Additional Notes
ADDITIONAL NOTES
SS 1.1 There are two ways: The title provides no indication of the "two ways" motif, though it is widely known from antiquity. Cf. Deut 30:15; Jer 21:8; Prov 12:28; Sir 15:17; TLevi 19.1; TAsh
1.5-9; 2 Enoch 30.15; 1QSa 3.13-4.1; Matt 7:13-14; Gal 5:17-18; Barn 18-20; HermMan 6.1.1-2.10;
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut 30:15; Strom 5.5 (van de Sandt and Flusser 2002, 140-90;
Milavec 2003, 62-65). This appears to be the oldest part of the tradition, perhaps originally combined with the apocalyptic materials of chap. 16 (Drews 1904, 53-79). Its presence here suggests the text lies "in the mainstream of Judaism in setting this double commandment at the head" (Stewart 2011, 20). But the "two ways" circulated independently as a tradition before finding its home in the Didache. This is suggested especially by the extensive comparisons found with Barn, whose own approach is less exegetical in form and more typically that of an "ethical gnosis" (Kraft 1965, 134). Also, the transition from the "two ways" segment to instructions on praxis found at 6.2 is not shared by the closest parallel to the text, Doct, perhaps reinforcing the idea of autonomous transmission. Some scholars observe the possibility that the "two ways" tradition found later in Hermas was based to some extent on that preserved in the Didache (Giet 1970, 62).
One of life and one of death: Barnabas reads "one of light and one of darkness" (18.1). Hermas refers to two angels (versus "ways"), defined as "one of righteousness and one of wickedness" (HermMan 6.2.1). Pseudo-Clementines, in Homilies 5.7, offers "the flat and level way of the lost .
.. and the narrow and rough way of the saved (1 tv &noAAvpévwv 6506 MAatela Kai dpodwtatn ... 1/5 tHv owlopévwv otevt) pév Kai tpaxeia). Doct follows a similar nomenclature in distinction from H. 1QSa identifies these as angels (//Hermas), but defines them by the characteristics of light and darkness (//Barn). The nature of "life and death" is defined in numerous contexts, often in association with baptismal rituals (Kamlah 1964; Suggs 1972).
1.2 First, love God who made you; second, your neighbor as yourself: Known independently from Hebrew scripture, these are combined in the gospels, which need not be the source of the teaching here; cf. TIss 5.1-2; TDan 5.3; Josephus, Jewish War 2.139; Philo, On the Special Laws
2.63 (Stewart 2011, 19-21). Scholars suggest this connection is the work of Jesus, though the independent witness of the Didache and separate use of the second commandment elsewhere recommends otherwise. The use of "lord God" in the Synoptics (following Deuteronomy) is not found here, though it is preserved in ApCon; conversely, Didache's Jewish phrase "who made you" is not reflected in the Synoptics. The marks of redaction from the narrative tradition of the Synoptics are not evident.
Do not do to another: Here is the typical use of the negative form of the so-called "golden rule" (see Tob 4:15; Acts 15:20; Aristides 15.5; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.12.14; Strom 2.23), which conflicts with the rare positive usage in the Synoptics (also 1 Clem 13.1). The Synoptics are thus not likely the source of the Didache tradition. The connection between this rule and the previous double commandment to love may already be suggested in Matthew, however, which separates them in context but insists on the observation that each fulfills "the law and prophets" (so Matt 7:12; 22:40).
1.3-2.1 Bless those who curse you ... and a second instruction of the teaching <is this>: This entire section is missing in CO, Doct, Epit, and Arab, suggesting its secondary insertion into H by a subsequent interpolator (Layton 1968, 343-83; Rordorf 1981, 499-513; Niederwimmer 1998, 22,
68-72). The passage is full of teachings of Jesus drawn from the Synoptic tradition, especially the Q source (Glover 1958, 12-29). Use of similar source materials finds no parallel elsewhere in
Additional Notes the text of the Didache, and thus it is undoubtedly appropriate to think of this section along the lines of a "Christian interpolation" (interpolation christiana or sectio evangelica). This runs counter to earlier scholarly views that, based upon the inclusion of these materials in Dida, ApCon, and H, argued for its original position within the Vorlage of the text (Connolly 1923, 156-57).
1.3 Listen to what is necessary for you to do to save your spirit: first of all: This insertion in POxy is missing in H and elsewhere. It probably reflects a similar idea from 1 Cor 5:5 ("that his spirit may be saved"). Since Pauline materials are not otherwise widely reflected in H, this parallel may suggest yet another secondary addition to the textual tradition, though admittedly quite early in the history of development.
Pray for your enemies: This instruction is not preserved specifically in the NT gospels, but is found elsewhere in the literary tradition as a teaching of Jesus. Cf. POxy 1224 and JusDia 133.6b (Kraft 1965, 139).
Fast for your persecutors: While this phrase may simply reflect Matt 5:44 (perhaps in oral form, since Matthew's "pray for" [mpocebxouat] is now replaced by "fast for" [vnotetw] in the Didache), subsequent intepretations of the teaching may suggest a later concern against the doctrinal errors of the Ebionites. Thus a parallel reading appears in Origen, Homiliae in Leviticum 10 (invenimus in quodam libello ab apostolis dictum, "beatus est qui etiam jejunat pro eo ut alat pauperem"). Epiphanius likewise quotes from ApCon in Adversus haereses 70.11 specifically about the Jews: "When [the Jews] feast, you shall fast and mourn for them" (Schaff 1885, 164).
1.4 Reject the appeals of the flesh and body. If someone strikes you . . . also your tunic: Though this passage opens with words that clearly belong to the Didachist (or more likely some later editor), the comments about striking, going the extra mile, and giving one's coat clearly reflect the teachings of Synoptic tradition (Rordorf 1981, 502; Schéllgen 1991, 100).
1.5 Fortunate is the one who gives: This is likely a reflection of Acts 20:35 ("It is more blessed to give than to receive"), as is suggested by the phrase of authority that follows, "according to <this> instruction" (kat& tv évtoAnv). The indication of "instruction" or "commandment" designates a probable dominical saying in the mind of the author at this point. This is reinforced by the parallel in HermMan 2.4 ("Give to all, for God wishes that from his own gifts, gifts should be given to all"), which is further evidence that this well-known teaching on generosity circulated widely within the early church setting. At this same time, this instruction falls within what is probably a later addition to the text (1.3b-2.1), and thus perhaps comes from a secondary setting.
