Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS
Tue favourite gospel of the writer of the Didache is that according to S. Matthew, and that gospel ends with the following words of Christ, wopevévres obv pabnrevoare mavra
7a €bvn, Bamrilovres adtovs cis Td dvopa tod Ilarpos Kat Tob Yiot Kat tod 'Ayiov Ivedparos, diddoKxovtes adbtods tnpetv mavra boo. évereAdunv dpiv: Kat Sov, eyo pel" buddy eips macas
Tas Tyepas Ews THs ovvredcias Tob aidvos.
Another part of the New Testament much used by the writer of the Didache is the early part of the Acts of the Apostles, and in Acts ii, 41,
42, we read, of pev obv dmodeEdpevor Tov Adyov adbtod €BanticOnoav:
Kal mpoceréOnoav ev TH hucpa exeivn Yuyat woel TploxiAwa.
AHoav dé mpookaprepobytes TH SidayH TOV atooTéAwy kal TH Kowwvia, TH KAdoe TOO dpTov Kat Tais mpocevyats.
In these two passages we see how Christ told the Eleven to convey His teaching to the Gentiles and to baptise them.
We see how the Apostles taught and baptised and organised the early Church.
The titles of the Didache are, diday7) tdv dwWdexa adtooTéAwy and d.iday7) Kupiov dia TOV SwddeKxa atooTéAwy tots €Oveow.
It consists of moral teaching, called évroAad in II, 1, of teaching about baptism, prayer, fasting, cAdous dptov, spiritual gifts and ministers.
It seems evident that the two passages at the end of Matthew and beginning of Acts explain the title and form of the Didache.
Writing in the Scottish Church Review in 1884 Birks said, "The book must either be an impious fabrication or an honest summary of the customs of the time at which it was written.''
Birks was attacking Cotterill, who, in an article in the same journal, said, ''It is assumed that there is nothing in the Didache which the writer has written with the express intent that it may bear out the ancient title which he has given to the work.''
Potwin, in Biblia Sacra, 1884, p800, says that the quotations from the New Testament
CONCLUSIONS
found in the Didache "' indicate a writer whose mind is filled with New Testament ideas, but is not anxious, as a forger might well be, to reproduce the exact New Testament forms."'
From these quotations it will be seen that early critics of the Didache thought that it was a forgery written late in date, pretending to be the work of the apostles, or else must be an accurate picture of a very primitive period of the history of the Church written by a contemporary.
There could be no middle path.
Burkitt and Armitage Robinson suggested another conclusion, that the Didache is the work of a person of an antiquarian frame of mind, writing towards the end of the second century, composing a picture of the apostolic teaching and Church Order from New Testament and apostolic writings.
His method was that of the literary research student, his purpose antiquarian.
The question is whether we must accept one of these alternatives or reject them all, or whether they can be combined.
| Let us first see what is the result of our examination of the problems of the Didache so far.
We have seen that the Greek Didache as found in the MS. of Bryennius is the work of one man, that it has been translated and adapted by various people at various times and that extracts have been
. madefromit at differentperiods.
It was written later thanthe greater part of the New Testament, than Barnabas, Hermas and Justin, all of which it employs as sources.
It was known to the writer of the Didascalia and later to numerous people in Asia and Syria and Egypt.
In the West it was at first known as a whole to a few people, and then only the moral teaching was made use of, this being adapted to form a homily.
The Didache is made up of numerous passages quoted from various writings, the New Testament, Barnabas,
Hermas, Justin's Apology, and the unknown source of Did. I, 6 and III, 1-6.
This is welded together to form a whole, the mind of the compiler being shown in the unity of language and spirit imposed by him on his material.
The writer is evidently a Montanist of a very mild type, trying to express his churchmanship in as apostolic language as possible.
He knows both agape and eucharist, both of which he values highly.
This seems to leave little doubt as to the probable time
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
when the Didache was written.
It is the work of a Montanist who lived before the time of the Didascalia.
According to Labriolle, the first spark of Montanism was kindled in A.D. 172 so that the Didache must be the work of a writer of the last quarter of the second century or the first quarter of the third.
This was the time of Hippolytus and Tertullian, and the Didache's agape is like theirs.
