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

Apostles in the Didache

4/8/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/8/20

Draper, Jonathan A. “Torah and Troublesome Apostles in the Didache Community” pp. 340-363 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

Draper sets out to consider the theme of apostles as described in the Didache, noting that the descriptions themselves may be illustrative of the real situation of traveling apostles as they interacted with the local congregations. Draper considers how these interactions, though possibly somewhat obscured in the process of redaction, may be well understood, especially with the help of comparisons to the materians present in Matthew’s gospel (Draper (ed.), 1996, 341).

Didache chapter 11 may have seen considerable redactional change, as Draper acknowledges, specifically commenting on the 1989 commentaries of Niederwimmer and Jefford. Both hypothesize redactions made by insertaion of explanatory paragraphs within chapter 11 (Draper (ed.), 1996, 342). The comments are frequently predicated on an idea of a “decline” or a “divergence” from the canonical text of Matthew. However, Draper trenchantly observes the idea “begs the questions in assuming that a work inside the canon of Scripture must be prior to a work outside it. It is more likely that teachings emerge out of the concrete life-situations of a community in a rudimentary and unattractive form, and are later developed and refined theologically into a consistent whole (Draper (ed.), 1996, 342). Draper considers the materials pertaining to apostles to be of a more primitive nature than those which speak of prophets. For this reason, he argues that the depiction of apostles is more likely to be tied to the actual movements of the first apostles (Draper (ed.), 1996, 344). Further, the idea of receiving apostles ὡς κύριος was increasingly avoided as time passed, presumably because of the authoritative role of Scripture in the subapostolic period (Draper (ed.), 1996, 345).

As he proceeds to explore the treatment of apostles, Draper seeks out information about the local issues which may have led to the Didache’s comments about apostles. He says, “The Didache is a ‘Q’ community, and draws on the same tradition as does Matthew, although it cannot be shown to be dependent on Matthew as we have it” (Draper (ed.), 1996, 346). It seems that much of the Didache reflects teaching generally known to the Christian community, but that the teaching at some point, particularly by the time of 15:4, which he sees as a later insertion, is superseded by a written “gospel” account (Draper (ed.), 1996, 347). On the whole, Draper’s view is that the Didache and Matthew may have arisen through dialectic between the Didache in the genre of a “community rule” and Matthew in the genre of a “gospel.” He then compares the statements of Didache 11:1-2 and Matthew 5:17-20, in which both texts require orthodoxy of teaching, consistent with the message held in the past (Draper (ed.), 1996, 348). In both passages we are cautioned about a teacher who makes claims which are inconsistent with Torahd or other received doctrine. This teacher is not to be received, though neither text denies that person’s claim to be a Christian. Both passages use an uncommon word, καταῦσαι, to describe the violation of orthodox teaching (Draper (ed.), 1996, 349). Similarly, in both passages, δικαιοσύνη is used to describe teaching or ethical behavior which illustrates the goodness of God in the Torah (Draper (ed.), 1996, 350). Draper concludes that “in the Didache we can observe the development still in process, which comes to full theological expression in Matthew” (Draper (ed.), 1996, 351). The Didache, then, likely represents a layer of teaching in which some Christians, even possibly some apostles, are failing to work out the details of Christianity in a manner consistent with the Torah. This appears to have been largely resolved in the community represented by Matthew’s Gospel (Draper (ed.), 1996, 352).

Draper further looks at Didache 6:1-3 in relation to apostles, as it speaks of the need to guard the specific content of the teaching. The passage, not found in this form in other “Two Ways” passages, seems to divide Christians into those who strive for and achieve an earthly perfection and those who simply do what they can but don’t escape carnal pleasure (Draper (ed.), 1996, 353). There is a clear element in the passage of the need to avoid worship of idols. Draper makes an interesting observation in that Torah is seen as a “yoke” but that here it is “the yoke of the Lord,” strongly suggesting an interpretation of Torah by or through Christ (Draper (ed.), 1996, 354). The requirements Draper finds in the New Testament, specifically in Acts 15:10 and Galatians 2:11-13, make it clear to him that the discpute was more over dietary laws than circumcision, as the dietary signs were the indicator that the Gentile and Jewish Christians could worship together (Draper (ed.), 1996, 355).

