DCHindley

Now that we have been able to look at the Didache a little closer, especially those parallels to NT Gospels, here is a continuation of post-DSS Didache scholarship:

Once the discovery of the Manual of Discipline showed conclusively that the "two ways" tradition antedated the 1st century CE, scholars first turned to the question of the Gospel parallels. The apparent parallels to the gospels are not exact, and parallels with Matthew tend to be material peculiar to Matthew ("M" material in synoptic studies).

As a result, a number of scholars thought that the Didache and the gospel of Matthew had simply drawn from common tradition, using it different ways. J-P Audet proposed a heavily redacted document that originated in 50-70 CE and drew from raw Gospel tradition before it reached its final form. While his redactional reconstructions have not been adopted, others like R Glover, Willie Rordorf, Jonathan Draper and C N Jefford all concluded that tjhe Didache was independent of the Gospel of Matthew, both relying on a common source.

On the other hand, Bently Layton felt that Gospel parallels found in Didache 1:3b-2:1 show evidence of redactional changes by the author of the Didache, and suggested dependence on the Gospels. While this was countered by argument that they Gospels and Didache essentially treat the material the same way, what appears as redactional changes are really differences of style.

W-D Koehler and K Wengst argued for a dependence of the Didache on Matthew and place it in Syria/Palestine. C M Tuckett engaged in a case by case analysis of each occurrence of Jesus tradition found in the Gospels, and concluded that the Didache is dependent upon both Matthew and Luke.

Kurt Niederwimmer concluded from his analysis that references to the "gospel" in the Didache show evidence of being added by a final redactor. "The 'words of Kurios' [i.e., sayings of Jesus from the synoptic tradition] become a new law of Christ, to regulate the life and conduct of the community." (Draper, pg 18)

Alternately, Jonathan draper has published papers that assert that "the Didache and Matthew evolved together in the same community, the former as the manual of discipline of the community and the latter as a record of the Jesus tradition mediated by the [community] prophets." (ibid, p.18)

DCH

Vorkosigan

DCH, is it Tuckett's view that Didache is clsely related to Q, via Matt and Lk? Or is there dependence on Mark as well via those two gospels? What paper did Tuckett put this in, can you recall?

DCHindley

Mike,

I really cannot tell. I already cited the statement that most of the parallels to Matthew are in the "M" material, but there are other parallels to Luke, for instance. Someone elsewhere states that most of the synoptic citations are in material related to Q. "Related" perhaps, in a solution to the synoptic problem that sees "M" as really a part of Q that was unused by Luke.

Now I'm dizzy from the possibilities!

The citations of Tuckett are primarily from "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache" in The New Testament in Early Christianity (1989). Luckily, this essay is reprinted in The Didache in Modern Research. He cites an opion of R Glover, in "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels" NTS 5 (1958), who proposed a "general theory that the Didache is dependent on Q. He claims that the Didache here [11:7] rejects words common to Matthew and Mark alone but not in Luke (e.g. blasfhmia). Further, Did[ache] shares some words with Matthew which are not from Mark (pasa amartia); but since Matthew is carefully conflating Mark and Q here, these words are probably words from Q and omitted by Luke." However, it does not look as though he subscribes to this line of thinking, either here or in a couple other cases where other critics have proposed . [Didache In Modern Research, pg 92-128]

DCH

Solo

I take it you mean Eucharist in 1 Cor 11:23-26 which looks like cut-and-paste straight out of Luke (22:19-20). Paul originally suggested the Eucharist in 1 Cr 10:16, which Mark rhapsodized in the feedings, in the missing loaf on the boat and finally in the Last Supper allegory.

Matthew who wrote for the Ebionite traditions but was gung-ho on Pauline spirit, might have taken over the symbology of the Last Supper from Mark, but I suspect that some of the more conservative elements among the Jewish proto-Christians resisted the rite, as it looked too pagan to them. Didache might be a witness of this.


As far as the Jesus "lording", Dave, let me repeat again: my impression is that the original Ebionite regular-guy- servant-of-God was quickly being overrun by Paul's Jesus as risen Lord, which transfered a great deal of the Lord-God's functions onto Lord-Risen-Jesus, most importantly the judgment (1 Cr 15:24-28).

The original Jewish Jesus cult within James' congregation just could not hope to tame the Gentile Risen One after they were forced out of Jerusalem. They had to adapt or get lost in the marshes of Shatt-al-Arab. And they did adapt - a great deal. The nativity was a pagan gnostic cipher on the twice-born phenom (i.e. interpreting the cosmic gnosis as second birth), that we know also through John's Nicodemus, and the Thomasian "seven-day old babe" saying.

