here calls out praise to God (Wilhite 2019. p. 218). There is additionally a call to repentance. The Eucharist has already been established as a celebration of the holy ones, but here some are presented as holy and some may not be. It therefore seems out of place in the Eucharistic liturgy. Verse seven then moves abruptly to prophets, granting them "to partake of the Eucharist in any way they deem necessary" (Wilhite 2019. p. 218). This is sharply different from the patterns established previously.
   Wilhite moves on to discuss the Coptic Addition to the Didache, dealing with ointment. Wilhite observes that this passage, not found in the Jerusalem manuscript, has been reconstructed and is identified in Didache 10.8 and 16.9-12 (Wilhite 2019. p. 219). 10.8 appears in the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 27, 1-2). The Coptic papyrus includes 10.3b-12.2a (Wilhite 2019. p. 219). Wilhite is noncommittal about inclusion of the text, but in general sides with Jefford and Niederwimmer, who take the ointment prayer as an interpolation near the end of the 2nd century or beginning of the 3rd century (Wilhite 2019. p. 220). A salient question is why, if it was interpolated in the second century, was it not included in an eleventh century manuscript, and why that eleventh century manuscript would be understood as more reliable. The material is coherent with other parts of the eucharistic liturgy in both its content and the structure with section markers including a short doxology (Wilhite 2019. p. 221). An anointing with oil is frequently seen as an adjunct to prayers for the sick, and is also seen as a figure of Christ, perfectly consistent with and often used in conjunction with baptism. Wilhite leaves this as a question that is best to be discussed in other studies.

Two Ways - Life and Death

8/23/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
8/23/24

Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "I: Didache 1.1-6.2." In The Didache: A Commentary. (133-194). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).

Wilhite describes the start of the Didache as posing a dilemma, as the reader picks between two roads which have life and death at their respective horizons (Wilhite 2019, p. 133). One's ethic in this world thus bears significant consequences. The narrative of the first six chapters describes the way of life and the way of death, and has been found elsewhere in a variety of other contexts. Wilhite identifies a number of other sources of similar instruction, some of which bear significant similarity to the tractate in the Didache, and some of which are much less detailed. Wilhite notes the metaphor of a road as indicative of a journey through life. The dualism is common to a great deal of religious literature. Wilhite notes many places where a choice of two options is given in the Christian Scriptures (Wilhite 2019, p. 134), as well as numerous citations of material from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other literature. He further traces the framework through a variety of sources in early Christian literature.
Wilhite notes that the Didache's Two Ways tractate is unique "because it lacks angelic or other worldly mediaries, contains soft determinism, and contains no cosmological structures" (Wilhite 2019, p. 135). Additionally, while other versions of Two Ways teachings regularly contain apocalyptic implications, the version in the Didache lacks those features. The Didache's Two Ways direct the individual to choose an outcome and follow the appropriate road. Wilhite describes the ethic as phrased in terms of relationships with other humans, rather than the apocalyptic motivations seen frequently in other works (Wilhite 2019, p. 135).
The Way of Life, from Didache 1.2-4.14 can be broken into a number of commandments (Wilhite 2019, p. 135). The first is the twofold love commandment. The Way of Life requires love for God and love for the neighbor (Wilhite 2019, p. 136). Wilhite sees this concept, with its parallels in the Synoptic Gospels, as a way of setting an overall Christian tone for the Way of Life. The following material holds to the framework created by repetitive language, punctuated by a pronoun and the word δέ (Wilhite 2019, p. 136). Love for God in chapter one is followed by love for the neighbor in chapter two. Chapter one thus has more of a vertical focus, while chapter two focuses more on horizontal elements of relationships (Wilhite 2019, p. 137). Wilhite observes that a good deal of the material at this point "recalls the Sermon on the Mount - namely the Matthean version" (Wilhite 2019, p. 137). The passage in 1.3b-2.1, known as the sectio evangelica, is absent from other texts of the Two Ways. Wilhite finds and catalogs numerous points of symmetry between Didache 1 and the Sermon on the Mount. He additionally observes a fasting ethic in Didache which occurs in Matthew 6 rather than where he might expect it in chapter 5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 138).
Wilhite considers the identity of the Gentiles as used in the Didache. He does not think they are identified merely as an ethnic group. Rather, he sees them as moral outsiders compared with the Christian community (Wilhite 2019, p. 140).
Love for the enemy is required, though the outcome of love for enemies is that you stop having enemies. Loving the neighbor also requires putting down various desires. Wilhite observes that in Didache chapter one the desires are not primarily sexual. That issue is brought up later, in chapters 2, 3, and 5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 141). Rather, Wilhite sees it pertaining to responses to violence or being compelled to do things. The Christian is not to retaliate, but to respond peaceably.
Generosity is to be the norm, and includes gifts which come from God (Wilhite 2019, p. 142). The giving to others is related to being innocent (ἀθῳος) (Wilhite 2019, p. 143). The life of giving to others demonstrates a blessed manner of living. Giving may result in personal purity. Wilhite notes that the opposite may also be considered to apply. Giving to someone who does not need the gift may result in woe rather than a blessed life (Wilhite 2019, p. 144). Wilhite explores a variety of sources to explore the commandment of giving. He finds the concept of charity to appear frequently in Jewish tradition, but doesn't locate one specific command (Wilhite 2019, p. 145). Again, Wilhite notes that the person who receives what is not needed is obligated to pay it back.
Didache chapter two pursues the love for one's neighbor (Wilhite 2019, p. 148). Wilhite here sees a change in the expression of the ethic. The presentation is in negative terms, rather than positive. Loving the neighbor is accomplished by refraining from certain activities. The concepts in Didache two generally follow the second half of the Decalogue (Wilhite counts "do not murder" as commandment #6 rather than #5) (Wilhite 2019, p. 149). The commands are presented in rapid succession.
Wilhite notes that acts of sexual abuse of children and other sexual immorality are presented in proximity to the command against adultery (Wilhite 2019, p. 152). Stealing, use of magical arts, and abortion are also prohibited, all of which Wilhite considers to be prohibitions which especially serve to protect children.
The prohibitions next move to inappropriate speech (Wilhite 2019, p. 153). Wilhite sees this as a means of protecting the honor of a household, relating closely to the ninth (8th) commandment in its prohibition of false testimony, and to the fifth (4th) commandment requiring honor to parents. A prohibition against bearing a grudge may well be related to the frequent positive biblical commands of forgiveness.
The Didachist warns against being divided in mind, speech, or soul. Wilhite sees this as a requirement of stability through avoiding self-contradiction (Wilhite 2019, p. 154). The use of empty words is expressly prohibited in Didache 2.5. The way of life requires substance, in words and in actions. These fruitful actions and words prohibit a number of additional characteristics, such as greed, robbery, and the like. The passage concludes by one positive characteristic, that of loving the neighbor more than oneself (Didache 2.7).
Chapter three of the Didache moves on to address "my child" in five ways, warning against different vices which lead to other physical expression of other vices (Wilhite 2019, p. 155). In each case there is one chief vice, then two others which then express an action (Wilhite 2019, p. 156). Wilhite adduces Kloppenborg, who considers the passage to be a sophisticated type of moral argument. Wilhite does consider the "child" addressed in Didache 3 to be an adult under the influence of a mentor, rather than a child per se (Wilhite 2019, p. 156).
The vice of anger ultimately leads to murder. Wilhite notes additional elements of jealousy, contentiousness, and a hot temper (Wilhite 2019, p. 157). Wilhite considers whether this was treated as a public safety issue as well as a matter of personal ethic. It remains inconclusive. The second situation, in Didache 3.3, is a group of sexual ethics. Here, lust leads to adultery. It may have concomitant foul mouth and wanton eyes. A third vice category is soothsaying, which leads to idolatry. Augury, enchantment, astrology, and magical washings are included in this category (Wilhite 2019, p. 158). The desire to see these vices is also prohibited. The fourth category describes lying, which leads to theft, impelled by love of money and vanity. Wilhite notes that Hermas ties lying to an internal desire for luxury. This may explain the outcome of theft. Finally, grumbling leads to blasphemy, with the accompaniment of obstinacy and an evil mind (Wilhite 2019, p. 59).
The cautions of Didache 3.1-6 urge the "child" to stay on the way of life. 3.7-10 provide a positive corrective, which Wilhite notes is necessary at some point in life (Wilhite 2019, p. 159). Flourishing as a community requires doing positive things, not merely avoiding the negative. Here, the learner is to be humble. This virtue leads to many other virtues (Wilhite 2019, p. 160). The positive command may depend on Ps. 36:11 (LXX) or on Matthew 5:5, which is normally considered dependent on the Psalm. Wilhite explores the verbal and philosophical relationship in some detail, concluding that the relationship is closer to Psalm 36:11 (LXX) (Wilhite 2019, p. 161). As the Didachist tied a variety of evils together in the early portion of chapter three, here he ties virtues together. The traits lead to a blessed life. Humility is at the opposite end of the spectrum from pride. The community is to remain humble and righteous (Wilhite 2019, p. 162). The presence of evil in the world is clear. Yet Wilhite notes that "humility provides the moral quality for a person to recognize that nothing happens apart from God" (Wilhite 2019, p. 162).
Wilhite finds that Didache 4, though still describing the way of life, is less internally connected (Wilhite 2019, p. 162). Here he finds four units which are relatively independent of one another. First, in 4.1-4 we see the wisdom of the parent (mentor) regarding ecclesial gatherings. Remembering the person speaking is a sign of appropriate respect (Wilhite 2019, p. 163). The people are to honor them "as the Lord." Unlike the Epistle of Barnabas, which ties this to a concern about eschatological judgment, the Didache portrays it in light of Jesus' gracious presence (Wilhite 2019, p. 164). In addition to the presence of the Lord, the community is gathered, which will result in charitable deeds (Wilhite 2019, p. 165). Wilhite here considers that the term "saint" (ἅγιος) in the Didache refers to one who is baptized and is included in the eucharist (Wilhite 2019, p. 165). The people are also joined together by repentance (Didache 10.6). The community is required to be unified, avoiding schisms (4.3-4).
Didache 4.5-8 addresses the importance of giving to the needy. Giving of alms is an important practice, both in Jewish and Christian thought (Wilhite 2019, p. 166). Here, the giving of alms is also tied to both ransom and soteriology. While any may receive, the recipients must, in turn, be willing to give. The prosperity which results from working and receiving also urges giving, which may be part of soteriology, as it is part of a "ransom for your sins" (Wilhite 2019, p. 166). Loving generosity to care for the poor and sojourners (Leviticus 19:9-10) creates an effective social safety net (Wilhite 2019, p. 167).
Wilhite notes the connection of almsgiving and a ransom for sins. The connection is evident in Didache 4.6, as well as in Daniel 4:7, and other places in Jewish literature. Tobit and Sirach describe the relationship as well, as, in the christian world, does 2 Clement and Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Giving of alms is important in the New Testament as well. Wilhite notes 1 Peter 4:8 and Acts 10:4, 31 (Wilhite 2019, p. 167). The difference between finding merit and finding salvation is a significant one, requiring careful exegetical study. Yet the importance of giving is clear (Wilhite 2019, p. 168).
The giving in the Didache is to be focused on giving to members of the community, though it is not necessarily exclusively so (Wilhite 2019, p. 168).
A household code appears in Didache 4.9-11 (Wilhite 2019, p. 169). Children are to be taught. Slaves are to be treated kindly. Slaves are also to submit to their masters. Wilhite notes that the husband-wife unit receive no instructions (Wilhite 2019, p. 169). Parental instruction is to be abundant and is not to be given out of bitterness (Wilhite 2019, p. 170). The one in authority does give orders. Yet those orders are not to be made in an angry or harsh manner (Wilhite 2019, p. 170). If, as in Didache 4.10, the servants and masters are Christians, on one level they are equal. Servants are to receive the wisdom of God which brings hope (Wilhite 2019, p. 171).
Didache 4.12-14 reminds the reader of a churchly covenant (Wilhite 2019, p. 172). The one on the way of life refuses hypocrisy of all types. God has made a covenant with his people, of whom he requires guarding his commands. Wilhite illustrates this as a common theme in biblical and extrabiblical sources (Wilhite 2019, p. 173). The ethics of the way of life are thus summed up by the exhortation to keep the covenant God has initiated (Wilhite 2019, p. 174).
In chapter five the Didachist turns to the way of death. Wilhite recognizes this as "the polar opposite" to the way of life (Wilhite 2019, p. 174). He also notes that some characteristics of the way of death have already been revealed, as they are the subjects of the negative exhortations in the passages referring to the way of life. The shift from discussion of life to discussion of death is rhetorically and structurally clear as there is a balanced μὲν . . . δὲ statement (Wilhite 2019, p. 175). The move down the way of death begins with inner death and walks toward distinction. The language shows the way of death to indicate living under the curse of God (Wilhite 2019, p. 176). Initially, the way of death parallels the second half of the Decalogue and Didache 2.1-3.6. It is here phrased with a list of 23 vices (Wilhite 2019, p. 176). Those on the way of death are also described as being socially oppressive, not caring for the community (Wilhite 2019, p. 177). Wilhite notes that those on the way of death hate the truth and see the world inaccurately. Their moral character is nonexistent and they make foolish decisions leading to destruction (Wilhite 2019, p. 178). The plea is to repent and walk on the way of life (Wilhite 2019, p. 179).
The Two Ways come to a conclusion in Didache 6.1-2. Wilhite recalls the outline of the Didache thus far, showing the high level of cohesion (Wilhite 2019, p. 179). He considers the section to end with 6.2 due to the overall balance and the introduction of a new topic in 6.3 with περί δέ (Wilhite 2019, p. 179). In 6.1-2, teachers who neglect the Two Ways are not having an appropriate concern for God. Rather, they should do what they can to bear the yoke of obedience to God (Wilhite 2019, p. 181).
Wilhite discusses the requirement of the "yoke of the Lord" (Wilhite 2019, p. 181). He sees it as used in religious writing to what would join one to others (Wilhite 2019, p. 182). The result is to be "perfect," which Wilhite analyzes in some detail (Wilhite 2019, pp. 182-184). He concludes that the goal in the Didache is to pursue perfection.