1.6 Let your gift sweat in your hands: This is one of the most provocative and enigmatic statements within the Didache. An approximate parallel exists in Sibylline Oracles 2.95—"Give to the needy with perspiring hand" (Mendelssohn 1890, 240-70)—though most editors consider the root of the teaching to derive from Sir 12:1. Later abuse of charity by idle panhandlers eventually led to the practice of dispensation through the office of the bishop, thus providing some oversight to the custom of almsgiving within the community. If this is actually the situation in which the teaching is offered here, it further suggests that 1.3b-2.1 is secondary to the text and somewhat later to the tradition of the Vorlage, reflecting a consciousness of ecclesiastical oe in theology and praxis. The teaching itself, however, is undeniably old (Audet
1958, 275-80).
2.2-3.6 This section of the text is structured around the initial prohibitions of the Decalogue
(Exod 20:7-17; Deut 5:7-21): murder, adultery, theft, covetousness, and false testimony. While these "great sins" are listed together with other elements in 2.2-7, the text interweaves them with a series of "lesser sins" in 3.1-6—in the style of a rabbinic fence—to prevent the listener from committing the more grievous transgressions (Taylor 1886, 23; Harris 1887, 80). This feature of the Didache is unique among parallel writings that feature the "two ways." It is unclear whether the structure should be attributed to the Didachist or to the source from which the prohibitions have been drawn (Audet 1958, 280-308).
Additional Notes
2.5 But you must act accordingly: This difficult phrase takes a "tone of exception" not reflected in all texts of the tradition and perhaps suggesting its secondary insertion into H. Other phrases in the Didache have a similar function, as with "and you shall be satisfied" and "for you must not" (1.4), and "if you cannot, do what you can" (6.2). It is difficult to know whether this is the voice of the Didachist, but its presence in the "Christian interpolation" suggests the hand of a later editor who emended the text beyond the interpolation itself.
2.6 You must not be a coveter . . . nor arrogant. This list of warnings against evil actions has the look of ancient virtue-vice lists from antiquity (cf. 1 Cor 5:10). There is some reason to think that the Didachist has drawn upon similar teachings in the construction of this material, since they circulated widely among Christians, Jews, and Greeks (McDonald 1980).
2.7 But reprimand some, pray for some: This section is set apart in translation based on its absence in Doct. It is entirely possible that these words were not original to the tradition, having been inserted under the influence of Matt 18:15: "go, reprimand him" (Snaye EAcyEov adtdv). But one must consider that, taken together with 2.6b ("You must not conceive an evil plan against your neighbor"), these materials form a classic ABA' pattern (Audet 1958, 294-95). The variant reading of CO may likewise indicate knowledge of Jude 22—"and be merciful to some who waver" (kai oc pév EAcate dSiaxptvopévouc)—though this does not speak to the issue of "pray for some" in the primary tradition. Presumably CO has substituted the "merciful" phrase for that of "prayer."
3.1-6 There is a structural cohesion to these verses that suggests a literary background. The source behind these materials remains unclear, though its foundation is likely derived from Jewish noncanonical tradition. Cf, TJud 14.1 (Kraft 1965, 146).
3.1 My child: This formal address appears in regular fashion several times in 3.1-4.1, though not as consistently in the parallel texts of Doct, ApCon, CO, and Epit. This may be due to stylistic differences among authors, including the tendency of CO to omit "my" (ov) throughout.
Though used only in these verses, this element of sapiential literature is widely known among both Jewish and late Greek writings (Audet 1958, 302-5). It remains unclear why the Didachist has restricted its usage to this segment of the text, except to highlight the specific ways in which the Decalogue must be protected through wisdom teaching. It may be noteworthy that no similar form appears in the parallels of Barn, suggesting perhaps that the presence of this introductory phrase is unique to the "two ways" tradition of the Didache (Niederwimmer 1998,
94-102).
3.3 Nor one who lifts up their eyes: The term bipnAdpOaAuyos first appears here in Greek literature
(Schdilgen 1991, 107). The translation "lift up the eyes" is a literal rendering based on the root bindo-, indicating something that is "high" or "carried high,' and 6@8aApdc, meaning "eye," and is preferred by many interpreters of the text (Goodspeed 1950, 12; Milavec 2003, 19). Many other commentaries choose something more like "bold gazes" (Cody 1995, 6; followed by Niederwimmer 1998, 94; van de Sandt and Flusser 2002, 11), "eager gazer" (Schaff 1885, 172), or "roving eyes" (Kraft 1965, 147). This is suggested already by ApCon, which employs the term pupd@@aApoc, meaning "to cast the eyes about," another word of rare usage in the literature
(see Ptolemaeus, Tetrabiblios 164, 171). Either rendering is perhaps suitable, but the salacious action of dipping the chin and gazing upwards toward another person undoubtedly anticipates a more specific motivation than is suggested by the general enthusiasm of careless or lascivious gazing about.
3.4 Nor wish to see them: One is tempted to read with the tradition of Doct, CO, and Geor here:
"nor wish to see or hear them" (Wengst 1984, 70). The textual tradition is obviously confused at this point, and the rhythm of the phrase "see or hear" reads well. This is likely the very rationale to reject such a balanced reading, however, based on the supposition of lectio difficilior potior.
Additional Notes 3.7 But be modest... the earth: It is curious that, where H (followed by ApCon) reflects scriptural norms (Psalms and Matthew), other traditions alter the reading to a more exalted status: "holy ground" (Doct); "kingdom of heaven" (CO); "kingdom of God" (Epit). This clearly suggests a development in the tradition that works away from biblical foundations, but has not yet settled ona single concept. One might argue that CO and Epit suggest some dependence on the tradition behind Doct, if not necessarily on Doct itself.
At the same time, Dida probably is dependent on the Didache (or less likely Barn 19.4) here, employing Isa 66:2 with Matt 5:5 in this process as a means by which to instruct bishops
(Connolly 1923, 150-51). The text reads at 2.1.5:
Thus, though he is young, nothwithstanding how humble, fainthearted, and quiet he may be, as the Lord said through Isaiah: To whom shall I look if not the humble and quiet who tremble at my word? It likewise says in the gospel: Blessed are the modest, who shall inherit the earth.
