Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

[annem]

Daniel, it’s occurred to me that we need to take a step back.

You say the Catholic church absorbed Gnostic beliefs. However, at the same time, you are now claiming the Catholic church in these scriptural passages condemned Gnostic beliefs (not that I think there were any Gnostics then, but that is a minor point).

But didn’t the Catholic church spend the next two centuries fighting the Gnostics and condemning each and every error they made? The Gnostics claimed sex was evil; the church and her bishops condemned this belief and proclaimed that sex in marriage was good and holy.

So my question is: where and when is it that you think the church absorbed these Gnostic beliefs? Surely we have solid proof from all the church fathers that they, in fact, condemned the Gnostics. Again and again and again.

We have only one instance known where even a mildly Gnostic text was read in a church. As soon as the Bishop Serapion read the Gospel of Peter he condemned it and forbade anyone reading it again. And all the church fathers repudiated all Gnostic errors in all the vast amount of writing from the church fathers that we have. And you even claim that the church was condemning Gnostics from the time of Paul. Seems to me like a pretty clear line of constant condemnation. So where and when did the church suddenly start agreeing with the Gnostics?

May God grant you a million miracles, ANnem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel, it’s occurred to me that we need to take a step back.

You say the Catholic church absorbed Gnostic beliefs. However, at the same time, you are now claiming the Catholic church in these scriptural passages condemned Gnostic beliefs (not that I think there were any Gnostics then, but that is a minor point).

But didn’t the Catholic church spend the next two centuries fighting the Gnostics and condemning each and every error they made? The Gnostics claimed sex was evil; the church and her bishops condemned this belief and proclaimed that sex in marriage was good and holy.

So my question is: where and when is it that you think the church absorbed these Gnostic beliefs? Surely we have solid proof from all the church fathers that they, in fact, condemned the Gnostics. Again and again and again.

We have only one instance known where even a mildly Gnostic text was read in a church. As soon as the Bishop Serapion read the Gospel of Peter he condemned it and forbade anyone reading it again. And all the church fathers repudiated all Gnostic errors in all the vast amount of writing from the church fathers that we have. And you even claim that the church was condemning Gnostics from the time of Paul. Seems to me like a pretty clear line of constant condemnation. So where and when did the church suddenly start agreeing with the Gnostics?

May God grant you a million miracles, ANnem

It certainly was not sudden at all although some people called themselves Christians during the writing of Paul and John’s letters, who had adopted dualistic ideas.

The ECF’s wrote after the New Testament letters/books were written and circulated. Gnostic/docetic dualistic ideas were transmitted to Roman society through their infatuation with all things Greek. I do NOT believe the ECF’s deliberately or knowingly or suddenly adopted these ideas,but because they were immersed in them, either from the majority culture or from their former membership in gnostic/docetic groups, they incorporated these ideas and tendencies into a developing catholicism. In some cases, e.g. Mary as Mother or Queen of the Angels, there was a tunneling phenomenon in which the idea went underground and emerged later. In other cases, e.g. in the inferior status of married sex, there was a double message of saying sex in marriage is good and at the same time bad for clergy, and the celibate state is above marriage seen as “staying in the world” as you put it.

 

[annem]

The ECF’s wrote after the New Testament letters/books were written and circulated. Gnostic/docetic dualistic ideas were transmitted to Roman society through their infatuation with all things Greek. I do NOT believe the ECF’s deliberately or knowingly or suddenly adopted these ideas,but because they were immersed in them, either from the majority culture or from their former membership in gnostic/docetic groups, they incorporated these ideas and tendencies into a developing catholicism. In some cases, e.g. Mary as Mother or Queen of the Angels, there was a tunneling phenomenon in which the idea went underground and emerged later. In other cases, e.g. in the inferior status of married sex, there was a double message of saying sex in marriage is good and at the same time bad for clergy, and the celibate state is above marriage seen as “staying in the world” as you put it.

1 Clement and the letters of Ignatius were about the same time as the last of the documents of the New Testament.

However, where is the evidence that the church fathers were immersed in Gnostic ideas? Gnostics were small philosophical schools, not large in number. Look at the evidence of the documents that remain; there are scarcely any fragments of Gnostic literature before 350 whereas, in comparison, we find quite a lot of fragments of New Testament documents, even though the church was battling persecution and later their documents were burned by the Romans.