It is also the time when we found that ypiordusopos occurs outside the Didache for the only time before the fourth century, in the fragment of Hippolytus on Ruth.
Tatian, too, had recently given up the use of the title '' Son of David'' in his works, and the Didache replaces it by "' God of David."'
Everything goes to prove that the Didache was written about the end of the second century A.D.
This was the time when the Canon finally emerged, the reply of the Church to the single 1 gospels and the acts of the various apostles of the heretical sects, containing as it did the gospels of four apostles, Matthew and John, Peter and Paul.
We are told that Irenzus was the commonplace defender of Catholicism against heresy, who had a mania for apostolicity.
Others before and after had this mania.
The Gospel according to the Hebrews was known as " the Gospel of the Lord through the XII Apostles."
In Ignatius, Magn. VI, and Trallians III, x there are references to the ovvéSpiov dnoordAwy and avvdeopos amootéAwy.
The Apostolic Church Order professes to be the actual words of the various apostles.
The Didascalia is the '' Catholic Didascalia, that is teaching of the Twelve Holy Apostles and Disciples of our Saviour."
The A fostolic Constitutions are diatayal tv dyiwv amooréAwy dua KArjpevros.
The Didache differs from all of these.
There is no fictitious setting, no attempt to keep up the fiction that Christ and the Apostles are speaking.
In all of these other writings some such attempt is made, though it is often quickly abandoned.
The Didache is merely an attempt to write in apostolic language an account of the customs of the Montanists.
1 This is the time when the Epistula Apostolovrum was written.
'' All the Apostles "' were contrasted with the single apostles appealed to by the various sects.
CONCLUSIONS
2II This absence of any attempt to keep up the fiction that the apostles are speaking is one reason why it has been held that the Didache is a true monument of apostolic
Christianity.
There is no high Christology in the Didache, so it has been held that a high Christology is a late development and the Didache is early.
There is no open polemic with regard to any heresies, therefore the Didache must have been written before these arose.
The Didache does not quote, giving chapter and verse, from the New Testament, and therefore it was written before our New Testament had become well known.
If one treats the Didache as a monument of the apostolic Church when apostle, prophet and teacher were still highly honoured as charismatic ministers, when there were no presbyters, and bishops and deacons were only local officers and despised, when agape and eucharist were combined and only distinguished from their origin, the Kiddush, with difficulty, it becomes difficult to accept, as Harnack and Bryennius did, the fact that the Didache is later than
Barnabas and Hermas.
When we see how in Pliny's time the eucharist has become separated from the agape, how
Ignatius knows of three classes of ministers only, bishop, . priest and deacon, how Clement of Rome can already have formulated some idea of a divine purpose behind the succession of the ministry, it becomes increasingly difficult to find a time when such a picture as is usually drawn from the Didache could have been a portrait of the Church.
One common solution of this difficulty is that Ignatius and others represent a well-developed Church, the Didache a backward district, but this will not explain much.
To have a band of wandering ministers who are not allowed to settle anywhere needs a large area, and such an area cannot be found.
If we say that the Church Order fits the very early Church, then we must manipulate our arrangement of the relationships between the Didache and the other documents to suit our theory.
There is usually this struggle, which do we accept as the deciding factor, the relationship between the Didache and the other Apostolic Fathers or the Church
Order of the Didache?
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
In our discussion of the Didache's ministry and agape and eucharist we quoted Spitta's and Schweitzer's claim that any picture of the early Church must agree with that presented by the Didache.
This seems to me to be a very wrong method.
The Didache should be made to fit into the picture that other documents present, not all be forced to conform with it.
This is especially so in the case of the eucharist and the ministry.
We have seen how the eucharist may be founded upon the Kiddush as adapted by our Lord, but the Didache does not give us a kiddush, and chapters
IX and X probably portray an agape.
The charismatic ministry which is thought to exist in the Didache and in so many other writings is but a figment of the historian's imagination.
The threeclasses of apostle, prophet and teacher are nowhere recognised grades of ministers.
In Paul they are merely types of people blessed with spiritual gifts, in the Didache the prophet is an honoured and influential person in Montanist circles, apostles and teachers are lay figures introduced to make the Didache like the New Testament.
