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

Liturgical Development as a Slow Process

6/6/2022

0 Comments

 
6/6/22
Scholarly Reflections

Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Eight: The Structure of the Anaphora in the Catechesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 287-331.

Theodore of Mopsuestia delivered his Mystagogical Catecheses no earlier than 381, as verified by a reference to the Council of Constantinople, which convened in 381, and, clearly, prior to his death in 428 (Mazza 1995, 287). After  a review of scholarshiop and logical arguments found in the Catechesis, Mazza favors a relatively late date for composition, but considers it still an open question. An accurate date would shed light on the specific condition of the Church in a particular place and time (Mazza 1995, 290).

Thedore provides a brief text of a liturgical ritual, then explains that ritual in detail. He deals with "baptism in three homilies and [speaks] of the Eucharist in two" (Mazza 1995, 290). Mazza does not consider it clear that there is a specific liturgical book from which Theodore draws his citations, though it is a possibility. He does, however, "see that Theodore considers this text [of the homily] as a genuine source of the rite and of the theologyc he is expounding" (Mazza 1995, 291). In Theodore, the liturgy cited is presented as a given.

Mazza speaks at some length of the liturgy around a blessing of the Lord's peace prior to reception of the Sacrament, describing the role of the officiant and of the congregation (Mazza 1995, 291-294). He describes in somewhat less detail the concept of resurrection as presented in the baptismal liturgy (Mazza 1995, 294-296). Mazza then proceeds to discuss the theme of the death and resurrection of Christ as Theodore applies it to the specific actions of the Ecuharist (Mazza 1995, 296-302) up through the blessing of the bread and wine. It is at this time that Theodore affirms the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of the Lord, through the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Though Theodore's citation of the liturgy does not include a narrative of the institution at the Last Supper, Mazza finds that his description does speak of the Last Supper. This is consistent with anaphoras that were certainly known to Theodore (Mazza 1995, 303). However, it seems that the words of institution may not have been considered a necessary element of the eucharist at his time. Mazza therefore considers that the church order which Theodore quotes is different and older than the liturgy actually in use and upon which Theodore comments. Mazza presents his reconstruction of the two in parallel columns (Mazza 1995, 309-310). Mazza then attempts to trace the elements as found in various anaphoras, so as to identify the tradition to which Theodore may have referred. After reviewing the elements individually, Mazza concludes that the Anaphora of Basil is the most likely source quoted by Theodore as the definitive ritual which he describes (Mazza 1995, 320). The actual liturgy on which Theodore comments, differing in some points from the anaphora, was also something Theodore considered to be appropriate for teaching and use. Mazza reviews these differences in light of the Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem (Mazza 1995, 323ff). His conclusion is that Cyril hs the source most likely influencing the liturty in use by Theodore (Mazza 1995, 328). The matter of location remains a challenge. Mazza leans toward Tarsus, where Thedore was around 392, but concedes htat more research on baptism and the nature of anointings would be necessary so as to consider the matter in more detail (Mazza 1995, 330). 

​
0 Comments

Roots of the Roman Eucharist

6/3/2022

0 Comments

 
6/3/22
Scholarly Reflections

Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Seven: The Roman Canon." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 240-286.

Mazza refers to the eucharistic prayer used in the Roman tradition as the Roman Canon, though it may bear a variety of names in different times and places (Mazza 1995, 240). The text itself went through modifications at first but has been essentially unchanged since the time of Gregory the Great. Determining original authorship or textual relationships has proveen difficult, as scholars often read their own theological bases for understanding it back in history to superimpose them on the text (Mazza 1995, 242-243). Mazza observes a challenge posed by the structural difficulties. He notes, for example, that elements do not follow the same order as that of other anaphoras. This makes it more difficult to identify sources (Mazza 1995, 244). 

Mazza finds substantial textual parallels between the Roman Canon and the Alexandrian anaphora, analogies not found elsewhere (Mazza 1995, 245). To make for a clearer picture, he eliminates the elements which he is certain were ot originally part of the work (Mazza 1995, 246).

Ultimately, Mazza finds the oldest form of the Roman Canon to be contained in the De Sacramentis by Ambrose, probably dating from 380-396 (Mazza 1995, 246). A gap is filled in by the liber ordinum liturgy, which dates between Ambrose and the Roman Canon (Mazza 1995, 247). Mazza creates a harmonization of the three texts. He then discusses the similarities of these and some additional readings of prayers in some detail. Unfortunately, he does not consistently provide sufficient detail that a reader such as myself, not intimately familiar with the Latin allusions to portions of Roman liturgy, would understand. However, in sum, Mazza notes that the parallels to the Roman Canon are mostly older than Ambrose, with roots particularly in the anaphora of Saint Mark as found in its root of the Strasbourg gr. 254 Papyrus (Mazza 1995, 252). 

