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

Colliding Traditions

12/4/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
12/4/19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​
0 Comments

Didache Research Overview

11/20/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
11/20/19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​
0 Comments

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

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

    About Throwing Inkwells

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

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

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

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1-john
    1-kings
    1-peter
    1-thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2-corinthians
    2-john
    2-kings
    2-peter
    2-samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Alesso-2009
    Allitt-2010
    Amos
    Aristotle
    Augustine
    Baptism-of-christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Belonging
    Boehme-2010
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas-day
    Chronicles
    Circumcision-and-naming-of-christ
    Colossians
    Confessions
    Constanza-2013
    Daniel
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Draper
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria-2014
    Ephesians
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Flew-2007
    Forde-2007
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Genesis
    Gonzalez-2010
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hebrews
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson-1992
    History
    Hosea
    Hutchens-2013
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    James
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Justin-martyr
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Koch-2010
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last Sunday Of The Church Year C
    Lectionary
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Long-2009
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Malachi
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec-2012
    Mitch-2010
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Passionb
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost-14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost-15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost 16C
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost 17C
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost 18 C
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost 19 C
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost 20 C
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost 21 C
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost 22 C
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost 23 C
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Peterson2010
    Peterson-2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Pieper1924
    Pieper-1924
    Preaching
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Quintilian
    Receptivity
    Reformation
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Romans
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Ruth
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Sermon
    Smith-2009
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    Teaching
    Thielman-2010
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly