Thoughts on the Didache?

[Entropic_Prodigy]

"The Didache is a very ancient, possibly First Century, Christian document. It describes the ethical paths to life and death in general terms, then focuses on spiritual life in an age when evangelists and prophets still roamed the earth." (Also known as, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles".)


http://www.thenazareneway.com/didache.htm

In modern scholarship a new consensus is emerging which dates the Didache at about the turn of the 1st century. At the same time, significant similarities between the Didache and the gospel of Matthew have been found as these writings share words, phrases, and motifs. There is also an increasing reluctance of modern scholars to support the thesis that the Didache used Matthew. This close relationship between these two writings might suggest that both documents were created in the same historical and geographical setting. One argument that suggests a common environment is that the community of both the Didache and the gospel of Matthew was probably composed of Judaeo-Christians from the beginning, though each writing shows indications of a congregation which appears to have alienated itself from its Jewish background. Also, the Two Ways teaching (Did. 1-6) may have served as a pre-baptismal instruction within the community of the Didache and Matthew. Furthermore, the correspondence of the Trinitarian baptismal formula in the Didache and Matthew (Did. 7 and Matt 28:19) as well as the similar shape of the Lord's Prayer (Did. 8 and Matt 6:5-13) apparently reflect the use of resembling oral forms of church traditions. Finally, both the community of the Didache (Did. 11-13) and Matthew (Matt 7:15-23; 10:5-15, 40-42; 24:11,24) were visited by itinerant apostles and prophets, some of whom were illegitimate.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

 

[francisdesales]

"The Didache is a very ancient, possibly First Century, Christian document. It describes the ethical paths to life and death in general terms, then focuses on spiritual life in an age when evangelists and prophets still roamed the earth." (Also known as, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles".)


http://www.thenazareneway.com/didache.htm

In modern scholarship a new consensus is emerging which dates the Didache at about the turn of the 1st century. At the same time, significant similarities between the Didache and the gospel of Matthew have been found as these writings share words, phrases, and motifs. There is also an increasing reluctance of modern scholars to support the thesis that the Didache used Matthew. This close relationship between these two writings might suggest that both documents were created in the same historical and geographical setting. One argument that suggests a common environment is that the community of both the Didache and the gospel of Matthew was probably composed of Judaeo-Christians from the beginning, though each writing shows indications of a congregation which appears to have alienated itself from its Jewish background. Also, the Two Ways teaching (Did. 1-6) may have served as a pre-baptismal instruction within the community of the Didache and Matthew. Furthermore, the correspondence of the Trinitarian baptismal formula in the Didache and Matthew (Did. 7 and Matt 28:19) as well as the similar shape of the Lord's Prayer (Did. 8 and Matt 6:5-13) apparently reflect the use of resembling oral forms of church traditions. Finally, both the community of the Didache (Did. 11-13) and Matthew (Matt 7:15-23; 10:5-15, 40-42; 24:11,24) were visited by itinerant apostles and prophets, some of whom were illegitimate.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

As it happens, I have just bought a new book on the Didache. I'll have to read it and get back with you. What you have said resonates with what I recall from past readings on the Didache in the ACW series.

Regards

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

I went through it, and it's pretty awesome. Right on, as far as I can tell...?

I was just thinking, if it was written in 1st century A.D. it might really have been around when the apostles were, huh? Pretty exciting, but not as exciting as if it actually were another work of theirs.

 

[francisdesales]

"The Didache is a very ancient, possibly First Century, Christian document. It describes the ethical paths to life and death in general terms, then focuses on spiritual life in an age when evangelists and prophets still roamed the earth." (Also known as, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles".)


http://www.thenazareneway.com/didache.htm

In modern scholarship a new consensus is emerging which dates the Didache at about the turn of the 1st century. At the same time, significant similarities between the Didache and the gospel of Matthew have been found as these writings share words, phrases, and motifs. There is also an increasing reluctance of modern scholars to support the thesis that the Didache used Matthew.

