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

Sources for Didache 1.3b-2.1

9/22/2023

0 Comments

 
9/22/23
Scholarly Reflections
Kloppenborg, John S. "Chapter Six: The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1." in Van de Sandt, Huub (editor). Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 105-129.

Kloppenborg observes that recent scholarship has moved from considering the Didache dependent on canonical texts to its independence (Kloppenborg 2005, 106). Upon comparison with various other early Christian church orders, Kloppenborg considers Didache 1:3b-2:1 to be of great importance, as numerous texts present the greater context of the Two Ways material, but only some include 1:3b-2:1 (Kloppenborg 2005, 107). The discussion of dependence and its direction is complicated, and has led various scholars to even contradictory conclusions (Kloppenborg 2005, 108-109).

At issue in interpretation is not the fact that there are differences between the Didache and the Synoptic texts, but evaluation of the significance of those differences (Kloppenborg 2005, 110). In Kloppenborg's view, this discussion is made more challenging if the Synoptic texts were fluid in nature for some time before arriving at a final form. Not only the fact that a text could change, but also the fact that the Didache tends to make allusions rather than quotations causes difficulties (Kloppenborg 2005, 111). It is very difficult to identify the definitive source of an allusion. Kloppenborg suggests the most fruitful way of evaluating the dependence would be to identify areas where the Didache specifically uses material which must by its nature have been revised by a redactor (Kloppenborg 2005, 112).

Didache 1:3b-2:1 may be of importance as we consider the relationship between the Didache and Matthew's Gospel (Kloppenborg 2005, 113). In this passage, Kloppenborg considers the material related to Matthew to be heavily reworked. The material, compared with the statement of Jesus included in Matthew, has been expanded. This has suggested to some, including Koester, to assign it to the work of a different redactor than other parts of the Didache (Kloppenborg 2005, 114). While Kloppenborg recognizes that the critical edition of a reconstruction of Q is a hypothetical document, he also observes that it was prepared without reference to the Didache (Kloppenborg 2005, 115). The passage, however, does line up with material in the Q edition. The admonition to pray for enemies occurs both in Q and in Didache 1:3b. Kloppenborg finds developments in the Didache when comparing it to the material he sees as a common source for Luke and Q (Kloppenborg 2005, 120). However, in his subsequent discussion he doesn't find entirely conclusive evidence for the way dependence or wording may be confirmed. The purpose of prayer for enemies in Didache 1:3b is to win them over. This differs from many of the New Testament passages, where there may be a motive of gaining God's favor (Kloppenborg 2005, 123). The clearest evidence Kloppenborg finds of a reference specifically to Matthew rather than Q or Luke is the statement of the "right" cheek in Didache 1:6. Here, though, many commentators take Matthew to be dependent on the Didache, which may further complicate the situation (Kloppenborg 2005, 124). The remaining possible piece of evidence is a command to give freely, even in the case of a request for a theft of garments (Kloppenborg 2005, 126). Here the Didache and Luke are more similar, while Matthew deviates.

Kloppenborg concludes that there is no concrete evidence for the Didache's dependence on a specific source, whether Matthew, Luke, or Q. It has significant differences from other works (Kloppenborg 2005, 129). The compiler may well have known Luke, and possibly knew Matthew and Q, but we cannot be entirely certain.
0 Comments

Sermon on the Mount and Two Ways

9/21/2023

0 Comments

 
9/21/23
Scholarly Reflections
Syreeni, Kari. "Chapter Five: The Sermon on the Mount and the Two Ways Teaching of the Didache." in Van de Sandt, Huub (editor). Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 87-103.

Syreeni takes the Two Ways portion of Didache 1-6 to be significantly similar to the Sermon on the Mount of Matthew 5-7 (Syreeni 2005, 87). However, when evaluated in terms of catechetical object, composition history, and possible source material, they are not very similar. So as to work toward a possible history of development, Syreeni begins with the Didache, which he assumes to presuppose Matthew, then looks to earlier stages.

The Didache contains both a catechetical section and a section we would take as a church order. Syreeni considers both to have been adapted as they were pulled into a collection of materials (Syreeni 2005, 88). The various segments may rightly be understood as fitting into different genres. Syreeni also views the sections of the Didache as self-consciously not exhaustive. They do not provide everything that might be taught before baptism or all one would need in terms of community practices (Syreeni 2005, 89). They point out essential principles.

Syreeni reviews the materials within Diache 1-6, noting that the conceptual framework is similar at some points to material in the Epistle of Barnabas, and that the concepts stress boundaries between Christianity and paganism, rather than between Christianity and Judaism (Syreeni 2005, 91). Due to the relative clumsiness of Barnabas, Syreeni considers the Two Ways materials in the Didache to be based on Baranabas, rather than the opposite flow of influence (Syreeni 2005, 92). It is further possible that both Barnabas and the Didache drew on a common source. Syreeni does think there is something which underlies Barnabas, though he does not pursue it in this chapter (Syreeni 2005, 93).

Syreeni notes that the Didache has particular ways of dealing with moral exhortation. Specifically, prohibitions are drawn from the second part of the decalogue. Leviticus 19:18 is present, and there is an address to "my child" (Syreeni 2005, 94). These uncercurrents in gathering commands could lead both to the distillation of Torah in James and also to the Sermon on the Mount. Syreeni is clear that this is not a necessary outcome but that it is certainly a possible one (Syreeni 2005, 96).

Next, Syreeni considers the compositional history of Matthew 5-7, which he takes to be clearly based on Q 6:20b-49, as informed by his two source theory (Syreeni 2005, 97). The intent of Matthew is to produce a gospel based on narrative and discourses, while the Didache is identified as a paraneitic set of instructions (Syreeni 2005, 98). The Sermon on the Mount is an example of what Jesus, in 28:19, would refer to as what he commanded his disciples. Syreeni takes the Sermon on the Plain in Luke to be constructed from the same Q material. Though Q is a hypothetical document, Syreeni notes that it also has a debated history of composition. He summarizes that the passage is a composite of several groups of sayings (Syreeni 2005, 99). Logically, he finds ties to the structure of the Didache, with an early emphasis on discipleship, further moral teacings, and eschatology toward the end. The redaction which could lead to Matthew 5-7 shows marks of oral enhancement and reorganization of ideas in order to strengthen its impact (Syreeni 2005, 100). Syreeni does not consider it conclusive either that Matthew 5-7 shows the work of a community or of an individual redactor (Syreeni 2005, 101).

Syreeni concludes that while Matthew knew of Two Ways teachings, the Sermon on the Mount was not directly influenced by them. However, both Matthew 5-7 and Didache 1-6 set out to teach essentials of the Christian faith, using Jewish patterns, and taking fairly similar structural paths (Syreeni 2005, 102).
0 Comments

Matthew's Community

9/19/2023

0 Comments

 
9/19/23
Scholarly Reflections

Weren, Wim. "Chapter Three: The History and Social setting of the Matthean Community." in Van de Sandt, Huub (editor). Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 51-62.

In this paper, Weren seeks out the history and setting of Matthew's Gospel, a task made difficult due to the lack of external witness (Weren 2005, 51). He identifies the "community" as not necessarily one local group, but likely a number of groups, possibly spread out geographically, which share substantial agreement. Rather than focusing on the period around A.D. 80, when many critical scholars would identify a final phase of redaction, he looks at three phases of construction (Weren 2005, 52). First, he considers a period prior to 70 and a community mostly identified as Jews. Second, he studies the period between 70 and 80, as the group would consider themselves Jewish Christians. Third, he looks at final redactional moves as the Christians associate with many non-Jews. Weren acknowledges that the boundaries among these times are not clear. 

In the first period of development, Weren considers the Christians to have been largely associated with their Jewish heritage and community. During this period, he takes the community to have focused on the sayings of Jesus, particularly those which were not later found in the other canonical gospels (Weren 2005, 53). Matters such as temple customs were familiar and considered normal. Weren refers us, for example, to Matthew 4:5; 17:24-27; 5:23-24; 5:17-19; 23:23; and 6:1-18. The community focused evangelism toward other Jews and would expect the return of Jesus (10:6, 23). Weren takes this to reflect a condition prior to the destruction of the temple. While Weren would consider various possible locations, the action seems to be centered in Capernaum or Galilee.

After the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, Jewish life was necessarily changed. Weren sees this as a time of "urgent reorientation" (Weren 2005, 55). There was a rise in the importance of the rabbinic culture, which worked for unity and a Jewish identity, even without temple worship. Weren considers this to be the period in which conflict would have arisen between the Christians and the Pharisees, who would now be linked with the scribes. In these passages of Matthew, the Pharisees are depicted very negatively. Weren does note that the concept may not have been invented by the Christians. "The Christian Jews knew themselves backed by Jesus, who had also disputed Pharisaic interpretations of the Torah on a number of points" (Weren 2005, 55). The Christians therefore emphasized the power and authority of Jesus, over against the claims of Pharisees who sought to strengthen and purify the Jewish people. Weren observes that the two opposing groups were both intent on using Scripture to assert their points of view and considered that they were rooted in right tradition (Weren 2005, 56). Because of the conflict with the Pharisees, the Christians were separating from the mainstream of Judaism. Weren sees the Christians placing leaders in roles which might be parallel to Jewish people. For instance, rather than the scribes, who would ensure fidelity, Peter's apostolic role carries a preaching and teaching authority which would assure orthodoxy (Weren 2005, 57). Weren notes a geographical shift at this time as well, with Christians tending to move from lower Galilee to upper Galilee, where there was less influence of the Pharisees.

Weren moves on to the third phase of development, about 80-90 A.D., as Christian Jews tend to build relationships with a broader range of Christian communities (Weren 2005, 58). Here the terminology is important. For instance, Weren notes "among Jews" rather han "the" Jews. He also finds "their synagogues" as opposed to "my church." Further, "In 8:11-12, the expression, 'the children of the kingdom' is an honorary name for the people of Israel, but in 13:38 this appellation is attributed to the followers of Jesus" (Weren 2005, 59). The Christians have appropriated terminology of being God's chosen people. At this time, Weren considers the community to have begun drawing in material from Q and Mark which would speak to a mission to the world, as opposed to Jewish communities. The movement has become more cosmopolitan in nature. There is a decreased emphasis on the Jewish laws, along with a greater emphasis on Jesus for all nations (Weren 2005, 60). Elements such as worship using the Lord's Supper, the Lord's prayer, and application of baptism took precedence, as the group was more clearly distinct from its Jewish heritage. With this new identity, an awareness of false prophets and the danger of false teaching was increasing (Weren 2005, 61). This can be explained by the proliferation of traveling prophets.

