Didascalia Apostolorum Teaching of the Apostles inspired scripture

[samaus123456789]

To clarify, it doesn't actually claim apostolic authorship itself, does it? It only claims to contain the teaching of the Apostles. I'll freely admit I haven't read the entirety of it, but I've read substantial portions and haven't found an actual claim of apostolic authorship.


Same question to you, does it actually claim apostolic authorship? If so, where? If not, why don't you stop spreading falsehoods about early Christian writings?

thanks for the positive comments jas3.

It contains phrases like I Peter, me Peter, I Mathew , we apostles.

Didascalia Apostolorum

Then I Peter rose up and said to them:

For I Matthew also, who am one of the twelve Apostles who speak to you in this Didascalia

and we, moreover, the Apostles, who have been accounted worthy to be the witnesses of His

God has passed from the People to the Church through us the Apostles

all we the twelve Apostles came together to Jerusalem

Now we had much questioning, as men contending for life; and not we the Apostles only,

22Then we the apostles and the bishops and the elders

There is no mention of the temple being destroyed, Titus, Vespasian or any other 70 AD related event nor is there any mention of anything in the 100s 200s 300s AD. So there are no historical anachronisms.

Wiki says but provides no citation

The earliest mention of the work is by Epiphanius of Salamis, who believed it to be truly Apostolic. He found it in use among the Audiani, Syrian heretics. The few extracts Epiphanius gives do not quite tally with our present text, but he is notoriously inexact in his quotations.

When these texts get labelled as pseudepigrapha by the James Charlesworths of the world they provide no evidence so ultimately it is up to the modern reader whether to believe the internal dates or not. The implications of this are big because if the internal dates are true, and the author is being honest (rather than a genius creative satanic writer that successfully backdates everything with no historical anachronisms to deceive everyone meanwhile the texts are full of mention of Jesus resurrection from the dead, virgin birth, and other Christian teachings) then it means they are inspired. I made another thread about gospel of Nicodemus, and other texts.

here is chat gpt summary of its teachings

I. Authority and structure of the Church​

1. The Bishop​

The bishop is:

• the shepherd of the flock
• the image of God’s authority in the church
• responsible for teaching, judging, forgiving, and restoring

Key ideas:

• harsh bishops are condemned
• neglectful bishops are condemned
• merciful, just, patient bishops are commanded

The bishop is compared to a physician, not an executioner.

This is not Roman legalism; it is pastoral authority.

---

2. Presbyters and Deacons​

• Presbyters assist the bishop
• Deacons serve practically and protect order
• Deacons are warned not to abuse power

Hierarchy exists, but it is service-oriented, not tyrannical.

---

II. Repentance and restoration (very important)​

One of the strongest teachings of the Didascalia:

Sinners MUST be received back if they repent​

• Bishops who refuse repentance are condemned
• No sin is beyond forgiveness except persistent refusal to repent
• The church exists to heal, not discard

This directly opposes:

• Novatian rigorism
• later medieval penitential harshness

The Didascalia is shockingly merciful by later standards.

---

III. Moral and ethical teaching​

Sexual morality​

• Faithfulness in marriage
• Condemnation of adultery and prostitution
• Modesty in dress and behavior
• Separation of men and women in bathing

This is discipline, not ascetic extremism.

---

Work and charity​

• Christians must work
• No idleness
• Church resources are for:
  • widows
  • orphans
  • the poor
• Bishops must not live luxuriously

---

IV. Women, widows, and family life​

Widows​

• Widows are honored
• But warned against gossip, meddling, and manipulation
• The church supports them materially

This is a balance:

• care without clericalization
• respect without disorder

---

Marriage and family​

• Monogamy
• Mutual respect
• Sexual discipline
• Family as a moral training ground

---

V. The Law, Judaism, and the New Covenant​

Very important in your framework:

• The Didascalia teaches that:
  • Christians are not under the Mosaic Law
  • circumcision, food laws, and ritual observances are fulfilled
  • Sabbath is reinterpreted spiritually

But:

• the Law is not mocked
• it is fulfilled and transformed in Christ

This is Pauline theology, not anti-Jewish racial hatred.

---

VI. Anti-hypocrisy and false teachers​

• Harsh condemnation of:
  • greedy leaders
  • hypocrites
  • false teachers
  • those who exploit religion

The text assumes:

• false teachers already exist
• corruption is already a threat

This fits pre-70 AD transitional Christianity perfectly.

---

VII. Eschatology (implicit, not speculative)​

• The Kingdom is present
• Judgment is real
• The church is living in the final covenant age
• Emphasis is ethical readiness, not date-setting

This aligns cleanly with:

• your Daniel 9 / 70 AD framework
• “last days” already begun
• no future prophetic system expected

---

3. What the Didascalia is NOT​

It is not:

• Gnostic
• speculative
• mystical numerology
• Greek philosophy
• Roman legalism
• medieval sacramentalism

It is:

• Jewish-Christian
• apostolic
• pastoral
• ethical
• covenantal

---

4. Why the Didascalia matters in your framework​

If it is historical and pre-70:

• It shows apostolic Christianity already organized
• It proves repentance and mercy were central
• It confirms the Law was fulfilled, not continued
• It supports the idea that revelation was nearing completion
• It undermines claims that “high church” structures came late

 

[ARBITER01]

Please try not to take it so personally when people point out basic errors in your claims.

