la. Addition: On fasting and prayer (8.1-3) sense, apocalypse) belongs to a different literary genre
Introduction 1. Structure and Genre a. How to fast (8.1) b. How to pray (8.2-3) 2. On the Eucharist (9.1—10.7) a. Prayers for the full meal (9.1-5) b. Prayer of thanksgiving (Eucharist) (10.1-7)
III. The church order (11.1—15.4) a. Structure This document, which is approximately the length of Paul's letter to the Galatians,1 consists of four clearly sep arate sections. It begins (I) with a fairly long tractate that can be called the "Tractate on the Two Ways," from its opening words (1.1—5.2). It concludes with an epilogue
(6.1) and a short addition (6.2-3). In 7.1 the reader learns after the fact that the Sitz im Leben of this tractate
1. Transition (11.1-2) 2. On the reception of itinerant apostles and prophets (11.3-12) a. Introduction (11.3) b. On itinerant apostles (11.4-6) is baptismal instruction. This part (which may according ly be designated baptismal catechesis) is followed (II) by a lengthy section that announces itself as a ritual or set of instructions for action (liturgy) by its rubrical notes, c. On itinerant prophets (11.7-12) 3. First appendix: On the reception of other traveling brothers and sisters (12.1-5) a. Reception and testing of new arrivals (12.1) b. Travelers passing through (12.2) c. Persons newly arrived who desire to remain
7repl 8e rod fiamLapaToc, ("on baptism," 7.1), and irepl 8e rrjg ei)xapiOTtag ("on the Eucharist," 9.1). Then fol lows (III) a section whose content shows it to be a church order (11.1-15.4). The whole document concludes (IV) with an eschatological epilogue, consisting of a short eschatological parenesis (16.1-2) and a brief apocalypse
(16.3-8).2
(12.3-5) 4. Second appendix: On the duty to support prophets who desire to remain in the community, and duties toward teachers (13.1-7) a. Fundamental principles (13.1-2) b. Directions for action (13.3-7) 5. On confession and reconciliation (14.1-3)
6. On the election of bishops and deacons (15.1-2) 7. On church discipline (15.3-4) The detailed outline of the writing is as follows:
The Title I. Baptismal catechesis: The Tractate on the Two Ways (1.1-6.3) 1. Statement of the theme (1.1) 2. The way of life (1.2—4.14) a. The fundamental commandment and introduc
IV. Eschatological conclusion (16.1-8) 1. Eschatological parenesis (16.1-2) 2. The apocalypse (16.3-8) a. The appearance of false prophets and the col tion to its performance (1.2-3a) b. The sectio evangelica (1.3b—2.1) lapse of the Christian community (16.3-4a) b. The appearance of the Antichrist (16.4b-d) c. A list of prohibitions (2.2-7) d. The "teknon" sayings (3.1-6) e. The "anawim" sayings (3.7-10) c. The great apostasy and the preservation of the f. Rules for life in society (4.1-11) g. Epilogue on the "way of life" (4.12-14) faithful (16.5) d. The revelation of the three signs of the truth
3. The way of death (5.1-2) a. Introduction (5.1a) b. Catalog of vices (5. lb-2) (16.6-7) e. The arrival of the Kyrios (16.8) c. Final admonition (5.2c) 4. Epilogue (6.1) and appendix (6.2-3) II. The liturgy (7.1—10.7) b. Genre It is immediately apparent that the document is a generically mixed composition. Each individual part (tractate on the "ways," liturgy, church order in the narrower sense, apocalypse) belongs to a different literary genre
1. On baptism (7.1-4) la. Addition: On fasting and prayer (8.1-3) 1 Schaff, Church Manual, 23. Kyrios), another short passage on the judgment of 2 The conclusion of the book in the Bryennios manuthe world must have followed. On this, also, see script has unfortunately been lost. More will be said below. about this below. After 16.8 (the arrival of the
attempt to derive the complete teaching or views of the Didachist from the Didache,8 The Didache is not a "theo logical" work but a rule for ecclesiastical praxis, a hand book of church morals, ritual, and discipline. and could stand alone.3 Indeed, this writing was com posed by a compiler or redactor using very diverse extant materials. (We must inquire later about the partic ular parts possibly attributable to the redactor himself.)
The resultant whole cannot be easily classified.
Ordinarily, scholars refer to it as a "church order,"4
"community order," "church manual," or something sim ilar.5 Karl Bihlmeyer, for instance, speaks of a "hand book of religion"; Alfred Adam of a "church book."6 In this book, the compiler (a church leader of the early 2d century) has produced an instruction, a rule, a kind of regula vitae christianae for his own sphere of influence; it
The Didachist possessed no direct literary model from which to construct this work.9 The elements of church order in the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are certainly not sufficient to constitute a model, to say nothing of the fact that the Didachist could scarcely have been acquainted with the Pastorals.10
Nonetheless, we should not overestimate our author's originality. The construction of a rule for a church com munity of limited size is predetermined by the nature of the task itself,11 and the literary form of such a docu ment was also prescribed by presuppositions governing is entirely aimed at practical needs and lacks any theoret ical or even speculative exposition of Christian belief.
The compiler is no "theologian."' It would be foolish to 3 Cf. the brief analysis in Rordorf and Tuilier,
Doctrine, 17-18.
4 Most recently, again, Wengst, Didache, 18.
5 Audet (Didache, 248, 436-41) differs, preferring (on the basis of an assumption of the apostolicity of the document) to distinguish the Didache quite sharply from the genre of later canonical literature. In this matter, however, Audet (pp. 249-53) permits his statements about the literary genre of the writing to be determined by the original title, as he himself has deduced it; this approach is questionable. Some reservations about the assumption that the writing is to be interpreted as a church order are also voiced by Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 21 n. 2.
6 Bihlmeyer, Apostolischen Vater, xiii; Adam, "Herkunft," 60-63. Stempel ("Lehrer," 214-15) regards the Didache as a "religious pedagogical doc ument." This judgment corresponds to his thesis about the special role of the btbdtanaXoq in the community of the Didache (see below). The Didachist is regarded as one of these teachers.
7 Cf. Wengst, Didache, 17. This is also emphasized by Kraft, Didache, 65; however, he makes the "authoreditor" of the Didache a mere copyist (pp. 1-2).
Proceeding on this basis, Schollgen now asserts that "theological problems play no role explicitly"
("Church Order," 63).
8 There are passing and sometimes implicit details that make clear what the teaching and views of the Didachist (or the Didachist's sources) were; but it would be wrong to try to construct a "theology" of the Didachist from those details. The teaching and views of the Didachist cannot be reduced to what emerges, en passant and implicitly, from this writ ing. The same is a fundamental objection to all attempts to determine the "theology" of the Didache and to distinguish it from others (e.g., Matthew's or Paul's); on this, see, e.g., Aono, Entwicklung,
163-210, esp. 190-96 and 208-10. Such attempts violate the principle that forbids direct comparison of texts that indicate different levels of reflection.
I Gunther Bornkamm differs ("Eschatology and Ecclesiology in the Gospel of Matthew," in Gunther
Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinzjoachim Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew [trans.
Percy Scott; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963] 17).
Bornkamm establishes a parallel structure for Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and the Didache
(parenesis as Torah for admission, individual ques tions regarding the life of worship and behavior in the church, eschatological outlook). "One may draw the conclusion that a settled 'catechism pattern' provided the basis for their composition and in the Didache this actually acquires the char acter of an ecclesiastical discipline" (ibid.). In a later essay
("Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt," NTS 24 [1978/79] 432) Bornkamm again refers to this question. Once more he discovers points of contact, but this time he gives stronger emphasis to the peculiarities of the Didache: "The Sermon on the Mount differs from the Didache, however, in that it lacks all those elements that give the latter its character as a church order" (ibid.). In my opinion, the points of structural contact are scarcely adequate to justify the assumption of a common catechetical schema, and in any case, the Didache cannot be understood on the basis of such a schema alone (as Bornkamm himself emphasizes).
10 See below.
II One may think of IQS and lQSa. In the pagan sphere, reference can be made to the stele from Philadelphia: SIG 3.985 (pp. 113-18). On this, see
Weinreich, Privatheiligtums in Philadelphia, 1-68.
The rules can be divided "into four sections: I.
Introduction such an enterprise. The "basic document" that the Didachist used as a source afforded a foundation of sorts for the construction of the Didache. Once the plan of producing a book of rules had been conceived, the very nature of the enterprise suggested that instructions for baptism and the Eucharist, as well as questions regard ing order within the community, should be added. The eschatological conclusion, as a further additional ele ment, may have been suggested by the model of the basic document.12 The whole composition is unpreten tious as literature, nourished by praxis and intended for immediate application. There may have been a particu lar occasion or cause that impelled the influential but unknown author to produce this compilation. We do not, however, know what that occasion may have been,13 and we cannot reconstruct it from what we can learn of the author's tendencies — except to say, in general terms, that the Didache was written in a time of transi tion and its author is clearly making an effort to harmo nize ancient and revered traditions of the church with new ecclesial necessities. The book does not claim to regulate the behavior of the entire church;14 it appears to have only local situations in view. Still, from the very fact that it preserves the archaic traditions of a particu lar locality, this document is of great importance.15
(p. 110). The authority of the document is sup ported by a recourse to the twelve apostles. In sum: the Didache appears "as an expansion of Matthew
28:19-20. ... It purports to be the Lord's teaching through the Twelve to the Gentiles. It tells how dis ciples are to be made (catechetical section, chapters
Reasons for the dedication, listing of the group of gods (lines 2-11); II. Prescriptions of a religious and moral nature (lines 12-50); III. Agdistis, guardian of the sanctuary, who also watches over the disposi tion of the members of the cult (lines 51-60); IV.
Concluding prayer to Zeus for a blessing (lines 60-64)" (p. 4).
12 I do not believe that chap. 16 of the Didache goes back to the "basic document," but I think that this chapter may have replaced the epilogue of that doc- / ument. On this, see below.
1-6), how they are to be baptized (chapter 7), and what the Lord has commanded them to observe
(chapters 8-15), and finally it encourages them to wait for the end of the age (chapter 16)" (p. 122).
