Talk:Didache

WHAT THE DIDACHE TELLS US ABOUT EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY by Michael R. Burch https://www.quora.com/Can-you-tell-me-something-about-the-Didache-and-its-relevance-to-our-understanding-of-the-early-Church What does the Didache tell us about early christianity and the early church?

For those unfamiliar with this ancient christian text, which is considered one of the most important early christian manuscripts outside the bible, perhaps as early as 50-70 AD according to some experts (but not all), I have a section titled WHAT IS THE DIDACHE? at the bottom of this page.

By the way, it’s pronounced DID-ah-kay.

The thing I find most interesting about the Didache is what it doesn’t mention that modern christians believe.

The author of the Didache seems to have been unaware of “great heaps” of modern christology:

No knowledge of the death of Jesus. No knowledge of the cross or the crucifixion of Jesus. No knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus. No knowledge of the ascension of Jesus. No knowledge of the virgin birth. No knowledge of the earthly ministry of Jesus. No knowledge of the miracles of Jesus. No knowledge of the Last Supper. No knowledge of Pentecost. etc. While the Didache has been called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles, there is no evidence that it was based on anything the apostles said, or even that the author knew there were apostles, nor anything that Jesus said.

It bears noting that the Greek term Didache means simply “Teaching” and the rest may have been added later to give the book more authority.

As Burton L. Mack observed in Who Wrote the New Testament:

There is no mention of the apostles within the work, and no internal evidence that the author felt it necessary to appeal to the twelve apostles as the source for his own authority. The title must have been appended at a later time.

Nor does the Didache say that any of its teachings originated with Jesus. As a critic noted, “Jesus is presented more as a teacher to be listened to than as a deity to be revered.” And yet Jesus isn’t quoted.

Furthermore, the author of the Didache seems to be unaware that there was anything unusual about Jesus’s death or even that he died, nor that he was (allegedly) resurrected!

As Mack observes:

The prayers of thanksgiving (eucharist) for the community meal in chapters 9 and 10 are significant because they do not contain any reference to the death of Jesus. A very formalistic set of prayers is assigned to the cup and the breaking of bread, but without the slightest association of this with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

None of the words used in the Didache regarding the eucharist relate to the accounts found in the synoptic Gospels. The Didache contains no reference to the atonement or the blood and body of Jesus.

It seems passingly odd that early christians had a eucharist that didn’t mention Jesus saying, “This do in remembrance of me,” and “This is my body and my blood,” unless those things were made up later in the evolution of christianity.

WHAT IS THE DIDACHE?

The Didache is a sort of “best practices” manual for early christian churches, covering topics like:

Baptism practices. Eucharist practices. How to tell a true prophet from a moocher. etc. Why is the Didache considered to be so early — perhaps as early as 50-70 AD?

Aaron Milavec, a Didache specialist, dates it to 50-70 AD. As Kevin Chen observed, “…the Didache portrays a very primitive and early structure of the church, with many customs and traditions that are not very refined, suggesting a very early date, at least for certain sections.” Bart Ehrman noted that the Didache “in its final form is usually dated around 100 CE.” Please note Ehrman’s “final form.” Thus, the more primitive parts could be earlier and we may have received an “updated” version that is still very early, if the majority view of the experts is correct. Early church fathers, including the influential-if-notorious Eusebius of Caesarea, acknowledged the existence of the Didache, with some even considering it next to Holy Scripture. However, the manuscript was lost until 1873. As Bart Ehrman explains (his bolding, not mine):

Few manuscript discoveries of modern times have created the stir caused by the discovery and publication of the Didache in the late nineteenth century. Found by Philotheos Bryennios in 1873 in the Library of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople and published by him ten years later, the Didache was immediately seen to be one of the most important literary remains of early Christianity outside of the New Testament.

The Didache contains the earliest surviving descriptive account of the Christian rituals of baptism and eucharist.

Alan Garrow believes the Didache was used as a source by the authors of Matthew and Luke, meaning they were quoting the Didache rather than the other way around. This is his explanation from a conversation on Bart Ehrman’s blog:

The puzzle to solve is that Did. 1.2-5a, Matthew 5.38-48 and Luke 6.27-36 have a triangular relationship. Most scholars now doubt that the Didache could have got its material from either Matthew or Luke – so what happened? What I propose is that Luke used Did. 1.2-5a as one of his sources. Then Matthew, aware of both Luke’s version and the Didache’s version, combined the two together to create his third version. For the illustrated explanation of how this works in detail see ExtantQ

So, if I may define “Q” as any saying used by both Matthew and Luke (except sayings found in Mark), then Did. 1.2-5a qualifies as a surviving example of “Q”. In this sense I am saying something close to “D is a version of Q”. What I would like to be read as saying, more precisely, is that Did. 1.2-5a is a surviving example of a set of sayings used by both Luke and Matthew. I don’t make this claim for the rest of the Didache because the Didache is a composite document (as this thread is exploring).

If you define Q as an entity of about 4,500 words that accounts for all the material shared by Luke and Matthew (but not found in Mark), then I really am NOT saying that ‘the Didache preserves material from Q independent of the synoptics’ – because I don’t think this type of 4,500-word Q ever existed. Some scholars have suggested that Did. 1.3-5a is a bit like Matthew 5.38-48 and Luke 6.27-36 because they are ALL drawing from Q – but I don’t think this is the case.

Thanks for asking for the clarification. Sorry for the need for such pedantic precision!

…

You asked me to comment on whether the idea that Matthew and Luke knew Did. 1.2-5a is an anomalous view. It is certainly the case that I am the only scholar to have made the case in a peer review journal. There is quite a difference between being the first person to propose an idea and being someone who favours an idea that has already been thoroughly examined and found wanting.

Most scholars now agree that it is highly unlikely that the Didache relied directly on Matthew or Luke … and yet they have some distinctive material in common. It makes sense, I think, to consider the possibility that these similarities are due to (this section of the DIdache) being a source for the other two texts. I hope I’ve done a respectable job of exploring that possibility.