1 As for baptism, baptize in this way:
II. The Liturgy 7.1-10.7
Beginning with Did. 7.1 we enter a completely different realm. The Didachist had planned to follow his quota tion of the Two Ways teaching with a section on the rites commonly used in his communities. The moral cate chism is thus succeeded by an "agenda." In it the Dida chist apparently makes use of liturgical traditions and probably had a fixed, written set of instructions as his source. To the old tradition (i.e., the source) he adds passages from his own pen. meal are cited (9.1-4), then follows (9.5) a rubric con cerning admission to the meal celebration (which I believe to be an addition by the Didachist). Next, 10.1-6 relates the prayers of thanksgiving to be spoken post coenam (after the meal). In my opinion 10.7 is another rubrical observation from the pen of the Didachist.
Therefore the whole is constructed as follows:
1. On baptism (7.1-4) la. Addition (or excursus): On fasting and prayer The old "agenda" the Didachist copied contained two ritual actions, baptism (fidirTLOpa) and Eucharist (ev- (8.1-3) a. How to fast (8.1) b. How to pray (8.2-3) X&pLOTLa); cf. 1 Corinthians 10-11. (We cannot say whether the communities of the Didache were acquaint ed with other ritual actions.) The exposition in the text first regulates the ritual for baptism, with citation of the iepoq Xoyoq or "sacred formula" (Did. 7.1b). In connec tion with the directions for baptizing, we encounter the key word "fasting" (i.e., the text speaks of baptismal fast ing before the action of baptism in 7.4). This word occa sions a short excursus on the question of fasting and, in that connection, on prayer (8.1-3). Thereafter the dis cussion returns to a depiction of the cultic actions, and then turns to the Eucharist (9.1—10.7). In this section, first the benedictions spoken at the beginning of the 2. On the Eucharist (9.1—10.7) a. Prayers for the full meal, benedictions over wine and bread (9.1-4; rubric in 9.5) b. Prayers of thanksgiving and preface, benedic tions after the full meal (10.1-6; rubric in 10.7).
1. On Baptism (7.1-4)
1 As for baptism, baptize in this way:
Having said all this beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water.
2 If you [sg. through vv. 2-4] do not have running water, however, baptize in another kind of water; if you cannot [do so] in cold [water], then [do so] in warm [water].
3 But if you have neither, pour water on the head thrice in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
4 Before the baptism, let the person baptizing and the person being baptized —and others who are able—fast; tell the one being bap tized to fast one or two [days] before. tional, in contrast to the original and more rigorous command to baptize "with living water" (ev vbcm ptivn).
Analysis Even if the basis of chap. 7 comes from the tradition received by the Didachist, this cannot be true of 7.1b
I also consider 7.4a to be old tradition, and 7.4b redactional. On the whole the section is constructed in such a way that the rubric (7.1a) must originally have been fol lowed by the baptismal formula with the directions about using vbup fav. Verses 2-3 offer redactional
(Taura irbcvTa TTpoetirovreq, flairTLcraTe). This clause, which connects the liturgical tradition after the fact with the Two Ways tractate, must be the work of the redactor.
In my opinion the concession in 7.2-3 is also redac-
the context of the ritual action),5 or whether he means simply that this text is the basis for the catechetical instruction that precedes the rite.6 In any case, the teach ing in chaps. 1-6 is incomplete, and we can be sure that the candidates for baptism received other additional instruction.7 interpretations on the phrase vdwp fav. Verse 4 is appended to deal with the question of baptismal fasting.
The closest parallel to this whole section is in Justin 1 Apol. 61.2-3 (Goodspeed, 70).
Comment ■ II consider the rubrical title irepi 5e tov f3ctTTTLopocroq, ourco (SaTTTLoaTe ("As for baptism, baptize in this way," 7.1a) to be old and believe that it was part of the source.1 The Didachist wanted to combine the text of the source with the preceding "catechism," and therefore inserted tocvtol navra 'apoearoPTeq, flcarTLOOtTe
("Having said all this beforehand, baptize," 7.1b).2 By means of this note from the Didachist the preceding tractate acquires its particular social setting.3 Whereas the Didachist, by inserting 1.3b—2.1 and 6.2-3, gave a more strongly Christian character to the source, he now explicitly defines its function, namely, within the church's life and especially its missionary activity. Thus the Two Ways tractate takes its place in the context of baptismal catechesis, and specifically as instruction before baptism.4 We can no longer say with certainty whether the Didachist thinks that the text of chaps. 1-6 should be recited verbatim before baptism (i.e., within Verse lc quotes the sacred formula of baptism, framed in rubrical expressions:
(/3a7rrtaare) eiq to ovopa (Baptize) in the name of the Father too irarpoq Kai tov viov koll tov ayiov and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit irpevpaToq (ep v8octl faPTi). (in living water).
Thus the cubic action is fixed in two respects, with regard to the baptismal formula, which is to be spoken during the baptism, and with regard to the "elements" to be used in the ritual action.
The three-part8 formula is identical with that in Matt 28:19:
Matthew: [SenTTifrpTeq9 avrovq eiq to opopa Didache: /Senrriaarc eiq to opopa 1 Analogous is irepi 8e rrjq euxapioriaq, ovra evXOtpLOTpaare (Did. 9.1). In this I am proceeding on the assumption that this was a Christian (even though Jewish-Christian) source. wherever the Three Names were used there must have been some definite instruction as to their meaning." According to John Lawson (A Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers
[New York: Macmillan, 1961] 79) it is possible that raDra irdvra does not refer to chaps. 1-6 but to oral teaching. This suggestion is quite improbable.