Best,
Jiri

DCHindley

Not sure if Earl is going to respond.

Let me make a final observation about the following statement:

Consider 11:8. "Not everyone who speaks in the spirit is a [true] prophet but only if he has the character [tropoi] of the Lord" (Crossan's translation). Staniforth (Early Christian Writings, p.233) expands that last phrase to: "unless they also exhibit the manners and conduct of the Lord." Literally, the Greek is ean echei tous tropous kuriou, "unless they have the ways of the Lord."

I wondered to myself whether "tropos" appeared in the Septuagint, and noticed it was frequently used as part of a turn of phrase not translated literally, referring to the commands made by God. Here is an example:

Exo 40:21 (Lxx) ὃν τρόπον συνέταξεν κύριος (hon tropon sunetaxen kurios) = "In-what manner commanded LORD," or as translated by Lancelot Brenton, "as the Lord commanded." The receiver of the commandment was usually Moses, but one time Moses says the Lord commanded "us." "Command" is from συντάσσω = order, direct, prescribe. We're not talking commandments like the 10 commandments, which are προστάγματά = an ordinance, command.

This particular turn of phrase is found many times in the Greek translation of Jewish scripture*. The phrase "has the Manner of the Lord" may actually be a reference to speaking the LORD's commandments.

DCH

*Exod. 16:34
Exod. 36:36, 38
Exod. 39:23
Exod. 40:21, 23, 25
Lev. 8:9, 17
Lev. 9:21
Lev. 10:15
Num. 1:19
Num. 3:51
Num. 4:49
Num. 26:4
Num. 31:47
Num. 34:13
Num. 36:10
Jos. 8:27
Jos. 11:15

Vorkosigan

Thanks for this.

Michael

EarlDoherty

You probably noticed that I developed this very idea a few paragraphs later in the Appendix, again calling attention to Bauer's translation of "which the Lord requires of his own."

As to responding to your detailed analysis in this thread, it's quite extensive and in at least one aspect rather complex (your supposed contact points with Matthew). I'd love to have both the time and energy to do it justice, but I don't know when. Things are complicated by the fact that recently a person very close to me had to have emergency surgery unexpectedly, and I'm having to cope with that situation.

But don't write me off yet.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Just bringing this thread up out of the depths before we lose it. I will be making a major posting on the subject of the "Lord" in the Didache in response to DCH within a couple of days.

Earl Doherty

DCHindley

Cool! :jump: (whatever <= that means)

DCH

EarlDoherty

I've done this to my satisfaction sooner than anticipated, so here it is...

DCH-DidacheResponse

In view of the fact that D C Hindley is one of the few non-mythicists who have engaged seriously with my arguments rather than giving them supercilious dismissal, I felt obligated (and desirous) to respond in detail to his observations about the Didache.

DCH makes no suggestion as to why the writer (or writers/editors) of the Didache would have adopted the distinction of making all references to “Lord” as God identified by the lack of a definite article, and virtually all references to Lord as Jesus identified by a definite article (that seems to be what DCH is claiming, but as his views are spread over several postings I hope I have not misunderstood any of it), let alone that all these latter would be related to Gospel references to Jesus that were known to the writer from such documents. There seems to be no reason why such a ‘code’ would be adopted as opposed to simply clarifying the latter by saying “the Lord Jesus” (which the document never does). There certainly is no other known protocol (at least to me) anywhere else that adopts such a distinction to clarify or separate different applications of the title “Lord” to God and to Jesus. So such a principle, in principle, strikes me as very unlikely. (As does Crossan’s proposition of “calculated ambiguity” in applying “Lord” variously to both God and Jesus.)

(For the most part, my translations are those of Kirsopp Lake in the Loeb The Apostolic Fathers, though I will also appeal to those of Maxwell Staniforth in the Penguin Early Christian Writings, and the Roberts-Donaldson 18th century translation.)

DCH’s first example of an alleged reference to Jesus supposedly tied to the Gospels, 4:12, has a definite article (tō kuriō): “Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy, and everything that is not pleasing to the Lord.” And yet 4:13, which follows directly on it, is: “Thou shalt not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but thou shalt keep what you didst receive…” Yes, the latter switches to the lack of definite article, but can we really suppose, as DCH is suggesting, that this indicates that the writer is switching from a reference to Jesus in verse 12 to a reference to God in verse 13? Anyone reading these verses one after the other would have no reason not to take the two thoughts as the same, that the “commandments of the Lord” (v.13) refers to the same things as those things which have just been said to be “pleasing to the Lord” (v.12). And “commandments of the Lord” is a motif found throughout the non-Gospel record generally, as in the Two Ways section of Barnabas, as in the Johannine epistles (look at 2 John 4:6 and parallels in 1 John), as in Hebrews 6:12, etc.