OK, I have finished the book I was reading on Didache. Quite an interesting one, written by Aaron Milavec (who has written quite profusely on the subject in a number of works.). I do not necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, but he does offer some interesting comments that I do find make sense of some of the more cryptic sayings. He also points out that there is independence between Matthew and the Didache and gives a half dozen reasons. He suggests that Didache was committed to writing before the Gospel, although they probably share SOME common oral tradition.

Anyway, for the point of sharing information and not debating, is there anything you want to discuss?

Regards

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

Actually, I was hoping others would share what they know with me -- and discuss. 1st century A.D. Christian writings are rare, as far as I can tell. If I remember correctly, John was the last apostle to die, possibly around 100 A.D. Most scholars who have examined the document agree that an Apostle did not write this, but it does claim to be influenced by their teachings.

Some of the "Greatest Hits" of the Didache:

1:5 Give to every one that asketh of thee, and ask not again; for the Father wishes that from his own gifts there should be given to all. Blessed is he who giveth according to the commandment, for he is free from guilt; but woe unto him that receiveth. For if a man receive being in need, he shall be free from guilt; but he who receiveth when not in need, shall pay a penalty as to why he received and for what purpose; and when he is in tribulation he shall be examined concerning the things that he has done, and shall not depart thence until he has paid the last farthing.

2:6 Thou shalt not be covetous, or rapacious, or hypocritical, or malicious, or proud; thou shalt not take up an evil design against thy neighbour;
2:7 thou shalt not hate any man, but some thou shalt confute, concerning some thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love beyond thine own soul. Some thou shalt love beyond thine own soul -- that's awesome. So's "confute"...I think I have a new favorite word.
4:12 Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy and everything that is not pleasing to God.
11:6 And let the apostle when departing take nothing but bread until he arrive at his resting-place; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.

Chapter 7 also clearly supports water baptism, and baptising "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".

I think it expounds on some of the teachings already present in the bible -- it really doesn't bring in anything new, and it's not contradictory to what's already in scripture.

I do not necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, but he does offer some interesting comments that I do find make sense of some of the more cryptic sayings. He also points out that there is independence between Matthew and the Didache and gives a half dozen reasons

What were his conclusions? And did he comment on: 8:1 But as for your fasts, let them not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week, but do ye fast on the fourth and sixth days.

 

[francisdesales]

Actually, I was hoping others would share what they know with me -- and discuss. 1st century A.D. Christian writings are rare, as far as I can tell. If I remember correctly, John was the last apostle to die, possibly around 100 A.D. Most scholars who have examined the document agree that an Apostle did not write this, but it does claim to be influenced by their teachings.

I would agree that the Didache has its origins in Apostolic teaching, especially of the Matthew tradition, which focuses on parts of the faith in a different way than Paul, for example.

Some of the "Greatest Hits" of the Didache:

1:5 Give to every one that asketh of thee, and ask not again; for the Father wishes that from his own gifts there should be given to all. Blessed is he who giveth according to the commandment, for he is free from guilt; but woe unto him that receiveth. For if a man receive being in need, he shall be free from guilt; but he who receiveth when not in need, shall pay a penalty as to why he received and for what purpose; and when he is in tribulation he shall be examined concerning the things that he has done, and shall not depart thence until he has paid the last farthing.

I would go back to 1:1

There are two ways: one of life and one of death!

This is a large part of the purpose of the Didache, the "Training" that new Gentiles would receive in the Way.

Chapter 7 also clearly supports water baptism, and baptising "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".

True, and this is a very early tradition. The book I read claims that this may not have been a literal liturgical formula, citing that "the Hebraic expression of acting 'in the name of X' has to do with the way a disciple or a servant is authorized to act, because of training or mandate received from the master" (Milavec, p 62-62).

He also points out that the NT does not attach potentcy to names as the OT does.

This may all be so, but I do not see how that "makes it clear that the trinity of names did not constitute a liturgical formula" (Milavec, p 63), since other writings have the same exact "formula", such as Matthew 28. And of course, this merely states that the Trinity, even if undefined and vague, appears to have been a concept, since God is indeed the originator of the command to act in His name - as Christ says in Matthew 28 "Baptise them in the name of the ...", meaning, in the name of God (and He tells us that "all power has been given to me from above").

