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

Lifestyle, Mentoring, and Charity

8/23/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
8/23/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
“Epilogue. The Spirituality of the Didache: Modern Reflections” p. 839-909.

In his epilogue, Milavec attempts to draw overarching conclusions based on the closer analysis of the parts which he has already presented (Milavec 2003, 842). He notes that the Christians found in the Didache are very different from those in his own time. He will hope to prpose ways that modern Christianity could be closer to discovering “the familiar joy and the familiar pain in the heart of the first-century believer” (Milavec 2003, 842).

To begin, Milavec seeks a meaning of spirituality itself. The term has been applied with every imaginable religious group’s name as an adjective. In early Christianity, the term was regularly used to contrast the “spiritual” person from the “natural” person. The spiritual was characterized by application of scriptures and a consciousness of an inner life (Milavec 2003, 843) Milavec seems to expect that spirituality involves a certain, slightly undefinable, inner perception which is linked to emotive suffering in some way (Milavec 2003, 844). It is the factor he thinks underlies texts, rites, and movements.

To explore the actual spirituality behind the Didache community, Milavec looks for an all-encompassing question. He wants to know, at its root, what the Didache is about (Milavec 2003, 845). This is more easily said than done. The overall thrust would have been clear to the whole community so it is not explained in the text. It seems clear that the Didache walks through the training of a gentile convert joining the Christian community. But Milavec thinks there is a more significant underlying message (Milavec 2003, 845). The order of topics guides people through a process one step at a time. Milavec thinks the steps are important and that the interactions at each stage would be used to be sure “that not only the words but also the deep meanings of the Way of Life were being suitably assimilated and applied at every step of the way” (Milavec 2003, 846). At heart, Milavec finds the priority of loving God and neighbor (Didache 1:2). All the progammatic motion can be seen in terms of these two fundamental relationships.

Milavec finds several areas of special interest in the Didache, which he addresses in order. First is ‘The Genius of Mentoring” (Milavec 2003, 847). Because becoming a Christian was ot like other religious moves in the first century, it was important that converts have mentors. Christianity, unlike many other religions, called for a very thorough reorientation. Without mentoring, it could be very difficult to learn how to live as a Christian (Milavec 2003, 847). A learner would be assigned to a mentor and they would work in a systematic manner. The attitudes and desires of the convert required evaluation and guidance. Milavec notes this as being strikingly similar to the character development of a child under care of a parent (Milavec 2003, 848). Milavec notes further that some Christian catechetical materials to this day indicate that in baptism a change is made, moving someone through a transformation which extends to the inner person (Milavec 2003, 849). However, speaking of his own baptism and Christian upbringing, Milavec was led to understand that God would protect people and might communicate silently and mystically to humans, but did not seem as concrete as the real world (Milavec 2003, 849-850). Over time, Milavec came to see God as real, though largely speaking silently and mystically. On the other hand, some Christian see conversion as more of a result of their hard work to  change (Milavec 2003, 851). In either case, the transformation normally involves an extended period of time absorbing the reality of the changed way of life. For this, a model of mentorship is normally used (Milavec 2003, 852). Milavec considers the idea of baptism actually washing sins as a late development, and, additionally, a “Pollyanna confidence” (Milavec 2003, 853). Rather, he looks for conversion through an adult decision followed by years of discipleship. This is the pattern he also sees throughout the Didache (Milavec 2003, 853). He does not find it treated as a sacrament or instituted by Christ.

Milavec does catalog ways in which the Didache has a different view of life than that held by Milavec. He notes a very sober view of Jesus, who does not appear in divine majesty or as the savior of the world (Milavec 2003, 855). The Didache also takes a very sober view of the church. It is, granted, the gathering of those called by the Spirit, but functions for the most part as a mentoring society rather than as God’s victorious people (Milavec 2003, 856). Further, the Didache does not imagine a life in which more prayer or spiritual disciplines will make one specially suited for a heavenly reward. In the whole, the community does not seem to emphasize progress in the faith (Milavec 2003, 857). Likewise, the Didache, though it does prescribe times for prayers and days of fasting, does not see those as burdensome duties but as joyful opportunities (Milavec 2003, 858).

Milavec further considers that the Didache describes a spirituality transmitted from person to person through oral means. The gospel is given not through a text but through speech (Milavec 2003, 859). This may well serve to make personal connections between the speaker and the hearer. Milavec considers the personal relationship to be the key. As proof he compares conversion rates of people to Eastern religions in the 20th century. Those which emphasized a mentoring relationship produced many more converts than those which simply presented written materials (Milavec 2003, 861).

Milavec compares the mentoring relationship with encounger grups he participated in while a graduate student in Berkeley. The trust and vulnerability he developed with others in his group was suprising to him. Later, he found a similar level of trust among some participants in a Christian group (Milavec 2003, 862). Milavec finds this same communal conversation in the Didache descriptions of gathering to pray (Milavec 2003, 863). It does not seem to occur to Milavec that his leaderless encounter groups had de facto leaders or that the Didache community would likely have looked to the mentors as leaders. Rather, he finds a radically egalitarian atmosphere where there would be no shows of authority such as preaching (Milavec 2003, 864).

Milavec has previously drawn a sharp distinction between the more normal members of the Didache communities and the prophets, whom he sees as being hurt and slightly dysfunctional. The Didache affirmed the rather mundane holiness which most people could practice (Milavec 2003, 864). It was in the routine of the Christian life that Christians would find rest and strength. The prophets and teachers were clearly present. However, they were not held up as the example to be emulated (Milavec 2003, 865). Milavec finds mch of the comfort associated with the idea that God is present for His people in the world. Didache 1:2 refers to “God who made you.” Milavec takes this to govern the community’s concept of God. He also reads this into various Old Testament passages to assert that God’s work in people is primarily in the realm of incarnation. God’s making and giving birth to his people is significant because all are made alike (Milavec 2003, 866). The personal address of God to each member of the community can also be seen as part of the creative work of the God who is present (Milavec 2003, 867).

Milavec notes that the Didache expects a coming of the Lord. He therefore asks if the community had a particular plan as they waited for the Lord. Many groups with a strong exchatology also have a plan of world influence. However, the Didache simply expects people to live in community, not necessarily to change it. The people were not sufficiently powerful to change society (Milavec 2003, 868). The exception was an expectation of giving to those who asked (Milavec 2003, 869)

Charity has regularly been a part of Christian piety. Milavec has a nontraditional view of giving, though. “Above all, however, charity has been tied in with the prospect of gaining leverage with the Lord in the life to come. For this, of course, Jesus’ parable of the final judgment (Mt 25:31-46) is normally cited for support” (Milavec 2003, 869). Milavec sees a contrast in the Didache, which endores care for the poor because of their humanity, as opposed to the view in Matthew that it is done in service to Christ (Milavec 2003, 870). Milavec issues a corrective to the interpretation of the passage in Matthew 25, observing that it is Jesus who views service as done for him. The people who are rewarded are surprised because they were simply helping people. This reader (Spotts) does not think Milavec’s first statement of a popular interpretation of Matthew 25 bears consideration by most Christians. His dichotomy appears false.

Milavec further comments that the sharing of resources from the Didache does not seem akin to the prosperity preaching often heard. The Didache does recognize a sort of giving which is expected to reap a reward (4:7) (Milavec 2003, 872). However, in general giving is viewed as a good deed done as a messenger of God who wants to supply needs.

The economy in the Didache is centered around a family worship, which Milavec contrasts to workshops staffed by slave labor in the first century (Milavec 2003, 872). The norm was to be profitable labor which allowed broad sharing of wealth.

Milavec does observe that the orientation toward sharing and giving was not a way of showing great business sense. Success in business is often related to persisting in amassing wealth and power to the detriment of others (Milavec 2003, 874). The Didache paints a polar opposite picture of success. The orientation of sharing is foreign to this concept of earthly power. Milavec notes that in modern economies mass production of crops or goods can normally put small producers out of business (Milavec 2003, 875). In developing econimies children have often been pressed into the work force. Milavec speaks of the injustice of such plans in detail, in the context of modern American policies (Milavec 2003, 877-878). He notes that many big businesses have no incentives to treat employees fairly. This is a parallel to the ancient world (Milavec 2003, 879). In their effort to remain in business, many business leaders will adopt practices which can result in what Milavec sees as oppression (Milavec 2003, 880). Rather than a forceful response against economic exploitation, the Didache simply assumes that God will care for the oppressors. Meanwhile, members of the community concentrate on doing what is good and right (Milavec 2003, 881). The causes of suffering are acknowledged but they are out of bounds only within the community.

Although the Didache communities have an element of forgiveness, Milavec notes they are not extravagant in this practice (Milavec 2003, 882). Milavec uses terminology of victimization, peaking of the community protecting those who have been victimized. He specifically denies the idea of a universal substitutionary atonement and salvation by grace through faith, not only in the Didache but also in any genuinely Christian community (Milavec 2003, 882). In Milavec’s view the idea of free forgiveness is simply preposterous. At the same time, the community does expect a world where the gentle will inherit the earth (3:7).

Milavec goes on to consider “Jesus’ atoning death and solidarity with victims” (Milavec 2003, 884). Some of the commentators with whom Milavec is fmiliar are uncomfortable seeing Christian suffering as a means by which we identify with Christ. These scholars would blame abuse in society on a desire to identify with Jesus (Milavec 2003, 885). Likewise, Milavec finds some voices of those who would commend the Holocaust as a way in which people could come to understand Christ’s suffering (Milavec 2003, 886). Milavec forcefully rejects suh ideas, observing that ultimately suffering is evil and contrary to God’s nature. Yet his affirmation of the mercy of the God who hates suffering denies and dnegates any historic Christian understanding of the death of Christ. He rejects the idea that Jesus’ death could accomplish anything but grieving God the Father (Milavec 2003, 887). He sees the rending of the veil of the temple (Matt. 27)51) as God’s tearing of his clothes in grief (Milavec 2003, 888).

Milavec considers whether the Didache “envisioned two key sacramental ries, baptism and eucharist, ‘just as we do today’” (Milavec 2003, 888). Yet the understanding and practice may not have been the same as ours today. Baptism, Milavec sees, is “a rite of passage” (Milavec 2003, 889). He does not find the baptism as a mystical or effectual act, but as a sign of one’s standing. The eucharist he sees as another sign of unity with the particular community (Milavec 2003, 890).

Milavec observes that the Didache doesn’t promise personal or social advantage. Rather, members of the community will face opposition (Milavec 2003, 891). Milavec sees this as a sort of powerlessness which must be embraced, because there is no hope given for change. Furthermore, he sees in the Didache indications that the church, in the end of days, would cease to exist and that people would be gathered into God’s kingdom (Milavec 2003, 892). The members of the community learn to endure wrong without taking vengeance. Milavec adds that the Didache community would expect God to refrain from taking vengeance himself, because he would act in a way consistent with what he reveals to his poeple (Milavec 2003, 893). Milavec simply finds no place in the Didache for punishment (Milavec 2003, 894).

Oddly enough, after his assertions against vengeance and punishment, Milavec continues, “The Didache championed an end-times scenario in which evildoers living in the final generation would be utterly destroyed (16:5), while dead evildoers imply remained dad and were exempt from eternal punishments (Milavec 2003, 894). The nature of punishment and vengeance in Milavec’s mind is left unclear. He goes on to provide some examples of other ancient descriptions of a fainal judgment. They tend to be more graphic in the descriptions of torments.

The vulnerability of the member of the Didache community would extend to his relationship with God. Milavec describes this vulnerability in terms of accepting divine commands and the plan of God to bring history to its conclusion in the end (Milavec 2003, 96). Milavec is clear that he finds no means by which the vulnerability or acts of obedience or faith would remove sins (Milavec 2003, 897). The Lord would save those he wished to save by grace.

Milavec finds that the early Christians lived in a world full of sorrow and disappointment. In response to it, they created a radically egalitarian community based on trust in God (Milavec 2003, 898). He sees the eucharistic celebration as not containing any sort of “bodily or sacramental presence of Jesus” (Milavec 2003, 898). Milavec expects that modern readers who endure economic and political oppression are likely to appreciate the eschatological views, while the oppressing class cannot. For more modern examples of a Didache community he therefore looks to liberation theology in Latin America (Milavec 2003, 899). Those who have found poverty increased by the commercial activities of others will readily relate to the eschatological hopes of the Didache or of Revelation (Milavec 2003, 900).

Milavec compares Western culture to a totalitarian machine of oppression which will trample everything in its way (Milavec 2003, 902). He sees this as the move of societal victors in every generation. The process of oppressing the planet, in Milavec’s lengthy diatribe, began to collapse in the 1960s when the negative effects of chemical pesticides came to light (Milavec 2003, 904). However, Milavec concludes it is too late to rescue the planet and its societies from the oppressive greed and victimization of the totalitarian industrial society (Milavec 2003, 905). The scarcity and social decline which this economic crisis will spur will push some people to rediscover a functioning community like the Didache describes (Milavec 2003, 908). This, in Milavec’s view, will bring the coming of the Lord who has rejected Western civilization and all its trappings (Milavec 2003, 909).

​
0 Comments

Salvation in Didache

8/16/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
8/16/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 15, “Whether the ‘Burning Process of Testing’ (Did. 16:5) Offers Evidence for the Dual Functioning of Eschatological Fire” pp. 809-838.

In this chapter Milavec seeks “to reexamine the long standing practice of finding in Did. 16:5 an implicit reference to the saving activity of the crucified Christ” (Milavec 2003, 811). Milavec’s contention is that in the Didache communities the saving activity resided in the Father and that Pauline theology is entirely foreign to the writers of the Didache.

The canonical Scriptures frequently picture final judgment as a fire which destroys evil (Milavec 2003, 811). Milavec finds no evidence of the fire purging remaining sins from Christians. This, he notes, was one of the points of contention at the time of the Reformation (Milavec 2003, 812). While Rome tends to consider purgatory as an understanding which grew logically from Christian roots, they will admit that it was not fully developed until the twelfth century (Milavec 2003, 812). The idea of a purufication can be found, at least to some extent, as early as Clement of Alexandria and Origen (Milavec 2003, 813). Because the concept of eschatological fire has some early application as a purging of sin, Milavec asks if that root goes back as far as Didache 16.

In Didache 16 the end times will require faithfulness in gathering as people who hope in the Lord. Those who could make people fall away fom the Way of Life are to be feared an defended against. The hope is the coming judgment, resurrection, and the personal coming of the Lord (Milavec 2003, 813).

To begin his evaluation of the situation, Milavec first looks at the linguistics of Didache 16:5 (Milavec 2003, 814). Here, those who remain are saved “by the curse itself” (16:5). The term in question, katathema, appears to be a variant of anathema, more often used for a ban or curse (Milavec 2003, 814). “Historically, the overwhelming judgment of scholars has been that ‘the curse’ is a veiled reference to Christ” (Milavec 2003, 815). Milavec considers a variety of stated nouns in the text to which “the curse” could refer. He also finds that 16:4 gives negative and positive results of the burning process (Milavec 2003, 816). Milavec concludes that the final fire may effectively burn away the impurities of the faithful (Milavec 2003, 817).

Milavec does grant that once we are accustomed to understand a text in one way it is hard to identify alternatives (Milavec 2003, 817). Didache 16:5, assumed as a reference to Christ, was quickly taken as the authoritative interpretation. Milavec notes several authors in the early part of the modern scholarship of the Didache who described the “accursed one” as Jesus. Milavec finds that there are three primary weaknesss in the view. First, it is problematic to assert an idea which depends on a text that it may not have been aware of (Milavec 2003, 819). If the interpretation depends on Paul and the Didache does not, the interpretation is unreliable. Second, if Christianity was as diverse as Milavec maintains, it may be unlikely to depend on multiple authors drawing on the same tradition of interpretation. Third, a text should be interpreted based primarily on its own text (Milavec 2003, 820). Because Milavec doesn’t find a view of salvation based on Christ becoming accursed in the Didache, he does not think it likely that it would be the case here (Milavec 2003, 821).

The metaphoric use of fire in Didache 16 also deserves reconstruction. In the Old and New Testaments fire frequently functions as God’s means of judgment (Milavec 2003, 821). Fire is also used to show God’s protection. He brings his people through fire safely. Milavec finds this concept helpful in understanding both the righteous and sinners passing through the fire (Milavec 2003, 822).

