The Didache, The Agape And The Eucharist
vill
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
THE problems raised by chapters IX, X and XIV of the Didache are as great as those raised by the chapters XI,
XIII and XV, which deal with the ministry, and the position assigned to the Didache in discussions of the history of the eucharist because of these chapters is one of great importance, as it is in the case of the history of the ministry.
For example, Spitta and Schweitzer say, '' Eine Abendmahlsauffasung nur dann Wert habe, wenn sie das Wesen hat der urchristhchen Feier wie es besonders in der Didache geschildert sei."
First of all we must see what the Didache has to say on } Christian meals, whether they are the eucharist or the/ agape.
Chapter IX starts with the words zept dé ris edyapworias, and consists of three prayers and a rubric.
The first prayer is zrepl rod morypiov, and is a thanksgiving to God for the Vine of David tod zraidés cov made known through Jesus tod madds cov.
It concludes with the doxology, coi 7 dd€a eis tods ai@vas.
The second prayer is wept tod KkAdoparos, and concludes with the same doxology.
It is a thanksgiving for the life and knowledge made known to us through \ Jesus 706 maiSds cov.
The last prayer is one for the Church, that it may be gathered together from the ends of the earth into the Kingdom, as the grain which composes the bread was gathered together after being scattered over the mountains.
The doxology of this prayer is, dre cof éorw 1 ddéa Kal % Svvapus Sia *Inood Xpiorod eis rods aidvas.
The rubric which closes the chapter forbids anyone to eat or drink of your eucharist except he be baptised.
This is supported by a quotation from Matt. vii. 6, " Give not that which is holy to the dogs."
The form of chapter X is very similar to this.
It consists of a thanksgiving to be made after " you are filled,"
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
consisting of three prayers, ending with practically the same doxologies as the three prayers of chapter IX.
The first prayer gives thanks to God for the holy name which thou hast made to dwell in our hearts and for the knowledge, faith and immortality made known to us through Jesus 6 zrais gov.
The second gives thanks to God, who created all things for His Name's sake and who gave men food and drink, for the spiritual food and drink and eternal light given through His mais.
Above all, God is thanked because He is mighty.
The third prayer, as in chapter IX, is a prayer for the Church, that it may be delivered from evil, perfected in God's love and gathered together in holiness from the four winds into the Kingdom prepared for it.
After these prayers come the following two sections:
' ' Let grace come and let this world pass away.
Hosannah to the God of David.
If any man be holy, let him come! if anyman be not, let him repent :
Maran atha, Amen.'
But suffer the prophets to give thanks as they will."
In chapter XI of the Didache one sentence may refer to the agape or the eucharist.
That is Did. XI, 9, which reads, "And no prophet who defines a table in a spirit shall eat of it: otherwise he is a false prophet.''
If this is a reference to the heretics of Jude " wallowing in their love-feasts,'' as. we held above, then we have here in a prophet dpilwv tpdmelav a reference to the agape.
Chapter XIV deals with the Sunday gatherings for the eucharistic Breaking of the Bread.
This is to be preceded by confession of sins in order that '' your sacrifice (@vcia) may be pure."
No one who has a quarrel with his neighbour may join in the meeting till they be reconciled, for otherwise the sacrifice would be defiled.
The chapter ends with the application to the sacrifice of the eucharist of the prophecy of Mal. i, 11, 14:
" 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king,' saith the Lord, ' and my name is wonderful among the heathen.' "
_ The first two words of Did. XV are XELpOTOVHTATE OvV.
Bishops and deacons, then, are to be elected either in order to celebrate the eucharist or to settle the disputes of the community.
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
We have seen elsewhere how much of his material the writer of the Didache has derived from the New Testament.
It will be seen that a good deal of these chapters may come from the same source.
In connection with Christian meals the New Testament uses the words kAdows dprov, Seimvov
Kuptakov, evyaptor® and edAoya.
These occur in accounts of the Miraculous Feedings, in the early chapters of Acts, in I Cor. x and xi, and in the accounts of the Last Supper.
The Didache uses kAdoate dprov in chapter XIV, edyapiord _and evyapioria, and no other word.
The order cup-bread at the beginning of chapter IX is found in I Cor. x and in the. supposed Western Text of Luke xxii.
The usual order of bread-cup occurs in Did. IX, 5 and a similar change is found in I Cor.x and xi.
The use of the word zorrjpiov for the wine is found in the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper and in I Cor. x.
The mdrep judy of the prayer over the cup is found in the Lord's Prayer, and Jesus is the true Vine in John xv, 1 and Rev. v, 5, besides in the Old Testament passages concerning the Messiah or Israel as the Vine of David.
Jesus and David are given the title mats cod in Acts iv, 24-30, the only New Testament passage in which the Messiah and the Patriarch are both given this title, a passage, too, used again in chapter X of the Didache. yvwpilw is a word often used by S. Paul and S$. John.
Thus the greater part of this prayer could have been derived from the New Testament, and it is the same with the prayer over the bread.
«xAdoya is used in the plural in the accounts of the Miraculous Feedings, but only here and in Hippolytus is it used again.
(w1).cal yvdors, for which gifts thanks are given in this prayer, are the themes of John vi and xvii, since they are the gifts brought by Jesus.
The prayer of Did. IX, 4 for the unity of the Church and its gathering into the Kingdom could easily be composed by one who knew Matt. xviii, 12, with the reference to the wandering sheep upon the mountains, John x, 16, with the reference to one flock and one shepherd, John xvii, 21, where Jesus prays that all may be one, I Cor. x, 17, where it is said we are all one bread and one body, and Col. 1, 13, where Paul says we have been saved out of the world into
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
the Kingdom of God. (In Matt. xxiv, 31 it is said that the elect shall be gathered together from one end of the heavens to the other, from the four winds.) John xi, 52 is in the mind of the writer here.
Caiaphas had said that Jesus must die, one man for the whole people.
This, S. John says, was a prophecy, for Jesus was to die that all the children of God scattered abroad should be gathered together.
A. Robinson thinks the words dA\d dpyepeds @v Tod eviavtod éxetvou mpoegyjrevoey .
. are the Didache's authority for saying in Did. XIII that "the prophets are your high-priests."
John xi, 52 may be in the mind of the writer of the Didache in this prayer, but that it is the authority for Did. XIII is not so certain. (in the last section of Did. IX there is an explicit quotation of Matt. vii, 6.
The application of this to eucharist or agape is not a common thing in ante-Nicene times.
That "tables" must be "' hedged" can be easily deduced from I Cor. xi.) The greater part of Did. IX could well be derived from the New New Testament, and it is the same with Did. X. eumdnobjvae is difficult to explain, but it is a word used in the Johannine account of the Feeding of the Multitude, and that is the only account of that event which uses edyapiorety and not evAoyetv.
For the writer's reference to the manifestation of God's name through Jesus we need no other source than
John xvii, 6, "I have revealed thy name to men." catacxnvdw is used in the Old Testament with the '"' Name of God," and may be parallel here to oxnvéw which is used of the "' Logos "' in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel. dé@avacia, used in Did. X, 2, occurs three times only in the New Testament, but a¢bapoia occurs in II Tim. i, 10 in a very similar way to afavacia here.
There Jesus Christ is said to be the person who revealed life and incorruptibility to men.
Of the words of Did. X, 3 d€o70ra occurs in Acts iv, 24, wavroxpdatop in II Cor. vi, 18 and the Apocalypse.