Draper further considers the idea of “perfection,” referring to the Greek term τέλειος as used in Didache 6:2. At issue here, and in Matthew 5:48, is whether the Christian is to keep all of Torah so as to be recognized as righteous (Draper (ed.), 1996, 37). The Didache seems to require that Christians keep Torah or they will be considered “second class Christians” (Draper (ed.), 1996, 358). A failure to teach this point of view, however, is a matter of contradicting God. Draper finds it essential in the Didache that Christians keep all the Jewish Torah, as interpreted by Jesus (Draper (ed.), 1996, 359). 

The eschatology of Didache 16 also brings insight into the situation. In 16:2, the proselyte is required to perfect himself (Draper (ed.), 1996, 359). Draper finds the same pressure for those who are converting to Judaism, as they are also told to keep all of Torah including the laws of food. In Didache 16, the same faithfulness to Torah is required as to the Two Ways in 6:1 (Draper (ed.), 1996, 360). Those who teach otherwise are called in 16:2 “false prophets” but in 11:1-6 the term is apparently used for false apostles. These are seen as wolves who arise within the community.

Draper’s overall conclusion is that these concepts point to the Didache coming from a community in which Torah is pre-eminent, though some are advocating abolishing Torah. These are the false teachers who need to be removed from the community. Draper sees this as the essential dispute, and Matthew’s Gospel as the beginning of reconciliation of the parties to the dispute (Draper (ed.), 1996, 363).

​
0 Comments

Eucharist and Dating the Didache

3/11/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
3/11/20

Betz, Johannes. “The Eucharist in the Didache” pp. 244-275 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

Betz observes that dating of the Didache has remained problematic, with many scholars placing it solidly in the second century. Recent scholarship has been more willing to place it in the first century, though few have joined Audet in his estimate of 50-70 A.D. (Betz 1996, 245). Betz considers it settled that chapters 1-6, 7-10, 11-15, and 16 had different origins and were incorporated into the text in different ways. For this reason, Betz advocates separate study of each segment.

The meal prayers in chapters 9-10 bear a striking similarity to Aramaic Jewish rituals. Betz observes that the word “eucharist” may be used in a relatively flexible manner, thus leaving the actual intent of the word open to debate (Betz 1996, 245). In chapter 14 it is clear that the text refers to the sacramental meal with which we are familiar. In the earlier chapters it is not as clear. Betz presents a translation of chapters 9-10 before listing a wide variety of interpretive summaries of the actual type of meal under consideration. He concludes that the “large number of interpretations shows the uncertainty of the state of the research, the hypothetical character of the explanations and the difficulty of the question” (Betz 1996, 247).

From the outset, Betz rejects the interpretations which require rearranging paragraphs so as to make sense of the narrative (Betz 1996, 248). The most straightforward interpretation sees the start of the meal as an agape meal followed by a celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The terminology used in the blessing is very different from that of the New Testament. However, especially the command in Didache 10:6 that the unholy should not come suggests to Betz that this meal has the characteristics of a sacrament happening at the actual time of the blessing (Betz 1996, 249). Yet Betz concedes that there are internal inconsistencies in the passage. The inconsistencies may point to either the agape or to the Lord’s Supper, but possibly not both (Betz 1996, 250).

Betz surveys scholarship briefly, finding that some scholars have attempted to harmonize the event. In the discussion, we also note that the sequence of events in the New Testament also bears some inconsistency, such as “bread-meal-cup” or “meal-bread-cup” (Betz 1996, 251). He suggests that the prayers could fit either an agape or the Lord’s Supper, and that the usage may have changed over time. Betz explains the actual parts and their usage in detail (Betz 1996, 252). In his view, as liturgy developed, rather than creating new materials people would find usable elements and press them into service. The materials originally applied to the Lord’s Supper were repurposed for the agape meal (Betz 1996, 253).

