Friday Scholarly Notes
8/30/24
Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "II: Didache 6.3-10.7." In The Didache: A Commentary. (195-229). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).
Wilhite notes as a matter of housekeeping that he finds a formulaic indication of structure in this portion of the Didache. The significant segments are delineated with the use of δέ followed by a prepositional phrase, or alternatively περί δέ or μετά followed by an infinitive. He provides a list of occurrences of this indicator (Wilhite 2019, p. 195). He notes that there is a serialization indicated as well, with the subsections indicated by the transitional language.
In regards to Didache 6.3, Wilhite notes that different communities had different customs of food (Colossians 2:16), as did the community of the Didache (Wilhite 2019, p. 196). There was apparently some freedom, however, eating meat offered to idols was prohibited. Wilhite notes that the ethic is not provided. He does suggest "the actions may hint towards religious identity" (Wilhite 2019, p. 196). There is a reference to "dead gods," which suggests that a reason to avoid that meat would be to remain distant from the idea of making a meat sacrifice to God, but from a pagan point of view. The instruction bears a strong similarity to material in Acts 15 (Wilhite 2019, p. 197). However, Wilhite does not pursue this similarity except to identify it. He makes no suggestion of a dependence of the topic either on the part of the Didache or on the part of Acts.
Didache chapter seven moves on to discuss baptism. Wilhite sees this as a natural progression of thought, from catechesis to "model scenarios" (Wilhite 2019, p. 197). The Two Ways material is to be reviewed with the person who is to be baptized. While this may not have been a universal use of the Two Ways, it is the way indicated by the Didachist (Wilhite 2019, p. 198). Wilhite considers briefly whether the instructions pertaining to food in 6.3 are among the things to be reviewed or not. His conclusion is that the material reviewed ends at 6.2, primarily based on the markers described on p. 195. The review of the Two Ways he considers not to be a matter of the catechumen memorizing it, but being able to recall it for purposes of repentance and confession (cf. 10:6) (Wilhite 2019, p. 198). Wilhite takes this to be the case, in part, because the contents of the Two Ways are primarily ethical, not doctrinal in nature. This suggests use for consideration in preparation for confession. Second, the teaching is proverbial in nature, and creates a scenario of a parent and child. The instructor seems to be the one who baptizes, so would know the position of the catechumen. Third, the mentorship would often seem to indicate adult relationships, in which Wilhite considers a recitation would be possible, but not necessarily done in practice (Wilhite 2019, p. 199). Finally, if baptism is seen as a symbolic washing which confirms identification with the community, the recitation is not as important as the baptism itself.
Wilhite notes that the process of baptism itself is described in some detail. In Didache 7.1 there is a trinitarian statement similar to that in Matthew 28:19 (Wilhite 2019, p. 199). Wilhite notes that this writing precedes the trinitarian debates found in the third and fourth centuries (Wilhite 2019, p. 200). The types of water to be used are ranked from best to worst, from cold running water to water for pouring. Wilhite notes that the trinitarian statement from 7.1 is also present in 7.3b. This indicates to me that we would expect the trinitarian pattern to be included in all the different forms. In all cases we observe that the text makes no indication of a reason for the preference of use of cold running water. The thrust of the passage is that the washing is necessary as the entryway to community life and inclusion in the various "sacred practices" (Did. 9.5) (Wilhite 2019, p. 200). The lack of a specific reason for the ritual indicates to Wilhite that some sort of reason was commonly known and did not need to be made clear. Wilhite notes that the fasting instructions in Didache 8.1 likewise are not accompanied by a reason. There is a presupposition that fasting is a normal practice. It could well be that participation in the fast by others in the community "possibly aided the acceptance of the catechumen into the community" (Wilhite 2019, p. 200). The period may also have been an occasion for the recitation of the Two Ways material, further serving to create a sense of community.
