23. Taylor, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 6–45.

in his lectures of 1885 at the Royal institute, charles Taylor demonstrated the thoroughly Jewish character of the Didache with many contemporary and rabbinic parallels.23 Most of these parallels can be found in chapters 1–5, which in their original form refer neither to Jesus nor include any christological features. The reason for being meek (“because the meek shall inherit the earth,” Did. 3.7) seems to be formulated on the basis of Ps 36:11 LXX and has no parallel in Barn.19.4. correspondingly, the reference to the Lord in Did. 4.1 (“you shall honor him [i.e., the teacher of the word] like the Lord”), together with the rationale (“because wherever the Lordly rule is preached, there is the Lord”), are later christological statements, since the parallel passage of Barn. 19.9 is formulated without reference to Jesus. The saying only tells the hearer of the word to love his teacher as the apple of his eye. Taylor thinks that pseudo-Barnabas has here retained the original form of the saying. since the whole passage has notable close and “non-christian” parallels in Barn. 18–20, Taylor and others have concluded that the so-called treatise of the Two Ways was a text that must have originated in non-christian Jewish circles.24 in the (1999): 233–64 (233–42). in his own contribution, aldridge argues for the thesis that the tract of the Two Ways circulated under the name of the apostle Peter.

22. Joseph schlecht, Doctrina XII Apostolorum: Die Apostellehre in der Liturgie der katholischen Kirche (freiburg im Breisgau: herder, 1901).

24. Jonathan a. Draper, “a continuing enigma: The ‘Yoke of the Lord in Didache 6:2–3 and early Jewish-christian Relations,” in The Image of Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Christian Literature, ed. Peter J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry, WuNT 158 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2003), 111–12, offers a good summary of the theories for the origin of the tract: (1) according to the majority of scholars, the Two Ways treatise is an intra-Jewish or sectarian writing (thus, e. g., Niederwimmer, Didache, 35–41); (2) some earlier scholars, such as adolf harnack, Die Apostellehre und die jüdischen Beiden Wege (Leipzig: heinrichs, 1886), 14–15, considered the treatise as a Jewish proselyte catechism; (3) Draper himself argues for the view that the treatise was originally a Jewish christian catechism (this is also the view defended in this article); and, (4) in the 1920s and 1930s, some scholars assumed that the treatise was a later version of the corresponding text in the epistle of Barnabas. This thesis has for a long time been but neiges d’antan.

438

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

1950s, the discovery of a close parallel in the Rule of the community of Qumran (1Qs iii, 13–iV, 26) supported this theory further.25

This commonly accepted assumption is not without problems. it is based on a sharp division between the “Jewish” and “christian” paraenesis in a time in which all “christian” texts were basically “Jewish.”26 The theory further indicates that the followers of Jesus could not have created such a text with their own resources, but must have adopted it from a group that was not oriented towards Jesus. One could perhaps propose how this might actually have happened. Nevertheless, it is much easier to assume that the Two Ways treatise was produced by the Jewish christians themselves during a particular phase in their development. Both observations on the composition history of the treatise as well as a comparison with the structure and content of the Matthean sermon on the Mount indicate that the treatise fits very well in the evolving teaching situations of the Jewish christian communities. The assumption of the Jewish christian origin of the treatise implies that the “commandments of the Lord”

to which the epilogue of the Two Ways refers should be understood as the commandments of the Lord Jesus christ already in the context of the original treatise.

for the reconstruction of the original form of the treatise, our sources offer two possible starting points: the text of the epistle of Barnabas on the one hand and the Didache (and the Doctrina apostolorum) on the other.

unlike the Didache, in the introduction of the treatise Barnabas speaks not about the ways of life and death but about those of light and darkness, while the Doctrina apostolorum has both characteristics. The reference to the angels of God and of satan in Barn. 18.1 resembles the passage about the two angels in the Rule of the community of Qumran (1Qs iii, 13–iV, 26). The connection in the tradition between the tropes of two roads and two angels is found also in the description of the Two Ways in the Testament of asher (T. ash. 1.8–9; 6.4–5).

a significant group of scholars assumes that the apocalyptic frame (light and darkness) in Barn. 18.1 (with reference to the angels of God and the angels of satan), 19.1, and Doctr. 1.1 is original.27 in the light of 25. audet, Didachè, 159–61.

26. following the same logic, a text from Qumran which has a non-Qumranic parallel should automatically be regarded as having non-Qumranic origins.

27. Most recently, John Kloppenborg has argued for this theory in his article,

“The Transformation of Moral exhortation in Didache 1–5,” in The Didache in Con-

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

439

this assumption, it is problematic that Pseudo-Barnabas emphasizes the eternal reward and eternal punishment in his own version of the treatise (18.2; 19.1b; 20.1). On the other hand, it can be shown that the secondary teknon passage in Did. 3.1–6 points to a deepening of the interpretation of the law in the Two Ways tradition (see section 2.2 below). By and large, the Two Ways treatise in Did. 1–6 is by no means noneschatological, since it concerns the ways of life and death.

The arbitrary sequence of sayings in Barn. 19–20 makes it difficult to believe that we should seek the source or prototype of the treatise precisely here.28 in the Didache (Doctrina apostolorum), however, the parallel material is organized very well, since it is structured according to the commandments of the Decalogue. it is hardly a coincidence that there is a nearly perfect parallelism between the commandments of Did. 2.2–7 and the evil deeds in Did. 5.1. if it is assumed that the author of Barnabas has preserved a common source better, it must also be accepted that an editor has compiled the beautiful Decalogue-oriented structure in chapters 2

and 5 from disparate, apocalyptic sayings. for these reasons, i think that it is likely that the tradition of Barnabas is a secondary, apocalyptically-oriented redaction of an original tradition that was modeled on the pattern of the Decalogue. Pseudo-Barnabas calls his hearers or readers to the right kind of orientation and inner motivation. This internalization, which has led to a reordering of the text, is based on the commandments of the Decalogue.

Because the two titles “way of life” (introduced with the golden rule in Did. 1.2) and “way of death” bind these two pieces together, i think it is correct to assume with Jean-Paul audet that Did. 1.1–2a, 2.2–7, and 5.1 form the core of the tradition, regardless of the differences in details between the Didache and the Doctrina apostolorum.29

text: Essays on Its Text, History and Transmission, ed. clayton N. Jefford, NovTsup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 100–102. a thorough and convincing argument against this thesis is offered by Kari syreeni, “The sermon on the Mount and the Two Ways Teaching of the Didache,” in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? ed. huub van de sandt (assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: fortress, 2005), 93–97.

28. With Niederwimmer, Didache, 61; syreeni, “sermon on the Mount and the Two Ways,” 92; and others.

29. audet, Didachè, 309–12.

440

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

2.2. Two Ways Treatise and the Matthean sermon on the Mount Because the way of life in the epistle of Barnabas knows nothing of the teknon passage in Did. 3.1–6, it is well-founded to assume that this piece is a later addition to the treatise. it does not stem from the author of the Didache, but from an earlier editor of the treatise.30 in the Didache, the teknon sayings deepen the list of prohibitions of the original short treatise.

it is not enough to forbid murder, fornication, idolatry, theft, and blasphemy, but also all emotional impulses and smaller acts that lead to these great sins. With his warm and sympathetic tone, the teacher gives these exhortations and internalizes and psychologizes the statutes of the Torah.31

in a tradition-historical sense, the teknon sayings belong to a middle stage between the Decalogue and the Matthean antitheses: only Matthew goes so far as to identify hate with murder and lust with adultery.32 The addition of the teknon sayings clearly belongs to a pre-Matthean stage of development that has led to a more stringent interpretation of the Decalogue.

They are not introduced by the Didachist but belong to the history of the development of the Two Way tract.33

The so-called anawim sayings in Did. 3.7–10, which because of a striking Qumran parallel are regarded as particularly Jewish and therefore not originally christian, offer in their original context (i.e., immediately after 30. With Niederwimmer, Didache, 123–24; Kloppenborg, “Transformation of Moral exhortation in Didache 1–5,” 105; alan J. P. Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache, JsNTsup 254 (London: T&T clark, 2004), 83–85; and others.

31. Many scholars, like charles Taylor, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 23, have referred at this point in the rabbinic idea of a fence around the Torah. audet, Didachè, 301–2, however, correctly argues that the rabbinic practice is far removed from the passage of the Didache, because the latter is designed to protect the specific commandments through detailed legalistic discussion. see also syreeni, “sermon on the Mount and the Two Ways,” 95.

32. Looking backwards from the Gospel of Matthew it can be said that the teknon sayings belong to a process that finally leads to the Matthean interpretation of the Law; thus Kloppenborg, “Transformation of Moral exhortation in Didache 1–5,” 109.

syreeni, “sermon on the Mount and the Two Ways,” 96, however, argues that this process cannot be traced back to the history of the Didache, because in Did. 1.3–4 the idea of completeness is proclaimed without antitheses and scriptural references.

33. Niederwimmer, Didache, 124, syreeni, “sermon on the Mount and the Two Ways,” 96, and Jefford, Sayings in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 68, think that the teknon sayings of the Didachist are inserted.

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

441

the list of prohibitions; 2.2–7) a positive model for a believer. he or she should be gentle, patient and merciful, stay humble, and accept all her or his experiences as good. The similarity of this passage with some Matthean beatitudes (Matt 5:5, 7) is striking, while the Q sayings in Luke 6:20–23

are not comparable with the text of the Didache. The particular details of the social relations that the Two Ways treatise suggests is presented in the special tradition of Matthew as the motivation for the eschatological exaltation of its bearers.

Most scholars assume that Matthew has developed the first chapter of the sermon on the Mount quite independently of the Two Ways treatise.34

i find it more likely, however, that Matthew or the tradition used by him knew either the Two Ways treatise or a similar teaching and interpreted it as he did with corresponding sayings from Q. if this is correct, the tradition of the early Jewish christians has been developed here in a threefold sense ad majorem gloriam of the Matthean community: (1) especially in Matt 5:10–12, the first half of the so-called anawim proverbs (Did. 3.7–8a) and corresponding Q sayings are developed as a sympathetic representation of the community.35

(2) Together with Q sayings (Q 14.34–35; 8.16), the passive teaching of the anawim sayings (Did. 3.8b–10) is replaced with an active image of community members as the light and salt of the world (Matt 5:13–16).

(3) The prohibitions based on the Decalogue (Did. 2.2–7) and the teknon sayings (3.1–6) are replaced by the rough antitheses (Matt 5:21–48), which also treat the sixth and seventh commandment first.

here the ethical teaching of Jesus transcends the barriers of the Torah.

Only those who fulfil this form of the law completely are perfect.36

34. Thus e.g., Jefford, Sayings in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 67, who sees a connection between the texts in their special interest in the Torah.

35. christopher M. Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 108, sees the origin of Did. 3.7 in Matt 5:5, while Garrow, Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache, 240, derives this saying and the preceding verses from Ps 36. according to Garrow, Matthew drew upon the Didache and not upon the Two Ways treatise.

36. The common features between Did. 3.2–6 and Matt 5:21–48 are described

442

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

This theory must remain completely unproven, because a strong parallelism can be shown only between Did. 3.7–8 and Matt 5:5, 7. Other parallels are rather related to the content, theme, and partly to the structure of the texts. The comparison shows, however, that the antitheses in Matt 5

represent a higher level of the traditional material of the Two Way treatise.

it is possible that it motivated Matthew to the pointed statements in his own presentation.

Like the Matthean sermon on the Mount, the Two Ways treatise of the Didache is community-oriented, but the latter reveals no traces of a conflict with other strands of Judaism. in this respect, Did. 3.7–4.10 is a very revealing passage. it is motivated by the exhortation in 2.7: the believer is called to love all people, but some in particular. in Didache 4, numerous features indicate the carefully regulated life of the members of a particular community: the authority of teachers (4.1), the communion of the saints (4.2, 14), the threat of schisms (4.3), the ideal of common property (4.8), and the regulation of the private sphere (4.9–11). all this is followed by a reference to evil people outside the community (5.2). The community portrayed here is neither threatened from outside nor affected by notable internal schisms.

in this context, the idea of common property is striking. it has a parallel both in the early Jesus movement (acts 2:44–45; 4:32–37) and in Qumran (1Qs i, 11–12; V, 2; Vi, 2–3, 19–20; Vii, 6; cf. Josephus, B.J. 2.122; A.J. 18.20). since giving alms indicates private property, Did. 4.8 does not point to common property in a strict sense, but rather to an increased demand for economical equalization. The note, however, is so vague and general that it cannot tell us anything more about the community of the treatise or its social practices. it can be assumed that such a community has drawn a clear line between insiders and outsiders, as well as strived towards economic independence.37

To summarize, the original Two Ways tract behind the Didache fits into the picture well when it is compared with the development of the Jewish-christian paraenesis in Q and Matthew. That there is no sign of conflict with the other forms Judaism indicates that the treatise dates back to a time before the Jewish War.

exhaustively by van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 225–28. They assume (229–30) that the Matthean antitheses and Did. 3.1 6 can be traced back to a common tradition.

37. for the state of research, see Marcello Del Verme, Didache and Judaism: Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work (London: T&T clark, 2004), 113–42.

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

443

2.3. Didache 6 and idol Meat

in the Didache, the Two Ways treatise is followed by a piece that culminates in the prohibition of idol meat. comparison with the Doctrina apostolorum shows that only Did. 6.1, the exact wording of which cannot be reconstructed, belonged to an earlier form of the treatise. a secondary end of the treatise can be found in Doctr. 6.4–5: The reader is encouraged to follow these rules daily, so that he or she remains close to the living God.

he or she should keep all of it in the soul and not lose hope. Thus he or she will obtain the athlete’s laurel wreath by holy struggles. ultimately, this pastoral advice means that the believer should live through hard times and remain faithful to the community, especially its teachers.38 instead of this ending, there is in Did. 6.2–3 a different secondary conclusion that supplements the ideas of the original treatise with teaching about the Mosaic law.

This passage, which clearly addresses gentile christians, is motivated by the content of the treatise. But instead of the strong imperative tone of the treatise, the phrasing in 6.2–3 is instead concessive. The editor of the treatise knows that not all listeners can be perfect followers of the teaching: the imperfect should do what they can. This also applies to food. But there is one particularly important prohibition: idol meat shall be avoided, because it is a cult of “dead gods.” Only the total meaning of these sayings can illuminate what “perfection” means in this context. The passage does not indicate a particularly strict asceticism, and it is also difficult to see in the addition a reference to the golden rule added in Did. 1.3–6 and to the other mandata Christi.39 We do not know when the sectio evangelica was inserted as an explanation to the golden rule after Did. 1.2, but the absence of this piece in most parallels indicates that it is a very late addition.40 There are further no differences between the sentences of the sectio 38. Van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 38, note correctly that Doctr. 6.4–5 “just faintly echoes some allusion to the end while the Didache’s rendering of the Two Ways’ conclusion lacks any eschatological preoccupation.”

39. Niederwimmer, Didache, 155–56.

40. for various theories about the sources of sectio evangelica, see Niederwimmer, Didache, 98–100: the dependency (1) of Matt 5:39–46 and Luke 6:27–32 and possibly of herm. Mand. 2.4–6; (2) of the sayings source Q (Q 6:27–32); (3) of an apocryphal collection of sayings; and (4) of the oral tradition, the age of which is assessed in various ways. John s. Kloppenborg, “The use of the synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b–2:1,”

in van de sandt, Matthew and the Didache, 105–29, pleads with convincing arguments that Did. 1.3b–5 goes back to Luke and either Matthew or Q.

444

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

evangelica and the commandments of the original treatise: both advise the reader to love instead of hate and promote alms-giving (2.7; 4.5–8).

in the sectio evangelica, it is said that the one who turns the left cheek to an aggressor is perfect.41 But that is not a programmatic sentence, since it does not indicate different levels of perfection.42 Perfection means here that in front of an adversary (i.e., an outsider) one can do nothing except quietly endure injustice, but then one will be perfectly just before God.

for these reasons, i find it credible to suggest that the yoke of the Lord in 6.2 is not associated with the sectio evangelica,43 but belongs rather with the commandments of the Lord in 4.13. in the treatise, the commandments of the Lord are portrayed in an overarching sense: nothing necessary (to salvation) is missing here. The sentence added by the first editor of the original Two Ways treatise in 6.2 wants to say something about the entire yoke of the Lord. The perfect one is anybody who follows not only the ethical,44 but also the ritual, commandments of the Lord.45 Just because this question is related to circumcision and purity and food laws, the editor recommends that gentile readers bear the entire yoke of the Lord: even though the whole law is still in force, the faithful from among the gentiles are exhorted to do what they can. Positively this means that they can (even as nonperfect members of mixed communities) observe such ritual com-41. Niederwimmer, Didache, 107, thinks that the words καὶ ἔσῃ τέλειος are added by the Didachist.

42. Willy Rordorf, “Le problème de la transmission textuelle de Didache 1,3b–

2,1,” in Űberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, ed. franz Paschke (Berlin: akademic, 1981), 512. he sees in Did. 1.3 the same logic as in Did. 6.2: the perfect can fulfill the doctrine of 1.3b–5, but less than perfect christians can obey the prohibitions listed in 2.2.

43. Thus Rordorf, “Problème de la transmission,” 511–12; Niederwimmer, Didache, 155–56; and others.

44. Willy Rordorf and andré Tuilier. La doctrine des douze Apôtres (Didachè), sc 248 bis (Paris: cerf, 1998), 32–33, see in Did. 6.2 a note on the Sectio Evangelica in 1.3–5, while aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE (New York: Newman, 2003), 776, suggests that the verse refers to the whole Two Ways tract.

45. Jonathan a. Draper, “Torah and Troublesome apostles in the Didache community,” NovT 33 (1991): 347–72 (367–68), also connects the idea of perfection of the whole law, including the cultic rules. he further suggests (with alfred stuiber, “Das ganze Joch des herrn [Didache 6,2–3],” StPatr 4 [1961]: 323–29 [328]) that, according to Did. 6.2, in the course of this process the gentiles have to accept the whole law and thus also become perfect.

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

445

mandments, the fulfilment of which is possible for them. Negatively, they may refrain from doing anything that is impossible for them. unlike the case of the ethical commandments, here it is not necessary to go into details.

The gentiles addressed by the editor know very well what is at stake. The perfect ones have a special spiritual dignity and authority, which reinforces the integrity of the mixed communities. The editor of the treatise takes for granted that the readers and listeners naturally recognize this.46 This also applies to other practical demands, which the Jewish christians had posed to converted gentiles. in mixed communities in which the decree of acts 15 was taught, the Jewish christian teachers had the authority to interpret these prohibitions for gentile christians.

it is further interesting that in the Doctrina apostolorum any parallel to the exhortation οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἐντολὰς κυρίου in Did. 4.13a is missing. according to the parallels in Did. 4.12, Doctr. 4.12, and Barn.

19.2, the believer should do nothing that does not please God, while in the Didache it is the Lord who should be pleased. One can therefore assume that the original treatise here did not refer to Jesus as the Lord. already the original treatise, however, spoke of Jesus as the Lord in Did. 4.1 (par.

Doctr. 4.1), where the authority of the teacher is founded on the authority of the Lord.47 This sentence is missing in Barn. 19.9b–10, because the author has moved the reader’s attention toward responsibility in the day of the eschatological judgment.

if this interpretation is correct, the question of food in 6.3 must not be viewed as something completely different from the previous contents.

among all cultic rules of the law, only the prohibition of idol food is considered to be absolutely necessary for gentiles. The editor of the Didache does not go as far as those who expressly say that gods are demons. for the editor they are, at least in this context, in the traditional sense “dead gods” (Ps 115:3–8; isa 44:12–20; Wis 15:17). eating idol food is obviously a practice that some gentile members of the communities have not given up.

The editor of the treatise does not quote the apostolic Decree. if the decree were known, there was no obligation in the least to point to the authority of the apostolic decision, although the decree has its background in the prohibitions of the Mosaic law regarding aliens (Lev 17–18). i do not find 46. audet, Didachè, 355–56, interprets the consequences of the exhortation quite differently: everyone who follows the entire law can hardly resist the temptation to judge such brothers who enjoy all food.

47. see Niederwimmer, Didache, 136.

