The Text Of The Didache
THE TEXT OF THE DIDACHE
to some part of the fifth century, perhaps as early as A.D. 400.
Schmidt is inclined to think this is too early.
The Coptic version is of interest in various places.
The difficult passage in XI, 11, where the Greek has moudv «is pvoTipiov KogpKov éxKAnotas, is, according to Schmidt, translated by '"' Der lehrt und bezeugt eine weltliche Ueberlieferung in der Kirche," the Greek of which would be OudaoKwv Kat papripwv Tapddoow KOO[ULK}V ev TH exkAnoia.
Homer said that the Coptic translated céopuov, not KoopuKov.
The mistake is probably Horner's.
In X, 6 the Greek reads : woavva TH Oe@ Aafid.
The Coptic has:
'' Hosannah to the house of David.''
Both of these are unusual, and we should expect "Son of David."
There is, as we shall see later, a possible reason why the Didache says '' God of David."
Origen gives evidence of certain Egyptian MSS. of the New Testament which read in the New Testament accounts of the Triumphal Entry not vid Aafid but ofkw.
Thus the Coptic may very likely be assimilating the Didache to the New Testament form of the cry current in certain
Egyptian circles.
The third important difference between the Coptic and Greek Didache is the addition in the Coptic at the end of chapter X of a prayer over the holy oil, which reads: 1 " But concerning the words with the aroma give thanks thus as we say, ' We give thanks to thee, O Father, concerning the aroma, this about which thou showedst us through Jesus thy son.
Thine is the glory eternal, Amen.' "'
When it is expanding the Didache the A fostolic Constitutions, Bk. VII, adds a prayer for a similar purpose in the same place, using material from Did. IX and X, which it has elsewhere omitted or altered in the interests of the modernisation of the Didache.
The prayers in the Coptic and in the Apostolic Constitutions are in no way connected with one another.
Schmidt holds that here and wherever else the Coptic makes any additions they are for liturgical use.
In other places small variations occur.
In X, 6 the Greek reads ¢dOérw ydpis Kat mapeAbérw 6 Kéopos obtos.
For this the
1 4.C. VII, XXVII.
Tlept 8€ rod pvpov odrws eb Xaprorioare:
Ey xapeorobév aot, bce Snuuoupye Trav SAwv, Kal dwép TAS evwdlas TOD pUpov KaL UTEP TOV a0avdrov aidvos od éyvdpicas Huiv dd *Iyood rod mavdds Gov, Tt God cot 7 d6fa
Kai 7 Svvapus ets TOvs aidvas any.
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
Coptic substitutes:
'"' Let come the Lord and let this world pass away."
In XI, 5 the Greek has of the apostle od pevet Sé jjuepay piov.
Harnack conjectures «i pi before nEepay, and the Coptic supports this.
In X, 3 the Greek has merely Sud to0 mauSds gov, to which the Coptic adds "Inood, parallel to IX, 3 and X, 2.
In XII, 1 the Bryennius MS. has egeras, which is usually changed to éere.
The A.C. VII and the Coptic have éyere, which is more natural than the future.
In X, 3 in place of rots dvOpwmois the Coptic has " the sons of men."
This is, according to Schmidt, an example of the liturgical expansion found in the document, especially in the frequent addition of dwjv.
In XII, r the Coptic again agrees with A.C. VII in saying mas 8€ 6 éepxdpevos ev évopart Kuplov mpos duds, adding mpos tuas to the Greek of Bryennius.
The Coptic version omits Did. XI, 4: més de dméaToAos épydpevos mpos pas SexO7jrw ws Kdpios, and adds mas 5é .
. duds to the next section.
In XI, 7 the Coptic uses a word to translate Svaxpwetre, which is used in Rom. xiv, 23 (Copt.) to translate Svaxpiveobar (middle).
The active form of the Greek word can be used with the same meaning as the middle, '' to doubt,' so the Coptic translator took it as such here, perhaps to prevent any contradiction of Paul, who orders "' the discerning of spirits.""
In X, 4 the Coptic reads dep mdvrwy instead of the po wdvrwy we have.
It also confirms Bryennius's punctuation and emendation here, duvatos ef: ool.
. The Bryennius MS. reads duvaros ef ov.
Harnack conjectured duvaros ef od <ool)....
