Whence and Wherefore? Forms and Functions of the Two Ways 
Traditions
[for SBL Nov 1997]
                         
<h1>Two Ways Forms</>

We have two explicit early Christian examples of this "basic 
binary" form of instruction for living:

Barnabas 18-21
Didache 1-6

[For the texts in parallel, see my 1965 Translation and 
Commentary in the series edited by Robert M. Grant, The Apostolic 
Fathers: a New Translation and Commentary, vol. 3 <t>Barnabas and 
the Didache</> (Nelson); this material is available electronically 
at URL <gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/> under Electronic Publications 
> Kraft > Christianity > Barnabas; the copyright is held by myself, 
and non-commercial use of the materials is freely permitted]

Barnabas describes the material as "another gnosis" (not 
explicitly as "wisdom") pertaining to teaching and authority, and 
uses the imagery of light/darkness as associated with angels of 
God/Satan and with eschatological continuity/temporality.

The Didache, on the other hand, speaks simply of life/death -- 
a binary lurking in the background in Barnabas (light leads to 
the appointed place, glory is due to the one who redeemed from 
death, the way of the Black One leads to eternal death), but not 
stated as such until the appended concluding words in Barn 21.1-3:
<quote>
The one who does these things will be glorified in God's kingdom;
The one who chooses those will perish with his works --
The day is near when all things will perish with the Wicked One!
But the Lord is near, and his reward.</>

Whether the short Latin document called the "Doctrina" actually 
constitutes a separate third witness to the two ways tradition, 
as many have argued, or is to be understood as somehow derivitive 
of both Didache (to which it stands very close overall) and 
Barnabas need not be argued here. What is especially interesting 
about Doctrina's form of presentation is that it includes both 
life/death (ala Didache) and light/darkness (as in Barnabas), 
followed by the mention of angels (see Barnabas) of 
righteousness/iniquity! At this point, the imagery of 1QS 
("Manual of Discipline") also comes quickly to mind, on the one 
side, and of Shepherd of Hermas, on the other.  

As the group of binary-minded sources enlarges, we find the 
following additional pairs: truth/error (1QS, Testaments), 
good/evil, law of the Lord/works of Belial, straight/crooked, and 
right hand/left hand [Kraft 135 commentary to Barn 18.1].

The apocalyptic connections in Barnabas and Doctrina are 
striking, and fit with other passages in the earlier portions of 
Barnabas. The lack of such apocalyptic tones in Didache is also 
striking, if also strikingly mitigated by the presence of the 
separate apocalyptic "appendix" at the end of the Didache! In my 
youth [Kraft 1965], I argued that the evidence suggested that a 
two ways "common source" lay somewhere in the shadowy background  
of Barnabas and the Didache, although neither probably used the 
source directly [pp. 8f]. I was undecided "whether, or to what 
extent, eschatology appeared in the source" [p. 12], although I 
tended to suspect (and perhaps, wished to believe) that an 
eschatological connection was more likely than not, based on 
other clues in the two early Christian compilations.

This much was clearer to me: the two ways materials in Barnabas 
must have been derived from an earlier form of this ever-growing 
two ways tradition which already was united with eschatological 
emphases in the school tradition on which Barnabas is dependant;
while the Didache form of the two ways (perhaps based upon an 
older Doctrina, and developed further in various other Christian 
forms such as the Apostolic Church Order, Life of Shenuti, etc.), 
gave evidence of relatively more reworking (including expanding) 
and was almost completely free of exchatological connections or 
nuances (except in the Doctrina framework). 


