originally Jewish basic model, which began as a pre- given additional support as a result of the discovery of
tate was noted very early51 and in recent times has been given additional support as a result of the discovery of the Qumran texts, especially the analogy to IQS 3.18—
4.26. It is characteristic of the special form in which the motif of the "ways" appears in the tractate that the near est parallels are to be found in Jewish and JewishChristian texts: IQS 3.18—4.26; T. Ash. 1:3-5; Ps.-Clem.
Horn. 7.3.3-5 (GCS 1.117-18); 7.1-2 (GCS 1.119). I will 1. The different versions of the tractate go back to an originally Jewish basic model, which began as a preChristian, Jewish tractate on the Two Ways48 and whose original wording can no longer be restored in detail on the basis of the related material.49 One of these versions also served the Didachist as a source. In any case, this hypothesis enables us to place the temporal origins of the Jewish tractate in the first century; the preliminary literary forms are still older and go back to pre-Christian times.50 say more in detail about this below. In explicating the details of the tractate as a whole, one encounters an Old
Testament-Jewish milieu at every turn; in the earlier pas2. The Jewish character of the original Two Ways trac
Wengst (Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbrief [AKG 42; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1971]
65-66) are also problematic.
50 We may also suppose an oral tradition of the Two Ways teaching before and alongside the literary tradition, but it cannot be reconstructed. What we have to trace here is the reconstruction of the liter ary tradition. In this connection it is appropriate to recall the attempts of Alfred Seeberg (cf. Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit [TB 26; 1903, repr.
Munich: Kaiser, 1966]; Die beiden Wege und das Aposteldekret [Leipzig: Deichert, 1906]; Die Didache des Judentums und der Urchristenheit [Leipzig:
Deichert, 1908). Seeberg made a number of attempts to reconstruct an orally transmitted, origi nally Jewish catechism schema (sometimes called
"proselyte catechism": Wege, 47 n. 3) with a more or less fixed body of teaching. He posited that this was, in turn, taken over by the Christian tradition
(with appropriate modifications). He also asso ciated the Two Ways teaching with this schema in various ways: it was to be understood as part of this catechetical schema. For an evaluation and critique of Seeberg's overall conception, see Ferdinand
Hahn's introduction to the reprinting of Der Katechismus (esp. xxi-xxii and xxiv-v). As far as our subject is concerned, we may say that it is very doubtful whether there ever was such a generally circulating and more or less fixed catechism schema in Judaism, containing various teachings including the Two Ways doctrine, and the attempt to bring this into a relationship with the Two Ways teaching
(or ultimately the whole Didache) remains corre spondingly dubious (quite apart from the question able character of many details in the whole description). In a broader sense, the proposals of Gottlieb Klein in Der alteste christliche Katechismus und die judische Propaganda-Literatur (Berlin: Reimer, of Two Ways," in Teaching, 18-23. The model was then developed primarily by Harnack (Apostellehre,
14, 25-34), although he originally had a different opinion. While other scholars were critical, the model received a particularly sustained attack in the early period from Franz Xaver Funk ("Zur Apostel lehre und apostolischen Kirchenordnung," ThQ_ 69
[1887] 281-89; idem, Abhandlungen, 2.137-41). For the deliberations on this question until 1900, see
Ehrhard, Altchristliche Litteratur, 53-58. Important opponents of the hypothesis of a basic document at a later period were Robinson (Didache, 70-83, 120,
146), Muilenburg (Literary Relations, 41-44, and passim), and Vokes (Riddle, 31-51, and frequently).
Later adherents of the basic document hypothesis included, e.g., Drews, "Untersuchungen," 54, and passim; J. Vernon Bartlet, "The Didache Recon sidered, "JTS 22 [1921] 243-46; MacLean, "Intro duction," viii ff.; Creed, "Didache," 377-79. In recent research there are Goodspeed, "Doctrina,"
230-47; Altaner, "Doctrina," 335-42; Richardson, "Teaching," 161-79, esp. 162; Audet, Didache,
122-63; Basil C. Butler, "The 'Two Ways' in the Didache,''/TS, n.s. 12 (1961) 27-38; Kraft, Didache,
4-16; Barnard, "Later History," 97-99; Adam, "Herkunft," 53-54; Giet, L'Enigme, 39-55, and pas sim; Suggs, "Two Ways Tradition," 62-63; Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 22-34, esp. 28; Wengst,
Didache, 20-23.
48 Nevertheless, the interpretative model also has some variants that accept the Two Ways tractate as very probably an independent source for the Didache, but regard the hypothesis of the originally
Jewish character of the source document as not com pelling, or reject it outright: Hennecke, "Grundschrift," 61; Goodspeed, "Doctrina," 236-37. These objections have been eliminated by IQS 3.18—4.26, because there we find a preliminary Jewish form constituting a literary analogy to the Two Ways tractate.
49 I consider Harnack's attempt to restore the source (Apostellehre, 57-65) a failure. The attempts by Klaus
1909) belong here. Klein constructed a separate, orally transmitted tradition, part of which was the "Ur-Didache."
51 Harris (Teaching, 91) and Muilenburg (Literary