Talk:Didache

Dubious reporting of scholarship

"Mark wrote his Gospel based on the preaching of Peter, as most New Testament scholars maintain."

No, they don't. That's the traditional view. "Most New Testament scholars" "maintain" nothing of the kind, since there is no good evidence for the assertion at all. Moreover, this assertion seems to play no role in the argument of the article. Why's it in there at all? 88.105.110.245 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For note b, use J. E. L. Oulton, "Clement of Alexandria and the Didache," The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 41, No. 162 (April 1940), pp. 177-179. I am not yet familiar with the way to insert this; otherwise, I would do it myself. Pernimius (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Link to Corrupt Text

The link at the bottom of the reference section entitled "Original Greek Text" which takes you to <http://www.geocities.com/baruchmar/EC/didachegraece.htm> is a corrupt text. There are words and entire phrases left out (e.g., Chapter X vs 2, "εγνωρισαν" is left out just before "ημιν δια Ιησου του παιδος σου."). The link to the "Original text" should be deleted. 67.185.195.72 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)JJA

First paragraph seems messed up

From [1]:

"There were, however, in the East, from the early days up to the end of the fifth century, certain writings, closely related to each other, and which were in reality brief canon law treatises on ecclesiastical administration the duties of the clergy and the faithful, and especially on the liturgy. We refer to works attributed to the Apostles, very popular in the Oriental Churches, though devoid of official authority, and which may be called pseudo-epigraphic, rather than apocryphal. The principal writings of this kind are the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" or "Didache", the "Didascalia", based on the "Didache"; the "Apostolic Constitutions", an expansion of the two preceding works; then the "Apostolic Church Ordinance", the "Definitio canonica SS. Apostolorum", the "Testament of the Lord" and the "Octateuch of Clement"; lastly the "Apostolic Canons"."

..."though devoid of official authority, and which may be called pseudo-epigraphic, rather than apocryphal" ...such wholly artificial categories, called "POV" by those who indulge in categories, do not reflect the original writers' inspiration, nor their intent; they do not reflect the original audience and the perceived needs such writings fulfilled; they simply reflect decisions made in the Papal Curia long afterwards, which are themselves momentary bits of the history of thought, irreducibly opaque and impossible to analyze until one has taken into consideration local politics and intellectual climate. --Wetman 15:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Logic query

The term apostle is applied by Paul not only to the Twelve, but also to himself, to Barnabas, to his kinsmen Andronicus and Junia, who had been converted before him, and to a class of preachers of the first rank. But apostles must have "seen the Lord" and have received a special call. There is no instance in the New Testament or in early Christian literature of the existence of an order called apostles later than the Apostolic age. We have no right to assume a second-century order of apostles, who had not seen Christ in the flesh, for the sake of bolstering up a preconceived notion of the date of the Didache.

The above seems to have a logical flaw. According to the Bible, Paul did not see Christ in the flesh (or if he did, only after the resurrection and ascension, in which case a similar experience could have been thought to occur to someone else at any time); yet, according to the above, he was classed as an apostle; so the logic that there is no reason to suspect that there were apostles who had not seen Christ in the flesh does not seem to have any validity. Comments?

Is this text source from somewhere else, by the way? "We have no right to..." does not seem quite the right tone for Wikipedia, and certainly suggests Original Research. TSP 18:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's from the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm

The claim, as I have understood it, is that we have no historical basis for assuming "a second-century order of apostles" -- the mention of Paul is just a passing comment (a pre-emptive caveat perhaps?), but is not germane to the argument. In other words, the argument is based on history, not on the nature of apostleship. I may have misunderstood, but that is how I'm seeing the statement. --MonkeeSage 10:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates

What's the reference for the dates in the intro? The reason I ask is that [2] gives an earlier date range. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an old question and a neutral POV requires that no fixed dates be suggested. Leave it at AD 70 to 3rd Century, period. Sky 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

The following quote and associated comment were replaced by a more recent assessment:

Most scholars date the Didache to the first half of the second century.<ref>[[Bruce Metzger]], The Canon of the New Testament, pp. 49-50</ref>+assoc. hidden comment: The opinion of Bruce Metzger, who died on 13 February 2007 and who in 1986 was elected to the American Philosophical Society in the class devoted to the Humanities and in 1994 was awarded the F.C. Burkitt Medal by the British Academy for his contributions to biblical studies, is: "Although several scholars have assigned the Didache to the first century, and others have dated it to the third or even fourth century, most prefer a date in the first half of the second century."

While I have nothing but the highest respect for BM, as I said in my comment things, have moved on in the last decade, as I'm sure BM would've been the first to delight in. I could also add the opinion of MW Holmes who thinks '... a date considerably closer to the end of the first century seems more probable.' (Holmes, 2007, The Apostolic Fathers in English, Baker Academic, p.159. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is highly unlikely. The earliest provable date comes from a quote from Origen. It is likely to be late second century, and if my guess of Pantaneus as the author is correct, then it can be put squarely in the late second century. There is even some proto-Zeroastrian (ie proto-Manichean) theology in it. Without an author, or a carbon date that early; the didache proves nothing about first century christianity.--207.191.199.237 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Didache Title Translation Question

The Didache (Διδαχὴ in Koine Greek) or "Teaching"— short for "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles" (Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν)

Is this accurate? The translations I have read called it "Teaching of the Lord to the Nations by the Twelve Apostles" or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" or ""Teaching of the Lord to the Nations". That title basically suggests that it is not for Jews. Care to discuss? Simonapro 15:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)]

Gentiles and nations are often interchangeable from a Jewish standpoint. You'll find different translations of the Bible will sometimes use "gentiles" and sometimes "nations." It would seem to me that either is appropriate. Yahnatan 15:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see a possible problem with the title "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles". It appears that this could suggest that the teaching is a special dispensation for only the Gentile convert and not for the Jewish covert. Does this make sense now? Simonapro 18:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)]

By the time of the mid-first to second century, there was a developed antithesis between Jews and Christians (I'm not making any value judgement about that, just stating the fact). As for the translation of ἔθνεσιν; given the common use in the NT which presupposes a Jewish background (e.g., the two commissions: Matt. 10:5, ἐθνῶν=of Gentiles; Matt. 28:19, ἔθνη=Gentiles), and the Christian-Jewish antipathy at the time the Didache was composed, "Gentiles" is the most likely translation. But I'm no Greek scholar. We should probably go with the most common translation by people who are Greek scholars, or add something like (added part bolded):

short for "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles", or "Teaching of the Lord to the Nations by the Twelve Apostles" . . .