The fact remains that, although it is not inspired Scripture, the Didascalia Apostolorum is an authentic testament to what early Christians believed and how they conducted themselves in their daily lives and at church.

You're still at it.

My claim, The Holy Spirit's claim, is that it is not inspired, and nothing more than a forgery since it claims to be written by the apostles.

Is any of that wrong? nope. But if you think so, then prove it instead of making baseless accusations against me.

 

[jas3]

It contains phrases like I Peter, me Peter, I Mathew , we apostles

Thanks, earlier the only evidence I was finding for claimed apostolic authorship was that it was "framed" in a certain way, which is too vague.

Wiki says but provides no citation

The earliest mention of the work is by Epiphanius of Salamis, who believed it to be truly Apostolic. He found it in use among the Audiani, Syrian heretics. The few extracts Epiphanius gives do not quite tally with our present text, but he is notoriously inexact in his quotations.

The Wikipedia author plagiarized this word for word from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't know off the top of my head if St. Epiphanius wrote anything other than the Panarion, but I'd guess that's the work where he talks about it.

 

[samaus123456789]

Thanks, earlier the only evidence I was finding for claimed apostolic authorship was that it was "framed" in a certain way, which is too vague.
The Wikipedia author plagiarized this word for word from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't know off the top of my head if St. Epiphanius wrote anything other than the Panarion, but I'd guess that's the work where he talks about it.

Yeh I don't know why it is not referenced earlier by Eusebius or someone even earlier... I still believe the internal date though. For me to reject internal dates I need a large body of evidence internal or external to do so. For someone to claim with certainty that a text is pseudepigrapha they are claiming to of seen when the text was written, and by whom... they are claiming to have a time machine, and of seen the autographs, and know 100% of the history of the transmission of the manuscript over time. I don't believe anyone can defend that position.

 

[AFrazier]

Show the verses you are talking about? What proof do you have the internal date, and claim of authorship is a lie? Have you seen the autograph? I believe it was written when it said it was by whom it said it was. What proof do you have I am wrong?

From the Didascalia:

Now this was done on the fourth day of the week. For when we had eaten the passover on the third day of the week at even, we went forth to the Mount of Olives; and in the night they seized our Lord Jesus. And the next day, which was the fourth of the week, He remained in ward in the house of Caiaphas the high priest. And on the same day the chiefs of the people were assembled and took counsel against Him. And on the next day again, which was the fifth of the week, they brought Him to Pilate the governor. And He remained again in ward with Pilate the night after the fifth day of the week. But when it drew on (towards day) on the Friday, they accused him much before Pilate; and they could show nothing that was true, but gave false witness against Him. And they asked Him of Pilate to be put to death; and they crucified Him on the same Friday. (Connolly, Didascalia, 5.13-14, 180-184)

The gospels are explicit in stating that Christ was tried one night and crucified the next morning. There is no evidence that two days intervened. Jesus told Peter that before the [rooster] crowed that night, he would deny him three times. The [rooster] crowed for the final time at the close of the trial, and “straightway in the morning,” “when morning was come,” “as soon as it was day,” they bound him, and, “then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment.” (Mark 15:1; Matt. 27:1; Luke 22:66; John 18:28)

The information in the Didascalia reflects the morals, ethics, and liturgy of the third century. In particular, the church used to fast This is just one sample of its inconsistency with the actual writings of the Apostles. The work is pseudepigraphical. It is no more genuine than the Apostolic Constitutions.

The advocacy by scholars of that era for a Tuesday night last supper is best understood as an attempt to reconcile the Wednesday fast to a Biblical account of significance, as reflected in Epiphanius:

But we fast till the ninth hour on the fourth day and the eve of the Sabbath, because the Lord was arrested at the beginning of the fourth day and crucified on the eve of the Sabbath;” Connolly, Didascalia, 5.14, 184, “But (fast) not after the custom of the former People, but according to the new testament which I have appointed you: that you may be fasting for them on the fourth day of the week, because on the fourth of the week they began to destroy their souls, and apprehended Me. — For the night after the third of the week belongs to the fourth of the week, as it is written: There was evening and there was morning, one day (Gen 1.5). The evening therefore belongs to the following day: for on the third of the week at even I ate My Pascha with you, and in the night they apprehended Me. — But fast for them also on the Friday, because thereon they crucified Me, in the midst of their festival of unleavened bread.” Vict. De Fab. Mund. 3, “Now is manifested the reason of the truth why the fourth day is called the Tetras, why we fast even to the ninth hour, or even to the evening […]. The man Christ Jesus […] was taken prisoner by wicked hands […]. Therefore on account of His captivity, […] we make the fourth day a station or a supernumerary fast. (Epiph. De Fide 22.1)

As Brant Pitre notes, “In light of such evidence, […] it is reasonable to conclude that the patristic tradition of a Tuesday Last Supper is […] a mistaken patristic etiology for the custom of the Christian Wednesday fast” (Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, 276). Since the Wednesday fast was a long-standing tradition by their day and had no apparent correlation to any notable event, this is not an unwarranted inference. It’s merely a causal attribution.

I know it's tempting to take some of these writings as genuine. They are, after all, designed to fool you into believing they are genuine. That's why the forgers attached names of authority, to give the document proper weight. But this one is most definitely not written by the Apostles.