So where or how would the Gnostics influence Christianity, given their small number and limited influence?

Surely if there was going to be an influence on the early Catholics it was much, much more likely to come from the Roman society all around them. And certainly the overall Roman society was not drenched in the idea that sex was bad.

On the contrary. Pedophilia was practiced with great enthusiasm, every other corner had a brothel–some with women and some with young boys “without beards” as the Romans said. Adultery was expected of men. This was a society that soaked in blood and casual sex. Not the beliefs of the Gnostics.

And at the same time you have the Catholic church fathers–poor people, persecuted and murdered by the Romans on one hand, and fighting heretics on the other–soundly condemning the Gnostics. Condemning their beliefs every single time we see them mentioned.

So I ask: where do you see this absorption of Gnostic ideas?

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

However, where is the evidence that the church fathers were immersed in Gnostic ideas? Gnostics were small philosophical schools, not large in number. Look at the evidence of the documents that remain; there are scarcely any fragments of Gnostic literature before 350 whereas, in comparison, we find quite a lot of fragments of New Testament documents, even though the church was battling persecution and later their documents were burned by the Romans.

So where or how would the Gnostics influence Christianity, given their small number and limited influence?

Surely if there was going to be an influence on the early Catholics it was much, much more likely to come from the Roman society all around them. And certainly the overall Roman society was not drenched in the idea that sex was bad.

So I ask: where do you see this absorption of Gnostic ideas?

Maybe we could begin this phase of our discussion with these brief questions:

What time frame were the Nag Hammadi texts?
When and where did Valentinus, Carpocrates, Basilides, and Marcion live?
What was Augustine’s former religious affiliation?
What influence did Plato, Pythagoras, and Stoicism have on Roman attitudes in the first century?
Where did monasticism emerge in relation to centres of gnosticism?
What was the main centre of early Catholic theology in the 2nd to 5th century?

 

[annem]

What time frame were the Nag Hammadi texts?

You want to skip to the late 300’s-400’s? Isn’t that ignoring an enormous amount of church theology and practice? Celibacy developed long, long before that.

Here is St Ignatius circa 105:

If anyone is able in power to continue in purity, to the honor of the flesh of our Lord, let him continue to do so without boasting. 1.100

So, clearly, there were Christian celibates in 105 AD.

Then there’s plenty of info from St Justin Marty. Here are some snippetsr:

Many who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood–both men and women–remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years old. circa 160–1.167

Justin again:

Some women (even though they are not barren) abstain from sexual relations. Some of these women have remained virgins from the beginning. Others have become celibate later in life. We also see men who remain as virgins" 1.295

Or here is Athenagoras circa 175: You would find many among us, both men and women, growing old unmarried, in hope of living in closer communion with God. 2.146

So, clearly, there were celibates in the church from the beginning. Whether or not you agree with the church on the understanding of Christ’s remark about eunuch, and Paul’s remark, there is an unbreakable chain of thought from the start of the church that thought celibacy for the sake of God was good.

So I really can’t see how you can squeeze in Gnostic thought anywhere.

May God grant you a million miracles, ANnem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You want to skip to the late 300’s-400’s? Isn’t that ignoring an enormous amount of church theology and practice? Celibacy developed long, long before that.

Here is St Ignatius circa 105:

If anyone is able in power to continue in purity, to the honor of the flesh of our Lord, let him continue to do so without boasting. 1.100

So, clearly, there were Christian celibates in 105 AD.

Then there’s plenty of info from St Justin Marty. Here are some snippetsr:

Many who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood–both men and women–remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years old. circa 160–1.167

Justin again:

Some women (even though they are not barren) abstain from sexual relations. Some of these women have remained virgins from the beginning. Others have become celibate later in life. We also see men who remain as virgins" 1.295

Or here is Athenagoras circa 175: You would find many among us, both men and women, growing old unmarried, in hope of living in closer communion with God. 2.146

So, clearly, there were celibates in the church from the beginning. Whether or not you agree with the church on the understanding of Christ’s remark about eunuch, and Paul’s remark, there is an unbreakable chain of thought from the start of the church that thought celibacy for the sake of God was good.

So I really can’t see how you can squeeze in Gnostic thought anywhere.

