The Historical Setting Of The Didache
THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE DIDACHE
WHEN the Didache was first published in 1883, criticism of it followed a natural course, and attempts were made to find a historical setting for it. _Bryennius found in it attacks on Antinomianism and Montanism, Krawutzcky found traces of Ebionitism, while Hilgenfeld found Montanist interpolations in an anti-Montanist original.
This was the correct procedure, to fit the Didache into the known framework of early Church History, but the Didache was the one major discovery in early Christian history, and tiaturally it became the " spoiled child of criticism,'' as Bigg describes it.
Its early date was exaggerated, and the results of a superficial study of the document were accepted as true and stressed by those whose purpose was to demolish traditional
Christianity by postulating a primitive eucharist like that supposed to be described in Didache IX and X and a primi- :
_ tive " charismatic "' ministry like that inferred from Didache XI-XIII.
Harnack, Charles Taylor, Rendel Harris, Canon Streeter and Sabatier alike find no traces in the writing of any controversy of the early Church.
To them the Didache is chiefly interesting because of the state of development of the ministry of which it gives evidence, especially with regard to the relations between " charismatics '' and bishops and deacons.
They therefore tended to date it early, and this coloured their view of the literary relationships between the Didache, Barnabas, Hermas and the New Testament.
They thought they saw in the " Two Ways "' a slightly "' Christianised' Jewish pamphlet, in chapters IX, X and XIV a primitive pre-Catholic eucharist still closely connected with the "' Kiddush," in chapters XI-XV a lack of ministerial organisation, due to the great dignity of the spiritually gifted prophets, while in the whole they found a preoccupa-
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
tion with ethics and a lack of interest in dogma, to them a mark of primitive Christianity.
Let us leave on one side their opinions, and see what traces we may find in the Didache of the controversies over Christological problems, over Gnosticism, over the relations between Christianity and Judaism, and lastlyover Montanism.
We will discuss elsewhere the Didache's ministry and chapters IX, X and XIV.
We may first of all put on one side two opinions, those of Cotterill and Long.
The former, writing in the Scottish Church Review in 1884, said that the Didache was of later date than Book VII of the Apostolic Constitutions and Nicephorus's Stichometry.
He thought that some writer composed it making the number of lines in the manuscript agree with the number of ottyo. in the Stichometry.
The latter, writing in the Baptist Quarterly Review, put the Didache at a later date than A.C. VII and the so-called
"Epitome," of which it is an adaptation, and thought it was connected with the Paulicians.
This was a heretical sect of the seventh century, which influenced the Iconoclast Emperor Leo III.
They hated Judaism; they favoured an "adoptionist "' Christology; they desired a religion without sacraments, a spiritual religion; they avoided the word "priest "' and had prophets, apostles and teachers.
They were definitely a retrogressive sect, influenced by the spirit of the Manicheans.
Unfortunately we cannot support the point of view that the Didache is later than the A fostolic
Constitutions or even than the Didascalia.
In the same way we cannot accept Bigg's view.
He sees in the Didache a fourth-century forgery, its date of origin being betrayed by the word ypioréumopos.
This, he said, was first used in the Arian controversy by Athanasius and the interpolator of the Ignatian Letters. We now know that it was used by Hippolytus.
In the matter of Christology the Didache is quite neutral.
The sparsity of references to Jesus is the reason for this.
The normal trinitarian formula is ordered for baptism in chapter VII.
In chapter IX Jesus and David are given the same description, mats @eod.
In chapter X Jesus is called
THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE DIDACHE
the God? of David.
In the use of the Trinitarian formula, whether Matt. xxviii be an addition to the Gospel or not, it is of very early date, and the Didache is not dated by its use of the formula.
Moreover, the Didache agrees with the New Testament in using the Trinitarian formula in chapter
VII and Bamribévres cis dvoua xvpiov in chapter IX, 5, | just as Matt. xxviii, 19 uses the former, while Acts ii, 38,
Gal. iii, 27, etc., use the latter.
Whichever was the earlier formula "into the name of Christ " or " of the Trinity," it does not affect the Didache.
Chapter IX seems to give a low opinion of Christ, chapter X a very high one.