My two cents. » MonkeeSage « 10:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles." Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed, 1992, Holmes, ISBN 0801056764

As for the comment about this not being for Jews, it is obviously related to the Council of Jerusalem, which see for details. Short story: the Council of Jerusalem addressed the issue of what parts of the Mosaic Law were required of new gentile converts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.61 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 May 2006

Christianity started out as a 1st century Jewish sect (Acts 3:1; 5:27–42; 21:18–26; 24:5; 24:14; 28:22) around the followers of Jesus Christ, including the apostles and elders and relatives of Jesus, and quickly expanded to include non-Jews, called Gentiles. As an eschatological movement, it anticipated Gentile interest in the God of Abraham, as for example prophesied in Isaiah 56:6–8, see also Great Commission. The question of what parts of the Mosaic Law apply to gentiles is still an open debate today. According to Judaism, it is the Noahide Law, see also Proselyte#In the Torah, Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law, Law and Gospel.209.78.20.60 21:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the document is post-Council of Jerusalem of 50 AD, at least 20 years after that around (c. 70–160 CE). The translations on http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html don't seem to mention the word gentiles. Maybe it would be better to find an early or modern Catholic source which states that the english translation of the title of the Didache is "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles". I have been trying to find that all day but can't. Something tells me that the word gentiles is maybe a very modern interpretation that may twist the document to a gentile-only orientation to exclude Jews. Simonapro 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]

Google search for "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles" (~280).

For "Teaching of the Lord to the Nations by the Twelve Apostles" (0). » MonkeeSage « 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Simonapro, I'm sorry, but I have to say that your objection is rather odd. Would you likewise object to Paul of Tarsus being called the Apostle to the Gentiles (εθνων αποστολος Romans 11:13 Romans 11:13)?64.169.0.162 09:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would object to that tag if it is used to mean that Paul only preached to gentiles. Act 17:10) . That is the same type of objection I currently have with the Didache title if it is used to mean that the Didache is only for the gentiles. The Didache should be for everybody. Paul also preached to everybody. Simonapro 15:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia:No original research

Wikipedia:Reliable sources63.201.24.167 20:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So would there be any objection to just calling it "Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles" Simonapro 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)]

Yes there are objections. The thing is called Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. In the context of the Greek, there is no reason to omit words of the translation, as you suggest. The issue at hand is the translation of the word ἔθνεσιν.[3] Now does this tricky word mean "nations" or "gentiles"? Paul used it to mean Gentiles and there are OT uses of this word to mean the same thing. We cite a source that uses Gentiles. I say keep it as it is, but the best compromise would be to include, possibly the footnote, that some people translate the word as "nations" and then cite who exactly translate things this way. Do you have any citation for the alternate translation?--Andrew c 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• My Interlinear Scripture Analyzer (http://www.scripture4all.org/) tells me that the best translation for this word is 'nations'.
• Even on www.earlychristianwritings.com, out of all the translations, the word gentiles with regards to the Didache title is only used by Wace http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/didache-wace.html who states that this is the second title, not the first one, which reads "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". This is probably the actual title.
• I do not think gentiles is the best word, in fact far from it, given that here it could be used to say that Didache is not for Jews. This is actually the real reason why nations is a much better choice and is probably the way it was intended to be.
• I can not find a reputable Catholic source that has used the word gentiles in relation to the Didache title.

I would conclude that your suggestion is a good one but the other way around fits better. To use the word nations with a footnote to gentiles. There are very few sources using the word gentiles in relation to the Didache title. See www.earlychristianwritings.com Simonapro 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)]

In a Jewish context "nations" meant "Gentiles", as opposed to "Judean"/"Jew" (᾿Ιουδαῖος). Wace does not mention any translations using "nations", however he does note: "the Didaché. . .is found appended in this form to the instructions to Gentiles in Acts xv. in D. [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis] and some cursive MSS., confirmed by Irenaeus or his translator (III. xii. 14) and Cyprian (Test. iii. 119)". A reputable source was provided for the translation "Gentiles" ("The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles." Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed, 1992, Holmes, ISBN 0801056764). Lightfoot gave the same title (1891 edt.). I've found one reference to the translation "nations"[4], which would support a footnote — but not displacing the common, verifiable rendering. » MonkeeSage « 00:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

MonkeeSage, you may want to review the Didache section of earlychristianwritings.com again as Roberts uses the term nations. However this topic now seems secondary given that the primary title of the document is "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" and not the one containing ἔθνεσιν Simonapro 15:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)]

You're right, Robert-Donaldson uses "nations" also. Where are you getting the idea that the shorter title is the "primary" one, if I may ask? Wace says the opposite:

The MS. [Bryennius discovered at Constantinople] bears the heading "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," followed by the fuller title "Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles." That both titles belong to the original form appears probable from the phrase "the Twelve Apostles." ([5], emphasis mine).

» MonkeeSage « 22:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but if you read on you will see that Wace (who only made a commentary, not a translation) makes reference to the document being called the "Teaching of the Apostles" by early writers. The fuller titles could be a later addition. I think that is expressed by the translators on earlychristianwritings.com who don't use the word gentiles in the title or even mention the second title fuller sometimes. BTW, Lightfoot's translation according to earlychristianwritings.com reads "The Didache or Teaching of the Apostles". Simonapro 10:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)]

You're right about Lightfoot also, I just checked Google books. However, we do have one scholar saying the fuller title is likely original, and none saying otherwise. And we can add to Wace, A History of the Christian Church Walker, Norris, Lotz, Handy (Scribner, 1985, 4th edt.), p. 42: "a work whose full title is The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles. Commonly called Didachē. . ." » MonkeeSage « 14:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked the actual translation of Lightfoot — before I only checked the introduction — and he does use the full title, and translates it as "Gentiles" (Google books). » MonkeeSage « 14:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am using your source. On Page 121 Lightfoot calls the Diadache - "The Teaching of the Apostles" but says that the title on the Didache is called "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". Simonapro 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)]

About the changes in reference to this topic. I don't actually believe the changes reflect what the facts here are suggesting. I think the largest supporting facts are being rejected. I believe (according to the facts above) that it should read:

The Didache (Διδαχὴ in Koine Greek) has the title "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". It is often called "The Teaching of the Apostles" by the early church fathers in their writings.

Then at the end of Twelve Apostles" have a reference like this -> There is a second fuller title under the primary title that reads (Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) — which has been translated as "The teaching of the Lord to the Nations by the twelve apostles" or "The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles". Simonapro 10:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)]

No Original Research policy. Find a reputable third-party source that says that the full title isn't original, and you can include that view. Otherwise we have to go with what we can verify, which is the full title, translated as "Gentiles". Lightfoot does give the full title and translates it as "Gentiles" in the actual text (p. 123). The current edition of the same series (viz., Apostolic Fathers) uses the same title. Since it is verifiable by reputable third-party sources, I'm adding: (commonly called "The Teaching of the (Twelve) Apostles"). » MonkeeSage « 11:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html All translators are overwhelmingly in favour of the title "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". Please show a translator who says otherwise. You do not have a translator who uses that title alone. One commentary mentions it as a fuller title. Not the full title (<- That is your own Original Research).