Didache - a double title

8/16/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
8/16/24

Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "Title of the Didache." In The Didache: A Commentary. (124-132). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).

Wilhite notes that the shorter title (inscriptio) and the longer title (incipit) of the Didache are found in the 11th century Codex Hierosolymitanus (H54) but not in other traditions, which are fragmentary in nature (Wilhite 2019, p. 124), although the no longer extant Georgian tradition may include both, but in an adapted form. However, the Georgian is considered dependent on the tradition from H54, so is not an independent witness.
Wilhite briefly explores the way the document could have received the two titles (Wilhite 2019, p. 125). One could be an early title, with the other added later. both titles could be additions or contain additions to the text. Wilhite observes that the work is referred to in antiquity by a variety of names. A third explanation could be an ancient tradition of a shorter and longer title, which was not uncommon in antiquity (Wilhite 2019, p. 126). After consideration, Wilhite considers it "quite plausible for the Didache to have both an inscriptio and incipit early in its formation" (Wilhite 2019, p. 127).
Because patristic references tend to use a brief title, Wilhite leans toward the short title as more likely to be authentic. Wilhite observes that the longer title is indicative of an interest in the handing on of teaching from Jesus, through the apostles, to other people. However, there is no indication in the text of specific apostolic authority (Wilhite 2019, p. 128). Therefore, he considers it likely to be pseudepigraphal.
The identity of "the lord" (κύριος) in the title is a frequent matter of debate, since it can refer to a human or divine master, and is used in Malachi of God, before the birth of Jesus, who is fairly regularly referred to as "the lord" (Wilhite 2019, p. 128).
The work is identified as instructing "the Gentiles" (Wilhite 2019, p. 128). The instructions are for all nations, which Wilhite takes to be the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20.

Theological Development in the Didache

8/9/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
8/9/24

Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "Chapter Three: The Theology of the Didache." In The Didache: A Commentary. (94-121). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).

