Part 3: The Didache and Matthew
Part 3: The Didache and Matthew
Before and after Matthew
e. Bruce Brooks ......................................................................................247
The sectio evangelica (Didache 1.3b–2.1) and Performance Perttu Nikander ......................................................................................287
The Didache and Oral Theory
Nancy Pardee ..........................................................................................311
from the sermon on the Mount to the Didache
John W. Welch ........................................................................................335
The Lord Jesus and his coming in the Didache
Murray J. smith ......................................................................................363
Matthew and the Didache: some comments on the comments Joseph Verheyden ...................................................................................409
Part 4: The Didache and Other early christian Texts Without Decree: Pagan sacrificial Meat and the early history of the Didache
Matti Myllykoski ....................................................................................429
cONTeNTs
another Gospel: exploring early christian Diversity with Paul and the Didache
Taras Khomych .......................................................................................455
The first century Two Ways catechesis and hebrews 6:1–6
Matthew Larsen and Michael svigel ....................................................477
The Didache and Revelation
alan J. P. Garrow ....................................................................................497
The Didache as a source for the Reconstruction of early christianity: a Response
D. Jeffrey Bingham .................................................................................515
conclusion: Missing Pieces in the Puzzle or Wild Goose chase?
a Retrospect and Prospect
Jonathan a. Draper ................................................................................529
Bibliography ...................................................................................................545
contributors ...................................................................................................589
index of Primary Texts .................................................................................595
index of Modern authors.............................................................................625
1. ancient
1Qs
Rule of the community from Qumran, Dead sea scrolls
‘abod. zar
avodah zarah
acts Pil.
acts of Pilate
Ag. Ap.
Against Apion, Josephus
A.J.
Antiquitates judaicae, Josephus
apoc. Pet.
apocalypse of Peter
apos. con.
apostolic constitutions and canons
Apol.
Apology, aristides
Apol.
Apology, Justin Martyr
Apol.
Apology, Tertullian
b.
Babylonian Talmud
Bar.
Baruch
Barn.
epistle of Barnabas
B. Meṣ.
Baba Meṣi‘a
Bek.
Bekhorot
Ber.
Berakhot
B.J.
Bellum judaicum, Josephus
Cat. Luc.
Catenae in Lucam, cyril of alexandria
Cels.
Contra Celsum, Origen
clem.
1–2 clement
Comm. Matt.
Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei, Origen
Comp.
De compositione verborum, Dionysius of halicarnassus De aleat.
De aleatoribus, Pseudo-cyprian
De or.
De oratore, cicero
Dial.
Dialogus cum Tryphone, Justin Martyr
Did.
Didache
Doctr.
Doctrina apostolorum
‘ed.
eduyyot
-ix -
aBBReViaTiONs
Eloc.
De elocutione (Peri hermēneias), Demetrius
en.
enoch
esd
esdras
Ep.
Epistula, augustine
ep. aris.
epistle of aristides
Ep. fest.
Epistulae festales, athanasius
Eph.
Epistle to the Ephesians, ignatius of antioch
exod. Rab.
exodus Rabbah
Gos. eb.
Gospel of the ebionites
Gos. Pet.
Gospel of Peter
Gos. Thom.
Gospel of Thomas
Haer.
Adversus haereses, irenaeus
hag.
hagigah
Hist.
General History, Polybius
Hist. eccl.
Historia ecclesiastica, eusebius of caesarea
Hom.
Homilies, Pseudo-clement
hul.
hullin
Inst.
Institutio oratoria, Quintilian
Jejun.
De jejunio adversus psychicos, Tertullian
Jub.
Jubilees
Kallah Rab.
Kallah Rabbati
LaB
Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, Pseudo-Philo
Let. aris.
Letter of aristeas
Liv. Pro. Dan. Lives of the Prophets, Daniel
LXX
septuagint
m.
Mishnah
Ma‘aś. Š.
Ma‘aśer Šeni
Magn.
Epistle to the Magnesians, ignatius of antioch
Mand.
Mandate, shepherd of hermas
Marc.
Adversus Marcionem, Tertullian
Meg.
Megillah
Mem.
Memorabilia, Xenophon
Miqw.
Miqwa’ot
Mon.
De monogamia, Tertullian
Ms(s)
manuscript(s)
MT
Masoretic Text
Ned.
Nedarim
Num. Rab.
Numbers Rabbah
Oct.
Octavius, Minucius felix
aBBReViaTiONs
xi
Odes sol.
Odes of solomon
OG
Old Greek
Op.
Opera et dies, hesiod
Or.
De oratione, Origen
Paed.
Paedagogus, clement of alexandria
Pan.
Panarion (Adversus haereses), epiphanius
PGM
Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen zauberpapyri.
edited by K. Preisendanz. Berlin, 1928.
Pesah.
Pesahim
Pirqe R. el.
Pirqe Rabbi eliezer
P.Oxy.
Oxyrhynchus papyrus
Pss. sol.
Psalms of solomon
Pud.
De pudicitia, Tertullian
Recog.
Recognitions, Pseudo-clement
Rhet.
Rhetorica, aristotle
Rhet. Her.
Rhetorica ad Herennium, Quintilian
Rom.
Epistle to the Romans, ignatius of antioch
Roš haš.
Roš haššanah
sanh.
sanhedrin
sabb.
shabbat
sebu.
shevu’ot
sim.
similitude, from shepherd of hermas
Smyrn.
To the Smyrnaeans, ignatius
Spec.
De specialibus legibus 1–4, Philo
Spect.
De spectaculis, Tertullian
Strom.
Stromata, clement of alexandria
Symb.
Commentarius in symbolum apostolorum, Rufinus
syntagma
syntagma doctrinae
t.
tosefta
T. abr.
Testament of abraham
T. ash.
Testament of asher
Ta‘an.
Ta‘anit
Tg.
Targum
Tem.
Temurah
Vesp.
Vespasianus, suetonius
Virg.
De virginitate, Pseudo-athanasius
y.
Jerusalem Talmud
Yebam.
Yebamot
aBBReViaTiONs
2. Modern
aB
anchor Bible
ABD
Anchor Bible Dictionary. edited by David N. freedman. 6
vols. New York: Yale university Press, 1992.
aBRL
anchor Bible Reference Library
accs
ancient christian commentary on scripture
acW
ancient christian Writers. 1946—
af
The apostolic fathers: a Translation and commentary aGJu
arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des urchristentums
AJ
The Asbury Journal
aJec
ancient Judaism and early christianity
AJP
American Journal of Philosophy
AJT
American Journal of Theology
aK
arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte
ANRW
Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat. edited by h. Temporini and W. haasse. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–.
aTaNT
abhandlungen zur Theologie des alten und Neuen Testaments
AThR
Anglican Theological Review
aYBc
The anchor Yale Bible commentary
Bac
The Bible in ancient christianity
BARIS
Biblical Archaeology Review International Series BDaG
Bauer, W., f. W. Danker, W. f. arndt, and f. W. Gingrich.
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. chicago, 1999.
BDR
f. Blass, a. Debrunner, and f. Rehkopf. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 16th ed. Göttingen, 1984.
BeTL
Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BhT
Beiträge zur historischen Theologie
Bib
Biblica
BJRL
Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manches-ter
BPc
Biblical Performance criticism
BRBs
Brill’s Readers in Biblical studies
Bs
The Biblical seminar
aBBReViaTiONs
xiii
BSac
Bibliotheca sacra
BTB
Biblical Theology Bulletin
BTs
Biblical Tools and studies
BVB
Beitäge zum Verstehen der Bibel
BWaNT
Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Neuen Testament
BzNW
Beihefte zur zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
cBeT
contributions to Biblical exegesis and Theology CBQ
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
cJa
christianity and Judaism in antiquity
conBNT
coniectanea neotestamentica (coniectanea biblica: New Testament series)
cQs
companion to the Qumran scrolls
cRiNT
compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum cT
corpus Tannaiticum
cuasca
The catholic university of america studies in christian antiquity
CurBS
Currents in Research: Biblical Studies
dGL
de Gruyter Lehrbuch
DRev
Downside Review
ebib
etudes bibliques
ECB
Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. edited by James D.
G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2003.
ecs
early christian studies
EDB
Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. edited by David Noel freedman. Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2000.
EDEJ
Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. edited by John J.
collins and Daniel c. harlow. Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2010.
EDNT
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. edited by hortz Balz and Gerhard schneider. eT. Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1990–1993.
ehPR
etudes d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses eKKNT
evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
EuroJS
European Journal of Sociology
EuroJSP
European Journal of Social Psychology
fc
fontes christiani
ABBREVIATIONS
FRLANT
Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
GTA
Göttinger theologischer Arbeiten
HKNT
Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament
HNT
Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HNT.E
Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Ergänzungsband
HSCL
Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature
HTKNT
Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTR
Harvard Theological Review
HTS.TS
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
IB
Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick et al. 12 vols.
