The Didache, Matthew, James—and Paul: Reconstructing Historical
THE DIDACHE, MATTHEW, JAMES—AND PAUL:
RECONSTRUCTING HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS
IN ANTIOCH
Magnus Zetterholm
1. THE WEB OF UNCERTAINTIES
Historical disciplines are, of course, completely dependent on different kinds of sources in order to produce plausible historical reconstructions. In the field of New Testament Studies, the predominant source is ancient texts of various genres and in order to derive historical information from them, scholars have to engage in the delicate process of interpreting the texts. This task, however, involves a multitude of rather complicated issues, many of which are dependent on circumstances outside the text.
A key factor in trying to understand the message of a given text is to locate it correctly in time and space in order to acquire a general understanding of the text's social and historical setting. In addition, a whole range of cultural features, rhetorical strategies, and philological aspects have to be understood properly if we, even on a theoretical level, can profess to have understood a text in the way the author intended.! But the major problem when using ancient texts in order to understand a complex scenario or to comprehend the theology of a certain
1. Some would, of course, claim this to be theoretically unfeasible and from certain points of departure this is certainly true; see, e.g., Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980);
William K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley "The Intentional Fallacy," in The Verbal Icon
(ed. W. K. Wimsatt; New York: Noonday Press, 1966 [1954]), 3-18. See also the discussion in Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming
Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 515-50. However, the prospect of a general possibility of intra-personal communication through texts, even ancient ones, is a necessary assumption in every historical work and must simply be taken for granted. If we really believe it to be theoretically impossible to access the original (or close to the original) meaning in a text, we would accordingly have to close down every history department. a73.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
author is that we often lack relevant information about crucial factors related to the text, such as authorship, dating, geographical location, communication situation, and addressees. With regard to the four canonical gospels, for instance, it is evident that they were written by people of whom we know virtually nothing, and we really have no reliable information about the contexts in which they were produced or for what purpose.
However, even when we are reasonably certain about the authorship of a given text and its geographical location, there might still be many issues that cannot be settled. As for Paul, an increasingly important complex of problems concerns his relationship to the Torah and to Judaism in general. Scholars, who traditionally have found an almost absolute opposition between Paul and Judaism, have during recent decades been profoundly challenged by those who argue that Paul remained faithful to the Torah, but believed that non-Jews should refrain from involving themselves in Torah observance.* Since the same texts have given rise both to the idea that Paul opposed Judaism and that he lived and died as a Torah-observant Jew, it is obvious that Paul is being read from different perspectives. It is not a far-fetched conjecture that a general anti-Jewish theological paradigm has influenced the way scholars have understood Paul's letters.3
Thus, the idea of a fundamental distinction between Judaism and Christianity has not emerged from a "neutral" or "objective" reading of Paul but has rather been the normal point of departure when interpreting him and when determining the causes for the conflicts within the early Jesus movement.
This dominant paradigm has also affected terminology in a way that has not promoted analytical precision. The labels "Christian" and "Christianity" when used to describe religious groups during the first century c.f. are hardly neutral notions, but rather theological concepts, and often convey certain theological ideas of how Jews and non-Jews are believed to have related to each other within the early Jesus movement. To define Paul as a "Christian" strongly implies that he was no longer "Jewish"; to speak of the early Jesus movement as "Christianity" implies a homogeneous movement, with a common ideology and a common ritual behavior—in reality a "third race."4 This perspective on the early Jesus movement is not the result of an unprejudiced study, but of a certain reading from a certain theological perspective. In reality, there are numerous other ways
2. See overview in John G, Gager, Reinventing Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000), 21-75.
3. As an introduction see Ed P, Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), 1-59, and the overview in Gager, Reinventing Paul, 21-42.
4. Ed P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985), 17173,
RECONSTRUCTING HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ANTIOCH
of picturing the relationship between Jews and non-Jews within the early Jesus movement.> ; It is important to recognize that this general uncertainty and ambiguity with regard to rather fundamental issues within the field of New Testament Studies reflects the normal situation. Authorship is a complex matter. The communication situation is often quite unclear, as is dating and the redaction history of many texts. As scholars, we are consciously or unconsciously influenced by centuries of theologically motivated interpretations and a confessionally determined terminology. Conventional wisdom does, of course, to a certain extent, represent the collected results of centuries of painstaking research, but has quite often developed into an overarching scientific paradigm that determines the outcome of a specific investigation even before it has been carried out.
2. IN QUEST OF CERTAINTY
The situation described above is certainly relevant when it comes to the Didache, James, and Matthew, which are all characterized by numerous isagogic problems. We cannot be sure when and where these documents were written or by whom. With regard to these texts, we are all trapped in a situation where we lack an Archimedian charistién that would enable us to move the whole earth.
We should not rule out the possibility of finding evidence that could bring more clarity to the historical setting of these documents, but it may be wise not to expect too much in this regard. Perhaps it is more realistic to try to find the most efficient methodological strategy for using these documents without being absolutely certain of their geographical location, dating, or specific communication situation.
