~p.163 @@6:3. In terms of content, this verse is unique in the Didache
although it is stylistically parallel to 7:1; 9:1; 11:3 ("Now concerning
... do thus ..."; cf. 10:1, 8; 15:4). Probably it represents a larger,
older source which listed the various relevant food laws which
Christianity had adopted from the Jewish "Noachic Laws" for sympathetic
Gentiles (see Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). When these specifics were
omitted, possibly under the pressure of growing Christian "liberalism"
(see Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8; 1 Tim. 4:3ff.; Barn. 10; Diognetus 4:1), the
"thus do" section of the teaching was softened to "bear what you can."
But the Didache tradition drew the line at meat that had been
slaughtered in pagan temples--in agreement with much of early Christianity
(e.g., Acts 15:20; Rev. 2: 14, 20; Justin, Dial. 35:1-2; Ps-Clem. Hom.
7:4, 8; etc.; contrast 1 Cor. 8:4; 10:25!).
@@7:1-8:3. On the probable development of this section around the
basic theme of baptism, see Q8:4-5. The "hypocrites" tradition
originally may have referred to Pharisaic practices (cf. Matt. 23:13),
although the Didachist might mean simply practicing Jews (after A.D.
~p.164 70, Pharisaic Judaism became dominant). If the communities which
later used the Didache (e.g., ApCo) are indicative of the earlier
practices, the Christianity represented here held baptism once each year,
at Passover/Easter time. The Two Ways tradition provided the
material for prebaptismal instruction (Did. @@7:1; 11:1 f.; see Athanasius in
Q10:2; contrast Matt. 28:19 f.?), and after baptism the catechumens
were anointed with oil (see to 10:8) and allowed to partake of their
first Eucharist (see to 9: 1 ff.). According to @@7:2-3, immersion in a
river or a spring (cold, flowing water) was preferred practice, but still
water (pools, cisterns, fonts) could be used if necessary (cf. Tert.,
Bapt. 4). As a last resort, affusion was permissible--this is probably the
earliest reference to that practice in Christianity (cf. Tert., Poen. 6;
Bapt. 12; Acts of Thaddeus 4). The threefold formula was employed
(so Matt. 28: 19; Justin, Apol. 61:3; Tert., Adv. Prax. 26; Acts of Peter
with Simon 5, etc.; cf. 1 Cor. 6:11) rather than the also popular
baptism "in the name of Jesus" (see 9:5; Eusebius' text of Matt. 28:19;
Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; Acts of Paul and Thecla 34, etc.)--this
does not, however, necessarily imply a conscious, full-blown
"trinitarian" theology as it was later defined. Liturgy may provide the
materials for theologizing as well as vice versa!
The connection between fasting and baptism is widely attested in
early Christianity (Justin, Apol. 61:2; Tert., Bapt. 19-20; Ps-Clem.
Rec. 7:37; Hippolytus, Ap. Trad. 20:7; Passion of Paul 19; etc. (see
Grant, 175). It is interesting that ApCo seems to understand Did. @@8:1
as referring directly to fasts in passion week (thus including the
pre-baptismal fast). But the contrast with (Pharisaic) Jewish fasts on
{@@RAK-- Is "pre-baptismal" a hyphenated word?}
Monday and Thursday (see b.Shabb. 24a; Ta'anit 2:4-7; cf. Luke
{@@RAK --please verify that the "b." is not in italics. es}
18:12) indicates a weekly, not an annual, practice. In view of the
predilection of the Jubilees-Qumran Calendar for Wednesday-Friday-
Sunday special days (see J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars
{@@RAK--Should "Wednesday-Friday-Sunday" be on one line? es}
[Leiden, 1961]), it would be interesting to know if and when that kind of
Judaism practiced weekly fasts. In any event, the Wednesday and
Friday fasts were widely observed in early Christianity (e.g., Tert.,
Ieiun. 2; Clement, Str. 7: [12]:75:2), although there also was reaction
to this sort of ritualism (see Barn. 3:1-5; Hermas, Sim. 5:1; Diognetus
4:1).
Prayer three times each day (@@8:3) is an old Jewish practice (Ps.
~p.165 55:17; Dan. 6:10, 13; Qumran Manual 10:1-3) which was adapted
in many Christian communities (e.g., Tert., Ieiun. 10; Clement, Str.
