The Didache...why does 1/3 of Christianity reject it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi 2ndGen, Most “people” reject the Didache because it is based on a complete late manuscript dated around 1056 AD.

Basically, there are 24,000 new testament manuscripts with about 150,000 variants, this gives us a ratio of change to documents copied by us Christians at 6.25 variants per copy.

When you consider the Didache manuscript dates around 1056 AD, that is about a thousand years of copies made – assuming only two copies made every 40 years.

At its very conservative estimate of errors, variants in said manuscript is around (2^25) * 6.25 = 209,715,200 errors, variants.

Other estimates put the error, variant count well over 6.25 × 10^25

I am currently, studying the manuscripts of the church fathers to determine how accurate they are.

So, far among scholars I have been able to make a case for the Shepard of Hermas as being a reliable manuscript – it is based on a handful of very early manuscripts with wide disperbution.

I expect to publish my findings among scholars later this or next year.

Currently, I am involved with a B list ( like B-Hebrew or B-Greek ) among scholars on this topic. This list is restricted only to textual criticism of the church fathers. At this point the list is not visible to the general public because we do not want to cause people to doubt their faith until reasonable answers have been resreached. And, yes there are very well qualified Catholic scholars on the list.
 
The reason the NT is considered reliable is both a wide distribution of manuscripts over area, countries and over dates.

By comparing those 24,000 manuscripts, variants or errors can be removed.

Think of textual criticism like a tree.

The trunk represents the original manuscript, lets say only two copies of that original are made ( likely many more were made ) and those were sent out to churches in other cities, then two copies of those copies were made and sent out to yet more cities. Over time the distance between cities will get wider.

Now, lets say you find a manuscript in two different coutries. by comparing them you can identifly using common sense the likely additions, with 24,000 manuscripts that can be grouped together one can identifly additions, acciendental deletions, change in spellings, skipped lines, etc., leaving you with a text that is 99.999999 percent accurate.

What is being searched for among church fathers is manuscripts of wide distribution in distance and time to make comparisons to eliminate likely changes to the text.

Most manuscripts that represent history today are based on a handful of manuscripts. See Josh MacDonnald’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict books.

Since, church fathers like the scriptures relate to Salvation, a stricter level of criticism is neccessary.
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
Hi 2ndGen, Most “people” reject the Didache because it is based on a complete late manuscript dated around 1056 AD.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t The Didache found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which are dated to the 1st Century?
 
**
Wasn’t The Didache found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which are dated to the 1st Century?**

No. No NT or other Christian literature was found amongs the DSS.
 
Protestants do not reject the whole Didache but recognize it as non-scriptural and non-inspired. It is not inerrant. The Catholic Church does not fully accept it either.

For example:
Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.
Click to expand...
This seems to teach that clergy are to be appointed by the people. The Catholic Church does not practice this.
 
Why does 100% of Christianity reject the Gospel of Peter? There’s plenty of writings people don’t, can’t, or won’t accept for one reason or another. And typically it’s because it contradicts your personal belief system.
 
bpbasilphx said:
**
Wasn’t The Didache found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which are dated to the 1st Century?**

No. No NT or other Christian literature was found amongs the DSS.
Click to expand...
The Didache appears in the collection of The Dead Sea Scrolls under what’s called “The Church Orders”.

“‘There are, to my knowledge, no writings in ancient Jewish sources parallel to the Community Rule, but a similar type of literature flourished amogn Christians between the second and fourth centuries, the so-called ‘Church Orders’ represented by works such as the Didache, the Didascalia, the Apostolic Constitution.’”

amazon.co.uk/Complete-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-English/dp/0140245014
 
SyCarl said:
Protestants do not reject the whole Didache but recognize it as non-scriptural and non-inspired. It is not inerrant. The Catholic Church does not fully accept it either.

For example:

This seems to teach that clergy are to be appointed by the people. The Catholic Church does not practice this.
Click to expand...
Well, if these teachings were being taught to the clergy and “not” to the people, then it wouldn’t counter Church policy and besides, this was at the very beginning of Christianity where things were done that The Church doesn’t do today.

As for their worthiness of belief or their being divinely inspired?

If they are the teachings of the Apostles, then they are to be taken at heart.

They weren’t included in the Bible, but neither were alot of other Christian documents that are accepted by The Church as worthy of belief (such as the writings of The Church Fathers and Doctors).

It existed at least as early as the initial Gospels (50AD) and is believed to have been completed by 120AD.
 
2ndGen said:
Well, if these teachings were being taught to the clergy and “not” to the people, then it wouldn’t counter Church policy and besides, this was at the very beginning of Christianity where things were done that The Church doesn’t do today.

As for their worthiness of belief or their being divinely inspired?

If they are the teachings of the Apostles, then they are to be taken at heart.

They weren’t included in the Bible, but neither were alot of other Christian documents that are accepted by The Church as worthy of belief (such as the writings of The Church Fathers and Doctors).

It existed at least as early as the initial Gospels (50AD) and is believed to have been completed by 120AD.
Click to expand...
A problem is that an early date does not guarantee a lack of errors. Even while the Apostles were still alive error was creeping in. Paul had to deal with this in letters to a number of churches he had taught. For example in Galatians he had to deal with Judaziers. John wrote to counter some of the early Gnostics. The people being written to had been taught by the Apostles themselves, so that being so taught was no guarantee against error.
 
lukewarm said:
Why does 100% of Christianity reject the Gospel of Peter? There’s plenty of writings people don’t, can’t, or won’t accept for one reason or another. And typically it’s because it contradicts your personal belief system.
Click to expand...
That’s easy…because The Church doesn’t deem it authentic.