In this respect, the approach suggested by the Norwegian philosopher Dagfinn Follesdal may prove helpful. Follesdal has argued for the applicability of the hypothetico-deductive method also within the humanities.° This method, which is used primarily within the natural sciences, suggests that a theory is systematized using hypotheses. "Theory," in this instance, is understood to be a number of opinions whose relationship has been made explicit, while a hypothesis is a statement we do not know is true, but which we nonetheless use to make deductions in order to test the hypothesis. As such, a hypothetico-deductive system is a form of axiomatic system, but instead of using certain axioms considered
5. On the "terminological fallacy" see Donald H. Akenson, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 55-67.
6. Dagfinn Follesdal, "Hermeneutics and the Hypothetico-Deductive Method," in Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science (ed. M. Martyn and L. C. McIntyre; Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 1994), 233-45; Dagfinn Follesdal et al., Argumentasjonsteori, sprak og vitenskapsfilosofi (4th ed.; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1986), 45-130.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
to be true, as in Aristotelian or Euclidian philosophy, a hypothetico-deductive system uses hypotheses that are not confirmed as true. In fact, one reason for using hypotheses in a hypothetico-deductive system is precisely to determine the extent to which they can be verified. But while the consequences in a proper axiomatic system of the Euclidian kind are justified through deduction from the true axioms, verification in a hypothetico-deductive system works the other way around: the hypotheses are verified if the consequences deduced from them correspond to "our experiences and with our other well-supported beliefs."7
This means that coherence is a key factor in the verification process. A specific hypothesis is thus, to some extent, verified on the basis of how well it fits into the whole reconstruction and how well the reconstruction corresponds to our general experience. It is important to note, however, that even if all consequences derived from a hypothetico-deductive system should correspond to our experience, this does not prove that a given hypothesis is completely verified, since it is possible that other hypotheses may lead to the same result.' Thus, the results that we reach using a hypothetico-deductive method are always tentative and heuristic; they are, among other things, completely dependent on the hypotheses we are using, and there are always other possible solutions to consider.
Despite this, it seems to me that the hypothetico-deductive method as presented by Follesdal is a promising approach, for instance, when trying to figure out the geographical location of a certain text. In Follesdal's view, the hermeneutic method is, in fact, the hypothetico-deductive method applied to meaningful material such as texts and works of art.? Thus, it is especially well-suited for interpreting sources in order to understand complex scenarios. Furthermore, an awareness of the fact that we are using a hypothetico-deductive method may enable us to formalize our investigations in a way that facilitates interaction with other scholars. One benefit of such open systems is that it is easy to exchange one hypothesis for another and see how the whole reconstruction is affected. By clearly identifying our hypotheses and by presenting them as such, the prospect of intersubjective testability increases, and it is easier for other scholars to criticize and develop our scholarly efforts.
When criticizing our own, or the historical reconstructions of others who use hypothetico-deductive systems, it is important to distinguish between two levels of critique. On the one hand, there may be reasons to question the basic hypotheses used in the reconstruction. We may not agree with some scholars' view of authorship and dating of, for instance, the Pastoral Letters. We may understand Paul's chronology or the correlation between his letters and Acts differently. Recent research may have provided us with new arguments for changing
7. Follesdal, "Hermeneutics and the Hypothetico-Deductive Method," 234.
8. Ibid., 234, 9. Ibid., 233,
RECONSTRUCTING HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ANTIOCH
a specific hypothesis. These are, of course, common reasons for wanting to reexamine a certain issue. On the other hand, we may be in perfect agreement on every basic hypothesis, but still find the internal coherence deficient. Thus, while there may be nothing wrong, in our opinion, with the assumptions of a certain study, we may find that the author is drawing the wrong conclusions or making assertions that cannot be justified.
Focusing now on the Didache and Matthew, I will attempt to demonstrate the benefits of using the hypothetico-deductive method in creating rather complex historical reconstructions and illustrate how such an openly constructed presentation may serve as a point of departure for further reflection.
3. A TesT Case: DRAPER ON TROUBLESOME APOSTLES
As we have seen, the geographical location for the composition both of the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew are veiled in obscurity. However, in a highly interesting article from 1991, "Torah and Troublesome Apostles in the Didache
Community," Jonathan Draper provides a reconstruction, which is an excellent example of the use of a hypothetico-deductive system. Draper uses some very specific hypotheses about circumstances that certainly are not known to us. From these, he makes certain deductions that provide us with information, which of course is totally dependent on the correctness of his assumptions, but nevertheless constitutes a coherent historical reconstruction. I would like to use Draper's study as an example of the use of a hypothetico-deductive approach and show how such a method can provide us with highly plausible results, which can be used as a point of departure for further reflection thanks to the methodological openness of the system.
Draper suggests that the correlation between the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew, which has been a much-discussed issue in the research on the Didache,!° should be understood not primarily as a one-way literary dependence, but as a dialectic relationship in which the two documents influence each other. The reason for this, according to Draper, is that they emerged in the same community, namely, the one in Antioch.!! By assuming a particular geographical location for these two documents, Draper is able to relate them to a very specific historical context, which may explain some important features in both texts.
Even though Antioch has been suggested as a likely location for the Didache 10. For overview and references see Jonathan A. Draper, "The Didache in Modern
Research: An Overview," in The Didache in Modern Research (ed. J. A. Draper; AGJU 37;
Leiden: Brill, 1996), 16-19; John S. Kloppenborg, "Didache 1. 1-6. 1: James, Matthew, and the Torah," in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (ed. A. Gregory and C. Tuckett; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 193-94.
11. Jonathan A. Draper, "Torah and Troublesome Apostles in the Didache Community,"
NTS 33 (1991): 355.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
and for Matthew,!2 scholars are not in complete agreement on this, and other locations are certainly possible.!3 But by attaching a specific location to these documents, Draper is making a case for Antioch as the location of Didache and Matthew through the internal coherence of his reconstruction. Thus, the basic hypothesis that Matthew and the Didache originated and developed in Antioch is, to some extent, confirmed by the same analysis that used this result as a point of departure.