446

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

it likely that the isolated exhortation in Did. 6.3 would have been based on the so-called apostolic Decree.48 it is difficult to date the insertion of 6.2–3

and to put it into a social context. in any case, the concessive tone of the addition indicates that the converted gentiles were able to continue living their previous status. But only those “who are able to carry the full yoke of Lord Jesus are ‘perfect,’ ” that is, those who obey not only the moral but also the cultic law. i find it reasonable to conclude that Did. 6.2–3 refers to the yoke of the Lord Jesus and to the perfect practice of the law by strict Jewish christians, who propagated the fulfilment of the whole law as an expression of their faith in Jesus.

2.4. The apocalypse in Didache 16 and the Two Way Tract The apocalypse of the final chapter, however, is something entirely different. it points at a hard tribulation that will take place at the end of time. i think that it is not very easy to imagine this passage as an editorial addition of the Didachist to the foregoing church order. some scholars have seen in it (correctly, i think) the final chapter of the Two Way treatise.49 Brevity of the apocalypse and lack of parallels, however, have raised doubt against this theory.50 Barnabas offers no parallel to the apocalypse in Did. 16, but this does not speak against the original connection between the apocalypse and the Two Ways treatise. even though pseudo-Barnabas stresses 48. for the various theories on the origin and meaning of Did. 6.2–3, see Draper,

“continuing enigma,” 112–14: (1) these verses are part of an original Jewish Two Ways tract that is directed to pagan converts (thesis by stuiber, “Ganze Joch des herrn,” 323–29, assumed by Klaus Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet, su 2 [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984], 94–96); (2) they were an independent Jewish christian tradition; (3) they come from the Didachist alone (thus especially Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine des douze Apôtres, 32–34); and (4) they teach abstaining from sex and food. Draper himself is inclined to accept the first theory.

49. see, e.g., helmut Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern, TuGal 65/5.10 (Berlin: akademie, 1957), 160; syreeni, “sermon on the Mount and the Two Ways,” 88 (”possibly … the starting point of the literary evolution”); Del Verme, Didache and Judaism, 245; etc. against this hypothesis, see Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine des douze Apôtres, 81–83.

50. Niederwimmer, Didache, 248, suggests that the Didachist found the apocalypse among his sources as a separate epilogue to the whole and added it for compositional reasons to the end of the entire writing.

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

447

that he and the recipients of his writing live at the end of time (Barn. 2.1), the specific features of Did. 16 (the false prophets, which cause the believers to hate and betray each other, as well as the appearance of a seducer of the world) do not fit in his own situation. in spite of this, he does not hesitate to quote Did. 16.2 in Barn. 4.9b.

shortly after the introduction of his presentation, pseudo-Barnabas mentions “the new law of our Lord Jesus christ, which is not a forced yoke” with which the offerings are done away. Later, in Barn. 10.10,51 he ends his long allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic food laws with the following sentence: “also in terms of the food, you are perfect.” With these thoughts he reacts in my opinion against the idea of the Two Ways treatise (Did. 6.2), according to which those are perfect can bear the entire yoke of the Lord. The generalizing sentence in Barn. 10.10 (ἔχετε τελείως

καὶ περὶ τῆς βρώσεως) is designed to replace the rule in Did. 6.3 (περὶ δὲ

τῆς βρώσεως). Therefore, i think that it is well-founded to assume that pseudo-Barnabas knew the Two Ways tract in an extended form (Did.

1–6, 16).52

a literary seam between Did. 5.2 and 6.1 is helpful here. The closing warning about the way of death in Did. 5.2 is in the plural (ῥυσθείητε

τέκνα ἀπὸ τούτων ἁπάντων), and it seems clear that it has replaced an original singular formulation (Doctr. 5.2: abstine te, fili, ab his omnibus). it is possible that an editor of the treatise wanted to close the list of warnings with the generalizing plural statement. in the light of the address in the singular in 6.1, this is somewhat strange. Therefore, it is possible that the salutation in the plural once had a natural connection to the beginning of the apocalypse. also, the shortness of the apocalypse is best explained with its original connection to the Two Ways treatise. Both the exemplary life of individual believers and their absolute loyalty to their community form a basis on which the exhortations in Did. 16.1–2 are based.

The comparison of the individual verses of the apocalypse to the synoptic apocalypses shows that the traditions of Did. 16 were alive at the time of the Jewish War. This chapter has its closest parallels with Matthean special material (Matt 24):

51. see the reference to the “perfect knowledge” in Barn. 1.5.

52. as for the connection of Did. 5.2 and 16.1, see also Del Verme, Didache and Judaism, 244, who rightly emphasizes the moral motivation of the apocalypse.

448

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

Did. 16.3

Matt 24:11–12 (cf. 7:15)

Did. 16.4a

Matt 24:10, 12

Did. 16.4b

Matt 24:24 = Mark 13:22

Did. 16.4c1

Matt 24:21 = Mark 13:19

Did. 16.5

Matt 24:10

Matt 24:13 = Mark 13:13

Did. 16.6

Matt 24:30a, 31

Did. 16.7

Matt 24:31 (cf. zech 14:5)

Did. 16.8

Matt 24:30b = Mark 13:26 (cf. Dan 7:13)

These parallels have been explained with two53 different theories: either the Didache is dependent on Matt 24 and possibly also Mark 1354 or the parallels between Did. 16 and Matt 24 can be traced back to a common apocalyptic tradition.55 The former theory presupposes that the editor of Did. 16 posed the Matthean source some specific questions and got the answers from an intensive reading of the text. further, it must be assumed that this editor has seen himself as a transmitter of an authorized tradition.56 Thus, according to this theory, Did. 16 is a condensed apocalypse, which has to be seen rather as traditional instruction and exhortation, than a text oriented towards vivid expectation of the end.57 here lies also 53. Garrow, Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache, 190–215, has proposed a new third theory. he thinks that Matthew is in chapter 24 dependent on Did.

16. according to Garrow, Matthew has combined some elements of Mark 13:1–13 and Did. 16.3–5 in Matt 24:1–12. in Matt 24:30–31, in turn, the author has melted Mark 13:24–27 and Did. 16.6, 8 together. The sources of Matt 25:31 can be found in Mark 8:38 and Did. 16.8.

54. Thus, especially Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” 197–230; and Joseph Verheyden, “eschatology in the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew,” van de sandt, Matthew and the Didache, 193–215.

55. Thus John s. Kloppenborg, “Didache 16:6–8 and special Matthaean Tradition,” ZNW 70 (1979): 54–67; Jonathan a. Draper, “The Jesus Tradition in the Didache,” in The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, vol. 5 of Gospel Perspectives, ed.

David Wenham (sheffield: JsOT, 1985), 269–89; Del Verme, Didache and Judaism, 254; and others.

56. Verheyden, “eschatology in the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew,” 201–14.

57. Victoria Balabanski, Eschatology in the Making: Mark, Matthew and the Didache, sNTsMs 97 (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1997), 205. Verheyden, “eschatology in the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew,” 212, thinks somewhat

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

449

the weakness of this theory, because it is very difficult to see how the apocalypse as a post-Matthean instructively and morally oriented desk work could have been a credible exhortation among those who expected the end to come very soon.

Didache 16 is apocalypse oriented toward paraenesis,58 which points to a determined scenario of the end of times.59 The shortness of the text60

and its urgent message, however, raise the question of its specific purpose.61

The author of the text lives in a situation in which ignorance of the eschatological hour forces vigorous vigilance (vv. 1–2). it is noteworthy, however, that the sheep turn into wolves and love turns into hate (v. 3), which means nothing else than that the former believers become enemies.62 This description of the crisis in the community of believers is a common apocalyptical theme, but in my opinion it cannot be explained merely in terms of animal symbolism.63

differently: “One still needs a good deal of eschatological hope kept alive to make this presentation work.”

58. Del Verme, Didache and Judaism, 226–30, correctly stresses that the literary genre of the apocalypse can contain different theological elements.

59. especially the sequence of verbs in the future tense and use of the word τότε

create this impression; see also Del Verme, Didache and Judaism, 231–32.

60. it is controversial whether the conclusion of Did. 16 could be reconstructed partly on the basis of apos. con. 7.32, which includes a short description of the final judgment: the Lord will judge the world seducer (the devil) and all people; the wicked will go to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. according to Niederwimmer, Didache, 269, this text is “a very free rendering of Did 16.” Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 833–34, thinks that the final sentences of apos. con. 7.32 are not the lost ending of Did. 16, because these sentences are in line with dispensing with Did. 16.5. unlike apos. con. 7.32.1–5, Did. 16 does not say that the Lord repays “each according to his deed.” furthermore, in Did. 16 only the destruction of the world seducer is proclaimed, which does not include the separate punishment of hell for the unjust.

61. usually the text of Did. 16 is evaluated more on the basis of its form than its content. so, del Verme, Didache and Judaism, 236–51, emphasizes its ideological connection to the dualistically colored enoch traditions and Qumran texts.

62. Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, 179.

63. Thus Del Verme, Didache and Judaism, 232, who emphasizes the question of genre. in his summary he describes the purpose of the author as follows: “his aim was to provide a sort of ‘synthesis’ of specific traditions and doctrines, previously active but which were now being re-interpreted in the light of the new community context of which he is a member” (262).

450

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

an alternative interpretation of the apocalypse takes as its starting point the most likely idea that the author addresses believers who know quite well the false prophets, serious divisions in their communities, as well as the growing hostility of the outsiders by their social position and their own lives. in such times, it is necessary for their salvation that they come together often and focus on the essential things in their lives (v. 2).

in the final days this is precisely the way to “perfection.” in the middle stands the oppressed and persecuted community whose members may betray their own brothers and sisters. The crucial question for the interpretation is whether this situation of persecution and betrayal is a present reality for the first readers of the text. if this is acknowledged, there is no other credible syro-Palestinian context in which these instructions might be conceivable except the situation of the Jewish War (see Mark 13:12; Matt 24:10, 12). in contrast to the Markan apocalypse, the synagogue and the leading Jews are not stamped as enemies of the community (Mark 13:9; par. Luke 21:12; see also Matt 10:17). its only enemy is Roman power, the emperor of which is described as the seducer of the world. it is hard to imagine another specific person or merely mythological figure that the author might wish to indicate for his readers. it is meaningful to claim that the Roman emperor believes himself to be the son of God and that he wants to have the world in his power. his signs, wonders, and sacrilegious acts culminate in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.64 compared to the synoptic apocalypses, it is noteworthy that the eschatological turn following the persecution is not directly related to the destruction of the temple and its consequences (Matt 24:15–20). in spite of this, it is possible that the outrageous evil deeds (ἀθεμίτα) of the world seducer point to the acts of war, which lead to the destruction of the temple.65

for these reasons i think it is justified to assume that the apocalypse of the Didache used, independently of Mark and Matthew, the apocalyptic tradition known from the synoptic Gospels. further, it can be assumed that Did. 16 was added to the Two Ways treatise in the context of the 64. suetonius, Vesp. 5 reports how emperor Vespasian during his stay in Judea got a very favorable answer to all his plans from carmelus, an oracle of God.

65. some scholars see in the evil deeds, which have not happened since eternity (see Dan 12:1), the persecution of christians; thus Niederwimmer, Didache, 262–63; Verheyden, “eschatology in the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew,” 205. This interpretation is based on v. 5 in which the “fire of testing” would point at the situation of the christians. Verses 4–5, however, are separated from each other with the word τότε.

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

451

Jewish War. The vaticinium ex eventu covers Did. 16.3–4, while verses 5–6

point toward future events.

2.5. Didache 6 between the Two Ways Treatise and the apocalypse (Didache 16)

following the argument presented above, the author of the epistle of Barnabas knew the extended version of the Two Ways treatise (Did. 1–6, 16) and used it as a source. Because of the address in the plural in 5.2 and the thematic transition from the teaching of the Two Ways to the apocalypse, i suppose that Did. 6 was added in two stages to Did. 1–5, 16. first, an editor added 6.1 to make a connection between the treatise and the apocalypse.

The words μή τις σε πλανήσῃ stem from the language of the apocalypse (see Matt 24:4), but are introduced following the style of the Two Ways treatise as a general warning: the believers should walk on the way of life and listen to no one who try to teach them “without God,” that is, without the law. Therefore, it is easiest to assume that with this expression the editor condemns those who reject the law; it is not hard to imagine that he has in mind those who follow the teachings of Paul (cf. Rom 3:21).

in the Didache (unlike in the Doctrina apostolorum66), verses 2–3

follow the first verse. it is wrong to teach without the law, and only such a believer who is completely faithful to the law can be called “perfect” (see 1 cor 2:6). The yoke of the law and the yoke of the Lord are identical.

if the dating of the apocalypse immediately after the Jewish War is correct, Did. 6 should be seen as a relatively late addition to the treatise. here there is nothing left of the fervent eschatological expectation of Did. 16.

The idea of perfection, which in Did. 16 is related to the close expectation of the end and attachment to the community, is here seen in the context of perfect fulfilment of the law. The lack of anti-Jewish polemics in the Two Ways treatise as well as in the apocalypse indicates that the two pieces were 66. The individual eschatology in Doctr. 6.1, 4–5 cannot prove the theory presented here, but it makes the rejection of the apocalypse at least understandable. Verse 1 is formulated in more general terms than its parallel in Did. 6.1, because there have been a lot of teachers who teach extra disciplinam. Verses 4–5 emphasize the daily exercise of the way of life as a guarantee for salvation. The struggle of the believer is portrayed as a mental process, and the community dimension of the treatise has been completely set aside. i think it is quite possible that these two verses have replaced the apocalypse; v. 6 is a later addition.

452

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

produced among Jewish christians loyal to the Torah. Didache 6.2–3, in turn, indicates a later situation in which a Jewish christian teacher draws the attention of believers among the gentiles to the whole yoke of the Lord.

The concessive tone of these verses indicates that he knows well that it has become very difficult to encourage gentile christians to perfect obedience to the Mosaic law.

some scholars have seen an original connection between 6.2–3 and the instruction for baptism in 7.1–4.67 Both passages are formulated as concessive. Nothing seems to indicate that the executor of the baptism should necessarily be a leader. it is nevertheless important to see that the address in 7.1 is formulated in the plural. Willy Rordorf suggests that the address in 6.3 must have been in the plural, because eating of idol meat in apos.

con. 7.21 is forbidden in the plural (ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων φεύγετε).68

This assumption is problematic, because the baptismal instruction in Did.

7.2–4 is thoroughly formulated in the singular, which is probably the original formulation. The editor who has inserted the piece on baptism into the extended treatise (Did. 1–6, 16) considered it necessary to formulate the first sentence in the plural, despite the preceding singular address in the treatise. Therefore, i think that it is justified to assume that in the baptismal instruction the community was originally addressed as a collective and the focus on the individual performer of the rite was developed later.

Precisely here is the difference between the exhortations in Did. 1–6 and 7.1: in the Two Ways treatise an individual believer is instructed about the way of life, while in 7.1 the discourse is about a collective cultic act. it depends on the community who is allowed to perform baptisms.

Behind Did. 7.1–4, there is an earlier Jewish christian version of baptismal instruction. Both the reference to the father, son, and the holy spirit, as well as the plural form of address in 7.1, are secondary. Through the addition of the baptismal instructions, the treatise became a kind of catechism, and the discourse as a whole was on the way to becoming a church order. The apocalypse had already become an integral part of the text before this stage. Later it was considered to reflect an eschatological outlook, details of which no longer corresponded to the social reality of the readers.

67. Willy Rordorf, “Le baptême selon la Didachè,” in Mélanges liturgiques, ed. Bernard Botte (Leuven: abbaye du Mont césar, 1972), 500–503; Draper, “continuing enigma,” 115–17.

68. Rordorf, “Le baptême selon la Didachè,” 500.

MYLLYKOsKi: WiThOuT DecRee

453

3. summary

in my presentation i have tried to argue for the following theses and conclusions:

(1) The apostolic Decree in acts 15:20, 29 does not go back to a formal decision of an apostolic meeting, but to a tradition known by Luke.

(2) The Two Ways treatise in Did. 1–5 originated in Jewish christian circles.

(3) The short Jewish christian apocalypse in Did. 16 is a piece added to the Two Ways treatise immediately after the sentence in the plural in 5.2. it stems from the situation of the Jewish War.

(4) The following addition Did. 6.1 (and Doctr. 6.1) is influenced by the seductive topic of the apocalypse, but its original form in the Didache indicates that it targeted people who taught about faith without the law, that is, to Paulinists.

(5) in the next stage of the literary development of the Didache, the Jewish War already lay in the past and the treatise is more and more extended to gentile christians. Next, the prohibition of idol meat is added in 6.2–3 after 6.1. The bearing of the whole yoke of the Lord, both the ethical and ritual law, is presented to the gentiles as perfection. But at the same time, these verses are concessive: not all believers can or must be perfect. Only eating idol meat is expressly prohibited.

(6) Bearing the entire yoke of the Lord as a sign of perfection in Did. 6.2 points to those who fulfill not only the Decalogue, but also the ritual law. These people have special dignity in mixed communities. corresponding to the concessive tone of the prohibition in Did. 6.2 reflects a situation in which the

“perfect” christian teachers have full authority to interpret the prohibition in these communities. The same also applies to the four statutes that Luke lists in acts 15:29 as the so-called apostolic Decree.

another Gospel: exploring early christian Diversity with Paul and the Didache

Taras Khomych

The issue of diversity in early christianity has recently attracted a lively scholarly interest. in this field of research, the Didache has received relatively limited attention. This essay seeks to contribute to the discussion by juxtaposing the notion of εὐαγγέλιον as found in the Didache to that of the Pauline epistles. it is generally recognized that the Pauline gospel was focused unambiguously on the Lord Jesus christ, particularly emphasizing his death and resurrection. as opposed to Paul, the Didache is notably not centered on christology. This document presents Jesus as God’s servant, who revealed the will of the Lord God. accordingly, the term εὐαγγέλιον, which reappears four times in this short text, can hardly be associated with the death and resurrection of Jesus christ. as a matter of fact, these topics, which are crucial for Paul, are not even mentioned in the Didache. The notion of εὐαγγέλιον, however, is found there predominantly in the paraenetical context. The evidence of the Didache, remarkably different from that of the Pauline epistles, which is echoed in the rest of the New Testament, yields invaluable information about the origins of christianity. This article highlights the importance of the Didache, insisting that its investigation would advance on-going research on the diversity in early christianity.

1. Research into Primitive christian Diversity

The research into diversity in early christianity tends to become an increasingly divided area of investigations today. Whereas Walter Bauer, whose groundbreaking study marked an important leap in the critical

-455 -

456

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

reflection on this subject matter,1 included a broad scope of early christian literature,2 most of contemporary scholarship tends to focus instead on a more limited number of sources. as a result, some early christian documents receive a lot of scholarly attention, while others are often dealt with only occasionally. New Testament theology, for instance, which attracts an impressive scholarly interest nowadays, focuses only on canonical books.

in this field of research the question of diversity is related mainly to the differences between, and individuality of, particular New Testament writings.3 This diversity is then usually interpreted through the prism of an overarching unity of the New Testament.4 On the other hand, a growing body of studies of early christian gnostic literature points to a radical diversity of theological viewpoints even within so-called “Gnosticism,”5 to 1. Walter Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, 2nd ed., BhT 10 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 1964). for an overview of early reactions to Bauer’s thesis, see the following english version of a supplementary essay to the second German edition of the Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei: Georg strecker, “The Reception of the Book,” in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, ed. Robert a. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel (Philadelphia: fortress, 1971), 286–316. for evaluations of later discussions, see Daniel J. harrington, “The Reception of Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and heresy in earliest christianity during the Last Decade,” HTR 73 (1980): 289–98; Lewis ayres, “The Question of Orthodoxy,” JECS 14 (2006): 395–98. One of the recent discussions of Bauer’s thesis can be found in Bart D. ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York: Oxford university Press, 2003), 172–80.

2. although in Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei, Bauer focuses mostly on the second and the third century evidence, he deals there also with the New Testament sources, albeit to a lesser extent. his engagement with biblical scholarship, however, is well known thanks to his monumental work Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (BDaG).

3. for helpful overviews of recent (and not only recent) research on the matter, see frank Matera, “New Testament Theology: history, Method, and identity,” CBQ 67

(2005): 1–21; c. Kavin Rowe, “New Testament Theology: The Revival of a Discipline. a Review of Recent contributions to the field,” JBL 125 (2006): 393–410; Jens schröter, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons, WuNT 204 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2007), 355–77. see also Don a. carson, “Locating udo schnelle’s Theology of the New Testament in the contemporary Discussion,” JETS 53 (2010): 133–41.

