Early Christian Worship

by the_classicist 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  The Didache is said to be one of the earliest non canonical christian writings. Like PeacefulPete mentioned, it doesn't give the traditional view of the eucharist. Here's a relevant portion of it:

  Now about the thanksgiving, give thanks this way:

  First, about the cup: "We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of your boy David which you made known to us through your boy Jesus. Glory be to you for the age.

  Now about the broken loaf: "We thank you, our Father, for the life and the knowledge that you made known to us through your boy Jesus. Glory be to you for the age. Just as this broken loaf was scattered on top of the hills and as it was gathered together and became one, in the same way let your assembly be gathered together from the remotest parts of the land into your kingdom. "For yours is the glory and the power through Anointed Jesus for the age." Now no one should either eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal, but those who have been baptized into the Lord's name. For about this also the Lord said, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs."

  Now after you have been filled, give thanks this way: "We thank you, holy Father, for your holy name, which you made to live in our hearts, and for the knowledge and trust and immortality which you made known to us through Jesus your boy. Glory be to you for the age.

  "Almighty master, it was you who created all for the sake of your name. You gave both food and drink to people for enjoyment, so that they might give thanks to you. But to us you have freely given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your boy. Before all things, we are thankful to you that you are powerful. Glory be to you for the age.

  There isn't the clearly described unity within the mystical body of the Christ as Paul saw it. The imagery of the vine, I can see as being similar to that, to an extent, with followers likely being seen as its branches. But the imagery of the loaf seems not to describe a union with Jesus but suggests a union just with all the gathered believers.
• 

  Kenneson

  With all the mentions of "known" and "knowledge," it sounds like a Gnostic writing. Probably why it didn't make it into the canon.
• 

  peacefulpete

  The Didache was not a Gnostic or protoGnostic work. It is generally is cataloged as part of the "Apostolic Fathers" body of writings. Here's some info:Didache
• 

  Kenneson

  Thank you Pete. Yes, I can see that many of the early Church Fathers made use of it. Since so many held it in regard, why do you suppose it was not added to Scripture?
• 

  the_classicist

  The Didache is said to be one of the earliest non canonical christian writings. Like PeacefulPete mentioned, it doesn't give the traditional view of the eucharist.

  That's assuming that the 2 are contradictory. Even the modern Catholic Mass calls it bread, especially in the Offertory:

  "Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi,
  quia de tua largitate accepimus panem,
  quem tibi offerimus, fructum terrae et operis manuum hominum
  ex quo nobis fiet panis vitae."

  "You are blessed, Lord, God of the universe,
  through your goodness, we offer bread
  which we offer to you, the fruit of the earth and the work of the hands of men
  out which it will become for us the bread of life."

  Here is the explanation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

  Why The Eucharist Is Called Bread After Consecration

  Here pastors should observe that we should not at all be surprised, if, even after consecration, the Eucharist is sometimes called bread. It is so called, first because it retains the appearance of bread, and secondly because it keeps the natural quality of bread, which is to support and nourish the body.

  Moreover, such phraseology is in perfect accordance with the usage of the Holy Scriptures, which call things by what they appear to be, as may be seen from the words of Genesis which say that Abraham saw three men, when in reality he saw three Angels. In like manner the two Angels who appeared to the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ the Lord into heaven, are called not Angels, but men.

  To say that the Didache does not include the "traditional view of the eucharist" is a bit of a false exegesis given that it doesn't say much at all, doctrinally, about the Eucharist, or "Thanksgiving meal." What we see in the Didache is a liturgical prayer and practical instructions about Christian liturgical practices (in it's earliest form). If we supplement the record of the Didache along with the contemporary views of the Fathers from that period, we see belief among the orthodox, that the Eucharist is indeed the flesh of Christ.

  And I have seen no scholarly works saying that the Eucharistic theology was invented by St. Paul and the Eucharist narrative being inserted into the Gospel. If you can refer me to an article in a journal (I have access to the ALTA Religious Database), I would be more than happy to read it.
• 

  Now What?

  Sorry to jump the thread Classicist, but what is ALTA please?
• 

  the_classicist

  Sorry to jump the thread Classicist, but what is ALTA please?

  I got it wrong, ATLA, not ALTA. It stands for American Theological Libraries Association.
• 

  Now What?

  Thx much!! I'll try to see what that's about. Sounds useful.

  Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...
• 

  Kenneson

  Pete,

  I just went back and re-read the thread. I had missed the 2 passages you refer to. I should ask you what do you understand by "delivered up?" The sense of Rom. 8:32, in my opinion, means God gave Jesus up to benefit us all. In Eph. 5:2, 25 it seems to be referring to Jesus' offering himself up as a sacrifice. But in the case of 1 Cor. 11:23 from the context it seems that the "handing over" occurs on the night of the Eucharist itself and is not so general as in the other passages. And yet Jesus did not die that night, if we are to believe the Gospels.
• 

  peacefulpete

  
  
  
  
  
  

  Also a eucharist appears to have existed in Ur Mark that was later slightly modified to harmonize with Corinthians. Matt simply expanded a few things and Luke (using an early form of Mark) likewise has a meal but was later interpolated using language of Corinthians. So to say that the eucharist (as a meal) was inserted into the texts is not correct.

  This is not a radical view. Numerous studies have been made pulling pieces together. JD Crossan (The Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant (1991)) has made some in depth remarks about the development of the Paulinist/Mithraist version of the meal and how it was married to the existing Eucharist meals of Jewish Christianity. BTW Leolaia has refined my understanding before on this matter here :Re: Gospel of John - Why no Emblems, no Bread and Wine? Read it in it's entirety (I can take it) and the link to another thread posted by Leolaia has some supplementary remarks.