Draper begins his article by analyzing the form and redaction of Did. 11:1-6 and argues that it is likely that 11:1-2 represents a later redaction that modifies the earlier instruction on apostles in 11:3-6, which, like the other sections of instructions, are introduced with the formula nepi 5é.!4 The fact that 11:1-2 lacks such an introductory formula suggests that the verses are a later addition; in fact, they represent an intermediate phase in the development of the text, at a time when the view of some apostles may have constituted a threat to the community.!> This brings in the relationship between the Didache and Matthew.
According to Draper, the Didache draws from the same traditions as Matthew, although it cannot be said to be dependent on Matthew in its present form.
But since they both evolved within the same community, it is possible that the Didache lies behind the composition of parts of Matthew. Draper believes this to be true for the section on the abiding validity of the Torah in Matt 5:17-20. A close comparison of Did. 11:1-2 and Matt 5:17-20 shows far-reaching similarities, which, according to Draper, indicate some kind of literary relationship. The use of the rather uncommon word kataldoat in Did. 11:2,!6 which can be shown
12. See the discussions of Antioch as a possible location for Matthew in William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint
Matthew: Matthew 1-7 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004 [1991]), 143-47 and David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 40-62. See also Clayton N. Jefford, "Social Locators as a Bridge between the Didache and Matthew," in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (ed. A. Gregory and C, Tuckett; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005),
256-64, who argues for Antioch as the location for both Didache and Matthew.
13. As for the Didache, see, e.g., Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), 83-84;
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, 2002), 52, who argue for a rural location. See also J. Andrew Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social
World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 158-59, who suggests a Galilean city as the most likely location for the Gospel of Matthew. See also Jiirgen Zangenberg's article in this volume.
14, See Did. 6:3; 7:1; 9:1, 3.
15. Draper, "Torah and Troublesome Apostles" 348-54.
16. Cf. Matt 5:17: kataAdoat tov voplov.
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU OF THE DIDACHE
to function as a technical term for undermining the Torah,!? and the word dikatoovvn, also in 11:2,!8 which in Matt 5:20 and 6:1 introduces and concludes a section of legal interpretation, suggest that Did. 11:1-2 is also connected to problems concerning the validity of the Torah. Both texts seem to describe someone who "breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same" (Matt 5:19).!9 In fact, Draper argues that the same historical situation lies behind both texts. But while Did. 11:1-2 has the form of instruction, that indicates a setting in the life of the community, Matt 5:17-20 primarily reflects a later development when the dispute over the Torah was a past debate, yet still detectible in the final redaction of the text. Draper states that "Matthew represents a development of the material by means of theological reflection, and its authority is guaranteed by setting it on the lips of Jesus himself."2°
This statement is due to another basic assumption in Draper's study, namely, that "it is more likely that teachings emerge out of the concrete life-situations of a community in a rudimentary and unattractive form, and are later developed and refined theologically into a consistent whole."?! This is indeed very likely, but it is important to note that Draper's view of the relationship between the Didache and Matthew is largely dependent on this postulation from the world outside the text.
In Did. 6:1-3 Draper finds additional clues to the historical context, for instance, the reference to "the yoke of the Lord (tov Cvyov tod Kkupiov)" in 6:2, and the instruction on food (Bpwoews) in 6:3, which clearly allude to the context of "idol worship" and what Draper refers to as "Jewish ritual food laws."22 Thus,
Draper finds no reason to doubt that the subtitle of the Jerusalem manuscript of the Didache "The teaching of the Lord through the twelve apostles to the Gentiles (AiSaxi) kupiou 614 tov 5Wdexa Gnootdhwv Ttoic EBveotv)," should be taken literally. In Draper's view, the Didache community remains within the realm of Torah-observant, Jesus-believing Jews who advocate Torah observance also for non-Jews.23 While aware of the problems for non-Jews in the taking on the "whole yoke of the Lord (6Aov tov Guydv tod kupiov)" (Did. 6:2), the Didache community expects non-Jews eventually to become Jews and thus be found "perfect."24
Draper's idea of placing both the Didache and Matthew in the same community in Antioch makes it possible for him to connect these texts to another significant event in the history of the early Jesus movement, namely, the inci17. Draper refers to 2 Macc 2:22; Josephus, Ant. 16.36, War 2.393, 4.382; Philo, Spec.
3.182.
18. Cf. Matt 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:32.
19. Bible translations are from the nrsv unless otherwise indicated.
20. Draper, "Torah and Troublesome Apostles," 359.
21. Ibid., 350.
22. Ibid., 362.
23. Ibid., 362.
24. Ibid., 368-69.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
dent in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14). The threat that the Didache community faces and that is reflected in Did. 6:1-2; 11:1-2; 16:1-2, and Matt 5:17-20 is, according to Draper, directly connected to Paul and to the incident in Antioch. Paul is the false apostle who advocates abolition of the Torah; he is the one who once was
"welcomed as the Lord (Sex8rjtw we Kvptoc)" (Did. 11:4), but who has turned away and now teaches something different (6 5i5aoxwv otpageic diddoxy GAANV
5iSaxhv)" (Did. 11:2). Compared to Matthew, the Didache reflects an earlier phase when the conflict was more acute. Matthew 5:17-20 reflects the same clash but reveals, at the same time, signs of the beginning of rapprochement. In Matt
5:19 the one who "breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same" will certainly be called "least in the kingdom of heaven
(€haxiotog KANOroetat ev TH Pacteig Tov Ovpav@v)," but evidently still belongs to the in-group. The Didache, on the other hand, instructs the community to exclude a false teacher (1) abtod axovonte; Did.11:2).
