The Scriptures of the Didache
Chapter Five The Scriptures of the Didache One of the most important current issues in Biblical studies is that of the New Testament's use of Old Testament passages and themes with the resulting implications for inspiration and hermeneutics that such use raises.*° A related but neglected issue is how early Christian writers outside the New Testament canon handled the authoritative sources of their own "scriptures." This issue should also be considered as we develop our own hermeneutical methodology of how interpreters today should utilize citations from scripture. Do the Apostolic
Fathers cite the Old Testament in the same way as the New Testament writers?
Furthermore, when they did they refer to the writings that came to be called the New Testament, how did they cite them?
In this chapter we examine how the Didachist cited the Old Testament scriptures and then how he interpreted and applied them to his concerns. We will also examine the question of whether he cited any written "gospel" or oral tradition coming from Jesus.
Then we will briefly address the question of whether he utilized what would today be called non-canonical writings. Each of these issues raises questions about the correct use of terminology, especially the meaning of the word "canonical."
The two main issues facing the student of this subject are: 1) In what form does the writer cite Scripture (e.g., the LXX or the Masoretic Text) and 2) In what manner does the writer use the Scriptural text to make the point? Both of these questions (the linguistic and the hermeneutical) must be squarely faced in studying the Scriptures of the Didache. As a working model, I propose the following paradigm that has been suggested by many writers but is cogently described by David Aune.
In citations, a portion of text is reproduced word for word from a source, often prefaced with an introductory formula such as "As it is written" (Rom. 9:13),
"For the scripture says to Pharaoh" (Rom. 9:17), "Have you not read this scripture" (Mark 12:10-11). Distinguished from citations are quotations, word-for-
The Scriptures of the Didache word reproductions of a text without any introductory markers.
Allusions are references that the writer assumes the reader will recognize .
. consisting of one or more words sufficiently distinctive to be traced to a known text, but not a verbatim reproduction of any part of that text. An echo is subtler than an allusion and is a relatively faint reference to a text."°
Certainty about authorial intent tends to diminish the more one progresses through that paradigm from citations to echoes. Whatever be the case, the paradigm remains useful not only for how the New refers to the Old but also how the Didachist and later writers refer back to the canonical books. There are examples in the Didache of each of these ways of referring to scripture suggested by Aune.
Use of the Old Testament We begin this study of the Didache's use of Scripture by noting its two direct citations from the OT.
The first is a significant citation from Malachi 1:11, 14. The Didachist employs it at the end of a section in chapter 14 in which he exhorts the brethren to be at peace with one another lest they mar their own participation in the eucharist.
He makes a point (similar to Matt. 5:23, 24) that one's eucharistic sacrifice could be defiled as long as there exists unreconciled differences between brethren. He then cites the OT text that he believes prophesies of sacrifices to be kept by the Gentiles.
14:3 For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: ( ἡ ῥηθεῖσα ) "In every place and time, offer to me a pure sacrifice."
"Because I am a great king," says [the] Lord, "and my name is wondrous among the Gentiles." (Mal. 1:11, 14)
A comparison of the text form of the Didachist's citation reveals some differences with both the Masoretic and LXX forms of the verses (note words in bold type).
[Didache: Ἔν παντὶ τόπῳ καὶ χρόνῳ προσφέρειν por θυσίαν καθαράν. ὅτι βασιλεὺς μέγας εἰμί λέγει κύριος καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου θαυμαστὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι.
MT: ΤΠ Ap "pw? waa Twp ὈἾΡ 555)
20433 NT 'Mw NII MT ἼΩΝ ὋΝ Ma TSA 5
LXX: ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ θυμίαμα προσάγεται τῷ ὀνόματί pov καὶ θυσία , , καθαρά. διότι βασιλεὺς μέγας ἐγώ εἰμι λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπιφανὲς ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.
