contents of Barnabas and the
Didache are concerned, another important difference is apparent.
The Didache transmits community instructions for proper conduct
and worship. It is in that sense a "community" product. Barnabas,
however, is concerned with correct understanding of how to
interpret the past (present and future), as well as how to live
in the present. Thus Barnabas transmits instuctions which, in
origin, may more helpfully be called "school" interests
(exegetical traditions, commentary, etc.) than "community"
materials in a strict sense (liturgical conduct, church order,
etc.). Nevertheless, in their different ways, both writings are
interested in catechesis, in instruction, in exhortation, and
thus find their use and preservation in community settings.
[[~p.4]]
#2. The Two Ways Tradition Common to Barnabas and the
Didache
1. Background of the Two Ways Approach.
The most
obvious piece of common ground between Barnabas and the Didache
is the "Two Ways" tradition of ethical exhortation (Barn. 18-21;
Did. 1.1-6.2). It has long been debated whether, for this
material, (1) Barnabas has used the Didache, (2) the Didache used
Barnabas, or (3) both independently used a common source.\3/ The
present tendency, which is shared by this writer, is to prefer
the last alternative (see #2.4) -- especially in the light of the
Qumran Manual of Discipline 3.18 ff., which shows that a
similar Two Ways device was also in vogue in a predominantly
Semitic-speaking Jewish community in pre-Christian times.
-----
\3/The originality of the Didache has been defended by a
minority of commentators, such as O. Bardenhewer, F. X. Funk, and
R. D. Hitchcock- {-?something missing?} F. Brown. Those who have
argued for Barnabean priority include F. C. Burkitt, R. H.
Connolly, J. Muilenburg, and J. A. Robinson. Among advocates of a
"common source" hypothesis are J.-P. Audet, J. M. Creed, E. J.
Goodspeed, A. von Harnack (later view), K. Kohler, R. Knopf, B.
H. Streeter and C. Taylor. For a recent treatment of the Two Ways
material and the New Testament, see E. Kamlah, Die Form der
katalogischen Para%nese im NT (Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum NT
7, Tu%bingen, 1964); on related
Hellenistic material see also H. D. Betz, Lucian von Samosota
und das NT ... (TU
76, Berlin, 1961), 205 n.2.
=====
But 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 Semitic (and even Egyptian) developments
cannot be reconstructed with any assurance. In its Jewish
form(s), probably Deuteronomy 30.15-19 and Psalm 1 played a
central role along with passages such as Jeremiah 21.8; Proverbs
2.13; 4.18 f., and so [[~p.5]] forth. In any event, the theme is
ancient and is by no means exclusively Jewish or Judeo-Christian
in popularity (see, e.g., the "Choice of Heracles" in Xenophon,
Memorabilia 2.1.21 ff.). Thus it is impossible to say
precisely how, when, or where the Two Ways theme took the form
which became known to Barnabas and the Didache. The least that
can be said is that it seems to have been a separate written
tractate, in Greek, which came into early Christianity by way of
Greek speaking Judaism and its practices (a "proselyte
catechism"?).
2. Pervasiveness of the Two Ways in Barnabas.
A close
examination of Barnabas reveals that the influence of the Two
Ways motif is not limited to chapters 18-20. This is one of the
themes that pervades the entire epistle (#5.4-5), and it comes to
expression most clearly in the references to the "way of
righteousness" (1.4; 5.4; cf. 11.7+; 12.4+) or "of light" (18.1;
19.1, 12) in contrast to the "way of wickedness" (4.10; cf.
10.10+; 11.7+), "of darkness" (5.4; 18.1; cf. 20.1) and "of
death" (19.2c; 20.1b) -- cf. also "the error" which now ensnares
some men (2.9; 4.1; 12.10; 14.5; 16.1). But it can scarcely be
explained simply as an original contribution of the final author-
editor himself. This becomes clear from a closer examination of
the characteristic emphases shared by Pseudo-Barnabas and his
school tradition -- emphases which presuppose the Two Ways
scheme, presented in an eschatological setting, for their
very existence (see #5.1-5) -- as well as from the growing
awareness of the antiquity of this approach (#2.1). To be more
specific, the obviously traditional ethical interpretations
offered in Barnabas 10 (cf. 19.2c, 6b), which in form
resemble Didache 3.1-6, but which do not seem to have come from
the common Two Ways source, help illustrate the degree to which
Pseudo-Barnabas' school tradition was oriented toward such
material. And when the author-editor abruptly appends the Two
Ways material of chapters 18-20 to his treatise, he as much as
says he is reproducing extant catechetical material -- "another
gnosis and didache" (18.1; cf. the conclusion at
21.1, "as many [[~p.6]] ordinances as have been written"). Far
from being a creation of Pseudo-Barnabas, the Two Ways tradition
which he transmits has played a formative role (along with
"gnostic" exegesis [#5.1] and eschatology [#5.3]) in the
particular type of Christianity to which he subscribes.