4. There is currently no consensus, however, as to what exactly constitutes the unity of New Testament theology.

5. see, e.g., elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random house, 1979); Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism? (cambridge: harvard university Press, 2003);

KhOMYch: aNOTheR GOsPeL

457

use a conventional, although not unproblematic, umbrella term.6 in this case, however, scholars deal with documents from the second century on, which have rather limited value for the reconstruction of the first century developments in the Jesus movement.7 More general historical-theological investigations of christian origins usually do not follow strictly the sola scriptura approach, characteristic for New Testament theology, and yet they tend to pay only scant attention to the extrabiblical sources, especially such as the writings of the apostolic fathers composed in the first and second centuries.8 accordingly, the New Testament books (particularly the Pauline epistles and acts) serve as the only source for the reconstruction of the most primitive stages of developing christianity,9 notwithstanding that many scholars would recognize that reconstruction as rather simplified.10 in the present article, i would like to address this issue by pointing christoph Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction (London: T&T clark, 2003); David Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (cambridge: harvard university Press, 2010).

6. On the problems related to the use of the term and the category of “Gnosticism,” see Michael a. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton university Press, 1996); King, What is Gnosticism, 5–19, 218–38.

7. some scholars tend to interpret the Gospel of Thomas as a first-century document; see e.g. elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York: Vintage, 2003. There is, however, no consensus regarding this issue. a number of researchers prefer to date this text to the mid-second century, arguing in particular for its dependence on the synoptics; so recently Mark Goodacre, Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Gospels (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2012).

8. see, e.g., N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, 3 vols.

(Minneapolis: fortress, 1992–2003; James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2003–2008); Ron cameron and Merrill P. Miller, eds., Redescribing Christian Origins, sBLsyms 28 (atlanta: society of Biblical Literature, 2004).

9. The value of Pauline evidence for the reconstruction of the theological milieu of first generation christians has recently been emphasized in Larry h. hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2003), 79–216, and even more strongly in Jeffrey Peterson, “The extent of christian Theological Diversity: Pauline evidence,” ResQ 47 (2005): 1–12. While Peterson’s insistence on the importance of the corpus Paulinum for our understanding of christian origins should not be undermined, his view that Paul provides reliable evidence for a theological uniformity in the first three decades of the christian movement needs to be challenged.

10. Burton L. Mack, “On Redescribing christian Origins,” MTSR (1996): 247–67.

458

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

to a valuable first century piece of evidence, namely the Didache, one of the writings regarded as a part of the corpus patrum apostolicorum, which receives very limited attention in the present quest for christian origins.11

This contribution seeks to fill in this gap by comparing the message of the Didache with that of the Pauline epistles. in order to make our investigation more specific we choose the notion of εὐαγγέλιον, which expresses the core of Paul’s teaching and is important also in the Didache. Our examination of this term will be accompanied by further observations about and comparison of more general theological message(s) of the two writings.

2. Pauline epistles and the Didache: introductory issues Before comparing the letters of Paul with the Didache, it is important to establish how these two pieces of literature relate to each other. The question of the possible literary relationship between the Didache and the New Testament in general is highly complex.12 Whereas early scholarship on the Didache tended to argue for its literary dependence on virtually all the New Testament writings,13 most contemporary scholars have become 11. it is worth noting, however, that the Didache has received increasing attention in the field of liturgical studies; see Paul f. Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins (Oxford: sPcK, 2004); Gerard Rouwhorst, “Didache 9–10: a Litmus Test for the Research on early christian Liturgy eucharist,” in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish Christian Milieu? ed. huub van de sandt (assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: fortress, 2005), 143–56; Jonathan schwiebert, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom: The Didache’s Meal Ritual and Its Place in Early Christianity, LNTs 373

(London: T&T clark, 2008); etc.

12. for a useful survey of research on this question see Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, trans. Linda M. Maloney, hermeneia (Minneapolis: fortress, 1998), 42–52.

13. Thus, J. armitage Robinson characterized the Didache as a “perverse imitation, almost a parody” of certain New Testament texts (“The Problem of the Didache,”

JTS 13 (1912): 339–56 [347]; Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache [London: sPcK, 1920]). This view gained much support from a number of scholars, including R. h.

connolly, “The use of the Didache in the Didascalia,” JTS 24 (1923): 147–57; “The Didache in Relation to the epistle of Barnabas,” JTS 33 (1932): 237–53; “The Didache and Montanism,” DRev 55 (1937): 339–47; James Muilenburg, The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Ph.D. Diss., university of Marburg, 1929); f. c. Burkitt, “Barnabas and the Didache,” JTS 32 (1931): 25–27; and W. Telfer, “The ‘Didache’ and the apostolic synod in antioch,” JTS 40 (1939): 133–46, 258–271; “The ‘Plot’ of the Didache,” JTS 45 (1944): 141–51.

KhOMYch: aNOTheR GOsPeL

459

increasingly skeptical about this issue.14 With respect to the Pauline epistles, there is an overwhelming consensus that the Didache and the Pauline writings do not exhibit any literary relationship.15 To point to further distinctions between the two sources, the Didache and epistles belong to two different literary genres. The corpus Paulinum is an example of epistolary genre, whereas the Didache is usually classified as a church order,16

although an increasing number of scholars today find this definition mis-leading17 and tend to identify the text as a “community rule,” analogous 14. This difference can clearly be demonstrated by comparing two publications by the same author, f. e. Vokes, on the Didache. in The Riddle of the Didache: Fact or Fiction, Heresy or Catholicism? (London: sPcK, 1938), Vokes followed closely the thesis of armitage Robinson about the Didache’s dependence on the letter of Barnabas and on various New Testament writings. Later on, however, he presented this issue in a much more nuanced way; see “Life and Order in an early church: The Didache,” ANRW 2.27.1, 209–33. With respect to the writings of the apostolic fathers more generally, a comparison of the influential reference work of the Oxford society of historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: clarendon, 1905) with the relevant contributions in andrew f. Gregory and christopher M.

Tuckett, eds., The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers: The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2005), published to celebrate the centenary of the earlier volume is illuminating. as a matter of fact, the change of the general approach to this field of study is readily visible from the very titles of these publications, as the preposition “in” of the 1905 publication is substituted by the coordinating conjunction “and” in 2005.

15. christopher M. Tuckett, “The Didache and the Writings that Later formed the New Testament,” in Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, vol.

1 in Gregory and Tuckett, New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, 91–93. see also andreas Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion, BhT

58 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 1979); “Paul in the Writings of the apostolic fathers,”

in Paul and the Legacies of Paul, ed. William s. Babcock (Dallas: southern Methodist university Press, 1990), 25–45.

16. see, e.g., Niederwimmer, Didache.

17. so recently, Joseph G. Mueller, “The ancient church Order Literature: Genre or Tradition?” JECS 15 (2007): 337–80. Mueller argues that the expression “church order literature” is misleading and inappropriate not only for the Didache, but also for all other early christian documents composed during the period of the first six centuries ce, which are usually called so from the seventeenth century on. The author observes that this expression refers primarily to the collections of laws governing church life that were composed during the period of the Reformation. Despite apparent similarities between the Reformation Kirchenordnungen and the ancient chris-

460

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

to that of the Qumran scrolls.18 Whatever the correct definition of the literary form of the Didache, the basic difference of genre for these two consists in the fact that the epistles tend to focus on a particular situation, while the Didache provides more general regulations,19 unrelated (at least ostensibly) to any specific circumstances. These differences should not prevent us, however, from comparing these writings. One of the most important reasons for such comparisons is the antiquity of the documents.

The undisputed Pauline epistles are usually recognized to have been written between 50 and 65 ce. although there is no consensus regarding the time of the final composition of the Didache,20 many scholars place it at the end of the first century. Taking into consideration the Didache’s explicitly Jewish character and a very primitive form of institutions and ministries reflected in the document,21 more recent studies tend to favor an even earlier date of its composition.22 however that may be, most researchers tian texts, the association is rather misleading. The latter should better be understood against the background of ancient Jewish exegetical tradition.

18. Jonathan a. Draper, “The Didache in Modern Research: an Overview,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1–42; aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE (New York: Newman, 2003), xvi–xvii.

19. The text of the Didache can roughly be divided into four unequal parts: (1) the Two Ways teaching (chapters 1–6), (2) liturgical instructions (chapters 7–10), (3) regulations concerning community life (chapters 11–15), and (4) eschatological warnings (chapter 16).

20. for the status quaestionis on the Didache, see clayton N. Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Vcsup 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 1–21; Vokes,

“Life and Order in an early church,” 209–33; Draper, “Didache in Modern Research,”

1–42. for an annotated bibliography, see Marcello Del Verme, Didache and Judaism: Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work (London: T&T clark, 2004).

21. interestingly, the document refers to the ministry of itinerant apostles, which appear as present-day functionaries visiting the addresses of the Didache (11.3–6). see Jonathan a. Draper, “apostles, Teachers and evangelists: stability and Movement of functionaries in Matthew, James, and the Didache,” in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. huub van de sandt and Jürgen K. zangenberg, sBLsyms 45 (atlanta: society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 155–58; Taras Khomych, “Diversity of the Notion of apostolicity in the Writings of the apostolic fathers,” in Heiligkeit und Apostolizität der Kirche, ed. Theresia hainthaler, franz Mali, and Gregor emmenegger (innsbruck: Tyrolia, 2010), 44.

22. Milavec argues forcefully for a very early date behind the composition of the Didache as a whole, as the title of his book implies (see n. 18). Draper (ibid.), on the other hand, suggests that an earlier form of this document preceded the Gospel of

KhOMYch: aNOTheR GOsPeL

461

are inclined to agree that at least some parts of the Didache, such as the Two Ways section (1–6) and the eucharistic prayers (9–10), could be dated to the mid-first century ce.23 since a number of scholars recognize the antiquity of the (parts of the) Didache, it is not unwarranted to compare the Pauline epistles and the Didache as precious evidence of the earliest developments in the Jesus movement.24 Before examining and comparing the use of the notion of εὐαγγέλιον in both writings, we will address briefly the question of its derivation.

3. early christian use οf Εὐαγγέλιον

Origins of christian usage of the term εὐαγγέλιον remain quite obscure.

The available literary evidence permits at best a fragmentary reconstruction of the usage of this word prior to the mid-first century ce. The εὐαγγέλ-words appear in ancient Greek and hellenistic literature.25 in classical Greek the noun had the meaning of “reward for good news,” whereas in Roman times εὐαγγέλιον was used to designate the “good news” itself.26

Matthew. in a similar vein, alan Garrow argues that Matthew is dependent on various redactional layers of the Didache; see alan J. P. Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache, JsNTsup 254 (London: T&T clark, 2004).

23. for an excellent study of the Jewish background of the Didache, see huub van de sandt and D. flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, cRiNT 3.5 (assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: fortress, 2002).

24. so recently, Magnus zetterholm, “The Didache, Matthew, James, and Paul: Reconstructing historical Development in antioch,” in van de sandt and zangenberg, Matthew, James, and Didache, 73–90. see also David flusser, “Paul’s Jewish-christian Opponents in the Didache,” Draper, Didache in Modern Research, 195–211. The author focuses, however, only on Did. 6.2–3, dealing with the question of perfection. flusser argues that this passage “reflects the position of the majority in the Mother church towards the Gentile christian believers while Paul’s attitude was more unusual and therefore revolutionary” (195). Joel Willitts, however, criticizes flusser’s attempt to juxtapose Paul and the Didache, suggesting that Did. 6.2–3 is not in conflict with Pauline perspective (“Paul and Jewish christians in the second century,” in Paul and the Second Century, ed. Michael f. Bird and Joseph R. Dodson, LNTs 412 (London: T&T clark, 2011), 152–54.

25. see “εὐαγγέλιον,” LsJ 704–5. see also “εὐαγγέλιον,” BDaG 402–3; G. strecker,

“εὐαγγέλιον,” EDNT 2:70–74; G. friedrich, “εὐαγγελίζομαι κτλ,” TDNT 2:707–37

(here 708–12, 719–23).

26. helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: scM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990), 1–2.

462

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

for our present purpose it is sufficient to mention two features relative to use prior to the emergence of christianity.

(1) in the septuagint the verb εὐαγγέλίζεσθαι is used in a theological context, referring to the proclamation of the rule of YhWh. in Deutero-isaiah in particular, εὐαγγέλίζεσθαι, a Greek equivalent of the hebrew root רשב,27 appears in the sense “to proclaim good news” of the salvation of israel.28 This verb relates to the activity of the God of israel during and after the return of the people from Babylon to zion in this context. The messenger of the good news (רשבמ) proclaims peace, salvation, and the victory of YhWh over the entire world (isa 52:7). This very proclamation ushers in the new era so that the proclamation itself, expressed through the verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, has an effective power. although it might be tempting to draw parallels with the New Testament use of the same notion, it cannot be proven that the same idea of the good news was widespread in first-century Judaism,29 and, even if it was, a more problematic question of its impact on the New Testament authors remains.30 This problem of the relationship between the Old Testament and New Testament use of the notion comes into sharper focus in the light of a philological problem that the singular neuter τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, characteristic of christian usage, does not appear in the septuagint. Besides the verb, the LXX employs only the feminine singular noun ἡ εὐαγγελία for “good news” (2 Kgdms 18:20, 22, 25, 27; 4 Kgdms 7:9) and the neuter plural τὰ εὐαγγέλια for “reward for the good news” (2 Kgdms 4:10),31 both related to victory in the battlefield.

(2) The neuter εὐαγγέλιον, however, appears in nonbiblical literature.

Besides the classical Greek usage (see above), it is noteworthy that the noun occurs as an important religious notion in the context of the imperial cult, referring to significant events such as birth and accession to the 27. R. ficker, “mlk,” TLOT 2:669.

28. see EDNT 2:69; TDNT 2:708–709, 716–17.

29. There is too little evidence for this. Philo and Josephus tend to employ the cognate verb εὐαγγελίζειν in the sense in which it is used in the Roman imperial cult.

see EDNT 2:69; TDNT 2:712–14.

30. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 3.

31. so albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2007); T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 297. But J. Lust et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), 247, translates the latter instance as “good tidings, good news.”

KhOMYch: aNOTheR GOsPeL

463

throne of a deity in human form, the emperor.32 in particular, this term appears in the famous Priene inscription (9 Bce) related to the introduction of the Julian calendar, which came into force in 45 Bce as part of the religious political propaganda of Julius caesar.33 The most interesting lines for our purposes read as follows:

ἤρξεν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ τῶν δἰ αὐτὸν εὐαγγελί[ων ἡ γενέθλιον] τοῦ θεοῦ34

But the birthday of the god was for the world the beginning of tidings of joy on his account.35

augustus is presented here as savior and god, proclaiming a new rule that ushers in the new age of peace and salvation.36 in this context the combination of the terms σωτήρ, θεός, and εὐαγγέλιον are particularly reminiscent of christian use.37 Would it be surprising if early followers of Jesus, 32. adolf Deismann, Light from the Ancient East, trans. Lionel R. M. strachan (London: hodder & stoughton, 1910), 370–72; trans. of Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 1908), 313–14. for more recent surveys of the ancient documentary examples of the εὐαγγελ- words and excellent discussions of them, see G. h. R. horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (syndey: Macquarie university, 1981), 3:10–15; ceslas spicq, Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire, OBO 22.1–3

(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 3:296–306. see also William horbury,

“‘Gospel’ in herodian Judaea,” in The Written Gospel, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Donald a. hagner (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 2005), 7–30.

33. it is worth noting, however, that the plural τὰ εὐαγγέλια was used in a similar context of ruler worship even earlier, as it is attested by hellenistic inscriptions from the fourth century Bce; see Wilhelm Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (Leipzig: hirzel, 1903), 1:4.42 (εὐαγγέλια καὶ σωτήρια ε[θ]υσε); see also 1:6.31–32

(θῦσαι δὲ καὶ [εὐ]αγγέλια τὴν πόλιν).

34. The Greek text is quoted according to Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 2:458.40–42.

35. The english translation is taken from Deismann, Light from the Ancient East, 371.

36. a similar use of the term εὐαγγέλιον is also attested in Josephus. in B.J. 2.420, it appears in singular but without the article in the sense of “good news” to florus about the civil strife. in 4.618 and 4.656, it occurs in the plural referring to the eleva-tion of Vespasian as caesar. see steve Mason, ed., Judean War 2, vol. 1b of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2008, 321 n. 2641. in Philo the noun is not attested, see Peder Borgen, Kåre fuglseth, and Roald skarsten, The Philo Index (Grand Rapids: eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 2000).

37. The term σωτήρ appears a few lines above the quoted text; see Dittenberger,

464

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

proclaiming the gospel just a few decades later, were influenced to some extent by this augustan use of the term εὐαγγέλιον?38

The two points mentioned above, the meaning of the verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι in the LXX and use of the noun τὸ εὐαγγέλιον in the Roman imperial cult, yield valuable material illuminating early christian background to the use of the notion εὐαγγέλιον. scholars discussing this subject matter tend to emphasize alternately either the scriptural influ-ence39 or impact of the Greco-Roman ruler-cult40 on the christian use of εὐαγγελ- words. some disputants take a mediating position, suggesting that both factors exercised important influence on primitive christianity.41

it must be acknowledged, however, that arguments in the discussion are not conclusive.42 With the evidence available to date, it is not possible to Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 2:458.36. Note further the plural form of εὐαγγέλιον in the inscription.

38. so Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 4, mentioning, however, that many scholars are rather hesitant to make this connection. Thus Nigel Turner, for instance, preoccupied with a rather speculative idea of a “sacred Greek” presumably developed in primitive christianity, confidently states that “the first christians would not be aware of so definitive a use of the word and would be likely to avoid the association even if they were” (Nigel Turner, Christian Words [edinburgh: Nelson, 1980], 190).

criticising this way of dealing with the evidence, horsley correctly points out that

“Turner’s case depends on the transparent fallacy that if only one attestation survives the word was employed only once” (horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 5:4).

39. for a useful summary of this position and bibliographical references, see h. frankemölle, Evangelium—Begriff und Gattung: Ein Forschungsbericht (stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994), 76–86. The following references can be added now: P.

stuhlmacher, “The Theme: The Gospel and the Gospels” and “The Pauline Gospel,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. Peter stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1991), 1–25 and 149–72; Martin hengel and a. M. schwemer, Paulus Zwischen Damascus und Antiochien: Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels, WuNT 108 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 1998).

40. see again frankemölle, Evangelium, 86–93; and also Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 3–4; Graham N. stanton, Jesus and Gospel (New York: cambridge university Press, 2004), 20–35.

41. More recently, horbury (“Gospel”), offering a helpful fresh overview of the subject matter, argued at first for the convergence of the influences of the hebrew scriptures and of the emperor cult in herodian Judaea (i.e., the Roman province of Judea in the period between 40 Bce till about 100 ce). eventually, however, he emphasized the importance of the scripture over against the ruler cult.

42. so frankemölle, Evangelium, 93–96.

KhOMYch: aNOTheR GOsPeL

465

clearly demonstrate whether, how, and to what extent the ideas and the vocabulary mentioned above influenced the earliest christian writings.

The question of the origin of early christian use of the term thus cannot be answered unequivocally. for the particular meaning(s) of εὐαγγέλιον

and its cognates, we need to rely on the pertinent christian texts, although the two points mentioned above should not be neglected either.

4. Gospel of christ Jesus: Pauline evidence

Many scholars tend to ascribe the application of the singular noun τὸ

εὐαγγέλιον, in the sense of “the salvific good news,” to Pauline authorship.43

While this can be debated, in terms of the use of the notion εὐαγγέλιον

Paul certainly holds a place of honor, as most of the New Testament references to this term appear in his epistles. Out of seventy-six occurrences in the entire New Testament, this noun reappears some forty-eight times44 in the undisputed Pauline epistles,45 and this frequent use of the notion testifies to its importance for the apostle.

43. so James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1998), 168. Two points are worth mentioning in this respect. first of all, in almost half of the instances, including the earliest epistles (e.g., 1 Thess 2:4), Paul uses the noun in the absolute, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, without any further explanation. This suggests that the word already functions as a technical term in the Pauline epistles, which in turn implies that this notion was introduced prior to the appearance of Paul’s writings. secondly, in his early letters Paul refers to the teaching(s) of his opponents with the same term εὐαγγέλιον (Gal 1:6; 2 cor 11:4). This use of the noun might suggest that εὐαγγέλιον has the technical meaning not only for Paul and his followers, but also for those whose teaching(s) Paul renounces and who could scarcely be suspected of accepting any Pauline innovation. This evidence, however, is not conclusive, since in this case we rely on the words of Paul and do not know whether the opponents themselves used the term. Taking all of this into account, it may be concluded that the noun τὸ εὐαγγέλιον was known within the early Jesus movement prior to the appearance of Pauline writings. it is not possible to establish, however, whether this term was introduced by the apostle to the gentiles or not.

