The Integrity Of The Didache
THE INTEGRITY OF THE DIDACHE
There is no need to go again through the question of the sources of the Didache.
This has been sufficiently dealt with in the chapters on the literary history of the Didache and the relationship between the Didache and the New
Testament.
It may seem that the Didache uses Barnabas more in I-V than in VI-XVI, that the Johannine writings and Acts are used more in IX and X than elsewhere, that the evidence for the use of Justin and Hermas is chiefly found in the " Interpolation.''
This is true, but we must admit that the '"'more'' and the " chiefly' are not the same as "only.''
The Didache does use these writings elsewhere.
In each part of his writings he seems to take a main source, with which he combines material from other sources.
He uses one document as a basis, altering it with quotations from and reminiscences of other documents.
The influence of the whole of the New Testament, especially of the First and Third Gospels and of the Pauline writings, is all-pervasive, and is found in the whole Didache.
In connection with this question of the sources of the Didache and also with the question of the spirit found in the whole work, we may briefly discuss how "' Jewish '' the Didache really is.
Harnack omitted Did. I, 3b-II, 1 and various other passages of the "Two Ways,'' and made a Jewish '"' Two Ways."'
C. Taylor made not only a Jewish "Two Ways,'' but he said that the Didache's baptism was a very slightly Christianised Jewish proselyte baptism, that its prayers were founded on prayers used in Jewish family meals, that apostle and prophet were honoured in the synagogues, that the Didache's apocalypse was only vaguely
Christian.
He said that the Didache was a Jewish document slightly Christianised, for example by the addition of the threefold formula in baptism, by the altering of the two weekly fast days, and so on.
Others have followed Taylor, and suppose that the Didache is a document embodying the practices of a Jewish synagogue lately turned Christian, which keeps its old ways and only adapts them to Christian ways very slightly.
To these arguments are added the argument from the quotations from the Rabbinic writings and from such works
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIMDACHE
as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Sibylline Oracles.
The evidence for the knowledge of these writings in the Didache, is, however, very slight, and is to my mind negligible.
It seems that the Didache knows nothing of Jewish literature that would not be known by the whole
Christian Church.
If it knows the Greek writings like the © Testaments and the Ovac. Sib., which is not certain, it is because these documents in many versions have been Christianised.
I deny that the Didache has any knowledge of any Rabbinic writing or of any of the esoteric customs of the Jews.
Barnabas has, but the Didache certainly has not.
The Didache is said to show many of the characteristics of the Jewish mind.
R. D. Middleton, in J.Th.S., 1935, tells us that the Rabbis had favourite devices to aid the memory of their followers.
They had numerical divisions in their writings, five of this and that, and so on.
He says that the Didache is divided into three sections, the '' Two Ways,' the Means for following the Way of Life, Sundry
. Instructions and Warnings.
That is very true.
It is also true that the prayers in Did. 1X and X are regularly arranged and have a very artificial appearance.
It is true that in Did. III, 1-6 there is a very formally arranged '' Hedge of the Christian Law.''
This arrangement was, however, taken over by the Didache with the passage from the original.
It is also true that in chapter VII there is a distinction "more rabbinico '' as to how one may be baptised and with what sort of water.
R. D. Middleton is, however, wrong in supposing that for these reasons a Jewish Christian who knew the Rabbis must have written the Didache.
The use of these "'memoria technica'' is found in the Proverbial literature of the Old Testament and in the Gospel according . to Matthew.
By means of these they would enter the Christian Church at large.
Moreover, they are not, and never were, the private property of Rabbinic Judaism.
Mnemonic devices are used all over the world.
If one supposed the Didache to be Jewish, it would be necessary to suppose that Did. I, 30-II, 1, which is so Christian, and Did. XV, where Greek émicxomor and Sidkovou are found and Hebrew presbyters omitted, are additions to
THE INTEGRITY OF THE DIDACHE
the original Didache.
This is not correct.
The Didache is Judaic in tone and didactic in manner, and this is found in every part of it.
