Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Church normative texts
>
The Didache: what kind of thing is it and how to read it? [Answered well enough]
date
newest »
newest »
The topic in this thread is: What type of text is the Didache? Postings should directly contribute to answering this limited question, as much as possible from the text itself.The moderator may cheerfully and cordially move messages to Didache: out-of-band transmissions if he or she judges that they do not directly contribute to answering this question. Posts so moved may well contain the answer to life, the universe, and everything, but they are judged not to directly contribute to this particular topic's task.
The Didache as a text seems like a primer, catechism, and/or treatise. The reason I mention treatise is that it is a systematic discourse on the subject of Christian life. I tend to favor the earlier dating of the document. In chapter 15 only bishops and deacons are mentioned but not presbyters. In the New Testament there is no mention of presbyters. Our priest recently quipped that he was not part of God's plan. However, when you read the writings of Polycarp, Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch, all mention presbyters. (I did a quick word search in those documents to make sure). Why were they added? I think the answer can be found in the growth of the Christian communities and they needed more people to administer the sacraments at Mass, the bishop couldn't be physically present at every house church on Sunday morning. Why they didn't just expand the role of deacons I don't know. There must have been a good reason to retain the original role of deacons.
It seems to me that chapters 1-6 are a unit. Let's call this Part 1.
It seems to me that chapters 7-10 are a unit. Let's call this Part 2.
It seems to me chapters 11-13 are a unit. Let's call this Part 3.
According to my copy of the Didache, its title was "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations," so it describes itself as a teaching. This of course is vague.
Kerstin said, "The Didache as a text seems like a primer, catechism, and/or treatise. The reason I mention treatise is that it is a systematic discourse on the subject of Christian life."Primer: "a. An elementary textbook (orig. a small prayer book) used in teaching children to read. b. A small introductory book on any subject; fig. something introducing or providing initial instruction in a particular subject, practice, etc." Pronounced as though it were written "primmer".
Catechism: "A treatise for instruction in the principles of the Christian religion, in the form of question and answer."
Treatise: "A written work dealing formally and methodically with a subject."
All definitions from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.
Clark wrote: "Catechism: "A treatise for instruction in the principles of the Christian religion, in the form of question and answer."The above structure is certainly true for Luther's catechism, which I had to learn by heart - all of it - before being confirmed. And there may be others I am not aware of. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not have the question and answer format and goes far beyond the "instruction in the principles of the Christian religion." So the above definition is only partially applicable in this case.
And it wouldn't be fully applicable for the Didache, as it doesn't have the question and answer format either. It really resembles more the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Kerstin said, " So the above definition is only partially applicable in this case."Kerstin and I both differ with the SOED definition.
The online Merriam-Webster says, "a manual for catechizing (see catechize 1); specifically :a summary of religious doctrine often in the form of questions and answers"
(I think the "Baltimore Catechism" was/is also Q&A.)
Thought experiment. You're an archaeologist/anthropologist from outer space and you don't know anything about Christianity and you've found this document which your super mega instant translator translates nicely.You've been told it's a catechism, which is a kind of book used for instruction of new members in the basics of the faith. This seems promising.
Your boss tells you: From this document, discover and state the most important factual claims or assertions of Christian theology. By factual assertions he means things like "there is a God." The boss is excluding moral imperatives (don't steal, etc.), and is excluding details of church management (visitors have to work a few days after arriving). The boss's interested in who or what God is or are, etc. whether there are multiple gods, or pieces of God, etc.
Of course, the boss wants textual snippets that support what you say.
Okay, have at it.
Clark wrote: "The online Merriam-Webster says, "a manual for catechizing (see catechize 1); specifically :a summary of religious doctrine often in the form of questions and answers"This definition works much better :)
The alien finds in Part 1: "The workings that befall thee receive as good, knowing that apart from God nothing cometh to pass." (3:10)
"My child, him that speaketh to thee the word of God remember night and day; and thou shalt honour him as the Lord; for in the place whence lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord." (4:1-2)
"Thou shalt not remove thy hand from thy son or from thy daughter, but from their youth shalt teach them the fear of God. Thou shalt not enjoin aught in thy bitterness upon thy bondman or maidservant, who hope in the same God, lest ever they shall fear not God who is over both; for he cometh not to call according to the outward appearance, but unto them whom the Spirit hath prepared. And ye bondmen shall be subject to your masters as to a type of God, in modesty and fear. Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy and everything which is not pleasing to the Lord. Do thou in no wise forsake the commandments of the Lord; but thou shalt keep what thou hast received, neither adding thereto nor taking away therefrom." (4:9-13)
Don't be "destroyers of the handiwork of God" (5-6)
"See that no one cause thee to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it teacheth thee. For if thou art able to bear all the yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect; but if thou art not able, what thou art able that do. And concerning food, bear what thou art able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly on thy guard; for it is the service of dead gods." (6:1-3)
Doctrinal theology distilled from the above:
1. There is a divine being, God, who controls everything.
2. There are right ways and wrong ways to talk about God. The believer is to listen only to teachers who teach rightly, and the believer is to teach rightly to family members and slaves.