<h1>Two Ways Contents</>

The materials common to these two streams of two ways tradition, 
apart from the question of introductory or concluding frameworks, 
are almost exclusively ethical -- concerning duties towards God, 
neighbor, children, rulers and slaves, vice lists, and the like. 
There is a tendency to parallelistic couplets strongly 
reminiscent of Jewish "wisdom" literature as represented in 
Proverbs and Sirach (and also reflected in some of the 
Testaments of the Patriarchs) -- in synonymous, antithetical, and 
constructive (steps) combinations. There are straightforward 
prohibitions as well as positive admonitions, and occasionally 
"theologically" tinged comments (e.g. Barn 19.6c = Did 3.9c 
[nothing happens without God], Barn 19.7c = Did 4.10 [references 
to trusting and fearing God who calls those in whom the spirit is 
prepared], Barn 19.8 = Did 4.8 [sharers in what is 
imperishable/immortal]). 


<h1>Locating the Roots of the Two Ways Approach</>

By definition, what is distinctive about the two ways approach to 
ethical wisdom is the FORM in which it is presented -- the binary 
framework. There seems to be nothing particularly characteristic 
about the two ways ethical contents that would be of special help 
in tracing the background of the two ways formulation(s), beyond 
the obvious "Jewish" context of some of the instructions -- 
various God references (including creator connections), warning 
against idolatry, prohibition of abortion, various echoes of laws 
and standards known from other Jewish sources (including 
biblical). That such contents are older than their occurrence in 
what come to be "Christian" sources is not difficult to 
demonstrate. But is it possible to determine significant details 
about the development and connections of this two ways FORM prior 
to its incorporation into Barnabas and the Didache and their 
"Christian" predecessors? 

Here we are reduced to assessing the various parallels. That two 
ways imagery is very old in the Jewish biblical tradition, for 
example, is clear. Already in the pentateuchal materials, we find 
such words as "I have set before you life and good, death and 
evil..., life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose 
life..." (Deut 30.15-20). Whether this reflects the existence of 
such a FORM of teaching already in the period from which this 
section of Deuteronomy comes (Persian or earlier) cannot be 
determined, but is certainly possible. Was this a form that was 
known and used in other Near Eastern cultures? I should know the 
answer, but don't. In the Greek worlds, the image of Heracles at 
the crossroads (Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.1.21ff) provides another 
sort of parallel, but brings us no closer to a concrete solution. 
We don't appear to be any better informed today than when I wrote 
3 decades ago that "there is no reason to think that the form of 
the Two Ways tradition shared by Barnabas and the Didache had 
direct and immediate ties with Semitic Judaism. Rather it seems 
to have flourished in the Greek schools of Hellenistic Judaism 
for decades, if not centuries, before early Christian writers 
came to adopt it. Its ultimate origins are obscure and its family 
tree in terms of Greek and Smeitic (and even Egyptian) 
developments cannot be reconstructed with any assurance" (p.4). 

The Dead Sea Scrolls are of some help, as I already knew then 
[see commentary to Barn 18.1b-2]. But the parallels in the Manual 
of Discipline have less to do with establishing the presence of  
a two ways FORM of ethical instruction, than with casting light 
on the eschatological mood in which the form appears in Barnabas 
(see also the Testaments and 2 Enoch). To warn about conflicting 
options, related to angels and rulers and spirits and 
inclinations, is not to arrange ethical or other instructions 
according to such a format. Perhaps 4Q392, a very fragmentary 
"liturgical work" that speaks about God creating darkness and 
light in relation to the "deeds of God" and the understanding of 
humans, would have given us something like our two ways format, 
had more of it survived [GM 438]. Similarly some of the "wisdom" 
texts presented by GM on 371-404 come closer to giving similar 
"ethical" instruction and lists (e.g. 4Q416-424 "sapiental works" 
dealing with the "mystery of existence," perhaps in contrast to 
the "mystery of sin/iniquity" in 1Q27, 4Q299-300), but in 
general, what has survived in the DSS is not particularly focused 
on "ethics" in the sense of the two ways traditions! Even the 
copies of biblical Proverbs (2 MSS from cave 4) and Sirach (one 
MS from cave 2) are rare among the DSS.