• On Page 121 (of your own source) Lightfoot calls the Diadache - "The Teaching of the Apostles" but says that the title on the Didache is called "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" in the chapter titles and opening passages.
• This position is expressed by (1) J.B. Lightfoot, (2) Charles H. Hoole, (3) Kirsopp Lake and (4) Herbert W. Armstrong {out of a possible 7 sources) on http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
• The remaining 3 use other language like “THE TEACHING TO THE NATIONS” and not the proposed "The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles”. In fact NONE of those sources say the title is the currently proposed model "The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles". The only one to propose that title is Wace (who is only writing a commentary, not a translation!) on http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/didache-wace.html
• Wace himself makes it clear that the title is "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." in his opening words.

Again nowhere does anyone assert that the title of the Didache is "The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles” and if they do they make sure to cover the heading on the document "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". <-- This is the title. The document has this heading that should preceed any other, period. Anyway, the translations are on-line, so now readers can see that for themselves. I have linked to those translations. That fact is that the majority of translators have used the title "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". Early church fathers even called it "The Teaching of the Apostles". If people want to discover other translations within the document after the heading then they can do so through the translations on the link. Simonapro 13:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)]

The primary reference has already been cited: "The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles." Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed, 1992, Holmes, ISBN 0801056764 63.201.25.132 18:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We could ask for a WP:RFCU on that IP because this could be trying to avoid a 3RR. Basically that revert to a position has been proven incorrect. Read the discussion before reverting. On Page 121 Lightfoot calls the Diadache - "The Teaching of the Apostles" but says that the title on the Didache is called "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". So the self proclaimed primary cite is wrong and also excludes all interests in the source material above. Simonapro 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)]

The second edition of The Apostolic Fathers is wrong? I think not. 63.201.25.132 18:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You have edited without discussion which was requested of you and is wiki policy - WP:GF. You claim of POV is refuted by Page 121 Lightfoot calls the Diadache - "The Teaching of the Apostles" but says that the title on the Didache is called "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". Nobody said that The Apostolic Fathers was wrong. It is right but your cite is in error. You where asked to discuss before you edit. Please discuss before you revert again. Your POV claim is wrong and your cite is being use incorrectly.Simonapro 19:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)]

My cite is not in error. 2nd edition, The Apostolic Fathers, Holmes, page 246: "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles, or The Teaching of the (Twelve) Apostles, as it was known in ancient times, or simply the Didache ("The Teaching"), as it is usually refered to today, is one of the most fascinating yet perplexing documents to emerge from the early church." ; page 250,251 has the same title in Greek and English. 63.201.25.132 19:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Apostolic Fathers ISBN: 0766164985 - Kessinger Publishing that states in the opening passage for the chapter on the Didache "It is called 'The Teaching of the Apostles' or 'The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles'". This heading appears on Lightfoot's translations also. See http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0766164985&id=MvHBcK9OsWUC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&sig=xSmq63Ym83JamkOqaXA_Hk8Z9do&hl=en Even Lightfoot's translation starts with that title. Using The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles, is contrary to every single translation of the document header out there. Simonapro 19:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)]

That may be your opinion, but it is POV pushing. And if you edit again, it will be a Wikipedia:Three-revert rule violation. 63.201.25.132 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I know about the 3RR because I mentioned it above. You are actually citing "The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations". Granted I should have noted that you are using a modern book with a similar title of the popular traditional book source book "The Apostolic Fathers" by by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer. However citing your one book alone has:

• Contradicted all the early church father writings that call this document - "'The Teaching of the Apostles'"
• Contradicted all the translations on http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

Which means your suggestion is a clear historical revision of a Christian document. It simply never had the title you are putting forth as the title. That is changing things. You can't just ignore the historical record in favor of one new age book. Simonapro 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)]

Now the 2nd edition of The Apostolic Fathers, 1992, is a new age book? I think not. In addition, it has already been pointed out that on earlychristianwritings.com Roberts-Donaldson translate the title as "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations". Earlychristianwritings.com does not include the 2nd edition of The Apostolic Fathers translation because it is not public domain. 63.201.25.132 19:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your citation contradicts "The Apostolic Fathers" by by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer. What sources are "The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations" using for the Didache translation? The title of the Didache is "'The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles'". That is on the heading of the Didache. Within the body of text may be other titles but that is #1. Your revert makes this header #2 and that is distorting the document's title. Your POV to use "The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations" translation of a text in the body of the document as the title is contradicted by 4/7 translations on http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html The remaining 3 do not use your proposed title at all. So it is not found in any translation on http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html. It is only found in a commentary and your new book that contradicts the historical record on this matter. It is a historical revision.Simonapro 19:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)]

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texteapo/didache-greek.html

Didach kuriou dia twn dwdeka apostolwn toiv eqnesin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm

It was rediscovered in 1883 by Bryennios, Greek Orthodox metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the codex from which, in 1875, he had published the full text of the Epistles of St. Clement. The title in the MS. is Didache kyriou dia ton dodeka apostolon ethesin, but before this it gives the heading Didache ton dodeka apostolon. The old Latin translation of cc. i-v, found by Dr. J. Schlecht in 1900, has the longer title, omitting "twelve", and has a rubric De doctrinâ Apostolorum.

2nd edition, The Apostolic Fathers, Holmes, page 246: "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles, or The Teaching of the (Twelve) Apostles, as it was known in ancient times, or simply the Didache ("The Teaching"), as it is usually refered to today, is one of the most fascinating yet perplexing documents to emerge from the early church."

63.201.25.132 20:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing you have said there that directly contradicts the historical record (which the current article does right now because of your edit) is the :2nd edition, The Apostolic Fathers, Holmes, page 246 citation you are fronting which is not even a translation but a commentary. Everything else in the historical record has given the #1 heading as "The teaching of the twelve apostles" not "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles" which is clearly false and a direct manipulation of the document heading. The body of text, not the heading, containing "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles" is a debatable translation that could also be "The Teaching of the Lord to the Nations by the Twelve Apostles". To front your version as a heading and as the proper translation is a modern new age distortion of the historical record. There is no two ways about this. You can't ignore that "The teaching of the twelve apostles" is the heading on the document used by 4/7 translators. None of the translators used your version of the body of text either and certainly not as the title. None of them. Simonapro 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)]

ONCE AGAIN the evidence:

Title

The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache, Alan Garrow (T and T Clark, 2004) [6]: Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ᾿αποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Funk-Bihlmeyer [7], same).

