Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom: The Didache's Meal Ritual and its Place in Early Christianity (Library Of New Testament Studies)

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUD IES

373 formuly the journal for rhc>- Study of the New Test:unenr Supplrmem series

Edicor

Mark Goodacre

Edltorl.lllkxud John M. G. 8arday, CraiB Blomberg, Kathleen E. Corl<·y. R. Alan C ulpepper, James D. G . Dunn, Cr<~ iS A. E\'an.s, Su-:phcn Fowl. Rober t Fow ler, Simon J. Gathcrcolc, Mk hacl Labahn. john S. K1oppenbors. Robe-r' \Nail. Steve Walton, Robert L. Wd::.b. Catri n H . Williams

This page imemionally left blank

KNOWLEDGE AND THE COM ING KINGDOM

The Didache's J\tleal Riwal and its Place iu £(1r/y Chtislianity

BY JONAT HAN SCHWlE BERT

.\\ 1&. I clark

Copyright <0 Jonathan Schwiebert, 2008 Published by T&T Clarlt A Cominuum imprinf

The Tower Building, I I York Road, London SE I 7NX SO Maiden Lane, Ste 7()4, New York, NY 10038 www.tandtclark.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any fonn or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any inlOnnation storage or retrieval system. without pennission in writing from the publishers. Jonathan Schwiebert has asserted his right under the Copyrigh~ Designs and Patents Act. 1988, to be identified as the Author of this work. British Libmry Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 10: 0567045757 ISBN 13: 9780567()4575 1 (hardback) Typeset by Data Standards Ltd, Frome, Somerset Printed on acid-lree paper in Creal Britain by ...

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

viii

Bibliographic"d Abbreviations Abbreviations of Ancient Soun:es Preface

xu

I.

IX

XIII

R rfUAL ANL> H 1s'fORY o ..~ AN lmosYN<:RA'l'K TRAUITtoN

Ac-counting for t he Didache Rit ual and History: A ;v larriage Proposal

The Ora l T radition T he Structure of the Oral Tradition T he Mythical Location of t he Supper Tradition T he Textual Fixing of the Supper Tradition

Matthew Luke T he Supper Tradition in the Seeond Century

lg,natius of Anlioch

20 23 33 36 36 37

46 46

48 50

John 6 Justin Rit ual Se nsibilities of the Tradition

54

Rt rUAL

The Struct ure o f the Prayers T he Concluding Eschatological Exclamations T he Logic of the Fixed Elements T he ·Servant" as Reve"der The Logic of the Variable Elements T he Role of the Prophets

Unknowns

12 17 19

PAMr 1: Dn>A<.'H E 9-10 AS Rn'UAL 2 . T1-1E L As·r Su i'J'ER Tt~AOt t'tON

3. THE L otH<.: oP "t J.JE Dm.tcut.~s MEAL

I 4

59 59 72

78 83

88 92 94

VI

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

4. TI-lt. DW.·IC/tH'S

M EAL Rt'IUAl ANI)'l'lH:: l.As'f' SUI'I'€.1~ TRAUI'l"ION

Two Ritual Paths

99

Prayer Conventions in Paul

104 107 110

Common Territo ry Conclusions

P.u rr II: TI-H·: D wACHJ."S

M CAL

Rn u.M.IN H L'i·tmtY

5. 'fH~ 0 RoUONAL Mou•u o f Dm.tCHt' 9- 10 f>relimimory: Traditional Jewish Elements in lnslructions in the Didadw Sayings Collections The 'Synoptic Sayin~s Source' (Q) The Gosp
6.

98

Didtu·l~e

9- 10

R nuAL DvNAMtCs tN 1'Hf. DnHcflt.'"S TRAU t'fiONs

The Meal Ritual and the Did
II1 I 13 I 14

121 126 126 132 137 145

148 149

Stage One: Fasting. Baptism, Prayer a nd Mea l

151

Stage Two: Concessions and Clarillcations Stage Three: The Confession of Sins

162 165 169 174

n,e

Stage Four: Coptic Recension and the Stiuouji Prayer ·n ,e Ritual Process in a Developing Community

7. Tm:: Dw. -tCI-tES

M EAL Rn uAL ANu EARLY P RAYER T RAOt'n ONs tN

Ro~u:. ANO AstA M tNOR

'Liturgical Compromises'

183 183

186

The Case of luke-Acts The Pui>- a nd the Doxology Findings

190 200

Eucharislic Assemblies in Revelation

201

Prayer in Justin

204

ConcJusions

8. THt:

I N J· LUENCE of'I'H S D m.-tCtlt.'"s R r r UAL L OGIC IN Eu't'I'T

l a te Egyptian Evidence for the Inlluence of the Didarlw's Eucharistic Tradition Recycled Images An Ascetic Meal Prayer Early Egyptian Evidence The EJ>istlt• of Barnabas The Epistle 10 Dioguetu,,

Valenlinian Prayer

207 208

208 208 212 2 I7 2 I7 220

222

Comems Clement of Alexandria The Case of Strasbourg Papyrus 254

Conclusions

9. THE Exn or A

VII

229

234 237

Rit ual Rivalries

239 239

Apostolic· Coustitlllions 7.25- 26 Conclusions

247

TRAJEc 1·oRY

243

WORKS Cn~I!D

251

INOEX

269

A c KNOWLEDGEM ENTs

This project began with a series of informal conversations wilh Helmut Koeste.r . who repeatedly advised me to ask ' \Vha t is this?' when considering Didadw 9- 10. The fru it of those conversations was, eventually. a d issertation, which would have suffered greatly without his o ngo ing guidance as well as the s kilful insights of Paula Fredriksen. bot h o f whom I heartily thank. not o nly lo r t his projet.t but a lso fo r t he hours they

invested in my thinking. and writing.. Dietmar Winkler also provided helpful c ritique and bibliographical guidam:e at severa l s tages

orthe initial

project. and Jo nathan Klawans and James \Vahers gave me useful c riticisms on the completed d issertation, which have. im pacted the final Conn of this project in numerous ways. I also want to thank Fr~mk Korom for guiding. my read ing on rit ua l, o rality a nd food ways on severa l o<.x:asions. Ma ny ve.ry g,ood teachers go to make a scholar, and I cannot thank all of them by name - I a m grateful all the same. and I hope I repay them in some measure by pursuing excellence in my own work. Thanks go to Washington University in St Louis: fo r lhe Fellowship tha t has allowed me the time a nd stability to complete revisions on this project - especially Bea ta Grant and Ahmet Karamusta ra. I am particula rly gr~nel'ul to my wife. Annette , fo r her s upport. and to my two s ma ll boys fo r interrupting my work so ofte n fo r such important reasons - to them I owe wha te\'er humour has s urvived the rig,o urs of academic research.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBR~VIATIONS

AB ANF

Anchor Bible

Ante-Nkene Fathers

ANRW

Hildegard Temporini and Wolfg,a ng Haase (eds). Aufstieg uud

Niedergang der riimisthen Welt: Gesthidtte und Kufwr Roms im

Spiegel der ueuereu Forsdumg (2: Berlin: W, de Gruyter, 1974- ) ATANT

ATR AusBR BAGD

BDf'

Abhandlunge.n zur Theolog,ie des AI ten und Neuen Testaments Anglican Theological Rel1iell' Austrtilitm Bib/iNti ReYi(fll' Waller Bauer, William f'. Arndt, f'. William Ging)'ich a nd Frederick IV, Danker. A Gn<ek- £uglish Lexic'0/1 of tht< New Te:;tameiJI am/ 01her Early Christiou Lilerature (Chicago: Universily of Chicag,o Press. 2nd edn. 1958) Pried rich Blass. A. Debrunner a nd Robert W, Punk, A Greek Grammar of the lv'ew Teslllment and O!lwr Early Cllrisriau Literttture (Cambridg,e: Cambridge Universily Press, 1961)

llNTC

Black· s New Testament Commentaries

CBQ £TL HeyJ HTR

Ciltholit Bib/ita/ Quarter()' Ephemerides tlu:olo,r:irae /owmieuses Heythrop Joumal Hafl'ttrd Tlwologiral Re•'iew

lnte.mational Critic~d Commentary Journal of Bib/ita/ Literllfure JBL J£CS Journal of Ear~\1 Chrisfiau Swdit~s Journal of &·d esiastital History JEH .!QR Jewish Quarterly Revieu· JSNTSup Journal fo r the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series ICC

JTS

Joumal of 111eologital Studii!s

LCL

Loeb Classical Libra ry H, G , Liddell, Rober! Scou and H. S1uar1 Jo nes, GreekEnglish Lexicon (Oxford: C larendon Press, 9th edn. 1968)

LSJ

Nestle-Aiand, Nomm Tesfllmelllum Grat•u (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 271h edn, 1998)

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

NHL

James M. Robinson (ed.), Na,g Hammadi Library in English (HarperSanFrancisco, 3rd rev. edn. 1988) NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup No.,'Um 1'estamtmfwn. Suppleme.nts N RSV New Revised Standard Version New Testament NT lv'ear Tcstamelll SJudies NTS NTApor £. Hennecke. W. Schneemelcher, R. MeL Wilson (eds), New Testauu!nl Apoayplw (2 vols; Louisville: Vle.stminster John Knox Press. rev. edn. 1987, 1989) Numen Nwmm: lmemlllional Re•~iewfor the Hiswry of Religions Or Orientalia OrChrAn Orie.nlalia christiana analecta OTP James Charlesworth (ed.), Old T
sc

TU

vc

Texte und Untersuchungen Vigiliae dJriJ'tiamu!

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

ABBR~VIATIONS OF AI'CIENT SOURCES

I Clem. 2 En. 4 Mm·c.

1 Clement 2 £JWch 4 Mat('(tbet!J

Ap. Trad.

Apostolic Tradition

A lhenagoras

Leg. Barn. Clement of Alexandria Paed. Protr. Quis dil'. Strom. Cons!. ap.

Le..rtlllio pro Chrisriauix Ei>istle of Bamabas Paedagogus Protrepti€'ltfi

Quis llil'es sa/W!tur Stromma Aposto/i<· Constitwi.ons

Cyprian

!:.[>. Gos. Phil. Gos. Tlwm. Gos. Truth

Epistles Gospel~{ Philip Gospel o{ Th011ws Gospel of Truth

Ignatius

Eph. jifagn. Ph/d. Pol. Rom. Smym.

Troll.

Lefler liJ the Ephesians Lell(>r to the jifagnesiaus

Letter to tlw Philadelphians Letter to Poln•m p Le.uer lO the Ronums Leifer to the Smymaeans Lefler liJ the Trtillians

lrenaeus

Haer. Josephus

Ant. Justin I Apol. Dial. Mart. Poly.

Amiquitics of the Jews

First Apology Dia/ogur wifh Trypho

Martrrdom of Polytarp

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

XII

m. AwJt m. Ber. m. Miqu-.

mislmalt A l10 t mij·/malt Bt:raklwt mislmah Afiku·a'ot

Origen

Ceis. Or.

P.

Prine.

Contra Cr:/sum Dt: oratioue De priHcipiis Papyrus

Philo

Spet. Po lycarp Pili/. Ps.-A thanasius

De rir.~. Pto lemy Flor. Sifre D. 1. Ash.

T. Levi

D(! spedalibu.'i legibus To file Pilifippia11s

De ''irginiUW! Leller lo Flow

Sifre Dt:uU!rOJWJIJ)'' Tt:stmnent of Asher Testament of Lea>i

Tertullian Ad•·. Jud. Apol.

Apotogr

TriTrai'

Tripartite Tmt'tate

Adrerj·u.J Judaeos

All translations are the author's o wn, unless otherwise noted .

PR EFACE

This book places t he meal prayen; o f Didache 9- 10 in the centre of an investigation into an early Christian practice, the me.al ritual. ll touche-s on vario us questions o f Christia n origins. d iversity and historical developmenl. Allhough much o f the-ground covered here has been well tilled. there are se\'e ral aspects of it that have not received much alte ntion. o r have only been tre-.ued in very general (even impressionistic) terms. Also. I have consistently fo und that placing the Didache's trad ition in the centre of the investigation has required reconceptualization of much tha t has been wriue n about ils prayers. This has especia lly been the case when the historical impact o f its e ucharistic lr.tdition has been considered (in Part H). As a resuh, it has been necessary to challenge some consens us posilions and aJso to read mosl of the-associa ted evide.nce in new ways. At points I have s upplied connectio ns that are not by any me-~ms c ustoma ry. Accordingly, some of my results m~iy well be s urprising to re-aders acquainted with time-hono ured theses about e ucha ristic o rigins and Christian o rigjns more ge nerally. Yet I hope that s uch re.a ders will agree tha t t he questions r pose do require consideration a nd resoJution, a nd tha t they 1\;U take my eno n s here as a Step in the process of providing both. If this work ent~ourages others to ta ke early Christian rit ua l d iversity seriously as an important consideration for Christian origins, then I will be very g:ra t Hied .

This page imemionally left blank

Chapter l RITUAL AND HISTORY 0~ AN I D IOSYNCRATIC TRADITION

don't we ha ve to assume-d is:.igreement even from the Hrsl two guys who crawled o ut o r Olduvai Gorge·> Jo na tha n Z . Smith' Imagine a s mall group of men a nd women gathe-red in ~i triclinium (for :1 s imple. dinner of bread. fish a nd water, perhaps}. coming. to tem1s wit h the impacl o f their recently executed leader: the meaning of his teachings. the implications of his untimely death. One has a keen memory lOr Sc ripture. a nother has the tempera ment of a m ystic. The women present were close. to Jesus. T here is a bro ther of Jesus. his flesh a nd blood . Hope-s are voiced, d isagreements a rise. the-re are friendly arguments a nd heated disputes. Perha ps there are a lso men a nd women sc.:auered throughout Gali lee, who had spent time with Jesus. learned some of his teachings, but had nol followed him down to Jerusalem for t he fa terul feast. Alle r hearing of his de-a th, they continue to spre-a d his tead 1ings. Lrying to imitate his example a nd way o r life in his absence. If this c rude sket<.~h cap tures even a glimpse of the e~irliest days. the.n it becomes almost impossible to suppose tha t a unified pe-r spective emerg_ ed a mong his earliest followers regarding who Jesus was. what he taug_ht. wha t his teachings meant. why he d ied. whether and in wha t sense his de-a th wo.1s significant. Facto r in dille rences in the inte rpreta[ion and practice of existing Jewish c ustoms, diiTe ren<.·es in political outlook~ geog.ra phica} distance, even differe-n ces in languag.e - ~1 runda mental breakdown in communi<.-a tion. Add twenty, thirty, fifty ye-~1rS. T he.re is a no ther wrinkle. easily underestimated: Paul's letters, written twenty years afte.r the- loss o f the. movement's le-o.1der - a nd written in Greek, in the d iaspo ra, to Gentiles - show th~H there- ilre dill~rence.s of o pinion within the movement reg_arding Je1risll ritual obst~nlmi'es: d rc.umcision> 'd~-tys· a nd diet~iry regulations (see, e.g.. Rom. 14, Gal., I In Robe11 G. Hamcrton·Kd ly (cd.). Violtmt Or{'iinf: Waller Burkert. Ri!Jil: Gimnl. (Jnd Jnnatlum Z. Smitll (Ill Rit11al Killit1g ami Cultuml Fomratimr (Sitanford: Stanford Unin:rsily

Press.. 19S7). p. 182.

2

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

l'hil. 3). Mark's Gospel pro ,; des hints in t he same dirt'Clion: ·He says to

them," . . . Don't you perceive that e.verything that enters a person from outside is incapable of profaning him, sinc-e it doesn' t g:o into his hearl but his stomach, a nd goes o ut (of him) into the latrine?'' - cleansing all foods' (Mk 7.1 8- 19). Mau hew. who records Lhe same sa ying o r Jesus. d oes not d raw a ny s uch conclusion regarding all foods (see ~·h. 15.10-20). Meanwhile Acts d a ims tha t Gentiles m ust abstain (only) iro m blood and impro perly slaughtered mea l (Acts 15.29). and the Didarhe o ilers the intriguing advice, 'As to food, bear what you can. But beware e~" pecially of meat sacrificed to an idol. beca use it is the (temple-) service o f de~id gods' (D id. 6.3).

·n1ese dilrerem:es of opinion, which might seem insig,nHkant at llrst blus h, rep resent dilrerences in practict~. As such, they could well presenl insum10unta ble b ta kes its a nalytical acumen from its ability to respect significa nt d iversity in the earlie-sl stages oCt he Jesus movement. This model proposes tha t many of the written materhtls preserved from those early stag,e s come from d istinct and somewhat independent streams o f the Jesus movement. which themselve-S c hanged (and sometimes merged) over time. T he a na lytical cons truct 'trajectory' therefo re presses the queslions o f whether, how ;md to wha l extent any two lr.tditions or documents represent a commo n fo rm o f the movement. Conver:;ely, this model demands that a ny proposed link: (socially a nd religiously) betwee.n two documents be f/cmon.tlmted ra ther than assumed. It theref'o re demands a more thoroughgoing compar.tti ve venture t ha n. fo r exa mple, a model tha t assumes the existen<.'.e of essential agreemenl in the earliest stage.s of the movement, fo llowed by spo radic and disjointed herelic.:a l d issent ? l In using this modd J am of <:ourse drawing upon James M. Robinson nnd Hd mut Koester. Tnrji!cltJric>.s through Ear~r Chrislkmity (Philaddphia: Fortress Pn~s. 1971): nnd also

the methodological insights of Wultcr Bmll'r. OnluuJtJxy mul llerl!sy in E(IJ'/ie.st C/wisrkmity (tntns.. various: Philadelphia: Fortress Prc:ss. 197 1). Sustained critiques of this approoch h~1 ve naturally appeared. Characteristic is ..\rl>ind J. Huhgrcn. The RUe of Nomuuiw. Chrisliunity

Ritual and History of tm Jdiosynalllil' Tradition

3

M y main contribution to the explomtion of e.a rly Christhm d iversity in the present book is the stress I lay upon ritual di11t•rgem·f!. In lhe a rguments thal follow, I am e nvisioning. groups o f early followers of Jesus separated by geographical dista nce-. perhaps la nguage barrie.rs, a nd sometimes religious or ' lheological' d ifferen<·es. T hese loca lized and somewhat idiosyncra tic gro ups d rew from a co mmon fund of traditions~ including bo th their Jewish heritage (for those that had one) a nd the teachings and deeds of their commo n (physically a bsent) leader, Jesus. Mo reover, these groups: drew from these common traditions in distinctive ways. a nd the n~.sults were no t a lways compa tible. Whether their d ifferences o r their geog,ra phical separa tion a rose fi rst. some of the communities tha t prized these various trad ilions evenlu ;-~ ll y came into contact a nd d iscovered tha t they disag,reed in surprising and signilkant ways. Sometimes the result of the-se later encounte.rs was a fusion of beliefs and rit ua l practices; sometimes it was conllict. repulsion. or even repression.3 Within this model, accord ingly. I a pp roach the mea l p rayers and instructions found in the ·Teaching of the Twelve Apostles', o r Dida('hl!. a s belonging to a somewha t distinct a nd independenl trad ition fo r the t~on d uct o f the community's ritual meal. I llrsl adopted this approach as a result o r preliminary invesliga tion inlo 1he- Didadu( s prayers and the scholarly disputes a bout those prayers: s ubsequent findings confirmed my initial impressions a nd pressed me lO sharpen the a na lysis. In conseque-n ce, in this study I first aim to interpret the ritual t radition withoul assuming a connectio n to (I) the New Testament tradilion of Jesus· fina l meal; o r (2) la ter t raditions regarding the p roper cond ucl of t he Euc harist. This method of interp retation is ;1 departure from lhe overwhelming majority of studies that have examined or take-n into consideration the Didudu:'s meal prayers, altho ugh I a m not the first lO employ it. On the other hand. as part of my goal to e lucida te an instance of early C hristian ritual d ivergence. this study a lso explores the interaction between lhis particula r me~ll tr.ldition a nd others that emerged in the movement - again, its lrajeL'IOJ:v, nol only its forma tion. from lhis perspective, I do therefo re- intentiona lly bring into t he discussion both reference points. that is, the NT supper traditio n a nd t he late r liturgical evidence. T he results. accordingly~ constitute-a n attempt tore-describe the (Minnc-.apolis: Funn:ss Pn."SS.. 1994). pp. 17- 18. who nlllm1s howc:\'tr the mudd's nbility to dc:a1 with divcrsily. For his p;111. Huhgrcn still speaks of a 'normative: (OilSl'Osus' \'Crsus 'lhc dissent and C\'Cntunl isolation. ur (:I.'Cn dc:mi9:' of uth<:r points of \'icw (p. 5). The tc.nn •dissent'. however. is rdati\'c: anulytically, C: \'C:I)' early Christi<m stunc...- is u kind of ·dissent' from some other ·conscm•us·. What makes this one ·nomlflti\-c·. if not hindsight - in other words. annehronism'? 3 To 1~1kc an early c::xnmplc. consider the shock lgnntius of Antioch expressed over oc:nain \'ic:ws hdd by k:tders in communities l1c: encoun!crc:d on his \vt•Yto Rome. :tnd his teo:ommendcd solutions (Ph/d. 8: Magn. S- 11 ).

4

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

relationship between the Didadu~·s me.al rit ual a nd others, of which it has almost always been t~=. ke n simply as a n instance. Both the postulate. of early diversity and the model of 'trajectorie~· require tha t many as.."iUmptions abo ut the invention. use., impact and general 'location· of the Didat he's meal ritua l wit hin e.arly Christian history be fundament~lly

reconsidered. This book is t he ellort to do precisely that.

Accounting for the Didache In most porlr.tyals of the rise and early de\'elopment o f the Jesus movement. the Didadu~ plays a t most a marg,inal role. This is not ~1ccidental. Despite its resonances wilh a number of t~ommonly cited documents from the early centuries, most of the traditions within the Didathe - not least its meal prayers - have seemed tangential rdther than intee,ntl to forma tive Christianity. At the same time. however, these traditions strike most sc.holars as ·very e.arly and very Jewish. T hese two tntits produce a q uandary: Do these mate rials represent a n early stage of the kind of Christianity we encounter in t he New Testament, o r something e lse? T he historic.al-critical e(fort to 'place' this document is largely an attempt to answer this question . But the question. of course, can be-post'CI in radica lly d ifferen t W;iys. For example. o ne mig.ht assume that t he New Testament contains the very earliest and most t·entral traditions from the fo rmative Jesus movement. If so. the Didad1e will a ppear lo be later a nd eit her may be thoug.ht to deviate intentionally from the cano nical norm ort more commonlv, may be read and dted witho ut noticing its d istinctive qualilies.4 Alte.m a te ly. one might assume tha t the Ditladu: conta ins some o r t he ea rliest mate rials from the movement. l11en certain NT. o r a l least ' post-a postolic'. traditions may ~ippear to represent later developments. of which a n e-arlier stag.e is. preserved in the. Didad1e. 5 Essentially ~i 4 The proposal or ·dcvi ~ ti on' was voiced in 1938 (F. E. Vokes. The Riddli! of the> Dk!!lr!le: Fttcl or Firti011. Heresy or Ctttlwlidsm7 1Ncw York: Macmillan. 1938]) and lat~r nbandoned (see idem. •Life and Order in l lll Early Church: the Did~1chc'. ANR W 27.1. pp. 209- 33). lnste.ld. the Dkktr!le's testimony is usually blended with other c\·idcn<:c-. ..-\ ttx:cnt e:tamp1e is Larry W. Hurtado's treatm-ent or the Didathe• (in Lord Jesus Christ: Demtitm to Jesus in Earliest ClwU1ia11it)' (Gr.md Rnpids: Eerdmans. 1003). pp. 615-19). whet~ h-e simply assumes that it belongs to a ·proto-on hodm:· tr.tjee.'tory and nn~r obser"cs that it lacks his key phru.sc 'Lord Jesus Christ'. luds identifiable: ·dc\'otion· to Jesus. and lacks the title 'Christ' ror Jesus etu irdy. 5 Notably. a growing oonsensus or critics thinks that the Didtx-lle as .soch docs not assurne k nowlcd~"t' or any NT doNmcnts. See Willy Rordorr and Andr<: T uilk:r. La Doc'trine tfc>s Dou:e Aplilrt!S ( Did11rlliJ (SC, 29: P{1ris: CerL 2nd edn. 1?98). pp. 8-3- 91: Kurt Nicderwimmcr. The Dkfttdli! (tr.tns. Lindn M..\1aloney: Hc:rmcnci:1: Minnc-.:1polis: Fortr<:Sl' Pres-s.. I?98). pp. 46- 50 (and li teratur~ cite.-d): Aaron Mila\'tt. Til(! Didacho>: Failfl. Hop(~. tmd

Ritual and History of tm Jdiosynalllil' Tradition

5

deb;ite in these te rms occupied the attention of the fi rst critics of the d.ocumenl. However. the. problem is gre.a.tly complicated when we recognize. tha t the New Te.stamenl iL~el r is a collection of various perspectives. Do these documents represenl a single s tre.a m of C hristianity, or does the.ir placement in o ne <.".anonit'.tl volume te nd to o bscure impo rtant d ifferences between. for example. the comm unities tha t produt'ed a nd used the. various Gospels and the c.o mmunities founded by PauH l f the l;1tter scenario is (as I take it) more. accurate. do the. mate rials. in the Didadw ha ve a relationship. for example. to both kinds of earl)' comm unilie.s'? To just one'? To neithed When the Didufhe was Hrst published in 1883, the question oi d iversity a t the o rigins o f C hristianity was not yet on the table. Just ;-t year after it was made available by Philotheos. Bryennios. the Orthodox metropolitan who had rediscovered the document in a monastery in Constantinople. the masteriul c hurch historian Adolf von Harnack composed a relatively briei introduction fOr il. a<..'Companied by a Greek-German edition o f the text a nd lengthy notes. Not surprisingly. Ha rnack exhibited considera ble surprise at the Didathe's eucharistic instructions. Observin~ that the author of the document possessed some ritual expertise. Harnack pointed out that the instructions emphasized the verbal formulae for baptism. prayer a nd the. Eucha ris t. lea ving various procedura l matters largely unaddressed. However, this trait only contributed to his o.1stonishment over the <'ontents of the e ucharistic prayers: t hey lacked t he words of institution. neglected Christ's death "entirely', and did not even mention forgiveness of sins. Harnack o ffe red provisional conclusions: the prayers were 'very o ld', predating the Didm•he; were s trong!)' eschatologica l and 'spiritual'; a nd origina ted outside o f Pauline. inOuence. He also no ted tha t Didudu: I0 conta ined a t ripartite prayer of thanksgiving. p raise and petition that. paradoxically. antici pated t he later eucharistic liturgies.6 All of t hese observations have. a d islinguished history in the interp ret. a tion o f the. Didad te"s meal prayers. During the. subsequent 120 ye-.:.rs, Lifi! of the &ttlit>-JI ( 111'iJiiatl Cm111111111ilies. 50-iO ct. (New Yor\:: Ncwmon Press. 1003). pp. 695-739: Marcrllo Del Venne. Ditludur uml lltduism: JewiJh Root:> tJ/ m1 At1dent Chl'iJikm-Jl'••ish JVtJrk (New York: T&T Clark. 2004). pp. 81-6. Alnn J. P. Garrow modifies !his \•icw but upholds iiS underlying premise. for our purposes {Thi' GoJpel af M(tttbewJ DeJiend~>.nt't! fJfl the Didtu·be IJSNTSup. 254: l ondon: T&T Clark. 2004}). A minority still holds that the:- author knew Mauht"\V: cf. Klaus \Vengst. Didadw ( Aprutt>llt>hrt-}. Bamttlxlsbri(!_/: Zwt>ila Klf'llmuhrit>/. Sl, beraw;gttgt>.bell. tibertmgt>lllmd erliilllert (Schriftc:n des Ur<:hrist.:ntums. 2: Munich: KOse-l. 19S4). pp. 24-32. 6 Adolf \'On Hamad:. Dit> l..c>llfl' t.lt'r :waif Apostt4: nebst Untl'r.sudumgtw :ur altr.slm Gt>srltidue tim· Kir in b~ncml. stt Jom1than A DrniX'r. "The Didachr in MOc;u'l:h: An 0\'c:-rvirw'. in idem (c:d.). The Didadrt' in Modern Re.M'art•ll (Lc:iden: Brill, 1996) pp. 1- 42 {5-7).

6

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

scholars in seventl d isciplines have. consiste-ntly indexed s urprise that the Didt1c/w makes no me.n tio n of Jesus' body and blood. or even of his death, eve-n while they tend lo express an unsha kable conviction t hat these prayers must be ' very old' and somehow a nticipate later eucharistic liturgjes. Thus il is impossible LO atla in a na lytical clarity \\~th respect to Didadw 9- 10 without fi rst g,ra ppling with some of t he parddoxes buill into Harn~t<:k's seminal o bservations. Without tha t clarity, unexamined

assumptions abo ut the nature or the. Eucharist and early Christian meal practices will severely limit o ur ability to a uain insight into the historical signillcance-of these me.al instructions.

The central paradox is, not surprisingJy. a dellnitional one. In his notes. to the text. Harnack appears to be baiTied by the cuclwrisfia ('t hanksgiving"] 'Eucharist"') of Ditfarhe 9- 10. He begjns by asserting that the 'Abendmahl' (Communion'' Lord 's Supper'!) was probably celebra ted during t he week (not only on Sunday), ' i.e. in the agape'. In 9- 10. fo r Harnack. we have prayers for 'even a simple. me.a l' - the author is not .speaking. of an ' Abeudmahl\Titus'.1 However. when Harnack turns to the task of interpreting the. ritual ins tructions. of 9-10, his cons tant appeals are to 'liturgic-al fOrmulae·, and the parallels he draws wit h other litera ture concern what is normally called the 'Lord's Supper• His para phrase of 10.7 is characteristic: ' Each one. who is not a prophet, is entitled to hold the Aht!ntlmahl, yet he should speak the fo regoing, prescribed prayers. n 1e prophets, by contrast - only they - should be pem1illed in the celebration of the holy meal - the. agape is meant . .. - to offer the thanksgiving in freer (longer) spee<:h' 9 When a ' holy me-.11' include$ both Abtmdmahl and agtlpe. and the prayers that bracket that meal a re most a kin to late r lit ur~ical fOrmulae. o ne must work very hard indt-ed to reserve a sacramental re.sidue ('Abtmdmahlsriws') not cont;l ined in (or s upplanted by) the pmyers. ·n 1e confusion built into Harnack's initial t reatment would t~ome to clearest expression in the work of Josef Jungmann. lOr whom the Didadw's prayers could not 'tct:ompany a legitima te Eucharist because they lack t he words or in.stitution. 10 Harnack himself, by the lime he had completed the third ( 1893) editio n or his His/OI')' of Dogma (volume one), had made the Didathr's d istinctive. voice an organic part of the emerg,ing proto-Catholicism of the second c.:enlury. 11 He saw in its eucharistic prayers an example of the emerging sacramental understanding. inOu1 Hurnack. Lel~re. II. p. 28. 8 Sec Harnack. Ul~rP. II. pp. 28- 35. 9 Hurnad:. Li!llrt'. II. pp. 36-7. 10 Josef A. Jungmann. The Ear~r Liturgy 1tJ thr nmt· (ifGregory the Grnrt (trnns. Fmncis A. Brunne-r. Notr~· Dame: Uni\"<:rsity or Notre- Dame Press. 1959). pp. 19-JS. csp. 35- 7. II Sec Adolr von Harnack. J.liJtmy of Dogma (lmns. Neil Buchanan: 1 vols; New York: Ru!&"ll and RuSSC"II. 1958). I. pp. 76-99 (the preaching or 1ht ·first generation') and csp.

Ritual and History of tm Jdiosynalllil' Tradition

7

enced by 'all the wealth or ideas which the Old Testament conneets with sacrilke·. that wo uld eventually lead to the \tiew that •the-bod)' or Christ repre-sented in the bread is the sacrijil'e offered by the community~. 12 Harn;tck construed the matter thus: One cannot sny thai anything absolutdy foreign wns there with introduced into the o rdinance... But it m ust ha \'C been o r the most wide-reaching sig,nificance. that u wc:tlth of ideas \.,.·as in this way co nnected with the o rd inance, which had nothing whatc::\'cr in commo n. either with the p urpose of I he mc;tl as a memorial of Christ's death, o r with the mysterious symbols of the body a nd blood of Chrisl. '·'

Harn;ick simply assumes that, in the text o f the Didttt'lw, this 'c:.onnection' is being made: ther<: can be no doubt that thought he re moved in u r<:gion bounded. o n the o ne hand. by the intentio n of doing ju:uicr to tlu- \I'OIU!erjitl words of iw·titrtlioll which had been ha nd(.-d do wn .
The Didaeht(s meal prdyers: - interpreted in light of certain key remarks in John 6. l~_natius of Anlioch, Justin a nd lrenaeus - functio n fo r Ha rnack a s lhe central exhibit ror this stage of sacr.unenta l development. Clearly. for Harnack and ma ny subsequent histo rians, the institution of the Eucharist be,gan with Je~'ius o n the-nig,ht before his crucillxion: Now as they we re e-a ting. Jesus look brcm.J. a nd ble-ssed. und broke il. and gave il to the disc.~i ples a nd said, ··r a ke. cat; this is my body·. And he took a cup. and when he had given thanks he gave il to them, saying. · Orink of il. all o r you; for this is my blood of the covemmt, which is poured o ut for m any for the forgiveness of sins'. (!V1t. 26.26-28 RSV)

Yet if this act of Jesus gave the impetus for all s ubsequent eucharistic practice. how could o ne explain the divergent tem1inolog.y o f the Didad1e's prayers? T here. the cup is symbolic or 'the holy vine of David'. a nd the bread is symbo lic of ' Iire and knowledge'. No allusions lo Jesus' death can be- d iscO\•e red in the e ntire do<.~ ument of the Ditlatlu:. much less in its me-al instructions. 15 How could .suc.h pntyers ever have

pp. I 50-lll (the ·common faith. in the lxginning or 'GC'ntik Christianily·). In both plnc:c:s he frcqU<:ntly cites the Dirk1c!le as proof or u rdati\•c- n-stmint. more than di\·c-tsity {whic-h heotherwise acknowkd!,>e:Sj. in sceond
8

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

been \1iewed as ade.q m1te- for ~l eucharistic gathering that was mea nt to celebrate the body and blood of Jesus? The earliest and most common explanation - o r rationalization - fo r the Didadu(s tenninolog.y was to im•oke that other categ.o ry of early Christian me.:.d practice: the so-ca lled 'ttgtipe mea l'. fo rmally o r analytica lly sepanlte from the eucharistic rite, for Harnack and ma ny subsequent his torians. 16 This me.al. altested randomly in early Christian writing;S like the NT epistle o f Jude (c.a . 100?, unknown provenance). the lette rs o f Ignatius (ca . 95, northern Syria a nd Asia Minor) and Tertullia n's Apology (ca. 2 ()(). Carthage) . was thou¥ht by t hese hist.orians to be a ·c.ommo n o r sal!sl ymg: meal. 1 More coni usmgly. thiS sausfymg mea l, at'Cording to the usua l explanation (including Harnack's initial view}, was at some e.arly period the. romcx1 for the eucharistic rite proper. but never idemira/ to it - the two were no t to be co nfused. Eventua lly. the explanation goes. the agape and the e ucha ristic rite completely diverged . This historic~d rec.:.o nstruction would of course- help to relieve the obvious tension between t he language o f the NT's ins titution narr.uive and t he lang.uage of the Didtwlw's mea l prayers. Unfortunate ly, the reconstruction proves to be- untena ble. The postulate of a n ·agape meal' early a nd a lways d istinct from a ·sacramental rite· fails to explain the ancient evidence. As Andrew McGowan has pcmamsiveJy shown, some ancient writers- including Tertullian and Igna tius- evidently called their Eucharist by the name agapr.18 T he two t~o.mnot be distinguished clearly on available linguistic evidence: o n what grounds. then, can the.y be d istinguished·? A fu rther problem a llends pladng the Didadu>"s me-al in what McGowan pointedly calls 'a convenient dumping ~.round fo r

16 In 1he 1/iJJtJr._l' tif Dogma. Hornac-k views ' the whole lrnnsaction of the Supper as :t sacrifice' in Didad1c> :md elsewhere. and thus seems to distance- himself from his c:arlicr remarks about the ·agape' (1. p. 209 n. I). Subscquocnt -9:holnrs hdd to the distinction. howc,>cr: c:sp. Gregory Di:t. Tilt' Shupe ofthlt Liturg..r (New York: Sc:abury. 1982). p. 90~ Jungmann. Em~r Li111rgy. pp. 35- 6: and t hose rnentioncd in Paul F. Bradshaw. ' Introduc-tion: Thc Evolution of Early Anaphoms'. in Paul F. Br<Jdshaw (c:d.). E.wtys tm far~r E(IJiem £udwriJtic Pmyers(Collegc,·illc:. '-'IN: Liturgical Press. 1997). pp. 1- 18 (7). 17 The l:aucr tc:ml is taken frum Nicdcrwimmer (Didadllt. p. 1 ~3: •meal for the satisf:1ction of hunger'). whose rc:cenl and importtmt <:ommc:ntary on thc Didache still assurnes this distinction (soc pp. 140-B). 18 Sc:c Andrc•w McGowan. ' Rethinking Agapc: and Eucharist in Early North African Ch risli <~ nity'. Sr Lit 3~ (2004). pp. 165-76 ( 166-8): :md his earlie-r study ' N:tming the Feast The agape> and the di\'<:rsi1y of early Cbris1jan meals·. StPatr 30 ( 1997). pp. 314-18 (317): •we should probably stop speaking of "the ugape'" us t hough there were an ancient consensus t1bout if. McGowan is followc:d herc by Paul F. Bmdshaw. £udwriJtic Origin:o (New York: Oxford Uni\'ersity Prc:ss. 2004). pp. 29- 30.

Ritual and History of tm Jdiosynalllil' Tradition

9

or

Ull\\o'anted meal evidence the llrsl few centuries': 19 t he Didaclte calls its meal by ihe- name eudwristia, a nd , more to the. point, claims t hat only those who a re 'baptized in the na me of the Lord' (9.5} and are 'holy' ( 10.6) may participa te in it. :!O A divergence. in symbolism fo r the bread ;.~nd c up c;.~n be explained much more e-.tsily. of course. if we a llow fo r d iversity in the meal p ractice-S o f the Jesus movement at an e.a rly da te. Allhough lhis historical expla nation was not perhaps readily available to Harnack, these days o ne frequently enc.o unters scholarship stressing early C hristian diversity. A lre-ady in 1926. Hans Lietzma nn was pre$Sing early liturg.ica l diversity as the explanation for this kind of d ivergence: ' Is a supper a l a ll conceivable wit hout a ny referen<.".f to lhe Las t Supper a nd the death o f Jesus'!'21 Lietzmann•s answer was. of course. a confident - but sin<.'e much wea kened - 'yes': he posited two d istinc t kinds of eucharistic practice. In l11ct, the Didarlw was essentia l to Lielzmann•s reco nstruction of a nonPauline, but s till quite. ancient. e ucharistic. tradition.! 2 Granting tha l Lietzmann "s ~u..-count has conside-r able sho rtcomings.21 t he extenl to which

19 Andrcw McGowan. AsCt!lir F:udmd.~t.,·: Food a11t/ Drir1k in Ear~r CIJI'is1im1 Ril11al (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1999). pp. 21- 2. referring to categorizing the Didttdtc's

Meal.~

meal :..san ·agtiJit/. 20 See Arthur VOObus for a spirited defence of the ~1crcd ness· of the Diilucife's ritual (Liturgic-al TmditioM ill the Ditludw (Procttding:s of the Estonian The.ologirn1 Society in Exile. 16: Stoc-kholm: Estonian Theologi-cal Society in Exile. 1968}. pp. 65-70. 99- JOI). Sec too l.ouis Bouyer. £udwrisr: Theolugy am/ S}lirilll(llil,r of tile E11duwistir Prayer (Notre Dame: University of Notre O:une.• 196S). p. 117: Huub van de Sandt and David Flusscr. '111e Dilk1rl1e: Irs Jt:\ri.f/J S(Hrrt·es tmd il.f Plt~ee in F:ody Judaism a111l Clll'i.Jiitmity (Minneapolis: Forlrcss Press: 20C>2). pp. JOI- 5. Despite 1his. I avoid here the term •sacrament'. since it invites annchronism. 21 Huns Lictzmann. M!I.U am/ Lortl:f S11pp(!r: A StmJ.r i11 tile History of tht' Lit11rgy (trans. Dorothea H. G. Re~: Lcidcn: Brill. 1979). p. 160. Maurice Gogud also deserves notice here. sine< in 1910 he strongly emphasized lhc n-eed to take seriously the Did(tchl''s silene<: about a l ast Supper, body and blood. suffering. and so on (L 'EuchttJ'im'e: Des origiru .i JuJiill .\farJyr (Paris: Fischbncltoer. 19 10]. pp. 229-45). Gogud also :mticip<1ted some of l ioetzmann·s eondusions (pp. 244-5). and <:\'en raised the question cited abon· (pp. 240, 243- 5).

Lictznmnn. Mtt.f.~, pp. 142, 195--206. 2.l Sec critieisms in A. J. B. Higgins. The Lonf's Supper i11the l•lt•1-· T~Jiamenl (Cbic~1,go: Henry Rcgncry. 1952). pp. 25-7 (and literature eitcd there). 57-60: Rudolf Bultmann. Tlleolog_r of the New Teswmeul (trans. Koendrid: Grolx-1: l ''ols: New York: Scribners. 1951). I. pp. 144-6: Arthur Darby Nod. Ear~r Gentilt' Christianity tmd its llellmislic Btk'kgrmmd (New York: Harper nnd Row. 1964). pp. 77-8. \Vith McGowan (A.uctic fltclwri.\'IJ. pp. 24950). I regard lict:r.mann's proposal t iS en,·isioning too litlie diversity. My conclusions in Chs 7-9 would undermine Licb'.nmnn's cntirc m'Onstruction. 22

10

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

subsequent liturgists have been unwilling to entertain the possibility of ear ly eucharistic diversity remains puzzling.24 Not o nly does: one still encounter the dubious (and now less co mmon) d istinc.:tion between a ·satisfying meal' and a ·sacramental ritual' as an explanation for the-idiosyncratic tr.tits o f the Didathc. but also in many more rece.nt studies of liturgi<:al development~ o ne Jlnds a rather facile trajecto ry in which the Didaciles prayers appear as the 'golden link' between Jewish meal pmyers (bl'rakotil} and the Christian eucharistic prayer (anaphora). This trajectory is built upo n perceived parallels, noted alre-.ady by Harnack, between certain phrase-S and tendencies in the Didadu~'s prayers and later (larg.ely fourth-century) eucharistic anapho ras. Ollen. these developmenta l schemes involve- the assumption sometimes the Mgument - that the Didod~e"s meal prayers are fOr a somehow ·authentic" Eucharist, but at a stag.e closer to Je.wish practices, and therefore are-less developed than subsequent eucharistic pr.lyer.25 ~ntis account does take into consideration two or the. key tr.tits o f these prayers: their Jewish sensibilities and their antiquity. h also aims to explain parallels with other early Christian pr.lyers that - o n any ac.:.c ount - must be considered . But it rather too readily assumes a friend ly evolution fro m the Didal'lw's prayer formulations to the starkly d iffe-rent liturgies of the fourth rentury. -M oreover, it is inappropriate {Or historians to adjudicate 'authentic' from inauthentic ancient meal practices. . as well as prono uncements of Inevitably, such evolutionary a<.'Counts. 'authenticity' (or not), work ( o obscure the distinctive traits of the Didacile's prayers, including above all how those who actually used them could have understood l hem. 26 The hope that the Strangeness and fl•miliarity or the DidtJ<•he's meal prayers could be explained without an appeal to e-a rly and persistent d ive-rsity in the movement is perhaps understandable for Harnack. who made a valiant effort to synthesize this and o ther new llndings into a 24 The work of Dix (Shape) is largely rcsponsibh: for this trend in liturgical studies. which has been brilliantly catalogued h)· Puu1 F. Bradshaw in 'fl1e St>trn·!lfOr tlu! Origim·of Cltrisliun WorsMp: SCNtUl'S am/ Melhods for 1!Je Stm~r q{ Ear~r Liturgy (Nc:w York: Oxford Uni\'ersity Press. 2nd cdn. 2002). pp. 1-46. I U!-43: cf. idt"m. 'Introduction·. 15 This project wus cautiously attempted by Louis l igicr. 'The Origins of the Eucharistic Prnycr: Fr<.un the Ltt5.t Supper lo the Eucharist". StU; 9 (1973). pp. 16 1-85: expanded by Thomas J. Talky. ·Thc Eucharistic Pm)'('r of the Ancient Chun:h According to Re..-cnt R..-scarch: Results nnd Rdlcnions'. StLil II f l976). pp. 138- S8 (146-56): and. finally. simp!}' assurncd by {among others) Lucien Deiss.. Springtime of thi' Liturgy: Liturgiml Text.\· of l11e Firs/ 1-Vur Cenlw·it!s (tmns. Mutthl'W J. O'Connell: Collq,>cvilk . MN: The Liturgical Press. 1979). p. 74. Soc the strongchQiknge to it offered by Bmdshaw. Eudmrislit Origins. pp. 11638.

26 Symptomatic of this fuilure to :.ccount adequately for the Didtlchi>"s pntyc:-rs is the tendency (in the studies cited in the previous note) to build from the trip:artitc prayer of Ditl. 10 and ncgloct DM. 9 nlto!,>cther. Cf. Bradshaw. Eudltlristic Origins. p. 36.

Ritual and History of tm Jdiosynalllil' Tradition

II

t~oherent explanation for the rise of Catholicism. St1bsequent historians~

howe.ver, have-an obligation to confront the par.ldoxes he produced and to ta ke better account of the (sometimes newly) available evidence. 27 In particular. it will not do simply to gloss over the distinctive-t raits of the Didadu~'s me~ll ritua l instructions in an e llOrt to devise a seamless evolutionary paradigm. Precisely these distinctire traits should~ instead, be explored and elucidated in a sympathetic and historically plausible manner. Such a historical e ndeavour will not assume a f~i.cile and unproblematic link or conco rd between the various strands o f evidence tha t happen to survive from the early Jesus movemenl. Nor will il involve a debate- about the uut henticity or 'orlhodoxy' of the Didadu(s ritua l fO rm. A number of impo rtant works have appeared in recent years~ which a pproach the Didat'he pret.isely as a distinctive and e~1rly document. Jonathan A. Draper, in particular. has written a number of a rticles elucidating va rious aspects of the social a nd ritual situation implied by the Didadu~'s instructions.18 Aaron Milavec. in his massive. commentary on the Didaclu~. has worked tireles-sly to inte rpret the text in a no\'el and sympat hetic manner. 29 Alan J. P. Garrow. in a bold monogra ph and some equally bold papers, has been arguing for ihe Didachc's historical priority over the . NT Gospel or Matthew a nd key elements of the Pauline context. 30 These a nd o lher scholars have cont ributed much to o ur appreciation of the distinctive voice of the. Didar!Je. Thus. they signal a ~rowing awareness t hat lhe traditions preserve-d in lhis seemingly marginal document have more to say to t raditional po rt raits or early Chrislian o rig,ins than was previously imag.ined . The. Didat he's meal rit ual, too, deserves a fresh examination. which will consider ils origjnative matrix and its historica l impact, without slotting il into a predete rmined pattern or e ucharistic- evolution or a 'prolO-

27 One thinks of the l't'Cendy rcdi9:owrcd Gospel of Jud!IS. which oonlains at least one in which c:ttholic eucharist i~ practice: is \'icwc:d with c:ontempt. nnd which ngain emphasizes the ritual diversity of prc-Constanlinian Chri.sli.nnily. 28 Sec csp. Jomllhan A. Draper. •Torah nnd Troublesome Apostles in the Diiladw Community". No•·T 33 (1991). pp. 347- 72: 'Social Ambiguity and the Produe1ion of Te:(t Prophers. Teach~~rs. Bishops, nnd o~·ncons and the Devdopn1cnt of the Jesus Tr..dilion in the Ct,mmunity of !he Didarllt!'. in Clayton N. kfford (cd.). The Ditktt•he in Ctmt(!.\'1: E.uays tm ils Text. fli.~!t~ry tmd Tumsmi.uim1 ( L.ci
2006).

12

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

orthodox' trajecto ry:31 l"nstead. this me.al ritual must. fOr o nce, become the analytit'.JI ce.n tre around which o ther o ral, textua l a nd rit ual ma te rials are a rrayed. Or, to put it another way, the Didlltlw' s meal ritual must be permilled to be its own best authority~ and its own inte rnal logic. must become the primary test o f its compatibility wit h other traditions from the Jes us movement In this way. we can begin to understand what this meal ritual was and whether. how, and to what extent it impacted the rest o f the Jesus movement

Ritual and History: A A1arriage Proposal The twin foci of this study are .sometimes considered methodologica lly a t c ross-purposes. Ritual theorists often enga~.e in ahisto rical explanations of wh~1t rituals 'are.' a nd how rituals 'work'. Historians o f Christianity on en describe histo rical phenomena as though they co nsisted of doct rines) power struggles and (more recently) socioeconomic:. factors. When historians d iscuss rit uals. they tend to view them as expressions of these same doctrines, power struggle-S and socioeconomic 13cto rs. While the re is much \1alue in both ende~1 vours, there is a lso something to be learned by investigating rituals as serious hi s to ric~\) phenomena in their own right. a nd meanwhile as always embod ied and em1Cted in quite s pecific histo rical contexts. In other words. the task o f historical investigation and the examination o f rit uals need no t be mutually exclusive but c~m. instead, be mutually e.nlighte nin£> Ritual theorists, a t their best, have in mind particular instant·e.s of ritual performa nce. which derive their effectiveness as rit uals from the-specific historical a nd c ultur.tl contexts within which t hey are pe.riOrmed. lt should be possible. the.n . to test the explanatory power o f a gh•e n ritual theory in a particular historical setting> and it should a iSD be possible to eluddate historical developments from a ritual-ce nt red point of view. One must keep in mind. of course-, that a ny point of view has its limitations. But s uppose that one were to d iscover reasonably fu ll informa tion regarding a ritual t hat was known to be impo rtant - e\'en central - to a gi\'en group. and little e lse could be known about t hat group'' In that case. it should be possible. by paying artention to their ritual instructions, to eluddate something meaningful or signillc-a nt abo u1 the mysterious group - something tha t could nol be elucidated without a n adequate understa nding of what rit uals can ' be' a nd especiaJiy how they might ·work·. This situation. it seems to me, is precisely what we e ncounter in the-case of the meal ritual preserved in the Didache. As the brief s urvey of scholarly approaches above. illustra tes. the pressing q uestion reg.arding 31 Sec too Bradshaw. EuduiJ'isJic Origins. p. 32.

Ritual and History of tm Jdiosynalllil' Tradition

13

this particula r meal ritua l has a lways been, to some exte nt a t le-ast, what it 1ras, what it was meant to do. how it was meant to be uHderswod or to

jimcliou for those who utilized it. Part of t he problem has always been tha t lillie c.an be known about the people who produced this ;-monymo us text. besides wh~it we le.a rn from the d ocume.n t itself: almost not hing is known with conlldence a bo ut the prm•e mmc.:e of the. Didadw. 32 Should t hese folks be co nsidered some kind o f rog.ue Jewish C hristian group'? Is their context closer to wha t we thought we understood as early apostolic Christianity? Who pr.tetised this ritual, and what d id they think they were-about'? Ell'orts to work o ut these problems on the-basis of o ther features in the exta nt Didat'he - e-Specially the fa mous ' two ways· tre-atise that forms its o pening - have- not d aritied the eucharistic pw:zles that confront us in Didudw 9- JO:B T he significa nce of this fa ilure>howe\'e r, has not always been Sr.lsped, bec-.a use scholars o f early Christianity have no t alw~1)'S ta ken seriously t he importance. of rilual participa tion and non-pa rtidpation for early Christian communities. T his bli nd spo t is ironic. given modern concems over the 'authe nticity' o f t he Didac/l(!'S ' Eucharist'. T here is stro ng evidence- that analogous com:erns about 'a uthenticity' in ritua l perfonnan{'e held sway a lso in a ntiquity: eucharistic practice f~1irly 34 frequently emerges as a litmus test o f a uthentic Christianity. In addition. the centra l impo rta nce of rit ual eating fo r a wide- s pectrum of early Christian gro ups cannot be denied ; such ritua ls a re-in a significan t sense thr selling (Or much that ha ppened in the-e.;-trly communilies. Therefore, the puzzles that confro nt us in this ritual text are. in nic t some o f the. be-st evidence we have for the existence a nd. distinctive traits of the group or bra nch of the Jesus movement that produc..·ed a nd utili:lt'especially from t he a nlhropology 32 We do nol know for certain cxactlr when. wh1•·mul llw Didadtr. (Minneapolis: Foru-cs.~ Press. 2005). PJl. 35-47): I rcnmin dubious. in pan b«.~au sc of the astonishing number of di,•cf'SC documents Ihat scholm-s are i1>dinod to place there. 33 Mos1 rcocn1ly. S:mdt and f1uss.:r. Ditktchl!. 34 I discuss thi\X instances inCh. 9: Ignatius of Antioc-h. h cnacus and the Apoca~rpse of Paul. M:tny o1hc:rs could be adduced: sec. e.g.• the disputes probed by McGowan. Asati<· \vtlS composed.

£ud•arists.

14

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

or religion. Frequenlly these anthropological models can be utilized o nly in ii somewhat t rimmed or even t runcated manner: the available evidence simply does not aJiow fo r ;·lSSe-ssment of a ll factors an a nthropologist o r performance theorist would wish to ta ke into considera tion. r have aimedl however. fo r a responsible use of theory. allowing il to suggest avenues of investigation rdther than to d ictate conclusions for which no evidence survives. In particula r, the available evidence fo r e.a rly Christian prayer has not allowed me to do a nything like a n e thnog,ra phic study of this movement•s prayer conventions. The materials with which o ne h~iS to work in this case are sparse-. and not all o f them c.ome from closely connected b>eogra phical and historical seu ings. ll is critic-.al to bear this fac t in mind, bec.a use the Roman world was sometimes more- vast tha n a mileage cha rt would suggest. fo r instan(·e , what generalizations ~m be-made on the- basis of how a n early third-century Christia n apologist pr.tys in Carthage a nd :i mid-third -century ca.techist and theologian, some eleven hundred miles away. prays in Alexandria?35 T heir na tive languages d iffe-r. and t hough they read most or the s:.-tme Scriptures, they have almost c::ertainly le-arned fro m their Christia n fOrebe-a rs diffe rent prayer conventions. which the.y take to be traditional and perhaps even normative. Often enough. turns of phrase. common to various prayer samples turn o ut to be ' trdditiona l' in the sense that they mimic Scripture (the Psalms. for exa mple. or the Lord';; Prayer from the Gospel of Matthew). But upon carerul examination, such prayer texts just as often conta in se.rious dinerences. and this complicates any effort to generalize a bo ut ancient Christian prayer. Aga in. it would be helpful to possess two o r three reasonab l)' full sketches of the perfonmmce of a Christian meal ritual prior to Constantine - but we do no t. Justin's description of the 'Eucharist' of the (Gentile) Christians. composed in Ro me a ro und 160 but presumably based o n experiem:es both then~ a nd in Asia Mino r, is be.tte.r th:-m no thing. 36 But it has se-rious limitations, induding some-famo us ambiguities in his language a ndt of course. the propagandistic agenda o f the treatise in which his description a ppears. His account would be invaluable in the context of other materia ls fro m the same regjon and the s~tme period of time, but such additional materials turn out to be very sparse. Natura11y, his description becomes less reli~tble t he furthe-r rrom Rome-one gets and the fu rther fro m the year 160 one goes. It certainly does not 35 I have in mind here Tc:nullian and Origcn. whose lrcatiscs on prayer arc: conveniently primed in one \·olume {with a treatise of Cyprian} in :10 n/. 39). Sec Bntd.sh:..w. f:1trllaristic Origi11s. pp. 97- 9.

Ritual and History of tm Jdiosynalllil' Tradition

15

clarify much tha t is puzzling in the meal ritua l o f the Didadu!, itself proba bly t rolnst:ribed in Syria up to ii full ce nt ury p rior to Justin's wriling. One cannot, for ex;-tmple, lean on Justin's description in o rder to fill in missing details in the Didal'he.li' The existence o f e.a rly social. theologica l a nd ritua l d iversity in t he 11r:a three centuries of the Jesus movement Ob\~ously complicate-S the process o f collecting and collating e\•idenl·e fo r ritual practic:es and assumptions in the moveme-nt. Even in J ustin·s Rome, lOr exa mple, we can be-certain tha t Mardon a nd Valentin us would h~1ve differed radically from Justin on the a ppropriate ness of praising the Father as Cre-ator of t he visible cosmos - a universal aspect. Justin claims. ofChristian communal prayer (see- I Apol. 13; cf. lrenaeus Haer. 4. 18.4- 5)." T he. soundest procedure~ Lhen. is to collect as much e\•idence (in the present case, evidence-for the conduct o f a meal ritual) from a parlil'ular tlorunuml as possible. a nd then to compa re the working$ o r ' logic• of the riluals in each document. Only this procedure a llows each piece of evidence lo h~we a say in iL" own construal in the la rge-r d iscussion o f the meal ritual and its develo pme nt. The alternative - which I take. to be. a ll too common and have worked to avoid here - is to a llow certain pieces of e-vidence, understood within a master narrative. to dictate how the rest of the evidenl~ is heard.39 [n t he first pa rt of this study. then. a rit ual and o ral analysis of the Ditlatlw's meal instructions as well as the last supper tradition of the NT will allow us to cOmpare the two in a way that moves be-yond facile a nalog.ies a nd impressionistic remarks. Ont.e I have considered each o n its own terms, the d istincth'e empha ses of each can more read ily emerge thro ug,h comparison. Historic:a l clarity is therefore heightened when we attend to rit ual as rit ual. In the second pa rt o f this study. histork a l clarity is again e nhanced by keeping the d istinttive ' ritua l logic' o f the Didadu/s prayers in view a t every stage of the story of these prayers' use and disuse. By means of ;i detailed comparison o f motifs and prayer Jangu;-tge. 1 will trace lhe impaCl o f this ' idiosyncra tic· me.:d ritual on e ucha ristic pr.lctice prior lO 37 These rtmarks t1lso l1o1d. per forec::. for Tertulliuo's de!ltription in Apol. 39. Justin's important accounl will bC' considered in two conte:tts: the lrajc::ctor)· of the:: last supper 1rndition (Ch. 2) .;md 1he pruycr conventions of Rome and Asia Minor (Ch. 7). 38 I will h<1ve more 1osay about Valcnliniun pmyer in Ch. 8 nnd abou1 lrcnneus' re-marks about it inCh. 9. 39 N:alurally. I huv.: a ·m.'lsler namllivc· in ,·ic:w. as the opening s:1lvo of Ihis chapter was intended to spell out. That nu1stcr murati\"C (or beuer. skc1ch} assumes divc::rsily and credits (as C'hs 4-S will make clear) the exislenee or VCT)' early followers or Jesus who paid his. death and resurrection something less than dc::\•o tion. While these ussumplions affect how the Didt~rluts evidence is heard. I would contend lhnl t1bove nil they allow certain aspects of lhe problem 10 stand out more d enrly thnn they othmviSC" would.

16

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Consta ntine - in .so far as extant eviden<·e permits us to reconstruct tha t impact.40 At Limes the histo rical inquiry ca n go no fun he-r than provisional conclusions: despite this limitation. however, a fai rly cle.a.r the extent a nd na ture of this ritlml's impact upo n the picture emerges

or

later rituals and literature of the Jesus movement and. in turn. its ultimate fate.

40 Occasionally it will be noccssary to rt"vicw documentary cvi~1cnoc that may or clcarlr does poSl-dnte Constantine. Howc\•er. liturgical dc\'dopmcnts after Constuntinc will no! be nddresscd ut all in this book. for reasons thnt should become clear in the course of mr investigation (csp. Ch. 9). Nor will I discuss d~ Syrian Anaphora of Adda i and M:ui: composed in S~'ri uc ll:k:is..-.. Spri11gtime. p. 157 and n. 2). the Didadu/s prayers could not dir«1ly ht1vc inAU(nccd it. and in none of the standard rcconSiructions docs it d irectly relate to the Dirlad1t/s form as I understand it (despite its allure for Rordorf and Tuilicr. Lt1 DtX'tdne. pp. ll>-6): d . Bradshaw. Eu
PART DtDA CHE

r

9- 10 AS

RITUAL

This page imemionally left blank

Chapter 2 THE LAST SUPI'ER T RADIT ION

As everyone knows beyond even the shadow of doubl. the most important. the essentia l part of the primitive Christian liturgy was the Eucharistic ce-lebra tion> that rite> namely, which had been instituted by our Lo rd on the e.ve. of His passion. Josef A. Jungmann 1 The familiar tradilion of lhe last mea l belo re Jesus' death has tended to dominate-the scholarly im~tgination orearly Chris tian ritual me-a ls. Since the Didadw's d iscovery, its ritual d irectives have usually been interpreted precisely in te rms of that tradition. Can il concern an 'authe-ntic' Eucharist despite its fail ure to cite o r refe rence tha t last meal? Should it ins tead be la beled a me-re ·agap(>" meal? Does it a t least imitate Jesus' actions a t his last me~d. 1 o r can it sim ply be read as tacitly alluding to that meal'?l Seldom have scholars posed the prior question, whether the Didache~s ritual exhibils any knowledge o f o r indebtedness to thal (fOr us) fa miliar tmdition. Yet if we are to grasp the signilkance of this ritual. and its place wit hin t he histo ry of the. Jesus movement. precisely this q uestion must be confronted directly. Accord ing to Paul, t his tmdition was crilk:a l to pro per practice of the ' Lo rd's S upper' . a me-.tl shared amo ng his Corinthian assemblies. It a lso plays a s triking role. in Ma rk's narra ti\'e, especially that portion concerned I Jungmann. far~r Litu,.gy. p. 29. 2 The proposal of Edward J. Kilmartin. 'Soctificium luudis: Contrnt and Function of Early Eoch:1ristic Pr..lyers·. TS JS (1974). pp. 26&-87 (276}: and Enrico Ma:an. · o idnchc 910: EJro1cnts of a Eucharistic fnlr.rprclalion·. in Jonathan A . Draper (ed.). Lynda Pl1b:a.o (lrnns.), Tile Dk!!lcl!e it1 Mod~rn R1'J.t'ardr (lcidcn: Brill. 1996). pp. 276-99 (292-4): follou-cd by Mikl\'«. Ditla(h1•. pp. 380. 390--95. 3 The \'icw l"Specially of Nock. E(lr/y Gemill' Cbrislitmily. pp. 77-8. Similarly nlrc:ady Philip Schaff. Tht• Oid~.sl C1mrch Ma11uul, C(tl/ed tlut ll'llrlling tJ/ thi! T"'i!h·~ AposJ!.?s (New Yorl:: Funk & Wagnalls. Jrd cdn. 1889). p. 190. Cf. Gerard Rouwhorst. ·o iduche 9- 10: A l ilmus Test for the Resc;u-.:h on Early Christian Liturgy Eochnrisf. in Huub van de S.:•ndt (cd.). M(/tll/i!h' ami tlut Didadrt': TwtJ Doamtc>fll.f from tile Some Ji'wislr-Citri.\'littll .\fili~11? (Minneapolis: Fortress Prc:ss. 2005). pp. 143- 56 ( 145).

20

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

wit h Jesus· fate in Jerusalem, and it a ppears in enough additiona l early documents from t he movement Lo warrant serious a lle ntion. Finally it is, or course, c-entral to developed liturgies of the catholic churches of late antiquity. Acco rdingly, t his tradition h;.1s been given an important, even cenlr.tl ro le in most acl;ounts of lit urgical origins. 4 !\·ly concern in this

chapter is more narrow than the reconstructio n of liturgical ori~ins. however, partly bec~n1se, unlike J ungmann, I do no t take it as a given tha t the Las t Supper was: the origina ting moment o f all s ubsequent eucharistic practice. I wis h instead to query this traditio n for its rit ual logic - how it constructs the meal's function fo r (or within) the. life o f the t:ommunities that preserved this tr.tdition. In t his chapte.r. then, I offer a fresh assessment of t he tradition or Jesus'

final meal, which I call here rhe 'last supper t radition'. Be<,a use of the d iversity o f existing a pproache-S to this material, it will be necessary to e nter a number of conversations regarding what can wit h contldence be considered constitutive fO r this tr.tdition. The aa:ounts in Paul. Mark. Matthew. Luke and Justin !M artyr will be t~onsidered. as will the q uestion of the- role. of this tradition in early Christian meal riluals. This e ntire inquiry will be-o f secondary use to us in the second part o f this s tudy. when we turn to the trajectory of the Didal'lu!'s me~il ritual.

Tht• Oral Tradition The t:Jas..~ic treatments of the NT's Las t Supper narrative, writte n in the 1960s and 1970s, envisage a very texnwl process, in which Pa ul. M~1rk. Matthew and Luke have- redacted a n original fixed text. for various theological reasons.5 On this model, one first seeks to identify which was the 'earliest' or "most o rig,inal' (sit) t radition. us ually either Paul~s ac.:.c ount

( I Cor. 11 .23-6) or Ma rk's (Mk 14.22- 6). but sometimes a still earlier 4 Brndshnw·s work (c:sp. Eudmrislit' OrigiM) is nn important exe
The Last Supper Tmditiou

21

ersio n pre~en~ed imperfectly in u11 fo ur, and thus modified by all four.6

\1

Next, on this model, one typically allempts to explain the theologjcal impulses that led to the modification of various deta ils in this ·original' accounl. Finally, one may endea,•our to place. these d iverging versions of the suppe.r tradition - conceived as independently developing traditions in specific geographical locations.7 This ''e ry text ual approach to t he lrddition cone$po nds to a view held

by folklorists in the early twentieth t"entury, namely. that variations in an o ra l t radition rellect corruption o r even s ubversion of the original Lrddition. In this c.ase, the ·originar. whether Paurs. Mark's, or a still earlier text. is supposed to have been 'corrupttxr due to redactional considerations. Working back from redaction, the theory assumes, can disclose a ' more o rigjnar version - e.ither a produc.t of the Greek-speaking ' Hellenistic' church, or an Ara maic form from Jesus' own lips. However, in 1960 Albert B. l ord strongly challenged this older folkloristic view, utilizing ~Iii man Parry"s theory that epic singers compose their epics anew in each periOm1ance by mastering a nd combining. fom1Ukte with fixed meter. As Lord put iL ' In oral tradilion. the idea o r a n o riginal is illogic"d';8 ins te" d o ne should think o nly of a recognilllble storyline tha t can be expanded or condensed. elaborated or simplilied. in a given perfom1ance. l o rd even remarked that an 'origina l' performa nce meaning the jirsl performant:t! of a gjven epic - would prob<.-tbly be lacklustre, comparing poorly to perfonnances given a lle r expe rie-nce had tr.tined the sing_ e r to bring out the d ramatic pote ntial of the tale.\I As is 6 In fuvou r of Mark"s; Schwcitll!'r. Problem. pp. 121. 131; Probably h'illumt a fixed original ( / C«illt!lkm.r ltmns. Jomes W. Leitch: Hcmtcnciu: Philuddphiu: Fortress Press. 1975). pp. 200-201). 7 The theory of Lictzmann and others was that Mark prcscn-c-s the Jerusalem and P~•ul the Antioch form (sec Schweizer. LonJ:r Sup~r. pp. 23--4). So still Joseph A. Fitzmycr. 111e GoJJwl Auordi11g Jo Like 11. X- XXIV (AU. 28a: New Yori::: Doub1«i:J.y. 1985). p. 1393. 8 Albc11 Bates Lord. The Si11ger of T(t/t'.f (Cumbrid.!,'C. MA: Harvard University Press. 1960). ''· 101. 9 Sec Lord. Si11ger. p. 100. Ho•o~.-cver. some oral IC'Xts may come to be lixed in t l't1tlin imporuml wnys. As l.ord later pointed out. some oral ge-nres (including ritut1l ones) ure •conoc:i\-cd as a mol"l' or less fixed entity. with its own wording'. so that. within v~uiation. 'there is also on the part of the singers or reciters thcmseh:es n sense that such poems hta\OC, or should have. a given .set of words' ( 1l1e Singt'r R f'StliJII'cS the Ta!r [ed. Mary Louise lord: Ithaca. NY: Cornell Uni\-crsity PrC$S. 1995]. p. 20). Sec 1oo Wullacc L Cht1fC'. ' Integration and lnvolvemenl in Spe:1king. Writing. nnd Oral liternture·. in De-borah Tannen (ed.). S;l(l/;.t'll alltl lf.'i-illt'J1 Ltmguttge (Norwood. NJ: Abk.\: Publishing. 1982). pp. 35-5-3 t-19- 52).

22

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

well known. this o ral-fom1ulaic theory has been inlluential in the s tudy of the Ho meric epics. It a lso infl uenced Werner Kelber to reject the-notion of fixed o risinals behind the traditions in Mark 1- 13. 10 ·n te-Lord-Pa rry hypo thesis has its limita tions fo r o ur purposes. s ince we are dea ling with a brief narrative unit rather than a n extensive. epic in verse. But fol klore .studies ha ve cle-a rly s hifted away from a quest for origina l o ra l texts and begun to inquire instead into t he contexts of indi vidual performances. For example, Ric ha rd Bauman, who helped to bring about lhis shift. noted that ·completely novel a nd completely fixed texts repre-sent the. poles of an ide.al continuum, a nd that between the po les lies the range- o f emergent text s tructures to be fou nd in empirical performance' . 11 As fOlklorists have. come. increasingly to e mphasize, individua l perfo rme-r s tend to have a n ' ideal perforrna n<.-e' ra ther than an 'auihor' in mind. a nd this ideal perfo rma nce assumes sha red knowledge of genres, themes. acts, roles, e:vents and no rms of inte rpreta tion. Given this r.llher different set of assumptions a bout an oral ' text'. the study of an indi vidual ora l perfonmmce. should pay a ne ntion both to the over~trching 'rules· fOr verbal behavior within a given comm unity a nd to the s pecific context within which the ind ividua l perfo rmance is being carried out. 1:! ·n1is shift in folklore- studies constitutes ;m obvious cha llenge to the classic tre-a tments of the Last Supper narrative, with t heir he:wy red ~H: ti on --e ri tica l assumptions. In fact, the nature o f this tr.tdition, its limits and how verbally Hxed it was are all matte-rs tha t mus t be reassessed. Aller a ll. if this tradition was indeed rece.ived and tr.tnsmitted orally r.tther than textually, d iffe rent rules o ught to hold fo r continuity between performances a nd the level and signifiC-ance- o f variations between two recitations. ' :\ In order to specify the na ture. and c ha racteristic features of this o ral t radition, then. a fresh compa rison of the exempla rs is required. 10 WC"rncr Kd bl~r. Tlt1' Oml <md tlw Wrillt'll Go.fJI(!I: 711e 1/emll'lli!Utics of S[lt'uking <md Writing ill till' Synoptic Tr(1(/i/irm. Murk. Paul. ((JU/ Q {Philadelphia: Fortress Press.. t983). pp. JO. 44-89. II Richm-d Bauman. flf'flml Arl ru PeJjOmtltllc'e ( Rowky. MA: Newbury House PublishC'rs. 1977), p. 40. He adds. later. •all but the most ideally s tc:rc:otypcd of perform:mre C'VC:nts will hnvc discernibly vnriable fcatul\"s of l iCt sequence and/or ground rules (or performance. T he cmt"tgC'nt structure of performantt events is of spo:itll inll'Tt'SI 1111dt>r amditions q{ dumgi". as JfflTlinjJUrll:> ttdapt c·stublished pr/tWtiKIII((! w ne"· cimrmswnrr..s' (pp. 41- 1: emphasis added). I will argue that Justin. Ignatius and John 6 give c\·idc:nce for prccisdy this kind of change: in P:trt II wc: will see e:xampks of it with rcsp«t to Did. ?-tO. 12 On this shift. sec c:spc-cially Eli-zabeth C. Fine~ Tlte Folk/or.~ Tt•.\'1: From PerfimiKmrt- to Print (Bloomington: lndinna Uni\'C'rsity P~ 1984). pp. 16-77: and John ~..files Foley. Tht> Sil~ger <>/ T(lles in Pn/tJrtiKIIIU ( Bloomington: lndia~ University PI'C'~ 1995). pp. 5-18. 13 See John cmminic Crossan. l11e Birth of Cllri.wimJity i&m Francisco: H:u·p«S.:mFmncim>. 1998). pp. 49-84. csp. 75-84: also AlbC'rt Bales lord's I'C'mark thtll the ·con-cept of variability and multiformity is present in \·nrying degm:s in all types of oral

The Last Supper Tmditiou

23

The Strut ture of' the Om/ Trttditiou In Paul ( I Cor. 11 .23-6) a nd Mark (1 4.22- 6) we have access to two early recitations o f a comn1on tradition. 1.s £ach independently ins<.cribes the tr.ldition directly rrom the o ra l register: 1!i t he o ne does so perha ps twenty years a lle r the other. but a literouy inOuence of the earlier pe.rfom1er (Paul) up<>n the la te r one (Mark) is extremely improba ble. T herefore. we have in t his rMe and precious case two "ersions of a single ora l tradition,

which oiTers some ex<:eptional opportunities. Our primary opportunity is to identify material lhat neither PHul nor Mark could h
discourse: it is inhc-n:nt in sound itsclr ('The: Merging of Two Worlds: Oral and Wrinen Poet I)' as Carri~rs of Ancient Values'. in John Miks Foley (..-d.J. Om/ Traditicm in Litemture (Columbia: Uni n~rsi ty of ,..lissouri. 1986). pp. 19- M [10]). 14 By •recitotion' I m~-an 10 e.nll attention to the ornl dynamics of this tradition. which ha\-c: not been effaced in tr.mscription. Dictating or tmns~'1ibing is thus still a •recitation·. C\'Cn if of un unusual kind. Thcrea fler. of course, the written \'Crsion is texhmlly fixed a nd can be ·n:-;,d' (and memorized for \'c rbatim recitation). By 'Murk' I mean only whoc.'''Cr first wrote down the Last Suppe-r n:trmti\•e found in Mk 14.22-4. This is not the plaoc to discuss Mark's composition history. but I do assume that an oral narrnti\-c: (of some kind) about Jesus· death prt-cxistcd any written attounts and oontinocd alongside them. Mark's wxount. John's account and perhaps the GI).\Jit!l of Peter's draw from this ora) stream (soc Helmut KOt'ster. Ancit>m Clwis1ia11 Go.,Jit!k 11wir J.li.~tory (tnd Derdupmm/fPhilnddphW: Trinitr Pre~. 1990l. pp. 288-9: 153- 5: and 220- 30. rcspecti\-c:ly). Ver}' diO'crtntly. 8ur1on L. Mttck. A M)'lil uj lmiO Pauion Nt~rralil't'J ill tlttt Fuw· Grupe!J (2 vols: New York: Doubleduy. 1993). I. pp. 5-3- S.: and Kelber. Oral at1d Wrillen Gtupt>l. ~lp. 188-96. 15 Heinz Schiirm:ann (Einer quellenkritisdt.m U111er.wrdumg des /uktmi.rchen A~m/m((h/.sb~-rrir.lues Lk 22.7-38 12 vols: MUnster: Aschend orffsch~·. 19 5-2- 19 54). II. pp. 17-42. 49-73) and Vim:cnl Taylor (Till'!' PaJSiqn Nt~rratire of St. LtJke: A Critical (tnd 1/isJOrim/ lm·t>...fllgalioll (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni\-c:rsity Press.. 1972~ pp. 54-7). following him. think Paul wotkcd from u manuscript containing the s upper tradition in a form bcuer presctvcd by luke. The more recent argument of Trnugott Holtz builds on a similar premise of verb:d fix ity ('l'aul and the Ornl Gospel T radi1ion·. in Henry Wnnsbrough fed.I, J1?sus mul thi' Oral GosfN'I Tmdilion (JSNTSup. 64: Shcnil•M: Sheflldd At~ldem ic Press. 199 1), pp. 38093 j3S3)). as wdl as t he c:tdusivdy textual. n:doction-critienl analysis of Pesch (A/Mndm(l/11. pp. J l -4: cf. SJ-66). In each case. the assessment is.countCJ·intuit ivc: Pnul's use of 11rillen lt>xt:r from the Jesus movmtent c.nnnot be s hown in C\'tn n single otha instance. Mon: likely. a priori. Paul is n.-ci1ing from memory n tr.ldition he loeamed from the oral peJ/Pnuai/Ct!S of others. l uke's witness will be assessed bd ow. 16 The manuscript tmdition for the l'lst supper narrative offers rematkublc variety :md special probh:ms. Almost l"VCI')' significan! phrusc oO'crs mulliple readings. Here I follow ancient. quality manuscripts (u~·oi ding n mi:"
24

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom I Cor. 1 1.23b-5[~l'"J

Mk 14.11-4 (B)

Tht: Lo rd Jt-sus o n the night o n which he was handed

o ver ttmk bread 24 a nd giving lhunks

he hmke (U) ami sllid: • H1i.'t i.'t my bor~r for you. Do this fo r my memo ria l·. 25 Likewise a lso 1he t'llfl ~• fter

they had d ined

saying: •Tfli.'t cup i.'t 1/Je nc:\•,: aJI'eJUIIII lhrough my hlmxl. Do this. as o rten as Yt' u d rink. for my memoria l.· I Cor. 1 1.23b-5[~l'"J

IJe.wtsl wki11g bread. blessing he broke (il) a nd gave (it) to them wul said: 'Take: llu:\· b· my body'.

23 A nd

taking ftlw j mp giving tha nks he: g:1vc (it) to them, and Ihey all drank from il. 24 l'lnd he .mid to 1hcm:

·nu:\· ,:\· m_!' blrwd of tftf! t•(J I 'i!IUIIII. which is poured out fo r ma ny· .

Mk 14.11-4 (B)

0 KVpu:K;'/'l"o!k''

Ev Tfl w Kn fi nap~OIOno i'Aaf3;v &prov 24 t::a l ~uxapto-nloa<; i'KAaorv Kai ;(rrrv

Aa)S<.\v(o 'fllOOikJ" aprov•ul.oy'fac; li
•

UTTGV

. TT'I'f . ..

TOVTO TrOIUn £1<; • • avapv11c~w.

25 (ll(JQUT ColC;

AfYQV

~l.!ll\1

.

' KaJ' TO TTOTT]ptOV

pnCx TO onrrvqoar

A~~n, roUrO iorrv rO oG:>J,rcf pov

23 Ka·l A~C:w lt0f ' ITorr]prov ~\rxaptoTT)oa<;

~Ow~v o:UTol<;, Kal

'THOV '~ aUToV nO:vne:;. 24 t::a·i ;]rr;vatholc; ·

17 ·l flOO~ is not found in B. 18 Found in the Byzantine (A. !Ol) and num(.rous other tc:xts (~•. L./ 1.la!. bo). possibi)· via Mt. 26.26. 19 The CM.sarc:an tc:.xt here reads €Oi0oo (W. /1). The tc:xl types mention
25

The Last Supper Tmditiou " ' ' ra ' nv ro' a.pa " ' ' 1100 ToUfo, tO ~ot~to~ i} t::a~~~ 01a·8~~ rooro £a rw '"

7tol

...

a tiJ«Tt IJOv--

).,

I

'

I'

'

TOUTO rrOIU TL OOOKlc; fQV TnVI1TI 1 •

'

•

'

>

•

n1; 6•aBii....-,c;

tO~wwO~n•ov Utr!p noJJ.c:lv.

HC; T flV fiJT)V a VOIJVI'}OtV.

When we compare the two recitations, a remarka ble list of agreements emerges (ind icated in italic;.<;):!J

verb~Him

(Jesus) took a loaf (he said a prayer) he broke it. and he stlid, · This is my body'. ami (Jesus) took " t·up. and he said. This 1:\· (something to do wit h IHJJ blood and the CO\'('IIllllt) We can be certain that bo th Paul a nd Mark received this much, at least, fro m tradition in almost e.xat:Liy this wording. and that both passed on this much , a t least. without altering it in a ny no ta ble wa}'.14 This. I believe. is

22 Some Alexandrian (~. B) and the Byznntinc (!Ol) tc.xts read here T~ t ~ a'i).lo:n. 23 This list is d ose: to Lictzmann·s rcconstructcd ·nucleus·. but he adds to it itC'm.o; from Marl: or P;.ul he deems 'original·. and then n tt~·mpts to interpret this orig-inal foml's 1111XIIIing, tlp:trl from Mark nnd Paul (Mu.ss. pp. 178-85): it is t1lso \'ety d ose to GC'rard Rouwborst's ('Bread and Cup in Early Christian Eucharist Cdcbr.'ltions'. in Charles Caspers. G('ra rd Lukl:cn. und Rouwhorst (cds}. D. Mader (tnms.). Bmul of J.lt'U IV!II: C.t.\'tonu· tmd Pmrlic~s Surrmmding Uo~r CtJIIIIIIWiiOtl: f ssu.rs in 1he 1/iJJtJr)' tJj' Liwrg,r (11/d Cu/1/lrl! (Kampen. Nctherbnds: Kol: Pharos Publishing House. 1995). pp. 11- 39 (18-221). Much less similar is Jcmnias· reconstructed ·original'. whic.h iocludcs Luke and John. as well as n·trojcctC'd ArnmaiclHcbtcw (£ud1Uri.\·tic Wcmlf, pp. 160-86): Jrl'\"mins too is i n tcr~tcd in the essential •meaning' of this original Aramaic/Hcbrcw 'tcxf (pp. 204-62). Marxscn (Lord's Supper. e.g. p. 12) and Eduard Lohse.(//U/tJry ofllu! Sufff'l'ing at1d Death ofJ1..sus C/;rUt Jtrans. Mnrtin 0. Dietrich: Philaddphio: Fortress Pn-ss. 1967]. pp. 49- 52) likewise: nucmpt to interpret some es.w!llr{! of the earlier oral tradition. Conzdmmm is oorrc~'t to question this upproadl (I CorimMmu. pp. 196-7). 24 Other possible candidntc:s include Paul's idea of ·oneness· (pc.rhui)S paralleled in Did. 9- 10: sec: Ch. 4 below). the Marknn \'OW of abstinence (parallded in Luke's texl: sec below). and 1he mtK'h·disputod Passo.,.er oontcxt of the synoptics lacking in Paul (s~'C. e.g.. Jeremias. l:.'uduJristir Words. pp. 15- 88: ~·l artin Dibclius. 'Die Mahl..(icbctc der Oidache'. in Bot.sc!laft u11cl GeS At(/.:.·at:~ (2 \'Ois: TUbing~:n : J. C. B. Mohr. 19>6). II. pp. 117- 27 (181- 1 . 1891). A\•ailnblc evidence tdlows no firm conclusions about any of the.<.e. In the next section. I will howewr argue that one cnn ntO\'C' a step beyond lhesc bare fomlUkllions.

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

26

an o lherwise unattainable level of certainty regarding the wording of an ora l tradition in the early Jesus movement. !S These \'erbatim agreements evident ly derive from the circumstance that certa in s pecific terms were fixed in this particular o ral tradition: tha t is. when one recited this tr.tdition, it was a pparently non-negotiable {or a t least trad ilional) to recite tha t Jesus had taken a loa f, had S.:.tid some kind of prayer over it. had bro ken it. had said that it was his body, had also taken a cup. a nd had sa id something that assoc.:.iated it with his blood and with a covenant.26 We. can add to this list the no tice that Jesus also said some kind of pmyer over the c up, for Ma rk explicitly Sla tes this a nd Pa ul (by means of ellipsis) a lludes to it (cf. I Cor. 10.1 6 and see be low). Evidently, whether Jesus· prdyer was describe-d as 'blessing' (£UAoyiCol) o r as 'thanking' ('uxa ptoTic.>) was not entirely Hxed: both Paul (if we include I Cor. I0.1 6) and Mark use buill terms. This degree o r verb;itim ;_igreement in an ora l tradition is s ignifica nt [t formalization and mem orization that is hardly a indic.a.tes a process given; as s uch, this fixing o f the text is surely related to t he function o f this parlicular tradition in the communities that preserved it. a question to which I will return below. Yet the forma lization applies not only to the word ing o f t he t radition - significa nt as that is- but mo re importa ntly to its structure. ·n 1e list of ve.r ba tim agreements above can e;.-tsily be a rra ng,e.d as follows:

or

(Jesus) ltXJk uloof, (he said a prayer) he broke i1. mul lw said. • Thi.'> ;,,. my bot~r:

uml (Jesus) took (I 01p, (he said a pra yer) a nd he said. n u:\· ,:\·(my bhlod II t/Je COW'IUIIII)

T his simple a rrangement suggests tha t a basic paraJJelism bet ween the loaf a nd the cup s tructures t he tr.tdition t1s sul'h. Moreover, this s tructure appears in a bipartite pattern: a b 11 a t b 1• where 'a· represents Jesus' action with respect to a meal compone.nl (rood//d rink)) and ' b' represents his words \\~th respect to that same meal component. If this paraJiel structure rea lly was present in the oral trddition as such. so tha t both Pa ul and Ma rk received and passed it a long:, it should be e\•ident in their recitations o f lhat traditio n. 25 For ex.ample. the- wording of Q. probably al rt-~1 dy a written tradition in the hands of Mauhcw and Luke:-. is non-c:thdc:ss diOicuh to rwonslruct procisc:ly. -c:spcc:ially for an c:arlicr oral stag_c. 16 Gi,•cn the- mort- fixed form of the: bread saying. this diffcr-c:ncc in lhc a.sc of th< cup s:.lying is proh<1bly important - but whcthc-r Paul or Murk has :•ltcr-c:d il. or both. (llld why. is mon: diffin•lt lo ascc:rt.uin. Sec Marx.scn ·s atlc:mpt lo unmvd the mull« (LordJ: Sllpfu•r. pp. 7. 9-10. 15).

The Last Supper Tmditiou

27

Mark's recita tio n. for its part>cle-a rly be.ars o ut the impression that the bre.ad and the cup were to be trea ted as parallel iu•ms. In Mark's rendition, the following phrases are expressed in parallel terms: ( I) 'taking bread. blessing· (Aa fX;)v apTOV •ullorfloa<;) // ' taking 3 c up, giving thanks' (llaJ3C:,v noT~p•ov •uxap•ouioa<;): (2) 'he gave (it) to them' (i&.mv a1iTol<;) 1/ 'he ga ve (it) to them' aUTOt~): (3) 'and he said' (Kat ilmv) If 'and he said to them' (Kat i l mv avTot<;): and especially (4) ' this is n!y ~ody'. (,ToliTO £oTIV TO oC>~ci ~ou) // 'This i~ my blood' (ToUTo -foTtv TO a iJ.Ja IJOU).-7 In other words>para lle.l fo rmulations a re a uached to the loaf a nd the cup, and these para llels exhibit not o nly verbal similarities, but a lso rhythmic ones. well suited to or.sl redt~nion: the bread S.:.iying and the cup saying are rhyrhmitullp idenlital in Mark (- u - u u- u - ). What is more. these parallels in Mark adhere-to the bipar tite structure suggested by lhe basic agreements be-l Ween Paul and Mark:

<'ow«v

Jesus · Ac1i01u (Murk):

"(Jesus I taking a loof, blessing.

•'A nd laking flhej cup. giving, t hanks.

he broke: (it) a nd gave (il) to them

he: gave (it) to t he-m. und they all dntnk from it.

Jesus' StqiiiKS (Mmk):

b and he suid. T a ke: this is my body".

b' a nd he said to t hem. 'This is my blood of the c ovena nt. which is being poured o ul for many. Amen. I say to you .. :

Critics have long- noted this par.tllelism in Mark, although its bipartite s tructure has not (to my knowledge) been observed . Usually, howeve.r. critics ha ve argued thal Pa ul's version lac.ks a compara ble para llelism, and so have. sometimes held that such par.tllels between the bread and the c up as we haw in the. NT a cc.o unts represent derelopmews in lhe. tntdition, ra ther than ils o riginal form. 2~ The grounds for this claim with respect lo Pau l are. first, tha t the bread a nd cup in Paul a re sepanlled by a meal: a nd, second, that Paul itle-n lifies the bre-a d with the body. whereas the .'ilwrin.r: of the cup, and not the cup itself. is to be identified with the communily. Neithe-r of these. a rguments. however, actually disproves tha l 27 The first two of these p:trallds :U\': k ss neal (though present) in the Cuc:snr<:m tc:tt: tc:tt
131- 2: Mar:tscn. Lm·d's Sll!JJ'f!l'. p p. 6. 8--9: and S<:hwcil('r. Uml's Suj.l}lt'l'. pp. 14--15. A line summary of the various proposals along these lines is give-n by John Nolhnd. Lul.;e 183j14.5J (WBC. 35c: Nushville: Thomas Nelson. 1993). pp. 1045- 7.

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

28

Paul treats the two items in para llel fashion . First. no tice how Paul

mentions the me-aJ: ·Likewise also the <:.up. aftt•r they had dined, saying·: iloaUTC.:.:; Kal tOnori)ptov ~nO. TO &t trVijocu Aiy(i)v·

IL is difficult to imagine a t:learer e.xl'res.sion of parallelism between two

things than the word ' likewise' (~auTc..Y.;). Pa ul's point seems to be that wha t was done and said for the cup is precisely ' like· what W~ts done and said for the loaf, de$pite h is refe rence to an inte rvening dinner.~ Indeed. elsewhere in t his section of the letter, Paul a lways pairs the two meal e lements: 'whoever eats the bread o r drinks the c up· (11.27), 'Jet him eat from the loaf and Jet him drink fro m the cup' (11.28; cf. 10.16), 'the person eating a nd drinkin!l. . .eats and drinks' ( 11.29). Second, like Mark, Paul utilizes parallel verbal fo rmula tions that stren.gt hen the tie.s be-t ween the two halves of Lhe tradition: (I) 'This is' (To(ho roTtv) 11 'This.. .is' (Toiho.. .1oTi v); and espec.ially (2) ' Do this for my memorial' (Tolho notrln Elc; Ti}v h thv civO~vfJotv) 1/ ' D? this. as o ften as you drink, fo r my merno riar (TotJTo rroiE'ln:, OoaKtt;: fav ntv'lTE, rit;: Tftv ~~~v civOIJVT}Otv). For Paul) Jesus" words regarding bo th the lm1f and the cup are introduced by the. demon.str.uive 't his'. ~m d utilize a pred icate no minative construction. That is. in both Jesus is somehow metaphoriting or dellning. IIIis loaf or cup. even t hough the order o f the Greek sente nces d iffers - :i d iscrepancy perhaps more notk:eable to a reader t han an (ludiror. But for Paul. the parallelism of the two items is e$pecially ~ichieved by repeating the command a ne r e-.tch saying: ' Do this fo r my memorial'. The repetition oi this command 11trblllim is precisely a func tion of this traditio n's o rality: it conveys the impression. despite the dillerences between the two s.a.yings. t hat loaf a nd c up are par.tllel. Wha t is more, P.wrs recita tion also :idheres to the bipartite structure that I posited for the common o ral tradition and tntl-ed in Mark's recitation:

19 The n:fercn<:c: to a meal at prccisc:ly this poi1u suggests awareness or proper (Greek) dc:.."'!Orum. Sec Dennis E. Smith especially on the proper roml or the Greek banquet. which sep:mucd eating and drinking but (it should be obsc:rvod) \'io.::wcd them as pantlld phases ofn single mc:al •.•vcnt (From Sympruium/() EuchmdnS<'ht~fismahlt.md Mn/Jigemein.sdwft: So:io/ogie wul Liturgie.Jhi/rchn'sllirlter M(lhlfCiml

(Tobingcn: Fmnc-ke. 1996). pp. 49-60, 99-129). Unpcrsuasivdy. Hans-Jostr Klnock argues that both actions correspond to the: libation in the Grc:ck symposium and thcrcforc follow the 'full meal' (' Prcsc.tKe in the l ord's Supper: I Corinthians I 1.23-6 in the: Contc:tt or Hd lcnistic Religious History'. in lkn F. ?.•Ieyer Jed.). OJ1e L«tj; Ont' C11p: Ecum.mica/ StudW..s of I Cor I I a11d OJ/1er Eudurrblk Te.\'l.'i )Macon. GA: ,_krL-cr University Prtss, l993]. pp. 5774 (6S-
The Last Supper Tmditiou

29

Jesus' Aciitms (Paul): T he- Lo rd Jesus ... too k a loaf nnd ;;iving thanks he hroh (it)

Jestu·· St~yings (Paul): b and s:1id. 'T his is my body fo r you Do this for my memorial:

•' Likewise also the ~up after lhey had d ined

b' suymg.. 'This c.up is the new cove-na nt through my blood. Do this. as oflcn as you d rink (it). for my memorial:

rn both t·ases. Jesus bolh does something and suys something wilh re$pe<:l to the item in question. a nd the acl ions a nd words parallel one. a nother. O ne mig.ht object tha t Pa ul fails to mention any ·action' o n the parl of JestL" regarding the- cup. However. this objection cannot be sustained grammatically. The int roductory formula in 11.25 lacks a main verb: as a n ellipsis. it requires the audito r (and re~ider) to supply the requisite-verb. conceptually. from the. context. T his requisite verb t".annol be "he s~lid', since ·cup' is accusati ve (tec.hnically a lso nominative) by fom1 a nd canno t be the-direct object of"said•. Nor ca n it well be the copulative: ' Likewise there was also the cup, a ller they had d ined'. The usual rules of grammar would dictate that the elide-d ma in verb is ' took'. If we supply this verb, Jesus' action is restored to the- recitation: ' likewise !he took) a lso the c up. . . ' 30 Why then does Pa ul e lide t he verb here? T here are two options: Paul simply assumes that the reader and hearers will be a ble to infer Jesus· actions regarding the cup, which would t herefore include not only ' taking,' but also saying a p rayer (see I Cor. 10. I6):" or Pa ul is adapting the ' ideal perfom1ance' of the tr.tdition, by lea ving o ne o f its key elements underde.veloped . This last explana tion is, of course. circular in te rms of my thesis but is not improbable. from a historica l or g rammatic.al point of '*iew. The e llect of Pa ul's ellipsis is to lay stress on Jesus' words reg_ a rding the cup, a procedure-t ha t contrasts wit h his treatment of the bread. where Jesus' actions are more fully described . T he reason fo r this lack of structur.tl ba lan{'e may lie in Paul's understanding: of the- t radition: the importance of 'breaking· bread a nd 'drinking' fro m a cup (one done by 30 Contrast J~·rcmias. E11dwristk Worr/s. p. 113 . .~ l Cf. Otfricd Hotius. 'The Lord·s Supper and the lord·s Supper Tr:tdition: ReAcctions on I Corinthians 11.13b-5'. in Ben F. Meyer !00.). Onr Loa}: One Cup: Ecwumiml StudirJ of J Cur J I (IJUI 0 Jher Euchllristic Te.,·l s (Mnt•tm. GA: Men."Cr Uni,,ersity PrC'S...,, 1993). pp. 7511 5 (84).

30

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Jesus, the other no t). But in <my "'lse. a lack or Structural blllance in Paurs account d oes not destroy the- strong d ues that his recitation o f the common supper lr.tdition eluborates a basic bipart ite structure with the assist.ance o f ke.y te rminology - in this case the fixed te rm 'cup' (ITOT~piOV).

Therefore. t he twofold structure-of the tradition>sug~~.sted a lready by the simple verbatim agreements between our two texts, holds good in both or o ur sample renditions. Howeve-r , e.ach recitation e.x.hibils asymmetry as well a s parallelism. So. for example, .Mark's s imple ' take; this is my body" is first echoed in t he second hair of the recitation with the. expression 'this is my blood'. a nd the n elabormrd there wit h the. expression 'which is being poured out fo r many'. !Mo reover, 1\olark includes an additiona l saying not found in Pa ul: t he. vow of ~ibstinen<.-e. 31 In other words, Ma rk has d oubly e laborated the-c up saying. in comparison to his own par.tllel bre-.td saying.. PauL for his part. expands the second command to ·do t his' wilh the expression, ·as olle n as you d rink it'. He then uses this same phraseology in the very next sente.nce in his e pistle: ' Fo r m· ofttm as you em !OotlKtc; yCxp rav roei~n] this bread . . .' Pa ul, t hen. a lso expands the cup saying so mewhat, relatiVe to his own bread s.:.i.ying) but in his own way. ·nms, lhe fixed wording or the- tnldition appears in the midst of numerous relative variations in t he recitations of Pa ul a nd M~trk. This kind o f v~iriation, I think. should be assumed for the t radition as s uch. The supper tradition almost s urely was not recited in the spa re verbiag_ e th~i.t these two recitations ha ppen to sha re. Ava ila ble evidente watTants no such assumption.33 Rather. the traditio n as such mus t have been open to e laboration from I he beginning and must have been routinely elabo rated in performante. O ver time, through the trial and error of performance . the verbatim ingredients and the twofOld structure th ~it these two recita tions sha re evidently emerged as amstilrltiw! elt~mellls. This me-a ns that. for exa mple. just as both Paul a nd Mark elaborated the cup saying, the bre,l(l saying Co uld a lso be elaborated. provided the constitutive elements or the tradition were preserved. We even tlnd a hint of this additional kind of ela bora tion in o ur two renditions: ·take: this is my body' (Ma rk) looks like a m inor relative elabora tion in one. direction; 'This is my bodyjOr you' (Pa ul) looks like a minor e laboration in another. Late.r tradition would e laborate rurthe.r: ·T his is m y body broken for yort". Ma rk's recitation is more .structur.tlly bahmt·ed and rhythmk-.a lly 32 •Amttll. I say to you. I will surdy not drink anymore from the: fruit of the vine until that day wht-n I drink it MW in God's kingdom.· 33 From a thoorc:tical nnglc:. d. Lord (Si11ger Re.'illmt!s. p. 3): 't1 tmdition is dynnmie :md ongoing'. and 'A rcnlly li,·ing tradition' is ' preserved' in the telling. As Kelber puts it. there- is no •singk. dirc:ctionul dimension to oral transmission·: Ac:xibility in adaptation is there from the start: both ex pansi~"'n and trimming occur (Om/ (tnt! Written GtMpef. p. 30).

