1/31/23
Scholarly Reflections
Jefford, Clayton. "Chapter Two: Review of Texts." The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Leiden: Brill, 1989, 22-92.
Jefford observes that the opening of the Didache, asserting two differing ways, one of life and one of death, leads scholars to assume a source of information about the ways, one on which the first five chapters of the Didache would be predicated (Jefford 1989, 22). This has further led scholars to assume chapters 1-5 and possibly 16 are built on this source, and that the other chapters were created separately and later. Jefford notes that chapters 6-15 seem unrelated to chapters 1-5 and 16 (Jefford 1989, 23). The model of a source for the Two Ways material is made more clear by recognition of Two Ways material in Barnabas which appears related but more likely in the manner of having a common source.
Jefford notes that dualism of a positive and negative way of life is common in both the Old Testament and the Apocrypha (Jefford 1989, 24). He further notes statements in Matthew 7:13-14 (Luke 13:23-24) which present the same idea. He finds it generally absent in Luke, which suggests to him a source in "the Matthean version of the Q saying" (Jefford 1989, 25). However, Jefford is not certain that in and of itself the Two Ways material is dualistic to the extent we might assume from the Synoptic Gospels. He takes it to be better informed by Old Testament wisdom passages (Jefford 1989, 26).
The fact that the baptismal materials in the Didache follows on the heels of the Two Ways suggests to many that the Two Ways serve as a dualistic catechesis (Jefford 1989, 26). Once one subscribes to the way of life he would be baptized. This seems reasonably consistent with Jewish patterns of catechesis, particularly as recorded in 1QS 3.13-4:26 (Jefford 1989, 27). However, Jefford takes the material to be more akin to an ethical gathering of community rules which may or may not be associated with baptism.
Jefford moves on to a comparison of Didache 1.2a-b with Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:30-31, and Luke 10:27, then Didache 1.20 with Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31, presenting Greek text in parallel columns (Jefford 1989, 29-30). His subsequent analysis is couched in terms of redactional choices of one word over another, possibly signaling a source for a reading. The investigation hopes to find a definitive source for the Didache's language of loving God and loving the neighbor (Jefford 1989, 31). The Gold Rule in Didache 1.2c is found in a negative form, common in Jewish and Hellenistic thought (Jefford 1989, 33). Jefford notes that the positive form, from Matthew and Luke, is the exception. Jefford suggests that the Didache normally depended on the Sayings Gospel Q, but that here the author consciously departs. Jefford further suggests at least three sources for the redactor (Jefford 1989, 34). The conclusion is that the Didachist must have borrowed consciously from some tradition other than Q, and that Matthew may have been a source for the double love command but not for the Golden Rule (Jefford 1989, 38).
Didache 1.3b-2.1 is a passage which sparks debate, as it is more distinctively Christian in nature and doesn't appear to be the result of a long strand of tradition (Jefford 1989, 39). Jefford considers each saying individually, attempting to trace a source and a role in the Didache as a whole, after his parallel comparison (Jefford 1989, 39-42). Again, it is not clear that specific language has been borrowed consistently from Matthew, Luke, or the hypothetical Q source (Jefford 1989, 43). Jefford does identify an association of ideas of praise, of prayer, and of fasting. This can be identified in veraious sources, on the level of ideas, if not in specific language usage (Jefford 1989, 44). Though the wording cannot be identified, Jefford continues to seek out scenarios by which it could have been derived. Jefford's analysis of giving from Didache 1.5 follows the same pattern (Jefford 1989, 48ff). The saying of 1.6 follows (Jefford 1989, 51ff), likewise yielding an opinion that the saying was probably common within early Christianity but that a source can't be positively identified for the exact wording.
Jefford continues with an analysis of Didache 2.2-7, which he considers an older level of the text (Jefford 1989, 53). He evaluates the possibility of the material being drawn from an Old Testament text or possibly some later source, modified to serve Christian purposes (Jefford 1989, 54). As before, Jefford presents chunks of parallel text and analyzes them. The material is generally tied to the Decalog, however, it shows expansion and rearrangement (Jefford 1989, 56). Again, while Jefford finds conceptual parallels in various places, he doesn't find sources for exact wording, and assigns the work to a redactor who drew from numerous sources, adjusting them all (Jefford 1989, 61-62).
