7:21

coming (εἰσελεύσεται)

12.1

coming (ἐρχόμενος)

by doing the father’s will

in the name of the Lord

7:22

in your name (ὀνόματι)

12.1

Receive one who comes in the

name (= ὀνόματι) of the Lord

7:22

We cast out demons

16.4

World-deceiver will do signs

(δαιμόνια)

(σημεῖα)

and did many wonders

and wonders (τέρατα)

(δυνάμεις)

7:23

Being not received

10.6

if anyone is not holy, let them

(ἀποχωρεῖτε)

repent (μετανοείτω)

11.2

Do not listen to those who teach

another teaching

7:23

Being known (ἔγνων)

12.1

Being known (γνώσεσθε)

11.2

Receive one who builds knowl-

edge (γνῶσιν) of the Lord

7:23

Workers of iniquity (ἀνομία)

16.4

iniquity (= ἀνομία) will increase

5.2

Lawless (ἄνομοι) judges of the

poor (πενήτων) (B2)

7:24

hearing and doing (ποιεῖ)

11.10 The teacher who does not teach

what he does (= ποιεῖ)

7:27

floods, winds, fall (πτῶσις)

16.5

Burning, destruction

(ἀπολοῦνται)

7:28

his teaching (διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ)

1.0

The apostles’ teaching (διδαχή

τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων)

The Lord Jesus and his coming in the Didache Murray J. Smith

1. introduction

The eschatological vision of the Didache centers on the “coming of the Lord” (Did. 16.1, 7–8; cf. 10.6). But which “Lord” does the Didache expect to come? in his 2003 commentary, aaron Milavec argues that the Didache does not employ the title κύριος (“Lord”) for Jesus. On this reading, the

“coming of the Lord” envisaged in Did. 16.1–8 is not the “second coming”

of christian expectation, but the great and final coming of God expected in the hebrew scriptures. “all of the instances of ‘Lord’ in the Didache,”

Milavec argues, “ought to be understood as referring to the Lord God.”1

“it is quite clear,” he concludes, “that it is the Lord God who is awaited.”2

Milavec goes on to suggest that “further study is necessary in order to situate the Didache in the spectrum of christologies that developed during the first two centuries.”3 his own suspicion, following the earlier work of T. f. Glasson and John a. T. Robinson, is that such study will reveal in the Didache “the most primitive christology of all.”4 The christology of the Didache, he suspects, is relatively “low”: Jesus appears primarily as

“servant” rather than as “Lord”; eschatological expectation remains firmly fixed on God the father.5

1. aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE (New York: Newman Press, 2003), 665.

2. ibid., 665.

3. ibid., 663.

4. ibid., 663 citing T. f. Glasson, The Second Advent: The Origin of the New Testament Doctrine, 3rd rev. ed. (London: epworth, 1963), 162–79; John a. T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming, 2nd ed. (London: scM, 1979), 56, 140.

5. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 665: in the christology of the

-363 -

364

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

This paper makes a modest contribution to the christological question identified by Milavec. The task—perhaps surprisingly one not yet attempted—is to systematically examine the identity of the “Lord” in the Didache, with special reference to the eschatological “coming of the Lord”

in Did. 16.1, 7–8 (see also 10.6). The argument proceeds in two stages.

first, an examination of the twenty-one occurrences of κύριος in the Didache outside Did. 16 reveals that in the vast majority of cases the term at least includes reference to the Lord Jesus. second, an analysis of Did.

10.6, 16.1, 7–8 demonstrates that the Didache does not merely repeat the eschatological vision of the biblical theophany tradition, but develops it christologically to present the final “coming of the Lord” as the “coming”

of the Lord Jesus.

Thus, like a range of other early christian texts, the Didache includes Jesus within the identity of the one true God of israel and so reworks the Jewish “coming of God” tradition around him. it is concluded, therefore, that even if the christology of the Didache is “primitive,” it is, nevertheless, remarkably “high.” Like the earliest christian texts collected in the New Testament, the Didache reserves a central role in the eschatological drama for Jesus.

2. The identity of the “Lord” in the Didache outside chapter 16

2.1. Κύριος in the Didache in the context of the early Jewish and christian Literature

The Greek text of the Didache preserved in codex hierosolymitanus, the only extant Greek manuscript, employs the crucial term κύριος a total of twenty-four times (Did. 1.0; 4.1 (x 2), 11, 12, 13; 6.2; 8.2; 9.5 (x 2); 10.5; 11.2 (x 2), 4, 8; 12.1; 14.1, 3 (x 2); 15.1, 4; 16.1, 7, 8).6 The ancient Greek versions of the hebrew scriptures habitually employ κύριος to translate the divine name (הוהי). for this reason, Milavec’s case that κύριος

consistently means “God” deserves serious consideration. Nevertheless, the very earliest christian texts, namely the Pauline epistles, routinely Didache “attachment … to Jesus” does not disrupt “the eschatological roles assigned to the father.”

6. for the text and associated traditions, see esp. Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, trans. Linda M. Maloney, hermeneia (Minneapolis: fortress, 1998), 4–52.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 365

(if remarkably), apply to Jesus a range of texts from the scriptures of israel that originally referred to the Lord God. in this way, they regularly include Jesus within the identity of the one true God of israel, identifying Jesus as “Lord” (= κύριος).7 This practice is attested as early as 49–50

ce when Paul and his companions wrote 1 Thessalonians (e.g., 1 Thess 3:13 with zech 14:5; and 1 Thess 4:16–17 with exod 19:11–19; Mic 1:3; isa 64:1–3).8 indeed, the presuppositional way in which Paul and his companions speak of Jesus as “the Lord” in this letter and then predicate of him a range of prerogatives that from a biblical perspective belong to

“the Lord” God alone renders it likely that this understanding of Jesus as

“Lord” goes back further still.9

These brief considerations, of course, cannot decide the meaning of κύριος in the Didache. They do, however, reveal the range of interpretive possibilities for the title κύριος in the early Jewish and christian literature. in particular, since the very earliest extant christian texts present a very “high” christology by applying the title κύριος to Jesus, there is no a priori reason to expect a “low” christology in the Didache, even if it is dated amongst the earliest christian texts.10 indeed, the following analysis demonstrates that the twenty-one references to κύριος outside Did.

16 support the recognition of a “high” christology in the Didache. These references may be classified as follows: (1) five almost certainly refer to the Lord Jesus (Did. 8.2; 9.5 [x 2]; 14.1; 15.4); (2) eleven most likely refer to the Lord Jesus (Did. title; 4.1 [x 2]; 6.2; 10.5; 11.2 [x 2], 4, 8; 12.1; 15.1); 7. compare: 1 cor 8:4–6 with Deut 6:4; Rom 10:9–13 with isa 28:16/Joel 2:32

(LXX Joel 3:5); Phil 2:9–11 with isa 45:22–23 and 1 cor 15:25; Rom 8:34; eph 1:20; col 3:1 with Ps 110:1. see esp. here: Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2008); see also Larry hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2003); Gordon D. fee, Pauline Christology: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Peabody, Ma: hendrickson, 2007), 631–38.

8. fee, Pauline Christology, 41–55.

9. see Murray J. smith, “The Thessalonian correspondance,” in All Things to All Cultures: Paul among Jews, Greeks and Romans, ed. Mark harding and alanna M.

Nobbs (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2013), 269–301.

10. On the date of the Didache and the composite nature of the text, see the survey of opinion in Niederwimmer, Didache, 52–53, who dates the final form of the text to ca. 110–20 ce.

366

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

(3) four quite possibly refer to the Lord Jesus, but remain indeterminate (Did. 4.12, 13; 14.3 [x 2]); (4) one refers to human masters (Did. 4.11).11

2.2. Texts in Which the “Lord” is almost certainly the Lord Jesus at five points in the Didache κύριος almost certainly refers to Jesus.

(1) Didache 8.2 introduces a citation of a Lord’s Prayer tradition very similar to Matt 6:9–13 as something “the Lord commanded in his gospel”:12

μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ

εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ οὕτω προσεύχεσθε

The question of the form in which the author of the Didache knew the Jesus tradition has received significant scholarly attention in recent years.13

in relation to this text (Did. 8.2), it seems most likely that the Didache reflects knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew in its finished form, or at least knowledge of some other written gospel source, though this is much debated.14 Be that as it may, there is no surviving record of the Lord God of 11. for a comparable analysis see Niederwimmer, Didache, 135 n. 5, who considers that κύριος refers to Jesus at: “title ( = 1.0), 4.1; 6.2; 8.2; 9.5; 10.5; 11.2; 11.4, 8; 12.1; 14.1; 15.1, 4; 16.1, 7, 8. But not: 4.12, 13; 14.3.” consideration of the three references to the “Lord” in Did. 16 is reserved for part 2 below. Didache 4.11 may be safely excluded from the present discussion.

12. english translations from the Didache, except where noted, are those of Michael W. holmes, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Father: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

13. see especially the exchange between christopher Tuckett and aaron Milavec: christopher M. Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” in The New Testament in Early Christianity, ed. Jean-Marie sevrin, BeTL 86 (Leuven: Leuven university Press; Peeters, 1989), 197–230; aaron Milavec, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited,” JECS 11 (2003): 443–80; christopher M. 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. for a review see Murray J. smith, “The Gospels in early christian Literature,” in The Content and Setting of the Gospel Traditions, ed. Mark harding and alanna M. Nobbs (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2010), 181–207. The most recent contribution is that of stephen e. Young, Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers: Their Explicit Appeals to the Words of Jesus in Light of Orality Studies, WuNT 2/311 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2011).

14. for dependence on Matthew or a pre-Matthean written gospel, see eduard Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus, trans. Norman J. Belval and suzanne hecht, 3 vols., NGs 5.2 (Leuven:

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 367

israel commanding a prayer such as this (Did. 8.2). in the sources known to us the only “Lord” who commanded such a prayer is the Lord Jesus.

almost certainly, then, the κύριος here is Jesus of Nazareth.15

(2–3) Didache 9.5 contains two references to the “Lord.”

Μηδεὶς δὲ φαγέτω μηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ὑμῶν ἀλλ᾿ οἱ

βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου καὶ γὰρ περὶ τούτου εἴρηκεν ὁ κύριος·Μὴ

δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί

These two references to the “Lord” come in the context of a eucharistic prayer addressed to God “our father” and exhibiting a Davidic christology (Did. 9.2, 3).16 Nevertheless, the considerations below make it almost Peeters; Macon, Ga: Mercer university Press, 1990), 3:145; James a. Kelhoffer, “‘how soon a Book’ Revisited: ΕuΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ as a Reference to ‘Gospel’ Materials in the first half of the second century,” ZNW 95 (2004): 1–34 (22); christopher M. Tuckett,

“The Didache and the Writings that Later formed the New Testament,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1 of The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. andrew f. Gregory and christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2005), 104–6. The majority, however, argue for independence from Matthew and/or a written gospel source, seeing a reference here to the oral proclamation of the gospel and/or liturgical tradition. see esp. Kirsopp Lake, “The Didache,” in The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: clarendon, 1905), 28; Rudolf Knopf, Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel: Die zwei Clemensbriefe, vol. 1 of Die apostolischen Väter, hNT.e (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 1920), 23; helmut Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern, TuGaL 65/5.10 (Berlin: akademie-Verlag, 1957), 10 (but see also 203 where he concedes that “an interpretation in terms of a written gospel is not entirely impossible”); Jean-Paul audet, La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres, ebib (Paris: Gabalda, 1958), 173; Richard Glover, “The Didache’s Quotations and the synoptic Gospels,” NTS 5 (1958): 12–29 (19); Jonathan a. Draper,

“The Jesus Tradition in the Didache,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 86; Niederwimmer, Didache, 136; Milavec,

“synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisted,” 452.

15. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 664–65 suggests that “when it is remembered that Jesus proclaims the ‘good news of God’ and that those who hear him, hear the Lord God, then it does not seem strange to attribute to the Lord God a rule of praying.” But this must surely be regarded as special pleading. in the context of the early christian recognition of Jesus as “Lord,” the most natural assumption is that the “Lord” here is the one who actually taught the prayer.

16. see Jonathan a. Draper, “eschatology in the Didache,” in Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents, ed. Jan G. van der Watt, WuNT 2/315

(Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2011), 569–70.

368

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

certain that the Lord Jesus is, at very least, included in the intended referent of the term “Lord” in both instances.

in the first instance, Did. 9.5a commands “let no one eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord” (ἀλλ᾿ οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου). This brief expression recalls Did. 7.1, 3, which instructs that baptism be into the singular name (τὸ ὄνομα) of the triune God: “Baptize in the name of the father and of the son, and of the holy spirit.” Moreover, the construction here is identical with that found at Matt 28:19 and similar to that presented by Justin (Apol. 1.61.3, 10, 13). for our purposes, it is again not necessary to enter the debate about the relationship between Matthew and the Didache.17 it is enough to note that in the context of Did. 7.1, 3, and the parallel expressions in Matt 28:19 and in Justin, the “Lord” at Did. 9.5a, into whose

“name” baptism is to be made, is most naturally understood as the name of the triune God of christian confession, inclusive of the Lord Jesus.

The second reference to “the Lord” in Did. 9.5b follows immediately, when the Didache introduces a saying identical to Jesus’s statement in Matt 7:6 with the words “for the Lord has also spoken concerning this.” as at Did. 8.2, it seems most likely that the Gospel of Matthew stands behind this citation, though this is debated.18 There are some comparative sayings in the ancient wisdom literature19 and in Jewish sayings about what is holy to the temple being eaten by dogs.20 Nevertheless, the verbatim correspondence between this saying and Matt 7:6 and the attribution of 17. see note 12 above.

18. for dependence on Matthew, see Donald a. hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, NovTsup 34 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 280; Klaus Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Clemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet, su 2 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgessellschaft, 1984), 28; Massaux, Influence of the Gosepl of Saint Matthew, 3:156. To the contrary, see esp. Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 198–200, 240.

19. hermann von Lips, “schweine füttert man, hunde nicht—ein Versuch, das Rätsel von Matthäus 7:6 zu lösen,” ZNW 79 (1988): 165–86 (177–78) draws attention to a class of sayings in which inappropriate animal food symbolises inappropriate human behaviour (e.g., “to feed water to a frog”; “a dog does not eat cooking herbs”).

20. 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 (230 n. 17 and 234–38); see also Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope and Life, 665.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 369

similar sayings to Jesus in other early christian texts21 renders it almost certain that the “Lord” intended here is the Lord Jesus.22

(4) Didache 14.1a commands the community, “having been gathered together,” to “break bread” and “give thanks” “on the Lord’s Day”: κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες κλάσατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε

The κύριος, here again, is almost certainly the Lord Jesus. To begin with, the pleonastic expression κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου uses both the adjective κυριακός and the noun κύριος to refer to a day of the week.23 This usage is distinctively christian: in addition to the reference here, the “Lord’s Day”

is widely attested in the early christian writings (Rev 1:10; ign. Magn. 9.1; Gos. Pet. 9.35; 13.50; clement of alexandria, Strom. 7.12; eusebius, Hist.

eccl. 4.26.2 [Melito of sardis]; 4.23.8 [Dionysius of corinth]; Origen, Cels.

8.22) and is closely associated with the celebration of Jesus’s resurrection (see esp. ign. Magn. 9.1; cf. Barn. 15.9; Justin, Apol. 1.67.3, 7; Dial. 24.1; 41.4; 138.1).24 Thus the “Lord” referred to here is almost certainly the Lord Jesus. Moreover, the Didache here commands that on this “Lord’s Day,” the community “having been gathered together” (συναχθέντες), should “break 21. similar sayings are attributed to Jesus in other early christian sources. The first half of the saying appears in the Gospel according to Basilides in epiphanius, Pan.

1.24.5, and a similar logion is found in Gos. Thom. 93.

22. so, correctly, Niederwimmer, Didache, 153, contra Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, Life, 665, whose arguments, however, do not stand up under close scrutiny.

he argues: (1) the Didache is “focally centered on the father’s revelation”; but this assumes an answer to the very question under discussion; (2) the introductory formula is paralleled at Did. 14.3, where it introduces the word of the Lord God through Malachi. But since there is no biblical citation here, the parallel is not exact; (3) Matt 7:6, unlike Did. 9.5, contains no “oblique reference to the eucharist,” but this can be easily explained as a different application of the same saying by the two texts.

23. The so-called Georgian version supports the more natural καθ᾽ἡμέραν δὲ

κυρίου conjectured by audet, Didachè, 72–73, 240, 460. The value of this Georgian version is, however, highly questionable (see Niederwimmer, Didache, 27), and there is at any rate no reason to question the text of codex hierosolymitanus. as Niederwimmer, Didache, 195 n. 6 notes, apos. con. 7.30.1 interprets the phrase with the extended gloss τὴν ἀναστάσιμον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμέραν τὴν κυριακήν φαμεν (“the day of the resurrection of the Lord, we say the ‘Lord’s Day’”), which probably reveals that it had both κυριακήν and κυρίου in its source (i.e., Did. 14.1).

24. see Richard Bauckham, “The Lord’s Day,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, ed.

D. a. carson (Grand Rapids: zondervan, 1982), 221–50.

370

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

bread” and “give thanks.” Though not without Jewish antecedents, this is once again distinctively christian language for the practice of remembering and celebrating the death of Jesus (Luke 24:35; 1 cor 10:16; acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 27:35; ign. Eph. 20.2; see also Pseudo-clement, Hom. 14.1.4).

The κύριος on whose day the community gathers is undoubtedly the same κύριος celebrated in the breaking of bread and the giving of thanks. The κύριος here is Jesus.

(5) Didache 15.4 encourages its readers to conduct “prayers” and “acts of charity” “just as you find it in the gospel of our Lord”: τὰς δὲ εὐχὰς ὑμῶν καὶ τὰς ἐλεημοσύνας καὶ πάσας τὰς πράξεις οὕτω

ποιήσατε ὡς ἔχετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.

“The gospel of our Lord” here almost certainly means “the gospel of Jesus.”

Milavec, by contrast, asserts that since Jesus proclaimed the “good news of God,” not “‘the good news of Jesus’ … it must be supposed that this is the ‘good news of our Lord God.’ ”25 against this, however, three considerations argue that the “Lord,” here again, is the Lord Jesus.

first, the phrase “gospel of our Lord” (εὐαγγελίον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν) is a distinctively christian construction. On the one hand, the phrase does not appear in the LXX or in the extant Greco-Roman literature of the first century. On the other hand, the phrase “gospel of the/our Lord”

does appear elsewhere in the early christian literature and with explicit reference to Jesus (e.g., 2 Thess 1:8: “the gospel of our Lord Jesus christ”

[τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ]).26 Thus, despite the fact that early christian “gospel” language had its roots in the scriptures of israel (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:42; Jer 20:15; Pss 40:9; 68:11; 96:2; isa 40:9, 27; 52:7; 61:1) and spoke polemically into the Greco-Roman world, the construction “gospel of our Lord” is distinctively christian.27 second, the statement “as you find it/have it in the gospel” (ὡς ἔχετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ), which is repeated from 25. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 663.

26. The New Testament texts do, of course, also speak of the “gospel of God”

(Mark 1:14; Rom 1:1; 15:16; 1 Thess 2:2, 8–9; 1 Pet 4:17), but in early christian texts it can never simply be assumed that θεός and κύριος are synonymous. as a case in point, Rom 1:1–4 speaks of the “gospel of God,” but then applies κύριος specifically to Jesus.

27. for the origins of christian use of the term εὐαγγελίον and its cognates and the subsequent application of this language to written documents, see smith, “Gospels in early christian Literature,” 182–89.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 371

the previous verse (Did. 15.3), seems to suggest a written gospel book. 28

in this connection, it is significant that the contents of this “gospel” indicated at Did. 15.3–4 bear significant resemblance to Jesus’s instructions in the Gospel of Matthew (see Matt 5:22; 6:2, 5; 18:15–17).29 The similarities are not close enough to prove that the Didache knew Matthew, but the reminiscences of Jesus’s teaching here are surely significant. Third, more briefly, in the context of Jewish–Gentile polemic evident in the Didache (e.g., 8.1–2), the personal pronoun ἡμῶν (“gospel of our Lord”) most likely indicates the distinctively christian “Lord.” Taken together, these considerations indicate that the “Lord” associated with the “gospel” at Did. 15.4, as already at Did. 8.2, is none other than the Lord Jesus.