3. The Two Ways in the Didache.
By way of contrast,
the Two Ways theme in the Didache is almost exclusively limited
to Didache 1.1-6.2. Its absence from Didache 6.3-15.4 is
perhaps explicable in view of the subject matter (liturgical-
cultic, ecclesiastical). It is possible that some connection once
existed between the apocalyptic appendix to the Didache (ch. 16)
and a Two Ways tradition presented in a vivid eschatological
setting, as in Barnabas. But this is part of a larger problem
that requires special treatment (see #2.7). For the present, it
suffices to note that some material present in the Two Ways (Did.
4.2; Barn. 19.10b) is echoed both in Didache 16.2a and in
Barnabas 4.10b, and probably in Hermas, Similitudes 9.26.3b --
Didache 4 Didache 16 Barnabas 4 Hermas
(see Barn. 19) (cf. 14.1)
Do not retire [some believers
to yourselves criticized
and live alone for]
and daily and ... but gather
frequently be together in ... not
gathered harmony fellowshiping
seek out the seeking the seeking what with the
faces of the things is of common servants of
saints necessary to benefit God, but
that you your souls [cf. 19.8a; living alone
might find [cf. Barn. 21.2b; Heb. they destroy
rest in their 17.1 var.; 10.25]. their souls.
words. Ign. Eph. 13.1;
2 Clem. 17.3].
Furthermore, Didache 16.2b is almost verbaly identical to
Barnabas 4.9b -- [[~p.7]]
Didache 16.2b: Barnabas 4.9b:
For the whole For the whole
time of your faith time of our life and faith
will not profit you will profit us nothing
unless unless now,
in the last time in the lawless time
and in the scandals to come ...
you are perfect. we resist.
and Barnabas 4.9b-14 clearly incorporates Two Ways
imagery.
Whatever the solution to this complex situation, Didache 1-6
shows no real interest in eschatology. This is especially
striking by comparison to Barnabas 18-20, which shares with the
rest of the epistle an atmosphere charged with present
eschatological drama (see #2.2; #5.3) . Contrast, for example,
Barnabas 18 with Didache 1.1, or Barnabas 19.10a with Didache
4.1a. In the Didache, eschatology either is subsumed under
liturgy (8.2+; 9.4; 10.5-6) or forms an appendix (ch. 16) in
which the reader is admonished to be ready when the last times
finally do arrive, and is made aware of certain future
preludes to the consummation. Barnabas and the Didache are in two
different worlds at this point. Their common ground is almost
entirely limited to the Two Ways ethic.
4. Source of the Two Ways Material in Barnabas and the
Didache.
Thus we are faced with the knotty problem of trying
to suggest how this situation could have come about. The evidence
is almost completely against the hypothesis that Barnabas took
its Two Ways material from the Didache. By comparison with
Barnabas 18-19, the first part of the Two Ways tradition in
Didache 1-4 is both more systematically arranged and is
significantly longer. There can be little doubt that Didache
1.3b-2.1 is a late, Christian addition to the basic tradition
(see #8.2); similarly, Didache 3.1-6 contains a separate,
carefully structured tradition of prohibitions (see also #8.4).
Neither of these sections has left any clear imprint on Barnabas
(the variant to Barn. 19.11a almost certainly is secondary).
Furthermore, the [[~p.8]] organization of such passages as
Didache 1.2; 2.2-3 (cf. 5.1); 4.1-11, stands in marked contrast
to the haphazard (at least by our standards) presentation of the
same material in Barnabas. On the other hand, there is one
relatively extensive passage in which Barnabas and the Didache
follow exactly the same sequence and have almost exactly the same
wording (Barn. 20.2 = Did. 5.2). It is not at all tempting to
believe that Barnabas systematically eliminated these two blocks
of Didache material (including those vices in Did. 5.1 which are
also mentioned in Did. 3.1-6), and then scrambled the remaining
items except for Didache 5.2.
