JEAN-PAUL AUDET, Literary and Doctrinal Relationships
LITERARY AND DOCTRINAL AFFINITIES OF THE
"MANUAL OF DISCIPLINE"
+ JEAN-PAUL AUDET
My purpose is less ambitious than my title, taken in a general .sense, might lead one to believe. On the one hand I only want, for the moment, to look at the second section of the "Manual" (1QS
3:13-4:26). It is a moral instruction which, in spite of its obvious affinities with the rest of the writing or writings the scroll contains, may be considered in itself and can, to a certain extent, receive independent treatment. On the other hand, the comparisons which I would like to suggest only concern the Duae viae and the Shepherd of Hermas, two works which met with very different fates, which nevertheless have this fact in common, that they show a very singular Jewish colour, which is so singular that at this point it certainly goes beyond what might be expected in primitive Christian literature. The great difficulties which they present so far to the numerous attempts at explanation which have been made, are now gaining some clarity it seems to me, from the moral instruction of the "Community of the Covenant"—of which a part of the standard library has been rediscovered near Khirbet
Qumran.
In itself, if one accepts that the "Community of the Covenant" was living in Palestine at the very least in the first century of our era, that its origin may be put at a date considerably earlier than this period, and that it has known, so it seems, a certain expansion in space as well as in time, then it is not impossible that one should find, even in the literary heritage of the first Christian generations, so varied in thought and expression, some literary and doctrinal affinities with works like the moral instruction of the "Manual of Discipline". One should not forget that Christianity had been pent up in. Palestine for many years, and that the complete separation with Judaism occurred relatively slowly, and not without allowing many points of personal contact to continue here and there, even if not full communion. And that is already more than is necessary to make the facts that we are about to analyze perfectly natural. In the mid second century, whatever allowances one may need to make to take account of literary fiction, a real dialogue was still possible between Justin and Trypho. This fact is very significant in itself.
It is also through authentically Christian hands and not through Jewish hands that so many pseudepigraphical writings have come down to us, of whose authentic origin there could be no serious doubt, without speaking of Philo and Josephus, nor the Greek versions collected by Origen for his Hexapla. One could even think
JEAN-PAUL AUDET
that if they had had the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document accessible to them in Greek, the Christians would not have hesitated to transcribe them, as they actually transcribed
Enoch, Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which must have been part of the regular library of the "Community of the Covenant", if they did not owe their very birth to them. It is only by the chance of an extraordinary find that we possess today the Manual of Discipline in Hebrew: the comparisons which I wish to propose with the Duae viae and the Shepherd of Hermas, do not have to be explained by a Greek version of the Manual which probably never existed, and with good reason!
THE "DUAE VIAE"
At the risk of appearing to be long winded, I must begin by discussing a very widely agreed opinion on the origin of the early history of the Duae viae. This opinion owes its acceptance to the work of Robinson, Muilenburg and Connolly, taken up recently on a large scale by Vokes.! Through all the amplifications which it has undergone since it was proposed for the first time, the essential line of the argument on which this opinion is based has, however, remained the same as that in which it was found originally in the study of Robinson himself. It will not be necessary then to undertake here a separate discussion of the minute analyses of Muilenburg and Connolly.
1 The literature in question is quite extensive.
Here at least are the main references: J.A. Robinson, "The Problem of the Didache", JTS 13 (1912) pp. 339356 (on this important article, see the observations of Harnack in TLZ and the notes of Swete in the appendix to his work, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church
(London:
Macmillan, 1912] pp. 414ff); Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache (London: SPCK, 1920 [Donnellan Lectures, 1920]); "The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache", published posthumously by Connolly in JTS 35 (1934) pp. 113-146,
225-248; J. Muilenburg, The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Marburg: no publisher given, 1929), with a good review by F.C. Burkitt in JTS 33 (1932) pp. 25ff; R.H. Connolly, "The Didache in Relation to the Epistle of Barnabas", JTS 33 (1932) pp. 246ff; "The Didache and Montanism", DRey 55 (1937) pp. 339ff; "Canon Streeter on the Didache", JTS 38
(1937) pp. 364ff; F.E. Vokes, The Riddle of the Didache (London: SPCK, 1938).
In a different direction, one can see J.V. Bartlet, "The Didache Reconsidered", JTS
22 (1921) pp. 239ff; A.S. McLean, The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (London, 1922) esp. pp. xll-xvi and xxxi-xxxv; B.H.
Streeter, "The Much Belaboured Didache", JTS 37 (1936) pp. 369ff; J.M. Creed, "The Didache", JTS 39 (1938) pp.
370ff; E.J.
Goodspeed, A History of Early Christian Literature (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1942) pp. 31ff (cf. his "The Didache, Barnabas and the Doctrina", AThR 27 [1945] pp. 228-247, which unfortunately I only know about indirectly from bibliographies which I have come across).
LITERARY AND DOCTRINAL AFFINITIES
The force of the argument is cumulative. Every summary must therefore be handled with care. But, with this caution, I do not believe that I will betray the thought of Robinson in presenting it briefly as follows: The moral part of the Epistle of Barnabas
(18-20) has been regarded by a certain number of critics as a spurious addition ("addition d'origine étrangére"), borrowed from an already existing manual of moral instruction (Duae viae). But one can show by constant reading and analysis of the Epistle that it is all by one and the same hand. Everywhere, it has the same spirit, the same clumsiness of composition, the same manner of using literary sources, the same habit of repeating on various occasions the formulae already used. A priori, there is no reason to think that the moral part of the Epistle was from an earlier author. On the contrary, all the evidence of the internal examination tends to show that the Duae viae is the original work of Barnabas himself.?
On the other hand, if the Duae viae of the Didache differs noticeably from that of Barnabas, all the differences can be explained by the peculiar literary habits and peculiar intention of the "Didachist". After having borrowed the theme, he treats it with the greatest freedom: he amplified it with precepts drawn from the Old Testament, from the Sermon on the Mount, from the Shepherd of Hermas, and other more obscure sources; he arranges it, he interprets it, he explains it, ridding it of some inappropriate or useless sentences. On the whole, he aims to produce the baptismal catechesis which he needs to respond, according to Matthew
28:19-20, to the intention he has expressed in the title, "Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles."