 

[AFrazier]

Yeh I don't know why it is not referenced earlier by Eusebius or someone even earlier... I still believe the internal date though. For me to reject internal dates I need a large body of evidence internal or external to do so. For someone to claim with certainty that a text is pseudepigrapha they are claiming to of seen when the text was written, and by whom... they are claiming to have a time machine, and of seen the autographs, and know 100% of the history of the transmission of the manuscript over time. I don't believe anyone can defend that position.

Concerning this, it's not about an internal date. It's about the content. As I already posted, the Didascalia has content that doesn't agree with scripture. It's kind of like the so-called Gospel of James, a.k.a. the Protoevangelium of James. In it, Joseph is made to drink the bitter waters (Prot. Jms. 16). But this ritual from Numbers 5:11-31 was reserved for suspected adulterous women. It had absolutely nothing to do with men, and it wasn't a catch-all ritual to test for lies or sexual misconduct. It only applied to women. By that alone, we can condemn the work as a fraud.

Then there's the Questions of Bartholomew. He's told to step on the neck of the dragon, and Bartholomew "made the sign of the cross," which was a ritualistic habit that didn't emerge until centuries after the Apostles walked the earth. And I can tell you that that work is very persuasive.

And the Acts of Pilate. Again, another very persuasive work. But when it shows the ensigns bowing down to Jesus, you have to call shenanigans on it. Pilate tried to bring ensigns into Jerusalem when he first arrived in Judaea. The Jews made such a stink about it, he removed them before the situation turned into a slaughter.

It's the little details that the forgers miss or misunderstood that give them away. This is, consequently, how we know what belongs in the Bible and what does not. The truly inspired works are consistent with themselves. Most of the apocryphal and psuedopigraphical works have inconsistencies that a trained eye will catch.

 

[samaus123456789]

Concerning this, it's not about an internal date. It's about the content. As I already posted, the Didascalia has content that doesn't agree with scripture. It's kind of like the so-called Gospel of James, a.k.a. the Protoevangelium of James. In it, Joseph is made to drink the bitter waters (Prot. Jms. 16). But this ritual from Numbers 5:11-31 was reserved for suspected adulterous women. It had absolutely nothing to do with men, and it wasn't a catch-all ritual to test for lies or sexual misconduct. It only applied to women. By that alone, we can condemn the work as a fraud.

Then there's the Questions of Bartholomew. He's told to step on the neck of the dragon, and Bartholomew "made the sign of the cross," which was a ritualistic habit that didn't emerge until centuries after the Apostles walked the earth. And I can tell you that that work is very persuasive.

And the Acts of Pilate. Again, another very persuasive work. But when it shows the ensigns bowing down to Jesus, you have to call shenanigans on it. Pilate tried to bring ensigns into Jerusalem when he first arrived in Judaea. The Jews made such a stink about it, he removed them before the situation turned into a slaughter.

It's the little details that the forgers miss or misunderstood that give them away. This is, consequently, how we know what belongs in the Bible and what does not. The truly inspired works are consistent with themselves. Most of the apocryphal and psuedopigraphical works have inconsistencies that a trained eye will catch.

I believe proto James was written by Jesus step brother James 1-10 AD like it says. The oldest ms of that are 300s AD or even 200s AD. 2/3 John oldest ms are not until 300s AD, and you believe that was written first century. I have no problem with the bitter drink thing. The Judeans had developed all sort of traditions by the first century not in the written torah eg Mark 7 Jesus said based on Moses they should be killed for not helping their parents with their money, and lying saying they devote it to God so they can keep it for themselves.

I like Bartholomew because it has the origin of the devil like Life of Adam, and Eve does, and I think that is important. I would like to believe it was written pre 70 AD, and is inspired but I don't know. My main problem with it is gematria not the cross sign.

Yes I believe all the acts of Pilate are real. Early Christians talked about them being real also. There was anti Christ forgery pseudepigrapha ones put out to combat the real ones but they have been lost.

Gospel of Nic mentions the judgement seat which looks to of been outside even though Pilate says to 'enter in'. Yes I believe in 26 AD he decided not to put them there but then I believe he must of put some there later on. That is likely the strongest argument I have heard against it.

You don't know that certain texts are pseudepigrapha you believe they are. You speak as if you have a time machine, and have gone back, saw the original text being written at a specific time by a specific person, studied the autograph, remembered it, came back into the modern world, and are now revealing this profound knowledge to everyone. Also you claim to know 100% of the details of the transmission history over time of the manuscripts. Also notice you said we rather than saying "I believe". This is so deceptive, and weak as an argument. Here is my version. We believe Gospel of Nicodemus was written when it says. See how that works. So who is more scholarly me or you? Answer is me.

Now your turn to actually do some proper study. Pay careful attention. You might learn something

Gospel of Nic
Pilate goes to the Judeans after Jesus rose from the dead to figure out what is going on. They only open this bible once a year so it is not the normal Isaiah or Psalms one. I know it was scrolls, and not a modern book smh.