2.3. Texts in Which the “Lord” is Most Likely the Lord Jesus in eleven other cases, κύριος most likely refers to Jesus.

(1) Didache 1.0 (= Title): The longer of the two titles in codex hierosolymitanus most likely refers to the “Lord” Jesus.30 since most of the ancient witnesses use the short title (without “Lord”), some have questioned the originality of the long title.31 it is significant, however, that the long title appears as the introduction to the main text, while the short title 28. see esp. Kelhoffer, “how soon a Book,” 24–27. even by those who deny that εὐαγγελίον at Did. 8.2 and 11.3 refers to a written document recognize that the reference here is to a written gospel. e.g., Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 10–11; Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter, dGL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975), 253–54; Willy Rordorf and andré Tuilier, La doctrine des douze Apôtres (Didachè), sc 248 bis (Paris: cerf, 1978), 88, 194 n. 4; Niederwimmer, Didache, 204.

29. Kelhoffer, “how soon a Book,” 25 notes that Did. 15.4’s reference to ἐλεημοσύνη (“alms/acts of charity”) serves to connect the Didache to Matt 6, since the only three occurrences of this term in the Gospel of Matthew appear in Matt 6:2–4, and the term otherwise appears in the New Testament only in Luke-acts and then in quite different contexts (Luke 11:41; 12:33; acts 3:2–3, 10; 9:36; 10:2, 4, 31; 24:17).

There are also partial parallels to Did. 15.3–4 at 1Qs V, 24–25 and 1 clem. 63.2, but these are not as close as the parallels with Matthew and, at any rate, are not found in books identified by the term “gospel.”

30. The long title reads “Teaching of the Lord [κυρίου] through the Twelve apostles to the Nations.” The short title has simply διδαχὴ τῶν δῶδεκα ἀποστόλων

(“Teaching of the Twelve apostles”).

31. e.g., Niederwimmer, Didache, 56 n. 5, citing eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.25.4; athanasius, Ep. fest. 39.11; Pseudo-athanasius, Synopsis scripturae sacrae 76; Indi-

372

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

appears in a separate line above the main text.32 for this reason, the possibility that the long title is original cannot be ruled out. if so, then the mention of the “twelve apostles” and the evident parallels to acts 2:42 and Matt 28:19 most likely indicate that the κύριος here is Jesus.

(2–3) Didache 4.1: The two references to the “Lord” at Did. 4.1 most likely also refer to Jesus. The text addresses a student as “my child,” and encourages the student to respect his teacher “as the Lord” (ὡς κύριον). The reason given is that “wherever the Lord’s nature [ἡ κυριότης] is preached, there the Lord is [ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν].” The use of the same noun κυριότης

at hermas, sim. 5.6.1, with clear reference to Jesus, together with the parallels between this section and other early christian texts (heb 13:7; Matt 18:20 and especially Barn. 19.9–10), suggest that the sayings in Did. 4.1

reflect a distinctively christian context and thus refer to the distinctively christian “Lord.”33

(4) Didache 6.2: The encouragement at Did. 6.2 that “if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord [εἰ μὲν γὰρ δύνασαι βαστάσαι ὅλον τὸν

ζυγὸν τοῦ κυρίου], you will be perfect” most likely intends the “yoke of the Lord Jesus.” To be sure, Jewish texts employ the image of the “yoke” in various ways.34 Nevertheless, the Jewish sources nowhere explicitly speak cium scriptorium canonicorum sexagesima; Pseudo-Nicephorus, Stichometry; Pseudo-cyprian, De aleat. 4.

32. The originality of the long title was defended by Philip schaff, The Oldest Church Manual Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostle (ΔΙΔΑΧΗ ΤΩΝ ΔΩΔΕΚΑ

ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ): The Didachè and Kindred Documents (London: T&T clark; New York: funk & Wagnalls, 1885), 14, 162. adolf von harnack, Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel nebst Untersuchungen zur ältesten Geschichte der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts TuGaL 2.1, 2 (Leipzig: hinrichs, 1884; repr., Berlin: akademie, 1991), 24–37

similarly considered the longer title original and the shorter title to be an abbreviation of it. for what it is worth, the Georgian text, which is probably a modern translation, preserves the longer title (further expanded), including the reference to the “Lord”:

“Teaching of the Twelve apostles, Written in the Year 90 or 100 after the Lord christ: Teaching of the Lord, conveyed to humanity through the Twelve apostles.”

33. see the similar judgment of Niederwimmer, Didache, 105.

34. The “yoke” of (1) the Torah or the commandments (Jer 5:5; 2 Bar. 41.3; m. ’abot 3:5; m. Ber. 2:2; see also acts 15:10; Gal 5:1); (2) written revelation (Liv.

Pro. Dan. 6; 2 en. 48.9); (3) wisdom (sir 51:26); (4) “heaven” (sipre Deut. 323); (5) the “kingdom of heaven” (b. Ber. 10b); (6) “the kingdom” (3 en. 35.6). see further: herman L. strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922), 1:608–10; G. Bertram and K. Rengstorf, “ζυγός,”

TDNT 2:898–904.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 373

of “the yoke of the Lord.” The closest parallels come in the Psalms of solomon where “solomon,” addressing God in prayer, says (7.9) “we (shall be) under your yoke for ever” (ἡμεῖς ὑπὸ ζυγόν σου τὸν αἰῶνα) and later speaks of the gentiles coming under the “yoke” of the Messiah (17.30).

More significant, then, is Jesus’s invitation at Matt 11:29–30: “take my yoke upon you … for my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν

μου ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς … ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν

ἐστιν). Other early christian texts similarly refer to the “yoke” of the Lord Jesus. Justin (Dial. 53.1) speaks of the disciples “having borne the yoke of his (= christ’s) word” (τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ βαστάσαντες). christians are likewise spoken of as those “who through him have come under the yoke of his (= Jesus’) grace” (οἱ ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ δι᾿

αὐτοῦ ἐλθόντες) in 1 clem. 16.17.35 in the context of these significant christian parallels, it is most likely that the “Lord” intended at Did. 6.2 is the Lord Jesus.

(5) Didache 10.5: This text is the third and final benediction of the extended prayer of thanksgiving in Did. 10.2–5, and also most likely refers to Jesus as “Lord.”36 The prayer is based on the Jewish Birkat hamazon.37 it addresses “you, holy father” (Did. 10.2) in the first benediction and “you, almighty Master” (Did. 10.3) in the second benediction, before it speaks of “your servant” (Did. 10.3) in clear reference to Jesus.38 in this context, it might be suggested that the “Lord” addressed in the third benediction at Did. 10.5 is the “holy father” and “almighty master” of the preceding verses. four considerations, however, suggest to the contrary that the Lord addressed at Did. 10.5 at least includes reference to the Lord Jesus. first, Did. 10.5 begins a new section in which the christianization already evident in the first two benedictions is taken further.39 The close of the second 35. see also Barn. 2.6, which gives “yoke” a more negative connotation and speaks of “the new law of our Lord Jesus christ, which is free from the yoke of compulsion” (ὁ

καινὸς νόμος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἄνευ ζυγοῦ ἀνάγκης ὤν).

36. for analysis of the structure of the prayer, see Niederwimmer, Didache, 155.

37. for the Birkat hamazon, see especially Louis finkelstein, “The Birkat haMazon,” JQR Ns 19 (1928–1929): 211–62.

38. see the specification of the “servant” as Jesus at Did. 9.2, 3; 10.2. The coptic translation and the so-called Georgian version (such as it is) both also specify at Did. 10.3 that the servant is Jesus. for the coptic, see carl schmidt, “Das koptische Didache-fragment des British Museum,” ZNW 24 (1925): 81–99 (85, 97).

39. Martin Dibelius, “Die Mahl-Gebete der Didache,” in Zum Urchristentum und zur hellenistischen Religionsgeschichte, vol. 2 of Botschaft und Geschichte, ed. heinz

374

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

benediction is clearly marked at Did. 10.4 by the doxological statement “to you be the glory forever.” We therefore cannot assume the same addressee for the third benediction as for the first two. second, the Didache’s evident prototrinitarianism (Did. 7.1, 3) makes it perfectly possible that here, as occasionally elsewhere in the early christian literature, the renewed prayer in Did. 10.5 might be directed to Jesus as “Lord” (see acts 7:59; ign. Eph. 20.1).40 Third, the Didache’s prayer is reminiscent of a number of dominical sayings in which Jesus himself is the subject: the request for the Lord to “make it (the church) perfect in your love” is reminiscent of Jesus’s prayer that the church will be perfected by his presence among them (John 17:23); the reference to the church as “your church Lord” (κύριε, τῆς

ἐκκλησίας σου) resembles Jesus’s promise “i will build my church” (Matt 16:18: οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν); the request for the Lord to “gather it (the church) from the four winds” (σύναξον αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων

ἀνέμων) parallels Jesus’s prophesy that the “son of man” at his “coming”

will “gather [his] elect from the four winds” (Mark 13:27: ἐπισυνάξει τοὺς

ἐκλεκτοὺς [αὐτοῦ] ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων);41 the prayer for the Lord to gather the church “into your kingdom, which you have prepared for it” (εἰς

τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν ἣν ἡτοίμασας αὐτῇ) is reminiscent of the words Jesus gives to “the king” in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:34).42

in each of these cases, Jesus’s words about himself from the canonical gospels appear as requests to the Lord in the Didache.43 Whatever the literary relationships between these texts, these connections suggest that Jesus is Kraft and Günther. Bornkamm (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 1956), 124–25; Niederwimmer, Didache, 155–61.

40. for early christian prayers directed to Jesus, see hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 618.

41. at Mark 13:27 the son of man is the subject of the verb ἐπισυνάξει. at Matt 24:31 the son of man’s role in gathering the elect is mediated by the angels (καὶ

ἀποστελεῖ τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ … καὶ ἐπισυνάξουσιν τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ). The phrase is also reminiscent of zech 2:10 LXX: διότι ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων τοῦ

οὐρανοῦ συνάξω ὑμᾶς, λέγει κύριος.

42. Massaux, Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 3:163 regards the phrase ἣν

ἡτοίμασας αὐτῇ as evidence of literary dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. Whatever the case, the two texts are clearly related; the Didache here reflects influence from Jesus tradition in some form.

43. Note, however, that the request for the Lord to “deliver it (the church) from evil” (Did. 10.5) does not fit this pattern, for here the prayer of the Didache parallels the Lord’s Prayer, which is addressed to the father (Matt 6:13; cf. Did. 8.2).

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 375

the “Lord” intended at Did. 10.5.44 finally, in support of this reading, it might be noted that the whole prayer is immediately followed, at Did. 10.6, with the distinctively christian injunction μαραναθά (cf. 1 cor 16:22; see further below).

(6–10) Didache 11.2 (x 2), 4, 8; 12.1: These five reference to the “Lord”

come at the beginning of a new section on “church order” in the context of instructions about the reception of itinerant teachers and evangelists (11.1). it is, again, most likely that the “Lord” repeatedly spoken of here is Jesus.

To be sure, the first use of κύριος at 11.2, taken on its own, is indeterminate. The Didache speaks of the “righteousness and knowledge of the Lord” in a statement which—by itself—could just as easily refer to the Lord God or the Lord Jesus.

The second reference to κύριος at 11.2, and those that follow at 11.4

and 12.1, however, most likely refer to Jesus. To begin with, the repeated command to “receive” the “teacher” (11.2), “apostle” (11.4), or “all who come in the name of the Lord” (12.1) parallels a number of other early christian texts in which instruction is given regarding receiving teachers or leaders (Matt 10:40–41; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 2 John 10; ign. Eph. 6.1; 9.1). Most significant among these are the parallels between the command in 11.2, 4 to receive such people “as the Lord” and other early christian texts in which the Lord Jesus is understood to be present in his messengers (Matt 10:40–41; John 13:20; ign. Eph. 6.1). The correspondence is particularly striking with Matt 10:40–41, which uses δέχομαι for receiving Jesus’s disciples as Jesus himself,45 and ign. Eph. 6.1, which likewise uses δέχομαι

to speak of welcoming the bishop “as the Lord.” Given these significant parallels, it is most likely that the “Lord” at Did. 11.2, 4 and 12.1 is Jesus.46

44. The “gathering” of the people of God is, granted, an important motif in the scriptures of israel. it is significant, however, that although some texts envisage the Lord God himself gathering his scattered people (e.g., ezek 34:13), the Jewish literature more commonly sees the gathering of the elect as a messianic task (e.g., Pss. sol.

8.28; 11.1–4; 17.21–28; Tg. isa. 53.8; Tg. hos. 14.8; Tg. Mic. 5.1–3). This expectation of the Messiah gathering the elect comports well with both the synoptic vision of Jesus gathering the elect as the “son of man” and further supports the possibility that the

“Lord” here addressed is the Lord Jesus.

45. among the canonical gospels, the saying is unique to Matthew. Massaux, Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 3:164 hears an echo of Matt 10:40; see also Kelhoffer, “how soon a Book,” 23–24; Tuckett, “Didache and the Writings,” 107.

46. so also Niederwimmer, Didache, 172, 179. indeed, the probability that the

376

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

in addition, the reference to “the name of the Lord” at Did. 12.1 further strengthens the likelihood that the reference to the “Lord” here at least includes Jesus. Granted, “the name of the Lord” is a common biblical phrase that usually refers to the Lord God and that continues to carry this sense in some of the early christian texts (Mark 11:9; Matt 21:9; Luke 19:38; Matt 23:39//Luke 13:35; John 12:13). in early christian usage elsewhere, however, the biblical phrase came to include reference to Jesus. in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus speaks of his followers being gathered “in my name” (Matt 18:20) and charges his disciples to baptize people “in the name [sing.] of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit.” in the Pauline epistles, the “name of the Lord” formula is expanded to refer specifically to Jesus in the construction “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (1 cor 5:4; 2 Thess 3:6; cf. Phil 2:9–10 with isa 45:22–23). in 1 clem. 58.1 and 59.2–3 believers are exhorted to “obey,” “trust,” and “hope” in the “name”

in a context that strongly implies that Jesus is understood to embody that name.47 Most significantly, as we saw in the comments on Did. 9.5 (above), the Didache itself uses the expression “name of the Lord” in a manner that clearly evokes the baptism formula of Did. 7.1, 3 and so includes reference to Jesus, “the son.” The reference to the “name of the Lord” at Did. 12.1, then, most likely includes reference to Jesus as “Lord.”48

finally, the reference to the “Lord” at Did. 11.8 is closely related to 11.2, 4, and 12.1 but provides the negative corollary. “Not everyone who speaks in the spirit is a prophet,” it affirms, but only the one who “has the Lord’s way of life” (ἀλλ᾿ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τοὺς τρόπους κυρίου). it is, again, most likely that the κύριος here is Jesus. To begin with, since the κύριος at Did.

11.2, 4, and 12.1 is most likely Jesus, the same referent is also most likely here. further, the genitive κυρίου most likely functions as a subjective genitive, relying on the action noun τρόπος (cf. the cognate verb τρέπω) and Didache refers to the Lord Jesus in this section is strengthened by the formal parallelism of Did. 11.3 with the earlier 8.2 (see Niederwimmer, Didache, 174 n. 5). Both texts make reference to “the gospel” (εὐαγγελίον) in the singular. Both texts refer to what the Lord “commanded” (ἐκέλευσεν) or his “decree” (δόγμα) contained in this gospel.

and both texts conclude with an exhortation “so pray” (οὕτως προσεύχεσθε) or “so do” (οὕτως ποιήσατε). Given this parallelism, the strong indications, noted above, that the “Lord” at Did. 8.2 is the Lord Jesus, also carry force in this later section.

47. so hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 617 n. 164.

48. Niederwimmer, Didache, 183 n. 2 plausibly suggests that “Kyrios = Jesus. Ἐν

ὀνόματι κυρίου = ὡς χριστιανός. such a one comes and speaks the name of Jesus, i.e., declares that he or she is a christian.”

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 377

so intending “the way in which the Lord lived.” The phrase thus evokes an actual human life, in this case that of the “Lord” Jesus, against which the lives of would-be prophets might be evaluated.49 finally, the identification of the κύριος with Jesus at Did. 11.8 is suggested by the significant parallel with Matt 7:15–21, in which Jesus teaches that false prophets may be identified by their way of life, speaks of himself as “Lord” (Matt 7:21), and then goes on to make adherence to his own teaching the single criterion of faithfulness (Matt 7:24).50 Thus, κύριος at Did. 11.8, as at 11.2, 4, and 12.1, most likely “means Jesus.”51

(11) Didache 15.1: The Didache here instructs the local congregation to elect “overseers and deacons” who are “worthy of the Lord” (ἀξίους τοῦ

κυρίου). it is possible that the κύριος here simply refers to the Lord God, but a reference to Jesus seems most likely, for three reasons. first, the combination of “overseers and deacons” is well attested in the early christian literature (Phil 1:1; see also 1 Tim 3:1–10; 1 clem. 42.4–5); its appearance here renders it likely that the specifically christian “Lord” Jesus is on view. second, the phrase “worthy of the Lord” parallels col 1:10 (see Phil 1:27: “worthy of the gospel of christ”) where the specifically christian Lord Jesus is on view.52 Third, the reference in the immediate context (Did.

15.4) to “the gospel of our Lord,” which almost certainly refers to Jesus (see above), makes a further reference to the κύριος Jesus here most likely.53

49. alternatively, it is possible that κυρίου is a genitive of source, with the sense the “way of life given by the Lord,” in which case the “Lord” could be God or Jesus.

Given, however, that the genitive of source is not common and that there is no compelling reason for taking the genitive in this sense here, the subjective genitive is more likely. see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: zondervan, 1996), 109 who states of the genitive of source: “since this usage is not common, it is not advisable to seek it as the most likely one for a particular genitive that may fit under another label. in some ways, the possessive, subjective, and source genitives are similar. in any given instance, if they all make good sense, subjective should be given priority.”

50. Massaux, Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 3:165–66, who sees Did.

11.8 as a recollection of Matt 7:15–21.

51. Niederwimmer, Didache, 179: “the true prophet is in continuity with the lifestyle and praxis of Jesus—the earthly Jesus.”

52. The phrase “worthy of God” also appears in the early christian literature (1 Thess 2:12; ign. Eph. 2.1; 4.1; ign. Rom. 10.2; see also more broadly eph 4:1; ign.

Eph. 15.1; ign. Magn. 12), but this provides no argument against the reading above which specifically refers to the “Lord.”

53. so also Niederwimmer, Didache, 201.

378

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

2.4. Texts in Which the “Lord” is Quite Possibly the Lord Jesus The remaining four references to the “Lord” outside Did. 16 are indeterminate, but quite possibly intend Jesus.

(1–2) Didache 4.12–13: The “Lord” twice invoked at Did. 4.12–13

could be either the Lord God of israel or the Lord Jesus. The injunctions here to “hate all hypocrisy and everything that is not pleasing to the Lord”

and to “not forsake the Lord’s commandments” find a parallel in Barn.

19.2–3, where the instruction is to “hate everything that is not pleasing to God [τῷ θεῷ]” and to “not forsake the Lord’s commandments.” The clear reference to “God” at Barn. 19.2 might suggest that the parallel “Lord” of Did. 4.12 should be understood as the Lord God, but this parallel cannot be pressed, since the two passages are set in different contexts.54 The

“Lord’s commandments,” likewise, could be read either as reference to the commandments of the Lord God or the Lord Jesus. The “commandments”

intended are most likely those enumerated in the immediate context,55

which bear some resemblance to early christian teaching (cf. Did. 4.8

with acts 4:32; Did. 4.11 with eph 6:5; col 3:22; Titus 2:9). at the same time, the injunction to “guard what you have received, neither adding or subtracting anything” is probably inspired by Deut 4:2, 12:32, and finds parallels in a range of both Jewish and christian texts (Jer 26:2; 33:2 LXX; Prov 30:5–6 LXX; 1 en. 104.10–13; Let. aris. 310–311; Josephus, A.J. 1.17; Ag. Ap. 1.42; Rev 22:18b, 19). it is therefore difficult to determine whether the Lord God of israel or the Lord Jesus is intended in this instance. Given, however, the likelihood that the Lord twice referred to in the immediately preceding verse is the Lord Jesus (Did. 4.11; see above), it is certainly possible that Jesus is the intended referent here also.

