Lordship in the Didache.

[Ben C. Smith]

The following is a list of all of the instances of the term "Lord" (κύριος) in the Didache:

Title or subtitle: Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles.

4.1 My child, you shall remember both night and day the one who speaks to you the word of God; you shall honor him as you do the Lord, for where the Lordly teaching is given, there is the Lord.

4.11 And slaves, submit yourselves to your lords with reverence and fear, as being the type of God. 12 You shall hate all hypocrisy and everything that is not pleasing to the Lord. 13 you shall not abandon the commandments of the Lord, but shall guard that which you have received, neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom.

6.2 If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able, do what you are able to do.

8.2 Do not pray as the hypocrites, but pray thus, as the Lord has commanded in his gospel: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done as in heaven so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil: for yours is the power and the glory forever. 3 Thrice a day pray in this fashion.

9.5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord has said concerning this: Give not that which is holy unto dogs.

10.5 Remember, Lord, your Church, to redeem it from every evil, and to perfect it in your love, and gather it together from the four winds, even that which has been sanctified for your kingdom which you have prepared for it; for yours is the kingdom and the glory for ever.

11.2 But if the teacher himself should turn and teach another doctrine with a view to subvert you, hearken not to him; but if he should come to add to your righteousness, and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. 3 But concerning the apostles and prophets, thus do according to the doctrine of the Gospel.

11.8 But not everyone who speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but he is so who has the ways of the Lord; by their ways they therefore shall be known, the false prophet and the prophet.

12.1 Let every one who comes in the name of the Lord be received, but afterwards you shall examine him and know his character, for you have knowledge both of good and evil.

14.1 But on the Lordly [day] of the Lord, after you have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2 But let not any one who has a quarrel with his companion join with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be polluted, 3 for it is that which is spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time offer unto me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles.

15.1 Elect for yourselves, therefore, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not covetous, and true and approved, for they perform for you the service of prophets and teachers.

15.4 But your prayers and your almsgivings and all your deeds so do as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

16.1 Watch concerning your life; let not your lamps be quenched or your loins be loosed, but be ready, for you know not the hour at which our Lord comes.

16.6 And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first the sign of the stretching out in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead — 7 not of all, but as it has been said: The Lord shall come and all his saints with him; 8 then shall the world behold the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven....

The referent for "Lord" in this text is at least a bit similar to what we find in the epistle of James: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2629. First, we can dispense of the instance in 4.11, since it manifestly refers to earthly, human masters. Many of the other references, on their own, could refer either to Jesus or to God: they are perfectly ambiguous on their own. Some can refer only to God; for example, the first-person notice in 14.3 that "I am a great king... and my name is wonderful among the gentiles" comes from Malachi 1.11, where Yahweh is the one speaking. Then there are several which probably look to our eyes as if they refer to Jesus, but this impression would be based solely on how the term is used in similar contexts in some of the NT books. For example:

16.1 Watch concerning your life; let not your lamps be quenched or your loins be loosed, but be ready, for you know not the hour at which our Lord comes.

16.6 And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first the sign of the stretching out in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead — 7 not of all, but as it has been said: The Lord shall come and all his saints with him; 8 then shall the world behold the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven....

I hope that by now we are not too quick to assign such verses to Jesus as opposed to assigning them to God. After all, 16.7 is a quotation from Zechariah 14.5, where it refers to Yahweh.

Another passage which probably strikes us as referring to Jesus is this one:

11.8 But not everyone who speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but he is so who has the ways of the Lord; by their ways they therefore shall be known, the false prophet and the prophet.

The "ways of the Lord" may well be a reference to Jesus' lifestyle on earth, and it is so taken in many quarters, but the expression is, on the other hand, not at all unambiguous on that score.

The reference to "the Lordly [day] of the Lord" in 14.1 is pretty odd. When we hear the phrase, "the Lord's day" (= Sunday), we probably tend to think of the day on which the Lord Jesus rose from the grave, but are we certain that the term began that way?

