Didache (Hastings' Dictionary)

Discovery in modern times, A. THE PrimAL DipacHE, i. The Didache of our MS. (a) Title. (Uv) Contents and structure. ii, Materials for comparative criticism. (a) Textual witnesses : (1) primary, (2) second- ary. (b) Historical testimonia, (c) Conclusions. fii, Genesis of the Didache. (a) Genesis of the T'wo Ways. (b) The witness of Larnabas ; date of this wit- ness. (©) Origin of the fuller Didache, (d) Its exact contents. iv. Church conditions implied in the Didache. v. Date. B.

TRANSFORMATIONS UNDERGONE BY THE DIDACHE. C. SIGNIFICANCK OF THE DipACHUE FOR EARLY CHRISTIANITY Literature. Discovery in modern times.—The publication in 1883 of the early Christian manual popularly DIDACHE DIDACHE 439 known as the Didache marks an epoch in the study of primitive Christianity. One might com- os it to the rediscovery of the genuine Ignatian pistles in the 17th century.

But the comparison would do scant justice to its real significance, which lies in the way in which the Didache bears on a wide range of early writings, and on phenomena in them which it causes to stand out in new and clearer light.

Itis needful, then, to do more than consider the actual contents of our MS, written in 1056 by ‘ Leo, notary and sinner,’ and discovered about 1875 in the library of the Jerusalem monas- tery in Phanar, the Greek quarter of Constan- tinople, by Philotheus Bryennios, a scholarly Greek ecclesiastic. One must also try to estimate the various literary and historical relations of the original work which the MS brings to our know- ledge, and of which it remains the prime repre- sentative.

In this MS, doubtless Palestinian in origin, it occupies 203 lines, of 53 letters on an average ; so that it is about the size of St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians. But in all probability the original work, with which we are mainly con- cerned, was slightly shorter. Accordingly, our in- quiries will fall under three main heads, viz.

, (A) The primal Didache: its contents, genesis, date ; (B) the transformations which it underwent in various circles ; (C) its significance in the history of Christianity. A. THE PRIMAL DIDACHE.—i. THE DIDACHE OF ouR MS.—(a) Title.—Of the two titles in the MS, ‘ Teaching of the XII Apostles’ and ‘ Teaching of the Lord through the XII Apostles to the Gentiles,’ it seems natural to regard the latter as the more original.

One can hardly imagine the fuller and more individual title being added be- tween the commoner one and the text proper. It is unlikely, however, that either of them be- longed to the earliest form of the ‘Teaching,’ corresponding roughly to chaps. i.-vi. of our MS. This ay of precepts touching the Two Ways may perhaps, in its oral stage, have had some descriptive title, such as ‘the Way of the Teach- ing’* (see ravrys Tijs 600 THs dudaxfs in vi.

1), or ‘the Way’; or it may have been known simply as ‘the Teaching’ (see dAAny divdaxHv in xi. 2, cf. vi. 1; cf. Barn. xvi. 9 ai évrodal ris didax7js, also xviil. 1), or ‘Teaching of the Lord’ (perhaps pre- served in our second title, Avdaxh Kuplov, «.7.A., cf. évroal Kuptov, iv. 12f.), the God of Israel (see mapextos Oe00, vi. 1).

This would accord both with the contents of the original Zwo Ways and with the phrasing in Ac 13” éxrdqnrrémevos él rp didayxy rod Kupiov, where reference has just been made to Tas é60ds Tod Kuplov ras evfelas (Hos 14). Here ‘Teaching’ has the objective sense of ‘ Doctrine.’ As Dr. C. Taylor+ says, ‘the primitive Church had, instead of a New Testament, a body of teach- ing, which was at first, from the nature of the case, wholly unwritten. To this St.

Paul alludes when he lays down that a bishop must be blameless, ‘holding to the faithful word which is according to The Teaching” (Tit 1°). Justin Martyr again expressly refers to it, speaking of Christ as at- tested ‘‘by the words of The Teaching, and the prophecies to Him ward” (Dial. 35). This teaching would sometimes be spoken of as the Lord’s, and after a while as the Apostles’ (2 Jn®, Ac 2%), just as the Jews spoke of a Torah absolutely, and of a Torah of Moses, and of the Lord.

’ Certainly the way in which St. Paul refers to the ‘ type of teach- ing’ (in relation to ‘sin, unto death,’ and ‘ obedi- ence, unto righteousness’) unto which the Roman * Of. 2 P22 4 sdes was LrAmOsiag (rns Sixcsorivys, 221); and Ac 92 199. 23 ‘the Way,’ 182% ‘the Way of the Lord,’ 224 ‘this Way,’ 2414 ‘the Way which they call heresy,’ 2422 sidds r& repi ris odo0. t The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: Two Lectures, p. 112.

Christians were ‘committed’ (Ro 61%), and which forbade the causing of division (d:yooracla, 16", cf. Did. iv. 3 ov rovjoes cxlopua), is very suggestive of a recognized form of ‘Teaching’ to converts, on lines similar to those of our Two Ways. Still full proof is lacking that it was so styled. Nor can we be sure of the title under which the Teaching was first written down. ‘Teaching of the Apostles’ (cf.

Ac 2) is likely enough, especi- ally if this was, as it appears, the earliest form in which it was known in Egypt. But, even were this more certain than it is, it would not necessarily be the original Palestinian form, which might be simply ‘The Teaching’ (like Didascalia, the title of a later Palestinian work suggested by our Didache). Still, the varied character of the witness to ‘Teaching of the Apostles’ rather supports this as the primitive title of the written Zwo Ways. Thus the Lat.

version, the purest form of the 7'’wo Ways apart from our MS, has as its rubrie de doctrina Apostolorum ; soalso Eusebius (HE iii. 25 T&v amocréAwy al eyoudvat didaxal, which Rufinus renders Doctrina que dicitur Apostolorum), Atha- nasius (Festal Epistles, 39, didax kadoupévyn TGv at.), and Nicephorus (6:dax% docréAwv),.

It looks, then, as if there were two distinct lines of transmission in the history of the Two Ways, of which the Latin and our MS are the types—a result borne out by textual criticism. The question of their mutual relations will be dealt with later on. Only, we may here observe that the phrase ‘ XII Apostles’ is no less primitive than ‘the Apostles’ pure and simple. Thus in that part of the Ascen- ston of Isaiah which represents a time prior to A.D.

100, it is ‘the Twelve Apostles of the Be- loved’ who plant the Church (iv. 3); and it is ‘the preaching (zpopyreia) of his Twelve Apostles’ that is forsaken by the mass of ‘disciples’ ‘on the eve of His approach’ (iii. 21). Hence the idea of ‘the Lord’s teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles’ is quite in keeping with an earl date for the recension so described, especially if it belong to Palestine.

And as it does not claim for its contents that they are the very words of the Apostles (cf. ‘my child’ in iii, l-iv. 1), there is nothing pseudonymous about the work. It repre- sents current teaching and usage at a time when it was natural to assume that these did but ex- press the mind of ‘the Lord’—which to the com- piler of our Didache doubtless means, as in several other places (viii. 2, ix. 5, efs dvoua Kupiov, xi. 2, 4, 8, xv. 4, xvi. 1, 7f.), the glorified Christ.

(b) Contents and structure.—As it stands in our MS, the Didache has real organic unity. A natu- ral development of thought is traceable through- out (save perhaps in one section near the beginning), as will appear from the following summary. There are Two Ways in this world, one of Life and one of Death—so radically different are they.

The Way of Life consists of ive (1) to God our Maker, (2) to one’s neighbour as to oneself: this involves refraining from doing to another what one would not have done to oneself. ‘Now of these words the Teaching is as fol- lows’ :— The Evangelical precepts which follow in our MS exemplif the thought of positive love to man, flowing from love to Go But the latter idea, the first element in the Great Command- ment, is not formally developed.

It is regarded as fulfilled in relation to man as God’s image, whether in the fuller way represented by our MS, or up to the level of the negative form of the Golden Rule, which practically replaces the positive in the exposition or ‘teaching’ of the Way of Life in its original form (see below).

Then comes a section dealing with practical love to one’s fellow in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mounf, in which foigiveness of wrong and the relief of physical need by one’s own goods are emphasized. In the latter case a warning to DIDACHE the recipient is appended, as to his final account- ability to God, if he take save when in want; likewise he who has whereof to give is bidden to make sure that he finds a fit recipient. The exposition of the negative form of the Golden Rule opens (ch.

ii.) with the words, ‘Now the second precept of the Teaching (is).’ It consists of an expansion of the second table of the Deca- logue, beginning, after Jewish usage, with ‘Thou shalt not kill’; but it also inserts the Third Com- mandment against perjury, in close connexion with false witness. The expansion in question is in terms of vices to shia paganism was specially addicted.

The incidence of pagan failings explains the reversal of the order as to homicide and adultery found in the Latin version. This change confirms the view that its text represents Alex- andria rather than Palestine; Dt 517f LXX, cf. JQR xv. 309 ff. No mention is made of the Sabbath or of honour to parents. The former seems to be omitted inten- tionally ; the latter may be taken for granted, or may be omitted because pagan parents must be disobeyed.

Abstinence from idolatry is naturally assumed: thus in iii. 4, vi. 3, things are for- bidden as leading to or implying idolatry. This section ends with what is its keynote—prohibition of all evil purpose or feeling against another. Indeed it goes further: ‘Thou shalt not hate any man; but some thou shalt rebuke, and for some thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love above thine own life. The next section (ch. iii.)

, which has a unity of its own as regards its first five or six precepts at any rate (indicated by the recurrence of ‘my child’), _ passes to the subtler sort of sins, which lead on to the grosser kind already dealt with. It makes the moral ideal more searching and exhaustive. In Jewish phrase, ‘it fences the Law’: ‘ My child, flee from every evil, and from everything like unto it.

’ Its Jewish colour is very evident ; and the cardinal sins to which others lead are homicide, adultery, idolatry, theft, blasphemy.

In contrast to the haughty and self-assertive temper, to which the last of these is traced, there follows a series of exhortations to humility of spirit and conduct which have a more specifically Christian ring ; and the section ends with an exhortation meekly to accept the dispensations of Providence as good (which may once have followed the last of the more Jewish precepts, in an oral body of catechesis for proselytes to Judaism), ; An easy transition to the last class of duties (ch. iv.)

, those of life in the religious community and family in particular, is presented by the inculca- tion of reverential docility towards ‘him who speaks the word of God’; ‘for where the lordship is spoken, there is the Lord’ (a truly Jewish maxim).

