The Didache

[Rival]

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

 

[Brickjectivity]

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 Protests use it much. How come?

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

The Didache was a lost document which was found relatively recently in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios. It has no official status, no authority and is not canon. It is worth considering, but its not required reading. I only heard of it when I was sixteen, and that was just from someone I knew in my church. We had a bookstore in our church, and there was no copy of the Didache in it. Finding the Didache is a little bit like finding an odd variant of a prayer book or a passover instruction manual. In it are some prescriptions for one community about what to require before baptisms, how to perform ritual baptisms and other details.

I will add that as a protestant who was trained to read the bible, I was a little skeptical that it had value. It was interesting but something for thinking about later on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I will add that as a protestant who was trained to read the bible, I was a little skeptical that it had value.

That is a startling confession.

 

[sun rise]

This was entirely new to me. So I read quite a bit of Didache - Wikipedia

 

[Kenny]

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 Protests use it much. How come?

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

I think it just depends. For an example, baptism by immersion is what protestants preach (usually) - if it is possible to be fully baptized.

Perhaps the issue is more, "no one has ever asked about the aspects of Didache?"

In other words, with so much teach on, I wouldn't take a time and expound of "What I agree with and disagree with on the Didache. The subject would probably be better expounded on a university class on the history of Christianity.

 

[Rival]

I think it just depends. For an example, baptism by immersion is what protestants preach (usually) - if it is possible to be fully baptized.

Perhaps the issue is more, "no one has ever asked about the aspects of Didache?"

In other words, with so much teach on, I wouldn't take a time and expound of "What I agree with and disagree with on the Didache. The subject would probably be better expounded on a university class on the history of Christianity.

I'm more wondering about the fact that this is one of the earliest Christian documents we have, coeval with the Gospels if not preceding them in practice. It seems odd to me that Protestants, who believe they are going back to the Apostolic form of Christianity, do not use it. It predates Constantine by ~200 years. It's so old it harks back to Jewish practice such as 'running waters'/'living waters' and Jewish forms of prayer. If one wants to go back to the oldest Christian ethic, the Didache is the best you can get.

 

[lukethethird]

I'm more wondering about the fact that this is one of the earliest Christian documents we have, coeval with the Gospels if not preceding them in practice. It seems odd to me that Protestants, who believe they are going back to the Apostolic form of Christianity, do not use it. It predates Constantine by ~200 years. It's so old it harks back to Jewish practice such as 'running waters'/'living waters' and Jewish forms of prayer. If one wants to go back to the oldest Christian ethic, the Didache is the best you can get.

Most of the Epistles predate the gospels and the Didache according to mainstream accepted dating. The Epistles portray an entirely different Christianity than what came after the gospels.

 

[Rival]

Most of the Epistles predate the gospels and the Didache according to traditionally accepted dating. The Epistles portray an entirely different Christianity than what came after the gospels.

The Didache is coeval with the Johannine epistles, the Apocalypse of John, and likely 2 Peter.

 

[Kenny]

I'm more wondering about the fact that this is one of the earliest Christian documents we have, coeval with the Gospels if not preceding them in practice. It seems odd to me that Protestants, who believe they are going back to the Apostolic form of Christianity, do not use it. It predates Constantine by ~200 years. It's so old it harks back to Jewish practice such as 'running waters'/'living waters' and Jewish forms of prayer. If one wants to go back to the oldest Christian ethic, the Didache is the best you can get.

I think we can go deeper here especially wince we are dealing with earlier documents. And let me re-emphasize that there is agreement between the Didache and what protestants teach.

There will also be differences when it isn't in agreement with the documents of the letters of the Apostles and the 4 Gospels. There was already problems and issues that had to be dealt with such as:

Paul had to deal with those who wanted to re-establish the law instead of faith and grace as noted in Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Gnosticism was dealt with multiple times as in 1 Tim 6: Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”

Then we have what I see in the Didache where man has the capacity to make a tradition that makes God's word of non-effect as Jesus said,
Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Just because one is a believer doesn't mean we can't make a truth into a tradition. So taking for wikipedia on Didache:

"Fasting is ordered for Wednesdays and Fridays" - Fasting is encouraged! - But there is no basis for this to be a "law". One doesn't "order" a person to fast. Here they took what is a truth "we should fast" - and then made a "tradition" that it must be done on two days. Does God not accept a Monday fast? Are three day fasts now unacceptable? If you miss a Wednesday, are you less of a Christian?

Would I take a sermon and express the differences today? Not at all, as it has been noted, people don't even know of this tradition.

Remember, this was discussed and found it not to be canonical for the obvious reason that I just mentioned.

But here in this forum, as you brought it up, happy to discuss any finer points.

 

[Rival]

I think we can go deeper here especially wince we are dealing with earlier documents. And let me re-emphasize that there is agreement between the Didache and what protestants teach.

There will also be differences when it isn't in agreement with the documents of the letters of the Apostles and the 4 Gospels. There was already problems and issues that had to be dealt with such as:

Paul had to deal with those who wanted to re-establish the law instead of faith and grace as noted in Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Gnosticism was dealt with multiple times as in 1 Tim 6: Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”

Then we have what I see in the Didache where man has the capacity to make a tradition that makes God's word of non-effect as Jesus said,
Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Just because one is a believer doesn't mean we can't make a truth into a tradition. So taking for wikipedia on Didache:

"Fasting is ordered for Wednesdays and Fridays" - Fasting is encouraged! - But there is no basis for this to be a "law". One doesn't "order" a person to fast. Here they took what is a truth "we should fast" - and then made a "tradition" that it must be done on two days. Does God not accept a Monday fast? Are three day fasts now unacceptable? If you miss a Wednesday, are you less of a Christian?