5 Harnack, Apostellehre, 2; Funk, Patres apostolici, xv; Greiff, Pascharituale, 121-26.
6 Knopf, Lehre, 21.
7 See n. 4 above.
2 Audet (Didache, 58-62, 358) unnecessarily considers this phrase a subsequent gloss. To the contrary:
Nautin, "Composition," 206-7; Rordorf, "Two Ways," 154-55; Wengst, Didache, 16 n. 54. Rordorf
("Baptism," 213) calls ravra iravra irpoetirovreq redactional, as I do. But for him 7.1 belongs with 6.3, which he assigns to the liturgical source (p.
211). Cf. also Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 170 n. 3.
3 One may recall at this point that Athanasius also (.Epistula Festalis 39, § 11; Preuschen, Analecta, 2.45) counted the Didache among the writings that are suitable reading for candidates for baptism.
4 It has occasionally been pointed out in this connec tion that the prebaptismal instruction offered by the Two Ways tractate reveals no dogmatic themes: cf. Harnack, Lehre, 22; Voobus, Liturgical Traditions,
8 In Did. 9.5 we find the short formula eiq ovopa Kvpiov; cf. Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; Hermas Vis.
3.7.3. Rordorf ("Baptism," 217) believes, in accor dance with the dominant teaching, that the one-part formula from Did. 9.5 is the oldest baptismal formu la, and that the three-part formula in 7.1, 3 origi nated later. Does this dominant teaching really describe the historical situation? Also questionable are Rordorf's additional reflections on the history of the baptismal formula ("Baptism," 217-18); cf. also nn. 11 and 12 below.
9 Variant reading /3airTtoavreq (B D).
10 Schaff, Church Manual, 184.
19-20. But it is wrong to conclude from this that there was no dogmatic instruction at all in the Didache communities. In Bigg and MacLean,
Doctrine, 19, one may read the sober judgment: "It is going too far to suggest that the only preparatory teaching for baptism was that given in chs. i-vi;
11 Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 191: the formula does not come from Matthew's Gospel but "from the praxis of the community." For Koester (follow-
7.1-4 Matthew: tov 7tarpoq Kai tov ulov Kai tov ayiov irpevpaTog. from "living water" (Num 19:17). Compare also, from the early Jewish period, the sprinkling with water for purification in IQS 3.9, and the ritual bath in flowing water in Sib. Or. 4.165: ep itOTapolq Aovoaode oAop bcpaq aepaoLOLP ("wash the whole body in perennial rivers"). In the mishnaic tradition (see below) "living water," that is, pure, flowing spring water, has the high est rank within the classification of kinds of water (m.
Mik. 1.8). In Did. 7.1 it is, of course, not a question of Jewish ritual practices15 but of baptism; nevertheless, in Didache: tov imrpoq Kai tov viov Kai tov ayiov ttpevfxaToq.
The agreement of the formulae is not explained by the Didache s quoting Matthew's Gospel10 but—naturally—by their common dependence on the liturgy. Matt 28:19 and Did. 7.1 (and 7.3) represent the oldest attestations of the three-part formula.11 Cf. Justin 1 Apol. 61.3
(Goodspeed, 70): err' ovopaToq yap tov iraTpoq tup the demand that vbup (i.e., the best and most effec tive kind of water) be used for baptism we sense the influence of Jewish traditionalism.16 We may even sus pect that at an earlier stage of Jewish-Christian praxis that peeks through here flowing water was required, without exception, for the performance of baptism, because only this kind of water was supposed to have the necessary power of lustration.17 oAcop Kai beonoTov deov Kai tov ouTrjpog ppup Irioov
XpioTov Kai irpevpaToq ayiov to ep tu vbart tote XovTpov TrocovPTaL ("they then perform the bath in the water, in the name of the Father of the universe and of our Savior Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit"); and further at 61.10 and 13 (Goodspeed, 71).12
The "element" with which baptism is to be performed is explicitly called vbup fup (fiairTioaTe . . . ev vbaTi
%uptl), a Semitism for D'TI D'Q, "living water," that is, flowing, fresh spring water. This direction indicates a Jewish-Christian interest. The Levitical rite in Lev
■ 2-3 This (suggested) view of things was no longer adopted by the author of the subsequent text, namely, the redactor. On the contrary, if there is a lack of vbup fap, that is, fresh spring or river water, it is permissible to baptize with other kinds of water (v. 2).18 Various kinds of water are mentioned, in descending order of acceptability: (vbup) pvypov, which probably means water taken or diverted from a spring or river but still
14:5-9, 50-53 demands, among other things, the use of "living water" for purification from leprosy13—that is, fresh spring water (as distinct from standing water in a cistern). Note also the bath for purification of the 2\
(one with a discharge) in Lev 15:13.14 In addition, the water for purification in Numbers 19 is to be prepared ing well-known models), however, the analogous for mula in Matt 28:19 is apparently secondary. Thus for him the Didache passage is the oldest attestation
(p. 192). Voobus (Liturgical Traditions, 36-39) has still a third interpretation, that the trinitarian for14 mula arose only around the middle of the 2d cen tury. It was subsequently introduced not only into 15
Matthew's Gospel but also into Didache 7. The onepart baptismal formula in Did. 9.5 is the original.