44. Out of the forty-eight references, the following ones are absolute: Rom 1:16; 10:16; 11:28; 1 cor 4:15; 9:14 (twice); 9:18 (twice); 9:23; 2 cor 8:18; Gal 2:5, 14; Phil 1:5, 7, 12, 16, 27; 2:22; 4:3, 15; 1 Thess 2:4. The other references are with a genitive (of object or subject).

45. Robert Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes, 4th ed.

(zürich: Gotthelf, 1992), 101. for a more detailed overview of the occurrences in Paul,

466

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

for Paul the εὐαγγέλιον is a message, first and foremost. This message is to be proclaimed (1 Thess 2:9; Gal 2:2), made known (1 cor 15:1), taught (Gal 1:12), presented for discussion (Gal 2:2), and received (2 cor 11:4).46

it is worth noting that Paul does not refer to any written source with the term εὐαγγέλιον. This notion instead stands for the proclaimed47 message in his epistles.

as for the content, in the Pauline writings the core of the gospel message is encapsulated in passages such as Rom 1:1–4 and 1 cor 15:1–5. The former passage runs as follows:48

1Paul, a slave of christ Jesus, called [to be] an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which he promised previously through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3concerning his son, who was born a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared son of God in power according to the holy spirit by the resurrection from the dead of Jesus christ our Lord.

1Παῦλος δοῦλος ‹Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ› κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος

εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ 2ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν

γραφαῖς ἁγίαις 3περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος

Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα 4τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα

ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν

at the beginning of this passage (1:1) the term appears in a genitive construction with a modifying θεοῦ. This phrase can either be an objective or see Peter stuhlmacher, Vorgeschichte, vol. 1 of Das paulinische Evangelium, fRLaNT

95 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 56–60.

46. TDNT 2:730.

47. Most scholars tend to use the term “to preach” in this context, emphasizing thus a verbal aspect in the process of transmission of the “good news.” Paul, however, employs different terms, as mentioned above. in this respect, following more recent research (see especially Dominka a. Kurek-chomycz, “Performing the Passion, embodying Proclamation: The story of Jesus’s Passion in the Pauline Letters?”

in Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and in Biblical Scholarship, ed.

chrestos Karakolis, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, and s. Rogalsky, WuNT 1/288 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2012], 373–402), i prefer the verb “to proclaim,” which has a broader spectrum of meanings than “to preach.”

48. The letters of Paul are quoted according to the edition of the Michael W.

holmes, The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (atlanta: sBL Press, 2010); the english translation is that of the LeB, a new translation based on the holmes, Greek New Testament (http://www.lexhamenglishbible.com/).

KhOMYch: aNOTheR GOsPeL

467

a subjective genitive. in this case God is probably the source of the gospel, since its content is mentioned further in 1:3 (περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ). The apostle then points out that the εὐαγγέλιον was “promised previously through his [God’s] prophets,” thus claiming scriptural foundation for the

“gospel” (1:2). having said this, Paul discloses the kernel of his gospel message, focusing on God’s son (1:3). Paul exalts Jesus first as the “seed of David,” implying most probably his messianic descent.49 Because of the power shown in Jesus’s resurrection, at the same time he is celebrated as the divinely appointed “son of God.”50 from then on Paul emphasizes the role of the son of God, counterbalancing eventually the initial expression the “gospel of God” with the phrase the “gospel of [God’s] son” (τὸν

εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ) in Rom 1:9.51 This focus on Jesus is even more clearly expressed in 1 cor 15:1–5, which offers one of the most elaborate presentations of the εὐαγγέλιον message. The passage runs as follows: 1Now i make known to you, brothers, the gospel which i proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, 2by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message i proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. 3for i passed on to you as of first importance what i also received, that christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 4and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures, 5and that he appeared to cephas, then to the twelve.

1Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν ἀδελφοί τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν ὃ

καὶ παρελάβετε ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἑστήκατε 2δι’ οὗ καὶ σῴζεσθε τίνι λόγῳ

εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε 3Παρέδωκα

γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν

ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς 4καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ

‹ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ› κατὰ τὰς γραφάς 5καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα

at first Paul reminds the corinthians that it was through him (Paul) that they received the εὐαγγέλιον. he then explains that “the good news” is not his own invention. instead the apostle underscores that he transmits 49. Romans Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, hermeneia (Minneapolis, fortress, 2007), 104.

50. Gordan D. fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, Ma: hendrickson, 2007), 243, sees “the climax of the son of God christology”

in this passage.

51. in Rom 1:1–4, Paul shortly presents these ideas, which he elaborates then in 1:16–8:39; see Jewett, Romans, 97.

468

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

something he has received himself. Paul proclaims the gospel “that christ died for our sins.” While the previous pericope (Rom 1:1–4) does not mention Jesus’s death explicitly, the passage at hand emphasizes the death of Jesus first, as well as its salvific significance (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν).

The other elements of the gospel include the subsequent events of Jesus’s story, namely, his burial, resurrection, and appearance to cephas and the twelve. Overall, the gospel denotes here the most crucial moments in the story of Jesus christ, especially his death and resurrection, and their saving power.52 We may observe thus that in Rom 1:1–4 and, even more explicitly in 1 cor 15:1–5, “the good news” refers primarily to the christ-event.

it is worth noting that Paul sometimes uses the absolute τὸ εὐαγγέλιον

or genitive construction (such as in 2 cor 11:7; Gal 1:7; etc.), which serve the purpose of abbreviated references to the entire gospel message. in a similar way, he employs the verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι or even some other verbs expressing an action of proclamation, such as in 1 cor 11:26. The latter reference is interesting, since in this context Paul introduces his instruction concerning the Lord’s supper with the same formula (ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον

… ὁ καὶ παρέδωκα ὐμῖν ὅτι) as in 1 cor 15:3, which presents the gospel message. in the passage dealing with the meal (more particularly 1 cor 11:23–26), Paul emphasizes again the importance of the death of the Lord and its proclamation.

it can be concluded that Paul’s gospel is focused unambiguously on Jesus christ, the son of God, and to proclaim christ is equal to proclaiming the gospel. as Joseph fitzmyer succinctly put it: “‘Gospel’ is par excellence Paul’s personal way of summing up the significance of the christ-event, the meaning that the person, life, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, and lordship of Jesus of Nazareth had and still has for human history and existence.”53 This Pauline use of the term evokes the LXX

notion of εὐαγγέλιον in as much as both refer to the proclamation of the salvific news of God. Paul, however, emphasizes further the centrality of the christ-event, especially the birth, death, and resurrection, resembling 52. athony c. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NiGTc (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2000), 1184–85. see also Joseph a. fitzmyer, First Corinthians, aYBc 32 (New haven: Yale university Press, 2008), 539–49.

53. Joseph a. fitzmyer, “The Gospel in the Theology of Paul,” Int 33 (1979): 339–50 (italics original).

KhOMYch: aNOTheR GOsPeL

469

the use of the term in the Roman imperial cult with its focus on the significant events in the life of the emperor.

5. Gospel in the Didache

The evidence of the Didache, however, is remarkably different. as opposed to Paul, the Didache is not centered on christology. accordingly, the term εὐαγγέλιον, which reappears four times in this short document, can hardly be associated with the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus christ.

instead, it is found predominantly in the paraenetical context. for the first time the Didache refers to the “good news” as follows:54

8.2 and do not pray as the hypocrites. But as the Lord ordered in his good news. Pray thus:

μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ

εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ, οὕτως προσεύχεσθε [The text of the Lord’s Prayer follows.]

it is worth noting that the text of the prayer that follows agrees, although not entirely,55 with the Matthean version of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9–

13) over against that of Luke (11:2–4).56 Based on the strong verbal correspondence between the two versions of the prayer and some other parallels between Matthew and the Didache, many scholars tend to conclude that in this and all other passages where the term εὐαγγέλιον appears, the Didache refers directly to Matthew. This would imply then that the Didachist, relying on the Gospel of Matthew, shares with or takes over from the latter its message about the significance of the christ event, which in turn appears to correspond to the Pauline teaching.57 This way of reason-54. in this article, the text and the english translation of the Didache are quoted according to Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 12–45 with some slight alterations.

55. The differences include (1) ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ instead of the plural in Matthew; (2) τὴν ὀφειλήν in place of Matthew’s τὰ ὀφειλήματα; (3) ἀφίεμεν for ἀφήκαμεν in Matthew, although ἀφίεμεν is also attested in some manuscripts; (4) and the Didache’s doxology, which is found in some late and less reliable manuscripts of Matthew. further on these points, see Niederwimmer, Didache, 136.

56. it is also worth noting that when the Didache deviates from Matthew in this passage, it does not follow Luke.

57. an overlap between Pauline and Matthean christology includes an impor-

470

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

ing, however, needs to be questioned by challenging the basic assumption that the Didache presupposes the written Gospel of Matthew. since the 1950s, an increasing number of scholars have questioned the alleged link between the term εὐαγγέλιον in the Didache and Matthew, or any other gospel book, pointing out that the passage in question is more likely to refer to a proclaimed than to a written material.58 it is very unlikely that the author of the Didache needed to copy this short prayer, prescribed as lex orandi to be recited three times daily (!), from a written source. Most probably the Didachist quoted it from memory.59 accordingly, the variants in the form of the prayer in Matthew and the Didache most likely reflect the difference in liturgical practices behind the two documents.60 if the Lord’s tant affirmation of Jesus as “christ” and “Lord” (see Joel Willitts, “Paul and Matthew: a Descriptive approach from a Post-New Perspective interpretative framework,” in Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences, ed. Michael f. Bird and Joel Willitts, LNTs 411 [London: T&T clark, 2011], 62–85; Paul foster, “Paul and Matthew: Two strands of the early Jesus Movement with Little sign of connection,”

in Bird and Willits, Paul and the Gospels, 86–114). it is worth remembering, however, that whereas Paul associates the good news primarily with Jesus’s death and resurrection, Matthew does not use the term εὐαγγέλιον with this meaning, combining it instead with the idea of the kingdom of God. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 12.

see also M. eugene Boring, “Gospel, Message,” NiDB 2:629–36 (esp. 635–36).

58. so, e.g., helmut Koester, Synoptische Überlieferungen bei den Apostolischen Vätern, TuGaL 65/5. 10 (Berlin: akademie, 1957), 11; Richard Glover, “The Didache’s Quotations and the synoptic Gospels,” NTS 5 (1958): 12–29.

59. contra James a. Kelhoffer, “‘how soon a Book’ Revisited: ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ as a Reference to ‘Gospel’ Materials in the first half of the second century,” ZNW 95

(2004): 1–34 n. 58. Objecting to Koester’s view that a christian author would know the Lord’s Prayer by heart and would not need to copy it from a written source, Kelhoffer observes that “the instruction of Did. 8.2 is given because of the Didachist’s view of how the faithful should be—but apparently are not—praying. it is precisely for this reason that the Lord’s ‘commandment’ in ‘the Gospel’ is cited at length, because the Didachist’s audience—unlike so many christians today—need this information”

(italics original). This observation, however, does not dismiss the view that the Didachist is quoting from memory. it only problematizes the assumption that the Lord’s Prayer was part of a local liturgical tradition. however, even if the audience of the Didache did not know this prayer, this ignorance cannot be attributed to the person who penned Did. 8.2, including the instruction to repeat the prayer three times a day.

60. On the variants as reflecting different liturgical practices, see already Kirsopp Lake, “Didache,” in The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: clarendon, 1905), 30–31. for a useful recent discussion of the liturgical character of the Lord’s Prayer in the Didache, see stephen e. Young, Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers:

KhOMYch: aNOTheR GOsPeL

471

Prayer in the Didache derives from oral/liturgical tradition, then the term εὐαγγέλιον in 8.2 refers to an orally transmitted message and not written material. The rest of the Didache appears to use εὐαγγέλιον in a similar manner. The relevant passages run as follows:

11.3 and concerning the apostles and prophets, in accordance with the decree of the good news, act thus

περὶ δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου

οὕτω ποιήσατε

15.3 and reprove each other not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the good news.

ἐλέγχετε δὲ αλλήλους μὴ ἐν ὀργῇ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν εἰρήνῃ ὡς ἔχετε ἐν τῷ

εὐαγγελίω

15.4 and your prayers and alms and all actions, do thus as you have it in the good news of our Lord.

τὰς δὲ εὐχὰς ὑμῶν καὶ τὰς ἐλεημοσύνας καὶ πάσας τὰς πράξεις οὕτω

ποιήσατε ως ἔχετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῷ τοῦ κιρίου ἡμῶν

it is worth noting that although the quotations above employ εὐαγγέλιον

in different ways, none of the passages makes it clear whether the “gospel”

is written or not. in this respect, the use of the term in early christian literature may prove illuminating. in the sense of a written book, the word εὐαγγέλιον is securely attested only in Justin Martyr’s works, composed in the middle of the second century ce (Apol. 1.66.3).61 The same term in the Didache, which is usually dated to the turn of the first century at the latest, should not be interpreted in light of the latter work. instead, it is better understood against the backdrop of the first century writings, using Their Explicit Appeals to the Words of Jesus in Light of Orality Studies, WuNT 2/311

(Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2011), 201–25.

On the whole, the question of the Didache’s relationship to the synoptic Gospels has not yet been settled. see a recent exchange in the Journal of Early Christian Studies: christopher M. Tuckett, “The Didache and the synoptics Once More: a Response to aaron Milavec,” JECS 13 (2005): 509–18. This was intended as a response to the following article: aaron Milavec, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited,” JECS 11

(2003): 443–80. Tuckett’s contribution was immediately followed by Milavec’s reply: aaron Milavec, “a Rejoinder [to Tuckett],” JECS 13 (2005): 519–23.

61. “apostles’ memoirs, which are called gospels [ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν

ἀποστόλων ἅ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια]” (ca. 155). see also Dial. 10.2; 100.1 (ca. 160).

472

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

εὐαγγέλιον as a reference to the “good news” proclaimed by the Jesus movement.62 in comparison to Justin Martyr’s writings, there is indeed no clear indication of “writtenness” of εὐαγγέλιον in the Didache.63 We can observe instead a correspondence with the Pauline epistles: the Didache appears to use the term “gospel” in a similar manner as Paul does, namely, as a reference to a proclaimed message.

interestingly enough, εὐαγγέλιον is used to support several exhortations in the Didache. Thus, besides the dominical instructions concerning the daily prayer (8.2), the reference to the εὐαγγέλιον appears to reinforce regulations about treatment of itinerant functionaries (11.3), relationships between the community members (15.3), as well as prayer, almsgiving, and the way of life more in general (15.4) in the Didache. in these passages overall, the term εὐαγγέλιον is related to different regulations.

although focused on praxis, the εὐαγγέλιον of the Didache is not devoid of theological elements. in the discussion of the content of this term scholars usually pay surprisingly little attention to the content of the Lord’s Prayer, which is presented as a part of the “good news.” it is important to note that this prayer is directed to God the father, exhibiting in this way the theo-logical component of the εὐαγγέλιον. it is equally worth observing that at no point in the Didache does εὐαγγέλιον refer to the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus as opposed to the Pauline usage of the term. The Didache gospel is not about the death and resurrection of Jesus. instead, it is a message about God the father and God’s instructions to the faithful.64 This focus on God in the Didache is 62. helmut Koester, “from the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels,” NTS 35

(1989): 361–81; Ancient Christian Gospels, 1–43; R. h. Gundry, “ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ: how soon a Book?” JBL 115 (1996): 321–25; Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 701–2.

63. Gundry, “ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ,” 323. contra James a. Kelhoffer, “how soon a Book”; “‘Gospel’ as a Literary Title in early christianity and the Question of What is (and is Not) a ‘Gospel’ in canons of scholarly Literature,” in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, ed. Jörg frey and Jens schröter, WuNT 254 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2010), 399–422. Kelhoffer aptly problematizes the scholarly view that Marcion of sinope was the first to use the term “gospel” as a designation for a written book/material. his suggestion that the Didache provides the earliest surviving evidence of such a use of the term εὐαγγέλιον is attractive but not entirely convincing. it is not possible to enter into discussion with Kelhoffer’s thesis here, but see my critique of one of his points in n. 59 above.

64. it needs to be recognized that besides clear references to God (θεός and πάτερ) on the one hand and to Jesus (᾿Ιησούς) on the other, the Didache uses a more

KhOMYch: aNOTheR GOsPeL

473

closer to the LXX use of the notion than is that of Paul. This particular use of the word in itself does not obviously imply that the christological kerygma is absent in the Didache. if we turn to the rest of the document, however, we encounter the same lack of elaborate christology.

5.1. eucharist in the Didache

One of the most important theological expressions in the Didache occurs in the body of the eucharistic prayers (Did. 9–10). Kurt Niederwimmer expresses a majority opinion when he states that “this material is without peer in the early christian literature,” as it represents “the oldest formula for christian eucharistic liturgy”65 dating most probably to the mid-first century.66 in this case we have a piece of evidence roughly contemporary with Paul’s missionary activities. This text, however, provoked passionate scholarly debates about the nature of the celebration to which it refers. The problem consists first of all in the fact that Did. 9–10 provides us only with the text of prayers mixed with some instructions on how to conduct the celebration. There is no explanation of the ritual provided. We can hardly expect, however, to find such an explanation in this early christian document. secondly, and more importantly, although the text of the prayers contains very transparent references to the eucharist—using in particular the noun εὐχαριστία (9.1, 5) and the verb εὐχαριστέω (9.1, 2, 3; 10.1, 2, 3, 4, 7), mentioning cup (9.2) and bread (9.3, 4), and even interpreting the eucharistic food and drink as τὸ ἅγιον to be consumed only by those who have been baptized (9.5)—it does not conform to a “normative” pattern of ambiguous term, κύριος (lord). some scholars suggest that the meaning of κύριος

fluctuates in this document, referring sometimes to the “Lord-God” and sometimes—

to the “Lord-Jesus”; so, e.g., J. a. Draper, “The Didache,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed.

Wilhelm Pratscher (Waco, TX: university of Baylor Press, 2010), 7–26. it is worth mentioning, however, that while the Didache employs πάτερ and κύριος interchange-ably (e.g., in chapter 10), it never does the same with the terms κύριος and ᾿Ιησούς.

in view of this and some other features of this document, such as the absence of an elaborate christology, Milavec’s suggestion that the Didache consistently uses κύριος

in the sense of the “Lord-God” appears particularly convincing (see his contribution in this volume).

65. Niederwimmer, Didache, 139.

66. so schwiebert, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom, 110, 121; compare enrico Mazza, The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer, trans. Ronald e. Lane (collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 40–41.

474

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

the sacramental eucharist, which would include the words of institution or at least a reference to christ’s death and resurrection.67 in this respect its overall theological message is remarkably different from that of Paul and the Pauline Lord’s supper with its focus on Jesus’s death in particular (1 cor 11:23–26).68 for the purposes of our research, suffice it to quote here only the beginning of the eucharistic prayers of the Didache, 9.1–2: 9.1 (and) concerning the eucharist, eucharistize thus: Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας οὕτως εὐχαριστήσατε

9.2 first, concerning cup: We give you thanks, our father, for the holy vine of your servant David which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus. To you [is] the glory forever. (emphasis added) πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι πάτερ ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς

ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Δαυεὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ

παιδός σου σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

This passage and the rest of the prayers are directed to God (our father: πάτερ ἡμῶν). Jesus, on the other hand, is presented here as God’s “servant” (παῖς),69 who “revealed/made known” (ἐγνώρισας) the work of the Lord God.70 it is worth noting that the prayers designate Jesus as the “servant” only after they have referred to King David with exactly the same title first. in this context the link between David and Jesus as servant implies comparison between their missions, as aaron Milavec amply notes in his commentary:

David was the servant sent to rescue powerfully and to protect “the holy vine” israel in the name of the father. Jesus, on the other hand, is not named as succeeding David but rather as revealing the election and care 67. for succinct summaries of research on Did. 9–10, see Niederwimmer, Didache, 141–43; Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins, 26–35; Gunnar Garleff, Urchristliche Identität in Matthäusevangelium, Didache und Jakobusbrief, BVB 9 (Münster: LiT, 2004), 150–62.

