Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 07-11-2011, 12:05 PM

DCH:

It should be clear that the most logical solution to these various sayings commonalities is not through the Didache being derived from Matthew, since where are all the other 'biographical' and dying and rising elements of Matthew, but that both are dependent upon a common background. That background is the Q ethos to which all the Synoptic communities belonged and to which the Didache community apparently belonged as well. (Did you miss that 'Didache part of the Kingdom-preaching movement in Galilee-Syria' element in my book? See p.390,395)

Now, I do not mean to imply that the writers of the Didache possessed a Q document, at least not in the form that Matthew and Luke used. They may have been in somewhat the same position as Mark, who was familiar with basic Q traditions since he was a part of that movement but did not have a record of the sayings which the other two evangelists had, and which apparently the Didache community did not either. This movement covered a fair bit of territory, and there is no need to think that every congregation or area possessed the Q document. Perhaps some had a much more limited collection of written-down sayings, or they may have been entirely oral. It's quite feasible that only a small number, perhaps even one community, was responsible for the fairly complex (as it evolved) Q literary record.

Incidentally, the Q nature of the Didache is strong evidence for the existence of Q, since the Didache's purpose is to lay out the teachings, rules and practices of a community. It is not a 'story' like the Gospels which theoretically could be based on no actual community at all (though I regard that idea as almost as infeasible); rather, it is the product and description of a sect involving wandering prophet-apostles. And since that sect bears such a close relationship to the background setting of the Gospels, we can deduce that the Synoptics are not 'stand-alone' texts written for God-knows-what purpose, but reflect an actual movement. (Naturally, other elements have been thrown in as well.) This in turn supports the feasibility of a Q document.

Earl Doherty

jgoodguy · 07-12-2011, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Given that no instructions exist in the NT describing what a Eucharist ritual is supposed to be like, it is not odd to find a group that takes a conservative approach to it by not adding to the scripture in their possession.

There is no connection between the two Eucharist meals, that of “Paul” and the Didache. One is dealing with the new covenant and it’s body and blood of JC - and the other is not dealing with this foundational meal of Christianity at all.

Quote:

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way.

First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became 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..

A conservative approach! No way, the Eucharist meal in the Didache is not a conservative approach - it is a contradictory approach, it is an approach that sidelines the new covenant approach of ‘Paul'and gLuke.

Quote:

Luke 22:19-20

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

(notice also that the ritual is reversed in the Didache - first the cup and then the bread.)

Quote:

In addition, a Jewish Christian group would have a difficult time drinking blood or eating human flesh no matter how symbolic.

This gives a third possibility: that of a Jewish orientated or influenced group.

in summary, an early and Jewish oriented group would not have the same Eucharist rituals as a more orthodox or Gentile group.

Ah, that’s a better way to go...a Jewish group or a Jewish influenced group. And if there was no historical gospel JC, if there is no historical crucified gospel JC, then what is being celebrated or remembered in the Eucharist meal in the Didacte is a historical figure that was not crucified. From a Jewish perspective, the binding to a cross, crucifixion and beheading of Antigonus in 37 b.c. is not an event to celebrate. Literally drinking blood is against Jewish thinking. If drinking symbolic blood, wine as the symbol of blood, was ever to become acceptable then such a symbolic act would have to be far removed from any historical, literal, crucified figure. (as, of course, is accomplished with a pseudo-historical JC figure).

1) The Didache Eucharist meal is not dealing with the new covenant of ‘Paul’ and the gLuke.

2) The Didache Eucharist meal is dealing with a different JC than that of ‘Paul” and the gospels.

3) ‘Paul’ speaks about another Jesus being preached:

[T2]2 Corinthians 11:3-4

But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
[/T2]

4)‘Paul’s Jesus is the crucified JC.

[T2]1 Corinthians 1:22-24

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.[/T2]

5) A different JC - a JC different from the pseudo-historical gospel JC or different from 'Paul's' spiritual JC construct - is a historical figure that was deemed to be worthy of being remembered in the Didache Eucharist meal.

6) Antigonus ruled for a short 3 years. Philip the Tetrarch ruled, using the Josephan reference, for 37 years. Josephus says Philip moved around the countryside, attending to the needs of his people, with a few chosen friends. Philip died, again Josephus, in the 20th year of Tiberius, 33/34 c.e. It is far more likely that it is the long life of Philip that is being remembered in the Didache Eucharist meal.

7) The debate is over history, gospel pseudo-history and ‘Paul’s’ theological imaginings. The Didache Eucharist meal is indicating a community that has not gone the whole hog with either ‘Paul’ or the new covenant blood ritual, ie a community that has opted to stay the course with history. Ultimately, of course, pseudo-history won the day....the crucified savior and the Eucharist meal of symbolic body and blood becoming the foundation of the new covenant and of Christianity.

(Obviously, the Didache has suffered at the hands of later Christians, the trinity and the apocalyptic ending being likely elements for updating the storyline.)

Interesting enough the cup has been in dispute until relativity modern times. Link1, link2.

Crossan discusses this meal. Assuming a HJ, the most likely sequence of events of a HJ execution is that there was no Last Supper and no resurrection and thus the Didache offers a view of Christianity prior to the Gentile takeover. Note that in traditional meals of that that time the cup followed the bread. Link2 offers the view that the meaning of the Eucharst changed from the death of Jesus to entry into the Kingdom of God.

In summary, while the Eucharist in the Didache does not support a HJ, nor does provide evidence to the contrary.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2011, 12:05 PM	#11
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	DCH: It should be clear that the most logical solution to these various sayings commonalities is not through the Didache being derived from Matthew, since where are all the other 'biographical' and dying and rising elements of Matthew, but that both are dependent upon a common background. That background is the Q ethos to which all the Synoptic communities belonged and to which the Didache community apparently belonged as well. (Did you miss that 'Didache part of the Kingdom-preaching movement in Galilee-Syria' element in my book? See p.390,395) Now, I do not mean to imply that the writers of the Didache possessed a Q document, at least not in the form that Matthew and Luke used. They may have been in somewhat the same position as Mark, who was familiar with basic Q traditions since he was a part of that movement but did not have a record of the sayings which the other two evangelists had, and which apparently the Didache community did not either. This movement covered a fair bit of territory, and there is no need to think that every congregation or area possessed the Q document. Perhaps some had a much more limited collection of written-down sayings, or they may have been entirely oral. It's quite feasible that only a small number, perhaps even one community, was responsible for the fairly complex (as it evolved) Q literary record. Incidentally, the Q nature of the Didache is strong evidence for the existence of Q, since the Didache's purpose is to lay out the teachings, rules and practices of a community. It is not a 'story' like the Gospels which theoretically could be based on no actual community at all (though I regard that idea as almost as infeasible); rather, it is the product and description of a sect involving wandering prophet-apostles. And since that sect bears such a close relationship to the background setting of the Gospels, we can deduce that the Synoptics are not 'stand-alone' texts written for God-knows-what purpose, but reflect an actual movement. (Naturally, other elements have been thrown in as well.) This in turn supports the feasibility of a Q document. Earl Doherty

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.