Didascalia: Open discussion [Inactive]

[Clark]

This is the freeform topic for discussing the Didascalia. We found (I think) regarding the Didache that the All Questions Considered topic absorbed a lot of the freeform discussion. So consider posting there.

[Clark]

The word "elect" is used twice in the translation of the Didascalia. How do people read it? Since it's used only twice do we have enough info to define it even loosely?

(The Scripture references of course were not in the manuscript. That doesn't mean they are incorrect or irrelevant, it means only they weren't in the manuscript.)

[Susan]

Clark wrote: "The word "elect" is used twice in the translation of the Didascalia. How do people read it? Since it's used only twice do we have enough info to define it even loosely?

"GOD'S planting and the holy vineyard of His Catholic Church, the elect..." - to me seems to express that salvation comes through the Church; I don't get an element of loss of free will here but know that word has been used to mean various things..does anyone read or understand this differently, to include anything about free will?
I don't think I came to the second time 'elect' is mentioned yet, unless I was concentrating so hard to understand what they were saying that I didn't notice it. Have you come across it yet Clark?

[Susan]

Second Legislation?

[Clark]

Susan said, "I don't think I came to the second time 'elect' is mentioned yet, unless I was concentrating so hard to understand what they were saying that I didn't notice it. Have you come across it yet Clark?"

I cheated and searched. It's another introductory sentence someplace far down in the text.

[Clark]

The beginning text, in which "elect" is found:

"GOD'S planting and the holy vineyard of His Catholic Church, the elect, who rely on the simplicity of the fear of the Lord, who by their faith inherit His everlasting kingdom, who have received the power and fellowship of His Holy Spirit [cf. 2Cor 13.13], and by Him are armed and made firm in the fear of Him, who are become partakers in the sprinkling of the [1Pt 1.2] pure and precious blood of the Great God, Jesus Christ [1Pt 1.17], who have received boldness to call the Almighty God Father, as joint heirs and partakers with His Son and His beloved [cf. Rom 8.17; Eph 3.6] hear the Didascalia of God, you that hope and wait for His promises, which hath been written after the command of our Saviour and is in accord with His glorious words."

If the following is old news to you, ignore it. :-)

Okay, this is a salutation. One way to read a salutation is to say that it is a conventional part of a letter in those times. Paul's letters start out with salutations, shorter and longer.

A salutation can set the overall situation: I (the speaker) am speaking to you (the audience) about this subject. Usually a salutation doesn't break new ground.

Therefore, my idea is that the term "elect" is taken for granted, a "commonplace," that is, it's a term everybody knows. If I wanted to know more about what it is likely to have meant to them I would look in the NT, especially the Epistles, for uses of the word "elect."

[Clark]

Susan said, "Second Legislation?"

First I issue my customary caution that the summaries (in italics) were probably added by the translator or editor and weren't in the original document. I try to ignore them. Most people don't ignore them.

So I searched in the text and found that "Second Legislation" shows up in paragraph "i, 5" (according to the numbering in the online copy of the text). ("i, 5" isn't shown but "i, 4" is.)

The important sentence seems to be: "... know what [in the Law] is the Law, and what are the bonds that are in the Second Legislation, which after the Law were given to those who, in the Law and in the Second Legislation, committed so many sins in the wilderness. For the first Law is that which the Lord God spoke before the people had made the calf and served idols, which consists of the Ten Words and the Judgements. But after they had served idols, He justly laid upon them the bonds, as they were worthy." The "Ten Words" are the Ten Commandments.

Origen says: "And here this other fact will not appear to be without significance, that it is Moses who hears from God all that is written down in the law of Leviticus, whereas in Deuteronomy it is the people who are represented as listening to Moses and learning from him what they could not hear from God. This indeed is why it is called Deuteronomy, meaning the second law. A fact which some will think points to this [is] that when the first law given through Moses came to an end, a second legislation was apparently composed, and this was specially delivered by Moses to his successor Joshua." ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 4.3.12.

The meaning of "Deuteronomy" in Greek is literally "Second Law."

[Susan]

Clark wrote: "Susan said, "Second Legislation?"