Unde etiamsi iuvenis est, tamen ut mansuetus sit, timidus et quietus, quoniam dicit per Eseiam dominus Deus—Super quem respiciam nisi super mansuetum et quietum et trementum verba mea semper?
Similiter et in evangelio dicit ita—Beati mansueti, quia ipsi hereditabunt terram.
3.10 Receive the things that happen to you as good: This teaching is widely found in one form or another among Stoic, Jewish, biblical, and Christian traditions (Niederwimmer 1998, 102).
Within Christian circles one need look no further than the vague scriptural parallels at Matt
10:29//Luke 12:6, Acts 27:34b, and Rom 8:28. These are encapsulated in later teachings, as appear for example in Origen, De principiis 3.2.7 and Dorotheus, Epistulae 3 (1040C).
4.1-8 This segment stands as a subset within the larger "two ways" section, advocating rules for the common life of the community (Schéllgen 1991, 109). The perspective is that of a teacher who is inspired by the perspective of the Word of God, perhaps suggesting a designation within a larger office of teaching (Neymeyr 1989, 139-40).
4.1 Of <the> Lord: The present translation is an intentional circumlocution of the term Kupiotns, leaving the concept undefined. Generally translated as "power, lordship, dominion" (HermSim
5.6.1; Jude 8; 2 Pet 2:10; Thom 90) or some sort of spiritual or angelic power (2 Enoch 61.10; Eph
1:21; Col 1:16) elsewhere in literature, the word is imprecise, resulting in varied proposals here, such as "lordship" (Kleist 1948, 17; [souveraineté] Refoulé 1990, 49; Cody 1995, 7; [souveraineté]
Rordorf and Tuilier 1998, 159; Ehrman 2003, 1:423), "Lord's nature" (Goodspeed 1950, 13; [Wesen] Lindemann and Paulsen 1992, 9; Holmes 2007, 351), "doctrine of the Lord" (Glimm 1947,
174), "dominion" (Milavec 2003, 21), and "kingship" (Kraft 1978, 311).
There <the> Lord is: Apart from parallels to Matthew, similar use of the phrase in Pirge Abot
3.3 refers to the presence of the Shekinah among those who study Torah based on an interpretation of Mal 3:16. This reflects a long tradition of interpretation found elsewhere in Jewish literature (Taylor 1969, 43-44 n. 8). This concept was favored in the later Arabic Life of Shenoute as a reflection of ancient tradition about the significance of fidelity to ministers. To that end, it peel ee reflects a primitive concept typical of "two ways" teaching (Iselin 1895, 20; Giet
1970, 134).
This phrase is difficult to translate without insertion of the definite article, but no manuscript includes the article. This is even true for CO, which includes an article in the phrase "as the Lord" (ac tov Kbpiov) found earlier in the verse, but does not do so here.
The phrase "as Lord" («¢ xbpiov) appears here and at 11.2 and 4 in H. It is assumed in each case that the author wishes to indicate some "lordly" characteristic of the person involved rather than to make a comparison of that individual with "the Lord," as most translators suppose.
4.2 So that you may find comfort in their words: These words likely suggest provisions for correction within the community. The practice of communal support has a long tradition in Judaism and patristic Christianity beginning already with 1QS 6.6-8. Cf. AposTrad 35.2; 41.2-3; Rule of Pachomius 115 (Rordorf and Tuilier 1998, 158-59 n. 4).
Additional Notes |
4.6 Make some reparation for your sins: Though the Didache does not make use of Tobit, this is an estimable reflection of the tradition of Tob 4:8-10 and the concept of storing up credit with God. Cf. HermMan 2.4.
4.8 For the Lord wants for all to be given from his gifts: This line appears here in Doct (omnibus enim dominus dare vult de donis suis sententiam) but in 1.5 of H (n&ou yap 8éAE1 Sidac8at 6 nathp éx TOV iSiwv xapiopatwv). This raises a textual problem, since Doct does not include the materials of 1.3b-2.1 as found in H, which are thus generally considered by scholars to be secondary to the text (POxy is not helpful here, since it does not continue into vs. 5). One solution would be to imagine that this line originally stood here in H as well, presumably having then been transposed into the materials of 1.3b-2.1 when the remaining materials of that segment was added by a later editor (Wengst 1984, 72). Another solution would be that the author of Doct saved
1.5 to this position when the wording of 1.3b-2.1 was removed. This second solution seems less no however, since there is no clear reason why the segment would have been removed from the text.
4.9-11 This section contains a limited version of the so-called "household codes" of community life that circulated in various forms throughout ancient Greek, Jewish, and Christian literature. Cf. Seneca, Epistulae moralis 91.1-3; Cicero, De officiis 1.3; Epictetus, Dissertationes 2.17,
31; Dio Chrysostom, De regno 4.91; Sir 7:18-35; Philo, On the Decalogue 165-67; Josephus, Jewish
Antiquities 2.190-209; Col 3:18-4:1; Eph 5:21-6:9; 1 Pet 2:11-3:12; 1 Clem 1.3; 21.6-9. Such rules were widely employed within the church until that time when (in the mid-second century?) the authority of bishops was firmly established, and subsequently this literary form of instruction became a hindrance (Jefford 1997, 121-27).
4.13 ApCon inserts from him ... to them... from them throughout as logical completions of grammatical structure within the verse that might be expected by the listener. While the presence of such words argues against their authenticity with relation to the Vorlage, their absence in H attests to the rustic character of the Didachist's use of Greek and grammatical phrases.
4.14 In the community: This phrase finds no parallel elsewhere in the textual witnesses. In fact, the entirety of the opening instruction about disclosure of wrongdoings is missing in Doct. It seems obvious that the phrase is secondary to the tradition, probably added by a later hand in the light of the verbal parallel found at Jas 5:16. It is translated here as an expected element from the exemplar, but is not likely authentic to the Vorlage.
5.1-2 But the way of death is this: This is the last section of the "two ways" sequence, but it is by far the shortest. The secondary prohibitions that were constructed to protect the Decalogue (chaps. 2-3) and the introductory use of the phrase "my child" (chaps. 3-4), so typical of wisdom literature, are no longer present here. The focus thus is primarily on elements of the Decalogue.