14 One may not attempt to interpret the Didache on the basis of the two titles of the document as found in H. See below.
15 Schollgen ("Church Order," 43-64, and passim) now emphasizes the merely selective character of the Didache. According to Schollgen, the document
"has a limited purpose in its composition and is, as a selective church order, a polemical text on particu lar problems of community life" (p. 63). Behind this judgment lies an accurate insight, but one that IB See now the speculations of Wengst, Didache, 18. Of course, one may produce specific suggestions if one adopts the fictional hypothesis and a late dating of the document. Johnson ("Motive," 107-22) distin guishes three ipotives that are supposed to have led to the composition of the Didache: (1) the intention to write "a catechetical manual" (p. 108); (2) the intention to create a handbook "for a matured church" (ibid.); and (3) (this is Johnson's special the sis) to solve some problems left open by the evange lists. The Didache thus becomes a commentary on the Gospels. It is, among other things, "a commen tary on the gospels and other Christian books" should not be overdrawn. For example, I would not call the Didache a "polemical text."
things. Eusebius knows of a writing entitled tup aitootoAup Aidaxoti ("Teachings of the Apostles").1 The 2. Attestation of the Didache a. References in Ancient Canonical Lists
Before the discovery of the Bryennios manuscript, the existence of the Didache was known only from other wit nesses. Among these, the attestations in the canonical lists play a special but not entirely unproblematic role. insertion of the phrase al Aejopepac ("so-called") expresses his doubt either about the apostolicity of the writing or about the title of the document itself.2 3 At the same time we learn that, although this writing does not enjoy canonical recognition, it belongs to a group that follows the canonical writings, and as part of that group the document enjoys the respect of the eKnArjOiaoTiKOi audpegA Of course, this welcome news is rendered somewhat problematic. Is Eusebius really referring to our Didache (which I consider likely), or to the Greek tractate on the Two Ways whose Latin translation is retained for us in the Doctrina apostolorum (which I con sider less likely)? The question remains open.4
Eusebius's canonical list (Hist. eccl. 3.25) first mentions the generally acknowledged writings of the New Testa ment, the homologoumena ("recognized books"), followed by the group of antilegomena ("disputed books"), the lat ter divided into two subgroups, the "antilegomena, yet familiar to most" (3.25.3) and the voda ("spurious,"
3.25.4), including the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd (of Hermas), the Apocalypse of Peter, nai itpog TOVTOLg rj ipepopevr) Bapvafia emoToArj nai rwv airooToAuv ai
Aejopeuac Aidax&i ("also the alleged Epistle of Barna bas and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles") — and finally the Johannine Apocalypse (which, however,
Eusebius also lists among the homologoumena), as well as (with some reservations) the Gospel to the Hebrews, used primarily by Jewish Christians. As Eusebius notes, these are writings that are not included in the canon but are among the disputed books; nevertheless, they are acknowledged by a great many eKKAr)OLaoTU<oi (i.e., audpeg): ova evbca'drjKOvg pep ctAAct noti aPTcAeyopevag, opug 5e itapa itAelaroLg rum eKKApocaoTiKccp ycPoiOKopepag ("not canonical but disputed, yet familiar
It is probable that the same document (i.e., our Didache) appears in the Thirty-ninth Easter Letter of Athanasius of Alexandria from the year 367, a document of great importance for the history of the biblical canon of the Greek church.5 After listing the canonical writings of the Old and New Testaments, Athanasius mentions erepa fiifiA'ia tovtccp e^cc&ev, ov navovipopeva pep,
TeTVTtwpeva 8e itapa tup irarepav apaycPuoKeodai. rolg apn itpooepxopepoig nai fiovAopevoig Karr)XelodaL top rrjg euae^eiag Aoyop ("other books not recognized as canonical, but recommended by our ancestors for reading by those who have recently entered and wish to learn the word of faith") — that is, books that, although not included in the canon, nevertheless enjoy a certain regard as (we might say) books approved by the church and, accordingly, appropriate reading for to most churchmen," Hist. eccl. 3.25.6). A clear distinc tion is drawn between both groups of the antilegomena and the absolutely rejected heretical writings (3.25.6-7).
Thus as far as our question is concerned we learn two 1 Rufinus's translation has the singular: Doctrina quae dicitur apostolorum (GCS 2.1.253), as does the Syriac version. The Armenian translation (from Syriac) reads: "those that are called Teachings" (cf. GCS
2.1.252).
2 Cf. the remarks of Audet, Didache, 83.
3 Bihlmeyer (Apostolischen Vater, xvi) infers regarding the Didache that "it was thus counted by some as part of the New Testament canon." Adolf von
Harnack ("Prolegomena," 6-7) had already said something similar. This judgment, however, is very questionable. It is a matter of dispute whether
Clement of Alexandria cites our Didache as ypaipi); see below.
4 It should be noted that Eusebius mentions the Aidaxai immediately after the letter of Barnabas.
We will have to deal later with the tractate on the ment" underlying the Didache). In the following dis cussion of the witnesses, we will presume this "basic document" hypothesis.
Festal Letter 39 §11 (Preuschen, Analecta, 45).
According to Barnard ("Later History," 101) this reference is to the Two Ways tractate. Kraft is skep tical: "Probably our document or something very similar to it is meant" (Didache, 73).
The aitOKpvtpa are then clearly distinguished from these.
The Coptic text can now be found in Athanasius, Lettres festales et pastorales en Copte (trans. and ed.
L.-Theophile Lefort; CSCO 150-51; Louvain:
Durbecq, 1955) 150.19-20. The Paris fragment (B.
N. 151) of Codex B contains (p. 177), at the crucial point for our question, a text that Lefort (Lettres fes tales, CSCO 151.37) renders as follows: "la DI <DA>
SC ALIKE DES APOTRES, — je ne parle pas de celle "Two Ways" (sometimes called the "basic docu
Introduction so on. Finally, our writing appears under the title Atdaxv dirooToXup in the stichometry attributed to Patriarch Nicephoros of Constantinople13 in sixth place in the list of the New Testament apocrypha,14 with the stich number 200.15 These numbers are "for the most part round, sometimes very much rounded figures."16
According to Zahn,17 the figure given for the Didache by the stichometry of Nicephoros is much too low.18
Rordorf and Tuilier, who give the number of stichoi in Codex Hierosolymitanus 54 as 204,19 see the information in the stichometry of Nicephoros as evidence that the text of Cod. Hier. 54 goes back to a "prototype from Christian antiquity."20 baptismal candidates.6 In this group are Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, kccl Aibax*) naXovnevr) mv airooToXuv ("and the 'Teachings' said to be 'of the Apostles'"), and Hermas.7 This time our writ ing is called Atbaxv tup otkootoXup. It is not clear what
Athanasius means by the added KaXov^evr}; cf. the par allel eTTLOToXcti KadoXiKai KaXovpevai tup dirooToXup
("catholic epistles said to be 'of the apostles,'" §8).8
There are additional references in later canonical lists.
First is Ps.-Athanasius Synops. script, sacr. 76 (PG 28.432),9 where our document appears as Atbocxv octtootoXup.10
Then there is Indicium scriptorum canonicorum sexaginta,n where, among the apocryphal writings, in seventeenth place, we find IlepioboL nai 8lbaxai tup dirooToXup,n followed by Barnabas, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Paul, and One may doubt that the information given by Eusebius and Athanasius really refers to our Didache, and manuscripts. The idea of sixty canonical books
Zahn finds attested (pp. 292-93) as early as the 7th century by Antiochus, a monk of Sabas (PG
89.1428).
12 It is doubtful what one should understand by this title. The expression ireploboq is reminiscent of the apostolic "Acts."
13 In Preuschen, Analecta, 2.64. On this, see Zahn, Geschichte, 2.295-301: the stichometry (which, in the more extensive recension, constitutes the conclu sion to the chronography) is not part of the original text of Nicephoros, but is (according to Zahn,
Geschichte, 2.297) "a redaction of it undertaken in about 850."
14 It is preceded by the periodoi of Paul, Peter, John, and Thomas, and the Gospel of Thomas, and is fol lowed by the thirty-two (books?) of Clement, etc. qui passe pour corriger le Deuteronome (the DIDASCALIA OF THE APOSTLES - I am not referring to the one that serves to correct Deuter onomy)." According to the Coptic version the writ ing was called r) bibaoKaXcKT] rap otkootoXuip, but that is certainly corrupt (perhaps a conflation of dibaxv and bcbaoKaXia). Nothing at all sensible can be made of the strange addition ("je ne parle pas de celle . . ."). It seems to me very questionable that the scribe (the codex probably comes from the 9th-10th century: cf. Lefort, Lettresfestates, CSCO
150.viii) knew the Didache at all. Thus for our pur poses the Coptic text is of no value.
Cf. Audet's remarks, Didache, 85.
For the synopsis, see Quasten, Patrology, 3.39; and esp. Zahn, Gpschichte, 2.302-18, according to which the synopsis is a compilation, and the passage that describes the antilegomena and apocrypha is older and was incorporated by the compiler; in fact, the text depends on a list that is closely related to that of Nicephoros (see below). "The compilation cer tainly did not originate before the sixth century; it may have been later" (Zahn, Geschichte, 2.315).
15 ALbaxv amoToXap arix■ a'.
16 Zahn, Geschichte, 2.403.
17 Cf. Zahn's overall assessment of the numbers in the stichometry of "Nicephoros," Geschichte, 2.403.
18 Geschichte, 2.403. Cf. Ehrhard, Altchristliche Litteratur, 44. Audet (Didache, 111) attempted (with some provisos) to make use of the information in the stichometry to promote his hypothesis that the Didache was formed in stages (see below).
Accordingly, the number of stichoi would refer only Trj<; veaq iraXiP AiadriKriq avriXeyogieva raOra.
IlepioboL nerpov, IlepioboL 'luavvov, IlepLoboL
0a pa, EvceyyeXcop Kara Oapa, Acbaxp diroaroXcop, KXppepna, a>p pereippaadpaap eicXeyepra rot. aXrjdecsTepa ku'l deoicpevora. Tavra ra a.payLPoxjKopepa ("These are the disputed books of the new covenant: The periodoi [travels] of Peter, the periodoi of John, the periodoi of Thomas, the Gospel to the first edition.
19 Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 109 n. 3. The num bers of stichoi in the stichometry of Nicephoros probably refer (according to Rordorf and Tuilier,
Doctrine, 110) to an uncial text.