68. see a detailed comparison of the two (Pauline and Didache) meal traditions in schwiebert, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom, 98–110.

69. The term παῖς may be translated both as “servant” and “child.” The latter meaning, however, is also expressed by the Greek word τέκνον, which appears in Did.

3. Given the presence of τέκνον in the text, it seems more probable that in the eucharistic prayers that the notion παῖς is used with the meaning of “servant.”

70. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 365–71.

KhOMYch: aNOTheR GOsPeL

475

of israel established through the agency of David. according to Did. 9:2, therefore, Jesus … is the “servant” who revealed to us how God once established his kingdom on earth and how, in the future, God will do so again.71

This celebration, in contrast to the Pauline Lord’s supper, shows no reference to Jesus’s death and resurrection. instead, the Didache eucharist emerges essentially as a thanksgiving to the Lord God for the election of the shoot of David,72 which God made known through Jesus. This message is consistent with the content of εὐαγγέλιον as reflected in 8.2, focusing on God the father. The eucharistic prayers (Did. 9–10), which express most sharply the Didache’s teaching about God and Jesus, present the παῖς-christology, very distinct from that found in the Pauline epistles.

6. concluding Remarks

The comparison of the notion εὐαγγέλιον in the corpus Paulinum and in the Didache offers striking results. as far as the meaning of the term is concerned, both writings similarly use εὐαγγέλιον in the sense of a proclaimed message. The content of the good news, however, is remarkably different in these two cases. Whereas in the Pauline epistles εὐαγγέλιον

refers primarily to the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Didache is notably silent about these events, focusing instead on the Lord God and mentioning Jesus as God’s servant. in other words, Paul’s gospel features above all a message of salvation in/through christ, a christologically centered soteriology. in comparison to Paul, the message of the Didache is more theocentric and focused on ethics. These differences between the Pauline epistles and the Didache should be interpreted in the light of the respective views on Jesus and his mission in these writings. in his epistles, 71. ibid., 368. compare Jens schröter, Das Abendmahl: Frühchristliche Deutungen und Impulse für die Gegenwart, sBs 210 (stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006), 69; schwiebert, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom, 83–88.

72. The expression “the holy vine of David” is notably imprecise. it might refer to the grape vine, taking into account that this phrase forms part of the blessing over the cup (of wine). The presence of the adjective “holy” and the reference to David, however, indicate that this expression has a wider field of significance. it appears to refer to israel as the kingdom of David, drawing on a rich symbolic traditions of ancient Judaism; see Jonathan a. Draper, “Ritual Process and Ritual symbol in Didache 7–10,”

VC 54 (2000): 148–51.

476

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

Paul elaborates an exalted christology, presenting Jesus as God’s christ, savior, and Lord. This perspective is evidently missing in the Didache, which envisages Jesus as God’s παῖς who revealed the will of the Lord God. The two types of teachings probably coexisted in the same period, although obviously in different communities/milieus. The evidence of the Didache, remarkably different from that of the Pauline epistles, yields invaluable information about the origins of christianity. further investigation of this document remains a critical scholarly desideratum for ongoing research on diversity in the early Jesus movement.

The first century Two Ways catechesis and hebrews 6:1–6

Matthew Larsen and Michael Svigel

1. introduction

Three ambiguities within heb 6:4–6 have led many interpreters astray.

first, the text seems to describe actual members of the christian community, not pretenders (6:4–5). second, it seems to speak of a true falling away (6:6). and third, it warns of the real impossibility of repentance after the apostasy (6:4, 6). These three obstacles have proved nettlesome for interpreters throughout the reception history of this text. Perhaps as early as the shepherd of hermas (Mand. 4.3.1–7), the belief that christians could not repent of certain sins—based partly on heb 6:4–6—has vexed many readers.1

What does all this have to do with the Didache? in this chapter, we ask what happens when we read heb 6:1–6 in conjunction with the Didache.

While arguing for an analogical, not genealogical, relationship between the Didache and hebrews, we will place the Didache alongside hebrews in order to offer a new reading that we believe will lead to a better interpretation of hebrews. We will suggest that the first-century Two Ways catechetical pattern presents an intriguing historical context for heb 6:1–6, demonstrated through compelling conceptual parallels between the Didache and heb 6:1–2. consequently, in our reading, παραπίπτω in heb 6:6 does not refer to irreversible apostasy, but to a failure to advance on the way of life from the level of catechumen to teacher (5:12–14).

1. see carolyn Osiek, The Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary, hermeneia (Philadelphia: fortress, 1999), 29, 114–15.

-477 -

478

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

Likewise, the impossibility of renewal to repentance does not refer to an inability to return to the faith, but to the impossibility of repeating the initiatory baptism of repentance associated with preliminary catechesis.

2. Preliminary comments

understandably, modern scholarship has attempted to steer a course around the difficulties of heb 6:1–6 by illuminating the path with a variety of suggested historical backgrounds, none of which has achieved anything like a consensus.2 for example, some have suggested that the author refers to only apparent converts in 6:4–5, not to authentic christians who would have borne the true fruit of salvation (6:9).3 Others consider the “falling away” to refer not to actual cases of apostasy among the readers, but to the hypothetical possibility of such apostasy from which there would have been no recovery. The text then serves as a warning against the readers’

dullness and lack of spiritual progress (5:11–14), which, if left unchecked, would have plunged them into an irreversible condition.4 finally, the third obstacle can be dodged if the impossibility of repentance is limited to human effort, the author leaving room for God’s gracious work that could 2. Numerous examples could be listed. Brent Nongbri, for instance, provides a second Temple apocalyptic background (“a Touch of condemnation in a Word of exhortation: apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in hebrews 6:4–12,”

NovT 45 [2003]: 265–79). Martin emmrich suggests a second Temple pneumato-logical reading (“heb 6:4–6—again! [a Pneumatological inquiry],” WTJ 65 [2003]: 83–85). for an Old Testament background, i.e., Kadesh-Barnea, see Dave Mathewson,

“Reading heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament,” WTJ 61 (1999): 209–25. David desilva reads the text in light of a social and Mediterranean cultural (patron/client) milieu (“exchanging favor for Wrath: apostasy in hebrews and Patron-client Relationships,” JBL 115 [1996]: 91–116). for an oral critical reading, see casey W. Davis,

“hebrews 6:4–6 from an Oral critical Perspective,” JETS 51 (2008): 753–67. andreas h. snyman argues from a discourse perspective (“hebrews 6:4–6: from a semiotic Discourse Perspective,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, ed. stanley e.

Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, JsNTsup 170 [sheffield: sheffield academic, 1999], 354–

68). see also scot McKnight, “The Warning Passages of hebrews: a formal analysis and Theological conclusions,” TJ n.s. 13 (1992): 21–59.

3. This is often the interpretation of confessional readings that cite passages such as 1 John 2:19. This view has too many adherents to name.

4. Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 160–64; alan c. Mitchell, Hebrews, sP 13 (collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 123–30.

LaRseN aND sViGeL: The fiRsT ceNTuRY

479

transcend human impossibility.5 Many commentators, however, taking the language at its apparent face value, have simply affirmed that the author of hebrews taught that, through intentional apostasy or neglected faith, members of the christian community could fall away from salvation, resulting in a condition in which restoration to repentance was simply impossible.6

acknowledging the complexity of the interpretive questions, this article presents a fresh examination of heb 6:1–6 in light of a neglected and heretofore underutilized historical context: the first century Two Ways catechesis. Though some have drawn on the Two Ways didactic pattern of early Jewish and Jewish-christian communities to shed light on certain elements of heb 6:1–6,7 we submit that the entire passage can be explained in light of this context. When interpreted in the context of a community that has been initiated into the christian faith through a Two Ways catechesis, heb 6:1–6 takes on a different meaning that coheres well with the rest of the document. We will argue that the author of hebrews shows an awareness of a common early christian Two Ways catechesis and initiation in heb 6:1–6, the cognizance of which would have been shared by the original readers of hebrews who had experienced the catechism and initiation. The hebrews version of the Two Ways catechesis and its initiatory rites were similar to that pattern preserved for us in the Didache.8

contextually, this Two Ways background synchronizes with the theme of pilgrimage suggested by several scholars as a major motif in hebrews.9

5. f. f. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NicNT (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1990), 144; Thomas G. Long, Hebrews, iBc (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 72–74; Brooke Westcott writes, “There may be, through the gift of GOD, a corresponding change, a regaining of the lost view with the consequent restoration of the fullness of life, but this is different from the freshness of the vision through which the life is first realised” (Brooke f. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays, 3rd ed. [London: Macmillan, 1914], 152).

6. harold W. attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, hermeneia (Philadelphia: fortress, 1989), 166–77; craig R. Koester, Hebrews, aB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 311–23; James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, icc (New York: scribner’s sons, 1924), 77–80.

7. see, e.g. Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, 140.

8. for a discussion of the origin, development, and date of the final form of the Didache in current scholarship, see below.

9. Most recently, Johnson, Hebrews, 7–9, 161. Johnson connects παραπεσόντας in

480

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

it is important to clarify that we are not arguing that the author of hebrews knew the Didache itself or vice versa. There need be no literary dependence here. Rather, we hope to demonstrate compelling lexical and conceptual parallels between the two documents, reaffirming the common view that at least an oral Two Ways didactic pattern similar to that found in the Didache existed when the writer of hebrews addressed his readers.

To use the language of Jonathan z. smith, we present these two texts not as genealogically but as analogically related, making no claims about the genetic relationship between the Didache and hebrews.10 The author of hebrews could have reasonably assumed the original readers to be aware of such a pattern. Thus, an understanding of the catechetical experience of many early christian communities provides an intriguing historical context within which heb 6:1–6 may be read.11

3. The Two Ways Didactic Pattern in the first century The “Two Ways” refers to a didactic pattern that compares the way of life (or sometimes “light” or “truth”) and the way of death (or sometimes

“darkness” or “error”). The way of life section explains the virtuous lifestyle expected of an initiated member of the community. in stark contrast, the way of death illustrates the sinful and destructive lifestyle of an outsider (see, e.g., Did. 1.1, 5.1–2). While the early church used the Two Ways didactic pattern, most scholars agree that it came into existence before heb 6:6 with the pilgrimage motif. see also ernst Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigaton of the Letter to the Hebrews, trans. Roy a. harrisville and irving L. sandberg (Minneapolis: augsburg, 1984); William G. Johnsson, “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of hebrews,” JBL 97 (1978): 239–51; Raymond Brown, “Pilgrimage in faith: The christian Life in hebrews,” SwJT 28 (1985): 28–35; D. W. Perkins, “a call to Pilgrimage: The challenge of hebrews,” TTE 32 (1985): 69–78.

10. Jonathan z. smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (chicago: university of chicago Press, 1990), 46–50.

11. a helpful analog to our approach may be found in alan J. P. Garrow, “The eschatological Tradition behind 1 Thessalonians: Didache 16,” JSNT 32 (2009): 191–

215. Garrow suggests the tradition preserved in Did. 16 as the foundational eschatological teaching behind 1 Thess 4:15–17 (pp. 210–11), though he leaves open the question of whether Paul knew the Didache or its sources (210 n. 27). We approach the texts of hebrews and the Didache in a comparable manner.

LaRseN aND sViGeL: The fiRsT ceNTuRY

481

the birth of christianity.12 The Two Ways finds echoes in early hellenistic literature (see, e.g., Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.21–34; hesiod, Op. 287–292), but the early christian form appears to have taken its cues from Jewish religious themes. The Two Ways pattern can be seen in the hebrew scriptures (see, e.g., Deut 30:15; Pss 1:6; 139:24; Prov 2:8–22; and Jer 21:8), at Qumran (see esp. 1Qs iii, 13–iV, 26),13 in the Pseudepigrapha (see, e.g., 1 en. 91–107; 2 en. 30.14–15; 2 esd 7.3–8; T. ash. 1.3–6.5),14 the Mishnah (see, e.g., m. ’abot 2:9), and the Babylonian Talmud (see, e.g., b. Ber. 28b).

it is also discerned in similar form in the early Jesus movement (see, e.g., Matt 7:13–14; Luke 13:24; acts 2:28; 18:25),15 the apostolic fathers (see Did. 1.2–6.2; Barn. 18–20; herm. Mand. 6.2), later church writings (see aristides, Apol. 15; apos. con. 7.1–19, and Vita Shenudi), and in texts often labeled by scholars as apocryphal New Testament texts.16

12. M. Jack suggs, “The christian Two Ways Tradition: its antiquity, form and function,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, NovTsup 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 60–74. for a scholarly reconstruction of the Two Ways, see huub van de sandt and David flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, cRiNT 3.5 (Minneapolis: fortress, 2002), 112–31.

13. This is a particularly interesting usage, because it models the Two Ways didactic pattern found in the Didache: it begins with the Two spirits/Ways [dogmatic section], followed by a catalog of virtues and vices [ethical section], and ends with an eschatological tone. suggs notes that 1Qs iii, 13–iV, 26 is irrefutable evidence of the Two Ways Jewish tradition with an introduction dealing with the Two spirits and their role in human life, a double catalog of vices and virtues, an eschatologically colored threat-promise conclusion (suggs, “christian Two Ways Tradition,” 64–65). 1Qs V, 13 states that participation in pure food should follow water purification (see Did. 9.5). for a discussion of the Two Ways in the essene and pre-essene form and the two spirits, see van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 147–55. interestingly, 1Qs Vii, 23–24 and Viii, 21–23

also speak of the impossibility of an apostate re-entering the covenant community.

14. T. ash. 5.2–3, like 1Qs iii, 13–iV, 26, also ends the section with eschatological judgment, which indicates that the early Jewish Two Ways didactic pattern seemed to have a tendency to climax with an eschatological warning, as does the Didache in chapter 16.

15. see hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon of the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–49), hermeneia (Minneapolis: fortress, 1995), 522–23. Betz sees a Two Ways pattern in the sermon on the Mount, and one that is congruous with Did. 1.2; 5.1–2. additionally, according to acts the Jesus movement was often referred to as “the Way” (acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). see also van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 81–111.

16. On the Vita Shenudi, see Ludwig emil iselin and andreas heusler, Eine bisher

482

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

The Two Ways was an early, widespread, and enduring didactic pattern in the Jewish and early christian religious traditions. Therefore, the possibility that this pattern may have occupied a place in the cultural world of heb 6:1–6 should not be surprising. Yet this raises several questions. how formal were the expressions of this didactic pattern at the time hebrews was written? Was the pattern stable enough that the letter’s readers would have been familiar with a specific catechetical form? That is, since there was a general Two Ways catechetical pattern common by the latter half of the first century, may the specific form of this catechesis expressed in the Didache provide insight into understanding catechetical language and imagery in heb 6:1–6?

This essay does not provide a full exploration of such questions, yet we will highlight some issues. While some scholars date the Didache to the early second century and regard it as a composite work that brings together various early texts and traditions developed over the course of several decades,17 other scholars date it from 50 to 70 ce,18 and a growing consensus of scholars holds that the Didache (as we have it in codex hierosolymitanus) reached its final redacted form by the turn of the first century ce with traditions reaching back well into the first century ce.19 furthermore, scholars recognize that the Two Ways didactic pattern possessed a common form that began in pre-christian Judaism and was adopted in its various forms in earliest christianity: (1) a dogmatic section, (2) fol-unbekannte Version des ersten Teiles der “Apostellehre,” TuGaL 13.1b (Leipzig: hinrichs, 1895), 1–30. for an apocryphal New Testament text, see reference to Peter’s Two Ways catechism in the Preaching of Peter of Pseudo-clement, hom. 7.

17. Leslie W. Barnard, Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and Their Background (New York: schocken Books, 1966), 99; Bart D. ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols., LcL

24 (cambridge: harvard university Press, 2003), 411; claudio Moreschini and enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, trans. Matthew J. O’connell, 2 vols. (Peabody, Ma: hendrickson, 2005), 1:128. see scholarly views of the date and provenance of the Didache in clayton N. Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Vcsup 111 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 3–17.

18. see Jean-Paul audet, La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres, ebib (Paris: Gabalda, 1958), 187–210; John a. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 96–100, 322–27; aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE (New York: Newman, 2003).

19. for a list of such scholars, see van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 48–49, esp.

n. 128; Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, trans. Linda M. Maloney, hermeneia (Minneapolis: fortress, 1998), 52–53; Willy Rordorf and andré Tuilier, La doctrine des douze apôtres (Didachè), sc 248 bis (Paris: cerf, 1998), 96–97.

LaRseN aND sViGeL: The fiRsT ceNTuRY

483

lowed by an ethical section, (3) associated with initiatory activity, and (4) concluding with an eschatological conclusion.20 The Didache also exhibits this same pattern with a dogmatic section in 1.1–2.1, an ethical section in 2.2–5.2, initiatory rites in 7.1–10.7, and an eschatological conclusion in 16.1–8. Thus we reasonably may accept the likelihood of a stable christian Two Ways didactic pattern in the second half of the first century ce.

Because our thesis does not allege direct literary dependence of hebrews on the Didache itself, the questions of unity and development are of no immediate importance. Our suggestion here is that they inhabit some of the same intellectual space. The Didache reflects a specific form of a more general pattern of catechesis in the last half of the first century ce.

it is sufficient to place these texts (and traditions or both) broadly in the latter half of the first century.

4. similarities between the Two Ways catechesis in heb 6.1–6 and the Didache

The Didache Two Ways catechesis includes distinctively christian logia (Did. 1.1–6.3), followed by a liturgical section (7.1–10.7), which addresses the proper parameters for baptism (7), prayer and fasting (8), and the eucharist (9–10). a section follows on apparently primitive and transitional church leadership and order (11.1–15.4), concluding rather abruptly with a brief but dense eschatological summary (16.1–8).21 The 20. suggs, “christian Two Ways Tradition,” 63–74. see also Willy Rordorf, “an aspect of the Judeo-christian ethic: The Two Ways,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 148–64 (153).

21. The Didache lends itself to a successive temporal reading, as evidenced by the presence of an antecedent temporal participle of προλέγω (the aorist προειπόντες

in 7.1; the perfect προειρημένα in 11.1) that links the Two Ways in 1–6 temporally to the liturgical section of baptism, fasting and prayer, and eucharist in 7–10, and 7–10

to the church order section in 11–15. as such, it is structured more for use as something like a didactic catechetical manual than a reference manual for church order or discipline. see Niederwimmer, Didache, 1; Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine des douze Apôtres, 22–83. even if the catechetical section is limited to Did. 1–6, however, the entire book could have been used for the instruction of initiates toward maturity, a trajectory clearly emphasized in hebrews (5:12). in this light, our thesis may actually be strengthened if the Didache served a dual purpose as a catechesis for initiates as well as a manual for developing leaders. The latter is merely the intended trajectory of the former.

484

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

Didache presents this outline as the basic catechetical method for new converts moving from the initial act of repentance (μετανοέω) and baptism (βάπτισμα)22 to maturity (τέλειος).23

The basic idea of progressing from repentance to maturity is found in heb 5–6, forming the broader context of heb 6:1–6.24 The point of heb 5 and 6 was to contrast between immature novices and mature teachers, that is, those who lack discernment and those who are trained and experienced. The writer’s purpose was to encourage spiritual infants (νήπιος; 5:13) to grow toward spiritual maturity (τέλειος; 5:14). David Desilva writes, “The author here uses another expression that will reinforce the overarching agenda he has been proposing for the addressees from the beginning, namely, pressing ever forward toward the end of the journey begun at their conversion, baptism, and early catechesis in the christian worldview.”25 in the final analysis, the idea of new converts and mature teachers is found in both heb 5–6 and the Didache. But this is not the only parallel between these two passages. hebrews 6:1–2 reads: Διὸ ἀφέντες τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα

φερώμεθα μὴ πάλιν θεμέλιον καταβαλλόμενοι μετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν

22. The Didachist seems to use repentance (μετανοείτω) to refer to the act of baptism. Didache 9.5 links taking the eucharist with holiness and explicitly forbids the unbaptized from participating (see 1Qs V, 13). Then in Did. 10.6 we read, Εἴ τις ἅγιός

ἐστιν, ἐρχέσθω εἴ τις οὐκ ἐστί μετανοείτω, which can then be paraphrased as follows:

“if anyone is baptized, let that person come. if anyone is unbaptized, let that person enter into catechesis (1.1–6.3) culminating in baptism.” The ideas of repentance and baptism are also closely linked in the New Testament at Matt 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; acts 2:38; 13:24; and 19:4. They are also connected in herm. Mand. 4.3.1 and in Gos.

eb. 1 and acts Pil. 18.2.