And here follow precepts on consorting with ‘the saints’; on the avoidance of disunion, partiality in judgment, a doubtful mind; on sel- fishness and beneficence—the latter marked by a cheerful spirit, in view of Divine recompense and of the brethren’s fellowship ‘in the greater goods of immortality; on parental discipline and the mutual relations of master and bond-servant (2-11).

The whole ends with the summary precepts :* ‘Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy and whatsoever is not pleasing to the Lord. Thou shalt not abandon the Lord’s precepts, but shalt keep what thou didst receive, neither adding nor taking away. In meeting thou shalt openly confess thy trans- gressions (cf. Ja 5'%), and shalt not come to thy ae with a bad conscience. This is the Way of ife.’ The Way of Death (ch. v.)

is simply the opposite * Probably part of the original framework of Jewish oral zatechests ; cf. the re-emergence of ‘my son in the Latin ver- sion, which may here preserve an original touch DIDACHE of all this, and takes the form of a List of Vices (§ 1 follows the order of chs. ii.-iii.), a common topic both in classical and Jewish literature.

In Judaism, indeed, there seems to have existed something like a standing list, to judge from the many points of contact be- tween this list and those in the NT (e.g. Mk 7211, Ro 1298, 1 Co 5104., 2 Co 1220, Gal 519-21, Col 35, 1 Ti 19f, 2 Ti 324), on the one hand, and the traditional Confession of Sins in the Synagogue (Vidut), taken along with Wis 1422, the Slavonic Enoch 1046, and Test, XII Patriarchs (Reuben 3, Levi 17), on the other: ef. Clem. Hom. i. 18, xi. 27, Recogn. iv. 36.

Note the Jewish alpha- betic number 22 in § 1: see Rendel Harris, Teaching, 82 ff. Instruction in the ‘Two Ways’ ends (ch. vi.) in our MS with warning against deviation from ‘this way of (the) Teaching’ as deviation from God’s truth. To which are added two postscripts: ‘If, then, thou art able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect: but if thou art not able, what thou canst, that do.

But touching food (Spots), bear what thou art able; yet of that (food) which hath been offered to idols beware exceedingly ; for it is a service of dead gods.’ * The significance of these will be cealt with in the sequel. Such was the Teaching + which should ring in the ears of the Gentile convert as he took upon himself the vows of Christian baptism. Of this, in a simple t form, the manual now goes on to speak (ch. vii.)

And as it refers to fasting as an accompaniment of baptism, it passes naturally to the stated Christian Fasts and Prayers (ch. viii.), —in each case as contrasted with those of ‘the hypocrites’ (i.e. unbelieving Jews). Next comes a S eseripHion of the special Eucharistic prayers preceding and following the actual eating of the Church’s sacred meal (lit. ‘being filled’).

A striking feature of both groups of prayers is their reference to the fulfilment of the feast, and of its imagery, in the consummated state of the Church in the kingdom of God. It is added, however, that the liturgical forms here given (chs. ix. x.) are not to bind ‘ prophets’ in Eucharistic prayer.

At this point the manual pauses once more, te call attention to all that has gone before (raira mdvra Ta mpoeipnuéva) as the norm of true teaching on the matters in question, and the test of such as are to be recsived as teachers. ‘If the teacher himself turn and teach another teaching to the undoing (of this), hear him not; but if to the increase of righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord’ (xi. 2).

nd so we are led naturally to a description of the ministry of the Word, which is of the ‘ prophetic’ or heaven- sent type. ‘Apostles,’ or divinely prompted mis- sionaries,§ are described quite briefly, as bein, rather exceptional visitants.

They are first name in conjunction with the prophets,|| as persons pro- vided for by ‘the rule of the gospel’ (kara 7d déypa rod evayyedlov) ; and then follow one or two rough and ready rules for their treatment, as they pass through existing churches on the way to their . mission-fields (ef. 3 Jn °8), ‘Prophets’ occupy mors space, probably as being a subject of more prac- tical interest for those addressed.

The need cf tests, as between genuine and spurious claiman‘s to the high authority and functions conceded to him who had the spirit of prophecy (a prime mai k of the Messianic age, Ac 2%), was becomir g acutely felt.

But the simplicity of the tests hee supplied—those of character merely, where the * Wis 1310 ‘But wretched they, and in dead (things) thir hopes: for that they called ‘‘ gods” the works of men’s hands’ + Compare the ‘foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God’ in He 61, with its own further 33a x% Paula originally than what now stands in Did. vii. 2-4; sea below, ili. (d) ad jin. § By this time called ‘evangelists’ in most regions outside Palestine; cf.

Eph 411, 2Ti 45, Ac 218 (written for non Palestinian readers), Euseb. HE iii. 37; yet see Rev 2%, || An unworthy ‘apostle’ is called a ‘pseudo-prophet’ (xi. 6) a * DIDACHE recognized phenomena of ‘ speaking in Spirit’ were present—shows that the age of ‘enthusiasm’ is still far from over (cf.

Jude 1-19, 2 P Q}f-13), As these two types of itinerant ministry are to be received acrording to certain rules, so the ordinary Christian stranger needs handling with prudence, including cases in which he wishes to settle among his new friends (ch. xii.) This in turn suggests the case in which even a prophet desires to settle in one community.

His support is provided for by the principle that ‘the labourer is worthy of his meat’; and this applies also to ‘teachers,’ a less spontaneous and more local type of the inspired ministry.* But it is the prophets, above all, who answer to the highest ministry under the OT; ‘they are your chief tee (esp. as offering the sacrifice of prayer at the Eucharist, x. 7, xiv.

1-3) ; and accordingly, to them, in the first instance, fall the first-fruits of various kinds (those specified are mainly country produce). Failing a prophet, first- fruits go to the poor (ch. xiii.) After this excursus on matters of Discipline in relation to brethren coming to the community from outside,—suggested, it seems, by the mention of prophets in connexion with the Eucharistic Mea!

,— the compiler turns again to the chief features of internal church order, and so to the Eucharist, the stated Breaking of Bread on the Lord’s day,t to lay down the conditions of its ‘ pure’ observance (ch. xiv.) This depends on prior confession of trespasses (cf. iv. 14) between those uniting in the sacred ‘sacrifice’ of praise in prayer.

None may partake while out of harmony with his fellow ;{ so shall their sacrifice of prayer§ be that pointed to by Mal 1"-1*, The thought of the Church’s gather- ing on the Lord’s day leads to mention of the local ministry, ‘bishops’ and ‘deacons,’ as those who, in a sense, share the sacred ministry (Aevrovpyia) primarily belonging to the ministers of the Word, prophets and teachers.

Hence they are not to e looked down upon because their own special functions are of a humbler order, but are to rank as associates of their more gifted colleagues in the honour of the ministry (xv. 1, 2). With this apology for the administrative ministry, elected by the local community itself (and now assuming greater importance than in the past), the compiler returns to the thought of fraternal discipline, already alluded to in connexion with the Eucharist.

He uses terms which imply that it was a matter of the Church itself, and not only of its bishops and deacons, and enjoins that it be dealt with ‘as ye have it in the Gospel’ (cf. Mt 18"). This same Gospel standard || is to sep lats their suppli- cations (e’xds) and alms and all their actions (xv. 3, 4). Finally, let them ‘watch’ in the interests of their ‘life,’ to be ready when the Lord comes.

The last days may be very near, marked by abundance of seudo- prophets and corrupters (already on the orizon, xi. 2) and by degeneration of the sheep. Then, as lawlessness increases, hatred shall go the length of persecution and treachery among the brethren, until there shall appear the world- deceiver as God’s Son, with signs and wonders, and run a course of temporary triumph.

Thus man- kind shall be tested, and even many believers shall fail: ‘but those who shall endure in their faith * Ja 81 ‘Become not many of you teachers, my brethren’; cf. Ac 181, 1 Co 1228, Eph 411, 1 Ti 517f, 2P 21, Barn. i. 8, iv. 9, t Kupiox xvpiov, perhaps as replacing the ci6Baroy xvpiov of the OT; cf. ch. viii., where new fast-days are prescribed. t ‘Transgression between man and his fellow the Day of Atonement does not expiate, until his fellow be reconciled’ (Mishna, Y6m4, viii. 9; cf.

Mt 52f, Ja 516), ; : § So the citation of this passage in de Aleatoribus, iv., has ‘ne inquinetur et impediatur oratio vestra’; cf. Tert. Apol. 30, adv. Mare. iv. 1. ; | Of. Mt 523. 65%, Mk 1125, for the conditions of true supplica- tions (with an implied vow, sxés), and Mt 6!4 for alms.

' shall be saved by the curse* itself,’ DIDACHE 44] And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sigr of outspreading (the Crucitied with outspreac arms) in heaven; + next, the sign of a trumpet’s voice; and third, resurrection of the dead—not of all, however, but, as it was said, ‘the Lord shail come and all the saints with Him.’ ‘Then shal? the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.’ ii, MATERIALS FOR COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

— In view of this summary most will agree with Harnack (Herzog’s P&E i. 713) when he says: ‘Even if we knew nothing of the document from separate tradition, were awaye of no later recen- sions of it, and were not in a position to supply its sources, we should—apart from some passages in the first chapter, which, in any case, raise the suspicion of being later additious—have toacquiesce in the assumption of the integrity of the writing.

’ Perhaps this is to overlook one or two secondary features in chs. vil.—xvi., particularly ch. vii.; but, broadly speaking, it is true. When, however, we turn to the traces of the work in the ancient Church, and to certain related documents that have reached us, perplexities and complications. arise on every hand. ‘These we must now examine, yet without ignoring the unity in style and lan- guage, as well as in feeling, which marks our Didache as a whole.

(a) Leatual witnesses : (1) Primary— (a) A=Apostolical Constitutions, vii. 1-32. This embodies the whole of the Didache, almost as found in our MS—the 7'wo Ways largely verbatim (1-21), the rest with more reserve ; but throughout occur large additiong meant to suit the taste of certain circles of Syrian Christians in the latter half of the 4th century.

Its special value lies at once in the relative completeness of its use of our Didache, and in the fact that it belongs, broadly speaking, to the same region. It opens with the reference made by ‘the lawgiver Moses’ to choice between the Ways of Life and Death (Dt 3019), and having cited the words of ‘the Lord Jesus,’ ‘No man can serve two masters,’ continues: ‘As in duty bound (évayzaios), we also, following the Teacher (d:daeczxéaw), Christ, . . say that ‘Two Ways there are,”’ etc.