Milavec notes that the New Testament passages of 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, 1 Peter 1:5-7, and 1 Peter 4:12-13 may suggest a use of fire to purify the Christians (Milavec 2003, 822). Other early Christian writings do tend to capture a function of purifying the Christians. Milavec describes Shepherd of Hermas at several locations (Milavec 2003, 823-824). Another work, the Sibyllines, from the second entury, has righteous and impious together passing through the same fire, which destroys the impious and purifies the righteous (Milavec 2003, 825). Fire seems to become an agent of purification, that which leads to salvation (Milavec 2003, 826).

Milavec further mentions Lucius Lactantius, a fourth century convert to Christianity who wrote a treatise explaining Christianity. The text has parallels to the Didache. Milavec finds the same fire destroying the sinners and purifying the elect (Milavec 2003, 826).

Another difficulty to address in the Didache is whether it originally had an ending which we no longer have (Milavec 2003, 828). There is a purification which prepares for a resurrection. This is common in apocalyptic literature. Milavec, considering Jonathan Draper (1997), evaluates the possible interplay with Zechariah 14:5 (Milavec 2003, 829). It is relatively rare to see this passage used to indicate a resurrection of the righteous but not a general resurrection (Milavec 2003, 830). According to Milavec, Draper finds the prophets to be martyrs and thus the holy ones who are resurrected. However, Milavec questions a requirement of martyrdo to be among the righteous. He also notes that Zechariah 14:5, when used by the rabbis, does not define the “holy ones” as prophets. This is the case throughout Draper’s study (Milavec 2003, 831). At the same time, the burning judgment of 16:5 is applied to the followers of the Way of Death as a penalty and to followers of the Way of Life as purification. Therefore, an appearance of the Lord in 16:8 would not be to bring judgment.

To add to the difficulty, we must recognize the common scholarly opinion that some sort of additional ending may have existed on the Didache. The manuscript, from 1056, has seven blank lines after 16:8. There is no other text which the copyiest is known to have copied with such a space (Milavec 2003, 833). Then again, Milavec observes, the next item in the manuscript starts at the top of a page. The evidence of a doubtful Gregorian version and of Apostolic Constitutions book seven possibly show longer endings, but these are not necessarily identical works. Milavec notes that Apostolic Constitutions does not have the earlier judgment so delays all until God’s coming. Further, eternal punishment rather than destruction awaits the unrighteous (Milavec 2003, 834).

Milavec also considers and rejects the idea that Matthew 24 is intended as a parallel for Didache 16, providing the longer ending (Milavec 2003, 834). The context and signs are divergent in enough ways Milavec considers them thoroughly independent of each other (Milavec 2003, 835). He finally concludes that we do not know what, if any, additional portions may have existed at some point (Milavec 2003, 836).

In conclusion, Milavec finds Didache 6 to be consistent with the expectation of prayer found in the Didache. The prayers found in chapter ten express the same exchatological hope found in chapter 16 (Milavec 2003, 837). The community looks forward to a coming rule of God.

​
0 Comments

Didache and Temple Observance

8/9/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
8/9/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 14 “Whether the ‘Hypocrites’ Were Promoters of Temple Sacrifice” pp. 783-808.

Milavec, citing several statements in the Didache where members of the community were told not to be like the “hypocrites,” asks why fasts and prayers of these people were so objectionable. Milavec’s specific problem in identifying the hypocrites is that the Didache does not seem particularly hostile to the most likely suspects, such as Jews in general or Pharisees in particular (Milavec 2003, 785). However, Milavec does find a purposeful move away from the temple cult and toward the eucharist. Although the idea of sacrifices in temples was common to Jews and Gentiles, Milavec finds five passages in the Didache which seem to pull away from the temple. He discusses 4:6, 8:2, 14:1-3, 13:3, and 16:3-8 in brief (Milavec 2003, 786). He also finds that there may have been a move during the two centuries before Christ toward spiritualization of the temple. This would set the stage of at least ambivalence and possibly some level of hostility toward the temple (Milavec 2003, 787). Milavec adduces practices of the Pharisees, including recited prayers, home observance of holidays, and extensive discussion of the Torah, which together reshaped Jewish life. All these practices tended to move the religious life away from the temple and into the home and community (Milavec 2003, 788).

In addition to the theological reasons, Milavec finds some social and political motivations for people in the first century to distance themselves from the temple cult (Milavec 2003, 790). An increasing sense of heavy-handed political control of Jerusalem and the temple could effectively increase the sense of oppression felt by Jews. Political tensions tended to run high. Violence broke out increasingly as the first century progressed (Milavec 2003, 791).

In contrast, Milavec finds Jesus as resistant to the customs of the temple cult (Milavec 2003, 791). Specifically, Milavec, following E.P. Sanders, sees the allegations that Jesus would destroy the temple to be compelling. Jesus also does not appear to participate in sacrifices. His appearance regularly disrupts the operation of the temple (Milavec 2003, 792). Some scholars see Jesus as setting up an alternative to the temple, especially with his teaching about pursuing justice rather than making sacrifice. Miilavec also notes “Jesus’ intention to create a provisional substitute to the temple cult at his last supper” (Milavec 2003, 793). This i to last until the Lord comes again to rebuild His temple and establish a kingdom.

Milavec traces the possible controversy about the temple to the book of Acts. Following the work of James D.G. Dunn (1991), he finds a disagreement between “Peter Christians” (Milavec 2003, 794), who seemed accepting of worship in and around the temple, and those more like Stephen, who spoke against the temple in Acts 6:11 and 14. Milavec does, however, note “that Luke-Acts fails to distinguish between the Peter Christians, who routinely prayed and preached in the temple, and those, like Stephen, with anti-temple perspectives, who were singled out for persecution” (Milavec 2003, 794). Milavec concludes that those who were more open to the traditions around the temple would be in the minority and would be called “hypocrites” in the Didache (Milavec 2003, 795).

Milavec does find some expectation of a restored temple or temple area in Jewish thought. However, he finds little expectation of a specially restored or consecrated temple (Milavec 2003, 796). On the contrary, there is an expectation of a return and ingathering of Jews. The Didache does not speak of ideas such as the Sabbath or circumcision. Milavec considers it significatn that the idea of the temple does appear (Milavec 2003, 797). Sinc ethe temple had great importance after the mid second century B.C., and since the temple and its area were renovated in the late first century B.C., one would have expected Judaism to be very enthusiastic about the temple (Milavec 2003, 798). Philo particularly tells details of conflicts over the possible desecration of the temple (Milavec 2003, 800).

The opposition in the Didache, regardless of other identification, is referred to as “the hypocrites” (Milavec 2003, 800). Milavec asks how this word is understood. He does not think the identification found in Matthew’s Gospel can hold true. The Didache gives different days for fasting and different prayers. Milavec finds it highly significant that the Lord’s Prayer makes no mention of the temple (Milavec 2003, 800). Milavec does admit that we hae no record of daily prayers from the first century, so the actual content is a matter of speculation. Possibly they included mention of the temple, possibly not. However, Milavec  thinks Didache 2:6 and 5:1 may be of value. They both shed light on the kind of behaviors and attitudes which might be found in the hypocrites (Milavec 2003, 801). Milavec immediately ties the character qualities which he mentions to an arrogant trust in the security of the temple. From this standpoint, Milavec asserts that the hypocrisy would consist in a high opinion of the temple and the priesthood, since these are not in the focus of the Didache and its prayers (Milavec 2003, 802).

In conclusion, Milavec finds that the Didache does not emphasize the religious aspects of Judaism which hee would expect. It does not have a focus on the priesthood, temple, sacrifices, or festivals (Milavec 2003, 802). Rather, it sets up an alternative mode of prayer. Milavec finds this to be a very significant move.

Milavec does contrast the Didache’s view of the temple with the view found in Hebrews (Milavec 2003, 803). Milavec denies any sort of Pauline influence on the theology of Hebrews (Milavec 2003, 804). He also notes the unique language of “priest” being applied to Jesus. Milavec finds in Hebrews a Jesus who, by his choices, becomes the acceptable sacrifice. He does not consider this a natural given, but a result of Jesus’ choices (Milavec 2003, 804). Milavec further rejects any claim that Hebrews considers the Last Supper as a sacrifice or as part of the work of a priesthood of Jesus (Milavec 2003, 805). He finds that an idea of a consummation of history involving the temple is absent from Hebrews (Milavec 2003, 806). If Hebrews dates from after the destruction of the temple in 68-70, it makes perfect sense. However, Milavec sees the issue as more important to the writers of the Didache, since the temple was still functioning. It would have been necessary to avoid faith in the temple so as to keep faith in Jesus.

Nevertheless, the temple was instrumental as the unifying force of Judaism during the mid first century. Milavec sees this as the reason that Jesus’ disruption of the temple operation would hve resulted in his condemnation (Milavec 2003, 807). In short, the crucifixion of Christ was the attempt on the part of the priests to protect the status quo, not simply in terms of religion, but in economic and political terms as well (Milavec 2003, 808).

​
0 Comments

Is the Didache a Judaizing Document?

8/2/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
8/2/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 13, “Whether Final Perfection Requires Observance of the Torah” pp. 769-782.

Jonathan Draper, in 1991, held a position that the Didache pushes proselytes to become fully Jewish and obedient to Torah in order to attain salvation (Milavec 2003, 771). Milavec examines this position in some detail.

Draper recognizes a significant connection between the Didache and Matthew’s Gospel, finding similarities even in theology and structure (Milavec 2003, 771). Milavec maintains that no dependence in either direction can be demonstrated, while Draper considers Matthew and the Didache to come from the same community, with the Didache coming after the composition of Matthew (Milavec 2003, 772).

The key to Draper’s understanding is an interrelationship among Didache 16, 6:2, and 11:1 (Milavec 2003, 772). Particularly, 6:2, which calls for careful attention to the Way of Life and prohibits food sacrificed to idols is seen by Draper as the minimal requirement “for baptism and table fellowship” (Milavec 2003, 773). Beyond this, for full perfection, Draper considers “the Torah as maintained and interpreted in the Chistian community” to be necessary (Milavec 2003, 773). This is a quote from Draper 1991:365. Draper sees a parallel between the way God-fearing gentiles could be received into synagogues and the way converts would be received into the Didache community. Draper’s conception is that the community was “within the ambit of faithful Torah-observant Jewish Christianity” (1991:367) (Milavec 2003, 773). Milavec then finds Draper to expect a fuller form of perfection in Didache 16 (Milavec 2003, 774). Draper further identifies the apostle who would tear down the body in 11:1-6 as Paul, because he affirmed gentiles were saved apart from Torah (1991:370) (Milavec 2003, 774).

The heart of Draper’s argument is whether the “yoke” of Didache 6:2 is the Torah. This argument depends on a recognition in Matthew of Draper’s understanding of the yoke of the Lord (Milavec 2003, 774). Milavec doubts the agreement because of his assumption that Didache refers to God (the Father) but that Matthew 11:29-30 has Jesus referring to himself (Milavec 2003, 775). Further, Jesus refers to his yoke as “light” compared to the Didache’s apparent view of the yoke as being a challenge.

Milavec considers the rhetorical and logical implications of Didache 6:2 in some detail so as to evaluate Draper’s thesis. First, 6:2 is the close of the section on the Two Ways. Milavec finds this as an indication that the “whole yoke of the Lord” is in fact the Way of Life, not the Torah (Milavec 2003, 776). Second, the Way of Life is presented as a whole Law, even though it differs in some details from the Torah. Third, one would expect if 6:2 were adding rules, this would be disclosed at earlier points, saying that a more perfect way would be explained later. This, however, is absent (Milavec 2003, 777). Fourth, Didache 4:13-14 and 6:1-2 make it clear that the stated rules are adequate. We should not, then, expect a greater burden (Milavec 2003, 778). Fifth, Didache 11:1-2 speaks to the value of holding to the earlier teaching in the Didache. While someone who kept the Torah zealously might be admired, it would not be acceptable to make requirements beyond those stated in Didache (Milavec 2003, 779). Sixth, Draper both calls for the mark of perfection in Didache 16:2 to be Torah and to be the basic teaching of the Way of Life. This is an internal contradiction (Milavec 2003, 780). Finally, Draper, referring to Didache 16:5, asserts the curse we are saved from is the Torah, but also that it perfects us (Milavec 2003, 781).

0 Comments

Loving Your Enemies as a Community

7/26/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
7/26/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 12, “Whether the Didache Reveals the Social Setting for ‘Turning the Other Cheek’ and ‘Loving One’s Enemies’,” pp. 741-768.

Milavec notes that the very definition of loving one’s enemies may be different depending on who is asked and when. Therefore, he sets out to study the meaning of the concept in various communities (Milavec 2003, 743). To do this, Milavec analyzes the work of Gerd Theissen, who has written extensively.

Thiessen sees Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies as a very forceful statement, which would have spoken radically to the wandering prophets of the Didache (Milavec 2003, 743).

Milavec considers whether the idea of family values is undercut in the early Christian period. Following Crosson, he finds the Gospel of Thomas demanding a hatred of family members (Milavec 2003, 756).He considers this to continue in Mark 3:31-35. “Jesus shames and disowns his family by looking at those sitting around him and saying, ‘Here are my mother and brothers!’” (Milavec 2003, 757). Milavec sees this and the other statements which crequire a decision between family and God to be hostile and disrespectful toward family. He continues by asserting that a conversion to Judaism or to Christianity requires a much more significant change of life than a conversion within the bounds of paganism (Milavec 2003, 758).

The Didache, with its apparent emphasis on conversion of gentiles, should be expected to demand a substantial life change. Milavec asserts a similarity betwen the conversion in the Didache and into the Cynic philosophy of Epictetus (Milavec 2003, 758). The radical reorientation could be expected to lead toward shame, shunning, and assault. This Milavec compares to the hostility endorsed by modern people who join a cult (Milavec 2003, 759).

In Didache 1:4 the convert is taught to expect physical abuse and humiliation in the form of a blow on the right cheek (Milavec 2003, 761). This would indicate either being struck with the back of the hand or with the left hand, which would be humiliating. The person struck would not be in a position to retaliate. The younger or less powerful submits to the penalty, holds to his religious conversion, and shows himself loyal to the family (Milavec 2003, 763). We notice this is different from the arrogant abandonment of family described recently. The Didache also, along with Luke’s Gospel, pictures a follower of Jesus having some of his clothing confiscated. Again, this would be seen as a forceful insult (Milavec 2003, 765). Milavec sees this as the kind of penalty a parent might impose. Having one’s clothes impounded would discourage going to be with Christians (Milavec 2003, 765). The convert was not even allowed to demand the return of his clothes (Milavec 2003, 767).

In conclusion, Milavec sees a culture in which parents whose children departed from their former faith to a place of hostility (Milavec 2003, 767). The parent would eventually try to cast out their children.

​
0 Comments

Sources in Orality?

7/19/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
7/19/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 11 “Whether the Didache Made Use of Any Known Gospel” pp. 693-739, part 2.

Since verbal similarity is not a reliable measure of dependence, Milavec asks whether the similarity of ideas could indicate the Didache’s dependence on a written gospel (Milavec 2003, 704). The reference of Didache 9:5 to avoid giving “what is holy to dogs” finds a strong verbal parallel in Matthew 7:6 (Milavec 2003, 704). However, the context and implications of the statements are significantly different (Milavec 2003, 705). Likewise, Didache 8:1-2 warns against fasting like hypocrites. Matthew 6:5 has a similar warning against praying like hypocrites (Milavec 2003, 706). The idea is similar but the setting is considerably different. Didache 14:1 and 15:3 speak of confessing sins and shunning those who have gone astray. This is very different from the process described in Matthew 18:15-18. So again, the ideas are similar but the accounts are clearly different.  Didache 3:1-6 gives a series of commands, then shows how to keep the commands (Milavec 2003, 707). Matthew, however, states a number of divine commands then strengthens them. Again, the texts show no awareness of one another. Again, in Didache 6:2, the yoke of God is used very differently than in Matthew 11:29. Didache 6:3 speaks of meat offered to idols but shows no awareness of Matthew 15:10 where God’s people eat what they need to eat. Finally, Matthew 12:32 sees the speaking against the Holy Spirit as unforgiveable. However, in Didache the unforgiveable sin is to judge a prophet who is speaking rightly (Milavec 2003, 707). Another important concept is that of the “double love” commandment, in which we are to love God and our neighbor (Milavec 2003, 708). Matthew 22:37 states it clearly. Milavec finds only a partial parallel in Didache 1:2, where we are told to love God (Milavec 2003, 709). The ideas are vaguely similar but certainly not identical.