7: [7]:40:3), although it is not clear whether the Didache had the
third-, sixth-, ninth-hour prayers in mind (as Tertullian and Clement
of Alexandria), or dawn-noon-dusk (cf. Jewish practices). The form
of the Lord's Prayer in @@8:2 varies only insignificantly from Matt. 6:9 ff.,
and uses a doxology (lacking reference to "the kingdom," cf. 9:2, 3, 4;
10:2, 4, 5) which seems to have been known in Egypt (see the Coptic
versions of Matt. 6:13) and Syria (Q10:6).
@@9:1-10:8. Ever since the initial publication of the Didache, the
prayers of chapters @@9-10 have occasioned much discussion. At first
glance they seem to represent a "Eucharist" liturgy--the (weekly)
~p.166 ritual celebration of the "sacrament" of the Lord's Supper (see Ign.
Philad. 4; Justin, Apol. 66:1, 67:5). But the mere occurrence of the
noun eucharistia (@@9:1, 5) and related verbal forms (@@9:1, 2, 3; 10:1, 2,
@@3, 4, 8) must not be given too much weight, since these words
originally indicated prayer and "giving thanks" in general (see Rom. 14:6;
1 Cor. 14:17; 1 Tim. 4:3; Rev. 4:9, etc.). Furthermore, the fact that
a meal is in view in @@10:1 (cf. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25) and that 14:1
refers to a rite which more closely resembles the liturgical Eucharist
as it came to be held (separately from any meal, as an "offering"), led
many commentators to suggest that @@Did. 9-10 refers to early Christian
"Love Feasts" (the "Agape" meal--cf. Jude 12) which were patterned
after formal Jewish "fellowship" meals and which sometimes seem to
have been held in association with the ritual Eucharist and also
baptism (see lgn. Smyrn. 8:2). The background and early development
of these practices are discussed in detail by G. Dix, The Shape of the
Liturgy (Glasgow, 1945), ch. 4, who sees in @@Did. 9-10 a Love Feast
(pp. 90-95). The absence of any reference to Jesus' body or blood,
~p.167 or to "remembering" him (cf. @@10:5) adds further support to the Love
Feast hypothesis, although the rather technical use of eucharistia in
@@9:5 causes some hesitation. The freedom granted to the "prophets"
in @@10:7 (cf. 11:9) could flt either case, as could the unusual order of
cup-loaf in @@9:2 f. (see Luke 22:17, 19 f.; 1 Cor. 10:16).
But the problems and possible solutions extend beyond these
natives. How are we to account for the "ointment" prayer in some
traditions at @@10:8? If it was artifically constructed in imitation of
@@Did. 9:2, 3; 10:2, what was the interpolater's motive? He must have
envisioned some connection between the ceremony of @@Did. 9-10 and
the "ointment." And if @@10:8 reffects an actual prayer used in the
Didachist's Christianity, the same questions must be answered: what
was its connection with the other prayers? They all obviously have
similar origins! In a quite different vein, even if we grant an original
Love Feast setting for the prayers (which seems probable), must we
assume that the compiler of our form of the Didache tradition was
conscious of this background? We must ask further concerning the use
of these prayers in his experience, and his reasons (if any) for placing
them in their present context in the Didache.
An important clue to solving such questions might be uncovered if
the significance of the "ointment" or "perfume" (fragrant oil) of @@10:8
were known. It is not impossible that this too is a vestige from
Christian Love Feasts, since the Jewish fellowship meal ritual included a
blessing on aromatic spices ("ointment"?) which usually were burned
(see Dix, Liturgy, 425 f.). But ointment/oil was used in many
connections in early Christianity: for anointing the sick (Jas. 5:14) and
the dead (Mark 16:1, etc.), anointing catechumens in preparation for
baptism (esp. to exorcise evil spirits), mixing with the baptismal
waters to symbolize the Holy Spirit's presence, and so on. And in at
least two special rites, well known in Eastern Christianity, ointment
is closely connected with the Eucharistic bread and cup: (1) at the
ordination of bishops (Hippolytus, Ap. Trad. 4 [Ethiopic]); and (2)
at the baptism-confirmation-communion service at Easter time (see to
~p.168 7:1, 4) when catechumens became full members of the community
(Hippolytus, Ap. Trad. 20-23, etc.).
This annual Baptism-Eucharist service seems to provide the most
satisfactory setting for @@Did. 9-10--indeed, for Did. 1-10 (see Q8:4-5).