​
0 Comments

Matthew, Didache, and Ignatius of Antioch

9/18/2023

0 Comments

 
9/18/23
Scholarly Reflections

Jefford, Clayton N. "Chapter Two: The Milieu of Matthew, the Didache, and Ignatius of Antioch: Agreements and Differences." in Van de Sandt, Huub (editor). Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 35-47.

Jefford holds a position that Matthew, the Didache, and the genuine letters of Ignatius all have an Antiochian provenance, though he admits that the evidence for Antioch is tenuous for Matthew and the Didache (Jefford 2005, 36).The texts show signs of access to the same underlying resources, and Ignatius, though he doesn't use Matthew extensively, seems more influenced by Matthew than by the other canonical gospels. While the evidence remains tenuous, Jefford thinks one can make a reasoned conclusion that the same community exercised a strong ifnluence on the three works.

Jefford briefly considers arguments for Egypt as the provenance, observing all are inconclusive (Jefford 2005, 37). British scholarship has historically suggested Palestine as the provenance for the Didache. However, recent scholarship has tended to move at least the final stages of development of the Didache "away from Palestine toward Syria" (Jefford 2005, 38). He also finds some strength in arguments that Matthew may reflect a Syrian context.

The work of Jonathan Draper has recently made some credible suggestions that the Didache depends on a Q tradition which may have accumulated material as the community moved from Palestine to Syria (Jefford 2005, 39). Jefford considers Matthew to show many signs of influence from a Q community as well. The interplay of an established community and influences from outside the community is, in his opinion, an important similarity between Matthew and the Didache. The similarity in concepts but not in wording suggests dependence on similar oral sources, rather than a written source (Jefford 2005, 40). A challenge with this interpretation is presented by the actual use of the materials. Jefford observes that the same idea may be presented in very different contexts in Matthew and the Didache (Jefford 2005, 41). This could easily be taken to show the two texts have different provenance. Yet Jefford takes it as evidence that different authors applied the relevant ideas to different situations.

Jefford reminds his readers that we understand there to be, by necessity, a Jewish background to early Christianity. The influence of Paul was significant to the development of Christianity as well (Jefford 2005, 42). While Pauline theology is not clear in the Didache, we can see that Paul attests to communities in which there are elements both of Jewish and non-Jewish Chrsitianity. We know tha Antioch had both elements, as evidenced by remains in Antioch and by Acts 15 and Galatians 2 (Jefford 2005, 42). The Pauline influence in Antioch is clear, particularly as we consider the concerns which Ignatius shares in his letters (Jefford 2005, 43). Jefford notes the emphasis on heirarchy in Ignatius. Later bishops also show signs of dealing with Jewish factions in Christianity. This suggests there were Pauline and Petrine emphases in the same city.

Jefford considers it important to his inquiry that we attempt to identify the gospel text (or texts) which Ignatius would have taken as authoritative. This is a challenge, since Ignatius only clearly uses a handful of Old Testament writings (Jefford 2005, 44). There are no appeals to Mark, and only perhaps one allusion to Luke. While Jefford finds evidence of John's world of thought there are no quotations. Pauline interpretation seems clear. And the scholarly community largely agrees that Ignatius not only knew and used Matthew, but that he expected his readers to know Matthew as well (Jefford 2005, 45). Jefford therefore concludes that Antioch is a likely provenance for Matthew, and that the apparent parallels in the contexts of Matthew and the Didache suggest the same provenance for the Diache (Jefford 2005, 46). The confluence of evidence suggests to Jefford that Antioch is the most likely large city to serve, primarily due to the fact that Ignatius is clearly associated with that community.
0 Comments

Matthew and Torah

9/14/2023

0 Comments

 
9/14/23
Scholarly Observations
Repschinski, Boris. "Chapter Ten: Conclusions." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 173-176.

Matthew's view of Torah is a recurring matter of consideration when we evaluate early Christian documents. Repschinski observes that Matthew shows a strong regard for the Mosaic Law, counter to many early Christian authors, including the authors included in the Canon (Repschinski 2008, 173). Matthew shows Jesus' teaching about the Law at many points, making it more like a living document which has very concrete implications to daily life than many other interpretations (Repschinski 2008, 174). Though Matthew deals very little with mission to Gentiles, the account was quickly adopted and used among Gentiiles (Repschinski 2008, 176). This suggests that the emphasis on observance of the Law was focused on showing love for neighbors and on showing Jewish people that the Gospel was not intended to negate their history or culture.

​
0 Comments

Matthew and Jesus

9/13/2023

0 Comments

 
9/13/23
Scholarly Observations
Sim, David C. "Chapter Nine: Matthew and Jesus of Nazareth." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 155-172.

In this chapter, Sim sets out to make "a comparison of Matthew's portrayal of Jesus with the real Jesus of history" (Sim 2008, 155). Sim goes on to describe his view of Matthew (whom he has concluded was not a disciple of Jesus) and how he adopted various creations of the early church. This results, in Sim's view, in Matthew not serving as a reliable source of information about the actual Jesus. As material for analysis, Sim selects "Jesus' involvement in a Gentile mission and . . . the attitude of Jesus towards the Torah" (Sim 2008, 156). 

Matthew and Mark provide contrasting descriptions of a mission of Jesus in Gentile territory. Mark notes four occasions of Jesus visiting Gentile areas (Sim 2008, 157). In Mark, with one of the feedings of the multitude occurring in a Gentile area, the eucharistic connotation of the event suggests that Gentiles can be partakers of the Christian community. In contrast, Matthew normally restricts Jesus' ministry to Jewish territory. The few occasions when Jesus is seen in Gentile areas are very brief and may even show Jesus going toward those areas but remaining somewhat distant (Sim 2008, 158-159). The feeding of the multitude of Mark 7 (in Gentile territory) appears in Matthew 15 in Jewish lands (Sim 2008, 159). When Matthew 16-17 place Jesus in Gentile territory, almost all his interactions are with his disciples. 

As he compares Jesus' attitude toward Torah in Mark and Matthew, Sim sees Mark's account affirming moral and ethical commandments but not the rituals included in the Law (Sim 2008, 1260). Matthew shows Jesus saying clearly that Jesus has not come to do away with Torah. Rather, he affirms it and strengthens it.

Sim attempts next to identify an historical Jesus within this dynamic, which he admits is a highly complex matter (Sim 2008, 161). Sim describes scholarship which portrays Jesus as having attitudes ranging from a broad mission to Gentiles to having very little contact with Gentiles. Likewise, some scholars see Jesus as abolishing the Mosaic Law and others portray him demanding obedience to it (Sim 2008, 162-163). Because the scholarship has such apparently irreconcilable differences, Sim moves to a study of the practices of early Christianity in Jerusalem, based on historic reconstruction (Sim 2008, 163). For this study, he relies heavily on Acts 1-5, with some nods to Pauline epistles (Sim 2008, 161). The original group of about 120 were people who knew Jesus; his disciples , and dedicated followers and their families. There was no clear attempt to reach out to Gentiles recorded in the earliest chapters of Acts. The community kept their practices of Torah, including presence at the Temple. The disciples are not charged with subverting Moses, with the exception of Stephen (Sim 2008, 165). The move beyond the boundaries of Judaism seems not to start in earnest until at least Acts chapter six (Sim 2008, 166).

Sim attempts to harmonize his observations about Matthew, Mark, and an historical Jesus. The widely divergent conclusions made by scholars create difficulty in determining the extent of continuity and discontinuity between Judaism and the new Christian movement (Sim 2008, 167-169). While Sim considers the problem virtually impossible to solve, he does think the portrayal of Jesus in Mark is less likely to be accurate in terms of his attitude toward Torah and a mission to Gentiles. The discontinuity is greater than he thinks would be found in Christianity as a whole (Sim 2008, 170).

Sim's conclusion is that Matthew may stand closer to an accurate portrayal of Jesus, in terms of his attitude about Torah and a Gentile mession, than does Mark (Sim 2008, 171). The discontinuity evidenced in Mark seems greater than he thinks would be warranted, based on early practices as recorded in Acts.

​
0 Comments

Matthew and Ignatius of Antioch

9/12/2023

0 Comments

 
9/12/23
Scholarly Observations

Sim, David C. "Chapter Eight: Matthew and Ignatius of Antioch." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 139-154.

Sim observes that both Matthew and Ignatius can be placed in Antioch in Syria, within about 20 years of each other. This should suggest great similarity, but Sim notes striking contrasts. "Matthew belonged to the Law-observant strain of the Christian tradition that had not broken with Judaism and which opposed the Law-free Pauline tradition, while Ignatius represented the Pauline version of the Christian message and saw no compatibility whatsoever between the Christian tradition and the practice of Judaism" (Sim 2008, 139). Sim adds to this philosophical difference a suggestion that the two factions had been in conflict by the time of Ignatius.

Sim assigns the Gospel of Matthew to someone who was not a disciple of Jesus, but doesn't provide reasons, simply affirming the author is unknown (Sim 2008, 140). In contrast to Matthew's identity, Sim is confident that we know a good deal about Ignatius from his letters, that he was Bishop of Antioch and that he was transported to Rome for execution. On the way he wrote letters which tell the theological orientation held by himself and his church.

Matthew can be dated, in Sim's opinion, to 85-95. He places it in Antioch, though he admits to some scholarship suggesting Galilee. The evidence against Galilee is mainly based on the composition in Greek and the lack of discussion of the Jewish war (Sim 2008, 141). Ignatius' letters identify the author as Bishop of Syria, who resided in Antioch (Sim 2008, 142). The date during the reign of Trajan (98-117) is fairly certain, and most will assign the events to a date of 107 or after.

In their theological orientation, Sim sees a substantial difference between Matthew and Ignatius. Matthew fits into a pattern Sim calls "Christian Judaism," characterized by a high level of continuity of thought with the Old Testament and traditional Judaism (Sim 2008, 143). The practices of Jewish life were continued, and Christian theology and practice were additional layers of their lives. Sim details elements of Matthew which show Jesus clearly as the Messiah as well as elements which affirm Jewish traditional practices (Sim 2008, 144-147). Sim suggests that the apparent dispute with Formative Judaism after 70 AD may have indicated a schism within Judaism or that the Matthean community was already separated from Judaism (Sim 2008, 147). Sim is fairly certain that Matthew had a strongly negative attitude toward Paul (Sim 2008, 148).

Counter to Matthew, Ignatius shows a heavy influence of Pauline thought (Sim 2008, 148). Ignatius makes many references to Paul's thought and refers to Paul in the context of his letter to the Ephesians (Ignatius thinks it was written by Paul, though Sim does not). Sim assumes that at the time of Ignatius there would be no concept of Paul being considered authoritative Scripture and that Ignaitus, as a prisoner, would not have access to reference sources so would depend on his memory (Sim 2008, 149). Sim does think Ignatius was very familiar with a good number of Paul's letters. His concept of the Law is remarkably similar to that of Paul, who directs people to live acording to faith, not the Law (Sim 2008, 150).

