>...**Chapter 16. Watchfulness; the Coming of the Lord**. Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: **for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time...** Is that the Catholic view? The Protestant view? Any other major sect's view?

The *[Didache](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache)* ([full text](http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm)) is an early Christian document giving advice on various "practical matters" such as how to baptize, when to fast, how to celebrate the Lord's Supper, etc. It's hard to date, but generally scholars think it was contemporary with at least parts of the NT. And it claimed apostolic authority. Although the *Didache* enjoyed high status in the second-century church, the document ultimately did not make the Canon of the New Testament. There doesn't seem to be a documented reason for the exclusion in the writings of the Church Fathers, so I imagine it is mostly speculation on what caused its decline in popularity and ultimate failure to make the canon. Nonetheless, what reasons have scholars cited as possible reasons for its exclusion? (Although I do consider "the Holy Spirit didn't guide believers to preserve it" a valid reason for exclusion, that isn't what I am looking for here.)

In an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83086/50422) to a [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/82708/50422) of mine, a user argued against the historicity of the belief in the divinity of Jesus in the early stages of Christianity, by pointing out the fact that Jesus is never claimed to be God in two very important early documents that record what early Christians believed at the time, namely, the [Old Roman Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Roman_Symbol) and the [Didache](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache) . Below an extract from the answer: ___________________ > [...] Hence, the concepts of pre-existence and the incarnation were unknown to the early Christians. > > What is the proof? Where is any mention of the divinity of Christ noticeably absent? Let's read: |The Div. Trinity, p. 150| |:-------| |"… even **the Didache**, or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the oldest literary monument of Christian antiquity outside of the New Testament canon … contains no formal profession of faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Atonement."
(*The Divine Trinity. A Dogmatic Treatise* by Pohle, Joseph, Rt. Rev. Msgr., PH.D., D.D., edited by Arthur Preuss, B. Herder Book Co., © 1911.)| > Where is any mention of the divinity of Christ noticeably absent? According to Pohle, "the Didache". What is the Didache? According to Pohle, "the oldest literary monument of Christian antiquity outside of the New Testament canon". Many scholars hold that it was written sometime during the First Century. > > Hence, even passages like, "I am My Father are one," (John 10:30) would not have been interpreted at the time as referring to "the Divinity of Jesus Christ".  > > What is the proof that the concept of preëxistence was also unknown to the early Christians? Where is any mention of the preëxistent Christ noticeably absent? Let's read: |The Philo. of the Ch. Fathers, p. 190| |:-------| |"In contradistinction to these two types of works, in which there is either a specific mention of a preëxistent Christ or an allusion to it, there is **the Old Roman** or the so-called Apostles’ Creed (ca. 100), which follows the language of Matthew and Luke and makes no mention of the preëxistent Christ."
(*The Philosophy of the Church Fathers,* Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Volume 1: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation. 2nd rev. ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964.)| > > Where is any mention of the preëxistent Christ noticeably absent? According to Wolfson, "the Old Roman or the so-called Apostles' Creed". When was this written? According to Wolfson, "ca. 100". This was also around the time when the last of the Apostles passed away. ____________________ The same argument is eloquently restated by one of the commenters (emphasis mine): > [...] The Old Roman Creed and Didache are the 2 very early 'dogs that didn't bark'. If people thought Jesus was God, that would be *really important* and they would say so. **Not saying it is tantamount to denying it in those contexts**. Same with John 20:31. If John is really intending to claim Jesus is God with Thomas' exclamation, why doesn't he say so in his takeaway summary? You think that would be important! So not saying it is contextual evidence that 20:28 isn't meant to be a claim that Jesus is God. Add in John 17:3 and John 20:17 ____________ **Question**: How do Trinitarians explain that Jesus is never claimed to be God in the Old Roman Creed and the Didache? Is the absence of evidence truly evidence of absence in this case?

So, I was writing an answer to a question a few minutes ago, and I was going to smugly tell all you Protestants that your "thine is the Kingdom" doxology is so non-Biblical, it's apocryphal. Well, it is apocryphal, but if anything it's anachronistically apocryphal as no Protestant between the time of the Reformation, whenever that was, and the time of Martin Van Buren's presidency, whenever that was, would have had access to said tidbit of apocryphal lore. The problem is, it's SOOO nearly verbatim. > ...for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. [Didache Chapter 8](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm) as opposed to > for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory, now and forever. Catholic's have a similar doxology said during Mass, in English it's: > ...the kingdom the power and the glory are Yours now and forever and I always console myself when praying with Protestants that I'm not doing anything unTraditional in saying their doxology (any more than I am in saying trespasses instead of debts). But, how did it come about, and what, if anything does the English version of the Protestant ending to the Lord's Prayer have to do with the Didache?

In the Didache , it tells us "8:2 but keep your fast on the fourth and on the preparation day (Friday)." Obviously some actually did keep these weekly fasts, when exactly did they begin and end? Did they eat Tuesday supper and not eat again until Wednesday supper? Or did they eat Tuesday supper and end the fast the morning of Thursday so that no food was consumed Wednesday? Or Wednesday morning to Thursday morning etc? I reckon the times of these fasts were in line with the twice weekly fasts of the Jews who did theirs on Monday and Thursday. Can anyone provide more clarity on this?