Wilhite observes that assessment of early Christian theology is a challenging task. Particularly comparison of theology as seen in canonical works and in non-canonical works from Christianity or Judaism presents numerous difficulties. Wilhite attempts to restrict his discussion here to "the theology of the Didache and [he will] assume a whole and unified document" (Wilhite 2019, p. 94). His goal is to find the overall theological vision as present in the work as represented by the Jerusalem Manuscript, allowing that particular work to serve as a coherent witness.
"The Didachist presents ideas that reflect both trinitarian and binitarian ideas" (Wilhite 2019, p. 94). Wilhite notes different passages emphasize θεός or Jesus, with few references to the Spirit. The baptismal section presents a trinitarian formula.The word "Lord" (κύριος) is also used in this context, leading Wilhite to consider that other uses of κύριος may have a trinitarian presupposition (Wilhite 2019, p. 95). However, in the eucharistic passages, there is more of a binitarian view, with the Father and the Son present. Wilhite uses "Son" and "Jesus" interchangeably (Wilhite 2019, p. 95).
Wilhite notes the absence of canonical material in the eucharistic passages, which has suggested to Jonathan Schwiebert (Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom pp. 3-4) the multiplicity of different eucharistic liturgies (Wilhite 2019, p. 95). The Father is the primary worker, delivering gifts through the Son.
Wilhite observes what might be understood as a primitive or undeveloped concept of God. "The Didache's theology proper does not necessarily convey a fully-fledged development of the doctrine of God; it is more a subtle disposition towards and description of God" (Wilhite 2019, p. 96). God is pictured as the creator and owner of all. He is at one and the same time holy and bearing a fatherly relation "with either the Son or the people of God" (Wilhite 2019, p. 97).
Jesus appears in the Didache as the Son (7.1-4). He is referred to in rather vague terms elsewhere in the book (Wilhite 2019, p. 97). In the end Jesus comes to rescue his people. Jesus is further referred to as the servant (παῖς) of the Father. His service, Wilhite notes, does accomplish the noble task of making "life, knowledge, faith, and immortality" known (Wilhite 2019, p. 97). This brings glory to the Father. Jesus is referred to numerous times as "Lord" (κύριος), which suggests to Wilhite that he is also the most likely referent where the word is used less clearly (Wilhite 2019, p. 98).
Wilhite notes that specific references to the Holy Spirit are rare in the Didache (Wilhite 2019, p. 98). Aside from the trinitarian formulas in the baptismal passage, prophets speak "in the spirit" but Wilhite considers it unclear whether that is a "reference to the third person of the Trinity"
Wilhite considers the liturgical section of the Didache to deal with baptism, fasting, prayer, and eucharist as liturgies (Wilhite 2019, p. 99). Wilhite looks at them in turn. Ny notes here will tend to be very specific as this pertains directly to the thrust of my research.
Didache 7.1-4 deals specifically with baptism. It presupposes some use of the Two Ways material, though Wilhite does not consider the specific use of that material to be clear. It is, however, part of the preparation for reception into the community (Wilhite 2019, p. 99). The baptism is trinitarian in nature, which serves as a clear marker that the community is Chrsitian, not Jewish. The trinitarian name appears twice. The community may participate but is not required to do so. The baptism is preceded by a fast for one or two days, in which the community may participate (Wilhite 2019, p. 100). Once a person is baptized, Wilhite considers the person has been transformed in terms of inner identity, so is prepared to receive the holy things in the eucharist.
The societal identity is maintained in community as people engage in regular fasting, described in 8.2 (Wilhite 2019, p. 100). The members of the community fast on different days than the "hypocrites." Wilhite takes the fasting to reflect Didache 1.3, where the person is to fast and pray for enemies who would persecute him.
Prayer, in Didache 8.2-3, is also different from the prayers of the hypocrites (Wilhite 2019, p. 101). The members of the community pray as given to them by the Lord in his gospel. The Lord's prayer, much as it appears in Matthew 6:9-13, is presented. Wilhite observes he will deal with this more specifically in his commentary. Prayer three times a day is noted. Wilhite notes that this pattern is common in Christianity and Judaism. Members of the community are urged to pray also in 1.3, 2.7, and 4.14 (Wilhite 2019, p. 101).
The eucharist is discussed in chapters 9-10 and in 14.1-3. Wilhite notes the "Eucharist liturgies may be considered the most theologically saturated section of the entire work" (Wilhite 2019, p. 101). The eucharist includes Christological, eschatological, and soteriological statements, among other things. Here, the Father and Jesus are presented as active. The Father gives many gifts, while Jesus, the Son, reveals the Father and makes the gifts known. Reception of the elements delivers knowledge of the gifts of God (Wilhite 2019, p. 102). The conclusion of the eucharist describes an eschatological gathering of the church. In Didache 14 there is confession and eucharist, which together make a pure sacrifice.
Wilhite observes the absence of some elements, which may suggest that multiple liturgical forms were present in antiquity (Wilhite 2019, p. 102). There is no theology of the cross, mention of blood, of a covenant, or forgiveness. There is no institution narrative or statement of remembrance. Though this is very interesting, Wilhite does not discuss it in detail at this point.
The Didache does contain soteriological statements, but Wilhite does not consider the categories explicit (Wilhite 2019, p. 103). Metaphors of salvation are regularly linked to other concepts, such as instruction, ransom, or giving. The metaphor of a reward is used in 6.2 in conjunction with "bearing the yoke of the Lord." In the eucharist it is necessary to be holy, or else to repent. There is a connection to the Bread, but exactly what the connection is remains unclear. There is a reference in 4.9-11 of the Spirit related to salvation (Wilhite 2019, p. 103).
Wilhite notes that baptism may be connected with a change of nature and thus salvation (Wilhite 2019, p. 104). The eucharistic table is for those who have been baptized. Only holy people come. There is a relationship of holiness both to baptism and to repentance and confession of sins.
Wilhite notes that Didache 11.7 describes the possibility of an unforgivable sin in the context of testing a prophet (Wilhite 2019, p. 105). The community is to accept what prophets say. The consequence of the sin of not accepting it is not spelled out clearly.
The Didache speaks extensively about ethics. While this will appear in detail in the commentary, Wilhite here seeks out some of the major themes (Wilhite 2019, p. 105). He finds a relationship of persecution and pacifism. The people respond to persecution by prayer and blessing (1.3). They do not retaliate, but recognize God's gifts (1.4-5). When others act in an oppressive manner, they have departed from the way of life (5.2). This will increase as we approach the end (16.4). It is counter to the ethic of the community.
Giving of alms is an important element (Wilhite 2019, p. 106). It is characteristic of the way of life (1.4-5). People are to be generous, and also to give according to "the commandment." In Didache 4.5-8 giving may be a ransom for sin. The poor and prophets are to be cared for (13.3-4, 7; 15.4).
Wilhite notes the "extensive lists of virtues and vices that mark the ethical moorings of the community" (Wilhite 2019, p. 107). Much of this material reflects ideas also in the second half of the Decalogue, the Gospels, and possibly Galatians 5. Vice leads to death. Virtue leads to life. Wilhite examines the virtues and vices extensively, identifying canonical parallels.
One of the tools for maintaining a distinctive community which Wilhite finds in the Didache is that of "ethical separation or a communal disassociation" (Wilhite 2019, p. 109). Those who are following the Way of Death should be avoided. They are not participants in the society. A theological concept which relates closely to this is that of wholeness, the quality of being τέλειος (Wilhite 2019, p. 109). Wilhite sees this as a descriptor of virtue as understood in Greek and Roman society, as well as the Jewish concept of shalom. The Didache refers this concept specifically to individuals, not to the community as a whole. It is seen in actions of non-retaliation (1.4), in a willingness to bear the yoke of the Lord (.2), and participating in the Lord's work of love (10.5) and unity (16.2) (Wilhite 2019, p. 110).
Corporate gatherings and their related ecclesial structures are a significant element of the Didache. Authoritative teachers are to be recognized, and particularly the teaching of Jesus (Wilhite 2019, p. 111). The teachers bring Jesus' presence to the community. Fasting as a community while someone prepares for baptism is significant, though its effect on the community is not discussed. The gathering for eucharist is considered a pure sacrifice which is repeated on a weekly basis (ch. 14). The purity of the ritual is guarded through repentance and confession. Didache 15.3-4 states a number of communal ethics for the gathered people. Wilhite mentions particularly resolving anger and giving alms. The gatherings serve a function of maintaining piety within the community (Wilhite 2019, p. 112). The habit of confession and fair judgment is central to maintaining peace and avoiding sin.
The role of the teaching and the material taught is prominent in the Didache, signaled even by the twofold title applied to the work (Wilhite 2019, p. 113). While Wilhite considers it unlikely that the teaching actually came from the twelve apostles, he does see the title as a strong indicator of what we should expect in the book. The teaching is all built on the ethical instruction of the Two Ways. Additionally, Wilhite observes that teaching may come from external sources (11.2). This teaching must be evaluated (Wilhite 2019, p. 114). A faithful teacher is to be received as the Lord (11.2). Wilhite notes this favorable reception is applied to the Didachist as well (1.3; 2.1). The teacher is seen essentially as the parent or guide of learners, called children (3.1-6; 4.1) (Wilhite 2019, p. 115).
The ecclesial structure of the Didache includes bishops and deacons (15.1). Wilhite observes these are elected by the community (Wilhite 2019, p. 115). The functions are not spelled out, as they are in New Testament traditions (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1). They do have character qualities akin to those listed in the New Testament. Wilhite briefly considers whether teachers in the Didache are a distinct group or if the work of teaching is part of the office of deacon or bishop (Wilhite 2019, p. 116). While he does not consider the matter to be completely clear, he leans toward the presence of a group of people classified as teachers.
Prophets and apostles are clearly known to the community. Wilhite takes these to be separate groups which have some overlap in their roles (Wilhite 2019, p. 117). These people are to be well received but not to be given much provision other than respect. The relationship or hierarchy among deacons, bishops, apostles, and prophets is unclear in Wilhite's estimation (Wilhite 2019, p. 118).
The eschatology of the Didache is important though it is not highly developed (Wilhite 2019, p. 118). Wilhite observes that the very image of a "road" or "way" suggests that the members of the community are on a journey with a defined end point. While most of the ethical teaching has to do with interpersonal human relationships, there are ways in which this can be reflective of an eschatological priority. The corporate eschatology is more prominent, particularly in Didache 16 (Wilhite 2019, p. 118). The church somehow inherits God's kingdom. It is gathered together as the eucharistic bread is gathered from many plants. In the final hour, the Lord will return with the saints (Wilhite 2019, p. 119). The community must watch for his coming, persevering in their ethical life to the end. There will be signs, including persecutions. At the end there will be striking signs in the sky, a trumpet, and the resurrection of the saints (Wilhite 2019, p. 120).