Now our custom is that every year before our assembly we open this holy Bible and inquire the testimony of God. And we have found in the first book of the Seventy how that Michael the angel spake unto the third son of Adam the first man concerning the five thousand and five hundred years, wherein should come the most beloved Son of God, even Christ: and furthermore we have thought that peradventure this same was the God of Israel which said unto Moses: Make thee an ark of the covenant in length two cubits and a half, and in breadth one cubit and a half, and in height one cubit and a half. For by those five cubits and a half we have understood and known the fashion of the ark of the old covenant, for that in five thousand and a half thousand years Jesus Christ should come in the ark of his body: and we have found that he is the God of Israel, even the Son of God

One place that 5500 year prophecy appears is here The life of Adam, and Eve

In 2 Esdras Ezra rewrites the bible as the Babylonians destroyed it

44 So in forty days, ninety-four books were written. 45 It came to pass, when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Most High spoke to me, saying, “The first books that you have written, publish openly, and let the worthy and unworthy read them; 46but keep the last seventy,that you may deliver them to those who are wise among your people; 47 for in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.”

2 Esdras/4 Ezra genealogies vs Ezra

2 Esdras/4 Ezra genealogies compared to protestant Ezra 2 Esdras Ezra / Chronicles Notes Esdras Ezra Same name (Greek vs Hebrew form) Saraias Seraiah Same Azaraias Azariah Same Helkias Hilkiah Same Salemas Shallum Same Sadoc Zadok Same Ahitob Ahitub Same Achias — Extra name in...

www.christianforums.com

24 books were the common canon Genesis- Ezra or whatever other books existed at this time as I don't know if Malachi had been written yet.
70 - like Gospel of Nic has 70- were only for the wise. Whatever the first book was in that 70 book bible it had that 5500 year prophecy. I used to think it was Life of Adam, and Eve but now I think it was 1 Enoch, and the 5500 year prophecy was originally in it but it since has been lost as epistle of Barnabas, Jubilees, Test of the 12 all quote lost works of Enoch also. Those other books in the 70 would of been Jubilees, Test of the 12, Assumption of Moses, other ones that exist, and some that are now lost.

Now it is your job to explain the association between Gospel of Nic, Life of Adam, and Eve, and 2 Esdras based on your belief they are all myths/pseudepigrapha. You will have to redate the original composition of a number of those texts compared to what the literature says. Go!

Now because I believe the internal date of all those texts, and that Life of Adam, and Eve was written by Moses I have no problem explaining the relationship between all those texts when Gospel of Nic references them.
The dimensions of the ark in Exodus 25 10 that Gospel of Nic references are the same in all hand written versions of the OT MT LXX SP DSS (yes that part is in the DSS), Vg. There are no variants in that number (well I only looked at English bibles) what this means is 5500 BC is unequivocally the original reading in Genesis 5/11 aka the LXX reading, and the MT was later shortened.

 

[samaus123456789]

From the Didascalia:



The gospels are explicit in stating that Christ was tried one night and crucified the next morning. There is no evidence that two days intervened. Jesus told Peter that before the [rooster] crowed that night, he would deny him three times. The [rooster] crowed for the final time at the close of the trial, and “straightway in the morning,” “when morning was come,” “as soon as it was day,” they bound him, and, “then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment.” (Mark 15:1; Matt. 27:1; Luke 22:66; John 18:28)

The information in the Didascalia reflects the morals, ethics, and liturgy of the third century. In particular, the church used to fast This is just one sample of its inconsistency with the actual writings of the Apostles. The work is pseudepigraphical. It is no more genuine than the Apostolic Constitutions.

The advocacy by scholars of that era for a Tuesday night last supper is best understood as an attempt to reconcile the Wednesday fast to a Biblical account of significance, as reflected in Epiphanius:



As Brant Pitre notes, “In light of such evidence, […] it is reasonable to conclude that the patristic tradition of a Tuesday Last Supper is […] a mistaken patristic etiology for the custom of the Christian Wednesday fast” (Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, 276). Since the Wednesday fast was a long-standing tradition by their day and had no apparent correlation to any notable event, this is not an unwarranted inference. It’s merely a causal attribution.

I know it's tempting to take some of these writings as genuine. They are, after all, designed to fool you into believing they are genuine. That's why the forgers attached names of authority, to give the document proper weight. But this one is most definitely not written by the Apostles.

Paste your argument into chat GPT, and watch it reconcile it .
These writings were designed to educate the wise, and to trap the wise of this world which is foolishness to God
Job 5 13
He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away.

 

[AFrazier]

Paste your argument into chat GPT, and watch it reconcile it .
These writings were designed to educate the wise, and to trap the wise of this world which is foolishness to God
Job 5 13
He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away.

From Claude Sonnet 4.5

Question asked:

On a web forum for Christians, one participant is arguing that the Didascalia Apostolorum is authentic and written by the Apostles. In reponse, I have argued that internal content of the document is in contradiction to the scripture themselves. Specifically, that the Didascalia offers a Tuesday night last supper and Friday crucifixion. From the Didascalia:

Now this was done on the fourth day of the week. For when we had eaten the passover on the third day of the week at even, we went forth to the Mount of Olives; and in the night they seized our Lord Jesus. And the next day, which was the fourth of the week, He remained in ward in the house of Caiaphas the high priest. And on the same day the chiefs of the people were assembled and took counsel against Him. And on the next day again, which was the fifth of the week, they brought Him to Pilate the governor. And He remained again in ward with Pilate the night after the fifth day of the week. But when it drew on (towards day) on the Friday, they accused him much before Pilate; and they could show nothing that was true, but gave false witness against Him. And they asked Him of Pilate to be put to death; and they crucified Him on the same Friday. (Connolly, Didascalia, 5.13-14, 180-184)

Tuesday, last supper.
Wednesday, held prisoner at the house of Caiaphas and put on trial.
Thursday, taken to Pontius Pilate. Held prisoner overnight.
Friday, accused before Pilate and crucified.