The preface in the Alexandrian liturgy "is divided into two parts" (Mazza 1995, 255). The first part blesses God for his creation. The second part makes a theological comment giving reasons to praise God based on the blessings of his creation (Mazza 1995, 256). Mazza finds and presents a number of later preface texts which have the same bipartite structure. He further notes that most are prefaces not followed by a Sanctus, thus suggesting an early tradition (Mazza 1995, 257). The second strophe often takes the form of an offering of a sacrifice of praise, a feature Mazza illustrates with several examples (Mazza 1995, 259-260). In the course of time, the preface became simply a single part structure, centered on the giving of thanks. The second strophe, with the sacrificial language, rather than disappearing, moved to a position after the (inserted) Sanctus, and began with the words te igitur (Mazza 1995, 260). Mazza proceeds to compare the Alexandrian text with the later te igitur wording. He finds structural and verbal similarities which suggest a consistent stream of development (Mazza 1995, 263).

After these prayers, both the Roman Canon and the Alexandrian anaphora continue with two prayers, "supra quae" and "supplices" (Mazza 1995, 269). Mazza observes that the Roman Canon has divided one unit of the Alexandrian anaphora into two, and has inverted the conceptual order (Mazza 1995, 269). Mazza considers these prayers to belong to this tradition of the anaphoras and not to have been imported from elsewhere. Following this segment of the prayers is a commendation of the dead, found both in the Roman and Alexandrian traditions (Mazza 1995, 272). Again, Mazza considers a direct relationshipo to exist between the Alexandrian and Roman liturgies.

To illustrate the similarity in structure between the Alexandrian and Roman texts, Mazza presents them in prallel columns (Mazza 1995, 275ff). Though Mazza cannot establish the relationship of the two anaphoras, there are clear parallelisms. Mazza is convinced that further structural analysis will eventually lead to a relationship and understanding of the various texts which contribute to this liturgy (Mazza 1995, 280). 

Mazza's conclusion is that the two anaphoras have roots in one source, but developed along slightly different lines, the Alexandrian being more organic in nature and the Roman using a more deliberate theological process (Mazza 1995, 283-284).

​
0 Comments

Evaluating Liturgy Based on Structure, Not Content

6/2/2022

0 Comments

 
6/2/22
Scholarly Reflections

Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Six: The Anaphora of Serapion." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 219-239.

The Euchology, attributed to the 4th century Serapion, provides us with a wide variety of the rites used in Christian practice, including that of the Eucharist (Mazza 1995, 219). Mazza briefly discusses the debate over authorship, which hinges on the possible Arian sentiments of the author. Mazza concludes that due to the doctrinal differences, the author was not Serapion, the friend of Athanasius. He therefore refers to him (normally) as Pseudo-Serapion (Mazza 1995, 221). Mazza's study of this anaphora intends to evaluate how its structure may have been influenced by its sources.

"The account of institution presents the peculiar feature of being broken into two parts by the interpolation of Didache 9.4" (Mazza 1995, 221). Mazza observes that Didache 9.4 is present in various Alexandrian texts. The statement pertaining to the unity of the bread is readily associated with a eucharistic text. Mazza notes that in the anaphora of Serapion the passage from Didache 9 about the "vine of David" is absent, while in another work, the Der-Balyzeh Papyrus, both parts are present. It appears, then, that Der-Balyzeh did not derive from Serapion, but both were derived elsewhere (Mazza 1995, 223).

Evaluating the works in light of Apostolic Constitutions 7.25.3, Mazza observes that Didache 9.4 and Apostolic Constitutions 7.25.3 are more similar, but that Serapion 13.13 still fits the same structural pattern (Mazza 1995, 224-225). Mazza reminds us at some length of the early Christian pattern of separate rites for the bread and for the cup. The pattern is evident in Serapion. Mazza understands this to be a conscious historic and theological statement on the part of Serapion, tying the liturgy to the ancient practice known to him (Mazza 1995, 228).