For papav aOa the Coptic has '' The Lord came,' following Chrysostom and Theodoret, who, on I Cor. xvi, 22, say that the Aramaic means, "' The Lord has come."
Thus the Coptic varies in many places from the Didache, as we find it in Bryennius's MS., but it does not give evidence of a radically different text.
The omissions are probably slips, the variations due to a desire to get rid of the difficulties of the Greek text or to give a closer resemblance to the New Testament or to contemporary liturgical custom.
Beside the Coptic version of the Didache there is another version having a very close relationship to it, an Ethiopic translation of Did. XI, 3—XIII, end, followed by an extract
THE TEXT OF THE DIDACHE
from an Ethiopic version of Did. VIII, 1 and 2.
It is found joined with a passage derived from the Didascalia in the form discovered by Hauler in the Verona fragments, and has been embedded in the midst of the Ethiopic version of the Statutes of the Apostles in the midst of Statute LII.
It is not found in the closely related Arabic and Sahidic versions.
The whole work, in each version, is a composition in which are worked over the Apostolic Church Order, the Hippolytean
Church Order and other works.
It is not difficult to see that additions could easily be made to such a work without disarranging it.
In his introduction to the Statutes of the Apostles, Horner says that the agreement with the Greek of Bryennius is so close that it is possible to catalogue all the variations.
They are as follows:
Did.
XI, 4.
Ethiopic omits deyrj7w ws Kvpios and joins the first half of the sentence to XI, 5; cf.
Coptic.
Ethiopic:
"shall not remain except one day or the next and if he has need, the third also; and if he stayed longer he is a false prophet."
Greek : ov pevet de <el p7)> TpEpav piav eav be 7) h xXpela, Kal THV adAnv: tpeis de eav peivyn, pevdorpodyrys
€or.
Coptic has:
"' Let him stay a day.
But if there is need let him stay days 2.
But if he should stay 3 days, a false prophet he is."
Omitted We the Ethiopic.
Ethiopic:
' And every prophet who speaks in the spirit shall be proved and he shall be examined that there may be no sin in him."
Greek: "ye shall not try nor judge, for oes sii, ete."
Ethiopic:
"and everyone that speaketh hae OG tra: Astte not everyone that speaketh. "
Ethiopic: "if he lives the life of God heis a true prophet."
Greek:
... but if he has the ways of the Lord."
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
11.
Ethiopic:
'' And every prophet proved in truth, who acts in the assembly of men and acts unlawfully, shall not be judged by you, for his judgement is from God; because thus did the ancient prophets."'
Greek: mds de mpodnrns SedoKyracpevos, adnOwes, mou els pvariptov KoopuKov exhyatas, iT) ovdaoKwv be TrOLe ly, oa avTos
TTOLEL, ov Kpiljoerau ep bpav- .
In Ethiopic there i is a v.1. " who makes an assembly. .
XII, 3, 4.
Ethiopic omits came eat," and adds:
"But if he works not he shall not be supported.'
Ethiopic also omits "' being a Christian,' but adds after '" trade"'
" And works not."
XIII, 1.
Ethiopic adds:
'' Thus support him."
_ 2.
Ethiopic omits this section.
Ethiopic adds "'honey"' and for zpo¢7jrats puts '' poor."
VIII, 1.
The Ethiopic writes "' evening "' for Greek TApac Keun.
Ethiopic omits otrw mpocetyeofe and the Lord's Prayer.
This is a very short list of variations in the Ethiopic from the Greek.
We may specially note that the text of the Greek attested by the Ethiopic is the same as we have in Bryennius's
MS., and that it clarifies the sense slightly.
In the Ethiopic v.l. it is seen that the translator construes zowv and exkAyaias together as participle and object.
In XIII, 6, though previously the Ethiopic has said "' Give your firstfruits to the prophets," it here shows that in its time firstfruits were usually given to the poor.
There seems to be some connection between the Ethiopic and Coptic versions of these parts of the Didache for the following reasons.
(1) The only capital letter in the Coptic occurs where the Ethiopic fragment begins.
(2) In XI, 4,5 both omit dex8j7w ws Kvpios from section 4 and join the first half of this section to section 5. Moreover, both agree in allowing an apostle to stay '"' one day,'' as does the text of
THE TEXT OF THE DIDACHE
the Greek Didache as emended by Harnack, though not as in the original Bryennius MS.
