What would of happened had these 2 books been put in the Bible?

[dronald]

We can pretty much guess what criteria was employed when deciding the books that were considered to be authoritative. I’ll name four of them here: (1) ‘apostolicity’, (2) ‘catholicity’, (3) ‘orthodoxy’, and (4) ‘public lection’. In other words, for a given book to be considered authoritative it should: (1) come from an apostolic tradition whereby direct or indirect apostolic contribution was evident (the gospels, for instance, are attributed to the apostles Matthew and John and to Mark and Luke, the disciples of Peter and Paul), (2) have a wide circulation and hold a major significance for believers everywhere, not only in a particular region or community (this disqualifies apocryphal literature and the gnostic gospels, many of which were specific only to a particular region or were used only by a single sect), (3) mirror the teachings and intentions of the apostles themselves (i.e. it should be in harmony with the Tradition of the Church), and (4) should have a place in the Liturgy (i.e. being read at Church).

So its rejection was mostly based on its lack of circulation probably? If the document does come out of the 1st century it could have been considered apostolic had it gained a wide circulation.

I mean, what’s the difference between the Didache and Hebrews in terms of criteria besides wide circulation?

 

[patrick457]

So its rejection was mostly based on its lack of circulation probably? If the document does come out of the 1st century it could have been considered apostolic had it gained a wide circulation.

I mean, what’s the difference between the Didache and Hebrews in terms of criteria besides wide circulation?

Yes, I think the ‘universality’ factor was influential: the Didache was accepted as authoritative in some places but rejected by others. Perhaps the work also flouted the ‘apostolicity’ factor: it’s one thing to claim that the work derives from apostolic tradition, but to say that the apostles directly wrote it would be another.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Eusebius talked about the Didache in a negative way.

Patrick, are you certain that Eusebius is referring to the Didache here and not another similar work such as the Didascalia Apostolorum?

 

[PRmerger]

So its rejection was mostly based on its lack of circulation probably? If the document does come out of the 1st century it could have been considered apostolic had it gained a wide circulation.

I mean, what’s the difference between the Didache and Hebrews in terms of criteria besides wide circulation?

The difference is that Sacred Tradition proclaimed, through the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that Hebrews was theopneustos and the Didache was not.

We would not know it any other way, except to defer to the authority of the Church to make this discernment.

 

[stewstew03]

So its rejection was mostly based on its lack of circulation probably? If the document does come out of the 1st century it could have been considered apostolic had it gained a wide circulation.

I mean, what’s the difference between the Didache and Hebrews in terms of criteria besides wide circulation?

dronald - just curious, why doesn’t the Protestant church (or churches) proceed with including the Didache in their Canon? Or, more specifically, what’s stopping YOUR church from including it in the Canon?

 

[midori]

So when did it go missing?

How do we know that this was not one of the texts that the Catholic bishops considered and rejected, because it was missing?

Only one copy of the Didache has been recovered from the ravages of time. Given its practical character, it was inevitable that any first-century pastoral manual would be revised, updated, and expanded to reflect new developments taking place in the larger church. Thus, by the fourth century, use of the Didache had severely declined, and it had been replaced by updated church manuals. Furthermore, when the Didache failed to gain the necessary support for inclusion in the universal canon of scriptures being drawn up in this same period, it was destined for oblivion. During the Middle Ages, the Didache seems to have had some limited use within a few monasteries; yet none of the medieval theologians functioning within the new university centers appears [sic] to have given it any attention whatsoever. When the great revival of interest in the early church flourished during the sixteenth century, the Didache was nowhere to be found…

-The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities
Aaron Milavec

 

[dronald]

dronald - just curious, why doesn’t the Protestant church (or churches) proceed with including the Didache in their Canon? Or, more specifically, what’s stopping YOUR church from including it in the Canon?

No clue. It seems to deserve a spot, if only so that people know it exists and how amazing it is.

 

[PRmerger]

Furthermore, when the Didache failed to gain the necessary support for inclusion in the universal canon of scriptures being drawn up in this same period, it was destined for oblivion.

Indeed. This is a testament to the action of Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

No clue.

The reason why, dronald, is because your church defers to the authority of the Catholic Church, which discerned that the Didache was not theopneustos.

It seems to deserve a spot, if only so that people know it exists and how amazing it is.

Deserve a spot, based on what criterion?

And who determines this criterion?

 

[dronald]

The reason why, dronald, is because your church defers to the authority of the Catholic Church, which discerned that the Didache was not theopneustos.

Deserve a spot, based on what criterion?

And who determines this criterion?

Can you think of any reason to exclude it?

 

[PRmerger]

Can you think of any reason to exclude it?

I think the ONLY reason is this: because the Catholic Church was not inspired to keep it.

There is no other reason.

 

[ajecphotos]

Interesting thread

 

[stewstew03]

No clue. It seems to deserve a spot, if only so that people know it exists and how amazing it is.

dronald - have you read any of the Deuterocanonical books? All Christians considered them inspired until Luther removed them from the Canon.

 

[PRmerger]

No clue. It seems to deserve a spot, if only so that people know it exists and how amazing it is.

You bring up an interesting concept, dronald. The “it seems to deserve a spot” opens up a can of worms, doesn’t it.

Do scholars today (or even just regular folks like you and me) get to decide if something ought to be in the Bible?

And, the corollary to that: do we get to decide if there’s a book that we believe ought not be in the Bible?

Did you know that there are a few denominations which view the Epistles of St. Paul as an abomination? If we subscribe to the concept you’re introducing, do you think they ought to be able to remove these books from the Bible?