Would I take a sermon and express the differences today? Not at all, as it has been noted, people don't even know of this tradition.

Remember, this was discussed and found it not to be canonical for the obvious reason that I just mentioned.

But here in this forum, as you brought it up, happy to discuss any finer points.

But it seems clear to me that early Christians were alright with this and followed these regulations until the Reformation. Paul gives some such edicts e.g., give the priest/minister his due allowance. I would argue, though, that there is already a deep-rooted unsolved Christian argument here, such as the Jerusalem Church in Acts deciding on basic rules for non-Jews who convert, such as not eating meat offered to idols, don't eat blood etc. and Paul then allows people to eat meat offered to idols, and presumably blood as well as Christians eat blood in many countries, including mine. This issue will I fear never be resolved and Paul always seems to win with Protestants on this one, to the detriment of the Jerusalem Council headed by James. I think this will always be an impasse, but it seems clear to me that many Christians, esp. the Jewish ones were willing to accept such rules on fasting etc. It's the oldest Christian dispute.

 

[exchemist]

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 Protests use it much. How come?

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

I must admit I had to look this up in MacCulloch. Seems related to the practices of the Essenes and to have been put together in Syria or Palestine at a very early stage in the development of the new religion. As to why it is not references by Protestants, if indeed that is the case, my best (though totally uninformed) guess would be that might be because it is seen as a form of authority separate from scripture. Also I note MacCulloch comments that St. Paul would have been infuriated by its assertion that we are saved through good works as well as faith - a very Catholic point of view.

(MacCulloch, History of Christianity, p.120, 132-133.)

 

[Rival]

Also I note MacCulloch comments that St. Paul would have been infuriated by its assertion that we are saved through good works as well as faith - a very Catholic point of view.

I would disagree with this reading of Paul New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

I would disagree with this reading of Paul New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia

That is also very interesting. If only my grandfather were still around, this would be just his kind of thing - though it has all come about since his death.

Though I am aware that sola fide Protestants will argue that someone who has faith will carry out good works in any case, as a result of their faith - their argument being that faith comes first and is the determining factor.

 

[Rival]

That is also very interesting. If only my grandfather were still around, this would be just his kind of thing - though it has all come about since his death.

Though I am aware that sola fide Protestants will argue that someone who has faith will carry out good works in any case, as a result of their faith - their argument being that faith comes first and is the determining factor.

This is basically the argument in the XXXIX Articles,

XII. OF GOOD WORKS

ALBEIT that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's Judgement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

 

[Kenny]

But it seems clear to me that early Christians were alright with this and followed these regulations until the Reformation.

In as much as there are no other documents as to whether these position were accepted by all early Christians, I don't think we will ever know.

Paul gives some such edicts e.g., give the priest/minister his due allowance. I would argue, though, that there is already a deep-rooted unsolved Christian argument here, such as the Jerusalem Church in Acts deciding on basic rules for non-Jews who convert, such as not eating meat offered to idols, don't eat blood etc. and Paul then allows people to eat meat offered to idols, and presumably blood as well as Christians eat blood in many countries, including mine

What I think is noteworthy, even as we read the book of Acts and the Epistles, the understanding of what God ultimately wanted was a progressive revelation. Acts 1 - the revelation of Judas and the answer to it. Acts 2 the revelation of the rivers of living water spoken of Jesus. Acts 10, the revelation of the Gentiles and the no acepción of people. Acts 15 - no circumcision required and so much more

So, as seen even within these scriptures, there were many issues to be covered.

I think were there are people, there will always be discussions but not issues of the foundational positions of the redeeming power of the blood and body of Christ.

But I wouldn't call everything "a deep-rooted problem" but rather issues that had to be addressed as they grew in revelation and understanding. As you know, the Didache was not received as cannon.

This issue will I fear never be resolved and Paul always seems to win with Protestants on this one, to the detriment of the Jerusalem Council headed by James.

I'm not sure "blood" is such a big issue today. That would fall under the Romans 14 category.

I think this will always be an impasse, but it seems clear to me that many Christians, esp. the Jewish ones were willing to accept such rules on fasting etc. It's the oldest Christian dispute.

The Jewish people already had rules so I'm not sure why that would be an issue. The revelation of the love of God and the grace of God was a growing understanding and, yes, put an issue between those of the Law of Moses vs those of the Grace of God.

 

[Wandering Monk]

If you read the Didache alongside the Epistle of James, they have the same tone. I have heard some scholars suggest the Didache may have been written about 50 CE as sort of a fleshing out of the Councils earlier decision about Gentiles in Acts 15.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

To speak where I come from, it's largely as @Brickjectivity said and not considered cannon. They believe what we have as the Bible was ordained and guided by Jehovah and if it was supposed to have that and the other Apocryphal books then they'd still be there today.

 

[Brian2]

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

It seems it was found recently and as such is a writing in addition to the scriptures, and protestants usually go by the scriptures only.
The Catholics otoh account traditional practices as pretty important and the Didache seems to have some of them and they might be traditions which the Catholic Church would agree with.
Also a document like the Didache, if written in the first century, would probably show more organization and scructure (along Catholic lines) in the early church than many protestants want to accept as true.

 

[InChrist]

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

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.

 

[1213]

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...

Do you know how it is dated?

I think it is good writing. But, if a Christian means a disciple of Jesus, the words of Jesus are the most important thing, because:

Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in Him, If you continue in My Word, you are truly My disciples.
John 8:31