Use of Scripture in the Didache

8/2/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
8/2/24

Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "Chapter Two: The Reception of Sacred Scripture in the Didache." In The Didache: A Commentary. (pp. 63-93). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).

In this chapter, Wilhite explores the way Scripture is used in the Jerusalem manuscript of the Didache (Wilhite 2019, p. 63). He admits to many questions remaining unaddressed. Yet here he pursues the existence of traditions in the Didache with parallels in the Bible so as to evaluate the way those traditions are put to use (Wilhite 2019, p. 64). Wilhite narrows his scope by requiring that a tradition bear an introductory formula, that it exist in a canonical work, that it is a proof-text for an internal argument in the Didache, and that it appears as an intentional use of a canonical source. He finds that Matthew 6:9-13, Matthew 7:6, Zechariah 14:5, and Malachi 1:11, 14 fit those criteria (Wilhite 2019, p. 64).
Wilhite briefly reviews the recent studies of "Reception history," which "moves away from standard categories of quotation, allusion, and echo" so as to account for non-literary influences on a composition (Wilhite 2019, p. 64-65). The core of the discipline involves consideration of reasons why an author would adapt wording or ideas in a particular way for use in his own composition (Wilhite 2019, p. 66).
The first passage Wilhite reviews is Didache 8.2, compared to Matthew 6:9-13. This material, the Lord's Prayer, is the central element for a chapter of my dissertation as well. Wilhite suggests that the strong similarities indicate a possible awareness of the Matthean traditions, and that the setting of the prayer in Didache 8.3 suggests the development of a liturgical use of the prayer (Wilhite 2019, p. 67). Wilhite considers the context to suggest a familiarity as well. "Did. 7-8 coheres with much of the material in Matt 6. The thematic and textual symmetry hint towards the Didachist being cognizant of the Matthean tradition" (Wilhite 2019, p. 68). Numerous topics are addressed in common in the two compositions.
Within the prayer itself, Wilhite notes the variation in number. Where Matthew has the plural "in the heavens," Didache 8.2 has "in the heaven." The plural in Matthew is atypical of Semitic usage, while the singular in the Didache is more common (Wilhite 2019, p. 69). Matthew uses the singular later in the prayer, at 8:10. The singular is regularly used in Matthew 6. Wilhite suggests this informed cosmology in the Didache. The Didache consistently uses the singular, using the plural only once, while the canonical gospels and Acts predominantly use the singular. Matthew, however, uses the singular 27 times as opposed to the plural 55 times (Wilhite 2019, p. 69). In this regard, Wilhite observes the Didache is more typical of the Apostolic Fathers than of Matthew (Wilhite 2019, p. 70).
The term used for "sins" or "debts" in Didache 8.2 is unlike New Testament or Septuagint usage, where it appears only in 1 Macc. 15:8 (Wilhite 2019, p. 70). Wilhite considers the word choice to refer to any type of debt which has accrued to those in the Didache community. I observe this may be similar to John's use of ἁμαρτία, where the plural typically refers to acts of offense but the singular regularly indicates the sinful condition. Wilhite further ties this idea to the Didache's use of the singular ἡ ὁδός to refer to a cluster of practices (Wilhite 2019, p. 71). Where there are other mentions specifically of sin, the Didache links the idea to ecclesial usage and chooses ἁμαρτία of παράπτωμα (Wilhite 2019, p. 71).
The doxology at the close of the prayer does not appear in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew. Wilhite observes that the form which eventually does appear in Matthew is a reference to 1 Chronicles 29:11-13 (Wilhite 2019, p. 72). Wilhite's suggestion is that the doxology in the Didache, as in 8.2; 9.2-3; 10.24; 9.4; and 10.5 is a liturgical tradition marking the end of the prayer (Wilhite 2019, p. 72). The shorter doxology concludes shorter prayers, while the longer one concludes longer prayers (Wilhite 2019, p. 73). Citing Hvalvik and Sandnes "Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation" p. 5, Wilhite sees the use of the prayer as part of the ritual life which binds people together around a common theme (Wilhite 2019, p. 73). He goes on to say, "Not only does prayer influence the identity of an individual but a repetitious liturgy is bound to shape others by the mere habitual nature of the performance . . . its repeated use also distinguishes the participants from others in the larger religious society" (Wilhite 2019, p. 73). The fact of the whole community being engaged in the same actions, using the same words, strengthens them as a community.
Wilhite further analyzes the similarity of Didache 9.5 and Matthew 7:6 (Wilhite 2019, p. 74). He observes there are significant debates centered on whether Matthew 7:6 concludes verses 1-5 or begins a new section. The interpretation of giving what is holy to dogs is also fraught with difficulty. Wilhite suggests the verse "as a Janus verse; that is, it functions to conclude Matt 7:1-5 and to introduce Matt 7:6-11" (Wilhite 2019, p. 74). Didache 9.5, however, uses the passage as an authority for a clearly defined idea, which is supported by Apostolic Constitutions VII.35. Those who have not been baptized are not included in the Eucharist (Wilhite 2019, p. 75). In the Didache text, the reference to authority is "The Lord," rather than a trinitarian formulation, as in baptism. The reference to Matthew establishes that this specifically refers to Jesus (Wilhite 2019, p. 75). The effect of baptism is not described in the Didache, nor is there a clear reference to the eucharist being holy in its nature. Wilhite notes that Draper ("Ritual Process and Ritual Symbol in Didache" 133-34) interprets baptism as shifting a person into the Didache community (Wilhite 2019, p. 75). Based on that logic, we can interpret the Eucharist as what is holy and the unbaptized as the "dogs."
The third passage Wilhite considers is Didache 14.3 and Malachi 1:11, 14. He notes that the Didachist does not directly quote the passage, but modifies it to give a "fuller sense" of the concept (Wilhite 2019, p. 76). For instance, rather than Malachi's "from the rising of the sun to its setting" the Didache refers to "in every place and time." Wilhite considers the use of Malachi to be based on memory, rather than a literary comparison (Wilhite 2019, p. 76). Those who participate in the Eucharist are to be reconciled to one another first, as they are partaking of holy things. The Didache refers to the speaking of the Lord (14.3), while using the concept found in Malachi 1 (Wilhite 2019, p. 77). Wilhite notes that the Didache frequently refers to themes of royalty and the kingdom. He sees this as an influence of Malachi's thought throughout (Wilhite 2019, p. 77). Wilhite additionally sees the conclusion of Malachi suggesting a merging of Jews and Gentiles, which he takes to be implicit in the Didache as the Christian community incorporates Gentiles (Wilhite 2019, p. 77).
This concept brings Wilhite to his fourth contact, Didache 16.7 and Zechariah 14:5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 79). The content of Zechariah 14:5 is found in other canonical passages as well, such as Matthew 25:31 and 1 Thessalonians 3:13. The level of literary agreement suggests to Wilhite that the Didachist had Zechariah in mind. The concept of a partial resurrection, consisting only of saints, is in view in Zechariah 14 and Didache 16 (Wilhite 2019, p. 79). Wilhite details a number of canonical and non-canonical accounts of resurrection which apply the parousia and resurrection to a variety of different groups, with relatively little agreement. Of all the accounts, Wilhite finds Didache 16.7 to fit best with Zechariah 14:5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 81).
Wilhite reiterates the criteria for selection of biblical passages he had stated earlier in the chapter, noting that there are many more instances of the Didache bearing similarity in wording and thought to canonical material (Wilhite 2019, p. 81). He concludes, "First, Scripture helps formulate and identify social practices " (Wilhite 2019, p. 82). The distinct community is identified through its routine use of biblical materials. "Second, the use of quoted Scripture reveals the hermeneutical patterns of the Didachist" (Wilhite 2019, p. 82). The hermeneutic in use is not that of literal exegesis which attempts to use an original context and meaning. Wilhite finds a preference for allegorical interpretation (Wilhite 2019, p. 82). "Third, and last, the Didachist's use of canonical traditions helps to convey ethical paraenesis" (Wilhite 2019, p. 83). The biblical material is used in exhortation to a particular pattern of life.