Baptism is accompanied by fasting and prayer, which serve as the topic for chapter eight. As he has noted before, Wilhite finds the transitional statement including δέ at 8.1 (Wilhite 2019, p. 201). The Didachist prescribes fasting on Wednesday and Friday, rather than on Monday and Thursday, as was the practice of the "hypocrites." Wilhite notes that while Matthew 6:16-17 and 7:16-17 focus on the appearance of fasting people, the Didachist focuses on the schedule of fasting. This demonstrates a concern for the identity of the community and its distinctive society (Wilhite 2019, p. 202). The differences prescribed raise three questions in Wilhite's mind. "First, who are the hypocrites? . . . from whom does the community separate? Second, what remains particularly unique about Monday, . . . and Thursday? . . . and, third, what remains particularly unique about the two new days for the Didache's Christian community -Wednesday . . . and Friday?" (Wilhite 2019, p. 202). Based on the Matthean tendency to equate hypocrisy with scribes and Pharisees, along with Herodians, Wilhite takes those people to be the likely group identified as "hypocrites." Wilhite further finds Mishnaic tradition that Monday and Thursday were the prescribed days of fasting. Therefore, he considers the reference may be to Judaism which receives rabbinic counsel (Wilhite 2019, p. 203). Wednesday and Friday may additionally be symbolically important days, with Wednesday marking Jesus' betrayal and Friday his day of death.
Didache 8.2-3 presents the Lord's prayer Wilhite observes that not only does the community not fast as the hypocrites do, but they also pray differently (Wilhite 2019, p. 203). Wilhite's observation about the prayer is that it "is the one explicit section where I remain a bit more persuaded of an existing Matthean text to construct this Didache practice" (Wilhite 2019, p. 204) since it is done "just as the Lord commanded in his Gospel" (ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ ἐυαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ). The term "Gospel" was appended as an identification of the works which were later recognized as the canonical Gospels relatively early. This prayer, as we easily observe, is virtually identical to the form found in Matthew's Gospel. Wilhite does concede that the prayer, as a liturgical element used on a daily basis, may well be resident in the community's memory. Wilhite continues by comparing the text from the Didache and Matthew (Wilhite 2019, pp. 204-205). He particularly notes that the Didache uses two different doxologies, a longer (8.2; 9.4; 10.5) and a shorter one (9.2, 3; 10.2, 4) at the closing of pieces of liturgy (Wilhite 2019, p. 205).
The Eucharist is the topic for Didache 9.1-10.7. Wilhite observes that these liturgies "possess more theological reflection than any other literary section in the Didache" (Wilhite 2019, p. 206). After listing a number of themes, he goes on to say, "With a possible exception in Did. 16, the Didachist deeply and theologically reflects more in these two chapters than anywhere else in the book" (Wilhite 2019, p. 206). A prime difficulty is how one views the material in chapters nine and ten. Wilhite is not strongly convinced of any of the conclusions we may reach. However, he is inclined to take the descriptions as referring to a meal which includes a celebration of the Eucharist. There is a clear use of bread and wine, as seen in Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; and Luke 22:17-20. There is a formal giving of thanks, along with liturgical prayers. There is a satisfying meal (Did. 10.1). There is further a particular order, which breaks from some of the tradition known, as it begins with the cup (Wilhite 2019, p. 207).
There are both fixed and variable elements in the liturgical material. Wilhite notes "four fixed liturgical features appear: (1) a verbal clause "we thank you, Father"; (2) relative clauses "which you made known to us . . . "' (3) a petition to "gather"; and (4) shorter and longer doxologies" (Wilhite 2019, p. 207, citing Schwiebert, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom, 78).
The initial thanksgiving in the first "cup" liturgy offers thanks to the Father. "To offer thanks to the Father implies a form of worship to one member of the Trinity. Yet the use of "Father" theologically implies a Son and also conveys, at the least, an incipient form of binitarianism" (Wilhite 2019, p. 207). Oddly, the reason for the thanksgiving is "on behalf of the holy vine of David" yet "Jesus undergirds the means through which they express thanksgiving" (Wilhite 2019, p. 207). The theological logic is therefore unusual, as the thanksgiving is both on behalf of and through Jesus. For this reason, Wilhite considers that "the holy vine of David" is a symbolic reference to something other than Jesus. Wilhite notes that Niederwimmer views this as an eschatological element, which Wilhite takes to be "a form of eschatological presence" (Wilhite 2019, p. 208, emphasis his). His inclination is that this, then, is a reference to the wine in the cup, possibly reminiscent of Amos 9:11-15). "The wine in the chalice symbolically refers to the Davidic kingdom of God that is now made manifest in the person of Jesus, which is revealed in and through the chalice" (Wilhite 2019, p. 208). I observe that Wilhite, coming from a baptistic background, would be unlikely to make the connection which I would make from a Lutheran point of view, that the reference could be to the real presence of Jesus' blood in the wine found in the chalice.
