1979) 266-72. For the history of the discovery of Doctrina apostolorum in the catalog of vices in the
Introduction Staatsbibliothek in Munich, fol. 102b-103b) and was edited by Joseph Schlecht.11 The other is incomplete, containing the text only as far as 2.612 (Cod. Mellic.
597,13 9th century [?], Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, fol. 115b).
It was most recently edited by Kurt Niederwimmer.14
The two manuscripts appear to go back to a common archetype. Doctrina apostolorum follows the Two Ways tractate of the Didache very differently from the way
Barnabas does. It is sometimes so close that, at first, it was thought that Doctrina apostolorum was the (or a)
Latin translation of the Didache, or at least of its first sec tion.15 This opinion is very improbable, however, not only because of the deviations of Doctrina apostolorum from the Didache parallels, which remain striking,16 but primarily because Doctrina apostolorum contains only the Two Ways tractate (and omits from it the sectio evangelica). Again, it is the more probable supposition that on Barnabas (or vice versa), one would expect that liter ary relationships would be evident elsewhere, not merely within the limited field of the tractate de duabus viis. But the literary relationship between the two documents is strikingly restricted to that tractate.8 Outside the Two
Ways tractate there is no demonstrable contact between Barnabas and the Didache (because the only parallel worth considering,9 Barn. 4:.9/Did. 16.2, can rest on common oral tradition: see below, in the commentary at 16.2). This in itself makes the model of a common dependence of Barnabas and the Didache on a third entity the most plausible solution. Further indications of the existence of such a source will appear in the course of the following presentation.
2. Much closer to the Didache text of the tractate on the Two Ways than Barnabas is the text of the Doctrina apostolorum. There are two manuscripts of this writing
(thus far found only in Latin): one is complete (Cod. lat.
Monac. 6264,10 11th century, in the Bavarian Doctrina apostolorum and Didache 1-6 are dependent on a 1913; repr. New York: Johnson, 1967).
Thus, e.g., Funk; cf. his Abhandlungen, 2.109; Streeter, "Much-Belaboured Didache," 360-74, in which he writes that Doctrina apostolorum is nothing but the Latin version of the Didache, although the translator simply omitted chaps. 7-16 because of the changed state of canon law (p. 374). This may be the writing to which Rufinus refers as "Duae viae." For Muilenburg and Vokes, see below.
Examples: at 1.1 after viae duae sunt add in saeculo; and after mortis add lucis et tenebrarum, in his constituti sunt angeli duo, unus aequitatis, alter iniquitatis
(for this, cf. Barn. 18.1c). At the end of 1.3: interpretatio autem horum verborum haec est fits well before 2.2: Non moechaberis . . . , while the Didachist's bevrepu be evroX-q r-qg bibaxqg [Did. 2.1) is obvi ously secondary. At 4.8c omnibus enim ... is proba bly in the right place, and was removed by the Didachist to avoid a repetition (1.5). Especially strik ing are the differences between the Didache and Doctrina apostolorum in the catalog of vices in the ever, the only passage that can be seriously consid ered is Barn. 4.9/Did. 16.2.
Formerly labeled frising 64.
Schlecht, Doctrina, 101-4. In an appendix, Schlecht included photographic plates of the ms. which he discovered in 1900.
The ms. ends with Nec conten ... on the last page of the codex. The rest of the codex has been lost.
(Vokes is incorrect in writing, "Von Gebhardt's frag ment is merely a short extract" [Riddle, 17].)
Naturally, there is no parallel text to Did. 1.3b—2.1 in Codex Mellicensis, any more than in Codex
Monacensis. That is, however, not a gap in the tradi tion; it appears that the sectio evangelica was never part of the Doctrina apostolorum.
Formerly labeled Q 52 or 914.
Kurt Niederwimmer, "Doctrina apostolorum (Cod.
Mellic. 597)," in Hans Christoph Schmidt-Lauber, ed., Theologia scientia eminens practica; F. Zerbst zum
70. Geburtstag (Vienna, Freiburg, and Basel: Herder, 1979) 266-72. For the history of the discovery of the Melk fragment of the Doctrina apostolorum (B.
Pez or O. von Gebhardt and F. X. Funk) and a description of the ms., see pp. 266-67. In research on the Didache, Codex Monacensis bears the symbol f (f1 for corrections by a first hand, f2 for correc tions by a second hand, fs for corrections by a third hand); Codex Mellicensis bears the symbol g (g1 for corrections by a first hand). Important for the lan guage and text of the two mss. is Leo Wohleb, Die lateinische Ubersetzung der Didache kritisch und sprachlich untersucht (SGKA 7.1; Paderborn: Schoningh,
"way of death" (5.1). The hypothesis of multiple ver sions is badly hampered by the absence of the sectio evangelica in Doctrina apostolorum. These indications speak clearly against the idea that Doctrina apostolo rum is only the Latin translation of the Didache. On the double conclusion of Doctrina apostolorum, see below.