'' Thou createdst all things" is a statement parallel not only to many in the Apocrypha (e.g. Wisdom i, 14) but also to that in Eph. iii, 9,
"God who created all things," in Rev. iv, 11, '' for thou didst create all things," and again in Acts iv, 24, " Lord, thou art he who made .
. and all things in them."
The statement
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
that the creation is '' because of thy name "' is an Old Testament phrase, but it may be derived from John xui, 28 or Rom. i, 5.
The Didache is like I Tim. iv, 2-4, vi, 17, when it says that God gives men food and drink for their enjoyment that they may thank him, and, like John vi, 53-4,
Xvli, 2-3, it speaks of spiritual food and drink which gives abundant and eternal life.
Irenzus IV, 18, 5 and Justin, Apol. I, 66, have the same idea, but there is no necessary connection between the Didache and these writings.
The New Testament is a sufficiently probable common source.
In Did. X, 4 occurs the word Svvarés.
This and its verb dvvacbar are favourite expressions of the writer.
It is used of God in Luke i, 49.
In Ps. Ixxxviii, 9 occurs the sentence duvatds <i, Kvpve.
The prayer of Did. X, 5 is derived chiefly from the High-Priestly Prayer of John xvii, with various alterations and additions: tod picacba adbrjyv amo mavtos mrovnpod is derived probably from the Lord's Prayer and from John xvii, 15, where Jesus prays that the disciples may be protected from the evil.
Kai reAcwBoar adrny ev TH ayarn cod may be derived from John xvii, 23, where Jesus prays that they may be made perfect into one, from I John iv, 18, where it is said that he who fears is not made perfect in love, and from Heb. x, 1, where it is said that earthly sacrifices cannot make perfect the worshippers.
«ai avvagov adr amo TOV Rass Teood pu avéuwv is derived from Matt. xxiv, 31, where the elect, it is said, will be gathered together from the four winds into the Kingdom.
7H aytacbeioar i is used_of the Church i in Heb. x, 10, " sanctified by the offering-of-Christ,"' and of the Church as the bride of Christ in Eph. v, 25-6, where it is probably used with reference to Jewish ceremonies in connection with betrothal, the title of which is '"' Kiddushin."'
That the Kingdom into which the Church is to be gathered is already prepared we may deduce from Matt. xxv, 34, " Inherit the Kingdom prepared for you,' and from Heb. xi, 16, where it is said that God has prepared a city for the saints.
The various exclamations of Did. X, 6 seem to be derived from the New Testament; the first is perhaps from I Cor.
Vii , 31, wapdyer yap TO oxjpa Too Koopov TovTov.
The second is certainly from Matt. xxi, 9,15.
We have noted elsewhere
JHE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
the alteration made by the Didache, "' the God" of David and the reading attested by Origen, '' the house."
The third and fourth are from I Cor. xvi, 22, et tis od diAct Tov Kupwov rw dvdbeua. papav 404.
The "Amen" is probably derived from I Cor, xiv, 6, where there is a reference to prophets and to blessing in the Spirit and to edyapuoria.
This would give us the clue to Did. X, 7 and the transition to the chapters on apostles and prophets and teachers.
We have already noted that the reference in Did. XI, 9 to a prophet dpilwy tpamelay may be a reference to the agape and derived from the epistle of Jude.
(Chapter XIV of the Didache appears to be derived from New Testament material also.) That the Breaking of Bread was an apostolic custom we know from Acts ii, 42, that such gatherings took place on Sunday we know from the fact that Paul preached at Troas at a eucharist on Sunday, the story of which is in Acts xx, 7, while the name "' Lord's Day " is applied to the first day of the week in Rev. i, 10.
The Didache calls the eucharist a sacrifice.
This might be deduced from I Cor. ix, 13, where it is said that those who serve altars are said to share with the altar, and so that Christian preachers are to live from the Gospel, from I Cor. x,
18, where Christian and Pagan sacrificial meals are compared, or from Heb. xiii, 10, where it is said, '' We have an altar from which they who serve the tabernacle may not eat.' Moreover, the Malachi prophecy ofa pure sacrifice was early applied to the eucharist, and so the eucharist would quickly gain that title, though in the New Testament @voia has only a metaphorical meaning. Thecommandthat quarrels should be settledsothat the sacrifice may be pure is certainly derived from Matt. v, 23-4 and James v, 16 and perhaps Matt. xviii, 15-35.
The first of these passages alone in the New Testament employs the word diaAAdoow used here.
It talks of sacrifices too.
Our Lord means Jewish sacrifices, but the Didache transfers the passage to Christian offerings.
James talks of efouodrdynats.
The Didache uses the word zpocEopodoynodpevor, this being a drag Aeyduevov, but it is probably derived from James.
Whatever it is that the Didache describes, and whatever is the source of the subject-matter—whether it be con-
THE DIDACHE,
THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
temporary affairs or history—it is at any rate evident that the wording which the Didache uses is drawn from the New
Testament. This dates the Didache as the work of a time when the New Testament was highly honoured, but beyond that it gives no further evidence.
We must first decide what the Didache describes and when such meals were customary in the Church.
The first of these questions is a very debatable point.
The following solutions are possible: (i) that the Didache describes ' in chapters IX, X and XIV the eucharist, (ii) in IX and X the agape and eucharist and in XIV the eucharist, (iii) in [X and X the agape and in XIV the eucharist, (iv) in IX and X private house-eucharists and in XIV the public Sunday eucharist, (v) in IX, X and XIV the Christian ceremonial meals when agape and eucharist are still one undivided / liturgy.
Lietzmann, Harnack, Duchesne, Spitta and Batiffol are supporters of the first of these points of view, Zahn,
Weizsacker and others of the second, Ladeuze and Sabatier of the third, Drews, Baumstark and von der Goltz of the fourth.
The last is always at the back of the mind of those Protestant scholars who try to put the Didache at an early date.
The names quoted are merely a selection of the numerous scholars who have tried to solve the problem of _ these chapters.
One general matter helps to solve the question, and that is the very bare and austere character of the Didache.
We have seen that in employing the "' Two Ways "' section of Barnabas, the author carefully rearranges the ill-ordered material of Barnabas and prunes the flowing style of that, author.
The Didache is carefully arranged and expressed with great economy of words.
This is very easily seen where we have the source of the Didache clearly before us.
We may, I think, assume that this is the case all through the work.
It is evident in the chapters on baptism, prayer and fasting and on the apocalyptic hopes of the Church.
The author takes one subject at a time and deals with it thoroughly: the '' Way of Life," the " Way of Death,"
-, food, baptism and so on.
In the latter half of the book each
subject is introduced by a heading probably copied from the
| | .
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
headings of the various sections of I Cor., wepi 5€ ris Bpdcews, ' mept 5€ rob Bamrioparos, etc.
Once he has dealt with a subject he does not recur to it.
It is not likely, then, that in the case of chapters IX and X and XIV he would deal with the same subject,twice.
Ifin chapter XIV the Sunday eucharist is spoken of, then in chapters [X and X something else is described, whether it be the private house-eucharist of Baumstark, Drews and von der Goltz, or the agape.
} / This point has tended to be forgotten or obscured, or its importance is outweighed by other criteria.
Chapters IX and(X) begin with the words zepi 5€ ris edyapiorias, and end with the words that the prophets are to be allowed to edyaptotety doa OéAovew.
Taking these words at their face value, we must admit that a " eucharistic '' service is here described, whether that name be reserved for the liturgical mass or some other ceremony.
