(16 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...
What is the Didache (pronounced DID-ah-kay)? In the recent exchange that I posted on the blog (dealing with the existence of Q) the document known as the Didache was mentioned. Especially by guest contributor Alan Garrow, who thinks that the Didache was a source used by the authors of Matthew and Luke. I think even Alan will agree that this is a highly anomalous view; I don’t know of any other scholar who accepts it (though if Alan knows of any who do, I’m sure he can tell us in a comment). The Didache is almost always assumed to have quoted the Gospels – or at least the traditions found in the Gospels – not vice versa.
I realized this morning that I haven’t talked about it much on the blog. I better do so!
What is the Didache
I published a translation of the Didache (the title means “Teaching”) in my two-volume edition of the Apostolic Fathers in 2003, in the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press). In that edition, I talk about what the book is, whether it is one book or several documents that have been cut and pasted together when it was written, and so on. That may be useful information for the blog, and so I will give it over the course of two or three posts.
I edited my Introduction slightly to make it a bit more user-friendly (it was written for scholars and advanced students). Here is the opening of the Introduction, where I explain briefly something about its discovery and contents.
When Was the Didache Written?
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.
For here was not only an early presentation of the ethical teachings known as the “two paths” (or the “two ways”), familiar already from the Epistle of Barnabas and later texts (see below), but also the earliest surviving descriptive account of the Christian rituals of baptism and eucharist, along with instructions involving itinerant Christian apostles and prophets in an age before the church hierarchy of bishop, presbyters, and deacons was firmly in place.
Some scholars immediately recognized the antiquity of the account. Dating it to the beginning of the second century or the end of the first, before even some of the books of the New Testament were written. Almost everyone realized that here, at last, was a book that achieved near-canonical status in some early Christian circles, known by title from discussions of the Church Fathers but for the most part lost to history sometime after the fourth century.
What is the Didache: An Overview
The Didache is given two titles in the only complete manuscript: “The Teaching (Greek: DIDACHE) of the Twelve Apostles,” and, immediately following, “The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles.”
When was the Didache written? Neither title claims that the book was actually written by the apostles, simply that it conveys their teachings. It is, therefore, anonymous rather than pseudonymous. The book as a whole is usually considered a “church manual” or a “church order,” the first of its kind to survive. Who was the Didache author?
The Didache begins with a set of ethical instructions known as the “two paths, one of life and one of death” (1.1). The path that leads to life involves following the commandments of God, principally the commandment to love God and one’s neighbor and to adhere to the “Golden Rule” (1.2). The first four chapters of the book explicate these commandments, first in words that reflect the teachings of Jesus (without naming him), especially as found in the Sermon on the Mount (ch. 1), then in a series of positive and negative ethical injunctions (chs. 2-4).
The path that leads to death involves contrary sorts of behavior, as delineated in chapter 5.
After a transitional chapter, the author shifts to discuss church rituals, explaining how to baptize (ch. 7), fast (8.1), pray (8.2), and celebrate the communal thanksgiving meal or eucharist (chs. 9-10; giving the appropriate eucharistic prayers).
Very interesting! Does the Didache include anything about the early role of women and whether they could be elders or bishops? Does it say anything about homosexuality?
It indicates that the elected bishops and deacons are to be men, but doesn’t talk about women’s roles. And it does condemns certain sexual “sins” (pederasty, adultery, and, generally, immorality) but it does not number homosexual activity among them, or say anything about it.
I’m really pleased you’re blogging about the Didache – it’s a fascinating text and I’m looking forward to learning more about it.
What’s your opinion on Didache’s Eucharistic ritual?
It seems especially interesting to me because it deviates from the tradition Paul passed onto the Corinthians (1Cor11) and none of the words used in the Didache relates to the accounts found in the Synoptic Gospels.
Didache describes Jesus as God’s servant, rather than Lord, so it appears to have a lower Christology. It also contains no reference to the atonement aspect, or the blood or broken body of Jesus, and instead draws attention to King David and the unity of the Church.
What do you make of it all?