In order to accept the hypothesis that the Didache took the Two
Ways material from Barnabas, however, one must be willing to
attribute the Didachist with the following editorial functions:
He first purged the entire tradition of characteristicaly
Barnabean emphases such as eschatology (#2.2-3), "darkness" (and
"light"?) in ethical symbolism (Barn. 5.4; 10.10; 14.5 ff.; 18.1;
20.1, etc.), "gnosis" (#5.1-2), glory/glorification (Barn.
2.10+; 8.2; 11.9; 19.2 f., etc.), theology of the word (#5.8) --
as well as several seemingly "Jewish" ideas (e.g., Barn. 19.2a,
9b; 20.2d, 2h) and even one of the "ten commandments" (Barn.
19.4e -- but note the textual problems). He then reorganized and
extensively expanded the first part of the material, while
retaining the last part (Barn. 20) with very little alteration.
Surely the difficulty, if not impossibility, of either of these
alternatives is reason enough to invoke the aid of a hypothetical
common source. In short, both Barnabas 18-20 and Didache 1-5
provide strong indications that the Two Ways ethic which they
share had already been through a significant amount of
development in the respective background traditions from which
these two documents come before it was finally incorporated
into the present forms of Barnabas and the Didache. The basic
"common source" probably was not directly used by either
Pseudo-Barnabas or the Didachist (almost certainly not by the
latter; see #2.5) -- it is "common" [[~p.9]] to their
traditions but seems to lie at some distance in the shadowy
background.
5. The Separate Circulation of the Two Ways Material.
In addition to the various direct witnesses to the present forms
of Barnabas (#3) and the Didache (#7), early Christian literature
attests the separate circulation of a form of the Two Ways ethic
that is closely related to Didache 1.1-6.1 but without the
material in 1.3b-2.1. Indeed, Goodspeed has argued that this
separate Two Ways tradition actually represents the source common
to Barnabas and the Didache. But to put the case in just that way
is to oversimplify the relationship (see #8.5) . The differences
between this independent Two Ways tract and the Didache are
slight in comparison to its differences from Barnabas -- for
example, it includes the twofold command of love (Did. 1.2;
contrast Barn. 19.2) along with most of the Didache 3.1-6
"supplement," and it lacks most of Barnabas' eschatological
preoccupation (although it is more "mythological" than the
Didache at the outset, mentioning two "angels"). Thus it would
seem to represent the immediate source upon which the final
author-editor of the Didache drew for the Two Ways material. But
as we have seen, Barnabas 18-20 must have been derived from an
earlier form of this ever-growing tradition (lacking Did. 3.1-6,
and less ordered), a form which already was united with
eschatological emphases in the school tradition on which Pseudo-
Barnabas depends. Thus of the three Christian forms of this Two
Ways tradition, Barnabas 18-20 represents the most primitive
offshoot from the ancient common stock, while the following
witnesses attest a later stage which came to be incorporated
directly into the Didache.
(1) Dctr = the Latin "Doctrina." It is known from two
manuscripts, the oldest of which (ninth-tenth centuries) is
incomplete and parallels only Didache 1.1-3a plus 2.2-6a, while
the other (eleventh century) contains the complete Dctr --
paralleling (in general) Didache 1.1-3a plus 2.2-6.1. [[~p.10]]
The points of unique agreement between Dctr and Barnabas
against the Didache are almost completely limited to the opening
words of the Two Ways, where Dctr-Barn. use the imagery of
light/darkness and refer to corresponding angelic powers. There
are also some faint similarities between the closing words of
Dctr and Barnabas 21 (cf. Barn. 4.9b = Did. 16.2b).