In the use of waits Geod for David and Jesus the Didache agrees with Acts Iv, 25, 27, where we read "' by the mouth of our father
David thy servant," 'against thy holy Servant Jesus."
In describing Jesus as God of David, we may have an echo of our Lord's debates in the Gospels concerning the Psalm,
" The Lord said unto my Lord," where it is said, '' David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his son? "
Barn. xii, 10-11 refers to the same matter in the words:
"Since therefore they are going to say that the Christ is David's son, David himself prophesies, fearing and understanding the error of the sinners, ' The Lord said to my Lord,' etc."
We know that Adamantius discussed the matter, _and that Tatian is said to have forbidden the title '' Son of David."
Thus nothing that the Didache says is connected with any of the controversies concerning Christ.
The historical figure of our Lord may be absent, but it could not but be otherwise in the "' Teaching of the Lord.""
The words of the Lord and His Gospel decide everything—almsgiving, prayer, fasting, baptism.
The Didache does not differ from any Christian moral teaching or Church Order of any date in this lack of doctrinal interest in Christ.
It is timeless in this, except that the phrase '"' Hosannah to the God of David"' may link it with Tatian and Adamantius.
The doxologies of the Didache, like all pre-Arian es give us no hint 2 Dhe Coptic reads ° ' House of David.'
Ct. Origen, Select., im Ps. vit.
Cnrioevs dé aOTepov TavToOV eat olkos bad Kat vids dad, Kal et en Tavrov €or, Twapriyrat 70 Kata paTOatov ypadikds.
Odevdov € exeu Hrot Ols TO olk@ Sad HTOU TO utd dat.
Thus the Coptic, the only other version of this chapter, is assim1lated to an Egyptian form of Matt. xxi, 9 and 15.
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
of the writer's Christology.
The only peculiarity is the omission of kingdom in the doxology of the Lord's prayer.
This is only found elsewhere in the Sahidic version of the New Testament.
Bryennius finds an attack on Aetaerian Gnostics in the Didache in its references to those who turn and give another teaching in order to destroy these things.
The same might be found in chapter VI's opening words, "' See that no one make thee err from this way of teaching," with its resemblance to the warnings in the Johannine Epistles against false teachers.
The " Two Ways" also attack magic and witchcraft—things so often attributed to Gnostics by Epiphanius and Hippolytus.
Chapter IV, 13 forbids any addition to the "' Teaching."
This is thought to be an attack on Gnostic forgeries.
All these things, with the insistence on a strict code of morals, lead Bryennius to suppose that the Didache attacks those who say that to the perfect Gnostic morals are a matter of indifference.
There are, however, some things in the Didache which might be called Gnostic. éAevos is a favourite word of the writer and of the Gnostics:
It occurs in Did. I, 4, VI, 2, and the verb reAevdw occurs elsewhere.
There is evidence of a double standard in VI, 2.
The Didache seems to be more Gnostic than the Gnostics in its spiritualising of the eucharist, if chapters [IX and X be the eucharist, and in those chapters occur the Gnostic watchwords ziorms, yv@ows, abavacia.
The Didache may seem to attack and support Gnostics in these matters, but in none of these need Gnostics be referred to.
False teachers are found in the Pauline Epistles, Gospel Apocalypse, Johannine Epistles and Apocalypse before true Gnosticism appeared.
Magic and witchcraft were popular in pagan as well as Gnostic circles.
Others besides Gnostics forged scriptures, including some Montanists.
7éAewos may have been used by the Gnostics, but it is used in the New Testament by Matthew, Paul and James.
There is evidence of a double standard not only in Gnosticism, but also in Montanism, where a prophecy of Montanus! says that some shine a | hundred times more than the sun in the resurrection, some
1 Epiphanius, Panarion, 48, 10.
THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE DIDACHE
a hundred times more than the moon. aloris, yvdous and téevos are not only Gnostic words, they are found in the New Testament, in Ignatius and Clement of Alexandria.
The Didache may spiritualise in chapters IX and X, but it is not certain that the eucharist is there referred to, and at any rate John can spiritualise a eucharist discourse in John vi or the Last Supper in John xili-xvii.
Thus the Didache has nothing whatsoever to say concerning the problems connected with Gnosticism.