My sense is that the Didache was not meant to be a theological treatise and so it’s very hard to know what its author’s theology actually was. The eucharistic materials are very interesting for lots of reasons, one of which is that the eucharistic prayers are very different from what one might expect and clearly come out of a Jewish-Christian environment (vine of David, and so on). I don’t see these as contradictory to what one finds in Paul and the Synoptics — just different. (The NT passages do not indicate what prayers should be said at the eucharist; and the Didache does not indicate what Jesus did at the last supper — so they are talking about different things)
It doesn’t take long to read. And I don’t see any way this could have been a significant influence on Matthew or Luke–certainly not an explanation of the similarities between them. It does seem to be written during the period when Christians still thought the Kingdom might come at any moment (thus making it necessary to be prepared to accept judgment at any moment). Very basic instructional manual for the soul, is how I’d describe it.
Reminds me a little of the (much) later “The Imitation of Christ” by Thomas a Kempis. Same basic concept and format. Much less sophisticated (and since this is clearly meant for gentile converts, it would have to be).
Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see passages that resembled anything from Matthew or Luke (there are no narrative segments in the Didache). Now I understand Garrow is saying that the similar passages in those gospels are explained by Matthew copying from Luke. But I don’t see where the Didache comes in.
One problem Garrow has is that he’s not convincing fellow scholars–but his writing is basically geared to scholars. He brings things up without explaining them, as if everyone will know what he’s talking about, but even after spending some years reading books about early Christianity (on and off), I was not familiar with the Didache. Of course, if I had been, I’d have been even more skeptical. So maybe being clearer would not be in Garrow’s favor, but it would at least make the conversation more coherent.
See today’s post; you’ll see parallels to the sayings material in Matthew and Luke
Parallels, yes. Line for line similarities, no. And easily explained by the fact that Jesus’ basic teachings on how to live were well known and widely disseminated among believers before any gospel was ever written. This is basically a primer for somebody just getting started. Without any biographical material on Jesus at all, that I can see. Without a lot of mention of Jesus, to be honest. He’s presented more as a teacher to be listened to than as a deity to be revered.
The parallels seem more like the parallels of Gospel of Thomas logia in respect to verses of the Synoptics – one has recognition for the parallel of the thought/idiom/construct but not much in the way of duplicated text.
Doesn’t that indicate that all these writings that bear such similarities via their parallels, but lack of actual redaction, are drawing from a common well spring of a Christian movement, but not necessarily drawing on common text sources?
Am thinking of the creed Paul recites in the opening of the Romans epistle – evidently the early Christian church movement had a lot of knowledge that got widely propagated – but not necessarily via sharing of textual manuscripts??? (Until later decades when that floating knowledge base became distilled to textual manuscripts.)
Possibly. Or they’re just lifting verses/sayings out of context. But yes, if they included redactional features then the matter of borrowing would be much more clear.
||Bart E. Said: ||||||||||
||| I published a translation of the Didache (the title means “Teaching”) in my two-volume edition of the Apostolic Fathers in 2003, in the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press).|||||
||||||||||||
|||AnotherBart reacts:|||||||||
I have it in the Maxwell Staniforth trans./Andrew Louth intro.& revis./Penguin Classics/Early Christian Writings version. Now I look forward to reading yours!! Thx!! 🙂
||||||||||||||||||
Do you find this as funny as I do?
“Thus if a prophet should happen to call out for something to eat while he is in the spirit, he will not actually eat of it; if he does, he is a fraud” —-Didache, Of Apostles and Prophets, 11. / penguin classics version p. 196.
Can you picture it?
“I now prophesy that this household….[sniff sniff]…….. boy that chicken sure smells good, pass me a wing, would you? ”
And I would agree…. DEFINITELY a moochin’ fraud!! LOL!!!
It sounds like the Didache was already known from, say, the writings of the Church Fathers prior to the discovery of the actual manuscript. Have there been any modern era (say from 1500 CE on) discoveries of early Christian writings that were completely new, i.e., there were no references to them in previously known writings and came as a complete surprise?
Sometime it would be interesting to have a rundown of all the lost early Christian writings that have been discovered since 1500. Before I started reading in this area in some depth I had been aware of only the Dead Sea Scrolls (not even sure any of those are Christian) and the other big discovery, I think at Qumran.
Yes indeed! Most of the writings of the Nag Hammadi library, e.g. Or the letter to Diognetus.
Is there anything written within that either confirms or changes orthodox beliefs?
