SUPPLEMENTSTO THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE IN THE TEACHING OF

Formerly Philosophia Patrum THE TWELVE APOSTLES
TEXTS AND STUDIES OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LIFE
AND LANGUAGE
BY

EDITORS

A.F.J. KLIJN - J. DEN BOEFT - G. QUISPEL

CLAYTON N. JEFFORD
J.H. WASZINK _ J.C.M. VAN WINDEN

VOLUME XI

W W

E.J . BR ILL
.
LEIDEN NEW YORK . K@BENHAVN. KOLN
1989
 To TWO INSPIRATIONS:

MY MOTIIER
MY WIFE

Library of CongressCataloging-in-PublicationData

Jefford, Clayton N.
The sayingsof Jesusin the Teachingof the Twelve Apostles / by
Clayton N. Jefford.
p. cm. - (Supplementsto Vigiliae Christianae,ISSN
0920-623X ; v. ll)
Thesis(Ph.D.) - Claremont GraduateSchool, 1988.
Includesbibliographical references.
ISBN 9flX091270
l. Didache.2. JesusChrist - Words. 3. Bible. O.T. Matthew - Sources.
L Title. II. Series.
BS2940.T5J,{41989
270.1 - dc20 LISfIA{iJ! 89-37998
UESION SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY CIP
99 BRATTLE STREET
q. i]?i,1:i
cAMSRtD6E- [rAt

ISSN 0920-623X
ISBN 90 M A9N7 O

@ Copyright 1989by E.J. Brill, The Netherlonds

All rights reserved.No part of this book moy be reproduced or
translated in any torm, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche
or any other mesns without written permission from the publisher
PRINTED IN THE NETIIERLANDS BY E.J. BRILL
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgements XI
List of Abbreviations... xm

I. Introduction
The New Problem of the Didache I
The Role of Date and Sourcesin Contemporary Studies:A Review of
Modern Research 3
The FrenchSchoolof Thought...... 4
The German School of Thought 7
The British/AmericanSchoolof Thought ll
Thesisand Objectives 17
Considerationsof Methodology 19

II. Reviewof Texts 22

Didachel.l: The Two Ways 22
Introduction 22
Comparisonof Sources 24
A Question of Baptismal Practices 26
Conclusions 28/
Didache1.2: The Way of Life 29
Comparison of Sources 29
The Questionof a Tradition 3t
The Love of God (Didachel.2a) . 3l
The Love of Neighbor(Didachel.2b).. 32
The Golden Rule (Didachel.2c) 33
A Suggestionfrom the Matthean Gospel 33/
Conclusions 37/
Didachel.3b-2.1: PositiveAdmonitions. . . . . 38
Introduction 38
Comparisonof Sourcesfor l.3b-4 39
Evidenceof a Matthean Tradition 43
Analysisof 1.5 48
Analysisof 1.6 5l
Conclusions s2/
Didache2.2-7:The Law . 53
Introduction 53
Comparisonof Sourcesfor 2.2-3 55
VIII CONTENTS IX CONTENTS

Analysisof 2.2-5 56 On Fasting 137

Analysisof 2.6-7 )t On Prayer 137
"'SignificantParallelsOutsideof the SynopticGospels 60 On Table Fellowship 138
y' Conclusions... 6l C h r i s t o l o g y i nP e r s p e c t i v e . . . . l4l
Didache3: A Fenceto the Law (Part l)..... 63 Summary of Conclusions 142
Introduction 63
Analysisof 3.1-6 63 Appendix A: Q 13:23-24 (Matt 7:13-14/Luke 13:23-24) 146
Analysisof 3.8-10 69 Appendix B: Table of Sources for the Didache 160
"'Conclusions.. . . 70
Didache3.7: The Meek . It SelectedBibliography 162
Comparisonof Sources IJ

Psalm37:lla t3 Index of Texts . l7l

Matthew5:5 .. . t) Index of Authors 17,9
Barnabas19.4. . 77 General Index. 182
D i d a c h e3 . 7. . . 78
'.1'bonclusions..... 80
Didache4-5: A Fenceto the Law (Part 2) 8l
Didache16: The Little Apocalypse. 85
Summaryof Conclusions .. .. 90

III. RelatedInvestigations
.... . 93
The Witness from Pauline Tradition 93
The Text of Didache6 . . .. . 93
The ApostolicDecreeof Acts 15 .... 96
A New Construction:The Role of World-View .. 98
Introduction 98
Analysisof l-5(6) 99
Analysisof 7-10 r03
Analysisof l1-15 108
Analysisof 16 and l.3b-2.1 113
Conclusions 115
The Question of a Community Hierarchy ll8
The MattheanCommunity.... ll8
The Enigma of the Didache 123
Further Elementsin the Reconstructionof a Community. . 129
What is Known from the M Source. 130
Common Elementsand Perspectives . 132
From Jew to Gentile 133
Words and Phrases 135
The Witnessof Ritual and Tradition. . . . . 135
On Ritual Immersion 136
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sinceno book is written in a vacuum,there are numerouspersonsto whom

I would like to expressmy appreciationfor their guidance,encouragement,
assistance and patiencein the completionof this volume. My initial interest
in the literatureof the ApostolicFathersand its implicationsfor the studyof
the New Testamentfirst was spawnedby my mentor at Southeastern Baptist
TheologicalSeminaryin Wake Forest, NC, the late Professor John E. Steely.
I am indeptedto his inspirationfor my continuedwork in thesefields.Also,
I would like to thank ProfessorJamesE. Goehring,who directedmy first
seriousstudy of the Didacheat The ClaremontGraduateSchool in Clare-
mont, CA. His influenceupon this text remainsprominent,despitehis even-
tual departureto Mary WashingtonCollegein Fredericksburg,VA.
The presentvolumewasconceivedand producedto serveasmy dissertation
for the Ph.D. degree,which I receivedfrom The ClaremontGraduateSchool
in 1988.I am grateful for the time and efforts of thosescholarswho served
as my committeeadvisorsin that task: ProfessorJamesM. Robinson(chair-
person)and ProfessorKarenJ. Torjesenof The ClaremontGraduateSchool,
ProfessorJamesA. Sandersof the Schoolof Theologyat Claremontand Pro-
fessorKaren L. King of OccidentalCollegein Los Angeles,CA.
I owe a specialgratitudeto ProfessorTorjesenfor her encouragement to
seeka wider audiencefor the manuscript.Also, specialthanksare due to Mr.
J. G. Deahlof E. J. Brill for his technicalassistance in the processof publica-
tion.
Finally, I wish to thank my family for their patienceand encouragement
throughoutthe yearsthat I neglectedthem in order to obtain my doctorate
in religiousstudies.My specialthanks go to the two personsto whom this
book is dedicated:my wife, Susan,and my mother, Beth. They continually
havesupportedmy thoughtsand aspirations,both with their spiritual guid-
anceand economicassistance. The currentvolumewould not havebeenpossi-
ble without their own unique and individual contributions.

CreyroN N. Jsrronn
The ClaremontGraduateSchool
Claremont,California, USA
January1989
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PRIMARY SOURCES

'Aboth R. Nat. Sayingsof Rabbi Nathan

AC Apostolic Constitutions
2-3 APoc. Bar. Syriac, Greek Apocalypseof Baruch
Apoc. Pet. Apocalypseof Peter
Athan. eP. fest. Athanasiusof Alexandria, epistulorum festivalium frogmenta
Bar Baruch
Barn. Epistle of Barnabas
b. Bek. Babylonian Talmud, tractate Bekorot
b. Hul. Babylonian Talmud, fiactate l.Iullin
b. Sukk. Babylonian Talmud, tractateSukko
Cic. tusc. Cicero, dispu tat io nes tuscuIanae
Clem. paed. Clement of Alexandria, poedagogus
Clem. protr. Clement of Alexandria, protrepticus
Clem. sfr. Clement of Alexandria, stromsteis
l-2 Clem. l-2 Clement
Col Colossians
l-2 Cor 1-2 Corinthians
Deut Deuteronomy
Did. Didache
Dida. Didascalia
Dor. doct. Dorotheus Abbas, doctrinae diversae
Dor. ep. Dorotheus Abbas, epistulae
Eccl Ecclesiastes
Ep. Arist. Epistle of Aristeas
Eph Ephesians
l-2 Esdr l-2 Esdras
Exod Exodus
Gal Galatians
Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas
H Hierosolymitanus54 (Creek version of the Didache)
Herm. Man, Shepherdof Hermas, tractate Mandates
Herm. Sim. Shepherdof Hermas, tractate Similitudes
Herm. Vis. Shepherdof Hermas, tractate Visions
Hipp. trod. ap. Hippolytus, traditio apostolica
Hos Hosea
Iren. haer. Irenaeus,adversushaereses
Isa Isaiah
Jer Jeremiah
Jos. .4"/ Flavius Joseph\s, antiquitotesjudaicae
Josh Joshua
Just. dial. Justin Martyr, diologuscum tryphonejudaeo
Jrst. l-2 apol. Justin Martyr, apologiae
KO Church Ordinances
L Doctrina apostolorum (Latin version of the Didache)
Lev Leviticus
LXX Septuagint
M SpecialMatthean source
l-2 Macc l-2 Maccabees
XIY ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS xv

Mort. Pol. Martyrdom of Polycarp CNT Commentairedu NouveauTestament

Matt Gospel of Matthew CQ Church Quarterly
Mek. Bah. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, tractate Bahodesh csco.c Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Scriptorescoptici
Mic Micah CSJCA University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and
MT Masoretic Text Christianity in Antiquity.
NT New Testament EBib Etudes bibliques
Orig. prin. Origen, de principiis EF EuropiiischesForum
OT Old Testament EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
l-2 Pet l-2 Peter Exp The Expositor
Phil Philippians FRLANT Forschungenzur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Philo decal. Philo Judaeus, de decalogo Testaments
POxy Oxyrhynchus papyrus FV Foi et Vie
Prov Proverbs FzB Forschungzur Bibel
Ps(s) Psalm(s) HTKNT Herders theologischerKommentar zum NeuenTestament
Ps-Clem. hom. Pseudo-Clementine homilies (homiliae C lementinae\ HTR Harvard Theological Review
a Sayings Gospel Q ICSR International Conferencefor the Sociologyof Religion
IQS Qumran Rule of the Community (Manual of Discipline) JSJ Journal for the Study of fudaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and
4QpPs Psalm Scroll of Qumran Cave 4 Roman Period
Rom Romans JTS Journal of Theological Studies
Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles KIT KleineTexte fiir Vorlesungenund Ubungen
Sir Sirach KNT Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
T. Asher Testament of Asher LCL Loeb ClassicalLibrary
T. Benj. Testament of Benjamin LEC Library of Early Christianity
T. Dan. Testament of Dan NovT Novum Testamentum
T. Gad Testament of Gad NovTSup Novum Testamentum,Supplements
T. Isa. Testament of Isaac NTAbh NeutestamentlicheAbhandlungen
7- 1ss. Testament of Issachar NTD Das Neue TestamentDeutsch
T. 12 Patr. Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs NTS New TestamentStudies
Tert. virg. vel. Tertullian, de virginibus velandis Nrs New Testqment Studies
l-2 Thes 1-2 Thessalonians oBo Orbis biblicus et orientalis
1-2Tim 1-2 Timothy PEQ Polestine Exploration Quarterly
Tob Tobit PETSE Papersof the Estonian TheologicalSocietyin Exile
Wis Wisdom of Solomon PFLUS Publicationsde la facult6 des letters de I'universit€ de Strasbourg
Zech Zechariah RB Revue biblique
RelSRev Religious Studies Review
SECONDARY SOURCES
RM Die Religionender Menschheit
RNT RegensburgerNeuesTestament
AASF Annales academiae scientiarum Fennica sAW Studienheftezur Altertumswissenschaft
AB The Anchor Bible SBLDS Societyof Biblical Literature DissertationSeries
AF The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
AnBib Analecta biblica SBT Studiesin Biblical Theology
AndRev Andover Review SC Sourceschr6tienne
ATR Anglican Theological Review SD Studiesand Documents
BBET Beitriige zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie SecCent The SecondCenturJ
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium SGKA Studienzur Ceschichteund Kultur des Altertums
Bess Bessarione SKK.NT StuttgarterKleiner Kommentar. Neuen Testament
BFCT Beitriige zur Fcirderung christlicher Theologie SNTSMS Society for New TestamentStudiesMonograph Series
Bib Biblica StPatr Studia Patristica
Bibs(F) Biblische Studien (Freiburg) Str-B [H. Strack andl P. Billerbeck, Kommentar des Neuen Testament
Bibs(N) Biblische Studien (Neukirchen, l95l- ) SVTG SeptuagintaVetus TestamentumGraecum
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylonds University Library of Manchester TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), TheologicalDictionary of the New
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Testament
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra Theoph. Theophaneia.Beitragezur Religions-und Kirchengeschichte des
BU Biblische Untersuchungen Altertums
CBQ Cat holic Biblical Quorterly THKNT TheologischerHandkommentarzum NeuenTestament
CHS Protocol of the Colloquy of the Center for Hermeneuticul Studies in TQ Theolog ische Quart alschrifl
Hellenistic and Modern Culture
XVI ABBREVIATIONS

TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur

UNT Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
wBc Word Biblical Commentary CHAPTER ONE
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZBNT Ziiricher Bibelkommentare Neues Testament INTRODUCTION
ZNW Zeitschrift filr neutestamentliche Wissenschoft
ZTK Zeitschrift fi)r Theologie und Kirche
The New Problem of the Didsche
English quotations of the Bible come from The New Oxford Annototed Bible, edited by Herbert
G. May and Bruce M. Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973). English quotations The discoveryof the Greektext of the Didache( = H) by ArchbishopBryen-
from the Didache are based upon The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Kirsopp Lake (LCL, no.
nios in 1873occurredat a time when biblical scholarshipwas beginningto
24/l;Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, l9l2; London: william Heinemann, l9l2)3o3-
33. Sigla for standard biblical manuscript references are taken from the Novum Testamentum assumethe reins of its own destiny.As the emergence of twentieth-century
Groece, edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (26th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, "criticisms" loomed imminently upon the horizon, scholarswere poisedto
t9'79\.
transcendthe restrictionsthat dogmaticshad imposedupon biblical scholar-
ship for centuriesand to open themselves to a new arenain which scripture
could be evaluated,both with respectto textual integrityand with respectto
historicalwitness.
In the faceof suchpromise,a generationof scholarsheld a uniqueadvan-
tagewithin their disciplinethat eventuallywould be lost as the world of bibli-
cal studiesexpandedand segmented itself into specializedfields. On the one
hand, biblical prepared
scholars to evaluatethe canonapart from the restric-
tions and apart from the rigors of contemporaryecclesiastical politics;on the
otherhand,they remainedthe pupilsand the productof a tradition which em-
phasizedthat researchinto the primitive church wasto be at onceboth biblical
in orientationand ecclesialin scope.Indeed,such academicians maintained
the broad perspectivethat existedfor thoseto whom the study of scripture
was not to be undertakenwithout someconsiderationof early church struc-
tures and of sociologicaldevelopment- they wereat onceboth studentsof
biblical studiesand studentsof patristic investigations.
Among the primary contributionsto the fervor of the agewerethe discov-
eriesof papyri in Egypt that offered freshglimpsesof earlyGreco-Romanlife
and the socialbackgroundofthe nascentchurch.I The "modern" perception
of the history and of the theologyof early Christianity,which previouslyhad
beenconstructedthrough the narrow "glasses"of the Church Fathers,now
wasinfusedwith freshinsightsand considerations that could havearisenonly
throughan uncensored perspectiveofantiquity. It wasin this "age ofexpecta-
tion" that the Didacheappeared.But unlike many of the papyri that were
discoveredduring the mid-nineteenthto the mid-twentiethcenturies,the Di-
dachewasa documentthat bore directlyupon the situationof a specificearly
Christiancommunity.
' For representative
on the statusof papyrological
discussions discoveries
and their application
to biblicalstudies,seeTurner, Papyri, l7-53, 154-71;Roberts,Manuscript,passim;and, White,
Letters,3-20.
 CHAPTER ONE
Scholarsthuswelcomedthe opportunityto evaluatethe text of the Didache,
not only with respectto its witnessto the biblical tradition, but also with
respectto its witnessto the structureof the earlychurch.And to both of these
researcharenasthe Didachehad much to offer. Unfortunately, however,the
late nineteenth-centuryview of the early church milieu was far from complete,
and the enigmaticnature of the Didacheperhapsoffered as much confusion
as it offered assistance to the reconstructionof apostolicand post-apostolic
congregations.This confusionis evidentat once in the variously-divergent
datesand historiesfor the text that wereproffered by scholarsaround the turn
of the century. In many respects,the newly "rediscovered"Didachewas a
"discovery that was aheadof its time" - a documentthat was eminently
suited for the instruction of modern biblical scholarsand church historians,
yet was too much an "enigmatic" (a "unique") documentation of early
Christian existenceto assistin any definitive understandingof the primitive
church.
Two primary issueshaveled to this modern characterizationof the Didache
as a somewhatsingular witnessto the early church: the question of date and
the questionof origin (or provenance).While theseissuescontinually are
acknowledged"in passing" by thosewho have attemptedto decipherthe Di-
dache,and whiletheseissuesperiodicallyhavereceiveddiscussionin thoseex-
tended volumesthat are devotedto the nature and to the background of the
text, most contemporaryscholarshave attemptedto examinevarious aspects
of the text under the assumptionthat such questionsalready have been re-
solved in a definitive manner. Other inquiries that are associatedwith the
Didache always remain available for would-be studentswho would launch
critical investigationsof the text. Thus, recent scholars consistently have
chosen to examine questionsthat are related to sources,textual integrity,
Christology, Jewish and Hellenistic motifs and terminology, thematic pat-
terns, etc. Each of these studies,however,has been devotedin the final
analysisto an examinationof the Didachethat is basedupon the recognition
that a previous generationof researchershas resolvedthe questionsof date
and of milieu, when in fact, no "objective" and conclusivedeterminationfor
thesequestionsever has been achieved.
To compound the dilemma, the confusion among nineteenth-century
scholarswith respectto the questionsof date and of origin for the Didache
was inherited by their students,who themselvesbecamethe biblical and
patristic scholarsof the early- and mid-twentiethcentury. The onsetof source
criticism, form criticism and redactioncriticism in turn offered thesestudents
an opportunity to examinethe text of the Didachein a more exactingmanner,
apart from the needto persistin the resolutionof the questionsof date and
of origin. such issuesbeganto receivelessattention,therebyto producea
generationof studentsof the text who haveassumedthat thesequestionswere
INTRODUCTION
resolved at some point in former days, or at worst, are the subject of tacit
agreementwithin scholarship. At best, the text has been well-researchedunder
the aegis of new methodologies, while many foundational issues have re-
mained unresolved to any definitive degree.
The eventual result of this progressivehistory of modern examinations into
the Didache has been an unfortunate loss of interest in this fascinating text
by "the students of the students of the scholars" who first examined the
writing at the turn of the century. From the beginning this has been based
upon the mistaken assumptions either that all of the problems were resolved
long ago or that the text is of such an enigmatic nature that it has little to offer
any contemporary biblical scholar who is grounded in the quest for historical
accuracy. In reality, however, the past one hundred years of research by
biblical and patristic scholars have led to a more solid foundation upon which
definitive statements with regard to the text of the Didache can be made. It
is from thesestudies and their findings (though not necessarilyfrom their con-
clusions) that some postulations concerning the date and the origin of the
Didache now can be advanced.
The Role of Date and Sourcesin Contemporary Studies:
A Review of Modern Research
The centralaxisaroundwhich scholarlyassumptions concerningboth the date
and the origin of the Didachehave been constructedis that of the sayings
materialswhich are preservedin the text. Specifically,scholarshavestruggled
to identify the relationshipbetweenthe SynopticGospels,and, more recently,
the growth of the Synoptic tradition, with the sayingsof Jesusthat are
reflectedprimarily in chaps.l-5 and l6 of the Didache.Thosescholarswho
would view the Didacheas a product of the first-centurychurchmust explain
by necessitythe nature of thesesayingsas a strain (tradition?)of materials
that is divergentfrom the sayingsthat are preservedin the Synoptictradition.
Thosescholarswho would viewthe Didacheasthe productof the earlysecond
throughthe fourth centuriesmustexplainthe sayingsasan awkwardrendition
of someform of the NT Gospelsthat we now possess.
In order to datethesesayingsmaterials,it has becomenecessary for many
scholarsto engagein a form of circular thinking. From the outset, most
reviewersof the Didachehavepostulateda date for the sayingsthat is based
upon the nature of the attendantecclesialand liturgical materialsthat one
finds elsewhere within the text. Thus, the dateof the sayings,and subsequent-
ly the suggested provenanceof the community from which the text derived
(when such speculationindeed is attempted),is justified accordingto the
nature of the materialsthat appearin chaps.7-15 of the text, which them-
selvesunquestionably comefrom the lateststagesin the compositionalhistory
 CHAPTER ONE
of the writing. Suchmaterialscan provide a terminusante quem at best.They
shedlittle light upon the earliestform of the text. Rarely are the sayingsex-
amined and then dated accordingto their own merits, and rarely is the nature
of that community which produced the Didache judged according to the
traditio-historical and sociologicalparametersunder which thesesayingsma-
terials appeared. This is unfortunate, since these sayings traditionally are
acknowledgedto be among the oldest portions of the text.
Before we attempt to rectify this "methodological misconception" in the
study of those sayingsmaterialsthat are preservedin the Didache, it is
necessaryto review former attemptsto engagethe text. Conveniently, these
attemptsmay be classifiedinto threedominantschoolsof thought, i.e., asap-
proachesthat align themselvesaccordingto the three dominant languagesof
the primary individual researchers.2
The French Schoolof Thought
The first French scholarof record to examinethe Didachewas Paul Sabatier,
whosework AIAAXH TQN IB' AUODTOAQN: La Didachi ou L'enseigne-
ment des douze apdtres (1885)argued that the Didache was composedat an
unknown location in Syria around the middle of the first century.3Sabatier
soughtto datethe text accordingto the following guidelines:the catechetical
tradition, which differed from that of the Synoptics;the simplistic rites of
baptismand eucharist;the dependenceof the ecclesiastical chargeupon spirit-
ual gifts; the clearly-definedeschatologicalexpectation;and, the Jewishchar-
acter of the document.In eachof theseguidelineshe found evidenceof the
primitive church in its first stagesof evolution. Sabatierenvisionedthe
Didacheas an ancientecclesiastical manual that arosein responseto the needs
of practical disciplineprior to the composition both of the Synoptic Gospels
and of the lettersof Paul. Accordingto Sabatier,it is for this reasonthat the
sayingsin the text seemto differ from thosewhich are preservedin the Synop-
tic tradition
while much of what sabatierobservedwith respectto the early liturgical
traditions in the Didache also was recognizedboth by English-speaking
scholarsand by their German-speakingcounterparts,his dating of the text
was not widely accepted.The next major examinationof the Didacheto be
spawnedfrom within the French tradition rejectedSabatier'sdating, and
adheredto the view that the sayingsmaterialsin the Didacheweredependent
2 As has beennoted
above, the following Forschungsberichtis concernedprimarily with the
scholarlyconsiderationsof the questionsof date and of provenancefor the Didache.For an ex-
cellentsupplementalreviewof the text from the perspectiveof form- and redaction-criticalissues,
see-Kloppenborg,..Sayings,"4_23.
' Sabatier,
Didachi, 150-65.
INTRODUCTION
directly upon the Matthean Gospel - a scholarly perspectivethat had
achievedgeneral recognition by the early twentieth century. In his noted
monograph Influence de I'Evangile de saint Matthieu sur Ia littirature chri-
fienneavantsaint lrinde (1950),which was devotedpainstakinglyto this hy-
pothesis,EdouardMassauxinsistedthat the Didachistknew of the Matthean
Gospel,both in its useof the sayingsthat wereattributedto Jesusand in its
reflectionof early Christianmoral instruction.aMassauxproposedthat the
Sermonon the Mount wasa specialsourceof interestfor the Didachist,whose
useof rd e0ayy6l,rov("the Gospel")throughoutthe text wasto be considered
as a direct referenceto the MattheanGospelitself. He concludedin his final
analysisthat the Didachemust be seenas an apologeticdocumentfrom the
period of Justin, a documentthat wasconstructedas a catecheticalrecapitula-
tion of the Matthean text.
Without question,the most influentialof the Frenchscholarsto undertake
work upon the Didachewas Jean-PaulAudet, who attackedthe hypothesis
that the Didachewas dependentupon the Synoptics.In certain respects,he
returnedto many of the assumptionsthat had beenespousedby Sabatier.In
his massivecommentaryupon the Didache, entitled La Didachi: Instructions
des apdtres (1958), Audet sought to divide the text into three redactional
levels.5The earliestof theselevelsderivedfrom a time beforethe appearance
of the first written gospel.The redactorof this earliestlevelalsowasresponsi-
ble for the secondlevel of the text, which itself indicatessomeknowledgeof
a gospelthat was similar to that of the Matthean Gospel. The final level of
redactionwas a seriesof interpolationsthat were derived from severalgospel
sources,though the current effect of "harmonization" that appearsin the
Greek version of the Didache must be attributed to a later stagein the
transmissionof the text (represented now by the text of H), and should not
be attributed to the interpolator.6
Audet basedmany of his views concerningthe Didache upon the recently
discoveredmanuscriptsfrom the Qumran area. It was from this corpus of
distinctly sectarianliterature that he traced themesand motifs which were
paralleledin the Didache.T In a partial return to the conclusionsof Sabatier
(and in a completereversalof the positionof Massaux),Audet attributedthe
earliestmaterialsin the Didacheto the first half of the first century,sincethe
literary and the doctrinal affinities betweenthe text of the Didacheand the
materialsof Qumran were so predominant.By the sametoken, the sayings
" Massaux,Influence, 3-6, 647-55.
5 The levels
that weredelineatedby Audet (Didachi, 104-20)are as follows: Dr = l.l-3a;2.2-
2 ;z = l l . 3 - 1 3 . 2 ;1 4 . l - 1 6 . 8I ; = l . 3 b - 2 . 16; . 2 - 3 ; 1 . 2 - 4 : 1 3 . 53 -, 7 .A u d e tc o n -
5 . 2 ; 7 . 1 ; 8 . 1 - 1 1 .D
cludedthat l.4a and 13.4wereevenlater interpolationsto the text.
6 Audet, Didochd, 187-210.
? See
for example,Audet, "Affinitds litteraires," 2lg-38
 CIIAPTER ONE
materials that were preservedin the Didache clearly were distinct from the
sayingstradition that is found in the Synoptics,accordingto Audet, though
certain parallels with the Matthean Gospel seem to indicate that the two
writings may have stemmedfrom the samegeneralmilieu, i.e., the region of
Antioch.
Twelve yearsafter Audet's monumental contribution, StanislasGiet pub-
lishedL'inigme de la Didachd (1970),which relied heavily upon the extensive
researchof the Frenchtradition and upon the conclusionsof Audet. Giet's ef-
forts were directed toward specific methodologicalapproachesto the Dida-
che, as well as toward the determinationof internal structureswithin the text.
From theseanalyseshe concurredwith Sabatierand with Audet in their recog-
nition of the primitive elementswithin the materials,particularly in compari-
son with the writings of the NT. In his argumentsfor an early date of
composition, he too placed the text in Syria.E
The latest developmentconcerningthe Didachethat has arisenfrom within
the arenaof Frenchthoughte is the recentcommentaryby Willy Rordorf and
Andr€ Tuilier, La doctrine des douze ap6tres (1978).r0 This study is largely
an attempt to refine the text of the Didache that was establishedpreviously
by Audet. Rordorf and Tuilier date the text upon a terminus ante quem,
which they recognizeto be the final chaptersof the text, i.e., chaps.14-16.
They concludewith Audet that the composition of the text must have been
undertakenwithin the first century, primarily becauseof the primitive nature
of the regulationsand of the early ecclesiasticalmaterials that are found in
thesefinal chapters.While they find it difficult to believethat the work de-
rived from an Antiochene origin, they do agreewith the generalview of the
Frenchschoolof thoughtthat the text shouldbe attributedto westernSyria.rr
A review of the researchthat has derived from French examinationsof the
Didacherevealsthe continual return to a centralunderstandingofthe text: the
materialsof the Didache and their composition both are early and probably
can be attributed to the first century; the provenanceis most likely that of
Syria, and possiblyis evenAntioch itself. while the tone for the standard
Frenchargumentwas established beforethe turn of the centuryby the work
of sabatier, the work of Massaux alone stands apart from this uniform
understandingof the date and of the origin of the text. Ultimately, however,
8 Giet,L'cnigme,257-65.
For a more recent,thoughbrief, statementof Giet,sapproach,see
Giet, "L'6nigme," 84-94.
e The volume is classified
here by languageand by the predominantinfluenceof the French
School, though the authors themselvesare Swiss.
r0 Rordorf and
Tuilier, La doctrine, g3_101.
rr see also, Tuilier,
"Une nouvelle6dition," 3l-36, and Rordorf, ..Une nouvelle6dition,,,
26-30.
INTRODUCTION
the contributionsof Audet have servedwithout questionas the primary in-
fluenceupon subsequentFrenchconclusions12 in this area of research.
The German School of Thought
Among the more important studiesof the text of the Didachethat wereunder-
taken after the publicationof Bryennios'editio princepsin 1883werethose
examinationswhich investigatedthe text from the position of source-critical
analysis.The undisputedleaderin this early approachto the Didachewas
Adolf Harnack, who quickly respondedto Bryennioswith the volume Dre
Lehre der zwtilf Apostel nebst Untersuchungenzur iiltesten Geschichte der
Kirchenverfassungund des Kirchenrechts(1884). In his quest to establisha
literary foundation of sourcesfor the Didache, Harnack identified four texts,
which he believedto be the basis for those materials that were preservedin
H: the Old Testament;a gospelharmony(: The Gospelof the Egyptians);the
Epistleof Barnabas;and, the Shepherdof Hermas.13With thesefour sources
in view, Harnack felt assuredin his conclusionsthat the text should be dated
to 120-165,a time which fell shortly after the composition of all four texts,
yet was early enoughto influence subsequentstrains of developingChristian
literary traditions. He attributed the text to Egypt.ra
Severalimportant studiesaccompaniedthe appearanceof Harnack's exten-
sivemonographin 1884.An influential article by Adam Krawutzcky ("Ueber
die sog. Zwcilfapostellehre,ihre hauptsiichlichstenQuellenund ihre ersteAus-
nahme") also explainedthe Didacheas a text that was formulated upon Bar-
nabas, Hermas and the Duae Viae (Judicium Petri). The Didachist's gospel
source,however,was assumedto be the Gospelof the Hebrews.With the
evidenceof such written sources,Krawutzcky, like Harnack, assignedthe
Didacheto a date shortly after the middle of the secondcentury.l5 Adolf
Hilgenfeld (Novum Testamentumextra canonemreceptum)also agreedthat
the text should be dated during the period of 120-160,though he only placed
its origin within Asia Minor generally.Hilgenfeld speculatedthat the Didache
servedas a transitional link betweenBarnabas and AC 7, and further, that
the text was usedby the Montanists.16F.X. Funk ("Die Doctrina Apostolo-
rum"), who rejectedthe foundationsof Hilgenfeld's "Montanist theory,"
opted againstthe opinionsof his many Germancolleagues, and, consequent-
ly, he cameinto agreementmore with subsequentFrench and British/Ameri-
12The work
of Audet also is evidentas an influential building-block within the German and
British/American schoolsof research.
13 Harnack, Lehre, 76-80.
ra Harnack, Lehre, 168-70.
15Krawutzcky,
"Zw6lfapostellehre," 585.
16Hilgenfeld, Novum Testamentum,
88-94.
 CHAPTER ONE
can thought. He assignedthe text to the first century,prior to the composition
of Barnabas. He too placed the origination of the Didache in the area of
Egypt. 17Finally, Theodor Zahn, one of the finest scholarsof patristic studies
at the turn of the century, likewise assignedthe text to an Egyptian prove-
nancein his Forschungenzur Geschichtedesneutestamentlichen Kqnons und
der altkirchtichen Literotur.r8 He dated the work, however, to a period be-
tweenthe years80-130.This date, which hasbeenreflectedagainin more re-
re
cent yearsby Hans Lilje (Die Lehre der zwdlf Apostet [956]), basicallyhas
establishedthe standard for current investigations of the text within the
scholarlycommunity.
While Harnack continued in subsequentpublicationsto maintain his belief
that the Didache was dependentin part upon someform of gospelharmony
(Realencyktopiidiefilr protestantische Theologie und Kirche [1896]),20G.
Wohlenbergargued, instead,that the Didachist was aware of numerousNT
texts, which included the Pauline epistles(Die Lehre der zwdlf Apostel in
ihrem Verhiiltniszum neutestamentlichen Schrifttum I18881).Basedupon his
contention that the Didachewas composedat the beginningof the canoniza-
tion of the NT, Wohlenbergplacedthe origin of the text to l00-l10. Again,
he agreedupon an Egyptian provenance.2t
The basicelementsof date and of provenance(i.e., early second-century
Egypt) that weresuggestedin Harnack's seminalwork upon the Didachewere
firmly in place within German scholarshipby the turn of the century. Based
upon Harnack's presuppositions,German scholars began to examine the
Didachefrom the perspectiveof non-Greekliterary sourcesand in light of the
liturgical traditions that appearedwithin the text. Such studiesincluded the
researchof L.E. Iselin, who examinedthe form of the Two Ways motif that
is preservedin the Life of Schnudi(Eine bisher unbekannteVersiondesersten
Teilesder "Apostellehre" [895]), JosephSchlecht'sreview of the Greek and
Latin traditions in the early church (Die Apostellehre in der Liturgie der
katholischenKirche [901]), Leo Wohleb's study of the Latin text (Die latei-
nische Ubersetzungder Didache tl9l3l) and eventually, Carl Schmidt's ex-
amination of the Coptic fragment of the Didache text ("Das koptische
Didache-Fragmentdes British Museum" 11925D.22 Finally, Gregor Peradse
("Die 'Lehre der zwcilf Apostel' in der georgischenUberlieferung" ll932l)
r7 Funk,
"Doctrina Apostolorum," 381-85.
t8 Zahn, Forschun*en.
278-89.
'e Lille,
Lehre, 14-15.
20 Harnack,
Realencykloptidie,1.727: and also,Geschichte.1.88 (wherehe givesmore credit
to the role of the Matthean Gospelin the composition of the text of the Didache).
2r wohlenberg,
Lehre, 9l-94.
" On this last subject, also seeBenigne, "Didach6 Coptica," 3ll-29; and Horner, "Frag-
ment," 225-31,upon whoseanalysisSchmidtwas dependent.Also important, though antecedent
to the work of Schmidt, is Lefort, Pires Apostoliques, ix-xv,25-34.
INTRODUCTION
published a collation from a previously unknown Georgian version of the Di-
dache against the Greek version of H - but this study has become almost
meaningless,since the Georgian reading no longer can be verified. While these
studies ultimately were important to the expansion of researchefforts into the
history and into the transmission of the Didache's basic text, they have not
contributed significantly to the primary concern of our current study, i.e., the
discussion concerning the date and the provenance of the Didache's original
composition.
In 1904 Paul Drews initiated a new discussion of the final chapter of the
Didache that attempted to show that the source of this concluding section of
the text was from the same Jewish apocalyptic source which appears in Mark
13 ("Untersuchungen zur Didache";.23 Thus, while the work of Drews con-
tributed to the developing tradition of source-critical approaches, he betrayed
the early influence of Funk, who sought to associatethe text with specific ear-
ly Christian traditions. Through his efforts, Drews noted that some influence
from Matt l0 and 24 was evident in Did. 16, which thereby suggestedthat the
Didachist used this material within a post-Synoptic milieu. This is to say that
the Didachist had certain written versions of the Synoptic Gospels which have
survived to the present. He also investigated the significance of possible con-
nections between other biblical traditions and the Didache, especially with
respect to the virtue,/vice catalogs that are shared by the Didache and the
Pauline epistles.2a
J. Leipoldt (Geschichte des neutestamentliche Konons U9071) soon re-
turned to the traditional German school of thought with his notation that
l.3b-2.1 was derived from a Matthean-Lucan harmony, a text that had cir-
culated as an independent book of sayings materials. Leipoldt focused upon
POxy 1.654and 1.655as examplesof such early books.25The unique nature
of l.3b-2.1 had been observed previously by Harnack, and with various
degreesof acceptance,the scholarly world has come to agree with the Har-
nack-Leipoldt position on this passage.Rudolf Knopf (Die Lehre der zwdA
Apostel; Die zwei Clemensbriefe tl920l) subsequently agreed that Matthean
and Lucan influence could be found throughout the Didache, though he
postulated that l.3b-2.1 might come either from a free rendering of the Syn-
optics or from an unknown collection of sayings. Knopf argued again that the
Didache probably should be dated to 100-150 and that the provenance was
Egypt.tu
By the time of Knopf's research, the German school had resigned itself
"2a Dre*s, "Untersuchungen,"68-79.
Drews, "Untersuchungen,"53-63.
25 Leipoldt, Geschichte,138.
26 Knopf, Lehre,2-4.
l0 CHAPTER ONE
primarily to the understandingthat the Didache derived from an Egyptian
provenance,and that the text had incorporatedseveralearly written sources.
Becauseof the presenceof thesesources,most scholarschoseto date the
Didache in the first half of the secondcentury. Harnack previouslyhad
alteredhis original conclusionsconcerningthe text, at which time he deter-
mined that the Didachisthad usedboth the OT and the Matthean Gospel.
Further, he arguedthat 1.3-2.1revealedtracesof eithera gospelharmonyor,
more likely, the Gospel of Peter (Geschichteder altchristlichenLiteratur bis
Eusebius[893]).2?
The greatestchallengeto the German synthesisthat was offered from
within the German school of thought itself was provided in the Habilita-
tionsschrift of Helmut Kcister (Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostoli-
schen Viitern tl957l). Kcisterargued that the Didache, in addition to the
generalcorpusof the Apostolic Fathers,primarily was dependentupon oral
tradition. Through an analysis of form-critical considerations,Kcister
struggledto breakthe barrierthat written sourceshad imposedupon contem-
porary scholarship.From his examinationshe concludedthat while three
(possiblyfive) passagesin the text of the Didacherevealthe specificinfluence
of the Matthean Gospel, almosteightypercentof the materialswerederived
from an independenttradition, from the OT andlor Judaism,or from within
the earlyChristiancommunityitself.28While Kosterwasdependentto a large
extent upon previousexaminationsof the individual logia, he emphasizedthe
valueof comparisonsamongnumeroustextualparallelsfor any givensaying.
He concluded,as with thosebefore him, that l.3b-2.1 was dependentupon
someform of harmony,though he emphasized that the remainderof the text
must be consideredto be the product of the sametradition as that in which
the Synopticsarose,and not the productof the Synopticsthemselves. Koster's
conclusionsthus would date the Didacheto the time of its oral usageand to
the period in which oral traditionswerecombinedwith the written textsthat
existedwithin the community,i.e., presumablyduringthe end of the first cen-
tury or at the beginningof the secondcentury.As a methodologicaladvance
over previousGermanscholarship,Kcister'swork ultimately led to the Ger-
man capstonedate of c. 90-130.
Sincethe work of Kcister,two other important studieshaveappearedthat
shouldnot be overlooked.In 1984KlausWengstundertookan extensiveanal-
ysisof severalearly Christianwritingsin which he analyzedthe development
of textual sourcesand early traditions within the texts (Schriften des Ur-
christentums).Wengst observedthat the early traditions and the primitive
'' Harnack,
Geschichte.1.86-92.
28
.. For the specificresultsof his analysisupon the textsof the ApostolicFathers,seeKoster,
UberIieferu ng, 260 (chart).
INTRODUCTION ll
theologyof the Didachein many respectsparalleledthoseof the Matthean
Gospel. He concludedthat the Didachemust have stemmedfrom second-
century Syria.2e
Threeyearsafter the publicationof Wengst,Wolf-DietrichK<ihlerstudied
the Didachewith a more specificemphasisupon the Matthean tradition (Dre
Rezeptiondes Motthiiusevongeliumsin der Zeit vor lreniius [987]). K<ihler
concludedthat the Didache,basedupon an analysisof externalconsidera-
tions, cannotbe datedthroughits associationeitherwith Hermasor with Bar-
nabas,but only through its relationshipwith the NT corpus.With respectto
internal grounds,Ktihler followed Harnack in the recognitionthat the text
comesfrom a time betweenthe earlyroots of the Christianmovementand the
dominanceof the catholicchurch - sometimearoundthe endof the first cen-
tury and the beginningof the secondcentury.From an analysisof the tradi-
tions that are preservedin the Didache,he decidedthat the text most likely
arosein the area of Syria/Palestine,rather than in the region of Egypt.3o
While the conclusionsof Wengstand Kohler continueto datethe origin of the
Didacheto the turn of the first century(in a consistentperspectivewith the
originalview of Harnack),both authorsrepresenta shift awayfrom the typi-
cally Germanhypothesisof Egyptianprovenanceand toward an understand-
ing of the Didachein its relationshipto the MattheanGospelin Syria.3r
The British/AmericanSchoolof Thought
The researchof English-speaking scholarshas not cometo any unified con-
sensusconcerningeither the date or the provenancefor the Didache.To be
sure, there has beenlittle agreementwith the early datesthat have beenof-
fered by the French,on the one hand, and there has beena mixed response
to the Egyptian provenancethat has been offered by the Germans,on the
other. It is within both the British and the Americanrangeof perspectives that
the widestpanoramaof conclusionsregardingthe dateand the milieu for the
Didachehas beenregistered.
Among the earliestresponses in Englishto the discoveryof the Didachewas
that of F. W. Farrar ("The Bearingof the 'Teaching'on the Canon" tl884l).
Farrar arguedthat much of the Didachewas derivedfrom memory,but that
the Didachistknew portions of the NT, includingthe MattheanGospeland
probablythe Lucan Gospel.He datedthe text to the end of the first century,
2e Wengst,
Schriften,6l-63.
3o Kcihler, Rezeption, 29-30.
3r The most recent
contribution to the discussionamong the Germansis the work of Kurt
Niederwimmer,Die Didache (Kommentarin den ApostolischenVdtern, Band I), which was due
for publicationby Vandenhoeck & Ruprechtin September1988.Unfortunately,I did not have
an opportunityto examinethis particularwork prior to the publicationof rny volume.
t2 CHAPTER ONE
and assignedit to Egypt, in agreementwith the views of Harnack and Krawut-
zcky.32
Farrar was followed by severalstudies from British scholars in 1885. Philip
Schaff (The Oldest Church Monual Called the Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles) argued that the text could be placed to c. 90-100, since the Didache
seemsto reveal no knowledge of the NT canon but was used by the authors
of Barnabas and Hermas. He believedthat either Syria or Palestine (most like-
ly Jerusalem) could be likely candidates for the provenance of the text.33
Canon Spence (The Teoching of the Twelve Apostles), in agreement with the
considerations that were offered by Schaff, dated the Didache to c. 80-90. He
claimed that the unique nature of the document and the theological positions
of its teachings argued for a community of Jewish Christians as that source
from which the text derived. He chose the church at Pella, in Palestine, as this
community.3a At the end of 1885, R. D. Hitchcock and Francis Brown
prepared an in-depth revision to their earlier announcement of the Didache,
which they had published in haste the previous year (The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles). They noted the use of the OT and of the Synoptic sources
by the Didachist, though they argued that only the Matthean Gospel probably
was ever quoted - the remaining materials were cited from memory. Because
the text was used as a source both by Barnabas and by Hermas, they dated
the text to c. 100. With Farrar, they placed the composition of the Didache
ln Egypr.--
, ?s
In the following years, both British and American scholarscontributed
vigorouslyto the debateconcerningthe Didache.Among the more focused
studies of the period were two sets of lecturesby Charles Taylor (The
Teachingof the TwelveApostles with lllustrations from the Tolmud |8861
and An Essayon the Theologyof the Didache tl889l). Taylor sought to ex-
plain the Jewishnature of the documentthrough a comparisonwith early
Jewishsources.While he offeredno specificdateor provenance,he determin-
ed that the text must derivefrom primitive Christiantraditions. His conclu-
sionsin this specificfield of study weremost influential, particularlyamong
the French.
Also in 1886,B. B. Warfield undertooka short, though insightful,analysis
of the text in his article "Text, Sources,and Contentsof 'The Two Ways' or
First Sectionof the Didache." Warfield detectedthe influenceof the Mat-
thean Gospel,and added his view that 1.3-6was taken from the Diatessa-
ron.3u In conjunction with a view of the Two Ways that was offered by
32 Farrar,
"Bearing," 84-85.
" Schaff, Manual, ll9-25.
" Spence,Teaching,87-100.
r) Hitchcockand Brown, Teaching,xc-ci.
'o Comparethe work of Connolly, "lJse," 147-5'1
.
INTRODUCTION l3
Krawutzcky four yearspreviously,he decidedthat the Two Ways sourcehad
servedas a separatetextual basisfor both Barnabasand the Didache, though
the different Latin and Greek forms of the Didachehad developedwithin two
distinctivetraditions, viz., Egyptianand Syrian. Warfield saw the influence
of numerousOT and NT textsin the Didache,which he datedto c. 100.37In
reactionto Warfield and to Harnack and under the firm influenceof Taylor's
conclusions,J. RendelHarris (The Teachingof the TwelveApostlestl887l)
soon publisheda collectionof relatedstudiesupon the text. While he would
not offer a provenancefor the Didache, he noted that it must stem from an
ancienttradition, sinceit had beenusedso extensivelyby authorsin the sec-
ond century.3s
A study of scripturalsourcesbehindthe writingsof the ApostolicFathers,
which was directedby Kirsopp Lake of the Oxford Society(The New Testa-
ment in theApostolicFathers[1905]),3e did little to advancetheoriesconcern-
ing the date,the sourcesand the provenanceofthe Didache.Lake notedthat
throughout the text the Didachist seemsto use the Synoptic tradition apart
from any direct referencesto the Synoptic Gospelsproper. A strong affinity
with the sayingsof the MattheanGospelwas noted, however.Subsequently,
it was arguedthat the phraserd e0ayy6l,rov("the Gospel"), which appears
throughoutthe Didache,refersto the Mattheantext. In his analysisof 1.3b-
2.l,Lake sawfour possiblesources,which in themselves haveformed a foun-
dation for the basic theoriesthat consistentlyhave arisen in analysesof the
text by later scholars:a blending of gospelpassages;a separatelogia source;
oral tradition; and, an early harmony.
In accordance with the centralthrust of English-speaking scholarshipin the
earlyyearsof the twentiethcentury,J. B. Lightfoot offeredhis viewsconcern-
ing the nature of the text in his classicvolume TheApostolic Fathers (1912).
His position was in fact a restatementof his previously-stated positionupon
the Didache,which had appearedin an 1885articlethat wasentitled"Results
of RecentHistorical and TopographicalResearchUpon the Old and New
TestamentScriptures."Lightfoot datedthe work to the beginningof the sec-
ond century, sincehe perceivedl) that there was no "permanent localized
ministry"; 2) that episcopacywasnot universal;3) that the agapewasstill part
of the eucharist;and, 4) that the exhortationsin the text reveala certain"ar-
chaic simplicity." He acknowledgedwith his peersthat the text probably
derivedfrom Syria or Palestine.a0
In an effort to consolidatethe conclusionsthat were offered by Lightfoot
i7 Warfield,
"Text," see especially 100-10.
38
Harris, Teaching, see 90-94.
3e
Oxford Society, New Testament,24-36.
40
Lightfoot, "Results," 8-9, and Apostolic Fathers,215-16.
t4 CHAPTER ONE
with other English-speaking scholars,Jan Greyvensteinundertook a discus-
sion of the Didache in his Chicago dissertationof 1919 ("The Original
'Teachingof the TwelveApostles':Its Text and Origins"). From his observa-
tions of the "Hebraic ancestry" of the work and of the remarkableassocia-
tion of the text with numerousNT passages,Greyvensteinconcludedthat the
Didachemust have derivedfrom the schoolof James.He placedthe text in
Antioch, which he saw to be the centerof GentileChristianityand which he
believedto be that location to which the JerusalemChristians had fled after
the rebellionof C.E. 70. In this light he datedthe Didacheto the end of the
first century.al
After the work of Greyvenstein, two important studiesarose.In 1920J. Ar-
mitageRobinsondeterminedto establishwith someassurancethe relationship
of the Didache with other contemporary texts (Bornabas,Hermas and the
Didache).As a correctiveto an articlethat he publishedin l912 (republished
as "Appendix A" in his 1920study),Robinsonarguedthat the Didachistbor-
rowed both from Barnabasand from Hermas, and thus, that the Didache
could not havebeencomposedprior to 140 - possibly,it was evena third-
century document.a2Becausesucha late dateleft the Didacheopen to the pos-
sibleinfluenceof numerouswritten sourcesand of divergentChristiantradi-
tions, Robinsondid not seekto argueon behalf of a specificprovenancefor
the writing. His insistenceupon a late date set a precedentfor subsequent
studies. In 1929, James Muilenburg produced his Yale dissertation(Tfte
Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and The Teachingof the Twelve
Apostles) upon the samethesesas those of Robinson. He, too, saw that the
central problem with modern attempts to date the Didache was that of the
relationshipof the text to Barnabas.Muilenburgarguedthat the text was a
literary unity which was dependent upon Barnabas and which reflected
knowledgeof the written Mattheanand Lucan Gospels- not someunknown
"ur-text" or hypotheticalgospelsource.a3
Positiveresponses to the viewsof Robinsonand of Muilenburg were im-
mediate.ln 1932,F. c. Burkitt ("Barnabasand the Didache") announcedhis
support for the findings of both scholars.That sameyear, R. H. Connolly
("The Didachein Relationto the Epistle of Barnabas")elaboratedand ex-
pandedtheseviewswith a more detailedexaminationof the way of Death
that appearsin Barn. 20 and Did. 5. Robinsonin turn respondedto the obser-
vationsof Burkitt and connolly with an expansionof his earlierwork ("The
Epistleof Barnabasand the Didache" [1934]),thoughhe did little toward the
revisionof his original conclusions.
ar Greyvenstein,
"'Teaching,", 123-30.
o2 Robinson,
Bornabas. 69-g3.
a3 Muilenburg,
Relations, 165-6g.
INTRODUCTION t)
In reactionagainstthe Robinson-Muilenburg thesis,J. M. Creedcontinued
the causeof Lightfoot in 1938("The Didache"). He arguedthat the Didache
probably stemmedfrom the first three decadesof the secondcentury, since
the documentwas primitive both in characterand in phraseology.Further, he
issued a challengeto any who would prove that the Didache could be at-
tributed to a period that waslater than this date.a In the following year, W.
Telfer ("The Didacheand the ApostolicSynodof Antioch" t19391)respond-
ed in his reconstructionof a scenarioin which he characterizedthe Didachist
as "a leader in the church at Antioch, and an elder contemporaryof
Theophilus" (thus, no earlierthan c. 180).
Perhapsthe most extremeresponseto the Robinson-Muilenburg thesiswas
publishedin the study of F. E. Vokes(The Riddle of the Didache:Fact or Fic-
tion, Heresyor Catholicism?Il938l). Vokesfound evidencethat the Didachist
had usedActs, the MattheanGospel,Barnabas,Hermasand Justin'sApolo-
gy. He characterizedthis compiler of ancienttexts as a Montanist ("of a very
mild type"), and thereforea personwho lived and who wrote aroundthe end
of the secondcentury or at the beginningof the third century, sincethe text
predatesthe Didascalia and since, according to Labriolle (as was noted by
Vokes),"the first sparkof Montanismwaskindledin A.D. 172." For various
and multifacited reasons,he placedthe text in Syria.a5The late dating for the
text that was offered by Vokes had beensurpassedonly by CharlesBigg (The
Doctrine of the TwelveApostles), who alreadyin 1898had proposedthat the
Didachewas "a romanceof the fourth century."46Vokesundoubtedlywas
influenced significantly by the conclusionsof Bigg.
The more recent responsesto the Robinson-Muilenburg thesis among
English-speakingscholarshaveappearedin two basicstreamsof thought. The
first approach had been initiated by the work of B. H. Streetersome years
earlier (The Four Gospelsll924l), which was continued briefly by Streetera
short time after the work of Robinsonand Muilenburgin 1936("The Much-
BelabouredDidache"). Streeterarguedthat the Didachewas usedwithin the
Matthean community and that it aroseas a compilation of the SayingsGospel
Q (though for Streeterit was not necessarilya written text), which was known
within the community and was transmitted by the elders of the community
through oral tradition. He indicatedthat the text must havebeenderivedfrom
Syria or Palestineand that the witnessto the tradition must be very old (prior
to 100).47In 1958, Richard Glover ("The Didache'sQuotations and the
SynopticGospels") soughtto refine the position of Streeterand to explainthe
a Creed,
"Didache," 302-307.
a5 Vokes, Riddle, seethe extendeddiscussionof 129-76.Also, seehis subsequentarticle upon
the contemporarydebateover the text; "Didache," 57-62.
a6 SeeArthur John Maclean,
"Introduction" to the 1992reprint of Bigg, Doctrine, xxvi-xxvii.
ot Streeter,Gospets,507-ll.
l6 CHAPTER ONE
appearance of apparentLucanismswithin the text. Throughan analysisof the
individual sayingsof the Didache, Glover determinedthat the Didachist was
not dependenteither upon the Mattheanasor upon the Lucan Gospels,but
instead,that the Didachisthad borrowedfrom the sourcesthat wereusedin
thoseGospels.Specifically,he found that the Didachereflectsonly the Mar-
canGospelin thoseinstances wherethe Lucan and the Mattheanredactorsuse
the Marcan text in combination with the SayingsGospel Q. Further, the
Didachist follows the Lucan wording whenevermaterialsthat were common
to both the Mattheanand the Lucan Gospelsappearedalone. Thus, Glover
arguedfor the SayingsGospelQ as the sourcefor the sayingsin the Didache,
a sourcewhich also is found in Justin.ae
Finally, the more recentMastersthesisof John S. Kloppenborg("The Say-
ings of Jesusin the Didache:A Redaction-CriticalApproach" [976]) re-
vealeda certaindependence upon the work of Glover, though he also was
influencedstrongly by the examinationsand the conclusionsof Audet and
Kcister.After an exhaustiveanalysisof the NT traditionsthat purportedlylie
behind the sayingsof the Didache,Kloppenborgdecidedthat the text "was
compiledin Syria in fairly closecontactwith the communityin which Mat-
thew'sgospelarose." He chosea date of c. 100-120for the earliestredaction
of the text and the mid-secondcenturv for the final redaction of the
materials.50
The secondtrend of thought,and onewhich hasbeenassumedmorereadily
among scholars,was an attempt to understandthe Didachewithin an expan-
ding tradition of development.In this respect,the multifariousdiversitiesof
the text could be explainedboth in terms of early tendenciesand in termsof
later influences.Edgar J. Goodspeedrepresented the onsetof this movement
amongBritish and Americanresearchers in his brief analysisof the Didache
in its relationshipto contemporarytexts ("The Didache,Barnabasand the
Doctrina" 119451). Basedupon his earlier argumentsof 1942,Goodspeed
reiteratedthe opinion that a shortGreekDidacheappearedearlyin the second
century,followedby a GreekBarnabas(c. 130),which itself was usedto ex-
pand the Didacheinto its current configuration(c. 150 [=H]), a configura-
tion which in turn was usedto redevelopBarnabasinto that form which we
now possess!Since 1.3-2.1was composedfrom the Matthean Gospel,the
Lucan Gospel,I Peter,Hermasand an unknowntext, the Didacheis a secon-
dary construction,"not a primarywork.,'51
The primary supportfor Goodspeed's traditio-historicalapproach,though
a8 Streeter
finally concededto Connollythat the Didachistwasdependent
to someexrenrupon
the MattheanGospelin additionto the SayingsGospele (,,Didache," 3':.2-7j).
*' Glover,
"Quotations,"25-29.Also seeSmith,,.Justin,"287-90.
'u Kloppenborg,
"Sayings,"2ll.
" Goodspeed,"Didache," 228-29.
INTRODUCTION t7
certainlynot for Goodspeed'sinterpretationitself, camein the form of the
more recentcommentaryupon the text by Robert A. Kraft (Barnabasand the
Didache [1965l).Kraft, who coined and applied to the Didachethe phrase
"evolved literature," noted that52
. theDidache contains a greatdealof materialwhichderivesfrom veryearly(i.e.,
first-century
and earlysecond-century) formsof (Jewish-) Christianity;but it
wouldbe difficult to argueconvincinglythat thepresentform of the Didacheis
earlierthanmid-second century.
Basedupon this analysisof the text and its history,Kraft determinedl) that
one must chooseEgypt over Syria as the point of origin, sincethe majority
of the textualtradition that is in existencestemsfrom Egypt, and 2) that one
cannot determinethe identity of the author-editor.53
Apart from thesestudiesof the Didachein English,a numberof examina-
tions havebeendedicatedto specificaspectsof the document,the most note-
worthy of which are GeorgeEldon Ladd's Harvard dissertationon eschato-
logicalelementsin the text ("The Eschatologyof the Didache" [949]), Bent-
ley Layton's redaction-criticalstudy of the materials in l.3b-2.1 ("The
Sources,Date and Transmissionof Didachel.3b-2.1" U9681)s4 and Arthur
Vcicibus'analysisof liturgical traditions (Liturgical Traditions in the Didache
119681). While suchanalyseshaveoffered much new evidenceconcerningthe
specificitiesof the text, including someindication of the sourcesthat may
have beenusedby the Didachist,they have not proven to effect greatlythe
questionsof date and of provenancefor the earliestform of the Didache.
Thesisand Objectives
Twentieth-centuryanalysesof apocryphaland pseudepigraphical materials,
which havebeeninspiredlargelyby recentconsiderations of the tractatesfrom
the Nag Hammadi library and the scrollsfrom the Qumran area, have in-
dicatedthe needto investigatenon-canonicalmaterialsin a new light. This is
to saythat suchwritings,while often previouslyexcludedfrom the authorita-
tive canonsof a more recentnormativeJudeo-Christiantradition, shouldnot
be judged defacto as late developments within that tradition and, therefore,
should not be consideredto be onlv of secondarvvalue in examinationsof
scripture.55
52 Kraft, Barnabas,76.
53 Kraft, Barnabas,77.
to Cf. the reactionagainstLayton
by Mees,"Bedeutung," 55-76.
s5 As has beennotedby Crossanin his introductionto a discussion four Gospelsthat lie
of
outsideof the biblical canon (the Gospelof Thomas,EgertonPapyrus2, the SecretGospelof
Mark and the Gospelof Peter):"The canonis neithera total nor a random collectionof early
Christiantexts.It is both deliberateand selectiveand it excludesiust as surelyas it includes.I
 l8 CHAPTER ONE
Instead,suchwritings may derive from the earliestsourcesof the Christian
tradition. Current efforts to incorporatethesematerialsinto contemporaryin-
vestigationsof the first-century world of Christianity are numerous.In these
, efforts, however,the text of the Didache has beenignored to a large extent:
firstly, becauseof its previous acceptanceinto an informal canon of early
Christianliterature,i.e., the ApostolicFathers;secondly,becauseof the pre-
sumptionsof recentscholarsthat all the questionsof backgroundwhich per-
tain to the Didachehave beenanswered.
As we haveobservedinthe Forschungsberichtthat appearsabove,the ques-
tions of date and of provenancemost certainly have not been answeredbe-
yond the needfor further examination.Instead,the text has beencategorized
accordingto severalcommonassumptionsabout which most scholarswould
agreeuncritically - assumptionsthat are basedupon the investigationsand
the recommendations of others:l) sincethereappearto be both earlyfeatures
and late features,the text shouldbe datedto a "mid-point" in the history of
the earlychurchtradition, perhapsc. 80-120(with Ignatius?!);2) becausethe
text has beenpreservedin Greek and in Coptic texts, and becauseadditional
Greek and Latin fragmentshavebeendiscoveredin Egypt, the text should be
attributedeitherto someplace in Syriaor to someprovenancein Egypt; and,
3) by reasonof the enigmatic form in which the sayingsof the Didache are
preservedand becauseof the uniquenatureof the liturgical elementsand of
the ecclesialquestionsthat are addressed by the Didache,the documentmust
- represent a single community within Christian history whose ideas and ap-
proachesquickly disappearedbefore the encroachmentof developingor-
thodoxy.
The purposeofthe presentstudyis to further investigations into the sources
and into the elementsthat wereusedin the constructionof the earliestlayer
of the Didache.The specificfocus for this examinationwill be the sayings
materialsthat arepreservedin Did, l.l-6.Ia and 16,whereevidenceof an ear-
ly "sayingstradition" appearsin conjunctionwith a modified versionof the
, decalogue.It is proposedthat this tradition of sayingscomesfrom amongthe
': earliestcollectionsof materialsthat werepreservedby the
'f samecommunity
from which the MattheanGospelwasproduced.56 The Mattheanredactorhas
chosenin mostcasesto presentparallelsayingseitherfrom the SayingsGospel
would evensay that you cannot understandwhat is includedin the canon unlessyou understand
what was excluded from it. when the four other gospelsare played over against the four
canonicalgospels,both the products and the processesof thoselatter texts appeir in a radically
different light" (Gospets,l0). As true as this may be for the literature that Crossanhas chosen
to review,it is equallyas true for the materialsof the Didache,which the earlyChurchFathers
eve-nchoseto include in a post-apostoliccanon of primitive Christian texts.
'o
_ So too, this agreesin part with the thesisof Glover(..euotations,,' l8), though he chose
the SayingsGospelQ as the sourcehere, a perspectivethat I will reject in the discussionbelow.
INTRODUCTION l9
Q or from the Marcan tradition, and hasnot utilized the form of thesesayings
that was original to the earliestcollectionof "Jesus materials" which were
collectedand preservedby the Matthean community. It will be argued here
that the remaining liturgical and ecclesialmaterials in chaps. 7-15 also
preservepracticesand traditions that were commonly acknowledgedwithin
the community, but that are not representedin the Matthean Gospel' The
reason why these practices and traditions were included in the Didache is
determinedby the practical useto which the writing was put in the concluding
yearsof the first century,i.e., the text becamea "handbook" for the training
of community presbyters.
The objectivesof the studywill includethe following: l) to analyzethe say-
ings materials with a view toward the determination of those elementsthat
bind the sayingstogetherinto a singletradition; 2) to indicatethe mannerin
which the remaining materials stem from a community milieu that provided
an appropriateoccasionfor the collection and for the preservationof this say-
ingstradition; and, 3) to suggesta scenarioin which the apparentlydisjunctive
featuresof the Didachemay be explainedwithin the developmentof the early
church.
Considerationsof Methodology
The methodologicalapproachesthat have been applied to the Didachein the
past are basicallythe sameas those that have accompaniedthe development
of modern investigationsof the biblical canon, as have been demonstrated
above.Thus, much of the primary considerations of the Didachewith respect
to source,form and redactioncriticismalreadyhasbeeninvestigated.5T While
it is true that suchapproacheshavebeenhelpful in attemptsto discoverthe
secretsof the text, they have not been conclusive.Most notably, there has
been a resistanceamong scholarsto speculateconcerningthe nature of the
community that producedthe Didachebasedupon the resultsof theseap-
proaches.Among those personswho have made such speculations,brief
thoughthosespeculations havebeen,they havenot soughtto characterize the
communitythroughthe informativeinsightthat is providedby thesetraditio-
historicalapproachesthemselves.
The current study examinesthe problems of the Didache through an
analysisof that elementwhich has provided the greatestdeterentto scholars
of the text, i.e., the so-called"enigmaticcharacter"of the sayings.While the
57 While Kloppenborghas not advancedsignificantlyupon the foundationsand conclusions
that are representedby Audet, Glover and K<ister,his Mastersthesisis an excellentpresentation
of the useof source,form and redactionmethodsin investigations of the Didache'ssayings;cf.
"Sayings," passim.
20 CHAPTER ONE rNTRoDUcrIoN 2l

results of previous examinationsin source, form and redaction criticism are a) The Two Ways l-3a,2.2-6'la
incorporated,the sayingswill be examinedfurther in an attempt to determine b) The Apostolic Decree 6.1b-3
two basic elements:l) the common denominatorthat exists among these c) The Liturgical Section 7.1-10.6
specific sayingsand 2) the nature of a tradition that would have contained d) The Community Rules ll.l-15.4
e) The Apocalypse 16.l-8
and/or transmitted this common denominator.
f) The Sayings Interpolation l'3b-2.1
As with previous examinationsof the Didache, the presentstudy assumes
severalpresuppositionsfrom the outset: Within the development of the tradition, these divisions may represent the in-
l) With Kraft5sand the consensus of more recentscholars,the Didacheis trusion of severalbasic redactionalstrata, though random redactionalele-
the product of an "evolving tradition." Hence,it is the product of several mentscertainlyappearthroughouteachsection.This indicatesthat no portion
layersof redaction.There may be as many as four layersin this tradition, but of the text automaticallycan be consideredto be free from later textual ad-
our concernrests primarily with the first layer - that stratum in which the justmentsor from theologicalmanipulation.60
bulk of the sayingsmaterialswas incorporated. Apart from thesepresuppositions, the studywill explorea new setof ques-
2) With Robinson,Muilenburg, Burkitt and Connolly, it is admittedthat tions for scholarlyconsiderationsof the Didache.From the outset it is as-
there are numerouselementsof the Didache which could be the product of sumedthat if the sayingswhich appearin the Didachecan be placedin the
a late tradition (third-fourth centuries).A surveyof theseelements,however, wider tradition of first-centurysayingsmaterials,both with respectto the Say-
indicatesthat they as easilymay be the product of an early tradition (first cen- ings GospelQ and in relationshipto the broaderbiblical canon,then the say-
tury), though they probably stem from different decadeswithin that time- ings will serve as a valid source for a description of the community that
frame, i.e., someelementsprobably are much earlierthan are others. maintainedthe sayingstradition itself. Further, if a community "ethos" can
3) The text of the Didache presentstwo different perspectiveswith respect be reconstructed,then sociologicalconsiderations,Christologicalexamina-
to the written SynopticGospels,viz., certainportionsbetraya knowledgeof tions and questionsconcerningcommunity hierarchy and ecclesialstructure
thesegospelsin someliterary form, while other portionsreflectonly a knowl- may be addressedwith new benefits.
edge of sayingsand of liturgical traditions that were independent,though
parallel to, the Synoptics or that were derived from the source traditions @ The following chapters assume that the text of the Didache developed in three basic stages.

which also were incorporated by the Synoptics. The redactor of the first stage is referred to both as the "Didachist" and as the "first redactor"
(while this person is not assumedto have collected the sayings of 1.1-6.la, s/he is responsiblefor
4) Thoughtherearevariouswitnesses to the tradition of the Didacheproper their association with the current Two Ways format that appears in those chapters); the redactor
or to the Two Ways sourcethat is containedwithin the Didache,the Greek ofthe second stage is known as the "second redactor" (:chaps. 7-15, which probablywere add-
text of H (which in most casesis taken directly from the readingof Lakese ed to the original materials of 1.1-6.1a in two phases [7'10 and ll-15], though under the same
hand); the redactor of l.3b-2.1, most of chap. 16 and probably 6.1b-3 (i.e., the latest materials
throughout the presentstudy) will be usedas the core witnessfor the sayings
of the text) is called the "final redactor."
materials. Admittedly, this is a late text (eleventhcentury) that may reflect
somedevelopmentwithin the tradition; however,the variationsto H that are
attestedby the L source,Poxy 1782,the Apostolicconstitutions,the church
ordinances,etc., in most casesdo not offer textual variants which differ
significantlyfrom H so as to justify a primary dependence upon one of these
other sources.At thoseplaceswheremajor variantsare attested,thesewill be
noted and discussed.
5) The text of the Didachewill be consideredin the presentstudy with an
understandingthat there are six (versusthe usual five) primary topical divi-
sions,which themselves revealminor redactionalalterations.Thesedivisions
are:

