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

[PRmerger]

Not really a question of belief, more a curiosity.

I get that, ajcstr.

What I don’t get is why it causes you to question anything.

It would be like someone telling you, “You know, I was a Christian, but then someone pointed out to me that the Koran mentions Mary, so now I am really just starting to wonder about Christianity and it’s really put a chink in my Christian armor.”

And you say, “Why would the Koran mentioning Mary be a chink in your armor?”

And the person responding, “Well, I’m just really questioning. Not really a question of belief, actually. More of just a curiosity. Maybe I just need more faith…”

You would respond, “Huh? I still don’t understand what the source of the ‘chink’ is.”

 

[ajcstr]

I get that, ajcstr.

What I don’t get is why it causes you to question anything.

It would be like someone telling you, “You know, I was a Christian, but then someone pointed out to me that the Koran mentions Mary, so now I am really just starting to wonder about Christianity and it’s really put a chink in my Christian armor.”

And you say, “Why would the Koran mentioning Mary be a chink in your armor?”

And the person responding, “Well, I’m just really questioning. Not really a question of belief, actually. More of just a curiosity. Maybe I just need more faith…”

You would respond, “Huh? I still don’t understand what the source of the ‘chink’ is.”

Well, I don’t know what to tell you. I’m sure I’m not expressing myself well enough, because I don’t agree with the analogy you presented. In any event I can understand the suggestion that the book was probably rejected on the grounds of orthodoxy and leave it at that.

 

[Jon_S_1]

That’s my dilemma though, I actually accept Hebrews because it makes sense to accept Hebrews. The same way that I want to accept the Didache and I’m at odds as to why any Church or any Bible doesn’t include it.

I have a big “PROTESTANT” stamp on my forehead here but a lot of my questions are from a concerned Catholic point of view. If I was a Catholic I would ask, “But what was the official reason” and your answer would be, “Because the Church says so, no more questions.” This is hard for me to grasp.

It’s from the first half of the first Century and it has nothing in it that we should reject.

My argument is that the criteria for the Didache and Hebrews are very similar. Books written in the first Century, by an obviously knowledgeable Christian with crazy good knowledge of “The Scriptures” (1 Corin 15) and yet one is rejected and the other is not. And all we can say is we don’t know why one was left out, but it was, so it was.

Okay, but if it happens… Try to look surprised.

I think to help you with this, if it is still a question for you, we need to remember that the Church has always held that Scripture and Tradition were working hand in hand. In the first century scripture was for the most part just the old testament. Then there were instructional texts written to different churches and people. These texts SUPPLEMENTED the oral teaching that they had already received… Sometimes they were letters of encouragement, sometimes clarification, and other times correction. The people receiving the letters were already practicing Christianity without the New Testament.

Of course these letters from Apostles they received were highly treasured and read to the people often to emphasize the teachings from the Apostles. In time, they were considered Christian Scripture.

Things like the Didache could have been included, but just because it has sound teaching and was written in the first century does not make it “worthy” of being placed on the level of scripture. No doubt there were many Christian writings now lost to history that were in circulation.

I love the didache, I find it really cool and interesting. I kind of look at it like an instruction manual that was given to new priests or churches perhaps. So although valuable and informative was maybe a little “lack luster” compared to the writings of the Apostles.

Of course this is just speculation, really we cannot know for certain unless we were there in the councils in the early church debating such things.

As far as I know there is no writing about the background of the discussions from the early councils, so all we have is the final word. No doubt there was much discussion regarding it.

Have you read the protoevangelium of James yet.

I actually just read it, and it is a really cool document. Although there are some issues, it is undoubtedly old (second century perhaps) and really makes the whole virgin birth and Jesus’ siblings issue fall into place that makes complete sense!

When you find yourself defending Catholicism in your Mega Church, you are already half way across the Tiber. We have all been there done that!

After reading your other thread and reviewing our discussion on the Eucharist I wanted to share one more thing with you.

Father Barron has an excellent video on the Eucharist.

If you haven’t seen Father Barron yet, it is a must. His website is wordonfire.org

On the Eucharist youtube.com/watch?v=bJjW3LXuHzo

 

[jimkhong]

I think to help you with this, if it is still a question for you, we need to remember that the Church has always held that Scripture and Tradition were working hand in hand. In the first century scripture was for the most part just the old testament. Then there were instructional texts written to different churches and people. These texts SUPPLEMENTED the oral teaching that they had already received… Sometimes they were letters of encouragement, sometimes clarification, and other times correction. The people receiving the letters were already practicing Christianity without the New Testament.

Of course these letters from Apostles they received were highly treasured and read to the people often to emphasize the teachings from the Apostles. In time, they were considered Christian Scripture.

Things like the Didache could have been included, but just because it has sound teaching and was written in the first century does not make it “worthy” of being placed on the level of scripture. No doubt there were many Christian writings now lost to history that were in circulation.

I love the didache, I find it really cool and interesting. I kind of look at it like an instruction manual that was given to new priests or churches perhaps. So although valuable and informative was maybe a little “lack luster” compared to the writings of the Apostles.