Milavec continues making comparison of the Didache and Matthew’s Gospel by considering the idea of turning the other cheek (Milavec 2003, 710). The discussion assumes that there were contemporary collections of Jesus’ sayings and that these may have supplied the material. It is unclear, in Milavec’s opinion, whether the portions of the Two Ways which strongly evoke the Sermon on the Mount are later insertions (Milavec 2003, 711). However, the basic consideration of dependence on a Gospel is not influenced by the date of inclusion of ideas (Milavec 2003, 712). To evaluate the similarities, Milavec places Didache 1:4-5a and Matthew 5:38-42 parallel to each other (Milavec 2003, 712). The sayings are similar but they are used to demonstrate different ideas (Milavec 2003, 713). The comparison continues with Luke 6:27-32 (Milavec 2003, 714). The texts are similar in their ideas but do not have the marks of direct dependence (Milavec 2003, 715).

One of the difficulties which Milavec finds when evaluating arguments of dependence is a bias toward purely textual sources (Milavec 2003, 716). In a culture which values oral sources as highly as or even more highly than written sources, one could expect that oral sources would be used freely, even with some verbal fluidity. This would be a perfectly reasonable way of making quotations. An adequate view of orality can also explain the fluidity of apparent source material used for the canonical Gospels. It would allow the evangelists to “quote” sayings of Jesus but with verbal freedom (Milavec 2003, 717). Milavec observes that an oral tradition could well explain the appearance of a Way of Life narrative generally following the same organization in many different documents (Milavec 2003, 718). Milavec further note that the Didache shows signs of being an oral composition, intended for oral transmission. It repeatedly refers to speaking and hearing, not writing and reading (Milavec 2003, 719). However, unlike the work of Jesus in the Gospels, where the disciples gradually take on their master’s values, the Didache has a clear progression of sayings which would be mastered (Milavec 2003, 720). The syaings do not need to be statements of Jesus. It is sufficient that they speak of godly conduct. The term “gospel” also appears nt to refer to a text, but to the message of Jesus. Milavec pursues this concept more, by analyzing the four times the word euaggelion is used (Milavec 2003, 721). Much of his argument is predicated on the idea that “gospel” is not used for a written source prior to about 150.

Milavec concludes that the authors of the Didache either had no written gospel account or considered the written sources unneeded. Otherwise, we would expect to see much more in paralllel with a canonical gospel (Milavec 2003, 724).

The possible exception to the rule of the Didache being largely independent of the canonical gospels is Didache 16 which seems to have many parallels in Matthew 24 (Milavec 2003, 725). However, when Milavec puts the two texts in parallel columns, it becomes apparent that there is relatively little actual dependence (Milavec 2003, 726-728). The conclusion Milavec reache is that the texts treat similar topics but in their own ays and for their own reasons (Milavec 2003, 729). In a similar way, Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 appear similar in content but not directly related to one another (Milavec 2003, 730).

Milavec describes the work of Vicky Balabanski at some length. Balabanski maintains that Didache 16 “was written ‘to clarify and specify’” elements of Matthew (Milavec 2003, 731). Her view is that though Matthew’s Gospel is relatively comprehensive, Didache 16 intended to summarize the eschatology (Milavec 2003, 732). However, Milavec observes, she tends to presume a unity of purpose which cannot be found explicitly in either text. Milavec gives numerous examples of Balabanski’s assertions. In the given examples, Balabanski demonstrates points of difference between Matthew and Didache 16. This does not, therefore, appear to be a work for the purpose of clarification.

Another scholar, John S. Kloppenborg, finds that Didache 16 focuses on material for which the content is present in Matthew but not in Mark. This suggests to him that Matthew and the Didache had access to some traditions unknown to Mark (Milavec 2003, 735). He suggests the contents of the source, but possibly assumes all the source’s contents were used.

In conclusion, Milavec finds textual similarity between the Didache and Matthew’s Gospel. However, the similarities do not demonstrate dependence (Milavec 2003, 738). Similarly, though some cntent elemtns are similar, they are not consistently used in the same ways and cannot demonstrate dependence in either direction. Milavec sees them as representatives of two divergent and independent religious systems (Milavec 2003, 739).

​
0 Comments

Finding Unnamed Sources . . .

7/12/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
7/12/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 11 “Whether the Didache Made Use of Any Known Gospel” pp. 693-739, part 1.

It is natural to ask for a source of the ideas of a work such as the Didache. Milavec notes that this is, indeed, the case. Scholars have frequently tried to find influences in the written Gospels, in oral or written traditions that led to the canonical Gospels, or elsewhere (Milavec 2003, 695). The source most frequently identified is Matthew’s Gospel. Milavec analyzes the data and will conclude the text is largely independent.

Early Didache scholarship, from 1883 until the mid twentieth century, considered the possibility of a dependence on the Epistle of Barnabas (Milavec 2003, 695). This generally pushed estimates of the date of composition to the mid second century and frequently located it in Egypt (Milavec 2003, 696). A key to the similarities between the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas is the narrative of the Two Ways from 1:3-6. However, in 1900 the discovery of the Teaching of the Apostes and its Two Ways suggested hat the Didache was not directly dependent on the Epistle of Barnabas (Milavec 2003, 696). The similarities in content have remained a matter of discussion. In the second half of the twentieth century many scholars have suggested that several works known to us now are mutually dependent on one or more catechetical manuals known widely in the first and second centuries but no longer extant (Milavec 2003, 697).

One of the problems in scholarship which seeks out literary sources for the Didache is that the existence of texts at different times may force the scholar to make different presuppositions. A text cannot be dependent on another which has not yet been written. Likewise, texts which exist may or may not exert an influence (Milavec 2003, 698). Milavec goes on to say, “The issue of Gospel dependence also has a strong bearing on how one interprets the text. If one supposes, for example, that the Didache made use of Matthew’s Gospel, then one could or should make use of Matthew’s theology and church practice in order to clarify the intent and background of the Didache. On the other hand, if one supposes that the Didache is independent of Matthew, then it would be an unwarranted projection to expect that the Gospel of Matthew could be used to understand a text created outside of its influence” (Milavec 2003, 698). On the contrary, Spotts wonders if there is a legitimate sense in which the conceptual framework which leads to the theology of Matthew also led the framers of the Didache to the very same conclusions, without the need for any show of literary dependence. This is a question of tremendous importance to our understanding of the development of Christian faith and practice in the apostolic and immediate subapostolic age.

Much scholarly inquiry into literary dependence has focused on analysis of words, phrases, or sentences in search of places where an identical idea is expressed in identical form (Milavec 2003, 699). However, agreement may come about for various rasons including common idioms (Milavec 2003, 700). Also, common ideas may be stated in multiple texts with no dependence, but simply because they are common ideas. It is not a given that literary dependence is proven by verbal agreement. This has been the conclusion of some scholars in more recent years. Milavec particularly discusses the work of Clayton N. Jefford in this regard (Milavec 2003, 702). The fact is that there are many ways in which texts can be found to be similar or to differ. Proof of dependence is normally tenuous at best.

Milavec considers the usefulness of analyzing the content of ideas in a search for dependence. If the concepts are found to be dependent on another work, possibly there is evidence of influence (Milavec 2003, 704).

​
0 Comments

Resurrection and Second Coming

7/5/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
7/5/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 10 “Purifying Fire, Selective Resurrection, and God’s Coming” pp. 619-690, part 4.

The final sign of Didache 16 is a resurrection of the dead (Milavec 2003, 659). Milavec understands the resurrection to be, in effect, a re-creation of a body and soul which have died together (Milavec 2003, 660). Based on the statement in Didache 16:7 and a parallel in Zechariah 14:5 that the Lord will come, Milavec asks whether this refers to “God” or to “Jesus.” Milavec thinks, based on a similarity to Matthew 24:30, the Didache is referring to a Messianic hope here, therefore “the Lord Jesus” (Milavec 2003, 661). As has been observed before, my opinion is that Milavec maintains an artificial distinction of the first and second persons of the Godhead. This clutters his argument. A related question, that of an early Christian expectation of a second cominog of Jesus, does bear consideration. Milavec suggests that early Christians simply took over a Jewish expectation of the Day of the Lord, and read Jesus into it as the Lord who would actually come (Milavec 2003, 662). Based on Milavec’s dating suspicions, he concludes that the Didache was closer to having an Old Testament expectation about the coming of the Lord (God) rather than a New Testament Messianic view (Milavec 2003, 663). Milavec goes on to maintain that context should be consulted in each instance of a reference to a “Lord” to see whether it refers to God or to Jesus. He makes the same distinction with the word euangelion for “good news” or “gospel” (Milavec 2003, 663). His conclusion is that “it would appear that all of the instances of “Lord” in the Didache ought to be understood as referring to the “Lord God” (Milavec 2003, 665). At the end of his argument, Milavec observes that Didache 7:1 has a trinitarian formula. However, he considers that the Didache does make a sharp distinction between Jesus and God. Milavec does no state an argument, but refers the reader to works by Raymond Brown and James D.G. Dunn which purport to demonstrate that the New Testament does not consider Jesus to be God (Milavec 2003, 666).

The image presented of the Lord’s return in the Didache as well as in Christian Scriptures is that of a Lord coming from heaven visibly on clouds (Milavec 2003, 667). Milavec notes that other texts from the early Christian period tend to take the scenes of judgment and destruction and enhance them with very particular comings and goings of God (Milavec 2003, 668).

Milavec questions whether there was a lost ending of the Didache. Apparently “there is some suspicion that Leon, the eleventh-century copyist may have left seven blank lines because the end of the text before him was broken off or lost” (Milavec 2003, 670). However, Milavec does not think any omission would include a judgment scene. God’s final purpose seems to be to raise the elect from the dead and to establish a beneficent reign (Milavec 2003, 671).

In his conclusion, Milavec considers Didache 16 to be not the work of the prophets, but that of some who were at least slightly suspicious that prophets were trying to manipulate a vision of the end so as to fit their preferences (Milavec 2003, 671). However, the prophets are not condemned. They are useful to the community as those who could inspire commitment and a sense of future hope (Milavec 2003, 672).

Milavec asks an interesting question about eschatology. Often we consider eschatological expectations solely in terms of Jewish traditions. How might these compare with Gentile views? He finds that Gentile sources show hopes which are similar to those in Jewish writings (Milavec 2003, 674). This could be important in terms of the Didache communities because Gentile converts to Christianity were confronted with some sort of eschatological hope (Milavec 2003, 675). The cultures of expectation and of a time of peace to come after strife were sufficiently similar that a Christian eschatology could be adopted by a Gentile.

Within Judaism there were a variety of eschatological models. Milavec notes one, found in Tobit from the third century B.C., with a focus on a restoration of the temple and a conversion of many gentiles (Milavec 2003, 676). A later eschatology, found in the Babylonian Talmud from about 600 C.E., has a smilar view of an ingathering and restoration of Jerusalem (Milavec 2003, 677).

Milavec notes that in 2 Esdras, dating from the late 1st century, the Messiah is expected, and has an increasingly important role (Milavec 2003, 679). Counter to the development of a messianic hope in Jewish eschatology, Milavec finds “the Didache clearly runs against the grain by having no Messiah and no messianic age” (Milavec 2003, 680). This assertion is predicated on Milavec’s understanding that “The Lord” in Didache does not refer to Jesus. Milavec theorizes that the neglect of a Messianic hope in the Didache is related to the rejection of the temple culture which he finds in the text (Milavec 2003, 681).

Milavec draws a parallel between the Didache communities and the modern Nation of Islam movement (Milavec 2003, 683). Both groups took on an identity which was based on ideological uniformity. Milavec finds both to have sprung from those left behind by society. He also considers both to have created a social movement of non-violence in a hostile culture. Milavec traces the theological teachings of the Nation of Islam in brief (Milavec 2003, 684). The eschatology looks for rescue of a racially pure group and the destruction of all that was not part of the racial and religious minority associated with Nation of Islam (Milavec 2003, 686). Milavec thinks the Didache communities were also isolated and dedicated groups who would similarly have rejected the rest of the world so as to pursue their pure idological vision.

Milavec concludes this portion of the book with a reflection on the way different theological presuppositions can lead to radically different interpretations of eschatological statements (Milavec 2003, 688).

​
0 Comments

Signs of the End

6/28/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
6/28/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 10 “Purifying Fire, Selective Resurrection, and God’s Coming” pp. 619-690, part 3.

As the time of the end progresses, Milavec finds, a second stage emerges. Here a “world-deceiver” will come on the scene (Milavec 2003, 646). This deceiver can be found in Jewish and Christian literature alike. In the Synoptics the plural “false Chrsits and false prophets” is used (Milavec 2003, 647). Milavec notes that Jewish history has several examples of people who set themselves up as if they are gods.

In much apocalyptic literature the world-deceiver performs various signs. The Didache does not give details. However, Milavec describes some of the signs which are predicted in other texts (Milavec 2003, 648). The signs mentioned in these sources are, in general, quite distinct from signs described of Jesus (Milavec 2003, 649).

The third phase of apocalyptic judgment noted in the Didache is a burning process (Milavec 2003, 651). This could be the process by which a manufactured item is tested for durability or purity. In the hands of God the burning is seen as a focused instance of punishment. Milavec does not find this phase to be representative of Jesus or his work. He ather consider that thinking to stand outside the grasp of the Didache (Milavec 2003, 652).

In a fourth phase of the end, there are three signs of truth presented. These monumental happenings are common in apocalyptic literature (Milavec 2003, 652). The signs take the place of the deceptive signs of the deceiver. They cnsist of an unfurling in heaven, an audible trumpet, and a resurrection (Milavec 2003, 653). The first sign, that of a cross, is vague and has led to considerable inconclusive arguments (Milavec 2003, 654). Different authors disagree as to the symbolic importance of the cross sign in the Didache. Possibly one of the most coherent explanations is that the sign, like a flag standard, is used to gather scattered Christians together in the end times (Milavec 2003, 655).

We might well ask why it is important to the authors of the Didache that we recognize signs of the last days. Milavec sees the “end” as “the end of a degenerate epoch filled with affliction and injustic that must pass away” (Milavec 2003, 656). This is how God ushers in his new age of blessings. The signs of a change are therefore important as people anticipate God’s deliverance. Milavec provides several examples of apocalyptic literature where signs of the end are considered important.

Milavec notes that the eschatological signs in Didache 16 seem to have a foreshadowing in the eucharistic prayer of chapter ten (Milavec 2003, 659). The prayers for protection from evil and a final gathering are consistent with the dangers of the last days.

​
0 Comments

The Strife of the Last Days

6/21/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
6/21/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 10 “Purifying Fire, Selective Resurrection, and God’s Coming” pp. 619-690, part 2.

Milavec gives a review of the linguistics of Didache 16. The chapter opens with use of the imperative mood and a good deal of future tnse. This points to an urgency and future fulfillment of the prophecy (Milavec 2003, 632). There are five distinct phases of the end mentioned. Each is followed bythree statements of what will happen in the stage (Milavec 2003, 634). The audience is called to remain watchful. Because the commands are that the audience should not stop being watchful, Milavec concludes the people were already in a state of watchful obedience. The idea of tending to lamps in the first century implies an ongoing concern, with refueling and adjustments (Milavec 2003, 635). This would seem to be a metaphor for guarding one’s life. Milavec compares this to the metaphoric usage of lamps as a sign of care for the soul, found in The Apocalypse of Baruch, dated around 100 A.D. (Milavec 2003, 635). Here, lamps are compared to the faithful teaching o tthe Torah (Milavec 2003, 636).

The metaphor of keeping lamps tended and remaining dressed for service appears in Luke 12, which Milaec visits. Here we do not find a clear eschatological banquet but we do have a master delayed for some hours at a wedding feast (Milavec 2003, 637). Those found faithful do enter into rest and find themselves served by the master. Matthew 24 describes another situation. However, here some of the servants are disorderly, the master comes with harsh vengeance, and there is no mention of a lamp (Milavec 2003, 638). Matthew 25 also has a parable involving torches, indicating a need to be appropriately prepared. The failure to do so results in rejection (Milavec 2003, 638).

Milavec suggests that the “girding of loins” would refer only to men, but that the “lamp” metaphor would generally be assumed to belong to the realm of women. Therefore, the concept in Didache 16 is assumed to be gender inclusive (Milavec 2003, 640).