But there is no real reason to suppose that there is a gloss in 7.1, 3. Moreover, in my opinion, 9.5 is 16 redactional. See below.
12 In Dial. 39.2 (Goodspeed, 135), it appears that Justin is alluding to the one-part formula. Rordorf
Cf. Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1966) 186-91. For this question and the whole section, cf. also Leonhard Goppelt, "vdwp,"
TDNT 8 (1972) 320, 332.
LXX B A has only chart. On the whole subject, see Elliger, Leviticus, 198.
Peterson ("Probleme," 159 n. 48) claims, "It is pos sible that in the Didache directions regarding (prob ably Jewish-Christian) baths have been mixed with directions for baptism." This is entirely speculative.
We owe the correct understanding of this passage to Klauser, "Taufet," 177-83; and Voobus, Liturgical
Traditions, 22-23. Both Klauser (p. 178) and Voobus (p. 23) also assume that baptism in aqua viva was the practice of Christians from the beginning.
For Voobus (Liturgical Traditions, 25) the text reflects the course of a development that aban doned an originally strict praxis.
According to Audet (Didache, 357-67), vv. 2-4 are the work of an interpolator. In my opinion the redactor speaks in vv. 2-3. So also, previously, for Rordorf ("Baptism," 213-15) vv. 2-3 are redaction- ("Baptism," 217-18) assigns the two formulae to the Jewish-Christian (one-part) and gentile Christian 17
(three-part) missions. But no argument for that can be derived from the Didache at any rate. Instead, the Didache seems to use the two formulae promiscu18 ously.
13 The complicated Levitical rite is prescribed in Lev 14:4-9. Lev 14:50-53 deals with leprosy in houses.
at once but three times, for each of the names of each of the persons [of the Trinity]").26 possessing its original, "cool" temperature.19 If that is not available baptism may be performed ev (vdan)
). This does not mean water that has been "warmed" (perhaps out of concern for the sick),20 but probably standing water in cisterns or the like, that is, water that no longer has its fresh temperature.21 Finally, in case neither is available (one might add, in sufficient quantity), €kx€OV eig tt)v KetpaApp rpig vdwp ktA.
Excursus:Types ofWater The whole of Did. 7.2 is apparently concerned with the evaluation of types of water in descending order from best (ijboip fair) to less and less good (\pvypov, fteppov). Cf. the classification of kinds of water in six classes (although in ascending order) in the rabbinic tradition (m. Mik. 1.1—8);27 the Didache is not, of course, concerned with Jewish rites of lustration but with the sacrament of baptism. In addition, the classi fications do not always agree in detail. The Jewish tra dition is still influential, but in principle it has already been ruptured. The point in Did. 7.2-3 is that one should use the most appropriate water available for baptism. Still, the effect of baptism is unques- (v. 3).22
The water is to be poured23 three times over the head of the one to be baptized,24 apparently in reference to the three-part formula that — not accidentally — is again25 repeated here. Cf. Tertullian Adversus Praxean
26.9 (CChrSL 2.1198): Nam nec semel sed ter ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur ("We baptize not all al, as is v. 4b. In this respect the shift to the singular is not the decisive argument (the change of number is not compelling in itself); what is key to the deci sion is the concession made toward a formerly strict praxis. In addition, it may be said that the singular can scarcely be addressed to the leaders of the com munities, because the Didachist appears not yet acquainted with the monepiscopate. See below.
Schollgen ("Church Order," 48, 66) suspects that 7.2, 3, 4b was a piece of tradition.
19 Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 24.
20 That was the earlier opinion: Bryennios, Aibaxp, 29 n. 4; Harnack, Lehre, 23; Funk, Patres aposlolici, 1.18;
Drews, "Apostellehre," 268; Knopf, Lehre, 22.
Peterson ("Probleme," 160-61) suggested a sectari an praxis. To the contrary, and correctly: Voobus,
Liturgical Traditions, 24.
21 Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 24. For the meaning of cold water in Jewish baptizing groups, Voobus (p.
24 and nn. 50 and 51) refers to Bannus in Josephus Vita 11: pvxpti be vban rqv r/pepav Kai rrfv vmra
TtoWaKig Aovopevov itpbg ayveiav ("frequently washing himself with cold water day and night for the sake of purity"), and the Elkesites in Hippolytus
Ref. 9.16.1 (GCS 3.254): Kai (3aTTTLpeodaL ev \pvxput TeooapaKOVTaKiq eiri ppepag ema ("and baptizing in cold water forty times in seven days").
22 The baptism spoken of here has nothing to do with the baptism of the clinici.
23 EKxeiv for pouring water is found only here in our literature.
24 For the pouring of the water over the baptizand, cf. the sarcophagus of Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome,
3d century (Frederik van der Meer and Christine Mohrmann, Atlas of the Early Christian World
[London: Nelson, 1966] plate 45); the wall paintings in the catacombs of Saints Peter and Marcellinus,
4th century (plate 396); the lid of a grave from ca.
400 (plate 397). Cf. also the illustrations in Pillinger, "Taufe," after p. 160. Pillinger ("Taufe,"
152-60) has attempted to show that the Didache pre sumes a "kind of baptisterium" (p. 157).
