The quotes from the Didache in the Baptism thread have sparked my curiosity to read the entire letter. In doing a search on-line, there apparently is a minimum of 6 or 7 English translations by individuals (not institutions, seminary's or denominations), and not knowing the curriculum vitae for these gentlemen, can anyone recommend a specific translation, or is there little difference among the versions? Jeff+
My suggestion would be to read a number of the translations and see if there are major differences. If there are then do a little more research into the person doing the translation.
I am in: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html I believe it was written in Greek and there is a Greek version on the website... I tried to read it, but it was all Greek to me. I have chosen the translation by Ivan Lewis from extant Greek manuscripts with consideration given to the Coptic and Latin text.
OK, let's get the ball rolling. Chapter 1. The Two Ways and the First Commandment. There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. Proverbs 16:25 "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Jeff
Sorry this appeared in the wrong order, but I thought before we embark on this scholarly endeavor, we should address the elephant in the room. I acknowledge the criticism of this document, which varies from a debate concerning it's original writing date, all the way to those who believe it to be a Roman hoax perpetrated in the late 1800's. I first came to appreciate ancient non-canonical writings back in the mid 1990's during an in-house debate at our church (independent Christian) concerning the long ending of Mark. Their accepted translation was the NIV, which in some printings had omitted the verses entirely, with most including it in italics with a footnote. Most basic bibles were polite and commented that the long ending didn't appear in the most ancient available manuscripts, while some NIV study bibles ignorantly claimed the long ending was an addition by the Roman church in the 1800's. I was fortunate enough to have a dear friend who was a Priest in the Russian Orthodox Church, who with little effort, pulled out a book of anciant writings from the mid 700's which included verbose comment on the long ending. Case closed. Jeff
Wasn't the Didache circulated and eventually rejected as early as the 2nd or 3d century? I thought I read that somewhere....then it just sort of vanished and then showed up again in the 18th or 19th centuries....is that a anywhere close to right ? What's the story exactly? I'm always a little skeptical of works that we find that nobody needed or even really knew about for hundreds of years. if these writings were valuable and authoritativ in the life of the church, why were lost and/or forgotten?
Some have said it's non-inclusion in canonical writings was a strike against it's authenticity and/or content, but many books were excluded from canon simply because of duplication of material, not that it contained heresy. I am somewhat curious that the pre 1054 Church didn't adopt the Didache in some form. Eusubious mentioned the Didache around 320, and I believe he rejected it, but I do not know on what grounds. Jeff
Here is interesting commentary from a Stone/Campbell seminary. "The document was not written by the apostles themselves. Rather it seems that the author(s) intention was to give a brief summary of Christian doctrine for new converts and to provide instruction in life. Quasten believes the Didache is the oldest source of ecclesiastical law which we posses [2]. The argument for the Didache being quite early is summarized well by J. B. Lightfoot. He offers four lines of evidence: 1) itinerant prophecy has not yet been totally supplanted by permanent localized ministry 2) the episcopacy is not yet on the horizon [3] 3) the Agape feast appears to be part of the Eucharist 4) the archaic simplicity of its practical suggestions is consistent with the infancy of the church [4] Schaff believes the document can be dated as early as AD 70 but prefers 90 to 100 [5]. Mitchell has argued that the Didache reflects stages of growth or development. Stage One, chapters 1-6, are the earliest dating as early as AD 50 but no later than AD 70. Stage Two, chapters 7-15, the liturgical section dates from AD 80 to 100. Stage Three, chapter 16, does not receive a date as near as I can tell. The final form for the document, however, is no later that AD 100 [6]. The date proposed by Schaff over a hundred years ago seems to be a near consensus though some scholars, as we noted, argue for a slightly earlier date [7]. Thus apostolic in authorship or not the Didache is a witness to first century Christianity." Jeff
So some actually claimed this to be a Roman hoax? What an arbitrary claim to make... on what basis? Did the Didache support some major Roman claims like the Papacy?
Exactly. One need only read the Eucharist section to quickly determine this wasn't of Roman origin. Jeff
I read the document and in my opinion it was simply a document that summarises the main points of the Good News of our Lord and Saviour, and was an early attempt at laying out orders of service for the early Church. I would suggest that was probably many attempts at a Christian Church 101 during the early Christian period.
perhaps it was rejected because of its lack of catholicity, meaning it represented the rules and practices of only a small, and rural group of Christians and was not attributed to any one apostle or bishop of importance. It's rejection maybe based on its limited and parochial nature, not that it was seditious or heretical. This is true imho for a lot of writings. I love Mere Christianity and think its completely orthodox, but I wouldn't accept it as canonical or authoritative in the way I would the writings of St Athanasius. This would especially be the case if I had no idea who the author was.
Why don't we find out whether the Didache was rejected on any truthful or valid grounds and if it wasn't a writing of a small group of Christians.
I went to the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, which said I checked the footnotes to see where the got this. Note 5 says: But when I went to look at Rufinus' Commentary on Apostles Creed 37, I didn't see it. Am I missing something? Here's 37 (& 38 for good measure): UPDATE: Further in the Article, they claim that the Didache is called the Judgment of Peter, for what that's worth... As for Exact Exposition 4.17, I found this: Note 6 is supposed to link to those who rejected the Didache as part of the Canon, it reads: According to the Festal Letter: The Stichmmetria of Nicephorus, similarly lists it as New Testament Apocrypha: So who knows?
The article also has this to say about Early References to the Didache: I didn't check the footnotes for this, mostly because I got tired and needed a cookie and a good lie down but its all a good start.
I find it very intriguing that the Didache Eucharistic instruction is very simplistic compared to the earliest liturgies such as St. Basil or St. John Chrysostom, possibly dating it pre-300's. Does anyone know of an earlier liturgy? Jeff
The Fathers consistently defend, espouse, and demand Episcopacy as a form of government - but without Papal Tyranny, nor Magisterial Infallibility vested in one bishop. There are also the facts of: vernacular liturgies, translations of the Scriptures, exhortations to all men (farmers, shepherds, carpenters) to purchase & read the Bible for themselves, and a host of other things. The sole glory of God, lack of pilgrimages, justification by faith, and the use of only two sacraments, "The Mysteries", also correlate heavily with Anglicanism. The Fathers were Anglican; or, Anglicanism is Patristic.
Thank you... I have a few books on the writings of the early Fathers written from the view points of several different denominations. I've wanted to go back and read them again but I got a little burned out always referring to them (church fathers) as opposed to scriptures in my sojourn in the RCC and EOC the past few years. Of course it was reading the Church fathers that got me to leave the Methodist church...