Thank you! I read the Navarre Pentateuch before and remember it as him sort of reiterating everything but didn't remember it in that light/terminology.

[Nemo]

"And thou shalt not destroy the hairs of thy beard, nor alter the natural form of thy face and change it to other than God created it, because that thou desirest to please men"

Did the men keep their long or short?

A probably related question, men, especially clergy, in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, seem to have more facial hair than other Christians. Is that part of Tradition?

[Clark]

Nemo said, "A probably related question, men, especially clergy, in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, seem to have more facial hair than other Christians. Is that part of Tradition?"

It is common, yes. I'm not aware of any special teaching or institutional rule about it. The priest at my previous parish was clean shaven; the one at my current parish has a beard. Dunno.

I think I can say clergy having beards is not part of Tradition with a capital "T". It does seem to be a tradition in the way most people use the term in most contexts, that is, a common practice that persists over generations.

[Clark]

Nemo said, "Did the men keep their long or short?"

If you asked about hair, Paul talks about it. I don't know more than that.

If you asked about beards, I think it was the Roman practice to be clean shaven, but Hadrian (2nd century) wore a beard and it became fashionable at least for a while. I think in the East (which is where the Didascalia is from) beards were more common. It would be better to Google it than to rely on my vague recollections. :-)

[Nemo]

Clark wrote: "Nemo said, "Did the men keep their long or short?"

If you asked about hair, Paul talks about it. I don't know more than that.

If you asked about beards, I think it was the Roman practice to be cl..."

I was asking about both actually. The men were supposed to shear their hair off, but keep their beard intact. I’m not sure I understand why. Aren’t both hair and beard the “natural form” of the face? The term “natural form” can also lead to discussions, such as. Is the natural form of hair long or short?

The implicit assumption behind these instructions seems to be that the desire for beauty derives from a desire to please men, but doesn’t beauty please God too?

[Clark]

Nemo said, "The implicit assumption behind these instructions seems to be that the desire for beauty derives from a desire to please men, but doesn’t beauty please God too?"

1. In chapter 2 (the one giving advice to men) what kind(s) of beauty does the Didascalia talk about? Does the Didascalia say or imply whether or not these kinds of beauty please God?

2. What kind of text (genre) is chapter 2?

[Clark]

Nemo said, "I was asking about both actually. The men were supposed to shear their hair off, but keep their beard intact. I’m not sure I understand why. Aren’t both hair and beard the “natural form” of the face? The term “natural form” can also lead to discussions, such as. Is the natural form of hair long or short?"

"And if thou wouldst please God and not men, and lookest and hopest for the life and rest everlasting, adorn not thy natural beauty which is given thee from God, but with humility of neglect make it mean before men. In like manner also thou shalt not nourish the hair of thy head, but do thou shear it off; and thou shalt not comb and adorn it, nor anoint it, lest thou bring upon thee such women as ensnare, or are ensnared, by lust."

"And thou shalt not destroy the hairs of thy beard [cf Lev 19.27], nor alter the natural form of thy face and change it to other than God created it, because that thou desirest to please men."

Let us pretend that we are talking with the author of this chapter and we say, "Cutting the hair off is not the natural form, but about the beard you say to leave it alone because having a beard is the natural form. Aren't you contradicting yourself?"

How might the Didascalia author respond?

[Nemo]

Clark wrote: "... Does the Didascalia say or imply whether or not these kinds of beauty please God?..."

When it says "thy natural beauty which is given thee from God", it implies that natural beauty pleases God, but it immediately enjoins the reader to "with humility of neglect make it mean". Doesn't it defeat the purpose of the gift-giver to make the gift mean with neglect?

I've never seen this type of instruction before, and have no idea how one might rationalize it.

[Clark]

I think I charged off in the wrong direction in my earlier posts. :-0

[Nemo]

Clark wrote: "I think I charged off in the wrong direction in my earlier posts. :-0"

How do you discern right from wrong direction in an open discussion like this?

[Nemo]

I was just catching up on the reading, and came across the "second legislation" that Susan brought up earlier in this thread.