The climax of this service was the special Eucharistic meal that
immediately followed the anointing and baptism of the catechumen, and
from which all nonbaptized persons were excluded (@@9:5; cf. Ethiopic
Ap. Trad. 40 [see Q7:6]). Such an approach to Did. @@9-10 does not solve
all the problems--we should expect @@10:8 to precede the meal, and
@@10:7 is best explained as a vestige from the older Love Feast setting
--but there seldom is a tidy answer to the enigmas of evolved literature!
{@@RAK-- Is "--" ok? es}
The symbolism intended in the phrase "David's vine" (@@9:2) is not
entirely clear--the best possibilities seem to be the Messianic hope (see
Isa. 11:1; 2 Baruch 36-40; John 15: 1 ff.; Rev. 22: 16) or the new
Israel concept (see Ps. 80:8 ff.; Isa. 5: 1 ff.; Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1; 4
Ezra 5:23; 9:21 f., etc.). The image in @@9:4 seems to be that as the
grain from which the loaf was made had come from widely scattered
origins, so ultimately the widely dispersed Church would be unified.
The prayer of @@10:2-5 echoes certain phrases of the "Lord's Prayer"
(see 8:2)--the "holy Name," spiritual sustenance, rescue from evil, the
doxology--which also are common in Jewish table prayers. In @@10:4-6
it is possible that antiphonal prayer is represented, with the leader
saying one line and the congregation saying the next, or perhaps
interjecting an "Amen" (see esp. Cop; cf. Justin, Apol. 67:5). The phrases
in @@10:6c, d are especially similar to Rev. 22:11, 20 (see 1 Cor. 16:22).
The concession to "prophets" in @@10:7 allows them to pray for a longer
time, or more frequently--or perhaps to hold Eucharist as often as they
like--in comparison to other leaders (see Q9:3). The symbolism of the
"ointment" (cf. Exod. 30:25; Isa. 25:7 LXX) in @@10:8 is not obvious--
perhaps the fellowship of believers is intended (see Ps. 133:2), or the
presence of God's Spirit, or immortality (see ApCo; Did. @@10:2; Ign.
Eph. 17:1).
~p.169 @@11:1-2. Whatever its background (see Q8:4-5), the present
position of @@11:1-2 provides an excellent transition to the section which
follows by introducing the theme of how to tell a true from a false
Christian minister. In general, these verses resemble Gal. 1:6-9 and
2 John 9-10; it is possible that @@11:2a was originally autobiographical--
"even if I, your teacher, turn...."
{@@RAK-- Ok to insert space before "....?" es}
~p.170 @@11:3-12. The rubric of introduction in @@11:3 parallels exactly 7:1;
9:1 (see 6:3). Some of the material in the section on "apostles" is
paralleled in 12: 1-2. The use of "apostle" to indicate itinerant
missionaries is not unknown in the New Testament (see Rom. 16:7[?]; 1 Cor.
12:28 f.; Phil. 2:25[?]; Acts 14:14, etc.), although from early times
the title came to be reserved for "the Twelve" and Paul (see Grant,
160 ff.; note also the title of the Didache). Similarly, "prophets"
appear in the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28 f.; 14:1; Acts 13:1, etc.; cf.
Eph. 2:20; 4:11), and are treated with special care since their conduct
"in the spirit" [Q9:10] is noticeably different from normal activity (see
Acts 11:27 f.; 21:10 f.). But just as there are false spirits (see to Barn.
18:1) there can be false prophets (Matt. 24:24, etc.), and some
criterion for judging was needed in the community. Whereas 1 John
4:1 ff. advocates a doctrinal test, @@Did. 11:7 f. speaks of a testing of
~p.171 conduct--with the divine dictates, or perhaps the life of the Lord
(@@11:8b is ambiguous) as the standard. But even to this rule there can
be an exception (@@11:11), if an acknowledged genuine prophet
forms some personal action which otherwise would be suspect (is Hos.
1-3 in mind here? and the practice of "spiritual marriage" in early
Christianity?). Implicitly at least, the "apostles" are identified with
the "prophets" through the unexpected use of "false prophet" (not
"false apostle"; 2 Cor. 11: 13; cf. Rev. 2:2) in @@11:5-6; note that
neither should derive profit from their ministries (@@11:6, 12) or give the
impression of being a "free loader" (@@11:5, 9). Did. 13:1-2 returns to
the theme of support for such ministers. It is not clear to what gospel
"dogma" reference is being made in @@11:3--possibly (with 13:1-2) to
Matt. 10:10b, but Matt. 10:40 might be a better candidate (see @@11:4).