The thanksgiving for the bread is similar to that for the cup. Here we find "life and knowledge," while in Didache 10.2 "knowledge, faith, and immortality have been made known through Jesus" (Wilhite 2019, p. 209). Wilhite sees possible relations to the way of life in Didache 1-4, as well as a possible connection with the travelers' realization of Christ in Luke 24:30-31. Again, as with the liturgy of the cup, Wilhite sees at least a binitarian relationship, with the Father revealing life through Jesus. He takes παῖς as a reference to "servant," but to speak of Jesus as well as David (Did. 9.2) (Wilhite 2019, p. 209). The idea of Jesus' suffering is not present in the passage. However, the term παῖς is used in numerous places within the New Testament to refer to Christ as the servant of the Father. The breaking of the bread in Didache 9.4 refers specifically to the gathering of the church, as the grain used in the bread was gathered. This may easily be seen as an eschatological image, as the church is gathered into the kingdom. Wilhite notes the eschatological image is more clear in Didache 10.5, where the Lord is asked to remember and deliver the church (Wilhite 2019, p. 210).
Wilhite observes that the Didache does not mention a new covenant, the death or blood of Jesus, language of inauguration or remembrance, soteriology, or a relationship of the bread to the body of Jesus (Wilhite 2019, p. 211).
Didache 9.5 speaks to how the Eucharist is administered and for whom. It is not part of the liturgy, but is set apart from it, as a community instruction. The use of the markers περί plus the genitive and the doxologies at the ends of segments creates a sense of the overall outline of the liturgy (Wilhite 2019, p. 211). Only those who have been baptized are partakers of the Eucharist. Therefore, Wilhite sees a connection between Didache 7.1-4 and Didache 9.1-4. Ritual cleansing is essential for reception of the Eucharist (Wilhite 2019, p. 211). Here, in Didche 9.5b, the Eucharist is seen as a holy thing which is not to be given to dogs. Wilhite sees the clear reference to Matthew 7:6. However, in Matthew 7, as well as Matthew 15:26-27, "dogs" refer to gentiles. Here the "dogs" are people who have not been baptized, and the "holy things" are the Eucharistic elements (Wilhite 2019, p. 212). In each instance, there is a reference to an inside and an outside group. The application to the Eucharist indicates that it is necessary to be a holy person so as to receive a holy thing. Wilhite, considering the parallel expression in Didache 10.6, sees repentance and baptism as the prerequisites (Wilhite 2019, p. 212).
Didache 10 provides more liturgical material. Wilhite takes the material to be reconstructed in "the following order: (1) initial or opening Eucharist remarks; (2) immediately followed by or accompanied with the cup and broken bread; (3) followed by or accompanied with a corporate meal; (4) upon finishing the meal, closing Eucharist comments; (5) a concluding corporate liturgy with Μαραναθά. Ἀμήν" (Wilhite 2019, p. 213). As in other transitions, Wilhite sees a literary marker, this time μετά plus an infinitive. There has been a meal along with the chalice and bread. Now the community gives thanks. Here the adjective "holy" is used with the Father. Wilhite takes this to convey the trinitarian concept used in Didache 7.1, 3; 9.5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 213). There is further a concept of either the Name or the Triune God dwelling "within those partaking the Eucharist" (Wilhite 2019, p. 214). Wilhite considers whether this may "be incipient theosis and Johannine union with God" (Wilhite 2019, p. 214). It is not entirely clear in his mind, yet there is an element of being baptized "into the name of God" and there does appear to be a transformation, preparing the people to receive the Eucharist. Here in chapter 10, knowledge, faith, and immortality are interconnected with the Eucharist. Yet Wilhite questions whether it is safe to assume that immortality is applied only to those in the way of life, but not to the way of death (Wilhite 2019, p. 214). Wilhite notes that in the second century Ignatius (Eph. 20.2) and Acts of John (109) refer to the bread of the Eucharist with immortality (Wilhite 2019, p. 215).
