Talk:Didache

message: "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)
thread_title: Dubious reporting of scholarship

message: 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)
thread_title: Link to Corrupt Text

message: From :
:"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)
thread_title: First paragraph seems messed up

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Logic query 

message: What's the reference for the dates in the intro? The reason I ask is that  gives an earlier date range. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 09:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Most scholars date the Didache to the first half of the second century.Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, pp. 49-50+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)
thread_title: Dates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rejection from canon 

message: 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)
replies: text: Did a kay. Sky 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the pronunciation with ' in English,  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)
thread_title:  A small request from a humble reader - 

message: 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)
thread_title:  OR? Argumentation?  Sources? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Didache and Book of Enoch

message: 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)
thread_title:  Which is it? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  On the Eucharist 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Language versions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Last line, last word, is "Illigitimate" the intended word to be used here? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Didache. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here's the original conversation: 
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)
thread_title:  Removed reference to no resurrection of Jesus 

message: Para 1 introduces an extended quotation from Eusebius that is the 2nd paragraph.
Concerning the 3rd paragraph of this section:  either 
# this whole paragraph is lifted from some academic summary, or
# 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  to  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)
thread_title:  Early References 

message: We have:
I think this is too much navigation.  Comments?
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Part of  a series

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date (still)