Finally, the reference to the Gospel of the Lord in 8.2 and 15.3 is tricky. We ought to lay out all instances of "the gospel" in the Didache:

8.2 Do not pray as the hypocrites, but pray thus, as the Lord has commanded in his Gospel....

11.3 But concerning the apostles and prophets, thus do according to the doctrine of the Gospel.

15.3 Rebuke one another, not in wrath but peaceably, as you have it in the Gospel; and let no one speak to anyone who walks disorderly with regard to his neighbor, neither let him be heard by you until he should repent. 4 But your prayers and your almsgivings and all your deeds so do as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

Also related:

9.5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord has said concerning this: Give not that which is holy unto dogs.

The gospel is often taken to be an oral one, but "as you have it in the gospel" sounds pretty firm (more like a text than an oral tradition to my ears, but I may be wrong), and it should be frankly acknowledged that the contents of the gospel seem to match up with the contents of our canonical gospel of Matthew pretty well. The version of the Lord's prayer introduced by 8.2 is very close to what we find in Matthew 6.9-13 (and a lot closer to Matthew than to the Lucan version in Luke 11.1-4). How to treat prophets and apostles, as in 11.3, is the topic of Matthew 10.10, 40-42; and how to rebuke a brother, as in 15.3-4, is the topic of Matthew 18.15-18. Almsgiving and prayer, of course, we find in the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 6.1-8. The saying of the Lord in 9.5 about dogs is similar to that found in Matthew 7.6. If we would have the gospel be an oral collection of teachings or some lost text, we ought to at least offer some explanation for why our canonical Matthew seems to contain everything mentioned.

If it is the gospel of Matthew which is being referenced, or something very much like it, then of course it is worth asking whether that gospel might be considered the gospel of the Lord God, or whether it would be more appropriate to think of it as the gospel of the Lord Jesus... or both.

My feeling is that the earliest Christians had to know whom they were referring to. Modern Christians use the title Lord indiscriminately both of Jesus and of his heavenly Father (Yahweh = El), but they do so on the basis of rich exegetical traditions in which the context has long informed them of which person of the godhead is being referenced (the same context which makes us think of Jesus whenever the "coming of the Lord" is mentioned). Where any confusion is likely to arise, the tendency is to use the terms God (the Father) and Jesus (the Son) instead of Lord. Did the early Christians have such an exegetical context already? When they saw a phrase such as "the ways of the Lord", did they already know, based on previous usage, whether it referred to the man called Jesus or to the God of the Jews? And, even if they did, did they expect newcomers to the faith to understand such usage, as well? The Didache appears, after all, to be geared toward initiates.

Thoughts?

Ben.

ETA: The text of the Didache can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1882.

[John2]

This issue is starting to remind me of passages from Genesis, like 32:24-30:

So Jacob was left alone, and a man [Stephan's "ish"] wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” The man asked him, “What is your name?” “Jacob,” he answered. Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

And Gen. 18:1-3:

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men [anashim] standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord [adonai], do not pass your servant by.

What would be the big deal then if Jewish Christians thought that Jesus was God too? Or an angel (as Epiphanius notes in Pan. 30):

And [the Ebionites] say that for this reason Jesus was born of the seed of man and was chosen and that he therefore was called Son of God according to the election because Christ descended upon him from above in the form of a dove. They do not say that he was born of God the Father but that he was created as one of the archangels (and even higher) and that he is Lord over the angels as also over everything the Almighty has created.

https://books.google.com/books?id=1_sKc ... el&f=false

[Ben C. Smith]

This issue is starting to remind me of passages from Genesis, like 32:24-30:

So Jacob was left alone, and a man [Stephan's "ish"] wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” The man asked him, “What is your name?” “Jacob,” he answered. Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

And Gen. 18:1-3:

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men [anashim] standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord [adonai], do not pass your servant by.