(3–4) Didache 14.3: The two references to the “Lord” here are those most likely, of all of the twenty-four occurrences in the Didache, to intend the Lord God. even here, however, a reference to the Lord Jesus cannot be ruled out.

This text introduces a conflation of Mal 1:11b, 14b as “the saying/

word of the Lord” (ἡ ῥηθεῖσα ὑπὸ κυρίου). The scripture citation itself includes the phrase “i am a great king, says the Lord” (βασιλεὺς μέγας ἐγώ

εἰμί λέγει κύριος). The MT here employs the divine name (הוהי), which is 54. see ibid., 112 n. 2.

55. see Knopf, Lehre der zwölf Apostel, 19.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 379

translated in the LXX in the customary manner as κύριος. it is therefore most probable that the Didache, in citing Malachi, retains the prophet’s reference to the Lord God of israel.56

at the same time, it remains quite possible that the intended referent here at least includes the Lord Jesus.57 Three considerations are significant: (a) early christian christological exegesis: early christian texts regularly exhibit, as noted above, a “christology of divine identity” in which scriptural texts that in their original contexts speak of the “Lord” God are newly applied to Jesus (e.g., 1 cor 8:6 with Deut 6:5; Phil 2:10–11 with isa 45:22; Rev 1:12–16 with Dan 7:9–10). More specifically, a number of early christian texts predicate preexistence of Jesus (John 1:1–4; col 1:15–17), or assert that Jesus was present with israel at the time of the exodus (1 cor 10:4; Jude 558), or attribute scriptural prophecy to the preincarnate son/

Logos (Justin, Apol. 1.36.1).59 Given this wider usage and the evidence above that the Didache clearly uses κύριος for Jesus at a number of points, the possibility that Did. 14.3 refers to Jesus cannot be ruled out.

56. for discussion of the scriptural sources known to the Didache at this point, see Niederwimmer, Didache, 198 n. 35, who considers that the Didache has “quoted freely” from the septuagint.

57. so franz Xaver funk, ed. Patres apostolici, 3d ed. (Tübingen: Laupp, 1913), 2:33: “Jesu christo dictum Veteris Testamenti attribuitur”; Wengst, Didache, 31; contra Niederwimmer, Didache, 198: “Kyrios here probably does not refer to Jesus.”

58. at Jude 5, there is significant evidence in the Mss for the reading that identifies the one who saved israel from egypt as Ἰησοῦς (a B 33 81 322 323 424c 665 1241

1739 1881 2298 2344 vg copsa, bo eth Origen cyril Jerome Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88 915) or θεὸς Χριστός (∏72). The editors of the Na28 have now acknowledged the weight of this evidence by printing Ἰησοῦς in the main text. cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (London: united Bible societies, 1994), 657, who, despite favouring the reading κύριος at Jude 5, makes the frank admission that “critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses.”

59. Justin, Apol. 1.36.1: “But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired themselves, but by the Divine Word who moves them. for sometimes he declares things that are to come to pass, in the manner of one who foretells the future; sometimes he speaks as from the person of God the Lord and father of all; sometimes as from the person of christ; sometimes as from the person of the people answering the Lord or his father.” see discussion in Bruce chilton, “Justin and israelite Prophecy,” in Justin Martyr and his Worlds, ed. sara Parvis and Paul foster (Minneapolis: fortress, 2007), 81–82.

380

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

(b) The immediate context: Didache 14.1, as noted above, speaks of the

“Lord” gathering his people together to “break bread” and “give thanks” on the “Lord’s own day” (Did. 14.1). since the κύριος at Did. 14.1 is almost certainly Jesus, it is at least possible that the κύριος at Did. 14.3 is also Jesus. Didache 14.2, indeed, is reminiscent of Jesus’s word at Matt 5:23–24

and employs the same verb διαλλάσσομαι, which occurs at only these two points in the whole of the New Testament and apostolic fathers. Whether the Didache is here dependent on the Gospel of Matthew or not, this contact with Jesus tradition strengthens the possibility that the Lord referred to at Did. 14.3 is Jesus.60 finally, Did. 15.1, which immediately follows, also speaks of the “Lord” in what is most likely a reference to Jesus (see above).

although it is possible that Did. 14.3 uses κύριος in a manner different to its immediate context, the surrounding usage at least strengthens the possibility that Jesus is here again the intended referent.

(c) The saying itself: Didache 14.3 (citing Mal 1:14b) records the Lord’s declaration that “my name is marvellous among the nations.” in the context of Did. 7.1, 3; 9.5; 12.1, where the “name of the Lord” includes reference to Jesus, it is certainly possible that this text also includes reference to Jesus.61

When all is considered, it remains most likely that the “Lord” at Did.

14.3 refers primarily to the Lord God of israel. even in this case, however, the inclusion of the Lord Jesus in the divine identity cannot be ruled out.

2.5. conclusion

in view of all this, Milavec’s insistence that “all of the instances of ‘Lord’

in the Didache ought to be understood as referring to the Lord God”62

cannot be sustained. in at least five instances, κύριος in the Didache almost certainly refers to Jesus. in eleven other cases, a reference to Jesus is most 60. a number of scholars affirm that the Didache here reflects the dominical saying. so harnack, Lehre, der zwölf Apostel 55; Paul Drews, “apostellehre (Didache),”

in Handbuch zu den neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, ed. edgar hennecke (Tübingen: Mohr siebexk, 1904), 279. Others argue for direct literary dependence on Matthew: Massaux, Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 3:156–57. This is denied by Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 214, who argues that the Didache here draws on “the treasure of freely circulating community rules.”

61. Note, however, Did. 8.2, 10.2, 3, which refer to the “name” (ὄνομα) of God the father.

62. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 665.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 381

likely. in a final four cases, a reference to Jesus is possible, even if the text remains indeterminate. significantly, the evidence nowhere requires that κύριος refers to the Lord God of israel. it is, therefore, a mistake to overdraw the distinction between the Lord God of israel and the Lord Jesus in the Didache. in common with other early christian writings, the Didache includes Jesus within the identity of the one true God of israel, so that ambiguity in some cases is almost inevitable, and perhaps deliberate. certainly, on the basis of this analysis there is no a priori reason to rule out the possibility that Jesus is the “Lord” whom the Didache expects to “come”

(Did. 10.6; 16.1, 7, 8). On the contrary, there is much to suggest that the Didache, in common with other early christian texts, looks forward to the

“coming of the Lord” Jesus.

3. The “coming of the Lord” Jesus in Did. 10.6 and 16.1, 7–8

The Didache speaks of the future “coming of the Lord” at four points (Did.

10.6; 16.1, 7, 8). in what follows, it is argued that in each case the Didache expects the “second coming” of the Lord Jesus and interprets this event as the final embodiment of the long prophesied “coming of God.”

3.1. The Μαραναθά invocation of Did. 10.6

The first reference to Jesus’s coming as Lord is found in the μαραναθά

invocation at Did. 10.6. amongst the christian literature of the first two centuries, the μαραναθά prayer appears in this form, as a Greek transliteration of aramaic, only here and at 1 cor 16:22. The roots of this “earliest christian prayer”63 are found in the theophany tradition of the hebrew scriptures (Deut 33:2; Judg 5:4–5; hab 3:3–6; Mic 1:2–5a; zech 14:5), perhaps especially in the form preserved in the aramaic Qumran fragment of 1 en. 1.9 (4Qaram).64 Depending on the segmentation of the aramaic it could mean “Our Lord has come” (μαραν αθα), “Our Lord is coming/

will come” (μαραν αθα, if αθα is understood as a participle), or “Our Lord, 63. archibald Macbride hunter, Exploring the New Testament (edinburgh: saint andrew Press, 1971), 98.

64. Matthew Black, “The Maranatha invocation and Jude 14, 15 (1 enoch 1:9),” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, ed.

Barnabas Lindars and stephen s. smalley (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1973), 193–95.

382

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

come!” (μαρανα θα).65 Be that as it may, in an early christian context, there is no doubt that the “Lord” addressed in the prayer is Jesus. Two considerations are decisive.

first, a number of other early christian prayers call on the Lord Jesus to come again. Most significant here is the parallel prayer at 1 cor 16:22—

also in transliterated aramaic—which is clearly directed to the Lord Jesus.

To be sure, the first part of 1 cor 16:22, with its reference to “love for the Lord” (φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον) and to “curse” (ἀνάθεμα), evokes the covenant language of israel’s scriptures.66 for this reason, it might be thought to imply a reference to the Lord God, simplistically understood. it is decisive, however, that earlier in the same letter Paul clearly distinguishes the

“Lord” Jesus from “God” the father, while unambiguously including Jesus within the identity of the one God of the hebrew shema (1 cor 8:6; see also 1:2–3). in this context, it is clear that Paul’s μαραναθά invocation is addressed to Jesus as “Lord.” By it, the apostle calls on Jesus to come again and so gives voice to his expectation that the final “coming” of the covenant Lord for judgment is to be embodied in the return of Jesus.67 also significant here is the parallel Greek prayer at Rev 22:20, “come, Lord Jesus” (ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ), which clearly has Jesus’s final advent in view.

further, the prophetic vision of Jude 14 (Ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος: “Behold, the Lord comes”), which similarly draws on the Jewish vision of the “coming of God” (see 1 en. 1.9; zech 14:5) to speak of Jesus’s “second coming” (see Jude 21),68 probably also preserves a form of the μαραναθά prayer.

second, the immediate context of Did. 10.6 indicates that the prayer is addressed to Jesus. To begin with, the location of the prayer in a kind of 65. M. Wilcox, “Maranatha,” ABD 4:513.

66. anders eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1

Corinthians, conBNT (stockholm: almquist & Wiksell, 1998), 289–93.

67. see especially, c. f. D. Moule, “a Reconsideration of the context of Maranatha,” NTS 6 (1959–1960): 307–10; Black, “Maranatha invocation,” 189–96; eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proofs, 289–93; anthony c. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NiGTc (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2000), 1347–52; hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 617: μαραναθά “is an appeal to the exalted Jesus to come in eschatological power.”

68. Glasson, Second Advent, 186; Black, “Maranatha invocation,” 194; Richard J.

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBc (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 96–97; edward adams, “The coming of God Tradition and its influence on New Testament Parousia Texts,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb, ed. charlotte hempel and Judith M.Lieu, JsJsup (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 1.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 383

liturgy for the Lord’s supper (Did. 9.1; 10.7) may indicate that it is to be understood, at least in part, as a call for the “Lord” to be present among his people at the meal (see Matt 18:20).69 if so, then it can be none other than the Lord Jesus who is invoked. at the same time, it is also clear that the prayer ultimately looks for God’s eschatological triumph in the world through the Messiah.70 indeed, given that the expectation of Jesus’s return was an integral part of the christian celebratory-remembrance meal from the very beginning (Mark 14:25; Matt 26:29; 1 cor 11:26), it is no surprise to find it here also. Didache 10.5 already has the final state on view in its prayer for the church to be delivered from evil (see Matt 6:13), made perfect in love (see John 17:23), and gathered from the four winds into God’s kingdom (see zech 2:10 LXX; Mark 13:27; Matt 24:31; 25:34; Did.

9.5). as noted above, the way in which Jesus’s words about himself appear here as requests to the “Lord” clearly indicates that Jesus himself is the one expected. Didache 10.6 then continues this eschatological trajectory and brings it to a climax. indeed, the μαραναθά petition is the last in a series of four prayers that look for the consummation of God’s purposes in the world through the Messiah: “may grace come” (ἐλθέτω χάρις);71 “may this 69. hans Lietzmann, Messe und Herrenmahl: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Liturgie, aK (Bonn: Marcus & Weber, 1926), 229, argued that the μαραναθά invocation at 1 cor 16:22 primarily concerns the Lord’s presence in the eucharist. he was followed by many others including Günther Bornkamm, “Das anathema in der urchristlichen abendmahlsliturgie,” TLZ 65 (1950): 227–30; John a. T. Robinson, “Traces of a Liturgical sequence in 1 cor. xvi. 20–24,” JTS 4 (1953): 38–41 (38); K. G. Kuhn,

“μαραναθά,” TDNT 4:470; and ernst Käsemann, “sentences of holy Law in the NT,” in New Testament Questions of Today (London: scM, 1969), 66–81 (69–70). This reading probably cannot hold for 1 cor 16:22 and has been ably refuted by Moule, “Reconsideration of the context,” 307–10; eriksson, Traditions a Rhetorical Proofs, 279–98; see also Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1347–52. Nevertheless, in the different context of Did. 10.6, a eucharistic reference may well be included. see hunter, Exploring the New Testament, 98 who suggests a threefold reference to the Lord’s presence at easter (“the Lord has come!”), the eucharist (“The Lord is come!”), and the parousia (“The Lord will come!”); and Black, “Maranatha invocation,” 192 n. 16, 195–96 who supports hunter’s threefold reference.

70. contra Kuhn, TDNT 4:466–72, who excludes any future reference. for the arguments, see esp. Black, “Maranatha invocation,” 195–96.

71. The coptic text has ἐλθέτω ὁ κύριος and should perhaps be preferred as the more difficult reading (see Draper, “eschatology in the Didache,” 571). if so, this further strengthens the eschatological emphasis of the section and confirms the argument above regarding the μαραναθά invocation.

384

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

world pass away” (παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος); “hosanna to the God of David” (ὡσαννὰ τῷ θεῷ Δαυίδ); “Maranatha!”72 finally, in the midst of all this, the invitation to the “holy” to “come” and the call for those who are not to “repent” (μετανοείτω), underlines the urgency of the eschatological situation.

Taking all of this together, the μαραναθά prayer at Did. 10.6 is best understood as an invocation for the Lord Jesus to come in final judgment.

The “Lord” (aramaic ןרמ) here invoked is the Lord Jesus; the “coming”

referred to his is final advent.

3.2. The coming of the Lord in Did. 16

The remaining three references to the “coming of the Lord” in the Didache occur in its final chapter (Did. 16.1, 7, 8). Most commentators assume without argument that Jesus’s “second coming” is here on view.73 Milavec, however, as noted above, considers it “quite clear … that … the Lord God

… is awaited.”74 in what follows, it is demonstrated that each of these texts does indeed refer to Jesus’s expected “second coming.”

To begin with, it is worth noting that the structure of this final chapter makes it highly likely that the same “Lord” is referred to at Did. 16.1, 7, 8.

The three references to the “coming of the Lord” frame the other eschatological material and form an inclusio that gives unity to the whole section.75

Within this frame, the material in Did. 16.1c–8 is structured in two halves: first, “a series of four causal clauses introduced by γάρ” address the “present ethical life … of the community” under persecution in the light of the coming “last time” (Did. 16.1c–4a); second, a further series of “four future clauses introduced by καὶ τότε or τότε” speak more directly of the final 72. see hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 617–18.

73. e.g., Wengst, Didache, 31 who states simply in relation to Did. 16.7b: “Kyrios (as the context shows) refers to Jesus”; Draper, “eschatology in the Didache,” 577, who speaks of the “coming of the son of Man on the clouds” even though “son of man”

language is absent from the Didache.

74. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 665.

75. This analysis concerns the extant text, since the precise contents of the “lost-ending” of the Didache are unknown. for a reconstruction based on apos. con. 7.32, see Robert e. aldridge, “The Lost ending of the Didache,” VC 53 (1999): 1–15; see also alan J. P. Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache, JsNTsup 254

(London: T&T clark, 2004), 44–64.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 385

eschatological events (Did. 16.4b–8).76 The effect of this structure is to contrast the present life of the community with the expected eschatological events and thus to emphasize the final eschatological event introduced by the fourth τότε in Did. 16.8, namely, the “coming of the Lord … on the clouds of heaven.”77 it is no surprise, then, that this crucial final event is also introduced at the beginning of the eschatological section (Did. 16.1) to form the inclusio just noted. The following analysis demonstrates that the presumption created by this structure is correct: the same “Lord” is expected at Did. 16.1, 7, and 8; in each case the “Lord” expected is none other than the “Lord” Jesus.

3.2.1. The “coming of the Lord” Jesus in Did. 16.1

Didache 16.1 serves as a brief introduction to the eschatological material of Did. 16.1–8. The text reads as follows:

aΓρηγορεῖτε ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν bοἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήτωσαν καὶ αἱ

ὀσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκλυέσθωσαν cἀλλὰ γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι·οὐ γὰρ οἶδατε τὴν

ὥραν ἐν ᾗ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἔρχεται

This verse contains three significant parallels to the synoptic tradition, each of which refers to Jesus’s final advent. The argument here is that whether the Didache is directly dependent on the synoptic Gospels or not, the presence of parallels to those points of the synoptic tradition that refer to Jesus’s “second coming” strongly suggests that Did. 16.1 also expects the coming of none other than Jesus as Lord. This will be clearly seen if we first note the connections with the synoptic tradition and then demonstrate that the parallel synoptic texts refer to Jesus’s final advent.78

76. Draper, “eschatology in the Didache,” 577.

77. see Vicky Balabanski, Eschatology in the Making: Mark, Matthew and the Didache, sNTsMs 97 (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1997), 208: “unlike Matthew, the author of Didache 16 does not seem to consider the present as part of the ‘last days.’ ”

78. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 660–63 omits consideration of Did.

16.1 in his discussion of “whether the Lord God comes or the Lord Jesus returns.”

386

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

3.2.1.1. The Text and its intertexts

(a) The call to watch, and the unexpected coming: The Didache’s call to “watch” (Did. 16.1a) and its warning regarding the unknown time of the Lord’s coming (Did. 16.1c) are similar to Jesus’s words recorded at a number of points in the synoptic tradition.

Mark 13:32, 35: περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ

οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ … γρηγορεῖτε οὖν·οὐκ

οἴδατε γὰρ πότε ὁ κύριος τῆς οἰκίας ἔρχεται

Matt 24:36: περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν οὐδὲ οἱ

ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ μόνος

Matt 24:42, 44: γρηγορεῖτε οὖν ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ κύριος ὑμῶν

ἔρχεται … διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι ὅτι ᾗ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὥρᾳ ὁ

υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται

Matt 25:13: γρηγορεῖτε οὖν ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε τὴν ἡμέραν οὐδὲ τὴν ὥραν

Luke 12:40: καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι ὅτι ᾗ ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ

ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται

Did. 16.1a, c: γρηγορεῖτε ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν … ἀλλὰ γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι·οὐ

γὰρ οἶδατε τὴν ὥραν ἐν ᾗ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἔρχεται

The numerous points of contact between Did. 16.1 and these synoptic texts include: (1) the call to “watch” (γρηγορεῖτε: Mark 13:35; Matt 24:42; 25:13);79 (2) the combination of γίνεσθε with ἕτοιμοι (“be prepared”: Mark 13:35; Matt 24:44; Luke 12:40); (3) the verb οἶδατε (“you know”: Mark 13:35; Matt 24:42; 25:13; see also οἶδεν: Mark 13:32; Matt 24:36); (4) the reference to τὴν ὥραν (“the hour”: Mark 13:32; Matt 24:36, 44; 25:13; Luke 12:40); (5) the identity of the coming one as ὁ κύριος (“Lord”: Mark 79. This call is, to be sure, used in a slightly different sense in the Didache than in the synoptics: in the former the command is to “watch over your life”; in the latter it relates more directly to the unknown timing of the Lord’s coming. This difference must not, however, be overplayed, since after some brief additional material (Did.

16.1b), Did. 16.1c grounds the necessity to “watch” in the unknown timing of the Lord’s coming. Balabanski, Eschatology in the Making, 198 thus overstates the point when she argues for a significant shift in meaning from the imminent end expectation of the synoptics to the concern for care in daily living in the Didache.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 387

13:35; Matt 24:42); (6) the verb ἔρχεται (“come”: Mark 13:35; Matt 24:42, 44; Luke 12:40); (7) the reference to ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν (“our Lord”: see Matt 24:42, which has Jesus employ the second-person plural ὁ κύριος ὑμῶν

[“your Lord”]).

in all, the closest parallels here are with Matt 24:42, 44, which together contain nearly the whole of Did. 16.1a, c. common to both texts are: γρηγορεῖτε; γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι; οἶδατε; τὴν ὥραν; ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν/ὑμῶν; ἔρχεται. On this basis it has often been thought that the Didache here depends on Matt 24.80 This remains quite likely, but the parallels are not so exact as to require direct literary dependence. in particular, there is nothing in Did. 16.1 that so clearly reflects Matthean redaction of Mark that it could only be derived from Matthew’s Gospel.81 Be that as it may, the numerous points of contact between Did. 16.1a, c and the synoptic materials listed above at very least demonstrate that the Didache’s expectation of the “coming of the Lord” is firmly located within the synoptic tradition.