3. There are right and wrong ways to live and act. The believer is to live and act in the ways enjoined by this "God" (aka "the Lord").
4. There are other divine beings, or at least some people believe there are. The other divine beings are "dead gods" and are worshiped via idols and are to be strenuously avoided.
I'm gonna ramble for a minute.Perhaps this seems like a really dumb, boring question. What kind(s) of text is the Didache?
Sometimes the most important things you can say about a text are what seem to be the most obvious. And if you don't look at the obvious you can spend a *lot* of energy fruitlessly.
My take is that the three units I isolated are of three different types; and the name we've applied to the whole text and to the first unit ("catechism") masks important stuff.
Part 1 (chapters 1-6) is said to be a "catechism," but there is very little theology in it. It's almost all moral injunctions. So it's a very selective "catechism," or a specialized "catechism," or it deserves another name for its kind.
Part 2 (chapters 7-10) seems to be a sort of service book, not a catechism. It tells how to do certain liturgical things, and gives the prayers said during them.
Part 3 (chapters 11-13) is about church governance. This isn't the kind of thing that would be in a catechism, which is for brand new folks, it's for church leaders and full members.
Now, I just don't see a theological catechism here, nor do I see any explicit teaching on Scripture or oral teaching or tradition. What teachings there are on these topics are implicit.
This text is not an expository, formal text like the other ones that people have been reading. Techniques and modes of thought suitable for expository, formal texts don't suit this text.
I love the Didache! Good questions up above. I am not sure on the value of comparing it to much later catechisms, though I assume there is a sort of meandering line from the Didache to later catechisms. Of course such later ones dealt with questions of their time and the built up theology of the ages; the Didache is early and not concerned with the same questions.
I would say it is probably best to compare the Didache to a text like the Epistle of James. The Didache has always seemed to me to echo a more traditional Jewish Christianity with a tremendous emphasis on life (akin to Gospel of Matthew, James). Over the centuries this type of Christianity seemed to be overwhelmed by the Greek and Latin which influences us even to this day. I mean, in message 11 Clark mentioned "factual claims and assertions" and message 14 noted it not being a "theological catechism". What if our expectation for some sort of theology, along with the factual claims that go along with it, just weren't as important to the writer of the Didache?
What if rather than an order of:
1. Believe the right thing and then, 2. do the right thing
the Didache is more about
1. Do the right thing and then, 2. believe the right thing.
So yeah, I'd agree that it is a teaching/catechism/primer that is mostly concerned with how you act morally, how worship works, practices, etc. Either the belief/theology is taken for granted or secondary (as Clark also mentioned in message 14).
David said, "So yeah, I'd agree that it is a teaching/catechism/primer that is mostly concerned with how you act morally, how worship works, practices, etc. Either the belief/theology is taken for granted or secondary"My impression, which I am happy to have corrected or refined, is that someone mining for doctrinal theology would find the most material in what I called "part 2" (the service texts) and in chapter 16. But that material would not be presented front and center, discursively; it would be inferred from the language of the prayers (part 2) or from the exhortation (chapter 16).
[Beware! Self-plug!] I am reminded by what some guy named Clark said about Orthodoxy: 'The combination of the service texts, "hymn" lyrics, and service-time behaviors of the people, choir, and clergy together are the most integrated complete "statement" of Orthodoxy.' :-)
David said, "I love the Didache!"David, is there some thread or question or angle you would like us to look at here in the group?
If you were to lead a discussion on some thread or angle or facet of the Didache, what would be the topic/question and how would you approach it?
FWIW in the discussion about what to read I posted a list of documents that are seen as being downstream from the Didache. I myself am interested in the Didascalia, and others mentioned interest in the Apostolic Constitutions.
David said, "I would say it is probably best to compare the Didache to a text like the Epistle of James. The Didache has always seemed to me to echo a more traditional Jewish Christianity with a tremendous emphasis on life (akin to Gospel of Matthew, James)."The question I posed for this topic had two parts: 1) what kind(s) of text is the Didache? and 2) given an answer to #1, how to read the Didache?