The Last Supper Tmditiou

31

pleasing, but it is not necessarily lOr that reason ~i mo re- sm•t(•ssful perfonnance. Oral performers show their ingenuity in the perfo rmative context IL is nol by adhering to a script. but rather by interpreti ng and giring life! 10 ti Jradititm that a traditiona l performer shows his or her salt. What emerges from this comparison betwee.n the two performances can be '*iewed a.s a kind o f storyline adhered to by both. as well as a n ' ideal perfonn an{'e• tha t both Paul a nd Mark aim tov.·ard . This storyline has a precisely worded substruct ure. upo n whi<.~h the 'story' can be fleshed out.3 J But Pa ul a nd Mark carry out this embodiment of the traditional (i.e. tr.msmitted) structure in d ifferent ways. Pa ul's recitation plausibly involves g,re.ater adaptation to the needs of the- situa Lion tha t he is addressing: a particula r problem in the Corinthian assembly, having. to do with their misconduct at the common meal. Ma rk. by contrast, may be s howing his s kill by tying the disciples mo re intimately into the recitation. lOr the disciples play a signi llt~ml role in l\•1a rk"s larger na rrative. including within the passion na rratiVe 1 which is beginning to unfold in this po rtion or !M ark's Sto ry.35 Thus. despite their dilrerem:es (which have- a lways been nolk"!fd and even stressed), bo th Paul a nd Mark adhere to the same basic structure: a b {/ a1 b1• T his structure-is s urprisingly fixed. a nd in fact some-of the very words tha t co nvey this structure are fixed: ' ta king· (~aJ.I~O:vCol), ' blessing' (•ul-oyic.:>) o r 't;iving thanks' (), 'saying' (1-i yc.:>), 'bread · (iipToc,). 'cup' (rroT~ptov), ' this' (TOI!To). 'body' (oO>~a). 'c.ovenant' (ota6~<~). ·blood' (al~a). These te rms. like code-words. evoke the tradition o f Jesus' last meal even when re-a d in isola tion. It is remarkable how dense the associations a re: by simply mentioning a '}oar and a 'cup' a n e ntire meal is s uccinctly evoked; with the single te rm 'blood' de-a th is s uggested: 'covena nt• c-alls to mind its own associations, a nd combined with 'blood• it aHudes to a host o r episodes in the rich epic- tradition of Is rael T his list o r key terms seems to evoke a lready both a fina l meal

34 The s tn.1c1umt eon:' i11 liJ.:e an aocordion that cnn be eollapscd or expanded. Note thnl even some of th<:ir diffen:m:cs suggest a common ornl tradition: IJOO in t he bread saying (which differs in the manuscript tradition) soc:ms to •float". yielding two slightly different rhythms without nppm:iably e.h nnging the meaning: Paul's tU>.,'OptOTl)oa~ stands where Matk·s £U).oyi}oa c; appears (before the bread saying) but is found in Mark b=forc the t 11p saying: Paul's Uni p ~Wv. attached to !he bread saring. resonates with Mark's TO EK):Uvvci;nvov \m(p no>J.Wv. att~•ched to thc cup saying: Ototi~Kfl and atJJa appe;•r in both cup saying;; but in different orders and diffcrcnl constructions: und the forms (but not the roo! words) for •to king· and ·saying· a lso s hift. Cf. Lord. Sil~t;er. p. 119: typical types of diw q,t<:nce include elaboration a nd simpliiKation. and te\'crsing of order in a series. 35 Her<: I would find the c:tplannlion for the ·generic differences' bct w\Xn the aocounts pointed out by Pesch (AbemhnaiJ!. pp. 34-SI ): two pcrfoml<:rs arc adapting an oraltmdition for usc in diffcn:nt s~~•ues (for Pesch. narrnti\"C vs. ctiologs: sec further below).

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

32

before Jesus· death. a nd somehow a t the same time something beyond tha t de~1 th , which tha t death accomplishes. When these Jlxed tem1s are, in addition, set into the basic a b II a' b 1

Structure ro und in both accountS. the. skeleton o f an at.'Count or Jesus· last meal emer,ges. which stnmgllums the same imagery and overtones borne by the key terms themselves. When this s tructure is fleshed out further> as il is in Paul and Mark - and as it must routinely have been - this same imag_ ery is again strengthened, no t <.~hanged. Even tho ugh the. two ac<·ounts d iverge, and in these \•aria tions lie d ive.rging emphases (e-ven interpretations) on the core traditio n, the key terms a nd the underlying s tructure e nsure a surpn smg, amount overla p in t he w;-ty tha t t hese. two redtations convey the event of Jesus· la.st meal a nd its fa r-reaching signilkance. How strongly a nd economically these fixed terms and this l wo-p~ul structure evoke the e ntire tradition can be. illustra ted from I Corinthians

or

10.16-17:

is it not l he sharing ChrL\·t :\· btXb'!

or

I Cor. l l.25. 23b-4 l'.l3 4(>) 25 So also 1/Je c11p after t he supper, saym g: 'T h is <.:up is the new co venant t hrough my bltwtl.. : 2Jb he took a /oo/ 24 an d giving t ha nks he broke it and said: ..Th is is my bot~r for you . .. ·

I Cor. 10.1 6-1 7 1'll~l 16 rO rron]prov tijc; ~UAoyfac;

I Cor. 11.25. 2Jb-4 1'13 4(>) ,, ' ' ' ' 25 (o)!JQUTc.ll'; Kat TO JTOTI}p10V IJHCl

I Cor. 1 0.1 6-1 7 1'll~l 16 The ntp of blessing t ha t we

blc:-ss. is it not the sharing ChrL\·t :\· bfmun 17 T he /ot( thut we bnmk.

or

.

0 tUAoyoilJ.". V,' oUxt KOI \IGlVICl £0TIV

roU aitJa1tll; tOO XptcrrW, tiprov Ov cl!3~tv.

17 T0v

.

' OUXl KO! VGlVICX

roU ocSpcnoc; t OO Xptotoii ioT•v;

tOOrt rrv~oat Aiyc.Jv· ~oUyo. rO ~r§pt~ ~ Katv.i Ota6~Kr)

;ortv ~v ru aljJan pou· 23b £Aa~"; iiprov 24 Kai ~UJ
t"KAao~v Kal t1mv· ... ' ' '

. Tl V !JOU TO O(.o)J.Ja ... t OUTO ~O Vnip V~-tc3v (KA4nvo\l(.~o~>

or

Many the key terms are in place: Jhe cup (rroT~p!OV), (blessing] (•ul-oyi w), Jhe blood of [Christ] (ai~a), Jhe loaf (iipTO<,). breaking

36 ~~:).t:l)Jwov is found in the Uyzantioc text {9Jl. '+')and included hert" for its parallel to I Cor. 10.17. eporrtOIJe\.10!1 is found in the Western wi10c:-ss (D) here.

The Last Supper Tmditiou

33

(
The Jl·fythital Location of the Supper Tradition39 Aside from their verbal and structural kinship, Mark 14.22- 6 and I Corinthians 11.23-6 share two additional. decisive similarities. F irst. both locate t his action of Jesus on the Hnal night befo re his death. Given their 37 E.g. the idea thlll Paul is here citing t h-e order t he Corinthians knoc:w. only to und-ermine it later (Voobus. Liturgical Tradilirms. pp. I SS-6: foUow.:d by Andrew McGowan. · First Regarding th-e Cup: Papias a nd th-e Di n~rsi ty of Early Eucharistic 17.tcticoc:'. JTS. Nil ~6 ( 1995). pp. 551- 5). or that Paulllrsl gives the order he prefers. and later rdics on trttdition (Sandt and Flusscr. Didiu·l:e. p. )OS), or that Paul tm~ ts the community rituul in I Cor. 10 and a vaguely reb ted 'arch-etype· in I Cor. II (Enrico Muzza. Tilt! Origin-; of the EetrlmriJtir Pmyfr )trans.. Ronald E. Lane: Collcbooc:ville. ~..IN: Liturgical Press. 1995]. pp. 71- 2: cf. Bmdsh:1w. Eudwrillk OrigiM. pp. ~6-7). afl seem to me O\'erly subtle. 111-c: v<~riations betweoo the two texts almost certainty ha\·e to do with emphases in Paul's at'~umoc:nts (soc:. c. g .• Conzdmann. I Col'imhia11s. p. 172). Moreover. Paul is more ooncc:rncd with proper order. in every sense:. in the later passage (1 1.23- 5). s~'C the fine treatment of !hi.<> problem b)' Gi.inthcr Bornkamm. Early Cllri.ftiall £.\·p.-•rit!tlt:t! (New Yor~ : Harper and Row. 1969). PJl. 12~7 . 3S As is wdl known. this kind of pamlldism is nu ti v~ to ancient Jewish poetry. induding ·liturgical· texts (e.g_ Pss. 30.4. II : 54.1- 2: 11 8.8-9). 39 By ·mylhic.lll" I mean to call attention to the c~'tltral. ddining nature of this tra dition for the communities that tmns mitttd it. It is nlso ·mythi~'<•l' in the sense th~11 i1 is not mcrdy ·historic.al· in the modern (or even a ncient) sense. I do not imply any denigration of the

34

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

entire-ly dillerent literary genres. this is notewort hy. In Mark, of course-1 we encounte r the supper in the mids t of a much fuller story about Jesus' de.a th, while in Paul we. fi nd o nly an a llusion to events coinciding with that supper ('on t he night he was handed over"). but bo th set this supper tradition into a framework th ~H loo ks back to the same e~'tmt : Jesus'

crucifixion. Both place the me~il tr.tdi tion in t hat highlycharL>,ed past. with

the notice that Jesus is doing something for (imip) others.4t} ·n 1e second additional similarily between these two texts is their e.\·r/uuo/ogi('a/ oritmtatiou. In both texts, something is 'coming•. In Paul, it is ' the Lord ·. a nd the. eating and drinking of this /otif' a nd this rup a nticipate that coming,( J Cor. I 1.26). In Mark, it is ' the kingdom of God '. or ' that day' when Jesus 'will drink [the iruit of the vinel new'. Mark's Jesus knows that his blood is a bout to be-'poured o ut lb r ma ny' . so this saying mus t reier to something tha t to llows his death. T he kingdom oi

God. to judg_ e from t-.•1ark 13. had no t yet come when Mark \\'rote.

~n1e

'son of ma n· had no t yet come ' in d ouds wit h ~.reat power and glory' ( 13.26). For Paul. similarly. the Lord's coming was s till to be awaited (e.g. I Cor. 4.5. I 1.26). The meal tmdiiion evokes God's future but is not yet a celebration of it: fo r Paul~ the ealing ~ind drinking proclaims the Lord's death, umil he comes. For M~1rk. arguably. Jesus has s till not d runk the new wine; Mark•s comm unity, like the disciples. prob~1bly d rinks his 'blood', po ured o ut for many, not the ' new wine' to be shared wi£h Jesus in t he kingdom of God . Be this as it may, both texts s ha re this expectancy. this 'coming.', embedded in thi.s supp1:r Jraditiou. T ha t these doc uments. in two very different genres. locate the supper tradition wilh refere nce to t he same two events is quite signific.anl. Mo re surprising still. both Pa ul a nd Ma rk link the two: the deillh of Jesus (mythic past event) is t he precursor to the- coming of the kingdom (escha tological future).J 1 T he bread and cup have everything to do with both: the meal tradi[ion is the media n~s (Or the. two. the ritual c ha nnel through which the escha tological current runs - o r le~ips. The ritua l partid pants commemorate the dealh that will bring about the kingdom. This is most s ut""Cinc.:t in Paut•s fOnnula: ·you p roclaim the. Lord's death account by the: tc:rm (mthcr the opposi1c). nor do I suggc:s.l tha1 Jc:sus· death a mnot be n datum of (modern) historical study - it simply did not function as such. I think. for these cCimmunilics. 40 C f. Conttlmunn. I CorinlhktiiS, p. 1 9~ and n. 53. This is cspc:ciully dc.-1r if Paul's text is tnkcn to re:td -rO Unip UIJ&!v. nnd Mnrk'.s to read ;0 Uni:p rro).A~v ii();UY!IOJJ
The Last Supper Tmditiou

35

until he. comes'. But I think it is there in Mark's text as well: 'This is my blood of the covenant 1 poured o ut fo r ma n)'. Amen, I teH you, I will surely no t d rink anymore from the-fruit o f the \'ine until that da)' when I d rink it new in God·s kingdom: Here too the cup - however awkwardly s imulta neous ly evokes two very d iffe re.nt mome.nts in the life o f the community. Ac-co rd ing to Gunt her Bomkamm. the Lo rd"s Supper (in Pa ul) "by a nticipation o f the glory of the new age . .. becomes a celebration between de-a th and pa ro usia. no t beyond time and history but he re on the plain of his torical life tog.ether'.41 Rather. I would contend that the supper

lr.tdition in Paul (and I think Mark) simulumeously evokes that death aud paro usia. The nwal ritual {in so far as it is informed by this tradition) crea tes vhrid tonta<'l with Christ's sullering a nd. joins it to the 43 unpredicta bly dose future coming. Moreover, the suiTering of Christ implies and triggers, for PauL t he end. The;e. are not so much two moments as two halves o f a single mo ment. Thus. to proclaim the dea th is to anticipa te the parousia. S uch a conception certainly doe.s transt-end 'time a nd history' in the norm al sense of those- words. From the perspective o f the ritual, t ime and history a re taken up a nd. rec.o nstituted. their me~mi ng reoriented toward the arthe (of the cross) and the t•schaum (of t he parous ia). One can certainly :ljlree with Bo rnkamm. thoug,h. io the extent tha t this reorientation of 'history~ o ught. from Paul's perspective. to influent-e the behaviour of these ritual participants toward one ano ther. The- supper tradition. then, in ils classic fo rm - that is, a t least from ca. 50-70 CE - encompasses not o nly the verbal and structural elements detailed above, but also these two mythical dimensions, which situate tha t verbal core (however elabor.tted) into a larger drama for t he. movement. a nd indeed for the-c.osm os. ·n 1is duo.tl context can be. represented in this way: Context: Jesus· Dc:alh (for othc:rs) J<.-sus look " loa}: guve thunks (or b lessed). brokt• it . and .wid. ·Thi.t i~· my b<Jt~l ·· . Jesus tool.: a cup. gave lh anl.:s (or blessed). aud said. Thi.~ i.r (my blood IJ the m~·tmuut) Context Coming Kingdom

The ritual logic of t he lradition is bo und up with this mythical location; il cannot be-sepa ro.tted from j( in either recitation. The- loaf and cup tha t evoke the death of Jesus a lso evoke lhe coming kingdom: the- paroushi thal lies in the community's fut ure is as certain as the death its Lo rd tha t lies in its pasL The logic of t he s upper tradition places Paurs

or

42 Bomkamm. £ur~r Cltri.\·tia11 £xptYie11ce. p. 152. 43 Cf. Klouck. ' Presence'. p. 71.

36

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

community and Mark"s d isciples precisely within !his limelim:, reorienting Lime itself by connecting these two d istinctive evenL'i - events that will (of course) strike no one outside of these communities as determ inati"e fo r human history, at leas t no t in precisely t his wa}'· When we refer to the s upper lr.tdition in its d assic form, this whole complex of key terms. d ual structure and m ythica l lot·ation \*is-~1-vis the c rucifixion and the paro usia must be included. At the same time. d istinguishing between the. 'chts.sic. fo rm ' and late r forms this tradition leaves room fo r the kinds o f development. adj ustments and subs titutions which this tradition manifestly underwent. To this we now t urn.

or

Tlw Textual Fixing of the Supper Trtulition The tradition a llested by Pa ul and Ma rk exhibits the ma rks o f o ra lity. pa n ia lly flx.ed bul o pen to e labora tion in the ways to uched on above. l 'hese two perfOrma nces o f that tradition were quite indepe ndently of one ::m othe.r. a nd evidently d irectly from the oral register. By contrast~ our o ther early wit nesses to the supper tradition - t\t.ttthew, Luke and Justin - exhibit compa ra ti ve.ly mu(~h less variation rro m the texts of Pa ul :lnd especially Mark. Moreover. the a uthors o f Ma u hew and Luke, like J ustin. s how e,ridenoe o f a n intima te knowledge o f the texls of Mark andjor Paul, t his lradition aside. In short~ the q uestio n a rises whether a very texlual p rocess mig,ht not be a t work in these later documents, in which case redaclional considera lions return to the fOre. Here. by comparing the texts in que~" tion~ I will evaluate the lestimony of ~·tat thew ~~nd Luke (and Justin~ furlher below) to the or.tl a nd lhe written circulation o r th~H t ro.1d ition, both in itS key te.nninology and its mythical d ime.n sions.

.Mt111hew The key tenus o f the tradition are all present in Mall hew 26.26- 9, b ut nearl}r everyone holds that 1\. Minim:r a11d till! Saatmumt.f ( London: Studcnl Chri!:lia n Movement Pres-s.. 1937). pp. 171-86(280).

The Last Supper Tmditiou

37

0:1Japn~v).4s

and he ~idds to Mark's 'drinking it new' saying the notice. 'with you' . These e labora tions o n the tradition. while important in some ways. are of limited value fOr our purposes, except in o ne case. Matthew's additions to the bread and c up sayings constirute a new parallel 46 expression: ¢~0.ynE // niE-rr. Note onte-ag_ a in the coincidence or rhy thm. tacked onto the beginning of the already rhythmicaJiy parallel expressions in !M ark. It is tempting to su~est that the Mau he-a n community"s o ral recitation of the trad ition has contributed yet another pantllel expression. but if so. we ;ue more likely dealing with the perfOrmance o f Aifark's text than with an independe-nt o ral tradition. In sum. M;-ttthew offers St-ant testimony to the independent oral circulation of this t ro.tdilion. ·n 1at Matthew can introdU<:e a new parallel. however. doe-S attest o ngoing o r:tl recitation of the tradition, even if it is now conceived in a more-textually 'tlxed' form.4 7 Jv1atthew also retains the tradition·s m yt h ic~t l setting. with little adjustme.nt. Jesus agttin spe.o.tks the.se words o n the. night before he. is crucified; and, as in Mark. fo r Matthe-Wthe day will come whe.n Jesus will d rink from the fruit of the vine anew with the disciples. in the kingdom. Moreover, like Mark. Matthew envisions this kingdom as still in the future (M l. 24.29-31. 36-44). Matlhe"' ' adherence to the tradition suggests that it continued in its d assic form into the 80s or 90s. the period o r Matthew's c.omposition.

LukP Luke's ho.-mdling of the supper tntdition is a mo re complex question. for it involves a text..c ritic.:~-tl pro blem as well as a source-critical o ne-. Here. once again. my primary concern is whether the witness in questio n attests the independe.nt oral circulation of the traditio n. o r inste.;-td appears to rely 48 upo n textual sources at his disposal. Heinz Schiirmnnn and Rudolf Bullmann ag.ree that Luke 22.1~18 (the 45 According to Kobus P('l7.er this addition is not M"tthean in style ('Style and Tnt in the Lucan Nnrrati"e of the Institution of the lord's Supper (Luke 22.19b- 20f. NTS 37 [1991J. pp. 11 3-29 JI24J) nnd therefor~· represents the liturgical tradition of MMthew's ('Ommunity (p. 128). If so. this V('.rb:.l formula enters the n:m ati\•<: from nn oml rathe.r th:m n written liturgical tntdition: M"tthcw's minimnl changes to Mark here do not resuh from the combination of distinct written tmditions. 46 Noted also by Lietzmann. .4((/Ss. p. 175. 47 In general. this is in kc:cping with the notion of an already unusunlly '6:\td' oral trudition. i.e. an uuthoritati\'t one with key ekmenl<> that are r<:pcatedlr indudcd. Once socb a tr.uhcd for ·~•ccun•cy'. or even memorized ll.f tl f f'XI. E\'en so. it continues to be: shaped by ornl n:ciwtion: sc:c the c:t of Tt1les. p. 105. 4S Aside from the disputed \'\'. l?b-20. It:<( eitl-d below follows Vaticanus ( B) and ~t'j:";.1• with relevant variants noted as blforc.

38

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

double 'vow o r abstinence') was o rigina lly independent o f wha t I here call the supper t roldiUon (viz. \ t V. 19- 20). Bo th also view Luke's version of the 'vow of abstinence' as a fuller. older version of t he tradition w~ed also by

Mark ( I4.25, as an elaboration of the cup saying). The internal integ.rity of this fuller unit is suggested to both schoh1rS by the-parallels between \ t V. 16 and 18. Schiirmann furt he-r claims that this tradition '"'as combined with

the supper tradition in a pre-Lukan source. Bultmann, on the other hand. views the links with bo ih the s upper t radition and the Passover context (\•. 15) as l uka n redaction. By far Sthlirma nn's is the more detailed analysis,

and he claims to find Lukan. pre_ -Lukan and M~trk;m elements within the .sho rt span of these fo ur verses.l'J An alternate possibility has a lwa ys existe-d: l uke-may have created v. 16 on rhe model of Mark 14.25. which he in turn ''irtually reproduced in v. 18. Note the structural similnrilies between v. 16 and t\·lark's text:so Lie 22. 16 1B. ~-~'''"' ) For I soy to youtJUit / will surely IWI cal lcmy ltmgerJ il until when it is fulfilled in Gmfs kingdom.

1

Mk t4 .25 ) H. A. ~Jl ) Amen 1 say Ia ym1 thai 1 u·i/1 .mr<'ly 1101 d rink till)' Junger from the fruit Ihe vine until that day when I drink it new

Lie 22. 16 I B. ~-~"'"' )

Mk t4 .25 ) H. A. ~Jl )

1

AiyGJ yCtp tiJJiv Ort (otiKint ' oti pq <j>(tyc.> a Ut Os'

or

i11 (Jod',
all~" AiyGJ Uplv On oU.itts.z oU t~h ntGJ EK t aU YiVit~ato; TI)c; all niAoo

49 Sec Sc-hUrm:•nn. £lnu quelfellkl'iiUrlum UnterJudumg. J. pp. 2-46: tmd Rudolf Buhmann. J.liJIOIJ' of tlur Sy11optit· Tnttlilitm (trans. John ~hush ; Peabody. MA: Hendrickson. rev. cdn. 1963). pp. 265- 6. Elsewhcl\". howe-ver. Bulunann writes thut Luke's text is not an indc-)X'-ndent witness to the tradition in eithe-r te-:uut~ l fom1 (Thro!ogy oj'li1e N~w TeJitmrenl. I. p. 146). Schilrmann·s position is oom"'t'nicntly summari:trd by Taylor. PtiJ.firm Namuire. pp. 48-50: and followtd by Lohse. J.liJIOIJ'. p. 49: van Cnngh. ' E\•o lution'. p. 364: mld Fitzmycr. Luke II. p. 1386. An indepe-ndent sourc-e wt•s also im·okcd by Jm•mias, £udwrUtic Jllords. ~lp. 97- 100. 123- 4: followed h)' Schweiz~--r. Lord's Sup(lt'J', p. 21. ~ Cf. Ke-nyon and l.cgg. 'The Textual D<~ ta'. p. 282. ThM v. 16 is moddkd on Mk 14.25 \\'liS proposed a lso by lic-tunann. M(l$$. p. 176: and rejected by HigW-ns (LordS Suppi!r. pp. 40-43) on the grounds that it t r~msgrcsscs Luke's normal •mcthod. (soc: further below). Most propone-nts of the Sd1iimmnn thoory completely overlook the possibility (e.g. Taylor.

PaSJion /V'arrulil't!. pp. 48- 9).

51 cM:i-rt is not found in W. nor most of the: Abandrian witnesses ~. C. l. 't'). 52 cM:i"T• is found here in the Bynmtine ('f. Wt/1) tc.\t. Western ms. D. and the ·mixed' codex C. oV is not found in D. 53 The Byzantine: ('t'. !)Jl) and Caesarean (9 . W) tc:tts l1c:rc- read £~ o:U-toV. while: the Western text (D./.t> reads O:rr' o:U,-00.

39

The Last Supper Tmditiou

..

f '-Jf; OTOO

f~ t l}; ~~Epa~; ~):lt\11'1(; Omv

rrA~pc.>efi''

QV TO Jn\.1(.) XtU VOV

iv rfi {3ao,J..rff! roG 8roU.

!v rfi {3ao1Alit;r rOO 8;00.

'

'

I

\

Also, v. J 5 ('with desire have. I desired . . :). which serves as an introd uction to \1• 16, contains d istinctly Luka n la nguage,ss suggesting that he has composed this prior s.aying. Simila rly. v. 17 introdut-es a cup a t the outset of the meal (a long-stand ing puzzle) with a saying of Jesus not elsewhere a ltested (see below). Ont-e a!r,.tin, Luke him self could well have composed this saying. fo r (like v. 15) it serves as an introd uction to the eschatologic-.al saying of v. 18. Luke frequently provides s uch connecti ve tissue in his na rnltive.:u, Is it plaus ible that Luke would have Cre-a ted this much ma te ria l, at this crucial location in his na rra tive'? The. a nswer to t ha t q uestion partly depends upon the sta tus the textually disputed vv. J9b- 20. [f o ne follows the Western text here (D, it). Luke·s supper narrath•e does not conta in a cup after the. bread. 57 In tha t case. Luke has evidently relocated a nd. pa rtly O\'erwritten the cup saying he fo und in Mark's text: 58

or

Lie 22. 1 7-18 IB,~ 1ll~i<~J 17 And ta king (I c11p. /J(tl'iug ginm rltuuks .

~l k t4 .23- 5 JBJ 2.1 And utking

a cup. lwt•iug giwm t/umks. he gave to the m, and they all dmnk

he .wid: T a ke thi.'f a nd d istri bute a mong yourselves. I S For I .m y /o you, I •fill :mre(t· mH dri11k from this time

54

from i t 24 a nd he :wid to t he m: J11is is my blood o f the con·nant pour<.'tl out f<., r many. 25 Amen I suy to )'OU that 1 will surely JWI drink any longe-r

0 reads hl'tC KOt \10\.o ~pc.XIfi .

55 Schurmann. Ei11er qudlrnkriliJwtrlllltJg, I. pp. 23- 12. Van Cnngh tnkcs this •cup· as an orig-in:tUy sc:p:•ratc one from the ·cuchttristic 1..-up· (' E\·olution'. p. 377).

40

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom f rom the .fl·uit t?f the 1·iJ1e

until when

from tlte fruit of the rim! until thal d ay w/um

Gmt's ki11gdtmt comc-s.

I drink it new in Gtxfs kingdom.

Lk . 22. 1 7-18 JB.~'11~"1 ( 11 Kai

ot~a~tva<;

.w norrip1ov tUxaptarr}oat;

•

fllffV

AO~n~ roUro xal OtaJ."pioan ,jc; ~o:urOO<;: I S AiyQ yO p t.l~lvt''' oV pi] rr[CiJ &nO roU Wvi)J &nO rOO y;vft~Jarcx; rii; tissrriAou "

..

fc..Y; ov<~""

Mk 14.23- 5 (B) 23 Ka·l A~iw

"'' rrorftptov Wxap1orr]oat; ~~~v oohol<;. Kal 'mov '~ aUroV nCnrnc;. 24 t::a·i rhr;v atholc; · :> .-.

I

o

'

I

TOUTO 'OTtV TO 0 11.10

~au

T~ Otaalji(J]C; r OEKXUvVOIJ-iVOV Un{p rro!J.c:lv. 25 a~.~~v

AiyG> VP,vOtt otnr:,TIQ.:! oU tJh rric.l"'"' ~K rotJ__.rt~T,IfaTYX. ci:P_;rriAoo ;c..x; Tf}C; ll!J'pctc; t~tVfJc; orav '

.

.

*.

auTo nt.IVCal (sic ) Kat vov

iv rfi f3ao1MI~ rOO 8;oU. As this compa rison suggests, luke. has taken over from Mark the

introductory formula or v. 17, 'and laking a cup. having g.iven thanks', wit h only ;-t single, synonymous verbal substitution.66 The agreements. belween luke 22.18 and Mark 14.25 have a lways suggested lilerary interdependence. There. if oUKiTt lay before Luke he may have substituted (synonymously) O:rrOToiJ vUv.67 For Mark's. verbose 'until that day when I

59 The Cae:sal\";tn (9, W) te-xt and m~ A. D l't'; td TO no;~pt ov. 60 The l)yzantinc (A. ~Un and the O tesarcnn {W) texts re-ad r0 noTijp1011. 6 1 ~. joined by the 8)'7lmtine t't'. A. 9Ji./'~) and Cac:sarcan {9 . W) texts. rc<~ds On here. 61 cM:iTt is not found in the Cac:san:an text (W). nor most of the Akxandrian witnesses (:<. c. l. 'f). 63 CnrO TOii v\iv is not found in the Byz:.lntine text ('t'. A. :"lJI.. /0 ) and the C~lcsttrron 0 .

64 For ntc.> D h"s npoo&:l mtv: 9 hns rrpoo~v nuiv: und 565 has npoo&C> mti'v. 65 The Byumtine ('t'. A. 'Jit}'1) and Cacsarc:an (9) texts n-ad O;ou here. W e\·idemlr n:.ads rou. 66 Schiirmann objoc:ts th,ll Luke:- would thus destroy the parallelism with 19a ( Eincr qudk'flkriti.«:l1cn Umcrsuchung. I. pp. 16-7). an objc.:tion that poses no obstade if one ae<:cpts the Wcstc:m text hcl\". although he is oorl\:l'l that Luke elsewhere kc:cps tt Markan ~allC:>V.

67 The manuscript tradition is especially di\•ersc h~rc. Matthew. too. may h~wc found Mark's oUUn poor style (Mt. 26.29: O:n' ((pn). Schllrmann too finds that O:nO ToU vliv is Lukan redaction (SchUrmann. Ein~_r tfU{d/l•ttkritlrdwll Um~r.md11mg. I. pp. 35-6).

The Last Supper Tmditiou

41

d rink it new in God's kingdom'~ Luke has substituted the ele£antly brief. 'until God's kin~dom comes'.68

As Bart Ehrman has pointed out. Luke's eiTacing ofJv1ark's cup sayin.g as l suggest, byoverwritin~ils Hrst half(v. 17b)- would conform to luke's deletion of the 'ransom• element in another i\'larkan saying: in 22.27. luke a ppears to delete exactly this no tion from his probable. source, t\·h1rk 10.45.69 If Ehrman is correct. we have a moth•e fo r Luke's creation of s pecial material a t this tritical juncture: his discomfort with Mark's theology. Also, we might well have here a hint a bo ut the meal practices of the community to whkh Luke belonged : a cup, pret"eding the loaf, is shared a mong the ruests~ t his cup does not owe lts signillca nce to the other supper tradition.~ The loaf, meanwhile. is <'ailed ' the body' o f Jesus, but thisassocia lion is not further elabordte<.l in t he shorter texl. [nstead , Judas' betrayal is immediately predicted (vv. 2 1-3); then t here is bit'kering about gre.a tness. countered by a promise to share Jesus· table in t he-kingdom ('-'·v. 24- 30); and finally there comes a prediction or Pe ters denial (vv. 3 1-4). If we put this meal into the context of other 'bread bre-:-tking· in Luke.-A<.~ts (e.g. Luke 24, Acts 2-5~ see below). we can interpret the expression 'this is my body' as a reference to the oneness of the community (as in Pa ul), and perhaps eschatologit ally (as in Lk. 22. 16).; 1 If. then. the \Ve-Stern text represents luke's text, il is indeed plausible tha t Luke would have reworked the- Markan introduction to the. supper na rrative in view of his non-t\·lark~m age.n da . making it in the process a last ' P;-ts-sover· t hat anticipates the coming kingdom. which will fo llow Jesus· suffering. For t his purpose. he. may h<We taken the ste p (not seen elsewhere in his use of Mark) of <.~re~ttin~ a new para llel from the Markan eschatological s.aying,n because this "'new, largely t raditional saying conveys what he takes to be t he inner me-~ming: of the meal as a who le. 6S This. too. Sch0m1tmn llnds to be (par11y) Lukan {Eint>r qu<>llenhitisclum Umer:mchung. I. pp. 37-S). 69 Ban D. Ehrman. Tlw Orthodox Corruptio11 of Saiptw·t': Tlw l:.'ffor;t of Ear~r C/wistolt1giatl C'tmlrort·r·.fies OJ? the Text ofllu' Ne!lr Tesltmrt.mt (New York: Oxford University Press. 1993). pp. 197- 20?. S« also Arthur VOObus. who argues from Lukc·s commentary on the signiflcancc of thC' b s.l suppe-r (12.21- 8) ugninst a sacrificial ('for you·) undcrstnnding of the cup or mcnl ('A New Appr01rch to the Problem of the Shorter und Lon!:,'~r Tcx t in Luke'. NTS 15 [1969}, pp. 457-63). 70 As Andrew McGowan hns p..•rs.uasivcly m~.ucd. some early Christians did pra<:tisc u cup-fi rs! Eucharist, nol least the members of the Didach~ community ('First Regarding the Cup·. pp. SS.I- S: •The lnordin:lle Cup: lssut.'S of Ord
Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

42

If. on the other h;lnd, one lollows the Alexandrian ($ 70, $ 69 , ~- B. L. 579), the Caesarean (9 , W,.f"). and the Byzantine('!'. !Vl. A) texts and so

includes vv. J9b- 20 in Luke's supper tradition, the Bultmann and Schiirmann is more persuasive. That is. Luke (unlikely a pre-Luk~ln sour<·e) would have combined two separ.ue traditions, which have also been combined less complete-ly by "-·lark: t he pa rallel 'vows of a bstine.nce · and the s upper tradition. In this case. we need only look a t the supper tradition as it a ppears in these manuscripts. a nd not consider further vv. 15-18. since these verses in any case have no o rganic rela tionship to that tradition. as Mark's difTerent use the-material would show. luke's bread saying in these mtmuscripts. then. appears to combine Mark's bread saying. wit h Paul's:

or

Lk. 22. 19<• fa ll( And taking a {()(1}: lun·ing given tha nks /uo hruke uud gtl\'1' (il) w I hem

Mk 14.12 (l:t ~ . D. ill Tttkillg a loa/ having bksst:d.

.WJ)'illg:

ht- brokr tmd gore ( if} a nd :wM: 'Take:

• Tfli.~ i.~ my bot~l ·.. :

71tL\' L\' m,l' btx~l', . .'

Lk. 22. 191>-10 1'13 1$. B.~- L . 579) . ..whic.h is gjven /or .nm. Do this fur 111,1' uwm<1riaf.

I Cor. I I.14b-5

. . /or you.

Lk. 22. 19u (alii

Mk 14.22 (8. ~ .D. ill

Kai Aa{3iJv lipTov ,vxaptorl)oac; iKAao;v Kai l&iJK£v atirof~

Aiyo:w ,. r '

'

...

'

TOVTO fOTlV TO O(,JjJQ JJOU

I'll's. B.~- L . 579) 1 9~ TO Urrie VpG-Jv OtobiJEvov·

Lk. 22. 191>--10

. . TIJV lJ.If]V a 'VGJJVIJOIV.

rovTo rromn ' ' '

.

ff~

/Q

thnu

l':P-u-1

Dtt I his for m y mt'morlul.

Aaf3G,v iiprov ru~oyi}oa~ l&.»:tvn aUTo~ Kal rim v AO:pn, , ToUrO iorr v'~o~ TO ocJpa JJOU.

fKAaa;v Kai

1 Cor. I I.24b-5

im!p VJJc3v:

['l3 4to]

5

.. . .

TOVTO ITOifiTf

.

'

lit; Tf1V fjJf1V avapVIJOIV.

lhe cup saying,, in turn. ;1ppears to combine Paurs version wit h !v1ark's: Lk. 22.20 1'131 \ B, ~. L. 5791 20 ami the mp like1rlse

I Cor. I I.15 l'l.l..t>J

25 liki!'•·i.w• ulso Ihi! cup

13 The Caes<1rcan (W./1. lcxl here reads i6(6oo. 14

W lacks io-rw.

15 Variants: T0\m£p U~vO'\ . 8 . 6•.U: A. C): <0 lm£p UIJC)v K~WIJEVOVI1739'n": 't': F. G): Urrip liiJWV 6punT0]J£VOV (D): Untp U~\1' 6uS01JHIO\I' (c:o (rcc:onstructcdJ).

.o

ro

The Last Supper Tmditiou ll}ier tlwy fwd tlimul. sllying: • 1M.~ t:up (is) the JU'W amman/

through m)' blood.

43

o/h!r they hud dined, saying: J1tiS Cllfl is 1/Jt! IU~W t '(J I'I!fltlllf llmmgh my b/(J(u/. Do this, as o ften as you d rink. for my nlemorial. Mk 14.24b 10.

w. 6 •./'"1

which is poured ow for ma ny. Lk. 22.10 I'll'~. B, ~- L, 579] 20 Kai rOrrorl].o•ov OOaVr~'<>

25 "'OO:UTGJC; Kat TO JTOTIJPIOV

ptr;_d rO ~~rrvijoat, ~iy(.)v~

PHjt rO~flrrvijaaJ Afyc.Jv ,

TOUTO TO TiOTT/piOV I} Ka / Vl]

TOVTO TO JTOTT]p!OV 1J

6ra81fKq lv r~ a·iPari pou

I Cor. 11.25 l~ll-a'1 <

'

'

I

'

K«IV17

61a·84K71 ioT'Iv iv ~ aiParf potr" .... ... . ' '' ' TOUTO TTOIHT£, OOaKt<; {Q"\1 TTlV'llt, ti<; ~V £~~\1 civcitJV'lOI\1.

rO VrripU~c:lv iKXUwOptvov.

Mk 14.24b ID,

w. 6 •./''1

rO Urrlp rroAAC::.v lKXUV~tvov. 1"

The entire cenlra l portion ( 19tr20a) is extremely close to I Corinthians I I .24b-5. 7\> Only a n extra word o r two in e.a th and a minor verbal tr.tnsposition distinguish them. If we- hypothesize reliance upon I Corinthia ns here, the following allerations a ppear in Luke 22.19-20: the addition of I he article a nd Ihe word 'given' (otoo~oauTw<;). again hardly noleworlhy: and !he deletion of !he second 'do this' command.80 The overwhelming verbatim ag,reement between the two a<.x:ounts in this centra l portion, then. supports a hypo thesis of literary dependente.~ 1 As a lready no ted, whe.re an oral trad ition remains unwritten. tha t tr.tdition typically exhibits some-fluidity of expression> even where a single perfonner is concerned. There is reason to think tha t Paul's recitation of 76 The Byznntine ('f. 1lt A) and th<.' Caesarean (9. W./J) tc::xlsagn-c wilh I Cor. 11.25 in their placemc:nt of Woo:VTwc; h('r~. 77 Some Alexandrian (tt. B) and the Byzuntin<: (~t) texts read hen- Tc;> t~ o:'iJ.to:n. 78 The Akxandri.1n (:'-\. n. c. l ) text and !he Byzantine- 't' rt4td TO ft:)(WVO!.Jtvcw Vrtip no:V.Wv. 79 C f. Kenyon and Leg. 'The Tc.xtua1 Data·. p. 282. SO Confm Taylor ( P(t.uiotl /Y(wrolil't'. pp. 54- 6). who finds lhesc differcnct.'S 'slriking': cf. Schf1rmann. finer qtwl!enkrili:;ch~·ll Umer.,·llchung. II. pp. 17-42.49- 73. 81 C f. liellmann. Mau. p. 175: Pc9::h. Abirtulnmhl. pp. 31- 4. Filunycr objcciS that this is •impossible·. but his only reason for 1his asscrlion is that luke could nol have known I Corinthi:ms ( Lukt> JJ. p. 1387) - yet luk('·s authorship of this materia) is prociscly the queslion.

44

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

the tradition in I Corinthians 11.24b-25 was not verbally precise in every re-spect. as tho ugh the words he d ictated there were-identic~d in every way to some 'Antioche-n e' trad ition.S! T h is is e.specially clear in the case of Paur s expression, 'likewise a lso t he cup' (~oaUTC.;,t; Kal TO rroTf}ptov). Here Paul a ppea rs to be allud ing. by a characteristic ellipsis. to the fuller fom1Uia he introduced before the bread, namely, 'he look bread a nd. giving thankS. broke (it) a nd Said ' (<;\a~'V a pTOV Kai
82 Contme.g. Mc:t7.!,"Cr. Texl. pp. 176-7. 83 Contm Jc:tt-mias. Eu(harislit· JV«ds. p. 156. whose: uppeul to ·a liturgicnl tc:xr and Jn 6.11 . 21.13look like a oounscl of despair. 84 Paul may very wc-11 be dabor.tting the tmdition to emphasize !he: mt.ml:>ellillg of the lord's Supper (conduct at meals being his l:trgcr concern). Pc:l1:c:r argues. !hough. 1hat JJHO: T¢ &-rnviioo1 is non· Pauline in s-tyli!{' Style-. and Tcxl'. p~l. 125-6). If so. P:tulmustlhen hnvc memorized this predse ttxprt":ssitJII: th~·n. implausibly. 1he exact e-xpression would ha\'c- bern prc:sc:.r.'Od ontlty during tl1e course of fifly y~~t rs. until luke- wrote: his \'Crsion. Still more unlikely is Taylor's hypothesis thM Pnul drew from a written liturgicnl soun."C. also used b)' luke- (Passion Narmlire. p. 51). Mu<:h more likdy. Pttul knew how to consuuc:t an t.rtic-ular i nfi niti ~ expression wilh IJ!TO. nnd knew the \"Crb 'to dine:', even if he docs not usc these precise: t~·rms elsewhe-re in the extant corpus. 85 Sd10rmann ttllows that this is •not unthinkable' (Eillt>r quellenkrilist/Jen Unter.sudttmg, II . pp. 73- 9).

The Last Supper Tmditiou

45

If one looks at these parallels without ti priori claims about Luk;m composition, the most nat ural con<:.lus ion is that Luke 22.19-20 is hea \1ily dependent upon - indeed a conlla tion of - two literary sources: Ma rk and I Corint hians.86 Therefo re. this leXL offers: no reliable testimony to the this t rad ition . independent oral circuhltion Nevertheless. the longer text of Luke does introduce yet a nother par.lllelism between the bread saying and the (second) c up s:lyin~: '9iven fo r you' (TO im£p u~wv otoo~•vov} II ' poured o ut for you' (To im~p u~wv i<)cxyn• 1/ n"n). thts pa rallel mluke 22.19b-20 could well have resulted fro m the ora l perto rmance of a conflated Pauline a nd Markan (or possibly Matthean) text. This would suggest again the ongoing. recita tion of this tradition, but at ~l time when its tr!:aual fo rm was a lready in use.:n Thus~ \tv.l9-20 s tand alon~ide ,\ •tauhew's supper narrative: neither version confinns the iudepeudeutl'irculmion of the s upper tradition, a lthough both attest ongoing oral rel'itation o f the. tradition. conl·eived in a more tcxitltlll)' fixed furm (that relies upon Mark and Pa ul. s pecifically). Given the state of the Lukan manuscript t radition, one l~annol be ''onfident that the author of this Gospel shared the supper tradition's centm l ethos." While the mea l t hat Luke recounts clearly takes place on the eve before Jesus' de~-tth. it may well take its s ignilka nce Crom other na rrative cues. such a.s an eschatolo~.ical perspective, o r the fulfilment oC Passover.89 In no manuscript tradition does Luke's supper narrath•e link

or

86 Taylor. again following Schftnnann. is forced by th~"SC \•t:rlxd pamlld s to conclude !hat his ·pro-Luktm liturgicnl source· was wriltf'll and contained the (clearly Markan) "· lOb. This written source:. he claims. wus also used by Pnul (Pt1.uio11 Ntll.,.atir
46

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Jesus· death with the escha ton in the Pauline or 1\.
resurrection context ( Lk . 24.30-3 I. 35). The resurrection, implying a pa nty realized eschatology, and the community's common ca use

(Kotvc.>vlo:) are the more consistent motifs for meal scenes in Luke-Acts.<JO The Suppt!r Tnulitiou iu the Second CenllltJ' As a n oral tradition, the s upper lrddition continued to undergo changes and adj ustments quite-apart from those made in Matthew and Luke . He-r e I will exte nd this lr.tjectory by looking briefly at the t radition as Ignatius, John 6 and J ustin utilized it. All three share some common fe-a tures, which will add broader social and conceptual dimensions to my o therwise ra ther rigid auention to the. tradition's or.tl features.

Ignatius of Allliot!J The letters of Ignatius nowhere recite the tradition of the Last Supper, b ut they frequently a ssume it. For example, in the letler to the Ephesians 20.2 Ignatius appe~ds to the uniCying power of the 'broken bread' in a way that echoes Paul ( I Cor. 10. I6- I 8): 'Continue to ~>;It her together fouvip)(ll T he phrase 'breaking: o ne bread' (iva O:pTov KAWvnc,.) echoe.< 'the bread which we break' (TOV apTOV ov I
well as the tradition's ' taking bread. having blessed. he broke it' (Acxj3C:,v apTOV •uAoriJocx~ iKACXOr.1: Greek Texis tmd Engli,flt TratJ.flttlirm:r lGmnd Rapids: Baker. 199?).

The Last Supper Tmditiou

47

equivalent to ' lhe gospel': •] have. taken reruge in the gospel as the llesh of Jesus ( P!rld. 5.1 )., The Eucharist also s ust:iins the key hum;;n responses to the gospel (faith and love; £ph. 1.1; Ph/d. 9.2; Smym. 1. 1): ·You, therefore>must a rm yourselves wilh gentleness and regain your strength in f;;ith (which is the flesh of the Lord) and in love (which is the blood of Jesus Christ)' (Trail. S. l- 2) 9 ' T he practice of the Eucharist invoh•es a proper understanding of t he gospe-l and its ethics: •J want the bre-.td of God l apTOV 6wii], which is the flesh o f Christ [oap~ TOU XpiOToii] who is the seed of David; a nd for d rink l want his blood [To ai~a auToii]. which is inco rruptible love' (Rom. 7.3). This Gospel is the indisputable centre for Ignatius (Pilld. 8.2). Any undemanding of the g.ospel (Smym. 1.1- 2, 5.3. 7.2: Trail. 9) or the Eucharist (Smym. 6.2) that denies the centra lity of the 'flesh of Christ' a nd 'blood of Jesus' must be rejected. In fact. Ignatius' frequ ent references to ' the blood' can be taken as a metonymy for both the gospel and the Eucha rist (Jo."ph. 1.1 ; Ph/d. prologue: Smrm. 1.1 )."'The two are inseparable. These references in Ignatius. however, ~ilso assume cert;-tin developments. Two of these warrant remarks. f irst Ignatius speaks not or 'body a nd blood' but rather of 'tlesh and blood'. The re:lson for an interpreta tion of 'body· (ow~a) as 'flesh' (oap~) is clear: those who refer to the bread as 'llesh' wish to counter others in the movement who deny that Jesus actually took on 11e-s h (e.~.· Sm.amt. 5.2). This shift shows how e-asily the key terminology oft he-tradition could be filled into a mythical context d ifferent from that of Paul and Mark, in the interests of polemical exclusion and group dellnition.'H At the same lime. lgmHius still emphatically looks back to the crucifixion of Jesus as the mythical past tha t infonns t he Eucharist: for him. ' the lle-s h• of Jesus is precisely what has sulli!red 'for our sins' (Smym. 6.2). The- crucifixion a lso d early informs the life of the (eucha ristic) community for Ignatius (e.g. £ph. 20.1- 2; Mag~r. 9.1 - 2; Tw/1. 11.2: Smym . 12.2). Both incarnation and crucifixion are c ritica l, then: both must be maintaine<J.9~'> Second, although some of (gna tius' creed-like sta tements im ply an eschatologic;;l dimension to his thought (Magu. 6.1: Trail. 9.2: P!rld. 3.3). he does not d irectly link a comin~ kingdom (or Lord) with the Eucharist. Perha ps the esc.hatolog.ical focus of the o riginal tradition, which was not 92 npoc¢uyWv ~ tUo:yytAi~ W; oo:pt
48

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

strictly contained in its key tem1S or structure (as far as extant evidence indic-ates), has begun to fade, at least in some circles in the e--.trly second century.

John 6 Ignatius shift from 'body and blood ' to ' flesh <md blood' can be seen a t work a lso in John 6.5 Jc- 59. The authentic.ity of this portion of Jo hn has

been frequently c.:hallenged.97 fo r o ne can interpret the entire discourse -

wit hout this passage - as a midrash o n the. Scriptura l locus (introduced by the crowd). ' Bread from heaven he gave them to eat' (6.3 I; see Ps. 78.24) 9 'Thus, to r example, according to 6.27, t he ·food' in q uestion ' lasts to ete rnal life' and is something ' the son o f man will give. you·, that is, the one ' the Father certiJ1ed' .~ This cluste r of notions could be interpreted as

the teachings of Jesus, ultimately from the Father. which \Vhen <..Xmsumed (i.e. grasped) lead to eternal life (see 7. 16. 8.31- 2, 8.51). As-•in, the second half o f 6.32 associa tes the- 'bread' directly \\~lh the messe.n ge r. and this messenger, in turn. is late r dechued to be Jesus himself: ' lam the bread of life. The person who comes to me will not hunger at all, and the pe.rson who relies o n me100 will not ever thirst a t all' (6.35). Fina lly, t he 'bread' mediated by Jesus from the Father is found in what Jesus :wys: 'T he spirit is t he giver Of Jife, lhe tJesh is of nO service: the Words W~~aTaj that) have s po ken to you are [lit. is] spirit and life' (6.63). Or. •Is Peter sla tes in his climactic confession. ' Yo u have words [p~JJaTa] of ete.m a l life) and we

97 Sec Ernst H:u:-nchcn. John 1: A ('(}lllllftmtary 011 tlltt GtJJpel of Jo/111 Clwpwrs 1-6 (t ntns.. Robm W. Funk: Hl'mlcnt'ia~ Phiktdd phin: Fortress Press. 1984), pp. 293-9 (nnd litC'mlurt-cited there). Diffcrenlly. Raymond E. Brown. Tlu! GtJ.{jJa~l Arconli11g to John 1, i- xii (AB, 29: Gmdcn City. NY: Doubleday. 1966). pp. 2S>-7. <:f. pp. xxxvi-xnix. Neither sC'ho1ar nppcttrs to htt.Zard a dnte for the interpolntion. ~·l eanwhik. more rocent critic.s tend to distttntt themselves methodologically from such sour<:c-nitieal questions: sec. e.g.• R. Alan Culpepper. A11otom.r qf thr Prmrth GoJpt!l: A Sltrdy i11 Utemry Dr.fign (Philaddphin: Fortress Press. 1983). p. 197. n. 126. P~-der Borgen's souro:-critiC'
E.wgeliarl Suuly of Illt' Com:ept of Mmmali1 lite Go:.Jid of Joltn tmd Jhc> WritingJ of Philo [l eiden: Brill. 1965]. pp. 147- 92). but it allows the prolxtbility thttt John worked with an existing tradition (or a t kast mtion) of ksus· 1rortl\· within his lttrger oontcxt (pp. 184- 5). 98 Or. with Borgen. W\: might view this text ns emp/oyi11g midmsh (Borgen. IJ.Jwul jffJm Nerm!ll. pp. 61- 96: e(. 172- J. 179): see too J. Louis Mar1yn's perceptin: rem:arks (lliJtory tmd n.eolog.r in the? Founlr Go.\'f?t>l (Louis\'ilk: Westminster John Knox. 3rd l"
The Last Supper Tmditiou

49

have believed and known (iyvwKa~•vJ t hat you a re< . . . > 101(6.68- 9). To the end, the identity of Jesus is tied up with words that he spea ks, the teaching that he brings from the Father. Within 6.51c-9, however. the ' bread' tha t the son of man - himself the bre~1d of heaven - offe.rs a ppears to have been reinterpreted: 'And the bread that I will give is my tlesh, fo r the li fe of the world' (6.5 1c). TI1e eterna l life that Jesus gives. a nd which comes from rhe Father (v. 57), comes through eating. (literally, 'chewing') this 'true food ' and d rinking this ' true drink' or Jesus 'flesh a nd blood' (v. 55- 56). Rather like Igna tius (cf. Sm)'m. 6-1), John 6.53 can insist that a person who 1 tils to c.o ns ume this ·flesh a nd blood' does not re
50

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

to s peak> from the passion na rnltive. Such a dislocation can o f course- be ascribed to the redaction o f a ' misleading.' text - that is. the correction of the 'bre~id of life' d iscourse vht t he insertion o f6.51c-9. But ullirna tely this: kind of d islocation ma kes sense only on t he assumption of a well-known tradition of Je~o:.;us· Last Supper, {'ommemo nued in a ritual me~il within the communily. John 6.51c- 9 constit utes an allusion to the tradition o f Jesus· Last S upper. As s uch. it assumes l~uniliarity with tha t t radition, des pite its absence from John's account of the-meal scene. In conclusion. the similaritie,s between John and lgJJatius sugg_ e-St that the 11na1 versio n of Jo hn opposes a group (or a t least an opinio n) very similar to the. one Ignatius o pposed. Thus, this languag.e points on{'e aga in to a preoc(.~ upa tio n wilh Jes us· incarnation on the part of some members of the movement. c~l. 100 c~. T his preoc(.~upation le.a ds to a shift in the terminology of the supper trddition: :flesh and blood'. Jo hn a ppears to go beyond Ignatius in reinterpreting the s upper lr;tdition in spiritual o r mystical te rms. and the reasons fo r this may well lie hidden wit hin the edito rial layers o r the Johannine tradition.

Justin So me tlfty ye.a rs a ne r Ignatius and John, Justin's First Apologr gives us a glimpse into the ongoing circulation o f the. las t s upper tradition itself. Justin is in agreement wilh the Pauline. and Markan versions o f this tntdition a t nume.ro us c rucial points. First. the main ing.redients remain a loaf (ii:pToc;) and a cup ( rroT~ptov), t hough now the cup is further deS(Tibed as conta ining water that is (unle.ss our text is corrupt) 'mixed' wit h wine. 103 Justin describes the procedure of the early Christian meal in greater detail t han a ny o f the earlier sources. but when he comes to e lucidate wha t makes it d ivine or sacred, he rehe.arses what he calls tntditions ha nded d own by the a postles in the.i r ' remembrances· [imo~v~~ov
(that) Jr.ws takil•g hrrad lut~·ing gil'"" tlwuks is said

10

have .wtid:

1 Cor. 11.23- 5 T he Lord Jesus

took Immel and lun·iug girru

1/umk:~

broke it and said:

rvl k 14.22- 4 (Jesus! wking bread having blessed, b roke and gave (it) to them. and .mid:

•Do this ;;,,. 111.1' IIU'III(Jriaf. 71Ji:J i.'t m y hoc~1 ·:

103 Sec Mc:Gownn.

A.fCt'lit:

·71Ji.'t is my body for you. ·711i.-. i.t my body:

£udwrisls. pp. 151-4 (~nd literature <:ilcd thl•rt).

The Last Supper Tmditiou

51

o, thi.'> }Or my mtmwriaf.· Likewise ul:w tlw cup aflcr they ~Utd dined,

Amltlrt- C"llft likewise.

taking'' cup a nd

nnd wkiug 11 mp

lut~·ing git•tm

lum.,tg ginm tlumk.-., he gave

thanks

he is said to have suid:

Saying:

•7J¥i.'t i.'> my h/o(xl:

· 1J1is c up i.'i the: new covenant in lilT blood. Do this. as o fl<.'n ns you drink. fo r my memoria l.

Justin I Apul. 66''>'

Aa{3iwra iiprov

covenant.

poured out for man y·.

I C.or. 11.23- 5

rvl k 14.22- 4

iAaf3;v iiprov

Aa/X.lv (0 'lqaci~;J' 115

oKilpl<><; '/~ooli<;. . .

T0v'lfiOoGv

to them n nd they all drank fro m it. a nd he :wid to them: ·JJJi.,· i.t my blood of the

&prov £VAortloa~ EV.aotv xa'1'&.:IKn"

' ' wxap10Trpavra

atho'ic; •

.

. rromr; ti<; rQv ci:vaiJVT}OiV Ji00 . .

nmnr

•

Kal f l nnr

TOUTO

.

1

.

' "" ' "' ' ' TOUTO EOn TO Oc..>JJO: JiOV TOUTO EOTIV IJOU TO OGJjJCC

' ' ' ... UTT!_P U!J'*lV'...

.

~O:~m. "' '

.

.

... '

TOUTO !OTIV TO OGJpa

jJOO.

. rroturr .. . '

TOUTO

w;

TI]V fJ,Ir}V avaj.JVIJOIV.

104 According to E. C. RatdiO'. Jus.lin's m:count i!( ·composed of words ttnd phrtLSCs derived from lh~· Gospds according to Mallhew and Luke' ('The Euch:u·istic Institution NmT.ttivc of Justin Martyr's First Apology'. JEH !2 [1971]. pp. 97- 102 (991). I find the usc of Mark and Paul here tidier. Since J ustin nowhere d sc cites Paul. and sddom Mark. but rather rdics frequen tly upon a hum1oni:t.ed. somewhnt altered text he calls 'gosjX'I' (SC(' Koes1cr. Am:it•nl Chri.ftim• Gos('<'k pp. 37. 360-401). I presume thul Justjn is 1101 responsible for harmonizing t hese two aocounls. Jf Ratcliff is correct. Justin r<stored 1he Mk 14.24 version of the cup ~•ying (rcmo\'ing yOp from MI. 26.28). used th< longer texl of Luke. and. pcrhnps most oddly. also rc:tnO\'ed the eschatological s.1ying comm-on to r..t:.tthcw and Luke. presumably because il appeared in diO'm-nt locations. 105 Found in t he By:atntinc (A. 9Jr) and numerous indi,•idua1 texts l L lat. bo}. possibly via MI. 26.26.

52

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom '

>

I

!

. .

I

'

.

Kat TO 1TOT71PIOVQ9.101(.)(; c.xJQUT t.:IC; I::Ctl TO

J,a{30vra Kai

J.IHG

Kai /.a~wv

['iOJ''»TTOT~p!OV

' TTOTT]ptov

tOOt 1rrvijoa1

& Uxaptar,foac; £'0c.:JK£V aUroi'c; ,

.

Kal. f rnov ~F~ aUroU navn<;. Kal fl m-v

ToUrO iort r0 aip&J.IOtr roGro . tO nor ftptov h KQI\1~

'

.. .

rouro rromn. ooaKtc; Htv mvrr~ , . ' .' ' H t; Tl)V 'llllV QVQj.flii')OIV.

..

I

1 '

.

~

'

TOUTO ! OTIV TO aiJICf pov

'

lita~K~ 'anv ' 1to:) "' atJ.I(lTI ., ' J.IOI[ EV !

a\rrolc; · ... . .

'

TO tKXUVVOJ..IUfOV

Urr'p rroAAc:lv.

.

KQ I !JOVOI~

aUr olt; IJ£Ta00Uvat.

Justin•s account is a finely honed rehe.arsal o f the l ast Suppe.r tntdition, employing virtually all o f the key terms (and little e lse) within the structure. a b J1 a 1 b 1• There is only o ne term missing: t he 'brea king• o f the loaf. Although Justin's rendit ion picks up the Pauline 'do this' inj unction. moving it fo rward in t he process. it otherwise follows the synoptic word ing fo r the bread and cup sayings - tha t is, the rhyt hmically parallel version (b /{ b1}, The double use of 'giving tha nks', one each pa ralleled in Paul a nd Mark/{Man hew, brings the bread a nd cup units into still closer parallelism (a // a 1) . By pulling the Pa uline 'do this clause earlier. Justin's version allows a single statement to a pply to both meal components. The statements tha t precede the c up saying suggest conflation: the Pauline 'likewise the cup' (slightly altered) is joined with the synoptic 'taking and giving tha nks' (slightly altered). On the other ha nd, Justin's text simply d rops t he d ivergjng phrase-s about the ·covenant' in Mark and Paul. ra ther than ha rmonizing. them. The final effect is simple and elegant, with brief and parallel expressions lOr bread and cup. How to assess Just in's witness'] Bultma nn and, inadvertently. Schlim1ann found it q uite close to the 'o riginal• fonnu lation. 107 As argued a bove. however, the fixed expre-ssions or the t radition more likely emerged over time ;md in repe-a ted o ra l per fo rmances; they were not then 'origina l' in the conventional sense or the tem1. It might even be a rgued that J ustin or his source fo r the supper tradition arrived at this 106 Found in the I) pan tine (..\. !lfl:) a nd the Caesarean (W) texts. 107 Bultmann is rcfming to the undabor.11cd. •original' phrases (only in Justin) ' this is my body',tthis is my blood' (711eologyqftk•?!·h~•~· TPJI<mumt. I. p. 146): SchUnnunn. although he docs not rncntion Justin's text prcscnts a rc<:onsttuctcd ·originur tntdition that is um:.annily d ose lo it (SchUrmann. £inl!r tjudlmkritisdwll Uml!t.wrdumg. II. p. 131).

The Last Supper Tmditiou

53

reconstruction by working. in much the s.ame. way that I d id ~ibove : retaining a lmost nothing but the- ma te rial common to the Pauline and synoptic traditions. NeverLheless. Justin"s version of the traditio n a ppe-a rs to be well suited for memorization and or.tl recitation~ il was plausibly developed for that purpose. Indeed none o f the-instances the tradition reviewed here (ext~pt perhaps Luke's) is unsuitable fo r memo rization a nd o ra l recitation. But Jus tin"s may be belle r suited to this purpose than a ny o ther. 10s Once again. even where textua l versions of the tradition begin to curtail o ra l elabo n1tion, ever-evo lving_parallelis m of cJauses a nd expressions fo r the bre.a d and the cup su£b>eSt that this tradition is still being redt£•d.10'>' In such cases, t he complex interwe.:wing of text and recita tion has not destroyed the fundamental pa.rallelism betv.•een the loaf and the cup, the body and the blood. Finally. while Justin preserves the key terms a nd structure of the supper tr.ldition. his account a lso illustrates the te ndencies a t work in l~,nati us a nd John 6. The notion t hat Jesus instituted this meal on the night of his impending de<.H h is a bsent from Justin's account here, though elsewhere Justin reta ins a link to Jesus' passion. For example. in Dialogue with Trypho 41 Justin refers to the-Eucharist a s a memoria l of Jesus' suffering (which p11ril1es a nd delivers from evil); a nd further on. in 70, he retains the sullerings of Jesus alongside the incarnation as the-past that is evoked by the performance of the Eu<·harist. In the First Apology. howe:ver, he links the meal only with t he mythical event of the incarnation. Fo r Justin, Jesus C hrist was made 'flesh a nd blood' thro ugJ1 'the word of God' for the sake o f 'our salvation'. T his is the-manner (rpOrroc;) in which the 'eucha ristized food · must become capable of nurturing human ' flesh and blood' - that is, thro ug,h the ' prayer o f the word which is from him' . 110 Justin's syntax is ra ther convoluted here. sugg_ esting an elTon to maintain a sense of mystery in this public apologia. But t he li nk between Jesus' incarna tion a nd the 'Oesh and b lood ' mea l-components is clear eno ugh. As fo r the eschatologic<.\1 context, it too has vanished from the a ppe.a l to the

or

lOS Noted also by Ratcliff. 'Eucharistic lnslitution Narrati\'c·. p. 99. 109 Justin daims that this tradition <.".ame. from the written SOUI'C'CS his community possessed. It nmyeither ha\'e loin before him in a harmoni7.ation or h:t\"(: boc:n known lo him from memory in 1he form he gi,·es. If from ma nory. though. it still hns b.."Cn inAuc:occ:d b)· cons-uhl-d tc>xt:r. Bmdshaw trace-s- a simibr interaction of written ;md om) traditions in Justin. ltl'mtc-us. Cyprinn. the AptJslolic Tmdifio11. the Sac1·cmwnwry of Sampion. and cyril of Jerusalem. although he argues- mon: strongly than I h:t\"(: for lhe indc:pcndeoce of 1his (eatcc:hctica1) ·narruti\"(: lradition· vis-3-vis the NT <~e<:ou nts {EuchCiristi< Origitu. pp. 15-13). 110 On Ihe-meaning of this difllcult phmsc. sec Br.1dshaw. l:."uclwriJtk Or(~iJu·. pp. 92- 3 (:tnd literature cited there). If Jus lin is refe-ning to a prayer, Ewreu Ferguson is probztbly corrccl thai 'the pra)"(:t was l'.Xtc:mpomneous. but tl1e pr~enec: of some formulae recurring with g;cat frequency was nol to be ruled our. He suggests an emphasis on 'redemption· ("Justin Martyr and the. Liturgy', ResQ 36 (19941. pp. 267- 78 (176}).

54

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

tradition. and perh;lps nothing stands in its place-. There is, however. a hint that the 'euch:uistized food" is capable of nurturing Christians in :1 moral sense. perhaps even enabling them to be£,in to become 'divine·

throug.h this eating. 111 Despite such dillerentes, Justin's account, like Ignatius· various refere.nces to the tnu.Jilion and the creali ve allusions to it in John 6. .still falls within the larger tmjectory of the Last Supper tradition. These three writers rely upon, elabontte, adjust :lnd otherwise- develop a common tradition. with its parallel loaf and cup, body and blood.

Ritual Sensibililil!S of 1/u: Trtulitiou To this point I have ta ken for granted that the Last Supper tradition does indeed have a ritual function and does thererore assume (and. for us. betray) ritual sensibilities. ln taking: up this point of view. I do not inte nd to e ndorse the notion that the ' institution narrati\'e· had a lways been redted during the eucharistic prayers of the community. Much less do l assume that the lraditio n funct ioned as a script for the rih ml of the community, as t hough the le~tder would take a nd bre-a k bread in imitation of Jesus, say a pr
Tlle Euchllrisl of the

The Last Supper Tmditiou

55

Ger.Jrd Ro uwhorsl has offered what I Lake to be two caveats to a full acceptance of McGowan's t hesis: fir.Sl1 ' the c.atechesis in question' would

surely 'relate in one way o r the o ther to liturgjcal practice'; a nd second. the comm;ind 'do this fo r my memorial' is found within the t radition 114 I would ~1dd ano ther: the ve.rbal llxing of the- supper tradition itself. prior to Pa ul a nd Mark must be explained . Catechesis. in the sense of initial instruction a bo ut the meaning o f the community"s rit ual meal. would not oner adequate- ex~lamuion fo r the development of this much fixed lang uage-and strucLUre. 15 lnstead 1 this degree of llxil y sueg.e-SlS both frequ ent repetition and spedal emp hasis or importa nce. 11'6 Thus, if liturgists have correctly doubled tha t the 'words oi institution· were recited during t he-e-a rliest e.ucharistic prayers. lhey will have gone loo fa r ii they a lso suppose that early C hristian meals (within circles Ihal prized this lr.ldition) did not lake their rilua l sensibilitie-S from it - however that was conveyed in the actual rilual proceedings. 117 After a ll. lhe meal w~-ts ('Eu<:haristic lnsti!ution Narrutivc'. p. 99). Rob«t M . Fowkr argues that M:.uk 14 does not ' institute' the Eucharist. although it may instrue1 the community regarding eucharistic practice (l..«ti'I'S tmd Fi.flll!.f.' nut Full. 4 1- 53. 11 7 Bradshnw comes very d ose to this unpcrsuasi\'C extreme (flldlaristic Origill.\', p. 47). Other eucharistic prayers thnt l:td: the institution narrutivc. such :.s Atltlui am/ Muri or the adaptntion of Did. 9-10 in Cmut. (tp. 7 (sec Ch. 9). do contain nfercnc~-s to the body- and blood of Jesus. as '"dl as his. death. Indeed. if one removes the inslilution narrati\'e from the ancient euc.h!Lristie pmycrs 1ha1 c.ontain it. other references to Christ's sufferings rcnmin. Cf. the Mystugagiml Cuu:rltPst>s of Cyril of Jcrusalt'm: although ~ docs not describe thtinslilution nnrmli,·e·s tocit:ttion. he docs dc.soribc a prayer invoking the Holy Spirit to ! r;msf~'lrm th~ bread into C hrisfs body and the wine into his blood (5.7: d. 1.7) - a pmycr thai could not be spoken where this tradition \vtiS not key to t h~ meal ritual's logic (d. 4). l ikewise. the prayct of Judas Thom:1s in Acls 7110/IJ. J3.1581acks the institution nurra1ivc

56

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

supposed to be 'done· in some wap tha t would memorialize (and prot/aim) Jesus death a nd the approaching kingdo m. 11 s In this sense, Helmut Koester's contention that the Last Supper tradition belongs to the larggr tradition o f Jesus· suffe ring. offers some usefu l insig)1ts into this 't~atechetkal' purpose. For Koeste r. 'T he fomlUiations quoted by Paul a.s trad ition a lready presuppose not o nly an institutionalized ritual but also larger contexts of narra tive and interpreta.tion.' 119 So. for exa mple. if Paul's a llusion in I Corinthians 11.23 to ' the night on which he was handed over is to be intelligible. it must allude to shared knowledge of 'an entire. stor' ' a bout Jesus' de.ath and s uffering' . 110 This contention intentiona ll); runs counter to Bultmann's d ictum: ' no context is necessary to understand it; all the necessary infOml~itiOn is given in the brief i.ntroduction: ~V Tfi VUXTl Tro:p;:Oi.Sno· (on lhe night in which he was handed over).lll Koester's claim is supported by more recent studies o f ora l tradition and or.tl performance: it is precisely the <·ommon bond of 'larger contexts of story' that an a llusion like-Paul's would be-intended to evoke. Oral perfom1ers frequently employ just Su(~h allusions. evoking entire na rrative conte.xts by a word. a hint) o r the performance ot'Casion itself. 112 ·nms. in keeping with Koester's thesis, the passion narr.ttive should be viewed as a story t hat gro unds the existence-o f those communities that

n

but i noorpor~•tes many details from the p:Ls:sion nnrrati"c nod d early takes its cucharisti<.· meaning from it Thus. nhhough we do not know wh!ll prayers were said by ~uli ne and Markan oomm un iti~-s (if nny fixed prayers yet e:tisted for t hem). we would e:tpoct that these prnrcrs would al len.st be C<»11Jitflihll? i" t>Jnp/uiJU with the last supper tradition. and more: than likely would allude to it (cf. Klinghardt. Gnurituthuft.\·mulll tmd Multlg~·meinschllft . p. -490). As Rouwhorsl n.sse11s.. ' There e;m be: a bsol utely no doub! thnl these [rites} we.rc romple.tdy determin1.-d by the. institution account' ('Bread and Cup'. p. 28). although he wishes to restrict the rites in question to a yearly C hristian P:..ssove'l. Similarly. Dietriclt-Ab K~xh has rocendy argued regarding the •cup of blo.'iing that we bkss· thut ' lhis prayer is ae1ually the plnce where the Lord's death was proclaimed within the ri!Ual mc::.d - at least in Pauline communities· ('The Eucharistic Prayers in Did 9 and 10 :.nd the Riddk of Did 10.6' (paper prc:scntod at t he annual rnccting of the SBL. San Diego. C A. 19 No\'embcr 2007). p. 3). 11 8 This is nol to deny that some early eucharis tic meals failed to do this.: but this •f:•ilurc· is. (at kast in part) a feature of cnrly Christian di,•crsity. Efforts to rc.:onstruct eucharistic origins in a single trnjoctory. reduced to the extant texts' lowest common de-nominn tors. fnil to confront seriously the problems thut this div~'l'sily prcSoCnts. 119 Helmut Ko~-stcr. 'The Memory of Jesus' Death and the Worship of 1hc Risen Lord'. HTR 91 ( 1998). pp. 335-50 (347). The requisite n."Citations would likdy occur at the communal meat 120 Koester. ' Memory'. p. 348. So too Ellen Aitken. '<0: OpWIJfiXl ~::at ;0 ).~yCcuvo:: The Eochuristie Memory of Jesus' Words in First Corinthians·. 1/TR 90 ( 1997). pp. 359- 70 (3668). 121 Bultmann. NiMory of thl' Synoptic Tradiliou. p. 275. 121 E.g. Foley. Si11ger ofTaleJ. pp. 7- 11 . 27-8. and c:-s.p. 42- 56: C hafe. •Jntcgrntion and Jm·oh-cmcnt'. pp..~ 5-53: Fine.• Falklore Text. pp. 76- 7; Lord. Si11ger &swne.~. pp. 1- 3.

The Last Supper Tmditiou

57

prized it (through recitation. pe-rformance-). A crucial episode in that sto ry, the last supper tntdition is in some-respects the passion narrative in miniature: the essential signillcance oi Jesus' death distilled and poignantly expressed in the willingness of Jesus to suffer and his promise that the suffering is 'for' others. Moreover. as I have argued. that signifi(.·.a.n{'e extends to the re-alization of God"s kingdom . In addition, Paurs larger discussion about the Corinthian meal does permit us to take into ae<.·ount Jaq~~r rit ua l considerations. Above a ll. his remarks demonstra te that the meal in q uestion is stmwf. Paul believe..~ (or a t least threatens) that t he impro per conduc.:.t his Corinthian Gentiles during this ritual has led lo L'Ouramiuatiou, resulting in some- cases in sickness and death. T his kind of conta mination can only occur where something sacred is fo und. The Corinthians, failing to ' rightly discern the body', have transgressed holy ground. One-can dispute the precise-referent o f 'body' here, but it a t least includes the rit ually sacrosanci body of the community. ·among· whom (1v u~lv) 'God's Spirit resides' ( I Cor. 3.1 6: cf. 6. 15- 17; 12.27). The Spirit, for Paul, belongs not to this age. which is passing away, but to the age. to come. already brea king. in (I Cor. 2.6-13; cf. 2 Cor. 3.7- 11; 5.1- 5). Some Corinthians, operating on the le,•e l o f the o ld ag.e (with its rights and privileges), h~1ve tra mmelled the san<.~ttty of the 'lesser members' while ~11 1 were actua lly in ritual contac-t with the new (holy) age. This contamination has had physical ellem. akin to the result o f Uu.ah's profane hand touching the Ark of the Covena nt (2 Sam. 6.69}. For Paul's point to work. it c'ln only be during the celebration of this mea/ tha t something sacred is encountered. fn 1 Corinthia ns 10.21 , Paul can even refer to the meal as t he 'table of the l o rd', compa ra ble to the s.;icrificial rites of the Jerusalem Temple. In 11.23-7. Paul insists that this bread a nd this cup, with reference to which Jesus prayed and .spoke ce-rtain words, are to be e-aten and d runk by IIIis community - a community detached in space and time from Christ's death, but being woven into it by me-a ns or slOr)' ;md ritual. T hus, the sacred re-a lity that has contaminated the Corint hians m~1y well involve the reconstituted time evoked in the memorial or Christ's body and blood the charged ritual ground of the-supper. The. supper tr.tdition's ritual function eme-rges also in the indirect a llusions of the la ter writers surveyed above. Ignatius, ·John' and Justin demonstrate that the supper tradition did indeed ha ve ritual force - and could even fu nc:.tion as a litmus test for authentic :idherence to Christ (see further Chapter 9 below). Ignati us and Justin also clearly viewed the eucha ristic meal as both (a) the body (Oesh) a nd blood o f Jesus and (b) sacred . Ignati us calls this food the 'medicine of immortality' and insists that those who serve the food be held to an especia lly high standard (Trail. 2.3), while Justin c laims that this food is not 'common' (Ko1v6<,) - the

or

58

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

opposite of 'common' being. satred or ho~r. Jus li n similarly seems to regurd

or

this (Ood as elTectively nurturing the souls mona Is wit h immortality. Thus. even if Lhe mea l (or the gathering) informed by the supper tradition was not universally rega rded as sacred - we have no reason to think that it was no t - this perception of sacro.llity is at minimum an important part of the trajectory of this ritual tradition and .sho uld be ta ken

into consideration when its ritual logic is in view. This sacrality may be d ue to the satrillcial overtone-S of the me~ll. t he mythical context(s) evoked in the mea l, the holi ness of the community t hat pou takes>or all of these. Me-a nwhile, as we have seen, Ignatius, Justin and especially •John· demo nstrate lhat the rit ual tradition could undergo unpredictable changes. wit hin the evolving life or t he communily. via shifting mythical elaborations: the body and blood become Jesus' Oesh and blood precisely as his inca rnation becomes a mythical refe-rent {Or the sacred meal. One could view this incarnationa l focus as a secondary adaptation o f the me-.tl ritual. Lh<\l is. as a theological shift tha t deploys rit ua l lo s upport 'proper doctrine. but that in the-p rocess alte rs the ritual's tradiliona1 termino logy (body [ow~al lo llesh [oap~IJ, and so loses or loosens its o riginal mythical context. To a n extent. one might say tha t this development acrually does violence to the origina l tradition. At the same time. however. this shift unde.rscore.s the tenacity of the-twofo ld structure, with its insistence upon two parallel items. a loaf and a cup, pointing in complementary ways to a single mysterious a nd s.a.cred reality. Finally. tha t the mythical rei'e renls. before a nd after. have been transfOrmed or ~it le-ast modilled in the course of these few genemtions is an important piece of evidence for a larger q uestion tha t will occup)' us more fu lly in t he second pa ri oi' Lhis study. Such a shift shows that a ritual tradition does not simply exist as an unbending thing t hat transforms pa rticipants. Symbols. actions and a bove all ritua l objects can be imerpret(!d for specillc situa tions. The- llxed tradition can be adapted :md sha ped with in the community as !ha t community moves through history - as the communit)' confronts and embraces new situa tions, challen~e-S and ideals. _,

Chapte r 3 TH ~ LOGIC 01' THE

DIDAC'flk'S M EAL R I1'UA l

In the last chapter my goal wo.1s to define as s harply as possible the i'Onstiflllil'(! fe-a tures of the Last Suppe-r tradition: its key te rminology a nd struc.:.t ure and its nl}'thil'-.al associations. which together give the- tradition its distinctive ritua l logic. r made. no ~1ttempt, o f course, to inte rpret tha t lr.ldition in light of the Didathe's ' thanksgiving' prayers. In stead . I ex:unined it with refe rence to its own or.tl dynamics and then queried the ritual d imensions of the tradition. The same procedure musl hold Cor lhe Didat he's mea l rilua l. I begin here with the-o ral a nd s tructura l dynamics of these ritua l prescriptions. From t hese-dynamics I will query the ritua l logjc o f this tradition. My d iscussion in this ease will be more exha ustive. s ince the Didal'lu~·s mea l ritual is lhe primary foc us of lhis book. T he Last Supper t radition na tura lly has no immediate role in the present analysis. Only ;1fier this a nalysis is co mplete will I return to tha t tradition. in Chapter 4, to compare it to this ritual. Didat he 9-10 l~o nsists oi ins tructions for the cond uct of a me~il ritual. These instructions offe.r tWo kinds or information: prayer texts a nd. a longside them. a number o r very basic rubrics. offering instruction for the a ppropriate use o r the praye-rs gh•e n. The a im or this chapter is to probe both kinds o f info rma tion from the perspective o f their rit u:LI Iogic: Do the pntyers a nd the rubrics work together townrd t he same end? ·wha t kind of meal ritua l do we encounter here·? What does iL a im to accomplish~ if anything? How does it opera te as a ritua l'?

The Sn·uctw·t! of the Prayers The prayers' structure is integr.tl to their ritual function. 1 To understa nd the latter require-s a grasp of the former. Therefore I be~in with structura l I My clTon.s to delineate the stroC1urt: or Did. 9- 10 have taken impe-tus rrom Sam D. Gill's work on Na\'ajo pmrcr (Sanwl Wrmh: A St1u~r of Nuw1jo Religion and Pmy~_r [Wcstpoli. Cf: Greenwood Press. 1981]. csp. pp. 9-35. 179: N(l(iVi! AmeritYlll &ligimu Acli'un: A Perfimtl(l/1('~ Appmtlth /(J Re/igion (Columbia: Uni\-crsit)' of Sooth C.uolinu l~ss. 1987]. pp. 8?- 11'2): Ddl H ym~-s·s pioneering worl: on poetic texts ('In Jl(li11 I Trit·d to TP.!I

60

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

observations on the prayers as they stand in our very limited manuscript rradition.2 As many scholars have noted. dellnite parallels exist between the prayers in Didadu~ 9 and those in Didm•he 10. 3 Moreover. the introductions to the pr.tyers of 9 and I0 par•llel o ne another: 9 .1 Now concerning. the:: thanksgiving. IO. J T hen. afte-r you arc full. offer the tha nksgiving in this way: o ffer the thanksgiving in this way: ?. t

f!:pl &,Tij<; !U)\aptcrrla~ . OUT(.) wxa.ptOTTjOa.n·

10.1

Mnid i! "

.to i~n~~vat .

The instructional rubrics in Didaclle 9.5 (prohibiting the unbaptized from the eudmrisfia) a nd especially I0.1 ('after being filled full [~nO. o! TO i~nlll]Oilijvat] . . .')imply !ha t a meal follows t he prayers in Didarhe 9 and precedes those in 10. However, Maurice Goguel. in 1910, proposed another expla nation for !he para llels between Didache 9 a nd 10: 'The two prayers are not only analogous, they are identical. T he one is a variant of the other.' For Gog.uel, !he autho r or the Didar/11' failed to gmsp t his fact and Lherefore linked them." Although subsequent critics have nol ascribed to Goguel's theory. something like it is perha ps implicit in proposa ls fo r the somewhat independent development of the prayers in 9 and JO.s You': EssUJJ ill Natb·e Amerka11 ErhnopUt'lirs (Philadelphia: UnivcJsity of Pennsylvania 198 1)): and G-ory H. Gos:;c-n•s study of Cbamul (M:1yan) ritu:al speech (' l.t~nguogc as Ritual Substance·. in Williom J. S:unarin fcd.J, Ltmguage in Religious Practice [Rowk.y. MA: Newbury House. 1976 ), pp. 40- 60). 2 Ahhough I rely on 1hc Jctusa1c:m manuscript (H). vmiants in the Coptic fragmcnl will be noted and problems with H addnosscd in due course:. Soc Jcan·Pnul Audl•l's j us t rescrvalions about H in La Dilladu!: lll.flnr(tions dPs cr,,tre.s (P~1ris : Gabalda. 1958). p. 78: Kurt Niedcrwimmt.'f addresses the major probkms with H in •Textproblcme der Didachc\ IVitWeJ· S1wliN1, Nil 16 ( 1981j. pp. 114-30: <:f. also rdevant obserJa tions in John S. Kloppt:nbor,g. 'The Usc of the Synopties or Q in Did. Ub-2.1'. in Huub v<~n de Sandt (c:d.)• Pre~.

.\fanlurn· cmd

/1/{!

Didmclw:

T• ~·lJ

DowmemJ from 1/!e Scrme Je11·islt-Christirm Milit'tJ.'

(Minne-apolis: Forun.~ P~ss.. 2005). pp. 105- 29 ( 11 2). The best critical text of Did. 9-10 is Wcngst's (Dirlurlu!. pp. 78-82: sec: Boudewijn Dchandschuucr. "The Text of the Didcrcht: Some Comments on the Edition of Klaus \Vc:nst'. in Clnyton N . Jdlord fed .~ The Dirlflrhe in Conti!xl: E.mx.r.s 0 11 its Text. HiJt,r.r and Trmumi.n·irm (lcidcn: Brill. 1995). pp. .37-46 (42- 3]). with which I sddom din·cr. 3 l,<~ra lkls bclwttn DM. 9 and 10 form the nnalycica1 s.t~.rling point for Nicdcrwimmcr (Didad/t'. p. 139). Drnper (' Ritual Process'. pp. 129- 30). Sandt and Flusscr (Diducffl•. pp. 298- 301 • and ~·cl il:.wec (DitladJe. pp. 355-6). 4 Gogud. L ·E•rchadstii!. pp. l.H. 241- 2. 5 Suggested uln:ady by William 0 . E. Oc-1.tcrlcy. 71te Je1t'idt Bilt'kgrounrl of lite Chri.slkm Liturgy lO:-:ford: Clattndon. 1925). pp. 198-9. for whom Did. 9 was for ' t he Eucharist only' !llld 10 \'r.IS for a Eucharist !hat followed a meal. C(. John W. Riggs. ·From Gracious Table to Sacramental Ek mc:nLs: The T r.tdilion-History of Oidachc 9 and 10·. Se
Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

61

Howe.ver, Alan G arrow has re<:ently pro posed a new and interesting variation o n the dual-li turgy theory. For Garrow, in both 9 and 10 ·a full meal is fo llowed by a tra nsitional prayer leading into a eucharist of spiritual food and drink. o r cup and fragment. In bot h cases there is a prohibition wit h respect to the members of the comrnunily who may or may not take part in the fOllowing event.~ For Garrow. the. prayers in Didadte 10 arose on the model o f those in 9; later still, the two were put next to one a nother in a sing,le document without (of course-} a ny expectation of confusing la ter readers.& Garrow's interpreta tion requires two impo rtant conclusions. which he defends: the 'fragment' (I) bread. This indeed is the procedure followed by Jesus. according to the Last Supper tradition ( I Cor. 11.24: Mk 14.22) and the leeding sto ries in the Gospels (Mk 6.41, 8.6: Lk. 24.30). However. the supper tr.tdition may well have inOuenced the synoptic (i.e. Mark's) form of the feeding sto ries." [n that case, the sequence rna)' not h:lve been as universal a s the gospel evidence mi[lht suggest. Indeed, the Babylonian Talmud, as Garrow himself notes. offers evidence-for a d ispute amo ng third-century Amoraim about the appropriateness of offering the benediction over bread tha t is a lready broken (b. Ber. 39a- b): put simply. blessing whole bread was pre(frrec.J.9 It is quite possible that, even if the o rder of blessing then breaking was customary a t an early date in rabbinic d rcles. o ur community was not informed about o r entirely in agreement with the rulings of rabbis li ving elsewhere. Thus, ~ln ancient sequence. of breaking then blessing in a Jewish community c-annot be ru led out. 10 However, a more. fundamenta l doubt besets Garrow's as.."umptions reg~m.l ing. Didad1e 9: ·fragment' (KAiloJJa) may not have been the original 6 Gt11Tow. MctUllt!l\<'> Depitlltlenc(!. p. 27. 7 Garrow. Mclll!lel f 's Dt•J!i!lldma. pp. 19- 1 1. 25. 8 So too J od M fii\.'US. Mark /-8 (AB. 21: New York: Ooublotd:ty. 1(100). pp. 409--10. 420. 488. 496. cr. Jn 6.11. which lacks the act or "breaking'. 9 l,ointcd out b)' Gedaliah Alon. "The Halacha in the Teaching of the Twcke Apostles·. in Jonathan A. Draper (cd.). Atali:1 lkn·Mcir (tmns.). n,e Didod~,. i11 MoJem ReJectrdt ( Leiden: Brill. 1996). pp. 165- 94 (186 and n. 69). R:t\' differs from two other sages in pronouncing !hat th~ order should lx· bkssing tlum breaking. as two distinct nets: Hi)Y-1 bar Ashi thought bread could be broken to s0;1k in a pol prior to the blessing. while Hiyya (the Elden wtmtcd the breaking to coincide: with the conclusion oft he blessing. I ntc:tes.!ingly. too. bread is brok~n beforf' the: blessing in the m-odern Passover haggadah. :~ hhough cmotlter bread is broken aftcr the ble~ing (and eaten first). 10 c r. Mibvt."C. Ditlad1e. pp. 371- 2. although the rvidcncc he prrscnts concerns the cupbread sequence rnther than the status of kllllllh1.

62

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

re-a ding a t this point in the DidtU'he's texl. As Garrow a lso no tes. ' bread ' (&pTOC:.) is frequently viewed as the earlier reading. 11 In any case. 'fro.tgment' inste~td of ·rragments" o r the collective 'bn!alf rem~tins a puz:d e. 12 Finally, Garrow's reading puts the cup in an unusual position: the a11er-dinner cup, which customarily <~oncluded ancient meals. now precedes a post-mea l ·fragment'. Such considenHio ns throw into doubt any finn conclusion that a me.al must have preceded the prayers of Didt1c/w 9. Witho ut a me-al before Didad te 9. however> we are. left with prayers that appear to precede-a meal and pr.tyers that dearly fo llow one (Did. 10): and in t hat case it remains more likely tha t these prayers surround one and the same meal - ~~t least for the-a ulhor of Didarlle 9.110.7. 13 Even so. the ide-a of paralle! Jiturgie.s remains a possible a ltemati\'e n..-construction. and the analysis that follows could be adapted, \Vithout fundamenta l difficulties. to Garrow's proposal. 14 In addition to the para11e1 introductions to the pr~tyers in Didathe 9 and 10, then. the author of the rubrics a ppears to have conceived of the prayers in cha pter 9 as furt her subdivided : 9.2 F irsl. fort h~: c up: 9.2 np-C>tov mpi TOO

troTT)piov·

? .3 T he-n. for the fra_gmcnl: ? .3 mpiOE Toli KAO:a iJaToc;'

Taken together, t hese rubrics (9. 1. 9.2, 9.3 and 10.1) Su!!l,>est a threefold d ivision o f ritual prayer a t a meal: two pa rts before t he meaL and one a lle r it. But this impre$Sion must be tested against the structure o f the prayers themse-lves. Two sep;-m lte consider~ttions yield slightly dille rent resu1ts.

II Com·t. ap. 7. 1~ eitha removes the n-fl· rcnre 10 the .:Ma~o: in the pmya of 9.4 and ;Jddsaprot; later in !hat pr.tycr. or (with Nicdcrwim mer. 'Tcxtproblcmc'. pp. 124-5: Did((dti'. p. 150) pr<:stt\'1:$ an earlier form of the te);t blf on· .:::\CtO!Ja was introduced. Cf. VOObus. Liturgic'~·~~ TuulitiQJIS. pp. S9. 146-8. Against H also stand the saemmcntary ascribed to Scwapifm. P. Dir Bali:ell. and Ps .-Ath ~ nasi us Di! Tirg. 13 (all dis~-usscd in Ch. R below). all of which read ' this brc-.ad' in the.ir ''crsions of t his pmycr (Nicderwimrner. ' Tcxlprobkmc·. p. 124). 12 As Nicderwimml' r notes ('Tcxl ~nohlemc· . p. 124). 111<: problem of the uwkw:ml •fragmcnf would n:main if anyone observed these guidelines u ft~·r the chan&'t' was introduced. Perhaps ·frugmenr came to stand for · br~d·. as n!> docs. according to A. Ehrmnn in B((hylm•i(ln mul Jemsa!rm Tlllmud(cd. A. Zvi Ehmmn: Td Aviv: Pdi Printing Works. 1974). Tra<:tatc lkrakholh. Fus..::. 49. p. 7Sl. 13 See t$p. Voobus. Uwrgiml Tuulitic>ll.f. p. 101: nnd Sandt and f1usscr. Did!ucl•e. p. 30 I. Rouwhorst shows th111 pruy~rs befo~ and after the mc-a1 1lt a Jewish context \'Ct)' wdl t''Brcad !llld Cup·. pp. 13-16). 14 G11rrow·s ~1ssumpti on thut the Eochmi st proper will jtJIIow the pntyc.rs found here is the one irrcconcibblc point: Sl'l." furthl·r below ('The Conduding Eschatologi.cal Exclamations').

63

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

The first co mpletely confirms the impression of a threefo ld division. No te the unmistakable parallels in the following t hree prayers: 9.2 First for the c.up:

9.3 Then for th e fragm ent:

IVe thank ytm.

We tlumk yrm.

10.1 Then. uflcr you are full. gi\'c tha nks like this: 10.2 We tlumk )'Ott. holy Fi1the•·. /or your holy name. whit:-h you mudc: to d well in o ur hearts. and for the knowlcdbte and fai th nnd immortality, which you made

o ur Ft,lhl'r,

o ur Ft~lher.

for the holy vine o f D:tvid your servant.

fo,· the lire

u·/Jidt you made kuoll'n to us thnmgh Je:m.t

•rhidt you mude kumm to us rhwugh hsu.t

your .\'i'tT tml

ymfr

To yrm be 1/Je glory to the ttgr.t.

To ymt he the glt1ry lo the ''ges.

ytmr serram. Tu you he 1/Je glm:r to tlrt- (lgi's.

TOU TrOtT)plO'I.r

mpl & TOO KAcloiJ.«To; ·

to.t Mna o< tOhmAno6ijvo.t

EUxaP'f'T'?.Upiv oo1,

EV;
10;2 EU4aptoroU,.,iv oot,

rrarrp T)J.Ic.lV,

rranp T)IJCJV,

rranp ayu-~ ump t ou o:ytou

-npi)rov. mpi

9.2

and knowledge.

kiiOWJJ /(J US

1hrrmgh Jf':m.
St'fl'llll/

9.3

cUT<~ f

'

..

•

uiTjp Tif ~"*

•

urup Trf; ay1ac; (qJJriAov 6auiO TOO natOO; oou,

Kat

yvc.lO' ~·

,uxap•orl)oan·

f

'

,..

.

'

.·

•

•

0\qJO.To:; OOU, >

'

00 KaTtOKT)\I(.l(IO:t;_

Ev talc; KapOlcuc; ~1.1C>v, '

f

'

...

Ka_t U1Jfp Tf¥; ~

'

I

f

A

~

'

I

f

A

qq syvc.Jplaa:r; IJPIV

1'f; tyv<>piOa<; ~PI V

roG rrm&X oou.

ToG

o•a JI)Ooo

ooi . h~a ' ." n~

roo;

atG)Va~;.

Kat

mon~

KO:J

08avaoiac; ,

~

•

,

f

o•a'ii'JOOG

w;

fir;

T~ atc:.wa~;·.

"

rr; tyVG:Jploac; qp1v

OICt 'ii)OOV rrm&l.; oou.

ooi . h~a ' ."

•

yvc.xJ~c.l',

roli rrm&Jt; oou.

.

ooi qo~a ' ... TOUf;

atc:.:~vat;.

The parallels are-most st riking: at the opening and closing o f e~-tch prayer. This is no
Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

64

We give thanks to you. Father_. fo r _ _. which yo u made known to us th rough Je-s us your servant. To you be the glory to the ages.

~UxaptoroV~iv oot, nOnp __, ump _ _ .;.,, 1J<;

,,...

ryuptoa~ ~~tu

o.alrlooV TOO natOO;

0 00.

ool ~ O~a de; roUe; aic:lvaf;.

This highly fo rma l struct ure, repeated three times. indicates that we a re ultimately dealing \\~th three ' tha nksgiving' or ttudwriste6-prayers, one fo r the cup (9.2). o ne for the bre-•d (9.3) and o ne after the meal ( 10.2). 15 ·n1ere exist. howeve.r~ three. ;idditional prayer units in Didar!Je 9- I 0, one after the bread prayer (i.e. 9.4). a nd two after the post-meal prayer (i.e. 10.3-5). 16 Here e nters the-second formal consideration rererred to above: the doxology that concludes each prayer. T hese va<;. 9.3 ooi ~a ~ic; taU<; a'tC>va<;.

h h

9 .4 Ott oOO ionv

OVva~u;

h~a Kal ~

o.a'IJ)OoV XptotoV fie; T~ aiC>va<;.

10.2 T o you be the g,lo ry to the ages. 10.4 1'o you be the glo ry to the ages. 10.5 8ocause yours is the power and

the glory to the n:;.cs.

h~a Eic; toVc,. a'tC>va<;. l~._:t ooU l:;k) 'h~a ~ic; toUc; a t'*lvcu;. 10.5 On ooU ionv hOVvaj.Jtc; Ka i h 10.2 ooi

~a , ,

u <;

Touc; -atc.:nmc;.

The forst two doxolo~.ies in chapter 9 match those in c hapter I 0. (Only three of these. four are accounte-d for by lhe t•udwrisreo pr.lyer-IOrm j ust 15 Hornack (Ldm~. I. p. 58) and Schaff alrcndy noted the: prescn<:c of 'thm: prny<:rs of thanksgiving' (OideJt Clmrcll M li1 Modmt Re.wmr
65

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

discussed.) T he third d oxologies in t he two sets a re so a like that their simiktrities cannot be a<.x:idental. f\,1o reover, in Didache 8.2. a l the dose. o f the Lord's Praver, we read · Because yours is t he power and the e lorv ~· ~~ ~ to the ages' (o Tt oou fOTIV ~ OOVO~tc; KCO ~ oo~a Etc; Tov<; a tc.:wac;). an exact match to the third doxology o f Didadw 10 1 7 ·n , is .-·idence. s uggests that the doxology o f 9.4 has bee.n corrupted in the process of textual Lr.tnsmis.sion, 111 and this impression is conllrmed by three fun her clues. First, in the rewritten version of this praye r in the Aposwlii· Constitutions (7.25~; see Chapter 9 below). only one doxology a ppe-a rs (it is ;H t his hx:ation), and il demonstr.ttes the same d iscomfo rt with the fo rmulation o f Didacile 10.5: ·(or tilrougil ilim to you a lso be glo ry to the ages. Amen' (at' atirouyap ool Kai o~a ,;~ Tou~ a ic:>vac; . A~~v). Like bo th the Je rusalem ma nuscript (H) and t he Apuswlic Con.uitutions 1, la ter litur~ical doxo logies routinely ascribe glo ry to God through Jesuj·. 1'<> Seco nd, this is the o nly O<..'Currence of t he phrase' Jesus Christ' in the e ntire Didadu~. Thus, a la te r copyist may well ha ve inserted the phr.tse 'through Jesus Christ' either fro m habit o r to 'correct" the fo rmulation of Dida£'he 9.4. Fina lly. the t hird doxology in chapter 10 is precisely twice as long ~is the first two: <'

o

I

'

''

'

!

'

.,.,

10.2 oot qoO~a Ei<; To0c; aic:lvac;. = 9 sylla blc.s. accented: \ -1- · \ · i\ · 10.4 ool ~ oO~a ~i~ To0c; aicJvac;. = 9 syllubk·s. a ccented: 1 -1- · \ - .~. -

10.5 On

ooU 'OTIV qoUvcquc;

= 9 syllables. accented:~"

1- 11 ---/-Kai

h~a Eic; t oUc;: aiWvac;.

