Didache

[Will_Pick]

Why did the “Didache” not make it into the Bible ?

 

[Genesis315]

Because it’s not divinely inspired :ehh:

 

[Gray_Sparrow]

Well, the formation of the canon of the Bible was made by consensus, probably the Didache was not used by the majority of the local churches, as simple as that.

 

[Maranatha]

Genesis315:

Because it’s not divinely inspired :ehh:

I thought the Church’'s position was that some writings outside the Bible could be divinely inspired. It’s just that the Church has not officially defined them to be.

The Didache was not seen as a high quality writing even if the contents were orthodox. I read one speculation that it was an outline for an early RCIA class.

 

[RyanL]

Gray Sparrow:

Well, the formation of the canon of the Bible was made by consensus, probably the Didache was not used by the majority of the local churches, as simple as that.

This is not true, or at the very least it is not the full truth. There was *much *contention about what should or should not be in the Bible (therefore the ‘common consensus’ argument fails) before the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Further explaination here. While consensus played into the determination, so did Apostolic Tradition, authenticity and theological consistancy. I’m certainly not including all of the factors, but it should suffice that truth is not (nor ever has been) determined by popular vote.

The Didache was more than likely rejected because it was not determined to be of Apostolic origin, a key factor in determining canonicity. It was most likely a second or third hand catechesis tool. That said, it’s good reading and informative history on how first century Christians were made and what they believed.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Maranatha,
It’s hard to listen to Handel and not think it’s inspired!

 

[FCEGM]

RyanL:

This is not true, or at the very least it is not the full truth. There was *much *contention about what should or should not be in the Bible (therefore the ‘common consensus’ argument fails) before the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Further explaination here. While consensus played into the determination, so did Apostolic Tradition, authenticity and theological consistancy. I’m certainly not including all of the factors, but it should suffice that truth is not (nor ever has been) determined by popular vote.

The Didache was more than likely rejected because it was not determined to be of Apostolic origin, a key factor in determining canonicity. It was most likely a second or third hand catechesis tool. That said, it’s good reading and informative history on how first century Christians were made and what they believed

Good info, Ryan! Would it be safe to say also that it probably wasn’t used during the Liturgy (another criterion for inclusion in the Canon), but was used more as the catechetical text it appears to be?

 

[Gray_Sparrow]

RyanL:

This is not true, or at the very least it is not the full truth. There was *much *contention about what should or should not be in the Bible (therefore the ‘common consensus’ argument fails) before the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Further explaination here. While consensus played into the determination, so did Apostolic Tradition, authenticity and theological consistancy. I’m certainly not including all of the factors, but it should suffice that truth is not (nor ever has been) determined by popular vote.

God Bless,
RyanL

I disagree.

A consensus does not imply it was reached smoothly, just look at your(?) US Constitution. The troubles it took to get it passed (even as some americans fought for the King) and be maintained (the civil war). Secondly the consensus was on which books represented the teaching of the Apostles, i.e, the Tradition.

In fact what we have here is how the Infallible Magisterium of the Church determined which books were consistent with the Apostollic Tradition (which are not two but one single Revelation).

You missed the Liturgy, btw, one of the criteria was if the texts were used in the Liturgy or not. Lex orandi, Lex credendi, you believe as you pray, you pray as you believe, rule.

Truth is not determined by popular vote, true, but the college of the bishops works in the same manner than the college of the apostles and hence they can define in a council what the faithful are to believe. Futhermore, the ‘popular vote’ is an historical imposibility, I can’t remember one instance of popular vote outside the constrains of a polis, democracy as we know it was unknown. Add to that a small dispersed community living under jewish and / or roman persecution.

Consensus simply meant it was the decission of the churches (of course headed by their bishops) over a long period of time, taken slowly and both formally and informally, even as they were making sense of what meant to be Christian (theology).

 

[Will_Pick]

Maranatha:

I thought the Church’'s position was that some writings outside the Bible could be divinely inspired. It’s just that the Church has not officially defined them to be.

The Didache was not seen as a high quality writing even if the contents were orthodox. I read one speculation that it was an outline for an early RCIA class.