A History of the Christian Church, Walker-Norris-Lotz-Handy (Scribner, 1985, 4th edt.), p. 42: ". . .a work whose full title is The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles. Commonly called Didachē. . ."

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Holmes, ed. (Baker Academic, 1999, 2nd edt.), p. 246: "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles, or The Teaching of the (Twelve) Apostles, as it was known in ancient times, or simply the Didache ("The Teaching"), as it is usually refered to today. . ."

Wace [8]: The MS. [Bryennius discovered at Constantinople] bears the heading "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," followed by the fuller title "Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles." That both titles belong to the original form appears probable from the phrase "the Twelve Apostles."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v., Didace: "[The treatise, i.e., the Didache] was rediscovered in 1883 by Bryennios, Greek Orthodox metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the codex from which, in 1875, he had published the full text of the Epistles of St. Clement. The title in the MS. is Didache kyriou dia ton dodeka apostolon eth[n]esin, but before this it gives the heading Didache ton dodeka apostolon. The old Latin translation of cc. i-v, found by Dr. J. Schlecht in 1900, has the longer title, omitting "twelve", and has a rubric De doctrinâ Apostolorum."

Translation

For "Gentiles":

Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot-Harmer ([1891] 2003 edt.), p. 123: "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles" (Google books).

The Apostolic Fathers, Holmes, ed., pp. 250-51 same as above.

A History of the Christian Church, Walker-Norris-Lotz-Handy, p. 42: "The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles" (translation given in commentary)

Wace [9]: "Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles" (translation given in commentary)

For "Nations":

Roberts-Donaldson [10]: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations"

Hitchcock [11]: "Teaching of the Lord to the Nations Through The Twelve Apostles"

Arguments

The argument from silence and possible affirming of the consequent (which are informally fallacious inference patterns), that since some translations don't use the full title, therefore the translators believed that the full title is not authentic, is not only logically flawed, but is original research. In terms of logic, it is possible (even more probable) that the translators gave the shorter title because it is more common (which is attested in the Title section above), rather than because they doubted the originality of the longer title. Without a reputable third-party source claiming that the longer title is unoriginal, we cannot include such information (or exclude other information on that account), as it is original research and is non-verifiable, not to mention illogical to infer from the facts in evidence.

The argument from consequence (an informal, rhetorical fallacy), is equally unhelpful. It doesn't matter if relevant, verifiable information might offend Jews, or Christians, or Muslims, or a sweet 90-year-old grandmother, or whoever. We are supposed to be fairly representing the information and leaving people to draw their own conclusions, not trying to lead them by the nose to the conclusion we want them to come to. The consequences that fairly representing the information might lead to are not even to enter into the discussion.

Feel free to request a check on me. I have no sockpuppets. And if User:63.201.25.132 is the anonymous editor I'm thinking of, we've had several disagreements in the past, so I can't very well be accused of collusion, either.

» MonkeeSage « 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Simonapro, it is you who started an edit war by drastically changing the article before all the evidence was presented and weighed, and without consent. » MonkeeSage « 05:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

HISTORICAL REVISION IS A PROBLEM :the evidence:

As it reads now on Didache, it is a big mash of stuff and a text with translation bias. It is not clear. My edit is clear AND allowed people to view the translations for themselves. The new edit has censored all that.

Title

• 4/7 historical translators contradict some of the commentary evidence (more importantly the contradictory commentary that is being fronted here). A commentary is not a translation. Your evidense list has excluded ALL the translations.
• Citing the commentary sources has been avoided when requested.
• 0/7 historical translators use the "Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles". It is only found in commentary.

Altering the Documentent

• Inside the body of text of the Didache is the line Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν that is being fronted before the heading. It is not the heading.

Arguments

• One version of Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν is currently being fronted as the title and was never used in any historical translation. Changing this is historical revisionism.
• Another translation of Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν used by translations has been relegated to the footnotes.
• The heading has been rejected as the heading. That is wrong.
• None of the commentators actually attempt to hide the fact that the document heading is "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". That is being ignored here.
• The early church fathers in their works call this document "The Teaching of the Apostles"

Wiki Policy WP:NOR

WP:NOR States that any new interpretation is a violation of WP:NOR including editors' personal views. This means you can't ignore that the commentary ALSO says the the document heading is "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". The current article does that and so violated WP:NOR Simonapro 12:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]

Wow, very touchy issue. It seems like Simonapro may have a good point, but the edit made to correct this issue were not helpful. Completely deleting the citations (which Simonapro originally asked for) and deleting the longer title doesn't fix the problem. It completely ignores it. The fact of the matter is that we only have one copy of the Didache, and we can look at an image of the opening here. Both the short and long title are included. Therefore, we should include both the short and long title here. The other issue (that started all this) is the translation of ἔθνεσιν. We should simply include in a footnote that there are multiple translations for the word, but we should probably use Gentiles in the body because more sources use that translation than Nations. I really do not see why this is such a big deal. If others agree, I'll make the edits I just described, but I'll hold off from changing the page for now due to other editors' previous edit warring.--Andrew c 18:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Between IP reverts and unsigned comments I have no idea who is who or what is what. To address that last comment who I believe is fron Andrew c .

• The cite is one of many citations. I replaced the cite with a list of 7 translations and several commentaries that included a cite similar to one used that everybody could reference.
• Using gentiles contradicts all 7 translations. None of the translations use it.

Simonapro 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]

Sorry about not signing (do you think you could fix your signature so the link to your user page works?). Since you did not respond to my first proposal (about including both the short and long title) I'll assume you accept that idea. Next, Gentiles vs. Nations. I think it is a misrepresentation to say "Using gentiles contradicts all 7 translations". Let's keep in mind that the word εθνος appears twice in the first chapter of the Didache (called 1 and 2 for illustrative purposes below). So let's look at all 7.