Do you have thoughts on the second part of the question?
David said, " the Didache is more about 1. Do the right thing and then, 2. believe the right thing.This reminded me of some words from Neighboring Faiths, by Winfried Corduan. (pp 45,46)
"Judaism does not revolve around a set of doctrines or a plan of salvation. Instead, it is a prescription for living life. The crucial question in Judaism is, What do you practice? Or What are you doing with your life? Not what do you believe?"
"Since you don't offer animal sacrifices anymore, how do you think you can be saved and go to heaven? This question is one that evangelical Christians commonly ask Jews, and it reveals a gap between Christians' understanding of Old Testament Judaism and their understanding of modern Judaism. This gap involves three main misconceptions. First, the question assumes a need for and a desire to be "saved". Personal redemption — salvation from sin and its consequences — is the crucial concern in Christianity, and Christians are taught that it is also an important aspect of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Christian Old Testament). However this issue is not a major concern for modern Judaism. Second, the question assumes that the purpose of religion is to provide some means of getting to heaven. Even though the concept of heaven is part of the Jewish tradition, the sole purpose of Jewish religion is not to see who will and who will not get to heaven. Third, ..."
Clark wrote: "David said, " the Didache is more about 1. Do the right thing and then, 2. believe the right thing.This reminded me of some words from Neighboring Faiths, by Winfried Corduan. (pp 45,46)
"Judais..."
Is this a more secular text? In this context, how does the concern to be in right relationship with God figure in?
After the fall, as we know, man fell out of right relationship with God, and suffered the consequences. And in the Didache it states right up top, "The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, your neighbour as yourself." So being in right relationship with God comes before everything else.
Kerstin said, "Is this a more secular text? In this context, how does the concern to be in right relationship with God figure in?"I provided a link to the book here on Goodreads. It is a book written by an Evangelical Christian to explain other faiths to Evangelical Christians. The first one it covers is Judaism.
The entire post is quotations about Judaism. I said that things that David said reminded me of it. Can you see why what he said reminded me of it?
Kerstin said, "Clark wrote: 'David said, " the Didache is more about 1. Do the right thing and then, 2. believe the right thing."' ... And in the Didache it states right up top, 'The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, your neighbour as yourself.' So being in right relationship with God comes before everything else. "I can't tell whether you are responding to me or to David.
I will ask this: The sentence you quote is the first one in chapter 1. What does the Didache expound upon or cover from there through chapter 6? Does it teach mostly about doing the right thing? Or does it instruct on what the right things are to believe?
Another way to approach it is: You said, "So being in right relationship with God comes before everything else." Presume that the Didache is teaching how to be in right relationship with God. What does it teach that being in the right relationship consists of?
Another way to approach it is: Does the Didache mention the Fall?
As always, our goal in the moderated, question-guided topic here is to understand and state what the text says. The text here is the Didache.
Clark wrote: "Kerstin said, "Clark wrote: 'David said, " the Didache is more about 1. Do the right thing and then, 2. believe the right thing."' ... And in the Didache it states right up top, 'The way of life, t..."I had Kerstin's post written out almost verbatim (and then had to erase it as I didn't fully have time to finish)...although the Didache doesn't expound on the doctrinal aspects...the 'do' part is primarily placed in the context of 'love of God' #1, -> 'love of neighbor'....so although it is mostly a 'to do' section, the belief seems to be paramount...it does not seemed to be spoken of merely in a natural virtuous way.
If not based on the Fall, where did the 'death way' come from?
Susan said, " although it is mostly a 'to do' section, the belief seems to be paramount...it does not seemed to be spoken of merely in a natural virtuous way."Let me see if I've understood what Susan said: The Didache (at least in what I called "part 1") teaches mostly about doing the right things, but it does this based on a strong set of beliefs that it takes for granted. It does not argue for doing the right things in some neutral, God-free way as a Greek philosopher might do.
I thank David, Kerstin, and Susan for grappling directly with the text. I for one am getting a clearer, more three-dimensional understanding of the Didache as a result.
Clark wrote: " It does not argue for doing the right things in some neutral, God-free way as a Greek philosopher might do."That's a great point!
Clark wrote: "Another way to approach it is: Does the Didache mention the Fall?"Not directly. Though when you look at related words such as 'sin' and 'death', I found these examples:
Sin:
Both chapters 2 and 3 have 'sin' in their title
Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden
Chapter 3. Other Sins Forbidden
Chapter 4
"If you have anything, through your hands you shall give ransom for your sins." ...not sure if I understand this segment fully, it seems to have to do with giving and receiving and penance.