Of course this is just speculation, really we cannot know for certain unless we were there in the councils in the early church debating such things.

As far as I know there is no writing about the background of the discussions from the early councils, so all we have is the final word. No doubt there was much discussion regarding it.

Have you read the protoevangelium of James yet.

I actually just read it, and it is a really cool document. Although there are some issues, it is undoubtedly old (second century perhaps) and really makes the whole virgin birth and Jesus’ siblings issue fall into place that makes complete sense!

When you find yourself defending Catholicism in your Mega Church, you are already half way across the Tiber. We have all been there done that!

After reading your other thread and reviewing our discussion on the Eucharist I wanted to share one more thing with you.

Father Barron has an excellent video on the Eucharist.

If you haven’t seen Father Barron yet, it is a must. His website is wordonfire.org

On the Eucharist youtube.com/watch?v=bJjW3LXuHzo

I have the same questions as dronald and I am Catholic.

I understand that there were four criteria for inclusion into the Canon: (i) of apostolic origin; (ii) author is known; (iii) of sound doctrine; and (iv) widely read in a number of churches.

Both 1 Clem and Didache fulfill the above and yet they were not included - why?? I am really more interested in what was in the mind of the council fathers when they excluded these two books. Anyone knows?

The only reason I can think of Didache’s exclusion was that the authorship was not apparent but so was Hebrews and that was included.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I have the same questions as dronald and I am Catholic.

I understand that there were four criteria for inclusion into the Canon: (i) of apostolic origin; (ii) author is known; (iii) of sound doctrine; and (iv) widely read in a number of churches.

Both 1 Clem and Didache fulfill the above and yet they were not included - why?? I am really more interested in what was in the mind of the council fathers when they excluded these two books. Anyone knows?

The only reason I can think of Didache’s exclusion was that the authorship was not apparent but so was Hebrews and that was included.

1 Clement is not Apostolic in origin. It is a second hand writing, second generation. No doubt it was widely circulated, and read in church and hence the strong push for its inclusion but it could not be included because Clement was not an Apostle.

How do you know the didache was written by an Apostle? We don’t.

It could have been written by anyone. We do not know that it was widely read in church as part of the liturgy (even if a lot of churches had it as a reference, which we also don’t know).

The authorship of Hebrews is highly debated, and has been for a long time, but I think it may be presumptuous to say the Synod of Hippo or the Council of Nicea did not know who wrote it.

I like the speculation the Priscilla wrote it, but since she was a woman was not given credit for it even though the teaching was sound and used. Over time her name as author (handed down in the oral tradition) was lost to history.

an interesting theory.

 

[jimkhong]

1 Clement is not Apostolic in origin. It is a second hand writing, second generation. No doubt it was widely circulated, and read in church and hence the strong push for its inclusion but it could not be included because Clement was not an Apostle.

As I understand it, Apostolic includes the second generation, the 12 Apostles and their immediate successors. Clement for instance was definitely included as one of the five Apostolic Fathers from earliest days. So were, for the matter, the authors of Didache and Shepherd of Hermes (another interest document of seemingly sound doctrine that did not make the final Canon).

The authorship of Hebrews is highly debated, and has been for a long time, but I think it may be presumptuous to say the Synod of Hippo or the Council of Nicea did not know who wrote it.
QUOTE]
There is a lot of uncertainty over the authorship of the NT books even for those with with attributed authors. People in classical times to not necessarily have the same understanding of attributing and plagiarism as we do.

I am not so interested in the argument that the end-decision presumes the decision-making process. What exactly was on the mind of the council fathers in Nicae? The fact that I am asking does not mean that I am questioning the decision - just like to know what was basis of the decision. Even if the decision turned out to be made on unsound basis (quite unlikely to me but one never knows - there has been church decisions in the past made on unsound basis), it doesn’t invalidate the Canon we use and love today.

 

[Jon_S_1]

As I understand it, Apostolic includes the second generation, the 12 Apostles and their immediate successors. Clement for instance was definitely included as one of the five Apostolic Fathers from earliest days. So were, for the matter, the authors of Didache and Shepherd of Hermes (another interest document of seemingly sound doctrine that did not make the final Canon).
Jon S;11151068:

The authorship of Hebrews is highly debated, and has been for a long time, but I think it may be presumptuous to say the Synod of Hippo or the Council of Nicea did not know who wrote it.
QUOTE]
There is a lot of uncertainty over the authorship of the NT books even for those with with attributed authors. People in classical times to not necessarily have the same understanding of attributing and plagiarism as we do.

I am not so interested in the argument that the end-decision presumes the decision-making process. What exactly was on the mind of the council fathers in Nicae? The fact that I am asking does not mean that I am questioning the decision - just like to know what was basis of the decision. Even if the decision turned out to be made on unsound basis (quite unlikely to me but one never knows - there has been church decisions in the past made on unsound basis), it doesn’t invalidate the Canon we use and love today.

Honestly it’s not an issue if doubting the council for me. After all it was not the men of the council but the Holy Spirit guiding and providing for the church established by Christ.

I am not certain your right about second generation being considered Apostles. After all there are no other books in the NT canon that have such an author. But if I am wrong (which is never haha lol) I’d love to read something on it.

