The Didache--'The Teachings of the Tweleve Apostles'

[concerneduser]

Anyone who has head of this, must have ever asked this question. “Why wasn’t it included in the bible?” It was supposedly written within the first century. Anyone who has read it can conclude that if it was in the bible, many divisions within the church (that turned into new sects) would have been healed. Any many moral issues such as abortion, are also clearly listed in here. My question is an overall ‘why wasn’t it included?’…We all know that the development of the Canon of the Holy Bible has had many changes (and not only in the 1500’s!!! ) So why do you suppose no one ever included this document, of which would have cleared up many issues we have today?

 

[Eucharisted]

If it ain’t divine inspired, it ain’t in the Bible.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

It’s a great book, it’s thoroughly orthodox, etc., but like Eucharisted said, it’s not God-breathed. And it doesn’t come from an Apostle or one of his students. So it’s more or less double-barred from the canon.

 

[David_Zampino]

Anyone who has head of this, must have ever asked this question. “Why wasn’t it included in the bible?” It was supposedly written within the first century. Anyone who has read it can conclude that if it was in the bible, many divisions within the church (that turned into new sects) would have been healed. Any many moral issues such as abortion, are also clearly listed in here. My question is an overall ‘why wasn’t it included?’…We all know that the development of the Canon of the Holy Bible has had many changes (and not only in the 1500’s!!! ) So why do you suppose no one ever included this document, of which would have cleared up many issues we have today?

The Didache was one very early sub-Apostolic document over which there was some dispute in the Early Church. Theories of its date of composition range from about AD 50 to about AD 125. (In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I find a late 1st century date to be most convincing.)

The prevailing view seems to be that it was worthy to be read in church, but not quite on the same level as what would become the Canon. (The Letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians falls into this category as well.)

Although not quite Canon, the Didache gives us an important picture as to how the very early Church operated with regard to Baptism and the Eucharist, and, as you pointed out, the early Church’s view on a number of moral subjects.

So, while not Canon, it ranks in importance right up there with Clement, and with the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[GeorgeSword]

It’s a great book, it’s thoroughly orthodox, etc., but like Eucharisted said, it’s not God-breathed. And it doesn’t come from an Apostle or one of his students. So it’s more or less double-barred from the canon.

Coming from the apostles or one of their students has nothing to do with it. Justin Martyr was a student of the apostles but he isn’t in the Bible. For all we know the Apostles may not have even written the gospels, yet they are there. Also, the Didache’s style is supposedly similar to Matthew, leading some to believe it has the same author.

 

[Nita]

If it’s not in the Bible, it’s because God didn’t want it there. He is the one overseeing the Church and making sure what gets infallibly put forth is in conformity with His will. So, I guess He’s the only One who can answer the question. Now, if He would only join CAF!

 

[David_Zampino]

It’s a great book, it’s thoroughly orthodox, etc., but like Eucharisted said, it’s not God-breathed. And it doesn’t come from an Apostle or one of his students. So it’s more or less double-barred from the canon.

Actually, the biggest knock against the Didache is the section on dealing with itinerant prophets – which was very time and place specific, dealing with an issue which was not universal.

Apostolic authorship is a good “rule of thumb” but is not, by itself, a defining factor. For example, the author of Hebrews is unknown, yet it is included, while Clement is excluded, though he was a disciple of both Peter and Paul, and is mentioned by name in one of Paul’s letters.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Actually, the biggest knock against the Didache is the section on dealing with itinerant prophets – which was very time and place specific, dealing with an issue which was not universal.

Apostolic authorship is a good “rule of thumb” but is not, by itself, a defining factor. For example, the author of Hebrews is unknown, yet it is included, while Clement is excluded, though he was a disciple of both Peter and Paul, and is mentioned by name in one of Paul’s letters.

Coming from the apostles or one of their students has nothing to do with it. Justin Martyr was a student of the apostles but he isn’t in the Bible. For all we know the Apostles may not have even written the gospels, yet they are there. Also, the Didache’s style is supposedly similar to Matthew, leading some to believe it has the same author.