<h1>Directions, Hopes and Suggestions</>   

What can this all mean for those who wish to shed light on the 
development of "apocalyptic" and "wisdom" traditions in early 
Judaism? I'm convinced, although the evidence is far from 
compelling in and of itself, that there were traditions of 
collecting and transmitting ethical instructions and exhortations 
governed by an oral/written two ways organizational devices 
(light/darkness, life/death, etc.) in Greek speaking Judaism 
prior to the emergence of identifiable "Christian" literature. 
The contents thus transmitted focused on "ethical/practical 
wisdom" -- how to live in a manner pleasing to the creator God, 
with focus both on attitudes (e.g. don't be arrogant) and moreso 
on specific actions that relate mostly to social situations (e.g. 
share things with neighbors, judge justly, avoid murder, etc.) 
and almost never to cultic or ritual practices (unlike much of 
what has been preserved in the DSS; Barn 19.12b-c = Did 4.14a-b 
on confession of sins and appropriate prayer comes closest).  
God rewards right conduct and punishes its opposite, although 
this context is more assumed than explicated in the preserved 
materials. There is little that merits the label "apocalyptic" in 
the specific instructions contained in these two ways materials.

The framework in which the two ways section of Barnabas is cast, 
however, is explicitly "apocalyptic," with reference to angels of 
God and of Satan, contrast between the present lawless time and 
the eternal age, and between eternal death and its opposite. This 
sounds very similar to some passages from the DSS, and especially 
the Manual of Discipline. Indeed, the idea that the two types of 
angels oversee the two ways could easily be associated with the 
traditions about the fall of the watchers and their harmful 
relation to humankind, and with the ideas about the heavenly 
tablets from which humans learn what things ought to be done, 
etc. But I have no clear evidence for such associations.

That the non-apocalyptic framework of the Didache branch of the 
two ways tradition can also be brought into association with  
Jewish "practical wisdom" traditions is also clear, when one 
considers the presentations in such works as Proverbs and Sirach. 
Can anything be gained by attempting to determine whether the 
origins of the two ways form was in an apocalyptic or a non-
apocalyptic setting? Perhaps, as long as we keep in mind that 
both settings have strong and early rootings as well as complex 
developmental histories. Probably a stronger argument can be 
presented for the antiquity of pre-apocalyptic "ethical/practical 
wisdom" (as in Proverbs) than for the apocalyptic context. If we 
assume that the fairly obvious life/death binary, or even 
light/darkness (see Prov 4.18f!), created an organizational 
format that came to be used in that sort of setting, it is a 
fairly easy step for emergent apocalyptic to adapt the tradition 
to its perspectives. This would help explain why the contents of 
the common two ways tradition is so devoid of 
eschatological/apocalyptic language -- it was never there in the 
first place! 

On the other hand, it is possible to see apocalyptic contrasts 
and concerns as the magnet for creating the two ways form as we 
know it, and subsequent discomfort with apocalypticism as the 
reason for the rise of the alternate approach. In this scenario, 
more attention would be paid to any clues that survive in the 
Barnabas two ways material suggesting apocalyptic connections 
that may have been deleted by an alternative tradition -- e.g. 
Barn 19.10a "remember the day of judgment night and day" (Did 
4.1a "remember day and night the one who proclaims God's word to 
you"), or the virtual identity of Barn 4.9b (not located in the 
two ways section) and Did 16.2b (in the apocalyptic appendix), 
which may well be fragments of an older two ways stream exhorting 
endurance in the last times [discussed in Kraft, pp. 6-7]. 

I have no final wisdom at this endpoint except to repeat the 
obvious. However these materials originated, or arrived at the 
forms in which we find them (associated with apocalyptic or not), 
both types of two ways traditions have left their impact on early 
Christian literature, and probably both derive from variations 
already present in the Jewish roots from which Christianity 
emerged. More I cannot say on the basis of available evidence.

/end/