23. see Did. 1.4; 6.2; 10.5; and 16.2. at the culmination of the Two Ways initiatory catechesis, Did. 6.2 indicates that the purpose of the catechesis is movement towards maturity (τέλειος). Thus, the goal of the Two Ways catechesis was for one to arrive at τέλειος, i.e., maturity and wholeness (G. Delling, “τέλος, τελέω, κτλ,” TDNT 8:49–87, especially 73–78; BDaG 996. such a notion can also be confirmed by considering the usage of τελε* in Did. 1.4, 10.5, and 16.2.

24. Repentance (μετάνοια) is found in heb 6:1, 6. Maturity (τέλειος) is found in heb 5:9, 14, and 6:1. as will be shown later, we believe the way the author of hebrews used both μετάνοια and τέλειος in a way parallel to the Didachist is due to their dependence upon a shared Two Ways didactic pattern.

25. David a. desilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 2000), 215.

LaRseN aND sViGeL: The fiRsT ceNTuRY

485

ἔργων καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν

ἀναστάσεώς τε νεκρῶν καὶ κρίματος αἰωνίου

We can identify several notable parallels between what the author of hebrews considers to be the elementary teachings and the didactic pattern seen in the Didache.26 Both can be divided into four parts. The possible didactic parallels between heb 6:1c–2 and the Didache can be seen in the following chart:

heb 6:1c: initial Repentance and

Did. 1–6: initiatory catechism

faith

Did. 7–10: Teaching on christian

heb 6:2a: Teaching on Baptisms

Liturgy

heb 6:2b: Teaching on church

Did. 11–15: Teaching on church

Leadership

heb 6:2c: Teaching on eschatology Did. 16: eschatological conclusion Let us examine these parallels in greater depth. first, the author of hebrews regards μετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν as a foundational theme among the christian community. similarly, the heart of the Didache is the Two Ways catechesis. Didache 1.1–6.3 contains instruction about the ὁδοὶ δύο (two paths): the path of life (1.2–4.14) and the path of death (5.1–2). Once a person has chosen the path of life, the journey begins by the initiation of water baptism. The path of life is the proper response of repentance from the path of death (= “dead works”?) and faith toward God. further, the verb μετανοέω is used in Did. 10.6b as a call to baptism, which would be preceded by catechesis in the Two Ways.27 Thus, 26. The phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ in heb 5:12 is conceptually equivalent to the τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον in 6:1. These therefore refer to elementary, foundational christian teachings, i.e., catechesis. cf. Moffatt, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle, 70, 74; Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews, 142; Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 8th ed., KeK 14 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 238.

27. When read in conjunction with Did. 9.5 (μηδεὶς δὲ φαγέτω μηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ

τῆς εὐχαριστίας ὑμῶν ἀλλ᾿ οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου καὶ γὰρ περὶ τούτου

εἴρηκεν ὁ κύριος·μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί), it would seem that the phrase Εἴ τις

ἅγιός ἐστιν ἐρχέσθω in Did. 10.6 would refer to those who have gone through catechesis and been baptized, while μετανοείτω would be a call to enter into the way of life through catechesis and baptism. all of this is predicated on the understanding that

486

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

μετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν in heb 6:1 and Did.

1–6 exhibits strong conceptual links: God had laid out a path of life and people are to respond appropriately by repenting of their dead works (the path of death) and acting faithfully towards God (the path of life).28

second, the author of hebrews mentions βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς as another foundational understanding within the christian community.

This section displays conceptual and lexical similarities to the Didache.

hebrews 6:2 refers to a singular foundational teaching (διδαχῆς) concerning multiple washings (βαπτισμῶν). interestingly, Did. 7.1–3 reads: Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος οὕτω βαπτίσατε·ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες

βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον εἰ δ᾿

οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ ἐν θερμῷ ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν

κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος

here we see intriguing similarities between heb 6:2 and Did. 7.1–3. The passage in the Didache contains instructions concerning baptism that would apply generally to changing contexts and conditions, implying the intention for geographical distribution of the document. Didache 7.1–3

creates provision for a variety of geographical contexts that would have access to running water, cold water, warm water, or only enough water to pour over a person’s head. hence, the Didachist made provisional instruction for all four scenarios, including distinct modes of baptism, that is, a variety of “baptisms.” Put more straightforwardly, the Didache contains one teaching for multiple modes of baptism (see βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς in heb 6:2a). it is not difficult to see a conceptual parallel with hebrews’ reference to βαπτισμόι.29 Moreover, Otto Michel notes several interpretations the Didache lends itself to being read and used in a temporally successive manner. see n. 21 above.

28. Michel (Brief an die Hebräer, 239) also suggests an allusion between “dead works” and “the way of death” in Did. 5.1, mentioning a possible semitism in the Greek syntax of νεκρῶν ἔργων.

29. heb 6:2 uses βαπτισμός, a common term for Jewish ritual washings (see Mark 7:4), as it is later used in hebrews itself (9:10). The more frequent word for christian baptism is, of course, βάπτισμα. Both terms can be used to refer to the rite of initiation, as shown by col 2:12, clearly a reference to baptism. Though the external textual evidence appears evenly split between βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός in col 2:12, the lectio difficilior would be the dative singular of βαπτισμός. in any case, even if Jewish ritual

LaRseN aND sViGeL: The fiRsT ceNTuRY

487

of the plural “baptisms” in heb 6:2: Jewish christian washings and obla-tions; a distinction between Jewish proselyte baptism, John’s baptism, and Jesus’s baptism; or even a reference to a threefold immersion.30 This latter possibility is important, considering that Did. 7.3 mentions pouring three times on the head, which practice might be generally referred to as christian βάπτισμα, but could more particularly be described with the plural βαπτισμοί because of the multiple “washings” involved. While the exact lexical and conceptual parallels are found only with 7.1–3, it is clear that all of Did. 7–10 belongs to a single unit held together by many linguistic features. The περὶ δέ refrain found in 7.1 and 9.1, 3 creates a lexically unified progression of thought. also, similar doxological refrains can be found in 8.2, 9.2, 3, 4, 10.2, 4, and 5. fasting (νηστεία/νηστεύω) links chapters 7 and 8. further, similar liturgical words are used throughout: κελεύω in 7.4 and 8.2; ἁγιάζω in 8.2 and 10.5; and ῥύομαι in 8.2 and 10.5. Lastly, the construction οὕτως followed by a second person present imperatival command appears in 7.1, 8.1, 2, 3, 9.1, 4, and 10.1. Thus, Did. 7–10 represents one whole unit concerning christian rites, with different modes of baptisms heading the section.

Third, the author of hebrews refers to ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν as another foundational theme within the christian community. The practice of laying on hands was an ancient sign of ordination to church leadership (acts 6:6; 13:3; and 1 Tim 5:22). church leadership is also the dominant topic throughout Did. 11–15. Didache 11.3 reads, “Now concerning the apostles and prophets, deal with them as follows in accordance with the rule of the gospel.” it then describes how one can distinguish a true from a false prophet, gives instructions for dealing with leadership, and tells how to discern good and bad leaders (11.4–13.7). in light of an early christian pastoral admonition not to neglect the gift given by the laying on of hands of the elders in 1 Tim 4:14 (μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ

προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου),31 ἐπιθέσεώς

washings were at least partly in view in heb 6:2, this would not rule out the possibility that instruction regarding these diverse ritual washings was, at least in the first century, an important aspect of catechism in preparation for the distinctive christian rite.

30. Michel, Brief an die Hebräer, 239.

31. commenting on 1 Tim 4:14, David Daube concludes: “surely, as semikhath zeqenim denotes not the ordination of specified individuals, not the appointment of certain men as elders, but the rite of ordination in general” (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [New York: arno, 1973], 245).

488

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

τε χειρῶν (“laying on of hands”) in heb 6:1 may refer to instructions concerning legitimate leadership in the church and legitimate church order.32

fourth, the author of hebrews refers to ἀναστάσεώς τε νεκρῶν καὶ

κρίματος αἰωνίου as the final facet of the elementary understanding of the christian community. again, clear lexical and conceptual parallels can be seen between hebrews and the Didache. Lexically, Did. 16.6 also uses the words ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν. conceptually, Did. 16 moves the reader toward the κύριος as coming judge. Both documents clearly posit an eschatological climax to their foundational catechesis.

Given the demonstrable widespread use of the Two Ways didactic pattern by the time of the first century ce,33 as well as the particular expression of this pattern in the Didache, these apparent similarities should not be ignored as a potential background to heb 6:1–2. as such, this same catechetical pattern would also constitute the historical background of the warning passage in 6:4–6, serving as an important aid for interpreting its most difficult features.

5. Marks of the Two Ways catechesis in heb 6:4–6

as we have shown in the introduction of this study, the rather harsh assertion of heb 6:4, 6 (ἁδύνατον … πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν) has vexed many throughout the history of its interpretation. in our reading however, we submit that if a Two Ways catechetical context similar to that of the Didache stands behind heb 6:1–6, the concept of irreversible apostasy will be seen in a different light. When the author of hebrews wrote the warning in 6:1–6, he was not primarily addressing soteriological questions—especially those asked in post-Reformation contexts. Rather, the author primarily faced the overarching problem of a spiritual “failure to thrive” (heb 5:12–14), arguing within the context of a first century Two Ways catechesis designed to move new converts from initiation toward 32. it is also possible that heb 6:2 refers to the impartation of the holy spirit associated with baptism (acts 8:17–18; 9:6; see Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, 142). The latter interpretation would then be parallel with being made “partakers of the holy spirit” in 6:4. This construal would be less likely, however, if a catechetical background similar to that of the Didache can be argued for heb 6.

33. see section 3 above.

LaRseN aND sViGeL: The fiRsT ceNTuRY

489

maturity. The same danger that is made explicit in heb 10:26–27 and 12:16–17 is implicit in the warning in 6:1–6.34

The author uses four descriptors to speak of members of the covenant community. The first is ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας. The author of hebrews uses the verb φωτίζω in 10:32 to refer not to a state of spiritual enlightenment, but rather with reference to a concrete point of initiation into the faith: “But remember the former days in which after you were enlightened

[φωτισθέντες] you endured a great conflict of suffering.”35 The concept of light was embedded in the pre-christian Two Ways didactic pattern (Prov 4:18; 6:23; 13:9; 1Qs iii, 13; T. ash. 5.2–3). and already in the Two Ways section of Barnabas, the author replaces “way of life” and “way of death”

with the way “of light” (φῶς) and way “of darkness” (Barn. 18.1).36 it should therefore not be surprising that φωτίζω, along with its synonyms, rather quickly became a widely used figure for a person’s conversion through baptism.37 for example, around 155 ce Justin Martyr wrote: and this washing [baptism] is called illumination [φωτισμός], as those who learn these things are illuminated [φωτιζομένων] in the mind. and he who is illuminated [ὁ φωτιζόμενος] is washed in the name of Jesus christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the holy spirit, who through the prophets foretold all the things about Jesus.

(Apol. 1.61)38

Though we must caution against anachronism, the widespread image of baptism as φωτισμός/φωτίζω in the early church must have had a prior history. it may very well be that the Two Ways catechesis behind 34. The important question of the relationship between heb 6:1–6 and other warning passages in hebrews will also be addressed further below.

35. see attridge, who notes the syriac translation, qabeltun ma’muditha, “receive baptism” (Epistle to the Hebrews, 298).

36. for a New Testament connection between baptism and new life, see, e.g., col 2:12–13 and Rom 6:4. This imagery of new life or “regeneration” could very well have been derived from baptism as the point of one’s conversion from the way of death to the way of life. similarly, those communities like that of Barnabas that referred to the way of light and way of darkness could have quickly begun referring to baptism as

“illumination” or “enlightenment.”

37. PGL 1508–9.

38. Leslie W. Barnard, ed., St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies, acW

56 (New York: Paulist, 1997), 67; Miroslav Marcovich, ed., Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis, PTs 38 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994).

490

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

heb 6:1–6 was a possible source of initially equating baptism and illumination.39 indeed, in Did. 7.1 and 9.5, the act of baptism marked the beginning of the new convert’s spiritual journey on the way of life—

their transfer from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light (see acts 26:18; Rom 13:12; eph 5:8; col 1:13; 1 Pet 2:9). Therefore, the author of hebrews refers to the one-time (ἅπαξ) experience of illumination (φωτίζω). in our reading, this refers to the converts’ once-for-all initiation of baptism that followed the Two Ways catechetical instruction.

Though illumination in general may be used in reference to a repeatable experience for believers (eph 1:18), the illumination mentioned in heb 6:4 refers to a once-for-all event (ἅπαξ), like baptism itself (eph 4:5), or as ernst Käsemann put it, “this enlightenment is related to a concrete action that can only be baptism.”40

The second descriptor of members of the christian community in hebrews is γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου. some scholars take this metaphorically to mean a cognitive spiritual experience.41 in our reading, however, the author of hebrews referred to partaking in the eucharistic meal that followed baptism.42 Joachim Jeremias holds that heb 6:1–6, especially γεύεσθαι in heb 6:4, refers to the eucharist in an intentionally veiled manner so as not to profane the eucharistic words, which were meant only for the τέλειοι.43 it is notable that not only is γεύομαι

used to refer to physical tasting or partaking in New Testament literature (Matt 27:34; Luke 14:24; John 2:9; acts 10:10; 23:14; col 2:21), but it is also used more particularly in connection with christians breaking bread together and sharing a meal on the first day of the week in acts 20:11.

further, there seems to be a strong conceptual link between “tasted the 39. hans conzelmann suggests that water baptism is already in view in heb 6:4

(“φῶς, φωτίζω, κτλ,” TDNT 9:355).

40. see Käsemann, Wandering People of God, 187.

41. see, e.g., desilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 223–24; attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 170.

42. This reading is also argued in Johannes Betz, Die Realpräsenz des Leibes und Blutes Jesu im Abendmahl nach dem Neuen Testament, vol. 2.1 of Die Eucharistie in der Zeit der griechischen Väter (freiburg im Breisgau: herder, 1961), 157. see also Paul andriessen, “L’eucharistie dans l’Épître aux hébreux,” NRTh 3 (1972): 269–77 (272); Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, 146; Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology (New York: Oxford university Press, 1981), 151–52.

43. Joachim Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 127, esp. n. 3.

LaRseN aND sViGeL: The fiRsT ceNTuRY

491

heavenly gift” in heb 6:4 and “you have graciously given to us spiritual food and drink” in Did. 10.3, along with the general tenor of the eucharistic prayers in Did. 9–10.44

The concept of eating and drinking the bread and wine of the eucharist as partaking of a “gift” can be found in other early christian writings.

in Smyrn. 7.1, ignatius of antioch writes: “They [the docetists] abstain from eucharist and prayer, on account of not confessing the eucharist to be the flesh of our savior Jesus christ, which suffered for our sins, which by goodness the father raised up. Therefore, those speaking against the gift [δωρεά] of God, disputing, die.” “false teachers” were failing to confess that the eucharist was the flesh of the savior and in their conten-tiousness they were “confessing against” the “gift of God,” that is, against the eucharist.45 in this light, the eucharistic interpretation of the “heavenly gift” (δωρεά) of heb 6:4 occurs among what can be regarded as a eucharistic expression.

furthermore, if “illumination” in heb 6:4 refers to the one-time initiation of baptism, then participation in the eucharist would have been the natural experience of catechumens following that rite of initiation, since the eucharist would have followed baptism in many situations.46 in light of these considerations, we find it reasonable to understand γευσαμένους

τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου in heb 6:4 as a reference to partaking of the eucharist as a part of postconversion christian experience.

44. Johannes P. Louw and eugene a. Nida list both δωρεά and χαρίζομαι under semantic domain 57: “possess, transfer, exchange” ( Introduction and Domains, vol.

1 of Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains [New York: united Bible societies, 1988], 558–85). and ἐπουράνιος with πνευματικός may be considered semantically related under domain group 12: “supernatural beings and supernatural powers” (136–49).

45. see William R. schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, hermeneia (Philadelphia: fortress, 1985), 241.

46. The antecedent temporal participle in Did. 7.1 (προειπόντες) links the Two Ways tractate (1.1–6.3) in immediate temporal succession with the liturgical section (7–10). furthermore, the form of doxology in 8.2 is also found in Did. 9.2, 3, 4 and 10.2, 4, 5 (ἁγιάζω and ῥύομαι are also found in both 8.2 and 10.5), binding these liturgical sections together conceptually. Thus, the Didache itself seems to indicate that the catechumen was instructed in the Two Ways tractate, followed by baptism and then eucharist. see also n. 21 above.

492

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

finally, many scholars understand παραπεσόντας as referring explicitly to apostasy.47 Παραπίπτω, however, a New Testament hapax legomenon, is not the normal word for apostasy, which more commonly would be ἀφίστημι.48 it is used in this sense even by the author of hebrews (3:12).

The most literal understanding of παραπίπτω is not to apostatize from the faith, but “to fall beside.”49 its use in this sense can be illustrated by Polybius, Hist. 3.54.5: “for the path down was narrow and precipitous, and the snow made it impossible for the men to see where they were treading, while to step aside from the path [παραπεσόν τῆς ὁδοῦ], or to stumble, meant being hurled down the precipices.”50

The image here is that of a person wandering off a path, thus “falling aside.” it does not suggest “falling away” from the faith per se but falling beside “a way” or path. here we suggest that the Two Ways background of heb 6:1–6 comes into play. Because the author and original readers of hebrews already had a Two Ways catechetical background as part of their foundational christian experience, the use of the verb παραπίπτω refers to a falling aside from the way of life or light toward maturity, not apostatiz-ing from the faith per se. Though absolute apostasy similar to the conditions described in heb 10:26–27 and 12:15–17 may remain implied, it is not the main thrust of παραπίπτω in heb 6:6, which is that only those who resume their journey on the way of life will arrive at their destina-tion. implied is that those who do not resume their journey face death, as only Two Ways exist. This point, though implicit in 6:4–6, is explicit in 47. attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 171. see also McKnight, “Warning Passages of hebrews,” 21–59.

48. see Luke 8:13; 13:27 (though in the sense of Jesus actively moving someone away from him); acts 15:38 (Mark forsaking Paul); 1 Tim 4:1; heb 3:12; herm. sim.

8.8.2; irenaeus, Haer. 1.13.7. see also its usage in the LXX: Num 31:16; Deut 13:11; 32:15; Josh 22:19, 23; 1 sam 28:15; 3 Kgdms 18:22; Jdt 13:14; 1 Macc 11:43; Odes sol.

2:15; isa 59:13; Jer 3:14; 17:5, 13; and Bar 3:8. see also LsJ 291.

49. BDaG 770. see Wis 6:9, where παραπίπτω refers to turning aside or going astray from wisdom, and esth 6:10, which refers to “falling to the side” from a promise.

50. english translation from evelyn s. schuckburgh, trans., The Histories of Polybius, vol. 1 (London: Macmillan, 1889), 214. While this usage was clearly literal, Polybius also meant παραπίπτω in a metaphorical manner to refer to falling along the path of truth (see Hist. 12.12.2). This is actually quite similar to the sense we believe the author of hebrews used παραπίπτω in 6:6. even when used metaphorically, the image of falling beside a path or way is retained.

LaRseN aND sViGeL: The fiRsT ceNTuRY

493

10:26–27 and especially in 12:15–17. Nonetheless, 12:15 and 6:9 show that the author remains hopeful about his immediate audience.

Read in this way, the referent of ἁδύνατον γὰρ … πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν

εἰς μετάνοιαν in heb 6 was not a person who lost their salvation and was therefore unable to regain it. Rather, in light of the Two Ways reading of heb 6:4–6, the author of hebrews was referring to the inability of baptized members of the community to return to their catechetical state and repeat their rite of initiation into the community.51 The phrase πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν

εἰς μετάνοιαν thus refers not to repentance from an apostatized state to a state of grace, but to repeated baptism, πάλιν in 6:6 intentionally contrasted with ἅπαξ of 6:4. Just as repentance is associated with conversion and baptism in other early christian literature,52 repentance was associated with baptism in the Two Ways didactic pattern (Did. 9.5 and 10.6). further, in Barn. 6.11, ἀνακαινίζω is used to refer to being made “new” through the forgiveness of sins in baptism, and herm. Mand. 4.3.1 refers to the descent into the water and remission of sins as “repentance” (μετάνοια).

at this point, the final piece of the puzzle finds its place. Trying to return to the waters of baptismal initiation would have been tantamount to ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας

(“crucifying again the son of God and disgracing him publicly”). Baptism, of course, was connected to the death and the resurrection of christ in the writings of Paul and in 1 Peter.53 Paul’s rhetorical question, “Οr do you not know” (ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε), in Rom 6:3 implies that the interpretation of baptism as participation in the crucifixion of christ was a Pauline innovation.54 While hebrews is neither Pauline nor Petrine, it does share a 51. “Patristic authors frequently took the pericope in this sense, as a rejection of the position of cyprian, the Donatists, and the Meletians that heretics and apostates should be rebaptized” (attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 167 n. 17). see also epiphanius, Pan. 2.59. The recourse of those who had fallen away from the way of life was not to repeat their rite of initiation, but to resume their journey down the way of life. implicitly, those who remain “lazy” (νωθροὶ; heb 6:12) and refuse to resume their journey will find their end to be destruction and rejection (see heb 10:26–27; 12:16–17).