Didache - History and Status of Research

7/26/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
7/26/24

Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "Chapter One: Introduction to the Didache." In The Didache: A Commentary. (37-62).. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).

Wilhite notes the flurry of scholarly interest and activity surrounding the Didache's discovery in 1873 (Wilhite 2019, p. 37). After the text was released to the public in 1883, Wilhite notes no less than six major publications regarding it within three years. The manuscript was discovered in the 11th century Codex Hierosolymitanus (H54), but was overlooked in the initial review of the volume. Wilhite provides a list of the other contents of the codex (Wilhite 2019, p. 37). Wilhite references Pardee's observation that the text has materials which complement those of the New Testament (Wilhite 2019, p. 38). He also observes the work of coalitions of scholars who have come together from 2003-2015 to produce commentaries, monographs, and numerous scholarly articles exploring the text (Wilhite 2019, p. 38). Dating, editorial history, function, and relationship to the New Testament documents remain important areas for research.
Wilhite notes that the manuscript tradition is challenging, with the Codex Hierosolymitanus representing "the only surviving and generally complete MS" (Wilhite 2019, p. 39). Fragments from the fourth and fifth century contain 1.3c-4a; 2.7-3.2; and 10.3b-12.2. The last segment is Coptic. Wilhite discusses the various manuscripts in turn.
The Jerusalem Manuscript is dated 11 June 1056, by one "Leon, notary and sinner" (Wilhite 2019, p. 39). The fourth century Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1782 provides two fragments, as noted above (Wilhite 2019, p. 40). The text is significantly different in wording. Wilhite provides the text in parallel to the Jerusalem version of the passage (Wilhite 2019, p. 40-41). The fifth century Coptic fragment of 10.3b-12.2a notably contains a "myron" prayer, an anointing liturgy, not found in the Jerusalem manuscript (Wilhite 2019, p. 41). An Ethiopic version which cannot be dated and which is no longer extant contained 8.1-2 and 11:3-7 (Wilhite 2019, p. 42).
The Didache was attested in early Christianity and was apparently quoted and considered by some as part of canonical Scripture (Wilhite 2019, p. 42). Wilhite concedes that the references may be open to debate, but that the text was apparently known. He reviews two mentions in Clement of Alexandria which are similar to 3.5 of the Didache (Wilhite 2019, p. 42). Another apparent reference in numerous works of Clement is Didache 2.2-3, which is an expansion on the concepts inherent in the command against sexual immorality in Exodus 20 (Wilhite 2019, p. 43). Wilhite sees Origen making a statement (De princ. 3.2.7) which is similar to Barnabas 19.6 and Didache 3.10 (Wilhite 2019, p. 44). Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.25.4) suggests the Didache as a book which is rejected from canonical usage. However, he considers it orthodox and useful (Wilhite 2019, p. 45). Wilhite observes that Eusebius' list places the Didache together with Barnabas, where it appears in the Jerusalem Manuscript. Athanasius, in his Festal Letter 39, describes the Didache as a useful instructional text (Wilhite 2019, p. 46). Rufinus, in Expositio symboli 36 may list the Two Ways as a book which is non-canonical but helpful to the faith (Wilhite 2019, p. 47). The Latin construction at that point in his discussion is slightly vague. Pseudo-Cyprian may make a Latin paraphrase of Didache 14.2 and 15.3b in De aleatoribus 4 (Wilhite 2019, p. 47). Wilhite notes with Niederwimmer that this suggests a Latin version of the Didache in the late 3rd century, not restricted to the Two Ways material (Wilhite 2019, p. 48). Pseudo-Cyprian further may use Didache 6.2 in De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima 14 (Wilhite 2019, p. 48). Wilhite provides a fairly exhaustive catalog, which I have tried to encapsulate thoroughly, at risk of giving too much detail.
Wilhite moves on to attempt to identify a date and provenance for the Didache, admitting the opinion of van de Sandt and Flusser that it cannot be more than a guess (Wilhite 2019, p. 48). Dating estimates vary based on the assumption of sole authorship or a composite process. After extensive and detailed review of a variety of dating schemes, Wilhite suggests a relationship between Didache and Matthew, a composite text, and a setting which may well fit the second century (Wilhite 2019, p. 50). He places it in the window of 80-110 CE (Wilhite 2019, p. 51) though there may have been some accretions after that time.
Wilhite moves on to discuss structural matters in the Didache while admitting to its complexity (Wilhite 2019, p. 51). Outlines prepared by various scholars reach varied conclusions about the structure. Though most find four basic categorizations of material the divisions are not absolutely clear and there is considerable disagreement regarding subcategories. Wilhite reviews in turn the models of Claire Rothschild, Klaus Wengst, and Nancy Pardee before proposing his own version of an outline (Wilhite 2019, p. 51-57). Wilhite will use his outline throughout the commentary so we will not attempt to describe the details of the others at this point.

A Didache Translation - Not My Favorite

7/19/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
7/19/24

Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "Translation." In The Didache: A Commentary. (26-35). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).

As promised in the introductory material, Wilhite's translation of the Didache is clear and unremarkable, but for a strong tendency to mix singular and plural pronouns. For instance, "if someone requests . . . give them . . . " Compared to the paragraph markings in the edition of Bryennios, traditionally used, in chapter 10 Wilhite inserts an additional division of paragraph 7, then also counts a paragraph 8. The wording is stable except that Wilhite notes and translates the Coptic Addition as chapter 10, paragraph 9, a thanksgiving for the ointment or anointing oil (Wilhite 2019, p. 31). The translation additionally smooths out the litotes used effectively, particularly in chapter 11, by presenting the English only in positive terms. Additionally, Wilhite is less willing to take the verb εὐχαρίστειν to refer specifically to communion, preferring the generic meaning, "to give thanks." Wilhite includes in his translation the putative lost ending at chapter 16, paragraphs nine through twelve.
All things considered, Wilhite's translation is very clear, and, aside from the confusion of singular and plural, it is readable. The tendency to paraphrase, and the jolting inconsistency in number make it an undesirable translation, one which I will tend to avoid.

Wh6y the Didache?

7/12/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
7/12/24

Jefford, Clayton (Wilhite, Shawn J.) (2019). "Foreword." In The Didache: A Commentary. (11-14). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).

Jefford identifies three areas of concern to interpreters of ancient documents: first, an accurate reading of the text, second, an evaluation of the reliability of manuscripts, and third, an adequate understanding of the milieu in which the composition was initially used (Wilhite 2019, p. 11). Evaluation of Christian writings has the additional complication of ecclesiastical and theological customs. Particularly within non-canonical early Christian writings, Jefford considers the contextual questions to be difficult (Wilhite 2019, p. 11). In many instances, author, dating, and other issues of provenance are vague at best. Jefford finds this particularly problematic when studying the Didache (Wilhite 2019, p. 12).

Introduction to Apostolic Fathers

7/5/2024

Friday Scholarly Notes
7/5/24

Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "Series Preface." In The Didache: A Commentary. (4-7). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).