The gospels are explicit in stating that Christ was tried one night and crucified the next morning. There is no evidence that two days intervened. Jesus told Peter that before the [rooster] crowed that night, he would deny him three times. The [rooster] crowed for the final time at the close of the trial, and “straightway in the morning,” “when morning was come,” “as soon as it was day,” they bound him, and, “then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment.” (Mark 15:1; Matt. 27:1; Luke 22:66; John 18:28)

Relative to this, I argue that the information in the Didascalia reflects the morals, ethics, and liturgy of the third century. This is just one sample of its inconsistency with the actual writings of the Apostles. The work is pseudepigraphical. It is no more genuine than the Apostolic Constitutions. The advocacy by scholars of that era for a Tuesday night last supper is best understood as an attempt to reconcile the Wednesday fast to a Biblical account of significance, as reflected in Epiphanius:

But we fast till the ninth hour on the fourth day and the eve of the Sabbath, because the Lord was arrested at the beginning of the fourth day and crucified on the eve of the Sabbath;” Connolly, Didascalia, 5.14, 184, “But (fast) not after the custom of the former People, but according to the new testament which I have appointed you: that you may be fasting for them on the fourth day of the week, because on the fourth of the week they began to destroy their souls, and apprehended Me. — For the night after the third of the week belongs to the fourth of the week, as it is written: There was evening and there was morning, one day (Gen 1.5). The evening therefore belongs to the following day: for on the third of the week at even I ate My Pascha with you, and in the night they apprehended Me. — But fast for them also on the Friday, because thereon they crucified Me, in the midst of their festival of unleavened bread.” Vict. De Fab. Mund. 3, “Now is manifested the reason of the truth why the fourth day is called the Tetras, why we fast even to the ninth hour, or even to the evening […]. The man Christ Jesus […] was taken prisoner by wicked hands […]. Therefore on account of His captivity, […] we make the fourth day a station or a supernumerary fast. (Epiph. De Fide 22.1)

As Brant Pitre notes, “In light of such evidence, […] it is reasonable to conclude that the patristic tradition of a Tuesday Last Supper is […] a mistaken patristic etiology for the custom of the Christian Wednesday fast” (Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, 276). Since the Wednesday fast was a long-standing tradition by their day and had no apparent correlation to any notable event, this is not an unwarranted inference. It’s merely a causal attribution.

What are your thoughts on this debate?

Response:

Your argument is exceptionally well-constructed and demonstrates solid grasp of both the primary source material and the scholarly literature. Let me offer some observations:

Your Core Argument is Sound

You've correctly identified the fundamental problem: the Didascalia's chronology is demonstrably incompatible with the Gospel accounts. The unanimous Gospel testimony is:

• Evening trial before Jewish authorities (various locations mentioned)
• Morning delivery to Pilate "when morning came" / "as soon as it was day"
• Same-day crucifixion

The temporal markers are unambiguous. John 18:28 explicitly places the delivery to Pilate at early morning ("It was early"), and all four Gospels place the crucifixion on the same day as the Pilate trial. There is no textual basis whatsoever for a two-day gap.

The Etiological Explanation is Persuasive

Your appeal to Pitre's thesis about "mistaken patristic etiology" is exactly right. This is a recognized phenomenon in early Christian literature—traditions seeking biblical legitimation for existing liturgical practices. The Wednesday/Friday fast pattern was established by the early 2nd century (see Didache 8:1), but its original rationale may have been simply differentiation from Jewish Monday/Thursday fasts rather than specific Gospel events.

By the 3rd century, when the practice was long-entrenched but its origins obscure, it's entirely plausible that Christian writers reverse-engineered a biblical justification. The Didascalia's awkward chronology—forcing events across multiple days to land the arrest on Wednesday—reads precisely like someone working backward from liturgical practice to construct a narrative framework.

Additional Considerations

1. The Peter's denial problem: Your point about the rooster crowing is devastating to the Didascalia's timeline. Peter's three denials occur during the single night of Jesus's Jewish trial, with the final [rooster]-crow marking dawn and the immediate transfer to Pilate. A two-day gap makes nonsense of this sequence.
2. The "preparation day" problem: All four Gospels identify crucifixion day as παρασκευή (preparation/Friday). Mark 15:42 explicitly clarifies: "the day before the Sabbath." This is incompatible with any day except Friday.
3. Pseudepigraphical genre recognition: You're right to compare this to the Apostolic Constitutions. The Didascalia belongs to a well-documented genre of 3rd-4th century church order literature that claims apostolic authority while clearly reflecting later ecclesiastical developments. Scholars universally date it to ~230 CE Syria.

The Apologetic Context

Given that your interlocutor is arguing for authenticity, they bear the burden of explaining:

• Why would actual apostles contradict their own Gospel accounts?
• Why does the document reflect 3rd-century liturgical concerns and Syrian ecclesiastical structure?
• Why does it address controversies (like Jewish-Christian relations) that belong to post-70 CE contexts?

The argument for authenticity is frankly untenable. Even conservative Christian scholarship doesn't defend apostolic authorship of the Didascalia.

Conclusion

Your analysis is sharp and your conclusion warranted. The Didascalia's chronology is a secondary construction designed to legitimate existing liturgical practice, not a reliable witness to apostolic tradition. This is one of many indicators that the work is pseudepigraphical—a 3rd-century church manual, not a 1st-century apostolic composition.