The Church Order of the Didache remains an isolated phenomenon and an insoluble problem so long as the only alternative solutions are '"' an impious forgery "' or "an accurate picture of contemporary conditions."
It is impossible to find when such conditions could have existed, and it is unlikely that a forger would have invented so anomalous a state of affairs.
Greiff, and Seeberg in his Katechismus der Urchristenheit, have tried to prove that the Didache is an example of the primitive Christian '' Catechism."
In Rom. vi, 17 and Xvi, 17 Seeberg finds that Paul speaks of rvmov SSayfs and diday7yv.
There must here be a reference to some such stereotyped form of teaching as the Didache, says Seeberg.
Greiff thought that the Fourth Gospel was founded on the Didache, with its baptismal oration, baptism, post-baptismal prayers, first communion and ecclesiastical regulations, though it is difficult to follow him in finding this form in the Fourth Gospel.
It is supposed that, as the faith of Christians crystallised into the credal forms, so the moral and ecclesiastical teaching was stereotyped in some such
CONCLUSIONS
form as that of the Didache.
There are, however, difficulties here.
The later Church Orders usually follow a set plan much like that of the Didache, but it is impossible to say whether this is traditional or the result of the work of Hippolytus, who wrote the first Church Order, and of the work of the author of the Didache.
If the Didache is an example of this catechetical form, it becomes difficult to explain why its composer made use of other documents in writing his work.
Moreover, Seeberg, Greiff and others have only one example of their so-called '' Primitive Catechism," and they try to make Christianity too fixed and rigid a system by saying that this was the only form such a teaching could take.
Christianity in its early stages was fluid, not stereotyped like this.
In 1884 a writer in the Foreign Church Review said, '' A pious Christian at the end of the first century reading
Acts ii, 42 undertook the task of setting forth in dramatic form what was this teaching of the apostles.'"'
He then went on to put forward a theory that our Didache is a later adaptation of this work.
The present writer agrees with the critic of 1884 that the Didache is based on Acts ii, 42 and Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, but it is not a work of the end of - the first century, and it tries to make the Christianity of the early Montanist movement agree with that of the New
Testament by omitting what was common in his time, such as baptismal unction, but was not found in the New Testament, or by adding such new things as the Wednesday and Friday fasts, for which an argument would be found in the New Testament.
In order to do this he makes use of the ° New Testament in the same way that Hermas uses it.
As Jacquier says of Hermas, "Il adapte les pensées et la langue des évangelistes 4 son propre but."'
Warfield says of the Didache that, when the writer employs a " studied compression of Matthew," "if we conclude that all the divergences of the words from the form found in Matthew are such as the author would naturally make in adapting them to his purpose, there exists no reason why we may not refer them to Matthew as their source."
In place of Matthew we may here put "the New Testament," and the
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
statement will still hold good, for the fact that the Didache does not quote from Mark, Galatians, Philemon and probably II Peter means very little.
All of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke, and is more attractively set out there.
The whole of Galatians is found in Romans.
Philemon is an interesting personal letter, but contains no apostolic teaching.
II Peter is a very late expansion of Jude.
The omission of these books from the Didache's New Testament means nothing.
In the short compass of his book the writer uses the whole of the rest of the New Testament, which means that he knew all of the Canon with the possible exception of II Peter.
He must have written, then, towards the end of the second century, not, as the writer in the Foreign Church Review says, "at the end of the first century."
| Let us summarise what we think the writer of the Didache has done, and then see how it is affected by the later history of the work.
Taking the title from Acts ii, 42 and Matt.
XXVlll, I9, 20, the writer has first set out an example of apostolic moral teaching.
He has taken the "' Two Ways "' from Barnabas, rearranged it, altered it to make it closer to the New Testament and added material from a harmony
_of the New Testament made by Justin, from a prophetic expansion of material derived from James and the Sermon on the Mount made by Hermas, from an unknown apocryphal source treated as " Scripture "' in Did. I, 6 and from a source which Clement of Alexandria called "Scripture."
In chapter VI we have New Testament teaching on eating idol meats and bearing the yoke of the Lord.
In VII we have some teaching on baptism adapted from New Testament material.
The same is done in chapter VIII about fasting and prayer.
In IX and X are prayers for the '"' agape" made up from various New Testament prayers.