(b) The call be prepared (lamps lit and loins girded): Didache 16.1b further exhorts its readers to “not let your lamps go out, and do not be unprepared.” There is a significant parallel here with Luke 12:35.

Luke 12:35: Ἔστωσαν ὑμῶν αἱ ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι καὶ οἱ λύχνοι

καιόμενοι

Did. 16.1b: οἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήτωσαν καὶ αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ

ἐκλυέσθωσαν

Once again, the verbal agreement is not close enough to prove direct literary dependence.82 it has been suggested that the language is stereotypical (see 1 Pet 1:13; eph 6:14) and therefore provides no information regarding the relationship between Luke and the Didache.83 against this, 80. harnack, Lehre der zwölf Apostel, 60; funk, Patres apostolici, 35; J. armitage Robinson, “The Problem of the Didache,” JTS 13 (1912): 339–56; f. e. Vokes, The Riddle of the Didache: Fact or Fiction, Heresy or Catholicism? (London: sPcK, 1938), 111; Massaux, Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 3:167–73; hagner, Use of the Old and New Testaments, 280.

81. so Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” 212; Tuckett, “Didache and the Writings,” 111.

82. emphasized by Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 175–76; audet, Didachè, 181; Niederwimmer, Didache, 214.

83. Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 175–76; Wengst, Didache, 99.

388

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

however, the co-location of the two images (“lamps” and “loins girded”) is sufficiently uncommon to suggest a relationship of some kind.84 certainty is impossible, but most likely either the Didache and Luke both knew the saying from a common source (perhaps Q),85 or the Didache presents a modified rendition of a saying it knew from Luke’s Gospel.86 either way, it is sufficient for our purposes to notice again that the Didache’s expectation of the “coming of the Lord” is firmly located within the synoptic tradition.

indeed, the reference to “lamps” may well also be connected to Jesus’s parable of the ten virgins (see Matt 25:1–13), especially since both the call to watch (Did. 16.1a) and the warning regarding the unknown hour (Did.

16.1c) find a parallel at Matt 25:13. since Matthew’s parable uses λαμπάς

rather than λύχνος, direct literary dependence is unlikely. Nevertheless, the strong conceptual links may indicate that both Matthew and the Didache here draw on common dominical tradition or that the Didache presents a somewhat garbled reminiscence of the parable as the Didache knew it in Matthean or proto-Matthean form.

To summarise, Did. 16.1 stands in clear parallel with a number of texts in the synoptic tradition. The call to “watch,” the saying about prepared-ness (using the dual image of lamps lit and loins girded), and the warning regarding the unknown hour of the Lord’s coming are all reflected in texts in the synoptic Gospels, where they appear on the lips of Jesus.

While direct literary dependence cannot be demonstrated with certainty, the common vocabulary and multiple points of contact strongly locate the Didache’s expectation of the coming Lord within the synoptic tradition.

3.2.1.2. The identity of the coming Lord in Did. 16.1

This contact between Did. 16.1 and the synoptic tradition is significant for our purposes because, without exception, the synoptic texts in question 84. so Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” 213; Tuckett, “Didache and the Writings,” 112.

85. Burnett h. streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924), 511; Glover, “Didache’s Quotations and the synoptic Gospels,” 21–22; Draper,

“Jesus Tradition in the Didache,” 87; Draper, “eschatology in the Didache,” 573–74.

86. B. c. Butler, “The Literary Relations of Didache, ch. XVi,” JTS 11 (1960): 265–83 (265–68), who argues that the dual parallel of Did. 16.1a, 1b with Luke 12:35, 40 is sufficient evidence for literary dependence; see also cautiously Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” 213–14; Tuckett, “Didache and the Writings,” 112.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 389

concern Jesus’s final advent. in none of the synoptic texts does Jesus speak of a final theophany in which he is uninvolved; in all of them, he speaks of his own final advent, often in theophanic terms. Given the strong connections between the Didache and the synoptic tradition at this point, the

“coming of the Lord” in Did. 16.1 almost certainly also refers to the return of the Lord Jesus. a brief consideration of the texts in question will make the point.

(a) Mark 13:32–37: Jesus’s parable of the “man going on a journey”

and the associated sayings at Mark 13:32–37 have long been understood as a reference to Jesus’s own final advent. More recently, however, a significant stream of modern scholarship has rejected this reading, arguing instead that most, if not all, of Mark 13, including the “coming of the son of man” (Mark 13:26), is concerned with Jesus’s heavenly enthronement, manifested on earth in the first-century destruction of Jerusalem.87 Two considerations, however, argue decisively for the traditional reading.

first, the structure of Mark 13 distinguishes “these things,” namely, the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the period of tribulation of which it is part (Mark 13:3–23, 28–31)88 from the final climactic “coming of the son of man” (Mark 13:24–27, 32–37).89 While “all these things” are to (begin to) occur within a generation, the “coming of the son of man”

87. see, most recently, N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: fortress, 1996), 339–66, who argues that the whole of Mark 13 is concerned with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. in his view the “coming of the son of man” (Mark 13:26) does not refer to Jesus’s final coming from heaven to earth in glory but is, rather, apocalyptic code for Jesus’s vindication, manifested in his own enthronement in heaven, and in the destruction of the city that opposed him. see similarly T. Manson, “The son of Man in Daniel, enoch and the Gospels,” BJRL 32 (1950), 171–93 (174); T. f. Glasson, “The son of Man imagery: enoch xiv and Daniel vii,” NTS 23 (1976–1977): 82–90; Robinson, Jesus and His Coming, 45; Joachim Jeremias, The Proclamation of Jesus, vol. 1 of New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (New York: scribner’s sons, 1971), 273–74; R.

T. france, Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NiGTc (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2002), 502, 534, 612.

88. Note esp. Mark 13:4: ταῦτα … ταῦτα πάντα; 13:23: προείρηκα ὑμῖν πάντα; 13:29: ταῦτα; 13:30: ταῦτα.

89. helpful analyses of the structure of Mark 13 are offered by William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, NicNT (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1974), 444–48; see also arthur L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament, NovTsup 13 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 131–

36; adela Yarbro collins, Mark: A Commentary, hermeneia (Minneapolis: fortress, 2007), 614–20.

390

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

will occur after an indeterminate period of time, and at an unknown day and hour (Mark 13:24–27,90 32–3791). Given this distinction, there is no reason to doubt that when Mark’s Jesus speaks of the unknown day and hour (Mark 13:32) and of the “coming” of the “Lord” (Mark 13:35), he speaks of the day of his own final advent as son of man.

second, the Danielic image of the “coming son of man” itself indicates that Mark 13:24–27 and 32–37 refer to Jesus’s own final theophany-like coming from heaven to earth in glory. To begin with, Dan 7:13–14

already presents the coming of the “one like a son of man” in theophanic terms, as a descent from heaven to earth.92 This is indicated by: (1) the coming of the “one like a son of man” on the clouds, which reflects the way God regularly comes “in,” “with,” or “on” the clouds when making an appearance on earth to bring salvation and judgment (see exod 16:10; 19:9; 34:5; Num 11:25; 12:5; 2 sam 22:12; isa 19:1; Nah 1:3; Pss 18:10–11; 97:2); 93 (2) the coming of the son of man to the ancient of Days, who has 90. a change of topic at Mark 13:24 is indicated by (1) the adversative “but” (ἀλλὰ) and the laboured reference to a new period of time: “in those days after that suffering”; (2) the contrast between the second person plural at Mark 13:14 (“but when you see”

= ὅταν δὲ ἴδητε; cf. Mark 13:29) and the third person plural at Mark 13:26 (“and then they will see” = καὶ τότε ὄψονται). The introduction of a substantially new topic at Mark 13:24 is recognised by D. M. Roark, “The Great eschatological Discourse,” NovT

7 (1964): 123–27 (127); Lane, Mark, 473 n. 87; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2 vols., eKKNT 2 (zürich: Benziger, 1978), 2:200; Rudolf Pesch, Das Markus-Evangelium, 3rd ed., 2 vols., hTKNT 2 (freiburg: herder, 1980), 2:302; Robert h.

Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1993), 745; collins, Mark, 614.

91. The backward reference from Mark 13:32 to 13:24–27 is marked by (1) the adversative περὶ δὲ at Mark 13:32, which customarily introduces a new topic (see also Mark 12:26); (2) the emphatic reference to “that day” (singular: τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης, which naturally takes the [implied] day of the son of man’s coming as its antecedent; and (3) the contrast between the timing of “these things” that will most certainly (at least begin to) occur within a generation (13:30) and of “that day,” which will come at a time unknown, even to the son (Mark 13:32: “no one knows”; 13:33: “you do not know”; 13:35: “you do not know”).

92. for this view, see esp. Maurice casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: sPcK, 1979), 22, 24–29; G. R. Beasley-Murray, “The interpretation of Daniel 7,” CBQ 45 (1983): 44–58; J.e. Goldingay, Daniel, WBc (Dallas: Word, 1989), 147, 164.

93. J. a. emerton, “The Origin of the son of Man imagery,” JTS 9 (1958): 225–42

(231–32): “The act of coming with clouds suggests a theophany of Yahweh himself. if Dan. vii. 13 does not refer to a divine being, then it is the only exception out of about

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 391

already “come” to execute judgment against the beasts and to establish his throne upon the earth (see Dan 7:9–10, 22);94 (3) the grant of a kingdom to the “one like a son of man,” which reflects the earthly kingdom that earlier belonged to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:34) and which unmistakably evokes both the biblical creation paradigm and the prophetic expectation that the king of israel would rule over the beastly pagan nations (Pss 2:7–9; 80:13–16; 110:1; 144:3). Decisively, however, Mark 13:24–27 does not merely repeat the Danielic vision, but further extends its theophanic presentation of the “coming of the son of man.”95 The son of man “comes,”

as God regularly does, “with great power and glory” (see isa 59:19; 66:18; hab 3:3). he comes, like God, with an angelic entourage (see Deut 33:2; zech 14:5). his coming, like that of God, causes cosmic convulsions (see isa 13:10; 34:4; ezek 32:7–8; amos 8:9; Joel 2:10; 3:15–16). and he comes, as God does, to gather the elect (see Deut 30:3–4; Ps 50:3–5; isa 43:6; 66:18; Jer 32:37; ezek 34:13; 36:24; zech 2:6–10; Ps 147:2; Tob 14:7; Pss.

sol. 17.28). in this context, the reference to “that day” at Mark 13:32 is seventy passages in the O.T.” The same point was made earlier by andré feuillet, “Le fils de l’homme de Daniel et la tradition biblique,” RB 60 (1953), 170–202 and 321–46.

see also Leopold sabourin, “The Biblical cloud: Terminology and Traditions,” BTB

4 (1974): 290–311 (295): “No other literature … uses so insistently the metaphor of the cloud to describe theophanies as israel does”; 304: “coming with the clouds is an exclusively divine attribute.”

94. The terrestrial location of the ancient of Day’s throne in Dan 7:9–10 is indicated by (1) the terrestrial location of the scene in Dan 7:2–8 (see also 7:17, 23); (2) the echoes of the creation paradigm in the vision of a “son of man” ruling over the beasts (see andré Lacocque, “allusions to creation in Daniel 7,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John Joseph collins and Peter W. flint, 2 vols., VTsup 83

[Leiden: Brill, 2001], 1:114–31); (3) the lack of any indication at Dan 7:9 that the scene has changed from earth to heaven (see Goldingay, Daniel, 164); (4) the “coming” (see 7:22: ה ָת ֲא) of the ancient of Days to bring judgment upon the earth-bound beasts (see Beasley-Murray, “interpretation of Daniel 7,” 49); (5) the depiction of the divine judgment throne, which Jewish and christian texts customarily locate upon the earth (Jer 49:38; Ps 9:7–8, 11; 1 en. 25.3–4; 90.20; T. abr. [Rec. a] 12.4, 11; cf. Matt 19:28; 25:31; Rev 20:11–12); (6) the “fiery” appearance of the ancient of Days (see exod 19:18; 24:17; Deut 4:36; 5:4, 22–26; 33:2) and the angelic retinue attending him (see Deut 33:2; Ps 68:18; zech 14:5; 1 en. 1.9), which both evoke the “coming of God” tradition of the hebrew scriptures.

95. see esp. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody, Ma: hendrickson, 1993), 374–75, 424; see also edward adams, “The coming of the son of Man in Mark’s Gospel,” TynBul 56 (2005): 39–61

(52–59); adams, “coming of God Tradition,” 10–11.

392

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

highly significant: it evokes the scriptural tradition of the “day” of the Lord (e.g., amos 8:3, 9, 13; 9:11; Mic 4:6; 5:9; 7:11; zeph 1:9; 3:11, 16; Obad 8; Joel 3:18; zech 9:16; 12–14) and so serves to confirm the presentation of the final “coming of the son of man” as the embodiment of the final coming of God himself.

in all of this, Mark 13:32–37 clearly presents Jesus’s own final advent in terms of the “coming of God” tradition of israel’s scriptures. The significant point for our purposes is that Did. 16.1c speaks of the “coming of the Lord” in terms very similar to those used in Mark 13:32–37 to speak of the return of Jesus.96 in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the assumption should be that the Didache also presents the final coming, not of the Lord God simplistically understood, but of the Lord God embodied in the Lord Jesus.

(b) Matthew 24:36, 42–44: The saying at Matt 24:36 (“But about that day”) parallels that at Mark 13:32 and clearly has the same referent, namely, the “coming of the son of man” (Matt 24:27, 30). indeed, Matt 24 indicates even more explicitly that the “day” referred to here is that of Jesus’s final advent. To begin with, while Matt 24 retains the basic structure of Mark 13, the disciples’ double question at Matt 24:3 emphasizes the distinction between “these things” that will (at least begin to) occur within a generation (Matt 24:4–28, 32–35), and “that day” of Jesus’s “coming,” the timing of which is unknown to all but the father (Matt 24:29–31, 36–51; see also 24:27).97 in this context, it is clear that the emphatic reference at 96. it is also significant here that the key verb at Mark 13:32 and Did. 16.1a, γρηγορέω, regularly appears in the New Testament in contexts focussed on Jesus’s return; see Luke 12:37, 39 (some Mss); 1 Thess 5:6; and Rev 3:2–3; 16:15 (see also 1 cor 16:13).

97. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 346 n. 105 believes that Matthew does not “divide his chapter into two halves (vv. 4–35, 36–51) on the basis of this double question, the first dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and the second with the

‘second coming.’” against this, however, is the clear distinction in the disciples’ double question (Matt 24:3), the transitional περὶ δὲ at Matt 24:36, and contrast between Jesus’s confident prediction that “all these things” will (at least begin to) occur within a generation, and his profession of ignorance regarding the timing of “that day and hour” (see R. T. france, The Gospel of Matthew, NicNT [Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2007], 890–94). While it is sometimes suggested that Jesus’s ignorance at Matt 24:36 is confined only to the specific day and hour, within a generation, when the temple will fall (e.g., John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NiGTc [Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2005], 991), this reading fails to account for the clear distinction in the structure of the

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 393

Matt 24:36 to “that day and hour” (τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ ὥρας), looks back to Jesus’s brief references to the παρουσία of the “son of man” in Matt 24:27, 30 and thus refers to the “day” of his own final advent. finally, the term παρουσία itself, which appears in the gospels only here (Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39), is widely applied to Jesus’s final advent in the early christian literature (1 cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1, 8, 9; Jas 5:7–8; 2 Pet 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28) and should probably be regarded as something of a technical term for Jesus’s royal “coming” from heaven to earth in glory at the end of the age. clearly, then, the “day and hour” Jesus refers to at Matt 24:36 is the “day and hour” of his return.

similarly, the brief parable of the thief in the night, which follows (Matt 24:42–44), is also concerned with Jesus’s final advent. To begin with, the image of a thief in the night (ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται) is used elsewhere in the early christian literature as an image of the future coming of Jesus (1 Thess 5:4; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 3:3; 16:15), but nowhere as an image of the coming of God to israel.98 Moreover, in case there was any doubt, the reference to the “coming of the Lord” at Matt 24:42 is explicitly interpreted at Matt 24:44 as the “coming of the son of man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται).

Matthew 24:36, 42, 44, then, also do not refer to the final coming of God to israel simplistically understood, but to that final coming manifested in the return of the Lord Jesus. in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, the presumption must be that the similar language employed at Did. 16.1 also refers to the final coming of the Lord Jesus.

(c) Matthew 25:1–13: Jesus’s parable of the ten virgins (Matt 25:1–13) also refers to the return of Jesus at the end of the age.99 The parable is clearly set in the final phase of the eschatological drama, and, in the light of Matt 9:15, there is no doubt that the bridegroom (νυμφίος) is Jesus.100

discourse between the destruction of Jerusalem and the period of tribulation of which it is a part and the final coming of the son of man.

98. for the argument that 2 Pet 3:10 refers to the “day” of Jesus’s final advent, see my “Jesus as the Logic of his coming” (Ph.D. diss., Macquarie university, forthcoming).

99. contra Glasson, Second Advent, 89: “The parable of the Ten Virgins probably referred to the situation of israel when Jesus came.… We think of other sayings in which he complained of unreadiness and the failure of the people to recognise the crisis in their history.”

100. The finality of the parable’s vision is indicated by: (1) the temporal marker τότε at Matt 25:1 links the parable to the final fate of the wicked servant in the previous verse (Matt 24:51); (2) the stark image of the shut door (Matt 25:10) suggests eschatological finality; (3) the plea of the foolish virgins, addressing the bridegroom

394

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

indeed, the related image of the “wedding feast” (Matt 25:10: γάμος) evokes Matthew’s earlier use of the same image in the parable of the king and his son (Matt 22:2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10: γάμος), but the final decisive coming of the king there is now seen to be embodied in the coming of the bridegroom (= Jesus). The return of the bridegroom, then, is the return of Jesus, somehow embodying the great and final return of the Lord God himself.101

as such, the parallel to this parable in Did. 16.1 most likely also has the final coming of Jesus on view and not simply a great final theophany.

(d) Luke 12:35–40: Luke 12:35–40 presents two parables of unexpected coming (Luke 12:35–38: master from a wedding feast; Luke 12:39: thief) interpreted as the unexpected “coming of the son of man” (Luke 12:40). it is sometimes denied that these Lukan parables refer to Jesus’s final advent.102

The majority view, however, that these parables refer to Jesus’s future return, has much to commend it. The first parable of a returning κύριος

(Luke 12:35–38) evokes Luke’s larger narrative christology where Jesus is regularly identified as “the Lord” (see especially Luke 12:41, 42).103 Moreover, the unexpected “service” (διακονήσει) offered by the master upon his return (Luke 12:37) anticipates Jesus’s striking self-designation as the

“one who serves” (Luke 22:27: ὁ διακονῶν) so that competent readers of the gospel associate the returning κύριος with Jesus.104 The second brief parable employs the image of the thief (Luke 12:39), which—as noted—is as “Lord, Lord,” and especially the bridegroom’s response, “Truly i say to you, i do not know you,” evokes Jesus’s word of eschatological judgment at Matt 7:23; (4) the final warning, “you do not know the day or the hour’ echoes Matt 24:36 and its vision of the final day.

101. Nolland, Gospel of Matthew, 1010 suggests that Jesus originally told the parable to speak of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God, rather than his own

“return.” in the absence of textual evidence this remains speculative.

102. e.g., Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 640 argues that “the right way to take this whole kaleidoscopic sequence of parables is as further stories about the imminent return of YhWh to zion, and the awesome consequences which will ensue if israel is not ready”; David e. Garland, Luke, zecNT (Grand Rapids: zondervan, 2011), 528 on Luke 12:36–39: “The parable does not require that Jesus be the returning master to make its point, just as the next one, the thief coming in the night (12:39), need not refer to Jesus.”

103. c. Kavin Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 153–54, demonstrates how the reference to the master in the parable as “his Lord” “ties the parable to the larger Lukan story.”