I do agree with him that this was likely not the entire liturgical formula, and that the minister no doubt spoke of mystagogy, the mysterious meaning behind the symbolism of Baptism. Later Christians, such as Ambrose write entire "tracts" that describe the meaning behind Baptism by looking to the various foreshadowings in the OT, such as the flood, the Exodus through the Reed Sea, Naaman, and circumcision. No doubt, the minister reminded the newly baptized of the need to remain in the "Way" (as described in the previous 6 chapters).

I think it expounds on some of the teachings already present in the bible -- it really doesn't bring in anything new, and it's not contradictory to what's already in scripture.

It does help to explain how new converts were taught in the Way. The Bible does not detail that, as most of the letters are written to already-converted communities.

What I find interesting is that the Didache was originally orally given. There are a number of mnemomics to aid in memorization in the Greek. It also seems quite likely that a spiritual "father" or "mother" would be assigned to a new convert who would teach the Gentile the Way of Life as laid out in the first part of "Training" (didache).

This is a fine historical document that tells us how Christians acted and taught novices in the faith. It adds to our understanding of Scriptures, and also verifies the importance of Baptism, which some people on this forum disagree on.

What were his conclusions? And did he comment on: 8:1 But as for your fasts, let them not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week, but do ye fast on the fourth and sixth days.

One conclusion that I do disagree on is his anachronistic idea of women leading celebration of the Eucharist. The Eucharist was seen as a sacrifice very early (as Didache points out), and with Jewish background, it seems unlikely that a woman in the ancient world would be entrusted to this position of authority. We do not find a female elder anywhere, nor is the concept found but extremely rarely in secular culture. "Elders" were strictly men of well-to-do families who served the community "free of charge". In the religious realm (recalling Jewish background), these elders, men, were the ones who offered sacrifice. While it appears plain that women had a new role in the Christian religion, I do not see the evidence that this went all the way that some of the 21st century would like to anachronistically establish into the distant past.

On 8:1...

He notes that the Didache took great pains to separate themselves from the synagogue and Temple, the "hypocrites". He speaks more about the pre-baptismal fast then the weekly fast which distinctly is different than the Jewish fast. I would think the purpose was similar to Jewish fasts.

What I personally found very interesting was his comments on the Lord's Prayer, which follows 8:1. He notes that most scholars see the future-looking expectation in the first three petitions, but regard the last three as a shift to the "daily needs". Milavec notes that linguistically, this is not entirely acceptable.

"...the request for bread is expressed in the aorist imperative, which anticipates a single future action (as in the case of the first three petitions). In this light Raymond Brown pointed out that the Christian Scriptures supply instances where 'bread' and 'eating' are clearly equated with the future banquet in the Kingdom (Lk 6:21; 14:15; 22:29-30; Mat 8:11; Rev 7:16). 'This eschatological understanding of the petition for bread was the dominant one in the first centuries' (Jeremias). The same logic holds true for the petitioned forgiveness. Again the use of the aorist imperative suggests a single future action" (Milovec, 65-66).

The understanding of "bread" above matches my understanding of Jerome's interpretation of the Greek Scriptures into Latin, where he says "our supersubstantial bread", rather than our "daily bread". Later interpreters changed the meaning to "daily", but the original intent was to point to a SPECIAL "bread", not common bread, whether refering to the Eucharist or the one Banquet in the Kingdom.

This understanding of the Lord's prayer is interesting to me and is verified by other Scripture writings that appear to expect the coming of the Lord at any time. If this is oral tradition that is quite early, it makes sense. It is understandable that the "meaning" of the Lord's prayer has changed to take into account a "settling in", as Christ's Parousia is 'delayed'. However, the Didache community was clearly expecting the Christ "soon".

I do also agree that this writing is indeed a very early look into Christianity. It is largely devoid of Pauline theology of salvation and the cross, for example. It is full of Jewish-Christian understandings of morality and "fences", ideas found also in Matthew. It also attempts to separate itself from the Jews who will not accept Christianity. I think this points to an earlier separation between Jews and Christians than many may have first thought.

