THE DIDACHE OR TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES [updated 7/28/95] [pages 57-77 of] BARNABAS AND THE DIDACHE</> by <au>Robert A. Kraft</> [English original, copyright Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1965] Updated Electronic Edition by <ed>Robert A. Kraft</> [Copyright Robert Kraft, Philadelphia, 1995ff] Appeared originally as volume 3 of <series>THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS: A NEW TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY</>, <ed>Robert M. Grant</> Codes for electronic version: <ch>...</> chapter title <h1>...</> major heading (text division) <h2>...</> second level heading [etc.] <qu>...</> quotation block <ts>...</> title of ancient source <tm>...</> title of modern (monographic) work <tp>...</> title of modern periodical or series <ta>...</> title of modern anthology <te>...</> title of modern encyclopedia or dictionary <em>...</> emphasis <hi>...</> highlight (set off from context) <ic>...</> italicize <u1>...</> single underline <u2>...</> double underline (etc.) <au>...</> author <ed>...</> editor and/or translator <gk>...</> Greek word(s); Beta Code adapted transliteration <lt>...</> Latin word(s) <sy>...</> Syriac word(s) <hb>...</> Hebrew word(s); Kraft adapted transliteration <co>...</> Coptic word(s); Beta Code adapted transliteration <gm>...</> German word(s) <fr>...</> French word(s) <it>...</> Italian word(s) [[###]] page numbers in the original -- e.g. [[135]] \#/ footnote number -- e.g. \7/ date\# edition number -- e.g. 1965\3 ----- separates text from footnote (precede with blank line) ===== resumes text after footnote (blank line before & after) diacritics are represented by appropriate signs after the letter to which they apply: / \ ~ ^ %(umlaut) +(dieresis) ----- [[57]] <ch>THE DIDACHE OR TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES</> [updated 7/28/95] <h1>#7. Various Forms of the Didache Tradition</> In addition to the witnesses to the separate Two Ways tradition (#2:5) the following manuscripts and documents contain or are closely related to the form of the Didache with which we are directly concerned. (1) <hi>H</> (Codex Hierosolymitanus) is the Bryennios manuscript described in #3:1, which contains the only known form of the full Didache in Greek. Its text of the Didache was first published by Bryennios in 1883, and facsimiles appeared in 1887, edited by J. R. Harris. (2) <hi>POx</> is the Greek Oxyrhynchus Papyrus No. 1782, dating from the late fourth century, which consists of two fragments of a codex, and preserves Didache 1.3b-4a and 2.7b--3.2a in a slightly variant form (with some significant expansion) from <hi>H</>. (3) <hi>Cop</> is a fragment of a Coptic version (or possibly of an extract from such a version) from the fifth century and contains Didache 10.3b-12.1b[2a], including the prayer for the oil in 10.8 (= <hi>ApCo</>).\1/ --- \1/See Clayton N. Jefford and S.J. Patterson, "A note on Did. 12.2a (Coptic)," <tp>Second Century</> 7 (1989/90) 65-75 [discusses the fragment and its ending]. === (4) <hi>Georg</> is a complete Georgian version preserved in a nineteenth-century manuscript at Constantinople (the translation itself may be as early as the fifth century). It lacks any equivalent to Didache 1.5-6 (cf. <hi>ApCo</>) and 13.5-7. Although the complete <hi>Georg</> text has never been published, some variant readings were made available in 1932 (<tp>Zeitschrift fu%r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft</> 31, [[58]] 111ff.). The title of the Didache in this manuscript includes the words "written in the year 90 or 100 after the Lord Christ"! (5) <hi>ApCo</> is the Greek <ts>Apostolic Contitutions</> 7.1- 32 which seems to derive from fourth-century Egypt and builds on an adapted form of the whole Didache. It is difficult to determine the precise relationship between <hi>H</> and the Didache tradition known to <hi>ApCo</>. It seems probable that <hi>ApCo</> or its immediate predecessors have reworked and streamlined the Didache, as well as adding numerous comments (especialiy scriptural quotations/allusions) to the basic Didache tradition. For example, the liturgical portions of the Didache appear in <hi>ApCo</> in a form which presents fewer problems to the fourth-century user: nothing is said of the alternative modes of baptism (Did. 7); the prayers of Didache 9-10 are reworked to fit a sacramental eucharist with the more usual order of bread- cup, and the frequent repetition of "yours is the glory forever" is drastically curtailed. Similarly, the archaic rules governing prophets and apostles in Didache 11-13 and 15 are removed, while "priests" and "presbyters" are introduced into these contexts. The apocalyptic material of chapter 16 is also streamlined -- thus <hi>ApCo</> lacks the Barnabas parallel to Didache 16.2, as well as details about the "anti-Christ" figure in 16.4b and the conflagration of 16.5a. Numerous vague references to what is "said" (Did. 14.3a; 16.7) or to "the commandment" (1.5b; 13.5, 7) or to the words of "the Lord" and "the gospel" (11.3; 14.3; 15.4) are lacking in <hi>ApCo</>, along with such an explicit and identifiable reference as 9.5b. Only in Didache 11.2 does <hi>ApCo</> retain the term "didache" (teaching) itself. Finally, most allusions to "gnosis" and perfection/blamelessness (1.4; 1.5b; 6.2; 9.3; 11.2) have been removed along with the parenthetic address "my child" (3.1-6; 4.1). Some of these features may derive from the form of the Didache used by <hi>ApCo</>, but it would be risky to conjecture which. For the rest, it is clear that <hi>ApCo</> knows a form of the Didache quite close to <hi>H</> -- it includes at least the first part of the "interpolation" [[59]] in Didache 1.3bff. (but <hi>ApCo</> lacks 1.5b-2.1; cf. <hi>Georg</>), and follows the general order of <hi>H</>'s text (the most notable exception is 3.1-4, where the material of 3.3 <em>follows</> 3.4). <hi>ApCo</> agrees with <hi>Cop</> in including the prayer for the oil in 10.8, and has a few agreements with <hi>POx</> against <hi>H</>. Thus, for all its problems, <hi>ApCo</> also has some demonstrable value in discussions of the textual history of the Didache. (6) <hi>Eth</> indicates the Ethiopic version of the "Ecclesiastical Canons of the Apostles" (see #2:5:2), one of the many church manuals derived, in one way or another, from the <ts>Apostolic Tradition</> of Hippolytus which became so popular in the East. Known from late manuscripts (fifteenth to eighteenth centuries), the Ethiopic Apostolic Tradition contains an interpolated section (it is absent from the exactly parallel contexts in the Sahidic and Arabic versions) as follows: Ethiopic 52 (= Arabic 51, Sahidic 63b) deals with false bishops, which leads to a discussion of false and true prophets. At this point the Ethiopic alone introduces a section (1) admonishing the reader to avoid idolatry, corpses, blood, things strangled, broken bones (in food?); (2) then Didache 11.3-13.7 (except for 11.6 and 13.2) on false and true prophets; (3) then Didache 8.1-2a on "the hypocrites"; (4) then on sabbath conduct of presbyters and lesser church officials, the congregation at large, and reception of visitors. Thereafter the text resumes its agreement with Sahidic and Arabic concerning gifts and false prophets, and promises to speak next of how bishops are to be ordained. <h1>#8. The Didache as a Community Tradition</> 1. <h2>Kinds of Redactional Evidence</>. Because the impersonal, composite character of the Didache is even more obvious than that of Barnabas (at least Barnabas provides some personal glimpses of the author-editor, #4:3-4), the task of distinguishing between the various traditional materials now incorporated into the Didache is sometimes slightly less difficult. Three kinds of evidence are especialy helpful: (1) [[60]] actual writings which obviously are closely related to the Didache but which show a slightly different stage in the development of the tradition (e.g., #2:5) -- thus problems of text as well as of redactional levels may be involved here; (2) internal evidence from the present form(s) of the Didache itself that a certain amount of adaptation to changing circumstances already has occurred; and (3) more subtle matters of style and content which suggest the existence of older, smaller units of tradition behind the preserved form(s) of the Didache.\2/ --- \2/For a summary of J.-P. Audet's approach to these problems, see Robert M. Grant, <tm>The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction</> (New York, 1964), 73-74. === 2. <h2>Development as Attested by the Various Forms of the Didache.</> Not only is it true that the Didache and its materials are preserved and reworked into larger collections by the church manual tradition in which it stands (see #2:5:2, #7:5- 6) , but it sometimes happens that our extant witnesses to this kind of use and reuse of traditional materials provide a firsthand view of how the tradition evolved. We have already mentioned certain features of the Two Ways section in the Didache which seem to have developed independently from the form knowm to Barnabas (#2:4). For the most part, we have no real way of telling which of the modifications have emerged only in the <em>final</> stage of the editing of the Didache (or of Barnabas, for that matter), which had already taken place in the tradition <em>before</> it came to the final author-editor, and which are subsequent glosses. But occasionally a passage can throw some clear light on the process. Didache 1.3b-2.1 is a case in point. For all practical purposes, this "interpolation" is lacking in <hi>Dctr</>, Barnabas, and <hi>CO</> (also <hi>Syntagma-Fides</> and <hi>Shenuti</>?). The more or less "non-Synoptic" portion (1.5-6) is lacking in <hi>Georg</> and is greatly abridged in <hi>ApCo</>. <hi>POx</> contained at least the "Synoptic" materials (1.3b-4a), and even knows a significantly <em>longer</> form of 1.4a! It is most probable, then, that this interpolation into the Two Ways material is the responsibility of one of [[61]] the most recent if not the final redactional level before the <hi>H-Georg-POx-ApCo</> form of the Didache appeared. A similar piece of evidence is the "Prayer for the Ointment" in some witnesses (<hi>Cop</>, <hi>ApCo</>) to Didache 10.8. If this prayer was not already known to the <hi>H-Georg</> form of the Didache (which does not include it), it represents one of the very next redactional stages in the <em>continuing</> evolution of the Didache. 3. <h2>Major Internal Evidence of Development.</> Certain other of the more recent stages of development in the Didache are indicated by such concessions and/or adaptations as the following: 6.2 -- the ideal is the "perfect" person who can "bear the entire yoke of the Lord," but this ideal has been adapted to a more realistic position: "do the best you can." 6.3 reads similarly -- the ideal is to keep the food laws. But in the light of changing conditions and attitudes, at least "avoid food consecrated in pagan temples"! 7.2-3 shows a concession caused by external circumstances. The ideal, and thus probably the earliest form of this baptismal instruction called for immersion (?) in "running water." But other modes came to be accepted as new situations arose. There may also be such a concession in 7.4, where the whole community is no longer required to fast before catechumens are baptized. 