Milavec notes that Didache 16:1 speaks of an unknown time for the coming of the Lord. He then continues to identify the earlier Christian expectation of “the Lord God” as opposed to a later expectation of “the Lord Jesus” who would come at a more distant, future time (Milavec 2003, 640). In the meanitime, it is important for the Christian community to live out their Christianity together.

According to Didache 16:3 there will be a rise of false prophets, as well as “corrupters.” Milavec observes that the term used (φθορεις) often indicates those who are sexually immoral. However, here they seem to bring dissension and hatred (Milavec 2003, 641). The last days, or time of the end described in Didache 16 is less dramatic than the time as described elsewhere. It will be a time when faithfulness will decline and the community will be endangered by the corruptors from outside the community (Milavec 2003, 642). “What is unusual about the Didache is that it is entirely silent regarding both natural and cosmic disruptions” (Milavec 2003, 643). The disruption is all within the community.

Milavec does ask whether the mention of “persecutors” in Didache 16:4 would refer to Christians who departed from the faith (Milavec 2003, 643). First, he notes that the persecution described in the Didache does not seem to compare with that described in Matthew 24. In the Didache the persecution does not seem to come from outside (Milavec 2003, 644).

To consider other accounts of strife, Milavec turns to the Ascension of Isaiah dating from the late second entury (Milavec 2003, 644). The text takes on a decidedly Christian turn, speaking of the apostles and Jesus’ death and resurrection (Milavec 2003, 645). The text describes a period of peace followed by strife before the time of the end.

​
0 Comments

A Scene of Judgment

6/14/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
6/14/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 10 “Purifying Fire, Selective Resurrection, and God’s Coming” pp. 619-690, part 1.

Milavec recalls that in Didache 11:7 the speech of a prophet was to go without judgment (Milavec 2003, 622). Prophetic speech can be misinterpreted. Milavec uses as an example statements which emphasize the imminent return of God and could discourage the community from a work ethic. Without judging the prophets there could be unwanted outcomes. As he often does, Milavec speaks of the situation in terms of ways the community could exercise authority and control over the prophets. In his analysis, Milavec will use Didache 16 and the end-time scenario to probe into the relationship betwen the community and the prophets.

Understanding of prophetic writing should be informed by the genre of the writing. Milavec observes that in Jewish and Christian texts, a reference to the “last days” generally indicates the time of God’s new order beginning rather than the end of the world. According to Milavec, prophetic eschatology “understood the failure of Israel to resist her enemies as due to the fact that God had ceased to protect Israel as a result of her faithlessness” (Milavec 2003, 623). The hope is that God would begin to rescue Israel as he had in the past. By the third century B.C., however, a more apocalyptic eschatology was emerging. Now God would not only rescue his people, but he would bring utter destruction upon the world in doing so. Milavec notes tand illustrates scholarly work which views the events of the last days as more severe or less severe (Milavec 2003, 624).

Didache 16 provides us with a synopsis of the time of God’s coming. In this symopsis, Milavec finds multiple purposes. First, God’s coming is soon but not necessarily immediate (Milavec 2003, 624). Second, people should not expect to be engaged in heroic acts of spirituality. Rather, they would have an ordinary sort of holiness (Milavec 2003, 625). They were not superheroes, but regular Christians. Third, the community should be wary of false prophets who would lead them astray. There was no call to be swayed by deceivers.

Milavec notes that in 1 Thessalonians the apostle Paul told people to expect  the Lord’s coming. However, in 2 Thessalonians, some had decided the Lord’s coming was already under way. Their expectation was more urgent than reality would require (Milavec 2003, 625). It was wrong to say the Day of the Lord was already present. It was merely coming (Milavec 2003, 626). Milavec theorizes that in the earliest time after the resurrection the expectation was that the Lord would come at any moment. However, as some years passed, the idea of signs of his coming developed as the urgent expectation decreased (Milavec 2003, 628). The text of Didache 161-3 suggests this slightly later expectation of the Lord’s coming.

To evaluate the idea of an immediate expectation of the Lord’s return, Milavec turns his attention to William Miller. In the 1840s Miller calculated that the Lord would return on March 21, 1843 (Milavec 2003, 628). When it didn’t happen, he fixed a date later in the year. Tnthusiasm grew as did anxiety about facing God’s judgment (Milavec 2003, 629). Since that time there have been numerous movements focused on the imminent coming of the Lord. Some have resulted in suicide/murder pacts. In contrast to this radicalism, Milavec finds in Didache 16 a commitment to doing good for the rest of one’s life, but fully expecting the Lord could interrupt it all by ushering in the end of time (Milavec 2003, 632).

​
0 Comments

Bishops, Deacons, Prophets, and . . . empowerment?

6/7/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
6/7/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 9, “Community Organization in a Companionship of Empowerment” pp. 579-617.

Milavec opens this chapter by asserting that because there is no assigned role of authority in the Didache it was a radically egalitarian group. “At no time did the community exclude, in principle, potential presiders on the basis of gender, race, economic status, marital status, or social status” (Milavec 2003, 582). He sees this radical egalitarian community in terms of empowerment. However, his assumptions are shaken by 15:1, which speaks of appointing elders and deacons. This is problematic to Milavec’s conception because it asserts a heirarchy. However, he notes that these leaders are under the control of the people in general (Milavec 2003, 583). Apparently this would prevent the whole problem of powerful elders acting contrary to the desires of the community.

Milavec thinks the comparative lack of explanation of the selection of overseers would indicate that the community already had the habit (Milavec 2003, 583). He takes the word episkopos to be already a secular term and not to imply having power or presiding over anything. His view is that the appointed overseers needed support in the face of opposition from the more charismatic prophets (Milavec 2003, 584). There is no sign that the elders were appointed by an apostle or other authority figure.

Milavec observes that the word episkopos is rarely used in the New Testament, and that in the Septuagint it may refer to any person. The word is often used interchangeably with presbuteros. Though the words have some overlap in meaning they are often used as synonyms (Milavec 2003, 585).

Milavec briefly conflates references to bishops, deacons, and the pastoral office with other roles of service. He notes that Acts 6:1-6 shows election by the congregation and classifies those people selected as pastors, not as other servants (Milavec 2003, 585). He then immediately discusses the term diakonon, which normally refers to someone who manages primarily physical care issues in the church. Because Philip and Stephen apparently engage in preaching, and because the apostles are sometimes mentioned in a role of “a deacon” the term must refer to pastors.

Milavec finds a conflict between bishops and prophets in Didache 15:2 (Milavec 2003, 588). He considers the conflict to be rooted in three differences between the groups. He finds the bishops to be liturgists who followed predictable formulas. In contrast, the prophets “were the charismatic zealots for the kingdom” (Milavec 2003, 587). Milavec considers the prophets to be very like charismatic evangelists of our own age. In this view, the bishops may have urged rather mundane lives of holiness, while the charismatics “were given to extraordinary feats of holiness” (Milavec 2003, 587), thus urging more charismatic lives. Milavec also sees the bishops making plans for the long run but the prophets as living in the daily expectation of Christ’s coming.

Didache 15:1 calls for worthy elders to be chosen. Milavec finds that four requirements are made. They were to be gentle, not coveting money (Milavec 2003, 588), truthful, and tested as to their reliability (Milavec 2003, 589). Milavec notes that the biblical qualifications from 1 Timothy 3:1-18, Titus 1:5-11, and 1 Peter 5:1-4 were from a later period, when he considers there to be more distinction between elders and deacons (Milavec 2003, 589). He clearly indicates the epistles as coming from the second century, and the teaching role of a bishop as a later development, with the role as a chief preacher, teacher, and celebrant to be a third century development.

Building on the idea of the deacon as a servant, Milavec theorizes that the work of the deacons would have been to prepare and serve the fellowship meals while the bishops would act as the overseers and managers. This would contribute to the role of the bishop as one who offers prayers. However, Milavec also considers that the text could describe “bishops who are deacons” to indicate people in both offices at once (Milavec 2003, 590).

Milavec notes that in the early 20th century, starting from Adolph Harnack, some scholars have shown the Didache as drawing a distinction between the (positively viewed) charismatic leadership and the later more institutional (negatively viewed) leadership. This was used by Protestants to describe themselves as the true and spiritual Christians (Milavec 2003, 591). By the end of the 20th century we find agreement that Didache 10:7 and 13:3 show worship led by prophets and teachers, not people in an apostolic heirarchy (Milavec 2003, 592). Milavec finds the argument convincing if three assumptions are so. First, he considers that bishops were supported by the community. Second, he finds it likely that prophets would decline numerically. Third, bishops presided at the eucharist. If these three situations are true, it is possible to see a gradual movement toward the less charismatic leadership of the bishops. However, Milavec thinks the earlier scholarship is too forceful about drawing distinctions and applying them to a Protestant versus Catholic context (Milavec 2003, 593).

The issue of continuity or discontinuity in theology is a common matter of discussion. We often ask how closely related New Testament theology and practice are to the Old Testament. Milavec asks a related question. To what extent is the organization of the Didache community related to that of a synagogue (Milavec 2003, 594)? Following James Tunstead Burtchaell’s 1992 work, From Synagogue to Church, Milavec draws two conclusions he considers crucial. First, both organizations were led by elders, but in Christianity the term “bishop” was preferred. Second, the organization of the synagogue still existed, but was referred to as “church.” Milavec sees the functionality as continuing without significant interruption (Milavec 2003, 595).

As to support from the community, Milavec finds that the prophets needed this financial support. However, bishops or elders had no such need. They would have been engaged in their livelihood so would be in the position of supporting, not receiving support. The work of leadership would be considered one’s leitourgia - civic service, not a sort of ecclesiastical worshp activity until the third century (Milavec 2003, 596). Milavec is very clear that he considers this a purely administrative role. He emphasizes that in his view, it is unpaid work which is civil and not spiritual in nature (Milavec 2003, 596-597).

The civic nature of the work of bishops, says Milavec, may be further seen in that the leader of liturgy in a synagogue was not an elder, but someone under the guidance of the elders (Milavec 2003, 598. The title was not taken over into Christianity. However, the actual function appears possibly with James in Jerusalem and in the hands of bishops as early as about 110 as described by Ignatius (Milavec 2003, 599). Milavec does admit that the Didache does not spell out the specific duties of elders. It also shows a council of elders who seem to act as a group.

These elders or bishops did clearly have some duties. Milavec, again following Burtchaell, finds financial control as well as making warnings and critiques to those causing disunity (Milavec 2003, 599). He does, however, admit to this being an “educated guess” (Milavec 2003, 600).

The synagogue also had an office which we would call “deacon.” Burtchaell finds the deacon in charge of many of the hands-on, concrete needs of the community. In a large community he may have been the basic essential person in the municipal government (Milavec 2003, 600). This role was brought over into Christianity as the “deacon” (Milavec 2003, 601). Again, Milavec, basing his assertion on Didache 15:1, considers the deacons to be volunteers. Philo suggests that this would be the role of young men in a household, acting in their place as free men (Milavec 2003, 601). Again, Milavec sees the service of the deacons as that of civic functionaries, working to facilitate business and the needs of the assembled community for worship. He takes a collectivist view in everything (Milavec 2003, 602).

Milavec questions whether women served as bishops and deacons in the Didache communities. He concludes since the term used is uniformly the strongly gendered “men” rather than the less gendered “people” he has to allow this as a role solely for men (Milavec 2003, 602). He emphasizes again that he finds women included in the mentors, people baptizing, and leading prayer. Milavec considers that there would have been social barriers to men and women serving together on a council (Milavec 2003, 603). This may have been moderated by the family atmosphere of the community. However, the civic structure could have created considerable tension. However, Milavec’s assertions do not take into account the different relationships often described in other early Christian documents. He does note that it would be more normal for men to care for men and women to care for women (Milavec 2003, 604).

Because bishops and deacons would be selected by the community and have distinct responsibilities, they could certainly face criticism. Milavec considers how the bishops and deacons could function, especially since everyone was to confess failings (Milavec 2003, 605). However, when there is robust local accountability, there tends to be strong and ethical leadership. Milavec makes much of the practice of censure which could lead an erring bishop to return and be readmitted (Milavec 2003, 606).

Milavec notes that the Didache does not specify who might serve as the celebrant in the eucharist. However, most Christian communities have maintained strict specifications (Milavec 2003, 608). Milavec goes on to explain that in the Roman church there is a presupposition that everything has been done the same way since institution in the apostolic age (Milavec 2003, 609). His opinion is that people have relied on this presupposition even when it is contradicted by facts. A central problem in this regard is whether only bishops would consecrate the eucharist and whether the bishops were in a direct descent from the apostles (Milavec 2003, 610). Milavec notes that the consecration of the eucharist and the office of bishop do not seem inextricably linked in the New Testament. In the time of Tertullian, moving into the third century, it seems that although the norm was for a leader of the community to perform the consecration, it was not always required (Milavec 2003, 611). Milavec concludes that the head of the household where the Christian group met would likely be the celebrant. This person may well have been a bishop but it is nowhere required. The Didache does not make any indication of ordination (Milavec 2003, 613). The development of a clearly ordained and heirarchical priesthood can be traced to the third century but not clearly before that. Milavec cautions against imposing views on the community when they may be anachronisms (Milavec 2003, 614).

Clayton Jefferd, in 1989, suggested “that the Didache was a training manual designed specifically for the training of new elders (Milavec 2003, 615). Milavec considers the claims briefly. If this claim of Jefferds is true, the Didache would rightly be understood as building on the model of the organization of a synagogue. A significant problem with Jefferds’ thesis is that the word “elder” is absent from the Didache (Milavec 2003, 616). However, there are many second person plural statements which could well be addressed to elders. These statements give guidance in many areas which would seem the realm of elders. Counter to this, the instructions to treat prophets as high priests and to give them offerings seems to conflict with the idea of an elder-led organizational structure (Milavec 2003, 616). Milavec also observes that the novices are told to participate in the same disciplines as the elders or bishops. This, in Milavec’s opinion, is in conflict with the theory that the Didache is intended to train elders. He therefore rejects Jefferds’ analysis (Milavec 2003, 617).

​
0 Comments

Receiving Correction

5/31/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
5/31/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.Chapter 8 “The Confession of Failings and Eucharistic Sacrifice” pp. 527-577 (continued)

In Milavec’s view, correction is very important to the ordered society. One of the ways to love one’s neighbor (Leviticus 19) is through fair and just treatment, including correction (Milavec 2003, 550). The correction we receive comes ultimately from God and is for our good. Caring reproof and prayers thus contributed to the good of the community and to the joy and well-being of each individual (Milavec 2003, 552).

If reproof were not effective in the Didache community, they would move to what Milavec sees as “shunning” (Milavec 2003, 553). He persists in considering that passages such as Didache 15:3 refer not only to what many would consider sin but also to social infractions such as caring poorly for tools. If matters went far enough, the community might separate members until reconciliation was completed. This reconciliation would take place through the time of confession (Milavec 2003, 554).

The Didache makes a citation of Malachi 1:11. This is, in fact, the one place where the text refers specifically to something written. The passage in Malachi says that God’s name is glorified in the nations but profaned by the priests. For this reason, God has no pleasure in the priests. Milavec notes the difficulty in interpreting the way the gentiles glorify God’s name (Milavec 2003, 555). His conclusion is that this, as allegedly one of very few passages welcoming gentiles, would be of great interest to the Didache’s authors, who “were quick to bend it to suit their particular purposes” (Milavec 2003, 555). Other passages, because they assumed acceptance of gentiles who converted, would possibly not be as compelling. In Malachi, the gentiles, apart from God’s commands, are honoring God purely. Of course, we have no other evidence that the people in Malachi were not acting in obedience to God’s commands. This reader thinks Milavec is placing his presupposition of hostility to and discontinuity from Judaism in charge of the interpretation. He finds in the slight paraphrase a deliberate attempt to reject Judaism centered around the temple (Milavec 2003, 556).

Milavec does consider rabbinic interpretations of Malachi 1:11. The passage gained significance after the destruction of the temple when it seemed clear the sacrificial system was in crisis (Milavec 2003, 557). Since Malachi was written during a time of exile, many rabbis concluded that the pure sacrifices would consist of holding to at least an evening prayer (Milavec 2003, 558). This same tactic could say that “the nations” were any place where the Jews were living, rather than being a specific reference to Gentiles.