On all sides, it then continues to be established that the Epistle is entirely from the same author, and that there is no valid reason to question its literary unity: "The description of the Two
Ways is an integral part of the document."
With all the array of analyses which support it, this argument may have seemed unassailable. If it were to be accepted, it would make the Duae viae a Christian writing, whose already peculiar history would be even more difficult to explain now that we have the Manual of Discipline before our eyes. In reality, however, I do not believe that the argument of Robinson stands up to a rigorous examination.
This is no place to take up these problems in all their fullness: they are perhaps the most difficult of the whole of ancient
Christian literature. It would be necessary to take the Didache 2 Cf. Robinson, "Barnabas and the Didache", pp. 132, 142, 146.
3 Cf. Robinson, Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache, p. 70.
4 Cf. Robinson, "Barnabas and the Didache", p. 146.
JEAN-PAUL AUDET
together with all the related documents, which would take us well beyond the acceptable limits of one article. But, to upset the argument of Robinson, it is sufficient here to consider its theoretical implications. The proof rests mainly on the affinities which connect the two parts of the Epistle of Barnabas (1-17 and 18-20, or 21). But, putting these things in their best light, what do these affinities prove by themselves in the question of sources? Very little, if they prove anything at all. For it is clear as soon as one thinks of it, that the facts mentioned by Robinson could be exactly the same if one assumed a source used from memory and known for a long time. What would prevent this source (Duae viae), which Barnabas would have had in his mind before the writing the first line of his letter, from having established in the first seventeen chapters the affinities of thought and style which connect them to the two following chapters? The extensive usage in chs.
18-20 does not mean that they could not be used occasionally and partially in the previous chapters. A word, an expression, a turn of phrase or style, a distinctive idea can recur here and there, but they only prove one thing, which it was natural to guess, and that is that the author has not made a sudden acquaintance with the writing used in chs. 18-20 just at the moment when he had finished writing ch. 17. Thus the more one points out affinities of all kinds between the two parts of the Epistle, the more one will have shown that the possible source of the last part was already familiar to the author of the first part. But in doing this, one will have left intact the problem of a dependence of the Duae viae of the Didache on the Duae viae of the Epistle, or, perhaps, in regard to the independent Duae viae which would be the common source of both.
It is, on the other hand, a dubious procedure to force together, as Robinson does, the question of the literary unity of the Epistle and the question of its sources. To show that the Epistle proceeds entirely from one and the same hand, is obviously not equivalent to showing that the author has drawn everything from his own resources. The question of the literary unity is a preliminary one; beyond this the question of sources remains open. Thus, an argument from affinities, such as presented by Robinson, would be absolutely efficacious in resolving the question of literary unity, if it is posed again, but it says nothing by itself on the question of its sources. Barnabas could have used a Duae viae of which he was not the author, as he has used the Old Testament, without placing the unity of the authorship in doubt. These things are obvious. One also asks why a critic of Robinson's quality could have fallen into such confusion.5
5 The confusion is obvious in a passage like the following: "If this point shall seem to have been somewhat unreasonably laboured, it should be borne in mind that
LITERARY AND DOCTRINAL AFFINITIES
Robinson's argument makes use, besides, of what is only in reality a trick of perspective. It labours on a Duae viae which it conjectures and which it presumes to come from Barnabas. It uncovers a certain number of affinities with the rest of the Epistle.
But then, precisely, it has begun by illogically ruling out the possibility that the Duae viae of Barnabas could have been in reality a Duae viae utilized from elsewhere and then already made to conform to the literary tastes and customs and personal ideas of the author of the Epistle. Noone today would wish to deny that the Duae viae has passed through the hands of Barnabas: it is another thing to demonstrate that he is purely and simply the author. The affinities are deceptive: they could have come, at least in part, as much from the fact that Barnabas has used the Duae viae as from the fact that he was its author. For the argument to remain fully effective, it would have to distinguish with enough certainty between the affinities which derive from the one or the other case.
But internal criticism has no hope of making this distinction, so that if one avoids allowing oneself to be deceived, one finds oneself back where one started from, in the presence of a question to be resolved and not of a question already resolved. We wonder always whether Barnabas has not used a pre-existing Duae viae, on which he would have left his own particular mark.
The affinities are not, moreover, the only things to be considered. There is the counterweight of undeniable literary hiatuses from the first to the second part of the Epistle. The most apparent is that of the abrupt transition from the second person plural to the second person singular in ch. 19, with the return to the second person plural for ch. 21. With the hypothesis that Barnabas was the author of the Duae viae, as Robinson proposes, such a literary procedure could not be explained without difficulty, even by making an appeal to the practice of the diatribe, which is, however, in reality, completely irrelevant.
Indeed, one could understand a short reflection or question in this form. But for a long development of this kind, in the context of an epistle, one asks oneself how the idea could have come to its author, unless it had been somehow imposed from outside. In any case, in all the passages where it is certain that Barnabas is left to himself, it is the literary unity of the Epistle has been called into question in recent controversy and the latter portion which we are now considering (the Duae viae of chs. 18-20) has been regarded by some critics as a spurious addition derived form an already existing manual of instruction. But in view of what has been here said, can any one doubt that the passages which we have cited are all by one hand?" ("Barnabas and the Didache", p. 132. Cf. Muilenburg, Literary Relations, p. 9; and M. Vokes,
Riddle, pp. 42-47).
JEAN-PAUL AUDET
the plural which appears, as one would expect. It is so, in particular, for ch. 21 which continues the moral instruction of chs. 18-20 with an exhortation. To all appearances, Barnabas has returned to his particular habits, abandoned momentarily for an accidental reason.