RCIA Class Did that start with V2

 

[Gray_Sparrow]

Will Pick:

RCIA Class Did that start with V2

What, I think, they were trying to say is that the Didache was a tool to teach the faith to new Chrstians…

… yet I am not so sure.

 

[Will_Pick]

Gray Sparrow:

What, I think, they were trying to say is that the Didache was a tool to teach the faith to new Chrstians…

… yet I am not so sure.

I think you may be right after reading it again

 

[Genesis315]

Maranatha:

I thought the Church’'s position was that some writings outside the Bible could be divinely inspired. It’s just that the Church has not officially defined them to be.

Hmm, I had never heard that. That could be true. I’m not sure.

 

[Gray_Sparrow]

Genesis315:

Hmm, I had never heard that. That could be true. I’m not sure.

Sounds iffy to me… The thing is that outside the Bible and the Apostollic Tradition (the Magisterium simply defines what these two teach) there is no more public revellation.

God could reveal you something (like you have to be a missionary in North Korea - and martyr ) but it would only bound yourself.

 

[Genesis315]

Gray Sparrow:

Sounds iffy to me… The thing is that outside the Bible and the Apostollic Tradition (the Magisterium simply defines what these two teach) there is no more public revellation.

Well, we believe public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. I’m thinking things like 3 & 4 Machabees which were held by the East for a while. I’m going to pull up the part from Trent that defined the canon and see what it says.

 

[Gray_Sparrow]

Genesis315:

Well, we believe Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. I’m thinking things like 3 & 4 Machabees which were held by the East for a while. I’m going to pull up the part from Trent that defined the canon and see what it says.

That’s true for public Revelation.

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s the pertinent part:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT4.HTM

]
It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.
Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Hmm, it just says if you reject any of those you are anathema, not if you accept others too

 

[YADA]

The Didache is a very early Christian writing, but is of a different genre then the writings that are included in the Cannon. The Didache, which is translated “the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” was used for instruction of catechumens and for instructions on worship. Think of ot as an early catechism and sacramentary all rolled into one. We would not think the Cathechism or Sacramentary should be added to scripture. They are an out growth of Scriptures being put into practice, lived in daily life and worship.

The Didache includes a Eucharistic prayer and instructions for baptizing, preparation (instruction, fasting, prayer by the person being baptized, the baptizer and the sponsor), what to says as well as the various types of water that are acceptable. It reflects upon the ten commandments (do not fornicate, cause abortion, act in vile ways with young boys - don’t we wish some of our priests had only read the Didache) and other scriptures.

Also included are fasting regulations (Wednesday/Friday as opposed to the Jewish practice of Tesday/Thursday) and praying the Lord’s Prayer including the doxology (for Thyne is the Kingdom, the Power…) The Didache is one of the earliest writings that includes this ending to the Lord’s prayer, that we say at Mass but our Protestant brothers and sisters include each time it is said. I enjoy meditating with the Didache and through it, our early Christian family.

 

[Gray_Sparrow]

Genesis315:

Here’s the pertinent part:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT4.HTM

Hmm, it just says if you reject any of those you are anathema, not if you accept others too

more probably because protestants were taking books out of the Bible, not adding.

Think: what does it mean to include a book in the Bible: to bind all the Church, every single believer from Alaska to Australia and from South Africa to the north pole… only the Church can do that

 

[Fidelis]

Maranatha:

I thought the Church’'s position was that some writings outside the Bible could be divinely inspired. It’s just that the Church has not officially defined them to be.

I don’t think this is correct. If you have some authoritative coroboration on this, I’d like to see it.

 

[Gray_Sparrow]

YADA:

Think of ot as an early catechism and sacramentary all rolled into one.

This description reflects better the content of the Didache.

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

Will Pick:

Why did the “Didache” not make it into the Bible ?

If it would, then the question would be:

“Why Apologiae didn’t make it?”

The answer is simple: the Canon has to close at some point.

But arabs didn’t believe it, and the Koran happened.

Mormons don’t believe it, and the Book of Mormon happened.