In Didache 10.3-4 God is addressed as the creator. Wilhite sees this as a means of indicating that God is the one who can provide for all humans (Wilhite 2019. p. 216). Because this obligates all people to give thanks to God, those on the way of death, though they are provided for, do not give thanks to God. They receive food, "but the spiritual food is given to those partaking hte Eucharist (Did. 10.3)" (Wilhite 2019. p. 216, emphasis his). The identity of the participants of the Eucharist is separated from that of those who do not partake. Didache 10.5 then asks God to remember and gather his church. This is a form of rescue, akin to the Lord's Prayer's plea for deliverance from evil. Wilhite observes that this pray references the theme of "perfection" from Didache 6.2, an eschatological outlook (Wilhite 2019. p. 217).
Wilhite finds Didache 10.6-7 to make an odd ending to the liturgies. Verse 6 calls for grace to come and for the world to end. The use of "Hosanna" here calls out praise to God (Wilhite 2019. p. 218). There is additionally a call to repentance. The Eucharist has already been established as a celebration of the holy ones, but here some are presented as holy and some may not be. It therefore seems out of place in the Eucharistic liturgy. Verse seven then moves abruptly to prophets, granting them "to partake of the Eucharist in any way they deem necessary" (Wilhite 2019. p. 218). This is sharply different from the patterns established previously.
Wilhite moves on to discuss the Coptic Addition to the Didache, dealing with ointment. Wilhite observes that this passage, not found in the Jerusalem manuscript, has been reconstructed and is identified in Didache 10.8 and 16.9-12 (Wilhite 2019. p. 219). 10.8 appears in the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 27, 1-2). The Coptic papyrus includes 10.3b-12.2a (Wilhite 2019. p. 219). Wilhite is noncommittal about inclusion of the text, but in general sides with Jefford and Niederwimmer, who take the ointment prayer as an interpolation near the end of the 2nd century or beginning of the 3rd century (Wilhite 2019. p. 220). A salient question is why, if it was interpolated in the second century, was it not included in an eleventh century manuscript, and why that eleventh century manuscript would be understood as more reliable. The material is coherent with other parts of the eucharistic liturgy in both its content and the structure with section markers including a short doxology (Wilhite 2019. p. 221). An anointing with oil is frequently seen as an adjunct to prayers for the sick, and is also seen as a figure of Christ, perfectly consistent with and often used in conjunction with baptism. Wilhite leaves this as a question that is best to be discussed in other studies.
8/30/24
Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "II: Didache 6.3-10.7." In The Didache: A Commentary. (195-229). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).
Wilhite notes as a matter of housekeeping that he finds a formulaic indication of structure in this portion of the Didache. The significant segments are delineated with the use of δέ followed by a prepositional phrase, or alternatively περί δέ or μετά followed by an infinitive. He provides a list of occurrences of this indicator (Wilhite 2019, p. 195). He notes that there is a serialization indicated as well, with the subsections indicated by the transitional language.
In regards to Didache 6.3, Wilhite notes that different communities had different customs of food (Colossians 2:16), as did the community of the Didache (Wilhite 2019, p. 196). There was apparently some freedom, however, eating meat offered to idols was prohibited. Wilhite notes that the ethic is not provided. He does suggest "the actions may hint towards religious identity" (Wilhite 2019, p. 196). There is a reference to "dead gods," which suggests that a reason to avoid that meat would be to remain distant from the idea of making a meat sacrifice to God, but from a pagan point of view. The instruction bears a strong similarity to material in Acts 15 (Wilhite 2019, p. 197). However, Wilhite does not pursue this similarity except to identify it. He makes no suggestion of a dependence of the topic either on the part of the Didache or on the part of Acts.
Didache chapter seven moves on to discuss baptism. Wilhite sees this as a natural progression of thought, from catechesis to "model scenarios" (Wilhite 2019, p. 197). The Two Ways material is to be reviewed with the person who is to be baptized. While this may not have been a universal use of the Two Ways, it is the way indicated by the Didachist (Wilhite 2019, p. 198). Wilhite considers briefly whether the instructions pertaining to food in 6.3 are among the things to be reviewed or not. His conclusion is that the material reviewed ends at 6.2, primarily based on the markers described on p. 195. The review of the Two Ways he considers not to be a matter of the catechumen memorizing it, but being able to recall it for purposes of repentance and confession (cf. 10:6) (Wilhite 2019, p. 198). Wilhite takes this to be the case, in part, because the contents of the Two Ways are primarily ethical, not doctrinal in nature. This suggests use for consideration in preparation for confession. Second, the teaching is proverbial in nature, and creates a scenario of a parent and child. The instructor seems to be the one who baptizes, so would know the position of the catechumen. Third, the mentorship would often seem to indicate adult relationships, in which Wilhite considers a recitation would be possible, but not necessarily done in practice (Wilhite 2019, p. 199). Finally, if baptism is seen as a symbolic washing which confirms identification with the community, the recitation is not as important as the baptism itself.