10.7 -- the hitherto ummentioned prophets (see 11.3, 7-12) receive a concessional footnote with reference to their freedom in prayer practices, which helps link (awkwardly) two separate blocks of material which have been brought together in the developing Didache tradition. 15.1-2 -- as Didache 11-13 indicates, the kind of Christian ministry with which the Didache is mainly concerned is that of itinerant apostles, prophets, and teachers. But a more settled ministry gradually came about (see already 13.1), and thus 15.1-2 was introduced to cover the new situation. 4. <h2>Supplementary Evidence from Style and Content.</> Finally, other more subtle evidence from style and/or content [[62]] can be introduced to support the above clues and to indicate additional lines of development behind the form of the Didache preserved for us. For example, within the Two Ways section, 3.1-6 clearly has its own style in comparison to its context. But if it is an insertion into the Two Ways tradition, it is a more ancient one than Didache 1.3b-2.1 since it is present in <2Dctr>2 and <hi>CO</>, but not in Barnabas (see also #2:4). Again, it could be argued that Didache 8, which differs both in <em>general</> style and in content from its surrounding context, is an insertion (by way of the idea of "fasting") into a formerly more unified section on baptism-eucharist (chs. 7, 9- 10). Indeed, <hi>Eth</> attests a (reworked?) form of Didache material in which 8.1-2a (fasting-prayer) has been appended to 11.3-13.7 (prophets-apostles-teachers) to form a unit dealing with "false prophets and hypocrites" (see #7:6). It is unlikely that 11.3-13.7 plus 8.1-2a existed as a unit before the present form of the Didache took shape. But it is at least probable that certain smaller components such as 8.1-2a once circulated apart from their present Didache context (Matt. 6.1-5, 16-18 is based on similar material). The "Lord's Prayer" in 8.2b has been added after the analogy of Matthew 6.9ff. (its original independence is supported by Luke 11.1ff.), but it is impossible to tell at what stage in the development behind the Didache this took place (note that 11.3 and 15.3-4 have not been filled out so neatly with the appropriate "gospel" texts!). In fact, chapters 11-13 also show indications of having been constructed from smaller, separate blocks of material. The heart of this section is the instruction on itinerant (apostles and) prophets (11.3-12), which has its own separate rubric (11.3), and has extended its influence into previous (10.7) and subsequent (13.1; 15.1-2) material. Less extensive but also influential is the similar concerm for itinerant "teachers" (11.1-2; 13.2; 15.1- 2). Apparently traveling prophets and teachers represent the main type of ministry respected by the Didache tradition (15.1-2; see #9:3). But into this context has been introduced a section on traveling [[63]] Christians in general (12.1-5), and, as a way of implementing the admonition of 13.1-2, a block of Jewish <hb>halaka</> on offering the "first fruits" as support for God's ministers and the needy (13.3-7). This last section has been made to apply to the prophets by symbolically identifying them with the original "high priests" (13.3b -- later developments of this tradition substitute "bishop" and other clergy, or retain "priests" in a Christian context; see #7:5). Any attempt to explain in detail how all these materials came together would be even more conjectural than the above analysis. But one feature stands out -- 11.1-2 is not entirely natural in its present position (11.3 is the stylistic parallel to 7.1; 9.1) but would make an admirable <em>concluding section</> to the Two Ways. It is thus tempting to speculate that, in various stages, Didache 6.3-10.8 was added to the Two Ways until a longer manual dealing with the reception of catechumens into the congregation (at Easter) was formed, with 11.1-2 displaced from its original position but retained at the conclusion to the expanded manual. This, in turn, led to the gradual incorporation of 11.3-13.7, and ultimately to the form of the Didache known to us. 5. <h2>Toward a Reconstruction of the Stages of Development Behind Our Didache.</> Although the present evidence is insufficient to permit a confident, concrete, and detailed reconstruction of all the stages of development behind the Didache, some observations are possible by way of summary. (1) The oldest controllable material is the originally Jewish Two Ways tradition, which had already been subject to a geat deal of development (see #2:4-5) before it became part of the larger Didache -- 3.1-6 represents an older, pre-Didache and perhaps pre-Christian addition to this base, while 1.3b-2.1 is a Christian contribution that may have been added by the Didachist himself. (2) The Two Ways instruction was united with teaching about baptism (7.1-4) to provide a manual covering the reception of catechumens. Probably the prayers of chapters 9-10 (including 10.8, for the "ointment") also found their [[64]] place in this manual because they were relevant for the baptismal-eucharist service at which catechumens were received. It is possible that this manual once circulated separately, with 11.1-2 as its conclusion (so also Audet). It is not clear when 8.1-3 was added, but the idea of fasting in 7.4 furnished the necessary link (the "Lord's Prayer" in 8.2b may have been an even later addition). Apparently 10.7 is an adjustment made in the light of 11.3-12. The food laws of 6.3 reflect Jewish-Christian interest and seem to have been added (at a relatively early date?) to supplement the Two Ways, as another aspect of the "Lord's yoke" (6.2). (3) The material in 11.3-15.4 is loosely unified around the theme of community relationships -- toward traveling ministers (11.3-12), migrant Christians (12. 