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

A Written Document from an Oral World

5/8/2020

0 Comments

 
Henderson, Ian H. “Didache and Orality in Synoptic Comparison” Journal of Biblical Literature 111:2 (1992) 283-306.

I observe that I had previously made some notes on this article, in 2019, but that these notes are more substantial.

Henderson notes that studies of the Synoptic Gospels and their possible oral sources have been, on the whole, deficient, based on methodology and presuppositions about the source material. For this reason, he suggests “working out a more balanced approach to early Christian and especially Synoptic literature” using the Didache as test material (Henderson 1992, 284). As Henderson pursues questions about the nature of the Didache, its analogical relationship to the New Testament, and an understanding of orality he hopes to move toward clarity in study of other early Christian writings.

From a literary standpoint, attempts to classify the Didache have ranged from considering it as myth to fiction to social commentary. Identifying source materials is made more difficuult by this confusion (Henderson 1992, 285).

An analysis of authorship could prove useful. Henderson, as we might predict, finds this difficult. The work is essentially anonymous, though it claims the teaching comes from the apostles. Henderson asks, though, whether the “teacher” who can be found in the text is the implied author or not (Henderson 1992, 286). The roles of apostle and prophet in the Didache seem to be largely as an inspiration to readers, while the teacher imparts more concrete guidance (Henderson 1992, 287). Henderson compares the role of the teacher to that of a scribe in Matthew (cf. Matt. 13:52; 23:34-39), noting that the two figures both take written material and interpret it into useful for for others.

The literary genre also bears investigation. Henderson considers the idea that the Didache was an early church order, in fact, the earliest we know of. If this is so, Henderson observes that “it was once one of a kind” (Henderson 1992, 288). In that case, it would not be influenced by other similar works. While there were existing antecedent sources for many of the ideas, the actual genre may not have existed previously. This is a similar situation to that of the canonical Gospels. The first to be written was very likely one of a kind (Henderson 1992, 289).

Henderson compares the Didache and the Gospels by listing three similarities, which he also says combine “positive characters of orality and of literacy: (1) Both genres are episodic in acharacter . . . (2) Both genres are, moreover, formally hybrid. . . (Henderson 1992, 289) (3) the two genres, gospel and church order, share a selectivity in the choice of topics and an economy in their development” (Henderson 1992, 290).

The genre of the Didache also has an interaction with oral sensibilities. If the teacher and author are the same, the overall idea is certainly that the written work is based on and used in an oral context. It is arranged around particular topics which could be the basis of contentions, much like the letters of Paul to the Corinthians (Henderson 1992, 292). Henderson does observe that the tone of the Didache is not as contentious as that of Matthew or of Paul. Yet it remains a text which makes normative statements. The identification of the Didache’s tone in speaking to potential conflicts applies to our understanding of the biblical iterature as we realize tone and approach to problems may be unified but not monolithic (Henderson 1992, 293). Henderson finds a range of legitimate ways to discuss problems.

Henderson further considers source material, observing that there is use of material which almost certainly existed in literary form, such as the Two Ways material. However, the whole document seems reflective of an oral world, not a literary one. Henderson observes that much study of orality as applied to early Christian works still depends on the tools used for exegetical study of literary texts (Henderson 1992, 294). Finding the tension and relationshiops between orality and literary usage is important to our understanding and interpretation of our texts.

To gain further insight into orality and literacy in the Didache, Henderson looks for “medium-specific references” - statements about speaking or hearing as opposed to those about writing or reading (Henderson 1992, 295). He concludes that although reading and writing were certainly known to the people, the text speaks as if in an oral context. The New Testament, on the other hand, dwells in a strongly literate context. Henderson also notes that references which may also be quotations appear using the language of orality, probably the Lord’s Prayer as presented in Didache and in Matthew 6 serving as the best example (Henderson 1992, 296). Henderson goes on to cite oblique references to “the Lord” and to “the gospel’ without making clear the identity or location of a source (Henderson 1992, 297). While Henderson acknowledges that this is common in antiquity, he considers the Didache to obscure the sources of information more deliberately than other writings do. This suggests a strong context of oral authority rather than written authority (Henderson 1992, 298).

Henderson considers the “oral sensibility” in the Didache is not only shown through the repetitive patterns and episodic nature, but that there are internal unifying factors which point more to an oral than a literary environment (Henderson 1992, 298). As an example of symbolic and formulaic unity, Henderson reviews the Two Ways material of 1.1-6.2. Of special note to Henderson is the statement in 7.1 which implies all the teaching which follows will build on what came before (Henderson 1992, 299). Henderson’s view is that the size of the portion indicated, as well as the variety of material found in 1.1-6.2, is more indicative of an oral than a literary setting (Henderson 1992, 300). He concludes “the passage is structured cumulatively rather than inductively” (Henderson 1992, 301). The discussion leads to a conclusion not by a logical argument but by comparison of multiple scenarios. Henderson continues by showing use of formulaic statements as transitions and introductions to different sections in the text. This is another strong indicator of orality (Henderson 1992, 302-304). 