Thus, all things considered, it seems to me that the labours of Robinson and those who have followed him, have left the real problem of the provenance and original form of the Duae viae intact. It has not at all been shown that Barnabas was himself its author, still less that the "Didachist" was only a secondary and later editor. Only one thing has been clarified, and that one completely: the literary unity of the Epistle of Barnabas. This is all that one has been able to show, in a straightforward way, in the line of analysis in which one has been engaged, and this is all that has been really shown.
Thus, at least in this matter, the path is clear. A second hypothesis, defended long ago by Funk in particular, should be examined here, attributing the original Duae viae, which includes
Didache 1:3b-2:1, to the "Didachist" himself. But a discussion of this point would raise all the literary problems of the Didache, a problem which it would, however, be vain to think we would be able to resolve by indirect means. Will the reader excuse me if I content myself here a simple remark? On the one hand, the Duae viae of the Didache breathes altogether the air of Judaism in its literary genre, in its expression and in its spiritual content. This feature of its appearance has long been noticed, and it is, for the most part, incontestable. On the other hand, a hypothesis such as that of Funk leads necessarily to making the Doctrina apostolorum of Schlecht some kind of translation of the Duae viae of the Didache.? Now when one compares the so-called Latin version
(i.e. the Doctrina apostolorum of Schlecht) attentively with the Greek text which it is supposed to translate (i.e. the Duae viae of the Didache), one is faced with a fact which is very strange for a translation: whereas the (Christian!) translator would naturally
6 For Funk's opinion see, besides his own separate edition of the Didache (Doctrinae duodecim apostolorum, Canones ecclesiastici ac reliquae doctrinae duarum viarum expositiones veteres [Tiibingen: Henrici Laupp, 1887]), the introductions to the successive editions of the Apostolic Fathers:
Opera Patrum apostolicorum (Tiibingen: Henrici Laupp, 1887, 1901); "Der Barnabasbrief und die
Didache", 7hQ (1897) pp. 617ff; Didascalia et Constitutiones apostolorum I (Paderborn: F. Schéningh, 1906), (less assertively than in the former studies on the authenticity of Did 1:3b-2:1).
7 It is well known that the full text of the Doctrina apostolorum was published for the first time by J. Schlecht, who discovered the manuscript of the document (J.
Schlecht, Doctrina XII apostolorum, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1900). The exact title of the MS of Schlecht is De doctrina apostolorum (Monacensis 6264), but the Mellicensis (Q. 52=914) simply bears the title Doctrina apostolorum.
LITERARY AND DOCTRINAL AFFINITIES
have manipulated the text he had to translate, it would appear, on the contrary, that he has worked hard to make it hark back to its distant origins, in such a way that the alleged translation of the Duae viae of the Didache seems still more strongly coloured by Judaism than is the Duae viae of the Didache itself. This sounds very unlikely. But these things could easily be explained, on the other hand, if the so-called partial version of the Didache were actually a version of the Duae viae, not as we find it incorporated in the Didache, but as it could have circulated independently of its accidental insertion into the latter. If the Duae viae originated directly from Judaism, then there would be nothing very surprising in the fact that the very ancient Latin version, which has fortunately preserved it for us, reveals here and there the spiritual origins of the writing more clearly than the Duae viae incorporated into the edition of the Didache itself.
The solution is then simple, although common opinion does not expect it: to all appearances, the Doctrina apostolorum of Schlecht has nothing to do, as far as being a version is concerned, with the Duae viae of the Didache. It represents a text of the Duae viae independent of that of the Didache and of Barnabas, in many respects more marked by a Jewish point of view than either of them, which must in that case be the Judaism of its origins.
Moreover, the title Doctrina apostolorum, which the Duae viae of Schlecht carries, does not present any serious difficulty to this explanation. Because, on the one hand, the Duae viae designated in this way by Rufinus® did not have its own title, and because, on the other hand, it appeared in almost identical form at the beginning of a writing bearing the title Avéayn 7dv &mooT6A\wr,? it could have been enough that the two writings intersected in the course of their distribution in the same milieu for the title of the Didache to have passed to the Greek Duae viae and then, naturally, to its Latin version.!°
8 Rufinus, Comm. in Symb. apost., p. 38; PL 21, 274. The Latin tradition adorned the Duae viae with a title which is known to us only indirectly: Iudicium secundum Petrum (Rufinus, loc.cit.), or Iudicium Petri (Jerome, De viris ill., 1; PL
23, 609). This ambitious description confirms, if there is any need of it, the primitive anonymity of the writing. If, as seems likely, the vague reference of Optatus of Milevis must be intended to refer to the Duae viae, then this would only confirm this (De schism. Donat., 1,21; CSEL 26, 23).
9 This is the title by which Athanasius, in particular, designates the Didache (cf.
EpFest 39; PG 26, 14); the same title after him in the canonical list that the transmission has taken in the SynScrSac of Pseudo-Athanasius (PG 28, 432), and in the Stichometry attributed to Nicephorus (text in Zahn, Gesch. des neutest. Kanons, Il,
297ff.
10 One can get an idea of the freedom which has prevailed in the transmission with respect to the ascriptions and titles of this gnomic literature with an example borrowed from the Greek world. The Delphic Precepts, of which many recensions exist, were at first an anonymous collection. In spite of Apollo, they have sub-
JEAN-PAUL AUDET
Now we are ready to begin our work. It would be simplest to begin by placing the texts opposite each other: they already speak for themselves. In order that the comparison should not hide any problems, I will transcribe the two texts in question in full."