= ? syllables, acce-nted:

I -/-- '. · A-

This rhythmic do ubling marks the third as. the d imactic doxology, t~onfim1i ng a rwofold structure for the six pra yer units in Didat he 9- 10. The rhythms a nd ac("e ntualion are so precise. that they s uggest chanting or 17 The doxological form found in Ditl. 8.2 and 10.5 also fotlows the p ray~'f of Did. 9.3-4 preserved \With minor adjustments) in Ps. Athanasius D.~ virg. 13 (Sl"C Ch. S below). On thi. pp. 136- 8. 18 Cf. Audet La Diducll~. p. 234: \Vcngst. Didad:l'. p. SO: und VOObus. Lilurgiral Tuulitiom·. p. 101 n. SS (who lind 'through Jesus Christ' an interpol1tion): but Nicdetwimmcr. Dillaclle. p. 151 (who opts to retain this phrase). 19 The usage is not onlr ·routine' but c\-cnlu<•llr c\'CO •mandatory·: ·no pm)-cr should lx· offered to the Father except through (Jesus Christ)' (Origcn Or. 15.2: trnns. Stewnrt·S)'kcs). I consider some c:tumplcs of this usage in Ch. 7 bdow. 20 The pitch of the accents (prob:..b1y t~lso rdlceting stress in our period) de.ftvmds at the end of each line cxn-pt this third. where a rise in pitch suggests incompletion. The accents in the third line lur.gely align with the others. The whole responSIC is constructed in such a way !hal the sc:cond half of 10.5 c:o:ncdy matches the shorter doxology"s meter. 4

66

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

singing,. T he d oxology of9.4. however, des troys this rhythmic d imension,

even if we remove the phr.Jse 't hrough Jesus Christ' (6tCx 'lrwoU Xpto ToU). For these reasons, I actept \Vengst•s e mendation of 9.4, which removes the phrase ' through Jesus Christ', but I further s uggest that the order of 'glory' lheu 'power (~ o~a Ka·, ~ ouva~1~) foun d o nly in 9.4 (not 10.5 o r 8.2) is also the result o f texlUa l corruption.:21 lndeed. a fo urt h reason fo r t his emendation <:ould a lso be adv;mced: these well-patterned doxo logies have long sugg.ested to c ritics that we-a re de.a1ing here with a ron.(:regmional o r 'antiphonal' response.21 li this is correc.t, it would be rather e.onfusing to req uire two d istinct climactic responses. and s till more so ir the re-s ponse- w~is a chant. However. the s uggestion lhat we a re dealing with a Congregational response requires attention to still more structural elemenlS fou nd in these prayers. f irst, fo r lhese d oxologies to function ;-ts congregational responses, there mus t exist s ufficie nt cues in the preced ing prayers to indicate when and where the congres-.ttion is expected to join in. Prayers perfonned in a predomina ntly ~raJ setting (i.e. witho ut prinled materials) lean heavily upo n such cues.-3 A later example may help clarify how this would. work. In a litany in the- Li1urgy of St James, lhe <:ong,regat ion gives responses such as ' Lo rd. be merc iful' and (perhaps) ' Let us beseech the Lord ' and ' We beseech Thee. hea r us'. T hus:

11 Subsequent citations of Did. 9.4 will reflect this l'mc:ndation. The l'ntcndation is not critical to the: analysis that follows. but is plnusiblc in my view. One must remember that we possess only tJIII! m ~lnusoript for Did. 9. 2.2 Dibc:lius ('Mahi+Gdx:tc·. pp. 119. 121 ··2) wascvidcntly the fi rst to suggest this. on the basis of 1he doxology's kick of connection to the: prrttdin,g rcquc:sts. Nied<:rwimrnc:r follows him hl~tc (Did(lrllf·. pp. 145. 148. 149. etc.): <:f. John Clubcaux. 'The Eucha ristic Pmycrs from Didt~rl!e 9 and 10·, in Mark Kil<:y (cd.). Prayer fmm Ale.wtnde,· to C
Or. 33).

67

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal After the reading a nd instructjon the Ot·.ucon says: Le t us all say. 'Lord,

be merx:.iful. · Lord Almighty. the God of our fa the rs; We beseech T hee. hear us. For the 1-,e.;lcc which is from above. and for the salvation of o ur

so u l s~

Let us lx:.st.'CCh the Lord .

For the pcat.-c of the whole wor ld. a nd the unity o f all the h<.dy churches o f God: Le-t us lx:-sc.,•och the Lo rd . For the salvution u nd hc.lp o f nil the Christ loving people: We beseech T hee. hear us. For o ur ddivenuH:!C from all tribulation. wrath. d ttnbtef. distress. from captivity. biller death. a nd from o ur iniquities: We beseech T hee. hear us. (X II: ANF 7.539) 4

In this example, Lhe congregationa l response appears to be given in advance ('Lord. be merciful'), a response. subsequently evoked b}' two key phrase.<: ' Let us beseech the l o rd' a nd 'We be.seech Thee. hear us'. However. t his reconstruction is not certain.24 \Vhat is cle.a r is t hat a simple d ialogue is set up here. on t he basis of simple oral cues. The- Liwrgy of St !1'/ark , in Geoffrey J. Cuming's edition. records congreg,a tional responses suc-h as 'Lo rd have mercy', ' Amen·. 'And with your spirit'. ' Look upon and heal, Lord', 'G lory to the Empire·~ 'Re."il their souls . ' May it be. may it be'. ' Both them and all. Loose, forgive', ' Bread of life'. ' Look upon (it)', a nd 'As it was and is'-" This surprising ra nge of co ngregational inpul is c ued in a \•;uiely o f ways. The-te.xl shows a tendency to a bbreviate responses. moreover. which tits the Jitur~y's o rality well: il assumes lhat the re-ader already knows lhe responses from the o ral register. These examples, no ne. nea rly as ancient as the Diffaclw, simply illustrate tha t cong.regat iona l responses are possible in oral pntyer fo m1S. gi\'en sullic.ienl verbal cue~" from the. person leading the prayer. Response-S are, moreove.r , na tive-to Jewish prayer conventions. 26 Thus Dibelius is correct 24 Instead. perhaps ' let us lx:scoch the Lord" nnd ·w e bCS<'Ccb Thoc, h~-ar us' mny be the congregat ional responses, in which ~~St' bolh !lrt' eucd by lhe word •for· in the preceding phrase-. The oongrt'gtllion should haw had no diO:icuhy following such cues. 25 Sec Geoffrey J. Cuming. The Limrgy q{ S1 . .\lark (Rome: Pont ificium Jnslitulum Sludiorum Oricntalium. 1990). pp. 4-60 (my translations). 26 J os~-ph Heinemann would u·aec Chrislian rcsponsoriaJ prayer 10 Jewish nntco:cdents (Pra,rPJ" in li•e 7(tfmml: Forms ami P
68

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

to consider t heir possible presence in t he Didathe's prayers. T he- two related doxologi<'"l responses which Dibelius postulated for the Didal'he's prayers would nol require nearly as many verba l cues as the Liwrgy of St Mark~ but they would nevertheless require somt~ s uch cues if they were to funclion in this way. In l1icL such cues exist. The most fo rmal prayers> alre.;-tdy noted a bove, carry the most Ob\•iOtL"i cue: in each case-1 the doxology is immt~diate/)J pret(!dcd by the same phrase: 'which you made know to us through Jesus your servant' ('r]t; ~yvWptoa~ h~i'v OtCx 'J11ooU ToG rra u50:; oou). The second ha lf of t his phrdse. ' through Jesus your servant· (6ul'frJooU Toil rratOOc; oou). is found in only o ne other plate in Didache 9- JO, namely, in 10.3. s ho rt ly befo re the doxology o f 10.4. In o ther words. sho rt ly befo re <'ttdcof the four shorter doxologies, Lhe text <:ondudes a prayer unit with t he words 'through Jesus your servant'. ·n1e best expla nation fo r the precise location ~~nd wording of this penultimate phrase- is tha t it evokes the congregational response of the s ho rter doxology. The two prayers tha t precede t he longer doxologies (i.e. the third and s ixth prayers. the last in e~ith hair of the ritual) also re-veal s triking verbal c ues, in eath case nt~ar !he eud: 9.4 Just as this fragme nt was scattered upon the hills a nd. gathe red. lx:<:amc one, so le-t .nmr a.uemb£v be galherl!d fmm tlte corners or the e:arth

into your ki11gdom.

105 Remember. Lo rd. )'Qt/J' tu:wmhly, to rescue her from all c...-il. a nd to complete he r in your lm··c, a nd to gtHhcr he r jj·om the four wind s. )a rtcr she is mude holy} ifll(~

your kiugdQm.

which you prepared for her.

Because yours 1)· tlw J'f~Wer ami tire glory ltJ tlw (lgi's.

Be('ftu.w• your.\· i.'j the power mul 1/te g/Qry tu 1/Je ages.

to.> Mvno6~n. ""P"· r&; ilxJ.CJOia~ aou, OtroKopntOJJivov ~rrO:v'*l T&iv Opi'*lv ToG. PVoaa6at a1hhv... Ka't auvax&v iyivno ;v, a no navrcx; TTOVJlPOV Kal n.\u&.aat aUT~v iv Tfl &y.inn

.

.

00\J,

178.). Sc~· also Stcfnn C. Re:if. Jmlalml tutd Ncbn!lr Prayer: /lh~· ~ Pt>rsp~~rtir~.s 011 Jewis.h Liwrgiml Nistmy (Cnmbridgc: Cambridge University Press. 1993). p. 114; and Milan-c (Ditladw. p. 334). whose solution. not adopted bert. is that the prayer lender lirst spoke the doxology. ~tnd the community echoed it. This is poSiiblc. but the solution proposed here has {I bdi~"Vt') stronger evidence.

69

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal ~T~ ~vaxeqrGJ oOI! ;, i~KAI]Ofa a rro

TG.>V mpaT<:.lV TI}';

y l};

Ka'i aUva~ov aVrhv a rro TG.>V nooapwv aVI:IJColV, '

t

....

•

•

QYlaofuloav,f ' ri.;· riw aT,v {3aotArfav, " ' ... )Tf}V

tit;

ri]v ahv paa1Ariav.

..

~v fl TO~~~oac; ~UlJI . . , , OTJ OO#J fOTI V I} 6uva p1r; KCll I} ~a

Ort . ooG' fo nv ... haUva,.u<; Kai ;, ~a ; ir; rolK;- aliiva<;.::11 w; rotA; au.•wa.;.

Despite their dil1e re nt..,S. ooth pr•yers (I) invoke t he gathering of God's t•kk/iisia (2) from the corners of the earth/ the four winds. and (3) tmrclude wit h the phrase ' into your kingdom' (exact match). Nowhere else in the Didac/w's prayers tloe.s this last phrase occur. T hus. o nce again, this verbatim repetition, coupled with the substantial overlap between the two prayers in question, is best explained as evoking the fuller doxolog,ical re.sponse.19 ·n le- ;-tddition of the clause 'whkh you prepared fo r her' (~v r\Toi~aoac; a>iTfi) to modify 'kingdom· (i3ao>A, i av: 10.5) does not disrupt this evocation of the response- - iL is q uite brief a nd only expands the keyword ' kingdom•. l\•1ore d iffk uh \'erbal cues were followed by congre.i!,;-ttions who p rayed the Liwrgp ofSi .~lark. Mo reover, the word 'because· ~Tt) may well have functioned as a furlher cue. for t he congreg.Hiona l response.30 T he grea test d ifllcully fo r t his interpreta tion o r the Didatlrc's prayers a ppears in a sentence a t Didtu:l1e 10.4. He re, between the phrase ' through Jesus your sen*tml' and t he (sho rter) doxology. a ppears the- senten~: ·Concerning all thin~ we thank you. because you are powerful' (nEpl.) 1 rrO:vn.;)V EUxa ptoTolipEv oot, Cm 6uva10c; Ei {aU]). T his sentence is usually considered compara ble- to the Jewish concluding beraktih iomlllla (the

27 The Coptic lae:k.s 1his phrase: Nic:derwinuncr n:gards it as a •liturgical gloss' ('Tc:xlprobkmc'. p. 119). 28 With Wc:ngst (Dit/ud;e. pp. 78-Sl). Nicdc:rwimmcr {Dit/arht•. pp. 159 n. 42. 16 1 n. 71). Draper (•Ritual Pro...~ss· . p. 129 n. 10). nnd others. I view 1hc: 'Amen' found here (nnd d sewherc in Did. 10) in the Coptic fragment t~s a lnter dt\'c:IOJ>mcnt. But it dOC's confim1 the basic thesis of ritmd dialogue. pcrh:1ps t:volving: toward u simpler congregational response:. 29 Mibvoc: notes that 'the thanksgiving strophe' (prayl'n' I, 2. 4. and 5-) •alwayscndcd' with the: sho11cr 'n'fmin' and the ' petitionary pntyc:rs' (including the:- lord's Prnycr) •always ~·nded ' with the longer •rcfrnin' ( Didttd:e. p. 355). My analysis nbove suggests refinements for this \'icw. JO Cf. !he- prc'. p. 314.

70

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

t hatimah).32 The-dwtimoth, however, which are linguisLically d istinct from Didt1c/w 10.4a in av;-tilable. rabbinic texts, perform the same function fo r r.tbbinic be-ned ictions that the cJause ' thro ugh Jesus your servant' performs in the Didarlw's prayers: they signal the close of the prayer, evoking (in the rabbinic case) the-response 'Amen' .33 A duuimah would there fo re be extraneous, even distracting~ here. Mo reover. this .sentenl'e is odd for a number of reasons. First, it trans£,reS.Ses the idiom of the tmdwrisle6-prayer elsewhere in the Didadu:. In all o ther cases. 'we thank you' (ruxaptoToopiv oot) is followed by the somewha t archaic preposition ·for" (U rrip). T his time. however. it is pr(:t:eded by the more co~tem~rary preposition 'concerning' (rr£pl) and followed by 'be<:ause• (oTI) ..)4 l11e-se seemin.gly small variations a re Signilkant: in the fixed expre~~SiOnS of the cutlwristeO-prayer. one aiW~iyS thanks God for specific benefits shared by the community and 'made known through Jesus. The sente nce o f J0.4. however. thanks God for (or wit h respect to) 'all things', a nd uniquely o ilers a r.uionale: 'because you are powerful'. Also, this sentent.e is exceplionally brief; all other sente ntes in these pr.tyers link numerous subordina te clauses togethe.r in a way that is characteristic (more on this below). Fin~tlly, this sente nce lacks ~iny d irect address to the deit)'~ while all other prayers in the Didadw have this element (s~we 9.4. which utilizes a passive construction}. For these

32 See t'iedcrwimrncr. DilfTI (Of both). unless p~"1haps in !IU tll'('hai7ing gesture. Cf. Paul's USab~· discussed in Ch. 4 below.

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

71

reasons. I am st'eptk·.al t hat this brief sente nce constitutes a n organic part o r this praye.r. But I am reluctant to relegate it to mere scribal activlly. as tho ugh communities always pray in perfect forms; ~1nd as a scriba l addition, it would have to have been inse.r ted fttirly early. prior to the Coptic t ranslation . At the least, we may concJude- that the phrdse sits awkwardly in this text. and assert tha t its presence in the textual trad ition is insufficient to overturn the substan tial evidence. in Difladre 9- 10 tha t the-se doxolog.ies formed the response. of the gathered assem bly to the prayer-le-a der"s prayers, cued by the preceding fo rmulae (here. 'through Jesus your servanl').35 In s um. the rubrics of 9.1 a nd 10.1. which s uggest a basic two-pa rl s tructure lOr Didadw 9- 10. stand in agreement with the. parallel doxologie-S: together these two clues demonstr.He t hat three prt~·ers were to be spoke n before the meal. and three prayers a fter the meal.3 On the other ha nd. a further rubric in 9.3, which indicates an overriding threefo ld d ivision, nicely coincides with the highly fo rm ulaic prayer s trucwre of the t hree ' leading' prayers of 9.2. 9.3 a nd 10.2. Now a no the-r observation can be added, which will complete this s trut.tura l a nalysis: the llrst eudwriste6·pr.tyer (9.2} co nsists of a single unil, devoted to the cup; the second (9.3), however, introdu(-es an additiona l prayer unit (9.4), and bo th are centred o n the 'fragment': the third ( 10.2). in turn, int roduces 11ro additional prayer units. What is the topic or this third . climactic set o f prayers·~ Its fir-st unit give-s thanks for the name tha t reside-s in 'our' hearts (amo ng other things: I0.2). its second reports that members o f the community (in <:ont.rast to o ther mo rtals) have been gra nted 'spirit ua l food and drink' (10.3),37 a nd its third invokes God's a ltention to the preservation, deliverance. perfection and gathering o f the community into the kingdom (10.5). When one remembers tha t the climac.t ic prayer in bo th sets or three concerns t his same •gathering into the kingdom', the infe rence- is clear: the climactic. threefold prayer of Didadw 10 fi rst a nd foremost concerns !he- gathered community itself,

35 Lictzmnnn lhougbt it was misplaced f Mt~ss, p. 192)~ Nicdcrwimmer (Did!lr!w. p. 159). Sundt tuld Flusscr (Ditlutlle. p. 315). and Dibdius ('Mahi·Gcbcte'. pp. 124--5) all wresllc with 1he scntence·s Jack of ory 1nic relationship to its l'Ontcxt. From this point on. I will bracket 10.4a when this portion of the text is <:ited. 36 Cf. Milavcx. Dirk1c!Je. p. 355. 37 Dmpcr f Ritual Pro.xss·. pp. 140-41) and Miln\-cc (Did!lrlu!. p. 355) identify this prnrcr as a 'thnnk!ig-iving·. The fon·going analysis demonstral«:$ !he components needed for such a pn:~ycr: this pn:~yer. instead. is of the common type ffou nd in the psuJms nnd co-mmon in li!Urgic:tl pmy~rs) that simply ·reports' God's docds. Only in <1 loose sense (best avoided here) can this be- called n 'thnnksgiving'. Cf. M:t:o:u.. Origins. p. .)S.

72

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

particularly its ac.:.ute eschatological hopes. 38 This <.~once.n1 is structurally ce-nlr.tl to the-se prayers. Thus. the Didache~s meal ritual has three d istinct phase,s. e~1ch marked by a form~ll eudwriste6-prayer. and e.a ch phase represents increased emphasis and therefore communal impo rtance. Bre-.td is emphasized more than the cup;39 the eschatolo~jcal ga thering of the community, however. is the to pic of gre-a test <:om:ern ..t0

The Ctmdudin.rt £\·dwwlogiml Exdanulfitms Hans Liet.zrnann made- two pivotal claims concerning the material in Didadw 10.6, which by all accounts falls outside o f the meal prayers proper. One was that this materia l constitutes ~i bit o f rih ml dialogue., thus: Leader: Lt:l gmce come, and let this world pass away. People: Ho.mmm to lhc: God 41 of David. Leader: If anyone: is holy, let him come. If unyone is noL k l him rcpcnl. People: Mt~rci!Uiflw. Amen.

lhe plausibility of this claim is readily app<.-trent, and many have followed 42 Lietzmann on this point. In each case, the leade-r offers an antithetical JS C f. Mila,·cc. Didache. p. 396: the pmyers a re ' decidedly communitarian': and Clabc:aux. ' Eucharistic Pr.lyers·. p. 261: ' the community.. . is constantly in vit.'\v'. Some modilicut ions to this ·communitarian· reading. howc,·c-r. will be suggested inCh. 6 below. 39 C f. VOObus.. Limrgirctl Trndititms. pp. 95. 100: and McGowan. 'Inordinate Cup'. p. 290: tmJtra Dmpc-r. ' Ri!Ual Proe<ss·. p. 148. 40 If on< holds that Did. 9 and 10 represent parnlld liturgics. rome adjustments to this a nalysis arc suggested. First. one will be dealing with two options.: either two formal t'llthari.\'IC'Q-praycrs. followed by a single. climactic petition to ·gathe--r into th< kingdom· (Ditl. 9): or a single. fonmd t'ltdwriJteO-prayer. followed by tl more free-floating ·report· prayer. nod concluded by a climactic petition to ·guther into the kingdom· (Ditl. 10). Thoe: progression from one to two to three prayer units per phusc of the 1nca1 would no longer hold. These udjustment.s. aside. the repetition of key phrases - thus t hoe: prcscnoc of ritual dialogue in our text - still would hold: mor. p. 46: ~icd crwi mmcr. Didaclw. pp. 161- 1: Rordorfand Tuilier. La Doctrint•. p. 182 n. 1: but Klinghnrdt. Gemi!iturlwft.,·mahl wul M(liJ/geJ11t!ilu·dwji. pp. 390-9 1. 47S. On< sJ10uld note thnt lictzmnnn ascribes Mtmmatlw to t he loe:ader. which is of course possibk (Mass. p. 193): but with Dibdius I 1\'gm-d it .:1s p:art of the oongreg
Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

73

par.lllel. which delineates the incompatible fa tes of 'gnlte'{the ' holy o ne.<' o n the one ha nd, and 'this world'fthose who are no t ' holy' o n the other ha nd. To this> the congregation responds accordingly: in the fi rst case, with a celebra tory · Hosli!lna· a ntic.ipating the coming 'grace': in the second. with a 'Mllrtuuiilw': which can be interp reted. o n ana logy with 1 Corinthians 16.22, as a so lemn injunction against the unrepent~mt. 0 Lietzmann's second proposal regarding 10.6 has fo und almost no s upporters. Since I0.6 appe.;us to constitute a n invitation to a ritual, while 9.1- 10.5 appea rs to address what should be done m that ritual, Lietzmann tho ught 10.6 had been misplaced through some scribal error. He p roposed tha t its pro pe.r location was between t he pr.tyers o f cha pter 9 and the meal assumed by 10.1. In thai case. only the ' ho ly' could participa te in the meal (as 9.5 also assumes), conl-.eived as a solemn rite. lntertwine.d wilh Lietzmann's proposal was his concerted effort to ma ke sense o f evidence.

lOr an early Christian 'a.rtapt:" meaL distinct (most litur~t;ist.s thought) fro m the purely ' token' meal of the eucharistic. elements. Lie-tzmann thus proposed tha t we have in the Didarlw prayers for a Eucha rist (9) followed by pmyers fo r a n aga pe ( I0).44 In Cha pter 1. I noted the a nachronistic assumptions involved in positing a n ttglipe d istinct from ' the Eucharist' as a way to account fOr the Didac/w's ritual. However, the-lion's sh~ire o f scholarship devoted to the sta tus or Didadte 10.6 assumes precisely this d istinction.'* Thus, assuming with Lietzmann that 10.6constitute.s an invitation to some rit ual, but afler the preceding p rayers had been per(Onned, c ritics have often thought tha t these pret eding prayers were for a n aJ:ap(~ (or ·satisfying') mea l>d istinct fro m tha t additiona l ritual. T he problem. o f course. is tha t the Didarlw is silen t about any s uch further ritua l. lnste.a d, il merely <.~onclude$. ' Pe rmit the prophets lo offe r the thanksgiving as long as they wish' ( I0. 7). T his exhortation (pu:aling in its own right) assume$ tha t everything given to this point constitutes a sufficient guideline Cor a t least the verbal components o f the Euc.harist; nothing further a bout its structure. constituent parts, o r phases need be given . Despite this silence, the ~tssertion tha t 10.6 introduces ' the S-;icr:llnenta l Lord's Supper' - tha t is. the consecr.ttion or bre~td a nd a cu p as the body

43 O m it also <:arry u more cdcbratory sense. ·our lord. come' for perhnps, ' Our Lord

oomc-)'? Or is it. us Fee suggests. 'till early eschatological pmycr' (First CUri11thimu·. pp. 838-91! 44 Lictzmann. Ma.u. pp. ISS-94. Schaff earlier prorxm-d that Did. 10 followed Communion {as a post·Communion pntyer) bul not that 10.6 had bc~':fl tmnsposcd Wlde.w Churd1 M(lmu:l. pJ>. 60-61). 45 See Nicderwi.mmc:r's ovcn·icw of vinunlly nil prc\·ious propos:.)s (Ditloche. pp. 141- 2). htLS

74

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

and blood of Christ - has frequently been advanced 46 T h is assertion ~Htempts to circumvent a central puz:lle of the Didat he's meal ritual: its absolute silence with regard to Jesus' death, and its notorious lack of body and blood imagery - the tentn1l imagery of the Last Supper tradition. However. one cannot resolve. a historical puzzle by filli ng a textual gap. 47 Appeals to a disdplinaan·tmi are unconvincing here. One-canno t simply assumt: universal familiarity with (and adherence to) the last supper tradition. ~n1e Didadte's silence- abo ut any ' fu rther rit ual' must be respected. T wo additional explanations of 10.6 also ultimately fail to convince. however. One is the proposal that the exhortations ' If anyone is holy. let him come· and so on, are part oC the. rubric directed to the reader of the document. rather than part of the-liturgy.4 " While such rubrics occasionally do appear out o f place in the Didatile, Lietzmann's identification of these sentences as liturgical exclamations is more plausible. not leasl beca use ' Amen· concludes them. The other proposal is t hat 10.6 has been inserted into Didat·ile 9-10 :•t a late-r redactiona l stage> corresponding (o a change in the-p rat.tice of the community. What once were eucha ristic prayers have-now been demoted. :md the (missing) material after 10.6 points lo the current eucharistic practk~ o flhe communi tv (once again the last supper trddition is ::L~.sumed for this •further ritna l')."11t is quite possible. natnrally. that the prayers in Didadw 10.2- 5 were originally form nlated without the concluding exclamations of 10.6. Perhaps an original concluding 'Amen' has he.re been expandt'
46 Quotation from N icd~·rwi mmcr (Dkfaclw. pp. 142- 3). the latest of many to main1ain this position. AudcL after objecting to Lictznmnn·s view. presents t1 vu ri~lnt : a •minor eucharist" (Did. 9-10) transitions into a ·major eucharist' (via 10.6). which will contain the requisite symbolism of Jesus' death and resurrc1."1ion ( Ltr Didodu:. pp. -111- 20. 430-31). Sl-c the rcm:1rks of \V~·ngst (Di;/udle. p. 47). Dmpe.r {' Ritual Process·. pp. 141- 3). and Rouwhorst {"Oidachc 9- 10", pp. 146- 7). ngt1inst this line of interpretation; r.cc too Bntdshaw. St>orcll. pp. 119-21. 47 Jeremias' lnotorious) appcul (e.g. £urluwislir Word~. p. 159). Justin Mllrtyr·s explicit remarks in I Apol. 65- 6 haw always resisted this assumption {Vokes. 'Life: and Order". p. 224: Bradsh:1w. EuchariJiit" Origins. pp. 26-7). See also ~ioderwi mmcr's honest conccsston (Dirlm·ht>. p. 143). 48 So s~uxh and Flusr.cr. Didacht·. p. 301: Bouley. From F~Wdom ltJ Fom11ll
Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

75

scribed these prayers, ra ther than their earliest fo m1Uiation.:so Even so.

j ust as the rubrics correspond to the structure- of the prayers as they

or

evidentl)' were practised, the- exclamations 10.6 resonate- with the preceding prayers: an eschatologic.a l orienta tion (9.4 1 10.5), a n emphasis upo n being 'holy' (10.2. 10.5). and the impo rtance of the llgure ·David' (9.2). Moreover, the structural balance of these exc.:hm1atio ns, noted a bove, suggests a period o f ora l development, of tria l a nd error in perfonnance, n1the-r th;tn ~1 fresh litera ry f~tbricatio n. In other words. these. exdamations most likel)' represent actual ritmll d ialogue familiar to a member of a community, who also used 1/u•se meal prt(J:ers. Ascribing this ritual d ialogue to a time when these pr.tyers were no lo nger used for the mea l ritual t herefore is q uite a rbitrary. It is just possible, as a last resort. that participants a re only now being invited to partake o f the cup a nd bread blessed prior to the mea l (Did. 9).51 but in tha l (~ase. what has been said alre.a dy must be s uflk ient for the interpreta tion of those 'elements·. Even in the full lit urgies o r fourth- and flnh-eentury Christianity little o r no thing is said during the partaking of the elements.j-2 Therefore. if a furthe-r ritual action is indicated by 'let him t~ome'. this act must be understood in tenns of what lies before us in the Didadw, not what lies we-ll outside o f it. However. o ne may still question the-s ta rting point of Lietzmann and many o the-rs: namely, that the phrase ' let him come· constitutes an invitation to ritual participation. 53 Against it stands an importa nt a rchitectura l hindrance: the e.arliest Christians most t·ertainly met in ho uses, and these t·annot be ~i&sumed to have had anything like an a pse a nd altar toward which participants prot-essed. The entire-meeting likel)' too k place in a single room. either a dining room with couches or a n open court. Thus. to what is the community being invited to ·come"?.s:t An alternative explanation has occasiona lly bee.n proposed, which requires a more met;-tphorical meaning for the. verb in q ues tion ('come',
50 As I will argue below. how\:ve-r. the person who nan9:ribc:d these prayers probably conceived of them us a ' modd '. based upon his community's conventions. Therefore an ·original le:tl' (an •earliest formubtion') for the praycrs would be (strictly s peilking) u misoone<:plion. 51 Ht1mad: thinks this reading a s tretch (Li!lwe. II. p. 36). 52 Sec. e.g .• the Liurrg.r q{ St C/eme111. LitW'J.!Y of St M!lrk and Liturgy of St Basil. 53 c r. Dropcr ('Rillla1 Pro.."Css'. p. I·B): 'nbsolutcly no evidence for 1hc existence of any furth-er ritu:al nct here': and M ila\~c·s remarks (Didaclut. p. 401). 54 Rordotf and Tuilicr nlso mise this obj«tion 10 Audet. but posit >l dismi~d of sinners (from prtavoiw!} (l.tr Doctrillt'. p. 41). See too (for this and the following point) Brads haw. £ud1arislic' Origiru. p. J7.

76

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

fi rst part of 10.6: ' l et s race come" ( EAaiTw xapt4)." A related form then appears in the parallel exclamation 'Let this cosmos pass away!' (1) here would be ro ughly e(Juivalent to ' let him enter' (•io•pxi o6w). By cont rast. the trad itiona l reading of 'let him C?m~· (fp~o6Co:J) \~~ould be ~quivalent to 'let him cot~e forwar~' (rrpoo•px•ot!w) - an mterpretatton tha t a ppea rs already m Apostobt Con.w·twitms 1.25- 6. In s upport of 'ente r', it is peninent that the word 'come· (Epxfo€ku) already carries a connotation of 'entering' in the other escha lOlogical excla mations. 59 If this reading. of Ep){io6c.l is COITect, participants in the Didache's meal ritual a re being exho rted to continue in expectation of the coming kingdomj l.ord/grace, rdlher than only now being invited to ritual participation. T he.y have a/retu~r not o nly been no urished with food but also fa voured with 'spiritua l food a nd drink. a nd eternal life' ( 10.3). This they continue to celebrate with the-concluding exclama tions. accompanied by a wa rning to remain in a state o r ho liness: 'Anyone. who is not (holyJ, let him repent!' - befOre the lord (evoked in the congregational response.) S5 In prt~ycrs. the aorist i m p~mli ve scr\'~d for •spocifte petitions· (thus. •kt this cosmos pass nwuy') while the prC$Cnl impc:rati,·c s«Ved for ' petitions for extended (a\'Or or repeated n:sponsc' ( UDF §337[4]). If the present impc:r.ui,·c is viewed as ! I com11umd. as prob:1bly in the case of ·come·. it indicates only th:ll the- action ·h~mgs in the b.!•lance· ( UDF §336). 56 Sometimes rc:ndeml 'Our Lotd hns comd' (so the C.optic ftagment of Did. 10); S« K. G. Kuhn. ·vo:pavo:eo·. TDNT lV. pp. 466-72. But our prayers presuppose a n expectation. rather tha n the nrri,·al. of the Lord. S7 cr. Gogud (L 'E11dutristie. pp. 233-4): •it is here a question of entry into the mcssiani<.· kingdom· {although ·GiJd':; kingdom· would be more accumtc): and Milavec (Did(lcht'. p. 397}: ··•Jf anyone is holy. b.: ~• dmiucd !"" . . . Thos~· who arc holy ate urged to entet into the kingdom that God bas prcpan.-d for those who lo\'e him. Those who arc not ready. meanwhile. nrc urged to usc this final moment to repcn1: He also points ou t ~~ p:aralld sense in MI. 25.)4. Howcw.r . I disagree with Milavcc-' s notion that th<sc phr:l!iCS ate 'spontaneous· (p. 398). S8 So Sandt and f1usser. Didadrt>. p. 302: cf. Audc:1. Lt1 Dirladu!, p. 413; justly criticized by Rouwhorst. · urcad a nd Cup·. p. 146. S9 ' EPX'l!O:I tradition:ally could ha,•e the: .sense of both se~ ting out ( LSJ ·EpxOJ.Jo:t" 1.1) and (after Homer) of nrriving somewhere ( LSJ •ipxOSJ«I' III. U.4}. It was a rdativc.1y a mbiguous ~--crb (but sec BDF ~101). EioipXOIJOI may ha ve implied tamore concn·te place into whic:h the holy ·entl·r'. n11her tha n n kingdom thnt in\'adcs tllis cosmos (thereby bringing holy pcrsons into a new status). Thus. ·gmce· tmd ·our Lord" arc invited to •enter' or •brenk into" the space the current (unholy) cosmos occupies. This sense fot •oome· (impertativc) is found in the lord's Pmycr (Did. S.2): ·Your kingdom comer (but see BAG ·tp~o:·· l.l.a.n).

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

77

t~omes.

T hus, the-' Amen' is in Lruth a concluding afllnnation of the e ntire preceding liturgy."" A complemenLMy notion of the community and its need to pe.rse.vere (to be 'perfected') up to the hour when 'our Lord comes' is found in Didadw I 6. 1- 2. This esthatolo~jcal parallel becomes still stronger if one adopts Alan Ga1Tow's persuasive reconstruction o f the lost ending of Didal'lte 16. Comparing the testimony of the Aposto/i(· Constitutions 7 with St Boniface's De ttbremmtiatitme in baptismate, both of which he a rgues rely (independently) upo n the Didarilc, Garrow is able to reconstruct the likely content, i f not the actual wording. of the. missing materiaJ}' 1 His reconstruction contains l wo expressions of interest to us here: I) T he n Ihe world will sec the Lord coming upon the douds o f h<.·.aven, ami lllllhe frail' mw:s /.mhu.~J •rilh llim (16.1:1)

TO!£ ~no:~ 0 K~~~ TCw .KU; •ov ipx~tyo~ hrclvc.> T&iv ~¢EA~v TOU oupavov, Kar 11avro; 01 ay1o1 JJH aurou

1) 11ut .just 1rill enwr inlo elenwlli/e (16.9) oi 6i 61Katol rropnloovrm ;if; ,t.J;,v aic~vtov

In t he first item above o nly the italicized portion represents Garrow~s reconstruction; the rest is preserved in H. T h is means that the verb ·come· (rpxo~at) here is not open to debate. If Ganow is corr<.>Ct. then, t he ' ho ly ones• a re expected to 'come• wilh the Lord.62 This: is precisely what 10.6 (".~\liS ror: ' If a nyone is ho ly. let him comer T he second item above. reconstructed e ntirely by Garrow, again uses a verb of motion ('go') a nd a characte ristic expression of the prayers ('eternal life"). Thus. in t he d iction o f 10.6: · If anyone is j ust. let him enter into e ternal life!' 63 Whether Didadu~ 16 rellects the exact expectations of the communities wit hin which the prayer forms o f 9-10 initiall)' developed must re main an 60 Already Harnnck (l.ehre. II. p. 36) and Schaff (Oldest Churd1 Mmmal. pp. 61. 197-8) took 10.6 as a ccmcludit~g t>xhorlatkm to joit1 the community. Cf. Gogud. L '£t~cbari~tit>. p. 234: ·could b..- i nterpreted without difficully as chants afler c.ommunion '; WengsL Didachr. p. 47: 10.6 concludes the liturgy: and Draper. ' Rituul Process'. p. 143: 'concludes . . .with n solemn wnrning to mnintain holin1.~ss·. Draper further t:..kes I 0.6 ~•s simply •a m:apitolation and furthe-r devdopmcnt" of the 'vt•ming against the unbaptized (9.5). but lc;1vcs unexpressed how this would function in the enactment of t he rituaL 6 1 Gmrow. Mutlhew$ D.?peJtdt>tlt't'. pp. JS- 66. His fi nn!. rcconsttuClcd text appc
78

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

open question.6 '* But t he exclamations o r 10.6~ which a ppea r to have evolved alongside or soon aner the crystallization t his prayer fo rm. betray an eschlltological o rientation closely attuned to t hat of Didache 16. The person who transcribed 9-10 may have known a nd used these

or

conclud ing exc.:ltmations in the context of a communily that firmly believed in the inevitability of eve.nts desc-ribed in 16.

The Logic of I he Fixed £/emems The Didaduls meal prayers clearly have fixed, form ulaic elements. That is. there are points in e.:.l<:h prayer where the pr:Lyer Jeade.r does not, s trictly speaking 1 h<We the option to say one thing a nd not a nother: certa in phrases and expressions a re set in advance. These formulae a re required Cor the ritual to p rogress through its stag_es, that is, for all the participants to know when the rit ua l has begun, what point of the ritual has been reached. what is to be sa id or done next. and so on. In addition to this practkal p urpose. however. these form ulae also s tipula te wha t m;1y and may not be. said during the ritual, to make it properly 'work' o r obtain its objective.6:s This kind of formulation presupposes some careful fo rethought - or perha ps belter t he evolution of a d istinctive. perspective. Therefo re, attending carefully to these fo rmulae will be o ur best clue fo r what objective(s) this ritua l was designed (or evolved) to achieve. Four elements within the- prayers emerged from the above-a na lysis as fixed : (I) the verba l clause ' We tha nk you, Father. for. . .' (marking the opening of each of the three phases o f the ritual); (2) t he relati,•e clause 'which you made known to us through Jesus your servant' (three times). once in an ~1 bbrev i ated form ' through Jesus your servant' {~:uei ng the close of the prayer in question): (3) the petition to 'gather', with its llxed phmse 'into your kingdom' (cueinl! the close of the preceding prayer. and closing each hair of the ritual); and (4) the doxology, which had two forms. a short form ('to you be the glory for ever', which marks the end of the preceding prdyer and c ues t he be.g:inning of the next prayer) and a long fom1 ('fOr yours is the power a nd the .glory fo r ever'. which marks the e nd of each half of the ritual). These fixed elements perform a number of concrete tasks, working together to signal the progression of the rit ual The very beginning of the 64 The unswcr to this q u~-stion p.·u dy depends upon rNuction-critical conclusions thul c:mnot be fully treated here. Did. 16 will be d ir.cussod ~1gain in Chs 5 and 6 below. 65 In what follows. I am indebted to the ground-breaking analysis of rilllal and 1ruditionallonguagc in Mauri.x Bloch's ·symbols. Song. Dance and Features of Articulation: Is Religion nn Extreme Form of Tmditionnl Authority?". £uNJpi!tfll Journal ofSoci(}logy 15 {1974). pp. 5>-Sl . For Bloch. ritual1anguage (csp. in wh:1t l call a •sc:ripn is ' ttadjtional· in a special. ·cltr«ne· sense.

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

79

ritual is clearly mMked> as is i(S end point. likewise. the beginning and ending of each phase is clearly marked . Nothing formula ic a ppearing in the pmyers fa ils to perform o ne of these functions. Exceptionally. the material in 10.6 a ppears to be e ntire.ly formulaic. consisti ng oC short impera tive clauses. always parallel, s po ken by the- 1<~-::tder. and shon exclamations, always utilizing. Ara maic o r Hebrew. spoken by the people. These brief spoken par is cue o ne another. and taken toge ther they mark the climactic dose the entire-rit ual. The prayers in Didadte 9- 10, then. could well have functioned as a coherent rit ual d ialogue. with d early marked spea king parts fo r a leader a nd a 'congrega tion· and a logical coherence to the overall struct ure. Here I want to foctL
or

66 I will argue below thal tl1<: prayers wen: also open to improvi!:ntion. a point as:mnxd to somc- extent h~·re. 67 cr. Gill. Sacrnl Wonk pp. 185- 8: and especially Bloch. ·symbols'. pp. 58- 61. 67. 68 Bloch. ·symbols'. p. 66: •it has been ncccptod unconsciously before the C\'tnt by the aocrptancc. of the proper. of the polite. of the appropria te·. C(. Roy Rappaport on the ·c;monical mcsst~gcs· of ritual. •not cnoodcd by the performers' (Ritual and Religion i11 1be Maki11g (!{ Hum(lnity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1'»9). pp. 52-3).

80

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Father. for t he holy vine of David whidJ you made k umrn to u.f (9.2).69 Even i f 'the- holy vine- of David ' is a metaphor for ' knowledge' o r ·sah•ation' ,70 in nom1~il parlanc.e a relative clause modifying this expreSsion would have been something like. 'which you gave to us" o r ·of which you made us partakers". T he second o<..'Currence of our phn1se is no t very pro blemalic 1 even if tauto logical (' the life a nd knowledb~ which you made known to us·: 9.3). but the third is awkward: ·ror your holy na me. which you made to reside in our hearts, and for the knowledge-a nd fait h and immorta lity, which you mttde known to us' ( I0.2). In this string of benefits, o nly 'knowledge properly would be said to have been 'made known' . All else would better be de-scribed with ·gave· or (again) ·made us lo share·. From t he perspec(ive o f fo rmulaic speech. t his syntactical awkwardne-SS does no t in the least undermine-t he elle ctivenesS o f Lhe phrase-'which you made known to us'.71 However. it does demonstrate tha t this phr.tse has bee-n scripted in adv;mce-. a nd it proves also how important this phrase. is lo the- ritual as conceived in this document. Once ag_ain, this phrase. does not betray a s udden o r spontaneous sense of revelation; it r.tther t'Oilsfmt•Js such a sense. The rifllal parlit'tjumts are beiug saipted in rhe role of a group 1rho has reteilwf kn01rlet~~e .fhJJu Ciod. fve ryihing fo r which they a re made dependent upon t he Father (the holy vine ot David. life. knowledge, God's holy name resident a mong: them, fa it h. immortality) t hey a re also scripted as lw"iug rel'eil1ed through reJ1elarion from

God. To the phrase ' which you made known to us' is appended 'fhr ouglt Jesus rour sentmt'. T his formulaic expre$Sion (found four times) further defines the posture o f the recipients o r re\'ela tion: their good fortune comes throug,h the a~ency of a servant/ child named Jesus. The script d is.;-tllows any other fig ure as the primary intermedia ry between God and the group. Whatever benellts the group may receive, and which it also chooses to o li e r thanks lOr, will be made to come f r(mt the Father and through Jesus. ln no trivial sense, then. this IOrm o rients the gro up who prays ' in this way' (oUT~). It ta kes as given a posture o f dependence o n the Father. fo r revelation made ava ilable through Jesus. Anything else tha t may be mentioned in t he three. leading eudwriste6-prayers will pass t hrough these fonnulae. as through so ma ny filters. ·n le leader or the pr.tyer is, in so fa r &I Noticed also by Dibclius. 'Mah1·GC'bctc:.'. p. I 19. Humad found the phrase: '\'inc of Oa\·id' impenc-1r.1bk h~·re (&hri!. II. p. 29). Klingtmrdt thinks the phrusc •which you made known' always refers to the pr.tyrr form itself {Gemeituchaftsmabllmd M(thlgemt'inschqji. p. ~SS: 'Prtl)t'r Formukui<:s'. p. 33). but this is very implausibk 10 cr. Ni<:dcrwimrnc:t. Dillach~. pp. l.$6- 7: 'esch~II Oiogi~'tl l sal\'ation'. 71 C f. Bloch. 'Symbols', pp. 74- 5.

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

81

as he-o r she abides by the form. no freer to aller the orienta tion of the group in these- maHer~ than is any single participanl. 7 :! Ano ther important ingred ient. outside the three prayers just addressed. is the scripted 'ga thering' prayer. with its explicit c ue 'into your kingdom·. These fo rmulae. no le-Ss tha n the others, take lOr granted the existence (if

only in the future) of a 'king.dom' belonging uniquely to God and defining

the fate of the community. Th is integra tion or the community"s fate wilh the kingdom's a rrival ba~omes especially clear in t he sixth ;md final prayer, where the 'Lo rd· is petitioned to 'save' and ' pe-r fect• the community 'and g.ather iL . .into your kingdom·. The last phrase. required fo r the progression o f the ritual. orients t he sa\•ing and perfecting (previously mentioned) tmmrd that tradiiimwl goal. Petitions lOr the (~Ommu nil y must ultima tely be so orienled - all petitions pass through this fo rmula , too, as thro ugh a filter. Fo r their part. the assembly, o r 'cong,regation·. responds in 11xed expressions. These-expressions, whi<:.h may alre-a dy have been tr.tditiona.l before these pr.tyers we.re composed, offe r 'glory' and 'power' to God.73 More te.tling than the locutions c hosen fo r t hese-doxological re-sponses is the way tha t they involve all pa rticipants in the ritual. ·n1e 'Amen' ~lt the end or 10.6 makes explicit what is implicit in a ll the re-sponses: by spea king the doxo logies the community signals its acc:ept~1nte o f each prayer 74 s po ke n by the leader. But since the script controls a great deal o f the pra yers' assumed collec.t ive orientation. the doxo logk:d response ultima tely signals the community's agreemenl wilh the posture presupposed by the praye r fo nnulae.7s In other words, t he community agrees wilh the o rder of existence implied by the ritual script: depe ndence upon the Fathe-r , revelation of essemial knowledge through Jesus, a n orienta tion tow~1rd the coming kingdom. Over time. with frequent repetition. this o rder of existen<.-.e \\~II ce-ase to be a ma u er for reflection a nd soon become. a posture habitually assumed vis-:i-vis the deity. In this sense. the ritua l 72 Bloch lila~ns a ritual to a tunnel: once pz1rticipants enter it. they must follow it to its end (•Symbols". p. 76). Klinghnrdt points out thnt the pruy~rs· cffecti\~ncss is bound up with their form (Gemeitur!Ftr/tsmaM wul MaiF!gcmdJts
Ditktrlle·s US!Igc wd l.

82

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

script inculcates the e.thos of the cornmunity.76 \Vith e-:ctch doxological re-sponse. whether consciously or not, whethe-r emotionally o r nol. indi vidual participants in the rit ua l signal to one a nother (and to God) a fund;tmentod agreement with the entire order implied by the ritual as such.n f inally. the completely fixed form ulae o f 10.6 perform a function similar to the fomlllla 'into your kingdom': rhe entire ritual is oriented. in its concluding, exclamations. toward t he coming of 'grace' and the Lord. But t he shifl here from Greek into Hebrew and Arama ic deserves special comment. Rit ual texts (not only m<~gjcal incantations) commonly employ 'archaic· or ' frozen·. outdated language fo rms to add special authority o r potency.Ji' The Didadu: contains no other insta nt"-es of Hebrew or Aramaic speech; tho ugh the prayers may h<We been formulated in a bilingual community, it is still striking th:-tt Hebrew and Antmaic only show up here in the climactic expressions of praise (Hosamw) and solemnity (Manmatha). The best clue is probably Amen. a purely traditiona l word used in Jewish rituals o f many kinds a nd retained (still in the modern e ra) fo r its archaic value. far beyond Hebrew- and Aramaic-speaking dr<:les. Hosamw evidently served a similar, t hough festive function (compare Mk 11.9 and Chapter 5 below), a nd o ne may posit that Marmwtlw, which Paul employs in an epistle addressed to Greek-spe.a ldng Gentiles. developed early a mong Jesus· followers as a .solemn expression.'9 ·nms. we may affirm that these Hebrew and Aramaic te.m1s a re. being retained here at the close of the ritual to lend it extrd gr.tvity. This illustra tes a n extreme in the use o f language in ritual: the almost totaJ ioss of propositional lOree. In such t·.ases. it is especially clear tha t the given fonnulae no Jon~r communicate information but act almost as ritual gestures.~0 He re their present·e may be said to mark both the end of the

76 Cf. Klinghardt 'Pmycr Fom1ularies'. pp. 28-9. One must bear in mind that this is something the ritual dots. not something i1mraiiS. Wherever it is practised it will continue: to do tllis. though it may b~· thought to mecm multiple: things. This point is taken up variously bdow. especially in Ch. &. 11 Hen: I d raw on Roy Rappaport. especially Rillral ami Religion. He: dctincs ritual as 'the pcrfom1t10ce of mon- or less in\'ari:mt SCllUC"OCes of forma) acts and uttc:ranocs not entirely encoded by the pcrfom1ers' (p. 14). His tc:rnlS for what I briefly describe: here arc •sc:Jf. n-fcrcntial" und ·canoniC!II' 1111.-ssagcs (pp. 52-1). 18 Sec Stanley J. TomlMah's dassic essay 'The M:1gical Power of Words', Mtm J ( 1968). pp. 175-208 {177- 8. 180-82). 79 Gi,•cn the. loc:•tion of Mar(IJUJ/h(l here:. it almost serves to seal a \'OW to n:main in a state of holiness (or turn toward it cf. I Cor. 16.22). Cf. Bornkamm·s disC'Ussion ( Ear~r C'hrisliatl 1::.\Jterienrc. pp. 170- 71). 80 Cf. Gossen. ' lnng.ungc'. pp. 40-()(), HOWC\'C.r. this poilU would probably not hold for •Ame11'. given its ubiquity.

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

83

ritual ~is a whole and the-tlmtl, irrevocable agreement o f the assembly wilh the o rder jus t constructed in t hat ritual.

Tlu! 'Serwmt ' m· Rercaler One of the-fixed formulae of the Didm·he"s prayers refe.rs to Jesus as the ·servan t' o r 'child' o f God - his pais. This te rminology, whatever its associa tions in other early Christian litentture. can be investigated from the perspecti"e of the ritual logic of the pro.tyers. h was evident!)' important to t he community; it was the.ir label par e.w.:ellem·e fo r Jesus.

Kun Niederwimmer provides a plausible- rr.tmework for grappling with the signillca nce of this key term: 'the office of the rra i<; &oU !"pais of God~') as esd tato logical mediato r of salvation and as rewaler (yvc.lpi~Eiv), his relationship to David, and t he schema of promise and i'ullllmenl (in 10.3, then. probably in relation to the Lord's Supper) a re cle~uly evident.' 81 The points he highlights. sa ve the last. can be demonstrated by la king into considera tion the- usage o f the- te rm in the context of the Didadu~·s ritual expressions. the language. of the Septuagint~ a nd the importance of Jesus for the Didac'lu~. Taking the. term in context is crit ical. T hus. within the prayers, David is first c•alled God's pais: Jesus a nd David a re therefore likely to be 'servants' in some analo~ous way. But how? Through long ha bit>scholars o r early Christianity understa ndably te nd to ta ke every refe rence to ·David" as a messia nic one.82 Yet the term pais re$ists this interpretation. According to J. Jeremias t he term was ' never a t any time a true title of the Messia h in Juda is m' 1h and was never embraced as s uch bv Gentile Christians e ilhe r.S:I Evidently it was never a tille. fo r the Messiah at till. The a nalogy wit h David , thereiOre. c.an ho.udly imply a .M't!Ssiauic notion Jesus: bo th are called no t 'anointed' b ut pais, which o nly implie-s o bedient-e to G od in service to lsrael.~s One must be-ar in mind , in this t~onnec.tion, tha t Da\tid could be \'ie.wed primarily as a ' prophet' (ra ther

or

S l Niedc:-.rwimmer. Did!lt/Je. pp. 147- S. 82 E.g. Rordorf and Tuilicr. among others. simply assume a nto.::ssianic rdcrcncc: (L11 Dot•trine. pp. 43-4). 83 J. Je-remias. · naic; 8toii'. TDNT V. pp. 654-7 17 (682). 84 Jeremias. · no:i~ &oo·. p. 703. Note: too 1hat descent from David is nol bcing d aimcd. 85 Sc~· Milavc:c. Didad!l'. p..~68: d. M~zza. Origi11s. pp. 37-S: N~ lhnn Mitchdl. 'Baptism in the Didach~·. in Clayton N. Jd ford (c:d.). Thi! Did!ttlli! i11 Colltf'xt: &.mys 011 f1s Trx1. llisMrJ<' ami Transmission ( Lcidc:n: Brill. 1995). pp. 216--55 (232-t 254). Draper, while allowing that lhc phr.tsc ' ..sprout of David'' is an imprc:cisc and ambiguous ritual c:qm .ssion. . .which drnw·s on a rich symbolic tradition· ('Ritunl Process·, p. 150), offers pertwps the- fulkst exposition of u potential messianic referent in Dkl. 9.2 (pp. 148- 51).

&4

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

than as a king) by Jews in our period .~(> Indeed. in Illis sense David is called pais in Acts 4.25.'; The Septuagint o ilers some very good additiona l hints regarding the overtones of a 'ptiij· of Goer in Second Temple diaspon t Judaism. There, the phrase. consistently signals a kind o f intimacy with God. and frequently su£gests pro phetic insight. Abra ham is called God's pais precisely when God is about to reveal the fa te of Sodom and Gomorrah to him (Gen. 18.17); Lot so calls himselr afte r Sodom's destruction has been d isclosed to him (Gen. 19.1 9): God «ills Moses his pllis (lsa. 37.35): David as the pais o f t he Lo rd is the writer of Psalm 17 (til.). Of course-1 pllis c.an ;1lso mean simply 'slave' thro ugho ut the Septuagint but when used o f a patriarch or a no ther leader of Israel (or Israel itself: lsa. 41.&- 9. 42.1. 44. 1, 21- 2: Jer. 26.28). it consistently implies specia l status, particularly God's c-a re a nd even his willingness to d isclose useful information to or thro ugh that leader.89 In keeping with these Seplu;.tgintal motifs, it can be noted that in Palestine there e\•idently existed a no tion that ce rta in 'charismatic ho ly men' (to use ~·tar<:us Borg's term) enjoyed a special intimacy with God . From this vanta,ge point, the phrase 'pais o f the Fa ther' could well ret1ect ;i very e-a rly conception of Jesus, which a number of historica l Jesus scholars have tho ught was his own. T his conception is typically discussed under the heading 'son of God' {UtO; ToO fkoU).90 Geza Vermes, in partic ular. 86 Jtunc:s L. Kugd details the dc\•do~mlcn t of this shift in the perception of David prior to the Christian period ('D:t,·id the Prophet'. in Kugd (cd.f. P~1ry wul PmJih(!(·.r: Tilt> Begi1111ing.f of a Li1en1J:" Tradition )lthacn. NY: Cornell Unil't"rsity Pn:ss. 1990). pp. 45-55). s~-c too Murgan:t Daly-Denton. who tics this trend to Da,·id's (pcnxivcd) authorsl1ip of the psalms (' David the Ps:.lmist. lnspin:d Prophet: Jewish AniC(.'CdenL<;; of t l New Test~men t Datum'. AusBR 52 (2004]. pp. 32-47); and JO:SC'ph A. Fil:lmycr. 'D
Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

85

t~oncludes

that ' the-earliest use of son of God in relation to Jesus derives from his acthtities as a miracle-worker and e.xorcisl. and from his own (~onscio usness o r an immedia te a nd intimate contact with t he heaven})t Father' 9 1 E. P. Sanders. similarly but more vaguely, claims that ··n ,e first followers o f Jesus .. .when they started calling him "Son of God", would have meanl. . .a person standing in a special rekttionship to God, who chose him to accomplish a task of great importance' .92 And Marcus Borg argues that in first-century Judaism this phr:ise was used of rsrael as :i whole, of lsraers kings. a nd of ·charismatic holy men' (among whom he takes Jesus to be an instanre): 'All three use-S have one element in commo n. All designate a relationship of specia l intimacy wilh God Israel as the.chosen people. the king a s the adopted son, the-charisma tic as o ne. who knows a nd is known by God .'93 Jesus likely d id view himselr as ha\•ing 'a relationship of specia l inlimacy with God ', and clearly his followers tho ught he had one incJuding those- who prayed as the. Didadw instructs. This relationship could be expressed in the Greek phrase nate; oou ('your servant') or its near equivalent u'tOc, ToU 6£00 ('son o f God'). \Vithin t he logic o f the Didudw's pr.tyer fom1Ulae, lhis relationship of inlimacy concerns Jesus ~is a rev~iler or knowledge: .. .. you l Father) made known lO us throug,h Jesus your pais·. It is on the basis or his intimacy wit h t he Father, as paL,·, tha l Jesus ·makes known' wha tever it is lhat the community knows. Al the risk o f <mticipa ting t he comparisons of Cha pter 4, the fact that the Didad tc's prayers use a Greek expression d ifferent fro m the synoptics and Paul to describe Jesus special intimacy with God points towa rd both ( I) a <~ommon milieu at some remove; a nd (2) independenl development in a Greek-speaking milieu (viz. the diaspora). Wisdom o f Solomon contains a passage that Hts lhis no tion o f Jesus' special intimac:.y with G od very well. In chapter 2. the ungodly say o f the 'rigJ1teous ma n'. ' He professes (o ha.ve knowledge of God. and caJis himse lf a child of the Lo rd (nallia KUp1ou]' (Wis. 2.13), while ' he calls the last end o f the righteous happy. a nd boasts tha i God is his flilher' (2.16) 9 ' Moreover. Wis. 2.17- 20 d iscusses the death o f the righteous man a t the

Sanders. n1(! J.liJioritVJ! Figure uf Je:ms(New York: Penguin. 1993), pp. 138-40. 160- 62. All 1htt'e cite Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer ns parallel charismatic •sons of God". 9 1 Vermes. Jesu.\·Jhe Jr,r. p. 211 . For Vermes. this concept was subsequently ad<~p tcd to 1he pl·nxption of Jc:sus as Messiah. God's adoptt'd son: and linnlly. in Paul. 'Messianic pre:· cxistcnoc is associ:11cd with thut of ctc:mul sonship" fpp. 211- 12). 92 Sunders. 1/i.ftoriat/ Pigure. p. 245. Luter on the same page. howeve-r. Sanders mentions exorcism in particular.

93 Borg. Jesus. p. 49. 94 Trnnsbtions of Wisdom of Solomon ntc from N il.~!\' .

S6

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

hands of the ungodly, in words that a re hauntingly 13miliar. Again. the ungodly a re quoted: Let us see if his words a re true. and let us t<.-st what will happen ut the end of his life-: for if t he righteous ma n is God's child (u10c; 6;00), he will help him, and will deliver him from the: hand of his ad ..'t'.rsaric:s. Let us test him with insuh and torture. so tha t we may find out how gentle he: is.

and make trial o f his forlx:urnncc. Let us condc:mn him to a sha meful death.

for. ~• ccord i ng to what he says. he will be p rotcch:d.

Yel. the author goes on. t hese- ungodly men d id not understa nd God's 'secret purposes', which hold true not just for this ·servant', but a lso fo r 'blamele-s s souls' in gener~tl: ' fo r God created us for inco rruption' and ' the souls o r the righteous are in the ha nds of God. and no torment will ever touch t hem· (Wis. 3.1 ). For though in l he sight o f others th4."y were punished. their hope is fu ll o r immortality. i-laving been d isciplined n lillie, they will rece-ive great g,ood. bc<.
Here we have-a common enough motif in Sa~ond Temple Judaism: the vindication o f the righteous a t some ruture- time. when God establishes justice on the earth. Perhaps a resurrection is imp1ied; it need not be. In any case. t he 'child' of God, his righteous servant. can be-killed \\~thoUl re-~llly s uffering. and can achieve. immort;ilily as a promised reward fo r fai thrulness. Despite the motif of unjust sune ring in this passage. there is no suggestion that this 'child• is a ·messiah'. much le-S. .'i a suffering one. He is not a pais beca use. he S1ff7'er.t but because he ha,\· know/e((r:e of God and lives a blamele$s life. The label piti.~ is applied to s uch a person by those who go on living, after his death, and t his la bel is how they afl'irm his way or despite the cruel end that he. has met. Sim:e he is God's servant o r son, the outward circumstances of his death do not d isclose- true justice and a re, in a reul sense. to be denied significante. T he schemers are blamed. r.uher than the. one who died. But the-death is not vicarious; it does nothingjilr others. Instead. it is a kind of t rial that purifies t he one who d ies. so that he attains immo rtality.

we

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

87

Naturally, there is no way to demonstrate whether those-who prayed

~is

Didadw 9- 10 directs e nterta ined this or some other interpretation of

Jesus' cruel de-a th in Jerusalem.9s For, once again. these prayers say uoliliug a/ 111/ about that dea th. I o JTer the foregoing text simply as a counter-weight to the unde rstandable pull lh~H the-passion narrative. the Pauline epistles. the c reeds. and the liturgy exert upon o ur historical imagin~ttions. For exa mple-. for Jo hn Dominic Crossan, the. te.m l pai.\· in the Didal'he conjures rsaiah's s unering servant % O thers are tempted in this connection to fill o ut the silence of the Didacile from Acts 3. I 3, 25-6. where Jesus the pais is the one who has d ied and was ra ised.97 But Acts cle,lrly postdates the prayers of Didacile 9- 10; and there :LTe severa l reasons lO be sceptica l of this line o f inquiry. First, John Clabe.a ux points o ut that. e-ven if ~in allusion to (saiah~s se-r vant so ngs were implied by pais. these prayers offer ' no explicit a rticulation or the saving death o f Jesus·.9~ Second, as we have seen. the te rm pais is fairly common in the Septuagint - in Isaiah a lone pais is used o rlsaia h. Eliakim. Cyrus, David and Jacob (Israel)- to say nothing of its ubiquity in G reek litera ture and culture.99 Fina11y. as J a rgued a bove. in the g_ e neral sweep of the Septuagint pais, hovering between ·servant' a nd 'child' . implies an intima te, dependent relationship of a leader o f Israel upo n God . T his usage does not. o f course, imply .tu[Teriug: the phrase 'Juffering servant· works wilhin a nd Spt.>cifies the wider assod a tions of a 'servant of God' . In sum, not every pais is a suffering servant; no t every ·suffering servant' is a Messiah mo reover. just as some o r the sayings o f lhe Lord a re evide-n tly known to Pa ul but rarely cited, and c-e rta inly do not fom1 the centre o f his religious existence. so the historical 13ct that Jesus was crucified must have been known to olhers who never mention il. and who d id not make o f it the ce-n tre of their religious existe-nce. In a ny <:a se, the prayers in the Didat hc make-quite clear wha t is implied by its use of the 95 Sec D<~ni<:l A. Smi1h's remarks on Wis. 2- 5 (17w Post-Mortem Vindicatioll ofJesus in Jhe SayillgJ Gospe/Q fLNTS. 338~ London: T&T C l:.uk. 2006]. pp. 82-4). Smith argues thQ! Q

emphasizes Jesus· •disappearance· (vs. ·~lppearnnccs') on the model of the 'assumption' of great figures of old. to vindicate his eschatological mlc for the community (S« pp. 168--71). This would not. then. imply n:surrcction and would l't"tm-scnt an altematin: method of dealing wi1h the known fact of Jesus' death. The proposal is intriguing and would funclion vc.ry wdl as p<1rt of the milku of t he Dirlal'!lt! to b: reconstructed in C h. 5 below. 96 C rossnn. Birth tJ[C'IIriJtiam'ly. p. 4 39. Wis. 2- 5 m.ay also be evoking Isaiah's fourth ' Semmt Song·. pll-cisd y in n non-m~~inn ic sense. though t he allusion may not ha\'c bocn obvious to (or determinati\-c for) ew:•t Y nm'iL-nl rt-adL·r. 97 C f. e.g. Schaff. Oh/est C'lmrcll Mmmal. p. 19 1. 1 will return to AciS 3-4 in Ch. 7. 9S C labcaux. · Eucharistic Prny<:rs·, p. 161. Niedcrwimrncr finds it •diflicuh to posit any allusion to 1he scn·ant of God in l:kutcro-lsaiah' { DMadlt'. p. 147). C(. too ~·1 ilavoc. Dida(ht\ Pt>. 36 5- 9. 99 Note that the ·messiah· in Isaiah is Cyrus (45. 1- 8).

88

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

term pai!i: Jesus is the ag.ent of the f'a ther"s revelation to the community. All tha t the community e.njoys. its s pecial relationship with t he Father, its promise o f holiness: and o f the kingdom, is indebted to the revealing activily of God through Jesus.

The Logic of lht! Va,.iab/e Elcmems The Didadu(s meal pr.tyers conta in scripted lines. required Cor the progre~~.s and effectiveness o f the ritual. The remaining expressions in

Didadw 9- 10, however. evidently have been supplied by the composer of this porlion o f the Didache for some o the-r reason. Since prayer was (and is) a n oral medium. and sinl·e not all of t he expressions in the-se prayers appear to be required fo r any particular rit uaJ p urpose. it would be str.tnge if the composer of thes-e pr.lyers inte nded them to be sim ply memorized a nd recited as they s ta nd. We. more likely have in Didaclw 9- 10 model prayers with both fixed a nd varia ble e-lements. The scribe of o ur prdyers would have supplied the variable elements, for their pa rt, only as suggested or appropriate expre-ssions - as hints, if you will, for a person leading prayers. 100 This, a t least~ is the s pirit in which the eucharistic prayers o f the Apostoli£' Tradition were written down: 'And the bishop shall gjve thanks :l<..'Cording_ to what we said before. ll is not at a ll nece-ssary for him to repeal these same words that we said before. a s if rec.ited by rote giving tha nks to God, but aocording to each one's a bility he sha ll pr.1y' (Ap. Trad. 9.3-4: trans. Bradshaw. Johnson. Phillips). !Moreove.r, this reading o f the evidence is all but demanded by the three Connal tmdwristc6-prayers: 9.2 IV..-tlumk .nm.

9.3 file tlumk you.

o ur Father, for the holy vine o f Duvld your scrvunl

o ur Ft1lhr.r . for the life and k nowlodg,e

10.2 We thauk .nm. holy FutheJ·. for your holy na me. w h i c.~h you made to d .....~ u in o ur he.a rts. and j(Jr I he lnowk-dg,c and fai lh a nd immorlality

100 Cf. Omper. who says that they ·provide th<: template fm· oral pcrformant.'<:' (•Ri!Ual Proccs.s'. p. 139). and that the. prn)"<:r.s wc:-re 'Bcxiblc:-' in the s~·nsc that •the slructure- and fr:unc:work . .. would hn\'<: b..o.cn the same: at <:ach communily celebration. but the specific content would have varied wilh the context' (p. 153. also eiting Aud~'l). Drtlpl·r docs nol de!ttil how this muy h~wc work<:d. This Bc:xibilily apparently charactcrir.cd early mbbinic pnt)"<:ts nlso lscc Rcif. JudaiJm. p. Ill). Again. Klinghardt argues the: opposite: sec n. 2J :1bove.

89

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

9.~ Etix,a:p;OTOOpfV001, 9.3 EVvapJorOOpiv 001, 10;2 EV
.

.

..

.

.

Ev ralc; KetpOicuc; ~~i)v, •

f

'

...

'

KO:I Vrrtp 'tJ'f): yv
Ka't &6avaoiac;

There a re two variable elements in these euC'IwriswO-prdyers: the. modifier o r ·Father' . and t he contents o r the urrip-clause. Neither. it will be o bsen •ed . disrupts the riltlal script 'Our Fa1her' appe~irs to be customary (compare Did. 8.2), but this clearly can be mod ified to ·Hoi)' Father' in a nticipation of the 'holy name' ( 10.2) without causing any conrusion for

the rilual performance under way (_this entire- phr:lse simply marks the o pening o f each section). More interest ing is the Unfp-clause, which s upplies the-objert or <'tmse of the tha nksgiving itself. Hu The fo rmulae tha t fullmr this Urrip-dause (\•iz. 'whkh you made known. etc.,) carry the

or

burden o f the ritua l dialogue. ll follows lhat the-contents this c lause are o pen: the. person le.<-tding the prayer could easily improvise here. 102 T he sample pr.lyers offered in Didtu·he 9- 10 illustrate that virtua lly a nything could be s upplied a t this point and the fo rm of the-prayer would ho ld: 'holy vine o f David', as noted a lready, is ha rdly demanded by the structure. T he phrdse is, o f course, suggested by the mp b ul upon re-Oection o nly ttlludes to that c up a nd d oes nol actu~tlly de-scribe it. 103 Tite second model Urrfp-clause (9.3) has no inelucta ble connection to the 'fragment' of bre'.ld tha t is ostensibly t he topic of the prayer: 'life and knowledge'.'"' Finally. the third urrip-clause is actually d uplicated (l will return to lhis); once it co nte rns the ' holy na me· and once ' knowledge and faith and immorlality'. Again, no direct link with the me-al j ust eaten ( 10. I) is demanded or the prayer leader. 105 101 Urtip can mean •for· in the .sense of both ·b..-.:ausc- of. by rc~1son of 11nd 'concerning' (like nepl). The term appears intention11lly ambiguous to me. 13oth sc:nscs can be vicw~d tLS !r~•dition:tl. somewhat ouunod~d uses of Un(p in Koine (cf. BDF ~231). 102 ~l y thesis here is ~nerica lly compa!iblc with Gill's empha!\is on prayer ns composed to 11 certain d tyl"C in pcrfomumec (Saat'd Jlltmlr. p. lSI}. Of ooursc. this w<~s done diO'C'rently in Navajo prayer: moreo\•c r. Gill hns I he advantage of over 300 proycr texts for comparison. and :;o can be lllQre specific (:.nd eertain) :1bout how those: formulae urc combined a nd vmic:d. 103 As. for example. a thanksgiving •for this me-al we ~ue :1bout to cat' directly con<:erns the food on the table-. 104 Noted h)· Dibdius. · ~bh i -Gc:bcte'. p. 110. 105 Perhaps •food' has suggested •life' in 9.3 and 10.2 (sec Dr<~per, ' Ritual Process·. pp. 143- 5). but .:.gnin this is at best 11 metaphorical association. gi,•en the ll'ml 'immon11lity'.

90

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Ma rtin Dibelius long ago labelled these unip-dauses 'spiritualizing· ('vergeis tlichl'), ;md ;ugued t hat this tendency grew out the Hellenistic synagogue - whose prayers. he posited. lie behind Didadre 9- J0-"16 I would contend that the process has been more Ouid !han that: the d iaspora synagogue has no doubt been a key milieu for the-fonnul:u ion of the Didadre's prayers. but the synagogue's role has la rgely been lo supply traditional expressions (e.g. ' We thank you, Father'. the doxologies, Ho.wmw, Amen) used as parl o f t he llxed fo rmu1ae. 107 ·n1ese tr.lditional expressions. combined with new sectarian one,s ('thro ugh Jesus your servant'. Maraumha)~ a re a mong this ritual's struct ural components. ·n1e .spirituaJiring ~esture of the Wififtb/t: elementS is plausibly o f this S~tme syna,gogue milieu. but not necessarily in any direct way. m At any rale. !he composer of !his portion of !he Didatlr" has opted in each case fo r (at most) metaphoric~!} a llusions to the me-al tha t is OStensibly at the hearl of t he rirual. This C~lnnot be incidental: il demonstrates a reuden: of the. community, one already anticipa ted in the Structure of its ritual. As just argued. the conclusion these three prayers ('which you made known to us t hrough Jesus your sen•ant') acts as a J1lte r for all tha t has preceded. T he le-ader, improvising this mate-rial. is neverthele-SS constr? il!ed by the scripted line-S of the prdyer on both sides: the benefits of the ump-dause mus t plausibly both come from !he Father and reach the community through the-agency o f Je.lius. We have access to only one such le-ader. the scribe of the prayers. and here the umdtm: holds true. Throut;h his (or her) own pa rticipa tion in !he rit ual. the p rayers c haracte ristic posture has been incuk a ted into o ur scribe. so tha t he (or she) has o pted for elements !hal best fi t this disposition, even if they a re grammatically awkward . T he s tarkest clue is the repetitio n of t he word 'knowledg.e ' among the things ·made known' (9.3, 10.2): here !he scribe of the sample prayers demonstrates his (or he.r) a lmost total encaps ulation wit hin the logic built into the s tructure of the pr~iyers.

or

wut

or

106 Dibd ius. 'Mahi Gc:-bc1e·. pp. 119- 24. He saw lhc Did(l(:lu( s pr;Jycrs as only slight])' reworking these earlier prayers. particularly by the :.tddition of 'through Jesus your sc1vanf. No doubt this hs.t (formulaic) expression has been developed b)· this particular group. but his cnrlil·r. n.X'onstrueted. 'spiritunlia-d' Jewish prnycrs were not uniformly convincing. as he already admiHed (p. 122). 107 I will return to this point in dt. S. ,.,..ft.erc I will discuss the Jewish roots of these prayers. 108 t-.·lore recently. Kari Guswv Sanddin h~s argued that the pr.ty~-n; ·wen· originnll)' formubted in tl Jewish s:•piential oontexf. and were rocydcd and p:111ly rcfom1ulutel1 (from wi!hin the trajectory of the lnst supper tradition) by nn E,boypti:ul Christian (Wisdom m Nourislu:r: A St•1r~r of(lit Old Tesltrltli'!llf Tlleme. irs De•·elopmttmll·iJMn Ear~r Judaism a11d itJ /mput·l 011 J.'or~r ChriJikmity (..\bo: Abo Abdc:mi. 19S6). pp. 195-228). I can agree with none o( 1hC1ie conclusions from my own research (sec Part II below). His attempt to reconstruct n Hebrew •originnl' b~·hi nd the extant Grttk texl (pp. 190-221) is far fctchc:d. A st1picntinl and diaspora s.tmlum is more judiciously posited by Sand! and Flusscr. Dirltu·bl!. pp. 323- S. 4

4

4

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

91

T hus. we arrive at rwo important conclusions regarding the ritual logic

o f Lhe varhtble-elements. On the one hand. the structure orthe eudwriste6prayer. contrary perhaps to expectation, places a fair amo unt of emphasis upo n the variable. adaptable e lement supplied by the prayer leader in the Urrip-clause. This is one of the fun<.~tions of lhe fixed elements: they

predispose the participanL"i to allend to the. rariahlc elemenls. On the other hand. the Jlxed fo rmulae circumscribe-the variable elements in such a way that the person leading lhe prayer canno l in facl ;;ay anything, he or she wishes. even where he o r she 1m1y be pennitled to improvise. TI1is kind of carerul proscribing of bounda ries fea tures commonly in riluals; indeed , it is more remarka ble t hat the prayer leaders have the degree- oi freedom lhey do . So~ fo r example . aside from the Urri p--clause. the pntyer leader a pparently had a great de-.tl of leeway in the third, lifth a nd sixlh prayers. ln the sixth prayer. the leader would p resuma bly be pennitted to articulate a ny peti tion touching on t he assembly - perhaps with the requisite. o pening phrase · Re-member. Lord, your assembly!' - pro,1ided he o r she concluded wilh the reque-~" t to 'gather. . .into your kingdom'. T he o pportunity lo multiply ways in which God is requested to 'remember· the assembly s ho uld be o bvious. The-construction is simple: an a rticular infinit h•e preceded by the txlsic copulative kai (see 10.5 ' to save . . .and to perfec.t'). Here, specilic needs of lhe assembly could easily be canvassed: problems with c rops and livelihood, with the governing authorities. with d iseases, with malignant s pirits. and so on. O n the other ha nd, the degree o r s piritualization ln these sample prayers may indic-ate the opposite trend: o ne- petitions God o nly fo r spiritual. transc-endent blessings. If we had a nother sample '"'e could be s urer. 109 In any case, ~ill requests a re ultimately reigned in by the script. which demands an orientation toward 'gathering into the kingdom· as the swm11um bonum. The fifth prayer (10.3), almost entirely a suggestl!d praye r (not scripted), may have customarily been o r the 'declarative' type. He re the prayer leader a ppears to tell God what He has d one fo r the assembly, when in lltct the gathering is being re-minded o f God's blessings. T his type of prayer is common in both the Hebrew psalms and in the. histo ry oi eucha ristic prayer. and warra nts investi.ga tion beyond wha t is possible here. fo r the present. o ne-may spet~ulate that the pra yer could roam in a varie.ty of d irections, althoug,h the person who transcribed these S~imple

109

Here o ne fcd s the

SC\'Ctc

limitotion of having only one sample prayer. One would

expect petitions to deal with material as well as spiritual needs. Howcvcr. the rilu:1l analysis in Ch. 6 bdllw (continncd by remarks of Ck-n1cn1 of Alexandria d iscussed in Ch. 8 below) introduccl' doubt that these communities considrrcd p~'l i t i ons for ·m,llcrinl b1c.ssing:;· tlppropriatc.

92

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

prayers a ppa rently thought the topic of ·food and drink' was the log,ical (or customary) poinl of deparlure. 110

The Role of the Prophets In Didaclu:. 10.7 we encounter the command. ·Permit t he prophets to oller the thanksgiving as long as they wish.' 111 Altho ugh we are dealing he.re wit h a rubric that does not necessarily reflect the- original usage of the prayers. similar rubrics in 9. L 9.2 a nd I0.1 have proven to s how sympathetic. acquaintance with the logic. of thc.>Se praye.rs. Therefore, this one a lso merits some consideration. 11~ The phrase ' as long as they wish• (Ooa 6£~ouotv) has sometimes .been inaccurately tra nslated ' however they wish·, I IJ but the word Ooov 114 concerns extellf not manner. T h is mistr.tnslation, moreover, reflects :1 common inte rpretation of the phrase: namely} lhat the prophelS a re permilled to d ispense with the foresoi ng prayers and supply their own e ntirely. 115 T his interpreta tion. I contend, overstates lhe right of improvisation being, given to the prophets. It Certainly would be odd i f lhe compiler of this document took the trouble to ret~ord lhese sample-prayers only to strike them out a t the end. Take n litentlly, instead, the-instruction in 10,7 allows the prophets to extend out the thanksgiving, T his, I would argue, is ultima tely a signal from the compiler that our prayer texts are not exlwustire a nd limiting. but merely guidelines. ·n 1ere a re a t least three. specillc locations within lhe exis ting prayers where the leader or the prayers may easily 'e.xtend' them. ~n1e llrsl is the dup1ication or content clauses within the ro rmal eudwriste6-pr;_\yers (see 10.2). The strategy is simple: the leader may prO\'ide Urrip-clause- a ne r Urrfp-clause. wit h the simple connecto r 'and' (Ko:l)} provided he o r she doe-S not use the key phrase. 'which you made. known to us through Jesus your servant' - for this cues the doxology. Moreover. as the exa mple of this duplkating proced ure in 10.2 demonstrates, each lmi'p-clause can be provided with its own distintf relmire clau.\~e modifying lhe object of the 110 Since ahc third pmycr (9.4) :1ppears in a numbe-r of c:t~rly Christian prayer tc:<.ts. the possibility that it \\':IS more fixed will rccmcq,...: in Pn11 II of this s1udy. whcn: those prnyers arc discussed. Ill This sentence employs 6!. not the ud\'ersaain: cl.\Aa: the: oonjuncaion is required to signal the: tmnsiaion from ritual formulae 10 a rubria •l inslm:tion. <md docs no! imply any contrast in practioc:. This tr.ulSitional usc of 6Eis common in the DitludU! (e.g. 9.1. 10.1 ). 112 Nicdl·l'\'oimmcr (Didtltfle. p. 164). Dmpcr('Ritual Process·. p. 128). and Skc (Chuuh ill Antiocll. pp. 98. 100) vic:·w Did. 10.7 as rather al odds with 1hc prcccding matcriul. 11 3 Sec. e.g .. Eklz. 'Euchurisl'. p. 246. wi10 trnnsfntcs •in whatC\'« m:mncr they wish·. 11 4 Sec BAGD •0001;, '1· ov': LSJ ·Ooot;· IV. II S Typical is the opinion ofVOObus. Litt"gital Tmditions. p. 110: the prophets nrc ·not bound by any li!Urgical trttdition or practical custom·. Cf. already Harnack. Leiwe. II. pp, 36- 7.

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

93

preposition (e.g. 'for your holy name, which you made- to reside in our hearts') except t he last one. which must be mod illed by the c ue ror the doxology. This same strategy obviously could be used in any or the three

eud wri:ueO-prayers. and a gifted spe-aker could e-.lsily extend such a prayer for five or te.n minutes without losing the thre.ad of the ritual dialogue. A second way to extend out the pr.tyers. g,iven a lready in the sample pra yers, would be the multiplica tion of infinitive clauses after the cry ' Remember'' in the sixth prayer (see 10.5). As no ted already, t his prayer plausibl)' allows a great dea l of impro\~s.a.tion in li~hl o f the needs o f the community o r o r ils special ethos. A loqmlcious speaker could extend this praye r even longer than the eudwristi!O-prayers without losing the-t hread. fo r he or she need o nly find his o r her way to the expression ·gather. . .into your kingdom' in order for the ritual d ialogue to co ntinue. Indeed, an entire.ly new sente.nce might even begin wit h this fina l appeal, ;md the congreg.a tion would no t s tumble. By the same token. additional prayer units could even be inserted before this petition - so extending the whole. The third example is simply the 1\rth prayer, t he ·report' o r God 's good deeds. Here. the only scripted line recovera ble is the concluding phrase 'through Jesus your se.r vant' . T he. scope for improvisa tion>'extending out' the prayer. may be at its greatest he re. One-can easily imagine a gihet he. instructions of II. 7- 12 regarding the proper treatment of ' prophe ts' s trongly suggest that a kind o f ec..'itatic Speech was practised by lhese prophets. but nO/ d uring the meal prayers. 117 This assum ption is unmista kable in 11 .9 - ·£very prophet who

116 Draper simib rly lind11 in Did. 10.7 anirmation uf•thc right of the prophet to prt"Sidc• ('RiiUnl Process·. p. 128}. but views this as an obscuring redactional remark (p. 132}. Bouley (From Freedom to Formula. p. 9 I) and M ilawc (Ditlache. p. 365j pcrcei\'e th ~ t c-xp:msion of 1hcsc prayers was custonmry. but d istinguish this fro-m th<: frocdo-m ( Mila,·ec: ·spontancou11 prayers·) of the prophets. Gogud. on the contrary. thinks 10.7 resrricu the ruk of the proph<'ISby making their prayers subscrvi<'nt to the tttordcd prayers (L 'Ew~IIOriJtie. pp. 138-9): so to~l Sloc (Chun·h in Atlli{}dl. p. 100). 11 7 On ccstotic speech
94

Kumrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

appoints a table in the s pirit does not eat fro m it. llul if D •e actsJ otherwise, he is a false-prophet: - but the same- assumption occurs in almost every one o f these saying;; (e.g. 11. 10, which assumes thai prophets 'teach'). Thus. there is scope fo r (optional) prophetic speech outside or the meal prayers; but s uch prayers were evidently eJSeutial to the communily gathering. On the other ha nd, prophets a re a lso being penniHed to lead these pr.tyers in a n (optional) extended form; but the. underlying strucw re or the prayers is not optional. For the Didachisl. prophets are no more exempt from community guidelines tha n o thers (see 11.7- 12). Whether prophets ( 10.7), teachers ( l.l. l- 2), or overseers (irrloKorrot: 15.1 - 2) customarily led the meal pntyers in these communities - perhaps this varied over time or betwee.n lot~itio ns - these prayers a ppear to operate by means of a script that could accommodate improvisation and some degree of manipulation . However, the llnal text of the Didtirhe betrays some uneasiness a bo ut the open-ended characte r o r the. p raye-rs. among o ther things. Immediately afte.r 10.7 appears a warning: '\Vhoeve.r . then, comes to vou a nd teaches vou all of t hese-a forementioned thin~s. ret·eive him. BUt if the one te--.t~hing wrns away a nd !('aduu a110tl;er leatltiug, unto destruction. do not listen to him. butlifhe teaches) unto the inaease of uprighllle.ts and kumrlt~t{rte of the U>rd, rece.ive him as the Lord.' ( 11.1 - 2; my emphases). T he ''aria ble elements, al leas! at this red~H:tional stage. were being m;lde to fa ll within a spectrum of acceptable 'te-aching•. Titis tre.nd will be touched upon further in C hap ters 5 and 6 below.

Unknowns Severa l o bvious aspects of the Didaduls meal ritual no t yet discussed in this ana lysis are important but cannot p rofitably be queried . For example. eating together requires ;i rela tively well-defined group with some commo n interest, org~mized effort (includ ing cooking, serving and cle-a n-up), a means for providing food (thro ugh either pa trons o r sharing). a n adequate dining spatce. a nd a relatively fixed time of day. to name a tew. All of t hese de.tails. a re simply assumed in the Didar!Je. To derive any c1e-a r ritua l or social interpre tation from them is therefore impossible. However. it is plausible that some of these. matters are left umi o r because no problems had a risen with respect to them. T his s ugge.sts (at least) that suc h practica l details did not attract any significant honour fo r those charged. with them; perhaps. they were simply 'taken care or by women or e-ven household slaves. ·n 1ere is one instruction in t he Didadte thal might be-relevanl here and may help lo clarify the situation:

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

95

Elect, then, for yoursdV<."S overseers (or ·bishops·, &n\O'KoTTOI} a nd atlcndanls Lor ·deacons·. Ot0:KOVOIJ worthy o f t he U.wd. men gentle, without greed. t rue, a nd proven. for they perform public S(.'rvicc for you.

nc-n the servi<.x• of the prophets a nd teachers. Yo u must not, the n. despise them. fo r they arc your honored persons. with the prophets a nd tcac.hc rs ( 15. 1- 2).

The term 'deacon' (Oui:Kov()(.) may imply table service, in which case the community is commanded to give honour to persons involved in pr.tctical aspects or the meal. The overseers might be those charged with administering the meal or the meeting in some way. h is d ear that 1 whenever this instruction was added to the Didathe. such persons were nol ro utinely being gi\'en high honours - and perhaps never had been.118 The prophets. not surprisingly. emerge as hi~hly honored persons (see. e.g., Did. 13.3}, and together with the teachers their tre;Hment sets the example fo r the honour to be given these others. Another obvious aspeCl of meals fa lls under Pete r Garnsey~s <:lever a phorism. 'You are wilh whom you eat ' 119 That precisely these pe-rsons a re ga1hered for a meal says something - with varying degrees of intensily - about a c.orporate entity of some kind. In the case o f Didarlte 9- 10, what we know a bo ut the group is almo.S l coextensive with wha t we know about the meal - ;1 ra re limitation. to say the- least. The common c.a use or the d iners is important. however, and can to some extent be known; il will concem us further in C hapter 6. Given the Jewish charo.1cter of the prayers (to be discussed, with references, in Chapter 5 below). we might infer the use of tmditional Jewish gestures d uring the. prayers. induding the li fting o r lhe cup and the bread toward heaven. the lifting o f the eyes a nd even hands toward he-a ven. a nd so on. Such ~.e.sture.s a re. important for a ritual analysis in the sense tha t they stand alongside t he 'more o r less inv;uia nt· verbal fo rmuh1tions just analysed, both of whic.h must be perfo rmed to constitute the ritual. 12
liS In my view il is ulate addition: il intt'rrupts the Aow of who I precedes and follows, it exhibits bcttC"r oonmmnd of litt'rnte Grcd:. and it rcpl:u:.:s ' prophcls and teachers" with (lhc more up-to-date) •bishops and deacon·. oi o·~~rcntly Or;1per. ·so.:ial Ambiguity'. pp. 2S.J-312. 119 Pt'lc-r G-otnscy. FOO(/ tuul Sot'iery in Cl" (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999): th<: title of his ninth chapte-r. 120 Cf. ugain Rapp~iport's definition of ritual: "the performance of more or kss invoriant sequences of formul acts and uth.·ranees not entirdy encoded by the performers· {Ritual ttml Rdigitm. p. 24).

96

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

conclusions for ritual analysis a bo ut such gestures. [n particular. the possibilily of innovation t:an neilher be suggested nor extluded . 121 There is o ne gesture th~it ca n be recovered: the breaking o f bread, which is implied by the term 'fragment' a nd has been brielly d iscussed above. That this is a Jewish custom is clear. but what it may signify (if anyt hing) especially in a 'basic' or 'trans.-Jewish' sense - eludes my imagination. So me scholars have understood t he ' breaking' of the bread in the last supper tradition as a n a llusion to t he viole nce of Jesus· de-a th, but certa inly this does no t exphiin the more general Jewish custo m (which includes the breaking of mm:o a t Passover), a nd so it d oes no t help us to grasp any built-in symbo lic meaning for the Ditfadu:'s me~ll ritmd. 1 ~1 Pe.r ha ps Itha mar G ruenwald is correct tha t the breaking of a single loar. and its distribution a nd oonsumption. can be symbolic of the unity of the gathered commu nity - a lthough the opposite appear.; to be actually e nacted .113 Since Didaclw 9- 10 s.ays nothing a bo ut this sesture. while the original text may not even h;n•e included t he term ·rr.tgment•, and the prayer lOr the loaf does not e\'en a llude to ilS ' breaking'. we. may re-asonably conclude tha t the 'bre.aking o f bread· was simply a tmditiona l ge~ture mainta ined by this co mmunity but not prod ucth•e o f second-order reflection. symbolic or othef\vise-. a t this point in the community•s existe nce. l n the e nd, the limita tions of the kind of e\tidence available from a source like the Didad tr impose a severe re-striction on the analyst. Consideration of a r.tnge of gestures would be-very helpful in determining the /item/ poSture o f t he praying t~Oilltnllnity> a nd this in tum would o ne r a me-ans for testing whether I ha ve righ tly grasped the metaplwrkaf o r ideological posture-tha t the p rayers inculca te. In pa rticular. w;iS a poSlUre of dependence upo n and gra tit ude toward the Father (as J concluded was instilled by the prayers) reinfo rced by a p hysical postu.re - whether the lining of hands. a IOrm o f kneeling, o r some o the.r gesture'? Too, the arrangement of the. pa rticip-anls might offer a clue: Did they stand (or sit. Ill

Mib voc frequently assumes suc-h Jewish postures (Didtldut. pp. 310, 336-40).

Clemem of Akxandri:1. for instan«. says that ·we rt~ i sc the head and lift thc- hunds h~-a \•cn·

and

t~ l so.

h.l\Vtuxl.

strnn!,,'dy. •stand on tiptoe- as we join in the d osing outburst of praye-r'

(Stwm. 7.7(40): uans. Oulton and Chadwi<:k). Cf. Origc.n Or. 31.1- .3 (when: he includes knoding). The pn-scnce or absence of such un<:xpcctcd postures a 1nnot be- known for Did. 9tO.

122 For cx.ampk . a symbolic allusio-n to suffering might l'ncompass Passo\•cr ('bread of nnlie1ion". Dcut. 16.3) and the last supper tmdition. but hm-dly applies to the bm1king of bread in the Didacht•s pr.tycrs or. for that matter. in c:~-cryday Jewish roca1s. 123 Sec hhamar Grul·nwald. ·raul and Ri!Ual Theory: The CtLsc of the " lord's SupjX'r" in I Corinthians 10 nnd I r. in Adda Yarbro Collins and Mnrg:uct M. Mitchell (cds). Anliljllily a11d Hummtily: E.\·,\·ays on Andnll Rt!ligirm cmd Philol'ophy iFcstschrift Hans Dieter 8cl7.: TC1bingen: Mohr/Sidxd. 100t). pp. 159- 87 (1 77- 9).

97

Tile Logic of tile Did ache '.> M<•al Riwal

o r n.>eline) in :l circle'? Was there a 'head table' (or head couch) where a prophet or leader s tood to o ll'er the prayer'! Does only o ne person oiler the thanksgiving for the entire- group. or was there room fo r o thers to 'take. tums ..? Such basic and c rilical details a re nol ;waila ble, a nd I know o r no responsible way to remedy this J:wk. least or all should we supply it from assumption and ;::.nuesswork. Prudence SUIH•t--sls that we relv upon co ~

what we do know. Fina11y. the l~lCt that we do not know w/wwas qualified

to speak these prayers - aside from the prophets, who are given some additional leeway - may be a clue t~at the communily was relative!)'

egalitarhm, but we C'.lnnot be t-ertain. 1- 4 In the end, we have enough iniOrmation from the ritual prescriptio ns themselves to grasp something o f the ritual fOrce of the-meal of Didache 9-

10. What we have le-•rned here will e nable us to gra pple with the historical

place of this me-al ritual in formative Christianity. But to d o that lask justice, we must fi rs t consider its relalionship lO the ritual logic s upper lr.tdition.

or the last

124 Methodologically. one must resist the urge to usc other documents to fill in gaps at this stage of nnalysis. I will of course be conttrncd with the relationship bctw'--cn the Dirk1clut s ritunl trndition ;md othn documents from early Christianity in Pt1rt II of this study. whcre- due: to th< nature of the i1wc:stigation the temptation to conAatc cvidcne<: will not ari~.

C hapter 4 THE DIDACHCS M EAl R ITUAl A ND T HE LAST SUPPER TRADIT ION

bread and wine; fOr lhis is courage a nd slrength oiTov Kai oivoto· TO yO.p JJivoc; ' OTI 1
Iliad IX, 706 !\olel<:hizedek . . .brought out loaves and wine; he was prie$l of God the Most High

M£Axto£0EK .. .i~~V~)'l<EV &pTou~ Kai o1vov· ~v ~ h prUc; TOO 6wU ' ' TOU U~IOTOU

.

Genesis I 4.18 (LXX) Comparing the Last Supper tradition and the meal ritua l o r Didad•e 9-JO is somet hing like comparing apples a nd oranges. They a re. composed in d ifferen t genres: one is ~in episode from a large r mtrraliVe. the o ther a set of prescriptive p rayers. However, both concern the rirualizllfion of a nuwl, ~~nd on this basis they can be t·ompared. A brief deflnilio n of the nature. of this co mmonality will l~-tcililate the compa rison. Jonathan Z. Smith has argued that rituals focus a llention on mundane objects and utilize them in intentionally unre-alistic ways. fo r Smith. what is done here (in the ritual) is inte ntionally incongruous with what is done t/1er" (in the mundane world)1 A c up and bread - a rguably the most mundane of a ll possible- meal components in the ancient world - ra ther transparently evoke the ordinary consumption or food and drink. In the Didadw. these two objects are sing_led. o ut in the context o f an actual meal. And this is also clearly the selling fo r Paul's discussion of the ' Lord's Supper'. :\.
The Didache 's Meal Riuw/ aud file Las/ Supper Tradiliou

99

break out or the s to ry to direct the community in this regard . One would assume then that a full meal is s till in \1iew there. although this c.annot be proven.

2

At a ny ra te, in keeping with Smilh's theoretical insights. both the Didadu(s me.a.l ritual and the Last Supper narrative operate with

characteristic incongruity: both explicitly cJaim that t he meal is or represents something beyond the o bvious. In neit her case is food the actu:LI point o f the rit ual. \V"hat is: being. done here is intentionally glossed in :1 way that is im:o ng,ruo us with what is normally done a t a meal - namely. the feeding or the bod ily a ppetite and (fo r G reeks and Ro mans. a t least) conviviality. One d oes no t fill the belly with 'knowledg,e' ;.iny more th;m o ne actually feasts on the body and blood o f the Saviour. And thoug,h o ne might assume t hat social ties are be.ing created or s usta ined in s uch meal

rituals. this is not what the ritual traditions daim is occurring. On this

or

very basic level, thereCore - na mely. the ritua lization a meal - what is envisioned in Didache 9- 10 is _g.e nerically comparable to what is envisioned in the supper narrative:'

Fo r purposes of c.:.omparison, it is important to atlend to what, within the logk o f the ritual>ought to be ha ppening. were t his not merely bre.ad a nd a cup, not sim ply a me.al - in other words. what each ritualiza tion is designed to do. This functional aspect or the rituals forms a part or wha t I have ca lled t he 'ritual logic' of each . T he ide.alized o r incongruous aclion embedded in t he one ritualization t~m now be compared wit h its counterpart in the o ther. And since they can be comp;ued in this way, the-i r d ifferences ca n ~dso be made intelligible from the perspective of ritual a nalysis. Two Riuw/ PMIJs

As we have seen , t he Didarlte's pro.tye.r s, viewed as models, reve-al :1 Eucharis t lhat derive~" its logic from a ritua l sc:.ripL T his ritua l sc:.r ipl inculcate-S a pos ture. of dependence upon God a.s Father and assumes tha l his specia l provisions fo r the (~Ommun i t y ConSiSt primarily Of" kntnr/edg(/ o bta ined throug.h the agency of Jesus their s pecial prophet (pais). T his 2 The fo-rmubic simi kuiti~,: bl·tw~c-n the S)1lOptic supper n:1rrntive and the feeding of thcthousand tuld four thousand suggest that a •satisfying meal' was at k':ILSt thc klt>al of every community meal motivate-d by Jesus' example. 3 Although the term •ritualization' is t1 cornC"tstone of Catherine Be-ll's theoretical ~ss:ty ( Ritufll Tht'ory, Ritu(ll Pnl<'lir~ (New York: O:tford Uni\~rsi ty Press. 1991)). my notions of ritual are much doser to Roy Rappaport's ('The Ob\'ious Aspects of Ritual'. in Ecology. M t'(/JiiiJg. all(/ &ligio11 [Richmond. CA: Nonh Atlantic Books. 1979]. pp. 171-221: Ritufll tmd Rdigitm). and hnvc- been inllucnccd substantially by Mouricc Bloch's ('Symbols': J>rq into lhmrrr: Tilt' Politico of Religious E.\'f!"kJU'e (Nt.•w York: Cambridge Univcrsily Press. 1991]). as wdl as J. Z. Smilh's (seen. I abo\~). fh~

100

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

revelation involves a n o rientation toward an eschatological 'kingdom', which t he ritual summons a nd into which the faithful (above. all. those in the community) wait to be- gathered. The prayers themselves do not further delimit the. content of the revelation, but the s.ample prayers illustr.tle that 'life'. in the sense of ' immorta lily', was prized by the community. The pr.tyers also exhibit a fai rly traditional Jewish notion of God as creator, ca.ring for ~dl o f creation ( 10.3). alongside t he c.o mmon Jewish goal of holiness (10.4). The- Las t Supper t radition, fo r ils pa rt1 derive.s its ritua l logic from the startling terminology o f 'body" and 'blood '. linking the crucillxion Jesus (on behalf of the community) immediately to God's eschatologic"J rule. The tradition reo rients time- itself in 1e.m1s of these two moments of mythical proportions (Ur:eit and Eudzeit). The community that participates in o.t ritual informed by this tradition, the.n , will presumably be put into contact with t hese two discreet - but here united- events; tha t is, into d irect contact with mythical or ultimate reality. Notably, and surprisingly. the Didtu·Ju:'s eucharistic ritua l makes no reference to a foun ding swry. This silence. has ustm11y been o bserved exclusively in terms o f the specific story of Jesus' passion, but it is stiJI more profound. Je,'ius is remembered here. as ;-t ·servanf who has made certa in t hing$ known. His personal history does not e nter the rit ual logic of the prdyers:. Nor does. fo r example~ the. story of creation make much of an a ppearance here; it is an attribute of God, liLLie more. Tite eschatologicaJ kingdom evoke.s an episode, perhaps - the aw3ited 'gathering' . not yet re-alized- but not a connected narrative. T he rituaJ, to aU appear.mces, is detached fro m myth. From another persp<."(:tive. however. the. ritua J doe~" appeal to, even rely upo n, very specific notions, some of which c.an plnusibJy be illuminated only by appe-•1 to the epic traditions of Israel. Examples here include the figure of David as a s pecial ' servant' (9.2), the habitation of the Name ( 10.2), the divine act of cre,.tion (10.3). and pro ba bly 'spiritual food' ( J0.3).J The reader or heare r o f these model pmyers is expected to be familia r with the lr.tditional notions or s tories alluded. to in these tenus: God's c reation of the world. the eating of 'manna· in the- wilderness. David's pro phetic activity, the (one, true) Temple. In addition, a number of specific notions a lso appear that one would not assodate with lsraer s epic past. The most obvious example (Dibelius's) is, of course. the role of

or

4 The •spiriiU!II food and drink· of Did. 10 St."Cms to evoke the wildt rnl"S.'t narrati\-c. espcci.:•lly manna. Paul seems 10 dmw from the snrnc: (di11spora) tr.ldition ( I Cor. IO.J-4). B.:md Kollmnn's effon to connect Paul·s usage to the: Did(ldu!'s vi <~ t• prc-·Paulinc Chris! ian tradition of supc:rnntum1 pneumatic food is unduly spccu1ati\-c (UrsJinmg uml Gt>.slufum (kr ji·,i1:dtri.wlid um Mahlf.,ier (GOtti nb~n : Vandenhocck & Ruprecht. 1990). pp. Sl-8.. 69. 100): more likely both dl\:w on pi\:·Christian Jewish notions of mtumu (e.g. Wis. 16.20). I will consider the ri!Ual ramifiea1ions of the phrase fu nhcr in Ch. 6.