May God grant you a million miracles, ANnem

Nag Hammadi texts date from much earlier than 300’s. Ignatius is strong evidence of a pervasive docetism as he speaks against it many times. Ignatius Justin Athenagoras comments on purity/celibacy are not about a requirement of clergy or religious orders, but a gift for anyone who has it. In gnostic/docetic/catholic circles celibacy is a requirement of clergy/pneumatics, and considered more holy than married life.

 

[annem]

Nag Hammadi texts date from much earlier than 300’s. Ignatius is strong evidence of a pervasive docetism as he speaks against it many times. Ignatius Justin Athenagoras comments on purity/celibacy are not about a requirement of clergy or religious orders, but a gift for anyone who has it. In gnostic/docetic/catholic circles celibacy is a requirement of clergy/pneumatics, and considered more holy than married life.

I really am baffled by your response. There is an unbroken line regarding celibacy from Second Temple Judaism–Nazarites, Essenes, St John the Baptist, Jesus Christ himself, St Paul–all practicing celibacy. Christ himself advocating that those who can be eunuchs for the kingdom should be.

Then we have an unbroken line of celibacy in the early church. You dismiss St Ignatius as “docetic”? I mean, you think that this man who was giving up his life for Christ, who was on his way to be eaten by lions, and who strongly condemned those who held to a proto Docetic belief–you think that HE was influenced by the proto Docetists? I really am baffled.

Then St Justin Martyr, another man who gave up his life for Christ, talks about men and women who have remained celibate all their lives for God. What about these people? They, also in your mind, have nothing to do with an unbroken chain of belief that celibacy was good? How?

You seem to be focused on the idea that celibacy, if it is a ‘gift" is somehow all right. Well, every single person who has joined the Catholic clergy or who was a celibate in the year 70 AD or 150 AD or a practicing Catholic priest in 2009 would declare their celibacy a "gift’ from God. Every single one. This is basic Catholic theology. So I am simply baffled by your response.

Perhaps you need to go into more explanation as to why you seem to dislike celibacy so much, or what your disagreement with it is.

Confused, but hoping that God will grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I really am baffled by your response. There is an unbroken line regarding celibacy from Second Temple Judaism–Nazarites, Essenes, St John the Baptist, Jesus Christ himself, St Paul–all practicing celibacy. Christ himself advocating that those who can be eunuchs for the kingdom should be.

Then we have an unbroken line of celibacy in the early church. You dismiss St Ignatius as “docetic”? I mean, you think that this man who was giving up his life for Christ, who was on his way to be eaten by lions, and who strongly condemned those who held to a proto Docetic belief–you think that HE was influenced by the proto Docetists? I really am baffled.

Then St Justin Martyr, another man who gave up his life for Christ, talks about men and women who have remained celibate all their lives for God. What about these people? They, also in your mind, have nothing to do with an unbroken chain of belief that celibacy was good? How?

You seem to be focused on the idea that celibacy, if it is a ‘gift" is somehow all right. Well, every single person who has joined the Catholic clergy or who was a celibate in the year 70 AD or 150 AD or a practicing Catholic priest in 2009 would declare their celibacy a "gift’ from God. Every single one. This is basic Catholic theology. So I am simply baffled by your response.

Perhaps you need to go into more explanation as to why you seem to dislike celibacy so much, or what your disagreement with it is.

Confused, but hoping that God will grant you a million miracles, Annem

I will repeat myself as long as necessary. Celibacy is a gift, not a requirement of clergy or of church leaders in the New Testament. Ignatius was not docetic as far as I know; he was perhaps refering to celibacy as a gift.
It is a very short step from biblical values to docetic values: e.g. celibacy as a gift is biblical, but shift it slightly to say it is required or more holy than married life, then you have docetism. To say celibacy is for God but married life is not for God, is docetism. To say all members of clergy declare their celibacy as a gift, is biblical; to say, all members of clergy MUST have the gift of celibacy in any rite, is docetism. To say required celibacy is an aspect of docetism, is different than saying “you seem to dislike celibacy so much,” a docetic reading into my views.

 

[annem]

Celibacy is a gift, not a requirement of clergy or of church leaders in the New Testament.

Celibacy for the clergy, or for those who want to live that way, is of course a gift. Who is not saying it is a gift? I don’t understand. It is, very clearly, a gift. A very special gift. And it has always been declared so by the Catholic church. Every priest or nun who is celibate would declare, and must first discern, if God is giving them that gift.