Sim compares the views of Matthew and Ignatius, noting they would have been in sharp opposition at their time, and speculating that Matthew either would write as a corrective to Paul's influence or possibly as a corrective to the growing community which Ignatius would lead (Sim 2008, 151). Ignatius warns about opponents within Christianity. These warnings may be against two different factions or one, including elements of Judaizing behavior and docetism (Sim 2008, 152). Ignatius, while he doesn't adopt Matthew's theology, does use Matthean language to describe the Judaizing tendencies of his detractors (Sim 2008, 153). This suggests a broad knowledge of Matthew but a rejection of the Jewish tendencies of his Gospel.

​
0 Comments

Matthew and the Didache

9/11/2023

0 Comments

 
9/11/23
Scholarly Observations

Van de Sandt, Huub. "Chapter Seven: Matthew and the Didache." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 123-138.

Van de Sandt recognizes a strong affinity between the Didache and Matthew's Gospel, detailing a number of the thematic similarities (Van de Sandt 2008, 123). Scholarly consensus in the past was that the Didache drew on the final form of Matthew and perhaps Luke. The line of thinking which places the Didache near the end of the first century suggests the influence of Matthew was strong at that time (Van de Sandt 2008, 124). The views which make Matthew dependent on the Didache, in Van de Sandt's opinion, push the dating of the Didache much earlier and possibly too early. However, dependence on a common tradition is quite plausible.

Both Matthew and the Didache use obedience to the principles of Torah (particularly commands to love your neighbor, fulfilling the second table of the commandments) as key to their moral code (Van de Sandt 2008, 125). The manner of interpretation is similar in each text. Van de Sandt evaluates this idea in greater depth by looking at the Didache's Two Ways section, as it provides a way of understanding matters considered those of life and death (Van de Sandt 2008, 127). The Way of Life is built on the foundation of love for neighbor. The Decalogue serves as the unifying principle for the Didache (Van de Sandt 2008, 129). Likewise, in Matthew 5, observance of righteousness is what brings perfection (Mt. 5:20-48) (Van de Sandt 2008, 130). The Didache also describes perfection in terms of obedience to commands of righteousness, first in non-retaliation (1:4) and then in obedience to all God's laws (6:2) (Van de Sandt 2008, 133).

Matthew and the Didache do not treat practical matters of carrying out the Law in the same way. Van de Sandt observes that Matthew calls for detailed observances of the Law in such a way as to go beyond the specific commands and reach for the intent or implications (Van de Sandt 2008, 135). The Didache does speak (6:2) of perfection through keeping the commandments. However, immediately afterward it relaxes the stance. This is the opposite of Matthew's view (Van de Sandt 2008, 137).

Van de Sandt concludes that both documents take Torah for granted and as a means of some sort of perfection (Van de Sandt 2008, 137-138). They have different ways of going about this quest for perfection, particularly in the case of addressing Gentiles. The Didache has a different standard. While Gentiles are to attempt to observe Torah, it is recognized as being a cultural departure for them. This is more akin to Paul's view that the law is good but not salvific.
0 Comments

Matthew and James

9/8/2023

0 Comments

 
9/8/23
Scholarly Observations

Zangenberg, Jürgen. "Chapter Six: Matthew and James." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 104-122.

Zangenberg observes that though there seem to be connections between Matthew and James, the works do not make specific and clear cross-references (Zangenberg 2008, 104). This, however, is also the case in many works from the same general period, which may be closely related to one another. It is frequently more productive to consider evidence of material clearly drawing on similar source matter or of it having similar vocabulary or style. Zangenberg briefly lists some similarities which will influence his analysis (Zangenberg 2008, 105). Both texts were written at a time when most of Christianity existed in a predominantly Jewish context. Though there are different factions within Christianity and Judaism at the time, these texts do not attempt to sort out these differences.

Matthew and James are both ascribed to particular authors, though Matthew's ascription is external rather han internal (Zangenberg 2008, 105-106). Identification of the James claimed as the author of the leter is a bit more difficult. He is not clearly identified in the letter. However, we may well take him to be the person who was the lead elder in Jerusalem for many years (Zangenberg 2008, 107). Matthew, though not identified clearly as the author in the body of the Gospel, is referred to by Papias and others relatively early (Zangenberg 2008, 108). 

We know relatively little about the community in which James wrote. Zangenberg notes the letter is addressed as a circular letter to the twelve tribes, yet they are not "of Israel" and they are all scattered, with none remaining in Palestine (Zangenberg 2008, 109). James speaks of a variety of leaders, but does not reference apostles. He also doesn't make statements about different subgroups, such as nationalities (Zangenberg 2008, 110).

Matthew shows interest in teachers but also speaks clearly about "apostles" and "disciples" (Zangenberg 2008, 110). Matthew is much more specific than James about the types of doctrinal differences among groups, as well as different religious practices. James paints a more unified picture (Zangenberg 2008, 111). Matthew shows a tension with Judaism, but Zangenberg considers it unclear what specific type of Judaim is in his mind (Zangenberg 2008, 112). Matthew also makes it clear that there are differences between Christianity and Roman culture. However, the type of differences are not shown clearly.

Zangenberg goes on to discuss the content and terminology found in Matthew and in James. Matthew and James both take a high view of the Law, urging not only hearing, but also active obedience (Zangenberg 2008, 113). This is common in many early Christian texts. While Matthew speaks clearly about ritual regulations for purity, James does not. Matthew's emphasis is based on Jesus' commands; James' motivation is based on broader, more typically Jewish logic (Zangenberg 2008, 114). James gives us more Jesus traditions than are found in any other writings except the canonical Gospels. James, however, never uses context found in Matthew, restraining himself to individual sayings. James has an oblique way of developing his Christology. While not mentioning the birth, death, or resurrection of Jesus or using Messianic titles, he clearly shows Jesus as the lord and returning judge (Zangenberg 2008, 115-116). Matthew grounds his Christology in all the elements which James chooses not to mention.

Zangenberg thinks James shows a close kinship to 1 Peter, with common traditions and similar community situations (Zangenberg 2008, 117). Matthew fits similarly into the context with James and 1 Peter. The alleged controversy between James and Paul may be overblown. There seems to be relatively little contact in topics or settings (Zangenberg 2008, 118). Paul and James both consider God's law as essential and expect people to hear and obey. Both pursue love as the way of fulfilling the law, and recognize that we live by faith. Paul has a greater expectation of the work of the Holy Spirit to bring forth works than does James (Zangenberg 2008, 119). The two authors are dealing with different situations and go about them in slightly different ways. 

Zangenberg concludes that Matthew and James have a close relationship. Though there is diversity in their literary outlook and use of other material, they draw on the same thought world as one another (Zangenberg 2008, 120). For that matter, the world of Paul and John are clearly within the same tradition as well (Zangenberg 2008, 121).

​
0 Comments

Matthew and Hebrews

9/7/2023

0 Comments

 
9/7/23
Scholarly Observations

Hasitschka, Martin. "Chapter Five: Matthew and Hebrews." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 87-103.

Hasitschka places Hebrews as written probably between 80 and 90, likely in Rome (Hasitschka 2008, 87). Jesus, the High Priest, has come before the presence of God as the final sacrifice. Hebrews and Matthew are both decidedly rooted in the Hebrew scriptures. Hasitschka evaluates common elements in Matthew and Hebrews, then specifically reviews the concept of sacrifice in the two texts.

Both Matthew and Hebrews use the Old Testament extensively, often specifically quoting the Septuagint (Hasitschka 2008, 88). There is a strong concept of Jesus, the son of Abraham, rescuing the children of Abraham. Jesus receives the adoration which we would expect to be reserved for God. He is presented clearly as the Son of God in both texts. Matthew and Hebrews speak freely of the Law, referring to the commands of God (Hasitschka 2008, 89). They also emphasize the importance of mercy and peace, which are greater than ritual laws. Both texts look forward to an eternity, the end of the world, in hope. Jesus is pictured in prayer (Hasitschka 2008, 90), as the one who is reconciling God and man through a covenant.

Hasitschka next considers forgiveness of sins as presented in Matthew. Jesus' name is a reference to Jehovah's salvation (Hasitschka 2008, 91). He proceeds to live a life which specifically fulfills prophecies pertaining to salvation. Jesus is presented not only as the one who lives such a life as to be able to forgive sins, but he models and encourages a willingness to forgive sins (Hasitschka 2008, 92). Forgiveness is part and parcel of Jesus' mission. This forgiveness extends to the work of Jesus in the Last Supper (Hasitschka 2008, 93). In Matthew, all the disciples are to drink, and the cup is specifically Jesus' blood for their forgiveness. Jesus is also presented, in Matthew 20:28, as a "ransom" who gives up his life for others (Hasitschka 2008, 94). Jesus' blood is understood as a sacrifice which can bring forgiveness (Hasitschka 2008, 95-96). Matthew shows a strong connection between Jesus' blood in the Last Supper and an eschatological fulfillment (Hasitschka 2008, 96). There will be peace in the future kingdom when Jesus again drinks wine.

Hebrews also treats cleansing of sin as a central topic. Though little is said about Jesus' earthly work, what there is centers on salvation from sin (Hasitschka 2008, 97). Jesus' death is seen as a fulfillment of the Day of Atonement, as he has made purification then sits down at the right hand of the Father (Hasitschka 2008, 98). In Hebrews this is seen as the work of the High Priest, who brings an offering. However, unlike the Old Testament High Priest, Jesus can enter into the holy place and make an offering of his own blood, the blood of the covenant (Hasitschka 2008, 99). By its nature, a covenant requires blood, which serves to purify things. In Hebrews, blood is also used to gain access to God, to purify consciences, and to make a new covenant (Hasitschka 2008, 100-101).

Hasitschka concludes that in both Matthew and Hebrews the work of Jesus is all about forgiveness of sins (Hasitschka 2008, 102). The forgiveness, which is tied up with a covenant and blood, strikingly occurs in these terms only in Matthew and Hebrews. Jesus' purpose is to fulfill salvation by his blood (Hasitschka 2008, 103)

​
0 Comments

Matthew and John

9/6/2023

0 Comments

 
9/6/23
Scholarly Observations

Painter, John. "Chapter Four: Matthew and John." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 66-86.

"Matthew and John have the dubious distinction of being recognized as two of the most anti-Jewish documents in the New Testament" (Painter 2008, 66). Painter notes that John is the one who shows Jesus calling the Jews children of the devil and blind, remaining in sin. They are repeatedly condemned, in no uncertain terms. The message of Matthew and of John is that of faith and a vision of the future. This is a sharp contrast to the Formative Judaism which arose around the time of their composition, between 80 and 100 (Painter 2008, 67).

