Friday Scholarly Notes
8/2/24
Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "Chapter Two: The Reception of Sacred Scripture in the Didache." In The Didache: A Commentary. (pp. 63-93). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).
In this chapter, Wilhite explores the way Scripture is used in the Jerusalem manuscript of the Didache (Wilhite 2019, p. 63). He admits to many questions remaining unaddressed. Yet here he pursues the existence of traditions in the Didache with parallels in the Bible so as to evaluate the way those traditions are put to use (Wilhite 2019, p. 64). Wilhite narrows his scope by requiring that a tradition bear an introductory formula, that it exist in a canonical work, that it is a proof-text for an internal argument in the Didache, and that it appears as an intentional use of a canonical source. He finds that Matthew 6:9-13, Matthew 7:6, Zechariah 14:5, and Malachi 1:11, 14 fit those criteria (Wilhite 2019, p. 64).
Wilhite briefly reviews the recent studies of "Reception history," which "moves away from standard categories of quotation, allusion, and echo" so as to account for non-literary influences on a composition (Wilhite 2019, p. 64-65). The core of the discipline involves consideration of reasons why an author would adapt wording or ideas in a particular way for use in his own composition (Wilhite 2019, p. 66).
The first passage Wilhite reviews is Didache 8.2, compared to Matthew 6:9-13. This material, the Lord's Prayer, is the central element for a chapter of my dissertation as well. Wilhite suggests that the strong similarities indicate a possible awareness of the Matthean traditions, and that the setting of the prayer in Didache 8.3 suggests the development of a liturgical use of the prayer (Wilhite 2019, p. 67). Wilhite considers the context to suggest a familiarity as well. "Did. 7-8 coheres with much of the material in Matt 6. The thematic and textual symmetry hint towards the Didachist being cognizant of the Matthean tradition" (Wilhite 2019, p. 68). Numerous topics are addressed in common in the two compositions.
Within the prayer itself, Wilhite notes the variation in number. Where Matthew has the plural "in the heavens," Didache 8.2 has "in the heaven." The plural in Matthew is atypical of Semitic usage, while the singular in the Didache is more common (Wilhite 2019, p. 69). Matthew uses the singular later in the prayer, at 8:10. The singular is regularly used in Matthew 6. Wilhite suggests this informed cosmology in the Didache. The Didache consistently uses the singular, using the plural only once, while the canonical gospels and Acts predominantly use the singular. Matthew, however, uses the singular 27 times as opposed to the plural 55 times (Wilhite 2019, p. 69). In this regard, Wilhite observes the Didache is more typical of the Apostolic Fathers than of Matthew (Wilhite 2019, p. 70).
The term used for "sins" or "debts" in Didache 8.2 is unlike New Testament or Septuagint usage, where it appears only in 1 Macc. 15:8 (Wilhite 2019, p. 70). Wilhite considers the word choice to refer to any type of debt which has accrued to those in the Didache community. I observe this may be similar to John's use of ἁμαρτία, where the plural typically refers to acts of offense but the singular regularly indicates the sinful condition. Wilhite further ties this idea to the Didache's use of the singular ἡ ὁδός to refer to a cluster of practices (Wilhite 2019, p. 71). Where there are other mentions specifically of sin, the Didache links the idea to ecclesial usage and chooses ἁμαρτία of παράπτωμα (Wilhite 2019, p. 71).
The doxology at the close of the prayer does not appear in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew. Wilhite observes that the form which eventually does appear in Matthew is a reference to 1 Chronicles 29:11-13 (Wilhite 2019, p. 72). Wilhite's suggestion is that the doxology in the Didache, as in 8.2; 9.2-3; 10.24; 9.4; and 10.5 is a liturgical tradition marking the end of the prayer (Wilhite 2019, p. 72). The shorter doxology concludes shorter prayers, while the longer one concludes longer prayers (Wilhite 2019, p. 73). Citing Hvalvik and Sandnes "Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation" p. 5, Wilhite sees the use of the prayer as part of the ritual life which binds people together around a common theme (Wilhite 2019, p. 73). He goes on to say, "Not only does prayer influence the identity of an individual but a repetitious liturgy is bound to shape others by the mere habitual nature of the performance . . . its repeated use also distinguishes the participants from others in the larger religious society" (Wilhite 2019, p. 73). The fact of the whole community being engaged in the same actions, using the same words, strengthens them as a community.