104. see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, sP (collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), 206; Garland, Luke, 528.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 395

used elsewhere in the early christian literature for the future coming of Jesus (Matt 24:44; 1 Thess 5:4; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 3:3; 16:15), but never for the coming of God. The section concludes with Jesus’s injunction to “be ready, for the son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (καὶ ὑμεῖς

γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι ὅτι ᾗ ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται), which unambiguously concerns Jesus’s own final advent. Once again, when similar language appears in Did. 16.1, the presumption must be that Jesus’ final advent is on view there also.

The synoptic texts from the tradition in which Did. 16.1 stands consistently refer to Jesus’s final advent in glory (Mark 13:32–37; Matt 24:36; 42–44; 25:1–13; Luke 12:35–40). it is, of course, theoretically possible that the Didache employs the same language and imagery with different import, to speak only of the final coming of God. in the absence of compelling reasons to indicate such divergent usage, however, it seems clear that Did. 16.1 expects Jesus as the coming Lord.

3.2.2. The “coming of the Lord” Jesus in Did. 16.7–8

The final two references to the coming of the Lord in Did. 16.7–8 are distinct but closely related. The text reads as follows: 7 ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐρρέθη Ἥξει ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ 8 τότε

ὄψεται ὁ κόσμος τὸν κύριον ἐρχόμενον ἐπάνω τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

The reference to the “coming of the Lord” here relies on a citation of zech 14:5 and an allusion to Dan 7:13. in what follows we first note these intertextual connections and then demonstrate that these two texts are consistently combined in the early christian literature in reference to Jesus’s final advent, thus creating the presumption that the combination here also refers to Jesus’s final coming as Lord.

3.2.2.1. The Text and its intertexts

The first of these two final references to the “coming of the Lord,” at Did.

16.7b, takes the form of a citation from zech 14:5, introduced with the formula ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐρρεθη.105

105. see the use of the aorist passive form of λέγω at Did. 14.3 to introduce the scriptural citation from Mal 1:11, 14.

396

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

zech 14:5b (LXX): καὶ ἥξει κύριος ὁ θεός μου καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μετ᾿

αὐτοῦ

Did. 16.7b: ἥξει ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ

Dichache 16.7b here reproduces zech 14:5 LXX verbatim, except that it omits the phrase ὁ θεός μου and attaches the article to κύριος. although there are allusions to zech 14:5 in a number of early christian texts (1 Thess 3:13; 2 Thess 1:7; Mark 8:38; Matt 16:27; 25:31; Justin, Apol. 1.51; Dial. 31), the close correspondence between Did. 16.7b and the LXX renders it most likely that the Didache depends directly on the LXX.106

The function of this citation, following the third τότε in Did. 16.4b–8, is to explain the immediately preceding affirmation that not all the dead will be raised: the Lord will come with “all his holy ones with him.” The

“holy ones” are thus the righteous dead; the rest of the dead, presumably, will be left in the grave.107 The citation from zech 14:5, then, is not primarily introduced to affirm the coming of the Lord, but to explain that the resurrection will be limited to the righteous. it is a text well chosen, however, since it leads immediately to the fourth τότε and final event in the eschatological sequence, namely, the “coming of the Lord … upon the clouds of heaven.”

The final reference to the “coming of the Lord” in the Didache, then, is also the primary reference in this section (Did. 16.8). it completes the inclusio begun at Did. 16.1 and is the climax the Didache’s eschatological conclusion. Like the one before it, this final reference to the “coming of the Lord” relies on an allusion to the scriptures of israel, this time to Dan 7:13. The situation here is more complex, however, since the text of the Didache reflects not only the Greek translations of Dan 7:13, but also the appropriation of Dan 7:13 in the synoptic tradition. Milavec, for his part, ignores the significance of the Danielic motif and discounts any relationship between the Didache and synoptic tradition at this point, arguing 106. correctly: Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 187; Niederwimmer, Didache, 225. The theory of John s. Kloppenborg, “Didache 16.6–8 and special Matthean Tradition,” ZNW 70 (1979): 54–67 (66), that both Matthew and the Didache drew the zechariah quotation from a common apocalyptic tradition, is unnecessarily complicated.

107. Discussion in Jonathan a. Draper, “Resurrection and zechariah 14.5 in the Didache apocalypse,” JECS 5 (1997): 154–79, who argues that zech 14:5 was used in early Jewish and christian exegesis to affirm the assumption of righteous martyrs and their return with the Lord at the end.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 397

instead that Did. 16.7–8 is solely derived from zech 14:5.108 The following analysis, however, demonstrates that Did. 16.8 does indeed rely on an allusion to Dan 7:13, while also reflecting the common early christian application of the Danielic “coming son of man” motif to Jesus.

Dan 7:13 OG: ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν

τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο

Dan 7:13 Θ: ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν

τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος

Justin, Dial. 31.3b–4: ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτός καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν

νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος 109

Mark 13:26–27: καὶ τότε ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον

ἐν νεφέλαις μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς καὶ δόξης καὶ τότε ἀποστελεῖ τοὺς

ἀγγέλους καὶ ἐπισυνάξει τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς [αὐτοῦ] ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων

ἀνέμων

Matt 24:30–31: καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ τότε κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὄψονται τὸν

υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μετὰ

δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς καὶ ἀποστελεῖ τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ μετὰ

σάλπιγγος μεγάλης καὶ ἐπισυνάξουσιν τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν

τεσσάρων ἀνέμων

Did. 16.6, 8: καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας πρῶτον σημεῖον

ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ εἶτα σημεῖον φωνῆς σάλπιγγος καὶ τὸ τρίτον

ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν … τότε ὄψεται ὁ κόσμος τὸν κύριον ἐρχόμενον

ἐπάνω τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

108. Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 660–61.

109. Justin, Dial. 31.2–7 cites Dan 7:9–28 at length. The text Justin cites has readings that agree with both the OG and Θ, while also differing from both in important respects. see henry B. swete and h. s. J. Thackeray, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed. (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1902), 421–22 for synopsis and comments. it seems most likely that Justin used one of the καίγε group of recensions: see Dominique Barthélemy, “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquent de l’histoire de la septante,” RB 60 (1953): 18–29; Oskar skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-text Tradition: Text-type, Provenance Theological Profile, NovTsup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 90.

398

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

The basic allusion at Did. 16.8 to Dan 7:13 is clear. it is established by: (1) the phrase τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, which is unique in the LXX

to Dan 7:13; (2) the use of the key verb ἔρχομαι, which appears in one form or another in all the Greek versions of Daniel, as well as in the most important early christian appropriations of the Danielic motif (Did. 16.8: ἐρχόμενον; see Dan 7:13 OG: ἤρχετο; Dan 7:13 Θ, and Justin, Dial. 31.3b–

4: ἐρχόμενος; Mark 13:26; Matt 24:30: ἐρχόμενον).

The Danielic motif is here, however, reworked in terms very similar to those adopted in the synoptic tradition. in particular, Did. 16.8 shares the following significant similarities with Mark 13:26–27 and Matt 24:30–

31: (1) the sequence of elements (the world will see—Lord—coming—

clouds) reflects that of Mark 13:26 and Matt 24:31 (they will see—son of man—coming—clouds) rather than that of Dan 7:13 (clouds—son of man—coming);110 (2) the future middle indicative form of the verb to see (ὄψεται) parallels Mark 13:26 and Matt 24:30 (both ὄψονται); (3) the sign of the “resurrection of the dead” (Did. 16.6: ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν) may be related to the expectation expressed in the synoptic texts that the son of man’s angels will “gather the elect” (Mark 13:27, Matt 24:31).111

in addition, Did. 16.6–8 shares significant similarities with the peculiar emphases of Matt 24:30–31: (1) the reference to “signs of the truth”

(Did. 16.6: καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας) is identical to Matt 24:30–31 (καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), except the Didache has the plural for Matthew’s singular (the connection is strengthened by the fact that both texts make reference to an eschatological “trumpet” [σάλπιγγος] and locate at least the first sign “in heaven”

[ἐν οὐρανῷ]); (2) improper preposition ἐπάνω with τῶν νεφελῶν reflects Matt 24:30 (cf. Dan 7:13 OG: ἐπὶ), rather than Mark 13:26 (ἐν νεφέλαις) or Dan 7:13 Θ/Justin (μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν); (3) the addition of τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

after τῶν νεφελῶν is similar to Matt 24:30 (cf. Dan 7:13 OG, Θ, Justin).

Of these parallels, number 1 may perhaps be explained in terms of Matthew and the Didache independently adapting the “signs” of the holy war tradition (Jer 51:27; isa 11:10–12).112 similarly numbers 2 and 3 may 110. Niederwimmer, Didache, 226; see also Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 187.

111. The roots of the expectation are perhaps to be found in the combination of Dan 7:13–14 with Dan 12:1–3. The scriptures of israel also associate the resurrection of the dead with the coming of God himself (e.g., isa 26:19, 21).

112. certainly, the “trumpet” is a standard motif from the theophany tradition

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 399

simply reflect the influence of Dan 7:13 in its various forms. Nevertheless, given the other similarities with Matt 24:30–31, it is quite possible that the Didache here reflects knowledge either of the Gospel of Matthew or, at least, of a source common to it and Matthew.

finally, the Didache contains two unique elements: (1) Did. 16.8 substitutes “the Lord” for the “one like a son of man” found at Dan 7:13, Mark 13:26, and Matt 24:30. The identification of the “son of man” with “the Lord” is, to be sure, also clear in Matt 24:42, 44 (see also Luke 12:36, 40–42, where Lord = son of man = Jesus). Nevertheless, Did. 16.8 takes this one step further by inserting “the Lord” directly into the Danielic motif.

Nowhere else amongst the texts of the New Testament and the apostolic fathers is the “Lord” said to come, like the Danielic “son of man,” “on the clouds of heaven”; (2) Did. 16.8 asserts that “the world will see” (ὄψεται ὁ

κόσμος) the Lord coming on the clouds. The Didache’s universal vision here completes a trajectory of ever-widening witness to the “coming of the son of man” that runs from Daniel’s first hand eyewitness account of the vision (ἐθεώρουν) through Jesus’s prophecy in Matthew that “all the tribes of the earth” will see him (πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς … ὄψονται). To be sure, such a universal vision is already implied in the universal kingship granted to the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7:14. in Daniel, however, this kingship is only seen by the visionary; in the Didache it is seen by “the world.”

This pattern of parallels makes it clear that Did. 16.8: (1) relies on the

“coming son of man” motif, which ultimately derives from Dan 7:13; (2) has reworked that motif in terms similar to the synoptic tradition found at Mark 13:26–27 and especially Matt 24:30–31; (3) has further added some developments of its own. The relationship between Did. 16.6–8 and the synoptic Gospels has, therefore, been much debated. a number of scholars argue that Did. 16.8 is independent of the synoptic Gospels. helmut Koester suggested that Did. 16.8 and Matt 24:30 both rely on an earlier version of Mark, which read ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν.113 The postulation of an early, unknown source is, however, unnecessarily complicated and must stemming from sinai (exod 19:19; isa 27:13; zech 9:14) and is elsewhere associated with the Jesus’s final advent in the early christian texts (1 Thess 4:16; 1 cor 15:52).

see Jonathan a. Draper, “The Development of ‘The sign of the son of Man’ in the Jesus Tradition,” NTS 39 (1993): 1–21; see also Draper, “eschatology in the Didache,”

579–80.

113. Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 188.

400

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

surely be considered a refuge of last resort.114 Richard Glover suggested that the similarities between Did. 16.8, Mark 13:26, and Matt 24:30 may be explained by “joint borrowing from Dan. vii. 13.” The suggestion, however, fails to explain the points at which Mark, Matthew, and the Didache agree against Dan 7:13 (the inverted order of elements, the use of ὄψεται/

ὄψονται).115 John Kloppenborg argued that since Did. 16.8 “agrees with Mt 24.30” only “at those points where Matthew disagrees with Mark,”

the Didache and Matthew rely on a common apocalyptic source. if the Didache knew Matt 24:30, he reasoned, we would expect it to retain not only elements unique to Matt 24:30 (from the pre-Matthean source), but also some elements common to Matt 24:30 and Mark 13:26.116 in fact, however, Did. 16.8 does contain some elements common to Matt 24:30

and Mark 13:26, namely, the inverted order of the elements and the use of ὄψεται/ὄψονται.117 it is possible, then, that the Didache and Matthew both relied on a common source, but more likely that Did. 16.6–8 reflects knowledge of Matt 24:30–31.118

114. see the critiques in Kloppenborg, “Didache 16.6–8,” 61; Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” 204.

115. Glover, “Didache’s Quotations and the sypoptic Gospels,” 24.

116. Kloppenborg, “Didache 16.6–8,” 63. Kloppenborg also appeals to (1) the lack of reference to the “sign in heaven” of Matt 24:29 (but see Did. 16.6); (2) the lack of reference to the coming in “great power and glory” as at Mark 13:26 and Matt 24:30

(but this argument from silence is particularly weak given the uncertain ending of the Didache in the extant manuscripts). see also Draper, “eschatology in the Didache,”

577–79, who follows Kloppenborg in arguing that “since the Didache contains only the material found in Matthew that is not in Mark, it is inconceivable that it derives directly from Matthew and far more conceivable that Matthew has utilized a source to modify the framework he has received from Mark.”

117. see Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” 204.

118. for a defense of this view, see streeter, Four Gospels, 510; Burnett h. streeter,

“The Much Belaboured Didache,” JTS 37 (1936): 369–74 (370); Vokes, Riddle of the Didache, 111; Butler, “Literary Relations of the Didache,” 265–83; f. f. Bruce, “eschatology in the apostolic fathers,” in The Heritage of the Early Church: Festschrift for G. V. Florovsky, ed. D. Neiman and G. schatkin, Orchran 195 (Rome: Pontificium institutum studiorum Orientalium, 1973), 84; Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” 205; Tuckett, “Didache and the Writings,” 115–16; Tuckett, “Didache and the synoptics Once More,” 509–18. To say that the Didache “reflects knowledge of Matthew” is not, of course, the same as saying that the Didache here “cites” or

“quotes” Matthew.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 401

3.2.2.2. The identity of the coming Lord in Did. 16.7–8

Didache 16.7–8, then, clearly juxtaposes zechariah’s vision of the “coming of God” to Daniel’s vision of the “coming of the son of man,” mediated by the synoptic tradition. Milavec, for his part, ignores the allusion to Dan 7:13 and claims that “Did.16 presents an early and formative eschatology that is much closer to zechariah than to the synoptics.”119 in this way he is able to conclude that Did. 16.7–8 refers to the coming of the Lord God and not to the return of Jesus. in what follows, however, it is demonstrated that the juxtaposition of these two texts is not an unusual innovation of the Didache. The early christian texts regularly combine zechariah’s vision of the “coming of the Lord God” with Daniel’s vision of the “coming son of man” to speak of Jesus final advent in glory at the end.

four sets of texts are particularly important here. first, as early as Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians (ca. 49–50 ce), both zech 14:5 and Dan 7:13–14 could be used to speak of Jesus’s final advent. On the one hand, 1 Thess 3:13 transforms zechariah’s vision of the “coming of the Lord my God and all the holy ones with him” into a prophecy of the “coming of the Lord Jesus with all his holy ones” (ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ

μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ).120 On the other hand, at 1 Thess 4:16–17

Paul and his companions announce, with clear reference to Jesus’ return, that the “Lord himself will descend” (καταβήσεται) with the sound of a

“trumpet” (σάλπιγξ) to raise the dead so that all of his people may come to him “in clouds” (ἐν νεφέλαις) and “meet” (εἰς ἀπάντησιν) him “in the air” (εἰς ἀέρα). The primary echoes here are of the original theophany at sinai when the Lord God “descended” (exod 19:11, 18, 20; 34:5 LXX: καταβαίνω),121 in “clouds” (exod 19:9, 16: ἐν στύλῳ νεφέλης) and with the sound of a “trumpet” (exod 19:16, 19: σάλπιγξ), to “meet” his people (exod 19:17: εἰς συνάντησιν). There are, however, also echoes of the Dan-119. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 663.

120. see 2 Thess 1:7, where the author relies on zech 14:5 to speak of a time “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels” (ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ

κυρίου Ἰησοῦ ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ μετ᾿ ἀγγέλων δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ).

121. The verb καταβαίνω became the standard LXX translation of the hebrew דרי

in later allusions to the sinai theophany (2 sam 22:10; Ps 18:9; Neh 9:13; Ps 144:5; Mic 1:3). it is significant, therefore, that 1 Thess 4:16 is the only instance in the New Testament where the same verb is applied to the future “coming” of christ (see John 3:13; 6:38, 41, 42, 50, 52, 58 for Jesus’s incarnation). since the word was not commonly used to speak of christ’s future advent, the choice of it here most likely reflects a deliberate allusion to the “descent” of the Lord at sinai.

402

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

ielic “son of man” coming on the “clouds” to the ancient of Days. Just as the “son of man,” representing the “saints of the Most high’ (Dan 7:13–14

with 18, 22, 29) “comes” to the ancient of Days on the clouds, so here those who belong to Jesus come to the Lord “in clouds.”122 significantly, it seems quite likely that Paul here relies not only on Dan 7:13, but on the dominical tradition he had received, which already associated the “trumpet” and “angels” with the eschatological gathering of the elect at the final coming of the son of man (Matt 24:30–31; cf. Mark 13:26–27).123 Thus in what is one of the very earliest extant christian texts, Paul and his companions employ both zechariah’s vision of the “coming of the Lord” God and Daniel’s vision of the “coming son of man” to speak of the return of the Lord Jesus. The combination of these two scriptures at Did. 16.8 to speak of Jesus’s “second coming” is, then, not unique to the Didache.124

second, Mark 8:38 has Jesus himself apply Dan 7:13–14 and zech 14:5

to his own future “coming” when he says that the “son of man” will “come in the glory of his father with the holy angels” (ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ

122. The allusion to Dan 7:13 is recognised by f. f. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, WBc (Grand Rapids: Word, 1982), 102; charles a. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NiGTc (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1990), 175; Gordon D. fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NicNT

(Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2009), 180.

123. christopher M. Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in 1 Thessalonians?” in The Thessalonian Correspondence,ed. Raymond f. collins, BeTL 87 (Leuven: Peeters, 1990), 160–82 (177–80), questions this connection on the basis that Matt 24:30–31

and Mark 13:26–27 do not mention resurrection, which is “the key point of Paul’s argument.” in response, seyoon Kim, “The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thess 4.13–5.11,” NTS

48 (2002): 225–42 (234–35), plausibly suggests that Paul most likely considered the gathering of the elect to presuppose the resurrection of the dead, especially given the prominence of resurrection in the Danielic tradition on which Jesus’s saying depends (Dan 12:1–3; see also John 5:27–29, which similarly connects the son of man’s “voice”

with “resurrection”). see Ben Witherington iii, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2006), 133–37, who suggests that Paul here “combines a saying of Jesus with his own reflections on Dan 7:13–14 and 12:2–3” (135).

124. alan J. P. Garrow, “The eschatological Tradition behind 1 Thessalonians: Didache 16,” JSNT 32 (2009): 191–215, raises the interesting possibility that Did. 16

preserves the “eschatological tradition behind 1 Thessalonians” (211). it is far more likely, however, that the Didache, as an anonymous, composite document, is a later source reflecting similar emphases to 1 Thess 4:16–17 and Matt 24:30–31 than that the Didache is itself the source of Paul’s or Matthew’s eschatology.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 403

πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων). The basic allusion here to the throne-room scene of Dan 7 is secured by the reference to the son of man by the use of ἔρχομαι for his “coming” (Dan 7:13) and by the mention of his δόξα (Dan 7:14 OG). a secondary allusion to zech 14:5 (cf. Deut 33:2), however, is also secured by the mention of the son of man coming with the “holy angels” (μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων).125 Mark’s Jesus thus speaks of his own future “coming” by weaving together the “coming of the son of man” from Dan 7:13 with the dramatic coming of God depicted in zech 14:5.126 indeed, the combination of Dan 7:13 with zech 14:5 is also evident in the parallel saying at Matt 16:27.127 To be sure, in contrast to Mark, Matthew does not use the attributive adjective ἅγιος (“holy”) to describe the angels, and this weakens the allusion to some extent. Matthew does, however, more firmly connect the angels to the son of man by calling them “his angels” (μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ), which strengthens the presentation of the son of man’s coming as theophany. Once again, it is clear that in associating Dan 7:13 and zech 14:5, and in applying both texts to Jesus’s final advent, Did. 16.8 follows a well-worn path in early christian exegesis.