Historians of the type of Lietzmann find in the earliest years of the Church that Christianity was Judaism with the addition of one special characteristic, knowledge of the person of the Messiah.
This Jewish legacy to Christianity was, as Harnack expressed it, cast aside or covered over by the acute Hellenisation of the Church.
The Church is said to have taken over the moral code, customs, organisation, doctrines and future hopes of Judaism with very little organisation.
The moral code of Judaism was accepted by Christ and deepened by His appeal to the motive rather than to the act.
Christ merely gave a broad outline, which the Apostles like Matthew or James filled out from Jewish sources.
One of these Jewish sources is found by C. Taylor and others in the '"" Two Ways" of the Didache, omitting
T, 3-II, 1.
Many of the directions here may be found in Jewish documents such as the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, the Sibylline Oracles, etc. Chapter III, 1-6 seems to be a Rabbinic "' Hedge of the Law."
Chapter IV, i seems to be a parallel of Pirké Aboth IV, 6, " Let the honour of thy comrade be as the honour you pay-your teacher, and of your teacher as of God."'
Chapter IV, 2 is very like the saying in Pirké Aboth, '"' Let your house be the place of the reunion of the wise.
Disdain not the dust of their feet and gather their words with eagerness."
Were it not for the fact that the '"' Two Ways " is found in Barnabas and has been shown to be that writer's own composition, so much of it being derived from the New Testament, it might seem as though the writer of the Didache is employing Rabbinic sources.
Nowhere, however, does he alter Barnabas and use a Rabbinic source.
Dalman says, "As to the Jewish origin of the
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
'Two Ways,' I have, however, grave doubts.
It could hardly have been intended for the instruction of Proselytes."'
The judgment of so great a Hebrew scholar cannot be easily set aside.
Itissaid that Christianity adopted Jewish customs such as proselyte baptism, fasting, prayers, the Sabbath, family meals and circumcision.
Traces of all these, their Jewish origin only thinly covered, are, we are told, found in the Didache.
The baptism of the Didache, although the discussion concerning the water is "' more rabbinico,"' is, however, Christian, and there is no trace of the Jewish circumcision.
Fasting is twice a week, like Jewish fasting, but it is on Wednesday and Friday, not Monday and Thursday.
The connection here with Judaism is an artificial one.
The Christian fasts are of comparatively late origin.
The Christian practice of saying the Lord's Prayer three times a day may be like the Jewish command to say the Shemoneh Esreh three times a day, but the Lord's Prayer is definitely of Christian origin.
The prayers given for the meal of chapters IX and X are very like those of the Jewish
Kiddush, as are those in A.C. VII, 34-38, but it seems more likely that they are an artificial composition from New
Testament sources, and that the parallels with Jewish graces are accidental.
As it is likely that the agape is here described, _ it-is not necessary to suppose that we have here a eucharist very close to its source, the Jewish family meal which was used so often by Christ, especially at the Last Supper.
That the Christian organisation was moulded on the Jewish synagogue is very likely, but the Didache is very un-Jewish in the absence of presbyters from among its officers.
Apostles, prophets and teachers seem to have been honoured by Jews, but so they were by-other peoples of early times.
Christianity took over Jewish doctrines, monotheism and a belief in a Messiah: these are found in the Didache, but with no Rabbinic peculiarities.
Christianity took over Jewish apocalyptic.
The Didache has a commonplace apocalypse in chapter XVI, drawn from the common stock of JenGe and Christian apocalypses.
Thus the Didache shows, like any Christian writing of any period, the Jewish origin of Christianity, but it shows no
THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE DIDACHE
special knowledge of Rabbinic writings or Jewish customs.
Its knowledge of Judaism is in no way greater than that of any other Christian writer.
There is no need to suppose the writer lived at a time when Jews and Christians were living in very close contact and attending the same synagogue.
There is nothing specially Judaic in the spirit of the writing.
It does not partake of the legalism attacked by S. Paul.
It may be a code, but so is the Epistle of James.
It may bea rudimentary Church order, but so is I Corinthians.
It does not show any signs of the heresies of the sects like the Ebionites.
In fact, though so many critics have been eager to show the Didache to be the composition of a Jewish Christian, of a Christian living before Church and synagogue finally separated or of a Judaising heretic, there is no evidence in the writing for any of these things.