Any other thoughts to share?

 

[stovebolts]

I've always enjoyed the Didache!

You can tell that they follow in the footsteps of Hillel (As did Jesus in many ways [that's not articulated right ]), not to mention Paul was taught by Gamilel, son of Hillel, but Hellel's teachings are especially evident in chapter three on Baptism.


Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit."

Look at the progression and the lenience.

As an FYI, here's a decent link on Hillel
http://www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/hillel.htm

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

Thanks for the link, Stove Bolts!

This may all be so, but I do not see how that "makes it clear that the trinity of names did not constitute a liturgical formula" (Milavec, p 63), since other writings have the same exact "formula", such as Matthew 28. And of course, this merely states that the Trinity, even if undefined and vague, appears to have been a concept, since God is indeed the originator of the command to act in His name - as Christ says in Matthew 28 "Baptise them in the name of the ...", meaning, in the name of God (and He tells us that "all power has been given to me from above").

Yeah, but I've seen debates about whether or not Matthew 28:19 was added later, and never part of the original text. This has it in text before the Trinity concept became church doctrine. It reinforces my belief in it to see it in a first century document based on apostalic teaching.

I do also agree that this writing is indeed a very early look into Christianity. It is largely devoid of Pauline theology of salvation and the cross, for example. It is full of Jewish-Christian understandings of morality and "fences", ideas found also in Matthew. It also attempts to separate itself from the Jews who will not accept Christianity. I think this points to an earlier separation between Jews and Christians than many may have first thought.

Ahhh it IS devoid of Pauline theology of salvation and the cross -- I was looking more into what was there, not what was missing.

Any other thoughts to share?

I will when/if I get around to grabbing that book you're talking about -- I have two books left that I bought a month ago that I haven't read yet.

 

[francisdesales]

Yeah, but I've seen debates about whether or not Matthew 28:19 was added later, and never part of the original text. This has it in text before the Trinity concept became church doctrine. It reinforces my belief in it to see it in a first century document based on apostalic teaching.

It is a good idea to see if a historian has a particular agenda to put forward by looking at their own professed beliefs. In the case of Milavec, he clearly has a feminist agenda to promote. This explains his inclusive translation, although other Greek scholars disagree with him and call his translation dishonest and anachronistic. This makes his conclusion about female worship leaders at the Eucharist suspect and tainted with bias.

Being a former historian, I thought you might like to know that we are not immune to that!

Of course, this does not devalue his other statements, but it calls into question his conclusions that are preconceived. We Trinitarians can also see within Matthew 28 an early indication of a belief in the Trinity, but a more unbiased view would temper that judgment that the statement, in reality, does not NECESSITATE calling Jesus or the Spirit of the same esse as the Father.

To play "devil's advocate", one could say "Take out the garbage in the name of Dad, Mom, and Uncle Jim.". These merely mention the authority behind the command, not that they all possess the same authority OR certainly not the same essence. Thus, WE should also be careful of reading too much into one verse of Sacred Scriptures.

Of course, I do believe Matthew 28:19 is an early liturgical verse used during Baptism that expresses by what authority the Church baptizes. Other verses solidify the relationship between the Father and Son more clearly. The Didache certainly could have shared a similar common source of a tradition with Matthew that recalled this baptism rite.

Ahhh it IS devoid of Pauline theology of salvation and the cross -- I was looking more into what was there, not what was missing.

I think this is pretty good evidence that the Didache was quite early, ironically, when Christianity was not as monolithic as it would become in the second century. I believe that the Christianity during Paul's time was not so monolithic and that there was an early struggle between Jewish Christians (who felt the Torah still applied, to include the circumcision rites) and Gentile Christians who didn't see the need for Jewish rituals. (Acts 15)

Didache reflects a period of time before Pauline Christianity was triumphant over Jewish Christianity and became a minor sect (the Nazarenes or Ebionites) on the fringes of "accepted" and "orthodox" Christianity, a la Catholicism as noted by Ignatius c. 110 CE. These are my opinions, of course. But it seems readily apparent that the Ebionites were pushed to the side by the second century. Their "sacred scriptures" were never considered by "orthodox" Christians, unless one would consider the work of James and Matthew to be from someone with Ebionite leanings, since they do focus on the Jewish concept of "fences" and ethics.