Moreover, the Didache has _very many places in which there is a peculiar resemblance to Jewish liturgical meals such as the Kiddush, which were the true source of the Christian eucharist.
If, then, we place the Didache at any early date, we may say that the Didache shows the half-way house between the Jewish
Kiddush and the developed Christian eucharistic liturgy.
If chapters IX and X deal with the eucharist, the following difficulties are pressing:
(a) the lack of any sacramental language, (0) the lack of any reference to the body and blood of Jesus or to the redemptive power of the Cross, (c) the lack of any connection with the Last Supper, (d) the order cupbread in chapter IX, (e) the use of the term xAdoya, (f) the use of the term eumAnofjvar at the beginning of chapter X and (g) the exclamations at the end of chapter X, which seem to show that the eucharist has not yet taken place.
Whatever view we take as to the subject of these two chapters, the following difficulties occur : the Judaic and yet Johannine flavour of the prayers, the similarity between chapters IX and X, and the omission of any reference to ministers except for the command that prophets may give thanks as they wish and for the odv at the beginning of chapter XV.
The Johannine language causes no difficulty except to
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
_ those who would consider the Didache as a very early document.
Greiff apparently expresses the opinion in his Das alteste Pascharituale der Kirche, Did. 1-10, und das Johannesevangelium that the Didache is prior to the Johannine writings and the source or model of them.
Others think that " John" and the Didache draw upon a common source, the liturgy of their own district, a liturgy founded on the Jewish ritual at family meals.
Middleton, in J.Th.S., 1935, p. 259, holds that as the Didache uses as its source Barnabas,
Hermas, the New Testament and the lost source of Did. III, I-6, so it uses Jewish prayers and models itself on Rabbinic
'teaching.
He sees this in the two sets of three prayers, and in the regular forms of these prayers and of the whole Didache which, he says, are very like the set numerical divisions used to aid memory in Rabbinic literature.
For the actual prayers of the Didache and the order cup-bread, von der Goltz, Lietzmann and Middleton turn to the Kiddush, in which there is a prayer over the fruit of the vine and thanks to God for bringing forth bread from the earth.
This, it is said, is like Did. IX, 1-3.
Did IX, 4, the prayer for the gathering together of the Church, is, we are told, derived from the Amidah, "' Sound the great trumpet for our freedom, and lift up the ensign to gather together our exiles, and | | | :
* gather us together from the four ends of the earth.
Blessed art thou, O Lord, who gatherest together the banished of thy people Israel.'""
The Amidah, we know, was said three times daily (cf. Berakoth, IV, 1), and this is said to be the source of the command in Did. VIII, 3 that the Lord's Prayer should be said three times daily.
Chapter X of the Didache is said to be derived from the Birkath Ha-Mazon, rearranged to 'make it parallel to Did. 1X.
The use of the word eumAnobvar 'is in this case due to the fact that the Jews found the origin of Grace after Meat in Deut. viii, 10, "" And thou shalt eat and be full and thou shalt bless the Lord thy God for the good land which he hath given thee."
The Didache is supposed to use the Birkath Ha-Mazon's first three benedictions in the order II, I, III.
The fourth was added after the final collapse of Bar-Cochba in A.D. 135.
The prayers of the Didache do not use this, and so the Didache is said to be
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
earlier in date than that year, unless the Messianic cries, " Hosannah to the God of David ..
. Maran atha"' are derived from, "' O, make us worthy of the days of the Messiah, and of the life of the world to come."'
The actual contact | _, between the Didache, chapter X, and the prayers of Birkath |
Ha-Mazon appears to me to be slight.
The first section of | the Didache gives thanks for God's name made to dwell in | our hearts and for knowledge, faith and immortality, the second of the Benedictions thanks God for the good land, the Torah, life and food given to God's people.
The second of the Didache's thanksgivings is for the creation, for spiritual and material food and drink, the first of the Jewish graces is for the goodness, grace and mercy of God.
The last of the Didache's prayers in chapter X is for the Church and the Kingdom, the third of the Jewish graces is a prayer for the Jewish people, Temple and Dynasty.
) 'The spiritual language of the Didache is said to be parallel with the language of the Jewish Graces, specific references to the Holy Land and the Temple being replaced with references to the spiritual kingdom and the inward Temple of the Spirit.
The very references to yrats, fwy, etc. could be derived, according to Lietzmann and others, from Jewish prayers, especially from prayers like those said to be embedded in A.C. VII, 32 ff., cf. especially A.C. VII, 33, 4, where mores and yvdous occur together.
_ The Jewish prayers, too, could be varied, and we are told that the Didache's could be varied by the prophets.
. Simeon b. Nathaniel and R. Eliezer said that freedom was permitted in the recitation of the Amidah.
In the Kiddush, too, there were no set ministers.
Usually the head of the house said the prayers, but guests of distinction could take his place.
It seems, then, that Jewish customs explain much that we find in the Didache, especially as the Didache varies as to the order cup-bread or bread-cup just as the Rabbis did.
The question, however, remains, which is the most likely source of the Didache, the Rabbis or the New Testament, and was there ever such a Christian eucharist as the Didache describes in chapters IX and X?. Lietzmann would say that.
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
the Didache describes here the earliest form of eucharist.
Now, it is certain that. the Christian. _eucharist_is not an adaptation. of the Jewish Passover.
All the distinctive marks of the Jewish feast are absent.
It seems certain, too, that the celebration of the eucharist does not depend only on the Last Supper, but on what Christ did many times before, perhaps at the Miraculous Feedings, perhaps at his ordinary meals with his disciples.
This is likely when we look at the story of the journey to Emmaus, for it is unlikely that the two disciples were at the Last Supper.
That Supper was probably the last of a series, and was given a _ special significance by Christ in view of his approaching
Crucifixion.
It may be that the Lord used there the ordinary _ words used at Jewish family meals, adding the special
Words of Institution, and that the disciples continued to use these prayers, which we find preserved in the Didache, a | relic of very early times.
In Luke, in the supposed Western _ Text of Luke xxii, 15-20 as reconstructed by omitting vv. 19
_ and 20, there is no reference to the Institution, nor is there in ohn's account of the Last Supper, c. xili-xvii.
Mark and Matthew do not command a continuance of the rite, but Paul, in I Cor. xi, our earliest account of the Last Supper, does.
Only the liturgy of Addai and Mari does omit the Words of Institution, and there it may have been said, but was not written down owing to the very sacred character of the words.
Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catachests Mystagogica V, does not recount the words, but that does not mean that. his diturgy does not contain them. Except in t the Didache the reference to the Last Supper and to Calvary i is universal in the eucharist.
Lietzmann may say that it is not the main point in Hippolytus's Church Order, where the only thought is thanksgiving for redemption through Christ, nor in Serapion, where the chief thought is the offering of bread and wine which is considered in a prayer after the prayer of Consecration as parallel to the offering by Christ of his Body and Blood.
It has been thought that Gregory the Great, Ep. IX, 12 aliter 26, was of the opinion that the Apostles consecrated the eucharist by saying the Lord's Prayer.
His words are, ''Orationem autem Dominicam idcirco mox N
cos
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
} | post precem dicimus quia mos apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam | solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent ; et | valde mihi inconveniens visum est ut precem quam} scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus et} ipsam traditionem quam Redemptor noster composuit non | diceremus.''
There is no Lord's Prayer, we may note, in| Hippolytus's eucharist in A.C. Book VIII.
It is likely that | 'ipsa solummodo oratio,'' by which the Apostles consecrated, , was not the Lord's Prayer but a prayer of consecration.