There seems to be some connection necessary in order to explain these two cases of agreement, but elsewhere the two versions vary from the Greek and from one another.
What connection there is we cannot tell for certain.
There are thus two texts of the Greek Didache and three versions in oriental languages—Georgian, Coptic and Ethiopic.
In all these five there is very little variation one from another, except in very small matters.
When we come to the other chief version, that into Latin, the case is rather different.
Here, as in the case of the Greek, there are two MSS., one of a very small part, chapters I and II, the other of the whole of the first five chapters of the Didache.
The smaller of these was discovered by von Gebhardt printed in Bernhard Pez's Anecdotorum Thesaurus, the MS. of this being found in the library at Molk, where Pez had been librarian.
The larger was discovered by Schlecht in an'old Freisinger MS. in rg00, which contained another collection of homilies.
Von Gebhardt's | fragment is merely a short extract, Schlecht's seems to be a complete whole, for after Did. V it adds a conclusion not found in the Greek.
We have no MS. of any part of the Didache in Latin outside the "Two Ways," but it is interesting to note that in the Pseudo-Cyprianic
Adv.
Aleatores there seems to be a quotation of Did. XIV, 2.
The title of the work in the Freisinger MS. is '' De Doctrina Apostolorum," and, though the "de " is omitted in the MS. from Mélk, it is quite possible that this title implies that the Latin only intends to translate an extract from the whole Didache in homiletic form.
Rufinus does not refer to the '' Didache," but to " Due Viz vel Judicium secundum Petrum," while Jerome refers to a " Judicium
Petri'? and a " Due Vie."
It has been thought that this means that the Didache in Latin contained only Did. I-V and was derived perhaps not from our Didache, but from the original Jewish '"'Two Ways,' which, we are told, underlies the forms of the '' Two Ways" found in various writers.
Other reasons for this conclusion are found (I) in
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
the fact that in I, 1 the Latin Didache has an addition found in Barnabas's '' Two Ways," and not in the Greek Didache.
The Latin Didache opens as follows:
'' Vie due sunt in seculo vite et mortis, lucis et tenebrarum.
In his constituti sunt angeli duo unus equitatis, alter iniquitatis."
The Greek has merely ddot dvo ecict, pia THs Cwis Kai pla Tob @avarov.
Barnabas refers to Two Ways of light and darkness over which are set angels of God and of Satan, the eternal Lord and the ruler of this present time of iniquity.
(2) Both forms of the Latin omit I, 3b-II, 1.
In Barnabas there is no parallel to this passage of the Greek Didache, nor is there in the Apostolic Church Order or several other versions of the "' Two Ways."
It is thought that these documents could not be based upon the Greek Didache and yet omit this passage, which is the most Christian in the "Two Ways."
(3) In II, 7 the Latin Didache has:
"" Neminem hominum oderis, quosdam amabis super animam tuam."'
In the Greek we read in between these two clauses aAAa ots pev edéyEers, Tept 5é Ov mpocevén.
Barnabas has no parallel to anything but the last clause of the section, when he says in Barn. XIX, 5: dyamjoes tov wAnolov cov szép
Tv yuxyv cov.
Here it will be seen that the Latin is almost nearer to Barnabas than to the Greek Didache.
The Apostolic Church Order makes the passage of the Didache like Jude 22 by adding after eAdy£eus : ots S€ eAerjoets.
(4) In IV, 3 the Greek MS. has wo6joes, but the Latin has "facies," and the parallel passage in Barnabas XIX, 12 has woujoeis.
The Apostolic Church Order follows Barnabas and the Latin.
Now, as will be shown later, it does not seem likely that the supposed original used by Barnabas and the other composers of "Two Ways" would have been so well ordered as that "' Two Ways "' is in the Didache, otherwise we cannot imagine Barnabas having confused the order.
The Latin Didache agrees with the Didache in order, and therefore it seems likely to me that it is an adaptation of the Didache.
The explanation of the omission of the passage I, 3)-II, 1 may be that this passage was not part of the original Didache, but in IV, 8 the Latin has an addition to the Greek in " omnibus enim dominus
ee,
THE TEXT OF THE DIDACHE
dare vult de donis suis,' which is derived either from Hermas, Mandate, II, 4 or from Did. I, 5.