The Scriptures of the Didache
The Didachist omits the title "Almighty" from Mal. 1:11 (nikay in MT; παντοκράτωρ in LXX) and utilizes a functionally equivalent word (θαυμαστὸν) for the 8712 of Mal. 1:14 in the MT and the ἐπιφανὲς in the LXX.
Of greater interest is why he may have chosen Malachi 1:11, 14 and how he saw its function in redemptive history. The Didachist probably seized on the Malachi prophecy because of its reference to the Gentiles (ἔθνεσι) in verse 14.
It should be kept in mind that he sees his work as the "Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles." The prophecy about Gentiles offering a pure sacrifice when Malachi's Jewish people were offering defiled sacrifices (Malachi 1:6-10) implies a reversal of what the Jewish people of Malachi's day knew and observed. The Didachist saw these future sacrifices as spiritual, fulfilled in the eucharistic observances commemorating the one great sacrifice for them through Jesus. A large number of church fathers followed the Didache in viewing the Malachi prophecy as finding its fulfillment in the eucharistic observance in the assemblies of (predominantly) Gentile believers.*" One wonders if these later writers were influenced by the Didache in this regard. NT writers do not cite the Malachi text but probably echo it when they describe believers in this new age as offering spiritual sacrifices (Hebrews 13:15, 16; I Peter
2:5; Phil. 2:17; 4:18).
The other instance of the Didache citing a specific OT text is in the last chapter of his work. Chapter 16 has often been referred to as the "little apocalypse" and will be treated more fully in a later chapter because of the hermeneutical issues it raises. We will be looking now at how the Didachist grounds his point about the bodily resurrection that will accompany the second advent in a prophecy from Zechariah 14:5.
16:6
[4] And then the signs of the truth will appear:
[a] [the] first sign [will be] an opening in heaven, [Ὁ] then [the] sign of a trumpet sound, [c] and the third [sign will be] a resurrection of dead ones16:7 but not of all [the dead], (ob πάντων δε) but as it was said: (ἐρρέθη) "The Lord will come and all the holy ones with him."
MT: : 8} orwap-b> we MIM Ra} LXX: ἥξει κύριος ὁ θεός μου καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι pet' αὐτοῦ]
The Didachist does not claim that his "teaching" in this chapter is some special or new revelation.
This would be inconsistent with his goal to present the "teaching of the Apostles."
He simply is taking material that echoes the
The Scriptures of the Didache "Olivet Discourse" of Matt. 24, 25 plus OT parallels and adapting them to his perception of the order in which those events will transpire. The Didachist, on the basis of his understanding of eschatological passages as a whole, does not envision a general resurrection as taking place, but one that consists only of believers (οὐ πάντων δε 16:74). He believes that this is consistent with the prophecy in Zech. 14:5 about "the holy ones" who will accompany the Lord (κύριος) when he will come (ἥξει). The only issue of textual form here is that the Didache quotation agrees with the LXX reading "with Him" (μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ) instead of the reading "with you" (22) of the MT. The Didache interprets the "holy ones" of Zech. 14:5 as referring to believers, not to angels (cf. I Thess. 2:13).
Elsewhere, the NT sees angels as also accompanying the Lord at His advent (Matt. 25:30).
This is not the place to engage in an adequate exegesis of the surrounding text and its eschatological details. It should be noted, however, that some writers have seen strong chiliastic implications in the Didachist's view of a resurrection that will be limited to believers only.** The argument, however, is not certain because the Didache breaks off at this point and we simply do not know what followed in the original ending, which all agree is missing in the Bryennios manuscript discovered in 1873."
In addition to these clear citations of two OT texts, the Didachist adapts many of the Torah commandments in Exodus into his ethical treatise in chapters
2-5.
He presents his commands with a wisdom motif similar to that used in Proverbs.
Consider, for example, his use of the repeated "teknon mou" phrase in 3:1, 3, 5, 6 and 4:3 with its echoes from Solomon's address to "my son" 15 times in Proverbs 1-9. In addition to the wisdom tradition of Proverbs, there is a similar approach in the non-canonical wisdom book, Jesus ben Sirach.
