The Didache

[Wandering Monk]

The Didache seems to have been sort of church manual or practical instruction book for primitive Christian churches. Although, the Didache is a reliable guide to help understand the conduct code of the early Christian community, it’s not considered inspired scripture as are the other canonized books.

Whose canon are you referring to? The Syriac churches didn't include 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude in their canon until about the 13th century. Influential church father Eusebius did not include it in his list of canonical books.

Luther didn't think James or Revelation should be in Protestant bibles.

So canon isn't as static as you seem to think it is.

 

[paarsurrey]

What does didache mean in the Catholic church?


Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

Didachē, (Greek: “Teaching”) also called Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the oldest surviving Christian church order, probably written in Egypt or Syria in the 2nd century.
Didache | Definition, History, Importance, & Facts - Britannica

Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ... › Scriptures
Search for: What does didache mean in the Catholic church?

So it is sort of another name of Christian-Bible of Catholics, I understand.

Right?

Regards

 

[anna.]

What does didache mean in the Catholic church?


Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

Didachē, (Greek: “Teaching”) also called Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the oldest surviving Christian church order, probably written in Egypt or Syria in the 2nd century.
Didache | Definition, History, Importance, & Facts - Britannica
View attachment 79928
Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ... › Scriptures
Search for: What does didache mean in the Catholic church?
View attachment 79929

So it is sort of another name of Christian-Bible of Catholics, I understand.

Right?

Regards

The Didache is from the first century, not the second. It's not considered Scripture, either, more like a catechism.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The Didache is from the first century, not the second. It's not considered Scripture, either, more like a catechism.

But it purports to be from the Twelve Apostles. Do you not think that gives it more weight than a simple catechism?

 

[anna.]

But it purports to be from the Twelve Apostles. Do you not think that gives it more weight than a simple catechism?

I don't think it does? It's contemporaneous with the apostles but it's anonymous.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I don't think it does? It's contemporaneous with the apostles but it's anonymous.

The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles (also known as Didache)

www.romans45.org

The Didache is probably the oldest patristic document. Its full title originally was, "The Lord's Instruction to the Gentiles Through the Twelve Apostles."

The Didache | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

 

[anna.]

The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles (also known as Didache)

www.romans45.org

The Didache is probably the oldest patristic document. Its full title originally was, "The Lord's Instruction to the Gentiles Through the Twelve Apostles."

The Didache | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

The author is anonymous.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The author is anonymous.

That is true of all the gospels as well. Attribution is based on church tradition. Why is that any different that the situation for the Didache?

 

[anna.]

That is true of all the gospels as well. Attribution is based on church tradition. Why is that any different that the situation for the Didache?

You've answered in your post: church tradition. Church tradition doesn't attribute Didache authorship to the apostles or elevate it to the level of Scripture. It's possible some there are contemporaneous teachings from the apostles but it's not known or taught as fact. What it does do is provide a snapshot into the early Church.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Didache is a very early Christian Rule (as in a Rule for Life) applicable to every Christian. It is dated to around 90-100, making it possibly contemporaneous with the writing of some of the later Gospels and seems to reflect the Matthean community, as it uses that Gospel a lot. It's often cited by Catholics, but I haven't seen Protestants use it much. How come?

@Kenny @Brian2 @Brickjectivity @Treks @InChrist @exchemist @RestlessSoul

Protestants are "Bible only." They don't really care about books that are not the bible, to their detriment, as they therefore know very little about how the early church worked or how their own doctrines like trinitarianism came to be mainstream. They also falsely imagine that the early church was like evangelical churches, when in fact the historical evidence indicates the early church was more of a proto catholic/orthodox variety that believed in Real Presence, infant baptism, salvific baptism, the authority of the bishops, and much much more.

 

[paarsurrey]

Protestants are "Bible only." They don't really care about books that are not the bible, to their detriment, as they therefore know very little about how the early church worked or how their own doctrines like trinitarianism came to be mainstream. They also falsely imagine that the early church was like evangelical churches, when in fact the historical evidence indicates the early church was more of a proto catholic/orthodox variety that believed in Real Presence, infant baptism, salvific baptism, the authority of the bishops, and much much more.

So neither the Catholics nor the Protestants have anything from Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So neither the Catholics nor the Protestants have anything from Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, right?

Regards

I am not sure how to answer that. As a Jew, I consider Jesus to be irrelevant. He was a nice Jewish man who tried to be the messiah and failed. To me, all three branches of Chrsitianity, Catholic, orthodox, and protestant, are all terribly mistaken.