What would be the big deal then if Jewish Christians thought that Jesus was God too? Or an angel (as Epiphanius notes in Pan. 30):

And [the Ebionites] say that for this reason Jesus was born of the seed of man and was chosen and that he therefore was called Son of God according to the election because Christ descended upon him from above in the form of a dove. They do not say that he was born of God the Father but that he was created as one of the archangels (and even higher) and that he is Lord over the angels as also over everything the Almighty has created.

Very good question.

[Ben C. Smith]

It may be worthwhile to compile all mentions of Jesus and Christ in the Didache, as well:

9.1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give thanks. 2 First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine, David your Child/Servant, which you have made known unto us through Jesus Christ your Child/Servant; to you be the glory for ever. 3 And concerning the broken bread: We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known unto us through Jesus your Child/Servant; to you be the glory for ever. 4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto your kingdom; for yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. 5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord has said concerning this: Give not that which is holy unto dogs.

10.1 But after it has been completed, so pray: 2 We thank you, holy Father, for your holy name, which you have caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known unto us through Jesus your Child/Servant; to you be the glory forever. 3 You, Almighty Master, did create all things for the sake of your name, and have given both food and drink for men to enjoy, that we might give thanks unto you, but to us you have given spiritual food and drink, and life everlasting, through your Child/Servant. 4 Above all, we thank you that you are able to save; to you be the glory forever. 5 Remember, Lord, your Church, to redeem it from every evil, and to perfect it in your love, and gather it together from the four winds, even that which has been sanctified for your kingdom which you have prepared for it; for yours is the kingdom and the glory forever. 6 Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

12.3 But if he should wish to settle with you, being a craftsman, let him work and so eat; 4 but if he does not know any craft, provide according to your own discretion, that a Christian may not live idle among you; 5 but if he be not willing to do so, he is a trafficker in Christ [a Christ-peddler]. From such keep aloof.

[iskander]

NT Usage
1. Kurios appears 717 times in the NT.
2. The majority of the passages are found in the writings of Luke (210) and the apostle Paul (275).
3. The reason for this is that Luke wrote for, and Paul to, people who lived in areas dominated by Greek culture and language.
4. On the other hand, the Gospel of Mark, more firmly based in Jewish Christian tradition, uses the kurios-title only 18 times, and these mostly in quotations.
5. The remaining occurrences of kurios are spread over the other NT books:
a. Matthew: 80
b. John: 52
c. Hebrews: 16
d. James: 14
e. 1 Peter: 8
f. 2 Peter: 14
g. Jude: 7
h. Revelation: 23

Where is it used as meaning ' God' ?

[Bernard Muller]

I did some thinking long ago on the Didache, and I came to believe that the Didache was written/compiled around 95 AD, as a strictly Ebionistic tract (non-Christian), with the author having knowledge of a subset of gMatthew.
Then that tract got Christianized later, with the addition of chapters 7, 12 & 15, with also "and immortality" & "and life eternal" (ch. 10) and "through Jesus Christ" (ch. 9)).
Unfortunatly, I have nothing written in order to explain why the aforementioned passages are additions by Christian(s).
But for the dating, I explained it in http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html#didache

So I think "Lord" in the original non-Christian Didache means always God.
But they are two problems: 8.2 & 9.5.
However, because of 4.1: My child, you shall remember both night and day the one who speaks to you the word of God; you shall honor him as you do the Lord, for where the Lordly teaching is given, there is the Lord.
and considering Jesus was thought as no more than God's servant, then for 8.2:
Do not pray as the hypocrites, but pray thus, as the Lord has commanded in his gospel:
The Lord can be God who made known, through a writer inspired by God himself (that would explain "his" gospel), the words of Jesus (as "said" by God through his servant Jesus).
Same for 9.5.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

NT Usage
1. Kurios appears 717 times in the NT.
2. The majority of the passages are found in the writings of Luke (210) and the apostle Paul (275).
3. The reason for this is that Luke wrote for, and Paul to, people who lived in areas dominated by Greek culture and language.
4. On the other hand, the Gospel of Mark, more firmly based in Jewish Christian tradition, uses the kurios-title only 18 times, and these mostly in quotations.
5. The remaining occurrences of kurios are spread over the other NT books:
a. Matthew: 80
b. John: 52
c. Hebrews: 16
d. James: 14
e. 1 Peter: 8
f. 2 Peter: 14
g. Jude: 7
h. Revelation: 23

Where is it used as meaning ' God' ?

