The didache

  • Thread starter Thread starter dancny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dancny

Guest
I am getting into the writings of the early fathers. In my first, very rough, research i find the didache was lost and then found some 800(?) years later. How do we know it is the original text? How do we know it should be trusted? Does anyone know when it was written? Does anyone know by whom?

Thank you
 
dancny said:
I am getting into the writings of the early fathers. In my first, very rough, research i find the didache was lost and then found some 800(?) years later. How do we know it is the original text? How do we know it should be trusted? Does anyone know when it was written? Does anyone know by whom?

Thank you
Click to expand...
The Didache was known of, but thought lost, until 1873 when it was rediscovered by a Greek Orthodox bishop in the Greek Codex Hierosolymitanus written in 1056. Since that discovery, at least four other copies have been found that back up the authenticity of the original document. These documents, discovered in four different languages (Greek, Latin, Coptic, and Ethiopian) in four different regions of the world, were all almost identical. That’s a good clue that the original document has been faithfully preserved.

We also know that it can be trusted because of historical research. Many Early Church Fathers discussed the work, and so although we didn’t have an actual copy of the Didache, we had a fair idea of its contents.

Most modern historians believe that the Didache was written in the mid to late first century, making it the earliest existing non-Biblical Christian document. It is probably also the only one that we can be relatively sure dates to the actual first generation of Christians.

The Didache was probably not written by any one person, but by a group. It was probably meant to be used as a sort of early Catechism, describing worship and practice in the first century church. As such, it is one of the most important documents we have to understand what the first generation of Christianity was like.
 
What Rolltide said. Man, the *Didache *is an incredible book! If only those people who tear each other apart over the proper form of Baptism (Baptism by immersion v. sprinkling) had this book to see what the Church at the time of the Apostles said:
**Chapter 7. **And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
Click to expand...
Looks like either way is ok, even if Baptism by immersion is preferable (since it reminds us of the dying and rising that our Baptism entails).

Chapter 9 says,
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”
Click to expand...
This reflects the policy for Passover. Exodus 12:48 says, “If any aliens living among you wish to celebrate the Passover of the LORD, all the males among them must first be circumcised, and then they may join in its observance just like the natives. But no man who is uncircumcised may partake of it.” And like Paul said in Col. 2:11-12, Baptism is the new (spiritual) circumcision. And of course, the Eucharist is the new Passover.

Or how about this jewel?
**Chapter 14.**But ***every Lord’s Day ***gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”
Click to expand...
So every Sunday, they were “breaking bread,” and offering sacrifice, but only after Confession (there’s some question as to whether this refers to private confession, or the sort of public confession we all do at the start of Mass: “I confess to Almighty God…”). The quote, from Malachi 1:11, was often used by the early Church Fathers to explain the Eucharist. For some reason, it’s not one of the big ones used today: I think it answers on-point the Protestant fear that our re-presenting Christ’s Body somehow diminishes His once-for-all sacrifice on the Cross.

Anyways, I’ve gone on long enough… but man, the *Didache *is great!
 
Thank you.

I see this short document on line. Is that the whole thing or is there more?
 
Dancny

I am very pleased to note there are others here besides myself interested in the Apostolic Fathers.

Very little is known about the Didache unfortunately. We do not know that we have the original text. I do not know what you mean about trusting it. Read it and see what you think yourself.

No one knows who wrote it. He is called the Didachist. It is also not known when it was written, possibly in the mid first century.

It is not known where it was written, possibly in Antioch. It is considered a Church Manual. It claims to give the teaching of the Apostles and is sympathetic to Jews. This may indicate an early origin.

The Greek manuscript in the Codex Hierosolymitanus was written in 1056 and discovered by Bryennios in 1873 and the Editio Princeps, by him, appeared in 1883.

It discussses “The Two Ways”, Baptism, Eucharist and eschatology.

These views differ little from those of Rolltide.

I would also agree with Belloc Fan, especially
but man, the Didache is great!
Click to expand...
There are excellent recent versions of the Didache. The best are The Apostolic Fathers, Vol 1 (edited and translated by Bart Ehrman, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard UP, 2003) and *The Apostolic Fathers in Englisn *(3rd Ed., edited and translated by Michael W. Holmes, Baker Academic, 2006).

Please let us know what you think of the Didache. What strikes you most?

I would be great if more views could be shared here.

However it is not Scripture.
 
NoelFitz said:
Very little is known about the Didache unfortunately. We do not know that we have the original text. I do not know what you mean about trusting it. Read it and see what you think yourself.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that although none of the texts actually discovered is the original, the chances that the text we have is a faithful reproduction of the original is very high, since it was found in multiple places, in multiple languages, from multiple sources, with very little or no deviation in translation. Similarly, although none of the texts of any of the books of the Bible are the original, we have very strong evidence for their accuracy of reproduction.
 