1-5) ministers who settle (13.1-2), indigenous clergy (15.1-2), and fellow Christians (15.3-4). The instructions of 13.3-7 have been introduced to show how the settled ministers (and the needy; see 15.4) can be supported, and this "first fruits" context had probably influenced the inclusion of 14.1-3 (on Christian "sacrifice") at this point. It may well be that this entire block had its own separate development (paralleling 1.1-11.2), and at a later date came to be appended to 11.2 because 11.1-2 also mentioned itinerant Christian ministers. Certainly 15.1-2 is one of the most recent stages of the developing tradition. (4) The background of the apocalyptic-parenetic section in Didache 16 is especially vague, although it may have some relationship to older Two Ways thinking (see #2:3, 7). As it now stands, it forms an appendix with few clear ties to what precedes. If this all seems overly complex, let the reader consider the subsequent history of the Didache materials (#7, #10). Neither simplicity nor straight-line development characterize the production of such church manuals. We are not dealing with a copyrighted document, which is the result of one person's endeavors, but with a conservative, <em>living</> community [[65]] tradition which can occasionally (sometimes rather accidentally) be glimpsed in a state of suspended animation, as it were, by means of the various pieces of surviving Christian "literature" which represent these interests. The Doctrina gives us one (early?) glimpse, the Didache another, and the Apostolic Constitutions another (later). But for the most part we are left to conjecture if we wish to explain in detail how the various developments came about. Not only is such conjecture legitimate, but occasionally it may also be accurate. <h1>#9. The Christianity Represented by the Didache</> 1. <h2>Ethno-Religious Background.</> Our knowledge of the kind of Christianity represented by the Didache is severely limited because of the nature of the document. Theology, in even a rudimentary sense, is almost completely lacking. We are dealing with liturgy and polity -- with church orders -- and with only a small sampling of that. And we must constantly be aware of the fact that ideas which are simply reproduced from older materials preserved, with little change, in the present form of the Didache do not necessarily represent the main interests and beliefs of the community for which <em>this form</> of the Didache manual was produced. Repetition of traditional beliefs does not always imply conscious agreement with what the originators of the tradition had in mind. The pronounced (hellenistic) Jewish background of this Christianity is obvious from the Didache's use of particularly Jewish source materials (especially the Two Ways), and its concern for "Jewish-Christian" type problems (food laws [6.3], fasts and prayers of the "hypocrites" [8.1-2a], high priestly office and contribution of "first fruits" in the church [13.3-7], and the Christian "sacrifices" [14.1-3]). But Christianity in general, and Eastern (including Egypt and Asia Minor) Christianity in particular, retained such more or less conscious vestiges of its Jewish heritage for decades and centuries [[66]] after the "victory" of gentile Christianity. This tells us nothing about the ethnic background of the Didache community or its leaders. They were Christians building on a Jewish base -- and more than just a Jewish scriptural ("Old Testament") base. But this does not mean they were necessarily of Jewish descent. The subtitle of the Didache, "... to the nations/gentiles" is no more decisive here than are the references in 9.4 and 10.5 to the church scattered throughout the entire world, although such allusions may weigh the scales in the direction of predominantly gentile recipients for the present form of the Didache. 2. <h2>Practices of the Community.</> The practices of the community seem to have included the following: (1) careful (ethical) catechetical instruction preceding baptism (7.1; 11.1); (2) prebaptismal fasting by the initiants and the one who will baptize them (7.4); (3) baptism in the threefold name (7.1, 3; but cf. 9.5) by the best available means (7.1-3); (4) probably baptism was followed by a special eucharistic meal with the initiants (9.1-10.6); (5) possibly an anointing with oil followed this meal -- or perhaps came directly after baptism (10.8 var.); (6) regular fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays (8.1; see 1.3b); (7) weekly(?) meetings on the "Lord's Day" (= Sunday? see 14.1-3; 16.2), which included a meal of some sort, prayer, and confession (private? cf. 4.14); (8) recitation of the "Lord's Prayer" thrice daily (8.2-3); (9) possibly also a daily community gathering (4.2; see 16.2); (10) regular attention to inner-community discipline and prayer (15.3f.; see 1.3b; 2.7; 4.3; 4.14), as well as the performance of "works" such as almsgiving (15.4; see 1.5-6; 4.4-8; 11.12; 13.4) and systematic contributions (13.3-7); and (11) attention to hospitality for the traveling Christian, whether layperson or leader (11.3-- 12.5). From all indications, the community was not (or its background had not been) particularly rich and thus was rather careful about economic matters (11.5f., 9, 12; 12.2-5; 13.1-7). [[67]] 3. <h2>Leadership.