Having tied the structure of Serapion's anaphora to ancient structures, Mazza moves on to consider the second epiclesis and the intercessions in Serapion (Mazza 1995, 231). Of particular interest is the fact that Serapion moves the intercessions to a position before, rather than after, a doxology (Mazza 1995, 232). The doxology would normally be directly after the epiclesis, in which prayer is made for the Holy Spirit to come. Further, Serapion's prayer asks for a coming of the Word (logos) rather than the Spirit. Mazza takes this to be a theological distinctive but not one which departs from the overall historic thought patterns and structure (Mazza 1995, 233).

The thanksgivings in Serapion are closely allied with those in traditional Alexandrian anaphoras (Mazza 1995, 234). Thanks is given for the many gifts of God in Christ, particularly Messianic gifts of redemption, grace, etc.

Mazza concludes that the originality in Serapion's anaphora consists in is doctrinal intent and in his use of traditional source material inserted in such a way as to ground his work in history (Mazza 1995, 239). This grounding also shows what Serapion may have considered to be of traditional historical importance.

​
0 Comments

Alexandrian Roots of the Eucharistic Celebration

6/1/2022

0 Comments

 
6/1/22
Scholarly Reflections

Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Five: The Alexandrian Anaphora." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 177-218.

Mazza provides a summary of the structure of the Alexandrian Anaphora, which walks through a thanksgiving, a number of intercessions, a Sanctus, a brief epiclesis, the institution narrative, and a second epiclesis and doxology (Mazza 1995, 177). Mazza notes that the structure differs from the Antiochene pattern, to which we are accustomed. Yet the elements are all historically warranted. Mazza evaluates the anaphora to see how it may be derived from the Strasbourg gr. 254 Papyrus (Mazza 1995, 178). The question Mazza considers essential is whether or not the Strasbourg Papyrus represents a complete anaphora. Mazza follows the opinion of G.J. Cuming which says the Strasbourg Papyrus is in fact a complete anaphora, rather than representing a fragmentary work (Mazza 1995, 179). Mazza continues by reviewing both the work of G.J. Cuming and H.A.J. Wegman. Both conclude that the Strasbourg Papyrus represents an entire work and that it is rightly dated in the second or third century, thus being a source for interpretation of the later, 4th century works (Mazza 1995, 181). The difficulty in identifying influence from the Strasbourg Papyrus lies chiefly in the fact that the number of petitions may vary in future works, and that the petitions may or may not be followed by a doxology (Mazza 1995, 186).

Mazza concludes that "the Strasbourg Papyrus is a complete anaphora" (Mazza 1995, 186). He understands it to have the structure of a later anaphora, though it does not consistently have all the expected doxologies (Mazza 1995, 187). Mazza evaluates the various parts of the structure and finds conceptual unity, thus indicating that the Strasbourg Papyrus is consistent as a precursor to Apostolic Constitutions (Mazza 1995, 189ff). In addition to the variable nature of the doxologies, the embolism of the Last Supper account, which is present by the time of Apostolic Constitutions, exists in reference to Malachi 1:11, speaking of a sacrifice which pleases God. The embolism is in the same location relative to the whole (Mazza 1995, 192).

Having built a case for the Strasbourg Papyrus to represent a complete Alexandrian anaphora, Mazza evaluates the possible Jewish sources of the document (Mazza 1995, 194). The first strophe gives thanks for God's work of creation. Mazza finds this to parallel the Josser, one of the blessings which come before the Shemah, but here recast with a Christological interpretation (Mazza 1995, 195). Interestingly enough, within Judaism, the Josser already had a messianic interpretation. The difference in the Alexandrian anaphora is the specific application to Christ, not merely some unidentified Messiah (Mazza 1995, 196). The second strophe describes a sacrificial action of prayer, as well as Malachi 1:11 as an institution account. Here the sacrifice is not Christ, but is our prayers (Mazza 1995, 197). The third strophe, exactly as we would expect, is a petition for the Church, closing with a doxology (Mazza 1995, 198).

Mazza observes that the Alexandrian anaphora is built on a traditional root, but has a few elements inserted, namely, the additional intercessions, the Sanctus with an epiclesis, and the materials from the anaphora of James (Mazza 1995, 199). Mazza describes these elements in some detail.