Christianity is the offspring of Judaism; the Lord was a Jew, Paul was a Jew, presumably the whole of the Twelve were Jews.
Therefore the whole of Christianity,.the words of our Lord, the Lord's Prayer; the Pauline Epistles, the Johannine writings—all must be Judaic in some form or other.
In Das Judenchristentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert Hoennicke points out how
' widespread was the Jewish influence in Christianity.
It is almost impossible to suppose that there was a special _ Jewish Christian Church and Gentile Christian Church _ sharply divided from one another.
There was no sharp _ division.
The Jewish spirit pervaded every part to a greater _ or less extent.
The Didache knows and uses Paul, Matthew | and James.
It may be like James, but it is also like parts of Clement of Alexandria's Pedagogos.
Moreover, as we _ have seen, the Didache is an attempt to express in New _ Testament and apostolic language the teaching of a part of _the Church.
The Judaism of the New Testament and Barnabas would naturally show through.
Though the Didache cannot be said to be specially Jewish or any such thing, yet its didactic tone common to the whole work is a sign of its unity.
In its "' moralia'' and "' ecclesiastica,'' there is the same attitude on the part of the writer, the same signs of a didactic compiler.
This is surely a sign of unity of authorship.
The most convincing proof of the unity of the Didache is seen in the unity of the language used throughout the Didache.
He continually refers to the same passages 'in the Scrivtures, and in the same way he continually uses the same word or phrase.
He seems to have favourite words and favourite passages in the New Testament.
In this connection we must remember that the Didache is a compilation of material derived from various sources.
The work of a compiler is seen in the alterations made to this material and in the links.
In such cases even the smallest signs of similarity of language are important.
The following are some of the chief examples of phrases
THE 'RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
used in various parts of the Didache with little or no variation.
SiSovat Kata THY EVTOARY :
I, 5. paxdptos 6 di80ds Kata Tv evToAyy.
XIII, 5. édv ourtay movgs, tiv dmapyiv AaBav Sos Kara Thy evToAny.
XIII, 7...
. AaBav riv amrapyyv, ds dv cou dd&y, dos Kata THY EVTOAnY. ev T@ evayyedrin, VIII, 2.
GA' ds éxédevoev 6 Kdpios ev TH edayyeAiw avtob, ovTw Tpocedyeabe.
XV, 4.
... mdoas tds mpdfers otTw moujoate, ws "
> ~ > fs ~ / e ~ éyere ev TO edayyediw Tod Kupiov Nuav.
XV 2). / > > - ¢ "
~ > Ab , 3.
€dAdpyeTe .
. ev eipyvn ws ExeTe ev TH evayyediw.
XI \ \ r) , ~ > rb A / 3.
. Kata TO Odypa TOD edayyeAlov OVTW TOLnGATE. meplt ToUTOV €ipynTat.
I, 6. dAdAa Kal mepi TovTou Sé eipyTar.
IX, 5.
Kal yap wept tovrov cipnKev 6 KUptos.
XVI, 7.
0d mdvtwr S€ GdN' ws eppébn.
XIV, 3. atrn yap eorw 7 pyBetoa do Kupiov.
TéAetos.
I, 4. orpépov adr kal tiv dAAnv, Kai €on TéActos.
VI, 2.
«¢ pev yap dSvvacar Bacrdca dAov tov Cvyov tod Kupiod TéAetos Eon.
X,5. pryoOnrr, Kvpue, ths é€xxdnoias gov, Tod...
TeAeroat adTiy ev TH aya cov.
XVI, 2.
... eav py) &v TH Coydtm Kaip@ TeAciwO Fre. dvvacbat, duvatos, etc.
I, 4...
. pa) amairer odd€ yap dtvaca.
VI, 2. ed pev yap d¥vaca Baotdoa .
. ei S' od dvvacat, 6 Svvn, TobTo Tote.
VII, 4...
. mpovnorevodtw ...
Kal et tives aAdot dvvavrac.
