5/11/22
Scholarly Reflections
Henderson, Ian H. "Style-Switching in the Didache: Fingerprint or Argument?" in Jefford, Clayton (editor). The Didache in Context: essays on its text, history, and transmission. Leiden: Brill, 1995, 177-209.
Henderson considers the Didache as a challenge for scholars, primarily because analytical frameworks which have been fruitful in New Testament scholarship have proven not to work when applied to the Didache (Henderson 1995, 177). He finds in the Didache a dependence on the concepts of one or more Gospels, but possibly in an oral compositional style. He also thinks the text may serve as a sort of response to the written gospel accounts. Henderson finds certain inconsistencies in the style of the Didache. This article attempts to understand the inconsistencies as the result of style switching, presumably between a literary and an oral compositional view (Henderson 1995, 178).
Henderson commends the work of C.M. Tuckett ("Synoptic Tradition in the Didache" in J-M. Sevrin (ed.). The New Testament in Early Christianity. Louvain, 1989, 197-230.), who made a thorough and scholarly study of style switching (Henderson 1995, 178). Henderson describes the process in some detail. Tuckett considers references to the final redactional stage in a Gospel (or other work) to presuppose knowledge of that entire work in its final form. Of significance here is the fact that the Didache has many references to ideas found in the Synoptic Gospels, including their final layers, the ideas are often used in arguments unrelated to their use in the Synoptics (Henderson 1995, 180). In fact, Tuckett finds that the Didache seems to studiously avoid use of the arguments found in Matthew or Luke. At the same time, the Didache bears what Henderson would consider a clear fingerprint of its own (Henderson 1995, 181). While the conceptual material is drawn from other sources, the argument, expression, and concusions are specific to the Didachist.
Henderson goes on to analyze the various recent approaches which recent scholarship has taken toward stylistics. Within the grammatical tradition of scholarship, aspects of grammar are identified to draw out a grammatical pattern which an author may have used (Henderson 1995, 186). Another area of style is that of wording and phrasing. When the Didache adopts an idea from another text, it may well restate the idea with a different wording. This may suggest a difference in a preferred means of expression, rather than a different source or an inferior or superior grasp of the concepts (Henderson 1995, 189). In a similar way, assessing a text for linguistic cultural elements such as Semitisms or other means of expression specific to a culture easily becomes an arbitrary sort of analysis (Henderson 1995, 190).
The developments of rhetorical criticism of the New Testament strike Henderson as important. Here it is important to focus on both style and substance, with a goal of understanding the process by which we might reach the conclusion of an argument (Henderson 1995, 191). The process of argumentation used is the essential element of study. One important challenge to rhetorical analysis is the fact that ancient rhetoricians classified styles and their relative desirability vary differently from one another, a concept Henderson describes in some detail (Henderson 1995, 192ff). Further, the style of an author, the style required by the traditions of the text, and the style of communication expected by the audience all contribute to the way a text will appear (Henderson 1995, 197). This leaves Henderson recognizing that analysis must happen on several levels.
Henderson finally asks, "What would a stylistic description/analysis of the Didache look like?" (Henderson 1995, 199). Though we can't necessarily be exhaustive, at least we can move toward an appropriate answer. Henderson explores whether a linguistic "codeswitching" model may be the appropriate way to evaluate changes in rhetorical style. Henderson evaluates codeswitching as it can be perceived in shifts between Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic styles, as well as shifts between quotation and avoidance of quotations (Henderson 1995, 201). Henderson details a number of passages of the New Testament in which the author interjects Hebraisms purposely and unexpectedly. These care conscious shifts intended to communicate something (Henderson 1995, 202). Henderson then goes on to describe the codeswitching in various Didache passages (Henderson 1995, 204ff). Henderson continues by emphasizing that, while the Didachist is perfectly able to quote freely from the Synoptic Gospels, he chooses not to do so at various points. This "non-quotation" is, in itself, a form of code switching (Henderson 1995, 205).
Henderson's conclusion is that style is not a static element, but that it is worked out in a literary (or oral) context (Henderson 1995, 208). He also finds it shifts, often with specific reasons and intentions (Henderson 1995, 209).