</> With respect to leadership,\3/ the Didache community not only remembers but has preserved rules governing the days of itinerant apostles and prophets who would minister for one or two days without asking any pay (11.3-12). It also is concerned with prophets and teachers who decide to settle for a more or less permanent period, and with their means of support (13.1-7; cf. 11.1-2). The most recent development, however, seems to have been the rise of a settled ministry through bishops and deacons appointed by the community itself (15.1-2). It is possible that some sort of itinerant ministry still survived, but it has become the exception rather than the rule. It should be noted that in discussing these various types of ministry, the Didache pictures the community as self-governing and as exercising authority over its ministers (see 6.1; 11.1-2; 12.1; 15.1, etc.) -- in fact, it must be warned not to exercise too much control over prophets (10.7; 11.7; 11.11f.) and not to despise native leaders (15.2)! --- \3/For an extended discussion of early Christian leadership, see Grant, <tm>Introduction</>, 141ff. === It is not entirely clear how the functions of these various Leaders were related one to another and to the community at large. Apparently the teachers were at least in charge of moral instruction like the Two Ways (11.1-2). The "apostles" seem to be roughly synonymous with "prophets" (11.5-6). The prophets receive the most emphasis, and can play a definite role in leading liturgy (10.7) -- "they are your high priests" (13.3b). We do not know how liturgy was conducted in the absence of a prophet or teacher (cf. 13.4), but presumably the manual was written partly to solve such a dilemma. 4. <h2>Commandments, Gospel, and Christian Conduct.</> The general attitude of Didache Christianity toward Christian conduct, insofar as it can be recovered, is similar to the rigorous ethical approach evident in Barnabas (#5:4-5). This is, [[68]] of course, almost self-understood in that the Two Ways catechism is extremely important for both traditions. In the Didache version of this approach, however, "the gospel" (see 11.3; 15.3-4) and its prescriptions are much more in evidence\4/ -- for example, the summary of Torah in terms of love for God and neighbor and the (negative) "golden rule" (1.2); love even for enemies (1.3); active submission to antagonism of various sorts (1.4); threefold baptism (7.1, 3); "Lord's Prayer" (8.2); sayings of Jesus (9.5); sin against the prophetic spirit (11.7); workman worth his wages (13. 1); apocalyptic exhortation (16.1ff.). Nevertheless, the characteristically Barnabean emphasis is also present in exhortations to observe the righteous commands (3.8b; 4.13; 11.2; cf. 1.5; 13.5, 7) and in the allusion to the "Lord's yoke" (6.2; cf. Barn. 2.6). Furthermore, the function of the "word" in the Christian proclamation is attested in 4.1 (see #5:8), almost side by side with the emphasis on one's labor in behalf of salvation (4.6; see #5:4). --- \4/The relationship between the Didache and the "gospel tradition" is discussed in detail by H. Koester. See also #10:5:5. === 5. <h2>Eschatology and Future Salvation.</> It is only in chapter 16 that the Didache approaches the eschatological orientation which pervades Barnabas (#2:2-3, #5:3). It is true that the Two Ways section aludes to "the reward" (4.7b; 5.2c = Barn. 19.11a; 20.2c), and the prayers repeat traditional language about the coming "kingdom" and the activity of "evil" or the "Evil One" (8.2; 9.4; 10.5), the passing away of "this world" and the coming of the Lord (10.6), but these are extremely faint echoes and inspire no confidence that the community which used them was waiting with bated breath for the consummation. Apart from chapter 16 we find that such matters as "the Lord's return," resurrection, judgment, and final salvation have no real role in the Didache. There are a few references to "judgment" in Didache 1-15, but none of them are strictly eschatological (4.3; 5.2; 11.11f.). The "resurrection" is mentioned only in 16.6f. There is no clear [[69]] concept of a new creation in the last days (cf. 4.10b[?], but only general exhortations to "watch" and "be ready" (16.1) so as to be "perfect" (16.2; see 1.4; 6.2; 10.5) and "endure" to salvation (16.5; cf. 1.4 var.; 5.2m; 8.2; 10.5). 6. <h2>Absence of "Traditional" Soteriology.</> The Didache says very little about the traditional soteriological categories of sin, repentance, and satisfaction. The Two Ways section seems to approach this subject in 4.6, "If you should appropriate something through your labor, give it [i.e., to the needy] as a ransom for your sins" (cf. the form in Barn. 19.10d), but the thrust here seems to be that social justice in a communal society is included in the road to salvation -- the way of righteousness. In 4.14 and again in 14.1, confession of transgressions is treated as a prerequisite for meaningful community worship -- but not as a presupposition for salvation. Similarly, repentance in 15.3 is more a matter of community discipline than of soteriology in the modern sense. This also seems to be true of 10.6, where lack of "holiness" calls for "repentance." The general prerequisite to participation in the community life appears to have been baptism "in the Lord's Name" (9.5; cf. #9:2:3), but the theological significance of baptism is never treated (explicitly or implicitly). There is no indication in the Didache that an initial repentance connected with the idea of personal sinfulness for which Jesus' death atones was considered basic to the Christian life (cf. #5:7). 7. <h2>Gnosis, Revelation, and Exegesis.