The Didache's Meal Riuw/ aud file Las/ Supper Tradiliou

10 1

Jesus, t he special 'servant'. Notions like e ternal life. ·your assembly', knowledge and perfection (10.5) can all be interpreted , perhaps, in term> o f Israel's epic; they need not be. But both traditiona l and more innovatiVe notionS o f this Sort help LO identify and define-the participants

in the ritual. divine and human alike. Thus, while the prayers may involve an extra-rinml ac.:.c ount of the na ture of the d ivine a nd what can be expected therefrom, they do not rely upo n a specilk: myth or transhistorical event. They rather vaguely assume a n epic t radition. The only speciOc past event one can deduce here is the revelation o f knowledge to the community throu~h Jesus, a nd this is not so much a n 'event· as an ongoing proce.s...". Whatever one makes of this fact, it could hiirdly be more remote from the immediate mythical o rientation of the UiSt Supper trddition. ·nmt tradition vividly evokes a founding event. and the. t radition is impenetrable without that JUJry in the immedia te background. In the supper tr.tdition. at least for Paul, thr: storp motirtlles Jht~ riwal: Jesus (the more-than-human fOunder of the community) fi rst performs wha t the community now does, not simply as a meal preceded by blessing> but as a meal that proclaims his age-shifti ng de-• th a nd parousi:t. These basic diO'erent·es betwee-n the two rituals a re- related. The ritual function of the Last Supper tradition. in its classic phiise. is to draw pa rticipants into the sacred timeline that runs from Jesus' 'giving up• and de-a th all t he. way to the pa rousia 1 the kingdom's a rrival. For such a ritual to operate sul~Cessfully, there must exist a larger narrative framework into which the participants can be dmwn. T hus. il becomes clea r that the Last Supper tro.td ition - particularly when it is viewed as an episode. in the larger passion narrative - is suited to precisely this kind of ritual sensibility. Regarding the. que.stion of o rigins. I Sugb~st t hat the narrative links between Jesus· de-.Jth a nd the community that gathe-rs in his name have grown up tog£•111er •rit!J the realization that the.ir meal is a crysta11ization of what is most nwtmingful in this na rra tive. (n other words, the sto ry becomes myth in the same proce$S thal the-meal becomes rirual: when the links between story. story-telling. ritualization and communily form. This c rysta llization would explain the early thing of the key tenns and structure of the supper trddition. It would a lso explain why. fOr the community as s uch, the ritual sensibilities of the Last Supper are inseparable from the (pert-eived) essential meaning of Jesus' dea th. When Ignatius. Justin a nd (e,•idently) John 6 link this ritualized meal to Jesus· im·amtllion, in addition to his s.anificial death, they are atte~~Lin~ an evolution of the communit}' iLSelf, alongside- the evolution of ritual te rminology ('Oesh ') and ilS mythical associations. All three dimensions must change. and they <:hange together. The community becomes infused wit h the d h1ine meor Chrisl, which Lhe incarnation ensures has come. nol only in a ppe-a rance but also in 11esh - ultimately. in the bre-a d eaten a t the

102

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

supper. When incarnation in this sense becomes conceivable - oral le.ast becomes united to this ritua l traditio n - then the community begins to transfOrm as well. are not simply brought into contact with Jesus' death ' for us' in anticipation of the pnrousia: 'we· are now being

·we·

transformed throu.gh the ingestion

or

the d ivine incarnation - "the medicine of immortality'~ as lg,natius calls it . Thus. in both the classic phase (Paul. Mark, Mallhew) and the late r 'incarnalionar phase. t he supper tradition of Jes us' ' body/ lle.
The Didache 's Meal Riuw/ aud file Las/ Supper Tradiliou

I03

This point can be illustra ted by comparing the two tradi(io ns slruc.:.t ur.tlly: Last Supper T rad ition C0/\1'f£XT: Jesus· Oe:t th (ror o t hers) Jesus wok bre((d. g1wc tha nks (or blessed it). broke il. mul :;.aid, ·J7tis ism)' bm~1 ·: (expanded in Paul) Jesus t()()k a Cllfl,

g1wc tha nks (or blessed it). tmd stlid. · 11Jis is fmy hloml /J the conmtmiJ.· (expanded in r>.•lark und l'aul) COJ\
Did. ? .3-4, 2 · ubscm • 3-4 ·com:~rning the- frugnu:nt :· euclwr islt..O-p rayer (8 lines)

· nbscnt -

2 · Firsl. eonccrn ing the c up' euclwr islt..O-p rayer (4 lines) · nbscnt -

CON'r£.'n : Escha tologic:al Gathering

In each t radition. citing and elabor.ttin~ upon verbal fo rmukte is a way to express emphasis. Didache 9 plac.:e.s emphasis precisely where. the supper tr.tdition becomes c.:.ursory (tha t is, t he-two prayers): and where the suppe-r tr.ldition place-S emphasis the Didal'lw is entirtdy siltmt. One could, perhaps. a rgue that a na rra tive might be expected to gloss over prayers. while prdyers might be expected to eschew narr.uion - an a rgument tha t ha rdly applies 10 later eucharistic prayers. however. which contain lengt hy rehearsals of .salva[ion history (e.g_. Liturgy ofSt James).6 But there a re. o ther hints here deeper divergences. First. t he o rder of cup-then-bre~ut in the. Didatlu: is proba bly one suth hint. For Luke, a l least, the reversal of cup a nd bread evidently coincided with a lack of full agreement with the .supper tradition (if not actual suppres.sion o f it). Seco nd. t he Jangmtge used to refer to Jesus - namely. pais versus Christ provides a nother hint of divergence. Third, of the .six itern!
or

6 Cf. too G:mJt. ap. 1..H-S, <.'ontaining snt'r:.l p~1 ycrs long viewed as Hdk'tlistic synugogal prayers. lightly redactl-d for Christian usc (sec: OTfliL pp. 67 1-86). which also ·nnrr.ttc' (Jewish) st1lvation history in the •report' mode.

104

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

while the bread is ' life a nd knowledge' and symbolize.< the eschatolo!iical

gathe-ring of the communily (h:KAflola). These metaphors. in tum , are-not attestt.-d in any o f our wit nesses to the supper tradition. T his is ha rd ly surprising: the two sets o f metaphors are fundo.1mentally distinct. This d ivergen<:e. surely. canno t be attributed merel~r to an acddental dilre.rente or genre. Instead. one m ust aocount in some other way for the Didadu:•s 'failure' to mention the<:ritical sacrificial death from which its meal should be taking its rit ual lOree. O r. to p ut t he s hoe o n the oiher foot. one must ~iCCount in .some way. other than genre. fo r the 'failure' of Paul a nd ~·lark

to clarify that the central tenet of the community"s me.al ritual is the commemoration of knowledge made a vailable t hrough Jesus the pllis oC the Father. T he. simplest explana tion for 'failure' on both s ides is tha t t hese two rituals. while functioning in tomp:lrdble ways, take. participants in d ifferent ritual directions - a nd tha t each is more or less e.ffetti"e in taking. participa nts where it has been designed to take them. In sho rt, we are de-~lling wit h two ritual pa ths. both be-ginning a t roughly the- s~tme point (with bread and a c up. a t the outset of a meal) and bo th moving meta phorically toward a comparable eschatological futu re, the kingdom God, bo und up with the llgure o f Jesus. 7 l emphasize this basic d ivergence because it has so often been overlooked in the interests of making the Didaclle tit into various e ucha ris tic developmental schemas. Howe-ver, it would be d isingenuous to pretend tha t we ha ppen to possess t he only two 'types· or me-al rituals that emerged in t he early Jesus movement. In the course of the second part of this study. it will become-clear tha t more tha n two conceptu;1l frameworks are worked out in the various prayer texts we possess from the second to fourth centuries. Early e-vidence for some. of these is lacking, but that in itself does no t rule out the very early existence of a mut'h wider spectrum of Christian meal rituals than we can now recover.11

or

Prap!r Coureutious in Paul The conclusion that our pr~iyers represent a ritual path distinct from the las t s upper t radition can be tested in a n instructive sense - ror Paul a t least - by a comp;uison of prayer conventions. Although Paul's fette rs do not preserve a ny meal prayers. prayer \'OC~tbulary is t.ommon e nough in his lette rs tha t some fo rm ula ic comparisons can be made. A characteristic 1 Or. to v.uy the metaphor. if tttitual can be compared to a tunnel. into wi1ich on<: enters nnd then is 'carried· to the end. we arc dc:-aling with two S('paratc tunnds here. even if one enters both :at almost the same point - namely. at u meal of like-minded followers of Jesus. S Sc:c. e.g.. Bradshnw. Ec1cl!ariJtic Origim-. pp. 43- 60. UnfortUimtdy. llrt1dshaw wcakC"ns much of the force of this dil'crsity by susg~-st i ng tacit connections to the Lt1st Supper tradition (p. 60).

The Didache 's Meal Riuw/ aud file Las/ Supper Tradiliou

I05

diverg_ ence here ilwolves the d istinctive use of ·for' (Urr,p) in the Didad u's eudwriste6-prayer. By contrast, the typical Pa uline pallern (which is

somewhat llexible) is as follows:9

Eux_aP.ro;:C> Tc\> e,c;, t~out

I thank (my) God concerning [yo uJ alwa ys (or simila r phmsc)

fl'J'l [U~c.>V(

navton 'T

"

•

I

OTif tva{E m

because - conte-n t o f thanksgiving -

Pa urs cudtarisrea-form is generically comparable to the DidtU'he's. but exhibits some signillcant d ifferences. For e·xamp le, Pa ul d isplays no knowledge o r the e nclosing formula 'which you made known through

Jesus your servant' - a tem1 ( rro:'i't;;) he never u.se-s o r Jesus. ?v1oreover, for Paul the term ·for' (usually m pi ; only uni p in 2 Cor. I. I I a nd some manuscripts a t Rom. 1.8) does no t sen •e to introd uce the ttmlellf.s of the thanksgiving.'() Jnste.a d> the peri-clause introduces a refere nt , while an additional conjunction (us uall}' OTt o r 'Iva; ' rrl in Phil 1.3- 5) introduces the ground o r content of the. tha nksgiving. T he. De utero-Pauline epistles can occasionaJiy lea ve out the traditional conte nt-clause alto,g:.e ther (Eph. 5.20. Col. 1.3). n On occasio n Paul or his imitators wlll use. 'Father' as the d irect address. but only once without 'God ' (Col. 1.12, though ma ny manuscripts do have ' God' here as well). These differences are no t ea rths ha ttering., but they do involve dista nce from the Didadw's consiste nt )}' emp loyed fo rmulations. T he typic"! Pa uline pattem ro r the doxolof!y." o n the o ther ha nd . is q uite close to one o f the Didad u!'s doxologies: d ati\'c (e.g. · to whom") o nly) + ·Ame n·

--r-

·glory· + ·ro revcr and t:\'cr· {rarely ·rort:\'cr·

As in the Didadre. t he verb ·to be' is elided . The :rbove is the lo rm Paul evidently used in Roma ns 11 .36 ('fo rever only), Gala tians 1.5, and

9 Rom. 1.8: I Cor. 1.4: I T hc:ss. 1.2 (2.1)}. 3.9 ('"erbal noun): with minor \•ari:..tions in 1 Thcss. 1.3. 1. 13. Paul"s fonn appears to be tm c:xp:111sion of the mo~ typic:..l c:..rly Christian p:1ttern (Lk. 18.11: Jn 11 .4 1 (rrcnip for aiet;): I Cor. 1.14lcC1m-crs:..lional usc~ I Th~-ss. 1.13: Phlm. 1.4 (onw; for On): Rev. II .13): EUxa ploulv IT~9tc;>. rnrdy eroc; us vocative:) + OTI t- the content of the:-th,mksgiving. 10 An imitator of P:..u1 offers n single: exception: "nhor.lys andjOr [Onip)e\"erything giving thanks in the name: of our l ord Jesus Christ to God the Father· (Ep-h. 5.20}. II For Col. 1.3 both Vnlp and mpl arc tcx.tunlly attest~-d: he~ the content of the thanksgiving is con\•eycd in a p:trliei~lial phms-:. 12 Thu! a doxology would htl\t: hc:cn used in Pauline communities in the context of pra}"Cr is implied by 1 Cor. 1.10. where: 'Amc:n· is dearly the oong~gatiom1l response:.

106

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Philippians 4.20; and Pauline imitators used in Romans 16.27, 13 Ephesians 3.21, I Timothy 1.17 (with a n expansion o r ·g,lory') a nd 2 Timothy 4.18. ·n u 1s Paul and his imita tors use the shorter doxology I'Ound in the Didadu~ (never the. longer fo ml ). usually with 'forever' expanded. The use of this same doxology~ with .some variation, in circles o utside t he influence or both Paul a nd the DidtiC!rc is a lso apparent (Prar cr of' Manassch 15; 4 Ma('t'. 18.24: ct. Jude 1.25; Rev. 1.6, 5.13, 7. 12). ·n , is usage s uggests tha t the shorter form fo und in the Didm•ht: was in ll-tirly wide use at a ve.r y early stage in the Jesus movement. most likely having been reta ined verbatim from Greek.speaking Jewish convention (if the LXX's textual tradition can be t rusted). T he Didadu!'s do uble-doxology. ' BE.'Cause yours is the power a nd the- glory forever', sta nds out here as an innovation: it is perhaps unknown in e--.trly Christia n prayer oulside of the direct influe nce of the Didar!Je's mea l ritual. 14 T hese fOrmal comparisons, then, support the conclusion proposed above, that we are u1Lim:lle ly conce rned with two riLual pa ths in the Didache and the last s upper accounts. 15 Pa ul. fo r his parl, shows no ~1Cquainlant:e with the distinctive fo rmulae o r the Didac'!Je"s me.al ritual the very qualities tha t give it its characteristic ritual logic. ·n le- form of those p rayers. a nd their ritual force, is a bsent from the few tenninolog,ical pa rallels tha t cro p up in Paurs thanksgiving praye.rs. By contrast, in the thanksgiving pn1yers tha t open six o f the undisputed Pauline epistles, d istinctive Pa uline-themes are never a bsent: each explicitly mentio ns either the gospel (Rom. 1.9; Phil. 1.5, 7: I T he-Is. 1.5). or the pa ro usia ( I Cor. 1.7- 8; Phil. 1.6. 10: I T hess. 3. 13). or fait h (Rom. 1.8; I Thess. 1.3; Phlm. 5). o r Christ's suffe rings (2 Cor. 1.5), o r more tha n one of t hese16 ·n ,e Didatlw's pr.tyers, of course, mention none o f these Pauline themes. A d ive-rgence of pr.tyer fo rmulae, alongside this divergence o f characteristic cont·epts, s uggests then that o ur two ritual ' p:iths' a re not being utilized in I3 Rom. 16.25- 7. it will be recalled. is omitted in some manuscripts ( F G 629). appears nflcr 14.23 in others t't' 0209 ~r m syJ. a ppears after 15.33 in '}346. and after 16.23 in some ($~>~ ~ B C D). as wd l as t1 combination of lhcsc lorn1ions. App;ttcnt1y it belong;> lo the transmiSiion of th<: doC'Umcnt: it cannol be nscribed with any confidence to Paul's hand (sec Joseph A Fitzmycr. RomutU [AB. 3): New York: Doubleday. 1993}. pp. 753-4: and C. K. Barrett. The l:.j1istle to Jhe> Romans I l ondon: A & C Black. 2nd cdn. 1991}. pp. 10- 13. 262- 3). 14 The prescnoc of a very similur doxolog_v in some mss. of Mt. 6.13 is an inoond usivc c:t<: this (initia)J divide: (see Chs 7--8 below). 16 The dispulc:d episllcs share thjs trait much less evenly: most d early Col. 1.4. 5: less d early Eph. 1.13: ~·nd only ·faith' in a less d early Pauline sense in 2 Thess. 1.3-4 and a non· Pauline: SC"nsc in 2 Tim. I.S.

The Didache 's Meal Riuw/ aud file Las/ Supper Tradiliou

I 07

the same c.o mmunities - at le-ast no t in communities of which Pa ul and the Didadu( s scribe are a part

Common Tetritory The d ifferences between these two rituals should not blind us to the simiktrities that ma ke t hese. difference~" compelling. that, indeed, make them a historical p roblem in the tlrst place. Their similarities a re essentially slruct ural: in both, it is precisely two fOod items, a cup and bread (in whatever order}> that one must 'give thanks' lOr, each in its tum. Vinually all of their te rminological similarities stem from this bask s trut.tura l agreement. First. they have in common the ve-r b 'to gjve thanks' (•uxapt a n important part o f that meal. Indeed. the Didat/Je"s term fo r this bread ('lragment'. KAao~a)" Hnds a parallel in the l ast Supper tradition's verb ' to break' {KAciCol), which always accompanies the bread there (s.ave-in Justin). Again, the-se three verba l convergences derive from the s tructura l similarities mentioned above. In addilion) the Didm•he's prayers share wilh ".
108

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

one and the other. A common source or milieu. by contrast, best accounts for both the-common dual structure, which is llxed enough to provide the similarities between our two traditions. and a lso the requisite- improvisational lreedom. which would allow lor the development of this degree ol d ivergen<:e over time. It should be- noted that both lr.tditions show evidence of prolonged o ral circulation before having bee.n Jlxed in textual fonn - another clue in sopporl of independent development in a c.o mmon

environment. Both Helmut Koester and John Dominic Crossun have rightly contended that the two tradilio ns d id indeed emerge from a c.o mmon sourte o r milieu. Koester posits three overla pping 'constituent parts": anticipa tion of Jesus· return. bre.a d as ·symbol of the eschatologjcal community'. a nd. cup as 'symbol of the. new covenant'. Crossan adds to this list two common ingredients: 'actu;.~) meal' and 'shared meal' - the fi rs t a lone on firm e\1idente. 19 I would instead. wish to limit t his common source to those elements ce.r tainly shared by the Didathe a nd the Last Supper tmdition as establis hed in Chapter 2: a prefe rence (not exclusive.) for the verb 'lo give thanks' (rUxaptoTiw versus near synonyms): the insistence on llro meal components> always a cup and bread (in varying order); a nd. a predilection lOr symbolizing the cup and bread away from their literal mea ning (as rood a nd d rink) toward something else. in both cases \\~ th an eschatological dimension. l e.ss unifOrm para llc.ls>t hen. mus t be we.ig,hed difierently: perhaps the.y were there in this orig,inal environment, o r perhaps the.y have resulted !rom coincidence. For example, the appearance of ' kingdom' in both the Didat!Je a nd ~·lark is no t terribly striking.: il does not by any means sug,_~st verbal correspondence between the larg.e r sayings in which the word occurs, but it can be assumed as part o r the common milieu. 20 On the olher ha nd. that bo th t he Didal'he a nd Pa ul associa ted the bread with oneness has more potential value~ yet fhis migJ1t be explained as a coincidenta l resull or rellection on the nat ure o r the food and the group. or as a topos in Jewish prayer in the diaspora. In lhese (·ase$t o ne is less

19 Koester. ·Memory·. pp. ~4 5-6: Cro~m. Binh of CllriJiialli(•l. pp. 434-44. though Crossan d~scribcs two of KOC"stcr"s three it~ms d ifferently. Klinghardl adds ·spirit' (among others). but must mO\'C outside: of Did. 9- 10 for this (GeiiWirur!laftsmaM und Ma!Fig~meirurlwfr. p. 491). Rouwhorst finds: •the presence of Chrisr c:ommon to both (•o idachc 9-10·. p. 29). but I fail to sec th is:. Mav.a. meanwhik . thinks: Did. 9 and I Cor. 10 share a rite: of the: cup. u rite of the brend. the •theme of unity·, the ·cup·brcad·unity scquc:ncc·. and •the literary form of the e-mbolism. whi<:h connocts the theme of the: bread with the theme of the unity· (Origi11s. p. SO). But I Cor. 10 alludes to the last supper tmdition. not the Dillarllt''s rilual: sec Ch. 2 t1bo..~. 20 Precisely because the: larg.c r conlc:tls surrounding these eucharistic tc::
The Didache 's Meal Riuw/ aud file Las/ Supper Tradiliou

Io<J

certa in about t he existence of any spec.:.itic source as s uch, which the Didadw a nd the l ast Supper tradition share. l\,1oreover, the dill erences in t his last instance are quite important: for Paul, the 'body' is already unilled through the partaking of t he bre,ld. tha t is, the 'body of Christ' ( I Cor. 10.16-17). Fort he Didarile. by contrast, the ritual participants still look ahead tow~L rd a 'gathering' t ha t will make them o ne (9.4).2 1 This distinction corresponds to the 'already' of Pauline eschatology. a n ingredient evidently lac:king in the Dida('he. h a lso underscores a point made in Chapter 2: the death of Jesus. fo r Paul and probably for Mark, already implies the parousia; they a re two ha lves of a s ingle-moment. For the Didadre. no comparable swilch has been t ripped. The ekk/esia is not yet ·g~Hhered', no t full y t~onstituted. This subtle t~ontntst. in which a common motif is put to r.uher d ifferent use> will reemerge in the-second part o f lhis study. The. next logical question is whether this common environment is besl understood as simply Judaism, as some specific stream within Jud;tism. o r, more specillcally s till, as an early slage- of t he Jesus movement. as Koeste.r and Crossan have sug..gested. fo r exa mple. Gerd Theisse-n has argued tha t baptism and Eucharist were originally symbolic actions tha l conveyed John the Baptisl's and. Jesus· eschalOlogical messages. Only later were lhey reinte rpreted by their as.sod:ltion with Jesus' dealh.11 His hypothesis could a llow fo r the emergence of two distinct e ucha ris tic. ritual traditions, ea<.~h focused upon Jesus, and e.ac.:h geared toward. lhe kingdom of God.23 Meals invo lving. cup, brea d a nd an eschatologjcal orientation are envisaged a lre-a dy in pre-Christian Qumra n texts; thus, the.re is precedent fo r such a development. ~4 Certainly the movement s urrounding Jesus developed pr.tctices fo r its own use; evidenlly this process

21 So too Harnr1ck. LttltJ·t'. II. pp. 30-31; and Mazza. Origi11s. p. S-6. Rordorft1nd Tuilicr miss this distinction (sec Ltr Doc:tritll!. p. 46 nnd nn. 3-4): for them. unity is ·:.!rea dy realized in d~ eucharis.tic synaxis· (p. 10 1). The DitladJtl s e:tpcctation is closer to the traditional Jewish )X'tition for the ingathering of the exiks than it is to Paul's conception (stt further. brictly. Ch. 5 below). 22 Gerd Theissen. 77le Religkm of lilt! &trlil!SI Clwrc/Je.\': Crt!tlling a Symbolic War!d (truns. John Bowden: Minneapolis: Fortrl:':>s Press. 19?9). pp. 122- 60. c:sp. 126- 38. 23 Theissen does not dr.1w this conclusion; the Didttd:l'·s e\·idcooe is not integrated coherently into his acx:ount of the origins of a distinctly Christiun symbolic ritual lnngunboc. Compare his r<:n1t1rl:s in Rdigion on pp. 130 and 137. wltcrc Did. 9- 10 is always an exception to the ucnd he posits. 24 E.g. IQSn 2.11- 21 (the well-known 'Mt:S:>innic' te:tl): I QS 6.4- 6 enjoins the blessing of n<w wine and the first fruits: of bread before a common meal. t1ccompanie-d by interpretation of the l nw. which for this community has an eschatological orientation ( IQS 8.11- 16). Sec too the frn,!,.'lltcnt ·Grnce after Meals.' (4Q434n). which demonstrates that such blessings invoh-cd an eschatologictll dcme.nt.

110

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

was no more unifo rm than a ny other aspect o f the movement's evolution.H

Conclusions In sum, we have two me.al rituals taking two distinct paths but sha ring signilk-.a nt common g,ro und: two 'eucha ristic' or meal traditions growing., wit hout mutual inlluence, in a common environment ami perfo rming compara ble functions fo r their participa nts. Both look to Jesus. but fo r d iffe rent reasons a nd>one might say. ''~th dillerent p urposes. On the other hand, both a lso a im toward a common goal. the 'kingdom of God ', altho ugh t he me-a ns to thal common end once again appe~ir quite dill"ere nl. 1t would be dishone-St to pretend t hat an individual participating on one day in a me-al ritual inlormed by the last supper t radition a nd t he passion narrative could not on a dilrerent (J.ty participate in a meal rit'ual infOrmed by the logic o r the Didaclu?)s pr.tyers. with its ~u.-cent on the knowledg_ e made availa ble through Jesus. Far slr.tnger things have happened. Yet the conclusion seems ine$capa ble tha t, at least initial~~·. these two ritua l traditions grew up quite independently of o ne a nother, not in the sume community. b ut in d istinct (ritua l) communities - separa ted eithe r geog,ra phically o r on more intimate grounds. O ur trdns-ritual participa nt will have to move between two communities, at least initially~ to experience both. Wha t is this other, no n-Pauline a nd non-Ma rka n community, which spe,lks of Jesus as God's pais r.lther than his C hrist'? Where does it o bta in its members'? How does it fit into the histo ry o f the e-arly Jesus movement? Bo th t raditions a ppear o nly in Greek: bo th a re a ttested o nly in the d iaspora. Bo th have plausibly ta ke n shape in ro ughly t he same early period. a nd plausibly coexist within the years 50-70 (;1~. We know ra ther well the larg,e r contexts and milieux fOr the l ast Supper tntdition, possessing_as we do Paul•s epistles and at least two Gospels (among olher important early literature) that embrace this ritual traditio n. He re. ol course, there was de:velopment over time - but lhat story has been told repeatedly. Until \~t'e could gain some clarity on the somewha t d istinctiVe e thos and ritua l sensibilities of the communitie$ presupposed by the Ditlac/w's me-al ritual, however, the milieu for this other t radition could no t begjn to be d iscerned. We a re now in ;1 position to investig_ a te the lar~~r contexts a nd milieux lor this meal ritual as well. T hat task dema nds a number of steps, to be addressed in the chapters a he-i:ld . 25 An important question here is whe-t h~~r anything struc-tum1 or pract i~•l in the way Jesus· very rnrlicst followers conducted their meals would have distinguished them from other Jews' practices. or whether the \"Crbal content \'IUS 1\'"licd upon for this. This question can be- answered only provisionally: it will be treated when the relationl'hip lxtwccn the Didaclul s proycrs and the Jewish pr.tye.r tmdition is d iscussed (Ch. 5 below).

P ART

11:

T H E DIDACHE'S MEAL RITUA L IN HISTORY

This page imemionally left blank

Chapte r 5 TH E ORIGINAL MtliW OF DJDA('fl£ 9- 10

The Didadre's meal prayers assume t hat certain t hings have been 'made. known' by lhe Father through Jesus. Wha l, p red sely, has been made known'? The answer to this q uestion is determinative. fo r the historical inquiry that will follow, for how o ne reconstructs the prayers· original milieu is integr.tl to a sketch of ils tr.tjectory within the Jesus movement Unionunalely. lhe sample prayers of 9.2, 9.3 and 10.2 o iler only lhe v~1gues t or answers: acco rding to them. what has been 'made known· is the holy vine o i David, liie. knowledge ilselr (twice), the Father's holy name, 11-tith and immortality. Such terms are, without exception, susceptible to multiple a nd widely diverging interpreta tions. In fact, d ue to their indeterminate nature, these very terms are ro utinely interpreted in light of a crilic's p rior assumptions about t he community that prayed t hese pra yers. Thus> for example1 Klaus Wengst belie.ves the.y refer (in their Christianized form} to the benefits lhe Messiah bring;;: Jean-Paul Audet. to the resurrection of Christ. More plausibly. Aaron Mila vee. mainta ins that the prayers a re dete rmined by their loc.ation in the extant Didadw: in this setting, for him 1 the terms must refer to the Sp<..>Cifically (Jewish-) Christian catechesis known as t he 'Two Ways· (Did. H )). 1 In each case. nonetheless>the milieu of the praye-rs has been advanced or assumed prior 10 their interpretation. I have- in effect reversed this a pproach; beginning with a structura l a nalysis of the prayers, 1 have contended that \Vhile some elements a re varia ble and open to impro\risation. there existjixedfeatures that exhibit a tr.weable- logic. These fea tures inculc-a te. a posture of gratitude and dependent.-e upon God as Father fOr knowledge given thro ugh Jesus as God's prophet (rrcil~). This posture is a lso characterized by a sense oi a nticipation of the coming king.d om. which filters petitions fo r specific gifts o r blessings rro m the Father. Such a logic is much more d early defined than mullivalent te rms like 'life a nd ' knowledge', and lhereiore I Wcngn. Didadu•. pp. 48-Sl: Audet Lu Didac-hC. pp. 425-33; tl.·liluvcc. Ditlac-ht>. p. 93. VOObus (Lilllrgkuf Tnuliriom._ pp. I 13- 35) and Draper t' Ritual Process·. pp. 143- 5'2) also b:LSc: their intcrpretntions procisd y upon the vague:. muhi\·uknt. ,,..~•riablc terms of the prayers - with the expectc.·d \'aricd results.

114

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

allows us Lo reconstruc.t bolh the o riginal milieu for Lhe prayers and their subsequent history with greater precisio n than h:-ts. heretofore been (X>Ssible. Where the above logic is traceable, some kinship with the Didatlw's prayers can be posited. even if t he immediacy and d irection of influence must be supplied by the-interpreter. Where these markers are not present. verbal coincidence must rema in little mo re than that. Pre!iminar>': Traditionttf l i!Wish Elem cm s iu Didache 9- /0

No successful ritual springs fully fonned de 1101'0 from a group o r gro up leader. New groups gathered together for ritual purposes reproduce (o r imilate) famili::tr. conventional gestures and turns o f phrase. especially at openings a nd closings. The prayers in the Didaciie demonstrate this very c haracteristic for the communities tha t used them: in this case, d istinetive Jewish conventions have had a role in the c rystalization of communal prayer forms. TI1ese Jewish conventions would :ilready have been familiar to the rormative participants before they even heard the name- ·Jesus'. Indeed . Jesus himself likely took some such gestures and convent ions fo r granted : thus they became the starting point fo r rit ual innovation in light of a sense of something new occurring or (for the Didarlw's pra yers) being 'made known· through Jesus. The following five distincth•e ly Je wish ritual co nventions can be touched on brieOy, for their Jewish ' parallels' have frequently been adduced .1 1n our evidence>they present a bewilderin~ array o f settings fo r their (at least later) Jewish rit ual usas e: ( I) 171e toncepl of'ilumksgil~brg · at meals. nor merely in a pcrjlmrtorp way bur tis au Oc'i'asiou of rr:ligiow· or group siguifittmce. This is marked as a ·Jewish· e lement by the verb 'to gjve tha nks' (~;Uxap1oti
2 See the literature cited already by Oibdius ('Mahi·Gcbctc'. p. 11 7 n. 1). as wd l as Riggs ('Grucious Table'. p. S.J) ttnd Nicdcrwimroc:r (Didt1cile. p. 155). 3 Sec Simon PuUcyn. Pmyer ill Gm-k Religion (Oxford: Clan~on Press. 1997). p p. 131. 146-51. t1nd the chart on pp. 218-20: Adnlbcn Hamman. 'La prii:rc cbretic:nnc ctla priCrc pa'icnnc-: formes ct diffcrc:-n<:es\ ANRW 23.2. pp. 1190--247 ( 1197- 9, 1204-6): and Lany J. Aldcrink and Luthl!'.r H. Mnnin. 'Pmycr in Gtl'Co-Roman Rd igions·. in M11rk Kiley (cd.). Prayi'r from Alt'.\'
(N HC VJ.7)).

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

115

proper and rightfulmanner'.4 Such a ' thanksgiving: could weJI have been customary a t both private and communa l (syna~ogue) me-a1s.5 (2) The f!IWcde!ll'e of the cup, rmher than the bread. Ceriainly not all Jews observed this o rder in co mmunal meals. but even fewer Greeks d id so.6 And rew McGowan contends that t his precedent'e has a n a lmost ast-.etic aim: d rinking wine jirs·f removes all question or an after-d inner d rinking party, with its tendendes towa rd excess. A similar aim may, he a rgues. be responsible fo r the blessing o f (ood and drink together before the meal at Qumra n and in r.tbbinic sources: it may limit consumption. For McGowan. t hen. the cup-first meal is ·austere'. which 'would have fun<.~tioned to distinguish ils communities. . .from practitioners of the pagan ~ymposium'. 1 Altho ugh this interpretation of the praclk e is debatable, the cup-bre".td order of Didadre 9- 10 does point to a Jewish setting. (3) The shorter form of tire doxology. As no ted above. this expression concJude~~ Lhe Prayttr of Mauasseh ('For a lllhe host of heaven sings your pra ise, and yours is the glory forever. Amen'; v. 15; NRsv) and the-solemn s peech o f the mother in 4 Mact'abees 18.24 (with 'forever and er'Cr. Amen'). ll also conclude> major units in some NT texts (e.!;. Rom. 11.36, 16.27: Gal. 1.5; Phil. 4.20; I Tim. 1.17; I Pel. 4.11). allho ugh its textual o rigins a re never perha ps beyond dispute. None of these is a meal prayer. No non-Jewish parallels have been adduced " 4 SJ.tttc. 2. 175 (as cited in Sandt and FIUSS('r. Dilf thanks to you· was use-d in the Eighteenth Benediction or the ((midah. which is ·wry anck:nt' and •hus undergone n grent many chang-es a nd t1dditions in the course of time' (EiboA,:cn. Jell'iJ.h Lilllrgy. p. 51): but sec Reif. Judai.\lJI. p. 60. 5 See. e.g.. Donnld D. Bindc:r. ln/o Jl:t' Templi' Courts: Tile Place q{JI:t' Synagogues inlhe Seroml 1't>mple Period (Adantn: SUL Press. 1?97). pp. 416-26 (synagogue meals): Reir. JUtlai.sm. p. 60 (privt1lc and oommunal mct•ls): Hrndshaw. Dai~r Prayt'r. pp. 14-15 (diasporn US!I!,'<): and Alon. ' Halnchu'. pp. 187- 8 ('lhtmksgi\·ing' bdol'l: nnd artcr meals). although he rdic:s on lotcr rabbinic sources. EU:xap•oTia nppc:ars in Aquila's tmnsb tion of 'thunk· orfcring· (;-r:t~Fo n~!) in Lev. 7.12. Ps. 49.1:1. and Ps. 146.7 - where a meal was also involved. 6 Sec McGO\\~IIl. 'lnordinatc-. Cup'. pp. 2SS- 9 (Grccks). and pp. 186-8 (Jews). wh('n' he also critiques Ihe: notion that this order rdlc-cts the &1bhath C\'C' blessing. or kiddii.dt (rmllftJ c. g. Oc-stcrley. J1•1fi.fli Backgl'!llllltl. pp. 187- 9: Ma:an. Origill.\', pp..~0-35). 1 McGo,van. 'Inordinate C'up'. pp. 2:87- 9 1 (quotation p. 291). Cmura Uoulc:.y (From Frt!t'tlom to Formula. p. 97), who speculates thul Did. 10 is for n seoond. unmentionl-d cup. On 1hc- pcrcc-iwd dangers of the--symposium's drinking p11:tSC. see James lnvidson, C'ourti'.fatu and Fb.,lmki!s: Th(' C'tm.fltJIIillg Passiom· of ChtS.\'it'ltl Atlli!ll.f (New York: St Mnrtin's Press. 199S), pp. 36-69: nnd Fr.u~ois Lissarrague. 111e Aestlretio of the Greek &mquel: Images of IVitw ltnd Rifll(t/ itrnns. Andrew S1.cgcdy-Mosz:1k: Prinocton: Princcton University Prc.ss. 1990}. pp . .l-18.

S Talley ('Eucharistic Prayer·. p. 148) cbims thut these- doxologies hnvc replocn/ the chmimotlt (conduding b(lrakot formulae-): bul Hcina nunn argue-s 1hat the Christiuns inherited

116

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

(4) The pelithm to ht! gmhered from the four winds or torm:rs of the earth the kin,!:dom.9 Aside from s<·-riptur.tl parallels,m this petition has oftcited echoes in the Musafprayer, which came lobe used for the Sabba th, festival (J.tys. and the New Moon (not meals. per se). and in the Tenth Benediction of the amidah, which e.ventuall}' became part of the synagogue liturgy and the threefo ld dai1y prttyers. 11 None of these admilledly later contexts implies a me.al setting. The petition obviously exhibits a Jewish, d iaspora sensibility. Not .surprising.ly, no non-Jewish parallels ha l'e been adduced. (5) The Hehre11'/Artmwit acdtlllltllion.
the doxology from Jewish liturgical tradition (Prti)W in 1be Ttilmml. pp. 144- 5: cf. Werne-r. S((cred Bridgf'. pp. 273- 30 1). possibly e-ven the: sac:rifki:1l t."UII. whe-re C:XI>rtsstons like •gi\-c to the l ord [d:tti\•e. in LXXI glory JOO(o:. in LXXJ.. : app~c:t.:·. p. 111: Helmut Koester. Synoplisrhe 0/Krlitq(mmg lwi dm t/{10.\'ft>IUrlum VUkm (TU. 65: Berlin: Akndc:mic. 1957). pp. 193- 5: Wc:ngst. Didacllf'. p. 50:

Riggs. 'Gmcious Table'. p. 97; VOObus. Liturgical Tmdilimu. p. 165: Sandt and Flussc:r. Dkktcbe. pp. 310-I 1. 10 lkuL 30.3·5: lsa. 11.1 2: and Ezd:. 11.7. 37.21 arc mentioned by Stmdt and Flussc:r. Didlltfle. pp. JIQ.-..1 I. II Cf. Bradshaw, Smrcfl. pp. 36. 40-42: Eudmri~lk Origitu. pp. 36-7. On the (gradual) dc:wlopmenl of the tlmidith. sec Reif. Jll(kli.un. pp. 84. 10 1- 1. 109. 12 Sec E. Loh!>e. •Wo-owC( . TDNT IX. pp. 682-4 (682): Bjorn Sand,·ik. Dfl.~ K011111W11 tk.s J./t>mt b.~im Alxmdmalll (ATANT. 58: ZUrich: Zwingli Wrlag. 1970.l. p. 37: Audet. Ltt Dkktr!IC. PI>. ~2 1 -2: und Nicderwimmer. Did!tc!le. p. 161 :.md n. 84. Ps. 11825. Mk 11.9- 10. und Jn 11.1 1- 13 are consonant with this explunation: the term is lra11Sillll!d in the LXX. IJ l ohr.c. •Wo-o:w((. p. 681. There ma)' be: an allusion to this practice in Mk 1·1.16. 'when they had sung a hymn [UIJvi}oavn<;J. thc:y \\'l'nt oul to the Mount of Olives' (1'1-sv): HoMI!tntt is not m.:ntionc:d there. 14 Sec H. Schlier. ·
The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

117

These five elements all belong to the strutture of the prayers, a nd this 11-tcl is q uite illuminating: the g,ro up that formulated the prayers d rew he-a vily upon Jewish conventions at precisely those-points that carried the ritual dialogue. 16 I will explore the imp lications or this phenomenon sho rt ly. There are~ in the meantime. traditional Jewish elements in t he l'ariable clause.< of the prayers as well: (a) 'vine of Oa-•id ' (9.2) presupposes the tr.tditiona l llgure of D!ll'id (tho ugh as a proph(•t lrrai'<,) mo re than as :1 king). and has frequently been tho ught to utilize a Jewish fop()s in the te.m l 'vine', 17 tho ugh its p recise expression is unparalleled; (b) God as creator 'for the sake of [his] name (1 0.3) may already be a t raditional Jewish no tion;'" (c) G od as caretaker o f humanity ( 10.3) is clearly traditional. 19 though the idea extends beyond Jewish cirdes; (d) finall y, Lhe prayer lo 'rescue from evil' (fo und ;1lso in the-l o rd's Prayer~ 8.2) has its parallels in the Se\•enth Benediction of t he amidah, a."i doe~" the petition to ' remember';20 they thus were likely alre.~tdy trad itional. All o r these trdditiona l elements pre~'iuppose kinship between the Didadw·s prayers and what we call ·Judaism·. This kinship implies a sense of respect for tmditiona l Jewish ritual conventions. Finally. befo re allempting to evaluate these contacts with (sometimes 16 Indeed. the !lodtJJYJI form at Qummn (in the hymns. e.g. IQH") has ~omc kinship with 1hc opening fom1ulne of the 4!udwrisleQ.pmyer: 'I give: you thanks. l ord. for (slJmr1/Ji11g1. . : (or •because you .. .'): ~omc of these hymns nlso mention 'knowledge· (evidenl1y referring to the Law or its imerprctation): no mc:a1 sc-.uing is implic:d. The hymns arc colloctcd in Florrntino Garcia Mnl1ln<:7.. Tilt• Dt'(l(/ SI'U Scrolls TmnJ!alt'd(trans.. Wilfred G. E. Watson: l cidcn: Brill. 1996), pp. 317- 70. 17 Thu! 'holy' and •vine· here originate in the (otherwise diO'erc:.m) kitldiith cup prayer ha~ been frequen tly a rgued (e.g. Niedcrwimmer. Did
118

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

later) Jewish prayer literature. it is necessa ry to address briefly the Jewish after-d inner prayer. the- Birkat Ha-Mazou. long viewed as a reve-aling parallel lo the prayers ol 10.1- 5 as a whole. Critics routinely appea l lo Louis Finkelstein's reconstruction of a n unatle-Sted, fixed tripartite form from the fou r-part Birkal Hth\1a:on o f extant evidem.-e.21 Finkelstein posited Lhal the Didachisl both Look up this hypothetic,il, ea rlier Lriparlile prayer and intentionally a ltered its a rte r-dinner blessing.s. 2_2 While some caution has crept into such comparisons more ra:ently, 2·' this kind of evolutionary process still dominates the schola rly imagination? ' T hus Huub van de Sandt and Da vid Flusser. well-informed and careful crit ics of Jewis h sources. retently a rgued again that Didache 10 was uhimately modeJied upon the Birk(l[ Ha-.~azon reconstru<.·te-d by Finkelstein, although for them t his Birkal Ha-Ma:on had already been ·spiritualized' (~t la Dibelius) in a He11enistic-Jewish milieu, a nd then, s ubsequent to the~o;e spiritualizations, the prayer was a ltered with almost insidious. anti-Jewish intent to create. Didache 10 as we now have. it. 2s A major difficulty with using Finkelstein's Birkat Ha-Ma:on at a ll, despite- careful provisos, is that we <.~mnot assume a fixed entity of 'Judaism' e-ven in the e-a rly second century, especiaJiy a mono lit hic fliaspora Judaism. to which ;-t Jewish follower of Je-sus (or at least one who certa inly sounds Jewish) can re:lc1 by manipulating l'ertain phrases of ;i

21 A sole exception is Dibdius. who hypothcsi7.cs more- specifically thai the Rirlwt Jut 'ami: and Birlwtluuum were linked in a •sing_lc' prayer (Did. 10.2-4) already in diaspora Judaism, while 10.5lackcd a s~,..~ific 'Jc,vish modd' ('Mahl-Gcbetc'. pp. 1!2- 5). 21 Finkelstein. ' Birbt Ho-Muzon·. pp. 213-21. 2J l ictzmann fou nd ·no affinities' wilh Jewish after-dinner pmycrs (M(tss. p. 236): Vokes found conLact between them •slight' (Ricltlle. p. 186): VOObus was doubtful of t he whole project. partly on theological grounds (Limrgica! Tradilions. p. 166): John Clubc-d u:t stresses that such ' \'t:th!1l p:.r;•llds arc far outnumbered by the highly significan! differences' {'Eucharisti-c Pmycrs·. p. !61) and has since cx.tensin~l y critiqued the cffon to d isce-rn parallels he-rc. ('The Euchurisl Pr.1ycrs in Didache 9 + 10 and the Gospel of Ma tthew' Jpapcr presented at the annual meeting of the- SBL Philaddphi:.. PA. 20 November 2005).) Heinemann contended that such Je-wish pmrcr fonns \\'t:rc not yt't \-ctb.:•lly lix.cd in our pt;fiod (Prayer in tile T(t}mud. pp. 37-43): LawTcncc A. Hollman supports this view (The C(moni:aticm {}fthe S_;-tutgogue Senict> I Notre Dame: University of Notrc. Dame Press., 1979]. pp. l-6). though he thinks u }Owfold Birhtl l·ht-Mu:otl untc-dtues the Tnnnaitic period (p. I 36). Sec the s un'<:)' and cautions in Bradshaw. Stauh. pp. 27- 36. 39- 44 nnd (spl-.:ifically for the Birkm Ht~- Mu:mt) pp. 44-<>: idem. Euchuri.ftit' Origitu. pp. JJ-5-. 11 6: d . Lee Lc,·inc. Tilt> Andem SynagtJgUe: 11w Firs/ Tlwuumtl Yeur.s (New Ha\'Cn: Yak University Pres.-.. !000). pp. 502- 18: and Mila,-cc. Ditlurlu!. Pll. 41 ~21. 14 E.g. Mazza. Origins. pp. 11- 30 (where he appeals to and attempts to advan<:c the linding~ of Finkelstein): Skc. Church in Amiodr. pp. 95-6: Talley still speaks of 'dclibcmtc' " Iteration in the Dit/a( ht> to lhc:d fenturcs of the Birkul N11-Ma:oo ('Euch:1risti<: P~ycr' . pp. 142-S}: .:1s docs (more cautiously) Nicdcrwimmcr. Ditltld1t\ pp. 156--()(). 25 Sec Sandt and Flusscr. Ditludu•. pp. 311-29.

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

119

fixed prayer tradition.26 This is too subtle for t he state-of the evidence. As Gerolrd Rouwho rst puts it. one-cannot assume- 'that the tina Christhlns.

knew a fully de\•eloped and 11xed prayer tradition> fo r example a Hxed

Birkat lm-~·lazon, which they t hen pa rtly adopted and a lso consciously mod itied and adjusted. lOr the purpose.. of din"erentiating: a nd ma rking themselves o n· rromthe Jewish tradition'.- 1 1n any case. it would be odd 10 think of Jewish fo llowers of Jes us 'adopting· (ra ther than simply repe-a ting o r retaining) a Jewish prdyer form . Moreover. as Sandt and f lus.ser themselves point oul. the Jewish parallels for Didadu'! 9 come from quite d iverse settings.28 The same c0~1ld be said fo r at least some of the para llels for Didttthe 10 noted above.29 One can probably s urmise, then. that a threefold a11e r-dinner prayer was traditio nal (compare Jub. 22. 1- 9). and that our group simply took il fo r granted. But it would be Loo much to claim that the prayers or Didarhe 10 derive t heir meaning from :1 polemicaL conscious reorientation of ajixt!d Jewish prayer fom1. Instead. the range of para llels suggests that t he community or communities that fo rmulated the structure of the Didadte's prayers d rew upon resource-S within their native tr:idition. but from a varie.ty of ritual contexts. So, for example, we find not only the threefold table prayers of Didadte 10, but a lso the doxologicaJ refr.tin, which exhibits no rela tionship to a me-al setting in any par.tllel Jewish liter.tture. Ag,a in. we encounte.r the prayer to ·gather' in a me.al-rilual setting for the first time here - and that. twice. Fina lly. Hosanna in Didarlu: 10.6 derives f"rom an unexpected. context: the Sukkot procession. We. are faced, then. wit h the presence of trad itional Jewish elements in anon-tradititmal .\~c·lling. This is suggestive of creati1•ity, despite (and probably for the sake o l) the a ppearance of conventionality. The oe<:asion for this creativity is no t far to seek: the role o f Jesus as prophet for the community had to be accommodated in their communal praye-rs. But for the new ritual structure to (.~arry authority. it did well to retain as many tmditional elements as fea.sible.3<1 26 Lictzmann·s warning is still pertinent: "Grc:ek S)'nagogue· prayers we~ likely more flocxib1e than lhc Mishnah suggests. (Mt.US. p. 234: cf. Levine. Ancient Syrwgoglli!. p. 158). 27 Gert1rd Rouwhorst. •Jdc:ntitat duiX'h Gtbet: Gdxtstc.xtc: .t1ls Zc:ugcn cines jtthrhundc:rtlangcn Ring.rns um Kon ti nui t~i t und Differ<:nz zwiscllcn Judc:nlum und Christcntum". in Alber! Gcrhards. Andrea Docker. .tmd Peter Ebc:nb.:10er (cds). ldmtiliil
Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

120

h is best. t herefore, to conclude that the conventions of the. Didadtr's meal ritual represe.nt a new fusion of o lder rilual building blocks with the

entirely new, fixed element ' [which you made known] through Jesus your servant'. This crucial structural element, at least its last half, cannot of course-have-come even from Jesus himself: it represents the response of a community, in a ritual context, to the fig ure of Jesus and what he ma kes known. O ther elements not paralleled in traditional Jewish usage. especially the exclamations in 10.6, may repre-s ent distinctive creative contributions the t~ommuni ty as pan of this fundamental response to Jesus and wh~it he represents for the community. Thus. the Didacluls ritual, de~'ipile. its tanta lizing Jewish roots, ultimately ta kes ils characteristic posture irom iLS own new iusion o f the old and the new. becoming in the process a ritual fo r a certain type o f (Jewish) community. A synoptic saying well capture-S the sensibility that would have-been operative in this fusion: 'New wine is for fresh skins (Mt. 9.1 7//Mk 2.22// Lk. 5.38). ln c.o nd usion, t he Jewish elements iound in these prayers a re indicative of a Jewish group that is rit uaJiy respo nding to 1rhat Jesus brings as a prophetic o r enlightening revelation from the Fa ther. The prayer s tructure incorporates conventional Jewish ritual and pra yer elements, rei~Lshioning them so that they now refiect (and so inculcate) a sense of dependency upo n and gra titude to the Father precisely fOr this revealing work of Jesus. At the same time, the praye.r structure adapts a traditional Jewish eschatological notion for the sa ke of the community, viewed as God's 'assembly' waiti ng to be. gathered into God's kingdom. This community may well conceive itselr to be the faithful remnant of God's elect, bet·.luse it a lone has received Jesus' te~tchings. If so. this basic sensibility is also c haracteristic of various Jewish sects. not least the £ssenes - t hough oi course on dillerent grounds. In many respects. the group to which our scribe belonged was simply Jewish. 31 ·n1e Jewish milieu o f the Didad1e's pn1yers only sharpens the need to further define lhat miJieu, because something in addition to mainstream Je_\\~Sh notions a nd pntctices must have been at work to generate t he kind or ritual innovution found in the me-a} pr.tyers and a rguably in the baptismal a nd daily pra yer ins trut:tions o r Didathc 7- 8 (see Chapter 6

or

fommtion of new - but Sl'C'mingly tradition:•I- ritunl fom1s to express the distinctive.cthos of their rcsptttive groups. For this 1;W:. the rcsout\.OOCS of their common heritnge proved productive (cf. Le\·inc. Anrklll S.nwgtlglli'. pp. 528- 9: Rouwhorst. •fdentitiil duroh Gebc:t'. pp. 50-51). A sense of Didarhr ;, .\lodttm Reseauh ILeiden: Brill. t 996). pp. 223-B: Del Vcrme. Didurlte 1md J1uluism. pp. 1~-88.

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

12 I

below). In particular, we have yet to determine what this community thought Jesus had revealed to them.

lnstrm·tious in I he Didache The most logical point o f depart ure for rec.overing what .specifically was 'made known· to the community that prayed as Didarhe 9-10 enjoined is the material within the Didache itseli. Althoug,h this document is a lmost universally considered composite, such that its me-al prayers a re custo ma rily viewed as predati ng their incorpo ration into e-ven the earliest s tra tum o f the Didru:he, it might be expected that its various ins tructions would t~ome. from t he same milieu as the prayers.32 r have already investi£aled the conso nance or 10.6 with the apocalyptic timetable of 16.3- 8. One can plausibly understa nd 16.3-8 as instruction thought to be diroclly fro m Jesus: it pred icts a series of events ('then . . . then . . .'). the third in the- series consisting. or three signs> which in turn indicate the approach the Lord ( 16.8). On the lips of Jesus. the awaited ' Lo rd' (Kup1oc;) would likely be God himself." God is the most likely referent of ' Lord' (Kiip1oc;) in Didache 10.5, as well: ' Remember, Lord. your assembly, to rescue it from all evil. . . and to g_ a ther it into your kingdom . . .' 31 The phrase 'your kingdom' explicilly refer:; to tile Father's kingdom in 9.4 and 8.2. This sense for ' Lord' could therefOre be common to both the prayers and Didadte I 6 (though no t 9.5). The- close sympa thy between this material and synoptic tradilio ns. concerning lhe last days has long been noted. ·n 1e rela tionship between the two lies outside the scope o f this investigation. Suffice it to say here tha t the mini-apot·a lypse of D idadu! 16 need no t have come-d irectly from Jesus· lips in actua l fact to have-been considered his own d irecl teaching.. The mediation of ·synoptic t radition' is certainly no hindrance to considering t his section as p;ul o f the special knowledge revealed by Jesus to the community.35 However. the-a pocalyptic timetable by itself is not sufficient to account fo r the ritua l practices enjoined in Didat he 7- 10. Above a ll . the predictions give no ind ication of how one should prepare for the end.

or

For the praye-rs us predating t he Dida(ht'. see alrcad)' Ha rnack. Lehrt'. t. p. 59: but Nicdcrwimmer. Ditku·lte. pp. 43- 4 nnd n. 17. 139-40: Audc:1. La Diduch~~. p. 174: and Rordorf and Tuilicr. La Doct1·int>. pp. 18. 35-. 91- J. 33 Mib voc. Didach••. pp. 660- 63. 667. 34 Humud : . Leiwe. II. p. 33. 35 It is unlikdy t hat Did. 16 relics upon the wriucn srnoptic gospels.. Sec Koester (S.moptische Oberlh:[tmmg. p. 190). who \'icws both Mk 13 tllld Diil. 16 as independent. Chris tian n"fashioning of Jewish apocalyptic materials. Sec Nicdcrwimmct for a history of the problem (Ditlac!Je. PI>. 209- 13): G~unnv conte-nds tha t Motthcw t\"C'Il used Ditl. 16 (Matthew's DeJ~IIdt>nce. pp. 190- 215). 32

cspl~i olly

122

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

including the all.important considera tion of how one might be a mong the 'holy ones' rather than Lhe wicked, and so escape the te rrible destiny of those deceived by the world-deceiver. At first glance. the Two Ways material o f Dida<"he 1- 5 appears to 1111 this gap. and so to constitute something 'made known· to the community through Jesus a nd celebrated in its meal prayers.3 u After all, t he 'wa y of l~{e' is a sympathetic image.~ providing a link between the language. the prayers and the te rminology this ins tructional block.37 t\·loreover, the way orlife appears to i1wolve-spec.:.ial insider knowledge. especially in 3.1 6, which pre-sen~s a way to ' llee from all evir by understanding how the vices o riginate.JH An understanding o f huma nkind fa lling into two camps. wit h two destinies (life or dea th) depending upon the conduct of their lives (holy or not)> resonates a lso with the ritual acclamations o f 10.6. in which the 'ho ly' are bidden to enter a nd the res t to repent. Finally. the whole Two Ways tradilion is clearly at home in a Jewish milieu (see below). Despite these points in its favour>this materia l is no t exempt from the Le-St proposed above: a traceable kins hip between the Two Ways and the logic of the meal rilual must be discovered, and existing correspondences have to be evalua ted with care. Scholars have long suspected that the Two W;\ ys material of !Jidache 15 ho.1d been utili:ted in Jewish circles prior to the a ppe-a rance o f Jesus or his followers 39 It a ppears in a closely related form in the £pi. sometimes with and sometimes without the kind of elaboration seen in Didarhe 1- 5) is fo und in much Je.\\~sh liter.uure. evidently beginning wit h Deuterono my 11.26-8 and

or

or

36 This indocd is Mila,'c:c·s interpretation (soc:. e.g.. Didach.•. p. 267: Did. 1.1 'ddi nes the cnlirc J'C\'c:lation rr:cci\-cd by the community from the Futhcr through his s;:rvunt k sus} 31 ' Life:' (~ti) oocurs in Dkf. 93: •immortalily' (Oilavo:olo) in 10.2. Draper exploits this linkag< to good dfct:1 (' Ri!Ual Process.'. pp. 144- 5). For me:. however. thc9: terms nrc ·varillblc: d ements': thus they may not ha\'C: bt'<'n spoken regularly. 38 Cf. Alon. 'Halachn·. pp. 177- 8. 39 The older view w:Ls that the Two Ways \vtiS inSiroC1jon designed for Gentile: God· fearers: now the: !rend is 10 view it as for internal (Jewish) L'>onsumplion. Sec:. e.g.. Alon. 'Hu1acha·. p. 169: Nicdcrwimmer. Didachr. pp. 37-8. 63: but espcc:illlly Sandt and Flusscr. who sp«ify •pious circles· on thC' border between Pharisees and Esscncs (Dillac·ht>. pp. 14090).

40 The d l'!ssic cusc for this is by Jc:an-Pnul Audet. ' Lilcrnry and Ooclrinal Affinities of the " Manual of Discipline:'", in Jonathan A. Draper (ocl. nod trans.). 71u! Did((ch<' i11 Modern RtJtord• ( l c.iden: Brill, 1996). pp. 129-47 ('first published in French in 1952): sec lllso Rordorf mtd Tuilic:r, La Dm·!l'inl!. pp. 21- 8: and Kloppcnborg, ·usc of the:. Srnoptics'. pp. 107- 8. Mil:. vee disagrees. but :11lows that a pn:-cxisting source: could ha\'C bel·n modified by •the fmmers of !he: Dirladw' (Didad:l!. pp. 109-11).

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

123

30.15: 11 T hus. Jesus is hardly responsible for inventing the T \vo ·w ays lr.ldition.

Moreover, it is difficull to imag.ine that e.ven the Didachist thought

Jesus had created this materia1. 41 £\'e n were we to ta ke the long,e r title to be origina l. this title ("n 1e Teaching or t he Lord thro ug,h the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles") would function to authorize wha t followed ra ther tha n indicate its immediate source.43 Moreover, t he Didachist (or a la ter redactor) single-S o ut specific instructions of the Lord (e.g. 9.5b) as dominit·td sayings and seems to distinguish these from the Two Ways material (cf. 1.3a). In other words, t he Didachist c.o uld well 1m ve known

that the Two Ways material enjoyed wider circulation within Jewish circles; a t least, he or she does no t ;.lppear to suner under the illusion tha t Jesus himself had ·made it known'. If. then. even when the Two 'Ways ma te rial was a llached lo the ritua l prescriptions (7- JO). it was not considered Jesus' own special te-a ching, it could hard ly have functioned for the scribe or the- prayers as something 'made known· t hrough Jesus to the. comm unity. Additional clues point in the same direction. Firs t, the Two Ways material ha bitually refers lo 'God' rather than ' the Father', which is the favou red exp ression o f the prayers..u Mo re striking is the- curious a bsence of a n eschatological o rientation in the Two Ways mate.ria1.4S T he only exceptions ~tre 1.5, which fo rms part of the so-ca lled .w:ttio ewmgelic'a - that is. the e ntry of trdditional Jesus-material (usually tenned ·s yno ptic') into a pre-existing Two Ways tradition - a nd prob~tbly 6.2. which is a rguably also a d irective. fro m the Jesus movement and no t native to the-Two \ V'ays materia l. Both 41 c r. Si}lre D. 54 lmd 43 (though il doc:s not much dabor.ttc on the theme:). Audc:t mentions Jer. 21.8: T. A.~/1. 1.5- 9: and 2 En. 30.15 (' Litemry and Doctrinal All1nitics'. p. 143 tmd n. 22). For ndditional Jewish p:mdlds stc: Ernst ll!mllnd. 'Pattern and Prololypc of Didac:he 16". in Jona than A. Dmpc:r (c:d. und trans.). The Didadw i11 Mmlem ReJt!ttrdt (l.eid~n: Brill. 1996}. pp. 364---72 (364-7): Nicderwimmcr. Ditfache. pp. 59- 63 (who also offc:rs Grcc:k. Roman and Buddhist paralld s): a nd Sandi and Fluss.=r. Ditlucbe. pp. 56-9. 42 By •Did:•chisl' I mc:an the pc:rson who first 'ollcct.."<< the m:1terial in tb~ Ditlar/le into a tttognizabk. Ditladlt!·likc: document. induding (al minimum) the: Two \\'~I)'S :md most or theritual instructions or 7- 10. Similarly (with vnrialions) Audet. !...tt Diduch;. pp. 104-20~ Rordorf and T uilic-r. La Ooc1rint>. pp. 92- 3: Nic:derwimmer. DMache. pp. 42-6: and Gnrrow. Matthew's Dept>ttdence. pp. 93- 106. 142- 9. 150- 56: but note dayton N. Jc(ford. 71ft! Sayi11g.s ofJNII.'i i111he 1t>urfu'11g uf lhe Twrdre Apwt!t-5 (New York: Brill. t989). p. 21 n. 60. The Dilktrluf s redaction will be tr~a tc:d somewhat more fully in dt. 6 below. 43 In rn,·our of the shorter cidc: ('Teal' hing or the Twelve Apostles·): Audet, La Dida(·hr. pp. 9 1- 3: rollowcd by \Vengst. Didttdll'. p. 15. In favour or !he longer title: Garrow. Matthc~w·s Deptndetl<'t'. pp. 143- 7. ' Lord· in the longer title could rcfc:r to God mther than Jc:sus (Draper. 'Torah and Troublesome Apostles·. pp. ll4-5). However. bo!h titles are likely 1ater thun the earliest draft of the Di(/aclle (d. Nil.'derwimmer. Didar/le. pp. 56--7). 44 c r. M ib v~c. Didachr•. p. 127. who explains this on the assumption or u chnngc in the identity or the h~~l rt.rs (c:atcchumcns in 1-6. the h
124

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

exceptions prow t he rule: the Two Ways materia l t hat the Didachist auached to the ritual prescriptions initially lacked the eschatological orienta tion of the latter. h could not, there lOre. have been what Jesus was

thought to have. taught the-community, in anticipation oC the 'kingdom·. and for which it continually g,ives thanks to the Father. Against this a rg,ument a longstanding. source~crit kal thesis might be reintroduced: namely. that the-Jewish Two Ways material did traditionally

in<.·-lude :1 kind of apocalyptic sanction o r incentive at its close. which was intended lo motivate the keeping: of its injunctions. ·n1is prior (Je.wish) e nd in~ may have been effaced or relocated during the composition history of t he Didach(!'s text; it would now be represe-nted by Didad1c 16. 46 A stmrtion o r im•eJUil'e to keep the co mmandments, however, even if apocalyptic in character, is not quite the same as an eschatological oricutmion that pervades one's te~H:hing.47 Moreover. it would be nHher feeble to mainta in that the thing 'made known' by Jesus - and which gener.tled a new sense o f community and a new ritual meal fo rm - is eschatologica l clarifkalion a bo ut the results of holding. to a tr.tditional 'way o f life". Finally, it rema ins curious that, in comparison with the Epistle of Barnabas 18- 20 a nd IQS 3.13-4.26, Lhe Didat!Je's Two Ways instruction is decidedly non-apocalyptic ..tlS The Didachist himself. however, s urely d id not repudiate the eschatologica l o rientation of the me~1l ritual: the. refe rences to final 'perft>ction· in 6.2 a nd 16.2 likely stem from the earliest document. 49 !Moreover. no e ffort to e m-tee o r undermine this e.schatolog,ic~ll e lement in the Lord's Praye r (8.2) or the mea l ritual itself can be detected. Therefore, the Didachist himself has likely been shaped by the eschMolo~.i cal orientation so evident in the ritual instructions, but has broug-ht into their orbit a block of material (the Two Ways) with a decidedly d ifferent orienta tion. This materia l. li ke the elements tha t went into the. original 46 Sec B<m11nd. •t,attcrn and Prototype·. pp. 364-72. The p:tr:allcls. as Bammd implies (pp. 369- 71 ). do not extend beyond 16.1- :2: they do not include the apornlypti<.· timc:-t.obk of 16.3-8. But sec Nicdcrwimmcr"s ovcrviC\v and ~"ritiqucs of this thesis (Didachc'. pp. :207- S). 47 On Did. 16 as an •apocalyptic ~ nc ti on · cf. Wengst. Didndu!. p. 60. As Bammd notes ("Pattern ;md Prototype'. p. 371), Adolf von Harnack perceived that Did. 16 locked the cschuto1ogical fervour ('Gluth") of 10.6 tDit' Chrooologie 1./er Litermur his lremius ndMt einlt!ift•mkll U11k..rsuchungm [Geschichti! dc•r alu/Jristlit heiJ Literatw· bb· Eu.rebiu.f . 2.1: Lcipz:ig: J. C. Hinrichs. 1958), p. 4JS.). 48 Sec cspeciullr Sa ndt and Flusscr on the Dir/adJe's ·significant reduction of the ~.-osmic duo1ism in the earlier Two Ways. (wl1ichj might reflect a ddibcrttte ctlort to e th i~.-tn- and demythologize a type of tmdition.ol materials" (Dirk1rlle. p. 119). For Rordorf and Tuilicr. Did. 1-6 is more attuned to H~J'If'IUit>nN!. pp. 10'*--5. 14S- 9. The Didachist may also have introduced the nm1eri:1l in 1.5. mentioned <1bovc. which shares this c:schatological orientation.

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

125

fo rmation of the meal prayers, was traditional a nd Jewish. Like those tr.lditional ritual elements, howe.ver. this tntditional instruction qua traditional offers no clue for what Jesus 'made known·.

In sum. the failure of this Two Ways tradition to exhibit kinship with the eschatological orientation of the communily. as well as ilS ktck of interest in Jes us as the source its (ra ther unexcep ti on~d) ' revelation· 1 shows that the Two Ways t radition d id not originally conslit ute the knowledge- celebrated by this community. Indeed, it would be more plausible to suppose tha t the Oidachist, working a t a later period, has bro ught lhe Two Ways material into contact wilh existing ritual ma te rials 10 suppli!mt~lll or ddimil the i'Ommwiity's pllrtit·ulflr knou·Jed_ge.so The communily's meal pra yers were no t poised to delimit that knowledge in a ny compar.tble way - q uite the-cont rary. Their genemtive matrix surely lies e lsewhere. Once the. Two 'N ays tr.tdition has tx.~n ruled oul as integral to the o riginal ' knowledge' that Jesus imparts. no suitable eandidates from within the- Didathe emerge. The proper reception o f apostles. prophets. itinerant Christians and teachers (Did. 11 - 13) can hardly be specia l knowledge 'made-known· by Jesus - even in the. unlikely event that all of the-se contradictory instructions somehow a pplied to the. community of Didaclw 9- I0. ·nle~"e instructions o n ilinerdnts ~II ready presuppose :i cluster of connected communities, probably constituted by the. ritua ls outlined in 7- 10, but again. in response to what! Indeed , lhese additional instru<.~tions presuppose that Je-s us has 'made known' somet hing_ worth trdvelling about to spread. f rom a redactional point of view~ the situation thal the Didadte presents in Lhis regard is not s urprising. The Didachist has (as I sugges t) offered the Two Ways as a supph!metllal instruction at :i later stase (ca. 100). but the kinds of tea chings it supplements a re ta ken fo r gra nted as well known. Thus. we lack from within the Didadu~ a s ta tement of the 'knowled~.e' from Jesus tha t is being. trans mitted within the-se rilually c.ons tiluted communities. This last point is slightly overstated} however. For Didal'lte 1-6 does contain some material that the Didachist (or perhaps a later redactor) has inlroduced into the Two Ways ins truction and that betrays the na ture of the prior instruction thal the Two Ways supplements. T his material includes 1.3b-2.1 } the so-called set·tio emngelim, which almost s urely has been added to an existing Two Ways block of ma te rial. probably from the more immed iate milieu of the co mmunity.:s 1 A saying of Jesus is a lso

or

50 In Ch. 6 bc:low I will oO'c:r a fuller explanation for why this material was prd:1ccd lo

Did. 7- to. &:c: Garrow. Mauht>lr·s DeJWIIdl!lk'e. pp. 67- 92: Niedcrwimmcr \·iews the .o;rclio :t ·subsequent inlc:rpolation in the te:tl of the .. basic documcnr· · {Didache. pp. 68- 72). 51

eratlgelitu as

126

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

quoted in 9.5. But such fragm ents c.o nstitute o nly (at most) t race residue or the original knowledge made availa ble thro ugh Jesus. We must, the.n. look beyond the extant Didllt'lle fo r a fuller sta tement of what has been 'made known' to the. community a nd presupposed in its meal ritual.

Sayings Col/ec1ious In confro nting the. relati\'ely large-assortment of traditions associated with Jesus in e-a rly Christianily. an important observation can immediately be made: t he reception of things 'made known• through Jesus presupposes the existent"t~ of a body of tettrllings in his 1wmr. T he communily that prays these prayers takes its cues from this body of teachings. as o pposed to a narnu iw a bo ut Jesus, fo r example. One might object, to be sure-t that Jesus· miracles <·an make. known t he nearness of t he kingdom. 'n 1ey can do that, however. only when they are inter~reted in tha t sense by a saying or Jesus (see, e .g., M t. 12.28//Lk. 11.20).'- The question. t hen. is sim ply whether we. (.~~'" identify a spec.ilk body o f teachings fro m the early movement that tits. the salie.nt fea tures of the meal ritual. Needless to say. absolute certa inty would only be atlainable if a speciOc allusion to the meal rirual we.re a lso present in that body o f teachin~. Failing. tha t. however. one can still posit deg,rees of kins hip with various t ro.1d itions of Jesus· tetLchings and. so na rrow down the milieu with some precision.

Tile 'Synopti<· Sayi11gs Souree' f Q) The existence o f a s igniOcant body of teachings. ascribed to Jesus a nd not taking, its o rie-n tation from his death (Or o thers, has long been posited on the basis or the rela tionship between the synoptic. Gospels. According to the most commo n theory of synoptic origins, Matthew and Luke supplemented Mark's Gospel independently with material from a written source (Q), which contained such a body of teachings. T his source consisted 'almost exdw~ively o f sayin_gs· that circulated in 0n1l fo rm before their trdnScription.S3 T he paramete-rs, transmission history and exact language of this do(.~ument have been intensive-ly investig.tted. However, these points and even the. existence o f Q continue to be disputed.s4 Sl N~ tu mlly. n ~urulivcs about things ksus ditl (like healing:;) can also be- used by u storyteiJer to ' teach' things. but such m1rr.Hi\'O do not dc:picl Jesus making unyt hing •known •. Instead they depict Jesus doing o-r uccomplishing (e.g. healing. feeding. sa\·ing). The more comple-x case of Johannine signs ond discourses will be di:KUsscd below. SJ Koester. Anri.•nt CltriJiilfll Gt}Jpds. pp. 130-32. 54 Sc:c. e.g.. James M. Robinson's history-of·rescarch essay in Robinson. P~1 ul Hoffmann. and John S. Kloppenburg (eds). Tltl! Crilirol Edition of Q \Minneapolis: Fortress Pre~. 2000). pp. x.ix·lxxi. Stt also Mark Goodncrc:. The' Our Agaitul Q: Smdii's in Markcm Priority tmd 1he Spwplic Pmblc>m (Horrisburg: Trinity Pn:s.'i. 2002).

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

127

Nevertheless. even scho lars who would deny the existence of Q as a document a re- len with a la rg.e, somewha t homo~eneous group of sayings known to Mallhew but nol known to Mark.'3s ·ntis sayings ma terial would share with Q the detem1inative features that ( I) it would make its a ppearance as instruction from Je~~us. with d istinctive emphases th~H yield

to analysis; and (2) it woukl not pre-Suppose. any knowledge of the-JXiSsion

na rra tive. (or ta ke its orientation from il).56 It a ls o obviously would comprise all of the sayings to be d iscussed immediately helow. Thus, doubts a bo ut the literary history of Q do not rule out the existence of sayings tn ms mitled in the name of Jesus, of the sort th~lt could have been cons idered ' made known· through Jesus and celebrated in the me-.tl ritua l o f Didad1e 9- IO.s7 Such sayings, howeve-r diverse their points of origin, were sooner o r later a rranged into collections.ss I do. however> cred it the existence of Q as a discrete co llection: the question thererore remains whether this body of sayingS mate rial is (or is rela ted to) wh~it was ·made known· through Jesus/Or this conmumity. To a nswer this question. lt is not necessary lO resolve deba tes a bo ul the reement of judgment· (la ter). Burton Mack goes s till i'u rther, interpreting certa in sayings in Q1 a part from their inclusion even within that collection; in isolation. such sayings look Cynic (earlier s till). T hese lWo schohlrS agree thal an 'apoca lyplic' element is later, and thal m~tterials within earliest Q c.;\n be inte rpreted wit hout any a pocalyptic (Kloppenborg) or perhaps even a ny eschatologic"t! (Mack) overtone. Helmut Koeste r and 55 Cf. Kocste:r. Am•ient Cl!risritm Go.sfWk p. 130. 56 Sec John S. Kloppenborg. '"Easl('r Faith'' and the Sayin~ Gospd Q'. Semt'ia 49 ( 1990). pJl. 71- 99. Huhgrcn argues that Q not only knows 'tradilions nbout Jesus· death and resurrcl'1ion· but that it built its prodam~l ion upon those traditions ( Rise. pp. 33-40): but sc.:

Smith. Pos1-.\tonem Vindiattirm. pp. 18--21. 57 Goodacr~· notes that M .D. Gould('r'S hypothc:sis 'n.'Opcns the quc:stion of Mnllhew·s non-Markan sounxs' (Caw Against Q. pp. 188-9): Goulder himself had un pc:rsu :~sivdy tlssumed Manhcw's froc: composilion of this muterial (Midnu./t tmd Lf'f 'tiM in MaJtht!'lr [London: SiteK. 1974). pp. 137- 52): more plausibly. E. P. Sanders and Margarcl D~H·ies. St1u~ril~1; th~ Sytldfllic Gru~ds (Philadelphia: Trinit)' Press. 1989), pp. 112- 19. 11ms. with some: adjuslm.:nts. propone-nts of non-Q hypothc::ses could make usc of the c:ondusions drawn he-re. 5S Mark too may ha\'C used sm:11lct collections of sayings material (including a parable collection) und clvf'itll'. which also need not ht1Ye originally t!1kc-n their orientation from the p:t.Ssion narmtivc. s~-c Koester. A11de11t Cllrisri((lf Gm~ls. pp. 113. 211- 16. 286-S (nnd litc-ralui'C' cited lhcrc). Du(' to the uncertain history and IX~tametc:-rs of thcs~· colkctions. I will not explore: their pos.o;ib1c: kinship with the Did!trlm's ritual.

128

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Christopher T uckett, by cont rast. find the sayings eve-n oC Q1 s ust'epLible or a n escha to logical readin!!,, and Tockell even questions the lat·.k of an apocalyptic mentality there!'9 Seldom emphasized, but cle-.Jrly assumed by such s tudies o f Q in its various stages. is the multiwdem dwrat'U1r of mos t of the sayings tradition. In thi~ sense. ~1ad. corr~ctly sums up ea.ch per~od or.~s redaction as ' a stage m the remterpret;-tuon o f the teachmgs o l Jesus . In other words~ j ust as we s ho uld expect. S~iying.s o.tlready interpre t saying;s in the e.;irliest posited redaction of Q. Already in the or.tl register}each rehearsal of wellknown sayings could well have comprised a new proposal for what constituted 'wisdom' or 'knowledge· lOr a given community. This s~tme dynamic would be a t work also if one were to view Q as a series of speeches rather tha n a collection o f individua l sayings.6 t That is, one could ;ugue t hat the. collection o f s.ayings into speeches in Q is alre~idy an elio rt to allow these (already known) sayings to inte rpret one another - to delimit them mutually. This dynamic implies tha t1 like the variable elements in the Didatlw's meal prayers, the sayings of Jesus in Q need not be reduced to a single. llxed interpretation. Our task is to dete rmine whet her these sayings a re more broadly compatible with the. logic o f those prayers. The-i r indeterminate nature is a lready a point in favour or this compatibility, However, t he real test involves the specific conte nts o f Q. From those mate.rials usua lly assigned to Q 's earliest layer, the following fit t he logic or the Didac!Je's pr:Lyers:62 I) Any proposed incipit that contains the te rm 'sayings' (Aoyo•J and ascribes t hem to Jesus.63 o r even the general sense that the$e were t hing$ spoken by Jesus (which severa l sayings convey), would meet t he fi rst teSL 2) 'So if you. though evil, know how to give good gifts to your 59 John S. K1oppcnborg. Tl!~ Form(l/ion ofQ: Tmjerwries itJ Ancit•m Wisdom Collec-limu {Philaddphin: Fortl\::ss Press. 1987). pp. 102- 244: Burton L Mock. 17w LoJt Gospel: The> Book of Q & C/wistitm OrigiiiS (&m Francisco: Harpc"rSnnFranci:;oo. 1993). pp. 110-30: Helmut Koc:.s tcr !who distinguishes 'npoc:1lyptic:: and •c.s.:.·hatological') in ·The Snyings of Q mld their lmtt~'< of Jesus·. in William L Petersen. Johnn S. Vos. nnd Hc:nk J. de Jongt' (cds). SarJ Mt.>: p,.opllt'IS, Pe(/fmnal/t't', IIJUI Tnuli1im1 itJ Q {Harrisburg: T rinity Press. 1999). pp. 6 2-83. 60 Mack. WJt Gmpd. p. 108. 6 1 Sec Horsley with Dr.:lpc,r. Wlwe1't'1· Ht!tws You. 6 2 The tmnslntions of these- snyings (and the Grcd: as cited) arc from Robinson. Hoffmann and Kloppcnborg. Crilkol £1/ititm. 63 Sec John S . Kloppenborg. Q Pt1n11frl:r: SyMpJU, Critiral Nolt!.f & Ctmumlatlt't! (Sonoma. CA: Pokbridgt' Ptl"SS. 1988). pp. 2- 3.

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

3)

129

children. by how much mo re will the Fat her (o naT~p] from heaven give good t hings to those who ask him" (Q 11 .1 3) This saying assumes a posture of dependence upon God as Father. for unspecified 'good things· - and no t merely concrete ones - in keeping with Lhe logic of the fo rma tive threefo ld eudlliriste6prayer. '(ISo]J do not be anxiOtL<. saying: Wha t are we to e,n·> [(Or:]] What are we to drink'' J[Or:JI What are we to we-•r? Fo r a ll these the Gentiles seek; f(for]J your Father fo rraT~p] knows that you need them l(all]]. But seek his kingdom !T~v ~aotAE iav atho\i], and ([aii]J these shall be granted to you.' (Q 12.29-31) l ike the previous

saying, this o ne- assumes dependence on God as 'Father· and is particular!)' interested in the 'king,dom' ((3aotA,ta) as the prime concern, through which other requests ought to be tittered . A comparable logic is fouf.ld in prayers three-and six of Didadte 9- 10.

4) The text o f the l o rd's Prayer (Q I I .2- 4). in addition to appearing in Didm·he 8 (in a fom1 dose to Matthew's). shows sympa thies wilh the me.a l prdyers:' fixed elements (even in its Lukan form): for example.~ calling God ·Father', the notion of his name as 'holy~ {a varia ble element in lhe. Didat!Je's prayers). the req uest for God's ' rule• ~aotA£1a) to come (akin to the fixed element o f prayers three and six). Indeed. this request is dose to an exclamation o f Didadw 10.6: compare 'let• your reilm come' (£A6En:u ~ (3ao1A£la oou) and • > ' let gmce come' (6~oE­ TatJ. and hidden that will no t be known Jyv..,oe~ona t]. What I say to you in the dark, speak in the li~ht: and what you hear <<whispered>> in the ear. proclaim on the housetops.' (Q 12.2- 3) As a n open.ended saying (or pair o f saying;s). t his material could a t least be inte.r preted to mean that Jesus h:is made things known to the community (presuma bly the saying;s). which they, in turn, a re to spread to o thers. Mo reover. the things ' made known· have the characte r of IOrmerly hidden or 'secret' t hin!!$. 6J ··n ,e kingdom of God has re<•ched unto you I~YY'"~ If u~ilc; ~ ~aotAEta TOO 5, we. find the fo11owing blessing. sornelime.s ascribed to a secondary layer o f Q:

130

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom Blessed a re the eyes that sec wha t you see... For I tell you: rvt any prophets und kings \'t'ltntcd to sec wh:u you sec. b ut nncr saw it. nnd to hear what you hear. but never heard il. (Q 10 .23-4)

This saying is compatible with the- Didache's eudwristcO-prayers. in which the thin£$ ·made known' by Jesus are Lhe focus o f the community's celebration. Moreover, this blessing is compatible with point 5 above, in which formerly hidden things have been made known especially to Jesus' hearers. f inally. we lind the following prayer of Je.,us, which is variously ascribed to an earlier or la ter redactional layer of Q: A~ <> time he said: I thank yo~. Fnthcr (~;oj.lo).oyoUIJ.al oot, rranp]. Lo rd of hea'lcn nnd earth, fo r (OTt! you hid these things from sages a nd the learned. a nd d isclosed tO:mKMvi.Jia<; I the m to childre n. Yes, Father. fo r tha t is wha t it has pleased you to do. Everything has hec-n,enlrusted (rraptOOfutl to me by my Father. and no o ne knows (ytVCa:IOKU} the Son except the f"at her. no r ((does anyone k now)) the Father except the Son. ~md to whomewr the Son choose-s to reveal [ima
Formally, this p rayer does not conro rm l~ t he pr.tyer structure of Didadw 9--10; more-over it uses lhe te rm 'son' (utOc;) rather than 'servant/child' (rral<;) to designate Jesus. Even so, it conta ins part of the logic of the eudwriste6-prayers: Jesus ma kes known unspecified ' things' rrom the Father to lhe l~ommuni ty~ members of which are thereby placed in the role of c hildren (infa nts). T he use of'father lo r God is common to this prayer and some of the sayings lisled ~tbove. In this pr.tyer. lhere is a lso ~in eleme-n t or d ifle-renlialion between those in the know a nd those outside this circle. Possibly. then. this saying re.Oecls the logic of our p rayers a t a slig,ht remove-of some kind (g_eographic::a l o r l~hronologjcal). From the above saying.s, it should be clear that from its. earlie.st existe nce as a collection, Q presented teachings from Jesu.... sometimes oiTered as thin£>'made kumm'. and, at least by the time I0.2 1- 2 appeared. as o riginatingfi'om tile Father. Although gralitudc- for these leaching$ is not explicitly commanded in this collection of sayings, it is certainly compatible with Q 11. 13. 12.29-31, 10.23- 4. and of c.ourse 10.21 - 2. Finally. thc.se teachings had always concerned lhe 'kingdom' or ' rule" of

God. S<.·.ho lars do not always. interp ret lhis. 'kingdom' or 'rule' in Q in a way Lhat is compatible wit h the. Didaclte'.s prayers. however. For example. Mack thinks that a conception of God's kingdom compatible with a future o rientation develops o nly a t Q2: -~nte rule of God is now spoken of as a kingdom to be fu lly revealed ~tt some o ther place and lime• .64 For

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

13I

Koester. somewhat analogously. t he later sta~.es o f Q exhibit eschato logica l te nsion between a (late r) ·apocalyptic a nnouncement of j udgment a nd of the coming of the Son of ma n' a nd an (earlier) 'emphasis upon the presence oi the kingdom in wisdom sayings and prophetic a nnouncements'.65 Nevertheless. for Koester t he orig,inal sapiential d iscourses are still to be read in light of a ce-rlain kind 'realized' eschalolo~jcal perspective. in which Jesus func(io ns as a ' prophet', m uch as in the Didadu( s prayers.6 & Although this portra it is not entirely c.ompatible with the future orientation o r Didal'i1e 9- 10 (as in the request to be gathered into a kingdom that is not yet present), some aspects in t he meal ritua l a re susceptible o f interpreta tion in te rms o f a ·realized ' escha tology.67 On the other hand , Mallhew J. G oll, in a recent a rticle comparing Q to the Qumra n document 4Qlnsrruction ( IQ26. 4Q4 I 5-18, 423), concludes that bo th (at least in their fi nal fo rm) conta in apocalyptic material that has been inc.:.o rpo n1ted wit hin a basica lly sapiential perspective. His a rgument seeks to demons trate t hat a first-century wisdom collection could ton tain such themes without brea king generic const raints, a nd this clearly (.~ail s into question any simplistic d h~sion be tween these. themes in Q.6s [n Goff's words.

or

by the St.-cond century U.C.f_ a wisdom text could have a n apoc.tdyptic world view. In 4Qlnslroction and Q the two inlluences come together in compa tible ways. Form nilically. neither work is a n apo<:alypsc:. Both d ruw on the wisdom tradition in tc:nns o f genre.. using admonilions a nd o the r sapicntia l l'orms in rdalion to spe<:i li<:. an:-;1s o f life. With regard to <:ontc nl. the two w mpositions rely on both the sapientiul a nd apoca lyptic traditions. Q <:an b.: understood as shaped by a trajectory the wisdom tradition tha t WHS influenced by the apoc.aJyp tic tradition. 1·hc best example of this kind o f Jewish wisd om is 4Qlnstruc tion.',y

or

If Goff and Tuckell are correct, lhe escha tological perspective o r Q and tha t or the Didathc can be viewed as fully compatible. In any t'~'"· the ground s ha red by the Ditladre's praye-rs and Q demands tha t we posit a (~Ommon milieu a t some remO\'e or ot her. T ha t common milieu is not 65 Koester. Anciem Cltristia11 Gc>.\].li!k p. 135. 66 For Koester. Jesus is introduced in the- •inaugural SiC'rmon' (Q 6.20-49) ·as a prophet. not as u teache-r of wisdom·. ' His mcssa!.~ fullills the: expectation· of the rewrsal of fonuncs for 1hc ' poor' {Atlcient C/wiJtifm Gc>sft'k p. 156): thus Koester c~m speak of u ·realized l~schn!ology whieh determined the sc:lf-undc.rsl!mding of the early Q community· (p. 158). Such ~· rcalil'Cd eschatology. with Jesus as prophet. is at l c<~sl pz•l1iully oomp:ttible with the Didurlu!'s rituullogic (petitions thrc..- and six). 67 Sec: Riggs. 'Gr.1cious Table'. p. 94 (on Dill. 10.1. 3-4) and pp. 96-7 (on Did. 9). 68 Matthew J. Goff. ' Discerning Troj~'Clories: 4QinSiruC1ion and the Sapicntial Background of the Sayings Sour.x Q\ JBL 124 (2005). pp. 657- 73. A •simplistic' division bc:twcc:n sapicntial and apocalyptic charae:tcrizes Mad's analysis (Lost GtMpel. pp. 34-4?). 69 Goff. ·Discerning Trajectories·. p. 66?.

132

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

coextensive with t he nt0 \1ement represented by Paul a nd Ma rk (both of whom obviously a re acquainted with 'Father and 'kingdom'), for both Q and the Didache lack t he characteristic Pauline and Ma rka n orienta tion to the passion narrative. This me.ans either that Q and t he Didathe trat-e the.ir commonalities separately back to some common Jewish milieu. o r more likely that they trace it to a common branch of the fo rma tive Jesus movement - o ne o utside of a Pauline or l\·la rkan influe nce a nd t rajectory. The presence of Q (or Q-derived) mate ria ls within fhe extant Didtil'he ( 1.31>-6, 8.2. I 1.7-8, and 13.1- 2) s upports the latter altema ti,•e. as does (arguably) a shared rhetorical stance- tow~ud o ther Jews: in both Q a nd the Didadu~, distincth1ely Jewish norms are upheld a longside d isputes over a common Jewis h heritage. 70

The Gospel of Thomas" Koester writes, ·rhe Gospel o.fThomaJ is either dependent upon Q's earlier version or upon dusters o f sayin,gs employed in iL" composition' .12 Ir Q belong$ to the immed iate milieu o f the Didadu!'s prayers, as j ust argued. then the Gospel of T!wmas should bear some relationship to it as well. On the o ther hand. if Thomas fails to show any meaningful afllnity with the Didache's prayers, this failure would have-to be a(.'Counted for in light of the evident alllnities be-t ween the Didathe's prayers and Q. Once ag,a in, t he ritua l logic o f the Didat he·s p rayers is our tracking device, fo r in the (iospel ofT!wma.s we have no instructions for meal ritual practice. Moreover, as a collection of open-ended sa;rings. Tlwma.~ is susc~ptible of mu ltiple. diver,ging interpretations - some more compa tible wit h the Didathe's ritual logic than others.7 J T he question is. therefore. whether this collection of sayings could plausibly have fonned the body of 70 When. where ttnd from wh111 source Q mat.:rials were introduced into the Didacht> an: contentious questions. Draper (' Ritual Process'. p. ISJ) :.nd Kuestcr ('Saying:; ofQ'. p. 153) both sug~~sl that the Didm·ht~'s prayers may huvc bocn known to the Q oommunitic:s: to nrgU<: for closer kinship is unwa rr:anted on avoiiablc: c:videnoc:. On Q nnd contemporary Judaism. sec Kloppcnbo,-.;. FomJulion of Q, pp. 167- 71: cf. idem. £.\'( 'ttroli'lg Q: Tile IIi.~lory tmd Se11i11g tif llu! SayitlgJ Grutwl 0··1inncapolis: Fortress Press. 2000). pp. 196-213: Koester• .4nrirrll Cllri.wia11 GmP£k pp. 161- 2: Tucke1t. Q. pp. 434-6. 447-9: nnd p.1rtieulnrly Horsley. WIIOt'l'i!f Nears Y011. pp. 94--121. 71 Translnlions and numerations of TIJuma.\· arc' Hans..Gc:bhard lkthge·s et ttl.. in St.:ph
The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

133

teachings celebrated in Didal'lu~-like prayers. He-re I investigate separ.uely Thonw.{ potentia l sympathies wit h the euclwriste6-prayers a nd the 'gathering· pr.tyers:, then

ll~o nsider

some saying.s that a ppear to rule-out

any common milieu. Once again. by me-a ns of its eudwrisu~6-prayers. Didadw 9- 10 is poised to inculcate a posture of(a) g.ra tit ude and dependence upo n the Father (b) fo r things made known through Jesus. The Gospel of Thoma:~ assumes

precisely this relationship among the-parties concerned. Here-Jesus is the unique agent o f revelation (b): Jesus suys: ' Many times you have desired to hear these words. these thal I nm speaking to you, nnd you have no o ne d sc rrom whom to hear Ihem· (37. 1). Jesus says: ·I tdl my mysteries to those: who (a re worthy) of (my] mysteries· (62.1 ). · oo you not rc<•lize rrom what I s~ty to you who I nm't (43.2).

Jesus media tes t his revelation from the Father (b): Jesus s.aid to her: ·tam he who co mes rrom the o ne: who is (alwuys) the sume. I was given so me o f that which is my Pathc:r·s· (61.2- 3; compa re

Q 10.22).

Those who receive lhis re.vei:Hion

~ue

in the posilion of 'children· (a):

' Whe n you co me to k now yourselves. then you will be known . .und you wlll realize that you arc the c.hildrcn of the: living Father' (3.4). Jesus says: · Blessed are those. who have bt.'en pcrsccutl-d in th..-ir h..-ur t. T hey nrc the o nl"S who h:wc truly come to k now the Father· (69. 1).

Finally. this revehttion is an incompa ra ble ble.~sing, while those who do not receive this knowledge a re. sharply contrasted with those who do (a): · w hoewr fi nds the meaning of tht.-sc words will not taste death ' ( I ). · tr you bcc.ome d isciples of mine (and} liste n to my words. these stones wlll serve you· (19.2). Jesus says: ·whoever has c-o me. to know the: world has fo und u corpse' (!X\.1 ). 'They arc dressed in soft clothing and will not be ublc to reco:;n i7..c the truth' {78.3).

Thomas doe.s. then, s how clear sympat hies with lhe rit ua l logic of the euc/wriste6-prayers: Jesus' he-a rers recei\'e an incomparable blessing fro m the Father lhrough fhe teachings or Jesus. T hrough Jesus' words. something_in\•tduable has been 'made known' to them. Howe\•er. unlike(Harrisburg. PA: Trini1y Press. 1998). pp. 33- 75: and essays by Anui Marjancn and Rislo Uro in Uro fed.). TlmiiKts 01 Jht> Cro.H·rouds: E.Hup <m Jilt' Gospt'l af TlmiiKts (Edinburgh: T&T Clnrk. 1998).

134

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

in Q. a posture of .f:ratitude is not explicilly commanded in these sa;~ngs :md is difficult to reconcile with the ethos or this collection. The sayings in the Gospel of Tlwmlls also exhibit a certa in eschatologica l o rientation. To be s ure-, this orientation does not invol\'e ~i stra ight forward expectation o f ',gathering . . .into the- kingdom·. A con<:em for 'ente ring: the kingdom· does. however~ repeatedly crop up in this co llection o f saying$: Jesus said to them: 'When you ma ke the two into one.. . the n you will enter (the: kingdomf (22.4-7). •Jf yo u do not abstHin from the world. you will not fi nd the kingdom. If you do not make tJlc Sa bbath into a Sabbath. you will not see the Father· (27). · n ut I lnn'c (also ) said: .. Whoever a mong you becomes little will know the kingdom and will surpm>s John .. · (46.1). Jesus says: ·otessed are the solitar y ones. the elect. Fo r you will lind the: kingdom . Fo r you come fro m it (a nd) will return to ir (4?). He said to them: ·Those here:. who do the will o f my Fu ther. they u rc my brothers a nd my mother. They are the ones who will enter the kingdom o f my Fatht·r· (99.2). · Every woman w ho mak<--s hersdr mule will enter the kingdom of heaven' { 11 4.3).

In the.se sayings. Tl10mtis a ppe-a rs to have taken over the language of 'entering the kingdom' and turned it in a distinctive direction: ma king the two one, a bstaining from the world . becoming, small and solitary. ~md women becoming male 7.t are notions not found in Q. On the other ha nd. doing the will o f t he Father and the phrase 'entering the kingdom' itself are common to both. This common ground implies a shared milieu. in which ·entering the kingdom' is a (.~oncern of some importance.7s ~n1e Didatlle's third and sixth prayers, o f" course, sha re this concern. In keeping with its distinctive interpretation of 'ente ring the kingdom· 1 Tlwmafi tan imagine the kingdom iL"elr in characteristically no n-concrete terms: Jesus said: ·Have: you already dist"Overcd the beginning tha t you a re now ask in;; aboul lhc e nd'? For where the beginning is. there the e nd w111 be too . Blc:sscd is he who will stand ul the beginning. And he will know lhc e nd, Jmd he will ntH taste dea th. (18.2- 3). He said to tht'm: ·Tha t (resurrection) which you arc awaiting has (already) <:orne. b ut you d o no l rec.ognizc il' {5 1.2). 74 Duvics \·icws this ~• ying (I 14) us a Inter addition (Gospelofnumau.~. pp. ISl- .1). 15 The •entering· metaphor evidently can a lso sumd for •revdution· of knowledge: •Jesus S:.lys: '"The Pharisees and the scribes have rrcei.,--cd the keys of k nowk-db~· {but) they hn'IC hidd~n them. Neither bn\-c they entered. nor htwc th~y allowed to enter those who wish to. You. however. bellS shrewd us serpe-nts and as innocent us do\-cs!.. ' (39).

The Orig inal Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

135

Such sa;rings presupp<>Se- tha t Tlwnw:f a udience is concerned precisely wit h 'the end', while 11wmas is discouraging a n inte rpreta tion of 'kingdom' as a fut ure event 7& Sint'e we know that this futuristic view of the ' kingdom· at least ereut1ml~•· e ntered t he synoptic sayings tradition, it is plausible that Thomas is here :tltem pting to counteract a riv:LI interpreta tion of Jesus· kingdom-sayings. If fo rced to choose, I s uspect that the symp•Hhies the Didal'fu(s pr.lyers lie more with Qat this point than with Thtmws: the request to be 'gathered' . however it might be interpreted, doe.s look to the future. Even so> d iffe rences of opinion about the meaning of 'ente ring the kingdom', or o ther sayings of Jesus, would no t be fo rei,gn to the milieu of I he Didttdre's mea l prayers. Alongside these dues in 1~1\'our of a common milieu. one must conside-r the strong words in Tlwmas against pr.tyer a nd fast ing:

or

H is disciples q uestioned him. (and ) they said to him: ·no yo u wunt us to fnst'! And how should we pruy :md giw a lms'! And what diet sho uld we obscn~·r

JCSU$ s:1ys: · Oo not lie. And d o not do what you ha te. f!'or cveryth in:; is d isclosed in view of < the: truth> {Cop tic: ' before the fm:e of IH.~tvc n l. For there is noth ing hidden that will not become manifest' {6). Jesus said to them: •Jf yo u fast. you will bring forth sin fo r yo ursd vcs. And if you pray. you will be condemned. And if you give a lms. you will d o ha rm to your spirits' (1 4. 1- 2).

Another saying deserves mention, howeve.r : Out when the b ridegroom comes o ut of the wedding chamber. then le t (us) fast and pn•y ( 104.3).

Thomafi here a ppe-a rs to leave room fo r fasting and pr~iyer. prob;-tbly after the initiation rilual.77 Even so. Ditladl(! 7- 10 enjoins fasting. prior to its initiation ritual (:1 rit ual possibly also assumed in Gos. Tlwm. 37).18 For Thomas. these practk~s are not to be performed for the. removal o f sins.

76 Sec: Da\'ies. Gostwl ofTI~t.II1KIS. pp. 83- S. 77 Thus. I dtsz.groe with Risto Uro's contention that Tltomtu is gc:nerally anti-ritual ( 111omas: Seeking 11Je 1/iltoricul Comttxt of /Itt' Gol·pe.l of Thomas [New York: T&T Clark. 2003). pp. 70- 74). If a ·ritual of the bridc:chnmber' is in \·iew here (Gos. Phil. 69. 1- 70.9. 14.1324. 78.2-11: lrcnac:us.. Ntlt'r. 1. 13.3). this may n'Prescnt <mother departure from ritual prn<:tic:c attested in the Didach~ (to judge by 7- 10 in H). 18 Sec- Jonathan Z. Smith. 'The Gam1ent.s of Shame·. History of Religioll.'i 5 ( 1966). Pll. 217- 38-: followed by Da\'ics. Gospt•! q{Thoma.'i. pp. 11 7- 37). April D. De Conick and Jar! Fossum hmt' argued instead thnt it results (rom ·a Jcwish-dtristian exegesis of the Gcnc:sis story· ('Stripped blforc:- God: A Nc:w lntc:rpretation of logion 37 in the Gospel of Thomos·. VC 45 (1991]. pp. 123- 50 1134]) and thnt it views 'l' ncmtism' us •a requirement for sal\'ation' (p. I.JO). The e \•idcncc they present docs not ncces..,arily undermine an initintion ritual cont~·xt . nor the possibility of a link with the •bridal chamber'.

136

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

but rather as a me.a ns of progress.19 For the Didal'he~ too> there are scant hints that these rit uals were fo r the removal of sins. but they do evidently have a role. in the participanLS· entry into the order of existe-nce. implied by the prayers.~° Fina lly. 't homas conta ins warnings fo r t hose who depend upo n ·food': Jesus said: ·wn:tched is the lxxJy that depends on a body. And wn: tdu:d is the soul that d epends on these: two· (87). Jesus says: 'T his heaven will pass away, a mi the: (h4.':wcn) above il will pass away. A nd the-dc.ud nn: not a li\'C. and the living will not die. In the d ays whe-n you co nsumed what was dead. you made it alive. Whe n you are in the light. what will you do'! ( I I).

