Why are Protestants afraid of Christian history?

[DianJo]

It was from a new translation I just happened upon…true…the version we have is around 100 AD…but it is beleived an earlier version existed…most likely predating some of the gospels…not conclusive…but then dating so many of the first century documents are.

Conservative believers see some of the gospels written as soon as the 40’s…more liberal see the first written 60-70’s. The Didache falls into the same boat…some of our more conservative bretheren will date it quite late…that’s ok…the Didache WAS used as scripture by some churches…it just never reached “universal” acceptance…

To my knowledge is was not used as scripture. That was never the intention of the Didache. It was used for instruction, catechesis, to instuct those who wanted to become Christian. I’ve never heard it was used as scripture.

 

[Publisher]

From Early Christian Writings

"Since it was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople and published by P. Bryennios in 1883, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles has continued to be one of the most disputed of early Christian texts. It has been depicted by scholars as anything between the original of the Apostolic Decree (c. 50 AD) and a late archaising fiction of the early third century. It bears no date itself, nor does it make reference to any datable external event, yet the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church’s order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church’s life. Fragments of the Didache were found at Oxyrhyncus (P. Oxy 1782) from the fourth century and in coptic translation (P. Lond. Or. 9271) from 3/4th century. Traces of the use of this text, and the high regard it enjoyed, are widespread in the literature of the second and third centuries especially in Syria and Egypt. It was used by the compilator of the Didascalia (C 2/3rd) and the Liber Graduun (C 3/4th), as well as being absorbed in toto by the Apostolic Constitutions (C c. 3/4th, abbreviated as Ca) and partially by various Egyptian and Ethiopian Church Orders, after which it ceased to circulate independently. Athanasius describes it as ‘appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of goodness’ [Festal Letter 39:7]. Hence a date for the Didache in its present form later than the second century must be considered unlikely, and a date before the end of the first century probable. "
The Didache, also called The Teaching (or Doctrine) of the Twelve Apostles, is a short treatise that dates back to the early Christian Church and was accounted by some of the Fathers as next to Holy Scripture. It was probably written in Syria during the second half of the 1st century, although some scholars suggest a 2nd-century composition.

The first part of the Didache is a moral treatise describing the Two Ways, the Way of Life and the Way of Death. The second and third parts contain instructions on baptism, the Eucharist, fasting, prayer, matters of church organization, apostles and teachers, prophets, bishops, and deacons. The Didache is perhaps the first text to append a doxology to the Lord’s Prayer: “…for thine is the power and the glory unto all ages.”

Although partially paraphrased in other ancient documents (see, for example, the Didascalia Apostolorum below), the Didache was practically lost until Philotheos Bryennios [1], Greek Orthodox metropolitan of Nicomedia, rediscovered/published it in 1873/1883.

Not to be confused with the Didascalia Apostolorum, Teaching of the Twelve Holy Apostles and Disciples of Our Saviour, a 3rd century text founded upon the Didache [2], [3], [4]. "

You may be correct it may not have been counted AS scripture…just NEXT to scripture.

 

[Contarini]

I will add Edwin, if I held to the majority of scholarship I would:
deny the Virgin Birth
deny a physical resurrection

The former is true, but not the latter I think. Most scholars would say that scholarship itself doesn’t have anything to say about the resurrection. N. T. Wright–not a “majority” in himself but certainly a major figure–would argue that you can actually make a quite compelling case for the bodily resurrection based on the historical evidence. But you’re right WRT the Virgin Birth (mostly because of the two very different versions and the fact that the story doesn’t occur in Mark or Paul). In that case it’s best to be quite frank and say that we take a minority position because our faith requires us to. After all, it’s not as if you can disprove the virgin birth–it’s simply that on purely historical grounds the evidence is stronger against than for it.

My problem with your position WRT Ignatius is that it appears to be clearly motivated by a theological bias but you are unwilling to admit this. If you want to say that you hold to a staunchly Protestant ecclesiology by faith and therefore cannot accept the majority scholarly position, I can respect that. If you want to say that you have studied the matter in depth and have come to the conclusion that the minority view is correct, I can respect that too. But you appear to be leaping at a highly dubious scholarly theory about which you don’t actually know much simply because it fits your preconceptions.

Sometimes I find the minority view rather compelling. For quite sometime, and Lord knows what I think now, I held the two gospel theory after reading William Farmers book.

Right, but at least you read Farmer’s book (which frankly I haven’t–this is one reason why I do not automatically rule out Farmer’s theory, even though on the whole Marcan priority seems more reasonable to me). Perhaps you’ve read more on this subject than I’m crediting you with, but it seems to me that you are simply latching onto the *fact *that some people question the authenticity of the letters without actually having looked at current scholarship on the matter.
Your objections seemed to be coming from an older phase of the debate in which the distinction between the shorter and longer versions hadn’t been fully worked out. And AFAIK you haven’t even mentioned the Syriac versions and Conybeare’s thesis. . . . .

Edwin