Rethinking the Didache: A Literary/Rhetorical Approach (Part 1)

As interest continues to arise in the Fathers and we consider their voice for the life and the practice of the Church, I found it fitting to bring in a guest blogger who can bring a challenging and fresh perspective to one of the most beloved works in the Fathers, the Didache. I’ve only recently gotten to know Matt Larsen, a fellow colleague, but he has demonstrated to be an exceptionable student of the Fathers and the Didache and shows to be a promising future scholar in the field. Matt is very much involved in teaching the Scriptures over at his Church in Dallas, Texas. This is first post of several to follow. Feel free to comment and ask questions for Matt as this series develops–whether encouraging, challenging, constructively critical, etc. Welcome Matt!

——————–

Rethinking the Didache (Part 1): A Literary/Rhetorical Approach

by Matt Larsen

It just be might be that an avalanche in Didachistic studies has recently begun.  Since its discovery in 1873, it has been generally accepted to see the Didachist as a redactor of source, rather than as an author in his own right.  But it is a truism to state that one will inevitably find what one is looking for in the text or, as Albert Schweitzer taught us, whom one is looking for.  As Adele Berlin points out, if one approaches a text convinced on the validity of form and source criticism, one will certainly “find” a wide array of forms and sources.

In this light, we are forced to ask, “Is it any coincidence that the Didache was discovered and first studied during the life and Julius Wellhausen, with all the excitement around his new Documentary Hypothesis, and the Didache was ‘found’ to be created by a redactor using various sources, as well?”

The Didache has been a difficult puzzle for scholars ever since its discover by Philotheos Bryennios in the library of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople.  Scholars have found different results as they approach the text.  The majority assumption among these same scholars has been that the Didachist was dealing with various sources, redacting them and compiling to accomplish his desired effect on his community.

But is it not true that the task of the scholar is not simply to ask questions of the text but rather, first, to approach the text without prior commitment to any type of “criticism” and let the text itself dictate the questions that it wants to answer?  Here’s what I’m saying: what if the search for redacted sources in the Didache was something that the scholastic community of the last hundred plus years have wanted to find and thus they have indeed “found” them, and thus, were misguided from the get-go?  Does the Didache really demand that we perform rigorous source and form criticism?  Or does it want to answer different questions?

Into this milieu enters the recent commentary of Aaron Milavec.  One thing that can certainly be stated about his commentary is that he is an independent thinker.  Many of his views of the Didache are unique or fringe.  He is not shy to voice his options over and against vast scholarly crowd standing against him.

One of these unique views is that the Didache was not compiled by the Didachist of different sources, compiling them and redacting them as [s]he saw fit.  Milavec sees a clear unity in the Didache.  He finds a compelling pastoral genius that holds the Didache together.  He says that he came to this conclusion, among other things, by reading the text in the Greek over and over again, listening to it spoken out loud over and over again, and, ultimately, committing the whole text to memory.

While I didn’t follow his exact methodology. I have sought to read and re-read the text of the Didache over and over again, and simply ask, “What am I seeing?”.  In this endeavour, I too find a clear literary unity of the Didache, but for a different reason.

I see a strong polemic and defensive tone throughout the Didache.  From beginning to end, I believe the Didachist is seeking to claim that their Christian community is not a false, rogue Messianic sect, but rather, they and not the Jews are in fact the true expression of Israel.

This series of posts will seek to point out the polemic, defensive tone of the Didachist in four posts and, in the final post, to begin to make some remarks about the significance of the polemical literary unity of the Didache. 
The question that the scholar must ask is: does this methodology work when used on this text?  Whether it be source, form, literary, or … even canonical criticism, we must ask, “does looking at the text this way illuminate or confuse it?”  Source criticism has left the poor Didachist as a confused compiler who had no theology to offer his readership.  The question now must be switched to “Is there another form of criticism that will make better sense of this document?”

As now introduced, I believe the answer to that question is “yes” and that that method is rhetorical criticism, which sees a strong polemical, defensive rhetoric claiming to be the continuation of the true Israel, not a false, rogue Messianic sect and certainly not a new religion, but a very very old one.

Stay tuned …