New York, 1951–1957.
IBC
Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
ICC
International Critical Commentary
Int
Interpretation
JAC
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum
JAC.E
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband JBL
Journal of Biblical Literature
JCC
Jewish Culture and Contexts
JCP
Jewish and Christian Perspectives
JECS
Journal of Early Christian Studies
JETS
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JHC
Journal of Higher Criticism
JHS
Journal of Hellenic Studies
JJS
Journal of Jewish Studies
JP
Jerusalem Perspective
JQR
Jewish Quarterly Review
JRitSt
Journal of Ritual Studies
JSIJ
Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal
JSJ
Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods
JSJSup
Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series
JSNT
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup
Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series
JTS
Journal of Theological Studies
KAV
Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern
ABBREVIATIONS
xv
KEK
Kritische-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar)
KSup
Kadmos Supplement
LCL
Loeb Classical Library
LEB
Lexham English Bible
LNTS
Library of New Testament Studies
LSJ
Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
MNTC
Moffatt New Testament Commentary
MSJ
The Master’s Seminary Journal
MTSR
Method and Theory in the Study of Religion
NBS
Numen Book Series
NedTT
Nederlands theologische tijdschrift
Neot
Neotestamentica
NGS
New Gospel Studies
NICNT
New International Commentary on the New Testament NIDB
The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by K.
D. Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009.
NIGTC
New International Greek Testament Commentary
NovT
Novum Testamentum
NovTSup
Novum Testamentum Supplements
NRTh
La nouvelle revue théologique
NTL
New Testament Library
NTR
New Testament Readings
NTS
New Testament Studies
OBO
Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OrChrAn
Orientalia christiana analecta
PFLUS
Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg
PG
Patrologia graeca [= Patrologiae cursus completes: Series graeca]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857-1886
PGL
Patristic Greek Lexicon. Edited by G. W. H. Lampe.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.
PTS
Patristische Texte und Studien
QL
Questions liturgiques
RB
Revue biblique
RBL
Review of Biblical Literature (online)
ResQ
Restoration Quarterly
aBBReViaTiONs
RHR
Revue de l’histoire des religions
RSR
Recherches de science religieuse
sBL
society of Biblical Literature
sBLaB
society of Biblical Literature academia Biblica sBLeJL
society of Biblical Literature early Judaism and its Literature
sBLMs
society of Biblical Literature Monograph series sBLsP
society of Biblical Literature seminar Papers
sBLsyms
society of Biblical Literature symposium series sBs
stuttgarter Bibelstudien
sc
sources chrétiennes, Paris: cerf, 1943–.
SecCent
Second Century
scJ
studies in christianity and Judaism
scrhier
scripta hierosolymitana
sDssRL
studies in the Dead sea scrolls and Related Literature seaug
studia ephemeridis augustinianum
semeiast
semeia studies
sJ
studia judaica
sJLa
studies in Judaism in Late antiquity
sNTsMs
society for New Testament studies Monograph series sP
sacra pagina
sPL
spiritualités et pensées libres
SR
Studies in Religion
StPatr
Studia patristica
stPB
studia post-biblica
studBib
studia Biblica
ST
Studia theologica
sTDJ
studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
su
schriften des urchristentums
SwJT
Southwestern Journal of Theology
TaNz
Texte und arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen zeitalter TDNT
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. edited by G.
Kittel and G. friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10
vols. Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1964–1976.
TJ
Trinity Journal
TLOT
Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. edited by e.
Jenni, with assistance from c. Westermann. Translated by M. e. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Ma: hendrickson, 1997.
TLZ
Theologische Literaturzeitung
ABBREVIATIONS
xvii
TS
Theological Studies
TSAJ
Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
TynBul
Tyndale Bulletin
TTE
The Theological Educator
TUGAL
Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristli-chen Literatur
VC
Vigiliae christianae
VCSup
Vigiliae Christianae Supplements
VE
Verbum et Ecclesia
VetChr
Vetera christianorum
VTSup
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
WBC
Word Biblical Commentary
WSP
Warring States Papers
WTJ
Westminster Theological Journal
WUNT
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZAW
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlischen Wissenschaft ZECNT
Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
ZNW
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche
introduction: Dynamics, Methodologies, and Progress in Didache studies
Clayton N. Jefford
1. The history
Despite its brevity of length and paucity of theological development, the text of the Didache has inspired a disproportionate degree of attention from biblical scholars and early church historians alike. early identified as a “riddle” by f. e. Vokes and later as an “enigma” by stanislas Giet,1 the work remains an intriguing dilemma for those who study ancient christian contexts and literature. it is a singular text that begs for interpretation and elucidation against the backdrop of what is otherwise known about the origin of the early church and its development prior to the standardization of ecclesiastical practices and institutional norms.
Though available for scholarly examination for less than 150 years, much has been written about the Didache in an effort to locate its origins, development, and traditions. The fruits of such efforts have often been wildly inconsistent, as is shown by scholars who wished to associate the work with an egyptian provenance against others who preferred a syrian locale, those who believed the materials to be remarkably ancient against those who saw the hand of later forgers at work, and those who identified the influence of diverse Jewish communities with idiosyncratic tendencies against others who believed the text to reflect the natural growth of christian evolution as the church abandoned the roots of its semitic heritage.2
1. so f. e. Vokes, The Riddle of the Didache: Fact or Fiction, Heresy or Catholicism?
(London: sPcK, 1938), and stansilas Giet, L’énigme de la Didachè, PfLus 149 (Paris: Ophrys, 1970).
2. for a most useful survey of such trends, see Jonathan a. Draper, “The Didache in Modern Research: an Overview,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan
-1 -
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
among the initial scholars to give attention to the text were early church historians such as adolf von harnack, Paul sabatier, Philip schaff, charles Taylor, and J. Rendel harris, figures who already were well known for their vigilant research into the ancient christian setting beyond the realm of biblical studies. Their enthusiasm created an infectious wave for their own students, many of whom continued to investigate matters associated not only with the Didache, but with the apostolic fathers in general. But with the waning of this enthusiasm early in the twentieth century, Didache studies became largely recognized as a hobby interest for only a scattered few scholars, leaving nonspecialists in the field with mostly vague notions about the text and its role within the rise of primitive christianity.
Over the years the scholarly process of debate eventually yielded to several schools of thought that seemed to reflect the individual frameworks within which academics reconstructed their personal visions of the context and tradition behind the Didache. The best known among these perspectives are perhaps represented by three key commentaries that appeared during the last half of the twentieth century. The earliest study is found in the work of Jean-Paul audet, whose principal volume gave consideration to the writings of the Dead sea scrolls.3 audet’s publications generally offered an insightful view into the potential implications that the scrolls, only recently discovered and still largely unpublished at the time, held for the ancient christian context. soon thereafter appeared a key study (followed by a subsequent update) on the Didache by Willy Rordorf and andré Tuilier, a volume that appeared in the sources chrétienne series.4 This research focused on broad literary traditions and the status of the text within the framework of the ancient ecclesiastical setting. finally, the contributions of Kurt Niederwimmer have found their pinnacle in his commentary late in the century, which gave focused consideration to the perspective of sources and editorial composition. Niederwimmer’s a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1–42. see also by way of introduction to the text itself, clayton N. Jefford, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: Didache (santa Rosa, ca: Polebridge, 2013), 1–17.
3. Jean-Paul audet, La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres, ebib (Paris: Gabalda, 1958).
4. Willy Rordorf and andré Tuilier, La doctrine des douze Apôtres (Didachè), sc 248 (Paris: cerf, 1978). This was later revised in 1998 in the light of Niederwimmer’s 1993 volume (see n. 5 below).
JeffORD: iNTRODucTiON
3
volume in many ways has come to represent the pinnacle of Didache research toward the end of the twentieth century.5
a glance backwards at these scholars and their fine research raises some awareness of a distinctive element concerning studies of the Didache during this period. indeed, characteristic of such research was the relatively isolated environment in which each scholar approached the text and the vagaries of its background and evolution from within their own individual specialties. On the one hand, there is no question that such approaches have led to insightful observations about the text.
it is on the shoulders of such scholars that contemporary students have offered their own observations. Yet at the same time these efforts have largely shielded any true degree of cooperative insight that may have been of use in understanding the situation of the Didache. The opportunity these scholars once had to share their individual perspectives in a col-laborate sense in order to promote a greater understanding of the text and its traditions has subsequently been lost. What has now become apparent is that, while such efforts may have been herculean in their contribution to our knowledge of the topic at hand, the situation in which individual scholars have worked in isolation is perhaps better left behind in favor of a more cooperative milieu.