A comparison of vice lists as found in Barn (20.1c) and H (5.1c-d) raises numerous problems. The Didache version is longer, containing all items in the Barn list except for the term
"transgression" (napéBaocic). The sequence in Barn also begins with "idolatry" (eiswAoAatpia), a concern of Barn elsewhere (4.8; 9.6; 16.7), but not so much in the Didache. Structurally, it seems that the Didachist's listing of elements has been "reorganized and expanded significantly" with the evolution of its tradition, suggested largely by a comparison of elements with ancient parallels (cf. Wis 14:12-31; TLevi 17:11; 2 Enoch 34:1), and other early Christian writings (cf. Rom 1:23; 1 Clem 35.3; HermMan 6.2.5; JusDia 95.1; Theophilus, To Autolycus 2.34-35).
In comparison with Doct, the prominent elements in the list are "adulteries, murders, false testimonies" (moechationes, homicidia, falsa testimonia), which again are not in agreement with H
(Kraft 1965, 156-59).
6.1-3 These verses clearly represent the ending of the "two ways" materials in the Didache.
This is particularly evident in Doct, for which this is the conclusion of the entire work. Though
Doct reads similarly to H in concept, the reference to the "whole yoke of the Lord" and the
Additional Notes exception clause of "do what you can" in H (6.2), as well as the warning against food sacrificed to idols (6.3), are not found in the Latin. Doct also concludes differently with the mention of "the Lord Jesus Christ" not otherwise found in the christology of H (per dominum Iesum Christum regnantem et dominantem cum deo patre et spiritu sancto in saecula saeculorum. amen).
Barn is even more diverse in comparison with both H and Doct, though the author of that text also recognizes that some conclusion is appropriate here. Barn consequently reads:
Thus it is good to learn the righteous ways of the Lord written here in order to walk in them. For the one who does these things will receive glory in the kingdom of God; the one who chooses otherwise will perish along with their works. This is why there is a resurrection; this is why there is reparation.
Kahdv obv éottv, pxOdvta th Sikardpata tod Kupiov Soa yéypantat, v toUToIS Tepiratetv. 6 yap tabta novdv ev tf Pactra tod Be0b SoEacOrjcetat' 6 Exeiva ExAeyopevoc peta tOv Epywv avtod ovvanodeitar. 514 toto évdotaoic, 51k tobto d&vtanddopa.
There is clearly a return to the "two ways" motif found at the beginning of the section
(Barn 18.1-2; cf. Did 1.1), which includes an eschatological element not otherwise found in H or Doct. There may be some reason to think that a similar focus was originally associated with the "two ways" of the Didache if chapter 16 once served as the conclusion to these materials before the insertion of chapters 7-15.
Also interesting is the material that appears here in ApCon, which retains only minimal aspects of the tradition known from H: "see that no one diverts you from .
. ."; "and regarding foods"; and "shun idols, for they sacrifice to them in honor of demons." Typical of the author, scripture from Neh 8:10 is incorporated here, and 1 Cor 10:20 ("what they sacrifice is to demons and not to God") has clearly been used to shape the closing comment about sacrificing to idols. But beyond this deviation from H, the author has maintained the epi 5é ("and regarding") formula to introduce the topic of foods that may be eaten. This is highly significant, since the formula continues both in H and ApCon as an introduction to teachings on baptism (7.1), eucharistic prayers (9.1, 3; 10.1 [=»eté 5é]), and prophets and apostles (11.3). The author of ApCon thus appears to understand the unity of these materials as a collected unit of teachings despite feeling the freedom to adapt the materials in 6.1-3 into a form that diverges from the comments found in H.
Finally, ApCon agrees with Doct in its omission of references to the "whole yoke of the Lord" or the exception clause of "do what you can" (6.2). This seems further reason to think that these materials may not be original to the Vorlage behind H, but may instead represent the editorial work of a later hand (Audet 1958, 352-57).
6.3—-11.12 The Didachist turns here to a new section identified by a series of teachings on appropriate foods, baptism, fasting, prayer, and itinerant apostles and prophets that are identified by the use of the nepi 5 formula in H (see 6.3; 7.1; 9.1, 3; 10.1 [=pet& 52]; 11.3). These materials serve as a transition between the "two ways" teachings of 1.1-6.2 and the instructions on how to welcome outsiders into the community, community regulations, and a final warning found in 12.1-16.8. At the same time, the core teachings found here suggest that these ein are intended to function in a regulatory capacity for the daily lifestyle of community members.
7.1-4 These verses on baptism find no parallel within the tradition except in ApCon, and here only in a much developed form. The text of H is concerned to maintain the traditional trappings of Jewish proselyte baptism with its focus on "running water" in sympathy with the instructions for cleansing found in Lev 15:13. The restriction that the water be "cold" suggests that it should be fresh, not gathered from a cistern and permitted to sit for a time, suggesting ' the typical nature of Jewish mikva'ot that were used for rituals of purification.
Three elements within this material suggest later additions, however: the incorporation of the Trinitarian formula (7.1) and the instruction to "pour water on the head three times" in sympathy with that image (7.3); permission to use water that is not "running" or "cold" if necessary (7.2); and, an insistence that both the baptizer and the one to be baptized fast prior to the event (7.4). Such concerns for theology and ritual might be considered more typical of later ecclesiastical practice than one might expect for a text as early as the Didache (Schaff 1885,
41-57; Audet 1958, 357-67; McDonald 1980, 188 n. 174).
Additional Notes |
But despite the expectation that such elements might be found suitable for ecclesiastical ritual, the ApCon includes none of them in its own reading here. Thus, one reads:
Now regarding baptism, oh bishop or presbyter, we gave direction and now say that you shall baptize as the Lord commanded us, saying, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all I commanded you," of the Father who sent, Christ who came, and Comforter who witnessed. But first anoint the person with holy oil and then baptize with water, and lastly seal with ointment that the anointing with oil may be sharing in the Holy Spirit, the water a symbol of Christ's death, and the ointment a seal of covenants. But if no oil or ointment is available, water is ample for the anointing, seal, and confession of the one who is dead or dying with Christ. But before baptism, let the one to be baptized fast, for even the Lord when first baptized by John and remaining in the wilderness did then fast forty days and nights. He was baptized and then fasted, not needing cleansing, fasting, or purging, being naturally pure and holy, but so he might witness the truth to John and give us an example.
Our Lord was thus not baptized into his own passion, death, or resurrection (for none of these then happened) but for another reason. He fasted by his own authority after baptism, being John's Lord. So the one to be initiated into that death should first fast and then be baptized.