25 Minus the article.
26 Cf. also Hippolytus Apost. Trad. 21 (SC 11.84-96).
[Ed. On this passage in general see also Nathan Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," in Jefford,
Context, 226-55.] 27 1.1: "There are six grades among pools of water, one more excellent than another. The water in ponds. . . ." 1.6: "More excellent is the water of a rain-pond before the rain-stream has stopped." 1.7:
"More excellent is a pool of water containing forty seahs. . . . More excellent is a well whose own water is little in quantity and which is increased by a greater part of drawn water." 1.8: "More excellent are smitten waters which render clean such time as they are flowing water. More excellent than they are living waters" (Herbert Danby, The Mishnah
[Oxford: Clarendon, 1933] 732-33). See Str-B 1.108-9. Particular kinds of water are suited or not suited to particular lustrations (cf. Str-B 1.108-9).
28 The suggestion of Drews ("Apostellehre," 268) that the author is not so much concerned with the pouring of the water as with the baptismal formula itself is misleading; it anachronistically separates what the text takes for granted as belonging together. The tendency is quite different. Rigorous demands regarding the water for baptism are being liberal ized. In my opinion reflections like this speak in favor of the supposition that vv. 2-3 are redactional. The redactor is still influenced by the milieu of Jewish-Christian traditions, but is judiciously stepping outside them when these traditions appear
7.1-4 tioned even if the water is less suitable and even if baptism consists solely of pouring water on the head.28 This presumes that baptism normally takes place outdoors;29 in addition, the discussion can best be located in a region that notoriously suffers from water shortages (which makes Egypt most unlikely).30 distinctio est, mari quis an stagno, flumine an fante, lacu an alveo diluantur ("Therefore there is no difference whether one uses for lustration ocean water or stand ing water, a river or a fountain, a lake or a spring").33
■ 4 The next verse adds a rule about fasting, which is to precede baptism as support and preparation.34 In my view v. 4a again comes from the liturgy that served as source for the Didachist.35 npovporevelp ("fast before hand") is a rare word,36 found only here in early
Christian literature.37 Those who are to fast include (1) the one who baptizes, (2) the one to be baptized, and (3) el Ttveq aXXoi bvvotvTcn ("others if they are able").
"The baptizer and baptizand must fast, and others may"
(Knopf, Lehre, 22). For the fasting of the one to be bap tized, cf. Justin 1 Apol. 61.2 (Goodspeed, 70): evxcodai re Kal aireiv pporevovreq Ttapa tov $eov twv itpoWe should note in passing that the whole question also plays a certain part in the Ps.-Clementine tradi tion.31 There is still an influence from JewishChristian tradition perceptible in Hippolytus Apost.
Trad. 21 (Sahidic) (SC 11.80): Sit aquafluens infante (KoXvpPTqdpa) velfluens de alto. Fiat autem hoc modo, nisi sit aliqua necessitas (dvdyKrj). Si autem necessitas
(avayKri) est permanens et urgens, utere (xprjodca) aquam quam invents ("Let there be flowing water in the font, but flowing from above. Let it be done in this fashion, unless there be some other need. If, however, there is some continuing and pressing need, use whatever water you find"). The mentality is some what the same here as in the Didache.32
Understandably the gentile Christianity of a later period no longer experienced this problem.
Tertullian De bapt. 4.S (CChrSL 1.280): ideoque nulla ripiOipTripevwv aipeatu bibaonovTcu ("They are taught to pray and ask from God forgiveness for their previous sins, while they fast"). Hippolytus Apost. Trad. 20 to him inappropriate; in doing so, he is orienting himself to the Great Church.
29 Thus probably also Justin 1 Apol. 61.3 (Goodspeed, 70): eireLTa ayovrcu vip r)p<Av evdoc vdap eari
("then they are brought by us to where there is water"). Pillinger ("Taufe") differs.
30 Knopf, Lehre, 22. See above, Introduction § 7b.
31 The term foi* udap is found in the (reconstructed) Kerygmata Petrou: Contestatio 1.2 (GCS2 1.3); cf. Ps.Clem. Plom. 11.26.2 (167) and 26.4 (ibid.), although there in the framework of a gnosticizing baptismal doctrine. The baptismal water is called fwr vdtop
"not only because it is flowing river or spring water, but because 'living water' is what imparts fav [life]"
(Georg Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen [2d ed.; TU 70; Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1981] 202; for the baptismal doctrine of the Kerygmata in general, pp. 196-209). Lacking the Clementine tradition is, in any case, more traditional ist (in relation to the Jewish-Christian tradition) than the Didache in restricting baptism to the kinds of water listed.
32 Other examples from the early period are found in Klauser, "Taufet," 179. Klauser believed he could show that the Latin term fans for the baptismal font echoed the old custom (pp. 180-81).
33 According to Klauser ("Taufet," 180 ) this passage in Tertullian is polemical in its intention (against the demand for aqua viva).
34 For the motifs associated with Christian baptism (nothing needed to be said about these in the text), cf. Dolger, Taufritual, 80-86; Knopf, Lehre, 22;
Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 20.
35 Cf. Rordorf, "Baptism," 215.
36 LSJ and BAGD, s.v., indicate only Herodotus 2.40
(Hude) and Hippocrates De nat. mul. 95, irporrjOTevaaaav em 8vo qpepag ("they fast beforehand for two days," Littre, 7.412; cf. De morb. mul. 1.78;
Littre, 8.178).