Betz seems of two minds about the dating of the elements of the Didache and about the antiquity of 1 Corinthians when he places Didache 9-10 in context. “The old eucharistic celebration which, in our opinion, is still reflected in Didache 9:2-5; 10:2, 3b-5, has its own theological stamp and gives the impression at first sight of a striking intellectual distance from the eucharistic celebration of the New Testament accounts of its institution” (Betz 1996, 253). Though Betz finds significant differences in the celebrations, he emphasizes that they are both centered around bread and a cup accompanied by prayers and that both have an emphasis on eschatology, looking forward to a final redemption. Yet Betz does observe that the Didache does not specifically speak of the effect of Jesus’ death, of the elemens as Jesus’ body and blood, or of the new covenant in Jesus’ blood (Betz 1996, 254). Betz considers whether there were multiple different eucharistic practices or whether they may be harmonized with one another. He does not provide entirely conclusive findings, but he does think the Didache community knew the Lord’s Supper institution but may have pursued a different theology. Betz continues by describing a relationship in the ideas of the Didache and John’s Gospel, then concluding “that the two texts feed on the same eucharistic tradition, even from a common local tradition, which we might look for in North Palestine/Syria” (Betz 1996, 255). John’s Gospel also has some Syrian roots. This suggests to Betz that we cannot make a clear assessment of one document as a source for the other. Both texts, in fact, look to the Old Testament feasts and prayes as a root of the theology and practice they describe (Betz 1996, 256). Both the Didache and the New Testament look at the eucharist as a time when divine wisdom particularly dwells among men (Betz 1996, 257).

Betz next turns to a consideration of the passages in Didache 9 and 10, asking how they comment on each other in their doctrine of the eucharist (Betz 1996, 258). First, he observes that the term εὐχαριστεῖν is central to the idea. The blessing (from God with material and non-material goods, and from man to God with thanks and praise) and thanksgiving has a root in Jewish practice as well. The eucharistic prayers are closely related to the table blessings in Judaism (Betz 1996, 259). Yet the thanksgiving is not merely for bread. Betz observes that the thanksgiving is particularly for the breaking of the bread, which was early understood as the particular provision of Christ broken for his people (Betz 1996, 260). He further notes that in both hellenism and in the Old Testament the concept of bread and wine was identified with both life and the presence of God (Betz 1996, 261). Christianity, however, sees Jesus as the one who ushers in the end times. Betz takes this as a kind of secret knowledge which brings the enlightened participants into an eternal kingdom (Betz 1996, 262). He notes that  similar eschatological hope is evidenced in the New Testament. Betz approaches the lively eschatological hope in bread which nourishes people for eternal life as a surprising oddity, however he also finds support for it in the Letter of Diognetus (Betz 1996, 263). Betz does show an antisupernatural bias at this point, treating theological analysis and the historic doctrines as quaint beliefs rather than matters which potentially carry the importance attached to them in early Christianity. The connection of Psalms, Revelation, and the Didache, referring to Jesus as the “vine,” “root,” or “stem” of David is plain. Betz takes it to be a sign that “Jesus, the expected Davidic messiah and Wisdom have come, and that he makes present his coming sacramentally in the eucharistic drink; since the benediction is indeed said over the cup” (Betz 1996, 266).

Betz helpfully observes that the vine imagery does remind us of the collective identity of both Israel and of Christians. The eucharist is used to create a body of Christ, a manifold group with a unified identity (Betz 1996, 267).

Betz elaborates on the sacramental nature of the mal, observing that the wine is closely related to the idea of a vine and that a meal has a strong association with sustaining life. The “eucharist” as a giving of thanks may relate to those who have been cleansed by baptism or some sort of penance, being those who can rightly give thanks (Betz 1996, 268). The prayer after the eucharist gives thanks for “the Name,” which Betz takes to refer to Jesus, the revelation of God the Father (Betz 1996, 269). This could also be seen as evidence of a sacramental understanding as it recognizes an actual presence of God. The idea of God’s presence being where His name is found is common not only in Judaism but also in early Christianity (Betz 1996, 270). The sacramental view may be seen further in the eschatological emphasis of the passage. Not only do the prayers recognize God’s presence, they also ask that he would come in glory soon (Betz 1996, 271). Betz continues to describe the eschatological nature of the document as it looks forward to a gathering of God’s people and their full redemption (Betz 1996, 272-274). 

​
0 Comments

Christianity as Community

3/4/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
3/4/20

Draper, Jonathan A. “Christian Self-Definition against the ‘Hypocrites’” pp. 223-243 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

Draper observes that scholarly discussion of Didache VIII has almost exclusively focused on issues of dependence between Matthew’s Gospel and the Didache, rather than on the actual function of the chapter (Draper (ed.), 1996, 223). Draper intends to emphasize rather the flow of the text and the function of this portion.