58
Kraft, Barnabas. l-3.
5e
Lake, Apostolic Fathers. 1.309-33.

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF TEXTS
Didoche LI: The Two Ways
Introduction
Perhapsthe best-knownsayingin the corpus of the Didacheis that one which
appearsat the beginning of the work:
'O6oi 66o eioi, pic tiq
6oiS rci pio toO 0cvcitou,
("Therearetwo ways,oneof life andoneof death,")r
And as the compiler of the text notes immediately thereafter:
6rc<popd6d ro)')'i pera(il tdlv 6tio 66drv.
("and thereis a greatdifferencebetweenthe two ways.")
The bold assertionof this sayingcompelsan immediateresponsefrom the
modern exegete,much as it probably did from the early Christian rcader/
hearer. In a singleand vibrant statement,the Didacheopenswith an exhorta-
tion that establishesthe ethicalguidelinefor the remainderof the text. Indeed,
this Two Ways "saying" not only introduces a Two Ways "motif," whose
influence reverberatesthroughout chaps. l-5, but probably introducesa Two
Ways literary "source" upon which these chapterswere fabricated by the
Didachist. At least,this is the commonassumptionof contemporaryscholars.
While this interpretation of the text in fact may be a correct analysis,some
care must be taken to avoid any undue confusion with respectto the three
elementsof "saying," "motif" and "source" that traditionallyareassociated
with the Two Ways conceptin Did. l-5.2
Both the Two Ways sourceand the Two Ways motif are restrictedprimarily
to the materialsof chaps. l-5 (and 16, accordingto someauthorities).This
I For
a completecritical discussionof the NT sourcesthat lie behindthe "Two Ways" saying
which is paralleledhere, see"Appendix A." The format of the appendixderivesfrom specific
textual researchcurrently underwayin Claremont, CA.
" In the following discussionthe "Two Ways" label is attachedto three different concepts:
l) an individual sayingthat was incorporatedfrom a separatesayingstradition by the Didachist
and that appearsat Did. l.l;2) a literary documentthat was sharedby the Epistle of Barnabas
and that was usedby the Didachist as the structural framework upon which Drd. l.l-6.1a was
constructed;and, 3) an early Christian motif that dominatesthe discussionof Did. l-5 in its en-
tirety.
REVIEW' OF TEXTS 23
restrictionoften haslead scholarsto two conclusions:l) chaps.l-5 (and l6?)
probablyreflectthe earliestform of the Didache(i.e., the Two Ways source)
to which chaps.6-15wereaddedsubsequently,and2) the statementthat ap-
pearsin Did. l.l is a sayingwhich originally was an integral part of that
source.While the former conclusionsurely is correct,the latter conclusion
probably is incorrect.
With respectto the first conclusion,chaps.6-15do not revealany depen-
denceeither upon the Two Ways motif or upon the Two Ways source.The
majority of materialsin thesechaptersfocusupon considerations of ritual and
of community structurethat, upon initial examination,seemfar-removed
from the Two Ways focus of chaps. l-5. Scholarscommonlyhave assumed
with somejustification, therefore,that the compositionof the Didacheoc-
curredin at leasttwo phases,the latter of which wasconstructedby a second
redactorwho had no particular interestin the Two Ways motif.
By this samelogic, one safelymay assumethat the Two Ways motif that
appearsin chaps.l-5 of the Didacheis not the product of a later redactional
hand, since later redactors appear to have been interested primarily in
liturgical and ecclesialconcerns,on the one hand, and sincethe structureof
chaps.l-5 is dependentupon a specificTwo Ways sourcetext that doesnot
underliechaps.6-15, on the other hand. Accordingto the typical scholarly
argument,if one can assume,therefore, that chaps. l-5 were constructed
originallyupon a specificTwo Ways literary sourceand around a basicTwo
Waysmotif, then one also must assumethat the Didachistfound the specific
Two Ways sayingof Did. l.l in that Two Ways sourcewhich was incor-
porated into the text of the Didache.
With respectto this secondconclusion,one shouldconsiderthe presence of
the Two Waysmotif and a similar Two Ways literary structurethat also ap-
pear in Barn. 18-20.The consensusof scholarly opinion now arguesthat the
Didacheand Barnabasaredependentupon a commonliterarysourcefor these
materials,at leastinsofar as they havebeenpreservedfor us in both writings.
But while the Two Ways sectionof Barnabasopenswith an elaboratelyde-
scriptivestatementof the Two Waysmotif, that statementis characterized by
an apocalyptic concern for light/darkness imagesand for angelology(Barn.
18:l) that is not paralleledin Did. l.l. The Two Ways sayingof the Didache
insteadappearsas a simpleexhortationto follow the path of life, a concept
that is consistentwith the ethicalemphases of early wisdom literaturein an-
cient Israel.
Becausethereis a Two Wayssayingat the beginningof Did. l-5 and at the
openingof Barn.l8-20, thereis little questionthat the Two Wayssourcethat
wasusedby thesetextsbeganwith someform of Two Waysexhortation.The
natureof that exhortationis unknown, however,and numerousreasonshave
beenoffered for the differencesin form and contentthat appearbetweenBar-
 24 CHAPTER T\MO
nabasand the Didache.3The key to this differenceprobablyis bestexplained
through the influence of a sayingstradition that existedseparatelyfrom the
Two Ways sourceitself. Thus, Did. l.l may not only reflect the presenceof
a generalTwo Ways motif, suchas that which wasassociated with the Dida-
chist'sTwo Ways source,but it also may reflect a specificTwo Ways saying
from early Jewishwisdomtradition that the Didachistperceivedto be signifi-
cant. Furthermore,as will be arguedbelow,it alsois quite likely that this say-
ing wasdrawn from an early collectionof sayings,many of which havebeen
chosenby the Didachistto appearthroughout chaps. l-5.4
Comparisonof Sources
There is little question that the Two Ways motif appears consistently
throughout the OT and the Apocrypha. Indeed,it is in thesecollectionsof
literaturethat many of those who have reviewedDid. l. I have sought the
Grundschrift for the form of the sayingthat appearshere.s As a sourcefor
3 While previousscholarshave labored
to explain the reasonfor the divergenciesbetweenthe
Two Ways statementsof Barnabasand the Didache (cf. for example,Kraft, Barnabos, 134-36l'
Kloppenborg,"Sayings," 5l-56 [who is highly dependentupon the view of the Frenchschool
that, somehow,the Didache and Barnabasare influenced by the texts of eumran; so Audet,
Didachi, 252-56, and "Affinitds litt6raires," 226-32), the appearanceof sayings materials
throughout Did. l-5 would seemto support the idea that heretoo in l.l an individual Two Ways
sayingwas incorporatedby the Didachist. As will be arguedbelow, this is not to arguethat the
Two ways motif was not already suggestedto the Didachist at the opening of the Two ways
source.Instead,the Didachist may haveknown of a specificsayingthat was consideredsuitable
for placementat this positionin the text.
" Traditionally, scholarshaveassumedthat the presenceof the Two ways sayingin Did. l.l
signifiesthat chaps. l-5 wereusedby the early church as a text for catecheticalinstruction to be
given prior to the performanceof a baptismal ritual. While it also is assumedthroughout the
followingdiscussionthat Did. l.l-6.1a wasconstructedfor a specificearlyChristiancommunity
which eventuallyusedthe materialsfor the instruction of catechumens,it is only fair to recognize
that_this does not imply by necessitythat the text originally was constructedfor this purpose.
Therealwaysis the possibilitythat the sayingsmateiialsof l.l-6.1a wereassembled originally
simply as a recollectedrecordof aphorismsthat was attributedto the historicalJesusand that
this record did not include a sayingconcerningthe Two ways. Instead,sucha sayingcould have
beenaddedlater (by an early christian prophet?;cf. Boring, Sayings,passim, Aurr", prophe-
cy,242-44)in order to shapel.l-6.Ia into a format that could havebeenutilized"nd more readily
in catechetical instruction.
While this possibilitycan neverbe discounted,the following discussionwill arguethat the
presence of the Two Waysstatementat Did. l.l, while not originalto the Two ways sourcethat
was receivedby the Didachist,can be explainedas an addition by the Didachisthim/herself (not
a later redactor),who attacheda separate sayingto the Two ways sourceat I .l in the sameman-
ner in which other sayingswereaddedthroughoutthe remainderof I.2.-6.1a.
'Cf.Provt2:28;
Sirl5:17;Bar4:l;T.Asherl.5-9;2Enoch30:l5.Otherwritingsareoriented
aroundthisthemefor the purposeof structure:Ps 1; Prov l-9; Wis 14.For an excellentdiscussion
of the historyof the Two Waysthemein earlyJewishand Christianliterature,seeSuggs,"Tradi-
tion,"60-74;seealsothecommentsofGreyvenstein,,,'Teaching,"'97-l0l,and,
Giet,L'inigme,
71.
RErrIEw' OF TEXTS 25
Did. l.l, among the more probable texts that have been suggestedare the fol-
lowing:
'I6oD
Deut 30:15 - 666olro npd npoocirnouoou o{pepov tilv Zcoilvrai tdv
Orivcrov,rd dyoOdvrai td ror6v.
("See, I haveset beforeyou this day life and good, death and evil.")6
Jer 2l:8 - And to the peopleyou shall say: Thus saysthe LORD:
'I6oD 6yrb666rorq npd npoo<bnouOpdlvtilv 66dv ric, Zoic, roi rlv 66dv toO
0ovtitou'
("See, I set before you the way of life and the way of death.")7
It is probable that Jer 2l:8 itself is a reflection of Deut 30:15, as is suggested
by the introductory phrase of "thus says the LORD." Since, as we shall see
below, the majority of sayings in Did. l-5 are to some degree dependent either
upon OT materials or upon related Jewish traditions, it is difficult to imagine
that the Didachist has not drawn upon one or upon both of these sayings in
order to formulate Did. l.l. This observation is reinforced further by the
evidence that is preserved in the witness of the NT texts.
The NT pericope that consistently has been indicated as the source of Did.
1.1 is Matt 7:13-14 (par. Luke 13:23-24).8Of course, one could as easily at-
tribute the source of this material in the Didache to the Sayings Gospel Q
itself, and not to the Synoptic witness for Q. e As is argued in "Appendix A"
below, however, the Two Ways motif is not a common element to the Sayings
Gospel Q at all. Instead, it is restricted to the Matthean version of the Q say-
ing. The omission of the Two Ways emphasisin the Lucan Gospel, the highly
stylized parallelism in which the Two Ways theme appearsin Matt 7:13-14 and
the ease with which the motif can be excised from the Q saying ("Enter
through the narrow door"), all three of these elements suggestthat the Mat-
6 Hitchcock and Brown, Teaching,xlviii; Schaff, Manual, l8; Muilenburg, Relations, 102;
Ardet, Didachl,226; Kohler, Origins,248; L'Eplattenier, "Prdsentation," 50; Kilhler, Repp-
tion. 42.
t So Schaff, Manual, 18; Taylor, Teoching, T; Harnack, Lehre, li Lightfoot, Apostolic
Fathers,2lT; Greyvenstein, "'Teaching,"' l0l (usedto reshapeMatt 7:13-14);Robinson,Bar-
nabos, 46-47 (used by the Didachist to alter Barnabas);Muilenburg, Relations, 102; Audet,
Didachi, 226; Kohler, Origins, 248; K<ihler,Rezeption,42.
t Schaff,Manual, l8; Greyvenstein,
"'Teaching,"' l0l ("In fact a carefulcomparisonofthe
two leavesa strongimpressionthat the former [Did. l l] is merelya simplified and symmetrically
compressed statementof the latter lMatt 7:13-14],havingbeenshapedin part by the author's
recollectionof Jeremiah[2]:8] . . . "); Muilenburg, Relations,T3 (the Didachistusedboth Barn.
l8.l and Matt 7:13-14);Yokes,Riddle, 19 (the DidachistabridgedBarnabasand alteredMatt
7:I 3-14).
e It is most interesting,however,that the personwho has found
" Q" under everyfoundational
sayingin the Didache(i.e., RichardGlover)has not consideredQ as a sourcefor Did, l.l (cf.
"Quotations," and "Patristic Quotations").Most likely, this is not an oversighton the part of
Glover, but instead,this omissionseemsto result from the fact that Glover doesnot arguethat
Did. l.l is basedupon any biblical text or upon any known sourcefor a biblical text.
26 CHAPTER TwO
thean redactor must have drawn upon a specialsource(M?) for this specific
motif. t0 Of course,it would be preferableif one could indicate additional in-
stancesof the Two Ways motif within the text of the Matthean Gospel,which
thus would lend weight to the argumentthat the Matthean redactorconscious-
ly has chosento incorporatethis motif as a crucial aspectof his theology. But
while it is unfortunate that no such theme is repeatedin the Gospel, on the
one hand, the uniqueappearance of this Two Waysmotif at Matt 7:13-14in
fact may indicate the utilization of a specificTwo Ways sayinghere - a say-
ing which may have circulated within the comrnunity of the Didachist.
A Questionof BaptismalPractices
The immediateand practical relevanceof the Two Ways motif within the Di-
dachederivesfrom the claim that modern authorscontinually haveassociated
with chaps.l-5(6), i.e., that thesechapterswereintendedto serveas a text for
the ritual of baptism. In Matt 7:13-14,therefore, one discoversthat the
original nature of the Two Ways motif has beenreadjustedin a radical man-
ner through its associationwith the Q sayingof Luke 13:24("Enter through
the narrow door"). Both redactorshaveinsertedthe Q sayingofthe "narrow
door" (otev6q 06pa)into an eschatological settingwhosedualismof a future
judgment providesthe rhetorical framework in which the hearer,/readeris to
understandthe messageof Jesus.
The Two Ways sayingof the Didache, however, bearsno such marks, ex-
cept as they are inferred from the SynopticGospelsby the synthesizingmind-
set of the modernreader.Instead,we shouldnot assumethat the Two Ways
sourcewhich was incorporatedby the Didachist was necessarilydualistic.
More correctly, we discoverthat the Two ways motif of the Didache is for-
mulatedupon the simple,classicalimageof Israel'swisdomtradition: a right-
eous existenceleads to "life" ((oln); a life of iniquity results in "death"
(0rivctoq).rr Thus, while the Didachisthas placedthis wisdom sayinginto a
dualisticsetting,its true contextis not one of eschatological judgment,such
as has beenforced upon the sayingby the Matthean redactor.
Therearenumerousargumentsin supportof the useof the Two ways motif
as an introductionto a ritual of baptismhere.Firstly, in his FestalEpistle39,
Athanasiuslists the Didache as one of severaltractatesthat were appointed
for catechumens. t2 secondly,
apart from the list of exhortationsand instruc-
r0 For more
focuseddiscussionsupon the nature of the Matt 7:13-14/Ltke l3:23-24passage,
see especiallyDenaux, ..Spruch," 305-35; Marguerat, Le jugement, 175-g2;Hoffmann,
"fltivteq," 188-214;and, Luz, Motthiius," 395-400(seeespecially his note on the ..community
relationship" betweenthis text and that of Did. 3.7 on p. 39?).
tt So
Audet, Didachi.255. SeeWis 14.
12Athan.
ep.lest.3g.AlsolistedbyAthanasiusasrepresentativesofthis"catecheticalgenre"
REVIEW OF TEXTS 27
tions that are offered in chaps. l-6, chap. 7 follows immediatelywith an
elaboratediscussionupon the proper wording and upon the correct practice
for the ritual of baptism. The blunt introduction of this topic in chap. 7 would
seemto imply that the previous materials (chaps. l-6) are to be understood
as texts that were related to baptismal ritual. 13
Finally, a pattern of initiation instruction appearsin chaps. l-5(6) that
parallelssuchinstructionin other early Jewish-Christian literature.'oIn lqS
3.13-4.26there appearsto be a pre-Christian pattern of initiation that finds
certain correspondences in Did. l-6:.
l. Dualisticintroduction
2. Virtue and vice lists
3. Concludingeschatological exhortation
The first element of this schemawithin the Didache itself divergesfrom
many other catecheticaldocumentsin that the elementsof dualistic cosmology
and angelology are missing. In this respect the Didache is closer to Deut
30:15ff.15The absenceof theseelements(i.e., a dualisticcosmologyand an
angelology)either may be the result of the processof textual transmissionor
may be the intendedeffort of the Didachistto lend an ethicaltoneto Did. l.l.
The secondelementappearsin Did.2-3, 5 (separatedby a short Haustafel sec-
tion in chap.4), wherea collectionof communityrulesis assembled. The NT
catalogsof virtues and vices also show a "high incidenceof baptismal
language,"16which suggeststhat their use in the Didache may have been
related to the practice of immersion ritual. Finally, the third elementis not
apparentin chaps.l-5(6), but in fact, it may be assumedto be represented in
Did. 16,if one can agreewith thosescholarswho arguethat chap. 16original-
ly belongedwith the earliestmaterialsthat wereassociated with Did. l-5(6).t7
are the writings of Judith, Tobit, Sirach, the Wisdom of Solornon,Hermasand Esther. Seethe
discussionof baptismin relationshipto the Didacheby Schaff,Monual,29-57; and more recently,
Noakes, "TimeS," 80-94,and Meeks, Christions, 150-57.
r3 In this observationSuggsagrees,
"Tradition," T2. While it is true that Did. T.2-4 may be
a later insertioninto ihe text, as hasbeensuggested by Atdet (Didachi,58-62), this doesnot serve
as an argumentagainstthe ultimate useof the text for baptismalinstruction within the communi-
ty, but only againstthe original use of the text for such ritual instruction.
ra SeeBaltzer, CovenantFormulary, 127-32.
15Baltzer, CovenantFormulary, 128. CompareBarn. l8.l-2.
tu Suggs,
"Tradition," 69 (basedupon the work and the observationsof Kamlah, Form, see
especially210-14).
tt For an extensivecomparisonof thesethree elementsas they
are understoodin the work of
Baltzer, Kamlah and Suggs, see the discussionin Kloppenborg, SaTings, 27-31. Following
Kamlah's schemaof a "Two Angels/Two Ways" myth that has been incorporatedby Jewish-
Christian literature from Iranian mythology, Kloppenborg outlines the resultant pattern, as
follows (setin comparisonwith the IQS 3.13-4.26,T. Asher l-7 and Cal 5:17-24):
Didache IQS T. Asher Galatians
Two Waysintro. l.l 3.13-4.1 1.3-9 5 :l 7 -1 8
Double list of sins 2.1-4.14;5.1-2 4.2-6,9-ll 2.1-6.6 5:19-21a,22-23
Admonition 6.1 4.7-8. 12-26 7.1-7 5:21b,24
28 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW' OF TEXTS 29

The Two Ways tradition, as it appearsin Did. 1-6, combinesboth the ele-
mentsof dualismthat are commonto the immersionritual of IQS 3.13-4.26
and the pareneticcharacter of sapiential literature that was spawnedwithin
the Jewish wisdom tradition (as for example, the Testamentof the Twelve
Patriarchs and the Book of Enoch). Unfortunately, it is difficult to seein
18
thesewritings the direct antecedentsto the Didache; however,it is obvious
that the Didachist has drawn upon both traditions freely. Further, the Dida-
chist has castboth of thesetraditions into an ethical framework, the purpose
of which has been overlooked completelyby those tradents who transmitted
the later recensionsof the text. le Most appropriately,if the immediateissue
for the Didachist was one of baptism (or some other form of ritual immer-
sion), the redactorof the later Apostolic Constitutions,which incorporated
the framework of the Didache, may well have chosento refashionthe text to
meet the requirementsof his/her own time and situation. (One assumesthat
the circumstancesof the person who compiled the Apostolic Constitutions
were not orientedtoward baptismper se, but probably were focusedupon the
pressingconcernsof ecclesialhierarchy.)
Conclusions
("Wide is the gate and easy is the way which leads to destruction;
narrow is the gate and hard is the way which leads to life.")
While this reconstructioncertainly does not bring us to a form of the Two
Ways sayingthat is equivalentto the specificsayingthat appearsin Did. l.l,
there is no question that the basic Two Ways motif which appearsin Matt
7:13-14is alsothe sameas that which is found in Did.l.l.21 The rendering
of the Two Ways sayingthat appearsin the Matthean Gospeland that which
appearsin the Didacheboth probably stem from an early strand of materials
that camefrom OTlJewish sources.Presumablythis strand also incorporated
the forms of the saying that appearedin Deuteronomy and/or Jeremiah,
which themselveswerecommonly usedin early Jewishliterature.22As we will
continue to arguebelow with respectto other sayingsin the Didachethat are
paralleledin the OT and in the Synoptic Gospels,the Didacheis more likely
to be dependentupon OT sourcesthat have beenpreservedthrough Jewish
traditions than either upon the Matthean Gospelor upon the SayingsGospel
a.
Didache 1.2: The Way of Life

It is quite difficult to place the Two Ways tradition of the Didache into a Comparisonof Sources
specifichistoricaltrajectory, simply becausethe Two Ways motif wasso wide-
spreadamongearlyMediterraneancultures.20 Contraryto thosescholarswho H 1.2a-b Mla;tt 22:37-39 Mark 12:30-31 Luke 10:27
would arguefor the SayingsGospelQ (i.e., MattT:13-14/Luke 13:23-24)as ..:
the sourceof Did.l.l, it is quite apparentthat Q did not in fact containthe rrp@Tov 6c nprirq 6odv'
Two Ways motif. Instead, the Matthean redactor probably has drawn the
dyonrioerq, dyonrioerq dyonrioetq, oyonrioerq,
motif from the M source,which we presumablymay attribute to the resources rUprov 16prov rfprov
of the Matthean community. tdv 0edv tdv 0e6v tdv 0e6v rdv 0e6v
Neither is it an easytask to determinethe exactform of any Two Ways say- rdv nouioavrd
ing through an analysisof Matt 7:13-14,sincethe Matthean redactorprobably ot oou oou oou
altered the original form of the saying in a manner that was consistentwith
the format of the "narrow door" Iogion in the SayingsGospel Q. Sincethe o[r1 ioriv
saying does seem to stand apart within the framework of Matt 7:13-14, f, peydl,l rai
however,one might suggestan early form suchasthat which is renderedhere: npcirtl Bvtol,ri.

nl,oteiq f n6l"nroi eipflcopoqf 66dq{ dnriyouooeiq,d1v dndl},erov. 6efrepov 6eur6po 6d 6eur6,po

otevrl { nfl,r1roi teOirrppr6wl eiq,tilv (ol{v.
i 6Sdqi dZrtiyouoo 6poia o0rfl cr5trq KOt

2r As will be seenbelow, the Didachisthas drawn frorn a specificTwo Ways sourcedocument

r8 Rordorf
and Tuilier. Doctrine. 24. which the Matthean redactor also reflects(particularly in Matt 7), but which the redactor does
le Rordorf
and Tuilier, Doctrine. 26-27. This is most evidentin the recensionof AC 7. wherc not incorporatedirectly. Thus, it may be that the Mattheanredactordid not insertany singleTwo
the redactorof the Apostolic Constitutionsappearsto haveno use for the ethical considerations
Ways salng into Matt 7:13-14at all, but instead,that s/he simply may reflect the spirit of the
of the Didachist, and thus has chosento omit them.
20 See Didache'sTwo Ways sourcein theseversesof the Matthean Gospel.This is not likely though.
the discussionthat is offered by McDonald, Kerygma, 177-78n. 23. tt Thus one finds that Pirke Rabbi Eleazaritself is a midrash upon Deut 30:15ff.
30 CHAPTER T\I/O REVIE\V OF TEXTS 3l

&Tcnrioerq, dTanrloeq The parallelsto Did. l.2cthat occur in the SynopticGospelsappear,aswith

tdv nl,qoiov rdv nX,rloiov rdv nl,loiov tdv nluloiov Did. l.l, to be basedupon the SayingsGospelQ." As is most often charac-
oou oou oou oou teristic of Q materials, this saying of the "Golden Rule" is not dependent
drq,oecur6v' <bq,oeout6v. rbq,oeaur6v. <bqoeaut6v.
upon an OT citation, but instead, it reflects an elementof the common
H l.2c Matt 7zl2 Luke 6:31 wisdomtradition that occursthroughoutthe earlywisdomliteratureof the an-
rdvto 6d ndvrc otiv rai cient Near East and the Mediterraneanbasin.26Though the wording of the
6oo 6dv 6oa tdv ro0<bq, Matthean form parallelsthat of the Didache in certain respects,the Lucan/
0e)'{olq 06)'4re 06l,ete
Matthean texts agree upon an interesting presentation of the saying in a
prl
lvo noldrow iva nordrorv positive formula, while the Didachist presentsthe more typical negativeform
yiveo0ai
oot, 0piv 0piv of the saying.
oi dv0parnor, oi dv0pconor
rci oD o0rroq,rci tSpeiq
nowire rlowTre The Questionof a Tradition
d?rl,cp o0toiq,' a0toiq,
pfl The Love of God (Didache I.2a)
noier. 6poi<oq,.
Scholarly opinion is divided concerningthe questionof which sourcethe Di-
There is little question that the "double love commandment" of Matt dachistusedfor this saying.
22:37-39/Luke10:27is derivedfrom Mark 12:30-31(and perhapsfrom the While the text is remarkablycloseto that of the SynopticGospels,the addi-
SayingsGospelQ),23which itself is dependentupon the textsof Deut 6:5 (xci tion of the phrasetdv nou'1oc,vrdoe ("who made you") suggeststhat the
&yonrioerqKfprov tdv 0e6v oou ["and love the Lord your God"]) and Lev Didachisthasusedor incorporateda differentsourcehere,z1Sincethis phrase
19:l8 (rci &ycnrioerq, tdv nl,qoiov oou 6q oeour6v ["and loveyour neighbor typicallyhasbeenseenas a signof directJewishinfluence,28 it often hasbeen
as yourself"l). Againstthe witnessof Did. 1.2, all threeGospelsagreeupon suggestedthat at this point the Didachist has drawn either upon the writings
the inclusionof rfproq (["Lord"], as doesDeuteronomy),though the Lucan of Justin Martyr or upon Justin's source.2e This may be the case,but if so,
redactoragreeswith the format of the Didachist in thoseinstanceswhereboth this is one of only a few instanceswherethe Didachistmight be dependent
textsomit the second&ycnrioerq,, from Leviti-
a term which alsois suggested upon Justin. On the other hand, the sourceof Did. l.l, which we haveseen
cus. This elementof omissiondoesnot indicatenecessarilythat the Lucan aboveis a specificsayingwhoseposition was suggested to the Didachistby
Gospeland the Didachesharea unique sourceat this point (especiallysince the arrangementof the Two Wayssource(ascan be judged againstBarn. 18-
this is their only true agreementagainstthe Marcan/Mattheanformula). In-
20), mayhavesuppliedthe "who madeyou" phraseasreadily.While the Two
stead,this commonelementindicatesthat both the Didachistand the Lucan Ways source,at leastaccordingto the witnessof Barnabas,doesnot include
redactorchosea more abbreviatedand a more conciseformat for the presen-
the "love of God" sayingthat is found here,the phrasedyonnoetqtdv noq-
tation of thesematerials.The Marcan Gospelagreeswith the Didachethat
thesesayingsare to be introducedby the useof npdlroq,["first"]. The Mat-
25 For representativediscussionswith regardto the original position of the Golden Rule in the
theanredactor,however,concludesthe "love of God" statementwith the an-
SayingsGospelQ, seeLiihrmann, "Liebet," 416, and Syreeni,Making, |.l38-39.
nouncementthat "this is the greatestand first [npdtroq,]commandment," 26 Audet, Didachi,260. Taylor (Teaching,l0) lists among the extensiveparallelsto the
which indicatessome knowledgeof this elementof "ordering" within the "Golden Rule" two examplesthat appearin the Confucian Analects 15.23and the Doctrine of
tradition.2a the Mean 13.3-4.SeeDihle, GoldeneRegel,80-121.
tt Among those scholarswho believethat the Didachist is dependentupon the Synopticsfor
all the sayingsin Did. 1.2 are Spence,Teaching,9 (the Synopticswere quoted from memory);
23 Most of Harnack, Lehre,76 (the Didachistinsertedtdv notriocvtri aeinto Did. l.2a); Vokes,Riddle,92:
the argumentsfor the presenceof the SayingsGospel Q here are based upon
elementsthat appearin the backgroundor contextto the sayingsproper, and are not basedupon and, Massaux,Influence, 606-607.
elementswithin the sayingsthemselves; 28 So, for example,Oxford Society,New Testament,26.
seeFuller, "Double Commandment,"42.
" This discussion,with respectto the text of the Didache,is not particularlymeaningful, 2e Just. 1 apol. 1.16:npooxuv{oeiq . . . r6prov rdv Oedvtdv not{oovtti oe (["revere ' . .
however,if in fact the "first . . . second"(np6roq . . . 6e6repoq,)
distinctionsof the Didachist's the Lord God who made you"l; Harnack, Lehre,70: Butler, "Quotations," l3). Even here,
witnessderivefrom a laterredactionalhand;seeDraper,"Tradition," 271-72.Comparethe posi- however,Justin has maintainedthe word rfprog in agreementwith the LXX and the Synoptics
tion of Kcihler(Rezeption,43),who sees,,first . . . second"as an emphasisupon priority, not againstthe witnessof the Didache!
upon order.
 32 CHAPTER Tw'O
oovrd oe does appear in the source(cf . Barn. 19.2a).To be sure, the Two
Ways sourcewasa likely and probably a more readily availablesourcefor the
Didachist than was Justin. This influence from the Two Ways sourceis sug-
gestedby the consistentusageof the sourcethroughoutDid. l-5. Otherwise,
Did. l.2a appearsto parallel closely the witness of the Synoptic Gospels,
which is basedupon the Marcan and/or Q traditions. Admittedly, however,
the rfprcg, of the LXX and of the Synopticsis not repeatedin Did. 1.2a,
which may be viewed as an unexpectedcircumstanceif one is to argue that
the Didachist dependedeither upon the LXX or upon the Synopticsfor these
materials. The significanceof this minor disagreementwill be addressed
below.
The Love of Neighbor (Didache L2b)
Commentsconcerningthe Didache's"love of God" sayinghold true with
respectto the "love of neighbor" sayingas well. With referenceto form, there
is no disputebetweenthe Synopticwitnessand that of the Didache,sinceall
of the relevant texts repeat the exact samewording.
Because the two elementsof "love of God" and "love of neighbor" appear
in tandem in the Synoptics,we are no longer surprisedto seethem together
in other contexts.While it must be notedthat the union of thesesayingswas
not unknown in first-century Judaism,30their juxtaposition most certainly
had becomea convention within certain circlesof early Christianity. On the
other hand, one discoversnumeroustexts in which the "love of neighbor"
saying appearsby itself as a primary representativeof the Torah, thus:
Rom 13:9 Gal 5:14 Jas 2:8
dyanrgoelg, dyonrioerq dyonrioeq
rdv nl,qoiov tdv nl,qoiov tdv nl,qoiov
oou <bg,
oou rbq, oou rbq
oecur6v. oequr6v. oeout6v
In the aboveNT passages the wording is preciselythat of Lev 19:18.The
Gospelof rhomas offers severalminor divergenciesin wording (and probably
in theologicalperspective),but not necessarily in basicintent. An argument
may be madethat theseillustrationsof the "love of neighbor" saying,in addi-
tion to a parallelexamplethat appearsin pirqe Aboth 1.12,attestto an early
tradition that aroseboth within early Judaismand within nascentchristianity
apart from the Marcantradition of Mark 12:30-31andits Synopticparallels.
The further appearance of the commandmentat Matt 19:19(absentfrom the
30 As is
noted by Kraft (Bornabos.137),the close associationbetweenthe "love command-
m e n t s " a p p e a r s i n t h e T e s t a m e nltsss: ?
. 5n. 2 , 7 . 6 ; T . D a n 5 . 3 ; T . B e n j . 3 . 3 ; p i r q e A b o t h 6 . l .
Seethe discussionof Krihler, Rezeption,43.
RE\rIEW OF TEXTS JJ
parallelpassages of Mark 10:19and Luke 18:20)also may attestto suchan
early tradition. Sincethe Didachistreflectsthe associationof the "double love
commandment," however, it would seemreasonableto assumethat s/he
dependsupon a "double love commandment"tradition suchas that which is
reflectedin Mark 12, rather than that s/he has chosento unite the "love com-
mandments" (in addition to the Golden Rule saying)through his/her own in-
itiative.3l
The Golden Rule (Didache I.2c)
The Golden Rule saying is found commonly throughout both Jewishand
Hellenistic sources.The rare occurrenceof the sayingin its posilive form in
the Matthean and Lucan Gospels,32however, arguesthat the redactors of
thosetexts are dependentupon a common source,which is most likely the
SayingsGospelQ. The Didache,on the other hand, revealsthe negativeform
of the saying, which is a form that is predominant throughout the tradition
of the Golden Rule.33Though there is the possibilitythat the Didachistis
dependentupon the Q tradition as it is reflectedin the Synopticsand that s/he
consciouslyhas chosento changethe format into one that is negative,3a this
hardly seemslikely. Instead, it would appearthat the Didachist is dependent
upon a form that was distinct from the form which was derived from the Say-
ings GospelQ.
A Suggestionfrom the Matthean Gospel
A discussionhas arisen among NT scholarsconcerningthe probability that
Gos. Thom.25 the Mattheanand Lucan redactorssharedanothersourcefor the "double love
dycnrioerq commandment"in addition to that which is providedby the Marcan tradi-
rdv d,66,1.<pov
tion. On the one hand, thereis no certaintythat the Lucan redactorusedthe
oou <ilq,
rilv ryul6rivoou. Marcan tradition at all; on the other, the Matthean version contains several
featureswhich do not derivefrom the Marcantradition. While the Lucan say-
ingsmay be attributedto a Q sourcethat variedfrom the Marcantradition,35
3r Inthisassertionlconsciouslyamexpressingsomeresistancetotheviewof Giet(L'inigme,
67), who believesthat both the "love of neighbor" commandmentand the GoldenRule havebeen
addedto a sayingwhich doesnot needthem (i.e., the "love of God"). While it may be the case
that the "love of God" sayingdoesnot "require" theseadditions, the Marcan tradition seems
to argue for at leastthe addition of the "love of neighbor" sayingin certain strainsof the tradi-
tion. SeePs-Clem.hom. 7.4-7 for an interestingexampleof wherethe Two Ways motif hasbeen
juxtaposedwith the GoldenRule.
32 Seealso I CIem. 13.2c: Just dial. 93.1.
33CompareTob 4:15,Ep. Arist. 15.5;Acts 15:20
[sa, Ir, D]; Iren. haer. f.l2.l4: Clem.str.
2.23; AfexanderSeverus51. SeeDihle, ColdeneRegel, 107.
3a Vokes (Riddle,92) suggeststhat this was undertakenin order to
"conceal the borrowing."
35 An excellentand concisesummaryof this discussionappearsin Kloppenborg("Sayings,"
34 CHAPTER T.wO
there are severalindications that the Matthean redactor also may have used
a third sourcethat was not incorporatedeither by the Marcan or by the Lucan
texts.36
A simple proposal for the identification of sourcesin the Matthean tradi-
tion may explain this additional source. As is attested in the Testaments
material, the "double love commandment" circulated widely within early
Jewishand Christian communitieswithout the associatedChristian context of
"what is the greatestcommandment," which is representednow in the Synop-
tic witnesses.Sucha "free-floating" version easilymay have existedin some
"early stageof the Matthean material," prior to the influence of the Marcan
Gospel. Even without the Marcan "greatest commandment" context, such a
"double love commandment" would have functioned as a completeunit in
itself.
. . . Tworeasons canbegiven[in justificationthatthiscommandment couldhave
functionedas a unit withoutthe Marcancontextl.First, the doublecommand-
ment of love would havebeena characteristic and ratherimportantteaching
(whetherfrom Jesus,or attributedto him). We haveotherexamples in which
Jewishteachers of theperiodsummarized theTorah,andonecanexpectthat the
samewouldhavebeendoneby Jesusor theteachers of theprimitivecommunity
(asRom l3:9 givesevidence for the latter).Furthermore, this summarycouldbe
usedon variousoccasions andin several connections.Wehaveindependent tradi-
tionsin whichit is used,viz., Mk andQ. We arehereproposingthat therewas
a third as well(specialM).37
With the incorporation of the Marcan framework into the Matthean mate-
rials, the Matthean redactor reconstructedhis/her version upon the Marcan
context of the commandment,in addition to the Marcan position within the
general framework of the text. Divergencieswith the Marcan tradition oc-
curred here, both with respectto the inclusion of the specialM materials,and
subsequently,with respectto the influenceof the Q tradition. Sucha develop-
ment within the tradition of the Matthean materials may well-explain the
disparateelementsof the Matthean version of the "double love command-
ment." Further, if one can believethat the Didachist has drawn upon sayings
that wereknown by the Matthean redactor from the specialM source,the use
60-69)' who cites the argumentsof Manson, sayings, 259-61(the Lucan redactor here usedthe
specialLucan source);Lohmeyer, Matthiius,327-30; Jeremias,parables,202-204;Bornkamm,
Doppelgebot,85-93(the Matthean and Lucan redactorsuseda pre-Shemaform ofthe Marcan
tradition); Furnish, "Commandment,,, 24-45: Schramm, Markus-Stoff, 41-49(the Matthean
redactor used Mark; the Lucan redactor used e); Fuller, ..Doppelgebot,', 317-29 (with
Schramm);Ellis, "Directions," 299-315(with Schramm);Strecker,lheg,135-37(with Schramm);
Grundmann,Matthdus,475-77 Stend,ahl, School,76 and,Gundry, Use,22-24(Mattheanredac-
tor-usedMark). Kloppenborg'sargumentsfor this pericopeare alignedwith thoseof Bornkamm.
'o These
observationsand the reconstructionof a separatesourcein the Matthean tradition
come from the perceptiveobservationsof Hultgren, .,Double Commandment,,' 373-78.
" Hultgren, "Double Commandment.,'376.
REVIEW OF TEXTS 35
of sucha commandmentin the Didachewithout the Marcan contextlendsfur-
ther evidencefor this reconstruction.
With respecttoDid.l.2a, thereis little questionthat the Didachisthereis
dependentupon a Two Ways sourcefor his/her ordering of elements,as with
Did. l.l . In the Two Wayssegmentof Barnabasone finds hints of the "dou-
ble love commandment"as well, though the two elementsof the sayingdo
not occur together and the wording of each varies considerably from the
witnessof Did. l.2a:
Born. 19.2a- dyonrioerq,
tdv norriocvtd oe
("love the onewho madeyou")
Barn. 19.5c- dyonrioergtdv nl"loiov oou 0ndpd1v tyul,tivoou.
("love your neighbormorethanyour own life.")
On the one hand, the Didachist did not find thesesayingstogetherin the
Two Ways source(asis attestedby the readingof Barn. 19.2a,5c,wherethe
sayingsappearseparately),though s/he obviously is dependentto someextent
upon that sourcefor the occurrenceof l.2a-b itself within the text of the
Didache and for the positioning of l.2a-b near to the beginning of the Two
Ways materials.3sYet, the Didachistdid not constructDid. l.2a-b with the
assistance of the Two Ways sourcealone, sincethe wording of the "double
love commandment" in Barnabasdoesnot indicate a knowledgeof materials
that could have led to the more completerenderingof the "double love com-
mandment" that appearsin the Didache. The Didachist also doesnot appear
to know of the controversythat surroundsthesematerialswithin the Marcan
(and Q?) tradition, sinces,/hedoes not betray any contextual framework in
Did. l.2a-b that is reminiscenteither of the Matthean, the Marcan or the
Lucan versionsof the pericope.The logicalassumption,therefore,is that the
Didachistwasinspiredby the Two Ways sourceto provide a specificrendering
of the "double love commandment"(apart from the mere hint of the com-
mandmentwhich existedin the Two Ways sourceitself 3e)at the beginningof
the Didache and in close proximity to the opening Two Ways statementof
Did. l.l. The Didachist,however,alsoknew of an independent"double love
38 The sayingthat appearsat Barn. l9.2ais noticdablydifferent from the Did. l.2aversion
of the saying. If the Two Ways sourceindeed was used for catecheticalpurposesearly in the
Christian tradition, this might explain why the Didachist would have chosento incorporatethe
Barnabasversion of the saying into Did. l.2a (Greyvenstein,"'Teachine,"' 102).
3e One can only guessconcerningthe nature of the original Two Ways sourceby meansof a
comparisonof those materialsthat are preservedin Did. l-5 and Barn. 18-20.Throughout this
study, the text of Barnabasis assumedto representa more accuratepreservationof the Two Ways
sourcethan doesthe text of the Didache, sincethe materialsin Barn. 18-20do not indicate any
major redactionalconcerns.
 36 CHAPTER TwO
commandment" that existed within a tradition that was distinct from the
Marcan tradition.ao
With respectto the Golden Rule, we haveseenabovethat the versionwhich
appearsin Did. l.2b is not necessarilydependentupon the Q form of the say-
ing as it is preservedin the Matthean or in the Lucan Gospels.More likely,
the sourcethat was usedby the Didachist also stemsfrom a non-Q tradition,
one that was more common in early Jewish/Christian circles.ar
With respecttoDid. l.2,we thus are left with a situationwhereby:l) the
Didachist is dependentupon the Two Ways sourcefor the ordering of the in-
dividual sayingsand for the suggestionof the inclusion of the "double love
commandment" near to the motif of the Two Ways; 2) the Didachist knew
and useda tradition of the double love commandmentthat did not stemfrom
the Marcan tradition or from the SayingsGospelQ; 3) the Didachist knew and
used a tradition of the Golden Rule that also did not stem from the Sayings
GospelQ; and, 4) the presenceof the Golden Rule in Did. l.2was not sug-
gestedby either the Two Ways sourceor by the "double love commandment"
of the Marcan tradition.
Severalfeaturesof the Matthean Gospelsuggestthat the Matthean redactor
recognizedto some extent the sameset of elementsas that from which the
DidachistderivedDid. 1.2: l) the Matthean redactor, aloneamongthe Synop-
tic writers, placesthe Golden Rule in closeproximity to a statementof the
Two Ways (Matt7:12-t4);o'2) the Matthean redactorprobably knew and in-
corporateda tradition of the "double love commandment" that did not stem
from the Marcan or Q traditions (asis arguedabove);3) though the Matthean
redactorusedthe Q versionof the GoldenRule, much of the terminologyof
the Mattheanrenderingis similar to that of Did.l.2b; and, 4) the Matthean
redactor appmrs to recognizethe significanceof the "double love command-
ment" in connection with the Golden Rule, as is indicated by the uniquely
Matthean conclusionthat appearsin each instance:
a0 K<isterclassifies
this sourceas aJree tradition ((Jberlieferung,260).It is difficult to agree
with the presumptuousopinion of Greyvenstein("'Teaching,"' l0l), however,that: "Here it is
once more evidentthat Jesusand the author of the 'Teaching' havebeenthe first to bring these
two commandmentstogether."
ar Variousscholarsnaturallyoptfordifferentsources:Sabatier,
Didachi,24n.2(oraltradi-
tion); McGiffert, "Relations," 434 (onl tradition); Wohlenberg,Lehre,2l (Acts 15:20[D]);
Schlecht,Doctrina,46 (Tob 4:16);oxford society,New Testament,26("lf the sayingbe part
of the true text of the Acts, it would here most naturally be attributed to the use of the Acts. If
it be regardedas a gloss in Acts, the Didoche may have originated such a gloss."); Robinson,
Barnabas,48-49(an early tradition that wasassociatedwith the prohibition againstcertainfoods
- as with Acts 15:20
[D] - and that subsequentlywas usedhere for the instruction of Gentile
converts as a word of the Apostles); Krister, Uberliefentng, 168-69(an earlier form than the
positive format, perhapsfrom ancient palestinian Judaism).
*' Massaux
(Influence,607-608)makesthis point, though he argues,basedupon his analysis
of the Matthean Gospel,that the Didachistis responsiblefor the ordering of Did. Ll-2, instead
of both redactorsusinga common source.The divergentorder of the elementsis inconsequential.
REVIEW OF TEXTS 37
MattTil2b - oriroqydp docv 6 v6poqroi oi npo<pfrtor.
("For thisis the law andthe prophets.")
Matt 22:40- tv ta,ritcrqtciq, 6uoiv6vtol.criq,
6?'oq6
v6poqrpdpctcr rci oi npogfltot.
("On thesetwo commandments dependall the law andthe prophets'")
This notation concerningthe "double love commandment"and the Golden
Rule as the summation of "the law and the prophets" appearsonly here in
the Gospels,and thus may imply that the Matthean redactorwas familiar with
a tradition in which the "double love commandment"and the Golden Rule
wererecognizedastwo elementsof a singleinclusio concerningthe parameters
of the OT Law.a3For our purposes,itis not significantthat the phrasewas
usedas an indicator of the summation of the Law, sincethis was a common
practice in early Jewish circles. It rs significant that the Matthean redactor
usesthis phraseto underscoretwo sayingsthat came from different OT
sources,which the Didachistalso consideredto be the essence of the "Way
of Life," sincethis lendssomesupportfor the positionthat the Didachistand
the Matthean redactor are dependentupon a common tradition of scriptural
interpretation.
Conclusions
In accordancewith the order of the Two Ways source(asis suggested by the
witnessof Barnabas),upon which much of Did. l-5 was constructed,the
Didachistchoseto placethe "love of God" sayingin closeproximity to the
Two Ways statementof Did. l.l. While the witnessof Barn. l9.2a,5cin-
dicatesthat the "love of God" sayingwas not associatedwith the "love of
neighbor" sayingin the text of the Two Ways source,the Didachistin fact
hasplacedtherntogether.This "double love commandment"alsoappearsin
the SynopticGospels,whereit is derivedprimarily from the Marcantradition
and secondarilyfrom the SayingsGospelQ andlor from separatespecialMat-
thean/Lucansources.Sincethe Two Ways sourcedid not provide sufficient
terminology for that reconstructionof the "double love commandment"
a3 The phrase
"law and prophets"rarelyoccurselsewhere amongthe writingsof the Synoptic
redactors.At three points in Acts (13:15;24 14:'28:23)mentionis madeof "the law and the
prophets"as an indicationof the OT. Also, Matt I l:13 and Luke 16:16appearto sharea Q say-
ing that notesthe existenceof "the law and the prophets" as an authoritative principle prior to
John the Baptizer.Finally,in Matt 5:16the Mattheanredactorattributesto Jesusthe exhortation
"Think not that I havecometo abolishthe law and the prophets;I havecome not to abolish
them but to fulfil them." Sincethis last citationis a significantmotif in the MattheanSermon
on the Mount that appearsto stemfrom the M source,theremay be somefurther justification
to considerthat the Mattheanredactorhas reliedupon "the law and the prophets" themeas a
major building block throughoutthe compositionof the Sermon.
 38 CHAPTER Tw'O
which appearsin Did. l.2a (asagainis suggested by the witnessof Barnabas),
and sincethe Didachist seemsunaware of the Marcan context for the com-
mandment (and contains some divergent terminology), the Didachist must
have known of a separatesayingfrom which Did. l.2a was borrowed.The
Didachist also must haveattachedto the "double love commandment" a ver-
sion of the Golden Rule sayingthat camefrom a separatetradition than that
which wasassociated with Q, sincethe form of the Didachist'ssayingdiverges
from the positive format of the Q source.
It is likely that the Mattheanredactoralso was familiar with the "double
love commandment"and with the GoldenRule traditionsthat wereusedby
the Didachist,sinceboth sayingsare underscoredby the redactorin distinc-
tion from the witnessof the remaining Synoptic Gospels.The Matthean
redactor has chosento rely primarily upon the Marcan and upon the Q tradi-
tions for his/her renderingof the "double love commandment" and for
his/her formation of the GoldenRule, insteadof upon the tradition that was
incorporatedby the Didachist.aaThe reasonfor this choiceby the Matthean
redactorwill be discussed below. In any case,the associationof the "double
love commandment" with the Golden Rule apparentlyheld a significance
both for the Didachistand for the Mattheanredactorthat wasnot sharedby
the Marcan or the Lucan redactors.The Mattheanredactorchoseto indicate
this associationthrough the addition of "the law and the prophets" phrase,
eventhoughs/he consciouslyhad chosento separatethesesayingsin the final
constructionof the Gospelitself.as
Didache 1.3b-2.I : Positive Admonitions
Introduction
From the outset,studentsof the Didachehavebeenhesitantto attribute l.3b-
2.1 to the earliestform of the text, sincethesematerialsare in many respects
unique to the writing.a6There is little questionthat, unlike the majority of
versesin the first five chaptersof the Didache,l.3b-2.1 derivesfrom more re-
* With
respectto the "double love commandment,"this allegiance to the Marcantradition
wolld explain why the Matthean redactorchoseto incorporatethe term x6proq,,eventhough it
did-not appearin the tradition that was usedby the Didachist.
a5 so, Fuller ("Double
commandment," 45) missesthe point of this phraseas it is usedby
the Matthean redactorwhen he commentsthat "Matthew is particularly fond of the expression
a6 so
warfield, "Reviews," 596: "on internalgroundsit can hardly havebeenpart of the
original text." Others since Warfield who have denied the originality of this section include
9..yn.ltt .in, "'Teachint,"' 25,69-71(basedupon both internaland externalevidence); Muilen-
burg, Relotions,5 (he notes,however,that externalevidencesuggeststhat it indeedwas
original
[47]); Creed,"Didache," 376.
REVIEW' OF TEXTS 39
cent sourceswithin IntertestamentalJudaismand early Christianity, and not
from long Judeo-Christiantraditionsof textual transmission.aT One notesa
distinct break here with the remainder of the Didache in regard to several
points: l) thereis no distinct appealto a specificinterpretivemotif as with the
restof the earlychapters;48 2) the backgroundtextsaround which the section
is constructedreflect a knowledgeof some form of the SayingsGospel Q as
it has beenpreservedin the Matthean and in the Lucan Gospels(a somewhat
unique feature of the Didache apart from the Lord's Prayer in chap. 8 and
scatteredmaterialsin chap. l6); and, 3) while the textsare set in a logicalse-
quencewithin the broader context of Did. l-2, their concernsare strictly
Christian, bearingonly minor reflectionsof any Jewishconcerns.This ab-
senceof Jewishfoci appearsto be atypicalof the remainderof chaps. l-5.
Yet, as has beenargued recently, somecare must be taken before one can
attribute every elementof this interpolation in a "wholesale" manner to the
final redaction of the Didache.aeThe segmentobviously reflects a conscious
(though awkward) attempt to integrateit with respectboth to nascentChris-
tian motifs and to Jewishwisdomthemes.Indeed,theseeffortshaveproduced
a workable,completeliteraryunity within the section.Eachsayingwithin the
segmentmust be examinedand consideredon its own merit before a deter-
mination can be madeconcerningthe role of the unit within the larger context
of the Didache.
Comparisonof Sourcesfor l.3b-450
Matt 5:43-4E,3E-42 H l.3b-4 Ltrke 6227-2E,29-30,
32-36
(v 43)
'Hxofoote
6tr 6pp6,0q'
dyonrjoergrdv
nl,qoiov oou rci
a7 SeeLaylon,
"Sources," 343-83.
ot Thus, one finds a dependenceupon the Mosaic Law (specificallythe decalogue)and its use
as an ethical guidelineelsewherethroughout chaps. l-5. This relianceupon the decalogueas a
framework around which the Two Ways motif is oriented in Did. l.l-6.1a is illustrated in the
discussionbelow.
4e A thoughtful challengeto suchearlyattemptsto dismissthe sectionaspart of the final stage
of Christian redactionthat was undertakenby the final redactorrecentlywas offered by Pickett,
"Eschatology," l0: ". . . the compositionof the sayingssectionin l.3b-4 is very similar to that
found in Dtd 16.Both sectionscite traditional materialbut not its source.Both changeand adapt
this material freely. The author doesnot needto cite an authority, he doesnot needto quote the
sayingsexactly, yet they are authoritative for him. Evidently he believedeither that the material
was familiar enoughto his audiencethat it spoke for itself, or that his personalauthority as a
teachergavehim the right to cite and adapt such material at will, or eventhat he, as a represen-
tative of God (cf. Ignatius) neededno further authorization."
50 Throughout the following discussionwe will refer to the text as H (versusthe Latin text of
L), sincethe L witnessomits l.3b-2.1. (note 50 continued on p. 40)
 REVIEW OT TEXTS
& CHAPTER Tw'O

(t 41) (v 33)
prorioerq,tdv
Kai 6dv rci ydp €dv
610p6voou. dya0onorflte toDg,
don6oqo0e roDq,
(v 441 (v 211 dya0ororoOvtaq,
d6e)'<poDq,
'Al,ld upiv M1<o toiq 6pdq'
6yrb6d Mlco 6Piv' 0pdrv p6vov,
dro6ouorv' xoia f4tiv yiPtEI
ti neproodv
&yon&re coiq, 'lorsitt; lotiv;
irlandre rcDq
BT0poiq 6pdtv* EX9potE6pdtv,* rci
o$1i rci o$1i xci
rortirt
xaX.drq, oi l0vrroi td 60vr1 oi dpaptoloi
roig ptoo0orv td cnJtir td otrtd td citd
updq, fiotoo('rv; noro$orvl noro$ol.

(v 3) (v 2E) (v 34)

erilolelte to0q e6)'oyeiteto$q etc,

xatapro;rf,voug rctaporpfvouq, (v 35)
Spiv spdq'
tjpeiq 6t nluilv
rai npooe6leo0e rci npooe6leo0e npocerileoOe &londte toig tilcndte toiq
6ntp rtitv vnlp ritv nepi t6rv proo0vtaq,updq, ttOpo0q Sptirv
fiwxdvtotv 6pdg,** iT0pdtv 6pdtv,* tnqpec(6vtcov t)pdg.
roi o61,6(ete xci dlo0onoreite
vqoteriete 6d €1,0p6v.5r rai 6avi(ere pn6Cv
6ndp tdtv dnel,ni(oweq,' roi
Stax6vrav 6pdE''* 6otqr 6 pro0dq,
0pdlv noluriq,,rsi
(v 45) 6oeo0euioi
etc. riviotou, 6tr
a0tdq, t(pqot6q,
(v 46) (v 32)
6otrv 6ni toirg,
idv ydp no{a yilp Ttfiptg,t iitv rai ei dlapiotouq, xci
riyan{oqte toiq tiycrdte toiq tiyandte toDq novqpofg,.
rirlandrvtoq trpdg, riycndrvtaq Spdq; &landrvtag ilpdq'
(v 4E) (v 36)
tivo proOdv6Iete; nofa t1fiv yip,Et
6oriv; Eoeoileo6v 0peiq Iiveo0e
d)"etofiI oirtippoveq, rcOrbq
oili rai rci ydp rsi 6
<bs6
oi te?rdrvor oi &papt<o)'oi nqrilp 0pd)v
notip rlpdlv 6
td c$td toUg,dyandrvtaq, oixtippalv
o0pduoq, t6Let6q,
noroOorv; a0toDq,dyqnd)orv. 6otiv.
6onv.
'Hxofoore 6tr 6pP601'
690alupdv dvti
6q0c?'po0roi 666vtq
H hasbeenplacedin the centerposition hereto indicatemore readily its associationsboth with dvti 666woq,.
to arguethat the passage
the Mattheanand with the Lucan forms of the Q text. It is not necessary
comesfrom Q, sincethe parallelsbetweenthe Matthean and the Lucan texts are so strong, and
since the sayingsare unique within the early Christian tradition. Exact verbal and position 5I Contrary to the view of Kristerthat this most likely is a redactionaladdition for the purpose
agreementsbetweenone or both Gospel sourcesand H, with the exceptionof minor tenseor
declensionvariants, are indicated in bold type. Agreementsbetweenthe Gospelsand H with a ofclarification(IJberlieferung,22l),lhaveplacedthisphraseoftheDidacheinparallelwiththe
viz'' they
variance in position are indicated by italics. Parallels that appear in different sequences extendedwording of thi Lucin texi, sinceboth texts servethe sameform-critical roles,
serveas a justification for the appearance of the previous exhortation'
throughout the text are highlighted through the use of asterisksand crosspatterns.
42 CHAPTER Tw'O REYIEW' OF TEXTS 43

(v 39) this correspondence, H 1.3-4at first glanceappearsto reflect someform of

6yrb6t l,6yro0piv pi1 the Q sourceas its Vorlage.Threefactorsin the comparisonof the textstradi-
dvttotfrvot c(r tionally havecausedproblemsfor scholarsin reconstructingthis Q Vorlage,
Trovnpq)' however:l) the disagreements amongthe textsof the Didachist,the Matthean
(v 4) Gospeland the Lucan Gospelthat are evidencedin the additionsand altera-
dndlou tdrv oaprrrdrv tions which appearin H; 2) the verbal agreementof H with the Matthean/
roi otoponrdrv Lucantexts,evenwherethe orderingvaries;and, 3) the individualagreements
imOup16v' of H with either the Matthean or the Lucan Gospelto the exclusionof the
(v 29) other Gospel. Specificallywithin theseverses,H appearsto reflect some
idv tiq oor 6(l TQ tfnrovti oe knowledgeof Q in five stichoi, someknowledgeof the Lucan text in four
dl.l.' 6otq oe
pani(ei eig prinrcpa eig 6ni stichoi and someknowledgeof the Matthean text in three stichoi. From this
d1v 6e(rdv d1v Oefrdv fllv evidenceone must concludethat there is a broad awareness of the Synoptic
oroy6vc oou, orcy6vc, oroy6vo Gospelsand of their sourcesthroughout the verses.There is, however,a
otpfryov critQ otpfyov arit{r n6"peye
specialassociationwith the Mattheantradition, which will be outlinedbelow.
roi tilv &)'l4v' xoi tilv &llqv, xci tilv &llqv,
Vv 3-4 at severalpointsbetraysomeknowledgeof NT textsthat fall outside
xoi Eor;t6l,eroq,'ff of the Gospelsor of their sources.Thus, it has been suggested that the ra-
bdv dyyape[o1 at rq
tionale "and you will have no enemy" is a consciousreflection of I Pet
l.tiLtov Ev, finaye
3:l3,sz while the phrase "abstain from carnal and bodily lust" is aptly
Per' aito' 6tio'***
paralleledin I Pet 2:ll .s3The presenceof suchlate parallelsmay arguefor
(v 40)
the influenceof later traditions upon the Didacheat this point.
roi t(l 062',ovtioor 6dv &pq crg xai dnd ro0
rprOflvorroi oipovt6q oou
rix Trcdtvtilll ti iptfrttt6v**** td ipdrrov Evidenceof a MattheanTradition
oou l,opeiv, oou, 6dg
dqeq,o$trir c$t@ Severalfeaturesof the content and the ordering of H consistentlyserveto
rai td xai rirv xoi tdv makethe witnessof the Didacheunique.When theseelementsare compared
IPdttov'**** T6ttdtva'ltl lrrdrvo with Synopticparallels,they are commonlyascribedto an unknown, myste-
pq rol,rlo1q.
rious redactor of the Didache text. When these elementsare considered
(v 41) together,they suggestthat Did. l.3b-2.1should be consideredas an integral
roi 6onq, oe part of the Mattheantradition. The specificelementsunderconsiderationhere
d,yyape6oetlt{Ltov are as follow:
Ev, 6naye pet'
aitoi 5rio,*** l) The associationof e0l"oy6co("to praise"), npooeflopor ("to pray") and
(v 42) (v 30) \rnort6o ("to fast")
r(r oitouvti 6dv )"dp1trq dnd
2) The referenceto EOvoq("heathen,pagan,Gentile")
novti oiroOri
oe 66q,, oou rd o6v, oe 6i6ou, 3) The focus upon the antithesismotif in Matt 5-6
roi tdv 06l.ovta rcoi ("and you will be perfect")
4) The call to perfection:xoi Eoq t6,1"eroq
d,ndoo0 6avioao0ar dnd ro0 oipovrog
td od 52 Hitchcockand Brown, Teaching,33.
p{ dnoorpo<pfl9. p{ &ncitei' pi1 rinoiter. 53 dndleo0cr rdrv ocpxrrdrv 6nr0uprdrv ("abstainfrom the passionsof the flesh"). As noted
by Vokes(Riddle,23),POxy 1782(i.e., the singlepapyruswitnessto the GreekDidache)omits
o06i ydp 66vooar. xoi oroponrdrv, thereby to produce a phrasein exact parallel to I Peter. The AC 7 rendering
of rooprxdrv in the place of orrrpanxdrv for the purposeof avoiding repetition with oaprrxdrv
From the aboveoutline one may visualizequite readilythe many points of probablyhasbeeninfluencedby the phrasexooprxdq 6nr0upicg("worldly passions")in Titus
correspondencebetweenthe text of H and its Matthean/Lucanparallels.In 2:12.
4 CHAPTER Tu/O
o06e ydp 66vcocr ("for you are
5) The acknowledgmentof powerlessness:
not able")
l) From the outset, the triad of praise, prayer and fasting that opensthe
H version of thesematerialsimmediatelyrecallsthe similar triad of almsgiv-
ing, prayer and fasting ( = the Three Rules)that appearsin Matt 6:2-6, 16-18.
There is no question that the assemblageof the Three Rules derives from
Jewishtraditionsa and that this tradition appearedwidely both within Jewish
wisdomtextsand within earlyChristianwritings.Thus, in Tob l2:8 one finds
the cleareststatementof this associationbetween the elementsof "alms/
prayer/fasting" that occurs among various referencesin the biblical canon
(LXX) and in later rabbinic discussionsof this singular collection of ele-
ments:55
&yo0dvnpooeuTripetd wloteiaqreii)"eqpootiwJ6rai 6rrcroofvrlq'dycr0dv rd
6l.iyovperd 8rrcroofvnsi nol'r)petd d6rricq,'rcldv norfloarEl.eqpoofvqv
fl
Onoaupioar 1,puoiov.
("Proyer is good when accompaniedbyfosting, almsgivingand righteousness. A The central emphasisof each scenariois that of eschatologicalexpectation,
little with righteousnessis better than much with wrongdoing. It is better to give
alms than to treasureup gold.")
Elsewhere, one finds in Gos. Thom. 6a, l4a the same Three Rules motif,
though the elements are presented in reverse order:
\TaNoTq T6r ne<{r..ruoHTHc
nea\T N\q ae KoTog erpT-p:yttsls:f-q
LTo eg re ee eN\OAHAeNlt elensocnrn LTo eN\Fn\p\THpel
eoTFi6to.rom...
("His disciplesaskedhim, saying: Do you wish that we fast, and how shall we
pray, and how shall we give olms, and what diet shall we eat . .")
reae Td N\T ae ererTelN-p!$eIe:fg
rerN\ano NHTTINNoyNoBe
u1o ererTEE q)^HA ceNu.p-ru.rr.KplNe
F,rr..rorTlTro
ererTELNt €IeHMocTNH ererN\e lpe ToTK\ KoN TNertlntL- . . .
(Jesussaid to them: lf youfast you will bring sin to yourselvesand if you pray
you will be condemned,and if you givealms,you will do evil in your spirits. . .)
Matt 6:l-18 preserves the Three Rules in a special setting that betrays
specific redactional interests. Most notably, the Three Rules have been cast
into a catecheticalframework,56 and they have been expanded through the ad-
5a Gerhardsson,
"Opferdienst,', 73; Betz, Essays,62;Dietzfelbinger,..Fr<immigkeitsregeln,"
189. Syreeni(Making, 1.164-65)ascribesthis triad of elementsto the peculiar form of the Mat-
the-anversionof the e sermon(i.e., e't).
" Cf. Jer l4:ll-12;2Esdr ll:4; lMacc3:46-47;SirT:10;34:26.Foradiscussionoftherab-
binic elements,seeGerhardsson,,.Opferdiens t,,, 7 3-7S.
56 Bultmann,
History,l33 n. l; Grundmann,Evangelium,190;Strecker,Bergpredigt,l(/|..
REVIEW OF TEXTS 45
dition of the Q source(w 9-13par. Luke ll:.2-5), Marcanmaterials(vv 14-15
par. Mark ll:25-26) and, probably, additional sayingsfrom elsewherein the
M source.sTThough it is difficult to know whether v I should be considered
as an original elementof the Three Rulesmotif, as is suggestedby the appear-
ance and use of 6lxoroouvri ("righteousness")both here and in Tob l2:8,
thereis little questionthat the Mattheanredactor5sconsidersthis verseto be
a foundation for the Rules as they are presentedin the Matthean text, since
it is through the Rulesthat righteousness may be obtained.5e
The Matthean version of the Three Rules presentsboth an explicit and an
implicit scenario.Explicitly, the historical Jesusis in direct conflict with the
"halachic authority" of Judaism,the proponentsof which are more concern-
ed with the observanceof Torah than they are with the acceptanceof the will
of the Spirit. Implicitly, the post-C.8. 70 churchseeksto definea cultic stan-
dard for public worship - basedupon its Jewishbackground and traditions
but in distinction from the practicesof the contemporarysynagogue* - by
which communityritual can be both orderedand vibrant at the sameinstant.
which has beenestablishedfor the Matthean redactor in v I through the con-
sciousincorporationof the term "righteousness,"i.e., that goal which is
achievedthrough the correct observanceof the Three Rules.6lPresumably,
this is a primary concernof the Mattheanredactoralone,and is not a concern
of the tradition proper, sincethe elementof eschatologicalexpectationis not
associatedwith the Three Rules elsewherein the tradition.
It is difficult to know the original form and nature of the Three Rules
schemathat existedwithin the tradition that was receivedby the Matthean
redactor;62however,it appearsthat the redactorwascontentto usethe Three
Rules in the regular literary pattern and parallelism that now characterizes
thesematerials.Most importantly, the Three Rules are constructedas an-
titheses,much like the Antithesesthat appearin Matt 5:20-48.While it may
be incorrect to arguefrom this antithetical pattern that the Antithesesand the
5? Brooks,"History," 65: "The disjunctionsin grammar,supportedby analysisof styleand
content, establishthat vv. 7-8 are removedfrom their original context, and that Matthew is prob-
ably responsiblefor their inclusionwithin a pieceof materialin w. l-6, 16-18.The lack of redac-
tional elementsand the disjunction mentionedabove [i.e., the shift from singular to plural and
other stylistical peculiaritieslalso indicatesthat w. 7-8 are probably an M saying."
58 Presumablythe final redactor; Gerhardsson,"Opferdienst," 70.
5e SeeBetz, Essays,60.
@ Dietzfelbinger, l9l.
"Frcimmigkeitsregeln,"
6r Brooks, "History," 68. Even if the term "righteousness"wasoriginally associatedwith the
Three Rulesmotif, there is no questionthat the term possesses a specialrole in the construction
of the Sermonon the Mount for the Mattheanredactor.
62 Dietzfelbingerbelievesthat the Rules may come from an oral tradition ("Frtimmigkeits-
regeln," l9l), thoughthereis no needto speculate that sucha traditionwould havecometo the
redactor apart from those materialsthat were already to be found within his community.
46 CIIAPTER TwO
Three Rules were connectedoriginally, it is not unreasonableto think that
they came from the samebackground materials.63
It is this very antithetical format that servesas the point of contact between
Matt 6:l-18 andDid. l:3b-4, sinceit is the final Antithesesof Matt 5 (w 38-
48), i.e., the Antithesesthat fall immediatelyprior to Matt 6:l-18, which are
paralleled in the text of the Didache. To be accurate,the Didache does not
mention almsgiving here as an elementin the triad, but instead, the inter-
polator of l.3b-2.1ftaschosento incorporate"bless" ( - "glorify" [6o€d(rrl]
in Matt. 6:2?) in this position. But the theme of "almsgiving" has not been
ignored in the Didache. Indeed, it appearsat two points in the text: at Did.
15.4 the reader is exhorted to perform "prayers, alms and acts" (er)1cq,,
tl,enpoofvaq, npd(erq); and more importantly, "almsgiving" becomesthe
primary concernof Did. 1.5-6,whereit servesas the focus of the concluding
admonitionfor the l.3b-2.1interpolation! Despitethe late nature of this in-
terpolation, it well may be that Did. l.3b-4 preservesremnants of an early
Jewish tradition which came from the same sourceas that from which the
Matthean redactor borrowed and restructuredinto the pattern that now ap-
pearsat Matt 5:20-6:18.
2) The Matthean Gospelmakesextendeduseof the term 60voq,,most often
s This, of course,standsin tensionwith the anti-Jewish
in a negativesense.
polemic that appearson occasionthroughout the Gospel. One assumesthat
the two strandsof thought derivefrom divergentlayersin the Matthean tradi-
tion, with the anti-Jewishpolemic as a later elementin that tradition. It is
most interestingto note, therefore, that while the Didache itself presentsan
anti-Jewishelementin subsequent layersof the text (specifically8.1), an ele-
ment which presumablyis the product of a later tendencyin the tradition,
l.3b preservesan anti-Gentitebias.65This in fact may be a simple reflection
of the phrase"do not also the Gentilesdo the same" (o0Xrrai oi 60vrroi rd
cr0td noto0orv;), which appearsin the Synoptic parallel to the interpolation,
i.e., Matt 5:47 (versusLuke's sinnersin Luke 6:33),and which the Matthean
redactor has alteredin 5:46 to include the more intenseand heinousfigure of
the "tax collector" (tel,dtvlq). But if the interpolationof l.3b-Z.l is among
the latestlayersof the Didache,which it most probablyis, one would not ex-
pect the interpolator to haverevertedback to a Jewishsympathy.one further
finds at this juncture that an anti-Gentilebias not only existsin 1.3, but in-
deed, that the anti-Gentile element has been placed in the middle of an
ABCB 'A' pattern,whichthus suggests that it holdssomespecialmeaningfor
the interpolator:66
63 Wrege,
Aberlieferungsgeschichre, 94.
* Cf.
M a t t 6 : 7 , 3 2 :l 0 : 5 , l g .
o' Glover,
"Quotations." 14.
66 Layton,
"Sources." 354-
RE\rIEWOFTEXTS 47
noio ydp 1dprg,
("For whatcreditis it to you")
6dv dlandte ro0q,&ycndrvtaq, 0pdq;
("if you love thosewho loveyou?")
o01i rci td 60vt1td c0td noro0orv;
("Do not eventhe Gentilesdo the same?")
6peiq6d d1andteroOqproo0vtaq,6pdq,,
("But you shouldlovethosewho hateyou,")
rai o01,E(ete€10p6v.
("and you will haveno enemy,")
It is quite likely that the interpolator does not seek to strengthenthe
"Jewishness"of chaps. l-5 at all, but instead,as with the discussionof the
Three Rulesabove, has preservedherean elementof early Christian tradition
that was recognizedto be very old or was believed to maintain a special
authority. While it is true that this tradition was preservedboth in Matt 5:46
and in Luke 6:32, and therefore presumablycomesfrom the SayingsGospel
Q, the Didachehaspreservedthe 60voq(60wx6q)of the Mattheanwitness(cf.
Matt 5:37).
3) With Dtd. 1.4one againreturnsto the Q sayingon retaliation(Matt 5:38-
42;Luke 6:29-30).In its minimal form (with Luke), the sayingspeaksof two
elements- "turning the other cheek" and "giving both the shirt and coat"
- and indeed,the interpolator agreeswith the Lucan redactorin the ordering
of the latter saying:first "coat" (ipdtrov), then "shirt" (26irov).Matthew
reads:first shirt, then coat. The interpolator,however,includesa third ele-
ment from the tradition ("going the extra mile") that is found only in the
Matthean Gospel. While one can argue here that the interpolator has chosen
simply to expandthe sayingby meansof a comparisonbetweenthe Lucan and
the Matthean sourcesthat were available,it may as easily be true that the in-
terpolator has preserveda form of the Q sayingthat was known by the Mat-
thean redactorbut which was not a form of the sayingthat was known by the
Lucan redactor.6T
4)lnDid. 1.4anotherQ sayingis preserved(Matt 5:48;Luke 6:36),though
here the Didache preservesa much shorter version, which is couchedin the
wording of the Matthean Gospel. As with item 3 above, it is most likely that
ut Of course,the considerationof the original text is most important here, though opinions
Q
among scholarsdiffer widely. For example,both Schulz(Q, 123)and Liihrmann ("Liebet," 418)
argue that the Matthean redactor has composedthis elementof the tradition, while Schiirmann
(Lukasevangelium,34Sn.4l) insiststhat the Lucan redactor omitted it. It seemsreasonableto
agreewith Kilpatrick here(Origins,20) that the Matthean redactorhas addedthis elementto the
Q materials from a separateM source.
48 CHAPTER Tw'O REVIEW OF TEXTS 49

the interpolator has preserveda form of the saying that was known to the Matt 5:42 H 1.5 Luke 6:30
68
Matthean redactor alone. novri novti
5) Finally, theseversesin the Didache conclude with the mysteriousad- r(r oiro0vti oe t@ aitoOvti oe airo0vti oe
6i6ou roi 6i6ou, xoi
monition that the reader/hearer is "unable to refuse a request." While 66q,,roi
rdv 06l.ovrq dnd dnd ro0 oipovrog,
scholarshave sought in various ways to explain this exhortation, it is quite rd od
dnd oou 6ovioao0qr
possible,of course,that this is simply the result of a transmissionalerror on pi dnootpo<pnfrq,. pit dnoitol' pi1 detcitet.
the part of an early scribe.6eAs such, the original text probably read "(D6t"
for "oD6t," and thus this phrasewould have been seenas a structural and There is little questionthat the interpolator again is dependentupon the form
a rhetoricalparallelto "and you will be perfect," i.e., "thus you will be able of Q that is found in the Lucan saying. whether one can say with certainty
(to be perfect)." that the interpolator is dependentupon the Lucan Gospel itself, as seemsto
be indicated by the preservationof the three "Lucanisms" of novd, 6i6ou,
&nanrfito,To it is difficult to say. One likewiseis confronted with the fact that
Analysisof 1.5
the Synoptic redactorsagreein their preservationof additional materials in
The handiwork of the interpolator is quite evidentin the structureof I .5. Here the saying (though they disagreeconcerningthe wording of those materials),
one finds a combination of three elements:l) the preservationof an early while the interpolator of the Didache seemsto be unaware of any such
christian tradition (formulated upon the sayingsGospelQ); 2) a concernfor materials. But it is most probable that the interpolator has omitted these
contemporary ethics; and, 3) the formulation of a redactional framework. materialsin order to usethis sayingasthe introductory foundation for the re-
This verseis attachedto 1.4 through the catchword "give" (6i6cottt)'a term mainderof 1.5.
which both parallelsthe previous discussionand incorporatesthe core mate- The remainder of part A is a rationale for this introductory exhortation,
rials of v 5. On the other hand, the verseconcludeswith an observationupon which reflectsthe materialsthat follow in parts B-C. It is most likely that this
the perils that are risked by those who "receive" (l,cpptivco). The structure statementis the work of the interpolator, though it easily may have been
of the versemay be viewed in three segments: drawn from the ethical consciousness of the interpolator's community.
In part B one finds the rule upon which part A is shaped.This rule, which
A. Giveto everyonewho asksof you, and do not refuse;
is called the "commandment," traditionally has been seenas a reflection of
for the Fatherdesiresthat we giveto all from our gifts. Tl
one of severalother early Christian texts. Sincethis verseis amongthe latest
B. Blessed is he who givesaccordingto the commandmenl (6vtol,ti), T2
strata of the Didache, it is quite possiblethat palt B hererefersto the saying
for he is innocent.
that is preservedin Acts 20:35, which purportedly is included by the Lucan
Woeto him who receives;
for if anyonereceives from need,he is innocent. redactor from an independent collection of sayings from the historical
But he who receives withoutneedshallbe tried as to why he took and for Jesus:73
what,
pordpr6v 6ottv pd),l,ov6t66votfl l,oppdvew.
C. And being in prison he shall be examinedconcerninghis actions and he shall ("It is moreblessed
to givethanto receive.")
not come out until he pay the last penny.