• Roberts-Donaldson- Uses nations for (1) and 'Gentiles' for (2)
• Lightfoot- Doesn't have (1) and uses 'Gentiles' for (2)
• Hoole- Doesn't have (1) and uses 'Gentiles' for (2)
• Lake- Uses 'heathen' for (1) and (2)
• Lewis- Doesn't have (1) and uses 'Gentiles' for (2)
• Armstrong- Uses nations for (1) and 'Gentiles' for (2)
• Swett- Doesn't have (1) and uses 'Gentiles' for (2)
• Duae Viae link- found in Google's cache here- Uses 'heathen' for (1) and (2)

Sumarizing the above, we only have 2 that support the "Nations" translation for the larger title. Then we have the offline source supporting "gentiles". I also have a new offline reference, Ehrman, Bart D. The Apostolic Fathers, vol 1 (Harvard University Press, 2003). Ehrman uses "Gentiles" for (1) and (2), but footnotes both with "Nations", which is the solution I propose. Most of these translations from earlychristianwritings are over a century old, while the two cites offline sources (not in the public domain yet) are within the last 15 years. --Andrew c 18:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable Andrew. If you check the current entry, it contains this information, but perhaps it could be presented in a more understandable form:

The Didache (Διδαχὴ in Koine Greek) or "Teaching" — short for "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles"[ref]The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot-Harmer-Holmes, 2nd ed., 1992, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, ISBN 0801056764; Roberts-Donaldson translate the title as "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations". See also Strong's G1484[/ref] (Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), commonly called "The Teaching of the (Twelve) Apostles"

209.78.18.54 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The image says: Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν translated into English as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles." -Holmes. 209.78.18.54 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Another Greek reference: [12] "ΔΙΔΑΧΗ ΤΩΝ ΔΩΔΕΚΑ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν."

Let's show the title list so that everyone can see it.

• Roberts-Donaldson- The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.
• Lightfoot- The Didache or Teaching of the Apostles
• Hoole- THE DIDACHE, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
• Lake- The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles / The Lord's teaching to the heathen by the Twelve Apostles.
• Lewis- THE TEACHING TO THE NATIONS
• Armstrong- TEACHING OF THE LORD TO THE NATIONS THROUGH THE TWELVE APOSTLES
• Swett- THE DIDACHE (The Teaching)

In fact that is how I proposed it be shown by means of the link to the translations so that people could see for themselves instead of fronting the title "Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles". As you can see none of those 7 used gentiles in the title and 3 used Nations in the title. Simonapro 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]

What is your reason for excluding the Holmes translation? 209.78.18.54 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We have commentary on http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html from Wace that says pretty much the same thing. So it was included in my edit but under Wace, not Holmes.

• We still haven't got the Holmes source for that translation.

Simonapro 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]

??? The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot-Harmer-Holmes, 2nd ed., 1992, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, ISBN 0801056764. Did you mean the Greek source? The image says: Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν translated into English as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles." -Holmes. 209.78.18.54 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And I see I need to ask my question more specifically: What is your reason for excluding the Holmes translation ("The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles.") from the article? 209.78.18.54 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Because there are many cites on http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html including the Wace commentary reference that includes what Holmes stated. So instead of just one cite, we did have over 20 before they where removed. Simonapro 20:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]

Again: What is your reason for excluding the Holmes translation ("The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles.") from the article? 209.78.18.54 20:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not the header on the Didache document. When I made the edit I just used the header. Since "Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles" isn't the header it was removed as the header. "The Didache (Διδαχὴ in Koine Greek) or "Teaching" — short for "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles" is a POV. The Didache does not state that the header is short for that line in the body of text. Simonapro 21:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]

As this topic seems not to have been revisited for well over a decade, I thought of letting sleeping dogs lie, but as the article didn't answer the question I had, I'm not going to.

I think this debate would profit from the etymological explanation of the word 'gentile' given on the wikipedia page gentile, from gentilis – of or belonging to the same people or nation, from gens – people. It's cognate with gentleman and gentle, via "high-born".

I would prefer to see ἔθνεσιν, ethnesin, rendered as 'peoples', but then that would lose its understood meaning as other-peoples-not-Jewish-people, which is perhaps what some of the contention here is about: does this title mean (ie, was the intention of the redactor(s)) that these are teachings for (all) peoples, or that Jews are exempt, or don't need teaching it, or have a different set of teachings etc.? Hard to tell. And as it stands, it could have meant different things to different readers of it! Nick Barnett (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is a proposed solution. Keep in mind the theme of my solution is "use both". Also, I think we should take all this controversy out of the opening line, and make a new section on the title.

The Didache (Διδαχὴ in Koine Greek) is the common name for a brief early Christian treatise (c. 70–160 CE), containing instructions for Christian communities.

...

Title

While the manuscript is commonly refered to as the Didache, this is short for the header found on the document and the title used by the Church Fathers, "The Teaching of the Tweleve Apostles" (Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων). A fuller title or subtitle is also found in the manuscript, "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles[note]Some translations "Nations"[/note] by the Twelve Apostles" (Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν).

--Andrew c 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, I like it. 209.78.18.54 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That is much better Simonapro 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)]

Before implimenting this, we need to work out the references. I propose not using references. The actual greek document (that I linked to an image of) has the header, then the "fuller" title, so it seems silly to referene the manuscript when this article is about the manuscript to begin with. The only issue is if we are translating the titles 'correctly'. I feel footnoting the Gentiles/Nation split is enough, but if we want to link to the BLB lexicon, or cite who uses which translation, we could do that as well. Also, I suggest we place this section as a subsection within "Contents" right after the intro, but before "The Two Ways". Only other thing, should we add an extra sentence about the titles in the Old Latin translation? --Andrew c 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Another Greek text is here: [13], but it's in the external links section already. Is it useful to link to the Strong's for Didache: [14]? Just so people don't think it's some sort of technical word or non-biblical? 63.201.26.180 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no real problem with the proposal, except that it seems to go backwards in flow of thought from the shorter colloquial title to the longer formal title, which seems counter-intuitive (as the shoter title is just that, a shortening of the longer title).

References are as follow:

Title

The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache, Alan Garrow (T and T Clark, 2004) [15]: Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ᾿αποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Funk-Bihlmeyer [16], same).

A History of the Christian Church, Walker-Norris-Lotz-Handy (Scribner, 1985, 4th edt.), p. 42: ". . .a work whose full title is The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles. Commonly called Didachē. . ."

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Holmes, ed. (Baker Academic, 1999, 2nd edt.), p. 246: "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles, or The Teaching of the (Twelve) Apostles, as it was known in ancient times, or simply the Didache ("The Teaching"), as it is usually refered to today. . ."

Wace [17]: "The MS. [Bryennius discovered at Constantinople] bears the heading Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, followed by the fuller title Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles. That both titles belong to the original form appears probable from the phrase the Twelve Apostles."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v., Didace: "[The treatise, i.e., the Didache] was rediscovered in 1883 by Bryennios, Greek Orthodox metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the codex from which, in 1875, he had published the full text of the Epistles of St. Clement. The title in the MS. is Didache kyriou dia ton dodeka apostolon eth[n]esin, but before this it gives the heading Didache ton dodeka apostolon. The old Latin translation of cc. i-v, found by Dr. J. Schlecht in 1900, has the longer title, omitting "twelve", and has a rubric De doctrinâ Apostolorum."

Translation

For "Gentiles":

Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot-Harmer ([1891] 2003 edt.), p. 123: "The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles" (Google books).