Thus it has become true that scholars in church history eventually recognized the need to engage others who are better trained in scripture, that specialists in liturgical tradition have come to pursue those who focus on ecclesiastical development, that students trained in literary traditions alone recognize the nature of oral contexts and the value that such traditions held for their local cultures, and that theologians have been compelled to consult with historians. These transitions have not always been easy, and the acknowledgment that specialists in divergent fields of study have something of particular value to offer their colleagues who are trained in further disciplines has not always been recognized with grace.
Nevertheless, toward the end of the twentieth century the time was clearly right to assume a more cooperative spirit. The result has been a surfeit of secondary literature now available to assist those who wish better to understand the Didache and its original setting.
5. Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, trans. Linda M. Maloney, hermeneia (Minneapolis: fortress, 1998); trans. of Die Didache, KaV 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
2. The context
in certain respects this evolving perspective of cross-disciplinary interaction has led to a bounty of studies on the Didache that had not been witnessed previously. By way of example, recent investigations have indicated the benefit that may be gained from a more complete and detailed understanding of orality in the role that it has served as the background for much of what now appears in literary form within the text. The impetus for this insight derives from outside the discipline of church history, of course, finding its roots within a variety of social-critical studies. But an awareness of how the first generations of christians viewed their faith from within a living, orality-based context has become an essential aspect of what scholarship now assumes in its approach to the Didache.
Together with this greater appreciation for the influence of orality in the ancient world, a greater focus has been placed on liturgical traditions and the unique place of the Didache within the development of such streams of ritual. The older belief that generally held ground prior to the work of Walter Bauer early in the twentieth century—a view that envisaged christianity to have developed from a single kernel of mainline perspective about faith and praxis that eventually divided into multiple views and deviant streams of approach—has given way to a clearer understanding that the nascent church itself was hardly unified in perspective, even from the foundation of its roots. Thus, scholars have come to envisage that the Didache is perhaps more accurately understood as a derivative of one of these earlier approaches.
so too, the ancient concern to blend ethical instruction with ecclesiastical direction is now recognized by many scholars as a driving force among numerous early christian communities. This has led to enhanced appreciation for the evolutionary role that the work has played within the growth of ancient christian literature. One can no longer be satisfied with the simplistic perspective that the work is simply a “handbook” or compilation of instructions that existed without any clear purpose within the evolving history that was the social-cultural development of church instruction. indeed! This likely was never the case at all. some other perspective must be considered. The conclusion of the twentieth century was the time for scholarship to give flesh to such a vision.
The rise of such movements in perspective undeniably served to provide the foundation for what eventually became a specific gathering for the presentation of papers on the Didache at the annual meetings
JeffORD: iNTRODucTiON
5
of the society of Biblical Literature (sBL). credit for this occasion must be allotted directly to aaron Milavec in Ohio, who initially proposed and organized the sessions under the exploratory title of the “Didache consultation unit,” an investigative venture by which to determine the interest of scholars within the field of early patristic studies. as chair of the sessions, Milavec included the assistance of a small, loosely assembled team of fellow researchers to help guide the process of organization and direction, including Jonathan Draper of south africa, Nancy Pardee in illinois, and clayton Jefford in indiana. under the supervision of these individuals, papers were presented in the unit’s initial phase in 2003 and continued through 2005. as a standard for these and later meetings, the unit featured two sessions of related topics on the text involving a number of researchers both in biblical studies and the apostolic fathers generally.
after the meeting in 2005, the chairmanship of the unit was handed over to Draper and renamed the “Didache in context.” interest continued to gather among participants at the annual sBL meetings, many of whom were only secondarily engaged in the topic itself. With the departure of Milavec after the initial years, two other researchers were incorporated into the team of directors: huub van de sandt of the Netherlands and alan Garrow from england. This combined team of Draper, Pardee, Jefford, van de sandt, and Garrow continued to guide the sessions until their final meeting in 2011, thus covering a range of almost a decade during which significant papers were delivered on the text within an organized academic context of international scope.
apart from the essential value of sharing related research work on the text of the Didache within a public setting on an annual basis, the seminar offered a sounding board for the progress of several noteworthy publications in the field. earliest among these was the production of Milavec’s own commentary, which has taken two related literary forms and clearly had significant impact on a number of scholars who have undertaken work within the discipline.6 The influence of Milavec’s work is perhaps most immediately evident in the appearance of two subsequent 6. he refers to these works as his “elephant” and his “mouse”; see aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE
(New York: Newman, 2003), and The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003).
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
introductions to the text, specifically those authored by William Varner7
and Thomas O’Loughlin.8
additional volumes were soon forthcoming by other members of the seminar’s steering committee, including two collections of essays gathered at conferences in Tilburg in the Netherlands, under the direction of van de sandt.9 each of these gatherings featured papers directed specifically toward Didache studies in relationship to scripture: in the first instance with reference to the Gospel of Matthew and in the latter in reference to Matthew and James. Most interesting with respect to these latter collections is the degree to which it had become clear to scholars of late christian antiquity that there is a primary benefit to be gained from opportunities to share insights and research within a collaborative setting. The two conferences included roughly twenty-five scholars, each with specialties in a variety of areas of history and literature. The value of such collaboration is immediately obvious both in the essays produced and subsequent literature that has been spawned from such publications.
Yet in a more expansive context, two other related volumes have featured further collaborative efforts related to the Didache within the more generalized framework of the larger collection of the apostolic fathers.
These have resulted from the centennial celebration of the Oxford society of historical Theology’s examination of use of scripture in the apostolic fathers that resulted over a century ago in a slim little volume from 1905.10
in honor of that earlier collaborative effort, andrew f. Gregory and christopher M. Tuckett, each from Oxford university, culled together a series 7. The Way of the Didache: The First Christian Handbook (Lanham, MD: university Press of america, 2007).
8. The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker; London: sPcK, 2010).
9. These include a conference held april 7–8, 2003 (published in huub van de sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? [assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: fortress, 2005]), and a subsequent conference held april 12–13, 2007 (published in huub van de sandt and Jürgen K. zangenberg, eds., Matthew, James and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, sBLsyms 45 [atlanta: society of Biblical Literature, 2008]).
Van de sandt had previously published a volume on the Two Ways source behind the Didache, which he had coauthored with the late David flusser: The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, cRiNT 3.5 (assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: fortress, 2002).
10. The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: clarendon, 1905).
JeffORD: iNTRODucTiON
7
of contributors within the field, many of whom were able to gather at Lincoln college in april 2004 to address topics related to the apostolic fathers, principally in the specialties of their texts and contexts. The resulting papers included several pieces that investigate the Didache explicitly and have subsequently furthered our understanding of the work.11
furthermore, in many ways the sBL seminar likewise proved to be a touchstone for a number of dissertations on the Didache that were published in the intervening years. The earliest of these was authored by Garrow, whose 2004 publication of his 2000 Oxford thesis under the direction of Tuckett12 has contributed greatly to those who would place the Didache at the earliest stages of nascent christianity’s development.
Together with the work of Milavec, Garrow’s hypothesis has provided an avenue for scholars who prefer to see the text as a reflection of the faith’s earliest foundation pillars. a second dissertation was published in 2008
from the pen of Jonathan schwiebert,13 whose earlier 2005 Boston university thesis reflected a specific interest in the liturgical traditions of the text. schwiebert examines the ritual dynamics and historical impact of the eucharistic tradition preserved in Did. 9–10, furthering thought on the topic that had been featured in earlier research from the time of the work’s initial rediscovery in 1873 and publication a decade later by Philotheos Bryennios. The work of schwiebert has encouraged new considerations of the tradition within its historical context. finally, in 2012 the latest 11. andrew f. Gregory and christopher M. Tuckett, eds., The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers: The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, 2
vols (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2005). four papers are focal for present consideration here within these two volumes; see especially John s. Kloppenborg, “Didache 1.1–6.1, James, Matthew, and the Torah”; Jonathan a. Draper, “first-fruits and the support of Prophets, Teachers, and the Poor in Didache 13 in Relation to New Testament Parallels”; and clayton N. Jefford, “social Locators as a Bridge between the Didache and Matthew”; in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2 of The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. andrew f. Gregory and christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2005), 193–221, 223–
43, and 245–64 (respectively); christopher M. Tuckett, “The Didache and the Writings that later formed the New Testament,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, ed. andrew f. Gregory and christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2005), 83–127.
12. The Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache, JsNTsup 254 (London: T&T clark, 2004).
13. Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom: The Didache’s Meal Ritual and Its Place in Early Christianity, LNTs 373 (London: T&T clark, 2008).