By the second century, Milavec observes, Malachi 1:11 was used by Justin Martyr to say that Christian dedication was superior to Jewish sacrifice (Milavec 2003, 559). In Justin (Dialogue 41) the Christian sacrifice is the eucharist. Milavec notes that Justin specifically rejects the argument that Jewish prayers in all nations are the referent in Malachi 1:11. Yet his argument has its weaknesses. It is better seen as a sign that he knew the rabbinic position (Milavec 2003, 560).

Irenaeus also uses Malachi 1:11, now to demonstrate that material sacrifices are not accepted by God. He allows for an offering of first fruits but not of a sacrifice (Milavec 2003, 561). Milavec does not, however, consider negative statements about Judaism as an anti-Jewish bias. The Old Testament prophets frequently lodge complaints against the priests, temple, and others. However, at issue to Milavec, is the fact that here Christians were critiquing Jews and vice versa. Milavec sees this as the start of oppressive behavior which he sees as dominating history. “Only in the last forty years has there been a concerted effort on the part of Christian pastors and theologians to reverse this smear campaign and to enter into dialogue with Jews” (Milavec 2003, 561). In contrast, Milavec sees in the Didache a Christianity which does not exemplify “anti-Judaism” (Milavec 2003, 562) so is helpful in our time.

Milavec further considers the relationship of Malachi 1:11 to the confession of failings. He assumes that this was done either due to resistence from within or challenge from without. He takes it to be a polemic, not merely a descriptive illustration (Milavec 2003, 562). In his opinion, this confession was an innovation which cannot be found elsewhere in the first century. Furthermore, because the confession and reconciliation of the Didache roughly parallels the text in Matthew 5:23f, which also speaks of reconciliation, Milavec concludes that the framers of the Didache could not have known of such a statement of Jesus or they would not have spoken of the idea (Milavec 2003, 563). In arguing this way, Milavec says both that there were and were not traditions of confession and reconciliation in the first century.

In relation to Malachi 1:11 in the Didache, Milavec again makes a clear distinction between what he calls “the Lord God” and “the Lord Jesus.” He asserts that references to “the Lord” have not been to Jesus and that the Didache communities would consider Malachi 1:11 as coming only from “the Lord God.” He views recognition of Jesus as “Lord” to be a departure from monotheism (Milavec 2003, 564).

The confession of failings in Didache 4:14 and 14:1 has a fairly close parallel in Apostolic Constitutions, from the late 4th century. Milavec notes that the confession seems absent from Apostolic Constitutions (Milavec 2003, 564). He views that text as a free and wholesale revision of Didache with an emphasis on the late 4th century needs (Milavec 2003, 564). By that time there is a clear custom that reconciliation needs to be complete before communion (Milavec 2003, 565).

In addition to any removal of those refusing reconciliation, the unbaptized were removed from the assembly before the eucharist in the Didache. Again, Milavec is focused on whether “the Lord” refers to Jesus or not. He concludes it refers to “the Lord God” (Milavec 2003, 566). He also concludes that those who would be removed were considered unclean, as “dogs.”

As Milavec has been speaking of the eucharist in terms of a sacrifice which must be kept pure, he continues to consider sacrifices, now in the Qumran community (Milavec 2003, 566). Here, the only way of making an acceptable sacrifice is through righteous living. This, according to Milavec, is the “equivalent to offering atoning sacrifices” (Milavec 2003, 567). The Qumran Manual of Discipline states how to live a holy life as well as the offenses which could result in exclusion. In the Didache communities, moral purity of the baptized may have been associated with participation in community life, especially in the meals (Milavec 2003, 569). Milavec considers the required training before baptism to be very brief, so he expects many times when people would fail to keep the laws. The only remedy he finds in the Didache is moral reform or exclusion from the community. The sacrifice must be pure (Milavec 2003, 570).

Milavec notes that in female-dominated religions, food rituals are common and generally involve large amounts of food. On the contrary, in male dominated religions, a sacrifice and a small symbolic portion of food is more typical (Milavec 2003, 571). Milavec’s conclusion is that there is a world of difference between the theology of Hebrews and that of the Didache. In Hebrews, Jesus ascends to the Father and offers himself. In the Didache the scrifice is nearly absent but God provides food which is received together (Milavec 2003, 573). This could indicate an emphasis on the women in the community, rather than men.

The timing of the eucharist is an ongoing question. Acts 20:7f records a gathering on the first day of the week and at night. Because of the Jewish influence, many will conclude the day begins at sundown. Therefore, the evening of the first day of the week would be a Saturday evening (Milavec 2003, 573). The Didache also relates an observance on the first day.

Didache 14 resumes discussion of the confession of failings although there is a description of the eucharist earlier in chapters 9-10. Milavec considers whether chapter 14 was misplaced or may have been an afterthought (Milavec 2003, 574). He concludes that the confession is placed where it is due to the fact that the earlier passage brings the newly baptized to the eucharist. In their baptism they are confessing their sins. It is only later that they have the opportunity to confess (Milavec 2003, 575). The sequence of teachings, then, may reflect reality. It would be normal for the penitent to be baptized and then enter into a community life of repentance (Milavec 2003, 576).

​
0 Comments

Confession and Payback??

5/24/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
5/24/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.
Chapter 8 “The Confession of Failings and Eucharistic Sacrifice” pp. 527-577

Didache chapter 14 returns to the idea of eucharist. Milavec notes that earlier chapters speak of a eucharist celebrated right after baptism but that chapter 14 has a time of confession and reconciliation (Milavec 2003, 530). Additionally, here we find the eucharist as a sacrifice celebrated weekly and that the confession and reconciliation necessarily accompany it.

In Didache 4 the novice was told that confession would be typical. Chapter 14 gives a more full description of the process, to be carried out “in the church” on the Lord’s day (Milavec 2003, 531). The practice promised reconciliation and therefore a pure sacrifice.

Milavec notes three phrases or words which are problematic in terms of translation. In 14:2, the term amphibolia seems to refer to an attack or dispute. The passage seems to assume one party as guilty, and that the guilty party will be excluded (Milavec 2003, 533). 14:2 also allows the possibility that the offended party is an outsider and that the community would side with the outsider against the community member. Thirdly, the identification of the “day” is not altogether clear. 14:1 does not state the word “day” but most commentators assume it to be the intent, as there is strong evidence of Christians habitually gathering on the Lord’s (day) (Milavec 2003, 533). However, some suggest the missing word is “rule” so that the practices of the Christians are according to the Lord’s prescribed practice (Milavec 2003, 534).

Milavec notes the distinction made both in Judaism and in Roman or Greek paganism between a sacrifice and a burnt offering. The Didache consistently uses the terminology of a sacrifice. Even though no animal is killed, the eucharist is a sacrificial offering meal, not simply a doing away with things to give them to God (Milavec 2003, 535).

Key to the idea of sacrifice in the Didache is purification. Milavec sees the idea of confession and absolution to be a late development, not until the sixth century (Milavec 2003, 536). He sees an idea of shunning and excommunication prior to this time. Forgiveness is not mediated by an elder. Rather, offerings may be seen (4:6) as a means of paying a ransom for sins (Milavec 2003, 537). Likewise, Milavec maintains that the idea of Jesus as the only acceptable offering to God is a medieval idea, not present in early Christianity. Because of this presupposition, Milavec sees only that the pure sacrifices are offered by pure people. He finds no fall into sin. Therefore, the offering of the eucharistic sacrifice would show that the one offering it was seeking perfection so would be received as pure (Milavec 2003, 537).

Milavec notes that people in antiquity generally had a cultural understanding of sacrifice. Across cultural boundaries there was a concept of a gift presented according to ritual to a superior. The presentation of the appropriate gift in the right way would create some sort of purity (Milavec 2003, 538). The worshipers would be ushered into friendly relations with one another as well. This may be what the Didache is referring to when it discusses reconciliation (Milavec 2003, 539).

The confession prior to the eucharist is important. Just what kind of failings (paraptomatos 4:14, 14:1) were to be confessed? Milavec mentions three: those against the Way of Life, those against one another, and those which would result in being shunned by the community (Milavec 2003, 541). Milavec questions whether the prayers were individual or communal in nature. He concludes that it is not clear but that most likely is “an audible and individual confession of specific failings when assembling prior to celebrating the eucharist” (Milavec 2003, 543).

Having stated that confession would not lead to forgiveness, but merely to making a pure sacrifice, Milavec seeks to demonstrate that the sacrifice was understood more as a spiritual act than as an act of physical obedience (Milavec 2003, 544). He does this through quotations of Isaiah and Philo, along with an assertion that Moses never considered the purity of spirit in those making offerings (Milavec 2003, 545). Milavec draws a dichotomy between the material and the spiritual. He then pursues the idea of communal spirituality as that devised by the framers of the Didache to subvert the idea of a temple sacrifice (Milavec 2003, 546).

The practice of confession may have been seen as a sign that the community member was serious about a pursuit of holiness (Milavec 2003, 547). According to Didache 4 the Holy Spirit would draw people to pursue the Way of Life. Those people in turn would submit themselves to training and disciplines, including confession. If the mention of specific failings continued and the person confessing didn’t seem to make progress, Milavec concludes it would lead to departure from the community (Milavec 2003, 548). The exclusion of those in conflict would futher purify the gathering (14:23). In cases where someone did not acknowledge his fault, the exclusion from the community would be used (15:3). Milavec considers this shunning as an important element of discipline (Milavec 2003, 549).

​
0 Comments

Learning Gratitude by Giving

5/17/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
5/17/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 7 “Learning Gratitude by Offering First Fruits” pp. 491-525.

While the New Testament does not prescribe an offering of first fruits in a specific manner, the Didache does. Milavec does say that the New Testament references are “purely metaphorical” (Milavec 2003, 494). Whether this is accurate or not, Milavec is clear that the gift is to be made, and that it funds the prophets (13:3). The Didache speaks more broadly than the Old Testament. While Leviticus 23 assumes the gifts are made from agricultural products from Palestine, the Didache does not have a geographic element. It also allows processed products among first fruits (Milavec 2003, 495). The actual donation of an animal may not have been of use to someone who moved about like a prophet (Milavec 2003, 496). In fact, the Didache does not discuss the “first born” specifically, but only “first.” The Levitical rules for redemption of humans and unclean animals would also conflict with the Didache, as silver was not to be given to the prophets. Milavec is clear that the offering of first fruits was not a tithe. It was a token offering, not a precise amount based on a whole harvest (Milavec 2003, 498). Milavec does observe that the terms used in Didache are slightly vague, possibly by design. The reader, whether from a Jewish or Genitle background, would understand the directions in the  context of his own culture (Milavec 2003, 500).

Didache gives no motive for the offering of first fruits. However, the Jewish tradition shows this as an expression of gratitude to God (Milavec 2003, 500). These offerings were regularly for consecration to God, not for the support of the priests. The prophets of the Didache, further, were residing with families where they would receive food (Milavec 2003, 501).

For greater insight into the custom of offering first fruits, Milavec turns to the Talmud. Because the earth belongs to the Lord, all which comes from the earth is from the Lord. Therefore, all reception of the things of the earth is accompanied by thanksgiving (Milavec 2003, 503). Within the Didache communities, it would seem a natural move of piety to make an offering of the first gain, both to Gentiles and Jews. The custom was common in a variety of traditions (Milavec 2003, 504).

In the Didache offerings are given “to the prophets for they themselves are your high priests” (13:3). During the period of the Jewish temple, the priests of the temple received offerings. Milavec finds in Didache a systematic move to replace the temple cult (Milavec 2003, 505). He finds this specifically at 8:1, 8:2, 14:1-3, 1;3, and 16:3-8. The result, in using the oppressed and dispossessed prophets as the recipients of gifts (rather than presumably privileged and oppressing priests?) could work toward social goods such as gratitude, humility, confidence, honor, and charitable care (Milavec 2003, 506-507). Milavec draws a sentimental picture of people bringing gifts to the prophets who would again learn to trust God and man and in turn would offer kind and meaningful prayers (Milavec 2003, 508). Milavec is clear that this is all in the realm of imaginative conjecture.

The offering of first fruits is specifically extended from harvest to bread, wine, oil, and increases of possessions (13:5-7) (Milavec 2003, 509). The Old Testament and other Jewish tradition makes comments about offerings of bread. It would seem appropriate to view all sorts of gain as a gift of God which would inspire an offering (Milavec 2003, 510).

While discussing the offerings for the prophets, Milavec deals with two critiques made against the authors. First, some observe that offerings are prescribed both at harvest and at the point of consumption (Milavec 2003, 511). However, within Jewish custom it was common to make offerings at various stages of the harvest to consumption process. Philo also uses the concept of a first fruits offering at various stages (Milavec 2003, 512). Milavec is clear that these were not the tithes, used to support priests, but were other offerings (Milavec 2003, 513). A second critique is the apparent equating of the prophets with “high priests.” However, no such objection seems to have come from Jewish converts to Christianity. Possibly the semantic range of the term was sufficient to allow the language without issue. There is no record in the Didache of just how people brought their offerings to the prophets or what kind of thanksgiving or subsequent offering might have been made by the prophets (Milavec 2003, 514).

The Old Testament spells out a number of economic protections for the Israelites, which are absent in Roman soeity. In Jewish thought the land and its increase belong to the Lord. Because of God’s care for the poor, they have a right to some provision (Milavec 2003, 516). Milavec finds, however, that under Roman occupation the poor did not receive such assistance. This was possible in large part due to transfer of land to Romans, thus making the Jubilee invalid (Milavec 2003, 517). Because the Didache communities were under Roman law, any limits to slavery or other care for the poor was purely voluntary. The first fruits would have proven of assistance to the poor (Milavec 2003, 518).

Milavec concludes (somehow) that outside of the Didache communities, early Christians had no means or process for dedicating gifts in honor of the Lord (Milavec 2003, 518). He explains that offerings were given to prophets because of a hostility to the custom of the Jewish temple (Milavec 2003, 519). In the absence of prophets, gifts were given to indigent people, who might give thanks as well (4:5-6). This giving, Milavec says, “had absolutely nothing to do with charity. Rather it is what ‘the Father wishes’ and was a proleptic foretaste of that new order that would prevail when his ‘will is born on earth as [it is now already operative] in heaven’ (8:2)” (Milavec 2003, 519). Milavec’s philosophy further shows when he asserts, “The huge gap between rich and poor sanctioned by society stands as ample proof that God is not in charge” (Milavec 2003, 519-520). The social demands of the Didache indicate a people getting ready for a time when God will rule.

Milavec asks whether the first fruits rules in the Didache reveal a date or time setting (Milavec 2003, 520). Following E.P. Sanders, Milavec expects first fruits customs to apply only to products from Palestine. However, the specific requirements of Judaism may not have been applied to the converts of a Didache community (Milavec 2003, 521). Again, the Jewish offerings were brought to the temple, which was destroyed in 70. However, Milavec alleges an anti-temple bias, so dating the Didache based on this offering and the date of the destruction of the temple is not conclusive.

It is unclear whether Christians continued offerings of first fruits in the second or third centuries. The matter is not widely discussed among the Fathers (Milavec 2003, 522). It is clear that charity toward the poor was practiced. By the fourth century and the Apostolic Constitutions some form of first fruits giving was expected. This practice has continued in some communities (Milavec 2003, 523). By the fourth century, the offerings are brought to designated priests, not to the prophets of the Didache (Milavec 2003, 524).

​
0 Comments

Welcoming and Governing Prophets

5/10/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
5/10/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

The Didache is unusual in that it directs a warm welcome to apostle-prophets (11:4) but that it limits the amount of hospitality to be given. The limitation may be related to an assumption that apostles are engaged in a mission to a variety of places, so should not remain in one place (Milavec 2003, 455).

When the apostle-prophet would leave a community he would not be given money but likely some food. Milavec notes this as the biblical and cultural norm for itinerant workers (Milavec 2003, 456). Milavec again asserts that the apostles had not renounced anything but became prophets due to anger at oppression. Their poverty was a way in which they maintained dependence on God. This dependence also set them apart from the pagan priests and prophets who regularly made a profit (Milavec 2003, 457).

According to Didache 11:7-8, the apostle-prophets engaged in some speech under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. Milavec takes this not as anything paranormal or as a type of glossolalia. He asserts it to be “inspired” or “inspiring” (Milavec 2003, 458). This would imply that the apostle-prophet would have a message which was difficult to reject. The speakers were passionate in such a way that to ignore the message would be sinful. However, 11:8 says, “not everyone speaking in Spirit is a true prophet” (Milavec 2003, 459). Judgment was to be made not based on the message or the fervency, but on “the habits of the Lord” (11:8).