The Apostolic Fathers, Holmes, ed., pp. 250-51 same as above.

A History of the Christian Church, Walker-Norris-Lotz-Handy, p. 42: "The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles" (translation given in commentary)

Wace [18]: "Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles" (translation given in commentary)

For "Nations":

Roberts-Donaldson [19]: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations"

Hitchcock [20]: "Teaching of the Lord to the Nations Through The Twelve Apostles"

And please note that Lightfoot did use the full title in his translation, and did translate it using "Gentiles", as the linked image from Google books above shows (p. 123), even though he introduced it by the colloquial title (p. 121).

Further, please be aware that the titles for the translations given on earlychristianwritings may not be the actual titles as given in the works, as the Lightfoot translation shows. » MonkeeSage « 15:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

While it may be more intuitive to list the longer title first, I went in the order found on the original manuscript. The header is first. The longer title is second. If we want to switch the sentences around, feel free to make any modifications. Just thought I'd let you in on my thought process. Thanks for your imput and citations!--Andrew c 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"I have no real problem with the proposal, except that it seems to go backwards in flow of thought from the shorter colloquial title to the longer formal title, which seems counter-intuitive (as the shoter title is just that, a shortening of the longer title)." - MonkeeSage.

• Please see WP:NOR. There is no evidense to validate switching the first line of the Didache with the second line. (Simonapro 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

Andrew: I understand and appreciate your intent. I don't think the order issue is a big deal, I was just thinking aloud, well not aloud really, on paper...no that's not right either...um, in pixels? heh; anyhow, for all intents and purposes I like your proposal.

Simonapro: I wasn't suggesting switching the Didache(?!). I was talking about the order of presentation in the encyclopedia. If you really want to be picky about OR, three sources listed above give the full title first, then the header and-or colloquial name (Walker, alii; Holmes; Catholic Enc.); so there is a precedent for presenting the information in that order. However, as I just said to Andrew, I don't really care about the order of presentation, I just think it would be more intuitive to say "'The blah of blah about blah', also know as 'blah of blah' or commonly 'blah'" than to go the other direction. But that isn't a sticking point for me, just a minor stylistic quibble. » MonkeeSage « 01:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rejection from canon

I think that the article could be improved if a section is included which explains in greater detail why it was rejected from biblical canon. LukeSurl 00:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere that says why it was rejected- I don't see why it was- Anonymous User May 6, 2007 10:07

A small request from a humble reader -

I do not know how to pronounce Didache. It would be most helpful to provide this tidbit. (The same applies to names of people referred to.) Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.135.238 (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Did a kay. Sky 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

I've replaced the pronunciation with 'IPA: [ˈdɪ.də.keɪ] in English, [ði.ðaˈxi] in Modern Greek'. Although IPA is more dificult to understand, it is more accurate, and WP:MOS-P prefers articles with IPA rather than sounded-out pronunciations. — Gareth Hughes 13:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dating

I have removed the dating nonsense as it was of the early point of view and thus has been used in this article and others to push those "tag-along" arguments. There is simply no way of knowing its date. It's anywhere from AD 70 to 3rd Century, period. Sky 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

Hi Dan. You replaced a referenced section of the article here. I much prefer your version, which allows for an understanding of the full range of dates. However, you did not reference it correctly. You gave references in the author-date system, but the books you referenced aren't in the references section of the article: the full bibliographic information should appear once somewhere in the article. I've moved your references into footnotes, in line with other references in the article, but it would be good if you could fill out the bibliographic data. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 13:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem stating that there is now way of knowing its date, and then present the scholarly consensus as being so scattered. I referred to two mainstream, contemporary college level texts (one with a slight conservative lean, and one with a slight liberal lean, but both centralist, mainstream sources) Raymond E. Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament and Bart D. Ehrman's The New Testament. Brown says the Didache dates to 100-120, while Ehrman says c. 100. They both say that is post-dates Matthew, because it refers to Matthew (so post 70-80), and Ehrman (and maybe Brown) say that the way it describes Christian communities must pre-date the more rigid Church structure that started to develop in the latter half of the 2nd century. While we should state "scholars have debated the [date] for as long as they have known the document's existence" giving ranges as early as 50 and as late ast he 3rd century, many contemporary scholars agree on a date roughly 100. I believe the most recent version has some personal commentary that is spilling over (most of the last 4 sentences, which are also unsourced).-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, does this edit make sense to anyone? I moved the dating section up because it is important, and because it was positioned between two section s on ministry that should be together. I thought it was a straightforward move. Andrew, I agree with you that the mainstream does point to the earlier date of composition. I think the issue is slightly more nuanced: that the Didache contains substantial original material from an earlier period, perhaps with later redaction. Could we use this opportunity to hammer out here a better wording for the dating section? — Gareth Hughes 12:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guys, in defense of a later dating is the whole section on baptism (and others) which the Didache never knew or thought of. Where were the first 3,000 immersed on the Day of Pentecost? The early dating is just an attempt to cloud the inescapable fact that baptism was an immersion. That said, I can easily accept the 100 - 120 date as a compromise, but not as a statement of fact. No one knows. The authorities I'm familiar with do give it that date and I would agree that the 3rd century is probably a pipe dream. I think 120 is probably the best bet.Sky 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

Tagged it. This is unreferenced POV pushing that tries to make excuses for the scholarly consensus being other than what the editor wishes it were. Unreferenced because even though Harvard-style citations are given, there are no bibliographic entries to which they refer; we thus cannot verify any of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There were two totally self-published, totally non-scholarly web sites being used alongside Metzger. This is crazy. We have a reliable source that gives us a majority view, let's just state it. The older references don't contradict Metzger. No one cares which self-published web sites contradict Metzger. We state Metzger's opinion as the WP opinion. Easy. I predict opposition from people who prefer self-published web sites that agree with them to reliable sources that don't. This is a policy issue. If someone reverts back up the self-published web sites, that's a violation of policy, not just guideline. Leadwind (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To me there appears to be a contradiction between the first line: ... though some date it ... as late as the 4th century

and the last line: There is no question it was known by the third century.

Either it's known by the 3rd C or it's as late as 4th C.

For what it's worth MW Holmes (2006), p.159 dates this to around 'the end of the 1st C'. Mercury543210 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OR? Argumentation? Sources?

All the New Testament examples show all baptisms as being immediate, and never put off. The best case example is the midnight baptism of the Philippian Jailer, below:

From Acts 16:22 through 16:34 is the entire account, but we only need to see the immediacy of biblical baptism:

Acts 16:33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. All ten conversions in the bible culminate with immediate baptism.