To sum up, by employing what must be considered a hypothetico-deductive method, Draper presents a scenario that appears rather plausible. Using certain assumptions as hypotheses, he is able to create a coherent reconstruction of how the Didache and Matthew may relate to each other, and he also suggests possibilities concerning the historical development behind the text. It is important to note that without these assumptions, this study would not have come into existence. However, while we still do not know whether the Didache and Matthew should be located in Antioch or at some other location, Draper's study shows that the hypothesis that both documents stem from the same milieu is fully compatible with a number of circumstances that are known to us, for instance, specific wordings in the texts and the rather uncontroversial fact that a conflict between Paul and Peter took place in Antioch.
Thus, by presenting a reconstruction that exhibits a high degree of internal coherence, I would say that the plausibility that the Didache and Matthew originated in Antioch has increased somewhat. This does not mean that Draper now has proven an Antiochean origin. Other locations and developments are still fully possible (assuming an origin in Egypt, for instance, would certainly lead to a significant change in Draper's reconstruction), but the fact that all these circumstances can be related to each other without excessive exegetical creativity undeniably functions as some sort of verification. However, even though the hypothesis of Antioch as the geographical setting of the Didache and Matthew has been verified to some extent, I would like to question some of Draper's other assumptions in an attempt to demonstrate that the "Antioch hypothesis" may fit into several scenarios.
4. THE TROUBLESOME APOSTLE—A MODIFIED SUGGESTION
We noted above that it is important to distinguish between two levels of critique when engaging in the process of interacting with historical reconstructions
RECONSTRUCTING HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ANTIOCH | 81
that use a hypothetico-deductive approach. Firstly, there may be cause to criticize the general internal coherence of a specific study. Perhaps an author draws incorrect conclusions from his or her assumptions or stretches the interpretation of certain texts more than is really possible. In general, Draper's study is characterized by a high degree of coherence, which is why its result should be taken seriously. There are, nonetheless, some details in the study that could be viewed differently. For instance, Draper's statement that the wording of Did. 11:1-2 and Matt 5:17-20 is so close that one should assume a literary relationship could be questioned.*> Both texts certainly use the same words (SiSaxn, Kataddoau, dikatoovvn), but hardly in a way that must imply a literary dependence. This admittedly minor objection is, however, one example of a certain deduction that could be viewed differently.
I would now like to turn to the second level of critique and use Draper's suggestion that the Didache and Matthew should be localized in Antioch, but adopt a different set of hypotheses. This will result in a somewhat different way of relating the Didache and Matthew to the historical development of the community in Antioch. My basic hypothesis is that the main problem within the early Jesus movement probably had very little, if anything, to do with Jewish views of the validity of the Torah for Jesus-believing Jews, but rather concerned the relations between Jews and non-Jews within the movement. I will take my point of departure in Draper's interpretation of the Antioch incident and the issue of "ritual impurity."
Draper claims that the primary issue of the Antioch incident concerned the observation of food laws and the fear of becoming ritually impure.? I find this unlikely for several reasons. The purity laws in the Hebrew Bible regulated when it was permissible to contact the divine sphere.?7 But as Jonathan Klawans has argued, impurity was quite a normal state; it usually had natural causes and was generally not considered sinful.*® Sexual intercourse, childbirth and genital
25. Ibid., 356.
26. That the main problem concerned food and ritual purity is a very common view; see, e.g., Hans D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 104, 108; James D. G. Dunn, "The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-18),"
JSNT 18 (1983): 31; Philip F. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1987), 71-109; Philip F. Esler, "Making and Breaking an Agreement Mediterranean Style: A New Reading of Galatians 2:1-14," BibInt 3 (1995): 285-314; Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 110-11.
27. Ed P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM Press, 1994),
214-22; Peter J. Tomson, "If This Be from Heaven . . .": Jesus and the New Testament Authors in Their Relationship to Judaism (The Biblical Seminar 76; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2001), 94-98.
28. Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000), 23. The only exceptions from the general rule that impurity of this kind was not
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
discharges, among other things, made it impossible for the individual to come in contact with sancta, which meant, in practical terms, that he or she was not allowed to enter the temple. This impure status, however, was by no means permanent and by performing certain purification rituals involving immersion in water and with the passage of time the individual could again become pure.??
With regard to the food laws in Lev 11 and Deut 14:3-21, it is evident that "unclean" should be understood, first and foremost, as "forbidden." In Lev
11 it is explicitly stated that some animals are not to be eaten—they are to be regarded as "unclean." In addition, touching dead animals, both those forbidden and those permitted for consumption, would render the individual "unclean"
(Lev 11:24-28, 39-40). But it seems clear that eating meat from a forbidden, "unclean" animal does not create the same kind of impurity. A person carrying away a domestic animal that may have died from natural causes would contract the kind of impurity that would prevent him or her from entering the temple.
But a person eating a forbidden animal would be guilty of sin and as such be in need of forgiveness, which presupposes a pure status in relation to the sacred.
Even though the same word (X/0), is used for both these kinds of impurities it is obvious that there is a fundamental difference.*° In this respect Klawans' distinction between "ritual" and "moral" impurity may prove helpful.