So far as its knowledge of Judaism and its partaking in the Jewish legacy to Christianity is concerned, the Didache is quite timeless.
Hilgenfeld, Bryennius and others found traces of Montanism or anti-Montanist propaganda in the Didache, especially in the prominence given to prophets there.( Harnack and others thought that in the Didache was to be seen a primitive threefold charismatic ministry, and so tended to set the Didache in the context of the primitive spiritual effervescence of the Church, not of the Montanist revival.
Canon Streeter admits the possibility that the writer may have been a Montanist + with a taste for archaism, but thought it impossible that a heretical document could have had the great influence of the Didache.
He tries to number the Didache among those documents written at the end of the first or beginning of the second centuries which show the standardisation of organisation of the church from the primitive variety to universal episcopacy wrought by the influence of great prophets and organisers.
The matter has been complicated by those who try to see in Montanism a return to a 1 Cf. P.C.,284.
''That a later writer of Montanist proclivities should have admired, and desired to depict as primitive, the state of things reflected in the Didache is possible, there are no limits to the idiosyncrasy of individuals in any age.
What is incredible is that, had he done so, his work— running so absolutely counter as it does to the ideals and tendencies of the time—should at once have secured such wide influence and prestige."
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
primitive Church Order, not a new creation, a thing with which Tertullian would never agree.
The new prophecy was an extension of the Gospel, not a return to apostolic conditions, for the Apostles never received the Paraclete.
Knox, for example, says, '' It is probable that the Montanists in fact followed fairly closely the fashion of the Apostolic period, their fault lying in their attempt to persist in prophecy after it had ceased to be of value and to use it as a means of obtaining fresh revelations, rather than in any actual difference in the form their prophecies took."
The history of Montanism is so wrapped in obscurity that before deciding whether the Didache has any connection with it, it would be profitable to see what various early writers wrote about it.
Hippolytus (Phil. VIII, 19) says that the Phrygian heretics are followers of the prophets
Priscilla, Maximillaand Montanus.
These have written many books.
Their followers pretend that in these three the Paraclete speaks with greater power than Christ.
They confess God the Father Creator of all things, just as the Church does, and they hold the same opinion about Christ as the Gospels.
They have, however, made innovations about fasts and feasts and xerophagie and raphanophagie.
Some of them are also Neetians, believing that Father and Son are one and the same person.
Pseudo-Tertullian (adv.
Omnes Hereses, 7) has the same difficulty.
There are two classes of Cataphrygians, which have a common error and differ in one matter.
Their common error is to believe that ' the Apostles did not receive the Paraclete, but that Montanus
_ did, and that he gave more and better and greater advice than Christ.
The two sects differ in that one holds the correct belief regarding the Trinity, while one is Sabellian.
Irenzeus and the Christians of Gaul, we know from Eusebius, H.E. V, 3, sent letters to Eleutherius at Rome expressing a edAaBi Kal dpbodogordrny Kpiow concerning the Phrygian heretics which seems to imply that they did not categorically condemn them.
Ireneus! also and Eusebius? are very severe in their attacks on Gaius and the Alogoi, who, from a 1 Adv. Her. III, 11, 9.
*H.E. TL,25, Il, 315 Vi, 20,
THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE DIDACHE
radical opposition of the Montanists, refuse to accept the Johannine writings which prophesy the coming of the Paraclete.
Origen (tn Titum V, 291) discusses the question whether the Montanists are heretics or schismatics and, in a passage
_ quoted in Cramer's Catena on Corintmians, p. 279, 3 ff. on I Cor. xiv, 34, his only attack on the Montanists is on their
_ allowing women to prophesy.
Firmilian, the correspondent _ of Cyprian, only refused to accept Montanist baptism because of their wrong belief with regard to the Spirit and the prophets.
All these opinions show how contemporaries viewed the early stages of the Montanist movement.
There was great difficulty in finding any fault in Montanism except the too great honour paid to the prophets.
Tertullian, both before and after he became a Montanist, was most orthodox.
Asa Montanist he fiercely attacked Praxeas and Marcion.
He was attracted by the sternness of Montanism in morals and its formulation of an ethical code.