As for verse 12’s linkage to the Gospels: Perhaps these are typos, but the first two, Mt. 12:28 and Mark 12:15, contain not the slightest thing in common with Did. 4:12 that I can see; and Luke 12:1 simply says to beware of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. That’s pretty thin stuff. No doubt the Pharisees’ hypocrisy was not pleasing to the Lord either, but in that case the “Lord” would definitely have been God, which wouldn’t fit DCH’s “Lord” as Jesus in 4:12.

While we’re at it, let’s take a look at a couple of other suggested ‘links’ with the Gospels. Did. 6:2 says: “If thou art able to bear all the yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect.” DCH compares this with Mt. 11:29: “Bend your necks to my yoke and learn from me…” Trouble is, the latter is universally regarded among scholars as one of those adaptations of Wisdom sayings found in Jewish documents like Sirach and Proverbs, something placed in the mouth of Jesus by the evangelists (cf. Luke/Q 13:34). Certainly the traditional “yoke of the Lord” as meaning God, or alternatively Wisdom herself, is much more likely to have been the source of the Didache’s thought than any familiarity with Matthew’s adaptation of it for Jesus.

Similarly, 16:1 paints the traditional picture of expectation of the Day of the Lord which always meant, before expectation of a Messiah solidified (and even in some documents after), the arrival of God himself. Knowing not the hour when that Day would arrive was a component motif. Again, the Didache was likely drawing on that traditional expectation, while Matthew used it—inheriting through Q a further step in which a different heavenly entity, the Son of Man, would be the one to arrive—to paint his picture of the last judgement. Did. 16:7 quotes Zechariah’s reference to the coming of God, and the author makes no effort to clarify that by Zechariah’s “Lord” he means the Son Jesus instead, something he should have been at pains to do if he were deriving anything from the Gospels. Especially since the motifs of trumpets and coming on the clouds of heaven should have led to the inevitable association with Jesus. Incidentally, if anything here were dependent on Paul, he too would have pointed to (the heavenly) Jesus’ coming in regard to both motifs.

I would say that all suggestions that the Didache contains content which has been taken from any Gospel basically founders on (1) no such source being cited and other sources being available, (2) the lack of other aspects of such Gospel(s) we would expect to be drawn on, especially regarding a death and resurrection for the Didache’s Jesus Christ, a sacramental Last Supper, and any expectation of a return of Christ in a second coming. And (3), there is nothing to preclude the most natural deduction, to which much scholarship subscribes, that the Didache is drawing on the same oral (in some cases written) traditions which the Gospels have also drawn on. The Didache represents an earlier phase in which these things are allotted to God or to general moral tradition (as in the Two Ways body of precepts which are not attributed to Jesus in either document and specifically to God in the epistle of Barnabas), whereas the Gospels have switched their attribution to Jesus, a practice we can identify or deduce from other contexts and documents (as in the epistle of James).

If any direct derivation is operating, the most likely direction would be from the Didache to Matthew. And in fact, the entire block of sayings in the Two Ways section of chapter 1:3-6 which bears such strong resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount is entirely missing in Barnabas’ version of the Two Ways, while the material outside of it follows in very general pattern the content of the Barnabas version. There is little doubt to be held (and some scholars, like H. Koester, suggest it) that this material unique to the Didache within its Two Ways section has been inserted later, courtesy probably of the Gospel of Matthew. So it is hardly capable of having any influence on our interpretation of what is referred to in the Didache as “the commandments of the Lord”, since the original writer had no such material at hand.

On the matter of the meaning of kuriotēs. Yes, the fundamental meaning relates to general ‘lordship’, but the most important application of the concept in our literature is to the lordship of God, and this is how all translations take it in regard to the Didache 4:1, not as some reference to a general or abstract principle of ‘lordship’, from Bauer in his lexicon, to translators of that text, including Lake and Staniforth. Also, the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Roberts-Donaldson, as quoted on the ECW website), and let’s take this translation to examine the context.

My child, remember night and day him who speaks the word of God to you, and honor him as you do the Lord. For wherever the lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord.