20 Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 109. according to Thomas, the Teachings of the Apostles, the Clementines, parts of which may be considered more faithful and inspired by God.
These are the books that are read").
See Preuschen, Analecta, 2.69; Zahn, Geschichte, 2.289-93. This is a list transmitted by a number of
one26 is uncertain.27 I consider it very improbable that he identifies all three writings (referring thereby to our
Didache).28 Instead, the more likely conclusion is that with Doctrina apostolorum Rufinus refers to Qur Didache, and with Duae viae to the independent tractate on the Two Ways.29 The reference of the title Iudicium secundum
Petrum is a question that can remain open. one could posit that ultimately they are speaking of the tractate on the Two Ways (which was also transmitted separately in antiquity) in one of its recensions.21 Simi larly, the information in Rufinus cannot be applied with certainty to particular writings. In the translation in Eusebius's church history (Hist. eccl. 3.25.4), the Greek source is represented by Doctrina quae dicitur apostolorum
("The Teaching called 'of the Apostles,'" GCS 2.1.253).
In the canonical list in Expositio symboli 36 (CChrSL 20.171)22 Rufinus mentions among the alii libri . . . qui non canonici, sed ecclesiastici a maioribus appellati sunt
("other books . . . which by most are called not canoni cal, but ecclesiastical")23 in the New Testament series libellus qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermae, et his qui appellatur
Duae viae, vel Indicium secundum Petrum ("little book called 'The Pastor' or 'of Hermas,' and the one called
'Two Ways,' or 'Sentences according to Peter'").24
Whether by Duae viae and Iudicium secundum Petrum Rufinus is referring to two different writings25 or only b. Quotations in Early Church Literature
Of the instances of quotations from the Didache in the literature of the early church that have been pointed out in the course of time, only a few are conclusive. More over, some of them are rendered questionable by the fact that they belong to the "two ways" section of the book, so that it is uncertain whether the citation in ques tion can really be traced to our Didache, rather than to the independent tractate on the "ways" that is one of the sources of our document.
(1) This ambiguity is true of the very first citation 21 This doubt could also apply to Ps.-Athanasius. The Indiculus probably indicates no knowledge at all of Church Order (= Canons of the Apostles)', cf. Ehrhard,
Altchristliche Litteratur, 44-45; Bardenhewer, Geschichte, 2.260 (as probable). Barnard ("Later
History," 101) suggests that the reference is to the Two Ways tractate.
27 Skeptical are Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 108 n. 5.
Audet (Didache, 85-86, n. 2) thinks of reading the vel as well as the preceding sive as indications of an alternative title, which would lead to an identifica tion of the Duae viae with the Iudicium. But Audet refuses to decide whether this writing is also identi cal with the Didache.
28 Thus already Bryennios, AcOaxV, k,6 ' and ke:'. Cf. also the suggestions of Harnack, "Prolegomena,"
21-24; and Schaff, Church Manual, 137.
29 Cf. Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 108-9.
30 There are no examples from the time before Clement. The parallel between Did. 1.2 and Justin the writing he mentions. By contrast, the informa tion in the stichometry of Nicephoros very probably refers to our Didache.
22 On this, see Stenzel, "Bibelkanon," 43-61.
23 On the libri ecclesiastici of the NT in Rufinus, cf.
Stenzel, "Bibelkanon," 57-60. This refers to the "books that are read in the churches" (p. 57).
24 Variae lectiones: Iudicium petri: Iudicium petrum (cf. the text-critical information, CChrSL 2.171).
Rufinus continues: Quae omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Ceteras vero scripturas apochryphas nominarunt, quas in ecclesia legi noluerunt ("All of which they wished to be read in the churches, not, however, in order to thereby support the faith. But they mention other, apocryphal writings which they did not want read in the church").
25 Jerome mentions a writing called Iudicium (Liber de viris inluslribus 1, ed. Ernest C. Richardson [TU
1 Apol. 16.6 (Goodspeed, Apologeten, 37) — top iroLr]oa.VTa oe ("the one who made you") — proves nothing about Justin's knowledge of the Didache, as Franz Xaver Funk thought ("Zur Apostellehre und apostolischen Kirchenordnung," ThQ 69 [1887]
357-59). Justin's knowledge of the Didache was asserted particularly by Taylor (Teaching 98, 113,
14.1a; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1896] 7). Stenzel ("Bibel kanon," 58-60) attempts to show that Duae viae and Iudicium secundum Petrum are two different writings.
He interprets vel as the equivalent of et (with Zahn).
Stenzel ("Bibelkanon," 58) wishes to think of the Duae viae as referring to the first six chapters of the Didache, "disseminated as a special edition." For the Iudicium, Stenzel refers to the information in Jerome and regards the writing mentioned there as 116); he even (116) wanted to see some relationship in their theologies. On Did. 1.3 and Justin 1 Apol.
15.9 (Goodspeed, Apologeten, 35), see below.
According to M. A. Smith ("Did Justin Know the Didache?" StPatr 7.1 [TU 92; Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1966) 287-90]), Justin's account in 1 Apol.
61-65 appears to depend on Did. 7-14. But the parhaving been lost.
26 This would then be a reference to the Apostolic
Introduction dits"), and that the following <pr]oi simply means "so it says, so it has been handed down,"35 but that there is no intention to qualify the subsequent quotation as "Scripture."36 worth serious consideration,30 which has played a certain role in research on the Didache as well, Clement of Alexandria Strom. 1.20, 100.4 (GCS 23.64). The context is
Clement's polemic against the claims of Greek philoso phy, which arrogated to itself the teachings of the Old
Testament. We would call it intellectual plagiarism.
Clement writes: epiraAtP ovp adutel 6 ocperepLoapepoq ra (3ap(3apop Kai cog Idea avxup, rr)v eavrov bo^av av^wp Kai \f/ei'bopepoq rpp aApdecap. ovroq "KAeTTTpq"
It has repeatedly been suggested that Clement of Alexandria quotes the Didache in other places besides
Strom. 1.20, 100.4, or at least indicates that he is famil iar with it.37
(a) Some passages in which Clement quotes a series of prohibitions recall Did. 2.2: ov ipopevoecq, oi) poixtvoeiq, oil Tcaibovdoprjoeiq, ov KAei/zecq, ov i//€vbopapTvprjoeiq ("thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness,"
Protr. 10.108.5 [GCS 13.77]); ov iroppevoecq, ov potXevoetq, ov TTaiboipdoprioeiq ("thou shalt not engage in harlotry, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt boys," Paed. 2.10, 89.1 [GCS 13.211]); ov poix^vaecq, ovk eibwAoAarppoeLq, ov Traiboipdopr)oecq, ov KAe\pecq, ov \f/evbopapTvppoeiq ("thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not worship idols, thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness," 3.12, 89.1 [GCS 13.285); to pep "ov pocx^voecq" Kai "ov Tracbo<p$oprio6Lq"
Kai ooa eiq eypparecap ovp(3aAAeTaL ("the com mands 'thou shalt not commit adultery,' and 'thou shalt not corrupt boys,' and all the commandments enjoining purity," Strom. 3.4, 36.5 [GCS 23.212]).
Striking here is iraiboipdopelp, which is absent from vtto rrjq ypcaprjq elpprat. (prjoi yovv "vie, pr) yivov \pevorriqobpyeZ yap to \pevopa irpoq tt)p kAottyip" ("On the other hand, therefore, whoever appropriates what belongs to the barbarians, and boasts it is his own, does wrong by increasing his own glory and falsifying the truth. It is this kind of person scripture calls a 'thief.'
Therefore it is said, 'Son, be not a liar, for falsehood leads to theft'"). The text Clement cites corresponds, with slight variations,31 to the text of Did. 3.5. Or is this a quotation from the independent "ways" tractate?32
Clement does not name the document he is quoting.
There is also disagreement about the value Clement assigns to the work. As a rule, vtto Tr)q ypatprjq is inter preted to mean that the quoted text has the status of (sacred) Scripture.33 Thus Clement would be calling the Didache ypatpr) — on the assumption that it is the Didache, and not, for example, the independent tractate on the "ways" in one of its versions, that is being quoted.
As early as 1913, Otto Stahlin raised some doubts about this opinion.34 He thought that ypaq>Y) referred to John
10:8, irdpreq ooot rjAdop (irpo epbv) nAemac eioip Kai Arjorai ("all who came [before me] are thieves and ban
Jacquier, Doctrine, 110 n. 4; Schaff, Church Manual, allels are not so extensive as to cause us to think of a genuine literary dependence. [Ed. For the sugges tion that Ignatius of Antioch was familiar at least with the traditions underlying the Didache, and per haps with an early form of the text itself, cf. Clayton
N. Jefford, "Did Ignatius of Antioch Know the Didache?" injefford, Context, 330-51.] 31 Didache Clement of Alexandria 114 ("an inspired book in a wider sense"); cf. 121;
Hemmer, Doctrine, xviii; Knopf, Lehre, 15; Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 97 n. 6.
34 Otto Stahlin, "Zu dem Didachezitat bei Clemens Alexandrinus," ZNW 14 (1913) 271-72.
35 Stahlin, 272.
36 This in turn was disputed by John E. L. Oulton, "Clement of Alexandria and the Didache," JTS 41
(1940) 177-79, but not cogently.
37 For an expansive treatment, see Francis R. M.
Hitchcock, "Did Clement of Alexandria Know the Didache}" JTS 24 (1923) 397-401. The only material tckvov pov, vie pr) yivov pevorrig pr) yivov JevoTrp~ eireibri odr^yei to if/evopa odriyei yap to \[/evopa elg tt}V kAottt)v . . . irpog tt)v kAottyiv . . .
32 According to Muilenburg, Literary Relations, 33-34, Clement is citing a Jewish apocryphon that under lies Did. 3.1-6. Cf. Robinson, Didache, 62; idem,
"Barnabas and the Didache," 242; Vokes, Riddle, 76.
33 Thus first of all Bryennios, AibaxT], tty'; then Harnack, "Prolegomena," 15; idem, Apostellehre, 22; that can really be considered is that cited by Giet,
L'Enigme, 36 n. 96; and Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 125 n. 1.
36, fol. 107v., cf. the remarks in GCS 32.xxvii-xxviii.
