In my last post I talked about the sloppy research of one Burhan Karacay. He said that the Trinitarian formula had been inserted into the Didache. Naturally no evidence was provided but I’m going to give reasons as to why it is genuine. Here is the passage in question from the Didache:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
When we read the Didache, the prime source of information is the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew seems to be the main source and not much of anything else in the New Testament is quoted. The Trinitarian baptismal formula appears at the end of the Gospel of Matthew. No one disputes this. There are no manuscripts that say otherwise.
Now, the passage in the Didache talks about three things regarding the water. The first is if it is living, the second is the temperature and the third is the mode. With the exception of the mode, whether the water is living or cold has never mattered to Christians with small exceptions like the Didache community.
The New Testmanent doesn’t mention if baptism has to be in living or cold water. It just mentions water and the formula. The mode has been mentioned(pouring versus immersion) and that has been of importance to Christians in the subsequent centuries. Apart from the formula and the mode, the rest has never been important to Christians.
It all boils down to this. If the Trinitarian section is a later interpolation why is all of this other weird stuff about living water and the water temperature included? These are fringe practices only used by the Didache community. They’re not heretical but they are a bit weird. The New Testament never recommended them nor did the later Church care about them. However, the New Testament does recommend the formula and the Church has always used it. Why would someone inserting this section in put all this weird stuff?
I guess this is a hybrid of the criteria of dissimilarity and the criteria of embarrassment. Still, the most important thing for me is that there is no manuscript evidence for what Karacay is saying. If Karacay cares about where the evidence leads, he’ll trade in his belief in Muhammad for baptism in the Trinitarian formula which he currently despises.
Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.