Though the Didache is so like the Jewish origins of the Christian eucharist, it still remains out of the line of development.
Struckmann, in Die Gegenwart Christi, would see | in the reference to the vine of David a reference to the blood of Christ, a real presence in the elements, and thus would find in the Didache something to bring it into line with the. ordinary eucharist of history.
Origen in Hom. Vl in Jud. 2 says, '"'verae vitis qui ascendit de radice David sanguine inebriemur."'
In the Apoc. Baruch we read, "' Hinc revelabi-tur principatus Messiz mei qui similis est fonti et viti."
Clement, Q.D.S. 29, says, '"' He who pours the wine of the. vine of David into our wounded souls.''
Origen might support Struckmann, but the Afocalypse of Baruch and | Clement give a more spiritual meaning to the phrase.
If we follow Struckmann there is an almost intolerable tautology in "' the vine of David, 7.e., the Messiah, made known through Jesus.''?
What the solution of this is we cannot tell.
Perhaps the vine of David is Israel,.or the Church, as the Old Testament uses such phrases of Israel.
There is, however, no idea of a "'real presence'' in the Didache, even of a spiritualised one.
The prayer '' Maran-atha'' of X, 6 is not a realisation of the presence of Christ, but an apocalyptic. prayer.
It may be possible for it to mean:
'' The Lord has come,'' but here it is a prayer in its context of apocalyptic cries.
The apocryphal Acts and Clementine Homilies may spiritualise the eucharist, they may support communion in one kind or a communion of bread and water, Clement of Alexandria may try to find an underlying spiritual meaning of the eucharist, but all realise and say what the eucharist actually is.
For example, in Acta Thome (Wright, p. 290)
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
we read, "' And after they had been baptised and were come -up, he brought bread and the mingled cup, and spake a blessing over it and said, 'Thy Holy Body, which was crucified for our sake, we eat, and Thy life-giving Blood, which was shed for our sake, we drink.
Let Thy Body be to us for life, and Thy Blood for the remission of sins.'
The Didache seems to be in the same line as Serapion if \ chapters IX and X are prayers for the eucharist, the offering
- a. ha _ of bread and wine and the reception of spiritual gifts from } God being the chief thoughts.
The absence of the Sanctus is of no importance.
This is almost universal in Christian _ liturgies, but is not found in Hippolytus.
In his eucharistic ' liturgy there is a complete absence of all those references to | Jewish history which make the Clementine liturgy so tedious.
When we first find the Sanctus in Christian literature in I Clement XXXIV it is a part of the general Christian prayers, not necessarily of the eucharist.
Lietzmann thinks that the _ Jewish references were first used in the form of eucharist of which Serapion was an example and were then inserted into ' the Hippolytean form.
The Didache would represent a form of eucharist previous to this insertion.
A similar addition is _ seen in the taking over of the " Gloria in excelsis '' from the morning prayers into the eucharistic liturgy.
In the Didache in chapters IX and X no ministers are required for the ceremony described.
It is said that the early ministers of the Church were administrative officers and not liturgical ministers.
There was, it is said, considerable freedom in early times as to who should celebrate the eucharist.
The Jewish Kiddush was conducted by the head of the house or by any celebrated guest.
In Acts xiii we hear of prophets and teachers Aevroupyobyres and in I Cor. xiv, 16 there is a reference to men " blessing (edAoyetv) in spirit," to whose evdyapioria the ordinary person says "amen."
In Justin Martyr's Apology, however, the President conducts the eucharist, and in Ignatius there must be no eucharist or love-feast without the bishop.
In J Clement XLIV there is a reference to those presbyterbishops who have ministered to the flock of Christ and offered the gifts of their episcopacy.
In the Church Orders
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
| it is said that a visiting bishop may be offered the right to} bless the Cup.
This is probably not the eucharistic cup, but} that at the agape.
Thus in early Christian literature there} is always some special officer for the celebration of the! eucharist, and it is usually the bishop or presbyter.
In the| New Testament the words Acrroupyia, evroyia, OF edyapioria | seem not to be fixed in meaning, so that we cannot deduce! anything from the passages of Acts and I Corinthians referred| to above.
There is nothing unusual in the permission granted at the! end of chapter X of the Didache for deviation from the| exact words of the prayer.
In the Sahidic version of; Hippolytus we read, "' It is not altogether necessary for him. to recite the same words which we said before, as if learning' to say them by heart in his thanksgiving to God: but according to the ability of each one he is to pray.
If indeed he is able to pray sufficiently well with a grand prayer, then it is good.
But if also he should pray and recite a prayer in| (due) measure, no one may forbid him, only let him pray being sound in orthodoxy."
Duchesne said that great freedom was allowed in the recitation of the Roman liturgy as late as the sixth century.
Justin, too, says that the President offers prayer at the eucharist according to his ability.
There is no necessity, then, to derive this right of deviation from the fixed forms from Jewish sources.
It seems to be a prerogative of the ministers of the liturgy who possessed the spirit, and not only of prophets, as the Didache seems to imply.
We are always told that the prayers of Did. [IX and X are _prayers for use before and after the communion and that they are strictly parallel. There are three prayers in each chapter, the first two in each three having the doxology coi 7 dd€a eis rods aidvas, the last é71 cod eorw 7 ddéa Kai 7 S8vapus dia *"Inoot Xpiotob «is tovs ai@vas.
Moreover, we are told that the subject-matter of the prayers in each chapter is parallel.
This is so in the case of the third prayer, which is in each case for the Church, but von der Goltz and others have shown that some manipulation is necessary if true parallelism is to be obtained between the two chapters.
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
ror | Did. X, 4, " Before all things we thank thee because thou art ] powerful, " tends to disturb the symmetry.
Moreover, the , various clauses of Did. X, 6 and IX, 5 fit with very great ' difficulty into the scheme.
If the communion takes place ' before chapter .X, why the cry, "If any is holy, let him
| come'"'?
Some have seen in Did. X, 6 a collection of cries _ to be used at any convenient time in the service, others see here a collection of first lines of psalms or hymns to be sung.
Some people see in the various prayers of Did. IX and X two parallel sets of prayers which are alternatives.
This would explain why they are so nearly parallel.
Then the rubrics -and cries of Did. IX, 5 and X, 6, 7 would be put where they are merely for convenience.
_ Perhaps the use of these prayers in later writings may tell us what the writers who knew the Didache at an early date thought that chapters IX and X referredto.
The adaptation of the Didache found in the Apostolic Church Order knows Did. X, 3, but only uses the reference to spiritual food and drink generally.
What use the Coptic made of the chapters we do not know.
We only have the ending of them.
The Georgic version is a mere general translation with no attempt to solve the difficulties of the Didache.
Book VII of the Apostolic Constitutions, of course, uses Did. [IX and X, and considers it to be a eucharist which is here described.
It alters the chapters, however, beyond all recognition.
Similarly Serapion thought that the Didache was referring to the eucharist here, for in his recital of the Words of Institution, between the words over the bread and the wine, he adds, '' And as this bread had been scattered on the top of the mountains and gathered together came to be one, so also gather thy holy Church out of every nation and every country and every city and village and house and make one living catholic church."
This is certainly derived from the Didache, and is used as part of a eucharistic prayer.
The same clause is, however, used in the grace to be used by nuns found in Athanasius, de Virginitate, 13.