Some interpreters assert that “the habits of the Lord” (11:8) are a description of poverty and homelessness (Milavec 2003, 459). However, a voluntary giving of all to the poor so as to be like Jesus would not be verifiable, nor was it a typical standard until a later time. Further, the prophets were presented with offerings (13:7). Additionally, a wanderer who settled would eventually have a home (Milavec 2003, 460). To resolve this problem, Milavec asserts the passage “refers to the ‘habits of the Lord God’ rather than to ‘habits of the Lord Jesus’” (Milavec 2003, 461). He takes these to be characteristics such as love and forbearance, as opposed to whatever habits he assumes of Jesus. Again, Milavec clearly asserts that the Didache community would not have considered Jesus as God the Son. Milavec does make it clear that the Bible never assumes all itinerant preachers, including Jesus, were completely homeless or poverty-stricken. The idea of voluntary poverty to emulate Jesus is not easily defended (Milavec 2003, 462).

The Shepherd of Hermas gives some guidance in identifying true and false prophets (Milavec 2003, 463). The prophet is judged based on his character, which is to be meek, peaceable, humble, content, and not full of vain desires (Shepherd 11:8). Milavec considers the same characteristics to apply in the Didache communities. The people were to live out the Way of Life (Milavec 2003, 464).

The Didache does not give prophets a pass to do anything and everything. Milavec lists four limitations. First, a prophet as not allowed to “order a table” (11:9). The table would presumably be for the benefit of the needy, among whom the prophet may well be (Milavec 2003, 465). Possibly it was not provision of food for the needy but a eucharistic meal. If this were the case, the Didache was preventing the prophets from presiding over the eucharist. The role of the prophets was distinct from the role of the congregation. Though prophets are honored and may be teachers, they are not the mentors who consecrate the eucharist (Milavec 2003, 466). The language in this passage is somewhat obscured, apparently pointing obliquely toward a well known condition.

There is further discussion in Didache 11 of a “worldly mystery of the church” (Milavec 2003, 466). This mystery is not clearly described. Some scholars speculate that this refers to women who may or may not have been prophets, but who would travel with the prophets as if married (Milavec 2003, 467). Milavec recognizes that the language used is vague enough that we really cannot know the implications. The Coptic fragment of this passage appears to misconstrue the Greek, leaving us with no help (Milavec 2003, 468).

Prophets are prohibited in Didache 11;12 from pursuit of personal financial gain (Milavec 2003, 469). This stood in stark contrast to the actions of the pagan prophets who specifically worked for profit. Prophets could make needs of others known. They were not to make these needs a priority of the whole congregation, but they could certainly introduce the need and seek to supply it (Milavec 2003, 470).

The Didache refers to caring for prophets. In the absence of prophets, contributions are made to the poor. Milavec observes no attempt to train or send prophets. “On the face of it, the Didache community appears to attract, absorb, and, in the end, dissolve the prophetic spirit itself” (Milavec 2003, 471). Milavec questions why this would be. He leans on Crosson’s explanation, that prophetic activity is created by adversity (Milavec 2003, 472). The Didache would not, then, advocate people’s move into adversity, then abandonment of their families. The hope given in a Didache community would bring strength and confidence, not hopelessness. Milavec’s comments show a sympathy rooted in God’s love, but willing to step in and help before God would do so (Milavec 2003, 473). The picture Milavec draws is one of a liberation theology in which prophets receive healing after being driven to prophecy by tyrannical oppression. As they receive care from the community they become well adjusted and no longer engage in prophecy (Milavec 2003, 474).

Milavec goes on to emphasize that prophets are nurtured in their gifts over a long time in a community that takes the eucharist seriously (Milavec 2003, 476). Prophets, as he sees them, are people who wish to use action to relieve suffering and alienation, including an alienation from God. Because the Didache communities apparently had a well developed liturgy, they would attract prophets (Milavec 2003, 477). Yet again Milavec asserts that unless someone suffered profoundly, he could never become a prophet.

Because prophets received the first fruits, some scholars have put them in the place of high priests, the celebrants of the eucharist (Milavec 2003, 477). Milavec does not think this can be concluded from the text (Milavec 2003, 478). The role of prophet could be replaced by beggars, who would receive gifts. The Eucharist has a developed outline, which does not require prophetic gifts. Milavec doesn’t find a leader of the Eucharist referred to as a priest until the late second century. It appears, rather, that local officials served as liturgists.

Prophets who wished to settle in the Didache community received some special treatment. According to 13:1 they were exempt from the normal work requirements. Milavec asks why this would be the case (Milavec 2003, 480). It seems likely that they are considered to be working as prophets, so are to be cared for. This is consistent with New Testament injunctions about apostles and elders (Milavec 2003, 481). It also treats prophets much like the mentors who would not be able to engage in a trade to the same extent as someone less engaged in teaching (Milavec 2003, 482).

A pertinent question is whether the prophets of the Didache were involved in ecstatic prayers (Milavec 2003, 483). Milavec notes that scholars are sharply divided over the role of ecstasy in Christian prophecy. He then goes on to describe ecstasy as practiced in Hellenic and Roman paganism. Jewish sources, such as Philo, assert that prophets retain control of their faculties while delivering prophecies. The apostle Paul encourages prophecy which is understood by all (Milavec 2003, 485). The situation is a little different in the Didache. “In the Didache, prophetic speech is preeminently giving thanks to God within the context of the community eucharist (10:7)” (Milavec 2003, 486). This is not speech from God but to God. In the Didache the speech seems controlled by the prophet and readily understood. Therefore, it does not appear ecstatic in nature (Milavec 2003, 487). This may be distinguished from the later Montanist movement. This movement, as distinct from theDidache community, attempted to usher in something strikingly new (Milavec 2003, 488). While the Didache may have been used to promote the excesses of montanism, Milavec does not consider that a natural outgrowth of the Didache. Rather, the ideas, which were fairly neutral as regards prophecy, were apporpriated for use by the radical movement. Milavec goes so far as to suggest the Didache would have been in the recognized canon if it had not seemed open to  prophetic activity (Milavec 2003, 489).

​
0 Comments

Defining a Prophet

5/3/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
5/3/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 6, “Meddling Prophets” pp. 425-483.

The Didache recognizes prophets as living and active at the time of composition. Milavec notes that prophets were not the leaders of the Christian community but that they did have an important role in the Eucharist (Milavec 2003, 426). People are generally cautioned to be wary of prophets and their work.

To analyze the work of prophets, Milavec ties those works to Gerd Thiessen’s analysis of the work done by the Twelve and Seventy, sent out by Jesus (Milavec 2003, 426). The general idea is that the established congregation came later than the time of the wandering minister. Some of the characteristics described in the Synoptic Gospels apply more clearly to itinerant ministers than to the average person. Milavec mentions homelessness, lack of family and possessions, and lack of protection among others (Milavec 2003, 427-428).

In Didache 10:7, the congregation is instructed to turn its attention to the prophets who will give thanks (eucharistein) (Milavec 2003, 429). The prophets here seem to be responsible for the free prayer and its content, not depending on a prescriptive outline. Milavec considers the prophetic speech to be caused by an urgent impulse of the Holy Spirit (Milavec 2003, 430). These impulses seem more common where God’s people are assembled together. The prayers of the community spur the prophetic work on (Milavec 2003, 431). Milavec quotes extensively from Hermas to describe true and false prophets and their work. The Didache does not seem to know of prophets who scheduled private consultations. However, in 11:6 and 12 it is clear that some prophets sought favor (Milavec 2003, 433). In general, though, the role of the prophet was to pray in the assembly when moved by the Holy Spirit (Milavec 2003, 434). Milavec considers that the prophets may well have been dispossessed people who would have special compassion on others (Milavec 2003, 434).

Milavec does discuss the caution given in Didache 11 about false prophets (Milavec 2003, 436). Though prophets could be a blessing of God, false prophets were not a positive force. The work of a prophet may well have been seen as training. If the teaching was consistent with “the tradition” it should be received. But if it was different, it should be rejected (11:2) (Milavec 2003, 437). Novices and masters alike were exposed to the teaching of the prophets. They both needed to consider and evaluate the teaching.

Didache 11:3 speaks “about the apostles and prophets.” Milavec observes that most scholars consider this to refer to two groups of people. Noting the lack of an article before “prophets” Milavec thinks the passage speaks about people who are apostles and prophets at one and the same time (Milavec 2003, 438). In 11:5-6 apostles may be regarded as false prophets (Milavec 2003, 439). Those who asked for money were to be ignored and sent away. The judgment could be based on their actions rather than solely on the content of their teaching (Milavec 2003, 439). Again, Milavec sees the apostle functioning as a prophet. Further, he thinks the term “apostle” is not limited to the Twelve (Milavec 2003, 441).

Milavec asks where these itinerant apostles could have come from. The Didache speaks of them as people who were in common circulation but may not have known much about the tenets of the Didache communities (Milavec 2003, 442).

It is possible that the Apostle-Prophets of the Didache were sent out as missionaries by local congregations or other Christian leaders. There is a notable example of this in Acts 13:1-4 (Milavec 2003, 442). The difficulty with this view is that the apostles were to be received only for a day or two (11:5). Also, while apostles would be sent away, prophets were to be encouraged to stay (13:1). This would conflict with a mission in which the person was to return home to the senders (Milavec 2003, 444).

it is possible, according to a theory of John Dominic Crosson, that the itinerant apostle-prophets were some sort of dispossessed peasants (Milavec 2003, 444). These people would not have been impoverished by choice but as  a result of their mission (Milavec 2003, 445). Crosson sees the dislocation coming primarily from economic factors which would both remove the poor from society and lead them to identify with the hope of a Christian community (Milavec 2003, 445).

Milavec concludes that the itinerant prophets from the Didache would have been moved to hostility by their change of economic fortunes. They would then find healing through the role as a prophet, which gave them honor and dignity (Milavec 2003, 446). Meanwhile, their message helped others resist oppression.

The question remains in this theory, how does the prophet who is invited for two or three days gain an invitation to stay indefinitely? Milavec notes the Didache communities with an emphasis on shared resources did not suffer indigence which would drive people to become prophets (Milavec 2003, 447). The prophets didn’t have a home to return to. upon discovering a safety net in the community they may have been motivated to stay. The lack of a time limit on their presence indicates to Milavec that the prophets were recovering from grief, so would be free from responsibility (Milavec 2003, 448). By giving thanks for the community’s offerings, the prophets would become accustomed to seeing success. Milavec sees this as having a calming effect which would eventually take their prophetic fervor away (Milavec 2003, 448). Once a person was no longer a prophet, gifts could be given to the poor (Milavec 2003, 449). Prophets, then, were considered as a kind of beggars. Milavec makes it clear that he considers Crosson’s theory superior to all others (Milavec 2003, 449).

A third interpretation of the prophets is proposed by Stephen J. Patterson. Patterson sees the prophets as radicalized workers who became troublesom then lost their base of support. This resulted in their admittance as refugees (Milavec 2003, 451). Milavec notes that Patterson’s interpretation is based on Didache 12:2b-13:7 as a later addition which represents condition at a time period after that of 11:1-12:2a (Milavec 2003, 451). The theory seems to be based on the prophets’ identity as wartime refugees. However, the Didache doesn’t make provisions on the scale which would be needed for refugees from a war. More resources would have been needed. There is also no system for identifying true and false teachers on the scale of a refugee migration (Milavec 2003, 452).

Milavec considers Crossan’s view of the Didache prophets as requiring some expansion. Crossan focuses on poor peasants. Milavec thinks small-scale artisans and merchants were also subject to the same economic factors (Milavec 2003, 453). Milavec describes how a small pottery business could be made to suffer by a larger operation which gained the more lucrative commercial contracts. The displaced workers would have turned to being “apostle-prophets” in the same way.

​
0 Comments

The Lord's Supper as a Table of Equality

4/26/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
4/26/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

The issue of the eucharistic meal and its participants urges Milavec to comment on the social setting, especially as it relates to presence of women, children, and slaves. Milavec notes that in some family settings men and women would dine together, but slaves were never included (Milavec 2003, 407). We might, of course, ask whether there were non-slave but lower class settings which were excepted. However, Milavec notes that in the Eucharist everyone was seen to be equally “a ‘servant’ of the Lord (as were Jesus and David)” (Milavec 2003, 407). Therefore, the humility and care for one another would remove the social distinctions normally observed during a regular meal. Milavec compares this to the funeral societies, in which people of different ranks would have some level of equality (Milavec 2003, 408). The levelling of the relationship did not apply outside of the eucharist. Slaves were still slaves (Didache 4:11). In a community of skilled manual trade, slaves may have been valued for their artistry. This would tend to level the social playing field as well. Milavec concludes that this would have been responsible for the lack of emancipation movements, as an accepted level of social regard could exist (Milavec 2003, 409).

Milavec considers treatment of women to be analogous to that of slaves (Milavec 2003, 410). In some instances wives were highly valued and respected. In the lower classes the wife was economically important. Milavec takes this as an indication that the relatively high regard for women shown in the Didache would not have been completely foreign to the communities. Milavec frequently uses Petronius’ Trimalchio to illustrate the relationships of slaves and women. It appears at times that he does not observe it is a satirical comedy. Spotts questions the validity of Milavec’s examples as they may well have been depictions of an aberrant household.

The Didache, in the end, shows no social heirarchy. There are distinctions of roles and abilities, but they are not based on a social rank (Milavec 2003, 411). Milavec notes that the biblical record makes numerous statements about abuses of the equality in the eucharist. He assume there to be instances, though not recorded, in the Didache communities (Milavec 2003, 412).

In his conclusion to the chapter on baptism and eucharist, Milavec describes the convert being brought into something very vivid, presided over by mentors who are deeply convinced of the reality of an eschatological hope (Milavec 2003, 414). Here he pictures people, alienated from all they knew of life and society, embracing the fellowship and prayers as a unifying message (Milavec 2003, 415).

As an appendix to his chapter on baptism and eucharist, Milavec spends several pages considering the origin of the eucharistic prayers. Most modern scholars see the eucharistic prayers as a variant on the after dinner table prayer (Milavec 2003, 416).

As an appendix to his chapter on baptism and eucharist, Milavec spends several pages considering the origin of the eucharistic prayers. Most modern scholars see the eucharistic prayers as a variant on the after dinner table prayer (Milavec 2003, 416). This opinion stems from 20th century research in which Louis Finkelstein was a prominent character. Milavec admits a possibility that the eucharistic prayers were adapted from either rabbinic or household prayers. They may not have had an agreed-upon source text (Milavec 2003, 417). Milavec’s opinion is that the prayers as written in any Jewish context, and thus in any early Christian context, were merely examples, not fixed liturgical works (Milavec 2003, 418). Milavec considers it impossible that there were fixed liturgical statements. His stated reason is that this would be anachronistic due to the strong oral tradition of the period (Milavec 2003, 418). Spotts considers that a genuine oral tradition tends to preserve, rather than modify, theological statements. On pages 419-420 Milavec discusses five reasons he would disagree with Finkelstein. He concludes that he does not consider Finkelstein a credible source, though some years earlier he would have used him with caution (Milavec 2003, 221).

​
0 Comments

Practicalities in the Eucharist

4/19/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
4/19/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

If God the Father is present in the eucharist, where is he? Didache 10:2 speaks of God’s name in the Christian’s heart. Milavec notes that the Hebrew Scriptures use similar terminology for God dwelling in the tabernacle or temple, but not in individuals. In this way the Didache is set apart radically (Milavec 2003, 385). Because God’s holiness dwells where His name is found, seeing the individual as the dwelling place of God is very significant. In some New Testament scholarship “the Name” is taken as a reference to the Trinitarian formula or to Jesus. Milavec considers this to be not the case in the Didache, as he sees “the Name” referring to the Father, while the Son is referred to as the Servant (Milavec 2003, 387).

The eucharistic prayers give thanks for “knowledge, faith, and immortality” (10:2). Milavec considers these three terms in turn. He reaches an interpretation that the partaker is receiving these gifts from Jesus in the eucharist. Milavec seems to expect that knowledge, faith, and immortality will somehow be deepened or intensified through the eucharist. The eucharist is also seen as special in the use of the word “master” in 10:3 as opposed to “Father,” “Lord,” or other appellations (Milavec 2003, 388).