Painter analyzes usage of "Jew" as opposed to "Israelite" especially in John's Gospel. He concludes that it is likely John had adopted the usage of the Diaspora in the narrative portions of his Gospel, but in the speech of the characters he used the characteristic language which those individuals would have used (Painter 2008, 67). Non-Israelites call people "Jews" but the Israelites refer to one another as Israel. Matthew, coming from the same period, shows a clear tension with the Pharisees (Painter 2008, 68-69). The work of rebuilding a Judaism without a temple led to some degree of heavy-handed nationalism which was not compatible with Christian thought. In Painter's estimation the conflict may or may not have created a permanent rift which separated a Matthean community from Jewish Chrsitianity (Painter 2008, 71). 

Matthew takes a view of the Law which can be distinguished from the other evangelists. Painter uses, as an example, Matthew 15:1-20 as compared to Mark 7:1-23. Mark uses the situation to demonstrate that all foods can be clean, while Matthew uses the same event to demonstrate that the ceremonial uncleanness of hands doesn't defile a person (Painter 2008, 72). Painter draws a conclusion that in Matthew's community the dietary laws may have been practiced, but that the layers of customs piled up by the Pharisees were not. Matthew considers Jesus' mission to be wrapped up in fulfilling the Law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17) (Painter 2008, 73). Jesus' intent is to complete the required obedience to the Law and make it pass away. This is a sharp contrast to Formative Judaism. Painter also sees it as in contrast to Pauline Christianity (Painter 2008, 74). The Law is not abandoned. It is rather brought to completion. The objection to the Pharisees is that they fail to be concerned with the most important elements of God's Law (Painter 2008, 76).

Painter makes a brief comparison of Matthew and Q, which he views as "rather neutral" (Painter 2008, 77). In his opinion, Matthew tends to align Jesus more with the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist to the new order. This, Painter thinks, may be a contrast with Q (Painter 2008, 78).

Compared to John, Matthew does not have as welcoming an attitude toward the Gentile mission. Matthew acknowledges there is a mission to all nations after the resurrection, but he limits it to the Jews prior to the resurrection (Painter 2008, 78). The mission, in Matthew 28:19-20, is to make disciples, baptize, and teach (Painter apparently does not take the participles as modifying the main verb, "disciple" but treats it as three separate actions) (Painter 2008, 79).  

In contrast to Matthew's view of the Law, John makes a distinction between Jesus on the one hand and Moses and the Law on the other hand (Painter 2008, 80). John 1:17 draws this distinction clearly. Jesus, the one who replaces the Law, has come to dwell with His poeple (Painter 2008, 81). The Jews, who know the Law, have not kept it. This drives the hostility which they pour out on Jesus, who is confronting them with their failure (Painter 2008, 82). At the same time, with his different view of the Sabbath, Jesus seems to be breaking the Law. This moves the Pharisees to greater hostility toward Jesus (Painter 2008, 83).

Painter ties the sense of mission in John to Jesus' statements about the disciples doing things "just as" (καθώς) Jesus has. They love as he loves them, etc. (Painter 2008, 84). Just as the Father sent the Son into the world, the Son sends his disciples. The mission is clearly to the entire world, regardless of ethnicity (Painter 2008, 85).

In conclusion, Painter finds that Matthew and John are both full of Jewish character. While Matthew does not diminish the Law, he sees it fulfilled in Jesus, who cares for Jews and the whole world (Painter 2008, 86). John also sees a mission to the world and a Jesus who causes the Law to be needless.

​
0 Comments

Matthew and Luke

9/5/2023

0 Comments

 
9/5/23
Scholarly Observations

Repschinski, Boris. "Chapter Three: Matthew and Luke." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 50-65.

Repschinski considers that there was not only a rift between Christianity and Judaism evidenced in the Gospels, but that there were substantial differences between the kind of Christianity Matthew and Paul would have promoted (Repschinski 2008, 50). There were certainly philosophical tensions between the Jewish traditions apparent in Matthew and the form of gentile Christianity which came to predominate (Repschinski 2008, 51).

Matthew's Gospel shows a clear concern that the Gospel should be made fully known to people of all nations (Repschinski 2008, 51-52). Counter to Sim, Repschinski takes many of the negative statements against gentiles in Matthew to show a contrast with Jesus' disciples (Repschinski 2008, 53). While even the gentiles get some things right, the disciples of Jesus do far better. Repschinski illustrates this using several passages from Matthew. While Matthew portrays Jesus' mission as focused to Jews, not Gentiles, there are still Gentiles around, participating in life and receiving blessing from God and His people (Repschinski 2008, 56).

In contrast to Matthew, Luke has normally been associated with a Gentile audience. However, Repschinski observes "Gentiles do not feature prominently in the Gospel at all" (Repschinski 2008, 57). In Luke's Gospel, while Jews are criticized, Gentiles are rarely characters who show up again and again (Repschinski 2008, 59). Even in Acts, when Paul is known for having a mission to Gentiles, he proceeds to go to the synagogue first, then to the Gentiles who receive him more favorably (Repschinski 2008, 60). In the Gospel, Luke tends to portray the Samaritans favorably. They are those, not accepted as fully Jewish, who turn to Jesus in faith and obedience (Repschinski 2008, 61). In Acts 8, the mission to the Samaritans is shown as fully developed. Repschinski also sees the mission to the Samaritans almost as a prototype for all New Testament mission to Gentiles (Repschinski 2008, 63). They are not previously bound to the Law and covenants. They are set apart from Jews.

Repschinski sees a growth of differences between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, as the implications of the background of the Mosaic Law or its absence are worked out. Both the Jewish and Gentile types of Christianity grow and flourish (Repschinski 2008, 64). The writings of Matthew and Luke show different emphases and approaches to bringing the Gospel to Gentiles. Yet they both deal with similar issues. Repschinski concludes, "We can only appreciate that for the early Christians, there was more than one way in dealing with the conflict between a rich tradition and a visionary future" (Repschinski 2008, 65). 

​
0 Comments

Matthew and Mark

9/4/2023

0 Comments

 
9/4/23
Scholarly Observations

Svartvik, Jesper. "Chapter Two: Matthew and Mark." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 27-49.

Svartvik understands Matthew to have redacted, or possibly to have made a "re-creation" of Mark (Svartvik 2008, 27). While he takes a view of Markan priority, he sees Matthew as indispensable. He intends, in this study, to "show to what extent Matthew has been read eclectically" (Svartvik 2008, 28). Considering Matthew as its own work, with its own message, he hopes to understand why Matthew was more influential in the development of Christian theology than Mark, then to identify important elements of Matthew's redactional strategy.

Papias asserted that Mark was drawn from the teachings of Peter. However, scholars comparing the apparent thought world of Peter and of Mark question that relationship (Svartvik 2008, 30). They have more of a tendency to associate Mark with Pauline thought. This leads Svartvik to consider the possibility that there is more distance between the thought world of Matthew and Mark than we might assume if Mark were primarily influenced by Peer (Svartvik 2008, 31). As Paul often refers to the actions of Jesus, but not Jesus' teachings, Mark provides actual teaching of Jesus in an extended way only in chapters 4 and 13. Both Paul and Mark tend to speak critically of the twelve disciples (Svartvik 2008, 32). Mark and Paul also tend to draw positive emphasis toward ministry to the Gentiles. This seems not to be the emphasis in Peter, who would be considered the apostle to the Jews (Svartvik 2008, 33). 

Svartvik goes on with his comparison of Gospel and Epistle to consider whether James might be a better match for Matthew, as Paul seems a good match for Mark (Svartvik 2008, 34). The thoughts expressed in James are closely related to those in Matthew, as are allusions James makes.

An important element in understanding Matthew is the emphasis on Jesus  and his specific teachings. Svartvik takes Matthew 28:20, where Jesus tells his disciples to teach all he has commanded, as of prime importance (Svartvik 2008, 37). It is significant that Matthew focuses on the words of Jesus much more than Mark does. Svartvik concludes "that Matthew not only regarded Mark as insufficient and inadequate, but also as inaccurate" (Svartvik 2008, 37, emphasis his). Mark did not match up with Matthew's priorities. Svartvik considers Mark to have presented an insufficiently Jewish Jesus. Matthew wanted to correct the impression.

In Svartvik's opinion, Matthew's emphasis on halakhic principles is a call to a greater understanding of the continuity of Christianity with the Old Testament, counter to what he sees in Mark and Paul (Svartvik 2008, 38). Matthew expresses a higher opinion of circumcision and the importance of the Sabbath than does Paul or Mark. Svartvik specifically compares Mark 13:18 and Matthew 24:20 in regard to the Sabbath (Svartvik 2008, 39). Matthew 15 refines a view of dietary laws and the importance of speech. Jesus does not declare all foods clean, but emphasizes the importance of words as compared to foods (Svartvik 2008, 40). 

Matthew does not reject Old Testament dietary laws, but the Pharisaic interpretations of them. Svartvik finds the rebuke of the Pharisees as a third important distinctive of Matthew. Matthew has Jesus referring to the Pharisees repeatedly as "hypocrites" (Svartvik 2008, 41). While Matthew ties Jesus directly to the Old Testament, he carefully ties the Pharisees to layers of practice which contradict the Old Testament (Svartvik 2008, 42).

Svartvick observes that an important way Matthew differs from Mark is in his treatment of Peter, along with the other disciples. While in Mark, Peter's failings are front and center, Matthew points him up "as the foremost disciple of Jesus" (Svartvik 2008, 44). As a group, the disciples in Matthew are considered willing to follow Jesus' teaching, even if they are not always able and frequently don't understand. It is possible that Matthew's favorable portrayal was related to a desire to show Christian teachers in a better light than the Pharisees, who were rising to greater prominence at the time Matthew was writing (Svartvik 2008, 45).

Svartvik concludes that there is little, if any, reason to assume Matthew was making concessions to a Judaizing movement (Svartvik 2008, 46). Matthew presents Jesus as a Jew who observes the Torah. This is perfectly clear. However, the vocal rejection of the Pharisees is evidence that Matthew is speaking against the rise of the rabbinic culture, not favoring it (Svartvik 2008, 47). This is one of the important distinctives of Matthew over against Mark. The problem in observing it is due to conflation of the two gospels. Each author presents Jesus from a different perspective so as to speak in a particular situation (Svartvik 2008, 48).

​
0 Comments

Matthew and Paul

9/1/2023

0 Comments

 
9/1/23
Scholarly Observations


Harrington, Daniel J. "Chapter One: Matthew and Paul." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 11-26.

Harrington compares Matthew and Paul, who appear to take very different positions in terms of Christian theology, despite their solid roots in Judaism (Harrington 2008, 11). Because Paul wrote some time before Matthew, Harrington addresses Paul first, then Matthew in each topic he considers.