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
and most up-to-date edition of Pardee’s 2002 university of chicago dissertation has been made available in publication.14 The underlying thesis expressed by Pardee features a concern for the comprehensive syntactical structure of the Didache that suggests the evolved history of the work versus views that envisage it as the unified expression of a single mindset.
in certain respects, she has returned to the investigation of problems associated with the writing’s framework that plagued a previous generation of scholars, though with a new approach featuring text-linguistic analysis.
The rise of the sBL seminar during the early 2000s, the cooperative spirit of those authors and presenters who have participated in its performance during those years, and the appearance of numerous related publications that have found a ready audience within that context (including the more broadly featured volumes of seminar participants and the numerous articles and essays not listed here)15 have in many respects demanded some formal closing comment in the form of the collected essays of contemporary researchers who continue to work on the Didache.
The present volume is an attempt to provide a capstone for the seminar and its efforts. While it does not embody all of the contributors and their literary efforts over the course of that decade, it offers a clear reflection of the type of work that was achieved and the interests that were covered during those years.
3. The content
This volume is divided into four sections, each of which features four to five essays and a response. scholarship from australia, continental europe, south africa, the united Kingdom, and the united states is represented here, including specialists in the study of the Didache and generalists in early church history, well-established scholars in their fields and younger scholars at the beginning of their careers. in other words, these essays and responses reflect what the “Didache in context” seminar was during the 14. The Genre and Development of the Didache, WuNT 2/339 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2012).
15. This list should perhaps include two anticipated commentaries that remain in manuscript form. The first of these is currently under production by Jonathan Draper for publication in the new Oxford apostolic fathers series (several volumes are already now in print), and the second is my own book slated to appear in the Yale anchor Bible series sometime in the next decade.
JeffORD: iNTRODucTiON
9
years of its existence and include a number of the papers that have not been published elsewhere.
The first section (“approaches to the Text as a Whole”) seeks to incorporate those studies that apply generally to the overall content and background of the Didache. These essays cover a broad range of ideas and approaches, and each author seeks to speak about the nature of the work as a whole and within the larger realm of its historical or theological development.
stephen finlan’s opening essay on community identity gives special attention to the unique christian nature of the Didache, with particular attention drawn to Jewish and Torah connections in the light of social identity theory. in many respects this effort reflects what has become a common understanding about the nature of the text with respect to its Jewish roots and foundation. This is followed by my own contribution on the nature of authority as it is viewed throughout the Didache.
i understand the text to reflect at least two levels of such authority and focus primarily on how the author(s) make use of scripture at different historical junctures, orienting my discussion around the review of an earlier study by William Varner. a contribution by aaron Milavec appears next, identifying the many and various ways in which scholarship on the Didache, while having contributed greatly to our understanding of the text, has in his opinion made critical, mistaken assumptions in its work. he recognizes that valid studies going forward must be open to the unique voice preserved within the text itself. These essays are followed by a study from Jonathan Draper, who investigates the Didachist’s use of household codes in the construction of the community’s view of authority in comparison with other contemporary authors. This essay is somewhat unique within Didache studies in its effort to give this code material a particular voice within the text. Much like finlan’s essay at the beginning of the volume, Draper again provides a sound comparison with Jewish precedents, yet incorporates a larger Greco-Roman consideration as he responds to the earlier work of James c. scott and halvor Moxnes. in conclusion, a response to the four works is offered by andrew Gregory, who offers an insightful analysis of these opening essays as they interrelate with respect to the question of the historical and theological development of the Didache. Gregory’s initial (and perhaps primary) response is to the essay of Milavec, focusing on the importance of issues associated with a holistic reading of the text within an oral setting versus a broader consideration of the development of manuscript and literary traditions. This
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
approach sets the tenor for his subsequent consideration of the essays of finlan, Draper, and myself, folding the broader questions of Matthean dependence (or lack thereof), ancient views of social identity, and Jewish and hellenistic codes into the early christian framework of development.
he is careful to offer a word of warning for those who work with ancient texts and contexts.
The second section (“Leadership and Liturgy”) provides several strategies by which to understand liturgical constructions and ritual worship that are reflected in the central portion of the text. included here once again are four essays on baptism, eucharist, and prayer that seek to better understand how those activities presumably were witnessed within and experienced by the Didache community. The opening essay is offered by huub van de sandt, who addresses the topics of holiness and baptism as necessary ingredients for participation in the eucharist as understood by the Didachist. his approach incorporates the contemporary views of Jewish sources, including special consideration for the Two Ways segment with which the Didache begins. afterwards appears Peter Tomson’s study on the Lord’s Prayer as it appears within the evolving tradition of early christian literature. his redaction-critical perspective of the text brings him to conclude that the prayer served as a boundary line between Jews and christians during the reigns of Trajan and hadrian. The two essays that follow are interlinked in terms of their consideration of the prayers in Did. 9–10. The first of these comes from Jonathan schwiebert, who builds on previous arguments from his published dissertation16 in a discussion of the formulaic nature of forms within those prayers. his analysis takes advantage of the earlier work on religious symbols reviewed by Maurice Bloch. The second of the two essays presents John clabeaux’s analysis of schwiebert’s volume on this same topic, providing a careful review of how discussion on the prayers has been advanced by this work to the benefit of Didache studies. On the one hand, he discusses the prayers themselves; yet at the same time incorporates additional insights on theology, eschatology, and the Johannine tradition. This section is concluded with a response by Joseph Mueller, s.J., who also focuses on schwiebert’s hypotheses about the prayers, offering their value in providing a focal point for the honing perspectives of van de sandt and Tomson. it will undoubtedly become clear to the careful reader that contemporary views concerning 16. see n. 13 above.
JeffORD: iNTRODucTiON
11
ritual and praxis within the Didache tradition have been greatly impacted by such careful analysis of liturgical materials and their performance within the community. in this respect, this particular collection of essays holds together well.
The third section of the volume (“The Didache and Matthew”) turns specifically to the relationship between the Didache and scripture, particularly with respect to the Gospel of Matthew. The first of these studies is offered by Bruce Brooks, who provides a broadly outlined view of how the Didache represents some of the earliest views of nascent christianity in comparison with other better known New Testament materials. he envisages the work as a growth text with a liturgical orientation that was typical of what he defines as “alpha christianity,” a movement among the earliest christians that is further illustrated by such works as James, the hymn embedded in Phil 2, and the earlier layers of the Gospel of Mark.
The two essays that follow are linked in certain respects, much like those of schwiebert and clabeaux in the second section. The first of these features a study of the Two Ways tradition by Perttu Nikander, who gives particular consideration to the oral nature of that material and the various ways in which it likely was performed within the community of the Didache. he focuses on the nature of “sound mapping” and aural structure as studied previously by Margaret ellen Lee and Bernard Brandon scott. Nancy Pardee’s essay concludes these two studies, working off a previous paper offered by Nikander at an sBL session in November 2010.
Pardee offers a developing perspective on oral theory and the Didache as presented in that earlier study, proposing a renewed call to give particular attention to the issues of genre, literary composition, and “recontextualization” as elements that undoubtedly lie behind the evolution of the textual tradition. Thereafter, John Welch provides a later edition to his earlier studies on the literary connections between the Didache and Matthew’s sermon on the Mount. he offers his belief that the Didache, as well as other early christian literature, has made extensive use of the sermon both in its literary construction and theological perspective. This argument takes advantage of “inverted parallel” analysis as identified and explored in the earlier work of Moshe seidel. The final essay in this section is given by Murray smith, who brings the unit to full completion with a consideration of the eschatological perspective of the Didachist. smith argues against those who believe that the reference to κύριος (“Lord”) in the text intends the appearance of God, preferring the reading that this is an intentional reference to the return of christ by the author. he provides
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
extensive literary parallels from elsewhere within the tradition to make his case. The closing response is an analysis of these five contributions by Joseph Verheyden, offering a careful review of each author’s arguments and views with respect to the Didachist’s knowledge and employment of scripture. Verheyden is less in sympathy with opinions that do not envisage the evolution of the Gospel of Matthew prior to that of the Didache and thus is vigilant to focus on each author’s position in terms of its logic and assumptions. This is the kind of review that indicates the value of divergent opinions and critical analysis in academic research.