Throughout the Greek version of that book a "teknon" is addressed no less than 19 times and then is given instruction in behavior similar to that prescribed in the Didache (Sirach 2:1; 3:12, 17; 4:1; 6:18, 23, 32; 10:28; 14:11; 16:24; 21:1;
30:9; 31:22; 37:27; 38:9, 16; 40:28). While it may be that the Didachist is not directly quoting Proverbs or Sirach, he is echoing a literary pattern that was prevalent in Jewish wisdom literature.
Use of the New Testament The reader of the Didache who is familiar with the New Testament will be struck by the fact that it is hard to discern in it any clear reference to the writings of Paul, Peter and John. The same reader, on the other hand, will also be struck by its apparent fondness for the Gospel of Matthew. A good case could be made that the Didachist cites only that Gospel and possibly also that of Luke. The general question of how writers cite Scripture is complicated by the question of what constitutes a quotation of an earlier work. How accurate to the original source does it have to be to qualify as a "quotation"?
Before we examine some specific examples of how the Didachist may refer to Matthew, it would be helpful to see the amazing extent to which he does just
The Scriptures of the Didache
that. The following table shows how often that verses very similar to Matthew appear in the Didache.
The Didache and Matthew ERP ORAS MERON τ νυ τη τ πεζοῖς en 1:3¢ 2:3
"π΄ ee lie τ τ A τστεε τι 5:18 eae --- 8:2c πικρὸς :
7:6
16:4 een Ems Ue hase De oe ae epee ees Mag NR Te oe There are many who would not agree that every one of these verses in Didache is a deliberate reference to a Matthean passage. For example, some of the references in the table from Didache 2:2-3:7 could possibly refer to various verses in the LXX text of Exodus and Psalm 37, although they do match Matthew's version of them in Greek. Despite possible differences about some of the
The Scriptures of the Didache verses, the sheer number of the possible parallels confirms to the casual reader that at least the shadow of the first Gospel is evident in the Didache.
Upon further examination of this table one notices that the vast bulk of possible quotations (25 of 31) are either from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) or the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25)—the two longest discourses of Jesus in Matthew's gospel. Another striking thing to notice is that there is really only one other passage in Didache where it appears that his Gospel quotation agrees λους closely with a Synoptic Gospel other than Matthew. That is in Didache 1: δα ΤΣ
The following chart illustrates the relationship between the three texts.
Didache 1:58 in Matthew and Luke Didache text of 1:58
Luke 6:30
Matthew 5:42
A "- "- ~ ~ rd Lf παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι oe | παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε | τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός δίδου καὶ μὴ ἀπαίτει" δίδου, καὶ... μὴ & | Kat... μὴ ἀποστραφῇς. παίτει.
Such variation between the texts prevents us from blind dogmatism about Didache's sole usage of Matthew. The rarity of divergence, however, certainly illustrates the point that the Didachist used a text like that of Matthew's almost exclusively.
It is necessary at this point to address the question about whether the Didachist (or any Apostolic Father for that matter) actually knew the Gospel of Matthew or any Gospel in the canonical form that we know them. In this matter, Didache scholars are currently divided. Up until the 1950's writers on the Didache almost universally held that the Didachist knew and used our canonical
Matthew.?' The most thorough defense of the view that the Didache knew and used Matthew is the extensive 1950 study by Edouard Massaux." With the publication of Helmut Koester's doctoral thesis under Rudolph Bultmann in 1957, the terrain of "use of Matthew" began to change."
The Bultmann/Koester disciples declare, among other reasons, that since our canonical Gospels did not take final shape until well into the second century, it is impossible that the Didache could have used them, unless it was by one of its later redactors.°* The magisterial 1958 tome of Jean Paul Audet also effectively argued for the nonuse of Matthew in the Didache."' These authors usually point to the fluidity in the evangelical tradition in these works and also how verses often do not appear in the same context in which they are found in canonical Matthew. The exact quotations that do appear, however, are usually explained as later redactions intended to bring the quotations in line with their later written form. Therefore, according to this approach, all that the Didachist and many of the Apostolic Fathers had at their disposal was the oral tradition of Jesus' words which was heavily marked by fluidity and diversity. And that diversity is often illustrated by the very Citations in the Fathers' writings.