In part A one discoversthe basic ethical tenet upon which the remainder
of the verseis constructed.The first portion of part A is itself a continuation
t0 Seea summary of this argument by Kloppenborg, "Sayings," 199'2W.
of the Q materialsthat are paralleledinDid. l.3b-4 - specificallyhere,the
?t Sabatierseesoral tradition as the source(Didachd,26 n. 3).
sayingthat appearsin Matt 5:42 and Luke 6:30: 12 Kraft (Barnabas,60-61)notes that Did. I .5-6 is missing both from the Apostolic Constitu-

6EK<isterlikewise
arguesthat roi Eoq dl,roq ("and you will be perfect") was in the inter-
polator's sourceas a reflection of Matt 5:48, though he believesthat the samephrasein Did. 6.2
probably comesfrom a redactor (Aberlieferune,222).
6e For
example,Hitchcock and Brown (Teaching,33) point to the rule of Paul that denied
Christiansto "go to law before the unrighteous." For a brief review of arguments,seeLayton,
"Sources." 345-49.
tions and from the Georgianversion of the Didache. He thus assignsthesetwo versesto "the
most recentif not the final redactionallevel," which would explainthe uniquenature of this clos-
ing portion of l.3b-2.1. Draper arguesthat this level still was added before the end of the first
century, sincethereare no specificdoctrinal points that are madeand sincethe Greekis awkward
("Tradition, " 2'l l-7 6).
t3 So Hitchcock and Brown, Teaching,33;Kcister,Aberlieferung,230;Glover, "Quotations,"
15-16;Draper, "Tradition," 276.
50 CHAPTER TWO
If this is to be consideredas the sourceof the interpolator'swords, this pre-
sentsan interestingsituation with respectto the Didache's relationship with
the specialsourcesof Acts (seethe discussionof Did. 6 below). Thus, one
finds here a possiblereflection of a saying that is preservedby the Lucan
redactor. In Did. l.2c and6.3 the Didachistparallelstwo elementsthat appear
in anotherspecialsourceof the Lucan redactor,i.e., the Apostolic Decreeof
Acts 15. Thesetwo elementsare, of course,the negativeform of the Golden
Rule (Did. l.2c; Acts 15'29 lD 614al h p syn sa; Irl) and the prohibition
againsteatingfood that is offered to idols (Did.6.3; Acts 15:29).While one
is hesitant to claim that the Didachist has borrowed from Acts for these
materials,especiallyin light of the early nature of the remainderof Did. l-5,
it would be quite possiblefor the Didachist to have acquired such materials
if the first stageof the Didache was constructedin Antioch, which was the
location to which the Apostolic Decreewas directed,accordingto the witness
of Acts.Ta
ln Herm. Man. 2.4-6one finds anotherparallelto this sectionof part B that
has been arguedas a possiblesourcefor the appearanceof thesematerialsin
the interpolation:75
Giveto everyone,for to all God wishesto givefrom his own stores.
Thosethenwho receiveshallbe accountable to God for why theytook and for
will not bepunished,but thosewho
what;for thosewhoreceived in distress
acceptin hypocrisyshallpay the penalty.
He thereforewho givesis innocent. . .
(v. 7) Thereforekeepthis "commandment"(tvto?'ti)
There is little question that the interpolator knows this text, or at least is
familiar with the sourcefrom which it has beenderived. If this is indeedthe
case,there is probable evidencethat the interpolation, or at leastthis portion
of the interpolation, is as late as the beginning of the secondcentury. Apart
from the parallel wording betweenthe Didache and Hermas here, the use of
the term "commandment" servesasa key element.Traditionally this term has
been the hook upon which commentatorshave indicated Hermas to be a
7a In light of
this hypothesis,the questionof "food offered to idols" thus would not needto
be explainedasthe influenceupon the Didachistby materialsthat are found in the Paulineletters.
75 So Mcciffert,
"Relations," 437-38n. 3; Layton, "Sources," 363-67.Of interest, Betz
(-Essays, 48 n. 44)makesa further cogentcommentupon the useof 6vrol,ri in the Sermonon the
Mount, which is that portion of the Mattheanmaterialsfrom which so much of the interpolation
of l.3b-2.1is derived:". . . in the [Sermonon the Mount], v6poq refersto Torah collectively,
while dvtol,rj, which appearsonly once (in 5:19), refers to Jesus'own interpretation of an in-
dividual command." This distinctionwould arguewell for the secondarynatureof Did. l.3b-2.1,
which otherwisedoes not adherewell to the generalJewishand Torah-orientedframework of
Did. l-5. This also lends further support to the position of Draper that the interpolation is a
redefinition of the "first commandment,"whereinthe rule of Jesusis givenpriority for the Chris-
tian churchesover againstthe rule of Torah.
REVIE.W OF TEXTS 5l
sourcefor the Didache.One is compelledto agree,however,that the text of
Hermasitself is basedupon somesourcefor this sayingand that it is possible,
if not likely, that the interpolatorof the Didacheis dependentupon this com-
mon source,ratherthan upon Hermasitself. It is likely indeedthat the source
for both textsis Acts 20:35.76
The remainderof part B is an obviousreflectionof contemporarymoral
speculation- the acceptance of unnecessary charity is depictedas a heinous
sin. It is with part C, however,that one finds an interestinguseof earlyChris-
tian literatureto supportthis speculation.Here one discoversa blatantquota-
tion of the materialsthat appearin the SayingsGospelQ (Matt 5:26; Luke
12:59):71
(Matthew:dprlv)l6y@oot, o0 pi16[6],qq 6re10ev, (Matthew:dv dno6(rq,
6orq,
rdv dolarov ro6ptivtrlv.[Lukeroi td 6olotov ],entdvdno6Qq.l)
("[Truly] I sayto you, you will nevergetout until you havepaidthe lastpen-
nylcopper. ")
The interpolatormakesno attemptto incorporateinto the Didachethe re-
mainderof this Q segment,which constructsa settingfor the exhortationwith
its "admonition to cometo an agreement with an accuserquickly." 78Instead,
thereis a rough and a crudeattachmentof the exhortationonto part B with
the words6v ouvo1,fl6d ("and beingin prison"), wherebythe occasionof the
original Q settingis ignored.One finds a similarlyrough textualinsertionof
this Q passage in the Lucan text, thoughthe Mattheanredactorobviouslyhas
managedto incorporatetheseversesinto a suitablemilieu.
Analysisof 1.6
The concludingsayingof l.3b-2.1 is unique within the interpolationin that
it reflectsa knowledgeof early Jewishwisdomtradition, yet is not primarily
dependentupon the SynopticGospelsor upon their sources.After numerous
early examinationsof this mysterioussaying,thereis little questionnow that
the exhortationis constructed upon a secondrescension of Sir 12.l.7eThis
t6 Kcister(Aberlieferung,23l)speculates
that I Clem.2.l (i6rov 6r66vreqfi l,appcivovteq
["giving more gladly than receiving"])likewiseis a reflectionof the sayingin Acts.
77 Because
the Didachereflectsthe xo6pdvrqv ("penny") of the Mattheanversion,mostcom-
mentatorsindicatethat the Mattheanform must be the sourcefor this readingin the text; so,
Oxford Society,New Testament,33-36.
?8 Kloppenborg,
"Sayings," 203.
7e Seethe discussions of Taylor, "Traces," 115-l?(a reviewof the Latin sources);Hitchcock
and Brown, Teaching,34("A homelybut graphicinjunctionof carefulness in giving" = Sir 12.l);
Sabatier,Didachi,2T n. I (the phrasenepi rofrou elprlror ["concerningthis it was said"] in-
dicatesthat this is not cited from scripturebut alludesto a popularproverb:Sir 12.1);Muilen-
burg, Relations,73-74 (following Taylor above); Yokes, Riddle, 2l-22 (this is probably a
restrictivecorrectionto 1.5:Sir 12.1);Krister,Uberlieferung,238 (from an unknownJewishsay-
52 CHAPTER T\l/O RE\rIEV/ OF TEXTS 53

text also is reflectedin Hermas, which indicatesthat the saying was popular
in certaincirclesof the primitivechurch.A brief comparisonof textsindicates
that there is no direct dependencebetweenHermasand the Didache,but more
probably, that eachtext hasincorporatedthe sayingfrom divergenttraditions
of Sirach:
H 1.6 Sir 12.1 Herm. Man,2,4b
'I6p<oodtol
{ ndotv tSorepoupdvorq
6leqpoodv4 oou eiq, 6i6ou drludlq,,prl
'Edv e6 norfrq,
tdg leipdq oou, 6rord(<ov,
p61prq,dv rivr 6(rq fl
Tvf,q, yvdt0r
rivr 661q. rivr noreiq, rivt prt 6Qq.
From the above comparison one readily notes that the similarity between
H and Hermas is in content alone, not in wording or structure. H is much
closerto Sirach,however,and this dependence is unmistakable.Because1.6
is presented as a direct quotation and sinceit hasbeenconjoinedso abruptly
with 1.5,thereis somereasonto think that 1.6derivesfrom an evenlaterhand
than that of the interpolator. The overlap with Hermas arguesagainst this
assumption,80 however,as doesthe presenceof the basicThree Rulesstruc-
ture, which forms an inclusioto l.3b-6 herethrough the referenceto "alms"
in 1.6.
Conclusions
From the aboveexaminationwe may concludethe following with respectto
l.3b-2.1: l) with the exceptionof minor redactionalalterationsand the isolat-
ed wisdomsayingin 1.6, the sectionconsistentlyis dependentupon Synoptic
texts that are derivedfrom the SayingsGospelQ; 2) the hand of the inter-
polator is most evidentboth in 1.5-6,wherea brief digressionor commentary
upon Matt 5:42/Luke 6:30 appears,and in the use of the Three Rulesas a
structural inclusio for the section;and, 3) the interpolator writes from within
the sametradition as that of the Matthean Gospel, not only becauses,/he
shows an awarenessof that Gospel'stext (s/he seemsto know the Lucan
Gospelas well),but becauses,/heusesa simpleform of the ThreeRulesstruc-
ture in a mannerwhich divergesfrom that of the Mattheanredactor.
quely "Christian," versusthe natureof the remainingTwo Ways materials.
Secondly,the origin of sourcesfor the interpolation(apart from 1.6) stems
only from the canonicaltexts, versusthe many OT and early Jewishwisdom
sourcesin the remaining Two Ways material. It is quite evident that the
Didachist is familiar with a broad background of religious texts for the basis
of the Didache'sreligioustradition. So too, the interpolatorborrowsfrom the
"holy texts" of his/her times, which are a much more restrictedselectionof
materials.82 While the natureof this sectionbetraysan intent and a method
that differs from thoseof the Didachist,83the familiarity with the peculiarities
of the Matthean tradition suggeststhat this sectionneednot be datedespecial-
ly late, and certainly need not be consideredas a derivation from a second-
century Gospel harmony.8aThe concernsof the interpolator also are not
thoseof the secondaryredactor,who is responsible for the majority of chaps.
7-15.8s
Didache2.2-7: The Law
Introduction
As with l.3b-6, Did. 2.1has beenassignedto a later hand by the generalcon-
sensusof scholarship.The purposeof this verseis to bridge the transitional
gap betweenthe introduction of secondarymaterials at l.3b-6 and the
resumptionof materials, now preservedat 2.2-7, which camefrom an earlier
form of the text. The indication within the versethat the following materials
are in fact the explicationof a "secondcommandment"probablyrefersback
to the npdrtov . . . 6e6repov("first . . second") elementsthat are found
in 1.2. Thus 2.1 implies that 2.2-7, at the minimum, and chaps.2-4, at the
maximum, are meant to serve as a commentary upon the theme "love of
neighbor." This assumes, of course,that the final redactorintendedfor l .3b-
6 to serveas a commentaryupon the "love of God" commandin 1.2.86
82 Drews,
"Einleitung," 186.
83 The questionof whetherthis sectionshouldbe attributed to the Didachistor to a secondary
hand continuesotherwiseas an important issueof debate;cf. K6ster, Liberliefentng,2lS, and
Audet, Didachi, 109.
8a The discussionof a gospelharmony as the sourcefor l.3b-2.1 continueswith argumentson

Thereis no questionthat the Greektext of the Didache(H), versusthe Latin
text (L), has been"more thoroughlyChristianized- brought up to date -
by insertionof the passage."81Firstly, the message of the interpolationis uni-
ing); Di Lella, "Qumrdn," 245-67;Skehan,,,Didache1,6,', j33-36(= Sir 12.l); Grant,Apostolic
Fathers,T5 (= 5;, l2.l); Layton,..Sources,"367-69(: Sir 12.l).
o" See
the discussionof Layton, ..Sources,"368-69.
8r Layton,.,Sources,,'
3g0.
all sides;cf. Warfield, "Reviews," 596; Robinson,Barnabas,20;Vokes,Riddle,62-64;Kline,
Sayings, 19-20;Layton, "Sources," 377; Kloppenborg, "Sayings," 205.
8t So too, Kloppenborg,
"Sayings," 205-206.
86 This is the traditional view; cf. Ciet, L'dnigme. 64. Audet arguesthat the phrase"second
commandment" in fact meansa secondconsiderationof the Way of Life, rather than what the
restrictiveterm "commandment" normally might suggestto the modern reader,i.e., "love your
neighborasyourself" (DidachD,281).On the other hand, Draper ("Tradition," 271)believesthat
the latestredactionalphaseof the Didache(1.3b-2.1,8 and l5:3-4, accordingto him), whichhas
beenincorporatedinto the text of the Didache "to subordinatethe [earlier] teachingcontained
54 CHAPTER TWO RE\rIEw' OF TEXTS 55

While the collocation of the Two Ways, the Golden Rule and the decalogue
does not appear commonly within Jewish-Christianliterature,E7thesethree Comparisonof Sourcesfor 2.2-3e2
elementsin fact are placed together within the Matthean Gospel, two in the
Sermon and one in each of the pericopaeof Matt 19 16-19 and 22:34-40.88 H 2.2 Exod 20:13-16 Exodus text [Al Deut 5:17-20
Sincewe havearguedabovethat the interpolation at l.3b-6 has beeninserted govefoetq,, gove$oerg,.
por1e6oeiq,, porlefoerq. porlefoerq. porlefoerq,.
into the Didachewith the purposeof aligning the theologyof the text with the
<pove6oerq.
perspective of the MattheanGospel,it doesnot follow that l.l-3a, 2.2-7was
ordered accordingto the Gospelas well. Instead, the Didachist and the Mat- rMyerq,, rMyerq,. rMryerq,. rMryerq,.
thean redactor each may be dependentupon a common tradition. If this in- <pove6oerq,.
deed is the case, the Matthean redactor also may have found these three
yeu6opop- yeu6opop- yeuSopop-
motifs joined togetherwithin the community tradition.8e VeuAopop-
ruprioerg,, rup{oeiq, rupr1oerq, rup{oerg,
With 2.2 the Didachist begins an explication of the Way of Life that is
basedupon a reviewof the secondtable of the decalogue.eo One finds similar
listingsof the decalogueat 3.2-6 and 5.1 - the former couchedwithin the As can be observedreadily above, the various OT parallelsof the decalogue
specialconsiderationsof the Jewishwisdom tradition and the latter construct- show a form that usually is slightly divergentfrom that of the Didache. That
ed to serveas an explicationof the Way of Death.er The text of the decalogue version which is identical to the ordering of the Didache, as a result of the
that is found at 2.2-7is in fact only an abbreviatedversionof its OT parallels, reversedorder that is given to the elementsof "murder" (govefoerq) and
but it is expandedby additional elements,which no doubt stemfrom the con- "adultery" (porle6oerq) - a consistentordering throughout the Didache(cf.
temporarymilieu of the Didachist.Our initial concern,therefore,is to estab- 2.2,3.2 and 5.1) - is the particulararrangementof Exod 20:13-16which is
lish whether this framework indeed does stem from an OT text, or instead, found in Codex Alexandrinus. The significanceof this ordering in Codex
from a later source,that has beensignificantly modified by the early church Alexandrinus is that the manuscript most accuratelypreservesthe MT form
community. of the decaloguein both Exodusand Deuteronomy.While the elementsin the
Greek witnessesdo not identify readily on a one-to-onebasiswith respectto
in the Didacheto the authority of the Gospel," is bestobservedat this very point in the text. Thus the order of elementsthat are found in the Didache, apart from Codex Alex-
he notesthat "the teachingof Jesusbecomesthe 'first teaching'of the Way of Life (l:3), displac- andrinus, a closeparallel indeeddoesappearin that tradition which is based
ing the Torah to a'second teaching'(2:1)."
81 Oesterley(Background,150-51)offersthe interesting
observationthat the decaloguetypical- upon the MT. It is upon this comparisonthat most scholarshave indicated
ly was recitedafter the shemain the early synagogue:"therefore the assumptionis justified that the OT to be the sourcefrom which the Didachist has drawn the framework
the first Jewish Christians did the same;indeed, this is practically proved by the fact that the
of Did. 2.2.e3
Synagogueabrogatedthe liturgical use of the Decalogue'on account of the cavilling of the
heretics,'i.e. Christians.If this was so, however,the custommust haveceasedat an early period; H 2.2 Matt 19:1E Mark 10:19 Luke 1E:20
for it does not appear, as far as can be ascertained,that any trace of the liturgical use of the
Decalogueis to be discoveredin any early christian Liturgy." [p. 150n. 3: "The referencesto pi1 por1e6o1q,,
the-_Decalogue in Did. ii and Barn. xix do not offer any evidencefor its liturgical use."]) o0 gove6oerq,, o0 <povefoerq,, pi1 <pove6o1q,, pf1 <pove6or;q,,
88 Warfield,
140; Creyvenstein,"'Teaching,"' 107-108;A\de| Didache, Z82. o0 porlefoerg,, oi potlefoqq, p{ por1e6onq,,
8e If Paul also
had contactwith the early Matthean community, a likely possibilityshouldthat
community be identified with Antioch, the apostle's collocation of the decalogue,,,love of pi1 rl,6y1q, pi1 rl,6ryqg,,
o0 rl,6ryerq,, oi rl,6yeiq,,
neighbor"and GoldenRulemotifs at Rom 13:8-10alsomight stemfrom this samehermeneutical
tradition which existedwithin the community. On the other hand, Spence(Teaching,14)believes
that the Didachein fact is dependentupon the text of Romanshere. This is unlikely, however, o0 ,yeu6opop- o0 ryeu6opcp- pi1 yeu6opop- pl1 yeu8opop-
sincethere appearsto be no other allusion to the epistlein the Didache. tuprjoerq, ruprioerq,, tupriolq,, tupriolq,
{ Muilenburg(Relations,l45)
callsthis sectionof the text,i.e.,2.2-3,"redundant" whencon-
sidered in relation to the materials of chap. 3. Audet correctly notes, however, that there is
specificallya literary unity herewhich reflectsa "legal" stylein distinction from the "sapiential"
format of 3.1-4.14.Further, Audet observesthat there is in generala lack ofawarenessin chap. e2 In order to conservespacein the openinganalysisof OT parallels,negativeparticlesare not
2 with respectto motifs that were influenced by the sapientialtradition. provided before individual elements.In eachcasethat particle is o0.
'' lt must e3 Hitchcock and Brown, Teaching,lxxix; Sabatier,Didachi, 29 n. 2 (Exod 20:13-17);Har-
be agreedwith Warfield, however,that while eachof theselists ultimately must be
perceivedin relation to one another, "we must guard againsterectingan artificial harmony be- nack,Lehre,65 (Deut 5:17-19);Funk,PatresApostolici, l.xv-xvi; Koster, Aberlieferune,162-63;
tweenthe threelists" (..Texts," 145).
 56 CHAPTER T\vO REVIEW OF TEXTS 57

As with our previous considerationof OT parallels, one also finds in the GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL
witnessof the Synoptic Gospelsa closeassociationwith the elementsof Did. SPECIFIC SPECIFIC SPECIFIC
2.2. The Matthean form of the text is without question the closestSynoptic l) murder 5) theft l0) covetousness
parallel, while the Lucan versionhas followed the Marcan tradition in its use 2) adultery 6) magic ll) perjury
of the negativeparticle pri.% Further, the Lucan redactor has made an ob- 3) sodomy 7) philtres 12) false witness
vious effort to follow that version of the decaloguewhich is presentedin the 4) fornication 8) abortion 13) speakingevil
Deuteronomictradition. Severalscholarsthus have opted for Matt 19:18as 9) infanticide 14) bear malice
the probable sourcetext that was used by the Didachist.e5
There does not appear to be an obvious rationale for this structure, though
it is apparent that the redactor has taken the opportunity to "build" upon
Analysisof 2.2-5 thoseelementsof the decaloguewhich were most pertinent to the community
The structureof the decaloguehasbeenexpandedby the Didachist at Did.2-3 situation.
to include specific prohibitions against contemporary threats to the ethical With the conclusionof Did. 2.2 (otx Enr0uprioerq rd ro0 nl.qoiov ["you
perspectiveof the community.e6Included in this expansionare short lists of shall not covet your neighbor's goods"l) one discoversa theme that is re-
specific vices that were developed upon the more general themes of the sumedlater in 2.6a, that of "covetousness"(o0x 6oq nLeovdrtqq ["do not
decalogue.Thus one finds the following structure in w 2-3: be covetous"]). The appearanceof this theme of "covetousness"at 2.2 and
again in 2.6a forms an inclusio around three verses(w 3-5) that focus upon
the sin of "false witness" (o0 yeu6opcprupioerq ["you shall not bear false
witness"l), which itself is taken from the decalogue.Thesethree versesutilize
Audet, Didachd,282; Glover, "Quotations," 17 (LXX Exod 20:13-14); Giei., L'inigme, 64;
the motif of "false witness" through the presentationof a seriesof prohibi-
Draper, "Tradition," 272.Kohler (Rezeption,47-48)also points to Exod20:14-17 MT as the
sourcehere. tions against the incorrect use of speech,or perhapsmore accuratelysaid,
s The Westerntext of Mark 10:19includes
an additional elementin its framework which ap- againstthe "sins of the tongue." The unique attention that is given to "the
pearsafter pi porle6orJq,,i.e., p{ ropvefotq, ("do not commit fornication"). This showssome
parallel with Did. 2.2, whereone readsafter o0 porle6oerqthe prohibitions o0 ncr6og0oprioerq,, spokensin" in w 3-5 suggeststhat the Didachistpurposefullymay haveopted
o0 nopve6oerq("do not commit sodomy,do not commit fornication"). The elementof "fornica- to constructthis seriesof prohibitions in order to combat againstthe dangers
tion" appearselsewherein the texts of Herm. Man. 8.3 and Barn. 19.4. There are, of course, of harmful speechwhich had becomea contemporarythreat within the com-
those scholarswho have arguedthat the Didachist is primarily dependentupon the text of Bar-
nabas for its reconstruction of the decalogue;cf. Knopf, Lehre, 10-12;Robinson, Barnobas, 601. munity in which the Didache was constructed.eTIf the NT is to serveas a
Muilenburg, Relations, 145(though Muilenburg's statementis most confusing: "The procedure guide here,esone is led to believethat the "ordering" of the early Christian
of the compiler is apparent.On the basisof the preceptsin the Epistle he setsto work to adapt community, both with respectto its internal structureand with respectto its
his materialsto the settingof the o.T. commands(Deut 5:17ffl cited by Matthew. Nor is there
anything extraordinary in his method, for he simply groups together kindred precepts,thus associationwith "the world," required considerableattention!
separatingmembersof the samesource(e.g. Matthew or Barnabas)from eachother."); vokes, While there is little questionthat w 3-5 are hingedupon the motif of "false
Riddle,92 (Did. 2,2 possibly usesExod 2o:17 here as it is quoted in Barnabas);Massaux,rn- witness," an elementthat is common to most forms of the decaloguein early
fluence,638-39 (while the Didacheis couchedhere in a Matthean format and inspired by Matt
19:16-19,it is informed by Barnabas);Kraft, Barnabas. lg6. Against these scholars,Kdster Christianliterature,the appearance of the prohibition o0 tnropxrloerq,("you
arguesthat the order of elementsin the Didacheis earlier than that which is found in Barnabas shall not commit perjury") in a position that is immediatelyprior to the pro-
(UbeilieJeruns, t62). hibition against"false witness" in v 3 is most interesting.The term is found
e5 schaff, Monual,l8
- (one finds here an echo of the Sermon on the Mount with "peculiar
features derived from oral tradition"); Iselin, version, 15-17; warfield, ..Texts,,' 144(,,An in the biblical canon only at Matt 5:33. This suggestseither that this element
enlarged'explained,and enforceddecalogue,on the model of our Lord's words as reportedby has beenborrowed from the Matthean text for usein the Didache(which thus
Matthew, seemsto be the author's purpose."); Funk, patres Apostolici, l.z; Greyvenstein, would lead one to arguethat w 3-5 must be attributed to the secondredactor
"'T-eaching,"' 108-l@; Muilenburg,Relations,145.
- Scholars
havebeen"at pains" to make this notation - cf. Sabatier,Didacht,2g n.2 (,,1n
the first century, Christianity struggledcontinually againstsuperstitionequally profuse amongst
the Jewsand pagans." [translationmine]); Knopf, Lehre, l0-l I (the list of sexualsinscomesfrom e7 Interestingly,Dida. 2.6.1 subsequentlyhas
defined this issuearound a figure who could
the ethic of Hellenistic Judaism); Klevinghaus,steltung, 136; Audet, Didachd,286 (following
havecontrolled suchissues,that of the bishop: "And let him [the bishop] not be double-minded
Seeberg,Wege,8-9,Audet believesthat theseadditional materialsarosewithin a Jewishmilieu nor double-tongued"!
as a hedgeagainstthreatening..Greek" offenses). et see Matt s:22-26;18:15-20;Acts 15:36*41; etc.
 58 CHAPTER T'wO REVIEW OF TEXTS 59

of the Didache)ee or that the term is derived from the same source as that form of positive exhortations ("reprove/convince" . . "pray" . . . "love"
which was used by the Matthean redactor in the composition of the Antitheses [6],6y1to . . . npooeflopor . . . dlandoll). Vv 6b-7 thus reveal a certain pat-
at Matt 5:21-48 (which thus would lead one to argue that vv 3-5 may be at- tern whereby the gravity and the intensity of the text ascendsand descends-
tributed to the Didachist, who used that source as well). There is no additional the lighter tone of 2.6b becomesthe warning of 2.7a, and the command to
t00One thus may
evidence within these versesto support the former position. "reprove/convince" becomesthe admonition to "love" in 2.7b-d:103
argue with some assurancethat the Didachist not only based the structure of
2.6b - oit ).riry71
poul1v nov4pav rord toO nl.qoiov oou.
2.2-3 upon some form of the decaloguewhich appears in the OT and,/or Matt
("do not make an evil plan againstyour neighbor")
19:18, as is indicated above, but also, that the source which provided this
form of the decaloguewas used by the Matthean redactor in the construction 2.7a- oi:'1ttofioeg ztivto dv0p<onov,
ro1 ("do not hate any person")
of the Sermon on the Mount.
2.7b - d)^,},ir
Analysis of 2.6-7 ("but")
o0q pdv il,6y(etq,,
Did.2.6a servesa dual function within the structure of chap. 2. On the one
(" rep ro ve/ co n vi n ce some" )
hand, it servesas a thematic inclusio to vv 3-5 in conjunction with the term
1 1^
6nr0uprloerq,which is found in v 2 (seethe above discussion).On the other nepi 6i 6v npooe6(r1
hand, it functions as a "hook" upon which several thematically-related pro- ("and pray for some")
hibitions are attached, i.e., "extortion" (6pna€), "hypocrisy" (6n6rprorq,), 2.7d - o0g 6i dyaz4oe4 6ntp trlv ryulriv oou.
"malignance" (rarcoq04q) and "pride" (6neprlqavog). This pattern, of ("and love somemore than your own life.")
course. is evident in vv 2-5 as well. 102
Did. 2.6b is not attached to 2.6a with respect to structure, but servesas an V 6b has been taken directly from the Two Ways source, as is indicated by
introduction to the chapter's concluding admonition in v 7. In 2.6b-7 one an exact word-for-word parallel which appears in Barn. 19.3c. Using v 6b as
finds the concern for neighbor that was exhibited previously in the saying to an introduction, v 7 has been constructed upon a second source, i.e., Lev
"love thy neighbor" aL l.2b; however, it is the practical implications of the 19:17-18.This becomesimmediatelyobvious upon a comparisonof the verbal
saying that are of primary concern here. These implications first appear in the patterns that are found in Lev 19:17-18and Did. 2.7a-b,d:
form of negative exhortations ("you shall make no evil plan against your Lev l9: l7 - oitprcrjoeg rdv d6el,rp6voou tfr 6ravoigoou, il.eypQ iliy(eg rdv
neighbor; you shall hate no man" [or3 ],tlVn goul,tlv novlpd,v rard. ro0 n),noiov oou .
nl"qoiov oou. o0 prorloerq ndvro. dvOpconovl), and appear secondly in the ("You shallnot hqteyour brotherin your heart,but you shallreasonwithyour
neighbor. . .")

ee Robinson, Lev 19:18- . . . roi dyantloe4 tdv nl.qoiovoou <oqoeour6v'

Barnabas. 59.
ro0 (". . . but you shalllove your neighboras yourself.")
Indeed, while 2.3 prohibits "perjury," there is no prohibition against swearing in general,
such as is found with Matt 5:33-3?! This would suggest,then, that the Didachist had no knowl-
edge of the tradition against the concept of swearing, the prohibition of which is advocated both )' Since Did. 2-3 already is highly dependent upon the OT in general and upon

i the decaloguein particular, it certainly is conceivable that 2.7 has been struc-
in Matthew and Jas 5:12; cf. Harnack, Lehre, 5l; Knopf, Lehre, ll.
r0r
This observation would appear to support the position of Bultmann (History,135-36) that
tured around this section of Leviticus in order to incorporate the use of the
the Matthean redactor used a source which included those elements in the decalogue that are
reflected by Antitheses 1,2 and 4 in Matt 5:21-4g, upon which Antitheses 3, 5 and 6 were subse- "love of neighbor" motif which is found here in the scriptures.The additional
quently added. This view stands in contradiction to the position of Strecker ("Antithesen," use of "pray" by the Didachist at 2.7c may simply have derived from the
passim),whoarguesthatitisAntithese l ,s2 a n d 3 w h i c h a r e t o b e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h i s e a r l i e r s o u r c e . Didachist's concernto restructurethe passageinto its current pattern, as was
with respect to the decalogue and its forms, one must remember that the period in which
Didache was composed, whether the first, second or third centuries, was a period of textual fluidi-
the
noted above. loa
ty' While it is difficult to know the nature of specific sources that may have been used by the
Didachist, those forms that are preservedfor us in the major biblical witnessesare consideredhere tnt
Audet, Didachi,294; cf. Harnack, Lehre, 52.
as likely representativesof the format that was incorporated and used by the t*
ro2 early church. O n e n o t e s t h a t t h e i n i t i a l h a l f o f L e v 1 9 : 1 8h a s n o t b e e n i n c l u d e d b v t h e D i d a c h i s t . I t i s
Knopf, Lehre,12.
at this very point that Did. 2.7c has been inserted. (nole 104 continued on p. 60)
60 CHAPTER Tw'O
Significant ParallelsOutside of the Synoptic Gospels
Prominent parallelsto Did. 2 appearthroughout the NT and early Christian
literature which no doubt should be reviewedquickly here. With respectto
thoseelementsthat are found in w 2-3 which do not appearin the decalogues
of the OT, numerousexamplesabound, though their significanceis difficult
to ascertain.tos61 particular interest is the fact that Clement of Alexandria
in one of his renderingsof the decalogue,but omits
includesnar8oqOoprioerg,
it from two other renderings.106This inconsistentusageof elementsby the
sameauthor remindsone that divergentforms of the decaloguecirculatedin-
dependentlywithin Judeo-Christiancircles,often reflectingthe addition of
scatteredexhortationsinto the framework of the text. Further, one is remind-
ed that many authors had accessto more than one form of the decalogue,
which today is generallyrecognizedonly in its "ten-point" pattern!
Numerousparallelsalso exist for various elementsin w 4-5 which suggest
the particularinfluenceof Proverbs(6:2; ll:13; 14:27;21:6)andSirach(l:28;
2:22:5:9;5:14;28:13-15; 5l:2). r07Hereonecanfind theinfluenceof a strong
wisdom tradition, much like that which dominates the rendering of the
decaloguein Did. 3.
Finally, at w 6-7 scholarstraditionally have noted somerelationshipbe-
tweenthe Didacheand the NT text of Jude22-23.r08 Indeed,in both passages
one discoversa common exhortationto "reprove/convince"(Didache: oOq
pdv i1,6y(erg,["some you shall reprove,/convince"];Jude=oOq piv 6],edte
["reprove./convince some"]), whichperhapssuggests somedirectrelationship
betweenthe two texts.In addition, eachtext liststhreeelementsby which the
readeris compelledto respondin a positivemannertoward those who are
weak or who havefallen. The Didachistincludeswithin the parametersof its
There is little questionthat Matt lS:lsff. is likewisebasedupon Lev l9:lT.Interestingly,
however, while the Didachist has revealeda much more positive and hopeful attitude toward
reconciliationwith one's neighbor,the Matthean text reflectsthe negativeand hardened(and no
doubt later) attitude of a more structuredChristian community.
ro5Already by the
turn of the century Hitchcock and Brown (Teaching,34-35)and Sabatier
(Didachi, 28 n. 2, 30 nn. l-2) had indicated the most logical parallels for consideration:
"sodomy" (nor6o<00op6or) - Lev 18:22;20:13;Rom l:27; Barn. 10.6;Clem.paed.2.l0;3.12;
Clem. str. 3.36; Clem. protr. 10.108.5(cf. for the verbal form Barn. 19.4,AC 7.2; Jtrst.diat.
95); "philtres" (gopparefq) - LXX, passim;Rev 2l:8; ,,abortion" (rpovefoerqtdxvov 6v
00opq) - Barn. 19.5;Clem.paed. 2.194; "perjtry" (tnropxdco)- Zech8: 17; Wis 14:28;I Tim
1:10;"malice" (pvqorxar6co)- prov 2l:24 Zech7:10;8:17;Barn.2.8; Herm. Vis.2.3.1;
Herm. Man.8.3; 9.3; Herm. \im.9.23.4: I Clem.2.5: Clem.s/r. ?.14.
106Cf. Clem. protr.
10.108.5versusClem. str.2.l .,3and 4.3.10.Harnack arguesfrom the
presenceof the term in the initial referencethat Clementhere is dependentupon the Didache's
listing of the decalogue,versusthe listing that is found in Barn. 19 (Lehre,9). Of course,it was
not^uncommonfor patristicauthorsto usetheir sourcetextsin varyingforms.
'u' Cf.
alsoPs l8:5; Eccl 5:l-7; Wis 1:ll; Tob 14:10;PirqeAboth 1.15.
r08See
Warfield, "Texts," 144;Funk, PatresApostolici, 8; Oxford Society, New Testament,
25; Knopf, Lehre, 12;Yokes,Riddte, l9; Lilje, Lehre,50-51;Lake,ApostolicFathers,3l3 n. l.
REVIEW OF TEXTS 6l
exhortations,however, admonitionstoward prayer (cf. 1.3 above)and "love
of neighbor," which are not paralleledin Jude's salvationby "fire and fear."
Thus, while the two texts reveala certain similarity in structureand in theme,
theseelementsmight well be attributed to a common literary sourceor oral
tradition that was widely recognizedduring the early Christian period.
Most importantly in our brief review of early Christian literature are those
parallels that are offered by the text of Barnabas.Both Did.2 and 3 reveal
somespecialunity with Barn. 19, as is indicated by those verseswhich tradi-
tionally were attributed to the Two Ways source.While Barn. 19.4 revealsa
much abbreviatedversionof the decalogue(o0 nopvefoelq, o0 por1e6oerq,, o0
fior6oeeop{otlq) the chapter contains many other elements that are paral-
leledin Did. 2.roeOne must be careful,however,to recognizethe incorpora-
tion of severalsourceswithin Did.2, i.e., a form of the decaloguewhich is
more readily paralleledboth by the Matthean Gospeland by the OT than it
is by Barnabas,and some form of the Two Ways source.Further, one must
take into accountthat the text of the Didache was molded by severalredac-
tors, someof whom combinedchap.2 with chap. 3 and othersof whom in-
stalled the redactionalinsertion of l.3b-2.1. Finally, w 3-5 may in fact
indicate an additional elementof commentaryor elaboration that was inter-
laced within the framework of the chapter, so as to complicateeven further
the web of influencesthat have shapedthe text.
Conclusions
As will be supported further in the discussionbelow, the framework of the
decalogueservesas the structure upon which much of chaps. 2-3 are con-
structed.The particular literary texts that most accuratelyreflect that form of
the decaloguewhich is found in Did.2 includethe materialsof Exod 20 MT
and Codex Alexandrinus,as well as the texts at Matt 5 and l9.rro While
arguments have been made by scholars to support the opinion that the
Didachist was dependentupon either a specificOT or NT version of the
decalogue,no study hasbeenconclusive.In point of fact, any of the canonical
sourcesfor the decalogueeasilycould have beenincorporatedinto the frame-
work of Did. 2. Since no specific influence from the narrative frameworks
that surround the Matthean versions of the decalogueis apparent in the
Didache, however, it is suggestedhere that the Didachist relied upon an OT
source.By the sametoken, the Matthean redactorlikewisemay have been
toeCf . Did.2.4:Barn. 19.7a,8c-d;Did.2.5:Barn 19.4d,5; Did. 6:Barn 19.6b'3d:Did.
2.7: Barn. 19.11,5c.
rr0 The murder - adultery order of the prohibitions in H is supported over againstthe L
reading by the Church Ordinances,the Apostolic Constitutions and Clem. protr. 109-
62 CHAPTER TwO
dependentupon this same OT source (i.e., the sourcethat was used by the
Didachist) for the basis of the Matthean construction that appearsat Matt
5:21-48.Further, the Matthean redactor may have implementedthis source
again at Matt 19:16-22as a standardby which to correct the Marcan and the
Lucan forms of the pericopeabout the "Rich Young Man."lrr
The final element of the decaloguethat appears in Did. 2.3 ("false
witness")hasbecomethe thematicbasisfor w 3-5. It is impossibleto deter-
mine whether the Didachist has incorporated this collection of exhortations
from a separatesource,or whether s/he simply composedthe segmenthim/
herself. In either case,the framework that is formed by the motif of "cove-
tousness" which surrounds the segmentcan probably be attributed to the
redactor.
Finally, vv 6b-7servetwo functionswithin the framework of chaps.l-2. On
the one hand, theseversesrepeatthe "love of neighbor" motif that wasfound
originally in 1.2b, and therefore, form a thematic inclusio around the text of
chap. 2 (and by the time of the final redaction of the text, they were usedto
form an inclusioaround 1.3-2.1as well).112On the other hand, w 6-7 form
a carefully-tailoredsetof exhortationsthat are basedupon the framework and
the considerations of Lev 19:17-18.The mannerin which the closingadmoni-
tions to "reprove/convince, pray and love" are structured suggeststhat one
finds here a reflection of somewell-establishedsystemfor the confrontation
of dissenterswithin the community - a systemwhich stemsfrom an idealized
vision of the early Christian movement,trnlike the more legalisticand negative
criteria for judging wrongdoerswhich appearsin the later texts of the Mat-
thean Gospeland of Jude.113
rrr IthuswoulddisagreewithWarfield'sanalysisthatDid.2.4-6',expands"uponMattlg:19,
but instead,I would assertthat both the Mattheanredactorand the Didachistare dependentupon
the samesource.
rr2 Warfield ("Texts,"
144-45)notes here that "the final clauseof the chapter is apparently
again due to Matt xix. 19; as the one closesthe list of commandmentswith the commandto love
our neighbors, so does the other bring his list to an end with a somewhat strengthened
reminiscenceof the same." As is arguedabove,this observationis consistentwith that tradition
concerning"love of God" and "love of neighbor" sayingsthat is sharedboth by the Matthean
redactorand by the Didachist.
"' Thus Frend notes: "The ethical teachingof both writers [Didacheand I Clement] seems
also to owe lessto the Sermonon the Mount, though the Didache was familiar with this, than
to ideasdrawn from the Two Ways combinedwith the wisdom of Job, Proverbs,and Ecclesias-
tes" (Christianity, 137\.
REVIEW OF TEXTS 63
Didache 3: A Fence to the Law (Part I)
Introduction
From the outsetthere appearsto be little questionthat chaps.3-4 form a con-
catenationof hortatory instructionswhoseJewishliterary sourcesand ethical
principleshavebeeninterwovenwith early Christian concerns.In this respect
chap. 3 servesas a more specificcomplementto chap' 2rra as the text now
stands.Thus, in associationwith chap. 4, chap. 3 was labeledby many early
scholarswho were conversantwith the rabbinic tradition as a "fence to the
Law," i.e., a legalistic "safeguard" with respectto the exhortationsof
2.2-7.rrs
Two distinctive literary units appear within the third chapter of the
Didache:w l-6, a structurallyunified list of negativeadmonitions,and w 8-
10, additional admonitions with parallelsin the text of Barn. 19. V 7, which
is a positiveresponseto the exhortationsof 3.1-6,will be examinedin a separ-
ate discussionbelow.
Analysisof 3.1-6116
Yv 2-6 have beenrecognizedfor many yearsas a distinctive literary unit that
wasincorporatedfrom an independentsourceby the Didachist, who probably
also inserted3.1 to accompanythe text as an introductory statementfor the
entire unit. r17The unit is that portion of the chapter which most closely
I ta Sabatiernotesthat chap. 3 must be a secondaryreadingthat wasinsertedand wasarranged
by the Didachist(Didacht,33 n.2). He believesthat chaps.3-4 are a thematicelaboration,which
is basedupon that form of the decaloguewhich is provided in chap. 2 (34-35n. l).
rr5 Taylor, Teaching,23; Harris, Teaching,S0; Vokes, Riddle,76. Taylor placesspecialem-
phasisupon the nature of 3.1, which parallelsin both themeand wording the texts of b. Hul Mb
(15;rnlr,'r''ir!rryr:il p ;:nrir ["Keep far from the base and from that which resemblesit."]) and
'Aboth R. Nat. 21\y'l, nDnn 'lD pnrn
lbr rryrun ["Keep far from the repulsiveand from that
which resemblesthe repulsive."l). In opposition to Taylor's views, Audet arguesthat one does
not in fact find a "fence" motif here, sincethe text doesnot legalisticallyprotect the specificities
of Torah via elaborate discussion,as in traditional rabbinic style (Didachi,301-302). While
Audet's point carriessomevalidity with respectto discussionsof the elaborately-developed rab-
binic methodology which servedto mold the parametersof an oral Torah, the failure of the
Didachist to reproducepreciselysuchan exactingmethodologicalformat neednot indicate that
the Didachistdid not desireto createsucha fence.It merely impliesthat the Didachisteither was
not steepedin suchrabbinic tradition, or more likely, that s/he chosenot to incorporatesuch a
format of rhetorical discourseinto the tractate. Interestingly,Audet appearsto reversehimself
later by his notation that Taylor's comparisonof 3. I with D. Hul. 44bin fact representsa justified
analysisof the argumentativecontext of 3.1-6, which accuratelyreflectsthe sages!Funk (Pafres
Apostolici, xvi) evenarguesthat 3.1-6 is merely a commentaryupon the sins that are illustrated
in 2.2-3.
r16Forcriticalapparatitothetext,seeWohleb,Ubersetryng,25-2S,andRordorfandTuilier,
Doctrine. 152-54.
r1?Mcciffert,
"Relations," 436; Harnack, Lehre, 11,52 (the redactortook a more activerole
& CHAPTER Tw'O
reflectsthe themesof chap. 2that arederivedfrom the decalogue.The section
is characterizedby a tightly-knit strophic pattern that is not revealedelsewhere
in the Didache. It does not presentany materialsthat are paralleledin Bar-
nabas. This lack of associationwith Barnabasis atypical of the Two Ways
sourcethat is usedby both documents,i.e., by Barnabasand by the Didache,
and in this respectvv 2-6 divergefrom w 9-10, a sectionthat is alignedclosely
with Barn. 19.4-6.
With respect to structure, 3.2-6 presents five negative admonitions on
"murder" (e6voq), "adultery" (porxeic), "idolatry" (ei6rol,ol,atpic),
"theft" (r?'orri) and "blasphemy" (pl,aoqnpio) respectively. Eachin its turn
is accompaniedby a coterie of lessersins, participation in any one of which
leads to these five more contemptablevices. Unlike the list of vices that is
given in chap. 2, which appearsto be merely an abbreviated form of the
decaloguethat has been elaborated by contemporary (Christian?) writers
without any particular stylistic flair,3.2-6 is structuredaccordingto a distinc-
tive, repetitivepattern that usesthe catchword pq66 ("nor") as a mnemonic
llE
device.
With respectto possiblesourcetexts behind w 2-6, scholarshave offered
numerousparallels from the OT, NT and Intertestamentalliterature for the
individual verses.lreAs might be expectedby the closeadherenceof the text
to elementsin the decalogue,however, the primary sourcesto be suggested
have been Exod 20, Deut 5 and Matt 5.
A cursory glanceat Did. 3.2-6 immediatelyrevealsa dependenceupon the
terminology that is found in commandments6-9 of the decalogue(cf. Exod
in composingthe segmentbasedupon OT sayings[67]); Robinson,Barnabas,6l{2 (borrowed
from some "apocryphal book"); Muilenberg,Relotions,34, 74 (following Harnack and Robin-
son, "derived from a Jewishapocryphalwork" with revisionby the redactor [emphasismine]);
Yokes, Riddle,39, 63, 120-25: Audet, Didachd, 156-57;Kraft, Barnabas, 63 ("perhaps pre-
Christian addition"; notes that the term for "blasphemy" (pl,cogqpic), while common in an-
cient vicelists in general, appearsonly at this point in the Didache U.l6l). Vttgtle (Iasterkotaloge,
197-98)attributes the composition of 3.1-6 to "Christian authors," but does not ..in a word"
reject the suppositionthat the segmentderivesfrom a separatesource.
As is observedby Connolly ("Fragments," 152),the author of the Greek fragment of Did. 2-3
(i.e., POxy 1782),seemsto havenotedon purposethat therewasto be somesignificantseparation
betweenchaps.2-3, as is indicatedwithin the text "by a row of wedge-shaped signsbelow which
there are 'horizontal dashes."' It is conceivable,therefore, that this scribe also recognizeda
distinctive changeof style (=ngw source?)beginningwith chap. 3.
rrE Harnack,
Lehre,52;Kraft, Barnobos.146;cf. ihe oppositeopinion of Warfield, ..Texts,"
147. For a detailed analysis of the structure, see the discussionthat is provided by Audet
(DidachC, 297-98r,who notes that minor distortions in the pattern have resulted from the
transmissionof the tradition. So too, schlecht (Apostellehre,50) arguesthat 3.3-4a, which is
missingin L, is probably original to the pattern, sinceit also appearsin the Church Ordinances,
AC 7 and Pseudo-Athanasius.
rre Suggested parallelsincludethe following:for 3.1, T. Dan 6.8, Gal 5:21,and I Thes5:22;
for 3.2, Gal 5:20;for 3.4, T. I2 Patr.4.lg, Sib.Or.3.22ff.,Lev 19:26,31,and Deut 18:10-ll;
for 3.5, Prov 2l:6; for 3.6, Wis l:ll, I Cor l0:10,Phil 2:14,Titus l:?, I per 4:19,2Pet210.
REVIEW OF TEXTS
2O:13-17;Deut 5:17-21).r20Theseelements,with the addition of the con-
cluding admonitionconcerning"covetousness,"in effect form the "second
tablet" of laws within the corpusof the decalogue(asthat tablet of laws was
conceivedby the early rabbis;. r21Attempts to make strict associationsbe-
tweenthe individual elementsof Did.3.2-6 and the latter laws of the deca-
logueare at beststrained.r22It indeedmay be that 3.2-6wasdesignedsimply
to offer sufficient parallelswith the decaloguesof the OT so as to suggestthe
latter half of the corpus(i.e., the commandmentsthat are relatedto human
interaction)to the hearer/readeror to the catechumen.In this respect,w 2-6
neveractuallywereintendedto be a rigorousreflectionof eachindividualele-
ment in the decalogue. 123Thus, 3.2-6 readily leadsthe reader'smind to an
associationwith the decalogueeventoday, yet placesthis basicbody of an-
cient law into a structurethat wasincorporatedeasilyby the Didachist for use
in the contemporarysituation.
The secondprimary set of materialsto consideras a sourcefor Did, 3.2-6
is that of Matt 5:21-37.While scholarshave arguedwith good evidencethat
this sectionof the Matthean Gospelshowscloseaffinities to 3.2-6,r24one
Drews ("Untersuchungen," 56-59)has in fact demonstratedthe unique verbal and thematic
parallelsthat exist betweeenDid. 3, Col3:5-12 and Eph 4:2, 26-32.Each of thesesourcesmost
assurablyreflectsa knowledgeof a standardizedvirtue- and vice-catalogueof the contemporary
Greco-Romanworld. This is to be expectedfor the texts of Colossiansand Ephesians,but would
be an interesting"forerunner" if it indeedwas sharedas well by Did. 3.2-6. Drews, unfortunate-
ly, doesnot speakto the unique structuralaspectsofw 2-6. Thesestructuralpeculiaritiesin fact
argue that a different textual tradition was usedin the Didache.
Of course, many of those elementsthat are found in 3,2-6 are paralleled in varying order
throughoutthe post-apostolictexts (cf. Seeberg,Katechismus,23-30. Just. diol. 93.1 lists the
elementsas adultery, fornication and murder, and associatesthesewith a themethat is found in
Did. l.2ab, that of the "Great Commandment.") and other Greco-Romanwritings (cf. Cic. rasc.
4.7, and,its sourcetexts,DiogenesLaertius7.lll, ll3). Yet, as has beenwell demonstrated by
Hitchcockand Brown(Teaching36-38),a numberof termsin this unit appeareitherinfrequently
within the NT and the LXX, or are hapax legomenaof that literature.
r20The order of elementsI (murder), 2 (adultery) and 4 (theft), again reflectsthat of Codex
Alexandrinus (seethe discussionof 2.2-3 above).
12rHarnack,Lehre, 52. SeeMek.Bai. 8, wherethe
order of the elementsthat is providedon
the tabletsis givenas l-5 (=tablet l) and 6-10(:1261.1 2), accordingto Rabbi Hananiahben
Gamaliel. Cf. Philo. decal. 29-33.
r22Cf. Taylor (Teaching,25-26), who arguesthat Did.3.2 servedas a "fence" to decalogue
commandment6;3.3-4 to commandment7; 3.5 to commandment8; and, 3.6 to commandment
9. He further notesthat commandmentl0 did not receivecommentin the Didachebecause"it
is itself of the natureof a fence."
123As such, a certain adaptationto
"wisdom categories"may havebeenof primary concern
to the Didachisthere, in keepingwith the nature of Drd. 3-4 in general;so Audet, Didachi, 301.
Cf. Klevinghaus,Stellung,147.(Seethe discussionof Did. 3.7 below.)The useof wisdomtexts
and categories throughoutchaps.3-4, the repetitionof the phrasetdxvov pou (["my child"l a
common stylisticfeatureof wisdom literaturethroughoutancientGreece,Persia,Egypt and
Israel;seeFestugidre, Lardvdlation,l.332-36')andtheabsenceofanyearlyChristiankerygmatic
emphasis,all serveto support this argument.
rz Cf. Funk, Doctrina,12-14;Greyvenstein,
"'Teaching,"' lll; Goppelt,Christentum,187,
66 CHAPTER T.wO
must, of course,recognizethat the Matthean redactorlikewiseis dependent
upon the decaloguehere as one of severalliterary sources(including M and
Q) which wereavailablefor the constructionof the Mattheanredactor'sver-
sion of the decaloguepattern.125Closeassociationsin structureand theme
betweenDid.3.2-6 and Matt 5:20-37,which are basedupon the elementsof
murder, adultery and lying/false-swearing,likewise reflect parallels in the
decalogue.
One notes,despitethoseelementsthat were sharedwith the decalogueboth
by Matt 5:21-37and by Did. 3.2-6,that a strongbond of additionalconcerns
also appearsto link the Didache with the Matthean text. Firstly, structural
elementsare sharedin the constructionof both arguments,as is illustrated by
the following outline:
Didache 3 argument Matthew 5 argument
Concern for murder Concern for murder
Murder drawsjudgment
Anger draws judgment
Anger yields murder (Anger equalsmurder)
Concern for adultery Concern for adultery
Lust yields adultery Lust equalsadultery
Secondly,while both Did. 3.5 and Matt 5:33 focus upon the ninth com-
mandmentof the decalogue,they further concludein related discussionsthat
are basedupon a secondOT passage.At Matt 5:34-35one finds a response
to the commandmentof 5:33 which is attributed to the historical Jesus,
though it is formulatedupon the text of Isa 66:1. Remarkably,Did.3.8is
structuredupon Isa 66:2, which thus revealsthat eachredactorhasutilizeda
similarpatternof illustrationfrom Isa 66 to serveas a commentarystatement
upon this particularcommandmentof the decalogue.This suggests that some
commonelementof interpretivetradition may perhapshavebeensharedbe-
tweenthe Didacheand the MattheanGospel.126
who argues that 3.2-6 representsthe manner in which the Didachist restricts the momentous
the_ological
shiftsof the sermonon the Mount to "good senserules" for living; Lilje, Lehre,5l.
r25For contrastingpositions,
seeBultmann(Hiitory,l35-36), who believeithat Matt 5:21f.,
27f. and'33-37formed the older associationof elementsupon which the six Antithesesof the
redactorwereconstructed,versusStrecker("Antithesen," 39-43),who arguesthat Matt 5:21f.,
27f. and 3lf. formed the original pattern.
t26 Though
v 5 and v 8 in fact are separatedin the Didacheby the text of w 6-7, the effect
of the separationis minimized by the recognitionthat v 7 doesnot belong truly to either 3.2-6
or 3.8-10in termsof the sourcesthat wereutilizedbv the redactor:cf. discussionof 3.7 below.
The associationbetweenv 5 and v 8, as is suggested by Matt 5:33-32,neednot lead one to the
conclusiontharDid.3.2-6and,3.8-10 derivefrom the samesource,sincethe Didachistcouldhave
chosento insert3.2-6herein order to complement3.8 as a completionof the thematicparallel
that is offered by the Mattheantext. It would seemmore likely, however,that thesetwo units
originallystemmedfrom the samesource.It is most interestingthat Matt 5:33-37commonlyis
characterized by scholarsas M material.
RE\rIEw' OF TEXTS 67
Further, a predominant concern for the significanceof "land" in the Di-
dache,asis demonstrated by the importantrole of the promisethat "the meek
shallinherit the earth" (oi npaeTqxl,lpovoprloouor tilv yiv) in Did. 3.7, ap-
pearsas well throughoutthe subtlestrainof supportingtextsthat are usedby
the Mattheanredactorat Matt 5:21-32.t27AtMatt 5:22 onediscoversa reflec-
tion of an OT pattern of community judgment that is modeledupon the text
of Deut l6:18-20,a pericopewhich concludeswith
6rroioq rd 8irotov 6KDE[,ivo (flte roi eioel,06vteg,
rl"lpovopriorlrerrlv yfrv, flv rcfprog,
6 0e6qoou 6i6oroivoor.
("Justice,andonlyjustice,you shallfollow,that you maylive and
inheritthe land whichthe LORD your God givesyou.")
Subsequently, in Matt 5:32one finds a reflectionof admonitionsconcerning
marriagethat is basedupon Deut 24:l-4, a pericopewhich concludeswith the
notation that the former husbandof an ousted wife shall not take her again
so as to
o0 proveTretlv yfrv, flv xfproq 6 0e6q6pdv 6i6coorv6piv 6v Kl{pA.
("not bringguiltuponthelandwhichtheLORDyourGodgivesyou for aninher-
itance.
")
While it is difficult to establishdefinitive connectionsbetweenthe text of the
MattheanGospeland the Didachebasedsimplyupon this "inheritanceof the
land" motif, there can be little question that each redactor again is familiar
with sometradition that unites thesevarious OT pericopae:each redactor is
governedby a concernfor the land, and eachchooses to unitethe exhortations
against murder and adultery that are found in the decaloguewith that par-
ticular "land motif."
Finally, it is somewhatinterestingthat both the Matthean redactor and the
Didachist have chosento focus upon the decaloguehere in the first place.As
a text that wasconsideredfor discussionby later Jewishwriters,the decalogue
appearsto havereceivedonly limited consideration,and both textsin question
here,i.e., the MattheanGospeland the Didache,are highly dependentupon
Jewishsourcesand traditions.r28In point of fact, the decaloguehad a singu-
lar appealboth to the Mattheanredactorand to the Didachist.The natureof
that appealis characterized by the readyapplicabilityof the decaloguefor the
ethicalinstructionwithin the early Christiancongregation.As we have seen
in the useof the decalogueby the respectiveredactors,however,the waysin
r27Seediscussionof Did. 3.7 below.
r28In his extensiveanalysisof the tradition, Bergerfinds only three discussionsof the text in
fate-Judaism- Philo decal. passim; Jos.AJ 3.91-93and Pseudo-Philo(Liber Antiquitatum) -
though useof the decaloguewaswidely attestedamongChristianauthorsby the end of the second
century (Cesetzesausleguns, 258).
68 CHAPTER T\vO
which the text was used to structurethe social parametersof each redactor's
community representstwo distinctly different perspectivesupon religious in-
r2e
struction and its role in the "community of faith."
In conclusion, the following points seem relevant with respectto 3.2-6.
Theseversesappear to stem from an early sourcethat was incorporated by
the Didachist and most certainly was composedof materialsthat wereorigin-
ally independent of the Two Waystradition.r30The way in whichthis segment
is self-containedin terms of structureand theme, and the way in which it has
r3r
maintainedthe identifiablenatureof "wisdom instruction," indicatesthat
it is one of thosesectionsin the Didachewhich may not havebeenaffected
significantly by later attempts to align the text with the Matthean Gospel.
Thus, it probably was constructedto function in the original Jewishmilieu of
the documentand not in responseto the rise of "Gentile concerns."l32This
is supportedfurther by the fact that 3.2-6reflectselementsof wisdom rhetoric
and a concernfor the decalogue,but doesnot includethe list of sinsthat com-
monly are associatedwith more traditional Christian lists of virtues and vices
(cf. Did. 2.2-3).In keepingwith chaps.l-5 of the Didachein general,3.2-6
r2eThus, Harnack observesfrom the onset of modern examinationsinto the text of the
Didachewhat hasbecomethe scholarlyconsensus,that Did. 3.1-6may representthe modification
of the decalogueby the early church for its usein the instruction of new members,most probably
at baptism (Lehre, 52-53).On the other hand, the way in which the Matthean redactor usedthe
decaloguein the constructionof the Sermonon the Mount doesnot necessarilysuggesta similar
employmentof the text for the instruction of new membersat baptism. Interestingly,Clem.paed.
3.12 presentsan outline of instructionsthat apparently combinesthe generalorder of elements
in the texts of the Didacheand the Matthean texts: l) Golden Rule; 2) Great Commandment;3)
decalogue(adultery, idolatry, corruption of youth, theft, honoring of parents); 4) prayer; 5)
fasting;etc. Later authorsalso incorporatedelementsof Did.3.1-6 into the recognizedstream
of the Two Ways tradition that is found in post-apostolicwritings (Schlecht,Doctrina,T'l-94)J
cf. Boniface (Ammonitio sivepredicatio sancti, Epistulaede Abrenuntiatione in Baptistate),St.
Benedict(Benedicti Regulaa)and Severin(Doctrina SeveriniEpistulaede Sapientia).Of these
four examples,only that of Severinincludesany materialthat is reflectiveof OT texts,which thus
suggeststhat later Christian authorsmay haveknown someform of the 3. l-6 pericopeapart from
any thematic or structural associationswith other OT texts.
t30 Mcciffert ("Relations,"
436)datesthe '.incorporation"of 3.2-6into the Didacheby the
end of the first century, but Audet (Didachi, I 15, 301)more correctly attributesit to the original
compilerof the text, sincethesematerialsappearin all subsequent versionsof the Didache,e.g.,
the ChurchOrdinancesand L, but not Barnabas.Cf. Greyvenstein, ...Teaching,,,,73-'19:Kraft,
Barnabas,62.
t3t Ciet,
"L'6nigme," 88.
t32Audet,
Didachi,30l. This would be in keepingwith traditionalviewsof Drd. l-6, which
attribute the bulk of these materials to a Jewish or Judeo-christian setting; cf. v<igtle
(Lasterkataloge,197-98),who emphasizes that the pn6A(Tll,oriq pq6i Enrottxdq pq6d 0uprr6q
("nor zealous,nor contentious,nor passionate")of 3.2 represents more of a Jewishunderstan-
ding than it representsa verification of an early Christian catalogue.Audet, however,doesoffer
an interestingdiscussionof various elementsin the section, which may be a responseto the
dangersof contemporarycults and ,,mysteries,'(306-308).
REvIBw' OF TEXTS 69
no doubt was employed in some communal setting, 133where its value as a
mnemonic text for catechumens would have been appreciated most fully. l3a
Analysis of 3.8-10
These three versesare unquestionably from the Two Ways source of materials
that was incorporated into both the Didache and Barnabas. Scriptural
135but it seems
parallels have been offered for each verse, as with 3.1-6 above,
more likely (in comparison with parallel materials that are found at Born.
19.3-6) that the authors of each writing derived these versesfrom a common
source document, instead of from scatteredsayings. A comparison of the two
texts by individual verse immediately reveals the close relationship of the seg-
ments:
Did. 3.8 - yivou pcrp60upog, rcri dl,aiporv Kci &KoKoq rcri rlo61roq,roi dyc-
0dq,rcoi rp6pcovtoDq,)'6youq,6rd ncw6q,, o0q,{rouocq,.
("Be longsuffering,merciful, guileless,quiet, good and ever-fearingof the words
that you have heard.")
Barn. 19.4d,- Eorl, flo6r(roq,,6o11rp6prov roDq,?u6youqo0q,flrouooq,.
("Be quiet; fear the words that you have heard.")
Did. 3.9 - o01 0yriloere,oeoutdv o06d6cboerq, rfr VuXt oou 0priooq. o0 rol,?ur1-
0rioetor i VuXrioou perd iryqLdrv, d)'l,d perd 6rrcoicovxcri ra,newd)vd,vaorpa-
anol.
("You shall not exalt yourself, nor let your soul be presumptuous.Your soul shall
not consort with the lofty, but you shall walk with righteousand humble men.")
Barn. l9.3ac,6c - o01 0rycboerq rfl VuIfl oou 0priooq . . .
oecut6v . . o0 6ciloerq,
o06drol,l,qO{o1 tr yu1flg,oou perd 6ryq2udrv, d},}rd perd ronervd)vroi 6rroiorv
dvcorpaqrjoq.
("You shallnot exalt yourself. . .you shall not let your soul be presumptuous
. . . nor shall you consort with the lofty, but you shall consort with humble and
righteousmen.")
t33 Suggs("Two Ways," 71-72)further notesthat
"the positive admonition to seekthe com-
panionshipof the saintsin 4.2 may representa muted concernfor community consciousness ap-
propriate to a movementwhich is more establishedand self-confident." While this is no doubt
true, this neednot signify that the community of the Didacheis a lote Christian community, but
only one that is firmly-rooted in a communalstructure,and thus, presumably,is Jewishin origin
(synagogueor synagogue-church?).
tto Audet emphasizesthat the use and constructionof 3.1-6 is designedfor catecheticalpur-
posesat baptism, and hence,that this sectiondoesnot reflect a usethat was original to the Two
Ways source(Didachd,303). As he further notes here, those who would have read 3.2-6 as in-
struction for the catechumensin a baptismal context would have beenthe "older" membersof
the community, who wereestablishedin the heritage.Cf. the commentsof Suggsin n. 130above.
t3t cf. 3.8 (=Isa 66:2);3.9 (=Prov 28:26;Sir 6:2a:Matt l8:4; Rom 12:16);and, 3.10(:Ps
34:35;Matt 10:29-30; Sir 2.1, 4).
70 CHAPTER Tw'O
Did.3.l0 - rd ouppcivovtdoor tvepTripctcrbqdyo0dnpoo66(n,ei6drq6tt
dtep 0ao0o06€vyiverar.
("Receivethe accidents
that comeyour wayasgood,knowingthat nothinghap-
penswithoutGod.")
Bqrn. 19.6d- rd ouppoivovtrioor0vepyripotarbqdyaOdnpoo66(q,ei66q,,6tr
&veu0eo0o066vyivetot.
("Receivetheaccidentsthat comeyour wayasgood,knowingthat nothinghap-
penswithoutGod.")
In contrast to 3.1-6, vv 8-10 (as they are introduced by 3.7) represent
various positive exhortations.136This positive approachto the text continues
through 4.1-4 until negativeexhortationsare resumedwith 4.5. At 3.8-10,
however,the wisdommotif of "my child," which is found earlierin 3.1-6and
later in 4.1-4,is not present.In all respects,then, this segmentappearsto be
representativeof the Two Ways sourceas it is found elsewherein the Didache.
Conclusions
From the aboveanalysisit appearsthat 3.2-6and 3.8-10comefrom two dif-
ferent sources.The latter reflectsthe Two Ways source,which is incorporated
throughout Did. l-6 and paralleledin Barn. l8-20. The former is from an in-
dependentsourcethat is not paralleledelsewherein apostolicor post-apostolic
literature. Yet, while the sourceof the 3.2-6 segmentis not attestedas a struc-
tural unit in other known literature, it indeed doesreflect themesand mate-
rials that are found in the OT and in the Matthean Gospel.
While v I has beenprovidedby the Didachistas an introductionto 3.2-6,
v 7 has beenintroduced both as a conclusionto thesesamematerialsand as
a link to w 8-10.The reflectionof Isa 66:2that is found in 3.8 may havesug-
gestedto the Didachistthe appropriateness of the currentposition in the text
for 3.2-6,sinceIsa 66:l likewiseservesas a conclusionto similar themesand
argumentsin Matt 5:21-37.
Individual elementsin chap. 3 indicate that the text or its sourceswere
known to later authors. Hence,one noteswith interestthree specifictextsthat
appear in the writings of Clement, Origen and Dorotheus Abbas:
t36 Audet
suggeststhat w 9-10are in fact basedupon vv 7-8, which representa consideration
for the concernsof "self," "community" and "outsiders."Thus,the first temptationof ..pover-
ty" (or "meekness")would be "self-exaltation,' (Didachd,324-26)lCf. Warfield (..Texts," 120),
who seesa more overarchingstructurerepresented in chaps. 3-4, i.e.,3.1-6 (the "forbidden
elements"of 2.2-7),3.7-10("duties to self"), 4.1-4 ("duties to church"), 4.5-g ("duties to
poor") and 4.9-ll (..dutiesto household").
REWEU/ OF TEXTS 7l
Clem.sfr. l.2O.l00.4 (cf. Did.3.6)- It is sucha person thatis by Scripturecalled
a "thief." It is thereforesaid,"Son, be not a liar; for lying leadsto theft." r37
Orig.prin.3.2.7 (cf. Did. 3.10)- And thereforeHoly Scriptureteaches us to
receiveall that happens assentby God, knowingthat withoutHim no eventoc-
curs.
Dor. ep.3 (cf. Did.3.l0) - I exhortyou, child,to endureandbe thankfulfor
whathappens (oOppoivouolv) in thecourseof calamity,in accordance with what
"Receiveasgood(rbqdva0dnpoo6€rou)evervthing that comesto you
:::f#Ot
The texts that are provided by Clementand Origin are indeedinterestingin
that they reveal an early useof the Didachematerial, in both casesin Egypt.
Of course,it is in Egypt that the Didachefound a home within specificliturgi-
cal texts, and to that extent one should not be surprised that use of the
material would appearwithin an Egyptian milieu, nor that the material would
be associatedwith "scripture" in an atmospherewhere no fixed canon had
beenestablishedby the end of the third century C.E.
Someopposition has beenoffered againstthe belief that either Clementor
Origenequates"scripture" herewith a text that wasderivedfrom the Didache
itself. r3eBut one may note severalobservationsto arguein favor of this view,
or at least,that Clementand Origen refer to thosesourceswhich the Didachist
incorporated.
With respectto Clement,thereis little questionthat the logic of the wisdom
tradition and the Jewish principles of ethics normally would argue that
"theft" leadsto "lying," which is quite the opposite view of Did. 3.6, where
"lying" is believedto lead to "theft."lao Hence,the order that is posedby
the Didachistis somewhatunique. But the sourcethat is usedby the Didachist
in fact may be basedupon the sameorder asthat which is found in Prov 30:6-
9, where there is a further connection betweenlying, stealing and denying
God. rar Admittedly, Prov 30:6-9 and Did. 3.5 revealat best a similarity of
r37The text in Greek: o0toq, xMtqq, Ord tiq
Tpaqiq eipqrcr <ploi ToOv uii, pi1 yivou
ye6oqq,' 66nyei tdp td ye0opo npdq rlv xl.on{v.
r38Translationby Greyvenstein,
"'Teaching,"' l0; cf. also Dor. doct. 13.l: deeitrertdp 6 po-
vcldq 6 petd dl,rlOeicq npooepX6pevogtdl xupirp 6oule0oor, Erorptiocr rotd rilv ryulilv
c0ro6 eiq nerpaopo0q,,iva pi (evi(qrci rore pq6i topriooqror 6v roiq ouppoivouor nrotefov
6tr o06Bvdveu rfrq,npovoiaq ro0 0eo$yrverar.
r3eCf. on Clement, Yokes, Riddte,74-76; Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 124-25,125n. l,
155n. 3; and on Origen, Harris, Teaching,4T;Vokes,Riddle,76-77.Both Harris and Vokes
prefer Barn. 19.6 as the sourcetext for Origen here. Vokes notes that the probable sourcefor
Barnabaswas Rom 8:28, and he indicatesfurther that Tert. virg. vel.2 probably also usesBar-
nabasat this point. For an argument in support of the Didacheas the sourcehere, seeCreed,
"Didache," 373-74.
raoTaylor, Teaching,30; cf. Jer 7:9; Hos 4:2; Mek. Bah. S.Taylor notes that Herm. Mon.
3.2 also reflects the order of the Didache, but believesthat Did.3.6 is the earlier version.
rar Vokes(Riddle,76n. l)commentsthatinClementthisisaquotationfrommemoryofa
72 CHAPTER T\MO REVIEW' OF TEXTS 73