Wilhite further analyzes the similarity of Didache 9.5 and Matthew 7:6 (Wilhite 2019, p. 74). He observes there are significant debates centered on whether Matthew 7:6 concludes verses 1-5 or begins a new section. The interpretation of giving what is holy to dogs is also fraught with difficulty. Wilhite suggests the verse "as a Janus verse; that is, it functions to conclude Matt 7:1-5 and to introduce Matt 7:6-11" (Wilhite 2019, p. 74). Didache 9.5, however, uses the passage as an authority for a clearly defined idea, which is supported by Apostolic Constitutions VII.35. Those who have not been baptized are not included in the Eucharist (Wilhite 2019, p. 75). In the Didache text, the reference to authority is "The Lord," rather than a trinitarian formulation, as in baptism. The reference to Matthew establishes that this specifically refers to Jesus (Wilhite 2019, p. 75). The effect of baptism is not described in the Didache, nor is there a clear reference to the eucharist being holy in its nature. Wilhite notes that Draper ("Ritual Process and Ritual Symbol in Didache" 133-34) interprets baptism as shifting a person into the Didache community (Wilhite 2019, p. 75). Based on that logic, we can interpret the Eucharist as what is holy and the unbaptized as the "dogs."
The third passage Wilhite considers is Didache 14.3 and Malachi 1:11, 14. He notes that the Didachist does not directly quote the passage, but modifies it to give a "fuller sense" of the concept (Wilhite 2019, p. 76). For instance, rather than Malachi's "from the rising of the sun to its setting" the Didache refers to "in every place and time." Wilhite considers the use of Malachi to be based on memory, rather than a literary comparison (Wilhite 2019, p. 76). Those who participate in the Eucharist are to be reconciled to one another first, as they are partaking of holy things. The Didache refers to the speaking of the Lord (14.3), while using the concept found in Malachi 1 (Wilhite 2019, p. 77). Wilhite notes that the Didache frequently refers to themes of royalty and the kingdom. He sees this as an influence of Malachi's thought throughout (Wilhite 2019, p. 77). Wilhite additionally sees the conclusion of Malachi suggesting a merging of Jews and Gentiles, which he takes to be implicit in the Didache as the Christian community incorporates Gentiles (Wilhite 2019, p. 77).
This concept brings Wilhite to his fourth contact, Didache 16.7 and Zechariah 14:5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 79). The content of Zechariah 14:5 is found in other canonical passages as well, such as Matthew 25:31 and 1 Thessalonians 3:13. The level of literary agreement suggests to Wilhite that the Didachist had Zechariah in mind. The concept of a partial resurrection, consisting only of saints, is in view in Zechariah 14 and Didache 16 (Wilhite 2019, p. 79). Wilhite details a number of canonical and non-canonical accounts of resurrection which apply the parousia and resurrection to a variety of different groups, with relatively little agreement. Of all the accounts, Wilhite finds Didache 16.7 to fit best with Zechariah 14:5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 81).
Wilhite reiterates the criteria for selection of biblical passages he had stated earlier in the chapter, noting that there are many more instances of the Didache bearing similarity in wording and thought to canonical material (Wilhite 2019, p. 81). He concludes, "First, Scripture helps formulate and identify social practices " (Wilhite 2019, p. 82). The distinct community is identified through its routine use of biblical materials. "Second, the use of quoted Scripture reveals the hermeneutical patterns of the Didachist" (Wilhite 2019, p. 82). The hermeneutic in use is not that of literal exegesis which attempts to use an original context and meaning. Wilhite finds a preference for allegorical interpretation (Wilhite 2019, p. 82). "Third, and last, the Didachist's use of canonical traditions helps to convey ethical paraenesis" (Wilhite 2019, p. 83). The biblical material is used in exhortation to a particular pattern of life.