However, not all scholars have surrendered to the currently prevailing "negative" view and many still argue that it is entirely possible that the Didache and other early Fathers did utilize material from the Synoptic Gospels. If this
The Scriptures of the Didache
usage was not always by direct quotation, then certainly it was by strong enough allusions to indicate their knowledge of the Gospels.
Such writers also have provided the hard evidence to show this to be the case.*° One recent work from a contemporary NT scholar affirms, "The Didache means by 'the gospel' [8:2;
11:3; 15:3, 4] the Gospel of Matthew; thus the Didache .
. documents the emerging authority of the one great Gospel."°'
Schnelle's references to those places in the Didache where τὸ evayyeAtov appear indicate that the writer had a written Gospel before him. Note especially the expression in 15:3 and repeated in 15:4: ὡς ἔχετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ tod κυρίου ἡμῶν. The words that the Didachist quotes from what he calls the εὐαγγελιον are words that are found in canonical Matthew only. Martin Hengel also confidently affirms, "At some points the written character (of Matthew) emerges quite clearly, as in the Didache, which surely knew Matthew."**
The usual response to this evidence from the Didache is to declare that these verses were added by a later redactor.
Thus it may appear that only the presupposition that Matthew couldn't have existed at the end of the first century is what keeps some scholars from admitting that it could be quoted in the Didache. The evidence, however, points in _ another direction!
But just as there is great similarity with Matthew, what can be said about the differences in the details of how the Didachist cites Matthew? How do we explain those differences?
An examination of Didache 1:3-Sa, for example, certainly indicates that these verses are not transferred verbatim from Matthew's gospel. They appear to be freely adapted from Matthew 5:39-41 and 44-48. The differences, on the one hand, can be explained by recognizing that the Didachist adapted these passages for his didactic purpose, much like what some NT authors do. Also modern teachers and preachers may adapt a passage to their purpose without necessarily changing the authorial intent of the passage. This is the explanation persuasively argued in Christopher Tuckett's seminal article cited above (endnote 56) and also one that is in accordance with common sense practice. After a detailed analysis of Didache 1:3-5a, Tuckett concluded, "The Didachist was using his sources here with a certain degree of faithfulness.
This suggests very strongly that the Didache here presupposes the gospels of Matthew and Luke in their finished forms. Further, this result seems to apply to all parts of the Didache examined here."""
Should we expect exactness in quotation from all ancient writers? Do we expect the same precision in the Biblical writers that meets modern scholarly standards?
The Fathers wrote what they did, not to be read as academic term papers graded by pedantic teaching assistants, but for the practical purpose of instructing and exhorting their readers. This teaching proceeded from passionate hearts, sometimes even quoting from memory. Consider the words of the great textual scholar, Bruce Metzger about the quoting habits of the Fathers.
After the true text of the Patristic author has been recovered, the further question must be raised whether the writer intended to quote the scriptural passage verbatim or merely to paraphrase it. If one is assured that the Father makes a
The Scriptures of the Didache bona fide quotation and not a mere allusion, the problem remains whether he quoted it after consulting the passage in a manuscript or whether he relied on
his memory.
Metzger goes on to illustrate how Origen hardly ever quoted the same passage in the same way twice!
Perhaps we should grant the Didachist the benefit of the doubt if he occasionally fashioned the Matthew verses to fit his teaching purpose. When he does change the wording slightly, he appears always to be consistent with the authorial intent of Jesus as recorded in Matthew.
Emphasizing the divergences of the Didache text from Matthew obscures the fact that differences are actually few compared to similarities.
