Alan Garrow's Blog

What are the Didaches? Digging beneath the surface

24/8/2023

At this year's meeting of the British New Testament Society, at Exeter University, I presented a paper in the Early Christianity Seminar. The video below is a 20 minute studio version.

Abstract:
On the one hand, the discovery of the Didache is commonly regarded as one of the great manuscript finds of the nineteenth century. On the other, its discovery has had remarkably little impact on how scholars think and talk about early Christianity. The reason for this disconnect is not merely that the Didache makes little sense alongside the other texts available to us but also because it fails to make sense on its own terms: simple, practical instructions in one part are sometimes directly contradicted by instructions in another. In response to this puzzle, this paper proposes that the Didache is not one document but two, which have been spliced together and overlaid with further additions. When this process is reversed, two Didaches emerge. Initial indications suggest that these are: the Complete Apostolic Decree (cf. Acts 15) and the Missing Epistle of John (cf. 3 John 9).

The Didache Discoveries booklet serves as a handout for this session.

Further conference videos are also available.

3 Comments

David Calderbank

12/9/2023 07:29:32 pm

You have a talent for giving interesting, insightful and entertaining presentations accessible to a non-specialist. However, I got a bit lost when you identified the original Didache as a complete Apostolic Decree written to gentiles by the Jerusalem church, and a double-edged sword for Paul. The document is very jewish, and the Jerusalem church was Torah observant. Titles can be added or changed, and the document is much longer (with many more regulations) than in Acts 15, which does not even mention a long form of the decree. Why would the pauline community accept such a document? Fortunately, you linked to your Acts-Galatians video, so I was able to watch that to understand your reasoning. I found that interesting also, plausible and explanatory, clarifying some of my confusion and surprise. I still have questions, though. Wouldn't Christian communities have instructions on how to deal with baptism, the Eucharist and visitors before the Council of Jerusalem? Isn't it a bit odd that 1.3c says "Do not even the gentiles do the same" if the document is aimed at gentiles? I also found the two edges of the sword not particularly sharp: on the one hand, the document does not explicitly say "circumcision not required for baptism", but simply doesn't mention it (while also encouraging as much Torah observance as possible); on the other hand, there are quite a few dots to join to conclude that circumcision is required for salvation. Sorry this is a bit longer than my usual comments, but if you have time to consider or clarify any of these comments/questions, I will surely appreciate it.

Alan Garrow

20/9/2023 08:16:51 am

Hi David,

Thanks for your comments and questions - I'm glad you found the Acts-Galatians video helpful [alangarrow.com/bntc2017] - I have something come out in print on that topic in the next few months.

Here is an attempt to respond to your further questions.

1) "Wouldn't Christian communities have instructions on how to deal with baptism and Eucharist before the Council of Jerusalem?"
The point to which the Jerusalem Council attempts to respond is, 'Can Gentile believers eat (the Eucharist) with Jewish believers in a way that does not compromise the Torah-observant status of the latter?' This is a problem that had never presented itself before. What the Original Didache provides, therefore, is a novel form of baptism that makes Gentiles 'Jewish-enough' to share the common meal with Jews (who followed Jesus).

2) "Wouldn't Christian communities have instructions on how to deal with visitors before the Council of Jerusalem?"
Yes they would - but these (unwritten) rules would have been the standard rules of hospitality at the time - which would have been very generous. What is striking about the Original Didache's rules is that they are exceptionally restrictive. This suggests that they are an attempt to counteract the abuse of the 'normal' standard. I have something in the pipeline that goes into greater detail on this - but sadly, it's not likely to be published any time soon.

3) "Isn't it a bit odd that 1.3c says "Do not even the gentiles do the same" if the document is aimed at gentiles?"
Perhaps not so odd of the aim of the document is to make its readers Jewish-enough to share food with Jewish believers? That is to say, its programme is to enable Gentiles to abandon their Gentile status and take up a new status as proselyte Jews (who believe in Jesus).

4) "I also found the two edges of the sword not particularly sharp: on the one hand, the document does not explicitly say "circumcision not required for baptism", but simply doesn't mention it (while also encouraging as much Torah observance as possible); on the other hand, there are quite a few dots to join to conclude that circumcision is required for salvation."
To take the second part first. The idea that circumcision is required for salvation was already the established norm. The Hebrew Scriptures provide all the dots that Paul's opponents might have needed.
Your first sentence emphasises a point that actually makes quite a nice connection to the Acts 15 account. That account also doesn't include the line 'circumcision is not required'. Instead it says 'it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no further burden ...'. Luke here highlights that circumcision is not included in the requirement - that is the most he can do. I think I say something about this in the Acts-Galatians video - certainly there is something in the (fairly soon forthcoming) published version.

Thanks again for your interest.

David Calderbank

21/9/2023 02:53:20 am

Many thanks for taking so much time to respond so cogently and in such detail to my questions. In thinking about this, I came up with an alternative idea, which I am willing to publish here even if it makes me look foolish as a non-expert.

I like your idea that in Galatians 2, Paul is deliberately conflating two meetings with James, Cephas/Peter and John. It would make sense to me that in the famine meeting, Paul was well-received and there was a gentleman's agreement that he would preach to the gentiles/uncircumcised, while James et al. would preach to the Jews. The second meeting was the more confrontational Council, where Paul used his cunning to obtain the Apostolic Decree compromise.

This made me think that an economical resolution to my questions would be that the Apostolic Decree was an edit to an even more original Didache, aimed at jewish Christians, and requiring circumcision for baptism. The idea is that the gentleman's agreement would become increasingly untenable as jewish and gentile christian's met each other and discovered they had different rules. Hence a compromise needed to be hammered out, the Decree, and circumcision was dropped from the Didache. The title was added/edited later - maybe even by Paul, to advertise the concession he had won from the Apostles for the nations/gentiles.

That would provide pre-existing jewish instructions (which caused the problem), and explain 1.3c, the lack of mention by Luke-Acts etc.

There are probably flaws in the above idea, but we know so little about christianity in the first century, that I think it is valuable to air any idea.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

the problem page

What are the Didaches? Digging beneath the surface

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories