The Didache--another gospel?

[ThePainefulTruth]

This article from the Huffington Post religion section today is about the early Jewish-Christian gospel, the Didache. It's interesting to me since, as Dr. Tabor says, "The most remarkable thing about the Didache is that there is nothing in this document that corresponds to ­Paul's "gospel" -- no divinity of Jesus, no atoning through his body and blood, and no mention of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. In the Didache Jesus is the one who has brought the knowledge of life and faith, but there is no emphasis whatsoever upon the figure of Jesus apart from his message. Sacrifice and forgiveness of sins in the Didache come through good deeds and a consecrated life (4.6).

Also, "The Eucharist in the Didache is a simple thanksgiving meal of wine and bread with references to Jesus as the holy "vine of David," but with no references to the body or blood of Jesus related to the remission of sins."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-d-t ... 48292.html

[DanieltheDragon]

The Didache is not unusual among early christian literature. It just happens that not a significant number of its supporters got it into cannon. It is essentially just another non-canonical book which there are significant number of. Treat it how you wish I suppose. Those who support its teachings will include it those who don't will treat it as such. I just don't see how this in anyway legitimizes the Abrahamic god. Pick and choose it if it fits your beliefs I guess.

[Zzyzx]

.
Many people, Christians as well as Non-Christians, seem unaware that what became known as the bible was nothing more than writings selected from among the many contrasting early works from the first two or three centuries of the Jesus movement (that splintered away from Judaism, became known as Christianity and prospered with Roman government support).

Churchmen attending various "councils" convened by Roman Emperors chose writings that fit the agenda of those in power within the church and the government. There was nothing any more "sacred" about chosen writings than others – they just fit better the ideas that were popular with those in power and leadership positions.

[Elijah John]

.
Is it surprising that one ancient tale differs from other ancient tales -- when none can be shown to be truthful, literal or accurate?

Ancient tales propose or promote many completely different "gods" -- as though they were real -- and proponents quarrel about details as though they had special knowledge of supernatural entities and events.

Except that the Didache really doesn't tell TALES, per se, (different ones or otherwise) but rather it recounts teachings. There is a difference.

The Didache is more of a "how to" manual on how to live the Christian life, as opposed to a "once upon a time" storybook.

[Zzyzx]

.

Except that the Didache really doesn't tell TALES, per se, (different ones or otherwise) but rather it recounts teachings. There is a difference.

I do not disagree that "teachings" is its focus. I have learned that those teachings were more inclusive (and more sensible) than many or most biblical "commandments" -- or suggestions or whatever they are -- including commandments against murder, adultery, corrupting boys, sexual promiscuity, theft, magic, sorcery, abortion, infanticide, coveting, perjury, false testimony, speaking evil, holding grudges, being double-minded, not acting as you speak, greed, avarice, hypocrisy, maliciousness, arrogance, plotting evil against neighbors, hate, narcissism

Not a bad start.

he Didache is more of a "how to" manual on how to live the Christian life, as opposed to a "once upon a time" storybook.

If the "once upon a time" storybook tales (and "long ago and far away" and "magic") were eliminated from religious literature (as Thomas Jefferson did with the bible) it would be more useful as a guide to life.

[ThePainefulTruth]

The Didache is not unusual among early christian literature. It just happens that not a significant number of its supporters got it into cannon. It is essentially just another non-canonical book which there are significant number of. Treat it how you wish I suppose. Those who support its teachings will include it those who don't will treat it as such. I just don't see how this in anyway legitimizes the Abrahamic god. Pick and choose it if it fits your beliefs I guess.

I think it's important for its greatly diminished degree of Pauline influence, which I believe is becoming the foremost question concerning the origins of Christianity.

[ThePainefulTruth]

.
Is it surprising that one ancient tale differs from other ancient tales -- when none can be shown to be truthful, literal or accurate?

Ancient tales propose or promote many completely different "gods" -- as though they were real -- and proponents quarrel about details as though they had special knowledge of supernatural entities and events.