As Jefford movs into Didache chapter three he finds the material to serve as protection for the principles in chapter two (Jefford 1989, 63). A significant feature is the presence of two separate lists of admonitions, one of which has a parallel in Banabas 19.7. Didache 3.2-6 has no parallel in Barnabas and is arranged in a "strophic pattern that is not revealed elsewhere in the Didache" (Jefford 1989, 64). The concepts are generally assumed to be drawn from Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, and Matthew 5. Jefford observes that this emphasis on the Mosaic Law as a given suggests a time period before the rise of substantial Gentile Christianity (Jefford 1989, 68). Verses 8-10, with a strong parallel in Barnabas 19.3-6, suggest use of a source common to the Didache and Barnabas (Jefford 1989, 69). Jefford evaluates the statements which are prallel in the two documents. The statement of 3.7 "be meek…" has a clear parallel in Psalm 37 and Matthew 5 (Jefford 1989, 73). Jefford sees the realization that poor people should be cared for as a relatively late concept. The statement in Matthew 5 has an alteration in structure, which Jefford thinks disconnects it from Didache 3.7 (Jefford 1989, 75-76). In the end, Jefford concludes that the concept was meaningful within the community and that the Didachist sought the passage out in Psalm 37 or in whatever text served as a source for Matthew 5.5 (Jefford 1989, 80-81).
As Didache 3 served as a protective fence around the Decalog, Jefford finds chapters 4-5 to serve as another fence (Jefford 1989, 81). In chapters 4-5, the catechumen is presented with positive attitudes and behaviors which will keep him from entering into sin (Jefford 1989, 82). Jefford finds extensive parallels with Barnabas 19-20, but not with Matthew. Much of the ordering is similar to that of Barnabas, but the Didache contains a number of elements which are not present in Barnabas (Jefford 1989, 83-84).
Jefford finally visits Didache 16, the apocalyptic passage (Jefford 1989, 85ff). He finds the task of tracing Old Testament or other Jewish foundations unclear, but finds numerous parallels for the ideas within the Synoptic traditions. Jefford's parallel comparison of texts underlines the difficulty of finding parallel wording among these passages (Jefford 1989, 85-87). This leads Jefford to suggest a dependence on a source which would have been available both to the Didachist and the Synoptic redactors (Jefford 1989, 88). Jefford briefly tips his hat to the presence of oral tradition, but his effort as a whole is focused on a literary model (Jefford 1989, 90). In conclusion, Jefford finds thematic and structural similarity with other texts but cannot identify a specific source for the material in Didache 1-6 and 16. He assumes it to be a source which was also used for other materials.
Scholarly Reflections
Jefford, Clayton. "Chapter Two: Review of Texts." The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Leiden: Brill, 1989, 22-92.
Jefford observes that the opening of the Didache, asserting two differing ways, one of life and one of death, leads scholars to assume a source of information about the ways, one on which the first five chapters of the Didache would be predicated (Jefford 1989, 22). This has further led scholars to assume chapters 1-5 and possibly 16 are built on this source, and that the other chapters were created separately and later. Jefford notes that chapters 6-15 seem unrelated to chapters 1-5 and 16 (Jefford 1989, 23). The model of a source for the Two Ways material is made more clear by recognition of Two Ways material in Barnabas which appears related but more likely in the manner of having a common source.
Jefford notes that dualism of a positive and negative way of life is common in both the Old Testament and the Apocrypha (Jefford 1989, 24). He further notes statements in Matthew 7:13-14 (Luke 13:23-24) which present the same idea. He finds it generally absent in Luke, which suggests to him a source in "the Matthean version of the Q saying" (Jefford 1989, 25). However, Jefford is not certain that in and of itself the Two Ways material is dualistic to the extent we might assume from the Synoptic Gospels. He takes it to be better informed by Old Testament wisdom passages (Jefford 1989, 26).
The fact that the baptismal materials in the Didache follows on the heels of the Two Ways suggests to many that the Two Ways serve as a dualistic catechesis (Jefford 1989, 26). Once one subscribes to the way of life he would be baptized. This seems reasonably consistent with Jewish patterns of catechesis, particularly as recorded in 1QS 3.13-4:26 (Jefford 1989, 27). However, Jefford takes the material to be more akin to an ethical gathering of community rules which may or may not be associated with baptism.
Jefford moves on to a comparison of Didache 1.2a-b with Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:30-31, and Luke 10:27, then Didache 1.20 with Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31, presenting Greek text in parallel columns (Jefford 1989, 29-30). His subsequent analysis is couched in terms of redactional choices of one word over another, possibly signaling a source for a reading. The investigation hopes to find a definitive source for the Didache's language of loving God and loving the neighbor (Jefford 1989, 31). The Gold Rule in Didache 1.2c is found in a negative form, common in Jewish and Hellenistic thought (Jefford 1989, 33). Jefford notes that the positive form, from Matthew and Luke, is the exception. Jefford suggests that the Didache normally depended on the Sayings Gospel Q, but that here the author consciously departs. Jefford further suggests at least three sources for the redactor (Jefford 1989, 34). The conclusion is that the Didachist must have borrowed consciously from some tradition other than Q, and that Matthew may have been a source for the double love command but not for the Golden Rule (Jefford 1989, 38).