37 Lampe, s.v., notes, besides Didache, Ammonius of Alexandria, Fragmenta in Acta apostolorum 13.2 (PG
85.1541A). Wengst (Didache) has vr]arevadra in this passage like Constitutions.
/ term "living water," and without the gnosticizing point, but still shaped by the Jewish tradition of the special lustrative power of flowing spring or river water, or seawater, is a series of passages from the later strata of the Pseudo-Clementine novel, as Strecker pointed out (Judenchristentum, 202 n. 2):
Horn. 11.35.1 (171: ayayav pe eig rag ev rrj daAaaari TtXqalov ovaag Tvqyotg, cog eig aevaov epdrcnaev v8up, "leading me to the fountains that are near the sea, he baptized me in the ever f lowing water"); cf. Rec. 6.15.2 (GCS 2.196); Horn. 11.36.2
(GCS2 1.172); Horn. 9.19.4 (GCS2 1.139): deraa 7rorapoi fj irqyq eicei ye Kar daXoLaarj onroAovodpevoi); cf. Rec. 4.32.2 (GCS 2.162). The Pseudo-
the fast with others appears to have declined very early.39
It is striking that even v. 4b speaks only of the fasting of the one to be baptized. Here again (as in vv. 2-3) the command appears in the singular; in my opinion, v. 4b is also part of the redaction.40 At the time of this redac tion, only the person to be baptized still fasted. In addi tion, the redactor, perhaps in a polemic against other usages, fixes the length of the fast: 7Tpo fXidq (sc.
(Sahidic) (SC 11.78): Ieiunent {vr\OT€veiv) qui accipient baptismum, in parasceve (irapaoKevr)) sabbati (odPfSaTOi>)
("Those who are to be baptized fast on the day of prepa ration for the Sabbath"). Tertullian De bapt. 20.1
(CChrSL 1.294): Ingressuros baptismum orationibus crebris, ieiuniis et geniculationibus et pervigiliis orare oportet ("It is fitting for those who will undergo baptism to pray with frequent prayers, fasts, genuflections and vigils").
Fasting by the baptizer and others before baptism is found (implicitly) in Ps.-Clem. Horn. 13.12.1 (GCS2 1.199); cf. (explicitly) Rec. 7.37.1 (GCS 2.214). Justin, however, already attests community participation in the fast in the continuation of the passage quoted above: rRiaiv ovvevppepaq), that is, the one to be baptized fasts for one whole day before baptism.41 In summary, in chap. 7 the Didachist took over a more rigorous Jewish-Christian source, liberalized it by adding to it, and adjusted or adapted it to his own situation.
XO/Jieucov nai ovvvr)GTev6vTwv avrolq ("while we pray and fast along with them").38 This practice of joining in 38 For the whole, see Johannes Behm, "ufjong," TDNT
4 (1967) 933-35; Johannes Schiimmer, Altchristliche Fastenpraxis, 164-78.
39 Voobus, Liturgical Traditions, 21. Dolger (Taufritual, 87) connects the order in Did. 7.4 with the one-day or two-day Easter fast of the entire community. This can scarcely be correct.
40 Rordorf, "Baptism," 215. KeAevecq [or neAevaeic;, Bryennios's conjecture, Aidaxv, 29, and elsewhere]
8e vr)OT6vo(u . . . can scarcely be addressed to the leader of the community (cf. the cautious sugges tions of Rordorf, ibid.).
41 For this expression, cf. Hermas Sim. 6.5.3: n 7rpo jiidc; enpa^ev ("what he had done one day before").
A baptismal fast itpo piag is prescribed in Ps.-Clem.
Horn. 13.11.4 (GCS2 1.199). On this subject (fasting on the day before baptism), cf. also Horn. 13.9.3
(198); Rec. 7.34.3 (GCS 2.213); Horn. 13.10.7 (198); Rec. 7.35.7 (214); Horn. 13.12.1 (199); Rec. 7.37.1
(214). Still, the Pseudo-Clementines are also familiar with prebaptismal fasting over more than one day:
Horn. 3.73.1 (83), a fast of three months before bap tism; Horn. 11.35.1 (171); Rec. 3.67.1-5 (141). The differences in length are probably to be explained by more or less strict forms of fasting: Schiimmer,
Altchristliche Fastenpraxis, 167-68.
8.1-3 la. Addition: On Fasting and Prayer The key word "fasting" {Did. 7.4) suggested the introduc tion of a number of further directions regarding fasting in general (thus these regulations no longer concern baptismal fasting in particular). Associated with these is a section on prayer—in accordance with the traditional combination of fasting and prayer.1 This was the origin of chap. 8, which has the character of an excursus within the section on community rituals. It is clear that 8.1-3 is an addition. That need not mean, of course, that this section was only introduced after the fact. In my opinion it is rather the case that the Didachist is again writing on the basis of the tradition available to him. Only the clause wq eneAevoev 6 Kvpioq ev tu> euay-yeALui avrov
(in 8.2) is attributable to the redactor.
a. How to Fast (8.1) 1 Let your fasts not [take place] with [those of] the wicked. They fast on Monday and Thursday; you, though, should fast on Wednesday and Friday. ing. The whole passage presupposes the customary fast ing of pious Jews, to which the customs of those addressed by this text are primarily and generally orient ed. It is, however, the intention of the text to make a dis tinction in the choice of times in order to document the difference between Christian fasting and that of pious
Jews. Christian fasting is to be distinguished from that Comment ■ 1 The introductory phrase at 8e prjareZat vpwv ("your fasts") makes immediately clear that Christians fast regu larly (we might say: as a matter of course). These are freely chosen days of fasting imposed by individual
Christians on themselves. (Nothing is said about the motives for such fasting.) Thus this section is not intend ed to introduce the custom of fasting but simply to fix the commonly accepted custom in a certain way and with more precision. In particular (as will appear imme diately) this specification has to do with the time for fast of the viroKpLTai.2 Probably here as well as elsewhere,3 viroKpiTrig is a designation for "deviants," or "the wicked," those who have turned away from true religion.