8/2/24
Wilhite, Shawn J. (2019). "Chapter Two: The Reception of Sacred Scripture in the Didache." In The Didache: A Commentary. (pp. 63-93). Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. (Personal Library).
In this chapter, Wilhite explores the way Scripture is used in the Jerusalem manuscript of the Didache (Wilhite 2019, p. 63). He admits to many questions remaining unaddressed. Yet here he pursues the existence of traditions in the Didache with parallels in the Bible so as to evaluate the way those traditions are put to use (Wilhite 2019, p. 64). Wilhite narrows his scope by requiring that a tradition bear an introductory formula, that it exist in a canonical work, that it is a proof-text for an internal argument in the Didache, and that it appears as an intentional use of a canonical source. He finds that Matthew 6:9-13, Matthew 7:6, Zechariah 14:5, and Malachi 1:11, 14 fit those criteria (Wilhite 2019, p. 64).
Wilhite briefly reviews the recent studies of "Reception history," which "moves away from standard categories of quotation, allusion, and echo" so as to account for non-literary influences on a composition (Wilhite 2019, p. 64-65). The core of the discipline involves consideration of reasons why an author would adapt wording or ideas in a particular way for use in his own composition (Wilhite 2019, p. 66).
The first passage Wilhite reviews is Didache 8.2, compared to Matthew 6:9-13. This material, the Lord's Prayer, is the central element for a chapter of my dissertation as well. Wilhite suggests that the strong similarities indicate a possible awareness of the Matthean traditions, and that the setting of the prayer in Didache 8.3 suggests the development of a liturgical use of the prayer (Wilhite 2019, p. 67). Wilhite considers the context to suggest a familiarity as well. "Did. 7-8 coheres with much of the material in Matt 6. The thematic and textual symmetry hint towards the Didachist being cognizant of the Matthean tradition" (Wilhite 2019, p. 68). Numerous topics are addressed in common in the two compositions.
Within the prayer itself, Wilhite notes the variation in number. Where Matthew has the plural "in the heavens," Didache 8.2 has "in the heaven." The plural in Matthew is atypical of Semitic usage, while the singular in the Didache is more common (Wilhite 2019, p. 69). Matthew uses the singular later in the prayer, at 8:10. The singular is regularly used in Matthew 6. Wilhite suggests this informed cosmology in the Didache. The Didache consistently uses the singular, using the plural only once, while the canonical gospels and Acts predominantly use the singular. Matthew, however, uses the singular 27 times as opposed to the plural 55 times (Wilhite 2019, p. 69). In this regard, Wilhite observes the Didache is more typical of the Apostolic Fathers than of Matthew (Wilhite 2019, p. 70).
The term used for "sins" or "debts" in Didache 8.2 is unlike New Testament or Septuagint usage, where it appears only in 1 Macc. 15:8 (Wilhite 2019, p. 70). Wilhite considers the word choice to refer to any type of debt which has accrued to those in the Didache community. I observe this may be similar to John's use of ἁμαρτία, where the plural typically refers to acts of offense but the singular regularly indicates the sinful condition. Wilhite further ties this idea to the Didache's use of the singular ἡ ὁδός to refer to a cluster of practices (Wilhite 2019, p. 71). Where there are other mentions specifically of sin, the Didache links the idea to ecclesial usage and chooses ἁμαρτία of παράπτωμα (Wilhite 2019, p. 71).
The doxology at the close of the prayer does not appear in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew. Wilhite observes that the form which eventually does appear in Matthew is a reference to 1 Chronicles 29:11-13 (Wilhite 2019, p. 72). Wilhite's suggestion is that the doxology in the Didache, as in 8.2; 9.2-3; 10.24; 9.4; and 10.5 is a liturgical tradition marking the end of the prayer (Wilhite 2019, p. 72). The shorter doxology concludes shorter prayers, while the longer one concludes longer prayers (Wilhite 2019, p. 73). Citing Hvalvik and Sandnes "Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation" p. 5, Wilhite sees the use of the prayer as part of the ritual life which binds people together around a common theme (Wilhite 2019, p. 73). He goes on to say, "Not only does prayer influence the identity of an individual but a repetitious liturgy is bound to shape others by the mere habitual nature of the performance . . . its repeated use also distinguishes the participants from others in the larger religious society" (Wilhite 2019, p. 73). The fact of the whole community being engaged in the same actions, using the same words, strengthens them as a community.