The contextual differences of Paul and Matthew need to be taken into account (Harrington 2008, 12). The letters of Paul, simply due to their nature as letters about topics, are different in their emphasis and structure than a gospel account, as Matthew wrote. Matthew's narrative gives highlights of Jesus' teaching and life, beginning with an infancy narrative, continuing with a description of his work with his disciples, and ending with an account of his death, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances. Harrington thinks if Paul had written a Gospel, it would be much like Mark, and that if Matthew had written letters, they would be more like James. Paul's letters, from about the 50s, acknowledge tensions among Christians and between Jews and Christians. Matthew, probably written after the Roman destruction of the temple in 70, shows signs of an increasing animosity of the Jewish authorities toward Christians (Harrington 2008, 13).

Paul routinely refers to Jesus in terms of Christology. He calls him "Lord," as well as "Christ." Harrington takes this to indicate rapid development of Christology (Harrington 2008, 13). Paul's attention in Christology is focused on Jesus' death and resurrection (Harrington 2008, 14). Paul attaches other theological topics to the death and resurrection of Christ, which serves as his theological hub. While Paul rarely makes clear reference to Jesus' teachings, he frequently references his person and his actions. Matthew uses a similar christology, but also presents Jesus as the ultimate authoritative teacher. The five major discourses use Jesus' words to teach, rather than focusing on his actions.

Analysis of the attitude toward Law and Love presents a challenge. Paul makes positive and negative comments. However, Harrington concludes that "Paul did not believe that any Christian . . . was required to observe every part of the Mosaic Law" (Harrington 2008, 15). By being baptized and receiving the Holy Spirit, people were gathered into God's covenant. Yet Paul has a respect for the Mosaic Law. It is simply his understanding that it will not justify people, as Christ did (Harrington 2008, 16). Matthew's audience, as contrasted with Paul's, was composed mostly of those who had grown up in Judaism. They were accustomed to learning and practicing the Torah (Harrington 2008, 17). The Mosaic Law, in Matthew, is something to be fulfilled by Jesus. It serves as a valid measure of our life. Though Matthew and Paul have many of the same conclusions, Matthew considers teaching the commands to remain essential (Matthew 28:19) (Harrington 2008, 18).

Morality in life is a concept not far removed from that of keeping Torah. Harrington considers Paul to emphasize a goal of resurrection, but also the need to live a life characterized by the three virtues of faith, hope, and love (Harrington 2008, 18). All these virtues originate in God, not in our own abilities. Paul lists numerous vices to be avoided as well. Matthew emphasizes virtues in a slightly different way, primarily through the Sermon on the Mount. The acts of piety show wise conduct in society (Harrington 2008, 19). The prime virtue is a life of righteousness and justice. Harrington doesn't say whether he considers Paul's faith, hope, and love to be a summary of this.

Harrington moves on to discuss "communal conflicts." The examples he gives are related to living at peace within the community (Harrington 2008, 20). Paul writes forcefully to condemn examples of sexual immorality. In cases of conflict over food sacrificed to idols, however, there is a very gentle and permissive attitude, but also a focus on acting in such a way as to care for one's neighbor. In his writing, Paul regularly appeals to the person of Christ (Harrington 2008, 21). Matthew, because he is presenting his narrative through words and deeds of Jesus, uses Jesus' humility as the exemplar for our life in community. Avoiding scandal which would cause someone to stumble is at the heart of life in the community. Harrington notes that Matthew does present steps for conflict resoution in a level of detail which Paul does not have (Harrington 2008, 22). 

In his discussion of salvation and of eschatology, Paul sees a dualism. Either a person is dominated by sin and death or by righteousness and life (Harrington 2008, 22). Paul's writing often urges his readers to a living realization of their identity in Christ. This move urges an eschatological view of what we will be in eternity (Harrington 2008, 23). Matthew tends to look farther to the future than Paul. Harrington considers this emphasis to be related to the genre. While Paul is writing letters dealing with settings roughly 20 years after the resurrection, most of Matthew is set prior to the resurrection. Therefore, there is little said about the present Christian life. It is set for the future, as compared to the instance in which Jesus is acting or speaking (Harrington 2008, 23). 

Harrington concludes by considering whether Paul and Matthew would have known one another. That we do not know (Harrington 2008, 24). Matthew's Gospel was written after Paul's death, so Paul could not have known the document. It is possible that Matthew may have written partly to provide a more clearly Jewish context for Christianity, compared to Paul. Harrington observes that David Sim sees Matthew and Paul as in sharp opposition (Harrington 2008, 25). Harrington considers them to have much in common but to differ significantly in some nuances. This would make a discussion between the two fascinating (Harrington 2008, 26).

0 Comments

Purity in Matthew, James, and the Didache

8/31/2023

0 Comments

 
8/31/23
Scholarly Reflections
Repschinski, Boris. "Chapter Seventeen: Purity in Matthew, James, and the Didache." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 379-395.

Repschinski observes that purity codes have existed within Judaism and many other cultures, and that they tended to provide a good deal of social cohesion (Repschinski 2008, 379). Within Israel, purity codes related to Torah assist in defining a means by which we can be holy as God is holy (Repschinski 2008, 380).

Matthew's Gospel presents the idea of purity in terms of Jesus' work to bring forgiveness of sins (Repschinski 2008, 381). Jesus is presented as the one whose baptism and forgiveness actually takes away sins. He is the one who cleanses the unrighteous from the temple and who asserts the temple as the place of God's presence (Repschinski 2008, 383). For this reason, when Jesus leaves the temple, it signals the departure of God's presence. Jesus' presence, in Matthew's Gospel, remains in the Last Supper as the Passover is re-enacted (Repschinski 2008, 384). This, again, is a rite of purification. Jesus serves as the replacement of the temple. Repschinski notes that Matthew signals the extent of Jesus' replacement of a purity code by describing Jesus' interactions with Gentiles who would not be accepted in the temple culture (Repschinski 2008, 385). Matthew's orientation is that Jesus is held as the contrast to those who would violate the principles and spirit of Torah (Repschinski 2008, 386).

James, in contrast to Matthew, does not pursue issues of purity to a great extent (Repschinski 2008, 388). Ritual purity is absent from James' argument, though there are references to drawing near to God (Repschinski 2008, 389). There are multiple statements indicating a need to be in community with one another and with God. These are often made through descriptive metaphors (Repschinski 2008, 390).

The Didache teaches clearly that there is an expected code of purity. However, Repschinski observes a compromise. While all are expected to keep Torah, Gentiles are merely to do as well as they can (Repschinski 2008, 393). The purity in mind is not so much a ritual purity which guards worship, but a moral purity which breaks down barriers between people. Failure to pursue this moral purity can result in quarrels which, in turn, defile the ritual of the eucharist described in Didache 14 (Repschinski 2008, 394). ​
0 Comments

Oaths and Vows in James, Matthew, and the Didache

8/30/2023

0 Comments

 
8/30/23
Scholarly Reflections
Vahrenhorst, Martin. "Chapter Sixteen: The Presence and Absence of a Prohibition of Oath in James, Matthew, and the Didache and Its significance for Contextualization." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 361-377.

Vahrenhorst notes the scholarly opinions about Matthew shifting toward the writing coming from a community which is first Christian but with Jewish elements, rather than one which is first Jewish but with Christian elements (Vahrenhorst 2008, 362). Just the same, he sees in Matthew, especially 5:17-20, a solid allegiance to the Torah, with a typical rabbinic desire to apply the principles to everyday life.

The nature of oaths and vows in different Jewish contexts is a matter of substantial debate (Vahrenhorst 2008, 365). Because of this, Vahrenhorst considers a study of oaths in Matthew, James, and the Didache likely to be fruitful. The prohibition of swearing an oath using God's name serves to guard against asserting wrong values to God or claiming He is responsible for our failure to keep a promise (Vahrenhorst 2008, 365). Yet it is necessary to make firm promises. Therefore, Jewish writings tend to suggest promises, calling upon parents or other authorities (Vahrenhorst 2008, 366). Vahrenhorst notes that there was a distinction made between swearing an oath and making a vow, which would still express a commitment to an action but would avoid profaning God's name (Vahrenhorst 2008, 366-367).

Matthew has three significant passages regarding oaths. In 5:33-37, Matthew records Jesus as teaching that vows made to the Lord are binding (Vahrenhorst 2008, 368). To avoid breaking a vow, one should avoid making vows. In effect, the logical implication of involving God in a vow is that God will keep the promise if the promiser fails to do so. The same counsel appears in Matthew 23:16-22, where the Jewish leaders are identified as "blind" (Vahrenhorst 2008, 369). In the other, brief, passage, Peter denies knowing Jesus, using an oath. This is clearly seen as a negative response.

The Didache contains only one saying, in 2:2, about oaths, prohibiting those which are false (Vahrenhorst 2008, 371). However, the Torah is not mentioned specifically as an authority for the moral views of the Didache. Just the same, the moral authority seems to be drawn from Old Testament passages (Vahrenhorst 2008, 372). There are widely recognized halakhic elements in the Didache, which show a positive relationship with Jewish thought (Vahrenhorst 2008, 373).

James 5:12 makes a clear prohibition of oaths, but with no explanation (Vahrenhorst 2008, 375). This is consistent with the concern James shows with the ethics surrounding speech. One's life is to be consistent, including a confluence of speech and actions.

​
0 Comments

Instruction and Baptism in Matthew, James, and the Didache

8/29/2023

0 Comments

 
8/29/23
Scholarly Reflections
Stewart-Sykes, Alistair. "Chapter Fifteen: Ἀποκύησις λόγῳ ἀληθείας: Paraenesis and Baptism in Matthew, James, and the Didache." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 341-359.

Stewart-Sykes considers the paraenetic content of Matthew, James, and the Didache as regards baptism (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 341). He is particularly interested in the specific pre-baptismal instruction specified in the Didache. Following Pseudo-Isocrates (Ad Demonicum), Stewart-Sykes suggests a distinction between paraenesis, or ethical advice, and exhortation (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 342). There is certainly an element of exhortation, but the primary goal is giving advice. Stewart-Sykes goes on to cite a variety of scholarly opinions further identifying what would be meant by paraenesis (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 343-345).

The Two Ways material in the Didache, taken in context, is ethical instruction intended to prepare one for baptism (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 345). Matthew 5-7 is another example of paraenesis. Stewart- Sykes considers that, in light of the command to baptize and teach, from Matthew 28, that the instruction in chapters 5-7 should be viewed in light of pre-baptismal instruction (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 345-346). James, as a whole, can readily be understood as paraenetic in nature (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 346). It is marked by extensive ethical content. The context, however, is not that of prebaptismal instruction.