The utterances of the _ prophets gave him fixed rules to work upon, not vague outlines.
Labriolle, La Crise Montamiste, p. 463, says that ' though Tertullian became a Montanist, he retained his
Creed, his faith in the Scriptures without reserve, his theory of the apostolic nature of the churches guaranteed by the _ episcopal succession, his theory of prescription, and the ordinary practices of Christian piety.
In the de Jejunio Tertullian employs prophetic utterances to confirm or rectify non-scriptural customs.
He attacked Callistus for his mitigation of the rules for re-admission to the Church after sin, and denied to bishops the right to pardon grave sins
(de Pudicitia), but he still allows the bishop the right to interpret the will of God and readmit a man to the Church in / cases of minor sins.
The " new prophecy "' chiefly affected Tertullian in his opinions about the nature of the soul, the rules of fasting, the veiling of virgins, the re-marriage of widows and such matters.
In his hand the words of the , prophets were used for orthodoxy.
Thus in Adv. Praxean 8 we read, " Protulit enim sermonem Deus, quemadmodum etiam paracletus docet, sicut radix fruticem et fons fluvium et sol radium."
Tertullian, the Montanist, does not change
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
any of his beliefs about the eucharist or baptism or the agape.
He does not replace the threefold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon by the prophets.
He does not show any sign of having apocryphal books like that ascribed to Themison or those which Caius! and the Muratorian Canon? say the Montanists *composed, though he ascribes great honour to the utterances of the prophets.
In one place in Diekamp's Doctrina patrum de incarnatione verbi (p. 306), there is a quotation Movravod é« tév @dév, which seems to imply a collection of Montanus's prophecies, which may mean that the Montanists had their own special scriptures.
Tertullian accepted Montanism, while a Roman Pope was favourable till Praxeas, by appealing to the unfavourable opinions of two previous Popes, persuaded him to change his views.
Dionysius of Alexandria was not certain whether Montanist baptism was to be accepted or not.
Cyprian, says Jerome, Ep. 84, 2, used Tertullian, a Montanist, though "'Montanum cum eo Maximillamque non sequitur."'
Augustine tells us that he persuaded the Tertullianists in Carthage to reunite with the Church.
Finally, the Church used the Acts of SS.
Perpetua and Felicitas, which were probably edited by Tertullian and supplied with a Montanist beginning and end.
The opening "' Itaque et nos qui sicut prophetias ita et visiones novas pariter repromissas et agnoscimus et honoramus, ceterasque virtutes Spiritus Sancti ad instrumentum ecclesie deputamus,"' is changed in the Greek to 'Hpeis 5€ oirwes rpodnretas
Kal opdceis Kawas dexducba Kal emvywadcKopev Kal TYyLdmev maoas Tas Suvdwers TOO ayiov mvevuaTos, ws yopnyel TH ayta exxAnoia, which shows how the Greek translator tried to get rid of the Montanist flavour.
Even if the Martyrs with their visions were not Montanists, Tertullian claimed them for such.
Thus the Church was at first in very great difficulties, as to the measures to be taken against the Phrygian heresy, and that may explain the bitterness of fourth-century and later writers.
Eusebius uses many early sources in his attack on MonSy EUS fhe. Wile 20m 3 2 " Arsinoi autem seu valentini vel metiades nihil in totum recipemus qui etiam novi psalmorum librum marcioni conscripserunt una cum basilide assionem catafrycum constitutorem."
THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE DIDACHE
- tanism in H.E. V, 3, 16-19.
The anonymous author quoted in chapter XVI attacks the ecstatic nature of Montanist prophecy, and the lack of Montanist martyrs, for even if there were any in prison, the true Christian martyrs would not recognise them; he sneers at the ends of the prophets who died like other heretics, one being killed while trying to | fly in the air, and he laughs at the fact that Maximilla, the _ last of the three great prophets, said that after her there would come the end of the world.
That has not happened, | hesays.
Moreover, he says, after Maximilla there have been no prophets in the Montanist sect, but Christ said that the | prophetic gift shall be in all the Church till the final coming.
Apollonius, quoted in chapter XVIII, attacks the new fasts, the Avoets yduwv and the payment of money to the prophets,
» and above all he judges the prophetesses by their lives and rakes up allsorts of scandals about them.