This rather points to knowledge of Aidax7 Kupicv in the title, just as the opening of the Apost. Const. asa whole, raos rois ££ stvav miotsicaci, points to ras thveriv. As to the T'welve Apostles, this is found in the title of the Didascalia (see below), the basis of Apost. Const. i.-vi., which runs: ‘The Didascalia, or the Catholic Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and holy disciples of our Saviour.’ (8) B=Epistle of Barnabas. In chs. xviii.—xx. it ae the bulk of the Two Ways as found in Did. i.

-v., but in a very different order and with some textual variation (partly due to freedom of citation, partly perhaps, also to original textual differences). ‘There are slight echoes of the Two Ways in other parts of the Epistle, as also a rather close parallel in iv. 9, 10 to Did. xvi. 2. The great value of the Epistle of Barnabas is that it supplies an early date (see below, iii. (d)) in the literary his- tory of the Didache. (y) CO = Apostolic Church Ordinances, 1-14.

This compilation of about A.D. 300+ does for the Egyptian Church what Apost. Const. vii. does for the Syrian ; it works up the local recension of the Didache into a form more accordant with current sentiment. This work (which exists in Greek, Coptic, and Syriac) is our chief witness for the textual trans- mission of the Zwo Ways in Egypt; for there is * For the idea of salvation through suffering, for Messiah’s people as well as for Messiah, see Barn. viii.

6: ‘In his king- dom there shall be evil and foul days, in the which we shall be saved: for he who suffers pain in the flesh is healed through the foulness of the hyssop’; cf. vii. 11 and Rev 19, t Mt 2430 ‘the sign of the Son of Man in heaven’ (so Apost. Const. vii. 32). t The shorter recension found in Cod. Ottob. and two other MSS (see T. Schermann, Hine Eifapostelmoral, Munchen, 1903) may be rather earlier.

442 DIDACHE DIDACHE no proof that the Epistle of Barnabas was written in Alexandria, rather than to it. Thus it is by the aid of CO that we are able to recognize the next document as a witness to the Egyptian type of text. But CO has one or two features due to the Epistle of Barnabas also. (6) L=The Latin version. Until recently this was known only in a fragment (Cod. Mellicensis), ending with Did. ii. 6*. But in 1900 it was pub- lished by J. Schlecht from a complete 11th cent.

MS, now at Munich, and extending to vi. 1, after which come two or three concluding paragraphs peculiar to itself (see below). This version probably belongs to the 4th cent. (ef. Schlecht, Die Apostel- lehre in der Liturgie der Kathol. Kirche, 67 f.), and its value is great in two directions. It tends to con- firm the idea that the original Didache consisted of the Zwo Ways and nothing more; and it isa most important textual witness in conjunction with CO and Barnabas.

As to L and what of CO answers to it, we may say in general that they represent the same type of text at different stages of deviation from its primal form. On the whole L is further from our MS, and this not only because of such liberties as are natural to a translator. Sometimes it or its Greek original omitted and transposed,* and sometimes adopted additional touches from Barnabas and Hermas, at least in the opening paragraph. ‘Viz dus sunt in seculo, vite et mortis, Jucis et tenebrarum.

In his constituti sunt angeli duo, unus equitatis, alter iniqui- tatis.’ Here the words in italics echo Barn. xviii., 4 rs rou Owras zor h TOU oxoTOUSs .. 6D’ He ely Yep biol TETAYLEEVOL Gwrayaryc! ayytro Tov Hed, tg’ Hs dt &yyetros ToD Derave. L’s deviation from B in describing the angels is due to Hermas, Mandates, vi. 2. 1, dio sicly uyyeror more Tov avOphmen, ble TH5 Oixasortvns xe) 6s THs rovnpies. In view of this, one must assign to Hermas, Mand. ii. 4, the addition to iv.

8 (rather mangled at the end) of ‘Omnibus enim dominus dare vult de donis suis.’ As to its ending, L has special features which deserve attention. It runs as follows :— (1) ‘ Abstine te, jili, ab istis omnibus, et vide ne quis te ab hac doctrina avocet, et si minus extra disciplinam doceberis. (2) Heee in consulendo si cotidie feceris, prope eris vivo deo; quod si non feceris, longe eris a veritate.

(3) Hee omnia tibi m animo pone et non deciperis de spe tua (sed per hee sancta certamina pervenies ad coronam per Dominum Jesum Christuin regnantem et dominantem cum Deo Patre et Spiritu Sancto in seecula sceculorum, Amen].’ Here we may safely set aside the words in brackets as late, and probably due to the translator. But it is otherwise with the rest.

As to 1, the fact that the injunction to avoid the things of the Way of Death is separated from immediate connexion with that section, is probably a mistake; while ‘doctrina’ is secondary as compared with 6009 rjs didax fs, and ‘extra cisciplinam’ as compared with zapexrds deod. On the other hand, L seems to preserve the more original form in ‘ adstine te, fili,’ the plural of eur Didache being an adaptation to its fresh setting in the larger work.

In 2 we may at present set aside ‘in consulendo’ as ambiguous (yet see below, iii. (6)). But the simple religious phrase ‘ prope eris vivo deo’ looks at once primitive and Jewish in type; and the thought occurs that it is equivalent to ‘ thou shalt be a true proselyte.’ + So Philo speaks of the proselyte as ‘ deserting to God’ or ‘to the Truth’ (cf. Did. v. 2*), which corre- sponds exactly to the terms of L’s antithesis.

If this view be correct, L probably preserves the original foria of Jewish-Christian ‘Teaching’ to converts, * Cases of omission or compression occur in iii. 3, 49, 88, iv. 13%, 149, v. fin. (wovbapdprnro); of transposition, in ii. 2, 8, where a different ethical emphasis is in view (CO is nearer our MS); of slight insertion, as i, 1, ‘in swculo’; ii. 2, ‘deum zeternum’ ; iii. 7, ‘sanctam terram’; iii. 9, ‘nec honorabis te apud Neiyi ; iv. 3, ‘sciens quod tu judicaberis’ (after ‘judica juste’).

+ See art. PRoseLyT# in present work, vol. iv. p. 1848; cf. Apoc. Bar. 413 ‘who have forsaken vanity and fled for refuge veneath thy wings.’ while Did. vi. 2, 3 represents the fresh form given to this clause by the author of the fuller Didache, in terms of current Palestinian conditions at the time when he wrote. In this light, 3%, with its reference to the believer’s Hope, may also he original,* corresponding in function to the eschato: logical reference in Did. xvi.

(e) Sch=The Life of Schnudi, an Egyptian monk of the Thebaid, who died about A.D. 451. Here we have in an Arabic version (ed. Iselin, Texte und Unters. XI. i.) the bulk of the Two Ways, i.e. i.-iv. 8 (so CO) and traces of v., vi. 1. (2) Secondary witnesses: containing textual evi- dence of a fragmentary or uncertain nature, like that of the Szbylline Oracles. The parallels in these. as in most of the writings here named, will be found in J. Rendel Harris’ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

— Ignatius, Smyr. xiii. 1, Magn. iv.—Did. xvi. 2, Preaching and Apoc. of Peter (ed. M. R. James, 82). Hermas (Mand. ii. ete.)—our Didache. 2 Clement—apparently our Didache (xiii. 4, xvi. 4, Did. i. 3, 5; xvii. 3f., Did- xvi it.) 4 ponwoy, Aristides, ch. xv. Justin—our Didache (Taylor, Expositor, Ut. vi. 359 ff.) Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 34 fin. Ireneus—Did. i. 1, 5, xiv. 3; see below. Tertullian, adv. Marc. iv. 1—Did. xiv. 3, iv. 14. Clement of Alexandria—explicitly iii.

5 (calling it ‘Seripture’), implicitly i. 5, iii, 2, ix. 2, Hip. polytus, Philosoph. ix. 23—implicitly ii. 7; ef. 1 3. Origen +—implicitly ix. 2. Pseudo, Cyprian, de Aleatoribus (ch. iv.; Did. xiv. 2, xv. 3)—ex- plicitly. Clementine Homilies, Pseudo-Clement, de Virginibus. Didascalia (Syriac and Latin). Lactantius and Gominodians=e Nees of Two Ways only. Athanasius, Syntagma Doctrine — clear traces of i.-vi., less clear of xii., xiii.; de Virgini- tate—quotes or paraphrases, ix., x.

; Fragment rept Wevdorpopnr&v, cf. xi., xii, Pseudo-Athanasius, Fides Nicena and Didascalia cccaviu. patrum, two recensions of the Syntagma, in which the Did. is freely used. Serapion (of Thmuis, in the Delta), in his Prayer-Book, ¢. 350 A.D., quotes from ix. 4, Optatus, de Schismate Donatist. i. 21, quotes iv. 3% Augustine cites Did. i 5 jin. (see below, iii. (d)). Canons of Basil (Egyptian, 5th cent.) uses the 7wo Ways. Severinus, Doctrina de Sapientia—explicitly (wo Ways, and perhaps more).

Benedicti Regula, iv. (Iwo Ways). John Climacus (c. 580)—implicitly i. 4, 5. Dorotheus of Palestine (c. 590)—implicitly iii. 1, 10. Boniface of Mainz, Admonitio (S. Petri) sive predicatio S. Boni- fatii, appears to know more than the Two Ways. (6) Historical testimonia— ; [Ireneeus. The authenticity of the Pfaffian Fragment is too dubious to warrant citation of its devrépar TOv dmocrédwy Siard£ters]. Pseudo-Cyprian, de Aleatoribus, iv.

, ‘ Et in Doc- trinis apostolorum: Si quis frater delinguit in ecclesia et non paret legi, hic nec colligatur donec peenitentiam agat, et non recipiatur ne in- quinetur et impediatur oratio vestra’ (Did. xiv. 2, KV. 3). Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii.

25, "Ev rots vé0os (here =non-canonical books) cararerdxOw Kal tov Iavdov mpdiewy 1 ypaph & re Neyduevos Louwhy Kal 7 Amoxd- Auvyus Ilérpov kal mpds rovros % pepouévn BapvdBa émisTOAH Kal TOV a&rrooTéAwy ai Aeyopevar Ardaxal —where Rufinus has Doctrina que dicitur aposto- larum (so the Syriac). Athanasius, Festal Epistles, 39, éort wal érepa BiBrla rovrwr tEwbev, ov Kkavovigfdueva pev TeTvTWpéeva 6é wapa Tov narépwv avaywdoKerOat Tots Apri rpocepxo- * The ‘Teach'ng’ as known to Barn. xxi.

