I finished reading Jesus and the Eyewitnesses last night. I won't do any in-depth blogging on the book as a whole — Chris Tilling has that covered — but I will say it is well worth reading. I have a few areas of the book that I do plan on digging into further; some of that will likely make it onto the blog.

As well, I have proposed a paper for the Northwest regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society based in part on some of the stuff Bauckham brings to light. If that one is accepted, I'll blog the abstract. Of course, I'll post the paper after the conference (in the end of February).

Though others have mentioned it, I need to note that Tyler has posted the "Best of 2006" Carnival. Do go check it out.

In reading Jefford's The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament, I noticed a citation that sounded interesting:

Finally, this volume is not designed to be a methodical, text-critical comparison of the New Testament texts with parallels from the apostolic fathers, focusing upon the variations in manuscripts and sources. In that vein, several worthy efforts have already been made to cover the entire corpus of the apostolic fathers in the past, including the early work of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in 1905 ... (Jefford 3)

A footnote goes on to descibe this volume:

A Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905).

On a whim, hoping to find more information about this title, I googled for it. And I was amazed when I saw an archive.org link in the results, because that usually means that an edition of the work is available. And it is! PDF (10 megs) is sitting on a server waiting for you to grab it and devour it.

I'd recommend clicking on the "Keyword" links to search for other available items.

Update (2007-01-08): The folks here at Logos figured this would be a good "Community Pricing" title. See the product page for more info.

Also, for those longsuffering ones out there who have been waiting for the Logos editions of the Apostolic Fathers in Greek and English, please know that I'm working on it right now (sorting out some issues with morphological annotations of each edition) and hope to make good progess on it in the near-term. It's probably 2/3 of the way there, though sometimes the last bit can be a bit of a push.

I've begun to work Clayton N. Jefford's latest book from Hendrickson Publishers' Academic imprint into my reading schedule. The book is The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament. Full disclosure: the book was sent to me by Hendrickson Academic. And I was happy to receive it; I'd noticed the title a few months back and almost picked up a copy at SBL but I decided not to.

So as I read a chapter or two, I'll blog about the book. I've read the introduction and the first chapter, so I'll start with those — after I post the Table of Contents. Note that Hendrickson have the TOC, the Introduction and a sample chapter on their web site. The sample chapter is chapter 1.

• Introduction: How to Talk about the Apostolic Fathers?
• Chapter 1: Finding a Time and Place for the Texts
• Chapter 2: The Authority of Texts and Traditions
• Chapter 3: Codes of Conduct and Christian Thinking
• Chapter 4: Imagery of the New Testament Faith
• Chapter 5: The Question of Christians as Jews
• Chapter 6: The Question of Christians as Citizens
• Chapter 7: How Persons and Places Influence History
• Conclusion: The Significance of the Apostolic Fathers for New Testament Study
• Index of Subjects
• Index of Ancient Sources 

At this point in my reading of the book, my summary is: "Helpful information in an approachable format. A good place to start if you're a student of the NT entering into study of the Apostolic Fathers".

Jefford's information is good and he surveys the landscape fairly well in Chapter 1. One thing I've noticed, however, is the apologetic tone of the book. A good book should convey to me the author's research, findings and conclusions unapologetically. Some authors, however (particularly in academic settings, and often in conference papers and such where presentations can be defensive in nature) have a need to state that they're telling you their opinion, then state their tidbit, then remind you that this was only their opinion and that critical minds diverge on the issue. This is fine (to some degree) in an introduction where one is stating methodology and intent and also when surveying large amounts of data where there are ranges of views and no clear, succinct data points. So in Jefford's introduction and first chapter this is OK, though I do think he does this overmuch. He does it at the start of chapter 1:

"The present chapter is offered as a means by which to differentiate where and when the texts of the apostolic fathers were penned, at least as I understand the situation. I am fully aware that a variety of views may be found within the secondary literature. ... (Jefford 7)

The above fine and helpful (though I'm not a fan of first-person singular dialogue in the context of academic writing). But it goes on for three paragraphs, and again in each subsection conclusion of the chapter. Please don't get me wrong; the information is good and likely helpful as an introduction to the Apostolic Fathers for students of the NT. But when almost everything is couched in this type of permission-asking terminology, it makes me wonder about the author who is writing the material. I've given him permission to tell me his opinion and/or conclusions by reading the book; he shouldn't have to come to me sheepishly with his material.

I don't want to be too harsh, and, as I said, that sort of thing can be appropriate in introductions and surveys. I'm hoping it tones down as the book progresses. I'll keep y'all posted as I read.

Update: I finished the book up. I had a slight criticism of the first few chapters: Jefford seemed apologetic in making his views known as opinions. I'm pleased to say that the balance of the book didn't exhibit that same degree of apology. Overall the book was good and it provides decent introduction and discussion particularly on the issues of "Christians as Jews" (chapter 5) and "Christians as Citizens" (chapter 6).

Also note that Danny at Deinde reviews Jefford's work as well. Do check out his take. 

So head on over to Codex and check it out. Tyler, as would be expected, did an excellent job. He even managed to include a few ricoblog posts!

Note also that Phil at hyperekperissou has posted the "Patristic Roundup" for Dec. 28 2006-Jan 3, 2007. He even includes a post from yours truly on the Didache.

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!"