The firs t of these saying~ (87) could be taken in a number of ways. naturally, but at least rules o ut the notion that a soul t·an benellt from a body consuming fOod. l'n the second saying, il is the emer who makes the food alive, a nd not vice versa. Both of these. sayings, therefore. stro ngly re-sist any 'sacramen tal' notion fo und, for example, in Justin and Ignatius. where lhe eucharistized food ' no urishes' the-mo ral or even divine element within t he Christian (Justin I Apol. 65- 6: Ignatius /:.p h. 20.2). Tite Didache's prayers. however. could actually be said lO t·ontain a seed of the development here in Thomas: the food is never the.centre of attention. and r.mdy can even be taken as the po int of reference in the sample prayers. The single mention of actual food within the prayers is ofit!red in c•outrasr l O wha t the community has recei\'ed ('but us you have favoured with spiritual l'o od .. : 10.4). At this point, t hen, Thomas does not actually stand in c.ontr.Jst to the Didadu:. Once again, the evalua tion of suc h e\1idence demands se-nsith 1ity to the weight of diiTe rent var iables. The posture of the Thomas collection, with its heavy dependence upo n Jesus' words as a kind o f knowledge that makes this group unique, sha res clear sympathies with the posture implied by t he fixed terms of o ur cudwri,i,·fc-6-prayers. Ha d those who collected and transmitted the sayings in Thomas previously internalized the order of existe nce conta ined in those prayers? We c-a nnot be certain. beca use 'gra titude' plays no clear role in these saying,:s. while the esch:1tolo~.kal gathering of the Didarhe's third and sixth pra yers is askew o r even consciously re-sisted here. Disputes on fasting a nd prayer in Thomas o nly incre-:ise the. imp ression o f remoteness from the rit ua l sensibilities of Didacile 7- 10.

19 Antti Marj:1ncn unpcrsuasivdy takes logion 104 to mean th:1t !hose who /ap.W! must r:LSl and pray ('111tJmtJ:i and Jewish Religious Praclicc:s". in Uro Jed.]. 711011/(/.\' Ul the Cro.Hrt~tul'i. pp. 163-82 (170--72)). SO Compare 7. 1. 3 and 9.5; and sec Ch. 6.

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

137

T his remoteness a ppe.a rs to grow out of ~i prior affinity, howe.ve.r, an affinity at times explicitly rejected in Tlwmas."1 This phenomeno n, in turn. is intelligible from the open-ended character both the Didadu!"s prayers and the S;tyings genre. To quote Kloppenborg:

or

Doth the instruction and the gnomologium (aspc:c.ts of e-a rliest QJ had the potential for a n esoteric hermeneutic.. . 1·he Cos. 1Jumr. has exercised this generic o ption.. .firsl. by developing the ·authorial fi ction· in such a way as to stre-s s the association of the SJXO:tkcr- o f the wise saying.<> with the Di•linc. a nd second. by e mploying a hcnncncutic of · pene tration· when describing_I he intended response to the wise saying:i. Out Q followed a nothe r course. While the association of the speaker of the wise words with a divine abtent (Sophia or God) is present. . . the editing of Q strengthened the histo ricizing, side of 1hc d ialectic. first by introducing ch riac. and the n by usc of a biographical na rrative 4

preface. "~

If the celebration of teachings 'made known· by Jesus was a reflex inculcated by our prayers. an 'esoteric hem1eneutic· could, in theory, grow out of this very reflex. IE!"'.lding t he collection, elabor.uion a nd interpreta tion of Jesus' sayings in a direction not d irectly e nvisioned in those prayers (in their classic fo rm). Whether o r not th ose-who used the Gospel of Thomas still used fixed meal p ro.tyers is not certain. In any t~tse, eve.n if they did. we c~lnnot consider Thomas as belonging to the. origina l milieu of the Didacilc's p rayers.

John: Affinily tind Di.Wmfe As I stated a bove. o ur best clues for the immedi:lle m ilieu of the Didat'hc•s praye rs lie in the t radition o f Jesus• teachings. as o pposed to narratives about Jesus. T he reason fo r this is, again, tha t o nly te.a.chings can plausibly make something known from the Father. Yet in the Gospel of John we encounter t-ertain episodes in which Jesus a ppear-s to make something. known by perfOrm ing si~ns. The first question is what t hese s igns would make known: the st-"Cond is whether t his kind of knowled ~.e t~ould have given rise to prayers like those preserved in lhe Didaclte. T he revelatory s i.gns in John might include-Jesus• mysterious disc.losure to Nathanael. which results in a c.onlession o r belief (1.47- 5 1): his tr.msform ing or water into wine-. in which 'he made his glory a pparent'. a nd which a lso results in belief (2.1- 11); his healing of the Capernaum official's son, where Jesus shows some-resisl:lnce-to performing. a sign but 8 1 A hint of !his •prior aOinity• may still exist in th< p;1ralld between Go.'J. Thum. 24 nnd Did. 1.7. 82 Kloppcnborg. Fomwtinn ofQ. p. 327. See too Horsley. Wluw•·er Hear.f You. pp. 8590.

138

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

again the sigJl results in belief (4.46-54): his miraculous leeding of the li ve thousand. which re~·mlts in a confe-ssion o f Je~'iuS' status (6.1- 14}, albeit an unwelcome one (6.1 5); his healing o f the blind man. which results in belief for tha t man but hardens the unbelief o f Jesus' opponents (9.1 -41); his

raising of Laz.;uus. which results in belief from many but betrayal from others ( I 1. 1-46); and fi na lly perhaps the d isciples' miraculo us '"\lch of fis h, in which Jesus 'was revealed to the d isciples' (21.14)." One might also ind ude certain unto ld things that Jesus did 'in Jerusalem at the fes tival'> which led to the Galileans' welcoming him (4.45). and e.ven the conversations Jesus had wirh Nicodemus. the woma n a t the. well~ and others. In rare cases these conversations successfully reveal something to the person in t he. na rrative; in a ny case., t hey do ro utinely make revela tions availa ble to the reader. rn all o f the above cases the s ubject matter o r the revei;.Hion is more or less the same: t he sign reve~ds something about Jesus, usually who he is.g'* The pro per resull of the revelation is believing in Jesus, that is, t rusting or relying upon him.gs According to John 20.30- 31 - thus at least an early layer of Jo ha nnine tradition - the signs a re intended to lead to the belief or realization ' that Jesus is the Christ, son of God' a nd - at least lo r the fi nished Gospel - this belief will result in 'life in his name..g6 T his, too . is the confessio n or Natha nael, which Jesus a t le~1Sl imp licitly pra ises (1.49- 50)." 83 Robert T. For1na includes all of thc:sc in his 'Gospel of Signs'. as wdl ns 5.1- 9 (whic-h has no positive out-.-ome). 6 .1 5- 25 (which may incre-ase the disciples' perception of Jesus· identity). and the p.1ssion mm ative-(Tl!1? GO.\Jil'l ql Sig11s: A RecoJUtmclitm of o'lli' lY'twriJiire S o Jtf('t> U11der(rit1g ;be Fourth GospeiJCambridge.: Cambridge Uniwrsity PrtSS. 1970]). But I "m not relying on a sou rte-~.·ritica1 argument at this point. only observing a phenomenon. 84 For Huenchcn, this is true both for the 'underlying tradition' and for the E\·angdist. though in differen t senses (Ji)hll /, p. 95). Brown agrees that the signs arc ·a re\'dation of who Jesus is. and his onen~'SS with the Father' tmd should culminate in faith in Jesus' identity and s.tntus (John I. p. 53 1): cf. Crnig S. Kcen~·r. The GO.\'('t'l of John: A Commellfttry {2 \'Ois: Peabody. MA: Hcndrid:son. 2003). I. p. 275. But Martyn sees this purpose being lost for John {\'s. his source) (/lislory ttmiTI!eology. p. 130). 8.5 For rnOTOO in John. sec Ch. 2 n. 100. 86 Sec the important interpretations of !he role of 20.30- 31 within John in Mm1yn. NiJtory and n1i'olog.,r. pp. 93. 11 5-23. I 25-30: Fortna. Gospel of Sigti.J. pp. 197-9. 225. 22&31. 234: and Ernst Ham<:hen . .John 1: A Commellfmy on tht• GO.\].Il'l of .1o1m C!JopleJ..\' 7-11 {tr.tns... Robert W. Funk: Hcrmenei(.: Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1984). pp. 212- 13. Koener offers a more strnightforwmd reading (John. II. p p. 1215- 16). 87 To be sure. Nathanael is not depicted ~• s knowing the full significance of the term ·son of God' yet ((.·f. Haenchm. John I. p. 166). The llvc thousand hail Jesus as 'the prophet coming into the world' and un: implicitly criti<:i7.cd for wishing to m:1kc Jesus king (6.14-15). The dmm.:11ic tension here is i n~'1e41scd by their proximity to t• proper label for Jesus· status !md distance from its real nuturc (cf. 18.36: Hacnchen. JohJ1 I. p. 172). When Jesus washes his disciples' fe~'1 ( 13.3- 17). he docs tench by doing. but this fact is ngain made known by :1n attached saying: ' I have giwn you an example. that just as I hnvc done- you also must do' ( 13.1 5).

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

139

Suppose thal this portion o f John's na rrative were to function as the basis for the Didadu:"s prayers: tha t Jesus performed certa in sig,ns tha t 'made known' his s ta tus as the ~·lessiah a nd Son of God . Immediately a problem leaps to the surl1Lce: the prayers that would celebra te this knma,·Jedge fail to identify Jesus as the. Messiah. and fail to confess clearly (if at all) that Jesus is G od's Son. Instead . they refer to Jesus by means of a n epithet tha t is. evidently. eq ually valid fo r David a nd tha t can (and a lmost always does) mean something fa r less tha n ·son·. Our S~imple prayers repeatedly asserL t ha t whal Jesus ma kes known is no t his own identity as Messiah or his status vis-; that his followers will enjoy. R. Alan Culpepper goes rurther: 'John ins ists on the recognition o f Jesus' dia~initJJ a nd his o rigin from a bove:ss T he.re is then this basic disconnect between the s ta ted aims of Jo hn's narration o f Jesus' signs and the.conclusio n tha t has been re~iched by those who pray as the Didadre instructs. T his d isconnect applies equally to a possible sign ·s source (20.3 1a) and to the exta nt text o f John (20.31b). T his po rtion, s tratum, or aspect of John's Gospel (even apa rt fro m a ny claim about Jesus' divinity) t herefore cannot function as 'what has been made known' to this community. rr we br~u:ket Jesus' signs in John. however. we do encounte r a nother trddition o f the sayings o f Je.sus - or better, his d ialogue-S ~md mono logues - a nd these uttera nces_can again be tested fo r Lrdces oi sympathy with the Didar!Je's rilual logic.l)9 A few term inological decisions in this Gospel, in 11-tct, suggest .some kinship with our prayers. fo r example. the tem1 ·ga ther' (ouvayc.:>) a ppears in John: Look. I tell you: tirt up your eyes and sc.-e the fidds. they're white fo r hur\'C:SL Alread y the reaper takes his wage a nd gathers lOUVO:Y'tJ the cro p for e terna l life. so that the sower a nd reupc'r <.·-d cbratc in common. Because in this case. the saying is true: ·o ne is th e sower a nd a nother the reape r'. I sent you to reap what you did n·t sow: others toikd a nd you have e ntered into their labour (4.35b-S).

SS Culpepper. Amtlmny. p. 112 (emphasis mine). 89 On the saying;; nnd dialogues in John. sec:. e.g.•C. H. Dodd. J.liJtoriall Trmlilio11 in 1be Faurt!t GosJNI (O•mbridg~·: Cambrid;,"<: Uni,•ersity Press. 196)). pp. J 15-420: and Koester. Anriml ChrisliW1 Gosprls. pp. 256-67.

140

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

An echo of the Didadte's g~Hhering prayers seems to hover about this passage, but the purporl of John's d irective is a t best tangential to the theme of those prayers. 'Eterna l life (~w~v a iwv10v), althou~h mentioned in Didache 10.3 (within a freely composed, model 'report' prayer), is not identical to God's kingdom as undersLOod in t he Didadw's third and sixth

prayers. Also it looks in John as

thou~h

the reaper is the one gathering

e terna l life (either fo r h imself or fo r o thers), rather than t he one being gathe-red into God's kingdom (where eternal life awaits). In other words, John here exhibits a more realized eschato logy - accompanied by Thomaslike assertiveness - than does the. Difladw's gathering prayer. Howeve.r , Didadu~

10.3 ('Us you have. favou red with spiritual nourishment and

drink. and eternal me through Jesus your servant'} could be \tiewed as embodying a relatively re-alized eschatology~ in which case il too would be in tension with the- gathering prayer. T hus. realized eschatology could perhaps be anticipa ted already in the meal rit ual of the Didache, and simply taken rurther in j()hll. A second insta nce of 'ga ther' in John is. a t first blush. more ~1kin to the Ditlache's usage: N ow he jlhe high pricsl( did not say th is on his own. but l:x:ing high prit>st for that year he pru-pllcsicd thai Jesus had to die fo r the nut ion and not on I ~ for th e na tio~ but ulso so thul thc: ch ildre n of God who ,a rc scat,!cn:·d (Ta O"-oKopmO)J,Va) would be gathe red into one (ouvo:yayfj
Here- Jesus' death accomplishes. a 'g_ a thering' of God's previously 'st·alte red· children. and again this a ppears to be accomplished or realized (at least provisionally) in the communily from which a nd to which John is written. It is hardly a n esch:llologicaJ goal still aw~iited and requested. This idea o r gaEhering 1rlwt was Smilered into one is more Jike Pa ul's ide~l or the community, already constituted, th~m the Didathe·s idea. which e nvisions a gathering still in the-community's future. Here in Jo hn, the impression given is that a d iaspo ra sensibility (the scattered a re to be g~1thered) has been re.interpreted in te.m lS o r the Jo ha nnine community.90 The same d iaspont sensibility has obviously impacted the Didat'he's lhird ~~nd sixth prayers. but not with the same result. Similar tenninology and ideas put to such d ifferent uses suggests both a common (Jewish) e nviro nment and some level of dh 1ergence. John's Gospel also makes infrequent tL"e of the verb ' make known' (yvwpi~w) a nd more commonly of 'make manifest' (av<pow). In 15.1 5. for example, Jesus makes the impo rta nt rem~trk. 'No longer do I call you 90 Note- 15.5- 8. where it is those: who nrc not ·in' Jc:suswho arc to be 'gnthered' for the fires ofjudgcrnent. while: those who ·remain' in Jesus arc- already •bearing fru it' and glorifying God.

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

14 I

s lave-< (oou/-oo~ J, because •L slave does not know what his master J•up1oc, J is doing. But you I have called fri ends, beta use a ll the things I heard from

my Father I made known [EyvWp1oo:) to you.' This remark has obvious sympathies with the logic o f t he. eul'lwrisu:O-prayers, for in both Jesus is Lhe mediator o f knowled~e from the Father. By conlmSl. in 17.26 (the only other use of this term). Jesus says in prayer, ' I made known your name to them a nd I will make (it) known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them . and I (may be) in them'. Here t he knowled~e that Jesus makes known appears to be more limited: he disdoses the m1me or t he Father (the same assertion is made with the verb 'make-manifest' (<jiallfpOcu] in 17.6). All he same Lime. Jesus p resence 'in' o r 'among.' (lv) his fo llowers afte.r his death is a notion that is impossible to llnd in the Didudw's pr.lyers but t hat could, perhaps, be viewed as a la ter development. For its part. the nea r synonym ·make ma nifes t' (<J>aV<:p,X.,) usually functions in John in the sense that Jesus himself ( 1.3 I: 7.4; 2 I. I. I 4) o r some as peel of his identity (2. I I) has been 'revealed' . Here we a re back to the motif discussed a lready unde-r the C-a tegory of 'signs·. Finally, when Jesus heals the man born blind , this is ' that the works of God might be made manifes t in him' (9.3). But this exception does nol Lake us any closer to the logic of the Didtu·fle's p rayers. Aside from these verbs of re-v elation, however, the-concept tha t Jesus reveals knowledge rrom the Father to the community is strong. in the Johannine tradition. A d ialog.ue with Thomas and Philip ( 14.5-1I) Laps this lheme and shows its trdjectory within the. Johannine-circle{s): T homas says to him. 'f\•laslc:r. we d on't know where: you nrc going. How <:an we know I he way'!' Jesus says lo him. ·r mn the way. I he tru lh. the life: no o ne comes to lhc F.alhcr cx<.-ept through me. rr you knmv me:. you k now my Father also. Eve n from rig)H now you know him und have seen him.· Philip says to him. ' Maste-r . show us the Fathe r. a nd it will be e nough for us·. Jesus says to him. 'Such a long time I mn with you. a nd you haven't known me. Philip'! The person who has scc.n me has seen lhe Fathc.·r. How <::m you say, .. Show us lhc Father"'! Aren't you persuaded that I am in the Fathe r und the Fulher is. in me? T he words that I speak to you I don't say fro m mysc.Jr. b ut the Pather. who remains in me. performs his dceds. Believe me, I nm in the: Father nnd the Father is. in me. But if not. belicw the deeds lhemsdvcs:

He re, as in Thomas, the-motif o r Je-sus as re-vealer has led to an exaltation o r Jesus' Sta tus vis-cl-vis the. Father. Nothing to this extent can be found in the Didadu~·s p rayers (or olher instructions in the. Didathe). whe-re Jesus is the 'servant' on a par with David and (presumably) Lhe prophets and patriarchs of o ld. We are de-aling a~ai n. then. with a rehHive distance from

142

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

the logic o f the prayers, a nd one that a ppe.ars - if there is any relationship - as a development from t he notions ;-tttested in the Didm·he. Third, there is a very muted - and probably reinte-rpreted - no tion of the ' kingdom of God' in the Nicodemus story, o ne o f only two pass.:.-tges in John where the term basileia appears. The phr.lse occurs twice in this passage, in sayings of JeslL~ that are evidently syno nymous: 3. 3

3.5

Amen amen I tell you.

Amen wm•JJ I td l you.

unle ss a person i$ born from above.

unless u pC'rson is born water und spirit. he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

he cannot st:c the kin.gd om of God.

or

Here~

'seeing' is e-vidently equated with 'entering·. In 18.36, t he only other use of this phrase in Jo hn, Jesus explicitly info rms Pilate-that his kingdom (here no l 'God's kingdom') is no l a lite ral, earthly one. Thus, rather like in Tlwmas. t he ide-a Clllr!riug lhe kingdom of G()(/ may exist in the Johannine milieu, but if so it has been interpreted in an exclusively intangible and present sense: it is not something lo be awa ited as future, a l least no l in the sense implied by the Didarhe's prayers three and six 9 1 In contrast to Tlwmas. however. John pays this ide-tt very little regard a l a ll. F inally. John exhibi[S a strong preference. (Or · Father' as the pro per way 10 address o r refer lo God (over 100 Limes). Although John makes clear that God is the Fa ther of Jesus in a special sense (lo r Jesus is t he 'Lhe Son. the first-born: see. e.g., 1.14. 3.35, 5.23, 10.30). his Father is a lso the Father of the disciples (esp. 20.17) a nd. by extension, o f members in Lhe writer's community (cf. 4.21, 8.42). In this sense, use of the-voc-t-Hive ·Father' (rrO:np) in praye.r in John is no teworthy. and the phrase 'Holy Father' (cf. Did. 10.2) perha ps even more so. ·n 1e fom1 of prayer in John can be illustra ted from three exa mples; note that the- third exa mple. actually consists o f excerpts from one length y praye-r of Jesus. First. consider Jesus· supremely confidenl prayer fo r the dead Lazarus (11.41- 2):

or

.

Jesus liflcd his eye s upwurd nnd said. ' , ' Father. I thank you ,!iO:l!p, tU~O:p !OT(o) 0 0 1 that you have heard me. OTI I')KOOOO.I ; j.ICU. l know tha t you ulwuys hear me, but bec-a use of the crowd stand ing he-re I said ( this). so thut they muy haw <.-.onfidencc tha t yo u s.c.·nt me.

9 1 Hucnchen: 'the divine rule is not an earthly ('\~n t tha t C'\\:ryonc can pe-rceive· (John I, p. 200).

143

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

This is the only euthariste6-pr~wer in John, a nd it o pts for ' tha t' (On) ra ther than ' fo r' (v rrrp) a lle r the" verb o f tha nksg,iving. at least p;~rlly due to contexL Compare the Dida('/re's formula: We thank you, Fathe r _ . for

~UxaptoToii~'v oot, nclnp__

ump _ __

The coincidence of 'Father' (rrcr ,.,p) and 'to give tha nks' (
claims. especially since in the Didtu:he·s prayer ro rm the- verb always begins the-prayer a nd. I contend, signals ilS sta n , where~-ts in Jo hn ' Father' is customarily placed first. From a strictly Connal perspective. Paurs usage is perha ps d oser to the Didathe's. n T he. most one can cont.lude fro m this evidence is tha t bo th Jesus-communities believed it was prope.r to pr~1y lo God as ' Father" (na -ri]p), a nd both subscribed to the (Jewish) notion of thanksgiving in prayer. Elsewhere- in John. Jesus• prayers to the Fathe r a re- petilions (with impera tives) o r ' re po rt' prayers. T he second exa mple ( 12.27- S) is a petition: Now ·my soul is d isturbed'. and whut shall I say'! · Fttther.

rr~np.

•

...

.. • O(o)OOV IJ-' f K Tllc; c.lpac; TClV Tl'f);

"sa\'c me" from th is hour''! n ut this is why I ha"e come t o thi:o hour. ' rranp, 'Father. glorify your na me:!' ~aoOv oou rO Ovo~a.

Compare to this Didache 10.5. 'Remember, Lord. your assembly .. .and gather her' (Mvf}o6fJTI , KlrP"· Tile; ~KKAr)oia~ oou .. . Kal oUva~ov aUT~v). rn both. the direct imper.ttive is used to petition God, ahhough the Didadu~ :II so utilizes the mo re indirect request o f a third person imper;Hive in 9.4. It s hould be noted, tho ugh. tha t these lwo Johannine petitions imply knowledge o f Jesus' pmyer in Gethsemane from the passion na rr.ttive (ef. Mk 14.36 and par.)93 A t hird exa mple, the lengthy prayer o f John 17, a lso uses direct address to the Father, and models both the petition and t he "report' : I 7. I (the: opening request) And lifting his eyes to hea ~-en Jesus s~tid . Father. the hour has come:: rrO:np. EAtlAu&v ~ Wpa · 92 ' Perhaps' because PauJ usually opts for 'God' m1hcr thun 'F~IIhcr': but Paul like: the roulinc:.ty plue<:s the: W!rh llrst (sec Ch. 4 abo\•c). 93 Sec: Hac:ochen. Jolln 2. p. 97.

Didt~rlu~

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

144

glorify yo ur son. that the son may glorify you.. .

~aoOv oou rOv uiOv . . .

17. 11 ' "cxytt, Holy Fathe r. nanp take can- of the m in your na me, ~i}p9oov ~UT~ iv rc;l 6vO~aTi w hich you have give-n me . (o) 6£0c.lKO<; IJ.OI, .,. ~ .... ' ' " that they may be one just as we are. wa. '*lOtv tv Ka6Q<; rumc;.

oou

17.24

Father. wha t you have given me. nclnp, 0 ~&.lkclc; !JOt, ei~CJ 'lva. . . I desire that Whe-re I a m they also may be with me. that they may .SI."'e my glory. w hich you have give-n me bcc:tusc you loved me befo re the foundation of the: world. 17.25-6 Just Fathe r. even the world did not kno w you. but I knew you. and these. knew Ihat you sc:nt me: and I made known to them your

nO:np OIKau·, QK~oc; 0 [ atiK£yvw,

Ka(

[yi:, Oi Ot 'yYc.lV '

. .

.

'"'

. ,. .

Kat tyV(,lf)IOQ QUTOlt; TO OVOIJO OOU

name

and will make it known. Ka.l so that the love with which you lo\'ed me m uy be in them and I may be-in them.

yvc.lplo<.>

This llnal prayer is a report>so to speak; otherwise Jesus makes re.q uests either t hrough impera tives o r by means or a statement o r his 0\\111 will ( 17.24) - a m ther bold devit-e suggestive of Jesus' special kins hip with the Father. Jo hn's insisten<:e that Jesus is God's So n could perhaps be viewed as s pringing from the same root tha t int roduced the te rm pais into communities c.o nnected Lo the- me-al ritua l preserved in the- Didadu~. IC so, Jo hn conceives Jesus' re-lationship to the Father in a very exalted sense that is at odds with the Didarhe's restr.tint. According to Ernst Haenchen. John's understanding or Jesus is best captured by t he phrase. ' the one the Father se-nC: T his phrase means: Je-sus is not here on his own behalf: he is here on behalf o f the Father. He docs not fulfill his own will but tha t of his fa the r... On that acco unt. he docs not speak his own words but those orhis Father-... And he d m-s not JX'rform his o wn works b ut those of his

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

145

Father.. . Only o n this basis is it possible to uodcrstund what Jesus means when he says. ' I a nd the Pathcr are one'.11..

This understanding or Jo hannine christology has clear sympathies with the Didal'hc•s conception o f Jesus as the Father's pais. But in John the s pecial role of Jesus has led to his exa ltation in the.eyes of the community. well beyond what we can glimpse in the- Didal'lu:1 leading to paeans o n the nature a nd pre-existence- of Jesus su~~stive second-order reflection. He re we are again on terrain much like Tlwmus. where Jesus as revealer is

or

exalted. and not much like Q (or the synoptics in g_ enera1). where-Jesus emphasizes instead the. Father and his kingdom. Mo reover, it is likely tha t John's exa lted sense of 'son· is built upon the foundational c.o nfession oC Jesus as Messiah and Son or God (20.30-31 ). d iscussed abo1•e, which is a t odds with Didt1thc 9- 10.95 While Jo hn appears to share some. of the Dida('/te's notions and te rminology. then, it presents them in ways that suggest rellection and development of s ha red traditions. The two s hare. at most, the notion oC Jesus as mediator o f knowledge from the- Father~ the- tntdition oC addre-ssing prayer to God as Father. perhaps a tendency tow~ud re-alized eschatology, a nd (very unevenly) a concern ro r God's kingdom. But characle ristically John takes s uch s ha red no tions in his own direction. TherefOre-the distinctive perspecti\'e oC John co.mnot represent wha t Jesus 'made known' to those who prayed as Didadu~ 9- 10 s uggests:96

Conclusions The Didache's meal ritual exhibiL"i sympa thies with a range of instructional materials. but its closest afllnities lie wit h the. kinds of sayings 111aterial preserved in Q especially, as well as t he Gospel oj'Tiwmtls, and a t poinlS John . 111oma.s and John. as we have seen. also exhibit remoteness rro m those-prayers; likewise. the-syno ptic sayings source canno t. without rurther ado. be labelled simply what Jesus ' lllade known' to the community presupposed by Didarhe 9--10. Does this community know Jesus· teachings in the fonn of speeches'? As free-11oating sayings'? In a H:1cnchen. John I. p. 96. For Raymond E. Umwn. for inswnec. a lower christology has given rise to t1 higher one. without a bre~1k with the earlier tradition ( Tlw C(lllltllllllity of thr Bdtmrd Di.wip/e [New York: Puulist Press.. 1979). pp. 27- 8). T he •exalted christo-logy'. for the evangelist. 'has brough! out the true. deeper mc.aning of the originnl confessions· especially of Jesus as · Messiah' and 'son of God' (pp. 29, Sl -4). C(. M
146

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

collec(ion? Does it know more sayings than we find in Q'? Fewer? These que-Stions canno t be resolved with the evidence before us. especially since the sayings of Jesus are notoriously unsta ble even in textual terms. Nor can we be certain that the people who produced Q prayed a t their meals in the manner laid down in Didt~dw 9-10. T hese two propositions - that Q represents wha t Je-Sus 'made known• to Didadre-communilies, a nd tha t Didacile 9- 10 preserves prayers spoken by Q-eommunilies - cannot therefOre- be embraced uneq uh1oCally. At the same time. neit her proposition ought to be ruled out as impossible. given the substantial overlap between these texts in orienta tion toward Jesus. t he Father and the kingdom, a nd their agreeme.nl that the a ppropriate response to things made known by Jesus is .~ralitude to the Fa1iler. Both Q and t he Tlwmn.< collection are s ubstantially compaLible wit h the ritual logic or the cudmristeii-prdyer; John also contains notions. though far from a prepo nderdnce o r them. that a re compatible with that logic. Q can fu rther be interpreted (at least a t a secondary s tage) as agreeing with the 'gathering prayer' and also wilh the ritually gathe.red community's sell:perception: a nd Thouws t~m be interpreted to assume and modi])· its orientation from a fut ure toward a present kingdom (a trajecto ry John may share, and tha t may be hinted toward a lready in Did. I 0). Equally impo rtant, neithe r Q nor t he T!wmas collection la kes its orientation from the suffering: and vindica tion o f Jesus the Messiah 'Christ' is fo reign to these sayings collections a nd the Didat·hc•s prayers alike; refe rences to the n oss are, a t most~ incidenta l a nd unimpres-sive in all of t hem. John is. again. further a field o n this score. altho ugh the suiT"e rings of Je-sus - if one may label his 'g:lorilka tion' as 'suffe rings' play a more ambiguous role in this Gospelth:ln they do in Mark a nd Paul. In o ther words. the Didathe's prayers, Q. T/l(mws a nd perhaps (on some level) John all as.sume instead a path to the re•lization ol the Father's kingdom (~aoiA
147

The Original Milieu of' Oidache 9- 10

(e.g. James, Did. J- 6) or give them a specula tive turn (e.g. Sophia of Jesus ChriS/ [compare £u.~IWSIOS /he Bli!sSedJ)97 While it would be fa r too much to claim thai a ll of these developments were fos tered by the meal praye-rs preserved in the Didad1e. it would nol be a miss to see-this prayer fom1. a nd other related prayers now lost to us. a s constitutive for sroups who pri:ted, recited. collected a nd elabo rated sa}'ings o f Jesus. O pen-e-n ded p rayers that o rrer t hanks to the Fa ther for something_ Jesus made known e ncourage a never-completed quest to know. to grasp, j ust what this something is. We can hardly be surprised if the a nswers lhat emerge in cogmtte early Jesus groups differ from o ne. a nother. -M oreover, the fundamental compatibility between the prayers a nd the sayings preserved in these early collections cas ts considen\ble doubt on t he notion tha t Jesus' sayings were transmilled in a rit u:LI-free school seuing.9s Ra ther. the meal rit uaL g,enerk-.: dly common to a ll known Jesus groups, also had a role- in these circles. fos te ring, a d islim.,live. communa l ethos a nd focusing auention on what was central a nd thus cons titutive for these rollowers o r Jesus: his saying;s. Finally. it m ust be emphasi:ted that the Didadw's prdyers combine two features that have bee.n incre.a singJy separated in recent scho larship on Christian origins: knowledge and l he coming kingdom. T he trajectory of these prayers be!tins. t hen. where bmh o f these things were prized: where Jesus was the reve~tler of knowledge from the Father. yes, but a lso where the Father was expected to inte rvene in the cosmos. gathering his own a nd establishing his unrivalled rule in a fu ture. that had nol yel been realized .

97

For the dcvd opmcnl of s.1yings oolloccions and dialogues. sec

Ko~'$t<'r.

At1t'i!mt

C/wistkm Grupe/.$. pp. 49-200: also James M. Robinson's classic study. · LOGOJ SOPH0:'\1: On the Gattung ofQ·. in Robinson and Ko~tcr. Traj«lori~s. pp. 71- 113. For dweiae (in Q l) sec Kloppcnborg Ycrbin, £.\.('Ul'aJing Q. pp. 20 1- 2. 9S Sec:. e.g.. Mad.:'s churnclerit.ation of Q p~-oplc: (L~l'l Gospr.l. pp.

200~5).

C hapter 6

RrruAt D YNAM ics IN THE DIDACHk's TRAmnoNs Sooner or later the various ritua l prescriptions fo und in the Didadu! made their way into this composile document. They now sit c heek by jowl with a variety of ethical a nd practical instructions. a nd this sit uation provides us with an opportunity to explore one aspect the Hue of this p;irlicular kind of me.a l rit ual. In the next three c hapters f will examine possible evidence for the survival o f this rit ual fom1 outside of this panicular document. t\.•lethodologkally~ one sho uld not work under the assumption th~H an or.tl genre. like prayer would be. lr.tnsmitted primarily in documents. Also, g.iven the vagaries of literary preservation we a re fortunate to ha\•e the text of this prayer at a ll. With these considera tions in view. I will not be assuming tha t the Didal'he tells the-whole story of the fate of the meal ritual il attests. \Ve have no good reason for assuming that even a majority of those who prayed 'in this way" (o\h(o)C,) knew about or s ubscribed to the additional inslruc(io ns contained in this document. To some extent, these. kinds of instructions a re inherently idealistic; we cannot dete rmine historically whether all of these rules were ever o bserved in any specillc place or time. On the o the-r hand. these. particular instructions have a practical, rough and tumble quality that s uggests negotiation with actual community problems. • ~n1ey are not very idealistic in the- higher sense or that word ; they do not aim so high that certain communities might not have at least tried to observe the rules. In any case, to the extent tha t they embody standards that people aimed to achieve. the instructions certa inly shed ligh t on the- ideals of concrete communilies, which considered the- do<.~umenl sufficie.n tly correct to embr~1ce and preserve it. The ritwtl dynamk..'i of the ext;;lnt document therefore can be explored within these limits. In Ch• pte r 3. I a rgued that the scribe of these pr.tyers showed signs of having been inOuenced by the ritual logic of the prayer:; he or she

or

I So too Thomas O'Loughlln. "The: Didttcbe as n Source for Picturing the: Earliest Christian Communities: The: Cnsc of the: IT.lctie<: of Fasting·. in K icrnn J. O'MaJ10ny (c:d.). ChJ·i.o;Jian Origi11J: WtJrslllj•. Bl!!irr{ all(/ Sodt>(r (JSNTSup. 141: New York: Shenidd Ac.£Jdc:mic Pn:ss. 20())). pp. IB--111 (90).

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

149

recorded. T his a rgument pem1its several lines of investigation. For exa mple. why transcribe these model prayers in the llrst place! We re they part of a larger coJiection of prayers or other materials'? Could o ther pa rts o f the exta nt Didadu~ come fro m the same scribe'? Such q uestions a re re-le.v ant fo r gra ppling with the ritual dymunks of these prayers, Cor as Arnold van Gennep and othe-rs have taught us, a given ritual always exists in t he context of o ther rituals a nd community prac.tices. 2 1have a ttempted to extract as much insight as possible from t he prayers taken in isolation. I now want to broaden the scope so that something like a li\1ing community can be-taken into view. Fo r, as [ hinted in Cha pter 4 a bove, one cannot confine a community o r group to a single-meal ritual. What else did they do, whe n they were not praying 'in this way'? The J\tfeal Rifllal aiUi the Didache's Redaction History

In keeping: with the disciplined limitations o f this study= which is focused upo n the meal ritual of Didadu~ 9- 10, l want to move. o utward into the exta nt Didadu~ in four concentric circles, or 'stages'. T his procedure serves two purposes: on the one hand, it will sa ve me from delving into numerous complex arguments regarding the Didache's redaction per se. except as that question is immediately relevant for my task. On the other ha nd. it will provide a chronological progression for the fate o r the Didar!Je's meal ritual \\~thin t his isolated d ocumenta ry world, which suits my p rimary goal in Part ll of this study. Acco rding to my analysis in C hapter 3 a bove. the rubrics tha t appear in Didache 9.2. 9.3 and 10.1 fa ithfully reproduce the JoSie o f the prayers as they were actually used. Since I a lso a rgued tha t the sc.ribe had composed model praye-rs. rather than a text to be memorized and perfOrmed \ 1e rbatim. I rurther infer that the model praye-rs ~is such were composed by our scribe. that is. the autho r o r Didadu~ 9-10. The.se pmyers did not exist in I his l!xm·f form prior to the tra nscription of Didache 9- I0. although the prayer strut fllre that they model would have pre-existed this composition. These conclusions have a n impact beyond Didache 9- 10. Kurt Niederwimmer has argued that o ne. or the four traditiona l blocks o r material t hat went into the composition o r the Didadu• was a n a rchaic liturgical s.our(-e. whi<:h accounts for most of Didathe 7- 10.3 l f so, then the scribe of 9- 10 must a lso be responsible fo r these additional ' liturgical' materials. An important li tera ry clue s upports this source-critical inference. T he rubrics in Ditlache 9- 10. in their e.n tirety. a re as lb Jiows: 2 Arnold van Gennc-p. Tht> Rites
150

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom 9. 1 Now concerning the thanksgiving. o iTcr the thunksgjving in this way:

9. 1 ntpl ~ TI)c; ,UxaptOTia<; , olin.> tUxaptoniocnt· 9.2 First. for the c.up: 9 .2

np.C>rov mpi TOO TTOTflpiov·

9.3 Then. for the {fragment}:

9.3

mpl 0~ rOO IKAtiQlJarcx; r

95 Now no one: must cal or dri nk from you r cm:.harist except those who

are ba ptized in the na me o r thc Lo rd. for a lso about this thc Lo rd said . ·Do not give w hat is holy to the dogs'.

9.5 ~r}Otlc; 0' ¢ayirw 1.1'16! mit'*l CmO -tflc; tVxo:ptortac; UJ.Jc:)v, O.AA' oi ~TTT•o6ivn~ tic; Ovo~a KUpiou, Kal yOp mp't roUroo t'ipflK"' 0 !CUp toe;· M~ &:)n r OOytov TOle; woi. 10. 1 T he n, after you arc full, oOCr the lha nksgiving in this way: 10. 1 Mnit 0£ rO hnrA11oeijvat oi.itc.l'; tUxapto~oan· I 0. 7 Permit the p rophets 10 o iTcr the thanksgiving as long ~ts they w ish. 10.7

Tole; 0' np~~Ta1c; ~m rpinnt rllxaptoni'v Oaa ~Aoootv.

Although t here is no insunnounta ble hindrance. to viewing all of these remarks as corning from the same. scribe, 9.5 and 10.7 are of a somewha t d iffe.renl character from the rest. Also, 9.5 interrupts the Oow from the prayers in 9 to those in 10 and so has often been considered a late r insertion. 4 If we bntckel these two remarks. then. an obvious liter.try kinship c haracterizes the remaining rubrics: 9. 1 Nt~w <"Oflcemiug 1he thanksgiving. oj/t>.r the llumh'gil•iiiK iJJI!Jis w11y: 9.2 F irst,jOr the cup: 9.3 71Jl'u.j(Jr the Jfragmcn l(: I 0. 1 num. after yo u an: full. oj]i>r tlu! tlwuksgiriJJg iii thi... II'(I.J'':

9.1 ITrp_i Or ~ ,uxaptOTia<; , oiiTGJ rVxapran]oan· 9.2 npi)rov m,it rcti not~plo\.r 9.3 mpi 6'; roG (KhliOlJaro;r 10. 1 MnCt 6i rO £~nA11oeijva• oUrc.x rUxaprurf,oar,· These rubrics, moreover. are litera rily related to two add itional rubrics in Didacile 7- 8: 7. 1 Nmr cmta!rnil•g ba ptism, ba pti;.r..c itt this W((r: 8.2 Bw do not pmy.. .pray in thi:i lm)": 7. 1 toUJ~·atrriop~yoc;, oiircJ ~mioan·

nrpJOr

8.2 ~~(jf npoc"U)('06!. . . OUTOJ<; npoo!UX<06!·

4 Sec. e.g.. Gogud. L "Eud1utiJiie. p. 239: Nicdcrwimmcr. DitktdJ~. p. 152: andcsp. John W. Riggs. ·The Sum:d Food of Didad1e 9- 10and Sccond-Ccnlury Eccksiologics·. in Cby1on N. Jcfford (cd.). Tire DiJncht> ill CtHite.w: f.f.W)'.S on its Text. l·li.~f(JJy a11d Tm11smi.Hion {Lcidcn: Brill 1995). ~lp. 25~8.~ (265- 6). discussed below: but sec also Koester. Synoptisd!t' 0/wrlic>jt>nmg. p. 192: Milawc. Didm•lle. pp. 378-9.

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

151

The rubrics in 7.1, 8.2, 9.1 a nd 10.1, then, are composed of a stylistic. fo rmula with most or .all o f the following elements: ·now cont-erning' ( m pl 5<) .. : in this way" (ouTW<;) + plural imperllfi>•e, followed by a block of tr.tditional material. 5 Evident ly the same scribe is re-sponsible fo r a ll fo ur rubrics. In Chapter 3 I left o pen t he possibility thai the prayers in 9 and 10 might once. have been parallel versions, two options fo r a mea l rilual M y own prefe rence was to view the autho r of9.1 and 10.1 as the scribe who a lso wrote the rubrics in 9.2 a nd 9.3, since the autho r o f a ll four rubrics demonstrates an awareness of the structure. o f the pr.tyers themselves. At the very least, t he author or 9.1 and 10.1 still knew (from Hrst-hand experience) how the meal ritual envisaged in 9- 10 was conducted. T he simplest condusion is that this all belongs lo one scribe. the same-one who fi rst set down the communily's meal prayers (in model fo rm) in writing_. Prior to this they had been lr.msmitted On1lly. not textually. Thus I would conclude that the person who wrote down the model prayers in Oidadw 9- 10 a lso lr.lnscribed rubrics a nd instructions fo r the. practice o f baptism (7) a nd praye r (8). ·n1e-stylistic all1nities supporl this conclusion. Do ubtless the.re are other ways to reconstruct t he re lationships.6 [n my \•iew. Didttl'lll! 7- 10 is a plausible lite rary unit and so pr0 \1ides a solid sta rling point lOr examining t he larger context of lhe me~d ritual before-us. A~ain, a l the very least. the autho r of the rubrics in this section of the Didatlw exhibits first-ha nd awa reness of the conduct of the meal ritual in 9- 10. Taking Didache7-IO as a unit a lso fits nicely wit h my conclusions in Chapte r 5, in which I argued that the Two Ways Lrad ition (Did. 1-6) was tangential to the instructions origjnally l-elebrated by the community. Niederwimmer's proposal. tha t pre-existing blocks or material ( 1- 6 a nd 710. a mong others) were combined by a later scribe, best fits t he evidence that I have a lready adduced from the pen;petti,•e o f the meal rit ual. Swgr One: Fasting, Baptism. Prayer (IJid Mt!al The clearest inference from the. foregoing observations is that the community that p rayed 'in this way• was c ha racterized by two o r t hree.

5 Rordorf and Tuilier similarly think t hat mpl & unifies 7.1- 10.7 tL" Dot•frirJI!. p. 34}. I should point oul t hat 11.3- 6 shares this p:auern: the: introductory formula cited above is followed by ins tructions. These ins tructions s.h~-d little: (if a ny) light upon our present con<:cms and oould be redactional (Niedcrwimmcr. DMacht'. p. I H : Drnpc-r. ' Torah und Troublesome Apostk-s'. p. 3H ). so ( will nol crowd the discussion with a considcr.llion of their litc:ntry origin. Did. 6.J shares purl of this pattern a1s.o and will be-discussed bridly under !he heading ·s tage Two· below. 6 Sc:c csp. Gtarrow {.<\{(ttlllt!wJ D•1pt·mhmt't'. pp. 10-156) for a wdl ~:arlicuJatcd recon· struction of t he: Diflud1e's reduction history, which has inAucocc:d my ttc~atmcnl here al many points.

152

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

additional practices: ba ptism. regular prayer and probably fasting. T he exta nl instructions on baptism, prayer and fasting read as follows: 7. 1 No w as to the baptism. immerse in this way. h:•ving re hearst.-d all o f these things in ~•d vnncc : Immerse in the na me o f the Pathcr. and the Son. and the Ho ly Spirit. in !lowing water. 7.2 But if you do not ha ve llowing water. imme rse into o ther water~ a nd if you cannot (immerse) in cold water. usc wa rm wa ter. 7.3 But if you have nc.•ithcr. pour (the water) o ut upon the head three times in the name of Father. and Son a nd Holy Spiril. 7.4 Now before tht' baptism. let the perso n doing the imme rsing and the o ne lx:ing immersed fast in advance~ a nd if a ny others can (let them fast). Co mmand the o ne lx:ing immersc.-d to rust for the prcoeding o ne o r two (dnys). 8. 1 No w your fast m ust not be with the hypocrites. for they fast the sc."Cond a nd fi fth days from the Sabbath,' b ut you must fast the fo urth and the d a y of pn:para tio n (sixth). 8.2 No r must you pmy as the hypocrites do. but rather. as the Lo rd co mmanded in his gospd. pray in th is way: · our Fathe r. in heaven. Your na me be made holy. Your kingdom e ome. Y
From a redaction-critical perspective, these va riou:; instructions a re fraugh t with uncerta inties. For example. the T rinitarian fonnula used fo r baptism in 7. 1 and (slightly d ifferently) 7.2 conflicts with the inst ruction in 9.5: 'baptized in the name or the Lo rd' " Mo re
Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

153

Matthew 28.19. a passage fOr tha t re.a son o f q uestionable. a uthenticily.\1 By cont rast. for exa mple. Paul a nd. Acts e nvision people being baptize."'<~ o nly into (or in the. name ot) Jesus. further identilled as Christ or Lo rd . 10 Ag,ain, some critics have argued tha t a n o riginal ins truction re~arding 'living water' (7.1) has been modified by a kiter hand. making pem1issible s tagnant water, warm water, and even water poured from~~ c up (7.2- 3). 11

The fastin~ of ' hyp<>crites' (8.1) could be the concem of a later redactor rather than the o riginal author o f Didtu·he 7- JO." Finally, some contend that the Lord's Pmyer (8.2) is a later insertion-"

Tn sum. the. Didadu!'s instructions on baptism, fastin~ and prayer may well have been updated over the course of severa l genera tions. fo r as long as this document was used to regulate the t·ommunity. One must proceed with care. Ne.\'e rtheless, a few obsen •;-ttions can be. m;-tde with confidence. First . given the litera ry integrity of the rubrics or 7- 10, as argued. a txwe. a t least one community that conducted. their meal ritual as 9- 10 instructs a lso pnlctised ritual immersion. re.gula r pr.tyer and (almost certainly) fasting. Al least the basic instructions regarding these pn1ctices must ha ve been in place., o r there would have been nothing tO r later redactors to upda te. T he m inimum. in my view> would be as follows (with questiona ble but likely pass..'tge~" in squa re brackets, a nd possible emendations in

pointed brackets): 7. 1 Now as to the baplism. immerse in this wn~·: <.. .> l m m~:rsc in I he nmue o f the < Lord>. in llowin£ walcr. 7.4 Now before the baptism. le t the person d oing the immersing a nd the o ne being imme rsed fast in ad vance: and if a ny olhcrs can (lei the m fast). 8.2 <.. . > < Now as to prayer.> pray in this way: ·our Falhcr. in hcave.n. c1c: (8.3 Pmy Ih is: wuy lln-ee times n day.) 9. 1 Now as to t he c uc.harist. o iTcr the thanksgj\'ing in this way: 9.1 First. conc~:rnin g the c up: ·we thank you. o ur Father. eK: 9.3 ih~:n ~:om:erni n g the < b re.ad> : 9 Sc:.:. e.g.. Koester. Spwplisclu~ Oberlit>fenmg. pp. 190- 92: Sundt and J-1usscr. Dida(ht>, PI>. 2S7- 9. and litcmture ci1c:d t h~·re. 10 The formula is not fixed: ·into Christ Jesus' (Rom. 6.3): ·into Chrisf (Go I. 3.27: ·into Moses' in I Cor. 10.2: ·into one body· in I Cor. 12.13): •in the name or.. : ( I Cor. 1.13): ·in lhc numc of Jesus Christ' (Acts 2.3.8, JUl. 10.48): ·in th.: name or the lord Jesus· (AciS

cr.

S.l6 ('only'!}. 19.3- 5).

II Niederwimm.:r. Didllr.IU!. pp. 45-6: cf. 'Ocr Didachist und seine Qudlcn·. in Cloylon N. Jcfford (cd.). Tht• DirladJt! i11 Coi/U!XI: f.Ha)'J on ils Texl. NisloJy a11d Tnm.,mi.\·,o;itm (tcidcn: Brill. 1995). pp. 15-36: Garrow. M(fttlte•\·'s Dt>pendmce. pp. 111- t 12 Sandl and Flussc:-r. Did(lcllr. pp. 295- 6. 13 Cf. Rordorf and TuiliC"r. La Dt}rlrille. p. 36: Dmpc-r ('Christian Sdf-Dd inition·. pp. 227-30) und Garrow (Muuhew ·s Dependt>rlri'. pp. 124-5) ,·ic:w 8.1 mu/ 8.2 ns lalc:r.

154

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom · we thank you. our Father, etc: 10.1 T he n. after you arc: full, o ffe r the: tha nksgiving in this way: · we th:mk you. holy Father. etc.' ( 10. 7 Permit the prop hets to offe r Ihe tha nksgiving as long as they wish.]

As seen in this hypothetical earliest layer o f Didadte 7- 10. which agrees

substantially with Niederv.•immer's reconstruction. the c.ommunity that uti lized the me-.tl praye rs a lso practised ritual immersion, prepardtory fasting a nd the recitation of a fixed non-mea l prayer. What w~is the

purpose of the lUsting and immersion? £ven t he minimum of material outlined above provides some limited

insight. One might have supposed> for example. that this seemingly Jewish communiry feels a need to 'wash' periodically - that is. lO perform purification rites. fn that case. however, why is one person wash ing the other. a nd why a re both fasting befOrehand? Even if we delete the instruction regarding 13sting, there. is no textual e'•idence (Or seJf. immersion in t he Didt~che~ one-would h;we to supply an entirely effated earlier stratum. Wit h the text before us. even a t the earliest c.on<.-.eivable stage-, we must be dealing wit h che immersion o f some- individua ls by others. But who are the-se ' others'? T hey mus t be indhriduals who have already been immen>ed and so do not re.q uire add ilional imme-rs ion. otherwise they too would be required to be imme-rsed. Amo ng_ these alre-.tdy 'immersed' persons must be ' the-one doing the. immersing'. Have those who require immersion, then, cont racted ritual imp urity. while the others are a lre-a dy in a state. or ritual purity? Such a scenario does not fll the evidence: why no t immerse themselves, as the commandment d ictates (Lev. 14.8- 9, 15.1 - 32; Num. 19.11- 22). rather tha n involve someone e lse and pro bably the community ~is weJI?lherefore. o ne has to aS..ion of new members into an existing community of 't he baptized'. Once immersed, one is a nd remains ' baptized·. Why should any of this be necessary'? Without further infOrma tion. we can go only a little further. Fasting prior to baptism marks baptism as an important rit ua l action. The detail concerning ' living water' points in the same.d irection: no t j ust any water is 14 ~icceptable. This concern with the q uality of the w:LtfT was: evidently so 14 Sec Nicdcrwimmer. Didadtl'. p. 127. 'Running w:ller' (LXX: ii&.Jp <Wv) was required (und evidently- ausp~ious) for certain purifk:ution rites (sec lc:v. 14.5-6. 50--52: Num. 19.1 7: cf. Dcu1. 1 1A to~-r). although it is not sp«ificd for the immersion itself. Hence this preference for immersion in ·running \'r.ltcr' is by exccnsion. infeore.nce. or M.·ruple. The association with purification rites docs not of course, mean that b..1ptism was one: if ·running water' is tiUspicious for purifKat ion after com meting ritual impurity nnd in anticipation of entering the Te-mple procinct. then it will also be auspicious for other ·ck:msing· ritC'5 involving water nod ~tn tic-i p:Hing contae1 with the Fathcr·s hasilt>i«. Hence. this specification is another extension based on tmditional pn:fc:rcncc (or scruple).

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

155

ingrained that someone (perhaps hller) felt compelled to q uali fy it, in case d rc.umslances demanded warm instead of cool W~1ter, stagnant instead of !lowing water, and - should worse come to worst - pouring instead of immersion.L'i H~id immersion bee-n an insignitkant gesture, none of t hese details need have concemed anyone. and no one - least o f a ll the person doing the immersing - would have tx..oen required to fast in advan<.-.e of the procedure. What then does lhis immersion ac<~omplish? r have-already a rgued for initiation of new members into ' the baptized'. Nathan ~·1itc hell has a rgued tha t baptism links participants ' to what Je.ws wtls and about, na mely. the proclama tion of God's gracious and definitive arri,,ar. 16 This is plausible. but baptism ~1lso has a corpor.He d imension in the- Ditladu:. as the instructions amply demonstr.tte. lf indh•iduals are being "ba ptized into the na me of the Lord', as I suggested above. then they must be in the pro<.-ess o f initiation into a 'community or the Lord'. o r - to use the language of the prayers - t he 'assembly o f the l o rd'. Inclusion in a special or even 'uniq ue' <:ommunit y best ac<.~ounts also for the emphasis placed upon t he ba ptismal rit ual through fasting.. The precise ritual function o f fits ling is not specified in this case: it frequently served in Seco nd Temple Juda ism (as in biblical tr.tdition) to incre<1se the elli<:<Jcy of pra yer. lo help expia te sin. a nd. to appeal to God's mercy. 17 Althou.gh there is no indication in the Dida('he thal its iniliator;' ba ptism was for purification from sins. this notion cannot be ruled out>given the rin ml's associa tions from the ve-r y beg,innings of the Jesus movement. For instan<"e. Adela Yarbro Collins sees a continuous underlying meaning for baptism, from John the Baptist t hrough Jesus to the earliest C hristians: 'a meta phorical cleansing so that the lire of judgment will, a t worst. fu rther refine a nd not destroy'. 1 ~ If this understanding is operative for the Didatlw's communit;r) fasting could well have bee-n viewed as a n a id in expiating. sins. Since initiates are argua bly emba rking here upon a 'holy' way o f life ("e immediately below), a plea for the Fathers mercy 15 Sandl and Fluss«. Did<1d1r. pp. 281- 3. 16 Milt:hc:-11. ·Baptism'. p. 243. 17 Veronica E. Grimm. Fnmr Fe
156

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

regarding. past conduct, by me.a ns of fasting1 would also be-appropriate. Put another way, fasting could represent ritualized 'repentance• (cf. 10.6). 19 But in fact we lack clear evidence for such interpretations of the practice within the Didache itself. Secondary reOection on this practice could have. been quile diverse here. as it evidently was elsewhere. The securest conclusion is that !listing functioned to intens~lJ' the elfh·acr of the baptismal ritual, in that .it helped to prepare both the initiate a nd the community Cor the eve.nl.:!U Preparo.Hion for and intensific--ation of an important ritual would explain why others (not simply the baptizand) were fasting. The larg.e.r q uestion that must be addressed. in light of these. very basic rubrics. is this: from what status and into what status does the immersion transfer the individual? The rubrics do not ~dlow fo r a traditional purification ritual, nor a Pharisaic extension o f that purification ritual washing before meals, fo r exa mple (see Mk 7. 1~). One is not being 'purified' from contact with uncJeanness: the transfer or change of status is no t from 'ritually impure· to ' ritually pure·. Rather. the transfer is fro m 'not part of (the community of) the lord' to 'part of (the community ol) the lord'. ·w hat are the implications of these lwo statuses? ·n1e meal prayers o iT"e r :1 few contr.lsts between members or the communiry and those outside. and these contrasts likely apply to the d istinc.:tion befo re. us: You. almighty MHslcr. c reated ull thin,g.s ror the sake o r your nume. and huvc given nourishment a nd drink tt' a ll humanity, for (their) e njoyment, so thut they would tha nk you. Bul us you haw ravourcd wilh spiritual nourishmc lll and drink. and eternal lire throug h Jesus your servant (10.3). Let grace co me and let this world puss away! H t1.'WIUUI to the God or David! Anyone who is holy. let him e nter. Anyone who is not. kt him repent Manmuthu! Ame11! (10.6).

19 c r. .Mitcltdl. ' Baptism'. p. 251: und Grimm: ' Pn:-baptisrnnl t1bstention rrom food strongly re,scmblc:s Jewish penitential rasting' (From Fett.rting ltJ F
Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

157

These two selections distinguish the- community members who ha ve received the knowledge. a nd life offe-red by Jesus. the servant from Lhose who a re wilhout tha l knowledge, and these two selections a lso conlrast 'grate' with the 'world', the 'holy" with the ' unho ly'. h is reasonable to infer tha l these e.xplidt c.o nlr.lsts a re related to the implicit conlrasl present in baplismal practice. In that case, the transfer of status is fi rst of a ll from a state of ignorance of wha t has been made known through Jesus the p(liS. See-n in another perspective, it is ;.t st;ite-of ·unholiness', a state where one belongs to ' this world' that must pass away. fi rst ( 10.3) emp hasizes the community defined by the te-achings of Jesus; Lhe second ( 10.6) e mphasizes the eschatological destiny of that community. tr.msfi!r of sta luS is the.n to a stale of knowledge. o f the-te-achings of Jesus a nd ' ho liness.'. T hose who are in this Slate ca n expect to be 'gat hered' inlo the Father's kingdom, escaping the eschatological fa te of the 'unholy' a nd the current rosmo.'i. The two sets. o f cont rast, it should be. noled . (.'Orrespo nd to the two kinds of prayer I identified in Chapte r 3: llrsl, the constilulive euduiristeOpra.yers. whk h place t he community in a poslure of depemlence on the Fat her for things made known through Jesus the. {lttiS; second , the climactic 'ga lhering· prayers. which a llune the community's hopes to the coming kingdom of t he Father. Nol surp risingly. the community tha l prays 'in this way'. the 'community or lhe Lord·~ is identified by these very tra its: a unique endowment or 'spiritual no urishment a nd drink' ( 10.3} a nd a state of ' holiness' ( I 0.6). The natura l conclusion lo llows. then. tha t baplism is. instrumen tal in tra nsfe-rring a would-be member of the communily from the other Slatus (unholiness, ignor.mce. perhaps. ingratitude) to the status o r holiness, knowledg.e and hopeful exp<.>cta ncy. In sho rt , the baptisma l rit ua l and the me-•1 ritual can plausibly be rea d in lig.ht of one a nother, linked through Lheir implied a nd stated contrasts. This reco nstruction gains plausibility as well from the nature of fo rmal mea ls in ;mtiquity. where commensality usua lly implied group belonging, a nd where the soc.ia l and religious dimensions of the- meal lended lo overlap.~ 1 Howe.ver, lhis rec.onstruction of t he meaning of baptism for this community ca n only remain p lausible. not certain, so long as the-rubrics themselves do no t explicitly connect the meal wilh the baptismal ritual The- instruction in 9.5. o n the o ther ha nd, does explicitly connect the two: according to 9.5. b
n,.

n,.

21 Sec: Garnsey. Food u.11d Sod~·t)". pp. 128-J.S: nnd Smith"s hd pful l"<:llc:goric:s i Fmm Sy mpoJium to £ur!larist. pp. 5- 6. 9-12). Both the: membt-rship rcc1uircmc:nt a nd the sacrality of the me<~ ltcnd to be: enhanced in privute associotions(pp. 87- 115).

158

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom Now no one m ust cat o r d rink from your c udmrist b ut thost: who a rc baptized in the name of the Lo rd, for also ubout this the Lord said. ·Do not give what is holy to the dogs· (95).

On t he other ha nd, John W. Ri~~ has a rgued that prior lO lhe indusion of 9.5, the mea l was ro utinely 'shared' without a sense of community bound;.~ries. Reserving the meal for the bapti:ted , for Riggs, was a la te r innova tion that t ransgressed the original 'open commens~dily' o f the common meal.2:! This explanation. howe"er, does not fit the logic of the prayers. which script 'us' as a particularly blessed group} uniquely e ndowed wilh knowledge from the F~tther a nd waiting to be gathered into his kingdom. Such a self-understa nding could not have-cha racterized :1 group that practised 'open commensality" in the idea listic sense t hat R iggs imagines. In fact. Rigg$ is compelled further to ascribe this s pecial seJf. conceptio n to a late r redactor of the prayers - hen<·e the counterevidence in the prayers. Suffice it to say th:lt 1 a pa rt from this no tion o f 'open commensalily'. one need not posit this kind o f redaction. Nothing in the text itself demands it. Mo reover, the relationship bet ween the prayers in Didathc 9- 10 a nd the rubric in 9.5 - even understood as a new instruction - need not be construed as a tr.msgressive innovation at a ll. Ra ther. 9.5 may well set out an established custom - t he practice. of only admitting: the ba ptized to the mea l - aga inst a ne)\' infraction. Since t his stip ulation had o nly been implit!tl by the origina l instructions and assumed by the community, when this infraction o f an existing custom O(;curred (let us say). a ' redactor' fe lt compelled to reassert this cus tom, and to twister it by a ppending a saying of the ' Lord': · Do not give what is holy to t he dogs·. Mo reover. the additional instruction could have been added quite early, since an a ppeal to a sa)'ing of Jesus llts t he milieu o f this early community quite well.21 Obvio usly, neither my reconstruction no r Riggs's can be objectively verified. However. m y sc-enario beue r explains why this community practised bi-tplism a t its e-itrliesl stag.e, why this practice-was described by the s:ime-scribe. who Hrsl penned the prayers, and why this scribe's model prayers had taken for smnted that the people p raying were especially 'holy'. people in whose hearts the Father's holy na me resided . Thus. 9.5. e\'en as a new instruction (a redactiona l concltL"ion by no means certain). llts well the drift of m y ana lysis o f baptism a nd its rela tionship to the rit ual meal. conducted on o ther terms. The instruction in 9.5 a lso o ll"ers new information that allows a somewhat fuller ritua l analysis o f the relationship between ba ptism and 11 Riggs. ·sacn:d Food'. pp. 265-6: d . Gogud. L 'Eu(ht~ristir. p. !39. 2J For Drapt".r. 9.5 originally excluded only unh<1p1izcd GNIIiles ('Christian Se-lfDefinition·. pp. 238-41). For Garrow. the prohibition is original !llld only the saying of Jesus is secondary (M(fflllew's DeJ~IIdt>nu. pp. 125- 6).

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

159

the rne.al. According to 9.5, ritua l immersion is the indispensable qu:llillc-.;i tion for the- ritual meal; and . :H:c ording to 7.4, fasting is an indispensab le preJ»lration fo r baptism. ~·1oreover~ fasting and the ritua l meal have a n inverse relationship to o ne another: the complete. a bstinence from food . versus eating. o ne.'s fill. Didathl! 10.1 explicilly mentions the satisfaction or the meal, the sense that one has eate n enough and is <'Ontenl - proba bly by allusion lo Deuteronomy 8.1 0. as has oilen been o bserved: 'And you shall e"l and be filled (t~nA~o6~ooJ. a nd you will bless ( aytov) may well refer{() the food for which an appropriate ('in this way') tha nksgiving pra yer has been ollered;" the 'holy' food is for those made ' ho ly' by the reception oi the divine ('holy') name (10.2). ·rhis usage assumes a sa<Tificial understanding of the meal. as food dedicated to the. deity and consumed by the community.26 What could such a n understa nding of the ritua l meal me.a n. where the cup and bre"d are not the holy blood and body o f Christ? Some ro ughly pamllel no tions from t he Dead Sea Scrolls may help lo curb the inevitable te ndency to see such a 'holy meal' as an incipient Mass. A<:cording to the Community Ruli!, only community membe.rs in good standing and who ha\'e perfom1ed ' purificatory a blutions' l:an touch t he 'pure food' or ' the. d rink oi the Many' ( I QS 5.1 3- 14, 6.13- 2 3)-" T here are also certa in rules o fco nductlhat hold a t the. 'session o f the many' : for e-xample. no spilling, 24 Sec. e.g.• Nied<:rwimmc.r. Did!lrlti!. p. !55 n. I. 25 See Dr:tpcr ('Christiun Sc}f.txfinilion', pp. 239-40): -rO O:y\ov is a rollcc.tiw noun referring to •rilunlly pure· food. cr. Harnack. Lehtt·. 11. p. 31. 26 cr. Milavc:c. Didttcl!e. pp. 565-6 (and rabbinic parulld s 1hen-). 27 Sec Smith. Fmm Sympruium ({} Eut'httJ·isJ. pp. 153- 4: Finn. From Detlth to R~·hirrll. PJ>. 103- S.: Collins, ' 0 ri£in'. PJ>. 4()-41. T ranslations of lhc DSS rrom Garc:.ia Mnl11nez. Detul Setl Scroll.\·.

160

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

no talking out of turn. rules of general decorum. a nd of course discussing matters of the Law (see JQS 6.8-13, 7.12- 18. 9.18-2 1). Compare the 'dining associations': even Lhese meals. held in ho no ur o f deities but

lacking the solemnity oi meals at Qumran, hav.,e their rules of proper conduc t. demands of elig.ibility for their ba nquets.-• At Qum ran. however. the discussion of holy topics by holy pe-rsons may have helped to eleva te the common meal itself to something 'holy·.!Y ~n1is notion is, a l any rate-1 evident in rabbinic circles: ' three who a te- al a sing.le table a nd did ta lk about teachinj)j; of Tora h a re as if they ate at the table o f the Omnipresent' (m. Al'OI 3.3)~• Thus. from Jewish sensibilities. when a group is eating food away from the Temple the meal tan s till become something 'sacred' and compar.lble (o a sacrificial feast, simply because of the company itself and the topic of conversa tion. ·n tis compa ra tive material also s ugg_ ests a second meaning fo r ' to be filled' in Didathc 10.1 . Either befo re. during. or after the meal there s urely would h;we been d iscussion. conversation o f some kind.3 1 Surely people were neit her sitting silently fo r t he who le gathering, no r discussing o nly trivial things with their ne.ighbours. T hus. in this t·a.se a lso the- meal is probably ·sacred' because of both the company and t he to pic of conversation. When I0.1 refers to being 'full', then. it may well be refe.rring to more than the food - a ller all. iiS we have seen (in Cha pter 3 above) the food has been 'spirittmlized•. \ Vhen 9.5 reserves 'wh~it is holy' to the baptized, this too may a llude to more tha n the. food: the sh;uing of Jesus' sayings is the no urishment of the comrnuniry tha t gathers a ro und this table. 'Us you have nwoured with spiritual nourishment a nd d rink 1 and ete rna l life through Jesus your servant' ( 10.3). Again, wha t comes. 'through Jesus. your servant', in the logic of these pr.lyers, is revelation o r knowledge. T his revelation is prized to s uch an extent tha t it can be t-ailed 'spiritual no urishment and d rink' a nd even 'eternal li re~ . G iven the alternatives, then, I conclude t ha t the t~ommunity that prayed in this way must surely have recited. discussed a nd meditated upon the 18 See Smith. FrtJm S,rmposi11m to Eucharist. pp. Grmo>in.'i
155-S: cf.

K1ingh:•rdt.

29 But see Russell C. D. Arnold's helpfu l (and nuan.xd) discussion (T/w Soda! Rot.. of Liturgy i11tbe Religion ofJilt' Qummn Comm11nity [Lcidl•n: Brill. 2006}. pp. 96--10 1). where he nrglKs that the community as such ideally mvcd ·as a living temple'. 30 Translation by Jnc:ob Neusner. Tlw Mu.hn(lh: A New Tnwsl(ltion (New Hawn. CT: Yak Uni\'(:tsity Press. 1988). p. 678. 31 When (following a suggestion of Ronald Grimes) I re·c:nnctcd the ritu:1l in Dill. 9- 10 ut home. ( found that one was almost impelled to talk :tbout 'what had bocn made known· through Jesus while-(und afte-r) eating the actual food. Some ..-vidence for Jt.'\vish customs presented in Bradshaw (F:udwri.wic OrigitiS. pp. 71- 2) would suggcsl that d iscu~on nmy wdl have Iuken pia~ before the pmycrs in Ditl. 9. C k·ment of Alextmdria forbids lnlking during eating ns gauche (Pt«!d. 1. 1.13); others may h;.we disagreed: in any case the :rellitJg of a con\'i'lial meal s trongly implies conwrsation of some kind.

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

161

teachings of Jesus in the context o r the meal. Perhaps they a lso d iscussed their eschatological hopes, a nd related these teaching$ and these hopes to their Jewish heritage (the teachings of the law and the prophets). After they had ' had their 1111'. had been sa tislled with food and good company. enriched in spirit a nd body, they o llered prayers of tha nksgiving (esp. Did. 10). These p rayers served the purposes d iscusse.d in Chapter 3~ conc1uding the entire meal ritual on a high note: invo king t he coming o f God's kingdom and e ncouraging ihe 'holy' to hope (and the unho ly to reform). No doubt the fervour of the me~lltime t~onversa.tions waxed a nd waned. but there must have been something of 'spiritua l nourishment' tha t tmnspired d uring the.se discussions. else the ritua l form would no t ha ve lasted long eno ugh to be tra nscribed . Finally, our scribe probably included a nother prayer for the community: the ' Lo rd's Praye.r '. The text here d oe.s not exactly correspond to Manhew's (much less luke's), a nd a later hand has pro bably r refaced it wtt h 'as the Lord co numlnded m hts gospel for tha t re~1son. L ( sugg.e.•a tha t the earliest version of this p~trt of the Didarhe simply said, 'Now conceming praye r' (m:pi o< Tij~ npocr.ux ljC;), which was effaced when a later scribe \Vrote. 'Nor must you pray as the hypocrites do, b ut rather ~is the Lord comm;mded in his gospel' - a t which point ' now concerning pra yer" would have been intolerably awkward if rerained . The next clause. 'pray in this way·, would go back to this original scribe. and the.early fom1 o f the l o rd's Pra yer in 8.2, very similar to Matthew's but not ide.nlica l lo it. would come. from the or.d lradition of the Jesus movement. lt was known to communities tha t preserved the s~zings of Jesus, ;-ts shown by its use in Mallhew and l uke (but not Mark). · At any rate. ' the praye.r ' in q uestion is pro bably conceh1ed as a special possession o f t he community, for it shows all the marks of the orienta tion o f the community g.uhered fo r the meal ritual: address lo the Fa ther, eschatological expectancy. hope lOr deliver.mce, a nd even a tendency to see food in symbo lic terms (EmoUotov).34 As part or the ins1ruction of Jesus, this prayer may well constitute pa rt of the knowledge o f the community. hs placement after the instructions on baptism suggest tha t its recitation may have helped to incorporate new members inlo the communily. At a ny rate~ it bolsters r.Hher than undem1ines the orientaLion fo und in the meal prayers, and its tr.tnscription here is appropriate to such a community.

32 Sec: Garrow. Maulu·w·.f Det'lt!JUkrlce. pp. 129 -41. CS(). p p. 139-40. 33 Sec: t oo Kocst.:r. S.nwpti.\·chr Oht!r/Wjt>rung. p p. 205- 9: Nic:dc-mimmcr. Didad1r. pp. 135- 6. 34 Sec: Clobc:aux. 'Eucharistic Prayers·. p. 162: Milavee. Did!KIIe. p p. 316-33: and more g.:ncNlly. Bradshaw. D(li~r Pmyer. p. 27.

162

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom Stage Two: Conussiou.s aud ClarifimtiOn.'i

Into the a txwe reconstruction, which assumes little more than the minimum rubrics, '"'e can begjn to introduce some (perhaps) la te r adjustments a nd duific.ations that appear in the H-text of the Didadu:.

Bo.1ptism in various kinds of water (7.2- 3) may be an adjustment to the original instruction; or it may be a concession from the e.;-trliest stage~" · rr the Iaue r, il is a concession that assumes a Jewish and even a sectarian bias in fa vour of cold, running wa te r. 35 At any rate-, the conc~rn fo r the condition o r the water, up to and perhaps includ ing the notion o r pouring_, shows a tendency to view baptism ;-ts important. something to be done in a ce.r la in way1 alongside a conce-r n that too ma ny scruples might make the ritual impossible to perform. lt is a practical adjustment in the spirit of the rest of the instructions. which are neilher O\•erly precise no r terribly de-t ailed. Once again, the. minimum requirements are being stated . The command to fas t (only'') one o r two days prior to baptism (7.4b), which a ppe-a rs as a n afterthought. is almost certainly a clarilkation (or reduction) o f an existing pr.lctice.36 In any case. il does not change the ritual implications of fasti ng before ba ptism. Fasting for two days each week (8. 1). on the other hand. is a related but not organic addition. This looks later> as some critic..<; have- noted .37 I will not lean upo n it in the pre8ent analysis. 3 Pro ba bly at this same stage, or shortly thereafter, the Two Ways material (Did. 1- 5) was placed as a preface to the ritual instructions. from another source and for a particula r reason. Both the source a nd the reason can be deduced with some ''onfidence. As I a rg.ued in Chapter 5. the Two Ways material existed as a Jewish sourte (probably written} prio r to its inclusion (in edited form) by :i redactor or compiler of the extant Didache. 1 also argued that this material did not constitute ·what Jesus made known'>t·elebra ted in the mea l praye.rs. but instead was brought into the orbil of a later community that used those prayers. and for another purpose. That purpose appea rs to be fa irly str.lig,htforward . At the

*

35 II iscomparable but not identical to rabbinic prescriptions Cm. Mi!JII'. 1- 7); soc: S<~nd t Flusscr. Dillache. p. 282: Tomson. ' Ha1akhic Evide-nc.:·. p. 134. In fa,·our of including 7.2- 3 in the wriHcn source st:tnds the awkward altcmali\~: originully only one line for baptisrn. But sec Garrow. Matrlli!w:f Depc.mletJ«. pp. 122-4.

~llld

36 Sec NK:dcrwimm~·.r. Ditku·lte. pp. 125. 130: tmd Garrow• .\laulurn<\· Depelltklk·~·. pp. 9+-6: and 1it«aturc cited by both. Oftlural to singular \•erbs and from all fasting_ to o nly the one br-ing bapti-zed f(ISting. 31 Jonathan A. Drapcr. 'The Jesus Tmdition in the Didachc'. in Or;1pcr (cd.). The Dkktche in Mmkm &.54?ordt (Lcidcn: 13rill. 1996). p p. 72-91 (85): Gnrrow. M(l/1/lewS De{lt'JUif'llt:t'. pp. 124- 5: Dd Vermc. Didadlt' mrd Judaism. pp. 174----5. 38 Tomson persuusivdy places this insertion at a s1~1gc where the Did(ldte community is id<:nlicalto th:ll or the Gospel of Mat! hew ('H:..Iakhic Evidence'. pp. 135- 41}: I would d irrcr only in loc-<11ing Ihe: l ord·s Prayer at an earlier slab~·

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

163

t~onclusion

of t he Two Ways - that iS 1 a fie r the Didothe's sourte has come to a conclusion - we read the fo llowing: Sec that no one leads you astray from this \'t'lt)' o f teaching. in w hic.h case suc.h a jXTson teache s you apart from God . l:kc-.usc if you an: able to bc:a r the w hole yoke o f the Lord. you will be perfec t: b ut if you a re unable. do w hat you can. Now us to food. bc;1r whut yo u can. And bewa re espec-ially of meut sac rifi (.-cd to an idol. bcc-: tuse it is the (temple) service or dead gods (6. 1.1).

He re il is clear that Gentiles a re in \~ew. as the longe-r title o r the. Didadw would indicate. Gentiles alone mig,ht be un~ible- 'to bear the whole yoke'. a nd might struggle to avoid pagan sacrificial meat a nd have no strength to 'bear· the remaining food avoidances. ~n1ese other food a voidances would . presumably, include (non-sacrificial) pork and shellfish. In other words, the o bligations of the Tomh are being adapted lo r the sake o f (we-•k) G entiles. 39 This sit ua tion holds a lso fo r the ro nn of the Two \Vays tha t we. have in Didar/11! 1- 5: Gentile-S are being tr.tined to a void infraclions o f the Torah in the rea lms o f idohllry, sexual misc.onduct and injustice. Nowhere does the Two 'Nays instruction command circumcision or Sabb~Hh obser\*tmt:e. and it also fails to ~Lrlicu1ate Jewish dietary restri<:tions. Thus lhose Jewish o bservances that pa~m write rs so o fie n mentio n as t he. particular customs of the Jewish people are not commanded .40 This gap in the instrut~tion, together with the slender hope held o ut in 6.2- 3 that some Gentiles mig/11 be a ble to become 'pe.rf'e ct', points toward a n identifiable purpose in the tL"e a nd a daption of t he Two Ways instructio n fo r this community.4 t That purpose is precisely the instruction of' Gentiles in the minimum requirements of justke (toward G od and o thers). for inc.Jusion in a mixed

39 Comp.1rc Orupa, "Tort1h nnd T roublesome Apostles·. pp. 353- 5: Tomson. ' Haluk hie E"idcncc·. p. 133. 40 On these: thm: in pag;!n literature and Jewish identity. see John M.G. Bar<:lay. Jell':; in lht> Meditnrtmetm Diasporu: From Ale.wmdi!r to Tmjutl (313 BC£- 117 CE) (8erkdey: CA: Uni\-crsit)' of Culifornia Press. 1996). pp. 436-S. 440. Still. prohibiting Gentile participation in sacrifb'S without com-crsion to Judaism rcprescnt.s an impottunt dcpattun: from the 1mditionnl diosporn appro.1ch to god-feare-rs: sec ~lul n Fredriksen. 'Judaism. the CiKumcision of Gl'nlilcs. and Apocalyptic Hope: Another l ook at Galatians I nnd 2'. JTS 42.2 ( t991). pp. 5J2-M (5J4-4J). 41 On ' perfe-ct' in 1his sense (in 6.2J sec DruJX'r. •Torah and Troublesome Apostles·. pp. 357- 9. Dn1pcr further nrgucs fmm 16.1 !hat inclusion in the kingdom would ha\•e required fu ll com-crsion to Judaism (p. 359): so too Mitchell ('Baptism'. p. 237). who tllso d uims (without warrant. I think) that baptism did tWI gum'3ntce ·cucharis.lic unity' (i.e. n common table) in the Dklaclut community (p. 240;.

164

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

community and in prepar.uion for the- gathering of God's people into God's king.dom.J1

In formal terms, these- instructions share with the adjustments on ba ptismal water (7.2- 3) and perhaps t he d ura tion of pre-ba ptismal fas ting

(7.4) a tendency Loward t'oncessions from a more rigid standard . Whether the Two Ways instruction come-s from the same redacto r who also adjusted these ritual instructions is more d ifllcult to say. but in a ny case the use of the Two Ways is consona nt with the ritual bap tism of Gentiles into the communily of t he Lord .43·n1ere is every re.;lSOn to believe t hat the meal ritual modelled in Didadte 9- 10 was still in use when the Two Ways material was broughl into contact with that ritual. Adjustments were made fo r the sake of Gentiles jo ining the 'community of the Lo rd'. Both Jews ~ind Gentiles join the community (or 'assembly' ) by being ba ptized 'into the name of the Lord ..44 Tha t assembly is, then, the community tha t comes together for the mea l and prays 'in this way'. 45 I want to emphasize that the Two Ways material would have been used in ta ndem with the .sayin~ of Jesus t hat had ro rmed the community•s instruction from the beginning..46 There are d ues in the extant Didal'he

that point in this direction: the s(!l'lit> t~l'tmgclit·a. which serves to interpret the 'way of lire· in the extant Didarhe. and whic.h consists o f" a block of instructions found in Q (thou,gh often regarded instead as a late r conflation of M~1tthew and Luke):41 the term ' perfect'. which we find in Mallhew's version of Q 6.36 ( Mt. 5.48) and in Matthew 19.2 1; t he early fonn o f the Lo rd's Prayer fo und in Didudw 8 (also d ose to the Matthean fonn); some-oC the inslruclions regarding apostle$ a nd prophels (including 41 Cf. Paul in Rom. 2.26 (where: circumcision is lltJ/ included in ' the jusl requirements of the law'!): sec Fitzmyc:r. Romans. pp. 290. 487. Shayc J. D. Cohen hc:lpfull)' si!Uatcss.uch a ·gap' within the wisdom tml'lition tmd its •universalizing' tendency (FrlJm lilt! Mat't'Ctbt>l'!s tr~ rite Mi.Wn(lh (Philuddphia: The Westminster Press. 1981]. pp. 76- 8). 43 Garrow identifies this reductional str:HC'~'Y as the: •modifying tc.nchcr bycf. but assigns the Two Ways (induding 6.1- 3) to the ·base layer (M1111he1r~ Depemle11ct'. pp. 97- 10 1. 1224).

44 Again. Jews joining a spcciul•oommunity of the l ord' do not for tha t reason <1b:mdon their claim to be Jewish nor their pri\·ilcgcs as God's d ect. Funhl·r sclf·ddinition or the' ' holy' within brad docs not nullify 'lsrad itc-' idcn1ity. 4S Gt~ITOW may well be' oorreC1 thai the DiJudJt' c.:unC' into c:xistcncc: only when the Two Ways tlnd the ritual nmtcri:tls came togcothcr (.\f(ltllurn<'i DependniC'~. pp. 147-8). But my concern has been with the history or the' prayer !mdition, which predates the Didudti!. 46 The Two \Vt1ys i:nsuuction fi lls a gap in this prior instruction - namdy. n basi<.· {Jl•wish) C'1 hica1 fmmc:work that had bc:cn assumed but not explicitly taught in the: teachings of J C";US. 47 Sec Nic:dcrwimmer. /)il/ucl!e. pp. 68- 72 {and litcmturc cited thC'rc): more m:~·ntly Christophc-r M. Tuckett. 'Synoptic Trndition in the' Didache', in Jonathan A. Or.tpcr (cd.). Tlli! Didachi" in MlJ/Jmt Researcll (Lc:idcn: Brill. 1996). pp. 9'2- 128; Ompcr. •Jesus Trndition·. pp. 19-85: and Kloppcnborg. ' Usc of the Synopti<:s'.

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

165

I 1.7, which alludes lo 'blasphemy ag.ainSI ihe Spiril' [M i. 12.31]: 11 .8, which a lludes lo ·you shall know I hem by I heir fruil' (Mi. 7. I 5- 16; cf. Lk. 6.44}; and 13.2. which adapiS ' lhe worker is worlhy of his food' (Mallhew·s version of Q 10.7]); and finally lhe exhorlalion lo readiness lo r lhe end (16.1 - 2). wh ich spe-.lks in lerms akin 10 Mallhew 24.42//Mark 13.35. Luke 12.35. a nd Q 1 2.40'~ All of lhese inslant"s poinl lo a resource fro m which \'ariOtL"i cont ributo rs to t he Didache continued to d raw, e\'en tho ugh that resource d id not fo rm part o r the written Dida('he. T his resouf(:e consists o f the 'teachings o f Jesus'. his sa;rings t hat a re continuously ~tdapted - and instinctively appealed to - for community needs.

Swge Three: Tire Collf('ssioll cf Si11s In Didurlw 14.1- 3, we encounter an instruction regarding the common meal that I have so 1~\r leCt unrema rked: Every dominic.a l [d ay) or the Lord.'~'~ gathe r together. break bread a nd o iTc:r the tha nksgiving. urtcr you have confessed your infrac tio ns • ~I • • (na pcrrrT(.)IJQt a(. so that o ur· ' sacrilice 16uota_l may be pu re 1Ka6apa). N o one w ho is huving: a qua rrel wi th his: c ompanio n may gather with you. until they become reco nciled. lest o ur sacrifice 16uola] lx: rendered profa ne (KOIVQ6fiJ. For this is wha t was said by the Lo rd: ·J n every p lace and time:: to ofl<.· r me u pure sac.riflcc (6uolavJ. boca use I mn a great king', says lhc Lord. ·and my name (is) wonderful among the Ge-ntiles.'

In this JX1SS~i~;e> the notion that the me~il is <:ompar.tble to a s.ac:rifice. which 9.5 seems to suggest ('wha t is. holy' ), becomes explicil.st G iven the Qumranic example. cited a bove, we c.annot simply assume. tha t this. ·sacrificial" understanding. concerns the supper oC the Lord's body and blood . ~:tcrificed fo r the communily. Instead. the terms 'break bread and o n'"er the tha nksgiving,' (t:::Ati:oo:n CipTOV Kai ,Uxapt~oan:) evident ly remain t he two constit utive rit ual actions o f the meal. 2 As. such, they agree in substance a nd terminology with the me.al rit ual described in 9- 10. where (as I a rgued in Chaple r 3 a bove) 1he bread was empha sized and lhe key verb 'gjve t hanks· beg,a n the. <~ons ti tu tive eudwristeO-prayers th al marked Ihe requisile opening of each ha lf of lhe meal rilulll. Thai lhis 48 On the rdationship between these Didachi' lllrlittffrw~g. pp. 190-241: Nie-den\i mmcr. Didachr. pp. 46-51 and the eommcntary. /oc. nds ·your" here and immediately bdow. 51 C f. Milawc. Dit/((c/u!. p. 566. 52 So ah-ead)· Gogud. L '£udwri.wie. p. 242. For Audet. they repres-ent two distinc.t 1itunls (l.a Ditlud1;. pp. 400-01): Niederwimroet opts for hendiadys Wid((Chi'. pp. 195- 6).

166

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

ritual has not been overwrillen. or another ritual a dded to Jl m some portion of the Didad1e, a lso suggest that the basic meal patte rn or 9-10 still holds for the r,rson who added the stipulations o f 14. 1- 3 to the community"s 'rule·. 3 Klaus We ngst is s urely correct. then. to ide.n tify this 'sacrillce· wilh the prayers of t he community. rather than an incipient t\·lass. 54 ·n tis basic no tion of prayer is already a ttested in Lhe Dead Sea Scrolls: The man who gives glory to the Most High is accepted like one who brings a n o ffe ring like o ne who oO"crs goats a nd bullocks. I_Jit·J like o ne who ma kes the altur greasy with many ho locausts. like the sweet rragrarx:e o r the j ust ma n"s hand ..u

Not surprisingly. moreove-r > in diaspo ra Judaism and prior to the appearance of o ur communily. cmmmmal prayers could be. conceived as :m alternative to pag~in sacritlces,S
53 Nicderwimmcr tra<:cs the debate wl~ther 14.1- J refers to a ritual other th~m 9- 10 back al least to Paul Drews (1904). who look 9-10 as a private: meal and 14 as the oOi~·ial •eucharist' (Nicderwimmcr. Diduc/!e. p. 194 n. 1). Joh~lnncs Quastc:n took 9-10 tiS first communion and 14 tiS weekly worship (P((trologr [3 vols: Westminster. MD: Christian Classi-cs. 198J- 19S6J. I. p. 33). Lictn mmn thought they referred to the: st~mc: rite (.\f" X VHI. 9- 11 (G:.rck1 Mnrtincz. Detul Sm Saoi!J·. p. 305). 56 The point is implicit I think. in the evidence (including ·communal mcnls') rc:.hears~-d by Erit.'h Gruen. Diwpom: Jc'1rs amidst Greek.'> and Rom((ns (Cambrid~. MA: Hnmml University Prc:.ss. 2002). pp. 116- IS. 121- J : nnd L.c'·ine. Am:irfll Synagogue. pp. 155-8. 51 Sec Rcif. Jud((ism. pp. 66-71. 98-9: Ferguson. ·spiritual Sacrifice·. p. 1161: Walter D. R:.ly, 'The Stn1sbourg Papyrus·. in Paul F. Bradsh:•w (cd.). Essays on Ear~r f tiJir>rn Euduwistic: Pmyer.s (Collegeville. MN: Liturgic.:.! Pn:ss. 1991). pp. 39-56 (52: citing T. Lt'ri 3.5- 6): Hcincmnnn. Pra}w in 1/:e Tabmul. pp. 14-15: cf. Levine. A11cien1 Synagugut!. pp. 155S.. 529. S.S Justin's testimony is unmistaknbk: ·but (occording to you Jews. God) says th:•t He is pleased with the pray~·rs of the individuals. of that nation then dispersed. nnd calls their prurcrs sacrifices. Now. that prayers and giving of thanks. when offered by worthy men. nre the only perfect and well~plcasin,gsacriliccs to God. I t1lso admit' (Dial. 117(..\NF 1.151]). Cf. TcnuUian Ad.•. Jl((/. 5: Athcnagort1s Leg. 13: Clement of Akxnndria. Stmm. 7.7: Origen. Cels. 8.21. For the notion's persistc:nn· in Christinnity. sec Ferguson. 'Spiritual SacriDce·. pp. 11 71-4. 1178-SS.

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

167

to justify this ideology, applied specifically to e ucharistic prayer (Justin Dial. 4 1, 117; lrenaeus Harr. 4.17.5).' 9 One may add to Wengst's remarks only that the meal makes the sacrilkial analogy all the more apt. Typical G reek. Roman and Jewish ·sacrifices· (6uola 1) involved a meal as the culminati ng event of the ritual. The animal or item to be s.a.crificed w;-ts. variable> from ritual to ritua l, but the nwal tended to be prominent ~ind non-neg_oti;ible. G reek even used a sep~uate term for animals or produce 'slaughtered' without a meal involved (o<jlay1a. lypically oiTered lo ihe chihonic deilie.l ). TI1ese were not thysiai. A proper !llpsia involved a me.a l. preceded by a rit ual (i.e. sacrilke) !hal dedicated Ihe food lo lhe god(s).00 This menl:liily can be seen a t work in Roman domestic ·sacrifices·. in which a small piece. of cake is consumed a t the hearth fi re for Vesta in the middle or the me~d. or incense a nd wine are offered the l a res (who perhaps were thought to control the ramily"s sustenance). The same notion may well govem Greek o blations at the symposium, where wine is poured from the cup before partaking. These gestures a re of a piec.:e with lhe c.ustom or giving. the gods the fat from the. slaughter or a bull or pig, which was the.n eaten by the t~ommunily.6 1 The accepted Jewish custom or prayer over the. meal was probably meant to 'dedicate' the food. but in a way distinct from the Temple sacrilkes as well as pagan practk-es..6~ In calling their common me.al a ·sacrifice•, then, the author of Didadw 14. 1- 3 i.s simply highlighting its saaed quality. in much t he .same way that the remark in 9.5 does. The te rms 'pure• (Katkxpix) and ' made common' or 'profaned ' (6!j} in 14. 1- 2 properly belong lo a lemple conlexl purity associated with a shrine and sacrificial rites. This kind of heig.hlened sacrificial nolion pro ba bly best fils a posi-70 sensibilily: lhis 59 Sec Harnack. who points out that the: Didarlu~'s d~.·viat ions from the l<:.XI of lhc LXX tuc unique (Leiwe. II. pp. 55- 6). 60 The imporumcc: of .mtil.g in cb ssical Grttk sacrifices is stn:ssl-d in Mnrcd Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vemnnl (eds). Tile Cuisint! of Sat•ri}itt' muung the Gre~·ks (lmns. Pt1ub \Vissing: Chicago: Uni\'C:rsity of Chic<~go Press. 1989): b y S. Pe irce~ ' Dl·ath. Re,·dry. nnd Th:r-.sia'. Cla.\'.\'iml Antiquity 12 ( 1993). pp. 219-66: nnd in Robin H:igg (cd.). Anc-il>:r/1 Greek 0111 Pra( titt from tile Epigrupltiml El'idrnce: Proc{!t!t/iltgs (!{Ihe St'cuml lntt!matio11al Seminar 011 Anc-iew Gm!k Clllt (Stockholm: P. AstrOms. 1994). pp. 186- 92. 6 1 For 1he phcnomcnn. !io..'IC R. M . Ogilvc. J11e Rommu·
168

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

imp ression would also lit redactiona l considera tions ( 14.1- 3 as a late r inserlion, ca. I00). Al this stage in this trajecto ry o f t he me~ll ritua l within t he Didache and associated communities, the notion of the assembly and the meal itself as something. ' holy', alre-.tdy present in t he earlier s tages of t he comm unity,s ritual practices, is instructive.ly ext(•uded. T he confessio n sins in prepar:ition fo r the meal, which may be ~i re latively new practice since it is no t me.n tioned in Didadu• 9- I 0, only serves as a natur;d ou tcome of the concept that the meal is holy. since o ne. is coming into contact with the 'sa ints' ~md with a 'sacrifice' in a specially designated ' holy sp ;-tce·. Not. of course, a spa(·e in t he lite.ral sense. but a space created by the presente of the spotless community, which o ilers a 'pure sacrifice. . .amo ng the Genliles'. h is in !he nalure of rilua ls Lhal (in Rappaport's 1em1s) <'mate ! Itt> ItO!)' that they a uract add itional p ractil-es to hedge about what is sacred. so as to a void conta mina tion a nd injury to those. who enter the. rituals and so come. into contact with ho ly t hing$. In so fa r as the meal rit ua l is or creates 'the. sacred'. the community tha t participates come$ into t~o n tac t with wha t is sacred. ~ind so must be- prepa red. At the stage when Didat he 14 was added, then, the o lder practice o f fasting and baptism was evidently perceived as insufficient to p repa re. t he <:ommunit y fOr ~m ongoing state. of rit ual p urity. Now the.y must confess ' infractions', and quarreHing members must be exduded .(13 ·n1e stipula tion to confess inlhtctions is stated in very similar lerms in the Two Wa~'s mat.eria l. In 4.1 4 .we r~ad. ' In the assembly you sha ll confess your mfractJOns (rrapaJTTwJ,JaTa], a nd shall not enter mto your pra yer (rrpoofuxitv] \\~th a consciousness o f guilt' . Almost the same lerminology is used in both. so perhaes the a ulho r of 14.1- 3 has learned !his rule from !he Two Ways manual. If so, he or she has exle nded il by inference from prayer (rrpoonjxTJ) to the thanksgiving (£UxaptoTla) of the meal. T his process o f extension suggests a later .stage-of rellection a fter the Two Ways ma te rial has been interna1ized. Thus, it is a ppropria te to speak or a third stage or reflection o n the. rit ua l me-.JI. 'Infractions' .suggests tha t the ' law' is being o bserved by the community in question, alth ough this could well mean the ' law· as interp reted in the teachings or Jesus, ra ther tha n, say. as interpreted by rabbinic Judaism or

or

6J For an exploration of how this pr.1cticc might hm'C' worked. sc:c pp. 547- 54. 568- 70. 64 Cf. H <~rnad:: .

M i la\~C.

Did((cM.

l.t·l~tt. fl. p. 54: Rordorf and Tuilicr. La Doctrine. pp. 67-8. Milawc makes much of this (Ditlac!Je. pp. 530- 32). On this idea among Jewish 'pictisls· sec Rcif. Jud
Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

169

o ther synagogue ' teachers'.65 Thus, even a t this t hird stage one need not posit any dr~mlatic break in Lhe rilual process reconstructed above. Finally. it is not, I think, Lhe d ivisiveness but r.uher the animosity. resentment. jealousy, or o ther such traits that cause the persons involved in a q ua rrel to ' profane' Lhe me~il. ·n 1is inte rpretation accords well with the Two W~1ys instruction, which contrasts such behaviour to the 'way of life' in seveml places (cf. 2.3. 6, 7; 3.2; 5.1) - especially 2.7: 'You shall not ha Le any person, but some. you should reprove~ and for some you should pra)'~ and some you shall love more than your life'. Here again it is clear tha t members of the.community are now meant to be adhering to the 'way o r life' when t hey enter the ritual meal. Stag(~

Four: The Coptic Re(·ension and lite Stinoull Prarer

The Oidadre's me~ll prayers we.re literally preserved in a Coptic fragmen t. dated to the fifth century. which contains Didtll·he I 0.3b- 12.2a 66 That this preservation also attests an ongoing life. in ritual usage, of the Didadul s prayer form is furt her suggested by several modilkaLions to the classic prayer form there. ( I) ~n1e most striking d ifference-, perhaps. is the use o f the •Amen. after eo.tch of t he three prayer units of Didndw 10. Dibelius and Audet ''iewed this usag.e as e~1rlier tha n its Jack in H. but with Wengst and Nieden,~mmer (among others). I view it as a later in.sertion.67 In C ha pte r 3, l suggested that a fi nal 'Amen' after the. sixth prayer gave way, over time~ to the c limactic exd amations of 10.6. In a ny l"aSe. a concluding 'Amen' would have lent special force to lhe close-of the ritua l. One ~m easily imasine-how this solemn, oflkial <.~onclusion could have crept in to less final pauses in the li turgy. and this development parallels rabbinic usage.68 T he more-interesting q uestion. in my view, is whether or not the congreg.a tion is here saying. only t he- 'Amen' (as Audet thought), o r is ra ther still saying the doxology~ with the. 'Amen' J'unctioning either as an

65 On such 'teachers·. soc: Justin Dial. 43. 61. 68, 83. 110. etc. Jesus· t~eh i ngs. both interpret T or..th and rival the l'hariStts in Matlhcw's Sermon on the Mount. Draper plausibly suggests~· similar understanding of Jesus· teachings in th~· Dilfad1t' ('Torah tmd Troublesome Apostks'. p. 154). Mila\"CC instead takes the ·infroctions· to be against both the ·way of life• and against one another (Didur:llt?. p. 541 ). 66 Sec F. S1anky Jones nnd Pau1 A. Mircxki. ·considcmtions on the Coptic Papyrus of 1hc Didachc". in Cla)'lon N. k fford (ed.), 77w Didlr(hl•ill Coutext: f.\'.fll)'J on its Text. Hi.'itory ami Tmm·mi.uitm Clcidc:n: Brill. 1995). pp. 47- 87 (51. 77): and NicdC'rwimmcr. Dida(·he. pp. 24-6. 6? Dibdius. ·Mab1 Gc::bttc'. p. 122: Audct. La Didad1e. pp. 40 1 -2~ Wcng:st. Di(/adJf'. pp. SO-S2: Nicdcrwimmcr. Did11d1t?. p. 159 n. 42. 6S Sec m. &r. 5.4. 8.8. The stinmrfi pr:..yer. which concludes with 'Amen". represC'nts n midpoint in this dcvdopment (sec immediately below). 4

170

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

addit io n to the doxo logy or perha ps as a point where the leader and the congregation join voices. Lacking rubrics, we cannot know. (2) The relatively mino r adjustments to 10.6 fo rm a sewnd set of d ifferences: H

Coptic Recension ( ,n'tft re lrojt'cted

rvt ay g_ n we come and this cosmos pass m•.:ay! J.I<J.WJIIII(I to the God o f Da\'id .

Greek)tr\) .May the Lord come a nd this cosmos pass awuy! Amen. Uo:wmut to the House o f David.

Mtmmtlw. Anum.

T'he Lord has come. Amen .

,,e;T., xapt~

EA6iTc.l 0 KVptOI; Ka 't na.~A6in.:. 0 x~~ OOt~. Kal naptMh(i) 0 KOO~oc; oUtoc;. ~awa T~ &4) 6auiO. Cq.1~v. ~awa Te$ o'iK~ 6auio.