For it is unreasonable that one who is buried with Christ and risen with him should be dejected at his resurrection. For a person is not lord of our Savior's being, since one is master and the other servant.
The materials in ApCon clearly speak to biblical considerations (so Matt 28:19), the need to explain the link between Christian baptism and that of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. IgnEph 18.2), and an urgency to avoid any assumption that Christ was himself saved through his own baptism. These are theological concerns that reflect long years of speculation. The elements that H features (Trinitarian language; exceptions about the water; role of both the baptizer and catechumen) would fit nicely into such a structure, but are in fact absent in ApCon, except of course where ApCon quotes directly from Matt 28:19.
It seems less likely then that ApCon chose to omit these elements from the Vorlage, presumably represented by a tradition similar to that of H, than that they never existed in the manuscript that the author received. If this is indeed true, then what now appears in Didache 7 is most likely secondary to its original form, which was primarily concerned with the instruction on fasting in association with baptizing.
8.1-3 The instruction on prayer offers concerns that reflect typical Jewish practices. Thus the reference to "second and fifth <days> after the sabbath" versus "fourth <day> and day of preparation" are focused specifically on prayer associated with synagogue worship. Eth supersedes the instruction here by insisting that prayer be conducted all "five days."
The reference to "hypocrites" remains unclear as to whether the author intends Jews who practice falsely (as with Matt 6:2, 5, 16), non-Jewish proselytes who attempt to justify their inclusion into the synagogue, or a specific constituent of Jews who practice their prayer in conflict with the organization of the Didache. Dida reflects a much more dominical awareness of the passage (5.14.18-21), forbidding readers to fast "in the custom of the former people, but according to the new covenant" that Jesus taught. Further, fasting is not to be for the sake of Christ but for the Jews themselves (Connolly 1923, 151-52).
As the Lord instructed in his gospel: This is the first use of the term "gospel" (évayyéAtov) in the text, a word that has engendered significant discussion about whether this means "gospel tradition," perhaps oral in nature, or knowledge of a "written gospel," such as Matthew. The formulation of H ("in his gospel") may suggest the former, while the reading of ApCon and Eth
("in the gospel") doubtless assumes the latter. In either case, the phrase is unnecessary to the underlying instruction of 8.2 ("And do not pray like the hypocrites but . . . pray as follows") and may be secondary.
The so-called Lord's prayer that follows is remarkably close to the form preserved in Matt 6:9b-13, including the doxological elements that typify later manuscript traditions. This may be explained by the highly liturgical structure of the prayer (versus its parallel in Luke
11:2-4) that was widely known by early Christians and is generally employed today, or it may represent a link to the Matthean community tradition. Otherwise, it is once again possible that the prayer has been inserted at this juncture secondarily. The version in ApCon shows more
Additional Notes conformity to the Matthean formula with use of phrases such as "in the heavens" and "our debts," in addition to the more complete reading of "for yours are the kingdom and the power" and the concluding "amen." It is also possible that ApCon simply reflects the more commonly used form of the prayer known to the author rather than following the text of H in a strict fashion.
9.2 For the holy vine your child David .. . your child Jesus—yours . . : The only parallel to this prayer in the literature appears with significant alteration in ApCon (7.25.1-4). It is entirely possible that this alteration represents two separate hands or at least a secondary insertion that has changed the original reading (thus Wengst 1984, 78: habent hanc sententiam secundo loco, sententiam de pane primo loco). This suggestion is made in light of the confessional nature of the probable insertion, indicated here by italics: for that life you made known to us by Jesus your Son, through whom you made all things and take care of the world, whom you sent to be as human for our salvation, whom you let suffer and die, whom you raised and were pleased to glorify and set on your right hand, by whom you promised us resurrection from the dead . .
. for through him glory is also given forever. Amen.
The ellipsis in this passage represents a theme that is generally reflected in Did 9.4 ("this broken bread was scattered over the hills"), though ApCon has combined it with elements
"concerning the precious blood of Jesus Christ" (bnép tod tiptou aipatos 'Insod Xpictod) and "his precious blood" (to6 tipiov owpatos), which likely reflects the influence of 1 Cor 11:26 and is not otherwise seen in the theology of the Didache.
9.4 For yours are the power and the glory through Jesus Christ forever: This is the only place in the Didache where the term "Christ" (Xptotés) is used. Since it appears here within a formulaic expression, one might have expected to see it already in the immediately preceding verse
(9.3) where the text reads simply "yours is the glory forever." The entire phrase is missing in ApCon, which is especially curious, since the author of that text is noticeably more careful to include heightened theological terminology. One thus suspects that the phrase "through Jesus
Christ" (81é 'Inood Xpiotob) was not originally found in the Vorlage (Peterson 1959, 146-82) and thus should be omitted from contemporary reconstructions of the text. Admittedly, related cognates appear in later chapters, terms such as "Christian" (Xpotiavéc) in 12.4 and "Christ peddler" (xpiotéymopos) in 12.5, but the former is commonly known in literature and the latter appears first only here in the Didache. Like the phrase "through Jesus Christ," both of these may be later additions as well.
9.5 Do not give what is holy to dogs: This well-known phrase appears in the Didache as a likely reflection of the saying in Matt 7:6a, though the context is different for each. Because it is not preserved in ApCon, it also is likely a secondary intrusion into the Vorlage by a later hand, as with "through Jesus Christ" in 9.4, But there is otherwise no reason to think that it may not be original to the text.
10.7 But allow the prophets to give thanks as they wish: The shift from this phrase in H to that of ApCon ("but also permit your prophets to give thanks") indicates a subtle transition of office within the early church context. The Didachist offers no distinction between the function of prophet and the role of leadership within the community, regardless of whatever distinction may have been in the author's mind (Jefford 2010, 297-303, 313). ApCon, on the other hand, transfers the issue from one of function ("prophets") to one of office ("presbyters"), thus to suggest that the concern is more about the definition of status with respect to a particular agent within the ecclesiastical setting than it is about how spirit-filled persons (perhaps outsiders?) may celebrate a liturgical event. While such a concern may indeed have been in the mind of the Didachist, the shift from prophet to presbyter by ApCon removes any opportunity for individual expression within the ritual, undoubtedly by the design of the author.
