I was reading about the Didache. The Didache is an early Christian treatise, and was held to be scripture by some early Christians, and is even included in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon. At some point, that view must have changed, as it wasn't included in the books of the New Testament. I don't really know why; I'm sure someone could inform me!
There are a couple of things I want to highlight from this.
The Didache reiterates the Sermon on the Mount. It discusses the way of life, and it says the way of life is to bless those who persecute you, pray for your enemies, etc.
Concerning the way of Death, it lists specific things not to be involved in, or not to become; like haughtiness, not laboring for the afflicted, rapacious behavior, over confidence, jealousy, etc.
It gives specific instructions about baptism. First, we are to baptize into "living water," which means running water, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If their is no living water, use cold water; and if there is no cold water, use warm water. This is basically what we do in church, but I've never been told why. I don't know if the Didache is why, but it very well could be. The one thing it does say about baptism, that we don't do, is fast. It says not only is the baptized supposed to fast, but the baptizer, and those in attendance are supposed to fast. That's at the very least, not widely practiced in the Methodist Church.
The Didache discusses how we are to treat traveling preachers, prophets, etc... It says if they ask for money, then they are a false prophet. I thought that was interesting.
Also, a wayfarer, is only allowed to stay two days, unless they are an artisan, or have some sort of trade, so they can contribute to the community. I thought that was interesting too, because they wanted everyone to share the workload, so no one gets a free pass.
It later discusses how we are to support the prophets, appointments of bishops and such, and the Apocalypse, but I didn't think they were as interesting.
This was just a few things a thought were interesting after my initial reading. I don't know much of the history of the book, or who wrote it, although I don't think anyone knows. I do know that some of the early Church Fathers thought this was Scripture, but it isn't now, and I don't know why. I think maybe it was too specific, and the early church was very diverse, their wasn't uniformity.
What are your thought on the Didache? Do you have any other information that could shed light on it?
True
Comments (12)
Interesting stuff; you can read it here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
@gmx0@xanga - Really? I'd never heard that before, though it makes sense.
This is really fascinating. I was surprised at how early the text is; according to wikipedia it dates from sometime around 90AD.
There might be something helpful in this article: http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3843
Sounds like an interesting book. I might check it out.
One of the reasons scholars say the Didache was not canonized, is it's basically a regurgitation of parts of the Gospels, but adds a bunch of man-made restrictions not found in the Gospels, i.e. the specific instructions on Baptism. Where in the Gospels did it say that John the Baptist made the people fast before being Baptized? John (and Jesus) Baptized in moving waters mainly because that was what was handy. It is noted that while this symbolic act is important (Jesus himself asked to be Baptized) it is not crucial to our entry into Heaven. (Was the one robber on the cross, who acknowledged Jesus before they died, Baptized? Or the Patriarchs?) The other dialoges on traveling preachers, prophets etc. are basically just an expansion of the other Gospels. Interesting reading, but nothing really new, or God-inspired in it, hence the decision not to include it. There are many early Christian writings that have lots of information and are interesting to read (read the Apocrypha and Pseudepigripha) but are not necessarily thought to be "Spirit led".
"Living water" is from Hebrew tradition. It is ceremonial thus representative.
@Ork58@xanga - Why was it considered scripture by some of the early Christians?
@crevis05@xanga - Lots of "Biblical" books were considered Scripture by early Christians. Even today, the Catholic church includes the Apocrypha in it's Bible. The Maccabees tell the story of the Menorah, the start of the Catholic church and so on. Some do believe it is God inspired. Several were written as extensions of OT books, like 3 and 4 Ezra, additions to the book of Esther, etc. Some, like Daniel, Bel and the dragon, were so wild and apocryphal (hidden meanings) that few could decipher them with any certainty of their true meanings. The Pseudepigripha includes books that were known to not have been written by the purported authors, i.e. the infancy Gospel of Thomas, etc.) but written in the style of an earlier author, enough to convince people they actually were written by the earlier author. Today we would frown on this practice, even call it plagarism, but then it was considered a great honor, to honor a previous author by writing in a style so closely penned that one would think it were truly an historic work. That is the definition of the Pseudo-style; hence, the moniker Pseudepigripha.
While these other early Christian writings are fun to read, and may offer insights into the social and political climates of the time, few reveal any "truths" that are not already revealed or highlighted in the regular Bible. So for casual reading or backround reading, they are fine, but for serious Biblical study, or to base prayer or worship on them, that gets a little cloudy. I think the whole purpose of the Bible is summed up in Jesus commandments to "love one another even as Christ loved you", and "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul" (paraphrased) That pretty well sums it up, the rest is just window dressing...
@Ork58@xanga - "Where in the Gospels did it say that John
the Baptist made the people fast before being Baptized?"
I've often wondered myself if such comparisons really shed light on things, as John's baptism wasn't considered a Christian baptism per se. This must be while not much is known about the traditions surrounding John's baptism.
"(Was the one robber on the cross, who acknowledged Jesus before
they died, Baptized? Or the Patriarchs?)"
As for the robber, we don't know. I've seen it argued that the robber who repented doesn't make for a good example of baptism not being necessary for salvation because the Old Covenant was in effect until the time Jesus died. IMO, there does seem to be more evidence for baptismal regeneration than against it. As for the Patriarchs, see Hebrews 11.
I think the Diadache (and other documents dating to around the same time) can help provide a good look at how most of the Christian community interpreted the Scriptures.
Baptismal fasting: Not so much in Phillip and the Ethiopian. It's also not listed anywhere in the 66 accepted books.