g 13b. You shall keep what you have received
[h 14a. You shall confess your transgressions, g 13a. You shall not abandon any commandments of the lord, h 14b. and you shall not come to your prayer with an evil conscience.
g 13b. You shall keep what you have received
neither adding nor taking away [ὑφαιρῶν; eP]
This is the way of life. eP: ec omit.]
This version of the material is followed closely in the teaching of the famous coptic monk, Bishop shenudi, though with many additions. The text is found in arabic, so some of the variants may be attributed to that.36
schematic 4: The Vita Shenudi (fifth century)
1. The Teacher/Prophet
a 4.1 O my son, remember night and day the word of god in your heart for the lord is present where his Name is spoken, and he is eternally worthy of honour and praise.
2. Regular community assemblies for Judgment
B 2. O my son, walk on the way of purity at each moment: you will become strong and powerful in the best way 36. The english translation is my own from the french translation in Émile amélineau, Monuments pour servir à l’histoire de l’Égypte chrétienne aux IVe, Ve, VIe, et VII siècles, vol. 4 of Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire, 1885–1886 (Paris: leroux, 1888), 289–97. My translation was checked against the arabic text by gerhard van gelder at st. John’s college, oxford. i am grateful for his suggestions and advice.
DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY
109
so that you can rejoice in their sweet words and their delightful sayings 3. O my son, do not seek to quarrel with your brothers but rather strive to reconcile the warring factions Then you shall judge justly
and you shall not be ashamed of reprimanding the offender for his offence or the sinner for his sin.
3. Requirement for Generalized Reciprocity
c 5. O my son, do not stretch out your hand to receive, but shut it when it comes to giving
Beware of acting thus.
6. As far as you are able, you shall give to the poor in order to cover your many sins;
7. but you shall not doubt in your gifts whether to give moreover, you shall not be sad when you give
and you shall not regret it if you act mercifully: you know well who recompenses one honestly and faithfully it is Jesus the Messiah who pardons sins.
D 8. O my son, you shall not turn away the poor but give according to your ability
sharing with everyone who is troubled
and everyone who is in need of you
for if we share with those who do not have anything in perishable things, we share with them in imperishable and lasting things.
5. conclusion of the Way of Life: Binding nature of the its Teaching G 13a. and if we keep these commandments
h 14b we walk on the way of life
in the path blessed for eternity
which is to the unique king, the Lord Jesus the Messiah, who gives life to those who love him.
all of the hT is omitted from the ecclesiastical canons and the Vita Shenudi, probably signaling the monastic orientation of those documents and its use in initiation into the ascetic religious life, so that neither children nor slaves were a concern. certainly the explicit narrative of the Vita Shenudi is an oral performance of the Two Ways to the neophytes and monks by the much venerated coptic ascetic Bishop shenudi. The epitome apostolorum, however, does indicate knowledge of the hT
material in this independent Two Ways tradition also, since it has the instruction on children: “Bartholomew said, ‘You shall not hold back
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
your hand from your son or from your daughter but from their youth you shall teach them the fear of the Lord’ ” (11). Perhaps this signals that children remained an issue for some ascetics, even if they had renounced their slaves along with the rest of their property. it is an important indication of such a vestigial interest in the hT that the later Two Ways tradition found in egypt, the syntagma doctrinae and fides Nicanae, which are really versions of the same text, contain a prohibition on striking anyone except in order to discipline a small child and even then with a strong reserve:
γίνου ταπεινὸς καὶ ἥσυχος τρέμων διὰ παντὸς τὰ λόγια κυρίου μὴ γίνου
μάχιμος μὴ τύπτε ἄνθρωπον [ἢ.] εἰ μὴ μόνον παιδίον σου μικρὸν πρὸς
παιδείας καὶ αὐτὸ παρατετηρημένως σκόπει μὴ πως διὰ σου φόνος
γίνηται πολλαὶ γὰρ εἰσιν αἱ ἄφορμαι. τοῦ θανάτου. (syntagma Viii [4.1–
2]; fides Nicanae)
4.1 Be humble and quiet fearing always the words of the Lord. 4.2 Do not be aggressive. Do not strike anyone, except only your small child for instruction, but observing it closely, watching carefully, lest through you murder is born, for many are the means of death.
The wording shows clearly that this instruction comes from the Two Ways tradition, with its reminiscence of Did. 3.1–6 as well as 4.9–10. incidentally, these texts also provides evidence that “not holding back one’s hand”
from disciplining one’s child might lead to injury or death and that commanding one’s slave in one’s anger might have the same consequences. in any case, this version of the saying clearly limits it to small children, so it would not apply to adult progeny under the authority of the family patriarch, which could be the case in the Didache.
6. The hT Tradition in the epistle of Barnabas
While the hT in the independent Two Ways tradition, whether it is earlier or later than the Didache, follows substantially the same pattern, Barnabas in this as in other material follows a different logic. indeed, some have argued that it has no logic.37 This was still following Dibelius’s Tradi-tionsgeschichlich approach to the Pastoral epistles in which he described 37. so, Prigent, Testimonia, and Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache.
DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY
111
paraenesis as a form that had no central thrust or Tendenz but was a loose and incoherent collection of traditional material. as i have argued elsewhere,38 this cannot be said of Barnabas, which expressly changes the social location of the Two Ways material from catechesis for initiation into the community (Did. 7.1) into a secondary gnosis. in the first place, it is expressly written (whereas the Two Ways in the Didache, existing in writing as it does, represents the outline for an oral performance of catechesis)39 and by an individual (“i have written to you,” Barn. 17.2; “i hasten to write,” 4.9), whereas the Didache nowhere signals the contribution of an individual, utilizing the imperative of communal decisions. it is written in the form of an epistle, whereas the Two Ways in the Didache provides generalized “teaching of the twelve apostles to the gentiles.” in other words, without making any claims about its author, it has adopted the Pauline epistolary mode in order to issue directions to one or more communities. it adopts the same polemical tone as Paul against doctrinal positions it considers wrong, whereas the Didache is concerned with wrong praxis (“keep the commandments that you have received neither adding nor subtracting”) or anomia, failure to observe the Torah according to its understanding, when it polemicizes against false teaching. This switch in Barnabas is neither accidental nor innocent. in chapter 17 the author explains that in what precedes the text has “not omitted anything of the matters relating to salvation,” while in 18.1 this version of Two Ways begins with, “But now let us pass on to another gnosis and teaching.”
it is possible, but not probable, that the author simply came across new material and inserted it without reflecting on the matter. Whether i am right in my argument that this is part of his attack on christian Judaism, it is certainly a deliberate and conscious “editorial decision” with consequences. i would argue that the author’s seemingly haphazard arrangement of the units of material from the Two Ways tradition is equally a deliberate and conscious deconstruction in much the same way that i would argue that the Gospel of Thomas is a deliberate deconstruction of 38. Jonathan a. Draper, “Barnabas and the Riddle of the Didache Revisited,”
JSNT 58 (1995): 89-113.
39. Jonathan a. Draper, “Vice catalogues as Oral-Mnemonic cues: a comparative study of the Two Ways Tradition in the Didache and Parallels from the Perspective of Oral Tradition,” in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel, ed. Tom Thatcher (Waco, TX: Baylor university Press, 2008), 111–35.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
the “Q” tradition and for the same reasons, namely, to defamiliarize and resocialize the initiand.
even a cursory read through of Barnabas shows a clear Tendenz running through it, which affects the presentation of the hT also. first, there is a problem with the office of “teacher,” since the title is rejected by the author in 1.8 and 4.9 (“not as a teacher”), even as “teaching” is being given.
second, the author makes a radical rejection of the Torah and denies the status of covenant people to the Jews, seeing his task as being to prevent christians becoming “proselytes to their law” and thereby getting “ship-wrecked” (3.6; 4.6). Third, the hebrew scriptures are taken allegorically and eschatologically, so that the ritual provisions of the Torah are either turned into ethics for christians or into signs of the imminent arrival of the parousia. in the case of the block of rules governing community life in Did. 4, certain patterns do also emerge. it will be our contention that these are not accidental due to a faulty memory or a faulty source, but represent an attempt to “spike” the Two Ways teaching at points where Barnabas disagrees with its teaching. We shall focus on this block, set out in below.
schematic 5: Barnabas 19.4–12
Block 2 Material Moved to Block 3 and interpolated from chapters 2–3
You shall not commit fornication. 2.2
You shall not commit adultery. 2.2
You shall not corrupt children. 2.2
The word of God shall not go out from you in impurity of any others. 2.3
B You shall not show favoritism to reprove any leading to transgression. 4.3
You shall be meek. 3.7
You shall be quiet. 3.8
You shall be trembling at the words which you hear. 3.8
You shall not remember evil against your brother. 2.3
B You shall not doubt whether a thing shall be or not. 4.4
You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain (cf. “bear false witness” 2.3).
You shall love your neighbor more than your own soul. 2.7
Block 4 inverted and interpolated with Material from Outside the hT
You shall not kill a child in the womb; 2.2
and moreover you shall not put to death what has been born. 2.2
e You shall not hold back your hand from your son or from your daughter, 4.9
but from their infancy you shall teach them the fear of the Lord. 4.9
You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods. 2.2
DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY
113
You shall not be avaricious. 3.5
You shall not be joined in soul with the haughty, 3.9
but you shall conduct yourself with the righteous and lowly. 3.9
You shall receive as good things the things which happen to you. 3.10
You shall not be double-minded or double-tongued, 2.4
for a double tongue is a snare of death. 2.4
f2 You shall be subject to masters [κυρίοις] 4.11
as the image of God, with shame and fear. 4.11
f1 You shall not command with bitterness your male slave or your female slave, 4.10
who hope in the same God, 4.10
lest they cease to fear the God who is over both of you; 4.10
for he did not come to call men according to their outward appearance, 4.10
Block 3 inverted and interpolated with Material from Blocks 1 and 2
D You shall share in all things with your neighbor; 4.8
You shall not call anything your own; 4.8
for if you are sharers of things which are incorruptible, 4.8
how much more should you be of those things which are corruptible! 4.8
You shall not be double-minded or double-tongued, 2.4
[for the double tongue is a snare of death. v. l.] 2.4
As far as possible, you shall be pure in your soul.
c1 Do not be ready to stretch forth your hands to take, 4.5
whilst you hold them back to give. 4.5
a You shall love, as the apple of your eye, 4.1
every one that speaks to you the word of the Lord. 4.1
remember the day of judgment night and day. 4.1
B and you shall seek out daily the presence of the saints, 4.2
either laboring in word and going out to encourage, and endeavoring to save a soul by the word,
c2 or with your hands working for a ransom for your sins. 4.6
c3 You shall not hesitate to give, 4.7
Nor shall you grumble when giving, 4.7
but you shall yet come to know who is the good paymaster of the reward. 4.7
Block 5 with Part of Block 2
G You shall guard what you have received, 4.13
neither adding nor subtracting anything. 4.13
You shall hate the evil one completely. cf. 4.12
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
B You shall judge righteously. 4.3
You shall not cause division, 4.3
but shall make peace between those who quarrel 4.3
by bringing them together.
h You shall confess your sins. 4.14
You shall not come to prayer with an evil conscience. 4.14
This is the way of light. 4.14
The clear and logical structure found in Didache and Doctr. 4 has been severely compromised in this rendering of the same material. Little of it is absent outright, but its restructuring changes the meaning and impact. first, as one would expect, given Barnabas’s aversion to teachers (probably reflecting the emerging domination of the rabbinate under Roman rule), block 1
is removed and neutralized by redaction and inserted into material concerning giving in block 3, which is restructured to contain all the financial material on giving. The teacher is no longer honored as mediating the Lord’s presence, but instead is “loved as the apple of your eye” and placed under the threat of judgment: “remember the day of judgment day and night.”
second, the material on sharing financial resources and calling nothing one’s own from block 3 is placed after the teaching on the submission of children and slaves from block 4. The rhetorical and probably legal force of this would be that patriarchal authority and legal jurisdiction over children and slaves is affirmed as preceding and overruling the sharing of material things with the community. The rules for the admission of proselytes in the rabbinic tractate Gerim specify that everything depends on the order in which people are circumcised and baptised: if the slave goes first, they are regarded as manumitted; if the slave-owner goes first and then holds his hand on the head of his slaves as they are baptized, then they remain his slaves. Thus, in Barnabas sharing is limited and bounded by the prior obligation to unconditional obedience to social superiors.
This suspicion is confirmed by the insertion of a block of material drawn from Did. 2 and 3 concerning envy, covetousness, greed, seeking to rise above one’s station, acceptance of one’s fate as God’s will, and duplicity.
This disarms in advance the suggestion of equality and manumission, in case slaves might expect it.
Third, it is interesting also that the instruction to discipline one’s son or daughter is linked to instruction against abortion and exposure of children.
This has a double effect: first to suggest that the children in question are small children and not adults; second to warn the parent against violence
DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY
115
toward their children, since there are many ways to put a male or female child to death besides exposure, and it would be permitted in Roman law in certain circumstances. The effect might be to minimize the right of (unbelieving) parents to control their (adult) children and prevent them from joining the community.
fourth, slaves are no longer directly addressed at all. instead, the instruction to submit to slave owners and the instruction to slave owners not to mistreat their slaves are inverted. What had been an instruction to slaves to submit to slave owners now begins the couplet and becomes a general instruction to the individual to submit to their “lords/masters” as types of God in shame and fear. addressing slaves directly would already make them social equals in a certain sense. in other words, the same “you”
(singular) is addressed in both instructions: submit to your superiors in the patriarchal hierarchy as types of God and do not mistreat your slaves in case they cease to hope in God.
7. The apostolic constitutions 7.9–17
The apos. con. 7 contains the whole of the Didache, but edited in a distinctive way that mostly respects the underlying text but tends to add supporting and illustrative material to it from the hebrew scriptures. it also removes material with which it flatly disagrees (for example, the injunction to keep as much of the food law as possible and the prohibition on eating meat offered to idols in Did. 6.2–3). it clearly continues to regard the Didache as an ancient and authoritative source for christian living, which it places alongside other such sources in its collection. its version of the hT is therefore of considerable interest, since it indicates how it was understood in the third or fourth century (no exact date is possible). in the schematic below it can be seen that it preserves the structure and most of the material intact, but with varying emphases.40
schematic 6: apostolic constitutions 7.9–17
1. The Teacher/Prophet
a You shall glorify the one who speaks the word of God to you, 40. My translation. a critical text may be found in P. a. de Lagarde, Constitutiones apostolorum (London: Williams & Norgate; Leipzig: Teubner, 1862).
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
and you shall remember him [male?] day and night and you shall honor him [male?] not as the cause of your birth but as the one who has become a good patron to you
[ὡς τοῦ εὖ εἶναί σοι πρόξενον γινόμενον].
for where the teaching [διδασκαλία] concerning God is there God is.
2. Regular communal assemblies for Judgment
B You shall seek out daily the face of the saints in order that you may rest in their words.
You shall not make schisms among the saints
You shall remember the Koraites
You shall make peace among those who are fighting As Moses reconciling them to become friends.
You shall judge justly
“For judgment is the Lord’s” [Deut 1:17].
You shall not show favouritism to reprove leading to transgressions as Elijah and Micaiah did to Ahab
and Ebedmelech the Ethiopian to Zedekiah
and Nathan to David
and John to Herod.
You shall not be double-minded in your prayer whether it shall be or not.
For the Lord said to Peter upon the sea:
“O you of little faith, why are you doubting?” [Matt 4:31].
3. Requirement for Generalized Reciprocity
c Do not be one who stretches out the hand to receive but shuts it up when it comes to give.
if you have anything through the work of your hands give in order that you have work for the redemption of your sins.
For “by alms and acts of faith sins are purged away” [Prov 15:27; 16:6]
You shall not be in two minds to give to the poor and you shall not grumble when you give
for you shall know who is the repayer of your wage/reward.
For he says, “He that has mercy on the poor man lends to the Lord; according to his gift so shall it be repaid to him again” [Prov 19:17].
D You shall not turn away the needy
For he says, “He that stops his ears,
so that he does not hear the cry of the needy
himself shall also call
DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY
117
and there shall be no one to hear him” [Prov 21:13].
You shall share in all things with your brother and you shall not say anything to be your own
for sharing in common has been provided by God for all human beings
[κοινὴ γὰρ ἡ μετάληψις παρὰ θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παρεσκευάσθῃ].
4. household Management
e1 You shall not hold back [οὐκ ἀρεῖς] your hand from your son or from your daughter
but you shall teach them the fear of God from their youth; For he says, “Correct your son,
so that he shall afterwards be a source of hope for you” [Prov 19:18].
f1 You shall not command [οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις] your male slave or your female slave who trust [πεποίθουσιν] in the same God in bitterness of soul, in case they may groan against you
and wrath will come upon you from God.
f2 and you, slaves, be subject [ὑποτάγητε] to your masters as images [τύποις] of God
with attention [προσοχῇ] and fear,
as to the Lord and not to men [cf. eph 6:7].
You shall hate all hypocrisy;
and whatever is … pleasing to the Lord, you shall do.
5. conclusions of the Way of Life: Binding Nature of the Teaching and hT additions
G Do not at all depart from the commandments of the Lord, but you shall keep the things which you have received from Him, neither adding to them nor taking away from them.
“For you shall not add to his words, in case he convicts you, and you become a liar” [Prov 30:6].
h You shall confess your sins to the Lord your God And you shall not add to them,
so that it will go well for you with the Lord your God, who does not desire the death of a sinner, but his repentance.
[e+]
You shall care for [θεραπεύσεις] your father and mother as causes of your birth,
“in order that you may live long on the earth which the Lord your God gives you” [exod 20:12].
Do not despise your brothers or your kinsfolk;
because “you shall not overlook the household of your seed” [isa 58:7].
[f+]
You shall fear the king [τὸν βασιλέα],
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
knowing that his election is of the Lord.
You shall honor his rulers [τοὺς ἄρχοντας] as ministers of God, for they are judges of all unrighteousness,
to whom pay taxes, tribute and every obligation with a willing mind.
h You shall not proceed to your prayer in the day of your wickedness, before you have released your bitterness [πρὶν ἂ λύσῃς τὴν πικρίαν σου].