As Draper considers the literary setting he first concludes, in agreement with David Flusser, that the text of chapters 1-6 are addressed from a Jewish Christian audience speaking to Gentile converts (Draper (ed.), 1996, 225). The description in chapter seven of appropriate water for baptism appears consistent with Jewish washing rituals except for the trinitarian elements, which point to early Christianity (Draper (ed.), 1996, 226). The fast described lends Draper to a conclusion that chapter eight either is to be read as a further elaboration of initiation into the community or, less likely, that it is related to preparation for the eucharist (Draper (ed.), 1996, 227). Draper does consider the transition to be rather clumsy. He also notes that the material is in a different location in the Ethiopic version.

Considering the function of the material, Draper observes that the first six chapters largely dealt with separation from pre-existing practices, while in chapter eight the focus is more on aggregation, or assimilation with the group. “What is significant in both of these phases, is that no specifically Christian motivation is given, which would not equally serve a convert to Judaism (Draper (ed.), 1996, 229). The differentiation was not from Judaism but from paganism. For this reason, Draper finds the sudden negative comments about “hypocrites” in chapter eight to be surprising (Draper (ed.), 1996, 230). He suggests that the distinction became important after baptism, when one was identifying particularly as a Christian.

Identification of the “hypocrites” in 8:1 has often been compared with Matthew 6:16. However, Draper and others find little similarity of content, other than the one word (Draper (ed.), 1996, 231). Draper goes on to speak of the usage of the parallel term in Hebrew, which regularly refers specifically to faithless or anti-religious behavior. The connotation is regularly negative, while the Greek term is more innocuous (Draper (ed.), 1996, 232). Draper does find in the Jewish tradition that the Pharisees, but not the Essenes or other pious groups, made a habit of specific days for fasting. He sees this, therefore, as a statement against the Pharisees, as well as a conscious attempt to separate Christianity and Judaism (Draper (ed.), 1996, 233). The Christian fasts, on different days, are also recorded in Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the Apostolic Constitutions. This practice of fasting would have effectively distinguished Christians from the Pharisees (Draper (ed.), 1996, 234). The prescription further is to pray the Lord’s Prayer three times a day, as opposed to the Shema twice in the Jewish tradition. Draper sees this as yet another self-conscious act of differentiation (Draper (ed.), 1996, 235). He futher observes that the use of the Lord’s prayer makes literary dependence a non-issue. A prayer repeated three times daily by Christians could certainly be written down by any person who knew the text and could write (Draper (ed.), 1996, 237). The doxology at the end of the Didache’s version suggests a liturgical use of the material. Draper does not take the liturgical use as anything new, but he does consider that the instruction given for prayer makes it clear that the passage is used as a distinctively Christian liturgy (Draper (ed.), 1996, 238).

Draper’s conclusion is that Didache chapter 8 sets up a distinctive community which is separate from Judaism (Draper (ed.), 1996, 239). Only the baptized participate in the specifically Christian prayers and the eucharistic meal (Draper (ed.), 1996, 240). The Christian community is clearly set apart from the pagan or Jewish groups by the public prayers and fasting, not by the relatively private actions such as giving alms (Draper (ed.), 1996, 242).

​
0 Comments

Non-Canonical Baptismal Instruction

2/26/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
2/26/20

Rordorf, Willy. “Baptism according to the Didache” pp. 212-222 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

As the earliest non-canonical instruction we have on baptism, Rordorf considers Didache 7 as crucial in reaching an understanding of the doctrine and practice of baptism in early Christianity. He notes that the passage has aroused considerable interest in recent years (Rordorf 1996, 212).

One intriguing feature is a change from a second person plural in 7:1 to a singular elsewhere. Audet takes this to be a sign of an interpolator’s insertion (Rordorf 1996, 213). On the contrary, Rordorf takes the material of 6:3 through 7:1 as a unity, despite its change between the singular and the plural (Rordorf 1996, 214). He further suggests that chapters 9-10, speaking of the eucharist, are part of the same material as 6:3-7:1.

