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

[PRmerger]

All conspiracy theories are based on the conspirators being the second cleverest people around, capable of hood-winking the dumbest people in the world, the audience, but never as clever as the smartest people on the block, those who have so cleverly uncovered conspiracy.

Haha! Love this!

 

[COPLAND_3]

The more I think about it, those two books would not have decreased the amount of denominations but rather increased them, considering those books would have been privately interpreted and more incorrect doctrines would have been created. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as articulate and descriptive as it is, can be misinterpreted by anyone who wants to see only what they want to see in it. That is why there has to be authority.

 

[ajecphotos]

The Teaching of the Twelve: The Power and Relevance of the Ancient Didache (Paperback)
Translated by Tony Jones

Just ordered it. Looks like a good read.

 

[patrick457]

All conspiracy theories are based on the conspirators being the second cleverest people around, capable of hood-winking the dumbest people in the world, the audience, but never as clever as the smartest people on the block, those who have so cleverly uncovered conspiracy.

So true. Unfortunately.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

I read the Didache last night. Noticeably absent are mentions of Christ’s death and resurrection. Also, the Eucharistic words of intention are not orthodox, making no mention of the body and blood of Our Lord, using instead more generic prayers of Thanksgiving.

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.

But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

Also, for the L-C crowd out there, it would seem the first 6 chapters are redacted from the same source document found in the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas (these two are next on my reading list.) It is hypothesized that this document (the Two Ways) is Jewish in origin and the sayings of Jesus found in Chpt. 1 and 2 are interpolations inserted to Christianize the document. The similarities to material found in Matthew is also apparent.

At any rate, I think it is a useful read, on par IMO with the Gospel of Thomas. Heterodox to be sure, but also probably a 1st century work that gives us insight into the early writings that were used by some Christian communities.

earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

 

[juliamajor]

Could it be that certain books were left out for reasons we don’t know? Reasons that would take people away from staying true to the new Catholic Church?

I have often wondered that the church either holds things back or hides them from the masses as if certain things were revealed the church as we know it would vanish!

For me, I just pray to god. I worship god. I live like he instructs to the best of my ability.

Maybe there are a lot of skeletons in the Catholic Church archives that they don’t want revealed! Who knows!

Dude, you are reading to much Dan Brown. Give up for lent!

 

[ajecphotos]

Dude, you are reading to much Dan Brown. Give up for lent!

Dude! Lol

Each to their own

 

[patrick457]

At any rate, I think it is a useful read, on par IMO with the Gospel of Thomas. Heterodox to be sure, but also probably a 1st century work that gives us insight into the early writings that were used by some Christian communities.

Actually, the idea that Thomas already existed in the late 1st century in the form(s) that we have it today is, in reality, in the very small minority. At best, what people - even many of those in the so-called ‘early’ camp - think that the ‘core’ material of that gospel (a portion out of the 114 sayings attributed to Jesus recorded in Thomas) may have already been in circulation during this time or before, but many think that Thomas as a literary work did not come into existence until much later.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Actually, the idea that Thomas already existed in the late 1st century in the form(s) that we have it today is, in reality, in the very small minority. At best, what people - even many of those in the so-called ‘early’ camp - think that the ‘core’ material of that gospel (a portion out of the 114 sayings attributed to Jesus recorded in Thomas) may have already been in circulation during this time or before, but many think that Thomas as a literary work did not come into existence until much later.

The gnostic content probably pushes the date of the document in its known form later than the 1st century. Still, as a sayings Gospel it is difficult to know if the bulk of the work is reliant on the canonical Gospels or simply stems from some of the same sources and oral traditions. I have seen both arguments made.

When compared to other Gnostic works, like say The Gospel of Judas or the Book of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas appears very primitive. I have a hard time seeing the Gospel of Thomas coming out of the same time period as these works, which are normally placed around mid-late 2nd century. So my best guess is late 1st, early 2nd.

At any rate, here is the 5-way synopsis again in case anyone is interested in looking at the similarities and differences.

utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-5g.htm

 

[onenow1]

The more I think about it, those two books would not have decreased the amount of denominations but rather increased them, considering those books would have been privately interpreted and more incorrect doctrines would have been created. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as articulate and descriptive as it is, can be misinterpreted by anyone who wants to see only what they want to see in it. That is why there has to be authority.

HI, and that is indeed the crux of the matter authority…

 

[ajcstr]

Eusebius talked about the Didache in a negative way:

Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.

Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.

Is this from his history of the church? If so, where about? I have the book, have not read it from beginning to end.

 

[ajcstr]

Thanks pablope

I find the list very interesting ntcanon.org/table.shtml. From the table, I can see that there has been no objections to 1 Clement from anyone on that table, except that the non-orthodox Origen finding it doubtful despite quoting it 4 times. Also, Didache was only rejected by Eusebius but no reason given. Eusebius seems quite a stickler and if his views were followed, we will have a much thinner NT.

Does anyone know what Eusebius mean by “spurious”? Do we know why he finds Didache spurious or is this lost in the mist of time?

Does anyone know know why despite such strong support (Eusebius notwithstanding) Didache and 1 Clement were not included in the canon?

I have to say that the Didache has always been a “chink” in my Catholic armor. I remember one protestant apologist remarking that he does not know if the writings of Justin Martyr for instance reflect the practices for all of Christianity at the time, or just a small group of Christians. The fact that the Didache is not canonical can be used to imply this also.

 

[PRmerger]

I have to say that the Didache has always been a “chink” in my Catholic armor. I remember one protestant apologist remarking that he does not know if the writings of Justin Martyr for instance reflect the practices for all of Christianity at the time, or just a small group of Christians. The fact that the Didache is not canonical can be used to imply this also.