Wilhite observes that the category of the "Apostolic Fathers" was not recognized as such in antiquity, but first identified in some regard in a collection by Jean-Baptiste Cotelier in 1672 (Wilhite 2019, p. 4). Prior to that time, some of the first and second century authors had appeared in a variety of manuscripts. Wilhite specifically mentions Codex Hierosolymitanus, from 1056, discovered in 1873, containing "the Didache, Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and a long recension of the Ignatian epistles" (Wilhite 2019, p. 4). The Shepherd of Hermas and the Martyrdoms of Ignatius and Polycarp, along with a few fragmentary works are also included by some commentators. Wilhite cites Ehrman's Loeb edition of 2003 and a revision of Lightfoot and Harner, released in a third edition in 2007 as authoritative editions (Wilhite 2019, p. 5).
The Apostolic Fathers are important due to their antiquity as well as their representation of a variety of genres, locations, and their reflection of topics important to different situations found among early Christians (Wilhite 2019, p. 5). The topics may also shed light on the dissemination of different parts of texts recognized later as canonical works.
Wilhite continues with a discussion of the Apostolic Fathers Commentary Series, of which this is the first volume (Wilhite 2019, p. 6-7).

What kind of document is the Didache after all?

10/20/2023

10/20/23
Scholarly Reflections

Pardee, Nancy. "Chapter Four: Summary and Conclusion." The Genre and Development of the Didache. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 189-191.

Pardee concludes that rather than being a church order, the Didache is a document representing a foundational generic development of a teaching tool (Pardee 2012, 189). It specifically moves beyond ethical paraenesis to teaching of the ethical basis of an ordered community, exhibiting ritual actions including baptism and eucharist. She sees the text as a developmental one, going through revision as needs of the community were identified and the teaching refined to meet those needs. Of significance, rather than a Mishna which claims Torah as authority, the Didache claims "the gospel" as its authority (Pardee 2012, 190).

Partial Structural Analysis of the Didache

10/19/2023

10/19/23
Scholarly Reflections

Pardee, Nancy. "Chapter Three: The Generic Development and Compositional History of the Didache." The Genre and Development of the Didache. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 141-188.

Pardee observes there is every reason to accept the fact that the Didache is self-identified as a "Didache" type of writing, just as Mark's Gospel is a "euaggelion." Though there are not other examples unambiguously identified as such from the same time period this does not negate what the text says (Pardee 2012, 141). The term, Pardee goes on to demonstrate, tended to fall into a specific niche. More so than διδασκαλία, it tended to be used for serious teaching, which was comprehensive in nature (Pardee 2012, 142-143), though by the time of the New Testament the word choice tended to correspond to a geographical location.

Pardee considers whether the New Testament drew a distinction between preaching and teaching. She observes that numerous commentators find considerable overlap between concepts of preaching and teaching (Pardee 2012, 144ff). Teaching is one of the elements which is a common emphasis in both the Didache and Matthew. Pardee notes this is consistent with Matthew's emphasis on the Pharisees, in comparison with Luke, where it is not as heavily emphasized (Pardee 2012, 148). In fact, Pardee sees teaching in the rest of the New Testament as more related to explanation, while in Matthew it overlaps more significantly with preaching. Pardee explores briefly whether or not the term διδαχή refers to a body of doctrine in the New Testament 150ff).

Pardee moves on to a discussion of the structure of the didache. She again emphasizes the division into two parts: 1-15 and 1 (Pardee 2012, 155). She then tracks a number of textual delimiters which suggest layers of redactional activity, with source material being brought into the larger body of material (Pardee 2012, 156ff). These are chiefly in the form of words suggesting either the διδαχή or the εὐαγγέλιον as an authority.

In her structural analysis, Pardee moves through the material in terms which appear very similar to traditional text-critical methods. The significant difference is that rather than looking for specific written sources of the language, she evaluates redactional layers based on internal markers which signal semantic shifts, and which may signal them in different ways. She takes the various types of signals to identify different layers of redaction.

Pardee continues her analysis with a review of the Two Ways section, seeking out structural cues for redaction and consistency of structure (Pardee 2012, 162ff). She does particularly note similarity of themes between the Two Ways material of ch. 1-6 and the apocalyptic material in ch. 16, thus finding signs of overall cohesiveness (Pardee 2012, 167-169). Yet she continues her textual analysis in terms of a search for common sources. This analysis includes extensive citations of other scholars who are seeking textual dependence relations with the New Testament and other early Chrsitian works (Pardee 2012, 170-184 passim).

Based on the previous evaluations, Pardee moves on to a reconstruction of the Didache's development. She postulates stages: first, a Christianized version of the Two Ways (Pardee 2012, 184), second, baptismal and eucharistic instruction for Gentiles (Pardee 2012, 184-185), third, a later update with specific instructions on fasting, prayer, and itinerant prophets (Pardee 2012, 185-186), and finally, a few later editorial changes (Pardee 2012, 186). She further takes the titles to have changed over time, along with the content (Pardee 2012, 187.

The Importance of the Didache's Double Title

10/18/2023

10/18/23
Scholarly Reflections

Pardee, Nancy. "Chapter Two: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of the Didache." The Genre and Development of the Didache. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 65-140.

Pardee observes that text linguistics has a counterpart in American scholarship, called discourse analysis. The field "essentially refers to the application of linguistic concepts and methodologies to the text as an act of communication. Originally, linguistics dealt with the smaller units of language and communication, using descriptive or structural approaches." (Pardee 2012, 65, emphasis hers). The discipline she describes approaches the communicative event of the text on a larger scale. The text is taken as a coherent whole, which makes sense by itself and may also make recognizable references to ideas in other texts (Pardee 2012, 67). An important goal of the discipline is to treat a whole text as it is present to us.

After describing several of the syntactic tools used to identify divisions of a text into its components, Pardee questions whether the methodology can be applied to various types of communicative texts. Her conclusion is that it can be applied in a wide variety of situations (Pardee 2012, 73).

Pardee moves on to identify the text she will use for analysis (Pardee 2012, 74ff). While she largely uses the Jerusalem manuscript of the Didache, her analysis is informed by additional fragmentary evidence, including partial manuscripts, citations in church orders, and other Two Ways texts.

Pardee observes that a challenge in study of the Didache is the scholarship which has largely posited multiple layers of redaction (Pardee 2012, 79). Text-linguistic analysis evaluates the evidence of possible redaction based on the surface inconsistencies, as well as other elements of the communication as we now have it, seeking a means of clarifying the resultant text.

Pardee proceeds to describe her evaluation of manuscript and punctuation conventions (Pardee 2012, 80-82), then to provide a brief glossary of analytical terms she will use (Pardee 2012, 83). She then presents the Greek text on left-hand pages, with some notes on the text as used in the communication event. The right-hand pages have indicators of the semantic flow of the analyzed text (Pardee 2012, 84-96). The notes at the bottom of the pages closely delineate the semantic impression to be made by each statement.

Of more immediate use to the average reader, Pardee proceeds with a more detailed description of the communication levels of the various passages from the Didache (Pardee 2012, 97ff). Here she indicates in detail who communicates to whom and how the message functions.

Pardee considers the titles stated on the Didache as an important preparatory note, drawing attention to the intent of the document (Pardee 2012, 101). The nature of the double title, with its repetition, indicates not merely an elaboration but some other process (Pardee 2012, 102). After a survey of commentators, Pardee concludes that many commentaries discount the importance of the two separate lines, and that it is inappropriate to do so (Pardee 2012, 104). Because written titles tend to be amplified, it would seem likely that the second title would be an editorial comment, but the reference to "the Lord" would not be easily removed. She therefore concludes that the longer title is original. Pardee reviews references in patristic authors, finding that the work may be referred to by its shorter title (Pardee 2012, 108). Uses of a form of the longer title tend to omit the number "twelve," which may suggest it was a later elaboration or that it was present but not considered integral (Pardee 2012, 1090. It is significant, in Pardee's mind, that some other versions of Two Ways narratives include the word διδαχή in their titles (doctrina in Latin) (Pardee 2012, .These instances may suggest the shorter title as the norm. Yet, Pardee recognizes that the longer title could serve as a title for the entire work, not just the Two Ways passages (Pardee 2012, 116). A consideration of title conventions in antiquity suggests to Pardee that the shorter title would serve as a brief label, and the longer one would preserve identity of one of a number of related works (Pardee 2012, 118). Pardee notes that in some Jewish and Chrsitian texts it was common practice to have a brief title label followed by a longer title sentence (Pardee 2012, 119).

