Transcription
The Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is one of the most fascinating historical documents handed down to us from the early church. The Didache gives us answers to some crucial Christian mysteries, such as how did the first Christians practice baptism and how did the first churches observe Holy Communion. The Didache also includes information about controversial topics, such as abortion, the second coming of Christ, and the apocalyptic end of the world.
But before we get into the details, what exactly is the Didache? The word Didache comes from the Greek word didachē, which means teachings. The Didache, as we have it today, is roughly the length of the book of Galatians from the New Testament. The Didache is only 16 chapters long and is pretty easy to read. As a matter of fact, it should only take you about 20 minutes to read it from front to back.
It is a common misconception that the Didache was once part of the canonical New Testament and that it was later thrown out. The truth of the matter is, the Didache never reached the status of canonical New Testament scripture, or at least there is absolutely no evidence for it in the canonical lists handed down to us by the early church fathers. The Didache is mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea as not canonical but disputed, yet familiar to most churchmen. It appeared in a list by Athanasius of Alexandria as "other books not recognized as canonical but recommended by our ancestors for reading by those who have recently entered in and wish to learn the word of faith." Lastly, the Didache appears in a list of New Testament Apocrypha in a text called the Analecta, a text attributed to the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople.
So, now, the Didache was never a kicked-out book of the New Testament, but it did still hold a level of relatively high status within the early church. The version of the Didache that we have today can be dated roughly between the years 110 and 120 CE. The reason I say "the version of the Didache as we have it today" is because the Didache is a composite text, which means it wasn't just written by one person, but it combines several older Jewish and Christian sources, and it weaves and stitches these sources together. And then later, these sources were edited or redacted by later Christians, and then it was redacted again by someone known as the Didachist, who exactly the Didachist was is still a mystery, and this person's identity will likely always be a mystery.
But there are a few things we can say about the author of this text. First, we can say that whoever wrote the Didache, or more accurately, whoever redacted and stitched together the Didache, was a Christian church leader living at the end of the first and beginning of the second century, writing the world's first church handbook, or at least the first church handbook that has survived. The Didachist, whoever he may have actually been, clearly had a sphere of influence within his own local community, being rooted in Jewish and Christian tradition, often quoting from the Old Testament and other Jewish non-biblical sources. The Didachist also had a deep knowledge of Jewish prayers and Jewish ritualistic practices. This is one of the reasons why this text is dated to the early 2nd Century, because as time went on, Christianity and Judaism began to have a more defined divide.
Now, there is another common misconception that the Didache was written in the first century and that it may even predate some of the New Testament texts. But this is technically not true, but it's also not wrong. And what I mean by that is that the Didache is a composite text, which means that it's made up of a lot of older material that got stitched and woven together by later Christians to suit the needs of the local community. For example, the first six chapters of the Didache consist of a redacted ancient Jewish text titled "The Tractate on the Two Ways." This so-called "Tractate on the Two Ways" is now lost, but in theory, it goes back to an original Jewish document which was Christianized as time went on. This "Tractate on the Two Ways" was likely written in the first century CE and could even go back as far as the first century BCE, belonging to a category of Jewish community rule literature, such as the famous 1QS text discovered as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Now, we won't go into all of the details here, but as you can see, dating the Didache is not as straightforward as you might think, because you have to ask yourself, what exactly are you trying to date? Are you trying to date the original sources that the Didachist used, or are you trying to date the final redacted version that we have today? As far as scholars can tell, all of the sources used by the Didachist come from the first century, and this is both written and oral. But then all of the subsequent redactions from the pen of the Didachist come from the 2nd Century, not the first. Evidence for this dating can be seen by the fact that parts of the Didache clearly show that the split between Christianity and Judaism was just starting in this particular location.
And speaking of location, we don't know exactly where the Didache was written or compiled either, and this is something scholars would really like to know, because then we can trace the rate of spread of Christianity in different locations among different cultures, and it would help us date this text more precisely as well. With that being said, most scholars believe that the Didache, along with other early church sources, gives us hints that it was written either in Egypt or in the Syria-Palestine region. Egypt is a possible location for the Didache's writing because it is attested by an Egyptian early church father named Athanasius of Alexandria, and two small fragments of the Didache were also found in an Egyptian trash dump in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. So, we know that the Didache must have had at least some level of intrigue for the early Egyptian Christians and the early Egyptian church, so an Egyptian place of origin is certainly probable.