In XIXIII are regulations about Montanist prophets.
Paul knows of apostles and teachers as well, so they are mentioned here to make the prophets more " apostolic," but only in prophets can the writer be said to be interested.
All the regulations are derived from our Lord's words when ~ sending out the Twelve and the Seventy, from Paul, Jude
CONCLUSIONS
and the Johannine writings.
In chapter XIV we have New Testament teaching about the Sunday eucharist.
In XV the writer of the Didache gives us regulations about ministers.
Bishops and presbyters are the same people in the New Testament, so only bishops are mentioned here.
The apostles were the first monarchical bishops, and the apostles are speaking, so that the first of the three "' orders "' is not mentioned.
All the material is derived from the Pastorals, with various additions.
In XVI is an apocalypse derived from Barnabas and the New Testament apocalypses.
Ali this material in the Didache is " apostolic,'"' for Clement of Alexandria claimed that Barnabas was an apostle and one of the "' Seventy.'"'
Moreover, the writer of the Didache lets us into the secret of his work when in XV, 4 he says,
Tas d€ edyas tudv Kal Tas eAenpwootvas Kal mdoas Tas mpagets ovTw ToMjaure, Ws éxeTe ev TH edayyeXlw Tod Kuplov judv. He apologises, as it were, for any omissions and says:
" I may have left out a lot but you can add to my work by going to the source whence I have drawn all my material, to the New Testament."
Now, the marks of the Didache are these.
In I-V it gives a better-arranged form of the moral teaching of the _' Two Ways," which is never out of date and in no way heretical.
In VI-XV he gives a Church Order from which much is omitted because the New Testament does not talk about it, and in which the Montanist prophets and the Montanist all-day fast on Wednesday and Friday were not acceptable to catholics.
The agape disappeared, and so the prayers were of not much use except to be adapted and used at the eucharist or for grace at meals.
The title of bishop was used by the successors of the apostles, so that the ministry of chapter XV had to be expanded.
It is easy to see now why the writer of A.C. VII alters the latter part of the Didache more than the earlier part, why A.C.O. and others, including the Latin, use only the moral code of I-V, why, though the Ps. Cyprianic adv. Aleatores knows
Did. XIV, Serapion knows IX and X, and Athanasius knows IX and X, they never use these later chapters much.
Chapters VI-XVI were known for many years; we have
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
seen how they were used; even the Fides Nicena and the Syntagma Doctrine seem to refer to them, but they were
_ out of date and, though they were not evidently heretical, | they were suspect.
There is no need to be surprised at | their continued existence.
Tertullian was a Montanist, but Cyprian and Augustine used his works, and it was said of Cyprian that he could use Tertullian's knowledge but did not follow him in his errors.
Many other books which were written by moderate heretics still remained in the Church.
It is therefore quite possible that Leo, "' notary and sinner," and the Georgian translation could make use of the whole
Didache for their pious exercises.
The Didache was a work of the end of the second or beginning of the third century A.D.
That much is certain from the literary relationships of the work, from its character as an apostolic work written when the Canon had finally emerged, and from the historical situation it reflects.
Can we decide where it was written?
There are three possible arguments:
(@) from the doxology of the Lord's Prayer in VIII, 2, (0) from the phrase "' scattered upon the mountains " in IX, 4, and (c) from the later history of the work.
With regard to (a) Westcott and Hort say that the origin of the doxology added to the Lord's Prayer in many MSS. of the Gospels is due to the liturgical usage of Antioch.
These doxologies first arose at Antioch, say Westcott and Hort, and, say others, the Didache is early, therefore it must be
Antiochene.
There is, however, only one New Testament authority which has the same doxology as the Didache's, which is é6ru cod éorw % Svvayus Kal 4 Sdéa cis aidvas.
Only the Sahidic version omits 1 BaowWela alone.
One Old Latin © MS. of the New Testament, k, omits both 7% Baowreta and 9 86a.
The Sahidic version of the Gospels was made in the third or fourth centuries.
The origin of the Didache's and 1 Canon Streeter says that if the Didache were the work of an archaising
Montanist it could not have had the great influence which he attributes to it.
This great influence is largely imaginary.
The "' Two Ways "' was used a great deal, but only because it was a better edition of Barnabas's work.