1. Acts 2.37-38 The very first Christians ever 2. Acts 8:12 Samaritans are converted 3. Acts 8:13 Simon Magus the magician is converted 4. Acts 8:35-39 Eunuch is converted 5. Acts 10:44-48 Centurion Cornelius is converted 6. Acts 16:14-15 Lydia, the 1st European is converted 7. Acts 16:22-34 The Philippian jailer's story of conversion 8. Acts 18:8 Crispus, the leader of the Jews is converted 9. Acts 19:1-5 One Ephesian church is started with 12 men being converted 10.Acts 22:16 Apostle Paul's conversion by calling on the name of the Lord Eschoir (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Didache and Book of Enoch

I have read both these works in substance and I have found that the Didache is somewhat comparable to the Book of Enoch in that both have had a semi-official character in the Church, and that both contain similar moral instructions against abortion and birth control. It would be interesting if any of the scholars around here coudld dig deeper into these comparisons. ADM (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is it?

Didache 10 doesn't even use the word "Christ," which appears only one other time in the whole tract.

First it says it "does't even use", then continues on to say it actually does. I think a change in wording(and tone) is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.16.191 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Resurrection of Jesus?

The article says that the Didaché didn't mention the resurrection of Jesus. I think it's a way to deceive, because Didachè is about catechism. It doesnt' want to tell the history of Jesus. A lot of new testament textes doesn't mention the resurrection, beacause they are about different argouments and the resurrection of Jesus is evidently implicit. In addition, the writer's of didaché firmly believe in resurrection of the dead: And then shall the signs of the truth appear; first a sign of a rift in the heaven, then a sign of a voice of a trumpet, and thirdly a resurrection of the dead (Didaché 16:6). My english is awful, can a good english speaker correct the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.250.48.243 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed that section, per your suggestion. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it is a bit deceptive, have a look at the changes I made. (and don't apologise for English) In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is better now, but in my opinion that section should be remove entirely. The Didache is about morality, not about History or doctrine. Mentioning that the Didache omits the resurrection is like mentioning that the proof of Pythagora's theorem omits Pythagora's birth. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, we have sourced discussing this absence. Perhaps your logic is correct, but it isn't our place as editors to make that call. If it is discussed in the scholarly literature in a manner consistent with our inclusion guidelines, then I see no problem including it. Your analogy is not on point because we don't have sourcing discussing Pythagora's birth omittion from the theorem. I wrote "apparently" because no page number is given for the Nicholas Wade source, and I don't have access to that text, so I cannot in fact confirm the claims associated with that citation. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me; we are not obligated to include every irrelevant thing our sources say. We are obligated to stay *within* the sources, but not to include *all* of it. That same book certainly has plenty of other information that we don't include here because we don't think it is relevant. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In instances like this, we should survey the literature. There sure are a number of books that don't mention this omission, but Wade is not the sole source. I found The Didache: its Jewish sources and its place in early Judaism and Christianity p. 30 which states "Surprisingly, there is no reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus or to the Last Supper and the ritual order is cup-bread." Understanding the Real Jesus by Russell Martin, probably not that great of a source, also makes note of the omission on page 111. Kurt Niederwimmer, in his commentary on the Didache, puts for the theory that the use of evagelion in the Didache does not refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus, making note of the odd ordering of wine-bread, and the omissions in that section of the Didache. This theory is cited by others, such as Aaron Milavec in The Didache: Fatih, Hope & Life of the earliest Christian Communities. The controversial Burton Mack, in Who wrote the New Testament? also mentions it: "here in the Didache a very formalistic set of prayers is assigned to the cup and the breaking of bread without the slightest association with the death and resurrection of Jesus". I could go on. I think the point is that it is surprising to discuss the lord's supper without discussing the death and resurrection. It is something that would be expected, based on how it is used in modern times. Therefore the omission IS notable, at least to these scholars. Therefore, I would argue there is no need to remove it, because it is notable enough, and not just something found in a single, obscure source. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; it may be important enough to be put on a book of dozens of pages, but not important enough for a short encyclopedia article. Anyway, it seems you made your mind, so unless other editors become concerned about it, let's leave as it is. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Andrew. Clearly notable; should stay. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article should add that some author have underline the absence of an explicit referement to the resurrection of Jesus, but that is a distorted analisys of the text, because it isn't a gospel but a catechism. --95.250.48.243 (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO we should first to list the data (i.e. the content, including the mention to the lack of reference to the resurrection) and later to introduce the "readings" (i.e. a catechism, not a Gospel ect). To keep separate the facts from the understanding/readings is very important for an encyclopedia.A ntv (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The point of view that the omission is notable is documented in The Gospel of Matthew's dependence on the Didache p31 Alan Garrow - 2004 "Particularly starkly, Paul's view of the centrality of the crucifixion is entirely absent from the Didache. The Didache does not even mention the cross in its two eucharistic prayers (Did. 9 and 10). 6." and (I'm not sure how scholarly this second one is) Understanding the Real Jesus p111 Russell Martin - 2006 "The Didache, the epistle of James, the Gospel of Thomas and the Sayings Gospel Q represent a stage in Christianity when the crucifixion and resurrection had not yet achieved any importance."......... however, the way the original insert was presented smacked of NPOV, someone with an agenda, since the context of the text evidently assumes the death, resurrection, ascension and even return of Jesus. Also the fact that the Didache has been picked up by fringe theorists such as Jeffrey J. Bütz rings alarm bells for this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael, your change "no direct mention" to "no mention" I've reversed as per discussion above, evidently "thanksgiving" assumes "thankgiving" for something, and it's evident from thanking for "immortality, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus" and ref. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides, "makes no mention" => "makes no direct mention"

but

"makes no direct mention" !=> "makes no mention"

Therefore "makes no direct mention" is safer. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The second coming has nothing to do with Jesus's resurrection (i.e. at Easter), which is nowhere mentioned or hinted at. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to explain it in english, but for christians the basis for the believing in the resurrection of the dead is the resurrection of Jesus. Believing in the resurrection of the dead and not believing in the resurrection of Jesus is like believe that a person can run but can't walk. You can read it clearly in verses like And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[a] his Spirit who lives in you (Rm 8.11). So didache makes implicit mention of the resurrection of Jesus. --95.250.48.243 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that just means that Rom 8.11 makes the implicit claim. Find a source that says that the Didache makes this implicit claim.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael, in point of fact, we have sources in the article that state that this is a eucharist meal like Corinth, therefore to have "no mention" is misleading as Jorge says. While not "implicit" as the IP says (at least without a source). Michael, you deleted "direct", I've restored it. The sources given, if you look them up, show "no direct mention" is what is intended. If you're trying to leave the impression that the Didache community didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus that's evidently incorrect and not supported even by James Tabor. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, without explicit sources that is OR. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael, did you just hit WP:3RR?