It is a decidedly proto-orthodox text, but theology is not really its central interest.
Thanks for the pronounciation…to show you the level of my scholarship, I thought it was (dye-DASH)!
Bart,
When the writer talks about the apocalyptic scenario, does he imagine it will transpire soon, as in his lifetime?
The author urges his readers to be prepared because the end could come at any moment.
Thanks kindly!!
Dr. Ehrman, something interesting I’ve noticed about the Didache is that the version of the Lord’s Prayer is Matthew’s, not Luke’s (which, I would think, creates another hole to fill in Garrow’s argument). I’ve spent several years now trying to reconstruct what I think could be the original Lord’s Prayer, as taught not by just Jesus, but by John the Baptist himself. And what I came to realize one day was that the actual contribution by John the Baptist is what I would call the Invocation or Preamble. That is, the part that was actually constant in the prayer was the first three or four lines, and that everything after that was what I call the Request. This explains, to my eyes, at least, why Matthew and the Didache (but not Luke) would have “on earth, as in heaven” appended to these first four lines, because that part (the Invocation) was originally separate and unique from what came after (the Request), which varied depending on the request. In the case of the Lord’s Prayer as it has come down to us, the Request became permanent when whoever first committed it to paper offered the examples of “give us our daily bread” and “forgive us your sins” and “do not lead us to the test” and so on. The actual Request could vary and grow with circumstances. Therefore, I would argue the original prayer, as taught by John the Baptist to his first followers, consisted of the fixed Preamble and various forms of the Request. The Preamble was probably in Hebrew, and I have reconstructed it as follows:
(אבינו (השמים
שמך הקודש
מלכותך הבא
(רצונך נעשה)
“Our (heavenly) father, your holy name, your coming Kingdom, (your will will be done)”
And then follows the Request. The version preserved for us might have by then been either in Hebrew or Aramaic. In Hebrew the original items could have been:
תן היום את הלחמנו (“Give today our bread/meal.”)
כפר חטאנו (“Forgive our sins/debts.”)
Etc.
Very interesting. Thanks.
Bart
thanks for posting on this.
a couple of months ago when you blogged about your translations of the ‘Apostolic Fathers’ you mentioned the Didache, and after some googling (what was that??) I decided i wanted to read it, and so purchased your ‘After New Testament’ book.
It seemed to me that figuring out what is ‘path to life’ and what is ‘path to death’ are pretty important . . .. Really what could be MORE important than that? anyway i haven’t gotten to that part of the book yet, as everything prior has been fascinating.
I have asked you several times previously if ‘life’ and ‘death’ in the old and new testaments or at least in Jesus’ and Paul’s minds always refer to phsyical life or death and and you have invariably responded ‘yes’ .
whether you believe that’s also the case in the minds of the author and listeners to of this document, i don’t know.
It seems to me that the two paths cant be meant literally. I mean christian listeners of this text must have been dying at the same rate as other people though out history, so if they thought the path to ‘life’ meant avoidance of physical death, then they would have immediately realized the book is a bunch of baloney.
So I think it important to determine an appropriate meaning for ‘life’ and ‘death’ as referred to in this document. and if i can find a reasonable metaphorical meaning for the words, then it would also be reasonable to consider that Jesus and Paul may have used the words in similar, symbolic ways.
without debating whether a ‘spiritual life’ is/isn’t consistent a ‘physical body’s death’, we should at least be able to understand ‘life’ to often have meant in 1st century as ‘being loved by God’, and similarly ‘death’ to have meant ‘being distant from God’.
> we should at least be able to understand ‘life’ to often have meant in 1st century as ‘being loved by God’, and similarly ‘death’ to have meant ‘being distant from God’
That understanding reminds me (especially the definition of ‘death’) of the writings on the subject of what happens to souls after they die by the 18th century Swedish Christian mystic Emanuel Swedenborg – and really is a common understanding in modern times for any group in the West that does not strictly adhere to textual literal interpretations of Biblical scriptures (e.g., damnation in hell is not eternal punishment as per Dante’s depiction, but a separation from God brought about due to one’s consciousness state)
Some time ago, I purchased your book, “Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament.” From the get go, I anticipated using it as a ready reference book, but had no idea how often I would actually rely on it to expound on blog posts and my own personal inquiries. Sure enough, the Didache is included within this valuable resource. I highly recommend it.