Chapter 11
"And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet that speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven." (Matt 21:31)
Death:
Chapter 1
"There are two ways, one of life and one of death"
Chapter 2
"You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death"
Chapter 5. The Way of Death
I find it interesting that the numbering coincides with the Decalogue, "You shall not kill."
"And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil..."
My impression, which I am happy to have corrected or refined, is that someone mining for doctrinal theology would find the most material in what I called "part 2" (the service texts) and in chapter 16. But that material would not be presented front and center, discursively; it would be inferred from the language of the prayers (part 2) or from the exhortation (chapter 16).I agree. I am not meaning to disparage theology and belief and all that. It just is something that strikes me that theological texts like we might be used to (whether Aquinas' Summa or Calvin's Institutes) are not even in the universe of what the early church was thinking about. I am sure they had beliefs, as you say, but they were either at the level of assumptions or they were more concerned with life/worship ("of course God exists and Jesus rose...now what do we do in our lives tomorrow...")
given an answer to #1, how to read the Didache?I'd say to read the Didache similar to the Bible or other ancient church literature. Well, maybe the Bible is a bit different. But just coming at it with the realization there may be good teaching here that is surprisingly relevant. What did they do that maybe I (as an individual) or we (as a church) should do? Of course, there may be some things that are good to leave behind too.
For example, too many Protestant churches do not take communion (Eucharist) seriously enough. My church growing up did it like 4 times a year, others do it monthly. But Jesus said, and the early church shows, that it is the central part of our worship. Of course, I'd say we do not have to do it exactly the same way they did and it may appear different in each time or place, but it needs a central place. I am not bringing this up to debate Eucharist, just to provide an example of my answer to the questions.
David, is there some thread or question or angle you would like us to look at here in the group?I don't think I have time for that. I prefer to lurk around and pop in every now and again.
David said, 'theological texts like we might be used to ... are not even in the universe of what the early church was thinking about. I am sure they had beliefs, as you say, but they were either at the level of assumptions or they were more concerned with life/worship ("of course God exists and Jesus rose...now what do we do in our lives tomorrow...")'I'm speaking as a participant here, not as moderator.
And David stole some of my thunder. :-)
After I made my most recent post above, I had an "aha!" moment about the text. People who want to prove things all the time will say that it's impressionistic and can't really be verified, and they're right. People will say that an argument from silence is a weak argument. And they are right also. That's fine with me. But the text has gelled for me and here is what I see.
Let's say it's a poet's reading (though I am not a poet).
Let me explain it this way. Let's say we're on Fiji among the islanders before it became a tourist place. And for some reason the Fijians are writing up some instructions on something, maybe how to travel to another island. (C'mon, humor me, it's an example.)
And a European looks over the instructions and says there's no section here on life jackets and learning how to swim and so forth. And the Fijians tilt their heads, mentally ratify their earlier conviction that these Europeans are daft, and say: Every child swims from infancy onward. You want us also to include instructions how to breathe? And they spend the next 15 minutes speaking rapid Fiji, miming various European behaviors, flopping into the water and pretending to swim like a European (always results in instant drowning), and having a good old time.
What if for the Didache communities doctrine is as elemental, pervasive, and unchallenged as swimming is among those islanders? What if the reason there is no doctrine here outside the service texts is because these people are absolutely unconcerned that someone will wander from the doctrine or that someone someplace will dispute it or even be confused about it?
The text says: "See that no one cause thee to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it teacheth thee. For if thou art able to bear all the yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect; but if thou art not able, what thou art able that do. And concerning food, bear what thou art able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly on thy guard; for it is the service of dead gods." Notice that remaining true to the Teaching is to bear all the yoke of the Lord and regarding food to do what you are able to. No hint of false doctrine -- it's about the stuff in chapters 1-6 (what I called part 1).
The section on discerning whether a visitor is a good guy or not: "But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not; but if he teach so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, according to the decree of the Gospel, thus do. Let every apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goeth away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodgeth; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet."
The translator says "doctrine" but given the mindset of the translators I am gonna wanna see what the Greek is. But even if it is "doctrine," the text gives no details, as though anybody can easily discern true doctrine; just as islanders can tell whether someone is at home in the water or not. They do give details on judging behavior, because that's what people do need instructions about: "If he remains three days he is a false prophet."
My summary: The Didache gives instruction about things that the writers were worried about, that people needed to have written down and of which they needed guidance and reminders: living a Christlike life, doing the right observances and saying the right words in them, and handling itinerant preachers. They were absolutely unconcerned about discursive doctrine, as unconcerned as Fiji islanders would be about whether or not an islander knows how to swim.