Which is why I am puzzled that almost no one in any of the Protestant churches has it. Of course they aren’t trying to be unbiblical. But their churches certainly don’t seem to resemble the early church.

There were thousands upon thousands of Catholics in the early Catholic church who lived celibate lives. Many women lived together, after renouncing marriage, and spent their lives in prayer to God during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Read some of the church fathers and some of the lives of the saints and you will see. And of course it is the same today…

As for making the clergy celibate, what difference does it make to you if another church wants to make a requirement for celibate clergy? I am puzzled as to why it bothers you so much.

As for the Catholic church, there was no requirement for celibacy for priests in the 300 or 400’s. Not until late in the Middle Ages, and then only because there were so many instances of son trying to inherit their father’s church when they didn’t have the calling.

For that matter, we have married priests today. We have one near out church. He converted from Anglicanism along with his wife and family.

Of course I am talking only about the Latin rite. There are other rites in the church that have other rules. And the rule for celibacy for priests could be changed at any time since it it not a matter of doctrine.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Celibacy for the clergy, or for those who want to live that way, is of course a gift. Who is not saying it is a gift? I don’t understand. It is, very clearly, a gift. A very special gift. And it has always been declared so by the Catholic church. Every priest or nun who is celibate would declare, and must first discern, if God is giving them that gift.

Of course I am talking only about the Latin rite. There are other rites in the church that have other rules. And the rule for celibacy for priests could be changed at any time since it it not a matter of doctrine.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

Following Origen’s lead, an anti-marriage sentiment was expressed by Jerome, Augustine, Paulinus of Nola. The docetic shift occurs in this way and in any century. Here is how it can happen:

1. Celibacy is a gift for all, clergy and otherwise, but sexual marriage as a gift is ignored or excluded.
2. Celibacy or celibacy within marriage, is on a higher level or more holy than sexual marriage in which partners sexually abstain temporarily for periods of devotion.
3. Clergy/nun must have the gift of celibacy because celibacy is a “very special gift” whereas sexual marriage is not “very special.”

The docetic shift occurs in a very subtle way, and then becomes a rigid attitude codified in church law (e.g.Elvira, Nicea, Carthage).

Council of Elvira (300 AD) Canon 33 “Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and all other clerics having a position in the ministry, are ordered to abstain completely from their wives and not have children. **Whoever, in fact, does this shall be expelled **from the dignity of the clerical state.”

 

[annem]

Well, let’s think about this. First, we have a pattern of the most devout in Second Temple Judaism being celibate, such as those with a Nazarite oath, or the Essenes. Then we have St John the Baptist living as a celibate. Then we have Jesus Christ himself urging those who can to be eunuchs for the sake of Christ to be so. Then we have Paul who is a celibate.

Then we have the Didache, which I believe anyway is from 50-100 AD and states that if 2 or 3 virgins are present, they are to give thanks over the Eucharistic bread. There is a clear timeline here of regarding virgins as being pure, so they can bless the Eucharist.

Within a few decades we have St Ignatius also encouraging celibacy. We have St Justin Martyr soon after talking about groups of people who have given their lives to God by being celibate. Some were banding together and living in early convent/monastic situations.

Soon after we have the Protoevangelium, which became perhaps the most popular Christian literature besides the bible. It stressed that the Virgin Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity in the temple. Once again, the idea that celibacy is good.

By 110 AD Pliny was already complaining that the pagan temples were deserted. After two hundred AD or so there is an explosion of Christian literature. Huge numbers had converted by 200, and we see this in the explosion in the number of house churches and in the literature. And always, in this literature, celibacy is praised.

Now this is just a rough timeline, but you reject it utterly. It’s as if it doesn’t even exist. Instead of thinking of Christianity as slowly but surely changing paganism, you want to turn around the historical facts around, stand the facts on their heads, and make pagan Gnostics—whom, in every single known instance of a Christian writing about the Gnostics are criticized by the early Catholics—these, these are the people you feel influenced Christianity.

Do you have any evidence? No. Does Christianity have evidence of celibacy being prized? Yes. Massive evidence. A clear, logical development of doctrine based upon Our Lord Jesus Christ saying that those who can be, should be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. Which the church has followed faithfully.