The insertion of a Sanctus into the anaphora is a puzzle. However, Mazza identifies just such a move in the Mystagogical Homilies by Theodore of Mopsuestia (Mazza 1995, 205). He provides us with a liturgical commentary. Of special interest to Mazza, Theodore lists the elements of the ritual but them comments on them, including some elements not included in his original list. This suggests some evolution of the liturgy (Mazza 1995, 205). In particular, Mazza takes the Sanctus to have entered the liturgy by means of some liturgical materials which didn't contain such an eschatological element (Mazza 1995, 210). We do not know a definitive source for this material, however, Mazza suggests it arose from a source which had a greater eschatological eagerness. He does find a number of Jewish writings which fairly plainly show this concern with eschatology (Mazza 1995, 211). Further, there is a stream of thought which, viewing heaven as perfectly holy, would be expected to insert a Sanctus into other statements (Mazza 1995, 213). This insertion would seem perfectly reasonable, especially as the liturgy pertains to reception of heavenly gifts.

​
0 Comments

Eucharistic Prayers and Their Sources

5/30/2022

0 Comments

 
5/30/22
Scholarly Reflections

Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Four: The Anaphora of Hippolytus." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 98-176.

Mazza notes that the anaphora found in Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition can be identified as the root of much of the overall tradition of eucharistic liturg (Mazza 1995, 98-99). Identifying factors which may have served as sources for Hippolytus is more difficult than finding subsequent materials which draw on Apostolic Tradition, however. We simply have few liturgical texts which antedate Hippolytus (Mazza 1995, 100). The best candidate is the Didache.

Mazza finds that the content of the anaphora depends in part on the theological understanding of earlier Easter homilies, particularly that of Melito of Sardis (Mazza 1995, 103). The homilies, in turn, tend to depend on a typological reading of Exodus chapter 12. Mazza further considers the homilies to serve a primarily liturgical function, as they harmonize the text with liturgical actions (Mazza 1995, 104). This kind of homiletic occasion may be identified as early as Acts chapter 10:9-11. In this narrative, there is a preaching occasion, a breaking of bread, then a continued homily for the rest of the night (Mazza 1995, 105).

Mazza provides a Latin text of the anaphora from Hippolytus, with the parts which parallel Easter homilies in italics (Mazza 1995, 106-107), then compares the Hippolytan text with the homilies of Pseudo-Hippolytus and Melito of Sardis (Mazza 1995, 107-127). Here he does present the texts partly in English. Mazza concludes that the anaphora in Hippolytus shows evidence of significant conceptual influence from pre-existing Easter homilies, including some portions of those homilies which appear to be blocks of liturgy included in the homily (Mazza 1995, 127). The anaphora makes theological summary statements of ideas which existed beforehand. 

Mazza explores the literature for an example of liturgical and literary development. This he finds, with Apostolic Constitutions book eight containing a reworked version of Apostolic Tradition, but reworked in such a way as to be closer in content to the Easter homilies (Mazza 1995, 129). This shows both a dependence on Apostolic Tradition and an influence of the Easter homilies.

The phrasing of the Words of Institution in Apostolic Tradition is of note. Hippolytus makes it an actual part of the anaphora, while in later usage it may stand separately (Mazza 1995, 135). Mazza finds the same pattern of the Institution as part of an anaphora to be derived from earlier Easter homilies. He further notes that there is not a clear literary relationship but that the conceptual relationship is certainly present (Mazza 1995, 139). Mazza also notes that Irenaeus seems to draw on the Easter Homilies, a fact which may associate Irenaeus with the Apostolic Traditions.

Mazza moves on to discuss epiclesis in the anaphoras in comparison with Easter homilies (Mazza 1995, 142). He finds in words surrounding the ucp an associate between the cup and the Holy Spirit, hence blood and life. The temes of the eucharist found in the homilies and in Hippolytus are those of bread and wine, the Spirit, and unity (Mazza 1995, 144). However, it is entirely possible that these themes were derived independelty of one another and that Hippolytus could be referring to either the unity of the Church or to the unity of the faithful who receive the cup. The conclusion is not definitive so the question of dependence remains open (Mazza 1995, 146).

While Mazza does not find a conclusive case for a relationship of Apostolic Tradition and the Easter homiles in the epiclesis he does find a relationship with Irenaeus in this part of the Apostolic Tradition (Mazza 1995, 147).