I will when/if I get around to grabbing that book you're talking about -- I have two books left that I bought a month ago that I haven't read yet.

Yes, the common complaint! We never have time to read all those books and we keep buying more!

Regards

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

It is a good idea to see if a historian has a particular agenda to put forward by looking at their own professed beliefs. In the case of Milavec, he clearly has a feminist agenda to promote. This explains his inclusive translation, although other Greek scholars disagree with him and call his translation dishonest and anachronistic. This makes his conclusion about female worship leaders at the Eucharist suspect and tainted with bias.

4:10 Thou shalt not command with bitterness thy servant or thy handmaid, who hope in the same God as thyself, lest they fear not in consequence the God who is over both; for he cometh not to call with respect of persons, but those whom the Spirit hath prepared.

This is the only verse in the Didache that I can see that would even remotely promote women leaders in the church -- even if Milavec does have an agenda, that's not what I'm looking for in this particular document. Although there are those on this forum that would assume that I may be exclusively interested in "translations" that promote feminist agenda, I'm really not. I actually do examine both sides of the argument, and wish not to debate until I find something that's glaring and can not be ignored.

Didache reflects a period of time before Pauline Christianity was triumphant over Jewish Christianity and became a minor sect (the Nazarenes or Ebionites) on the fringes of "accepted" and "orthodox" Christianity, a la Catholicism as noted by Ignatius c. 110 CE. These are my opinions, of course. But it seems readily apparent that the Ebionites were pushed to the side by the second century. Their "sacred scriptures" were never considered by "orthodox" Christians, unless one would consider the work of James and Matthew to be from someone with Ebionite leanings, since they do focus on the Jewish concept of "fences" and ethics.

I *thought* Ebionites still clung to the old Torah laws, and were more Jewish than Christian. From what I can gather, they accepted Jesus Christ, but did not do away with the old laws of the Torah and their rituals.

 

[francisdesales]

4:10 Thou shalt not command with bitterness thy servant or thy handmaid, who hope in the same God as thyself, lest they fear not in consequence the God who is over both; for he cometh not to call with respect of persons, but those whom the Spirit hath prepared.

This is the only verse in the Didache that I can see that would even remotely promote women leaders in the church -- even if Milavec does have an agenda, that's not what I'm looking for in this particular document. Although there are those on this forum that would assume that I may be exclusively interested in "translations" that promote feminist agenda, I'm really not. I actually do examine both sides of the argument, and wish not to debate until I find something that's glaring and can not be ignored.

Good to hear. Milavec's translation has "he/she", rather than "he", as well as his presumption that women presided at the Eucharist meal, very unlikely given the Jewish roots of the Didache.

I *thought* Ebionites still clung to the old Torah laws, and were more Jewish than Christian. From what I can gather, they accepted Jesus Christ, but did not do away with the old laws of the Torah and their rituals.

Exactly. Paul called them "Judaizers", and we get a glimpse of them in Galatians and are the opponents Paul faces in Acts 15. Later Christianity sees a decided break with these Judaizers - even where Revelation mentions the "synagogue of the devil". Perhaps James himself is "Ebionite-leaning", since we see the insertion of dietary rules in Acts 15 and we see them in the Didache. Of course, we can explain this by the pastoral consideration to not scandalize the many Jewish Christians of first century Christianity...

This in of itself begs for an early writing. Coupled with a lack of decidely later Pauline soteriology, perhaps Didache has strong ties to these "Ebionite Christians". However, we don't see anything on circumcision or Jewish-specific holidays, so perhaps we are just seeing the influence of the Jerusalem Council after the fact, but before 70 AD, when these sort of dietary rules could be looked on indifferently. I do agree that such things date the writing itself to 50-70 AD.