patternswith respectto terminologyand theme. But the attentionthat has Didache 3.7: The Meek
beengiven to wisdom themesin Did. l-5 could well have qualified this OT
text (takenfrom wisdomliterature)for useby eitherthe Didachistor by the Comparisonof Sources
Didachist'ssourceat 3.2-6.One thus discoversherethat a further OT source H 3.714t Ps 36.1lals Matt 5:5 Barn. 19.4
hasmanagedto influencethe compositionof w 2-6, though the unit is struc- poKdpror
io0t 6otJ
tured primarily upon the concernsof the decalogue. 6d
The text that is quoted by Origen, of course,could be attributedto Barn. oi
19.6,whichis an extremelycloseparallelto Did. 3 J0.r42Earlierin Orig.prin. npo0g, npa'jic,, 7rpo0q,
3.2 theredoesindeedseemto be someknowledgeof Barnabas,but it may in
fact be fortuitous to remind ourselvesthat Origen probably was dependent
6rei 6tr
upon the Two Ways sourceitself, which becamea tradition that was used oi oi
commonlyby early Christian authorsin Egypt. 6d
npaeic, npoeig, o0roi
rcl,npovoprl- xl,lpovopri- rl,rlpovopri-
oouot oouotv oouotv
rilv rilv
YflV. Ynv viv

passageoccurring not only in the Didache, but also inthe Epitome of Rules,and was assigned
"the authorityof scripturebecause the statementis basedupon prov. xxx.6-9. . ." I am unable,
however, to find this in the Epitome of Rules.
ra2Harris (Teaching,47),
with a focus upon the Latin text of origen (proptereadocetnos
ScripturaDivina omnia quaeacciduntnobistanquama Deo illata suscipere, scientesquod sine
Deo nihil fit ["Thereforedivine scriptureteachesus that we shouldreceivewhatevercomesto
us as sentfrom God, knowingthat nothinghappenswithout God."), believesthat the reference
hereis to Barnabas.while origen's text indeedis only roughlyparallelto that of L 3.10 (quae
tibi contrariacontingunt,pro bonisexcipiessciensnihil sinedeo fieri ["Whateveradversities you
receive,receivethemasgood knowingthat nothinghappenswithoutGod."), his syntaxuniquely
followsthat of H3.10/Barn 19.6(td ouppaivovrrioor dvepyriporcrbgdyoOdrpoo66(11,ei6<irq
6tr dtepldveu 0eo0o06iv yiverar)! The only differencebetweenthe Didacheand Barnabasis
in the Didachist'suseof drep, whichalsois found in Origen.Spence (Teachillg,l8 n. 8) likewise
arguesthat Did. 3.l0 wasknown andtaughtby Clementof Alexandria,whichthuslendscredence
to its subsequent useby Origen.
Ps 37:IIa
It is difficult to determinea formative tradition behind Ps 37 (LXX 36),
though certain features of the text in many ways suggesta late historical
milieu. Internal evidence,i.e., a recognitionof socio-economic injustice,an
emphasisupon individual responsibility,the incorporationof wisdommotifs
and the presenceof theologicalinconsistencies, beliesa late setting.So too,
the mannerin which the psalm has beenintroducedinto the corpusproper
characterizesit as a redactional intrusion. la5
ra3L readsestoautem mansuetus,quia
mansuetipossidebuntsanctamterram ("Be you mild,
for the mild shall possessthe holy earth"). Schlecht(Apostellehre,52)viewssanctamas a redac-
tional clarification. Audet, however, arguesthat the phrasesanctam terrom insteadreflects a
Jewishconcernfor piety and hope (cf. I Enoch 27:l;2 Apoc. Bar. 29.2), which ultimately
developsinto a prominent motif in early Christian literature (Didachi, 132-33;cf . Bonnard,Mat-
thieu,56-57). Consideralso the explicit attempt to connectthis sayingwith authoritative Jewish
tradition in AC 7.7: io0r 6d npdoq,drqM<rroflqrci Acpi6 inei oi npceiq xl,qpovoprioouortilv
ytiv ("But be meekas Mosesand David, for the meekshallinherit the earth"). This motif, ac-
cording to Audet, appearsin that recensionof the Two Ways which was usedby L, but which
was not usedby H.
A third perspective is offered by Wohleb (Ubersetzung,26-28), who considerst1v yfrv rilv
dyo0ilv ("the good earth") to be a common typology of the intertestamental and apostolic
periods(cf. the paraphrase of Exod 33:1-3in Barn. 6.8; Deut l:25; Josh5:15and its citationin
Acts7:33;Luke 8:8;Jos.,4,/5.178; Clem.paed.1.6.34,l.l0.9l; Clem.s/r. 1.7.37,5.10.63). The
pervasiveness of this typology easilycciuldhave led to an unconsciousalteration of the text by
an early Latin translator.
tonCf. Ps 37:1la MT:
nN rufr*o'r:vr("and the meekshallpossess land"). The presentdiscus-
sion makesconsistentreferenceto "Ps 37" with the understanding that the MT and the LXX
eachmust be consideredto be a possiblesource.
r45While Pss36 and 37 arejoined
thematicallyby discussionsof "the wicked," Ps 37 is for-
74 CHAPTER Tv/O
Ps 37 is dominated by two complementarythemes:the certaintiesof retri-
bution for the wickedla6and of reward for the righteous.For the author, "the
wicked" areequatedwith "the apostate,"i.e., thosewho haveabandonedthe
Law of Yahweh and the customsof Israel; "the righteous" are equatedwith
"the faithful," i.e., thosewho haveclung to the divine promises.A theologi-
cal dilemma ariseswith the recognitionthat "the wicked" havegainedworld-
ly power and prosperity (w 7, 33, 35), while "the righteous" are sublimated
and humbled (v 16). The author thus querieswhether a "covenant" can in-
deed be maintained in a world whose moral order is not sustained by
Yahweh'spower.la7
The psalmist answersthis crisis in two ways. Firstly, the threat of divine
retribution is reiteratedthrough the mixing of "the ancientconceptof disaster
'fruit' . . . with the more rationalistic idea of
as the mechanicallyinevitable
the chastisinginterferenceof Yahweh."r4ESecondly,the author offers a
renewedeschatologicalhope that is derived from the promise of a homeland
for the wandering/homeless Israel.This appealto "land as symbol" is based
rae
upon a central Pentateuchalmotif by which early Israel identified itself.
The psalmistemphasizes that Israel's"elite" haveforgottenthat the land of
promiseis a gift from God. t50Thus, Ps 37 containsthe vision of a day when
the "promised land" will be redistributed to the righteous as a reward for
faithfulness - the future realization of an ancient promise.
Those who are to receive the divine redistribution of the land are
characterizedby the psalmist(who is a wisdom teacher)rsr in accordancewith
the standardsof OT wisdom and accordingto four primary motifs (cf. vv 9,
11,22,34), i.e., nlp (they "wait for" the Lord), r)! (theyare "the poor" of
the Lord), lt: (they "are blessed"by the Lord) and rnur (they "guard" the
Lord's way).152Ps 37:lla appearsas the secondmotif within this series.It
mulated around an acrostic structure, which thereby suggeststhat it originally stood as an in-
dependentunit. This structurehas not beenduplicatedin the LXX. Mowinckel (Psalms,2.ll4),
who emphasizedthe cultic backgroundof the Psalms,further arguedthat Ps 37 wasamongthose
texts which were "deposited as a votive and memorial gift to Yahwehand a testimonyto future
generations,and on a later occasion. . . included in the treasuryof psalms" (emphasismine).
to6 For a general
reading, seeKoch, "Vergeltungsdogma," l-42.
ta? In this respect
Kraus (Psalmen,1.440)notes that "the zeal for securityby the pious was
not simply from moral indignation, but stemmedinsteadfrom the difficult questionsof whether
Yahweh truly was an active participant in history and whether His power had dominion in this
world (cf. Prov 24:19)" (translationmine).
ra8Mowinckel,
Psalms.1.212-li.
to'E.g.,Israelisconsistentlyrecognizedasthepr;rntr("peopleoftheland").Cf.Genl8:13-
l5; 35:12;47:29-30; Deut 6:10-12;8:7-10;ll:8-22; etc. SeeBrueggemann, Zazd, passim;Davies,
Gospel, 3-48; Kraus, Psalmen, 1.440-41.
r50Cf.
Isa 5:8; Amos 4:l-3;'1:17;8:4-6;Mic 2:l-3. While Rife ("Beatitudes," 107)suggests
that the threat to the righteousstemsfrom "foreign conquerorsand oppressors,"the overallcon-
text-of the psalm indicatesotherwise,that the wicked are within the fold of Israel itself.
"' Kraus,Psalmen.1.440.
t52 The
LXX reads: [nopdvo, npceiq,,e6],oydroand gul,riooto respectively.
REVIEW OF TEXTS 75
bearsno specialdistinction from the other three elements.Indeed, the same
reward is promisedto the hearer/reader with the achievementof eachelement
- the "inheritance of the land." The central focus for each characteristic,
however,is the realizationthat wicked injustice is sufferedby thosewho share
in earthlypoverty,and that this classof personsis "the meek." It is the pro-
mised reconciliation for this injustice that consequentlyservesas the basisof
hope for thosewho are impoverished. r53
Matt 5:5
Immediatelyobvious with respectto the Matthean form of the text is the pur-
poseful alteration of structure. There is little question that the redactor is
dependentupon some form of Ps 37:ll, which has beencast here into the
form of a macarism.r5aWhether this alteration of genreshould be attributed
to the redactor or to the redactor's sourceis problematic. But sincethe stylis-
tic alteration enablesthe text to adhereto the format of Matt 5:3-12through
its structural associationwith the remaining materials, one might argue that
the changeswere provided by the redactor and were not incorporated from
a separatesource.155
r53A recognitionof the
"congregationof the Poor" as thosewho will be ultimately delivered
from evil is the crux of the interpretationthat is provided for Ps 37:l I by the Qumran community
in 4QpPs37.2.8-ll (seethe text of Allegro, "Fragment," 69-?5).Perrin (Kingdom,l82-83) notes
that both the Matthean redactorand the Qumran community have castthe text into a decidedly
eschatologicalperspective,and thus he suggeststhat there is a common link betweenthe com-
munities which is hinged upon this association.(Craigie notesthat the interpretation of the text
at Qumran indicatesa neglectof "its primarily educationalfunction" lPsalmsI-50,3001.I would
hold this also to be true with regard to the Matthean Gospel, though such an emphasisindeed
is maintainedin the Didache,)Cross(Library,62 n. 53,67 n. 8l) further emphasizes this view.
He notesa perspectivethat is sharedbetweenthe Qumran and the Matthean communities,i.e.,
that the poor will inherit the "Kingdom of the New Age," an age which is associatedwith the
eschatologicalbanquet, as is further suggestedby parallelsthat are found in Luke 6:20-21(cf.
Friedlander,Sources,20.Notice that in I Enoch 5-7 it is the electwho will inherit the earth.) The
obvious connectionsbetweenthesetexts lead Kloppenborg to suggestthat such a text as that
which is found at Qumran may haveservedas a sourcefor the Didachistas easilyas could have
Ps 37 itself ("Sayings," 80).
While one must alwaysrespectthe complexity of a text's history of tradition, there is no par-
ticular reasonto considerthe Qumran text as a more desirablesourcethan the OT itself for the
reconstructionof the sayingthat lies behindDid. 3.7. Indeed,while 3.7 continuesthe eschatologi-
cal associationsthat alreadywereinherentin Ps 37:I l, it lacksthe associationwith the eschatolog-
ical banquetthat is apparentin the Matthean, Lucan and Qumran versionsof the text. Instead,
the Didachist appealsto a much simpler understandingthat is based upon themes from OT
wisdom literature, which apparentlypredatesthe eschatologicalemphasisthat is associatedwith
the sayingin the Matthean Gospel.
r5aKloppenborg,
"Sayings," 78; Strecker,lleg,23. Note that the minor alterationofthe say-
ing proper comesas a result of the incorporation of the introductory phrase.
r55This verse,from the M source(thoughGundry that the form
lUse,132, l32n.4l suggests
aloneis Matthean, with Luke 6:2lb offering a Q parallelin somewhatdifferent phraseology),ap-
pearsvariouslyin the manuscriptsin either the secondor the third position of the beatitudes(see
76 CHAPTER T\vO
With respect to theme, however, there is little deviation here from the
primary emphasis that is found in Ps 37,ttu i.e., a concern for the "poor of
Israel" and their claim upon the earth. Indeed, this claim has been reinforced
r57
in the Matthean text by the authoritative figure of the historical Jesus.
The incorporation of this motif of poverty here symbolizes a new self-con-
sciousnesswithin the early Christian community, which was a community that
r58
was infused with a messianicspirit - a spirit which only is implied in Ps 37.
The motifs of socio-economicinjustice, the homelesscovenant people and the
projection of an eschatologicalpromise to the faithful are all in evidencehere.
Thus, one finds reflected in the Matthean text those emphaseswhich were of
primary importance to the original intent of the psalmist. Indeed, it is the con-
cluding motif, i.e., the eschatological promise, which dominates the core of
the beatitudes through its characterization of the beatitudes as a "greatly ab-
breviated apocalyptic vision of the world to come."15e Hence, the primary
Dupont, Beatitudes,1.252-53;Gundry, following M. Black lAn Aramaic Approach to the Gos-
pels (3rd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967)1561,emphasizesthat the relationshipbetween5:3 and
5:5 may havebeenthat of a "doublet" ratherthan of a "couplet," with which I agree.)Spicq
("Benignite," 328-29)emphasizes that the MattheanredactorperhapsincorporatedPs 37:ll as
an interpretation of 5:3 (also Grundmann, Matthdus, 124; Dupont, Beatitudes,1.257).Cf . the
position of Beare,Motthew, 130; Soiron, Bergpredigt,16l; Eichholz,Auslegung,36.Davies
(Gospel,360) suggeststhat 5:5 may havebeenincluded by the redactor to assistin bringing the
number of beatitudesin the Sermon on the Mount to seven.
tsu This original understandingof npcr0qas
"the impoverished" in both Ps 37 and Matt 5:5
is elsewhereexemplifiedin the writings of the variousearly Jewishand Christian authors.Cf. Jas
2:5, wherea parallel renderingof the sayingincorporatesthe term nto16q, ("beggar") as a rein-
forcement of the associationof meek with poor.
r57An appealto the authorityof Jesusappearsonceagainin Gos. Thom.54, where
onereads
n e x e T d x e z X M b . K b . p r oNc e N z H K ea e r o r X T e r M f T € p o l F r n n T e ( . . J e s ussa i d ,
Blessedare the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven"). It is interestingto note the usehere
of "Kingdom of Heaven" ("Kingdom of God" in Luke), whichthus suggests someparallelwith
Matt 5:3/Luke 6:20. lt appearsthat the Cospel of Thomas indeed has preservedsome early
featuresof this beatitudefrom which one may determineevidenceof Matthean alteration, i.e.,
"poor in spirit" and "Kingdom of Heaven." If the Mattheanredactorhasincorporated5:3 from
the SayingsGospelQ, suchalterationsmay indicateboth theologicalconsiderationsand the desire
to preservevariant versionsof the samesaying.(Note that for the Matthean redactor, nposq and
tonerv6q, indeed contain an equivalent ethical meaning [Strecker, Weg, 174; also Soiron,
Bergpredigt,160;cf. Sir 3:17,20 and l0:14, l5l.) Thus the redactor,havingboth the Q saying
in 5:3 and the slightly divergentsayingof the Matthean community in 5:5 ( = M), may havecon-
sciouslyalteredthe former in order to accommodatethe insertion of the latter into the structure
of the text. This would offer further evidencefor the priority of the Lucan form of the Q saying
here,sinceit variesfrom the M parallelin 5:5 (Schulz,Q,76-84; polag, Fragmentae,32-33).
ts8 Audet,
Didachi,320-21.Rife ("Beatitudes,"107)notesa toneof proselytismthat develops
with the associationof this early thematicemphasis:"the Christian readerunderstandsthat the
poor persecutedChristiansof the Roman Empire were founding a religion that would eventually
convertthe whole world."
'5e Betz,
Essays,24.SeeMatt 5:4-9. Caechter notes that the inheritancehere is that of a
"future earth" as is indicatedin Matt 25:14(Evangetium,148-49);cf. Wellhausen,Evangelium
Matthaei, l4; Lohmeyerand Schmauch,Matthtius,85-86;Zumstein,Condition,290; Soiron,
Bergpredigt, 16l.
REVIE\V OF TEXTS 77
emphasisof Ps 37: I I that the poor indeed will inherit the promised land is not
only maintained by the Matthean redactor, but is reified for a living com-
munity through an association with the authoritative figure of Jesus.Further-
more, this "promised land" is recast into the promised inheritance of an
eschatological kingdom.
Barn. 19.4
Like Matt 5:5, and ultimately like H 3.'7,'uoBarn. 19.4 is characterizedby a
specific introductory phrase, i.e., 6o117rpo6q,.Unlike the others, however, the
structure upon which Barn. 19.4 is modeled is not that of Ps 37:ll, but in-
t6t This becomesevident in a simple comparison be-
stead, is that of Isa 66:2.
tween the texts:
Isa 66:2b - roi 6ni tivo 6nrpl,6vcodl,l,' il 6ni tdv tonervdv roi f,o61tov roi
rp6povra totq l.6yougpou.
("and this is the one upon whom I will look, one who is humbleand quiet and
who tremblesat my word.")
Barn. 19.4- 6on npo$q,6orJiof1roq,, 6o1 cp6,pcov toDq l,61ouq,o0q flrouoog.
("Be meek, be quiet, fear the words that you have heard.")
Barn. 19.6 - o06i ro?'l,n0rio1 6r ryu1flg oou p€rd 0ryqldrv, dl,l,d petd
rofiervd)vrai drroicovdvooepagrioq
("You shallnot be joined in soul with the haughty,but shallconversewith hum-
ble and righteousmen.")162
Interestingly, there remains some parallel with the text of Did. 3.8, which
itself servesas an exposition to 3.7:
Did. 3.8 - yivou porp60upoq,roi dl,erlpcovroi &roroq rcoi {otl1,roqroi
dyoOdq,roi rp6pcovtoDg 1,6youg6rd rovt6q, o0g flrouoog.
("Be longsuffering,merciful, guileless,quiet, good, and ever-fearingthe words
that you have heard.")
Barn. 19.4 - Eol npo0q, 6or;f ori1,roq,,
6o1 tp6porvtoDq X.6youq
o0q,{rouooq.
("Be meek,be quiet, fear the words that you have heard,")
rs Seethe discussionbelow.
tut Robinson,Barnabas,62-63,and "Didache," 242.
162Both npcsq and nrtoy6g are usedto translatethe Hebrewt:v in the LXX (hence,Aquila's
use of nro16q in his translation of Isa 66:2; cf. Ziegler,Isaias,364-65),which thus arguesthat
the authorsof the Didacheand Barnabasusethe same,or parallel,sources.Curiously,while
npo0g and nrroy6c,occurnowheretogetherin the LXX, flo61toq("quiet"; Did. 3.8; Barn.9.4)
and ranerv6g("humble"; Barn. 19.6)occurtogetherat only one juncture,i.e., Isa 66:2,which
therebystrengthensthe probability that both authorsare usinga common LXX sourcetradition.
For further parallels, seeKO ll and the Acts oJ Paul and Thecla6.
78 CHAPTER TWO RE\.IE\V OF TEXTS 79

While one readily might chooseto conjecturethat there are different sources of wisdom's virtues, as is indicated by the structure of the text:
for Barn. 19.4 and for Did. 3.7, this does not appear to be the casewith Be not proud
respectto the relationshipbetweenBarn. 19.4and Did. 3.8.Indeed, modern for pride leadsto murder
scholarshiphas focusedhere in an attempt to determinewhether one text is nor jealous, nor contentious,nor passionate
dependentupon the other, or whetherthe two have incorporated a common for from all thesemurders are engendered
source.t63 My child, be not lustful
While it indeedmay be that Did.3.8 is also dependentupon Isa 66:2 at this for lust leads to fornication
point and that the Didachist probably has incorporatedadditional terminolo- nor a speakerof basewords, nor a lifter up of the eyes
for from all theseis adultery engendered
gy that was not available to the author of Barnabas,the traditions are too
elusive for a clear exPlication. My child, regard not omens
for this leadsto idolatry
neither be an enchanter,nor an astrologer, nor a magician,
Did. 3.7 neither wish to seethesethings
for from them all is idolatry engendered
Here, as elsewhere,scholarly opinion concerningthe sourceupon which the
My child, be not a liar
Didachisthasderivedthe text of Did.3.7 is divided.ls One readilynotesthe
for lying leadsto theft
confusion encounteredby earlier studies,sinceDid.3.7 reflectsboth similari- nor a lover of money, nor vain-glorious
ties and divergencies with regardto the texts of Ps 37:lla and Matt 5:5. At for from all thesethings are thefts engendered
the core of all three sources, however, is the central aphorism that "the
165 My child, be not a grumbler
meek/poor will inherit the earth." for this leadsto blasphemy
The thrust of Did. 3.7 no longer preservesa concernfor the "meek," either nor stubborn,nor a thinker of evil
as the "poor of Israel" or asthe early church itself. Instead,the sayingis best for from all theseare blasphemiesengendered
understoodin the wisdom context of chaps.3-4, which no doubt stemsfrom Be thou meek
later Jewishwisdom literature. t66The commandsof chap. 3 are indeedthose for the meek shall inherit the earth

There is little question that the list of categorieswhich is presented above

163Cf. Connolly ("Relation," ?A2) and,Robinson ("Didache," 242), both of whom consider
Did. 3.7-8 to be an expansionof Born. 19.4.
rs Those who espousethat the source is Matt 5:5 include Schaff Manuol,83; Spence,
,
Teaching,18 n. 7; Funk, PatresApostolici, l.l0-ll; Robinson,Barnabos,62-63(though he em-
phasizesBarn. 19.4as the probableprimary sourcefor the Didache),and "Didache," ?42; Con-
nolly, "Relation," ?A5; Muilenburg, "Relations," 97: and, Massaux,Influence,613-14.Those
who prefer Ps 37:ll are Schlecht,Apostellehre,52; Oxford Society, "New Testament," 28:
Knopf , Lehre,16; Audet, Didachd,320;Kcister,(iberlieIerung,166n. l; and, K6hler, Rezeption,
48, 48 n. 2. Kloppenborg("Sayings," 80) believesthat the introductory phrasemay be from an
early tradition, while the remaindermay have beenadded later as a derivation from Ps 36:ll.
McGiffert (Relations, 431-34),on the other hand, notes that while the first phrasein Did. 3.7
stood in the original text as a reflectionupon LXX Ps 36:I I , the secondphrasewasinsertedlater
under the influence of the Matthean text. Glover ("Quotations," 17) also arguesthat Did. 3.7
comesfrom a variont trodition to that of the Matthean Gospel.
165As is seenin
the schemaabove,the alterationof wording in Matt 5:5 resultsfrom the redac-
tor's recastingof the sayinginto a macarismthrough an introductory phrase,which is no doubt
the result of a need to incorporate the saying into the basic structural framework of the
beatitudes,Did.3.7 likewiserevealsa secondaryintroduction, though its force is that of an im-
perative(paralleledin the versionof Barn.19.4). While thesedivergentintroductions are indeed
significant, and thus reflect the concernsof the respectiveredactorsand/or traditions of inter-
pretationthat lie behindthe transmissionof the saying,this doesnot indicatenecessarilythat Did.
3.7 circulated independently,as is suggestedby Audet, Didachd,320.
166Klevinghaus
, Stellung, ll7.
does not stem from the NT, r6t but instead, it has been assembledfrom an-
other source. The apodosis of each specific exhortation in the list immediately
identifies the substructure of the format as that of the decalogue, around
which chaps. 2-3 themselvesare oriented, i.e. murder, adultery, idolatry, theft
and blasphemy.tut Did. 3.7 is not to be considered merely as an element in
this format, which is hinged upon negative warnings. Instead, 3.7 is to be seen
as the concluding positive responseto the exhortations of 3.1-6. The warnings
themselvesare most notably not a repetition of the decalogue so much as a
consideration of those specific elements which lead to a renunciation of the
decalogue's standards. Thus, these elements form a core association of wis-
dom catchwords that are reflected elsewhere in the Psalms. Proverbs and
Sirach.
167Kloppenborg,
"Sayings," 79-80. Yet note that the concept of "meekness" itself passed
early "into the instruction of the church," and appearedas a categoryin virtue- and vicelists
amongearlyChristianwritings,e.g. Cal 5:23,Eph 4:2,Col3:12 and I Tim 6:ll (Best,"Tradi-
tion," 108).
t6t Onceagain,the order
of elementsl, 2 and 4 reflectsthat of CodexAlexandrinus.
80 CHAPTER TWO
Conclusions
Both Matt 5:5 and Did.3.7 are dependentupon Ps 37:ll as their source
text. r6eThe verbal similaritiesbetweenthe MT and LXX offer no distinctive
traits by which one may determinewhethereither the Didachistor the Mat-
thean redactorfound their original sourcein Hebrewor Greek. In addition,
the primary differencesbetweenthe Didache and the Matthean Gospel here
are those which are necessitatedby the associationof varying introductory
phrases.The Didachist molds the text into a conclusionfor the structure of
gnomic exhortations that are consistentwith Did. 3-4, while the Matthean
redactorconstructsa macarismthat is in characterwith the structureof Matt
5:3-12.
Further,the associationof npceiq with the "impoverished,"in the light of
the theologicalramifications that were associatedwith that term in the early
church, is a theme that was common to both early Jewish and Christian
texts.l7oThe samemotif appearswithin the contextof the Didache,though
the "poor" arejustified accordingto the standardsof ancientwisdomand not
according to the promise of an eschatologicalreward, in opposition to the
view that is offered in the Matthean text. That the Didachist is concernedwith
wisdom per se indicatesan early incorporation of the saying within the text
of the Didache - which is perhapsindicativeof the early Jewishnature of
the redactorand/or of his/her community. Suchan emphasismay add sup-
port for 3.7 as a forerunner to that form of the saying which appearsfrom
the hand of the Matthean redactorin the Sermonon the Mount. 171
From a considerationof its minor role in Ps 37,the functionof 37.1I offers
no inherent evidenceas to why it should have been of any specialappealto
either the Didachist or the Matthean redactor. As is indicated by the incor-
poration of the verseboth hereand in Matt 5:5, however,it would seemthat
the early Christian community, or at least that community which I suggest
preserved a coresourceof sayingsmaterialsthat wereusedin both the Didache
and in the MattheanGospel,did indeedfind a specialaffinity for the saying.
We note, however,that while eachtext usesthe samesource,i.e., Ps 37:ll,
that sourceis usedwithin differing contexts:Matt 5:5 incorporatesthe saying
r6eWhile
Gundry argues for Matthean dependenceupon the Targums at this point, the
evidenceis certainlynot conclusive(Use, 133,150;cf. Jeremias,Matthaeus,l0).
''u Cf . also
Clem.s/r. 4.6 and KO 6.2.ln b. Sukk.29bonefindsan interpretationthat is based
more upon an associationof the term with "virtues," while Herm. Man. 11.8 rcflectsboth the
perspectivesof poverty and of virtue.
r7t K<ister
suggeststhat the Matthean redactormay havetaken the text from an early source
that is found in the Didacheand did not take it from Ps 37 itself (ibertieferung,167).It would
seemmore probable,however,that the two redactorsshareda sourcewhich was interpreted
similarlywithin a commonearlv Jewish-Christian communitv.
REVIEW OF TEXTS 8l
into a discussionof poverty; Did. 3.7 incorporates it into a discussionof
wisdom.172
These divergent emphasesneed not indicate that the two discussions
originated within separatecommunities.Indeed, the roles of the "poor" and
of the "wise" in early Jewish-Christian theologyare the same,i.e., they are
the representativesof that facet of societywhich will receivedivine blessing.
It is the meansto that blessingwhich is in fact divergentbetweenthesetexts:
the Didachistappealsto a practical ethic, while the Matthean redactorappeals
to the rewards of faith.
In result, Did. 3.7 revealstraits of a pre-Mattheanconstruction(i.e., a
dependenceupon the OT), no influence from the Matthean Gospel and an
associationwith early wisdom thought. With respectto the Matthean tradi-
tion, the parallel in Matt 5:5 shows only the alteration of an introductory
clausethat was added to make the verseconsistentwith the redactionalcon-
text of the beatitudes.So too, the editionof the versefrom the SayingGospel
Q that is found in Matt 5:3 has beenalteredboth for theologicalreasonsand
for the accommodationof 5:5 into the text. The presencewithin the Matthean
text of both 5:3 and 5:5, which themselvesare in essencesimply parallel
readingsof the samesaying,r73arguesfor the preservationof parallel sources
that were extractedfrom variant traditions. Sincethe Matthean text and the
text of the Didache preservea theological motif that is centeredupon the
desirefor "land," however, one must assumethat both redactorssharedan
early sourcethat emphasizedthis themeasan integral aspectof God's promise
both to Israel and to the church of the first centurv.
Didache 4-5: A Fence to the Law (Part 2)
As was observedabove, chap. 3 has beenconstructedas a restatementof the
exhortations that appear in the decalogue(Did. 2.2-3), the prohibitions of
which now are set in a distinctly rhetorical framework. This is to say that
r72The useof Ps 37:I I both in rabbinic sourcesand in the writings
of the early Church Fathers
does not seem to offer any subsequent trend of interpretation that results from this
" p o o r , / w i s d o m " d i s t i n c t i o n ;I cr ef .n .h a e r . 5 . 9 . 4 , 5 . 3 2 . 2 ; C l e m . s t r , 4 , 3 6 . l ; A C 7 . 7 : K O 6 . 2 ; b .
Sukk. 29b, For other rabbinic refereircesseeStr-B, 1.197-220and Hyman, Torah,3.27.
r73The alternate readings for
"poor" and "meek" in fact indicate by necessitythe same
group; seeGaechter,Evangelium, 148; Schmid, Matthrius, T9; Zahn, Matthiius, 186-87.
Bearenoteswith respectto 5:5 that while the clausemay have been formed by the Matthean
redactor, "it is in substancea paraphraseof the first beatitude"; and immediatelythereafter,
"the beatitudeis a doublet of the first" (Matthew, 130).While I agreewith Beare'sanalysisof
the situation to the extent that the similaritiesbetweenversesrevealsome relationshipbetween
the texts as they are understoodby the Matthean redactor, I believethat this is better explained
as the redactor'sattempt to preservevariant versionsof the samesaying,not an attempt to reem-
phasizea point by meansof textual duplication. Beare'sperspectivedoeslittle to explain the ra-
tionale for the divergenciesbetweenthe two verses.
82 CHAPTER TwO REVIEW OF TEXTS 83

those sins of day-to-day activity which will lead the catechumentoward the In chap. 4 the Didachist further revealsa propensity for the inclusion of
greatersinsagainstwhich the decaloguewarns are explicatedin a uniform pat- redactional comments.r77Most often theseinsertionsare provided as quali-
tern (3.1-6).In chap. 4 the Way of Life concludeswith additional, specific fiers for specificinstructions and exhortationsthat appear in the Two Ways
chargesthat are relatedto the expectationsof the catechumenby the religious sourceitself. Oftentimes, they are derived from OT foundations:
174
community. In chap. 5 the final warning is provided for the catechumen a.la(l) - "My child"; from the redactorin the stylisticform of chap.3
in the form of a Way of Death, the primary componentsof which reflect the 4.lc - "you shallhonorhim asthe Lord"; from the redactor(cf. 15.2)
rT5
life that resultswhen the Way of Life is rejected. 4.ld - "wherethe Lord is mentioned, he is present";Exod20:24(cf. Matt
On the one hand, the Didachist has not included materials from his/her l8:20)
special sayingssourcein chaps. 4-5. Therefore, there are no texts here that 4.2b - "that you may find restin his words";from the redactorrT8
4.3d - "do not favora man'spersonin reproving transgression";I Sam16:7
reflect specific sayings or aphorisms which are paralleled in the Synoptic (cf. John4:24)
Gospels.On the other hand, thesechaptersrevealthe most obviouspoint at 4.8a - "Do not turn awaythe needy";from the redactor
which the Didachist is dependentupon the Two Ways source (cf . Barn. 19- 4.ll - "Slavesbe subjectto your mastersas representatives of God, in
20), a source whose structure has been used throughout chaps. l-3 as the reverenceand fear"; from the redactor
framework into which the Didachist has inserted individual sayings from 4.14c - "This is the Way of Life"; from the redactor
his/her sayingsmaterials. It seemsthat the Didachist feels a certain freedom to manipulatethe Two
The useof the Two Ways sourcevariesbetweenchap. 4 and chap. 5.176In Ways sourceas needed,which therebysuggeststhat the sourcehas enteredthe
the former chapter there is a wide divergencefrom the ordering of elements construction of the Didache as an authoritative text whose value is derived
that appearsin Barn. 19. In the latter chapter the ordering of elementsis from its framework, within which practical exhortationscould be organized.
almost preciselythat of Barn. 20, The ordering of theseelementsappearsas If the Didachistindeedhasconstructedchaps.1-6to serveas the wordsof in-
follows: struction for catechumens(and most probably as the prelude for a ceremony
Did. 4.la Barn. 19.9b Did. 5.1 Barn. 20.1 of baptism, as is indicated by chap. 7), it is interestingto find that the Dida-
4.lb l9.l0a 5.2 20.2 chist also has chosento maintain the short Haustafel segmentof 4.9-10that
4.2a l9.l0b apparentlywas a part of the Two Ways source.The Didachist, as with other
4.3a l9.l2a authors of the apostolic and post-apostolictradition, recognizedthe value of
4.3b t9.t2b
4.3c 19.1lf "household exhortations" for the developmentof ecclesiastical authority and
4.4 19.5a community obediencewithin the early Christian congregation.
4.5 19.9a A comparisonof chap. 5 with Barn. 20 revealsthat the Didachist has been
4.6 l9.l0d much more faithful to the ordering of elementsin the Two Ways sourcehere
4.7 l9.l la-c
than s/he may havebeenin chap.4. Chap. 5 (the Way of Death),which pro-
4.8b-d 19.8a-c
4.9 19.5e-f videsa lengthylist of characterizationsabout the natureof a wicked existence,
4.10 19.7c-f openswith twenty-threeelementsin the form of a vice-list(Losterkatalog).17e
4.12a 19.29 The majority of theseelementsderive directly from the Two Ways source,at
4.r2b bt9.2t least as that source is confirmed from the witness of Barnabas. But six
4.13b-c 19.lld-e
4.14a-b t9.t}c-d r77Seethe analysisof 2.6-7and 3.8-10above.
r7ERordorf and Tuilier (La doctrine,2g) find this
r1aAs is suggested "superficial Christianization" of the Two
by Klevinghaus(Stellung,137-39),the sectionperhapsis understoodbest Ways sourcethroughout chaps. 4-6 (seepp. 29-34).
as "ethical duties" (4.1-8),Haustafel(4.9-ll) and "counsel" (4.12-14).In v 12 and v 14 the tte Kcister (Uberlieferung, 164) and Kloppenborg (Sayings, 87-88) note among the many
phrasesdpeotdv tQ xupiro ("pleasing to the Lord") and ait4 doriv i 66dq,riS (cDfrq("This is representatives of this genrein early Jewish-Christiantextsthe lists of Wis 14:25-26;3 Apoc. Bar.
the Way of Life") also would seemto suggestthat the discussionof chap. 4 is to be understood 4 . 1 7 , 8 . 5 , 1 3 . 4 ; 7A. s h . 2 . 1 - 1 0R; o m l : 2 9 - 3 1I; T i m l : 9 - 1 0 H
; e r m .M a n . 8 . 3 . 5a; n d ,l Q S 4 . 9 - l l .
in close connectionwith the sayingsthat appear in chaps. l-3. Harris (Teaching,82-86)arguedearly in the history of researchupon the Didachethat the catalog
l?s An
excellentdiscussionof the relationship of the elementsin chaps. 4-5 is offered by of vicesin chap. 5 was dependentupon an early Jewishsourcewhich was known to the Didachist.
Knopf , Lehre, 16-20.With Poschmann(Paenitentia,88-89)we must agreethat the concernsof Sucha sourceindeedmay havebeenusedin the constructionof the Two Ways sourceat this point
baptism,authority and sin naturallyoccur together! in the text.
"" Seethe discussionon order that is offered hereby Warfield, 134-36,145-46.
84 cHAPTER Two RE\rIE\M OF TEXTS 85