10.8 Both Copt and ApCon add a verse here related to a prayer over the "ointment" (in Copt, cTinoy4}; in ApCon, pbpov) that is not found in H. While some scholars accept this tradition as authentic to the Vorlage behind H (Wengst 1984, 82), this is not entirely clear and is difficult to determine from the limited evidence that is available. As Niederwimmer reconstructs the
Additional Notes |
text, the passage was not originally present in the Didache. The "ointment" prayer was likely interpolated either around the year 200 ce or slightly earlier, was then incorporated into ApCon with alterations, and the "noninterpolated" text continued in the forms now known from the witnesses of H and Geor (Niederwimmer 1989, 167). Copt then would be a witness to this interpolation, but without the alterations provided by ApCon.
11.2 But if the one who teaches .. . do not listen to them: Apart from the divergent readings of H
(and Copt) and ApCon here, the two texts offer different justifications for the instruction. H continues with an exception clause to the effect that one who provides "righteousness and knowledge of the Lord" (5ixa1oobvnv Kal yv@ou Kupiov) should be accepted "as Lord" (w
Kvptov), while apostles and prophets (so 11.3) should similarly be received as indicated in the "decree of the gospel" (kata td Séypya tod ebayyeAfou). ApCon reads simply "for this one offends rather than glorifies God" (bpiZe1 yap 6 to1obtos tov Gedv rep S5oEdZe1).
If the author of ApCon had these materials from Did 11.2b-3 available for inclusion, there is no obvious reason why they should be omitted in favor of the shorter comment that now stands in their place. It seems more logical that the Vorlage behind ApCon did not include such words (though attested generally by both the Greek and Coptic manuscripts) and that the tradition behind H and Copt was itself subsequently altered to include them. This idea may be reinforced by the suggestion that the author of these materials could have the apostle Paul's associate Timothy in mind as indicated by 1 Cor 4:17, though such parallels are not otherwise typical of the Didache (Audet 1958, 434).
The exception clause of 11.2b clearly reflects similar concessions at 6.2 and 7.2-3, which may themselves be secondary to the tradition. Otherwise, while the phrase "as Lord" appears in 4.1 and 11.4 of H, it too is omitted by ApCon at both places and likewise should not be considered original to the text (Wengst 1984, 82). Nor is "decree" (Séypia) used here in ApCon. In conclusion, if the suggestion may be accepted that these materials are secondary to the Didache tradition, then the reference to "the gospel" in 11.3 should be understood only as knowledge of a written gospel text by a later editor rather than as evidence of some ancient gospel tradition known by the Didachist.
11.6 Ask for money: The Greek text of H advises that an apostle should not seek support from a host beyond the simple provisions of necessity, such as sustenance and lodging. To request otherwise would be a sign of false intention unworthy of a true apostle. Eth suggests more than this, using instead a word that may mean either "receive" or "take," and by extension in its nominal form, "theft." This shifts the concerns of the Didachist into a clearer situation, since thieves, who cannot be considered holy persons, by extension can hardly be counted as worthy of the definition "apostle."
11.7 For every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven: This comment clearly reflects the teaching of Matt 12:31, which alone uses the term "sin" (cquaptia) over against its parallels in Mark 3:28-30 and Luke 12:10. The omission of this observation from the text of Eth is remarkable, however, since there is no obvious reason why such a justification for testing the spirit of an apostle (already recognized by Geor as the "holy spirit") should be passed over, especially since Eth thereafter resumes with the text at 11.8. While it is certainly possible that the source text behind Eth did not contain the phrase, it is once more likely that this comment in H has been added secondarily in the light of the Matthean reading.
11.8 The Lord's traits: This phrase (lit., "the ways of the Lord") carries a meaning that is not entirely clear. The word tpémoc, translated here as "traits," carries a variety of similar meanings, including "manner, way, guise, way of life, conduct, character, or frame of mind," sometimes used of persons and animals, other times of God (cf. 2 Macc 5:27; Acts 1:11; Rom 3:2). One might be tempted to offer the translation "way of life" as a reflection of the teaching of Did 1.1, but this is not demanded by the current context of the reference. Copt offers the translation "ways of the Lord" (enecuart Mitxc) as an apt understanding, though this does nothing to clarify the meaning of the author's intention. Eth alters the wording to the phrase "traits of God" for "Lord's traits" as rendered by H, thus indicating that the intended reference should be some attribute of divinity rather than that the reader should compare the prophet "who speaks in a
Additional Notes spirit" with the figure of Jesus. Yet this view may be unique to the interpretative tradition of Eth and does not necessarily satisfy the question of the original author's purpose.
11.9 Inaspirit: The motivation behind the actions of the presumed prophet is viewed differently between H and Copt here. The author of H, followed by Eth, fears that a prophet may choose to request and consume food by a claim of spiritual prerogative that is unwarranted, while Copt anticipates the problem of someone who arranges an occasion of ritual importance within the community yet stands aloof from the event. The former concern is motivated by individual desire, while the latter suggests the assumption of spiritual superiority that cannot be tolerated if the cohesion of the community and its rituals are to be maintained.
11.11 A worldly mystery: This phrase (eic pvotrjpiov Koopikdv) is particularly difficult to "understand, translate, and interpret" (Palmer 2011, 9 n. 65) from the perspective of the Didachist, and many translators provide a mystical sense to its understanding. But to offer such a meaning does not acknowledge the negative sense in which the phrase is presented, since the author then provides the caveat "even if not teaching <others> to act the same." Copt preserves the negative sense of the phrase with the words "worldly tradition" (napaamcic NkmcueK@n), though providing the Greek napddooic in place of the awkward pvorrpiov, which is otherwise not commonly found in Greek literature. There may thus be some reason to think that the wording of H is secondary, with the terminology of Copt a better reflection of the original teaching. Eth provides an interesting confirmation of the negative tenor of the text, though clearly understanding "assembly" (éxxAnoia) in a more ecclesiastical sense (and thus for Eth perhaps better rendered "church") with its disdain for those who act inappropriately within that holy setting.
12.1 For you [will] have understanding: This is a difficult phrase in the textual tradition, as is indicated by the confusion among the manuscript readings. Bryennios already has altered H to a future form that suggests the reader will obtain understanding when the occasion demands such. This is the reading that is accepted in the translation here. Eth indicates instead that the reader, presumably by the very nature of their confession, already possesses sufficient knowledge to make correct decisions. This is reinforced by the specific nature of the Copt, which insists that "you yourselves know" versus others who do not, and likewise by ApCon in its more complex use of "to have" (Exw) and "to be able" (56vayia) to know. It is quite possible that this latter view, represented by Copt and ApCon, actually reflects the intention of the Didachist. If so, then more emphasis should be placed on the mystical nature of the believer's confession than is otherwise assumed by the present translation.