As will be shown later, if I, 5 in the Greek and IV, 8 in the Latin are interpolations into the original Didache, we have the unlikely event of two different interpolators drawing upon the same passage in another writing.
It seems that in IV, 8 the Latin shows knowledge of Did. I, 5.
The omission, it seems, of Did. I, 30-II, 1 in the Latin must be due to some other reason than that this was not in the original
Didache.
The easiest way to explain the phenomena of the Latin Didache is that in J, r and perhaps in II, 7 the Latin shows knowledge of Barnabas.
The Didache in I, 1 abridged Barnabas, and altered it to conform to Christ's parable of two ways leading to life and to death.
This the Latin filled out again.
In II, 7, as we shall see, the Didache made out of Barnabas an imitation of Jude 22-3, watering down Barnabas's demand of love for one's neighbour, which goes beyond the evangelical "as yourself."
This expansion the Latin again shortened.
As for I, 30-II, 1, it is not in Barnabas, and so it was omitted by the translator into Latin, for it was not fitting to use the words of Christ in such a way without recognition of the source from which they are drawn.
This is surely the best way to explain the resemblances to Barnabas shown by the Latin Didache.
The general outline is so much the same as that of the Greek Didache that no other major source may be postulated.
Wohleb in Die lateinische Ubersetzung der Didache ascribes the Latin Didache to the third century, about the time of Cyprian, and says that it is an African work.
This is very possible.
There was in the time of Cyprian and before considerable intercourse between Africa and Asia over the Baptismal Controversy and the Montanist movement.
Praxeas came to Africa:
Firmilian wrote to Cyprian.
Harnack has dated the Adv. Aleatores, the first Latin work to quote the Didache, in the third century.
Lactantius, the African, who wrote in the early fourth century, may have known "the way of life and of death."
Except for the quotation in Adv. Aleatores there is no evidence of any
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
interest in the latter part of the Didache in the West.
The De Doctrina Apostolorum is a homily, and all who make any use of the "Two Ways" in Latin seem to be homiletic writers.
For their purpose it was only natural to use only the moral teaching of the "Two Ways."
Moreover, the Church Order soon became out of date, or was suspect as being Montanist in character.
Thus the whole Didache came first to Africa, and was perhaps translated.
Then the first five chapters only were used, and adapted with the aid of material from Barnabas and used for homiletic purposes.
Whether this was the document referred to by Jerome and Rufinus we cannot tell.
It is difficult to imagine what else could be called the '' Duz Viz," but it is also difficult to imagine how it could have got the name
'"' Judicium secundum Petrum."
At any rate it seems certain that this Latin Didache is a Latin homily, an adaptation of the Greek Didache as we now have it in Bryennius's MS., adapted with the assistance of Barnabas.
Besides these MSS. and versions of the Didache, evidence for the text of the Didache may be derived from various other documents which make use of the Didache.
These are (a) Book VII of the Apostolic Constitutions, (b) the Apostolic Church Order, (c) the Life of Schnudi,
(d) two documents ascribed to Athanasius, the first correctly, the second falsely, Syntagma Doctrine and Fides Nicena, and lastly (e) there is sometimes added to this list the Epistle of Barnabas, chapters XVIII-XX.
(a) Book VII of the Apostolic Constitutions is an adaptation of the whole Didache to bring it up to date for early fourth-century consumption.
It is probably the work of the semi-Arian interpolator of the longer recension of the Ignatian Epistles, or of someone of his circle.
Not only does the author bring the Didache's Church Order up to date, but everywhere he adds Scripture references and simplifies the language.
Thus in IV, 2 the Didache has the clause: eipnvevoes 5€ payopevous. eipnvedw is used here only as a transitive verb.
A.C. VII has cipnvedoes 8€ paxopevovs cvvadAdcowy «is ¢idiav.
It does not go back to Barnabas's ovvaydywv.
(b) The Apostolic Church Order uses
THE TEXT OF THE DIDACHE
Did. I-IV, 8, omitting I, 30-II, 1, as does the Latin.
It keeps very close to the Didache.
In it the various commands are ascribed to various apostles, and therefore, as we shall see, the words of Christ in I, 36-II, r are not put in the mouths of mere apostles.
There are various forms of this "" Way of Life."
There is some evidence in it of knowledge of the later chapters of the Didache, but they are replaced by a different Church Order.
