Didascalia Apostolorum Teaching of the Apostles inspired scripture

jas3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

samaus123456789 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

samaus123456789 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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.

samaus123456789 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

samaus123456789 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?"

samaus123456789 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.).

Lol, chatgpt is arguing with chatgpt.

Kind of

ARBITER01 said:

Lol, chatgpt is arguing with chatgpt.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

​

Click to expand...

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.

samaus123456789 said:

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.

​

Click to expand...

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.”

Click to expand...

Those are not the same thing.