Although a Syrian or Palestinian place of origin cannot be ruled out either, because of the fact that the Didachist gives detailed instructions to Christians on how to welcome itinerant Christian apostles, which strongly hints that this early Christian custom was still in practice at this particular time and in this location. The assumption is that this practice of welcoming itinerant apostles, prophets, and teachers are more reminiscent of customs that would have taken place in Syria-Palestine, but less likely to have been a strong practice in Egypt by the early 2nd Century. But despite these bits of information, none of these theories for these places of origin have strong enough evidence that historians would need to make a decisive decision one way or another.
The Didache is unique among early Christian literature because it is essentially a church handbook. It's not concerned with orthodoxy, but it's much more concerned with orthopraxy, which means that the writer is much more concerned with how Christians ought to behave than what Christians ought to believe. The author of the Didache is not writing a theological treatise like Paul in the New Testament, and it's also not writing a polemical attack like Justin Martyr or Origen were. The Didachist just wants Christians to know how they ought to behave. And so, because of this, it's kind of hard to know what the Didachist actually believed himself. It's also hard to know what the Didachist knew. Like, did he know about the Gospels? If so, with which ones? Did he know the letters of Paul? If so, which ones did he read? The letters for himself, or did he hear something similar from oral traditions? Did he read the Gospels we know of today, or did he read some other Gospels that are now lost? It's kind of hard to tell.
It seems likely that the Didachist at least knew a little bit of the Gospel of Matthew and maybe even a little bit of the Gospel of Luke, but even this is disputed among scholars. I'm going to read a few verses from the Didache that should sound familiar to you if you know the New Testament.
Didache 1:2: "Whatever you do not want to happen to you, do not do to another." This is the Golden Rule, right? It sounds pretty similar to Matthew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you."
Or consider this very next verse in the Didache: Didache 1:3: "Bless those who curse you and pray for your enemies and fast for those who persecute you. For what grace do you expect if you only love those who love you? Don't even the nations do that? As for you, love those who hate you, and you will not have any enemy." The beginning of that verse sounds awfully familiar to the Beatitudes that Jesus preached on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 5, and the last part about praying for your enemies sounds awfully familiar to Matthew 5:44: "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." These obviously aren't word for word exactly the same, but you can see that the Didachist, or at least a later editor, knew of these verses and inserted them into the text.
I could go on with several examples of how sayings from the Didache sound similar to sayings from the New Testament, but what I really am trying to answer here is, how did the Didachist know what he knew, and how do we know it? We might assume, as modern people, that ancient Christians knew of the Gospels the same way that we do today, but this is absolutely not the case. The Didache was written before the formation of the New Testament canon, back when other Gospels that are now lost likely circulated, and it was written when oral traditions were still extremely widespread. So, asking how the Didachist knew what he knew and how he knew it is a very interesting and tricky question. It seems likely that the Didachist knew of an ancient version of Matthew and even drew from the "Q" tradition. And for those of you who don't know what the "Q" tradition is, I just made a video on it not that long ago, and I will attach it to an end screen at the end of this video for those of you who want to dive even further into the madness.
So, one of the questions that are always asked when dealing with ancient texts, and should be asked, is, "Do we have the original?" And with the case of the Didache, the answer is no. As mentioned earlier, we do have quotes from early church fathers such as Athanasius of Alexandria, and possible references from Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea. But the first time we get an almost complete manuscript of the Didache comes from something called the Barinus Manuscript, which surprisingly enough, we know exactly who copied it and when they copied it. The scribe calls himself Leon, the notary and sinner, and he completed the Barinus Manuscript on Tuesday, June 11th, in 1056 CE. We also have two very fragmentary parchment leaves dating from the end of the 4th Century, which comes from a miniature codex, and this is called the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1782. It is believed by scholars that these two fragments come from the same book which originally contained the whole text of the Didache. These two sources are the only two direct copies of the Didache in existence, other than what we can glean from the writings of the early church fathers.
Okay, enough background information on the Didache. What does the Didache say that actually intrigues people? Let's first take a look at what it says about baptism.
Didache 7:1-4: "As for baptism, baptize in this way: Having said all this beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. If you do not have running water, however, baptize in another kind of water. If you cannot do so in cold water, then do so in warm water. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, let the person baptizing and the person being baptized and others who are able to fast. Tell the one being baptized to fast one or two days beforehand."