There itis a grace at a common meal, and so perhaps Athanasius, if he is the writer of the de Virginitate, as seems probable, thought that Did. IX and X referred to common meals or agapes, A
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
| | similar thought occurs in Irenzeus, Cyprian, Hippolytus, the litany at the beginning of the mass of the faithful in the |
Clementine liturgy, the intercession of the liturgy of S. Mark, | the Gallican liturgy, Henry VIII's Ten Articles, Zwingh and |
Luther.
In Hippolytus the epiclesis in the Latin version of | the liturgy reads, '"' We beseech thee that thou wouldst | send thy Holy Spirit upon the oblation of thy holy church,
| and gathering them together into one, give to all thy faithful | who partake thereof, unto fulfilment with thy Holy Spirit | for the confirmation of faith in truth, that we may praise | and glorify thee through thy Servant Jesus Christ."'
Irenzeus, | Haer. III, 18, 1 reads, '' Sicut enim de arido tritico massa una fieri non potest sine humore, neque unus panis, ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Jesu poteramus sine aqua quae de celo est.""
Cyprian reads in Ep. 63, " Sic vero calix Domini non est aqua sola aut vinum solum nisi utrum-_ que sibi misceatur, quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit et copulatum et panis unius compage solidatum; quo et ipso sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus, ut quemadmodum grana multa in unum collecta et commolita et commixta panem unum faciunt, sic in Christo, qui est panis celestis unum sciamus esse corpus cui coniunctus est noster numerus et adunatus."
It can be seen that Irenzus, Cyprian and Hippolytus omit the eschatological flavour of . the Didache and the reference to the mountains.
It is therefore more likely that Hippolytus, Cyprian and others follow Ireneus, while Serapion, Athanasius and John Chrysostom, who has a " grace" similar to that in de Virginitate, follow the Didache, and that Irenzeus and the Didache are independent of one another.
From the occurrence of this prayer_in later writers nothing can be deduced as to the ceremonies described by the Didache, for Serapion and_A.C.
VII use it of the eucharist, Athanasius and John Chrysostom of the agape, nor can the reference to corn being sown on the mountains be used as a proof that the prayer was not written
_in_Egypt, where corn is sown on the plains, but in Syria, where cornfields were on the mountain side, for A.C. VII omits the reference to the mountains and is a
_ THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
Syrian document, while the Egyptian Serapion keeps the reference.
It will be convenient to sum up our results so far and to draw what conclusions we can.
It has been shown that the prayers of Did. IX and X have a general resemblance to certain Jewish prayers used in the Kiddush and Shemoneh
Esreh.
It is thought that this is because the Didache shows us a Jewish Kiddush in the process of being developed into a Christian eucharist.
The resemblances in the Didache prayers to the Jewish prayers are, however, very general and very slight.
They are by no means striking enough for us to suppose that the Didache took these prayers and made them Christian.
Moreover, the Didache..does_not mention in chapters IX and X anything which is usually mentioned in connection with the Christian eucharist, and the absence of references to ministers is peculiar, to say the least, in subapostolic writings.
The absence of the Sanctus and the freedom to improvise are no sign that we are not dealing with the eucharist, but, even though we may consider that the Didache spiritualises the eucharist, it is so complete a spiritualisation that it outdoes even the gnostic and apocryphal Acts.
Later writers who use these chapters are not unanimous that the Didache is referring to the eucharist, even though the heading to chapter IX is zrepi 5€ rs edxapiotias.
We may well, then, be allowed to hold the view that in Did. IX and X something else is described other than the eucharist of Did. XIV, especially as great confusion arises if we consider that the eucharist is found in chapters [X and X.
The so-called symmetry is a difficulty, for it is not so great as is supposed, and yet chapters IX and X are very much alike.
They may be alternatives, like the " doublets " in Mark, the feeding of the Four Thousand and the Five
Thousand, etc.
Moreover, there is no example in early Christian liturgies of a long thanksgiving prayer to be said after the communion.
One solution to this has been proposed, that the Didache in IX and X gives private prayers to 'be used at the eucharist.
The Didache is, however, a Church directory, and not a book of private devotions.
The heading to the chapters is addressed to the congregation,
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
not to the individual, and the permission accorded to the prophets alone to give thanks as much as they will is ridiculous if private prayers are meant.
There is great difficulty in supposing that anything but the eucharist is implied, even though the Didache omits all reference. to the Last Supper and to the offering and to y% Redemption in chapters IX and X, because the beginning of the chapter IX says zepi Se ris edyapiorias and chapter X opens with — d€ TO eparhnoDiivat otTws evyapiorioare and \ closes with edyapioretv doa Oédovew.
Drews, Baumstark and others therefore, though they recognise that the Didache. describes something different in chapters. IX and X from what it does in chapter XIV, say that the two sorts of _eucharist are mentioned, one taking place in private houses on weekdays, the other the ceremonial Sunday celebrations.
In Acts ii, 46 we read that the disciples were xA@vres Kat' oltxov.dprov.
This seems somewhat different from the Sunday celebration at Troas described in Acts xx.
Ignatius all through his epistles is striving for episcopal supremacy.
The critics mentioned above say that if episcopal supervision of the eucharist had been customary at that time Ignatius would not have to strive for it. Actually, they say, Ignatius is trying to introduce something new, for he is trying to mould together the congregations in the various houses
(cf. the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila in Rom. xvi, 4) into one church in each town.
In order to do that, he makes the rule that _no_eucharist or agape is to be celebrated without the bishop.
They find further evidence of the continued existence of such private house eucharists in a canon at the Council of Laodicea and a letter of Basil of Cesarea (Ep. 63), where some sort of irregular eucharist conducted by unauthorised ministers in private dwellings, especially in monastic cells, is attacked.
This is probably an example of monastic arrogance, a thing very prominent in the fourth and fifth centuries, and is not necessarily a sign of the continuance of an old custom of private house eucharists.
If the Christian eucharist is derived from the Jewish kiddush, we might find there the two forms, that in private houses on ordinary days and in the Synagogue on
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
special days.
Except for Acts ii, 46 we find little to suggest any such eucharists as Drews demands in early Christian times.
Justin knows only the great Sunday celebration,.so does Ignatius.
In fact, there seems to have been no decrease in the number of celebrations from the earliest times, but rather an increase.
At first, and for many years, there was the weekly celebration.
Private reservation seems to have enabled daily communion, as we learn from Tertullian (de
Orat. 19, ad Ux. II, 5, etc.) and Cyprian (de Lapsis 26.
Here the sacrament is kept in an '"'arca'').
There seems to have been no idea of such eucharists as Drews demands at any invention of those writers who. want Did. IX and X to be.a eucharist, as it is so like the Jewish meals, and yet see that it cannot be the same_as Did. XIV's Sunday KAdows dprov.
One other argument is used to support the point of view \ that Did. IX and X describes the eucharist, and that is that the Didache follows the plan of most of the early \,
Church Orders, baptism, prayers, eucharist, preceded by an account of the prebaptismal catechesis, so far as moral conduct is concerned, and followed by an account of the /
Christian ministry.
This would join Did. I-VI and VII-X closely together, and XI-XV would be another section, and XVI the last.
This would explain why in IX and X and XIV the same subjects were dealt with.
The one is the baptismal eucharist, the second the ordinary Sunday eucharist.
Granted that in the Church Order of Hippolytus and the Canons of Hippolytus and other such documents the account of baptism follows rules as to the admission of candidates and is followed by an account of confirmation
_ and the eucharist, the Didache does not keep very closely to this plan.
It gives no creed to be learnt and said by the candidate, there is no confirmation, and at the baptismal eucharist there is no milk and honey.