1 seems to have had some such closing exhortations. t Origen’s quotation of what occurs in Did. iii. 10 is probably from Barnabas, which he has just cited. Se the echo of the | same passage in Dionysius of Alexandria may aiso ve indirect, | ' be tee Os a ORs en De, ay DIDACHE pévas Kal Bovronévos xarnxeicOa Trev Tis eboeBelas Adyor’ LDodia To\ouGvros cal Lodla Dipax kal’ HoOhp kal “Iovdl@ kal TwBlas nat Av8ay? kadoupéevy tov aroorédov Kal 6 TLlouujy. Optatus, /.c.

, ‘ Et in capitibus mandatorum, Non facies scisma’ (Did. iv. 3°). Rufinus, Comm. in Symb. Apost. 38, ‘In Novo vero Testamento libellus qui dicitur Pastoris sive Herme, [et is] qui appellatur Due Vie vel Jud- tcium secundum Petrum. Que omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam.’ These are ‘ Ecclesiastical,’ not ‘Canonical’ books. But they are not ‘Apocryphal,’ or such as were not to be read in church.

This distinction should be borne in mind in considering the following, and especially the silence of Western lists of canonical and other books, like that of Codex Claromontanus and the Decretwm Celasii. Nicephorus, Stichometry (using list of seec. v.-vi. ). kal doa Tis véas avTidéyovrat Amoxdduyis "Iwdvvov orux. 1400 Af Ilérpov Ay ek) BapvdBa émristo\} », 1360 bea ris véas Siabyxns awdxpupa’® Ilepiodos ILavAou Ilérpov Iwdvvov Pe Owpua EtayyéXuoy kara Owpay Avsaxy arooréhov oly.

LB) 9” 200 Catalogue of the Sixty Books. kal doa arékpupa (OT apocryphal books, mostly not in LXX) TaxwBou loropla Ilérpov aroxdduyes Neptodor kat Aidayal tav drooTé\wv BapvdBa émictodh} Tlavdov rpagis The importance of this entry, which recurs in a list in Cod. Baroce. 206, is that the analogy of the meplodoc of Apostles (seen from Nicephorus’ list to include separate works) points to more than one work known as Acéax} r&v drocré\wy ; and this in turn casts back light on Eusebius’ phrase.

On the other hand, the Syriac and Latin versions of Eusebius suggest that only one work of the name was generally known in Syria and Italy respect- ively, towards the end of the 4th century. (ce) Conclusions.—The impressions conveyed by this body of evidence may now be stated. (1) Knowledge of the Zwo Ways (= Did. i.-vi.) is far more general than that of the full Didache. (2) But in this matter a broad distinction long existed between Palestine, or Syria, and other centres of Christianity.

In the former, the two seem to stand on much the same level down to Eusebius, though after his day one of them tended to fall out of use. This was probably the fuller form, now superseded by the Didascalia and Apost. Const. (3) Else- where the bulk of the rules in the full Didache seem never to have suited existing usage, or at least speedily fell out of touch therewith. Hence it is mainly the Eucharistic partst which have left traces on the literature of the 2nd and 3rd cents.

, both in Egypt and in the West. Yet several Egyptian witnesses of the 4th and 5th * As the Didache is not among ‘ Apocrypha,’ it may have been one of the Opuscula atque tractatus orthodoxorum patrum i. ae to which perhaps the Epistle of Barnabas also elong’ + Possibly the early prevalence of the use of Wednesday and Friday as fast-days, and of the three Jewish stated hours of rayer, also implies the influence of Did. viii.

Again, Justin’s ton diveuss evr, taiching the president’s Eucharistic prayer, may echo Did. x fin sce dirsues. | DIDACHE 443 cents. show various adaptations of phrases occur- ring in Did. xi.-xiii. Similar phenomena also crop up later in the West, possibly through use of such secondary sources. (4) In any case the Avédax}) Tv amoord\wy ineant to Athanasius, if not already to Clement, the shorter work, which was adapted to the instruction of catechumens.

It was a book for general Christian edification, like Wisdom or the Shepherd ; whereas the fuller work was known only to scholars, and by them used in an historical sense and as largely out of date. In the West, at least in Italy, to judge from Rufinus’ words (compared with his Athanasian model), we gather that even the Two Ways had been given a local or Petrine setting. (5) All this tells against the view (e.g.

of Funk) that the Two Ways as a distinct work was secondary, having been separated from the larger Didache for catechetical purposes. But it favours the theory that the full Didache reached Alexandria, from Palestine, only after the primitive Didache had become firmly established there. (6) Finally, there is no proof that the full Didache ever ex- isted in Latin. ili. GENESIS OF THE DIDACHE.—(a) Genesis of the ‘Two Ways.’—Setting aside the theory that the full Didache (with or without i. 3>-ii.

1) was prior to the Z'wo Ways as a separate work,—which seems as little supported by internal* as by external evidence,—we must start from a closer considera- tion of the 7wo Ways as the nucleus of the whole. In substance it is clearly of Jewish origin. This is proved both by its structure and by its constant parallels with purely Jewish literature, and par- ticularly with Rabbinic sources. This was first demonstrated by Dr. C.

Taylor, and is reaffirmed, even to excess, by a Jewish scholar like Dr. Kohler. Kohler’s collection of Jewish parallels (The Jewish Encyclo- peedia, vol. iv., art. ‘ Didache’) to the idea of ‘two ways,’ etc., is full and valuable. But he outruns the evidence when he assumes that the ‘Jewish manual’ (which he hastily infers to have existed) had matter bearing on love to God which the Christian redactor omitted.

His obiter dicta, that ‘ the whole book has fallen into disorder,’ and that ‘the whole first part of the “‘Didache,” dealing with monotheism, was tampered with by the Christian editor,’ are baseless conjectures. Specially Jewish is the section in which the path to the graver sins is fenced by warnings against the lighter ones (iii. 1 ff.), each such warning being prefaced with ‘My son.

’ Probably this section was borrowed from a self-contained unit of Jewish teaching for Gentile proselytes (including iv. 1). Of such instruction, which was sure to take more or less fixed shape on the lines of the Decalogue,t we have a good deal of indirect evidence (cf Bo gist.) And it is obvious that the first efforts of Jewish Christians, like the Hellenist missionaries of Acts, to instruct their Gentile converts, would naturally proceed on the existing lines.

Hence we can well conceive the genesis of the Jewish- Christian Two Ways out of the oral catechesis of missionary Judaism. But there is no evidence that there was ever a purely Jewish Zwo Ways in writing, or even that all the elements in our Two Ways ever before existed asa unity.

Indeed, some of its precepts were probably the creation of the new and gentler Christian spirit—a spirit well pecieented by the positive form of the ‘Golden * Unless the Zwo Ways had lain before the compiler of the Didache, he would hardly have written ‘my child’ in iii. 1-iv. 1, his own tendency being shown in the ‘children’ at the end of the Way of Death, and the plurals throughout chs. vii.-xvi. Nor can we imagine i. 3>-ii. 1, vi.

2-3, being omitted by any one compiling a manual for catechumens subsequent to the date of the full Didache. t+ Kohler (/.c.) points out that such emphasis on the Decalogue, especially in the Diaspora, was probably greater before Chris- tian disparagement of the other Mosaic laws, as temporary usages, made Judaism more guarded in the matter. 444 DIDACHE Rule,’ in contrast to the negative.

In the original framework of the 7wo Ways, this negative form, ‘according to the traditional Jewish * interpreta- tion’ (Kohler), practically cancels the larger spirit of the words of Lv 198; so that on it the exegesis or ‘teaching’ proceeds. This defect was soon felt by the Christian consciousness, and was rectified in the fuller Didache.

Of course it is impossible to assign an upper limit to the date in the history of Christianity, when something like the Zwo Ways began to be used in the preparation of raw Gentile converts for baptism. But, in the endeavour to trace its earliest written form and to assign a rough date to it, the Epistle of Barnabas is our primary authority. (6) The witness of ‘ Barnabas.’—Its witness, in- deed, is ambiguous, and has been read in opposite ways by different scholars.

One thing is certain, namely, that Barnabas did not know Did. i. 3>- ii. 2; else it would not have failed to echo these more Evangelical precepts. But the evidence, as we shall see, is rather against the fuller Didache ever having existed without them, and to this extent against Barnabas’ use of it in any form. The aflinity of thought between iv. 9f. and Did. xvi. 2 does not prove the opposite;+ both may be independent expressions of sentiments current in the same region and period (cf.

He 10), But, confining the issue at present to the most primitive Didache, does Barnabas presuppose a written or only an oral Two Ways? Coban the former.

The striking verbal agreement with the very phrasing of the 7wo Ways (as found in Didache, CO, and L), conjoined with great freedom of treat- ment,—involving changes in thought, as well as insertions and omissions, —all this points to use of a document rather than to quotation from a familiar stereotyped tradition, For an author would be less inclined to upset the order and wrest the sense of a body of teaching which he had learned by long use.

In the case of Barnabas, moreover, the use of such a fixed tradition is the less likely in view of the writer’s sense of superiority to the religious ideal embodied in the ‘Teaching,’ which he aims at adapting to a higher level of spirituality.

He finds it a form of instruction for would-be Chris- tians in the rudimentary principles of the new Way of Life: he turns it into a vehicle for impart- ing ethical ‘insight’ (gnosis) even to mature Christians, to whom he is ever saying, ‘Let us become spiritual’ (iv. 11). That is not the way a man treats the catechism of his own church,t a formulary engraven verbatim on his memory by constant use.

It is rather the way of one who, finding a terse and time-honoured body of precepts current in a community of somewhat different traditions from his own, seizes on it from the out- side, as it were, and adapts it with sovereign freedom to the edification of his own spiritual kith and kin.

‘This, of course, involves a special view as to the genesis of Barnabas—a theory which *In view, however, of the fact that the maxim 0 ob seis itépw uy aciorvs is attributed to Cleobulus (one of the Seven Sages of Greece), and that this form is close to that found in To 415 (3 pureis pexdevi xout,ons) and in Philo (& sis wocbeiv ex Oociper (4i, rostiv evdrov), one is led to suspect that this form was first adopted by the Diaspora as a maxim already current among those they wished to convert (cf.

Hillel’s use of it) This assumption would account for its interpolation in the ‘Western’ text of Ac 1520-29, and in a somewhat different form. t The evidence of literary dependence, on the one side or the other, is weakened when we restore the text of Barnabas to its original form, by allowing for the reflex influence of the Didache on the Sinaitic MS (cf. Harris, 55f.) } This goes against the Two Ways being already in use in Egypt.