1QS 3:13 For the master (of initiation),!? to transmit to all the sons of light sequently been attributed en bloc to the Seven Muses, then divided out in sections and attributed in this form to each one of them (cf. Dittenberger, Sylloge, IP,
1268, noted by Diels). The Duae viae has suffered exactly the same fate. At first anonymous, it has subsequently been attributed to Peter and to the Twelve (the Iudicium Petri of Rufinus and St. Jerome and the Doctrina apostolorum of Schlecht), then, naturally, it was divided up into little sections to be distributed between the Apostles (the recension of the Ecclesiastical Canons). To complete the comparison, I add that the Delphic Precepts, having passed into the Egyptian gnomic tradition, have been taken under the local patronage of Amenhotep, just as the Duae viae has much later, in passing from Judaism into Christian, been placed under the name of the "masters of wisdom" of the latter. One could take many other examples of such treatment. It is a serious illusion on Goodspeed's part to have accepted the suggestion of the title of the Doctrina apostolorum. 1 am equally astonished that he has been so easily persuaded that he was obliged to ignore its
Jewishness (History of Early Christian Literature, p. 32). C. Taylor, who was sensitive to these things and who was not a bad judge, has from the beginning thought very differently (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, with illustrations from the Talmud (Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1886]). And Taylor has not been alone. Goodspeed recognizes this, but he adds that the "historians of Jewish literature" have not accepted the Duae viae. I don't know what this allusion, which is not strictly true, has in mind (cf. The Jewish Encyclopedia IV, 585ff; Encycl. judaica
I, 11ff; G. F. Moore, Judaism I, p. 188). Besides, strictly speaking, one only needs in addition to read for example the Duae viae (in the recension of the Doctrina apostolorum) and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (in Greek).
11 For the Doctrina apostolorum (= Doct), I have used the text of L. Wohleb, Die lateinische Ubersetzung der Didache (Paderborn: F. Schéningh, 1913 [SGKA
7.1]) pp. 90-102. For the text of the Manual of Discipline (= 1QS), I acknowledge with pleasure the help which I have found in the careful work of my predecessors
(Brownlee, van der Ploeg, Milik, Lambert), but, in the form presented here, the translation of 3:13-4:26 is my own work.
12 5°>m must be taken here in an institutional sense, in accordance with the general context: it is a matter of a juridical collection, of which the very particular literary genre recalls the compilation of the Apostolic Constitutions, just to take an eastern example. The laws, the simple customs, the moral exhortation, prayer itself, link up and back each other up, without too much concern for the consequences which a similar mixture may have for the distinctness of discipline. Nevertheless, the overall intention of works of this sort, in Judaism as in Christianity, is to provide rules of conduct for an institution taken as it is. In the present case, the preposition which introduces the term (%) indicates the particular destination of the instruction which follows (3:13-4:26). For lack of a better translation, I propose:
"For the Master of Initiation". This is, it seems, the suggestion of the context: it is about the transmission of foundational instruction. Moreover, it could not be an accident that the instruction comes in the scroll immediately after the ritual of acceptance into the community. In the OT 9>¥ is the gift of the ruler and teacher: the insight, the ability to discern what is good and right in matters-of collective or individual behaviour (so Jer 3:15; Dan 1:17 and one can add Job 34:35; Prov 1:3 and 21:16 in this sense, the parallels have generally derived from y7°). He who
LITERARY AND DOCTRINAL AFFINITIES
insight and knowledge concerning the lineages!3 of humanity, 14 all the varieties of spirits which deceive the human works throughout the generations, the evil visitations at the same time as 15 the ages of peace.
From the God of all knowledge (proceeds) all which is and all which has been.!* Before anything even existed, he has established the design of all things, 16 and when they came into being, at the summons received,!5 according to the design of his magnificent power, they (began to) produce their works. Nothing ought to be changed. From him 17 (emanate) the laws of all things which exist, and it is he who sustains them in all their inclinations.
Doct 1:1 Uiae duae sunt in saeculo But he has created man to rule 18 uitae et mortis, lucis et tenebrarum. the world, and he has appointed in it in his constituti sunt angeli duo, two spirits, so that he might behave possesses the gift is the 7°21, who by the very fact that he possesses it, finds himself virtually designated by God to fill the corresponding function in the service of his people (cf. Dan 11:33; 12:3; also very important in 1QS itself in 11:12-21 or with respect to the 9°2@" one moves imperceptibly from the personal quality to a title with a function in the service of the community). It would be interesting to compare, from this point of view, the double ministry of the teacher and prophet in the very first Christian generations (see especially the very stange texts of Did 1113, again very imperfectly explained in other respects).
13 my7>1n should be translated "lineages" rather than "generations" (Brownlee, Lambert, van der Ploeg, histoires), as can be seen from n1717 in the following line.
Milik, at least, saw clearly that in our text there could only be two ni71n, but he has translated it by genera so vague that he has lost the force of the image. It is really a collection which shows the totality of the generations that one can attach to a common ancester, real or fictional. Here, of course, the term has only a metaphorical value, in the same vein and in the same taste as "sons of light, sons of darkness" etc. He enters into a general explanation of the moral problem and through that, indirectly, of the problem of good and evil, of retribution and thus of the course of the history of Israel from its origins until the final consummation.
14 1°73. This is a Niphal participal used substantively, and therefore atemporally in itself. It is only the immediate context which could here determine the temporal relation. One could not therefore reason in this regard as one would do purely and simply for a verb. Thus, although Brownlee seems to be right in one or other of the examples which he brings, I am not sure that it is permissible to link the term to the future so closely. It must be determined in each case. I have preferred here the past tense, but I admit that it is only a preference founded, in my opinion, on the general orientation of our text. It is from history that all the experience on which the small moral system presented by the Master of initiation is taken (cf. Dan 3:1ff).
15 minnyn. The variety of translations presented until now reflects the awkwardness one finds here. In returning to the probable sense of the root, "to declare distinctly or solemnly", could we not see in this noun an allusion to the creative word of God and hear in it the order which has called all things into existence? The verb itself can also mean, "to address an exhortation, give a solemn reprimand" and hence "to direct", which is not far from the sense proposed in the translation. The suffix may indicate, nevertheless that one should take the correlative from the side of the creatures: a summons received rather than an order given.
JEAN-PAUL AUDET
himself according to them until the time appointed for his visitation.—These are the spirits 19 of truth and of falsehood.—Under a cover of light (is conceived) the lineage of faithfulness, and out of the depth of a pit of darkness, the lineage of falsehood.!* 20 To the hands of the prince of lights (is remitted) the government of all the sons of righteousness: they walk in the ways of light; but to the hands of the angel 21 of darkness (is transferred) all power over the sons of falsehood: they walk in ways of darkness. unus aequitatis, alter iniquitatis. distantia autem magna est duarum uiarum.