So, this is incredible for a number of reasons. If you have been a part of a church in the last however long, you will know that there are endless debates among Christians in different denominations debating how baptism ought to be done. Should baptism be full immersion, where you're completely covered in water? Should it be done in a lake, in a river, in a tub? Or should baptism be sprinkled over the head? Should water be poured out over the head? These are endless debates that Christians have been having seemingly for about 2,000 years. And here the Didache tells us point blank what the answer is. The best way to baptize is in running water, aka fresh, flowing river water. But if you don't have access to running water, then it's okay to baptize in warm water. Presumably, this water is a reference to the fact that the water is no longer fresh, crisp, flowing water, but that it is stagnant, perhaps lake water or ritual cleansing bath water, just water that doesn't flow. But then again, we are told, if you cannot do either, then it's fine to have water poured on the head three times in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
So, here we have the earliest non-biblical reference to the ritual of baptism. And it's important to note that even in the year 110 or 120, whenever this was written, the three-part formula for baptism is present: baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19 and Didache 7:1 are the oldest attestations of the three-part formula, although this can also be found pretty early on in the writings of Justin Martyr as well, in First Apology 61:3. And then we're presented with another little interesting tidbit of information: that the one being baptized needs to fast for a couple of days before being baptized, and then even more interesting, the one doing the baptism needs to fast as well.
Lastly, I'd like to take a look at Didache 7:1, which reads: "As for baptism, baptize in this way, having said all this beforehand." Wait a minute. "Having said all this beforehand." Are we supposed to assume that chapters 1-6 are supposed to be read before a person gets baptized? The answer is yes. Chapters 1-6 are pre-baptismal instructions on how to live a good Christian life that are read aloud before a Christian gets baptized. This book indeed shows us early 2nd Century liturgical practices that likely date further back into the late 1st Century.
Now, let's turn our attention to the Eucharist, AKA Communion, or the Lord's Supper. The Didache gives us our first ever look into the liturgy of the Eucharist. So, how did the first Christians celebrate communion?
Didache 9:1-3: "As for Thanksgiving, give thanks this way: First, with regard to the cup, we thank you, our Father, for the holy Vine of David, your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus, your servant. To you be glory forever. And with regard to the bread, we thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus, your servant. To you be glory forever."
Then verse 5: "Let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving meal save those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, since the Lord has said concerning this: 'Do not give what is holy to the dogs.'"
These verses give us the actual words that likely would have been spoken during the Eucharistic liturgy in the 1st and 2nd Century. Something quite remarkable is what's not found in the Didache, and that is any reference to the words of institution. Now, if you're not familiar with what the words of institution are, this is a staple in all Christian denominations even today, and they can be first found on the lips of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels and in 1 Corinthians 11. The words of institution usually go something like this: "The Lord Jesus, on the night of his arrest, took bread, and after giving thanks to God, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat. This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way, he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the New Covenant, sealed in my blood, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink it, do this in remembrance of me.'" These words of institution are not found in the Didache, yet the Didache is clearly referring to the Eucharistic liturgy. Verse 5 makes this even clearer by saying, "Let no unbaptized person take part in this meal," which is also in itself an interesting saying of the Didache, that in order to partake in communion, you must be baptized.
Besides baptism and the Eucharist, the Didache touches on some very controversial topics, such as abortion.
Didache 2:2: "You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not corrupt children. You shall not fornicate. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not mix poison. You shall not murder a child whether by abortion or by killing it once it is born. You shall not covet what belongs to your neighbor."
The list of prohibitions in the Didache just keep on going. But it's interesting that within the topic of murder, it has "don't murder" first, and then it has "don't murder children whether by killing them in the womb or once they're out of the womb." Typically, the things that are listed in lists of prohibitions are things that are commonly practiced. So, could this be evidence that the early Christians commonly practiced abortion? It's possible.
The Didache ends with what is called the eschatological conclusion. This section, beginning in chapter 16, deals with the apocalypse, or a time when false prophets will come, Christian communities will collapse, the Antichrist will appear, and finally, everything leads up to the second coming of Christ, and then the book ends. The Didache's vision of the end of the world reads very much like an ancient Jewish apocalyptic understanding of the end of the world. If you're familiar with anything in the Dead Sea Scrolls, this is basically that, but with one difference, and that is that Jesus returns at the end. And that is the Didache.
It's time now for a bonus fact. As I mentioned earlier, the Didache is not part of the canonical New Testament, and it never was. But the Didache is often listed as non-biblical books that many church folks read. And you may be wondering, what other books are non-canonical but that many other church folks read? Well, this list includes books like the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Gospel to the Hebrews, and the Epistle of Barnabas. Some of these books eventually did, of course, come to have canonical status. Stay thirsty for knowledge.