Indeed, if Barnabas is addressed to Alexandria, the way in which the author cites and quotes verbatim this *Teaching’ excludes such an hypothesis. DIDACHE takes its personal references seriously, and sees in its author a more or less itinerant teacher (ef. Did. xiii. 2). Yet it is a theory which also emerges naturally out of due analysis of that author's handling of the Zwo Ways.

Provisionally, then, we assume that Barnabas presupposes a written Two Ways, perhaps known simply as ‘The Teaching’ (cf. ai évro\al rijs ddax is, xvi. 9) or ‘Doctrine of the Lord’; but that this was only in the hands of certain church teachers, or was written down for the first time at his re- quest and for his benefit. Thus the question of a written form at this stage is of very slight moment in the place where our author wrote his Epistle.

In any case, it is probable that it was about the date of Barnabas that the Two Ways, after an oral career of some duration, passed into written form. It may be that in this form it speedily followed the Epistle itself to Alexandria, possibly to satisfy a demand for fuller knowledge of it cre- ated by the latter. Thus would begin the Eeyp- tian line of tradition, which is best represented by the Latin version, and in which it seems always to have been known as ‘ Teaching of the Apostles.

’ As to the contents of the ‘Teaching’ as known to Barnabas, there is good evidence that it embraced the bulk of Did. i.-v. (i.e. except i. 32-ii. 1, missing also from L, CO, Sch, etc.) The highly Jewish ‘fencing of the Law’ in iii. 1-6 would not commend itself to Barnabas, any more than the related iv. 1, wanich he modifies in a bold way (ds xépny rod cpbaaAmod for as zipoy). But did he know ch. vi.? If so, in what form?

Immediately after the Way of Death in Barnabas we read: ‘It is good, therefore, having learnt the ordinances (8:xe:dparee) of the Lord, as many as have been written, to walk in them. For he that doeth them shall be glorified in the kingdom of God: he that chooseth those others (ézziv«) shall perish together with his works. For this cause is resurrection, for this cause recompense. . Near (is) the day wherein all things shall perish along with the Evil One. Near (is) the Lord and his reward.

Again and again I entreat you: to each other Set be good lawgivers; to each other (é«uvrav) continue faith counsellors (ctfovaor); take away from among you all unreality (sxézpoiv).’ This is certainly nearer to the line of thought in the Lat. than to our Did. vi. 2, 3. Nor should one overlook the parallelism between the tavray mwéivere ciuBouan and L’s ‘in consulendo.’ But if Barnabas implies L’s ending, what mean the points of contact which exist between Did. vi. 2 and Bar- nabas?

Probably a common atmosphere (see below (d)). But what date must we assign to Barnabas? As this is a crucial matter for our Didache, which © was probably rather later, reason must be shown for fixing on the reign of Vespasian, in spite of much critical opinion to the contrary. It is a mistake in method to rely mainly on the apparent reference in ch. xvi. to a rebuilding of the Jewish temple by the Romans as imminent.

For such an be ah is quite as likely to have arisen in certain circles under Vespasian, soon | after the staggering catastrophe of a.p. 70, as later under — Hadrian. This being so, the dating in terms of Roman emperors, apocalyptically indicated in ch. iv.

, is really far more secure, when due note is taken of the very peculiar situation presupposed, ‘And I saw the fourth beast to be wicked and | strong, and more intractable than all the beasts of the earth; and how there arose from him ten horns, and from these a little horn, an excrescence | (rapapuddiov) ; and how that it abased at one stroke — (s’ &v) three of the great horns.

’ Now when it is j noted that the text of Dn 7", which is here | explicitly cited, does not furnish the most distinet- | ive phrases in this description (for which Barnabas’ Greek is here given), we are sure that they contain at once its emphasis and the key to its author’s | meaning. Keeping this in mind, we perceive that | the reign of Vespasian alone suits the conditions.

| He and his two sons were, for a student of apoca- | lyptic on the look-out for striking phenomena rather than for strict Roman theory, ‘ three’ con- joint heads of the empire, which might be smitten down ‘at one stroke.’ The stroke was to be de- — livered by Nero, reappearing as Antichrist, himself — an ‘offshoot’ of the series of emperors, to which he | had once belonged.

In this solutinn Lightfoot and St Seep DIDACHE Ramsay agree ;* and it is hard to see why any should hesitate to accept it in some form, e.g. in | Ramsay’s, which includes Julius among the ‘ten kings,’ and excludes Otho and Vitellius as un- likely to count as emperors in Vespasian’s day.t Tt is strange that any one should think that Nerva satisfies the unique situation hinted at by Barna- bas, touching which he might well say to his con- temporary readers, ‘ Understand, then, ye ought.

’ Further, it is natural to suppose that the coinci- dence between the political situation and Daniel would be noticed while the new conditions were still fresh in men’s thoughts, that is, early in Vespasian’s reign. Hence a date as early even as A.D.

71 is more likely than one towards the end of Vespasian’s reign, especially as it would be before the Flavian rule was felt to be firmly estab- lished that the idea of Nero’s return to overthrow the Flavians (like the shortlived emperors of 68-69) would most readily occur. (c) Origin of the fuller Didache. — Assuming, then, that about A.D. 70, or soon after, the \‘ Teaching’ of the Two Ways was already current in definite form in one or more of the Greek- speaking regions of Palestine (e.g.

the Maritime Plain), how are we to imagine it growing into our “Didache by the addition of the ecclesiastical see- tions (vii.-xv.) and the eschatological conclusion ‘(xvi.), as well as the parts of ch. i. absent from other witnesses to the Two Ways? In the period following immediately on A.D. 70 there still existed in Palestine a strong sense that all sacred usages of the local Ecclesia rested upon the teaching of its Apostolic founders, particularly the Twelve.

But it was also felt, with some dismay, that the personal influence of these authoritative exponents of the Gospel was yearly becoming less and less. In- firmity or death was rapidly removing those of them who had not already gone to other fields of work.

How, then, was their influence to be pre- served unimpaired, especially among Gentile be- lievers, over whom it must from the first have been least assured, and who were most lidble to change under outside influences, which would be at their maximum on the sea-board? Sooner or later the plan would suggest itself of putting into written circulation those usages which were held to be Apostolic, for the sake ‘both of fixity and wider diffusion.

Such a method was quite in keeping with Hellenistic habits, especially when influence on non-Jews was sought. Hence it was in every way natural that the first public catechism _ of the Christian life and of ordered Church fel- | lowship should be addressed ‘to the Gentiles.’ It was equally natural that it should be issued by its Hellenistic author or authors as ‘ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,’ who were to all Palestinian Christians essentially the authorities as to their Lord’s mind and will.

{ Finally, what more natural than to adopt an existing body of precepts like the Two Ways, already held to embody Apostolic teach- ing on the duty of the Gentile turned Christian, and to enlarge the scope of the title ‘ Teaching ’— even at the risk of making it cover rather more than it would suggest § to a Greek at any rate? * Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 503 ff. ; Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, 307-309.

t This is clearly true of Vitellius, but not equally so of Otho, who was dead before Vespasian became a candidate for the purple. Accordingly, the present writer prefers to reckon from Augustus and to exclude Vitellius only (so Eusebius, HZ iii. 5. 1, who may here reflect the view of contemporary writings). It is probable that St. John’s Apocalypse also ,eckoned from Augustus, in its similar passage, 179-11: see edition in the ‘Century Bible,’ 53 ff. } Here one may observe that vi.

3 represents the spirit of the concordat of Ac 1520.28f, now seemingly applied with larger liberty for the individual conscience. § Note the tendency to modify it as time goes on, whether | into Doctrine (de Aleatoribus, iv.) or A:idaczedsz, the title of a | work which was meant to supersede our Didache, at least as regards its ecclesiastical parts.

DIDACHE 445 ——— As the enlargement of contents consisted mainly in the addition of matter distinctively Christian in character, the Teaching or Doctrine was now re- ferred, no longer to ‘the Lord’ God, but to ‘the Lord’ Christ, the special source of His Apostles’ teaching. Thus would arise the title ‘Teaching of the Lord, through the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles,’ (d) Its exact contents. —But while, no doubt, this enlarged Didache from the first contained the bulk of chs. vii.-xvi.

, did it contain all or any of the precepts now found in Did. i. 3°-ii. 12 (1) Did. i. 3>-ii. 1 reads as follows :— i. 3: “Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies but fast for them that persecute you. For what thank is there, if ye love them that love you? Do not even the Gentiles the same? But love ye them that hate you, and ye shall not have an enemy. 4: ‘Abstain (thou) from fleshly and bodily lusts.

If any one give thee a blow on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect. If any one compel thee to go with him one mile, go with him twain. If any one take away thy cloak, give him thy coat also. If any one take from thee what is thine, ask it not back, for neither canst thou. 5: ‘Give to every one that asketh of thee, and ask not back; for to all the Father wills that gifts Le given from his own bounties.

Blessed is he that giveth according to the command- ment; for he is guiltless, Woe to him that taketh ; for if, indeed, any one having need taketh, he shall be guiltless; but he that hath not need shall give account wherefore he took anything and for what purpose; and being put in restraint, shall be examined concerning his conduct, and shall not come out thence till he have paid the last farthing.

Yea, too, concern- ing this very matter it hath been said, Let thine alms sweat into thine hands, till thou have learnt to whom to give. ii. 1; ‘And the second commandment of the teaching is’— The problem is a delicate one, and the evidence is earlier and fuller fori. 5 than for i. 3, 4. Thus we have nothing in Hermas parallel to i. 3>-4, as Mand. ii. 4-6 is parallel to i. 5; and the same holds also for Clement of Alexandria, if not for Trenzeus.* Moreover, the phrase xara riv évrodiy (i.

5) occurs twice in xiv. 5, 7; so that it seems characteristic of the original compiler of the ful] work. Again, it is only what we should have ex- pected if the mind which added vii.-xvi. should find something wanting in an exposition of love to God and one’s fellow which began with illus- tration of the negative form of the latter, without a word on its positive aspect.