The prayers of chapter VIII and the rules about fasting break into the scheme, although the Lord's Prayer could be said to be the prayer of the newly baptised, which they say crying " Abba,
Father,'' when the Spirit comes in confirmation.
There is, moreover, no evidence of a break in the Didache at the
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
end of chapter X, nor does there seem to be any idea in chapter XIV that the writer is dealing with the same thing
_as in chapters IX and X from a different point of view.
_ All sixteen chapters of the Didache are one whole, moulded together by the compiler.
It cannot be divided as those who say that chapters I-X are the baptismal catechesis, baptism, and baptismal eucharist would like.
Greiff tries to see this plan in the Didache and St. John's Gospel and fails.
Seeberg, in his Katechismus der Urchristenheit, tries to prove that the Didache is an example of the primitive Christian tézov dudayys Of Rom. vi, 17, stereotyped in form and parallel to the forms of doctrinal teaching gradually moulded into the form of the old Roman creed.
The Didache does not, however, fit into any mould, just as its prayers in chapters
IX and X do not fit into the mould of the Jewish Kiddush.
There seem to have been no fixed forms in early Christianity, and those who find them there ascribe to the Church a greater fixity of form than ever existed there.
It is not necessary that chapters IX and X of the Didache should describe the eucharist merely because they follow the chapters on baptism and prayer.
The word edyapuoria is used in Did. IX and X, kdAdoare dprov in Did. XIV.
In the New Testament edyapiorad is used interchangeably with e«dAoyé for " blessing,'' for thanksgiving over food in the accounts of the. Miraculous
Feedings, the Last Supper and the Journey to Emmaus.
It is used, too, of Paul on the ship, when he broke bread and blessed it (Acts xxvii, 35).
Paul speaks of the cup of blessing in I Cor. x, 16 of the eucharistic cup...
In Ignatius the word edyapioria is used of the rite as a regular name, though from Smyrn. VIII it seems that edyapuoria and ayamy are names of the same.rite.
In Justin, Afol. LXV and LXVII, ebyapioT® is used of the prayers at the eucharist and the elements are said to be edyapioria.
From the third century onwards edxapioria was used, not of the whole service, but of the special eucharistic prayer and of the elements, though after Augustine it was not used much till medieval times.
On the whole, it seems that edxapioT® and edAoya were used in the New Testament of any form of thanksgiving (Rom.
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
xiv, 6; I Tim. iv, 3, 1), and especially with regard.to the blessing of food, and that later it was used almost always
Fol theveucharist) Is it possible, then, that in the Didache by q edyapioria anything but the eucharist can be meant?
I think it can.
The Didache uses the New Testament, but it often likes to change its quotations, and likes to draw on as many sources as possible.
In chapter XIV it uses the phrase «Adcare dprov and @voia of the eucharist; in chapter
XI it speaks of the prophet dpilwv tpdamelav, a probable reference to the agape; what, then, can it use of the agape if it does not want to use the ordinary word?
In John vi there is the account of the feeding of the Multitude, from which, as we saw, much of the language of Did. IX and X could be derived. edyapior is used there.of.Christ.
Could not that be said to be an agape, and could not the Didache therefore use edyapioria of the agape?
K. Goetz tries to distinguish between the edAoyia of an agape and the edya- ' ptoria of the eucharist.
He would thus distinguish I Cor. x from I Cor. xi as agape and eucharist.
We may note that in the Hippolytean agape the bread was eddoyia and not edyapiotia.
There was not, however, such precision of language in early times.
The confusion in the use of the words did not come at a late date, when the early history of the agape had been forgotten, but at an early one, when
John can add a eucharistic discourse in John vi to the account cf an agape and can use the edyapiord of the Last
Supper in the account of a Miraculous Feeding, where the other evangelists use edAoyd.
It would be quite possible, it seems to me, for a writer with the peculiarities of the writer of the Didache to use the Johannine word here and to use edyapioria of the agape, especially when blessings said over our food usually are." thanksgivings."'
When the writer of the Apostolic Constitutions turned the \ ninth and tenth chapters of the Didache into a eucharist he changed éumAnoOjver into pwerdAnyis—a natural change, for the worshippers did not eat their fill of the eucharistic elewe
"A ments, at any rate at the time of the Afostolic Constitutions.
In the Didache there are three possibilities—(a) éumAnoOfvat may be used in a metaphorical sense, (b) it may mean, as
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
Wiinsche said, " at the completion | of the service "' or (c) it may mean a literal eati eating one's fill at a meal, eee it be x the eucharist and agape combined or agape alone.
Clement of Alexandria, Eclog. 14, may suggest a metaphorical meaning.
Clement says there, pakdptoe of mewdvres Kal dupavres Ti 'Suxaoatynv Tob Oeob, obrou yap éeumdnobyjcovra.
Batiffol denied the existence of primitive Christian love-feasts and held that the eucharist was from the beginning
" un semblant de répas."'
Naturally he would see a metaphorical meaning here.
The Canons of Hippolytus and Tertullian would support a literal interpretation of the word.
The Canons say of the agape, '' Edant bibantque ad satietatem."
Tertullian says in his Apology, c.
XX XIX, again of the agape, "Ita saturantur ut.
* In 1 Cor zie it seems that Paul believes the eucharist to be.a-real_meal precede ed by. a sacramental blessing of bread and_wine.
It is therefore quite probable that in the Didache the word éumdnoPfva should be taken literally, There is no support which can be found for Wiinsche's translation.
We may note that in John vi, 12 it is said of the crowd fed by Jesus ws dé everrAjoPnoar, used literally of a meal.
Here alone in the Gospels is it so used.
We may therefore take the word to mean literally "' after being filled,' and must decide from other sources whether the Didache is talking of the eucharist which is still a meal, of the eucharist and agape or of t the agape alone.
We said that it is difficult to suppose that the Didache would deal with the same subject in two separate places, in chapters
IX and X and XIV.
There are also certain differences between the matter of the first two and of the other chapter.
First of all, edyapiord) is never used in chapter XIV, though it is used in chapter IX and X quite often.
KAdous dprov is the name there used. Secondly, no special day of. the week is appointed for the ceremony of chapters IX and © X, while Sunday is the day for that of chapter XIV.
In chapter XIV the kAdous dptov is to be preceded by. confession of one's sins and reconciliation with one's neighbour.
'There is no such requirement in chapters IX and X.
In chapter XIV the xAdots dprov is expressly named a Ovoia but
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
in chapters IX and X there is no reference whatever to any offering of any sort. Lastly, no ministers are named in chapters 1X and X as appointed to say the prayers and thanksgivings there set out, but prophets may give thanks as much as they will. In chapter XIV there is no mention of prophets, and the normal way to take the beginning of chapter
_XV,_xewpotovijcare ov, would be to suppose that bishops "and deacons are to be appointed to celebrate the eucharist.
Chapter XIV certainly (refers)to the Sunday eucharist, and it seems from this list of " differences that chapters [X and X refer to something different.
Let us see what resemblances we can find there to the agape as it is described to us in Tertullian and the Church Orders and other early
Christian writings.
We shall, I think, find that the rite of Did. IX and X is very like their agape.
The first point may seem very slight, but it is nevertheless very striking.
In chapter XII of the Didache the word xpioréumopos was thought to be the first and only example of the use of this word before the fourth century, but it has been found that Hippolytus used it in his book on Ruth.
Similarly, it has been said that the word «Adoya, used in Did.