And again, I find your use of "Israelite Messiah" to be very odd and offputting. Hebrews=Israelite=Jews. We usually refer to the Jewish messiah.

 

[Clear]

So neither the Catholics nor the Protestants have anything from Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, right?

Regards

And again, I find your use of "Israelite Messiah" to be very odd and offputting. Hebrews=Israelite=Jews. We usually refer to the Jewish messiah.

Hi @paarsurrey

1) The term "Israelite Messiah"
While IndigoChild5559 is "offput" by your use of the term "Israelite Messiah", I am perfectly fine with the term since the Messiah is not merely the Messiah of the "Jews" (i.e. Judah), but instead, he is the Messiah of all Israelites (and all other peoples if the early Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah are correct).


2) The ancient term "Hebrews" and "Israelites" does NOT simply mean "Jews"
Also, I thought it was important to point out that @IndigoChild5559s' claim that "Hebrews=Israelites=Jews" is historically incorrect.

Jews (JUDAH) were only a single tribe out of the 12 tribes. If I a Benjaminite from Benjamin or if I am an Ephraimite from Ephraim, I am NOT a "Jew" from the tribe of Judah.

Also, If I am from one of the other eleven tribes, this says nothing of my religion (i.e. "Judaism"). I can certainly be from any other of the twelve tribes (and thus be an "israelite" and be a Christian, or Hindu, or athiest, etc. Thus, the majority of "Israelites" nowadays (if one can still be from one of the other eleven tribes....) may not be "Jewish" at all.

A "Jew" is, historically, from the single tribe of Judah. A "Jew" may also be an adherent to the "Jewish" religion. These are two different things.

You will notice below that IndigoChild5559 doubles down on his opinion, but historically, "Jews" are from the tribe or kingdom of Judah and the term does not, historically, refer to the other eleven kingdoms. While the non-historically oriented Jew (and Christian) often conflate ALL of "Israel" as "Judah" or "Jews", this is incorrect historically, regardless of doubling or tripling down. If I am from the kingdom of Ephraim, I am an "Ephraimite", but not a Jew (or from the kingdom/tribe/group of Judah).


3) The later religion created and adopted by "Orthodox" or "Rabbanate" or "Rabbinic Judaism" is not the same religion as that of the early prophets
Also, keep in mind that the modern religion we call "Judaism" (Rabbanate Judaism, Orthodox Judaism", etc.) is NOT the same religion as the Jahwism which the ancient prophets kept trying to encourage ancient Israel to adopt and remain true to.

The Old Testament is replete with Prophetic messages that Israel must repent and return TO the religion of the prophets. There were times when a portion of Israel was true to Jahwism, but over and over, they apostatized and both worshipped other Gods and did not follow the religion that the prophets were directed by God to teach the people.

In any case @paarsurrey and @IndigoChild5559, I hope your own spiritual journeys are wonderful and insightful and satisfying.

Clear
δρφυδρω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

While IndigoChild5559 is "offput" by your use of the term "Israelite Messiah", I am perfectly fine with the term as the Messiah is not merely the Messiah of the Jews (i.e. Judah), but he is the Messiah of all Israelites (and all other peoples if the early Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah are correct).

"Jews" does not only refer to the tribe of Judah, but to all 12 of the tribes. Hebrew=Israelite=Jew

The term comes NOT from the tribe of Judah, but from the KINGDOM of Judah. Originally the Kingdom of Judah contained Benjamin, Judah, and Levi. But when the northern Kingdom of Israel fell to Assyria, refugees fled south to the Kingdom of Judah. Thus, when the Kingdom of Judah went into the Babylonian captivity, its citizens included member of all 12 tribes. It was in Babylon that all the tribes were simply called Jews, as they all came from the Kingdom of Judah.

So when we speak of the Jewish messiah, we are talking about the messiah for all twelve tribes.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi @paarsurrey

1) The term "Israelite Messiah"

While IndigoChild5559 is "offput" by your use of the term "Israelite Messiah", I am perfectly fine with the term as the Messiah is not merely the Messiah of the Jews (i.e. Judah), but he is the Messiah of all Israelites (and all other peoples if the early Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah are correct).

2) The ancient term "Hebrews" and "Israelites" does NOT simply mean "Jews"
Also, I thought it was important to point out that @IndigoChild5559s' claim that "Hebrews=Israelites=Jews" is historically incorrect. Jews (JUDAH) were only a single tribe out of the 12 tribes. If I a Benjaminite from Benjamin or if I am an Ephraimite from Ephraim, I am NOT a "Jew" from the tribe of Judah.