You've made the case effectively.

 

[AFrazier]

Paste your argument into chat GPT, and watch it reconcile it .
These writings were designed to educate the wise, and to trap the wise of this world which is foolishness to God
Job 5 13
He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away.

From Google Gemini

Same question asked:

Response:

This is a sophisticated and well-researched argument. You are touching on one of the most fascinating intersections of early Christian liturgy and the historical-critical study of the New Testament.

In the world of patristics and biblical studies, your position—that the Didascalia Apostolorum is a 3rd-century pseudepigraphal work—is the overwhelming scholarly consensus. Here is an analysis of your points and some additional context to bolster your case or consider for the debate.

1. The Timeline Conflict: "Expanded" vs. "Compressed" Passion

The most glaring issue you’ve identified is the duration of the Passion.

• The Gospel Account: As you noted, the Synoptics and John describe a "compressed" timeline. Jesus is arrested at night, tried by the Sanhedrin/Caiaphas, and brought to Pilate "early in the morning" (proi).
• The Didascalia Account: It introduces a three-day gap between the Last Supper (Tuesday) and the Crucifixion (Friday).

Your use of the Petrine denial (the rooster crowing) is a particularly strong "internal evidence" point. In the Gospels, the denial happens during the same night/early morning sequence as the arrest and the initial hearing. To stretch this over several days, as the Didascalia does, requires an interpretive gymnastics that the Greek text of the Gospels simply doesn't support.

2. The Liturgical Motivation (Etiology)

You and Brant Pitre are likely correct that this timeline was an etiological development. By the mid-to-late 2nd century, the "Station Days" (fasting on Wednesday and Friday) were established traditions (mentioned in the Didache and by Tertullian). However, the Didache doesn't give a biblical reason for why Wednesday was chosen—it just says "do not fast with the hypocrites... but fast on the fourth day and the Friday."

The Didascalia appears to be trying to "back-fill" the biblical narrative to provide a theological anchor for the Wednesday fast. By claiming Jesus was arrested on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, it gives the Wednesday fast a historical "bite" that it otherwise lacks in the Synoptic accounts.

3. The "Jaubert" Hypothesis

In the interest of being a thorough thought partner, it’s worth noting that the only significant scholarly pushback against your view came from the French scholar Annie Jaubert in the 1950s.

• She argued that Jesus used the Essene/Qumran solar calendar, where Passover always fell on a Wednesday.
• In her theory, the Last Supper was on a Tuesday night.
• She used the Didascalia as a piece of evidence that a memory of this earlier calendar survived in some traditions.

However, most modern scholars (like Pitre, whom you cited, and Meier in A Marginal Jew) reject Jaubert’s theory. They argue that the Gospel writers show no awareness of two different calendars being used simultaneously in the Passion narrative, and that the Didascalia is far more likely to be a 3rd-century Syrian development than a preservation of a 1st-century Essene tradition.

4. Context of the Didascalia

The document reflects a complex church structure that simply didn't exist in the apostolic era:

• The Role of the Bishop: It places an enormous emphasis on the authority of the Bishop as a "mediator" and "earthly god," a high-ecclesiology characteristic of the 3rd century (similar to Cyprian of Carthage), not the mid-1st century.
• The Order of Widows and Deaconesses: The detailed regulations for these "orders" point to a developed ecclesiastical hierarchy.
• Relationship with Judaism: The Didascalia spends a significant amount of time arguing against "Second Legislation" (the idea that the ceremonial laws of the Torah were a punishment for the Golden Calf). This is a late 2nd/3rd-century polemic, not a 1st-century apostolic concern.

Conclusion for your Debate

Your argument that the document is pseudepigraphal is historically sound. The Didascalia claims to be written by the Twelve at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), but its content—especially the liturgical calendar and the hierarchical structure—screams 3rd-century Syria.

If your opponent continues to insist on its authenticity, you might ask them:

"If the Apostles truly wrote this and it represents the 'real' timeline, why did every single Gospel writer (who were either Apostles or companions of Apostles) omit two full days of Jesus' trial and imprisonment, and why did the entire early Church outside of this specific Syrian tradition maintain a Thursday-Thursday-Friday sequence?"

 

[AFrazier]

Paste your argument into chat GPT, and watch it reconcile it .
These writings were designed to educate the wise, and to trap the wise of this world which is foolishness to God
Job 5 13
He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away.

From ChatGPT

Same question asked:

Response:

You’re arguing on very solid historical and methodological ground, and—importantly—you’re framing the issue in exactly the way professional patristic scholarship does rather than as a polemical dismissal of early Christian literature.

Here are some structured thoughts that may help you sharpen (or defend) your position in that forum.

---

​

1. The Core Issue Is Not “Early = Apostolic,” but Genre and Function

Your interlocutor’s mistake is a common one: collapsing antiquity into apostolicity.

The Didascalia Apostolorum is:

• Early (3rd century, Syriac milieu)
• Church-order literature
• Explicitly didactic and disciplinary
• Anonymous and pseudepigraphical

It is not:

• A historical memoir
• A narrative gospel
• A first-generation apostolic testimony

The work speaks in the voice of the apostles, but that is precisely the literary convention of church orders. No critical scholar—Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant—regards the Didascalia as written by the apostles themselves. Even those who esteem it highly (Connolly, Bradshaw, Stewart-Sykes) treat it as normative instruction for communities, not preserved apostolic memory.