We also have massive evidence of the early Catholics rejecting all paganism at the cost of their lives. The early Catholics were being slaughtered in great numbers. Their lives were in danger. Their properties were in danger. In order to become Catholics they had to wait through 2 years of exhaustive teaching before they could be baptized. All of which you just ignore, as if these people were either 1) idiots or 2) uninterested in the facts about their faith and 3) had never heard the words from scripture.

I’m sorry. I not only don’t see it, I don’t have a clue as to why you believe it. It simply mystifies me. I cannot understand how you can look at the evidence and come to your conclusion. You say the influence is “subtle”. No kidding.

If you have any evidence, please, present it. But as I see it, there’s no reason at all to suggest that the early Catholics paid any attention to the Gnostics except to condemn them. Instead, I see a very logical, very clear, very reasonable development of doctrine. Why on earth you think the early Catholics had to go outside of the church to steal ideas from other groups is simply beyond me, when there is such a lot of evidence on the other side.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Well, let’s think about this.

1. “First, we have a pattern of the most devout in Second Temple Judaism being celibate, such as those with a Nazarite oath, or the Essenes. Then we have St John the Baptist living as a celibate. Then we have Jesus Christ himself urging those who can to be eunuchs for the sake of Christ to be so. Then we have Paul who is a celibate.”
   REPLY: Were the Nazarites such as Samson, to be celibate? Does sacred scripture say John the Baptist was celibate? Does Paul say celibacy is a gift for any Christian or just for clergy or that clergy are required to have the gift of celibacy? Did Jesus say there are celibates for the kingdom, to the exclusion of married people for the kingdom of God’s sake? To say otherwise would be an example of docetic shift.
2. “Then we have the Didache, which I believe anyway is from 50-100 AD and states that if 2 or 3 virgins are present, they are to give thanks over the Eucharistic bread. There is a clear timeline here of regarding virgins as being pure, so they can bless the Eucharist.”
   REPLY: The Didache is from Syria and in addition to the virgin requirement, has strong indications of docetic influence, in that the bodily sacrifice of Christ in relation to the Eucharist is conspicuously absent. There is also a minimizing of water in baptism.
3. “Within a few decades we have St Ignatius also encouraging celibacy. We have St Justin Martyr soon after talking about groups of people who have **given their lives to God **by being celibate. Some were banding together and living in early convent/monastic situations.”
   REPLY: Ignatius was from Syria, a center of docetism, and was no doubt surrounded by docetists he was trying to oppose. Is there anything in Justin or Ignatius linking celibacy to clergy? Can one **give one’s life to God **in sexual marriage?
4. “Soon after we have the Protoevangelium, which became perhaps the most popular Christian literature besides the bible. It stressed that the Virgin Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity in the temple. Once again, the idea that celibacy is good.”
   REPLY: Yes, and **this is evidence of docetic influence, since there is no other reason to think Mary had to remain a virgin **after Jesus’ birth.
5. “By 110 AD Pliny was already complaining that the pagan temples were deserted. After two hundred AD or so there is an explosion of Christian literature. Huge numbers had converted by 200, and we see this in the explosion in the number of house churches and in the literature. And always, in this literature, celibacy is praised.”
   REPLY: When celibacy is praised (citations needed) in the above literature, in what context? As a reqirement of clergy? Of course chastity before marriage and fidelity withinin marriage are always enjoined upon all Christians.
6. “Now this is just a rough timeline, but you reject it utterly. It’s as if it doesn’t even exist. Instead of thinking of Christianity as slowly but surely changing paganism, you want to turn around the historical facts around, stand the facts on their heads, and make pagan Gnostics—whom, in every single known instance of a Christian writing about the Gnostics are criticized by the early Catholics—these, these are the people you feel influenced Christianity.”
   REPLY: Because of immorality in pagan society, there was pressure to react toward docetic extremes. Even now in reaction to common immorality we see vows of sexual abstinence among the pre-married, which is a good thing, but in the early period of Christianity, docetism challenged all to an extreme standard which the orthodox felt pressure to adopt, and did.
7. “We also have massive evidence of the early Catholics rejecting all paganism at the cost of their lives. The early Catholics were being slaughtered in great numbers. Their lives were in danger. Their properties were in danger. In order to become Catholics they had to wait through 2 years of exhaustive teaching before they could be baptized.”
   REPLY: Long periods of catechumenate were also characteristic of gnostic groups, in contrast to New Testament examples where people were baptized as an urgent matter upon hearing and believing the good news.
8. “If you have any evidence, please, present it. But as I see it, there’s no reason at all to suggest that the early Catholics paid any attention to the Gnostics except to condemn them. Instead, I see a very logical, very clear, very reasonable development of doctrine. Why on earth you think the early Catholics had to go outside of the church to steal ideas from other groups is simply beyond me, when there is such a lot of evidence on the other side.”
   REPLY: You are presenting excellent evidence of docetic influence. After Jerusalem, there were no church councils until Elvira that shows a clear docetic extreme in the celibacy requirement for clergy even demanding no sex for married clergy! Do we have extant records of church synods before Elvira speaking on celibacy?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Then we have the Didache, which I believe anyway is from 50-100 AD and states that if 2 or 3 virgins are present, they are to give thanks over the Eucharistic bread. There is a clear timeline here of regarding virgins as being pure, so they can bless the Eucharist.