It is from the angel of darkness that bewilderment (comes) 22 to all the sons of righteousness: their sins, their iniquities, their offences and the transgressions of their conduct (are due) to his power, 23 according to a secret plan of God, until his demise. All their afflictions and their times of distress (are explained) by his malevolent rule, 24 and all the spirits that fell to his lot (are only designed) to lay snares for the sons of light. But the God of Israel, and his angel of truth, have become the refuge of all 25 the sons of light. For it is he who has created the spirit of light and the spirit of darkness; on them he has established every work, 26 and on their ways all religion. God loves the first one completely 4:1 for eternity and in all that he does he takes his pleasure for ever; as for the other one, he has had its counsel in loathing and to all its ways he has devoted an eternal hatred.
1:2 uia ergo uitae haec est: primo diliges deum aeternum qui te fecit, 2Here then are their (respective) ways in the world: to enlighten the secundo proximum tuum ut te ipsum. omne autem, quod tibi fieri non uis, alio non feceris. 3 interpretatio autem horum uerborum haec heart of a man and to make straight before him all the ways of righteousness and faithfulness; to make his heart responsive to the fear of the judgments 3 of God. It is a spirit of est. 2:2 non moechaberis, non homicidium facies, non falsum testimonium dices, non puerum uiolhumility and of slowness to anger, of great compassion and of unending goodness, of sagacity, of discernment and of lofty wisdom, well-tried imall 4 the works of God, relying on the richness of his goodness. It is a aberis, non fornicaberis, non magica facies, non medicamenta mala facies, non occides filium in abortum nec natum succides, non concupisces '6 This obscure phrase seems to me to make an allusion to the role of the spirits in the birth of the two lineages.
LITERARY AND DOCTRINAL AFFINITIES
quicquam de re proximi tui. 3 non spirit which knows the way to do periurabis, non male loqueris, non everything, which has the zeal for eris memor malorum factorum, 4 just judgments, a holy 5 intent with non eris duplex in consilium dandum a firm purpose, a great gentleness neque bilinguis; tendiculum enim towards all the sons of faithfulness mortis est lingua. 5 non erit uerbum _and of radiant purity, detestation of tuum uacuum nec mendax. 6 non impure idols, with humble manners, eris cupidus nec auarus nec rapax 6 intelligent in all things and, connec adolator nec contentiosus nec cerning what is of the truth, throwmali moris.
_ ing the veil upon the mysteries of knowledge. These are the counsels of the spirit for all the sons of faithfulness in the world. non accipies consilium aduersus proximum tuum. 7 neminem hominum odieris, quosdam amabis super animam tuam. 3:1 fili, fuge ab homine malo et homine simili illius. 2 noli fieri iracundus, quia iracundia ducit ad momicidium. nec appetens eris malitiae nec animosus, de his enim omnibus irae nascuntur. 4 noli esse mathematicus neque delustrator, quae res ducunt ad uanam superstitionem; nec uelis ea uidere nec audire. 5 noli fieri mendax, quia mendacium ducit ad furtum; neque amator pecuniae nec uanus; de his enim omnibus furta nascuntur. 6 noli fieri murmuriosus, quia ducit ad maledictionem. noli fieri audax nec male sapiens; de his enim omnibus maledictiones nascuntur. 7 esto autem mansuetus, quia mansueti possidebunt sanctam terram. 8 esto patiens et tui negotii, bonus et tremens omnia uerba quae audis. 9 non altiabis te nec honorabis te apud homines nec dabis animae tuae superbiam. non iunges te animo cum altioribus sed cum ustis humilibusque conuersaberis.
10 quae tibi contraria contingunt pro bonis excipies sciens nihil sine deo fieri. 4:1 qui loquitur tibi uerbum domini dei, memineris die ac nocte, reuerberis eum quasi dominum; unde enim dominica procedunt, ibi et dominus est. 2 require autem facies sanctumorum, ut te reficias uerbis illorum. 3 non facies dissensiones, pacifica litigantes, iudica iuste sciens quod tu iudicaberis, non deprimes quemquam in casu suo. 4 non dubitabis uerum erit an non erit. 5 noli esse ad accipiendum extendens manum et ad reddendum subtrahens. 6 si habes per manus tuas redemptionem peccatorum, 7 non dubitabis dare nec dans murmuraberis sciens quis sit huius mercis [mercedis] bonus redditor. 8 non avertes te ab egente, communicabis autem omnia cum fratribus tuis nec dices tua esse; si enim mortalibus socii sumus, quanto magis hinc initiatntes esse debemus! omnibus enim dominus dare uult de donis suis. 9 non tolles manum a filiis sed a iuunentute docebis eos timorem domini. 10 seruo tuo uel ancillae, qui in eundem sperant dominum in ira tua non imperabis, timeat utrumque, dominum et te. non enim uenit ut personas inuitaret, sed in quibus spiritum inuenit. 11 uos autem, serui, subiecti dominis uestris estote, tamquam formae dei, cum pudore et tremore. 12 oderis omnem affectationem et quod deo non placet non facies. 13 custodi ergo, fili, quae audisti neque appones illis con-
JEAN-PAUL AUDET
traria neque diminues. 14 non accedas ad orationem cum conscientia mala. haec est uia uitae.
1QS 4:6 The visitation of all those who behave themselves according to him (the spirit of faithfulness), is complete health, 7 abundance of well-being in length of days, increase of descendants, and in addition all blessings for eternity, joy without end in a life incorruptible, a crown of glory 8 and a garment of honour in eternal light.