Thank you all.

Part of my intrest is from arguing with sola scriptura protestants. If there chirstian works that are authentic and trustworthy that are oder than some of the books of the bible, how can they ignore them?

Another, probably larger, reason is personal growth. I feel that if byour a christian, Catholic or otherwise, you have to grow continually.
 
dancny said:
Thank you all.

Part of my intrest is from arguing with sola scriptura protestants. If there chirstian works that are authentic and trustworthy that are oder than some of the books of the bible, how can they ignore them?

Another, probably larger, reason is personal growth. I feel that if byour a christian, Catholic or otherwise, you have to grow continually.
Click to expand...
You make two very good points here. Another Early Church writing which might interest you is the letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians. It also has as 1st century date. Also the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred in AD 117. In all cases, you will discover that the practice of the Early Church was Catholic!

Check out this link:

amazon.com/Epistles-Clement-Ignatius-Antioch-Christian/dp/080910038X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244731866&sr=8-1
 
Rolltide,

I am very pleased to hear from you,as you are one of our best experts, having over 2000 contributions, and, as expected from a history professor, they are accurate and solid.

I agree that the text of the Didache is probably essentially a faithful reproduction of the original. I would reason this from its great age, as it reflects very early Church teaching, being older than some books of the NT (possibly).

It may be of relevance to note what Bart Ehrman wrote, even though he has been criticized here. Ehrman raises the possibility that the Didache may be a composite work, composed by several authors at different times and places. “Possibly, however, it is simplest to think that the Didachist himself, who was responsible for the final edition of the text. worked with earlier sources” (p 410).

Ehrman points out that the manuscript tradition of the Didache is complicated. The Codex Hierosolymitanus (1056) remains the only surviving complete text. There is a fitfth century partial Coptic text. Virtually all the text with modifications is in the *Apostolic Constitutions *(4th century).

Holmes also discusses the composite nature of the text, but agrees essentially with Ehrman.
 
David and Dancny

I am interested in the Apostolic Fathers and wonder why they are not more popular.

Throughout history their popularity varied. At one time they were considered as important as texts which were later include in the NT. With the rise of the Apologists, Justin, Irenaeus etc., writers that were more theological and philosophical attracted attention and the Apostolic Fathers almost disappeared from view.

During the Renaissance/Reformation there was a slight revival of Interest, which did not last long.

In the 19th century Lightfoot and Zahn made some major contributions and currently there is an increase in the interest in these early Christina writers.

We are fortunate to have the works of Ehrman and Holmes. Also both BibleWorks 8 and the Libronix Digital Library System have extensive works on these early Fathers.

It is obvious why Sola Scriptura Protestants would not appreciate these authors to a great extent. The Catholic lack of intetest is less easy to understand.

However many early works are not included in the NT. Many of these are discussed in Ehrman’s* Lost Christianities *(Oxford UP, 2003). These include the Gospels of the Ebionites, the Egyptians, Mary, the Nazareans, Peter and Philip.

Thus it is not always true what Tertullian wrote:
Quod antiquissimum, id verissimum.
Click to expand...
 
If you are interested in the Early Church Fathers, then there are two books that everyone here should invest in:

Rod Bennett - Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words
This book takes a look at the life and works of four of the earliest Early Church Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Iraneus of Lyons) in a narrative style, and demonstrates how the Early Church was indeed Catholic.

William Jurgens - Faith of the Early Fathers (3 volumes)
This three volume work is an introduction to all of the Church Fathers, and provides biographies, extended quotes from important works, and explains why each was important.
 
Rolltide said:
If you are interested in the Early Church Fathers, then there are two books that everyone here should invest in:

Rod Bennett - Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words
This book takes a look at the life and works of four of the earliest Early Church Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Iraneus of Lyons) in a narrative style, and demonstrates how the Early Church was indeed Catholic.

William Jurgens - Faith of the Early Fathers (3 volumes)
This three volume work is an introduction to all of the Church Fathers, and provides biographies, extended quotes from important works, and explains why each was important.
Click to expand...
I’ll have to look up the Bennett text; it looks very interesting to me. The Jurgens work I am familiar with.

A source I’ve found useful for sub-New Testament literature (not Patristic) is the two volume “New Testament Apocrypha” ( Wilhelm Schneemelcher; R. McL. Wilson) providing critical translation and commentary on the non-canonical material circulating through the first 4 centuries – both heretical literature, and literature showing some of the personal piety of the Early Church. The two volumes are not cheap – but should be readily accessible in any decent university or seminary library.

Blessings,
 
I think the Didache is very important for apologetic and doctrinal purposes. It has a very high view of the eucharist, which evidences the importance of this sacrament for the earliest Christian communities. It discusses such issues as abortion and abortifacients (in addition to exposing children once born). It also discusses itinerant “charismatists” – probably prophets – indicating that the spiritual gifts did not die out with the apostles as is asserted by many evangelicals following the dispensationalist theology of Benjamin Warfield of Princeton in the 19th century. Good stuff.
 