Pardee further considers the function of the longer title in terms of what it refers to, what the semantics of the words are, and what it communicates to readers (Pardee 2012, 123). The external references are to the Lord, the Twelve, and Gentiles (Pardee 2012, 124). This makes a claim to the authority of the message, as well as the appropriate mediation of it through the Twelve. From the perspective of the semantics of the words, Pardee notes an apparent move from orality to writing, intending to bring oral teaching to Gentile readers or hearers (Pardee 2012, 124). The pragmatic aspect, what the title communicates to readers, is the authorization of the message and the importance of receiving the message (Pardee 2012, 125).

Pardee expands her analysis of the Didache, noting that the text has two parts, one beginning at 1:1 and the other beginning at 16:1 (Pardee 2012, 125). These represent her primary level thematic divisions. Pardee additionally posits another layer of significance at the points where "teaching" or "gospel" are mentioned (Pardee 2012, 127-128). Her argument for the various levels and their type of communication is complicated and depends in detail on the systematic definitions and abbreviations found on p. 83.

Though the Lord's Prayer as used in the Didache and in Matthew's Gospel are virtually identical, numerous other connections are not so clear, and are certainly not extended in nature (Pardee 2012, 130-132). Pardee does not think text-linguistic methods can confirm dependence on sources, but may shed light on compositional and redactional stages (Pardee 2012, 132).

Text-Linguistic Analysis as a Model

10/17/2023

10/17/23
Scholarly Reflections

Pardee, Nancy. "Chapter One: The Didache and the Question of Genre." The Genre and Development of the Didache. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 4-64.

After a brief summary of the contents of the Didache, Pardee notes that the literary style results in difficulty in understanding the overall construction. She characterizes it as "elliptical," saying, "apparently certain background knowledge on the part of the ancient reader was assumed, knowledge lost, however, to the modern audience, with the resultl that the text appears laconic" (Pardee 2012, 6). There are few detailed transitions between major sections, which provide sparse background information about their topics. Pardee considers that identifying the overall genre may be helpful in clarifying some of these matters (Pardee 2012, 7).

Pardee continues with a review of 20th century analyses of the genre of the Didache, noting that most scholars identify features of a church order but find the Didache to have a more limited scope than the church orders which arise starting about the third century (Pardee 2012, 8-31). She enters in detail into the points of view of numerous authors. Pardee concludes that the Didache is some sort of handbook which describes morals, rituals, and discipline. It is not clear if it falls into the character of other texts which are considered "church orders" (Pardee 2012, 30).

This conclusion moves Pardee on to a discussion of the term and genre "church order," a term which is first found in the 16th century (Pardee 2012, 31). Because the church orders describing liturgy and administrative structure for churches in the Reformation were similar in contents to writings from antiquity, the name was applied to writings in the past (Pardee 2012, 32). Pardee questions whether our modern concepts of genre may have tempered our understanding, thus creating an inappropriate view of the classification of the documents when they were written. Since the 16th century, studies have been engaged in with the intent of identifying detailed descriptions of the philosophical outlook of the works identified as "teaching" or "doctrine" (Pardee 2012, 33ff).

The Didache's discovery and publication brought new life to the studies in 1883, and the scholarly community had a "new" text to study (Pardee 2012, 37). Pardee catalogs a number of commentators' descriptions, indicating a broad consensus that the text was quickly recognized as a doctrinal and liturgical handbook. After the initial surge of interest, Pardee finds a generalization of interest, with other similar texts becoming classified as church orders (Pardee 2012, 43-44). The study of the Didache continued, with hypothetical division into redactional layers articulated by James Vernon Bartlett as early as 1924 (Pardee 2012, 45-46). Study of sources for the Two Ways material began in earnest after the 1900 publication of Doctrina Apostolorum, from the third century, containing most of Didache 1.1-6.1 (Pardee 2012, 46). Theories of the origin of the Two Ways abounded, including that of an oral catechetical formulation (Pardee 2012, 48). This, in turn, may have led to scholarly inquiry into the Two Ways teaching. Following the discovery of the Rule of the Community (1QS) among the Dead Sea Scrolls, consideration of Two Ways as its own genre grew (Pardee 2012, 49-50). In essence, the genre was a community rule in formulaic terms.

Pardee notes the importance of observing the structure of a text as a whole so as to evaluate the function of its component parts (Pardee 2012, 52). She observes that there is "a current trend to reject the idea of compositional stages and to see the text instead as the work of one author, created with or without the use of outside sources" (Pardee 2012, 53). She uses Milavec's commentary as an example of interpretation of the work as a cohesive whole, discussing Milavec's strengths and weaknesses in some detail. Another scholar of note who takes the Didache as a coherent whole is Ian Henderson, whose work Pardee reviews in detail (Pardee 2012, 58-62). Pardee's conclusion is that while Milavec and Henderson make a noteworthy attempt at interpretation, a more thoroughgoing text-liguistic study is called for (Pardee 2012, 62). Pardee finally notes that David Hellholm created a text-linguistic outline of the Didache at approximately the same time as her dissertation was completed (Pardee 2012, 63).

Distinctions between Judaism and Christianity

9/29/2023

9/29/23
Scholarly Reflections
Draper, Jonathan A. "Chapter Twelve: Do the Didache and Matthew Reflect an 'Irrevocable Parting of the Ways' with Judaism?" in Van de Sandt, Huub (editor). Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 217-241.

Draper observes that there is clearly, at some point, a definitive break of Christianity away from Judaism, after which reconciliation was not possible. He asks whether the Didache and Matthew represent that breaking point (Draper 2005, 217). Both Matthew and the Didache can be seen as forceful in their anti-Jewish views.

In its title, the Didache expresses that it is addressed to gentiles, not Jews. It is set apart, at least in some way, from the Jewish community (Draper 2005, 218). The gentiles are to separate themselves from things sacrificed to idols. However, they are not compelled to take on the entirety of the Mosaic Law.

Matthew, while showing a critical attitude toward some elements of Judaism, embraces those who would believe on Jesus and, in many ways, holds a positive attitude toward Judaic roots (Draper 2005, 220).

Draper notes that one of the challenges in this analysis is the definition of "Judaism" (Draper 2005, 220). The Didache makes no reference to "Jew" or "Judaism." The communities are simply separate. Christians set themselves apart from "the hypocrites" (8:1). Draper does not see this as a vehement rejection, though Van de Sandt and Flusser do (Draper 2005, 221). Matthew also uses "Jew" or "Judeans" five times, and is not always specifically negative. Though Matthew shows differences and even some disputes with the majority culture, it is not a violent distinction between groups which consider themselves completely different. Draper suggests there may be more clarity if we note that "Jew" was normally applied to the people by outsiders and that the internal discussion was concerning who was a true "Israelite" and who was not, as a distinction between having faith and merely having heritage (Draper 2005, 222).

An additional problem Draper finds in this discussion is that the distinction must be defined. To speak of a "parting of the ways" may imply anything from acceptance of clear distinguishing marks to a division including irreconcilable animosity and alienation (Draper 2005, 223). One could argue for recognition of distinctives but hardly for lasting alienation based on either the Didache or Matthew.

Draper considers whether there is evidence of a move toward separation in the interim between the Didache and Matthew (Draper 2005, 224). He dates Matthew shortly after 70 and before 100. Dating of the Didache is not as clear. Therefore, he declines to speculate on development, as we really cannot date both documents clearly.

Draper continues by analyzing the Didache in relation to Israel (Draper 2005, 225ff). He does this by tracing key words as used in the Didache and in Matthew. The communities are to pursue righteousness, which is closely related to the concept of perfection. The pursuit of righteousness is perfectly consistent with an Israelite desire for righteousness (Draper 2005, 226-227). The Didache does specify that the entirety of Torah is not necessary for righteousness. There is a standard which may stand above that of the Torah (Draper 2005, 228). However, Draper finds the trains of thought to be largely compatible (Draper 2005, 230). There is not a rejection of piety.

The anti-Jewish nature of the Didache is largely tied to the distinction made with "the hypocrites" in 8:1-2 (Draper 2005, 230). The accusation of hypocrisy can be broadly applied to anyone who, in one's opinion, is deficient in practice. Therefore, Draper does not consider it as an indicator of separation between Christians and Jews. It can be applied in too many contexts (Draper 2005, 231). There are many accusations against hypocrites in Matthew. However, it is not a blanket statement against all Jews. The Didache specifies different fast days and prescribes a prayer. Again, this is not indicative of a radical division (Draper 2005, 232ff). Draper finds in Matthew some evidence of Christians separating themselves from the community, fasting and praying in secret (Draper 2005, 234). This could indicate their immersion in a community which was more hostile than that of the Didache. Draper theorizes that the Didache may have set the stage with different fast days for a later hostile response against Christians, forcing them to be more discreet at the time of Matthew's Gospel (Draper 2005, 235).