Rordorf assumes that in 7:1 any believer could be the one baptizing. In chapter 15 he takes it that baptisms were not yet routinely conducted by bishops or deacons. Yet in 7:2-3 and 7:4b, Rordorf finds an implication that only one designated person in the community was expected to perform baptisms (Rordorf 1996, 215). He gathers that it was this custom of having one person who administered the sacrament which led to the later delegation of the task to bishops and deacons.

Rordorf goes on to say he would expect extensive catechesis to occur before baptism as early as the beginning of the second century. This is also consistent with the overall logical flow of the Didache (Rordorf 1996, 216).

Prior to the baptism the convert was expected to fast, along with those others who might join in. Rordorf considers that this may have a relationship to the growth of a custom of fasting prior to Easter. Though dates and even days of the week are unclear, it is certainly possible that this baptismal fast led up to a Sunday, and quite likely Easter itself (Rordorf 1996, 216).

The baptismal formula is a popular topic of discussion. Rordorf notes that the formula is given three times, in 7:1, 7:3, and 9:t, using slightly different words each time (Rordorf 1996, 217). Rordorf observes some variation in the New Testament as well. He sees the specific Trinitarian formula arising in common use after the mission to Gentiles has begun (Rordorf 1996, 217).

The means of baptism was important in the Didache. The norm was to use running water. However, in 7:2-3, it is clear that baptism can be performed without running water, and even with water that has been warmed. Rordorf describes this as a purposeful warming, not, for instance, the incidental case of a pool or container in the sun (Rordorf 1996, 219). If needed, it was even permissible to pour water over the head three times, if there was not enough water for immersion (Rordorf 1996, 219). 

The question of anointing in relation to baptism arises, in large part due to the Coptic passage inserted after the baptismal language (Rordorf 1996, 220). Rordorf takes the anointing prayer as a later interpolation as opposed to being something original and later suppressed (Rordorf 1996, 221). The anointing itself does not seem clearly linked to the baptism.

Rordorf notes that there are four elements absent from the Didache’s teaching on baptism. There is no renunciation of Satan. The water itself is never consecrated. “There is no trace of the Pauline theology of baptism” (Rordorf 1996, 222). There is no mention of a laying on of hands or impartation of the Holy Spirit. Rodrof thinks the absence of these elements points to the baptismal language being from very early Christianity (Rordorf 1996, 222). 

​
0 Comments

Paul vs. Didache

2/19/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
2/19/20

Flusser, David. “Paul’s Jewish-Christian Opponents in the Didache” pp. 195-211 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

Flusser sets out “to show that Didache 6:2-3 reflects the position of the majority in the Mother Church towards the Gentile Christian believers while Paul’s attitude was more unusual and therefore revolutionary” (Flusser 1996, 195). In Flusser’s opinion there is a dispute between Paul and Peter as well, with Peter taking a position more similar to that of the Didache. At issue is the interpretation of the decree articulated in Acts 15:20, 28-29, and 21:25.

20th century scholarship has affirmed that in the Western text tradition of Acts, the decree omits the prohibition against eating strangled animals. The three remaining prohibitions were “idolatry, bloodshed, and fornication” (Flusser 1996, 196). These three sins were considered as “capital sins” in the rabbinic writings, meaning it would be better to die than to participate in those sins. Flusser observes that these three sins were, in the apostolic period, consistent with well-known prohibited behaviors among Gentiles with Jewish sympathies, the “Noachites” (Flusser 1996, 196).

Flusser concludes that the first six chapters of the Didache re actually a Jewish document, and that this “passage clearly reflects the Jewish Christian understanding of the obligations of Gentile Christians towards Judaism, a position which was utterly unacceptable for Paul” (Flusser 1996, 196-197). Flusser refers the reader back to various texts, particularly a treatise he wrote, for the idea that the Two Ways document itself was a known Jewish document (Flusser 1996, 197). Flusser does not precisely explain how the alleged Jewish document received the insertion of a Christian passage describing a particularly Christian point of view (Flusser 1996, 199). Flusser also seems puzzled by the fact that a Christian would say that keeping God’s law is required but that failure could be forgiven. Flusser fails to explain why this solution to the problem of incomplete obedience to a particular law is so astonishing. His examples of conversion to Judaism, however, depict converts being held to a very high standard. Keep the prescribed law or don’t bother trying to convert (Flusser 1996, 201). 

