As I've mentioned before, I'm reading through Richard Bauckham's new tome Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. In the chapter on Eyewitness Memory, Bauckham lists many factors that point to the "reliability of recollective memory" (pp. 330-346). One of those factors is what he calls "Gist and details" (pp. 333-334; 344). Bauckham introduces the concept by saying:

Some writers, particularly those who emphasize the likelihood of inaccuracy in long-term recollective memory, argue that the "gist" of the memory is likely to be accurate, even when the details are not. Barclay maintains that hte recollective memories are "true in the sense of maintaining the integrity and gist of past life events" (Bauckham 333).

As I read this, I flashed back to Bart Ehrman's Gospel of Judas and his presentation on Judas' betrayal. I remembered blogging on the topic and noting how Ehrman focused on the differences of each account of Judas' betrayal and essentially used the differences to cast aspersions on the whole of each account, concluding that the accounts in Matthew and Acts were "impossible to reconcile". My response was to examine each account and determine what was consistent between them and consider that the basis of the event. Using the lingo I just read in Bauckham, I'd say one should examine the different accounts to get at the "gist" of the situation. Bauckham does the same sort of thing when considering Peter's denials of Christ:

A good example of the consistency of the gist along with variation in inessential detail is the story of Peter's three denials of Jesus as told in all four Gospels (Mt 26.58, 69-75; Mk 14.54, 66-72; Lk 22.54-62; Jn 18-15-18, 25-27) (Bauckham 344).

Bauckham goes on to describe the essential and inessential detail of each account and build a likely view of the event based on shared essential detail. The subsection-concluding paragraph wraps it up nicely:

In such examples [here accounts of Peter's denial] we can see that the gist of an eyewitness memory, preserved in all tellings even if other details are not accurately preserved, and the gist of an oral tradition, preserved in all performances even when other details are varied, can readily coincide. This is a most important conclusion for the study of gospel traditions. It is a conclusion that recognizes the realistic extent to which memory can be relied upon, in the case both of the memory of the eyewetness and the memory of the preformer of oral tradition. The transition from the one to the other need not entail a significant decrease in reliability, though of course this is possible (Bauckham 345).

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆσαι οὗτως εὐχαριστήσατε·
But when you have been satisfied with food, in this way give thanks:

   Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἅγιε,
   We give thanks to you, O Holy Father,
      ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἁγίου ὀνόματός σου,
      according to your holy name,
         οὗ κατεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν,
         which you caused to dwell in our hearts,
      καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας,
      and according to the knowledge and faith and immortality
         ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν
         which you made known to us
            διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου·
            through Jesus your child;
      σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
      to you be glory forever.

   σύ, δέσποτα παντοκράτορ,
   You, all-powerful master,
      ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός σου,
      created all things for the sake of your name;
      τροφήν τε καὶ ποτὸν ἔδωκας τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν,
      both food and drink you gave to people for their enjoyment,
         ἵνα σοι εὐχαριστήσωσιν,
         so that they might give thanks to you;
      ἡμῖν δὲ ἐχαρίσω
      but to us you have graciously given
         πνευματικὴν τροφὴν
         spiritual food
         καὶ ποτὸν
         and drink
         καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον
         and life eternal
            διὰ τοῦ παιδός σου.
            through your child.

   πρὸ πάντων εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι,
   Above all things we give thanks to you,
      ὅτι δυνατὸς εἶ·
      because you are powerful;
      σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
      to you be glory forever.

   μνήσθητι, κύριε, τῆς ἐκκλησίας σου,
   Remember, Lord, your church,
      τοῦ ῥύσασθαι αὐτὴν
      to deliver it
         ἀπὸ παντὸς πονηροῦ
         from all evil
   καὶ τελειῶσαι αὐτὴν
      and to perfect it
         ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου,
         in your love
      καὶ σύναξον αὐτὴν
      and gather it
         ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, τὴν ἁγιασθεῖσαν,
         from the four winds, in its holiness,
         εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν, ἣν ἡτοίμασας αὐτῇ·
         into your kingdom, which you prepared for it;
      ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
      for yours is the power and the glory forever.

   ἐλθέτω χάρις
   Come, grace
      καὶ παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος.
      and let this world pass away.

   Ὡσαννὰ τῷ θεῷ Δαυείδ.
   Hosanna to the God of David!