Third, Matt 25:31–32 also combines a primary allusion to Dan 7:13

with a secondary allusion to the theophany of zech 14:1–21, in which the Lord God comes to gather the nations for judgment.128 The basic allusion to Dan 7 is secured by the references to the “coming” of the son of man 125. adams, “coming of the son of Man in Mark,” 51–52.

126. e.g., adams, “coming of the son of Man in Mark,” 52, suggests that Mark’s Jesus here modifies the original meaning of Daniel’s vision: what was a vision of “heavenly enthronement” is transformed into a vision of a divine coming from heaven to earth. it is much more likely, however, that the association of the two texts (Dan 7:13–

14 and zech 14:1–5) was facilitated by their common subject matter. Mark’s Jesus combines Dan 7:13–14 with zech 14:1–5 because he saw in both texts a prophecy of the climactic divine theophany.

127. france, Gospel of Matthew, 639, recognises the probable allusion, but fails to see its significance in presenting the son of man’s coming as a theophany.

128. france, Gospel of Matthew, 960–61, recognizes that Matt 25:31 alludes to zech 14:5 and suggests that Matt 25:32 alludes to Joel 4:2 (english translation, 3:2). in both cases, however, his “heavenly enthronement” reading of Dan 7:13–14 dominates, so that he fails to recognize the implications of these allusions for the terrestrial location of Matthew’s vision. he does not note the probable allusion to zech 14:2 at Matt 25:32. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: sPcK, 1992), 462 n. 66, explains Matt 25:31 as “a reference to zech. 14.5 which ‘attracts’ the idea of the ‘coming of the son of man’ from Daniel 7, and places it in a different context.” he

404

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

(ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; cf. Dan 7:13 OG: ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου

ἤρχετο; Θ: ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος), along with the references to “his glory” (ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ; cf. Dan 7:14 OG: δόξα), “his glorious throne”

(ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ; Dan 7:9: θρόνος), and to the judgment of “all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη; Dan 7:14 OG: πάντα τὰ ἔθνη; Θ: πάντες οἱ

λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι). indeed, Matt 25:31–32 extends the Danielic vision further in the direction of theophany by: (1) affirming that he “comes in his glory” (rather than merely receiving glory after his coming as at Dan 7:14); (2) depicting the son of man himself as judge (rather than as the mere beneficiary of judgment as in Daniel); (3) designating the son of man as “king” (in extension of him being granted a “kingdom” in Dan 7:14). These theophanic extensions of the Danielic vision comport well with the secondary allusion to zech 14. This secondary allusion is secured by: (1) Jesus’s announcement that the son of man shall come and “all his angels with him” (Matt 25:31: καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ; cf. zech 14:5: πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ);129 (2) Jesus’s announcement that “all the nations will be gathered before him” (Matt 25:32: συναχθήσονται

ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη; cf. zech 14:2: ἐπισυνάξω πάντα τὰ

ἔθνη); 130 (3) Jesus’s identification of the “son of man” as the “king” (Matt 25:34: ὁ βασιλεὺς; cf. zech 14:9: καὶ ἔσται κύριος εἰς βασιλέα; 14:17 τῷ

thus notes the allusion to zech 14:5 at Matt 25:31 but, likewise, does not allow this to significantly inform his understanding of the scene.

129. Of course, Dan 7:10 reports that the heavenly beings serve the ancient of Days. The striking development here, however, as at Matt 16:27, is that the angels form a heavenly retinue for the “son of man” (see Matt 13:41 and 24:31 where the son of man sends the angels out). Matthew’s Jesus thus implies that the “coming of the son of man” will embody nothing less than the coming of the Lord God himself.

130. see also zech 12:3. The judgment of the nations is, to be sure, already implied at Dan 7:14, where the “son of man” is given authority over “all peoples, nations, and languages” (OG: πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη; Θ: πάντες οἱ λαοί φυλαί γλῶσσαι).

Daniel’s vision however, lacks any reference to the “gathering of the nations.” The verbal similarity between zechariah and Matt 25:32 at this point is striking. The texts employ the near-synonymous verbs ἐπισυνάγω and συνάγω and use the identical phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. indeed, Matthew’s use of the future passive indicative form of συνάγω in place of zechariah’s future active indicative of ἐπισυνάγω may well be intended as a “divine passive” designed to preserve the Lord God’s role in gathering the nations. if so, then the difference in verbal form represents a theological unity: Matthew’s Jesus, like zechariah, speaks of the Lord God gathering the nations for judgment.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 405

βασιλεῖ κυρίῳ παντοκράτορι).131 Matthew’s Jesus thus weaves three significant allusions to zech 14:1–21 into the primary allusion to Dan 7:9–14

and applies both texts to his own future advent. Like Paul and the Gospel of Mark, Matthew’s Gospel understands that the coming of the Lord God, prophesied in zech 14:5, is to find its fulfilment in the coming of the Lord Jesus as the Danielic “son of man.” Once again, the Didache is not alone in combining these texts. since, Paul, Mark, and Matthew all deploy the combination in order to speak of Jesus’s final advent, it is most likely that Did. 16.7–8 also refers to the final “coming of the Lord” Jesus.

fourth and finally, Justin Martyr in similar manner twice combines Dan 7:13 with a reference to the son of man’s angelic retinue, which probably relies on zech 14:5. at Apol. 1.51, Justin writes: “Behold, as the son of man he comes in the clouds of heaven, and his angels with him” (υἱὸς

ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται ἐπάνω τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ

σὺν αὐτῷ). similarly, at Dial. 31, Justin writes: “for he shall come on the clouds as the son of man, so Daniel foretold, and his angels shall come with him” (Ὡς υἱὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐπάνω νεφελῶν ἐλεύσεται ὡς Δανιὴλ

ἐμήνυσεν ἀγγέλων σὺν αὐτῷ ἀφικνουμένων). in both instances, the references to the son of man’s angelic retinue cannot be explained on the basis of Dan 7 alone. in that chapter the angelic host serve the ancient of Days, not the son of man (Dan 7:9–10). it seems most likely, then, that as at Matt 16:27 and 25:31, the reference to “angels” accompanying the coming Lord reflects the “holy ones” of zech 14:5 (cf. Deut 33:2 LXX).132 if so, then, we have a fourth example outside Did. 16.7–8 of an early christian text combining Dan 7:13 and zech 14:5 to speak of Jesus’s final advent.

clearly, then, the early christian literature from Paul to Justin regularly combines Daniel’s vision of the coming of the son of man with zechariah’s vision of the coming of the Lord God to speak of the future return of the Lord Jesus.133 in this context, the references to the “coming of the 131. This connection is not widely recognized. While the “kingly” role granted the son of man in Dan 7:14 may go some way towards accounting for Matthew’s Jesus’s presentation here, the linguistic link with zech 14:9, 17 in the context of other connections to zech 14 is compelling.

132. certainly Justin regularly takes texts from the scriptures of israel that clearly refer to the Lord God and applies them to the Lord Jesus. This is evident, to take just one example, at Apol. 1.51 just prior to the citation of Dan 7:13 + zech 14:5, where Justin applies Ps 24:7 to Jesus’s ascension.

133. Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 463 n. 72, suggests that the combination of Dan 7:13 and zech 14:5 in Did. 16 is best read “like Justin, as the begin-

406

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

Lord” in Did. 16.7–8 most naturally refer to the “coming of the Lord”

Jesus. indeed, once the allusion to Dan 7:13 at Did. 16.8 is recognised, it can be no other way. for, while we have ample evidence of both “son of man” language and theophany traditions being applied to Jesus in the early christian literature, there is not one example of the “coming of the son of man” imagery being applied to the Lord God. if the κύριος of Did. 16.8 is indeed the Lord God, as Milavec insists, then the Didache is highly idiosyncratic at this point. Much more likely, the κύριος at Did. 16.7 and 16.8

is none other than the Lord Jesus.

3.3. conclusion

at four points the Didache clearly refers to the future return of Jesus.

Didache 10.6 deploys the μαραναθά invocation to call on the Lord Jesus to return in judgment. Didache 16.1 speaks of the “coming of the Lord” in terms that parallel Jesus’s sayings about his own final advent in the synoptic Gospels. Didache 16.7–8, in common with a number of other early christian texts, combines zech 14:5 and Dan 7:13 (mediated by the synoptic tradition) to present Jesus’s final “coming” as the embodiment of the great and final coming of God.

4. conclusion

The foregoing analysis leads to a twofold conclusion. first, the κύριος

repeatedly referred to in the Didache at least includes reference to Jesus. Of the twenty significant occurrences of κύριος outside Did. 16, five almost certainly refer to Jesus, a further eleven most likely refer to Jesus, and the final four quite possibly refer to Jesus. second, the “coming of the Lord”

expected in the Didache is the “second coming” of Jesus. The μαραναθά

ning of a rereading of Jewish apocalyptic in an un-Jewish way.” Given the parallels between the Didache, Mark, Matthew, and Paul at this point, however, Wright’s position requires that all of these major witnesses to early christian thought were guilty of the same error. Much more likely, Wright’s understanding of Dan 7:13 (as “heavenly enthronement” rather than “theophany-like descent”) is itself mistaken. The reason these early christian texts were able to combine Dan 7:13 with zech 14:5 to speak of Jesus’s final descent in glory is that both texts belong together in the theophany tradition of israel’s scriptures. The reading of Dan 7:13 as a theophany-like descent from heaven to earth is thoroughly “Jewish.” The christian innovation consists not in reading Dan 7:13 as a “descent” from heaven to earth, but in applying this text to Jesus.

sMiTh: The LORD Jesus aND his cOMiNG iN The DiDache 407

invocation at Did. 10.6 and the three references to the “coming of the Lord” in Did. 16 each take the “coming of God” tradition from the scriptures of israel and rework it, in terms similar to those found across the early christian literature, to speak of the final return of the Lord Jesus. The christology of the Didache, then, is remarkably “high.” in common with a range of other early christian texts, the Didache includes Jesus within the identity of the one true God of israel and attributes to him the dignity and prerogatives that belong to God alone.

Matthew and the Didache:

some comments on the comments

Joseph Verheyden

Matthew and the Didache—i have on purpose inverted the order of the two components as mentioned in the title of this section—is a “classic question” in studies on the Didache. The change of order is symbolic and symptomatic for a particular way of looking at the relationship between these two entities that has received quite some attention in recent years and that is also present in some of the essays to be presented here.

it begins already right with the first one. e. Bruce Brooks’s “Before and after Matthew” picks up on his overall thesis about the development of early christian theology, which gives a significant place to its oldest form dating back to a time when christianity was not yet “obsessed” by the resurrection and can be characterized as reflecting “a preresurrection form of belief and practice.”1 The thesis he wishes to argue is stated most clearly in the very first clause: “in this paper i will argue that the Didache is a growth text, that it makes contact with Matthew only at the end of its formation period, and that its core is best understood if it is related to the period before Matthew and Luke: the time of Mark.”2 The argument is developed in nine sections of very different lengths and character. Brooks begins by explaining and illustrating the concept of “growth text,” that is, a text that was composed in stages and over a period of time. The evidence that is cited includes an instance of an ancient legal text and three of the canonical gospels—Mark and Luke (and John, who is mentioned only in passing). The strength and clarity of the argument is marred in part because the author also conflates in this survey his views on the 1. see in the present volume Brooks, “Before and after Matthew,” above 247.

2. ibid., 247.

-409 -

410

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

relationship between Luke and Matthew, a critique of the Q hypothesis, and further also debatable evidence from Paul for the existence of this earliest form of christianity, which he labels “alpha christianity.” The last element is of some importance for identifying the Didache, but it had better been separated more clearly from the question of the growth text.

The argument is further weakened by the observation that a growth text exists in many different forms. urban von Wahlde’s three-stage composition history of John is, of course, very different from the extension of legal texts, as is the case in the Gortyn law code,3 and very different also from what is supposed to have happened in Mark and in Luke. The evidence in Mark is disappointingly sober and quite diverse. Brooks is not looking for recovering a form of ur-Mark, as some might have expected, or at least he does not use this kind of vocabulary. Of the many interpolations he reckons with, only a few are mentioned. he mentions adela collins’s “pre-Markan passion narrative,” but adds that this is not what he is looking for or how he sees it: as he sees it, this earlier form is not

“pre-Markan” in the strict sense, but “an early state in a continuous process of additions to Mark”;4 but how to distinguish between the two and what is there against calling this “pre-Markan”? Mark 14:28 and 16:7 are cited as instances of “progressive divinization of Jesus,” which may well be what they are,5 but this in turn raises the question whether all such passages dealing with divinization are to be removed as interpolations or only those that are less well integrated in their immediate context.

Layering the Markan apocalypse is a tricky business, as the history of research on this chapter has proven. Vincent Taylor’s reconstruction is but one among many attempts at making sense of the text in this way, and it was not developed for use “within the Markan formation process,”

but to identify part of the chapter as that which instigated Mark to compose his apocalyptic discourse as such.6 The atonement doctrine may be marginally present, difficult to read within the whole of the gospel, and easy to remove—“without detriment” and “with benefit,”7 but that does not make it a later addition. There is a lot more in Mark that can easily be removed, yet was most probably part of the original.

3. ibid., 247.

4. ibid., 249 n. 7.

5. ibid., 248.

6. ibid., 249.

7. ibid., 249.

VeRheYDeN: MaTTheW aND The DiDache

411

Just as with Mark, it is not a “pre-Lukan” stage Brooks is after when bringing Luke on the table. Proto-Luke is not mentioned (and indeed a horror for the author). The evidence he is dealing with are such texts that

“occupy different positions in the narrative from their counterparts in Mark and create inconcinnities in their new positions.”8 The one example that is cited is the Nazareth pericope and the difficulty that Jesus is asked to do the same kind of wonders he had done before in capernaum at a moment he had not yet been there. The difficulty has of course long been noticed, and many scholars get away with it without having recourse to stratifications or later interpolations in Luke. at most it could indicate that a later redactor has transposed and anticipated a passage from its initially correct place to a wrong one, but that is not so much an instance of “growth” as of transposition. By the way, it is a pity that Brooks cannot cite Q and John Kloppenborg’s stratification model for his position, because he does not accept the hypothesis. finally, this evidence from the Gospels is preliminary at most. it can be used for illustrating the existence of a particular phenomenon. Now it has to be demonstrated that the Didache has gone through a similar kind of process.

The introductory information on the contents and structure of the work is a bit confusing: “three readily distinguishable parts” (1.1–6.2; 6.3–

12.1; and 16; with an extra that is preserved in apostolic constitutions and canons) and not a word on 12.2–15.4.9 each of the parts, including the fourth one, is then commented upon in the light of the overall hypothesis and in view of reconstructing the composition history of the document.

The latter is summarized on pages 282–83 as follows: 6.3–12.1 (a liturgical handbook); 1.1–5.2, with a transition in 6.1–2 added later on (the Two Ways section); 12.2–15.4 (updating the handbook for later times); 16 (completing and transforming the handbook into a guide for christian life). i must say i had quite some difficulties following the argument.

The partial parallel between the Didache and Barnabas in the list of vices is “evidently” explained in terms of the latter depending on the former.

Brooks notes that an orderly list is not usually disordered by a second user,10

but then proceeds to show that this is exactly what has happened here when Barnabas first scales down the original list in Did. 5.1 from twenty-two to seventeen, combining some of the vices and adding in a few others, which 8. ibid., 250.

9. ibid., 259–60.

10. ibid., 264.

412

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

Brooks calls tidying up, but then also appears to have destroyed the original intended structure (as described by James Rendel harris), which is then regarded as a second form of “disordering.” so how does that function as proof for a “directionality” of Didache > Barnabas? Brooks then goes on by listing those sections that have no parallel in Barnabas and concludes by translating those sections that he considers to be part of the Two Ways. i do not see the force of the argument, and there is certainly no indication here of why this section would have been the second one in the composition history of the document or of why it came to be added in.

The “comments” on 6.3–12.1, “the original church order document,”

are perhaps even more disturbing. This section is singled out by repetitive use of περὶ δέ, surely a distinctive marker, but apparently not the only one, for in 7.4 a short section on fasting is delineated (unless this should be seen as originally forming part of the section on baptism, only to be separated from it at a later stage?). The reason to have this section end with 12.1 is the tension Brooks sees between what is said about a longer stay of wandering prophets in 11.5 and in 12.3. for Brooks the tension amounts to outright contradiction, hence proof of a later redaction. if contradictory, one might have expected the later redactor, who was responsible for adding on the section beginning with 12.2 immediately to the end of 6.3–12.1 and that deals with the same topic of receiving prophets, to have harmonized the two passages in some way, preferably by copying out 11.5.

But maybe contradiction is too strong a word, for 12.3 can also be read as a specification or further clarification of the rule stated in 11.5. Prophets are not expected to stay on for more than three days. That is the rule in 11.5, and it still is the rule in 12.3; only, now it is further specified that a longer stay is possible if the prophets provide for themselves. But why should this of necessity reflect the interests and concerns of a later generation? The rule stands and is not made more flexible; it has just been refined without undoing its core element.

On to the extension then. This is not structured or composed in the same way as the larger part of the previous section (no περὶ δέ), but it was noted that even there it was not the sole principle. four items are mentioned. Two of these could (but should not) be linked to a later development (the resident apostle and the installation of local authorities); but there is no reason to think that the two others (which are actually very closely linked: a ritual of reconciliation and the prescript that members should correct one another) point to a later time and can only have come on the table at a later stage. The resident apostle providing for himself, or

VeRheYDeN: MaTTheW aND The DiDache

413

claiming so and making an issue of this, is documented in the letters of Paul. however, it does not mean it was not an issue already before that time, for which documentation is sparse or just lacking. Moreover, the question does not seem to have bothered any of the evangelists too much and is left unmentioned in the various versions of the mission discourse.

The issue of local authorities is likewise documented from Paul’s time on, but community leaders there must have been right from the beginning wherever there was a small group gathering in the name of christ, and the way the issue is formulated in 15.1 allows for a lot of initiative to be left to the local community in this regard (“appoint then [yourself], for yourselves”). This can hardly be subsumed under the heading “increasing local control.”11 so again, in Paul’s time, or earlier, or later.…

i am glad to read that Brooks agrees with me on the important issue of the origins of the final chapter. This one is thoroughly shaped by Matthew’s version of the apocalyptic discourse, indeed to the extent that such elements that stem from Matthew cannot be excised from the rest: there simply would not be left anything else! it is an important conclusion and a key issue in dating the composition of the Didache, but as for the previous sections, here again i miss an argument why this chapter was added later on. Of course, it must have been composed after Matthew started to be circulating (unless one would turn the order around and make Matthew depend on the Didache, as has also been argued with little or no attention for distinctively Matthean elements that object against such a view).

More problematic still is the suggestion—and as a matter of fact, it really is not more than a suggestion—that the same redactor who was responsible for adding on chapter 16 was also responsible for the relatively many Matthean elements that can be found all through the document. These had carefully been sifted out by Brooks in his reconstruction of the earlier sections with no clue for the reader of where these came from. Now they are massively assigned to this one author who wrote up chapter 16. But the whole procedure in handling this “Matthean material” is very different and no explanation is given for this. This is a difficulty also for those arguing for Matthean dependence without giving in to the hypothesis of

“the growth text,” but it is still more of a difficulty for the latter, because the options are multiplied and the suggestion that this material all comes from the same hand is but one among others. Maybe (some of) these 11. ibid., 284.

414

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

earlier sections originated at a much later date than Brooks suggests—

after Matthew was around and accessible also already to their authors. Or maybe these Matthean interpolations have to be assigned to a still later redactor who got the taste and inspiration for it when reading a version of the Didache with chapter 16; or maybe it was the other way around and it was these earlier interpolations that inspired the author of chapter 16.