This is the way of life
In which may you be found through Jesus Christ our Lord.
in the first place, the apostolic constitutions and canons emphasizes the importance of the teacher, not merely as the one who mediates the word of God and so facilitates the new birth of a person as a christian, but as having a continuing role in a patron-client relationship (proxenon). in other words, the intrusion of Greco-Roman patriarchy is now advanced.
Block 2 remains largely intact with added reenforcement of examples and texts from the hebrew Bible in Greek, which does not always follow the septuagint. Double-mindedness, however, is now referred to prayer to God, rather than judgment in community assemblies, and is given the example of the Lord’s command to Peter to walk on the water. Block 3 likewise heightens the importance of giving to the needy with four quotations from Proverbs (15:27; 16:6; 19:17; 21:13) and an unidentified saying at the conclusion, which is not unlike the addition given by drawn by Doctrina apostolorum from Did. 1.5: “for sharing in common has been provided by God for all human beings.” The hT in block 4 again remains largely unchanged with the addition of supporting material at the end of each of its three sections: from Proverbs (19:18), an allusion to the groaning of the people of israel in egypt and an insistence that the respect is “to the Lord and not to men,” similar in tone to eph 6:7, moving it toward the “in christ” terminology of the hT in the New Testament.
Most interesting is the way in which the apostolic constitutions and canons inserts additional hT material in block 5. in the first place is the second half of the parent-child reciprocal instruction that is missing in Didache: “care for your father and mother” based on the Decalogue in exod 20:12 and also isa 58:7; in the second place is the requirement to fear and honor the king as “elected by God” and other rulers who are “ministers of God.” No supporting texts are provided here. The instruction not to proceed to prayer “with an evil conscience” in Didache, however, refers instead to “in the day of your wickedness, before you have released your bitterness [τὴν πικρίαν σου],” which refers back to the bitterness of the
DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY
119
slave-master, broadened now to the bitterness displayed by and reflected back toward all one’s social and political superiors, one’s κυρίοις. Thus it echoes in a certain respect the concern of Barnabas, which turns a requirement to obey the slave-master to a requirement to obey the government or indeed any higher authority, in my opinion. finally, the apostolic constitutions and canons subordinates the whole Two Ways teaching to Jesus christ our Lord, something found also in the conclusion to the Vita Shenudi (is this a surviving trace of recognition of a Jewish or Jewish christian origin of the Two Ways material and a need to “baptize it”?).
8. conclusion
The first thing to emerge from this preliminary study is the consistent and indeed largely verbatim continuity in the central block of teaching concerning the community’s socioeconomic relations: the obligation to share all material things with the community, to call nothing one’s own, and to give especially freely to the poor and needy. This remains true from the earliest layers of the text in the Didache, Barnabas, and the Doctrina apostolorum to the latest layers of the text in the apostolic constitutions and canons, Vita Shenudi, ecclesiastical canons, and epitome apostolorum, as well as the later monastic rules.
second, the structural analysis suggests that this insistence on calling nothing one’s own and sharing all things in common is directly linked to the instruction concerning children and slaves. children stood to lose their patrimony, while slaves might anticipate manumission. The instructions on socioeconomic relations directly and unequivocally reassert patriarchal authority and control in this context.
Third, there is no moderation or counter to the absolute authority of a parent over a child nor any explicit requirement of a reciprocal relationship beyond what would be required of all members in the general love command (for example, 1.2). it is a one-way command to parents to enforce membership of the community on their children by physical punishment if necessary. slaves and slave-owners, on the other hand, clearly were more problematic, since as property, slaves posed a contradiction to the idea of common ownership of all things and calling nothing one’s own. Moreover, some halakic interpretations of property law might regard slaves as legally free if their masters renounce their property or put it into common ownership in a community of which slaves were also members. This calls forth extensive argumentation in the earliest representatives of the tradi-
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
tion (Didache and Doctrina apostolorum). God views all human beings without favouritism; God calls all human beings to fear, and gives the holy spirit to those who do respond to this call. This imposes an obligation on the slave-owner to recognize their equality before God and to treat them appropriately, without bitterness at this social reversal. On the other hand, their slaves remain slaves and are required to be subject to their masters as a type of God. They are not even allowed to dissemble hypocritically and give only lip service to their masters.
fourth, the absence of an instruction concerning moderation in the exercise of parental discipline is partially addressed by Barnabas by attach-ing it to material drawn from elsewhere in the Two Ways: “You shall not kill a child in the womb and moreover you shall not put to death what has been born.” in this case, not only infanticide might be implied but also the patriarchal head of the family’s right to harm or kill his child. This is certainly suggested by the interpretation of the way of life given in syntagma 4.2: “Do not be aggressive. Do not strike anyone, except your small child for instruction, but observing it closely, watching lest through you murder is born, for many are the means of death.”
fifth, this difficult and even contradictory position with regard to slaves has impacted the transmission of the tradition. Barnabas takes great pains in reorganizing the tradition on socioeconomic relations so as to remove what seems to have been a continuing cause of tension. first, the Two Ways in chapters 18–20 is an advanced gnosis following on from what appears in chapters 1–17, concerning which the author says: “To the extent that it is possible clearly to explain these things to you, i hope, in accordance with my desire, that i have not omitted anything of the matters pertaining to salvation” (17.1). The author relocates the instructions concerning community of goods and calling nothing one’s own until after the instructions concerning children and slaves. further, the author removes the reciprocality of master-slave instructions, since the instruction to slaves is transposed to appear before instructions to slave owners and transformed into an instruction to obey one’s superiors in general so that slaves are not addressed at all. instead, the same person is addressed by implication in both sections of the hT: “submit to your superiors and don’t abuse your slaves.” This rearranged block is prefaced with material from elsewhere in the Two Ways enjoining obedience in general and warning against coveting: “You must not covet your neighbour’s possessions; you must not become greedy. Do not be intimately associated with the lofty, but live with the humble and righteous. accept as good the things
DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY
121
that happen to you, knowing that nothing transpires apart from God. You shall not be double-minded or double-tongued. Be submissive to masters”
(19.6–7). slaves become objects and not subjects again, silent and not the addressees of the instruction.
sixth, the absence of husband-wife instruction altogether is noteworthy and puzzling in a general instruction concerning social and economic relations in the community. Perhaps it can be explained on the basis of the rabbinical principle mentioned above, that everything that applies to women and children applies to slaves and vice versa. so the continued subjection of the women and children to their male patriarch was implied in the instruction on the continued subjection of slaves.
finally, i suggest that the hT in the Two Ways tradition should not be passed over as quickly and silently as it has been in previous discussions of the hT tradition in the New Testament. indeed it may provide valuable missing pieces of the puzzle. This is because it comes with its own socioeconomic relations, namely, community of goods, and because the tradition as it develops provides clear evidence of initial tension and then evolution from being the fundamental rule for all who joined the community to become an advanced gnosis for ascetics that is not required of all christians. Despite this, or perhaps even because of this, the instruction to practice koinonia of goods and to call nothing one’s own survived as a continuing provocation and inspiration in the life of the church, as it has done until today.
Reflections on the Didache and its community: a Response
Andrew Gregory
There is widespread agreement about scholars that many critical questions about the Didache remain unresolved,1 even if enormous progress has been made in appreciating what its text might mean for our understanding of the history of at least part of the early Jesus movement. among the questions that remain unresolved are not only when the Didache reached something like the form in which our only surviving complete Greek text was copied in 1056 and later published in 1883 in the first modern edition, but also where it was likely written, for what purpose, and for and by whom its contents were first preserved in writing and then transmitted to others. Paradoxically, despite this uncertainty, wider developments in the study of early christianity may mean that it matters less when and where we might place its origin as a written text, for there is now widespread recognition that the beliefs and practices of early followers of Jesus developed in different ways and at different rates in different places. Thus it may matter less to pin down the particular circumstances of its composition to a specific date and a specific place than to pay careful attention to its text as a written witness that tells us something about at least some of the concerns of the people among and to whom it was transmitted and possibly even among and for whom it was first written down. Just as there is a widespread conviction that much or all of the Didache reflects a very Jewish way of following Jesus, albeit in a form open to gentiles,2 so too 1. Georg schöllgen, “The Didache as a church Order: an examination of the Purpose for the composition of the Didache and its consequences for its interpretation” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 43; Robert a. Kraft, “Didache,” ABD 2:197–98.
2. see especially Jonathan Draper, “The holy Vine of David Made Known to the
-123 -
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
there is widespread recognition that there continued to be Jewish followers of Jesus throughout the second century ce and beyond who continued to follow Jewish law and whose practices and beliefs may have been quite different from those of other followers of Jesus.3 Thus it matters less precisely when or where the Didache was located, because there should be little difficulty in positing a Jewish-christian community made up of the ideal readers that its text would appear to imply at some location in the eastern Mediterranean world (whether it be egypt, asia Minor, Palestine, or syria) at some point between the middle of the first and the end of the second or even the beginning of the third century ce.
Much of the progress that scholars have made in their understanding of what we might reasonably conclude from the text of the Didache as we now have it or as we might seek to reconstruct its earlier forms has come about through patient engagement with its text and content, especially at those points where there is disagreement.4 such conclusions as we might draw are always provisional and contingent not only on the questions that we ask and how we ask them, but also on the evidence that is available at any one time; just as the rediscovery of the Didache in 1873 led to changes in our understanding of the early Jesus movement, so too the discovery of the Dead sea scrolls in 1947 led to changes in the way in which many scholars have understood the Didache and the context in which it is read.
such development in our understanding of an ancient text and the aspects of the ancient realities that it might reflect will sometimes feel like progress when new insight becomes possible, but progress can take the shape either of confirming a particular hypothesis or of demonstrating why it is false and ought to be abandoned. This is only what historians should expect, so 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), 257–83.
3. for a very useful introduction to the study of Jewish christianity, see James carleton-Paget, “Jewish-christianity,” in The Early Roman Period, vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. William horbury, et al. (cambridge: cambridge university Press 1999), 731–75. fuller treatments include edwin Broadhead, Jewish Ways of Following Jesus, WuNT 1/266 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2010) and the range of authors included in Jackson-Mccabe, Jewish Christianity Reconsidered and in Oskar skarsaune and Reidar hvlavik, Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (Peabody, Ma: hendrickson, 2007).
4. for a history of research up to the mid 1990s, see Jonathan Draper, “Didache in Modern Research: an Overview,” in Draper, Didache in Modern Research, 1–42.
GReGORY: RefLecTiONs ON The DiDache
125
it seems surprising that aaron Milavec suggests that the fact that different scholars approach the Didache in different ways and draw different conclusions means both that the field of Didache studies is “caught up in a confusing diversity of scholarly opinions” and that it is “in disarray and unable to substantially contribute to the academic questions of our day.”5
Yet just the opposite seems to be true. even if there are important issues on which there is a diversity of scholarly opinion (although, in my judgement, it is sometimes less marked than Milavec would imply), the result of that diversity is not confusion but a continuing process in which ancient evidence and modern understandings and arguments are tested and proposals are either refined or rejected. Thus disagreements are helpful, for they lead to further discussion in a way that allows judgments to be made about which hypotheses or conclusions seem more plausible in the light of the evidence that we have, even if that evidence is often more partial (in both senses) than historians might wish.
Milavec’s essay is characteristically provocative and wide-ranging, although readers may wish to refer to his lengthy commentary on the Didache6 for a more detailed analysis or exposition of the basis for some of the claims that he makes in his contribution to this book. There he explains his view that “a unified reading of the Didache has been impossible because the prevailing assumption has been that the Didache was created in stages, with the compiler splicing together preexisting documents 5. see in the present volume aaron Milavec, “The Distress signals of Didache Research: Quest for a Viable future,” above 59–83, quotations on 59.
6. aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE (New York: Newman, 2003). Many of its conclusions are set out more briefly in Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003). Milavec quotes from one reviewer, Robert Daly, in his essay in the present volume, above 82–83. Other reviews of either or both of his books include those by Mark Bredin (review of Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE, RBL 6 [2005]; online: http://www
.bookreviews.org/pdf/4439_4472.pdf); Jonathan a. Draper (review of The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis and Commentary, Neot 39 [2005]: 203–7); stuart G. hall (review of The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary, JTS 55 [2004]: 704–6); clayton Jefford (review of The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE, CBQ 66 [2004] 662–64); Joseph Mueller (review of The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE and The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary, TS 66 [2005]: 890–91); and Nancy Pardee (review of The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary, JECS 13 [2005]: 525–36).
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
with only a minimum of editing.” This is why, he claims, other scholars have failed to notice “that the Didache has a marvellous unity from beginning to end,” because it has blinded them to the “holistic unity” that becomes clear when the Didache is heard “as a whole” in the light of the way in which it was structured for oral recitation.7 This is the “hidden key” that explains why Milavec thinks that the identification of the Didache as a church order (which seems not so far in many respects from his own characterisation of it as a training manual for baptismal candidates8) is so important. it is because Milavec thinks not merely that this understanding of its genre is mistaken, but because he argues that this misunderstanding has led scholars to believe that the Didache was a composite work rather than a unified text that captured in written form the instructions delivered orally by mentors training novices who wished to be “assured of following the progressive, ordered and comprehensive path that master trainers in the community had effectively culled from their own successful practice in apprenticing novices.”9
This is an important point, for it means that Milavec interprets each section of the Didache in the light of other sections, and it requires him to find internal consistency where others see tension and therefore postulate that different sources have been brought together. Yet few scholars have been persuaded by the way in which Milavec explains the apparent tensions and duplications in the text, and most scholars continue to see them as evidence to suggest that it now includes material from what were once different sources.10 it will not do for Milavec simply to note that different scholars give different accounts of how these sources may have been compiled and to claim that these differences necessarily undermine their efforts, for the fact that most scholars are persuaded of the need to adopt this approach might be judged more significant than the differences in how they do so. furthermore, there is in fact a large degree of support for the division of the Didache into four main sections,11 each of which may 7. Didache: Faith, Hope and Life, xii.
8. ibid., xxv.
9. ibid., xvii, see also viii.
10. for an extensive critique of Milavec’s approach see, in the present volume, below, Nancy Pardee, “The Didache and Oral Theory,” 311–33.
11. see, for example, Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, trans.
Linda M. Maloney, hermeneia (Minneapolis: fortress, 1988); translation of Die Didache, KaV 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 1; Jonathan a. Draper,
“Didache” in The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction, ed. Wilhelm Pratscher (Waco, TX: university of Baylor Press, 2010), 1.
GReGORY: RefLecTiONs ON The DiDache
127
reflect a particular source or sources, but Milavec appears to underplay the force of this consensus. There is more disagreement among scholars about how the Didache may have been edited into something like the form in which it was found in the eleventh century manuscript that Byrennios found in istanbul than about whether it was edited or if it evolved over time, but Milavec’s argument obscures this significant distinction.
Milavec’s insistence that scholars should seek to make sense of the Didache in the form in which it has been transmitted is of course important, but this should not exclude the possibility that precisely such an engagement with the text as it stands may lead readers to identify tensions within the text even if they agree with Milavec that it is “not simply an arbitrary collection of traditions.”12 it is possible to recognize evidence that points to the use of different sources and to development over time without concluding that the text is the result of a “compiler splicing together preexisting documents with only a minimum of editing.”13
it may be ironic that Milavec’s wish to read the text in the way that the Byrennios manuscript might invite results in just as ecclesiastically focused a reading as that of scholars whom Milavec criticizes because of their dogmatically driven presuppositions. however, for the purpose of seeking to understand the Didache historically as an ancient text, it is more important to observe that Milavec’s commitment to reading it as a fully integrated and unified whole necessarily leaves no scope for finding any evidence of development over time in the different sections of the text. according to Milavec, the text reflects the practice and belief of one particular community at one particular time and has been shaped by that community alone. Other scholars, however, find evidence for different views in different parts of the text, because they see the Didache in its current form as a text that includes different sources that may reflect different outlooks, either from one community as it developed, or from different communities.
This observation has a bearing on the two other areas that Milavec identifies as contributing to what he describes as “the current crisis”14 in Didache research. The first is the question of the relationship between certain material in the Didache and certain material found also in synoptic double tradition, that is, traditions that are found in both Matthew and 12. Draper, “holy Vine,” 259; see also Draper, “Didache,” 8 n. 8.
13. Milavec, “Distress signals,” 59.
14. ibid., 59.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
Luke but not in Mark, and might consequently be attributed to the postulated sayings source, Q. according to Milavec, one of the factors that impede progress in a proper understanding of the Didache is the continuing belief that the Didache shows literary dependence on Matthew. This view, he argues, should be rejected as was the older belief that the Didache was dependent on the epistle of Barnabas. The only scholar whom Milavec cites as representing the view that the Didache shows the literary influence of Matthew is christopher Tuckett, and the published dialogue between them nicely illustrates many of the issues that are at stake.15
clayton Jefford’s essay in the present volume also considers the relationship between the Didache and Matthew, and it throws into sharp relief how questions about the unity of the Didache and its relationship to synoptic tradition and other possible sources have a very significant bearing on each other.16 for Milavec, as noted above, the Didache is to be read as a unified text. in addition, as he explains briefly in the present volume, he denies that the Didache shows any familiarity with Matthew’s Gospel or with Matthean tradition. Tellingly, however, he both begins and concludes his discussion of this point by appealing to what the Didache does not do, which means that he relies on an argument from silence: Milavec notes points at which the Didache could have appealed to relevant material in Matthew, yet did not, and places a great deal of weight on these silences or omissions.17 Jefford’s approach is different, for he engages not with what might have been included in the text of the Didache, given certain conditions or presuppositions, but with what is actually there. as may be seen from his patient discussion, which reflects and draws on a wide range of previous work, there are in fact only quite limited sections of the Didache where any literary dependence on Matthew (and possibly also on Luke) may be found, and these may be from sections of the text that were added to the Didache some time after the main part of the text was written. far from reading the Didache in a shadow overcast by Matthew as a canonical text, or being otherwise driven by theological or ecclesiastical presuppositions, Jefford’s discussion exemplifies careful and patient attention to detail 15. aaron Milavec, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited,” JECS 11 (2003): 443–80, christopher Tuckett, “The Didache and the synoptics Once More: a Response to aaron Milavec.” JECS 13 (2005): 509–18, aaron Milavec, “a Rejoinder [to Tuckett],”
JECS 13 (2005): 519–23.