These. a lte-r.Jtions sug.gest the- very slightest impulse to ' update·. \\~thout trans£,ressing the ritual script a llested in H. Of course. scho lars debate whet her or no t the Coptic text presen•es the more original readings.;o I have opted ior H lo r ' God or D;wid'. because it is in keeping with the theoce.n tric perspective of the Didat·lw's pr.tyers. ' House or David' Strikes. me as a movement toward a messianic understanding o f Jes.tL~, which is hard to justiiy elsewhere in these prayers. On t he other hand. Dibelius may be correct to take 'May the l o rd come' ((J.6hc.> .Uptoc;; Coptic) as earlier than ·May grace come' (iAeiTc.> xapt~; H). especially if ' l ord' (
o

ffl Sec Ni("dcrwimrncr. Didac/11'. p. 26. (But IJ«po:voea may still ho\'t b..--cn in the Greek

cxcmpklr.) For the Coptic text sec Jones and Mired:i. ·considerations·. p. 53. iO Aude1 f!l'lors the Coptic reading ("house: of David") here (/...11 DidadJ~. pp. 62--6): Dn:1pcr thinks, •"God" and ..son"" ·attempt to 1\'ffiO\ 'C the probltm.t11ic reference . . . to the royal pretensions of the Christian nlO\'c:tllcnr ('Ritu:1l Proc~-ss". p. 154 n. 25). Bot this nssurnes n messianic orientation for the Dir/adul s prdytrs. Lict:umum ((lvors 'Son· (M(t.H'. p. 237). Sand,·ik views the- \'arinnts as liturgical ditlcrcn<:<:s between communitit$ thai amount to the stunt thing (D(Is Krmmum des Herm. pp. 38-9). Those who fovour ' God' (H) indude VOObus. LiturgitYJ/ Tr(l(/ilitms. p. 105: Rordotf and Tuilier. La Doctrim•. p. 183 n. 1: \Vcngsl. Didatbe. p. 82: Nicdc-rwinuner. Didad:e. p. 162 n. 86: and Clubeaux. "Euchurislic Prayers". p. 265 n. 2i. Still of int~·~t arc Harnack·s mgumcnts for the historical significan.x of "God of D:1vid" (U/!m. II. p. 36). 71 Dibdius. 'Mahi·Gt:"bctc-·. p. 125. The:: point is not critical to my tlr,b'Ument.

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

171

represent a shift from a t heoce nt ric to a 'christoce ntric' perspective. Soo ner or later, howe.ver, such shills e\•idently occurred - later, I think.12 All of t hese diffe rences a re best explained. as aJte rations on the basis of {l(' llf(l/ ((J'(I!(C: they a re C -ha nges ;m organic type. Tha t lhey are l'htinges is itself a n importa nl datum. lOr it demo nstrates a central contention of lhis swdy - namely. that these prayers were used a nd adapted by communities. for their own purposes. and represent only mode.ls of ~l classic: fo nn .73 Inte restingly. the changes concern the ritual S(~ript r.tther than the ''Mia ble elements (which are- left intact_}. While o ne might object t ha t. given my theory. the 11tiriab/e elements o ught to have changed, in fact s<.~ribal alterations to the rit ual script suggest that the scribe knows precisely these parts from memory - the. va riable elements a re simply <.~opied as te-xt. Most tellingly. the chang,e s to the ritmtl script a re in the na ture of minor adjuslments, changes th;-tt still adhere to the. defining logic

or

or thai script. When were these changes introduced? It is not possible to say; they could have ~~ risen a t any point in t he document's transmission history. Yet they are likely to have been introduced prior (o the tra nslation of the 14 Didtl('ile into Coptic. and perhaps in Egypt. This much is Su!ll,>ested by the stinouji (cnuoyqJ) prayer. found immediately after Didarile 10.7 in Lhis frai!ment. The stiuor!fi pr.tyer o f Lhe Coptic fragment, which is closely pa ralleled in ~

the myron (~upov) pmyer or the Apnswlir Constitutions 7.27.1 - 2. carefully

adheres to the proper eudwristeO-fo nn :7 j C'lm:u. ttp. 7.27.2 We t hank you . ..

both fo r... and for.. . w hid 1 you mudc known lo us th rough Jesus your scn:a nt lkcausc yo urs is the glory a nd the: power fore,·cr. Anlt'n

CtJplk Ri'ctmsion ( 1rith retrojn_.ted Gntl!k )'k> We give thanks to you Fathe r c.onCC"rmng,. •• which you .-.hmw•d us. lhro u£h Jt.-sus your Sou. Yo urs is 1hc glory fon:vcr! Amen.

72 So too Milwoc. Diduclte. pp. 398- 9: Klinghardt Gemtdm.r:lrajtsm((M wul MaMgn twitl'idwft. p. 391. 73 This point would hold C:\-en if my text-critical conclusions ''ICr<: r
172

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom EU)(~P!o-roU~J.~y ?o.t. .. ,

~V{(aptoroVIJiv oot, nO:np,

Kat vmp. .•-.::a t vmp. .. oV ~ptoac; h1.ii'v

UIT{ p • . .

Oui ''lqooti roU rra tOOc;- oou." Cm ooU ionv n~a Ka't hOUva~nc; Etc; roUe; aic:lvac; · cip~v.

-:> •

au

..

'

"

111.11V Oul 'lflooU reV nat~ oou. ool li~a ' ~yvG:~p tocu;

q . .. . rove; . atc.:.vac;· OIJflV.

~tc;

Note t hat. in both . the formula ' thro ugh Jesus your servant' evokes a

doxology: the Coptic text. however~ opts fo r the shorl doxology. while Cou.Hiturions opts fo r the long o ne (in a \•ersion a kin to 9.4 in H). Both also conclude with the-'Amen'. Perh~tps most int riguing are the rema ining differences between the two texts, in spite o f these structural agreements. T he Coptic. p reserves the traditiona l address •father' (without mod ifier, unus ually}, while the Conslilutions becomes rather dogma tic: ' God , fash ione-r of all things' (9EE 78 OflJ,Jtoupy£ Tc:lv OA(I)v). - an a nti-Valentinian fo m1Uia. Once aga in. moreover, the variable-u nip-clause Jives up to its role: lhe Coptic version supplies stinouji ( = myrou'?J'9 while the Coustilutkms fi rst s upplies ' the sweet frag,ra nce of lhe ointment' (Tijc; ~U(I)Oiac; Toll p.-Upou) and then doubles the Vnip-clause: ·and fo r e terna l immortality' (Kal Unip TOO cieavO:Tou a:ic:)voc;). The m ultiplicatio n of Urri:p--clauses Wiis an option, as I argued (in Chapter 3 above), open to the person p raying. G iven my a rgument that fhe- Didtirhe oilers only 'model prayers', my concern here obviously is no t which text is earlier, much less 'original". Moreove.r . wh~il the stiiWI!/i or myron was used for - if these are indeed the .same subs tance - is simply assumed in both texts. Niede rwimmer s uggests either healing o il or baptismal oil. either of which could plausibly (if awkwardly) have been 'made known' by Jesus.80 Stephen Gero has a rgued that the Coptic lext pre-serve~" the e.;trlier reading. stinoufi fo r eu6dia.\· in the sense o f 'good smell'. which ha.s reference to 'the archaic Christian liturgical practice of burnin~ incense at the e nd t he communal mear. He further surmises tha t the scribe of H a nd the editor o f t he Aposto/i<·

or

71 Note that he-n:: the rdutivc d ausc ('which you made known' ) is attested with the neut~r rdoti\'C' pronoun - not the feminine fou nd in the .S:1mplc prayers in Did. 9- 10 (H). 18 Contrast. e.g.. Gos. Truth 17.5--20: (more cxplicidy) Go:;. PM. 75.3-9: and Ptolemy J.1or. 7. 19 So Nicdcrwimmcr spa:ulates (Ditl11d1t!. p. 165: but sec 1'cl tprob1eme'. p. 120). Stq lhcn Gero thinks euOtlitts lies bl•hind myron ('The So-Called Ointment Prayer in the Coptic Version of the Didnchc: A Rt-c\'aluation'. HTR 10 (19771. pp. 67- 84 168- 70)). The point is not critical to my argument. 80 Nit'l(ll-rwimmcr. ' Tcl tprob1cme·. p. 121: Did-arlu~. p. 166: su,ggcstcd a lso by Rordorf nod T uilk:r. L(/ D()(·trillt!. pp. 47-8: VOOhus thinks baptism:al oil (/..iturgiad Tmditio11s. pp. 43- 50).

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

173

Conslitlllions failed to understand this practice and so deleted (H) or mod ified (Apostolic Constitwions) it.~u However, it is unwarr~\nted to assume that this substance - whatever it may be - was used d uring o r in t he context o f the meal. hs lot~\tio n in the Coptic fragmenl a nd in the Aposw/it Coustiflllions vis-:l-vis the meal prayers c:a n easily be explained o n o ther grounds. and actuaHy urg_ e.s against such an assodation. In the tlrst place, all of the prayers in the Didadw a re p ut close to o ne another (i.e. Did. 8- 10). so an additional prayer at this point in the document need imply nothing about its Sit: im Lebtm. Moreover. the-threefold praye.rs. befo re and afier, a re a balanced a nd cohere.nt whole that would. be disrupted. by an additional 'inte nse' pra.yer. By the same-token, this substance should not be taken a.s a food item. either.~ 2 Pe rfume. oil a nd incense are all possible interpretations,_but We C~in determine-the ritual function o f none-of t hese. from this texl.KJ Despite unresolved q uestions. then. what b<>Lh prayers demonstra te is a n adaptation o f the Didaduf scrudal t•utlwri:Jte6-form for use beyond the meal setting.84 This is p rofound: it shows t he inlluence o f this ritual fom1 during the period when this additional p raye-r took shape. As such. it demonstrates a eudwristit- oiiiiO(Ik on the pa rt of the communi lies tha t practised this prayer form. such that they adopted it as the proper ritual a pproach to t he. myron or stinouji. The. logic of the Didache's rit ual fonn cle~uly holds here: the c.ommunity is placed in the a ttit ude o f dependence upo n God as Father, for something: mtule kflowu through Jesus. the pais. That thing ·made known· is. o f course. a subsumre - awkwardly eno ugh demonstr~lting how tenacious the ritua l fo rm and its logic were. a t this po int, fo r these communities. These two texts exhibit some diffe rence of o pinion reg,a rding t he a ppropriate doxologic~il fo rm for a one-phase ritua l

S l Gem, 'So-Called Ointment Pr.lycr". pp. 68- 70.81-4. Klinghardl similarly assumes a meal context for this prayer (Gt!llrt!iiiJdulji.sJIItlhiwul Mulllg~tllt'ills<·huft. pp. 484-7): note Nicdcrwimmtr's objcc.tions to Gcro ("Tc;(tproblemc'. pp. 120-21: Ditludlt'. p. 167). not nil of which apply in my rc:..ding of Did. 9-10. 82 Mc<:iow·. m ndduoc-s the sknder c\·idmu for oil usn!,'C in eucharistic meals (A.m uic 1:."1Jd1arisls. pp. 11 5-17)~ he leaves the slimmfiimynm pmrcr unmentioned. S3 Perhaps it was used during baptism (cf. the i m:..~,ocry in Go.'i. Tmllr 33.33- )4. 36.13-34). or even the •bridul chambe-r · (d . Gos. Phil. 69.1- 70.9. 74.1 3--24. 78.2- 11). ·Anoint ing' at b:..plism was impottmlt. for example. in East Syria: see Gubridc Winkler. ' The Original Menning of the Prcbapti.smnl Anoinling nnd its lmplirntions'. in Mnx.,.-cll E. Johnson (00.). Liri11g Wat~·r, St!((/illg Spirit: Retuli11gs tm ChriJtiatl lnitiulitm (CoiiC'gc,·ille. MN: Liturgical Press. 1995). pp. 58-8.1: and Maxwdl E. Johnson. Tit~ Riles of C!lristitm llliliUiitJn: Thd•· l::•wiiJii(}fl a11d lnterprelalitm (Collegeville. MN: Liturgical Press. 1999). pp. 41 - 7. 84 NicdCTwimmer argues persuasively that this prayn imitates 9- 10 ('Tt.\:tproblcmc·. pp. 119- 20: Did"cht>. pp. 165- 7). \Vcn£sl indul1es it (hi£hly edited) in his erilicnl text (Didad1t!. p. 82): sec also D~·h:..ndsch uttcr. ' Text of the Ditktdut . pp. 44-5. The decision docs not ru1c out imitation of foundt~tional roca1 pruycrs. which pte-date: the Didtu·fl~.

174

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

- hardly surprising,. T he 'Amen' marks the completion of this (compamtively) abbreviated ritual.85 The provenances o f the various adjustments tracked in this ch~1pter. as well as t he provenance of t he myron or stinouji prayer. a re unfortuna tely as difficull to dete rmine as the provenance of the Didatlu~'s meal p rayers. To judge by textual attestation, both t he Didache as such and the mt'roll/ stinoufi pr.tyer were C\1idently known both in Egypt and in (Western) Syria 86 - just as the Didathe's meal ritual evidently was.g7 In my view, the myrou pr.tyer is later than the original meal prayers, and as such demonstrates the ongoing use of the Dida('/le·s eucharisteO-fo nn - aga in. in certain circles - into the second a nd even third centuries. perha ps taking us a genera tion or two beyond 'stage- three', when the- meal bet~ime (in some circles at least) ~l sacrificial banquet, for which one prepared by the mutual confession of infrac.tions ag~1inst Go<J•s 'law', howe-ver under. stood.

The Riwal Process in a Dewdopiug Community Viewed in the long rang,e , the. kinds of 'stages" o r adjustments analysed ~lbove demonstrate o rganic growth. Th is growth is intelligible from the perspective. of the ritual process that culminated in the mea l ritual of Didadw 9- 10, and this ritual proce-ss is reasona bly clear already in the Didache's earliest recovera ble layer. First, there must have been instruction in the sayings o f Jesus. T h is was late r suppleme-nted with instruction in Jewish ethical ideals more generally (the Two Ways). Sewnd would have t~ome the determination to join the. community of the- Lord - this goes unmentio ned. of course. Third . p rior to joining. a period of fasting_is commanded; of unsta ted length, perhaps. in the earliest laye-r. but eventually two days. Fourth. after the prescribed fast, the would -be member is immersed in living w~-tter and ' in the name of the Lord'. Later the quality of water was permitted to vary. f inally. the immersed person is: welcomed to join in t he meal. which in turn expresses gratitude for Jesus· teachings and looks toward the kingdom or t he Father. To judge by the 85 Such abbreviated rituals. with only a single e1KIIuriJit'6-pn.ycr. were concluded by an •Amen'. Over tjme. an ' Amen' nfter the doxology could wdl ha\-c bc:comc habitual and so round its way (rrom oommunity pmctice) into the Coptic text ancr each doxology in Did. 10. 86 On the: provenance or Apos10/ic- C&utitutions St"e Mu~d Metzger. Le:; C'tJn.slillllimu ltpc>JtoliquesiSC. 320. 329. and 336: 3 vols: Paris.: c~~rf. 1985- 1987). I. pp. 54- 7 (although 'Antioch' may be too procisc). Nicdcrwimmcr thinks the prayer l'ntc:rcd the Dir/ur!le's textual tradition ' rdati,•dy early·. in the third century {'Tex!problcme·. pp. 121- 2). Voko. kss plausibly. puts it in the rt1urth ('Life and Ordc.r'. p. ill). 87 Sec Chs. 7- 9 below for implicit e\·idmce: ancient rcren'll<:t'S to the Ditludlt' tend to confirm this impression. For a critical sum~y or u,·nih'lhlc- e\'idcnce. sec Niedcrwimrner. Ditlacl!e. pp. 4-17.

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

175

two extant versions of the Didadw (H and the fragmentary Coptic recension), this bo.-tsic process h:-ts undergone some development in the course of several decades. but has not chantted its basic orientation tow~1rd knowledge and 1/ie coming kiugdom. ... Jonathan Draper has produced an insightful ritual ana lysis o f the 11rst ha lf o f the- Didadu:. fro m t he perspective o f Victo r Turne-r·s theoretical a pproach to ritual pro<.-esses.N&My debts to Draper"s insight throughout this p resent study will be obvious to a nyone who has read his ana lysis. Al the same time. my o bservations conc-erning the 'fixed' a nd ·variable" ingred ients in the-meal prdyers: have led me to depa rt from a number of his concJusions re,garding. their use a nd significance within the p rO<.:ess he envisions. Still. t hat these pr.tyers existed within a la rger process is undeniable. a nd Dr.1per is correct Lo o bserve tha t we have access to salient details o f this process wit hin t he Didache. Therefore. it would be a failureo f ana lysis to avoid treatment of this process as a whole, especia lly in :i study focused o n the ritua l me-a l that serves as its culmin;ttion. In my theoretical reconstruction or this process below. I ut ilize the insights o f the anthropolo~ists tha t I h:we used throughout this study, especially Roy Rappapo rt.l 9 Ra ppaport has pa id particular attention to the fo rmal and Struc.:.tura l fe-a t ures o f rituals. fe-.uures that I believe a re most aC(~essible in the kinds or materials that are p reserved in the Didadw - namely 1 written o nes.90 In particular. R
89 In thinking about this process. 1 a1so worked through Hloch"s theoretic:•! insights in inw Jhmter. Howcvt"r. in the intc-n:sts of brC'Vity. I have opted to discuss onlr Rappaport's tht.'Ory. and indoc:d only that p:u·t of it thut I thought directly relcnmt to thcc\·idcnoe:c before me~ 90 Tum<:r rd ics more hcu\·ily on outsider observations and insider commentary. both of which :trc unfortumudy lucking in this case-. 9 1 Rappaport. Riluul um/ Rl'iigio11. p. 169. Pr~y

176

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

however, such processes te nd to be freq uent and relatively brief. T hese d ifferences impact how s uch processes function. For exa mple, Rappaport posits that mo re. leng,thy rit ua l processes, combined wit h other facto rs to promote 'the inte nsity of the ritual state-· (such as ' tempo, unison. density or symbolic, iconic and indexical representation·. a nd so o n). tend to have a mo re pro fo und ' psychic' impact on ritual participants. A higher frequency of ritual performa nce. by cont rast. 'could be related to the extent to whi<.~h liturgical o rders ;ue, as it were. called upon both to suide or go\'ern daily behavior and to penetrate to, and thus to shape and mainta in "proper" cognitive allective b~1ses fo r tha t beha vior'.92 Such hish frequency has. fo r Ra ppa po rt, a function that is clearly rele-vant 'o the ritual process in the Didaclu: in all o f its slages. Thus, 'lilurgic.al orders which a ltempt to bring the d ivine-into e-veryday life. may favor brief but frequent ritua ls'93 More specifica lly. T he need to shape or conslrain the grounds of behavior. and not simply the behavior ilsdr may. in tu rn, be related to ( I } the degree to which the understandings encoded in the- liturgical ordc:r an: exposed to dissolution by the corrosive power of freque ntly enco untered experie nce o r ahernnti\'e understa nd in g$~ (1) the extent to which the rules a nd mow) d icw the order represents arc \•ulncrable to ''iolution by ac.tions moti\'utcd by the p rcs::urcs. temptations. aod usug<.-s of d aily life. und by the u nruly e mo tions lhey may generate; and (3) lhc weakness or absence or other means to guard against such th reats.""

In this context. Ra ppapo rt offers a modern example that is quite close. conceptually. lo o ur concern here: the high freq uency of ritual perfomla nce in Orthodox Judaism. H alakiiir observance there. he co ntends. 'attempts to bring divine- order into the world of everyday. a nd to mainta in it in the. eve-ryday world in the face of daily vicissitudes. Such strenuous spiritual ~ind mor.tl exertion may well caJI for the psychic reinfo rcement of freq uent ritual.' T his frequency may, he adds, be associated with lhe minority staltL~ of Jews in the diaspora.'n· T hat Didathe 7- 10 assumes relatively brief a nd rela tively frequenl ritual performance of its lit urgical order is made explicit, in retrospect, in Didadw 14. where a regula tion is imposed on lhis frequency. In Lha l instruction, .the- prec:.ise day is sped tied , perha ps lo counter.tct Sabbath obsen •;-mce.96 But frequent and brief ritua l performance is a lso explicir in 92 Rappaport. Ritual cmd Rl'ligitJn. pp. 101- 2 (quolation from p. 102). 93 Rappaport. Riwal cmd Religia11. p. 20-1. Again. ·performance of th< ritual realizes, ipso ftiC'fO, the divine order with a frequency that cannot hdp but pcrvt1dc the mundane world' (pp. 20.!-4).

Rappaport. Ritual ami Rl'ligion. pp. 2'02- 3. Rappaport. Ritual ami Rl'ligimr. pp. 2'03- t 96 Rordorf and Tuilicr. La Do('fritu!. p. 65. 94 95

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

177

lhe case of daily pr.tyer, proba bly from an earlier stage of the. Didadu's red:iClion (Did. 8.2): ·Pray in this way three times a day·. !Moreover. such frequency is a lready implicil in the case o f the meal ritual. The ritual process of Diflache 7- 10 implies an irregular frequency for initia tion of new members. subject. naturally, to t he vicissitudes of human decisions. But the assembly of the Lo rd would be likely to meet a t least o nt'e a week. probably o n the Sabbath but possibly on some o ther day. even the 11m day of the week. The-community, or a p;ul of it. may also have gathered daily; but even if daily pr.tyer was conducted o nly by fa milies or individually. its frequency is the telling point here. The high frequency of brief rituals by minority communities may. Ra ppapo rt posits. 'penelr.He to the cognitive. a nd an'e.ctive bases oi (their) behavior, and thus strengthen the ground upon which the orde.r realized sta nds'. Rappaport's summa r-y is key: T he lengthy b ut infrequent ritual. in profo und ly a lter-ing the c-o nsciousness of the partic ipunts. lifls them oul of m unda ne time and t he mundane world to assimilate them. for the time being. into w hat may be represen ted as a ne\'cr-chunging divine o rder. ret urning them mmsform ed to t he m undane world at I he rit ual·s end. Brief but fr<.'
The Didache's mea) ritual, with its concluding: e.xclamalions. is a cle~u exa mple o f t his profoundly Jewish a pprmlch to life in the world : ' Let grace come-) and this world p
97

d~ Father. and the Spirit. As recipients of the Spirit disciples migJu become (or need to be) holy. but this is (tdlingfy) nl' \'<.'r swted. Instead. whoever rroc:ives Jesus' te<~ch ings is thel\'b)' ' made clean' {Jn 15.3). In Thomas. t he: tcrm •holy' is used t•.l.·icc:. once in ' holy spirit' (44) and onc:c: in the sz1ying found in Did. 9.5;'/Mt. 7.6 (93).

178

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Rappaport·s insight can be intensified in our case~ however: a ' liturgical order' for use in :1 minorit}t community thm exists within (or is associa ted with) a largt~t bur Jti/1 minority l'Oimuwtity (namely~ Jews) might be expected inevilably to enta il an allernative ·c.osmos' - especially given the pervasive ancient notion o f ·cosmos· as ordered realm. Thus, ' Let this cosmos pass away' - a petition that opposes the aim of making !his world sacred. T hat the f a ther's basileia should stand in d irect opposition to 'this cosmos• is hardly surprising, given the social situa tion that we must posit for this community: a community existing in. but not as a n orga nic part or. and no t as an
Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

179

d isintegrdtes in t he 'mundane' o r in the (equally threatening) ·sacred' re~ilm of the 'de~id gods·. T hus. the loss of a true homeland in the. present o rder of existence is reflected escha tologically: a fundamental opposition exists between the community"s g,oal and. the possibilities pre$ented by the current cosmos. Here. finally, we may well possess a clue for the inlerpret:llion of o ne of the model eudwrisleo-prayers: 'We thank you. holy Father, for your holy na me. which you made to reside in o ur hea rls' (10.2). This pntyer envisions a highly idiosyncr.Hic altern;Hive. to o r replacement for the Jerusalem Temple, where t he. name (r~to) of God was belie:ved. to reside. Oddly. that is. the holy name re-sides not in ~he group. the community gathered lor the meal. but in 'our hea rts' ( Tat<; Kapotal<; ~pO>v). The ritual process is assumed. in this request, to be dissociated from a ny particular location and to be even somewha t independent of t he group or ·assembly" itself. Each ind ividual member of the community, at least each 'holy" o ne. leads a d ua l or esoteric existe nce in isolation from externa l confirmation. This conception, that there is ultimately no 'assembly, within the present cosmos. is d ifficult to credit from a ritual (and social) pe-rspeclive. However. it does actually work from within the ' rules· of rit ual processes as a rticulated by Rappaport: the 'g.ro unds' of mor.tl obligation ;ue so deeply internalized in the members of the-community that t hey t hemselves become the ·seal' and 'shrine' of holiness, the name-o f God . Moreover, it is expressed in the stcripted line-s of the. g~tthering prayers. However, Rappaport a lso notes that within the ritual proce-SS itself. the d istinctions between indi\riduals and the group rrequently become lost. e-Specially where 'the coordination of utter.tnce. and movement' is in play. In s uch cases. to pa rticipate in this coordinated action ' is in am/ ofitself to reunite in the re production of a larg,e r o rder. Unison does not merely symbolize thal order but indicates it and its acceptance. The participants do not simply tonmiwikat(' to ea
Rappaport. Ril11al und ReligiOJ1. p. 220: rmph:.sis his.

180

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

even in the need for individual reconciliation in Didadu~ 14. In these two passages. respecth•ely~ the individual member has t he potential to become the seal of the ' holy name' of God, a nd lhe pote ntial lo profane lhe

s.acrillre fOr e.veryone. This tension is related. in my view. to the absence of consistent social inlegmlion implied o r entailed by lhe ritual proce$S or Didadle 7- 10. T ha t is, the particular character of this (self-defined) minority community~ with its eschatologjcal perspective. oilers an intriguing_ twist o n Rapp;iport•s ritual theory, and ~ves us the opportunity to see how a type of ritual process tha t usual/); functions to integrate members into a larger social o r c ullural system instead. in a case like this one, actually functions intentionally to keep them ji·om integration into th~t social system. This function is performed by a char.teteristic 'cripplin~,' or 'clipping· o f the ritual process itself. In terms o f Rappaport's theory. this 'clipping' is exhibited in the failure fully to acknowledge that the individual has been inte.grated even into the-community or which he or she, fro m an outsider's perspective. is an integral part. This ·failure' is related preeisely to the eschatological goal of the ·community', one that can only be realized a t some future, indeterminate point. Hence. the community itself can exist only a t rlwr point. and until that time it exists only for an outside observer and not for the members of the ·community' itself. The 'assembly' is not yet g_ a thered, and the rit ual prCX:e$S does not fimllly e nsure th~lt one belongs to it: ' Be on the alert for the sake of your life. Your lamps must not go out, and your thishs must not go sl~iCk. But be prepared . . . F'or the whole time of your I~Lithfulne~~s \\:ill not benellt you, if in the last time you are nol made perfect' (16.1 - 2) 10f'inally. returning from these theoretical musings, it is fittin~ to draw one o r two histor ical conclusio ns from t he developments traced he re. ·n1e most secure assertion to be made is that the extant Didadu! attests the ongoing use of the fonn of its meal rit ual over a period of time~ including after Gentiles have begun to join lhis branch of the movement (compare 6.2- 3). However, even this modest assertion has surprisingly far-re~tching results for a reconstruction of the fate or the Didaclte·s meal ritual. f irst, its distance from the pnx:ess envisioned by Paul for use in the assemblies sho uld be o bvious. The latest stages of the Didatlw's redaction still envisage a ritual process of instruction in the te-achings of Jesus, accompanied by schooling in basic Jewish elhit'
(Gcmeiturl~aftsmabluml

Ritual D)'lwmics in the Didache's Traditions

IS I

fo r Pa ul ever formed a part o f t he process. Acco rd ing to Paul~ when he came to Corinlh to proclaim the-g.ospel, withoul which the-Gentiles could no t access the sah•~ition a nd power of God, 'I decided lo know nothing a mong you except Christ, and him crucified' ( I Cor. 2.2: NRSv). Or. aga in. he reminds t he Galatians, ' It was befo re your eyes thal Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as c rucified!. (Gal. 3.1 ; NRsv). Wha tever the specific ritual dynamics of t he process envisioned by PauL it cle-arly invoh•ed. the communication of inf"ormalion a bout the d.e.a th o f Christ ·ro r· (Urrip) o the-rs - lhe very ing.redient that Pa ul wishes a proper ' Lord's Supper' lo recall (I Cor. I 1.24. 26). If Pauline baptism typic,.lly involved the notion o r burial with Christ. as Romans 6.3- 5 SUgb~sts, and even e·xalta lion with him into the heavenly places, as Colossians 2.11- 15 suggests, then here too the. a ll-impo rtant ingredient o f Jesus' death and resurrection is inextricably woven into t he rit ual process o f initia tion into such communities. 1l'3 This ingredient is a bsenl fro m lhe Didadte's process a nd. what is more-. the Didad ufs process evidently functioned e-ffectively over a substantial period of time withoul it. Fo r several reasons. I will not be able-to o lrer full compa risons between the ritual process traced above and similar processes linked to lhe various write rs and prayer lr.lditions to be exa mined in lhe next three chapters. To d.o juslice to such a comparison would involve me. in a great dea l of d iscussion that is best reserved for a study focused on lhe rirual process itself. "-·loreover, the payon~ for this compa ra tive work would be. relati\'ely meagre for my present purposes, which is to d iscove-r the impaCl lhat lhis eudwri.Wi t' fWliJll!r Jraditiou has had upon early C hristianity. Sinl·e the exta nl Didal'he is only one pa rt of thal trajectory, lo tie ourselves too d ireclly to this document in a search fo r the impact o f the oral prayers il pre$erves would be too lim iting. Nor c~ln lhe ritual process reco nstructed here be assumed for all practitio ners of this pa rticular mea l ritua l. Tilepurpose of this prese-nt cha pter has been o nly to show one d irection in which this meal ritual was involved in the de-velopment o f a certain kind of ritual a nd communa l life in the broader Jesus movement. It will ha ve succeeded. if it showed. that this rne.al rit ual was a ble lo funclion successfull y within a n intact community ch:iracterized by various practices. but not dependent (as was argued in Part I) upo n the l ast Supper tmdition or its ritual symbolism. To trace the subsequenl fate of this particuktr ritual process as a who/(! would la ke us loo llir alleld. 1()4 103 Cf. Collins. 'Origin". pp. 54-6. On the ritunl symbolism of Pauline baptism sc..World of tile Apo:ul.- Paul (New

\Vayn< A. Meeks. Tht~ Fir.\"1 Urh((Jr CbriJtkm:o: Tile Sol"ial Huvcn. Cf: Yale Uniw rsity Press, 1983). pp. 150- 57.

104 Comp;u·c esp. Justin I Apol. 61. 65-7 :md Ap. Tmd. I 5-21 to the process discussed here. J int, nd to return to this topi.: in ~mot her study: i1 wturanls a rich investigation and cnnnot be subsumed under the current one.

182

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

In any case, the continued distance from Pauline Christianity seen in the Didt1c/w's proc~ss shows that the increasing appeal o f the Jesus movement to Gentiles. a nd the permuta tions that their involvement encouraged 1 must apply not only to a form of Christi<mity that made Jesus Christ's death and resurr~::.tion central (e.g. Ignati us), but also to a form of 'Christianity' that looked to Jesus as the special prophet o r 'serv~mt' of the Father. through whom tha t Father disd osed his re.velation to the world. In other words. the infusion o f Gentiles into the movement did not de-strov the viability of the- Didac•he's ritual as one fom1ative matrix fo r develo~pi ng. Christicinily. This ritual was not simply for a soon defunct 'Jewish Christianity'. as so often supposed . 10s Instead. the involvement of Gentiles only introduced dumges into tha t fo rmative ma trix, as il undo ubtedly did to the more familiar fo rmative matrix o f the kerygma. wit h its La st Suppe-r tr.tdition. The diversity o f second-century Christianity only compounded t he d iversity t hat already existed a mong the fo llowers of Jesus, when it remained a predominantly Jewish phenomeno n.

lOS The notion thQt the Didudu>s redaction rdkel<> ~~ shift in t he Jesus movement. from Jewish to predominantly Gcntik C'hristianil)'. cnn be fo und in (ttm-ong others) Rordorf nnd T uilicr. Ut Doctriiu•. pp. 20-21: Wcng:;t Did((rlllt, pp. 34-5: Snndt ;md Flum·r. Didadw. pp. 32- 5: a nd perhaps most cxpli..:itly JdTord. Saying:; of i i'JII,f. pp. 133-45. Typically the prayers (as early) arc rckgtllc:d to t he •Jewish-C hristian· phase.

Chapter 7 TH~ DIDACIIE"s M ~AL RITUA L AND E ARLY PRAYER TRA OrrJoNs IN RoM ~ AND AsiA M JNOR

Outside of t he Didaclte itself, the-influent-e of the Didache's meal ritual t<:<.m be measured by attending to the prayer habits and ritual as.."umptions attested in various e-.trly Christian documents. The eviden(·e-11-tlls into two ca tegories. Some clues Point toward a n org~mic relationship with wh:n we may now ca ll the Dida£'11e's 'eucharistic' tradition - that is. a tradition for how properly 10 'give !hanks' Jo God during, the meal rilual. In t hese cases. not only a re fo rmulaic expressions that conveyed the logic o f the Didar!Je's ritual fo und, but also the inlluence of its ritual logic is in evidence. Other clues, however. point toward something else e-n tirely: the use of a revered, perhaps influential. tem1. phrase. or whole prayer unit wit hin a ritual oriented by a very dilTerent ritual logic. TI1is second cate,gory of clues h;.ls too often been confused with the. firs t. However. Paul Bradshaw·s helpful notion of the ' liturgica l <.~ompromise' suggests that the creative and proactive e l10 rts of bishops and other leaders ha ve played an important role in lilurgic-.a l de-velopments. Accord ingly. after some remarks on Br.ldshaw's notion, I will consider data from Rome and Asia Minor in Jhis chapler, and £gyplian da Ja in the following chapter. Finally. in Chapler 9. I will consider I WO additional dues and o ne r a comprehensive sketch o f the Lr.tjectory of the meal ritual pre~'ierved most full y in Didttl'hc 9- 10. ·Liturgical Compromise.\'· In Chaple r 2, I a rgued !hal Paul and Mark inherited an eslablished and evidently revered tradilion about Jesus' final meal, which was recited in suc.h a way that it evoked the story of Je-sus· de~uh for ot he-rs. The recitation of Jesus' lasl meal. whenever it was perfonned. and likewise the slo ry of Jesus dealh which il evoked. inl0 m1ed the rilual ·pa lh. followed by those who gathered for a meal in his name. In subsequent g_ e nerations. bo th the Last Suppe.r mtrr.ttive and the-passion mtrrative were known in Pauline circles (Ignati us, Valentin us. Mard on, the authors of the pseudo-

184

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Pauline letters) and in communities outside of Paul's direct or predominant inOuence (Ma rk, Gospel of P(•ter, Justin Ma rtyr). As we move chronologically from the period in which the Last Supper narra tive took sha pe, and past the da rk period the Ju de-~m war. severa l developments mus t be taken inlo consideration. Firs t. there- is the combinwriti ngs of l~atius of Antioch. Polyc~up of Smyrna . imd 'Clement' of Rome a u est the ellOrts or certain leade-rs to fo rge bo nds between (Gentile) 'Christia n' communities across the-empire (see l~nalius Ma.~/1. 2; Trull. 13; Rum. 9-JO: Sm)'m. 10-12; Pol. 8; Po lycarp Phil. I, 13: I Clem. 65), while attempting to consolidate leadership or the mo ,•emenl in the. hands of local bishops or presbyte.rs, seen as successors of - o r a l least analogous to - the a postles (see Ignatius Mi1g11. 3. 6-7. 13: Trail. 3, 12; Ph/d. 7; Smym . 8- 9; Pol. 6: Po lycarp Phil. 6; I Clem. 2 1.6. 42, 44, 47. 54, 57). These influential leaders a re acquainted with the ligures of Paul' and Peter (Ignatius Rom. 4: I Clem. 5). presuppose the ce nt rality of Jesus· suiTerin~~ (Polyc:up Phil. I. 7- 8), and know a meal ritual tha t assumes those s ufferings (see Igna tius Trail. 2, 8, I I; Ph/d. 4; Smry11. 1- 2, 6- 7: I Clem. 7.4, 16, 2 1.6, 49). They have not yet. evidently, neg.otiated a consensus ~1pproach lO t he traditions of Israel>howe.ver (cont rast Igna tius Mag11. 8, Ph/d. 8 with I Citm1. 45. 53, passim). These phenomena are related : the enOrt to consolidate traditions that arose within the Jesus movement, a process tha t is necessa rily selective. is an integral part of the a ttem pts or figures like 'Clement' of Rome. and fgnatius of Antioch lo create a united C hristian identity. Paul's efforts in this direction. d eare-sl in I Corinthia ns and Roma ns. had o nly atta ined a measure or s uccess. and were aimed prima rily a l Gentile followers of Christ, as ;i group. His s uccessors wilL like him, a ppeal o nce ag,a in to the potential o f the ritual meal as a primary lo<.~us for unillca tion (see lg)latius £ph. 13, 20.2; Ph/d. 4: Sm,rm. 8; I Clem. 40-44). However. with the in('.fe.a sing d iversity and diiTusion of t he Christian movement - including now bo th predominant!}' Gentile congregations a nd predominantly Je.\\~sh ones - a new 'synt hetic trddition' (to usc G regory Nagy•s tenn) will be needed tha t incorpora les but reache-S beyond the visio n of Paul o r any other single figure. 'The wider the diiTusion. the deeper the trad ition

or

I All three lll>pea1 to Puu1 in their efforts at unitknlion. ttl limes eve-n quoting I Corinthians (m: lgnn1ius £ph. 12. 18: Rtmr. S: Polycarp JIM. 3. S. 9. II: I Clem. 47).

The

Did~1che's

Meal Rillwl in Rome mul Asia Minor

185

must reach within itself: t he least common denominato r is also t he o ldest aspect of these traditions.' 2 No t surprisingly~ that is. leaders p ressing fo r unifica tion found in the passion na rra tive-a nd the eucharistic celebra tion of the 'body and blood' (among o ther t ro.1dilions) two o f the lowest common denominators between Pauline and o ther circles: these indeed were a mong their oldest. sha red traditions.:~ But what ~ibout followers of Jesus who had never understood themselves in light of his cruc.illxion - who had, instead, looked to his te~-tchings as their point of departure'? To crea te a synthetic tr.tdition that would embrace llwst! followers o f Jesus. it would be necessary e.ither to reach deeper still tha n the passion na rrative - to . for example, Je-sus' ethical a nd eschato logical te-achings - o r somehow to make the open-ended tradition o r Jesus' sa;rin,gs seem to point in the d irection o f his sufferings. Any sm.:h synthetic trad ition would no t have been Su(.•('essrul (or e.ven conteh*able-} had it remained at the level of theolof!.ica l, lile rary. o r homiletical elabo ration. It would have to have been performed euc/wri.~titally - at this ever-emerging, constitutive. community-fo rming moment. In this c ha pte r and t he next, I will investiga te possible-traces of the fixed fo rmulae-of the Didttclu( s prayers within ea rly C hristian texts tha t exhibit '*arying degrees of affinity 'vith that ritual's native logic. T he best evidence for t hese p rayer fo rmulae. o f course, occurs in prayers and sta tements about pra)'l:r \\~thin these texts, as well as, na turally. the earliest sun*iving e ucha ristic prayers from the ·~re-at c hurch·. \ Vhen confronting praye-r texts, it \Viii be useful to be--.tr in mind Paul Bradshmv's notion of the 'liturgic-a l compromise'. Brad shaw has co ntended that, initially, earl)' Christian eucharistic prayers probably consisted o f sma ll units brought together in a va riety of combinations. units wit h roots in a variety of Jewish and Christian pn1yer contexts. T hey may have tended tow~ud both bipartite and tripa rtite pa lle rns. depending on locale., and ·are likely . . .to have been subject to al least a measure or improvisation a nd ada pta tion·. 2 Gregory NOb'Y· Pil1d(lr 's llomer: Tht' Lyric P{Atm,\'iOtl ofan £pit PaJI ( ll..-.ltimorc: Johns Hopkins University Pn~s. 1990). p. 56. The s:tme pro«ss works on the poli1ical b •c:-1: ·ccnuin older institutions. no longer compatible with any individual polis. coales« to form PanhdlenK- institutions in which a vuridy of rity-slates may p:1rticipate' (p. 67). In Nagy's work. a 'synthetie-1mdi1ion' refers to the creation of
186

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

In the fourth (>.entury, the-demand fo r 'more ele\•ated and po lished fo m1s' or prayer and the incre-a sed contact between representatives or d ifferent communitie$ led to (a) the composition of le-n gthier, more seamless prayer texts and (b) the. migration of traditional units between re-gions (e.g. the

Stmcws and the institution narrative-). 4

This model l~an be adopted fOr our purposes. with two adjustments. First. the. idea of a ' lit urgical compromise' e ntails the existence of at le.ast two constituencie-S, whom the composer of a prdyer is hoping, in some measure. to satisfy. ·n le$e oonstituencies might be quite d ivided o n a range or doctrinal malle rs. yet a eucharistic rittml t hat honours various constituencies has the potential to unify t hem concretely. through mutual participation in the. ritual. Second, t he-pe.rfOrmance of such compromises need not be restricted to the fo urt h century. because efforts to consolidate various factions o f the emerging. plurifom1 Christian movement are in evidence rro m the second century onw~ud. We should. rather, expect that a series of .such e.o mpromises has occurred ;u pwfomunu·e prior to the composition or the later. classic e ucha ristic amtphoras.5

The Case of' Lukt~Aw· A number of relev~mt clues a ppear in Luke-Acts. a lthough they are not evenly distributed throughout lh~it work. by any means. ·n 1e most suggestive due, for my purposes. comes in Ac.fs 3. 1- 4.3 1, which recounLS a healing by Peter and John and its ailermath. and which is the only passage in the NT collection where Jesus is referred to under the title pais.6 Luke-1 writing. in perha ps Asia Minor o r Achaia a round the turn of the. Hrst century. uses the phrase ' his (God'sJ ser\1ant Jesus· in Peter's speech on Solomon's portico (Acts 3. 13: cr. 3.26). He a lso uses the phrase ·your holy servant Jesus' twice in the praye-r in Acts 4.24- 30: rvtash:r 1~orrora1. you w ho nutde heaven a nd earth und the sen a nd all that is in the m. w ho from t he mouth of o ur father Dtnid yow· se nuut {LlaviO rrarOOr; ooV). through t he f-l oly Spiri t said. ·why d id the Gentiles rant a nd raw a nd the populace occupy themselves with vain things'?

Bradshaw. 'Introduction'. pp. 14-18 . S E.g. Bmdshaw re£ards SC\~ral s~·n tenccs in Ap. Tmd. 4 as older than its third· or fourth<entury c:xlant prnyer (sc.: 'Introduction'. p. II: and Paul F. Bradshaw. Maxwell E. Johnson. and 1.. Edwnrd Phillips. Tlti' Ape>Stulic Tratlilitm [HcmlCneiu: M innc:apolis: Fortr<:ss Press. 20021. pp. 14--15. 46- 7). 6 t\·11. 11.18, quoting Jsa. 4 2. J- 4 (LXX). is an insignificnnl exception. since: Mutthew docs not subsequently adopl the tc:rm. In Lk. 2A-3. a tweh•e-)~ar-ol d Jc:sus is called ' the: boy' (0 nair;). but this is no1 a titIt'. Pt1is is <1lso used in lk. 1.54 (of lstad) and 1.68-9 (of King Da,·id). 4

The

Did~tche's

Meal Rillwl in Rome mul Asia Minor

187

T he kings o r the earth presented. and the rulers were assembled as one against the Lord a nd .against his Christ(Totl )(plOToV aUTeUr - for in truth there were a ssembled in this city against yo11r holy sen-out Jesu.stEnl rOJ O:yto\1 rrafof.t. oov 'fi]Ooii&lj, whom you a noi ntc.-d (f)(p tOcu;}, Herod a nd Po ntius JJoila tc with the Gentiles nnd populace of Jsracl. to do wha te ver your hand a nd co unsd prcnrntnbt.t.xl to be. So now. Lord. look upon their thrca ls a nd gmnt your sen'ants {To'i~ OoU.kot<; oov) to speak your message with all fra nkness. while yo u st ret<.~h out your hand for heuli ng, und signs a nd w onders come to puss through the name o f )'our holy sernml Jesus tOtit TOO bvbt.JaTcx;

roti Gylov rra.oix; oou 'fr,ooV].•

Sever.tl observ~-nions can be made about this prayer. F'irsl. its d irect address lo God as ' master' (6£o rroTa) in t he context of his role as Creator. as in Didudw 10.3. is intereslin~ and suggests that both pr.tyers d rew this usage from a common Jewish milieu.7 Second, its rderente to Dtll'id a longside- Jesus as God's p(lis. as in Didadtt 9.2, while the apostles a re mere douloi ('slaves'), is more suggestive still of some direct kinship with our prayers. l ntriguin~ly. David is God's pais precisely as he prophesies the plot of the ' nations' against the Christ. Th ird. the motif o f Jesus' sunering as the result of divine necessity clearly belongs to t he-redaction o f Luke-Acts, while t he mention of both Herod <md Pilate lots well enough wit h Luke's ac.c ount o r Jesus' triaJ a nd execution. Likewise the prayer for signs and wonders 11ts luke~Acts nicely. These trails s ugge-St that luke has composed. or at leasl highly redacted. this p rayer, r.tlher than bo rrowed it from an existing source.a The puttle rega rd ing his rare usag.e o f pais here cannot well be re-solved by appealing. to a n existing prayer tha t Luke has simply replicated . luke's creatiVe involvement is too clear for that. The. c-onclud ing expression in the pra yer is reminiscent of the Didadte's prayer-closing fo rmuk1: rhmugh the na me o r ymtr holy senwnt Je.nu· (Acts 4.30)

o.a Toii OvO~aT<X; roii Oyloo rrcnOOr; oou

'{IJOOV

through Je:m'> your :wnonl (Did. 9 .1. 9 .3. 10.2, 10.3)

61Ct 'frpou roG rratOcit; oou

7 Cf. Jdt 9J2: Wis. 6.7. 11.21- 12.1. 13.3: 3 Mucc. 2.2: and sec Bradshaw. Doily Pmyrr. p. 35. 8 · Luke protx.bly used liturgie-nl models (lhc usc of nate;: may suggest cucharisli<.· pm ~rs) current in his own timc. . .ad"pting them to sui! his own purposc· (C. K. Barrett. A Critical n11d £w•geti£YII Comme111my 011 the AciJ of tlte AJitJJtles IICC: 2 \·ok Edinburgh: T&T Clnrk, 1994- 1998). 1. p. 141): d'. Hans Coni'J.'Im.ann. Arts of tltr Apostfe-J: A Commertlary <m lire Ads of thr Aptm/es (l r~tns. Jtunc:s Limburg. A. Thomns Krnabd. and Dona1d H. Jod; Philaddphin: Fortress Press. 1987). p. 35.

188

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Luke is fon d o r expressions involving the fonnula ' the na me of' (see Acts 2.38. 3.6, 4. 10. 8.12, 15.26. 16.1 8), especially in the exercise or power to heal or perfo rm miracles. In each of the cita tions a bove, howeve.r 1 Luke uses the epithet 'Christ· for Jesus: ' in the name of Jesus Christ'. This epithet is lacking in Acts 3-4. even tho ug.h the phrase 'your servant Jesus'

is used in a relatively expanded rom1 there ('your IWIJJ se-rvant Jesus' v.s. ·Jesus your servant'). Of course, 'Christ' is cle.a rly an appropriate. te.ml fo r Jesus for this autho r. even wit hin this ponion o f Acts (e.g. Acts 3.6. 3.20. 4. 10. 4.26). luke's usage. take n with the usage or the Didadre, stro ngly su~-.ests tha t 'Jesus/your servant' existed for some lime as a fo rmulaic expression. in some circles, and served roughly lhe same func tion as lhe expression ·Jesus/ C hrist'} in use elsewhere. luke. a ppears to respect this allernalive usage when he employs t he term pais> even though ·Jesus Christ) is very common in Acts and mighl have-been expected to intrude here. That is, Luke 1m1y well have thought an expression like-'Jesus Christ your servant' sounded str.mse, contrived, even ;machronistic. G iven Luke's penchant for speech-in-<.~haracter (e.g. 'Simeon' in the mouth of James, AclS 15.1 4). it is possible that luke. is imitating a way of referring to Jesus that was known to him a nd t hat he thought belilling an ear ly p rayer by Jewish a postles in Jerus.alem.9 He rna)' be employing. tha t is. an epithet with a Jewish and archa ic ring_: 'your holy servant Jesus' . However. there-is proba bly more to this usage th~m simply an an::haizing gesture . Instead, this ~1uthor may have been ~icq uainted. at some remove. with the kind of eucharistic practice preserved also in the. Didac'lw. As I noted in Chapter 2, the htst supper scenario po rtrayed by Luke, in both the longer and the. shorter readings. features a cup prior to a ny bread; in the shorter reading. cup-bread is the e ntire meal. just as in the Didadw. luke-. as I a rgued there~ also avoids reference. to Jesus' death ' for' (Unip) others an important aspect of the last Supper tradition in its classic fom1 (Pa ul and Mark). Even so, Luke does describe Jesus· death (and e.
9 On ·simeon·. d . Bam:tt. A t'/.\·. II, p. 723. 10 Critic-; diffc:t on whether p
The

Did~1che's

Meal Rillwl in Rome mul Asia Minor

189

What is intriguing about this sermo n, fo r my purposes. is its insistence that Jesus is 1/w prophet whom God promised to Israel through the mouth o f ~·loses: T o you first God. when he had mised up his ser\•ant (T0v na!Oo: oohoV}, sent him to bless you by turning cudl (of yo u) fro m yo ur evil wuys ( 3.26).

Allhoush this theme of Jesus as prophet is clearly emphasized in lukeActs as such. the association of pais with the role of prophet certainly contributes to that theme. T his no tion is basic to the-Didarhe's ritual logic. a nd it may have influenced the autho r of luke-Acts. The idea that the prophet Jesus, as pais, turns lsr.tel from its wickedness a lso re-sonates with Didac/w 10.6 and indeed wilh t he ritual process as I reconstructed it in the previous chapter. However. the no tion that God sent Jesus to Israelfirs t is cle-a rly a redactional theme fo r Luke-Acts. 11 Despite some common ground, there is no need (in the present (.~ase, a t least) to suppose tha t the author of Luke-Acts had access to the document o f the Didache~ or any of its written ritual materi;tls. Such elusive eviden(.' e as we lind here suggests, at most, an e-.trly e lio rt. pe-r haps in Syria, to combine lhe passion of Je-sus (among, other motifs) with an orienta lion toward Jesus· tea.chings that accords wilh both Q and the meal ritual prese.r ved in the. Difladz~. Luke-Acts would, from this perspective, be an effort to llnd bases of unity between groups with divergjng understandings of Jesus - from whatever cause - and to (Oster tha t unity by combining their distinctive tr~tditions into a sing,le. coherent narr.ttive. The appe-aran(.-e of the pail· in this Sellin~ is sug.gesti"e: the constituency I have reconstructed in t he previous two chapters m;ty well have fOund more to agree with in Luke-AcL
Cf. Bam:tt, Ac·ts. I. p. 213.

190

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

ritual akin to what was preserved in the

Didadu~.

he. has done liLLie more

than incorpora te some of its salient feature-S (and key tenninology) into :1 lengthy narrative of which he remains master. 12

The Pa is tmtl file Doxo!Og)' Prayers conta ined in I Clement, the Martyrdom of Polyctlrp, and the Apos10/ir Trtldition ma ke use of two phrases that also emerged as fixed e/tmutllls in the Didadu(s prayers: the epithet pais a nd a doxology close to the Didar/u(s shorter fom1. For this reason, scholars have sometimes linked these pr•yers d irectly to the Didad1e, either socially o r textually, o r both. 13 Such a link would have obvious ramifications for a considera tion or our me.al ritual's impact in Rome a nd Asia Minor. Praying. as the Didt1c/w instructs would demonstra te homage lo lhal specific rit ual fo rm. on some leveJ. T he.se pote ntial par.tllels therefo re offe.r a signilk-.ant oppo rt unity for historit~il investigation. Reca ll that in four of the six pr•yer units in Ditlache 9- 10, the brier do:
11 Thus. I differ from Lict7.mann on 1he nsscssmcn1 of the mct~Js in Ads: Lictzmnnn

thought the Didad1e cvin~"Cd a /mer stage in the cschalologica1 Euchnrist attested in .."wts. which ultimntdy could be tr~•ced back to the lwhumh mcnls orthe historical Jesus (stt Mti.\'S. pp. 195-1 11). lkginning with the prnycrs in Diet. 9- 10. which :trc almost certainly earlier than luke-Acts. I draw ~•l mostthc opposite conclusion: luke--Acts c\·inres a later su.gc. not in the history of the rituul preserved in Ditl. 9-10. but in the rco:cption (and minim.: •I incorporution) of that ritual in certain (muinstrcam?) Gcntilc-Chril(tian circles. 13 For I CletJit't/1: Joseph Pon1hot. ·La signific.ntion rdigieuse d u .. Nom" chez C ICmcnt de Rome ct dans b DidachC'. £TL 35 ( 1959). pp. 339-61 (357): Hunado. Lon! Je.rus Christ. pp. 616- 17. For MttrJyrdom of Pt1/.rmrrr. Gcrd Buschmann. "Tmditionsgcschichtlichc Annlysc des Gchc-ts in MurtPo1 4: Ein jUdischcs Dankopf(rg(bct des Einulncn a1s cucharistischcs Miirtyrcr-Gcdiiclttnisgcbc:.t dcr fruhchristlic.he.n l:lcin:tsiatischcn Gcmcindcn'. JECS 5 (1997). pp. 18 1- lll (20.;...5).

The

Did~1che's

Meal Rillwl in Rome and Asia Minor

191

which contains a lengt hy pe-titionary prayer, 14 three times c.alling Jesus pais a nd concluding with a doxology. The pr.tyer begins in the lhird person: We. howc\'er... w111 usk. with earnest pmycr a nd supp lication, lha t the Cr<.-ator o f the universe ma y keep intact the sp:cilicd number of his elect th roughout the whole world, lhroug,h his bd ovod servalll Jesus Christ (0tCt roU ~yanru.ti\100 natOCt; alrroV 'II"JooU XplotoUJ. th rough whom he called us from dar kness to light. from ignora m:c to the knowledge o f the glory of his nume (5?.2). '.s

It then turns to dire<:i (second-person) address: to hope o n your na me. "' whic.h is the primal source o f a ll creation: a nd open the eyes of our hearts. tha t v.-e may k now you .. . You 'humble the pride o f the pro ud'.. . Yo u a lo ne arc the l:knefact or of spirits a nd the God of a ll flesh... the Crentor and G uurdiun of ewry spirit. who multiplies the nations upon the earth. and from muong a ll or them haw chose-n those who love you t hro l~h Jesus Christ. your bclowd servant (0tCt 'II"JooU XptotoU r o\i hyatri"JJ.IWOU rra16&; oovj, through whom you instructcxl us. sanctified us. honon.x l us (59.3).

The prayer continues: We ask you, M aster. to be ·our Helper a nd l'rott."C.to r.' Save those among us who a re in distress... ' Let u ll the nations know that you a re the only God.' th:ll Jesus Christ is your servant(' lr}OOVc; Xp1oTCx; 0 rralc; OOU}. and that ·we a re your people and the sheep of your pasture.' For you tl1rou£h your works yo u have revealed the everlasting structure of the world. You. Lord, created the earth. You a re faithful . .. merc iful a nd compassiona te: forg.ive us our sins ... JCJ1cnnsc us with the cleansing of your truth, and ·direct o ur steps to walk in holiness tmd righteousness a mi p urity of heart" . .. Yes, Lord. •let your fun~ shine upon us· in p<:uoc. .. G ive hnrmony and pence to us and to a ll who dwell o n the earth .. . You. Muster. have given (our rulers a nd g_ovcrnorsJ the power of sovcre.ignty. . . G nmt to the m. Lord. health. peace ...

14 Barbam E. Bowc di\·idcs the pni)'Cr inl(l alternating petitions and praise {'Pr
15 The translations here ate from Holmes (ed.). ApoJiolir J.(rtflers. His quotation marks. here-. retained. mark citations from the LXX. 16 Lightfoot (cf. Holmts (cd. ~ Aposro/ic Fathers. p. 94 n. 215) and Kirsopp Lake (Apostolk F(l(lterJ (lCL: 2 \'Ols: O m1bridgc: Harvard University Press. 1912}. I. p. Ill n. I) supplied 'Grant us· a t the beginning of this phrase: but SC<' Bowe. 'Prayer Rendered (or 0 1csnr'. p. 88. As thC' Greek stands. ·he- (God)called us. . . to hope on .row· (God's] name· - u shifl in person.

192

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom Yo u. who alone arc: uble to do these and even gr<:-a tcr good thing;; fo r us. we p raise through the- hig,h priest a nd guardia n of our souls. Jc:sus C hrist. through whom be: the glory and the mnjcsty to you both now and for uti gcncmtions :md for ever and cvt:r. Amen (59.4-6 1.3).

Allhough the petitionary prayers in the Didache were less llxed than its eudwriste6-prayers. and allho ug,h this wrile r's prayer is c learly more rhetoricallyelabor.ste th;m any pr.tyer in the Didm:lu:, it does exhibit some kinship to the Didaduls prayers. T his kinship must be-assessed a t three levels: the wording of their form ulae. the function of their fOrmulae, and the content o f their petitions. First, the expressions themselves: I C/(!meut's use of the phrase ·1hrough Je:mJ· C hrist your beloved serwmt' is lantalizingly sim ilar to this fixed element of the Didaclu/s prayer fO rm. albeit in a relatively expanded form (note the addition of 'Christ' and 'beloved '). The Didad•c a ttests a simpler fomlllla that, if there be any d irec.l re1ationship, would have. been e laborated in I Clemenl. First Clement's concluding doxo logy for t his petition also shares some similarities wilh lhe Didal'he"s much briefe r doxolo~y: ' thro ugh whom 10 pou be the glory and the tm~e-sty ~t9 now ~-tfid for ~111 g,~ner::tt!ons an~ for er(!r and e.ver. Amen.' (0•' oii 001 7] ODga Karl') l.u:yaAColoUVfJ Kat vUv Ka t ~ic; ynrcCxv ynrcQ v Ko:'t tit; roLl<;- aiWvat; TWv o:ic.lvcuv. ci~~v). This parlic.ular do.:] t/1~ g_lory j'o~· e,~·e1: and ever. Amen [c,> [
h~-ad i ng

' Prayer Conventions in Paul'.

18 Note. howew.r . thot 'lhmugh. . .Jesus Christ. through whom· docs a ppc:..r j ust before the doxology in 61.3. · Paii may ha,·c fallen out of 1his concluding fom10ln in Rome. or simply was never adoplrd for it !hl'rc.

The Did~1che's Meal Rillwl in Rome mul Asia Minor

193

the role of Jesus for the communiLy - precisely wha t was effectively ruled out by the Didache's ritual script. B}' means of the-se relative-clauses, on the other hand, J Clcmu:ur doe.s associate the ·servant• with ' knowledge· a nd ' instruction'. Aocording to Georges Blond. moreover. the term pais captures this author's notion of Jesus• ro le in God•s plan: caJiin~ people fro m darkness to light. ignomnce to knowledge (of God). and to hope, ho liness: (freedom from sin), and honour. 19 Yet the elabo ration of Jesus' role for t he community - pem1itLed by this d iOere.n t construction ultim~itely sen1es to define more precisely, and in d ifferent tenns, the med iating activity of Jesus for the t:ommunity. Somewhat pa radoxically. the open-ended character of Jesus' revealing activity is thereby delimited wit h wha tever purpose. At a third level or comparison, finally, t he tonrenr of I Clement's petitionary pr.tyers also exhibits at be-st a d istant relationship to the Didac/w's petitions. Whereas in the Diduc!Je each petition condudes with the request that the. Father g,a ther the assembly into the kingdom. I Clem(~lll petitions God to preserrt• t he fixed number o f the 'elect'. At most. this notion is reminisce.n t of the request in Didaclu: I0.5 that God ' rescue· a nd ' perfect' t he assembly. 10 In both prayer trdditions, as in much Jewish a nd Christian literature. God is Creator, :md this is associated (in d iffe rent ways) ";th his 'name'." In b
194

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

'like a splendid ram . . .for a sacrifice' (Mart. Po~~·· 14.1). ·n, is pmyer, like I

Clemeut's, is not :1 eucharistic prdyer, but it does make use of the term pais {twice)} concJudes with a doxo logy, and most plausibly was inlluen<.-ed by

eucharistic pr.tyer:24

0 Lord God Almighty. Father o f your beloved and blessed scrv:mt ( natOOc;J .ksus C hrist, through w hom w e hu"c rcc:c:ivt"d knowledge of

_you. the God of angels nnd powers a nd of a ll creation. a nd of the whole: race of the r iglltcous who live in your presence. I bless you because )'t' U have co nsidered me worthy of th is d ay a nd hour. tha t I might receive u place a mo ng the number of the martyrs in the c up o f your Christ. to the resurrection to e te rna l life. both o f so ul and of body. in the incorrupt ibility of the Holy Spiril. M ay I be n.~-ei ...·cd amon.g the m in your presl.'nce today. as n ridl a nd ae<:eptablc sacrifice. as you haw: p repared and tx:\'Calt.-d befo reha nd . a nd have now aecomplishl.'d. you who a rc the undeceiving and t rue God. For this rc;tso n. indeed for all things. I pwise you. I bless you. I gk,rify you. through the etermtl and heavenly High Priest. Jesus C hrist your belo ved scrwnt {nco Oat;). t hrough w hom to you with him and t he H oly Spirit be glory both now and for the a:;.es to c ome. Ame n (Mtlr/. Poly. 14. 1·3).::s

The prayer 131ls into fo ur part.s: the openin~ fOrmulae. among which pai:; occurs; a 'blessing'; 26 a petition: a nd a concluding doxology. which also contains pais. The iirst pais-clause, which can be. a na lysed in two parts. is of special inte rest. because it retains a sense that something has been 'made known': Father o f ytmr bdoved a nd blessed .r~n·tm l

J I'.W.f

C hrist.

0 rOO CxyarrqroG ~:a't !UhoyqroG rrar60r; oov 'ff}OoV XptOTOO JTOT~p. through whom we have n."(.'ltivcd know/OOgc of you 61' oU -rhv mpl ooV in{yvc.;olv£ihft~JJ£V

Compared to I C/cmcn(s epithet fo r Jesus. this one (llrst line) exhibits two d istinct attributes: Lhe expansion of ' beloved servant' to 'beloved <Wd blessed servant': and ilS grdmmatical fonn as a modi Her of 'the Fathe-r '. 17 24 Sec Da,·id Tripp. 'The Pr.tyer of Sl. Po1yearp nnd the Devdopmcnl of Anaphora1 Prayer·. fi~lu!mt!J'il&!J lilurgicttt' 104 ( 1990). Pt>. 97- 131: and (more rcs tr.tinod) Buschmann. 'Trnditionsgcscbichtliche Analyse·. pp. 101- 3. 197. 110. 2S Trttnsbtion from Holmes (cd.). Aptulolic Ft11hus (slightly modified): th< IXU:tgruph di,·isions ar<: my tH\'ll. but1hcy more or less c:orn-spond to the m ucturn1 divisions of Tripp (' Prayer of St. Polyctu-p·. p. 100) nnd 8u9:bnmnn ("T raditionsgl:$chidulichc Ann lyse'. p. 183). 16 The blcs~i ng i.s in Jewish liturgKa1 style- (Buschmann. "Tmditionsgeschichtlichc Analyse·. p. 198). 21 C f. 1 Cor. 1.3: Eph. 1.3: CoL 1.3: I PeL U. all of which ~ue fommlly somewhat different (rom Man. Poly. 14.

The

Did~1che's

Meal Rillwl in Rome mul Asia Minor

195

The dhr-dause. in turn. is formaJiy similar to t'ivo dia-clauses found in I Clement all three follow and modify 'Jesus Christ', emphasizing his mediating. role vis-:i-vis God . Here. however, we are closer to the sensibilit)' or Did:Jt.~he 9- 10: Jesus is the med iator or knowledge. Yet the knowledg,e (or ·recognition') in question is completely comained by the iiddition of a prepositional phrase. ('concerning you'). which makes t he Father the content of tha t knowledge - in the spirit, so to speak. o f Jo hn 17.26 (' I made known to them your name, and will make-it known').2K FinaJiy, neither the pais-<:la use nor the-dia-t·Jause cues any ritual progression. 29 The second r~:Jis-clause. which (.'.an also be- analysed in Lwo parts. introduces a doxology with parallels in the- Didac/Je's formula : through Jlu: eternal and heavenly H igh llricst. ksus Christ. your bdovcd servant.

61ir rOO aiwvioo Kal inoupaviou Opx"P'<.oY; 'JI}OOV Xp10TOO, i:J.yafTT1T00 oou rrmob;, through whom to ,l'Ofl with him and the Ho ly Spirit [lx:J {the} glor.r both now .and fin· the c oming 11gt>.-.. Amen. Ot' 00 oo't oUv aUt~ Ka't rrvni~wtt clyi~ th} ~axa·, Wv Kat tir; rolA;

p5Movrac; aii3va.r;, Cr~~v.

On the face of it, the two formulae a re elaborations of their counte rJ»lrts in the Didadu~'s prayers. However. impo rta nt d iiferences must be considered. F irst. the epithet fo r Jesus he.re is 'your be/oared servant'. which is the. fa voured expression of J Clemem (two or three). and whic.h, like. here, appears in I Cllmwm aher (or wit hin) t he. phrase ' through Jesus Christ'. The expressions in 'Po lycarp's' prayer are more e labordte than those in 1 Clemellf, but the basic arrangement is the-same-: a ) rhrollgh his beloved scr\'Unl

Chri:>f (I Clem. 59.2) 6rCt rOO hyarnwivou rra tOOc; mhoU 'lqooG XptaroV b) thnmgh J~sm· Christ your- bdov~.--d servant(/ Clem . 59.3)

o.a 'Jr;aoU Xp10T00

ToV

J e.\'IL\'

~ya TTflj.l£vov

na,oOc; 00\J

e) Father of your beloved a nd blessed servant Jt-sus Clwi.sl (Marl. P(1(r . 14. 1) 0 toU O.yaTTllToli Kai ru~oyr}ToU natOO; oou 'fqooG XptaroV ncrr~p d) llmmgh the eternal a nd he-l n'cnly Hig}'i Jlrit:sl, Jesus Clu·i.st, your

beloved servant (Mun. Pr1/y. 14 .3)

28 Thjs idea docs not (lOme from John: I Ckmml sl1ows no knowlcdg~ of t hat Gospel (nor of the others). Its ultimate.' o1igin c<mnot be.' pursued hen: (sc:e Prov. 2.5 and Hos.. 6.6 in

LXX: iniyll(olOt<; Sroli). 29 Nicckrwimmer cmphasi7.cs only the-parallels hctw~~·.n Didtu:·IN: nnd both M :mytUom o{Poly-.::::lrpand I Ckmenl (Did3du:. p. 149 n. 39). Bur.chm:um lists four additional parulkls bctwcrn Did. 9--10 and M:Jrl. Poly. 14 (1'n:~diti onsgCSC'h ichtliche Analyse·. pp. 204-5). of which two dcsen'l.' mention: both usc n6:Tf¥). ~tnd both usc ~wf) o:iWY1o;. Neither demands tmy diro:t kinshjp between the t wo.

196

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

61ix Toii aiwvtov Kai ~ novpaviov cXpxt£1)i-c.x 'lqooG Xp10TOU, clycnr11ToU oou nato&; In each <.~ase, ' through Jesus Christ • is the basic expression (compare-Rom. 1.8, 7.25. 15.1 7; Gal. 1. 1; Phil. I. I I). and some fo rm of ' your beloved servant" is incorpora ted (wit h a ppropria te vari;.ttions) into this expression. The Didt1c/w's ~sic expression. instead. is simply ' through Jesus', and the epithet is simply 'your sen•anC. lhus, t he common testimony of I Clement and the 1\fartyrdom of Po~~'tarp s ugg.ests tha t in Rome a nd Asia Minor, respt.>clively. Jesus is being called bo th 'Chris t• a nd ·servant' in pntyer; and in addition to these epithets, \'arious descripth•e e laborations ('beloved ', 'blessed', 'ete rnal and hea\•e nly High Priest') a re evidently customary. T he combina tion o f 'Jesus Christ• a nd 'Jesus your servant' to form :1 composite prayer expression. it will be noted, mo"es one step fu rther than Luke•s usage in Act 3-4. Not surprisingly, ' Jesus Christ' ra ther than 'Jesus· is the a ppropriate 'name· of Jesus, but now a distinction between 'Jesus Christ' a nd ' Jesus the. pais' - wha tever its basis socially or theologically - has been effaced by the-combination of t he two expressions into a new •synthetic' fo rmula. T he. doxology in the Afartyrdom of Po~w·arp 14, in turn. is o nly d istant ly rela ted to the Didaclul s fo rm. if we ta ke seriously three obvious d ifference•.:.; : it oile rs glo ry to God lhrougll Jesus. it combines Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the Father as t he recipients of the glory (it is Trinita rian), and it a lters the p hrase 'unto the. ag_ es• (i.e. forever) to ta ke in ' bo th 1J01r a nd to t he l'omiug agef. Stripped of these fea tures, however. the doxology becomes verbally identica l to the Didadte's brjefer ~oxol?gy: ·.t
·n,e

30 The striking link bct,vocn the p<1is-dausc lwithin a di((
The

Did~tche's

Meal Rillwl in Rome and Asia Minor

197

document. 31 In this older stratum is a prayer for ·fi rst fru its' bro ught to the bishop: 32 We give tha nks to you (tVxaptOTOOIJ.i\1 ool_(. God. and we offt·r [npoo,ipOIJE\1( to you the first of t he fruits t hat you have given to us to

cat. (you) no urishing them by your Word, o rd ering the c:art h to bear all fr uits for the joy a nd nourishment of human beings and fo r a ll a nima ls. For a ll these we pm isc you {£v miow U!JvoGIJi\1 CFc). God. a nd in all th in,g.s wit h which yo u have hdp~o--d us. adorning for us the w hole creation with varied fruits, l hrou.gh your servant Jesus Christ our Lord (0t0 ToV natOOc; oov 'JT)ooV XptoTOO TOO KUplou hllc:)\l j. through w ho m lo you (be] glory to the ~• gcs o f ages. A men (.3 1) .

Severd l points o r contact with the Didudu(S e ucharistic tradition agtlin sta nd oul. The o pening fom1t1la, ·we gi"e thanks to you, [LordJ God' {tUxo:ptoTotiiJiv 001, KUptE 0 6tcX;~ Latin: (iratias tibi agimus, deus) compares favourably with the opening fo rmula in the Didache~s euc/wriste6-prayer. but is fo llowed , not by a clause expressing the ground o r contents o f t he thanksgiving (U rr~p), but r.Hher by a second verb ('offer") a nd relative clauses tha l modify 'God'. The-Com1Uiaic eudwriste6clause is simpJy tacked on a t the beginning,, proba bly out of deferen('e to tr.ldition. Second, the phr~tse 'through/ your servant/ Jesus Chrisl o ur Lord'. which looks like a strai~htforward contlation of the Didat·hes fo rmula with a cha r.tcteristically P~tuline phntse, falls at the- end of the prayer immediately before the doxology. T hird . the doxology - 't hroush whom lu . .rou {be } the _c:lory lu 1/te age.\· of the ages. Amen• (Ot' oU Kai COl ;, ODea tit; TOll!; ait3vat; Tc:)v o:ic.lvc.lV. 'A~~v)33 - is virtually identica l tO the simpler fo rm fo und in I Clitmeut. various NT documents. and 4 Mac"Cabees 18.24; but like almost all of t he doxologies in I Cli!ment. as well as. the o ne in ~\farlyrdom of Polrcarp, it oHers gJory to God through .lesu.\·.:.4 In their us.age and wo rding of t he doxology. then, these secondcentury pmyer texts stand in unison against the Didaclte. Also to the older stra tum of the ~ocument belong directives referring to the reception of ·a single piece J•l.ao~a] o f bread· from the bishop's hand 31 Brndshaw. Johnson. <md Phillips. Apwtolic Tradilitm. pp. 14-15: the SC"ctions in vi~·w ate 23: 24: 25: 16: 21: 28.4-6: 29A: .!.OA: 31: 32: .U: 35. 32 Ttunslntions and cnumer:11ions from Brudshnw. Johnson and Phillips. ApruttJ!ic Tuuliticm: but ~'hnnging their 'Child' to 'scrv<~nf for oonsistency (jJrtn. like naic;. t.•an m~-an l~ithcr). Lntin. Ethiopic and Grc~~k reading:i t ll'C from lkrnard Bottc. Ut Traditioll uptllltJiique tie SuiJtt lhi'JW~rli!: £~.\·ai tie ,·rcOIISiitu/i(lll (MUnste-r: Aschcndorlfschc-. 1963). Note that for the first-fruit prnycr. we have a Greek version ' pn-sc-rvcd in the most ancient Byzantine C'uchologium. &trlxwilli gm~ .B6. of the eighth C'C'n tuty' (Bolle:. Ut Trutlilicm llJIOSh>liqlll'. p. 11 n . 1). whic-h a£,fC'CS doscly '~ith the l atin tc:<.L 33 Latin: per tJIIi'.-'11 tibi Glori(l ill .Wteroltt MliYU!omm. Amm. 34 This formula is also nucstc:d for C"och~• ristic- prayer (on both sides of the ·gnostic' divide) in IKnttc:us Nuer. I.J. I.

198

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

(23.4}. e njoining individualthanksQ_ivings over a cup befo re the meal (26), and fo rbidding the la ity to bless a me'\1 (28.4-6). instructions. with their refe rences lo bishops, catechumens a nd laity. ought not to be reconciled wit h or read into Didadw 9- 10. T hey rellect the practices or a later period (mid -second ce nt ury o r beyond). a din'"erent b>eogra phica l region {parlicularly ir the Aposwlic Tradition ha.s a Roman provenance), and almos t certainly ~l d iffe rent rit uaJ logic for the. common meal. 35 Among the la ter stra ta falls the Apos10/il' Tradilion's eucharistic pra yer (4), at least in its final form. 36 Its points of contact with the Didadu!'s fonnulae. are, however. surprisingly consistent with what we have seen in I Cli!m(~lll. Marlyrdom of Polrrtirp~ ~lnd its own ' first fruit' pr.tyer j ust d istcussed .

·n,ese

We. render thtmks to you. God. through your bclo\'cd serva nt Jesus C hrist lpcr dilcctum pucrum t uum Jc(s u)m Chr(istu)ml-"~1 whom in the last times you sent to us us savio ur and redeemer and nngd o r your w ill. . . (4.4) A nd we ask that you would send your Holy Spirit in t he o bla tion o r (your) holy ch urc-h, !th a t! gathering (thcm l into o ne- you will give to ~• II w ho pa rtake o r t he holy things Ito pa r take ! in the fullness o f the Holy Spirit, fo r t he strengtheni ng of raith in tr uth. t ha t we may praise a nd glorify yo u through your savant Je-sus Christ (per puc rum tuum lc(su) m C hr(islll)m]:'11 t hrough ,.,, hom lbcl glory and h<m or to you. Fathe r a nd Son with the Ho ly Spirit. in your holy church. both now a nd to the ages of:1g,cs. A men (4. 12- 13).

T his prayer•s opening formula. ' We re.n der thanks lo you. God' ((iratia.\· tibi referimus deus). is again reminiscent of the. opening formula in the eudwrisut6-prayer, but il is fo llowed by a rehearsal of the identity and (mythical) :H:comp1ishments o f Jesus, the media tor o f lhe thanksgiving. Introducing Je.sus as mediator is the twice-expanded phrase-'through/ your beloved servant/Jesus Christ', fOund in I Clement and the Martyrdom of Polyl'llrp - its middle element ('your below!d servant•) exp•~nded vis-it-vis lhe Hrsl fru it prayer in 3 1 and this prayer>s own concluding formula. Ag,a in, too. t he mediating role of Jesus a lso introduces the doxological fonn, ' Lhro ug.h whom fbe] glmy ami hono ur 10 you. fathe r and Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy c hurch . both now and to the ages of ages. 35 B radsh~;~w docs rmd points or contact with Did. 9.3-5 (£uclwri.\·tic OrigiM, p. SO). but nothing thnt touches the Didache·s ritual logic as I h
The

Did~1che's

Meal Rillwl in Rome and Asia Minor

199

Amen' (per quemtibi gloria et fl<mor palri et ji/io wm s(tm)t(t)o sp( irit ) u in saul'la etdesia trw ef nwu· et in sae<·ula :metulurum. Amen). Like the doxology in the Martyrdom of Pol)'•rarp. t his one is T rinitarian and concludes 'both now a nd to the ages [or asesT; the e nd or the doxology is virt ually identica l to the formula common to 1 Clenumt and the llr.st fruit prayer: 'to the ages of ag_ e-s. Amen' (El~ ToUc; a ii:lvac,. TL'lv atC::,vwv. ci:J.Ji}V). fi na lly, like the. Didache's petitions, this prayer conta ins a request to 'gather'; but unlike the Didache, God is no t asked to gather the assembly 'into the kingdom' but ra ther to gather it ' into one' - as in Paul (compa re I Cor. 10.1 6-17 and Chapte r 4 a bove). To be sure. this request does fall at the end of the prayer, sho rtly before the concluding. doxology. 39 Yet despite such commonalities, o ne. must agree with Bradshaw. Johnson a nd Phillips tha t the prayers in the Didadw ·are completely d ifferent in c haracter fro m the prayer here'.40 Altho ugh in its pre$ent fO rm (with the inclusion of the institution narrative at 4.9) il probably da tes to the fourth century. even its older strdttun is d early o riented toward the ritual logic or the Last Supper tradition (see 4.7, 'stretched o ut lhisl hands when he was sullering'. and 4.8, 'when he was being ha nded over to voluntary su1Te ring')4 1 It offers thanks. like Justin (I Apol. 66; see below), ' because you have held us worthy to sta nd before you and minister to you' (Ap. TrM. 4.1 1). T he fo rmulae this pr;\yer and the earlier tirst fruit praye.r share with the Didat he's prayers a re more similar to their (alre-ady somewhat remote) fO rm in I Clement and the

!"lartyrdom of Polycarp. 39 Similarly. the fourth-a:ntury anap1tor.t in C011st. op. 8 (possibly Antiochcn~) concludes. ·And we entreat you also for those who arc a bsent for good e~1 usc:. that you would prescn -c us all in pic1y. and gatht>r 11s wit hout change. without blame. without reproach ill ll:t> kingdom o( your Christ the God of all sentient and rational nature. our King·. T his ·gathering· pctilion occ-urs immediately before the doxology: ·For < through him> (is due:) 10 you all glmy . worship and thanksgiving. the Holy Spirit honour nnd adoration. now ~md always and rtJ tlw Qgt'.f of Ub'CS. unfailing and unending' (R. C. D. Jasper and G. J. C uming. Pmyeu of 1he Euchurisl: Ear~r n11d Rejiwmed (Coll-ege-ville. MN: Liturgical I~. 1990). p. 112). This doxol-ogy cues an ·.·\ml·n·. Similarly still the(Byt.untinel Liturgy of St. BaJil (manuscript c.u. 800}con.dudcs its annphom: •Receb·t> us all imo ,rour kingdom. m.:1king us sons of light and -sons of the day: grnnl us )'OUI' pc<~cc and your lo,·c. Lord our God. for you huve given us all things: (ttloud) and grunt us with one mouth nnd one hl'aft to glorify and hymn your all-honourabk nnd nmgnifittnt name. the Ft1ther and the Son und the-Holy Spirit. now · (Ibid .. p. I!J). Thus the idea persisted thM on<: ought to conclude the eucharistic prayer with a rrqucsl to be gathered into t he kingdom. Kinship with the Did(fchr·s eucharis1ic tradition is remote but tangible in these instmX't's. 40 Bradshaw. Johnson nnd Phillips. Apo.\'lolic Trotlitiou. p. 44. 41 For Bradshaw. Johnson and Phillips. the institution narrative w:1s inserted in the fourth century. while the phrase ' slre·t<:hcd out his hands' and the prnycr's nam•ti\'C summary of Christ's redemptive work are both prc-Constantiniun (AposttJii<· Tmdititm. pp. -16-7).

200

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Finding.\· The salient features o f I C/emeu(s usage, t hen, when they are compared to the Didm•he's usage, prove not to be isolated clues. By the time-this epistle appeared (conventionally. 95-7). the tradition of prayer in this Roman

community included the formula 'through Jesus Christ/your servant' in a

or

variety expanded fo rms. In Smyrna and in the Roman f?J tradition preserved in the .-Jposto/it- Tradifi(m 31. this form ula may still serve to introduce (but probably noi evoke) a doxology, but the doxology is being int rcxluced a lso by a qualify ing phrase. which makes Jesus the mediator of God's glory (e.g. 'through whom').42 Alternately, the phrase 'Jesus your servant' can be introduced earlier in the prayer and elabo rated with relative. clauses to furthe r define the role and activity o f Jesus - a n option exercised in I Clement and later in the Apostolic Trodilion 4. In Smyrna :md in Rome, the idea that Jesus mediates kn01rletlge appears. but this expectation has been delimited a lmosi entirely to knowledge of Cod. ·n tis sam pling of prayer data , in which both paij· and the doxo lo,g.y appear. demonstrates a consiste nt le-vel of remoteness from the Didat'he's e ucha ristic tradition, to an extent t hat could not ha\1e been p redicted from Didacile 9- 10. That is. t he ritual logic ol the DidatMs prayers could hard ly have. ~rown o rg:dnic::ally into the- kinds or prayers a ttested here. Given the orality of prayer. a shared praye-r tradition is indeed suggested by their s ha red fo mllllae. But the absence of the Didarlre's ritual logic in these texts alongside the diverg,ence.s in terminology and formulae also s trong.ly sugge$t that t he- Didadw's eucharistic form has not directly contributed to t heir prayer habits o r eucharistic traditions. Inste-ad. we mus t posit additional> extraneous factors that h~1ve exerted an influence upo n how s ha red prayer habits have evolved. Here I C!cmem supplies the model. Although. or perhaps because, the author of I Clemelll is fa miliar with a s pectrum of early Christian traditions and figures - including Peter and Paul - this epistle promotes consensuS-build ing rules of conduct. ra ther than the distinctive teachings of one apostle or another."·' Indeed, the author a ppears lobe aware of. and actively promoting, the emerg.e nce of :i 41 This phenomenon also holds for the hymn •You. Our Hd p' in P. Do?r Buli:~h. where 'through your W\':ll·bdovcd Child. Jesus Christ' intradutts the followingdox.olo!.'Y: ' Through him. glory to you. gmoc. and honor. now nnd for generation on gcncralion. and fotC:\'c:t and C\'Ct. AnlCn· (Deiss. Spri11gtiml!. p. 141). 4J Note (among others) the idea of Jesus' blood shed for forgiw·nes." (/ Clt!m. 7.4. 1 1.6. 49.6). allusions to the p:Lssion narr.uivc (16) and the rc:surnx.tion of C hrist (24.1). Paul's notion of being justified ' through faith' (32.3- 4}. Paul's concept of the ·body' (38.12). the lencr of I Corin1hians (47. 1--4). the idea thot through •Jesus Christ...we. . . laste immortal knowledge• (36.1). the idea thnl the: gospd \\'aS sent through the nposllcs (42.1- 1). and I Clemt!nfs acquaini:IOCC' with an indcpendcnl collection of Jesus' saying." and rdatc:d oral traditions (sec Koester, Andml Chris1ia11 Gospek pp. 66- 71).

The

Did~1che's

Meal Rillwl in Rome and Asia Minor

201

unified Christian identity. Moreover~ I Clemelfl. wit h its author's knowledge- of the- situation in Corinth. attests a network of le~iders in Rome and G reece. The Smyrneans: who wrote up Polycarp's ma rl yrdom are also evidently in dia logue with ' the ho ly a nd catholic church sojourning in every place' (prologue). He n<·e, the use of the epithet ptiis fo r Jesus~ a longside 'Chrisl' a nd 'beloved '~ in the. pr.tyer traditions of t hese. t~ommu nil i es. has t he a ppe-drance-of ·a convergent version acceptable to a11'.44 Unless this appearance is de<·eiving, two older ways o f refe rring to Jesus in pra yer have been e iTectively 'effaced' by the-c reation of a new synthesis: ' through Jes us Christ your beloved pais'. A~.tin, this synthe-sis evidently moves beyo nd t he usage o f Luke-A<~ts. Additional influences, such as Jewish pra yer conventions fOund in these praye rs but no t used in the Didadw, the use of Septuagintal turns of phrase, and so o n, tend to t he same gener.tl condusion. Among these. inOuences, t he \'itarious s uJTerings of Je.sus play their parl. Perh~ips more te lling at this st;.~~e, however. is the delimita tion o f Jesus' ro le vis-it-vis the community as media tor of God's glory a nd med iator or knowledg,e of God - if any knowledb"' a t all. ffthe Didadu's eucharistic t radition has had a ny impact in these circles. it has been to provide some te rminology tha t has helped give an a rchaic tla\'our to newe r prayer habits.4 ~

£urlwrisfh· A.\·st:mblies in Rew.dmion Alan Ga rrow has a rg,ued that Re ...elation, composed in Asia Minor and usually dated to Domitian's reign (8 1- 96). consists or segments meant to be read prior to e uc.ha ristk celebrations. Ga rrow further sU~t-ests kinship between this e ucharistic context and certa in aspect s o r the Ditlnthe.46 Jan Boxall, calling Garrow's p roposal 'allractive•. a lso contends that the 'theatre or reception' fo r Re.velation would have been the eucharistic assembly. from this vantage. point. ' Re ferences in the seven messages to eating from the tree of life (2. 7: cf. 22.2). receiving the hidden ma nna (2. 17). and sitting down to dine ";t h Christ (3.20: cf. 19.9) a re li kely to have been heard as e ucha ris tic a llusions'.47 ·l\·1 os t importa ntly, for o ur 44 N:1gy. Pill(/ar'J J/omer. p. 60: 'the nle.tbei:l of Grrek pocuy ~.c. its ubili1y to preserve or fashion the: mC'mory of things dccml-d worthy of rcm~·mlx-ringJ tends to contrast with lhc divcq,,'(:OCI.' of local poc:=tic VC'rsions in the ovC'rm-ching pwccs.o; of achieving n convergent vc.rsion acceptable to all Hdlcncs·. 45 The usc of pai,'i in the Li111rgy q{ St C/eme11t. where 1hc Last Supper trudition is unmisutkably cenual. is entirely consistent with this condusion: 'God and F!llhcr of your holy serwnt (ncu&Ot;] Jesus our s.rtvior' (before the p:tnicipation): · ~bste-r. God. Almighty. Father of your Christ. 1hc bles.o;ed Sl'f'\'ant (no:•bOc;)' (after the panicipation,k nnd (in theconcluding doxology) ·nnd to your scrvnnt (no:t&) Jesus. your Christ. our Lord nnd God'. The term thus long outlived any organic connection to the Dirk1clu(s form. 46 A. J.P. Garrow. Rerelatitm lNew York: Routlod'ge. 1997). pp. 50-53. Specifically. he tnkcs Rc\·. 21.1 7. 20 to be par.tlld to Did. 10.6 and as possible ritual dialogue.

202

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

purposes. BoxaH also sees kinship bel ween this euch;uistic context and the Didtwile: Purticulurly striking a rc the pa ra llels with the eucharistic section of the Didache. notably the title of God as ·r-.·tastcr Almighty· (Oiorrota navtOKpCmrop: /)id. IO:.l: Rev. 4:8~ 6: 10). the ~L.,cribing, to God of ·glory· ( /)id. 9:2, 3. 4: 10:2. 4, 5: Rev. 1.6: 4: 11: 5. 13). a nd the prnycr fo r the Lo rd to co me (Did. 10:6: Rev. 22:20: cf. I Cor. 16:22)..t¥

As noted above. the term ' Master' a ppears elsewhere in prayers in Rome and Asia Minor (Acts, I C/emellf). always in the context of God's role as c reator, a ltho ugh the precise phrase ' Master Almi~ht}'" was not fo und there. Nor is it Cound in Revelation. however: 4.8 reads, tlyt« O:ytoc, O:ytOC:. KUptoc; 0 e,Qc, 0 rravToKpOnup, while 6.10 reads, 0 5rorr0Tr)C'; 0 O:ytoc; Kal QAr)61v0c;. Only in combining these two texts does one e ncounter 'Aimi~J1ty• and ··M aster'. Since Revelation 4.8 q uo tes Isaiah 6.3. howe.ver, this really le-a ves o nly the- use of 'Ma ste r' as a po tential prayer habil of the community assumed by Revelation. a nd lhis us.age is: common enough in Asia l\•1 inor tha l we cannot safe ly posit a ny direct li nk wi th the praye-r t radition of lhe Didadw on this basis. Yet Box.aJI's: second poinl of agreement, the ascription of 'glory' to God in bo th lhe Didal'he and Revelation, does not pul a d irect link between t he two on any fi rmer ground: giving God glory is c.o mmanded in the psalms. and as I have argued above t he shorte r doxology (slightly expanded in Rev. 1.6 and 5.13) was evidently widely diffused in pre-Christian Juda ism or at least in early Christianity. Fina lly. Box:-tll cites the MtirliJUitlw praye-r , which has evidently been translated into G reek in Revelation 22.20. As Paul's usag_ e ( I Cor. 16.22) shows. however. this pr.tyer was a lso among those traditions s hared fai rly widely in the early Jesus movement; it canno t be considered especially cha racteristic of the Didad1t! o r Paul. Its: a ppe-a rance in Revelation therefo re o nly suggests once again its: d iffusio n in the early Jesus movement In addition to these par.tllels. howeve.r . a lso s tands one tha t is more central to my effort here: in both Revelation and Didadl(~ 9- 10. Jesus serves as a mediator o r knowledge. from God.49 T he basis for t his role in the Dit!ac/w a ppears to be Jesus· special intimacy with God (as nal~)­ while-in Revelation its basis is precisely the death of Jesus as a s.acrHicial Jamb (Rev. 5.1 - 7). In the Dit!adw, the 'knowledge' that Jesus makes known is rathe.r undefined but a ppears to be related to the traditio n of Jesus' sayings; in Revelation. t his 'knowledg_ e · concerns hidden e.vents in 47 tan Boxt1ll. Tlut Revelmio11 rd. St~int John (BNTC: Peabody. MA: Hendrickson. 2006). pp. 15-18 (quolation from p. 15). 4.~ Box~1lt. Rerel(llfon. p. 16. 4? In Reve-lation. however. God is ' Father' only for Jesus.

The

Did~1che's

Meal Rillwl in Rome and Asia Minor

203

the heavens and their earthly eJfects a nd counterparts. Revelation. moreover, is arguably written in light of a specific historical crisis, while the Didadw as a community rule a rgua bly is intentionally general and d isconnected from a pa rticular crisis or even a particula r regiona l situation. All of these- dill""erences impa<.~t the force of the ostensive par.tllel treatment of Jesus as God".s agent of revelation. Mo reover. Reve.la tion•s creative use of Scripture to address contempo ra ry e.vents and disclose their hidde-n meaning suggests ii similar use of eucharistic traditions, whatever those were fOr the author or this book. For example, consider Box.all's remark o n Revelation 8.3--5: ' Wirhin the re<JI fi rst-ce nt ury world, !this passag.e] would pro bably have been heard wit hin the liturgical assemblies o f the Asian congreg.ttions. Their worship would have. been imaginatively caught up into t he heavenly liturgy. with the assura nce of the pn1yers be-i ng heard a t the throne where-true power is located : 50 By imagining their liturgy as angelic and he-a venly. the author o f Revelation has transposed it in various ways, wh ich a precise comparison with actual practice in t hose communities (were it known} would no doubt find quite illuminating for the Study or Re-velation. However~ this trdnsposition~ since it assumes well-known community practices. makes llrm inferences reg--drd ing Lhose prac.tit es d iffic ult a t best. ln this sense. Revelation represents an inte resting insta nce o f c reative effort, in the context of a crisis situa tion, to influen<.:e. the conreption of the eucha ristic assemblies in the ta rget communities. The-themes of Jesus as a sacrilkia1 victim and conseque.nlly a Messianic agent - among many o thers - were-either present in t he liturgical trad ition thal is being: tra nsposed here. or, if that trad ition was the Didal'he's, they have been brought into it from elsewhere-. T he Didadte aside. the fo rmer seems more likely: the- author is dr.twing upon con<.-eptions known and prized. within his community when he depicts Jesus as a sacrificia l victim, ra ther than inventing or importing them from elsewhere. Sin('e this suiTering serve~" as the hinge- upon which a ll subsequent revela tion turns ( Rev. 5. 1- 7). it must be considered a major theme~ and its a bsence from the Didtu.:ht!. <·a nnot be- (~onsidered a neg,ligible mauer. Rather. an explamttion for this significant diO'erence is required. a nd the .simplest exp lanation is that the communitie~" addressed in Re.veJation prized the sacrificial dea th o f Jesus in a way that those of the Didadw did. not. In my view, we Jack clear evidence- lhat Revela tion is directly acquainted with the Didtlclle"s prayer tradition~ altho ugh we do lind confinning e\•idence here. that some of the Didadu/s prdyer habits were no t unique to its communities btH we.re instead
204

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

the load ol the Dida<"ile·s ritual logic: dependence on the Father fo r

knowledge- made a\•
Jesus movement to ascribe to Jesus every significant mediating role vis-
Prarer in Justin J ustin M~irtyr. a nother fi£ure associated with both Asia r-.•1ino r and Rome, has sometimes been said to exhibit familiarity wit h the Didacluls e ucharistic tro.tdition.5 1 If so. this would repre$ent a clear example of the fus ing of two originally distinctive e udm ristic traditions. for we have alre-.ady noted Justin's adherence to the Las t Supper tradition, which he takes the trouble to quote. Altho ugh he doe$ not record any eucharistic prayers, he doe-s repeatedly summarize t he contents of Christian prayer. thus offering some basis for comparison. Jus tin•s description o r t he e ucha ristic gathering. which appea rs j ust before his rehearsal of the last Supper tradition. is as follows: we . . . bring (the newly baplizcd! to those VIC c.ull b rothers. lo I he place w he re they a re assembled. making common prayers on behalf of (Unip] o ursdves a nd the enligfttcncd one, and strenuously on behalf of all o the rs cvc r~·wh erc, that !OTT(I)C;; j II'!' . who have learned the truth. may he deemt"d worth)' to be found. through noble deeds. both statesmen a nd v o bservers o f the co mma ndments. lluu [OTTCJC;) n·e may br de/il·t'retl with (Ill elt'nwl ~lelil'tnmce . We gn."Ct cad other with 1:1 kiss. aftt·r we ha.,·e ceased the prayers. T hen bn:ad a nd a cup of water {and mixed}!; is brought to the prc.s ider of the brothers. a nd this man. tuking (them). sends up praise and glory to the Father of the o rdered universe. through I he numc o f the Son and the Holy Spirit. A nd for a long lime he ma kes for himself 1TTOI{ITat l a thunksgiving (£Uxaptor,avj for {\.nipJ hm·ing be!!ll tleem('(/ worthy of tlwse lhiug:~. issuing from Him. Whe-n he has brought to a dose the pmycrs a nd the thanksgiving. a ll the: people prescnl <:all o ul assent. saying, ' Amen·(/ Apol. 65: e mphases mine).

51 E.g. Jourjon. 'Jus.!in·. pp. 71- 85: Rouwhorsl. ' Urend nnd Cup·. p. 29: others simply blend !he: lcstimonk:s of the two. e.g. H. A. J. Wegman. ·unc an:1phorc i ncomple-te·~ Lcs fmg:ments sur Papyrus S!rt1s.bourg Gr. 254', in R. Vnn den Utock lmd M. J. Vermascrcn (eds). StmlieJ in Glloslit'iJJu ~md Jldler1iJtic Religions (Lcidl•n: Brill. 198.1). pp. 432- 50 {437). 51 These words ate textually suspect (McGowan. Am tlk fuch(lrisls. pp. 152- 4).

The

Did~1che's

Meal Rillwl in Rome and Asia Minor

205

After lhe 'Amen', Justin says, rhey distribute and partake.~3 The c.o ntents o r the prayer of thanksgiving are left ntther vague in this description. However~ two topics a re mentioned: a petition to continue in good works. in a st~lle worthy of the truth (or illumina tion) received in ba ptism and resulting. in 'eternal Salvation' : a nd a thanksgiving ro r 'being deemed worthy' to ret·eive the bread and cup ' issuing rrom Him' . Note that a doxology ' through the name of the Son and the Ho ly Spirit' is alluded to as well. Everell Ferguson has helpfully sul!l,>ested that an e'drlier passage in I Apology (13) may a lso represent the kinds of pmyer topics Justin and his 'pre-siders' were accustomed to covering at the eucharistic gathering_.54 So then, who a mong the prudent will no t ac-knowledge tha t we arc no t atheists - we who re\•crc the !\·Iaker J0rn.uoopy0vJ of the.· whole. who has no need o f blood and wine libatio ns and ince-nse. as we were t:tught: we who spe~• k with a word o f prayer and th~:~nksgiving/or alf !lull 1n• are o[/'ert-d: we who o ffc.•r praise as m uch as possible. . ,/'or t\nrip] lmth wlwl lur.s becnuwdi' ami all memu ~J/IIIIaiuiug slri'ugtlt,for k.itul\· of.\'flt!dt!s wul changing st!a.~ons: we who send up reque-sts w t!XLd ag(lill in im:orrupiiou, through the fa ith wh ich is in Him? (I AptJI. J 3: emphases mine).

The petitions~ mentioned last. match up well with t he petitions cited aOOve. If we blend these testimo nies. optimistically, the followinS o rder is suggested: Lha nksgjving. fo r creaLion, followed by petitions to persevere in purity and a ttain 'inco rruption' , ahe r which bread and a c up a re singled out and a thanksgiving fo r having been 'deemed worthy' is offered, in which '(something) of the surTering which the Son of God has endured on (the Christians'] account is remembered ' (Dial. I 17)." Somet hing like this reco nstructed order may wen lie behind another passage: the offering o f fi ne flour . .. was a lypc of the bread o f the thanksgiving (£Uxap1otl ac;), which, for u memorial o f the suffering lhnt he sulfered for the sake of tUnip] people. whose lives arc: p urifM:d from a ll evil. Jesu-s C hris I our U,rd handed down (to us) to perfo rm. in order that we m ighl give thanks to God simuhancously }Or (\mipJhm•i11g cre(l/t7d 1/w Msnw.~. wlth all tha t is in it. for the sake t'f huma nkind. a nd/tJr rVn;pJ Jun·in.s: freetlusfrom llw wickedJU'.\'S in which we had existed. und lta~·iug dt'JI(~sed the llrl'hmL\' tmd aullwrilies with a final dissolulion. through the o ne who lx:cmne subject to sulfering. in keeping with His counsd (Dial. 4 1~ emphases mine). 53 Thjs same order i.s found. succinctly. in I Apo/. 61. 54 Ferguson. ·Jus.lin Martyr'. p. 272. This is cspociully li ~dy. since Justin contrasts Chri s.l i~m pmycr with pagan sanifiocs here. 55 Cf. Ferguson. 'Justin Mnnyr'. p. 273: •an t1ddrcss to God as Father nnd Crc.·ator. praising him for his mighty acts. moving from thanksgiving to petition, and dosing with a doxology' is Justin's basic pal!crn.