(c) Schnudi is another homiletic adaptation of parts of the "" Two Ways "' and so are the two supposed Athanasian works.
(d) These are discussed in the chapter on the literary history of the Didache.
All these writings have, as Muilenburg says, more importance for the Didache's literary history than here, except that where they agree against the Didache they may show that they are based on a Didache a little different from ours.
Where they agree with the Greek of Bryennius they confirm that MS.'s evidence.
Where they differ separately from Bryennius they are of little use for textual criticism, as they are all adaptations. With Barnabas it is different.
The relationship between the Epistle and the Didache will be discussed later.
\ \ } There are, it will be seen, very few real authorities for the _text of the Didache.
They do, however, agree so well together that there is little difficulty in settling the original
Greek text of the Didache.
The texts, fragmentary though they are for the most part, have suffered very little in transmission.
The most notable thing is that the Didache has been more adapted and used by other writings than copied, hence its gradual submergence and disappearance. j } Notes.
On p. 9 it is said that in Harnack's opinion in only three places in the Didache is there any chance of error in the text.
These are I, 6, XI, 11 and XVI, 5.
I, 6. The text of Bryennius here is: aAAa Kai wepi rodrov S¢ elpynrau: Spwodrw 4 eAenuwoovvy ov eis Tas xeipds cov peExpts dv yu@s Tit das.
; :
The following emendations have been proposed : 8) for 8¢ by Bryennius : for iSpwrdérw Bryennius proposed ispwodrw,
_ THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
Hilgenfeld iSpvcdrw, Harnack pr) SpaxO7jrw, iepwrdrn is pro- — posed by Potwin.
There is no check on this passage, for it is omitted in every version or adaptation except A.C. VII.
There the only parallel is wdéow .oty Sixaov diddvar €€ oiketwy mov.
Tia yap, dnot, TOV KUptov amo ov OiKalwy ToVvwY.
TpOTLpnréov d€ Tos ayiovs.
This is neither a translation nor a paraphrase of the Didache, but the reference to zovwy makes it likely that idpdés occurred in the original.
Cassiodorus has a saying "' desudet eleemosyna in manu tua donec invenias iustum cui eam trades."
This seems to be a quotation from the Didache and seems to imply that there was some reference to "sweat" in the original.
Harnack and C. Taylor say that there is here in the Didache a reference to the gaining of wealth by the sweat of one's brow, cf. Ps. Ath., Quest. ad Ant. Ducem : aAdos mdAw 6 pucbds Tob yewrdvou e€ idiov idSpHtos mowébvtos ovpmdbevay Kal Erepos 6 TOU Gpyovtos Tob amo Swpv Kal mpododav mapéxovros.
This does not, however, seem satisfactory.
It is better to assume that here there is a correction to the command to give freely expressed in Did. I, 5.
One is to give freely, but one is to give wisely, cf. Sirach XII, 1, éav ed Troins yv@Ot ti movets.
The meaning, then, will be: " Let your alms sweat in your hands .
."', es with the accusative being often used for év with the dative. iSpwrdrw will be the imperative of a frequentative verb iSpwraw or a mistake for iSpwodtw aorist imperative of fdpdw.
No emendation is really needed.
If this explanation is adopted, then the contradiction will explain why the passage is so often omitted.
Did. XI, II. was d€ mpodyrns dSedoxpacpevos, aAnbwes, mov eis pivoTipiov KoopiKoy exKAnaias, pr) SiddoKwy 8é movety, 60a adTos Trovet, od KpiOnoerat ed buav.
This passage is discussed fully on p. 73, where it is shown that no emendation is necessary.
Did. XVI, 5. of S€ dropetvartes ev TH triote abtaev cwO7sovtat br' adrob Tob Katabguaros.
Georgian:
"' Shall thereby be saved even from this dreadful curse."
_A.C. VII.
Here we read only of 5€ dmopetvavres eis TéXos, od7or owOyoovra, Hilgenfeld conjectures da' for ia'. Bryennius makes the following emendation: én' adrod rob Kdtw Oéwaros, '' shall be saved upon the very earth laid out here below "—namely, in a material, worldly "kingdom."
This is a very unlikely explanation.
There are two difficulties:
(i) Is tad the preposition denoting the "agent " or the preposition '' from under " ?