Also, If I am from one of the other eleven tribes, this says nothing of my religion (i.e. "Judaism"). I can certainly be from any other of the twelve tribes (and thus be an "israelite" and be a Christian, or Hindu, or athiest, etc. Thus, the majority of "Israelites" nowadays (if one can still be from one of the other eleven tribes....) may not be "Jewish" at all.

A "Jew" is, historically, from the single tribe of Judah. A "Jew" may also be an adherent to the "Jewish" religion. These are two different things.


3) The later religion created and adopted by "Orthodox" or "Rabbanate" or "Rabbinic Judaism" is not the same religion as that of the early prophets

Also, keep in mind that the modern religion we call "Judaism" (Rabbanate Judaism, Orthodox Judaism", etc.) is NOT the same religion as the Jahwism which the ancient prophets kept trying to encourage ancient Israel to adopt and remain true to. The Old Testament is replete with Prophetic messages that Israel must repent and return TO the religion of the prophets. There were times when a portion of Israel was true to Jahwism, but over and over, they apostatized and both worshipped other Gods and did not follow the religion that the prophets were directed by God to teach the people.

In any case @paarsurrey and @IndigoChild5559, I hope your own spiritual journeys are wonderful and insightful and satisfying.

Clear
δρφυδρω

I agree on many points mentioned in one's post, I appreciate.
The equation/claim mentioned by our friend @IndigoChild5559 that is "Hebrews=Israelites=Jews" is ,therefore, absolutely incorrect historically as well as religiously, please, I understand.
Right?

Regards

 

[Rival]

Hi @paarsurrey

1) The term "Israelite Messiah"
While IndigoChild5559 is "offput" by your use of the term "Israelite Messiah", I am perfectly fine with the term since the Messiah is not merely the Messiah of the "Jews" (i.e. Judah), but instead, he is the Messiah of all Israelites (and all other peoples if the early Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah are correct).


2) The ancient term "Hebrews" and "Israelites" does NOT simply mean "Jews"
Also, I thought it was important to point out that @IndigoChild5559s' claim that "Hebrews=Israelites=Jews" is historically incorrect.

Jews (JUDAH) were only a single tribe out of the 12 tribes. If I a Benjaminite from Benjamin or if I am an Ephraimite from Ephraim, I am NOT a "Jew" from the tribe of Judah.

Also, If I am from one of the other eleven tribes, this says nothing of my religion (i.e. "Judaism"). I can certainly be from any other of the twelve tribes (and thus be an "israelite" and be a Christian, or Hindu, or athiest, etc. Thus, the majority of "Israelites" nowadays (if one can still be from one of the other eleven tribes....) may not be "Jewish" at all.

A "Jew" is, historically, from the single tribe of Judah. A "Jew" may also be an adherent to the "Jewish" religion. These are two different things.


3) The later religion created and adopted by "Orthodox" or "Rabbanate" or "Rabbinic Judaism" is not the same religion as that of the early prophets
Also, keep in mind that the modern religion we call "Judaism" (Rabbanate Judaism, Orthodox Judaism", etc.) is NOT the same religion as the Jahwism which the ancient prophets kept trying to encourage ancient Israel to adopt and remain true to.

The Old Testament is replete with Prophetic messages that Israel must repent and return TO the religion of the prophets. There were times when a portion of Israel was true to Jahwism, but over and over, they apostatized and both worshipped other Gods and did not follow the religion that the prophets were directed by God to teach the people.

In any case @paarsurrey and @IndigoChild5559, I hope your own spiritual journeys are wonderful and insightful and satisfying.

Clear
δρφυδρω

"Jews" does not only refer to the tribe of Judah, but to all 12 of the tribes. Hebrew=Israelite=Jew

The term comes NOT from the tribe of Judah, but from the KINGDOM of Judah. Originally the Kingdom of Judah contained Benjamin, Judah, and Levi. But when the northern Kingdom of Israel fell to Assyria, refugees fled south to the Kingdom of Judah. Thus, when the Kingdom of Judah went into the Babylonian captivity, its citizens included member of all 12 tribes. It was in Babylon that all the tribes were simply called Jews, as they all came from the Kingdom of Judah.

So when we speak of the Jewish messiah, we are talking about the messiah for all twelve tribes.

I agree on many points mentioned in one's post, I appreciate.
The equation/claim mentioned by our friend @IndigoChild5559 that is "Hebrews=Israelites=Jews" is ,therefore, absolutely incorrect historically as well as religiously, please, I understand.
Right?