 

[jimkhong]

I am not certain your right about second generation being considered Apostles. After all there are no other books in the NT canon that have such an author. But if I am wrong (which is never haha lol) I’d love to read something on it.

Quite common to find Apostolic Fathers on the Internet. Here is an example theopedia.com/Early_church_fathers. Plenty more if you were to google it. List varies between 5 and 6 mostly I think.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Quite common to find Apostolic Fathers on the Internet. Here is an example theopedia.com/Early_church_fathers. Plenty more if you were to google it. List varies between 5 and 6 mostly I think.

An apostolic father is not an apostle.

It was my understanding the first criteria was it was written by an apostle (or a companion of an apostle such as Luke).

The Apostles were the 11 plus Matthias and Paul

 

[jimkhong]

An apostolic father is not an apostle.

It was my understanding the first criteria was it was written by an apostle (or a companion of an apostle such as Luke).

The Apostles were the 11 plus Matthias and Paul

AS I understand it, the criteria is that it is of apostolic origin and not necessarily the actual authorship of an apostle. Most definitions that you encounter will include the second generation in the word Apostolic. Not easy to find the word Apostolic online without it being attached to another term (after all it is an adjective), but my hardcopy textbooks do have the definition.

Your citation of Luke is especially instructive. It is unlikely (though possible) from scriptural sources that Luke has met Jesus. It is more likely that he was a disciple of Paul and as such, making him a second generation disciple and yet included in the term Apostolic if not Apostle. I think it is highly unlikely (though possible) that the council fathers would include only travel companions of an Apostle into the definition Apostolic but excluded any other disciple who went to evangalise by himself.

 

[Jon_S_1]

AS I understand it, the criteria is that it is of apostolic origin and not necessarily the actual authorship of an apostle. Most definitions that you encounter will include the second generation in the word Apostolic. Not easy to find the word Apostolic online without it being attached to another term (after all it is an adjective), but my hardcopy textbooks do have the definition.

Your citation of Luke is especially instructive. It is unlikely (though possible) from scriptural sources that Luke has met Jesus. It is more likely that he was a disciple of Paul and as such, making him a second generation disciple and yet included in the term Apostolic if not Apostle. I think it is highly unlikely (though possible) that the council fathers would include only travel companions of an Apostle into the definition Apostolic but excluded any other disciple who went to evangalise by himself.

I would argue Luke is first generation and wrote as instructed by Paul.

I definitely see the Early Church Fathers as not Apostles.

I cannot ever recall a reference citing for example “St Ignatius the Apostle”

 

[Jon_S_1]

AS I understand it, the criteria is that it is of apostolic origin and not necessarily the actual authorship of an apostle. Most definitions that you encounter will include the second generation in the word Apostolic. Not easy to find the word Apostolic online without it being attached to another term (after all it is an adjective), but my hardcopy textbooks do have the definition.

Your citation of Luke is especially instructive. It is unlikely (though possible) from scriptural sources that Luke has met Jesus. It is more likely that he was a disciple of Paul and as such, making him a second generation disciple and yet included in the term Apostolic if not Apostle. I think it is highly unlikely (though possible) that the council fathers would include only travel companions of an Apostle into the definition Apostolic but excluded any other disciple who went to evangalise by himself.

“The earliest Church Fathers, (within two generations of the Twelve Apostles of Christ) are usually called the Apostolic Fathers since tradition describes them as having been taught by the twelve. Important Apostolic Fathers include Clement of Rome,[5]Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. In addition, the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas are usually placed among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers although their authors are unknown; like the works of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, they were first written in Koine Greek.”

This is different than an Apostle or a travel companion of an Apostle.

Here is a quote from Felix Just S.J. PHD

1 Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
2 Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
3 Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
4 Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

Source catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Canon.htm

 

[jimkhong]

I would argue Luke is first generation and wrote as instructed by Paul.

I definitely see the Early Church Fathers as not Apostles.

I cannot ever recall a reference citing for example “St Ignatius the Apostle”

As I mentioned, I understand the criteria to be of Apostolic origin, not Apostles. Can someone correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of the criteria and direct me to the authoritative correct criteria, online if possible? And, does anyone know of any document or study that illustrate what was on the minds of the council fathers, or Athanasius/etc for that matter?

 

[Jon_S_1]

As I mentioned, I understand the criteria to be of Apostolic origin, not Apostles. Can someone correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of the criteria and direct me to the authoritative correct criteria, online if possible? And, does anyone know of any document or study that illustrate what was on the minds of the council fathers, or Athanasius/etc for that matter?

See my last post…Typing at the same time

 

[PRmerger]

I have the same questions as dronald and I am Catholic.

I understand that there were four criteria for inclusion into the Canon: (i) of apostolic origin; (ii) author is known; (iii) of sound doctrine; and (iv) widely read in a number of churches

Where did you get these criteria?

And why would “author is unknown” be a criterion? That seems rather…odd…to be a criterion, don’t you think?

 

[ajecphotos]

Been reading about the Didache and very interesting. So far, i cant see why it was lefy out but i am only half way through reading a book about it.