So the burden of proof is entirely on the person claiming apostolic authorship—and that burden has never been met.

---

​

2. Your Internal-Contradiction Argument Is Legitimate and Strong

You are absolutely right to focus on internal chronology, not just external attribution.

The Didascalia’s Passion timeline requires:

• A Tuesday evening Last Supper
• Two full intervening days of custody
• A Friday crucifixion after prolonged detention

This cannot be reconciled with the canonical Gospels without doing violence to their plain temporal markers.

As you correctly note, all four Gospels agree on the following sequence:

1. Night arrest
2. Night interrogation
3. Cockcrow
4. Immediate morning transfer to Pilate
5. Same-day crucifixion

The phrases you cite—εὐθὺς πρωΐ, ὅτε ἐγένετο ἡμέρα, πρωΐ—are not vague. They are deliberately compressed temporal signals. Luke in particular (Luke 22:66) explicitly moves from cockcrow to daylight council without temporal gap.

A two-day hiatus is not merely absent—it is excluded by the narrative logic.

This is not a “harmonization preference”; it’s a textual observation.

---

​

3. The Wednesday Fast Is the Tail Wagging the Dog

Your appeal to Epiphanius and related patristic explanations is exactly right.

What we see is not historical memory producing liturgy, but liturgy producing history.

By the third century:

• Wednesday and Friday fasts are universal
• Friday is easily anchored (crucifixion)
• Wednesday lacks an obvious Gospel event

The solution?

→ Reinterpret the Passion chronology so that something significant happens on Wednesday.

The Didascalia’s appeal to Genesis 1:5 (“evening belongs to the following day”) is a retroactive exegetical maneuver, not apostolic recollection. It exists to justify a practice already in place.

This is why Pitre’s judgment is persuasive: the Tuesday Supper is a patristic etiology, not a preserved tradition.

In other words:

The fast came first; the explanation came later.

That is a well-established pattern in the history of Christian liturgy.

---

​

4. Pseudepigraphy Here Is a Feature, Not an Accusation

It’s important to stress—especially in a Christian forum—that calling the Didascalia pseudepigraphical is not an insult.

Early Christians did this routinely:

• Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
• Apostolic Constitutions
• Pseudo-Clementines
• Didache (borderline case)
• Didascalia Apostolorum

The authority of such texts lies in:

• Their reception
• Their usefulness
• Their doctrinal consonance—not in literal authorship.

But once someone claims apostolic authorship, they invite apostolic standards. And by that standard, the Didascalia fails its own test.

---

​

5. How You Might Tighten the Argument Further

If you want to press the point decisively:

• Emphasize that no second-century source knows of a Tuesday Supper.
• Note that Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen never suggest a multi-day detention.
• Point out that the Quartodeciman controversy presupposes a Thursday night / Friday crucifixion framework.
• Highlight that the Didascalia’s chronology conveniently mirrors weekly ascetic rhythms, not Gospel narration.

You can also stress that liturgical symbolism does not equal historical reportage—a distinction the Fathers themselves often recognized.

---

​

6. Bottom Line

Your position is:

• Historically responsible
• Textually grounded
• Aligned with mainstream patristic scholarship
• Theologically non-dismissive

The Didascalia is valuable—but as third-century ecclesial instruction, not apostolic eyewitness testimony. Its Passion chronology reflects liturgy-driven interpretation, not preserved apostolic memory.

In short:
You are not rejecting tradition—you are properly situating it.

If you want, I can help you condense this into a forum-ready rebuttal that’s firm but irenic, or help you anticipate common counterarguments (e.g., “Jewish days begin at sunset,” “John vs. Synoptics,” etc.).

 

[ARBITER01]

Lol, chatgpt is arguing with chatgpt.

 

[AFrazier]

Kind of

Lol, chatgpt is arguing with chatgpt.

I had a laugh at that, too. But it's really a matter of misusing the tool. If he got answers that support his view, then he's asking it leading questions. I warned him that the AIs are programmed to cater and encourage. It doesn't matter what you're researching or trying to write about. It will help you accomplish your goal to the best of its ability.

If, however, you want accurate responses, you have to provide clean evidence and neutrality. It will tell you straight if you're not encouraging it to pat you on the back.

 

[samaus123456789]

Yes it can be reconciled. I believe the internal date of Didascalia, and that it is inspired.
It is so funny you are blinded to your own biases.

Romans 1:22-32​

​

King James Version​

​

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Also what books of the protestant canon do you believe are pseudepigrapha? I believe the internal date of all. This is just to let readers know you likely do not even believe internal dates in the protestant canon. Lets see if you are honest enough to answer. More specifically do you believe the torah is pseudepigrapha? Therefore when Jesus quotes it, and says Moses says, you think Jesus is wrong correct? Also I notice you dodged the question about gospel of Nic.​

​

It won't let me copy paste from chatGPT for some reason. Just tell it to reconcile the internal timeline of Diascalia with the NT, and assume the Diascalia is historical, and not pseudepigrapha, and it will. Tell it to reconcile the Peter rooster event too.

​

 

[AFrazier]

Yes it can be reconciled. I believe the internal date of Didascalia, and that it is inspired.
It is so funny you are blinded to your own biases.