Regards

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

This in of itself begs for an early writing. Coupled with a lack of decidely later Pauline soteriology, perhaps Didache has strong ties to these "Ebionite Christians". However, we don't see anything on circumcision or Jewish-specific holidays, so perhaps we are just seeing the influence of the Jerusalem Council after the fact, but before 70 AD, when these sort of dietary rules could be looked on indifferently. I do agree that such things date the writing itself to 50-70 AD.

I'm interested in seeing documents that show early teachings of the church, and the church's history of evolving under apostolic guidance. 50-70 AD sounds good, but I believe some scholars go as late as 120 AD with the dating of the document -- my reasoning is, the closer to the early church you get, the less uncorrupted things are likely to be. You have Vaticanus Sinaiticus, Vaticanus Codex, Some dead sea scrolls, Chester Beatty Papyri, and some others to consider, and they all have slight to major differences in not only the books of the bible that are included, but as well as some other differences in things like wording and order. The "basic" concept is there, but when you look at doctrines such as Trinity, Water Baptism, whether or not women were church leaders, and things like fasting and dietary restrictions, it can get difficult. Taking in things like precedence, context, individual interpretation, implications and translator "agenda" and these different "Sects" or schools of thought that were present even in the age of the apostles, and you have a mess.

Other than a little emphasis on fasting and the giving of first fruits "to the prophets", I don't see any emphasis placed on dietary rules, or anything that would bring to mind the Torah, or other Jewish customs. The more I skim through it, though, the more it reeks of Matthew. I say "reeks" in a respectful way, as in it has the stamp of his Gospel all over it.

Plus we have 6:3 But concerning meat, bear that which thou art able to do. But keep with care from things sacrificed to idols, for it is the worship of the infernal deities.

 

[francisdesales]

The "basic" concept is there, but when you look at doctrines such as Trinity, Water Baptism, whether or not women were church leaders, and things like fasting and dietary restrictions, it can get difficult. Taking in things like precedence, context, individual interpretation, implications and translator "agenda" and these different "Sects" or schools of thought that were present even in the age of the apostles, and you have a mess.

I am not sure you will ever find "pure" Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ to the degree that we would like. If you did, you might be disapppointed (for example, Jesus came to the Jews, not the Gentiles!) To me, development of doctrine is a legitimate means of pondering the original teachings of the Apostles - and the spreading of the Gospel to the Gentiles is one example of that "development of doctrine". I presume that the men who are doing the pondering have a background in the Apostolic teachings and are giving what they consider legitimate understandings of particular theological questions that pop up later, such as whether prophets can stay in a community for a day or three days...

Other than a little emphasis on fasting and the giving of first fruits "to the prophets", I don't see any emphasis placed on dietary rules, or anything that would bring to mind the Torah, or other Jewish customs. The more I skim through it, though, the more it reeks of Matthew. I say "reeks" in a respectful way, as in it has the stamp of his Gospel all over it.

Plus we have 6:3 But concerning meat, bear that which thou art able to do. But keep with care from things sacrificed to idols, for it is the worship of the infernal deities.

This is what I had in mind, the prohibition of eating certain meats, which probably was something taught from the very beginning, but "codified" at the Acts 15 council.

I think Matthew "reeks" of Didache, especially if you consider the eschatological scenario at the end of the Didache is quiet primitive in comparison to Matthew's. In addition, there is no mention of a written gospel in Didache.

Here are a few notes from the Milavec book on the independence from each other...

- the term "hypocrites" in Matt has little in common with the Didache. Matt, for example, forbids praying like the hypocrites "to be seen" (6:5), and the solution is to go in private and pray. Likewise, Matt speaks about the fasts of the "hypocrites" and how they "disfigure the face" (6:16), the solution is to do the opposite, anointing the face to disguise the fast. The Didache, in contrast, presumes a common mode of fasting with the "hypocrites". However, public fasting signals solidarity, and so the author suggests deliberately altering the day of the fast and prayer. Thus, we have two different strategies in response to the problem of the "hypocrites".