Problematic as a witness is Origen De princ. 3.2.7
(GCS 5.255): Propterea docet nos scriptura divina omnia quae accidunt nobis tamquam a deo illata suscipere, scientes quod sine deo nihil fit ("that is why divine Scripture teaches us to receive everything that happens to us as coming from God, knowing that without God nothing comes to be"). The text recalls Did. 3.10 (especially in the final phrase).38 But in light of the sententious char acter of the expression, this cannot be a quotation, and Origen must simply intend to introduce appropriate biblical passages such as Job 1:13-22 (to which he has referred just before) or Matt 10:29 (which he cites after ward). Moreover, the text of Did. 3.10 is almost identical to that of Barn. 19.6c, and both come from the "ways" tractate.39 Similarly, one can scarcely claim the equally sententious expressions in Dorotheus Archimandrita
Doctr. 13.1 (PG 88.1761B) and Ep. 3 (PG 88.1840C) as witnesses for the Didache.40 Finally (with an extreme stretch), there could be a play on Did. 1.4 in Johannes
Climacus Scala paradisi gradus 26 (PG 88.1029A): evaefiuv pep, to iravTi aiTovvTi bibovac, evcrefieoTepup be Kai tu pr) a'novPTL. To be airo too atpovTog prj a-KaiTeip bwapevovg paXtora, Taxer tup aira&up Kai popup Ibiov KafieorrjKep*1 ("It is characteristic of the the biblical Decalogues but is found in the series in Did. 2.2. Cf. also Barn. 19.4 (a "ways" tractate).
(b) In Strom. 5.5, 31.1 (GCS 23.346) we read: JIaXlp av bvo odovg vrcoTidepevov rod evayyeXiov kcci tow airooToXuv opoiug roig Trpo<pr)Tcuc; airaoc Kai rqp liev KCiXovvTctv "oTevrjv Kai Te'dXcppeppv" tt)v Kara rag evroXag Kai a-Kayopevoeig TrepceoTaXpep-qp, tt)v be evavTiav Tqp eig driruXeiap ipepovoav
"irXaTeiav Kai evpvxupov" ktX. ("But again, the gospel supposes two ways, as do the apostles, and similarly all the prophets; and they call that one 'nar row and confined' that is circumscribed according to the commandments and prohibitions, and the oppo site one, which leads to perdition, [they call] 'broad and roomy' ..." [with a subsequent reference to the fable of Prodicus: 31.2]). Rordorf and Tuilier
{Doctrine, 125 n. 1) conclude from the expression Kai tup ockootoXup opoiug rolg -apoipqTaig anaaL that Clement is probably thinking of our Didache. This is not very persuasive.
(c) Finally, there is the liturgical expression ovTog (6) top oIpop, to aipa rqg ap^eXov Tfjg Aaflib, eKX^ag ("you pour out this wine, the blood of the vine of David," Quis dives salv. 29.4 [GCS 32.179]; cf.
Did. 9.2). The Didache and Clement, however, may be independently quoting the same liturgical tradition.
For the fragment from the Nicetas catena in Mon. Gr. pious to 'give to everyone who asks,' but of the more pious still to 'give to one who does not ask.' Not to 38 Hemmer (Doctrine, xviii) and Schaff {Church
Manual, 116) take this to be a quotation.
39 Of course, we cannot exclude the possibility that Origen is quoting unconsciously.
40 Still more remote is Dionysius of Alexandria (?) in John of Damascus Sacra parallela 33 {PG 96.320A).
41 The contacts between Origen Horn. 6.2 in Iudic.
(Origenis, Opera Omnia, vol. 11: In Libros Josuae Judicum et I Samuelis Homiliae [ed. C. H. E. see below at Did. 12.5. Franz Xaver Funk, in turn (in an untitled note on the Didache, ThQ 74 [1892] 522) indicated a passage in the Latin Passio bead Phileae episcopi de civitate Thmui (3 end): dicit enim sacra et divina scriptura: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum qui te fecit ["for the sacred and divine scripture says: You shall love the Lord your God who made you"]
(Herbert Musurillo, ed., The Acts of the Christian Martyrs [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr. 1979] 346).
Meanwhile, a Greek version of the Acts has been found in P. Bodm. XX (Musurillo, Acts, xlvi-xlvii), which unfortunately has a gap just at the parallel passage. But lines 14 (end) and 15 (beginning) could have read (in Martin's conjecture): ayairr)oecq kp top ftp oq oe \ kiroLqaev ("you shall love the Lord your God who made you"). Cf. Musurillo, Acts,
338. The Greek text stems from the beginning of the 4th century (Musurillo, Acts, xlvii). The quota tion is from Deut 6:5, but with an expansion {qui te fecit ["who made you"]), the sense of which also
Lommatzsch; Berlin: Haude and Spener, 1841] 258) and Did. 9.2 do not rest on literary dependence
(thus Hemmer, Doctrine, xviii; Schaff, Church Manual, 116) but on the common language of the liturgy. According to Adam ("Herkunft," 48) the Ps.Clementine Epistula ad Virgines is dependent on the Didache. Adam thinks that Ps.-Clement Ep. ad virg.
1.11.8 (Hugo Duensing, "Die dem Klemens von Rom zugeschriebenen Briefe iiber die Jungfraulichkeit," ZKG 63 [1950/51] 176) is a "deliberate challenge to Did. 11.11." This can scarcely be cor rect. On the question of the key word Xfirarep-Kopoq
(making a business of Christ) and the suggestions about quotations of the Didache connected with it, appears in Did. 1.2. The same addition is also found in Justin 1 Apol. 16.6 (cf. n. 30 above). Here, as there, we cannot conclude that it is derived from
Introduction refuse one who takes something away, when one is able to do so, is perhaps characteristic of those who have no emotion, and them alone.") author of the writings of Ps.-Cyprian47 really quotes the Didache is suggested by the specific naming of the writ ing.48 The passage involves a free quotation that mixes
14.2 with 15.3.49 This quotation is a welcome proof of the existence of a Latin translation of the Didache (and not merely of the tractate on the "ways") around 300 (in Africa?), as well as of the title it bore: lldoctrinae apostolorum."50
Almost certainly the liturgical texts can be eliminated from the list of witnesses: (Ps.-)Athanasius De virg. 13 recalls motifs from Did. 9.3-4;42 Serapion of Thmuis
Euchologion 13.13 recalls Did. 9.4;43 P. Der Balizeh, fol.
IIv., lines 3-11, is reminiscent of Did. 9.2, 4, and perhaps also 10.5.44 It is true that they illustrate individual expressions from the Didachistic prayers in a most fortu nate way, but it is difficult to suppose that they are dependent on the Didache. The agreements must, rather, rest on common liturgical tradition.
Table 1 Did. 14.2
Did. 15.3
De aleat.
Iraq 5e exon* tt]v apipi,- /cal iravrl aGToxovvTi si quisprater fioAictv pera tov eralpov avrov Kara, tov erepov delinquit (2) The Latin witnesses begin with an interesting example, Ps.-Cyprian De aleat. 4 (CSEL 3.3.96): et in doctrinis apostolorum: si quisfrater delinquit in ecclesia et non paret [v.l. apparet] legi, hie nec colligatur [v.l. colligitur],
— — in ecclesia - et non paret legi, pi] ovveAdera vp.lv ppdelq AaAelrco pr]5e hie nec colligatur 7Tap VptilV aKOVCTO}, eoq ov peTavopot). donee paenitentiam - agat, - et non recipiatur.
Iva pi] KOLvaiHj ne inquinetur et donee paenitentiam agat, et non recipiatur, ne inquinetur et inpediatur oratio vestra ("and in the teachings of the apos tles: if a brother offends in the church and disobeys the law, let him not be considered until he does penance, nor received, lest he defile and obstruct your prayer").45
The text recalls Did. 14.2 or 15.3.46 That the unknown euq ov dcaWayacnv inpediatur oratio vestra. i] dvola vpoiv.
Schrift adversus aleatores," in Festgabe von Fachgenossen und Freunden Karl Midler zum siebzigsten the Didache. See Altaner, "Doctrina," 337-38.
42 Eduard von der Goltz, ed., Ps.Athanasius, De virginitate: Aoyoq ouTppiaq npoq vqv ttapdevov (de virginitate): Eine echte Schrift des Athanasius (TU, n.s. 14.2a;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905) 47. According to MacLean, "Introduction," xxvi; Hemmer, Doctrine, xix;
Muilenburg, Literary Relations, 39; and Vokes, Riddle, 73-74, and frequently elsewhere, this set of parallels indicates familiarity with the Didache.
Adam ("Herkunft," 34) believes that Did. 9.3-4 was used as a table prayer.
43 Serapion, Euchologion, in Funk, Didascalia, 2.174.
Dependence on the Didache is postulated by MacLean, "Introduction," xxvi; Creed, "Didache,"
374; Vokes, Riddle, 73-74 and frequently elsewhere; van Haelst, "Nouvelle reconstitution," 451.
44 Roberts and Capelle, Euchologium, 26. Also in van Haelst, "Nouvelle reconstitution," 449, who also
(pp. 449, 451) thinks there are citations from the Didache. Cf. also Cyprian Ep. 63.13 (CSEL 3.2.712) and 69.5 (CSEL 3.2.754).
45 The quotation is marked in the editions.
46 Cf. the synopsis in table 1.1 do not think that the text also recalls Did. 4.14 (so Harnack,
"Prolegomena," 20-21; Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 80).
47 On this document, earlier much disputed, cf.
Bardenhewer, Geschichte, 2.49-99; Hugo Koch, "Zur Geburtstag dargebracht (Tubingen: Mohr, 1922)
58-67; Altaner and Stuiber, Patrologie, 177: "a vul gar Latin sermon against dice-players. . . . The author may have been a Catholic bishop in Africa writing around 300."
48 The text extract is contained within a series of quo tations. Chap. 4 first cites texts from the Pastorals, then introduces a quotation from 1 Cor 5:11 with et iterum ("and again"); there follows, alio loco ("else where"), a quotation of unknown origin; then, after the introductory words in doctrinis apostolorum ("in the teachings of the apostles"), comes our quotation from the Didache. Then follows et apostolus iterum dicit ("and again the apostle says"), with a quotation from 1 Cor 5:13. The conclusion is a corollary refer ring to the multorum testium unitas et consonans monitio ("single and harmonious admonition of a multitude of witnesses"). The conclusion: doctrina apostolorum ("teachings of the apostles") was regard ed by the author (probably without much reflec tion) as an apostolic writing having apostolic authority.