13.3-7 So taking all the first yield .
. . give according to the instruction. The Didachist applies the precepts of Numbers 18 to the situation of Christian prophets with the comment that "they are your high priests." This is viewed in sympathy with parallel teachings found within the NT (cf.
Draper 2005). When no prophet is present, then the poor are to receive these elements. Conversely, ApCon makes no mention of prophets but more closely follows the intention of scripture by speaking of gifts made directly to priests (a logical rendering in this case, since the text is designed for instruction of Christian priests). A tenth of everything is to be given to orphans, widows, the poor, and strangers. The text for this chapter is problematic, since Eth often follows the reading of H but sometimes is in agreement with ApCon. This ambivalence on the part of Eth suggests the tradition behind the teaching here was not stable, thus making it difficult to determine the more likely form of the Vorlage based on a comparison of H and ApCon.
While some scholars believe this entire segment to be the work of an interpolator (Audet 1958,
457-58), it is more likely that some original framework existed in the Vorlage behind H whose specific parameters have now been lost.
Dida understands the tradition similarly to ApCon, though once again applying such support to bishops and other ministers (2.26.1-2). The author states specifically that the previous instructions for the ancient prophets are now applicable to the church itself (Connolly 1923,
152). One thus reads:
What was first spoken, hear now: offerings and tithes, first yield are for the high priest
Christ and your ministers.
... Then were first-fruits and tithes and offerings and gifts, but now
Additional Notes
oblations are offered through the bishop to the Lord God for remission of sin—for they are your high priests.
_ Quae primum dicta sunt, tu nunc audi: delibationes et decumae primitiva sunt principi sacerdotum
Christo et ministris eius . .
. quae tunc fuerunt primitvae et decumae et delibationes et dona, nunc sunt oo quae per episcopos offeruntur domino Deo in remissione peccatorum—isti enim primi sacerotes vestri.
14.1 There are similarities and differences between H and ApCon here that suggest a common tradition with variations, H reads as follows:
When you come together on the Lord's day <and> after having acknowledged your offenses so that your sacrifice may be pure, break bread and give thanks.
Kata KupiaKrv S€ Kupiov ovvayxSévtes KAdoate Kptov Kai ebyaprotrjoate TpoeEopodoynodpevor ta Rapantmpata Kudv, Stw¢ Kabapa 1} Ovoia Hyav f}
The text of ApCon incorporates much of this same language, though the sentiment is slightly different. ApCon reads as follows (with parallel terminology in italics):
On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, called the Lord's day, come together consistently giving thanks to God and after having acknowledged God's mercies on us being rescued through ar from ignorance, fault, and bondage, that your sacrifice may be faultless and acceptable to Go THV &vaotdoipov tod Kupiov Hugpav, Tv KUpiaKry Papev, ovvépxecbe &SiaAcintwe, evxapiotobvtes TH Ve@ kai EEopoAoyobpevor Eg' ofc ednpyétnoev Hpac 6 Beds 51a Xprotod puokpevoc dyvotac, rAdvng, deopOv' Snwe Kpeprtos fj 1 Ovoia budv Kai edavaqopos bed
ApCon contains additional elements, such as an explicit definition for the "Lord's day"
(=Easter?) under the rubric of "day of the resurrection," as well as a soteriological comment on "rescued through Christ" according to "God's mercies," a concept that is not otherwise found within the overt theology of the Didache. The reference to "Lord's day,' while unusual in early
Christian literature otherwise, has rough parallels elsewhere, as with Acts 1:10, Rev 1:10, IgnMag 9.1, and Pet 35 and 50 (Rordorf 1968, 212-13; Wengst 1984, 87 n. 116; Jefford 1995, 347-49).
Its distinctive usage here, however, makes it clear that ApCon has the Didache in mind as a source text for the construction of the narrative. Cf. Draper 2008.
15.1 So appoint bishops and deacons for yourselves who are worthy of the Lord: The combination of bishops and deacons alone is unexpected here, since this reference finds parallel only in Paul's opening address at Phil 1:1 and in 1 Clem 42.4-5, Scholars often argue that the Didachist envisions "bishops" (émfoxoro) to designate a college of bishops and presbyters together (perhaps as with 1 Clement). But writing from a later vantage point, ApCon makes a clear distinction between the two positions by the very inclusion of presbyters, an office that the Didachist never actually mentions and thus may not know as authoritative within the community (cf.
Jefford 1989, 122-28). ApCon likely writes under the influence of a triple-hierarchy of offices first clearly identified by Ignatius (IgnMag 2; 6.1; IgnTr 2.1-3; 7.2; IgPhd 10.2; IgnSm 8.1) over two centuries earlier. One notes further that the distinction includes an elevation of the role of bishop against that of presbyter and deacon.
15.3-4 And do not correct one another in anger but in peace, as you have in the gospel: Once again, the only witness against the reading of H here is provided by ApCon, which does not contain the reference to "as you have in the gospel," making this phrase highly suspect as an editorial insertion into the manuscript tradition by a later hand. The phrase that follows about "let no one speak <to them> nor let <them> hear from you until they repent" also is not paralleled in ApCon, and thus too probably has been added based on Paul's teaching not to associate with those who continue in evil ways, as found in 1 Cor 5:11.
A similar situation arises with 15.4, where one reads in H: "And offer your prayers and charity and all your actions just as you discern in the gospel of our Lord." There is a symmetry in this verse that provides a couplet effect with 15.3, reflecting the concerns of the institutional church in its development (Audet 1958, 467-68). ApCon once again omits this comment, which likely is a general reference to Matt 6:1-18. But the parallel in ApCon contains a comparable instruction: "Observe all things that are commanded you by the Lord." This suggests that while the phrasing in H of "in the gospel of our Lord" here too is likely secondary to the text, some
Additional Notes wording that called on the authority "of the Lord" originally stood in this position. Otherwise, there is no evidence to know what this terminology may have been.