The Didache is clear that those not baptized are to be separated from communion, comparing them to dogs (Draper 2005, 235). The language here is similar to that used in rabbinic writings (Draper 2005, 236).

The Didache speaks of gathering an ἐκκλησία from around the world (Draper 2005, 237). This has been seen as a slur against Judaism. However, Draper finds ἐκκλησία and συναγωγή used as synonyms in the Septuagint. The langauge refers to a gathering, specifically of the faithful. Rather than being an exclusive statement, this is radically inclusive. Matthew tends to view the assembly in more narrow terms. The ἐκκλησία is built on Peter (Matthew 16:17), and doesn't always appear as universal (Draper 2005, 238).

Draper finally considers the statement of the eucharistic prayer in the Didache, which makes God known through Jesus (Draper 2005, 238). The language actually serves to describe the Christians as part of God's covenant with Israel through baptism (Draper 2005, 239). Matthew uses the term "son of David" frequently to refer to Jesus. Jesus' claim as the king who comes after David is potentially quite divisive, and is something which could separate Christians and Jews.

Draper's conclusions are made "somewhat tentatively" (Draper 2005, 239). The Didache and Matthew show different levels of separation from Israel. They do, however, remain parts of one whole. The thought world is, for the most part, quite similar (Draper 2005, 240).

Eschatology in the Didache and Matthew

9/28/2023

9/28/23
Scholarly Reflections
Verheyden, Joseph. "Chapter Eleven: Eschatology in the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew." in Van de Sandt, Huub (editor). Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 193-215.

Both the Didache and Matthew's Gospel address the idea of the end time. Verheyden observes that while each has a section which is more or less dedicated to the concept, there are also scattered references in both works. Because of the concentration of material, Verheyden's study focuses on Didache 16 and Matthew 24-25 (Verheyden 2005, 193).

Verheyden notes the necessity of tracing a relationship between the Didache and Matthew so as to rightly analyze the statements. He concludes, "The Didache contains verbal and content parallels with passages from Matthew's eschatological discourse in all verses of Chapter 16 except v. 7 which is a quotation from the OT that is however probably also alluded to in the final section of Matthew's discourse (25:31)" (Verheyden 2005, 194). While it seems reasonable that both documents were influenced by some other material, Verheyden considers it less likely that the two documents were completely unconnected. The consistency of ideas used and even of their ordered arrangement suggests a more direct influence (Verheyden 2005, 195). Verheyden surveys a number of the arguments based on a literary relationship or the lack of a literary relationship. The root of the argument seems to be the level of certainty we can have as regards redactional process, which is a challenging analysis at best (Verheyden 2005, 196-200).

Verheyden considers that the Didache was composed/redacted with knowledge of Matthew's Gospel. For this reason, he analyzes the eschatological passage with an eye to the similar material in Matthew (Verheyden 2005, 201). Didache 16:1 and Matthew 24:3 both ask when the end will come and what the signs of the end will be. Matthew uses the question to start a lengthy discourse. The Didache clearly says, "you don't know the time" (Verheyden 2005, 202). The events are likewise presented in simple terms. Both the Didache and Matthew speak of a time of tribulation to come. Both predict times of persecution, apostasy, and betrayal in no uncertain terms (Verheyden 2005, 203). A deceiver will arise, causing great harm through supernatural powers (Verheyden 2005, 204). Verheyden observes specifically that these powers do not come from within the deceiver, but that he receives the powers from elsewhere. Some will be provoked to turn away from the Christian faith, while others will not (Verheyden 2005, 206). The concept of Christ being the one who is cursed but who saves is present in both texts. Verheyden specifically notes that a curse of death is found not only in Didache 16 but also in 1:3 and 5:1 (Verheyden 2005, 208). The Didache gives a threefold sign of the end, with a visual sign in the sky, a sound of a trumpet, and the resurrection of the dead (Verheyden 2005, 209). All the concepts are present in Matthew, though a specific sign of an opening in the sky is not clearly presented. The end is expected to be coming soon in both texts, which both serve as warning and as encouragement (Verheyden 2005, 212).

Verheyden concludes that Didache 16 effectively draws out the eschatological emphases of Matthew's Gospel (Verheyden 2005, 215). The wording and order of ideas show some evidence of influence. The Didache account is very brief, and it is likely that it is incomplete, with an abrupt end. The world of Matthew and the Didache, however, certainly seem to correspond to each other.

Reproof in Early Christianity

9/27/2023

9/27/23
Scholarly Reflections
Van de Sandt, Huub. "Chapter Ten: Two Windows on Developing Jewish-Christian Reproof Practice: Matt 18:15-17 and Did. 15:3." in Van de Sandt, Huub (editor). Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 173-192.

A relationship between Matthew 18:15-17 and Didache 15:3 is often posited due to the emphasis on confession and the Didache's reference to "the gospel," taken to be Matthew's Gospel (Van de Sandt 2005, 173). Van de Sandt compares the passages, also evaluating a "parallel in the Manual of Discipline (1QS)" (Van de Sandt 2005, 174).

Van de Sandt first evaluates Matthew 18, the fourth extended discourse found in Matthew (Van de Sandt 2005, 174). The start speaks of children being welcomed to Jesus, then the passage continues speaking of childlike behaviors. In verses 15-20 the passage moves on to confrontation and attempts at conflict resolution in case of sin. Forgiveness is the focus, as Jesus emphasizes in verses 21-22, telling his disciples to forgive "seventy times seven" times. He follows with a parable of an unforgiving servant (Van de Sandt 2005, 174). The majority of the material in the context parallels a passage in Luke 17, however, van de Sandt takes verses 15-20 not to exist in the Q source, as they are not found elsewhere. He does note the close connection to Leviticus 19:17 and the express intention of confrontation leading to reconciliation. Matthew 18:15-17 shows a judicial concern, with the specific conditions clearly spelled out (Van de Sandt 2005, 176). The negative reference to "pagans and tax collectors" also strikes van de Sandt as out of character with other statements in Matthew (Van de Sandt 2005, 177).

Van de Sandt continues by comparing the reproof passage in Matthew with that in Didache 15:3 (Van de Sandt 2005, 178). The passage in Didache 15 is clear that the reproof is directed to "a brother" and is thus friendly in nature. The goal is repentance so as to be restored to the eucharist. Unlike the passage in Matthew, the Didache passage has no hint of a judicial regulation (Van de Sandt 2005, 179). The function of witnesses is important in Matthew, while it is not present in the Didache.

Van de Sandt next makes a comparison with two reproof passages found in the Qumran material (Van de Sandt 2005, 180). Though van de Sandt finds judicial practices evidenced in rabbinic law, the reproof passages are intended as warnings against sin, rather than confrontations after the fact. A warning was to be issued and proven to have been issued prior to the transgression so as to allow any judicial process to be taken up. Van de Sandt details a number of the judicial intricacies (Van de Sandt 2005, 181ff).

The reproof passage of 1QS 5:23b-6:1b calls for reproof as necessary prior to presentation of an offender to the elders (Van de Sandt 2005, 184-185). It is to be conducted in front of witnesses, counter to the Matthew passage which requires a private setting at first. While there are procedural steps, it does not necessarily have a judicial impact. Rather, van de Sandt takes it as part of a routine examination of community members. There were judicial procedures clearly spelled out in other passages. This leads van de Sandt to conclude that the passage in Matthew, with specific instructions for confrontation as well as a judicial process was influenced by the Qumran community in some way (Van de Sandt 2005, 186).

Compared to Matthew, the reproof in Didache 15:3 is entirely consumed with a desire for reconciliation. The goal is clearly nothing other than reconciliation (Van de Sandt 2005, 187). The reference to "the gospel" is not entirely clear. However, van de Sandt considers it very unlikely that the passage would be derived from Matthew 18. It may be a reference to something influenced by the 1QS material. This view may be strengtehend by the fact that the 1QS narrative refers to a regular review of character. This is more similar to Didache 15 than to Matthew 18 (Van de Sandt 2005, 189).