49 This free and mixed quotation has no consequences for the text of the Didache itself.
50 Altaner ("Doctrina," 340) also supports the position
Optatus of Mileve Contra Parmen. 1.21 (CSEL 26.23) writes denique inter cetera praecepta etiam haec tria iussio divina prohibuit: non occides, non ibis post deos alienos, et in capitibus mandatorum: non facies scisma ("finally, among other commandments, these three also the divine order prohibits: you shall not kill, you shall not run after other gods, and in the chapters of commandments: you shall not cause schism"), the last expression, taken by itself, suggests a play on 1 Cor 1:10; however, there is a greater similarity to Did. 4.3, ou ttotryaeig axtapa ("you shall not cause division") — a text that comes from the Two Ways tractate; cf. Barn. 19.12 (where the text is the same), and Doctrina apostolorum: non facies dissensiones ("you shall not In 1914 Richard Reitzenstein edited Ps.-Cyprian's De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima,51 which may go back to an anonymous North African of the fourth century.52 Chap ter 14 (p. 79, lines 132-35) reads: et alio in loco scriptura haec testatur et admonet dicens: 'Si potes quidem, fili, omnia praecepta domini facere, eris consummatus; sin autem, vel duo praecepta, amare53 dominum ex totis praecordiis et similem tibi quasi (te ipsum)' ("and at another place this scripture bears witness and admonishes, with the words, 'If you are able, son, to do all the commandments of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if only one or two command ments, love the Lord with all your heart and those like you as [yourself]'"). This could be a citation of Did. 6.254
(as Reitzenstein already indicated).55 Interesting in that case (but not to be overvalued) would be the qualifica tion of the source as "scriptura."56 cause dissensions").60 It is thus quite possible here that the Latin text of the independent tractate on the Two
Ways is being quoted.61 In that case, would capita manda torum ("chapters of commandments")62 be one of its names? It should be noted that the quotation reappears in 3.7 (CSEL 26.88-89): non sacrificabis idolis idem deus locutus est et: non facies scisma et. . . ("you shall not sacri fice to idols, as God has said, and: you shall not cause schism, and . . ."), and it is striking that the quotation that recalls the "ways" tractate is introduced by deus locuThe Gesta apud Zenophilum57 is problematic: quosdam diligo super animam meam ("certain ones I love more than my soul," CSEL 26.192)58 is supposed to be a reflection of Did. 2.7, ovc; de ayotTrqaeiq vnep rqv \pu\W oov
("others you shall love more than your soul"). But it is equally possible that the text of the Two Ways tractate is being quoted — if this is a quotation at all.59 When
178) opt for North Africa, probably 4th century; see also Quasten, Patrology, 2.372.
"Ama or amabis?" Reitzenstein, "Fruhchristliche Schrift," 79. that a Latin translation of the Didache (14.2 cer tainly, 15.3 possibly) is being quoted.
Richard Reitzenstein, ed., "Ps.-Cyprian, De centesima, 53 de sexagesima, de tricesima: Eine fruhchristliche
Schrift von den dreierlei Fruchten des Lebens," 54
ZNW 15 (1914) 60-90 (the edition at 74-90). Cf. PL Sup 1.53-67 (with text-critical notes by Donatien de
Bruyne).
Reitzenstein thought of a gnosticizing author, who may just as well have belonged to the great church
("Fruhchristliche Schrift," 68). Donatien de Bruyne ("Un traite gnostique sur les trois recompenses,"
ZNW 15 [1914] 280-84) considered the 3d century 55 a possibility (dependence on Cyprian). Hugo Koch 56
("Die ps.-cyprianische Schrift De centesima, sexages ima, tricesima in ihrer Abhangigkeit von Cyprian,"
ZNW 31 [1932] 248-72) attempted to demonstrate literary dependence on Cyprian (North Africa, 4th 57 century). Jean Danielou ("Le traite de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima et le Judeo-Christianisme 58
Latin avant Tertullien," VC 25 [1971] 171-81) pos ited an African tractate of Jewish-Christian encratite provenance from the end of the 2d century. To the contrary, cf. the arguments of A. R Orban ("Die
Frage der ersten Zeugnisse des Christenlateins," VC 59 30 [1976] 214-38), who dates the writing between 251/257 and 383. Altaner and Stuiber (Palrologie,
De centesima:
Si potes quidem, fili, Did. 6.2 et, pep yap bvvaaai paorctaaL 6\ov top £vyOP TOV Kvpiov, reAetog cat] ■ el 6' ov dvpaoac o dvprj, tovto TcoleL. omnia praecepta domini facere,
eris consummatus', sin autem, vel duo praecepta . . . [etc.] Reitzenstein, "Fruhchristliche Schrift," 79.
The quotation of the Golden Rule in its negative form at 42 (ibid., 86, lines 340-41) does not go back to the Didache (nor to the Two Ways tractate). See below, at Did. 1.2.
Bardenhewer, Geschichte, 3.494. According to Altaner, "Doctrina," 338, it should be dated ca. 320.
Item alia recitata: "Fratri Forti Sabinus in domino aeternam salutem! quae sit caritas, iuxta omnes collegas certus sum peculiariter; tamen secundum dei voluntatem, qui dixit: quosdam diligo super animam meam,
Silvanum te coluisse certus sum."
Funk held for dependence on the Didache ("Didache," 603; cf. the same passage in the revision of this article in idem, Abhandlungen, 2.109).
Introduction tus est ("God said"). Nevertheless, one must avoid any overhasty conclusions about the tractate — or the Didache.63 ber that you also have a father and Lord," Inst. epit.
59[64].3 = CSEL 19.744). Compare Did./Doctr. 4.10 and Barn. 19.7. From a literary point of view, how ever, the passages in Commodian Instructiones 1.22.15
(CSEL 15.28) and Carmen apologeticum 699 (CSEL The extent to which Lactantius can be adduced for knowledge of the Two Ways tractate (or even the Didache?) is not clear to me. In Divin. inst. 6.3.1
(CSEL 19.485) we read: Duae sunt viae per quas humanam vitam progredi necesse est, una quae in caelum ferat, altera quae ad inferos deprimat: quas et poetae in 15.160) can scarcely be traced to the Two Ways trac tate.65
Epistula Titi is a problematic witness:66 praeconante prudentia gestafutura hoc est quod mandat semper dicens: Fuge filiole, omnem malum et ab omne simile illi ("while wisdom carminibus et philosophi in disputationibus suis induxerunt ("There are two ways by which it is necessary for human life to go, one that leads to heaven, another which leads down to hell: as also the poets have shown in their songs, and the philosophers in their disputations"). The "ways" motif controls the entire section that follows (6.3-4 = 19.485-94). It should be compared especially with Inst, epitome 54 (59)-62 (67)
(CSEL 19.734-50).64 One cannot deny a certain rela tionship with the tractate in the motifs (partly also in the structure). Is literary dependence present? I note one striking detail: non sit asper in filium neque in servum: meminerit quod et ipse patrem habeat ac dominum announces the future, this is what it always orders:
Avoid, my child, every evil and everything that resem bles it"). One is reminded of Did. 3.1 or Doctr. 3.1,67 so that here again, if there really is a quotation from one of the two documents (the Didache or the independent trac tate on the Two Ways),68 it is entirely possible that the Latin text of the Two Ways tractate is being quoted.69
At the same time, we find apparent instances (not of references to the Two Ways tractate, but only to our
Didache) in Augustine. In his commentary on the Psalms, he quotes four times the striking sentence about "sweat ing alms" that appears in Did. 1.6: De alio enim dictum est:
Omni petenti te da; et de alio dictum est: Desudet eleemosyna ("be not harsh to your son nor to your slave: remem
Research, 148-64 (ET of "Un chapitre d'ethique judeo-chretienne: les deux voies," RechSR 60 [1972]
Altaner ("Doctrina," 338) opted for the Latin trans lation of the "ways" tractate and regarded "depen dence on Doctr. 2.7" as "very probable." "It is not essential for our question that in the Acta Zenophili a superabundant love of neighbor is acclaimed of God, while in the Doctrina the same command is given to human beings by the apostles, and so by God" (ibid.). The Latin Doctrina reads: quosdam amabis super animam tuam ("certain ones you will love more than your own soul"). The version in Barnabas (19.5) is more remote in this instance.
60 The Canons of the Apostles and Apostolic Constitutions have the plural oxio^ara.
61 Funk considered a Didache citation possible ("Didache," 602; cf. idem, Abhandlungen, 2.109).
Altaner ("Doctrina," 338) differs: he chose the Latin translation of the tractate on the "ways."
Altaner explained the shift from dissensiones to scisma in terms of the occasion for the writing
(Optatus was polemicizing against the Donatist schism).
62 Such a title would not be ill suited to the Two Ways tractate.
63 For the contrary position, see Funk, "Didache," 602; idem, Abhandlungen, 2.109.
64 On this see Willy Rordorf, "An Aspect of the JudeoChristian Ethic: The Two Ways," in Draper,
109-28).
65 Altaner ("Doctrina," 337) sees no dependence of Lactantius or Commodian on the tractate.
66 Donatien de Bruyne, ed., "Epistula Titi, discipuli Pauli, de dispositione sanctimonii," RBen 37 (1925)
47-72, lines 261-315. This writing probably comes from the 5th century and may have been written in Spain, under the influence of the Priscillianist movement. It is transmitted in several isolated mss.
(University of Wurzburg, 8th century), which de Bruyne published. Cf. Adolf von Harnack, "Der apokryphe Brief des Paulusschiilers Titus 'De dispo sitione sanctimonii,'" SPAW.PH (1925) 180-213;
Aurelio de Santos Otero, "The Pseudo-Titus Epistle," in NTApoc, 2.53-74. Harnack ("Der apokryphe Brief," 195) pointed out the possibility of a quotation from the Didache.
67 There is no parallel in Barnabas.
68 Of course, there could also be reference to a text of related content from Sirach; the mention of prudentia may in itself indicate something of the sort: de
Santos Otero, "The Pseudo-Titus Epistle," NTApoc, 2.53 n. 1.