Mazza next turns his attention to structural, rather than theological issues in the anaphoras. He provides a detailed description of the anaphora as ofund in Apostolic Tradition (Mazza 1995, 150ff). Both the anaphora in Apostolic Tradition and hte possibly incomplete one found in the Strasbourg Greek papyrus 254 consist of two thanksgiving and one invocation, with a similarity in the second thanksgiving (Mazza 1995, 153). The tripartite structure is present in the Didache and the irkat ha-mazon, but a tripartite structure is fairly common. Mazza looks rather for the tripartite structure in which the second thanksgiving is for present gifts of God (Mazza 1995, 154). He finds this in both Apostolic Tradition and in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (Mazza 1995, 155). This parallel is also present in the version of the Birkat ha-mazon found in the Jewish Book of the Jubilees, dating to about 100 B.C., a text which Mazza finds to have been used by Christians as well (Mazza 1995, 157). Because of the structural similarities of the Birkat ha-mazon, the text in Polycarp, Apostolic Tradition, and the Didache, Mazza moves on to consider a possible relationship between the anaphoras in Apostolic Tradition and the Didache (Mazza 1995, 161).

While Mazza does not find direct structural relationships between the Apostolic Tradition and the Didache, he does find a link, as the anaphora of Serapion seems related to both works (Mazza 1995, 162). Though Mazza earlier stated he would be enagaged in structural analysis, the line between structure and thoelogical content cannot be drawn very clearly. However, he describes parallels in structure and content in numerous sources which may have been used for Apostolic Tradition, seeing that they stem, in turn, from Didache 10 (Mazza 1995, 164).

In the anamnesis of the Apostolic Tradition, Mazza finds the concepts of the death and resurrection of Christ to be closely tied together. This, in his view, was a distinctive emphasis of Sundays. The concept of salvation rooted in the death of Christ, rather than in his resurrection, was characteristic of Near Eastern theology in the early Christian period (Mazza 1995, 167).

The description of Jesus' institution of the Supper appears to Mazza to have been inserted int othe prayers, though probably due to liturgical practice, reflecting the tripartite structure described earlier in the chapter (Mazza 1995, 170). Because of theological differences which Mazza observes in the different segments of the text, he concludes that they reflect liturgical traditions which may have become stable at different times and which were gathered into the one text separately from one another (Mazza 1995, 174). 

​
0 Comments

1 Corinthians 10 and the Didache

5/27/2022

0 Comments

 
5/27/22
Scholarly Reflections

Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Three: The Eucharist of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 as Related to Didache 9-10." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 66-97.

Mazza observes that three significant studies (Koster 1957, Audet 1958, Glover 1958) have concluded that the Didache shows no familiarity with the canonical texts of the New Testament (Mazza 1995, 66). At the most, we can assume knowledge of some Christian traditions and/or writings which informed the New Testament authors.

To explore this concept, Mazza analyzes 1 Corinthians, which Mazza understands as being focused on "whether or not eating flesh sacrificed to idols is lawful or unlawful" (Mazza 1995, 67). While in the early part of the Epistle, Paul allows for eating and drinking anything, even things sacrificed to idols, he later points out that in light of the Eucharist and its effect toward eternal life, it is folly to participate in eating and drinking with idolatrous intent (Mazza 1995, 68). The center of Paul's argument, as Mazza sees it, is that the Eucharist is the participation in Christ, creating communion. The eucharistic passages are thus central to the letter, particularly 1 Cor. 10:14-22.

Mazza notes that 1 Cor. 10 descri bes the eucharist in cup-bread order, while chapter 11 orders it bread-cup. 1 Cor. 10 is the parallel to Didache 9 (Mazza 1995, 69). Mazza considers it important to identify the actual order in Corinth so as to determine if there is a true structural analogy to Didache 9. After considering various scholarly studies, Mazza concludes that 1 Cor. 10 and 11 may be speaking of current eucharistic practice and the Last Supper, respectively. However, these are theologically and doctrinally identical, though the order of events is different, hence the order becomes irrelevant (Mazza 1995, 72)

The argument of 1 Cor. 10:16-22 then becomes an argument for unity with Christ, Mazza concludes, after a review of the important research on Paul's use of the words for body in the passage. The critical word in the argument becomes koinonia (Mazza 1995, 77).

Mazza returns to his earlier question about the reason for the inversion of the sequence of elements. It is apparently not tied to the overall argument of Paul (Mazza 1995, 78). Mazza concludes that the cup-bread sequence must have been "a liturgical fact that Paul derived from the actual structure of the Eucharistic celebration of the Church at Corinth" (Mazza 1995, 79). Mazza sees this as capable of confirmation with a pre-existing liturgical text. This is found in the Didache, which alone presents the sequence of cup-bread.

Mazza finds and evaluates five similarities between Didache 9 and 1 Cor. 10:16ff: "(1) the rite of the cup; (2) the rite of the bread; (3) the theme of unity; (4) the cup-bread-unity sequence . . .' ant (5) the literary form of the embolism" (Mazza 1995, 80). He discusses each in turn.