For most of his other citations/quotations there is no significant difference between the texts.
Consider, for example, two specific examples of the Didachist's quoting of Matthew (in 8:2 and 9:5).
Intense ethical instruction composes most of chapters 1-6 of the Didache.
The Didachist then proceeds to describe how a church should conduct its ministry of sacraments, prayer, teaching and hospitality (chapters 7-15). He does this by utilizing the discourse marker περὶ δὲ no less than five times; to mark off the sections in which he gives instruction on 1) dietary restrictions (6:3); 2) baptism and prayer (7: 1); 3) the eucharist (9:1, 3); and 4) the treatment of apostles and prophets (11:3).°!
In the section on prayer, he commends praying as follows.
8:2 "(And) do not pray like the hypocrites but like the Lord commanded in his gospel.
Pray this way:
Our Father, who is in heaven, may your name be made holy, may your kingdom come, may your will be done upon earth as in heaven, give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors, and do not lead us into trial but deliver us from the evil one, because yours is the power and the glory forever."
[Didache:
Πάτηρ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, ἕ λθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὗ
"pave καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς: τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον, καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἡμῶν ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν, καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς
The Scriptures of the Didache
, ~ € ~ a"
πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ: ὅτι σοῦ ἐστὶν ε , a ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
UBS:
Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου: ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου: γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὗ
"pave καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον: καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν: καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.]
I have highlighted the words that indicate some difference between the Didache text and that in Matthew. As one can see, the differences are minimal.
The Didache has the singular "heaven" and "debt" while the Matthew text has those words in the plural. There is also a slight change in tense of the Greek word for "forgive." No differences, however, affect the meaning conveyed in the prayer in the least.
There is an addition at the end of the prayer in the Didache that is not in our modern critical text since it is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts of Matthew.
It is similar to but shorter than the addition familiar to all Christians that is found in the later Byzantine addition to the prayer (see textual apparatus in UBS or Nestle for the details). While initially this addition to the prayer in Didache may appear to affirm that later Byzantine reading, the truth may be just the opposite.
Note that this doxological ascription appears later in the Didache in almost the same form and is appended to the Eucharistic prayers in 9:2,3,4 and 10:2,4,5. It is very similar to a common ending to prayers in the Jewish liturgy that survive until today." A better explanation is that the Didache is an early witness to the tendency of scribes to add doxological ascriptions, which only increased in later times when the doxological ascription crystallized and became part of the received text in the Middle Ages in Byzantine areas (Western/Latin texts also omit the doxology along with Alexandrian family texts).
Another apparent citation from Matthew is found in the section of the Didache where the eucharist is being explained. The Didachist supports his point that only believers should partake of the eucharist in the following manner:
9:5 (And) let no one eat or drink from your eucharist except those baptized in the name of the Lord, for also the Lord has said concerning this:
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs."
UBS text of Matt. 7:6:
Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσὶν. ] The issue of the form of the text citation is fairly simple. The texts are identical, unless one fusses about the "movable nu" in Matthew! Authority for this saying is traced back by directly to the "Lord." Occasionally, this title is used in
The Scriptures of the Didache a general sense in the Didache, but as it does here, it often clearly refers to Jesus
(see also 6:2; 8:2; 11:2, 4, 8; 12:1; 14:1; 15:4; 16:1, 8). It is not the "form" issue but the "hermeneutical" issue that confronts us in this text. An ancient or modern reader of the Sermon on the Mount would probably not think of "closed communion" for believers as the original intention of this Dominical saying in Matt. 7:6. Does that indicate that the Didachist has ripped this saying out of its original Matthean context and applied it wrongly to the issue of correct participation in the Eucharistic observance? Proponents of the non-use of the Gospels by the Apostolic Fathers have no problem here. They affirm that this saying was either taken from the oral tradition or from a Jewish milieu and was used by the Didachist in this way for his purpose and also by the "Matthean" author there for his purpose.® Is there another way to approach this?