Some early Church Fathers--Justin Martyr among them, if memory serves--believed that part of the Mosaic Law was given to the Jews because of their transgressions. This is perhaps consistent with Didascalia, which instructs Christians to avoid the "bonds that are in the Second Legislation", the "bonds" from which Christ has freed them. It is not clear to me, however, which part of the Books of Moses is "second legislation".

[Clark]

Nemo said, "How do you discern right from wrong direction in an open discussion like this?"

I concluded that I had misread posts that I was responding to in my posts, so my responses were not relevant or useful.

[Clark]

Nemo said, 'It is not clear to me, however, which part of the Books of Moses is "second legislation".'

I hadn't encountered this term before Susan's question, but in a post above I concluded that "Second Legislation" is an alternative translation for "Deuteronomy," which literally in Greek means "Second Law."

[Clark]

Nemo said, "I've never seen this type of instruction before, and have no idea how one might rationalize it."

The first paragraph Chapter 2 of the Didascalia seems to me to be a focused and unified warning to men that gussy-ing yourself up is dangerous because it risks romantic/sexual entanglements that are sinful and dangerous to all involved.

The sentence you quoted is in that paragraph but is not directly associated with romantic stuff, but with worldly pride. "if thou wouldst please God and not men, and lookest and hopest for the life and rest everlasting, adorn not thy natural beauty which is given thee from God, but with humility of neglect make it mean before men." (emphasis added)

Accordingly I conclude that the author thinks that God would think it a good thing that one would play down one's natural beauty in the public space (i.e., outside the home), and would not regard that behavior as demeaning or disparaging the gift. Furthermore, the context is set of warnings about how you present yourself in public.

[An additional comment: I have it in my head from some reading on the culture of the ancient Holy Land that there was a huge separation between private space (inside the home, with family) and public space (outside the home, with non-family), and that the culture was generally an honor-shame culture. The men were responsible for the family public honor and standing outside the home and the women were custodians of the honor of the private family. (This is associated with the modern phenomenon of "honor killing.") I can look up a reference if nudged. So one might within the home appropriately take pleasure in the gift of natural beauty, while masking it outside the home.]

[Nemo]

Clark wrote: "Nemo said, 'It is not clear to me, however, which part of the Books of Moses is "second legislation".'

I hadn't encountered this term before Susan's question, but in a post above I concluded that ..."

The greatest commandment is in Deuteronomy, so I doubt that the Didascalia is urging the elect to avoid it entirely, but which part should they avoid?

[Nemo]

Clark wrote: "Accordingly I conclude that the author thinks that God would think it a good thing that one would play down one's natural beauty in the public space (i.e., outside the home), and would not regard that behavior as demeaning or disparaging the gift..."

That helps me to make more sense of the passage. But still, natural beauty doesn't change between public and private space. One can't keep his hair in "natural form" in private while keeping it shorn in public. I don't see how it works in real life.

[Clark]

Nemo said, "I don't see how it works in real life."

Perhaps I am failing to understand something. But it seems to me that in many times and many societies women bind up their hair when they go out into the public space and "let their hair down" only in private space, and this seems to me to be an example of "how [this injunction] works in real life." Obviously the hair is not shorn in my example. But still.

[Clark]

An isolated observation: In chapter 10 I encountered the first (I think) purported first-person speaking by an apostle:

"For I Matthew also, who am one of the twelve Apostles who speak to you in this Didascalia, was formerly a publican; but now, because that I believed, I have obtained mercy, and have repented of my former deeds, and have been counted worthy also to be an apostle and preacher of the word."

[Clark]

Perhaps the following passage is relevant to the discussion on the laying on of hands.

From chapter 10: "Do you therefore consort with those who have been convicted of sins and are sick, and attach them to you, and be careful of them, and speak to them and comfort them, and keep hold of them and convert them. [ii. 41] And afterwards, as each one of them repents and shows the fruits of repentance, receive him to prayer after the manner of a heathen. And as thou baptizest a heathen and then receivest him, so also lay hand upon this man, whilst all pray for him, and then bring him in and let him communicate with the Church. For the imposition of hand shall be to him in the place of baptism: for whether by the imposition of hand, or by baptism, they receive the communication of the Holy Spirit."