elements are unique to the Didache. Each of these elements is reflected Didache 16: The Little APocalYPse
elsewhere in chap. 3: 6nr0upia("desire"; Did.3.3); nopveia ("fornication"; Unlike the sayingsthat appearin chaps. l-5, whosesourcescan be tracedwith
Did.3.3); rX,onn("theft"; Did.3.5); ryeuDopcprupia("false witness";Did. someassuranceeither to OTlJewish foundations or to early Christian tradi-
3.5 [ryetiotrtq]);aioXpol,oyia ("evil speech"; Did. 3.3); and, (ql"otunio tions, the same cannot be said with respect to chap. 16. Apart from the
("jealousy" ; Did, 3.2),
eschatologicalstatementsof Did. 10.5 (which are most likely an insertion by
In Mark 7:21-22one finds a list of thirteen sinsthat stem from the "evil the secondredactor,or possiblythe final redactor),chap. l6 alonepreserves
heart," many of which parallel thoseelementsin Did. 5.l that are unique to any true emphasisupon eschatologyin the Didache.The restrictionof these
the Didachist's version of the Way of Death. In the samecontext as the Mar- materials to a single segmentof the text does not leave the modern exegete
can account,and no doubt dependentupon the Marcan Gospel,Matt 15:19 with a securebasisupon which to evaluatethe relationship of the chapterto
lists only six sins that stem from the "evil heart." The Matthean list (<p6vor, the remainderof the text. To be sure,the materialsin Did. 16probablyderive
porleicr, nopveicr, rl,oncri, yeu6opcptupicr, pl"cotpqpi)is almost exactly
from someearly collection of apocalyptically-orientedsayingsthat waswidely
the sameas thoseelementswhich are specialto the Didachist's list. But while popular within the primitive church. The roots of that collection,however,
scholarsoften havearguedfrom this connectionthat the Didachist must have are not particularly distinct.
r8a
r8o
been dependentupon the listing in the Matthean Gospel, which in theory On the one hand, this obscurity with respectto the origin of the materials
is a reduction of the Marcan list, it cannot be ignored that this collection of results from the essentialnature of early Jewish-Christian "apocalyptic"
elements(both in the Didache and in the Matthean Gospel) is constructed literature in general,whoseterms and phrasesare short, emphaticand readily
around specificitems that have been borrowed from the decalogue.Because conveyedthrough oral tradition. 18sOn the other hand, many of the sayings
the Didachisthas listedtheseelementspreviouslyin chap. 3,lEl and because that are preservedin thesematerialshave numerousparallelsin the canonical
the early chaptersof the Didacheare focusedupon the decalogue,it must be witness:primarily within the SynopticGospels(especiallyin the Marcan/Mat-
assumedthat the Didachist has drawn this specialgroup of sins from the OT tsuThe dif-
thean tradition); secondarilywithin the later writings of the LXX.
and not from the list of the MattheanGospel.l82So too, it is obviousthat the ficulty in any attempt to indicate exact textual parallels betweenthe text of
Matthean redactor in fact has constructedhis/her list of elementsfrom the
Did. 16 and the biblical witnessbecomesapparent when one comparesthese
terminology of the decalogue, instead of merely reducing the Marcan texts:
listing.183
The addition of elementsfrom the decalogueto the Way of Death by the H16 Synoptic Parallels
Didachistprobably derivesfrom the desireof the Didachistto "flesh out" this (v 1) (Matt 24242;Mark 13;35)
portion of the Two Ways sourcewith items that were insertedindependently fp4yopeire fp1yopeire . . .
in chap. 3. Sincethe remainderof the Way of Death segmentappearsalmost 0nep rfrq,(ofq 0p6v'
exactly as that which is found in Barn. 20.2, it must be assumedthat the
(Luke 12:35)
Didachistwassatisfiedwith eitherthe format or with the tradition from which
this portion of the Two Ways sourcewas derived. oi )"tjyvot 6pdlv pi1 . . . 6pdtv ai 6oqtieq
opeop{oroov nepw(roop6vsr
xai ai dotptes 6pd)v pi rai oi )rtiTvol rcr6pevor
r80 See
Connolly ("Relation," 237-53),who argues for a dependencyupon the Matthean trl"u6o0oroov,
Go.spelhere as an explanation for the "run of plurals" which beginsthe Didachist's list.
'o' Even (Matt 24:44; Luke 12:40)
Connolly notes this earlier use of elements("Relation," 241-42);so too Creed
("Didache," 377) and,Kraft (Barnabas, 158).
182Kctster(Abertieferung,l63) &Ll"it yiveo4e Erotpor . . . roi ttpdc, y{veoile
admitsthat the catalogsof the Marcan and the Mattheantradl-
tionsareclosertothatof Etotpot,
theDidachethanarethePauline(Rom l:29-31;cal5:19-21;I cor5:10-
11,6:9-10;2 Cor 12:20-21)and Deutero-Pauline @ph 5:3-5;1 Tim t:9-10;2 Tim 3:2-5)liststhat
appearelsewherein the NT. He also agrees,however,that the Didachist is dependentupon the t* Ladd's efforts to date the Didachefrom an analysisof the eschatologicalelementsin Did
OT-and Judaism for the list of elementsin Did. 5 (p.260). 16 have proven conclusivelythat such attemptsare of a tenuousnature at best (he "narrows"
rE3Thus, the date for the text to the yearsc. 75-150!["Eschatology," 175D.
sincethe Matthean list of sinsboth follows the ordering of the decalogue(unlike the
Marcan account) and includes the additional term Vsu6otroprupio that is derived from the t85 Seethe discussionof Bammel,"Schema," 253-62.
languageof the decalogue(which also is omitted by the Marcan text), this conclusionseemsthe 186with respectto the LXX, seefor exampleMal 3:2-4 (cf . Did. 16.5); Isa ll:10 (cf ' Did.
most plausible. 16.6);and, Dan 7:13 (cf. Did. 16.81.
86
oi ydp otSare rriv dtpav,
bv fi 6 rcfptoq,fi1tiavEpTerar.
(v 2)
. . . o0 ydp rbqe).1oer6pdE o
ndq, yp6voE cflq nioteo4
itpdtv, idv pit iv r6t
6oydrrp rctp(r tel.eroOflte.
(w 3-5)
6v ydp roiq Bo1<itorg,
{p6porq,
nL49uv9riaovrutoi
yeuSonporpfiratxai oi
<p0opeiq,,
rai otpo<prioovrortd,
np6poto
eiq,l,rlrouq, roi f1 dyrirrl
otpag{oetat eiq,piooq.
o0(ovo6oqq,yd.priq dvopioq
ptori oouotv il,Lfi"ouE ra\
6rril(ouorrci nopo6cboouor,
rai t6re gavrjoeto.r6 roopo-
ntrov{q,rbq6rdq 0eo0, xoi
norrioerorlpeio roi rd,pato,
roi fl yi ropo6oOrjoeroreiq
leipoq, o0to0, xoi nonioei
d,06prto,ci orl66norey6yovev
B( ci6voq,.
t6te fl[er rj xdorq rdlv dv0p<itnrov
CHAPTER Tw'O
(Mstt 24t42b; 24:44b; 25:13b)
6t otr oiSare roig fp6pg
6 xtiptoq, tsltdv EpTerau
. . . 6rr fl oi Soxeire cbpg 6
uidq to0 dvOprbrouEpyerat
. . . 6rr oDrcoi8arc rqv f1p€pav
o66Er1v ritpav.
(Mark 13:33b;13:35b)
oir< o\5are ydp n6re 6
rorp6q 6onv.
oir< oiSare ydp
note rc6prc9tflg, oirioq EpTerat,
(Luke 12:40b)
6t fi ritpg o0 Sorcelre6
uidq toO dvOp<ilnou
EpTerar.
(Barn. 4.9b)
. . . 6v raig EoTdr uq
{pdporq,'
o06dv Trip dqd.fioet ripds 6
ndg,yp6voq rfiE nioreco;,
fyttbv, Edv pq viv iv r@
dv6prprorpQ...
(Matt 24:l0b-12\
roi t6te orov6ol,ro0{oov-
ror nol,l,oi roi
dll,ril"ouq nopo6droouorv
ral pwri oouow dlLri Louq,'
roi nol,l,oi VeD5oltpo(pfirdt
Eyep0rloovtorroi
nlovrloouorv notrl,ofq,'
roi 6rd.rd il,19uv9fivar
dlv d,vopiav
yuyrloeror
ft dydrn tdrv nol.l.6rv.
REVIEW OF TEXTS 87
eiq,dlv n$pororvrflq,
6orrpooiog,,rcoi orov6ol"ro-
Orjoovtor nol"l,oi rsi (Matt 24:13;Mark 13:13)
dnol,o0vror,of 5C 668
0ropeivavreq 6v rf, niotet inopeivaq, eig r€l,oq
aixov oa9fioovrar 6n' o0to0 otrog oa9fioerat.
ro0 rcro06paroq,.
(v 6)ttt (Matt 24:30-31)
rai r6rc xai r6re
rpawioerat cd o1peia rpavtfoerat rd orlpeiov
tflq, dl.n0eioq,'npdrtov oqpeiov toO uioOro0 dv0p<bnou
Brcnet<ioeorq iv obpav(t ivoipav@...
eitc orlpeiov roi dnootel.ei roDq
dyy6)'ouq,o6to0 petd
A@vfiEodLnryyoE, otiLnryyoq,A(DvfiEpeydl,ng,.. .
xoi rd rpirov dcodoroorg
veKp6)v.
(v 7) (Matt 25:31)
o0 rdvrcov 66, dl,l.' rilq tpp60n' 6tov 6d 61.0n6 6roq ro0
"H(ei 6 rriproq dv0p6nou dv rfr 66€n
oOto0
rcai ndvre; oi &ytot rcai ndvreq of dyyel.or
per' atrof. per abro6,
(v 8) (Matt 24:30b;Mark 13:26;Lrke 2l:21)
r6re 6ryerat 6 r6opoq, . . . (roi=Matt) 6vlovrat
rdv rfprov rdv uidv ro0 dvOp<ilnou
EpT6pevov6nrivro EpT6pevov(eni: Matt;
6v:Mark, Luke)
rdtv veqeldtv (rdv veeeldv=Matt;
veg6l.org,:\,1411;
ve<P61.1 : Luke)
roi oipavoi. @oAoipavoA:Matt)...
Evenin this simplecomparisonof textsone immediatelyperceives the pro-
blem that is associated with the corpusof early Christian"apocalypticlitera-
ture." The Didachist(or perhapsa later redactor?)reflectswords, phrases
and motifs that are sharedwith the SynopticGospels.In most casesthe cor-
respondence is with the Mattheantext; in fewer casesthe correspondence is
alsowith the Marcan text; and in at leastone instance,the correspondence is
with the Lucantext alone.Most notably,the parallelsaregenerallywith those
portions of the SynopticGospelsthat fall within the parametersof the so-
called "little apocalpyse"(i.e., Matt 24 and Mark l3), though the Lucan
r87The parallelsfor vv 6-8 are basedupon the formulation of Kloppenborg,"Didache,"
55-56.
88 CHAPTER TWO
parallels occur primarily in another sectionof the Lucan Gospel (chap. 12).
They are not within the broader range of the Synoptic writings.
Sincean extremelylarge portion of the Synopticapocalypticmaterialis not
included in Did. 16, one correctly may question whether the text of the
Didache is not dependentupon some common sourcethat also was used in
the NT accounts.Sucha sourcemost probably would havebeensharedby the
Matthean redactor, sincethe majority of parallelsbetweenthe NT and Did.
!6 arewith the Matthean text.r88But a level of caution is necessary in this
presupposition,sincethe Matthean text is dependentprimarily upon the Mar-
can framework that is subsumedby the Matthean version of the apocalyptic
materials(i.e., Matt 24).ttt One alsomust rememberthat the influenceof the
Lucan text (as with Did. l.3b-4 above)may imply that portions of chap. 16
(if indeednot all of the chapter)were composedunder the influence of some
later tradition.leoFrom the aboveanalysisof chaps.l-5, we havearguedthat
Lucan influence probably is restrictedto a later tradition, and thus, such an
influence was not inherent within the earliest compilation of the Didache's
materials.
There is also the possibility that chap. 16 has been influenced by Pauline
materials,lel as for example:
I Cor l5:52b- ool,nioerydp rsi oi verpoiAyep0rioovrar
&guoprorroi ipeiq
dl,)'cryqo6peoa.
("For the trumpetwill sound,and the deadwill riseimmortaland we will be
changed.")
ttt Seeberg(Didoche,45)attributesthe materialsto commonapocalypticmaterialswithin ear-
ly Judaism(so too Oxford Society[New Testament,32-33(on 16.3-5):"There are severalpoints
of connexionwith Matt. 24:10-13,but this may not representmore than a common oral basis
containinga good many conventionalApocalyptic ideas." (on 16.6):"use ofour Synoptictradi-
tion is highly probable, lthough] the verdict in relation to the individual gospelsmust remain
doubtful"l). Also, Ktister, aberlieferung,188-89. Kloppenborg("Didache," 63-67)arguesspe-
cifically that 16.6-8is basedupon texts from the specialMatthean sourceof M, which itself is
under the influenceof Dan 7:13.
r8e So, one finds
the argumentof Drews ("Untersuchungen," 68-79),who arguesfor a com-
mon sourcethat is sharedby the Didacheand by the Marcan text. He notes, however,that this
sourcewasalsofamiliar to the Mattheanredactor,who contributedadditional materialsthat were
incorporated into the Didache. Thus, one finds that this foundational sourcewas widespread
within early Christian circles.
rs Butler
seemsto have no difficulty in distinguishingmaterialsin chap. 16 that he ascribes
to a sourcewhich he calls "M(g)" (which is in effect our M source,and which he eventuallyad-
mits becamethe Matthean Gospelproper), while at the sametime he finds materialsfrom either
the Lucan Gospelor proto-Luke ("Relations," 265-83).I would concur with his findings in this
regard, but basedupon the above analysisof Did. l-5 (which he obviously has not attempted)
and with respectto the resultingobservationsof that analysisthat the earliestform of the Didache
was dependentupon an M{ype of sayingscollectionwith no evidenceof influenceby the Lucan
Gospel, it is difficult to make any firm statementconcerningthe date of chap. 16 basedupon
the sourceswhich he identifies.
rer
So Oxford Society,New Testament,33.
RE\rIEw' OF TEXTS 89
I Thes4:16 - 6tr our6q,6 rfproq, 6v rel,eriopatr, 6v gcovfidp1oy16l,ourai 6v
otil,ztryyl0eo0, rataprioetcr dn' o0pavo0 rai 6 verpoi Av XprorQ dvoorrioov-
TOt ttpd)tov,
("For the Lord himself will descend from heaven in a commanding voice of
authority and with the trumpet sound of God, and the dead in Christ will rise
first. ")
But evenhere one perceivesthe presenceof motifs that are typical of apoca-
lyptic materialsin general.There neednot be any specificinfluence from the
Pauline texts proper. Indeed, if one should chooseto arguethat the materials
in chap. 16 are original to the earliestlayer of the Didache, the influence of
the Pauline letterswould not be expected,sinceno suchinfluenceis predomi-
nant in Did. l-5.
It is also true that some materials that are preservedin chap. 16 derive
directly from the LXX. Thus, one finds
Did. 16.7- oi ndvrorv66,d?')''cbq6pp60n'-H[er 6 rfptoq rci ndvreq,6&1rot
pet' o0to0.
("but not all of thedead[shallrise],but asit wassaid,"The Lord will comeand
all of the holy oneswith him.")
Zechl4:5 - rai fl(er rfproq 6 0e6q, pou roi ndvtegoi &yrorpet' cr0roO.
("and the Lord God will come and all of the holy ones with him.")
This referenceis marked with the introductory phraserilq 6pp60n("as it was
said"), however,so that the readeris alertedimmediatelyto the use of a
specific citation from scripture. Unfortunately, one cannot determine with
confidencethoseplacesat which the Didachist has usedOT phrasesand allu-
sions that are not direct citations elsewherewithin his/her construction of
chap. 16.
Finally, certainportionsof chap. 16indicatespecificconcernsand interests
that probably are better attributed to one of the later redactors of the
Didache. Thus, one discoversin 16.1 the phrase 6nep tflq (cofrqipdlv
("[Watch] over your life"), which is a themethat obviouslyreflectsupon the
Way of Life motif which appearsthroughoutchaps.l-5. In other materials,
such as with w 4b-5a, there is no way to determinefor certain whether the
redactorhas contributed original sayings(whetherfrom contemporaryChris-
tian prophetsor from popular non-canonicalliterature), or whether s/he has
drawn upon some sayingsmaterialsthat were available from the developing
corpus of apocalyptic tradition in Jewish and Christian communitiesof the
first century.
From the broad mixture of sayingsand apocalypticmaterialsthat are found
in chap. 16,onemust admit that it is difficult, if not impossible,to makecon-
clusiveand convincingstatementsconcerningthe backgroundtexts that were
incorporated into the chapter. Evidenceof traditions that were used by the
90 CHAPTER TwO
Marcan, the Matthean and the Lucan traditions appears. A source that was
common to Barnabas also is evident, as is a dependenceupon OT texts. So
too, the hand of a redactor is apparent throughout chap. 16. Oral traditions
from the larger sphere of the apocalyptic tradition also probably are present
here. Furthermore, since Barnabas does not include an apocalyptic chapter at
the end of the Two Ways source, it is not possible (apart from mere specula-
tion) to argue whether any of the materials in chap. 16 can,be attributed to
tn'
that early source.
In the final analysis, the situation of the chapter with respect to its sources
and with respect to the historical framework of the development of the
Didache must remain without certain answers.
Summary of Conclusions
An analysis of chaps. 1-5 and 16, i.e., an examination of those chapters of
the Didache that most commonly are assumed to be among the earliest por-
tions of the text, reveal several notable findings concerning the sourcesupon
which those materials may have been constructed.
As is evident from a comparison of the Didache and with Barnabas, these
early chapters of the Didache are patterned upon a structural and thematic
framework that generally is consistent with the pattern that appears in Barn.
l8-20. While early scholars struggled to see one of these two writings as the
literary source for the other, such opinions no longer hold the majority view
among recent students of early patristic literature. Instead, one now can
assume that both the Didache and Barnabas are dependent upon a common
collection of materials that currently is designated by the label of the "Two
Ways source." The close parallels between these materials in the Didache and
in Barnabas argue that this Two Ways source was a written document, the
knowledge of which (in one form or another) was widespread among early
Jewish and Christian circles.
In addition to the Two Ways source, whose boundaries and basic character-
istics for the Didache may be discernedin general from the attestation of Bar-
nabas, the materials of Did. l-5 and 16 present other specific sayingsthat are
paralleled very closely in the biblical materials. The sourcesfrom which these
sayings were incorporated may be divided into three distinct categories: l)
materials that are exclusively derived from an early Jewish milieu and,/or from
OT texts; 2) materials that reveal a direct knowledge of the Lucan Gospel;
and, 3) other New Testament materials that do not indicate an awarenessof
the Lucan Gospel. The low incidence of sayings that fall within the second
category (i.e., materials that specifically reflect some knowledge of the Lucan
re2Though
seethe discussionof Draper, "Tradition," 280-83
REVIEW OF TEXTS 9l
Gospel) and the tendency among modern exegetesto assign this category to
a level of redaction that arose after the occurrence of the original collection
of materials in the Didache, traditionally have led scholars to suspecta strong
connection between the sayings of the Didache and the sayings of the Mat-
thean Gospel. The close affinity between the sayingsof the Didache and those
of the Matthean Gospel has been acknowledged widely among those scholars
who have undertaken a comparison of the two writings.
Though scholars typically have attempted to view the sayings of the Dida-
che as the successorsof an "earlier" Matthean tradition, this perspectivehas
met with limited successat best. Instead. one finds that in most casesthe rela-
tionship between the sayingscollection in the Didache and the collection in the
Matthew Gospel is best explained by the hypothesis that the Didachist and the
Matthean redactor have shared a common sayings source. It appears reason-
able to believe that the Didachist had at close hand a collection of early say-
ings materials (possibly in a written format) that was known to the Matthean
redactor in a comparable form. In the composition of the Matthean Gospel,
however, the Matthean redactor chose to depend primarily upon other early
sayingstraditions instead of upon that collection of materials which was used
by the Didachist. These "other early sayings traditions" (i.e., the Sayings
Gospel Q and the Marcan tradition) were more complete collections of texts
than was the tradition which the Didachist used. They reflected many of the
same materials that were preserved in the sayings source upon which the
Didachist was dependent, but in a slightly different form. While this choice
for other traditions is an obvious feature of the Matthean text, there are scat-
tered signs throughout the Matthean Gospel which indicate that the redactor
was familiar with the tradition from which the sayings of the Didache were
derived.
The majority of sayingsthat have been included by the Didachist are depen-
dent to some extent upon early Jewish ethical instruction or wisdom materials.
Further, many of these sayingshave been included within a literary and struc-
tural framework that is modeled upon the decalogue. Since, as we have seen
above, the Didachist has chosen to structure these chapters around the same
Two Ways source that also appears in Barnabas, one must assume that the
further incorporation of a decalogue framework into the Two Ways source
must indicate that the Didachist bore a serious concern for the decalogue, in
particular, and OTlJewish tradition, in general. The Didachist, therefore,
knew and respectedthe Jewish religious tradition, a tradition from which the
Didachist had collected numerous sayings(that now may be applied to the new
Christian faith in some satisfactory manner) and the basic framework of the
decalogue. The decalogue framework and the collected sayings then were in-
serted into the structure of the Two Ways source, which served as the guiding
pattern for the presentation of chaps. l-5, and perhaps for chap. 16 as well.
92 CHAPTER TWO
As we shall seebelow, Did. 6 (with the probableexceptionof 6.la) doesnot
reveal a dependenceupon the Two Ways source. Instead, this chapter, in
keeping with Did. 7-15, focusesupon specific issuesof ecclesialpolity that
were directedtoward the concernsof a specificChristian community. The in-
sertion of this chaptermay havebeendependentupon the needeither to orient
chaps.l-5 to a catechetical purposeor to assimilatechaps.l-5 to chaps.7-15.
In either case,thesematerialshavebeenincluded by a later redactor who was
inspiredto usethe collectedsayingsof chaps. l-5 in a settingthat was of prac-
tical value to an early Christian community.
The situation of Did. 16 also differs slightly from that of Did. l-5 in that
there doesnot appearto be any dependenceupon the framework of the Two
Ways sourcein this concludingchapter. Instead,thesematerialsappearto be
dependentupon the "apocalypsetradition (source?)" that is reflectedas well
in the SynopticGospels.The origin of thesematerialsmay be very early, but
it is impossibleto determinethe original associationof thesetexts with the
sayingsthat wereincorporatedby the Didachist in chaps.l-5. As we haveseen
above,variousexhortationsin chap. 16probably stemfrom an early M source
(though this sourcemost likely was not a singleliterary document).One must
note, however,that someof the materialsin this chapter reveal a knowledge
of the Lucan Gospel, which makesthe entire collection of sayingsin Did. 16
immediately suspectwith respectto attempts to date the composition.
With this perspectivenow in view, the remainder of the study will be
devotedto a considerationof the nature of the issuesthat are confronted in
chaps.7-15. Specifically,it must be determinedwhy thesechapterswerecon-
sideredto be of a suitablenature for attachmentto chaps. l-5(6, 16?).We will
suggesta larger historical framework in which these materials assist the
modern readerto understandthe ultimate relationshipof the Didacheto the
Matthean Gospel.As will be demonstratedbelow, the key to this association
may be found in the evolutionary history of an early Christian community,
a community that progressedfrom a predominantlyJewishmindsetto a more
non-Jewish(Hellenistic?)and therefore non-Torah-orientedview of religion.
The elementsof such an evolution readily surfacethroughout the Matthean
Gospel. The same shift of emphasescan be seen in the concerns of the
Didache.
CHAPTER THREE
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
The ll'itness from Pauline Tradition
The Text of Didache6
Discussions of the openingchaptersof the Didachetraditionallyhavedivided
concerningthe needto includechap.6 within the corpusof the Two Waysma-
terialsthat appearin chaps.l-5. To be sure,thereis no indicationof the Two
Ways sourcein this chapter;I however,in many respects,neitherdoeschap.
6 reflect the formal liturgical and ecclesialconcernsof chaps.7-15.A more
accurateconsiderationof chap.6 must recognizeits role within the developing
corpusof the Didache,i.e., chap. 6 servesas a transitionalsectionbetween
the previouschaptersand the subsequent materials.While this necessarily
sug-
geststhat someredactorother than the Didachisthasbeenat work in the for-
mulation of chap. 6 (and a redactionalhand is evidentthroughout),there is
strong evidencethat the materialswithin the chapterare constructedupon the
inspiration of a separatesource - a sourcethat is relatedin someway to
Paul. An analysisof the chapter suggests,in fact, that the text is primarily
a compilationof materialsthat were availableto a secondaryredactor,but
materialswhich were not usedby the Didachistproper.
In 6.1 a warning appearsfrom the redactorin which the hearer/readeris
exhorted6pc, prl tiq oe nl,cvrioq ("seethat no onemisleadyou") "from this
Way of teaching. . ." Similarwarningsalreadyappearin the NT, and schol-
ars often have indicatedone or anotherof thesebiblical parallelsto be the
sourceof the specificphrasein Did. 6.1a.2Becauseof the closeverbalparal-
lels with the Marcan and the Matthean(par. Lucan) versionsof the exhorta-
tion (i.e., pl.6nerepn nq 0pdq nl"ovrqoq["Take heedthat no one lead you
astray"]), it perhapsis true that the Didache'sversionis relatedto this par-
ticular strainof the tradition. On the other hand, the Marcantradition places
the exhortationwithin the "little apocalypse"of the Marcan and Matthean
texts,while the Didachistrevealsno knowledgeof any eschatological setting.
I Muilenburg'snotation(Relations,14)thatDid. 6.1is dependent
uponBarn. l8.l and 2l.6a
is somewhatstrained at this ooint.
2 S o , 2 P e t 2 : 2 1( S a b a t i e r , D i d a c h i , 5 0 ) ; R lo: m
1 7 ( F u n k , P a t r e s1 ,6 ) ;I J o h n3 : 7 , 2 P e t 2 : 1 5
and Matt 24:4 (Vokes,Riddle,95-96);2 Pet 2:15 (Rordorf and Tuilier, La doctrine,168n. 4);
Kloppenborg("Sayings," 93) also lists as additionalparallelsthe texts of Mark l3:5b (upon
whichMatt 24:4 and Luke 2l:8 are based),T. Gad 3.1.1 Cor 6:9. Jas6:9 and Apoc. Pet. l.
94 CHAPTER THREE
Once again, the redactor appears to know materials that also were known by
the Matthean redactor, but whose content in the Matthean Gospel was not
known by the Didachist.
As we have seenabove, this set of conditions (i.e., a saying which is paral-
leled in the Didache and in the Matthean Gospel, but whose context in the
Matthean text is not reflected in the Didache) is found consistentlythroughout
chaps. l-5. The reemergenceof these conditions here suggeststhat the hand
which provided this warning concerning the Two Ways teaching is indeed the
same as that which constructed chaps. l-5, i.e., the Didachist proper. Because
such warnings appear throughout the early Jewish/Christian materials, where
a common eschatologicalsetting exhorts the faithful to be wary of the appear-
ance of false teachers and false teaching during the final days, the particular
warning in Did.6.la need not have been drawn either from the Matthean or
from the Marcan Gospels.3
Though it is difficult to determine the level of redaction from which 6.1 was
derived, an entirely different situation is suggestedin the case of 6.2-3.4 ln
these latter versesthe motifs of "bearing the yoke ((6yoq) of the Lord" (6.2)
and "not eating food offered to idols" (6.3) reflect issuesthat were of conten-
tion within the early Christian community. Presumably, the "discovery" of
a source for these verseswill lend a more definitive understandins to the cir-
cumstancesthat led to the insertion of 6.1.
BecauseMatt I l:28-30 retains a saying that is based upon the motif of the
"yoke of the Lord" (from the special Matthean source M), many exegetesof
Did. 6.2 have indicated that the Didache may be dependent here upon the
Matthean Gospel.5 The evidencefor this is buttressedby the observationsthat
l) only here in the NT Gospels is the word (riyoq used, and2) the theme of
t6l,eioq,("perfection"), which is used in Did. 6.2., is a significant motif in the
Matthean Sermon on the Mount as well (Matt 5:48; cf. also Matt 19:21).6On
'
Kloppenborg, "Sayings," 94-95. It is my contention that this phrase of warning in 6.la-b
in fact derives from the hand of the Didachist, though the concluding rationale for its presence,
which appears in the text at 6.1c, as well as the subsequentmaterials that appear in vss 2-3, derive
from a later hand.
4 Thus
Rordorf and ruilier (La doctrine,32) and Knopf (Lehre,20-21) believe that 6.2-3 is
some form of appendix to the Two Ways tradition.
5
So,Funk, PatresApostolicl,6l;Massaux, Influence,615;Lilje, Lehre,56;and,Rordorfand
Tuilier, Ia doctrine. 168.
6
Robinson (Barnabas,88-90; so too Johnson, "Motive," l12) observes that questions of
retaliation and giving in Did. 1.4 (which are concerned with r6),eroq and are based upon the Ser-
mon on the Mount) and the issue of "bearing the yoke" in Did.6.2 (which is concerned with
r6)'erog and may be based upon the function of the Sermon on the Mount within the early Chris-
tian community [Matt 5:48]), expressesa doctrine of a "higher and lower observance" that is
espousedby the redactor of I .3b-2. I and 6.2-3. This is to say that a later redactor of the Didache
was influenced by the ethic that appears in the Sermon on the Mount. S/he then sought to reflect
the double standard of participation within the community that had arisen among the early Chris-
tians, i.e., between those who could "bear the yoke" fully and those who couldi'bear the yoke"
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS 95
the other hand, the materialsin Matt 1l:28-30,as in I John 5:3, do not pre-
servethe samesayingas that which appearsin Did. 6.2. They insteadserve
to assurethe readerthat the "yoke of the Lord" is not burdensomeand, in
fact, that it is light.T This need for assuranceconcerningthe nature of the
yoke probably stemsfrom a concernwithin the developingChristian com-
munity that the ways and the teachingsof Jesus,like those of the Torah,
might be more than the earlyChristiancould bear.For the new convert,par-
ticularly one who already was unfamiliar with the tenetsand the practicesof
Judaism,this would have beenseenas a concernof unknown proportion.
The Didache,however,perceivesno such concernfor the nature of the
yoke'sburden.Instead,the "yoke of the Lord" is offeredwith the stipulation
that "good" Christianswill attempt to bear its burden as they are able.8
While the textsof the MattheanGospeland I John probablyrevealsomeex-
tensivetheologicalreflectionupon a historicalmoment in late first-century
Christianity,a periodin which the developingChristiancommunitywasin the
processof becomingwidely infused with Gentiles,the Didache showsno
awareness of such a historicalneedto explainthe easynature of the "yoke
of the Lord." This divergencebetweenthe Didacheand the Johannine/Mat-
theanGospelssuggests two pointswith respectto the Didacheaccount:l) the
useof the "yoke of the Lord" motif in the Didachemay haveoccurredprior
to the useof the samemotif in the Mattheanand the Johanninetexts(though
this certainlydoesnot speakto the antiquityof the motif in any of thesetradi
tions); and, 2) the text of the Didachemay be a direct and swift responseto
the establishment of the "yoke of the Lord" motif within the communityin
whichthe Didachewasused,whereasthe MattheanandtheJohanninetextsob-
viouslydevelopthethemethroughtheguidelinesof extendedtheologicalreflec-
tion upon communityproblems.We will considertheseimplicationsbelow.
In 6.3 the issueof "sacrificedfood" is broached.The style of this verse,
with its openingnepi 6d ("and concerning"),is consistentwith the style in
which the materialsof chaps.7-l I (on immersionritual, table fellowshipand
ecclesialleaders)appear.e Unlike 6.2, however,theredoesnot seemto be any
immediateparallel to these"table" concernswithin the Matthean Gospel.
only in part. While I find this understandingto be strained,othershaveagreedthat the materials
of l.3b-2.1 and 6.2-3may derivefrom the sameredactionalhand; cf. Rordorf and Tuilier, Za
doctrine,92;and byimplication, Schlecht,Apostellehre,64,andDrews, "Einleitung," 183.
1 Lilje, Lehre, 5f-57.
8 I would argueagainstRordorf and Tuilier (La doctrine,169n. 8), who seea "concessive
spirit" in the phrases"if you can bear" (ei pdv ydp 8tivooargootioor) and "do what you can"
(i) 6rivr1,to0ro noiei) in 6.2 (and6.3). If this werethe attitudeof the redactor,an approachlike
that ofthe Mattheanand Johanninetextswould havebeenmoreappropriateto the situation.In-
stead,the "yoke of the Lord" is offered without compromise,and the hearer/readeris challenged
to acceptit to whateverdegreethey are able.
e Kraft, Barnabas, 16l.
96 CHAPTER THREE
One's first consideration is for the discussionthat arisesin the Pauline letters:
Rom l4:l-3; I Cor 8:4 and 10:25-28. There is no question that the issue of
idol worship and "sacrificed food" was a paramount consideration within
early Christianity. There also is little debate that the Didache reflects the wide
r0
parameters of this discussion, as does the correspondenceof Paul. But since
the Didache does not continue in pursuit of this issue, one must assume, as
is the casewith 6.2, that some widely recognized statement upon this "table"
issue lay behind the authoritative exhortation of 6.3. This is to say that while
Paul must speak at greath length on the issue of "sacrificed food" in order
to meet the immediate ethical and theological concernsof his readers,the Did-
ache seems merely to reconfirm an understanding with respect to "sacrificed
food" that does not necessitateany further elaboration within the community
which is addressedby the text. Our question, therefore, must be concerned
with the specific nature of this ruling which addressedsuch early Christian
concerns as the "yoke of the Lord" and "food sacrificed to idols."
fhe Apostolic Decreeof Acts 15
A numberof thosescholarswho havecommenteduponDid.6 havenotedthe
possibleassociationof this chapterwith the Apostolic Decreeof Acts 15.11
In the Decree(Acts 15:23-29)severalpertinentissueswith respectto Did. 6.2-3
are elucidated.Firstly, the reasonfor the Decreeis statedin its openinglines
- "we haveheardthat somepersonsfrom us havetroubledyou with words,
unsettlingyour minds" (trvdq,66 ipdlv 6(el"06vteqirripa(ov 0pdq l.6yorq
dvcroxeud(oweg, tdg, VUXdq0p6v oiq oi 6reoterl.dpe0o;Acts 15:24).Sec-
ondly, the figure of Peteris depictedas one who arguesagainstthe necessity
to placethe (fyoq of the MosaicLaw around the necksof thosewho follow
the teachingsof Jesus (15:8). It is to this (rlyog that the term pdpoq
("weight") makesreferencein the Decreeitself (15:28).Finally, the issueof
"eating sacrificedfood" is resolved("in theory," that is; l5:29). Thus, Acts
15:23-29setsforth threeelementsthat serveas the foundationalstructurefor
the Decreein the exactorder asthe elementsthat areundercontentioninDid.
6.1-3:the threatof falseteaching;the desirefor freedomfrom an unnecessary
yoke,/burden;and, the resolutionof the questionof "sacrificed foods." As
is noted above,the styleof the Didacheas it reflectsupon thesethreethemes
is by no meanspolemicalor emphatic,but it is merelya brief commentupon
what presumablyis authoritativefor the readersof the text. It is not difficult
Yokes, Riddle, 95-96;
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS 97
to envision that the Apostolic Decreeservedas that community standard upon
which DrZ 6 was composed. 12
If some early form of the Apostolic Decree that is mentioned here by the
witness of Acts can be consideredto be the source behind Did. 6, other aspects
13
of the relationship of the Didache to Paul may be deduced quite readily.
Since the Decree purportedly was sent from Jerusalem to Antioch, it is pos-
sible that the redactor of Did.6 used the text in Antioch itself. This might well
explain the similarity of various materials within the Diddche that are paral-
leled in the Pauline letters. For example, as is noted above, the question of
"eating sacrificed food" was of primary concern to the communities to which
14
Paul wrote. Likewise, Paul (and the Deutero-Pauline author) makes con-
stant use of virtue- and vice-lists that are similar to those that are found in
Did. 5. Finally, while the Didachist has attached a concern for the decalogue
in chap. 2 to the "love of God"/"love of neighbor"/Golden Rule sayingsof
1.2, Paul also seemsto know this tradition in which the decalogue servesas
a more detailed explication of the "love of neighbor"./Golden Rule (Rom
l3:8-10).15
Since Paul is listed by tradition and in the witness of Acts as one who ac-
companied the transmission of the Apostolic Decree to Antioch (Acts 15:25),
and since he appearsto have consideredthe city to be an important axis during
his missionary journies, it is conceivable that much material that appears in
the Pauline letters was drawn from Antiochene sourceswhich were known to
t2
Kraft (Barnabas,163) also argues that 6.3 "represents alarger, older source that listed the
various relevant food laws which Christianity had adopted from the Jewish "Noachic Laws for
sympathetic Gentiles." He too looks to Acts 15 as a representative example, though he does not
indicate that the Apostolic Decree of Acts was the direct source of the Didache. See the discussion
of Telfer ("Didache," 133-46,259-71) in reaction to the challenge of Creed ("Didache," 387).
The assumption that the Didache here has used a source for the Apostolic Decree that also was
used by the redactor of Acts does not by implication mean that these verses in the Didache were
composed after the composition ofthe text ofActs. Instead, one can assume only that the redac-
tor of the Didache had a knowledge of some form of the Decree as it was known and circulated
in early Christian communities (pre-70 C.E.?).
13 The questions of historical validity behind the report of the Decree in Acts 15 are well-
known; cf. the reviews of Haenchen, ,4 cts,468-72, and Conzelmann, Acts, ll4-22.The following
remarks in no way are intended to claim that Did. 6 can be traced to some historical moment such
as that which is reported by the author of Acts. Instead, as is noted by Conzelmann (p. 1l9): "It
is at least correct that the decree certainly arose in mixed congregations." Whatever the cir-
cumstancesof the origination of the "Apostolic Decree," the text of Did. 6 would seem to in-
dicate that the primary issues of the decree were widely known in the early church. The redactor
of the Didache apparently has some knowledge of those issues.S/he has chosen to address them
in a brief statement here.
ta The
theological position of the Didache here, however, appears to conflict in part with the
Pauline position. As is noted by Johnson ("Motive," ll4-15), the Didache representsthe case
of the "'weak,' i.e. stdct party, as Paul calls it."
15
Seethe discussionof Kretschmar, "Askese," 44-45. Massaux (Influence,643-46) finds addi-
tional parallels with the Pauline literature at"Did.3.8 (l Thes 4:11); 3.9 (Rom 12:16); etc.
 CHAPTER THREE
the communityof the Didache.In this case,one neednot arguethat the Di-
dache itself reflects a knowlege of the Pauline letters, but only that the
Didache and the Pauline letters draw from a common sourceof early Chris-
tian materials.The thesisthat the community which producedthe Didachein
fact did residein the sphereof Antioch will receiveattention in the discussion
that follows.
A New Construction: The Role of World-View
Introduction
In order to transcendthe limitations that are inherent in traditional religio-
historical approachesto early Christian literature and in our effort to categor-
ize the developmentof a specificcommunity tradition from which the text of
the Didache may have derived, it should be of valuable assistanceto under-
take an analysisof the shift in emphasisthat is evident among the various
redactorsof the Didache. The sociologicalapproachof Bryan R. Wilson
already has demonstratedconvincingly that any early religious community
may be classifiedaccordingto the reaction of that community toward society
("the World"). 16The Didacheindeeddoesexemplifya reactiontoward socie-
ty, and it doesso on at leasttwo different redactionallevels: l) in chaps. l-5
one finds that the community understandsitself within the guidelinesof an
established religion (i.e., Judaism);2')in chaps.7-15one finds that the com-
munity reevaluatesitself in the light of an encroachingHellenistic Christiani-
ty. As hasbeendemonstratedabove,the most obviousreactionthat is exhibit-
ed in the text of the Didacheis that which appearsin the needof the communi-
ty to adopt, to preserve,to canonizeand to maintain a "credal/liturgical"
body of doctrine,i.e., the decalogue.We also havenoted that a focus upon
the decalogueis not extensiveamong early Jewish and christian authors.
Therefore, the fact that this authoritative corpus of literature servessuch an
axial role in the Didache may provide us with an important key in our
characterizationof the community that produced the text.
while the Didacheis the product of severaldifferent redactionalhands,the
core of the text, which centersaround the structure of the decalogueas it is
provided in chaps. l-5, has been preservedin a prominent role for the
Didachist, and for each subsequentredactor as well. It is most imponanr,
16wilson,
Magic and the Millenium, especially18-30,whereWilson outlines basic responses
to. the-world in sevencategories:"revolutionist" (overturning of the world);
"introversionist',
(abandonmentof the world); "reformist" (amendmentof the world); ..utopianist" (reconstruc-
tion- of the world); "conversionist" (changingof the world); "manipulationist" (changingof
one's perception of the world); and, "thaumaturgist" (dispensationand miracles within the
world). Seealso Smith, ..Description,"17-25
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
however, to understandthe specific way in which thesechaptershave been
perceivedon eachredactionallevel, sincethose individual perceptionswidely
diverge from each other as they appear throughout the text. It must be as-
sumedthat this transition in perceptionamongthe redactorsis itself indicative
of a similar transition within the communitieswithin which the redactorscom-
piled and recordedtheir materials. According to Wilson, our successin the
characterizationof the developingworld-view of the community as it shifts
from its original allegianceto a textual credo (i.e., the decalogue,which serves
as the core of chaps.l-5) toward an entirelydifferent concern,i.e., an alle-
gianceto the authority of the religiousinstitution, shouldenableus to perceive
more accuratelythe nature and the function of this core material as it is main-
tained and utilitzed within the community. With this achieved,we should have
more to say concerningthe characterof the community tradition from which
the Didache is derived.
Previous attempts to understandboth the redactorsand the communities
that those redactors representedhave failed to notice such developments.
Here one must recognizethat the consideration of texts by means of the
classicalapproachof historians,which servesto eliminatethe individuality of
thosetexts "and so extract for useas historical evidencethoseelementswhich
are not the creation of the author," 17appearsto offer little new information
concerningthe milieu of the Didache, regardlessof whateverlevel of redac-
tion that one choosesto examine.A sociologicalanalysisof the Didachewith
a particular attention given to evidencethat implicatesresponsesto the early
world of Christianity as they appearthroughout the text, however,should aid
in either the alteration or in the support of the conclusionsthat have been
reachedby previous researchersof the text.
Analysisof l-5(6)
As we have concludedabove,the initial chaptersof the Didachetraditionally
are viewed as the materials that are dominated by a prominent Two Ways
motif, suchas that which commonly is found among various religiousgroups
during the early centuriesof Christianity's existence.r8 While the rigid dual-
ism that is exhibitedby the Two Ways themehardly can be restrictedto early
Christian thought, this elementin the world-view of the Didache'scommunity
is preciselythat characteristicwhich should aid us in the formulation of a
definition for the tradition from which the core materialsof the Didacheare
17 H. Cherniss,
"The BiographicalFashion in Literary Criticism" (University of California
Publicationsin ClassicolPhilology 12/15: eds. J. T. Allen, W. H. Alexander, G. M. Calhoun)
279-80,as it is quoted by Neusner,"Weber Revisited," 63.
rE SeeSuggs,
"Two Ways," 176n. 23.
 100 CHAPTER THREE
derived. The concernsof dualism were manifestedin most forms of first-
centuryChristianthought, regardless of whetherthoseforms eventuallywere
judged either to be orthodox or heretical.Consequently,one can learn much
about a community from this "perspectivalelement" that contributesto a
community'sown particular view of the world.
Admittedly,onecannotdefinethe communityof the Didachesimplyaccor-
ding to the dualisticperspectivethat is exhibitedby the text. A secondguide-
line is necessary.Thus, the presenceof the decaloguein the text becomes
crucial, sincethis material representsan axis of canonicalauthority that is
significantfor the community.Here one discoversa mixed decalogue,which
obviouslyis basedupon Exod 20:8-17,yet hasbeenalteredsignificantlyby the
influenceof early Christianconcerns.The prohibitionsagainstsodomy,for-
nication, magic, infanticide,etc. that are includedalongsidethe traditional
prohibitionsagainstmurder, adultery,theft, covetousness and false witness
certainlyindicatea reflectionupon the meaningand the significanceof the
decaloguefor the communitywithin whichthe Didachewasused.But further,
these prohibitions suggestthat the community sought to interpret the
decaloguein the light of a developingthreat to morality which arosefrom
beyondthe boundariesof Judaismproper.
The retreat to the canonicalstandardof the decalogueby a community
which found itself in the face of adversitysuggests that the communitywas
initially under extensiveinfluenceby Judaism.Similar reactionsagainstout-
sidethreatsappearin the rising tide of "isolationism" and "self-absorbtion
within the studyof the Torah" that cameto characterize the rabbinictradition
in general.le Indeed,if one acceptsthe conclusionthat Did. 2.2 originallyex-
istedin isolationand becamea coretext aroundwhichthe remainderof chaps.
l-5 later was constructed,there would be little needto attribute the earliest
materialsof the Didacheto anythingother than a strictly orthodox circle of
devoutfirst-centuryJews.In this event,onecould recognizeherethe possibili-
ty of an "introversionistresponse"20to the world (i.e., a retreat from the
pressuresof a hostile society)by the author of the Didache, who seeksto
maintain a "canonicalauthority" and to expandits applicabilityin the face
of an ever-encroaching world.
It is the remainderof chaps. l-5 that alters such an interpretation.The
te
This position, which provides some rationale for the rise and the development of the rab-
--
binic tradition into an atmosphere of isolation from the world of Hellenistic Judaism. first was
suggestedto me by Louis M. Barth. It seemsprobable that the concern to preserve a tradition
of beliefs and thought under the threat of persecution could have forced an
"introversionist
response" to the world (in the words of Wilson) among the orthodox theologians of
Judaism,
a response that was strangely both akin to and divergent from the manner in which the core
of
the decalogue has been preserved in Did.2.
20
This is how one .u.t und.rrt"nd Wilson, Magic,23-24.
RELATED INVESTICATIONS l0t
"first and secondcommandments"of Did. 1.2, while they also are focused
upon the Torah of Hebrewtradition, arebasedquite obviouslyupon a further
reflectionof circulating togiafrom within the Jesustradition." So too, chaps.
4-5 consistentlyconstructa perceptionof morality within nascentChristianity
that was developedfrom an explicit focus upon the decalogueas it appears
in chaps.2-3.
Thus, one finds that chaps.1-5open with a statementconcerningthe Two
Ways, i.e., a sayingthat is inherentlydualisticin nature. The redactorthen
choseto developand to explicatethis Two Waysmotif with the incorporation
of materials that are an acceptedtradition of the community, i.e., the
decalogue. This tradition hasbeenexpandedsufficientlyto encounterthe con-
temporaryneedsof a communitywhosemoral ethic has beenchallengedby
societyat large. In addition, the tradition has beenestablishedas the basis
upon which more Christian-orientedmaterialshave been formulated as a
moral guide for the community.The communitythat would adhereto such
a useof thesematerialswould be onethat had maintainedan allegianceto the
tenetsof Judaismas a coreof ethicalbeliefs.Yet this communityhasaccepted
an inclination toward Christian values apparently without having incor-
porated any explicit apocalypticism.t2While the membersof such a com-
munity indeedmay be consideredto be ChristianJews,the world-viewof that
community could have remainedquite easily within the parametersof the
numerouscontemporarylines of Jewishthought as they existedearly in the
first century.23
Prior to the fall of the Templein C.E. 70, the world of Judaism,though
under seige,was still somewhatstable.Jewishtheologywas able to maintain
the beliefthat the temporalworld wasunderthe reignof the eternalGod, who
was symbolizedby the Templeat Jerusalemand by the religiouscultusthat
was orientedaround that institution. Here, evenunder the rule of Romeand
in the face of a widespreadDiaspora,there was no "loss of world"2a for
Judaism,but only the needto reclassifythe valuestructureby whichthe world
was interpreted- a world whosehostileintentionstoward Judaismwereat
worst temporaland certainlywereunderthe eternalguidanceof a divineplan.
Such a reclassificationof world-view holds true both for contemporary
Judaismand for the perspectiveof Did. l-5. And while this reclassification
representsa considerableshift in theologicalfocus, it was itself ultimately
superseded by the world-viewof the Matthean Gospel,which soughtto ex-
changea largerportion of its Jewishheritagefor a moreradicalunderstanding
2t Giet, L'dnigme, 66.
22 Robinson,
"World," 106-107.As was indicated above, I assume here that chap. 16 and its
attendant apocalyptic elements cannot be argued to be an original part of the Didache.
23
See Malina, "Christianity," 46-57, esp. the chart on 57.
2a See the use of this phrase by Robinson, "World," 103.
 t02 CHAPTER TIIREE
of the world. It is certainly true that the ultimate rejection of Judaismper se
by late first-century Christianity, or at least the rejection of that form of
Judaism which became radically ensconsedin a formal adherenceto the
Torah, is renouncedboth in the Matthean Gospeland in the later chaptersof
the Didache.25In the core materialsof chaps.l-5, however,the tradition of
the decalogueis preservedin agreementwith Judaism,and therebydoesnot
revealthe tensionbetweenJudaismand HellenisticChristianity that is so evi-
dent in the Matthean Gospel.
The witnessof chaps.l-5 clearlyindicatesthat the Didachist'sadjustment
from a Jewish perspectiveto a perspectivewhich could accommodatethe
needsof an emergingChristian world-view did not seekto replacethe "yoke
of the Torah" with the "yoke of Jesus" (cf. Did. 6.2),but instead,that the
Didachist was anxiousto weld the two yokesinto a singlesystem.Oncemore,
the goal of thesechaptersreflectsto a certain extent the focus that is sought
subsequently in the MattheanGospel.26 In the Mattheantext, Jesusembodies
the figure of Sophia as the expressionof a wisdom that attempts to replace
the PharisaicTorah with the true Torah of Wisdom.27In the Didache,the
thread of traditional Jewishwisdom appearsin the formulaic introduction of
"my child" (3.1, 3-6;4.1)," which presumablyshouldbe associated with the
figure of the historical Jesus.Did. l-5 incorporatesa much more gentleunion
of the Jewish Law and the Christian gospel through its use of wisdom,
however, than does the Matthean Gospel. While one might expect a harsh
condemnationof Judaismin the post-apostolicchurch, as is reflectedin the
catholic epistlesand in the final stageof redaction in the Matthean Gospel,
one would expecta softer reconcilationin thoseearlier forms of Christianity
which had not yet parted from their Jewish roots, such as with the Sayings
GospelQ and, as is suggested here, with the Didache.
Both the incorporationof the decaloguefrom Jewishtradition and the ap-
parent attempt to link the JewishTorah with the person and the teachingof
Jesusspeakinitially to the immediatecharacterizationof the community that
producedDid. l-5. The presenceof the Jewishroots upon which this com-
2s For example,
seethe use of ,,hypocrite" as a referenceto Jewsin Did. 8.1-2. Goppelt
(Times,120) makesthis sameobservation,though he placesthe rationale for the ultimate rejec-
tion- of Judaismby the Didachist to a third-century provenance.
26 Suggs, Wisdom,
27 Suggs, Wisdom,
106.
107.
2EA subtle
distinction must be madeherein opposition to the suggestionby Schoedelthat the
Christian catecheticaltradition typically incorporated such formulations from the Hebrew
wisdom tradition of the OT without any further associationwith contemporaryJudaism("Wis-
dom"' 175-76).Only two examplesare offeredby Schoedel,Clem. str. l.29.2and this section
of the Didache.This hardly seemsto be a sufficient basisupon which Schoedelcan denythat the
community of the Didachewas in strong communion with contemporaryJudaism, and not just
in communionwith the ..scriptures,,of Judaism.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS 103
rnunity evolvedsuggeststhat the community probably arosewithin the stable
religious environmentthat would have been offered by a religion which was
acceptedunder the law of the Roman empire and within the psychological/
emotional securityof a well-developedreligioustradition. As far as any early
Christian community can be extrapolatedfrom the roots of Jewishtradition,
there is no way to asserta specific geographicalmilieu for this community.
This is to suggestthat the community which producedDid. l-5 may just as
easily have come either from within Palestineor from outside of it. So too,
the doctrinesof Judaismserveadmirablyin the Didachist'sattemptsin chaps.
l-5 to establishan ethic that is able to meet the demandsof an environment
which seemedto defy any considerationsof ethical morality. Such doctrines
provide the social control that is necessaryto regulatethe community.2e
While the coreof materialsin chaps.l-5 appearsto preservethe valuesthat
are associated with the "sacred" (here,the decalogue) as the basisfor the ex-
istence of the community, this is achieved with a certain preconception.This
preconceptionrevolvesaround the realization that even though the "sacred"
(i.e., the decalogueand its ethicalimplicationsas they appearin the Way of
Life) clearly must be differentiatedfrom the "profane" (i.e., the daily ac-
tivities of the believer),the latter is not to be despised,but is to be subor-
dinatedto the former.30This view, which is obscuredto a certainextentby
the more "Christianized" portionsof chaps.l-5 (especially1.3b-2.1),is delet-
ed completelyin the subsequentchapters.
Analysisof 7-10
The next segmentof the Didache showsan immediate shift in interest from
the "decalogueas credo'' motif of chaps.l-5. While the initial chaptersem-
phasizeboth the preservationof a recognizedstandardof tradition, i.e., the
decalogue,and the needto adhereto that tradition, chaps.7-10 areconcerned
insteadwith the correctobservationof ritual. In itself, the associationof ap-
propriate ritual practicewith a correctly-observedcommunity rule should not
be consideredso much as a completeshift in emphasisby the redactor as it
shouldbe considereda transitionto anotheraspectof the community'sreli-
gious life. It follows naturally that where there is a concern to preservethe
foundation upon which correctdecisionsand actionsare made,that a concern
for the correctmethod of executingthose actionsshould develop.
One may appeal to the historical developmentof early church dogma as
2e O'Dea, Sociology, 227.
30 Seguy,"Revolution," 105.Seguycontinuesto note that a specificcharacteristicof Judaism
(and Islam) is its drive to regulatethe relationsof mankind "with the two worlds that solicit him"
through "divinely revealedlaw." This certainly is true of Did. l-5 as well.
104 CI{APTER THREE
support for this observation.As the early church graduallyalienateditself
from its Jewishbackground,a distinctlossof structureand tradition occurred
which led to the needfor a systematized liturgy and dogmawithin the irrl,1-
oic ("congregation"). One finds evidencefor this pattern in the interpreta-
tion of liturgical traditions that were receivedby Paul (seeI Cor ll:23-26),
in the manipulationof logia throughoutthe SynopticGospelsin order to ac-
commodatea fading strain of Jewishethics(seeMatt 5:32b)and in the post-
apostolic drive to standardizeboth theology and ecclesiasticalpolity around
developingcentersof orthodoxperspective- Rome,Jerusalem,Antioch and
Alexandria.
The concernsof chaps.7-10are no longerorientedaroundthe preservation
of Jewishtradition, but are intimately more concernedwith the structuring of
developingChristianinstitutions.The first of theseinstitutionsasthey aread-
dressedin the Didache,i.e., "baptism," reflectsa trend of developmentthat
is similar to that which is found in the NT, though with a noticableemphasis
upon the wordsof institution rather than upon thepractice of the ritual itself.
The ritual is stagedasa secondaryelementto chaps.1-5.Thus baptismcomes
only after the catechumenunderstandsthe correctform of preservationand
the appropriatepracticeof the Torah: "Having first rehearsed all thesethings
. . ." (rcr0rcrnuvra npoein6vreq,; Did. 7.1).In a certainrespect,the "activi-
ty" of baptismconsciouslyis molded upon the foundationof Torah - it is
the imperativeresponseto the indicative. Such an emphasisis paralleled
throughoutI Peter,wherethe understanding of baptismalliturgy is associated
quite closelywith a consistentexhortationtoward moral order,as well aswith
a closeadherence to OT ethics.The orderingof this baptismalritual in accor-
dancewith the authority of Jewishfaith and practicereveals,both hereand
in I Peter,a concernfor an acceptablebasisupon which the evolvingliturgy
of Christianitycould be rooted. It is significantthat in Did.7, unlike Did. l-5
and I Peter,the associationof the ritual with the authorityof the risenChrist
is not preservedin the variouslogia of the historicalJesus,but is preserved
insteadin the maintenance of "the wordsof institution," i.e., ,,of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (i .l , 3). The ritual itself is alignedac-
cording to one of the early purity laws of rabbinictradition (i.e., the useof
"running water"),
The secondinstitution that appearsin this sectionis that of ,,the meal,'
(chaps.8-10).Again one finds the concernsof "the meal" to be oriented
around the contemporarypracticesof Jewishtable fellowship.Thus, in Did.
8.1 the period that is requiredfor fasting consciouslyis alteredfrom those
periodsthat wereapprovedwithin Judaism- Mondaysand Thursdays- to
alternativedays of the week - wednesdaysand Fridays.The ritual of the
meal itself, however,appearsto be dependentupon the traditional passover
format. In this respectour redactorrevealsthe intuited need to formulate
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS 105
someauthoritativebasisfor the liturgicalritual that hasdevelopedconcerning
"the meal" and that has beenselectedfor inclusionhere. The authority of
logio that are attributed to the historical Jesusis implementedin these
chapters(though no such appealto the teachingsof Jesusare made in the
materialson baptism that appear in chap. 7), as is demonstratedby the
presenceof the Lord's Prayer in 8.2-3.Yet herethe prayer doesnot make a
smoothtransitioninto the text, unlike the readycontextin which the prayer
is discoveredin Matt 6:9-13.The insertionof the prayer into Did. 8 instead
seemsto reflect the desireof the redactorto incorporatenew materialsinto
the authoritativetradition of the community,regardless of the violenceto the
flow of the text that resultsfrom this intrusion. For the redactor,it is the in-
corporationof authoritativepericopaethat is importantin thesechapters,not
a concernfor the actual flow of the text.
As with the baptism ritual in Did. 7, the meal is oriented around the
authorityof the wordsof institution.The text in no way is concernedwith the
ordering or praxis of the ritual itself. The sameobservationhardly can be
made with respectto the meals that are portrayed in Matt 26:26-29,Mark
14:22-25,Luke 22:14-20and I Cor I l:23-26.3r
Finally, the centralfigure in this liturgy of "the meal" is the object of the
attendantprayers themselves,viz., God as "Father." It is not the more
theologicallyrefinedview of the historicalJesusas the figure of the Messiah
that eventuallydominatesthroughout Christiantradition.
Another developmentin chaps.7-10is the recognitionof an evolvingcom-
munity consciousness, which is not reflectedin chaps.l-5. While chaps.l-5
seekto incorporateJewishLaw asthe undisputedfoundationfor the structure
of Christianinstitutions,chaps.7-10seekto associatetheseinstitutionswith
the historicalJesusand with the ChristianTrinity, both of which appearin
the document for the first time in this section. Here too, the church as
6,rrl,qoia first is mentionedas a common body of believersthat is awareof
its individual existenceeither apart from the authority of tradition that is
found in chaps.l-5 or from the words of ritual that appearin chaps.7-10.
The existenceand salvationof this body of believersis the focus of the peti-
tion on behalf of the church that appearsin Did. 10.5.
As has beenmentionedabove,the most striking elementsthat seemto be
absent from the ritual structuresin this section are a cross/resurrection
theologyand a well-developed form of Christology.If one wereto attribute
thesechaptersto a date near the end of the first centuryor to the beginning
of the secondcentury,it seemsincrediblethat suchelementsshouldbe absent.
" Thus I disagreewith the observation of Peters (Harvest, 492), who tends to see this
eucharisticliturgy in the Didacheasalready"fairly sophisticated."Indeed,the perspectiveof the
Didache is quite divergent from the "Christ cult" idea of eucharistthat is found both in the
Pauline and in the Synoptic traditions.
106 CHAPTER THREE
A readyalternativeto sucha date for chaps.7-10 may comethrough the
recognitionthat thesechaptersrepresenta changeof attitude toward the
originalportion of the document(i.e., chaps.l-5) within the communityfrom
which the Didacheis derived.One must assumethat the materialsof Did. l-5
werecollectedoriginallybecause they werethe coreof a living tradition within
the community.The additionof Did.7-10 to thesematerialsservesto displace
the primary statusof this tradition to a secondary"supportingrole," the pur-
poseof which is to justify the developmentof the ritual institutionsthat are
presentedin chaps.7-10. This is to say that the basisfor chaps.7-10 was
found in the materialsthat werepreservedin chaps.l-5, and that this percep-
tion, whileit providedsomepurposeandjustificationfor the additionof com-
munity liturgy and ritual, sublimatedthe original role of chaps.1-5 to a set
of formalized rules and regulationsfor use in the community.
All of this servedto fossilizethe code of ethicsthat had been set for the
community,32without permittingany accessfor the rise of that charismatic
spirit which eventually came to characterizethe form of Christianity that
sweptthe Mediterraneanworld. This formalization of an ethical codeis well-
representedin the simple commandof Did. 8.3 to pray the Lord's Prayer
"three times a day" (tpig, tiq ipdpcq). Such an exhortationis designedto
contradictthe contemporarypracticesof daily Jewishprayers,and may repre-
sent a formalistic hardening within the community against the perceived
threat of a Judaizing influence (versusthe perceivedthreat of a Gentile in-
fluencethat dominateschaps.1-5,the earlieststageof the tradition;.33While
the influence of JewishLaw would not have beenperceivedas a threat to the
structureor to the thought of the earliestcommunityof the Didache,it cer-
tainly would have required somereinterpretationwithin the later form of the
community. This later community was devotedto an attempt to consolidate
theology and ethics into a self-containedagendaeither apart from the in-
fluenceof "the old faith," i.e., Judaism,3aor from the new "destabilizing
pressure"of wanderingcharismaticpreachers.
32 O'Dea, Sociotoglt,
249.
33 Goppelt, Times,48.
While I would agreewith Goppelt that the legalistichardeningof the
Didacheis foreign to the thought of the Mattheanredactor,this doesnot indicatenecessarilythat
the two documentsstem from different communities.Indeed,the Didachesimply may represent
within the community the theologyof a more conservativeJewishelementwhosereligiousstance
is basedupona legalisticviewofTorah. The MattheanGospel,on the otherhand,may represent
that elementof the community which was open to a theology of cross/resurrection,the param-
etersof which permittedthis latter grouf, to acceptmore readilyan openrelationshipwith society
outsideof the communityproper.
'* The tact
takenby the communityof the Didachein chaps.7-10thusmay reflecta polemical
counter to the form of Judaism that was evident in Syria, the locale in which the Didache
ultimately wassubordinatedunder the waveof a more charismaticChristianity suchasthat which
is representedin the NT. This form of Judaismseemsto have remaineda persistentproblem for
the developingchurchesof Syria, as is evidencedby the Church Fathersand synodsof both Asia
Minor and Syria that fought ir into the fifth century (Goppelt, Times, 127-28).
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS t07
The establishment in chaps. 7-10 of a stable ritual within the midst of a
vivid rejection of Jewish formalism, however, reveals some specific and cen-
tral concern for a "pure community" that perceived itself to be segregatedin
a hostile world. Thus, the world-view of the Didache here is not so alien from
many aspectsof the Pauline vision, e.g., that this world is transitory and is
temporarily ruled by darkness, though ultimately the rule of Christ will be
made known to those who are faithful.3t The primary difference in this
perception, though, is the way in which these two representativesof a limited
dualism (i.e., Paul and the redactors of Did. 7-10) incorporated this perspec-
tive into practice. While the Pauline emphasis places a prominent value upon
the believer's faith in a resurrection Christology, the emphasisin the Didache
is upon the maintenance of a correct ritual within the religious community.
Both for Paul and for the later redactors of the Didache, however, there is
the recognition that "the night is retreating and the morning approaches."36
While chaps. l-5 rest upon the authority of an established trsdition, i.e.,
the Torah, chaps. 7-10 probably receivetheir authority from individuals who
are associatedwith the institutional structure of the congregation itself. 37This
is to say that these latter chapters do not appeal to scripture for their justifica-
tion, but instead, that they themselvesare words which are spoken from an
ecclesiasticaloffice that is assumed to be authoritative. It is significant that
such persons within the structure of the community are in established posi-
tions by the time that chaps. ll-15 are affixed to the Didache, since the in-
dividual who transmits the "rules of the community" (i.e., the tradent)
appears to bear authority for the evaluation of wandering charismatics and
of traveling preachers.3EThis was extremely important, since such charismatic
figures often were viewed as the bearers of divine power.3e At this stage in
the development of this specific community, a bureaucratic authority struc-
ture, which was "bound to intellectually analyzable rules," had taken prece-
dence over the movement of charismatic authority in the extended church, a
movement which was "foreign to all rules."ao
35
Bornkamm, Experience,22-23. Cf . Did. 16.5.
16 Bornkamm,
Experience, 24.
'' Weber,
Organization,34l. Weber contends that such authority within a community need
not come from any particular figure who is associatedwith an established institution. Instead,
such power or authority more accurately may be attributed to that person who shows the most
faithful, personal loyalty to the immediate (or to the most immediately practical) cause. This
would certainly hold true for the authority of Paul. Weber does recognize that the legitimation
for such personal authority comes through some association with pre-establishedauthority, as I
argue here.
tt
As has been stated above, while chaps. 7-10 probably were added to the core of materials
i n l . l - 6 . l a p r i o r t o t h e a d d i t i o n o f c h a p s .l 1 - l 5 , t h e r e i s n o s p e c i f i c r e a s o n t o t h i n k t h a t t h e w h o l e
of chaps. 7-15 derives from the same redactor (i.e., the second redactor).
3e Boring, Sayings, 88.
a0 Weber,
Organization,36l. Weber later states that "in its pure form charismatic authority
108 CHAPTER THREE
I RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
The presenceof such a bureaucratic dominance in the Didache is intriguing,
since the majority of extant evidence from the first century suggeststhat the
*l
lil
more popular form of early Christianity was demonstrated in the authority of
spiritual charisma. The temporing of such charisma, however, seemsto have
been a necessarycomponent of survival for nascent Christian communities,
as is attestedby the failure of the Jesusrevolution (itself a renewal movement)
ot
within the framework of Judaism. It is important to observethat the earliest
community of Christians in Jerusalemestablisheda basic structure soon after
the death of Jesusprimarily through an acknowledgment of familial kinship,
as is representedin the figure of James, the brother of Jesus.a2This naturally
lends some support to the argument against early, restricted sociological
theories which claimed that community and ecclesialstructure were simply the
product of a charismatically-dying faith. Ultimately, however, one cannot
deny that those forms of legitimation which were dependent upon charisma,
as is evidenced in the figure of Paul, had a substantial influence upon the
development of ecclesialstructures and liturgical formulas. Indeed, it would
appear that a lack of adherenceto such charismatic authority ultimately may
have led to a certain disdain for the use of the Didache within its own com-
munity liturgical tradition, since the Didache was a document that soon was
lost to the Christian tradition.
A n a l y s i so f l l - 1 5
Chaps. l1-15 reveal yet another turn in the developing perspectiveof the Di-
dache. In these chapters the reader,/heareris instructed concerning the need
for an awarenessof those persons who come into the community from out-
side, i.e., the "wandering apostles" and the "wandering prophets" (chaps.
ll-12). As ancillary to this instruction, a brief statement is made concerning
the structure and the hierarchy of those persons who are within the folds of
the community, i.e., the "bishops," the "deacons," the "resident prophets"
and the "teachers" (chap. l5). It is probably not by accident that this develop-
ment of a community self-identity does not appear immediately after the close
of chaps. l-5, which are tied so closely to OT Law (since the earliest form of
the community would have continued to structure its authoritative offices ac-
may be said to exist only in the process of originating" (p.364'). While one certainly is not free
to conclude from this observation that the existenceof a "bureaucratic authority" necessarilyim-
plies the presenceof a fixed tradition within a community, such a conclusion would seem to be
suggested. In the case of the Didache, where the community ultimately adheres to a non-
charismatic authority in the midst of lessercharismatic authorities, one is reminded of the situa-
tion both of Jesus and Paul, whose "charismatic roles stood firmly within a line of trodition"
(Cager, Community, 70
[ e m p h a s i sG a g e r ' s ] ) .
''
Theissen, Sociology, l12.
" Gager, Communitv. 69.
109
cording to the guidelines of the Jewish tradition), but instead, that this com-
munity self-characterization appears in the text only after the intrusion of
various "anti-Judaic" tendenciesin chaps. 7-10.
The problems and the concernsthat were associatedwith traveling prophets
have been demonstrated to reflect a situation that was immediately relevant
to the earliest Christian communities.a3 In the rise and expansion both of
Christian missions and of Christian theology, it seems that the wandering
preacher/evangelist,e.g., Paul, Barnabas and Apollos, took early precedence
in the development of non-Palestinian churches. While this has been recog-
nized as a factor that may have led to the expansion of the earliest Christian
messageamong various towns and villages of the Roman empire,44it must be
observedthat the eventual backlash of these evangelisticefforts into the early
strongholds of Jewish-Christian communities led to an imminent threat to
those Christians whose internal organizational and theological structures were
organized so tightly around their early Jewish roots. This is evidenced both
in the Pauline-Petrine confrontations of Acts and Galatians and in the anti-
Pauline bias of the Matthean Gospel. No doubt, the recognition of such a
backlash lends much in terms of an explanation for the rationale behind the
composition of chaps. ll-12.
The actual responseof the Didache to wandering preachersseemsconfused
in its own right, which perhaps suggeststhat in addition to the work of the
second redactor, chaps. ll-15 may have been altered by an even later hand.
For example, nothing that is spoken by a prophet is to be questioned if it is
spoken "in a spirit" (6v nver5pcrtuDid. ll.7); however, some things that are
spoken "in a spirit" cannot be tolerated (ll .l2).4s
With the threat of such wandering preachers, the community of the
Didache, which originally understood itself within a developing Jewish tradi-
tion, was forced to define more rigidly its perspectiveof Christian principles.
The determination of true and false teaching became necessary.It is interest-
ing to note that the criteria for such determinations in the Didache primarily
reflect those criteria that appear in the Matthean Gospel as well. It has been
argued elsewherethat the Matthean community, as it is attestedby the witness
of the Matthean Gospel, also was forced to respond to the expanding form
of non-Jewish Christianity that was espousedby Pauline supporters.o6The
judgmental attitude of the Didache at this point, however, seemsto be more
pronounced and harsher than that of the Matthean Gospel, since the Didache
concludes with the recognition that the "outsider" is not to be acceptedat the
expense of the community's good (chap. l2).
a3
See Boring, Sayings, passim, and Cothenet, "Les prophdtes chr6tiens," 281-308.
oo Theissen,
"Wanderradikalismus," 245-71.
a5 Boring, Sayings,48.
a6 Betz,
"Episode," l-30.
lt0 CHAPTER THREE
In chaps.l3-15 the valueof the true prophetis recognized.The community
receivesspecific instructions with regard to the way in which such a person
is to be honored(13.3-7).The exampleof disputethat is offered in chap. 14
servesto reinforce further the need to establish a hierarchy of leadership
within the community,both to preserveauthority and to settlequestionsof
community practice.In chap. 15 one finds evidenceof a developinglist of
ethical and moral criteria by which suchleadersare to be chosenand treated.
Thesecriteria are standardwithin early Christian texts, though they are enu-
merated only briefly: "meekness" (npc0tqq,), "unselfish with respectto
money" (dqrtrripyunog),"truthful" (&1,10r1q) and "approved" (66rtpoq) -
cf. l5.lb. All of thesecriteria,which areunderstoodto be authoritativewithin
the community,are subsumedunder the categoryof "worthy of the Lord"
(d(iouq toO rupiou; I 5.lb).47In supportof suchcriteria,and unquestionably
the ultimatebasisof authorityby which further determinations areto be made
within the community, a short exhortationfollows in 15.4:
rdc,6i e01dq,6gr6v xoi ndoog,rdq rpd(erq,o[trrl nottl-
rai tdq il,enpoorivoq,
toO rupiou tpdrv.
oore, oiq Elete 6v t(l e0ayyel,irp
("But your prayersandalmsandall your actsperformasyou find in the Gospel
of the Lord.")
Threeobservationsnow should be made concerningchaps.ll-15. Firstly,
thesematerialsrepresenta community mindsetthat had developedextensively
from the predominantlyJewishorientationthat is represented in chaps.l-5.
The primary concernhereis the needof the communityto developan ecclesial
orientation,a concernthat is attestedin the responseof the congregationto
the problemthat is posedby itinerantpreachersand prophets.The focusupon
"wisdom" that appearsin chaps.3-4 (seeabovediscussion)is not evidentin
chaps.1l-15. While it certainlymay no longerbe statedasunequivocable that
the role of wisdomasa living religioustradition perishedin the earlyChristian
era, and was replaced by the image of the exaltedprophet,as it must be
recognizedthat within the confinesof early JewishChristianity, and hence
within the structureof the communitywhich producedthe Didache,the temp-
tation of a developingGnosticism(i.e., the arenainto which much of early
wisdomthoughtultimatelywasfunneledboth in the Jewishand the Christian
traditions) primarily was oriented away from the mainstream of formal
Judaism.Hence,the lack of concernfor the message of wisdomin chaps.I l-
l5 and the more immediately-perceived needto engagethe current situation,
ot Even
here the formal guidelinesof the community, and presumablythe authority upon
which the redactormakeshis/her exhortations,is basedupon the JewishTorah; seeGrant, Cftns-
tianity, 4l:. "The sentenceechoesthe words of Deuteronomyon the appointmentof judges, in-
cludingeventhe requirementthat the judgesmust not take bribes."
a8 Schoedel,'.Wisdom,,'
169-70.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS lll
i.e., the wanderingprophets, seemsto be indicativeof a milieu that had
changedradically from the milieu of chaps. 1-5.
Secondly,while it is possiblethat an extendedperiod of time is represented
here,this is not required.Indeed,the role of wanderingprophets/preachers
seemsto be among the earliestfunctions that were attestedin nascentChris-
tianity, as is demonstratedby the SayingsGospel Q and by the writings of
Paul. The influenceof suchwanderingcharismaticscontinuedunabatedin the
early days of the Jesus movement,4eand took advantageof the early
hospitality that was offered toward Jewish-Christiantravelersby early house-
churches(seeLuke l0), sinceJews"for obviousreasons,avoidedthe inns."50
This open attitude toward Jewishtravelersand strangersby the early churches
may haveservedonly to establishquite early the needto defendagainstabuse
by thosetravelers.5lIt would not be surprising,therefore,to seea community
- suchasthat which producedthe Didache - shift from its original concerns
(i.e., the establishment of a systemof ethicsfor the community)to concerns
that were oriented around the practical needsof community regulation and
saructure.
The motif of wanderingprophet/preacheralso returns one to the question
of the community'scharacter,a discussionthat first arosewith respectto
chaps.l-5. An important characteristic of a developedBrrl,rloia is the struc-
tured systemfor the determination of true and false prophets that is found
here. This is no longer a "sect community" whose priorities remain unex-
amined.Instead,the communityof the Didachemay be classifiedas a church
insteadof asect,becauseofa centralrealizationthat is recognizedby the con-
gregation: it perceivesitself as a religious institution that is in "objective
possession of grace."szIn other words, chaps. 1l-15 depictthe community
of the Didacheas a community that understandsitself as the bearerof salva-
tion within, yet apart from, the "outside world." This might once againbe
attributed to a strong associationwith a firmly-rooted Jewish tradition. In
fact, it is this elementof "distinctivenesswithin the world" that has led so
many scholarsto date the text of the Didache to a period after the first cen-
tury. On the other hand, a certain "sect-like" quality appearsthroughout
chaps.7-15that is not at all evidentin the core materialsof chaps.l-5. This
quality is quite apparent in the Christian universalismthat is residentin the
eschatological perspectiveof thesechapters.53It is ultimatelytrue, however,
ae Theissen,Sociology, 21.
50 Malherbe, Aspects, 66.
5r Malherbe, Aspects, 66-70,92-112.
52 Troeltsch,
"Relationship," 124.
53 Troeltsch,
"Relationship," 125.This eschatologicalperspective,while not explicitly stated
apart from the materialsof Did. 10.5(ashas beennoted above),is implicit in the nature of those
materialsthat are preservedin chaps.7-15.
rt2 CHAPTER THREE
that the primary focus of these chapters is upon church structure, and is not
upon eschatology.to It also is quite likely that such eschatologicalelementsare
the remnants of an earlier perspectiveof the world that has remained within
the community tradition.
Finally, in chaps. ll-15, as with chaps. l-5, there is a primary concern for
the maintenance of a central social system. In chaps. l-5 this pattern is fo-
cused presumably upon the social world that was offered by Judaism. By the
time of chaps. I l-15, however, this pattern seemsto have shifted to a new set
of criteria that are associatedwith the radical alteration of the community as
it experiencedthe shift in the early Christian situation. This shift in social pat-
terns is perhaps best illustrated in the definitions of ritual that appear in
chaps. 7-10 and in the establishmentof ecclesiastical offices in chaps. l1-15.
Indeed, one must agree that "institutional patterns are the 'backbone' of the
social system."55 This radical shift in patterns no doubt became necessaryin
the community that produced the Didache as the old institutional patterns of
Judaism began to weaken under the new circumstances and the growing
threats of the "traveling kerygma."
It has become quite evident throughout our reading of the Didache that the
text is focused upon the development of the "institution." The perceived
weaknessesof the old institution, which is representedin chaps. l-5 and which
receivescorrectivesin two phases(chaps.7-10; chaps. I l-15) both by a second
and by a later redactor, indicates that the old institutional religion of Judaism
was no longer adequate for the changing world-view of the Christian religion
as it grew and was nurtured in the community. This is not to deny the motiva-
tions of the old world-view, but it is to affirm that these motivations would
no longer be achieved through the old institution. While the community that
lay behind the composition of the Didache found it necessaryto continue to
adhere to a self-identity within Judaism, it gradually was forced to engagea
form of Christianity l) that quickly developedapart from Judaism and 2) that
no longer wished to see either its own existenceor the messageof the risen
Christ within the framework of Jewish theological structures. The concern for
the "world that lay outside," then, became a concern for the larger "Chris-
5a
Troeltsch makes an observation about the nature of churclr versus sect that seems most per-
tinent to our consideration of the community of the Didache and its relationship to the world:
"The Church has its priests and its sacraments: it dominates the world and is therefore also
dominated by the world" ("Relationship," 12'7).The first half of Troeltsch's statement is ob-
viously evident in the loosely-woven pattern of clerical offices that are represented in chap. 15
and by the emphasis upon baptism and eucharist that is evident in chaps. 7 and9. The second
half may be derived from the comfort that the community no doubt derived from the preservation
of a religious tradition (chaps. l-5) as the stable element around which it constructed an ordered
economic, political and moral vision of the world. On this basis, the community should definitely
be classified within the Darametersof a church structure.
55
Parsons, Essays,i39.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS ll3
tian community that lay outside." The text of chaps. ll-15 reveals a world-
view that primarily is concerned for this engagement with other forms of
Christianity.
Analysisof 16 and l.3b-2.1
While there is no certaintythat thesetwo sectionsof the Didacheshould be
attributed to the sameredactionallayer, they revealseveralelementsin com-
mon, and hencewill be discussedtogetherat this juncture.
Firstly, both sectionsshowinfluencefrom the LucanGospel.To be certain,
several scholars have argued for alternative source theories whereby the
Didacheis consideredto be a documentthat is directlydependenteitherupon
the SayingsGospelQtu o. upon someform of the Lucan Gospel.57 From our
analysisof the sayingsmaterialsabove, however,it now seemsmore reason-
able to considerthesesectionsto havebeeninfluencedby a later literary tradi-
tion that was incorporated into the Didache and that displayed Lucan
influence:l.3b-2.1 sharesspecificallyLucan elements,whicharecoupledwith
materialsfrom the fifth and sixth Antithesesof the MattheanGospel; 16.1
displaysa knowledgeof Luke 12:35-40.
Secondly,both Did. 16 and l.3b-2.1 reveala high concentrationaround
specificNT themes.This is not to say, of course,that the remainderof the
Didache does not engagevarious NT /ogra, especiallythose sayingsthat ap-
pearin the SynopticGospels.In thesetwo sections,however,nearlyall of the
materialsform a concatenationof repeatedphrases,sayingsand exhortations
that areparalleledalmostpreciselyby the Synoptics.In l.3b-2.1this emphasis
is centeredwithin the Matthean Antitheses, as was mentioned above. The
apocalypticorientation of chap. 16also revealsthe warningsand exhortations
concerningeschatologicalthemesthat are paralleledin the Synoptic Gospels.
Finally, thereis the considerationof textualorientation.The versesof l.3b-
2.1 serveas the explanationof the "love of God," the "love of neighbor"
and the Golden Rule motifs that are found in chap. l. The concludingstate-
ment of this section,which appearsat 2.1, forms the introductionto the re-
mainder of chaps. 2-6, and denotesthese chaptersas the content of the
"secondcommandment"(6eurdpaEvtol,{). Both of theseelementsseemto
suggestthat someredactionalconcernis evident,and especiallyhere,a con-
cern to introducespecificallyNT sayingsinto a collectionof materialsthat
wereoriginally Jewishin orientation.With respectto chap. 16, there can be
little question that one finds here a typical, early Jewish-Christiantendency
56 SeeGlover,
"Quotations," l2-29.
57 This presupposition is evidencedthroughout the works of Giet (L'inigme), Harnack
(Lehre), the Oxford Society(New Testament)and Vokes (Riddle).
tt4 CHAPTER THREE RELATED INVESTIGATIONS ll5

to concludeimportant writings with the promiseand threat of an eschatologi- tdte 6ryetc.r

