The eucharist in the Didache: what's missing?

[spin]

Here is the eucharist (translated by Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers I, Loeb 2003) outlined in the Didache.

[431] Ch.9 And with respect to the eucharist, you shall give thanks as follows. 2. First, with respect to the cup: "We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever." 3. And with respect to the fragment of bread: "We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge that you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever. 4. As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered to become one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus Christ forever." 5. But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For also the Lord has said about this, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs."

Ch.10 And when you have had enough to eat, you should give thanks as follows: 2. "We give you thanks, holy Father, for [433] your holy name which you have made reside in our hearts, and for the knowledge, faith, and immortality that you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever. 3. You, Ο Master Almighty, created all things for the sake of your name, and gave both food and drink to humans for their refreshment, that they might give you thanks. And you graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink, and eternal life through your child. 4. Above all we thank you because you are powerful. To you be the glory forever. 5. Remember your church, Ο Lord; save it from all evil, and perfect it in your love. And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom, which you prepared for it. For yours is the power and the glory forever. 6. May grace come and this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone is holy, let him come; if any one is not, let him repent. Maranatha! Amen." 7. But permit the prophets to give thanks as often as they wish.

This is astounding. What I was looking for is in Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, etc, when they deal with the eucharist. But it is not in the Didache. Have you guessed it yet? (It's not "the slime oozing out of your TV set".)

---

Where does the Didache really fit into christian development? It was only discovered 100 odd years ago, but everyone seems to think it is early. The question is, just how early?

[Ben C. Smith]

Here is the eucharist (translated by Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers I, Loeb 2003) outlined in the Didache.

[431] Ch.9 And with respect to the eucharist, you shall give thanks as follows. 2. First, with respect to the cup: "We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever." 3. And with respect to the fragment of bread: "We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge that you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever. 4. As this fragment of bread was scattered upon the mountains and was gathered to become one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus Christ forever." 5. But let no one eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For also the Lord has said about this, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs."

Ch.10 And when you have had enough to eat, you should give thanks as follows: 2. "We give you thanks, holy Father, for [433] your holy name which you have made reside in our hearts, and for the knowledge, faith, and immortality that you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever. 3. You, Ο Master Almighty, created all things for the sake of your name, and gave both food and drink to humans for their refreshment, that they might give you thanks. And you graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink, and eternal life through your child. 4. Above all we thank you because you are powerful. To you be the glory forever. 5. Remember your church, Ο Lord; save it from all evil, and perfect it in your love. And gather it from the four winds into your kingdom, which you prepared for it. For yours is the power and the glory forever. 6. May grace come and this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone is holy, let him come; if any one is not, let him repent. Maranatha! Amen." 7. But permit the prophets to give thanks as often as they wish.

This is astounding. What I was looking for is in Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, etc, when they deal with the eucharist. But it is not in the Didache. Have you guessed it yet? (It's not "the slime oozing out of your TV set".)

Do you mean besides any link to the body, blood, and/or death of Jesus?

[spin]

Do you mean besides any link to the body, blood, and/or death of Jesus?

Hell, you've ruined all the tension, the suspense.... Someone must've given you an advance copy of the script. (Or I'm just not cut out for writing TV dramas.)

How about now feeding this presentation of the eucharist back into the gap between Paul and the gospels....

[Ben C. Smith]

Do you mean besides any link to the body, blood, and/or death of Jesus?

Hell, you've ruined all the tension, the suspense.... Someone must've given you an advance copy of the script. (Or I'm just not cut out for writing TV dramas.)

Oh, sorry. We have discussed the Eucharist just recently on the forum, so it is still pretty fresh.

How about now feeding this presentation of the eucharist back into the gap between Paul and the gospel....

I think Paul himself may have been the one to link the communal meal to the body and blood (in 1 Corinthians 10, for example, where it comes across as an innovation). I think something like the Didache version preceded Paul, had nothing to do with any Last Supper or death of Christ, and is what Paul added his layer of symbolism to.

[spin]

Do you mean besides any link to the body, blood, and/or death of Jesus?

Hell, you've ruined all the tension, the suspense.... Someone must've given you an advance copy of the script. (Or I'm just not cut out for writing TV dramas.)

Oh, sorry. We have discussed the Eucharist just recently on the forum, so it is still pretty fresh.

No, I had perhaps the same thread in mind, as I too have participated in one concerning 1 Cor 11 and its pre-gospel lordly feast. But I find, despite the obviousness of some things to fresh eyes, we can easily overlook the obvious.

How about now feeding this presentation of the eucharist back into the gap between Paul and the gospel....

I think Paul himself may have been the one to link the communal meal to the body and blood (in 1 Corinthians 10, for example, where it comes across as an innovation). I think something like the Didache version preceded Paul, had nothing to do with any Last Supper or death of Christ, and is what Paul added his layer of symbolism to.

In the thread I had in mind you may remember I argued for 11:23-27 as an orthodox augmentation of Paul's feast. The Didache fits well with what Paul presents, assuming 11:23-27 is not Pauline.

[Ben C. Smith]

In the thread I had in mind you may remember I argued for 11:23-27 as an orthodox augmentation of Paul's feast. The Didache fits well with what Paul presents, assuming 11:23-27 is not Pauline.

Agreed. I believe our only real difference on that part of the reconstructed sequence of versions is 1 Corinthians 11.28.

[spin]

In the thread I had in mind you may remember I argued for 11:23-27 as an orthodox augmentation of Paul's feast. The Didache fits well with what Paul presents, assuming 11:23-27 is not Pauline.