Henderson concludes that the Didache is properly described as an oral work to a greater extent than many others. It uses a strongly oral and poetic sensibility. The interactions it develops are conversational rather than syllogistic. It also seems to assume this sensibility is the norm, thus presupposing a predominantly oral culture (Henderson 1992, 305).

​
0 Comments

Text and Oral Tradition - Not Always Very Different

8/9/2017

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​
0 Comments

    ​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 Chronicles
    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
    Abortion
    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
    Aland 1961
    Alesso-2009
    Alexander 1999
    Allegory
    Allitt-2010
    All Saints' Day
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Anaphora
    Anointing
    Antioch
    Anunciation
    Apollinaris Of Hierapolis
    Apologetics
    Apostles' Creed
    Apostolical Constitutions
    Apostolic Fathers
    Applied Theology
    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
    Benamos-1999
    Betz-1996
    Biesenthal-1893
    Bigg-1904
    Bigg-1905
    Blogcation
    Blomberg-1984
    Boehme2010
    Botha-1967
    Botha-1993
    Botha-2013
    Braaten-2007
    Bradshaw 2002
    Bruce-1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Butler-1960
    Caneday-2017
    Canonicity
    Capon-1998
    Capon1998
    Carr-2010
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catechesis
    Catholicism
    Cerfaux-1959
    Chilton-1984
    Chrismation
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas-dawn
    Christmas-day
    Christmas Eve
    Christmas Midnight
    Chronicles
    Church History
    Church Order
    Circumcision And Naming Of Christ
    Cody 1995
    Colossians
    Conditions
    Confession Of Peter
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constantine
    Constanza-2013
    Cooper & Lioy 2018
    Costa 2021
    Court 1981
    Creeds
    Culley 1986
    Cyprian
    Daly 1978
    Daniel
    Danielou 1956
    Davids 1984
    Davis 1995
    DeHalleux 1996
    Dehandschutter 1995
    Denominations
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Divine Fellowship
    Dix 1933
    Dix-2005
    Dix2005
    Doane 1994
    Draper
    Draper 1984
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1995
    Draper-1996
    Draper-1997
    Draper-2000
    Draper 2005
    Draper-2006
    Draper 2008
    Dube 2016
    Due 2003
    Early Christian Functionaries
    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
    Epistles
    Eschatology
    Esther
    Ethics
    Eucharist
    Evangelism
    Eve-of-the-circumcision-of-christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Experiential Reading
    Eybers 1975
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg-1988
    Fagerberg1988
    Fall Of Jerusalem
    Farrell-1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser-1996
    Forde-2007
    Fraade-1999
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Garrow 2004
    Gender
    Genesis
    Gero 1977
    Gibbins 1935
    Gibbs 2006
    Gibbs 2010
    Gibbs 2018
    Glover-1958
    Goga & Popa 2019
    Gonzalez-2010
    Good-friday
    Gospels
    Greek
    Grosvener-schaff-1885
    Grosvenor-1884
    Guardian-of-jesus
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hagner 1984
    Harnack-1884
    Harrington 2008
    Harris 1887
    Harris 1984
    Hartin 2008
    Hasitschka 2008
    Hearon 2004
    Hearon 2010
    Hebrews
    Heilmann 2018
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson1992
    Henderson 1995
    Hezser 2010
    History
    Hoffman-1986
    Holy Cross Day
    Holy-innocents
    Holy-saturday
    Horsley 2010
    Hosea
    Hutchens2013
    Hymes-1994
    Ignatius Of Antioch
    Incarnation
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    Jaffee-1999
    James
    James Of Jerusalem
    James The Elder
    Jefford 1989
    Jefford 1995
    Jefford 2005
    Jefford 2019
    Jeffreys-1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Jesus
    Jewish Christianity
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Jones & Mirecki 1995
    Joseph
    Joshua
    Judaism
    Jude
    Judges
    Julian The Apostate
    Jungmann-1959
    Justinian
    Justin Martyr
    Kelber-1987
    Kelber-1995
    Kelber 2002
    Kelber 2010
    Kelber & Sanders 2010
    Kelly 1978
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Kloppenborg 1979
    Kloppenborg 1995
    Kloppenborg 2005
    Kloppenborg 2008
    Koch2010
    Kok 2015
    Kolb-2000
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kolbarand2008
    Konradt 2008
    Koukl 2019
    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
    Last Supper