The rite of the cup is referred to in 1 Corinthians as the "cup of blessing." Mazza finds from rabbinic practice that this implies a cup of wine with a specific prescribed benediction (Mazza 1995, 82). The blessing rite of the cup and of the bread were treated as independent rites, evidenced by Paul, Luke, and rabbinic practice. This is also the practice in Didache 9.2, in which the cup has its own blessing which can stand alone (Mazza 1995, 83).

Mazza describes the rite of the bread in less detail, as it is strongly homologous to the rite of the cup. However, the term used in the Didache and in Paul issignificant. Paul refers to the breaking of the bread (κλάω), while the Didache does not use the verb but refers to the bread as "fragments" (κλάσματα) (Mazza 1995, 84). Mazza observes that in Jewish tradition bread had to be broken for sharing, so the word for fragment became common. A "breaking of bread" then was early taken to be the particular celebration of the Lord's Supper (Mazza 1995, 85).

The prayer of Didache 9 seeks unity based on the bread, just as 1 Cor. 10:17 expresses unity based on the bread (Mazza 1995, 85). The outcome in both texts is the same, a unity of the body of Christ.

Mazza notes that both Didache 9 and 1 Cor. 10 have the prayer over the cup, over the bread, and for unity, in that order. He sees this construction of three prayers with rubrics introducing only the parts for the cup and the bread to be distinctive and to show a relationship of the texts (Mazza 1995, 86-87). 

Mazza's reference to an "emobolsim" on unity may require some explanation. Mazza uses the term for an insertion of an idea. Here, the idea of unity is not an autonomous statement, but in both 1 Cor. 10 and Didache 9 it is inserted into the ritual of bread. It does not have an introductory statement setting it apart (Mazza 1995, 87).

Mazza turns to the dating of the text of the Didache. If it is earlier than the date known for 1 Corinthians we may at least have a terminus ad quem (Mazza 1995, 90). The texts both contain descriptions of the eucharist. However, it is only in 1 Cor. 10, not in the Didache, that we have theological explanations of the body and blood of Christ (Mazza 1995, 91). This suggests that 1 Cor. 10 is a later development of the ideas in Didache 9. Mazza notes that liturgy normally evolves more slowly than theology (Mazza 1995, 92). This can epxlain, for instance, the liturgy based on the cup-bread pattern, while practice followed the berad-cup pattern. As Christianity spread, κλάσμα tended to turn into ἄρτος. However, the Didache retained κλάσμα (Mazza 1995, 93). The Didache also shows an early understanding of unity as that in the exchaton, while Paul has the (typically later) view of unity in the earthly community of Christ.

Mazza finally adduces 1 Cor. 10:1-4, which typologically takes Christ as the spiritual rock which accompanied Israel in the desert, tying him to both baptism and eucharist (Mazza 1995, 94ff). Mazza concludes that this interpretation may be tied to Didache 10.3. This suggests to Mazza that Paul knew and used both Didache 9 and 10 in his argument, thus dating at least that portion of the Didache prior to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, which is probably around 57. The eucharistic practice seems already secure at that point, suggesting that it was intiated some time earlier, probably when Paul evangelized the Corinthians during the period 50-52 (Mazza 1995, 97). This is consistent with Mazza's earlier argument based on the "vine of David" passage that the Didache was composed prior to the council at Jerusalem.

​
0 Comments

Eucharist and the Apostolic Constitutions

5/26/2022

0 Comments

 
5/26/22
Scholarly Reflections

Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Two: The Eucharistia Mystica." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 42-65.

Mazza begins this chapter with a brief introduction to the Apostolic Constitutions, which was compiled from other sources in 380. Of special interest to him in this chapter is the eucharistic prayer found in Book 7, which is largely a revised version of the Didache (Mazza 1995, 42). Copyists dubbed the anaphora the Eucharistia mystica, which in modern editions is rendered "Gratiarum actio sacramentalis" (Mazza 1995, 42). Mazza refers to the passage with the Anglicized "mystical Eucharist." 

Mazza sees in book 7 of Apostolic Constitutions a paleoanaphora drawn from Didache 9 and a thanksgiving after eating and drinking, also drawn from Didache 9 (Mazza 1995, 43). There is evidence of some theological developoment but the early ideas from the Didache are still present (Mazza 1995, 45). The source text remained, though Maza knows that it would be understood with connotations which may have been unkonwn to the earliest members of the community.