52. see BDaG s.v. 2, esp. acts 2:38; 13:24; PGL 856.

53. see Rom 6:1–11, where christian baptism was linked with being united with christ’s death. see also Gal 2:20, where Paul declares that he had been “crucified with christ.” see 1 Pet 3:21, where the salvific benefits of baptism are wrought through the resurrection (δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως) of Jesus christ.

54. see Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel, 2 vols.

(Waco, TX: Baylor university Press, 2007), 1:141.

494

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

certain amount of common christian tradition with Paul55 and 1 Peter.56

Moreover, hebrews connects baptism with application of the sacrifice of christ.57 Thus it is not difficult to imagine how for the audience of hebrews rebaptism could be spoken of metonymically as a recrucifixion of the son of God. in the mind of the author of hebrews, it seems this act would expose him to open shame.

The author of hebrews was stating that it was impossible for the stagnant, dull, immature christian (5:12–14) who had fallen to the side of the way of life to undergo catechesis and baptism a second time. That is, it was foolish for such a person to remain in a state no better than unbaptized catechumens, as if they could return to the waters of illumination and begin their walk on the way of life all over again. The only good option available to such a person was to get back on the path and resume a walk toward maturity, reversing the deviation from the way of life. Those who have strayed from the way of life will find themselves on the way of death, resulting in destruction. although the author does not specifically describe the ultimate effect of falling aside from the way of life, the readers would likely have understood that a prolonged divergence from this path would result in severe consequences, described more fully and explicitly in major warning passages such as heb 10:26–31 and 12:12–17.58

55. see c. P. anderson, “hebrews among the letters of Paul,” SR 5 (1975–1976): 258–66; Johnson, Hebrews, 30. e.g., Johnson notes both Paul and hebrews speak of christ giving access to God (heb 4:16; 10:19–22; Rom 5:1), both understand Jesus’s faith as obedience (heb 5:1–10; Rom 5:12–21), both ascribe an important position to abraham (heb 6:13–18; Gal 3:16–18), and his response of faith (heb 11:8–12; Rom 4:1–25). see also attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 6, 30.

56. see ceslas spicq, L’Epître aux Hébreux, 2 vols. (Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953), 1:139–44. Johnson, Hebrews, 30; attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 30–31. attridge elucidates several points of parallel tradition.

57. attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 30 n. 238.

58. The exhortation in heb 6:1–6 takes a more positive form by encouraging advancement on the way of life without explicitly describing the consequences of straying from that path and returning to the way of death (see heb 6:9–12), as the author does in heb 10:26–27 and 12:16–17. in heb 6, however, the author likely relies on the readers’ implicit awareness of the consequences of returning to the way of death, much like those described in Did. 5.1–2 and Barn. 20.1–2. Barnabas especially spells out certain doom for the one who, “having knowledge of the way of righteousness, departs to the way of darkness” (Barn. 5.4). Barnabas specifically describes the way of darkness as “the way of eternal death with punishment, in which are things that destroy the soul” (Barn. 20.1; see also 21.1). for the original readers of hebrews, an

LaRseN aND sViGeL: The fiRsT ceNTuRY

495

6. conclusion

We have argued in this essay that the author of hebrews appears to be drawing on a Two Ways didactic pattern similar to that exampled in the Didache. This thesis dovetails nicely with the use of the Old Testament wilderness journey narrative in heb 3:1–4:11, the warnings therein, and with Käsemann’s understanding of journey as a primary motif in hebrews.59 We have argued that the author of hebrews assumed knowledge of the Two Ways catechetical pattern. he assumed that they would readily remember their instruction in the way of life/light/truth and their subsequent baptism and participation in the christian rites. Believing that some of his audience were failing to progress and develop as christians, he reminds them that rebaptism, preceded by recatechesis, is not a viable option. Though his stance is more hopeful in this text (heb 6:9), darker insinuations concerning failure are still to come in heb 10:26–27 and 12:16–17. at bottom, when read in light of the Two Ways didactic pattern, the purpose of the author of hebrews in heb 6:1–6 is to warn the stagnant christians of the impossibility of a second baptism, implicitly urging them to return to the christian way of life.60

acute warning stood behind the exhortation of heb 6, not unlike the harsher warnings throughout the book of hebrews. see also 1Qs iV, 14. additionally, we must keep in mind that the exhortation to advance along the way of life in heb 6 is part of a digression from the author’s teaching concerning Melchizedek, set aside in heb 5:10 and picked up again in heb 7:1. The main purpose of this digression was to encourage the readers to wake from their dullness, reverse their failure to thrive, and press on toward maturity (5:11–14). One should therefore expect that such a digression from the main argument would contribute to the overall argument of hebrews only in an indirect manner.

59. Käsemann, Wandering People of God. More recently, see Johnson, Hebrews, 7–9. if true, it could perhaps even be argued that the Two Ways catechesis provided one of the conceptual backdrops for the whole of hebrews, energizing the journey/pilgrimage motif. Our conclusion also coincides nicely with the conclusion of emmrich—perseverance and obedience is sine qua non in the christian pilgrimage (“heb 6:4–6—again!” 94).

60. it is interesting to compare our conclusion with that of the fourth-century comments on heb 6:4–6 of ephrem the syrian. in light of a Two Ways catechetical background to heb 6:1–6, ephrem’s interpretation coheres well with our reading of heb 6:4–6, albeit in a different ecclesiastical context, of course: “‘it is impossible to restore again to repentance’ through a second baptism ‘those who have once been baptized, who have tasted the heavenly gift’ through the medicine which they received

496

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

… but now ‘have fallen away’ again. Those who propose two baptisms ask for the crucifixion again of the son of God and for his dishonor. But crucifixion was performed once and will not be performed once more, and baptism was conceded as an ‘absolve’

and is not conceded a second time to the sinner” (M. conti, trans., Hebrews, accs 10

[Downers Grove, ill.: interVarsity Press, 2005], 84–85).

The Didache and Revelation

Alan J. P. Garrow

is the Didache a matriarch, a great-niece, or a forgotten half-sister in relation to the Νew Τestament? elements of family resemblance suggest some form of relationship, but greater precision remains elusive. Most previous attempts to address this type of question have focussed understandably on the Didache’s numerous and well known points in common with Matthew’s Gospel. Despite the discussion of every possible interpretation of the evidence, however, opinion remains divided as to whether the Didache is a source for Matthew, dependent upon Matthew, or dependent on sources independently shared with Matthew.1 One way to refresh the discussion is to approach it from an entirely different angle. This essay, accordingly, seeks to locate the Didache in terms of its relationship to Revelation, a text with affinities to the Didache in its ethics, eucharistic references, and eschatology.2

1. christopher M. Tuckett, “synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996) is among those who see the Didache as dependent on Matthew. clayton N. Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Vcsup 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), esp. 91, 160–61, and Jonathan a. Draper, “The Jesus Tradition in the Didache,” in Draper, The Didache in Modern Research, esp. 83, represent the majority view that both texts depend on a common source or sources. alan J. P. Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache, JsNTsup 254 (London: T&T clark, 2004) explores the possibility of Matthew’s direct dependence on more ancient sections of the Didache (see also Jonathan a. Draper, “The Didache,” in The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction, ed. Paul foster (London: sPcK, 2007), 13–20.

2. Because of the composite nature of the Didache, the current study is strictly speaking concerned only with Revelation’s relationship with specific ethical, eucharistic, and eschatological material in the Didache. Garrow (Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence, 13–156) offers detailed consideration of compositional issues.

-497 -

498

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

1. ethics

That the Didache and Revelation share similar ethics is not especially surprising given that broadly speaking a common ethical base underlies most early christian literature. They are distinctly similar, however, in their attitudes to eating food sacrificed to idols and the practice of sorcery.

in both the Didache and Revelation, eating food sacrificed to idols receives specific and pointed attention as an activity to be avoided at all costs. in Did. 6.2–3, this is articulated as the only requirement of the law where no compromise is permitted. in the messages to Pergamum and in particular Thyatira, eating food sacrificed to idols is held up as an ultimate betrayal (2:14, 20). all the churches are uniquely warned against this activity (2:23), while those who have resisted this temptation have no other burden laid on them (2:24).

The Didache and Revelation are also unusual in early christian literature in their strong and explicit condemnation of sorcery and magic (Did. 2.2; 3.4; and Rev 9:21; 18:23; 21:8; 22:15).3 in Rev 9:21, sorcery is condemned alongside murder, fornication and theft, a combination similar to that of murder, adultery, child abuse, fornication, theft, magic and sorcery in Did. 2.2. This is not to suggest that the lists of proscribed actions in Revelation and the Didache are necessarily directly related. it is to note, however, that their ethical attitudes are more closely related to one another than to any other early christian text. in terms of illuminating the relationship between the Didache and Revelation this observation serves to indicate the likely presence of a relationship of some kind.

2. eucharist

a striking set of parallels is noted by David Barr: Nearly every aspect of [Did. 9 and 10] is paralleled in the apocalypse, but the concentration of elements in the closing scene is remarkable.

There are no less than seven specific points of correlation with the final scene in the apocalypse: (a) both mention David; (b) both say only some are worthy to participate; (c) both compare outsiders to “dogs”; (d) both 3. The only other mention of sorcery in the New Testament is in the vice list of Gal 5:20.

GaRROW: The DiDache aND ReVeLaTiON

499

promise a drink of life; (e) both invite some to come; (f) both invite the Lord to come; (g) both close with amen.4

Barr also identifies other connections between Revelation and the Didache’s eucharist:

Numerous other correlations can be made with other parts of the apocalypse as well: “We give you thanks” ( Did. 9:1; Rev 11:17); “to you be glory unto the ages” ( Did. 9:2; Rev 7:12, etc.); Jesus as the agent of revelation ( Did. 9:3; Rev 1:1); plea for gathering of the church ( Did. 9:4; Rev 7:1–10; 21:9–10); God said to “tabernacle” with humanity ( Did. 10:3; Rev 21:3; 13:6); God addressed as “almighty” (παντοκράτωρ: Did. 10:3; Rev 1:8; [4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7,14; 19:6,15] 21:22; etc.); God said to “create all things” ( Did. 10:3; Rev 4:11); the call to repentance ( Did. 10:6; Rev 2–3). The eucharistic service in the Didache also includes two themes that pervade the apocalypse: the plea to deliver the church from all evil and perfect it in love ( Did. 10:5), and the prayer “May grace come and may this world pass away” ( Did. 10:6). This association of the eucharist with the passing away of this world and the gathering of the church into the Kingdom is to be stressed.5

By highlighting these correlations while also drawing attention to the curious instruction at Did. 10.7 “but permit the prophets to give thanks

[εὐχαριστεῖν] however they wish,”6 Barr hints at the possibility that Revelation is an example of a prophet exercising such freedom to create an extended eucharistic prayer.

Barr’s intimation is suggestive. some form of link between Revelation and the Didache eucharist7 does seem likely. Meaningful precision about the nature of that relationship, however, requires believable 4. David L. Barr, “The apocalypse of John as Oral enactment,” Int 40 (1986): 243–56 (254).

5. ibid., 254–55.

6. ibid., 254.

7. My own view, expressed in Garrow, Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence, 13–28, is that Did 9–10 are two parallel and originally separate eucharistic prayers. see also Paul f. Bradshaw, Reconstructing Early Christian Worship (London: sPcK, 2009), 41–42.

an important feature of this view relevant to the current discussion is that the reception of bread and wine is perceived as taking place after Did. 10.6. for a contrary view, see Dietrich-alex Koch, “Die eucharistischen Gebete von Didache 9 und 10 und das Rätsel von Didache 10:6,” in Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour

500

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

answers to two practical questions. first, how much of Revelation was performed on any given liturgical occasion? as Barr himself notes, “the length of the apocalypse makes it unlikely that it was actually and repeatedly read aloud as part of a service. it would seem to take up the whole service.”8 This is not to say that it is impossible that the whole text was performed on each occasion, but it is to say that such an arrangement seems ungainly and, to that extent, implausible. second, what was the relationship between hearing Revelation and physically receiving bread and wine? This question is generated by the observation that Revelation does not include any acts of thanksgiving over food or drink and so to this extent is unlikely to represent an equivalent act to that described in the Didache’s eucharistic chapters.

The problem of the length of reading at each service may be solved by observing that Revelation’s narrative regularly sets up conditions suitable for the creation of cliff-hanging installment breaks. for example, in Rev 5–7 the scroll of “what must soon take place,” which only the Lamb may open, is sealed shut with seven seals. as each seal is broken the hearers (see 1:3) are brought closer and closer to accessing the scroll’s contents directly.9 a high point of suspense is generated, therefore, just before the final seal is broken: as the hearers stand on the brink of being able to “see” the contents of the scroll. These conditions are ideal for a cliff-hanging installment break, whereupon the audience must return to a future gathering to find out what happens next.

a similar pattern occurs as the narrative continues. Now that the seven seals are broken, the audience might reasonably expect at their next meeting to learn the contents of the Lamb’s scroll. instead, however, they are treated to a further series of announcements, this time in the form of trumpet blasts and woes (Rev 8–9). eventually an angel declares (10:6, 7):

“There will be no more delay, but in the days when the seventh angel is to blow his trumpet, the mystery of God will be fulfilled, as he announced to his servants the prophets.” up until now there has been a delay. When the seventh trumpet blows, however, the delay will be over. The seventh trumpet is blown at Rev 11:15. surely now the contents of the scroll will be of Henk Jan de Jonge, ed. Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, harm W. hollander, and Johannes Tromp (Leiden: Brill, 2008): 195–210.

8. Barr, “apocalypse of John as Oral enactment,” 253.

9. Translations of the Didache are my own. Translations of Revelation are from the NRsV.

GaRROW: The DiDache aND ReVeLaTiON

501

revealed to the expectant congregation? This point of heightened suspense is once again ideally suited for the insertion of a cliff-hanging installment break. The audience must return on a further occasion to hear how the story unfolds.

a further installment break between Rev 15:1–4 and 15:5–7 would explain a well-known curiosity in the flow of Revelation’s narrative. Revelation 15:1 describes angels carrying the seven last plagues with which the wrath of God is ended. Just four verses later, these same angels emerge from the temple as if being introduced for the first time. They also receive the bowls that only moments previously they had already been described as holding. an installment break between these two appearances after 15:4

would explain this surprising arrangement. in this case, the installment would also end on a high point of suspense just as the final bowls of judgment are about to be poured out. The next installment would then open where the previous one had left off, with a description of the angels emerging from the temple and receiving the bowls of ultimate wrath.

in all, it is possible to identify a pattern of features that signal installment breaks after 3:22, 7:1, 11:18, 15:4, and 19:10, thus creating a text designed to be read in six separate installments (see appendix 1 at the end of this essay).10 if Revelation was designed to be read in installments, then this removes the need to make the implausible suggestion that the whole text was read prior to a single eucharist.

The second puzzle generated by Barr’s proposal is not, however, immediately resolved by the installment theory. The question here is the functional relationship between the reading of Revelation and the receiving of bread and wine. Barr notes that “Nearly every aspect of [Did. 9–10] is paralleled in the apocalypse.”11 crucially, however, the one aspect that is notable by its absence is any kind of thanksgiving over the food or drink.

This means that it is not possible simply to characterize the installments of Revelation as complete eucharistic prayers. at the same time, however, the parallels between the two texts do suggest that Revelation’s installments relate in some way to Didache-style eucharist. so far as the particular nature of that relationship is concerned, the following paragraphs seek to illustrate how each installment could serve as a “prophetic preface”

to a conventional prayer of thanksgiving, such as those described in Did.

10. alan J. P. Garrow, Revelation, NTR (London: Routledge, 1997), 14–53, offers a detailed presentation of this hypothesis.

11. Barr, “apocalypse of John as Oral enactment,” 254.

502

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

9–10. in each case, the preface has the effect of charging the subsequent eating and drinking with a particular set of significances. each preface also links into a following thanksgiving over bread and wine by picking up the language of the conventional prayer and/or by issuing an explicit invitation to the eschatological meal that follows.

2.1. installment One: Rev 1:1–3:22

Links to the Didache eucharist include the following: the description of God as father (Rev 2:27; Did. 9.2, 10.2); God described as παντοκράτωρ

(Rev 1:8; Did. 10.3); reference to the power and glory of God (Rev 1:6; Did. 9.2, 3, 4; 10.2, 4, 5); references to the kingdom and authority over the nations (Rev 1:6; 2:26, 27; 3:21; Did. 9.4; 10.5); the Lord’s coming (Rev 1:4, 7, 8; Did. 10.6); reference to David (Rev 3:7; Did. 9.2; 10.6); calls to holiness (Rev 3:4, 7, 18; Did. 10.6); and repeated calls to repentance (Rev 2:5, 16, 21, 22; 3:3, 19; Did. 10.6). Most significantly, the installment concludes with an invitation to eat with christ: “Listen, i am standing at the door, knocking. if you hear my voice and open the door, i will come in to you and eat with you and you with me” (Rev 3:20). This statement marks a moment of decision, an opportunity to choose between two groups identified in the preceding seven messages. On the one hand, there are those who follow Jezebel and Balaam whose infidelity, likened to fornication, is demonstrated by the eating of food sacrificed to idols (Rev 2:14, 20). On the other, there are those who endure faithfully and who will be rewarded, for example, with food from the tree of life (Rev 2:7) and the hidden manna (Rev 2:17).

2.2. installment Two: Rev 4:1–8:1

This installment has a particularly large number of parallels to the Didache’s eucharistic prayers. These include the following: numerous references to God’s holiness (Rev 4:8; Did. 10.2); God described as παντοκράτωρ

(Rev 4:8; Did. 10.3) and creator of everything (Rev 4:7–8, 11; Did. 10.3); repeated liturgical refrains giving power and glory to God (Rev 4:11; 5:12, 13; 7:12; Did. 9.2, 3, 4; 10.2, 4, 5); ingathering from every tribe, people, and nation to reign on earth (Rev 5:9; 7:9; 5:10; Did. 9.4; 10.5); and the requirement of holiness/the wearing of white robes for those who enter God’s presence (Rev 7:9, 13, 14; Did. 10.6). heard in a liturgical setting, the conclusion of this installment offers two opportunities to cement identifica-

GaRROW: The DiDache aND ReVeLaTiON

503

tion between the earthly hearers and their faithful heavenly counterparts.

first, a closing hymn with which a congregation might also participate begins to break down the boundary between the world of the hearer and the world of the text. second, the forthcoming reception of bread and wine will enable hearers to begin to participate in the feast enjoyed by those who, having been through the great tribulation, have access to the water of life and neither hunger nor thirst (Rev 7:16, 17).

2.3. installment Three: Rev 8:1–11:18

unlike the preceding installment, which focuses on the fate of those who make the right choices in terms of exclusive allegiance to christ, this installment majors on the fate of those who make the opposite decision.

as the installment comes to a close, the message is reinforced once again: God will ultimately be victorious and will reward those allied to him and punish those allied to other gods (Rev 11:15–18). The concluding hymn includes the promise of a coming kingdom (Rev 11:15; Did. 9.4; 10.5) and links to the following eucharist with the phrase εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι κύριε ὁ

παντοκράτωρ (Rev 11:17; Did. 9.2, 3; 10.2, 3).