</> As for any overtones of "gnosis," exegetical or otherwise (#5:1-2), they are quite incidental in the Didache. The prayers refer to "life and <em>gnosis</>" (9.3) and "<em>gnosis</>, faith and immortality" (10.2) which God has "<em>made known</>" (see #5:2:5) through Jesus. Again, in 11.2 we find a general reference to the "righteousness and <em>gnosis</> of the Lord," which apparently is identified with (at least) the Two Ways instruction (also called "gnosis" in Barn. 18.1) . Otherwise we read about "knowing" (i.e., discerning) the true character of a prophet (11.8) or a recipient of hospitality (12.1), or of "knowing" who rewards [[70]] the almsgiver (4.7). Nor is there any emphasis on "pneumatic" exegesis, although 10.3 alludes to "pneumatic food and drink" (apparently the eucharist), and the prophets of 11.7- 12 are said to speak out "in the spirit" (see #5:2:20). The Didache does contain a few explicit quotations of various sorts (1.6; 8.2; 9.5b; 14.3; 16.7; cf. #9:4 and the Indexes) but there is no indication that special insight is required to understand them.\5/ --- \5/On the problem of the Didache's use of biblical sources, see Grant, <tm>Introduction</>, 74-75. === 8. <h2>Jesus the Lord.</> The references to "Jesus" by name are limited to the prayers of 9.2f. and 10.2(f.), where the frozen liturgical phrase "Jesus your child/servant" is repeated in several places\6/ (see also 10.8) -- in 9.2 it is parallel to "David your child/servant." In the same context (9.4), the title "Jesus Christ" is involved liturgically. "Christ" occurs nowhere else in the Didache (but <hi>Georg</> includes it in 1.4; 10.3; 15.4; 16.8), although in 12.4f. reference is made to "Christian" and to "Christ-peddler." By far the favorite Christological title in the Didache is <gk>kyrios</> -- Lord. It is unambiguously applied to Jesus in the preserved subtitle of the Didache as well as in 8.2; 9.5 (twice); 11.2b (second occurrence); 11.4; 12.1; 15.4; 16.1; 16.7f. The tradition also probably had Jesus in mind in such (ambiguous) passages as 4.1; 6.2; 10.5; 14.1, 3 (twice); and 15.1. Quite ambiguous are 4.12f.; 11.2 (first occurrence); 11.8, although probably the final author-editor of the Didache also applied these to Jesus. Finally, on one clear occasion Jesus is referred to as "your holy Name" (10.2 -- cf. 9.5; 10.3; 12.1).\7/ It is only in the "trinitarian" formulas of 7.1 and 3 that the title "Son" is applied to Jesus (cf. 16.4 on the deceiver). Thus, the most that can be said is that Christology is incidental to the Didache -- it is echoed, in various forms, especially in the liturgical [[71]] passages, but this cannot be called "theological reflection." In general, the identity of "Jesus" and "Lord" is simply assumed. He is never explicitly called "God," and his functions are seldom defined with any precision (e.g., 16.7f. describes his apocalyptic role, but nowhere is he pictured as creator or revealer or savior -- there is no reference to his blood, suffering, death, etc.). --- \6/Cf. Acts 3.13, 26; 4.27, 30; 1 Clem. 59.2 ff.; Mart. Polyc. 14.1, 3; 20.2; Diognetus 8.9, 11; 9.1; see Grant, <tm>Introduction</>, 110f. \7/Cf. 1 Clem. 58.1; 59.3; 60.4; Barn. 16.8 (#5:7); Hermas, Sim. 9.14.5f.; see Grant, <tm>Introduction</>, 111-112. === 9. <h2>God the Father.</> References to "God" are frequent: he is the creator (1.2; see also 5.2i), the God of David (10.6), whose word has gone forth (4.1; cf. 6.1), who exercises judgment on his prophetic agents (11.11), who is God of slaves as well as of masters (4.10f.). In 10.3, this creator God is called "Almighty Master." Nor is the concept of the divine "Father" lacking -- but it occurs primarily in the liturgical portions of the Didache -- in prayers (8.2; 9.2f.; 10.2; 10.8) and in the "trinitarian" formulas (7.1, 3) and also in the almsgiving interpolation of 1.5 (the <hi>Dctr</> parallel has "Lord"; Hermas has "God"). We have already noted (#9:8) passages in which "Lord" might refer to God. 10. <h2>"Spirit" and "spirits."</> Apart from the "trinitarian" formulas of Didache 7, Holy Spirit as a divine agent (person?) is scarcely to be found (but see <hi>Georg</> in 11.7-8). Perhaps the majority of older translations are correct in reading 4.10b in this light -- "he comes not to call preferentially, but (to call those) whom the (Holy) Spirit prepared" -- but it is also possible that the text means "... to call those for [in?] whom he prepared the spirit [of righteousness?]" (cf. #5:10). In any case, this reflects Two Ways theology and not necessarily that of the Didache author-editor or community. It should at least be noted here that elsewhere in the Didache, "spirit" is anthropomorphic (<hi>POx</> at 1.4), or refers to the characteristic "pneumatic-prophetic" form of discourse (<gk>en pneumati</> 11.7-12; cf. #5:2:20 on the "gnostic" use of this phrase in Barnabas). [[72]] <h1>#10. Questions of Higher Criticism: Date, Authorship, Origin (see also #6, Introduction).</> 1. <h2>Alleged Use of Didache Materials.</> Because of its extremely complicated background and its continuing evolution even after the preserved form(s) had been reached, it is difficult to trace (and thus localize) with any confidence the use of <em>this precise form</> of the Didache tradition by ancient authors.