Mark Shea argues pretty persuasively otherwise in his book By What Authority? His argument, which I think is accurate, is that one of the hurdles which had to be overcome was Apostolic origin – not that it had to be *written *by an Apostle personally, but had to have been derived from an Apostle. So Mark’s Gospel is acceptable because he was Peter’s disciple, Hebrews was written either by Paul or one of his disciples (Clement, Barnabas, etc.), Luke’s Gospel is acceptable since he was Paul’s disciple, etc. There was never just John Layman with no connection with Apostolic office.

It’s true, of course, that *simply *being written by a disciple to an Apostle wasn’t enough to get something considered canonical – it’s a hurdle, not a guarantee. But if it was written by a student and seems to have been based upon their teacher’s teaching and/or recollection of Christ, AND shows signs of inspiration, it was a candidate.

Since the Didache has such unclear origins (moreso than Hebrews, which is clearly Pauline in theme and character, even if not in writing style), it’s not able to clear this bar, even though its teachings are sound.

Obviously, this argument isn’t de fide, so you’re free to disagree, but I found it persuasive personally when I read it.

 

[NHInsider]

The Didache (IMNSHO) is a Council document. Like the Documents of Vatican II, or Trent, or any of the other Councils, it’s official Church teaching, arising out of the concerns of a specific time and setting forth the considered opinions of the bishops.

The fact that this or any other book was not included in the canon does not make it invalid, just means it’s not considered God’s Holy Word.

And btw, the NT canon was set WAAAY before the 1500s. There are numerous references from the middle of the the fourth century that contain the same list we have today, and an official council statement from Carthage (397) Even the OT canon was established by the time Jerome did his translation at the end of the fourth century, it was just not stated dogmatically until it was challenged by the Protestant reformers. It is often true that dogmatic statements are issued in response to a challenge - they are not the first evidence of a position but the final, closing argument.

 

[concerneduser]

NHInsider…I was making a joke to the books of the old testemate in the 1500’s that some scribbled out when they made up their own sect, ie, the Protestant reformation and their shorter Bible. All in good fun of course,

 

[NHInsider]

oops - sorry I missed the levity!

 

[DOShea]

Actually the Didache contains a lot of elements of Mark’s gospel, though not in exactly the same form as the gospel. The doxology at the end of the “Our Father,” for example.

Eusebius, the first one (we know of) to actually write down a proposed list of canonical books mentioned the Didache as in the list of spuria,, that is, non-canonical books that still held great value.

I think the strongest point against the Didache in terms of considering it for part of the canon is that it speaks a great deal about the Eucharist but not in terms of it being a sacrifice. Certainly by 400 AD that element of the Eucharistic celebration was profoundly entrenched, so to have a document that describes the details of sacramental practice and doesn’t even mention the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist would seem to me to be out of place in a canon.

 

[Mark77]

If it’s not in the Bible, it’s because God didn’t want it there. He is the one overseeing the Church and making sure what gets infallibly put forth is in conformity with His will. So, I guess He’s the only One who can answer the question. Now, if He would only join CAF!

“Now, if He would only join CAF!”

He is the one who created and inspired CAF! He speaks to us every day in Sacred Scripture and in the Love of all of His beautiful creations!!!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[thistle]

Anyone who has head of this, must have ever asked this question. “Why wasn’t it included in the bible?” It was supposedly written within the first century. Anyone who has read it can conclude that if it was in the bible, many divisions within the church (that turned into new sects) would have been healed. Any many moral issues such as abortion, are also clearly listed in here. My question is an overall ‘why wasn’t it included?’…We all know that the development of the Canon of the Holy Bible has had many changes (and not only in the 1500’s!!! ) So why do you suppose no one ever included this document, of which would have cleared up many issues we have today?

The Didache could be construed as an early catechism.