Mazza provides a parallel Greek text of Const. Ap. VII, 26 and Didache 10 (Mazza 1995, 47-49). He then provides some comments on the significant differences in the two texts. Mazza's conclusion is "that a precise verbal, thematic, and structural parallelism exists between Apostolic Constitutions 7.26 and Didache 10" (Mazza 1995, 52). Yet he finds a clear theological difference. The text in Apostolic Constitutions no longer has the divisions of thought which made Didache 10 a Birkat ha-mazon (Mazza 1995, 53). 

Mazza next presents a parallel text of Apostolic Constitutions VII.25 and Didache 9 (Mazza 1995, 53-54), followed by his observations based on the text. Of significance is the fact that while Didache 9 is constructed with three separate prayers, they are pulled into a unified text in Apostolic Constitutions (Mazza 1995, 55). Also of note is the fact that while the Didache didn't speak of Jesus' death, Apostolic Constitutions does interpret the cup as the blood of Christ, spilled in his death for us 56-57). This is a significant theological developoment.

Mazza concludes that the eucharistic prayer in Apostolic Constitutions 7.25 is derived from the prayer in Didache 9, but shows development in that it includes a confession of faith specifically in Jesus' work of bringing salvation through his death (Mazza 1995, 60). This is difficult to see on the surface, since there are no direct quotations. However the structure is that of the Birkat ha-mazon with a Christological re-working (Mazza 1995, 61). In this manner, Mazza considers the anaphoras attributed to Basiol of Caesarea, which he finds to bear a resemblance to that of Hippolytus. Basil keeps much of the structure found in Hippolytus, but interprets the gathering in light of Ephesians 4:4 (Mazza 1995, 62). In a similar manner, Mazza sees Basil as adapting and developing the concepts of the Eucharistia mystica in a prayer for the church, identifying it as the "one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church" (Mazza 1995, 63). The theme of unity is present, but it is now signified by the bread broken in communion. Mazza's conclusion is that the prayers gradually were adapted to include further explanation of Christian doctrine (Mazza 1995, 65).

​
0 Comments

Eucharist and an Early Date for the Didache

5/25/2022

0 Comments

 
5/25/22
Scholarly Reflections

Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter One: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or the Didache." The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (tr. Ronald E. Lane). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995, 12-41.

Mazza considers the Didache to have drawn ideas from numerous sources and to have presented them as a collection, without substantial reworking to create a coherent whole (Mazza 1995, 13). Because the eucharistic rites of chapters 9-10 hold a position after the moral teaching and initiation into the Christian life, Mazza takes this eucharist to be specifically ted to initiation rather than to indicate a typical pattern in the church.

Strictly speaking, Mazza considers the record of the Eucharist in the Didache not as an anaphora, but as a collection of three different thanksgivings (Mazza 1995, 14). There also appear to be two different thanksgivings, one for the start and the other for the end of the meal. With no reference to the death and resurrection of Christ and no use of the institution account, Mazza questions whether this can be legitimately considered the Lord's Supper or whether it is something else (Mazza 1995, 15). 

Mazza explores the relationship between Didache 10 and Deuteronomy 8:10, which both refer to satisfying hunger then giving thanks to God (Mazza 1995, 16-17). He takes this to signify a parallel situation. Of interest to Mazza as a possible application of this passage is the fact that the wording of the thanksgiving (Birkat ha-mazon) is not uniform, but the structure is. He notes it consists of "(1) a blessing of God who feeds us, (2) an act of thanksgiving for the gift of land and food, . . . and (3) a petitionary prayer for Jerusalem" (Mazza 1995, 18). In this Christian version of the prayer, elements one and two are reversed (Mazza 1995, 19). Mazza continues by reviewing the statements in each portion of the prayer of Didache 10.

Didache 10.2 gives thanks to God the Father "for your holy name which you have made to dwell in our hearts…" (Mazza 1995, 20). Mazza considers that it may not be appropriate to consider the "name" as a reference to Jesus, since the specific role of Jesus in the sentence is "child." However, Jewish thought would suggest that we worship God where His name dwells. Participation in the liturgy, then, is entry into the place where God's name dwells (Mazza 1995, 21). For this reason, Mazza considers the heart of the Christian to be the temple of God.