X, 4. mpd mdvrwv edyaprorobuev cor, Ste Suvaros ef.
XII, 2.
. Bonbetre adra, daov dvvacbe.
Ws KUpLos.
IV, I.
. Teyjoes dé adrov ws Kipiov.
THE INTEGRITY OF THE DIDACHE
XI, 2.
. ddéacbe adrov ds Ktpuov.
XI, 4.
. dmdatodos .
. SexOrjrw cbs Kdpios. e€opodoyobpar.
IV, 14.
&v exxAnota eLoporoyjon 7a maparrwpard cov.
XIV, 1. ovvaybévres .
. mpoeEopodoynodpevor Ta mapa-
TTWOMATA DULOV.
TLLaV.
IV, I. tiyynoes .
. dbs Kvpiov.
XV, 2. adroi ydp eiow of rerysnuevor buav. mAavar.
VI, 1. dpa pH tis ce mAavyon amo tadrns THs 6506 THs dLdayfs.
XVI, 4.
Kat tore davjcerat 6 KooporAarijs. d1dayx%.
I, 3. rovrwv 8€ TOv Adywr 7 SiSayy eorw adrn.
VI, 1.
See above.
XI, 2. av b€adros .
. dvddoxn ddAnv Sidayyv. mept Oe.
VI, 3. wept dé rHs Bpdicews.
VII, I. wept dé rob Barricparos.
IX, I. epi 5€ ris edyapiorias.
XI, 3. mepi dé trav amooroAwy Kal mpodnTav. amo TOO movnpod.
III, 1. dedye amo mavros movnpod.
V, 2. puodeinre amo TovTwY anavTwr.
VIII, 2. adda picat Huds ad Tob movnpod.
X, 5. prnoOnri, Kvpre, ths exxAnoias cov, Tob piaacBat avTiV amo TaVvTOs Trovnpod. dedoxtpacpevos, adAnbivds.
XI, 11. ads dé rpodyrns SedoKxipacpevos adnfues.
XV,I.
... Kal ddnbets Kat deSoxysacpevovs. ovvayw.
IV, 14.
&v exxAnata eoporoynon.
IX, 4...
. ov7w ovvaxyOynrw cov 7 exKAngia.
X,5.
Kat ovvatov adryy ...
XIV, 1.
. ovvaybévtes KAdoate dptov.
XVI, 2. muKvads dé ovvaxOyjcebe.
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
pOopeis.
V,2.
Oopets mAdopartos Geod.
XVI, 3...
. wAnOuvOjcovrar ot pevdorpodfrar Kai of P0opets.
These are only a few examples of the way in which the Didache continually picks up recurring words and phrases.
The vocabulary of the writer seems to be curiously limited, and the signs of his authorship are evident in every part of the work.
The language is that of the Koine, there being only three peculiarities, ovria in XIII, 5, which is found in Stephanus and Photius, and not elsewhere, tynrAddfadpos, which is found only in Did. III, 3 and the parallel passage of the Apostolic Church Order. ypiotéuropos was thought to be unusual in being used before the fourth century, but it has been found to occur in a fragment of Hippolytus on Ruth.
It seems evident that the Didache is a compilation, the work of one man of marked character.
His hand is visible in the common sources that he uses, the common spirit of his writing and the common language which he employs.
It is impossible to cut up the Didache into sections in any place.
It is an indivisible whole.
To omit the Christian passages, and so to make it Jewish, is an arbitrary and quite unjustifiable proceeding.
To say that an interpolator may have copied the surroundings and inserted phrases from the original into his interpolation is to make an unjustifiable assumption, for it is not possible then to distinguish between interpolation and original.
It must be admitted that whatever doubts have been cast upon the authenticity of much of the Didache, these doubts are groundless.
There is no reason for refusing to accept any part of it as the authentic work of a compiler who composed this summary of apostolic teaching from the New Testament and other " apostolic " works after the time of Justin and before the time of the composition of the Didascalia.