69 The text of Doctrina apostolorum creates some diffi culties in this passage. The Munich ms. has: Fill, fuge
ing that Augustine once explicitly refers to the sentence as "scriptura."71 We are confronted with the following alternative:72 either we really have here the Latin transla tion of a Greek alternate translation of Sir 12:1 (thus
Audet, Didache, 275-80) — which would eliminate Augustine (and his followers with him) as witness(es) to knowledge of the Didache; or the saying comes from the Didache, as Altaner maintained.73 In that case, Altaner
(in light of the Augustinian view of Scripture) must sup pose that the bishop of Hippo "did not derive [his words] from a Latin Didache available to him," but "the sentence, perhaps circulating as a familiar quotation, would have reached Augustine by a route unknown to us."74 Nevertheless, in this way Augustine would become a witness (although indirectly) for the existence of a Latin translation of the Didache in the fourth/fifth cen tury.75 The quotations from the subsequent period would then be dependent, directly or indirectly, on Augustine.76 in manu tua, donee invenias iustum, cui earn tradas ("For in another [place] it is said: Give to all who ask of you; and in another it is said: Let your charitable gift sweat in your hands until you know to whom you are giving it,"
Enar. in Ps. on Ps 102:12 [CChrSL 40.1462]); Sicut enim de illo qui te quaerit dictum est: Omni petenti te, da, sic de illo quern tu debes quaerere dictum est: Sudet eleemosyna in manu tua, donee invenias iustum cui earn tradas ("For as it is said of the one who asks you: Give to all who ask you, and of the one of whom you should inquire it is said: Let your charitable gift sweat in your hands until you know to whom you are giving it," Enar. in Ps. on Ps 103:3, 10
[CChrSL 40.1509]); utrumque dictum est,fratres mei, el:
Omni petenti te da, modo lectum est; et alio loco scriptura dicit: Sudet eleemosyna in manu tua, quousque invenias ius tum cui earn tradas. . . . Omni enim petenti te da: sed alius est quern tu debes quaerere; Sudet eleemosyna in manu tua quousque invenias iustum cui des ("and again it is said, my brothers, also: Give to all who ask you, as we just read; and another place in Scripture says: Let your charitable gift sweat in your hands until you find a just person to whom to give it. . . . give to all who ask you, but there is another whom you should seek; Let your charitable gift sweat in your hand until you find a just person to whom to give it," Enar. in Ps. on Ps 146:17 [CChrSL
40.2135]).70 The quotation then appears in postAugustinian authors (Cassiodorus Expositio in Psalterium
40 [PL 70.295D]; 103 [PL 70.733 B]; Gregory the Great Regula Pastoralis 3.20 [PL 77.84D]) and relatively often in the medieval Christian literature of the West (see fur ther on this in the commentary, at Did. 1.6). It is interest
(3) Finally, there are the Syrian witnesses. Among those in question77 are the Messalianic Liber graduum,78 which may attest to knowledge and use of the Didache.79
The insertions of the Golden Rule at 7.1 (1. 146); 15.16
(1. 375); 30.26 (11. 922-23) are not significant. Similarly, 13.1 (1. 307), iustitia autem nullos habet inimicos ("for jus tice has no enemies") need not be traced to Did. 1.3.
More important is 7.20 (1. 183), Quare non ieiunamus bis in hebdomade, sicut iustis scriptum est? . . . Et cur (1. 186) non oramus ter in die et mane et vespere, sicut iustis scriptum est ("Why should we not fast twice a week, as it is written for the just? . . . And why should we not pray three times ab homine malo, et homine simulatore ("Child, flee from the evil person, and what resembles a human being"). This not only represents a false interpreta tion of the Greek ttav irovppov ("every evil") as homo malus ("evil person"), but the last word of the Munich ms. is problematic: sim is clear, but the rest is in rasura (f3); fl read either simili illi (thus
Schlecht, Doctrina XII Apostolorum, 50) or simili illius (thus Leo Wohleb, Die lateinische Ubersetzung der
Didache kritisch und sprachlich untersucht [SGK A 7.1; Paderborn: Schoningh, 1913; repr. New York:
Johnson, 1967] 26). Altaner ("Doctrina," 339) sup Two Ways tractate. To the contrary, however, cf. de
Santos Otero (n. 68 above).
Didache Augustine (De-)sudet eleemosyna in manu tua donee (quousque) invenias iustum cui earn tradas (cui des).
Cassiodorus and Gregory the Great also write scrip tum est and de quo [or quod] scriptum est.
See the remarks below on Did. 1.6.
This is the older opinion represented by Altaner, "Doctrina," 340-41.
Altaner, "Doctrina," 341. He does not wish to exclude the possibility that Augustine, according to this, did in fact know the Didache or the Doctrina.
' Idpuodra 77 eXeppoovvr] oov elq rdq \clpdq oov, pexpcq &v yvtiq, rive daq
poses that the Epistle of Ps.-Titus had a better Latin text at its disposal than f, and therefore he emends
— following the Epistle — simile illi. Altaner sees the reference to prudentia as an indication that the source of the Epistle of Ps.-Titus was probably the
Introduction a day, both morning and evening, as it is written for the just"). The Liber graduum seems here to be making a play and the firstfruits of the vats and the firstborn of all that he possesses"); cf. Did. 13.3-7. Adam maintained, "The accumulation of quotations from the Didache in this con text can only be understood as the use of a written source, and it must have been a Syriac version."82 I do not share Adam's certainty, but I do not consider it impossible that the author of the Liber graduum knew and used a Syriac version of the Didache. Thus in this case we would have to say that there was a (lost) Syriac translation of the Didache, the origins of which would have to lie at least as far back as the fifth century.83 on Did. 8.1 and/or 8.3, and to cite the Didache as "Scripture."80 Also striking is 2.2 (1. 27), Qui te percusserit in maxilla tua, admove ei alteram et ora pro ipso et esto perfectus ("If anyone strikes you on the cheek, turn the other to him and pray for him and be perfect"), as well as 22.15 (1. 671), qui te percusserit in maxilla tua, admove ei aliam et eris perfectus ("If anyone strikes you on the cheek, turn the other to him and you will be perfect"). The Liber graduum quotes the Synoptic logion with an addi tion similar to that in the Didache (nai ear) reXecoq). We must regard this either as a peculiarity of the Syriac text tradition (while taking note of the fact that the Liber graduum customarily quotes the Diatesseron), or — and c. Use of the Didache in Later Church Orders
In the previous discussion I have not referred to specific texts in canonist and monastic literature to which a liter ary association with the Didache has been attributed
(sometimes on the basis of evidence, sometimes prob lematically, and sometimes unjustly). In this section I will consider those texts. this I consider more probable — as representing depen dence on the Didache,81 In addition, there is 16.4 (1. 395),
Dixit autem tibi: Dilige fratrem tuum plus quam teipsum ("He also says to you: Love your brother more than yourself"); cf. Did. 2.7, and note that the Liber graduum introduces the saying as dictum domini ("a saying of the Lord").
Finally, 13.2 (1. 307), sacerdotes honorat eorumque verbis obedit, eos adit ("give honor to priests and obey their words that they speak to you"); cf. Did. 4.1(?); and sacerdotibus suis primit/as omnium proventuum suorum et primitias alveorum praestat et primogenita omnium, quae possidet ("let him give to his priests the firstfruits of all his produce
The so-called Apostolic Church Order or Canons of the Holy Apostles (= Can.)84 chaps. 4-13 parallels Did.
1.1-4.885 (i.e., the "way of life" in the "two ways" sec tion, but without its conclusion).86 Something similar is true of the Epitome, which is related to the Canons
(and in which the conclusion of the "way of life" is retained).87 It is rather certain, however, that these two writings are not dependent on the Didache (as is
He was then.thinking of the reversal of the fifth and sixth commandments in Augustine, and tried 82 to establish a connection with Doctr. 2.2. 83
75 Cf. what was said above regarding Ps.-Cyprian De aleat.
76 Cf. Altaner's suggestions in "Doctrina," 342.
77 The Syriac version of the Didascalia apostolorum rests on a Greek original. Something analogous is true of Ps.-Clement Epistula ad virgines, but in this case it is rather improbable that the writer knows and cites the Didache. See n. 41 above.
78 Mihaly Kmosko, ed., Liber graduum (Patrologia Syriaca 1.3; Paris: Didot, 1926). The writing proba bly comes from Messalianic circles.
79 On what follows, cf. Kmosko, Liber graduum, clxvii, and at the individual passages mentioned. In addi tion, see Adam, "Herkunft," 49-50 (examples and discussion).
80 That the prescriptions of the Didache are here adapted to Messalianic doctrine is a topic for anoth er day.
81 Or is this an accidental parallel arising out of the teaching of the Liber graduum about the "perfect?}
Adam, "Herkunft," 49.
For Adam's hypothesis of a Syriac original, see below. We should also note in passing that there are supposed parallels to the Didache, or material from the "ways" tractate, in Chinese Nestorian texts: Joan
H. Walker, "An Argument from the Chinese for the Antiochene Origin of the Didache," StPatr 8.2 (TU
93; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966) 44-50.
84 The text is found in Theodor Schermann, Die allgemeine Kirchenordnung fruhchristliche Liturgien und kirchliche Uberlieferung, vol. 1: Die allgemeine Kirchen ordnung des zweiten Jahrhunderts (SGKA Sup 3.1;
Paderborn: Schoningh, 1914; repr. New York:
Johnson, 1968) 12ff. Cf. Bardenhewer, Geschichte, 2.256-62; Altaner and Stuiber, Patrologie, 254-55;
Quasten, Patrology, 2.119-20. This document proba bly stems from Egypt at the beginning of the 4th century.
85 Canons lacks the sectio evangelica: Did. 1.3b—2.1.
86 But there is a parallel to Did. 4.13b in Can. 14.3.
87 Schermann, Elfapostelmoral, text at pp. 16-18. An
Anastasiana and Sentences derive from other sources.91
We should probably include in the group of texts dependent on the Two Ways tractate (with some reser vation) the Rule of Benedict 4 (CSEL 752.31-32), where already evident from the absence of the sectio evangelica, Did. 1.3b-2.1). Instead, the two documents go back to a particular recension of the Two Ways tractate, which was also available to the author of the Didache
(but in a different recension). In the same way, it is probable that other parallel texts rest not on the Didache but on recensions of the Two Ways tractate.