(2) CO = the "Apostolic Church Order" (or "Ordinances"),
also known as the "Ecclesiastical Canons of the (Holy) Apostles"
(see also #7.6). This form of the church manual tradition
probably dates from the early fourth century and circulated
widely in the East (Egypt-Syria). The shortest form is contained
in four Greek manuscripts dating from the tenth to the fifteenth
centuries, and has sometimes been called (among other titles) the
"Judgments of Peter." It contains, roughly, the material of
Didache 1.1-3a plus 2.2-4.13, with some adaptations and
additions, and a few smatterings of peculiarly Barnabean wording
(see #3.7). The general order follows the Didache, but the
teaching is sectioned off and put into the mouths of various
apostles -- for example, Peter gives Didache 2.2-7, Andrew gives
3.1-2, and so on. In one Greek manuscript from the twelfth
century, as well as in the Latin, Syriac, Sahidic, Ethiopic, and
Arabic versions, this reworked Two Ways tradition forms the first
part of a much longer manual which continues with regulations
governing church offices, and so forth (clearly related to the
Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus; see #7.6). The textual
problems between these various forms of the Apostolic Church
Order are often very complex. Most witnesses also include brief
verbal parallels to Didache 10.3b and 13.1/2 (?) in the expansion
which follows the admonitions of Didache 4.2, but this material
is not extensive enough to encourage the belief that our full
Didache was used for the Two Ways of CO. Rather, CO
seems to have added excerpts from at least Barnabas and possibly
the Didache to the Dctr-like form of the Two Ways on which
it is based. [[~p.11]]
(3) Shenuti = the Arabic (but not Coptic) form of the
Life of Shenuti, from the seventh century (?). This
hagiogaphy opens with parallels to the Dctr-CO form of the
Two Ways. Didache 1.3b-2.1 is not represented and the negative
approach of 5.1-2 is severely abridged (cf. CO, where it is
lacking). The personal catechetical approach is heightened
through the frequent insertion of "my son," and there is a great
deal of expansion and adaptation of the basic Two Ways material.
(4) Syntagma = the Syntagma Didascalias ("Summary
of Doctrine") attributed (wrongly?) to Athanasius. The
Syntagma dates from the fourth century, and contains some
teachings which obviously depend on the Two Ways, but
which constitute only a small portion of the rules for Christian
(especially monastic) life enjoined therein. It is imposible to
say with complete assurance that the Syntagma rests solely on the
Dctr-CO form rather than on the larger Didache. A
passage on giving may be related to Didache 1.4d-e, but is
not necessarily so -- otherwise the Didache 1.3b-2.1 material is
lacking. Similarly, the practices of fasting and giving reflected
in Didache 8.1 and 13.3 are taught in the Syntagma, but
this cannot be pressed as a proof of literary dependence.
(S) Fides = "The Faith and Teaching of those in Nicaea."
This fourth-century Greek manual especially for clerics and
monastics unites a form of Athanasius' "Confession of Faith"
with a slightly variant form of the Syntagma. At one or two
points, the Fides includes Two Ways phraseology not
paralleled in the Syntagma, but usually the two documents
present the same material in the same order and almost
identical wording.
6. General Characteristics of the Two Ways Teaching.
A closer examination of these materials permits some general
observations about the common Two Ways source. If one is
permitted to make a very subjective judgment on the basis of the
relatively stable (but limited) context in Barnabas 20.2 =
Didache 5.2, the order of items in the source would [[~p.12]]
seem to have been more "haphazard" than "systematic." This tends
to support the suspicion that the Doctrina-Didache form of
especially the Way of Life has been extensively reworked with
respect to sequence. In terms of content, it is not clear
whether, or to what extent, eschatology appeared in the source;
what has remained as common to Barnabas and Doctrina-Didache is
almost exclusively ethical -- duties toward God (Barn. 19.2a, d,
f = Did. 1.2a; 4.12b, 13a), neighbor (Barn. 19.3d, 6a, 8a = Did.
2.6b, 2c; 4.8), children (Barn. 19.5c, d = Did. 2.2b; 4.9),
rulers and slaves (Barn. 19.7b, c = Did. 4.11, 10); vice lists
(Barn. 19.4a; 20.1= Did. 2.2f.; 5.1); etc. In style, there is a
marked tendency to parallelistic couplets which are strongly
reminiscent of Jewish Wisdom Literature, such as Proverbs and
Sirach (cf. also Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) -- we find
the linking of two ideas that are roughly synonymous (e.g., Barn.