And when we look at the contents of the precepts for which we sup- pose him responsible, we find the one in which xara Thy évroAjv occurs to accord excellently with what we read in ix. 38. For there God’s gifts of food and drink to mankind at large are referred to, and a verb (éxaplow) is used which contains the special notion expressed by the word for ‘ gifts’ (xaplc- para) in our passage. The closing paragraph of ch.

i, is of such importance, both for the date of our Didache and for its use in later times, as to merit special notice. ‘But yet touching this topic, too, it hath been said, Let thy alms go on sweating into thine hands until thou perceive to whom to give’ (#AA& xal wepi rovrov 320%] elpnras, “Ldpwrcrm % bAenporivn cou sis ras KEipes cov, Ex pis &y yvas tiv O@s), The sense of this is doubtful.

On the whole, it seems best to regard it as qualifying the idea of indiscrimi- nate giving suggested in the foregoing paragraph, which simply puts the onws on the person who asks and receives under false pretences. Here it is to be observed, as Dr. C. Taylor has shown,t that the limitation is not so much of what has been actually said (viz. that every one who asks is to receive, without question), as of what might hastily be inferred from it, viz.

that there is no place for restraint and discrimination in giving. There is, in fact, the case where a man is ready to volunteer alms ; and then he is right to hold his hand, and let the means of giving (gained by one’s sweat) go on gathering it in, until a fit recipient be found. But, whatever its meaning may be, this saying touched a very living question in ancient and medieval * The relations of Hermas and Clement to our Didache are discussed below (p. 4462). As to Irenzus, the fragment (No.

10, ed. Harvey, ii. 477), iv w &v cis déiverro (var. lec. divaras) eo rose trois (var. lec. rods) wanoiov xo} od (var. lec. 4%) oii, &AACTPIOS Tis &yaans (Tov) xupiov vomcb4cero:, May well be an echo of Did. i. 5, read in its context as the fulfilment of the twofold law of love ini. 2. + In an exhaustive discussion in The Journal of Philology, xix. 184 ff. See also the passage from John Climacus, below. 44.

6 DIDACHE DIDACHE Christian ethics,* and so attracted a good deal of subsequent attention and comment. If, then, we may infer that the passage in the Did. is the fountainhead of this maxim in the Fathers and schoolmen, it proves that to some of them at least our Did. was known, down to the 5th cent. and later, and that in the West +t as well as the East.

It is true that at first sight the maxim, as introduced with sipyras, might seem to come rather from some OT Scripture, especially as Augustine cites it with ‘et alio loco Scriptura dicit; Sudet,’ etc. But the nearest known OT passage is the tay eF wos, yvals vive woseis Of Sir 121; while, had a nearer been known to Augustine and others, they would somewhere have given us more than the former’s alio loco.

Hence we may conclude that Sir 121 is in fact the ultimate basis of the éipyras in the Didache, but that its phrasing of the maxim is in terms of some current (? Rabbinic) paraphrase of it (cf. éppéby in Mt 5%. 43), This is go far confirmed by a passage in Nicetas’ catena on Mt 542: ‘We should do alms, yet with judgment and to the worthy, that we may jind a recompense from the Most High.’ t In the words in italics there is a clear echo of Sir 122, so that what precedes is probably based on 121.

Thus this passage in Sirach seems to have been the locus classicus for the idea of giving “ere xpictws xu) rois &£ioss,—to use Nicetas’ words; and the more concrete saying under discussion was perhaps a current form of it.g Whether this maxim was already in the Didache as known to Clement of Alex. is an open question.

But if we find him expressing the sentiment in immediate con- junction with the thought with which it is connected in the Didache, there is a presumption that he knew that work to contain it. Now this happens in his Quis dives salvus.||_ May it not be, too, that the ‘libellus ab apostolis’ known by Origen to contain ‘Beatus est qui etiam jejunat pro eo ut alat pauperes,’ was our Didache expanded in i. 5? We have yet to consider the relations of Hermas and the Didascalia to our Didachei.

5as a whole. The Didascalia (as reconstructed from the Syriac and the Verona Latin fragment) has the following in bk. iv. 2, 8: ‘Truly blessed is he who is able to help himself, and so avoid pressing on the place of (relief belonging to) the orphan, the stranger, and the widow. This grace, moreover, is of God. But woe to those who have and hypocritically take, or who take when able to help them- selves.

But every one who takes shall give account to the Lord God in the judgment-day, wherefore he took. .. He who has and takes hypocritically, or through laziness, instead of working and so helping himself and others, shall incwr judgment with God. . He, then, who gives simply (é244s) to all, gives well, as far as he is concerned (‘sicut est illi’), and is guiltless (‘innocens’ = &@aes). He, too, who takes because of affliction (0r8eeves) . .

takes well, and shall be glorified by God in life eternal.’ Here the words in italics seem simply to make more explicit the middle clauses of Did, i. 6, viz. ‘Woe to him that takes; for if indeed any one having need takes, he shall be guiltless (aes); but he that hath not need, shall give satis- faction (dacs dixyv) why and wherefore he took.’ As to the rest of the quotation, it seems to echo our Didache { in its anti- thesis cantas woxcpios, oval. . AxwBevovew, Which is parallel to Did. alone.

** On the other hand, Hermas is the probable source of the other matter. For its form follows closely the hrasing of Hermas, Mand. ii. 5f., €.9. of uiv yep AnuPavorres AiBoptvor . . 6 ody didos (dwAds thrice in the immediate con- text, besides raow berapovcevois didou &wras AbOVE) allaos tot... Evdolos rape ri Hed ... 6 ody obras drAms diaxovay, TH Ued Choero. Further, the idea of the pious labour and merit of the re- cipient, in praying for the donor, may well come from Sim. ii.

6, 7, just as the idea of the needy as God’s altar, here and else- where Gt 26, ili. 6, 7, 14) in the Didascalia, goes back to Poly- carp, ad Phil. iv. 3. * Dr. Taylor is too ready to take the sense put upon the maxim by Augustine and later writers, specially in the West, as fixing its meaning in the Didache. Its original context in the Didache requires that the stress fall on the uigpis &» yas siv, das, i.e.

the arrest of the impulse to give; while in Augus- tine, Cassiodorus, and Bernard, at any rate, the emphasis is on the justum which they insert (‘donee invenias justum cut eam tradas’). t Here the divergences in text are against all being dependent on Augustine. t The exact parallel to Apost. Const. iv. 8 which follows in Nicetas, with Kage, in the margin, is, in fact, derived from that work, Clement of Rome being its supposititious author. Its attribution to Clem. Alex.

is due to a mere guess of Corderius, the first editor of Nicetas’ catena, as is shown by F. X. Funk, Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen, ii. 126 f. § Compare the Rabbinic saying, ‘He that receiveth alms without needing the same, shall come to want before he dies’ (Keéthabéth, 68a). || Oh. xxxi. ad jin.

, where he says that the principle in Mt 1041, as to making friends by the worldly Mammon, is even more divine than ravr) +a alrotvti ce didov, since it teaches one not to wait to be asked, &AA’ airic avatnrey ooric “bios 2d salsiv, That he has Did, i. 6 in mind, is suggested by his adding ect yap dvtms 4 rosabrn Girodmpia tO ravri, x.7.A., aS Did, adds, rac: yap OAs Bidocbes 6 mernp ix Tay Diav xapiouerwy. The Didascalia is certainly dependent on our Didache elsewhere (cf.

Holzhey, Die Abhdngigkeit des syr. Didaskalia von der Didache, Miinchen, 1898). ** The nearest known parallel is the sentiment in Ac 2035, which the interpolated Apost. Const. iv. 8, actually substitutes here, in the form éwsi xal 6 xipios waxcprov slew dvas roy didovra Satp Tov Aap Bdverre. As to the relative priority of our Didache and Hermas, the case seems here as clearly in favour of the former as elsewhere.

* But if so, it is probable that Hermas’ repeated py dicta len Qiexzpivwv) tin das 4 tive oh das is a protest against the uéxpu ay yas tiv das of Did., and that consequently ‘Idparérw, etc., stood in the Didache as known to Hermas, and is, in fact, per- haps echoed in ix rav xéxav wou. . didov. It seems, indeed, that Hermas’ protest is twofold. He protests, first, against trying to distinguish the good and bad; it is enough that they be needy ; that, he says, is God’s own principle (cf.

Mt 54), Then he goes further, and protests against trying to distinguish be- tween real and apparent need; that, he says, is the receiver’ look-out. But whatever Hermas may or may not have in mind, Did. i. 5 jin., in writing &rArc& xol wepl robrov 34 sipnroe, Pa ably means to apply what follows only to the need of dis tinguishing real from feigned need : so Apost. Const. iii.

4, xpm yap ew roisiv wevres avOparous, L7H QiAoxpivouy ras Tory oor HH txcivov' 6 yeep xipros Qnot, Llavtl rH alrodyri os didov" d¥Aev 38 as TH xpaSovrs war’ wr7Vercey, But we can hardly imagine the ‘Teaching’ proper, at any stage, to have opened peda ah with a section on giving; and, in fact, we observe in what immediately precedes in our MS that the phrase «al gry ré\evos has its parallel in vi. 2._ Nor is the parallel Sdn verbal.

The idea of the phrase is probably the same in both cases, and belongs to the same mode of thought as meets us in Ja 1% 2” 32, touching a véuos édevdeplas and a TéXevos dvip in relation to it (cf. Mt 5% 1971).

The feeling that though a certain perfection of self-maste was the Christian ideal, it could not be insisted upon for in practice, seems to have been rather general among the second generation of Christians, when as yet even the most exacting Gospel precepts were taken seriously by all as the law of their new life. It meets us not only in Did. i. 4, vi. 2, 3, but also in Barnabas, and that in a way which does not oint to dependence of the one on the other. In Did. vi.

2, 3 it takes this form: ‘If, indeed, thou canst bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect; but if thou canst not, what thou canst, thatdo. But touching food, bear what thou canst ; but of that offered to idols greatly beware, for it is worship of dead gods.’ In Barnabas we read of ‘the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ—without yoke of constraint as it is’ (ii. 9; and of the spiritual, not ritual, obedience which belongs it.

On the other hand, we have in his 7wo Ways the exhorta- tion, ‘as much as thou canst thou shalt be pure (&yvetces) in the interests of thy soul,’ following on a specially exacting precept as to control of the tongue (xix. 8, cf. Ja 32 for the tongue as test of the ‘perfect man’). This breathes the same spirit as speaks in Barn. iv. 11, ‘Let us be spiritual, let us be a temple perfect to the Lord; as much as is in us, let us practise the fear of God; let us strive to guard his precepts.