As for the spirit of falsehood, it is breaking up of the heart and carelessness of hands in the service of righteousness, wickedness and lies, pride and self-conceit from within, fraud and merciless cunning, 10 thorough dishonesty, ill-temper, great folly, rivalry in insolence, abominable deeds at the will of the Doct 5:1 mortis autem uia est illi contraria, primum nequam et maledictis plena. Moechationes, homicidia, falso testimonia, fornicationes,desideria mala, magicae, medicamenta iniqua, furta, uanae superstitiones, rapinae, affectationes, fastidia, malitia, petulantia, cupiditas, impudica loquela, zelus, audacia,superbia, altitudo, uanitas, non timentes, 2 persequentes bonos, odio habentes ueritatem, amantes mendacium, non scientes mercedem spirit of fornication and filthy conduct in the service of uncleanness,
11 a tongue (fertile) in blasphemy, blindness of eyes and heaviness of ueritatis, non applicantes se bonis, non habentes iudicium iustum, pervigilantes non in bono, sed in malo, ears, stiffness of neck and hardness of heart to walk in all the ways of darkness and in the ability for evil. quorum longe est mansuetudo et superbia proxima, persequentes remuneratores, non miserantes pauperum, non dolentes pro dolente, non scientes genitorem suum, peremptores filiorum suorum, abortuantes, avertentes se a bonis operibus, deprimentes laborantem, aduocationem iustorum deuitantes. abstine te, fili, ab istis omnibus. 6:1 et vide, ne quis te ab hac doctrina auocet, et si minus extra disciplinam doceberis. 4 haec in consulendo si cottidie feceris, prope eris uiuo deo; quodsi non feceris, longe eris a ueritate. 5 haec omnia tibi in animo pone et non deceperis de spe tua, sed per haec sancta certamina perueneris ad coronam.
1QS 4:11 The visitation 12 of all those who behave themselves according to him (the spirit of falsehood), is a multitude of diseases!? from the side of all the angels of affliction, down to eternal ruin under the furious wrath of the 17 Tt seems to me that O°y?33 has the sense indicated by XD) which comes at the beginning of the "visitation" of the sons of truth (4:6). The latter passage does not, moreover, suggest a purely metaphorical sense for X27). To healing or health, naturally, sickness is opposed.
LITERARY AND DOCTRINAL AFFINITIES
God of vengeance, perpetual anguish and endless 13 disgrace, with the ignominy of destruction in the flames of the places of darkness. All the flow of their generations will be sad lamentation and bitter adversity in the disaster of darkness, until 14 there does not remain either survivor or remnant from among them.
15 To these lineages (belongs) humanity and all the human mass throughout the generations shares their (mutual) opposition as a heritage.
They follow their proper ways and every retribution 16 for their works (will fulfill) their lines of division, following the portion inherited by each, great or small, until the end of time. God has, for that purpose, assigned their respective share until the final 17 consummation and he has vowed to their tribes an endless hostility. The works of falsehood are an abomination in the eyes of faithfulness, and all the ways of faithfulness are a horror to falsehood. A jealous 18 rivalry inspires their decision, for their ways never meet.
God, nevertheless, in the mystery of his prudence and in the magnificence of his wisdom, has set a term to the existence of falsehood, and in the time 19 of his visitation, he will annihilate it for ever. Then faithfulness will enter the world for ever, for it had allowed itself to turn aside into the way of iniquity under the power of wickedness until 20 the hour of the final judgment. In that time, God will purify with his truth all human actions, and out of regard for himself, he will place in the crucible some from among the sons of man, destroying every spirit of falsehood in the coils 21 of his flesh, and, by a spirit of holiness, purifying it of every evil action. He will sprinkle it with a spirit of truth as with a water of purification to wash it of all abomination of falsehood; and he will turn around to him and return 22 in (the waters) of a spirit of purification, to give to the righteous the knowledge of the Most
High and the wisdom of the sons of heaven, and to give understanding to those who are perfect in their ways. For God has chosen them for an eternal covenant, 23 and it is to them that all the human glory will go. There will be no more falsehood, to the disgrace of all the workers of fraud. Until now the spirits of faithfulness and falsehood confront one another in the heart of man:
24 (thus) they walk in wisdom or folly. According to his personal heritage of faithfulness and of righteousness, so one hates falsehood; but according to his portion of falsehood, so one is committed to evil, thus conceiving 25 a hatred of faithfulness. For God has established them in equal measure, until the moment of decision and of making all things new. He knows the result of their works throughout 26 their [times], and he distributes them as a heritage to men, in order that they may know what is good [and what is evil, and in order that he may assign] a destiny to every living being according to his spirit [...in the time] of the visitation.
From this parallel reading of the Duae viae and from the moral instruction of the Manual of Discipline, there emerges first an important fact: that is that the two texts have a literary framework which is closely related, and therefore also a general line of development which is almost identical. Of course, this general observa-
JEAN-PAUL AUDET
tion should not make us forget the differences which separate the two writings so clearly in the treatment of detail, and it will be necessary to give place to a positive explanation of this fact also.
But it is the similarity in the general outline of the construction which constitutes the principle fact: the particular differences, despite their number, are only a secondary and derived phenomenon. One could more easily perhaps put these things in perspective by hypothetically reversing the order of the facts.
From resemblances of detail, unless they are proportionally numerous, would be less significant for the origin of the writing.
It would always be possible to take account of them by relatively remote relationship, indirect and distended. If one wishes, the explanation to present will be of such a kind as suffices to take effective account of the encounter of the Syntagma doctrinae of Pseudo-Athanasius,!8 on the one hand, and of the Duae viae itself, on the other hand. But it is precisely because the Syntagma has escaped from the literary framework which the Duae viae has provided for it, that it has only retained very small details in the precepts and a vague general resemblance in phraseology. I insist somewhat on this distinction, because, very curiously, the Duae viae, which decisively resembles the Manual for its literary framework, must be compared, on the contrary, with the moral exhortations of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs for the details of the precepts and for the phraseology. And is not even this itself again very significant? Indeed there is no absence of reasons for thinking that the Testaments have for their own part some relationship with the "Community of the Covenant". On both sides then, one would remain always in the same spiritual milieu or, in any case, in its very close environs.