16. clayton Jefford, “authority and Perspective in the Didache,” above 33–58.
17. Milavec, “Distress signals,” 66, 75.
GReGORY: RefLecTiONs ON The DiDache
129
and proceeds from an analysis of each piece of evidence to an analysis of the text as a whole. Thus he concludes not only that as originally written the Didache was quite independent of Matthew, even if it drew on teachings of Jesus in a way that shows “discernible sympathy for Matthean tradition” (so agreeing with Milavec that “the Didache was created without any reliance upon Matthew”18), but also that at a later stage material dependent upon Matthew (and possibly Luke) was inserted into its text.
Through his analysis, Jefford demonstrates not only how the case for the Didache, having been edited and expanded at some point after its original inscription as a written text, emerges from careful engagement with its content, but also why the issues of literary integrity and relationship to other texts and traditions are interlinked. furthermore, he succeeds in showing how, despite the influence of Matthew (and possibly Luke) on this later form of the Didache, there remains good reason to believe that other parts of its text might originate at an earlier date and reveal perspectives that are not only independent of canonical texts but possibly earlier than and independent of the traditions that they contain. More importantly, perhaps, Jefford shows in addition not only how the Didache shows an increasingly “christian” perspective as it moves from using an earlier form of Jesus tradition to a later form that reflects one or two gospels that would come to be recognized as canonical but also how the respect for Torah and prophets exhibited in the earlier layer of the Didache remains important even as other authoritative texts are added. Thus Jefford shares with Milavec the view that “the sources behind the Didache derive from within a single trajectory of vision,” although the latter would prefer to speak of oral traditions and tradents rather than sources. however, he disagrees in that he sees within this single trajectory of vision not different but complementary oral performances of the same tradition but rather evidence of “a clear evolution of perspectives and development of literary authority.”19 even as its community develops or evolves in ways that might be increasingly easy to label as “christian,” it continues to be shaped by what may still be thought of as—but no longer limited to—“Jewish” practice and belief.
closely linked to Milavec’s claims that scholars have approached the Didache through the blinkers of undue interest in canonical versions of 18. ibid., 68.
19. “authority and Perspective,” 58.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
Jesus tradition is his further claim that they have also approached the text with theological or christological assumptions that lead them to interpret it as referring to Jesus where in fact it refers to God. The latter claim raises similar methodological issues as the former with regard to the integrity or unity of the Didache when it was first written and also with regard to the transmission of its text. if it is a composite text in the form in which it has been transmitted in the Byrennios manuscript then there is a distinct possibility that the word “Lord” might be used in different ways to refer either to Jesus (seen as Lord in the Pauline or “high” sense) or to God and that different uses might reflect the different times or places of origin of different sources now included in the text. if its text has been changed over time, there is also a good chance that the word Lord might have been added at some point with precisely the purpose of heightening the christology of the text, so that it referred to Jesus in a way that seemed closer to what later christians would expect or so that it could be taken to refer to Jesus where in an earlier version it had referred to God. The latter would appear to be the case if the use of “God” at apos. con. 7.30.2 may be take as evidence that the Didache originally read “God” and not Lord at Did. 14.3.20
Milavec’s point that the particular reference to the coming of the Lord at Did. 16.7–8 should be taken to refer not to Jesus but to the coming of God the father demonstrates how the text may be read in different ways, as does his claim that every other use of the word Lord should also refer to God (not Jesus), regardless of whether his preferred interpretation is correct. Yet he is far from alone in making the point that we cannot simply assume that any use of the word Lord implies a reference to Jesus. Milavec cites Kurt Niederwimmer as an example of someone who tends to give too much christological significance to the use of the word κύριος, reading it in a Pauline way to mean not only Jesus but Jesus in an exalted christological sense, but he makes no mention of other scholars writing on the Didache who would readily support his view that Lord may be best understood always or mostly to refer not to Jesus but to God (whose servant Jesus is).21 further, he does not acknowledge that, at the point at which he 20. i owe this reference to Jonathan Draper, “Didache” in Pratscher, Apostolic Fathers, 15.
21. Draper, for example, in his description of the theology of the Didache, treats the term “Lord” in his discussion of God the father, not under the heading of christology. as he observes, “it is not clear where, if ever, the word ‘Lord’ refers to Jesus as opposed to the father, but there is no evidence that it refers to Jesus.” further, as
GReGORY: RefLecTiONs ON The DiDache
131
criticizes Niederwimmer, the latter sees evidence of later christian redaction in the Didache and argues that this passage is evidence of a christian editor changing the way in which the Didachist had expected his readers to understand his use of κύριος.22 Yet Milavec’s point remains, which is that scholars may obscure the Didache’s theology if they assume references to Jesus where no such references should be found, even in passages that are similar to synoptic tradition. if (as seems all but certain) the Didache is a witness to a form of Torah-observant Jewish christianity that was later eclipsed by the dominance of an increasingly gentile and non Torah-observant christianity, then it is imperative that scholars do their utmost to let its own distinctive voice be heard.
The question of what sort of Jewish or christian or even Jewish-christian identity might characterize the community implied by the Didache is the subject of stephen finlan’s essay in the present collection.23 he does not focus on either the theology or christology of the text, but does claim that the text is trying to articulate an identity that is not only Jewish but also “christ-believing.”24 Thus he appears to place significant weight upon the one point at which the Didache may refer to Jesus as christ (Did. 9.4)25
and to a second point where it refers to the believer either living as a christian or trading on christ (Did. 12.4–5), although he does not reflect on what it means to refer to its community as “christ-believing.” certainly the fact that the Didache refers to the person who comes in the name of the Lord as a christian suggests that at some point in the history of its Draper also observes, there is reason to believe that at least one use of “Lord” might have originally been a reference to “God.” see Draper, “Didache,” in Pratscher, Apostolic Fathers, 15. Jefford also notes the difficulty in deciding whether “Lord” is intended to refer to God the father, to Jesus as a human teacher, or to Jesus christ as the son of God: Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers: An Essential Guide (Nashville: abingdon, 2005), 73, and Jefford: Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 43–44.
22. Niederwimmer, Didache, 105, esp, n.14 and n.18.
23. stephen finlan, “identity in the Didache community,” above, 17–32.
24. ibid., 26.
25. The reading of the end of the thanksgiving prayer at 9.4 is uncertain, for although the Byrennios manuscript and other ancient parallels do contain the words
“through Jesus christ,” these words are absent from the parallel text in the apostolic constitutions and canons, and they are not included in the corresponding section of the thanksgiving prayer at Did. 10.4. for a defense of the reading, see Niederwimmer, Didache, 150–51.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
community their relationship to the one whom they identify as the christ came to play a significant role in their identity, but this need not mean that they necessarily believed in christ as more than a prophetic figure who spoke God’s word to them and made God present among them, which would be consistent with the rest of the text and the possibility that most or all of its references to Lord refer not to Jesus but to God. Thus although finlan uses social identity Theory to assert that the identity of the group behind the Didache may be seen more clearly in where it differs from rabbinic Judaism (with whom he seeks to contrast it), finlan does not pause to ask why the text’s apparently limited references to Jesus as christ must differentiate its community more sharply from rabbinic Judaism (who did not refer at all to Jesus in this way) than it would from Pauline communities (who referred very frequently to Jesus in this way). finlan claims that the Didache is “as christian as Paul is,”26 but it is difficult to know what this might mean or how it might differ from saying that the Didache is “as Jewish as Paul is.” Does either statement advance our understanding or simply restate the problem?
Much recent scholarship on Paul would affirm the view that Paul’s critique of non-christian Judaism was that it had no place for christ at its centre, but it is difficult to claim the same of the Didache when it refers so infrequently to Jesus as christ and may hardly refer to Jesus at all except in a way that is consistent with its explicit references to him as servant of God. finlan’s claim that in the Didache “knowledge of God is now christologized” (emphasis original)27 is a very bold claim that might easily be thought the result of reading its references to christ or cognate terms in the light of Paul’s much more frequent use of christ to refer to the crucified and risen Jesus than to the Didache’s predominant presentation of Jesus as a teacher whose words are to be followed. finlan’s failure to read the Didache’s use of this language within the context of how often and in what way it refers elsewhere to Jesus makes it difficult to accept the weight that he seeks to put upon it.
further, his passing remark earlier in his essay that, in reference to how the community understood itself, “surely the christology is more fundamental than the choice of fasting days”28 strongly suggests that his reading of the text depends much less on what it says than on what he 26. finlan, “identity,” 32.
27. ibid., 29.
28. ibid., 25.
GReGORY: RefLecTiONs ON The DiDache
133
thinks it should say. Just because Paul would argue that observing certain days might be to miss the point of following Jesus (Gal 4:10) or at best a matter of indifference, useful only in so far as it might be helpful in following the Lord (Rom 14:5–6), it need not follow that such observance could not have been considered much more important within the community implied by the Didache, for whom this was clearly a matter of concern (Did. 8.1). in fact, the difference that it suggests between Paul’s perspective and that of the Didachist might suggest that the difference between them was as great if not greater than the difference between the Didachist and that of many rabbinic or second Temple Jews. finlan may be correct when he suggests that labels like Jewish or Jewish-christian do not suffice to explain the different kinds of Jewish identity that a particular community might have. however, although he expresses the desire to move away from a simple model of Jewish or christian with Jewish-christian somewhere in the middle, he appears nevertheless to assume that communities who have some place for Jesus will necessarily have more in common with each other than with communities that do not in some way acknowledge Jesus, even if there are many other ways in which they appear to be alike or to have a great deal else in common. Thus finlan’s presuppositions about the relative importance of christology appear to influence his entire approach to the text.
if the other essays in this section have in common a desire to locate the Didache and its community somewhere on a spectrum of Jewish, christian, or Jewish-christian identity, Jonathan Draper’s essay seeks rather to locate the Didache and its community in the wider Graeco-Roman world.29 he analyzes the household code found in Did. 4.9–11 and in parallel versions of the Two Ways tradition in the light of what he has elsewhere described as “The Moral economy of the Didache,” which he characterizes as an insistence on generalized reciprocity, which requires members of its community to share their goods with each other so that all may benefit from them.30 here he notes some of the practical limits to that vision or aspiration, when the concrete realities of social relationships in the community and the economic demands that they entail overcome abstract ideals. Thus, argues Draper, the teaching in the Two Ways tradition about children and about slaves limits restricts the impact of its teaching elsewhere about the 29. Jonathan a. Draper, “children and slaves in the community of the Didache and the Two Ways Tradition,” above, 85–121.
30. Jonathan a. Draper, “The Moral economy of the Didache,” HTS.TS 67 (2011).
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
need for members of the community to redistribute wealth among themselves, recognizing that anything they give to others they also give to God.
in situations where children might lose their inheritance, or slaves might be manumitted, ideals are quickly relativized in order to ensure that patriarchal authority (which Draper finds to be more influential in a Jewish rather than in a gentile context31) is not challenged.
Three general points that emerge from Draper’s discussion may be noted. The first, which follows directly from his analysis of the impact of the household code and its requirement for children and slaves to remain subject to parents and to masters, is a reminder of the need for scholars to pay careful attention to detail when reading their sources. Broad generalizations must be subject to careful analysis, and the latter will often problematize or call into question the former, however attractive they might seem before they are interrogated in this way. second, by reading the Didache synchronically—in this case in relation to Pauline texts, since he sees it as a window on early Jewish christian communities in tension with early Pauline communities32—Draper remind us of the importance of the sort of comparative study that allows different texts to illuminate each other and opens the question of whether or how the teaching of the Didache on reciprocity might relate to Paul’s concern for his collection for the saints in Jerusalem, which Paul presents as an example of what the reciprocal relations between Jewish and gentile followers of christ might entail.33 Third, by reading the Two Ways tradition diachronically and noting the different ways in which it has been transmitted in the different witnesses to its text, Draper reminds us not only that the Didachist likely drew on at least this one earlier source when committing his words to writing, nor even only of the difficulties that there are today in seeking to reconstruct the form that the Didachist’s written text might have taken, but also that the very notion of original text is subject to challenge. as Draper observes, appealing to David Parker, “there is no original text in a society that is primarily oral in its communications, and instead we have multiple representations of a tradition that is fluid and continually subject to change, to respond to, and to reflect the social situation of the scribes, since text and oral performance are continually interacting and reshaping each other.”34
31. ibid., 89.
32. ibid., 88.
33. see Rom 15:27; 2 cor 8:8–15; 9:6–15.
34. Draper, “children and slaves,” 89.
GReGORY: RefLecTiONs ON The DiDache
135
Thus we return to two of the points that Milavec identified as of central importance in determining how the Didache should be read, but which appear to point in a different direction than Milavec would have us believe.
The first point concerns our access to the text of the Didache and the question of how we might move from that text to any historical community that might stand behind it and the ideal readers that it implies. for Milavec, the ancient text of the Didache is understood as more or less equivalent to the form in which it was copied in 1056 and published by Byrennios in 1883.35 Yet, as Draper and Jefford have shown in their essays, there are other ancient witnesses to parts of the Didache that preserve readings that differ from those in the Byrennios manuscript and are likely at least sometimes to witness to readings that are older than some of the text that it transmits.36 since some of those witnesses suggest that the Two Ways tradition was older than the Didache, it follows too that the Didachist may have drawn on at least this one source, and possibly others as well, and that his use of sources may be the most satisfactory reason for some of the apparent tensions within the text. This cannot be proven beyond doubt, but scholars who have explored this hypothesis have certainly been able to use it to make good sense of the text as it has been transmitted to us and as ancient witnesses suggest that it may have been transmitted to, and by, the scribes who copied them.
closely related to questions about how we might today access the form or forms in which the Didache was written and circulated before the Byrennios manuscript was copied in 1056 are questions about how we approach any text that was written in a world in which orality was much more important than it is in the modern West. Milavec is, of course, correct to insist that modern readers accustomed to working with a literary mindset (or “suffer[ing] from the bias toward textuality,” as Milavec puts it37) need to work hard to appreciate the importance of oral recitation in a society still oriented primarily towards the spoken word and to grasp what oral communication actually entailed. Yet it remains the case that we have 35. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope and Life, 5–9, where he explains why he has decided to follow the Byrennios manuscript, to which he refers as “the original.”
36. for examples, see above Jefford, “authority and Perspective,” and Draper,
“children and slaves,” passim. for a fuller discussion of the problems in seeking to reconstruct the earliest possible text of the Didache, see also Draper, “Didache in Modern Research,” 1–4, Niederwimmer, Didache, 19–29.
37. Milavec, “Distress signals,” 62.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
access to the text of the Didache only in the form that it was inscribed at particular times, and as it has since been transmitted in writing. any oral performance, recitation, or other form of communication or transmission that might stand behind some or all of the written text is accessible to us only through that medium, so scholars need to be sensitive to the complex ways in which oral and written texts may interact with each other and to issues of secondary as well as primary orality.38 certainly we need to be aware of the limitations and distorting effect of the predominantly or exclusively literary approaches for which Milavec critiques earlier generations of scholars, but we need also to recognize the way in which scholars working on orality now emphasize the interplay between written texts and oral performances, which makes it difficult to see any manuscript simply as the transcription of one particular recital at one particular time in the way that Milavec appears to characterize the text of the Didache as he presents it. Milavec is almost certainly correct in his expectation that
“future Didache scholars will increasingly use studies of orality to appreciate the nature, character, and use of the Didache within its community setting,”39 and he has made an important contribution to this process, but it is vital that such work on the Didache is conducted in dialogue with scholars working on other aspects of what Werner Kelber has called “The Oral-scribal-Memorial arts of communication in early christianity.”40
38. On the interfacial relationship between orality and writing, see alan Kirk,
“Memory, scribal Media and the synoptic Problem,” in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem, ed. Paul foster et al., BeTL 239 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 459–466 (461), and Kirk, “Manuscript Tradition as a Tertium Quid: Orality and Memory in scribal Practices,” in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond The Oral and the Written Gospel, ed.
Tom Thatcher (Waco, TX: Baylor university Press, 2008), 215–34.
39. Milavec, “Distress studies,” 64. for two examples of recent work on the oral nature of the Didache, each with further bibliography, see below Nancy Pardee, “The Didache and Oral Theory,” which includes a substantial critique of Milavec’s account of the oral nature of the Didache, and Pertuu Nikander, “Orality and Writing in the context of the Two Ways Teaching and the Didache.”
40. This is the title of Werner Kelber’s chapter in Thatcher, Jesus, the Voice, and the Text, 245–62, in which he responds to a variety of perspectives on his groundbreaking work, The Oral and Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul and Q (Philadelphia: fortress, 1983; repr. Bloomington, iN: indiana university Press, 1997).
Leadership and Liturgy
Two Requirements authorizing Participation
in the Didache’s eucharist
Huub van de Sandt
While the first segment of the Didache (chs. 1–10) contains an ethical Two Ways teaching and a series of wide-ranging directives concerning the ritual of baptism, the Lord’s Prayer, and the eucharistic celebration,1
the additional regulations in the second division (chs. 11–15) give us a glimpse of the local church or churches for which the Didache was written. a variety of disciplinary measures is presented, designed particularly to correct abuses in the lives of the members of the Didache community.
chapters 11–13 are concerned with the attitude of the local Didache community towards outsiders who visit the community; chapters 14–15 focus on the circumstances within the community itself.
The chapters in the middle of all these instructions contain prayers for what the Didache describes as eucharistia. The eucharistic prayers in 1. Didache 8 may be an insertion “from a different context,” according to Jonathan a. Draper, “christian self-Definition against the ‘hypocrites’ in Didache 8,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 223–43 (227). Kurt Niederwimmer (The Didache: A Commentary, trans. Linda M. Maloney, hermeneia [Minneapolis: fortress, 1998) views Did 8.1–3 as “an addition” (131), while Willy Rordorf and andré Tuilier (La doctrine des douze Apôtres
[Didachè], sc 248 bis [Paris: cerf, 1978) take the section as interrupting “la suite logique de la partie liturgique, qui comprend essentiellement le baptême d’une part (ch. 7) et les prières eucharistiques (ch. 9–10) d’autre part” (36). see also clayton N.
Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Vcsup 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 105; Peter J. Tomson, “The halakhic evidence of Didache 8 and Matthew 6 and the Didache community’s Relationship to Judaism,” in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? ed. huub van de sandt (assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: fortress, 2005), 131–41.
-139 -
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
9.2–4 and 10.2–5 encircle a real meal.2 They begin with an expression of thanksgiving addressed to God in nearly identical wording, and when we read these prayers side by side throughout, the resemblances in phraseology and content will become quite obvious. Because their similarity is not restricted to a casual analogy but appears to pervade the whole pattern of the two prayers, certain phrases that at first sight do not seem to share similar content may nevertheless clarify one another. This is of importance when it comes to the conditions for admission to the eucharist given in 9.5 and 10.6b.
in the following our interest will be focused on the requirements for participation in Didache’s eucharist. Before going into the subject, it is important to emphasize that early christian communities, including the Didache group, generally understood themselves as being part of a wider community of Judaism. anybody who takes a closer look at the Didache text will notice that it is profoundly Jewish. The traditions embodied in the Didache text for the major part originate from Jewish christian circles (that is, from Jews who believed in Jesus) and were seen as ingredients of the Jewish community. instead of looking at the Didache as an independent unit belonging to patristic studies only, we will find that the manual fits in a wider context of Jewish religious and cultural history.
central to this study are the phrases in Did. 9.5 (baptism) and 10.6b (holiness), which appear to set the acceptable limits of table fellowship.
The questions to be discussed regard the character of these passages and their mutual connection. Neither of the two directives was articulated by the celebrant. each has to be considered as being a rubrical instruction at the end of a prayer, offering a warning against unworthy attendance. But why was it that baptism and holiness were deemed absolute prerequisites for admission to the eucharist? What is the link between being baptized and seeking holiness in one’s everyday life on the one hand and the communal meal on the other? in order to understand their nature and relationship, it is necessary to examine the verses within their Didache context and in the setting of first-century ce Palestine, where the holiness of the 2. see Klaus Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet, su 2 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984), 43–48; enrico Mazza, The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer, trans. Ronald e. Lane (collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 16–30; Bernd Kollmann, Ursprung und Gestalten der frühchristlichen Mahlfeier, GTa 43 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 91–98.
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
141
temple extended outward and—particularly in Qumran—physical, ritual impurity was believed to be connected to moral, inner impurity.
The present contribution is divided into two parts, dealing with baptism and holiness respectively. With regard to baptism, we will start by concentrating on what is said in Did. 9.5. after the instructions for blessing the wine (9.2) and blessing the bread (9.3–4), the verse reads as follows: Let no one eat or drink of your eucharist [εὐχαριστίας] save those who have been baptized [βαπτισθέντες] in the name of the Lord, since the Lord has said, “Do not give to dogs what is holy” [μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς
κυσί] (Did. 9.5).3
The verse emphasizes that only those who have been baptized are allowed to take part in the eucharist. The use of the word “baptized” is remarkable here. What does it mean exactly? Outside of 9.5, the Didache only speaks of baptism in chapter 7. But Did. 7 does not give an explanation of baptism either, not of what the rite was thought to mean nor about that which was expected from the act of baptizing. in fact, the section in Did. 7 does not even seem consistent with the general drift of Did. 9.5. in the traditional scholarly view, the rite portrayed in chapter 7 is the initiatory ceremony new members of the Didache community are to undergo. The act of being immersed results in transforming an individual from outsider to insider.4
it has the character of an initiatory rite, of an absolute prerequisite for admission to the community. how does the custom of baptizing new converts concur with the phenomenon of a baptism authorizing participation in the communal meal in Did. 9.5? and for whom was the requirement in 9.5 meant? Was it intended for the neophytes or for those already belonging to the community? This study attempts to answer these questions.
The first part (§1. Baptism) will examine the function and meaning of baptism in Did. 9.5. The steps that will be taken in this process are the following. Didache 9.5 prohibits nonbaptized people from taking part in the eucharist. We will see that the tenor of the clause supporting this exclusion (9.5d) is particularly close to that of the temple purity terminology (§1.1).
it will be demonstrated next that the ultimate roots of christian baptism 3. for this translation, see aelred cody, “The Didache: an english Translation,” in The Didache in Context, ed. clayton N. Jefford, NovTsup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 3–14.
4. see also aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE (New York: Newman, 2003), 268.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
in Did. 7.1–3 lay in the Jewish immersion ceremony carried out whenever one was preparing to visit the temple. But, at the same time, baptism in Did. 7 appears to embody concessions with regard to a formerly strict practice (§1.2). The fading interest in a stringent performance of this purity ritual can be explained by reference to the increasing emphasis on the ethical dimension of baptism by the prefix of the Two Ways in Did. 1–6
(§1.3). finally, an attempt will be made to explain the sequence of the Two Ways and baptism in Did. 1–7 by providing a well-defined trend within contemporary Judaism. in addition to a ritual aspect, there was a moral side to (im)purity as well (§1.4).
The second part (§2. holiness) deals with two clauses of 10.6b. Didache 10.6 is characterized by a sudden shift in diction and phraseology, because this verse, as an abrupt chain of short and apparently loosely connected sentences, does not fit into the context stylistically and thus probably constitutes an intrusion. The verse is the sequel to the prayer of thanksgiving (10.2–5) after a satiating meal (see 10.1). Like the statement in 9.5, the clauses in 10.6b articulate a rubrical comment of invitation and caution: if anyone is holy, let him come.
if anyone is not, let him repent.
The celebrant bids the participants to leave their seats in order to take part in the communal meal and, at the same time, warns against unworthy attendance. But what does the clause “if anyone is holy” mean? is it an implicit reference to baptism in Did. 9.5? Does it merely reiterate that it is only the baptized that may eat from the eucharist? is the “holy” one of Did.
10.6b identical to the baptized person of Did. 9.5? Or does 10.6b have an ethical connotation in the sense that community members should strive for moral sanctification? and if so, how is the latter view to be related to the communal meal and the shared food?
The problems regarding Did. 10.6b might be solved by reference to the confession and reconciliation mentioned in Did. 14 (and 15.3), where ethical conditions for the purity of a sacrifice are formulated (§2.1). This to a certain extent links up with the point made in the first part (1. Baptism) as terms like “sacrifice” and “pure” in Did. 14 suggest a temple ritual. and here again, it is one’s moral attitude that is central. The purity required to take part in the eucharist is no longer attained primarily through the performance of ablutions, but has been transferred to a state of moral blameless-ness with regard to the confession of sins and mutual reconciliation (§2.2).
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
143
1. Baptism
after the first table prayer, a rubrical comment follows in Did. 9.5, emphasizing that no one but those baptized is allowed to eat and drink of the eucharist. The only place in the Didache outside 9.5 that mentions baptism (βαπτίζω, βάπτισμα) is Did. 7. in Did. 7.1c–3a, various types of water are mentioned, which shows a paramount interest in ritual purity as it reflects the central concern that one should use the most appropriate water available for baptism.
1.1. Baptism as authorizing admission to special food in Did. 9.5
The saying in Did. 9.5d (“Do not give to dogs what is holy”) underscores the preceding cautioning expressed in 9.5a–c. The maxim is undoubtedly quoted as an authoritative word of the Lord to emphasize that all those who have not been baptized are excluded from the eucharist. The wording
“what is holy” (τὸ ἅγιον) in Did. 9.5d probably refers to sacrificial food, a meaning suggested by its usage in LXX exod 29:33; Lev 2:3; 22:6, 7, 10–16;5 Num 18:8–19; ezra 2:63; and par. Neh 7:65. The term “holy things”
(םישדק) refers to the animal meat or agricultural produce designated for sacrifice in the temple. since the expression in Did. 9.5d deals with “what is holy” (τὸ ἅγιον), it has a cultic ring to it and suggests a customary Jewish sacrificial temple ritual.
as a rule, holy food was eaten inside the temple itself. The food was to be eaten in a state of purity, meaning that the priest must not recently have been in contact with processes and substances considered to be defiling, which included childbirth (Lev 15:1–32; 12:1–8), animal carcasses (Lev 11:24–28), menstrual and seminal emissions (Lev 15:1–32), skin disease (Lev 13–14), and a human corpse (Num 19:11–19).6 God’s 5. Particularly relevant to our investigation is the passage in LXX Lev 22:6–7, 10:
“he shall not eat of the holy things [οὐκ ἔδεται ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων] unless he has bathed his body in water. When the sun is down he shall be clean [καθαρός]; and then shall he eat of the holy things [καὶ τότε φάγεται τῶν ἁγίων], for they are his bread.… and no stranger shall eat the holy things [οὐ φάγεται ἅγια]: a sojourner of the priest’s or a hired servant shall not eat the holy things.”
6. shmuel safrai, “Religion in everyday Life,” in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, ed. shmuel safrai and Menahem stern, vol. 2, cRiNT 1.2 (assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), 793–833 (828–30); emil schürer, The History of the Jewish People in
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
continued presence in the temple depended to a certain extent on the continual service of the priests who performed their duty in perfect purity (Lev 21:17–23). The officiating priests and the people present had to be ritually pure, and purity could be achieved through the prescribed ablution, that is, by a simple immersion of the whole body into a specially constructed pool (mikveh).
But how is this temple-oriented view of holiness related to the eucharist in the Didache? The stereotypical form of expression in Did. 9.5d7
suggests that the Didache community probably represented a part of a broader trend in ancient Jewish piety that continued beyond the destruction of the temple. in second Temple Judaism, a practice developed expanding the concepts of holiness beyond the altar and temple in Jeru-salem8 to the synagogue,9 to study and prayer,10 and to the communal meal outside the orbit of the Jerusalem sanctuary and its officials.11 This the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), ed. Geza Vermes et al. (edinburgh: T&T
clark, 1973–1987), 2:475–76.
7. The phrase “Do not give to dogs what is holy” is paralleled word for word in the first part of a more extensive Jesus saying in Matt 7:6. The use of the saying in the Didache, however, seems to argue against its having been borrowed from Matthew.
see huub van de sandt, “‘Do Not Give What is holy to the Dogs’ (Did 9:5d and Matt 7:6a): The eucharistic food of the Didache in its Jewish Purity setting,” VC 56 (2002): 223–46.
8. see, also for the following, huub van de sandt, “Why does the Didache conceive of the eucharist as a holy Meal?” VC 65 (2011): 1–20 (6–15).
9. Late antique synagogues came to be viewed as holy places; see shaye J. D.
cohen, “The Temple and the synagogue,” in The Early Roman Period, vol. 3 of Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. W. horbury et al. (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1999), 298–325 (320). see also arnold Goldberg, “service of the heart: Liturgical aspects of synagogue Worship,” in Standing before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition, ed. a. finkel and L. frizzell (New York: KTaV, 1981), 195–211; steven fine, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period, cJa 11 (Notre Dame: university of Notre Dame Press, 1997), 41–59. Rich evidence (including images of the menorah, shofar, lulav, and etrog) is also found in the mosaics embellishing the synagogue floors; see Martha himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism, Jcc (Philadelphia: university of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 170–71.
10. as early as Dan 6:11 a prayer was directed thrice daily toward Jerusalem.
study acquired this characteristic as well; see fine, This Holy Place, 51.
11. see Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2006), 175–22.
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
145
also had consequences for the rules of purity. in addition to maintaining the purity of priestly food, there was strong concern regarding the eating of ordinary food in purity outside the temple as well.12 The absence of impurity13 was increasingly considered to be an appropriate prerequisite for aspects of daily life such as prayer and eating. This trend of copying aspects of the temple service by performing cultic practices beyond the temple site are perceptible in the collective meals of the Dead sea scrolls community. Members of the Qumran community bathed before eating communal food (1Qs V, 13; 4Q514 1 i, 5–7; 11QTa XLiX, 20–21; see also Josephus, B.J. 2.129).14 Like the Qumran group, the Pharisees, and many others as well, applied temple purity rules to prayer, Torah study or meal practices.15 impure Jews could be purified through a purification ritual, 12. see John c. Poirier, “Purity beyond the Temple in the second Temple era,”
JBL 122 (2003): 247–65 (256–59); eyal Regev, “Non-Priestly Purity and its Religious aspects according to historical sources and archaeological findings,” in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus, ed. Marcel J. h. M. Poorthuis and Joshua schwartz, JcP 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 223–44 (225–29), and Regev, “Pure individualism: The idea of Non-priestly Purity in ancient Judaism,” JSJ 31 (2000): 176–202 (177–78).
13. “Purity is the absence of impurity;” see (also for the concepts of “holy,” “pure,”
and “impure” in general) Jacob Milgrom, “The Dynamics of Purity in the Priestly system,” in Poorthius and schwartz, Purity and Holiness, 29–32 (29), and Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, aB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 730–32.
14. for this practice, see Lawrence h. schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of the Congregation, sBLMs 38 (atlanta: scholars Press, 1989), 62. for instances demonstrating the shift of the scrolls from priestly to general washing, see Jonathan D. Lawrence, Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, sBLaB 23
(atlanta: society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 88–97, 113–14. There are also references to the essene practice of bathing prior to communal meals in Josephus, B.J. 2.129–131; see also Todd s. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1988), 17.
15. New Testament evidence testifies to the fact that the Pharisees, predecessors of the rabbis and other groups within Jewish society, observed nonpriestly purity rules; see Luke 11:38, demonstrating that it was Pharisaic practice to bathe completely (ἐβαπτίσθη) before eating; Mark 7:1–23, where Jesus’s disciples are criticized for eating with defiled hands, see also Matt 15:1–20. see also Gedalyahu alon, who found that
“in the days of the Tannaim the eating of unconsecrated food in purity was a widespread custom”; see his “The Bounds of the Laws of Levitical cleanness,” in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud, trans. i. abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), 190–234 (207); and
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
and many took part in such rituals, regardless of whether they lived near Jerusalem and irrespective of whether trips to the temple were in their immediate plans. archaeological finds of stone baths and stone vessels prove that forms of extra-temple, nonpriestly purity were unquestionably a widespread facet of religious life in ancient Judaism.16
Didache 9.5d shows that the original temple-centered means of expressing piety is maintained in a new way. The use of “what is holy” (τὸ
ἅγιον) in Did. 9.5 suggests a channeling of temple sanctity to the community meal in the Didache. The temple’s sanctity and significance is directed to a new context. The status of being explicitly sacrificial, originally restricted to the temple service, is conferred on what in essence is not sacrificial (a meal).
What about the “dogs” in Did. 9.5d? examples stemming from the Tannaitic period (first and second centuries ce) make it clear that a dedicated animal, although blemished, has a lasting status of belonging to the divine sphere (sipre Num. 18:15;17 m. Tem. 6:5). it does not lose compare also hannah K. harrington, “Did the Pharisees eat Ordinary food in a state of Ritual Purity?,” JSJ 26 (1995): 42–54, who concludes: “What is evident is a conscious effort to make an extension of the laws for priestly food to the private home” (54). see in addition, himmelfarb, Kingdom of Priests, 85–87; Regev, “Non-Priestly Purity,” 225-37; Regev, “Pure individualism,” 177–85; Poirier, “Purity beyond the Temple,” 247–65.
The Tosefta testifies to this development as follows: “come and see how far purity has broken out in israel” (t. sabb. 1:14; see also b. sabb. 13a). Observing ritual purity outside the temple area for early Jews remained first and foremost the precondition for encountering the sacred.
16. see Roland Deines, Jüdische Steingefässe und pharisäische Frömmigkeit: Ein archäologisch-historischer Beitrag zum Verständnis von Joh 2,6 und der jüdischen Reinheitshalacha zur Zeit Jesu, WuNT 2/52 (Tübingen: Mohr 1993), passim; Thomas Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? conBNT 38
(Winona Lake, iN: eisenbrauns, 2010), 53–54, 74–76, 185, etc. The existence of immersion pools in remote areas, such as Galilee in the second Temple period, suggests that people would also immerse themselves on occasions other than visits to the temple. according to Lawrence: “miqva’ot were found in both Judea and the Galilee”
(Washing in Water, 182). Nearly all mikva’ot of the period ending with the destruction of the temple in 70 ce, however, are located in Jerusalem and Judea: “There are a few in other regions such as samaria, Galilee, and the Golan” (159). see also figure 1
“Miqva’ot in the second Temple period” ( 204).
17. Pisqa 118; see also haym s. horovitz, ed., Siphre d'be Rab I: Siphre ad Numeros adjecto Siphre zutta, cT 3/3.1 (Leipzig: 1917; corr. repr. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1966), 138.
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
147
its holiness, as it still is God’s property. The release of holy things from divine ownership (by paying redemption money so that they could be used in other ways) is forbidden. indeed, redeeming them was equivalent to feeding them to the dogs. The feeding of holy things to dogs was evidently so appalling and scandalous that it underlies the denial of one’s right to have sacrificial meat at one’s disposal.
The idea of dogs devouring dedicated food was felt to be particularly horrifying in the second Temple period.18 The concept motivating the expression in Did. 9.5d is attested by witnesses in rabbinic literature, the Qumran scrolls,19 the story about Joseph and aseneth (probably composed for Jews between the first century Bce and the second century ce),20 and in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Biblical antiquities).21 it is not unlikely that the fixed rabbinic formula itself, “holy things [dedicated sacrifices] are not to be redeemed to feed them to dogs” תא ןידופ ןיא
םיבלכל ןליכאהל ןישדקה)), was also widespread as early as the first century ce. 22 in these cases the wording seems merely to confirm an understanding that did not necessitate any further elaboration.
18. see also for the following, van de sandt, “Do Not Give What is holy to the Dogs,” 230–31, 236–39.
19. in a halakah found in 4QMMT 58–62, it is ruled that dogs should not be brought into Jerusalem, since they defile sacred food.