Stewart-Sykes begins an analysis of the meaning of baptism with James, who views baptism as the point of rebirth, a gift of God (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 348). This is accompanied by a "word of truth," which would likely be either words spoken at the baptism or as teaching beforehand. Matthew's Gospel ties baptism to an eschatological hope. The baptized person has an immediate hope in Christ as well as a hope at the end of the world (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 349).

Stewart-Sykes discusses the understanding of baptism as either in the name of the Trinity (Matthew and Didache) or in the name of Jesus (James) (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 350ff). By the early third century we have more extensive baptismal rites, though without a specific formula spoken. There are some assumptions that a development in thought occurred, resulting in a clear Trinitarian confession and act, but this is nowhere clearly stated in antiquity (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 351).

Stewart-Sykes returns to the question of pre-baptismal instruction in James. The concept is not stated clearly in James, but there may be allusions to it (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 353). He finds this to be the case in James 1:19-21, where there is exhortation, apparently repeated for those who have already been taught, to pursue life consistent with that in Matthew 5:21-23 and in the Didache's Way of Life (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 354). Stewart-Sykes goes on to identify a number of instances where James calls readers to a life consistent with the Didache's Way of Life.

In conclusion, Stewart-Sykes finds the three documents all speak to the reality of pre-baptismal instruction, and that those instructions guide the candidate for baptism into a particular mode of life which also includes an eschatological hope (Stewart-Sykes 2008, 356-357).

​
0 Comments

Law and Ethics in Matthew and James

8/28/2023

0 Comments

 
8/28/23
Scholarly Reflections
Van de Sandt, Huub. "Chapter Fourteen: Law and Ethics in Matthew's Antitheses and James's Letter: A Reorientation of Halakhah in Line with the Jewish Two Ways 3:1-6." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 315-338.

Van de Sandt observes the common opinion that Matthew 5:17-48 bears a strong similarity to the thought world of James (Van de Sandt 2008, 315). Their view of the Mosaic law, the goal of righteousness, and the concept of righteousness based on careful observance of the law are quite similar. Rather than posit a dependence between Matthew and James, Van de Sandt proposes that both texts are strongly oriented toward the Jewish Two Ways material found, among other witnesses, in Didache 3.1-6 (Van de Sandt 2008, 136). This material probably antedated the Didache, as evidenced by its inclusion in different variations in other early documents (Van de Sandt 2008, 317).

Van de Sandt breaks the text of Didache 3:1-6 into its component clauses, analyzing the overall structure. He observes that the bulk is divided into parallel couplets of a sin we would consider less serious leading to one we would see as more serious (Van de Sandt 2008, 319). The pattern, as Van de Sandt illustrates, is relatively common in rabbinic thought.

Though Matthew 5:17-48, and the surrounding passages, bear a resemblance to Luke 6:20-49, leading to much consensus that both authors relied on a Q source, Van de Sandt finds significant connections of Matthew 5 to the passage in Didache 3 (Van de Sandt 2008, 324). The underlying structure, with the "minor" offense followed by the "major" offense is alike, though in Matthew there is further elaboration. Both texts roundly affirm the necessity of the Law (Van de Sandt 2008, 327). Both the least and the greatest commands are valid. Matthew and the Didache both build the argument on precepts from the Decalogue (Van de Sandt 2008, 329). The topical arrangement is also significant, as the lighter command comes first and the heavier second (Van de Sandt 2008, 330).

Van de Sandt also compares James with Didache 3:1-6. In particular, he finds James 1:13-15 and 1:19-21 to correspond to the Didache's ethical material (Van de Sandt 2008, 331). In James, the desire leads to sin, which leads to death. The minor offense leads to the more serious one. Both documents describe the progression in terms of giving birth. As with Matthew and the Didache, James advocates a careful obedience to God's law (Van de Sandt 2008, 332). All of life is to be an expression of the command of God to love one another (Van de Sandt 2008, 333).

Van de Sandt observes a possible development of thought between that of Didache 3 and Matthew 5. In Matthew 5, the existing commands are intensified, while in Didache 3 existing commands are simply serialized (Van de Sandt 2008, 335). The same may be said of James, where a "small" sin becomes equated with murder, war, or adultery (Van de Sandt 2008, 336). ​
0 Comments

Ethics in James, Matthew, and the Didache

8/25/2023

0 Comments

 
8/25/23
Scholarly Reflections
Hartin, Patrick J. "Chapter Thirteen: Ethics in the letter of James, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Didache: Their Place in Early Christian literature." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 289-314.

Hartin considers the relationship of the ethical world of Israel and of Christianity, as addressed in James, the Didache, and Matthew, taking them in that order, which he thinks is the order of composition (Hartin 2008, 289). The ethical world is important as it largely provides a means to identify a particular group (Hartin 2008, 290).

James, addressing people of Israel who are dispersed, roots their identity in belonging to Israel (Hartin 2008, 291). There is an eschatological hope of restoration. They are pictured as rooted in the Torah, God's law (Hartin 2008, 292). The Law creates the identity of the people by describing how God has dealt with His people (Hartin 2008, 292). This socializes them in a particular way.

Matthew's Gospel is also rooted in the historical people of Israel (Hartin 2008, 293). Jesus' ministry and that of his disciples primarily focuses on Israel, not the Gentiles. Jesus specifically denies coming to do away with Torah, but affirms it and fulfills it (Hartin 2008, 294).

Hartin further finds the Didache to be rooted in Israelite identity (Hartin 2008, 295). However, unlike Matthew and James, it clearly has a concern for Gentiles. The ethic of the Torah is applied to the Gentile community as well as those from a Jewish background. This, again, is a means of socializing the people and creating one recognizable community.

In James, Hartin finds perfection as an important ethical marker (Hartin 2008, 297). The intention is that the people should be blameless, as the lamb offered to God was without blemish. Matthew also has a concept of perfection, which occurs as we imitate God in His concern for both good and bad (Hartin 2008, 299). Perfection in the Didache is also based on keeping Torah, and especially the Way of Life (Hartin 2008, 300). The people are to maintain purity above all. This creates their identity as people in a living relationship with God (Hartin 2008, 301). Hartin concludes that James, Matthew, and the Didache are alike in their call to perfection. However, while Matthew roots perfection in imitation of God, James focuses on the just works of care for others (Hartin 2008, 302). The Didache prescribes actions, but does not elaborate on them (Hartin 2008, 303). However, the actions are similar to the actions of God. This, says Hartin, is the standard for all three documents. The Christian is to be consistent, of a single mind (Hartin 2008, 305).

The twofold love command is also an important element in all three texts (Hartin 2008, 305). However, Hartin notes it is used in a different way in each. In James, the relationship of faith and works requires a conclusion that love for others must be practiced diligently. This is the predominant law of God's kingdom. In Matthew's Gospel, loving God and the neighbor is the means of fulfilling the Law and the prophets (Hartin 2008, 307). This embodies perfection, but based on the Scripture, as opposed to the more abstract concept of "kingdom" from James. In contrast, the Didache describes loving God and the neighbor in terms of remaining on the path of life (Hartin 2008, 307). The path of death, conversely, involves the lack of mercy.

Hartin next considers how the three documents fit into the context of the growing body of Christian literature. James works mostly with the conceptual world of the Septuagint and sayings of Jesus (Hartin 2008, 309). He takes them as harmonious and complementary. Matthew, though he uses sayings of Jesus extensively, uses them differently than James. "He preserves the character of the saying and transforms it only slightly to accord with other traditional material at his disposal and his theological vision" (Hartin 2008, 309). The Didache uses Jesus traditions less frequently, and, in Hartin's opinion, tends not to adjust the sayings (Hartin 2008, 310). Hartin notes that the Letter of Barnabas has a two ways section which likely derives from the same source used for the Didache (Hartin 2008, 310-311). Paul's conceptual framework may be contrasted to that of James. While Paul is more concerned with Jesus' work to complete salvation, James is more concerned that the Christian should actively live out the faith (Hartin 2008, 311). Counter to Paul, Matthew does not speak of slavery to sin or why we would not carry out God's law (Hartin 2008, 311-312). Matthew tends to focus on actions. Hartin observes that John gives few ethical instructions other than the need to love (Hartin 2008, 312).

Hartin concludes that Matthew, James, and the Didache each provides an ethical framework but that they differ in nature due to the time and context of their composition. He places James first, writing to communities which are essentially Israelite (Hartin 2008, 313). Matthew he sees next, in a context which welcomes and incorporates gentiles into the community (Hartin 2008, 314). Finally, the Didache, a few decades later, but from the same community as Matthew, reflects a more robust gentile Christian community.
0 Comments

"Love" in Matthew, James, and the Didache

8/24/2023

0 Comments

 
8/24/23
Scholarly Reflections
Konradt, Matthias. "Chapter Twelve: The Love Command in Matthew, James, and the Didache." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 271-288.

Konradt notes that the command to love is such a common trait of Christianity that an evaluation of it in Matthew, James, and the Didache would seem unlikely to yield any useful results (Konradt 2008, 271). Yet he proceeds to highlight some of the similarities before showing the marks which make the three documents fit the same milieu (Konradt 2008, 272).

Matthew uses the command to love the neighbor specifically three times (Konradt 2008, 272). Loving the neighbor, or, for that matter, loving the enemy, sets people up to be sons of God (Konradt 2008, 273). Love for the neighbor, in Matthew 19:20-21, involves giving to the poor (Konradt 2008, 275). Love for the neighbor is seen as the means of fulfilling the Law (Konradt 2008, 278). 

James makes it clear that the love command is highly important. However, Konradt observes the function of that command is a matter of dispute (Konradt 2008, 278). He takes it to be intended as the command which sums up everything else and holds an ethical life together. Love is not held in the abstract in James. In 2:13 love results in showing mercy to the poor, particularly orphans and widows. Konradt notes this is not merely giving alms, but also showing respect (Konradt 2008, 279). The law does not consist of love. In fact, it goes much farther because that love is to be worked out in our various interactions with others (Konradt 2008, 281).

The Didache opens the "Way of Life" with the love command and a negative version of the Golden Rule (Konradt 2008, 282). Konradt notes that the two elements also seem to summarize the law in Matthew (Konradt 2008, 283). The similarities of James and the Didache are less clear. Perfection in the Didache is related to a love for the neighbor, but also the enemy, and to turning the other cheek (Konradt 2008, 285). It may also be tied to keeping the whole Torah, though that may not be as clearly discerned (Konradt 2008, 285-286).

Konradt finally asks whether the three documents represent the same branch of Christianity. The use of the love command is a common element which regularly shows continuity with an interpretation of the Torah (Konradt 2008, 286). The love command is seen in all as central to the law, but not as a reduction of the law. Rather, it motivates ethical behavior and attitudes which are consonant with the law.

​
0 Comments

Pluralism in Matthew, James, and the Didache

8/23/2023

0 Comments

 
8/23/23
Scholarly Reflections
Overman, J. Andrew. "Chapter Eleven: Problems with Pluralism in Second Temple Judaism: Matthew, James, and the Didache in their Jewish-Roman Milieu." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 259-270.

