Didache
a Non-Canonical and Apocrypha with all that entails,
so it might be a heretical text.
Jack P. Oostveen
The Didache [1] is a document discovered in 1873 as a 1057 copy of an ancient writing. This raises the question: "Why was this document, whose author is unknown, lost for so many centuries and then found so important by the Liturgical Movement in the 20th century that still today it is a subject of study?" Regardless, the Didache must be considered according to what it is. As it is indicated by its subtitle: "The Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations", it should be a catechetical document and certainly not a liturgical one. This is more or less confirmed by the order of the sixteen chapters, divided into three main parts, namely: the first is the "Two Ways", the way of life and the way of death; the second part deals with baptism, fasting, the Eucharist and Holy Communion; the third speaks of ministry.
But before we discuss its contents, we must first consider the authority of the Didache.
The Didache is mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340) [1] after the books of Scripture: "Let there be placed among the spuria the writing of the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle known as that of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also . . . the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought fit . . ." [2, #III.25.4]. A list of the books that Eusebius considered as the canonical. However, on the contrary St. Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373), the opponent of Eusebius regarding the Arianism, did not consider the Didache as belonging to the New Testament Canon [10].
Finally, it is after the death of both, Eusebius and Athanasius, that the Council of Rome (382) deliberately discussed this matter and decided for the definitive list of the Canon of the New Testament without the Didache. Which has been confirmed there after by the Synod of Hippo (393), two Councils of Carthage (397 and 419) [10] as well as the Council of Florence (1431-1449) that declared this list as an article of Faith, which was then confirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
Herewith the Didache has to be considered as a Non-Canonical and Aprocyphal book and therefore it lacks any form of supernatural authority regarding the Revelation. The Didache as having no authorithy must be read and interpret in accordance and in unity to the Teachings of the Fathers. And if it is in contrast to the Teaching of the Fathers it has to put aside.
Apparently, while no other specimen of the Didache have survived the test of time, it is the similarity between the two (sub)titles "Teachings of the Apostles" and "Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations" by which the identity is generally considered. Therefore, with regard to this identity it should be written before Eusebius.
Further dating of its origins, which depends fundamentally on human interpretation, generally dates back to the end of the first century. While some are dating the origin of the Didache back to the second century, others prefer its origin to be around the middle of the first century. More of less depending on what one wish to prove!
Because the "Two Ways" also occurs in Barnabas' Epistle (96-98) [3, #XVIII-XX] the date determination mainly concerns the question "who copied who?". If Barnabas copied the "Two Ways" from the Didache, then the Didache must be from before 96-98, but if the Didache copied it from the Epistle of Barnabas then the Didache is from after 96-98. However, because the identity between these documents is sometimes word for word, sometimes added to and dislocated [1], these documents may also have the same source by different routes which results in more uncertainty about the dating. In any case, the determination of its origin is mainly based on Chapter 1 of the Didache, the "Two Ways".
The Didache firstly taught about the Christian life [1, #I-#V] and a warning against false teachers [1, #VI]. Then continuing, after the lesson on baptism [1, #VII] with fasting and the Lord's Prayer, which should be prayed three times a day [1, #VIII]. Then it continues with prayers of Thanksgiving concerning the Cup and the Broken Bread respectively [1, #IX] , after which it goes on with the Thanksgiving after one has been filled. Then it moves on about the teachers, apostles and prophets. This is mainly about how to recognize false prophets and how to receive and support the true Prophets [1, #XI-#XIII]. After which it continues with the Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day [1, #XIV] with reference to the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 [1, #XIV], the Bishops and Deacons [1, #XV] and the eschatolic expectation of the Coming of the Lord [1, #XVI].
Curiously the Lord's Prayer, which should be prayed three times a day, is mentioned here together with the Fast [1, #VIII], while it is not mentioned regarding to the liturgical use during the full gathering of "Breaking of Bread" every Lord's day [1, #XIV]. In any case, this indicates a confirmation that all Christians to this day have adopted the custom of the Jews, namely: praying before and giving thanks after every meal. The prayer before the meal has been replaced by the Lord's Prayer.