I think the context is such that the text is not saying that in general the laying on of hands is equivalent to baptism, but rather that it serves the same immediate purpose for a baptized Christian who has been excluded from the Church, repents, and is now being readmitted to the Church. However, I assert this only provisionally.

[Clark]

At least in the one discussion (in chapter 10), sin is treated as an injury or illness in the body of Christ, the bishop is the physician, and his goal is to heal. This medical analogy is quite different from, say, a judicial or legal one.

"Wherefore, as a compassionate physician, heal all those who sin; and go about with all skill, and bring healing to bear for the succour of their lives. And thou shalt not be ready to cut off the members of the Church; but employ the bandages of the word, and the fomentations of admonition, and the compress of exhortation. But if the sore be sunken and lack flesh, nourish it and level it up with healing drugs; and if there be dirt in it, cleanse it with a pungent drug, that is with the word of rebuke. But if the flesh be over swollen, wear it down and level it with a violent drug, that is with the threat of judgement. But if gangrene should set in, cauterize it with burnings, that is, with incisions of much fasting cut away and clear out the rottenness of the sore. But if the gangrene assert itself and prevail even over the burnings, give judgement: and then, whichever member it be that is putrified, with advice and much consultation with other physicians, cut off that putrefied member, that it may not corrupt the whole body. Yet be not ready to amputate straightway, and be not in haste to have recourse at once to the saw of many teeth; but use first the knife and cut the sore, that it may be clearly seen, and that it may be known what is the cause of the disease that is hidden within; so that the whole body may be kept uninjured. But if thou see that a man will not repent, but has altogether abandoned himself, then with grief and to sorrow cut him off and cast him out of the Church."

[Clark]

In chapter 23 I encountered another purported first-person apostolic report:

"But when we had divided the whole world into twelve parts, and were gone forth among the Gentiles into all the world to preach the word, then Satan set about and stirred up the People to send after us false apostles for the undoing of the word. And he sent out from the People one whose name was Cleobius, and joined him to Simon, and others also after them. Now the party of Simon followed hard upon me Peter, and came to corrupt the word. And when he was in Rome he disturbed the Church much and subverted many; and he even made a show as though he would fly. And he was capturing the Gentiles, moving them by the power and agency of his magic arts. And on a certain day I went and saw him flying in the air; then I stood still, and said: ‘By the power of the name of Jesus I cut off thy powers.’ And he fell and broke the ankle-bone of his foot. And then many turned back from him; but others, worthy of him, continued with him. And thus was that his heresy first established. And by other false prophets beside was the enemy working."

Note 1: The odd punctuation (or lack of punctuation) in "me Peter" is in the translation I have been working from. I chose not to try to fix it up somehow.

Note 2: From the context I conclude that the "People" are the Jews.

[Clark]

All of chapters 24 and 25 are written as if by the apostles.

"When therefore the whole Church was in peril of falling into heresy, all we the twelve Apostles came together to Jerusalem and took thought what should be done. And it seemed good to us, being all of one accord, to write this Catholic Didascalia for the confirming of you all."

The text of chapter 24 is mostly from the Acts of the Apostles, mainly regarding the Council of Jerusalem, but with additions. The end of the chapter is: "Now the epistle we sent; but we ourselves remained in Jerusalem many days; and we were consulting and ordering together those things which were for the advantage of all the people, and writing also this Catholic Didascalia."

Chapter 25 opens thus: "Now the decision which we reached with counsel and thought concerning those who have already gone astray, we have thus affirmed and established. And we will return yet again and go to the Churches a second time, as in the beginning of the preaching, and will confirm the faithful that they may avoid the offences aforesaid, and may not receive those who come deceitfully in the name of apostles, but may know them by the changeableness of their words and by the performance of their works. For these are they of whom our Lord said: There shall come unto you men having on the clothing of lambs, but inwardly ravening wolves: and by their fruits ye shall know them."

Near the end of chapter 25: "And when we had ordained and affirmed and set down (these things) together with one accord, we set forth to go each one to his former province, confirming the Churches." And at the very end: "And these things we so do in every place and in every city, and throughout the whole world; and we have given (our) testimony, and have left this Catholic Didascalia justly and rightly to the Catholic Church for a memorial and for the confirming of the faithful."