20. “and aseneth took her royal dinner and the fatlings and the fish and the meats and all the sacrifices of her gods and the vessels of their wine of libation and threw everything through the window as food for the dogs” (καὶ ἔρριψεν πάντα διὰ
τῆς θυρίδος τοῖς κυσὶ βοράν) (10.14). for the conjecture βοράν instead of βρῶμα in the reading of Ms a (τοῖς κυσὶ βρῶμα) or βορρά in Ms B (τοῖς κυσὶ εὶς βορρά), see Marc Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (Leiden: Brill, 1968).
21. Our text concerns the rage of God against Jephthah’s rash and careless vow in Judg 11:30–31, since his sacrifice might also have consisted of something unclean like a dog (LaB 39.11): “and God was very angry and said, Behold Jephthah has vowed that he will offer to me whatever meets him first on the way; and now if a dog should meet Jephthah first, will the dog be offered to me?” (Et nunc si canis primum obviaverit Iepte, numquid canis offeretur mihi?). for the Latin text, see Daniel J. harrington and Jacques cazeaux, eds., Pseudo-Philon: Les antiquités bibliques, 2 vols., sc 229 (Paris: cerf, 1976), 1.278, lines 82–84; for the translation, see Daniel J. harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James h. charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 297–377 (353).
22. see, e.g., m. Tem. 6:5; t. Tem. 4:11; b. Tem. 17a; 31a; 33a–b; b. Bek. 15a; b.
Šebu. 11b; y. Ma‘aś. Š. 2:5, 53c.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
in Did. 9.5 baptism is indeed referred to as the general prerequisite authorizing participation in the eucharist and preventing pagans from sharing the meal. The particular antonymy of the holy thing(s) on the one hand and dogs on the other provides the eucharist with distinct features of a sacrificial offering in the sanctuary.23 The established proverb is used here in a metaphorical sense, as it is meant to enforce and justify the exclusion of the unbaptized—characterized here as (scavenging) dogs—
from the eucharistic food. feeding the dogs has become a metaphor for admitting nonbaptized people, that is, pagans, to the pure meal of the pure community. The dogs represented the gentiles in their impure state.24
communal meals were not open to nonbaptized people. The saying particularly close to the context of the temple-offering shows the application of the cultic terminology to an extra-temple domain and to figurative dogs.25
The above argument is also corroborated by the use of the term
“eucharist” (εὐχαριστία) in Did. 9.5. in this verse the word εὐχαριστία not only refers to the utterance of the blessings like the one in 9.1, but also to the eucharistic food over which the blessing is spoken: “Let no one eat or drink of your eucharist.” since the prayer does not give any explanation for this nomenclature, one may assume that the term “eucharist” was used in the christian milieu of the Didache in this technical sense.26 The meal 23. it is important to recall at this stage that the stereotyped form of expression is found in both Talmuds, echoing materials far into the fourth and fifth centuries and always in discussions relating to the cult.
24. it is quite possible, however, that the “dogs” in the expression in Did. 9.5d were already associated with “gentiles” prior to the composition of the Didache. Jonathan Draper refers to Lev 22:10 LXX: “where it is gentiles who are prohibited from τὸ
ἅγιον: καὶ πᾶς ἀλλογενὴς οὐ φάγεται ἅγια;” see his “Do the Didache and Matthew Reflect an ‘irrevocable Parting of the Ways’ with Judaism?” in van de sandt, Matthew and the Didache, 217–41 (236).
25. The purifications and communal meals did not ultimately replace temple worship as a preferred means of honoring God. On the contrary, even the Qumran sectarians expected to go back to the temple system of offerings once these were carried out in line with their own beliefs and ideas; see ian c. Werrett, Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, sTDJ 72 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 7–8. certain passages of the Dead sea scrolls (like 1QM ii, 5–6; cD Vi, 11–16; and Xi, 16–21) place the physical temple and sacrifices at the center of their preoccupations.
26. see Robert a. Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, af 3 (Toronto: Nelson, 1965), 167; hans conzelmann, “εὐχαριστέω, εὐχαριστία, εὐχάριστος,” TDNT 9:407–15 (414–
15); Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), 44.
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
149
as well as the food consumed is not understood as an ordinary meal but as something special.
1.2. The Rite of Baptism in Did. 7.1–3
Didache 7 is the earliest surviving description of the administration of baptism.27 The discussion in Did. 7.1c–3a of the various types of water alludes to Jewish ablutions for ritual purification, and the directives in Did.
7 seem to have their parallels in Jewish halakhic instructions about water for ritual washings. it was a principal issue to determine what sort of water was needed for the purificatory washing. in rabbinic sources, six types of water supply are distinguished in an ascending order of value beginning with the lower qualities of water and proceeding to the higher ones (m. Miqw. 1:1–8). “Living” or running water has long been highly valued in israel (see Lev 14:5, 50, 52; Num 19:17) and in the hellenistic Roman world.28 in Did. 7.1–3 it says:
as for the baptism [βαπτίσματος], baptize [βαπτίσατε] this way. having said all this beforehand baptize [βαπτίσατε] in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit in running water [ἐν ὓδατι ζῶντι]. if you do not have running water, however, baptize [βάπτισον] in another kind of water; if you cannot [do so] in cold [water], then [do so] in warm
[water]. But if you have neither, pour water on the head thrice in the name of father and son and holy spirit.
The interest in ritual purity is still paramount in Did. 7 as it reflects the concern that one should use the most appropriate water available for baptism. in the hebrew Bible, purification was necessary before participating in temple worship, and this remained for ancient Jews, first and foremost, the prerequisite for encountering the sacred. Ritual impurity bars a person from God’s presence, and it is a biblical principle that it forms a barrier that must be removed (Num 19:20).
27. everett ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2009), 202.
28. Theodor Klauser, “Taufet in Lebendigem Wasser! zum religions- und kulturgeschichtlichen Verständnis von Didache 7,1–3,” in Gesammelte Arbeiten zur Liturgiegeschichte, Kirchengeschichte und Christlichen Archäologie, ed. e. Dassmann, Jac.e 3 (Münster: aschendorff, 1974), 177–83 (177, 180–82).
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
Ritual purity was thus considered a prerequisite not only for animals destined for sacrifice, but also for the priests who regularly presided at sacrifices and for those who came to the temple to offer sacrifices.29 Those people who were ritually defiled and those animals which, when dead, were considered ritually defiling were banned from the sanctuary. The םישדק (the parts of the sacrifices eaten by the priests) called for prior purification rituals. Because God resided in israel, it was essential (according to Lev 15:31) for all israelites to observe certain ritual purity laws when they wished to enter the sanctuary.
The text in Did. 7.1c–3a itself, however, may reflect a development that abandoned an originally strict ritual practice. at an earlier stage it just might have been the “living water” (םייח םימ) exclusively that was called for as necessary for the performance of christian baptism.30 The directives in our passage, however, seem to differ. On the one hand, the purity required to approach God is still attained through the performance of ablutions or immersions. On the other hand, the text does not reflect a continuous, strong adherence to Jewish halakah governing ritual purity.
The regulations give the impression that the importance of the baptismal instruction with regard to correct practice is diminishing.31 They embody concessions toward a formerly strict practice. should circumstances so demand, they permit performance of the rite of baptism “in another kind of water” (Did. 7.2a). and if there is neither cold nor warm water, one was allowed to pour water onto the person’s head instead of immersing them 29. Jonathan Klawans, “Pure Violence: sacrifice and Defilement in ancient israel,” HTR 94 (2001): 135–57 (134).
30. John the Baptist baptized in the Jordan (Matt 3:6; Mark 1:5). The earliest form of baptism seems to have been performed on the banks of a river, at a well, or on the seashore (acts 8:36; 16:13).
31. ferguson, for example, considers the “allowance of pouring instead of immersion” as an “anomaly” and “a break with Jewish practice” (Baptism in the Early Church, 206). This need not necessarily constitute a break with its Jewish environment, however. We will notice below that the highlighting of “moral purity,” common in early christian literature, was also widespread in the Qumran scrolls (and in Philonic texts; see Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism [Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2000], 64–66). One may thus view this change in emphasis as an internal Jewish phenomenon. see also 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), 283 and n. 39.
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
151
in it. Why were the rules governing ritual purity losing their significance in Did. 7, while the interest in ritual purity remained as strong as ever?
1.3. The Prebaptismal Moral catechesis in Did. 1–6
The opening line of the Didache (“There are two ways, one of life, the other of death”) introduces the subject treated in these chapters. The way of life (Did. 1–4) contains moral instruction that is expounded at greater length than the way of death, which comes down to a mere list of warnings (Did. 5). Then, after the warning in 6.1 to maintain and observe the aforesaid prescriptions, the subsequent verses (6.2–3) present a reduction of the previous standards for those who are unable to “bear the entire yoke of the Lord.” The transition to baptism in Did. 7.1b by means of the phrase “having said all this beforehand, baptize in the name of the father”
shows that the Two Ways teaching in Did. 1–6 in some form served as a prebaptismal instruction within the community.32 it might well be that the diminished attention paid to the ritual level of purity in baptism in Did. 7.1c–3a is related to the emphasis on ethics in the preceding Two Ways teaching.
Our first concern, however, is to briefly portray the Two Ways as an independent tradition. it is important to realize that the Two Ways instruction ranges across a variety of christian documents from the first five centuries. The close resemblances between the most important versions of the Two Ways (including Did. 1–6; Barn. 18–20, and the Doctrina apostolorum)33 are generally explained in modern research by their—
direct or indirect—dependence on an earlier Jewish Two Ways document that is no longer known to us. each of these writings represents an independent witness to the ancient Two Ways tradition in which the basic pattern is essentially the same, particularly the contrasting of two ways, one 32. see andré Benoit, Le baptême chrétien au second siècle: La théologie des Pères, ÉhPR 43 (Paris: Presses universitaires de france, 1953), 6–7; Nathan Mitchell, “Baptism in the Didache,” in The Didache in Context, ed. clayton N. Jefford, NovTsup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 226–55 (236–37); Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine des douze Apôtres, 30-–2.
33. The others are represented by the apostolic church Order; the epitome of the canons of the holy apostles; the arabic Vita shenudi; Pseudo-athanasius, Syntagma Doctrinae; and Fides CCCXVIII Patrum; see van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 59–70.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
of life and one of death, each of which is followed by a distinct catalogue of virtues and vices respectively.
The ancient Greek Two Ways, freed from the present Didache context, was constructed, preserved, and handed on within pious hassidic circles that maintained highly refined ethical standards. The text shows an undeniable relationship with a particular type of rabbinic literature called Derek Eretz.34 Both the Greek Two Ways and the rabbinic Derek Eretz tractates reveal a specific trend in early Jewish thought that calls on a newly refined moral sensitivity. We note here that oral tracts with subjects concerning Derek Eretz existed as early as the second century ce and that part of these writings reflect the teachings of pious Jewish circles in the first and second centuries ce on moral behavior.35 These men constituted concrete groups within the society of the rabbis, practicing charities, performing deeds of loving kindness, and possessing virtues of dedication to humility and modesty. Thus, the tradition of the Two Ways was transmitted and kept alive within virtuous Jewish factions but also developed into a prebaptismal catechesis for gentiles36 in the Didache community and prob-34. Van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 172–80.
35. Myron B. Lerner, “The external Tractates,” in The Literature of the Sages, ed.
shmuel safrai, cRiNT 2.3 (assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: fortress, 1987), 367–
404 (380); shmuel safrai, “Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,” JJS 16 (1965): 15–33 (25–28); “hasidim we-anshei Maase,” Zion 50 (1984–1985): 133–54; “Jesus and the hasidim,” JP 42–44 (1994): 3–22; “Jesus and the hasidic Movement,” in The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. isaiah M.
Gafni, a’haron Oppenheimer, and Daneil R. schwartz (Jerusalem: The zalman shazar center for Jewish history; The historical society of israel, 1996), 413–36 (hebrew).
36. as a result of their education, Jews generally would have grasped what God required of them. The Two Ways section would therefore appear to be an admonition to outsiders, to gentiles rather than to Jews, to bring their behaviour up to the community’s standard. for non-Jews the line of former beliefs and previous conduct had to be changed. The Two Ways dichotomy served as a framework for understanding the radical alteration in behaviour and commitments that the gentile convert was expected to make. she or he is exhorted to leave behind households in which pagan gods and customary gentile criteria of morality abounded and instead to embrace a higher model of behaviour. The Two Ways’ new function of providing instruction for gentiles brought about some changes in its form. The alterations are reflected first in the doctrine’s supplementary long title (“Doctrine of the Lord [brought] to the Nations by the Twelve apostles”) prefacing the Didache after its short title (“Doctrine of the Twelve apostles”).
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
153
ably in other first-century christian communities as well.37 The prefacing of the baptismal ceremony in Did. 7 with the original Jewish instruction of the Two Ways in Did. 1–6 resulted in an “ethicization” of the baptism ritual. This brings up the question of how this phenomenon is to be understood. for what reason was the rite of baptism introduced with the ethical approach of the Two Ways in the Didache at a specific moment in history?
1.4. Baptism and Morality in Their Jewish setting Mastery of the Two Ways teaching became a prerequisite for baptism.
The attachment of the moral instruction as a prefix to the rite of baptism in Did. 7 fits with purity practices in the late second Temple period. in order to look at things in a proper perspective, the publication by Jonathan Klawans dealing with the general role of purity in early Judaism is particularly relevant. One of his most important points is the distinction between “ritual” and “moral” impurity.38 Whereas the sources of ritual impurity are mostly confined to natural phenomena (including childbirth, the carcasses of animals, menstrual and seminal emissions, skin disease, or a human corpse), moral impurity results from immoral acts such as sexual sins (Lev 18:24–30), idolatry (Lev 19:31; 20:1–3), and bloodshed (Num 37. Recently a reconstruction of the original Greek Two Ways teaching was published (van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 112–39) and, since this (hypothetical) text of the Two Ways has become available, it is now possible to detect traces of the Two Ways in Jewish and christian first-century documents. This opens up a whole new area of research that awaits further fruitful exploration with respect to New Testament literature and allows us insight into the situation of the writer and hearers that otherwise might be missed. since both the writer and addressees of the Gospels and New Testament letters were baptized, they may have been familiar with the Two Ways teaching. The tradition might have been just as fixed and its influence on the faith and action of the first readers and writers just as strong as the influence of popular hymns is on people today. if familiarity with the Two Ways’ catechesis preceding the rite of baptism was indeed widespread among first-century christian communities, this would give us deeper insight into the preconceptions (Vorverständnis) of early christians, which in turn would help us to arrive at a better understanding of their documents. The identification of preliterary traditions in literary texts allows insight into the situation of the writer and hearers that otherwise might be overlooked. it is not the wide diffusion of the Two Ways that is central to this paper, however, as it would take up too much space to enter into details here.
38. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 21–31.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
35:33–34).39 as noted above, ritual impurity is unavoidable in the normal course of everyday life. it is impermanent and not sinful,40 whereas moral impurity is the direct consequence of a deliberate, grave sin that leads to long-lasting regression and the degeneration of the sinner. unlike some forms of ritual impurity, moral impurity is not associated with contact-contagion and does not affect the ritual status of the individual.41
The line between “outer” (ritual) and “inner” (moral) impurity is reasonably distinct in the hebrew Bible and views on the matter are quite different in rabbinic literature. in fact, the rabbis were strongly opposed to the idea that ritual impurity is connected to moral impurity. They were unreceptive to the thought of fusing together the two types of impurity.
interestingly, in the Dead sea scrolls moral purity is not isolated from ritual purity, and we often find the two completely intertwined there. Texts that are undoubtedly sectarian in origin, such as 1Qs, 1Qphab, 1Qh, and 4Q512, integrate the two concepts into one single notion of impurity. The Rule of the community states that new members are cleansed by their humble repentance as well as the sprinkling of cleansing waters: for it is through the spirit of the true counsel of God that are atoned the ways of man, all his iniquities, so that he may look at the light of life.
and it is through a holy spirit of the community, in its truth, that he is purified of all his iniquities. and through a spirit of uprightness and of humility his sin is atoned. and through the compliance of his soul with all the laws of God his flesh is purified by being sprinkled with cleansing waters and made holy with the waters of repentance (iii, 6–9).42
every member of the sect was in need of purification, but an immersion would only be effective in the case of a person’s meek submission to all 39. Klawans, “Pure Violence,” 154–55, and Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 26–31.
40. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 22–26. see also Jonathan a.
Draper, “Pure sacrifice in Didache 14 as Jewish christian exegesis,” Neot 42 (2008): 223–52 (226–28), and John clabeaux, “Purity Regulations in the Didache” (paper presented at the annual Meeting of the society of Biblical Literature, san antonio, TX, 19 November 2006).
41. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 26–31.
42. This rendering is based on the translation of florentino García Martínez and eibert J. c. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1997), 1:75.
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
155
of God’s precepts. conversely, purifying waters are inaccessible to the unrepentant and “perverse” (1Qs iii, 4–5 and V, 13–14). admission to the regular ablutions and the subsequent meal was restricted to those who were pure and free of sin.43 Ritual purification by means of ablutions was not a mechanical process, but was made possible only by God’s grace. The purificatory rites were thought to have no effect unless they were accompanied by the appropriate inner disposition.44 Without repentance and right behavior, immersion was meaningless.
The laws of ritual impurity offered in the Dead sea scrolls lend substantial weight to our understanding of the practice in Did. 1–7. We have established earlier that the rendering of the baptismal ceremony in Did. 7
does not reflect a continuous, strong adherence to Jewish halakhot governing ritual purity. We also noticed that in the Qumran scrolls the line between ritual and moral impurity is frequently blurred. The Qumran community members believed that wholehearted repentance combined with deeds of righteousness caused their lustrations to be effective. a similar view may well underlie the presentation of baptism in the Did. 7.
Because baptism is not limited here to a mere cultic action but has taken on an ethical shape as a result of being preceded by the original Jewish Two Ways instruction,45 its precise ritual details become less relevant. What is 43. see Lawrence h. schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication society of america, 1994), 102–3. eyal Regev emphasizes that the basic notion of sin producing impurity was very common in ancient Greek religion as well; see his “Moral impurity and the Temple in early christianity in Light of ancient Greek Practice and Qumranic ideology,” HTR 97 (2004): 383–411 (393–94). for New Testament passages in which the concepts of moral impurity appear to co-exist with those of ritual impurity, see e.g. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 148-56, and Regev, “Moral impurity and the Temple,” 390–92.
44. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, passim; “The impurity of immorality in ancient Judaism,” JJS 48 (1997): 1–16; Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism: The Haskell Lectures 1972–1973, sJLa (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 78, 87, 119; Regev, “Moral impurity and the Temple.”
45. On the other hand, the Two Ways may well have spread as a result of its being directly or indirectly linked to christian baptism. The commonalities of perspective with regard to the law in the Gospel of Matthew and the letter of James are probably the result of their sharing a section of the Jewish Two Ways. The Two Ways materials in Matthew and James are linked to a prebaptismal teaching. alistair stewart-sykes recently showed that James’s exhortations were meant “as a means of restoring the hearers to their baptismal resolve”; see “Αποκύησις λόγῳ ἀληθείας: Paraenesis and Baptism in Matthew, James, and the Didache,” in Matthew, James and Didache: Three
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
important is that baptism in Did. 7 carried with it a commitment to right conduct (Did. 1–6). The Didache does articulate an interest in issues relating to ritual impurity, but probably prioritized the maintenance of moral impurity over the preservation of ritual impurity.
2. holiness
Like the phrase in Did. 9.5, the clauses in 10.6b offer a rubrical comment and reveal a comparable cautioning against contemptible attendance. They constitute a general admonition to the readers of the manual reminding them to repent and be prepared. in Did. 10.6 access to the eucharist is under discussion again, and this issue is repeated in Did. 14. Just as moral purity prepared the members of the Qumran community for the communal meal, so too did the same type of purity make ready the believers of the Didache community for the eucharist (Did. 10.6 and Did. 14).
2.1. holiness in a Moral sense: Did. 10.6 and Did. 14
similar to the cautioning of Did. 9.5 is the warning against unworthy attendance in 10.6b:
if anyone is holy [ἅγιος], let him come.
if anyone is not, let him repent.
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), 341–59 (347). compare in addition Wiard Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes, sBs 125–126 (stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986), 125–56.
also the supposed real-life setting (Sitz im Leben) of the Two Ways tradition used by Matthew—that is, the setting of the Two Ways before it was introduced into the present context of the gospel—might have been a catechetical situation, perhaps even an instruction for neophytes; see Georg Braumann, “zum Traditionsgeschichtlichen Problem der seligpreisungen MT V 3–12,” NovT 4 (1960): 253–60 (259–60); Wiard Popkes, “Die Gerechtigkeitstradition im Matthäus-evangelium,” ZNW 80 (1989): 1–23 (17). for the Two Ways in the letter of James, compare huub van de sandt,
“James 4,1–4 in the Light of the Jewish Two Ways Tradition 3,1–6,” Bib 88 (2007): 38–63, and “Law and ethics in Matthew’s antitheses and James’s Letter: a Reorientation of halakah in Line with the Jewish Two Ways 3:1–6,” in van de sandt, Matthew, James and Didache, 315–38. furthermore, see Darian R. Lockett, “structure or communicative strategy? The ‘Two Ways’ Motif in James’ Theological instruction,” Neot 42 (2008): 269–87.
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
157
in an argument analogous to the purity discussion in Did. 14.2–3,46 the author says that only a “holy” one may participate in the celebration. Those who are called “holy” in 10.6 are probably not those who have been baptized in 9.5. Rather than referring to the neophytes of Did. 9.5, the term ἅγιος (“holy”) is likely to denote the experienced members of the community, meaning that not every baptized person is automatically holy.47 The demand for holiness seems to be an additional condition quite apart from the baptism mentioned in Did. 9.5.48 it is not ritual purity but moral purity that is involved. The text appeals to those already baptized to come as ἅγιοι
to the communal meal.
Didache 14 repeats and substantiates the argument already made in Did. 10.6 about the restrictions concerning access to the eucharist.49 if one loses the prerequisite qualification of holiness, one must restore it through repentance. anyone who neglected to confess their transgressions prior to the eucharist could not be considered as offering the “pure sacrifice” that the Lord required. The text in Did. 14 does not teach that the eucharist is a sacrifice (θυσία) but seems to take this idea for granted.50 it is used as an 46. Didache 14 deals with the assemblies on the day of the Lord and requires of the community that they “break bread and give thanks” (κλάσατε ἄρτον καὶ
εὐχαριστήσατε), expressions that exactly correspond to the wordings κλάσμα in 9.3–4
and εὐχαριστεῖν in Did. 9.1–3 and 10.1–4. The two expressions appear accordingly to represent a hendiadys, denoting a single rite of “breaking the bread with thanksgiving.” Didache 14 therefore refers to the same reality as that described in Did. 9–10.
47. Jonathan a. Draper, “Ritual Process and Ritual symbol in Didache 7–10,” VC
54 (2000): 121–58 (141–42).
48. see Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine des douze Apôtres, 69 n. 2.
49. see also Boris Repschinski, “Purity in Matthew, James and the Didache,” in van de sandt, Matthew, James and Didache, 370–95 (394).
50. another possibility might be that the term θυσία embodies the eucharistic prayers of the community. Rather than being tied to the elements of bread and wine, the term “sacrifice” would be connected to the preceding εὐχαριστήσατε, that is, to the meal prayers recited over the eucharistic elements; see Draper, “Pure sacrifice,” 241; Jonathan schwiebert, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom: The Didache’s Meal Ritual and Its Place in Early Christianity, LNTs 373 (London: T&T clark, 2008), 166–67; Matthias Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern, TaNz 13 (Tübingen: francke Verlag, 1996), 403–4, 479; Niederwimmer, Didache, 197 and n. 23; Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine des douze Apôtres, 70–71; Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), 54–55.
This theory is unconvincing, however. it would mean that only the eucharistic prayers would bear the character of a sacrifice. Nevertheless, the text of Did. 14 seems
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
argument for maintaining that christians should participate in this sacrifice only with an unpolluted conscience.
according to Did. 14.1, the confession purifies those participating in the eucharist and constitutes the precondition for the ritual purity of the meal. The subsequent verse corroborates this idea by the summons to resolve interpersonal conflicts and to exclude quarrelling brethren “lest your sacrifice be defiled.” fights, quibbles, and controversies within the community are regarded as moral impurities defiling the eucharist so that fellow christians in conflict must be excluded from celebration of the eucharist until they reconcile. The purity required to approach God is not primarily attained through the performance of ablutions or immersions, but has been shifted to a state of moral innocence pertaining to the confession and reconciliation. finally, this concern is legitimated in Did. 14.3 by
“a saying of the Lord.” if one loses this condition, purity must be restored through repentance.
after the digression in 15.1–2, naming the qualities and capacities required for the offices of bishops and deacons, the text proceeds in 15.3
to the theme that to a certain extent was already dealt with in 14.1–3:51 the to assume the idea that the term “sacrifice” implies more than just the prayers formulated in Did. 9–10. since the essential act of a meal (“break bread and give thanks”) is the consumption of food (see also n. 46 above), the eucharistic meal can only be called a sacrifice when the act of eating and the food itself is involved; see helmut Moll, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie als Opfer: Eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung vom Neuen Testament bis Irenäus von Lyon, Theophaneia 26 (Köln: hanstein, 1975), 115. see also Jonathan schwiebert, who states: “Typical Greek, Roman and Jewish
‘sacrifices’ (θυσίαι) involved a meal as the culminating event of the ritual. The animal or item to be sacrificed was variable, from ritual to ritual, but the meal tended to be prominent and non-negotiable. Greek even used a separate term for animals or produce ‘slaughtered’ without a meal involved (σφάγια, typically offered to the chthonic deities). These were not thysiai. a proper thysia involved a meal, preceded by a ritual (i.e., sacrifice) that dedicated the food to the god(s)”; see Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom, 167. see in addition, Georg schöllgen, “The Didache as a church Order: an examination of the Purpose for the composition of the Didache and its consequences for its interpretation,” in Draper, The Didache in Modern Research, 43–71 (59); Robert J. Daly, Christian Sacrifice: The Judaeo-Christian Background before Origen, cuasca 18 (Washington, Dc: catholic university of america Press, 1978), 312–13, 502–3.
consult also alistair c. stewart, “Didache 14: eucharistic?” QL 93 (2012) 3–16, who however sees Did. 14 as referring to an agape meal.
51. see the quotation in Pseudo-cyprian with a reference to the Doctrinae apostolorum (Teachings of the apostles) that combines Did. 14.2 and 15.3 in chapter 4
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
159
correctio fraterna, implying a friendly confrontation of someone with the error s/he has committed:52
correct one another not in anger but in peace, as you have it [written] in the gospel; and let no one speak to anyone who wrongs another—let him not hear [a word] from you53—until he has repented.
if the errant brother or sister, despite this correction, persists in sin, the members of the community are prohibited to further relate to them until the moment of repentance (15.3).
The passages in 9.5 and 10.6b tell us plainly that the absence of ritual (9.5) as well as moral (10.6) impurities are essential conditions for the celebration at the table of the Lord. in 10.6 the purity of the eucharist is not mentioned, although purity concerns would seem to be at the back of the argument here as well. Not only ritual purity was a prerequisite for partaking in the ceremony of eating sacred food within the Didache community but so was holiness, that is, repentance and reconciliation.
2.2. Moral holiness and special food in its Jewish setting The Dead sea scrolls, and the Rule of the community (1Qs) in particular, provide us with the most appropriate context for our passage in Did. 10.6
and 14.1–3 as they detail a rigorous concern for the purity of the food. in the Rule of the community, sinful outsiders were taken to be ritually defiling (1Qs V, 13–15). The idea that the deeds and the body of the outsider are impure is found in 1Qs iii, 4–6, where we find that an unrepentant outsider can never attain ritual purity. even novices to the community of his De aleatoribus (“about Dice-players”). compare also Jean-Paul audet, La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres, ebib (Paris: Gabalda, 1958), 79–81, and Niederwimmer, Didache, 9.
52. see also huub van de sandt, “Two Windows on a Developing Jewish-christian Reproof Practice: Matt 18:15–17 and Did. 15:3,” in van de sandt, Matthew and the Didache, 173–92.
53. Because the shift in subject makes this translation somewhat problematic, the rendering of stanislas Giet may be correct: “ni de votre part ne lui prête l’oreille,”
that is, “let no one on your part listen to him;” see L’énigme de la Didachè, PfLus 149
(Paris: Ophrys, 1970), 244. Giet does not take the ἀστοχῶν (“offender”) but the μηδείς
(“no one”), which is also the subject of λαλείτω (“speak”), to be the subject of ἀκουέτω
(“hear”). see Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine des douze Apôtres, 79 n. 2
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
who had not yet completed their initiation were not permitted to touch the “purities of (the) many” (1Qs V, 13–14; Vi, 16–17). They were prohibited from joining others at the communal table or even to touch pure food until a year had passed and their spirit and deeds had been examined (1Qs Vi, 13–23).54
Other passages in the Rule of the community, however, deny the communal meals specifically to disobedient community members as well.
individuals already belonging to the community who violated community rules were excluded from the table.55 These include those who knowingly lie about the amount of their personal possessions: if one is found among them who lies knowingly about wealth, he shall be excluded from the midst of the pure food of the many [תרהט ךותמ
םיבר] for one year, and be fined one fourth of his bread. (1Qs Vi, 24–25) They also included those who have spoken in anger against one of the priests: and if he has spoken angrily against one of the priests registered in the book, he shall be punished for one year and excluded, under the sentence of death, from the pure food of the many [םיבר תרהט ןמ]. (1Qs Vii, 2–3) a third example concerns those slandering:
and the man who goes about slandering his fellow shall be excluded from the pure food of the many [םיברה תרהטמ] for one year and shall be punished; but the man who goes about slandering the many shall be expelled from them and will never return. (1Qs Vii, 15–17) a final illustration probably has a more general drift as it may include all those members of the community who sin, regardless of the nature of their trespasses:
No man among the men of the community, the covenant of the community, who insolently strays from anyone of the commands shall touch the pure food of the men of holiness [שדוקה ישנא תרהטב עגי לא]. (1Qs Viii, 16–17; see also lines 22–24)
54. Neusner, Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, 52–53.
55. see hannah K. harrington, The Purity Texts, cQs 5 (London: T&T clark, 2004), 23–24.
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
161
Participation in the communal meal depended on each community member’s level of purity. The ritually defiling force of sin causes those within the community who commit sins to be ritually defiled like the outsiders and excludes them from the community’s pure food. in a word, moral failure causes ritual impurity. The unconsecrated foods and drinks (i.e., the food and drinks not related to the cult or the temple) consumed at the communal meal were considered almost as holy as the sacrifices offered in the temple.56 This meal, ordinary food referred to as “purity” (the הרהט),57
is shared only by those who are clean (1Qs V, 13; Vi, 25; Vii, 16, 19). it was eaten in a state of purity; that is, all members had to bathe before eating it,58
because food could be contaminated if a transgressor ate of it. immersion without repentance was pointless.
The communal meal was thus fundamental to the sectarian concept of purity. This also holds good for the relation between the life of the Didache community and the eucharist: just as disputes, quarrels, and strife, in short moral impurity, desecrate the “sacrifice,” so does the purity of the participating community make it pure. The Jewish requirement of being in a state of ritual and moral purity was still the precondition for partaking in the ceremony of eating holy food within the community of the Didache.
Of course, baptism also marks an important step in the process by which an individual is welcomed into a religious group. Rather than becoming a member of the community through the water (as suggested in Did. 7), 56. Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, sDssRL
(Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2002), 119; Yair furstenberg, “Defilement Penetrating the Body: a New understanding of contamination in Mark 7.15,” NTS 54 (2008): 176–
200, esp. 187.
57. for the expression “purities of (the) many,” םיבר תרהט as referring to the
“pure food,” that is, the common meal eaten by the full members of Qumran, see Jacob Licht, The Rule Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea: 1QS-1QSa-1QSb (Jerusalem: Bialik institute, 1965), 294–303 (hebrew); Lawrence h. schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code (chico, ca: scholars Press, 1983), 161–68, esp. 162–63. see also friedrich avemarie, “‘Tohorat ha-Rabbim’
and ‘Mashqeh ha-Rabbim’: Jacob Licht Reconsidered,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, ed. M. Bernstein, florentino García Martínez, and J. Kampen, sTDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 215–29; harrington, Purity Texts, 23–25; and Russell c.
D. arnold, The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community, sTDJ
60 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 90–92.
58. see n. 14 above.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
however, it is not initiation as such that has priority in the Didache’s baptism but the ritual of the eucharistic meal.59
3. concluding Remarks
The ritual of baptism in the Didache is framed between the Two Ways (Did. 1–6) and the eucharist (Did. 9–10). This has consequences for its meaning and function. The practice of baptism includes primarily a strong commitment to right conduct (Did. 1–6) in which, not so much the initiation of the individual into the community predominates (Did. 7.1c–3a), but rather the preparation for the community’s holy food. in Did. 9.5 the nonbaptized, the gentiles, were prohibited from taking part in the eucharist, “since the Lord has said, ‘Do not give to dogs what is holy.’ ” in light of the Qumran sources, it is reasonable to assume that it is not only the nonbaptized in general who are excluded from participation in the eucharist but also the catechumens,60 that is, those candidates for community membership being in the process of receiving instructions before baptism.
59. it corroborates the assumption that the baptismal ritual is likely to have taken place on the same day (sunday? see Did. 14) immediately before the sacred meal. evidence in christian communities supporting this supposition is found in Justin Martyr, Apol. 1.65–66. hans-ulrich Weidemann believes this eucharist to be a “Taufeucharistie” at variance with the “sonntagseucharistie”: “Justins schilderung der Taufeucharistie macht deutlich, dass die initiation eines zu Glauben Gekommenen auf die eucharistische Gemeinschaft mit der ganzen Gemeinde hinzielt und in ihr ihre Vollendung findet. Daher schildert Justin auch anlässlich der Taufeucharistie den entscheiden-den Vollzug und das Verständnis der eucharistie (Kap. 66), und nicht anlässlich der sonntagseucharistie;” see Weidemann’s, “Taufe und Taufeucharistie: Die postbaptis-male Mahlgemeinschaft in Quellen des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts,” in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, ed. David hellholm et al., BzNW 176 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 2:1483–1530 (1486–87). in addition to the testimony of Justin, other evidence is found in the apostolic Tradition 21, where initiation is followed by “prayers of the faithful” (25), the “kiss of peace” (26), and the eucharist (28–37); see Paul Bradshaw, Maxwell e. Johnson, and L. edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, hermeneia (Minneapolis: fortress, 2002), 120–22. compare also Draper, “Ritual Process and Ritual symbol,” 127–28; Willy Rordorf, Der Sonntag: Geschichte des Ruhe- und Gottesdiensttages im ältesten Christentum, aTaNT 43 (zürich: zwingli-Verlag, 1962), 257–68; Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 239.
60. see above. interesting in this case is also the observation “catecuminus in cena dominica non concumbat” in the Latin collection of the apostolic Tradition
VaN De saNDT: BaPTisM aND hOLiNess
163
at Qumran, one’s impure status was by no means permanent and by performing certain purification rituals involving immersion in water the individual could become pure over and over again. The Didache, however, appears to be referring to baptism as a one-time event and not a repeated rite. On account of the choice for the way of life and the rejection of the way of death tied to the baptismal ritual, a radical restraint from evil expressed in a once-for-all baptism was required. after baptism, the Didache community members were supposed not to lapse back into immoral acts again.
The separation of the sinner from the Didache community in Did. 15.3
is probably best understood in light of the respect for and careful handling of pure food. food could be contaminated if a sinner ate from it. in the Didache pure food must be kept from falling into the hands of those who are impure, either because they are gentiles and not baptized or because they are impenitent sinners from within the community. impurity was the biggest threat to the group’s holiness and hence to its access to God. The exclusion in Did. 15.3 might thus have functioned less as a punishment of the sinner than as a means of preserving the purity of the community. The imposed separation of the sinner from the Didache community in 15.3
reflects the community’s rigorous concern for the admission procedure in Did. 9.5. in the respective cases, exclusion of the offender and the nonbaptized from the community ensures that they will not spread their defilement. in this context it is important to note that the regulations in the third section of the Didache (11–15) discuss questions of internal community life and comprise guidelines for good order and church discipline.