All over the place. For the epistle of James, for example, refer to the other thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2629.

[Ben C. Smith]

I did some thinking long ago on the Didache, and I came to believe that the Didache, was written/compiled around 95 AD, as a strictly Ebionistic tract (non-Christian), with the author having knowledge of a subset of gMatthew.
Then that tract got Christianized later, with the addition of chapters 7, 12 & 15, with also "and immortality" & "and life eternal" (ch. 10) and "through Jesus Christ" (ch. 9)).
Unfortunatly, I have nothing written in order to explain why the aforementioned passages are additions by Christian(s).
But for the dating, I explained it in http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html#didache

So I think "Lord" in the original non-Christian Didache means always God.
But they are two problems: 8.2 & 9.5.
However, because of 4.1: My child, you shall remember both night and day the one who speaks to you the word of God; you shall honor him as you do the Lord, for where the Lordly teaching is given, there is the Lord.
and considering Jesus was thought as no more than God's servant, then for 8.2:
Do not pray as the hypocrites, but pray thus, as the Lord has commanded in his gospel:
The Lord can be God who made known, through a writer inspired by God himself (that would explain "his" gospel), the words of Jesus (as "said" by God through his servant Jesus).
Same for 9.5.

Good points, Bernard. Thanks.

[iskander]

From this thread
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2629
"The following is a list of all of the instances of the term "Lord" (κύριος) in the epistle of James:
It is interesting to try to decide whether this title is being applied to Yahweh or to the man called Jesus.

Two of the instances, of course, have to apply to Jesus:
Then there is a list of instances which, without some subtle argumentation, could probably apply either to Jesus or to Yahweh:
Next there is a list of instances which, because of their context, probably apply to Yahweh:
"Lord and Father" sounds like a designation for God, not for Jesus; the instance in 4.10 comes right after mentions of God, and thus itself appears to refer to God; and "the Lord of Sabaoth" is a frequent title for Yahweh in the Hebrew scriptures.

Finally, there is one passage in which "Lord" at first appears to refer to Jesus, but which probably has to refer to God instead:"
Is Jesus God?

[Secret Alias]

So Jacob was left alone, and a man [Stephan's "ish"] wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” The man asked him, “What is your name?” “Jacob,” he answered. Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”


And Gen. 18:1-3:

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men [anashim] standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord [adonai], do not pass your servant by.


What would be the big deal then if Jewish Christians thought that Jesus was God too? Or an angel (as Epiphanius notes in Pan. 30):

And [the Ebionites] say that for this reason Jesus was born of the seed of man and was chosen and that he therefore was called Son of God according to the election because Christ descended upon him from above in the form of a dove. They do not say that he was born of God the Father but that he was created as one of the archangels (and even higher) and that he is Lord over the angels as also over everything the Almighty has created.

Since you rang. Notice that Christians almost inevitably identify Jesus as being 'there' in the 'ish' and 'anashim' (אנשים). Adonai is the proper address of men when they attain the age of a master (see Abraham when he's selecting the tomb). The difficulty - even with the ish theory - is that the two powers tradition seems to distinguish between one god as the 'youth' and the other as the 'old man.' Adonai would naturally fit the old man (using Abraham as a clue) but what about the 'youth'? The youth is likely Yahweh. Indeed the youth makes better sense especially considering the fact that the 'man of war' is Yahweh. With this understanding Jesus = Yahweh and at once also the lesser god.