Steven Avery

Well a reference to "a Trinity", I think it is the first direct reference to same in any Christian literature.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm
"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity (trias), of God, and His Word, and His wisdom"

Whether this really relates to "Trinitarian" doctrine, or "orthodox Christianity" as it is known today, for better or worse, is largely in the mind of the beholder.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Chris Weimer

I see it as befitting to the Trinitarian concepts of the Time. You have God, his word (Jn 1.1) and his wisdom (the holy ghost was said to bring this). Where's the confusion?

TedM

I'm not sure how to answer this. If by a "general command" you mean one in which it can be applied to more than one circumstance, I would say that commands most likely begin as specific commands that address specific circumstances, and become general as their wide applicability becomes evident to someone. So, I would argue that there is no such thing as a general command which wasn't based first on a specific circumstance.

What choice are you saying Matthew made? Isn't it also possible that Matthew came first and the author of the Didache made a choice? If so, how is his choice any more rational than the one you are asking about for Matthew?

I am not assuming Matthew's author made a choice to take a specific command that applied to the Eucharist and apply it as we see in Mt 7:6. However, if the command were believed (by Matthew's author) to be one Jesus used generally then it wouldn't be surprising to see it applied in another situation--which could either have reflected what Jesus really said in that situation or not.

Perhaps interesting is that in Mt 7:6 Jesus, while speaking about sharing the things of God, says "Do not give to dogs what is holy, and do not thro your pearls before swine". This may have been inspired by what 2 Peter 2:22 says was a "true proverb" that applies to those to whom the "holy commandment" is given and who then reject it: "the dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire"

IF this were a known proverb, it might explain the saying by Jesus/Matthew. The application in the Didache is similar in that he is saying that those who aren't baptized (fit) aren't fit to receive the Eucharist (things of God).

My point is that if we can't know whether the Didache came first or not, and we can't know whether the saying was something Jesus was believed to have said more than once (Matthew does have Jesus refer to not giving "childrens bread" (an exorcism in this case) to the dogs in 15:26)), there is no good reason to assume the phrase was used in only one circumstance. As such, there is no good reason to assume that one application is any more valid than the other, or that a second application somehow raises a legitimate suspicion about the first.

As such I see no reason to place doubt on the idea that Jesus himself made a statement with regard to the Eucharist, simply because the phrase exists elsewhere in another work. The other work could just as easily be seen as evidence in favor of such a saying by Jesus. What is missing is the reference in the other Last Supper accounts. THAT does argue for a reasonable suspicion regarding the applicability in the Didache.


What I meant was that if the sacrifice preceded a thanksgiving tradition, it isn't clear that those who wrote the Didache saw it as significant. Either those who wrote it saw the Jesus as Teacher as more significant than Jesus as Sacrificial Lamb (or even rejected such an idea being taught by others), or they did a poor job of reflecting their more significant beliefs in Jesus as Sacrificial Lamb, or there was no tradition of Jesus as Sacrificial Lamb that they knew about.

ted

Amaleq13

I consider that counterintuitive but I would be interested to learn about any specific examples of it actually occurring. Do you know of any?

You don't see how a preacher might offer a general instruction not to waste time trying to teach wisdom to people who aren't interested?

The choice to detach the saying from its original specific context and turn it into a general admonition.

That is precisely what I'm suggesting is the most likely scenario.

It is entirely reasonable to suggest that one might choose to attribute a general admonition not to waste time teaching wisdom to the willfully ignorant to a specific example of "wisdom" but I think specific motivations are required for the reverse. To strip a specific context from an admonition requires a motivation to avoid that context. I don't see how Matthew's author could be said to have such a motivation for the eucharist.

The death of Jesus is assumed to have preceded the thanksgiving tradition in the Didache (do a group have rituals of remembrance for an individual still among them?) but no particular significance is apparently attributed to it.

TedM

I didn't express it well. Here's what I was trying to answer: I don't really know what it means to say that a general command becomes specific. My response was that commands that are general in nature ("don't give what is holy to dogs"), likely begin due to some specific issue. Once stated, their general applicability may become evident, and a reason for it to start being used more generally. This seems to be the case with this command, which can be taken to mean different things "don't teach X to Y", "don't bless Y", "don't give X to Y"



Ok. I think I get what you are saying.