Agreed. I believe our only real difference on that part of the sequence is verse 28.

Given the use of "cup" and "bread" in the Didache, I don't have any problem at all with v28. It has always been the start of Paul's instruction on the topic for me. As the Didache has no problem with the cup and the bread in a non-passion oriented sacred meal, why should we have a problem with their appearance in 1 Cor 11:28? It follows quite smoothly after the mention of eating and drinking in 11:21-22.

[spin]

As a side issue, I'm puzzled by the use of "Do not give what is holy to the dogs" in Didache 9.5, as a teaching with regard to access to the feast. It is word-for-word with Mt 7:6a, but there it has no real context, just threaded into a laundry list of sayings and linked to the similar saying about swine.

[Ben C. Smith]

In the thread I had in mind you may remember I argued for 11:23-27 as an orthodox augmentation of Paul's feast. The Didache fits well with what Paul presents, assuming 11:23-27 is not Pauline.

Agreed. I believe our only real difference on that part of the sequence is verse 28.

Given the use of "cup" and "bread" in the Didache, I don't have any problem at all with v28. It has always been the start of Paul's instruction on the topic for me. As the Didache has no problem with the cup and the bread in a non-passion oriented sacred meal, why should we have a problem with their appearance in 1 Cor 11:28?

It is a subtle point, but the reasons for my demurral on this verse are as follows, as I wrote elsewhere:

The gospels (except Luke minus the interpolation) and Justin Martyr have bread/cup, whereas the Didache, 1 Corinthians 10.15-17, 21, and the original text of Luke have cup/bread.

Now, there are examples in 1 Corinthians 10-11 of bread/cup (or the equivalent), but I think that they admit of their own explanations. 1 Corinthians 10.3-4, for example, mentions spiritual food before spiritual drink, but that is because the manna comes before the water from a rock in the book of Exodus (chapters 16 and 17). And 1 Corinthians 10.31 has "eat and drink," but that is because, in Greek as in English, "eating and drinking" is more of an expression in its own right than "drinking and eating" (I confirmed this a while ago to my own satisfaction with a few informal searches on the TLG, but let me know if you have a different sense). But, where Paul is describing the dominical supper itself, naming the elements instead of finding their parallels in scripture or leaning on a stock phrase, he places the cup first, before the bread, just as in the Didache: 1 Corinthians 10.16, 21.

Verse 28 has the order bread/cup, but without the reasons I can easily discern for that order in other parts of 1 Corinthians. But I find little reason to debate the point very much, since it is, as I said, quite subtle. If you do not think my reasoning sufficient, you can take a number and join the line of others on this forum who have read the same argument and thought it lacking.

As a side issue, I'm puzzled by the use of "Do not give what is holy to the dogs" in Didache 9.5, as a teaching with regard to access to the feast. It is word-for-word with Mt 7:6a, but there it has no real context, just threaded into a laundry list of sayings and linked to the similar saying about swine.

My interpretation of the saying about dogs is that it is a warning not to reveal or extend the mysteries of the cult to unworthy outsiders. Dogs as representing outsiders are found in Revelation 22.15, as well. This may have been a general saying specifically applied in the Didache to one of those mysteries: the Eucharist, but I cannot prove that it was generic before it came to be applied to the Eucharist; it is just a possibility. That there is no real context at all for the saying in Matthew 7 suggests to me that this is one of many church sayings with a ritual or ecclesiastical function which have been placed on Jesus' lips in the gospels. I think that Didache 11.7 is another such saying, with its original context being how to treat prophetic utterances in the church (compare 1 Corinthians 12 and 14), just as we find in the Didache, but its adopted gospel context eventually being something about Jesus' relationship to the spirit in Mark 3.28-30. I have more on this topic elsewhere, where I attempt to isolate two very likely and two possible accretions in the text of the gospel of Mark.

[spin]

Verse 28 has the order bread/cup, but without the reasons I can easily discern for that order in other parts of 1 Corinthians. But I find little reason to debate the point very much, since it is, as I said, quite subtle. If you do not think my reasoning sufficient, you can take a number and join the line of others on this forum who have read the same argument and thought it lacking.

It is the same order of eat/drink in 11:21-22. It's the order you would expect to follow, which it does without 1:23-27.

My interpretation of the saying about dogs is that it is a warning not to reveal or extend the mysteries of the cult to unworthy outsiders. Dogs as representing outsiders are found in Revelation 22.15, as well. This may have been a general saying specifically applied in the Didache to one of those mysteries: the Eucharist, but I cannot prove that it was generic before it came to be applied to the Eucharist; it is just a possibility.

A good context is a more convincing home for an aphorism than a shopping list. We've had over 1800 years to justify, and provide a neat exegesis of, Mt 7:6a. The list approach ultimately suggests that it has been decontextualized. But...

That there is no real context at all for the saying in Matthew 7 suggests to me that this is one of many church sayings with a ritual or ecclesiastical function which have been placed on Jesus' lips in the gospels.

You are saying that it has a contextualization, just not in a shopping list recited by Jesus. I agree.

I think that Didache 11.7 is another such saying, with its original context being how to treat prophetic utterances in the church (compare 1 Corinthians 12 and 14), just as we find in the Didache, but its adopted gospel context eventually being something about Jesus' relationship to the spirit in Mark 3.28-30. I have more on this topic elsewhere, where I attempt to isolate two very likely and two possible accretions in the text of the gospel of Mark.

Will try to digest....