'THE TEXT OF THE DIDACHE
(ii) Is cardéGepa "' that which is cursed," .e. the accursed thing, the curse, or that which is laid down, 7.e. the foundation ?
Krawutzcky supposes that the '' Temple "' is indicated, the Temple cursed and doomed to destruction.
The Christians will be saved from this, though the Ebionites turn towards it in worship.
The Didache was, he thought, written for the Ebionites. katdQeyua occurs in the N.T., in Rev. xxii, 3, and the verb
KatafeyariCew in Matt. xxvi, 74.
Justin, Quest. et Resp. ad Orthodox.
121, says: dvafeua Adyerat TO avakelwevov Kal adwptopevov Jed Kat eis Kowiy yphow pjKete AapPavopevor, 7}
TO HAAOTpLWpLevov Heod dia Kakiav.
KaTdbepya dé €ort TO ovvOéobar tots avaleuarilovow.
Thus xarafeua has something to do with "'cursing.'"'
Does the passage in the Didache refer to saving from the curse or saving by the curse itself?
It seems likely that the adroé, which is so emphatic, makes the second of these two alternatives probable.
We have only to remember Barnabas's use of the ritual of the scapegoat and the red-heifer, and the very frequent references in Paul and elsewhere to the cursing of him who hangs upon the tree, to see that "the accursed thing itself '' which saves is Christ upon the Cross.
Again the difficulties of the passage may be solved without recourse to emendation, though it means ignoring the evidence of the Georgian.
This translator, however, appears to have misunderstood the passage.
There is no reason for _avrod, if his explanation is adopted, nor is it clear what the "curse "' is.
It is peculiar to use cardGeua for the more common avdfeua but the N.T. shows that it can be so used.
There are further textual difficulties in the following passages.
I, 4. MS.
daéyou r&v capkicdv Kal cwparicadv embupudy.
Bryennius reads koopuxdv with the Apostolic Constitutions, Bk. VII, in place of owparixdv, because of the repetition involved in capkicdv and cwparidyv.
The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus omits cai owparicav, thus making the Didache quote exactly I Pet. ii, 11.
The explanation of the textual variation here seems to me to be that the Greek of Bryennius's MS. preserves the true reading, A.C.
VII and Bryennius emending one way, the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus the other, in order to escape the use of two synonymous words.
In Tit. ii, 12 we read of Koopixds émOupias, the probable source of the emendation in A.C. VII.
I, 3. MS.
kat ody e€erau €xOpdr.
A.C. VII alters this to cat ody cere eyOpdv, as does the
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, and this seems to me to be the true reading.
II, 2. MS.
od dovedoers réxvov ev pOopad: odd€ yervnfevra amoxrevets.
Barnabas and the Apostolic Church Order read odd¢ yerynbev.
A.C. VII has od8€ 76 yervnbev dmoxreveis.
In the Latin there is no evidence as to what the translator read, for the neuter and the masculine accusative are alike.
The Greek of the MS. is possible, but the fact that here the Didache is following Barnabas and that the Apostolic
Church Order is following the Didache makes it likely that yevvnfev is the correct reading.
It may be, however, that the A.C.O. and A.C.
VII correct the Didache.
IV, 3. MS.
0d ojos oxiopa.
Latin:
Non facies dissensiones.
A.C.
VII, A.C.O.:
od tounocets, Barnabas has od zroujoers.
Here again it seems probable that zoujoes is the correct reading.
A.C.O. and the Latin know Barnabas, but A.C. VII probably does not.
It is unlikely that A.C. VII would hit upon the same alteration as does A.C.O.
X, 4. MS. apo rdvrwv edyapioroduevy cor Gt Suvatos ef av 7) dd€a eis Tovs aidvas.
Bryennius emends this to... dvvards ef coi 7 Sd€a, Harnack to... ef ov. col .
. The Coptic seems to support Bryennius. ov is a common scribal error for goé.
XI, 5. MS.
od peeve? S€ audpar pia.
This seems an impossible regulation and to be contradicted by éav dé 7 ypeia Kal rv GAAnv in the next section.
Harnack conjectured «/ yu) before 7juepay and was proved correct by the Ethiopic, Coptic and Georgian.
XII, 1. MS.
éreira dé Soxiyuaoarres adrov: yrwoeobe: atveow yap e€erat deEvdy Kal apiorepav.
Coptic:
'"Ye have yourselves a knowing of the thing of the right and the thing of the left."