206

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Naturally, a set t hreefold o rder (pra ise. thanksgiving, petition) would be too positive a result to d raw from this kind of evidence, howe.ver tempting that result may be, in ligh t o f certain later e ucha ristic p rayers.S<J Even so. the following topics a re likely to have made up the c.ontents o f the communities· praye.rs. ~~ t va rious points in their (eucharistic) g.cnhering_: pra ise a nd thanksgiving fOr creation, perhaps in great detail: thanksgiving and petition fo r preservation fro m evil, including expectancy for the coming kingdom: a nd thanksgiving fo r being made won hy of the e ucha ristic girts given by Christ (h is Oesh and blood) which call to mind his sufferings. One a lso notes that Justin is fond of the preposition ·for" (\mEp) after verbs of prayer and thanksgiving. T his prepositiona l usage and especially the fi rst two of t he prdyer to pics above do overlap somewhat with Lhe Didadu!'s ~ifter-dinner prayers: the celebration of God/ the Father as creator is very briefly a nested in the Didatlw's sample pr.tyers; a nd the petition to be kept o r made free of evil and so to a llain eterna l salv~ition is ak in to t he request to be ~athered into the kingdom fo und in pr.tyer six - allho ugh the Didache's petition is more expJicitly escha tological. Howeve.r , the- first of these is so common in Jewish a nd Christian pntyer that a relationship bet 'iVeen o ur two exemplars would be a n unwarranted infe rence. But the second is suffidently striking to suggest some relationship between them. lf so. however. this petition to be saved from evil fulfils very diiTerent roles in the two: in t he Didaclu: 1 the eschatological petition is climactic- fo r the e ntire meal rit uaL crystallizing many o f the prayers' themes and aspirations; in Justin. the ·salvatio n' petition stands in a much more subordinate ro le, a nd does no t conl-ern the bre-ad and cup, properly speaking. Instead. for Justin. the bread and cup stand ele\1ated by I heir association with Jesus' llesh a nd bl o od . le~i d i ng to a humbler aspect o n the pa rt of t-elebrants ('being considered worthy') - a disposition tha t evidently domimttes the. ritual logic of the meal that Justin describes. T he Didt1c/w's strong emphasis on receiving knowledg.e from the Father, through Jesus his servant. in turn. is at mosl a subtle hint in Justin (e.g. I Apol. 13, cited a bove). Moreover. Justin's president o ll'e rs t hanks through the Son a nd the Ho ly Spirit. T hus. sensitivity to the nature o f t he mate rials s ugg.esLS a relalive gulf between the meal rituals of J ustin a nd the Didariie. T he petition to persevere a nd attain the kingdom (or eternal life) could have been ta ken over by Justin or his forebears from a tradition like the Didathe's, but if so

5.6 l igier positl-d t1 tripartite struc·tute as the root and devcloprncntnl principle of eucharistic nnaphoras (' Origins'. pp. 171- 82): Talley further defined this stru\.·turc as ' praise. thanksgi\·ing. supplirntion· ('Euclturistic Prayc:-r·. pp. 155--6). But Justin seems to corrd :ttc the.sc types of p ru)~r with different phnscs of the meeting. not the nn a phort~ .

The

Did~1che's

Meal Rillwl in Rome and Asia Minor

207

even this single petition has been trumped by and radically reworked in respo nse. to the incarnation and sufferings of Jesus Christ

In Ro me, Achaia and Asia Minor, then, we have at most evidence- that bisho ps and other le-.aders o f the Gentile Christian movement were familiar wit h phrases that runctioned centr.tlly within the me-al prayers preserved in the Didarhe. No extant prdyer from these regions preserves the distinctive ritua l logic o f any part of the Didadte"s eucharistic tmdition. T he ways in which sha red phrases a re used in these. regions suggests that the Didathc's eucharistic tradition, if it Jmtde any impact here a t all. was never the dominant fo rm of eucharistic practice, at least in Gentile communities for which evide-nce has sun •ived. Th is state o f evidence is not entirely surprising. however: these re-gions were a t t he centre of the Pauline- Gentile. mission. while the Jewish component of the Jesus movement a ppears in the sun tiving literature from these a reas largely in polemical contexts. Hardly incidentally, the best evidence for the ong,aing use and importance of the Last Supper trad ition a nd the passion o f Jesus, in t his period, comes a lso from these reg,ions: Justin himself. Ignatius or Antioch. the-Gospel of John - in a word, those documents cited for the trajecto ry of the supper trad ition in Chapter 2. The-limited but real similarities in prdyer convention suggest, at most. thal some 11-tcets o f the Didache's eucharistic tradition were known to and utilized by le:tders (e.specially, perhaps, bishops) in these regions, but from a perspective dominated by r.tther d ili erent notions of prayer and eucha rist In such cases. the Didad1e's traditions contributed. if a nything. a touch of a rch;-tic flavo ur. To d iscover good evidence. for a more vita l engagemenl with the meal ritua l of the Didodu!. we must turn o ur attention instead to a no the-r region: Egypt.

C hapter 8 THE I N~lU£NCE 0~ THE D IDAC/Ik' S RITUA L LOGIC IN EGYPT

The Didathr as s uch was relatively well rece.ived in Egypt. as its translation into Coptic s hows. 1 If the slinOl{{i praye.r in t he- Coptic

fragment originated in Egypt. as I sugg,ested in Chapter 6. then we would have strong evidence that the ritua l fo nn preserved in t he Didadte~ and no t simply the text of the Dif/a('/re, was in use. there-. In this chap ter. 1 investigate dues for the reception and inOuence. of this rit ual fom1 in Egypt: evidence of its ongoing use. and evidence of how il has been accommodated, modified and recycled there fo r reasons to be- explored below. As is ofte n the case with ~i ndent. a no nymous literature, not all of the texts to be. considered here c~m be claimed with cerlainty for Esypt o r any other region. However. all but Cyprian's leiters (which I d iscuss here fo r other reasons) are frequently a nd plausibly t hought to come fro m Egypl. For the-sa ke of keeping the a na lysis ;iS reSiomtlly and historic-ally fOcused as c urrent e\1idence a llows. I have-decided to consider a ll o f the-se texts together in o ne c h~tp te.r.

Lare Egypria11 Evidet1ce for rlrr lrifluenci! a( rlre Dida che 's Euc/wristic Trtulitiou Rl't)'detl Images We begin a l the <:-nd. so to speak, with our lWO earliest liturgical fro.tg)nents from Eg~pt: a Sacramentary ascribed to Sarapion o f Thmuis (fourth century). a nd a papyrus from Der Ba lizeh that contains part of a liturgy

I Clc:ment of Abandri:. may alro h1m: known t11<: Did!ldur. Sl'C below. 2 GI\Xk text from Georg Wobbc:-rmin. Altrllrb·tlic!le fiw,.gi:;dre Surck{! (IUS tkr Kiuhc> Aeg,_rJUt!ll.'i neh:;t f'im•m dogmali.tt'IJtm Brif'/ ties Bisclwfs Serapirm l'{)fl Tlmmi.r{TU. 2; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. 189SJ. Max.wdl E. Johnson has nrgucd that this tc:xt was complctcd prior to the mid-fourth c.:ntury {Tht' Prayers of Sampion of Tlmmi:;: A Liruary, Liturgiml. (tnt/ Tlz.~ologiraf Amtly.n·s (OrChrAn. 249: Rome: l,onliflc.i o lstituto Oricntak. 1995]. pp. 276-84) ~nd used still oJd~r (e.g. Origcnist) traditions ('The Archaic Nature of the Sane! us. Institution

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

2o<J

(from perhaps the third o r fo urth century)' Both of these fragments ma ke use. o f the. image that appears in the second half of the Didache's bread prayer (9.4): t he once-scallered. now-gat hered grain is compared to God'> "kkli'. in Chapter 3. the ji.red element of t he-prayer in question was above all the petilion to 'gather into your kingdom·, while the analogy of the gr.lin itse.lf could not be predicted as ~l fixed ingredient. The fomllllaic petition, for its pa rt. cued the expanded doxology, · For yours is the power and the glory fo rever' . which marked the end o f the 11m (i.e . pre-meal) pha>e o f the ritual dialogue. T he e.ucharistic tradition a tlested in the Ditfa('/te should, in my \1iew, be ,tje.wed as e1ther the direct o r indirect source-of this image for t he bread in these two la ter liturgical prayers.5 The only other option, tha t ta ken by Niederwimmer. is thal it reaches the Didadtt! and these o ther prayers independently t hrough a Jewish (or other Christian'' ) exemplar• However. its integra l ro le in the- Didache"s eucharistic t radition as :i climactic ·gathering· prayer. of whkh there were llro, shows tha t this petition had a t least bee-n ;1dapted to its use in the Didm:lw - wha tever its ultimate o rigin - especially by the introduction of the tem1 ekk/esia (vers us 'people'. for example). T hese li turgical fragments rellect the Didllc·l,_., adaptation. by making precisely the ckklesia the fot~us o f the image. Relative to the Didttche's usag_ e , however. these two late r texts share a te lling. trait: bo th petition God to gather the ekklasia as one caiho/ic Church. T ha t is. the pra yer fo r gathering into the kingdom has bee-n tr.msfo rmed. somewhere a long t he wa y, into a prayer (Or the unity of the assembly.7 Bo th of these liturgjc::al texts also juxtapose this gathering Narrnti\'C. and Epidcsis or th~ Logos in th<: Anaphorn Ascribed to Snn1pion or l11muis'. in Paul F. Bntdshaw !ed.}. £ss(ly:; 011 &trl_r Eostrm Euch(tristic Pmyeu JColkg~\"ille. J..H~: l iturgical PleSS. 1997]. pp. 73- 107 (1061). 3 Groc:k text from C. H. Roberts nnd B. Capelle. An £arly flrchfllcgium: Tile Dir-&lli:eh PttJI)"riiS Enlarged a11d Rrw.liled (Louvain: Bureaux du Musi:on. 1 9~9). Capelle bclic-'lcd th:11 1hc- pray~r adapt~-d the Ditladlt'"s pr.1ycr to an Egyptian liturgy (p. 48) and was composed a! !he-e-nd of the si:tth century (p. 52}. Qua.stcn dates th~ papyrus to 1he sixth or se\'C-nth century. but its eucharistic pnK·tic:c to the third or fourth ( Pauo!tlg)". 111. p. 143}. I agrt'C wilh Bouyer (f udK1ris1. p. 208) and }..bt.za (Origins, p. 222) that P. Dir Bali:~h is not directly de-pendent upon

4

&tmpitm. Nicdc:-rwimmcr prt'SC'nls n convenient table or these texts. nlong.sidc Ps.-A th~mansius De

•·irg. 13 a nd Ditl. 9.-1 (Did-UCiu!. p. 150). 5 So too. of l.'OUrsc:-. Lic-tzmunn. M(l.f.\". p. 195 (for Saropi<m). 6 Niodc:-rwimmc-r see-ms to imagine this prayer unit floating widdy in Christian ciiX'Ics (Dirladl(!. pp. 149- 50). but !Ill pzu-alkls. sa\•e Cypri:m. come rrom Egypt Possibly (per Dibdius) the Ditlat'!ltl s prayer came from the Jewish synngoguc and oth~r lilllrgical composers indq x-ndcntly borrowed it rrom th~re. But this explanation will not hold for P. Di;r Bali:e!l (sec bd ow). 7 P. Dir Ba/i:i'!/1: 'So g.<1ther th~ worldwide church or J~sus Christ' (o'Utlw;Jinj1oUvoJ;ov T~!vl Ko.6oAu:hv (ik)~CA1J[oio:v TOO 'l(noo)V X(p•oTo)UJ). SttrapioJ1: ·so also gather your holy chuiX'h from all pcopks. and e\•ery \"illage. e\"c:-ry city and

210

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

prayer wit h the institution na rra ti ve: P. Dt!r Balizeh plates it im med iate ly before t hat narra tive; Sarapion e.n ro lds it between the narr.uive about the bre~1d and the na rrative about the wine." In neither case does the reque.st evoke a doxology. o r any other con~egational respo nse.9 In P. Der Bali: elt, moreover. a portion the Didadu(s cup prayer has evidently bee.n adapted fO r a similar purpose:

or

Just as this wine, whic.h was drawn from the holy vine or !)avid and the water from the spoth:.s s lamb. minglcxl tog<:Lhc:r. became one mystery .. .

I· . . Ka61<-i<; 0 oivoc; O)ihoc;l 0 i~•t.60>v '" Till~ ixyla~ <'
This materia l a ppears between the first half o f the. bread a nalogy ('just as this bread was scaue red . . .') and its second half ('so gather. . .'). making a conflatio n of two of the Diflachc·s praye-rs reasona bly certa in. Both bre~~d iind cup. in that order. are now made to symbolize t he requested unity of the community. which will be ritu~11ly constituted as a body through this Eucha rist. Sarapimr's prayer, while lacking t his use of t he cup prayer. has its own additiona l (t!ature, which we have a lready encountered: Jesus (Christ. the only-begotten Logos) is s~lid to have ·made known' the unbeg.otten Father (e.g. T0v Y'YVc.:>crK~Evov imOToli u'1oV ToU JLOvoyrvoGc; KTA.). This notion is a kin to wha t we encountered in !~1artyrdom of Po~~'tarp; in neither is open-ended revelation encour.tged . 10 In Sarapimt's a na phora, this is the opening idea. but it doe-S not sustain the prayer's logic. Most of these phenomena are related: one or the distinctions between the Didache's ritmll logic and Pa uline material is tha t the la tte r conceives the 'assembly' as already ga thered, a body rit ua lly constituted in o r throug)l the meal ritu;il. The Didal'lw's prayers, by contrast, ~tre ch<.mlcterized by unmilig,a ted expecta ncy: only the Lord <~an gather this 'assembly' . a nd o nly in the kingdom will it be assembled. T he two liturgical texts before us side with the Pa uline. tr;tdition at t his point. town und housc. and ma ke one Ji,·ing worldwide chur<:h' (o\m.:~ ~::at Tf)v Oyio:vooo £~::1CAqolav oUva~ov 0: no:vtOc; {6~ Ka·, rr00T)'; xt.lpoe; t:o'• a.XOT)'; n0).ft.)(t 1oav 1CofloA11Chv f~noiov). 8 Ma:a:a argues that Surupkm and Co11st. UJI. 1 indCI)Cn
The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

2 11

Moreover, they are dominated by the ritual logic or the U1SL Supper tr.ldition. In Sumpion, the bread is ·a likeness o f the holy body' and the c up is a ' likeness of the blood' ol the Lord Jesus C hrist; the Eucharist is requested to be ·a medicine of life' , for which o ne must be-made worthy of reception ' ' In P. Der Buli:eh. t he Spirit is invited to e nter the bread a nd chalice as Christ's body and blood: what is remembered and commemo ra ted is, explicitly. Jesus' de-a th a nd res urrection~ even Lo its incorpora tion o f the Didarhe's cup pr~tyer it adds the 'spotless lamb'. T hus. even had they lacked the institution narrati\'e, t hese two li turg.ical texts <.'Ould . have been said to take their o rientation. their ritual logic, from t he last supper tradition. lls recit;1tion within each lit urgy o nly makes this dependen<."e still clearer. In c.o nclusion. the ·gathering' pntyer preserved in Didadw 9 a nd . in the case of P. Diir Baliu h, a phr.lse from the cup prayer have been recyd ed in such a way t h;lt t heir cues and their na tive. ritual logic have been tr.msgressed. T his phenomeno n demonstra tes that Sarapion a nd P. Dt~r Balizelr are bringing excerpted mate rial from the Didadu! (or its milieu) into the orbit o ft he. Last Supper tr~idit ion. rather tha n vice-versa. Even the limited ro les tha t t his mate.r ial perfonned within the ritual logic. of the Didadw·s meal rit ual have no t been retained, but rather the pr.tyer to 'gather' has been t ransformed, while the 'holy vine of David' has become a n obscure. reference to Jesus' passion. a nd 'knowledge' has been delimited fro m knowledge made availa ble lrom the Father to knowledge of the Futhe-r. What re mains is simply the use o f fa miliar. perhaps (in some circles) revered, metaphors for the 'elements'. ·n 1is is suggestive of a lit ur~ical compromise. o r synt hetic tr.tdition. \Vhich shades over a deeper d iverg_ence.. in pe-rformance. 'n 1e Didadu{s ritua l logic is. however. by far the Joser. 1Somewha t similar a re. pa ra llels wit hin Cypria n's writings. pointed out by Niederwimmer. 13 Although his remarks retlect a diiTerent region and language. the-y demonstr.Lte a simila r process and can be conveniently d iscusst.-d here. Cyprian, the-n , uses the image of t he gathered grain to demonstrate tha t ' in Christ. who is the bre.ad o f heaven, we know there is but o ne body and that every one of us has been fused togethe.r a nd made o ne with it' (£p. 63. 13}. 14 In a nother epistle. Cypria n makes the same II Note the comfonabk fi t here with the euc-haristic notions of Ignatius (f JJIL 20.2: Rom. 7.3: PhM. 4: Smym. 6.2) and Justin (I Apol. 65- 6): sec Ch. 2 abow. 12 For Lictznmnn. by contrast. S((rapitm and Dill. 9-10 bdong to t h~ same trujectorr (MaJ.f. p . 195).

13 Nic:ckrwimmer. Did(l(:lu!. p. 149. Translations arc from G . \V. Clarke. nw Letll!rsof St. Cyprian ofCanlwge (4 vols: New York: Newman Press. 1984-1989). vols 3--4. 14 Cyprimfs immc:diutdy prior st.atc:menl. ' under this same snm:d image:. (ipso sa(nrmellto) our pcopk are r<:prcsc:ntc:d lo:>ltmditur)". may refer to cucht1ristic prayer. His nmin eon'-'ll:rn here is the usc of wine: ( \ 'CfSUS wa~c:r alone:) in the cup.

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

2 12

poinl still more clearly: ·for when the Lo rd caJis bread His own body :md bre-ad is a conglomerate of many individual grains. made-into o ne he signifies tha t we, the people whom He bore, are united into one' (Ep. 69.5.2). Here too he goes on to d iscuss the cup in t he same tem1s: 'Similarly. whe.n He calls wine His own blood - and wine is pressed rrom a great many clusters of individual gr.tpes, squeezed into one j uice - He again indkates that we, His flock, being a multitude gathered together. are mingled and joined into one' (Ep. 69.5.2). In both c.ases. the same logic is dominating: t he imagery: t he body is already constituted~ thanks to the death of Jesus; the gathered grdi n. o r the mingled wine. sig,nifies its e llec::ted unity - leaving, those. Cyprian deems ·schismatics· outside the 'bonds of unity' (see Ep. 69.6. 1). Cyprian thereiOre knows t his image o nly in the transiormed sense in which we find it in the later (Egyptian) liturgical frolgments. The e'•idence of Cyprian s uggests. in turn, that such liturgjcal compromise~" as we find in these later liturgk-.al fragments had alre-.ady been accomplished in the course or the Lhird century. Perhaps t his liturgical compromise ot-curred o nly late r in Egypt, however. In Egypt, too, it is much clearer (tha n in Cyprian) t hat the compromise invol\'es the Didllthe"s (or a rela ted) eucharistic tntdition. The need o r desire to do so suggests a t least respect fo r this a ncient e utha ris tic t radition and at most a desire to include. its adherents in :i larg_ e r eucharistic c:.ompro mise. lls p~trtial incorpor.Hion, independently. into two late lilurgic:a l texts fa r exceeds any evidence we encountered in Rome and Asia Minor. where oH most a few formula ic turns of phrase, like the title pais. might have- been taken up into developing prayer traditions.

Au Ast·etic Meal Prarer More evidence. fOr the importance of the Didathe•s ritual form in Egypt can be IOund in a certa in Pseudo-Athan~i.sian De l1irginitaw~ where the Didat!Je's central ~read p~~tyer - a nd r.~haps pa~t .or its after-di~ner pra yer - has been m strucuvely reust-d .t 1 he overndmg purpose o l the portion oi this treatise in which t hese prayers ia ll (12- 20) is to detail the daily houn;. Thus:

11wme: ' Live-the who le time o f your li fe-in fasts a nd prayers and alms' ( 12) 15 Not to bl!' confused with othl·r. sometimes pseudonymous Athannsiana of the same title. For an oven·icw of soc.h te:tts. sec O:t\'id Brakke. 'The Authenticity of the Ascetic Atham•siuna·. Or 63 ll994). pp. 17- 52. The critical edition rcmnins that of Edunrd Frchcrm von dcr Goltz. J\OfOI In T#·IPJAI rTPOI THN f1APG£NON ( D~ ril·gilliUJt~) : £in,: ~cl11~ S
The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

213

a) Sunrise to Third Hour (Fixing of the Cross): Psalms and Scriptures ( 12) b) Sixth Hour (Crucifixio n): Prayers and l a ments (1 2) c) N inth Hour (Death): Conlession and Supplication (12) Breaking the Fast: Prayers before. during and a fter the-Dail)' Meal ( 12- I4) d) Twelft h Ho ur (Descent to Hades): Weeping. Listening to God. Prayers (I 6) e) Midnight (Resurrection): Psalms. Genuflections, Alleluia (20). Three lable. prayers occur within the schema, wilhin t he-contexl of the (only) meal that is to be eaten. at the ninth hour (c). 16 first meal prayer is spoken 'over the table' :

·n,e

And a fter the sl."rvioe of the ninth (hour). cat your bread. giving thanks to God O\'Cr your table:. th us: 'lUesscd be God. who nourishes me from my youth . who gives nourishment to all llt.-sh. ' Fill my heart with joy and good judgement. so that at all times. having ull sdf-co ntrol. we may ovcrllow unto eve-r y good deed in Christ J;:sus o ur Lo rd.

·w ith whom to yo u (be) glory. honour. dominion, with 1he Ho ly Spirit. forc vc:r a nd ever. Amen: (J2)

The second meal p rayer is lo be-spoke-n a t that meal, 1r1Ii/e breaking !he brtwd - bread that is suppose
This is the- enlire bread prayer from the la rg,e r ritual attested in the Didadw, and it is crucial fo r 'sanctifying· the meal: ·you are holy lO the Lord God, and your food and your d rink is sanctil1ed: for through prayers a nd holy utterances it is sanctil\ed' (13). The third meal prayer (14). which consists of a threefold doxolog.y and a lengthier after-dinner prayer, is to be spoken after the meal:

16

cr. ,·on dcr Goltt. AOro~ InTI-lPJA~. p. 136.

214

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom But keep and perfo rm the doxologies that arc for the: table. and the food and d rink \viii be sanc tified for you. So when you rise from the table. again, gi\'C tha nks and say a boutthrc:e ti mes. ·1>ityi ng a nd ml.'rciful is the: Lord: he has giv<.·n food to thost• who fC\'Crc h im. G lory to Falhcr. So n and Ho ly Spirit'. And aft<.·r thc d oxo logy. again perform the prayer. speaking in this way: 'God. creator of all. a nd our Lord Jesus Christ. the name abo.,.e every mtmc:. , , . wc , _give thunks to., you ('Uxa.ptoTotiJ.I'V oot) a nd we pmisc you

(ai VOUI."V o~]. bccuusc (OTt) you mude us worth y to partake of your

goods. lksh ly nourishments. ·wc: beseech :tnd beg you, Lord. that you bestow upon us also the heavenly food. A nd grant us to tre mble a nd to reve re your tlwful a nd honoured name. and not to disobey'' your c ommandments. Place your luw a nd your o rdinances within our hcnrts. a nd sanctify o ur spirit a nd soul a nd body. th rough your beloved ser vant. our Lord Jesus Christ. "With w hom to you be glory. honour. dominion. foreve r and ever, Amen: (1 4)

The second and third prayers can be prolltably compared wit h the Didtwile's pre- and post-meal prayers. First, the bread prayer in De virgiuitalr de-a rly holds to lhe Didathe's ritu•LI logical severdl ke.y points (though not all). hs o penina formulae - 'We thank you. our Father. for. . .' (;;UxaploToU~iv oo1. rranp ~~c:lv, Urr£p. . .) - are precisely the-cues for the-beginning of .-. em:lwriste6-prayer in Didarhe 9-10. Its d osing c ue, however. h•~s been inverled - witho ut destroying ils basic logjc - and no longer evokes the shorte r doxology. ~ntis is understandable in a one-stag.e ritual (where only one or the lWO appropria te shorter doxolog,ies would have been recited in any c"ise). The. closing cue for t he Ditfadte's prayers three a nd six has nonetheless been reta ined - 'let your assembly be gathe~d .. .into your kingdom' (Emouva)(6ijTw oou ~ EI':KA11oia .. .ric; Tftv f)ao1Ar~av oou) - and evokes not only a doxology. but the tippropriaiC!, tf(lubled tme (slightly expanded, however). The 'Amen represents another departure from the Ditliit'ile's text (aceording to H), of a kind already seen in the Coptic. frdgment fo r Didtil'he 10; but it too may owe its presence here to the abbreviated. one-stage ritual. now concluded - prem~Hurel}'~ so lo speak. Finally, the variable te rm wilhin the UnEp-clause lives up to its role: 'your holy resurrection• (T~c:; O:ylac; O:vaotOon~ oou) does not match any term supplied in the Didaclu!'s sample eudwristeO-prayers. On the other hand. t he prayer in q ue.pa.yioaoa a-.iTOv TpiTov), which 11ts somewhat awkward ly into its main clause and, in any case, is unknown in :Lil other versions of this 17 Litcrally. •misunderstand" (no:po:KO'j-nv) but probably ·disobey" ( n-apco:o.IEo6o:1} is intende-d.

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

215

pra yer: and the expression. 'which is upon this ta ble' (OirrO:vCo:J To:Un1c,. Ti)t; Tpo:rri~nc;). whk-h actually interrupts the f!ow o f the pntyer in the interests o f clarifying how this pra yer relates to the other two me.al pmyers given in the document One may infer, as well, that the doxology, 'forever and eve.r"

(ric,. ToUc; a tc:lvcx(; Tc:lv o:ic.lvc.>v), has been expanded o n the basis of the custom familiar to the compiler of this document (see 12 [above)) 14 (above] and 25; and compare the doxologies discussed in Chapte r 7 above). Finally. once again, the image o r the bread. scattered and gathered , h:-tS been retained more exactly than o ne would have predicted fro m the structural logic of the Didad ufs prayers. suggesting either t hat t he author o f De ~·irginilate is ~1ctually familiar with our Didathc. o r tha t t his petition was more llxed than one might have pred icte-d - o r had become so a fter its fo rmulation. I~ Jn 11Wour of dependente upo n actual usage-rather than the text of the Didatlu:. sta nds the greate r \•aria tion in wording in the unfixed po rtion or the pra yer (i.e. its first hal(). 19 T he afte.r-d inner pmyer. for its .p art, has some tr.lits that are reminiscent o f the Didtithc's model prayers.~ First. its opening sentence. contains the key phrase ' \Ve thank you' (•vxap!OToii~iv oo1}, now s upplemented by a t~ommon liturgical formula (suggested already in Justin). 'we pra ise you' (aivoU~~v oE). Sec.o nd, it dntws ;-t contrast between ' Oeshly no urishments' a nd 'heavenly food'. reminiscent o f the Didui'he's celebra tion oi 'spiritua l rood and d rink'. Third, it moves rrom 'thanksgjvin~· (and briefly 'pra ise') to ' petition•, which, as in Didac/w 10, concludes the prayer. Finally. il utilize.s the. expression ' through your belo\'ed serwmt, o ur Lord Jesus Christ' ( o.ci TOU ~Y"TTll~ivou oou ffatclk, ToU KUpiou h~c:>v 'Jryooi) XptoToli), which evokes a mu(~h-expanded doxology. One immediate!)' notices the expansion o f the pais-fOrmula . and its fusing with the Pauline 'our Lo rd Jesus Christ' (simila r to I CMment. the Martyrdom of PMrt·ttrp a nd Aposwlit Traditiou), which 1 as in the Martyrdom of Polycarp and the Apostolir TradiJiou, stands immediately befo re the doxology. It is just conceivable tha l t he source fro m which our compiler drew cont~1i ned ;i simpler fo rm or both. but this naturally canno t (and need not) be demonstrated. IS Did. 9.4 strikes me :Ls a fdleitous image: it evokes !he community and its

hop~·

in a

vi\'id. concrete way. Possibly 1hc im.:1g<: was there-fort re-1aincd in rocitation. although Lhe ritual dialog.uc would not ha\'C required this. 19 Did. 9.4: ""Oo rnp ~v TOV;o 1-rO] .:hao,~KX btEO¥:opm~ uov i rrO:vw l'i>v Opi<.)V KOI 0\Woxt>iv iyi:vno iv. Dt> oil-g. 13: .:o:6W; 0 O:pw; d.Jror; ~OJ:::opmOJJivoc; im&pxu 0 ErrOvw To:UTl'}l; nic; l'po:tr~ KO:i owoxt''-:'lt; [yiu'ETO £v. Bradshaw also fa\'Ours ·a living tradilion' here rather !han litcrar)' dependence (EetrlmriJtir Origi11s. p. 111). 20 Noted nlso b)· \'Oil dcr Goh1. (AOrOI InTHPIIti . p. 137). though he thinks the two tue entirely different.

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

216

Allho ugh t he da ily hours schema in Dl! virginitali! 12- 20 is closely tied LO evenLS. in Jesus' passion, none of the- pr.tyer texts associate the food in any way wit h Je>tL'' body and blood. o r allude to his death. What. then. ·s~mctitles' t he meal'? If one ,rjews the bread prayer as an excerpt from a larger ritua l. then the daily, co mmon meal is being made into a miniature (microcosm) of that known and respected rilual.11 This would explain why the br(Wd prayer has been excerpted , fo r it is rhe kernel o f the whole. Put even mo re stro ngly. o ne can say that the bread prayer is being relied upo n at the crucial moment in the-meal to sanctify what must be - from an ascetital perspect ive - a n otherwise profaning moment in life. The bre~!d pr.tyer is. evident ly, tapable. removing the 'sta in' o f bodily appetite. What this signilles, in any case. is the sanctilk~-ttion o f the daily mea l, a ppro priate to a n ascetic mentalily. 22 Mo reover. these. prayer te.xts clea rly predate our fo urth-century document - unmista ka b1y so in the case oC the bread pr.lyer. 23 The pred inner bt!Ntka!J formula looks a ncient, as doe-S the. afle r-dinne.r praye.r . with its sympmhies with the. Didache's after-dinner liturgy. It is entirely con(·e-i vable. in view o f this e\•idence, that a liturgy organically related to the Didt!~lle's rit uaJ was still being used in £gypt as late as the. fo urth century.Judging by the bread praye-r and the after-d inner prayer. which alone show sympathies with the Didarlw, this hypo thetical liturgy would exhibit the fo llowing. emphases:

or

I} ' Resurrection·. w hich could rcrcr to J<.-sus· re surrection (despite the: grammar of the: prayer). o r more: likely c:.ould rdk"<:t a n eschutological expectation (perhaps re-intnpreted as something a lready

attained). 2) P rofo und re--spt."<:t fo r God's ·com mand me-nts'. whi<:h. if ke pt. will

lead to pa rtuking or the

' hC:tl\'CO Jy

food'.

These two 'new' e.lements a re in keeping with a notion tha t the Didm·he preserves o nly a classic fo rm o f a wider e ucha rislic practice. With the. co nsolidalion of o rthodoxy. this lit urgy w;is e\1idently brought 11 For this concept. soc: Mory Doughs, ·Dociphering a ~..teal'. in Clifford Gttrtz (cd.). Myth, Symbol uml Culturf' (New York: Norton. 1971). pp. 61- 81: cf. D11vid E. Sulton. RemPtnbnmcP of ReptW.e An AnthroJtttlogr of Food und Mt'mot_r (New York: Berg. 2001). pp. 28-42. 12 Di! rirgillitUit! docs JWI provide evidence: thtll the Didachr's prnycrs wert rnerdy for a common meal: cf. von dcr Goh1~ AOfOI InTI-IPIAI. pp. 137- 8: amtru. e.g .. Vokes. Ritf'-Jf~. p. 191. 23 Braid:<: di scu sS~'$ the evidence for a fourth<entury date (•Authenticity'. pp. 44- 7). 24 C f. \Vobbc:rmin (A/uhrisllirlli! /it11rgi.w·ht' StUt'kt'. p. 26). who leaves op..•n whet her the Dkludlt! itself or a n carl i~·r sourec: is being used. Brakke docs not find its prol'c:nunoc clear ('Authenticity', p. 45). but Egyptian sources m-e plausihk•. Cf. von dc:r Goh1.. A.DrOI InTHPIAI . p. IJ8: but Bradshaw. fu<'hmislir Origin~·. pp. 120.

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

21 7

into contact - plausibly in Egypt - with an explication of the 'daily hours' o riented loward ihe-passion of Christ In the process, those interpolations. I suggested a bove were introduced. a nd perhaps more besides. The ascription of the- resulling document to Athanasius, despite the. fact tha t 'it]his work privileges the ascetic life to a g,reater degree t han do the genuine. works or Athanasius' .25 dcmonstr.ttes a n e iTo rt on the part of o ur (~Ompiler, o r perhaps those who received this document to impute credibility and e.ven 'orthodoxy' to its perspective.

fn conclusion. the- prayers in this document suggest once again the on~oing influence or the Ditfadw's eucharistic tradition in Egypt. a t or beyond the-time when more oftkial liturgjcal compromises were oocuring_.

Early Egyptian El•idcnct! Having demonst rated. from available evident~. the influence of the Didudw's eucharistic. tradition in Egypt well into the fourth century. we now turn b~u.:k from late lit ur~jcal compromises there to earlier documents a nd writers tha t (I will argue) exhibit some level of kins hip wit h the Didudw's ritual logic. These- earlier writings can be d iscussed in chronologic-~-tl order, beginning with the Didaclle's near-contempo rary. the EpistM of Bamabus.

Tlte Epistle o r Barnabas There are two clues that the logic of the meal rit ual preserved in the Didudw has infiuenced this epistle, one explicit and one implicit The explicit due appears in 5.3: So we o ughl to give ht:ar ly I hanks to the Lord.

bcc:tusc he has both made known to us lite th ings lhat arc pust and made us wise in the prcscnl: and we arc not without und<.-rslanding wilh rcspecl to the: th ings yet to co me.

~xoU~ U'!rpwxo:p•cmfv ~t~OJ.!'V ~~ Kup["l, OT,f ~al T~ tyap'A~Au8o!a ...TJtJ~V fyY(ilplOfV Kal H' r otc; nn--oT(o)Oill qpat; ;oO.fnorv, Kal ,tc; TO: ~AAovra OOKEo~iv doU~ro1. As l noted in Chapter 3, when analysing. the logic of the Didut'lu's prayers, a persol) composing everyda y (l). He re. it is possible that our author has ta ken up the jixefl ltmgrwge of the eudwristeO-prJ.yer. well known to him from 25

Brakke. 'Authcnli<.·ity·. p. 46.

2 18

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

e ucha ristic custom, and adapted it to the pre~enl context. In t he prm:ess he has employed the more natura l ' tha t· (OT1), rather tha n its more a rchaic counterpart (Un£p). A pa rallel. more or less synonymous verb ('made us wise·. ioO¢uoEv) has been used to expand the. trdditional 'made known·~ but without a ltering its basic fo rte: the chang.e in person (first to third) was req uired by the context Indirect evidence for t he influence o f the Ditlatlu!"s rit ual logic on this writer derive-S from the no tion of gnosis that pervades Barnabas. My interest here is no t in what Barnabas means by gnosis but rather in how a sense of the importance. o f .s:nosis might have been nurtured in s ome early Christian circles - a nd so come to characte rize them. As I argued in Chapter 3, the eudltlristeo-prayer of Didachd- 10 would through use have inculcated a posture of gratitude fo r the-rec.eption o f knowledge from the Father a nd through Jesus. This sense of g,nuit ude and dependence pervades Barnabas' notion or 'knowledg,e·. not o nly in 5.3. cited a bove. but elsewhere also:26 ,,

'

' '" ' s:-

·

For the M aster has made kno\'•'n to us (Eyvc.:lptOfV yap ll)JIV o u..OTTOT~ ) through the p ro phets things past and th ing.s present. .and has giw n us a foretaste of thin£$ to come. Consequently, whe n we sec tl1c:sc thing.'1 co me to pass. .. we ought to nutke u ric her and loftier o lfe-ring of rc ven:m:c for him ( 1.7: tra ns. Holme-s: c.ompare 2.1- 2). K now IVOGi'T,J. thcn.· fore-. c.hecrCul c-hildren, thut the good Lord revealed everything to u-s in advance (n0:vta. . . rrpo,4>avipwo'V ~IJtVJ. in order th a t we might know l~ll~VJ whom we ought to pruisc. giving tha nks lOr all things (~ xata rrciv-ra rUxaptotoUvr£<; O¢'I:A.ollfV a·w,l vt (7. 1).

Two points deserve notice here. First. a pe-r vasive sense or dependence upo n God for knowledge received by the. c.ommunity is c haracteristic of both Epislle of Basnabas 1- 17 a nd Dida<·he 9- 10 - allhough fo r Bamtlbas this knowledge is explicitly contr.lsted with the-s upposed ignora nce of the Jews. From Bam(lbas' point of view, this c.har.tcteristic posture is nevertheless meant to result in ' tha nksgiving" to the Lord (5.3. 7.1) - an as."umption that Lhe eurlwrisu~O-prayers were poised to instil. Second, howe\1e r. a d ear departure from Lhe ritual logic of the Didac/w's meal tradition a lso ~ippears: for Barnabas. thro ughout Scripture 't he F~lther was reve~ding everything_aholll his Son Jesus (mpl Toli u'toU ' lqooul' ( 12.8; trans. Ho lmes. emphasis mine). Chief among t he things revealed tlbo/11 Jesus was his s uffering (6.7; 7.7: 9.7- 9: 11.1 - 8). and this is the immedia te context o f my prime example above (5.3). The Scriptures contain olher ' knowledge.> too. inc.lttding the failure or t he Jews to g_rasp 26 Note too: 'Bk-ssed is our l ord. brothers. who endowed us with wisdom and understanding of his secrets' (Barn. 6.10: !.runs. Holmes). Here the: bentktlll fonn ub appea rs, still with the n."VCb lion motif.

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

2 19

the truth (3.6; compa re 2.9), the coming of God's Son in the Oesh (5.9: 6.9), spiritua l precepts regard ing 'food' (10). the practice of baptism (IUS), the info rmation tha t the church (ra ther tha n the Jews) would inherit the covenant ( 13), a nd the events o f t he last days. includ ing the destruction o f the Temple (16). On the one hand. Lhen, Barnabas exhibits a mo re tha n coincidental rela tionship Lo the logic o f the Didothe's meal ritual.27 That, in turn. attests t he use and influence o r a t least the eudmristeQ.form , perhaps in Egypt~ until the time o f Bam abtts (around t he t urn of the seco nd century) - a conclusion already sug~_ested by the existence o f the (late r?) Coptic Sl iiiOif{i praye-r a nd fully congJuent with the redaction history o f the Didarlw itself. On the. orher hand . Bamabas may represent a regiona lly inOuent ial attempt to de.limit the open-ended po~aure inculca ted in the eudwriste6-fo rm attested in the Didatlle. 28 ·n l iS delimitation works in two d irections. First. perfect ' knowledge' (compare Bam. 13.7) is to be grounded in the deep. inner meaning of Scripture - a me~ming: misa ppropria ted by the Jews, but ' made known· to 'u:/. Such a no tion goes well beyond a ny implications of the prayers in the Didat'lte. including the t~ontntst between normal ·rood and drink' gjven to all Jumumil)i (not ' the Jews') and 'spiritua l food and drink' given to ' us' ( Di d. 10.2). Second. Bam abaJ·· 'knowledge• based upon Sc ripture co nsists in large- part of making sense o f the sufferings of Jesus upon a cross. as a means toward the 'forgiveness o f sins' (see 7.3, 8.3, I I. I, 16.8) - a duster o f notions entirely Jacking: in the Didadu~. Details of Jesus' c rucifixio n are to be understood in light or ancient rit ua l descriptions. like- the scapegmlt and red heife r rites of the Pentateuch. Jv1ost signillca ntly. Barnabas continues to exhibit a n almost unrefle<:ti ve attitude toward the way that teaching ought to be communicated. T hat is. by ma king a ll of his various conclusions part o f ' knowlt~ge', 'reve~11ed' in various w~iys, the write.r bet rays a n assumption about the pe.rceived na ture. o r the community's instruction. 29 Clearly. this d ocument post-dates the 27 A relieenCC' lo usc the titk 'Chrisr in both BarmtfHt.~ and Ditlaclle mighl also sug!....:st n common milieu (cf. H<•mnd::. Leiwe. II. p. 30). 28 On the regionnl inlluc:nce of Bllm:tb((.f. S« Clayton N. Jc:O"ord with Kcnn
220

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

crystallization of the prayer form contained in the Diduche: and i f I am correct in seeing here. a dependen(·e o n (at le-ast part o{) that prayer fom1•s ritual logic, we a re given a glimpse o f how that rituallog,ic could come to embr~u:e and colour o ne te.a cher's rellections on the s ulierings o f Jesus. a t least in extra-ritual instructio ns. In the prot"-ess. from knowledge revealed by o r through Jesus. we come to knowlt\(fge about Jesus and. in particular, the how and why of his sufferings. T his document , t hen. is suggestive. of a q uite earl)' ellOrt in Egypt to accommodate the story o f Christ's passion from within the rilual logic attested in the Didm•he.

Tiro Epistle to Diognetus The ba nling Epistle to Diognellls, frequenlly placed in Egypt within the r.lnge 150-225 Cb, is notable ror its so-e:tlled pttis-duisto logy 30 The most salient passages fall in 8.4-9.2, where the autho r re-veals how the 'Christians' have come by the-ir remarkable. knowledge of God : No o ne hus eit her st.-en or rcc.".Ognized him, but he has revealed himsdf. And he rcvcHicd himself t hrough faith . w hic.h is lhe o nly means: by whic:h it is permitted to see God .. . And a rtc-r conceiving a great a nd

marvelous p lun. he: communicated it to his servant alone (IJ0vc:.l t C:. ncwSIJ. No w as lo ng as he kept it a secret a nd guardt.x l his wise d~sign·, he seemed to ncglcc.t and be um:.oncerncd about us. but when he revcalod tcirru:OAuo/C) it through his lx:lovcd servnnt (01cX t oVciyarri'}T00 na t&X;J and made k nown IE,avipwoEJ the things pre.p:m:d from the beginning. he gave us C\'t:rything at once. both to share in his benefits and to sc."C and und erstand thing:> w hich none o f us ever would have: expected (8.5- 11: trans. Ho-lmes, wit h minor udjustments).

In this. excerpt. some sympathies with the Didadu~·s ritual logic can be inferred: the paij· is the agent who re-veals what only God knows including knowledge o f God - resulting in unpara lleled human knowledge and blessins . Titat is, in both Diognews a nd the Didtidw's meal ritual. ' the office of the-pais is the c.ommunic~Hion o f knowled~_e• .31 At the same time. the title ' the servant• (0 rra'tc;} ~1ppears here. in a rela tively expanded form ('beloved'). 30 Sec Thc:ofri~d Baumeister ('Zur D:lli~ru ng dcr Schrifl an Diogncl'. VC 42 f l98llj. pp. 105- 11). who fa\·oui'S an enrlic:-r date (ca. 160). Henri JlinOc: Mnrrou sets the range at 120-310. but favours 190- 200. Alexandria. a nd pcrhnps ~vcn Pantcnus as author (A Df(lgJJht': l mrmlllrlioo. it/ilion a ·ifique, tradu(rion t>l nuumnllair~ (SC. 33: ~ris: Ccrf. 1997]. pp. 2~). This precision is hmxlto credit An index of the ~-t oc:umcnt's peculiarity is the rnn!.~ in scholarly accounts: d . Joseph T. Licnhnrd. 'The Christology of the Epistk to Diognetus·. VC 14 ( 1970). pp. 280- 89 (289)~ and Cmig S tcv~n Wansink. 'Epis.tu1n ad Dio£nctum: A School E:\:cJcisc in the Usc- of Protrcptic'. in John H. Morgan (cd.). Church Dirinity (Bristol. IN: Wr ndham Hall. 1986). pp. 97- 109. 31 Nicdc-rwimmcr. Ditlac!le. p. 1-49 n. 39. describing the Ditladu/s conception.

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

221

DiogueluS continues: So lhcn. having a lready pbnncd e.\'Cf)'lhing in his mind together with

his ser vant tTi> nau51). he pc.nniHed us d uring the fo rmer time to be carried away... in o rder tha t we who in the forme r time: were convict<.-d by our own deeds us unworthy of life might now by the goodness of God be. made: worthy. and, having c.lcarly demonstrated our inability to cmcr the kingdom of God on our own. might be enabled to do so by God's power (9.1: trans. Ho lmes. with a minor adj ustment).

This explanation o f the late arrival of the 'revelation' seems to echo Pauline arguments in Romans 3 and 8. h also combines a use of pais with the notion of entering the kingdom of God. 'n1e- proposed means of ente-ring the kingdom, however. marks a decisive deparlure from the Didudw's conception: He did not hate us, or reject us. or bt.-ar a grudge against u.s: instead he was patient a nd rorbc-.uring: in his mercy he took upon himsdf o ur sins~ he himself gnvc up his own Son ITOv 'i6tov u'u)vJas a mnsom fo r us tV ni-p ~~&.vj. the holy o ne for the lawless .. . f o r wha t dsc but his righteousness could have covered o ur sins·? In w hom was it possible for us. the lawless and ungodly. to be justilicd. c:x<.-cpt in the Son of God alone )~V IJOVCJ r c:l ui<';> TOO &oUr! (?.2-4: trans. Holmes). · ·

What God has revealed, thererore. is 't he Saviour's power to sa\•e even the powerless' (9.6). 32 Even so, those who desire-' this fa ith' must ·acquire full knowledge [irrlyvO>otv) ol the Father' ( 10. I), which evidently exists in creedal form (see- 10.2). This knowledge will ultim;nely result in imitation o r God's goodness. and Lhe willingness to d ie a martyr's death will be conceivable. since the 'true lite' will now be d istinguishable from its merecopy here on earth (see 10.3- 8). This document is of interest to us because. like Barnabas, it exhibits a te ndency to present Christian teachings as revelation rrom God and, more than Bamabll:i, explicitly li nks this revelation with the figure o f the ptlis. While no explicit eucharistic connection can be expected in such ~i t reatise. gratitude for things revealed through lhe pais is in keeping with 8.11. cited above: ' he s~we. us everything at once, both to s hare in his benef'ils and to see ~lnd understand things which none of us ever would have expected '. In my view, the author exhibits knowledge of Paul's epistle to the Romans, as well as the Sermon on the Mount or related traditions. Dit1gnetus ernbra("es the de.;Hh of Jesus, God's Sl)n, as an essential basis lOr the Christian way o f life, and the document's highest expressions of praise and gr.Hitude townrd God occur in this contexl (see 9.2, 5). To anticipate maue.rs somewhat. the notion of the pais in this doc ument

.n c r. Lienhard, •Christology·. p. 288: the (l(liS in Father's plan of salvation'.

Diogm~IIIS

•sha n-s and rcl'ta1s lhc

222

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

approximates the role o f the Son in .severa l Valentinian documents. a nd in Orig~m·s theology: namely. the re-velation o f knowledge oCGod, available only to a nd through him. to t he delkient part{s) of creation." This notion may evolve from the older idea that Jesus possessed a specia l intimacy with God. resulling in special knowledge that he communicated to the community. Now a pre-existent pais> h is intimacy a nd knowledge. extend to plans Conned in the mind of God prior to Jesus' appearance o n earth. His ete rnity tr.mscends his sojoum o n e.;irlh and so elev;-ttes o r grounds the knowledge-that he makes available. In evolutionary terms> Diognetus thus supplies a missing link between the concept of the puis in the Didache's meal ritual and the e labor.ttion of 'knowledge' from the divine a nd etemal So n - who t herefore t·an 'make- known· from the Father on the. cosmic level, both berore-and aller his sojourn on earth. In addition to this evolution of the figu re-o f t he pais~ :1 deutero-Pauline motif enters the L:ipeStry: the 'plan· was no thing other than the vicarious sun'"ering;:; or t he. Son of God, which would ransom the Ge ntiles. Woven logether in this aU-too-brief protreptk treatise, no ne. or these mo tifs cleo.u ly dominates. Nevertheless, one is left with an impression that is remarkably similar to the impression left by Barnabas: the logic of revelation derived from Jesus as the pais has come to ac.:.c ommodate o r embrate the s.alvifk sul1'erings o f Jesus for others. What once were d istinct conceptio ns of the role of Jesus for the community have been partially fused . a nd one is hard-pressed to say whether his primary role is now to make known or to die for other.,·. In either case. if this document was wrilten in Egypt, it sta nds a longside Blmllibas in suggesting the-kinds of ~idaptations and accommoda tions to the Didadre's ritual logic at work in that region.14

Jlaleutiniau Prayer At this point in early Christianity in Egypt, o ne begins to encounter much more complex thinkers and systems. The hypothesis that the Didadre's e ucharisliC. tr.tdition has been one of several inOuences a l work in Egypt. and one well suited to pro mote the definition and elaboration of' 'knowledge' from the Father thro ugh his child Jesus, '" n he explored by a limited ('Onsideration o r two o f these: the. Va}entinian school and Clement of Alexandria. The-analysis of documents relating to these two will have a na rrow focust namely~ prayer. Moreover. given their theologk a l a nd intellectua l creativity, whal they assume about prayer will often be mo re instructive lOr us tha n wha l they explicitly te~lch. Fo r 33 See. e.g.• Gos. Trutll.n. 10- 25: Origl"n Pri11c. 1.2.6. 34 M ~urou finds noi<;. u'tOc;. and :\Oyoo; synonymous for this document's author. ncdc; h~'Tc luck in£ the usual liturgical sense noted by Harnack (sec Mllrrou. A Diognhe. pp. 1 8~8. ~nd p. 187 n. -4).

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

223

the Va lentinians especially~ knowledge made available thro ugh the Son rrom the f;-tthe r obviously OCt~upieS :ln important poSition. although this perspective need ha rd ly have a ny direct connection with the Didad u!'s e ucha ristic lr.tdition. h remains, then, to see whether they t reat pr.tyer in a way that is sym ptuhetic to t he ritua l logic of the Didadw's meal tradition.

At least one Valentinian text) the Tripartili! Trattatt~ which may be a relatively late (third--<:enlllry} synthesis of Valentini:in speculation, offers insight into the importance o f p rayer a nd espeeially doxology for this sect. 35 Its assumptions a bo ut prayer do exhibit some- intriguing sympathies with the ritual logic. ii nol the ex~lct la nguage, the Didaclul s prayers. Moreover. lhese- sympathies a re- reminiscent of what o ne encounters in Diognews. T he TripartiJe Trat/ate o ilers " portrait of the (pleromatic) C hurc h in which doxology, praise. thanksgiving and petitions all have. their functions. For example, the-author writes.

or

T herefore. in the song, of glorification and in the power of the unity of him from whom they have come. they were drawn into a mingling and 1:1 co mbinntion a nd a unity with <.' ne another. Tlrt'y
In such passages, il is clear thm, as. one would expect. lhe 'pleromatic congref_ 3 lion· is. the pa tte rn or proto type o f the Chrislian community on 3 e.a rth . Wha l is said o f them offers insight into the practice o f prayer a nd the importance of doxology for these Christians. For exa mple, the aeonic Church is said to be perfected by it> act of 'giving glory': 'jus t as they [the pleromati<: aeons] <were> bro ught fo rt h in ~lory fo r the Fat her. so loO in o rder to a ppear perfec t, they a ppeared acting by gi,•ing glory' (69, 20-24); a nd a~ai n. ' those who came. fo rth . who a re perfect by lhe (~-tel tha t they glorify the perfe<:t o ne' (69, 35-7). Doxology. in fact, allows t hem to exist in repose: ·Each one of those who give glory has h is place and his exalta tion a nd his dwelling and his re-Sl. which consisls o f the glory which he brings fo rth' (70, 14-19). Finally, like the c.hurt.h here below. the pleromatic one is characte rized by 'faith in a nd prayer to him whom they do not see'. and hope a nd love and understa nding of the Fa ther as well (71 . 23- 35). Such pas...o;;ages strongly s ugg_est tha t. for this autho r. t he act of giving glory to the (true) Father is both essential a nd beneficial fo r every created 35 Likdy from Alc.xnndria: Ph<:mc Perkins. ' l ogos Christologics in the N:•g HammQdi Codices·, IIC 35 ( 1981). pp. 379- ?6 (393). 36 Trnnslntions of TnjiUttilt! Tradtrle from N'NL pp. 60-103. 37 Later. in foct. w<: rend of'thc Church whjeh <~s:•embles in this pb.x./utl'ilrg tht! form of ti!C' C/wrdr lfhiXil'l.,. i11 tlw aerms. wllid1 g/qrifit!:r tl/(! Fatlurr' (97, 6-9: emphasis min<:).

224

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

being:. For example, in the d iscussion o f b~tptism, which invoh•es ' union wit h him in knowledge· as well as confession of lhe Father in fa ith (128, 15-19). giving glory Lo the Father is one pari o f t he initia tion process that e nsures its eflicacy (129. 30-34). As Einar Thomassen remarks: G lorification in tht: Trtn·m· has un obvious sotc:-rio logical function . not o nly bccuusc it p roduces knowledge but also by being the ve h i -.~l c by w hich the: worshippers become consubsl:tnlia l wilh the d ivine glory. As the l'lcroma represents the congn:gation of the divine selves of the pnc:umatic.s. these must, in their <.-ommunal olrc ring o f praises to the Fathe r. have united with the chorus the Ecclesi::~ above in order to rc.ulizc their c-o nsubstantiality with the d ivinity.·'"

or

The Logos, who like a ll other created beings experiences ig,norant-e of the Father. also experient.es 'con\'ersion' in a way that is homologous to that humankind:

or

he first pntyed to and rem embered (the Stt\'iour (; th c.n (he n:me mbcn.•
ttgreemem was tl he/1• for him iu his own rrtum and ( in that ojj the Towliiy. fo r a cause of his n.·me mbcring. those who hnve existed from the first W
Being remembered , the Logos remembers himself, his brothers:, and ultimately the Fathe-r. 39 Th is is instrumental not only in his own restor.ttion, but a lso in thMt of the things he. had produced: 'Once he had prayed, he both raised h imself lo the good a nd sowed in t hem a pred ispositio n LO Seek and pray lo lhe glorious p re-existent o ne (83, 16-21; cf. I ll ,30- 112,5, referrin~ to prophels and righ teous men) 40 ·n t us. this trea tise knows two habits o f prayer: doxology. and the prayer ' repentanto.e' (mt•llmoia) or remembrance o f o ne's true identity. This implies a third, fo r in this tre-a tise. o ne gh'£'S thauks lO hi,g,he-r beings (namely, the l ogos gives thanks to Lhe Pleroma} for Lheir \1iSitation, which makes one recall the higher thing;>, that is, leads to conversion. A fO urth type of praye-r is added later, when the pleromatic Chur(:h is sa id to have 'gathered tog.e ther, asking t he. Father with beneficent intent that there be aid from above, from the Father~ fOr his glory. sim:e the- defective one

or

38 Einar Thoma!':Sen. ·The Structure of the Transct'ndcnl World in the T ripartite "Tmctatc'"(N HC I. 5)'. VC J4 ( 1980). pp. 358-75 (311): he also points out that doxology is a means of know-ledge in Tn"Tmc (p. 369). The. sort of nngdic-liturgy cm·isioncd here bears c:omparison with Clc-rnc:nl of Akxandru,·s remarks (e.g. Strom. 7.12.78). 39 Perkins offers a hdpfu) comxtiw to the common view that the logos in Tn"Tmc is Sophia in another guise ('Logos Christologio'. p. 384). 40 The logos :1lso erenlc:s the better pari of his production. and pl·rhnps e\'Cn purifies himself. through thanksgi\·ing and glorific.ation (96. 24-5).

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

225

t~ould

no t become perfect in a ny other w;-ty, unless it was the will of the Pleroma of Lhe Father, whith he had drawn to himself, revealed, and giwm to the defective one' (86. I 5-23). T his act of prayer ca uses there to be revealed ' the counte mmce o f the Father, of whom the-aeons thought ;is they g~tve ~dory and prayed fo r help fo r their bro ther with a wish in which the Father counted himself with them' (86, 28- 32). That is. pelitiouarr prarer. accompanied by doxology~ is productive a nd causes the Father's ·countenance.' to be-known to t he one fo r whom the-se powers pray. Theaeons thus come to 'generate. the countenance of the Father', which thereby comes to be known to the one for whom the.y pray, through pctitiouwy prayer and csp~dally doxology: they also come- to know themselves in the same way (see 87, 17- 22). In this treatise, knowledge of the Father and glory offered to him go hand in hand (cf. 95. 35-S). Somewhat like Diognetus, this tractate insists that the unbeg,o tlen God is mos t appropri:Hely termed ' Father' (5 1. 6-57. 8); it likewise claims tha t o nly t he So n can know the Father, a nd that he has the task of makin<• him • 41 ° known to o thers (e.g. 65, I 7- 34). As o ne might expect, the tractate equates death with 'complete igno ranl-e o f the Totality' ( 107, 30- 31) and eternal life with ·fi rm knowledge o f the Totalities a nd the reception of all )lood things' ( 108. 2- 4). Suc.h notions a re o nce again both akin to the d is position o f gratitude fo r thing;; 'made known· through Jesus. sometime-S i!Jossed as 'eterna l life' or ' immorta litv', and at the same time somewhat distant from this disposition's ti1ore open-ended posture toward wha t Je-Sus had made. known. Relative to t he Didac'lw, as well as Barnabas> I C/enumt. and many other early Christian texts, this Valentinian treatise replaces pra ise to the Creator, in the litera l sense, 'vith pra ise and glory to t he Father o f" ;til. who does not directly create the visible universe but exists Car above il. Unlike the Didm·he's prayer five. this theologia n's Fa ther cannot be said lo feed creation pro\•identially in any s tra ightforward way; only the. Logos working through the- Demiurge might be- said to do this. But like tha t prayer in the Dida('he, this theolog_ian's Father €'(111 be said to have given 'spiritual food and drink. and e terna l life. through your servant' (Did.

10.3). Finally. the concluding, eschatological section of the- Tripartile Trat tate bears t·ompa rison \\~th the. Didathe's escha tological orientation: Whe n the r<:dcmption was proclaimed. t he pcrfCct man n:eci..,-cd knowkxlgc immedia tely, so as to retu rn in haste to his unitary stale. to the plncc from which hc came. to return there j oyfully. to the phtoc from whic.h he came. lo the place from which he !lowed fo rth . His

41 Cf. P~·..-l: i ns. 'logos Christologics'. p. 393: ' the revealing acti,·ity of tl1e logos through the Gnostic savior provides the only true knowledge and worship of the UnknowableFather'.

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

226

me mbers. ho wever. needed a plac-e of instr uc tion, which is in the places which ure udorncd.. so thut ltheyl mighl receive fro m them resemblance to the-images and an-he types, like a mirror. until t~l!the membttrs o.f the body of thC' Clwrch /assembJ.•·J tmt ill a single p{(JCi' wul rrct-in! the res/tJmritm at Ollt! time. when they luwe bcc.n manifested as the whole body. - namely the n:sto ratit'n into the Plcromu 023. 3- 23. emphasis m ine).

This Valentinian author has either reta ined or arrived independently a t the perception tha t the assembly is not yet fully constituted (unil\ed) until the end. TI1us the tension between this order (the cosmos or 'adorned' place) and the higher order (Pleroma or aeon) to which t he initiate is int roduced is also strictly ma intained. Of course, t he Valentinhm Stance o n various theologica l points also incorporates Pauline a nd other inlluences. including an emphasis upon the suiTe rings o f the Saviour. These sune ring.s involve his int·.a.rnation. as a sinless innml. and his taking 'upon < himself> the de.a th o r those whom he t hought to save ( 11 5, 4- 6). But my point is simply that it shares .something. with the Didacht(s ritual logic~ j ust a s it shares something with better-known influences from fonnative Christia nity. T he Didachr's ritual orientation has plausibly exerted some kind of influence o n Egyptian. Valentinian theology. even though that inHuence would surely have been mediated through vnrious cha nnels by t he time we. arrive a t such penetrating theologica l syntheses as the Triparlilc Tractate.41 T his autho r need no t have ever heard o f the Didadw nor h;we ever experie-nced. its 'classic· eucharistic trad ition to be influe nced by some. of its ritual logic. In this aut hor's second-o rder rellections o n the. narure of the universe. certa in prayer ha bits a nd conventions a re. simply assumed, and it would a ppe.a r th~it a mong those assump tions lie some tha t resonate q uite well - belle r th;m we typically find - with the dispositions inculca ted in the ritual fo und in the Didadrc. We are fortuna te to possess from Nag H ammadi samp le Valentinian e ucha ristic pr.tyers. with which we c;.m further specify ;my possible. debts to t he Didathc's eucharistic tr.tdition. Although the texts a re very fragmenta ry in nature. the same kinds o f formulaic similarities o bserved e lsewhere a re fo und here: Vt~lenliuiau

1:.'.\'fiOSiliou XI 43. 20-

Didudw 9.1

Js"'·• · on the Eucharist A· {We givcl thanks Ito you and we odcbnltc the e ucha rist],

We give thanks to you,

41 Sec further Perkins. ' Logos Christologies'. pp. 383- 93. 43 The translation hl·rc (but not tht line divisions) is from NIJL. p. 489.

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt 0 Fathe r. (remembering for the sake o il thy Son (Jesus C hrist that they) co me forth J . . . J invisible (... ) thy tSon . ..1 his Lfove. . .] to (knowledge ...J they arc doing thy will (th rough the) nume of Jesus Christ (andJ will do thy will (now and)

227

our Father. ro r {i!mp) the. holy vine of D;1vid your

SC f \'l:lllt.

which you made known to us t hrough J<:sus your scr\'unt

always. They an: complete Jin J every spiritual £ifl and (every) p urity.

(Glory) be to thee th rough thy Son (undJ thy oiTsprin£ Jesus Christ (from nowJ fon:vcr. Amen.

To you be glory

Forc•lc.~r. (Ame-n. I

The opening expression agrees with t he Didat/u(s cutlwristeO- fo rm, includin£ <~rare use or the epithet 'Father', while the prayer as a whole is brief. and it concludes with an expanded fom1 of doxology. Here again. as in I Clement, MllriJ'rdom of Polyt·arp. Aposwlit TradiJion. a nd the Strasbo urg Papyrus> glory aS(.~ends to the FaLher through Jesus, who is a lso called 'Christ'. Behind the expression ' thro ugh thy Son Iandi thy o iTspring Jesus. Christ' may once-again lie the-synthetic form ula) seen in Rome and Smyrna, lhat combined 'through Jesus Christ' with 'through Jesus your (be/om~ servant/Child'. There also appears to be an echo of Paul - ha rdly s urprising for Valentinians - in the phrase 'complete in every spiritual gift' (I Cor. 1.7). A se-nse things 'made known·. which one might expect from a Valentinian pr:tyer, doe$ not orient lhe praye.r . T he-second prayer is still more remote from the Didad1e's text:

or

X I 44. 1- 37 ·on the Euchurist a· (.. . J in the J. .. J the (wonJJ of the: J. ..1

l0.3-4

You. almighty Maste-r. c reated all

thing;> thcj holy one it is.. . food and Ld rink . .. ) Son. since you ( •• •J food t' f the(.. .J to us the( ... J

in the Jlifc:-. .. J he docs (not boast. . . J thut is J... ) Church (.. . ) you a rc pure (.. . J iho u a rt the Lord.

fo r the ~· kc of your name. and have given food and d rink to all hunu1nity. fo r ( their) enjoyment, so tha t they would tha nk you. BUl us you ha"'C favoured with spirituul food and drink, and cternnl life through (Jc:sus) your ser vant. To you be glory foreve r.

228

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom (W henever) you die p urely. Jyouj w ill be p ure so as to have him [ . ..j

everyone will (guide} him to food and Jd rinkj.

G lory be 1<.' tht.-e fo r<::vc r. Amen.

Remember. Lord. your assembly!

to r<."SCue her from all evil. and to mukc her perfeel in your lo ve, And to gulhcr her from the four winds. into your kingdom. which you have prepared for her! ITo you be glo ry forevc.r .J {Amen.}

Even here. l Wo similarities c-.tn be seen: the doxologies are virtually identicaL and both mention food and drink. in a 'spirih mli:ted' sense. ~dong with some benellt ' l o us·. Nota ble, too. is the prayer fo r 'anointing', which st;Hes, 'T hrough him ]yo ur Son Jesus C hrist] we < have known> thee. And we thee' (X140, 19- 20), a fte r which there comes a lengthy doxology, similar to those in t he classical liturgies. The ide--.t tha t Jesus made known tile Father appeared in A·fartyrdum of Polymrp a nd. d oser to home. in Sarapiou. Despite some intriguing similarities. then, these Valentinian prayers a re at most only remotely linked to the Didaclu:'s eucharistic tr.tdition perhaps through one of t he intermediary steps I have. a lready exp lored. These prayers give the appearance of ha ving been c.omposed in d ialogue wit h o ther prayers of the third tentury. .t:~ £ven so. their brevity. the opening eutlwriste6-lb rmu1a (with 'Father'). and espedaJiy the sho rte.r . unelabo rated doxology might a ttest here a n independent d ialogue also wit h a Didadu~-like eucharistic t radition."s If so, these p rayers place elements from both o f these pr.tyer traditions within the-i r own. ra ther d iffe.rent, e ucha ristic logic. This, too. is no netheless a kind o f liturg,k al compromise. fr? m a b1~anch o f C hristianity that d id have a universalirin.J& ~1genda - that dtd , that IS, a tlempt to appeal to the movement as a whole. 44 An intriguing glimpse into such processes is pro\·idcd by P. Bt>rol. 9794. a eollcclion of Chris1i11n hymns thu1 indud<:s a hcm1ctic pmycr nnd 1hat Bri!m McNeil suggc.sts is part of a 1hird-ccntury trend to Christiani1r so-called 'gnostic· matcri ~tl s . Within these hymns appears the formula ; 00 0:yu:.:~T6-rov no:uS&; oou l nooii XptOToU toO ~~:~.~ploo ~JJWv .:at O:pxlio:TpoU •Clv4'u;v (se< Brian McNiel. ·A Nolc on P. Ekrol. 9794·. Numcm 231 19761. pp. 23940).

4S. The hermetic thanksgiving prayer from Nug Hammndi (Tiw Pray.~,· of Tlumksgiring lVI 7.63.33- 65.71) roontttcs with the idea that one gives tha nks for knowlcdg.: of or from God. It uses th<: bricfform ·we gi\-c lh!tnks to Your (pcrh:1ps d mr.telcristic:llly not •naming· God in the \'Octllive here). but othe-rwise. lncks the p:trallds with the Dkfadte and other eucharisti<: traditions noled above. 46 Tltu Gos~l of Tnrtlt. drawing upon di\'c-tSC Christiun traditions. puts forwtud n oni,•ersalizing agcndii (so too Einar Thomassen. 'Orthodoxy nnd Heresy in Scoond ·Ccntury Rornc". HI'R 9712004~ PI>. 24 1- 561253-J)). which the Yakntinian notion of three types of Chris1i:.ns also demonstrates. T he Lette1· to F!tJm rnn also be read in this light.

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

229

C/emelll o( Ab·wrdria Clement o f Alexandria, in his Stro,}ratds (writlen a round the Lurn of lhe third century). devotes only a few remarks to prayer (7.6.34-7.49; 7. 12.7376). but his assumptions a bout pr.tyer exhibit some int riguing sympathies with lhe Didarhe's ritual logic. For example. at lhe beginning of his remarks, when counte ring pagan sacriilces, Clement unlb lds Lhe proper

attitude of prayer:'" Out if lhe Deity. lx.·ing by nature exempt from a ll nc::cd . rejoices to be honoured. we tum: good reason fo r honouring God b)' pn(l'(!r. a nd fo r sending up most rightly this sucrifK-e, the be-sl a nd ht, Jicst o f sacrifices whe n j oined with righteousness. l't!lleruting him thro11gh •rlwm •n• ren·in! ow· knowledge. wui ihrough him glorifying him ( U•., tlw Fatlli!r) u}wm we hurr /e(lmi to kJww. At a ny rate our nltar here on ct.rt h is t he co ng,rcgation o f those who an: dc\'Otcd to the prayers. having. as i t "'-ere. o ne co mmon voice and one mind. (7.6.3 1.7- N: emphasis mine)

For Clement. the reception or knowledge is the primary occasion for proper ·sacrifice' to God, that is) g.lory offe red in prayer thro ugh the Word . Again. Wherefore it is neither in u dc:Jinitc place or- sp1.'Cia l shrine. nor yet o n certain fc.-asts a nd d ays set apart. that t he gn ostic honours God.

rrturnitlg tlumk:> to him fm· knowlc:dge bestmretl tmd the gif/ of the hea1-eu(•· i'iti: euship txO.ptv OJJo.korcl T~ yvc.lo£~ Kal Tftc; no.k•niw;J: but he will d o this a ll his life in e"-cry place. whethe r he be: alone by himself o r have with him some who share his lx:lid ' (7.7.35.3: emphasis mine).

The honour due God, for Clement and for t he Didac/res eur/wrisleopra yers alike. is gra titude Cor knowledg,e. a nd arguably Cor both this can be offe-red a t any place. Indeed. the gnostic ' is always in the uninterrupted presence or God by means of his knowledge and his life a nd his tha nkful spirit IT~~
For A. H. C. V:m Eijk. ' the gnostics understood the eating and drinking of the Lotd's A~-sh and blood as t he receiving of Y'!i.JOI<;' {'The Gospel of Philip nnd dement of Ak.xnndria: G nostic and Ecdc:;iostical ~ology on the Rcsum.-ction and the Eudmrisr. VC25( 1971). pJl. 94-120 (10 7]). If 1his idea wns c·urrcnt among Valentinians. it could rcprCSC'n! a fusing together of the two rit ual t raditions c:t:Lmined in Ch. 4 a bove. in a w ry interesting way. 47 Trnnslation from John E. L Ouhon and Henry Chadwick. Ale.Wm(Man C!lristiallity: Selerl TumJ!aliiHIS of Clnmmt anct Origen •~·itil lntrmiuctimu mul Noles (Westminster: Philaddphi(L, 1954). pp. 11-l--25. 139-42. Gnxk text from Alain lc: Uoullucc. CMment d'Aiexondrie: Les Stn>tuutes: Suomate VII (SC. -128: Paris: Ccrf. 1997).

230

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

knowledge., in o rder tha t God . . .may be glorified through his Son, in those who are being saved t hrough the s.ah•ation which is a<.x:ordlng to knowledge, and t hat the knowledge of him may grow from age to age· (7.7.41.7) 4 ' These remarks have clear sympathies with the logic the eudwristeOprayer of the Didarlw. Indeed. a later remark pract ica lly s ummarizes tha t prayer"s logic: 't he fo rm of !the gnostic's) prayer is thanksgiving fo r I£Vxap1oTia f ni) what is pa st and wha t is present and what is future . as being a lread y present through his fa ith : a nd this is preceded by the acquisitio n of knowledge' (7. 12.79.2). AI the very Je,m , Clement shi1res wi th the Didurlw's meal ritual the assumption that knowledge, re<·eivtxl from God thro ug,h Jesus. should result in thanksgiving and glory offe-red the Father (arguably Clement's favoured te rm fo r G od). Co nsider also this passage.: 'he refe rs his enjoyment in every t-ase to God as its author. whether it be of food or d rink o r ointme nt (<;
or

4-8 The Gn.-ck here dearly c:choc:s a standard doxological form: 0 €1rbr; ~«
u6voc; o:Yo:601; Kal 0 ~Ovoe;: oc.>-ri)p bl v'•oil i~ oi~vo:; fir; oi~vo. Note too thai Clcmc:-nt docs not rc:stric1 the term €0xo:pto-tlo: to cummuntll praye-r.

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

23 I

respect to food, d rink and marriage allows him to be ·atw;-tys purified for prayer. He prays a lso with ang,e.ls. iiS being a lready equal to angels, and neve.r passes out of the holy keeping: e\•en i f he prays a lone he has the

chorus orsaints banded with him· (7 .12.78.5- 6). Here-. however) Clement's no tion dive-rges: pure pntyer, even by private persons. is parl of an angelic liturgy. a in lind Clement intriguingly With respect to petitionary prayer. we ag_ dose to the o utloo k inculca ted by the ritual script of Didadte 9- 10. While the Didat'he's eucharistic form implies t hat all hum~in desires and petilions are Hlle red lhro ug,h the uhima te good of t he kingdom ·s a rrivaL Clement claims that the person who has received knowledge from God knows what kinds of thin~ lo ask for, na mely, ' the thin~ that are really good' (e.g. 7.7.38.4). He or she will never ask fo r something, 'inexpedient' (7.1 2.73). 'Certainly prayer'. he writes, 'is a test o f the a ltitude- o f the- character towards what is Jllling' (7.7.43.2). In contrast to most people. who pray fo r tempo ral things, the g,nostic views all s uch 'goods· as mere tools o n the path to ' knowledge a nd action in accordance with knowledge' (7.7.48.3). Thus. where the. .tummum bonum for the Didache's prayers is e.schato logit'al resolution, for Clement il is persona l spiritual achievement. Even so. fo r both. petitiomuy prayer o ught to transcend the 'goods· o f this current cosmos. Both also view the summum bonum as something no t finally atta inable in this life. For Clement. the gnostic ' has a ll good in po tentiality, though no t yet in fu ll !ale' (7.7.47.7), and so prays fo r ' the things that a re really good, i.e. those pertaining to t he soul. and he prays . . .that he may no lonboer have his good things a ttached to him like o rnaments. but may be himself good' (7.7.38.4). On the othe r hand. the gnostic a lre-a dy possesses what is prayed for by \•irrue of his knowledg,e a nd spiritua l unity with G od. T his> in turn. implies 'virtue according to (the) worth' what he possesses - namely, ' things intellectual and s piritual' (7.7.45.1 ). Aocording,Jy, the gnostic is vividly aware of ' the unseen ftH ure which he knows' (7.1 2.74.9), yet ' humbles himself for his entang,lements in t he necessities o rJife, being no t yet held worthy of the active participa tion in those things which he knows' (7.12.75. I). Unlike the Didaduis climaclic gathering prayers. then > which ple.ad for the Futhe.r 's inte rven tion fo r attainment o f the community's summum bonum, Clement seems to e nvision the gnostic as t he primary agent in his own ''irtuous progress. These comp~1risons s uggest an intriguing sympa thy that is, however. d iOkuh lo evaluate. Possibly, Clement o bta ined :1!1 oi' the Lr.lils he shares with the Dida('fte•s eucharistic tradition from a variety o f influence-S unc.onnected to the Didadw - such as. for instance, Philo a nd gnosticizing Alexandrian Christianity. On the o ther hand, such a prepo nder.tnce of shared assumptions within s uch a brief section of the Strommds (about

or

232

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

sixteen pa~.es oC single-spaced type-) is not something we. s ho uld expect.49 :\.
49 Origcn·s much lengthier treatise:

D~ora1io11e

lacks most of these: n:sonan<:t:s - except. is truly good (e.g. 17.2. 2Ll. .t"U). cCin<:ord in a prayer gathering (3 1.6). and the: bls.ic: notion of giving thanks to God for good {s~liri llla1) bltsSin,gs ( 13..1 14.2. 33.1. but sec 15.2) - while Orib"C!n·s rc:mt1rks on prayer do share certain other important themes with C lement. 10 the dcgn.X' thut he mny cwn huvc known Ck·mcnfs remarks (sec Aloin l c: Boulluo:. · t.es RC:-fkxions de Clhnent sur fa PriCrc et le Tr.1itC d'Orib.Cnc·. in L Perrone (cd.~ Origenia11a Ocwru: Origen ami tht> AIP.WIIulri(ul Trotlilion (2 vols: lcuven. Bdgium: Lc:u\><:n Uni\><:rsity Press. 2003). I. pp. 3?7-407). C f. esp. Or. 33 with the Ditlacfle·s very different form. 50 Sec Nicdcrwimmcr. Didachi'. pp. 6-8: Sandt and f-1usscr. Di(k(che. p. 81. nnd litcrnlurc cited by both. c.~. . purily for prayer (8.1 ). petitioning only for what

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

233

tria ls that meet us, whatever they may be:. which thy onJcring employs fo r our tra ining in steadfastne-ss (7 .12. 72.6: my formatting).

This pr.tyer has not been modeled on a nything we fmd in the Didadtc. Nor has the prayer thal concludes the Pac•dagogus. which ~..~ontains the following d osing fo rmulae: the Alone Father a nd Son, Son and F::u her. the Son. Instructor a nd Teache r. with the Holy Spirit, a ll in O ne. in whom is all. for w ho m a ll is One. for v.-·hom is eternity. whose members w<.· all
The concluding doxology is a form o f the- relatively expanded 'shorter doxology· a ttested in the NT, I Clement. Martrrdom of' Pol)'rarp a nd the

Apo.ttulir Trtulition. With regard to the Eucha rist itself. Clement's remarks are perhaps still more d iffic ull to evaluate.. Certainly one. can discover s tatements in C lement th
In sum. lhe charo.lCle rislic poslure of gr.Hilude for knowledge mtu.le available lhroug.h Jesus. lhe 'Son' o r lhe Father, is strongly represented in 51 I hn\•'C. of oourse-. not do-ne justice 10 dement's complc:t eu<:haristic views. Sc:c theintcrc:sting remarks of Van Eijk. 'Gospel of Philip'. pp. 106- 19: and Andri:-f\.U·-hat's hdpful synthesis ('dc:mcnl of Akxandrin·. in Willy Rordorf led.]. Mallhcw J. O'Conncll(tr.lns.). Tlte EudwriM qf lfu• £ar£r CllriJiiatU li\.tcw York: Pueblo. 1978 j. PI>. 99- 131). 52 M~hat, ·clctm~n t'. pp. 120- 21.

234

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Clement's remarks o n prayer. Some other resona nces wit h Lhe Didadtr's ritual logic a re also d isce-r na ble here. One need not stretch matters to suppose that some le\'el o f kinship (or acquaintance) exists between the two. but given the lack of fo rma l agreement, il is impossible-to conclude. s trictly. that Clement knows o r e mploys the eucharistic tradition o f the Didadw in its classic form. That tradition. more plausibly. has helped to sha pe t he ethos of pmyer that Clement has inherited from his Alexandrian context. even if fo r Clement t hat ethos m i.ght be limited to individual pra yer.

Till! Case of Sll'ltsboul'g Pttpy rus 254 lhe h1st stro ke in this sketch of Egyptian prayer. eucha ris tic or otherwise-, will demonstrate how a relatively pervasive concern with gra tit ude fo r knowledge from the Son could ultimately have led to the-abandonment of the Didadte•s n;Hive rit ua l se-ns ibilities. s uch as we e-n counte red in the liturgica l fragm ents that opened this cha pter. Strasbourg Pa pyrus 254 ha ils from Egypt a nd 'dates from the fourth or fifth century (although the actua l prayer may be older s till) a nd by verbal parallels reveals itself to be an l!'drly versio n o f the Anap hora o f St Ma rk'." So Paul Br•dshaw; b ut ;iCCording to Wa lter D. Ray. this version or the pra yer sho uld not be viewed as a pari of the a naphora 1 but rather as ' in itself a com plete e ucha ristic prayer'.~4 M-o reover, Ray shows tha t the prayer fits a secondce-n tury milie.u, a t a t ime when Jewish traditions are still current but the movement is seeking its own identity.ss Ray's compelling analysis or this prayer, which attends to its peculiar eucharis1ic logic, pennits us to ma ke some detailed comparisons with the Oidache's eucha ristic t radition.5& T he prayer~ as it stands in the S trasbo urg Pa pyrus. begins wit h a 'report' or 'praise' unit (creation through t he Son).:H tmnsitions to a thanks,g.iving or offering. and concludes with petitions (ind uding a hiatus) and a doxology. The thanksgiving proper re~tds as follows:

53 Brudshaw. &ard1. p. 106: cf. lkiss. Spriugtime. p. 211. 54 Ray. 'Strnsbourg Papyrus·. p. 39. Liturgists differ on the ·compktencs...,· of this •an:aphoru·: set Wegman. 'Unc anaphorc inoomplctcT. pp. 433-48: Cuming. Liturgy of St. Marie pp. xxi\•- x;(vi: Ma:aa. On:'JJ 25 (1?84). pp. 51- 5. Bradshaw doubts it was an :muphoru ("lntroductjon\ pp. 5-6). 55 Ray. 'Strasbourg Papyrus·. p. 54: cf. Cuming's a~ssmen t (Ururgy fJj Sr. Murk. p. xxiv). 5.6 Trnnslation from Ray. 'Strasbourg P!•pyrus·. pp. 44--5.0: emphases min<:. 51 'to bless (you) .. .[night] and day. fyou who made) heaven jandj all that is in (it.r c:tc.

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didat,he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

235

You made everything through your Wisdo m. the Light (or?] your t rue Son. o ur Lo rd a nd Saviour Jesus Christ. th rough whom to you and .,.,,ith him. with the Holy Spirit, gi~·iu,g tlumks. we offer the reasona ble: sacrifi ce an d this bk,odlccSs worship whic.h all the nations offer you. rrom the rising or the sun to its selli ng, from the north to the: so uth. fo r yo ur name is great a mong all the na tio ns. and in every p luoe incense is oiTcrt·tl to your holy mmte and 1:1 pure offe ring, o ver which sacrilicc a nd offering we pmy and beseech you .. .

Ray points out how similar the. phrases in the fourt h and 11fth lines a bove ('through whom to you . . .') a re to a doxology. which thtL< may lie behind them (as the conclusion of an earlier, smaller prayer unit'?). He a lso suggests tha t the origina l ma in \1erb of the prayer. 'we give- thanks' (•vxaptoTCru~iv) has been replaced with 'offer' (above. li ne 6), and he no tes the use o r Malachi 1.1 l as a n ·embo lism· tha t 'defines and provides the warrant for the eucharistic celebrmion'.j$ The petitions. moreove-r . share with the Didadu!'s prayer six the (possibly fixed) term ' remember', a lthough (as pointed o ut in Chapte r 5 above) this fo rmuhl was common in Jewish prayer (rabbinic and Qumran): Remember your holy a nd o nly Calholic ChurC'It. all your pc:opks and ull your llocks. Provide the pe.ace which is fro m heaven ... • • • (lnnma of J5- 10 line.,.) . . .Jfor secdtimt• and) har ve-st. ro r the poor or Jyour) people. fo r all of us who <:-all upon [your) name. fo r all who hope in you. G ive rest to the souls of those: who hu\'C: fallen usk-ep~ ri'member those o r whom we- mukc: mcnlion tod<~y. both those whose names we say Ja nd] whose we do not say ... (RnuemberJ o ur or thodox falhc:rs and bishops everywhere: and grant us to have- a part and lot with the fair. .. Re<."!C:ivc (?)(through] tht·ir <.'n trcatic:s Lthese pmycrsJ.. .

Moreove.r , the conclusion of the doxology is as close to the Oidad1e's fom1 as any: . . .grant 10 them. through our Lord and Saviour, through whom be: glory lo you thro11.~h tile ages.

SS

Ray. 'Str.lsbourg Papyrus·. pp. 48-9.

236

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

The fonnal similarities. then, between this pmyer and Didadw 9-10 a re as follows: the use of 'give-t hanks' (~:Uxapun~lv). with the additional sense (as in Did. 9.5 and 14. 1- 3) of the prayers as a 'sacrilke'; the use of the petition 'remember your. . .assembly". wilh a n ela boration of the petitions in keeping with the kind of elabo ration (in principle) sum;ested by the Didadu's model: and the use of a concluding doxo logy that (however) makes Jesus the mediato r of glory. An additional simila rity would hold if smaller prayer units lie behind this continuous prayer. All of these similarities simullaneously suggest kinship and d ista nce. For example. allhough the Strasbourg Papyrus retains the traditional verb of thanksg,i ving (EUxaptoTEl v) at its begjnning, it cites Malachi within the prayer iL~elf, and there by c hanges the verb o f ·offering' . This might represent o r!Ylnic development from the Didt~che's eucha ristic tntdition, but only on the basis o f Didache 14.3 - thus the document rather than the ora l fofm. Oellning. the assembly as 'holy and o nly catholic• is obviously an evolved notion, while the petitions request no t gatherin& into God•s kingdom but instead a share in heaven fo r the departed . Finally, offe.ring the doxology rltrou.stll Chrisr is no t a development that evolves org~micallv from t he Didadu(s usage. T hus. again. extr.tneous factors Me s ugg.ested .51) Perhaps most intere~~ ting o f all. however, is this prayer"s silence regardin~ Jesus' passion. Instead , t he pr.tyer has a 'cosmologic~ll' orienta tion. perhaps envisio ning pa rticipation in the· "blood less worship" or t he. hea\'enly liturgy o r ang_ els a nd saints' 60 - reminist~ent of some remarks in Clement a nd probably the- Tripartite Trai'ltttc. Strasbo urg, in keeping with its Egypthin milieu. ~iccents C hrist's role ~is 'God's \Visdom in Creation and High Priest in redempt ion', rather than his passio n.61 Ray points out that the conception ol' 'wisdom' here is akin to 'Jewish Wisdom theolo~,y". with its fOcus on (.~reation, the 'mediation o f perso nified Wisdom·. and its 'spiritualized conception of .sacrifice'. He is also able to point to additio nal Jewish influell(.-.es.62 which could in t urn explain any similarities we lind to the Didatlu:'s formulae, eliminating :my d irect kinship with our prayers. However, given the s urprisingly exact parallel ' remember your. . . as.."embly'. one may inste-a d suggest t hat a few sparse st ructural elements from the Didache's ritual ha ve survived in a prayer tradition that has evolved its own native logic. By this, I do not mean that the Didathe•s ritual logic has s ubstantially influenced the prayer in the Strasbourg 59 Rather different is Wegman's asscssml· nt (' Unc nnaphore i ncomplct~"?'. p. 437). which n'lics on :Lssumptions about Dirl. 10 critiqued in Chs.. 3 nnd 4 abo\'C. 60 Ray. 'Stmsbourg P:1pyrus·. p. 56. 61 Ray. 'Strasbourg Pt~ pyrus·. p. 45. 62 Ray. 'S!mshourg Papyrus·. p. 46. d . PI>. 53-4. Ma zza t1lso aucmpts to trace Jewish roots for the pmycr (O•·igitu. pp. 194-8).

The lnf/uenl'e of the Didal'he 's Ritual Logir in Egypt

237

Papyrus. More likely. inste<Jd, the prayer tradition represented by the papyrus made selective use of lr.lditions a variety sources, including perhaps a ritua l like the Didatht•'s a nd certainly Jewish tr.tditions not utilized in the classic fo rm o f that ritual Pa rt the ra tionale lOr this fresh combination o f t raditional e lements could have been to encourage \'arious constituencies to Jlnd common ground in an emerging pr.tyer tr.tdition - s hading ove.r deeper diverg_ ences in practice. Another part of the rationale could simply have been a sense of respect for traditional ways of offe-r ing prayer to God. That such a fresh composition o r various elements could have occurred in Egypt is hardly surprising.

rrom

or

or

Conc/us;ons The phrases and fo rmulae of Didal'iw 9- 10, as well as its rit ual logic, a re better auested in Egypt than elsewhere. Egypt, moreover, has been a site ror .scholarly speculation .since Waller Bauer, at le--dst. T he mystique of fgy pt for early Christian o rigins only incre.a sed \\~th the Nag Ha mmad i d iscovery. This is not the plat-e to engage in deba tes a bo ut Egyptian Christianity. as such. However, ~1s is well known, Egypt was home to espec.:.ially diverse Christian movements. and Egypt is c redited with producing some or the. mos t cre.ative and controversial earl}' Christhtn thinke rs - Valentinus. Basilides. Orige.n . In such a climate. the Didaduls ritual takes its phtce. not a.s a key IOrma tive m;nrix for the emergence of new Christian sects. b ut rather as a puzzlingly te nacio us residue in the prayers and prayer assumptions of Egyptian Christians. How can we account for the use o f the Didac!Je's ritua l logic of gr.uitude for things made known through Jesus the servant of God. in such d isparate sources as Barnabas. Diogn(!lus and De ''irginilllle'? Why do isolated fom1ulae from the Didadu~·s lhed prayer logic s urface in the Strasbo urg Papyrus ;lnd Valentinian pntyer fragments - two r;idil"a lly d ifferent second- or t hird-t-ent ury prayer texts·~ Why is the bread-prayer preserved almost verb~itim in s uch late a naphoras as Sarapion and P. Dt1r Balizeh1 I have t ried to press t hese questions to their fe<Jsible limiL< by collecting this evidence into one cha pte r. a nd by analysing the ways tha t s pecific ronnulne. IOund in Didac'lu~ 9- J0 a re used in each o f these. documents. T he one t hread tha t holds tog.e1her these observations, tha l was suggested again and again in these tr.tces, was a palpa.ble. respect in Egypt for the e ucha ristic t radition preser"ed in the Didtl<'he. Frequently. the Didadw itself cannot be assumed to lie a t hand~ inste.a d. as I have a rgued , t he ritual preserved in that document was s till practised in Egypt~ in some fo rm, a t t he time rhese documents (or their sources) were composed . With occasional exceptions. these. documents do not display the Didarhe's ritua l logic directly: they o nly take up our pr.lyers' fonnulae

238

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

or images within t heir own rit ua l logk s. The 'host• Jog.ic is not a lways tha t or the Last Supper tr.tdition, but for wha tever reason - not necessarily doctrinal in nature - the Didadw's native logic as s uch was. not fo und adequate for most o f the Christians in Egypt for whom d ocumentary

evidence survives. At one point it is possible lo be more precise a bo ut that reason: the ritual script in the Didache effectively curtails elaboration o f the- nature-1 history o r function of Jesus. T he focus in the Didarhe's prayers is exclusively on the Father and the reali:tation o f his reig,n. The ro le of Jesus. is lim ited to t hat of a~_ent of revelation, a nd this rew!lmion is what is e laborated ;.~nd celebrated in the classic fo rm of o ur prayers. This perspective., as we have seen, diffe.red sharply from that of the last suppe r tradition. wilh irs heavy emphasis on Jesus' hislory> the slory o f his inca rnalion and suffering for others. Now we may add thal it a lso d iffered sharply from, fo r exa mple. the logic oC the- St rasbourg Papyrus. which e mphasized the role of Jesus as 'wisdom· o r God. agent o f n eat ion and cosmic mediator. Such a sapiential conception o f JeStL" is a kin lo ide-a s in Orige n and in VaJentinian wrilings, and il (.~an be tr.tced in Sarlipitm's anaphord. T his concept mus t have been ra ther widespread in Egyptian circles. It s hould no t surprise us th:-tt the Didad1e's ritual logic would be Cound uns uita ble in s uch a setting. In other words. the Didadw's ritual logic is uncongenial bo th to the Lasl Supper trddition a nd to the. more philosophica l t rends of later Alexandrhm Christianity. The wonder, indeed, is tha t o ur em:ha ris tic t radition s urvived ~It a ll. that leaders of a later age seem compelled to reuse its fo rmul;-te a nd images at all compelled to acknowledge.• perhaps, its a ntiquity and even its pull fo r a certa in cons tituency in the m ovement.

Chapter 9 THE END Or A TRAJECTORY

handed over to Pihtte. the-governo r ;lnd judged, the Judge and condemned. the Saviour nailed to a cross. the Impassive and put to death. the Immorta l by na ture and buried , the life-giver t hat He might d issolve sunerings and lead out of death t hose for whom He drew near a nd shaner the c-ha ins of the. Devil - and He will rescue humankind from his tre-a chery

Liturgy of St Clement

or

Once We have. exhausted t he positive C\1idence for the influence the Didat'lu:'s me.al ritual, we encounte r a dead end that is itself instructive. This dead e nd has two faces. two d imensions, which a re not entirely d istinct A consideration o f these tvlo dimensions will e.n able me to offer a summary overview of the. con(·.Jusions reached in this study regarding the tr•jectory o f the meal ritual of Didadre 9-10.

Riwal Rivtt!ries There are a number of clues in e-a rly Christian lite-r.Hure that su~e;est the existence of d iversity in e ucha ristic practice. AJI of the-se -d ues come from leaders in the movement who viewed t he Last Supper traditio n as no rmative. In these passages. very little is said about rival prattites, and instead attention focuses on certain litm us tests, derived rrom that supper trddition. Thus far. I have focused on evidence for the ongoing inOuence o r the Didadul s e ucharistic tradition and ritual logic, especially in liturgical compromises. T he picrure o r these liturgica l compromises. from the side of t he Last Supper tradition. can be e nhanced if we set it against the background or JX>lemicaJ as..liertionS OC(-aSionaiJy made with regard 10

240

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

this critical community ritua l. as the movement sought to define some identifying t'haracteristics. 1 Perh~1ps the most explic.:.it statement is foun d in Igna tius: 'They a bs ta in from the tWdwristia and prayer. in tha t they do no t confess t hat the eudwristia is the llesh or our ~wior Jesus Christ, which (Oesh) sufle.red fo r our sins. which {ilesh). by his goodness. the Father ra ised· (Smym. 7.1).2

'They" in this case are certain indh•id uals who say, 'Jesus seemed to suffer" (Smrp1. 2.1; tX>mpare Tm/1. 10). and who hold that Jesus did not rise from the dead wit h a ilesh-a nd-blood body (SIIIJ'YII. 3: compare Tm/1. 9.2). Lillie else is known about these individuals - includ ing the.ir more constructh•e a pproach to Jesus and their own no tions o f the Eucha rist and ba ptism. It is reasona bly clea r that t hey did celebra te a Eucharist and baptism, however (Smym . 8.1 - 2) - proba bly without refere nce to the narr.ttives of Je-s us' baptism by Jo hn and o f his p
lrene~tus' o bjection (here-and elsewhere.) is tha t the heretics' usage of the Eucharist - indeed. o flh e body-and-blood Eucharist - is incons istent with their theology (see- Haer. 5.2.2- 3). In contrast with such views. . . .o ur opinion is in a cc\Hda m:c with the Eucharist. a nd the Euc.ha rist in tu rn c--s lablishcs o ur opinion. For we. oiTer to H im His o wn . a nnouncing cu nsistcnlly the fellowship and union of the llcsh und Spirit. For as the bread . which is prodoced from the earth. w hen it receives the in\'OCation o f God. is no longer com mon bread. b ut the Eucharist. consisting of two realities. earthly und heave-nly: so also o ur bodies. when thc::y r<.-ccivc

I Anoth<:r importunt dispute:-. not discussed hc:-rc. involved the contents of the cup: soc. e.g .• Cyprian. EJ•. 63.9-19: :tnd McGowan. A.rcetic Eltch(lri.H.r. pp. 204--11.254-5.

2 Schocdd rond<:r.s this subordinate:-clause ·A>t·auJi! th<:y do not confess' (emphasis mine). which is grnmmutically correct but should be taken with a pioch of S
Tile End of ll Trlljetlory

24 I

the Eucharist, ure no longer corruptible. having the hope of the rcsuiTcxtion to eternity (J.Iaer. 4. 18.5 JA NF 1.4861).

However, t here is reason to doubt th~H lrenaeus re~1lly knows wha t kind of e ucha ristic pract ices his rivals perform. He assumes tha t bre~-td and cup are offered to God as Creato r (see Htwr. 4.18.4) and t hat the 'word of God ' makes the cup and bread the blood and body or Christ (see Hiler. 5.2.3).4 But if we ta ke a hint from the Va lentinian eu<.~haristic prayers d iscussed in Chapter 8 a bove. their own notions of t he Eucha rist likely involved rather d ifferent metaphors fo r. o r rilualizations o f. t he bre.ad a nd cup. If so . they clc.a rly could have ce lebrated Eucharists witho ut falling into such self-c.ontrddiction.s Finally. a late a nd highly redacted apocalyptic text known as the Af'Oc"li~}'pSt~ or Vision t?f Paul contains a passage condemning: certa in persons who hlil to regard the bread and c up as the body and blood of C hris t According to The.odore Silve.rstein, this document probably 11rsl made its appearan(-.e in Greek in t he third ce.n tury (Orige n may ha ve known of it), and d rew freely a nd clumsily upon p re\1ious apocalypses. It is best preserved in l a tin. but the G reek archetype-lOr the numero us La tin tr.tnslations was a version reissued a fte r 388 - subsequently condemned by A ugustine. O ur JX-tssage is most li kely a mong t he older portions of the work. but its o rigins have not bee.n detem1ined :6 And the a ngel a nswered and suid to me (Paul): If some.one is sent into this wd l of the abyss .und it is sealed above him. refcn.· m:e is m:vcr made to him before the Fathe r and the Son a nd the Holy Spirit and the holy angels . And I said : Who a rc these. sir. who arc scm into th is well'! And he said to me: T hey arc those who have not confessed that C hrist came in the llcsh and that the Virgin Mar y bore him. and who say that the bread of the Euc.harisl and cup of b lessing arc not the body and blood o f Christ ( 4 1).