One must try, nevertheless, to see things more precisely. Let us put aside the title (LQS 3:13-15), which only indicates the themes. The instruction of the Manual begins with a reminder of creation (3:15-18). When one thinks of the community to which this instruction was destined, one can wonder that there is not the least direct reference to the covenant. Indeed, this only appears later (4:22) and in the eschatological perspective of the plan of God for the final restoration of all righteousness. But one should indeed see that this solemn declaration on the origin of things in general, and of man in particular, is already really in the best
Jewish taste of the second and then of the first century B.C.E., for us to keep here to this limit for it.!9 Usually, however, we would
18 Text in PG 28, 836ff.
19 Cf. J. Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus Christ, trns. W. chan York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964 [= Le Judaisme palestinien I,
LITERARY AND DOCTRINAL AFFINITIES
not expect an affirmation as pronounced as that of the Manual.
One finds rather the formulae analogous to that of Sirach: év oN duvvdper &yaTNoov Tov ToLfoavTa oe,2° or of the Testament of Benjamin: viv ovv, réxva pov, Kat duets wyanhioure Kbpiov TOV
O€ov Tod ovipavod Kail TH Vis, Kal PurdcEaTe EvTOAAS avTOd.2! It is faith in the creation which is the ultimate foundation of the moral obligation, and the thought refers instinctively to it in the exhortation to keep the commandments. One should not then consider the very brief allusion of the Duae viae to be negligible: primo diliges deum aeternum qui te fecit (1:2). One could be sure, on the contrary, that it was considered as a capital affirmation which actually justified all the rest. Thus, one should not allow oneself to be deceived by a superficial consideration of the texts: the Duae viae and the instruction of the Manual begin indeed from the same characteristic point of the faith of Israel, and if the feature is not unique to the teaching of the Community of the Covenant, it is not however without literary significance, and that is all that matters here.
But what follows is much more marked. In the instruction of the Manual, just as there are two lineages of humanity, there are also two qualities of moral ways: the way of light and the way of darkness; inspired by two opposing spirits: the spirit of faithfulness and the spirit of falsehood; presided over by two hostile angels: the prince of light and the prince of darkness; leading respectively to life or to death (3:18-23, to which one could add for the final point 4:6-8, 11-14). This is the framework which determines the whole development, until the end. But, except for the two spirits of faithfulness and falsehood, this framework is found identically in the Duae viae and it plays, though indeed more discretely, the same literary role: two ways of life and death, of light and darkness, to which have been appointed two angels: an angel of righteousness and an angel of iniquity (1:1).
But, before drawing any conclusion, let us examine it in detail.
One must first recognize that the image of the two ways, to symbolize the choice of the conscience between virtue and vice, does not permit any literary inference in itself. It is found already in Jeremiah 21:8 and it was current in the Judaism contemporary with our documents." It is actually universal: it suffices to cite here, for the Greek world, the celebrated myth of Hercules at the crossroads.23 But our texts are far from holding to this element
20 Sir 7:30; from our point of view, we should re-read all of ch. 39.
21 TestBenj 3:1 (Charles, p. 216); cf. from an equally decisive point of view the recompenses promised to the one faithful to the commandments in 2 Mace 7:23; 4
Macc 5:25.
22 TestAsh 1:5-9 (Charles, pp. 172ff); 2 Enoch 30:15.
23 For other examples see R. Knopf, Die Lehre der zwélf Apostel. Die zwei Clemensbriefe (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1920 [HNT.E 1]) pp. 4f.
JEAN-PAUL AUDET
which, in itself, could be neutral. The double qualification of each of the ways: light and darkness, life and death (the latter explicitly in the Duae viae, implicitly in the Manual), constitutes an indication of literary relations already much less equivocal: way of light and way of darkness is found in 2 Enoch 30:15; way of life and way of death in Jeremiah 21:8, but nowhere else, to my knowledge, are they united as in the Duae viae and the Manual of Discipline. If one adds to this now the two angels set over each of the ways, one could no longer think that the similarities could be fortuitous. Finally, and this, taken with the rest, seems to me to be decisive: it is not only metaphors and ideas which are identical in each, but it is a literary framework which determines the whole development of the two texts. Facts so clearly determined are inexplicable, unless one admits a certain literary relation between the Duae viae and the moral instruction of the Manual of Discipline.
That is not all. One could raise again more characteristic similarities between the two texts, and always at points which define their common literary framework. Thus, to the beginning of the Duae viae: "viae duae sunt in saeculo" (1:1), corresponds the beginning of the description of the ways of the two spirits in the Manual: "These then are their ways in the world (92n2)"
(4:2; cf. 6). The Latin Duae viae is the only one of all the recensions to have preserved this "in saeculo". But it has all the air of being original, and also of echoing the 92N2 of the Manual of Discipline. Of course, the detail is in itself a very banal matter, and I would not have raised it if it had not been linked on both sides to more important elements of the literary framework of the two writings. In this respect it does not appear to be without significance.
The Manual, at the end of the description of each of the ways, briefly develops the theme of retribution (4:6-8 and 11-14).
The Duae viae simplifies all this still further, but at least it refers to it, and this is already significant. The theme of rewards promised to those who observe the commandments, goes to the end of the writing to serve it as a conclusion: "haec in consulendo si cottidie feceris, prope eris uiuo deo; quodsi non feceris, longe eris a ueritate. haec omnia tibi in animo pone et non deceperis de spe tua, sed per haec sancta certamina pervenies ad coronam" (6:4f).
When one has read the instruction of the Manual, the "sancta certamina" of the Duae viae are not surprising to us (cf. in particular 1QS 4:23f), and even less the "crown", which is explicitly named in the same context (1QS 4:7). The theme of the chastisements is abbreviated in the same way as the theme of rewards in
LITERARY AND DOCTRINAL AFFINITIES
the Duae viae, but it is not completely absent: it introduces the way of death: "mortis autem uia est illi (the way of death) contraria, primum nequam et maledictis plena" (5:1).