The final section (“The Didache and Other early christian Texts”) is oriented toward the issue of how the Didache relates to subsidiary first-century literature. These studies are drawn primarily with insights taken from biblical works, some of which are readily identified in the New Testament (so hebrews and Revelation). But the remaining essays address less obvious texts in terms of literature and authors more broadly employed by contemporary traditions. The first of these essays is by Matti Myllykoski, who addresses the topic of the apostolic Decree (known from acts 15) as it relates to the Didache, focusing on the way in which the Two Ways (as a treatise) came to be incorporated into the contexts of the Didachist and author of Matthew. Myllykoski’s essay takes stock of ancient Jewish-christian concerns as the community of the Didache reacted against both Pauline antilegalism and strict observance of the law at the same historical moment. Thereafter appears the contribution of Taras Khomych, who turns his attention to the circumstances of Paul and whether the apostle worked with another separate “gospel” and evangelical tradition. a focus of this study envisions the contrasting images of christology at work in the mind of the Didachist and Paul. Khomych finds both similarities and striking differences in this comparison, thus indicating a more refracting vision of theology and perspective among our earliest christian sources.
The next study is that of Matthew Larsen and Michael svigel, who explore the likelihood of a commonly circulating Two Ways tradition that was known not only by the Didachist, but also by the author of hebrews. They argue that the mindset behind heb 6:1–6 is specifically driven toward the individual christian’s growth in faith and understanding, assuming knowledge of a Two Ways catechetical pattern that was already available to the author’s readership. alan Garrow next explores the common relationship between the book of Revelation and the Didache in terms of their shared eschatological concerns and eucharistic traditions. employing the earlier work of David Barr on the enactment of oral materials within
JeffORD: iNTRODucTiON
13
Revelation, Garrow concludes that the Didache provides the actual foundational patterns for the “creative fountainhead” from which the text of Revelation derived. The final essay in this section features a response by Jeffrey Bingham to the various contributions of the authors. Bingham offers a broad review of the works, classifying the discussion into the four categories of unity and diversity, Jewish heritage, liturgy, and hermeneutics. in conclusion, he acknowledges that contemporary explorations of the Didache and its traditions offer another perspective by which to understanding the foundational pillars of early christianity. in many respects, this serves as a summary understanding that stands behind the rationale for the volume as a whole.
The concluding essay for the volume is offered by Draper, who notes a number of important features of the Didache that are now generally accepted by scholars. among these is the recognition that the Didachist incorporated various early sources, not having written simply from contemporary perspective. in addition, there is greater awareness of the Jewish context within which the text was produced and especially of the significant role that Jewish and christian mysticism may hold for better understanding the work. To this one may add a renewed focus on the tradition of the Gospel of Matthew, as well as some further concern for the role of the apostle Paul and Johannine tradition, including the text of Revelation. closing with a call for further exploration into the practice of early christian initiation rituals and practices, he concludes that the challenge of the text continues for contemporary scholars in their quest to better understand christian origins and literature.
We trust that readers will find the essays contained in this volume to be useful tools in their own pursuits of such questions for the origins and development of earliest christianity. The call of the Didache still resounds, encouraging a persistent response from biblical scholars and specialists of late christian antiquity alike. The answer to the “riddle” of the Didache waits to be found. The tradition continues to summon those who would respond.
approaches to the Text as a Whole
identity in the Didache community
Stephen Finlan
The question of identity in the Didache author’s implied community is intertwined with the question of the desirability of Torah observance by gentiles. The more closely any community is tied to observance of the Torah, the more confidently can its identity be called a kind of Jewish identity. But this shows how broad is the range of Jewish identities, when it can include gentiles. simple labels such as “Jewish” or “Jewish-christian” do not suffice for this topic. i will attempt to uncover the processes of identity formation, rather than simply to assign labels.
1. Law and Perfection
Perfection occurs in several key verses that have relevance to group identity. The first instance is in a text that closely resembles Matt 5: “pray for your enemies … if anyone should strike you on the right cheek, turn to him/her also the other, and you will be perfect” (Did. 1.3–4;1 see also Matt 5:39, 44, 48). Matthew 5 and Did. 1 share this exhortation to go beyond the mere letter of the law to its spirit.2 Jonathan Draper says perfection means
“to keep the Torah better than other groups in israel.”3
But i must ask: can the group literally be “in israel,” since it may be predominantly gentile? The work self-identifies as being “for the gentiles 1. The translation used for Didache quotes is aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003). i drop the underscoring, umlauts, and other graphic coding that Milavec uses.
2. it is not necessary to settle the dispute about whether Matthew and the Didache emanate from the same community at different stages of development (Jonathan a.
Draper, “Do the Didache and Matthew Reflect an ‘irrevocable Parting of the Ways’
with Judaism?” in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? ed. huub van de sandt [Minneapolis: fortress, 2005], 217–41 [219,
-17 -
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
[τοῖς ἔθνεσιν].”4 analyzing the social group addressed by the Didache is complicated, since it “contained a membership of Gentile christians on various levels of Jewish perfection.”5 i will turn to a current sociological approach, social identity Theory (siT), to shed some light on the social side of “perfection.”
1.1. social identity Theory
according to siT, it is crucial to group identity to have a group prototype, a concept of an ideal or perfect member, “a representation of a person that embodies the identity of the group … an ideal image.”6 The exhortation to “bear the whole yoke of Lord” (6.2) then says something about what is expected of the ideal member of the group. in fact, the whole Two Ways section (Did. 1–6) consists of “the rules [ἐντολὰς] of the Lord” (4.13) that a member of the group is expected to keep. The Two Ways section bears a strong resemblance to other ancient Jewish texts used for “initiation of newcomers to particular groups within Judaism.”7 in a way, this makes the specifically christian material even more important, since it is what distinguishes this group from other groups with Jewish beliefs.
siT tells us that “the need for social differentiation” leads to a heightening of differences between the perceived in-group and particular outgroups.8 The group may have recently split from another group, which 239]) or whether they are unaware of each other (aaron Milavec, “When, Why, and for Whom Was the Didache created? insights into the social and historical setting of the Didache communities,” in van de sandt, Matthew and the Didache, 80-81).
3. Draper, “Didache and Matthew,” 226; see also 230.
4. in the superscript (Milavec, Didache: Text, 3, 40). see Jonathan a. Draper, “The holy Vine of David Made Known to the Gentiles through God’s servant Jesus: ‘christian Judaism’ in the Didache,” in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, ed. Matt Jackson-Mccabe (Minneapolis: fortress, 2007), 257.
5. David flusser, “Paul’s Jewish-christian Opponents in the Didache,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 211.
6. coleman a. Baker, “social identity Theory and Biblical interpretation,” BTB 42
(2012): 129–38 (132).
7. Jonathan a. Draper, “The Two Ways and eschatological hope: a contested Terrain in Galatians 5 and the Didache,” Neot 45 (2011): 221–51 (223).
8. Raimo hakola, “social identities and Group Phenomena in second Temple Judaism,” in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cog-
fiNLaN: iDeNTiTY iN The DiDache cOMMuNiTY
19
would now become an out-group and which now may be vilified as “the hypocrites” are in Did. 8: “Do not pray as the hypocrites but as the Lord ordered in his good news. Pray thus: Our father” (Did. 8.2, with wording very close to that of Matt 6:9–13). The implication may be that we are not like the “hypocrites” from whom we have just separated. Group identity formation seems to require “social comparison and accompanying competition,”9 which can lead to hostility toward out-groups, manifested in stereotyping and name-calling.
at first glance, then, siT does not settle the question of whether the Didache community is “in israel” or not. it seems to be “in israel” in its concept of what the ideal member is expected to do, but it is sharply differentiating itself from some “hypocrites” who do not pray the Lord’s (Jesus’s) Prayer. i will draw on siT as i strive to discern possible group identity behind the Didache, but will not be dogmatic in my use of siT.
1.2. Bearing the Yoke
Reflection on the identity of the group addressed by the Didache has often focused on 6.2–3. The passage reads: “for, on the one hand, if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if, on the one hand, you are not able, that which you are able, do this. and concerning eating, bear that which you are able. from the food, on the other hand, sacrificed to idols, very much keep away, for it is worship of dead gods”
(Did. 6.2–3). The demand to avoid food sacrificed to idols is considerably stricter than Paul’s principle that it may be eaten unless someone at the meal raises an objection (1 cor 10:25–29).
Draper argues that the “yoke of the Lord” signifies “obedient observance of the Torah”10 and sees Did. 6.2 as “an incentive for Gentiles to move towards full acceptance of the Torah.”11 actually, it is hard to tell whether the “yoke of the Lord” in the Didache signifies obedience to the nitive and Social Science, ed. Petri Luomanen, ilkka Pyysiäinen, and Risto uro (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 259–76 (262).
9. susann Liubinskas, “identification by spirit alone: community-identity construction in Galatians 3:19–4:7,” AJ 67 (2012): 27–55 (30).
10. Draper, “holy Vine,” 261.
11. Jonathan a. Draper, “eschatology in the Didache,” in Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents, ed. Jan G. van der Watt, WuNT 2/315
(Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2011), 575.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
whole Torah or only to that distillation of Torah found in the Two Ways section (which would make the Didache’s “yoke” entirely different from the “yoke” in rabbinic sources). Whichever yoke is intended, the gentiles are free to bear as much as they are able (6.3), except that abstaining from idol food is mandatory.