Bart’s college text book on the New Testament also has some discussion on the Didache in chapt 29
“But what is the Didache (pronounced DID-ah-kay)?”
I had two years of undergraduate Greek and two and a half years of advanced graduate-level Greek and this sounds off to me. The conventional pronunciation of Διδαχὴ would be did-ah-KAY. Your proposed pronunciation sounds like it might be a British pronunciation more than an American one.
Yes, if you’re reading it in Greek, it is obviously accented on the ultima. But for some reason the standard English translation / pronunciation accents it on the antepenult.
I’ve always pronounced it DI-də-kee. I think my pronunciation should be standard.
Don’t we all!
This is very interesting. I have read about the Didache but do not know much about it. I look forward to the future posts.
1. If the Didache had not been lost initially, do you think it would have been included in the NT?
2. A side question…you mentioned that you edited the intro to make it more user friendly due to it originally being written for scholars and advanced students. I have read some pieces written for scholars and I find it painful to get through. Why are scholarly pieces written in the way they are rather than in a more user friendly way?
1. No, I think the opposite: since it was *not* included among the Scriptures, it was lost 2. I suppose the reason is the same for all academic disciplines: scholarly jargon serves as a kind of short hand so assumptions and established knowledge do not have to be spelled out for the reader.
would failure to be included among the Scriptures be due to not being identified with an apostle or important person connected to the apostles as its author?
is it the earliest church manual or do the pastoral epistles attributed to Paul perhaps rank as being earlier?
1. Yes, without apostolic credentials, it would not be included; 2. And yes, it is usually thought to be the first “church order”
Curious that the Didache was “lost” until 1873, since it seems more in line with orthodox beliefs. I can understand why Gnostic texts were suppressed. Why wasn’t the Didache more widely used and preserved?
It simply came to be considered out of date and not of much use. It wasn’t suppressed so much as not-copied.
Interestingly, just yesterday in the Jan/Feb issue of BAR, I read a review of an essay collection on the Didache edited by Draper and Jeffords. I don’t think I’ve ever read the Didache; sounds like I need to!
They are two of the world’s experts on it!
Bart,
Sorry for the off topic question.
I realize that you have more knowledge in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. But I have read these really strange versus in the Old Testament and I wonder what on Earth the context of these verses could be.
Deuteronomy 23:1 “No man with crushed testicles or whose male organ is cut off may come into the assembly of Yahweh.”
Isn’t this a case of adding insult to injury?
Also, this one.
2 Kings 18:27 and Isaiah 26:12 “The chief commander said to them, “Is it solely to your master and to you my master has sent me to speak these words? Is it not for the men who sit on the wall to eat their feces and to drink their urine with you?”
Huh?
As the apostle Paul wrote: God is not the author of confusion. Well, he is certain a source of amazement.
Yes, there is a lot of amazing and peculiar material in the Hebrew Bible. What a great book!
Deuteronomy 23:1 is about ritual purity, physical blemishes were seen as impurities that couldn’t come into contact with the holiness of Yahweh. Gential disfigurement was probably seen as particularly bad, so a physically emasculated man wouldn’t even be allowed among the assembly of worshippers. Similarly, priests with physical deformities had restrictions on which roles they could carry out (Leviticus 21:17-23).
2 Kings 18:27 is the Rabshakeh, an Assyrian official, taunting the Israelites inside the beseiged Jerusalem, saying they’ll be starved out and reduced to drinking urine and eating faeces. He is specifically saying the taunt in Hebrew so that the ordinary soldiers “on the wall” will understand.
Dr. Ehrman, have you encountered any hypotheses as to why Jesus was NOT named in a late-first/early-second century manuscript? Was it simply that it was unnecessary? Or might it have been that their high Christology wasn’t so developed yet?
It’s a good question, but I don’t think it has an obvious answer. At least none that I’ve ever come up with. (I don’t think there are “necessary” conclusions to draw from it….)