Klawans argues that Lev 11-15 and Num 19 deal with a contagious but impermanent defilement that primarily is related to the cultic status of the individual. This kind of impurity, which Klawans refers to as "ritual impurity," is, as we noted above, unavoidable, not sinful and impermanent.*! Ritual impurity, however, is to be distinguished from "moral impurity," which results from what is defined as immoral acts, mainly sexual sins (Lev 18:24-30), idolatry (Lev 19:31;
20:1-3), and bloodshed (Num 35:33-34). Thus, while ritual impurity is not the result of any sinful act, moral impurity is the direct result of grave sin. But, unlike some forms of ritual impurity, moral impurity is not associated with contactcontagion and does not affect the ritual status of the individual.32
The ideology behind (moral) impurity caused by sexual sins is clearly expressed in Lev 18:24-30, which also contains the significant detail that these regulations also apply to "the alien who resides among you (D221N2 74n 7m)"
(Lev 18:26). This, of course, raises the question of the extent to which ritual purity applied even to non-Jews. Christine Hayes has convincingly argued that the ritual purity laws of Lev 12-15 did not apply to non-Jews during biblical considered sinful is when an individual refuses to purify himor herself from corpse impurity, and if someone entered the sancta or came into contact with holy food while in an impure state; see Klawans, ibid., 25.
29. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 222-29.
30. Tomson, If This be from Heaven, 98.
31. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 22-26.
32. Ibid., 26-31.
RECONSTRUCTING HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ANTIOCH
times or during the Second Temple period. According to Hayes, purity and holiness should be understood as covenantal notions, which means that non-Jews, by definition, were exempted from the ritual purity regulations and were not considered intrinsically impure "nor derivatively (i.e., rendered impure) by the sources of ritual impurity detailed in Lev 12-15."33
But whereas ritual impurity did not apply to non-Jews, moral impurity did, as is evident from Lev 18:26.*4 I would assume that this, and not the fear of contracting ritual impurity, is the ideological context of the Antioch incident. It is important to note that Gal 2:11-14 never mentions food but rather hints at issues surrounding table fellowship as the decisive point of disagreement. In 2:12 Paul writes: for until certain people came from James, he [Peter] used to eat with the Gentiles
(ueta TOV E6vOv ovvjoHiev). But after they came, he drew back (bnéoteAAev) and kept himself separate (agwpilev éavtdv) for fear of the circumcision faction (poBobpevocs tobs éx mepitopis).
What is emphasized here is clearly commensality, not the food itself.35 It is unlikely, for several reasons, that the Jewish Jesus-believing community in Antioch had abandoned the food laws.*® This supposition rests on the assumption that Paul believed that the Torah had lost its validity even for Jews. But this idea no longer stands unchallenged and it is fully possible to work from the assumption that Paul considered Jewish Torah observance to be entirely compatible with faith in Jesus as the Messiah of Israel in a Jewish context. As I have argued elsewhere, from a sociological point of view, it is most likely that the first non-Jewish adherents to the Jesus movement in Antioch were recruited from non-Jews who already were associated with a Jewish community in Antioch, before its members came in contact with the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of Israel.37 Non-Jewish interest in Judaism during the first century C.E.
33. Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 21. See also
Jonathan Klawans, "Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism," AJSR 20 (1995): 290.
34. For an extensive discussion of moral impurity as applying to non-Jews see Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities, 19-67.
35. Mark D. Nanos, "What Was at Stake in Peter's 'Eating with Gentiles' at Antioch?" in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (ed. M.
D. Nanos; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 282-318.
36. Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific
Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity (Routledge Early Church Monographs; London: Routledge, 2003), 160-61; Magnus Zetterholm, "Purity and Anger: Gentiles and Idolatry in Antioch," Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1 (2005): 16.
37. Magnus Zetterholm, "Paul and the Missing Messiah," in The Messiah: In Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 43-46.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
is well attested and seems to have included a partial adaptation to a Jewish lifestyle,38 including eating Jewish food.39 The first non-Jewish adherents to the Jesus movement were accordingly already used to being guests in a Jewish milieu and had adapted to a Jewish lifestyle. Thus, the problem in Antioch had nothing to do with food, ritual purity, or Jewish fear of becoming impure by contact.
According to Acts, it was discussions within the Antiochean community about the soteriological status of non-Jews within the movement that led to the apostolic council. "Certain individuals" and "believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:1, 5) suggested that non-Jews first should convert to Judaism before they could be saved through faith in Jesus. It is reasonable to assume that one reason for this position was the assumed morally impure status of the non-Jewish adherents to the movement.
Jews in general seem to have accepted that non-Jews, even those who participated in the activities of the synagogues, were also involved in what, from a Jewish perspective, was regarded as "idolatry." This tolerant view was probably a result of the socio-political system of the Greco-Roman city-states: with the exception of Jews, every inhabitant had to participate in the official religion of the city and failure to do so could have severe consequences. Thus, it is even possible that Jews encouraged non-Jewish guests to continue expressing loyalty towards the official religion since accusations of having led non-Jews astray could also affect Jewish privileges.4° Within the Jesus movement, however, the soteriological status of non-Jews made such tolerance impossible. As covenantal partners who were guaranteed a place in the world to come on the same grounds as Jews and were thus socially more closely connected to the Jewish community, non-Jews could no longer be involved in dubious cults that risked influencing even Jewish
Jesus-believers. From this perspective, the solution of turning Jesus-believing non-Jews into Jesus-believing Jews seems like an efficient way of guaranteeing a morally pure status for the whole community. As Jews, former non-Jewish Jesusbelievers would be obligated to observe the Torah, which, if observed properly, would provide effective protection against moral contamination. This solution would also provide the former Jesus-believing non-Jew with a legally accepted way of avoiding participation in the official religion.
