Didache Introduction

Derek Thomas has a brief but helpful article ^[1] about The Didache at reformation21. The Didache is an ancient Christian document that I have to admit a fascination with. In beginning Greek, our final was to translate a piece of it having never seen it before. That was a challenge but a fun one.

In the past, I have used The Didache to argue that baptism’s mode is not of paramount importance. Chapter seven is about how to baptize and it lists some options for acceptable modes. Included is pouring water over the head of the one being baptized. This doesn’t always persuade others since the document is not inspired scripture and there has been debate over the dating of the document. I would never give any document other than Scripture a place of authority on practice and belief, but if this is a first century document (more about that in a moment) then it shows the lexical range of the word baptizo within the Christian community. Baptizo does not always and only mean immersion, it came to take on a more elastic meaning within the ecclesial community.

Okay then, it has been argued, it doesn’t matter since it is a much later document. Here’s what Thomas says,

More recent scholarship has argued for a much earlier origin, possibly as early as the mid 50s of the first century. This has involved not so much a re-dating of the canonical Gospels as such, but on a view that has divorced The Didache from them entirely arguing instead for an oral tradition independent of the Gospel texts. The Didache thus represents the understanding of the church on some essential practical matters, including baptism and the Lord’s Supper, at a period when Paul was engaging in his Gentile mission but seemingly wholly independent of it.

Originally, some scholars tried to place the date of the Didache late because they believed it relied on the Gospels which they dated late. That line of critical scholarship has been effectively dealt with, but beyond that The Didache need not be dependent upon the Gospels no matter when they were written! It is indeed an ancient document.

I have to point out Thomas’ attempt to deflate the other use of the section on baptism: its blatantly credo-baptist ¹Baptism upon credible profession of faith position. Consider these two sentence, one ending a paragraph and the other beginning the next paragraph:

Since the document is meant specifically as a training manual of neophytes, the argument over infants is redundant.

Seventhly, the Lord’s Supper receives a lengthy treatment (9:1 – 10:6). Paedo-communion devotees will find no support here. The entire ritual assumes the ability to discern.

Did you catch that? On the credo-baptist front, he seeks to deflate the usefulness of the document because it was addressed to neophytes but on the issue of communion he attempts to use it to disprove paedo-communion. ²Giving Communion to baptized infants. For me, the fact that it is addressed to neophytes and it makes no provision for children, nor in the list of options for baptizing does it give instruction for baptizing infants ³Yes, yes, I know it mentions pouring, but only as a last resort! The normal mode of baptism is immersion if that isn’t possible, then pour. For an infant that would be the exact opposite. The flies in the face of the document and therefore what was most likely the practice of the early church. Or were all first century converts to the faith childless? speaks volumes. When I have argued against infant baptism in the past, I was asked what first century Jewish converts were supposed to think. They grew up in a community of faith that included their children. Now when they come to be baptized they are told that their infants are not included? The argument proceeds on some very faulty premises but when we bring it to The Didache it disappears. The early Christian manual for baptism makes not provision or mention of infant baptism. It simply wasn’t practiced.

Neither was paedo-communion and that is why the instruction is for those who can discern. Both rites were and I think The Didache goes a good distance in proving that.