Home / Christendom en het monotheisme / Staat de drie-eenheid in de didache?

Staat de drie-eenheid in de didache?

In de didache wat een manual was in de kerk staan er nogal wat tegenstrijdige aspecten in tegenstelling tot de huidige christelijke leer.

Zodoende staat er in the didache, ‘the gospel commands’ en worden er overleveringen genoemd die vandaag de dag niet in de Bijbel staan. Zodoende moeten de christenen aantonen in welke gospel dit stond en waarom het ontbreekt in hun huidige Bijbel?

“You should treat apostles and prophets as the Gospel commands. Receive every apostle that comes to you as you would the Lord. But he must not stay more than one day, or two if necessary: but if he stays three days, he is a false prophet.

When an apostle leaves you, give him nothing except bread until he finds shelter. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. Do not test or evaluate any prophet speaking in the Spirit – this is the one unforgivable sin. But not every one that speaks in the Spirit is a prophet, only those who live in the way of the Lord. Thus it is by their conduct that you can tell false prophets from true.

Similarly, no prophet shall eat while he is in the Spirit; if he does, he is a false prophet. Even if a prophet teaches the truth, if he does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. However, if a prophet that has been approved and found true, and lives out the cosmic mystery of the Church, does not teach you to do all that he does himself, you should not judge such a prophet.

His judgment must be left to God, for the prophets in the past also did such things. If anyone says in the Spirit, “Give me silver”, or asks for anything else, do not listen to him. But if he tells you to give to others that are in want, let no one judge him”. (1)

Met andere woorden, iemand die de Didache als maatstaf zou gebruiken, kan onmogelijk tot de conclusie komen dat Daniël 9:24-26 al vervult is. Sterker nog, iemand die de Didache aanhangt zou meer geneigd zijn om met een ‘orthodox joodse’ lezing te gaan in tegenstelling tot een meer ‘christelijke lezing’. Want Dan. 9:24-26 pleit dus dat profetie (en bij uitbreiding, profeetschap) verzegeld zullen worden terwijl de Didache dus NA de tijd van Jezus(‘alayhi salam) en de verwoesting van de 2e Tempel, het bestaan van (ware) profeten erkend.

Het tweede punt een duidelijke variant met the gospel of Matteus. In de didache staat er het volgende; “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name; Your kingdom come; Your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth; Give us this day our daily bread; And forgive us our debt, as we forgive our debtors; Do not lead us into trial, but deliver us from the evil one; for yours is the power and the glory for ever and ever.” Didache

Heeft het stukje “for yours is the power and the glory for ever and ever.” extra aan toegevoegd (of heeft Mattheüs dit weggelaten?).

Het derde punt is; In Mattheüs 6 gaat het slechts over de uitvoering/methode van het vasten zelf. Terwijl de Didache nadruk legt op de dagen. Dus wees niet als de hypocrieten vast niet op dezelfde dagen als hen zegt de didache. Maar vast op woensdag en vrijdag. Terwijl Matteus aangeeft vasten op die dagen als de hypocrieten maakt niet uit maar neem hen uitvoering niet over, want zij doen het om in het geding te komen bij mensen.

Het vierde punt is dat er in de didache het volgende staat; “This is how you should give thanks at the Eucharist: First, for the cup:

We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of your son David which you revealed to us through your son Jesus. Yours is the glory for ever and ever”. Hierbij gaat het dus om de wijn van David en niet om de bloed van Jezus, zoals in de huidige gospels beschreven staat. De Didache heeft deze gedeelte niet; “and he did the same with the cup after supper saying, this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”. (3)

Het vijfde punt is; , it entrusts the running of the communities to bishops and deacons, as was the case in the churches of St Paul, except that in the Didache these officials, meek characters with no interest in money, were demo- cratically elected by the community instead of being appointed by apostles (Did. 15.1).

Het zesde punt is; eusebius noemt het een twijfelachtige boek die niet in de canoniek is opgenomen. “Eusebius (c. 260–339) as being among the ‘spurious’, i.e. non-canonical, books distinct from the New Testament (EH 3.25, 4)”. (Idem, 135)

Het zevende punt; “Preserved in an eleventh-century manuscript, known as the Codex Hierosolymitanus, it was rediscov- ered by the Eastern Orthodox prelate Philotheos Bryennios in 1873, who published it in 1883. The Greek text is further attested in a papyrus fragment of the fourth century (P. Oxyrinchus 1782) and in a Coptic translation (P. Lond. Or. 9271) from the third/fourth century, as well as in Latin, Ethiopic, Syriac and Georgian renderings”.

Het achtste punt; “Needless to say, the Johannine idea of the eternal and cre- ative Logos is nowhere on the horizon either” idem, (4)

Het negende punt; Whichever way the baptism was performed, the surviving text of the Didache imposes the ritual formula attested in Matthew 28:19 of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Did 7.1 and 3). Bearing in mind, however, the slow progress of Trinitarian theology in the early church, the historicity of the Didache’s wording appears questionable for two reasons.

At the earliest stage of the primitive church, according to both the Petrine and Pauline sections of the Acts of the Apostles (chapters 1–12 and 13–28), baptism was administered not by invok- ing the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but simply in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 19:5). Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the Didache itself lays down apropos the Eucharistic meal that the par- ticipants of this solemnity must be baptized, not in the name of the Trinity, but ‘in the name of the Lord’ (Did. 9.5), the Lord being always identified as Jesus in this writing.

Once more, we are brought face to face with a very early form of Christianity. (5)
(1) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
(2) ibidem.
(3)geza vermes, the christian beginnings, 142.
(4)idem, 147.
(5) idem, 140.