Also, did you know that 3 John doesn’t even mention Jesus at all? What if someone decided, “I think that any book in the NT ought to at least mention Jesus, once, for it to be included in the Bible!”

If we explore your idea, what do you make of this position?

 

[stewstew03]

A good resource: Where we Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by Henry Graham.

 

[onenow1]

I guess they knew those books didn’t belong in the Bible. The books we have are sufficient.

Hi, RM, Might I suggest as it is today, is as it was then, Satan, battling using the weeds in the church to diminish and infect the wheat if it can. Folks diminish the roll of the mother of God,yet in Genesis 1, God says this to satan: vs 15 Iwill put enmity between you and the woman,between your seed and her seed He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heal."

“When Mary visits Elizebeth WOW” Luke 1: 46, And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord 47, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.For behold all generations will call me blessed”; 49, for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50, And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation.

“Jesus did not say satan would not infect His Church He said it would not prevail”
Remembering that, even Judas was chosen by Jesus,and Jesus did give him a chance to repent in John 6:70, and at the last supper.

God Bless
onenow1:compcoff:

Read more: ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz2cS8FCz91

 

[dronald]

dronald - have you read any of the Deuterocanonical books? All Christians considered them inspired until Luther removed them from the Canon.

Your generalization is quite false actually:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

Let’s not play the revisionist history card. That is from your Catholic Encyclopedia.

I think the ONLY reason is this: because the Catholic Church was not inspired to keep it.

There is no other reason.

Had it been circulating as quickly as any other book, it may have well of been accepted. Fact is, Canon is closed now because it’s been so long, but the Didache has resurfaced and we have all of its text.

You bring up an interesting concept, dronald. The “it seems to deserve a spot” opens up a can of worms, doesn’t it.

Do scholars today (or even just regular folks like you and me) get to decide if something ought to be in the Bible?

And, the corollary to that: do we get to decide if there’s a book that we believe ought not be in the Bible?

Did you know that there are a few denominations which view the Epistles of St. Paul as an abomination? If we subscribe to the concept you’re introducing, do you think they ought to be able to remove these books from the Bible?

Also, did you know that 3 John doesn’t even mention Jesus at all? What if someone decided, “I think that any book in the NT ought to at least mention Jesus, once, for it to be included in the Bible!”

If we explore your idea, what do you make of this position?

So what exactly makes John III so great and the Didache so much worse? As you said, nothing really. Just because a text that came out of the first century and is completely in line with Christian Theology (quoting the Gospel of Matthew over and over) probably could be in the Canon doesn’t mean I’m going to go crazy and say that the talking cross in the Gospel of Peter is also inspired.

I’m just suggesting that if we use the same criteria for the Didache that we apply to Hebrews or John III then you have yourself another book that could be in the Bible. It’s just too late for it.

 

[PRmerger]

Your generalization is quite false actually:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture.

And then he deferred to the authority of the Church, and obeyed. They were retained in the Vulgate.

The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.

Whether they doubted the canonicity is irrelevant. They were not given the charism of infallibility, and, as such, were able to commit errors of discernment.

According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.

Indeed. And it also the only criterion that you have to use, too.

This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent.

Not sure why this is relevant.

You are aware that the dogma of the Trinity “was not given until rather late” as well, right?

The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

justforcatholics.org/a108.htm

That website is a notorious anti-Catholic website.

I would not cite it here anymore, lest you get intercepted by a moderator.

 

[dronald]

And then he deferred to the authority of the Church, and obeyed. They were retained in the Vulgate.

Whether they doubted the canonicity is irrelevant. They were not given the charism of infallibility, and, as such, were able to commit errors of discernment.

Why wasn’t Gregory the Great given the charism of infallibility?

Not sure why this is relevant.

It’s relevant to what stewstew03 said.

You are aware that the dogma of the Trinity “was not given until rather late” as well, right?

The Bible affirms the Trinity, and so do Protestants. Even Ignatius was pretty explicit that he believed in the Trinity as you and I believe in it.

That website is a notorious anti-Catholic website.

I would not cite it here anymore, lest you get intercepted by a moderator.

My apologies. Just by the title of the website I assumed it was from a Catholic site. The source is from the Catholic Encyclopedia though.

Anyways to stay on topic I suggest that the Didache is worthy of the Bible only because it came out of the first Century and is completely in line with Catholic beliefs anyways. There has never been any explanation as to why anyone rejected it. I’m sure it circled somewhere and luckily for us it has survived and we can read it.

I suppose the **main reason ** I’m such an advocate for the Didache is I want more people to know about it. I mean, it’s so amazing and yet most people have never even heard of it.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s not play the revisionist history card. That is from your Catholic Encyclopedia.

Had it been circulating as quickly as any other book, it may have well of been accepted.

That’s funny. The above in bold sounds suspiciously like revisionistic history to me.

Fact is, Canon is closed now because it’s been so long, but the Didache has resurfaced and we have all of its text.

Ok…

So what exactly makes John III so great and the Didache so much worse? As you said, nothing really.

Oh, I didn’t say that, dronald. At all.

I just defer to the authority of the Catholic Church, as do you, to say that 3 John is theopneustos but the Didache is not.

You don’t have any other reason to include one and exclude the other…

except that you defer to the CC’s decision.

Just because a text that came out of the first century and is completely in line with Christian Theology (quoting the Gospel of Matthew over and over) probably could be in the Canon doesn’t mean I’m going to go crazy and say that the talking cross in the Gospel of Peter is also inspired.

True. And even if you did declare the Gospel of Peter to be inspired, what criteria would you use?

And would you offer this authority to any other person to decide whether another text ought to be added to the canon?

And would you also offer this authority to any other person to exclude some books from the NT?