Consequences of the inclusion of the Didache in the NT?

[Superaquaspiderbatman]

In Christianity's early history, there was a debate concerning which scriptures were canonical, and which weren't.
Suppose, then, that the Early Church Fathers had decided to include the Didache in the canon of the New Testament. What would the long-term consequences have been, for the history of Christianity?

 

[Superaquaspiderbatman]

Bump?

filler

 

[Velasco]

Isn't the Bible a list of authoritative Scriptures, so if this wasn't included, it simply didn't have the broad/general recognition necessary, which means there's probably a good reason for it being excluded.

 

[Superaquaspiderbatman]

Isn't the Bible a list of authoritative Scriptures, so if this wasn't included, it simply didn't have the broad/general recognition necessary, which means there's probably a good reason for it being excluded.

But there was a debate, quite a heated one at times, in the Early Church as to which scriptures fitted that description. And the Didache was on the table.

As a Christian, I, of course, believe that the Holy Spirit guided the ECFs to make the right call.
What I'm asking here, is: What could have happened to Christianity, if they

1: Hadn't listened.

or

2: God had wanted the Didache in the NT.

 

[mrmandias]

In Christianity's early history, there was a debate concerning which scriptures were canonical, and which weren't.
Suppose, then, that the Early Church Fathers had decided to include the Didache in the canon of the New Testament. What would the long-term consequences have been, for the history of Christianity?

Stronger opposition to abortion, especially in the US--probably no Roe?

Also there's an explicit injunction to give to those who ask charity even if the person asking for charity is undeserving. This won't make much difference in Catholic countries but in the freewheeling protestant countries that had lots of biblical disputation and such (mainly the UK and England) that could be interesting. I imagine there will be methods developed to work around that quite uncomfortable teaching, but it will still be there, and the work arounds will have their own effects. Expect any version of the Christian Left/Social Gospel people to rely on it heavily to rebut conservative arguments.

 

[edvardas]

if the Holy Spirit guided the ECF to make the right, that guidance was a post-Biblical revelation. But there are not supposed to be a post biblical revelation.
Eusebius said that the Didache was still in the hunt, along with the Revelation of John

 

[Superaquaspiderbatman]

Stronger opposition to abortion, especially in the US--probably no Roe?

Also there's an explicit injunction to give to those who ask charity even if the person asking for charity is undeserving. This won't make much difference in Catholic countries but in the freewheeling protestant countries that had lots of biblical disputation and such (mainly the UK and England) that could be interesting. I imagine there will be methods developed to work around that quite uncomfortable teaching, but it will still be there, and the work arounds will have their own effects. Expect any version of the Christian Left/Social Gospel people to rely on it heavily to rebut conservative arguments.

This is the kind of response I was looking for (not meaning THIS SPECIFIC opinion - I don't go fishing like that).
Why do you assume that there will be "workarounds" manufactured consciously, though? Even if we don't agree with someone, it's a pretty safe bet they're not satan

I agree with the last part though. And we might see a stronger "Christian Left", but probably not in the way that our OTL "Christian Left" work. The Didache's emphasis on charity as a virtue would probably mean that the "Christian Left" would be more directed towards the individual/communal (within the Church) obligation, as it has more material to work with than OTL's.

 

[Superaquaspiderbatman]

if the Holy Spirit guided the ECF to make the right, that guidance was a post-Biblical revelation. But there are not supposed to be a post biblical revelation.

That's very much a matter of opinion An opinion I agree with, but Roman-Catholics wouldn't, for instance.

 

[Pesterfield]

instead they shall say the Lord's Prayer three times a day

I wonder if this will become ritualized, could Christianity get daily calls to prayer?

Baptism is interesting, the fasting requirement likely means it isn't a ritual for infants and children.

 

[Evan]

What could have happened to Christianity, if they
1: Hadn't listened.

Well, judging from theology, there would have been a lot of bad things happening ... But I presume that's not the sort of answer you're after.

or

2: God had wanted the Didache in the NT.

The text of the Didache

For one, specific instructions are given on the methods of baptism (immersion in running water when practicable; several other methods including sprinkling when not), so that controversy would've been avoided. For another, a specific liturgy is given for the Eucharist, and it's specifically limited to the baptized - that would avoid other controversies and probably give earlier rise to specific liturgies for the rest of the service (and provide some support for retaining it in more Protestant circles.) There's no support one way or another re transubstantiation, though.

Another big point would be its description of how to receive "apostles and prophets," specifically saying that "He will remain one day, and if it be necessary, a second; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet." This might not entirely avoid a priesthood remaining in place over three days - especially since it later mentions elders who do that - but at the least, the Protestant Reformers would use it as huge evidence against one. Also, I can definitely see people like St. Dominic and St. Francis, who founded orders of traveling friars, pointing to this verse.

Oh - and the church is ordered to "elect for yourselves elders", so the Chief Elder of Rome or whatever name he chooses is going to have so much more trouble getting everyone to agree that he gets to elect them.

 

[Pesterfield]

It seems Chapters 11 and 13 contradict each other.

In 11 it sounds like prophets must stay poor and on the move, in 13 they live with the people and get the first of everything.

How will they be reconciled?

 

[Evan]

It seems Chapters 11 and 13 contradict each other.
In 11 it sounds like prophets must stay poor and on the move, in 13 they live with the people and get the first of everything.

Hm. I would think that "dwell" in 13:1 would mean "stay with you for a couple days," and you're allowed to give them charity but they aren't allowed to specifically ask for anything. Still, I don't know any Greek.

 

[JJohnson]

That would be an interesting inclusion in the Bible. It has specific admonitions against certain things that the "Left" in the US would disagree with, though in this timeline, that might not come about if this had been in the Bible from the start of canonization.

You could take the Fasting section to also say the week starts on Sunday, not Monday as is customary now in some countries.

The Baptism section could avoid some questions regarding that which emerged after the Protestant Reformation, I agree. If the Didache had explicitly said to baptize infants, that would likely butterfly away the Baptists too, since they do not baptize infants, and prefer immersion to sprinkling. I wonder what John Smyth would have said had he read that in the Bible. Without Baptists, that would affect the religious development of the colonies in North America, given the large concentrations of Baptists in the south.

The Eucharist section may have ramifications for Protestant/Catholic relations, as currently, Protestants are excluded from communion in a Catholic church, whereas this just says "let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord."

Interesting thought experiment. Perhaps you should write a timeline.

 

[Pesterfield]

If the Didache had explicitly said to baptize infants,

It could be read as not to baptize infants.

thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts,

It doesn't say who does the reciting though.

And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

A requirement to fast does seem to rule out infants though, or at least I'd hope it would.

 

[Superaquaspiderbatman]

Interesting thought experiment. Perhaps you should write a timeline.

I have considered it, but looking at the other TLs here is making me beating my breast crying "ouk axios"
I might give it a go, though...the worst that can happen is that I get rolfstomped, and since I'm new around here, I don't have much street cred to lose anyway