@@12:1-5. This section on traveling Christians interrupts the treatment
of prophets (see Q8:4-5) and especially resembles 11:4-6. The
~p.172 community is obligated to show hospitality to the visitor who claims to be
a Christian (@@12:1, 4) until they have been able to evaluate his claim--
presumably by observing his conduct and perhaps by other means. If
he passes the test, they should aid him as best they can for as many
as three days (@@12:2). Thereafter he should either leave or settle down
to work (@@12:2-3)--Christians are not to be idle, not to live off other
men's labors, for in that case they are "Christ-peddlers," or perhaps
better, "Christ-parasites" (cf. 2 Thess. 3: 10).
@@13:1-7. We now return to the theme of "prophets," but like the
Christian of 12:3, these are prophets who wish to settle. If ch. 12 had
not provided such a neat transition, we might have expected this
material to follow 11:12 (see Q8:4-5). The additional note on
~p.173 "teachers" in @@13:2 is rather strained and superfluous to the remainder of the
chapter, but it does prepare us for 15: 1-2.
The "first fruit" section in @@13:3-7 sounds like an adapted Jewish
halakic tradition based on passages such as Exod. 22:29 f.; Num 18:
12-30; Deut. 18: 1-5 (cf. Neh. 10:35 ff.; Ezek. 44:30). The ancient
high priests are replaced by the prophets (do the teachers equal the
Levites of old?; cf. 1 Clem. 40:5), and provision for the needy is
retained (@@13:4, cf. Deut. 26: 12). Apparently fixed clergy (15: 1-2)
had not yet replaced the itinerant ministers when this material was
incorporated into the developing Didache tradition. The allusions to
"the commandment" (@@13:5, 7) are obscure. Perhaps the Old
{@@RAK --bold type is applied to"13:5, 7" es}
Testament laws mentioned above are in view, or some saying attributed to
Jesus (see Matt. 10:10b, or Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 4:17:5--[the Lord]
{@@RAK -- Spaces before and after "--?" Two dashes? es}
counseled his disciples to offer first fruits to God ..."!), although in
the latter case we might expect reference to the "gospel" (see 8:2;
11:3; 15:3 f.). The inclusion of personal possessions in @@13:7 may be
based on the "offering" extracted from the Egyptians by the Exodus
Israelites (see Exod. 3:22; 12:35; cf. Acts 20:33). The allowance that,
within the general obligation to give, the giver has some freedom to
determine his exact contribution (@@13:7; cf. 6:2 f.!) is similar to Justin's
claim in Apology 67:6 (cf. Acts 5:4).
@@14:1-3. The connection between @@Did. 14 and its surroundings is not
entirely clear, but probably it continues the idea of "first fruit"
offerings in 13:3-7 by referring to the Christian "sacrifice" now offered
(cf. 1 Clem. 40-41). The description of early Christian worship here
is frustratingly vague. More detailed pictures are found in (1) the
letter of Pliny to Trajan (see Grant, 88 f.), where a typical Christian
service includes predawn meetings on a predetermined day, a hymn,
a moral pledge, and later an "ordinary and harmless" meal; and in
Justin, Apology 65-67: Christians meet on Sunday, greet each other
with a kiss, read scriptures, have prayer and Eucharist conducted by
"foremost brethren" with deacons serving absent members,
~p.174 contributions for the needy are received, and so forth. Probably the "Lord's
(Day) of the Lord," as @@14:1 literally reads (cf. Rev. 1:10), refers to
regular Sunday meetings (see Barn. 15:8 f.; Q2:3), although C. W.
Dugmore has argued that only Easter is meant (Supplement to Novum
Testamentum, vol. 6 [1962], 282 ff.). The breaking of bread (@@14:1)
has usually been interpreted as a Eucharistic service (so Georg), but
the passage is by no means unambiguous and a regular community meal
could be in view (see to chs. 9-10; cf. Acts 20:7 and Pliny's
description). Nor should we jump to the conclusion that "sacrifice" in @@14:1-2
necessarily indicates the Eucharistic "sacrament"--prayers and praise
{@@RAK-- Ok to insert spaces before and after "--?" es}
often were called "sacrifices" in this period, both in Judaism and in
Christianity (see Barn. 2: 10; Justin, Dial. 117:2b, etc.). Mal. 1: 11 f.