19.2d-e, 5c = Did. 4.12a-b, 2.2b; cf. Did. 3.9a), or sometimes
antithetical (e.g., Barn. 19.8a = Did. 4.8; cf. Barn. 19.3a, Did.
3.9b), or in which the second part builds on the first to
supplement and strengthen the teaching (e.g., Barn. 19.7a, 8b =
Did. 2.4; see also Did. 4.14). There are also straightforward
prohibitions and positive admonitions, as well as occasional
teachings with properly "theological" overtones (e.g., Barn.
19.6c, 7c-8a = Did. 3.9c; 4.8, 10; cf. Did. 4.1b). Finally, it
should be noted that at several places Barnabas uses a stylistic
device of grouping three items together (not always related
in context) -- for example, l9.2a, 4a, 4d, 6b. The fact that the
number three plays a special role in the Barnabean tradition (see
#5.5.3), however, causes some hesitation in claiming this as a
stylistic tendency of "original" Two Ways source.
7. Didache 16, the Eschatology of Barnabas, and the Two
Ways.
There remains the problem of how Didache 16 is related
(a) to Barnabas, and (b) to the Two Ways. We have already noted
that Didache 16.2 and Barnabas 4.10b, 9b use the same admonitions
(#2.3). There are, in fact, several [[~p.13]] other apparent
parallels between Didache 16 and Barnabas (esp. 4.9h-14):
The admonition to watchfulness (Did. 16.1) is a frequent
theme in Barnabas (see esp. 4.9b; #5.4);
Both documents refer to the Christian quest for salvation as
"your/our life" (Did. 16.1a; Barn. 2.10b, 4.9b);
Both can describe salvation as "perfection" (Did. 16.2b; cf.
#9.5; Barn. 6.19; cf. Barn. 4.11b; #5.4);
Both warn of lawlessness and error/deceit "in the last days"
(Did. 16.3-4; Barn. 4.1, 3a; see #5.3);
Both recognize that some men, including the "sheep" (Did.
16.3; Barn. 16.5+), will fall away from salvation in the
time of crisis (Did. 16.5; Barn. 4.3, 9b, 13-14);
At least Barnabas (7.9) and perhaps Didache (16.5b) picture the
victorious Jesus as one who previously had been cursed;
Possibly the "sign spread out in heaven" (Did. 16.6) is related
to the "type" of the cross described in Barnabas 12.2-4;
Both speak of the world/unbelievers "seeing" the Lord when
he comes (Did. 16.8a; Barn. 7.9, cf. 5.10);
Finally, the role of the "world-deceiver" who "resembles a
son of God" and who conquers earth with "signs and
wonders" (Did. 16.4) sharply contrasts with Barnabas'
picture of Jesus, "God's Son" (see #5.7), who is rejected
despite "signs and wonders" (Barn. 5.8f.; see 4.14a);
similarly, Christians should also act as "God's sons" (Barn.
4.9b), and should "endure" (Did. 16.5b) as Jesus "endured"
(Barn. 5.1-12; 14.4).
It is obvious that some of these items reflect apocalyptic
commonplaces current in early Christianity (see also Koester on
Did. 16); nevertheless, this material is extensive enough to at
least suggest the possibility that the undeniable relationship
that exists between Didache 16.2 and Barnabas 4.10b, 9b may be
only part of a larger problem concerning Didache 16 and Barnabas
4 in general. [[~p.14]]
(1) One possibility to be tested, then, is that the whole of
Didache 16 is somehow related to Barnabas. But in that event, it
is unlikely that the Didache has directly used Barnabas,\4/ since
that would necessitate a systematic reorganization and expansion
of the "borrowed" material along more strictly apocalyptic lines
(like Mark 13, etc.), plus the systematic elimination of many
Barnabean peculiarities (the immediacy of the crisis, emphasis on
judgment, etc.). Might Barnabas have used the Didache, then?