The whole work may have been popular, but it was not influential.
The form which later Church Orders took was not due to the influence et ae Didache but of Hippolytus's almost contemporary Apostolic vadition.
CONCLUSIONS
the New Testament doxology which omits 7 BacwWeia may therefore be due to Egyptian, not Antiochene, liturgical influence.
With regard to (6), it is said that in Egypt corn is never sown on the mountains, but only in the plain flooded by the Nile.
In Syria corn is always sown upon the mountainsides.
Therefore the Didache must be a Syrian work.
A Syrian work which employs the Didache, the Afostolic Constitutions, omits the phrase '' upon the mountains," an Egyptian work, Serapion's Prayer Book, retains it.
If the prayers in chapters IX and X are traditional prayers used by the writer of the Didache, no argument as to the place of origin of the Didache can be derived from this phrase.
They may be Antiochene prayers transported to Egypt, or vice versa.
It is not likely that anyone writing an original prayer in an allegorical way such as this would use details unfamiliar to his readers, but if the prayer is a compilation from New Testament sources, this '' upon the mountains "' may be due to Matt. xviii, 12, where the lost sheep of the Church are wandering '"'on the mountains.'"'
There is no evidence here for the place of origin of the Didache.
The Didache is used first in the Syrian document, the Didascalia, next in two Egyptian documents, the A fostolic
'Church Order and Serapion, then it is used in Asia Minor and Egypt alike.
Its chief sources are the Egyptian work, Barnabas, the Roman work, Hermas, and Justin, besides the New Testament.
It also uses a work current in Egypt in Clement of Alexandria's time.
Hermas's work soon spread over all the Church, and the Didache cannot be Roman.
The choice here seems to be between Syria and Egypt, and there seems to be no very decisive factor except that the chief sources are Egyptian, the earliest use Syrian.
The choice certainly lies between Syria and Egypt.
The Didache was used quite soon in Africa, and probably reached there with the earliest Montanists from Asia.
There was a continual coming and going between Africa and the East over the Montanist question and over the question of the re-baptism of heretics, when Cyprian and Firmilian had a long correspondence.
The Didache was used in the West,
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
as we see from the Latin '"
Two Ways," from Jerome and Rufinus's references to the "' Two Ways," and from the use of the '' Two Ways" by Rhineland preachers.
The later chapters were known, too, as we see from the reference in Pseudo-Cyprian, but-it is certain that the Greek is the original, the Latin a translation, and that the Greek was written in Egypt or Syria.
The Didache is Montanist.
Where is it likely that it was written?
We hear of Montanists in Asia, in Rome, where Hippolytus, the Muratorianum and Praxeas attacked them, in Africa, in Gaul, where Irenzus expressed a evAaBh Kal dpodofordrny opinion about them.
In Egypt Origen had to decide whether they were schismatic or heretics, and Didymus wrote a dialogue between a Catholic and a Montanist.1
It seems that Montanism quickly spread over all the world, though its chief centres were in Asia and Africa.
There is little here to decide where the Didache was written.
I am inclined to say that it is an Egyptian work, but should feel more certain if there were more evidence of the existence of a Montanist community there.
As Leipoldt says in Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, Egypt was the place where the New Testament was first treated as Holy Scripture, and the Didache above all honours the New Testament in deed if not in word.
There is no need to consider the theory of those who see in the Didache a work like James, the product of what
Dobschiitz ? calls a Palestinian '' Dorfgemeinde," where simple Jews have just turned Christian.
The Didache cannot be the work of such a church, for it is highly artificial, it is a literary compilation, not an artless book of private devotion and simple ecclesiastical teaching.
It is not likely either that Professor Burkitt was right in his opinion that James and the Didache are writings composed in an old-fashioned way by the new Gentile Church at Jerusalem, supposed to be old documents of the original apostolic Church there.
The Gentile Church set out to find sights to show people 1 Dionysius, too, discussed in Egypt whether Montanist baptism was to be accepted or not.
2 Probleme d. a. Z.
CONCLUSIONS
when they came as pilgrims, not false antique writings to impress readers.
The antiquarianism of the early Church was used to teach, not to interest.
The Leucian Acts were written to inspire men to an ascetic life following the apostles' legendary mode of life, not just to amuse.