As is clear from Acts 15:7-21, and hinted at in Gal 2:1-10, the apostolic council reached another decision: non-Jews should remain non-Jews, and should
38. See, e.g., Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Respect for Judaism by Gentiles According to Josephus,"
HTR 80 (1987): 409-30; Michele Murray, Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries CE (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 13; Waterloo, Ont.:
Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2004), 11-27.
39. See, for example, Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.282; Juvenal, Sat. 14.96-99.
40. Dieter Mitternacht, "Foolish Galatians? A Recipient-Oriented Assessment of Paul's
Letter," in Nanos, ed., Galatians Debate, 408-32: 431-32; Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Pauls' Letter in First Century Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2001), 257-71.
RECONSTRUCTING HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ANTIOCH _ 85
not observe the Torah, but should submit to the apostolic decree, presumably to avoid moral impurity. It is interesting to note that the apostolic decree (Acts
15:20), seems to deal precisely with at least two aspects that were especially connected to moral impurity in Jewish tradition, namely, idolatry (tv ato ynpatwv tv eiS@Awv) and sexual immorality (ti\¢ topveiac).4! This is another indication that the main problem in Antioch concerned the alleged moral impurity of nonJews and not the food.
In Gal 2:7-9, Paul states that he and James were in agreement about the decision reached in Jerusalem: "they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship." I would assume that this also includes the implementation of the apostolic decree,4* which probably represents a general Jewish halakah on how to deal with non-Jewish guests in the synagogues of the Diaspora.' Still, shortly after this agreement, emissaries from James appear in Antioch advocating circumcision of the non-Jews,*4 which seems to contradict the decision reached at the apostolic council.45 However, if we accept the idea that Paul implemented the apostolic decree in Antioch, and that there was nothing wrong with the food from a Jewish standpoint, the fact that James seems to have changed his mind could still become intelligible against the background of a general Jewish view of moral impurity thus shared by both James and Paul.
It is important to note that even Paul seems quite concerned with the purity status of the non-Jewish adherents to the Jesus movement. In 1 Cor 6:9-11 he alludes to two major categories of sinful behavior that, according to Leviticus, would defile a person: idolatry and sexual immorality, that is to say, precisely what
41. Cf. Acts 15:29; 21:25. On the relation between Lev 17-18 and the apostolic decree, see now Terrance Callan, "The Background of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25)," CBQ
55 (1993): 284-97.
42. Zetterholm, Formation of Christianity in Antioch, 143-49. See also John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983 [1965]), 259-62; Mark D.
Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress),
50-56; van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 259-60. Cf. Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, 90-91.
43. Draper, "Torah and Troublesome Apostles," 363; David Flusser, "Paul's JewishChristian Opponents in the Didache," in Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution and Permanence in the History of Religions (ed. S. Shaked et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 72-73; van de
Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 251-52; Zetterholm, Formation of Christianity in Antioch, 146.
44. Even though this is not the only possible interpretation of Gal 2:12 (see Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 152-54; Nanos, "What Was at Stake in Peter's 'Eating with Gentiles'," 285-92;
Zetterholm, "Purity and Anger," 17-18) this seems to be the most natural one. Peter fears "the circumcision faction (tovc ék mepttopris)" and there seems to be an emphasized casual connection between Peter's withdrawal from table fellowship with the non-Jews and the arrival of "certain people from James": mpd tod yap éAGeiv tivac and TaxwPov ... Ste 5é FAGov. See also
Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, 93.
45. Cf. Esler, "Making and Breaking an Agreement," 285-314.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
the apostolic decree seems to deal with. Some of the non-Jewish Jesus believers in Corinth were once guilty of these offenses, but now, Paul states, they have been
"washed" (anehovoaGe), "sanctified" (ijyiaoOnte), and "justified" (5ucawOnte) "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor
6:11).46 This "purity language" indicates that Paul believed he had found a way of dealing with the "moral impurity" of Jesus believing non-Jews apart from the Torah,47 which means that, in Paul's mind, the major obstacle for social interaction between Jews and non-Jews within the Jesus movement had been effectively removed. Jesus-believing non-Jews could now be considered "holy" and "pure" and this is very likely to have affected, for instance, commensality. It may, for instance, be the case that the non-Jews within the Antiochean community were entrusted with handling food and wine in a way that was not typical of an "ordinary" Jewish community or that seating was organized in a way that departed from the standard conventions.48
Thus, while James may have been in perfect agreement with Paul on the mission to the non-Jews, and on preserving their ethnic identity, he may not have foreseen the social consequences. From his perspective, non-Jews were still to be considered potential idolaters, mainly due to their socio-politically motivated involvement in Greco-Roman religion, which may have been hard for any nonJew to completely refrain from. Thus, according to James, and in spite of Paul's efforts to turn morally impure non-Jews into purified worshippers of the God of Israel, intimate contact between Jews and non-Jews still constituted a threat to the moral purity of the whole community. In this situation, where close social relations between Jews and non-Jews already existed, James may have come to the conclusion that this could only continue if the non-Jews were turned into Jews. Thus, from these assumptions, the rationale behind James's course of action in Antioch was his rejection of Paul's way of dealing with the moral impurity problem.