These include passages from Ps.-Athanasius Syntagma doctrinae,88 from Fides CCCXVIII patrum,89 and (paral lel to the "two ways" section) from the Arabic Life of Shenoute.90 The generically similar Fragmenta
Benedict draws on the Rule of the Master. Whether the latter (and with it, then, the Rule of Benedict) is depen dent in a literary sense, or only through oral tradition, on the beginning of the Two Ways tractate, I cannot ubersetzt von A. Heusler (TU 13.1b; Leipzig: Hinrichs, analogy to the sectio is also lacking in the Epitome.
88 Cf. PG 28.836A-845B. Pierre Batiffol later edited this text: "Le Syntagma Doctrinae dit de Saint
Athanase," in idem, ed., Studia Patristica (Etudes d'ancienne litterature chretienne, fasc. 2; Paris:
Leroux, 1890) 119-60.
89 Cf. PG 28.1637A-1644B. There is another edition by Pierre Batiffol, "Canones Nicaeni pseudepigraphi," Revue archeologique 3d ser. 6 (1885)
1895) 6ff. [Ed. An English translation is now avail able in Cyprian Davis, O.S.B., "The Didache and Early Monasticism in the East and West," injefford.
Context, 352-67.] 91 The so-called Fragmenta Anastasiana (Funk, Didascalia, 2.51-71), by contrast, derive from the Apostolic Constitutions (see below). For the "Sentences" of Isaac Syrus (M. Besson, "Un recueil de sentences attribue a Isaac le Syrien," Oriens
Christianus 1 [1901] 46-60, 288-98), see below.
92 The question of the relationship between the Rule of Benedict and the Didache has often been discussed:
Schlecht, Doctrina, 86-91; Edward C. Butler, "The Rule of St. Benedict," JTS 11 (1910) 279-88; JTS 12
(1911) 261-68; Heinrich Boehmer, "Hat Benedikt von Nursia die Didache gekannt?" ZNW 12 (1911)
287. Adalbert de Vogue [La Regie de Saint Benoit IV [SC 184; Paris: Cerf, 1971] 131-33) surmises, proba bly correctly, that there is a connection between Rule of Benedict 4 by way of the Rule of the Master to 134-41. The variants are often considerable. I quote the text from Batiffol, but include the parallels in PG. There is a Coptic version: Eugene Revillout, Le concile de Nicee d 'apr'es les textes coptes et les diverses collections canoniques (2 vols.; Paris: Maisonneuve,
1881-98) 1.33-50 (text) and 2.475-92 (French translation). I was unfortunately unable to obtain
Pierre Batiffol, Didascalia CCCXVIII patrum pseudepigrapha e graecis codicibus rec. Petrus Batiffol, coptico contulit Henricus Hyvernat (Paris, 1887).
90 On Shenoute, cf. Johannes Leipoldt, Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des nationaldgyptischen
Christentums (TU 25.1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903); Bardenhewer, Geschichte, 4.98-100; Altaner and Stuiber, Patrologie, 268-69; Quasten, Patrology,
3.185-87. The originally Coptic Vita, now retained in Arabic, is in Emile Amelineau, Memoires publies par les membres de la Mission archeologique J'rangaise au the tradition of the Two Ways tractate. Rordorf
("Two Ways," 163) sees dependence not only in chap. 4 but also in the prologue.
93 Adam ("Herkunft," 47) suggests Berea-Aleppo.
94 For fragments of the Greek text, see J. Vernon Bartlet, "Fragments of the Didascalia Apostolorum in Greek,"JTS 18 (1917) 301-9. The Syriac version is now found in Voobus, Didascalia, 1, chaps. 1-10, edited text (Scriptores Syri 175; CSCO 401;
Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1979), and English translation (Scriptores Syri 176; CSCO 402;
Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1979) 2, chaps. 11-26, edited text (Scriptores Syri 179;
CSCO 407; Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, Caire, 1885-1886, vol. 4: Monuments pour servir a I'histoire de I'Egypte chretienne aux IVs et Ve siecles
(Paris: Leroux, 1888); chap. 6: Vie de Schnoudi (Arabic and French) 289-478. In the first part of the text there is a version of the Two Ways tractate
(pp. 291-93 in Amelineau's edition). Cf. also H.
Benigni, "Didache coptica: 'Duarum viarum' recensio coptica monastica, Shenudii homiliis attributa, per arabicam versionem superstes," Bessarione 3
(1898) 311-29, and Leipoldt, Schenute von Atripe, 1979), and English translation (Scriptores Syri 180;
CSCO 408; Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 14-15 ("naturally not original at this point," p. 15).
For a German translation, see Ludwig E. Iselin, Eine bisher unbekannte Version des ersten Teiles der
1979). The Syriac version exists in two recensions, which Voobus has studied: Didascalia, CSCO
402.33*-34*. The remnants of the Latin version have been newly edited by Erik Tidner: Didascalia
"Apostellehre, " gefunden und besprochen von L. E. Iselin,
Introduction Did. 1.5c say.92 At any rate, the Latin translation of the Two Ways tractate was known in the West as late as the eleventh century. (On this, see below.) The case of the Didciscalia apostolorum is different. It may have been written in Syria93 in the third century, perhaps even before 250.94 I consider it possible that the unknown author of the Didascalia apostolorum knew our
Didache and occasionally made use of it (without citing it as a source),95 although this is not certain.96 The follow ing passages are those that deserve primary considera tion:97
Didasc. (Syriac) Didasc. (Latin) 37.25-29 (75.63) 17(408.161) Indeed, woe from God to those who have, and receive in falsehood.100
Vae autem his, qui habent et cum dolo accipiunt99 oval ra AapPavovn ei pev yap xpciav aut qui possunt sibi iuvare et [accipiunt].101
Aapfiavei tiq, aduoQ earar o be pi] xpelav ex^v Indeed, everyone of Unusquisque vero de accipientibus dabit rationem domino deo in die [iudicii], quare acceperit. those who receive bdaeu b'uir)v, shall give an account to the Lord God [in the day of judgment], IvarL eAafle Kal how he (used what he) eig tl. received.
Did. 1.3d Didasc. (Latin) Didasc. (Syriac) 2.28-31 (75.4) Nam iterum in evangelio dicit:
Diligite odientes vos 1 (402.12) And again, he says in the Gospel:
"Love those who hate you, and pray over those who curse you, and you shall have no enemy."
The assumption that this is a quotation from the Didache is again possible, even though not absolutely cer vpelg be (puAelre rovg fjLioovvToiq vpag Kal ovx e£ere ex'dpov et orate pro maledicentibus vos et inimicum nullum habebitis. tain (it could be a free quotation). In addition, one may not suppress the fact that the wording of the Didascalia apostolorum in two passages is closer to Hermas Man. 2.5 than to the Didache: cum dolo accipiunt ("receive deceitful ly")102 recalls the passage in Hermas, ol be ev vnoKpioeL
\aptj36tPOPTeg, and the expression unusquisque . . . dabit rationem domino deo is reminiscent of Hermas Man. 2.5: airobwoovoLP Xoyop r<£ tied) ("they will render an account to God"). At the same time, there can be no stringent proof of dependency on Hermas.103
The connection with the Didache occurs through the agreement in the first line (against the Gospel text) and primarily through the unusual last line of the quoted passage.98 One is strongly tempted to think that this is a quotation "from the Didache; otherwise one would have to suppose that the two documents are both dependent on an apocryphal gospel tradition.
Apostolorum, Canonum Ecclesiasticorum, Traditionis Apostolicae versiones latinae (TU 75; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1963). The Latin text of Didascalia is on pp. 2-102. As indirect witness we may mention (with major reservations) Constitutions out of account. On this text, see Voobus, Didascalia,
CSCO 402.40*-41*.
97 In what follows, I will cite the English translation of the Syriac Didascalia by Voobus, and the Latin
Didascalia from Tidner.
98 See below, commentary on 1.3.
99 Cf. n. 100 below.
100 The same expression is also found in 17 (408.162); cf. the Latin version at 38.18 (75.64): Qui autem habet (et accipit) in hypocrisim.
101 There is nothing corresponding to this line in the Syriac text, but see Const. 4.3.2 (Funk, Didascalia,
1-6, where the Greek text of the Didascalia is writ ten out with alterations. Cf. Funk, Didascalia, 1. For the Ethiopic and Arabic tradition, cf. Altaner and Stuiber, Palrologie, 85. See also Bardenhewer,
Geschichte, 2.304-12; Altaner and Stuiber, Patrologie, 84-85; Quasten, Patrology, 2.147-52; Voobus,
Didascalia, CSCO 402.23*-33*.
95 Funk, Abhandlungen, 2.125-27, 136-37; Connolly, "Use of the Didache," 147-57; Muilenburg, Literary
Relations, 36-38; Vokes, Riddle, 67-71; Adam, "Herkunft," 47 (Didascalia is here said to be a delib erate rewriting of the Didache): Barnard, "Later
History," 101-2, etc. Giet (L'Enigme, 143-45) takes a different position.
96 In the following remarks, the text from Canons of the Apostles that was inserted in later recensions of the Syriac Didascalia at the end of chap. 3 will be left
L221).
102 Const. 4.3.2 has Oirni. rolq exovocv Kal ev viroKploeu Aap(3dvovoiv.
103 Connolly ("Use of the Didache," 149) rightly refers especially to the fact that what we find in the Didache and the Didascalia (but not in Hermas) is a "woe."
comes from the Didache. This addition, however, is also found in Syntagma doctrinae and Fides patrum, which can scarcely be dependent on the Didache. In addition, bid iravToq is absent from the compila tion of passages from the Didache in Const. 7.8.3.
The quotation from Isaiah must have circulated in two versions (with and without bta itavToq). (It is true, however, that Josef Ziegler's edition of the LXX, Isaias [Vetus Testamentum graecum 14;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19833] indi cates no variants in this connection.) Didasc. (Latin) 38.23-25 (75.64) Qui ergo dat simpliciter omnibus, bene dat, sicut est illi, Did. 1.5c Didasc. (Syriac) 17 (408,162) But the one who gives simply to everyone, does well to give, and is justified. paKaptoq 6 bibovq Kara rqv evroXpv bcdyog yap ecmv. et est innocens.104
Again, one is not compelled to conclude that this is an instance of dependence on the Didache. Cf. also Hermas
Man. 2.6a, 6 ovv bibovq oc&tioq eonv ("the one, there fore, who gives is innocent").
