The Didache

I actually finished this a few days ago, but I've been trying to decide what to write.

On the one hand, the text of the Didache itself is fairly short. It takes up 18 pages of the book, and many of those pages are maybe half to three-quarters full of text. So, it's by no means a huge work. In fact, here's a link that Ahavah gave me to the entire text online. And it's an interesting work. It's nice to get a glimpse into the life of the church in the first century, to see what they thought was important, what they wrote down, a bit of what they were passing on and teaching to the new converts.

On the other hand, it's a translation, with commentary. The author does keep all his commentary in a separate section, so it's not footnoted all over the text. However, in reading his commentary, you do get the strong sense of his own bias. Let me just say that any author that uses the term, 'the Jesus movement' kind of gets tarred with a suspicious brush in my mind from the beginning. And, the author did not improve my opinion of him. I understand that all authors have a bias, his just happens to run counter to my faith, and, as far as I'm concerned, he's been seriously misled. Which does, at least to me, also throw shadows on his translation itself. It is possible to translate to ones own bias. I've seen it done with versions of the Qur'an, and the Bible. I know this is why it's recommended to read the original languages, but that's not always possible, so I try to read multiple translations. It's the best I can do for myself.

I did find it interesting that some of the 'dont's' listed seem to be specific to the training of Gentiles. For instance, in a list of things that one 'will not' do, 'murder offspring by means of abortion' is mentioned. The impression being that it needed to be spelled out, because in the time this was written, it was a common form of 'family planning' (and I'm using the phrase ironically) to use abortificants, or even to commit infanticide, if the child was born deformed, or unwanted. Another 'you will not' was 'corrupt boys'. We all know pederasty (I know, Wikipedia, but I glanced over the article, and it's accurate to what I learned as far as I can see) was an accepted thing back in the day, don't we? If we didn't we do now. The ancient Christians felt the need to spell this stuff out to their converts, because given their cultural backgrounds, not coming from Jewish society, it might not have been obvious, to them, that these were prohibited acts.

Another thing is the instructions on how to perform Baptisms:

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

Sound familiar to anyone? Eh?

I do like the rundown, too. First choice, baptize in running water. So, a river or a stream, like Christ's Baptism in the Jordan. If you can't do that, then cold, standing water. If you can't get cold standing water, then warm (not heated, I assume, but just standing water, like a tub, perhaps). And if you can't do that, *then* you can pour. But *immersion* baptism is the first, second, and third choice.

So, really, that's all I have to say about that. I'm reading The Face Behind the Veil, now, which is a collection of brief stories about the lives of American Muslim women. So far, an enjoyable read. Most of the stories are 2 - 4 pages each, it seems.