(@@14:3) was widely used in the early Church (in various forms) to
"prove" God's acceptance of Christian prayers and/or Eucharistic
observances throughout the world, and to attack Jewish cultic ritual
(cf. Barn. 2-3).
@@15:1-2. This is one of the most recently composed sections of the
Didache (see Q8:3-5), reflecting the transition from dependence on
itinerant ministers, some of whom have settled (13: 1-2), to indigenous
leaders (see Q9:3). Notice that there is no indication here of a single
bishop leader (cf. Ign. Trall. 2-3, etc.), but of appointing (or
choosing, electing; cf. Acts 14:23; 2 Cor. 8:19; later it can mean
"ordaining"; Q10:6) a group of "overseers" (elders, who probably led
community worship) and of deacons (with more menial functions, such as
distribution of food, alms, etc.)--cf. Phil. 1: 1; 1 Clem. 42:4 f.;
Hermas, Vis. 3:5:1, and so forth. The translation "hold in contempt" (or
"upbraid") in @@15:2 may be too strong--"disregard" or "ignore" also
are possible.
~p.175 @@15:3-4. This very general treatment of intracommunity
relationships twice appeals to "the gospel" teachings, but does not cite any
passages (cf. 8:2; 11:3). The best parallels to @@15:3 are Matt. 5:22-26;
18:15-17, 21 f. (cf. Sirach 10:6 f.), and to @@15:4, Matt. 6:1-18.
Probably "the gospel" here does not consciously refer to a written document
accessible to all, but to the teachings of Jesus (like 1:3b-4; 8:2)
which were regularly repeated in community gatherings. The Greek
in @@15:3b is cryptic and could mean "nor let him be heard among you."
A similar passage about "heterodox" Christians in Ign. Smyrn. 7:2
has "and say nothing, either privately or publicly, about them."
Probably @@15:3b advocates giving errant brother "the silent treatment"
both privately and publicly. It is not clear whether this exclusion from
public teaching/preaching also involves exclusion from meals,
Eucharist, and so on.
@@16:1-8. Certain aspects of this apocalyptic "appendix" have been
discussed in Q2:3, 7. In general, it is closely related to the "synoptic
apocalypse" in Mark 13; Matt. 24-25; Luke 21--see also 1 Thess.
{@@RAK-- Ok to insert spaces before and after "--?" es}
4:13--5: 11; 2 Thess. 2: 1-12; 1 Cor. 15:23-28; Jude; 2 Pet. 2--3; Rev.
{@@RAK-- Ok to change "--" to "-?" es}
3-22. Furthermore, the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter (M. R. James,
511) opens with a strikingly parallel passage, including references to
~p.176 the sign-working "deceiver" (see @@16:4), the cross preceding the Lord
as he comes (also in the Epistle of the Apostles 16 [or 27; James,
490]; cf. @@16:6, the "sign spread out in heaven"!), the regal procession
and judgment (@@16:8). On the imagery of that which is commendable
being "corrupted" to its opposite (@@16:3), cf. 2 Baruch 48:35, "honor
will be turned to shame, and strength humiliated to contempt, ... and
beauty will become ugliness." The "Antichrist" figure in @@16:4 is
frequent in apocalyptic literature, Jewish and Christian--see Dan. 7:25;
{@@RAK -- Are there spaces before and after "--?" es}
11:36ff.; 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 13, and so on. The testing
by fire in @@16:5 (cf. Zech. 13:9; 1 Pet. 1:7; Rev. 16:8 f.) does not
represent the final world conflagration envisioned in some sources (as
2 Pet. 3:10, 12--with a Stoic background), but the climactic crisis for
mankind before the triumphal return of "the Lord" (apparently Jesus
--see Q9:8). Perhaps the allusion to the fiery destruction of the lawless
{@@RAK --Is "--" correct? Should it be "-?" es}
men in Qumran Hymns 6:17 ff. reflects a similar concept (cf. Rev.
20:15). In fact, it may be that @@16:5 is intended as a reference to
judgment taking place before the Lord's return (but then, what does
"the world" mean in @@16:8a?), and that the Didache should end as in
MS H, without further reference to judgment. The resurrection
{@@RAK -- Is "MS H" in an enlarged type? es}
of @@16:6-7, in any case, is only for "the saints," as a reward for
endurance and a sign of triumph.
//end//