From among other parallels that have been suggested (cf. especially Connolly's work), the following should be mentioned.
• Didasc. (Syriac) 21 (408.191-92) prescribes fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays. I consider it improba ble that it is dependent on Did. 8.1 for this.
• The quotation of the Golden Rule in Didasc.
(Syriac) 1 (402.11); (Latin) 2.12-13 (75.4) need not (and does not) come from Did. 1.2.
• Didasc. (Syriac) 9 (402.100) speaks of the sacrifices of the old covenant, now replaced by the offerings of the bishops, "for they are your high priests." Cf. the Latin version, 25.20-21 (75.41): Isti enim primi sacerdotes vestri; cf. Did. 13.3. The echo is surprising, but the meaning is different. In the Didache, the prophets are understood to be the Christian high priests, while in the Didascalia apostolorum (as in Tertullian De bapt. 17.1 [CChrSL 1.291]) these are the bishops. The idea that the bishops have taken the place of the high priests of the Old Testament must certainly have seemed reasonable, even with out literary models.
• Did. 2.4 (= Barn. 19.7), ovk eor\ biyvwpupv ovbe bLyXccoooq ("thou shalt not be double-minded or double-tongued"), may be compared to Didasc.
(Syriac) 4 (402.48), where it is said (of the bishop):
"And let him not be double-minded or doubletongued" {Const. 2.6.1 ptr] bLypufioq, pri bLyXwoaoq
["neither double-minded nor double-tongued"]).
The expression in Didache and Barnabas comes from the Two Ways tractate. If one presumes that the Didascalia apostolorum knows and uses the Didache, this expression could, of course, be taken from the Didache as well.
• Finally, there is also aiqpelov eKTrerdaeccq ("sign of extension") in Did. 16.6, which is recalled by Didasc.
(Latin) 49.8 (75.80): apex vero signum est extensionis ligni ("the crowning sign indeed is the extension of the wood"). (The Syriac version, 26 [408.225] does not have "sign," which Connolly attempts to explain
["Use of the Didache," 153].) I am not persuaded that there is a literary connection here.
In conclusion, the widespread conviction that the author of the Didascalia apostolorum silently used our
Didache as a source has some points in its favor, but it is not secure. If one grants that the author of the Dida scalia apostolorum did know our Didache, one may (apart
• Further, Did. 3.8: Connolly ("Use of the Didache,"
150-51) points especially to the addition of bed TtavToq ("at all times") to the quotation from Isa
66:2. (Other references he proposes are rather inci dental.) This should be compared with Didasc.
(Latin) 10.7-8 (75.17): et trementem verba mea semper ("and tremble ever at my words?"). The Syriac ver sion, in contrast, reads (at 4 = 402.44-45) "that tremble at my sayings?" and thus lacks the 5tdi Ttavroq. In Const. 2.1.5, biOCKavToq is probably the primitive text, even though it is absent from part of the manuscript tradition.105 Connolly assumes
(probably correctly) that it was also in the original Greek text of the Didascalia, and concludes from this (questionably, in my opinion) that the passage from the acceptance of some occasional quotations) go one step farther and suppose that this author garnered
105 See Funk, Patres apostolici, 1.33.
106 In Funk's edition, Didascalia, 1.386-423.
107 Bryennios pointed this out already in the editio princeps {Aibaxq, Ae'-Af').
104 Earlier there is a macarism: "And truly blessed is everyone who is able to help himself" (17;
[408.161]); Nam vere beatus est, qui potest invare se (37.22-23; [75.63]).
Introduction from the Didache the idea and inspiration for creating a new "church order" of his own. we find at work in the seventh book of the Apostolic
Constitutions; it is true to a much lesser degree of the unknown redactor of the Ethiopic Church Order, who introduced a small portion of the Didache into that work.
Both documents point to the fourth century. Whether the Didache was used even earlier in a similar way cannot be determined with certainty. It is possible that this is true for the unknown author of the Didascalia apostolo rum, which comes from the third century. In contrast, the apparent connections between the Didache and Canons of the Apostles, the Epitome, Syntagma doctrinae,
Fides patrum, and Life of Shenoute (and in some ways also to the Rule of the Master and the Rule of Benedict) can be otherwise explained; they all go back to a common source, the tractate that researchers refer to as the "Two
Ways."
Although in the case of the Didascalia apostolorum one can only suspect, but not prove with certainty, that the Didache was used, the case is completely different with the so-called Apostolic Constitutions. Here, for the first time, we arrive at a matter that is of eminent importance for the textual and tradition history of the Didache, and that has been respected accordingly from the beginning of research on the Didache, namely, the author of the seventh book of the Constitutions, in 7.1.2-32.4106 — thus at the beginning of this particular book — silently copied out the entire text of the Didache.101 In doing so, the author continually commented on the text of the source, while also paraphrasing and altering it. In this way,
Constitutions 7 became not only a witness to knowledge of the Didache around 300 (although, unfortunately, we cannot determine with certainty where the Constitutions were written:108 Constantinople or Syria are possibili ties).109 Beyond this, Constitutions 7 (which in chaps. d.The Didache in Byzantine Authors of the Twelfth-Fourteenth Centuries John Zonaras (first half of the 12th century)114 mentions the Didache in his commentary on Athanasius, "Festal
Letter" 39 (.PG 138.564C),115 but in a way that forces us to conclude that he no longer had the document itself before him: Mera be ye rr\v dnap'idpr\oiP, <pr)OLV [i.e.,
Athanasius], otl eanv erepa fiifiAia tovtop e&dep, ov 1-32 are nothing but an expanded and reorganized edi tion of the Didache)110 thus becomes a valuable textual witness to the indirect tradition — of which I will have more to say below.111
Finally, ye should make reference to the Ethiopic Church Order,112 in which is embedded a fragment of the Didache (namely, 11.3-13.7, and afterward 8.1-2). I will have to speak later of the importance of this text for the constitutio textus of the Didache. This text may have entered the Ethiopic Church Order in the fourth century, but it is difficult to determine what reasons may have occasioned its introduction.113
KapoPL&peva pep, avaylpucfKopeva be, anpa Aeyec elpcn ttjp ocxpiap Ecpax, 'Ecrdrip, Iov8r)d, kocl Tw^rt, koll dcdaxpv KaAovpeppp tuip dnooroAwp AeyovoiP elpca rag bid tov KArjpeprog ovyypaipeioag tcop anootoAwp biara^eig, ag rj Aeyopepp eurr) ovpobog apayipwoneo'dai ov ovyxupei, cog podevdeioag nai cpdapeLoag into alperudop ("After the enumeration, he
[i.e., Athanasius] says that there are other books apart from these which are not canonized, but are read, and he says that they are the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther,
Let us attempt to summarize the results. The Didache was used as a source by later authors or compilers of canonistic works; this is true first of all of the compiler
110 In books 1-6 (as mentioned above), the Didascalia apostolorum is copied. For the sources of book 8, see
Bardenhewer, Geschichte, 4.266.
111 For the Fragmenta Anastasiana and Isaac of Syria, see below.
112 Bardenhewer, Geschichte, 4.274-75.
113 See below.
114 Cf. Beck, Literatur, 655-56. J. Pitra (in Beck, 656):
Facile omnium juris byzantini magistrorum princeps ("Easily the prince of all the masters of Byzantine law").
115 The commentary on the canons "could scarcely 108 This is quite apart from the question whether the whole work can be attributed to a single author.
This could scarcely be true of 8.47.
109 For the Apostolic Constitutions in general, cf. Funk, Didascalia, l.xv-lii; Bardenhewer, Geschichte,
4.262-75; Altaner and Stuiber, Patrologie, 255-56.
Eunomian origins are asserted by Gunter Wagner, "Zur Herkunft der Apostolischen Konstitutionen," in Melanges liturgiques offerts au R. P. Dom Bernard
Botte O.S.B. de I'Abbaye du Mont Cesar a Voccasion du cinquantieme anniversaire de son ordination sacerdotale
(4 Juin 1972) (Louvain: Abbaye du Mont Cesar, 1972)525-37.
tup ayiup airooToXuP' Tavrpp be Kal r\ <y' ovpobog rj^errjoep, ug bebrjXuTai ("The Shepherd, and the Teaching of the Holy Apostles, which the sixth council set aside, as already indicated"). Blastares also confuses the Didache with the Apostolic Constitutions,120 and there fore had no direct knowledge of the Didache. Nicephoros
Callistos Xanthopolous (died ca. 1335 or 1312),121 in his Ecclesiastica historia 2.46 (PG 145.888B), counts the Didache among the pod a ("illegtimate books"): 'Ep potiocg Kal rj Bappafia tpepopepr) eiuoToXr], Kal al
Xeyopepat tup (xitootoAup btbaxoti ("Among the illegit imate books are the Epistle attributed to Barnabas and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles"), followed then by the Gospel to the Hebrews. It is very questionable that he still knew the Didache from having actually seen it.
Judith, and Tobit, and they say that the so-called Teaching of the Apostles consists of the ordinances of the apostles collected in writing by Clement. The socalled sixth council did not permit these to be read, on the grounds that they had been adulterated and cor rupted by heretics"). The expression bcbaxp KaXovpepp tup atrooToXup comes entirely from Athanasius. It appears, however, that Zonaras is not acquainted with the writing itself.116 Instead, he knows and cites the opinion according to which what Athanasius calls the Didache is identical to the apostolic "Constitutions."117
Matthew Blastares118 also refers, in his Syntagma alphabeticum119 at B, chap. 11 (PG 144.1141B), to Athanasius's canonical list and mentions the Didache among other extracanonical writings including Wisdom, Sirach,
Esther, Judith, Tobit, top IIoLpepa, Kal rpp Acbaxpp 119 Written in 1335, this is "an alphabetical handbook of canon law" (Beck, Literatur, 786).
120 What Zonaras supposed, Blastares promulgates "as established truth" (Harnack, "Prolegomena," 10).
121 Beck, Literatur, 705-6. have been completed before 1159" (Beck, Literatur, 656).
116 Harnack, "Prolegomena,"10; Schaff, Church Manual, 118 n. §; Hemmer, Doctrine, xxii; Audet, Didache, 90.
117 It would be difficult to infer from this that this con fusion is based on knowledge that one document is the source of the other.
118 Beck, Literatur, 786-87.