If the Didache reflects this crisis within the Antiochean community, it indicates that the community chose another strategy and returned to the praxis with regard to relations between Jews and non-Jews that existed before it was influenced by messianic ideas, It should be noted that the Didache nowhere indicates that non-Jewish males should undergo circumcision. It does, however, state that non-Jews are expected to observe the Torah, at least in part. According to Draper, the Jesus-believing Jews of the Didache community expected non-Jews eventually to become Jews and through this become "perfect" (téAetog Eon; Did.
6:2). This is, of course a possible scenario, but not the only one. It is perhaps even more plausible that Did. 6:2 provides a hint of how some Jewish communities
46. See also 1 Cor 1:2; 3:17; 6:1-2, 19; 7:14; Phil 1:10; 2:14; 4:21; 1 Thess 4:3, 7.
47, Zetterholm, "Purity and Anger," 11-12.
48. Nanos, "What Was at Stake in Peter's 'Eating with Gentiles'," 316.
RECONSTRUCTING HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ANTIOCH
may have related to non-Jews in general,*? because one reason for non-Jewish involvement in the Torah, seems to have been that Jews actually encouraged nonJews to engage in Torah observance.
As Stanley Stowers has argued, the Torah was frequently presented as a way of achieving the Greco-Roman ideal of "self-mastery" (¢yxpateta).5° Both Philo and Josephus claim that the Torah has influenced the non-Jewish nations. In Spec. 2.62, Philo states that "thousands of schools" (S5aoKxaXeia), which most certainly means "synagogues,">! stand open in every city in order to proclaim the virtues of Judaism. In Spec. 2.163, he explains the mission of the Jewish people to serve as priests to the nations of the world with regard to "purification offerings"
(toic ayvevtixoic kaBapoioic). Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.282) also mentions that there is "not one city, Greek or barbarian, nor a single nation, to which our custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread . .
. and many of our prohibitions in the matter of food are not observed.">2 Stowers concludes that "Jewish teachers encouraged Gentiles to learn applicable moral teachings and practices from the law of Moses."53
Interestingly enough, this "universalistic" tendency has its counterpart in somewhat later rabbinic discussions. Marc Hirshman has drawn attention to the fact that some Tannaitic texts clearly picture non-Jewish involvement in the Torah as something positive. According to Hirshman, in the early Tannaitic period a school of thought existed that actually believed that the Torah was intended for all peoples.*4 In the Mekilta de R. Yishmael, for instance, it is stated that the Torah was given, not in the Land of Israel, but in the "wilderness publicly and openly, in a place that is free for all, everyone wishing to accept it, could come and except it" (Bahodesh 1).5> In a similar way, Sipra to Lev 18:1-5, presents the idea that a non-Jew who observes the Torah is like the high priest. The text motivates this idea by stating that Lev 18:5 ("You shall keep my statutes and 49. Cf, however, Flusser, "Jewish-Christian Opponents," 85-86.
50. Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994), 58-65.
51. Donald D. Binder, Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogue in the Second
Temple Period (SBLDS 169; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 133-35; Lee I. Levine,
The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,
2000), 82-83.
52. Josephus (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray; et al. 10 vols. LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1926-1965).
53. Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 65.
54. Marc Hirshman, "Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuries," HTR 93
(2000): 102.
55. Trans. by Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the MSS and Early Editions with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes, 3 vols.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1976 [1933-1935].
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
my ordinances; by doing so a person (D7N7) shall live; 1 am the Lord")5§ does not specify that only priests, Levites or Israelites are intended but all humankind. The midrash ends with a citation from Isa 26:2: "Open the gates, so that the righteous nation that keeps faith may enter in." The important point in these, and other examples mentioned by Hirshman, is that this school of thought, which seems to be associated with R. Yishmael, encouraged missionizing and proselytizing but also welcomed non-Jews who were involved in Torah observance but who did not convert to Judaism.°7 This ideological background is usually not taken into consideration when discussing relations between Jews and non-Jews within the early Jesus movement, but in my view, constitutes an important aspect. If non-Jews actually were encouraged to observe the Torah without any demands of becoming Jews, the function of Did. 6:2-3 as a reaction to the Antioch incident becomes rather different than what is usually assumed. The text clearly encourages non-Jews to get involved in Torah observance: "if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord
(SXov tov Cvyov Tod Kupiov), you will be perfect. But if you are not able, then do what you can." It is difficult to deny the allusion of the statement about "the yoke of the Lord" to Matt 11:28-30 where the word Cvydc clearly refers to the Torah.
This is also the most likely reference in Did. 6:2.58
Considering the fact that several sources, both Roman and Jewish, attest to non-Jewish involvement in Torah observance, and that some Jewish sources indicate the presence of a Jewish ideology that favored such behavior, I would assume that Did. 6:2 reveals that the community in Antioch returned to the model for interaction between Jews and non-Jews that existed before the idea of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel was introduced, or rather, before Paul arrived in Antioch.5?
Thus, the community essentially rejected the standpoint of both Paul and James and once again allowed non-Jews to partake in worshipping the God of Israel through observing the Torah, yet without demanding conversion to Judaism.
56. My translation.
57. Hirshman, "Rabbinic Universalism," 102-3. See also Flusser, "Paul's Jewish-Christian
Opponents," 82-83, and van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 264-69, who draw similar conclusions.