Treating Torah as nonmandatory or as recommended only in truncated form makes Torah obedience more an act of imagination than a concrete expectation. Torah then has mainly an imaginal function as part of the mental exercise of conceptualizing group identity, but is no longer mandatory in its entirety.
Draper has a different angle on this. he says that the Didache, while not commanding Torah adherence for gentiles as it does for Jews, yet imagines gentile christians becoming obedient to the Torah in the end times (16.2).12 The conscious “continuity with God’s covenant with israel
… as opposed to the enumerated ethical failures of their previous Gentile identity” is an essential part of the group’s identity.13 This sets up a system where “Torah observant Jews are the perfect; Gentiles are less than perfect but can rise in the status hierarchy according to the extent of the[ir]
Torah observance.”14 i would question this, however, since the things actually commanded in the Two Ways section are not Torah-specific but are morality, kindness, fairness, and honesty and echo the sermon on the Mount more than any other source.
Draper sees circumcision as recommended but not required. Gentiles are accepted “provided that they adopt the minimum of cultic purity” and follow the “Noachic” laws, but they are encouraged to take on “the whole yoke of the Lord,” including circumcision.15 circumcision is not mentioned one way or the other in the Didache. Rather than debate circumcision, i prefer to consider the purity question. circumcision can be considered a subcategory of purity after all. i think it is potentially misleading to speak of the Didache requiring “cultic purity.” The Didache community has no temple, no priesthood, and no systematized rule comparable to 12. Draper, “Two Ways,” 234.
13. Jonathan a. Draper, “Mission, ethics and identity in the Didache,” in Sensitivity towards Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethos in the New Testament and Early Christianity, ed. Jacobus Kok, Tobias Nicklas, Dieter T. Roth, and christine hays (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, forthcoming), 7 (manuscript).
14. Draper, “Mission, ethics and identity,” 10 (manuscript).
15. Draper, “Didache and Matthew,” 240.
fiNLaN: iDeNTiTY iN The DiDache cOMMuNiTY
21
Leviticus, which is what “cultic purity” would tend to imply. The demand to shun food sacrificed to idols (6.3) and the need for flowing water (7.2–
3) are purity concerns, but not enough to apply the label “cultic purity”
without qualification.
We need to notice that sacrifice and purity in the Didache are used in a metaphorical way to signify moral or spiritual rectitude. confession should accompany the eucharist, “so that your sacrifice may be pure.…
[Be] reconciled, in order that your sacrifice may not be defiled” (14.1–2).
These are metaphorical usages. similarly, “ransom” is given an ethical meaning. unselfish giving is equated to a ransoming (λύτρωσις) of sins (Did. 4.6). Ransom is fundamentally an economic/social term, not necessarily connected with sacrifice. i only bring it up because ransom is part of christian atonement thinking in Rom 3:24–25 and 1 cor 7:23.
The Didache gives ransom the same abstract and ethical meaning it gives to “sacrifice.”
in the Didache, purity no longer has a national or a temple dimension, which makes it profoundly different from both Pharisaic and sadducean thinking. Purity in the Didache has no connection with temple cult or priestly rules. Therefore, to my mind, it is misleading to speak of “cultic purity,” which usually implies cultic purification rites and a sharp separation between Jew and gentile. “Purity” is far more abstract in the Didache than it is in a community where gentiles are considered impure. similarly,
“law” is more abstract and metaphorical than it would be in a community that followed the temple cult.
2. The Imaginal function of the Moral Torah
The Didache reflects a christian culture and identity. unlike Paul, the Didache actually does use the word “christian” (12.4). adherence to Torah is optional (“that which you are able,” 6.3). i would agree with huub van de sandt, that the leniency “represents a tuning to the perspective of Gentile believers.… an observant Jew does not have the choice mentioned here.”16
for this reason i think it at least incomplete, if not actually misleading, to say that gentiles are encouraged to take on “the full culture and identity of 16. huub van de sandt, “The Didache Redefining its Jewish identity in View of Gentiles Joining the community,” in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity, ed. alberdina houtman, albert de Jong, and Magda Misset-van de Weg, aJec 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 252.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
israel.”17 The Jewish elements are transformed and universalized; therefore they are not “fully” (nationally) within the israel orbit.
Only in a symbolic sense can believers be said to be taking on an
“israel” identity. in another article Draper rightly argues that lawlessness in Did. 16.4 “refers to those who refuse to abide by the ethical provisions of Torah.”18 But when only the moral law (really a portion of it) and not the ritual law is enjoined, we should carefully qualify any remark that the group is Torah-following. if purity is symbolic and not cultic and if membership is largely gentile, then one can speak only of a kind of symbolic or ancestral Jewish identity.
The Two Ways chapters are full of Torah commandments, but the language of israel is absent from the group’s self-identification. Who are the faithful members of the community? Those who “giv[e] according to the rule” (1.5), who do not murder or commit abortion (2.2), are “not greedy”
(2.6), do not hate (2.7), who are not angry or envious (3.2), who are “merciful and harmless” (3.8), “those whom the spirit has made ready” (4.10).
Notice how little ritual and how much morality there is here. The author wants to preserve Jewish ethics.
clayton Jefford says the “materials … are both Jewish in nature and beyond Jewish in scope.”19 The ethnic composition of the Didache community is also “beyond Jewish.” Does this mean that the community can at least be called “symbolically Jewish”? aaron Milavec would say no, the gentiles were included “without requiring them to become Jews”; they were saved as gentiles.20 i think, however, that we can concede that the group had a kind of Jewish identity, while also having a christian identity.
2.1. Differences and self-Definition
To do justice to the Didache, we need to make statements that account for the two poles of the community’s identity. Jürgen zangenberg does this by saying “the didachist might have considered his group as still being
‘Jewish,’ ” yet its rules made “practical cohabitation with unbaptized non-believers … increasingly problematic,” and he calls this an “awkward rela-17. Draper, “Didache and Matthew,” 240.
18. Draper, “eschatology in the Didache,” 576.
19. clayton N. Jefford, “The Milieu of Matthew, the Didache, and ignatius of antioch: agreements and Differences,” in van de sandt, Matthew and the Didache, 41.
20. Milavec, “When, Why, and for Whom,” 75.
fiNLaN: iDeNTiTY iN The DiDache cOMMuNiTY
23
tion between separation and continuity.”21 indeed, it seems that social pressures will force such a group to “pick sides.” The group was hoping to draw Jews into the community, but it was nevertheless a christian community. it may have understood itself as truly Jewish, but Jewish groups that rejected the messiahship of Jesus would have disputed that.
The Didache’s eucharistic wording utilizes the hebrew table grace or Birkat Hamazon.22 But it is the differences that are most revealing, such as the replacement of “the ‘land’ by the Name (10.2).”23 The Jewish prayer was centered around hopes for the restoration of zion, altar, and temple, but these are conspicuously absent from the Didache, which bespeaks a “community which has lost this sense of group identity within a Jewish matrix,”
according to van de sandt.24 But this is overstated, since the group clearly is holding on to a kind of Jewish identity. its christian identity is more determinative, however. Nationality has been abandoned.
What is more significant? is it the extensive similarity between the Didache’s eucharist and the text of the Jewish meal prayer, or is it the christian alterations? One can choose to emphasize the continuity or the discontinuity. if we are observing two groups diverging from a common social matrix, then the discontinuity is more revealing. When christianity and rabbinic Judaism diverge from their original common matrix, each group will increasingly emphasize its differences from the other group. There may be more similarities than differences between the Didache and the Birkat, but the differences are hugely significant, signaling the trajectory of change.
Distinctively christian ideas will be essential in the group’s self-definition and self-understanding. siT confirms that it is the differences, not the common ground, that shape the identity and self-expression of diverging groups. The groups will consciously heighten their differences.25 Group beliefs “unify group members and … differentiate them from outgroups.”26
21. Jürgen K. zangenberg, “Reconstructing the social and Religious Milieu of the Didache: Observations and Possible Results,” in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. huub van de sandt and Jürgen K. zangenberg, sBLsyms 45 (atlanta: society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 65.
22. huub van de sandt and David flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, cRiNT 3.5 (assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: fortress, 2002), 322–23.
23. Van de sandt, “Didache Redefining its Jewish identity,” 255.
24. ibid., 257–58.
25. hakola, “social identities,” 262, 272.