Didache 1.3b-2.1 is a passage which sparks debate, as it is more distinctively Christian in nature and doesn't appear to be the result of a long strand of tradition (Jefford 1989, 39). Jefford considers each saying individually, attempting to trace a source and a role in the Didache as a whole, after his parallel comparison (Jefford 1989, 39-42). Again, it is not clear that specific language has been borrowed consistently from Matthew, Luke, or the hypothetical Q source (Jefford 1989, 43). Jefford does identify an association of ideas of praise, of prayer, and of fasting. This can be identified in veraious sources, on the level of ideas, if not in specific language usage (Jefford 1989, 44). Though the wording cannot be identified, Jefford continues to seek out scenarios by which it could have been derived. Jefford's analysis of giving from Didache 1.5 follows the same pattern (Jefford 1989, 48ff). The saying of 1.6 follows (Jefford 1989, 51ff), likewise yielding an opinion that the saying was probably common within early Christianity but that a source can't be positively identified for the exact wording.
Jefford continues with an analysis of Didache 2.2-7, which he considers an older level of the text (Jefford 1989, 53). He evaluates the possibility of the material being drawn from an Old Testament text or possibly some later source, modified to serve Christian purposes (Jefford 1989, 54). As before, Jefford presents chunks of parallel text and analyzes them. The material is generally tied to the Decalog, however, it shows expansion and rearrangement (Jefford 1989, 56). Again, while Jefford finds conceptual parallels in various places, he doesn't find sources for exact wording, and assigns the work to a redactor who drew from numerous sources, adjusting them all (Jefford 1989, 61-62).
As Jefford movs into Didache chapter three he finds the material to serve as protection for the principles in chapter two (Jefford 1989, 63). A significant feature is the presence of two separate lists of admonitions, one of which has a parallel in Banabas 19.7. Didache 3.2-6 has no parallel in Barnabas and is arranged in a "strophic pattern that is not revealed elsewhere in the Didache" (Jefford 1989, 64). The concepts are generally assumed to be drawn from Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, and Matthew 5. Jefford observes that this emphasis on the Mosaic Law as a given suggests a time period before the rise of substantial Gentile Christianity (Jefford 1989, 68). Verses 8-10, with a strong parallel in Barnabas 19.3-6, suggest use of a source common to the Didache and Barnabas (Jefford 1989, 69). Jefford evaluates the statements which are prallel in the two documents. The statement of 3.7 "be meek…" has a clear parallel in Psalm 37 and Matthew 5 (Jefford 1989, 73). Jefford sees the realization that poor people should be cared for as a relatively late concept. The statement in Matthew 5 has an alteration in structure, which Jefford thinks disconnects it from Didache 3.7 (Jefford 1989, 75-76). In the end, Jefford concludes that the concept was meaningful within the community and that the Didachist sought the passage out in Psalm 37 or in whatever text served as a source for Matthew 5.5 (Jefford 1989, 80-81).
As Didache 3 served as a protective fence around the Decalog, Jefford finds chapters 4-5 to serve as another fence (Jefford 1989, 81). In chapters 4-5, the catechumen is presented with positive attitudes and behaviors which will keep him from entering into sin (Jefford 1989, 82). Jefford finds extensive parallels with Barnabas 19-20, but not with Matthew. Much of the ordering is similar to that of Barnabas, but the Didache contains a number of elements which are not present in Barnabas (Jefford 1989, 83-84).
Jefford finally visits Didache 16, the apocalyptic passage (Jefford 1989, 85ff). He finds the task of tracing Old Testament or other Jewish foundations unclear, but finds numerous parallels for the ideas within the Synoptic traditions. Jefford's parallel comparison of texts underlines the difficulty of finding parallel wording among these passages (Jefford 1989, 85-87). This leads Jefford to suggest a dependence on a source which would have been available both to the Didachist and the Synoptic redactors (Jefford 1989, 88). Jefford briefly tips his hat to the presence of oral tradition, but his effort as a whole is focused on a literary model (Jefford 1989, 90). In conclusion, Jefford finds thematic and structural similarity with other texts but cannot identify a specific source for the material in Didache 1-6 and 16. He assumes it to be a source which was also used for other materials.
RSS Feed