Scholarly Reflections
Henderson, Ian H. "Style-Switching in the Didache: Fingerprint or Argument?" in Jefford, Clayton (editor). The Didache in Context: essays on its text, history, and transmission. Leiden: Brill, 1995, 177-209.
Henderson considers the Didache as a challenge for scholars, primarily because analytical frameworks which have been fruitful in New Testament scholarship have proven not to work when applied to the Didache (Henderson 1995, 177). He finds in the Didache a dependence on the concepts of one or more Gospels, but possibly in an oral compositional style. He also thinks the text may serve as a sort of response to the written gospel accounts. Henderson finds certain inconsistencies in the style of the Didache. This article attempts to understand the inconsistencies as the result of style switching, presumably between a literary and an oral compositional view (Henderson 1995, 178).
Henderson commends the work of C.M. Tuckett ("Synoptic Tradition in the Didache" in J-M. Sevrin (ed.). The New Testament in Early Christianity. Louvain, 1989, 197-230.), who made a thorough and scholarly study of style switching (Henderson 1995, 178). Henderson describes the process in some detail. Tuckett considers references to the final redactional stage in a Gospel (or other work) to presuppose knowledge of that entire work in its final form. Of significance here is the fact that the Didache has many references to ideas found in the Synoptic Gospels, including their final layers, the ideas are often used in arguments unrelated to their use in the Synoptics (Henderson 1995, 180). In fact, Tuckett finds that the Didache seems to studiously avoid use of the arguments found in Matthew or Luke. At the same time, the Didache bears what Henderson would consider a clear fingerprint of its own (Henderson 1995, 181). While the conceptual material is drawn from other sources, the argument, expression, and concusions are specific to the Didachist.
Henderson goes on to analyze the various recent approaches which recent scholarship has taken toward stylistics. Within the grammatical tradition of scholarship, aspects of grammar are identified to draw out a grammatical pattern which an author may have used (Henderson 1995, 186). Another area of style is that of wording and phrasing. When the Didache adopts an idea from another text, it may well restate the idea with a different wording. This may suggest a difference in a preferred means of expression, rather than a different source or an inferior or superior grasp of the concepts (Henderson 1995, 189). In a similar way, assessing a text for linguistic cultural elements such as Semitisms or other means of expression specific to a culture easily becomes an arbitrary sort of analysis (Henderson 1995, 190).
The developments of rhetorical criticism of the New Testament strike Henderson as important. Here it is important to focus on both style and substance, with a goal of understanding the process by which we might reach the conclusion of an argument (Henderson 1995, 191). The process of argumentation used is the essential element of study. One important challenge to rhetorical analysis is the fact that ancient rhetoricians classified styles and their relative desirability vary differently from one another, a concept Henderson describes in some detail (Henderson 1995, 192ff). Further, the style of an author, the style required by the traditions of the text, and the style of communication expected by the audience all contribute to the way a text will appear (Henderson 1995, 197). This leaves Henderson recognizing that analysis must happen on several levels.
Henderson finally asks, "What would a stylistic description/analysis of the Didache look like?" (Henderson 1995, 199). Though we can't necessarily be exhaustive, at least we can move toward an appropriate answer. Henderson explores whether a linguistic "codeswitching" model may be the appropriate way to evaluate changes in rhetorical style. Henderson evaluates codeswitching as it can be perceived in shifts between Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic styles, as well as shifts between quotation and avoidance of quotations (Henderson 1995, 201). Henderson details a number of passages of the New Testament in which the author interjects Hebraisms purposely and unexpectedly. These care conscious shifts intended to communicate something (Henderson 1995, 202). Henderson then goes on to describe the codeswitching in various Didache passages (Henderson 1995, 204ff). Henderson continues by emphasizing that, while the Didachist is perfectly able to quote freely from the Synoptic Gospels, he chooses not to do so at various points. This "non-quotation" is, in itself, a form of code switching (Henderson 1995, 205).
Henderson's conclusion is that style is not a static element, but that it is worked out in a literary (or oral) context (Henderson 1995, 208). He also finds it shifts, often with specific reasons and intentions (Henderson 1995, 209).
RSS Feed