This is not just poking around from my side. The point i wish to make is the following: once multiple stages are allowed to pop up in a text, stages that are not convincingly and stringently argued for, everything, or almost everything becomes possible and there is no reason why the composition history was not more complicated still, or more nuanced, than Brooks’s model allows it to be. finally, as to the reason for why these additions were made, Brooks says they were “designed to give the entire text something of the authority of Matthew.”12 it could be a valid reason, but as said, the authority is obtained in a rather loose way and without a clear pattern, which makes one wonder whether and why there was this sudden need to be or become “more Matthean”; and it is certainly one step too far to promote the Didache to “something of a gospel” for a very simple reason: Jesus is missing from the larger part of it!

Perttu Nikander invites the reader to a journey in the land of sound and vision, so it seems, but i am afraid he did not really manage to escape altogether the bookish world that is ours. he studies the so-called sectio evangelica at the beginning of the Didache from the perspective of performance theory and in arguing against any form of literary dependence theory. i do not see why the two cannot be somehow connected, and i have not found an argument or indication in the paper that this would be totally impossible. Nikander begins by explaining at some length why theories or hypotheses of literary dependence do not work, not only in this particular case, but also on a more general level. Two objections are raised. first, literary dependence does not work in this instance, and it never does. Q

cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty; so there is no way to find out what may be redaction in Matthew’s or Luke’s version of a Q passage; hence the “golden rule” of literary dependence theories, which is to look for such elements in the text under scrutiny that can be led back to the author of the supposed source text, cannot be applied or verified. The criticism is formulated here with regard to Did. 1.3b–2.1, but from the way it is 12. ibid., 282.

VeRheYDeN: MaTTheW aND The DiDache

415

formulated, i assume the author wishes to extend it to any form of literary dependence (e.g., we do not know for sure which form of Mark that Luke or Matthew have used, hence there is no way of obtaining certainty about what they altered to the source). second, literary dependence, apparently regardless of how it is defined, was simply not used as a method in antiquity, which was focused much more on orally informed text production.

The objections are formulated in this order, though one might think that the inverted order would have been the more logical one: if the method in general was never used, it is futile to discuss particular forms of it. it is an extreme position and, in my opinion, too general a conclusion. There is no room, it would seem, for nuances in defining literary dependence: there is no “weak” form of dependence—the author has read or heard a text, interiorized or memorized (parts of) it, and reproduces this in writing—and certainly no “strong” one—an author works from a text de visu. There is no room for nuances in the type of text that is reproduced—whole books or short sections, texts never heard before and such passages that are familiar to the author: it is all the same. all that is left is a world of sound.

Nikander spends the whole second section of his paper (pp. 292–98) devoted to the issue of orality and performance in antiquity; the pages are in a sense well spent, for these are issues that are important, that have perhaps for too long been neglected, and that are still not sufficiently known to some of us. ancient authors wrote to be heard, and they often “wrote”

while hearing the text they were producing, as composing could happen through dictation. This is all true and well. ancient writing and text producing differed from the way most texts come about today. Yet it must be noted that a significant part of text producing today also takes into account the orality factor, and this not just in writing speeches, or a piece for the theatre, or poetry and lyrics. We still have our daily share of oral-oriented text consumption: one just has to listen to the news report on television. a much more important difference, to me, is how written texts were produced in antiquity using other written texts. There was no way of endlessly “scrolling through scrolls”; writing habits and the book format used just prevented this or made it an incredibly complex process. But again, it all depends on what kind of text one is producing and what kind of sources there are available. historians doubtlessly did not produce their work (solely) on the basis of hearing tradition. They consulted the works of their predecessors, read sections from them or had them read out, and then proceeded to produce their version of the events they had chosen to deal with. The same procedure may also have been at work in reproduc-

416

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

ing sections from the gospel accounts (or one of their sources); and here it would have been much easier to work “from the text” as the source was probably even better known than the average historian knew the work of his predecessors on the same topic. so books are in the background and often also “in the picture” as well, in producing other books in antiquity.

The source may have been mediated through hearing and performing the text, but it does not of necessity mean the author heard a completely or significantly different text. The difference may have been his decision to

“work” with the source text.

in the third and final part, Nikander then proceeds to “tracking the oral mode” of Did. 1.3b–2.1.13 his comments on sound mapping, phrase units and their role in performing a text, and the division of the material according to “oral units” are interesting and correct, but they are purely descriptive and at no point do they offer an argument, let alone a demonstration, for the conclusion that this section was composed without any consideration for or any link with the written counterpart in the Gospels or their common source. The latter are never in sight, not even merely to compare the various attempts made by other authors to compose such a Sectio Evangelica and maybe say something on the quality of each of them.

and that is a pity, for on Nikander’s own hypothesis, Matthew’s and Luke’s version (and Q’s) of the Sectio Evangelica would have come about in very much the same way as that of the Didache. it could be instructive to see who has come up with the “best” result, as this could say something about the qualities of the respective authors. But an even sorrier thing, in my view, is the unidimensional character of Nikander’s approach. if redaction and source critics all too often and sadly have ignored the aural factor, Nikander risks obscuring without reason the textual factor. it does not have to be a matter of “either-or” (actually, for Nikander there is no “or”

left, as in his opinion literary dependence can no longer claim any place or role in text producing in antiquity). ancient authors heard texts, which they then turned into other texts. aurality is an important factor, but the text had not of necessity disappeared altogether. ancient authors had ways for composing with an eye for the “ear” and for the “eye”—for the fact that their work would most probably be heard rather than read and for the fact that a source text could be heard but not infrequently also be seen 13. see in the present volume, Perttu Nikander, “The Sectio Evangelica (Didache 1.3b–2.1) and Performance,” above 298–309.

VeRheYDeN: MaTTheW aND The DiDache

417

and consulted. in this respect it would have been worthwhile to check, in parallel and if only by way of experiment, whether the “sound” of Did.

1.3b–2.1 was perhaps more likely inspired by hearing Luke 6:27–30, 32–36

than Matt 5:39–42, 44–48 or an even a more ancient version. in Nikander’s approach, we have no clue of what the Didache has heard, hence no clue what its author has been doing; but apparently we should not care too much about this.

One person at least seems to care. Nancy Pardee’s “The Didache and Oral Theory” is an answer to Nikander, not, however, to the essay that is included in this volume, but to a paper he read at the sBL Didache session of 2010 on the Two Ways section. But of course the basic principles that guide Nikander in that paper are present also in the later one, as is clear from a line cited by Pardee on the relation between orality and writing: “both media … should be studied at the same time as interacting phenomena.”14 The point of Pardee’s concerns with this way of presenting things and the core issue in her reply can be formulated in her own words as follows: “But how does one do this for the Two Ways, for the Didache as a whole, and for early christian texts in general?”15 an easy partial answer would be to say that what applies for the first of the three categories mentioned does not necessarily also go for the other two, but that would probably not really be in the spirit of Nikander’s approach, which indeed wants the interplay of the two media to be at work in all sorts of ancient text production.

in the world of o/aurality, as Pardee describes it, there are no “originals” any longer, there are only performances, and each of these is unique.16

This poses a giant problem, as Pardee notices, to those who would like to recover the original wording of, say, a saying of Jesus. such a project would become very complicated, “if not entirely undermined.”17 The bulk of Pardee’s paper is given to a critical presentation of several authors (and of Nikander’s criticism of these same authors) who have given a place to orality in studying the way the Didache came about, be it for explaining parts of the process and the text or, in a more general way, of the whole process as such, at the exclusion of any form of redaction- or source-critical factor.

14. see in the present volume, Nancy Pardee, “The Didache and Oral Theory,”

above 311–33.

15. ibid., 311.

16. ibid., 313.

17. ibid..

418

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

i must say i have a lot of sympathy for the criticism and the comments of Pardee. To mention only two of these: aaron Milavec’s interpretation of the change from singular to plural in Did. 7.1 just does not convince; the same is true of Draper’s comments on the Two Ways section: variations there certainly are among the various witnesses to the Two Ways tradition, but these cannot be called upon to “demote” (my qualification) the Didache’s use of it to that of “an aide mémoire” and not consider it as “a text to be performed verbatim at an initiation ceremony such as baptism.”18

The differences that exist among different texts cannot be used to make any conclusions on the status and purpose of one particular text, especially not if it can be argued (and in my opinion, proven) that the author of the Didache cannot have known any of these other witnesses. in a similar vein, it is tricky to argue for a first-century text on the basis of an interpretation of the status and role of similar texts (in genre, not in wording) that have been collected and preserved in much later and probably quite different sorts of texts.19 The prayers in the Didache are “fixed,” that is, meant to be used in this form and format. The one exception that is mentioned is found in 10.7, and it is meant to remain an exception.20

To conclude, picking up on Pardee’s final comment about distinguishing “between texts of different genres/functions”21 and at the same time going beyond her essay, i assume that even in a world of “performance only,” this does not also have to mean that all performances are on principle equally valid, should be regarded as such, and cannot be criticized or commented upon by an audience that is acquainted also with other performances of the same text. i also assume it does not have to mean that this description of necessity goes for all texts. There are some texts for which the text—the wording—is crucial and unchangeable. Magical formulas are one such group, liturgical formulas may be another. in these cases, the performance may differ—in the reciting, in the pronunciation, in the chanting perhaps—but the text, the wording, is and stays the same.

it remains to be seen to which category the Didache belongs or wished to belong. if the work is to be defined as a handbook for oral use, how would this have to be understood: should the text—the wording—be read exactly as it is found in the Didache; or is the work only a help for reciting 18. ibid., 326.

19. see ibid., 327–30, on the comparison with prayers in rabbinic literature.

20. ibid., 330.

21. ibid., 332.

VeRheYDeN: MaTTheW aND The DiDache

419

the text and the formulas it contains in performing a ritual without this recitation to be exact; or is this just one way for reciting the necessary formulas that for whatever reason happened to be laid down in writing without any thought of being normative or helpful to others? The fact that a text whose wording is very similar to that of the Didache was taken up, with some comments, in a work such as the apostolic constitutions and canons would indicate that at least the collector/redactor of the latter, if working from “our” Didache, rather considered the first of the three options just mentioned to be the more and perhaps the sole correct one.

Of course, maybe that was just this one redactor/collector’s position and decision; but after all, it is that of an ancient author.

John Welch addresses the very important issue of the relationship between the Didache and Matthew’s sermon on the Mount (= sM). The author is “inclined to see the Didache as consciously drawing on, carefully selecting from, and purposefully transforming many elements from the sermon on the Mount.”22 The second and third movement mentioned here also allow for asking what was omitted form the source text and why.

Welch first lists and briefly comments on the similarities; he then has a section on “inverted quotations”; this is followed by one on the differences and another section on the “chronological implications”; the evidence is then drawn together for some concluding observations on the relationship between the Didache and sM.23

The similarities as listed by Welch are numerous and, in his words,

“remarkable.”24 With over one hundred entries, the list in appendix 1 is long indeed and turns the relationship with sM into something unique: no other known text has so many corresponding words and phrases. The overlaps are found almost all through the Didache, chapters 7 and 13 being the sole exceptions. The list is qualified in terms of verbatim and other types of agreement and Welch is not blind to the differences in arrangement and in density of the overlaps that do exist; but these are not considered to be sufficient to give up on the hypothesis of literary dependence.

Welch draws attention to the inversions, of which he lists eleven, which is not an extraordinary number for a phenomenon that is well attested also in hebrew scripture, though one might rather have preferred to find 22. see in the present volume, John W. Welch, “from the sermon on the Mount to the Didache,” 335–61 (335).

23. ibid., 350–55.

24. ibid., 336.

420

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

here a comparison with other Greek texts (the LXX or maybe also Mark-Matthew/Luke?) to give more force to the argument. some readers certainly will be surprised to find out that the question of the direction of the dependence (sM > Didache, or perhaps Didache > sM) is mentioned only briefly at the end of the section on inversions (even before the differences have been listed!) and is decided rather quickly and in general terms for the former option (“for several reasons—structural, sequential, logical, linguistic, dependent, and thematic”).25

The “missing-pieces” list contains a bit of everything, but in particular quite a lot of words that have to do with the temple and temple cult. Not everything in Welch’s survey is equally important and in the same way linked to the temple, but overall the list is quite impressive and would seem to allow for the conclusion that the Didache has more or less systematically done away with anything in sM that has a link to the temple.26 Welch builds on it (in line with Richard Bauckham) to explain the Didache’s redaction in terms of transforming (or modifying) old Jewish concerns for the interest of gentile newcomers and to conclude that with the Didache we have shifted from the Jewish ambit of sM into a gentile one,27 or as he formulates it in, to my taste, somewhat strange wording, “the sM comes from those of the former persuasion regarding close temple ties, while the Didache stems from the latter view of temple irrelevancy.”28

so it seems we have landed in Matthew’s world, for it is with Matthew’s version of sM that the Didache is compared and have been given a plausible explanation for the differences between the two. But in the conclusion this then turns out to be an illusion, for Welch’s sM is not Matthew’s but the highly speculative pre-Matthean variant of it. Welch knows this latter entity “remains highly debatable,” but he nevertheless proves to be a loyal follower of hans Dieter Betz’s position on this matter, up to the point of claiming to bring on “additional support” for it.29 i am afraid the support is not that impressive. The rare, “un-Matthean” words and phrases Welch lists on page 351 had of course also already been noted by Betz himself and made to use for his hypothesis; it is not really much of a help when Welch then ends his paragraph offering support with a mere, “neverthe-25. ibid., 340.

26. see the comment ibid., 340 and the list on 340–41.

27. ibid., 349–50.

28. ibid., 350.

29. ibid., 351.

VeRheYDeN: MaTTheW aND The DiDache

421

less, the issue is not cut-and-dried.”30 Likewise, the list of un-Matthean words in sM that occur elsewhere in Matthew and are thought to have been introduced there from sM (see pages 352–53) is far from supporting the hypothesis; if the presence of the word “the lesser/least” (μικρότερος) in Matt 11:11 were to be derived from ἐλάχιστος in 5:19,31 how does one account for the fact that Luke uses the very same word in his parallel to 11:11 in 7:28, unless, of course, one reckons with the possibility that Luke too (and many other books of the New Testament!) was influenced by sM

and made the same reasoning as Matthew did in “transmuting” ἐλάχιστος

into μικρότερος. i would like to see evidence for this. and i would have preferred Welch to offer evidence for the hypothesis that the Didache must depend on pre-Matthean sM and cannot be explained from Matthew’s version itself. in its current form, the hypothesis is too easy a prey for the

“oralists” in Didache studies (how can we ever be sure of what the Didache really did with sM if we do not have it and cannot reconstruct it with any certainty—see Nikander’s comment on working from Q referred to above) and the “textualists” alike (why reconstruct an hypothetical sM if Matthew’s sM can explain things in the same way).

Murray smith, in what is the longest and best documented essay of this section, significantly broadens the perspective and the range of texts that are discussed in relation to or for interpreting the Didache, while largely staying away from the question of whether and how the latter knew Matthew or his tradition. The first half of the essay is given to a survey and detailed discussion of the references to the title “Lord” and how to identify the one addressed in this way. in the second part, smith offers a lengthy analysis of the motif of the “coming of the Lord Jesus” as it appears in the Didache in comparison to other ancient texts dealing with the same question. all of the instances of “Lord” in the Didache outside chapter 16 can with more or less certainty be said to refer to Jesus. in combination with parallel use in other ancient documents, this observation may prove to offer sufficient ground for the conclusion that the Didache is familiar with the motif of the parousia of the Lord Jesus and his judgemental role that goes with it, and that the work displays a “remarkably ‘high’” christology.32

so far i am with the author. i am less happy with the way he formulates his 30. ibid., 352.

31. ibid., 351.

32. see in the present volume, Murray J. smith, “The Lord Jesus and his coming in the Didache,” above 363–407.

422

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

position then also as, “the Didache includes Jesus within the identity of the one true God of israel and attributes to him the dignity and prerogatives that belong to God alone.”33

smith’s position with regard to the identification of the Lord in the passages reviewed by him is probably correct. The major question one might have is not so much with the contents but with the way he integrates the question of the relationship with Matthew into his analysis and hence whether and how this essay belongs in this section of the volume. if the comments on Did. 8.2, the first passage to be discussed among the instances of “Lord,” can be taken as typifying the author’s position, not much can be gained here for the question of the relation between the Didache and Matthew; for indeed, after pointing out the two options that are found in the literature—“knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew in its finished form,”

which seems to be the author’s privileged position, or “knowledge of some other written gospel source”—smith continues with a slightly disappointing, “be that as it may.”34 a similar comment is found at 9.5: “for our purposes, it is again not necessary to enter the debate about the relationship between Matthew and the Didache.”35 smith may feel this way, and one might well agree with his reading of 9.5a as (somehow) including Jesus, but it is a bit easy and dissatisfying and also methodologically not completely sound if part of the argument for the reading is built on Matt 28:19.

What does it mean that the comparable phrase of Did. 7.1, 3 “is identical with that found at Matt 28:19”?36 it certainly means something different if the Didache is supposed to have drawn on Matthew’s final form (probably smith’s own position) or on a phrase that was circulated before Matthew and ended up in his Gospel. so, while being supportive and sympathetic of smith’s analysis, arguments, and conclusions with regard to the identification of the Lord, i fear the argument suffers from this lack of clarity on the relationship with Matthew. it is also a bit disturbing to notice that smith does not seem to take the trouble to argue why the genitive in the phrase

“the gospel of the Lord” (see Did. 15.4) should be a genitive of the subject, not of the object.

33. ibid., 407.

34. ibid., 366.

35. ibid., 368.

36. ibid.

VeRheYDeN: MaTTheW aND The DiDache

423

four out of the twenty-one occurrences of the title “Lord” outside chapter 16 are said to be “indeterminate, but quite possibly” refer to Jesus.37

The latter of these qualifications has the author’s preference and appears in the title of this section. The author of Barn. 19.2–3 interpreted the parallel to Did. 4.12–13 undoubtedly as referring to God. The different context in which the two passages figure may not be sufficient ground to say that this says nothing about Did. 4.12–13.38 i am afraid smith is overdoing the argument. even if there are a couple of cases in the Didache in which the Lord would refer to God, this would not invalidate the identification with Jesus smith argues for in chapter 16. The parallel use elsewhere in the Didache is an important argument for identifying the use of the title in chapter 16, but it is not an absolute or the only one. The immediate context in which the word appears and the way it is used in parallel passages to this particular one are also important and perhaps even stronger arguments.

Now smith risks becoming liable to the same charge of overgeneralising that can easily be brought against aaron Milavec, arguing for the opposite position and identifying all such instances of Lord as referring to God, which is certainly an even more impossible position than smith’s.39

The same comments and reservations apply to the passages on the coming of the Lord that are dealt with in the second half of the essay. The μαραναθά invocation in Did. 10.6 (in combination with 10.5) has something for it to be understood with reference to the Lord Jesus. its origins are to be found in hebrew scripture and are there obviously applied to God, but the process of transposing the motif to Jesus had already begun and is documented in the earliest christian tradition—most explicitly in Rev 22:20, rather less clearly in 1 cor 16:22 and Jude 14. hence, there remain some doubts about Did. 10.5–6, notwithstanding smith’s enthusiasm for the Lord = Jesus option. The conclusion “almost certainly the Lord Jesus” may be just a little bit too strong in view of the reference to “the God of David,” the double doxology (in 10.4 and 5), the double mention of the Lord’s “power,” and the motif of preparing the kingdom (10.5).40 Of course, the first of these could be interpreted in a strongly messianic way, as if David was not speaking about the coming of a political and earthly messiah, but of the divine one, the christ Jesus. But one needs almost a 37. ibid., 378.

38. against smith (378).

39. see, ibid., 380 n. 62.

40. ibid., 383–84.

424

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

detour over Mark 12:35–37 to make this work. Likewise, the last of the objections could be rendered futile by arguing that it is a somewhat awkward way to say that the Lord Jesus left to prepare a place in heaven for his disciples, now in line with John 14:2–3, but are all of us prepared to make this detour?

Perhaps a stronger case can be made for the three references to the coming of the Lord in Did. 16.1, 7, 8. in this instance parallels with the synoptic Gospels abound, but again their force and use for the argument is significantly reduced when reading such phrases as, “it has often been thought that the Didache here [on 16.1a] depends on Matt 24. This remains quite likely, but the parallels are not so exact as to require direct literary dependence.… Be that as it may.”41 But if not “direct literary dependence,”

what then? Dependence on synoptic tradition? But then at the risk that this tradition interpreted the motif differently from what smith thinks Matthew makes of it and (still) applied it to God instead of to christ? it is the same reasoning and the same kind of, in my view, overcautious hesitation that is found in the comments on the lamps and the girded robes in 16.1b.