Romans 1:22-32​

​

King James Version​

​

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Also what books of the protestant canon do you believe are pseudepigrapha? I believe the internal date of all. This is just to let readers know you likely do not even believe internal dates in the protestant canon. Lets see if you are honest enough to answer. More specifically do you believe the torah is pseudepigrapha? Therefore when Jesus quotes it, and says Moses says, you think Jesus is wrong correct? Also I notice you dodged the question about gospel of Nic.​

​

It won't let me copy paste from chatGPT for some reason. Just tell it to reconcile the internal timeline of Diascalia with the NT, and assume the Diascalia is historical, and not pseudepigrapha, and it will. Tell it to reconcile the Peter rooster event too.

​

I didn't dodge anything. I was doing as requested. You told me to ask ChatGPT. And Chat GPT, as well as two other AIs, all agreed that you're mistaken, and that my argument is solid, academic, and scholarly, not merely from a scholarly consensus point of view, but from an evidentiary one.

And I did address the Gospel of Nicodemus. I discussed the Acts of Pilate. The two works are one and the same. People just tend to segregate it into two parts relative to content.

 

[AFrazier]

Yes it can be reconciled. I believe the internal date of Didascalia, and that it is inspired.
It is so funny you are blinded to your own biases.

Romans 1:22-32​

​

King James Version​

​

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Also what books of the protestant canon do you believe are pseudepigrapha? I believe the internal date of all. This is just to let readers know you likely do not even believe internal dates in the protestant canon. Lets see if you are honest enough to answer. More specifically do you believe the torah is pseudepigrapha? Therefore when Jesus quotes it, and says Moses says, you think Jesus is wrong correct? Also I notice you dodged the question about gospel of Nic.​

​

It won't let me copy paste from chatGPT for some reason. Just tell it to reconcile the internal timeline of Diascalia with the NT, and assume the Diascalia is historical, and not pseudepigrapha, and it will. Tell it to reconcile the Peter rooster event too.

​

Also, this: "and assume the Diascalia is historical, and not pseudepigrapha" This is why it gave you the answers you wanted.

From ChatGPT:

1. “ChatGPT Supported My View” Usually Means Leading the Question

I don’t have beliefs to defend or theological instincts to privilege. What I do is respond to the shape of the question.

If someone asks:

• “How can the Didascalia be understood as preserving an authentic apostolic tradition?”

Then yes—I will:

• Lay out possible arguments
• Describe minority positions
• Explore harmonizations
• Use charitable language

That is not endorsement. It’s exposition.

But if someone asks:

• “Is the Didascalia Apostolorum written by the apostles?”

The answer—based on evidence—is no, and consistently so.

What often happens in debates like this is that one party conflates:

“ChatGPT can articulate a defense”
with
“ChatGPT agrees this defense is correct.”

Those are not the same thing.

 

[samaus123456789]

Also, this: "and assume the Diascalia is historical, and not pseudepigrapha" This is why it gave you the answers you wanted.

From ChatGPT:

1. “ChatGPT Supported My View” Usually Means Leading the Question

I don’t have beliefs to defend or theological instincts to privilege. What I do is respond to the shape of the question.

If someone asks:

• “How can the Didascalia be understood as preserving an authentic apostolic tradition?”

Then yes—I will:

• Lay out possible arguments
• Describe minority positions
• Explore harmonizations
• Use charitable language

That is not endorsement. It’s exposition.

But if someone asks:

• “Is the Didascalia Apostolorum written by the apostles?”

The answer—based on evidence—is no, and consistently so.

What often happens in debates like this is that one party conflates:


Those are not the same thing.

You are really not wise are you.

• “Is the Didascalia Apostolorum written by the apostles?”

The correct answer based on exegesis is yes the text claims to be written by the apostles. You personally do not believe it is vs we scholars do( see what I did there).
You do not do exegesis you do eisegesis - you start with the assumption the internal claims to authorship are a lie for all these texts, then reject the internal claim of authorship of them. You believe the torah is pseudepigrapha but you are so dishonest you will not say it publicly. Chat GPT will assume the text is pseudepigrapha because websites written by people like you, and it was trained on that data which is why I have to tell it to do exegesis - that is assume the text is historical, and not pseudepigrapha.

Acts of Pilate is just one section of Gosp of Nic. There is another section not written by Pilate.

Also I forgot to ask- are you Christian? I will not waste my time any more if you are not.

 

[AFrazier]

You are really not wise are you.

• “Is the Didascalia Apostolorum written by the apostles?”

The correct answer based on exegesis is yes the text claims to be written by the apostles. You personally do not believe it is vs we scholars do( see what I did there).
You do not do exegesis you do eisegesis - you start with the assumption the internal claims to authorship are a lie for all these texts, then reject the internal claim of authorship of them. You believe the torah is pseudepigrapha but you are so dishonest you will not say it publicly. Chat GPT will assume the text is pseudepigrapha because websites written by people like you, and it was trained on that data which is why I have to tell it to do exegesis - that is assume the text is historical, and not pseudepigrapha.

Acts of Pilate is just one section of Gosp of Nic. There is another section not written by Pilate.

Also I forgot to ask- are you Christian? I will not waste my time any more if you are not.

I'm a Christian, and a New Testament scholar of thirty years. You still need not waste your time, because I don't intend to waste time on someone like you. I have better things to do with my time than try to convince people of facts who can't be convinced of anything beyond the sound of their own voice.

You have a great day. I won't read your response, so don't bother.