The first thought here is of speaking “the word of God”. What else, then, is “the lordly rule (that) is uttered” but that same “word of God”? That is the natural flow of thought, and it could not be read in context otherwise. Why would the writer be saying that wherever any sort of lordly rule (referring to any earthly lord or principle of lordship) is present, there is the Lord, meaning God, especially right after speaking of prophets who speak the word of God to you? This is so unnatural and unlikely, and such a non-sequitur, that it has to be rejected.

Other translations: “For where the Lord speaks, there is the Lord.” “For where the Lord’s nature is discussed, there the Lord is.” “For where the teaching of the Lord is given, there is the Lord.”

Note, by the way, that the ECW’s Roberts-Donaldson translation has inserted a “the” before “lordly rule”, which seems to acknowledge that the understanding must be a reference to “the” Lord (God). Which is not to say that R-D understands any general ‘lordship’ by its lack of a definite article. (Anyway, no 19th century translation would be that ‘liberal’ or want to decentralize its focus on Jesus.) And they also give credence to alternatives: “The Lordship is spoken of” (capitalized, which can only infer God, not general rulers); and “where the doctrine concerning God is.”

Thus, I can see no reason to subscribe to a different meaning for “kuriotēs” here than a direct reference to things pertaining to God; as Bauer puts it, to “the Lord’s nature, with ref. to God.” Thus, I have to judge DCH’s leaning toward that different meaning as erroneous. Yes, the four usages of the word in the canonical NT have the more basic meaning, but none of them are references to any preached word of any Lord or to characteristics which could belong to either God or Jesus. They are indeed about the principle of lordship in non-God/Jesus contexts, so they can prove nothing in evaluating references to “Lord” in the Didache.

Thus, Jiri has no basis on which to agree with DCH, in saying that Did. 4:1 is a case of “transference of non-titular lordship.” The “child” is indeed asked to “honor someone who evidently is not God himself,” namely the prophet coming and speaking the word of God, but this has no bearing on what “kuriotēs” means in the next sentence, let alone on making it “semantically unclear what the Lord, anarthrous or not, refers to in the context.” Jiri may not “give a hoot” who I quote, but his claim here not only doesn’t make sense, it is untenable from the text.

And let me observe that all this talk about the word of God, and the preaching of the word of God, with no identifiable implication that any word of Jesus is ever appealed to (except when one reads it into the text based on the Gospels), strengthens my overall case that “Lord” is exclusively a reference to God in the Didache. Besides, if a (troublesome) characteristic of the early non-Gospel record throughout is that there are virtually no sayings anywhere attributed to a human Jesus, why should we feel justified in rushing to the Didache for rescue and claim that here alone we have a wealth of attribution to him? Especially when that claim is only possible through forced allotment of certain occurrences of “Lord” to such a figure.

Now to the business of “the name of the Lord” and “baptized into the Lord.” Chapter 7 concerns itself with the ritual of baptism: “baptize in the name of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” At best, the Son’s ‘name’ is but one of three here. So when in 9:5, the writer says “Let none eat or drink of your [addressed to God] Thanksgiving except those baptized in the name of the Lord,” one cannot just blithely declare that the latter term is referring to the middle ‘name’ in that trio. Surely here, if nowhere else, had the writer wished to be specifying the name of the Son he would have clarified it with something like “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (In fact, according to DCH’s ‘code’ “baptized into the Name of the Lord” lacks a definite article, which he identifies with being a reference to God.) That Jews underwent forms of baptism (ceremonial washings, purification rites and even proselyte baptism) is known in the OT (e.g., Ezek. 36:25); and traditions of a Baptizer John at the Jordan (which are not dependent for basic historicity on an HJ) show the practice was also used for repentance. Thus, being baptized into the Name of God alone is a fully feasible concept in a Jewish context. (What that might do to the addition of the “name” of the Son and Holy Spirit, we will see later.)

Incidentally, there is no sign in the Didache of any concept like Paul’s baptism into Christ or his death, which is another factor which virtually rules out any influence by Paul on the Didache, on this score or any other (see below).

In those surrounding chapters, all other references to the “Name of the Lord” are clearly to God: 10:2: “We give thanks to thee, O Holy Father, for thy Holy Name which thou didst make to tabernacle in our hearts,” a sentiment which could well have in mind a baptismal ritual as the means by which his Name was so tabernacled. 10:3 glorifies God for creating “all things for thy Name’s sake.” 12:1 and 14:3 both refer to the “name” which can only be that of God. 12:1’s idea of ‘coming in the name of the Lord’ supports the consequences of 4:1 as argued above and below, in that if preachers arrive to preach in the name of the Lord, then the focus for what is taught, for receiving such preachers ‘as one would the Lord,’ for behaving according to certain standards, is all upon that Lord, not upon some other Lord who is never in any way differentiated from the first, a bizarre practice to ascribe to any writer.