2.4. installment four: Rev 11:19–15:4

in this installment, the hearers are offered a clear choice between fidelity and infidelity to God. The consequences of infidelity are played out in the description of the blasphemous beast and those induced to worship him (Rev 13:3–8, 11–16; 14:7, 8, 10, 11). in counterpoint, there are two calls to fidelity (Rev 13:7; 14:12) matched with the benefits of such a decision (Rev 14:1–5, 13, 16). This contrast is also expressed in the harvest of grapes for the wine press of God’s wrath (Rev 14:17–20) and the ingathering of his good grain (Rev 14:14–16; see Did. 9.4; 10.5). These two harvests provide the raw materials for the forthcoming eucharistic eating at which point the hearers have a further opportunity to confirm their allegiance to christ.

The concluding hymn leads into this participation by inviting the hearers to identify in song and in eating with those who have conquered the beast and his image (Rev 15:2). This song links to the Didache eucharist by praising God as holy (Rev 15:4; Did. 10.2) and as παντοκράτωρ (Rev 15:3; Did. 10.3). at the close of the installment, as the hearers stand on the brink of the impending final judgments (Rev 15:1), they are reminded that the time to confirm their allegiance to christ is now.

504

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

2.5. installment five: Rev 15:5–19:10

This installment is dominated by the perils of false allegiance. Those who fornicate with Babylon the whore will find themselves caught up in her destruction. a vehicle of such allegiance, also characterized as fornication, is the sharing of a common cup (Rev 17:2, 4; 18:3; see also 18:9). There is, however, an alternative to such fornication. The installment links to the following eucharist by praising God as παντοκράτωρ (Rev 19:6; Did. 10.3) and with the invitation, “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev 19:9, see also 19:7). as in Did. 10.6, those who wish to participate in this imminent marriage supper must be “holy” or, in the language of Revelation, “clothed with fine linen, bright and pure”

(Rev 19:8).

2.6. installment six: Rev 19:11–22:21

as noted at the start of this section, Barr recognizes a large number of parallels between the Didache eucharist and the concluding chapters of Revelation. Reception of the bread and wine provides a final opportunity to receive the gift of the water of life and to demonstrate a readiness to receive the Lord at his imminent coming.

as noted above, there are two obvious objections to the idea that Revelation is in some sense an example of a prophet exercising the freedom offered by Did. 10.7: it is too long for practical use in a worship setting and does not contain thanksgivings over food and drink. These objections do not apply, however, if Revelation was read in installments that linked into thanksgivings over food and drink. it remains feasible, therefore, that the numerous connections between Did. 9–10 and Revelation are due after all to John’s exercising of the privilege afforded to prophets by Did. 10.7.

3. eschatology

a third set of connections between the Didache and Revelation occurs in their narration of the events of the end of time. Before attempting to consider these similarities, however, it is necessary to deal with an important preliminary issue: the lost ending of the Didache.

There is good reason to suppose that the manuscript of Bryennios (=

the Jerusalem Ms), which contains the only surviving direct record of the

GaRROW: The DiDache aND ReVeLaTiON

505

Didache, is incomplete. This raises the question of the likely original form of the Didache’s concluding apocalypse.12 clues as to the content of the missing lines may be found in apos. con. 7 and in the Renunciation of Boniface, which independently support a continuation of the narrative into a scene of final judgment and reward. This continuation in turn highlights the secondary nature of Did. 16.7.13 after removing Did. 16.7, an analysis of the witness of apos. con. 7 and the Renunciation of Boniface establishes an initial case for the reconstruction of Did. 16.8b–9.14

16.3 for in the last days false prophets and corruption will be multiplied and sheep will turn into wolves and love will turn into hate.

16.4a for with the increase of lawlessness they will hate, persecute and betray one another.

16.4b and then will appear the world-deceiver as a son of God and he will do signs and wonders and the earth will be betrayed into his hands 12. Garrow, Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence, 38–43, observes that the case for seeing the Didache as originally extending beyond 16.8a is supported by the need for a resolution of the conflict between the Lord and the world-deceiver, comparison with New Testament eschatological storylines, evidence from the punctuation and layout of the Jerusalem Ms, and by comparison of the Jerusalem Ms with the versions of Did.

16 preserved in the apostolic constitutions and canons, the reported (and now lost) Georgian version of the Didache, and the eighth-century Renunciation of Boniface.

13. Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, trans. Linda M. Maloney, hermeneia, (Minneapolis: fortress, 1998), 46, 225 n. 27, and Garrow, Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence, 38–44. if, as Robert e. aldridge (“The Lost ending of the Didache,”

VC 53 [1999]: 5–13), and Garrow (Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence, 38–43) propose, the original text of Did. 16 continued into a description of a general judgment, then the secondary nature of Did. 16.7 becomes particularly apparent. in the face of a general judgment, the selective resurrection of the dead portrayed in Did. 16.7 generates a narrative anomaly. This aberration from the narrative flow of Did. 16 in combination with Did. 16.7’s deviation from the style and structure of the surrounding text, all point towards its status as a later insertion. Possible motivations for this insertion are offered in Garrow, Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence, 44, and alan J. P. Garrow,

“The eschatological Tradition behind 1 Thessalonians: Didache 16,” JSNT 32 (2009): 191–215 (202).

14. This reconstruction is taken from Garrow, Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence, 44–64. it shares numerous features with that of aldridge, “Lost ending of the Didache,”

1–15. Taking into account the necessarily speculative character of any reconstruction, one point may be affirmed with some confidence: the original form of the narrative is highly likely to have continued into a scene of judgment and reward.

506

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

and he will do godless things that have not been done since the beginning of the age.

16.5 Then human creation will pass into the fire of testing and many will fall away and perish but those who persevere in their faith will be saved by the curse itself.

16.6 and then shall appear the signs of truth first the sign of stretching out in heaven next the sign of the trumpet call and third the resurrection of the dead.

16.7 not of all the dead, but, as it says, “the Lord shall come, and all the holy ones with him”

16.8 Then the world will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven

… [and all the holy ones with him, on his royal throne, to judge the world-deceiver and to reward each according to his deeds.

16.9 Then the evil will go away to eternal punishment but the righteous will enter into life eternal inheriting those things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard and which has not arisen in the heart of man.

Those things which God has prepared for those who love him.]

having addressed the preliminary issue of the lost ending, it is possible to consider the correlations between this narrative and the story of “what must soon take place” as told by Revelation.15

3.1. signs Preceding the arrival of the World-Deceiver (Did. 16.3, 4a) for in the last days false prophets and corruption will be multiplied and sheep will turn into wolves and love will turn into hate. for with the increase of lawlessness they will hate, persecute and betray one another.

The Didache expresses the conviction that one of the signs of the end will be an increase in false prophecy. The context indicates that these are people who arise from inside, rather than outside, the fold of Jesus’s followers. They are sheep who turn into wolves.

This kind of character is also described in Revelation. in the messages to Pergamum and Thyatira, two church insiders acquire names designed to reveal their identity as false prophets: Balaam, “who put a stumbling block before the people of israel” (Rev 2:14), and Jezebel, “who calls herself 15. Garrow’s Revelation offers a detailed analysis of the story told by Revelation.

according to John sweet’s review (JTS 49 [1998]: 940–41), reading Revelation in installments solves the disputed question of where the contents of the Lamb’s scroll, the story of “what must soon take place,” are located within the overall narrative.

GaRROW: The DiDache aND ReVeLaTiON

507

a prophetess” (Rev 2:20). “The false prophet” is a name also attributed to the second beast (Rev 13:11–17) when it reappears in Rev 19:20. This beast is described as having two horns “like a lamb,” even while it speaks like a dragon (Rev 13:11), a description that might also be taken as suggesting that, while the beast has the appearance of innocently belonging to the Lamb, it is in reality a traitor to that cause.16

3.2. The appearance of the World-Deceiver (Did. 16.4b) and then shall appear the world-deceiver as a son of God and he will do signs and wonders and the earth will be betrayed into his hands and he will do godless things that have not been done since the beginning of the age.

The antichrist, as witnessed for example in 2 Thess 2:3–12 and 1 John 2:18, is a central figure in the mainstream christian apocalyptic tradition from the earliest period. in their descriptions of this character, the Didache and Revelation share a number of distinctive features: his influence is global (Rev 13:3, 7, 8; see also 13:12, 14); he has divine pretensions (Rev 13:1, 5, 6, 8); and he performs deceptive miracles (Rev 13:3; see also 13:13, 14).

further, as the narrative progresses, he engenders persecution (see below).

3.3. The Test engendered by the World-Deceiver (Did. 16.5) Then human creation will pass into the fire of testing and many will be caused to stumble and lost but those who persevere in their faith will be saved by the curse itself [σωθήσονται ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ καταθέματος].

at this point it is necessary to consider the meaning of the obscure phrase σωθήσονται ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ καταθέματος. The great majority of scholars favor “saved by the accursed one himself,” as in “saved by christ himself.”17

if correct, this interpretation represents a significant disjunction between 16. Garrow (Revelation, 88–91) presents a case for seeing the second beast/false prophet as a pseudo-christian rather than pagan figure.

17. for discussions of the mainstream position see, for example, Niederwimmer, Didache, 221–22; aaron Milavec, “The saving efficacy of the Burning Process in Didache 16.5” in The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History and Transmission, ed. clayton N. Jefford, NovTsup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 139–142; Nancy Pardee, “The curse that saves (Didache 16.5),” in Jefford, The Didache in Context, 157;

508

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

the Didache and Revelation. in Revelation the highly unusual word κατάθεμα is used to assure hearers that in the New Jerusalem there will no longer be any curse (22:3). On this occasion, therefore, it is impossible that κατάθεμα could be a reference to “christ.”

While the traditional interpretation of the Didache’s καταθέματος

counts against a link with Revelation, the association between “curse” and christ has an extremely fragile basis. first, there is no evidence to suggest that “the curse” was ever or could ever have been a reverent title for christ.

More particularly, even if in some very remarkable circumstance Jesus was known by this name, it is unclear why “Lord” would not have been preferable in Did. 16.5. “Those who persevere in their faith shall be saved by the Lord himself ” more than adequately expresses the meaning favored by those who see “the curse” as a reference to Jesus.

The popularity of the view that καταθέματος refers to christ, despite the awkwardness of this interpretation, may be attributed to the lack of credible alternative. aaron Milavec,18 however, observes that the burning process (Did. 16.5a) has the power both to save and to destroy, much as a furnace reveals the pure metal from amidst the dross.19 The fact that the burning process immediately follows the arrival of the world-deceiver suggests the possibility that τὸ κατάθεμα refers not to christ, but to the persecution engendered by the world-deceiver. During this persecution some fall away and are lost, but others by their perseverance prove their faith true and thereby are saved.20

This reading, rather than creating a disjunction with Revelation, creates three points of connection between the two texts. first, the association between faithful endurance and consequent salvation coheres with Revelation’s repeated affirmation of the same correlation (Rev 2:10; 3:9–10; 6:9–10; 7:14–17; 12:11; 20:4; 21:7).21 second, Revelation and the Didache both closely associate the coming persecution with the advent of the beast/

and hans Reinhard seeliger, “considerations on the Background and Purpose of the apocalyptic conclusion of the Didache,” in Draper, Didache in Modern Research, 379.

18. aaron Milavec, “saving efficacy of the Burning Process,” 131–55.

19. This interpretation was first proposed in the unpublished doctoral dissertation of Jonathan Draper and is discussed further by him in “Resurrection and zechariah 14.5 in the Didache apocalypse,” JECS 5 (1997): 154–79 (155–56).

20. Garrow, Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence, 29–38 provides a fuller account of this exegetical debate.

21. This logic is also expressed by Mark 13:9–13; Luke 21:19; Matt 10:22; 24:13; 2 Thess 1:4–6; 1 Pet 4:12–13.

GaRROW: The DiDache aND ReVeLaTiON

509

world-deceiver (Rev 13:7; see also 13:10). Third, as already noted, they both share the very rare term κατάθεμα. Revelation 22:3 otherwise appears to allude to zech 14:11 (LXX), where the more common term ἀνάθεμα is used. This raises the question of Revelation’s motive for replacing ἀνάθεμα

with κατάθεμα. Given that Did. 16.5 is the only other recorded use of the term in the relevant literature,22 it is credible that Did. 16.5 provided the motivation for this change. if the Didache’s καταθέματος was understood as referring to the ultimate persecution, then there is every reason for Revelation to assure its readers that in the New Jerusalem there will no longer be any κατάθεμα.

3.4. signs announcing the coming of the Lord (Did. 16.6) and then shall appear the signs of truth first the sign of spreading out in heaven next the sign of the trumpet call and third the resurrection of the dead.

The meaning of ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ is very obscure. Read literally, the sign is of a “spreading out” in heaven, but scholars are divided as to how this might be rendered as a visible sign. Kurt Niederwimmer discusses three alternatives:23 (1) an opening in the heavens as a precondition for the following descent of the Lord and his holy ones. a difficulty with this proposal is that, if this were the intention, it is not clear why ἐκπετάσεως

τοῦ οὐρανοῦ was not preferred. (2) a cross in the heavens, as witnessed, for example, in apoc. Pet. 1 (ethiopic): “so shall i come on the clouds of heaven with a great host in my glory; with my cross going before my face will i come in my glory.” This option has the advantage of examples in the later tradition. if this were the intention, however, it is unclear why such an obscure description of the cross was used. (3) The standard of the son of Man in the form of banners spread out in the heavens. This suggestion more readily reflects the sense of “spreading out” than the preceding options, but is more difficult to detect in the tradition.24

22. κατάθεμα occurs only in Revelation and Didache in first century christian literature. Niederwimmer, Didache, 221–22 lists seven later occurrences. see also Pardee, “curse that saves,” 158.

23. Niederwimmer, Didache, 223–24.

24. a reference to the Lord stretching out his hand, as in isa 11:1, is a further possibility; see Garrow, “eschatological Tradition,” 208.

510

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

When it comes to considering how this sign might have been represented by Revelation, there are two possibilities. first, the concept of an enlarging opening in heaven may be reflected in John’s reference to an

“open door in heaven” in Rev 4:1, which develops through the sequence of installment “openings” until John sees οὐρανὸν ἠνεῳγμένον in Rev 19:11. The second possibility is that the action of “stretching out” refers not to banners, but to a scroll being opened and stretched out in the heavens. The “spreading out” of the Lamb’s scroll is, of course, an important element in Revelation’s narrative. further, it is immediately followed by an equivalent to the Didache’s second sign, the trumpet call, in Revelation’s sequence of seven trumpets (Rev 8:6, 8, 10, 12; 9:1, 13; 11:15).

The Didache’s third sign, the resurrection of the dead, has a more complex relationship with Revelation’s narrative. Revelation does include a description of the resurrection of the dead (Rev 21:13–14), but this description is placed alongside the account of the general judgment (Rev 20:12; see also Did. 16.8b).25

3.5. The arrival of the Lord (Did. 16.8a)

Then the world shall see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven and all his holy ones with him, on his royal throne.

Revelation 1:7 demonstrates an awareness of the expectation that the Lord will come “on the clouds.” in Rev 19:11 he is described as riding on a white horse. Both texts agree, if the independently reconstructed ending of the Didache is correct, that the Lord is accompanied by faithful followers.

Revelation’s equivalent to the Didache’s “holy ones” is the accompanying army of riders who wear fine linen white and clean (Rev 19:14). a parallel to the Didache’s “royal throne” may be present in Revelation’s thrones of reign and judgment (Rev 20:4, 11).

25. Revelation refers to more than one resurrection and then not altogether straightforwardly. On the one hand, the martyrs are apparently caught up at a relatively early stage to join the heavenly army on Mount zion (14:1–5; see also 11:12).

at the same time, however, this group appears to enjoy a form of resurrection after the Messiah’s return (20:4–5). so far as the general resurrection is concerned, the sequence is also curiously presented. When the throne is set up in Rev 20:11, the dead might be taken as already resurrected (20:12). The description of general resurrection is delayed, however, until the two verses that follow (20:13–14).

GaRROW: The DiDache aND ReVeLaTiON

511

3.6. The consequences of the Lord’s arrival (Did. 16.8b–9) to judge the world-deceiver and to reward each according to his deeds.

Then the evil will go to eternal punishment but the righteous will enter into life eternal inheriting those things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard and which has not arisen in the heart of man. Those things which God has prepared for those who love him.

in both the Didache and Revelation, the Lord returns for judgment.

Both texts specifically mention the judgment of the world-deceiver/beast (Rev 19:20–21; Did. 16.8b), and both texts also specify that each will be rewarded according to their actions/deeds (Rev 20:12, 13; Did. 16.9). The Didache is succinct in its description of the rewards and punishments in prospect. it describes them as “eternal” in both cases and elaborates with regard to the inheritance prepared for the righteous to the extent that they are beyond anything previously experienced or imagined. Revelation also uses the image of God preparing an inheritance for the righteous in its more extensive description of their eternal destiny (Did. 16.8b–9; Rev 21:1–22:5, esp. 21:2, 7).

What is striking about this set of comparisons is that Revelation echoes every major element of the Didache’s presentation and does so in a greatly elaborated form. This suggests not only that Did. 16.3–6, 8–9 and Revelation belong to a common stream of eschatological tradition, but also that Revelation falls later in that stream than does the Didache.

4. The Didache’s Relationship to Revelation

The preceding observations about the similarities between the Didache and Revelation indicate the likelihood of some form of relationship between the two texts. further, Revelation’s much more elaborate forms suggest that it falls later in the stream of developing tradition than does the Didache. a credible assessment of the more precise relationship between the two texts must explain, however, not only their similarities but also their marked differences. critical to such an explanation is Did. 10.7: “allow the prophets to give thanks as much as they wish.” it is this advice that explains how it is possible that the Didache’s simple instructions regarding the eucharist could be combined with its very brief eschatological narrative to create the extraordinary book of Rev-

512

The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe

elation.26 On this basis, i conclude not merely that the Didache predates Revelation, but that the Didache’s eucharistic and eschatological patterns provided the creative fountainhead out of which Revelation was born.27

5. The Didache’s Relationship to the New Testament as well as having implications for the study of Revelation, the above conclusion has implications for the Didache’s placement in relation to the wider New Testament. The Didache shares points of connection with almost every strand of New Testament tradition. in addition to the well-known connections with Matthew’s Gospel and those with Revelation outlined above, such links include Mark 13:26–27 and Did. 16.8;28 Luke 6:27–36 and Did. 1.2–5;29 John’s Gospel and Did. 9–10;30 acts 15:23–29

and Did. 6.1–3;31 Rom 12:14, 16, 20, 13:9, 10 and Did. 1.2–4; 1 cor 2:9

and Did. 16.9;32 1 Thess 4:15–17 and Did. 16.3–6, 8–9;33 James and the Didache;34 and 1 Pet 2:11, 3:9, 4:12 and Did. 1.4, 1.3, 16.5. This very broad pattern of association suggests either that the Didache was written at a relatively late date in the light of several other texts or that it was written so early as to belong to the shared heritage of several divergent traditions.

26. Barr (“apocalypse of John as Oral enactment,” 253–54) notes the close relationship between apocalypse and eucharist: “The eucharist—like the apocalypse itself—

looks back to the death of Jesus and forward to the messianic banquet in the Kingdom of God. an apocalypse is a dramatic portrayal of the coming of the Kingdom of God; eucharist is an active celebration of the coming of that Kingdom. What the apocalypse does in word, the eucharist does in deed; it is the myth that corresponds to the ritual.”

27. Revelation is commonly dated to either ca. 95 ce or 68–69 ce. Garrow (Revelation, 66–79) discusses the weaknesses of both options, while also making a positive case for 80–81 ce.

28. Garrow, Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence, 191–96.

29. ibid., 224–27.

30. Johannes Betz, “The eucharist in the Didache,” in Didache in Modern Research, 249, 255–56.

31. clayton N. Jefford, “Tradition and Witness in antioch: acts 15 and Didache 6,” in Perspectives on Contemporary New Testament Questions: Essays in Honor of T.C.

Smith, ed. edgar V. McKnight (Lewiston: Mellen, 1992), 86–88.

32. Garrow, Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence, 196.

33. Garrow, “eschatological Tradition.”

34. see the papers collected in huub van de sandt and Jürgen K. zangenberg, eds.

Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, sBLsyms 45 (atlanta: society of Biblical Literature, 2008).

GaRROW: The DiDache aND ReVeLaTiON

513

if, as this paper concludes, the Didache’s eucharistic and eschatological traditions were the fountainhead from which Revelation was born, then this has the corollary effect of increasing the likelihood that the Didache deserves to be regarded, not as a granddaughter or half-sister in relation to the New Testament, but as its matriarch.

d n erp

si-

n a

rrives

it f

en i s

e m

rdo

ageddo

anic s

ider a

↑ Back to top