The second strophe is in Didache 10.3a. Here, thanksgiving is made to God for his creation and blessing humans with food (Mazza 1995, 22). Here, reception of a meal and giving of thanks for it is distincitvely tied to Deuteronomy 8:10. The eater is obligated to thank God at the end of a meal (Mazza 1995, 23). Mazza does observe that the giving of thanks, along with other prayers, in Jewish thought, could quote or allude to something and still be understood as capturing the purpose of the prayer (Mazza 1995, 24). This could influence our understanding of the overall purpose of the prayers in the Didache. Mazza does note that Jesus not only told his disciples to continue having ritual meals, but he appointed some new Christian characteristics and purposes. They were "to do this and to do it in his memory" (Mazza 1995, 25, emphasis Mazza's).

Didache 3b then describes specifically Christian developments in the meal. The idea is that the meal gives spiritual food and drink leading to eternal life (Mazza 1995, 25). Mazza sees this as a development in understanding, though not necessarily in the meal itself. The meal remains a time of nourishment and thanks to God, but the Christian understands it as nourishment to eternal life in Christ (Mazza 1995, 26).

Didache 10.5 then gives us the third element of the Birkat ha-mazon, as it makes a petition that God will remember and keep His church (Mazza 1995, 27). Mazza notes the petition differs from the traditional Jewish petition, as it prays for the Church rather than for Jerusalem.

Mazza concludes that while the meal after which we pray in Didache 10 is not a Jewish ritual meal, it springs from that ritual. He understands it as a clear example of a meal received in memory of Christ, consistent with the words of the Last Supper (Mazza 1995, 30).

Didache 9.2-4 follows a different structure. Mazza notes it is not a parallel to chapter 10, thogh both are tripartite. In chapter nine there is a cup, bread, and a prayer of unity (Mazza 1995, 30). This is the beginning of the meal, while chapter 10 is the end of the meal. Mazza sees the prayers at the start of the meal as prallel to the Jewish Kiddush, which dedicates the Sabbath to God with a blessing over a cup, and another over bread (Mazza 1995, 31). Mazza notes that this order is the reverse of that traditional in Christianity, however, in 1 Corinthians 10 and Luke 22 the cup comes before the break. Mazza harmonizes this apparent discrepancy by suggesting that the first cup is simply a drink of thanksgiving and that the second cup, followed by the particularly Christian Birkat ha-mazon is understood as the cup of Christ's blood (Mazza 1995, 32). Mazza furtehr suggests that this pattern of cup-bread represents a very early tradition, being replaced with bread-cup by the time of 1 Corinthians chapter 11 (Mazza 1995, 34).

Didache 9.4 contains a petition which Mazza finds absent from the Kiddush (Mazza 1995, 34). This is a prayer for unity. Mazza considers the theme of God gathering His Church to have come from Didache 10, which he dates earlier than chapter nine. Here, however, the prayer introduces the concept of bread as the symbol of unity. Specifically, the bread broken is the concept which unifies the blessing of the bread and the petition (Mazza 1995, 35).

Mazza considers the prayer to be an important part of dating at least this portion of the Didache. Mazza briefly reviews modern scholarship which strongly points to the Didache in its current form as dating to before A.D. 70 (Mazza 1995, 36). This complete version is apparently built from elements composed earlier, most notably the Two Ways material. The prayers in chapters 9-10 suggest an early date to Mazza, particulary Didache 9.2. "'We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant which you have revealed to us through Jesus your Child.' It is unthinkable to place the composition of this text after the separation between the neascent Christian community and Israel, that is, after the events taking place in the so-called Council of Jerusalem" (Mazza 1995, 36). The referent of the "vine" does not make sense as Jesus in this sentence, as the vine is revealed through Jesus. Mazza concludes that here the vine is the salvific history of Israel (Mazza 1995, 37). Jesus serves as a prophet, revealing God's plan.

Mazza also notes the repeated use of the word pais, for "servant" "at the end of every strophe of thanksgiving in which Jesus' revealing work is commemorated" (Mazza 1995, 38). To Mazza, Jesus is portrayed as the final and great eschatological prophet who reveals God's will. The Christology which sees Jesus in this way, in Mazza's estimation, is from an early period. It "presents us with a Jesus still completely immersed within Judaism, one who is interpreted in the light of the Jewish category of prophet" (Mazza 1995, 39). This view contrasts sharply with the Christology known and promulgated as early as the Council of Jerusalem, which Mazza places in 48 or 49 (Mazza 1995, 40) though I am aware of many who would date it as late as 51. In any case, this points to a very early time of composition of chaptesr 9 and 10 of the Didache.

​
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