The context of this saying appears in the Sermon on the Mount at the end of Jesus' warning against hypocritical judging of others (7:1-5) and precedes a pericope on prayer (7:6-11). Matthew 7:1-5 comprise a strong warning against harsh and wrongful discernment. To balance that warning, Jesus in verse six then gives what could very well have been a proverbial Jewish saying to teach that there is such a thing as correct discernment about those who in reality are
"dogs" and "pigs." That is the legitimate connection between 7:1-5 and 7:6 and the commentators bear this out." If this be the case, the Didachist is stating that it is not a harsh act to deny the eucharist to unbelievers but it is a wise act of discernment. As a matter of fact, the leaders of the assembly have a moral and spiritual responsibility to do so. While this verse was not originally given in Matthew to limit participation in the eucharist to believers, the Didachist's use of it is consistent with the way Jesus used it to make His own point in the Sermon on the Mount.
A Proposal about Didache and Matthew I mentioned earlier that one way of handling the divergences between Didache and Matthew is that the Didachist may not have been quoting Matthew literally but rather adapting it to suit his purposes. There is another way to accommodate both the similarities and the differences between these two texts.
How can we affirm that the Didache knew and used "Matthew" and at the same time recognize why there is not exact equivalence between the two?
I have found the approach to this problem proposed by Andre Tuilier quite convincing." I will try to summarize his argument as follows. Tuilier believes that the evidence of 8:2 and 15:3, 4 is quite convincing that the Didachist utilized some written account that he titles, "The Gospel of the Lord" (to ebay yeAtov tod κυρίου). Can we know what that "gospel" was? Tuilier brings forward the evidence of Papias' oft-discussed statement preserved by Eusebius that "Matthew arranged the sayings (λογία) of the Lord in the Hebrew/Aramaic
(ἑβραίδι) language and others interpreted (ἑρμηνεύσεν) them as they could."
Tuilier argues that it was a Greek translation of those Aramaic logia that the Didachist had and from which he quoted. It is well known that the Greek verb
The Scriptures of the Didache
ἑρμηνεύσεν often was used for "translating" from one language to another rather than simply "interpreting" within the same language."
Tuilier proposes that Matthew arranged the logia of the Lord around 45 C.E.; someone translated it into Greek by 55-60; and the Gospel of Matthew in its finished form appeared by 65-70. Therefore, sometime between 55-65 the Didachist quoted the "Gospel of the Lord" in his handbook. As befits the meaning of λογία, this was a "sayings" Gospel. It is noteworthy that only sayings of Jesus are quoted in the Didache. No mention of his deeds is made.
Tuilier further develops his proposal by identifying the "Gospel of the Lord" with what scholars for years have referred to as the "Q" source. He provides a stemma tracing not only the above proposed development of Matthew's
"Sayings Gospel" but also how Luke utilized it along with Mark (60 C.E.) in composing his own Gospel (65 C.E.).°' It is interesting to note that Tuilier does not propose that "Matthew" used his own Jogia plus Mark to compose his final version, but that he drew on other oral tradition about the Lord's deeds combined with the Greek "Gospel of the Lord" to complete his masterpiece. Tuilier also discusses how Tatian's Diatessaron utilized not only the four canonical
Gospels but also the Greek "Gospel of the Lord" in writing his own famous harmony around 170.
Tuilier's identifying of the "Gospel of the Lord" as the lost "Q" and his reconstruction of the synoptic developments and his explanation of Tatian's procedure are issues that cannot detain us here. I do suggest, however, that Tuilier's proposal about an earlier form of a Greek "Matthew" as identical to a Greek translation of the Aramaic logia has succeeded in addressing the question of the relationship between Matthew and the Didache in a most satisfying manner. It very happily explains both the similarities and the differences between Didache and canonical Matthew. It also shows as unnecessary the idea that the Didachist was simply quoting free-floating oral sayings of Jesus — an idea that is difficult to maintain in light of 8:2 and 15:3, 4.