The heretics in question appe-.tr to be closely related - either literarily or socio.llly - to the people Jg:n~itius condemned.' The ve.r y next group condemned in the .~JWmiJ·psc• of Paul sha res this trait: ' those who say th at C hrist has not risen from the dead a nd that this fiesh does not rise' (42). Within t he con\'entions o f the genre, these might actually be. the- same 4 The~ two notions arc also represented in a fragment on !he: Eocharist t1scribcd to I n·naeus (jp7) and transJatc:
242

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

heretics, even though t hey a re treated separa tely: condemned to an oblivion like ned to :. stinking well (4 1) or a place of ice and s now (42). In any case> t he. ideas are rela ted to o ne a nother and to their fonnul:llion in Ignatius and (for th~it maHer) in t he scholarly imagination of 'doce tists·. The hMsh c.o nde-m nation of these rltual dissidents demonstrates the cenlr.tlity o r the bread a nd cup as body and blood, as constit utive for the orthodox, catholic churches of the third a nd fo urth centuries. It may also imply a hardening of t he bo undaries between the ·,·a thoJic• thurthes and this rival group, 1hat is, the achievement o f (gnatius' hopes. This: apocalypse shows that the 't~H holics' have set the euc.haristic ag.e nda, and that d issidents are defined o nly by their rcjecliou of that agenda, no t by their own positive perceptions concerning the-Eucharist. These dissidenlS may have colluded in this se-t o f a n·a irs by rallying behind such negations. ·n 1is sketch o f t he ritua l rivalries r.tises more questions than il :lnswers. In particular. what positively d id groups that lg,na tius e ncountered and th~it, perhaps> were s till in existence in the lale third t:enttlry celebra te in their e ucha ristic gathe.rings':t To what extent d id they allow the emerg.ing 'catholic> churches to define the ag_ e nda, and when did this shift ta ke 8 plat.e? 1n any case. t his co nfrontation and condemnation from one side of the debate- sets in relief the kinds of liturgic.:a l compromise$ that one e ncounters elsewhere. In these deba tes, the body and blood ot Christ stands as the litmus test fo r the 'authentic' Eucha rist. T he usefu lness o f this debate-fo r o ur purposes is sim ply to demo nstrate how d ivergjng eucharistic traditions tended to fare in such a climate-. Although the meal ritual preserved in the- Didadte is not 'doc-etic' and cannot e-a sily be termed 'gnostic'. it s till could no t be embraced as it s tood by the emerging. 'grea t church'. Above all . it would ha ve failed the litmus tes t of equating bread a nd cup with body a nd blood - a Cailure that may have smacked of heresy - while it emphasized a d:ingerously unspecified revehHion from (not a bout) the Father and lhrough (not a bo ut) Jesus. Also, this eucharistic fo rm may well have seemed to minimize the-status of Jesus; a t least it would have seemed ·wro ng.- he~t d ed' in its exclusive emphasis on his role as mediator of knowledge and in its lack of appropriate honorilk titles. Not surprisingly} then, we h:we seen tha t the incorpora tion o f elements from the Didai'he's eucharistic tradition into a number of 'convergent versions' routinely transgresses its native-logic in fa vour of other ways to offer thanks to God, whether these ways rely upon the l ast Supper tradition for their force or not. All or these- trends t~in be condusivelv demo nstrated in the major. a mbi1ious restatement o f Didathe 9-10. which 8 Scholarly work on •docetics· has yet to SC'riously cng~•gc these: problems. Guy G. Stroumsa raises some of these ritu:1l questions but does not )'C'I allcmpt to resolve them ('Chrisl's laughter: Oocctic Origins Reconsidered·. J£CS 12 12004]. pp. 267-8:8).

Tile End of ll Trlljetlory

243

was can ied o ut in a fourth-century collection of churc h-o rder materials~ the AposWii£' Ctmstitutious.

Apostolic Constitutions 7.25-6 This fou rth-century compendium contains, in book 7, a thorot!ghly revised version of the entire Didal'he, no t le~-tsl ii.S meal prdyers.9 To illustrate the characte.r of the a lter. uions introduced in this later re-vision. I will place the two texts in pa ra llel columns, with significan t altera tions in the /(lfer text placed in italics. Fir:;t, consider the fate of t he document: Did. 9. 1- 4

Now as to the Eucharist. o iTcr lhe thanksgiving in this wuy: CUP PRAYER 3 A nd concerning the fra gment: · we tha nk you. o ur f~uthcr.

Didlldl~'s

pre-meal pr.tyers in this

Cousl. up. 7.25. 1--4 Be a lways gjving thanks, as fn ithful a nd honc:st slaves: a mi as lo the Eucharist. sptmk in this way: · re,'nww d -

·we th ank you. o ur Father. for the life: w hic.h you made known to us which you made known to us through Jesus yo ur servnnl. through Jesus your s~:rva n t. · 'To you be glory unto the ages.' - 1m tftJ.wlogyllmmgh wlrum also you mude all things. nnd take care o f thc: whole. whom a lso yo u sent ltl :u!ffer uml die. whom nlso you J't!Sttrrt'c-li!tl und wen: well pJ..-as~.-"<1 to glorify, nnd sc:atc:d him u l your right hnnd. through whom also you promisc:d to us the: resurrectio n from the dc
for the life and k nowledge.

9 Grock tc:tt (of Ctmst. ap. 7) is from Mctze'Ct. Les CoiiSiilutimu· tlpiMtoliqut!s. Ill: on the tc:tfs da te .9:C I. pp. 57- 62 (although )SON. is probably too P"'"'isc). With my n•nu1rks here c:f. Br<~dsh >lW. Euc!Farislk Origitu. pp. 117- l l.

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

244

So let your assembly b~ gathered from the four (ct,rncrs) of the earth. into your kingdom:

4

so gather your assembly from the fo ur (corners) o f the earth, into your kingdom. Agllin we thank )YJU. o ur Father. for (Un~pj the prodtms blood of Jesus

for cup prayer'! •

C!tri.,·t which was poured out fo r

('To you be glory unto the ages. ~ Amcn.n ' For yours is the power and the glory,

us. am/the predou.,· h()(/y, of w hic.h we also ttlcbrntc I hi.\· r epre.wmtali<m. he himself hm•ing OfiJmiu tetl u," to slww j'rmh hi." tleat!t. f'or through him to you also be glory unto the ages. Amtm:

unto t he ngcs.·

The a ltera tions fa ll inlo lWo basic conceptua1 categories. First, the mediating_ ac.tivily or Jesus has been completely transformed: he now mediates b
n,.

10 The prnycrs. lilcJltg/1 IIIey do Mf am!ainlhe • ~'tJrds (lfitulilllliml. druw ritual force from that tradition. t iS shown by the phrase 'he himself hnving nppointcd us to show forth his death" and the r\:quisitc symbolism lbody. blood. suO"cring. etc.).

Tile End of ll Trlljetlory Did. I 0. 1- 5 I . And afte r eating your fi ll. o iTcr the thanksgiving in this wny: 2. ·we thank you. holy Fathe r. for your holy name. w hid1 you made to reside in our hcans. and for the knowlcd!,>e a nd faith nnd immortality th at you made known to us through Jesus your scr\'unl. · 'To you be glo ry unto the ugcs.' 3. ·vou._ almighty "-'laster,

cn.· atOO a II things fo r the sukc of your name., and h ave given nourishme-nt and d rink to a ll humanity. for (their) c njoyme.nt, so tha1 they would thnnk you .

245

Crm:>l. Ufl. 7.26. 1-4

And after the parlid puli<)IJ. offer the tha nksgi,-ing in this way: ·w e thank you. Grul and Father o f Jesus our Sa''iQr. for your holy na me, which you made to reside (lfmmg u.-. a nd fo r the k no wkdgc: und fa ith amllo~·e a nd immortality tha t you gtll'l' to us lhrou;;h Jesus your scrvanL -

lUI

tftiXOfogy -

Yo u. almighty r>-·htstcr. God or the w hole world. who created the oosmos a nd the things in il. through him. a nd pla nted tilt' law in our souls a nd in udva m:c p rq,an:d things for the partaking

or h uma nity

But us you have favoured

with sp irituul no urish ment ;md d rink. and <.' h.'mal lifc th rough your SC"rvanl. God or Oflr holy mul blumeleS.\'.fttihcrs,

Abmlwm. /:wac uml .lat·ub ymtr fuith}ltl sen·t mls. (4 . A bove ull.

we thank you th:tt you un: able.')

God uble. faithful. a nd tr ue, and not lying in his promises. Who st-utlo 1he etJI'Ih Je:w.>t lu's Chri.-.1.

to live-with humankind as u h umun. being Grxllhe Wol'tl am/ mtm. and to root out t•rror. 'To you be glory unto the ages.' - nu duxology Now also. tlmmgh him. 5. ·Remember. Lo rd. your assembly! Remember this your lwly assembly!

Wllich .mu flw·clwsed wilh tht! prerious bltHJd t1l your Chri.,·t. Nott" that Did. 9.5 is altcn-d in rdatcd ways: baptism 'in the tmme of the Lord' is changed to baptism 'into the dt'alfl of the lord'. the dominical saying is n'tnO\•cd. tmd the criterion of '(belonging to) tilt> fltith ofCIJI'ist is in1roduccd (emphases mine).

246

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom to rcsc.uc hc:r from a ll evil. and to make her perfect in your love. and to gather her fro m the four winds. - jwhcn she has been made holy) into your kingdom. which you have prepared for herr 'For yours is the: powe-r and the glory unto the ages.'

a nd rescue her from all evil. a mi ma ke her perfec t in your love. a nd gather all o/ us

into your kingdom. which you hnvc prepared fo r her!' - 110

dtu·o/t)g,r -

The same two conceptual c.:~-ttegories that re-oriented the. Ditlntlu.~·s premeal prayers t-an also be round here: Jesus· role as medi~Hor of c reation and of the community's prayers, but not mediator oC knowledge ('made known' is even chang.ed to 'gave'); and the saving, redeeming tMalh of Jesus ('Sa,•iour•, ' precious blood'). In addition. the incarnation is worked in, a nd so are boLh 'the law' and the Hebrew pa triarchs. 11 Once again>the ritual script has been obliterated: we are inste.a d presented with a single prayer, consisting of a series of themes, most likely at the d iscretion of the bishop o r presbyte r who le~tds the prayer. 12 F inally. the concluding ritual at-clamations or Didal'he 10.6 have been tampered with: Did. 10.6 ·Let grm:e co me and this world pass away!' • Ho.wuma to the God o r David !'

Coust. ap. 7.26.5- 6

- omilled Manmailw! Uosmmu to the Sm1 of DH\'id!

B!eJ.wd is 1/w o11e who come:~

·Anyone who is holy. kt him come.

iu the IUI111e of the L(m/.' God. the: Lo rd. num{fe.\·t to us ill tlw j/esh. Anyone who is holy. let him come j(mrt~rd.

Anyone who is not. lc:t him re pent'

Anyo ne who is not. lct him become so through repc:ntuncc.

These final a<..x:lamalions are now what they 'ought' to be: an invitation by the prie.Sl to the congregation) to 'c.ome fo rward ' and pa rtake of the elements (altho ugh this order conOicts with Cons/. ap. 26.1 ). ·n ,e II The Two Wn)'s nmtcrinl in Apostolic Collstilllti(lll.~ exhibits a similnr. intriguing sd or " Iterations: it rn-qucntly citts the.' (Jewish) Sctipturcs and dc\'atcs Moses' role.'. 12 Proph't'ts nrc displut'Cd from Did. 10.7: 'your presbyters' nu1y conduct the Eucharist {'us much us they desire' is dropped).

Tile End of ll Trlljetlory

247

·Hosanna' cry has been altered, in line with Mall hew·s G ospel (MI. 21.9). The 'Marauatlw· has bee.n moved. 'Amen' has been deleted. h is no longer cle.;u whether or not the compiler en,1iS:ions a ny s peaking part for the community in this porlion of the ritlm1. It sho uld be obvious that this version of Didtu:he 9- JO does not represent a~n organic development of the Didaduls own prayer s tructure a nd logic. b Rather we have here a (proba bly artilkial) ' updating· of an a lready ancient praye.r fo rm. from a text . which aims to bring that text 14 into line with a n emerging orthodox e ucha ristic pa lle rn. T his ;1genda is made explicit in the directives that immediately follow t he prayers: 'Whoever. when he comes to you. o.Ucr.\' the tlwnksgil'iug in this way. receive him as a d isciple o f Christ But ii he preaches a Leaching o ther Lhan the o ne Christ handed d01m 10 you ( no:p,OwKEv]Lhrough us. do no t permil s uch a person 10 of!"'· lfre llwnksgi>•ing' (Cons/. tip. 7.28. 1- 2, my e mp hases; compare Did. 11.1- 2). But this artificial impositio n o f a rival eucha ristic logic upon the Didad uf s form is itself instructive, lOr il demonstrates wha l has alre-.ady been shown in o ther w;-tys thro ughoul this study: namely~ thal the Didadw's ritual logjc d id not represent, and could hardly have evolved inlo) the orientation of the l ast Supper tradition. T ha t the rewriting of the Didadre as such spelled its demise seems d ear fro m Lhe transmission histo ry o f our text. T he Apostolic· CmtSiilutions successfully replaces t he older a nd o utdated Didache.

Conc/us;ons I h;we-~one. to some lengths in the lasl three c hap ters to establish two ke.y points: firs t. Lhat the e ucha ristic tradition a uested in the Didathe had some currency in <."ertain regions. a pa rt from its use within the D idadw itself; a nd second. Lhat this currency. however limited. leit Lraces in a surprising number o f pr.ayer fragmenlS from the- pre-Constantinian period. T hese traces, I have argued. are better described as compromise-S wilh or a llusions to a ritual form respected in some circles, tha n as actually 13 cr. Harnack, Lebro. H. p. 29: Clabcau.x. ' Eucharistic Pmyer.>'. p. 262. Mt.:aa·s trcatmcnl is problematic (stt OrigitJ.s. pp. 43-61: and <:ontrusl his r<:marks on PI>. 52. 56- 7). p:1rtly because he does no!. I think. b~"Pn with u clctlr e-nough notion of the Did(lche·s disliocti\•e cucharisti<.· logic (sec-. e-.g.. pp. 13--40): d. Bradshaw. Eudwrillic Origi11s. pp. 116-21.

14 Sec the a 1utions in Bmdshaw. Sntrdr. pp. 17- 19. 9 1- 7. As M ctt.~,'<:t remarks. 'the compiler. . .does not pretend to describe what he obscn •es but (0 impOS(' some. traditions th:11 he considers :1postolic' (Us Cunstiwtions uprJJioliqut'.\'. I. p. 57). The prayer in Co11s1. ((('. 7 ba.s more thematic p.1rallds with the prayer in Ap. Tmd. 4 than with Did. 9- 10. Finally. a '!i<:nli·ArLan· pcrspccti\'c in the Aj'tJJiolic' Cotl.~litutiCNIS would not aOCct this asscssmcnl (on this debate. see Metzger. U.s CmmilllfitHU aJiiJJiolique.s. II. pp. 1 0-.~9).

248

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

emlviug from tha t ritual fo rm. The specilk conclusio ns I have reached along the w:-ty can be clarified and illumina ted by bringing them together. The ritua l form auested in Didarhe 9- JO a lmost certainly survived the destruction of the Second Temple. the. inclusion of Gentiles in the movement. and the development of institutions that rivalled those of emerging: normative Judaism. Its ritual logic impacted communitie-S in Syria and particularly in Egypt. and its euclwriSil!6-fo rm dominates the development of a non-me-a l prayer - probably fro m an initiation o r hea1ing ritual - within sympathetic comm unilies in those regjons. h appears: to h::tve exerted some inOuence. (directly or not) on both the writer or the Epistle of' Barnabas ;lnd C lement or Alexandria . and it also

probably informed the pr.tyer pr.tctices of asc.-.etic circles in E,g.ypi in(o the third or even fourth century. among. whom the llxed prayer form for the bre.a d was used to sanctify daily meals, and fOr whom notions attested in Didaclw 10 helped one transcend mere rood. Pro ba bly fro m the beginning, this meal ritua l was tied to a ritual process of initia tion into the ·assembly of the Lord' by immersion into water. EvenlUally. in some a reas or perh;-tps only in a particular locality, this process came to involve preparatory fasting a nd instruction. not only in Jesus' teachings but also in bask moral tenets: the meul came to be viewed as incre-a singly sacred. and the confession of infractions asainst the commandments, a long with the language of 's.acrifict! ·.came to bolste r its sacrality. This ritua l process, despite structural s imilarities with the initiation p rocesses found in othe-r early C hristian liter~tture, appears to remain fairly idiosyncra tic precisely bec~-mse (and in so far as) it c ulmina tes in the prayers attested in Didathe 9- 10. As long as those pr.tyers remained in use. the initiate was in this t~ise being granted knowledge t hat was claimed to o riginate from the Father, mediated by his servant Jesus. The community tha t ga thered for the meal was scripted in the role of an eschatologjcal potentiality. ·n liS religious and social posture was. achieved a bove all by the periodic repetitio n of the fixed formulae of this comm unity"s meal ritual; and it also must have been fostered by (and helped to foste r) the t~rpe of instruction transmitted in these-circles. 'rhe prayer tradition preserved in the Didadte may ha ve h:id a slight impact on p rayer language in Asia Minor and Rome. As early as the la te first century. the fo rmulaic e-xpressions ' through Jesus your servant' and 'to you be the glory fo r ever' - both in elaborated fo rms - made their way {from somc1rhere) into the-prayer vot--.abulary of a le~-tding ligure in Rome, who was heir to a number of earlier streams of Christian tradition. T hese expressions appear in an eve.n less elabor~ite form in Smyrna as late ;.ls the mid-set~ond ce-ntury. a nd from this laler period again in Rome (or perhaps. Egypt). From this evidence we m~iy s urmise that sud1 form ulae we-r e shared among. an e ntire net work of'bishops' and community leaders fro m Rome to Asia Minor. In the same-regions and during the same period. the

Tile End of ll Trlljetlory

249

Last Supper tntdition was occasionally made a rallying point to <:omba t

rival eucharistk conceptions (and doctrinal disputes} Perhaps it is no accident that Jus tin Martyr. with ties to bot h Rome and Asia 1\•tinor, can characte rize t hat supper tr.tdition as fundame.ntal to the eucharistic assem bly. But other inlluences were clearly a lso involved . In these regions. and evidently within t his cli mate, certa in fom1u lae par.llleled in the DidtU'ile had been (re-)formulated to ta ke in Jesus' title 'Christ' a nd to make him the media tor o fGo(.rs glory. T hese expansio ns accompany the formulae in a spectrum of eucharistic and other prayer texts from Rome. Egypt and even Syria. A tr~u:e residue. of the Didachc's ritual logjc can perhaps o<..-casionally be-s uspt.x:ted here. especially in the notion that Jesus made the f~1ther known, but nothing of the open-ended quality of the. pr.tyers or its characte ristic disposition is in evidence. Instead. the relatively expanded fo rmulae s how consis te-n t tendencies: Jesus is not the mediator o f knowledge but rather. typica lly. the mediator o f the thanksgiving, and o f the g,lory o l1ered to the Father - that is. of the sacrillcial act. This ide<J is found already in Ephesians 5.20 (thus Asia Minor). where eucha ristic prayer may be in view: 'always and fo r (Un[pJ everything giving thanks in the n:une o f our Lo rd Jesus Christ to God the Fat her'. Jesus is also, frequent ly. the media tor or cre-.ation (contrast Did. 10.3). a nd as christological debates heat up, this tan be expressed in dog,m atic terms like ' Logos' and 'only-begotten·. We may venture to concJude that in Rome and Ash1 Minor. t he Didat'hc•s ritual did not exert a ny substantial inlluent.-e upon euch;uistic development. Its native ritual logic is difficult to t race in any significa nt manifestation. fn Egypt. alon~~ide evidenl-e fo r the s urvival of the Didadu:"s meal rirual we di.'K~over an emph~isis upon the. communil-a tion o f knowledgJ~ thro ugh the eternal Son, the elabora tion of a kind o f Jewish \\~sdom theology, and the somewhat id ioSyncratic ~ICCOmmodation of the JXiS.Sion narra tive. Each development presents its own challeng.es to the Didathe's ritual (Onn. especially the-Iaue r's retie~nte to expound upon the identity a nd mythica l feats or Jesus. Here we fi nd our stro ng.est evidence- for liturgica l compromises, o r synthetic t raditions. whic h combine a fea ture o r two rrom the Didarlle"s ritual form (or its characteristic posture) with a n accent on esoteric revela tion. re ferences to Jesus• suliering:>. and e.ventually even t he institution narr.ttive. Perhaps, too. propo nents of a Jewish wisdom theology a re. making efforlS. to brea the new spirit into the bo nes of a few fom1Uiae- from the Didathc"s eucharistic t radition. If so. wha t must have been a complex a nd dynamic process has left behind o nly a few artifacts from which to reconstruct the history of o ur prayers· survival and ultimate-displacement in Egypt. LilUrgical reforms sweeping. through post-Constantinian orthodoxy led gradually to a more uniform eucharistic practice thro ugho ut the empire. The institution narrative-, a lthough absent irom Apostolic CmtJtifutions

250

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

7.26. e-ventually became de rigueur. Compilations like the Aposwli<· Conslitwions, alongside the lilmus test of 'body and blood', show clearly enough how the ancient rit ual pre$erved in the Didat:he must have fa red. hs most lasting influence was in Egypt, and even there our earlie-St liturgical fragments are hardly in profound debi to its ritual logic. Hence, at the end of our trajectory we encounter heresy debates and revisions. 15 If virgin women in Egypt continued to uller the Didathtls bread prayer to sanctify their meals. they were-also being taught to reg,a rd lhe hour of the daily meal as the-time when the Lord. crudfied on the-c ross, gave up his spirit. Such a framework surely infused a new llavour into the prayer that th;mked God fo r making life known lhroug.h his servant Jesus. E\•tmtually, some scribe corrected this prayer for the \tirgins, too: We. thank you. o ur Fulhe r. for the holy a nd estt't'ntod flesh ine-s s o f your Son Christ o ur God. which (Jleshinc:ss) we. in ket·ping with his divine co mmand. eating daily. arc gladdened with regard to this perceptible bre-ad . tmnsJorming it in his kindness o n account of our weakness: a nd (we: tha nk you I because through him we have known you. the true: God a nd our Fathe r a nd your all-holy Spirit. whic h (spirit) enlightens us a nd co nsok s us und has guided our recognition to whnt is o f you: whenoe we ask you that this l:x: ag;rc<.~tble a nd cheering in o ur bodily substance and that it ne\'c:r be lacking through our great unworthiness. but indeed that each (of us) muy worthily partake o f the bread. co nsidered the: life-crc.a ting a nd all-holy flesh-bearing of your o nlybegotten Son: make us worthy through your most-bdo ..'ed.

This ve.rsion of lhe prayer, though not the most g.raceful exemplar of the prevailing_ ethos that made the Didache's ritual impossible to leave untouched, does bring us full circle: the ande.nl fonn of thanksgiving preserved in the Didachc had been ruled something less than an ·authentic Eucharist•.

IS As Br.tdshnw puts it. •this partieulat Jewish trajl'Ctory eventually run into th\' ground' (Eudmri.o;lit: Origins. p. 111). Bradshnw nlso oO'crs :t hdpfu1 ucoounl of the larger post· Constuntinian liturgical situ!llion (pp. 139- 57).

WORKS C ITED

Aitken. Ellen. 'TO 6p<.S~fva Ka·l TO A~y~£va: The Eucharistic Memory of Jesus' Words in First Corinthians'. HTR 90 ( 1997}, pp. 359- 70. Alderink. l a rry J., a nd luther H. Marlin , 'Pr.lyer in Greco-Roman Religjons', in Mark Kiley (ed.}, Prayer J'om Alc.wmder lo Conswmine: A Criliml Amhologr (New York: Routledge. 1997). pp. 123- 7. A ion. Gedaliah, 'The Halacha in the Teaching. of the Twelve Apostles'. in Jonathan A. Draper (ed.), Atalia Ben-Meir (trans.), 1hc Didad1e iu Modem Researl'h (Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 165- 94. Arnold, Russell C. D.. The So<:ial Role of' Liwrgy in 1he Rel(~ion of 1he Qnmmn Communi/)' (leiden: Brill. 2006). Ascough. Richard S., 'An Analysis of the Baptismal Rit ual o f the Didarlu', S1Li1 24 (1994), pp. 20 1- 13. Audet>Je.an-Paul, La Didadu}: lustrui'tiou.\· des apt51rl's (Paris: Gabalda. 1958). - -'Literary Fom1s and Contents of a Normal EVxcxptolla in the First Century', S£ I ( 1959). pp. 643- 62. - -'lite rary and Doctrinal Affinities of the "Manual of Disdpline" ·, in Jonathan A. Draper (ed . and trans.). 1ile Didadw in Modem Rese
252

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Baumeister. T heofried, ·zur Datierung der Schrifl an Diognet', VC 42 (1988), pp. 105- 11. Bell, Catherine, Riwal Theory. Ritual Prttt'tit·e (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Betz. Johannes. 'The Eucharist in the Didttt he'. in Jonathan A. Dr.lper (ed . and trans.), The Didat'he iu Modem Researt'h (Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 244- 75. Billings. Bmdley S., 'The Disputed Words in the Lukan Institution Narrative (Luke 22:191>-20): A Sociologit"d Answer to a Textual Problem', JBL 125 (2006). pp. 507- 26. Binder, Donald D., luto the Templt< Courl.<: Ti1e Plate oj' the Syua.~ogues iuthe Setoud Temple Period (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press. 1997). Birdsall. J. Ne1•ille, 'Ai'le r T hree Centuries of Study of Codex Bezae: n ,e Swws Quae:aioni.f. in D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux (eds). Codex Beztte: Swdie.>from the Luuel Colloquium. June 1994 (New York: Brill, 1996). pp. xix- xxx.

Bloch. Maurice. ·Symbols. Song. Dance and Features of Articulation: Is Religion an Extreme Form of Tmditional A uthorit}r?', £urOpt'till Journal of Sociology 15 (1974), pp. 5:>-81. - -Prer imo Humer: The Politit's tif Religious £xperiente (New York: Cambridge U niversity Press. 1992). Blond, Georg.es. 'Clement of Rome'. in Willy Rordorf (ed.), Mall hew J. O 'Connell (trans.). 71~e Eul'lwrist oj' tile Early Christians (New York: Pueblo. 1978), pp. 24-47. Borg, Marcus L. , Jesus: A Ne~r Vision (San Francisco: Harper & Row. 1987). Borgen. Peder, Bread from Hcm·eu: .-lu £xegetitttl Stud)' oj' the Coutept of' Mauna in the Gospel of John and the Writin.~s of Philo ( Leiden: Brill. 1965). Bornkamm. GUnthe.r. £ar~r Chrislhm Experiem·e (New York: Harper & Row. 1969). Botte, Bernard, La Tradition aposwliqut! de Saint Hippo~~'U!: £ssai dt~ ret·onstitwion (Munster: Aschendornsche, 1963). Bouley. Allan. From FN!l:d()m to fOrmula: The Emlwiou of tlu! £urlwrisfi€· Prayer from Oral lmpruYi.wtion to J¥riuen TexiS (Washing.Lon. DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1981). Bouyer. l o uis, Eudwrisr: Theo/Og)' and Spirituality of Jhe Eurlwristit Pmyer (Notre Dame: University of Notre Da me. 1968). Bowe. lkubam E., 'Prayer Rendered fo r Caesar'? I Clemelll 59.3-61.3', in James H. Cha rlesworth et a/. (eds). The Lord's Prtl)'e/' and Other Prayer Textsji·om the Greco-Romrm Em {Valle-y Forge. PA: Trinily Press. 1994), pp. 8:>-99. Boxa ll. fan. The Re~·clation of Saint John (BNTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006).

Work.> Citetl

253

Bradshaw, Pa ul F.. Dttilr Prarer in tile Earl)' Ctmrtil: A SllldJ' of tile Or(~iuaml Earl)' /Jerelopment of' tile Di~>int• O{fite (London: Akuin ClubjSPCK, 1981). - -' Introductio n: The Evolution of Early Anaphoras'. in Paul F. Br.tdshaw (ed.). Essays ou Ear~•' Eastern £udwris1ir PrtiJ(!rs (College-•ille. MN: Liturgical Press. 1997), pp. 1- 18. - -The Setirth f<)r the Origins ofChrisriau JVorship: Sourl'cs and J\1e1/wds fortilr Swdy of' Early Liturgy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn. 2002). - -Eudwrij·fii• Origius (New York: Oxi'Ord Universily Pre-SS. 2004). Bradshaw. Paul F., Maxwell E. Johnson ;lnd L. Edward Phillips, Tile .~poswlit Tradition (Hermenei;~; Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2002). Brakke, David, 'The Authenticity o f the Ascetic Athanasiana', Or 63 (1994), pp. 17- 52. Jlro""'· Raymond E., Tile Gospel At·tordiug to Jolin I. i- xii (A Jl, 29; Garden City. NY: Doubleday, 1966). - -Tile Communi/)' of' tile Belo••ed /Jiseiple (New York: Paulist Press. 1979). - -Tiu: Death ofthf! A1essitih: A Ccmmellfary ou the Passion Narr(l[ires iu tile Four Gospels (2 vols: New York: Doubleday, 1993). llultmann. Rudolf. Tileolog)' of the New Tesliimeut (trans. Kendrick Grobel: 2 vols; New York: Scribners, 1951). - -History of tile Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; Peabody. MA: Hendrickson. rev. edn. I 963). Buschmann, Gerd, 'Tmditionsg.e. Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: /~ Critifal Antlrulogr (New York: Routledge, I997), pp. 260-66. - -'The Eucharist Prayers in Didache 9 + 10 and the Gospel of Matthew' (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SilL. Philadelphia. PA. 20 November 2005). Cl:~rke. G . W., Tile Lelll'I'S of St. Crprian of Cartilage (4 vols: New York: Newman Press, I984- I 989). Cohen, Shaye J. D., From till! MacNibecs to the Mislmah (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987). Collins, Adela Yarbro, 'The Origin of Christian Baptism·, in Maxwell E.

254

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom Johnson (ed.), Lil'iug Wmer. St.~aliug Spirit: ReadingJ' Oil Chrislimr lnilimion !Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), pp. 35- 57.

Conzelmann. Hans. I Corilllhians (trans. James W. Leitch; Hermene-ia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press. I 975). - -Arl.'i of th~ Apostles: A Comnu•ntm-y 0/Ithe Al't.>of the Apostles (trans. James limburg. A. Thomas Kraabel. and Donald H. Juel; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). Crossan. John Domini<.\ The Birth of Chrisriauity (San f'r.tncisco: HarperSanFrancisco. 1998). Culpepper, R. Alan. Anl/10111_1' of the Fourlh Gospel: A Sllld)' in Litermy Dcs(~11 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Cuming, Geoffrey J ., The Lilllrg)' of St. Mark (Rome: Pontillcium Jnstitutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1990). Da1y-De.nl0n. Margaret> ·Da\•id the Psalmist. Inspired Prophet: Jewish A ntecedents of a New Testament Dalllm'. AusBR 52 (2004), pp. 3247. Davidson, James. Courtesans aud Fish<·akes: 'the Consuming Passions of Classical Atheu" (New York: St Martin's Press. 1998). Davies. Stevan L., The Gospel of Thoma:~ (lm/ Christian JVisdom (New York: Seabury, 1983). De Conick. April D. a nd Ja rl Fossum. 'Stripped befo re God: A New Interpretation of Logio n 37 in t he Gospel of Thomas·, VC 45 ( 1991). pp. 123- 50. Dehandsthutte r, Boudewijn, 'The Text of the Didache: Some Comments on t he Edition of Klaus Wens!', in Clayton N. Jell o rd (ed.), The Didurlw in Comext: Essuys on its T(tXI, History and Transm1:~sion (Leiden: Brill, 1995). pp. 37-46. Deiss, Lucien. Springtime l{f'tlw Uturgy: Liturgirol Texts of the First Four Ceni!Jries (trans. Matthew J. O'Connell; Collegeville. MN: TI1e Liturgical Press. 1979). Del Venne. t\·larcello. Didathe aud Judaism: Jewish Root.\' of an Andeul Cl!ristimi-Je•.-ish Work (New York: T&T Cla rk. 2004). Detienne. Man.>!l a nd Jean-Pierre Vernant (eds). 711e Cuisine of S"'•rijire among tlut (ireeks (trans. Paula Wissing; Chicago: Universily of Chicago Press, I 989). Dibelius. Martin. ' Die Mahl-Gebete der Didache'. in Botschaft uud Gesd1id11C: .~esamnwlle Aufsti'lze. 2 vols; TUbing.en: J. C. B. Mohr (1956), II . pp. I 17- 27. Dix, Gregory. The Shape~( tile Liturgy (New York: Se-•bury, 1982). Dodd, C. H.. Hiswrital Tradition iu tile Fourth Go.>pel (Cambridf,-e: Cambridge University Press, 1963). Douglas, Mary, 'Deciphering a Meal', in Clifl'ord Geertz (ed.}, Myth, Symbol and Cui/Uri! (New York: Norton, 1971), pp. 61 - 81.

Work.> Citetl

255

Dmper, Jonathan A .. ·Torah and Troublesome Apostles in t he Didadte Community'. No.-T 33 (1991). pp. 347-'72. - -·Social Ambiguity and the Production of Text Prophets, Teachers, Bishops. and Deaco ns a nd the Development of the Jesus Tmdition in the Community o f the Didot/u(, in Clayton N. Jefford (ed .), The Didarhe iu Comext: Essaps on its Text . History am/ Trtmsmi.5siou ( Leiden: Brill. J<)\)5). pp. 284- 31 2. - -'The Didache in Modern Research: An Overview·, in D ra per (ed .), 7Jre Didorhe iu Modern Rem1rdr (Leiden: Brill, 1996). pp. 1-42. - -'The Jesus Tradition in the Didache'. in Draper (ed .). The Didadre iu .t..lodem Reseordr ( Leiden: Brill, 1996). pp. 72- 91. - -'Christian Self-Definition against the "Hypocrites" in Didache VIII', in Dr.1per (ed .), Tire Didadrc iu Modem Rt•sl!ordr (Leiden: Brill. 1996), pp. 223-43. - -' Riwal Process and Ritual Symbo l in Didache 7- 10'. VC 54 (2000). pp. 121- 58. Ehrman . A., Babylonian oud Jerusalem To/mud (ed. A. z,~ Ehm"ln; Tel Aviv: Peli Printing Works, 1974), Tractate Bera khoth, Fasc. 49. Ehrman, Bart D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripllrre: Tlw E/JrN of' &1rly Chrisro/ogi('a/ Cmurorm·si(!s on !he T(:xt (if the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press. 1993). Elbogen) lsmar, )(twish Liturgy: A Compreht•m·i~·e Hisrory (tr.:ms. Raymond P. Scheindlin; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1993). Epp. Eldon Jay. 'The M ullivalence of the Term "Original Text" in New Testament Textual C riticism', HTR 92 (1999}, pp. 245-8 1. Fee, Gordon D .. The Fiw t."pis£/e 10 file Corilllhion.> (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1987). Ferguson> Everett, 'Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity and ils Environment'. ANR W 23.2, pp. 1151- 89. - -'Justin ~·lartyr a nd the Liturgy', ResQ 36 ( 1994). pp. 267- 78. Fine. Elizabeth C., Tire Folklore Text: }/·om Pt!lformtmte to Print ( Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1984). Finkelstein, Lo uis. 1'he Birk:tt Ha-Mawn·. JQR. NS. 19 ( 1928- 1929). pp. 211-{)2. Finn, Thomas M ., From Demh to Rebirlh: R;!Util and C01wersion iu Allliqnil)' (New York: Paulist Press. 1997). Fitzmyer. Joseph A., ' David. "being therefore a prophet. . ... (AclS 2:3)'. CBQ 34 (1972). pp. 332- 39. - -Tire Gospel According 10 Luke II. X- XXIV (All. 28a: New York: Doubleday, 1985). - -Romans (A B. 33; New York: Do ubleday. 1993). Foley. John Miles, Tire Singer ~!'Tales in Performwrte (Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1995).

256

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Forlna. Roberl T .. The (iospe.l of S(s::us: A RefoustrucJion of tlw Narratiw~ Sourte Under~ring lhe fOurth Gmpel (Cambridge: Cambridg.e University Press, 1970). Fowle-r. Robe.£-LM., Lotll'es and Fishes: The Funetiun of tht! Ft~ediug Swries in the Gospel of Mark (SB LDS. 54; Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1981). Fredriksen. Paula> 'Judaism. the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Ho pe: Anothe r Look at Galatia ns I and 2', JTS 42.2 ( 1991 ), pp. 532-64. Garcia Martin<'L. Florentino. Tit~ Dead SN1 Sc•rol/s Trtlnslated (trans. Wilfred G . E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1996). Garnsey, Peter, Fotul and Sodef)' in C/assiml Amiquity (Cambridb-e: Cambridge University Press. 1999). Garrow. Alan J.P.. Re..elation (New York: Ro utledge, 1997). - -Tit" Gospel oj'Maultew's Dependem·e (m the Didathe (JSNTSup, 254: London: T&T C lark. 2004). - -"The Tradition behind I n ,es.salonians 4.13- 18: A New Text ldentilled' (paper presented at the annual meeting of t he SBL. Philadelphia, PA, 20 November 2005). - -'The Didache a nd the Apostolic Decree' (paper presented a t the a nnual meeting o f the SBL. Washington, DC, 20 November 2006). Gerhardsson. Birg,er. Memorp and Manuscript: Oral Tradition am/ Wriuen Tradition in Rabbinir Judaism and Early Chrij·titifrity (trans. Eric J. Sharpe; Uppsala: Gieerup, 196 1). Gero. Stephen, 'The So-Called Ointment Prayer in the Coptit' Version ot the Didathe: A Re-evaluation' . HTR 70 (1977), pp. 67- 84. Gill. Sam D., Sacred Words: A Swd~· of' Namjo Re!i,~i011 and Pwrer (Westpo rt, CT: Greenwood Press. 1981). - -Native American Rel(r:ious Al'tion: A Petformanct! Approach 10 Religio11 (Columbia: University ot South Caro lina Press, 1987). Goff, 1\71re Case Against Q: Swtlies in J\-larka11 Priority and !he Sp101>tic· Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press. 2002). Gossen, Gary H., 'Language iiS Ritual Subslance.·, in William J. Samarin (ed.). Language in Religious Prm·tke (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1976). pp. 40-60. Goulder. M.D.. Midmsfl a11d Lecti()fr ill Maulu,... ( London: SPCK. 1974). Grant, Robert M.. Tire Secret Sarings of' Jesus (l ondo n: Collins, 1960). Grimm. Veronica E.. From Feasting 10 Fasting. the [l'o/mitm of a Siu: Allitndes 10 Fasting in Late Antiquity (New York: Routled~e. 1996).

Work.> Citetl

257

Gruen, Erich, Diaspora: Jewj· amidst Greeks am/ Ronums (C~unbridge. MA: Ha rvard Univer.;ity Press. 2002). Gruenwald. lthama r, ·Paul and Ritual Theory: The Case or the " Lord's Supper'' in I Corinthians 10 and I I'. in Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell (eds), Allliquity and Hrmumit)•: Essays tm Arrcitmt Rdigiorr tmd Plrilo.!oplr)' ( Festschrift Hans Dieter Belt: Tubingen: MohrjSiebeck, 2001), pp. 159-87. Haenchen, Ernsl, John I: A CtmJmC!IItiry on the Gosptd of Johu Chapters /~ (trans. Robert W. Funk: Hermeneia: Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). - -Jolrn 2: A Corrmrt!lllln')' orr tire Gospel of Jolrrr C!wplers 7- 21 (tra ns. Robert W. Funk: Herme neia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Hiigg, Robin (ed.), Ancient Greek Cull Practice rro m the Epig.raphical Evidence: Proce(~diugs of the.Second Inlema tiona! Seminar 011 Andeul Greek Cnlt (Stockholm: P. Astroms. 1994). Hamman. Ado.tlberl. ·La priCre. chn!(ienne el Ia priere p:fienne: rormes el d iffe rences'. ANRW 23.2, pp. 1190- 247. Hamen on-Kelly. Robert G . (ed .), Violelll Origins: Walter Burkerl, Rtme Girard. anti Jonathan Z. Smith ou Ritual Killing ami Cultural Formatiorr (Stanfo rd: Stanf'ord University Press. 1987). Hannon, D. P.. 'The Family Festivals or Rome·, ANRW 16.2, pp. 1592603. Harnack, Adolf von, Die Lehre der zwO/f Aposud: nebst Umersuchwrgeu

:ur (iJtesum Gesdlidlle dttr Kirchem'e~(a.sswrg und des Kirdtenrechts (TU, os, 2; 2 vols; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1884). - -Die Chronologie der Liltr(lfur bis ln:niius 1wbst einleitcndetr UmersudumJ~en (Gest hid tW der altt hristlirheu Liwratur bi.s Eusebius, 2.1 ; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1958). - -Hiswry of Dogma (trans. Neil Buchanan; 7 vols; New York: Russell a nd Russell, 1958). Heinemann, Joseph. PrayJtr ill Jhe Tttlmud: Forms and Pauems (New York: W. de Gruyter, rev. edn. 1977). He naul. Barry W., Oral Tradiliou !lllfltlre Gospels: Tire Problem of Mark 4 (JSNTSup, 82: Shef'l1eld: Shenield Academic Press, 19<)3). Higgins. A. J. B.. The Lord's Supper iu the Near Teslllmelll (Chicago: He nry Reg,nery, 1952). Ho(fman, Lawrence A., The Cuntmiztsliou of the ~'"ynagogue Senitt: (Nolre Dame: University of' Notre Dame Press. 1979). Hofius. Otf'ried, Lord's Supper and the Lord 's Supper Tradition: Rellections on I Corinthians 11 :23b-5'. in Ben F. Meyer (ed .). One Latif, One Cup: E<·unu:nil'al Studh!s of I Cor 1/aiUI Other £udwristi<· Te.w (Macon. GA: Mercer University Press. 1993). pp. 75- 11 5. Holmes. Michael W. (ed.). Tire Apo.uo/ic Fathers: Greek Texts and Errglis/r Translalions (Grand Ra pids: Ba ke r, 1999).

··n,.

258

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Holtz, Traugoll, ' Paul a nd the Oral Gospel Tmdition', in Henry Wansbroug.h (ed .), Jesus and the Oral Go.>pel Tradition (JSNTSup. 64; Worcester, England: Sheflleld, 1991), pp. 380- 93. Horsley. Richard A.. with Jonathan A. Draper, W!roe~•er Hem·s l'ou Hears Me: Prophets, Perfomumre, and Tradilitm in Q (Harrisburg PA: Trinity Press, 1999). Hultgren. Arland J., The Rise of Normllfive Christianif)J (Minne-apolis: Fortress Press. !994). Hurtado, Larry W., L-J>rd Jesus Christ: Del'Oiiou w Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Hymes. Den. 'In Vain I TritM to Tell You': Essays iu .'Vative Ameriran Etlmopoetics (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 198!). Jasper. R. C. D., and G. J. Cuming, PrOJWS of the Eudwn:w: Earl)• and Rtformed (Collegeville. MN: Liturgical Press. 1990). Jefford, Clayto n N., The Sayiugs of Jesus iu the Tetu·hing of the T•reh•e Apostles (New Yo rk: Brill, 1989). - -1 'he Milieu of Mallhew, the Didache, and Ignatius o f Antioch: Agreements and Differences', in Huub van de Sandt (ed.), Mollile•r tmd tire Didarhe (Minneapo lis: Fortress Press, 2005). pp. 35-47. Jelford, Clayton N., with Kenneth J. Harder a nd l<Juis D. Amezaga. Jr, R
Work.> Citetl

259

(lrdns. Francis A. Brunner; Notre Dame: University of Notre DamePress. 1959). Keener. Craig S., Tlte Gospel of John: A C"mmeuuu-y (2 vols; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). Kelber. Werner, Tile Oro/ aud lhc JVri!U•n Gosprl: The Ht:rmeneurits of Speaking and JVriting in the Synoptic Traditi.ou, At/ark, Paul. and Q (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Kenyon, Frederick G. and S.C. E. Legg, 'The Textual Data'. in Roderic Dunkerley (ed .), T/11, ,\finistrr and tlte SaiTtmwuts (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1937). pp. 271- 86. Kilmartin. Edward J.. ·&~crifidum laudis: Contenl and Funclion of Early Eucharistic Pr•yers·, TS 35 (1974). pp. 268- 87. Klauck, H•ns.Josef, ' Presence in the Lord's Supper: I Cor. I I:23- 26 in the Context of Hellenistic Religious History', in Ben F. Meyer (ed.), One Loa;: One Cup: &umeniMI Studit•s of I Cor I I and Other £udwristi<· T.xts (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1993). pp. 57-74. Klinghardl. Mallhias, Gemeiusclwjl:mwhl und Mah(r:emeiusdwft: So:iol"gie rmd Liturgic .fniltrlrristlidwr Mah/fldcm (Tubingen: Fr.lncke, 1996). - -· Prayer Formularies for Public Recitation. Their Use and Function in Ancient Religjon·, Numeu 46 (1999). pp. I- 52. Kloppenborg, John S .. 71re Formatiou o.f Q: Trttjet'lories in Autieut Wisdom Colfertions (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1987). - -Q Pariillel.>: Spropsis, Critical Notes & Couc·ordaii<'C (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1988). - -·"Easter Fait h" and the Sayin~ Gospel Q', St>nwia 49 (IWO). pp. 71- 99. - -'The Use of the Synoptics o r Q in Did. I.Jb-2. 1', in Huub van de Sandt (ed.), 1\tltillhe}r and rhc Didadll!: Two Dotunumtsfi"om the Same Je1rish-Christitm ,1;/ifieu? (Minneapolis: Fon res.s Press, 2005), pp. 105- 29. Kloppenborg Verbin, John S., EX('(II'(tling Q: Tltc Historr ami Selling of' tire Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fort res> Press, 2000). Koch, Dietrich-Alex. 'The Eucharistic Prayers in Did 9 and 10 a nd the Riddle of Did 10.6' (paper presented a t the annual meeting of the SBL. San Diego, CA . 19 November, 2007). Koester1 Helmut, S)·1wJHisd1e Oberlicfenmg lxd den apostolisc/um Vti.tem (TU, 65: Berlin: Akademie. 1957). - -Audem Christian Gospelr: Their Hiswry tWd Df'\'elopmellf {Philadelphia: Trinity Pre.<S, 1990). - -'The Sayings of Q and their Image or Jesus', in William l. Petersen. Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge (eds), Sayi11gs of'Jesus: Ctllro11iml and Noii·Canullit•a/ (New York: Brill. 1997), PP- 137- 54.

260

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

- -'The Memory o f Jesus' Dea th and t he Wo rship o f the Risen l o rd ', HTR 91 (1998), pp. 335- 50. KoiJman. Bernd, Urspruug wul Gestalten der fni.hchn:wlidum lfah(f'eit~r (Gottingen: Va ndenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1990). Kugel. Ja mes l.. ·David the Prophet', in Kugel (ed.). Poetr)' aud Proplwl'y: The Beginnings of a Literary Tradition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer:;ity Press, 1990). pp. 45- 55. Kuhn. K. G .. ·~apava6a', T DNT 4, pp. 466-72. lake, Kirsopp (trans.). Apostolic Father.> (l CL: 2 vols; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 191 2). Lambert, David. · Fasting as a Penitential Rite: A Biblical Phenomenon'?'. HTR 96 (2003), pp. 477- 512. La Porte. Jean, Eudwristia iu P!rilo (New York: Edwin Me llen, 1983}. Lawyer, John E.. J r, 'Eucha rist and Martyrdom in the l ellers of lg.na tius o f Antioch' . ATR 73 (1991), pp. 28(}..96. Le Boulluec. Alain. CMmtmt d'Ait•.wmdric: Les Stromates: StromaU! VII (SC. 428; Paris: Cerf, 1997). - -' l es Re llexions de Clement sur Ia Priere etle Traite d'Origene', in l. Perrone (ed.)> Origeniana Oc·ttll'ti: Origen and the Alextmdrimr Tmditiou (2 vols; Lell\•en. Belgium: l euven Univer.;ity Press (2003). I. pp. 397-407. Levine. Lee, The Ancient Spwgo.~m!: The First T!wuJaud Years (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000). Lienhard. Joseph T., Chrislology of the Epistle to Diognetus', VC 24 (1970), pp. 28(}..89. Lietzmann>Hans, :Ha.\·s and Lord's Supper: A Swdy in lht• History of !he Lilllrf!J' (tra ns. Dorothea H. G. Reeve: Leiden: Brill, 1979). Ligier, Louis, 'The Origins of the Eucharislic Prayer: From lhe Last Supper to the Eucha rist', StLit 9 (1973), pp. 161-85. Lissarrague-, Fnm~ois. The Aesthetics of the Gre<•k Banquet: Images of JYine am/ Riuw/ (tr.tns. Andrew Szegedy-MaSilik; Princelon: Princeton Universil)' Pre$S. 1990). Lohse. Ed ua rd. Histor)' of file Su{{eriug aud Dciilil of Jesu.< Christ (trans. Martin 0 . Dietrich; Philadelphia: Fort ress Press. 1967). - -'i>oavva', T DNT 9. pp. 682-4. Lord, Albert Ba tes. 1he Si11ger of Tales (Cambridge, MA: Harva rd University Press, 1960). - -'The Merging o f Two Worlds: Oral a nd Wrillen Poetry as Carriers of A ncient Values'. in John Miles Foley (ed.). Oral Tradition i11 Lill!ralllre (Columbia: University of Missouri. 1986). pp. 19- 64. - -The Si11ger Re.mmes tile Tale (ed . Mary louise Lord ; llhac<J, N Y: Co rnell Univer:;it y Press, 1995). ~·tack, Bun on L., A A( rrh of Jmroc·(~llce: J\tlark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress Pre.<S. 1988).

··n,e

Work.> Citetl

261

- -The Lt>st Gospel: Tlte Book of Q & Christian Or(~ins (San F rancisco: HarperSan Francisco, I 993). Marcus, Joel, Murk 1-8 (AB, 27: New York: Doubleday, 2000). Marjanen, An ttL 'Tiwmas and Jewish Religious Practices·, in Risto Uro (ed.). Tlwmas at the Crtmroads: £sstt)'S on tlu• Gospel of Thom(ls (Edinburgh: T & T Clark. I998), pp. I 63- 82. Marrou. Henri Irenee. A Diognhe: lntrodm·tion, hlitiau triliqm:. trtiduttion ct c·omnumtaire (SC, 33; Paris: Cerf. 1997). Marshall, I. Howard, Last Supper and Lord's Supper (Exeter: Pilternoster Press, 1980). Martyn, J. Louis. Histmy and Theologr intlte Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminste r Jo hn Knox, 3rd edn, 2003 [J968D. Marxsen, Willi. Tlte Lord's Supper as a Christologiml Problem (trans. Lorenz Nieting; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970). Mazza. Enrico. The Or(r:ins of Jhe Eudwristir Prap!r (trans. Ronald E. Lane: Collegeville. MN: Liturgical Press, 1995). - -· Didache 9- 10: Elements of a Eucharistic Interpretation', in Jonathan A. Draper (ed .). Lynda Palazzo (trans.). The Didarhe in Modem Research (leiden: Brill. 1996). pp. 276-99. McGowan, Andrew, 'First Regarding the Cup: Papias and the Diversity o f Early Eucha ristic Practice', JTS. NS. 46 ( 1995). pp. 551- 5. - -·Naming the Feast: The agape and the diversity of early Christian meals'. StPatr 30 ( 1997). pp. 314-18. - -AsceJit• Eudwrists: Food tmd Drink in Ear~~' Christian Ritual Afeals (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1999). - -·" Is There a Liturg.ical Text in this Gospel'!"': The Institution Narratives and lheir Early Interpretive Communities', JBL 118 (1999). pp. 73-87. - -'The Inordinate Cup: Issues of Order in Early Eucharistic Drinking', St Patr 35 (200 I). pp. 283-9 I. - -· Rethinking Agape and Eucharisl in Early North Africa.n Christianity'. StLit 34 (2004}, pp. 165-76. McNiel, Brian. 'A Note o n P. Berol. 9794', Numeu 23 ( 1976), pp. 239-40. Meeks. Wayne A., Tile First Urban Christitms: The Social Wor/tluj the Apostle Paul (New Haven. CT: Yale University Pres-,. 1983). Mehat. Andre, 'Clement of Alexandria', in Willy Ro rdorf(ed.), ~·tatthew J. O'Connell (tr•ns.). 71w £uclwrist of the &trl)' Christians (New York: Pueblo, 1978). pp. 99- 13 1. Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the Nt•w Teswmelll (New York: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992). Metzger, MarceL Lt!s Constitlllions apostoliques (SC. 320, 329, and 336: 3 vols: Paris: Cerf. 1985- I987). Milavec. Aaro n. The Didachc: Faith. Hope, oud Lile of' the Earliest Christian Comnumilies, 50- 70 c.£. (New York: Newman Pre,ss> 20tH).

262

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Mitchell, Nathan, ' Ba ptism in the Didathe', in Clayton N. Jellord (ed .), The Didadw iu Comext: E.twys tm iiS Text. History and Trtm.\misj·ion, (Leiden: Brill, 1995). pp. 226- 55. Nagy, Gregory, Pindar's Homl~r: The Lpric Possession of an Epii' Past ( Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Pre>.,. 1990). Neusner. Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Trauslllliou (New H~l\'en. CT: Yale University Press, 1988). Nk~erwimmer. Kurt. 'Textprobleme der Didache'. Wiener Studien, NS, 16 (1982), pp. 114- 30. - -·Der Didachist und seine Quellen', in Clayton N. Jeftord (ed.), The Didadw in Conlcxl: Essa~'S on irs Tc~xl, Hiswrr tind Transmission (Leiden: Brill, 1995). pp. i5-36. · - -The Didadw (trans. Linda M. Maloney: Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998). Nitzan. Bilhah, Qumrtm Prayer and Religiou:~ Poetry (trans. Jonathan Chipma n; New York: Brill. 1994). Nock, Arthur Darbv, Earlr Gt•lllile Christianity and ils Helleuisfh· Backgrmmd (Ne.;, York:' Harper and Row, !964). Nolla nd, John, Luke 18:35- 24:53 (WBC, 35c: Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993). Oeste rley. William 0. E.. The Jcorixh Btu·kgromul of file Chris/ian LiiW'f()' (Oxlo rd: Clarendon. 1925). O~il\'e. R. M., The Romam tmd !heir Godx: In !he Age of Augnslux (London: Challo and Wind us, J%9). 0 ' Loughlin. Thomas, 'The Didlli'IIC:ls a Source for Picturing t he Earliest Christian Communities: The Case of Lhe Pr~LClite of Fasting'~ in Kiemn J. O'Mahony (ed.), Chris/ian Origins: Worship, Belief and Sodely (JSNTSup. 24 1; New York: Sheflleld Ac"tdemic Press, 2003). pp. 83- 112. Orr, D. G.. 'Roman Domestic Religion: The Evidence or the Household Shrine,, ', ANRW 16.2, pp. 1557- 91. Oullon, John E. L~ and Henry Chadwick. Ale.wmdriau CJu·;slitmity: Sele<'l Translarions of C!emtmt and Or(r:tm with lmmduttious and NoleS (Philadelphia: Westminster. 1954). Palle rson, Stephen J., 'Understanding the Gospel of Thomas Today'. in Pallerson and James M. Robinson (eds), The Fiflh Gospel: The Goo~pel of Thomas Comes of Age (Ha rrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998). pp. 33-75. Palle rson. Stephen J.. and James M. Robinson (eds), The Fiflh Gospel: The Gospel of Tlwmas Comes ~(Age (Harrisburg. PA: Trinity Press.

1998). Peirce, S., ' Death, Revelry, and Thysia', Clasximl Allliquily 12 (1993), pp. 219- 66.

Work.> Citetl

263

Perkins, Pheme, ' Logos Christo logies in the Nag, Ha mmadi Codices' . VC 35 ( 198 1), pp. 379-96.

Pesch, RudoiC Das Ab£'udmahl und Jesu

Todt~sl'{:rsuiildnis

(Quaestiones

d isputawe, 80; Freiburg: Herder, 1978).

Pelzer. Kobus, 'Style and Text in the Lucan NarraLi ve of the Institution of the l o rd's Supper (Luke 22.1 9b- 20)', NTS 37 ( 199 1), pp. 113-29. Ponthot. Joseph, 'La signification religieuse du "Nom" chez Clement de Rome el dans Ia Didache·, £TL 35 (1959). pp. 339-6 1. Pulleyn. Simon. Prayer iu Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997). Quasten. Johannes. Patrolog)' (3 vols: Westminste r. MD: Christian Classics, 1983- 1986). Ra ppapo rt, Roy A., 'The Obvious Aspects of Ritual', in &olt>gr. Mnmiug, and Religion (Richmond. CA: North Atlantic Books, 1979), pp. 173- 22 1.

- -Riwal and Rel('!iou in !he M(lking of Humanily (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999).

Ratcliff. E. C., 'The Eucharistic Institution Narrative of Justin Martyr's First Apology·. J£H 22 ( 197 1), pp. 97- 102. Ray, Walter D.. 'The St r.tsbourg Papyrus', in Paul F. Bradshaw (ed.), £ssa!'S mt Early £as/em £udwrislit Prtt;-ers (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. 1997), pp. 39-56.

Reif. Stefan C.>Judaism and Hebrew PrliJer: Near

Perspec·ti~·es

{JII

Jewish

Lilurgital His10ry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993). Rese, M .. ' Zur Problematik von Kurz. und Langtext in Luk. XXI1.1 7ft, NTS 22 ( 1975!76). pp. 15-31.

Riggs, John W., 'From Gracious Table to Sacramental Elements: The Tr•dition-History of Didache 9 a nd 10', SetCent 4 ( 1984). pp. 83101. - -'The Sacred Food o r Didathe 9-10 a nd Seco nd-Century Ecclesiologies', in Clayto n N. Je(ford (ed.). The Didat ltr iu

Comext: Essays on its Text, Hisfory tmd Trtitumissiou (Leiden: Brill. 1995). pp. 256- 83. Roberts. C. H.. and B. Capelle. Au &tr(l' Eudwlogium: Tl11! Dfr-Bali:eh Panrus £ulm:~etl aud Reediletl (louvain: Bureaux du M useon. 1949). Robinson. James M. ' LOGO\ SOPHON : On t he Ganung o r Q', in

Robinson and Helmut Koeste-r. Trtyi!t·tories tlfr()ugh Christianity (l'hiladelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp. 71 - 113.

Robinson. James M. and Helmut Koester. Trt~jc('[Ories through Early Citrisliauity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1971). Robinson. James M .. Paul Ho mnann a nd Jo hn S. Kloppenborg (eds), The Critital £dition ofQ (M inneapo lis: Fortress Press. 2000). Rordorf,

Willy and Andre Tuilier. La Dal'triue des Douze Ap61res

( Didachi:) (SC, 29; Paris: Cerf. 2nd edn. 1998).

264

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Ro use. William H. D., Greek Voiil•e O[foring.>: An fsstl)' in lhe His/Or)' of' Greek Rei(~iou (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902). Ro uwhorst. Gemrd, ' La celebra tion de l ' Eucharistie dans I'Eglise primitive'. Quesfious liwrgiques 74 (1993), pp. S9- 112. - -'Bread and Cup in Early Christian Eucharist Celebralions•. in Cha rles Caspers. Gerard Lukken. and Ro uwhorsl (eds). D. Mader (lrans.), Brtwd of Hem·en: Customs aud Pracfi(.'es Surroundin.~ HoiJ} Communion: Essays in the History of Uturgy and Culwre (Kampe.n. Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1995), pp. 11- 39. - -' fdentitiit durch Gebel: Gebetstexle als Zeug,en eines jahrhunderllangen Ring.ens um Kontinuitat und Diffe-renz zwischen Judentum und Christentum', in Albert Gerhards. Andrea Doeker, and Peter Ebenbauer (eds), ldcllfiliif durrh Gebel: Zur .~emeiusdltljisbildcm Funktiou inslitwitmalisicrten Betens in Judtmtum wul ChriJ·fcnwm (Paderborn: Ferd inand Schoningh . 2003), pp. 37- 53. - -'Didache 9- 10: A l itmus Test for the Research on Early Christian Liturgy Eucharist', in Huub van de Sa ndt (ed.), Mauhcll' (IJI(//he Didadll!: Two Documents from the Smne Jewish-Christian 1\1ilitw? (Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2005). pp. 143- 56. Sandelin, Karl-Gustav. JVisdom as NouriS/I('r: A Study of an Old TcJUmumt Theme, ilii De,•eloemem.. within Early Judaism and its lmpatl 011 Earl)' Chrisfiallif)' (Abo: Abo Akademi. 1986). Sa nders. E. P.. The Hiswriwl Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993). Sanders, E. P. and M:ugarel Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: T rinity Press. 1989). Sandl, Huub van de. and Oa\'id Flusser, The Didad 1e: Its Jewish Sources tmd its Plate in £tJrf)' Judaism and Christianity (Minne-apolis: Fortress Press, 2002). Sand\1ik, Bjorn. Das Kommcn des Herrn beim AIJemlmahl {ATANT~ 58; Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970). SchaO'. Philip, The 0/desf Churd1 Manual. cal/ed lhe Teathing of Ihe Twe/Fe Aposlies (New York: Funk & Wag,nalls, J rd edn, 1889). Schlier, H .. 'ci~qv' . TDNT I. pp. 335- 3S. Schoedel, William R., lgnmius of Amioch: A Commt:111my on the Letu:rs of lgualius of Alllioch (Hermeneia: Philadelph ia: Fortress Press, 1985). Schollgen. Georg, 'The Didathc as a Church Order: An Examination of lhe P urpose for lhe Composition or the Didache and its Consequence,; for its Inte rpretation'. in Jonathan A. Dra per (ed. a nd trans.). The Didar!w in Modem Research (leiden: Brill, 1996). pp. 43- 71. Schiim1ann. Hein4 Eim:r quellenkritisdwu Unwrsuc/umg des lukrmischen Abcndmaill.>beridlfe.> Lk 22.7- 38 (2 vols; MUnster: Aschendorffsche. 1952- 1954}. Schweitzer. Albert, Tile Problt!111olthe Lord's Supper: The Lord's Supper

Work.> Citetl

265

in lleiation to the Life of Jesus and the History of the Ear(l' Church (tr.lns. A. J. Manill. Jr: Macon, GA: Mer<'
Schweizer, Eduard, Tlte Lord's Supper Ateording to !he New Te.wuneur (tr•ns. Ja mes M. Davis; Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1967). Silverstein, Theodore. Visio Santti Pauli (Sludies and Documents. 4: London: Christophers, 1935). Slee. Michelle. The Cimrdt in Antioch iuthe First Cemury a(New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003). Smith, Daniel A.. The Po.tt-J\1ortem Vinditation of Jesus in !he Sayiugs Gospel Q ( LNTS . 338: london: T&T Clark, 2006). Smith, Dennis E.. From Spuposium 10 Eudwrist: The Banquet iuthe Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2003). Smit h. Jonathan Z.. 'The Gannents of Shame', History of Religious 5 (1966), pp. 217- 38. - -·The. Bare FaclS of Ritual'. in Imagining Rel(r:ion: From Babrtou to Jones/011'11 (Chicago: University of Chicaf!.o Press, 1982). pp. 53-65. - -To Take Plare: Ttnrard 11reory in Ritmil (Chicago: University of Chicttgo Press. 1987). Spinks, Bryan D .. ' A Complete Anaphora'! A Note o n Stras bo urg Gr. 254'. HerJ 25 (1984), pp. 51 - 5. Stewart-Sykes. Alista ir. Tertullitm · Crprit111 · Origen: On the Lord's Prarer (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. 2004). Stro umsa. Guy 0 ., 'Christ's Laughter: Docetic Origins Reconsidered', JECS 12 (2004), pp. 267-SS. Sutton. David E., Remembmuce of Repasts: An Authropology of fo(l([ and Memory (New York: Berg, 200 1). T alley. Thomas J., 'The Eucharistic Prayer o f the Ancient Churt'h According to Recent Research: Re.
Taylor, Vincent. The PasJ·itm Narratiw! of St. Luke: A Critiml and Hi.\·torii'ftl lm'cstigation (C~1mbrklge: C'.ambridg.e University Pre$.S, 1972). Theissen, Genl. The Religio11 of tile Earliest C/wrdws: Creating a S)mbolic· World (trans. John Bowden; Minneapo lis: Fortre>-< Press. 1999). Thomassen, Ein~n. 'The Structure of the Transcendent World in the Tripartite '1'ractate' (NHC I. 5)'. VC 34 (1980). pp. 358- 75. - -·Orthodoxy and Heresy in Second-Century Rome'. HTR 97 (2004), pp. 241- 56. Tomson. Peter J .. 'The Ha lakhic Evidence of D idache 8 and Matthew 6

and the Didache Community's Relationship to Judaism', in Huub

266

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

van de Sandt (ed.), Mauhe~<· aud tire Didarlw (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005). pp. 13 1-41. Tripp, David, 'The Prayer of St. Polyc,lrp and the Development of Anaphoral Prayer'. Ephemerides liwrgii'ile 104 (1990). pp. 97- 132. Tuckett . Christopher M .. Q and tire Hiswrr ~(£or(>' Christianity: Swdies on Q (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996). - -·Synoptic Tradition in the Didache', in Jonathan A. Dra per (ed.), The Didtu·Jre in Modm1 Research (leiden: Brill. 1996), pp. 92- I 28. Uro. Risto . 1homas: Seekin.~ tire Hiswriral Comext of' tire GoSfwl of' Thomas (New York: T&T Clark, 2003). Uro. Risto (ed.). Thomas lll the Crossroad.;·: Essays on tire Gospel ~{' Thomt1s (Edinburg,h: T&T C lark, 1998). van Cang.h, Jean-Marie, 'Evolution in the T radition of the Last Supper', in Bernd Kollman el a/. (eds), Amikes Judeutum und fnlltes Christeullml (New York: IV. de Gruyter. 1999), pp. 364--88. van Gennep, Arnold, Tire Riws of Passage (trans. Monika B. Vizedom and Ga brielle l. Callee: London: Routledge. 1960). Van Eijk, A. H. C., 'The Gospel of Philip and Cleme nt of Alexandria: Gnostic and Ecclesiastical Theology on the Resurreclion and the Eucharist·. VC 25 (1971), pp. 94- 120. Vermes. Geza. Jesus tire J'"" (london: Collins, 1973). Vokes. F. E., The Riddle of the Didat'lu!: Ftlfl or Fielion, Hm!sy or Cmholitism'! (New York: Macmillan. 1938). - -'Life and Order in an E.1rly Church: The Didache'. ANRW 27. 1. pp. 209- 33. VOObus, Arthur} Early Ver.s·ious of the New Testmmml (Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1954). - -Liwrgiral Traditions in fire Didadre (Proteedings of the f.r.;tonhm Theological Society in Exile, 16; Stockholm: E.•irginitate): Eiue ed1W Sd1ri/l des Athant1sius (TU. 29; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905). Wansink. Cr.Jig. Steve.n, 'Epistula ad Diognetum: A School Exe.rcise. in the Use of Protreptic', in John H. Morgan (ed.). Church Dil•iuil)' (Bristol. IN: Wyndham Hall, 1986), pp. 97- 109. Wegman. H. A. J., 'Une anaphore incomplete(! Le,r.; fragments sur Papyrus Str.Jsbo urg Gr. 254', in R. Van den Broek and M. J. Vermase.ren (eds). Swdies iu Guostidsm and Hel/euisti<· Rc•l(~iom (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 432- 50. Weng>t, Klaus. Didarhe ( Apostel/ehre) . Btmwbashrief. Zort!iler Klemensbrief, Sthrift au Diognet: Eiugtdeitel. lterausgegebcm, tibertra-

Work.> Citetl

267

gen rmd erltiulf:rt (Schriften des Urchristentums. 2: Munich: Kosel, 1984). Werner, Eric. Thl" Saaed Bric{r:e: Sj·1wgogue lind CJmrrh during the First

Milletmium (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959). Williams, Ritva H.. Stewards, Pmphets, Keepers of ilw }Vord: Leadership in the £arlr Cimrd1 (Peabody, MA: Hend rickson, 2006). \\'inkier, G<-tbriele, 'The Original Me.aning of the Prebaplismal Anointing a nd its Implications', in Maxwell £. Johnson (ed .), Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Cirristimr Initiation (Colleg<';lle. M N: Liturgical Press, 1995), pp. 58-SJ. Wobbermin, Georg, ..4/lehrist/i('he liturgi.f;t/w St(il'ke tws der Kirdw Aegypreus m:bst einem dogmatisdum Bri~f' tMs Bisdwfs Saapion liOn Thmui.<(TU, 2: l eipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. 1898).

This page imemionally left blank

I NDEX 1-\ b mhmn

84 ubstinc:m:c. vow of 30. 38 actions 58 Acts 87. 153. 186 aftc r4d in n~r prayers l l9 . 216 Didadte 244 agape meal 8. P). 73 Al~xand ria 14 Christianity 231. 238 Amen S2. 90, 11 6. 169. 172.205. 214. 244. 247

(tltlidllll Seventh Benedic-t ion of 117 Tenth Be ncd i<.~tion o f 116 anupho ra 10 Anaphora of St r>-•tark 234 anci~ n t meals 62 anthropologists 175 anthropology o f religion I 3- 14 An tioch 184 Apomlypse 24 1 AptXTyplwu (~( Jmur.-. 146 Apolug)-. I 205 apostles 125, 164. 184 Jewish 1 ~8 · r~m~mbrances· 50 Apo.Holic Conslilulitm... 65. 76. 77. l72- 3. 243- 7. 249-5() Apo.Holic ti·aditimt 8:-1. 196. 198. 200. 2 15. 227 arche 35 Ark o f the Covenant 57 Asiu Minor 190. 196. 202, 204. 1 12, 232. 248. 249 Assyria n:> 84 A thanasius 2 17 A udet. Jea.n-Pa ul 113. 169 Ba bylonia n T almud 61 baptism 5. 109. 151- 65. 168, 175. J80. 205. 219. 224 instructio ns 152. 161

Pauline 181 relationship to the- ritual meal I58 baptism.ul oil 172 baptisma l ritual 157. 179 baptisnutl water 164 Barnabas 122, 124. 217- 22. 225. 237. 24l:i gm1sis 218 Ba ruch 84 lum'feia 142. 178 Basilid~s

237

basptism 162. 240 fasting before 162 belief:.; 3 berakah 69. 2 16 bewk rH 1r I 0 biblical tmdition 155 Birklll J./(I· Ma:ou 118. 119 bishops 183. 184. 1? 8. 207. 248 blasphemy 165 blessings I01 . 139 Blond. Georges 193 Bonifm:e 77 De ahrnumtialionr in haptt:muae Borg. Mare us 85 Orndshaw. l'a ul 185 bread pruycr 2 16. 237 breaking o f bread 96 Carthugc 14 c:ucd1esis 54. 55 Christian 113 c:ucdnuncns 19~ c::ttholic churches 20 Catholicism I I dwtima!J 70 dwtiumth 70 C hrisl srr Jesus C hrislia n literature 193 C hristia n meal practices 6. 50 C hrislia n movement 184. 207 C hristia n prayers 10, 14

77

270

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

Christian teachings 221 Christian trad itio n 148 Christianity 4. 5. 15. 126. ~28 see al.m e-a rly Christia nit y Alexa ndrian 231. 238 formative 97. 226 historians 12 Jewish

182 5

ongms l'aulinc 182 Christians 166 early 75 Egyptians 237 itinera nt 125 c hris tolo-gy. Jo-ha nnine 145 d1t.honic deities 167 c ir<:umciSio n I. 2. 163

Clabacux, Jo hn 87 d eunsing rites 154n C/('JU(!II/, J 192. 197. 198. 195. 196. 199. 200. 2 15, 225. 227. 233

a uthor 200 comparison wit h Didarhe 200 pmyers I ?0. 193 Clement o f Alexandria 160n. 222, 229- 34. 236. 24:)

rcm:uks o n prayer 2J4 Stromateis 229 ·ckmcnt' o f Rome: 184 Collins. Adela Yarb ro 155 Colossia ns. Paul"s letter to the common meal 31, 54. 159 c.ommunal prayers c.~om mu n i t y 77

ll)l

15. 119. 166

G mmwnily l?ule 15? conf<.'$sion o f sins 165- 9. 232 c.ongrc gution 81. 169 Constuntine 14. 16 Cop tic fmgm cnt J 73 Cop tic Rt..'lx-nsion 169--74. 175 Cop tic t mnslation 7 1 Corinth 181. 20 1 Corinth ian Gentiles 57 Corinth ians 32. 33. 43. 44. 45, 46. 56, 73. 184 <.-:ovcnant 31. 52. 219 c:.reeds 87 Crossa n. John Dominic 87~ 108. 109 Cypria n 2 12 leiters 108 writings 2J I Cyrus 87 d a ily pmycrs

116. 177

D unicJ 84 D a •,.id 4 7. 75. 83. 84. 87. 100. 117. 139. 141. 187 as pai... I 87 De ubremmtirJ/ione ;, bttptismute 77 De ,·irgiuiwte 2 12. 214. 2 15. 216. 237 da ily hours sc:hcmu 216 d eacon (te rm) 95 Dt."Jld Sea Scrolls 159. 166 Dcmiurgc 225 J:>tr Balizd1 papyrus 208. 210. 21 f, 237 d estr uction of the Temple 219. 248 Deuteronomy 122. I 59 Dcutt.· ro-Paulinc epistles 10 5 d eviation 4n Dialr'IJUf' of tlw Sarim· 146 Dialr'1JUf' •rilh 1i·yplw 53 d ias:pom 108. 110.1 76 Judaism 84. 114. 166 sensjbilily 140 D ibelius. r-.•tartin 67-8,90. 100. 169. 170 Didadw ( T t.-aeh ing of the Twelve A postles') 3. 5. 6. 7. 9 . 10. 13. 19. 60, 6 1. 67, 70. 7 1. 72. 75. 81. 85, 87. ~8. ?2, ?3. 94, 9 5, 96. 9 7. 103. 104, 105. I 07. JmL 10?. 11 3. l l 8. 119, 120. 12 1. 124, 126. 127, 12?. 133. 136. 140. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 149. 150. 15 1. 153. 154, 156. 159. 160. 161. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 16~ . 172. 173. 174. 176. 177. 178. 17?. 180. 18 1. 182. 188. 187. 196. 19~ . 201. 202. 203. 106. 207. 21 1. 2 13. 215. 2 18. 221. 225,232. 234, 236. 237. 242.146. 24 7. 248. 249.250 a fter-dinner lit urgy 216 a fter -dinner prayers 206. 244 brcud prayer 2 11 comparison with I Clnmml 100 c up pmyc:r 2 11 Eucharist l3. 102 eudwri...u•o-fonn 227. 248 eudwristeo-pra.yers 2 14. 218,229. 130 c:ucha rislic: ritual 100 c udm rislic trad itio n 183. 192. 197. 100, 201, 204, 20~ - 17 . 222. 223. 228. 231. 232. 2J4. 136. 239. 242. 249 e:ttnnt ...-e rsions 175 formulae 236 gutl1c-ring pruycrs 140. 231

Index H-tcxt 162 imagery 74 instr uctions IS. 155 Jewish paralle-ls 119 Lord's 1' rayer 164 lost e nding 77 meal pmyers 3. 5. 7, S. 10. 78. 88. 113. 243 meal ritual 4. 11, 1 L 12. l3, 15. 72. 74. 76. 94. 98. 99. 110. 120. 177. ISO. 183, 106. 219. 130. 139. 149 me-a l trndilion 123 pe-titiona ry p n•ycrs 192 petitions 199 prayer rorm 85. 220 prnyer structure 247 prayer lmdition 193. 202. 203. 248 prnyers 15. 68. 69. 79. 83. :'17- t:i. 89. ?0. 99. 102. 107. 110. 114. 117. I l9. 110. 128. 131, 131. 134. 135. 136. 137. 139. 140. 141. 141. 147. 158. 169. 170, 185, 1?9. 210. 114. 215. 217. 225. 235 prayer units 64. 190 pre-meal prayers 143. 246 n ..x~pt i on 108 n.•dn<.:tion history 149-74 rilual 236. 137. 149 ritual d ialogUt: 244 rilual form 149 ritual logic 189,210,1 17. 218. 120. 221. 226. 229. 234, 237, 239. 247. 249 ritual m eal 102 ritual o rientation 226 ritual prescriptions 148 ritual scrip t 23 1 r ubri(.":S 149 scribe I 07. 148 SOUl\:CS 163 structure 7 1 terminology S tc.xtual tnmsmission 65 thanksg;iving pruycrs 5? traditional Jewish dements 114-11 tra nslation into Coptic 171 Two Ways ma terial 122 d ietary regulations I d ietary restrictions. Jewish 163 Dioguialls 220-22. 223, 225. 237 d <>CCtists 242 Oomilia n 20 I d oxologjcul responses 8 1. 81 d oxo logy. doxologies 64. 65. 66. 68.

271

7 1, 78. 90. 93. 105. 100. 115. 169. 170. 172. 190-200. 209. 2 13.214. 215. 223. 224. 225. ~2 7. 228. 232. 233. 234. 236. 244 Murtyrd(Jm qf Po~rcarp 196 Draper. Jonathan 175 enrly Christiunity 83. 126. lSI. 202 Egypt 222 literature 152. 239. 24~ prayer 106 scholars 13 texts I tiS. 225 e<•rly Christians I 55 Egypt 208. 248. 250 early Christianity 221. 237 Egyptian prnyer 234 ekkl~sia 6?. ~) Eliakim 87 £11d:eU 100 Ephesians. P~IUI"s leucrs to 106, 249 Ephesus 1 ~ 4 epic tradition IOl ltpi.tllr of Bamabtls 122. 124. 21 7- 22 gm1sis 218 epistles. Deutcro-l'auline 105 c.sc.hatologicnl expectancy 16 1 esc.l.atolog.ical symbolism J89 c.sc.hatology 46. 100, 120. 140 Lu ke-Acts 189 Pauline 10? e.w:Jumm 35 etcmul lifc 49. 225 e ternal salvntion 205 ethical monotheism 177 e thics 4 7 eth nographic study 14 Euch;uist 3. 6. 7. 10. 19. 46. 47. 49. 6 1. 7.1, 99. l02, 109. 175. 240 \'Crbal components 73 euduuisteo-ro rmula 228 eudwrisle<J·prnycrs 64. 7 1. 72. SO. 88. 89, 92. 93. 105. 130. 133. 136. 14 1. 143. 146. 165. 179. 214.2 18 ro nn 64. 244 eudwrjsfia 6. 9 . 60 e uc-h aristic assembly 201 e ucha ristic cckbration 235 e uc-haristic communitv 47 c uchuristie. devdopmt.:nt 249 c u<.:ha ristic. d iversity I0 e ucharistic. gathcring.s 242 c u<.:ha ristic. liturgics 5. 6 e ucharistic. practice 7, 16. 74

272

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

diversity 239 c ud1a ristic praycrs(anaphon1} 10. ss. 74. ISS, 92, 167. 1?4 . 198. 249 trad ition 18 1 Vulcntinian 241 cudm ristic traditio n 103. I H4. 200 DMache 192. 197. 200. 10 1. 204. 112.2 17.122.223. 22-8.23 1. 232. 234, 236. 239. 242 c udla ristizt-d rood 136 Euguo:titls tlw Ble.uetl 147 rtls ting 180

136. 151- 65. 161. 168. 175.

instruc tio ns 152 prepamtory 154 Ferguson. E~relt 205

rcstival days 116 Finkelstein. Louis I I ~ Flusser. David J I ~ ro lklorc studies 22 ro lklorislS 2 1. 22

rood ""

ro rgjvcncss o r sins 5. 232 ro rmativc Christianity 97. 226 ro rmulae 78. 79. ~I prayer 81 ro rmubic spt.'tth 80 rragmcnts 208 liturgi,:al 2 12 Valcntiniun prayer 237 Galutions. Pa ul's lc:ucr to I 05 Galileans 13M Garnsey. Peter 95 Garrow. Ala n 6 1. 62. 77 interpreta tion 61 gnth ering o f the (;.Ontmunity 72 Gennep. Arnold \'an 149 Gentiles 2,84. 129. 163. 168. 1 ~0. 222. 248 uppeul of Jesus mowmc:nt 182 congregations 184 Corinth ian 57 Grcek-spt-aking 82 ritua l baptism 164 gtwsis 218 gnosticism .231 gnostics 229. 230 GoJf. Mntthcw J. 131 Gogud . Maurice 60 gospels 11. 14. 47. 50. 51 n. 106. 110. 138. lSI cthi(.":S 47

feedi ng storic:-s 61 grammar 29 Gn..'CI.: litcnuure 87 Gn.'CI.: rituals I 14 g.roup definition 4 7 Gruenwald. lllmma r 96 H (source) 162. 16?, 175.2 14 Coptic text 170 scribe 172 Hacchcn. Ernst 144 Hahtkllit· obsc-rvtmcc 176 Harnack. Adolf von 5. 6. 7. 10 His!OJ".!" of Dogma 6 heuling oil 172 Hebn:w patria n:hs 246 Hebrew l'sa lms 91 heresy, deba tes 250 hcrctit.-:s 240. 24 1. 142 Herod 187 Hippolytus 196 historical invcsligation 12 HisWr)" of Dr~guw 6 holiness 100. 157. 230 Homeric epics 22 Ho.wuuw 73. 82. 90. 116. 119. 247 House o f DH\'id I 70 l1ypoc-ritcs 153 idola try 163 Ign a tius 3n. 7, 46- 8. 49. 50. 57. 58. 101. 102. 103. 136. 182. 183. 184. 240. 242 Letters to the Ephesians 46 Letter to the l'hilad dphia ns 46 similarities with John 50 understanding, o f the Eucharist 46 ignoruncc 157 imagery 49, 74. 209, 2 15, 238 inuncrsion 155. 156. 174 immortality 58. 90. I 00. 225. 233 improvis,11ion 92. 93. 108. 185 inc.arnutio n 47. 53. 101. 102. 103 l n CC il SC 172. 173 initiation rites 135. 175 injustice 163 institution na rrntive 54 instruction I 5~ . 164 lrcnucus 7. 240. 241 Isaia h 84. 87. 202 servant son);:'> 87 N4. 184. 189 c hosen people 85 c.pic tradition 3 1. 100

Index Jucob 87 Jnml."s. Liturgy or 66 Je rusalem 8-4 Jersulam ma nuscript 65 Je rusalem ·rcmplc 57. 179 d estruction 166 Jes us 8, 20, 26. 29. 30. 31. 33. 48, 53. 6 1, 70. 80, 8 1. 84. 85. 101. 107. 110. 116. 118, 119. 121. 122. 114. 125. 126. 117. 129. 133. 144. 225. 238. 142 ba ptism by Jo hn 240

body and blood 6 c-rucifixion 7. 34. 36. 47. 49. 87. 100. 102. 185. 2 19 d eath 5. 6. 7, 9. 32. 34. 45. 46. 53. 56. 57. 74. ~7. 96. 101. IOCJ. 126. 14 1. 181. 182. 183. 1 ~8. 2 12. 22 1. 244 disclosure to Nathanael 137 c-sdmto logical me-s sage 109 reed ing of the five thousand I J8 ro llowers or 3 heals C:1pcmaum orticiul's son 137 heals the blind man 131:1 inc-a rnation 50. 10 1. 102. 207. 233. ::!38 kingdom SU)' ing,> 135 as media tor 19~ . 200. 20 I. 202. 236. 246 as rvlcssia h 139 mimdes 126 aspui:~ 83. 85. 99. 104. 110. 129. 139. 157. 173. 180. IN6. 187. 11:19. 19 1. 196. 20 I. 222 passio n 53. 100. 184. 189, 21 1,216. 21 7. 236. 240 prayer in Gcthscma nc 143 us prophet 13 1. 189 m ises Lazarus fro m the dead 138 rcsum .."Ction 46. INI. 182. 244 us rcwnlcr 14 1 sacriflca l death 10 I us su.cri li t.~i al victim :2()3 snlvilic death 233 s nyin£S 2. 39. 139. 146, 147, 160. 16 1. 164. 174. 177. 1N4 sufferings 56. IN7. 244. 249 teachin£s I. 3. 120. 12~L 130. 13 7. 157. 161. 165. 177. 1 ~0 . 189. 248 tra nsforms wntcr into wine 137 tria l and executio n 187 Jes us mowmcnt 2. 9, J I. 12. 15. 16. 19. 23. 26, 104. 106. 113. 123. 144. 145. 146. )55. 181. 184. 202. 207

273 appeal to Ge-ntik"S

1N2

e-arly dcvclopml."nl 4 oral t raditio n 161 Jewish apostk"S 188 Jewish t.-.ommunit y 61 . 154 Jewish t.":Onvcntions 106. 117 Jewish c.ustoms I Jewish dietary restrictions 163 Jewish heritaJ,oe 3. 132 Jewish literature 122. 193 Jewish meal p rayers 10 Jewish prnc tices 10 Jewish pmycr JON. 235 conventions 67. 20l Jewish sac.rifK-es 166 Jewish St."Cts 120 Jewish tradi1io ns 119. 234. 237 Jewish Wisdom theology 236. 249 Jews 164 diaspom 176 Jo hu nnine d 1ristolo,gy 145 Jo ha nnine <.-:ommunit y 140 Jo hu nnine tra d itio n J38. 14l Jo hn 6. 7. 23n. 46. 48- 50. 54 . 57. 58. HH. 1 37-45~ 186. 195 similuritie-s with Igna tius 50 Jo hn the Baptist 155. 240 c--schato logicul mcssagc 10? Judaism 61.8.4.109, 117. 118. 159 d iaspom 114. 166 fi rs t -oc:~t u ry 85 nomultlv<: 248 orthodox 176 pre-Christian 202 rabbinic 168 rit ua l \\'tls hing I 59 Scoond Te mple ~6 J udt.· . epistle o f 8 Judc.un war 11:14 J ungmann. Josef 6 Justin M a rtyr 7. 15. 20, 36. 46.50-54. 57, 58. lOt. 103. 107. 136. 184. 185n. l99. 215. 249 us..~ss m c:-nt 52- 3 d escription o r the •J:::ucharist' {4 description o r the e ucha ristic gath· crin£ 204 Ditilt1gue wilh Jj·yplw 53

J.lrst Atwlt'J{y 50, 53 meal rituals 206 prayer 204-7 kc-ry£mu

103, 182

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

274

Kloppcnborg. JohnS. 127. 137 Koester. Helmut 56. 108, 109, 127. 13 1. 132

kosher laity

2 198.

la nguage. prayer 15 Lares 167 last s uppe-r 9. 20. 46. 54 mythit:al associations 59 ritual function 54 last supper accounts 106 last s upper narrati\'c 20. 22. 9?. 1 ~3 last supper traditio n 15. 52. 57. 59. 6 1. 96. 98. 100. 10 1. 102. 103. 107, 109. 110. 188,204.21 1. 233,238, 239. 247 ritual logic 211 structur<: 59 terminology 59 La7..arus

138. 142

Lctlcr to the Philaddphiuns (Ign a tius) 46 Lctlcrs to the f:phcsia ns (Ignatius) 46 Lictzmann. Ha ns 9. 72- 3, 75 literary dependence 43 lite rary preservation 148 litcrulurc.. t:arly C hristian J 52 liturgil"ttl rragmcnts 2 12 liturgical orders 178 liturgics 75 paralld 62 liturgy 74, 87. 169. 20~ a ftcr-
escha to logy

11:19

Mc.Gov.·an. Andrew 54. 55. I I S M accalxx:-s 1J S. J97 Mack. Burton 127. 130 magical im:antations 82 Malachi 166. 235. 236 lthmassel•. Pnr.•·er of 106. l iS ma nna 100 ma nuscript tradition 45. 60 Lu ke 45 Mtmmatha 73, 76. 82. 90. 11 6. 202, 247 ~ht «.\lon 15. 183 Murk J9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. 3 1. 32. 33. 34. 35. 38. 39, 40. 42. 44, 45. 46, 47, 52. 55. 67. 68. 69. 102. 103. 107. 108, 126. l17. 131. 161. 165. 183. IS4. 189 Anaphora 234 disciples 36 passio n-gospel 184 vow o f a bstinence 30 !\Jartyrtfmn r?{Po(•·carp 196. 197. 198, I<)IJ. 110. 21 5, 227. 228. 233 doxology f96 pntyc rs I 90 Mass 159, 166 M.:ttthew I I , 14. 20.36-7.46. 65. 102. 126. 127. 129. 153. 16 1. 164. 177. 184. 230 supper na rra tive 36- 7. 45 mut:<~ 96 meal 151 - 65 meal component., 26. 17 meal p ractin"S 9. 10.4 1 Christi!m 6 meal prayers 3. 4. 72. 75, 93-4. 113. 121. 122. 125. 135. 147. lSI. 154 . 161. 162. 169. l73. 174. 175. 212- 17 Didm:he 88. 24;\ Jewish 10 lnnguag_c 8 logic. 78- 88 preservation 169 meal ritua l 14, IS. 16. 72. 76. 98. 104. 110. 124. 132. 140. 144. 145. 147. 1 4~ . 149- 74. 177. ISO. 183. 184. 189. 190. 206. 248 Didache 99. 120. 2 19. 230. 239. 249 instrm:.tio ns 59 me.al rituuls 12. 13. 106 early Christian 10 me.al tradilion 34. 110

Index Didadte 223 mcal-<:omponents 53 m<.·.als. ancient 62 ·medicine of immortality' 57 medie\•al evidence 54 memorization 53 T\·lt:s siuh 83 melmwi11 224 mct::tphors 104. 24 1 midrash 48 Miluvcx. Anron 113 tvtitchdl, Natha n 155 mOOd prayers 172. 179 monotheism. e thical 177 "-·loses 84. 189 Must~/praycr

myn>n pmyc.· r

116 172, 173. 174 ,230

Nag Hammad i 226. 237 Nuthanacl 137. 138 New Moon 116 New Testament .3. 4. 5. IS. 27. 186. 233 d ocuments 197 last supper nar rati\'c 20. 22 supper tradition 3 texts I 15 Nicodemus 138. 142 Ni<.-derwimmer. Kurt 83. 149. 15 1. 16?. 172.2 11

n.'Construction 154 non-meal prayer 154. 248 normative Judaism 24~ NT srr New Testame nt o il 173 Old Testament 7 o ral cin:ulatio n 101-i oral pe-r fo rnu1nt.'ICS 5~ . 56 o ral r<.'<.~i tati on 53 oral tmdition 37, 43. 56 structure 22- 33 Origen 237. 238. 241 the-ology 222 o rthodox Judnism 176 o rthodoxy 216 post-Constantinian 149 overseers 94 Punlugogus 233 pagan prae:tices 167 pagan sacri fi <.~'S 166 pagan writers 163 pai,,. 83. 86. 87. 103, 190--200, 221

275

pais-christo logy 220 Palestine 36. 84. 10 I. l02. I0<1. 109 Parry. Milman 2 t passion narrative 50, 56. 57. 132. 143. t83. I 85

Passover 4 1. 45, 96 Passover meal 98 patriarchs 14 1 He-brew 246 Pa ul 5, 19. 20. 21. 23. 23n. 25, 26. 27. 28, 29. 30. 3 1. 32. 43. 44. 46. 47. 52. 53, 55. 56. 57. 85, 87. 101. 102. 103. f07. 132. 153. 181. JIB. ll'i4, 199. 200. 202. 210. 227 Corinthian meal 57 discus.<>ion of Lo rd's Supper 98 <.-sdmto logy 109 imitators 106 kttcr to the Colossians 181 leiter to the Philippia ns 106 leiter to the Romans 221 leiters I. 87. I 10

leiters to the:- Corinthians 184 leiter to the Ephesians 106 leiter to the Galati:ms 105 leiter to the Romans 105. 106. 184 lc:lters to Timothy 106 pmycr co nventions 104- 7 thanksgjving pruycrs 106 Pauline baptism 18l Pauline Christianity 182 Pentutc uch 2 19. red h~.i fe r rites 219 sc-a pegoat rit<.-s 2l9 perfume 173 Pe ter 1 ~4. 186. 200 de-nial 4 1 petitio n 206 petitionary prayer 225 Philip 14 1 Philippia ns . l'aul's letter to 106 Philo 114. 23 1 Philothcos Bryonnios 5 Pilule 142. I ~7 Plcronta 224. 225. 226 plcromutic C hurch 224 Polyca rp of Smyrna 184. 193 martyrdom 201. 2 15 prayer J95 pork 163 post· Consta ntinia n o rthodoxy 249 posHn c-.al praye-r 64 praise 206, 223

276

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

prayer

5, 29. 8 1. lSS, 136. 151- 65.104. 2.l l instruc.tions 152 prayer COO\'Cntions 14. 190 Jewish 201

pruycr formulae 8 1. f06 prayer fmg:mc nt.s pn:.-Constantinian 147 Valcntinian 237 prayer habits 18.3, 100, 201 early Christian 183 prayer language 15 pmycr leaders 78. 80. 9 1 prayer litcwturc, Jewish I 18 l'myer ~,f Mmwsst>lr 106. l iS. 196 prayer o f n:pc:ntam.-c (mt!ltuwitl) 224 prayer structure 120 prayer texts 92 e ucharistic 249 prayer topics 206 prayer t mdition 119. 236, 24M /);d{l(:he 193. 202. 203 prayer units 64. 71 prayers 6. 59. 66. 71 . 73. 90. 92. 93. JO L 103. 104, 130. 148, lSI. 158. )6 1. 166. )85, 187. 214. 244 aftcr ~dinnc r 119. 206. 2 16. 244 bread praye r 2 12. 2 16 . 237 Christ ian I 0. 14. 206 communa l 15. 114. 119, 166 <:up pwyer 2 11 daily 11 6. 177 dcvc:lopmenl 61 Didache 61). 69. 79. 83. 90. 99. 107. 110,1 14.1 17.1 19. 120 . 128. IJ I. 132. 134. 135. 136. 137. 139. 140. 14 1, 142. 147. 169. 170. 185. 199. 210. 2 14. 215. 2 17. 225. 235 c.arly Christian 106 Egypt 234 fmdwris/t'o -prayers 64. 80. 88. 89. 92. 93. JOS., IJO, 133. 136, 14 1. 143, 146. 165. 179. 214.2 18. 229. 230 e ucharistic 10. 55. 88. 92. 194. 198. 24 1, 249 g
16 1

meal prayers 75.88.93-4. 113. 12 1.

122, us. 154, 161. 162. 169. 173. 174, 175. 215. 243 model l72. 179 Mu.w~;{ 116 non-mcul 154. 248 petitiona ry 192. 193. 225 post-meal 64 pre-meal 243. 246 Qumran 235 rabbinic 235 ritual log_ic 83. I 02 sample 89. 91, 92 s tilwt(/i prayer 169- 74, 2J9 structure 59- 78. 117. lS I, 247 table 213 thanksgi\'ing 5?. 64. 106. 15?. 205 Valcntinian 222- 9 \'O<.-abub ry 104 preparatory rasting I 54 presbyte-rs 184 prophetic speech 94 prophets 125. 141. 164 role 92- 4 proto-Catholicism 6 Psalms 14. 91. 202 purification from sins 155 purification rites 154. 156

Q see Synoptic Sayings Source Qumran ll5. 131. 160 pmycr 235 Rult> qf tlte Comnumily 122 texts 109 rabbinic benedictions 70 rabbinic cirdes 6 1 rabbinic Judaism 168 rabbinic pruycr 235 rabbinic sour<."t"-S 115 rabbinic usage 16? Rappaport. Roy 175. 176. 177. 178. 17?. ISO

red heife r rit<.-s 219 rel'k-ction 81 removal o f sins 135 rcsurr<.-ction 46 Revelation 80. 201-4. 221 usc of Sc ri ptun: 203 Riggs. John W. 158 ritual 35, 73. 90. 236 /Jidache 231 fixed clements 78-~8 logic o f 99

277

Index meal 177 trad itiomtlterminolog.y 5~ ritua l nnalysjs 99 ritual b;1ptism. Gentiles 164 ritua l convenlions. Jewish 117 ritual dialogue 72. 93. 209 DMudte 244 ritua l divergence 3 ritual eating 13 ritua l fonn 247. 248 ritual immcrsit' n 154. 159 ritua l logic 100. 106. 132. 133. 148. f83 . 1 ~9. 2 11. 2 17,218.220,239. 244. 249 Didudte 220. 222. 226. 229. 234. 247 ritual me~1l 19. 55. 102. 157. 159 and baptism 158 ritual objects 58 ritual perfo rmanc.."t: J 76 ritual practic..~ J ritual prayer 62 ritual script 99. 179 ritual sensibility 101 ritual symbolism 181 ritua l texts 82 ritual theory ISO ritua l lraditions 109 ritual washing 159 ritua lization 9~. 9?, 10 1 rituals 12. 107. l61S. 175 Greek 114 Jewish high 116 Romans. Paul's letter to 105, 106. 184. 22 1 Rome 15, 190. 1?6. 202. W:t, 212. 232. 248. 249 Rouwhorsl. Gerard 55. 119 rubrics 59. 62. 74. 75. 92. 149. 150. 151. 153. 157. 162. 170

instr uctional 60 Rule of the Community 122 running water 154n, 159. 174 Sablmoh

2. 116. 177

observance 163. l76 sucrulity 58 Sacmmentary 208 sacrifice 7. 165. 194 sac rifi<.-es Greek 167 Jewish 166. 167 pagan 166 Ro man 167

sacrifi cial meat 163 salvation history 103 sample prayers 113. 136 Sand t. Huub van de 118 Sarupion of T hmuis 208. 2 10. 21 1. 22~.

237

a naphora 2 10 prayer 2 10 sayings <:-olh..'Ctions 126 sayings tradition 128. 135 st:-apcgoat rites 2 1? sc.holars 83, 130 scholarship 73 scribes 88. l4N. 15 1. 158. 161 sc.ribal activity 7J scribal er ror 73 Scriptures 14. 2 1~ meaning 2 1? Se<.-ond Temple diuspora Juduism

84.

86. 155

.wu:ti
278

Knmrletlge and the Coming Kingdom

structure 53 terminology 50 textual lix.ing 36 symbolism ? esdmto logical I M9

symbols 58 symposium 167 synagogue, Hellenistic 90 Synoptic. Sayings Source. (Q)

126-32.

14 5. 146. 164. 165, 184, 189 Jt:sus· sayings 177 literary h isto ry 127 tra nsmission histo ry 126 s~'n op ti c wording 52 synop tic-s 145 syntax 79 Syria 248

table pruycrs 212 teachers 94. 125 "Teaching o f the Twdvc Apostles" see

Didru:he tc;1chings. Christian Temple 160 destruction 2 19

221

sanificcs 167 Tenth lkncdiction 116 terminology 107 T crtulliun. Apology 8 textual transmissio n 65 t hanksgiving 114. 115. 143. 165. 168. 197. 1?8, 206, 2 15, 123. 230, 234, 236. 247. 249. 250 pmycrs 59, 64. 106. 15? . 205 T heissen. Gerd IOC) tht:ology, Jewish Wisdom 236. 24? T homas 132- 7. 141. 142. 145. 146

T imothy. Paul·s letters to 106 Torah l60. 163. 177 tradition 54 c::udmristic 242 Jewish 234. 237 last supper 238. 239 prayer tradition 236 Tripartite Tmdute 223. 225. 126. 236 T uckcH. Christophe r 128. 131 Two Ways 163. 174 Two Ways instruction 164. 169 Two Ways material 122. 123. 124. 162. 168 Two Ways tradition 122. 123. 125. 151. 232

unholiness Uruil Uzzuh

157

100

57

Vnlcntinian documents 222 Valcntinian eucha ristic prayers 226. 24 1

Valcntinian prayer 222- 9 fragmen ts 237 Vnlcntinian school 222 Vukntinians 240 Valcntinus IS. 183, 237. 238 varinblc:: dements, logic 88-94 Vermes. Gcza 1:14-5 Vesta 167 Vi.fion qf' Pmtl 24 1 Wcngst. K b us W<.-stern text

113. 166. 167. 169 41

Wisdom o f Solo mon 85 woman at the well 138