Clivedurdle

Are these actually originally related or were they brought together later?

Does Holy Communion need a cross? There is not much blood or broken bodies about crucifixions!

When did the cross appear in xian art?

Toto

Cross in pre-Christian and Christian art

Amaleq13

According to the Didache, no, because that gives us a eucharist but makes no mention of a sacrificial crucifixion. Instead, it symbolizes the "vine" of David and the knowledge of Christ. IIRC, the broken bread is also described as a symbol of the numerous Christian communities.

Clivedurdle

Isn't this very important?

Isn't this clear evidence that key xian themes have different origins and were not introduced by a Jesus?

Amaleq13

It is peculiar at the very least.

From the Roberts-Donaldson translation at Peter Kirby's website:
Even more interesting, just before this the Lord's Prayer is given as something "the Lord commanded in His Gospel".

Frankly, I don't see how the dating range (50-120) helps make sense of this. Early or late, we've got a rather significant variation here.

andrewcriddle

There are two points that may be relevant.

a/ the author of the Didache probably knows the gospel of Matthew and hence the institution narrative given there for the Eucharist.

b/ there may be other evidence that the early versions of Eucharistic prayers did not necessarily involve reference to the words of institution.

Eg the ancient Syriac liturgy of Addai and Mari probably had in its earliest form. It is possible that the author of the Didache held an understanding of the Eucharist similar to that in Matthew but uses a very ancient Eucharistic prayer without reference to the gospel words of institution.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Why would any Christian aware of the soteriological meaning given to the bread and wine by Christ, ignore it for something else?

I think this has less to do with the institution of the bread/wine meal than it does the institution of the soteriologically significant symbolism.

It seems to me that the explanation for this oddness has to involve an assumption that this portion of the Didache predates any Gospel story involving soteriological symbolism for the ritual meal and that it is a tradition independent of the one established by Paul.

I consider the parallels with Q to be significant. We find wandering prophets there as well as an absence of any hint of a belief in an atoning sacrifice. Jesus is revered as God's Wisdom (which corresponds to the thanksgiving for knowledge) and, arguably, considered to have been the Messiah (which corresponds to the "vine of David").

All of this seems to support the existence of an early (ie circa Paul but independent of him - perhaps those he complains about teaching "another Jesus"?) tradition that focused entirely on moral teachings, God's Wisdom incarnate and, arguably, messianic potential with absolutely no knowledge of or belief in an atoning sacrifice. In addition, there appears to be no knowledge of resurrection appearances. The Didache speaks only of the future appearance of the Lord.

Despite my fondness for theories of an entirely mythical Jesus, I cannot deny that this understanding this evidence as suggestive of an early alternate tradition to that taught by Paul and his predecessors appears to be best explained by a historical figure.

Clivedurdle

Ellegard suggests someone 100BC....

Clivedurdle

We have three threads here that I think are inter-related.

How is this for a summary?

At some point BC the concept of a messiah got firmed up into a heavenly Christ figure who had a heavenly sacrifice for our sins - in line with classic judaism and temple sacrifices. The concept of a eucharist also evolved - Hebrews and the discussion of blood is very important here.

I think Justin and others did not have access to the four gospels - they had not been written - the idea of a cross, a resurrection, a historical Jesus are all later ideas to resolve disputes that were going on.

The apostles are actually the Hebrew prophets.

Can we look at all the evidence we have as it is without assuming anything about how it fits together - especially not assuming the orthodox xian view of history and see what we have actually got?

It feels very different, for example I cannot see any real relationship between the Eucharist and the cross. This is a later splicing of different ideas.

andrewcriddle

What I'm suggesting is that although the author of the Didache in its present form was probably aware of the significance given to the Eucharist by the synoptic Gospels, he is using a very early Eucharistic prayer independent of the Gospels and/or Paul
IMO the Didache does give soteriological significance to the ritual meal, 'We give you thanks Holy Father for your holy name which you have caused to dwell in our hearts and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant.....to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your servant.' What it doesn't do is link that significance to Jesus' death.

Andrew Criddle