Ethiopic:
'' And then having proved him ye shall know, for ye have wisdom, and so (to speak) on the right hand and on the left."
A.C. VII.
odtveow yap éxere kal d0vacbe yrdvar Sefcav Kat apiotepav. efere appears to be the correct reading here.
There is the same error in the MS. as in I, 3.
The punctuation is difficult, there being two possibilities, to have a comma after yrdocobe alone, or to put ctveow yap efere in 1 It would be a natural alteration for the Coptic, Georgian, Ethiopic and A.C. VII to replace the future by the present.
It would not be an easy scribal error to write eferau for éxere.
THE TEXT OF THE DIDACHE
a parenthesis.
Taking the first punctuation we make de€cdv kat aptorepdv into a way of saying ''all knowledge" or " perfect understanding," or of saying '"' you have the understanding to distinguish between right and left.'""
This seems to me to be the correct punctuation, though A.C. VII's paraphrase seems to take deftdv Kai dprorepav with yraceabe, which leaves Soxydoavres S¢ adrov hanging in the air.
XIV, 1. MS.
zpoceEopodoynodpevor.
Harnack conjectures mpocfopodAoyyjoapevor, which is probably correct. mpooc€ouodoynodpevor is never found elsewhere.
The zposis pointless. mpoe€- is more likely to be correct.
XV, 3. MS.
pndé map' tydv axovéerw.
Hilgenfeld and Funk conjecture dxovéo8w.
The Georgian reads:
"' Also shall he not hear in your midst the teaching of the Lord,'' reading the active dxovérw.
Hilgenfeld and Funk make their conjecture in order to get rid of the repetition in " let no one speak to him and let him not hear from you," but it is not necessary to remove this with the difficult passive form, making zap' to be used of the agent.
XVI, 5. MS.
ore ae 7 Kricts TOV avOpuTwv cis THY mUpwow THs SoKipacias.
Hilgenfeld conjectures «pious, Rendel Harris iors.
Krious is used of the created world of mankind in Mark xvi, 15; Rom. viii, 19, 20, 21; Col. i, 23.
There is therefore no "need to suppose that the abstract xriow cannot be used in the sense of the '"' whole of creation' in a concrete sense.
The genitive implies the whole of creation consisting of mankind, not '' man's creation."'
There is no need for any. emendation here, especially when such emendations leave out of account «is tiv mipwow Tis Soxipacias.
XVI, 7, 8
Apostolic Bryennius.
Georgian.
Constitutions. née 0 KUpLOS (Same as
ToTE HEEL 6 KUpLOS
Kal mavres ot Greek of Kal 7avTES ot ayvoe per adtod Bryennius) dytou pet adrod TOTE OpeTaL O Dann wird diese Kéopos Tov KUpiov + Welt unsern Herrn Jesus Christus, den Sohn des Menschen &v ovagetop der Sohn Gottes ist sehen (als) €pxYomevov kommend
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
Apostolic Bryenniwus.
Georgian.
Constitutions. erdvw Tov vededOv auf den Wolken erdvw Tov vepedAav Tov ovpavod mit der Macht und per' ayyéAwv Suvdgrosser Herrlichpews adrovd,émi Opokeit, vou BaotAelas KaraKpivat Tov KoOpLomAdvov 8dBoAov damit er jedem_ xail dmodotvar éxdMenschen gemass or kata tiv mpaseinen Werken in €&w adtod seiner heiligen Gerechtigkeit vergelter vor dem ganzen Menschengeschlecht und vor den Engeln.
Amen.
Maclean said that the ending of the Didache in Bryennius's MS. is so abrupt that the last leaf must be lost and we are left in the middle of a sentence.
It is curious that the Georgian version and the Apostolic Constitutions seem to agree in omitting rod odpavod and in adding something.
Itmaybe that the scribe of Bryennius's MS. seeing the work ending with vegedAav added rod odpavod, but the additions in the other two authorities, close as they are, are not sufficiently alike for us to say they are derived from any lost page.
Bryennius's MS. may be cut short but we have no sure evidence for it.
The only other cases in the Didache where any alterations to the text of Bryennius's MS. can be needed are in matters of spelling, and even these are not numerous.
Emendation is almost unnecessary.
The difficulties of the text can be solved by exegesis in almost every case.