Flusser makes several arguments which are surprising to me. They are predicated on the concept that “(T)oday the Jewish code strictly forbids a non-Jew to observe any Jewish commandment, no matter how minor” (Flusser 1996, 202). He then states that this was also Paul’s attitude toward Gentile Christians. They were not to observe any Jewish laws unless they converted to the entirety of the Jewish law. Flusser goes on to describe Paul as assuming that those who lived according to Jewish law prior o conversion would continue in it, as he says Paul did, while people from outside the bounds of Judaism would not take on any of Jewish law (Flusser 1996, 203). 

Flusser concludes that the laws of the Apostolic Decree would be seen as a minimal standard for those interested in Judaism, but that Paul’s teaching would say a Christian could not take on any more obligations (Flusser 1996, 205). At root, Flusser appears to think Christianity, and specifically Paul’s articulation of Christianity, is an attempt at applied Judaism, with virtually no discontinuity (Flusser 1996, 206-207). He also seems to take Didache 6:2-3 as a non-Pauline illustration of Christianity which has a high degree of discontinuity (Flusser 1996, 207-208). Here the assumption is that Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians alike have completely departed from all Jewish observances.

Flusser shows the roots of his argument, when he cites Paul’s words in Galatians 5:3, indicating that those who receive circumcision are bound to the whole law of Moses (Flusser 1996, 209). Flusser fails to account for the greater argument of Paul in Galatians, where he argues that attempts to gain righteousness before God through works of the law are futile. Rather, Flusser takes Paul to reject the validity of the law. This misunderstanding on Flusser’s part amplifies the issue of Paul’s apparent rejection of law and the Didache’s apparent embrace of the Apostolic Decree. For this reason, he sees the Didache and Peter as calling for works of the law so the Gentile will live as a Jew. Flusser makes this conclusion based on Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul criticizes Peter for holding a double standard. Flusser takes the criticism to be that Peter would try to have Gentiles live like Jews, but not by full obedience, only partial obedience (Flusser 1996, 210). From this line of reasoning, Flusser draws a sharp dichotomy between followers of Paul and followers of Peter, with the Didache representing Peter’s view.

​
0 Comments

A Lifestyle of Learning

2/12/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
2/12/20

Alon, Gedaliah. “The Halacha in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” pp. 165-194 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

A Hebrew Halacha is a teaching of a way of life. Alon notes that much of the Halachot in the Didache is “typical of those which were adapted by the early Christians, with modifications, from the tradition and the custom of Israel” (Alon 1996, 165). Most of Didache 1-6 fits easily into this model, with virtually no distinct mention of Christianity and a style of writing which differs from the other chapters of the Didache. Alon concludes it is quite possible this material was almost entirely from a Jewish source (Alon 1996, 166). While one might assume this teaching was intended to introduce Gentiles to God’s morals, the text itself does not further that proposition. Specifically, Alon finds it missing several of the elements he considers fundamental to Christianity or Judaism (Alon 1996, 167).

To engage in an analysis of the situation, Alon looks at analogous Jewish documents. He finds relatively little similarity of content in Josephus and Philo, but more in “the Jewish poetry attributed to Phocylides” (Alon 1996, 168). This body of poetry can be seen to catechize Gentiles. Alon observes, however, that some central laws are missing, including a prohibition of idolatry, which we would expect to find as a central idea in catechizing Gentiles (Alon 1996, 169).

Alon continues, speaking of the various Jewish views of the Halacha and the relative importance to different groups of different commands. It becomes clear from Alon’s examples that there was significant variation in different documents and that there was no one, comprehensive, rule considered as complete and for all people. With this in mind, Alon considers various concepts found in the Didache. 

Alon finds the Didache’s prohibition of abortion and infanticide also in Clement of Alexandria, in the Sibylline Oracles, in Philo, and Josephus (Alon 1996, 173). Abortion and infanticide were commonly prohibited in Judaism and normally were considered capital crimes. The Didache’s prohibition does not attach a penalty but makes it clear that the matter is important.