6 r6opoq,tdv r0prov6p16pevov dndvrotdrvvege?rdtv
ro0 o0povou.
cal warning. While thesematerialsat one time may have formed a conclusion ("Then shallthe world seethe Lord comingon the cloudsof heaven.")
to chaps. l-5(6.1a), their presentlocation probably is the work of a later
Becausethis languagewas consideredby the community to be appropriate
redactor.
for use in the conclusionto the text, one must concludethat the world-view
The insertionof specificallyChristianmaterials(1.3b-2.1)and the addition
of the communitywas transformedinto one which held a hostileperception
of an eschatological conclusion(chap. 16) seemto indicatethe presenceof a
of those forces and influencesthat originatedfrom outsidethe Erxtr"qotc.
communitythat hasshiftedin its perceptionof the world. The religiousstruc-
Such a world-view is far from that which was representedoriginally in the
ture of Judaicinstitutionsthat weretemperedby the teachingof the historical
materialsof chaps.l-5. Indeed,thereis no "languageof separation"in those
Jesus,as is found in chaps. l-5, had lost either its validity or its usefulness
particularchapters,which would suggestthat the communitydid not perceive
for the community. One assumesthat with the addition of chap. 16, and
a needto establishany specific"we/rhey" boundariesaround which to orga-
subsequently with the promiseof a "future eschatology"(a world beyondthis
nize the community structure.Evidentlythis security,which probably came
world), the presenceof a living community tradition was no longer of central
from a closeassociationwith the Jewishreligioustradition, seemsto have
concern.5s
been shaken violently by outside influences and to have been dismissed
Thesetwo sectionsoften have beenthe bane of modern attemptsto deter-
ultimately by the community.
mine the sourcesbehind the Didache.The most viable solution probably is
representedin the argumentsof Kcister,who indicatesthe significanceof oral
sourcesbehindthe text. But evenherethere is no confirmation of the com- Conclusions
munity's milieu or of its historicalsetting,sincethere doesnot appearto be Becausethe Didacheis a documentthat originatedunder the influenceof a
any consensusof understandingamongearly Christian communitiesthat logia substantialcore of JewishLaw and tradition and becauseit becamea docu-
should be transmittedin any fixed form.5e ment that servedas a manual of ritual and ethical practicein the early Chris-
Finally, thesesectionsare specificallyoriented toward a "language of sep- tian community, it is apparentthat much material that reflectsthe world-view
aration,"s which becomesespeciallyprevalentin chap. 16. For example,in of the community itself should remain within the document.This perspective
this concludingchapterone finds an apocalypticemphasisupon "the wolves" of the community'sworld-view,however,only can be determinedthroughthe
(6l,tixoq; 16.3)and "the world deceiver"(6 rooponl.cvriq; 16.4)that is re-
eyesof the document'sredactorsat eachstageof the developingtradition as
miniscentof apocalypticmotifs which are found in the Synoptic Gospelsand
that tradition is representedwithin the text. This implies that the ever-
in 2 Thessalonians. Such "language of separation" appearsexclusivelyin changingworld-viewof the communityoccurredwithin a particularhistorical
chaps.7-16and in the interpolationof 1.3b-2.1.6r It reachesits climaxin the timespanin which basicattitudesand theologicalviewsaroseboth amongthe
concludingadmonitionconcerningthe world in 16.8: redactorsand amongthe communitiesthat the redactorsrepresented. Thus,
58 One seesthis
we may concludeas well that somerecognitionof this changingworld-view
rising trend toward an eschatologicalperception of the world in previous
chapters,but one does not find the sort of apocalypticimagery that appearsin chap. 16.
can help define the historicalmilieu of the documentand of its community.
5e This is It is noted here that the role of Jewishthought and ritual is perceived
a major focus of Kelber, Gospet t-if. fne significanci of the oral tradition,
however,is the very elementwhich Streetersuggestsin his view that the Didacheis a collection throughoutthe structureof the Didache,thoughit is difficult to know to what
of memorizedmaterialsfrom Q that werepreservedby the older membersof the Mattheancom-
munity (Gospels,5l l): ". . . for someyearsafter Matthew waswritten certainsayingswould still extent that structure becameinfused with Hellenisticideas. The "sayings
be rememberedin their Q form. A work like the Didachewould certainlybe composedby senior source," which has beenwoveninto the text of the Two Ways source,repre-
membersof the Church in whoserecollectionturns of phrasein the older documentwould be sentsa collectionof important materialsthat first wasusedas the theological
likely to be deeply embedded,and all the quotations in the Didache are clearly made from
memory." crux for the work in chaps.1-5.Sincethesematerialsdo not bearsignsof any
@ Meeks,
Christians.94-96.
ut other
examplesof "separation" languagein the Didacheappearas follow: "Gentiles"
([E0voq,]in the redactionaltitle and three times in 1.3); ..hypocrites,,([0norprtriq,]8.1, 2); 1.2;2.2,6); "child" ([t6xvov]in the senseof wisdomexhortation: 3.1, 3, 4, 5,6); "saint"
"dog5" ([xfrov] 9.5); and, "rhis world" ([6 r6opoq, o$roq] 10.6).In addition, a numberof ([dyroq]4.2); "brother'' ([d6ele6q,]4.8);and, "church" ([6rr],nofcl 4.12).While "languageof
passagesare concernedto distinguishbetween..true and false prophets." belonging"indeedappearsin chaps.7-16,it doesso in a most intenseand exclusionaryform:
particular interest,on the other hand, are the numerousexamplesof "language of belong-
. o^f "church" (9.4; 10.5); "worldly mysteryof the church" ([puotriprov rooprrdv €xr],noicq,l
ing" (seeMeeks,ClnVrazs, 85-94)in the earliestportionsof chaps.l-5: ..neigh-boi'([n],loiovl Il.Il); "Christian" ([Xprocov6c,l 12.4);and, "neighbor" (15.3).
ll6 CHAPTER TIIREE
specific Hellenistic influence, this "sayings source" must be consideredto
stem from a very ancient tradition within the Jewish-Christiancommunity.
As is demonstratedabove, the most immediateexampleof "eschatological
awareness,"which itself appearsin chap. 16, is not an integral portion of the
initial core of materials. This is not to say that early Christianity did not
operate within the parametersof a churning eschatologicalperspective,nor
that an eschatologicalorientation was not an operant elementat the root of
the evolving thought of the Didache'sredactors.On the other hand, it is also
not to be argued here that the declineof a concern for eschatologyper se is
indicative only of the later phasesof Christianity that appearedin the second-
fourth centuriesC.8.62 The self-examinationof the community which pro-
duced the Didache becamean important part of that community's existence,
as is exhibited in chaps. 7-16. This self-examinationled to an existentialten-
sion that arose as the community reoriented itself toward an allegianceto
eschatologicalconcerns.Indeed,the community eventuallytook upon itself a
"worldly perspective," which upon first examination appearsto reflect the
nature of a "manipulationist response" to the use of OT materials (as also
is attestedin the later Church Fathers). In fact, this "worldly perspective"
wasactually the product of a developingChristian community that was separ-
ating from its Jewish heritage.
The Didachereflects a community whoseroots are establishedin a solidly
establishedtradition and which developsonly to reshapeitself around those
roots. There is no evidencehere that the community perceivesthe need to
"justify its religious existencewithin the world" such as one finds with Paul
in the Paulineepistles,but which graduallyis lost in the later Pastorals.The
world-viewthat is established by Paul in his confrontationswith variouscom-
munitiesrevealshis constantexperienceof the sacredor the holy, but suchan
experiencecertainly is not evidentin the Didache. Instead,the Didacheoffers
a community that seemsto shelteritself against this existentialistencounter
through the very milieu of institutional religion - a form of religion against
which Paul struggledto free himself in reshapinghis theological doctrine.
Most characteristicof the Didache, and that elementwhich has lent much
support for the modern label of "manual of discipline" to the text (a label
that automaticallyconjures the image of "old and dry" with respectto
religiouslife), is the lack of any specific"charismaticmoment," i.e., the
absenceof a "period of the originalreligiousexperience and its corresponding
vitality and enthusiasm."63There is little engagementwith the "beyond."
62 Robinson,
"World," l0l-102. Robinson emphasizesthe view of Bultmann here that the
"understandingof existencefor Paul and John . . . petersout in the Apostolic Fathers." If this
is to be maintained,one must ultimately date the Didacheas very late or as the product of an
early Christian strain that existedapart from Pauline and JohannineChristianity, and probably
was opposedto theseforms of Christianitv.
6! O'Dea,
Sociology,243.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS tt7
The absenceof this charisma,onceagain, is not to be attributed to the institu-
tionalization of Christianity into a sphereof motivational forcesthat wereno
longer associatedwith the charismaticmotivation of pre-institutionalreligion,
a religion which dependsupon values that are embodied in a charismatic
leader.s Instead,the absenceof this charismareflectsthe gradualdenial of
Judaism as a valid support for the developmentof Christianity.
The world-views of the Didache and of the Matthean Gospel are for the
most part disparate.This is not unexpected,sincethose personsin the com-
munity who supportedthe respectivedocuments - if in fact the two docu-
ments are derived from the samecommunity tradition - would themselves
have shareddivergentworld-views.That portion of the community which
maintained a self-identity within Judaism was attachedto the doctrines and
logia that are preservedin chaps. l-5. That portion of the community which
producedthe Matthean Gospelto serveas the primary witnessfor its religious
experience,representeda charismatic,kerygmatic fervor that was associated
with a restrictedversion of resurrectiontheology. The typical responseof a
community to somesocialthreat generallyfalls into one of two categories:l)
a reactionof suchintensityso asto be ableto eliminatethe change;2) "aper-
manent state of malintegration and tension which will prevent stableinstitu-
tionalizationof the new patterns."6sIt seemsthat the latter option wastaken
by that portion of the communitywhich producedthe Didache.The world-
view of this group either was never aligned adequatelywith that of the re-
mainder of the community or eventually was subordinatedby it. In either
case, the presenceof logia material that closely paralleled other sayings
materialsthat are found in the Matthean Gospelmight be explainedby such
a rift within the community.
The world-viewof the Didacheis similar to that of later Christianauthors.
This doesnot imply, however,that the Didacheshouldbe datedsimilarly.In-
stead, one must recognizethat any community's theology, doctrine and at-
titude toward the world must reflect that communitv's current social and
institutional circumstances.
In conclusion,the final versionof the Didachereflectsa mixture of world-
views that ultimately were deemed to be uselessby later religious com-
munities.In its abandonmentof Judaismand in its rejectionof kerygmatic
- O'Dea, Sociotogy,244.Much of how O'Dea characterizes the forcesof motivation that are
found in institutional religion seemto report directly upon the nature of the Didache: "With the
emergenceof a stable institutional matrix, there arisesa structure of offices - of statusesand
roles - capableof eliciting another kind of motivation, involving needsfor prestige,expression
of teaching and leadership abilities, drivesfor power, aestheticneeds,and the quite prosaic wish
for the security of a respectableposition in the professional structure of the societl" (italics
mine).
65 Parsons,Essays,244.
 ll8 CHAPTER THREE
religion, the Didachewas left in a unique and a disjointed position within ear-
ly Christianity - a position whoseuselessness in the early Christian tradition
soon led to its rejection within the evolving church.
The Question of a Community Hierarchy
The Matthean Community
The text of the Matthean Gospel suggeststhat the Matthean redactor was
forced to addressa community of personswho camefrom divergentreligious
and ethical backgroundsand who were not united in perspectivewith respect
to primitive Christian doctrines.Thus one finds within the Matthean Gospel
a potpourri of traditions and theological considerations:antiJudaism and
anti-Hellenism; anti-Torah and pro-Torah attitudes; adherenceto an estab-
lished "disciples tradition" and devotion to the authority of wanderingchar-
ismatics;etc. To be sure,the concernsof the redactorare not orientedtoward
an explication of ecclesiasticaloffices within the community - presumably,
the readers of the Gospel already were familiar with some previously-
establishedhierarchicalstructure within the community, and there remained
no need to justify its existence.The historical transition from the various
forms of ecclesialoffice that are representedin the Gospeland the forms of
office that existedin the later ecclesialtradition which inherited that Gospel,
i.e., presumablythe lettersof lgnatius, requirethat we reconstructsomedelin-
eation of the hierarchyof ecclesiastical offices that are assumedin the Mat-
thean Gospel.
with respectto religiousoffices, a primary concernof the redactoris direct-
ed toward a denunciationof Jewishleaders.In Matt 15:14the "pharisees"
(<Dcprocioq),who typically are addressedin conjunctionwith the office of
"scribe" (ypcppoteriq) throughout the Gospel, are called ,,blind guides"
(66Tlyoirugl.dlv) - personswho subsequentlyare associatedwith the sinsof
the decalogue.66 As is observedby Van Tilborg:6?
ThePharisees
representthenegative aspectof thedivinesalvation-economy;they
havebecome theprototypesof therejection.Theyareblindleaders.As far asthe
Torahis concerned theyhavelost their authority.whoeverclingsto them,will
berootedup andwill fall into thepit. A judgmentmorenegative thanthisabout
therelationship
between thesynagogue andtheecclesiacannotbeformulated,the
moreso because the peopleareat the sametime presented as beingblind. The
peopleand their leadersare onein their blindness.
. i -UunTilborg (Leoders,gg)notesthat this versionof the decalogue,while it is suggestedby
the Marcan tradition, in fact, has beenmodeledby the Mattheanredactorto fit more closelywith
the--OTformat. Thus, one finds a certain degreeof independencefrom the Marcan text here.
67 Van
Tilborg, Liaders, l0l.
RELATED INVESTICATIONS ll9
Thus one seesthat the Matthean redactor has implementedthe decalogue
into a weaponto be turned againstthe ruling structureof Judaism,a structure
that leads away from salvation. It is difficult to determine from Matt 15
whether the Matthean redactor seeksto remove early Christianity from the
structuresof Judaism68or whetherthe redactor simply wishesto redefinethe
place of Christianity within those structures.6eSincethe text is the product
of a Christian movementthat undoubtedly already had matured by the time
that the Matthean Gospelwas produced(in the final decadesof the first cen-
tury), one probably should assumethat the redactor envisioneda community
that no longer could exist within the theological structure of Judaism, and
hence, could no longer develop to its full potential within the hierarchy of
leadershipthat existedin that religious system.Thus we can feel certain that
the Gospel standswithin an ecclesiasticalhierarchy of order whoseroots are
justified in the text of the Gospelthrough the argumentthat the structuresof
Judaismhavebeenrejectedwith good reason.We must seekthen to determine
the natureofthose roots ofecclesiastical hierarchy.Severalsuchroots areapt-
ly suggestedby the text:
l) From the outset, one encountersthe "disciples" (pa0nt{S) of Jesus.
Theseare the personswho representthe tradents of the tradition. They are
the inner circle whoseassociationwith Jesusinstills upon them the authority
of the new interpretation of the Torah. The role and the authority of the
disciples/apostlesare focusedin the figure of Peter, who receivesthe power
both to establishthe foundation of the collectedErrluloic and to mediatethe
one salvation for humanity (accordingto Matt 16:17-19).There is little ques-
tion that the figure of Peter representsthe continuation of an early Christian
tradition which sproutedfrom within the Jewishchurch of Palestine.Further,
the figure of Peter now is announcedthrough the reveredwords of the histor-
ical Jesusas the focal point from which a hierarchical structure can be de-
rived. In Petera certain"institutional" statementis madeby the redactor.T0
The need for such structure is evidencedin the midst of more religiously
charismatic figures.
2) Those personswho previously offered competitive religious authority
over againstthe establishedtradition of the disciplesare the "prophets" (npo-
tpritqq),who togetherwith the "teachers" (6r6dorol,oq) are envisionedas
Christian functionariesin the mold of the Phariseesand scribesof Judaism.
The presenceof theseprophetsis attestedvariously throughout the Gospel.?r
They are among the messengers to Israel (both old and new) who are sent by
Jesus(Matt 23:34\:
68 Strecker, Ileg, 30-31.
6e Hummel, Auseinandersetzune, 46-49.
7o Brown and Meier, Antioch, Tl.
7r SeeBoring, Sayings,4347, and Suggs,llisdom, 23-24.
 120 CHAPTER THREE
Ard to0to i6oD6yd droor6l,l,ronpdq0pdq,npogriroqrai oo<poDq roi ypoppct-
teiq' t(, o0rdrvdrorteveire roi orcupdroeterci 6( c0tdrvpcotrTcboete
iv rciq
ouvcyroyaig6pdrvxol 6uil(erednd n6l,e@q elg,n6)"rv'
("ThereforeI sendyou prophetsandwisemenand scribes,someof whomyou
will kill andcrucify,andsomeyouwill scourge in yoursynagoguesandpersecute
from town to town . . .")
While the redactor presupposesthe authority of this office of prophet, a
warning is issuedagainstthosewho misusethis authority. Thus one finds the
admonition to "beware of false prophets" (npoat1erc dnd t6v yeu6onpo-
qrltdrv)in Matt 7:15-23.InMatt I l:9 the redactorhaspreserved the Q attesta-
tion (cf. Luke 7:26) that John is more than a prophet, and thereby, the
redactor has establisheda community dictum by which prophets may be
judged as lesserauthorities to the tradition that is representedby Jesus'own
disciples,i.e., the apostolic tradition. Such exhortationsbespeakof a period
in which the prophetic word remaineda powerful interpretationof the histori-
cal tradition. They also betray a concernby the Matthean redactor (a concern
which itself is probably a reflection of anxiety within the community) to
harness the prophetic witness with a more readily-controlled tradition of
authority, i.e., the memory of the work and of the teachingsof the apostles.
Thus, Bultmann writes:72
The Churchdrewno distinctionbetweensuchutterances by Christianprophets
andthe sayingsof Jesusin thetradition,for the reasonthat eventhe dominical
sayingsin thetraditionwerenot thepronouncements of a pastauthority,but say-
ingsof the risenLord, who is alwaysa contemporary for the Church.
3) The final categoryto which the Matthean Gospeloffers definitive attesta-
tion is that of teacher.The Matthean redactor as well wasprobably a product
of inis office, out of which derived the authority to composethe Gospelfor
the community.T3Among the primary duties of the teacherwithin the Mat-
thean community was that of "justification of the Torah tradition," an act
that is undertakenby the redactorin Matt 5:17-20.As is noted by Meier:74
If therewasoneelementin theJewish-Christian traditionthat wasespecially
dif-
ficult for an increasingly
Gentilechurchto absorbinto its gospel-message,
it was
the stringentLaw material.
But apart from the task of justification for the inclusion of Jewishtradition,
the christian teacherwas a primary elementin the reorganizationof develop-
ing community structures.For the Matthean Gospel, such organization ap-
t2 Bultmann,
History, 127-2g.
'' Thus
Boring (sayrngs,45) seesin Matt 13:52a positivesely'portroitby the Matthean redac-
tor.
ta Meier,
Law,23.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS l2l
pearsin the presentationof conflicting hermeneuticalkeys by which commu-
nity traditions were interpreted.Thus, in Matt 18 one finds a practical, func-
tional "catechesis"for community discipline.T5This is the projection of a
structuredsystemin which fraternal conflicts within the church (suchas those
that are represented at 5:23-26)may be rectifiedby juridical process.t6 In ten-
sion with this perspective is the more eschatological salvation-history
orienta-
tion that arisesthroughoutthe Gospel,and which perhapsis bestrepresented
in Matt 13.77This latter hermeneuticdominatesthe Gospel,yet in its appeal
to the salvationof the nations(and not of Israelalone),it may revealitself
as a secondaryfocus of the redactor againstthe original and more legalistic
processes of judgment that arisewithin Matt 18. Hence one observeswith
respectto this hermeneuticthat the Son of Man motif, which implies the
presenceof a figure whoseauthority is both "cosmic" and eternal,hasbeen
incorporated(from the SayingsGospelQ?) on the one hand, while the "rule
of patience," which is associatedwith the delay of the parousiaand is ap-
plicablein "this temporal age," has beenincorporatedon the other.78
The above,of course,are the initial offices of the churchthat werelisted
by Paul in I Cor l2:28: apostles,prophets,teachers.The latter and lesserof-
fices of Paul's list - "miracle workers, healers,helpers,administrators,
speakersin tongues" (6uvriperq,, Enewalcrpiopc.ta.ic,ptitrov, dvtrl"rlpyerq,
rupepvrioerg,yd,vr1 yl,oroodv) - are not mentionedby the Matthean redac-
tor, no doubt becausesuchpersonswerenot consideredto be the bearersof
great authority within the community from which the Gospelderived.Yet,
this triad of offices may not reflect with any significantaccuracythe Matthean
community'shistoricalexperience. Instead,it probablyindicatesthe desireof
the redactorto project an imageof ecclesialhierarchythat would permit a
manageable structurefor growth within the community.As is speculatedby
Boring, it may be much more accurateto describethe historical development
of the Mattheancommunityin terms of the dominanceof the propheticof-
fice:7e
soSand8rseesprophecyasthe category
Like Schweizer, in whichMatthewinter-
preteddiscipleship
to Jesusassuch.But theMattheancommunity alsoknowsa
75 Marguerat, Le jugement, 425. We
seehere that the juridical structure of the Matthean
Gospelwasbasedupon the Torah of Judaism,much in the sameperspectiveasthat which appears
in the Didache.
76 Marguerat, Le jugement,
430-35.
77 Meier, Law, 23.
78 Marguerat,Le jugement,
436-46.The Matthean community standsin the midst of a tension
judgment:churchdiscipline(cf. Matt l8:15-18)
betweentwo incompatibleforms of ecclesiastical
and eschatologicalpromise/threat(cf. Matt l3:4?-50).
7e Boring, Sayings,45.
80 Schweizer,Matthiius, 140-47,
and "Observance," 213-30.
8r Sand,Gesetz,168-77
"Propheten," 167-85.
t22 CHAPTER THREE
relativelysmallnumberof "wandering"prophets,prophetswho werenot in-
dependent freelancers
but delegated of theMattheanchurch.In addi-
missioners
tion, therewasa largergroupof congregationalleadersin the church,who were
not "wandering"but residentin thecongregation, who recognized that disciple-
shipto Jesuswasto be practicedin propheticterms.Theyperformedprophetic
functionsin the community,includingspeakingin the nameof the risenLord.
Thesearenot sharplydistinguished in generalbut theydid form
from thedisciples
a recognizably distinctgroup.
The office of "prophet" obviouslyis one that carrieda primary concernfor
the Matthean redactor. With a systemsuchas that which is describedhere by
Boring, the office of prophet may well representthe true nature of the com-
munity's authority. Against Boring, however,one plainly can seethe drive of
the redactor to temper such prophetic authority as the church congregation
matured into a community that found it necessaryto await the arrival of the
delayedparousia. By the time of the writings of Ignatius, this prophetic in-
fluence was subjugatedalmost completelyto an ecclesialstructure that was
delineatedby the officesof "bishop" (iniororoq), "presbyter" (npeopfte-
poq) and "deacon" (6tdrovoq).
The Matthean Gospelis the product of a community that was in transi-
tion,82 a community that sought to define itself not only with respectto
developingtheologicalparameters,but also with respectto fluid ecclesialof-
fices and functions. The Gospel itself was not concernedto name or to
describesuchoffices, but was designedsimply to justify the existenceof those
offices within the community through an interpretation of their background
in light of the words of the historicalJesus.If one may assumethat the basis
of theseoffices stemsfrom someform of Jewishlegal system,much like that
systemwhich is represented by the earlytestimonyof Matt l8:15-20,then one
may assumewith justificationthat the Mattheancommunity,which wascon-
fronted with the hierarchicalstructuresof an encroachingHellenistic model
of ecclesialauthority, would have requireda radical shift and reorientation
within its own ecclesialstructurein orderto meetthis challenge.It is suggested
herethat the mode of transition from the hierarchicalstructuresof the Jewish
synagogueto the systemof ecclesialoffices that was offered by Hellenistic
Christianity(a transitionwhich occurredwithin that communityfrom which
the Matthean Gospel is derived) is reflected best in the latter chapters of
another document,i.e., the Didache.
82 Meier,
Law,22. The Mattheanredactordoeswrite, however,from the perspective of an
establishedreligiouscommunity (L!2, Matthiius, 65). stanton ("Matthew," 274-77)arytes that
the redactor reflectsa community which still is under pressurefrom Judaism. But I would con-
tend that suchpressurein the Matthean Gospeldoesnot stem from Judaismitself, but instead,
that it comesfrom that faction of the Matthean community which remainsfaithful to the tenets
of Judaismper se. Seethe relateddiscussionof Reicke,,.Verfassung,"95-112.
RET,ATED
INvEsrrcATIoNs lZ3
The Enigma of the Didache83
Scholarlyattemptsto incorporatethe Didacheinto a readysourceof informa-
tion concerningthe developmentof nascentchurch communitieshave been
frustrated by the two-tiered hierarchy of offices that seemsto be attestedby
the text, i.e., bishopsand deacons,without presbyters.8a It thereforeis im-
perativethat one readdressthe issueof whetherthe early Christian community
that producedthe text of the Didacherecognizedwithin its ecclesialhierarchy
the independentoffice of "presbyter."
The Greektext of the Didache,which wasdiscoveredby Archbishop Bryen-
nios in 1873,mentionsseveralimportant offices that were recognizedcom-
monly within the hierarchiesof early church structures - apostle (dn6oto-
l,oq), prophet,teacher,bishopand deacon.The first three,of course,onesees
featured prominently within the Matthean Gospel. From the Didache's list,
however,the office of "presbyter" flagrantly seemsto havebeenomitted. In-
deed,at that point whereone most might expectto seepresbytersmentioned,
they are absent:
Xerpotovrioareoriv foutoTq€nror6rouq,rcai6ror6vouqd(iouq ro0 rupiou,
("Appoint thereforefor yourselves
bishopsand deacons
worthyof the Lord."
ll5.u)
The manuscriptthat Bryennios"discovered" presenteda new pieceof evi-
dencefor the ecclesialpuzzlethat was under assemblyat the beginningof this
century by Hatch85and by Lightfoot,86whosespeculationsconcerningthe
formation of the christian ministry during the first-secondcenturiesc.E.
were beginning to win the perspectiveof their day. Based upon biblical,
patristic and classicalsources,Hatch said that the administrativeoffices of
bishop and deaconaroseunder the influence of contemporaryGreco-Roman
associations,while the office of presbyter spawned from the ,.council of
elders" model that was attestedin the internal organizationof the Jewish
sT
synagogue.
Lightfoot concurredwith Hatch that the presbyteratederivedfrom the con-
structsof Judaism,and addedhis view that the deaconate wasan entirelynew
creation. The role of bishop was equivalentto that of presbyter,and it was
83 The majority of
the discussionthat follows was presentedat the "Tenth International Con-
ferenceon Patristic studies," which was held in oxford onM.-29 August 1987.The version of
the material that was presentedin Oxford may be found in publishedform as follows: "Pres-
byters in the Community of the Didache." ln Studia patristica 21, pp. 122-ZB.Edited by
Elizabeth A. Livingstone. Leuven: Peeters,1989.Grateful appreciationis extendedto Peeters
Pressfor permissionto reprint those materialshere in expandedforrn.
& Seefor examplethe
studiesby Luz, Motthiius,75, and Brown and Meier, Antioch, Sl-84.
85 Hatch, Organization,
26-lll.
86 Lightfoot, Philippians,
l8l-265.
o' Hatch,Organization,30
n. ll.
124 CHAPTER THREE
from the presbyterate that episcopacy subsequently evolved as the formula-
tion of a higher office under which the presbyters of any given community
served.88
As they applied to the community of the Didache, the conclusions of Hatch
and Lightfoot immediately spawned three courses of argument: 1) the office
of presbyter was unknown within the community; 2) the position of presbyter
did not warrant mention by the Didachist; and, 3) the role of presbyter was
encompassedwithin the office of bishop.
The first argument, viz., that the office of presbyter did not exist within the
hierarchy of the community that produced the Didache, is at once the im-
mediate responseto an initial reading of the text.8e The logic is straightfor-
ward and simple: since presbytersare not mentioned, they must not have been
known. Indeed, those who argue otherwise must bear the burden of proof as
to how it is known that the office of presbyter existed within the community!
Yet, one must admit that it remains somewhat confusing to imagine such a
community, i.e., one which was devoid of an office whose roots were both
early and primary in the Judeo-Christian tradition.e0
The second argument derives from the work of Hatch, which Harnack ap-
plied specifically to the "missing presbyters" of the Didache. el Harnack pro-
posed that the early church knew of only one classification of spiritual leaders
- those who were establishedby the Word of God as ministers of the gospel.
In the case of the Didache this meant apostles, prophets and teachers.e2
The offices of bishop and deacon, on the other hand, were administrative
positions that were appointed for individual communities by the communities
themselves.While the primary role of bishops and deacons was the msnage-
ment of community affairs, the Didachist notes that they had become in their
own right "speakers of the Word of God," and thus were not to be de-
spised.e3
Harnack asserted that it was from the early distribution of community
functions between "elders" (npeopr5tepor)and "youngers" (vedlrepor) that
the role of the presbyter arose. The presbyterswere those aged within the com-
munity who had arisen without formal calling to positions of respect, and thus
were to be "honored" for their wise counsel.eoSince the Didachist was con-
88 Lightfoot, Philippians,196
notes: "The episcopatewas formed not out of the apostolic
order by localisationbut out of the presbyterialby elevation:and the title, which originally was
commonto all, cameat lengthto be appropriateto the chief amongthem."
8e Seefor
example,Schweizer,Order, 142-43 Von Campenhausen,Authority, T0-71.
m SeeAndresen,
Kirchen,50; Von Campenhausen, Authority,76.
eI Harnack,
"Analecten," passim;and Lehre, 88-94,140-68.
" Seefor example,t Cor 12:28and Acts l3:1.
e3 Thus
Did. 15.2 - pl orjv 0nepi6rlreairoriq.
- Harnack
notesthat the conceptof "appropriatehonor" (rtpq xourixouoo)becamea fer-
minus technicusin the early church. SeeI Clem. | .3; 21.6and Clem. str. 7.1.2.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS r25
cerned primarily to identify the establishedoffices of the apostolic order,
however, the function of presbyter purposefully was omitted from the Di-
dache.Presbytershad a role within the community, but they had no associa-
tion with its order. They neither were instilled by God "to speakthe divine
word," nor were they appointedby the community.e5
The third argument,which is held widely in current circles,derivesfrom the
observationthat the office of presbper certainly was not distinctive in every
primitive Christian community. Lightfoot, who capitalizedupon a growing
inclinationofthe nineteenthcentury,e6assertedthat the term "bishop" often
was used synonymouslywith that of "presbyter" in many churches,since
episcopacy(mono-episcopacy? e7)had not gained universality by the time of
the compositionof the Didache.esOne thus discoversearly texts whereso-
called"presbyter-bishops"ruled with deacons,suchasin Phil l:1, I Tim 3:l-
13, Titus l:5-16 and, of course,Did. 15.1.This positionhas beensupported
and expandedin latter days by proponentssuch as R. M. Grant,eeErik
Wolf, r00W. H. C. Frend101 and Martin Dibeliuswith Hans Conzelmann,r02
who have drawn parallels from such post-apostolic witnessesas I CIem.
54.2103andHerm. Vis.2.4,3, wherebishopsand presbytersassumea some-
what identicalrole.
Despitethe virtues of thesethree arguments,with each solution one is left
with two troubling questionsthat are not resolvedconcerningthe text of the
Didache: l) Is it indeedto the communityproper that the chargeis made "to
appoint" (l,erpotovdro)bishopsand deacons(Did. ls.l);rs and, 2) Is it in-
deedto the community proper that instructions are given on how to baptize
(Did.7.l), how to speakthe wordsof the eucharist(Did.9.l-10.5)and how
to evaluateprophets (Did. 13.l-7)?
Both apostolicand post-apostolicwitnesses characterize the office of pres-
byter in the early church as a position that was responsiblefor numerous
e5 For correctivesto the Hatch-Harnackperspectives,seeRobinson,
"Ministry," and Linton,
Problem, passim.
e6 Seefor example, Zahn, Forschungen,302-10;Schaff, Manuat, 73-75;Spence,Teaching,
l5l.
e7 Seethe brief discussionof Sch<illgen,
"Monoepiskopat," 146-51.
e8 Lightfoot, Apostotic Fathers,2l5; Knopf, Lehre, 36-38.
ee Crant, Apostolic Fathers, 160-73.
t@ Wolf, Ordnung, 168-69.
lor Frend, Christianity, 139.
r02 Dibelius and Conzelmann,Pastoral Epistles, 54-57.
to3 Compare I Ctem. 1.3, where presbytersare acknowledgedas
"the community rulers"
(iyofpevor); seeHerrmann, Ecclesia,27-28.
t@ Note that at Acts 14.23it is Barnabasand Paul who
"appoint" elders;at Titus l:5 the
responsibilityis givento Titus; at I Clem. 42.4-5it is the apostleswho "appointed" bishopsand
deacons,in accordance with the directionsof Isa 40:17.SeeWengst,Schriften,4l n. l4l . Admit-
tedly, early congregationshad the right to "confirm" appointeesto office; seeHerrmann, Ec-
clesia.27.
r26 CHAPTER THREE
facetsof communitylife, both administrativeand liturgical, within the body
of believers.Presbytersprotectedthe congregationagainstthe dangersof er-
ror that threatenedfrom without and from within (Acts 20:29-30;2 John l0-
ll: Herm. Vis. 2.6.2-3),servedas cultic officersof the church'seucharist(l
Ctem.40 Mart. Pol.6.l), had chargeof the communityfunds (1 Pet5:2)'
directedthe administrationof charity(Mart. Pol. 6.1)and established the nor-
tot
mativeteachingoffice for the community(Acts l5; 16:4). Onereadilyfinds
suchfunctionsaddressed by the Didache:warningsagainsterrors(chaps.1-6);
administration of community funds (chap. ll); administrationof the eucha-
rist (chaps.9-10,l4); administrationof charity (chap.1l); and, establishment
of a normativeteachingoffice (chap. ll). In point of fact, the entirewriting
servesas a witnessto the correctpracticeof broadly-stated administrativeand
liturgical functions that were associatedwith the function, if not the office,
of presbyter.One thus seesthat while presbytersat no point are mentioned
106
within the text, their dutiesare expresslyoutlined'
In its own right the Didachemust havebeenregardedas an ancientclassic
by third-fourth century "church orders."10716. subsequentincorporation
and manipulation of the text by the Church Fathersindicatesthat it carried
a wide influence both among Syrian and Egyptian communities which no
doubt went far beyondthe original intention of the Didachist. This popularity
of the text amongpatristicauthors,who themselves were strugglingwith the
developmentof ecclesialorder and divergent practices,
led no lessa scholar
than Streeterto observethatlo8
the main object of the second half of the Didache is to give advice to communities
which are in difficulties owing to the lack of an established ministry and to help
them in that direction.
Unfortunately,the scholarlycommunitysinceStreeterappearsto havedone
little toward eithercorrectingor advancingthis perspective,though two cor-
rectivesmust be offered.
Firstly, we must forfeit our lingeringarchaicand unrealisticviewsof the
Didacheas a setof generalized instructionsthat wereconstructedin a vacuum
for useby the churchat large.The final redactionof the documentno doubt
r05Bornkamm,
"np6oguq,r.r.1,."; Von Campenha\sen, Authority, 76-84.For a comparable
view of bishops,seeChadwick,"Bishop."
106The Apostolic
Constitutions often appearsto explicatein bolder terms what must have
beenthe originalintentionof the Didachist.Thusone findsat AC 7.22an alterationof Did.7.l:
"But concerningbaptism, O bishop or presbyter,you shall baptizeas the Lord commandedus"
(ernphasismine).
r0?Streeter,
Church,292-93.Numerousauthorshavearguedfor the early date of the original
text; seeSabatier,Didachi,150-59;Taylor, Teaching,ll8; Harris, Teaching,passim;Harnack,
Lehre, 158-70:Lightfoor, ApostolicFathers,215;Audet, Didachi, 187-210.
'uo Streeter.
Church. 291.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS 127
was a responseto someimmediateneedthat arosewithin somespecificcom-
munity. Secondly,we may do betterto considerthe Didacheto be a witness
to a ministryin transition,ratherthan a witnessto the "lack of an established
ministry."
As a responseto thesecorrectives,it may be appropriateto suggestthat the
reasonwhy the office of presbyterwas not mentionedby the Didachist was
determinedby the function of the text. Later church orders, such as the
Apostolic Constitutions,the Church Ordinances,the Canonsof Hippolytus
and the Didascalia,incorporatedthe core material of the Didache as a
frameworkaround which to constructmanualsfor the instructionof clergy.
If the Didacheis indeeda "witnessto a ministry in transition" - the recurr-
ing dilemma of the primitive church - one must question whether the pur-
poseof the final redactionof the text also might not havebeenthe instruction
of clergy, specificallyhere, personswho aspiredto the office of presbyter.
Sincescholarshavetraditionallyconsideredthe Didacheto be a "manual of
instruction" loelwhetherfor catechumens, for personsin authority or for an
110
undefinedcommunity), there is no new observationin our assignmentof
the text to a didactic genre, but only in the designationof the intended au-
dienceas presbyters.
Sucha designationalso would explain a number of further difficulties that
traditionally are associatedwith the text. The chargein Did. l5.l "to ap-
point" bishops and deaconswould have been directed toward officials in
authority, and thus would have been consistentwith contemporary prac-
tices.111The expositionboth of liturgical and of communitydutiesthrough-
out the text also would have been directed toward those sameofficials, and
thus to an appropriate audience.Further, the literary unity of the text could
be understoodin termsof its function,sinceboth the openingdidacticinstruc-
tions in chaps.l-6, which were to be directedtoward catechumens, and the
subsequentliturgicalregulationsin chaps.7-15would have fallen within the
parametersof presbyterialauthority. Finally, the marked changeof address
from the secondpersonsingularto the secondpersonplural, which also is
dividedroughly along suchchapterdivisions,l12might be understoodas the
differencebetweenmaterialsthat were addressedto individual candidatesfor
baptismand materialsthat wereaddressed to the presbytersasa group. It thus
appearsboth reasonableand responsibleto speculatethat the final function
of the Didachemay havefallen somewhatwithin the sameparametersasthose
ton On the usability of the document, seeMuilenbwg, Relations, TS-8O.
rro Johnson,
"Motive," 108.
ttt One neednot considerhereany formal ritual ofordination for bishops,suchas that found
in Hipp. trad. ap. 2.1-4.2 of the third century.
rr2 Audet, Didachi, 105-10.
 tz8 CHAPTER THREE
that were espousedby the later church orders which used the Didache as an
outline for clerical instruction.
As to an exact provenanceand socio-political occasionby which the need
for such a manual would have originated, it is difficult to be certain. one in-
deedmay continueto consideras valid options the predominantviewsamong
scholarsof the Didache that likely provenancesfor the text may have been
eitherAlexandriaor Antioch. It is assumedherethat Antioch, which was an
early gatheringplace for ethnically and theologicallydivergentchristians, r13
is perhapsthe betterof thesechoices.The historically-diverse religiousback-
ground of the city, rrathe absenceof any distinctivehierarchicalstructurefor
the Christiancommunityof the city during the first centuryll5and the poten-
tial for socialconflict in this striving ancientmetropolisall lend support to the
choiceof Antioch as the provenancein which the materialsof the Didache
were collected.
A likely occasion may have stemmed from the seedsof Jewish-Gentile
strugglesin Antioch, which certainlywerepresentprior to the destructionof
Jerusalemin c.E. 70, sincethe strongJewishcommunitythat arosewith the
foundingof the city 116would havedisdainedthe increasingreligioustolerance
of the region, whosedependenceupon Romemadeit a fertile field for the ear-
ly seedsof the Hellenisticmission.rl7
The strugglesin Antioch, which ensuedfrom the necessitywithin the con-
gregationsthere to intermingle divergentJewish and Gentile cultures around
a common Judeo-christian faith, indeedmust have forced a radical transfor-
mation of ecclesialofficeswithin the city's growingchristian community.As
the structureof those primitive churchesin Antioch that were steepedin
Jewishpolity and organization finally yielded to the swell of a Greco-Roman
mindset,the needalso would havearisento reorientand retrain the leaders
of such Jewish-oriented communities. Formerly Jewish-christian elders,
whoseunderstandingof authority and leadershipwas basedupon the syna-
gogue, would have neededto be instructed concerning their new roles
as
presbytersin a three-tieredchurchhierarchythat was basedupon
Hellenistic
models. l18
Suchobservations,of course,can be little more than suggestions,
but they
are suggestions
that hopefully focus upon the specificneedsassociatedwith
Ecclesia,33.In supportof an Alexandrianpresbytertradition, seepp. 34_37.
ill ,T:l:r.1,
"- waltace-Hadrill,Antioch, 14_26.
"' At least,this is the impressionthat one receivesfrom the lack
of historicaltestimonyto
any dominantruling structuresuchas that which arosein
the Jerusalemchurch(seeDowney,
History, 272-B'll.
r16
See Meeks and Wilken, Jews, passim;Stern,,,Diaspora,,, 137-42;and,
Tcherikover,
Civi Iization, 289. 329-29.
rr7 Theissen,
Setting,36.
"" Dix, "Ministry," 244,267.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS r29
ecclesialorganizationin the earlychurch.In light of the sayingsmaterialsthat
are preservedin Did. l-5, the Didachemust somehowbe explainedby modern
scholarshipas a documentthat spansthe transitionbetweenJewishand Gen-
tile christianity, and therefore, must reflect an ecclesialhierarchy that is
representative of sucha transition.while thereis no questionthat the Didache
is neitherdirectlyconstructedupon the text of the MattheanGospel,nor that
the epistlesof Ignatiusare immediatelydependentupon the materialsor the
theological emphasesof the Didache, the Didache in fact may reflect an in-
directwitnessto the transitionin ecclesialhierarchythat occurredasthe com-
munity of Antioch proceededfrom the first to the secondcenturies.In many
ways,the previouslyunknown transitionfrom Matthew to Ignatiusmay well
havereflectedsucha shift in emphases,from Jewishpatternsof structureto
Gentileconceptionsof hierarchy.
Further Elements in the Reconstruction of a Community
As has beenobservedabove, the sayingsthat were collectedand preservedin
the Didachereveala number of convergentelements.The orientationof the
sayingscollectionis unquestionablyJewish.And while at leastone redactor
subsequentto the Didachist has attempted.to christianize the collection
through the introductionof new theologicalemphases (1.3b-2.1),thereis no
question that the original collection was of a christian-Jewishcharacter.
Upon this observation,severalpoints follow.
Firstly, the sayingshave beenorganizedinto an expansionupon the initial
elementsofthe decalogue.This form ofthe decalogueagainhasbeenenlarged
through contemporaryconcerns,yet it remainsas the focus of chaps.l-5.
Secondly,the influence of a strong wisdom tradition is evident in the
Didache,especiallyin thosematerialsthat appearin the text immediatelyafter
the decalogue(i.e., chap. 3). The sayingsand themesin thesematerialsare
scatteredand often are disjointed; however, they reveal the influence of
wisdom motifs and traditions.tre
Finally, the Jewishnature of the sayingscollectionis of concernto the
tradentsof the Didacheonly in so far asthat collectionis a part of the original
core of materials.The subsequentredactionsof the text, while themselves
concernedto preserveadditional materialsthat originally may have been
associatedwith the sayings,are not steepedin the original Jewishmindset
from which the sayingsthemselves have sprung.
we haveseenthat much of the materialin the text, especiallythat material
which appearsas an interwovenmotif within the sayings,reflectsMatthean
tto
So it was that Harnack continued to argue for a predominant influence of Sirach upon the
text.
130 CHAPTER THREE RELATED INVESTIGATIONS l3l

themesand concerns.On the other hand, there does not seemto be a con- "social locators." With this in mind, Brooks identifiesthree distinct tradi-
certed effort to reflect either the theology or the structure of the Matthean tions in the M materials:124
Gospel.120In what way can the Didache have derived from a community
#l - Matt 5:19,21-22,27-28,33-35,37; 18:18,19-20;19:12(2);
12:36-37;
tradition that also servedas the foundation of the Matthean Gospel?The 23:8-10
answer appearsin the brief examination of severalliterary, socio-historical #2 - Matt6:l-6,16-18;
23:2-3,5
and liturgical featuresthat are paralleled betweenthe two texts. #3 - Matt5:23-24(?);23:15,
16-22,24,33
of mutually-exclusivetrad-
Severalother texts are suggestedas representatives
What is Known from the M Source itions, though they are not excluded necessarilyfrom the abovetraditions:
At the conclusionof his recentinvestigationof the specialMatthean source #4 - Matt l0:5b-6,23b
(or "M"), StephensonBrooks attemptsto reconstructthe history of the Mat- #5 - Matt6:7-8:7:6rzs
theancommunityasit is known from the witnessof M. The resultsof Brooks' Brooks argues that the above groupings of sayings represent several
examinationsshed significant light upon the types of movementsand tradi- stagesin the history of the Mattheancommunity.Collections
developmental
tions that may haveexistedbehind the formation of the Matthean Gospeland
#2 and #4 are "sayingsrepresentative of a tradition coming from a Chris-
that would have permitted the additional formation of the Didache within
tian Jewishgroup"; collections#3 and #5 are"sayingsfrom an interim pe-
that samecommunity, as we have argued above. The relevant observations
riod"; collection# I is "sayingsrepresentative of a tradition coming from a
from his argumentsand conclusionsare presentedin summary form here. 126
JewishChristiancommunity." Throughhis analysisof "social indicators"
On the one hand, Brooks determinesfrom the free manner in which the
for eachgrouping, Brooks thus concludesthat the Matthean community was
Matthean redactorhas incorporatedboth the SayingsGospelQ and the Mar-
composed of several parties of divergent Christians who maintained oral
can sourcethat the M sourceprobably was usedwith great freedom as well.
traditions that were preservedand reinterpreted - a processthat was inter-
On the other hand, Brooks arguesthat the literary structure which currently
rupted to someextentby the compositionof the MattheanGospel.It is the
unitesthe various texts in the Gospelmust be attributed to the redactor, since
"historicizing" elementof the Gospelthat servesto bind thesevariousoral
there is "scant evidence" for a pre-Mattheannarrative tradition. r21This, he
traditions together into a literary unity. 127
suggests,doesnot precludeconclusivelythat the M sourcemay have existed
Basedupon Matt l0 and 23, Brooks next suggests a specificview of Chris-
in part as a written document;however,there appearsto be "no evidencethat
tian history that was sharedby the Matthean redactor with the community
compelsthe postulateof written sourcesto account for the M sayingstradi-
from which the M tradition was derived. In chap. 23128one witnessesthe
tions." r22
gradualremovalof authorityfrom the leadersof Judaism,the scribesand the
Basedupon the assumptionthat the M-source materialswere availableto
Pharisees.Theseleaderssummarilyare judged for their interpretationsof
the Matthean redactor in an oral form alone, Brooks appealsto the work of
tradition, their behaviorwith respectto that tradition, and finally, their direct
Kelber123to identify the strataof theseoral materials.Kelber establishesa law
persecutionof "Christian prophets,wisemen, and scribes."Brooksseeshere
of "social identification" by which sayingsmay be grouped according to
"four distinct historical stagesin the relationship betweenthe contemporary
readersof specificsayingsand the Jewishauthorities":12e
r20Seethe
commentsof Bornkamm, however,who comparesthe structureof the Sermonon
1) the reader'sreligiouslife is circumscribed by the authorityof the Jewish
the Mount with that of the Didache (Tradition, l1).
r2r Brooks,
"History,,' l27-80.
synagogue leaders
r22Brooks,
"History," 180.He doesadmit, however,that Matt 5:19,21-22,27-28,33-35 and
2) in antithesisto this circumscribedposition,the readeris subjectonly to the
37, becauseof their antithetical character,may have come to the redactor "from a singletradi- authorityof Jesusas teacherand Christ,and God as Father
tion," which he also ascribesto a ,'JewishChristiancommunity" (pp. 180, 279).Yet, he does
not includein this categorythe materialsof Matt 6:l-6, 16-18,which he ascribesto a "Christian t24
Brooks, "History," 174-75.
Jewish cornmunity" (p. 278). Since we have noted the presenceof this antithetical format r25
Matt 5:36 is a versefor which there is no accountingin this schema.
throughout Matt 6:1-18, and in considerationof the Three Rulesthemethat appearsin the an- r26
Brooks, "History," 278-80.
tithetical materialsof Did. 1.3b-6, it may be that the Sermon on the Mount preservesan early t27
Brooks,"History," 181-82.
written tradition which possessed a consistentliterary structure. t28
'" Kelber, Brooks, "History," 184-87.
Gospet,24. r29
Brooks, "History," 186-87.
132 CHAPTER THREE
3) the readeris given an explanationof the new position, firstly with
referenceto the invalid interpretation and religious behavior of the
synagoguerulers, and secondlywith referenceto their overt persecu-
tion of membersof the community of Jesus
4) finally, the reader'sties with Judaism/Israelare severed
Brooks seesfurther supportfor this reconstructionof history in the text of
r30
chap. 10. While the redactorknowsof a time when Jesusand his disciples
"engagedexclusivelyin a missionto Israel," chap. l0 indicatesa subsequent
missionto the Gentiles- a missionthat occursonly after substantialpersecu-
tion from Jewishauthorities.13l
In his final analysis,Brooks arguesfor two primary phasesin the develop-
ment of the Mattheancommunity.On the onehand,he envisionsa "Christian
Jewishgroup relativelyat peacewithin the synagogue"prior to C.E. 70. On
the other hand, he seesa secondarydevelopmentinto a "Jewish Christian
community constitutedapart from, and in ideologicalopposition to, the
Jewishsynagogue."132The former group "affirms the teachingauthority of
its synagogue leadership,while beingcriticalof the piousbehaviorof both the
leadershipand other synagoguemembers." The latter group is organizedin
antithesis"to conceptionsabout Torah and community organizationthat
characterizedsignificant portions of Judaismin the first century." While we
cannotbe certainasto the precisenatureof the theologythat washeld by the
first group, the latter group maintainsa well-developedChristologyand a
"theology basedupon Jesusas the eschatological spokespersonfor God."
The Mattheanredactor,as heir to thesetwo traditionswithin the community,
assimilates the materialsof the MarcanGospeland SayingsGospelQ into the
traditionalcommunitysayingsthat werepreservedby the Mattheancommuni-
ty.
Common Elementsand Perspectives
Apart from the agreements betweensayingsthat wereobservedthe discussion
above, numerousother minor agreementsarise betweenthe texts of the
Didacheand the Matthean Gospel, and should not be omitted in passing.
While no one of theseagreements can establishan elementof certitudewith
respectto the closeassociationbetweenthe Didacheand the MattheanGospel
with respectto the history of the writings, the cumulativenature of the
rro
Brooks, "History," |87-89.
131
Luz (Matthtius,67) observesthat the concept of a Gentile mission in the Matthean Gospel
probably resulted from the influence ofthe Jews who fled from Palestine, i.e., those personswho
representedeither the Q movement or the Marcan community.
"' Brooks, "History," l9l-95.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS r33
elementsmay serveasan argumentin supportof a commoncommunityback-
ground for the two texts.
$
i From Jew to Gentile
One immediatelynotes both within the Didacheand within the Matthean
i
Gospelthat there is a tension betweenthe concernsand perspectives of a
Christianity.r33Scholarstradi-
JewishChristianityand a Hellenistic-Gentile
tionally (and correctly)haveeasedthis tensionthroughthe attributionto each
text of redactionallayersand divergentsources.
The earliestlayer of the Didache(1.1-3a;2.2-6.1a)is constructedupon the
Two Ways sourceand around the decalogue,with the incorporationof addi-
tional elementsfrom early Jewishwisdom tradition. There is little question
that the community from which this sectionof the text deriveswas Jewishin
natureand tradition.t'o By the time that the subsequent layer of the text (7-
presence
15116l)wasadded,however,one alreadydetectsthe of a ferventanti-
Jewishelement.Thus, in 7.2 the ritual laws of baptismconcerning"running
water" are emended.Also, in 8.1 the readeris exhortednot to fast "with the
hypocrites" on Mondaysand Thursdays,but insteadto fast on Wednesdays
and Fridays.Apart from thesetwo pericopae,the Didachedoesnot seemcon-
cernedto attack Judaismor JewishChristianity.But enoughis saidin chaps.
7-8 to indicatethat a major shift in perspectivehas occurred.Furthermore,
the redactorseemscontentto pursueotherissuesin subsequent chaptersbased
upon the understandingthat a new theologicaldesignand perspectivenow has
becomefoundationalfor Christianityin the communitythat hasproducedthe
text.
The problemsof Jewish/Gentilequestionsin the Matthean Gospel are
legionand are well-known.As with the earliestmaterialsof the Didache,the
Matthean redactor writes with a view toward the demonstrationof fulfilled
OT prophecy.Thus the Sermonon the Mount, while a sourcefor attacks
upon the unacceptablepracticeof religious piety (6:l-21), reflectsan im-
mediateconcernto preserveand surpassthe Torah, without rejectingthe
authorityof that Torah (5:17-48).Again, in 10:5-23the disciplesare exhorted
to avoid the Gentilesin their wanderingmissions.But throughoutthe Gospel
t33The focusof both of thesecommunityfactionsinto the Gentilemissionthemeof the Mat-
thean Gospelled to the early circulation of the text within the wider church sphere(Luz, Mat-
thiius,70).
r3aAs an instructional code from early Judaism,one can agreewith Meeks(World, 149)that
"we can understandhow someonewould havethought it appropriatefor beginnersin the faith
andthusaddedittoinstructionsforbaptism,theEucharist,andotheraspectsofchurchlife..."
This implies, of course,that Did. 1-5wasnot composedoriginally for the purposeof catechetical
instruction, but that this useof thesechapterswasthe resultof a secondaryadaptationof the text.
134 CHAPTER THREE
there is an elementof testing that is issuedto Jesusby the "scribes and
Pharisees"and the "Phariseesand Sadducees,"a testingwhich summarily
implicatesthe leadersof Judaismwith a legalisticrigor that is rejectedby the
gospelmessage. In chap.23 thesevery leadersare condemned,while in 28:16-
20 the disciplesare commissionedto evangelize the "nations," and thus are
provided with a new field of mission.
Various scholarshavesuggestedthat the specialcircumstancesunder which
the Matthean text was written indicatethat the Gospelaroseduring a "period
of intense hostility between Matthew's Christian community and the
synagogue'acrossthe street."'135From sucha setof circumstances the harsh
anti-Jewishpolemicof the work may be explained - and it is a fiercepolemic,
no matter how one may argue that an anti-Gentile bias also appearsin the
Gospel.The Sermonon the Mount, for example,containsseveral"tongue-in-
cheek" references to persecutionof the righteous(Matt 5:ll-12 IQI) and the
need for the righteous to surpassthe "scribes and Pharisees" in that
righteousness (Matt 5:20 IQI). From the redactor's sourceon almsgiving,
prayer and fasting, the theme of "hypocrites" is introduced (Matt 6:l-21
[M]). Elsewhere,Gentilesare acknowledgedto be the bearersof the true faith
in oppositionto the Jews,who bear the tradition of Israel'spatriarchs(Matt
8:ll-12 [developedfrom Q]); the Kingdom of God is promisedto a nation
other than Israel (Matt 2l:43 ldeveloped from Markl); the "scribes and
Pharisees"are violently denouncedwith sevenwoes(Matt 23 IM and Ql).
While the organizedstructure of the Matthean text has led many scholars
to speculatethat the redactor has instituted this polemic as some form of
"pedagogical function," this explanation does not appear to be entirely
satisfactory.Admittedly, in the Matthean schemathe "scribes and Pharisees"
may serveas the antithesisto the disciplesof Jesus.136But the polemic of the
Matthean redactor is understoodbetter for what it appearsto be. The redac-
tor faces a real and vibrant "trauma of separation from Judaism," the
presenceof which is suggestedby the following facetsof the Matthean text: 137
l) the missionof Jesusand his followersis directedto Israelas well as to the
nations;2) a strandof anti-Gentilebiasremainswithin the Gospel(e.g.,5:47;
6:7,32; 18:17;24:9);3)thereis an increaseduseof apocalypticthemesthat
are basedupon "external oppressionand internal dissension"(chaps.24-25).
Both the Didache and Matthean Gospel thus reveal signs of a shift of
thought, from a concernfor Judaismand Jewishtradition to a concernfor
GentileChristianity and the establishmentof a Hellenisticchurch community.
r35
Stanton,"Gospel,"266.Formuchof thefollowingargumentIamdependentuponthe
work of Stanton.
136Van
Tilborg, Leaders,26,98.
'"
SeeStanton,..Cospel,,,274-84.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS 135
This shift is perhapsin keepingwith the movementof thoughtthroughoutthe
first-centurychurch, but hereit at leastservesas a binding elementbetween
the two documents.
Vl/ordsand Phrases
Severalsignificantassociations betweenthe Didacheand the MattheanGospel
appearthrough the various languageand terminologythat is sharedby the
two texts. While suchwords and phrasesby no meansshouldbe considered
to be evidencethat one text hasborrowedfrom the other, their very existence
indicatesthat the redactorsof eachtext may havedrawn upon materialsfrom
a common tradition.
As is arguedabove,it is assumedherethat Did. l.3b-2.1reflectsa firsthand
knowledgeof the written Matthean Gospeltext, and therefore,that some
parallelsin terminologywith that Gospelare to be expected.On the other
hand, we havearguedthat the remainderof Did. l-5 derivesfrom that pre-
Gospelcommunitywithin which the Mattheanredactorwrote, and thus, there
is little surprisethat no "specificallyMattheanterminology" appearsin these
chapters.
ln Did. 7.I, 3 the hearer,/readeris exhortedto baptize"in the nameof the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," which again is an obvious
reflectionof the formula that appearsin the missionchargeof Matt 28:19.
ln Did. 8.2 and 10.5the ritual phrase"for thine is the power and the glory
forever" appearsin agreementwith numerousearly manuscriptsof the Mat-
thean Gospelthat attach some form of this phraseas a conclusionto the
Lord's Prayer.ln Did.8.6 one finds "Hosannah to the God of David," an
interestingvariationfrom the "Hosannahto the Son of David" of Matt 2l:9,
15, which perhapsbetrayseitheran ignoranceof the Mattheantradition or a
resistanceagainst early Matthean efforts to establishthe historical Jesus
within the messianictradition of Israel.
Thesefew key phrasesbetrayan awareness of the Mattheanliturgicaltradi-
tion within the secondarymaterialsof the Didache,which therebyat least
placethe textsin a streamof consciousness apart from the remainingSynoptic
Gospels.
The Witnessof Ritual and Tradition
The Didacheaddresses four topicsin chaps.7-10that traditionally are asso-
ciated with the concernsof community organization.Each topic is directed
toward a questionof "correct practice," and presumably,is dictatedby a
community tradition which has been receivedby the redactor of these
chapters.The role of thesefour topicsin relationto the tradition that is found
in the MattheanGospelis significantenoughfor considerationhere.
136 CHAPTER THREE
On Ritual Immersion
After the conclusion of the Two Ways instruction (chaps. l-5), and hence
after the conclusionof the earliestlayer of materials,the initial concernof the
Didacheis directedtoward the questionof baptismalritual. The text begins
with the conditionalchargetc,0tc n&vra npoern6weg,("after proclaimingall
of thesethings [publicly]"), which presumablyrefers to the chargeto the
catechumensthat appearsin chaps.l-5(6). Immediatelythereafterappearsthe
phrase
pondocreeiqrd 6vopoto0 natpdq,rai toOuioOrai ro0 dyiouzvefpotoq(7:l;
cf. 7:3c)
(baptizein the nameof the Fatherand of the Sonand of the Holy Spirit)
This type of Trinitarian languagesuggeststhe introduction here of a tradi-
tion that wasnot originally associated with chaps.l-5. In the previousmate-
rials, the only Christologicaltitle in use was that of Lord (rfproq), which
provided a nebulous term by which the hearer,/readercould understandall
suchusagesof the term as an indication either of the figure of Jesusthe Christ
(the more recent Christian understandingof the text) or of ilt;t' the God of
Israel(the older, more Jewishunderstandingof the text).138With the excep-
tion of 1.3-2.1,the possibilityof this "dual perception"of the sayingsis held
consistentlythroughout chaps. l-5.
The Trinitarian formula that is offered here (Did.7.l) readily suggestsa
dependenceupon the phraseologyof the Matthean Gospel (cf. Matt 28:19):
ponri(ovteqa0roDg, eig,td 6vopctoOnatpdg,rai ro0 uio6rqi ro0 dyiounve6-
poroq,
(baptizingthemin thenameof theFatherandof theSonandof theHoly Spirit)
It is uncertainas to whetherthe secondredactor of the Didachesimply has
drawn upon the sametradition asthat from whichthe Mattheanredactoralso
has borrowed,13eor whethers/he in fact reliesupon this particularform of
the text as it appearsin the Matthean Gospel.On the one hand, the formulaic
structure and the liturgical nature of the wording argue for the timelessness
of the phrasewithin the early Christiantradition.raogn the other hand, the
uniqueuseof this phrasein the MattheanGospel(in distinctionfrom the re-
mainingNT Gospels)and the specificassociationof the chargewith baptism
in both the Matthean text and the Didache argue for some form of direct
r3t From
this Meeksinfers that the presumedauthority figure behindthe text can be seeneither
as the figure of Cod or as the figure of Jesus,the sagewho revealsthe commandments
(ll/orld,150-51).
t3e
So for example, Kohler, Rezeption, 40-41.
'-"
Kelber, Gospel, 64-70.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS t37
dependenceby the redactor of the Didache. Theselatter criteria serveas the
focus of discussionfor S. E. Johnson(1946),who claims,with numerouscon-
vincing arguments,that the purposeof the Didachewas to serveas the prac-
tical application of this "Great Commission" from Matt 28:16-20.14r
Johnson'sthesis,if correct,has no direct bearingupon the ageof the mate-
rials that are preservedin chaps.l-5, but would substantiatethat the redactor
ofchaps. 7-15wasconcernedto respectthe authorityand the challengeofthe
Matthean text.
While the remainderof the discussionin Did. 7.2-3is an interestingwitness
to the early Jewishpracticeof baptismby running water, its applicationto our
presentreview is inconsequential.
On Fasting
In 7.4-8.1the questionof fastingbecomesthe centralfocus for the redactor.
As was mentionedabovein our discussionof l.3b-2.1, thereis a reasonable
possibility that the secondredactor was familiar with the text on almsgiving,
fasting and prayer that was usedby the Mattheanredactorin Matt 6:l-18.
Unlike the discussionof the Matthean text, however,the concernfor fasting
here is not that of fasting "in the mannerof the hypocrites," but is that of
fasting "with the hypocrites." To be sure, this is a distinctive step towards
defining the community of the Didachewith respectto Judaismand the syna-
gogue. One also finds here the exhortations against the custom of fasting
8eutdpgoappdt<rlvrai n6pncl ("Monday and Thursday") but for the prac-
tice of fasting on tetpti6o roi nupu,oreurlv("Wednesdayand Friday").
Again, as with the questionof baptismalritual, it is difficult to know whether
this chargestemsfrom a sourcethat also was usedby the Matthean redactor,
or whetherthesematerialswereconstructedaround the text in Matt 6:16-18.
In either case, the text of the Didache here shows a definite reflection of
materialsthat are peculiarto the MattheanGospel.
On Prayer
The issueof fasting is presentedin 7.4-8.1as a preludeto the questionof
prayer. The relationship of the two motifs again reflects that concern for
prayerwhich appearsin Matt 6:l-18 (thoughthe presentationin the Didache
is in reverseorder; but seeGos. Thom. l4). Little actually is said concerning
prayer in Did.8.2, exceptto outline as an authoritativepracticethe recitation
of the "Lord's Prayer" itself. Thesewords,which areparalleledvirtually ver-
of God
batim in Matt 6:9-13,are chargedto the catechumenas a prayerthat should
tot Johnson,
"Motive," 107-22.
138 CHAPTER THREE
be said three times daily (8.8), and are openly acknowledged to be the words
ra2
of the Lord (rriproq,), who here is defined specifically as Jesus.
As with the discussions and conclusions concerning baptism and fasting
above, one hardly can determine the source behind the Didache's version of
1a316" stylized form of the prayer offers no clear
the "Lord's Prayer."
evidence concerning a date for its usage (so the prayer in this form is well-
recognized even today), though the addition of 5tt oo0 docrv fl 66vcprg xoi
i 666cr eiq toiq oidlvag ("for yours is the power and the glory forever")
would seem to suggestthat the Didache recognizesthe longer, and therefore
presumably later, form of the prayer. Of additional concern here is the
possibility of direct influence by the Sayings Gospel Q. As was seen above,
the witness of the Lucan Gospel in l.3b-2.1 and chap. l6 continually offers
the Q source as a possible text that was used by a later redactor of the
Didache. With respect to the prayer in Did. 8.2, however, the literary struc-
ture of the piece reflects that of the Matthean Gospel to such an extent that
one probably need go no further than the composition of the Matthean text
for the source of the Didache's reading.
On Table Fellowship
Of primary concern to the secondredactor with respectto the preservation of
and comment upon community ritual and tradition is the question of table
fellowship. The issue arises in chaps. 9-10 in a complex association of key
words and phrasesthat are to be spoken with referenceto table fellowship oc-
casions. In addition to the witness of H at this point, we also can refer to the
testimony of the Coptic manuscript, which shows a divergence from the H
reading at several junctures. laa
As with the versions of the eucharist that appear in the NT Gospels and
ra2 Thus,
one reads in Did. 8.2: "And do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord com-
manded in his Gospel . . ." (pl6d rrpooe6leo0e cbg oi 0noxptrci, dl,l,' cbq,ixilreuosv 6 xriproq
6v tQ e0oyyel,irp a0ro0). While some scholars argue that the reference to gospel here and
elsewherein the Didache (cf. 11.3; 15.3-4) refers simply to the general "Good News" message,
I would argue that the late date of those passagesin which the term appears certainly would not
be inconsistent with the conclusions that the second redactor of the Didache reflects some
knowledge of the Matthean text here.
rar
For an interesting discussion of the Jewish elementsthat lie behind the construction of the
prayer, however, see Finkel, "Prayer," l3l-70.
re
Seespecifically on these materials the discussionsof Cibbins, "Problem," 373-86; Middle-
ton, "Prayers," 259-67; Dibelius, "Mahl-Gebete," 32-41; Lietzmann, Mass, 188-94; Riggs,
"Table," 83-102; and, Clayton N. Jefford and Stephen J. Patterson, "A Note on Didache 12.2a
(Coptic)" (SecCent) forthcoming. The monograph of Voribus on this subject (Traditions), while
sometimes far-afield in its approach, is not without merit. Helpful reviews of the Coptic text are
available in Horner, "Fragment," 225-31; Schrnidt, "Didache-Fragment, " 81-99; and, Audet,
Didachd.2S-34.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS 139
in the witnessof Paul (Matt 26:26-29;Mark 14:22-25;Luke 22:15-20;John
6:51-58;I Cor ll:23-25\, the Didacherevealsboth the elementsof the bread
and the cup, thoughtheseelementsarepresented in the reverseorder,i.e., cup
first and bread second.Unlike the NT versions,however,the Didachedoes
not revealthe ritualistic structureof the eucharist- neitherthe association
of the eventwith Jesusnor the associationof the specificelementsof the meal
with the body and blood of Jesus.This divergencefrom the Gospelaccounts
may best be explainedby one of two different scenarios.
Firstly, thereis a possibilitythat the accountof the eucharistwhich appears
in the Didachein fact is not a eucharisticmomentlike that of the Gospelsat
all. Instead,the Didache'srenderingmay reflectmore accuratelya witnessto
the "agape feast" of early Christianity.
Two objectionsariseagainstthis thesis.On the one hand, the so-calledand
well-known"agopefeast" is not so well documentedwithin the historicalrec-
ord. This argumentfrom silence,however,can hardly be consideredas suffi-
cient evidenceto deny the existenceof such an event in early Christian
tradition. To be sure, the elementsof the Didache'saccountare typically
Jewishin content:the referenceto the "Holy Vine of David" (9.2); the ad-
dressto God the Father(8.3; 10.2);the referenceto the "Holy Name" (10.2\;
the use of the phrase"God of David" (10.6);etc. In addition, the implica-
tions for a messianicunderstandingof the figure of Jesusare present,yet are
greatlysubdued(unlike that of the NT Gospelaccounts):"Jesusyour child"
(9.2,3; 10.2,3);"JesusChrist" (9.4);and, "Lord" (9.5).Without question,
however,thereis no apparentcommentupon the cross/resurrection theology
that is dominant in the NT Gospelaccounts.
The second objection to the "agope feast" concept derives from our
previousobservationsabout the ritual materialsin Did.7-8, i.e., that the en-
tire corpus of topics in the latter chaptersof the text have unquestioned
parallelsin the MattheanGospel.Therefore,this level of the Didachemust
be highly dependentupon the Mattheantradition. If this is so, as would seem
obvious, then one must explain the divergencebetweenthe accountof the
Matthean Gospeland the accountof the Didache.An explanationis forth-
coming basedupon the understandingthat chaps. 1-5 of the Didachehave
preservedmaterialsthat stem from the Matthean community as that com-
munity existedprior to the compositionof the Matthean Gospeltext. It is
quite likely that the secondredactorof the Didachehaspreservedin the com-
plicatedconstructionof chaps.9-10the reminiscence of a tablefellowshipthat
was known and usedwithin the earliestconfigurationsof the Mattheancom-
munity. This is to say that the Matthean redactor has not preservedthe
original form of table fellowshipthat was commonto his/her community(a
processwhich we have seenabovewith respectto the specificsayingsof the
historicalJesus),but instead,that the Mattheanredactoroncemore is depen-
t40 CHAPTER THREE
dent upon a tradition which was imported from outside of the community.
This tradition, of course, is borrowed directly from the Marcan text. There
is no question that the Matthean version of the eucharist is simply an elabora-
tion of the Marcan account.
The second scenario that also may serve as an explanation of the unique
nature of the Didache's table fellowship does not seek to explain the text as
a representation of a divergent practice from that which is found in the text
of the Matthean Gospel. Clearly the Didache preserves a series of ancient
Jewish prayers, which themselves have been Christianized into a context that
is suitable for table fellowship in the early church. In modern considerations
of the NT eucharist accounts we have grown accustomedto the understanding
that the "quoted words of Jesus" are the actual form of expressionwhich ac-
companied the ancient practice of liturgical ritual. This recognition has been
inherited through the interpretation of a long church tradition.
In fact, the NT accounts of the eucharist - though certainly highly for-
mulaic - do not necessarilyoffer the words that are to be spoken in accom-
paniment of the ritual itself. Instead, they only describe the process of the
ritual. One must ask, therefore, whether the Didache may not maintain the
specific words,/prayers which were meant to accompany that ritual as it was
practiced within the Matthean community. Such a thesis, of course, is only
a conjecture. But if the table fellowship motif of the Didache is to stand in
consistent association with the Matthean tradition (as do the motifs of bap-
tism, fasting and prayer which appeared before), this may seem a reasonable
explanation for serious consideration.
Some additional support for this conjecture is provided by the saying in
Did. 9.5b that parallels the saying of Matt 7:6:
Did. 9.5b - Mr1 6dtre td &yrov roiq, xuoi.
("Do not give anythingholy to the dogs")
Matt 7:6 - Mr1 66te td &yrovtoiq, ruoiv
("Do not give anythingholy to the dogs")
There is no question that this saying comes from the Matthean tradition,
since the basis for Matt 7:6 is the special Matthean M source. It is interesting
to note that the other saying in Matt 7:6 ("do not throw your pearls before
swine" [pn6d pd],nte tor)q papyopitoq 0pdlv 6pnpooOev rd)v )toipc,rv)is not
found in Did.9.5b, nor is the context for the Didache's version (those who
may eat of the eucharist) reflected in the Matthean account. Again, while it
is not possible to prove that the second redactor of the Didache has borrowed
directly from the Matthean Gospel, this saying does indicate some dependence
upon the Matthean tradition.
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS t4l
Christologyin Perspective
The Christologicalperspective of a writing/writer generallyservesas a ready
indicator of the theologicaldevelopmentof the religiouscommunity from
which the text derives.
The MattheanGospelpossesses one of the more well-developed Christolo-
giesof the NT corpus.It revealsa compilationof namesand appellationsfor
Jesusthat betraysat once both common titles of respectfor personsof re-
nown in the early Mediterraneanworld as well as specificlabelsthat were
restrictedto the holiestrepresentatives of God. Thus,in the Mattheantext one
discoversnamesfor the figure of Jesusthat weredrawn from amongthe M,
Q andlor Marcan materials.Among thesedesignations are "Christ" (Xpio-
toq; l:1 [from the redactor]),"Son of God" (6rdgtoO 0eo0;4.3 [from Q]),
"Lord" (niproq; 7:22lfrom Q]), "Teacher" (6r6tioxal"oq;8:19 [from the
redactorl),"Son of David" (0rdqAaui6;9:27 lfrom Markl), "Son of Man"
(0rdqtoO dv0pcirnou;ll:19 [from Q]), etc. In eachcasethe distinctivetitle is
attributedto the figure of Jesuswithout any confusion.
With respectto the Didache,however,an entirely different situation oc-
curs. The list of titles that appearswithin the documentis far more restrict-
ed than that list which appearswithin the MattheanGospel.The total listing
of suchtitles, which, as is providedhere,includesany namewithin the text
that could be appliedto the figure of Jesusor to the imageof God, includes
"Lord" (rtiproq), "God" (06oq,), "Paymaster" (d.vtc,no66t1q; 4.7),
"Father-Son-HolySpirit" (ndtpoq,-ui6q-&yioq nvefpctog), "Holy Vine of
David" (dyroqdpnel.oqAcuei6;9.1),"Child" (tdxvov [of God]), "Christ"
(Xpiotoq - from lprotdpnopoq ["one who usedChrist for gain"]; 12.5),
"Lord Almighty" (6eon6qq ncvtorpdt<op; 10.3);"God of David" (Oedq,
Aauei6; 10.6) and "Son of God" (uidg,0eo0; 16.4). While one notes im-
mediatelythat the bulk of thesetitles are reservedonly for the figure of God
"the Father," two other parametersto thesetitles must be observed.
Firstly, the use of the term "Lord" (rfproq,) is not distinctly defined
throughoutthe text with respectto the specificpersonothat is indicated.One
thus finds that usagesof the title generallymay be as applicableto the figure
of God the Fatherasto that of Jesus.Sincemuch of the materialthat is incor-
poratedinto the text of the Didacheis derivedeitherfrom OT sourcesor from
parallelJewishtraditions,in most casesit probablywould be more accurate
to assumethat the Didachistindeedrefers to the figure of God the Father
rather than to the figure of Jesus.
Secondly,thosetitles that are restrictedspecificallyto the figure of Jesus
as the messiahdo not appearin the earliestportions of the text. Thus there
are no suchusagesin chaps.l-5. Thosetraditionsthat may stemfrom earlier
sources(e.g.,chaps.9-10, 16)obviouslyincludesuchtitles asthey are provid-
ed from the hand of a later, "Christianizing" redactor.
142 CHAPTER THREE
It must be assumed, therefore, that the witness of a Christological stance
for the earliest layer of the Didache is an attestation for a very low
Christology. It is only under the attention of later redactors, who themselves
were concerned to adapt the theology of the Didache into a more meaningful
or theologically orthodox view, that the text was endowed with the benefits
and the privileges of a higher Christology (in the opinion of the redactors).
As with the remainder of those materials in the Didache that have been ad-
justed to coincide with the theological view of the Matthean text, so too, these
Christological terms must be seen in the light of that canonical Gospel.
Summory of Conclusions
The preceding seriesof investigations has served to reinforce the findings of
our initial textual study, i.e., that the text of the Didache contains a collection
of early sayingswhose roots may be traced to the influence of severaldifferent
sourceswithin the Judeo-Christian tradition. These sourcesappear to include
l) a tradition of sayings materials that were similar in nature to those
materials which were collected in the Sayings Gospel Q and in the Marcan
Gospel, 2) the OT, 3) the Synoptic Gospels in some final literary form (or
some harmony of those Gospels) and 4) a corpus of apocalyptic sayings,
whose origin is unknown.
The order in which these sayings sourceswere used to construct the text of
the Didache occurred in two primary stages:
l) The majority of "sayings materials" that are incorporated into the
Didache appearin Did. l.l-6.1a, which is a collectionof sayingsthat primari-
ly reflects a dependence upon the text of the OT and upon early Jewish
wisdom sourcesthat were preservedand interpreted within the early Christian
community. These sayings, with the exception of l.3b-2.1, are among the
oldest materials in the Didache. They do not include any elementsthat would
associate them specifically with the Christian tradition. The source(s) from
which this collection was derived and the original organization of these say-
ings materials are unknown.
The Didachist provided a format for these sayings through the use of the
framework that existed in the Two Ways source, which was an early literary
text that also was incorporated into Barn. l8-20. Becausemuch of this source
is paralleled verbatim between the Didache and Barnabas, scholars generally
agree that the Two Ways source was a written document, not an oral tradi-
tion. The Didachist incorporated the original collection of sayings materials
into the structure of the Two Ways source in accordancewith the order of the
various motifs that were suggestedby the source itself (as least as one can
determine from the witness to the Two Ways source that is preservedin Bar-
nabas).
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS 143
In addition,the frameworkof the Two Wayssourcewassegmented in order
to permit the Didachistto includean additional structuralguidelinefor the
sayings,i.e., the framework of the decalogue.The decisionof the Didachist
to utilizethe format of the decalogueprobablywasnot arbitrary, particularly
in considerationof the limited use of that text that appearsin later writers.
Instead,one must assumethat the presenceof the decalogue,which is used
as a literary authority through which the sayingsthemselves gain validity and
authoritativerecognition,reflectsthe Jewishorientationof the Didachist,as
well asthe communityfor whomDid. l.l-3a,2.2-6.|a initially wereconstruct-
,} ed.
f 2) The text of Did.7-15 wasaddedto the sayingsof Did. l.l-3a, 2.2-6.1a
$ at a later date.Thesematerials,which are primarily of a liturgicalor an eccle-
r'[ sial nature,includedformulaicsayingsthat easilycould havebeentransmitted
t in earlyChristiancommunitieswith little or no alteration.Because the general
nature of the texts in chaps. 7-15 is consistentwith parallelsthat occur
{
t throughoutthe SynopticGospels(and are consistentespeciallywith the paral-
lels that are preservedin the MattheanGospel),it must be assumedthat the
$ majority of thesematerialswere influencedby the written form of those
$
!
Gospelsor, at least, that thesematerialswere introducedinto the Didache
after the compositionof the Gospels.In distinctionfrom the collectedsayings
in chaps.l-5, a specificallyChristianemphasisis found throughoutthe mate-
rials of chaps.7-15. The sayingsof Did. l.3b-2.1 and 6.2-3 also may have
beenattachedto the structureof the Didacheat the time that chaps.7-15were
added,or they may havebeeninserteda short time thereafter.Did. l.3b-2.1
was includedto adjust the theologyof l.l-3a,2.2-6.1a toward a more
specificallyChristianperspective. Did. 6.2-3wasincludedin order to provide
a smoothtransitionbetweenthe materialsof l l-3a, 2.2-6.1aand 7.1-15.4.
The collectionof materialsthat is found in Did. 16, which is concernedto
characterize the eventof the return of Christ, is of sucha naturethat it cannot
be datedwith accuracy.The form and presentationof this collectionarethose
of apocalypticexhortation- an early oral and literary genrewhoseelements
were adaptedand altered continually accordingto the needsof the first-
secondcenturychurch. Specificsayingsin this collectionoften parallelmate-
rials that are containedeither in the Mattheanor Lucan Gospelsapart from
the remainingSynopticwitness.It is not known whethersomeof the sayings
in thesematerialsoriginally were associatedwith the sayingsof l.l-6.1a,
though there is no specificevidenceto support this assertion.
A historicalrationalebehindthe collectionof thesesayingsmaterialsis dif-
ficult to reconstruct.An analysisof the natureof the sayingsand of the form
of the attendantmaterialssuggests at leastthreestagesin a tradition of growth
within an early Christian community:
l) The original corpusof sayingsmaterialswas collectedby an early com-
IM CHAPTER THREE
munity of Christian Jews who continued to be influenced by the religious life
and thought of the first-century synagogue. Thus, the sayings are consistent
with materials that appear in the OT and in early Jewish thought. These say-
ings are dominated by and constructed around the structure of the decalogue,
which servesboth as a literary framework and as an axis for ethical instruc-
tion. Also evident in the sayings materials are traces of early Jewish wisdom
tradition and a concern for a land theology. The original collection of sayings
did not reflect the theological concerns of the later church (i.e., a developed
Christology, a discussion of ecclesialpolity, etc.), but instead, they probably
were envisioned as prophetic interpretations by Jesusthat were offered upon
the Jewish tradition.
2) This community of Christian Jews eventually was expanded by the addi-
tion of Christian Gentiles, for whom the significance of the OT in the light
of the Jewish tradition of interpretation may not have been as great. As the
community was enlarged through the influx of this latter group, the general
theological orientation of the community shifted toward a concern for the
kerygmatic gospel of the Hellenistic world. At this time, the original group of
Christian Jews probably became seenas the more conservative faction within
the community whose perspectiveof religion, which was dominated by Jewish
ideas and theology, quickly diminished into the minority view.
3) During the shift from a Jewish orientation to a Hellenistic orientation,
the community acquired the materials of the Marcan Gospel and of the Say-
ings Gospel Q, which were added to texts that were used within the communi-
ty. Many of the sayings materials that originally had been collected by the
early community of Christian Jews were paralleled in these two texts. Subse-
quently, persons within the community constructed a new text in the form of
a Gospel (i.e., the Matthean Gospel) that incorporated the old materials which
had been preservedby the community and the new materials which were add-
ed from the two outside sources. In most of those instances where it was
necessaryto choose between the incorporation of sayingsthat were contained
in the Sayings Gospel Q or the Marcan Gospel, on the one hand, and the in-
corporation of sayings that were preserved from the immediate community,
on the other hand, the authors of the Matthean Gospel opted for the former
materials.
4) With the new Gospel as an authoritative standard for the community, the
original collection of sayings materials (i.e., l.l-3b and 2.2-6.1a) was
transformed into a text that could be used for the instruction of catechumens.
At some time thereafter, the problems of hierarchy and of ecclesialstructure
that were associatedwith the shift from a Jewish orientation to a Hellenistic
orientation were resolved through the decision to incorporate the office of
"elder," which had been maintained from the days of worship in the
synagogue,into the office of "presbyter," which was suggestedfrom a three-
RELATED INVESTIGATIONS t45
tieredhierarchyof authoritythat commonlywasusedin Hellenisticcongrega-
tions. The materialsof Did. 7-15then were addedto the original collection
of sayings(perhapsin two separatephases[chaps.7-10and chaps.ll-15]) in
order to constructa manualof instructionfor thoseChristianJewswho need-
ed to becomefamiliar with the role and dutiesof the office of presbyter.Addi-
tional alterations( I .3b-6.I a and 6.2-3)weremadeto this manualon occasion
in order to adjust the theologyof the text to that of the Gospel,which had
becomethe authoritativestandardof the community.
5) With the eventualdemiseof the original communityof Christian Jews
through attrition and with the new prominenceof the new Gospelthat had
been fashionedwithin the community, the manual of instruction (or the
Didache)ultimately was relegatedto a position of neglect.
To be sure,this scenario,which seemsto suit the criteriaby which the text
of the Didacheand the text of the Matthean Gospelmay once have related
to one another,is not attesteddirectlywithin the historicaltradition. On the
other hand, suchan understandingof the traditio-historicaldevelopmentof
thesetwo texts appearsto explainthe majority of questionsconcerningthe
compositionand the redactionof the Didachetext.
With respectto "the new problem of the Didache" which was raisedin
Chapter One, the questionsof date and of provenancefor the text of the
Didacheare limited for the biblical scholaronly insofar as one can date and
placethe compositionof the MattheanGospel.The city of Antioch, with its
many divergentcommunitiesof Christiansand with its activeinflux both of
Jewishand Hellenisticthought, seemsa reasonableprovenancefor the text.
The formation of the original sayingsmaterialsthat appearin Did. l-5(16?)
and the associationof thosematerialswith the Two Ways sourcewith some
justification may be placedprior to the constructionof the MattheanGospel
(i.e.,certainlybeforeC.E. 80;probablybeforeC.E.7O;possiblyca. C.E. 50).
Most of the remainingmaterials(i.e.,Did.7-15) shouldbe datedto the com-
position of the Matthean Gospel or shortly thereafter (ca. C.E. 80-100).
Severalotherpassages, includingl.3a-2.1,6.2-3andmostof chap.16,cannot
be dated with accuracy,sincethey reflect concernsof the early church that
continuedinto the secondcenturv and bevond.
 AppENDrxA: e r3:23-24 (tr,tl.rr7:r3-t4/turcn ry:4-24) 147

eip61<opoq,fr 66dq t
dn<iyouoo eig,rrlv
dn<irl.erovroi)8 ( )'
APPENDIX A: Q 13:23-24(MATT 7:13-14/LIJKE l3:23-24)l , . - ' s-,
noirl,oi [ ]e TroAAOr, l^elo) Ul"irvl
(ei) tootv (oi)to [(4trloou]toorv ( )ro
Q 13:1231-24 eioe(p16pevor)ro eioe[1.0erv]
ro
(6r' o0tfrq,)" ( ) t t
t/ after 13:21;before 13:1251-26 12
[]" [roi o0r iol0oouorv]
l12 (ri otevrl fi mil.q roi
6 Enter
[ ]6 eioel,O[ate] Tlls
re0l.rpp6v4i 66dq
6rd tflq,otev{q,tttel'llftttpol through the narrow [[door]I fl drdyouoo
6tr ( )8 for eig tr1v (ronv)t' ()"
nol"l.oi ttl lell many 3,/1roi)3
((nqoou)roorv ( ) ro eioe(l,0eiv)ro will seekto enter 6l.iyor (eioiv)a
It() "ll oi (e0piorovregcr)oiv)'.
[]" \3 n3
( )tt 0.r
\or \
3/(xoi) 3 and
6l,iyor [[(eiorv)a]l few [[are]l Q 13:23-240: Is the pericopein Q?
oi (e0piorovteg,o0r1v)5. those who will find it. Luke and Matthew : Q
\3 Pro:
1t+ e 13:[25] Con:
Evaluation:
Matt 7zl3-14 Luke 13223-24 cJ 22 ii 88:
o ' ,/ or/
This issuehasnot beenarguedin the currentreconstruction.
The materialis assumed
[]' [Einev 66 oq, o0r@' rripre, ei]2 to be in Q.
t/()t