Overman observes a growing awareness in scholarly discussion that the Jewish and Christian traditions in ante-Nicene Roman contexts are difficult to separate. It took several hundred years for them to become clearly distinguished from one another (Overman 2008, 259). This may well have been related to the rather significant tolerance of the Roman administration, which allowed an extensive collection of fragmentary groups to exist, all being tolerated as varieties of Judaism (Overman 2008, 260). In fact, in Overman's opinion, these groups would have been indistinguishable to a Roman. Overman describes, using Matthew, the Didache, and James, the distinctions which set three groups apart from one another.

Matthew holds that the orthodox Christian community is centered around Jesus' teachings of a right view of Torah (Overman 2008, 261). Other teachers have brought trouble on the people (Overman 2008, 262). Several of the parables of Jesus illustrate the damage caused to the society by unjust client and lordship relations and abuse of tax and charitable policies.

The Didache has a different way of identifying the Christian community. Overman takes it possibly to distinguish between ὁ κύριος and Jesus, with Jesus being mentioned only rarely (Overman 2008, 264). The church, which is seen as larger than a local organization, is loyal to "the Lord." Structure and order of the community is an important element. The ethic articulated is similar to that of Matthew, creating a kinship between the documents (Overman 2008, 265). This, rather than a Christology, would define the group.

James, by contrast to Matthew and the Didache, shows considerable influence of thought rooted in both Hellenism and an allegiance to Jesus (Overman 2008, 266). Overman finds it philosophically sophisticated, with elements of Stoic philosophy present (Overman 2008, 267). The tension over economic diversity is present both in the Didache and James. The community is to embrace humility, which will move them to correct this tension.

Overman estimates that of the three types of Christianity represented by Matthew, the Didache, and James, it is the vision of James that would be able to engage the Roman culture in a long-lasting manner (Overman 2008, 269).
0 Comments

Jesus Traditions in Matthew, James, and the Didache

8/22/2023

0 Comments

 
8/22/23
Scholarly Reflections
Schröter, Jens. "Chapter Ten: Jesus Tradition in Matthew, James, and the Didache: Searching for Characteristic Emphases." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 233-255.

Schröter, while acknowledging Matthew, James, and the Didache as arising from and speaking initially to particular contexts, also finds "sound evidence that they are not, or at least not exclusively, addressed to a specific community, but to 'all Christians'" (Schröter 2008, 2334). They also show distinct concepts of divergence from Judaism.

In Matthew, while Jesus clearly affirms the law, he is critical of the defects in the righteousness of the Pharisees (Schröter 2008, 234-235). The Jewish identity as evidenced in synagogue life is therefore less important. The ideal community is centered on Jesus' interpretation of the law and contains both Jews and Gentiles.

In the Didache, Schröter considers that Christianity was distancing itself from both Jewish and Gentile identities (Schröter 2008, 235). Analysis of this trend is made more difficult due to the composite nature of the document. Schröter finds that some passages show a separation from Judaism more clearly than others (Schröter 2008, 236).

In regard to the relationship with Judaism, James is more complex. James creates a view of the perfect life in relation to God's gift (Jas 1:17) (Schröter 2008, 236). There is a strong element of Jewish wisdom tradition, but simultaneously an ethic which is distinct from an actual Jewish identity.

Schröter's discussion of "Jesus tradition" begins with an attempt at definition of the term. He does not consider much of what we would identify as Jesus tradition as actually coming from Jesus himself, but as concepts which were ascribed to him by others (Schröter 2008, 237). Further, it may have been quite common for ideas to be articulated by authors, taking them as those of Jesus, but with no attribution (Schröter 2008, 238). Schröter's assumption that the author of James was not present with Jesus draws him to conclude that "it is by no means self-evident that James had access to traditions that originated with Jesus himself" (Schröter 2008, 238).

The Didache makes several references to "the Lord" or to "the Gospel" as an authority (Schröter 2008, 238). Schröter details a number of passages, assigning them to a redactor who did not seem to be referencing a written Gospel (Schröter 2008, 239). 

Schröter concludes that the only way we can clearly discern traditions in James or the Didache as Jesus traditions is through our knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels (Schröter 2008, 240). Matthew singularly assigned the teachings in his Gospel to Jesus, describing them as what we would call "Jesus traditions."

The three documents do all have a clearly discernible call for "perfection" (Schröter 2008, 241). Additionally, the three documents share significant elements in their ethic.

In James, gaining wisdom is a means of approaching perfection (Schröter 2008, 242). Enduring trials is seen as a catalyst for gaining wisdom. The trials produce endurance, which leads to wisdom. Schröter relates James to 1 Peter and the Pauline epistles, as they also tend to speak of trials as leading to growth in divine wisdom (Schröter 2008, 243-244). The concept is related to a Synoptic tradition in which one is given rewards from God in conjunction with humility (Schröter 2008, 244-245).

Matthew describes perfection in terms of the perfect nature of God the Father (Schröter 2008, 246). Schröter considers Matthew to describe this perfection as being achieved through a fulfilling of God's law. Counter to James' view of perfection through wisdom, Matthew emphasizes obedience. This is done through association with Jesus (Schröter 2008, 247).

On the three occasions that perfection is mentioned in the Didache, Schröter notes it is tied to holding to the teaching presented (Schröter 2008, 249). The teaching leads to a lifestyle of obedience, in which people participate in the liturgy of baptism, prayer, and Eucharist. These all have elements of mercy, forgiveness, and humility. The prayer and fasting rituals have a close affinity to Jewish customs, as part of the liturgy of life (Schröter 2008, 252).

Schröter concludes that in Matthew, James, and the Didache, there is considerable continuity with Judaism, but a subtle shift in the locus of authority (Matthew), the emphasis on ethic rather than ritual (James), and an introduction of Chrsitian liturgy (Didache) shows a distinct Christian point of view (Schröter 2008, 254).
0 Comments

Poverty and Piety in Early Christianity

8/21/2023

0 Comments

 
8/21/23
Scholarly Reflections
Kloppenborg, John S. "Chapter Nine: Poverty and Piety in Matthew, James, and the Didache." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 201-232.

Kloppenborg observes that poverty and piety were often associated with each other prior to the first century, and that in a way the poor were considered recipients of God's special favor, which supported them in their trials (Kloppenborg 2008,201). They, after all, were the humble before God. By that token, all who humbled themselves before God could be considered as the poor, and thus be recognized as among the pious (Kloppenborg 2008,202). This has often been recognized as a correlation in James. The value expressed in James is not necessarily that of becoming economically impoverished, but of adopting the humility characteristic of poor people (Kloppenborg 2008, 204).

Just treatment, and generous care for the poor is a common theme in biblical and other ancient Near Eastern writings (Kloppenborg 2008, 205). Care for the poor is a positive value, which sets wisdom apart from foolishness. Poverty itself is not a mark of wisdom, though it does place one into a position of receiving God's care (Kloppenborg 2008, 206). Kloppenborg notes that while poverty was not considered a virtue, the piety which was often found to accompany poverty was considered exemplary (Kloppenborg 2008, 208). The actual definition of "poor" is challenging, as Kloppenborg illustrates. Scholarly opinion is uncertain what financial criteria may have been in mind when "the poor" are discussed in biblical texts. Piety, however, was normally viewed in internal terms, not related to income or assets (Kloppenborg 2008, 211). 

The relationship of poverty and piety continues in later Jewish literature. Kloppenborg illustrates the relationship with citations from the Qumran literature (Kloppenborg 2008, 214ff).

Kloppenborg notes the difficulty in distinguishing among words for poverty, as a variety of words appear in Matthew, James, and the Didache (Kloppenborg 2008, 216-217). Kloppenborg approaches the issue by considering that the words are essentially synonymous but that in general there are more and less severe levels of poverty indicated (Kloppenborg 2008, 218). He does not find a clear connection between poverty and piety in the Didache, except that charity to the poor is considered an act of piety. The poor become pious as they receive Christian instruction, not as a result of their poverty (Kloppenborg 2008, 222).

As with the Didache, Kloppenborg finds Matthew's concern for the poor to indicate they should receive charitable care (Kloppenborg 2008, 222). This charity is a means by which God's favor may be passed on to the poor (Kloppenborg 2008, 223).

Likewise, James is concerned with the poor, but Kloppenborg does not find his description to suggest an inherent piety. Rather, it suggests a humility which would dispose them to receive teaching (Kloppenborg 2008, 225-226). The pious could be rich or poor, but must be of a humble spirit (Kloppenborg 2008, 228).

​
0 Comments

Ideal Christianity in Matthew, James, and the Didache

8/18/2023

0 Comments

 
8/18/23
Scholarly Reflections
Weren, Wim J.C. "Chapter Eight: The Ideal Community according to Matthew, James, and the Didache." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 177-200.

Weren observes a similarity among Matthew, James, and the Didache in that all three documents make an attempt to define what a community should be (Weren 2008, 177). He evaluates this attempt at self-definition through the community's self-references, their concept of a relationship with God, and their idea of perfection. Weren conducts his evaluation using several key words.

First, all three documents use the term ἐκκλησία (Weren 2008, 178). Matthew distinguishes between ἐκκλησία and συναγωγή, with the former term referring only to disciples of Jesus, while the latter refers to specifically Jewish assemblies (Weren 2008, 178). In James 5:14, the elders are related to the ἐκκλησία (Weren 2008, 180). Unlike Matthew's use, the one time συναγωγή is used in James (2:2), it also may refer to the Christian assembly. The Didache uses ἐκκλησία to refer to the assembled Christians locally as well as around the world (Weren 2008, 181). The communities thus refer to themselves using the distinctive term ἐκκλησία to refer to a particular gathering of Christians. 

Matthew identifies the community in terms of being led by God's revelation in Christ, making the community members children of God (Weren 2008, 182). James expresses a very strong relationship between the people and God the Father (Weren 2008, 184). In contrast, Weren finds that James makes little reference to Jesus as the Christ or God the Son. He is mentioned twice and referred to as the Lord, but Weren finds the mentions to be less important than those of God the Father (Weren 2008, 185). The Didache also asserts a close, important relationship between God and the community (Weren 2008, 185). Jesus is referred to by name in Didache 9.2, 3, and 10.2, always as the "servant" of God (Weren 2008, 185). There is a need to do activities in the name of "the Lord" and the people look forward to a final coming of the Lord. Weren takes this normally to refer to Jesus (Weren 2008, 186).