Rolltide

Many thanks.

I have Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol 1 (which includes the Apostolic Fathers). Since reading your post I have looked at it again. In the past I did not read it too closely, as my interests really are in the Apostolic Fathers and I use other books, but having looked at Jurgens’ book this evening I am encouraged to read it more seriously.

I also bought Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett. I thought it started off very well, but then I got very disappointed with it. For example in discussing St Clement it is based on the pseudo-Clementine writings, which have no historical accuracy.
 
NoelFitz said:
Rolltide

Many thanks.

I also bought Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett. I thought it started off very well, but then I got very disappointed with it. For example in discussing St Clement it is based on the pseudo-Clementine writings, which have no historical accuracy.
Click to expand...
I too am a stickler for historical accuracy, but I believe the author discloses this, and says that he uses the sources to provide some idea of what his life might have been like for the purposes of narration. He doesn’t use them for purposes of teaching theology or present them as the opinions of St. Clement, but just to give the fictional narrative a bit more depth.
 
**
adowcday
**
You wrote:
It (The Didache) discusses such issues as abortion and abortifacients (in addition to exposing children once born).
Click to expand...
In fact I could find very little about abortion in The Didache, or in any components of the Apostolic Fathers.

All I could find about abortion in the Didache was:
  1. The second commandment of the teaching is: (2) “You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery”; you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous; “you shall not steal”; you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s possessions;…
    Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers : Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 253.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for the comments and the links. They have been very helpful.

I am pretty adamant about historical accuracy. If your presenting a work it needs to be truthful and accurate or else what is it but suspect? If it’s suspect how useful can it be? Throw it on a heap with the gnostic gospels.
 
dancny said:
Thank you for the comments and the links. They have been very helpful.

I am pretty adamant about historical accuracy. If your presenting a work it needs to be truthful and accurate or else what is it but suspect? If it’s suspect how useful can it be? Throw it on a heap with the gnostic gospels.
Click to expand...
Actually, you bring up a really interesting topic. There are plenty of ancient Christian texts out there, and they fall into a wide range of categories. Some are really useful, some aren’t, but most are more useful than you think. Here’s the rough breakdown:
  1. Canonical works. This includes everything that ALL Christians accept in the New Testament. No problems here.
  2. The Deuterocanonicals / Apocrypha. This includes the seven books of the Old Testament that Catholics regard as inspired scripture, but Protestants don’t believe to be inspired. Regardless, Protestants do regard these as extremely useful for study, and as such, still have great value.
  3. Books from other canons. The Orthodox add a few additional books and fragments of books, like Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees. The Ethiopian Orthodox have an even larger “expanded” canon. These books are often regarded by Catholics as Protestants would perceive the Deuterocanoicals - very useful for study, but not inspired.
  4. Books that were nearly included. In the early days of defining the canon, there were some books that were used and highly respected that almost made it in, but finally were rejected, because there simply wasn’t enough evidence that they were inspired, or they were mostly historical in nature. Documents that would fall into this category would include the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas.
  5. Books that were clearly faked. Some Christians made up stories about Jesus because they wanted to fill in the missing details of his life. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was one of these, chronicling what Jesus did between his birth and his ministry (mostly during his youth). These types of books were almost always written WELL after the current canonical books were complete, and have almost no credibility. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, was written after the year 200, so it’s more than 100 years after the death of St. John. These are fascinating to read as fiction, but don’t tell us much about early Christians.
  6. Gnostic books. These books were written to support the Gnostic heresy, and purported to contain “hidden wisdom” that only a few privileged people could interpret. If they did so, they would enter heaven (no morality required, just good decoding skills). These books often contained elements of the truth, but they were seriously distorted. The Gospel of Thomas is one such books. Gnostic books can be useful for historians because they tell us about the development of heresy, and also contain a few important historical details that can tell us about the timeline of the early church. A large number of these were also faked 50 to 100 years after the Biblical canon books.
  7. Other books. This category can be the most problematic. These books might be rejected for a variety of reasons. Often, they contain a clear heresy, or parts were faked. However… they do tend to contain many historically accurate details, and as such, they are important for studying early Christianity. For example, we know that Peter was martyred in Rome on an upside-down cross due to books like these. The story is repeated several times in several documents, and although other parts of the book are problematic, some elements remain consistent, and have some evidence. Books like the Acts of Peter might fall into this category.
  8. Writings of the Early Church Fathers. These books are not so much inspired, but are commentaries on the early church, early Christians, and early Christianity. They are highly useful for study. Works like the Letters of St. Ignatius would fall into this category.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top