A curious aspect here concerns to the Thankgiving over Bread and Wine that are set in a wrong order, namely, first the Wine and then the Bread. Why this illogically order [1, #IX]?
The third Thanksgiving prayer for "after you are filled" [1, #X] is also rather curious and ambiguous as well. Just like the first two prayers of Thankgiving, this prayer is suggested to be a Christianized Jewish Sabbath prayer of Thankgiving too. A Thankgiving without a reference to the "Breaking of Bread", the"Lord's Supper" or the "Body and Blood of Christ" to be eaten. Instead, it refers on the one hand to "food and drink" to be eaten by "men" and on the other hand in direct contrast to this, to the receiving of "spiritual food and and drink" by "us".
What exactly is meant here by "You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant".
It is clear that "You gave food and drink to men" is used here in direct contrast to the "spiritual food and drink recieved by us". This "You gave food and drink to men" can only be understood as referring to "material food and drink" that is eaten and drunk by those "men", which is indeed in direct contrast to those "us", who abstain from this "material food and drink" but would receive "spiritual food and drink".
One must ask, who is meant here by the term "men", who eat and drink "material food and drink" after which they "might give thanks to God"?
This "men" can of course only refer to other Christian faithful in contrast to "us". After all, pagans will never be able to give thanks to God since they do not know Him, they have their own false gods
It is clear that this Thanksgiving "after you are filled", is written by those "us", who refer to themselves in direct contrast to other Christians, portraying themselves as more enlightened, and therefore receiving the "spriritual food and drink". Is not this clearly Gnostic!?
Of course, every Sacrament is a visible sign that has a material aspect taken from the visible reality and then has got a true spiritual aspect, its substance. This is also the case with the most Holy Sacraments of the "Body and Blood of Christ".
Therefore, the "Body and Blood of Christ" is truly materially present as "food and drink", which is visible as Bread and Wine but has become truly the substance of "spiritual food and drink" through the Consecration: the Body and Blood of Christ. But is still visible as "Bread and Wine". Of course, for some reason one can emphasize only one of these aspects, for example the spiritual substance, but only without denying the other aspects, as St. Paul did in his letter to the Corinthians.
However, by this striking contrast between the two kinds of Christians, those "us" and those "men" and the derogatory way of speaking about those "men", the Didache obviously denies the visible material reality of this Most Holy Sacrament, the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Apparently, those "us" who wrote the Didache and consider themselves more enlightened than the other "men" must be Docetian heretics, which would mean that the Didache is a heretical text.
So, we encounter here the false interpretation of the Docetian heresy who abstain from eating the Eucharist, because they do not believe in the Consecration, but on the contrary claim to have a spiritual meal. They consider themselves like the Gnostics more enlightened and therefore superior to the other faithful, who at the Communion eat the Sacramental Food and Drink for which they give thanks.
Obviously, the Didache is a Docetian, heretic text, closely related to Gnosticism. And as preserved by the Holy Spirit it is correctly set away as an Apocryphal writing. Apparently, this is why the Thankgiving prayers in the Didache do not mention the Words of the Institution and lacks to mention the Body/Flesh of Christ to be eaten and the Cup of the Blood of Christ to be drink [1, #IX-#X]. Therefore the prologue of the Gospel of St. John (John 1:1-18) is a clear and final word against the curious and ambiguous text of Chapters IX and X of the Didache.
3.2 Lord's Prayer
But as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray: "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Yours is the power and the glory forever". Thrice in the day thus pray [1, #VIII].
3.3 Thanksgiving over Bread and Wine
Concerning to the cup: "We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever" [1, #IX];
Concerning to the broken bread: "We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. (Matthew 7:6)" [1, #IX];
But the point here is that none of these Thankgiving prayers refer to the Words of the Institution. They also lacks to mention the Body/Flesh of Christ to be eaten and the Cup of the Blood of Christ to be drunk. While many have defended these prayers by calling them Christianized Jewish Sabbath prayers for Thanksgiving, this omission could also be an ambiguous curiosity. [1, #IX].