I have a well-read copy of the Didache, translated by German-born American Jesuit James Kleist (1873-1949), which I have studied at length over the years. I have a hard time recognizing Alan Garrow’s thoughts (circa 2004), that it might have been a reference source for the books of Matthew and Luke. It reads more like a paraphrased catechism reference work than any type of “source” document on ethical teaching and instruction for forming church traditions and polity. A duty roster for office and participation, along with strict methods of baptism and how to partake of the Eucharist, among other definitive details.
I realize there are some valid cross referencing with Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke, including many identical words and phrases, with each other and with Didache 1:2-5. I can understand the idea that it might have been drafted between 70 and 100AD, since it does not make reference of the presbyterate as a third office, intermediate between the espicopate and the diaconate. It is possible proof of its early antiquity, borne during the formation of the Church when its institutions were unquestionably primitive. However I think it rather anachronistic, since such appellatives for proconsuls and other presiding officials were not used until a later date. Lightfoot documented other observations that showed it to be a later work.
I would argue that a source will have more weight of content as a reference, not isolated parallels. Hinging the idea that the Didache is a source document for either pseudepigrapha like Matthew or letters penned by Doctor Luke seems to be stretch when making a panoramic observation. I don’t have but wish I did own your “Apostolic Fathers” volumes among my Ehrman collection, which is a sad note to contend 😛
Insightful. I was pleased to discover the draft date was as early as is now commonly thought. It’s interesting to read what early Christians thought and compare that to more modern references.
Bart, I know my question is not relevant to your talk here but I need to know it if you help me so.
my question is, Does the St. Paul knew about the existing of the Gospel of Luke? if Not, then how he quotes it in Timothy 5:18 as scripture! and elsewhere? I think He mentioned it as an oral tradition even though he precisely wrote:” as scripture.” What would you respond?
Luke was written after Paul’s death. 1 Timothy is thought by most critical scholars to be written by someone other htan Paul, *claiming* to be Paul (so too 2 Timothy and Titus)
If Luke was written after Paul’s death, then Acts must have been written after Paul’s death as well. If so, then why doesn’t Acts mention Paul’s end of life? Why does the narrative of Acts end in 63 AD, and seems to indicate the author is awaiting further developments, such as the outcome of Paul’s appeal to Nero?
It’s almost certainly because mentioning Paul’s death would have run precisely counter to the purpose of Acts, to show that NOTHING could stop Paul, because the Spirit was behind his work and ministry.
Dr Ehrman –
re: “Luke was written after Paul’s death”
re: “It’s almost certainly because mentioning Paul’s death would have run precisely counter to the purpose of Acts, to show that NOTHING could stop Paul…”
In First Clement, the writer acknowledges Paul’s death: “…and when he [Paul] had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance…”
(See 1 Clem 5:5-5:6)
So, we see that First Clem was written *after* Paul’s death.
But, we also see that at the time of the writing, the Temple was still standing and very much in use: “Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been inspected for blemishes.”
(See 1 Clem 41:2)
So, this document appears to have been written after Paul’s death (in the 60’s), but before the destruction of the temple (AD 70).
Furthermore, in reference to both Paul and Peter, the writer of First Clement says “But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation” [followed by discussion of the two apostles]. Nobody writing 30 years after the death of men who would have each been between 50 to 70 years of age at the time of their deaths would refer to them as “our generation”.
In short, it looks to me as if the writer had no problem acknowledging Paul’s death; no expectation whatsoever that “NOTHING could stop Paul”; he knows Paul is dead. But, it would also then appear there is therefore no purpose whatsoever in Luke writing Acts – after Paul’s death (if that’s when it was written) – to portray Paul as if “NOTHING could stop Paul”, when Paul’s death has already been acknowledged, in writing, from Rome…
I confess: I have very serious doubts about your two aforementioned assertions. Do you have a book that covers these assertions?
Yes, 1 Clement does not share Luke’s agenda, and so does not have Luke’s concerns. 1 Clement wants to *celebrate* the deaths of Peter and Paul, and so has no qualms at all about mentioning them. Not so Luke. His entire point is that nothing can stop Paul — not even the Romans.
My understanding from Garrow’s clarification is that he maintains the Didache preserves material from Q independently of the synoptics, not that D is a version of Q. Did I misread him or do you think he was confabulating to overcome objections to his original argument? Second, is the 1873 find the only extant ms. of the Didache?
Yup, right on both counts.
Responding to SidDhartha request for clarification of my position (which does take a bit of careful explanation).
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 http://www.alangarrow.com/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!
11:14 And no prophet when he ordereth a table in the Spirit shall eat of it;
Dr. Ehrman, I noted with a smile the humorous comment earlier regarding the passage above, but I am not sure what the author(s) of the Didache were getting at. Ordereth a table in the spirit? Could you please expound? Thank you.
I’ve never been sure. The prophet is in a trance and orders a communal meal. I think the idea is that if he eats of it, he probably was just feeling hungry, not inspired.
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.
Dr. Ehrman: To today’s evangelical christians (right wing mostly, I suppose) and to Catholics, abortion is a very important issue. Many who continue to support the republican party do so because of the opposition to abortion. Yet, in my limited perview, I have not seen an actual prohibition against abortion in the new testament. Many who are against abortion cite one of the ten commandments, and other writings in the old testament. In the didache, there is an explicit point made that no one should have and abortion (my paraphrasing) that abortion is not allowed. Why, in your opinion, is abortion not explicitly forbidden in the new testament yet is explicitly forbidden in the didache. Given the catholic opposition to abortion, why was the didache not kept as an important church text, since it is the only ancient christian writing specifically covering abortion that I know of? I ask this question because I wonder why abortion has become such a big issue now when, according to my understanding, in the 19th century america there was no general antipathy to abortion, that midwives often performed abortions for women with large families out West. I could be misinformed in some of this so I am asking about your thoughts on this topic. Thank you.
My sense is that there were lots and lots of things not talked about in the NT writings that may well have been very important to their authors — they simply didn’t have occasoin to mention them (just as there are lots of things really important to me that I haven’t mentioned on teh blog this year!)
It doesn’t mention rape either. Doesn’t mention beating your mother or father senseless either. Why? Maybe some things are so evil that they wouldn’t ever even have to discuss it. It would be APPARENT to God-fearing people. Just a thought.
Good point.
I have heard arguments about this extend from where John the Baptist and Jesus, cousins according to one gospel account, were known or were knowable identities while still in their respective mother’s womb. As in, their person-hood existed while in status as an unborn. Of course this is not a direct argument from scripture but an inferred argument.
It’s an interesting progression in the modern world that innate dignity as conferred by person-hood status has tended to be usually expansive in who and what it encompasses. In the particular case of the unborn human being, though, the modern progression has been a contraction of innate dignity as due person-hood status.
Three things accompanied each other and were the object of God’s scorn in the Old Testament. Unbridled sexuality, unwanted pregnancies, and child sacrifice. The first led to the second which led to the third. Not much has changed. Read Isaiah.
Taken from here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/didache.html
“Of apostolic origin no one should presume to speak, since the text of the document makes no such claim, and internal evidence is obviously against such a suggestion”
The Didache cannot be taken as a reliable source for tradition received from Jesus’ disciples, because it was written (as is the opinion of the majority of scholars) in the second half of the second century, by an unknown author who had not, obviously, met the disciples. [28]
We cannot take the Didache as a proof for the existence of the canonical Gospels as we know them today, even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the Didache was written in the first century. This is because, due to the noticeable differences between the Didache text and our four Gospels, the opposite view should lead us to one of two options: either to believe that the text of the Gospels used by the Didachist was too different from the canonical version we know, or that the Didachist felt free to reshape Jesus’ sayings by mingling them with extra-canonical material and attributing its words to himself, not to Jesus.[29]
Aaron Milavec, who is an authority in the Didache studies, insists after thorough and careful consideration that the Didache is totally independent of the Gospels in the internal logic, theological orientation, and pastoral practice that runs decisively counter to what one finds within the received Gospels. [30]
28 Johannes Betz attributed this point of view to the majority of scholars. (See Johannes Betz, “The Eucharist in the Didache,” in Jonathan A. Draper, ed. The Didache in Modern Research, Leiden: Brill, 1996, p.244)
29 See William. L. Petersen, “The Genesis of the Gospels,” p.53
30 See Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003, p.xiii ↑
F.E. Vokes, in his work The Riddle of the Didache(10), regards it as a fictitious reconstruction… He places it at the end of the 2nd century/beginning of the 3rd
(10) F.E. Vokes, The Riddle of the Didache. (1938).