\8/ For example, one of the fragments traditionally ascribed to Irenaeus cites a passage that in content resembles Didache 14.3 as coming from "the second of the apostolic constitutions." \9/ Undoubtedly this is an allusion to <em>some form</> of the church manual tradition with which we are concerned, but <em>which form</>? And was it really a form known in Asia Minor-Rome-Gaul in the last half of the second century (i.e., can we accept the Irenaeus identification)? It would be exciting to build up some theories about how Didache 14 once was in "the second" of the constitutions, while the Two Ways (or 1.1- 11.2?; see #8:5:3) formed "the first," but such hypotheses are only as solid as their foundations, which in this case are quite shaky. Similarly, there are several references in Clement of Alexandria to Didache-like material which cannot be explained as allusions based on Barnabas. Nevertheless, Clement does not cite enough such materiaI to provide sufficient control for determining his relationship to <em>our</> form(s) of the Didache, nor does he attach any helpful label to this material (once it may be called "scripture"). There is no doubt that various forms of the Didache tradition (and its sources) existed long before Clement and were already being reworked in various ways (Barnabas, Hermas). Thus Clement's evidence must be used with caution and the same must be said of other alleged "quotations" and allusions, as, [[73]] for example, the occasional parallels to Didache in the third-century Didascalia manual. --- \8/For a general survey of the possibilities, see Grant, <tm>Introduction</>, 13-33. \9/In Stieren's ed., frg. 38 (Harvey, frg. 36). The background of this fragment is mysterious, and it is impossible to say whether it is authentically from Irenaeus. === 2. <h2>References to Documents Known as "Didache."</> This much is clear: several writers and lists fom the beginning of the fourth century and onward refer to a writing known as the "Teaching" (<gk>Didache</>, <lt>Doctrina)</>) or "Teachings" (<gk>Didachai</>, <lt>Doctrinae)</>) of the Apostles. Unfortunately they do not cite exact excerpts, and thus there is no way of telling what the precise relationship might have been between what they cite and our Didache. For example, Eusebius (ca. 325) refers to "the alleged Teachings [plural] of the Apostles" as among the illegitimate (<gk>notha</>) candidates for New Testament scripture (HE 3.25.4; see also #6:1). Did he have our form of the Didache in mind? Similarly, the pseudo-Cyprianic tract <ts>Adversus Aleatores</> 4 from about tne same date (?) loosely alludes to material allegedly found "<lt>in doctrinis apostolorum</>," but precision of quotation seems lacking. In his festal letter of 367, Athanasius of Alexandria includes reference to "the so-called Teaching of the Apostles" among noncanonical literature considered suitable for use in instructing new Christians. Probably <em>our</> document or something very similar to it is meant. Much later, the "List of Sixty Books" (ca. 600) contains an entry which appears to refer to a <em>single</>{?} apocryphal work called "The Travels and Teachings of the Apostles" (cf. pseudo-Clementine literature!), while the stichometric listing of Nicephorus (ca. 820) refers to "The Teaching of the Apostles" under the category of New Testament Apocrypha. The fact that Nicephorus lists its "Didache" as having some 200 stichoi (lines of relatively fixed length) does not help us at all in determining the precise identity of the work, since we have no way of telling how this number was determined, or whether the number itself has been corrupted in transmission.\10/ By drawing generalizations from the other figures listed in the <ts>Stichometry</> for known New Testament books, we would <em>expect</> the extant form of the Didache [[74]] to have about 3O0 stichoi (not 200 -- there seem to have been about 35 letters per stichos). Comparison in another direction is even more striking: "Barnabas," according to Nicephorus, has 1,360 stichoi (we would expect only about 850-900 [as in the Claromontanus list; see #6:2] for the present form of the epistle), while the extant text of the Didache is about one third the length of Barnabas (thus much more than "200 stichoi")! There are a few other references to a "Didache" apocryphon in the later fathers (sixth to fourteentb centuries), but they all seem to depend on such lists as the above. --- \10/On this matter, see also Grant, <tm>Introduction</>, 74. === 3. <h2>Undisputed Use of the Didache.</> Our quest for a <lt>terminus ante quem</>, a date before which our Didache must have been in circulation, and for a localized sphere of influence (to assist in determining whence the Didache originated) is somewhat advanced when the various versions and adaptations of the tradition are introduced into the discussion. Certainly the fourth century provides ample evidence that our form of the Didache is not only in existence, but is influential in the east, especially in Egypt -- see <hi>POx</>, <hi>ApCo</>. And from the fifth century we have the Coptic fragment and possibly the Georgian version. Thus it is safe to say that third-century Egypt (and Eastern Christianity) knew our form of the Didache -- as well as related materials (see <hi>CO</>, <hi>Eth</>, <hi>Syntagma-Fides</>, <hi>Shenuti</>, etc.). 4. <h2>Internal Clues as to Place of Origin.</> When we search the words of the Didache itself for clear indications of origin and date, the result is almost complete frustration. In the prayer of 9.4, the allusion to wheat gathered from the "mountains" in order to make a loaf of bread would seem to preclude Egypt as the basis of the analogy, since in ancient Egypt the fertile regions were located in the Nile Valley (nourished by the annual flooding), and not on hillsides or mountains. Thus many commentators have seen Syria, or more particularly Palestine, as the home of this imagery. It is noteworthy that the (Egyptian?) <hi>ApCo</> lacks this reference to mountains in its reworked form of the Didache. Another possible geographical clue in the Didache has sometimes [[75]] been seen in the reference to "warm" water in 7.2. But it is by no means clear that the text has warm <em>baths</> in mind, such as one might find more readily in Syria than in Egypt, and thus this "evidence" is negligible (again, <hi>ApCo</> lacks this reference). 