   εἴ τις ἅγιός ἐστιν,
   If anyone is holy,
   ἐρχέσθω·
      let them come.
   εἴ τις οὐκ ἔστι,
   If anyone is not,
      μετανοείτω·
      let them repent.

   μαρὰν ἀθά·
   Maranatha!

   ἀμήν.
   Amen.

τοῖς δὲ προφήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὅσα θέλουσιν.
But allow the prophets to pray as they desire.

Notes

Upon reading the first line, my first question was to wonder if the "satisfaction" referred to had to do with meals in general, or if it had to do with the Lord's Supper in specific since that section immediately precedes this. I wonder further based on the reference to "spiritual food and drink" later on. I'm not sure what to think about this and am open to any insight or comment. Niederwimmer, in his Hermeneia volume on the Didache, states that the meal in question takes place "between chaps. 9 and 10" (Niederwimmer, 155) and refers to a meal that fully satisfies. But if the context is that of the Eucharist, a spiritual meal, how couldn't that meal fully satisfy its purpose? Seems to me this isn't as clear-cut as Nederwimmer makes it out to be.

Anyway, I'm still thinking about that and if you have insight I'd love to hear it.

Next I noticed the role of "the name" in this passage. Note the model prayer starts with giving thanks to God "according to" or "on behalf of" his "holy name"; and that it is "the name" that is "caused to dwell within our hearts". Interesting, particularly in light of the role of the name in the Hebrew Bible. And later we have almighty God creating all things "for the sake of" his name. I suppose these could be shades of reference to the Lord's Prayer ("hallowed be your name") or perhaps areas like Mt 10.22, "in my name's sake". Similar instances are found elsewhere in Matthew (18.5, 20; 19.29; 21.9; 23.39; 24.9) and similar passages in the balance of the Gospels. I'm not sure if there is anything there since the passages aren't exactly analogous, but I thought I'd bring it up.

Another interesting thing was the repetition of the line "through Jesus your child" indicating as the agent through which God gave or made known. Thus, according to the Didachist, the "knowledge of faith and immortality" was made known to us by God through his child Jesus and also the "spiritual food and drink and life eternal" through his child (the same child though the name isn't repeated).

Each verse in the Lake numbering from verse 2 through verse 5 is a sentence and a logical section. Note that verses 2 and 4 end with "to you be glory forever" and verse 5 ends with a similar mini-benediction, "for yours is the power and the glory forever". What's up with verse 3? Well, verse 4 is pretty short and refers to God via pronoun reference. Perhaps verses 3-4 form one unit of the prayer instead, with the units as v. 2, 3-4, 5 with the closing benediction(s) in v. 6. This would allow for v. 5 to wrap it up with its somewhat different form.

Verse 6 is also interesting as it is a series of five short statements, at least as I've broken it up. The image of grace moving into and the world moving away (using ἐλθέτω and παρελθέτω) is nice.

The next statement, "Hosanna to the God of David" sounds like someone was reading the Psalms. Indeed, I don't find any use of "God of David" in the NT. The only personal names used to qualify "God" (θεός) in the NT are those of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The next statement sounds something along the same lines as Re 22.17 but not quite. I don't think there's a parallel there, but the saying sounds similar to something I think I should remember but can't.

The μαρὰν ἀθά could allude to 1Co 16.22 (and also Re 22.20?). But that saying could be so prevalent in the developing church that a direct allusion is not necessary, I'd think. Note Niederwimmer sees parallels between this statement and the previous and 1Co 16.22.

After all of this specification on how to pray following a meal (again, could that be referring to the eucharist proper?) the note of the Didachist in verse 7, allowing the prophets to pray (after a meal, I'd guess) as they wish is curious. Is the model prayer more of a guideline and less of a prescription? And who are these "prophets" and what role did they play in the early church?

Final note: The Coptic witness to the Didache has an insertion after v. 7. According to Niederwimmer (excursus, p. 165), the insertion is as follows:

“But (δέ) because of the word of the oil of anointing (? [ⲥⲧ]ⲓⲛⲟⲩϥⲓ: see immediately below) give thanks, saying: ‘We thank you, Father, for the oil of anointing (? ⲥⲧⲓⲛ[ⲟⲩ]ϥⲓ) that you have made known through Jesus your Son (ϣⲏⲣⲓ; the Coptic has the same word also in 10.3 end; but at this point, as in 10.3, the Coptic word was certainly intended to reflect παῖς). Thine is (the) glory forever. Amen (ἀμήν).’ ”
Niederwimmer, K., & Attridge, H. W. (1998). The Didache : A commentary. Facsims. on lining papers. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (165). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

I only add this as it is interesting; I have no plans to discuss it.