3.4 Thanksgiving, after you are filled
And as thankgiving after you are filled: We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name's sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant. Before all things we thank You that You are mighty; to You be the glory forever. Remember, Lord, Your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it; for Yours is the power and the glory forever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire [1, #X];
3.4.1 Material and Spiritual Food and Drink
3.4.2 Fitting the Docetian heresy
Is that why the Didache is so ambiguous? Is that why it silenced about the Consecration of Bread and Wine, by which Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, but materially still visible as Bread and Wine? [1, #IX].
Notice that the general dating of the Didache is indeed around the same time as the Docetian heresy of the late first century and early second century. That the prologue to the Fourth Gospel of John was written specifically against this heresy. That his disciple St. Ignatius of Antioch continued St. John's fight against this heresy, which he described by: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" [4, #7]. This fits the Didache perfectly.
In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum ...
. . . ET VERBUM CARO EST . . .
Malachi 1:11 reads: "'My name will be great among the nations from the rising of the sun to its setting. In every place they will offer incense and pure offerings to Me, because My name will be great among the nations,' says the Lord of hosts."
The use of prayers for Thanksgiving in an incorrect order and without any reference to the words of the institution should have raised immediate questions. Alarm bells should have rung. One should have been very careful in drawing conclusions from this non-canonical, apocryphal, and clearly ambiguous writing by an unknown author, lacking any authority whatsoever. The suggestion that these prayers are Christianized Jewish prayers is most likely untrue. It could be an early 20th century interpretation to explain the discrepancy.
It is very clear that this document did not pass the selection procedure for the New Testament Canon and therefore clearly is an Apocryphal book. This fact alone disqualifies the Didache as a fallible source for interpreting Liturgical Fragments of the New Testament. Therefore, the Didache must be read in accordance with Revelation, insofar as it does not contradict Revelation. Otherwise, it must be ignored.
Moreover, what does it mean when a theologian and liturgist writes: "The Didache, the oldest Christian writing preserved separately from the canon of the New Testament, seems to indicate . . ." [6, p54]. How can this happen, that the Holy Spirit preserves an apocryphal text separately from the Canon . . .? Such a statement is a clear accusation against Christ and the Holy Spirit that they would not have preserved the "Revelation" properly through the dogmatic teachings of the Church at the Council of Rome (382) and all other Councils and Synods that have since confirmed the Canon of the New Testament, especially those that had declared the Canon of the Old and New Testaments to be an article of faith.
Do we see here a similarity between the historical Christ and Christ in His Mystical Body: "the Innocent Lamb of God accused as Scapegoat"?
This also makes clear the spirit among many generations of Liturgist and teachers of our priests, from the late nineteenth century till after Vaticanum II and even still up to now are interpreting the written Revelation through the lenses of their subjective interpretation of the Didache, not taking into account that any apocryphal writing potentially may contain heresies like in case of the Didache that appears to be Docetian heretical writing. They did not listen to the non-written Revelation either. As given below in the Closure by some examples this all affected the liturgical reform of the mid twentieth century and specifically that of 1969.
Referring to a quote by Edmund Bishop from 1899 [6, p45 note *]:
Apparently, many liturgists became so enthusiastic after the discovery of the Didache that they lost sight of reality. This led them to the most remarkable conclusions. Through their enthusiasm for the archaeological discoveries, they had lost the insight that the Faith and Doctrine can only develop to a better understanding withinm the unity with the teachings of the Church Fathers through an "organic growth" from the refutation of heresies. In addition, this archaeological approach intrinsically entails great risks that several already overcome (aspects of) old heresies will be reintroduced again.
Based on the first words of the "Thanksgiving after being filled" [1, #X] and ignoring the contrast between those "men" and those "we", they biasedly interpreted the Didache as if chapters #IX and #X were about a "meal with a core of the real Eucharist", as the original form of the Sacred Liturgy. By doing so, they in fact suggest that those "men" would also include those "we". But what then does "being filled", filled with what, mean? Full of food and drink like those "men" or full of spiritual food and drink like those "we"?