To evaluate the concept of perfection, Weren reviews the semantic usage of the adjective τέλειος as used in Matthew, James, and the Didache. The term describes "the ideal behavior of the community" in all three documents (Weren 2008, 186). In Matthew there is a particular emphasis on being perfect as God is perfect. Weren takes this particularly to signify right discernment of good and evil, with fair and generous treatment of others, especially those within the community (Weren 2008, 187). Torah is to be kept fully, without neglect of any of the points. It is also necessary, unlike the Pharisees, to recognize the values underlying the Torah (Weren 2008, 188).

In James, τέλειος is connected directly with nouns such as work, law, or wisdom (Weren 2008, 190). While wisdom is an important feature of life, Weren considers it crucial to James that the focus must be on God. This is where perfection will be found. Weren notes that in James there is a way of life and a way of death, but there is no assumption that reality is deterministic (Weren 2008, 191). Weren describes the two ways in some detail. The law of God, embodied in His word, is decidedly a good thing (Weren 2008, 193). The overall problem presented in James is that people do not actually have the attitude required in the Law (Weren 2008, 194).

The view of perfection in the Didache is a bit different. The τελει___ word group appears relatively infrequently, with only four usages (Weren 2008, 196). Weren notes credible suggestions that two of the instances are redactional in nature. Keeping of Torah is clearly important, yet there may well be two groups within the community, one of which habitually keeps Torah as a matter of cultural custom and another which is encouraged but not required to do so (Weren 2008, 197).

Weren concludes that Matthew and James tend to follow similar patterns in terms of discussing perfection, while the Didache has a different pattern of discussion, though the same long-run expectation (Weren 2008, 198). In all three documents the Christian community is clearly distinct from society as a whole. There is always an expectation that people will mature to some sort of perfection which is related to keeping Torah and its underlying values.
0 Comments

Apostles, Teachers, Evangelists in Matthew, James and the Didache

8/17/2023

0 Comments

 
8/17/23
Scholarly Reflections
Draper, Jonathan A. "Chapter Seven: Apostles, Teachers, and Evangelists: Stability and Movement of Functionaries in Matthew, James, and the Didache." in Van de Sandt, Huub & Zangenberg, Jürgen K. (editors). Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings." Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 139-176.

Draper notes the significant discussion regarding the roles of bishops and deacons in early Christianity and how their roles may have grown to the present roles. The appearance of bishops and deacons along with apostles, prophets, and teachers in the Didache is of interest (Draper 2008, 139). At issue is the authority inherent in the different offices (Draper 2008, 140).

Matthew's Gospel, as it is not a church order, does not speak specifically about organization. Yet Draper does find some evidence of such an outlook (Draper 2008, 142). In Matthew the apostles are often the primary recipients of Jesus' teaching. Draper sees them as responsible for "mediating the teaching and ministry of Jesus" in the post resurrection period (Draper 2008, 143). They thus provide continuity in terms of ministry, following on the heels of the prophets. In contrast, the false prophets, noted in Matthew 7:15-23, are wolves who will cause harm to the people of God (Draper 2008, 144-145). The false prophets come from outside the community and work miracles in Jesus' name (Matthew 7:22). Yet Jesus describes them as "lawless." This is a similar expression of the situation to that in the Didache (Draper 2008, 146).

The passage in Matthew immediately following the Sermon on the Mount emphasizes the itinerant nature of Jesus and his lack of possessions (Draper 2008, 147). This appears to serve as a paradigm for the lifestyle which would be expected of the leaders who would follow Jesus. Likewise, those who follow Jesus are not to seek out power and authority. Draper notes that in Matthew it is only Jesus who should be recognized as the teacher (Draper 2008, 148). The Twelve, designated as "apostles" only in 10:4, are to function as Jesus' emissaries. Within the culture, this would imply only a delegated authority, rather than any personal authority (Draper 2008, 149). This is the opposite of the false prophets, who exalt themselves, and use their own authority. Draper describes this in some detail (Draper 2008, 150-151). As an illustration of the nature of the true apostles, Draper notes in Matthew 16:18-19 that Peter is addressed as the one who repeats the word of the Father and upon whom the church will be built (Draper 2008, 153). The church is to be a place of conciliatory care (18;14-20) and of humble service (20:26-28). While Draper sees a structure of leadership, then, he sees it as different in nature from the authority as expected from Gentile rulers (Draper 2008, 154).

The Didache, at least from its title, seems to suggest a more clear and formal structure, with governance coming from the apostolic group (Draper 2008, 155). By Didache 11:4-6 there seems to be a larger group of apostles in mind (Draper 2008, 156). This larger group. however, is urged to move on to another location quickly and with minimal provision. Draper suggests that apostolic travel, for instance, that described in Acts 15:22-35, could still take place. At the actual destination the apostle(s) would show letters introducing them and their mission, then be considered less itinerant. The process in the Didache would apply to the journey, which should have minimal delay (Draper 2008, 157). Draper notes that the Didache may allow apostles to be considered prophets and vice versa.

The prophet is considered to be speaking from God, so is not to be tested or judged (Didache 11:7) (Draper 2008, 158). There is an assumption, rather, that evaluation is to be made based on lifestyle rather than words. If the prophet follows the "ways of the Lord" (11:8b), he is accepted as a prophet (Draper 2008, 159). What these ways are is a matter of some debate. Draper also notes that Didache 11:9-12 is difficult to interpret in terms of the prophet and participation at "a table." It is not clear if this refers to a eucharistic celebration or some other occasion of eating (Draper 2008, 160). Draper takes the statements about prophets to show redactional development, with the status of a prophet increasing to one of considerable respect later in the text (Draper 2008, 161-162). Yet, the community is to watch out for false prophets, who come from within and turn to evil purposes.

Draper further notes that Didache 13 and 15 associate prophets with teachers (Draper 2008, 162). While the apostles are never classified with the teachers, prophets are. Draper considers whether the teachers are considered charismatic figures, as apostles apparently are, and whether teachers are itinerant or resident in the community. He observes that the teacher can be evaluated in terms of words and work, which likely signals a resident role (Draper 2008, 163). The teacher is assumed to receive some support. If, in fact, the community came together on possibly even a daily basis, and depended on the work of the teacher, that person would need support (Draper 2008, 164).

Bishops and deacons are mentioned together in Didache 15:1-2. They have the same qualifications as each other for office (Draper 2008, 166). Draper observes that what we know of a distinction is implicit in their title - an overseer as compared with a servant of the community. In some way they have been recognized and appointed by the community.

Draper next evaluates functionaries as seen in James. The letter tells little about community officials, mentioning elders and teachers (Draper 2008, 168). Prophets are adduced in vague terms as examples of those who endure suffering. The author makes no claim to apostleship, but merely to being a slave of Jesus. However, Draper notes he clearly expects the recipients of the letter will recognize him as an authority. Teachers, those in the role the author includes himself, are considered to face a higher standard of judgment than others (Draper 2008, 169). Teachers can lead people rightly or they can lead people astray. They are therefore capable of good or evil. The teacher, in James, is judged, as in the Didache, based on the content, which is inherent in the words and the lifestyle (Draper 2008, 170). Aside from his focus on teachers, James speaks of a body of elders, whose function is to pray for people. Draper observes these people would "necessarily[,] be resident and settled in local communities" (Draper 2008, 172).

Draper concludes that there are significant points of commonality around Matthew, James, and the Didache as far as recognized functionaries (Draper 2008, 173). Apostles and prophets tend to be classed together, possibly due to some level of charismatic gifts. Prophets are also associated with teachers, but teachers tend to have a more localized role in the community (Draper 2008, 174). There is an authority assumed of teachers.
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
    Antioch
    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
    Catechesis
    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
    Draper 2008
    Dube 2016
    Due 2003
    Early Christian Functionaries
    Easter-2
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-day
    Easter-monday
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Easter-sunrise
    Easter-tuesday
    Easter-wednesday
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria2014
    Elman-1999
    Ephesians
    Epiphany
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Epistle Of Barnabas
    Esther
    Ethics
    Eucharist
    Eve-of-the-circumcision-of-christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Experiential Reading
    Eybers 1975
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Fall Of Jerusalem
    Farrell-1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser-1996
    Forde-2007
    Fraade-1999
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Garrow 2004
    Gender
    Genesis
    Gero 1977
    Gibbins 1935
    Gibbs 2006
    Glover-1958
    Goga & Popa 2019
    Gonzalez-2010
    Good-friday
    Gospels
    Greek
    Grosvener-schaff-1885
    Grosvenor-1884
    Guardian-of-jesus
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hagner 1984
    Harnack-1884
    Harrington 2008
    Harris 1887
    Harris 1984
    Hartin 2008
    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
    Jewish Christianity
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Jones & Mirecki 1995
    Joseph
    Joshua
    Judaism
    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
    Kloppenborg 2008
    Koch2010
    Kok 2015
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Konradt 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
    Last Supper
    LaVerdiere 1996
    Law
    Layton 1968
    Lectionary
    Lent-1
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Lincoln-1885
    Lindemann 1997
    Literary Character
    Liturgy
    Livesey 2012
    Long-2009
    Lord-1986
    Lord-1987
    Lord's Prayer
    Love
    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
    Oaths
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Olsen-1986
    Ong-1987
    Ong-1988
    Ong-1995
    Oralit
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Overman 2008
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Pardee 1995
    Parks-1986
    Passionb
    Patterson 1995
    Paul
    Pearce-1993
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    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
    Pluralism
    Post 70
    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
    Purity
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Rabbinic Character
    Real Presence
    Receptivity
    Reed 1995
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reinhartz 2018
    Repschinski 2008
    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
    Schroter 2008
    Schwarz 2005
    Scriptural Usage
    Seeliger 1996
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Sim 2008
    Simon And Jude
    Smith-2009
    Smith 2018
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    St. Andrew
    Stark 1997
    St. Barnabas
    St. Bartholomew
    Stewart-Sykes 2008
    St. John
    St. John The Baptist
    St Luke
    St Mark
    St Matthew
    St. Matthias
    St Michael And All Angels
    St. Paul
    St. Peter And Paul
    St Philip And St James
    Strawbridge 2017
    St. Stephen
    St. Thomas
    St. Titus
    Sunday Of The Passion
    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
    Tomson 2008
    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
    Vahrenhurst 2008
    Van Der Merwe 2017
    Van Der Merwe 2019
    Van Der Watt 2008
    Van De Sandt 2002
    Van De Sandt 2007
    Van De Sandt 2008
    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
    Verheyden 2008
    Vikis-Freibergs 1997
    Visitation
    Voobus 1968
    Voobus 1969
    Vows
    Warfield 1886
    Wasson & Toelken 1998
    Wednesday In Holy Week
    Wenham 1984
    Wenham 1992
    Weren 2008
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Winger 2014
    Wischmeyer 2008
    Wolmarans 2005
    Wright 1984
    Young 2011
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zangenberg 2008
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah
    Zetterholm 2008

Proudly powered by Weebly