26. Daniel Bar-Tal, “Group Beliefs as an expression of social identity,” in Social
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
The Didache is trying to articulate a Jewish identity and a christ-believing identity, but the Jewish identity has become symbolic and not concrete (national) as gentiles continue to join the group. The assertion of Jesus as Messiah and world savior will have the social effect of alienating the group from rabbinic Judaism, even though the group imagines itself as still following “the rules of the Lord” (4.13). in the Didache, Torah is no longer the possession of an ethnic group.
2.2. Distinction from “hypocrites” and “Dogs”
in Did. 8 we see some key comments for differentiating and defining the group. Didache 8.1 tells the community to fast on Wednesday and friday, not on Monday and Thursday as “the hypocrites” do. Didache 8.2 tells the community to “pray thus” (οὕτως προσεύχεσθε, just as in Matt 6:9) and not “as the hypocrites” pray.27
Draper may be right to argue that it is anachronistic to see “hypocrites” as a “blanket condemnation” of Jews, since there is no “definitive or normative form” of Judaism. Rather, they are being distinguished from a particular Jewish community. “The opponents are Pharisees or nascent Rabbinism,” whose sources do refer to fasting on Mondays and Thursdays.28 Van de sandt disagrees, arguing that Mondays and Thursdays were not unique to the Pharisees but were the normal Jewish fast days.29 Van de sandt argues that the instruction to fast for one or two days before baptism (7.4) is another indication of the Didachist’s distance from Judaism if baptisms were performed on sunday (14.1). since a good meal was commanded for sabbath, this would constitute a sabbath violation, and so “the Didache has dropped—at least in this respect—the observance of Identity: International Perspectives, ed. stephen Worchel et al. (London: sage, 1998), 93–113 (95).
27. On differences from and similarities to Matthew here, see Peter J. Tomson,
“The halakhic evidence of Didache 8 and Matthew 6 and the Didache community’s Relationship to Judaism,” in van de sandt, Matthew and the Didache, 137.
28. Draper, “Didache and Matthew,” 231, citing m. Meg. 3:6; 4:1; m. Ta‘an. 4:2; b. Ta‘an. 12a; and also, from a later time, Tertullian, Jejun. 16. see also his “christian self-Definition against the ‘hypocrites’ in Didache Viii,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 223–43 (233). anti-Pharisaic passages may indicate that “at this stage Didache and Matthew represented one and the same community” (Tomson, “halakhic evidence,” 140).
29. Van de sandt, “Didache Redefining its Jewish identity,” 261.
fiNLaN: iDeNTiTY iN The DiDache cOMMuNiTY
25
the Jewish sabbath.”30 Given the community’s transition “to an increasingly gentile” context, van de sandt argues that it makes more sense to see “hypocrites” as polemic use “against Jews in general.” The author is
“strengthening the community’s social identity” in distinction from the Jewish community.31
i think it likely that van de sandt and Draper are correct about different aspects of the community’s self-definition, that van de sandt is correct in seeing the community as engaging in christian self-definition, while Draper is correct in seeing the “hypocrites” as a particular Jewish group (a close “relative”) from which the Didachist is making a distinction. On balance it seems that van de sandt is acute in discerning christian self-definition, while Draper is attuned to the Jewish self-definition. Both kinds of self-definition are going on, but i think we need to notice that the group’s Jewishness is increasingly symbolic and ancestral.
Draper expands upon the clues to the Jewish ancestry of the Didache community. he argues that, before the addition of chapter 8 to the Didache,
“the original community of the Didache saw no need to differentiate itself from the Jewish community. They differentiated themselves not from Jews but from pagans.” someone who joined “would see her/himself joining a particular … faithful, Torah-observant Jewish community.”32 at first the group was “defining itself primarily against the Gentiles” but lacked a “clear differentiation from other Jewish groups.” chapter 8 does show such differentiation, “nor are the possibilities of reconciliation left open.”33
But surely the christology is more fundamental than the choice of fasting days. calendrical debates are evidence of deeper ideological divergences.
it is christology (however embryonic) that signals the Didache community’s separation from its ancestral Jewish group.
Numerous passages signal this separation: the surprising looseness about Torah (6.3), affirmation of the messiahship of Jesus (9.3–4; 10.3), the instruction to “eucharistize” (εὐχαριστήσατε; 9.1; 10.1),34 and baptizing in the names of the persons of the Trinity (7.1, 3). These would surely 30. ibid., 263.
31. ibid., 264–65.
32. Draper, “christian self-Definition,” 230.
33. ibid., 243.
34. even though some forms of grace in hellenistic Judaism may have begun with the verb εὐχαριστεῖν (van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 322), its usage in the Didache is christian.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
distinguish the community from any Jewish group that did not identify Jesus as the Messiah.
another sharp social distinction is made using the pejorative “dogs.”
The community is told not to allow any unbaptized people to participate in the eucharistic meal, “for the Lord has likewise said concerning this: ‘Do not give what is holy to the dogs’ ” (9.5). “Dogs” was a common Jewish put-down for gentiles. The phrase is used in rabbinic literature, as in m. Tem.
6:5 and Pirqe R. el. 29.35 a similar concept of separation at meals may be seen in the Pseudo-clementine instruction against eating “common meals with the unbaptized (hom. 1.22; 8.22 … Recog. 1.19, 22).… such a rule in the Didache shows both a very Jewish concern with ritual purity and also a sectarian concern to exclude non-members.”36 it is more “sectarian” than
“Jewish” in my view, since the exclusion has no ethnic implication.
The term “ritual purity” needs to be nuanced. it is true that “the holy”
(τὸ ἅγιον) is the term for cultic holiness in the LXX,37 but we need to recognize that the meaning has been spiritualized in the Didache. it no longer has anything to do with the temple, priesthood, purity of the nation, or Levitical rituals. it is now the christ-believing community and its eucharist that are holy. inasmuch as the eucharist is a ritual, one can speak of
“ritual purity,” but this needs to be distinguished from Levitical purity. Just as the christ-believing identity of the group forever distinguishes it from all groups that do not believe in christ, so its usage of ritual terms is to be distinguished from the use of the same terms in Levitical or rabbinic texts.
“Dogs” is extremist language, but it is not (in the Didache) directed against gentiles but against unbaptized persons. it is an example of an extremist position in the service of self-definition, which siT calls “group polarization.… Groups make judgments which are more extreme than the average initial positions of the group members.”38 Draper is well aware of siT and mentions the “stereotyping not only of others from out-groups but of ourselves as members of our in-group.”39
35. Draper, “Didache and Matthew,” 236, and “christian self-Definition,” 239–40.
36. Draper, “christian self-Definition,” 241.
37. ibid., 239.
38. Michael a. hogg and craig McGarty, “self-categorization and social identity,”
in Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, ed. Dominic abrams and Michael a. hogg (New York: springer, 1990), 15.
39. Draper, “Mission, ethics and identity,” 3 (manuscript).
fiNLaN: iDeNTiTY iN The DiDache cOMMuNiTY
27
Draper discerns that the Didache stands at a certain stage “in the process of alienation from israel” and argues “that the Didache stands at the beginning of a process and Matthew further down the line!”40 Thus i envision the same trajectory as Draper does, but i would emphasize the significant progress along the line of alienation or separation that the Didache group has made, while Draper stresses the group’s Jewish roots. Of course, any theory on the likely path of development of the Didache group must take note of the many Jewish usages and concepts that Draper has uncovered, but we must note how the christian beliefs have caused the Jewish terms to take on a transformed meaning.
2.3. ingathering of Gentiles
Whenever israel-specific images are used in the Didache, they are universalized. Therefore, it is potentially misleading to say that the Didache has a “royal Davidic kingdom eschatology”41 and aims at “the restoration of israel, the kingdom of David, through Jesus the new David,”42 if these remarks are understood in a nationalistic way. Draper claims that “the holy vine of your servant David” now made known to the gentiles (9.2) signifies Jesus as “the one who revives [David’s] kingdom,” indicating that gentiles “become members of israel by adoption through Jesus as the heir of David … Jesus as the heir of David and restorer of the Kingdom of israel.”43
Of course the vine of David is indeed the Jewish messiah, and the vine is an old symbol for israel itself (possibly based on Num 13:23),44 but here the messiah functions for “your church” (9.4; 10.5) rather than for israel, and prayer is to “our father” (9.2–3) rather than to the God of israel. The prophecy has been internationalized. The Didachist draws upon prophetic language for the gathering of Jewish exiles45 to picture the ingathering of the church, a denationalized image that includes gentile believers. it is 40. Draper, “Didache and Matthew,” 239.