Not only the presence of a gentile outsider (Did. 9.5 and Did. 7) but also a backsliding insider (Did. 10.6 and Did. 14) pollutes the holy food.
The warning to practice table fellowship with those baptized only (9.5) and to become holy (10.6) shows new boundaries being drawn between
“in” and “out.” Like the Rule of the community, the Didache strongly associates participation in the community’s food with membership of the community. in Did. 9.5 “what is holy” probably refers to sacrificial food and the very term “sacrifice” in Did. 14 is used to describe ordinary food as special.
Because contagion of “what was holy” is not allowed, not only are unclean 27.1; compare Bradshaw, Johnson, and Phillips, Apostolic Tradition, 144; for the Latin text, see Wilhelm Geerlings in Georg schöllgen and Wilhelm Geerlings, eds., Didache: Zwölf-Apostle-Lehre; Traditio Apostolica: Apostolische Űberlieferung, fc 1 (freiburg im Breisgau: herder, 1991), 280.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
outsiders to be excluded, but also insiders who have not properly repented and become reconciled with their brothers or sisters. exclusion from the meal simply means exclusion from the community, and full membership is achieved when the candidate is allowed to share in the food. The intense communion meal strengthened the group’s self-awareness. Like other early christian communities—and unlike, for example, the Pharisees who ate most of their meals at home—the Didache group gathered for communal meals and made them the climax of their group life.
The Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the faultline of Judaism and christianity
Peter J. Tomson
By its wording and form, the prayer Jesus taught his disciples is a typically Jewish prayer well comparable to the category of “short prayers”
cited in rabbinic literature. Both Jews and christians, however, would readily define it as the central prayer typical of christianity. This seeming contradiction is not coincidental. The following paper studies the versions of the Lord’s Prayer preserved in the Didache and the Gospels in their respective literary and historical contexts and in comparison with rabbinic traditions, all from a redaction-critical perspective. The analysis involves recent discussion of the development of organized early Jewish prayer. The conclusion will be that from being one among many Jewish prayers, the Lord’s Prayer became a christian boundary marker at the rupture that occurred between Jews and christians under Trajan and hadrian and that the institution of the rabbinic daily prayer of eighteen Benedictions played a crucial role in this development. a range of conclusions follow for the relationship of Jews and christians.
1. Three Versions
since antiquity, the Lord’s Prayer was known as preserved in two versions: the well-known Matthean version canonized in christian liturgy and the barely known shorter one in Luke. its occurrence in the Didache was discovered in the nineteenth century and has been studied mainly by scholars. it has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of how this ancient Jewish prayer could evolve into a kernel of christian liturgy.1
1. for the Didache and its Jewish background, see esp. huub van de sandt and
-165 -
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
The versions of the prayer in Matthew and the Didache are almost identical and can practically be treated as one. They constitute the major point of resemblance between the closely related documents of Matthew and the Didache.2 The context in both documents is also similar, but it contains characteristic differences. in particular, the Didache context features some details of singular historical significance. Luke, in double contrast, not only brings the prayer in a shorter and actually quite different version, but also in a distinctly different context. in fact the unique historical importance of the Lukan version in its particular context is brought out best when compared both with the Didache and with Matthew.
for understanding the genesis of the prayer and its subsequent history, it is important to study both the three versions and their respective contexts in a historical perspective. We begin by reviewing them in synopsis.3
David flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, cRiNT 3.5 (assen: Van Gorcum, 2002); also Marcello Del Verme, Didache and Judaism: Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work (London: T&T clark, 2004). see further Jean-Paul audet, La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres, ebib (Paris: Gabalda, 1958); Willy Rordorf and andré Tuilier, La doctrine des douze Apôtres (Didachè), sc 248 bis (Paris: cerf, 1978); Klaus Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet, su 2 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984); Kurt Niederwimmer, Die Didache: A Commentary, KaV
1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993); Jonathan a. Draper, ed., The Didache in Modern Research, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996). see also next footnote.
2. for studies on Matthew and the Didache see huub van de sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (assen: Van Gorcum, 2005). see also 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, 131–41. for studies on Matthew, the Didache, and James, see huub van de sandt and Jürgen zangenberg, eds., Matthew, James and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, sBLsyms 45 (atlanta: society of Biblical Literature, 2008).
3. from the extensive literature on the Gospels, i shall mainly refer to the superb commentaries of ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 5th ed., vol. 1, eKKNT
1 (zürich: Benzinger; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 2002); and Joseph fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, aB 28–28a (Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1981–1985). in what follows, the translation of the Lukan and Matthaean versions largely follows NRsV; the Didache version is my own translation assimilated to NRsV’s Matthew.
TOMsON: The LORD’s PRaYeR
167
Luke 11:1–5
Matt 6:1–18
Did. 8.1–2
he was praying in a
Beware of practic-
Let your fastings not
certain place, and after
ing your piety before
coincide with that of
he had finished, one of
others.… so whenever
the hypocrites, for they
his disciples said to him, you give alms, do not fast on the second and
Lord, teach us to pray, as sound a trumpet before fifth (weekday), but
John taught his disci-
you, as the hypocrites
you should fast on the
ples. he said to them:
[ὑποκριταί] do in the
fourth day and Prepara-
synagogues and in the
tion Day.
streets.…
and whenever you
and do not pray as the
pray, do not be like the
hypocrites do, but pray
hypocrites; for they love as the Lord has com-
to stand and pray in the
manded in his gospel.
synagogues and at the
street corners.…
When you pray,
When you are praying,
do not heap up empty
phrases as the gentiles
[ἐθνικοί]a do.…
say:
Pray then in this way:
Pray in this way:
Father,
Our Father in heaven [ἐν Our Father in heaven [ἐν
τοῖς οὐρανοῖς],b
τῷ οὐρανῷ],b
Hallowed be your name.
Hallowed be your name.
Hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come
Your kingdom come.c
Your kingdom come
[ἐλθάτω].
[ἐλθέτω].
Your will be done, on
earth as it is in heaven.
Give us each day our
Give us this day our
Give us this day our
daily bread [ἐπιούσιον].d daily bread.
daily bread.
And forgive us our sins,
And forgive us our debts
And forgive us our debt
for we ourselves forgive
[τὰ ὁφειλήματα], as we
[τὴν ὁφειλήν], as we
[ἀφίεμεν] everyone
also forgive [ἀφήκαμεν]e also forgive [ἀφίεμεν]
indebted to us.
our debtors.
our debtors.
And do not bring us to
And do not bring us to
And do not bring us to
the time of trial.
the time of trial, but
the time of trial, but
rescue us from the evil
rescue us from the evil
one.f
one.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
For yours is the power
and the glory in the ages.
and he said to them,
for if you forgive others Three times daily pray suppose one of you has
their trespasses, your
in this way.
a friend.… so i say to
heavenly father will also
you, ask, and it will be
forgive you.…
given you.
and whenever you fast,
do not look dismal, like
the hypocrites.
Notes
a. ὑποκριταί: Mss B, etc.
b. Matthew = plural; Didache = singular.
c. Matthew: ἐλθάτω as in Luke (not mentioned in Na27). Mss B, Koine text, etc. and Didache: ἐλθέτω.
d. an inimitable hapax legomenon, found in all versions and notoriously difficult to translate.
e. so Mss א, B, etc.; ἀφίεμεν: Mss 1א, Koine text, etc.; ἀφίομεν: Mss D, W, etc., see also Luke and Didache. ἀφήκαμεν is an aorist not a perfect; it is forced to translate “have forgiven.” see the reservations of Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus, 453; pace fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 897.
f. The personal “evil one” is one option of the ambiguous Greek (and semitic), which also allows an impersonal “evil.”
2. comparing Texts
Let us now study the text of the three versions in comparison, in a series of brief comments.
(1) The versions of the Didache and Matthew are identical except for three small grammatical differences (indicated in the notes to the texts).
(2) The Lukan version is remarkably shorter: the sentences about
“your will” and “the evil one” are lacking. it seems to be a more authentic version, even if the phrase “forgive us our sins” could be a concession to Greek readers who would misunderstand “our debts.”4
(3) The address in Luke is a mere “father.” comparison with other gospels shows this more personal address to be typical of Jesus, especially in the aramaic form אבא ( = ἀββα), which was also used in Pauline churches 4. see fitzmyer, Gospel according to Luke, 897.
TOMsON: The LORD’s PRaYeR
169
(e.g., Matt 11:25 = Luke 10:21; Matt 26:39, 42; John 11:41; 17:1; see esp.
Mark 14:36, ἀββα ὁ πατήρ, and see also Rom 8:16; Gal 4:6). in rabbinic literature, a similar form of address is associated with the ancient hasidim, holy men and miracle workers. also, many prayers cited in a later rabbinic work that shows affinity to these hasidim feature the address םימשבש יבא
(“My father in heaven”). This shows that the address “father” was rare but not unique in ancient Judaism.5
(4) The collective form “our father in heaven” in Matthew and the Didache is equivalent to more normal rabbinic usage, םימשבש וניבא, with Matthean ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς reflecting the semitic plural “heavens.”6
(5) The question of the “original” language of Jesus’s prayer, though not essential to this inquiry, is hard to decide. With very few aramaic exceptions, all rabbinic prayers are in hebrew. it seems certain that Jesus read hebrew and likely that he spoke it. he could have taught the prayer in either language, for aramaic אבא/ἀββα is also used in mishnaic hebrew.7
5. in m. Ta‘an. 3:8, the hasid “honi the circledrawer” in his prayer for rain says the people see him as “an intimate son before you” (ךינפל תיב ןבכ), and afterwards he is ironically called “a spoiled son before his father.” םימשבש יבא is found in seder eliahu Rabba (M. friedmann, ed., Seder Eliahu Rabba and Eliahu Zuta and Nispachim le-Seder Eliahu Zuta [Vienna: 1904; repr., Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1969], 51), plus another eighteen mentions, against seven of םימשבש וניבא (search cD ROM Bar ilan Responsa Project). see esp. shmuel safrai, “Yeshu veha-tenua he-hasidit,” in The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World, ed. isaiah M. Gafni, a’haron Oppenheimer, and Daniel R. schwartz (Jerusalem: The zalman shazar center; The historical society of israel, 1996), 413–36 (417–20). Joachim Jeremias thought the word “abba” to be unique of Jesus; see his Die Verkündigung Jesu, vol. 1 of Neutestamentliche Theologie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973), 67–73; see the reply by James Barr, “abbā
isn’t ‘Daddy,’” JTS 39 (1988): 28–47. see also fitzmyer, Gospel according to Luke, 902–3, and differently Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus, 442. see elke Tönges, Unser Vater im Himmel: Die Bezeichnung Gottes als Vater in der tannaitischen Literatur, BWaNT
8/7 (stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003), 12–23, survey of scholarship; 257–62, remarks on New Testament usage.
6. Πατὴρ ... ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς: thirteen times in Matthew, once in Mark 11:25; ὁ
πατὴρ ... ὁ οὐράνιος: seven times in Matthew; see BDR 141.4. םימשבש םהיבא/וניבא: three times in the Mishnah, once in the Tosefta, six times in halakic midrashim. see Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus, 444.
7. edward Yechezkel Kutscher, Words and Their History (Jerusalem: Kiryath-sepher, 1974), 1–2 (hebrew); Barr, “abba isn’t ‘Daddy.’ ” see differently Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus, 437–38; fitzmyer, Gospel according to Luke, 900–901 with an aramaic reconstruction of the Lukan version; as also in Jeremias, Verkündigung Jesu, 191.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
(6) The two-membered doxology in the Didache differs from the doxology that became habitual in christian liturgy. a doxology is lacking in Luke and in the major manuscripts of Matthew;8 in the other manuscripts of Matthew, it appears in widely divergent versions. This reflects the infinite variety of an ad libitum conclusion.
(7) Patristic writings and New Testament manuscripts show that the version of Matthew and the Didache quickly became dominant.9
even Origen, one of the few church fathers to pay attention to the Lukan version,10 in his commentary on the prayer switches to the Matthean version as soon as possible.
(8) Origen interestingly comments that it concerns two different prayer versions that Jesus taught in specific circumstances: a personal version intended for the disciple who asked the question about Jesus’s prayer, as in Luke, and a community prayer taught by Jesus to his disciples gathered on top of the mountain, as in Matthew (Origen, Or. 18).11 Origen does not elaborate, however, on literary and historical features typifying the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
(9) a singular, isolated verse in Mark makes it likely that a primitive form of the Matthean version or a part of it found early acceptance: “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses” (Mark 11:25). significantly, the phrase “stand praying” (στήκετε προσευχόμενοι) is elsewhere used only in Matthew, of the Pharisees (Matt 6:5, ἑστῶτες
προσεύχεσθαι), and it also agrees with rabbinic usage (e.g., m. Ber. 5:1).12
Likewise the phrase “father in heaven” surprises, as otherwise it is special to Matthew and rabbinic literature.13 furthermore, there is a striking similarity in content with the passage about forgiveness in Matt 6:12–15. These 8. Mss א, B, D, etc.
9. see Kenneth W. stevenson, The Lord’s Prayer: A Text in Tradition (Londen: scM, 2004), 28: “Nothing is known of any liturgical use of the Lucan version in antiquity.”
10. another example (with more “Matthean prejudice” than Origen) is cyril, Cat.
Luc., see PG 72.685, 688, 692.
11. see Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus, 436 n. 15.
12. see herman L. strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922–1974), 2:28. see also the name amidah for the Jewish main prayer below. interestingly Origen, Or. 31 finds the upright orans attitude most fitting for prayer.
13. see n. 6 above.
TOMsON: The LORD’s PRaYeR
171
three elements give the verse in Mark an authentic character and seem to betray knowledge of the Lord’s Prayer in a primitive form related to the one in Matthew and the Didache.14
(10) Nothing in the two versions of the Lord’s Prayer defines it as a christian text. This becomes abundantly clear from the contrast with the Trinitarian doxology found in one of the manuscripts.15 By form and vocabulary, the Lord’s Prayer is altogether Jewish.16
3. comparing contexts
We shall now compare the three contexts, paying ample attention (pace Origen in his day) to literary specifics in a perspective of historical development, or in other words, in a redaction-critical approach. in doing so the similarities between Matthew and the Didache will strike us all the more, especially as contrasted with the very different situation in Luke.
The Lukan context has two remarkable features: there is a narrative introduction, and in it, there is no polemics. The introduction narrates how Jesus himself had been praying and, when asked by one of his disciples, he taught him the prayer text. Jesus’s own prayer practice does appear in other gospels (Mark 1:35; 6:46; Matt 14:23), but it is especially conspicuous in Luke (Luke 5:16; 6:12; 9:12, 28). furthermore, the prayer Jesus teaches is not contrasted with that of others. On the contrary, the disciple asks Jesus to teach them to pray “as John taught his disciples.” This is typical of Luke, whose narrative displays a recurring dynamic of communication, confrontation, and renewed communication between Jesus and the Pharisees.17 in acts, the other Lukan text, we find specific differences in the attitude of the Pharisees and of the sadducees toward Jesus’s disciples.
Luke’s distinct characterization of both groups is confirmed by Josephus’s descriptions.18 seen in that light, it is significant that Luke juxtaposes the 14. similarly Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus, 436 n. 11.
15. Ms 1253.
16. extensive material in strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar. see also the summary by Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus, 455–57.
17. see Peter J. Tomson, “If This Be from Heaven”: Jesus and the New Testament Authors in Their Relationship to Judaism, trans. Janet Dyk, Bs 76 (sheffield: sheffield academic, 2001), ch. 5.
18. see steve Mason, “chief Priests, sadducees, Pharisees and sanhedrin in acts,”
in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, vol .4 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids: eerdmans; carlisle: Paternos-
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
prayer of Jesus with that of John the Baptist. implicitly, it is also put on a par with the prayer of other Jewish teachers.
Both in the Didache and Matthew, we find a demarcation over against the “hypocrites,” though this has a different place in both documents. in the Didache the phrase is used only in chapter 8, a remarkable chapter also in other respects. The Didache, an ancient text highly respected in the early church, gives rules for christian liturgy and community life, on the whole serenely and without polemics. Didache 8, however, not only features this exceptional polemical demarcation, but also differs by form and content. first, unlike Did. 7.1 and 9.1, which each start a new subject, Did. 8.1 does not begin with the transition formula περὶ δέ (“now about”).
second, Did. 8.1 is about weekly fast days, which is a sidetrack in relation to 7.4, which mentions fasting before baptism. hence Did. 8, with its double feature of fasting and praying unlike the “hypocrites,” seems to reflect a later stage of redaction.
Two elements in Did. 8 merit further study in comparison with Jewish sources: the specific fast days and the prayer thrice daily. The restriction of communal and personal fast days to Mondays and Thursdays is the explicit object of rabbinic rulings (m. Ta‘an. 1:6; 2:9; 3:1; see also m. Meg. 1:3; 3:6; 4:1; epiphanius, Pan. 1.16).19 it follows that the Didache’s “hypocrites” are rabbis, or their predecessors, Pharisees. While contesting the ruling of the
“hypocrites,” the Didache’s own preference for Wednesdays and fridays as fast days accords with the alternative calendar current in ancient Judaism that was first identified in the book of Jubilees (6:23–38) and is reflected also in a number of Qumran writings.20 hence, this should not be read as expressing an anti-Jewish motivation but rather an alternative Jewish tradition. The Didache’s type of christianity seems rooted in a non-Pharisaic strand of ancient Judaism.
ter, 1995), 115–77; Peter J. Tomson, “Gamaliel’s counsel and the apologetic strategy of Luke-acts,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts, ed. Joseph Verheyden, BeTL 142 (Leuven: Leuven university Press; Peeters, 1999), 585–604.
19. The Didache appears to be the earliest written source for this piece of information.
20. see annie Jaubert, La date de la Cène: Calendrier biblique et liturgie chrétienne (Paris: Gabalda, 1957); James c. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London: Routledge, 1998). see now stéphane saulnier, Calendrical Variations in Second Temple Judaism: New Perspectives on the “Date of the Last Supper”
Debate, JsJsup 159 (Leiden: Brill, 2012).