-Something similar happens in the adaptation of the decalogue to new candidates... The Didache adapts the ten commandments for gentiles, (the "do not corrupt the young boys" sticks out, since that practice was virtually unheard of among Jews, while not uncommon among the Greeks) giving attention to forestalling minor infractions that might lead to worse issues. This is called a "system of fences", a common teaching in Judaism. Matthew approaches the insufficiency of the decalogue for the Greeks by developing a series of antitheses designed to insure the "righteousness" of Jesus' disciples "exceeds that of the scribes". Again, two different systems to handle to different problems. Another clue of independent development...

-According to Milavec, the Didache focuses on God the Father as the expected Savior coming to gather the elect into his kingdom. Paul's letters has a decidedly different focus (Jesus is the celebrated herald risen from the dead, seated at the right hand of the Father. Jesus is the savior). The Didache is silent about that. The expected "Lord" (16:8) is none other than the "God of David" (10:6) who comes to gather His beloved Israel and those righteous gentiles who are attached to Israel. "This sort of sorteriology and eschatology would fit comfortably only within the very early stages of the Jesus movement, when "faith of Jesus" was still at the center of things and "faith IN Jesus" had not transposed salvation from the future to the present and from the Father to the Son.."

(The above paraphrased from pg 112-114 of "The Didache" by Aaron Milavec)

I think the last one STRONGLY supports the very early writing - and its EXCLUSION from the Christian canon later on by the Church...

It would be odd that the Didache, the teaching of new catechumens, would be silent on Pauline theology, unless Pauline theology was a later development and further pondering of the Apostolic Tradition. (which I believe it was, all within the first century. The first century was a busy one for Christianity. Too bad we don't have more stuff on that period!)

Regards

 

[Paidion]

Give to everyone asking you and do not refuse, for the Father desires to give to everyone from His own gifts. Blessed is the one who gives according to the commandment, for he is innocent. But the one who receives without need shall account for his receiving. Furthermore, being held, he shall be examined concerning what he has done, and he shall not be released until he has given back the last cent.

It has been said concerning this, "Let your money sweat in your hands until you know to whom you should give it."

I can follow the reasoning here, and yet there seems some contradiction. I am wondering how the writer expects his readers to carry out both the first underlined injunction, and the second as well.

 

[cyberjosh]

One important contribution of the Didache to better understanding the NT is its discussion of love-feasts, which are mentioned at least once in the NT, in Jude, and perhaps in one other place (can anyone confirm that?), but we are not given the details of what these love feasts entailed. The Didache plays a crucial role as an early witness about what love-feasts involved. At various times in the Middle Ages certain Christian sects (notably the Moravian Brethren) revived the ancient observance of the love-feast which the Church had long since stopped observing. It would be interesting to hear a discussion on the relevance of the love-feast and the benefits of observing it for the modern day Church.

Any thoughts?

 

[francisdesales]

One important contribution of the Didache to better understanding the NT is its discussion of love-feasts, which are mentioned at least once in the NT, in Jude, and perhaps in one other place (can anyone confirm that?), but we are not given the details of what these love feasts entailed. The Didache plays a crucial role as an early witness about what love-feasts involved. At various times in the Middle Ages certain Christian sects (notably the Moravian Brethren) revived the ancient observance of the love-feast which the Church had long since stopped observing. It would be interesting to hear a discussion on the relevance of the love-feast and the benefits of observing it for the modern day Church.

Any thoughts?

Perhaps 1 Corinthians also refers to this "love-feast". I had read that the love feast was celebrated at a different time from the Eucharist. The former was a community "potluck", the later was the celebration of the Body and Blood of Christ. I believe Paul's chastising the rich Corinthians during this "love feast" would fit in with this "potluck" idea. Don't know how often it was celebrated, perhaps weekly?