Again, this is unlikely since numerous allusions in Didache 16
which would have been congenial to Barnabas are not, in fact,
adopted -- for example, "world-deceiver" (16.4) or even
"deceiver" (see #5.3), the "fiery trial" (16.5; cf. Barn. 15.5),
or the coming of the Lord "on the clouds" (16.8, cf. Barn. 7.9;
15.5). And where minor parallels between Barnabas and the Didache
do exist, they usually are more characteristic of the former,
which indicates that Barnabas' tradition spoke in such a
way, and thus that (mechanical) "borrowing" from the Didache is
precluded. In short, if we begin with the possibility of a large-
scale relationship, the best solution is to postulate a common
apocalyptic source which roughly followed the Didache 16 pattern
(call to vigilance, last days in the Lord, judgment). Pseudo-
Barnabas knew such apocalyptic material -- and much more -- but
has admittedly refrained from dealing with "things future" as
such (17.2). But ps-Barnabas cannot hide the widespread influence
that the apocalyptic has had on the tradition, and this
background is especially obvious in chapter 4.
-----
\4/Despite B. C. Butler, JTS
11 (1960), 265-283.
=====
(2) An alternative approach would be to reject the suggested
minor parallels between Didache 16 and Barnabas as superficial
and coincidental, and to concentrate on the clear relationship
between Didache 16.2 and Barnabas 4.10b, 9b (for the texts, see
#2.3). From a close analysis of the wording, it is impossible
to determine whether one has borrowed [[~p.15]] from the other,
or which form is more "original" -- for example, the general
thought-world of Barnabas is reflected in such concepts as
"faith" = "life" (i.e., the salvation quest; see 2.2, 10b; #5.4),
"lawless time" (15.5; 18.2), "scandals to come" (4.3a); but the
Didache also elsewhere contains this idea of "faith" (10.2; 16.5)
and of "perfection" (1.4b; 6.2; 10.5). Thus Barnabas might have
originated the material and the Didache adapted it, or vice
versa, or both adapted a common source. There is some additional
evidence to support the last alternative. As we have noted
(#2.3), Didache 16.2a = Barnabas 4.10b may be a variant form of
Two Ways material known from Didache 4.2. This possibility is
greatly stengthened by the Hermas parallel (#2.3), since Hermas
also knew the Two Ways tradition (see to Did. 1.1). Furthermore,
1 Clement 34.7-35.6 preserves ideas similar to Didache 16.2 =
Barnabas 4.10b, 9b in a Two Ways setting:
Therefore we should come together in harmony with one
mind.... Therefore let us strive to be found among the
number of those who endure, that we may receive a share
of the promised gifts. But how? ... If we seek out the things
which are pleasing ... to him, if we bring to perfection the
things necessary ... and we follow in the Way of Truth ...
[a vice list follows].
Not only does Barnabas 4.9b-14 also employ Two Ways imagery, but
the idea of the "lawless time" is used in Barnabas' introduction
to the Two Ways (18.2b). Didache 16 also may contain some faint
echoes of such a setting -- does "life" = Way of Life in 16.1a?;
note also the contrast between love and hate in 16.3, and
especially the contrast between the "signs of the truth" (16.6)
and "the one who leads the world into error" (16.4). There is a
good possibility, then, that Didache 16.2b = Barnabas 4.9b derive
from the original conclusion to the common Two Ways source (cf.
the Dctr conclusion), and partly fill the gap left by the
present divergent endings in Didache 6 and Barnabas 21.
(3) It would also be possible to solve the problem at hand
[[~p.16]] by synthesizing various aspects of the two preceding
hypotheses: for example, at one time the common Two Ways source
circulated in connection with an apocalyptic appendix similar to
Didache 16;\5/ or, at one time the admonition of Didache 16.2b =
Barnabas 4.9b formed part of the Two Ways conclusion, but it
later came to be incorporated into an apocalyptic tradition which
circulated separately and was used by the Didache and Barnabas.
-----
\5/Such a combining of ethical catechism with apocalyptic
ideas can be illustrated from many Judeo-Christian sources--see
esp., the Testaments. Indeed, K. Baltzer, Das
Bundesformular (1960), has argued that such a combination is
expected in the kind of literature represented by the Didache
(and Barnabas).
=====
Admittedly such hypotheses are extremely complicated and highly
speculative. But the situation itself is so complex that any
simpler "solution" (the Didache made direct use of Barnabas, or
vice versa) actually creates more problems than it solves. Thus,
until some fresh evidence is uncovered which can illuminate these
matters, some sort of "common source" theory must be invoked with
reference to Didache 16 = Barnabas 4, as well as for the Two Ways
material shared by Didache 1-5 and Barnabas 18-20.
[[~p.17]]