Didache 4:1 clearly says that wandering preachers come ‘speaking the word of God to thee.’ This would naturally render those “commandments of the Lord” in 4:13 as the product of the Father, not Jesus. The early record as a whole is full of references to “the Gospel of God” with none to that of Jesus, which would be compelling reason and perfectly natural to interpret the Didache’s references to “the Lord’s Gospel,” as in the Lord’s Prayer of 8:2 and “in the Gospel of the Lord” of 15:4, to be referring to a gospel received from God. So too the reference to “the ordinance of the Gospel” in 11:3. All are consistent with the statement in 4:1 above. We also have in 14:3 a saying “spoken by the Lord” which by its nature and the context can only be referring to God: “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,” saith the lord,” and my name is wonderful among the heathen.” 9:5’s quoting of another saying of the Lord, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs,” becomes completely consistent as a saying by God, even if we are unsure of the source, and even if it later ended up in Jesus’ mouth in the Gospels.

4:1 also tells us that chapter 11’s “receive him as the Lord” is a reference to God. If a preacher comes speaking the word of God, he is God’s representative, his messenger, relaying his message. The natural thought is that such a preacher is admonished to be treated, with his message, just as though the source of the message, the figure he is representing, were there himself. If “Lord” here were to be seen as Jesus, it would be a wrenching step sideways. No one is going to say that when Jack comes to give you the message from and about Bill, receive him as though you would receive Arnold.

Incidentally, 12:1, “Let everyone who comes in the name of the Lord be received” can also be seen to be governed by 4:1, those speaking the word of God. They come in his name, they preach him and his word. This is yet another indication of the God-centered concept of “Lord” in this document, and the utter lack of any sense of Jesus as the “Lord”, ambiguous or otherwise, definite article or otherwise. (In this case, there is no definite article, which DCH has labelled an indicator of God, not Jesus.)

But let’s take a closer look at the Eucharistic ritual in chapter 9. There are several elements:

9:2 – First concerning the Cup, “We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David thy child/servant, which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child/servant…”

9:3 – And concerning the broken Bread: “We give thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child/servant.”

9:4 – As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and become one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom, for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.

10:2 – “We give thanks to thee, O Holy Father, for thy Holy Name which thou didst make to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child/servant.”

There are several things to notice. One is that in all these actual mentions of Jesus (together with those of the Son in chapter 7’s baptism ritual)—the only ones in the document—the title “Lord” is never used. Second, in the first two and last of the above, the presentation of this “child/servant Jesus” hardly conveys an exalted status which would invite or merit the title “Lord” in equal parallel with God. In fact, the suggestion is definitely of a subordinate entity (or perhaps we should say a ‘nonentity’, since nothing substantial is said about him throughout the whole document). Even 9:4’s reference to “Jesus Christ” is quite neutral and says little. Another indicator that the title “Lord” throughout this document is used solely of God and does not belong to this subordinate “Jesus thy child/servant.”

And what is the ritual giving thanks for? Note 10:3 – “Thou, Lord Almighty, didst create all things for thy Name’s sake, and didst give food and drink to men for their enjoyment, that they might give thanks to thee…. For this community, the “Eucharistic” meal is a purely thanksgiving one. It is in no way sacramental, it does not commemorate the establishment of that meal as a memorial to Jesus’ death, for no mention is made of such a thing; no such role is given to the “child/servant Jesus.” For one thing, this leads us to ask how the writer could ever have had knowledge of a Gospel and yet ignore and suppress its Last Supper scene which was so much more than this simple picture in the Didache of a rather mundane thanksgiving meal.

And look at the first element (9:2), concerning the Cup. What is the ritual giving thanks for here? As 10:3 just quoted summarizes, God “gave food and drink to men for their enjoyment, that they might give thanks to thee.” That first element of the ritual (9:2) is a giving of thanks to the Father “for the Holy Vine of David thy child.” In other words, it’s thanking God for the wine! No more. (Holy Vine of David is in no way supportable as a reference to Jesus himself.) So how and in what way has this wine, as the verse goes on to say, “been made known to us through Jesus thy child”? Was wine made known to the Jews—or anybody—through Jesus? It cannot refer to the sacramental significance to the wine as portrayed in the Gospel Last Supper, because that sacramental dimension, the wine as representing his blood, the establishment of the meal by Jesus let alone as a memorial to his death, is completely missing in the Didache’s scenario, not to mention the very death itself. Thus, verse 9:2, with its wine made known to us through Jesus, is rendered nonsensical.