Whatever the line says "The Didache makes no mention of Jesus' resurrection, other than thanking for "immortality, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus" in the eucharist,[28] but the Didache makes specific reference to the resurrection of the just prior to the Lord's coming.[29]" it's evident from reading the whole sentence that the Didache community did believe in Christ's resurrection and were remembering it.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are the worst type of editor. 2603:3017:102:6D00:F1E4:2E50:EDF1:436E (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally I find it really interesting that Jesus' sacrificial death is not associated with the bread and wine and his resurrection gets downplayed, but who cares what I think? The sources I read don't mention the resurrection angle that gets its own section here. I like Wade, but he doesn't represent scholarship on this issue. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Eucharist

For some reason the Didache's exposition concerning the Eucharist as a sacrifice (Didache, 14) is omitted in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In a related note, there's also no exposition about the Eucharist text not having the words of institution. (Is there a resource that talks about that?) I don't know how important that is, but it is an indicator that the communities which used it may not have done Communion like most of the church today does it. Washi (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The date for the fully formed Eucharist (Divine Liturgy) in the east would have to be the early 400s, but with the full service developing further until about the 700s. After that, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the mainstay of Orthodoxy, has remained unchanged even in details. In the west, Pope Gregory I (d. 604) is well known for his work in helping to standardize the Latin Mass, which also underwent some further development. Surely the Didache must be viewed within the context of liturgical development of the early church. It is quite out of context to say that differences mean "that the communities which used it may not have done Communion like most of the church today does it". Evensteven (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Partly I agree with Washi. But just because something seems odd to an editor doesn't mean much. What do the RSs say? The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says the Eucharistic prayers are primitive and unusual. That seems like fair wording. They don't refer to the Last Supper or to the Crucifixion. The Didache is of special interest because it is different. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dead external link

The external link to sitzimleben.com/ is dead, error 500, because the domain is expired. Awikiuserperson (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Language versions

The article refers to a Latin version without any prior discussion of different language versions. Is it possible to add a section explaining in which language versions the Didache has come down to us? (Marklinklaters (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)).

Done, added a statment about the language of the discovered text of the didache. However there is already the picture of the first page which clearly is in Greek. A ntv (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is clear that the first discovered text was in Greek. However, there are two references to a Latin version. It is not explained anywhere what these Latin versions are. Are they Latin versions of the Didache or of the Two Ways? They should probably be introduced or explained somewhere. (Marklinklaters (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)).

Dating

Why is it that we only cite Robinson for the dating of the document? His dating isn't taken seriously by anyone in the field with actual credentials; his 'scholarship' is actually something of a laughing stock. I see that an earlier version of the article gave a broad range, but someone deleted that and emphasized Robinson (likely due to their personal religious beliefs, but that's not for me to say). It's not that we can't cite him. But we should cite actual authorities, and put into context that his claims aren't really taken seriously. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.154.10 (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the dating in the article - there were several contradictory statements made about it. I added a reference to Thomas O'Loughlin's recent volume - he mentions the "broad consensus" of mid- to late- first century. StAnselm (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Last line, last word, is "Illigitimate" the intended word to be used here?

This looks to me like a translation/ESL issue: does the writer possibly mean "heterodox"?

I can't see how bastardy or unmarried parentage has anything to do with the credibility of early writers or preachers' historical pronouncements (or later ones, for that matter...)50.245.61.157 (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New sources

I added everything I could find from every source I have. This document is pretty interesting. I think some material could be summarized better. I did not add the bit about scholars doubting that the Last Supper is historical, which one source covers in relation to the Didache, but I thought people probably wouldn't like that. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Didache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060928080921/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texteapo/didache-greek.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texteapo/didache-greek.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed reference to no resurrection of Jesus

Here's the original conversation: [21]

Wade is not an expert on this topic, and his conclusion doesn't appear in tertiary sources, so it's undue weight to include it. Like Wade, I see the Didache as good evidence that Christians are wrong about Jesus, but this point is not worth including. I trust that the this edit is one that Christian and atheist editors can agree on. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Didache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927211001/http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1889_lightfoot_apostolic.html to http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1889_lightfoot_apostolic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The archive URL works, so at a minimum, the botchange is good & all is well.

Now, that said, unless there's some reason to stick with the archives of the Preterists' web site, then the following URL might be an incrementally better source in that it's distanced from any bias of the preteristarchive.com site. (I have no reason to think the site owners would corrupt archival docs like this; I only think obtaining it on a less "polemic" site would remove any question.) I suggest using this instead: https://archive.org/details/apostolicfather02lighgoog

77th Trombone (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Early References

Para 1 introduces an extended quotation from Eusebius that is the 2nd paragraph.

Concerning the 3rd paragraph of this section: either

1. this whole paragraph is lifted from some academic summary, or
2. some intrepid wp:amalgamator has strung several facts from as many sources in this place.

Case 1 would require improved quotation and 1 citation for the paragraph.

Case 2 would require a citation for each fact (or opinion.)

Although I guess the answer is case 1, I'm changing the complaint from {{citation needed}} to {{Refimprove section}} just to call out the fact that most of the facts in this section are not cited as they should be.

Note: I added the [c] footnote to cast some light on the "Gesta apud Zenophilum" reference. When I discovered that the word "Didache" -- even the fragment "dida" -- does not occur in GaZ, I realized the degree of sophistication required to come to this statement in para 3:

. . . and Origen of Alexandria also seem to use the [Didache], and so in the West do Optatus and the "Gesta apud Zenophilum."

It became clear how "unoriginal" this section must be.

And somewhere in the process, that last phrase should be resolved: did both Optatus and his GaZ use the Didache? Or did Optatus use the Didache in his GaZ?

77th Trombone (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Part of a series

We have: {{Christianity}} {{Canon law}} {{Jewish Christianity}}

I think this is too much navigation. Comments?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC).

Date (still)

Imagine a Jewish sect which becomes somewhat isolated. In 1975, they write a work of this character. However, they don't mention the Holocaust. Not directly. Not indirectly. Nothing. Crazy, right?

Okay, so please explain how a group of Jews living any time between the destruction of the second Temple and the Bar Kochba revolt (CE 130) would form a document of this nature with no mention of Holy Temple? What is all the more problematic is that the document condemns the practices of "hypocrites"--other groups, which align tightly with known practices of some Jewish groups. The destruction of the second Temple was more cataclysmic in its day than the Holocaust was 70 years ago. It beggars the imagination to suggest that a religious group in any competitive contact with the bulk of the Jewish people at the time wouldn't view the destruction as worthy of mention in any context.

NathanZook (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)