TX as a technical term for the bread of the eucharist, was an invention of the writer, used only by him. oryjpiov was used of the cup, not ofvos, so a word had to be invented to replace the usual dptos.
So xAdoua was invented from the title xAdous dprov and from the plural of the word KAdopa, used in the accounts of the Miraculous Feedings of the. crumbs left over.
Liddell and Scott give the word as very rarely used, but KAdopa occurs in the singular in the Church. Oxder_of
Hippolytus according to the Coptic version.
There it is said, '' But it is impossible for the bishop to fast except on the day when all the people will fast.
For it will happen, that someone wishes to take some (food) to the church, and it is impossible for him to be denied: and having broken the bread he shall certainly taste the bread; and eating it with other believers with him, let them take from the hand of the bishop one piece of a loaf before that each one breaks his own bread.
For this is a blessing, and it is not a thanksgiving like the Body of the Lord."
Thus Hippolytus used xAaoya,
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
and he used it of the broken bread of the agape, for here, though he does not say so explicitly, he is describing an agape.
Another point mentioned above was that there is no example in early eucharistic liturgies of a long post-communion prayer such as there is in the Didache if chapter X is said after the communion.
Tertullian, in Afology XXXIX, says of the agape "atque oratio convivium dirimit.""'
Thus Tertullian's Lord's Supper ended with prayer, as does the rite of Did. IX and X.
The Church Order of Hippolytus, the Canons of Hippolytus and Tertullian are our chief authorities for the form of the agape, and they agree to a large extent.
According to Tertullian the meal began with prayer to God and with washing of the hands.
Then followed the meal.
After that hymns were sung to God and the ceremony closed with prayers.
In the Church Order of Hippolytus we read that a bishop, priest or deacon may preside at the Lord's Supper and bless the bread.
All are to listen to the leader and obey him.
"' It is right for all before they drink to take a cup and give thanks over it,'' so that the president does not bless the cup.
The Lord's Supper may still be held even if there are no clergy there, but then there can be no edAoyia.
Catechumens are not to sit down at the feast, but they are given the bread of exorcism and a cup.
At the conclusion of the account of the agape it is said, '' Further, let each one eat with giving of thanks in the name of God.''
Generally the meal was given by someone to the general congregation, but there were such meals for widows only, who would be specially invited.
In the Canons of Hippolytus 164-185 there are very similar regulations for the Lord's Supper.
Here there seem to be two sorts of agape, one the ordinary Lord's Supper, the other the avdpvnats " pro iis qui defuncti sunt,'' which is to be preceded by the consumption by the people of the "'mystery.''
According to Achelis, the first of these takes place on Sunday afternoon at the time of the lighting of the lamps, the second only on weekdays.
The bishop or one of the clergy is to preside and bless the bread, but in their absence the meal can still take place, for all will break bread themselves, though without any eddoyia.
At t
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
or the end of the meal "' psalmos recitent antequam recedant."'
Catechumens may not take part in the meal, but are given bread over which a prayer has been said.
Lietzmann sees in the agapes of the two Hippolytean Church Orders the original form of the Kiddush type of Christian eucharist which still exists alongside of the developed '' Mass.''
It is significant that no ministers are specially needed for the meal, though they are needed if bread is to be blessed and distributed.
The fact that the guests may say the thanksgiving over their own cups points very much to the Jewish Kiddush, where this often took place.
Lietzmann may not be right in saying that the Hippolytean agape is a fossilised primitive eucharist, but it certainly seems to be a continuation of an early custom.
Batiffol is certainly wrong in denying the existence of the primitive | agape, and Vélker is wrong in ascribing the origin of the agape to the struggie between Catholicism and the Gnostics.
There is no time when we see the agape rising in importance.
It tended to decline all the time.
For instance, it seems to have declined from the common meal 4 of I Cor. xi to the feast given in charity by the rich in Hippolytus.
At the Council of Laodicea agapes were forbidden on Sunday, and _ it was also forbidden to eat in church.
Finally the agape was forbidden and died out in all parts of the Church.
The agape shows a history of continuous decline.
The problem remains whether the agape and the eucharist are descendants of the one original Christian religious meal.
That would be Lietzmann's point of view.
It used to be thought that originally the eucharist was followed by the agape.
Then the two were separated because of the disorders attacked by S. Paul at Corinth and because Sunday
_was a working day and a long morning service could not be held, and there was started the early morning sacrament and the evening meal.. This seems to be what we find in 1 The Ethiopic text of Hippolytus gives us the account of a true supper of the congregation taking place when the lamps are lighted.
The deacon's prayer as he lights the lamp is, "' We give thee thanks, O God, . .
. because thou hast enlightened us by the revealing of the incorruptible light."
There the cup is mentioned first and the bread afterwards, though they seem to be consumed after the supper.
This meal is in addition to the ordinary feast given by the rich and seems very like Did. 1X and X.
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
Pliny, Justin Martyr and all writers after that time, though in Africa till quite a late period it seems that the rule of fasting — communion was relaxed on Maundy Thursday and the eucharist was joined with the agape in the evening in order to imitate the Last Supper.
Some now hold the view that the blessing of the bread began the meal and the blessing — of the cup closed it, for we read in S. Paul, "' Likewise after supper he took the cup.''
Whatever be our point of view as to the original relation of the eucharist and agape—and — my own is that they were joined, agape following eucharist— yet the division must have taken place by the time of Pliny and of Justin at the latest.
The evidence in Ignatius, Smyrn. VIII, that eucharist and agape are the same thing, is not too certain.
The passage reads, "' Let that be con- | sidered a valid eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints.
. It is not lawful either to baptise or to hold an agape without the bishop, but whatever | he approve, this is also pleasing to God, that everything
| which you can do may be secure and valid.''
Agape may here mean the eucharist and agape joined, but, as Pliny and Ignatius seem to be contemporary, this is not too certain.
We may be certain that, if the Didache is later in date than Barnabas, Hermas and perhaps Justin, it does not know the eucharist and agape as one meal.
Did. IX and X describes the agape, Did. XIV the eucharist.
The various clauses and rubrics of Did. IX, 5, X, 6, 7 now fall into place, and Did. XI, 9 becomes a reference back to the agape of the two chapters IX and X.
We saw that Catechumens were not allowed to eat of the edAoyia at the agape, and so here they may not partake of the edyapuoria.
Only those who are baptised may do so.
The cries of Did. X, 6 may well be the beginnings of the hymns mentioned by Tertullian in his Apology or of the psalms mentioned in the Canons of Hippolytus.
The demand that anyone who is not holy should repent before he comes seems not to be an invitation to repent before Communion, misplaced here, but an apocalyptic cry that all should repent in readiness for the coming kingdom.
The reference in Did. X, 7 to prophets may be due to the fact that Montanists allowed
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
more freedom of speech at the agape than did Hippolytus, although even he says that the bishop may ask anyone to speak.
The writer found the greater part of his material for these chapters in the New Testament, and this permission he found granted to prophets in Acts xiii, 1 and 2, where prophets and teachers were ministering, and in the discussions of I Cor. xiv, where we hear of prophets blessing in the spirit and prophesying at what seem to be Corinthian religious meals.
; This seems to me the correct explanation of Did. IX and X, that the writer there composes prayers for use at the agape from New Testament material.
It does not seem likely that a writer of the time of the Didache would turn to Rabbinic sources for his prayers if he were writing about the eucharist.
The agreements with the Jewish prayers are vague, general and fortuitous.
They are due to the essential Jewish character of so much of Christianity.