Regards

Hi guys,

This has nothing to do with the Didache.

Thanks.

 

[Clear]

The Didache is a very early Christian Rule (as in a Rule for Life) applicable to every Christian. It is dated to around 90-100, making it possibly contemporaneous with the writing of some of the later Gospels and seems to reflect the Matthean community, as it uses that Gospel a lot. It's often cited by Catholics, but I haven't seen Protestants use it much. How come?

@Kenny @Brian2 @Brickjectivity @Treks @InChrist @exchemist @RestlessSoul

Hi @Rival

1) Unfamiliarity of non-historians with early Judeo-Christian texts and terms.
I think that the Judeo-Christian Didache is a good example of early literature that is much like the vast genre of early Jewish Epigraphs.

For example, the almost 2000 pages of Jewish pseudoepigraphs (Charlesworth) often represent an early form of judaism that is basically unknown to most Jews other than religious historians just as there is a tremendous amount of early Judeo-Christian (christian) literature that is basically unknown to most "everyday" christians who are not historically oriented.

While early religious literature is actually quite important to the religious historian in that it, as an entire genre, describes early "Judaism" and early "Christianity", it's popularity and usage is, (in the modern, western world at least), relatively unknown.


2) Unfamiliar books are often "suspicious" to non-historians who do not know what to make of them.
Just as the ancient proverb says that "Dogs bark at strangers", The fact that all current versions ancient scriptures that have come to us are anonymous in that no one can tell who wrote any of them is a problem for any ancient text that seeks to be included in one of the various modern personal "canons" individuals deem as authoritative (Though no one knows nor can anyone prove who wrote any of these ancient biblical and non-biblical texts).


2a A single occurrence of a doctrine versus multiple parallels in multiple documents separated by time and space
Another problem is that, as a single document, the didache is not as important as the entire genre of ancient documents it is a part of.

For example, if a single document describes a Jewish or a Christian belief, then that specific Jewish or Christian belief, or doctrine may only represent the opinion of the documents' author. However, IF a specific doctrine or belief appears in multiple ancient documents that are separated by vast amounts of time and over large geographical distance, then that belief has a much higher chance of being orthodox to the ancient religion those documents represent.


3) The problem of assuming one's religion/beliefs are unchanged from early Judeo-Christian religion
There are other problems however, since religions do not remain static but often evolve and change.

For example, Jewish Enoch is replete with descriptions of conditions in heaven before the creation of the earth, and it's reference to the Messiah. However, once Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism prohibited it's adherents from discussing, or reading about, or questions regarding this time period, then knowledge of this time period was lost to Rabbinic Judaism within a generation among those Jews who obeyed this prohibition.

In this way ancient orthodox Judaic texts both describe and speak of doctrines and beliefs that the later rabbinic Jews no longer have knowledge of. Christianity also evolved by virtue of it's own mechanisms of change. Thus, to the modern Jews (and Christians), ancient texts may seem disorienting and strange, yet represent a more pure, more correct form of ancient Judeo-Christianity in specific instances. This specific assumption of "unchanging religion" seems to plague modern Rabbinic Jews and modern Christians alike.

These things are of import and studied by religious historians but go unnoticed by the majority of religionists.

Good journey to you rival.


Hi @paarsurrey : Yes, you are correct. While one can use "slang" any way one wants, in historical terms, the Ephraimite is NOT a Jew just as the Kingdom of Ephraim is NOT the same as the Kingdom of Judah.

Clear
δρσιειω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree on many points mentioned in one's post, I appreciate.
The equation/claim mentioned by our friend @IndigoChild5559 that is "Hebrews=Israelites=Jews" is ,therefore, absolutely incorrect historically as well as religiously, please, I understand.
Right?

Regards

Its what the Tanakh (OT) teaches. you are free to disagree with the bible if you wish.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

paarsurrey said:
I agree on many points mentioned in one's post (#33 of friend @Clear ) , I appreciate.
The equation/claim mentioned by our friend @IndigoChild5559 ( #32 )that is "Hebrews=Israelites=Jews" is ,therefore, absolutely incorrect historically as well as religiously, please, I understand.

You can repeat it 100x if you wish, and it won't make it true. What I said is what the Tanakh teaches. Whether you believe the bible is completely up to you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi guys,

This has nothing to do with the Didache.

Thanks.

I agree with one here. It just came by, by a comment of our friend @IndigoChild5559 , please.

Regards