I am not following you here. How is the fact that the Didache is not part of the NT canon a “chink” in the Catholic armor???

 

[ajcstr]

I am not following you here. How is the fact that the Didache is not part of the NT canon a “chink” in the Catholic armor???

I’m saying it is a chink in MY Catholic armor - personally. We know it was not included in the Canon, but we don’t know why. Is there possibly something heretical or wrong in it that we don’t recognize today. As the OP implied, its pretty “Catholic”. Yet it was rejected.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m saying it is a chink in MY Catholic armor - personally. We know it was not included in the Canon, but we don’t know why. Is there possibly something heretical or wrong in it that we don’t recognize today. As the OP implied, its pretty “Catholic”. Yet it was rejected.

Yes, I got that you said it was a chink in YOUR Catholic armor. But if it’s a chink in yours, then it ought to be in mine.

So I’m trying to figure out why you believe this.

Why it was rejected is immaterial. We don’t know why. Why does that matter?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I got that you said it was a chink in YOUR Catholic armor. But if it’s a chink in yours, then it ought to be in mine.

So I’m trying to figure out why you believe this.

Why it was rejected is immaterial. We don’t know why. Why does that matter?

Incidentally, have you ever wondered why Philemon is inspired? Or 3 John, which doesn’t even mention Jesus? Or Revelation,which is, frankly, bizarre (an adjective also used be Scott Hahn)

 

[ajcstr]

Yes, I got that you said it was a chink in YOUR Catholic armor. But if it’s a chink in yours, then it ought to be in mine.

Not necessarily, different things raise doubts in different people, you may have more knowledge on this than I do so its a non issue for you. About 20 years ago (wow, thanks for reminding me, I thought it was 10 at first) a Baptist co-worker of mine pretty much gave me a theological beating that put me into a crisis of faith. I was certainly not ready for such an onslaught. Fortunately, I talked to a priest about it and he set me on the right path, even handed me a Scott Hahn tape. That same conversation would go a lot differently today, but I am still leaning.

So I’m trying to figure out why you believe this.

Not really a question of belief, more a curiosity. Guess my faith is not as strong as it should be (or as I would like it to be at least).

Why it was rejected is immaterial. We don’t know why. Why does that matter?

To me it makes a difference if it was rejected for content, or for authorship, or for whatever. My understanding is that one major criteria for selection was how the book squared with tradition. I remember listening to a debate where the Catholic debator used a quote from Justin Marytr (I believe it may have been his writing that pretty much described a Mass). The Protestant debator responded by saying he had no idea if Justin Marytr was representative of a first century Christian or not. Even the Church fathers are not unanimous on a lot of things we hold as true today.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Not necessarily, different things raise doubts in different people, you may have more knowledge on this than I do so its a non issue for you. About 20 years ago (wow, thanks for reminding me, I thought it was 10 at first) a Baptist co-worker of mine pretty much gave me a theological beating that put me into a crisis of faith. I was certainly not ready for such an onslaught. Fortunately, I talked to a priest about it and he set me on the right path, even handed me a Scott Hahn tape. That same conversation would go a lot differently today, but I am still leaning.

Not really a question of belief, more a curiosity. Guess my faith is not as strong as it should be (or as I would like it to be at least).

To me it makes a difference if it was rejected for content, or for authorship, or for whatever. My understanding is that one major criteria for selection was how the book squared with tradition. I remember listening to a debate where the Catholic debator used a quote from Justin Marytr (I believe it may have been his writing that pretty much described a Mass). The Protestant debator responded by saying he had no idea if Justin Marytr was representative of a first century Christian or not. Even the Church fathers are not unanimous on a lot of things we hold as true today.

You are always going to find heterodox opinions and outright heresy throughout Christian history, from the start to the current day. Jesus warned us about it, and the Epistles tell us false prophets and those presenting “false Christs” were around as the authors’ wrote.

The Protestant debater is correct in that there is always doubt about what each Christian believed doctrinally in the early days. That still doesn’t mean these variants are of equal value to the real Gospel of Christ. It is up to us to know our Scripture, know our history, and understand that writings, like that of Justin Martyr, were remembered and preserved precisely because they were an early voice of the orthodox beliefs of the Church. This is the same reason that the 4 canonical Gospels still exist, while many other gospels were lost. What was orthodox was preserved, what wasn’t fell away.

As for the Diadache itself, it is pretty clear IMO, why it isn’t Canon. It isn’t orthodox, the early Church Fathers saw in it the same things we do. It is a great thing that a copy of the text was found. Both because we have insight into some of the alternative Christian beliefs that were floating around early in the Church, and because the content of the text itself vindicates the decision to leave it out of the Canon.

 

[InNomineDomini]

The Eucharist could easily be taken symbolically with the existence of the Didache anyways.

This comment really nails it.

Setting aside the obvious – that these works are not Scripture, and moreover, speculating about whether the Holy Spirit “said enough” in the actual Scriptures is unwise and fruitless – there is still a major problem to address.

Protestants, as a whole, are divided because of their inability to agree on how Scripture should be interpreted within a sola Scriptura framework. Simply adding more Scriptura would not change this fact; the Scriptures are not the problem and they are not inadequate.

Those who agree on one interpretation of the Didache will soon splinter off from those who sharply disagree on some nuance or other.

 

[JMJ91]

I think it is worthwhile to examine what Jewish scholars think of the Didache, Didascalia, and the Apostolic Constitutions.

On the other hand, Bickell (“Gesch. des Kirchenrechts,” 1843, pp. 148-177) has given convincing proofs that the “Apostolic Constitutions” is the original work, and the so-called “Didascalia” a mere condensation. In the latter the Jewish elements are to a large extent eliminated, and the Christian character is more pronounced.

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5183-didascalia

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5181-didache