Nor does the Didache draw on any collection of prayers of Jewish origin used in Christian worship.
These prayers seem to occur here only and to be found nowhere else.
As we have shown, the Didache is a unity, and the same common style runs through all the book.
All that is not explained in these chapters from the agape is explained from the New Testament, the order cup-bread, bread-cup from I Cor. x and xi, and so on.
Chapter XIV-of the Didache presents-no problems.except the description of the eucharist as a sacrifice,
In the New Testament we have noted how Paul, in I Cor. x and xi, speaks of the altar of demons and of God in connection with the. eucharist, but he speaks of a reasonable offering of praise in Rom. oy.
Tn Heb. x 29 we have.a reference to the blood of the covenant which is not to be accounted unclean, while in Heb. xiii, 10 we are told that_we have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle may not eat, but in Heb. xili, 15, 16 the sacrifices to God are praise and thanksgiving.
Thus there is no identification in the New Testament of the eucharist with Christian sacrifices.
The Christian sacrifice is the one offering of Christ on Calvary, and Christians only offer sacrifices in a spiritual. way. oO
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
In I Clem. XL-XLIV we have Jewish sacerdotal and sacrificial language applied to the Christian ministry, and in the reference to the offerings of the episcopacy a probable reference to the eucharist.
Ignatius speaks of év @vovaor7j prov in referring to the Christian eucharist, but his language must be taken not in a materialistic, but a more spiritual way.
For example, when he talks of the eucharist as ¢appakov é0avactas, he does not refer to the elements only, but to the whole rite.
Justin uses Mal. i, 11, '' the pure offering,"
| as a type of the eucharist, but he can also say in Dial, 117 that the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is-all-that God
_requires., Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian know of no } | ; | .
| } material Christian offerings, only of offerings of praise and of self-sacrifice.
Gin Irenzus's time there was at the eucharist the offering by the people of material gifts from which the bread and wine were taken for use at the service) This was for him the people's sacrifice, and this is the sacrifice in the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions and in other liturgies, whether it is a central part of the mass or placed in the " missa catechumenorum.''
This is the case in the Anglican Prayer for the Church Militant. Gn the Clementine Liturgy, before the epiclesis, we read, '' We offer to thee, our King and our
God, according to his institution, this bread and this cup; giving thanks to thee through him that thou hast deemed us worthy to stand before thee and to perform our priestly ministry. .).."'
™< This sacrifice is the sacrifice of the people, but with Cyprian there came in the idea of the sacrifice wrought by the Holy Ghost through the priest, the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.
He does not develop the idea, but considers it as part of the one offering of Christ on the Cross. (Origen and Ireneus think of the eucharistic sacrifice in this sense as symbolical of the continual offering in heaven, while Augustine and Ambrose think of the eucharist as a representation, a calling to mind, of the great sacrifice of Calvary.) They agree with modern Roman doctrine, and not with medieval and popular belief in the real sacrifice of Christ's body on the altar which is of magical power in itself.
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
The second Pfaffian fragment says, of rais Seurépais TaY atooToAwy SiaTtdéeot TapynKkoAovOnKdtes iaact, TOV KUpLOV véay tmpoogopav ev TH Kaw SiabyKn KabeornKévat KaTa TO Madaxtov tod mpod¢rrov: Adri a6 avatoAdv AAiov KtA.
This was thought to be a fragment from Irenzus referring to the Didache, but it agrees with and certainly uses A.C. VIII,
12, 39, 40, 3, and has been proved by Harnack (T.U. (1990) V,) to be a forgery by Pfaff himself.
The writer of the Didache can deduce from the New Testament that the eucharist is a sacrifice, and can use the commonplace quotation from Malachi used by Justin, » Irenzus, Tertullian, etc., to prove this.
What the @voia was to him we do not know, but it was probably, as in Irenzus, the people's offering of bread and wine and of various other things...
In A.C. VIII
there is no reference to any confession ¥ before the eucharist, and A.C. VII omits such reference here when using this passage.
Justin knows no confession before the eucharist.
Irenzus often refers to efopuoddynots, of Cerdon in Hey JII, 4. 3, and of others in I, 13. 5 and 13. 7.
In Haz IV, 18. 3 he says, "' Igitur non sacrificia sanctificant hominem sed conscientia ejus qui offert sanctificat sacrificia
_ pura existens et prestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico."'
This is very much like Did. XIV, 2 and 3. The evident source ¢ of the Didache and of-Irenzus i is the Matthean passage , referred to above.
In chapters IX, X and XIV of the Didache we have therefore a description of the agape and the eucharist of the time of the writer, expressed as far as possible in New Testament language.
It may be that much is left out, perhaps because no New Testament authority can be found for it.
From what we have in the Didache it is clear that what is described is the agape and the eucharist of the second half of the second century..(We have seen elsewhere that , , the Didache is probably a Montanist work, but in the matter " of the agape and eucharist there seem to have been no Montanistic peculiarities. } Dids.X%- 7 and. XI; 9: may be evidence of a revival in Montanist circles of the activity of prophets at the Christian meals, of which Paul gives evidence
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
for early times in I Cor. xiv, while Jude and II Pet. refer to prophets "' wallowing in your love-feasts.''
In the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas c. XVII we hear of an agape in prison, and Tertullian in his Catholic and Montanist writings refers to both agape and eucharist, with his chief description of the former in Ap. XXXIX.
Nowhere are there any special | peculiarities due to his being a Montanist.
It may be that the rigorism of the sect is shown in the demand of Did. XIV, 2 for confession before communion.
It is to be noticed that the Ps. Cyprianic adv. Aleatores, an African writing, quotes this, '"' Et in Doctrinis apostolorum : Si quis frater delinquit in ecclesia et non paret legi, hic nec colligatur, donec penitentiam agat, et non recipiatur ne inquinetur et inpediatur oratio vestra.''
Thus in Africa, where Montanism was strong, this part of the Didache was known at an early date. (The Didache expresses in New Testament language the outhne of agape and eucharist, not openly showing its own date or the source of its language, but sometimes indeed concealing the source by intentional alteration of its wording.)
There is thus no need to employ the Didache as one of the chief links in the history of the eucharist.
Chapters IX and X are not a Jewish liturgy turning into a Christian one.
The Didache does not here show the one type of Christian eucharist, while Paul and Hippolytus show the other.
Hippolytus, Serapion, A.C. VIII and others are not simple; they show different sides of the eucharist bound up in each one of them.
It is not possible to say any one is pure commemoration, or offering, or communion, as Lietzmann tries to do. (The Didache can no longer be a touchstone to test the primitiveness of a eucharist by reference to Did. IX and X.) We cannot decide that the shortest reconstructed
Western Text of Luke xxii is authentic, without those additions from Paul for the existence of which Justin gives us evidence, because the two short apocalyptic sayings over cup and bread remind us of the Didache.
If Luke had Mark, — Paul and the early Church before him, it is very mysterious how he, or the compiler of the Western Text, could so far deviate from ordinary eucharistic language.
Similarly, if, as we believe, the author of the Didache was writing at the
THE DIDACHE, THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST
end of the second century and had the New Testament before him, it would be very peculiar if he made up a eucharist in the form of Did. IX and X, and more so if he went to Rabbinic writings for those prayers.
It seems that in Did. XIV he gives apostolic teaching on the eucharist, in IX and X. he gives us eucharistic prayers for use as grace at common meals or agapes, modelled on the prayers of John xili-xvii _and on New Testament language.