Wilhite notes that the process of baptism itself is described in some detail. In Didache 7.1 there is a trinitarian statement similar to that in Matthew 28:19 (Wilhite 2019, p. 199). Wilhite notes that this writing precedes the trinitarian debates found in the third and fourth centuries (Wilhite 2019, p. 200). The types of water to be used are ranked from best to worst, from cold running water to water for pouring. Wilhite notes that the trinitarian statement from 7.1 is also present in 7.3b. This indicates to me that we would expect the trinitarian pattern to be included in all the different forms. In all cases we observe that the text makes no indication of a reason for the preference of use of cold running water. The thrust of the passage is that the washing is necessary as the entryway to community life and inclusion in the various "sacred practices" (Did. 9.5) (Wilhite 2019, p. 200). The lack of a specific reason for the ritual indicates to Wilhite that some sort of reason was commonly known and did not need to be made clear. Wilhite notes that the fasting instructions in Didache 8.1 likewise are not accompanied by a reason. There is a presupposition that fasting is a normal practice. It could well be that participation in the fast by others in the community "possibly aided the acceptance of the catechumen into the community" (Wilhite 2019, p. 200). The period may also have been an occasion for the recitation of the Two Ways material, further serving to create a sense of community.
Baptism is accompanied by fasting and prayer, which serve as the topic for chapter eight. As he has noted before, Wilhite finds the transitional statement including δέ at 8.1 (Wilhite 2019, p. 201). The Didachist prescribes fasting on Wednesday and Friday, rather than on Monday and Thursday, as was the practice of the "hypocrites." Wilhite notes that while Matthew 6:16-17 and 7:16-17 focus on the appearance of fasting people, the Didachist focuses on the schedule of fasting. This demonstrates a concern for the identity of the community and its distinctive society (Wilhite 2019, p. 202). The differences prescribed raise three questions in Wilhite's mind. "First, who are the hypocrites? . . . from whom does the community separate? Second, what remains particularly unique about Monday, . . . and Thursday? . . . and, third, what remains particularly unique about the two new days for the Didache's Christian community -Wednesday . . . and Friday?" (Wilhite 2019, p. 202). Based on the Matthean tendency to equate hypocrisy with scribes and Pharisees, along with Herodians, Wilhite takes those people to be the likely group identified as "hypocrites." Wilhite further finds Mishnaic tradition that Monday and Thursday were the prescribed days of fasting. Therefore, he considers the reference may be to Judaism which receives rabbinic counsel (Wilhite 2019, p. 203). Wednesday and Friday may additionally be symbolically important days, with Wednesday marking Jesus' betrayal and Friday his day of death.
Didache 8.2-3 presents the Lord's prayer Wilhite observes that not only does the community not fast as the hypocrites do, but they also pray differently (Wilhite 2019, p. 203). Wilhite's observation about the prayer is that it "is the one explicit section where I remain a bit more persuaded of an existing Matthean text to construct this Didache practice" (Wilhite 2019, p. 204) since it is done "just as the Lord commanded in his Gospel" (ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ ἐυαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ). The term "Gospel" was appended as an identification of the works which were later recognized as the canonical Gospels relatively early. This prayer, as we easily observe, is virtually identical to the form found in Matthew's Gospel. Wilhite does concede that the prayer, as a liturgical element used on a daily basis, may well be resident in the community's memory. Wilhite continues by comparing the text from the Didache and Matthew (Wilhite 2019, pp. 204-205). He particularly notes that the Didache uses two different doxologies, a longer (8.2; 9.4; 10.5) and a shorter one (9.2, 3; 10.2, 4) at the closing of pieces of liturgy (Wilhite 2019, p. 205).