The reason that Protestants reject a writings that Catholics do is because of what’s said in them such as the evidence that the Apostle “sprinkled” when they baptized, the veneration of The Eucharist, Confession, the refusal of payment for a person who preached in the name of God, Holy Communion, Fasting, etc…all 1st Century traits of The Church only practiced by The Catholic Church today.

They cannot accept something that literally counters what they teach and believe (that there is no real presence of Christ in The Eucharist, that the sacrament of communion is to be done every Christian Sabbath, that immersion is not mandatory for baptizing, etc…).
 
SyCarl said:
A problem is that an early date does not guarantee a lack of errors. Even while the Apostles were still alive error was creeping in. Paul had to deal with this in letters to a number of churches he had taught. For example in Galatians he had to deal with Judaziers. John wrote to counter some of the early Gnostics. The people being written to had been taught by the Apostles themselves, so that being so taught was no guarantee against error.
Click to expand...
But if they are the teachings of The Apostles, then there is no error. If the Apostles taught error (which no Apostle has ever been proven to have done so), then we couldn’t trust The New Testament.

The Apostles were guided by The Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine, where as men they could’ve still sinned and failed, but as Jesus’ preachers, they couldn’t teach falsely.

I never judged it’s authenticity by only dating, but if you read it, you’d see that it is all based on Scripture.

Nothing in it conradicts Jesus’ teachings.
 
SyCarl said:
Protestants do not reject the whole Didache but recognize it as non-scriptural and non-inspired. It is not inerrant. The Catholic Church does not fully accept it either.

For example:
This seems to teach that clergy are to be appointed by the people. The Catholic Church does not practice this.
Click to expand...
Maybe not after some time, but in the time of the Apostles, wasn’t it the case, as when they chose Matthias to take Judas Iscariot’s place?
 
2ndGen said:
But if they are the teachings of The Apostles, then there is no error. If the Apostles taught error (which no Apostle has ever been proven to have done so), then we couldn’t trust The New Testament.

The Apostles were guided by The Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine, where as men they could’ve still sinned and failed, but as Jesus’ preachers, they couldn’t teach falsely.

I never judged it’s authenticity by only dating, but if you read it, you’d see that it is all based on Scripture.

Nothing in it conradicts Jesus’ teachings.
Click to expand...
I have read it on several occasions and it is general enough that it contains nothing contrary to historical Protestantism.
 
SyCarl said:
I have read it on several occasions and it is general enough that it contains nothing contrary to historical Protestantism.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…let’s see.

Protestants “don’t” believe in The Eucharist, Confession, Baptism by sprinkling (insisting it must be done by immersion), Fasting, The Office of Bishops, etc…).
 
Whathell said:
quoting:
[The Didache…why does 1/3 of Christianity reject it?]

Who are the 1/3 you call Christians?

Define what a Christian is, please.

Peace in knowing Jesus.
Click to expand...
WH! What’s up brother!

Glad you made it here!

Trust me, you’ll love these forums!

Anyway, the 1/3 of Christians are those who are “outside” of the universal Christian Church (non-universal Christians that belong to sects of Christianity invented by men).

The definition of a Christian?

Chris·tian

–adjective
  1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
  2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
  3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
  4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
  5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
  6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn’t Christian.
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of
 
2ndGen said:
Hmmm…let’s see.

Protestants “don’t” believe in The Eucharist, Confession, Baptism by sprinkling (insisting it must be done by immersion), Fasting, The Office of Bishops, etc…).
Click to expand...
Well let’s see. My church baptizes by sprinkling as do Lutherans, Prebyterians, Methodists and many others. We also have the Eucharist, although not with the same beliefs as Catholics, but then I see nothing in the Didache that contrasts with our view. Bishop is simply another meaning for elder or supervisor. We have such positions. Protestants confess their sins to God. The Didache says nothing about any particular form of confession. Protestants also fast, but not simply because the Church has told them that they should fast at certain times.

You should beware generalizing too much.
 
SyCarl said:
Protestants do not reject the whole Didache but recognize it as non-scriptural and non-inspired. It is not inerrant. The Catholic Church does not fully accept it either.
Click to expand...
Where did you get this? And what about the authoritative texts of the Fathers of the Church? and all the popes’ encyclicals and other official texts? The Catholic Church accept them even though they aren’t part of the Bible per se!!!
 
SyCarl said:
Well let’s see. My church baptizes by sprinkling as do Lutherans, Prebyterians, Methodists and many others. We also have the Eucharist, although not with the same beliefs as Catholics, but then I see nothing in the Didache that contrasts with our view. Bishop is simply another meaning for elder or supervisor. We have such positions. Protestants confess their sins to God. The Didache says nothing about any particular form of confession. Protestants also fast, but not simply because the Church has told them that they should fast at certain times.

You should beware generalizing too much.
Click to expand...
What denomination are you?

As for The Eucharist, the bread in and of itself is nothing…it is “the faith” behind the ceremony and the consecration by an ordained Priest that give it significance. Some Protestants have crackers and Welch’s and call that their celebration of the breaking of the bread. You’re right though…you don’t believe as the overwhelming majority of Christianity believes and has believed since Jesus walked the earth on The Eucharist. Again, it ain’t the bread man. It’s the faith.

Why do you “fast”?

As for confession, again, another contradiction to what you said…The Didache states that confession is to be done as Mass “…the assembly.” And that is a particular form of confession.

Do you partake of the Blood of Christ (wine) and if not, why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top