So the Didache was an artificial literary composition composed of apostolic material in apostolic language to teach men what the Montanist Church thought and how it conducted itself, to show how " apostolic"' it could be, though the Catholic Church, with all its claims to an apostolic creed, and ministry and scriptures and sacraments, attacked Montanism.
The fate of the Didache at the hands of modern critics is due to its form and its contents.
They noticed that it omitted a great deal that the New Testament omitted and that the Church of the second century treasured.
They did not notice that it added what the New Testament did not know, as for example regulations about the water to be used at baptism and about Wednesday and Friday fasts.
They noticed also that the New Testament was a time of spiritual fervour, and that the Didache was written at such a time too.
They did not notice the difference, that the Didache is all for prophets and does not consider other spiritual gifts, while the New Testament only honours prophets among the other "spiritual people."
Blind to the differences between the Didache and the New Testament, and keen-sighted where similarities were found, they did not consider that differences could be found and the similarities explained, but jumped straight to the conclusion that the Didache must be primitive, and, as Schaff says in his Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or, the Oldest
Church Manual, everyone went to the Didache determined to find his pet theories proved by it.
Above all, it supported those who were in favour of prophets and " charismatic "' control of the Church.
Hence its great popularity at the time when it was found.
The Didache was, however, the '' spoilt child" of criticism, and could lead no one wrong.
It was not seen that its differences from the New Testament were due to its late date, its similarities due to borrowing,
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
until Armitage Robinson tried to prove that the Didache continually borrows from apostolic works.
He thought of it as an antiquarian work with no purpose except to give an imaginary picture of New Testament conditions.
This is a possible explanation, but it is more probable that it describes contemporary customs and has a useful object in view, though both are hidden in the case of Didache under an antiquarian form and concealed in the ascription of the work to the Apostles.
This is, as we have seen, the true explanation of the Didache, that it gives in the form of a summary of apostolic teaching a description of what can be called "the apostolic element "' of Montanism, and that its purpose is the defence of the "" New Prophecy."'
INDEX
PASSAGES FROM THE DIDACHE DISCUSSED
I, 2-II, 1.
10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 31-35, 39, 45, 53, 57, 62, 71, 72, 73, 120-125, GEE SS:
10, 30, 32, 39, 40, 45, 53, 63, 76, 112, 120-124.
18, 19, 34, 39, 80, 84, 80, 92, ITI.
30, 80, 84, 85, 89, OI, 92, 112.
10,23, 40,06, 70, 60, 02, 112, 127, 141.
Bae 3350345 77> Li2, 120, 132. 143.
19, 32, 33, 34, 35, 52, 54, 57, 08, 70, 73, 75, 80, 112, 126.
9, 21, 28, 30, 32, 56, 62, 72, 74, 80, 84, 85, 200.
28.
24, 38, 74,89, 92.
69, 7°. eee 7> 10, 18, 19, 28, 30, 37; 83, 84, 112, 121.
52, 70> £27.
80, 82, 128.
80, 82.
53, 74, 75+
37, 38, 69, 70, 88, 9T.
37, 38, 69, 70, 88, OI, 114.
36.
36, 70, 79> 80, 82, 84.
45, 40, 48, 72, 81, 82, 114, 126, 133, 149.
20, 45, 47, 72, 133.
18, 24, 84, 89, 92.
Til, 1-6.
I, F B a 6 ay | oe | 3 52, 78, 81, 82. touts tee 46, 47.
57:
18, 32, 34, 3534:
34, 46 88, 91, 114, 132.
84, 127.
38, 52.
31, 44, 45, 78, 89, 92, 127, 128.
27, 29, 52, 54, 95, 114, 127, 132.
32, 33, 52, 54, 95, 114, 126, 132, 143, 148.
33, 40078; 90, 127.
45, 80, 96, 97, 127, 131, 149.
I24.
97.
E2674 Te 16, 69, 70, 97, 98, 134, 141.
16/98, 99, 113, 126, 127, 216.
99, 185.
225, % ee PA £9
ED TU G99 S GO
NF TR G0 TY NO > GYR GOD =
e a <4 F
INDEX Re 99, 127, 149, 177, 184, 185, 193, 194.