Thus in this passage it is probably a general reference to 1 Cf. Ezra 8:23; Neh 1:4; 9:1-2; Pss 35:13;
69:11-13; 109:24-26; Jer 14:12; Dan 9:3; Joel 1:14; 2:12; Jdt 4:9-12; 1 Macc 3:47-54; 2 Macc
13:12; Tob 12:8; Matt 6:5-13 and 6:16-18 par.; Luke 2:37; 18:10-14; Acts 13:2-3; 14:23.
2 This obviously recalls Matt 6:16-18: "The author of the Didache seems to refer his readers to the hypocrites about whom the Gospel of Mt. speaks; in speaking of fasting, he has in mind the words of Mt. which prescribe not to fast like the hypocrites" (Massaux, Influence, 3.155). This can scarcely be the case. Koester (Synoptische rule for fasting is . . . quite different in Matthew and the Didache." The word vnoKpLTaL does refer to Matthew, "at least to the legal saying reproduced in Matt 6:16-18, which may, of course, have been known to the Didache from independent tradition" (p. 203). In my opinion there may be a recollection of the Jesus tradition behind this verse, but there need not be.
3 Cf. above, at Did. 2.6 and 4.12. Wilckens, "inroKpivopai," TDNT 8 (1972) 569: "vttokplolc; is apostasy from God and from orthodoxy."
Uberlieferung, 202) writes: "The content of the
requires us to suppose that these communities are in the process of separating themselves from the religious com munion of Israel, or else they have already done so. the pious of Israel; it is improbable that it means the Pharisees in particular.4 In the blanket condemnation5 6
('viroKpLTaL) we find the expression of the contrast between two groups. The concern is not with individuals but with the overall phenomenon of a group whose piety is being rejected. The hypocrisy of the others need not be proved; it is already established, for both the writer and the addressees. The VTronpLTcd fast devrepa
(sc. Tjjuepa) ao'/SjSarcot', that is, on Monday, and irepirtri (sc. rjptepa), that is, on Thursday. To distinguish them selves from those others the Christians should fast on different days, namely, rerpada (sc. ppepav), that is, on Wednesday, and 7rapaoKevpv f> that is, on the eve of the Sabbath, which is Friday.7 The weekdays are designated according to the customary Jewish reckoning.8 This pas sage provides the oldest attestation of Christian fasting on those two days of the week.
Excursus: Jewish Fasting Practice The text of the Didache alludes to the fasting customs of pious and enlightened Jews that established indi vidual, private days of fasting in addition to those that were obligatory for all. Here it is necessary again to differentiate between occasional and regular pri vate fasting; the latter (not only, but frequently) took place two days a week (cf. Luke 18:12), and Monday and Thursday were commonly chosen for this.9 The most zealous private fasters included the Haberim, but they had no generally obligatory rule for fasting on Mondays and Thursdays. On this whole subject, see Str-B 2.241-44; 4.77-114; Johannes Behm,
"vrjoTLq," TDNT 4(1967) 929-31.
The rules for Jewish-Christian liturgical praxis copied by the Didachist probably refer also to freely chosen private fasting, not to obligatory fasting by the entire community.10 The choice of fast days11 is based on a deliberate deviation from the Jewish fast days.12 We cannot say for certain why the choice fell
The sharp polemic against the viroKpiTai, and the necessity of distinguishing oneself from the fasting cus toms of the pious Jews by the choice of other fast days, presumes (on the one hand) an ongoing, close contact between the communities reflected here and their
Jewish environment. On the other hand, the text 4 Thus Bryennios, Aibax'Q, 30 n. 1; Schaff, Church
Manual, 187. The key text in Matt 6:16, otolv be wqoTevriTe, pr) yiveode uq oL viroKpcral OKudpw7rot ktA., has no reference to a class or group
(although in Matthew it is not the time, as in the Didache, but the type of fasting that is criticized; see n. 2 above). In the Didache, vironpiTcti can mean the Jews in general, the Pharisees in par ticular, or (still more generally) the pious of Israel. I consider this last the most probable interpretation. Interesting also is Rordorf,
"Didache," 23 n. 30: "probably . . . Christians who are tempted to imitate Jewish practices."
This possibility was already considered by Schiimmer, Altchristliche Fastenpraxis, 84.
5 Wilckens, "vTtOKpLvopaL," 569. Wilckens also points to the usage in the Pastorals (1 Tim 4:2);
Hermas Sim. 8.6.5; 9.18.3; 19.2-3; and in his n.
57 to the contrary passage in Gen. Rab. 48.6, on Gen 18:1: "Whenever channufa occurs in Scripture, it refers to heresy" (Midrash Rabbah I,
Genesis I, trans. Freedman, 407).