Another happy implication of Tuilier's proposal is that it allows us to more comfortably locate the writing of the Didache earlier than demanded by a "postcanonical Matthew" dating (after 70 C.E., or even later by most scholars). This earlier dating of Didache is more in line with what nearly everyone recognizes as the book's primitive theology, its simple church leadership, its traveling apostles and prophets, its lack of mentioning persecution, its lack of warning against aberrant doctrine, and its lack of knowledge of Paul — all of which are part of the picture of church life that emerges in the book.
So, in answer to our earlier question, "Did the Didache know and use the Gospel of Matthew?," the answer is a resounding "yes." But if Tuilier is correct, and I think there is good reason to conclude that he is, then the Didachist cites a version of "Matthew" that was earlier than the canonical Matthew that has come down to us.
The Scriptures of the Didache Use of Non-Canonical Material While more could be written about the Didache's use of the Old and New
Testament citations and allusions, enough examples have been mentioned to give evidence of the author's agreement with the broad scope of general NT theology and practice as well as his fashioning of specific NT verses for his own specific purposes. Now some brief attention should be given to the question of whether or not the Didachist refers to non-canonical literature, and if he does, how he uses that material.
It would be appropriate at this point to address the question of whether the Didache utilizes an existing non-canonical Jewish "Two ways" document in framing chapters 1-5. I will postpone that question, however, until the next chapter when we look at how the Didachist presents the "two ways" in those chapters.
Early in the Didache we encounter a familiar saying that is expressed in an unfamiliar way to Christian ears. There we meet with what has often been called the "Negative Golden Rule." Didache 1:2b states: "As many things as you wish not to happen to you, likewise, do not do to another." While this is certainly similar to Jesus' statement in Matt. 7:12, in that familiar verse it is expressed positively. There is, however, a pre-Christian history to this piece of ethical advice. Tobit's advice to his son in 4:15 "And what you hate, do not do to anyone" expresses a similar thought. Furthermore, the famous dictum of Hillel to the inquiring Gentile in Talmud Babli Shabbat 31a also sounds very similar to Didache 1:2b: "That which is harmful to you, do not do to another."
Did the Didachist deliberately alter the Dominical saying in accord with Jewish tradition or could this be an example of a genuine agraphon—an unwritten saying of Jesus? We simply do not know, but we should recognize that this is a further example of the very Jewish character of the Didache, even in its Christian dress.
One of the most perplexing statements in the Didache has been often noted by scholars who have pondered over the source that the Didachist cites. It comes at the end of chapter one, concluding a previously noted passage that encourages giving, with many sayings similar to the Sermon on the Mount (1:3-5). Didache
1:6 then states, "But also, concerning this, on the other hand, it has been said:
'Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give it'.". This appears to be a warning against indiscriminate almsgiving, with the worthiness of the potential alms-receiver as being very important to recognize before the alms-giver acts. Many commentators have noted a similar sentiment expressed in Sirach 12:1: "If you do good, know to whom you do it, and you will be thanked for your good deeds" (ἐὰν εὖ ποιῇς γνῶθι tive ποιεῖς καὶ ἔσται χάρις τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς σου). The wording of Sirach, however, is quite different from the way in which this dictum is quoted. The Didachist does appear to be quoting something because he uses the "citation formula" word εἴρηται----"1ἰ has been said").
I suggest that he did use Sirach but not in the way he is often understood to have done. In one of the most brilliant examples of linguistic detective work I have ever read, the Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Patrick Skehan has shown in light
The Scriptures of the Didache
of a Hebrew copy of Sirach found in the Cairo Geniza, that it is possible that an ancient scribe mistook a Hebrew word for "truth" for the same initialed word for "sweat." This misunderstanding of the original Hebrew text of Sirach could have lead to the strange translation into Greek that we read in the Didache which utilizes the Old Greek version exclusively.