TOMsON: The LORD’s PRaYeR
173
The custom of praying three times a day is already mentioned in the Old Testament (Dan 6:11; Ps 55:18) and is self-understood in early rabbinic tradition (m. Ber. 4:1; t. Ber. 3:1–3), where the three times of prayer are taken to coincide with the times of the daily sacrifices in the temple.
Therefore this represents a point of departure shared by the Didache authors with the Pharisees and rabbis. The Didache’s protest concerns the particular prayer to be said thrice daily: not that of the “hypocrites,” but the Lord’s Prayer.
We observed that the expression “hypocrites” found twice in Did. 8
is not otherwise used in the Didache. By contrast, it is typical of Matthew, especially in the polemical phrase, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites” (Matt 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29).21 as compared with the other gospels and the Didache, Matthew is dominated by polemics with the Pharisees.22 This is most remarkable in the two large characteristic sections seemingly interpolated in the basic order of Mark otherwise followed in Matthew: the sermon on the Mount and the discourse against “scribes and Pharisees.” Both discourses, located in the opening and closing parts of the gospel’s main body (Matt 5–7 and 23), depict Jesus’s teaching in sharp distinction from the Pharisees.
Two elements from the anti-Pharisaic polemics of these sections are relevant here. in the first place, this concerns the threefold demarcation over against religious practice of the “hypocrites” in Matt 6:1–18. almsgiving, praying, and fasting should not be done in public but “in secret” (ἐν
τῷ κρυπτῷ). it is plausible that this emphasis accords with the tradition of Jesus.23 some literary analysis is apposite. The three items of almsgiving, praying, and fasting are phrased in a uniform style with recurring expressions. in this framework the section with the Lord’s Prayer stands off by style and content (Matt 6:7–15).24 Moreover its first two verses (6:7–
8) are set off against “the gentiles” (ἐθνικοί), which is another contrast with the threefold framework and its polemics against the “hypocrites”
21. ὑποκριτής appears another seven times in Matthew and furthermore in Mark 7:6 and Luke 6:42; 12:56; and 13:15.
22. see Tomson, “If This Be from Heaven,” 267–76.
23. Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus, 420–21. The phrase is used also in Rom 2:29, and there may well represent an adaptation of Jesus tradition to the specific rhetorical purpose of Romans.
24. see the similarities in content between Matt 6:14–15 and Mark 11:25.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
(ὑποκριταί).25 it follows that an editor has inserted verses 7–15 at some stage of the gospel’s history.26 While his aim seems to have been to oppose the religious practice of the Pharisees, he left the antigentile orientation of 6:7 in place, with the neglect of coherence characteristic of gospel redactors. Taken as a whole, the similarity in content and terminology of Matt 6:1–18 with Did. 8 is striking.
The other element of anti-Pharisaic polemics consists in the prohibition ascribed to Jesus not to have oneself called “rabbi,” as is done by the scribes and Pharisees: “for you have one teacher.” Nor should one be called “father” or “instructor”: “for you have one father, the heavenly one”
(ὁ οὐράνιος) and “one instructor, the Messiah” (Matt 23:7–10). again the phrase “heavenly father” is typical of Matthew. furthermore, the mention of the “Messiah” (χριστός) definitely signals a late redactional stage.
The same appears from the selective use of “rabbi” in Matthew as compared with other gospels. in Mark and John, both Jesus and the Baptist are innocently called “rabbi” or “rabbouni.”27 Luke avoids the hebrew rabbi altogether and replaces it with the very Greek ἐπιστάτα (“master”; Luke 5:5; 8:24 [twice]; 9:33 [cf. Mark 9:5]; 9:49; 17:13). But Matthew, characteristically, replaces rabbi with “Lord” when Peter is speaking (Matt 17:4, cf.
Mark 9:5)—incidentally, a title curiously uncriticized in Matt 23:7–10—
but leaves it in place twice when it concerns “Judas who betrayed him”
(Matt 26:25, 49). hence “rabbi” is used in Matthew, but only by Jesus’s enemies, Judas and the Pharisees. it follows that in the extant late redactional stage, the Gospel turns against the title of “rabbi” used by the Pharisees, since it is perceived as a new extraneous phenomenon. seen in a larger perspective, this corresponds with the consistent use in rabbinic literature of “rabbi” as a formalized title for teachers working after the destruction of the temple. it seems Matthew is confronted with the novel phenomenon of
“rabbinic” Judaism, and by implication, the same is true of the Didache.28
25. for ἐθνικοί, see also Matt 5:47 and 18:17. see also the “correction” ὑποκριταί
in Matt 6:7 in Ms B, etc.
26. for the whole passage see Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus, 418–21.
27. ῥαββί: the Baptist: John 1:38; 3:26; Jesus: Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:49; 3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8. ῥαββουνί: Jesus: Mark 10:51; John 20:16.
28. The argument is more developed in Peter J. Tomson, “The Didache, Matthew, and Barnabas as sources for Jewish and christian history,” in Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries: How to Write Their History, ed. Peter J. Tomson and Joshua schwartz, cRiNT 13 (Leiden: Brill, 204), 348–82.
TOMsON: The LORD’s PRaYeR
175
This will do for an analysis of the early christian sources about the Lord’s Prayer. We now turn to the rabbinic sources about early Jewish prayer. This is a strange maneuver only as long as we presume that Jesus’s prayer was conceived and transmitted in a different world than that of other Jews. if we accept Jesus was a Jew, we must study his prayer as part of multiform ancient Jewish prayer.
4. The Development of early Jewish Prayer
The beginnings of organized Jewish prayer are difficult to assess. The main sources here are in rabbinic literature, a body of more or less loosely edited collections of disparate traditions originally transmitted orally, hard to date and evaluate historically. Recent decades have seen renewed discussion on the origins of ancient Jewish prayer. We are especially interested in the rabbinic main prayer designated the “eighteen Benedictions” in view of its content (although in actual practice, derived from Babylonian Jewry, it has nineteen). in hebrew it is also referred to as Tefillah (“the Prayer”) or amidah (“the standing”), a name strikingly reminiscent of the singular verse in Mark 11:25 reviewed above.
for a long time the view of ismar elbogen, originally published in 1913, has been dominant.29 elbogen concluded that, although the eighteen Benedictions was established in its actual form by Gamaliel the Younger by the end of the first century ce, its origins were much more ancient.30 Gamaliel’s contribution must have consisted only in providing the “arrangement” of the eighteen benedictions, which each had their own longer or shorter prehistory. in one case he found a direct motive in contemporaneous events: the Birkat haminim (or “Benediction about the heretics”) by which he meant to separate christians from Judaism.31 Both elements of elbogen’s theory (the gradual growth of the eighteen Benedictions and Gamaliel’s authorship of the “Benediction about the heretics”) have drawn criticism more recently. We deal with the former first.
29. ismar elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwick-lung (1913; repr. hildesheim: Olms, 1962), esp. 27–41. elbogen’s theory was further refined by Joseph heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns, sJ 9 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977). see also Gedalyahu alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980–1984), 1:266–72.
30. elbogen, Jüdische Gottesdienst, 30.
31. ibid., 36.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
in large part basing himself on nonrabbinic sources, ezra fleischer, in a long article published in 1989, set out to destroy the foundation of elbogen’s theory. his point of departure was that nowhere in the pre-70
sources do we find evidence of a statutory daily prayer. The synagogue was an “assembly” for scripture reading and teaching, not praying.32 Prayers were said on an individual basis, at any place but preferably in the temple, as also seen among Jesus’s disciples (acts 2:44; 3:1). Jesus was opposed to praying in public places (Matt 6:5–6) and liked to pray “in a deserted place” or “on a mountain.”33 Only the Qumran scrolls mention fixed daily community prayers, and the reason why is revealing. The sectarians denied the validity of the temple service in Jerusalem and formed a “human sanctuary,” replacing the sacrificial cult with their “spiritual” worship service.
The institution of obligatory daily prayer by Gamaliel the Younger was an analogous maneuver, necessitated by the destruction of the temple and the loss of its daily service as the frame of reference for the liturgy.
fleischer’s thesis found basic support but was criticized for its schematic approach.34 certainly the daily temple service was the referential center for Jewish prayers, and its discontinuation occasioned many innovations. in addition, however, the sources indicate that already before the destruction many kinds of communal and personal prayers were said outside the temple on the sabbath, festivals, and fast days, as also basic forms of daily prayer. so much appears from discussions about pertinent details 32. ezra fleischer, “On the Beginnings of Obligatory Jewish Prayer” (1990), in Statutory Jewish Prayers, ed. shulamit elizur and Tova Beeri (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2012), 1:3–47 (hebrew).
33. see Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus, 37, and see n. 31 above. a desire for intimate devotion is felt in the “cleansing of the temple” with the argument that it must be
“a house of prayer for all the nations”: Mark 11:17; Matt 21:13.
34. stefan c. Reif, “The Development of ancient Jewish Prayer,” Tarbiz 60 (1990–
1991): 677–81 (hebrew); see also stefan c. Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History. (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1995), 84, 90, 353–54; M. z. fuchs, “Teshuvot li-shenei mehapkhanim,” Sinai 114 (1994–
1995): 162–70; R. Langer, “Revisiting early Rabbinic Liturgy: The Recent contributions of ezra fleischer,” Prooftexts 19 (1999): 179–94. fleischer published a response to Reif, which was republished in fleischer, Statutory Jewish Prayers, 49–54, along with an answer to Langer in the same volume, 55–58. Reuven Kimelman, “Rabbinic Prayer in Late antiquity,” in The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, vol. 4 of The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. steven Katz (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 2006), 573–611, basically describes the amoraic period and takes no position on this issue.
TOMsON: The LORD’s PRaYeR
177
between the schools of shammai and hillel, which by and large predate the destruction of the temple. By consequence, Gamaliel’s intervention cannot have been a complete innovation (t. Roš haš. 2:17; Ber. 3:12).35 The evasive nature of the rabbinic sources makes it difficult to decide here and to determine exactly what happened. a safe conclusion seems that Gamaliel’s measure consisted in prescribing a personal and communal daily prayer consisting of (about) eighteen benedictions and that basic elements of these may have been extant already.36
We shall study the discussion about the institution of the eighteen Benedictions in a moment. first it is necessary to pay attention to the genre of “short prayers” mentioned in the course of the dispute. Let us review two related passages, one from the Mishnah, the central rabbinic collection of formulated laws, and the other from the Tosefta: Rabbi Yoshua says: “One who is underway at a dangerous place (at the hour of prayer), says a short prayer.37 (and) he says: ‘save, O Lord, your people38 israel. at every passage of crossing let their needs be before you.39 Blessed are you, Lord, who hears prayers.’ ” (m. Ber. 4:4)40
One who is underway at a dangerous place—with robbers—(at the hour of prayer), says a short prayer. What is a short prayer? Rabbi eliezer says:
“Your will be done in heaven above, and grant repose to those who fear 35. see shmuel safrai, “Gathering in the synagogues on festivals, sabbaths and Weekdays,” BARIS 499 (1989): 7–15; shmuel safrai and zeev safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel: Tractate Brachot (Jerusalem: Liphshitz, 2010), 164–76 (hebrew).
36. see also the important observations by Naomi cohen, “The Nature of shim’on hapekuli’s act,” Tarbiz 52 (1982–1983): 547–55 (hebrew); “Ma hideish shmuel hakatan ba-virkat ha-minim?” Sinai 94 (1984–1985): 57–70.
37. The added phrase ןיעמ הנמש הרשע in Ms Kaufmann, otherwise the prime manuscript, does not appear in a number of other important manuscripts and must be rejected as a harmonization with m. Ber. 4:3.
38. תיראש is lacking in Ms Kaufmann and the Yerushalmi.
39. Ms Kaufmann first hand ףינפלמ םהיכרוצ רבעה רובצה תשרפ לכב. safrai and safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, 174–76, agreeing with a study by David henshke, accept this reading as authentic, רובצה תשרפ being equivalent to רובצה ןמ םישרופ (“those who part from the community’”). This renders the meaning “all those parting from the community, let their needs be hidden before you,” thus representing a primitive form of the Birkat haminim.
40. Translations from rabbinic literature here and in the following are mine.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
you, and do what is good in your eyes. Blessed be he who hears prayers.”
(t. Ber. 3:7)
The Tosefta is a companion text to the Mishnah,41 and we have here a nice example of how it can quote, supplement, and comment on the Mishnah.
in this case the Tosefta supplements an alternative example of a “short prayer,” more precisely, one delivered by R. eliezer, the habitual partner in discussion of R. Yoshua. Both rabbis were contemporaries of Gamaliel the Younger, which would date the prayer texts they are attributed with to the later first century ce.
significantly, eliezer’s “short prayer” shows some striking similarities with the Lord’s Prayer in its Matthean form, especially the sentence, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”42 By its form and size, Yoshua’s prayer text is also comparable, and the same goes for other “short prayers”
quoted in related sources. correctly therefore, Jesus’s prayer has been recognized as belonging in the category of “short prayers.”43
This sheds a revealing light on the narrative introduction in Luke 12:1–
5, where one of the disciples asks Jesus to teach them a prayer “as also John taught his disciples.” The passages from Mishnah and Tosefta just reviewed and the Lukan narrative converge in informing us of the existence of short
“model prayers” taught by various Jewish teachers including Jesus.
The phenomenon of “short prayers” did not mean one would always be brief in praying. Variance in length and wording was always understood. it is told of R. akiva, a younger contemporary of eliezer and Yoshua, that his 41. abraham Goldberg, “The Tosefta: companion to the Mishna,” in Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, vol. 1 of The Literature of the Sages, ed. shmuel safrai, cRiNT 2.3a, (assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: fortress, 1987), 283–98.
42. interestingly, eliezer is attributed with other opinions reminiscent of the teachings of Jesus: (1) Torah is more important than subsistence (Jacob Nachum epstein and ezra zion Melamed, eds., Mekhilta d’Rabbi Šimon b. Jochai [Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1955], 106; in h. s. horovitz and i. a. Rabin, eds., Mechilta d’Rabbi Ismael [Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1930, repr., 1970], 161, the author is R. elazar from Modiin); see also Matt 6:25–34; Luke 21:22–32; (2) circumcision overrules sabbath; t. Šabb. 15:16 and John 7:23; (3) obligations to parents overrule vows; m. Ned. 9:1 and Mark 7:9–13 = Matt 15:3–6; (4) prayer must be personal supplication: see below.
43. samuel Tobias Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1987), 118–19. Other short prayers: t. Ber. 4:4 (8b); b. Ber. 29b, with all traditions put together.
TOMsON: The LORD’s PRaYeR
179
prayer would be short when serving as prayer leader, but extremely long when saying his private prayer (t. Ber. 3:5). By the same token, Luke tells us not only that Jesus taught his disciples a short prayer, but also that by himself he would pray through the night (Luke 6:12).
indirectly this reveals that Luke does not want to tell us, as Origen thought (Or. 2.4–5),44 that Jesus taught his disciples the type of “spiritual prayers” he said himself. he did not teach them a long, spirit-driven prayer, but a “short prayer” of the type the Baptist and other teachers were known also to have taught, obviously in order to provide their disciples with an example on which to model and develop their own prayers. The Lord’s Prayer, much like other “short prayers,” was meant as a minimum, a ration for times when words are scarce.
5. The institution of the eighteen Benedictions We now turn to the institution of the eighteen Benedictions by Gamaliel the Younger as reported in rabbinic literature. he appears here as Rabban Gamliel, “Gamliel our Master,” the strong leader of a regime of rabbis that resided in Yavneh, a small town West of Jerusalem, one generation after the destruction of the temple. he is attributed with a series of administrative decrees seemingly aimed at lending new structure and coherence to Jewish worship after the demise of the temple ritual.45 in recent decades the actual power of his regime has become the object of serious doubt.46
Two elements deserving of more attention in the discussion than is usual are the rabbinic indications (esp. m. ‘ed. 7:7) of the support Gamaliel 44. his wish to stress the difference with synagogue prayers is frustrated by the parallel with John the Baptist.
45. standard summary in alon, Jews in Their Land, 206–87.
46. The evolving work of Jacob Neusner led the way. it is interesting to compare the first edition of his A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai c. 1–80 CE, stPB
6 (Leiden: Brill, 1962) with the “completely revised edition” of 1970. see also Peter schäfer, “Die sogenannte synode von Jabne; zur Trennung von Juden und christen im ersten/zweiten Jh. n. chr.” Judaica 31 (1975): 54–64, 116–24; Peter schäfer, Der Bar Kochba-Aufstand: Studien zum zweiten jüdischen Krieg gegen Rom (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 1981). More recently, see seth schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200
BCE to 640 CE (Princeton: Princeton university Press, 2001). for discussion, see Peter J. Tomson, “Transformations in Post-70 Judaism: scholarly Reconstructions and Their implications for our Perception of Matthew, Didache, and James,” in van de sandt, Matthew, James and Didache, 91–121.
The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe
might have had from the Roman administration (which some think indicates a relative power base for his regime)47 and, in this connection, the sympathy that the Rome-based Josephus shows for the “Pharisees” in the later works around 100 ce, that is, the time when Gamaliel is estimated to have risen to power (see Josephus, Life 428–429).48 The present paper is tangentially connected with this discussion and in that respect emphasizes a third element: the import of the evidence contained in early christian sources.49 The sources about the Lord’s Prayer are a case in point.
Gamaliel’s initiative is preserved in the Mishnah. This document is to be seen as a redacted selection from multiple strands of oral tradition, aiming at formulating rabbinic law concerning all domains of life. its style is characteristically concise and often consists of a listing of opinions. in these a succession of layers representing subsequent generations of teachers is often discernible. The thickest layer is the one corresponding to the generation of usha, ca. 150 ce, usha being the rabbinical centre during that period. from a redaction-historical point of view, the question always is what intention the final editor of the Mishnah (according to tradition R.
Yehuda the Prince, ca. 200 ce) may have had in arranging (or omitting) the various opinions.50 We cite the relevant part from the tractate Berakhot, “Benedictions,” up till the words of R. Yoshua about “short prayers”