Next up: Didache 11. Hopefully it won't take as long to get to that as it did to get to Didache 10.

It's true. Soul Brother #1, a.k.a. The hardest working man in show business, a.k.a. The godfather of soul, the one and only James Brown has passed away.

The obituary on Slate is a decent read, complete with links to YouTube for some of Brown's best work. The best paragraph?

Brown's showmanship merged the fervent emotionalism of the black church with pure showbiz—flashy clothes, vaudevillian theatrics, sweat-drenched movement, and a pompadour flamboyant enough to inspire Al Sharpton (and countless pimps). He was the model for all pop performers who followed him. After Brown, even the whitest white boy felt compelled to shake it a little onstage.

I've blogged twice about JB so it is only appropriate to point to those entries today.

• March 11, 2005: The "James Brown - Semeia Funkadelic Discourse" Rhapsody Playlist. Blogged upon finding out that the SBL's Semeia journal (entire journal series available for Logos Bible Software) actually interacts with James Brown song titles from a theological perspective. I'll never think of the song "It's Too Funky in Here (Open up the Windows)" in the same light.
• July 20, 2006: Shamanah! Blogged upon realizing that JB's common epithet "Shamanah!" is likely Brown-speak for the phrase, "Show me now!"

It was five months ago today (on July 22, 2006) that Amy and I entered into the state of wedded bliss. And bliss it is. I love you, sweetie!

Here are a few pics since I haven't posted any from the wedding yet.

Signing the wedding license to satisfy the guv'mint

Smoochin' my sweetie ...

This from an email I wrote yesterday to a longtime friend who asked me about use of the OT in the NT. I'd just referred him to a recent BiblicalStudies.org.uk posting:. The "there" below refers to the URL that I placed above this paragraph.

There is an article on Jesus' use of the Old Testament in PDF that is downloadable. I've not read it, so I can't say too much, but it sounds along the lines of the sort of thing you're looking for.

In re-reading the first sentence this morning (my friend responded to my email) I thought the following:

"Yet another example as to why reading the NT epistles is fraught with peril."

Why would I say that? Why, the prepositional phrase "in PDF", of course. What does it modify? We know because we know that "PDF" is the Portable Document Format and it refers to an electronic representation of a paper page. But what if I didn't know that, or if I didn't have the cultural wherewithal to put it together? Then my options are:

• "in PDF" modifies "the Old Testament", so I'm referring to an article about Jesus' use of the OT in something called 'PDF'. Maybe it represents a tri-consonontal Hebrew root, maybe it represents a subsection of his teaching and how he uses the OT in it ... hey, it could be anything.
• "in PDF" modifies "an article". That's what I intended, of course. I mean, it's obvious. Right?

Even worse, you can't disambiguate based on the second sentence. Some disambiguation is possible based on the URL that was above the paragraph (though the URL was to a .html page, not a .pdf page) and the further clarifier "that is downloadable" (all the more reason to ensure we have as much context as possible when reading epistles!). That could be enough of a cue to prevent someone from thinking that I was perhaps referring to Jesus' Palestinian Desert Forays, but with some of the exegetical method practiced out there these days, I can't guarantee it.

I agree. Come, Lord Jesus!

In my hot little hands: The Logos Bible Software edition of Max Zerwick & Mary Grosvenor's A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, 5th Edition.

A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament presents a verse by verse analysis of the original Greek New Testament. Breaking down the significant Greek words, it offers parsing, including cross-references to the author’s Biblical Greek, notes, glosses, and other relevant information. Grammatical Analysis also provides a succinct interpretation of figures of speech and other explicit or implicit information within the Greek text. The analysis is preceded by a glossary of grammatical terms.

Just got the weekly email scoop from Publishers Weekly.

In the "Books Written by People Who Should Know" department, we have (I excerpt this directly from the web page):

Jesus for the Non-Religious
John Shelby Spong. Harper San Francisco, $24.95 (288p) ISBN 978-0-06-076207-0
In this impassioned work, Spong, the iconoclastic former Episcopal bishop of Newark, details in this impassioned work both his "deep commitment to Jesus of Nazareth" and his "deep alienation from the traditional symbols" that surround Jesus.

Ok ... don't they have an editor check these things? Or is there some dittography going on in the transcription here? (cf. repetition of "in this impassioned work")