6l,iyor ( )a Q l3:23-24r;Position of l3:23-24in Q.

oi [oql(opevor]5
\,;
I ], [6 6i einev n pdq aitoriq,']2
6 6
1 16Eio6l,01ate)6 Idyrovi(eo0e] eioe],0[eiv]
6rd rnq otevfrq,(n)?6(l"11)7q' 6ro fiq, otevfrq,[0]?6[po]7q,
5tt (nl.areio f nril.q xoi 6tr
' The
following materials have been patterned along the guidelines for the examination of
those NT pericopae which have been determined to be Q passagesaccording to the criteria of the
Institute for Antiquity and Christianity's project "Q: A Lost Collection of Jesus' Sayings"
(directed by James M. Robinson). Variants in the text are marked by raised numerals (: r);
materials only in the Matthean Gospel are indicated within parentheses;materials only in the
Lucan Gospel are indicated within brackets; variations in position between texts are indicated
within slashes(=A). Because of the limitations of the present study, only e l3:23-24 is con-
sidered in the present analysis. The broader question of the complete Q 13.23-27 section, as it
has been defined by the project, has not been taken into consideration. In addition, Q 13:23-24
is analyzed as a single unit, since the division of the text into separateversesservesno immediate
purpose for the examination of the saying. Unlike the remainder of the study, in which transla-
tions are given for such sources, secondary sources have been left in their original languageshere
in order to insure accuracy in the presentation of scholarly considerations for each variant. Final-
ly, with respect to the text of the pericope, an examination of possible textual variations within
ancient manuscripts indicates that there are no known major deviations in the tradition which
would be pertinent for the present analysis.
Luke : Q: After Q 13:21;before Q 13:[25]-26.
Pro: Streeter1924,283: "But Luke's versioncomesin the middle of a sectionof
which the beginning(MustardSeedand Leaven),xiii. l8-21, the middle, xiii.28-29,
and the end, xiii. 34-35("Jerusalem,Jerusalem"),are certainlyQ, and of which, as
we shall seelater, much of the rest is probablyQ; the probability,then, is that Luke
herealso follows Q." Hirsch 1941,130:"So halte ich Luk 13 24-30frir einenin sich
geschlossenen Q-Abschnitt." Kilpatrick 1946,23:"We may, accordingly,assumethat
the evangelist[Matthew]has usedboth the Q sayingmuch as it appearsin Luke and
also a sayingabout the Two Ways from anothersource." Dupont 1958,94-95:"Les
vv. 23-24constituentune unit€ . . . elle doit avoir 6t6 fournie ir Luc par une tradition
ancienne,et tout porte a penserqu'elle lui a €td transmisepr6cis€mentcommein-
troductionaulogiod n u v . 2 4 . " L u z 1 9 8 5 , 3 9 5 7" :W e i l L k 1 3 , 2 3 - 2 9 i n M t 7 , l 3 f . 2 2 f ;
8,llf fortlaufendbenutztwurde." Reconstructions: Harnack 1907.ET 142.Edwards
1976,xii. Polag 1979,68-69.Crossan1983,338 and 345.
Con: Schmid1930,243:"Die Lk-Parallelenstehenwiederumbeisammen (Lk l3 23-
27) in einemAbschnitt, dessenEinheitlichkeitdurch mehrereSpningeim Gedanken-
gangausgeschlossen wird." Fitzmyer1985,1022:"There is no certaintythat vv. 24-29
formeda unit in 'Q."'
Matt : Q: After Q 6:31(Matt 7:12);beforeQ 6:43(Matt 7:18).
Pro: Hirsch 1941,88:"Der Q-Abschnitt,ausdem siestammt,ist bei Matth ganz
aufgelcistworden(Luk l3 23-30).Ftir die erstenVersediesesAbschnitts(Luk 13 23-24)
hatteMatth in seinerMaS-Rede[M] von wahrerGesetzeserfi.illung eineDublette. . ."
148 APPENDTXA: Q 13:23-24 (MATT 7:r3-r4/LVKE 13:23-24)
129:".. . wir habenftir die zu24 l: Matth 7 13-141 eineLuk unbekannte Vorlage
desMatth, MaS [M], angesetzt, und fur diezt 25 [ : Matth 25 l0-l2ll ist einesolche
Vorlageselbstverstiindlich. Wenn Matth dieseVersein Q-Fassungfand, so hat er sie
wegender reicherenEntsprechungseinerandern Vorlage weggelassen." Beare 173:
"the wording is so different as to suggestthat the Evangelistshave drawn upon two
different sources."Morgenthaler1971,192.
Con: Kilpatrick 1946,23: "The verbaldifferencesmake possiblethe view that the
evangelist[Mt] hasemployedtwo sources,but the presence of a substantialdifference
givesthis view greaterprobability. The rhythmic structureof the sayingin Matthew
differs from the Lucan form of the saying and this fact may support the suggestion
that two sourceshavebeenconflated.We may, accordingly,assumethat the evangelist
'The new Torah proper is then enforcedby
has usedthe Q sayingmuch as Knox 3l:
a seriesof warnings(Matt. vii.l3ff.); it is probablethat Matthew had in mind the
warningsand promiseswith which Leviticusand Deuteronomyconcludetheir versions
of the Torah (Lev. xxvi.3-end,Deut. xxviii-xxx).For this purposehe detachesfrom
their originalpositionthe sayingson the narrow gate,which in Luke appearin the col-
lection of sayingsx11i.22ff., which appearsto be a Lucan compilation of unattached
material."' Lambrecht1985,185.Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET 142.Edwards
1976,xii. Polag 1979,68-69.Crossan1983,338 and 345.
Evaluation:
CJ 18 ii 88: [Bl, After Q 13:21;beforeQ 13:[25]-26.
The majority view of scholarshipargueseither that the Lucan redactorhaspreserved
this sectionin the order of Q or, conversely,that the Matthean redactor has not done
so. The sequence of materialsin the Lucan and Mattheantextsis the same,which in-
dicatesa knowledgeof a common sourcethat was usedby eachredactor. In addition,
the position of the Matthean versionof this Q sayingmay havebeeninfluencedby its
associationwith another saying(the Two Ways) and may havebeeninfluencedby the
sourcefrom which this secondsayingwas derived(seethe discussionof variants 8 and
13below;. The natureof this possibleinfluenceby a secondsaying,however,cannot
be known from the availabledata.
Q 13:23-242:Luke's introduction with a question and answer.
Luke -- Q: lEinev 66 trq o0rQ rfpre, eil2 3/173 lLiyor ( )a oi [o<p(6pevor] s\3; 6d
[6
einev npdg,oitofg,l2:
Pro: Schmidt1930,244:"Daftir behaltaber Lk das Plus der Situationsangabe (13
23), die man doch nicht als aus dem Text des Sprucheserschlossene freie Erfindung
desEvangelisten bezeichnen darf." Manson 1937,124:"v. 23 may well be part of Q.
Cf. Lk. 9:57-62for similar openings."Marshall 1978,563:". .it is possiblethat it
constitutedthe originalintroductionto the saying(Lucan:Bultmann,359f.; Dibelius,
162. . .; Flender,81f . . .)"; 564: "The introductoryformula may be pre-Lucan,but
this is not certain.For ei introducinga direct questioncf.22:42;22:49i Acts l:6; et
al . . . . The word'few'appearsin Mt.7:14; this suggests that eitherLuke (or his
source)constructedthe questionout of Jesus'answer,or the answerin its Matthaean
form is basedon the questionposedin Lk."
Con: B. Weiss1876,214l."Yor Allem abermussich jetzt (andersa. a. O. S. l25ff.)
annehmen,dassdem Abschnitt Luc. 13, 22-30ein echtesRedesttickder Quellezu
Grundeliegt, dassich sehrpassendan die Parabelnv. l8-21, wie diesean v. l-9 (Vg.
S. 32),anschloss, obwohl Luc., der diesenZusammenhang durchdie Einschaltungvon
v. 22 und die in seinerWeisegebildeteZwischenfrage v. 23 durchschnittenhat, ihn
sichtlichnicht mehr erkannte." 1907.941:"Was bei Lk. 13-22dazwischensteht.ist
AppENDrxAi e r3i23-24 (ur,rr 7:r3-r4/wrcn r3:23-24) 149
eine bei ihm mehrfach wiederkehrende Erinnerung daran, dass Jesussich immer noch
in dem Umherreisen befand, dessenZiel Jerusalemwar, wie es Lukas in seinem zweiten
Teile schildert. Dieselbe will, wie das 6t6<iorov zeigt, 13, 26, und wie das nop.
noto0p. eiq iepoo. zeigt, 13,33 vorbereiten, woraus folgt, dass ihm alles folgende (13,
24-33) in Q vorlag. Dagegen ist Lk. 13, 23 eine der dadurch notwendig gewordenen
Ubergangsfragen,wie wir sie aus 12,41. 17,37 bereits kennen, und zwar genau wie
dort, durch rfpre eingeleitet, in der noch deutlich in dem ei 6l.iyor oi orp(6pevor eine
Reminiszenzan den folgenden Spruch aus Q anklingt." Miiller 1908, l3-14: "Neubil-
dungen des Lk, entweder unter Benutzung von nicht vdllig ribernommenen Versen aus
Mk, Q oder S, oder aus dem Inhalte des vorhergehendenoder nachfolgenden Zusam-
menhangesheraus, sind . . .13:23 Einleitungsfragezum Folgenden." Haupt 1913,
258. Bussmann 1929,22: vs.24 alone is from Q. 77: ". .. v. 23 ist vielleichteine aus
dem folgenden Wort erschlosseneFrage, die L gebildet hat, aber v. 24 ist in Mt
erweitert." Hirsch 1941, 130: " Der Vers 23 gibt dem ganzen Strick eine etwas andre
Beleuchtung, als es an sich hat; er dient sachlich dazu, aus einer Drohnung gegen
jiidische Zeitgenosseneine Lehre fi.ir Christen zu machen." Beare 1962,67: ". . .he
[Luke] has provided it with an artificial setting." Schulz 1972a,310: "Die Umfor-
mungen des Lk lassen sich weitgehend aus dem unmittelbaren Kontext erkldren: Lk
13,22-30ist eine aus verschiedenentrad Materialien red komponierte eschatologische
Rede des Lk . . . Auch V 23 diirfte von Lk stammen. Das Vokabelmaterial ist
wiederum lk: eizev 66; xripre; o<il(ervbei Lk oft ohne Objekt als Terminus technicus
fiir das Heil; 6 66 hiiufig im Dialog; einev npog + Akk ist eine typisch lk Konstruk-
tion.6l"iyoq ist mriglicherweiseNachklang der Mt-Fassungdes Logions Mt 7,13f, wo
das Stichwort 6liyoq vorkommt." Edwards 1976, l3l: "Luke's introduction creates
an apophthegm . . . Marshall 1978, 563: "The question in v. 23 may have been com-
posed by Luke as an introduction to the following saying . ." Jeremias 1980, 231:
"einev 66: ist lukanisch - Red - ei: die selteneKonstruktion: ei als Fragepartikel vor
direkter Rede (unklassisch,Septuagintismus)begegnetim NT abgesehenvon Mt 12,10;
1 9 , 3u n d M k 8 , 2 3 a u s s c h l i e s s l i ci m
h D o p p e l w e r kL k 1 3 , 2 3 ;2 2 , 4 9 / A p g 1 , 6 ; 7 , 1 ; 1 9 , 2 ;
21,37;22,25, wird also von Lukas nicht ungern geschrieben. . . fip6q c. acc.: nach
Verbum dicendi J Red . . . rfpre: als Anrede des irdischen Jesus ist vorlukanischer
Sprachgebrauch- Trad." Schmithals1980, 155: "Erst Lukas hat dem ganzenStiick
einen Eingangsrahmengegeben (Y.22f .; vgl. 8,1; 9,51; 12,13.41).Die Frage V.23
verschiebt leicht den Sinn von V.24: Nicht mehr wird nur zur Entscheidung aufge-
rufen, Lukas weist auch und vor allem auf die Schwierigkeit dieser Entscheidung hin,
der nur wenige wirklich gewachsensind; 'ihr musst euch anstrengen' stammt erst von
Lukas (nach Mark. 10,26?,vgl. l.Tim.6,1l f.; 2.Tim. 4,7f .), der damit mdglicherweise
auch einem Missverstdndnis der beiden in V.18-21 vorangehenden 'universellen'
Gleichnissevorbeugenwill." Steinhauser1981, 149: "Der redaktionelleSatzLk 13,22
(vgl. Lk 8,1) setzt den lukanischen Reisebericht fort. In Vers 23 leitet Lukas drei Her-
renworte 13,24.26f .28f ein; der Vers enthdlt typisch lukanische Wendungen. einev 56
ist charakteristisch lukanisch. xripre als Anrede an Jesus finden wir oft bei Lukas.
Auch o<b(ervohne Objekt kommt bei Lukas als Terminus technicus frir das Heil vor.
einev np6q mit dem Akkusativ ist ebenfalls lukanische Konstruktion. Deshalb ist die
Meinung, Lukas hatte durch die Uebernahme der Frage in Vers 23 die Situation des
Logions erhalten, unwahrscheinlich. Lukas hat 6l.iyoq aus Mt 7,13f bei der For-
mulierung der Frage angewendet." Denaux 1982, 318: "Lk hat seinerseitsdem
ursprtinglichen Logion eine erzdhlende Einleitung vorangestellt." Fitzmyer 1985,
l02l; ". . . fashioned by Luke himself to introduce the traditional material which
follows." Lambrecht 1985, 196: "The introductory verseLk 13:23is probably entirely
150 APPENDTXA: Q r3i23-24 (MArr 7ir3-r4/LUKE 13:23-24)
Lucan redaction, although the 'few' may have come from Q. " Kloppenborg 1987, 223
n.213: "the presenceof several Lucanisms . . . makes it more probable that l3:23 is
a Lucan construction." Reconstructions: Harnack 1907, ET 142. Polag 1979, 68-69.
Denaux 1982,322,327. Kloppenborg 1988, 246.
Matt:Q:'tltn'[]'
Pro: Reconstructions:Harnack 1907,ET l42.Polag1979,68-69. Schenk 1981,102.
Steinhauser1981, 152.
Con: Dupont 1958, 100: ". . . Matthieu a connu l'introduction de Luc, 13,23 etl'a
omise; il n'est pourtant pas n6gligeable quand on sait par ailleurs que Matthieu ne
pouvait pas reprendre cette introduction dans le Sermon sur la montagne."
Evaluotion:
CJ 18ii 88: {A}, [ ]' n' [ ]'
The Lucan question-answer introduction is a typical construction for the redactor.
Further, v 23 contains numerous Lucanisms, which suggeststhat the redactor has
chosen to formulate a specific setting for the introduction of the Q saying which imme-
diately follows.
Q 13223-243:Position of the "many" in reference to the "few." Luke has them
before the "many"; Matthew mentions them after reference to "many."
2 3/(
Luke : Q: lEinev 66 trq a0tQ'Kupre, el )'6liyor ( )a oi [orp(6pevor]5\3; . . .
12.( 3 Spruchesbewahrthabendrirfte, die Lk verkiirzt hat, wird vor allemdurch den streng
[roi o0r iolrioouorv] )13 n
Pro:
Con: Haupt 1913,258. Bussmann 1929,77: "Das orix iolfoouorv wird L vielleicht
frir o0r e0prloouorv geschrieben haben." Fitzmyer 1985, l02l: ". . . fashioned by
Luke himself to introduce the traditional material which follows." Reconstructions:
Harnack 1907, ET 142. Polag 1979, 68-69. Denaux 1982, 322, 327.
Matt : Q: ll'n ' 3,z1ro.i;36]"iyor
[ ]'(. . .ft 6Sdq ft dzrtiyouoc eiq clv (oritv)tt
(eioiv)a oi (eipioroweq aOtr1v)5.\3
Pro: Schmid 1930,243-44: "Dass Mt 7 l3f die ursprringliche Fassung des ersten
Spruches bewahrt haben diirfte, die Lk verkiirzt hat, wird vor allem durch den streng
durchgeftihrten Parallelismus nahegelegt." Reconstructions: Harnack 1907, ET 142.
Polag1979,68-69. Schenk 1981,102. Steinhauser1981,152.Kloppenborg 1988,246.
Con: Lambrecht 1985, 196: "Moreover, [Matthew] sets the 'many' (the crowd) in
opposition to the 'few' (cf. Lk 13:.23)."
Evaluation:
CJ18ii88: {A} []'n'tl'...ft 66dqf,dntiyouoaeiq,tilv(roilv)t'3,z1roiy36].iyor
(eioi.v)aoi (eipioxovteq, qiqv) 5.\3
The position of the "many" and "few" is determined primarily by the decision con-
cerning the originality of the question-answer introduction in the Lucan version (see
the discussionofvariant 2 above). The Matthean version thus is the preferred reading.
Q l3:23-244t Matthew's use of eioiv.
Luke : Q: 6Lryor ( )a oi torp(6pevorl 5
Pro: Jeremias 1980, 23120-22'tt - Das Fehlen von eivor als Kopula ist zwar dem
klassischenGriechisch nicht unbekannt, ihm jedoch liingst nicht so geldufig wie den
semitischen Sprachen, in denen das Fehlen der Kopula iiberaus gebrduchlich ist. Das
Phdnomen begegnetreichlich im lukanischen Doppelwerk, aber in ganz unterschiedli-
cher Streuung. So finden sich in der Apostelgeschichtenur 27 Belege, in auffdlligem
Kontrast dazu aber allein in der lukanischen Kindheitsgeschichte22; da die Apg genau
10 mal so umfangreich ist wie die Kindheitsgeschichte,wdren bei gleicher Proportion
AppENDrxA: Q r3:23-24 (rrrarr 7:r3-t4/wlrn ry:23-24) l5l
nicht weniger als 220 Belegein der Apg zu erwarten. Es kann kein Zweifel daran
bestehen,dassdie Hdufung der Belege(unsereStelle,Lk 1,5,bietezwei)als unlukani-
schersemitisierender Sprachgebrauch anzusprechen ist. DiesesErgebnisbestdtigtsich,
wennman den von Lukasubernommenen Markusstoffftir sichanalysiert.An minde-
stens2l Stellenin diesenMarkuskapitelnstiessLukasauf dasFehlenvon Formenvon
eivor.Er liessvon ihnensiebenpassieren, offensichtlich,weil sieihm stilistischvertret-
bar erschienen; aber an 14 Stellenbeseitigteer die Ellipse.N. Turner hat richtig beo-
bachtet,wenner feststellte:'Luke prefersthe copulaon everypossibleoccasion,apart
from set phrases,titles, and a few exclamationsand questions'[Moulton-Turner,
Grammar III 3041.Das heisst:die Weglassung der Kopula ist im allgemeinenKenn-
zeichender vorlukanischenTradition, da Lukas die Kopula nach M<iglichkeitnicht
streicht,sondernzufiigt. Im LkEv findensich9l Fiillevon fehlenderKopula;alsvorlu-
kanischist vor allem das Fehlenvon Formen von eivsr bei Demonstrativa,in Aus-
rufen, in sprichwortartigen Sentenzen sowiein Lob- und Segensspriichen anzusehen,"
Reconstructions: Polag 1979,68-69.
Con: Fitzmyer1985,l02l:. ". . . fashionedby Luke himselfto introducethe tradi-
tional materialwhich follows." Haupt 1913,258.Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET
142.Denaux 1982,322, 327.
Matt : Q.' 61,i1or(eioiv)aoi (e0piorovteq,orlniv)s.
Pro: Schmid 1930,243-M: "Dass Mt 7 l3f die ursprtinglicheFassungdes ersten
durchgefi.ihrtenParallelismusnahegelegt."Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET 142.
Schenk1981,102.Steinhauser1981,152.Kloppenborg1988,246.
Con: Reconstructions: Polag 1979,68-69.
Evaluation:
CJ 18 ii 88: {C}, 6tr"iyor(eioiv)aoi (e0pioxovteqoriciv)s.
While thereis insufficientevidenceto makean informeddecision.the Lucanredac-
tor may havealteredthe text in the processof constructingthe introduction.Thereis
no apparentrationalefor such an alterationon the part of the Mattheanredactor.
Luke's predicationfor the few, "being saved," or Matthew's "finding
Q l3:23-24s2
It. "
Luke = Q: 6Liyor ( )a oi [orp(6pevorl5
Pro:
Con: Haupt 1913,258.Fitzmyer1985,1021:". . . fashioned by Luke himselfto in-
troducethe traditionalmaterialwhich follows." Reconstructions: Polag 1979,68-69.
Denaux 1982,322, 32'7.
Matt : Q.' 6l,iyor (eioiv)aoi (e0pioxovteqarirnv)5.
Pro: Schmid 1930,243-44:"Dass Mt 7 l3f die ursprringlicheFassungdes ersten
Spruchesbewahrthabendrirfte, die Lk verkiirzt hat, wird vor allem durch den streng
durchgefiihrtenParallelismus nahegelegt."Reconstructions: Polag 1979,68-69(e0p{-
oouorv).Schenk1981,102.Steinhauser 1981,152.Kloppenborg1988,246.
Con:
Evaluation:CJ l8 ii 88: {A}, 6liTor (eioiv)aoi (eipioroweg, o0rr!v)5.
The predicationfor "being saved" or "finding it" is determinedprimarily by the
decisionconcerningthe originalityof the question-answer introductionin the Lucan
version(seethe discussion of variant 2 above).The assumptionis that the Lucanredac-
tor haschangedthe Mattheanreadingin orderto makemore specificthe natureof the
questionthat is addressed to Jesus.On the other hand, the future tenseof the Lucan
verb is preferredin the saying(seethe discussionof variant robelow;,which suggests
r52 APPENDTXA: Q 13..23-24 (MATT 1:r3-r4/LUKE 13:23-24)
that Polag's e0prioouorv may be the most accurate reading of the text. To be sure, the
Lucan redactor has abandoned the metaphor of "seeking" and approaches the issue
of salvation directly.
Q 13:23-2462Luke's verb and complementary infinitive or Matthew's verb.
Luke -- Q: [&yawlea0e]6 eioel,0[eiv]6
Pro: B. Weiss 1907, 94: "Wenn er mit dem dyovi(eo0e eioel.0eiv 6ro t. otevflq,
00poq,begann, so haben wir hier im Zusammenhang von Q noch deutlich die konkrete
Beziehung des Spruchs, die in dem sio6?"0ate 6td {q, otevflq r6X,qq, Mt. 7, 13
verlorgen gegangenist." Denaux 1982,324: "'dycovi(eoOor ist in den Evangelien sonst
nicht belegt und wird auch von Lukas nur an dieser Stelle verwendet, so dass von der
Wortstatistik her die Frage der Redaktion nicht entschiedenwerden kann,' so sagt mit
Recht P. Hoffmann, der das Wort nachher dann doch aus anderen Gninden der Lk-
Redaktion zuschreibt [Paul Hoffmann, "fftivreq, ipyriror d6rrioq,: Redaktion und
Tradition in Lc 13 22-30" ZNW 58 (196'l): 188-2141.In diesem Fall wtirde das
lukanische dyovi(eoOe gemdss unserer Sehweise ein urspriinglicheres (Iteite oder
(rlrrlotite ersetzt haben. Die Argumente Hoffmanns kcinnen aber ebensogut fiir die
'Das Bildwort vom ethi-
Anwesenheit des Wortes in Q angeftihrt werden. Zuniichst:
schen Agon war in der hellenistischenDiatribe verbreitet und wurde sowohl von der
jiidischen als auch von der urchristlichen Pardnese aufgenommen.' Warum konnte
dann der Q-Redaktor dieses geliiufige Bildwort nicht schon aufgenommen haben?
Zweitens: Die Zusammenordnung von Ethik (vgl. das Agonmotiv in der Aufforde-
rung) und Eschatologie (vgl. die Future in der Begriindung) stimmt mit der theologi-
schen Konzeption des Lukas im allgemeinen iiberein. Gilt nicht daselbe fiir den
Q-Redaktor? Man darf demnach die Moglichkeit nicht von vornherein ausschliessen,
dass Lk den Imperativ dytovi(eo0e schon in Q vorgefunden hat." Reconstructions:
Denaux 1982,322,327.
Con: Harnack 1907, 67: ". . . St. Luke gives only an extract, wherein, however, he
develops the teaching by means of dyrovieo0e and (loioouorv ." Schllz 1972a,
310: "Schon das zusammengesetztedyalvi(eoOe eioel,0eiv ist sicher sek gegeniiber
eio6,l"0otebei Mt. Vom ethischen Agoon spricht auch die hellenistischeDiatribe, und
Lk gestaltet im Sinne einer 'verbreiteten paranetischenTradition' um und akzentuiert
ethisch." Jeremias 1980,232: "d1covi(opor wird im NT nur Lk 1,24 mit dem Infinitiv
konstruiert." 93: "Die Ergtinzung von Verben durch einen Infinitiv ist ein dem klassi-
schen Griechisch geliiufiger Sprachgebrauch, der jedoch im hellenistischenGriechisch
weithin durch die Konstruktion mit rvo und otr verdrdngt wird." Steinhauser 1981,
149: "dy<rlvi(eo0s eioel,Oeiv ist gegenuber eiofl,0ote in Mt 7,13 als sekundiir an-
zusehen." Reconstructions: Harnack 1907, ET 142. Polag 1979, 68-69.
Matt : Q: llu Eio6l.0(ore)6
Pro: Schmid 243-44: "Dass Mt 7 13f die urspriingliche Fassung des ersten Spruches
bewahrt haben drirfte, die Lk verktirzt hat, wird vor allem durch den streng durchge-
ftihrten Parallelismus nahegelegt." Reconstructions: Harnack 1907, ET 142. Pohg
1979, 68-69. Schenk 1981. 102.
Con:
Evaluation:
cJ l8 ii 88: tBl, [ ]6 Eio6],e(ore)6
The use of the verb with the complimentary infinitive appearsto be a stylistic prefer-
ence of the Lucan redactor. There is no specific reason to argue against the construc-
tion that is offered in the Matthean version.
AppENDrxA: e r3:23-24 (rrrarr 7:r3-r4/rurn ry:23-24) 153
Q 13223-247:. Luke's "door" or Matthew's "gate."
Luke : Q.' 6td dq, orevfrg [0]7ri[pc]7g,,
Pro: J. Weiss1907,297: "Yon diesemSpruchgebilde hat Lukas nur die ersteMah-
nung . . . Bei Matthatisist mit dem Bildevon der engenPforte dasim Judentum(Jer.
21,8)und Urchristentumhdufige. . . von den zwei Wegenverbunden. . ." Duponl
1958,95: "Nous pouvonsajouter qu'il [Luke] a trouv6 le logion d la placeoir il le
transmet,car il s'y rattacheat v. 24 suivant le proc6d6archaiquedu mot-agrafe
(0tipo), qu'on n'attribuerapas facilementi Luc." Marshall 1978,563: "No certain
answerto the problemofpriority canbe given,and the possibilityof separate develop-
mentsin the tradition is perhapsmost likely"; 565: "It seqmshighly improbablethat
if Luke had known of the metaphorof 'the way' in Mt. he would haveomittedit; on
the other hand, thereis nothingto suggestMatthaeanformulationof the metaphorin
Mt. The samebasicthought of the narrow entrancehas beendevelopedin two dif-
ferent ways, probably in Christiancatechetical usage."
Con: Harnack 1907,ET 68: "St. Luke thinks of the door of a house." Bussmann
1929,77:Accordingto Harnack, "L bietenur einenAuszugund habe darum nril,rl
in 0fpo geiindert,weil er die Strassefortgelassen habe." Schulz1972a,310: "Frir die
Ersetzungvon nfl,q durch OriposprechenArgumente aus dem unmittelbarenKontext
(s u). 0r1poist daniberhinausein von Lk hdufiggebrauchtes Wort." Schmithals1980,
154:"V. 24 differiert sprirbarvon der ParalleleMat. 7,13f., die nebendie Metapher
von der engenTrire (sekundiir)das Bild vom schmalen(und von breiten)Weg setzt.
Die Metaphervon der Tiire begegnetauch 4.Ezra 7,3ff." Steinhauser1981,149-50:
"Der Evangelist[Luke] formuliert ethischund fordert seineLeserauf, alle Kraft ein-
zusetzen,um durch die Tiire (sc.in den Festsaal) einzutretenund am eschatologischen
Mahl teilzunehmen.In diesemZusammenhang ist deshalb06po gegeniibernril,4 bei
Matteusals sekunddranzusehen. Die ErsetzungdesWortesnfl"q (dasStadttor)durch
Orlpo(die Hausttir)verkniipft Vers24 mit dem folgendenVers25. Damit ist auchdas
Fortlassenvon 666q bei Lukas erkldrt." Fitzmyer 1985, l02t: "The Lucan form
speaksonly of a 'narrow door,' and it is linked to vv. 25-27aby catchwordbonding;
both haveto do with a'door.'Luke may havemodifiedhis sourceto createthis
bond." Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET 142.Polag 1979,68-69.Denaux 1982,
322,327.
Matt : Q.' 6rd rflq otevfrg (n)?6(l"n)?q.
Pro: Harnack 1907,ET 68: "Q and St. Matthewthink of the gateof a city." Schmid
1930,243-44:'lDassMt 7 13f die ursprtinglicheFassungdeserstenSpruchesbewahrt
habendtirfte, die Lk verkrirzthat, wird vor allem durch den strengdurchgefiihrten
Parallelismus nahegelegt."Marshall 1978,563:"No certainanswerto the problemof
priority can be given,and the possibilityof separatedevelopments in the tradition is
perhapsmost likely." 565: "It seemshighly improbablethat if Luke had known of
the metaphorof 'the way' in Mt. he would haveomittedit; on the other hand, there
is nothing to suggestMatthaeanformulationof the metaphorin Mt. The samebasic
thought of the narrow entrancehas beendevelopedin two different ways, probably
in Christiancatechetical usage."Schmithals1980,154:"V. 24 differiert spiirbarvon
der ParalleleMat.7,l3f ., die nebendie Metaphervon der engenTiire (sekundiir)das
Bild vom schmalen(und von breiten)Weg setzt.Die Metaphervon der Tire begegnet
auch4.Ezra 7,3ff." Steinhauser1981,l5l: "Die urspninglicheFassungdesLogions
hat mit der Anrede begonnen:eio6l,0ore6rd rfrq otevflq nrll,qq,."Reconstructions:
Harnack 1907,ET 142.Polag 1979,68-69.Schenk1981,102.
Con: Streeter1924,283-84:. "But the words { n6},q ("ls the gate") are omittedin
Matthew on their second(N Old Lat.) and third (544 Old Lat.) occurrence.If this
 t54 APPENDTXA: Q 13:23-24 (MArr 1:r3-r4/LUKE 13:23-24)
readingis original,Q had the Lucansayingabout "the narrowgate," M had one quite
different - the antithesisbetweenthe "broad and the narrow woys." (The contrast
of the Two Waysoccursin the Didacheand elsewhere.) MatthewhasconflatedQ and
M." Bussmann1929,77: "Aber wenn Mt erweiterthat, wie nach seinemsonstigen
Verfahren wahrscheinlicherist, dann hat er um der Strassewillen die Trir in ein Tor
verwandelt." Beare1962,174:". . . in Matthew, we beginwith the slight changefrom
a 'narrow door' to a 'narrow gate."' Denaux1982,322:"Die ZufrigungdesWegmo-
tivs veranlassteMt das Q-Wort 06po (vgl. die Stichwortverbindung in Lk 13,24.25)
durch die Vokabelnfl.n zu ersetzen."Lambrecht1985,196:"Matthew hasaddedthe
way-motif, so he changedthe 'door' into the 'gate."'
Evaluation:
CJ l8 ii 88: {C), 6to fig, orevflq(0)?ri(pa)?q'
While thereare sufficientargumentson both sidesof the issueto suggestthat one
redactoror anotherhas changedthe original wording of the Q saying,the Matthean
version probably has beeninfluencedby its assocationwith another saying (the Two
Ways;seethe discussionof variant 2 aboveand variants8 and 13below).Further,the
original position of the saying with respectto the order of the Lucan text (seethe
discussionof variant l above)suggests that the term "door" would have beenused
consistently.
Q l3:23-24E:Matthew'sdescriptionof the path to destruction.
Luke : O..6n ( )8
Pro: J. Weiss1907,297: "Yon diesemSpruchgebilde hat Lukas nur die ersteMah-
nung . . . Bei Matthaiisist mit demBilde von der engenPforte dasim Judentum(Jer.
21,8)und Urchristentumhdufige. . von den zwei Wegenverbunden. . ." Marshall
1978, 563: "No certain answerto the problem of priority can be given, and the
possibilityof separatedevelopments in the tradition is perhapsmost likely"; 565: ..It
seemshighly improbablethat if Luke had known of the metaphorof ,the way' in Mt.
he would haveomitted it; on the other hand, there is nothing to suggestMatthaean
formulation of the metaphorin Mt. The samebasicthought of the narrow entrance
has beendevelopedin two different ways,probablyin christian catechetical usage."
Reconstructions:Polag 1979, 68-69.
Con: Harnack l9o7, ET 68: "St. Luke has written Oripofor nril,q, becausehehas
omitted 'the way' . ." Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET 142.Denaux 1982,322,
327.
Matt : Q: 6rr (nl,cteia f nril,q roi e0pri1<opoqi 66oq f1 dnriyouoo eiq, d1v
dncirl,erovrai) 8
_ Pro: Schmid 1930,243-44:"Dass Mt 7 l3f die urspri.ingliche Fassungdes ersten
Spruchesbewahrt habendiirfte, die Lk verktirzt hat, wird vor allem durch den streng
durchgefiihrtenParallelismusnahegelegt."Schulz 1972a,3ll ,.Die urspriingliche
Fassunghat Mt aufbewahrt,wahrendLukas wie cifterden semitischen Parallelismus
umgearbeitethat. Der Aufbau diesesWeisheitswortesist stilistisch geschlossenund
besonderskunstvoll: Auf den prophetischenImperativ - auch hier drirfte ein
urspningliches'Ichsageeuch'dem prozessder verschriftungzum opfer gefallensein
- folgt dasAussagewortals Erfahrungssatz.
Die beidenDoppelzeilei,jeweilsmit 6tr
eingeleitet,erlautern mit Hilfe der traditionellen Motive vom breiten weg :
Verderbenund vom schwierig-engen Weg = endzeitlichesLebendiesenprophetischen
Imperativ.wie wir schonmehrmalsgesehen haben,bestehtkein Grund, die besonders
symmetrisch-kunstvolle Form als sekundir anzusehen; denn prophetischeImprovisa-
tion und rhythmisch-kunstvolle Form bildetenin diesemEnthusiasmus eineuntrenn-
AppENDrxA: e r3:23-24 (uerr 7:r3-t4/wrn 13:23-24) 155
bare Einheit! " Znller 1977, 139:."So wird das bei Lk nicht vorhandeneMotiv der zwei
Wegedurch Mt oder schonseineGemeindenachgetragensein . . . . Aber ist der Kon-
trast zwischendem engenund dem breiten Tor fiberhaupt ursprtinglich, wo doch Lk
nur von der schmalenTiir spricht?DieserUnterschiedweistauchden 'Vielen' eineje
andereRollezu: Wiihrendsiesichbei Lk vergeblichvor demeinzigenEinlassdrdngen,
sind siebei Mt schonauf der gerdumigenStrassedesVerderbens.Das Resultatist den-
noch dasselbe:Nur wenigegelangeins rettendeInnere. Gegendie Urspriinglichkeitdes
Kontrastesspricht das zweimaligeschwerfiillige6n bei Mt. Wenn man sich nur mit
einer Hiilfte des Parallelismusbegniigt, scheint andererseitsdie Motivation zu
schwach; auch das wohl fiir Q bezeugteWortpaar nol.l.oi - 6),iyor kann nicht
untergebracht werden." Marshall 1978,565:"It seemshighlyimprobablethat if Luke
had known of the metaphorof 'the way' in Mt. he would haveomittedit; on the other
hand, thereis nothingto suggestMatthaeanformulationof the metaphorin Mt. The
samebasicthought of the narrow entrancehas beendevelopedin two different ways,
probably in Christiancatechetical usage."Marguerat1981,175: ". la versionmt
est probablementle fruit d'une jonction secondairedu motif de Ia porte €troite avec
le thdme desdeux cheminsau sein de QMt; une telle combinaisonest attestdedans le
bas-judaisme (4 Esd 7,6-8)." Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET 142.Schenk1981,
102.Steinhauser 1981,152.
Con: Loisy 1907,635: "Matthieu aurait combin€I'imagede la porte 6troiteavec
celle des deux chemins, familidre d I'ancienne tradition chr6tienne,mais qui parait
venir de la tradition juive." Streeter1924,283-84:"But the words i nrl),n ("ls the
gate") are omitted in Matthew on their second(x Old Lat.) and third (544Old Lat.)
occurrence.If this readingis original, Q had the Lucan sayingabout "the narrow
gate," M had one quite different - the antithesisbetweenthe "broad and the narrow
ways." (The contrastof the Two Ways occursin the Didacheand elsewhere.)Matthew
hasconflatedQ and M." Dupont 1958,99: "On peut sedemandersi le textede Mat-
thieu ne r€sulte pas de la combinaison du thdme habituel des deux voies avec la
sentencesur la porte 6troite." 993: ", . . ainsi Soiron,Logia, pp,33s; Klostermann,
Mat.,68). ." Denaux1982,318: "Mt hat dasQ-Logionmit dem Bild von den zwei
Wegenbereichert;er ist wahrscheinlichauch verantwortlich fi.ir die straffe Symmetrie
desLogions." Lambrecht1985,196:"Matthew hasexpandedQ a greatdealand con-
structedtwo long antithetical-symmetricalsentences after 'Enter by the narrow gate."'
Luz, 1985, 396: "Der semitisierende Parallelismusmembrorumist ein mt Stilele-
ment." Reconstructions: Polag 1979,68-69.
Evoluation:
C J 1 8i i 8 8 : t B ) , 6 o ( ) 8
Those argumentswhich place the Matthean descriptionof the path to destruction
within the original construction of the Q saying typically argue that this association
was peculiar to that form of the Q sayingwhich was receivedby the Matthean redac-
tor, and was not found in that form which was receivedby the Lucan redactor. On
the one hand, this indeedseemsto be a more plausibleexplanationthan the view that
the Lucan redactor has omitted such a large segmentof the sayingwith its attendant
parallelism(seevariant 13as well). On the other hand, the descriptionsof the path to
destructionand the path to life are presentedin sucha manneras to havebeeninserted
into the original Q sayingwithout significant alteration of the basicQ structure.This
structural pattern arguesfor the insertion of a separateTwo Ways text by the Mat-
thean redactor himself, or at least, this structuremakessuch a possibility more prob-
able.
 156 APPENDIXA: Q r3:23-24 (MArr 7ir3-r4/LUKE 13:23-24) AppENDrxA: e r3:23-24 (uarr 1:r3-t4/turn 13:23-24) 157

Q l3:23-24e:Luke's use of l,€y<rl6piv. Mattheanverb with the articularparticiplehasbeenconstructedto accommodate the

Luke : Q: nolJ.oi,, p"61co0pivle, inclusionof the Two Waysmaterials.While a decisionis difficult here,thereis no per-
Pro: Jeremias1980,232to6:"Sie ist also vorlukanisch,was durch die zahlreichen suasivereason to deny the presenceof the Lucan verb with the complimentary in-
ParallelenzwischenMatthdusund Lukas im Logiengut. . . bestdtigtwird." finitive in this instance.
Con: Schulz 1972a,310:"l.6yco6piv wirkt eingeschoben, kcinnteaber doch den
Spruch des urchristlichenProphetenurspninglich eingeleitethaben; es were dann bei Q l3:23-Arr: Matthew'sprepositionalphrase.
der Schriftwerdung desSpruchesweggefallen."Zeller 1977,139:"als redaktionellver- Luke : Q: ()"
dachtig." Steinhauser1981, 150: in agreementwith Schulz, "l,6yco 6piv wie Pro: J. Weiss1907,297:,"Yon diesemSpruchgebilde hat Lukas nur die ersteMah-
eingeschoben wirkt . . ." Reconstructions:Harnack 1907,ET 142.Polag 1979,68-69. nung . . . Bei Matthdusist mit dem Bilde von der engenPforte dasim Judentum(Jer.
Denaux1982,322,327. 21,8)und Urchristentumhiiufige. . .von denzweiWegenverbunden.. ." Reconstruc-
Mott : O.'nol,l.oi[]e tions: Polag 1979,68-69.
Pro: Schmid 1930,243-44:"Dass Mt 7 l3f die ursprtinglicheFassungdes ersten Con: Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET 142.Denaux 1982,322,32'1 .
Spruchesbewahrthabendiirfte, die Lk verki.irzthat, wird vor allem durch den streng Mau = e: (Dr'a0tflq)t'
durchgeftihrtenParallelismusnahegelegt."Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET 142. Pro: Schmid 1930,243-44:"Dass Mt 7 l3f die urspriinglicheFassungdes ersten
Polag 1979,68-69. Schenk1981,102.Steinhauser 1981,152. Spruchesbewahrt haben diirfte, die Lk verktirzt hat, wird vor allem durch den streng
Con: durchgefiihrtenParallelismusnahegelegt."Denaux 1982,322: "Der Satzteiloi eioep-
Evaluation: 'die durch sie hineingehen'(7,13b), passteigentlichnicht zu dem
l6pevor 6r' aOtflq,
CJ 18 ii 88: tCl, nol.l.oi, [[€7o 0piv]le, Bild von dem Weg, sondernnur zu dem der Pforte. GeradedieserAusdruck hat Lk
No convincingdata is offered either for the inclusionor for the rejectionof the in 13,24:'vielewerdensuchenhineinatgehen,'d.h. durch die engeTtir. In 7,13biiber-
phrase.Accordingto the "minimalist" definition of Q, thereis no reasonto include nimmt Mt den Wortlaut der Quelle, aber er fiigt eine Unebenheitein durch das hin-
it in the reconstructed text. zugefiigteWegmotiv." Reconstruction:Harnack 1907,ET 142. Schenk1981, 102.
Steinhauser 1981,152.
Q l3:23-24rotLuke's predicationfor the many with verb and complementaryinfini- Con: Reconstructions: Polag 1979,68-69.
tive or Matthew'sverb eioiv with articularparticiple. Evaluotion:
Luke : Q: [(lnioou] roorv( ) r0 eioe[].0eivlro C J 1 8i i 8 8 : { C } , ( ) r t
Pro: J. Weiss 1907, 297: "Yon diesemSpruchgebildehat Lukas nur die ersre No convincing data is offered either for the inclusion or for the rejection of the
Mahnung . . . Bei Matthiius ist mit dem Bilde von der engenpforte das im Judentum phrase.Accordingto the "minimalist" definition of Q, thereis no reasonto include
(Jer.21,8) und Urchristentumheufige. .von denzweiWegenverbunden.. . " Recon- it in the reconstructed text.
structions:Polag 68-69.
Con: Schufz1972a,310:"(1reiv ist bei Lk gut bezeugt .,, Zeller 197i, 139:,,als Q 13:23-2412:. Luke's secondclausedescribingthe many.
redaktionellverddchtig."steinhauser1981,150:"Das wort (qteiv kommt bei Lukas Luke : Q.' [rai o0r iol6oouorv] 12.
<iftervor und ist als sekundiiranzusehen."Reconstructions: Harnack lg}i.ET 142. Pro: J. Weiss1907,297t "Yon diesemSpruchgebilde hat Lukas nur die ersteMah-
D e n a u x1 9 8 2 , 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 . nung . . . Bei Matthausist mit dem Bilde von der engenPforte dasim Judentum(Jer.
Matt = Q.' (ei)toorv(oi) t0 eioe(p16pevor) r0
21,8)und Urchristentum hdufige...von den zweiWegenverbunden.. ."
Pro: schmid 1930,243-44:"Dass Mt 7 l3f die urspriinglicheFassungdes ersten Con: Bussmann 1929, 77: "Das orix iolrioouorv wird L vielleicht ftir o0r
spruchesbewahrthabendiirfte, die Lk verktirzthat, wird vor allemdurch den streng e6prloouowgeschrieben haben." Jeremias232tso:"io1,6orkommt im LkEv achtmal
durchgefiihrtenParallelismusnahegelegt." Denaux 1982, 322: "Der Satzteil oi vor, an allen acht Stellen(6,48; 8,43; 13,24;14,6.29f.; 16,3; 20,26)negiertund mit
eioepl6pevor6r' c6tfrq,,'die durch sie hineingehen'(7,13b),passteigentlichnicht zu folgendem Infinitiv . . .; an zwei Stellen hat Lukas diese Konstruktion in den
dem Bild von dem weg, sondernnur zu dem der pforte. GeradedieserAusdruckhat Markustexteingetragen(Lk 8,43 diff. Mk 5,26i Lk 20,26Zusatzzu Mk 12,17)ier
Lk in 13,24:'vielewerdensuchenhineinzugehen,'d.h. durchdie engeTiir. In 7,13b schreibtsieviermalin der Apg (6,10;15,10;25,7;v91.27,16). Sonstfindetsiesichim
tibernimmtMt den wortlaut der euelle, aber er ftigt eineUnebenheitein durch das
NT nur Mt 8,28;26,40(par.Mk 14,37);Mk 5,4;(9,18);Joh 21,6." Schulzl972a,3lO:
hinzugefi.igte wegmotiv." Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET 142.schenkl9gl. 102. ". . . iolfeiv ist ein typischlk Verb." Zeller 1977,139:"als redaktionellverdiichtig."
Steinhause l 9rg l , 1 5 2 . Steinhauser1981,150: "Ebenfalls ist o0r iol,tSoouorvals lukanischeRedaktionan-
Con: Reconstructions: polag 68-69.
zusehen(vel. Lk 8,43)." Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET 142.Polag 1979,68-69.
Evaluation: Denaux 1982,322, 327.
CJ 18 ii 88: IB ] , [(r1t{oou]roorv( ) r0 eioe[].0eivlr0 Matt : Q: ll"
Presumably,on the onehand,the argumentof variant 6 holdstrue hereas well, i.e.,
_ Pro: Schmid243-44:"Dass Mt 7 l3f die urspninglicheFassungdeserstenSpruches
that the useof the verb with the complimentaryinfinitive is a stylisticpreferenceof
bewahrthabendiirfte, die Lk verkiirzt hat, wird vor allem durch den strengdurchge-
the Lucan redactor.On the other hand, the argumentof varianti t and tr, i.e., that
ftihrten Parallelismusnahegelegt."Reconstructions: Harnack 1907,ET 142.Polag
the Mattheanredactorhasincludedan additionalrwo ways saying,suggests that the 1979.68-69.Schenk1981.102.Steinhauser 1981.152.
 158 APPENDTXA: Q 13:23-24 (MArr 1:r3-r4/LvKE 13:23-24) ArpENDrxA: e r3:23-24 (ulrr 7:r3-r4/tuxn ry:23-24) 159
Con: elsewhere.) Matthew has conflated Q and M." Dupont 1958, 99: ..On peut se
Evaluation: demander si Ie texte de Matthieu ne r6sulte pas de la combinaison du thdme habituel
C J 1 8i i 8 8 : { A l , [ ] ' 2 des deux voies avec la sentencesur la porte 6troite." 993: ,,. . . ainsi Soiron, Zogia,
The generalagreement is that the Lucan redactorhasaddedthesewords,which are pp. 33s; Klostermann, Mat.,68). . ." Marguerat 1981, 175:',.. . la version mt est
typical of Lucan style. probablement le fruit d'une jonction secondaire du motif de la porte dtroite avec le
thdme des deux chemins au sein de QMt; une tell combinaison est attesteedans le bas-
Q 13:23-2413: Matthew's descriptionof the gate and the path to life. judaisme (a Esd 7,6-8)." Denaux 1982, 318: "Mt hat das
Q-Logion mit dem Bild von
Luke -- Q: ()" den zwei Wegen bereichert; er ist wahrscheinlich auch verantwortlich fiir die straffe
Pro: J. Weiss 1907, 297: "Yon diesemSpruchgebildehat Lukas nur die erste Symmetrie des Logions." Lambrecht 1985, 196: "Matthew has expanded e a great
Mahnung. . . Bei Matthdusist mit dem Bilde von der engenPforte dasim Judentum deal and constructed two long antithetical-symmetrical sentencesafter 'Enter by the
(Jer. 21,8)und Urchristentumhaufige. .von den zweiWegenverbunden.. ." Haupt narrow gate."' Luz 1985, 396: "Der semitisierendeParallelismus membrorum ist ein
1913,82:"Q3 [the final form of Q] hat (ori nicht." Marshall1978,563: "No certain mt Stilelement. Vom 'Finden' des Lebens (allerdings: VuIri!) spricht Mt red. in 10,39;
answer to the problem of priority can be given, and the possibility of separate 16,25";396e: "Die von der Metaphorik her unsachgemiisseReihenfolge Tor-Weg (vgl.
developmentsin the tradition is perhapsmost likely"; 565: "It seemshighly im- u.S. 397 und Anm. 15-17) wird am besten verstiindlich, wenn das Motiv des wees
probablethat if Luke had known of the metaphorof 'the way' in Mt. he would have sekunddr zum Motiv des Tors hinzugekommen ist."
omitted it; on the other hand, thereis nothing to suggestMatthaeanformulationof Evaluation:
the metaphor in Mt. The same basic thought of the narrow entrancehas been CJ l8 ii 88: {B}, ( )'3
developedin two different ways, probably in Christian catecheticalusage." The rationale for this decision is based upon the choice against the presenceof the
Con: Schulz1972a,3ll: "Die urspri.ingliche Fassunghat Mt aufbewahrt,wiihrend path to destruction in the original Q text (see the discussion of variant 8 above).
Lukas wie 6fter den semitischenParallelismusumgearbeitethat. Der Aufbau dieses
Weisheitswortes ist stilistischgeschlossen
und besonderskunstvoll:Auf den propheti-
schenImperativ - auchhier drirfteein urspningliches'Ichsageeuch'demProzessder
Verschriftung zum Opfer gefallen sein - folgt das Aussagewortals Erfahrungssatz.
Die beiden Doppelzeiler,jeweils mit 6tr eingeleitet,erlduternmit Hilfe der tradi-
tionellenMotivevom breitenWeg = Verderbenund vom schwierig-engen Weg = end-
zeitlichesLeben diesenprophetischenImperativ. Wie wir schon mehrmalsgesehen
haben,bestehtkein Grund, die besonders symmetrisch-kunstvolle
Form als sekunddr
anzusehen; denn prophetischeImprovisationund rhythmisch-kunstvolle Form bilde-
ten in diesemEnthusiasmuseine untrennbareEinheit!" Reconstructions: Harnack
1907,ET 142.Polag 1979,68-69.Denaux 1982,322, 327.
Matt : Q.'(ri otevrl i n6l"q roi re0l,rprp6qi 66dq fl dndyouoo eiq qv (ronv)t'
Pro: Schmid 1930,243-M: "Dass Mt 7 l3f die urspriinglicheFassungdes ersten
Spruchesbewahrthabendtirfte, die Lk verki.irzthat, wird vor allemdurch den streng
durchgeftihrten Parallelismus nahegelegt."Marshall1978,563:"No certainanswerto
the problemof priority can be given,and the possibitityof separatedevelopments in
the tradition is perhapsmost likely"; 565: "It seemshighly improbablethat if Luke
had known of the metaphorof 'the way' in Mt. he would haveomittedit; on the other
hand, thereis nothingto suggestMatthaeanformulationof the metaphorin Mt. The
samebasicthoughtof the narrow entrancehas beendevelopedin two differentways,
probablyin christian catechetical Harnack 1907,ET142(in-
usage."Reconstructions:
serts6tr [N N 700 l0l0] for d). Polag 1979,68-69.Schenk lg8l, 102.steinhauser
1981,152.
Con: Loisy 1907,635: "Matthieu aurait combindI'imagede la porte 6troite avec
celle des deux chemins,familidrea I'anciennetradition chr€tienne,mais qui parait
venir de la traditionjuive." Haupt 1913,82: "e3 [the final form of e] hat (rorlnicht
aberim SondergutdesMt stehtes noch25,46." Streeter1924,283-84:,,But the words
{ Trjtrrl("ls the gate") are omittedin Matthew on their second(x old Lat.) and third
(544Old Lat.) occurrence.If this readingis original, had the Lucan sayingabout
Q
"the narrow gate," M had one quite different - the antithesisbetweenthe,,broad
and the narrow weys." (The contrastof the Two ways occursin the Didacheand

APPENDIX B: TABLE OF SOURCES FOR THE DIDACHE
No. Soying
I l.l Two Ways
2 l-2 Love of God
3 l.2b Love of Neighbor
4 l.2c Golden Rule
5 l.3b Love of Enemies
6 l.4b-5a Retaliation
7 l.5b Blessedto Give
8 l.5c The Last Penny
9 1.6 Sweatand Alms
(10) 2.2-3 Deoalogue
ll 2.7 Do not Hate
(12) 3.2-6 Decalogue
13 3.7 The Meek
14 5.1 Way of Death
15 6.la Do Not Err
16 7.lc Father,/Son,/Spirit
l7 7.3cFather,/Son/Spirit
18 8.la Correct Fasting
19 8.2 Lord's prayer
20 9.5b Holy to the Dogs
2 l ll.7 UnforgivableSin
(not discussed)
22 l2.l Name of the Lord
(not discussed)
APPENDIX B: TABLB OF SOI'RCES FOR THE DIDACHE l6l
23 13.l Worthy of Food SayingsGospel Q Matt l0:10; Luke l0:7
(not discussed)
u 16.la Watch out Synoptic tradition (?) Matt ?A:42;Mark 13:35
25 16.lb Loins,/Lamps Lucan tradition Luke 12:35
26 l6.lc Be Ready Synoptic tradition (?) Matt. 24:44: Luke 12:40
Probable Source(s) NT Porallel(s) 27 l6.ld The Hour Synoptic tradition (?) Matt Vl:42b:' ?A|4r'.b;
25:l3b; Markl3:33b;
Deut 30:15 Matt 7:13b, l4a l3:35b;Luke l2:40b
Two Ways source (for
position) 28 16.2 Gather Together Independentsayings
tradition
Deut 6:5 Matt 22:37;Mark 2:30;
Two Ways source(?)
Two Ways source (for Luke l0:27a
29 16.3-5Last Days Synoptic tradition (?) Matt 24:l0b-13;Mark
position)
l 3 :l 3
Lev 19:18 Matt 19:19;22:391
30 16.6The Signs Synoptic tradition (?) Matt 24:30-31
Mark l2:31; Luke
3 l 16.7The Holy Ones Zech l4:5 Matt 25:31
l0:27b; Rom l3:9; Gal
32 16.8The Coming Synoptic tradition (?) Matt 24:30b;Mark
5:14;Jas2:8
13:.26:' Luke 2l:27
Independentsayings Matt 7:,12:Luke 6:31
tradition
Sayings Gospel Q Matt 5:4348; Luke
6:27-28,32-36
Tob 12.8 Matt 6:2-6, 16-18
SayingsGospel Q Matt 5:38-42;Luke
6:29-3O
Independentsayings (Acts 20:35)
tradition
SayingsGospel Q Matt 5:26; Luke 12:59
Sir l2.l
Exod 20:13-16[A] Matt 19:18;Mark
l0:19; Luke 18:20;Matt
5:21-32
Lev l9r17-18 Matt 18:15-17
Independenttradition Matt 19:18;Mark
l0:19;
Exod 20:13-16[A] Luke l8:20f; Matt
5:21-32
Ps 37:lla Matt 5:3, 5; (Luke
6:2Ob)
Exod 20:13-16 Matt 15:19;Mark
7:21-22
Independentsayings Matt 24:4; Mark l3:5b;
tradition Luke 2l:8
Matthean tradition Matt 28:19
Matthean tradition Matt 28:19
Matthean tradition Matt 6:16-18
Matthean tradition Matt 6:9-13;Luke
ll:2-4
Matthean tradition Matt 7:6
Synoptic tradition Matt 12:31; Mark 3:28-
30; Luke 12:10
Matthean tradition Matt 2l:9; Matt 23:39
Ps l18:26