Just because Matthew's Last Supper doesn't have the admonition it doesn't mean that he made a deliberate choice to detach it. He simply may have been unaware that it was said at that time. Also, it doesn't mean that Matthew (and not Jesus) turned it into something general and put it into a different context in which it never belonged. We can't know that.

The only vaild question I see is why it isn't in Matthew's account of the Eucharist, and it is in the Didache. A possible explanation (which you asked for) would be that the author of Matthew didn't know what was said at the Eucharist, and copied the tradition from another who didn't write all of the words spoken.


I see no reason to assume willful stripping by Matthew.


It is surprising since the document references bishops and the Trinity. And even the prayer for the Eucharist sounds references "Thy Church" and sounds like it had spread wide and far, which would suggest having been written after the gospels were widely known. Is it likely that the writers knew nothing generally of the sacrificial role of Christ and nothing of the other accounts of the Eucharist found in the gospels, which the Didache references and quotes from several times? Nor, of Paul's account in 1 Cor 11? How do we date the Didache? On the basis of the wording in the Eucharist itself--and its many differences, or on the basis of references that sound like they came later? I know some conclude that it is document that changed over time..If the evidence supports that, isn't it really have to conclude anything at all--including regarding the passage on the Eucharist?


ted

Steven Avery

How would you judge it against the "Trinitarian concepts of the Time", if this was the first directly expressed Trinitarian concept? And is there in Christian orthodoxy a Trinitarian concept short of "3 persons in the Godhead" ? And does Theophilus match that concept ?

Julian

Koester rejects the Tarsus origin. He makes some good points for his stance of moving Paul from Tarsus to Antioch.
I don't think it is that thin really. It is against the pillars that he rages when threatened by Jewish Christian apostles. Now, it is possible that he only uses them as an example but it would stand to reason that there would only be one such group this early on and that Paul would target his polemic at the guilty party. YMMV.

Julian

Julian

We are talking past each other a bit here. I was questioning your post. I already believe that it is an interpolation of gospel material for legitimacy, restricted to be believable. You seemed to think that more detail would have been put in if that were the case, hence my questions directed to you.
Remember, these are pieces of shorter letters pieced together. Maybe they weren't put together when this was added. Maybe the interpolator was lazy and just inserted a few parchments in his codex rather than re-writing the text, which would have been a much more time consuming task as well as more expensive. Who knows? It is not a convincing argument to say that if there is an interpolation in one place then there should have been another one elsewhere, unless two segments were contradictory, which in this case they weren't. Also, the orthodox, and this is an orthodox interpolation or rather proto-orthdox, have always been uneasy about Jesus having brothers.

Julian

Ben C Smith

This is the claim that needs proven, or at least supported. I have yet to see a solid argument to this effect.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

I agree that Theophilus' writings are puzzling. Even more so, since in this thread we heve identified him as one of the scant references that can distinguish between "Chrestians" and "Christians." That calls for some extra scrutiny.

“In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the trinity, of God, and his word, and his wisdom.� book 2 ch 15 http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/...m#P1637_465936

That is a weird trinity, if we are talking about Christian doctrine, which apparently Theophilus was not. On the fourth day he adds a fourth element: man. Thus God, word, wisdom, and man. This has nothing to do with Christology, but riffing on the days of creation.

Andrew, a slight correction, Theophilus not only lacks a mention of the life of Christ, but any mention of Christ whatsoever.

Why "Theophilus may well have thought discussion of the life of Christ inappropriate" I have no idea because if he really were familiar with the gospels as we know them he would know "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."

So we have Theophilus apparently quoting the gospels but effectively denying Christ.

I am puzzled by the rationale that someone "not even a catechumen" would not be told a word about Jesus. How would anyone ever be converted? The whole document seems pointless if that is the case.
How is Autolycus ever to be convinced if he is never told the alleged central tennant of the Christian faith?

I can't get past the chapter where Theophilus attempts to prove the resurrection without a word about the Resurrection of Jesus. I haven't heard an explanation for this that makes any sense other than he didn't know about it.

Jake Jones