58. See Davies and Allison, Matthew 8-18, 289-90; Draper, "Torah and Troublesome
Apostles," 364; van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 240-41. Cf., however,
Aaron Milavec, "When, Why, and for Whom Was the Didache Created? Insights into the Social and Historical Setting of the Didache Communities," in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (ed. H. van de Sandt; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005),
73-75.
59. Thus, I hardly believe Sim to be right in stating that the "overwhelming success of the mission which Luke reports in 11:21" can be explained by the "Hellenists' negative stance on the Torah" and that the "mission to the Gentiles was law-free"; see Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, 73.
60. Cf. ibid., 300.
RECONSTRUCTING HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ANTIOCH
By stressing those aspects of "idolatry" that would constitute the most acute problem with regard to moral impurity—consummation of food offered to "idols"
(Did. 6:3)—the Antiochean community was able to uphold an acceptable level of moral purity that enabled safe social interaction between Jews and non-Jews within the community.
It is not a far-fetched assumption that the non-Jews in the community felt relieved by this decision. Contrary to what is usually assumed, the sources indicate that non-Jews wanted to express their allegiance to the God of Israel through the Torah. Judging from the highly rhetorical discourses in Paul's letters, it seems as if he had a hard time convincing non-Jewish Jesus-believers to refrain from imitating a Jewish way of relating to God.®! If the critique of the apostle who once was welcomed "as if he were the Lord" (Did. 11:4) but to whom one no longer should listen (Did. 11:2) refers to Paul, it may very well be the case that the non-Jews of the community concurred in this critique.
Thus, after Paul's ideological defeat in connection with the arrival of "certain people from James," the Jesus-believing Jews of the community returned to their previous praxis with regard to non-Jews. But the Gospel of Matthew could be seen as evidence of a further development within the same community. In the aftermath of the Jewish war, when increasingly involved in a conflict with the emerging formative Judaism and at the same time being persecuted by the non-Jewish majority society, the Jewish identity of the community was accentuated to such a degree that non-Jews no longer had a place in the life of the community.® Thus, in reality the community finally adopted James's view from the Antioch incident and demanded conversion to Judaism from those non-Jews who still may have been present. This radicalization may have been the trigger off that eventually led to the emergence of the non-Jewish movement, which in the beginning of the second century was led by Ignatius of Antioch.® In this context
61. There are several ways of understanding the reasons for Paul's position that nonJews were prevented both from becoming Jews and from observing the Torah. With regard to Paul's idea of preserving the ethnic identity of non-Jewish adherents to the Jesus movement,
Nanos has argued that Paul's rationale was that the "oneness" of God would be compromised if humanity was saved only as Jews; see Nanos, Mystery of Romans, 184. I have argued elsewhere that the reason why Paul so vigorously opposed non-Jewish involvement in the Torah can be found in intra-Jewish discussions on the applicability of the Torah for the nations; see
Zetterholm, "Paul and the Missing Messiah," 46-48; also Flusser, "Paul's Jewish-Christian
Opponents," 84-85.
62. See Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism; Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1994); Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism.
63. Cf. Jefford, "Social Locators as a Bridge," 258-64, who relates the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew to the historical development in a somewhat different way. Jefford suggests that the Didache can be seen as a reaction to an increasing non-Jewish influence within the Jesus movement, which eventually led to the Ignatian church around the turn of the century. In
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
and in a distorted way, Paul's ideas would again become a salient feature but then, of course, his soteriological universalism was turned into its opposite and Torah observance and Jewish identity ceased to be relevant in every way.
5. CONCLUSION
The development that has been outlined here, and which is the result of the use of the hypothetico-deductive method, suggests that the main problem within the early, predominantly Jewish, Jesus movement was the relation to the nonJews. Contrary to what is often assumed, I doubt that the question of the validity of the Torah for Jews constituted a major problem within the movement. I would assume that everybody, even Paul, agreed that faith in Jesus as the Messiah of Israel did not fundamentally change a Jewish person's relation to the Torah, while there exist different suggestions on how non-Jews should relate to God's foremost gift to the Jewish people. This clearly calls for a shift in focus from different attempts to define "Jewish-Christianity" to emphasizing different models for understanding "Gentile-Christianity."
By exchanging some of Draper's hypotheses, I have been able to present a rather different scenario. The different strategies that various parts of this rather complex messianic movement developed with regard to non-Jews can all be seen as attempts to handle the problem of the moral impurity of the non-Jew and it seems that there existed at least three options: 1) in accordance with a universalistic tendency within first-century Judaism, the Didache encouraged non-Jews to partake in Torah observance while preserving a non-Jewish ethnic identity, 2) according to Paul, who probably was influenced by an ideology that considered the Torah to be the exclusive property of the Jewish people, non-Jews should refrain from Torah observance, and remain non-Jews, 3) according to the Gospel of Matthew, non-Jews no longer had a place in the movement that considered
Jesus, the Messiah, the foremost teacher of the Torah.
Thus, if the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew really emerged in the same community in Antioch, where also Paul had been active, they could both be seen as two different ways of dealing with the problem of the alleged moral impurity among non-Jews and as reactions to Paul, who may have been seen as such a troublesome apostle that his model for interaction between Jews and non-Jews had to be completely rejected. fact, Jefford's interpretation of the historical development and the one suggested in this essay do not necessarily exclude each other. Given the fact that many texts often function within several ideological frameworks during different periods, it is perhaps possible to consider these scenarios as complementing one another.