Didache 3:4 speaks against fortune-telling using birds. Alon considers this such an obviously prohibited practice that it needs little explanation. However, “during Temple times and after its destruction, sorcerers and magicians existed amongst the Israelites, both in Israel and abroad, as well as ‘magicians’ books’ which were popular among the people” (Alon 1996, 174). He goes on to list numerous rabbinic prohibitions on all sorts of charms and magical arts.

Didache 4:10 speaks against mistreatment of slaves. Alon observes that the Israelites did not hold other Israelites as slaves, but that it was not entirely clear what boundaries existed among Christians (Alon 1996, 176). There is evidence of Israelites being taught to treat slaves fairly.

An exhortation to flee from evil in Didache 3:1 has clear parallels. However, Alon notes the Israelite standard is normally avoidance of what may create suspicion of evil. He takes the Didache’s admonition to be less stringent, avoiding evil things but not being so concerned about suspicions (Alon 1996, 177).

The teaching of prayer in Didache 8:3 brings Alon to the topic of prayer customs (Alon 1996, 179). He notes that the habit of prayer three times a day was seen by many to be consistent with the Israelite custom, though there was some variation in the expected times of prayer. Alon identifies more than three times in a day which may have been identified as times for prayer, but he concedes that the practices were not entirely uniform. For the most part, Alon finds some customs with three prayers and some with two each day (Alon 180).

Didache 9 speaks specifically to prayers associated with a meal, taken to be “the Lord’s Supper” (Alon 1996, 181). Alon recognizes that some scholars will reject this passage as referring to communion due to the absence of sacrificial language (Alon 1996, 182). This passage could be taken as a reference to a communal meal other than the eucharist, one which could take place on days other than Sunday (Alon 1996, 183). The communal meals other than the eucharist were still seen as a matter of religious holiness, even though this was not specifically considered sacramental. Specifically, thanksgiving and a cup of blessing were considered very important (Alon 1996, 184). There were certainly similar meal customs in Judaism. Alon recognizes that the Christian observance in the eucharist affirms a connection to Christ’s body and blood which is naturally absent in the Jewish customs (Alon 1996, 185). Blessings said over food and drink are very common within both Christian and Jewish traditions, as Alon illustrates with numerous examples. Alon finds a special development in the thanksgivings in the Christian traditions. In the Jewish tradition the expressions of thanksgiving were at set points, while the Christian tradition could change the place of thanksgiving in the prayers at will (Alon 1996, 188). 

The Didache prescribes a fast on the second and fifth day of the week in 8:1. Alon states that these are the same days on which Israel had customary fasts (Alon 1996, 189). He thinks the custom could be related to market days when rural people could assemble with those who could read the Torah (Alon 1996, 190). 

The instructions on baptism from Didache 6:2 draws notice. Alon observes the practice, which existed in Judaism, was controversial and not widely practiced. Alon makes no mention of a distinction between Christian and Jewish beliefs about the practice (Alon 1996, 190)

Didache 13:3 speaks to the issue of gifts for prophets and priests. Alon, with Harnack and Drews, thinks this is a teaching unique to Christians (Alon 1996, 191). The idea of tithes is absent, while it is a central characteristic in Israelite teaching. Alon provides numerous instances of offering language being phrased consistently in terms of a “tithe” while the Didache does not give a hint of this concept (Alon 1996, 193).

​
0 Comments

Teaching for Converts

2/5/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
2/5/20

Rordorf, Willy. “An Aspect of the Judeo-Christian Ethic: The Two Ways” pp. 148-164 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 

Rordorf sets out to address the provenance, the sitz im Leben, and the  Nachleben of the Duae Viae passage from the Didache. The first two matters have been the subject of much study, while the third has not been studied very much (Rordorf 1996, 148).

The provenance has always been the subject of debate. The similarity between the first five chapters of the Didache and chapters 18-20 of the Epistle of Barnabas was recognized from the first modern edition, leading scholars to conclude one depended on the other (Rordorf 1996, 149). Analysis of the Doctrina apostolorum, with its similar content, led to further debate about dependence, as well as questions regarding a possible separate documentary source. For a time, scholars assumed the content was developed in the Epistle of Barnabas, prior to the discovery of the Manual of Discipline 3:13-4:26, a text which largely parallels the content (Rordorf 1996, 150). Rordorf considers that the content was common in the Jewish Essene tradition, of which elements were adopted into the Christian tradition. He finds that the dualism of the Essenes does not appear in the Didache (Rordorf 1996, 151). Rordorf also notes that the catechesis of Jewish and Christian converts is different, so adoption of a text seems slightly unlikely (Rordorf 1996, 152). It is also apparent that there are Old Testament forerunners of the Two Ways material. These three issues are all worth considering as we weight the inspiration of the teaching.