As it pertains primarily to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and other large denominations that not only lay claim to an unbroken successive line, but who also put significant emphasis on it: The Didache instructs congregations to "elect" Bishops and Deacons "for themselves." > Chap. XV. > > Elect therefore for yourselves Bishops and Deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful, and > approved; for they too minister to you the ministry of the Prophets > and Teachers. http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm My initial understanding of this would be that these communities are in charge of [democratically?] naming their own clergy. That in itself isn't terribly contradictory sounding, but there's no mention of any formal process or Church approval -- let alone a **consecration** of the "elected" **by the Church**. The omission of such formality in what appears to be a very formal and detailed early "Church Handbook" seems to call into question the notion that a strict Apostolic Succession was present in the early Church. In the very least, one might wonder whether some congregations in the early Church **did** elect their own Bishops, without pre-approval or education by the Church, **blurring** the line of succession. How do we adequately square the Didache's instruction with Apostolic Succession?

One of the most famous passages of the Didache is its reference to the Matthean baptismal formula: >Didache VII >1. Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, **in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost**," in running water; 2. But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. 3. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head **"in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."** 4. And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before. The Matthean formula is found only in Matthew 28:19: >KJV Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them **in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost**: But in Chapter X he says that thanks are to be given to the Father, who is addressed as "Lord Almighty" and thanks are to be given for "spiritual food and drink and eternal light through thy Child": >Didache X: >1. But after you are satisfied with food, thus give thanks: 2. "We give thanks to thee, **O Holy Father, for thy Holy Name which thou didst make to tabernacle in out hearts**, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy Child. To thee be glory for ever. 3. **Thou, Lord Almighty, didst create all things for thy Name's sake**, and didst give food and drink to men for their enjoyment, that they might give thanks to thee, but us hast thou blessed with spiritual food and drink and eternal light through thy Child. 4. Above all we give thanks to thee for that thou art mighty. To thee be glory for ever. 5. Remember, Lord, thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in thy love, and gather it together in its holiness from the four winds to thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for it. For thine is the power and the glory for ever. 6. Let grace come and let this world pass away. Hosannah to the God of David. If any man be holy, let him come! if any man be not, let him repent: Maranatha ("Our Lord! Come!"), Amen." 7. But suffer the prophets to hold Eucharist as they will. So my question is, what does the Didacher understand the Father's "Holy Name" to be? I see a few options: * "Father" * "Lord Almighty" * "YHVH" (and variants) * (Perhaps he doesn't have a name in mind at all, just his "fame") And does the fact that he teaches that thanks are to be given to "Lord Almighty" for giving light and life through his son suggest that possibly one or more of these is true: * the name "YHVH" was edited out * the Didacher wasn't Trinitarian * the Matthean formula was added later (it is inconsistent with the rest of the NT!) * we need to rethink the whole concept of "name" in the scriptures Personally I don't think that the Tetragrammaton ever was included in the Didache. Aversion to the divine name is evident in the extant "canonical" manuscripts. But I don't think the Didacher would have been on board with the idea of Jesus and the holy spirit being "eternally co-equal with the Father" or even "same substance" (see Hebrews 1:1-3) though there is no mention of the latter either way. I think that perhaps the Didache originally had a Markan formula but given the paucity of manuscripts it is impossible to say. But it seems so out of place given chapter 7. As to "name" ("ONOMA") itself, I do think we may need to revisit its actual usage to not always assume a translation as "name". Often it is "title" or "authority" or "fame" etc. So I think that is a factor here. It is a bizarre feature of the NT that it extols the name of the Almighty (the Father) without actually declaring what that name might be and no one seems to detect the inconsistency! So, to what name is the Didacher referring when he says: >Didache X:2. "We give thanks to thee, **O Holy Father, for thy Holy Name which thou didst make to tabernacle in out hearts**, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy Child. To thee be glory for ever.

The early Christian teaching *[Didache](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache)* states that Christians should not fast like the hypocrites: > Your fasts must not be identical with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. [Chapter 8] Who are the hypocrites? A rival Christian group? The Pharisees? Someone else?

I've encountered a number of dates proposed for the *Didache*, ranging from some time in the first century, even before some of the documents found in the NT, to late in the second century. What arguments or evidence supports a first century date?

Other than what is mentioned in the [Didache](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache) regarding the days for fasting, what did early Christian "twice weekly fasts" consist of? What I'd like to know more about is what they fasted from. For example: 1. Was it a total fast? 2. Water only? 3. Fasting from wine and food? I would be grateful for any references that could be provided on this.

The [Didache](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache) , or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (an early Christian text not part of the New Testament) says of baptism (chapter 7): > On the subject of baptism, baptise thus: after having taught all that precedes, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If for some reason you do not have living water, baptize in other water; and if you are not able to in cold water, in warm water. If you do not have enough of one or the other, pour out water three times on the head, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, let the baptizer, the baptized and others who can, observe first a fast; as for the baptized, you must enforce a fast beforehand for one or two days. "Living water" is usually assumed to mean "running water", like the river Jordan in which Jesus was baptized. What is the reason for preferring running water over still water, and cold water over warm water? I know some people who were baptized in the sea; would that count as living water, or does the term only refer to rivers? (It certainly met the preference for cold water, by all accounts.)

> Didache 7 > > Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first > explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the > Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in **flowing water**. But if you have no > running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold > water, then in warm. **If you have very little, pour water three times > on the head** in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before the > baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any > others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two > days beforehand. According to this old document(~70 AD), here are four possible ways of Baptism, in order of preference. 1. Running water (Ocean, River etc.) 2. Still and cold water (Lake, pool, tanks etc.) 3. Still but warm water 4. Pouring on the head 3 times (*least and exceptional case*) This article on Immersion Baptism is also in favor of immersion. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239 says > The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly > speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and > entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to > the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most > expressive way by **triple immersion** in the baptismal water. However, > from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by **pouring > the water three times** over the candidate's head. As per the CCC, there are two types of Baptism, immersion and pouring. Which one is in common practice today? Which one is preferred today? Is immersion still practiced in Catholic Parishes today?