Do you have quote for this Didache reference to virgins and Eucharist?

 

[diggerdomer]

Well, let’s think about this. First, we have a pattern of the most devout in Second Temple Judaism being celibate, such as those with a Nazarite oath, or the Essenes.

I don’t see any basis for claiming this with certainty. Were they devout? Sure. Were they more devout than others? No idea. Also recall the Nazirite vow was not necessarily lifelong.

Then we have Paul who is a celibate.

Again, no basis to claim that with certainty. He was unmarried when he wrote 1 Cor (unless he was lying) but that in no way means he wasn’t married before (or even after).

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I think annem has a docetic view of the Nazirite vow. There is nothing I can see on celibacy or abstaining from sex with one’s wife:

Numbers 6
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite, 3 he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. 4 As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins. 5 " 'During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long. 6 Throughout the period of his separation to the LORD he must not go near a dead body. 7 Even if his own father or mother or brother or sister dies, he must not make himself ceremonially unclean on account of them, because the symbol of his separation to God is on his head. 8 Throughout the period of his separation he is consecrated to the LORD. 9 " 'If someone dies suddenly in his presence, thus defiling the hair he has dedicated, he must shave his head on the day of his cleansing—the seventh day. 10 Then on the eighth day he must bring two doves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 11 The priest is to offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering to make atonement for him because he sinned by being in the presence of the dead body. That same day he is to consecrate his head. 12 He must dedicate himself to the LORD for the period of his separation and must bring a year-old male lamb as a guilt offering. The previous days do not count, because he became defiled during his separation. 13 " 'Now this is the law for the Nazirite when the period of his separation is over. He is to be brought to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 14 There he is to present his offerings to the LORD : a year-old male lamb without defect for a burnt offering, a year-old ewe lamb without defect for a sin offering, a ram without defect for a fellowship offering, 15 together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and a basket of bread made without yeast—cakes made of fine flour mixed with oil, and wafers spread with oil. 16 " 'The priest is to present them before the LORD and make the sin offering and the burnt offering. 17 He is to present the basket of unleavened bread and is to sacrifice the ram as a fellowship offering to the LORD, together with its grain offering and drink offering. 18 " 'Then at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that he dedicated. He is to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering. 19 " 'After the Nazirite has shaved off the hair of his dedication, the priest is to place in his hands a boiled shoulder of the ram, and a cake and a wafer from the basket, both made without yeast. 20 The priest shall then wave them before the LORD as a wave offering; they are holy and belong to the priest, together with the breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented. After that, the Nazirite may drink wine. 21 " ‘This is the law of the Nazirite who vows his offering to the LORD in accordance with his separation, in addition to whatever else he can afford. He must fulfill the vow he has made, according to the law of the Nazirite.’ "

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Well, let’s think about this…
Then we have the Didache, which I believe anyway is from 50-100 AD and states that if 2 or 3 virgins are present, they are to give thanks over the Eucharistic bread…

It was not the Didache but Athanasius of Alexandria under docetic influence for he was also first to call Mary “ever-virgin.” The reference you spoke of is from his work On Virginity ch.13: “…if two or three other virgins are present, they also shall give thanks over the bread set out…”