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

This link describes how the love-feast was originally celebrated immediately preceding the Eucharist (both celebrated at the beginning of each week), but then eventually was separated with the Eucharist in the morning and the love-feast in the evening. The article concludes, "Perhaps the love feast would have continued on down to our times if the original apostolic pattern (holding the love feast and the Eucharist together) had not been broken." Does the Catholic Church have any early written instructions or doctrinal statements on love feasts? Perhaps by Clement (since he was one of the earliest)? Is there any reason why the Catholic Church would not have fought to maintain the observance of the love-feast as it was traditionally/orthodoxly observed in apostolic times? Just curious.

P.S. Also, as an aside, I found this general purpose "interlinear" commentary on the Didache: here. Check it out if you are interested.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Adullam]

One important contribution of the Didache to better understanding the NT is its discussion of love-feasts, which are mentioned at least once in the NT, in Jude, and perhaps in one other place (can anyone confirm that?), but we are not given the details of what these love feasts entailed. The Didache plays a crucial role as an early witness about what love-feasts involved. At various times in the Middle Ages certain Christian sects (notably the Moravian Brethren) revived the ancient observance of the love-feast which the Church had long since stopped observing. It would be interesting to hear a discussion on the relevance of the love-feast and the benefits of observing it for the modern day Church.

Any thoughts?

This calls for a new thread methinks.

 

[francisdesales]

This link describes how the love-feast was originally celebrated immediately preceding the Eucharist (both celebrated at the beginning of each week), but then eventually was separated with the Eucharist in the morning and the love-feast in the evening. The article concludes, "Perhaps the love feast would have continued on down to our times if the original apostolic pattern (holding the love feast and the Eucharist together) had not been broken." Does the Catholic Church have any early written instructions or doctrinal statements on love feasts? Perhaps by Clement (since he was one of the earliest)? Is there any reason why the Catholic Church would not have fought to maintain the observance of the love-feast as it was traditionally/orthodoxly observed in apostolic times? Just curious.

Josh,

I would have to do a bit of research on that one. I am not sure why the love feast gave way to a "Eucharist only" celebration. Perhaps the size of the local churches, perhaps the abuse (that Paul and James write about). It doesn't seem like something that would continue once local churches got to over 50 people, in my opinion. I'll get back to you ASAP, although I am a bit busy because of Holy Week.

P.S. Also, as an aside, I found this general purpose "interlinear" commentary on the Didache: here. Check it out if you are interested.

Thanks.

Joe

P.S. thanks for PM'ing me, as I don't monitor this thread so much.

 

[francisdesales]

Josh,

I had a few minutes, so some preliminary examination for you...


Synod of Laodicea, c 363 AD

Canon 27

Neither they of the priesthood, nor clergymen, nor laymen, who are invited to a love feast, may take away their portions, for this is to cast reproach on the ecclesiastical order.

According to the note: "The taking away of the remains of the agape is here forbidden, because, on the one hand, it showed covetousness, and, on the other, was perhaps considered a profanation."

Canon 28

It is not permitted to hold love feasts, as they are called, in the Lord's Houses, or Churches, nor to eat and to spread couches in the house of God.

By the way, this synod has a lot to say about heretics, Jews, and the duties of various clergy regarding the Eucharist...

I would surmise that by this later date, the Mass was celebrated in basillicas or cathedrals, so it would seem a profanation to have a "party" within what was now considered "sacred space".

Note, the love feast was only prevented from being held within the "Lord's House". "Spreading couches" in church, no doubt, points to a more sacred space.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm



Here is an interesting article, which discusses some things about the agape feast. I didn't know that the agape meal is based on a funeral banquet (which would make sense given the context of the Last Supper...)

The article is very good and gives lots of info on why it was likely discontinued. It also notes that the agape was probably not a universal practice in any location, and fell away due to abuses, within the first few centuries. The article mentions "course men" who ruined it for everyone.

St. Paulinus of Nola, usually mild and kindly, is forced to admit that the crowd, gathered to honour the feast of a certain martyr, took possession of the basilica and atrium, and there ate the food which had been given out in large quantities.

Seems some things never change! At any rate, it looks like the abuse was bad enough that synods (as I mention above) began to rule that they could not take place within the sacred space of the church, the "Lord's House". I can understand why!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01200b.htm

Regards