    LaVerdiere 1996
    Law
    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
    Lessing-2014
    Lessing2014
    Lessing & Steinmann 2014
    Leviticus
    LGBTQ
    Lincoln-1885
    Lindemann 1997
    Literacy
    Literary Character
    Liturgy
    Livesey 2012
    Long-2009
    Lord-1986
    Lord-1987
    Lord's Prayer
    Love
    Luke
    Luther
    Lutheran Confessions
    Lutheran Distinctives
    Maas-2014
    Maccoull-1999
    Maier-1984
    Malachi
    Manuscripts
    Marcion
    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
    Milavec-2005
    Milavec2012
    Miller-2019
    Missional
    Mitch-2010
    Mitchell-1995
    Molina-evers-1998
    Monasticism
    Monday-in-holy-week
    Montenyohl-1993
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller-2006
    Muilenburg-1929
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Neufeld-1999
    Newsletter
    New Testament
    New-testament
    Niditch-1995
    Niditch-2003
    Niebuhr-1956
    Niederwimmer-1982
    Niederwimmer-1995
    Niederwimmer-1996
    Niederwimmer 1998
    Numbers
    Oaths
    Obadiah
    Old Testament
    Old-testament
    Olsen-1986
    Ong-1987
    Ong-1988
    Ong-1995
    Oralit
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Overman-2008
    Ozment-1980
    Ozment1980
    Painter-2008
    Palm-sunday
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Pardee-1995
    Pardee-2012
    Parks-1986
    Passionb
    Pastoral-office
    Pastors
    Patterson-1995
    Paul
    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
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost15c
    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
    Peterson-2010
    Peterson2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Picirilli-1988
    Pick-1908
    Pieper-1924
    Pieper1924
    Pieper-1968
    Piper-1947
    Pluralism
    Pope Leo I
    Post-70
    Powell-2000
    Prayer
    Preaching
    Presentation-of-our-lord
    Proctor-2019
    Proper19c
    Proper20c
    Proper-21c
    Proper-22c
    Proper-23c
    Proper-24c
    Proper-25c
    Proper-26c
    Proper-27c
    Proper-28c
    Prophecy
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Psalms
    Purity
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Rabbinic-character
    Real-presence
    Receptivity
    Reed-1995
    Reformation
    Reformation-day
    Reinhartz-2018
    Reproof
    Repschinski-2008
    Resurrection
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Rhoads-2010
    Richardson-gooch-1984
    Riggs-1995
    Ritual-meal
    Romans
    Romeny-2005
    Rordorf-1996
    Rosenberg-1986
    Rosenberg-1987
    Rosenfeldlevene2012
    Rouwhorst-2005
    Rueger-2016
    Russo-1994
    Ruth
    Sacrament
    Sacrifice
    Saenger-1999
    Sailhamer-1992
    Sailhamer1992
    Sale-1996
    Samuel
    Scaer-2004
    Scaer2004
    Schaff-1886
    Schaff-1888
    Schaff-1889
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff2014
    Schollgen
    Schroter-2008
    Schwarz-2005
    Scriptural-usage
    Seeliger-1996
    Senn-1997
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Sim-2008
    Simon-and-jude
    Smith-2009
    Smith-2018
    Sommerville-2006
    Song-of-songs
    Songofsongs
    St-andrew
    Stark 1997
    St-barnabas
    St-bartholomew
    Stewart-Sykes 2008
    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
    Svartvik 2008
    Syreeni 2005
    Syria
    Tatian
    Taylor 1888
    TDNT
    Teaching
    Telfer 1939
    Tertullian
    Textual Comparison
    Textual Integrity
    Theological Development
    Theophilos 2018
    Theophilus Of Antioch
    Thielman 2010
    Thursday-in-holy-week
    Timothy
    Titus
    Tomson-2005
    Tomson-2008
    Tradition
    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
    Tuilier-2005
    Twelftree-1984
    Two-ways
    Ty-19
    Vahrenhurst-2008
    Van-der-merwe-2017
    Van-der-merwe-2019
    Van-der-watt-2008
    Van-de-sandt-2002
    Van-de-sandt-2007
    Van-de-sandt-2008
    Vandesandt2010
    Vandesandt2011
    Van-de-sandt-flusser-2002
    Van-deventer-2021
    Varner-2005
    Vatican-ii
    Veith-1993
    Veith1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Verheyden-2005
    Verheyden-2008
    Vikisfreibergs-1997
    Visitation
    Voobus-1968
    Voobus-1969
    Vows
    Warfield-1886
    Wasson-toelken-1998
    Wednesday-in-holy-week
    Wegman 1985
    Wenham-1984
    Wenham-1992
    Weren-2005
    Weren-2008
    Weston-2009
    Wilhite-2019
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Winger-2014
    Wischmeyer-2008
    Wolmarans-2005
    Wright-1984
    Young-2011
    Ysebaert2002
    Zangenberg-2008
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah
    Zetterholm-2008

Proudly powered by Weebly