The Eucharist is the topic for Didache 9.1-10.7. Wilhite observes that these liturgies "possess more theological reflection than any other literary section in the Didache" (Wilhite 2019, p. 206). After listing a number of themes, he goes on to say, "With a possible exception in Did. 16, the Didachist deeply and theologically reflects more in these two chapters than anywhere else in the book" (Wilhite 2019, p. 206). A prime difficulty is how one views the material in chapters nine and ten. Wilhite is not strongly convinced of any of the conclusions we may reach. However, he is inclined to take the descriptions as referring to a meal which includes a celebration of the Eucharist. There is a clear use of bread and wine, as seen in Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; and Luke 22:17-20. There is a formal giving of thanks, along with liturgical prayers. There is a satisfying meal (Did. 10.1). There is further a particular order, which breaks from some of the tradition known, as it begins with the cup (Wilhite 2019, p. 207).
There are both fixed and variable elements in the liturgical material. Wilhite notes "four fixed liturgical features appear: (1) a verbal clause "we thank you, Father"; (2) relative clauses "which you made known to us . . . "' (3) a petition to "gather"; and (4) shorter and longer doxologies" (Wilhite 2019, p. 207, citing Schwiebert, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom, 78).
The initial thanksgiving in the first "cup" liturgy offers thanks to the Father. "To offer thanks to the Father implies a form of worship to one member of the Trinity. Yet the use of "Father" theologically implies a Son and also conveys, at the least, an incipient form of binitarianism" (Wilhite 2019, p. 207). Oddly, the reason for the thanksgiving is "on behalf of the holy vine of David" yet "Jesus undergirds the means through which they express thanksgiving" (Wilhite 2019, p. 207). The theological logic is therefore unusual, as the thanksgiving is both on behalf of and through Jesus. For this reason, Wilhite considers that "the holy vine of David" is a symbolic reference to something other than Jesus. Wilhite notes that Niederwimmer views this as an eschatological element, which Wilhite takes to be "a form of eschatological presence" (Wilhite 2019, p. 208, emphasis his). His inclination is that this, then, is a reference to the wine in the cup, possibly reminiscent of Amos 9:11-15). "The wine in the chalice symbolically refers to the Davidic kingdom of God that is now made manifest in the person of Jesus, which is revealed in and through the chalice" (Wilhite 2019, p. 208). I observe that Wilhite, coming from a baptistic background, would be unlikely to make the connection which I would make from a Lutheran point of view, that the reference could be to the real presence of Jesus' blood in the wine found in the chalice.
The thanksgiving for the bread is similar to that for the cup. Here we find "life and knowledge," while in Didache 10.2 "knowledge, faith, and immortality have been made known through Jesus" (Wilhite 2019, p. 209). Wilhite sees possible relations to the way of life in Didache 1-4, as well as a possible connection with the travelers' realization of Christ in Luke 24:30-31. Again, as with the liturgy of the cup, Wilhite sees at least a binitarian relationship, with the Father revealing life through Jesus. He takes παῖς as a reference to "servant," but to speak of Jesus as well as David (Did. 9.2) (Wilhite 2019, p. 209). The idea of Jesus' suffering is not present in the passage. However, the term παῖς is used in numerous places within the New Testament to refer to Christ as the servant of the Father. The breaking of the bread in Didache 9.4 refers specifically to the gathering of the church, as the grain used in the bread was gathered. This may easily be seen as an eschatological image, as the church is gathered into the kingdom. Wilhite notes the eschatological image is more clear in Didache 10.5, where the Lord is asked to remember and deliver the church (Wilhite 2019, p. 210).
Wilhite observes that the Didache does not mention a new covenant, the death or blood of Jesus, language of inauguration or remembrance, soteriology, or a relationship of the bread to the body of Jesus (Wilhite 2019, p. 211).
Didache 9.5 speaks to how the Eucharist is administered and for whom. It is not part of the liturgy, but is set apart from it, as a community instruction. The use of the markers περί plus the genitive and the doxologies at the ends of segments creates a sense of the overall outline of the liturgy (Wilhite 2019, p. 211). Only those who have been baptized are partakers of the Eucharist. Therefore, Wilhite sees a connection between Didache 7.1-4 and Didache 9.1-4. Ritual cleansing is essential for reception of the Eucharist (Wilhite 2019, p. 211). Here, in Didche 9.5b, the Eucharist is seen as a holy thing which is not to be given to dogs. Wilhite sees the clear reference to Matthew 7:6. However, in Matthew 7, as well as Matthew 15:26-27, "dogs" refer to gentiles. Here the "dogs" are people who have not been baptized, and the "holy things" are the Eucharistic elements (Wilhite 2019, p. 212). In each instance, there is a reference to an inside and an outside group. The application to the Eucharist indicates that it is necessary to be a holy person so as to receive a holy thing. Wilhite, considering the parallel expression in Didache 10.6, sees repentance and baptism as the prerequisites (Wilhite 2019, p. 212).