Taken from here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
Stevan Davies comments on the Didache (Jesus the Healer, p. 175): “The Didache is a text that gives instruction on how a Christian community should treat itinerant Christian prophets. It was written sometime in the late first or early second century
Hi Bart,
Have you heard the theory of French patristic scholar J. P. Audet (La Didache. Instructions des a potres, Paris 1958) according to which original title of the document wasn’t DIDACHE TON DODEKA APOSTOLON, but DIDACHAI TON APOSTOLON. He claims that the word DODEKA wasn’t there and the word didache was in plural. He noticed that both Eusebius and Athanasius present the title of the document in plural without the WORD DODEKA.
You are more familiar with the manuscript tradition and scholarly work on the document so I’m hoping you can share your thoughts with me.
Thanks
Marko
Yes, indeed, I did deal with the book back when I was working on my editoin of the Apostolic Fathers, nearly 20 years ago now. But I’m afraid I don’t remember the actual argument well enough to be able to offer any analysis of it any more — except to say that I don’t think the book “originally” had a title at all. The title was added later, by someone other than the author. And it’s odd to think that it would be called DIDACHAI when the opening words of the book use the singular DIDACHE, and surely the title later added was simply drawn from the opening words: Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.
I was surprised at this post.
My impression is that Alan Garrow’s view of the Didache is increasingly being taken seriously by Didache specialists. It is becoming more and more common to date it to the period 50 — 70 CE; and thus it is at least early enough to have been used as a source by Matthew and Luke. As for the arguments about whether or not the Didachist(s) used Matthew as a source or vice versa, my impression has always been that this continues to be disputed based in very technical considerations.
I’ll have to look at Didache specialists I know and see what they say again.
Hi Dr. Ehrman, as I’m sure you know, 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. However, Chapter 8 of the Didache also includes the Lord’s Prayer, which appears in Matthew almost verbatim. As I’ve read on your website, you disagree with Dr. Garrow’s thesis that Matthew used the Didache, and instead, you believe that the Didache instead used Matthew. If this is the case, then wouldn’t it suggest that Matthew was written incredibly early?
The Didache in its final form is usually dated around 100 CE; Matthew was probably 15-20 years before that. You’ll notice that Didache’s form of the Lord’s prayer is longer and “more complete,” almost always taken as a sign in this case of a being a later version, as oral traditions filled it out over time (From Q to matthew to Didache)
When the Didache is dated depends a lot on whether the person doing the dating is a Didache specialist. Specialists in the Didache tend to date it much earlier than others. A good example is Aaron Milavec, who dates it to the years 50-70 CE.
I’m afraid I don’t agree. There are lots of specialists on the Didache — it’s not my own main area of expertise, but as you probalby know I did produce a Greek-English edition of it for the Loeb Classical Library and have written about it on and off, in sundry ways, for many years. I believe the standard date among specialists still puts it around 100-120.
Dear Bart,
the author of Didache just before quoting Matthew (Lord’s prayer) says: “ο κυριος εν τω ευαγγελιω αυτου”. Is it possible that he is actually referring here to the original title of Matthew? Maybe our Gospels had a title, but without any name besides Jesus. Something like: το ευαγγελιον Ιησου Χριστου.
I’ve read Didache again recently and noticed this little thing that made me wonder.
Hope you can comment on that.
Kind regards from Croatia!
P.S. Our coast and islands are still expecting you 🙂
It’s possible, but it seems unlikely. “His Gospel” doesn’t sound like a title. And he doesn’t say “The Gospel of Jesus Christ.” That does seem to be what Mark meant as the title for his Gospel (1:1), but of course the Lord’s prayer isn’t in Mark.
Bart,
Would you say the Didache’s commentary on “leads to death” lends more credence towards the annihilationism you discuss in “Heaven and Hell”?
Yes, my sense is that that’s the view of the Didache as well.
A bit late to this particular party, but I’m fascinated by the didache and want to hear more of your thoughts. So I’m very excited by ‘My next post: When was the Didache Written & Where?‘ – except when I click on ‘Next’ it goes to a post about crucifixion. Did you ever get round to posting this?
Sorry ’bout that. If you do a word search for Didache on the blog you’ll find a number of posts, including this one: https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-didache-one-document-or-three/