Thusin Eusebius there is little serious criticism of Montanism, and this is the case with the later writers.
Epiphanius's ! chief points are _ that the Montanists allow women to prophesy and preach, and that they prophesy in an ecstatic condition.
He complains that Maximilla prophesied that after her there would be no more prophets, but the end of the world would come, which was false, and, if there were no more prophets when
Christ said there would be prophets till the end of the world, _ then she must have been a false prophet herself.
He holds _that Montanism does not agree with Scripture in forbidding second marriages.
He says that the Montanists contradict Christ in the prophecy, 7 Adyets tov drEép avOpwrov owldpevor;
Adpuper yap, Pyar, 6 Sixavos drEp Tov HAvov ExatovramAactova, ot 5é _ puxpot ev bpiv owldpevor Adpupovow éExatovtamAaciova brep TH ceAjvyv, when Christ said the righteous shall shine as the sun.
He holds that they are wrong in saying that in Montanus was 6 Oeds 6 mavToKpatwp Kataywopevos ev avOpwmm.
Finally, says Epiphanius, Maximilla refutes herself when she says, "Do not listen to me, listen to Christ."
The attacks of Eusebius and Epiphanius are not very decisive.
It is the same with Philaster of Brescia (H@r. 49).
He says, '"'Isti prophetas et legem accipiunt, patrem et 1 Panarion har. 48.
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
filium et spiritum confitentur, carnis surrectionem expectant que et catholica ecclesia predicat.''
Their fault lies in their assumption that the fullness of the Spirit dwelt not in the Apostles, but in the three Montanist prophets.
They also err in that they baptise the dead, "' publice mysteria celebrant,'' and call Pepuza the new Jerusalem.
Here we find for the first time the slander repeated elsewhere that the Montanists in their eucharist drench the bread in the blood of a murdered child.
Didymus (de Trinitate III, 41) says the Montanists are in error in three matters: they are
Sabellians, for Montanus said, "Eyo eiys 6 marnp Kat 6 vids kat 6 trapdKdAntos; they say Montanus received the perfection of the Paraclete; they associate women with Montanus as prophets.
The Dialogue published by Frick between the Catholic and the Montanist, perhaps the work of Didymus, deals with these same matters and with the question of ecstatic prophecy.
Later attacks all followed these various lines, with the addition at times of a charge of Judaising.
For example, Sozomenes VII, 18, 5-6, 12, says that the Montanists observe the Sabbath and are Quartodecimans.
In Ps.
Chrys. VII Sermon on Easter it is said, ddAn alpeots 4 tev Movranoréy iris 890ev perv amodverau 76 peta "lovSatwwv mroveiv.
The catholic writers and the various anti-heretical imperial laws all combined to put down the Montanists.
The attacks were directed at the peculiarities of the sect in connection with prophecy, fasting, Church orders and apocalyptic and in its tendency towards Christological heresy.
Apparently the Montanists split into various sects, for we hear from Pseudo-Tertullian of those with a catholic or Sabellian belief concerning the Trinity, from Epiphanius, Panarion
49, we hear of Quintillianists, and from Philaster we hear of Ascodragite and other such peculiar sects.
In fact, all through there is considerable confusion concerning the Montanists.
Now, if we are to consider what connection the Didache has with Montanism, we must consider its rules concerning fasting, its apocalypse and its chapters on prophets and the ministry.
These are the chief matters.
Other subsidiary
THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE DIDACHE
matters are of less importance.
First with regard to fasting, it will be seen from the table on page 145 that in the time of Tertullian the only compulsory fasts among Catholics were the two days before Easter.
Synods or individual bishops might order others.
The Station Days, Wednesday and Friday, were quite voluntary, and then fasting lasted
only till three o'clock in the afternoon.
Irenzus, Dionysius of Alexandria and Hippolytus's Church Order are our evidence .for this.
Neither know any general fast except that before Easter.
In the Didascalia we seem to find the Wednesday and Friday fast first being made compulsory.
The author there is very careful to point out the reasons for these fasts.
From the table it will be seen how the Montanist fasts are all compulsory, and how the Wednesday and Friday fasts are prolonged till evening.