Nevertheless, there remain some secondary difficulties, which must not be passed over in silence. I am depending on the Latin Duae viae to compare the texts. If one excludes the title and the final doxology, of which the adventitious character is evident, this recension does not seem to have been subjected to serious retouches. But it would require a long and minute examination to show it. We must content ourselves here with confirming two particular readings in the recension of Barnabas, which is not a very reliable witness when it is alone, but in which one can place one's confidence when it is supported by others. Thus, the qualification of the two ways as lucis et tenebrarum (1:1) is absent from the Didache, from the Epitomes of the Ecclesiastical Canons and the Ecclesiastical Canons themselves.
It is found, however, in Barnabas, who has not invented it as by chance.24 One must say the same for the angels set over each of the ways, except that Barnabas this time takes his habitual liberty with his source: the angel of righteousness and the angel of iniquity have become for him the dwraywyot &yyedo. Tod Peod and the &yyedou Tod oaTave (18:1). Moreover, the two angels who watch over each of the ways are not described in exactly the same terms as in the Duae viae and the Manual of Discipline. For the latter it is the "Prince of lights" and the "Angel of darkness" (3:20f),-while for the Duae viae it is the "(angelus) aequitatis" and the "(angelus) iniquitatis" (1:1). But the divergence is more apparent than real, for the "Prince of lights ( 0°18 1)" is actually put in charge of the "sons of righteousness (?7¥ 732)" and the "Angel of darkness
(qwin 4X2)" in charge of the "sons of iniquity ay 232)", which, simplified, suggests quite naturally the angel of "righteousness" and the angel of "iniquity", or perversion, of the Duae viae.
Moreover, it suits our purpose to make, with respect to this particular divergence, a more general remark. One could ask oneself whether the moral instruction of the Manual of Discipline has ever intended to impose itself itself in a form ne varietur to the "master of initiation". Is it necessary to repeat that we must take care not to project into antiquity, and above all perhaps into Jewish antiquity, our modern understanding of the transmission of texts and of literary propriety? There has, doubtless, been space for many
24 It is not absolutely impossible, moreover, that the double qualification: "life and death, light and darkness", which characterises the Latin Duae viae among all the recensions, is the result of the encounter of two distinct currents in the transmission which carry the one or the other. But one could admit it without the indications of literary relationship which we have raised being perceptibly weakened.
JEAN-PAUL AUDET
modifications of the received composition. It would have been natural to think that the usage would have pretty nearly succeeded in fixing the framework but that a considerable freedom was operative for the rest. In this genre of literature especially, the transmission has always had the tendency to create new recensions.
Without leaving the circles of writings which occupy us, one has only to think of the history of the Duae viae in Christian literature. Few writings have been more muddled from the "Didachist" and Barnabas to the panegyrist of Shenoude, leaving aside the obstinate revisers of the Ecclesiastical Canons. For those who have familiarized themselves a little with this literary genre, there is nothing surprising in the fact that it should be above all the framework and the general line of development of the moral instruction of the Manual of Discipline which is found in the Duae viae: this is rather appropriate in the order of things.
The accumulation of points of literary connection, which have been raised between these two writings, leaves little place for doubt then. The first owes to the second the entire framework of its construction. The Duae viae is only a variation on a known theme. Where has its author taken it from? One would not know what to say. It is not impossible that he himself belonged to the "Community of the Covenant". But it is not necessary to go that far. It suffices that he must have come into contact with it, or that he has only known part of its special writings. The instruction which we read in the collection of the Manual of Discipline is moreover only loosely tied to it. It could, then, have circulated by itself, especially since it had a more general interest than that of the rule properly speaking.
A Jew who knew Hebrew and Greek could have mastered it, while making use of the idea in a way which, while respecting entirely a literary framework established by usage, was original in his treatment of particular precepts. The more so since, according to all appearances, the Duae viae was originally written in Greek and not in Hebrew. It was probably not destined for the "Community of the Covenant". Did it not then come out of it previously, before entering another milieu? That would explain in a positive way how it has been deprived of its eschatological material and its doctrine of the spirits to take on the genre of moral exhortation of which we have typical examples in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Compared to the instruction of the Manual of Discipline this is in every way a step towards universality. Must one think moreover that the Duae viae originally had proselytes in mind? It has often been proposed with respect to the Didache when one sought a Jewish origin for its
Duae viae. But it goes without saying that such an intention has not proved entirely convincing.
; _ _ But be that as it may for the moment with regard to this particular matter, a first indirect consequence becomes clear from the
LITERARY AND DOCTRINAL AFFINITIES
totality of observations made and the conclusions drawn: that is that there is less chance than ever that Barnabas was the author of the Duae viae, as Robinson proposed. How then do we get back from the Latin Duae viae of Schlecht to that of the Didache, then to that of Barnabas, then finally to that of the Manual of Discipline? One might as well say immediately that it is impossible.
The recension most closely related to the prime source by its internal characteristics would then be at the same time the most distant in date and most indirectly derived. And, indeed, the literary problem of the Didache is not settled by all this, but the least that one could say is that it comes close to solving the impasse in which it was locked up by attributing the primitive
Duae viae to Barnabas.
A second consequence concerns the moral instruction of the Manual of Discipline. It seems to me that a resumption of the whole textual and literary problem of the Didache would show, on the one hand, with a high degree of probability, if not certainty, that the Duae viae which is incorporated in it, must have been in circulation in Syria-Palestine from the first half of the first century of our era. On the other hand, there is hardly any place for entertaining seriously the hypothesis that the moral instruction of the Manual of Discipline could have been derived from the Duae viae, rather than the other way round. Clearly one could always think that a common source has been used in two different ways.
But that remains a simple possibility. As long as it is without support, it could not prevail against this positive fact: as far as its literary framework is concerned, the Duae viae is easily explained by the existence of such a writing as the moral instruction of the Manual of Discipline. The conclusion is self-evident. One must take care, however, that it is limited: it only applies directly to the moral instruction of the Manual, not to the entire collection; obviously, it also only applies to its text and not to the manuscript which conveys it to us. What one can say is that the moral instruction of the Manual of Discipline is not a late text, that it must already have been known at a date at least as early as the turn of the Common Era.