16.1 There is some similarity of wording between H and ApCon, though the differences are clear. H reads as follows (provided word-for-word to indicate parallels with ApCon below):
Do not let your lamps go out and be caught unprepared, but be ready. For you do not know the hour in which our Lord comes oi Abxvor Hudv pr) ofeoOritwoav, Kai ai dopves <buOv> pr ExAvéoOwoav, AAG yivecbe
Etoipor' ov yap oldate trv dpav, Ev f] 6 KUpios HU@v Epxetar '
The text of ApCon incorporates some of this same language, yet provides a more complete vision of what the Didachist intends through related imagery. ApCon reads as follows
(with parallel terminology in italics):
Let your loins be guarded around and the lamps burning, and you yourselves be like people who wait for their Lord whenever he might come, in the evening, or morning, or at cock crow, or midnight. For the Lord will come at an hour they do not expect.
Zotwoav ai dopues buGv nepreCwopuévar Kal of Adxvor KaldpEvoL, Kai dues Spotot avOparorc npoodexopuevoi tov Kipiov Eautav, néte HEE, Eonépac H Mpwi Hf dAektopoqwviac Fj pesovuxtiou' f] yap Spa ob mpocdoK@owy, eAevoetan 6 Kbpi0c
It is clear that ApCon has been greatly shaped around the sentiment of Matt 24:50 and Luke 12:35-37, 46, further revealing the author's consideration of the priority of scripture over the words of the Didache as authoritative sources.
16.4—-5a ApCon diverges from H here, choosing to follow the wording of 2 Thess 2:8-9. The text of H reads as follows:
And then the deceiver of the world will appear as a son of God and perform signs and wonders, and the earth will be handed over into his hands, and he will do such atrocities as have never existed before. Then all humanity will come to the fire of testing, and many will fall away.
ApCon reads alternatively as follows:
And then the deceiver of the world will appear—the enemy of truth, the prince of lies,
"whom the Lord Jesus will destroy by the spirit of his mouth," who destroys the ungodly with his lips—and many will fall away.
It is unclear why ApCon selected the imagery of 2 Thessalonians over the wording provided by the Didachist at this point. The Didache likewise contains allusions to a variety of scriptural texts, including Matt 24:10, 24; Joel 2:2; 1 Cor 3:13; 1 Pet 1:7; and Zech 13:8-9. It is possible that the author either no longer understood the focus of the Didachist's argument (Milavec
1995, 131-55) or, instead, wished to approach the topic from another perspective. Cf. Draper
1993, 16.5 By the cursed one himself: This is a very difficult phrase and may be translated several different ways, such as "by the curse itself" or "through the curse itself" ApCon either has chosen not to include it here, perhaps because of the ambiguity of the phrase's meaning, or because it was not originally part of the source text that the author used. In the current context there is reason to link the phrase with the idea of "fire of testing" that appears earlier in the verse (cf. HermVis 4.3.3-4). But this is not necessarily the intention behind the use of the phrase, and thus the idea of salvation by the "cursed one" (=Christ) is preferred in the translation here (Pardee 1995, 156-76).
16.6-8 This entire closing segment makes a sudden turn toward Matthean materials both in terms of theme and phraseology. While such a conclusion is perhaps not unexpected in the light of other Matthean parallels that run throughout the Didache, the focused nature of such equivalents here makes these closing verses particularly intriguing (Kloppenborg 1979, 54-67).
Whether one may thus safely assume that this passage originally served as the end of the document remains for scholarly debate.
16.7 Yet not of all, but as it has been said: Three passages from scripture are the possible intended reference here (cf. Zech 14:5; Matt 25:31; 1 Thess 3:13), with that of Zechariah being the most
Additional Notes .
likely option (Gordon 1974, 285-89). Once again ApCon has either chosen not to incorporate a direct reference to a specific teaching of scripture or has not found it in the author's source text. The theology is highly suspect in H here, indicated by the author's discomfort that a reader might misunderstand that all people will be raised at the appearance of the signs (16.6) rather than the righteous alone. It is unclear why ApCon would not share this same concern, unless the wording represents a later correction to the text by a secondary editor of H. This is the more likely scenario.
16.8 It remains unclear whether "on the clouds of the sky" is the end of the Vorlage of the Didache or, instead, whether some other wording originally followed before its omission by H.
Alternative extensions of the text are supported by several literary witnesses, including ApCon,
Geor, and the De abrenuntiatione in baptismate of Boniface (Aldridge 1999, 1-15). A good case may be made from these optional conclusions that the Didache itself once possessed some wording that no longer exists in manuscript form (Audet 1958, 73-74; Wengst 1984, 20; Garrow 2004,
44-66). Nevertheless, the difficulties inherent in any attempt to postulate what that conclusion may have been is only complicated by the limited options that are available from the literary evidence.
i a a Na venta 2f ede i A fa Foye, CTE Mite mr — aera a ; Gemebetie Siserte ged mie oF tse onttes ihe pee at enleaerya Seiernr stn bates Pe ite ney riot bac at ha | igi gms reacts apt aR ama 2 :
Sek eres tao ey p= wend sgt ee eee "wie Bap & Sou ll det nage Me earns: 39 OF ne meat: Salata hhnend a sede Shins rae att TM ware ig exist 2) we Ae. Pree at hs ot in ak wnt har . aeng tie cai Ea Pe WoL ny Teta Taree veceabating Puan, Ritchey MRA rhe Mt, Weeden Het? er wri fentinn co. ay Fa gi comainer: thee ? ia bi siehdion Nii See wet ak dase oe on esa as yaoae Hearst Ask ok 3 'Dy the Sects MPS pt "pheskegiy sion tctres person oh , are Se Sodicda tt CTs. paar t end OF thw sreustyy pleeme parece WaT eee hate al gaat ef tagare tks thet otaak Saeee Tie, Bey A Sagi te Yee Une phoeep a aha ened Ram ve teaing" F he vere G2 feraein 4h er the Sag Gon cians the Sap
; are, a Herve ' ople tien Sete" er Ayes a x.
C56 PR 8 Cl ee Me a oe ee ee oe - F roe
> | mina Aa ik? SEE Oe ahha hee sepSteman nape Ferns dt! Cyr end sonwiet nl Vie « "lhe tron teres liettat < er Mayon pe nang) nae ianeaeeh oF Chietin, a Cee EN © Caries enced eheyed gurGeue
22S ae are hanes i i ies ne ae natin yaaa, : fm. 2 b i it ra 8 tr aly Cees ant ch pore aha i i ae fk nad Me Bar » pe 42 Tama po