Thus Tertullian, de Jej. I, says, '"' nove prophetiz recusantur non quod alium Deum predicent Montanus et Priscilla et Maximilla, nec quod Jesum Christum solvant, nec quod aliquam fidei aut spei regulam evertant, sed quod plane doceant szepius jejunare quam nubere, quod jejunia propria custodiamus, quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus.'' Hippolytus, Philosophoumena VIII, 19 says, KatviLovat S€ vnoretas Kal éoptas Kal Enpodayias Kal pagavodayias ddoKovtes 070 TOV yuvaiwv dedLddyOar,and X, 25, vnoretas Kaas
Kal mapaddgous opilovtes.
Eusebius, H. £. V, 18, 2 says of Montanus, 6 Sddéas Avoets ydpwv, 6 vyoreias vopoberHaoas.
Now, in the Didache fasting is mentioned three times, chapter I, 3, '' Fast for those that persecute you,'' VII, 4,
"And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able.
And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two - days before,' and VIII, 1, " Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do you fast.on Wednesdays and Fridays.''
The first two of these cases we have discussed elsewhere, the last we must consider now.
We must notice that there is no mention of the fast finishing before evening, nor of the fast being voluntary.
' It is compulsory, and it is for the whole | 1 Adapted from Labriolle La Crise Montaniste.
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
duration of the day.
If, then, the Didache is written after the Shepherd of Hermas and before the Didascalia, which seems to innovate in its compulsory Wednesday and Friday fasts, then it must be contemporary with Irenzus, Hippolytus and Tertullian; who know only one Catholic compulsory fast—that before Easter.
Does it not seem, then, that the Didache here betrays a Montanist origin?
We may notice that the writer finds reason for the Wednesday and Friday fast in Matt. vi, 16 and that Labriolle says of Tertullian's de Jejunio that he searched in the Scriptures for 'la préfiguration ou le spécimen de toutes les particularités de_ses jefines."'
The Didache's ministry has been so much employed in the battles over the charismatic ministry and the history of the threefold episcopal system that it has been necessary to devote a separate chapter to the discussion of the relations between the Didache and Montanism and other movements in this matter.
We may just summarise our findings now.
In Montanism alone in the early Church can there be found an order of prophets, well paid and highly honoured.
Their very high position made it necessary to guard against Jimpostors.
They did not supersede the more usual Catholic ministry of bishop, priest and deacon, but acted alongside it.
This is what we find in the Didache.
Presbyter is omitted and apostle! and teacher are added, the last two being very vague figures.
The reason for this is that the Didache, while putting forward the Montanist system, is supporting it wherever possible from the New Testament
— or supposed apostolic writings.
In the New Testament, in I Cor. xii and Eph. iv, there occur the three classes. of apostle, prophet and teacher, so the first and last are added in the Didache.
In the passages from the Pastoral Epistles, employed in Did. XV to give the qualifications of bishop and deacon presbyter does not occur, or seems to be identified with bishop, so it is omitted here.
The Didache's ministry can only be that of the Montanists.
The Apocalyptic chapter of the Didache does not show the peculiarity of Montanist apocalypses, the identification
1 Cf. supra, p. 117, where Streeter is referred to.
THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE DIDACHE
of Pepuza with the site of the new Jerusalem which shall come down from Heaven.
It is vivid, like all early Christian apocalypses, and, like nearly all apocalypses, it is an artificial catena of New Testament and other passages.
In 6 KooporAavyis Volkmar sees Bar Cochba, who, according to Justin, Apol. I, 31, instituted a persecution of Christians.
Krawutzcky refers b2' atroé rod xatabéuaros to the " cursed place,' the Temple at Jerusalem, to which the Ebionites turned when praying.
There are, however, other more likely interpretations of the phrase.
There are no peculiarities in this chapter, Volkmar's xoopomAavjs being an apocalyptic commonplace.
All is derived from the New Testament and Barnabas.
We must not, however, deny its possible connection with Montanism, for in the passages quoted from Tertullian, de Jej. I, and Philaster, it will be seen that the Montanists claimed that their apocalyptic hopes and belief in the Resurrection were quite catholic.