6 For the accusatives rerpaba and 'napaoKevrjv, cf. BDF, §161.3.
TDNT 7 (1971) 6-7. Cf. Const. 5.14: bevrepq oafificiTidv . . . ttj TpiTp rob aafifiarov . . . TT) be rerpabi ... (14.1).. . /cat rr) ■nepicTr) . . . (14.6) .
. . TrapaoKevrjq ovapq (14.10). . . .
9 Cf. Schiimmer, Altchristliche Fastenpraxis, 84-99; on the Pharisees' fasting: Epiphanius Pan. 16.1.5
(GCS 1.211). For the choice of days: Str-B 2.243 n. 2.
10 This was different at a later time; cf. as early as Didasc. (Syriac) 21 (CSCO 407.208; 408.192). We cannot discuss here Tertullian De ieiun. (CChrSL
2.1257ff.) and the questions associated with it (e.g., the intensification of fasting among the Montanists).
11 For this whole question, cf. also Cremer, Fastenansage, 10-21.
12 It is important that also in the Didasc. (Syriac) 21 the fast days are deliberately distinguished from the corresponding usage in Jewish communities:
"However, [fast] not according to the custom of the former people, but according to the new covenant which I have set up to [sic] you" (CSCO
408.191). I do not believe that the Didascalia here depends on the Didache. (See above.)
7 This passage may be quoted in Lib. grad. 7.20
(Kmosko, 183). See above.
8 Str-B 1.1052; Eduard Lohse, "ad/3/3a7w ktA.,"
13 Hans Lietzmann considered this interpretation accurate (A History of the Early Church [4 vols. in 2; trans. Bertram Lee Woolf; 3d ed.; London:
8.1-3 gether a subsequent invention. Knopf attempted to show15 that Tuesday or Wednesday and Friday were the only possible alternatives to the Jewish fast days, but why, in that case, the choice fell on Wednesday is something we cannot say.16 on Wednesday and Friday. Later these two days were associated with events in the Lord's passion, with Friday (understandably enough) being connected with the day of the Lord's death, and Wednesday (for example) with the day of his arrest (thus Didasc.
[Syriac] 21 [CSCO 407.208; 408.191-92]).13 But noth ing of this nature can be suggested for the Didache.u
The association with the days of the passion was alto calendar of the Qumran Essenes. Annie Jaubert
("Jesus et le calendrier de Qumran," NTS 7 [1960/61] 27-28) favors the influence of the old priestly calendar for the question of the choice of Wednesday and Friday. All this is highly improbable.
Lutterworth, 1953] 1.69). Schummer (Altchristliche Fastenpraxis, 97-98) thought of the events of the passion in general.
14 Audet, Didache, 368-69; Josef Blunder, "QumranKalender und Passionschronologie," ZNW 49
(1958) 243-44.
15 Knopf, Lehre, 23.
16 Blinzler (ZNW 49 [1958] 245) inquired whether the choice of Wednesday was influenced by the /
b. How to Pray (8.2-3)
2 And do not pray as the wicked [do]; pray instead this way, as the Lord directed in his gospel:
Our Father who are in heaven.
May your name be acclaimed as holy.
May your kingdom come.
May your will come to pass on earth as it does in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And cancel for us our debt.
As we cancel [debts] for those who are indebt ed to us.
And do not bring us into temptation.
But preserve us from evil [or, from the evil one].
For power and glory are yours forever.
3 Pray this way thrice daily.
Christians within the region of this liturgy's tradition still regularly prayed the Tefillah.2 In any case this is for bidden by the liturgical and catechetical instructions here. The Lord's prayer is to take the place of the Jewish
Analysis The directions for fasting are followed by others on prayer (Did. 8.2-3). Just as Christians should be distin guished from pious Jews by fasting on different days, so also their prayer customs should differ. Christians should (regularly, as we will learn) use a different prayer from that of the "hypocrites" (irnoKpiTai). It seems rea sonable to think that this allusion to the prayer of the viroKpLTod refers concretely to the Shemoneh Esreh, the Tefillah. But the instruction in Did. 8.2 has nothing to do with the introduction of the cursing of the minim3 4 in the twelfth benediction of the TefillahJ Comment ■ 2 The Didachist may have (clumsily) inserted the pas sage dig eneXeucrev 6 Kvpeoc, (= Jesus)5 ev m evayyeXico avrov ("as the Lord directed in his gospel") into the Tefillah as such.1 It is by no means necessary (although of course it is possible) to suppose the individual Jewish
1 For the Tefillah see Str-B 1.406-7; 2.696-702 (times of prayer); 4.208-10; Ismar Elbogen, Der judische
Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (1913; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1962) 27-41 (ET:
Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History [Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society; New York: Jewish all to Jewish Christians (among others); it is ques tionable whether the benediction was meant to make public the identity of the heretics (as has often been asserted); and it is equally problematic whether the benediction played any role at all in the separation of church and synagogue. Cf. now the skepticism of Maier, Judische Auseinandersetzung,
Theological Seminary of America, 1993] 24-37); Karl Georg Kuhn, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim (WUNT 1; Tubingen: Mohr, 1950) 10-26.