’ Thus Barnabas has the same idea as Did. vi. 2, the meaning of which he helps to fix; but he puts it in his own way, without showing trace of Did. vi. 2 any more than of Did. i. 4. Thus the author of our Didache intends his qualifying paragraph in vi. 2 to refer to the ‘teaching’ already given in i.-v.; and his recog.

nition that ‘the yoke of the Lord’ includes what might overtax the moral power of some, becomes more natural if we suppose that he had in mind high counsels like those ini, 4, 5,t which he had himself introduced. So far there seems good reason for holding that the full Didache originally embraced the precepts in Did. i. 4, 5. But was that all, and did it open, fitly enough, with the general precept, ‘Abstain — thou from bodily lusts’ ? "Aaivou tay cupxixay xel cwparixoy txiOuesv.

Here there may be dependence on 1 P 211; but more probably capmxdy is an interpolation from 1 P 24, to explain the less bibli pokes: which the Ayost. Const. changes into xocuuxdv. Cf. 4 Mac 1 roy Ob Exibupeiay oi petv cio Puxinni, af dt cwparizei. The present writer cannot think (with Ropes, Die Spriiche Jesu, 40) that this maxim is to be viewed ‘as an abstract reproduction of such passages as Mt 527’, It goes too closely with what follows. The best parallel is Hermas, Mand. xii.

, where all virtues are referred to % txiOupie 4 dyolh (6 yap goBos rod Oecd zeroes tv rH imsbupie 7% &yaby, 2, 4), and all vices to % taifuuia 4 rovmpe CAméxerloes ody des hwo tay ixibupsdv rely wovypay, Ivo cmory OubvoL Sionte +O Osa, 2, 2). Cf. Mand. viii, with its maxim, 4 * Dr. Taylor’s paper in the Journal of Philology, xviii. 297 ff., almost amounts to demonstration on both issues. : + Cf. John Climacus (sac. vi.)

sosBav wey +0 cirotves Bidove eloeBiorépoy d& xual TH fey altodvTi* 70 dt awd Tod aipodvros drcstéiv, Suvepévors merwra, Taya civ amocbdiy xu (cove ides xaliornxey. This passage suggests that « has fallen out from the phrase ovdt yap divaces at the end of i. 4. ‘Nay, not even if thou art able’ would make good sense after ‘Ask not back thine own. , | es ee eae a eR aaah ~ 7 "yxpévue dindi kori ixi cwen yep B10 iyxparsbscrbas, ini riven Bi od O86...

iyxpariucas oly brs wovnpies wkons, ipyaliusvos v8 ras 80 2 Clem. xvi. 8, uh dvemapirxdpsbe bed thy xocusney Oupesear. No doubt this has reference to what follows, —repression of the instincts to ‘hit back’ and to hold fast one’s possessions. For such instincts spring largely from bodily impulse, while unresent- fulness (dvefixaxla, ef. Justin, Apol. i. 16) is a victory of spirit over body, a supreme form of self-control (cwdpoctvyn or éyxpdrea).

Yet, admit- ting this connexion, would the ‘Teaching’ or exposition of the fundamental commands in Did. i. 2 be likely to begin with unresentfulness, rather than with what we find in i. 3, as also in Lk 6°" ? It is hard to decide. The very fact that i. 2 does precede might make the compiler pass at once to the most concrete and practical examples of the spirit of love, viz.

unresentfulness and active charity, rather than dwell further on the feeling of love * and its secret actsof prayer and fasting. Again, it is rather strange that in i. 3 (and there alone) the plural ‘ Bless ye,’ etc., appears at the head of precepts purporting tu be addressed to the indi- vidual catechumen. For it is not as though at this time the ipsissima verba of the Lord’s precepts were felt to be too sacred to be Saaphed to the context in which they were cited.

Yet such argu- ments seem weaker than those pointing toi. 3 as originally part of our Didache. For, first, our Didache really has in mind not the single convert, but Christians in general, as comes out in its ‘May ye, children, be delivered from all these’ (at the end of the Evil Way).

Next, the clauses, ‘fast for those who persecute you,’ ‘and ye shall not have an enemy,’ are not found in our Gospels; and the latter at least seems to have influenced Justin Martyr both in his Dialogue and Apology. Indeed, Justin practically follows i. 3 as a whole, where it deviates from our Gospels. Apol. i. 15, sixecbe twip cav ExOpav busy zal xyorurs rods mio rtvres Uucs mal Wroytits TOUS xuTapaetvous vuiv zor evyecbe ix 2 Tov trnptatevtav vuac. The sentiment xa! ody kere txbpov is !

raced in Apol. i. 14, Dial. 254 B, as also in Clem. Hom. xii. 32, by Dr. C. Taylor (Hzpositor, 3rd series, vi. 364f., where Justin’s relation to the Did. is examined). To which may be added Apol. of Aristides, 15, trois &dixodvrue abrods rapuxnrovcs nel wporgiaAsis avTovs kautois wowvciw. Nor does it seem mere accident that Mand. ii.

, which begins Hermas’ exposition of the faith and fear of God, in enjoining childlike éva0rys and axaxio first specifies abstinence from zatarnirie (xus evbyviay wavrore ‘kes wet wa&vtev), and then deals with the duty of giving (&+Ads). Tosum up. The fuller Didache seems, from the first, to have contained all, or very nearly all,t of ch. i. as it stands in our MS.

Its title was the second and longer one of our MS, under which it was perhaps known to Hermas, whose Twelve Mandates (évrodal), artificially drawn out to that number, seem suggested by those of the Twelve Apostles. Again, they and their teaching ‘to the Gentiles’ may be alluded to in the Twelve nationst who inhabit the world, and to whom * Like Test. Issachar, 5, ayarars xipiov mal tov rdnciov, rivyte xai aobevy sAcwrs (the practical result of &#Aorys to God and man).

otecrve the similar Evangelical matter in ch. xvi., which is generally admitted to have been part of the fuller Didache from the first. Yet while we find early traces of “Idwrazw, etc., e.g. ix Flermas (see above, p. 446%), it is otherwise with the nalty of the deceitful receiver; moreover, the connexion wenn ‘Dpwrecx, etc. and what precedes would gain by its omission. But if an interpolation, it must be early, as it is not assimilated to our Gospels. t¢ Sim, ix. 17. 1: so Dr. Taylor, Journ.

of Phil, xviii. 298. Yet Hermas may rather have the spiritual analogue of the Twelve tribes of Israel in vee Mt 198), It is noteworthy that in Mand. xii. 3. 2 we r cuvertrgcey oby THs EvTonas THs 3éd«x«, and then follows a rebuke of the suggestion that these ivroAei are too hard for man to keep. It looks as if Did. vi. 2 were being abused in the prectice of some. On the other hand, the snorsia rersic of Sim, v. 3. 6 transferms the reAsorns of Did. L 4, vi. 2, into ‘merit.

’ DIDACHE ‘the Son of God was heralded by the Apostles.’ Justin Martyr also shows himself familiar with the exact idea of this title, when he writes of rods dd mavrds €Ovous avOpéruv bia THs Tapa Tov dtoc- Tokwv atrod didaxijs meobévras Kal maparnoapévous Ta Tahara ev ols TAaviwmevae dvertpdgdyoay €6n (Apol. i. 53, ef. ii. 2, ra Kaha éaur@ cuveriordpevos did Tiv amd TOU Xpicrod Sidaxyv, 7d SidacKkddov ris Oelas dperijs dporsynoev).

And, indeed, it may well be that the very form in which Justin, in common with the Kerygma Petri, Hermas, 2 Clement, and the Apology of Aristides, conceives Christianity, viz. as revealed ‘teaching’ on virtue and vice, owes much to the influence on the first half of the second century of the Christianity set forth in the Avdax} Kupiov dua Tov dwdexa droordAwy Tots é0veow.

This would help to explain the degree to which ‘moralism,’ with its notions of the Divine évrodal and pucbds dcxaoovvnys, colours that literature. Certainly the title of our book suits the attitude of orthodox circles in the closing years of the first century, when Papias was on the look-out for those who related ras rapa rov xuplov TH mlorer Sedopévas (évro\ds), as witnessed by personal ‘disciples of the Lord’ (Euseb. H# iii. 39). (2) As to chs, vii.-xvi.

, it is usually assumed that they are homogeneous, and contain nothing alien to the original Didache in its enlarged form. But this is hardly accurate ; and though the accretions are wonderfully few and slight, when we remember the nature of the Didache and the drastic handling to which in other forms it has been subjected (see below, B. ‘Transformations,’ ete.)

, it is the more worth while referring to them, that they furnish the sole excuse for a paradoxical theory that our Didache ‘did not exist as a beok before the 4th century.’* Besides a number of mistaken or in- conclusive criteria of lateness,t the treatment of Baptism in ch. vii. is rightly appealed to as un- primitive. It is true that Affusion has here nothing to do with ‘ clinic baptism’ (as Dr. Bigg supposes), and therefore is not in itself a mark of late date.

But the change of address, from the plural of the community to the singular of the officiating minister, suggests a later hand; and the suspicion is borne out by the Apost. Const. (in what it has and has not), as well as by the unusual concern for detail—the casuistry of baptism, so to speak — which marks these clauses. ‘They find their fullest parallel in the Clementine Homilies (ix. 19, xi. 26, lili, 73, xiii. 9, 11), and may belong to about the same period, This applies to vii.

2, 3, and to the end of vii. 4. But the injunction to the baptizer and baptized to fast beforehand, and to any others who can to join them in this, is probably original (ef. Justin, Apol.i. 61, judy cuvevyoudvay kal ovvyys- Tevéyrwy avrois). Other minor secondary features are the form of the Doxology in ix. 4, which the quotation in Athan. de Virg. (with the parallel passage in the Apost. Const.)

shows once to have been, as elsewhere in the Didache, cod éorw d’vayus kal 4 Od&a; and the possible insertion of ix. 5” kal yap mepl rovrou elpnxev 6 KUpios, Mh dare To dywov rots kuvot. In this latter case the formula of citation elpyxer 6 xipeos is certainly not un- primitive; but the idea (the aya dylos of later liturgies) is not found connected with Mt 7° before Clement (Strom. I. ii. 7) and Tertullian (de Presc. xli.) Further, it duplicates what appears in more primitive form in x.

6°, el ris dycos, épyéoOw et Tis ovK éo7t, peravoeirw; and the more elaborate parallel in Apost. Const., which has the like Dr. C. Bigg, Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (S.P.C.K. 1898). t Some simply turn into proofs of very early date, e.g. the following : ‘At what date would it be thought lawful to publish the Lord’s Prayer and a collection of Eucharistic prayers in a book of this description?