74, 75> 77> 99, 100, 177, 179, 185, 188.
99, 177, 179, 184, 185, 199.
72°85 LOO, £27, 177,870) Dos, 2L0;, 227.
33, 100, 113, 18, £260,138, 177, 160, 202100, 149, 177, 180, 184, 185, 194, 197, 198.
28, 30, 100, 178, 180.
14, 81, 90, 92, 101, 178, 180, 181.
L4,.24, LOL, £26, 178, 13k.
LOL, 127,178, 181.
82, 102, 130, 145, 178, 181, 186, 202.
102, 148, I5I, 152, 161, 166, 178, 184, 189-191, 202, 205.
103, 167.
46, 103, 127, 167.
I4, 104,113, 127, 15%, 159; £O7-
LA, £5, 16, 204, 227.
14, 15, 16, 24.
I5, 104.
I4, 15, 104, 152, 168.
52, 104, 152, 168.
105, 106, 152, 169, 178, 182, 197, 202, 205.
105, 169.
9, 13, 16, 22; 65, 105, 127, 152,169, 173 ff.
81, 105, 169.
14, 24, 90, 92, 105, 152.
28. 30, 33,526.
16, 106.
16, 106.
FQ, £28; 130; 2LO.
16, 106, 152.
16, 106, 152, 153, 170.
00, -71,190, 93; E70) L711.
£70,075.
33, 90, 92, 126, 128, 170, 171.
£70, 171.
33, 56, 113, 126, 170, 171.
25, 106, 127, 179, 182, 196, 198, 203.
£7, 83,95), FO7,. 870, £62.
33, 85, 88, 90, 126, 179, 205.
107, 124, 127, 142, 148, 150, I5I, 153, 165, 179, 184.
108, 148, 150, 151, 153, 165, 167.
25, 81, 108, £13, F206.
I13, 126, 215.
108.
ZiT 23; SI LOO,, E200 27.
64, I09, 128.
109, 127, 143.
Q, 12,22, 23,25, 27, 29, 64, 81, 110, Eps.
Oe FE, 62, £50, '
25, 26, 23, 88, 90, 91, III, 126.
25,20.) PLY.
i BOON ta
% om $0 90.22.
OU GOD PA NIH TB
PH TU
a = 2 ht aes D4 =| a a > = ~ < =
> TYP G9
pt G9 PH GOD HA I SD OTB GOTO Ps OT ym
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN By RicHARD Clay AND Company, LtD., Buncay, SUFFOLK.
THEOLOGY LIBRARY
CLAREMONT, CALIF,
8770 4.
Ab68|
" pay via ;
aad al
.BS "29h0 © oY Vokes, Frederick Ercolo.
The riddle of the Didache; fact or fiction, heres:
Catholicism?
By F. E. Vokes...
Published for the Ch historical society. London, Society for promoting Chris knowledge; New York, The Macmillan co. (1938,
V6 vV, (1), 222 p. 223 em.
1. Teaching of the twelve apostles.
1. Title.
BS2940.T5V6
/ ' 229.95 CCSC/mmb A 39-—1 AF | Princeton Theol. Sem.
Library for Library of Congress Tad)t
Aine Dian Logie i LD GM PL Sind Pat thoes NO SOS Sait Sel ee mitre PR cv ay ety ~ Peco Beery PON ARES.
Mary io SASL
ES NS FF, SOON
eA IN YA Sx aS, : ae eae EES Lay y's BRUM ONE tam Gah ak SUMS My coe ae Y um SS AS aa hs aR tt
EONS MeL NY
of FURS byte ry oS S Sore k:
TNA SALA Re See 2 SOAs LS an ate Kees pay a of:
Mery pty Aes om RSCG ats Yen eek A wy As ahs ee en Woes TAL WAAR Ri ae hy ae eh PON Re OIRO IG Maya Se athe i Wem teny eure Cored MY, EMU tatergnmccsiisysen sr ty SEs SAS area "
Ke ah ou aN AS * MtG aa : ie y * "u bored toh ty we Ate NEVI SEAS Fame A Noy PAIS as DSRS he >" f LA Mabe a ak wade a NY:
; — Wow ees AY *, a3 Ta ete ot eis Sve La a Pea