Wilhite further analyzes the similarity of Didache 9.5 and Matthew 7:6 (Wilhite 2019, p. 74). He observes there are significant debates centered on whether Matthew 7:6 concludes verses 1-5 or begins a new section. The interpretation of giving what is holy to dogs is also fraught with difficulty. Wilhite suggests the verse "as a Janus verse; that is, it functions to conclude Matt 7:1-5 and to introduce Matt 7:6-11" (Wilhite 2019, p. 74). Didache 9.5, however, uses the passage as an authority for a clearly defined idea, which is supported by Apostolic Constitutions VII.35. Those who have not been baptized are not included in the Eucharist (Wilhite 2019, p. 75). In the Didache text, the reference to authority is "The Lord," rather than a trinitarian formulation, as in baptism. The reference to Matthew establishes that this specifically refers to Jesus (Wilhite 2019, p. 75). The effect of baptism is not described in the Didache, nor is there a clear reference to the eucharist being holy in its nature. Wilhite notes that Draper ("Ritual Process and Ritual Symbol in Didache" 133-34) interprets baptism as shifting a person into the Didache community (Wilhite 2019, p. 75). Based on that logic, we can interpret the Eucharist as what is holy and the unbaptized as the "dogs."
The third passage Wilhite considers is Didache 14.3 and Malachi 1:11, 14. He notes that the Didachist does not directly quote the passage, but modifies it to give a "fuller sense" of the concept (Wilhite 2019, p. 76). For instance, rather than Malachi's "from the rising of the sun to its setting" the Didache refers to "in every place and time." Wilhite considers the use of Malachi to be based on memory, rather than a literary comparison (Wilhite 2019, p. 76). Those who participate in the Eucharist are to be reconciled to one another first, as they are partaking of holy things. The Didache refers to the speaking of the Lord (14.3), while using the concept found in Malachi 1 (Wilhite 2019, p. 77). Wilhite notes that the Didache frequently refers to themes of royalty and the kingdom. He sees this as an influence of Malachi's thought throughout (Wilhite 2019, p. 77). Wilhite additionally sees the conclusion of Malachi suggesting a merging of Jews and Gentiles, which he takes to be implicit in the Didache as the Christian community incorporates Gentiles (Wilhite 2019, p. 77).
This concept brings Wilhite to his fourth contact, Didache 16.7 and Zechariah 14:5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 79). The content of Zechariah 14:5 is found in other canonical passages as well, such as Matthew 25:31 and 1 Thessalonians 3:13. The level of literary agreement suggests to Wilhite that the Didachist had Zechariah in mind. The concept of a partial resurrection, consisting only of saints, is in view in Zechariah 14 and Didache 16 (Wilhite 2019, p. 79). Wilhite details a number of canonical and non-canonical accounts of resurrection which apply the parousia and resurrection to a variety of different groups, with relatively little agreement. Of all the accounts, Wilhite finds Didache 16.7 to fit best with Zechariah 14:5 (Wilhite 2019, p. 81).
Wilhite reiterates the criteria for selection of biblical passages he had stated earlier in the chapter, noting that there are many more instances of the Didache bearing similarity in wording and thought to canonical material (Wilhite 2019, p. 81). He concludes, "First, Scripture helps formulate and identify social practices " (Wilhite 2019, p. 82). The distinct community is identified through its routine use of biblical materials. "Second, the use of quoted Scripture reveals the hermeneutical patterns of the Didachist" (Wilhite 2019, p. 82). The hermeneutic in use is not that of literal exegesis which attempts to use an original context and meaning. Wilhite finds a preference for allegorical interpretation (Wilhite 2019, p. 82). "Third, and last, the Didachist's use of canonical traditions helps to convey ethical paraenesis" (Wilhite 2019, p. 83). The biblical material is used in exhortation to a particular pattern of life.
RSS Feed