Rordorf moves on to the Sitz im Leben, noting that the Two Ways teaching was to be done prior to baptism. For this reason, the early editors took the teachings as a catechesis which would lead to baptism (Rordorf 1996, 154). However, Rordorf observes that the causal transition, ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες (having taught all these things), does not appear in the Apostolic Constitutions, thus suggesting to Audet that it was added to the Didache prior to the manuscript from 1056 (Rordorf 1996, 154). Rordorf considers Audet’s theory to be weak, but regardless of the truth of the issue, he finds no reason to assume the material would not be used for catechesis prior to baptism. The teaching is used before baptism in the Didache but after baptism in the Epistle of Barnabas (Rordorf 1996, 155). To find the Sitz im Leben, essentially the cultural context, of the work, Rordorf observes that the Didache appears to address formerly pagan converts to Christianity. The Two Ways speaks particularly to issues which related to practices of paganism. Rordorf sees this, along with the concept of pre-baptismal instruction, as a likely distinctive feature of the Gentile church as opposed to those converting from Judaism, the more frequent expectation of the New Testament (Rordorf 1996, 156). Rordorf goes on to cite Irenaeus and Pliny the Younger, along with Hippolytus, to suggest catechesis of Gentile converts (Rordorf 1996, 157). The Pseudo-Clementine Preaching of Peter, in Homily VII, further illustrates the concept of catechesis of Gentile converts prior to baptism (Rordorf 1996, 158). This process likely included a renunciation of Satan which Rordorf states would assume some sort of detailed previous catechesis (Rordorf 1996, 158).

Rordorf’s third question deals with the Nachleben of the Two Ways teaching. At the risk of impugning myself, I will admit to looking up the unfamiliar term and translating it roughly as “resultant views.” Early scholarship searched out references to “two ways” or to the salient ethical treatments through the third century. In 1907 and 1914, texts for analysis were added to the canonical list: “the Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching of St. Irenaeus and the Sermon De centesima, de sexagesima, de tricesima” (Rordorf 1996, 160). Rordorf recognizes that one’s view of what is allusive and what is not may be highly subjective. Yet, considering history of the 4th through 6th centuries, he would add several texts, which he thinks were influenced by the Didache. First, in the Epitome of the Divine Institutions by Lactantius, ch. 53-62, there is a strong influence of the Duae Viae (Rordorf 1996, 160), particularly in its structure. Second, in Canon 38 of the Canons of Hippolytus, a sermon apparently intended for the Paschal Vigil, the baptismal liturgy is repeated, along with a list of prohibited behaviors (Rordorf 1996, 161). This recalls the list in the Duae Viae. Additionally, Rordorf reminds the reader of “the Syntagma doctrinae and the Pseudo-Athanasian Faith of the 318 Fathers” which include the duae viae in summary (Rordorf 1996, 162). Further, Rordorf reminds us of a sermon De centesima, de sexagesima, de tricesima, which, in its exposition of Matthew 13, refers to the Didache. “The beginning is an almost literal citation of Didache 6:2a; the end is a valuable commentary on the very obscure phrase of Did 6:26: ‘but if not, do what you can’” (Rordorf 1996, 163). In the sixth century, Rordorf refers to the Life of Shenade from Egypt and the Western Regula Benedicti (Rordorf 1996, 163). Both include lists of what to do and not do, and the Regula Benedicti repeats the double love command and the Golden Rule (Rordorf 1996, 163).

Rordorf closes by asking whether the Two Ways should regain a place of prominence in the catechetical work of the Church, since it had an apparently prominent role in past history (Rordorf 1996, 164). The teaching makes a clear criterion for the convert - follow life or follow death. It seems, for this reason, an important issue.

​
0 Comments

Similar Ideas - Same Source?

12/18/2019

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
12/18/19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​
0 Comments

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

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

    About Throwing Inkwells

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

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

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

    Categories

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

Proudly powered by Weebly