The Didache: Your Thoughts

[MaxPC]

In reading the Didache again after becoming familiar with the different Anabaptist Confessions, I see some parallel teachings in those Confessions which, in my opinion, exhibits some familiarity with the Didache itself. It would not surprise me in the least that Michael Sattler, et al were inspired to use the Didache and the writings of the Early Church Fathers in addition to the Bible itself. After all Michael Sattler was a prior in a Benedictine monastery and would have been introduced to the writings in that vocation. As I understand it, a number of early Anabaptists were either connected to, or lived near a monastery and its library of works.

What are your thoughts about this. For those who have not read The Didache, here is a PDF link.

[Falco Knotwise]

I have no historical knowledge of the relationship between anabaptism and the didache/monasteries whatsoever, but it makes sense given the anabaptist emphasis on communal living. As if they intended to democratize a kind of living that was –till then – restricted to monasteries/convents.

[Sudsy]

I just watched this review of the Didache and found it very interesting -

Beginning at around the 33:50 mark in this video the Didache is explained.

Yes, I think the focus on the book of Matthew is a primary focus of the Didache as well as Anabaptism.

[Judas Maccabeus]

In reading the Didache again after becoming familiar with the different Anabaptist Confessions, I see some parallel teachings in those Confessions which, in my opinion, exhibits some familiarity with the Didache itself. It would not surprise me in the least that Michael Sattler, et al were inspired to use the Didache and the writings of the Early Church Fathers in addition to the Bible itself. After all Michael Sattler was a prior in a Benedictine monastery and would have been introduced to the writings in that vocation. As I understand it, a number of early Anabaptists were either connected to, or lived near a monastery and its library of works.

What are your thoughts about this. For those who have not read The Didache, here is a PDF link.

Sattler might have, doubtful many of the others. Menno was, by his own confession, a very poorly educated priest. Manz and Grebel were not clerics, and, in Manses case, likely more of a language scholar. Hubmaier WAS well educated in classics, which almost certainly would have included the Didache, but a firmer opponent of infant baptism could not be found:

“With that it is not written explicitly, do not baptize them, to this I answer, can I also baptize my dog and my donkey … take infants to the Lord’s supper … sell the mass as a sacrifice, for [the Bible] does not prohibit anywhere with explicit words that we do these things?”

[eccentric_rambler]

In reading the Didache again after becoming familiar with the different Anabaptist Confessions, I see some parallel teachings in those Confessions which, in my opinion, exhibits some familiarity with the Didache itself. It would not surprise me in the least that Michael Sattler, et al were inspired to use the Didache and the writings of the Early Church Fathers in addition to the Bible itself. After all Michael Sattler was a prior in a Benedictine monastery and would have been introduced to the writings in that vocation. As I understand it, a number of early Anabaptists were either connected to, or lived near a monastery and its library of works.

What are your thoughts about this. For those who have not read The Didache, here is a PDF link.

Apparently they weren't familiar enough with it for it to affect the preferred mode of baptism. This https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/cgi/view ... nquarterly is an interesting look at the history of method of baptism. Not trying to start that debate here, just pointing out that the Didache has specific direction that the early Anabaptists did not deem important or were not aware of.

[Falco Knotwise]

I just watched this review of the Didache and found it very interesting -

Beginning at around the 33:50 mark in this video the Didache is explained.

Yes, I think the focus on the book of Matthew is a primary focus of the Didache as well as Anabaptism.

(Parenthetically, at the 1:00:40 mark he says that at church neither the Orthodox nor Catholics include the doxology with the Lord’s Prayer. Sorry, but I couldn’t help but notice this — carry on! )

[Soloist]

8:1 Your fasts should not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Glad to know what hypocrites are! It’s all about Mondays.

I don’t think you could miss the point harder…

There is some nonsense in it and while much of it is truth, those things are expressed just as well if not better in the Scriptures themselves.

If I had to guess, I would say none of the Anabaptist leaders encouraged reading it.

[MaxPC]

Sattler might have, doubtful many of the others. Menno was, by his own confession, a very poorly educated priest. Manz and Grebel were not clerics, and, in Manses case, likely more of a language scholar. Hubmaier WAS well educated in classics, which almost certainly would have included the Didache, but a firmer opponent of infant baptism could not be found:

“With that it is not written explicitly, do not baptize them, to this I answer, can I also baptize my dog and my donkey … take infants to the Lord’s supper … sell the mass as a sacrifice, for [the Bible] does not prohibit anywhere with explicit words that we do these things?”

It is my understanding that Balthasar Hubmaier and Zwingli were at odds over the issue of baptism. The Hutterites follow the Schleitham Confession, yes?

[Falco Knotwise]

8:1 Your fasts should not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Glad to know what hypocrites are! It’s all about Mondays.

I don’t think you could miss the point harder…

There is some nonsense in it and while much of it is truth, those things are expressed just as well if not better in the Scriptures themselves.

If I had to guess, I would say none of the Anabaptist leaders encouraged reading it.

The reference to “the hypocrites” here was apparently a reference to the Pharisees who fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. The authors of the didache were apparently trying to create distinct Christian customs. I doubt it was really “all about Mondays.”

I find that interesting. Wednesdays are Fridays are still associated with fasting today in Catholicism. Maybe with Orthodox also, I’m not sure.

It is indeed about the Pharisees. Here's what Shmuel Safrai's paper “Religion in Everyday Life" says:

Mondays and Thursdays, which were synagogue days, when country-folk came to town and the courts sat and the Torah was read, were the favoured days for public and private fasts. People would assemble for prayer, mention the reason for the fast, as follows from a baraita in the Babylonian Talmud. Most texts which mention fasting on Mondays and Thursdays are later than 70 C. E. though some are definitely earlier. Epiphanius says that these were the days of the Pharisees’ fasts in Jesus’ time, and the Didache warns against fasting ‘along with the hypocrites’ (the Pharisees) on these days, urging for Wednesday and Friday instead. The Pharisee in Luke who boasted of his twice-weekly fasting must have meant Mondays and Thursdays. But the custom was confined to certain circles among the Pharisees and their disciples.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... he-didache

[Falco Knotwise]

Oh yeah, Orthodox also fast on Wednesdays and Friday’s. Here it is . . .

Orthodox Christians should do their best to fast on most Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year, with the exception of festal (fast-free) periods, such as after Nativity, after Pascha, after Pentecost, etc.

https://www.holyorthodox.org/fastingguidelines