41. Draper, “Two Ways,” 241.
42. Draper, “eschatology in the Didache,” 569; see also his “Didache and Matthew,” 239.
43. Draper, “Didache and Matthew,” 238–39.
44. But van de sandt and flusser cite Ps 80:8–12, 15; Jer 2:21; ezek 15:1–5; hos 10:1 (Didache, 324).
45. isa 11:12; 27:13; 43:6; 49:22; 66:20; Jer 23:8; 31:8–12; zech 10:10.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
“your church,” not israel that is “gathered together from the ends of the earth” (9.4) and “the four winds” (10.5).
That the author is thinking of a universal community incorporating gentiles is signaled by the repeated use of the terms for the earth or the world (γῆ or κόσμος). The gentile will inherit the earth (3.7); God’s kingdom will come “upon earth” (8.2); the evil one is a world deceiver (κοσμοπλανὴς), which tends to imply a world savior (16.4); and “the world will see the Lord coming” (16.8).
further, the author uses nonnational terms for believers. it is people (“the false prophets and the corrupters”; 16.3), not nations, who are judged in the time of testing. it is ἄνθρωποι (“humans”), those who have
“remained firm in their faith,” who are being saved in 16.5. Obviously the
“symbolic universe”46 of Judaism is everywhere in the Didache, but the gentiles are now included, and that changes everything.
The national cult of sacrifice is mentioned, but it is spiritualized: “let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled” (14.2; Lake, LcL). The next verse has a royal theme, but it is internationalized: “‘in every place and time, offer to me a pure sacrifice. Because a great king am i,’ says [the]
Lord, ‘and my name [is] wondrous among the gentiles’” (quoting Mal 1:11, 14). socially speaking, the emphasis is on “every place and time” and on
“gentiles.” The “king” has no national connection here. a temple image does occur, but it is spiritualized: “We give thanks, holy father, for your holy name, which you tabernacle in our hearts” (10.2).
if something as basic to Jewish practice as sacrifice and temple can be reconceived in a wholly metaphorical manner, it should caution us against taking “king” or “David” in a nationalistic sense. We see similar symbolic or spiritualized usages of israel-specific terms in the New Testament, as in “the israel of God” (Gal 6:16), “temple of the living God” (2 cor 6:16),
“his kingdom” (Luke 1:33), and “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9), all of which lack any national meaning.47 Jesus is a literal descendant of David in Rom 1:3 and Rev 5:5, but we would not speak of christ as “restorer of the kingdom of israel” in Paul or the Revelator.
46. Magnus zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation of Judaism and Christianity (London: Routledge, 2003), 6.
47. unless otherwise stated, translations from the Bible follow the NRsV.
fiNLaN: iDeNTiTY iN The DiDache cOMMuNiTY
29
2.4. Difference from Pauline Theology
since some might infer that i am pushing the Didache too close to the universalizing theology of Paul, it is necessary to make some distinctions.
Paul’s soteriology is based upon sacrificial and redemption metaphors for the death of christ and a judicial metaphor (justification) for the beneficial result. Paul even places the messiah’s death at the center of individual experience (believers are “united with him in a death like his”; Rom 6:5).
The Didache does not refer to the death of Jesus at all, much less make it soteriologically central.
in the Didache’s lengthy liturgy spoken over the bread and cup, there is no mention of a body broken or of blood poured out. instead, the cup signifies “the holy vine of your servant David,” and the bread bespeaks the church “gathered together from the ends of the earth” like the grains were gathered from hillsides to form the bread (Did. 9.2, 4). The author is making a messianic point (David’s vine) and an ecclesiastical point (church gathered from everywhere). What is relevant about Jesus in this ritual is not his death, but the revelation of God through him: “the life and knowledge which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus”
(9.3); “the knowledge and faith and immortality which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus” (10.2). “servant” (παῖς) surely echoes the servant songs of isaiah, but universality is stressed in the same passages:
“ends of the earth … created all things” (9.4; 10.3). universality was also a theme of second isaiah, of course.
in the Didache Jesus is the Messiah, revealer, life-giver, embodiment of glory (9.4), and imparter of knowledge, showing the way of gnosis and pistis, which are not set against each other. Of course the knowledge of God found in 9.3 and 10.2 looks back to םיהלא תעד or הוהי תעד (“knowledge of God”), an important theme in biblical spirituality (Prov 2:5; isa 11:9; Jer 9:24; hos 4:1; hab 2:14), but knowledge of God is now christologized.
Many of these messianic and revelatory themes can also be found in Paul, but there they are secondary to the need for the reconciliation that comes through the messiah’s death and resurrection (Rom 5:8–11). clearly Paul’s soteriology was not the default position for all early christ-believers.48
48. i need not settle the dispute over whether the Didache is unaware of Paul (Milavec, “When, Why, and for Whom,” 74 n. 2) or whether it actually attacks Paul in 11.2 (see Jonathan a. Draper, “Torah and Troublesome apostles in the Didache community,” NovT 33 [1991]: 347–72 [350–56]).
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
The absence of any atonement teaching in the Didache becomes even more significant if the document is pre-Pauline, as some have argued (a minority opinion, but not an absurd one). The Palestinian setting, the primitive baptism rituals and church organization, the absence of any connection with a theology of the cross, all bespeak an early date,49 maybe
“a mid-first century dating.”50 The Didache seems to give us a glimpse of christian beliefs before Pauline and deutero-Pauline atonement thinking became dominant. atonement theology is not essential to being
“christian.” christology need not imply substitutionary atonement. The Didache’s christology involves christ as life-giver, teacher, and revealer, but not as sacrificial victim.
it seems that Draper focuses on passages that endeavor to move the community in a Torah-observing direction. he may be discerning the viewpoint of one of the Didache’s authors or redactors. The intriguing mixture of law and liberality, toleration in the present and hope for more strictness in the future, may suggest that one of the redactors is more con-servative than his community. it seems likely that the community being addressed has a substantial gentile population and has been moving toward increasingly metaphorical and liberal interpretation of Torah, a trend being resisted by this particular redactor, who warns not to “wander from this way of training” (6.1), not to listen to “another teaching” (11.2), and to beware of “lawlessness” (16.4). The author or redactor seems to realize that it is not possible to swing the community wholly over, so Torah obedience in the present is not strictly demanded, but hope for the future is expressed: “the whole time of your faith will not be of use to you if in the end time you should not have been perfected” (16.2).51 another possibility, however, is that the author is not exhorting obedience to Torah but to the commands in the Didache itself. The author would be resisting any tendency toward looseness about the code of behavior in the Two Ways section.
The document may give indications of different layers of composition, though that is not certain. in any case, i do not think that a conserva-49. Joan hazelden Walker, “a Pre-Marcan Dating for the Didache: further Thoughts of a Liturgist,” StudBib 3 (1978): 405–8.
50. Milavec, “When, Why, and for Whom,” 63. Draper seems to allow the possibility of a date between 50 and 70 ce (“holy Vine,” 281).
51. focusing on 16.2–3, Draper says concerning the danger of false prophets that
“the threat comes from inside the community” (“eschatology in the Didache,” 575).
fiNLaN: iDeNTiTY iN The DiDache cOMMuNiTY
31
tive voice overwhelms the universalizing voice of 2.7, 3.8, 6.2, 9.4, 10.3–5, and 14.3 or the absence (throughout) of any pitting of israel against the nations. The Didache has a universalizing direction. The community is not
“israel” but the “church” (4.14; 9.4; 10.5; 11.11).
3. christian identity
The Didachist may be struggling for adequate language to describe how the Jewish messiah became the world messiah and how God’s people became internationalized, fulfilling the prophecy that “many nations shall join themselves to the Lord” (zech 2:11).
The Didache asserts a christian identity, even while it holds on to an increasingly abstract and symbolic Jewish identity. But then christian identity has always involved a kind of symbolic conversion to Judaism, an adoption as children of abraham (Gal 3:7; 4:5), an identity as “a holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9). in this regard there is a similarity between Pauline, Petrine, and Didachist versions of christianity, even though they differ greatly in the amount of Torah observance they recommend or allow.
converts to the Didache community are converting first of all to belief in Christ, not to membership in israel. it is Jesus the christ who brings knowledge of God (9.3; 10.2). The Didachist denationalizes the prophetic language for the gathering of Jewish exiles and applies it to the church. ethics derive from the sermon on the Mount, converts are baptized in the names of the persons of the Trinity (7.1, 3) without any mention of the standard procedures for proselyte-conversion to Judaism,52
and the Lord’s Prayer is recited three times a day (8.2–3). The eschatological hope is for a gathering of the church, not for a “restoration of israel and Jerusalem.”53 in the matter of christian identity then, there is no gap between the Didache and the community to which it is addressed.
But on the issue of Torah observance, and therefore on some aspects of 52. “The initiatory rite … comprised three parts: circumcision, immersion in water (baptism), and the presentation of an offering in the temple” (citing sipre Num.