It was very common in Jewish tradition to return thanks after a meal. This formal giving of thanks, called “anamnesis,” appears from the earliest records (Milavec 2003, 389). In the Didache 10:3 there is a formal returning of thanks to God as well.

Considering the institution of the eucharist, Milavec observes that the Didache does not maintain an emphasis on the events of Jesus and the disciples the evening leading to his arrest. Milavec concludes that this would lead to an understood focus on the giving of thanks and eating together, rather than making a doctrinal statement about Jesus (Milavec 2003, 391). Possibly the pattern of table fellowship was Jesus’ real point at the Last Supper, rather than a prescription of a rite surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection. This would result in the participants rejoicing because they realize they are part of God’s kingdom, as the people gathered aroudn His table (Milavec 2003, 393). Milavec continues with another assertion which can make Jesus unnecessary o the Christian message. “Today almost all scholars recognize that Jesus focused all his energies on the message of the kingdom, while, with the passage of time, the church gradually focused its energies on the messenger (Milavec 2003, 393). Milavec’s conclusion remains that the Didache community would have neglected to look for God the Son but would have looked only for the Father in the last day.

The prayers around the eucharist in Didache 10 look both to the past and to the future (Milavec 2003, 395). In the future, we look to God in hope that He will gather His kingdom from around the world. In the last day, the prayer is that God would save, perfect, and gather His church (Milavec 2003, 396). The clebrant and the participants look for a coming time of God’s grace, which will be received wholeheartedly and enthusiastically.

Milavec notes that in addition to the one Greek manuscript of the Didache, there is a Coptic version of Didache 10:3b-12:2a. The text of 10:6 has a variant which may be significant (Milavec 2003, 398). Rather than making a call of praise to the “God of David” it sings praise to the “house of David.” This suggests again to Milavec that the text didn’t look for God the Son but for God the Father, avoiding any Messianic worship.

Milavec questions the conventional wisdom that Didache 10:6 commands non-communicants to depart from the assembly prior to communion. Since he finds a consecration of sorts at 9:2-4 but people are not told to “turn” or “convert” until later, the turning may be repentance rather than a literal turning to leave the assembly (Milavec 2003, 401).

The eschatological expectation of the Didache communities may be foreign to our generation. After all, the second coming has not happened as yet. We are accustomed to the idea it may not be immediate. However, the sense of social instability found in the first century may well have urged Christians to look forward to a coming of Christ and a new social order (Milavec 2003, 402).

Milavec notes a strong Jewish character in the eucharistic prayers. Although we do not have adequate samples from the period for comparison, there are strong similarities to prayers in rabbinic traditions from various times. It seems a reasonable conclusion (Milavec 2003, 403).

The frequency and timing of the eucharist is a mystery. Milavec asserts that it was a full meal. The conclusion of Didache 14:1 is that the celebration was weekly. The full meal would suggest evening rather than morning, thus pointing to Saturday evening (Milavec 2003, 404).

Milavec questions whether the first century Christians had definitive patterns to identify those celebrating the eucharist. It is clear that Jesus was not part of the priestly class. Jesus’ appointment of the Twelve was not an elevation of them to a special rank. Acts also does not seem to recognize a special role (Milavec 2003, 405). Didache does not indicate an important role of mentors, but it is unclear how far this authority extended.

​
0 Comments

What's in the Eucharistic Meal?

4/12/2019

0 Comments

 
4/12/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.


Chapter 5, “Kingdom Expectation Celebrated in the Eucharistic Meals” pp. 351-421.

The Didache speaks in detail about two rites. In baptism the convert enters the community. The eucharist follows. Milavec notes that this is a full meal and that the unbaptized are excluded (Milavec 2003, 354). The Didache does not speak of the institution nor of the theology of the body and blood of Christ. Milavec considers this as a fundamental difference in Christian communities, asserting that the Synoptic communities emphasized Jesus but the Didache communities were more interested in what God did. Milavec also draws a distinction here between the Synoptic communities and the Johannine or Pauline groups (Milavec 2003, 355). As seems frequently the case in Milavec, he sees very different types of Christianity arising in different places, rather than one faith with various emphases in expression.

The eucharistic prayers are found in Didache chapters 9-10. Before and after the meal are three prayers according to set patterns, ending with affirmation of God’s glory (Milavec 2003, 355). Because singing was a very common custom in Judaism and early Christianity, Milavec considers whether the Eucharist would have been sung (Milavec 2003, 356). He concludes that it is likely that the Didache communities would have engaged in singing, especially when celebrating important and repeated events such as the Eucharist (Milavec 2003, 357).

Didache 9 identifies a singular cup and loaf. Milavec notes two possibilities. Either the table, set for a meal, had one cup and loaf identified by the celebrant, or the table was initially prepared with just one loaf and cup until after the consecration and sharing (Milavec 2003, 357). Because the meal was identified as not only a meal but one which broke a fast, it is clear that there would be more than one loaf before everybody left. The prayers, in 10:3, seem to suggest some food and drink provided for the people in general and some as spiritual food and drink (Milavec 2003, 358). However, Milavec asserts that the participants would not have had any concern about care of the elements, nor would they have distinguished between the parts of the meal. He gives no reason for his opinion (Milavec 2003, 358). The blessing may well have been understood to transform the bread and wine or the entirety of the meal (Milavec 2003, 359) although 10:3 seems to indicate some form of distinction.

Milavec describes the eucharistic meal in detail as he imagines it. Based on Jeremias’ work, he asserts that wine was used only on festive occasions, while people generally would have used water with meals (Milavec 2003, 361). There would be a benediction over a cup. The symbolism inherent in the idea of a cup of wine was that God tended His vineyard, Israel, and called his people out as a chosen people. He again emphasizes the nature of prayer as a non-rote practice, in which the leader would go beyond the prayers given in the Didache (Milavec 2003, 363). The shared cup would make a strong statement of all the communicants sharing in God’s presence (Milavec 2003, 364). Milavec’s argument for the spontaneous nature of the prayers is based on two elements. First, aside from the records of reciting Deuteronomy 6:4, he finds no record of word-for-word recitation in Israel. Second, Justin Martyr in 1 Apol 65 and 67 describes “the presider” as altering prayers as he is able (Milavec 2003, 364). There was certainly leeway given for a bishop to pray according to his sense of the current situation.

The Eucharistic prayers in the Didache refer to Jesus as the Father’s “servant.” The role of a leader as the servant of God was prominent in Jewish thought (Milavec 2003, 365). David the king was regularly referred to as the servant of God. Likewise, among the prophets, Moses was seen as God’s servant. In the Didache, Jesus is also considered the servant of God (Milavec 2003, 366). Citing John A.T. Robinson, Milavec sees the Christology of the New Testament developing during the Book of Acts. Early on Jesus is seen as one who is yet to become the real Messiah. The idea of Jesus as the “son” rather than a “servant” or “child” may develop during the time period recorded in Acts (Milavec 2003, 367). If this is the case, Milavec assigns Didache 9 to a very early apostolic period with a relatively primitive Christology (Milavec 2003, 36). Milavec’s practice of making a sharp distinction between roles of God (the father) and Jesus remains consistent as he speaks of roles in the eucharist as well as the idea of the final judgment (Milavec 2003, 369). Some parts of Didache refer to an eschatological hope. However, it is only near the end that this hope is specifically to be realized in Jesus, rather than the more generic “in God” (Milavec 2003, 369). In the eucharistic feast, after the cup, the celebrant takes and breaks the loaf. The custom of breaking bread and asking God’s blessing was common in Judaism. Milavec note that some had a custom of bread before a cup and some of the cup before bread. He suggests the difference in ordering in Mark may simply reflect a local custom (Milavec 2003, 372). The Didache presents the cup, then the loaf broken and consecrated. A meal with a master and disciples is common Jewish practice to this day. It involves sharing one or more cups, bread which is broken and given with prayers, and spiritual teachings (Milavec 2003, 373). The Christian eucharist may easily be seen as a similar gathering. In the Didache, the eating of the loaf is a participation in the future restoration of all things in Christ (Milavec 2003, 374). The bread is seen as nourishment provided by God, scattering the fragments to plant life and knowledge of God’s kingdom in people all over the earth (Milavec 2003, 375).

Milavec notes in the eucharistic prayers that the tem “your church” is used twice, in 9:4 and 10:5 (Milavec 2003, 376). It is singular, not plural. The term for “church” means “that called out.” This can well indicate God’s gathering of one people from many nations. The word is used elsewhere as a universal gathering or a local assembly.

Based on the nature of the eucharist, it is not surprising that unbaptized people would not be included. Milavec notes that in the paganism of the time, meals celebrating deities or other influential figures would be open to all. Therefore, the Didache would make the restriction very clear (Milavec 2003, 377). Again, he distinguishes between Jesus and “the Lord-God,” indicating that the consecration is not referring to Jesus.

There is some debate whether Didache 9-10 describs communion or not. Many scholars, noting the absence of statements concerning Jesus’ body and blood, absence of words of institution, and no mention of Jesus’ death view this simply as a community meal (Milavec 2003, 379). Milavec asserts that the Didache community has no concept of Paul and that there was no common practice before the Synoptic Gospels were written. Because the text uses the word “eucharist” to describe the meal, and because of the restrictions on participation, Milavec sees this as a feast which, in essence, is the Lord’s Supper (Milavec 2003, 380).

The eucharist in the Didache is apparently a full meal. 10:1 says participants are “filled” (Milavec 2003, 380). This implies that the social dynamics common to shared meals would apply. They specifically imply formation and maintenance of close fellowship (Milavec 2003, 381). It affirmed their identity as a group with a number of reciprocal obligations.

Milavec notes that regardless of the place or time of the Eucharist, God the Father was considered the host. Though unseen, He was understood to be present (Milavec 2003, 382). However, Milavec asserts that “the Didache community would have been inclined to speak of the ‘real absence’ of Jesus” (Milavec 2003, 383). He asserts that Jesus would be considered as absent until a future restoration. As typical, Milavec does not furnish an argument for his position.

Milavec asks whether children were present at or even received communion. The Didache speaks only to baptized people receiving communion, and the pattern described is that of baptizing adult converts. However, it is very likely that at the very least nursing babies would have been present (Milavec 2003, 383). Children would normally be present for family meals in a Roman culture, whether at their own table, with adults, or serving tables as a chore (Milavec 2003, 384). The more formal evening meal would be less likely to have a wife or children present. Milavec concludes that since the eucharist was seen as a special meal and was celebrated at the home of a prominent person, slaves and children would be occupied with preparation and serving, not in participation of the eucharist itself (Milavec 2003, 385).

​
0 Comments

Prayers of Early Christians

4/5/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
4/5/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.


“Section III: Analysis of the Act of Praying” p. 333

The Lord’s Prayer, using plurals such as “our Father,” is clearly meant to be used in group settings. However, Milavec observes that many rabbinic prayers traditionally used in groups are also used when alone (Milavec 2003, 333). Group recitation was not a norm in antiquity. In all likelihood only the brief ending doxology or the “amen” would have been said by the group (Milavec 2003, 334). The closing refrain, a doxology, appears in Didache not only at the end of the Lord’s Prayer but also before and after meals in 9: and 10:5. This suggests to Milavec that it was a refrain which the whole group would say together (Milavec 2003, 334).

The Lord’s Prayer is commonly used as part of a eucharistic ceremony today. However, Milavec observes that the prayer is not included in the Didache’s version of the eucharist. The text appears to stand alone, though the themes of the eucharistic prayers are related to the Lord’s Prayer and vice versa (Milavec 2003, 3335). The use of the Lord’s Prayer in communion is clearly documented by the later part of the fourth century.

Another significant question surrounding the Lord’s Prayer is whether it was to be prayed as presented or would be modified on different occasions (Milavec 2003, 335). The rabbinic pattern was to treat memorized prayers as a framework for further, improvised, prayer. For this reason, Milavec thinks it highly likely that the Lord’s Prayer was used as a model for prayers surrounding the concepts of the different petitions. The pattern could also explain the variety in the prayer between Matthew and Luke (Milavec 2003, 336).

A variety of postures and orientations are found for prayer in the Bible. Standing, bowing, prostration, facing either east or Jerusalem are all customs which can be defended. The Didache does not comment on posture or direction (Milavec 2003, 337).

We may gain some insight into prayer in early Christianity by looking at Tertullian, who tells us about practices in North Africa late in the second century (Milavec 2003, 340). In general, he reports Christians praying at sunrise and sunset, as well as three times in between. The prayers often seem to be in small gatherings, though sometimes they are alone (Milavec 2003, 341). The Lord’s Prayer seems to be used, though with variations. Tertullian also mentions a variety of postures.

Milavec finds no clear prescription in Didache for the times to pray the Lord’s Prayer. He supposes two of the three times would naturally be upon awaking and going to bed. It also seems likely that on fast days there may have been more of an effort to bring the community together for prayers (Milavec 2003, 342).

The members of the community are to pray “as the Lord commanded” (8:2). Milavec builds a brief argument that the Didache community would consider God the Father as “Lord” but not Jesus, God the Son. Milavec’s argument seems here to assume an almost bi-theist view on the part of the community (Milavec 2003, 343). Milavec makes some further observations about the content of prayers. He assumes there would be no consideration of Israel or Jerusalem as special. There would also be no condemnation of gentiles. Milavec does not give reasons for his view. He does, however, seem to connect the Lord’s Prayer with the six petitions that he recognizes to the rabbinic Eighteen Blessings (Milavec 2003, 344). Because the content is different, Milavec concludes that the Didache communities would not have been Jewish in their background (Milavec 2003, 345).

Milavec’s conclusion, based on the Lord’s Prayer, is telling. He says of the community, “They were the discontents who did not trust in the lords of this world and the lords of the pagan pantheon to give them a fair shake. As a result, they took as their own the prayer delivered over to them by a discontent Jew who, for his efforts, was crucified as a Roman insurrectionist. With him, they daily relied on God’s promise to come himself and to bring justice and peace and a measure of prosperity” (Milavec 2003, 346). Milavec sees the community as a revolutionary group, though not one which itself would act to overthrow the culture (Milavec 2003, 347). Following E.P. Sanders, Milavec sees the destruction of the gentiles as absent from the New Testament (Milavec 2003, 348). The similarity of  Jew and Gentile as people in need of repentance seems largely lost on Milavec. He describes all of faith and practice in terms of the creativity of a particular community. That creativity seems driven by political and cultural motivations and a desire to oppress or to escape oppression. All is some sort of strategy.

​
0 Comments

The Lord's Prayer: History, Structure, and Petitions

3/29/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
3/29/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.


One of the distinctive features of the Didache community was the use of the prayer we know as “The Lord’s Prayer.” People would gather as they were able, three times a day, and pray together (Milavec 2003, 308). Milavec’s assumption that children would not be baptized releases them from the obligation to pray. However, he recognizes that they would have been allowed to participate in the prayers.

Daily prayers were likely taken over from the practices of the Pharisees, who arose with a decentralizing role especially in the second century B.C. Though temple worship continued, the synagogue and customs of prayers in homes with family had developed over time (Milavec 2003, 309). When the synagogue leaders made requirements of a prayer and recitation liturgy, this was a radical change in Judaism. The custom of morning, noon, and evening prayers became established prior to about 200 A.D. (Milavec 2003, 310). The content of the prayers seems fairly static. This would suggest a similar pattern as Christianity developoed.

Milavec observes the Lord’s prayer exists in three basic versions: that of Matthew 6, that of Luke 11,  and that of the Didache (Milavec 2003, 311). The version found in Luke in much briefer than those of Matthew and of Didache, which two are nearly identical (Milavec 2003, 312). Milavec notes that this similarity does not require dependence. The prayer may well have been firmly established in oral tradition. This says to Milavec that no community using Matthew would have written the Didache (Milavec 2003, 313).

Many have considered that the Lord’s Prayer is derived or adapted from a Jewish example. However, during the 20th century scholars have been increasingly convinced that the Jewish prayers, which are not attested by specific manuscripts until the 9th century, were not entirely uniform and monolithic (Milavec 2003, 314). Therefore they can no longer assume specific content with any degree of certainty.