In doing so, these liturgists in fact deny that the liturgy and the Eucharistic fast, as apostolic practices, have been supernaturally handed down within tradition and preserved by the Holy Spirit.
They reinterpret the tradition through the lenses of their subjective interpretation of the Didache. On which basis, they attempted to replace what they, as amateur archaeologists, consider to be the origin of the Liturgy: "the Synagogue Service and the Last Supper with the Nucleus of the Eucharist's Proper". In doing so, they set aside the "organic growth through refutation of heresies" for archaeology with all that entails. Namely, the reintroduction of heresies that had already been refuted through the process of organic growth.
Can this come from the Holy Spirit?
See below some examples how the Didache has been interpreted:
In 1917 Fr. Fortescue published in his book, after firstly deducing from liturgical fragments of the H. Scripure that one cannot consider "Breaking of Bread as a meal, a rather ambiguous narrative as interpretation of the Didache [5, p4-11]. After speaking about Christianized Synagogue services in contrast to Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 3:1, he came forth with the suggestion of which any proof lacks that we meet the "Love Feast" or "Agape" in the Didache. Then, he goes on 'but soon (after the first century) (it) disappear(s). It was open for abuses. . . We may then leave them aside (this) feature and consider only the normal elements that remained and still exist in all liturgies" [5, p4-5].
And then after explicitly referring to the Didache [1, #IX-X] he stated that some people think that it is not about the H. Eucharist at all but only about an Agape. While others think it concerns a private Eucharist. Then Fortescue himself found it, in contrast to his first claim above, an incomplete description of an abnormal type of Eucharistic service [5, p8-9]. And above all he supposed that the Thanksgiving prayers are Christian re-modelled Jewish prayers for blessing bread and wine on the eve of the Sabbath [5, p10].
In 1922 Fr. Baumstark hypothetically speculated in contrast to the fragments of the New Testament (Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 3:1) that "It was during this period (breach with Judaism), in the home setting, that the word service (of the Synagogue) joined itself to the Eucharistic meal" (acts 20:7-12) [6, p54] and "The Didache, the oldest Christian writing preserved apart from the New Testament canon (so non canonical), seems to indicate that, alongside the congregation's Sunday worship, with its Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Eucharist was also celebrated as of hold in home" [6, p54].
In 1948, immediately after the deduction from the New Testament that we cannot conclude from the words "Breaking of Bread" that the Eucharist is bound up with a meal [8, p11], Fr. Jungmann went on by referring to the Didache and hypothetically speculating in a very unscientific way about the "Love Feast" or "Agape" as follows:
"But several other arguments do lead to this conclusion (hypothetical concept of memorial meal). When we see the Apostles gathered together after our Saviour's resurrection, it seems to be the common table that brings them together (speculation 1) . That could also have been the case after Pentecost (speculation 2). This was then the opportunity at set times to combine with it the memorial meal of the Lord (conclusion, based on speculations), just as He Himself had combined it with a meal (projection). (This is followed by a "smoke-screen" of suggestions in which nothing is said, because, up to the present era, all Jewish and Christian meals are beginning with a prayer and ending with a thanksgiving) Every meal was already impressed with a reverential character, since it was always begun and ended with prayer. Especially the Sabbath meal - the meal on Friday night which initiated the Sabbath - possessed a highly religious stamp. An expansion of the table company beyond the family circle was a well-loved practice on this day just as at the Easter meal. Like these Sabbath meals in character were the community banquets which were held on certain occasions for one's circle of friends (Chaburah)" [8, p11] after which he stated "that the meal included the sacramental Eucharist is hardly likely" [8, p12].