Didache 10 provides more liturgical material. Wilhite takes the material to be reconstructed in "the following order: (1) initial or opening Eucharist remarks; (2) immediately followed by or accompanied with the cup and broken bread; (3) followed by or accompanied with a corporate meal; (4) upon finishing the meal, closing Eucharist comments; (5) a concluding corporate liturgy with Μαραναθά. Ἀμήν" (Wilhite 2019, p. 213). As in other transitions, Wilhite sees a literary marker, this time μετά plus an infinitive. There has been a meal along with the chalice and bread. Now the community gives thanks. Here the adjective "holy" is used with the Father. Wilhite takes this to convey the trinitarian concept used in Didache 7.1, 3; 9.5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 213). There is further a concept of either the Name or the Triune God dwelling "within those partaking the Eucharist" (Wilhite 2019, p. 214). Wilhite considers whether this may "be incipient theosis and Johannine union with God" (Wilhite 2019, p. 214). It is not entirely clear in his mind, yet there is an element of being baptized "into the name of God" and there does appear to be a transformation, preparing the people to receive the Eucharist. Here in chapter 10, knowledge, faith, and immortality are interconnected with the Eucharist. Yet Wilhite questions whether it is safe to assume that immortality is applied only to those in the way of life, but not to the way of death (Wilhite 2019, p. 214). Wilhite notes that in the second century Ignatius (Eph. 20.2) and Acts of John (109) refer to the bread of the Eucharist with immortality (Wilhite 2019, p. 215).
In Didache 10.3-4 God is addressed as the creator. Wilhite sees this as a means of indicating that God is the one who can provide for all humans (Wilhite 2019. p. 216). Because this obligates all people to give thanks to God, those on the way of death, though they are provided for, do not give thanks to God. They receive food, "but the spiritual food is given to those partaking hte Eucharist (Did. 10.3)" (Wilhite 2019. p. 216, emphasis his). The identity of the participants of the Eucharist is separated from that of those who do not partake. Didache 10.5 then asks God to remember and gather his church. This is a form of rescue, akin to the Lord's Prayer's plea for deliverance from evil. Wilhite observes that this pray references the theme of "perfection" from Didache 6.2, an eschatological outlook (Wilhite 2019. p. 217).
Wilhite finds Didache 10.6-7 to make an odd ending to the liturgies. Verse 6 calls for grace to come and for the world to end. The use of "Hosanna" here calls out praise to God (Wilhite 2019. p. 218). There is additionally a call to repentance. The Eucharist has already been established as a celebration of the holy ones, but here some are presented as holy and some may not be. It therefore seems out of place in the Eucharistic liturgy. Verse seven then moves abruptly to prophets, granting them "to partake of the Eucharist in any way they deem necessary" (Wilhite 2019. p. 218). This is sharply different from the patterns established previously.
Wilhite moves on to discuss the Coptic Addition to the Didache, dealing with ointment. Wilhite observes that this passage, not found in the Jerusalem manuscript, has been reconstructed and is identified in Didache 10.8 and 16.9-12 (Wilhite 2019. p. 219). 10.8 appears in the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 27, 1-2). The Coptic papyrus includes 10.3b-12.2a (Wilhite 2019. p. 219). Wilhite is noncommittal about inclusion of the text, but in general sides with Jefford and Niederwimmer, who take the ointment prayer as an interpolation near the end of the 2nd century or beginning of the 3rd century (Wilhite 2019. p. 220). A salient question is why, if it was interpolated in the second century, was it not included in an eleventh century manuscript, and why that eleventh century manuscript would be understood as more reliable. The material is coherent with other parts of the eucharistic liturgy in both its content and the structure with section markers including a short doxology (Wilhite 2019. p. 221). An anointing with oil is frequently seen as an adjunct to prayers for the sick, and is also seen as a figure of Christ, perfectly consistent with and often used in conjunction with baptism. Wilhite leaves this as a question that is best to be discussed in other studies.
RSS Feed