The Lord’s Prayer as found in the Didache is carefully structured. The six petitions are gathered into two groups of three. The first and third have passive verbs, softening the idea of prayer actually commanding God (Milavec 2003, 315). Milavec notes the passive imperative is common in Jewish prayers. The fourth through sixth petitions all use active imperatives. They also are longer, with subordinate clauses (Milavec 2003, 316).

Milavec considers that the idea of God’s name being made holy by the presence of his kingdom is not a very common New Testament motif. However, it is present in the New Testament and relatively common i n the Old Testament (Milavec 2003, 317). The coming of God’s kingdom and rule seems central to both the New Testament and the Didache (Milavec 2003, 318). Although it is not clearly defined in the New Testament or the Didache, it is still a critical idea (Milavec 2003, 319).

The idea of God’s name being holy and his kingdom coming is tied up with his will being done. Milavec finds these three petitions inseparable (Milavec 2003, 320). As in all the previous petitions, the expectation is that God would be the primary actor. The prayer is addressed to God, not to the disciples.

Discussions of the Lord’s Prayer often begin with comments about the word “father.” Milavec considers Joachim Jeremias and his view that the Aramaic “abba” and the Greek “pater” would be an expression of special intimacy (Milavec 2003, 321). Reference to God as the father who loves his children is common in Jewish piety. It is further not so that Jesus “always addressed God as father” (Milavec 2003, 322). The sentimentalism which finds the prayer as an address to a doting father figure is unwarranted. The prayers in the Didache addressed to the Father always refer to God as the powerful and benevolent Master (Milavec 2003, 323).

The plea in the Lord’s prayer that God’s kingdom would come is a difficult statement. Milavec notes that many interpreters consider it fulfilled already in the age of the Church. However, it may also refer to the hope of a future second coming of Christ (Milavec 2003, 324). This view of a future kingdom may be troublesome to people on at least two levels. First, a cataclysmic coming of Christ challenges the presuppositions of slow progress advocated by an evolutionary viewpoint. Second, it has been expected “soon” for approximately two thousand years (Milavec 2003, 325). Milavec’s solution to the second problem is to cite  scholars who consider the statements of urgent expectation to be creations of the early Christians but not Jesus (Milavec 2003, 326). Aside from that, he dismisses objections as “fundamentalist” and “prescientific.” Milavec concludes, however, that there may well have been at least some level of eschatological expectation in the Didache’s prayer that God’s kingdom would come (Milavec 2003, 328).

The second half of the Lord’s Prayer, Milavec observes, is phrased in aorist imperatives. He considers, then, that the idea of God’s provision of bread, forgiveness, and protection  from temptation should be seen as single actions rather than ongoing, daily processes (Milavec 2003, 328). Milavec discusses the difficulty of the word “epiousios,” normally translated “daily.” It is  not used elsewhere in Christian writing and he does not find it in secular Greek from this time (Milavec 2003, 329). Milavec considers that the provision of bread is to be seen as of one idea with the eucharistic prayers, and that the bread will be that which gives life in some futuristic kingdom (Milavec 2003, 330).

In the Lord’s Prayer the idea of “debt” is evident. Milavec notes that the Hebrew term for “debt” would commonly refer to a sin, a term used in Luke 7:41 translated into Greek (Milavec 2003, 331). In the prayer recorded in Didache the term “debt” is simgular. The aorist “forgive” is followed by our forgiving in the present tense, possibly referring to an ongoing or daily habit (Milavec 2003, 331). Thus, in the last judgment we ask that God’s one time forgiveness would be based on our habit of forgiving others. Milavec, with many others, sees this as a potential challenge to the idea of salvation solely by grace, not based on our works, in this case, forgiveness (Milavec 2003, 332).

The final petition of the Lord’s prayer asks God not to lead his people into temptations. The Greek word used frequently refers to a trial brought by Satan. Milavec’s concern here is that the language could suggest that God would direct people into a time of Satanic attack (Milavec 2003, 332). However, since the term is often used of a test from which a positive outcome is expected, and since the idiom of asking God not to lead to a negative normally is used to ask God for a positive, the petition would seem simply to ask God for protection from difficult trials (Milavec 2003, 333).

​
0 Comments

Fasting in Early Christianity

3/22/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
3/22/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Chapter 4 “Rhythms of Fasting and Praying Until the Kingdom Comes” pp. 285-350.

Religious communities normally share together in a life of prayer. Milavec sees the Didache communities as unified in large part due to a rhythm of both fasting and prayer. The Didache (8:1) prescribes fasting on the fourth and sixth day, rather than the second and fifth day, as done by “the hypocrites” (Milavec 2003, 289). This wording presupposes that the community would use a Jewish calendar, with its seven day week. Converts would adopt a Jewish calendar for their worship but also retain the Roman calendar for much of civic life.

In 45 B.C., the Romans had adopted a Julian calendar, which began in January rather than March. It had months as we do now, as well as a leap day every fourth year. However, it had no structure of a week. That was adopted, partly due to Jewish influence, late in the first century (Milavec 2003, 291). The names of days in a week appear by the early third century. In the fourth century, Romans began the custom of closing the civil courts on “the day of the Sun,” which Christians could read with a double meaning as the day of resurrection (Milavec 2003, 292). By the sixth century Sunday became a fairly universal day of rest.

The fasting on the fourth and sixth days of the week is significant. Jewish fasts were typically on the second and fifth days of the week (Milavec 2003, 293). Milavec notes that the Apostolic Constitutions explain the fourth day as the day Judas agreed to betray Jesus and the sixth day as the day of Jesus’ death (Milavec 2003, 294). However, Milavec asserts that it is impossible that the Didache communities could have inherited or invented such customs. He gives no reason for his assertion. Regardless, we do not have a definitive reason for the selection of those fast days.

Milavec continues his discussion of fasting by considering the extent of the regular fast. There are many different ways in which one can humble himself by fasting. Although Milavec considers the Didache communities to be Gentile, they still have some roots in Judaism. So he considers the specific feature of Jewish fasts (Milavec 2003, 296). Normally fasting was an abstinence from food and drink. Sometimes it involved additional signs as well. The Didache, giving no specifics, would seem to expect discretion in the community as to the rigor and duration of the fast (Milavec 2003, 298).

Within Jewish thought, fasting and praying are inextricably linked (Milavec 2003, 299). Milavec considers that fasting is not a matter of self-mastery but of intensifying prayers so God will bring what is needed to the community. His example is praying for rain when it has been unusually dry (Milavec 2003, 300).

Milavec does note that the significance of the fast in antiquity was more closely tied to whether everyone participated than to the actual rigor of the fast (Milavec 2003, 300). He cites several instances which demonstrate widespread participation as the important factor but do not specify what was to be given up in the fast. The primary importance here was that everyone fasted. Secondary importance was assigned to fasting at different times from “the hypocrites.” No other specifications seemed necessary.

Who are these “hypocrites”? Milavec asks if they are the same as the Pharisees in Matthew (Milavec 2003, 301. Because Matthew calls the Pharisees “hypocrites” and because the Pharisee in Luke 18:12 mentions fasting twice a week, many equate the two. However, Milavec follows Rordorf who asserts a very different identity for the hypocrites (Milavec 2003, 302). Matthew’s account of the Pharisees calls them hypocrites because they make a show of fasting. The disciples of Jesus were to fast in secret. In the Didache the practice of the hypocrites is not specifically mentioned. The disciples are to fast twice a week, but publicly rather than in secret. The Gospels also do not say that the Pharisees were distinguished because of their fasting. The practice seems unrelated in Milavec’s mind. Matthew’s Gospel also has Jesus tell his disciples to make their appearance normal on fast days, rather than to choose different fast days (Matthew 6:16-17) (Milavec 2003, 303).

The term “hypocrite” itself is worthy of consideration. In the secular world it was a term used of an actor, neither with positive or negative connotations. Within Judaism and Christianity it took on a primary meaning of someone not involved in a theatrical production, but rather playing a role in life which was not true. As a result, we have retained the word with negative connotations (Milavec 2003, 304).

Milavec still desires to explain who the “hypocrites” in the Didache could be. Since he has concluded they cannot be Pharisees, he considers other possibilities (Milavec 2003, 304). They may be Jews but not specifically Pharisees. However, the Didache doesn’t seem hostile to Jews (Milavec 2003, 305). They may have been Jewish people who encouraged Gentile converts to make commitments to the temple. If this were the case, we could easily understand the fact that the Didache doesn’t seem to consider the temple important. Milavec sees this, as well as the statements in the synoptic Gospels downplaying the temple, as something coming from the time of the destruction of the temple. Only then could Christianity be safely distanced from Judaism (Milavec 2003, 306). Once the temple was destroyed it was safe to make positive statements about the temple.

Milavec asks whether the Didache is an anti-Jewish text at heart. Although some see an attack on Judaism in the discussions of baptism and fasting, Milavec sees the text as framed by  Jewish leaders who wanted to guide gentile converts (Milavec 2003, 307).

​
0 Comments

Baptism - Welcome to the Family

3/15/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
3/15/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Milavec questions a possible inconsistency in the Didache’s use of the divine name. Baptism is to be in the triune name. However, reference is made to people baptized “in the name of the Lord” (9:5) (Milavec 2003, 270). Milavec wishes to resist “harmonizing Didache usage with that of the Christian Scriptures” (Milavec 2003, 271). However, use of “the name of the Lord” would typically refer to God the Father. Milavec does not believe the concept of the Trinity would be indicated by the baptismal formula, nor would he say the concept was developed until the fourth century (Milavec 2003, 371). He therefore assumes that the formula in 7:1 may have been added later, as he suggests happening in Matthew 28:19. Another possible solution is that in the two strands of thought, Gentile and Hebraic, the terminology could have been used differently and that both are present in Didache (Milavec 2003, 272).

Baptism was not only a Christian rite in the first century. Milavec describes the process by which a gentile convert to Judaism would present himself, receive instruction, and be baptized (Milavec 2003, 273). He concludes that the actual setting and the manner of instruction would be similar in the Didache communities. The instructor and baptizer would be the same sex as the convert to tailor instruction and guard modesty.

Milavec shows a fundamental presupposition when he discusses the theology of baptism. “Theology grows out of graced experience. As such, therefore, the theology of baptism originates in the experience of baptism” (Milavec 2003, 274). While the theology will then influence preceptions of the act of baptism, Milavec sees the act itself as the mover of opinion. Baptism can serve to create a social bond with others who are baptized. This may well replace the old bonds to the pagan society, broken by conversion. Therefore, Milavec sees the corporate identity factors as the essential element in baptism (Milavec 2003, 275). The convert’s social identity was transformed in the training and would be affirmed by baptism (Milavec 2003, 276). The baptism, in turn, led to what Milavec considers the new right to pray and receive the eucharist with other baptized people (Milavec 2003, 276). Baptism, according to Milavec, was later considered unrepeatable and somthing which conferred a transformation upon the believer (Milavec 2003, 277).

Milavec concludes that baptism was not clearly tied to the historical Jesus, but was practiced in Acts and later was associated with Jesus’ command (Milavec 2003, 277). He takes Matthew 28:19 as a concept from a later time period. Milavec also takes the idea of baptism in Acts to be a continuation of John’s baptism and the preaching of repentance. The idea of a specific Christian and trinitarian baptism could have been read into the Gospels at a later time, after a theology of baptism was developed (Milavec 2003, 278).

Conversion and commitment, rather than an act of baptism, as seen by Milavec, lead to forgiveness. He ties this doctrine to the parable of the Prodigal, among other places in Scripture. In all that Milavec cites, there is confession and commitment to life change prior to baptism (Milavec 2003, 280). This is similar to the pattern of the Didache, where extensive training takes place first, then baptism and admission to the Eucharist (Milavec 2003, 281).

​
0 Comments

Early Baptismal Rites

3/8/2019

0 Comments

 
Friday is Didache day.
3/8/19
Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: The Newman Press, 2003.

Fasting prior to baptism is a significant issue in the Didache. Milavec notes that it is never mentioned in Scripture as a preparation for baptism, nor is it mentioned elsewhere prior to Justin Martyr (Milavec 2003, 253). However, since the mention in Didache seems almost materr-of-fact, Milavec takes it to be a practice which was customary. He suggests that fasting may be seen as a way of intensifying prayer or conversion or as a natural response to a major life event (Milavec 2003, 253). A fast may also be a response to loss of identity in baptism (Milavec 2003, 254). A fast may also be a way of cleansing the unclean food sacrificed to idols from the system, or as a preparation for the more typical fast days to come (Milavec 2003, 255). Milavec does not make any conclusion about the actual  purpose of the fast.

Milavec explores the idea of fasting and sorrow further by considering a first century B.C. document telling a story of Joseph the patriarch and the conversion of his Egyptian bride, Asenath (Milavec 2003, 255). In the story, when Asenath is confronted by Joseph’s goodness, she is moved to weeping and repentance. She destroys her gods and spends a week mourning and fasting (Milavec 2003, 256). The wonder and significance of Asenath’s conversion move her to the signs of repentance, including fasting.

In Didache 7, the candidate for baptism along with the sponsor and others who are able, enter into a fast before the baptism. Milavec and others have attempted to identify reasons, but the text does not do so. Rather, it speaks only of the duration of the fast (Milavec 2003, 258). Because most people would find the fast days to be work days as well, the fast would have been a challenge.

Milavec next turns his attention to baptism itself, asking if the Didache communities would have baptized infants (Milavec 2003, 259). There is no explicit evidence prior to the late second or early third century. Milavec considers the teachings in the Didache and finds the references to baptism all indicate the individual being baptized has received training. This does not lead to a natural conclusion of infant baptism. This extends to the participation of all the baptized in communion and a requirement of confession of sins, something infants cannot do themselves (Milavec 2003, 260). In his argument, Milavec asserts that “the notion of ‘original sin’ was not developed prior to the third century, and one has to wait until Augustine (d. 430). to find a pastor threatening infants with eternal hellfire should they die without being baptized” (Milavec 2003, 260).

The use of flowing water was preferred in the Didache. Milavec notes this is consistent with the example of John the Baptist, Jewish tradition, and Hellenistic purification rituals (Milavec 2003, 261-262). He rightly observes that the verb “to baptize” does not require full immersion, though it may well have been preferred. Didache 7:2 makes reference to warm water, which could be used but was not preferable. There is debate whether the use of warm water would be for the sic, for infants, or possibly as a provision for cold climates (Milavec 2003, 263). Since the text doesn’t explain the logic, Milavec leaves the question largely unanswered. The trinitarian formula is specifically to be present. There also seems to be an understanding that enough water would be used, even in pouring, that the person would become quite wet (Milavec 2003, 264).

During the second century it became common to anoint a person with oil before baptism. By the third century a blessing of the oil was also considered normal (Milavec 2003, 264). An anointing after the water was also the norm, at least in Syria (Milavec 2003, 265). There is some question in Milavec’s mind whether the Didache migh have recognized a clergy-laity distinction and omitted the anointing as a feature of clerical practice. However, the Didache does not seem to recognize a distinction between clergy and laity. The mentions of anointings come from a time later than that of the Didache so it is reasonable to assume it was not a matter of widespread practice in the Didache communities (Milavec 2003, 266).

What of the words used in a baptism? Milavec notes that Didache 7:1 gives the triune name of God. However, he denies that the trinitarian formula was necessarily used. He adduces Scripture passages in which the early Christians did many things “in the name of Jesus” rather than self-consciously stating that they were using the name of the Trinity (Milavec 2003, 266). The question at hand is not the doctrine but the liturgical rite. Milavec theorizes that the first six chapters of the Didache would berecited before baptism (Milavec 2003, 267). The text could easily be imagined in this way, as a corporate recapitulation of the teaching and a repudiation of the way of death (Milavec 2003, 268). Milavec assumes that some very striking liturgy would be used. If it were not the Didache text, he does not have another suggestion.

Milavec does question whether baptism would be practiced unclothed and in mixed company. Jews and Gentiles alike would make use of Roman baths and participate in athletic competitions, which regularly involved nudity. Ritual purifications also typically involved removal of all clothes and ornaments. However, the Didache does not specify this. It seems the pouring of water would allow for missing some parts of the body. The baptisms in open air would have been a very public setting. Milavec suggests use of clothes and a reception of the newly baptized person by others with towels and a white garment. Modesty would likely be protected (Milavec 2003, 269).

After the baptism, the newly baptized people would join the community in the Lord’s Prayer and a shared meal, which may or may not have been the Eucharist (Milavec 2003, 270).

​
0 Comments
<<Previous

    ​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