In two other ways the Didache may be connected with Montanism.
First of all, we are told by Miltiades (Eus., H.E.
V, 22) that Themiso the Montanist dared, in imitation of the Apostle, to write a Catholic epistle.
That, along with the passages quoted above from Caius and the Muratorian _ Canon, may be an explanation of how the Didache came to be written.
Secondly, in the prophecy quoted from Epiphanius above it is said that there is evidence of a double standard, the dikavos shall shine a hundred times more brightly than the sun, the puxpds a hundred times more brightly than the moon.
The Didache's favourite word is réAewos (I, 4, VI, 2), and in the latter passage is evidence of a double standard.
"Tf you can bear the whole yoke, you shall be perfect, but if not, do what you can."'
Various opinions have been quoted above concerning the .
Judaising of the Montanist movement.
The Didache does not mention anything with regard to the Passover or the Sabbath, but critics have always stressed its Jewish tone.
This is nothing more than its very formal character as a code, a thing which Tertullian, the Catholic or Montanist, would have admired.
We can therefore find no evidence in this matter to prove the Montanist origin of the Didache.
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
Finally, Labriolle quotes a sentence from the Kyjpuyya Ilerpob, obdév drep ypadiis Aéyowev.
This, he says, might well be taken as a motto of early Montanism, and it is certainly the motto of the writer of the Didache who uses
Scripture, the prophetic Shepherd of Hermas and the "apostolic '' Epistle of Barnabas.
It may be objected that a Montanist would follow Tertullian 1 and refuse to have anything to do with the '' Shepherd of the adulterers '' because of its laxity in forgiving mortal sins, but, as Armitage
Robinson has shown, the Passio Perpetue et Felicitatis shows many traces of knowledge of the Shepherd, and Tertullian is the probable editor of this work.
Tertullian's hatred of the work of Hermas may well have been a peculiarity of his.
The Didache can only be the product of the early Montanist movement.
This rose in the fourth quarter of the second century, and thus the Didache may well be its child, for we have seen that for literary reasons it is later than the work of Hermas and before the Didascalia.
Montanism spread quickly over the greater part of the Christian world, and so did the Didache.
Its Montanism is the more respectable form of that heresy, and, as Cyprian used Tertullian, so later writers could use the Didache.
It is an attempt to express Montanism in apostolic terms, not to prove that Montanism is primitive Christianity.
The Didache's ministry may be like that of the medieval Waldenses or the nineteenth-century Irvingites, the Didache and the founders of these sects having the New Testament for a source, but the Didache is an attempt to find justification for an existing order, not to found a new order to copy a supposed historical original.
The Didache shows how respectable and apostolic Montanism could be.
Tertullian did the same.
Perhaps both omit the excesses that turned Catholics against the New Prophecy, but the ministry and fasts of the Didache prove its source.
No trace of any other historical movement or event can be found in it except the movement towards the selection of a New Testament Canon anda realisation of the Church Order and 1 De Ovatione, 16.
THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE DIDACHE
Teaching expressed in the Canon, and perhaps an echo of Tatian's difficulty concerning the use of the title '' Son of David.''
The Didache can only be set comfortably in the context of the early stages of the Montanist movement.
Days.
Montanists.
Catholics.
References.
Dies determinatos...
Compulsory | Tertullian, de solos legitimos, Matthew Jejumo, II, 1xor5 XIV Good Friday and Holy Saturday Good Friday \ Tert. de Orattone, XIX Time of Christ's burialand | Compulsory Mert. de: fej.
Eve of Easter X, XIV At the bishop's orders, Compulsory | Tert. de Jej. ex aliqua soilicitudinis '
XIII . ecclesiz causa Certain days agreed upon | Compulsory tr de fej. I, XIII Station days, Wednesdays Voluntary | Tert. de Jej. and Fridays till
XIII, II, X
o'clock; cf. Acts iii, I.
Station days, Wednesdays | Compulsory Voluntary | Tert. de Jej. and Fridays till evening XIV, X | Certain Saturdays Voluntary | Tert. de Je.
XIV From bread and water Voluntary | Tert. de Je. according to their wish.
XIII Fortnight of Xerophagia, | Compulsory bait de fej: except for Saturdays and Sundays