5. <h2>Alleged "Primitive" Elements in the Didache.</> Thus we are reduced to talking about the relative "primitiveness" or "development" of the Christianity reflected in the Didache, of its relation to identifiable sources or movements, and of the "most likely" location(s) from which such an approach to Christianity might have emerged. As the commentaries and studies of the Didache well attest, this is an extremely tenuous approach.\11/ Some of the most frequently discussed items in this context are the following: --- \11/See also the discussion in Grant, <tm>Introduction</>, 75f. === (1) Church government in the Didache (chs. 11-13; 15) looks "primitive" with its concern for itinerant apostles, prophets, and teachers, and with its lack of any indication that ecclesiastical authority rests in a monarchial bishop (cf. the emphasis placed on the bishop by Ignatius of Antioch, ca. 110) or even in a college of presbyters (cf. 1 Clem. 42; from ca. 95). (2) The prophetism of Didache 11 has variously been assessed as "early" (cf. 1 John, Hermas), or perhaps related to the Montanist revival of prophecy in the later second century (ca. 155/170) in Asia Minor. (3) The language of the prayers in Didache 9-10 sounds "early" (cf. the early chapters of Acts; see #9:8). (4) At numerous points the Didache tradition shows its Jewish background and "Jewish-Christian" interests (see #9:1). On the other hand, 8.1f. is critical of certain Pharisaic-Jewish (?) practices. Thus it is sometimes argued that the Didache was written (soon) after the "break" between church and synagogue (ca. 70-135). (5) In its present form, the Didache appears to have a rather wide acquaintance with the synoptic tradition (1.2-5; [[76]] 7.1/3 [?]; 8.1-2; 9.5b; 11.7; 14.2 [?]; 15.3 [?]; 16.1, 3-8; see #9:4), often in a "harmonized" text form. This tends to suggest a date in the later second century (around the time of Justin and his student Tatian, who composed a "harmony" [ca. 170]), rather than an early second- or late first-century date. (6) In two passages, outside of the Two Ways tradition proper, the Didache has material which clearly is related to, and possibly derived from, Hermas (see Did. 1.5) and Barnabas (Did. 16.2). If the Didache has used Hermas and Barnabas here, of course, it must be dated later than those sources (whenever one dates them and whichever stage of their development was known to the Didachist). (7) The Didache shows almost no interest in doctrine, even in Christocentric soteriology (#9:6), nor in polemic against heterodoxy (cf. 8.1-2a), and thus seems more primitive than (or remote from) later second-century interests. 6. <h2>Conclusions Concerning Date.</> This list could be swelled by discussion of more detailed problems such as the doxology to the Lord's Prayer (8.2), which has been claimed as Syrian in origin but also shows affinities with Egyptian witnesses, or the use of certain words which are not well attested in earliest Christian literature (12.5 "Christ-peddler," 13.5 "bread dough") or which are used in a different (more "primitive") way from later Christian vocabulary (15.1 "appoint"). But there is little value in multiplying such "evidence." All that can emerge is the twofold impression: the Didache contains a great deal of material which derives from very early (i.e., first-century and early second-century) forms of (Jewish-)Christianity; but it would be difficult to argue convincingly that the <em>preserved form</> (that is, in <hi>H</>) of the Didache is earlier than mid-second century. The very conservative nature of the church manual tradition, which is especially obvious in its later development (e.g., <hi>Eth</> continues to refer to itinerant prophets, although <hi>ApCo</> has reworked and abridged this section; <hi>ApCo</> retains the "archaic" prayer forms, etc.), is sufficient explanation for the "primitive" factors in the Didache. [[77]] And the corollary of this observation is that the date ascribed to the extant form of the Didache is largely irrelevant when particular items in the tradition are discussed. 7. <h2>Probable Place of Origin.</> As for the location at which our form of the Didache was composed, similar problems are present. Perhaps the prayers derive ultimately from Syria- Palestine (#10:4); this does not allow us to say that the entire compilation has the same background. It seems clear that the Didache represents Eastern Christianity. Probably it also comes from a semirural rather than a large urban environment -- thus the itinerant ministry, the basically agricultural-pastoral symbolism and economy (esp. ch. 13), although "trades" are also in view (12.3f.). If Egypt seems somewhat more probable than Syria, it is because the later uses of the Didache tradition (<hi>ApCo</>, <hi>Eth</>) and the earliest direct textual evidence (<hi>POx</>, <hi>Cop</>) point most strongly to that area. 8. <h2>The Author-Editor.</> Nothing definite can be said concerning the identity of the editor(s) responsible for the extant <hi>H</>-type recension of the Didache, or for the earlier developments that led to it. It is possible that this is the work of an itinerant "teacher" and/or school of such teachers/preachers, but the whole aim seems to be to let the "apostolic" teachings speak for themselves. There is no evidence to indicate the ethnic background of the author-editor(s). [[78]] //end of chapter//