As to the bread, it is not nonsensical, but it is indeed unnecessary. The idea of bread symbolizing the life and knowledge bestowed by God (“We give thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us…”) was a common Jewish motif and fits naturally in its traditional understanding into this very Jewish document. Moreover, look at the connection between “concerning the broken bread” introduced in verse 3, and verse 4’s “broken bread (that) was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and became one, so let thy Church [God’s church, not Jesus’] be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.” This is again is based on a common motif in Jewish expectation about the coming Day of the Lord [God]. Nothing in that sequence of thought involves or requires a Jesus. (Bauer, reading as he occasionally does the Gospels into non-Gospel literature, interprets those broken pieces of bread (“klasma”) as those produced at the Last Supper, but when or where were those pieces “scattered upon the mountains”?

As for gathering together the dispersed Jews of the Diaspora at the establishment of the Kingdom of God, this, as I said, is a common pre-Christian Jewish motif, although it tended to get narrowed onto a righteous elect by such sects as the Didache’s. To try to link it in any way with the Pauline concept of the “body of Christ”—believers (whether Jew or gentile) joined with Christ himself in a mystical ‘body’ comprising the congregation/church—is simply around the bend. There is no feasible contact here between Paul and this element of the Didache’s thanksgiving meal. The “broken bread” is in no way identified with the sacrificed body of Christ, nor is the meal sacramental. If the references to Jesus in the Eucharistic ritual are authentic, the role of the child/servant Jesus is purely one of a spiritual channel of bestowing knowledge and blessing from God, much like personified Wisdom was traditionally seen.

The same non-necessity for a Jesus exists in the other two verses quoted above:

9:4 speaks of God gathering his kingdom together from the ends of the earth (again, the common motif from the time of the prophets of the exile who speak of drawing the scattered Jewish people together from the ends of the earth), and this God can do, for “thine is the glory and the power…for ever.” The insertion of “through Jesus Christ” in that hiatus is totally superfluous and even out of place when one considers his absence from the rest of the document’s discussion of things like God’s glory and power.

10:3 has thanks given for the food and drink provided for human enjoyment, to which is appended the additional idea of being “blessed with spiritual food and drink and eternal light…” which are further motifs found in Jewish literature to refer to the blessings which God has bestowed on his people, with no necessity for a “child Jesus” to confer them. Here again, the addition of “through thy Child” is superfluous.

By now you’ve probably twigged to what I am suggesting. That the references to Jesus throughout the discussion of the thanksgiving meal are all secondary. It is nonsensical in 9:2 and superfluous and unnecessary in 9:3, 9:4 and 10:3. They have all the air of later afterthoughts, reflecting new developments. Once the idea of the intermediary Son—still in the spiritual stage—was added to the sect’s philosophy, he had to be given something to do, an intermediary role. Hence the giving of all and sundry by God (even wine!) ended up being effected “through” this Son/servant Jesus, conforming to the fundamental philosophical idea of the intermediary Son. (The concept is in common with Paul, of course, but that does not mean it had to be derived from him.) We find this phenomenon in other documents, such as the Odes of Solomon, the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, even in the stratified epistle 1 John. (These latter documents are discussed in my book and website, and I’m not going into the details here, although I have to confess that it is only now that the force of these references to Jesus in the Didache as being possible interpolations has fully come home to me.)

And, of course, along with this, we must question the presence of “the Son” in the baptismal formula. After all, if the later “baptized in the name of the Lord” looks like a simple and exclusive reference to the Father, where does the Son fit in this ritual? This may be less clear cut, but in view of the fact that the reference to Father, Son and Holy Spirit is suspiciously Trinitarian (the earliest hint of such a thing), and scholars have done a bit of head-scratching over it, why not see the possibility of later insertion here as well? The Didache is anything but a unified, coherent document, and scholarship has been all over the map in dating and assigning it author(s) and identifying strata within it.

I think this is enough to digest. I know Jiri will scoff, judge will rant, Abe will sneer and others will pontificate. What none of those will do is rationally rebut my arguments. But we’ll see how DCH responds.

Earl Doherty