’ This seems to the present writer te tell rather heavily against the relatively late dates of Harnac? and others, and in favour of a first century date. 448 DIDACHE thought without citing the words of Mt 7%, shows how apt such an idea was to creep into the text. Finally, in xii. 5, the striking word ‘Christmonger’ (Xpicréuzropos, in contrast to Xpic- riavds at the end of xii. 4) may be suspected of being late in origin.

Certainly its use elsewhere is late, beginning perhaps with pseudo-Clement (Epist. de Virg. 1. x. 4, xi. 4, xiii. 5) and Athanasius (de Pscudo-proph., echoing Did.); nor does Apost. Const. make use of it, or indeed of xii. 2-5 as a whole. This, however, cannot do more than render the early date of xii. 5 or even xii. 2-5 rather less certain than that of the work as a whole.

With such reservations, then, the original contents of the fuller Didache (probably as Hermas knew it) were practically those of our MS. iv. CHURCH CONDITIONS IMPLIED IN THE DipAcur.—This subject will be discussed more fully under C. Enough here to indicate certain features bearing on origin and date.

Thus the degree to which its Christianity is still expressed in forms determined by Judaism, while yet its attitude to unbelieving Judaism (‘the hypocrites ’) is one of bitter hostility, seems a highly primitive trait. It has more in common with the Epistle of James than with any other Christian document ; only, the judgment which James felt near at hand has fallen, and has left Judaism as a whole still impenitent — apostate in the eyes of our author.

Yet even he is swayed by Jewish sentiment in matters such as dietary restrictions (vi. 3), where inherited instinct would naturally leave a prefer- ence, even when Gentiles were concerned. nd so vi. 3 shows a qualified survival of the compromise laid down in Ac 15°, with a clear distinction be- tween different elements in it: ‘ Now touching food, bear what thou canst; but of food offered to idols greatly beware, for it is worship of dead gods.

’ Observe, too, the natural, allusive way in which it is said: ‘ All first-iruits . . thou shalt take and give as the first-fruits to the prophets ; for they are your chief priests. . Take the first-fruits and give according to the commandment’ (xiii. 3, 5, 7). It is the age of transition, when the old forms of Palestinian Judaism are being adapted to the new religion of the Spirit, of which the prophet is the type.

But it is in the Eucharistic forms that this primitive continuity of thought and feeling is most apparent. We are still in the atmosphere of ‘the breaking of bread’ as it appears in Acts. The ideal implied in the Didache might (with the sub- stitution of second-hand for first-hand Apostolic teaching) be summed up in the words of Ac 2” ‘They were keeping steadfastly to the teaching of the Apostles and to the communion—the breaking of bread and the prayers.

’ ‘The breaking of bread’ in Thanksgiving (Eucharist) is still viewed as ‘the expressive act by which the unity of the many, as partakers of the one Divine sustenance, is signified’ (Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 44): and here we have samples of ‘the prayers’ in which the thanksgiving was expressed.

When we ex- amine these prayers, they are seen to be trans- formed jowit Derakhot over food; only, the parallel between the bodily and spiritual food reappears in a yet more impressive form, and the looking forward to the restitution of the Davidic Kingdom (here alluded to in ‘the Holy Vine of David Thy servant’), with the festal joy of a united and blessed Israel, receives a nobler Mes- sianic meaning.

Indeed, the more the parallel “with Ac 2-47 is studied, the more the identity of spirit comes out; and a conviction arises that the writings belong to nearly the same epoch (cf. the The present writer assigns the Lukan writings, like Barn., to Vespasian’s reign. DIDACHE mpopara Kal diddoxado. of Ac 131 with Did. xiii. 1, 2, xv. 2). Particularly is this so, when we observa the agreement of Didache and Luke’s Gospel (on either text) with respect to the order of the Cup and the Bread.

For, however we may explain the liturgical usage here revealed, it is hard to believe that it would be thus enjoined, without a sign of embarrassment, once the Gospel of Matthew, with its opposite order in the story of the Last Supper, had become generally known in Palestine. Such a consideration tends to exclude the notion that the Didache means our Matthew in those cases where it cites ‘the Gospel’ (viii. 2, xi. 3, xv.

3, 4)— a view otherwise unlikely, owing to the fact that it also quotes Evangelical phrases found only in Luke.

Add to this the nature of the ministry, especially the central significance of the prophet and the absence of any one presiding adminis- trative official ; the absence of any trace of public persecution, of any fixed creed, any conscious theological tendency, or any special heresy to be guarded against; and, finally, the type of its eschatology—and the general effect is that of a stage in primitive Christianity not later than the close of the lst century. J.

Réville, Les Origines de PE piscopat, 260f., well says: ‘Certainly the compiler of the Didache, like all genuine Chris- tians from the beginning, has a very lively sense of the unity of the Christian Society. But this unity is all spiritual and mystical; it does not yet manifest itself in any ecclesiastical organism. .

The veritable organs of the essential unity of the Church are still the apostles and, above all, the itinerant prophets, all those who go from city to city, from village to village, to be the witnesses of one and the same evangelic tradi- tion and the interpreters of one and the same Christian inspira- tion.

Precautions have already to be taken concerning th lest they abuse their position; but there is as yet no though' of subordinating them to any ecclesiastical authorities, The sovereignty of the Spirit is still undisputed, and knows no other control than that of the conscience of the faithful.’ v. DATE.

—In trying to reach a yet more exact date, we are hampered by ignorance of the relative rate of development in different countries, especi- ally as it happens that primitive features were likely to linger longest in Palestine, to which internal evidence Wie. directly. Accordingly it is rash to say of Palestine, that after a given decade such a manual would no longer be in correspond- ence with its environment.

Still it does seem pos- sible to show that certain decades are more prob- able than others, even in Palestine. Nor is docu- mentary evidence here quite so wanting as is often supposed, if we may take Dr. R. H. Charles’ views on the Ascension of Isaiah as substantially correct. He shows that the striking Christian section (iil. 13°-iv.

18)—which he gives reasons for believing to have belonged originally to a larger ‘ Testament of Hezekiah’ (known to Cadre ae con- ditions as they existed within the lifetime of the last of those who had seen their Lord in the flesh (iv. 13), i.e. not later than A.D. 100. Further, the Hebraic cast of the style and the circle of ideas in this section point strongly to Palestine, or at least Syria, as the region to which its descriptions apply most directly.

Here, then, are data for testing the state of things implied in the Didache by criteria belonging to a similar local type of Chris- tianity. The following quotations exhibit the main points of contact. After an account of the first advent of ‘the Beloved’ (7.e. Messiah as God’s mais, aS in Did. ix. x.

; see Mt 1238, citing Is 42") and ‘the discipling of the Twelve’ (7 Trav ddédexa pabnreia), we read— ‘He will send forth his disciples, and they shall disciple all the nations and every tongue unto the resurrection of the Beloved... and his ascension into the seventh heaven, whence he came: and many who believe in him will speak in the Holy Spirit. .

And on the eve of his approach, his disciples will let go the preaching (wpognreiav) of his Twelve Apostles, and their faith and love and their purity (ayvsian)* ape ae ee ee eh DIDACHE DIDACHE 449 and there will be many factions on the eve of his approach. And there will be in those days many desiring to rule, though void of wisdom: and there will be many lawless elders and shepherds unjust towards their sheep, which shall be ravaged for want of pure shepherds. And.

there will be much slander and vainglory ...and the Holy Spirit will depart from the many: and there will not be in those days many prophets speaking sure things, but only one here and there in divers places, by reason of the Spirit of error and of fornication and vainglory and love of money, which shall be in those who will be called servants of that One and in those who will re- ceive him. And there will be great hatred in the shepherds and elders towards each other.

* For there will be much jealousy in the last days, for each will speak what is pleasing in his own eyes: and they will let go utterly the prophecies “cf the prophets who were before me (Isaiah): and these very visions they will treat as void, in order that they may utter the impulses of their own heart’ (iii. 13-31).

Next follows a description of the descent of Beliar ‘in the likeness of a man, a king, lawless, a matricide, one who himself—the king—will per- secute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved shall plant; and of the Twelve, one shall be delivered into his hands.’ This Nero-Antichrist is then eae as emulating the superhuman powers of the Messiah— ‘He will act and speak like the Beloved, and will say, “I am God, and before me there has been none.” . .

And the greater art of those who shall have been associated together in order Bs receive (=wait for) the Beloved, he will turn aside after him. And he will set up his image before him in every city. And many believers and saints, having seen him for whom they were hoping,’ namely, Jesus the Christ, ‘and those also who became believers in him—of these few in those days will be left as his servants, while they flee from solitude to solitude, awaiting the coming of the Beloved’ (iv. 2-13).

It is true that one must not forget that in all this we are listening to an apocalyptist—one who as such is apt to dwell on the darker hues of dave which he regards as the ‘ darkest hour before the dawn,’ familiar to all apocalyptic.

Yet allowing for this, as also for some phrases and clauses which may be due to the final redactor of the Ascension, the impression remains that the degree to which deterioration has invaded the communi- ties specially in the writer's mind, particularly the degree to which ‘the prophet’ is already dis- credited, —not to speak of the greater relative prominence of the local ‘pastors’ and ‘elders,’— that all this implies a state of things at least as late in the development of the Syrian or Palestiniant Churches as what meets us inthe Didache.

Surel. such a picture of defection from the ‘love an purity’ of Messiah’s ‘Twelve Apostles’ presents a wide contrast to the life among Christians as con- templated by the compiler of the Didache, and tells somewhat against a laterdate. In particular, the absence of explicit warning against possible faults in the local leaders, like those of the ‘ elders’ and ‘shepherds’ cited above, deserves notice.

In- stead of this, the only hint of actual faults within the brotherhood is the injunction to ‘reprove one another, not in wrath, but in peace,’ and to visit with temporary spiritual ostracism the brother who offends against his fellow (xv. 3).

In any case the attitude and mode of thought evidenced in the Ascension, in its reference to ‘the preaching of his Twelve Apostles’ as the norm of faith and conduct, to which Christians in the last days were like to prove unfaithful, furnishes a close parallel to the idea of the ‘Teaching of the Lord, through the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles.

’ Thus it is natural to regard these two writings as almost contemporary attempts to extend the influence of the traditions going back to ‘the Twelve Apostles.’ Only, the author of the Didache did not see such difficulties in the way as were patent to the eye of the apocalyptist, writing further, perhaps, from * So the Ethiopic, the Greek here being lost. + There was probably enough common consciousness through- out the regions in question to warrant the argument as stated in the text. :