Then under the header "Meaning of the Mass - the Mass and the Church" [4, p175-195] he argued (1948):
"Thus the Eucharistic institution does more than commemorate our Saviour. In it the communion and society of the faithful with their Lord is continually renewed. The meal is a sufficiently striking proof of that. And we can therefore safely say that, aside from external activity, the meal is still in our time the basic form of Eucharistic celebration. However even in the biblical sources, this meal is distinguished as sacrificial meal." [4, p179]
By refering to the book "Mysterium Fidei" of Fr. De la Taille (1921) [8, p182 note 21] he clearly questioned the Doctrine of Trent. Here he refered to the idea that the H. Mass refers to both, the "Sacrifice of Christ" and the "Sacrifice of the Church" (1951):
"If, by way of contrast, we skim through the pertinent writings of the Fathers even casually, we are surprised to note that they use similar terms in reference to Christ's oblation in the Eucharist and in reference to our own. They emphasize with equal stress the fact that we (or the Church or the priest) offer up the Passion of the Lord, indeed that we offer up Christ himself" [8, p181/2].
"We want to know how Christ's institution is to be understand as a sacrifice of the Church, in what relation it stands to the life of the Church in all its fullness, and especially what principles of liturgical formations are taken for granted it. To be more precise, how is this sacrifice with which the Church is supposed to offer up - how is it brought about?" [8, p182].
Then in 1963 he wrote more explicit
"... the declining Middle Ages followed the wrong track of regarding the Mass ..." and "Thinking of the Mass almost exclusively as a Sacrifice is a one-sided attitude resulting from the doctrinal controversies of the 16th century" [9].
Herewith, by blaming the Church of the Middle Ages for a one-sided emphasis on the "Sacrifice of Christ", which allowed the opposite reaction of the Reformation to arise, he accused Christ and the Holy Spirit for not preserving the Church well. And above all he felt that the response of the Council of Trent was too influenced by the defence of the "Sacrifice of Christ" against the Reformation, as a result of which the "Sacrifice of the Church" remained unexposed [8, p183]. In this he had in fact made a twofold accusation against the Church, because she had not preserved the Liturgy in purity. First, the Church in the Middle Ages; and second, the Church through the Council of Trent. By which he implicitly accuses Christ, as Head of the Church, of being guilty of the Reformation, because He had not guided and preserved the Church in the right way by the Holy Spirit. Can this attitude, which clearly makes no proper distinction between the natural and supernatural order of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, come from the Holy Spirit?.
Fr. Jungmann ambiguously, after allready hypothetically projecting the preparatory part of the H. Mass as a Christianized Synagogue service, he hypothetically projected the Last Supper as the original form of the second part of the H. Mass not only as a commemoration of our Saviour, but as "a memorial meal of the Last Supper with a the Eucharist proper as its nucleus". Despite the instruction by our Lord: "Do this in commemoration to me", he projected the institution of the Eucharist as a memorial meal, which would be a continuing renewal of the communion and society of the faithful with their Lord. In this he divided the full commemoration of our Savior into two contradictory and competing commemorations, namely that for our Savior and that for the Church as projected on the faithful, i.e. ourselves. Evidently this will lead to all kinds of liturgical abusement and can this come from the Holy Spirit?
Unlike the hypothetical speculation above by Fr. Jungmann and others, in every Holy Mass it is Christ, who in His Mystical Body - the Church - through the Priest "in personna Christi" [https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/body_of_christ.html] and His Sacramental Body and Blood, offered the one and same Sacrifice of His Body and Blood on the Cross of Golgotha. This means that the commemoration of Christ includes the commemoration of the Church through being the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, this is to be commemorated by which the only way of (active) participation of the faithfull is their (active) participation in the "Mystical Body of Christ" through the Sacraments given by Christ, through their devotional prayers and offerings of good works. And last but not least, as traditionally handed down, this can specifically be done in an extraordinary way by the religious life of Brothers and Sisters who offer themselves, their entire life, their way of living, their Virginity and so on to Christ.
Consequently, "the meal as the basic form of the Eucharistic celebration" is an unnecessary hypothesis, and above all a misleading issue that contradicts the full commemoration of Christ [https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fulfilment.html].