How cool is that?
[Beware! Sermon!] Following up on my previous post: I claim that the easy labels that everyone (Wikipedia authors, New Advent authors, everybody) puts on the Didache make them and their readers absolutely blind to what the Didache really is. People say "catechism" and they almost literally become blind. They see some instructions about behavior and services and itinerant preachers and they say "Ho hum, nothing here" and they go do something else. They have seen what they expect to see, and their expectations are almost completely determined by those terms.This is why I claim that for a good reading of this text it is absolutely necessary to set aside what those people say and grapple directly with the text to see what kind(s) of things it is. Then go back and look at what those other people say, to see to what degree and in what ways it helps you understand the text better.
Clark wrote: "David said, 'theological texts like we might be used to ... are not even in the universe of what the early church was thinking about. I am sure they had beliefs, as you say, but they were either at...":) . I agree... I assumed it was so pure, undefiled and cohesive at that point that most of them "got it" at that point, until slight variances were floated, either unintentionally, due to sincere lack of complete understanding as the circle grew wider, or more intentionally as others thought they knew more than God/Apostles...
I agree too Clark, though I'd offer one caveat.The doctrine in the Didache was pervasive and assumed, as you say. But let's not read later doctrine back into that. In other words, we're still a few centuries from the developed Trinitarian thought of Nicea (Athanasius and the Cappadocians).
I love your illustration, so I'll add one more. I think that the author of the Didache, like Paul, did not believe in the Trinity per se, since it wasn't fully defined yet. BUT, if Paul/Didache got a time machine and went to Nicea, he'd say "well yeah, of course that makes sense." They believed Jesus was God, thus able to be prayed to and worshiped, and that the Spirit was God among them, but they hadn't taken the steps to define it the way later Christians had to.
Good stuff.
David said, "In other words, we're still a few centuries from the developed Trinitarian thought of Nicea (Athanasius and the Cappadocians)."Nice illustration, and what you say is true. I'm not sure how I gave an impression otherwise.
Perhaps we here could in a new topic describe the theology embodied in the Didache.
For right now I'll merely elaborate on what you said. They baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit doesn't appear in the Eucharistic prayer. But the Spirit is prominent in chapter 11, on prophets. Of course in the last the capital "S" is supplied by the translator; but it doesn't seem unsuitable to me.
Yes, I had noticed Paul's "binitarian" blessings.
The fact that Jesus is God in the Didache is itself very important. I heartily recommend Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity He has other, less academic books that cover some of the same territory but I don't know them well enough to suggest one.
You didn’t give the impression otherwise at all...I saw we were on the same page :) As a Doctor Who fan, anytime I can illustrate something with hypothetical time travel, I just go for it!
Clark wrote: Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity - wow, that sounds interesting....
Clark wrote: "The fact that Jesus is God in the Didache is itself very important. I heartily recommend Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity He has other, less academic books that cover some of the same territory but I don't know them well enough to suggest one."That's the same author who wrote Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, which is still in my TBR pile...
Kerstin said, "Both chapters 2 and 3 have 'sin' in their title"A general caution: In general, chapter titles are added by the translators or the publishers and aren't really part of the text.
Susan said, "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity - wow, that sounds interesting...."It's an extremely important topic, handled exceedingly well, in my opinion. For one thing he carefully and neutrally states the scholarly positions he dissents from before he states his own position.
We could discuss it elsewhere on Goodreads, I suppose.
As Kerstin notes, the author has written other books on the same topics and time periods. This one is quite long and is more than a little bit scholarly. It might be that one of his other books might be better for non-scholarly readers.
Reading the Church Fathers
Books mentioned in this topic
Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World (other topics)Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (other topics)
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated (other topics)
The Didache is not a theological treatise. It's not a letter. It's a [fill in the blank]. It is certainly possible, BTW, that one part of the Didache is a different sort of text than some other part. So look for clear internal divisions in the text.
The Didache was written by [who?] to be read by [whom?] in [what context?] For instance many letters were written by Paul were written to be read aloud to church members (during/after the service?) in multiple churches.
Do our own churches in our own times issue documents that are of the same or similar kind of text as the Didache?
(We do need to know something of the overall historical circumstances in which the document came into being; but for now let's avoid quoting some writer's statement of what he or she says the Didache is or is not. The scholarly consensus these days is that the Didache came into being in the late 1st century. Some scholars think early 2nd century is more probable, and the old consensus was late 2nd century.)
Let's ask the text itself: Tell me, O Didache, what kind(s) of document are you?