There is one more piece of linguistic phenomena then helps us to see why the Didachist quoted this strange text from a non-canonical book — something that he apparently does not do anywhere else in his work. The introduction to the quotation runs like this in Greek: ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τούτου δὲ εἴρηται. The strong adversative conjunction ἀλλὰ plus the conjunction καὶ and then later another milder adversative conjunction δὲ each combine together to make a rather involved Greek construction. Elsewhere in the Didache, the adversative ἀλλὰ always introduces a strong contrast with what has gone before (see 2:5; 2:7; 3:9;
4:9; 8:2; 16:1). I suggest that the same strong adversative idea is found here.
What the Didachist is doing is to contrast the generous giving commanded by Jesus with the "tight-fisted" attitude commended by Sirach in 12:1-7, which is worth reading in its context to note its further pessimistic tone about giving to unworthy people. In addition, this verse's advice as it is quoted is totally opposite the spirit and practice of giving that is commended elsewhere in the book.
Note particularly the advice in 4:8: "You will not turn away the one in need; but you will share together all things with your brother and you will not say that such things are your own; for, if you (pl.) are partners in what is immortal, how much more [are you partners] in the mortal things?"
My conclusion is that the Didachist actually did utilize a non-canonical work and even quoted it. But he did so, not to utilize it as a positive witness to what he had just taught, but as a negative hostile witness to a behavior which he intends for his readers to avoid.
There are other possible echoes of Sirach in the book. Some of these were noted as early as Bryennios' volume." He thought that Sirach 2:4 could be seen reflected in Didache 3:10; Sirach 4:5 could be seen in Didache 3:10; and Sirach
4:31 could be cited in Didache 4:6. The last of these references is the clearest example of a citation from that book of proverbial wisdom.
This is consistent with the pattern of wisdom teaching reflecting Sirach that was noted earlier. The Didachist was not alone among early Christian writers who looked for guidance to this book that did not make it into the Hebrew canon.
Summary and Conclusions We have briefly surveyed the way in which the Didachist used the canonical scriptures to transmit to Gentile believers what he believed was the teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
A few observations on particularly how he does that now follow.
1. The Didachist, while sometimes creatively re-arranging canonical material, knew that authority lay in those scriptures, not in himself. There are no attempts to present himself as a channel of divine revelation.
He looked to the
The Scriptures of the Didache inspired scriptures of the Old Testament and to the words of Jesus for help in transmitting that "teaching."
2. The Didachist was aware of Matthew's Gospel (in its earliest form) and used it freely. He did not hesitate to adapt some of the words of Jesus by arranging them in an order to effectively argue his point of ethical paranesis.
It appears, however, that even when he did re-arrange material, he always remained consistent with the authorial intent of those passages.
3. The Didachist used various sections of the OT, especially the "Law" and the "Prophets," although not extensively.
It appears that he knew and used that form of the Greek text which we know as the Septuagint. The LXX, as was the case with most of the NT writers and the vast majority of Patristic writers, was his Bible, along with the words of Jesus in the "Gospel of the Lord."
4. From the OT passages that he used, it does not appear that the Didachist employed the allegorical method that became popular in the early second century, as is exemplified by the Epistle of Barnabas. While he did not hesitate to see a change from literal sacrifices under the Old Covenant to spiritual sacrifices under the New, in this he was consistent with the practice of New Testament writers, although he was unaware of most of those writings. He follows, therefore, a redemptive historical hermeneutic in seeing progression in meaning, but not an authorially intended allegorizing of the OT passages so that they had a hidden meaning different than the historical grammatical meaning that they conveyed when they were written.
5. The paradigmatic pattern of citations, quotations, allusions and echoes mentioned earlier as ways in which NT writers referenced the Old appears also to be the pattern in which the Didachist used the authoritative scripture available to him. Examples of each of those ways of referring to authoritative scripture can be found in the little book. By citing authoritative scripture, the Didache accomplished what it set out to do—to provide a faithful record to the Gentiles of the teaching of the apostles.