The least that can be said, i would think, is that “the co-location of the two images … is sufficiently uncommon to suggest a relationship of some kind” between this passage and Luke 12:35.42 it is all a bit discouraging. “a common source (perhaps ‘Q’),” or “a modified rendition” of Luke 12:35 are the two options mentioned,43 and smith is happy to leave it there, for as far as he is concerned he has made his point: the motif has its place in the synoptic tradition. But again, how sure can we be that the common source used the motif in exactly the same way; what about calling in Q for a verse that is not attested also in Matthew; and why can the common source not also be further evaporated into a form of common tradition? after all, the imagery is not particularly christian or christological and could also have been in use in the context of Jewish eschatological expectations. i may be driving my scepticism too far, but i do so on purpose, because it should not be forgotten that not all of the parallels smith cites explicitly identify the coming one with Jesus, contrary to what he seems to suppose when writing, “in all of them, he speaks of his own final advent, often in theophanic [sic] terms.”44 such an identification can be found in the par-41. ibid., 387.

42. ibid., 388.

43. ibid.

44. ibid., 389.

VeRheYDeN: MaTTheW aND The DiDache

425

able in Matt 24:36, 42–44 and its parallel in Luke 12:35–40 (that is, if the son of man refers to Jesus, which it most probably does), but not in the quasiparallel in Mark 13:32–37, nor in the parable of the virgins in Matt 25:1–13. Why would this have been different in “the synoptic tradition”?

so caution there should be, but maybe for a different reason.

in the last, double-reference to the Lord in 16.7–8, the Didachist seems to go his own way when citing from zech 14:5 and alluding quite openly to Dan 7:13–14. however much i sympathize with his position, it is slightly ironic to note that this is the only instance in which smith thinks it “more likely” that the Didache reflects knowledge of Matthew (24:30–31) than turning to the alternative of positing a common source.45 and it is again a bit disappointing to see that, while the Didachist is now given his freedom to act as a “real” author—that is with the right to write out his mind—

smith does not wish to extend this conclusion to other such instances in the work and accept that elsewhere as well the Didache may have used this freedom to work with and from the Gospels without betraying these, but without slavishly copying any of them. if Matthew is allowed to get in here in this instance, he should be allowed to enter elsewhere as well. and if the Didache is said to have changed here Matthew’s (double!) son of man into Lord, he should be given credit for systematically referring to Jesus in a way all through his work. it makes me a bit sad not to read such a conclusion, and it takes away something of the joy i felt in studying an otherwise well-documented essay.

i conclude most briefly. in reading through the five essays that constitute this section one might be recalled of the saying “quot capita, tot sensus” (“as many heads, so many opinions”). in essence, there is nothing wrong with such an observation. unfortunately, however, it turns out that not all the “sensus” are equally sound and strongly argued. i refrain from commenting on the “capita.”

45. ibid., 400.

Part 4

The Didache and Other early christian Texts

Without Decree: Pagan sacrificial Meat and the early history of the Didache*

Matti Myllykoski

The prohibition of pagan sacrificial meat in Did. 6.2–3 is often viewed as evidence for the influence of the apostolic Decree (acts 15:20, 29) on early syrian Jewish christianity.1 according to a similarly popular theory, behind Did. 1.1–6.1 lies a Jewish catechism presumably used by Jewish christians.2 The prohibition of the consumption of pagan sacrificial meat in Did. 6.2–3 is regarded as an addition, which conveys the basic content of the decree to the gentiles. This article proposes an alternative reconstruction of this history. first, i will ask whether there was a vorlukanisch apostolic Decree at all and, second, i will argue that the teaching of the Two Ways in the Didache was from the outset a Jewish christian text,

* This essay was previously published under the title “Ohne Dekret: Das Götzenopferfleisch und die frühgeschichte der Didache,” in Aposteldekret und antikes Ver-einwesen: Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung, ed. Markus Öhler, WuNT 280 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck 2011), 113–37.

1. so e.g., Jean-Paul audet, La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres, ebib (Paris: Gabalda, 1958), 209, 354–57; Marcel simon, “De l’observance ritual à l’asceticism: Recherches sur le décret apostolique,” RHR 193 (1978): 27–104 (89–90); clayton N.

Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Vcsup 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 96–97; and 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), 24–243. Otherwise e.g., Kurt Niederwimmer, Die Didache: A Commentary, KaV 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 157 n. 37.

2. Most scholars embrace the theory by charles Taylor, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, with Illustrations from the Talmud (cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1886), and Benjamin B. Warfield, “Text, sources and contents of the ‘Two Ways’ or first section of the Didache,” BSac 43 (1886): 81–97; see audet, Didachè, 131–37; Niederwimmer, Didache, 67–69; and others.

-429 -

430

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

which in a certain phase of development was supplemented with the prohibition of pagan sacrificial meat.

1. To the formation of the so-called apostolic Decree Without acts we would not know the so-called apostolic Decree. Only Luke reports that the dispute about the circumcision of the gentiles in antioch was resolved with a formal decree sent from Jerusalem. None other than Luke himself tells us about an epistle that the apostles and elders sent through Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and silas to the christians in antioch, syria, and cilicia (acts 15:22–23). Only Luke tells us that the apostles admonished the gentiles with a written document to stay away from pagan sacrificial meat, blood, strangled animals, and fornication (v. 29).

Luke describes the beginning of the conflict as a serious situation: some (τινες) have caused “no small” conflict by claiming that the gentiles who converted to the faith in christ without circumcision and obedience to the law cannot be saved. curiously enough Luke does not say whether these Torah-observant Jews are christians. Luke’s account reveals (v. 5) that he numbers them among the members of the Jerusalem community, although he freely acknowledges that actually these people are no real insiders. at the last visit of Paul to Jerusalem, Luke mentions these believers who are so zealous for the law and counts their number in myriads (acts 21:20). Luke falters between two tendencies that pull in opposite directions: on the one hand, the zealots of the law must be understood as a serious minority, which is able to cause a serious strife in the community; on the other hand, they must appear as a fringe group that can by no means shake the consensus of the faithful.

Because of the demand of these “some,” Paul, Barnabas, “and some others” must travel from antioch to Jerusalem in order to hold a meeting with the apostles and elders (15:1–2, 5). There is a notable contrast between the serious issue originally at stake and the description of events that follows. Luke tells how Paul and his colleagues who travel towards Jerusalem are welcomed in Phoenicia and samaria with joy (v. 3). When they arrive in Jerusalem and report about their activities, Luke seems to indicate that all others except “some of the sect of the Pharisees” seem to relate very positively to their news (vv. 4– 5; see next v. 12).3

3. Biblical quotations are from the NRsV; translations of the Didache are my own.

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

431

in the assembly, the requirement of those zealots for the law is unani-mously denied after a fierce dispute (πολλῆς δὲ ζητήσεως γενομένης, v. 7) with the breathtaking speeches of Peter and James (vv. 7–11, 13–21),4 both in complete agreement with each other and reading like Pauline statements. Now that God has cleansed the hearts of the gentile christians and they also have received the holy spirit—according to Peter—there is no difference between them and Jews who believe in christ. The zealots for the law “put God to the test” with their claim. The law is a yoke that even the fathers of the faithful could not bear (see 7:53; 13:38–39), while the salvation of the Jews and gentiles relies merely on faith in Jesus christ (vv.

7–11). The subsequent testimony of Paul and Barnabas about the won-derful impact of God among the gentiles underscores the futility of the demand of those zealous for the law (v. 12). James continues in perfect agreement with the speech of Peter that God has made himself a people among the gentiles, as the “words of the prophets” prove.5 Through the restoration of israel in Jesus christ and the inclusion of the gentiles in his people, God has fulfilled his promise. in the strict sense, it is Lord’s brother James, who, according to Luke, decides the issue (v. 19: ἐγὼ κρίνω).6

according to Luke, the specific proposal of James (v. 20) is adopted by the assembly as such (vv. 23–29) and is repeated in the letter (v. 29). The four things from which the gentiles should abstain are named slightly differently in these two versions:

v. 20:7 τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ τῆς πορνείας καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ

καὶ τοῦ αἵματος

4. Peter and Paul silence the whole crowd (vv. 12–13) and, after the speech of James (v. 22), the matter is completely settled.

5. some scholars assume that it is the historical James who is speaking here; see particularly, Richard J. Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem church,” 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: Paternoster, 1995), 455.

6. Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, 17th ed., KeK 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht, 1998), 389; see also ernst haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 14th ed., KeK

6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 394 (= κρίνω “i mean”). The course of events indicates that James as the author of the decision also has the last word.

7. codex D has in the end the so-called golden rule καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς

γίνεσθαι ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖτε, and the words καὶ τῆς πορνείας are missing in P45. irenaeus already knows the text transmitted by D: a uanitatibus idolorum et a fornica-tione et a sanguine et quaecumque nolunt sibi fieri aliis ne faciant (Haer. 3.12.14–15).

432

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

v. 29:8 εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνικτῶν καὶ πορνείας

The speeches of the two apostles clearly show that Luke relates the decree to cult and not to ethics: the hearts of the gentile christians are pure (vv.

8–9), but the decree is necessary for their external or ritual purity (v. 28: ἐπάναγκες).9 The list in verse 29 is directly derived from the essential prohibitions mentioned in Lev 17–18. The taboos concerning pagan sacrificial meat (17:7, idolatry), blood (17:10), what is strangled (17:13, hunt-ing prey for food), and fornication (18:6, sexual contact between blood relatives) stem—even in the right order—from these chapters that should rule the life of the israelites and the aliens living among them. The real problem in this supposedly traditional list is fornication, which when taken without further explanation, does not refer to ritual practices but to ethical conduct. Therefore it has been assumed that the prohibitions of the decree should be traced back to the interpretation of Lev 17–18 in the Targums.10 if this is true, it is also possible to understand fornication in a broader sense. in his formulation of verse 20, however, Luke shows that he has a problem with the expression πορνεία: he stresses the ritual character of the decree with the expression “polluted things” (pl. ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν

ἀλισγημάτων) and moves πορνεία to the end of the list. Luke clearly recognized the problem, but did not want to change the expression to make it clear that the decree points to the ritual issues related to fornication. This in turn indicates that he considers the specific content of the decree less important than the purpose that the decree has in his salvation-historically motivated narrative.

for Luke, the purpose of the decree is clear: if the converted gentiles follow these rules, they are full members of the people of God, which is Only some modern scholars prefer the Western text. for an interesting argument for the Western text and the origin of the decree in the Noachide prohibitions (Gen 9:4–6; Jub. 7:20, 21a; t. ‘abod. zar. 8:4; t. Šabb. 16:17; b. Pesaḥ. 25a), see van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 245–53.

8. as in v. 22, codex D also here concludes with the golden rule καὶ ὅσα μὴ

θέλετε ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσθαι ἑτέρῳ μὴ ποιεῖν. a few Vulgate manuscripts do not mention the fornication. The earliest witness of the original text is clement of alexandria (Paed. 2.7.56; Strom. 4.15.97).

9. Thus rightly Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 391–92.

10. Jürgen Wehnert, Reinheit des ”christlichen Gottesvolkes” aus Juden und Heiden: Studien zum historischen und theologischen Hintergrund des sogenannten Aposteldekrets, fRLaNT 173 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 209–32.

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

433

made up of Jews and gentiles according to the will of God. according to Luke, the strict Jewish christians raise absolutely no objections against the thin ritual content of the decree proposed by James. The reader of acts must further assume that these zealots stay in the Jerusalem community only to reappear in chapter 21 with their new protests and demands. in acts 15, Luke wants to point out that with the decree the apostles reached a reconciliation. in the report of Paul (Gal 2:1–10), there are traces neither of a decree nor of a reconciliation. according to Paul, the “pillars” in Jerusalem accepted his law-free gentile mission, regardless of what they themselves or the zealots for the law thought about it.

it is characteristic of Luke’s narration that, in the argument concerning the decree in acts 15:21, he makes James leave the zealots aside and instead take up the synagogues “everywhere.” This reasoning is hard to follow, but in any case it must be assumed that it legitimizes the authority of the decree with the Mosaic law.11 Luke wants to show how patiently and peacefully the christian gentile mission approached the synagogues.

When Paul and his associates return to antioch, the content of the apostolic letter makes the local gentile christians rejoice (vv. 30–31). This joy cannot be understood as anything other than an expression of pious relief: Luke indicates that the prohibitions of the decree are easy to fulfill and that the antiochene gentile christians have already naturally followed them. in verse 41, where Luke portrays Paul’s journey among the communities in syria and cilicia, he keeps quiet about the decree,12 and after the statement in 16:4 he no longer refers to the statutes of the apostles.

Behind the Lukan narrative only some specific elements can be confidently included in a traditional source: the starting point of the dispute, the meeting of the major participants, and the basic acceptance of the gentile mission. it is very difficult to reconstruct an original letter of the apostles and elders behind the document reported by Luke in verses 23–29. except for the four items of the decree, everything in this letter is dependent on the Lukan report and that alone. Both the language of the letter and the description of the main actors and their roles correspond to the Lukan presentation in the other chapters. in the light of these observations, it is 11. according to haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 396, the presence of the synagogue in all cities indicates that the local gentile christians knew the four things mentioned in the decree.

12. codex Bezae and some other manuscripts add the words παραδιδοὺς τὰς

ἐντολὰς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων.

434

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

reasonable to ask whether it is at all possible to trace a traditional letter or decree from the Lukan text. My conclusion is that Luke knew the four prohibitions as a rule, which some christians followed and attributed to the authority of the apostles.13

a parallel to the decree can be found in Rev 2:14–15. here the community of Pergamum is blamed for their toleration of the Nicolaitans, who “hold the doctrine of Balaam” by “eating pagan sacrificial meat” and

“adultery” (φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι).14 some scholars think that these verses are influenced by the decree,15 but the polemical connection of eating pagan sacrificial meat and fornication does not necessarily indicate a ritually oriented apostolic Decree as its background.

although some scholars assume that the Lukan report about the decree and its sending to syria and cilicia is historically reliable,16 nothing in the Pauline letters indicates that the apostle would have known such a decree. Paul says in Gal 2:6 that the pillars did not impose anything on him (οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο). These words hardly imply an implicit reference to the decree, because in verse 10 Paul pointedly stresses that he and Barnabas should only (μόνον) take care of the poor. Many scholars conclude therefore that Paul and his coworkers did not take the decree to antioch immediately after the meeting. They assume that the decree was sent to the communities in syria and cilicia only later, without the knowledge and approval of Paul.17 This theory presupposes that Luke knew a letter of the apostles in Jerusalem, used it in a stylized form, and simply added a reference to Paul and Barnabas.

That is possible, but there is no plausible way from Gal 2 to the decree: the division of mission in Paul’s account in Gal 2:9 does not fit well with 13. haenchen, Apostelgeschichte, 417–18; see also John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (columbia: university of south carolina Press, 1997), 52–53.

14. simon, “Observance ritual à l’asceticism,” 71 interprets this passage similarly.

15. ibid., 67–75: 73: “que le décret soit sous-jacent aux lettres de l’apocalypse ne paraît pas … faire de doute.”

16. so for example simon, “Observance ritual à l’asceticism,” 76–78, who thinks that Paul does not take up the decree, because he did not want to act in obvious contradiction to it.

17. Thus first, carl von Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church trans. James Miller, 3rd ed. (London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam’s sons, 1902), 173. Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 406–7, suggests that the decree had been proposed to Paul in the council, but he rejected it.

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

435

the decree. if the Jerusalem apostles were responsible only for the mission to the Jews, it would be hard to understand how they could have been able to interfere with the Pauline mission to the gentiles. furthermore, the conflict at antioch (Gal 2:11–14) demonstrates that James and his party did not recognize the fellowship between Jewish and gentile christians at antioch. Thereby they made themselves outsiders in the eyes of the gentile christians who could and should not control their lives.

Paul’s first letter to the corinthian community, written five to six years after the meeting in Jerusalem, also speaks against rather than for the originality of the decree. in 1 cor 5:1–13, Paul treats the case of an incestuous man without any hint or reference to an apostolic condemnation of immorality of this kind. Paul does not categorically prohibit the corinthians from eating food offered to idols, but defends the conscience of the weak brother against the freedom of the strong who know that eating idol food does not hurt them (8:1–13). in principle, it is possible that Paul knew the decree, but did not care about it or interpreted it quite differently from the apostles in Jerusalem. in both cases, however, the basis of his decision is completely independent of the decree: he advises the corinthians to leave the incestuous man to satan, while those who eat sacrificial meat do nothing evil at all. even the Jewish christian adversaries of Paul, on whose animosity towards Paul we have ample information in the genuine epistles of the apostle, did not criticize Paul because he neglected a very specific apostolic decision in his gentile communities.

irenaeus and clement of alexandria are the first authors known to us who clearly rely on Luke’s decree in acts 15. it is significant that irenaeus, like codex Bezae, quotes the decree in an ethically interpreted version, which includes the golden rule. The ethical version is clearly of later origin, but nevertheless stems already from the first half of the second century. Distancing from a ritual rule becomes visible also in other christian sources. The later witnesses of the decree cite neither the report of Luke nor a formal apostolic decision, but point instead and independently of each other to particular prohibitions known from the decree without citing the apostolic decision in its entirety.18

18. consumption of pagan sacrificial meat is more or less strongly prohibited by some authors in separate references (Justin, Dial. 34.8; aristides, Apol. 15.5; Minucius felix, Oct. 38.1; Tertullian, Apol. 9.15), and we have some evidence against eating meat of dead animals (Justin, Dial. 20.1; Tertullian, Apol. 9.13; Origen, Comm. Matth.

10) and blood (Minucius felix, Oct. 30.6; Tertullian, Apol. 9.13; eusebius, Hist. eccl.

436

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

in the Pseudo-clementine Homilies (7.8.1), the components of the decree linked to the eating of meat are mentioned: εἰδωλοθύτων, νεκρῶν, πνικτῶν, θηριαλώτων, αἵματος, and in the narrow context of a list commenting on the meaning of the “table of demons” (cf. 1 cor 10:22); however, we find here no reference to an apostolic letter or decision.

2. The Prohibition of Pagan sacrificial Meat in the Didache The prohibition of eating sacrificial meat in Did. 6 is often seen as a parallel to the decree in acts 15:20, 29. it is not at all clear in what context the prohibition is incorporated into the text and how it should be interpreted in detail. in the following analysis, i will study the early history of the Didache in order to cast some light on the background of the prohibition.

The prohibition of idol food does not belong to the original tract of the Two Ways, but i believe that it can be located in the literary history of the Didache and even dated on the basis of literary analysis. The composition of the Didache demonstrates how the essential teachings of the christian Jews were received and transmitted in the syrian region. it can be shown that the explicit prohibition of eating idol food played a relatively limited but nevertheless significant role.

2.1. Development of the Two Ways Tract

even before the discovery and publication of the Didache by Bryennios,19

scholars were aware that the Two Ways tract known by Rufinus (Duae viae vel Iudicium Petri)20 had notable similarities with the epistle of Barnabas, the so-called apostolic ecclesiastical canon and the apostolic constitutions and canons.21 The discovery of the Latin Doctrina apostolorum by 5.1.26). Tertullian’s references are revealing. he interprets the decree ethically (Pud.

12.4; codex Bezae is close to the text), and when he condemns eating meat offered to idols (Spect. 13.4), blood (Mon. 5.3), and strangled animals (Apol. 9.13), he does not refer to acts 15 but to quite different passages in the scriptures (1 cor 10:21, 28; Gen 9:4; and Lev 17:15 [?] respectively).

19. Philotheos Bryennios, Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων … (constantinople: Voutyra, 1883).

20. Rufinus, Symb. 36: siue pastoris in nouo Stiefel testamento libellus qui dicitur hermae, et qui appellatur duae is via, vel iudicium secundum petrum.

21. On this subject, see Robert e. aldridge, “Peter and the ‘Two Ways,’ ” VC 53

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

437

Otto von Gebhardt (1884) and its publication by Josef schlecht (1901)22

has made the comparison between the documents still easier. The so-called sectio evangelica in Did. 1.3–2.1 is missing in these and other more distant parallels. Right at the outset it was clear that the treatise behind Did. 1–6 had to stem from much earlier times.

↑ Back to top