Except that the Didache really doesn't tell TALES, per se, (different ones or otherwise) but rather it recounts teachings. There is a difference.

The Didache is more of a "how to" manual on how to live the Christian life, as opposed to a "once upon a time" storybook.

As I mentioned above, and is implied in the article, I think it's importance is the light it sheds on the Jewish vs. Pauline "Christological" origins of Christianity.

[Elijah John]

.

Except that the Didache really doesn't tell TALES, per se, (different ones or otherwise) but rather it recounts teachings. There is a difference.

I do not disagree that "teachings" is its focus. I have learned that those teachings were more inclusive (and more sensible) than many or most biblical "commandments" -- or suggestions or whatever they are -- including commandments against murder, adultery, corrupting boys, sexual promiscuity, theft, magic, sorcery, abortion, infanticide, coveting, perjury, false testimony, speaking evil, holding grudges, being double-minded, not acting as you speak, greed, avarice, hypocrisy, maliciousness, arrogance, plotting evil against neighbors, hate, narcissism

Not a bad start.

he Didache is more of a "how to" manual on how to live the Christian life, as opposed to a "once upon a time" storybook.

If the "once upon a time" storybook tales (and "long ago and far away" and "magic") were eliminated from religious literature (as Thomas Jefferson did with the bible) it would be more useful as a guide to life.

I agree, and with the examples you have given. But I gotta say, it is amazing what a good preacher, teacher or rabbi can do with the mythic tales of the Bible. Sermonizing and extracting practical applications for daily life...life lessons. I am related to two such gifted preachers.

What a good preacher can do is nothing short of an art form. My uncle is an atheist, and even he has seen Billy Graham in person, and enjoys the "Americana" of it all.

[Elijah John]

.
Is it surprising that one ancient tale differs from other ancient tales -- when none can be shown to be truthful, literal or accurate?

Ancient tales propose or promote many completely different "gods" -- as though they were real -- and proponents quarrel about details as though they had special knowledge of supernatural entities and events.

Except that the Didache really doesn't tell TALES, per se, (different ones or otherwise) but rather it recounts teachings. There is a difference.

The Didache is more of a "how to" manual on how to live the Christian life, as opposed to a "once upon a time" storybook.

As I mentioned above, and is implied in the article, I think it's importance is the light it sheds on the Jewish vs. Pauline "Christological" origins of Christianity.

I completely agree, and I think the Didache accompslishes this by what it DOESN'T say in addition to what it does say. It omits seemingly foundational Pauline and Trinitarian Christian "truths" such as the supposed Divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the blood atonement/appeasement.

It does seem to view Jesus as Lord ( master teacher, not YHVH) and Messiah, in a completely human, Davidic sense though.

But I think it's non (anti?)Pauline/Johannine emphasis is in complete harmony with it's purpose as a teaching manual.

[bjs]

Churchmen attending various "councils" convened by Roman Emperors chose writings that fit the agenda of those in power within the church and the government. There was nothing any more "sacred" about chosen writings than others – they just fit better the ideas that were popular with those in power and leadership positions.

As has been pointed out in several other threads, this is a wildly inaccurate description of history. The Christian scriptures were assembled by the Christian community – who else would assemble them? However, there were no “councils� to choose the writing that make up the modern Bible. When the scriptures were being assembled the Roman Emperors were far more likely arrest Christians than to convene councils for them. No single person or council can claim to be the ones who put together the Christian scriptures.

[bjs]

...it's non (anti?)Pauline/Johannine emphasis...

This is probably the crux of the question. Is the Didache anti-Pauline theology, non-Pauline in nature, or complementary to Paul’s writings?

As far as I can tell, it never contradicts Paul’s theology, which would have been well known by the time of its writing even if we accept an early date for the writing of the Didache. The Didache could be read as complementary to Paul’s writings, with a “how-to� focus instead of a focus on theology. At most it appears to be largely, but not entirely, lacking in Trinitarian thought, but not does not contradict Trinitarian thought.

Is there any reason to think that the Didache is anything other than complementary to Paul’s theology?