137-41; and previously Gunter Stemberger, "Die sogenannte 'Synode von Jabne' und das friihe
Christentum," Kairos 19 (1977) 16-21. See Peter Schafer, "Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne: Zur
Trennung von Juden und Christen im ersten/zweiten Jhdt. n Chr.," now collected in his Studien zur
Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums (AGJU 15; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 45-55 ("in any case not exclusively against Jewish Christians or [later]
Christians," p. 51); in the same place he denies that the benediction served to separate church and syna gogue.
Likewise, title 4.1 (bis) (?); 6.2; 9.5 (bis); 10.5; 11.2
(bis); 11.4, 8; 12.1; 14.1; 15.1, 4; 16.1, 7, 8. To the contrary: 4.12, 13; 14.3 (bis) (?).
2 This is suggested as a possibility by Drews, "Apostellehre," 269; more definitely by Knopf,
Lehre, 23.
3 For the Birkat Ha-Minim, see Str-B 4.218-19; Elbogen, Judische Gottesdienst, 36-41, 252-53 (ET:
Jewish Liturgy, 45-46, 200-201), with the otherwise widespread but questionable opinion that the twelfth benediction was deliberately aimed at (Jewish) Christians; see Johann Maier, Judische
Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike (EdF 177; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982) 136-41, with bibliography.
4 It is uncertain whether the Birkat Ha-Minim refers at
8.2-3 Table 9 Matt 6:9-13 Ilarep ppdv 6 ev rolg ovpavoig ayLaodr)T(i) to ovopa oov, eXdera 17 (laoiXeia oov, yevr)df)TU> to deXr)pa oov Did. 8.2
Ildrep r)pdv 6 ev rd ovpavd dyiaaf)r)TU) to ovopa oov, eXdem rj (3aocXeia oov, yevrjdptu* to $eXr)pd oov Luke 11:2-4 IIocTep, dyiaadriToi to ovopa oov, eXden) 17 (iaoiXeia oov, dg ev ovpavd Kai eni yrjgtov apTov r)pdv tov emovoLov dg ev ovpavd Kai eni yrjg' tov aprov ripdv tov emovocov tov aprov ripdv tov emovouov dog r/pZv orjpepov Kai d(peg ppiv toi d<peiXr)p.aTa r)pdv, dg Kai ripeZg aipriKapev Tolg dog rjpiv or/pepov, SiSov pplv to /cat?' rjpepav Kai d(peg r)plv rag dpapriag ripdv, Kai yap avroi dipiopev navri otpeiXovn r)piv Kai pri eioeveyKijg ripag Kai a peg ppiv rpv 6ipeiXr\v ppdv, dg Kai ripelg ouplepev Tolg dtpecXeTacg ripdv Kai pr) eioeveyK-rjg ppag dipeiXeraLg ripdv, Kai pr) eloeveyKTjg r)pag eig netpaopov, dXXa pvoal rjpag an6 tov novr/pov. eig neipaopov, aAAa pvoai ppag and tov novrjpov• otl oov eoTiv r) dvvapig Kai i) dotja eig neipaopov. eig Tovg aidvag.
*H has (mistakenly) yevvridrjTU, which has been emended since Bryennios. source. The prayer to be spoken thus appears as a direct order from the Kyrios, a mandate that the Lord com manded "in his gospel." By evayyeXiov, the Didachist means either the living voice of the gospel or a written gospel.6 It is difficult to decide. In any case the gospel of the Kyrios is seen by this author as an obligatory instruc tion. The word eaeXevoev is characteristic. The Lord establishes an order and a commandment in the gospel that regulates what Christians are to do.7 This is true in general (and will appear again and again; cf. Did. 11.3 and 15.3-4). In the concrete case the instruction of the Lord is particularly concerned with the prayer to be used by Christians.8 For the Didachist the Kyrios in his gospel had, among other things, given specific direc tions regarding prayer.
The prayer that follows, the Lord's Prayer, would have been found already in the liturgy that served the Didachist as source, but it is utterly impossible to decide whether the Didachist modified the given wording (per haps according to the liturgical tradition familiar to him, or according to the wording of a gospel text before him).
It is clear only that the text of the prayer as we now have it agrees strongly with the one handed on by Matthew, rung 10) thinks that "evangelium" in Did. 8.2 means the viva vox, "although an interpretation in terms of a written gospel is not entirely impossible" (p. 203).
Cf. p. 209: "In retrospect we may say that. . . the word evayyeXiov in Did. 8.2 does, in fact, appear to refer to oral preaching." Cf. also p. 240. For the whole subject, see n. 10 below, and Introduction,
§7a(2).
7 For the gospel as regula vitae christianae see above, Introduction, § 7a(2).
Knopf, Lehre, 23: Evangelium is "naturally not one particular, individual gospel, but, according to com mon usage, the proclamation of and about the Lord." The author must already have Matthew 6 in mind for the entire passage, however, and he alludes to it in writing eKeXevoev 6 Kvptog ("the Lord directed"); Lake ("Didache," 28) claims, "the writer seems clearly familiar with a definite state ment of Christ's teaching, though hardly a written one, cf. avrov after ev rd evayyeXLa." EKeXevoev is also said to indicate oral tradition (p. 30); Massaux
{Influence, 3.145, and passim) thinks it alludes to the Gospel of Matthew; Koester {Synoptische Uberliefe8 Ovtq) probably does not fix the wording (any more than does ovrosg in Matt 6:9); instead, it character izes the prayer that follows as a paradigm; so G. J.