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARTICLES IN JOURNALS AND COLLECTED ESSAYS,UNPUBLISHED PAPERS
Allegro' J. M. "A Newly DiscoveredFragment of a commentary on psalm XXXVII from
Qumran." PEQ 86 (May-October1954):69-i5.
Audet, Jean-Paul."Affinit6s litt6raireset doctrinalesdu'Manuel de Discipline."'RB 59 (1952):
219-38.
Bammel,E. "Schemaund VorlagevonDidache16." ln StPatr,no. 4/2 (: TU, no. 79),pp.253-
62. Editedby F. L. Cross.Berlin: Akademie-Verlae,1961.
Benigne,H. "Didach0 Coptica." Bess3 (Novembre-Decembre 1898):311-29.
Best,Ernest."I Peterand the GospelTradition." NZS 16 (January1970):95-113.
Betz, Hans Dieter. "Eine Episodeim JiingstenGericht(Mt 7,21-23)."ZTKTg (19g1):l_30.
Bornkamm,Grinther."npdopuq, x.t.l,." TDNT 6 (1968):651-83.
Burkitt, F. "Barnabasand the Didache." JTS 33 (1932):25-27.
Butler, B. "The Literary Relationsof the Didache,ch. xvl."
"/TS ll (october 1986):265-g3.
Chadwick,Henry. "The Riseof the ChristianBishopin AncientSociety."CHS 35 (1980):l-14.
Connolly,R. H. "The 'Didache'in Relationto the Epistleof Barnabas."JTS 33 (1932'l23:.-53.
-. "New Fragmenrsof the Didache.,, JT-S25 (1924): l5l-53.
-. "The Use of the Didoche in the Didascalia.,, JTS 24 (1923): 147_Sj.
Cothenet,E. "Les prophdteschrdtiensdansI'EvangileselonsaintMatthieu." ln L'Evangile selon
Matthieu: Rddaction et thdologie, pp. 281-308. Edited by M. Didier. BETL, no. 29.
Gembloux:J. Duculot. 1972.
Creed,J. M. "The Didache." JTS 39 (1938):3j0-87.
Denaux,Adelbert. "Der spruch von den zweiwegen im RahmendesEpilogsder Bergpredigt(Mt
7 '13-14par. Lk 13,23-24).'rradition und Redaktion." rn Logio: The sayings of Jesus,pp.
305-35.BETL, no. 49. Edited by Jodl Delobel.Leuven:uitgeverij peeters,l9g2; Leuven:
UniversityPress,1982.
Dibelius,Martin. "Die Mahl-Gebeteder Didache.,,ZNII'37 (1935):32-41.
Dietzfelbinger,Christian. "Die Frtimmigkeitsregelnvon Mt 6 l-18 als Zeugnissefrtihchristlicher
Geschichte."ZNW 76 (1984\: 184-201.
Di Lella, A. "Qumran and the GenizaFragmentsof sirach." cBe24 (April 1962):245-67.
Dix, Gregory. "The Ministry in the Early church." rn The Apoiotic Ministry, pp. lg3-303.
Edited by KennerhE. Kirk. London: Hodder & Stoughton,1962.
Draper, Jonathan. "The JesusTradition in the Didache." ln Gospelperspectives.yol. 5: The
Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, pp. 269-8i. Edited by David wenham. Sheffield,
England:JSOT, 1985.
Drews,_.Paul."Einleitung." ln NeutestamentlicheApocryphen. yol. l: Kirchenordnungen.
Edited by Edgar Hennecke.Tiibingenand Leipzig:J.C..B. Mohr (paul Siebeck),1904.
-.
"Untersuchungen zur Didache." ZNW 5 (1904):53-79.
Farrar, F. W. "The Bearingof the.Teaching'on the Canon." Exp g (lgg4): gl_91.
Finkel,Asher. "The Prayer of Jesusin Matthew." ln standing aefore'coai
studieson prayer
in Scripturesand in Tradition v,ith Essays,pp.131-70.Edited by Asher Finkel and Lawrence
Frizzell.New York: KTAV publishingHouse, 1981.
Fuller, ReginaldH. "The Double commandmentof Love: A Test case
for the criteria of
Authenticity." In cssayson the Love commandment, pp. 4l-56. Translatedby Reginald
H.
Fuller and Ilse Fuller. philadelphia:Fortress,197g.
Funk, F. X. "Die DoctrinaApostolorum.', fe 3
egg4):3gl-401.
Gerhardsson,Birger. "Geistiger opferdienst nach Matttr 6,r-6.16-21.,,
rn NeuesTestamentund
Geschichte:HistorischesGeschehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament,pp.69-i7. Edited by
HeinrichBaltensweiler and Bo Reicke.Ztirich: TheologischerVerlag,1972;Tiibingen:J. C.
B. Mohr (paul Siebeck),1972.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY r63
Gibbins,H. J. "The Problemof the LiturgicalSectionsof the Didache."JTS 36 (1935):373-86.
Giet, Stanislas."L'6nigme de la Didachd." In StPotr, no. l0ll (: TU, no. 107),pp.84-94.
Edited by F. L. Cross.Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970.
Glover, Richard. "The 'Didache's' Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels." NIS 5 (October
1958): 12-29.
-. "Patristic Quotationsand GospelSources."NfS 3l (April 1985):234-51.
Goodspeed,Edgar J. "The Didache,Barnabasand the Doctrina." ATR27 (1945):228-47.
Hagner, Donald A. "The Sayingsof Jesusin the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr." In
GospelPerspecfives.Vol. 5: The JesusTradition Outsidethe Gospels,pp. 233-68.Edited by
David Wenham.Sheffield,England:JSOT, 1985.
Harnack, Adolf. "Analecten" to Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichenKirchen im Alter-
tum, by Edwin Hatch. Giessen:J. Ricker, 1883.
-. "Apostellehre." In ReolencyklopiidiefiirprotestantischeTheologieund Kirche. Vol. l, pp.
711-30.3rd ed. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'scheBuchhandlung,1896.
Hoffmann, Paul. "fkiweq Apydrar d6rrioq: Redaktion und Tradition in Lc l3 22-30." ZNl4l
58 (1967):188-214.
Horner, G. "A New Fragment of the Didachd in Coptic." "fIS 25 (April 1924):225-31.
t Hultgren, Arland J. "The Double Commandmentof Love inMt22:34-40: Its Sourcesand Com-
positions." CBQ 36 (July 1914):373-78.
Jefford, Clayton N. "Presbytersin the Community of the Didache." ln StPotr, no.2l, pp. 122-
28. Edited by ElizabethA. Livingstone.Leuven:PeetersPress,1989.
Johnson,S. E. "A SubsidiaryMotive for the Writing of the Didache." ln Munero Studiosa,pp.
107-22.Edited by Masey Hamilton Shepherd,Jr. and ShermanElbridge Johnson. Cam-
bridge, Mass.:EpiscopalTheologicalSchoolPress,1946.
Kloppenborg,John S. "Didache 166-8 and SpecialMattheanTradition." ZNW70 (1979):54-67.
Koch, Klaus. "Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogmaim Alten Testament?" ZNK 52 (1955): l-42.
Krawutzcky, Adam. "Ueber die sog. Zw<ilfapostellehre, ihre hauptsdchlichsten Quellenund ihre
ersteAusnahme." TQ 4 (1884):547-606.
Kretschmar,Georg. "Ein Beitrag zur Fragenach dem Ursprung frtihchristlicher Askese." ZTK
6l (April 1964):27-67.
Layton, Bentley."The Sources,Date and Transmissionof Didachel.3b-2.1." I17R 6l (July
1968):343-83.
L'Eplattenier,C. "Pr6sentationde la Didachd." FV2l (Octobre1982):48-54.
Lightfoot, J. B. "Results of RecentHistorical and TopographicalResearchupon the Old and
New TestamentScriptures."Exp 9 (1885):l-11.
Liihrmann, Dieter. "Liebet euer Feinde (Lk 6,27-36/Mt 5,38-48)." ZT'K 69 (1972): 412-38.
Malina, BruceJ. "Jewish Christianity or ChristianJudaism:Toward a HypotheticalDefinition."
"/S"/7 (July 1976):46-57.
McGiffert, Arthui C. "The 'Didache' Viewed in its Relationsto Other Writings." AndRev 5
(April 1886):430-44.
Mees,M. "Di Bedeutungder Sentenzenund ihrer auxesisfir den Formung der Jesuswortenach
Didachel,3b-2,1." VetChr8 (1971)55-76.
Middleton, R. D. "The Eucharistic Prayersof the Didache." JTS 36 (1935): 259-67.
Neusner,Jacob. "Max Weber Revisited:Religionsand Societyin Ancient Judaismwith Special
Referenceto the Late First and SecondCenturies." SecCentI (Summer l98l): 61-84.
Noakes,K. W. "From New TestamentTimes until St. Cyprian." In The Study of Liturg:t, pp.
80-94.Edited by CheslynJones,Geoffrey Wainwright and Edward Yarnold, SJ. New York:
Oxford UniversityPress,1978.
Peradse,Gregor."Die 'Lehre der zwrilf Apostel' in der georgischen Uberlieferune."ZNW 3l
( 1 9 3 2 )l:l l - 1 6 .
Pickett,NancyD. "ApocalypticEschatologyin the Genre'Church Order': Didache16." Paper
presentedat the annual meetingof the Societyof Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA.,22-25
November1986.
Potwin, Thomas Stoughton. "The Last Chapter of 'The Teachingof the Twelve Apostles,' Il-
lustrated from Passagesin the Early Christian Fathers." AndRev 5 (April 1886):,f45-46.
164 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rife, J. Merle. "Matthew's Beatitudesand the Septuagint." In Studiesin the History and Text
of the New Testamentin Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark Ph.D., pp. 107-12.Edited by Boyd
L. Danielsand M. Jack Suggs.SD, no. 29. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press,1967.
Riggs, John W. "From Gracious Table to SacramentalElements: The Tradition-History of
Didache9 and 10." SecCent4 (Summer1984):83-102.
Robinson,JamesM. "World in Modern Theologyand in New TestamentTheology." ln SoliDei
Glorio: New TestomentStudiesin Honor of lltilliam Childs Robinson, pp. 88-110.Edited
by J. McDowell Richards.Richmond,VA: John Knox, 1968.
Robinson, J. Armitage. "The Christian Ministry in the Apostolic and sub-ApostolicPeriods."
on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry, pp. 57-92.Edited by H. B.
In .Essays
Swete.London: Macmillanand Co., 1918.
-. "The Epistle of Barnabasand the Didache." '/ZS 35 (April 1934): 113-46.
-. "The Didache." JZS 35 (July 1934):225-49.
Rordorf, Willy. "Une nouvelleEdition (Probldmesex6getiques, historiqueset th6ologiques)."In
StPatr,no. l5/l (:TU, no. 128),pp.26-30. Edited by ElizabethA. Livingstone.Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag,1984.
Sand, Alexander. "Propheten, Weise, und Schriftkundige in der Gemeinde des Mat-
thdusevangeliums."ln Kirche im Werden: Studien zum Thema Amt und Gemeindeim
Neuen Testament,pp. 167-85.Edited by Josef Hainz. Munich: FerdinandSch<iningh,1976.
Schmidt,Carl. "Das koptischeDidache-Fragment desBritishMuseum." ZNW24 (1925):8l-99.
Schmidt, Josef. "Matthdus und Lukas: Eine UntersuchungdesVerhdltnissesihrer Evangelien."
BibS(F)23 (1930):183-364.
Schoedel,William R. "Jewish Wisdom and the Formation of the Christian Ascetic." ln Aspects
of Wisdom in Judoism and Early Christianity, pp. 169-99.Edited by Robert L. Wilken.
CSJCA, no. l. Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1970.
Schrillgen,Georg. "Monepiskopat und monarchischerEpiskopat: Eine Bemerkung zur Ter-
minologie." ZNW 77 (1986):146-51.
Schweizer,Eduard. "Observanceof the Law and CharismaticActivity in Matthew." NfS 16
(April 1970):213-30.
Seguy, J. "From Revolution to Monastic and SectarianConversion:Intimations on Everyday
Life and History." ln Religion, Values,and Daily Life, pp. 97-116.ICSR, no. 16. Paris:
Centre National de la RechercheScientifiquede France, 1981.
Skehan,Patrick Wm. "Didache 1,6 and Sirach 12,1." Bib 44 (1963): 533-36.
Smith, JonathanZ. "The SocialDescriptionof Early Christianity." RelSRevI (September1975):
t7-25.
Smith, M. A. "Did JustinKnow the Didache?"ln StPatr, no.'l/l (= TU, no. 92), pp. 287-90.
Edited by F. L. Cross. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,1966.
Spicq,C. "Benignit€,mansu6tude, douceur,cl6mence."RB 54 (1947):321-39.
Stanton, Graham N. "The Gospelof Matthew and Judaism." BJRL 66 (Spring 1984):264-84.
Stern, M. "The Jewish Diaspora." In The Jewish People in the First Century: Historicol
Geography,Political History, Social, Cultural and ReligiousLifu and Institutions.Vol. l,
pp. 117-83.Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern. Philadelphia:Fortress, 1974; Assen,
Netherlands:Van Gorcum. 1974.
Strecker,Ceorg. "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt(Mt 5 2l-48 par)." ZNW 69 (1978): 36-72.
Streeter,B. H. "The Much-BelabouredDidache." JTS 37 (1936): 369-74.
Suggs,M. Jack. "The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form, and Function." In
Studies in New Testament and Early Christion Literoture: Essaysin Honor of Allen P.
Wikgren,pp.60-74.Editedby David EdwardAune. NovTSup,no. 33. Leiden:E. J. Brill,
t972.
Taylor, Charles."Traces of a Sayingof the Didache." ,ffs 8 (1907):l15-17.
Telfer, W. "The Didache and the Apostolic Synod of Antioch." JTS 40 (1939): 133-46.
Theissen,Gerd. "Wanderradikalismus. LiteratursoziologischeAspekte der Uberlieferungvon
Worten Jesuim Urchristentum."ZTK'70 (19'13):245-71.
Troeltsch, Ernst. "The Relationshipof Religion to the World." In Readingson the Sociology
of Religion, pp. 124-28.Edited by ThomasF. O'Dea and JanetK. O'Dea. EnglewoodCliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hatl.1973.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 165
Tuilier, Andr6. "Une nouvelle 6dition (Problbmes de m6thode et de critique textuelle)." In
StPatr, no. 15/l (: TU, no. 128), pp. 3l-36. Edited by Elizabeth A. Livingstone. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1984.
Vassiliadis, P. "The Nature and Extent of the Q Document." NovT20 (1978):49-73.
Vokes, F. E. "The Didache - Still Debated." CQ3 (1970):57-62.
Walker, Joan Hazelden. "An Argument from the Chinese for the Antiochene Origen of the
Didache." ln StPatr, no.8/2 (: TU, no. 93), pp. 44-50. Edited by F. L. Cross. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1966.
Warfield, Benjamin B. "Book Reviews and Notices." AndRev 4 (December 1985): 593-99.
-. 'The Two Ways' or First Section of the Didache." BSac
"Text, Sources, and Contents of
43 ( 1 8 8 6 ) : 100-61.
BOOKS. MONOGRAPHS AND THESES
Andresen, Carl. Die Kirchen der alten Christenheit. RM, no. 29/1,2. Slttttgart: Kohlhammer,
t97t.
Audet,Jean-Paul.
La Didachi:Instructionsdesap6tres.Ebib. Paris:J. Gabalda& Cie., 1958.
Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean lV'orld. Grand,
Rapids:William B. Eerdmans,1983.
Baltzer, Klaus. Tfte Covenant Formulary: In Old Testament,Jewish, and Early Christian
Ilritings. Translatedby David E. Green.Philadelphia:Fortress,1971.
Beare,F. W. TheEarliest Recordsof Jesus.New York and Nashville:Abingdon, 1962;Oxford:
Basil Blackwell,1962.
-. The Gospelaccording to Matthe're.San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1981.
Berger,Klaus. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. WMANT, no. 40. Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener
Yerlag, 1972.
Betz, Hans Dieter. -Essayson the Sermon on the Mount. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Bigg, Charles. The Doctrine of the TwelveApostles. Introduced and revisedby Arthur John
Maclean. London:J.P.C.K.. 1922.
Bonnard,Pierre.L'dvangileselonSaintMatthieu.CNT, no. l. Neuchatel:Delachaux& Niestl6,
1963.
Bornkamm, Grinther, Barth, Gerhard, and Held, Heinz Joachim. Tradition and Interpretation
in Matthew. Philadelphia:Westminster,1976.
Boring, M. Eugene.Sayingsof the Risen Jesus:Christion Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition.
SNTSMS,no. 46. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982.
Brooks,Stephenson H. "The History of the MattheanCommunityas Reflectedin the M Sayings
Traditions." Ph.D. dissertation,ColumbiaUniversity,1986.
Brown, Raymond8., and Meier, John P. Antioch and Rome. New York: Paulist, 1983.
Brueggemann,Walter. The Land. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. New
York: Harper & Row, 1963.
Bussmann,Wilhelm. Synoptische Studien.Yol. 2: Zur Redenquelle.
Halle: Waisenhaus,1929.
Cadbury, H. J. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University
Press.1920.
A Committeeof the Oxford Societyof Historical Theology. The New Testomentin the Apostolic
Fathers.Oxford: Clarendon,1905.
Conzelmann,Hans.Acts of the Apostles:A Commentaryon the Acts of theApostles.Translated
by JamesLimburg, A. ThomasKraabeland DonaldH. Juel.Editedby Eldon Jay Epp with
ChristopherR. Matthews.Philadelphia:Fortress,1987.
Craigie,PeterC. Psalms1-50.WBC, no. 19. Waco: Word Books, 1983.
Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Srndles.Garden
City: NY: Doubleday& Co., 1958.
Crossan,John Dominic. Four Other Gospels:Shadowson the Contoursof Canon. Minneapolis:
Winston.1985.
-. ln Frogments:The Aphorisms of Jesus.San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1983.
Davies,W. D. The Gospeland the Lond. Berkeley:Universityof California Press,1974.
 t66 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dibelius, Martin, and Conzelmann,Hans. The PastoralEprstles.Translatedby Philip Buttolph
and Adela Yarbro. Edited by Helmut Koester.Philadelphia:Fortress,1972.
Dihle, Albrecht. Die Goldene Regel: Eine Einfrihrung in die Geschichteder antiken und
lrilhchristlichen Vulgiirethik. SAW, no. 7. Grittingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1962.
Downey, Glanville, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucusto the Arab Conquest.
Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress,1961.
Dupont, Jacques.Les bdatitudes.Ebib. 3 vols. Paris: Gabalda,1969-'13.
-. '10/1-2.
Etudessur les ivangiles synoptiques.BETL, no. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters,1985;
Leuven:UniversityPress, 1985.
Durkheim, Emile. The ElementaryForms of the ReligiousLife. London: Allen & Unwin, 1915.
Easton,Burton Scott. The GospelAccording to St. Luke: A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary.
New York: CharlesScribner'sSons,1926.
Edwards,R. A. ,4 Concordance/o Q. Missoula:ScholarsPress,1975.
-. A Theologyof Q: Eschatology,Prophecy ond Wisdom. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.
Eichholz, Georg.Auslegungder Bergpredigt.BibS(N), no. 46. Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener
Verlag,1965.
Festugidre,A.-J. La rdvdlotion d'Hermds Trismegiste.EBib. 3 vols. Paris: J. Gabalda & Cie.,
1950.
Fitzmyer, JosephA. The GospelAccording to Luke. AB, no. 28. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
& Co., 1981-85.
Frend, W. H. C. The Riseof Christianity. Phlladelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Friedlander,Gerald. The JewishSourcesof the Sermonon the Mount. New York: KTAV, 1969.
Funk, Francis Xavier. Doctrina duodecim apostolorum. Tribingen: Libraria Henrici Laupp,
I887.
-. PatresApostolici.2 vols. Tiibingen:Libraria Henrici Laupp, 1901.
Gaechter,Paul. Das Matthiius Evangelium. Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag, 1962.
Gager, John G. Kingdom and Community: The Social ll/orld of Early Christianity. Edited by
John P. Reeder,Jr. and John F. Wilson. Englewood,NJ: Prentice-Hall,1975.
Giet, Stanislaus. L'dnigmede la Didachi. PFLUS, no. 149.Paris:EditionsOphrys, 1970.
Goppelt, Leonard.Apostolic and Post-ApostolicTimes.Translatedby RobertA. Guelich.Grand
Rapids:Baker Book House, 1970.
-. Christentum und Judentum in ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert. BFCT. no. 55. 2nd ser.
Giitersloh:C. Bertelsmann,1954.
Grant, RobertM. TheApostolicFathers.AF, no. 1. New York: ThomasNelson& Sons.1964.
Christianity and Society: SevenStudies.New York: Harper & Row, 1977.
Greyvenstein, Jan Hendrik Jacobus."The original 'Teachingof the TwelveApostles."' ph.D.
dissertation,Universityof Chicago,1919.
Grundmann, walter. Das Evangelium nach Matthiius. THKNT, no. l. Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1968.
Guelich,RobertA. The Sermonon the Mount. Waco: Word Books, 1982.
Gundry, Robert H. Motthew: A Commentory on His Literary and rheological.Art. Grand
Rapids:William B. EerdmansPublishingCompany, 1982.
-. The Useof the Old Testamentin St. Matthew'sGospel.NovTSup,no. 18. Leiden:E. J.
Brill. 1967.
Haenchen,Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A commentary. oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971.
Harnack' Adolf . Die Apostellehreund diejtidischen Beiden Wege.Leipzig J. C. Heinrichs'sche
Buchhandlung,1886.
-. Geschichteder altchristlichenLiteratur bisEusebius.Part l: Die AberlieJerungund der Bes-
tand.2nd ed. Leipzig:J. C. Hinrichs,1958.
-. Lehre der zwriU Apostel nebst Untersuchungenzur iiltesten Geschichteder Kirchenver-
fassung und desKirchenrechts.TU, no. 2/l-2. Leipzig: J. c. Hinrichs'scheBuchhandlung,
1884;rep. ed., Leipzig:J. C. Hinrichs'scheBuchhandlung,1893.
-. The Sayingsof Jesus: The SecondSource of St. Matthew and St. Luke. NTS, no. 2.
Translatedby J. R. wilkinson. New york: putnam, 190g;London: williams & Norgate,
1908.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPI{Y t67
Harris, J. Rendel. The Teachingof the TwelveApostles. London: C. J. Clay & Sons, 1887;
Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniversityPress,1887.
Hatch, Edwin. The Organization of the Early Christian Churches.London: Longmans and
Green, 1895.
Haupt, Walther. Worte Jesu und Gemeindeiiberlieferung: Eine Untersuchungzur Quellenge-
schichteder Synopse.UNT, no. 3. Leipzig:J. C. Hinrichs'scheBuchhandlung,l9l3'
Hendrickx. Herman. The Sermon on the Mount. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1979.
Herrmann, Elisabeth.Ecclesiain Re Publica: Die Entwicklung der Kirche von pseudostaatlicher
zu staatlich inkorporierter Existenz.EF, no. 2. Frankfurt am Main: Peter D. Lang, 1980.
Hilgenfeld, Adolf . Novum Testamentumextra canonem receptum. Yol. 4/2: Evangeliorum.
Leipzig:T. O. Weigel,1884.
Hitchcock, Roswell D., and Brown, Francis. The Teachingof the TwelveApostles. London:
John C. Nimmo. 1885.
Hummel, R. Auseinandersetzung zwischenKirche und Judentumim Matthriusevangeliun.Miin-
chen:Kaiser, 1963.
Hyman, Aaron. Torah Hakethubah Vehamessurah. 2nd ed. Edited and revisedby Arthur B.
Hyman. 3 vols. Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1979.
Iselin, L. E. Eine bisher unbekannte Version des ersten Teiles der "Apostellehre". TU, no.
13/lb. Leipzig:A. Heusler,1895.
Jeremias,Johannes.Das Evangeliumnach Matthaeus. Leipzig: Dcirffling & Franke, 1932.
Kamlah, E. Die Form der kotalogischenPartineseim NeuenTestament.WUNT, no. 7. Tiibingen:
J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),1964.
Kelber, Werner H. The Oral and l4trittenGospel: The Hermeneuticsof Speakingand Writing in
the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Philadelphia:Fortress, 1983.
Kilpatrick, G. D. The Origins of the GospelAccording to St.Motthew. Oxford: Clarendon,1946.
Klevinghaus,Johannes.Die theologischeStellungder ApostolischenVtiterzur alttestamentlichen
Offenbarung.BFCT, no.4411. Giitersloh:C. Bertelsmann,1948.
Kline, Leslie Lee. The Sayingsof Jesusin the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. SBLDS, no. 14.
Missoula,MT: ScholarsPress,1975.
Kloppenborg, John S. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections.
Philadelphia:Fortress,1987.
-. O Parallels: Synopsis,Critical Notes,and Concordance.Sonoma,CA: Polebridge, 1988'
-. "The Sayingsof Jesusin the Didache." M.A. thesis,Universityof St. Michael'sCollege,
t9'76.
Knopf, Rudolf . Die Lehre der ztvdf Apostel. Die zwei Clemensbriefe.Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck),1920.
Kcihler,Wolf-Dietrich. Die RezeptiondesMatthiiusevangeliums in der Zeit vor lreniius. WUNT,
no. 2/24. Tiibingen;J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),1987.
Kcister,Helmut. Synoptische(iberlieferungbei den Apostolischen Viitern. TU, no. 65. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag,1957.
Kohler, Kaufmann. The Origins of the Synagogueand the Church. Edited by H. G. Enelow. New
York: Arno. 1973.
Kraft, RobertA. Barnabasand theDidache.AF, no. 3. New York: ThomasNelson& Sons,1965.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim.Psalmen.BKAT, no. l5-16. 2 vols. 5th ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukir-
chenerVerlag, 1978.
Ladd, GeorgeEldon. "The Eschatology of the Didache."Ph.D. dissertation, HarvardUniversi-
ty,1949.
Lake, Kirsopp. The Apostolic Fathers. LCL, no. 24-25. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,
1977;London: William Heinemann,1977.
Lefort, L.-Th. Les Pires Apostoliquesen copte.CSCO.C, no. 135/17.Louvain: L. Durbecq,
1952.
Leipoldt, J. Geschichte des neutestamentlicheKanons. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche
Buchhandlung,1907.
Lietzmann,Hans.Die Didache.KlT, no.6.2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter&Co., 1962.
-. Msss and Lord's Supper:A Study in the History of the Liturgy. Translatedby Dorothea
H. G. Reeve.Introductionby RobertDouglasRichardson.Leiden:E. J. Brill' 1979.
 r6E SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY r69

Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers. London: Macmillan & Co.. 1912.
-. Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. London: Macmillan & Co., 1900;New york: Mac-
millan, 1900.
Lilje, Hans. Die Lehre der zw6A Apostel: Eine KirchenordnungdeserstenchristlichenJahrhun-
derts. Hambtrg: Furche-Verlag,1956.
Linton, Olof. Das Problem der Urkirche in der neueren Forschung. Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksells,1932.
Lohmeyer, Ernst, and Schmauch,werner. Das Evangeliumdes Matthijus. 3rd ed. G<ittingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1962.
Luz, Ulrich. Das EvangeliumnachMatthiius.EKKNT, no. l/1. Ziirich: BenzigerVerlag,1985;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag, 1985.
McDonald, JamesI. H. Kerygma and Didache: The Articulotion and Structure of the Earliest
Christian Message.SNTSMS, no. 37. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity press, 19g0.
Malherbe,Abraham J . SocialAspectsof Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Philadelphia:Fortress,1983.
Manson,T. W. The Sayingsof Jesus.London: SCM, 1949.
Marguerat, Daniel. Le jugement dans I'Evangile de Matthieu. Gendve:Labor et Fides. l9gl.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentaryon the Greek rext. Exeter: pater-
noster.1978.
Massaux,Edouard. Influence de I'dvangilede saint Matthieu sur la littdrature chrdtienneavant
saint lrdnde.Louvain: universitairesde Louvain, 1950;Gembloux:J. Duculot. 1950.
Meeks,WayneA . TheFirst Urban Christians:TheSocial llorld of the Apostle Paul. New Haven
and London: Yale UniversityPress,1983.
-. The Moral ll'orld of the First Christians.LEC, no. 6. Philadelphia: Westminster,1986.
-, and Wilken, Robert L. Jewsand Christiansin Antioch. Missoula,MT: ScholarsPress.
1978.
Meier, John P. Law and History in Matthew'sGospel.AnBib, no. 71. Rome:BiblicalInstitute.
1976.
Meyer, P. D. "The Communityof e." Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof lowa, 1967.
Morgenthafer,Robert.s/atrslischesynopse.Ziirich and Stuttgart:Gotthelf-verlag,l9zl.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalmsin Israel's vltorship.Translatedby D. R. Ap-Thomas. 2 vols.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.1962.
Mtiller, C. H. Zur Synopse:IJntersuchungiiber die Arbeitsweisede Lukas und Matthdus und ihre
Quellennamentlichdie spruchqueileim Anschlussan eine synopseMk-Lk-Mt. FRLANT,
no. 11. Grittingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,190g.
Muilenburg, James.The Literary Relationsof the Epistle of Barnabasand the Teachingof the
TwelveApostles. Marburg: 1929.
Neirynck, Fransand Segbroeck,Frans van. New Testamentvocabulary:A companion volume
to the concordance.BETL,no. 65. Leuven:LeuvenUniversitypress,19g4;feuven: peeters,
I 984.
o'Dea, ThomasF. sociology and the study of Religion: Theory, Research,Interpretation.
New
York and London: BasicBooks, 1970.
oesterley,w. o. E. TheJewishBackgroundof the christian Liturgy. oxford:
clarendon, 1925.
otto, Rudolf. Theldea of the Hoty.2nd ed. London and New york: oxford
University,1943.
Parsgns, Talcott. Essaysin sociotogicar rheory. Rev. ed. New york: Free,
1954; London:
Collier-Macmillan,1954.
Perrin--Norman. The Kingdom of God in the Teachingof Jesus.philadelphia:
westminster,
I 963.
Peters,Francis E. The Horvest of Heilenism: A History of the
Neor Eostfrom Arexanderthe
Gn!, to the Triumph of Christianity. New york: Simon & Schusrer,j970.
^ .
Polag, Athanasius.Fragmenta 2nd ed. Neukirchen-vluyn:
e. Neukirchenerverlag, 1982.
Poschmann,Bernhard. Poenitentiasecunda:Die kirchtiche
Bu$e im liltesten Christentum bis
Cyprian und Origenes.Theoph.,no. l. Bonn: peter Hanstein,1940.
^ .
Roberts, colin H. Manuscript, society and Betief in Earry
christian Egypt: The schweichLec-
tures of the British Acodemy 1977. London: Oxford University pieis,
1979.
Robin-son, J. Armitage. Bornabas,Hermos,and the Didache.London: s.p.c.K., r920;
New
York: MacMillan, 1920.
Rordorf, Willy, and Tuilier, Andr6. La doctrine des douze apdtres (Didochi). SC, no. 248. Paris:
Les 6ditions du cerf, 1978.
Sabatier, Paul. AIAAXH TON IB'AIIOETOAQN: La Didachi ou I'enseignement des douze
ap6tres. Paris: Charles Noblet, 1885.
Sand, Alexander. Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Untersuchungen 4,ur Theologie des Evangeliums
nach Matthiius. BU. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet' 1974.
Schaff, Philip. The Oldest Church Monuol Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Edin-
burg: T. & T. Clark, 1885.
Schenk, W. Synopse zur Redenquelle der Evongelisten: Q-Synopse und Rekonstruktion in
deutscher Obersetzung mit kiirzen Erliiuterungen. Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1981.
Schlecht, Joseph. Doctrina XII apostolorum: Die Apostellehre in der Liturgie der katholischen
Kirche. Freibrtrg im Breisgau: Herder, 1901.
Schmid, Joseph. Das Evangelium nach Motthrius. RNT, no. 1.5th ed. Regensburg: Friedrich
Pustet,1965.
Schmithals, W. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. ZBNT, no. 3/1. Zirich: Theologischer Verlag,
1980.
Schniewind, Julius. Das Evangelium nach Matthtiu.s. NTD, no. 2. 4th ed. Gcittingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1950.
Sch6nle, Yolker. Johannes, Jesus und die Juden: Die theologische Position des Matthiius und des
Verfassers der Redenquelle in Lichte von Mt. 11. BBET, no. 17. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, 1982.
Schiirmann, Heinz. Das Lukasevangeliun. HTKNT, no.3/1. Frieburg im Breisgau: Herder &
Co., 1969.
-. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen 4u den synoptischen Evangeften. Diisseldorf: Pat-
mos, 1968.
Schultz, Siegfried. Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Ziirich: Theologisher Verlag, 1972.
Schweizer, Eduard. Church Order in the New Testament. SBT, no. 32. Translated by Frank
Clarke. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1961.
-. Matthdus und seine Gemeinde. SBS. Stuttgart: KBW, 1974.
Seeberg, D. Alfred. Die beiden lVege und das Aposteldecret. Leipzigi A. Deichert (Georg
Brihme), 1906.
-. Der Katchismus der Urchristenheit. Leipzig: A. Deichert (Georg Btihme), 1903.
Soiron, Thaddiius. Die Bergpredigt -/esz. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder & Co., 1941.
Spence, Canon. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1885.
Steinhauser, Michael C. Doppelbildworte in den synoptischen Evongelien: Eine form- und
traditions-linguistic Studie. FvB, no. 44. Wiirzburg: Echter, 1981.
Strack, Hermann L., and Billerbeck, Paul. Das Evangelium nach Matthiius erltiuteret aus Talmud
und Midrash.6 vols. 5th ed. Milnchen: C. H. Beck, 1926.
Strecker, Georg. Die Bergpredigt: Ein exegetischer Kommentar. G<ittingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1984.
-. Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit.3rd ed. Giittingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971.
Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan & Co.. 1936.
-.
The Primitive Church. New York: Macmillan & Co., 1929.
Suggs, M. Jack. Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew's Gospel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press,1970.
Syreeni, Kari. The Making of the Sermon on the Mount: A Procedural Analysis of Matthew's
Redactoral Activity. Part 1: Methodology & Compositional Analysis. AASF, no. 44.
Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. 1987.
Taylor, C. An Essay on the Theology of the Didache. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1889;
London: George Bell & Sons, 1889.
-.
The Teoching of the Twelve Apostles. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1886; London:
George Bell & Sons, 1886.
Tcherikover, Yictor. Hellenistic Civilization and the "/ews. Translated by S. Applebaum.
Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959.
Theissen, Cerd. The Social Setting of Pouline Christianity. Translated by John H. Schr.itz.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
 170 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

-. Sociologyof Early PalestinianChristianitl. Translatedby John Bowden.Philadelphia:For-

tress,1978.
Turner, E. G. Greek Papyri: An Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.
Van Tilborg, Sjef. The Jewish Leadersin Matthew. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.
INDEX OF TEXTS
Vcigtle, Anton. Dos Evongelium und die Evangelien. Beitrtige zur evongelischenForschung.
Diisseldorf:Patmos.1971.
-. Die Tugend- und Losterkotalogeim Neuen Testamezt.NTAbh, no. 16/4-5. Miinster:
AschendorffschenVerlagsbuchhandlung,1936. OLD TESTAMENT
V<i<ibus,Arthur. Liturgical Traditionsin the Didache. PETSE, no. 16. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968.
Vokes, F. E. The Riddle of the Didache: Fact or Fiction, Heresy or Catholicism?.London: Genesis Psalms
S.P.C.K., 1938;New York: Macmillan,1938. l 8 :I 3 -l 5 74 37(36): l6 74
'74
Von Campenhausen,Hans. EcclesiosticalAuthority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the 35:.12 37(36):22 74
First ThreeCenturies.Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969. 4'7:29-30 74 37(36):33 74
-. The Formotion of the Christian Bible. Translatedby J. A. Baker. Philadelphia:Fortress, Exodus 37(36):34 1^

1972. 20 61,64 37(36):35 1A

Wallace-Hadrill,D. S. ChristianAntioch: A Study of Early Christion Thought in the East. Cam- 20:8-17 100 Proverbs
bridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1982. 20:13-14 56 l-9 24
Weber, Max. Mox Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.Translatedby A. 20:13-16 )) 6:2 60
M. Hendersonand Talcott Parsons.Edited by Talcott Parsons.New York: Free, 1947;Lon- 20:13-17 5 5 ,6 5 Il:13 60
don: Collier-Macmillan.1947. 20:14-17 56 l2:28 24
Wegner, Uwe. Der Hauptmann von Kafarnam. Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),1985. 20:17 56 l4:2'7 60
Weiss,Bernhard.Das Matthiiusevangeliumund seineLukasparallelen.Halle: Waisenhaus,1876. 20:24 83 2l:6 60, 64
-. Die QuellendesLukasevangeliums.Stuttgart and Berlin: J. G. Cotta'scheBuchhundlung, 3 3 :I - 3 IJ 2l:24 60
1907. Leviticus 24:19 74
Weiss, Johannes.Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments.Yol l: Die drei iiltern Evongelien.Die l8:22 60 28:26 69
Apostelgeschichte.Gcittingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1907. 'n-72
19:17 59, 60 30:6-9
Wellhausen,Julius. Das EvangeliumMatthaei. 2nd ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1914. l 9 :l 7 - 1 8 59, 62 34:35 69
Wengst, Klalus. Schriften des Urchristentums: Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter l 9 :l 8 30, 32, 59 Ecclesiastes
Klemensbrief,Schrift an Diognet. Mtinchen: Krisel-Verlag,1984. 19:26 64 5:l-j 60
Wernle, Paul. Die synoptischeFrage. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),1899. 20:13 60 Isaiah
White, John L. Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia:Fortress, 1986. Deuteronomy 5:8 1A

Wilson, Bryan R. Magic and the Millennium. A SociologicalStudy of ReligiousMovementsof l:25 IJ ll:10 6)
Protest among Tribal and Third-world Peoples.New York: Harper & Row, 1973. 5 64 40:17 125
Wohleb, Leo. Die lateinischebersetzungder Didache. SGKA, no. 7/1. paderborn: Ferdinand 5 : 1 7- 1 9 55-56 66:I 66,70
Sch<iningh, 1913. 5:17-20 )) 66:2 66, 69-70,77-'.78
Wohlenberg, C. Die Lehre der zw6lf Apostel in ihre Verhtiltnis zum neutestomentlichenSchrift- 5 : 1 7- 2 1 65 Jeremiah
tum. Erlangen:Andreas Deichert, 1888. 6:5 30 7:9 7l
Wolf, Eric. Ordnungder Kirche: Lehr- und HandbuchdesKirchenrechtsauf dkumenischerBosis. 6:10-12 74 l4:11-12 M
Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann,1961. '74
8 : 7 l-0 2l:8 25
Wrege, Hans-Theo.Die Ubertieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt.WUNT, no. 9. Tiibingen: J. '74
11:8-22 Daniel
C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),1968. I 6: I 8-20 o/ 7:13 85,88
Zahn, Theodor. Das EvangeliumdesMatthiius. KNT, no. I . 3rd ed. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1910. 18:10-ll 64 Hosea
-- Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der attkirchlichen 4:2
24:l-4 67
Literatur. Yol.3: SupplementumClementinum.Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1884. 30:15 25, 27, 29 Amos
Zeller,Dieter.Kommentarzur Logienquelle. SKK.NT, no. 21. Stuttgart:Katholisches Bibelwerk, Joshua 4 :l - 3
1984. 5 :l 5 l5 7:l'7 1A

Ziegler,Joseph,ed. lsaias.SVTG, no. 14. Gdttingen:Vanderhoeck& Ruprecht,1939. I Samuel 8:4-6 74

Zumstein, Jean.La condition du croyant dans l'dvangile selon Matthieu. oBO, no. 16. Gdt- l6:7 83 Micah
tingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1927. Psalms 2:l-3 74
I 1A
Zechariah
18:5 60 7:10 60
37(36) 73-76 8:17 60
3'7(36):7 74 l4:5 89
37(36\:9 74 Malachi
37(36): II 73-78,80-81 f:2-4
 INDEX OF TEXTS 173
t72 INDEX OF TEXTS

Matthew Matthew
APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
5:36 47,r3r l6:17-19 l19
Sirach 5:37 130-31 l8 12l
3 Apocalypseof Baruch l8:4 69
10:15 76 5:38-42 39, 47
4.11 83 I8:15-18 t2l
l2:.l 5l-52 5:38-48 46
8.5 83
24 5:39 42 l8:15-20 57,60,122
13.4 83 15:17
28:13-15 60 5:40 42 l 8 :l 7 rt4
Epistle of Aristeas 42 l 8 :l 8 l3l
34:26 44 5:41
15.5 33 l8: l9-20 l3l
60 5:42 42, 48-49,52
Baruch 5l:2
5:43 39 l8:20 83
4:l 24 Testamentof Asher
U 5:43-48 39 l9 6l
I Enoch 1.5-9
5:44 ,f0 19:.12 l3l
5-7 75 2.r-10 83 q
5:45 l9:16-19 54, 56
2 Enoch Testamentof Benjamin
5:46 40, 46-47 19:16-22 62
30:15 u 33.3 32
5:47 4r, 46, r34 l9:18 55-56,58
2 Esdras Testamentof Dan
5:48 4t, 47-48,94 l9:19 32,62
1l:4 44 5.3 32
6.8 64 6 :l - 1 8 44, 46, t30, t37 19:21 94
I Maccabees 2l:9 135
Testamentof Gad 6tl-21 133-34
3:46-47 44
3.1 93 6:l-6 45,130-31 2l:15 135
Pirke Aboth
Testamentof Issachar 6:2 46 2l:.43 t34
t.t2 32
5.2 32 6:2-6 44 22:34-40 54
l.l5 60
7.6 32 6:'l 46, 134 22:37-39 29-30
6.1 32
Testamentof the Twelve Patriarchs 6:7-B 45,13l 22:40 37
Sirach
4.r9 64 6:9-l3 45, 105,137 23 t3t, r34
l:28 60
Tobit 6:l4-15 45 23:2-3 l3l
2:l 69
4:15 33 6:16-18 44-45, 130-31,137 23:5 l3l
2:4 69
4:16 36 6:32 46, 134 23:8-l0 l3l
2:22 60
l2:8 44-45 7 29 2 3 :l 5 131
3:17 76
14:10 60 7:6 l3l, 140 23:16-22 l3l
3:2O 76
7:12 30,37 23:24 l3l
5:9 @ Wisdom of Solomon
l:ll ffi,64 7:12-14 36 21:33 l3l
5 :1 4 60
t4 24,26 7:13-14 25-26,28-29, t46-59 23:34 ll9
6:2 69
14:25-26 83 7:15-23 120 24 9, 87-88
?:10 44
14:'28 60 7:22 t4l 24-25 It4
l0:14 76
8 :I l - 1 2 134 24:4 93
8 :1 9 t4l 24:9 134
NEW TESTAMENT
9:27 t4l 24:10-12 86
Matthew Matthew
l0 9, t3t-32 24:10-13 88
l:l 5:21-22 l 30-3l l0:5 46 24:lt 87
l4l
4:3 67 l0:5-6 l3l 24:30 87
l4l 5:21-32
l0:5-23 133 24:30-31 87
5 46,6r, 64,66 5:21-37 65-66,70
l 0 :l 8 46 24:42 85-86
5-6 43 5:21-48 58, 62
l0:23 l3l 24:44 85-86
5:3 76,81 5:22 6'l
l0:29-30 69 25:13 86
5:3-12 75,80 5:22-26 )t
5:4-9 I l:9 120 25:.31 87
76 5:23-24 l3r '16
f:) 75,767 , 8 ,8 0 - 8 1 5:23-26 t2l l l:13 5t 25l.34
l l:19 l4l 26:26-29 105
5 :I 1 - 1 2 t34 5t26 5l
5 :l 6 I l:28-30 94-95 28:16-2O t34, r37
37 5:27 66
12:36-37 l3l 28:19 135-36
5:17-20 r20 5:27-28 I 30-3I
l3 t2l Mark
5:I 7-48 133 5:31 66
13:47-50 t2l 7:21-22 84
5 :l 9 50,130-31 5:32 6't, t04
5:20 13:52 t20 l 0 :l 9 3 3 ,5 5 , 5 6
134 5:33 57, 66
5:20-37 130-31 l5 l19 llt25-26 45
ffi 5:33-35
l 5 :l 4 ll8 t2 33
5:20-48 45 5:33-3'l 58,66
5:20-6: l 5 :l 9 84 l2:30-3I 29-30,32
l8 46 5:34-35 66
t74 INDEX OF TBXTS INDEX OF TEXTS t75

Mark Acts I Timothy I Peter

l3 9 l5:29 50, 96 6:lI 79 4:19 &
l3:5 93 l5:36-41 )t 2 Timothy 5:2 t26
l 3 :l 3 87 l6:4 r26 3:2-S 84 2 Peter
13:26 87 20:29-30 126 Titus 2:lO g
l3:33 86 ?,0:35 49, 5l l:5 125 2:15 93
l3:35 85-86 24:14 37 l:5-16 125 2:21 93
l4:22-25 10,{ 28:23 37 l:7 64 I John
Luke Romans 2:12 43 3:7 93
6:20 76 l:17 93 James 5:3 95
6.20-21 75 l:27 60 2:5 76 2 John
6:21 75 l:29-31 83-84 2:8 32 l0:l I 126
6:27 N 8:28 7l 5:12 58 Jude
6:27-28 39 12:16 69,97 6:9 93 22-23 60
6:28 40 l3:8-10 54,97 I Peter Revelation
6:29 42 13:9 32,34 2:ll 43 20:.8 60
6:29-30 39, 47 l4:l-3 96 3 :l 3 43
6:30 42,48-49,52 I Corinthians
6:31 30 5 : 1 0 -Il 84 PATRISTIC LITERATURE
6:32 40, 47 6:9 93
6:32-36 39 6:9-10 84 Alexander Severus Epistleof Barnabas
6:33 41, 46 8:4 96 51 33 20.2 82,84
6:14 4l l0:10 g Apostolic Constitutions 2r.6 93
10:25-28 96 't
6:35 4l 7, 28, 43, 64 ChurchOrdinances
6:36 41, n 1l:23-26 104-105 7.2 60 6.2 8G.8t
7:26 t20 12:28 t2l 7.7 8l ll 77
8:8 73 15:52 88 1 't) t26 Clement of Alexandria
l0 lll 2 Corinthians Athanasius paedogogis
l0:27 29-30 12:2G21 84 epistulo num fest ivolium t.6.34 73
ll:.2-5 45 Galatians 39 26 1.10.91 73
12 88 5:14 32 Epistle of Barnabas 2.t0 60
12:35 85 5 :l 7 -l 8 27 2.8 60 2.t94 60
12:35-40 113 5:19-21 27,84 4.9 86 3.12 60, 68
12:.40 85-86 5:20 64 6.8 73 protrepticus
12:59 5l 5:21 27, g 10.6 60 10.108.5 60
13:23-24 25-26,28, t46-59 5:22-23 27 l8-20 23,31,35,70,90,t42 stromateis
13:.24 26 5:23 79 1 8 l. 23,2s,93 |.7.37 73
l6:16 37 5:24 27 1 8 l. - 2 27 1.29.2 r02
l8:20 33, 55 Ephesians 19 s 4 ,@ - 6 r , 6 3 , 8 2 2.7.3 60
2l:8 93 4:2 64,79 t9-20 82 2.23 33
2l:27 87 4:26-36 64 19.2 32,35,37,82 3.36 60
22:14-20 105 5:3-5 84 19.3 59,61,69 4.3.10 60
John Philippians 19.3-6 69 4.6 80
4:24 83 l:l t25 t9.4 56,60-61,69,73,77-78 4.36.1 8l
Acts 2:14 64 t9.4-6 64 5.10.63 73
7;33 73 Colossians 19.5 35,37,61,82 7.1.2 124
l 3 :I t24 3:5-12 65 19.6 6t, 69-72,77 7.t4 60
l 3 : 15 37 3:12 79 t9.7 61,82 I Clement
l4:23 125 I Thessalonians 19.8 6r, 82 1.3 t24-25
l5 96-98, t26 4 : lI 97 19.9 82 2.1 5l
l5:8 96 4:16 89 1 9 l. 0 82 2.s 60
l5:20 33,36 I Timothy l 9 . lI 61,82 r3.2 33
l5:23-29 96 l:9-10 83-84 19.r2 82 21.6 lu
l5:24 96 1:10 60 20 14, 82-83 42.4-5 125
l5:25 97 3 :l - 1 3 r25 20.1 82 54.2 r25
t76 INDAX OF TEXTS INDEX OF TEXTS 177

Didache Didache Didache Didache

I l13 34 6 3 , 6 5 , 7 0 , 7 8 , 8 0 ,l l 0 6.2 8,94-96, tfiz 13.l-7 125
t-2 39,62 3.1 63-U,70, tt2, tls 6.2-3 5,9+96, 143,145 13.3 5
l-3 2r,82 3.l-4.14 54 6.3 50,94-97 t3.3-7 ll0
t-5 3, XL-25,32,35,37,39, 3.1-6 6349,70,79,82 7 3 , 2 7 , 8 3 , 1 0 4 - 1 0 5l 1, 2 13.4 {
47, 50, 68,72, 85, 88-94, 3.2 55, 64{5, 68, 84 7-8 133,139 13.5-7 5
98-108, l10-12,ll+15, 3.2-6 54, 63-66,68-70,72 7-10 21, 103-10t,109, ll2, l4 ll0, 126
ll7, t29,133-37, t39, 3.3 84, ll5 135,145 l+t6 6
r4r, t43 3.34 &-65 7-tl 95 l4.l-16.8
l-5(6) 26,n,92,9-103, 136 3.3-6 t02 7-t5 3, 21, 53, 92-93,98, lll, l5 108,ll0, ll2
l-5(6.1) lt4 3.4 64, l15 127,137,143,145 1 5 I. n0, 123, 125, t27
l-5(16) 145 3.5 G-66,71,84, rl5 7-15(16) 133 t5.2 83, r24
t4 27-28,68,70, 83, 126-27 3.6 &-65,7t, tr5 7-t6 I 14-16 15.3 ll5
l.l 22-29,3r,35,37 3.6-7 6 7.1 5, lM, 125-26,135-36 15.34 53, 138
t.l-2 36 3.7 26,63,65-61n. 127,70, 7.1-10.6 2l 15.4 ,16,ll0
l. l-3 5, 54, r33, t4344 73-tl 7.t-t5.4 r43 l6 3, 9, 18,2t-23,27, 39,
l.l{.1 18,2t-22,24,39, lO7, 3.7-8 70,78 7.2 133 $-m,9r-92, l0l, ll3-
t4243 3.7-lO 70 7.2-3 t37 15, l16, 138,l4l, 143,
t.2 29-3t,50,53,58,62,65, 3.8 66, 69-70,77-78,97 7.2-4 < ,,1 145
9 7 ,l 0 l , l l 5 3.8-10 66, 69-70,83 7.3 l(X, 135-36 l6.l 8 5 , 8 9 ,l 1 3
1.3 N, 46,54,61,tt4 3.9 69 7.+8.1 t37 l6.l-8 2l
r34 39-lt, 88 3.9-10 9,70 8 39, 105 16.2 86
1.36 12,53-54, 130 3.10 69-72 8-10 la 16.3 ll4
r.3-2.1 5, 9-10,t3, t6, 17,2t, 4 27, 63, 82-83 8.1 6, l0/, l14, 133 16.3-5 86,88
3&53,6l-62, 9,1-95, 103, 4-5 u-t4, r0l 8.1-2 102 16.4 l14, l4l
113-1s,129,135-38,142- 4-6 83 8.l-l1.2 ) t6.4-5 89
43, l4s 4.1 82-83,tO2 8.2 l14, 135,137-38 16.5 85, 107
1.3-6.1 145 4.14 70 8.2-3 105 16.6 85,87-88
t.4 5, 40,4748,94 4.t-8 82 8.3 106,139 16.G8 87-88
1.5 4/E-51,52 4.2 69, 82-83,l15 8.6 135 t6.7 87, 89
1.6 51-52,53 4.3 82-83 9 r12 16.8 8 5 , 8 7 ,l 1 4
t.5-6 6,52 4.4 82 9-10 126, 138-39,r4r Didascalia
2 54,58,6U64,97,t00 4.5 82 9.1 r4l 2.6.r 57
2-3 27,61,64,79,tol 4.5-8 70 9.l-10.5 125 DorotheusAbbas
24 53 4.6 82 9.2 139 doctrtnoe diversae
2-6 il3 4.7 82, l4l 9.3 139 1 3 I. 7l
2.1 5 3 , 5 4 l,l 3 4.8 82-83,lt5 9.4 l15, 139 episulae
2.t4.14 n 4.9 82 9.5 ll4, 13940 3 7l
2.2 54-58,100, ll5 4.9-10 83 10.2 139 Hippolytus
2.2-3 54, 55-56, 58-60,63, 65, 4.9-tl 70 10.3 139,l4l traditio apostolica
68, 8l 4.9-t2 82 10.5 8 5 , 1 0 5 ,l l t , l l 5 , 1 3 5 2.t4.2 t27
2.2-s 56-5t 4.10 82 10.6 ll4 n. 61, 139,l4l Irenaeus
2.2-7 5342, 63,70 4.ll 83 ll 126 odversus haereses
2.2-5.2 5 4.12 8 2 ,l l 5 tt-12 108-109 3.r2.r4 33
2.2-6.1 2t, t33, 1434 4.t2-t4 82 I l-15 21, 107, 10t-13 5.9.4 8l
2.3 57-58,62 4.t3 82 I l. l-15.4 2l 5.32.2 8l
2.3-s 57-58,6r-62 4.t4 82-83 I1.3 138 Justin Martyr
2.4 6l ) 14,27, 82-84,97 tr.3-t3.2 ) opologiae
2.4-5 60 5.1 5+55,82,84 tt.7 109 l.16 3l
2.5 6l 5.r-2 27 ll.ll l15 dialoets
2.6 57-59,ll5 5.2 82 tt.t2 l@ 93.1 33,65
2.6-7 5E-59,60, 62, 83 6 50,61,9&9t t2 109 9560
2.7 58-59,6l 6-15 23 12.4 ll5 Martyrdom of Polycarp
2.8 53 6.1 27,92-94 t2.s t4l 6.1 t26
3 54, 60-61,63-t1, 83-84, 6.l-3 21,96 l3-15 ll0
129
l7E INDEX OF TtsXTS

Origen Shepherd of Hermas

de principiis Mondotes
3.2 72 8.3.5 83
3.2.7 7r 9.3 60
Pseudo-Clement I 1.8 80 INDEX OF AUTHORS
homiliae Similitudes
7.4-7 33 9.23.4 60 Allegro, J. M. 75 Farrar, F. W. ll-12
Shepherdof Hermas Visions Andresen, C. 124 Festugiire, A.-J. 65
Mandotes 2.3.1 60 Audet, J.-P. 5-7, 16, 19, 25-27, 3l, 53-56, Finkel, A. 138
2.4 52 2.4.3 r25 59, 63-65, 68-70,73, 76, 78, 126-27, 138 Frend, W. H. C. 62, 125
2.4-6 50 2.6.2-3 126 Aune, D. E. U Friedlander, G. 75
2.7 50 Tertullian Fuller, R. H. 30, 38
3.2 7l de virginibus velandis Baltzer, K. 27 Funk, F. X. 7-9,55-56,60,63,65,78, 93-
8.3 56, 60 271 Bammel, E. 85 94,96
Beare,F. W. 76,8l Furnish, V. 34
MISCELLANEOUS TEXTS Benigne,H. 8
Berger, K. 67 Gaechter,P. 76,81
Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Best, E. 79 Gager,J. G. 108
263 Bahodesh Betz, H. D. 4445, 50,76, lE Gerhardsson,B. 4+45
Acts of Paul and Thecla 8 65,7r Bigg, C. 15 Gibbins,H. J. 138
677 Philo Judaeus Billerbeck, P. 8l G i e t ,S . 6 , r 1 , 3 3 , 5 3 , 5 5 , 6 8 ,l 0 l , l l 3
Apocalypseof Peter de decologo Black, M. 76 Glover, R. 15-16,18-19,25, 46, 49, 55,78,
193 29-33 65 Bonnard, P. 73 l13
Babylonia Talmud POxy Boring, M. E. 24, 107, l@, ll9-21 Goodspeed,E. J. 16
Hullin t.654 9 Bornkamm, G. 34, lO7, 126, 130 Goppelt, L. 65, 102, 106
44b 63 1.655 9 Brooks, S. H. 45, 13U32 Grant, R. M. 52, ll0, 125
Sukka t782 20,43, @ Brown, F. 12,25, 43, 4849, 51,55, 60, 65 Greyvenstein, J. 14, U-25,35-36, 38, 54,
29b 80,8l IQS Brown, R. E. ll9, 123 56, 65, 68, 7l
Cicero 3.13-4.1 27 Brueggemann,W. 74 Grundmann,W. 34, 4,76
tusculanae 3.t3-4.26 27, n-28 Bultmann,R. 44, 58,65-66,116, 120 Gundry, R. H. 34,75-76,80
4.7 65 4.2-6 27 Butler, B. 31, 88
Confucius 4.7-8 27 Burkitt, F. C. 14,20 Haenchen,E. 97
Analects 4.9-lt 27,83 Harnack,A. (von) 7-13, 25, 31, 55, 58-60,
15.23 3l 4.12-26 27 Chadwick, H. 126 63-65,68, ll3, 124-26,129
Doctrine of the Mean lQpPs Cherniss,H. 99 Harris, J. R. 13, 63,71-72,83, 96, 126
13.3-4 3l 37.2.8-rl 75 Connolly,R. H. 12, 14, 16,20, 64,78,84 Hatch, E. 123-25
Diogenes Laertius Sibylline Oracles Conzelmann,H. 97,125 Hermann, E. 125, 128
7.ttl 65 3.22 64 Cothenet, E. 109 Hilgenfeld" A. 7
7.rt3 65 Gospel of Thomas Craigie, P. C. 75 Hitchcock,R. D. t2, 25, 43,48-49,51, 55,
Josephus,Flavius 6 44 Creed,J. M. 15, 38,71, 84,97 65
antiquitates judaicae t4 44, 137 Cross,F. M. 75 Hoffmann, P. 26
3.91-93 67 25 32 Crossan,J. D. 17-18 Horner, G. 8, 138
5.178 73 54 76 Hultgren, A. J. 34
Davies,W. D. 74,76 Hummel, R. 119
Denaux, A. 26 Hyman, A. 8l
Dibelius, M. 125, 138
Dietzfelbinger,C. 45 Iselin, L. E. 8, 56
Dihle, A. 31, 33
Di Lella, A. 52 Jefford, C. N. 138
Draper,J. 30,49-50,53,55,90 Jeremias,J. 34, 80
Dix, G. 128 Johnson,S. E. 94,96, 127, 137
Downey, G. 128
DrewsP , . 9, 53,65,88,95 Kamlah, E. 27
Dupont, J. 76 Kelber,W. H. ll4, 130, 136
Kilpatrick, G. D. 47
Eichholz, G. 76 Klevinghaus,J. 56, 65,78,82
180 INDEK OF AUTIIORS TNDBX OF AUTHORS l8l

Kline, L. L. 53 Parsons,T. ll2, ll7 Van Tilborg, S. ll8, 134 Wengst,K. l0-ll
Kloppenborg, J. S. 4, 16, 19,24,27,33- Patterson,S. J. 138 Von Campenhausen,H. lU, 126 White, J. L. I
34, 49, 5r, 53,75, 78-79,83, Peradse,G. 8 Vci6bus,A. l7 Wilken, R. L. 128
87-88, 93-94 Perrin, N. 75 Vrigtle, A. 64, 68 Wilson, B. R. 98-100
Knopf, R. 9, 56, 58, ffi,78,82,94,96, Peters,F. E. 105 Vokes,F. E. 15,25,31,33, 43, 51, 53, 56, Wohleb, L. 8, 63, 73
125 Pickett, N. D. 39 60, 63-64,7r, 93, 96, rr3 Wohlenberg,G. 8, 36
Koch, K. 74 Polag,A. 76 Wolf, E. 125
Kohler, K. 25 Poschmann,B. 82 Wallace-Hadrill, D. S. 128 Wrege, H.-T. 46
K<ihler,W.-D. ll,25,30, 32, 55,78, 136 Warfield, B. B. 12-13,38,53-54,56, 60,
Krister,H. 10, 16, 19, 36, 38, 41, 48-49, Reike, B. 122 62, 64,70,82 Zahn,T. 8, 81, 125
5 1 , 5 3 ,5 5 - 5 67, 8 , 8 0 ,8 3 - 8 48, 8 , l l 4 Rife, J. M. 74,76 Weber, M. 107 Ziegler, J. 77
Kraft, R. A. 17, 20, 24, 49, 56, 64, 68, 84, Riggs,J. W. 138 Wellhausen.J. 76 Zumstein, J. 76
95-97 Roberts,C. H. I
Kraus, H.-J. 74 Robinson,J. A. 14-15,20,25,36,53, 56,
Krawutzcky, A. 7, 12-13 58, 64,77-78,94,125
Kretschmar,G. 97 Robinson,J. M. l0l, 116
Rordorf,W. 6,28, 63,71, 83, 93-96
Ladd, G. E. 17, 85
Lake, K. (OxfordSociety) 13,20,31,36, Sabatier,P. 4-6, 36,49, 51, 55-56,63, 93,
5 1 , 7 8 , 8 8l,1 3 126
Layton, B. 17, 39, 46, 48, 50, 52, 53, 60 Sand, A. l2l
Lefort, L.-Th. 8 Schaff, P. 12, 25, 27, 56,78, 125
Leipoldt, J. 9 Schlecht,J. 8, 36, 64,68, 73, 95
L'Eplattenier, C. 25 Schmauch,W. 76
Lietzmann, H. 138 Schmidt,C. 8, 81, 138
Lightfoot,J. B. 13,15,25,123-26 Schoedel,W. R. 102, ll0
Lilje, H. 8, 60, 66,94-95 Schtillgen,G. 125
Linton, O. 125 Schramm,T. 34
Lohmeyer,E. 34,76 Schiirmann,H. 47
Ltihrmann, D. 31,47 Schulz,S. 47,76
Luz, U. 26, l2l,123,132-33 Schweizer,E. l2l,124
Seeberg,D. A. 56, 88
Maclean,A. J. 15 Seguy,J. 103
Malherbe,A. J. lll Skehan,P. Wm. 52
Malina, B. J. 101 Smith, J. Z. 98
Manson,T. W. 34 Smith, M. A. 16
Marguerat, D. 26, l2l Soiron,T. 76
Massaux,E. 5-6,31, 36, 56,78,94,96 Spence, C. 12,31, 54,72,78, 125,134
McDonald, J. L H. 28 Stanton, G. N. 122
McGiffert, A. C. 36, 50, 63, 68, 78 Stendahl,K. 34
Meeks,W. A. 27, tl4, 128,133,136 Stern, M. 128
Mees,M. 17,56 Strack,H. L. 81
Meier, J. P. tt9-23 Strecker,G. 34, 58,66,75-76,ll9
Middleton, R. D. 138 Streeter,B. H. 15-16,ll4, 126
Mowinckel, S. 74 Suggs,M. J. U, 21, 69, 99, 102, ll9
Muilenburg,J. 14-15,20,25,38,St, 54, Syreeni,K. 31,44
6 4 , 7 8 , 9 3 ,r 2 7
Taylor,C. 12-13,25,31,51, 63, 71, 96,
126
Neusner,J. 99
Tcherikover, V. 128
Niederwimmer,K. ll
Telfer, W. 15, 96
Noakes,K. W. 27
Theissen,G. 108-109,lll, 128
Troeltsch,E. lll-12
O'Dea,T. F. 103,106,lt7 Tuilier,A. 6,28, 63,71,83,93-96
Oesterley,W. O. E. 54 Turner, E. C. I

GENERAL INDEX
Acts, Book of 15, 36-37,50-51,97, 109 85, 97, 104, lfi, 123-25,127-29,140,
adultery 55,64-68,79, 100 143, t45
ogape(meal/feast) 13, 139 ChurchFathers I, 18, 81, 106,116,126
Alexandria/Alexandrian l0/, 128 Church Ordinances 20, 61, 64, 68, 127
alms/almsgiving 44, 46, 52, lI0, 132, l3'7 Clement(of Alexandria) @,70-72
angelology 23,21 clergy/clerical 127-28
Antioch/Antiochene 6, l3-15, 50, 54, 97- CodexAlexandrinus 55, 61, 65, 79
98, 104, 128-29,145 Colossians,Epistleto the 65
Antitheses 45-46,58, 66, l13 Community Rules (section) 2l
Apocalypse/apocalyptic 9, 21, 23, 76' 85, Coptic fragment/texts/manuscript 8, 18,
87-90,92-93,l0l, l13-14, 134, 14243 138
Apocrypha/apocrYPhal l7, 24, 64 covetousness57, 62, 65, lm
Apollos 109 credo/credal 98-99, 103
apostle(s),(wandering) 108, l19, l2l, cross/resurrection theology 105-106,ll?,
123-24 139
-14,
ApostolicConstitutions 20,28, 49, 61, cults/cultic/cultus 68, l0l, 126
126-27
ApostolicDecree 21, 50,96-97 David 73, 135,139,141
ApostolicFathers 10, 13, 18, l16 deacon(s)/deaconate 108, 123-25, 127
apostolic order/tradition 120, 125 decafogue18, 39, 54-68,72,79,8l-82,84,
Aquila 77 9r,97-103,l18-19,129,r33, 143-44
Asia Minor 7. 106 Deuteronomictradition 56
Athanasius 26 Deuteronomy,Book of 29-30,55, ll0
Deutero-Pauline 84.97
baptism(al),/immersion 4, 24, 26-28, 68-69, Diaspora l0l
82-83,95, 104-105, tt2, 125-27,133, Diatesseron 12
135-38,140 Didachist/firstredactor passim
Barnabas 109,125 Didascalia 15, l2'7
Barnabas, Epistleof 7-8, ll-16, 22-25,31, disciples ll8-20, 122, 134
35, 38, 61, 64, 68-69,71-72,7'1-78,
83, dogma 103-104
90, 142 DorotheusAbbas 70
beatitude(s)/macarism75-'16,'18,80-81 doublelove commandment 30, 32-38
Benedict,St. 68 Duae Viae/Judicium Petri 7
bishop(s) 58, 108,122-27 dualism/dualistic 26-28,100-l0l
blasphemy 64, 79
Boniface, St. 68 ecclesial/ecclesiasticall, 3-4, 6, 18-21,23,
British-Americanschool/scholars7. ll-17 28, 83, 92-93,95, 104, 107-108,ll0,
Bryennios,Archbishop 1,7, 123 l12, l18-19, t2t-23, 126, 128-29,143-44
Book of 62
Ecclesiastes,
Canons of Hippolytus 127 EgertonPapyrus2 17
catechumen(s)/catechetical4-5, 24, 26-27, Egypt/Egyptian l, 7-13, l'l-18, 65, 7l-72,
35, 44, 65,69, 82-83,92, r02, |M, t2t, 126
126, r33, 136-37,144 Egyptians,Cospelof the 7
catholic church I I elders 15.123-25.128
catholic epistles 102 enigma/enigmatic 3, l8-19
Christ/Christology/Christological2, 21, 89, Enoch, Book of 28
105, 107, r3l-32, 136, t4r-43 Ephesians,Epistleto the 65
Christ (cutt) 105, 107 episcopacy 13,124-25
church,early/nascent/primitive l-2, 4, 8, Epitome of Rules 72
1 8 - 1 9 , 2 4 , 3 45, 2 , 5 4 , 5 8 ,6 8 , 7 8 , 8 0 - 8 1 , eschatology/eschatological 4, 17, 26-2'1,45,
GENERAL INDEX 183
74-77,80, 85, 94, I I l-14, 116,l2t, 132 Ignatius,(Epistles of) t8, 39, l18, 122,129
Esther,Book of 27 injustice 73,75
ethic(s),/ethical (moral) 23, 27, 39, 48-49, instruction,(moral/ethical) 5, 26-27,67-68,
s6, 62-63,67, 71, 74, 76, 82, 9r, 94, 96, 79, 83, 91, 127-28,144-45
l 0 l , 1 0 3 - 1 0 41,0 6 ,l l 0 - l l , r r 5 , r M interpolator/interpolation(s)5, 46-54
eucharist/eucharistic4, 13, 105, 112, 125- Intertestamental 39,64
26, r33, 138-40 Iranian mythology 27
evolvingchurch/tradition 20, ll8 Islam 103
Exodus,Book of 55 I s r a e l(, a n c i e n t )2 3 , 6 5 , ' 7 4 , 7 6 , 7 8 , 8 1l,l 9 ,
132. 134-36
falseprophet/teacher/teaching94, 96, 109,
lll, l14,120 James(the brother of Jesus) 108
falsewitness/swearing57, 62, 66, 84, lN James.schoolof 14
fastlfasting 43-44,68, 134, 137-38,140 Jeremiah,Book of 29
final/third redactor/redaction 21, 39, 45, Jerusalem 12, 14, 97, l0l, 104,108,128
49, 53, 62, 85, 126-27 Jesus,(sayingsof) passim
form criticism/critical 2, 4, lO, 19-20,4l Jewish/Judeo- passim
fornication 56, 65,79,84, 100 Christian(ity)/church 12, 17, 27, 39, 54,
Frenchschool/scholars/tradition4-7, ll- 60, 68, 80-81,83, 85, l0l, 109-10,l13,
12.24 l16, l19-20,t24,128-32,t33, t42,
t44-4s
sources/texts9, 12,29,33, 63, 67, 80,
Galatians,Epistleto the 109
Georgianversion 9, 49 83
Germanschool/scholars,/tradition7-ll (wisdom) tradition/theme 24-26, 28-29,
Gentile(Christianity) 14, 68, 95, 9'7,106, ' 39, 44, 5r, 53-54,78,102-103, 120,133-
rr4, 120, t28-29, 132-34,lM 34, 142, 144
Gnosticism I l0 Jews 100,ll1, 132,134
GoldenRule 31, 33, 36-38,50, 54, 68, 97, Job. Book of 62
ll3 John/Johannine ll6
gospelharmony 7-10, 13, 43, 53-54,142 John (the Baptizer) 37, 120
Great Commandment 65, 68 John, First Epistleof 95
Great Commission 137 Judaism 10, 32, 36, 45, 67, 84, 88, 95, 98,
Greco-Roman 65, 123, 128 1 0 0 - 1 0 41,0 6 ,1 0 8 ,l l 0 , l 1 2 , l 1 7 , l 1 9 ,
Greece 65 121-22,
r3r-32,r34,r37
Jude, Epistleof 6O-62
H,/Greektext of Didache l, 5, 7,9, 13, 16, Judith, Book of 27
18, 20, 39-40,42-44,s2, 6r,72-71, r23, JustinMartyr 5, 15-16,3l-32
138
Haustafel 27,82 kerygma/kerygmatic65, ll2, ll7, 144
Heaven, Kingdom of 76 Kingdom of Cod 134
Hebrews,Gospelof the 7
Hebrew(wisdom)tradition l0l-102 L/Latin text of Didache 13, 18, 20, 39, 5l-
Hellenistic 2, 31,92, 115-16,122, 128, 134, 52, 6t, 64, 68,72-'t3
t44-45 L/Special Lucan source 34
(Gentile-)Christianity 98, 102, 122, 133 Labriolle l5
Judaism 56,100 land (motif) 67, 73-75,77, 81, 144
heretics/heretical54, 99 law and prophets 37-38
Hermas,Shepherdof 7, ll-12, 14-16,27, Leviticus,Book of 30, 59
50-s2 liturgy/liturgical 3-4, 8, 17-21,23,54,71,
holy/holiest(see"sacred") 53, 89, ll6, 9 3 ,9 8 , 1 0 4 - 1 0 6 , 1 0 1
82, 6 - 2 7 , 1 3 01,3 5 -
140-41 t6, r43
Holy Spirit 104, 135-36,l4l logion(see"sayings") 10, 13,28, l0l, l(X-
hypocrisy,/hypocrite 58, 102, 134, l3'l-38 1 0 5 ,l l 3 - 1 4 ,l l 7
Lord's Prayer 39, 105-106, 135,137-38
idols/idolatry 50, 64, 68, 79, 93, 96 love of God (commandmen$ 30-33,37, 53,
62. 9'7.lt3
 184 GENERAL INDEX GENERAI INDEX 185

love of neighbor(commandment) 30, 32-
33, 37, 53, 58-s9,6t-62, 97, 1r3
Lucan 9, 40, 42,46, 49, 87-88,I 13
Gospel/textlsource/versionll, 14, 16,
25, 30-3t, 33-36,39-4t, 43, 47, 49, 5r-
52, 56,62,75-76,87-88,90, 92-93,rl3,
138,143
redactor 16, 30, 33-34,38,47,49-50,56
tradition 90
LXXlSeptuagint 3l-32, M, 65, 73-74,77-
78, 80, 85, 89
lying/liar 66,71,79
M, SpecialMattheansource 26, 28, 34,3'7,
45, 47, 66, 75-76,88, 92, 94, 130-31,
134.140-41
malice,/malignance58,60
manual/handbook19, ll5-16, l2'7-28,145
Marcan 30, 34-35,38, 84, 88
community 132
Gospel/text./source./version
3 5 , 4 5 , 6 2 , 8 4 ,8 7 - 8 89, 3 - 9 3 l, 1 8 , 1 3 0 ,
132, t34, 140-42,144
redactor 38
tradition 19,32-33,36-38, 56, 84-85,90-
9 1 ,9 3 , l 1 8
Mark, SecretGospelof l'l
Matthean 9, 30, 34, 36, 40, 42, 47, 56, 62,
'75-76,
84, 129, 135
church/community15, 19,28, 54, 109,
l 14, l l8, 120-22,130-32,134-35,139-40
Gospel/textlsource,/version
redactor 16, 18, 25-26,28-30,33-34,36-
38, 45-46,51-52,54,58, 61-62,66-68,
75-77,80-81,84, 88, 91, 94, 106,l18-
22, 130-37,142
tradition 43,46-48,53,81, 84-85,90-91,
135,137,139-40
Mediterranean 28, 31, 106, l4l
meekness/meek 67,'70,73, 75-79,81, ll0
messiah,/messianic 76, 135, 139, 141
method/methodological4, 6, 10,63
Montanist(s)/Montanism7, l5
Moses/Mosaic 39, i3, 96
MT/MasoreticText 55, 61, 73, 80
murder 55, 64-67,'79,100
Origen (of Alexandria) 70-72 Rome,/RomanEmpire 76, l0l, 103-104, Theophilus l5
orthodoxy/orthodox 18, 100, 104, 142 109.128 Thessalonians, SecondEpistleto the li4
'7, Romans,Epistleto the 54 Thomas,Gospelof 17,32
OTlOld Testament lO, 12-14, 24-25, 29,
3t, 37, 53-62, 64-68, 70, 72, 74-75, 8t, ThreeRules(moti0 zl4-47,52, 130
8 3 - 8 4 ,8 9 - 9 1 , 1 0 2 , r O 4 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 6 , l l 8 , sacred(see"holy") 103, l16 Titus 125
r4r-42 sacrifice 95-96 Tobit 2'7
Sadducees 134 Torah/Law 32, 34, 37, 39, 45, 50, 53-54,
Palestine/Palestinian l1-12, 15, 36, 103, sayingsmaterial(s)/tradition(s)3-4, 6, 9, 63, 74, 8t-82, 92, 95-96,100-102,104-
119. t32-33 t8-21,24,82,91, 129,142,144 1 0 8 ,l l 0 , l l 5 , 1 1 8 - 2 11, 3 2 - 3 3
papyrus/papyrological l, 43 Schnudi,Life of 8 traditio-historical(method) 4, 19, 145
parousia l2l-22 scribe(s) 48,120, 13l, 134 Trinity/Trinitarian 105, 136
Passover 104 scripture/scriptural 51, 69, 71, 89, 102 Two Ways/Angels 12,21-24,2'7-28,35, 54,
Pastorals I l6 s e c o n dr e d a c t o r 2 1 , 2 3 , 5 3 ,5 7 , 8 5 , 1 0 7 , 6 2 , 6 8 , 7 1 , 9 3 - 9 41, 0 1 ,1 3 6
Patriarchs. Testament of the Twelve 28 109, ll2, 137, 139-40 motif/theme 8,22-26,28-29,33, 36, 39,
Paul/Pauline 4,9, 48,54, 84, 88-89,93, Sermon(on the Mount) 5, 37, 44-45,50, 99. l0l
9 6 - 9 8 ,1 0 4 - 1 0 5 1
, 0 7 - 1 0 9 l, l l , l l 6 , 1 2 1 , 54, 56, 58, 62, 66, 68,'76,80,94, saying/statement 22-24, 26, 28-29, 37
r25, r39 l 30-33 source/materials 13, 20, 22-24,26, 29,
Pauline-Petrine confrontations 109 Severin 68 3r-32, 15-37,53, 6r, 64, 69, 72, 82-84,
Pella 12 Shema 34,54 90-93,l15, 133, 142-43,145
perjury 57-58,60 Sirach,Book of 27, 52,'19, 129
16, 30, 34- Persia 65 sociology/sociologicall, 4, 98 virtue(s)/vice(s)(catalogs/lists) 9, 27, 64-65,
Peter 96, l19 sodomy 56,60, 100 68, 79, 80, 83, 97
Peter,Gospelof 10, 17 Solomon,Wisdom of 27
Peter,First Epistleof t6,43,104 Son of God L4l Way of Death 14, 22,25, 54, 82-84
Pharisee(s)/Pharisaic 102,ll8-19, 131,134 Son of Man l2l. 141 Way/path of Life 22-23,25, 29, 37, 53-54,
Pirke Rabbi Eleazar 29 Sophia 102 82-83,89, 103
poverty/poor 70,74-81 sourcecriticism/critical 2, 7, 9, 19-20 wicked 73-75
pray/prayer 43-44,46, 59, 6l-62,68, 105- synagogue 45, 54, 69, ll8, 120, 122-23, wisdom/sapiential 54, 65, 68, 70-74,'79-
128, t3t-32, 134, l3'7, 144 8 1 , 1 0 2 ,l l 0
1 0 6 ,l l 0 , 1 3 4 ,t 3 7 - 3 8 1
, 40
preachers,wandering/itinerant 106-107, synods 106 literature/texts/materials23, 28, 31, 65,
109-10 Synoptic(s) 4-6, 10, 20-21,3l-34, 36, 3'7, 72,'757 , 8 ,9 l
passim presbyter(s)/presbyterate19, 122-28,144 43, 46, 49, 56, I 13, 143 saying 26,52
pride 58,79 Gospels 3-4, 9, 13, 20, 26, 29, 31-32,37- tradition 31,60,129
prophet(s), (Christian) 24, 89, 108-11,l19- 3 8 , 4 3 , 5 1 , 5 6 , 6 0 , 8 2 , 8 5 , 8 7 , 9 2 ,l l 3 - world/worldly (passions/power)43, 51, 74,
20, t22-23, t3l 14, 135, 142-43 7 6 , 1 0 0 - 1 0 11,0 7 ,l l l - 1 7
Proverbs,Book of 62, 79 materials/sources/texts1, 12, 52, 88 world-view 98-99,l0l-102, 107,112,ll5,
psalm(s)/psalmist73-74,76 tradition(s) 3-4, 13, 88, 105 tt'7
Psalms,Book of 74, 79 Syria/Syrian 4,6, ll-13, l5-18, 106,126 worship 45,144
Pseudo-Athanasius64
Pseudo-Philo 67 table fellowship 95, 104, 138-40 Yahweh 74
Targums 80 yoke (of the Lord/Jesus/Torah) 94-96, 102
Q, SayingsGospel l5-16, 18, 21,25-26,28- Temple 101 youngers 124
33, 35-40,43-45,47-49,5t-52, 66,'t6, theft,/thief 64-65,71,79,84, 100
8 1 ,9 1 , 1 0 2 ,l l l , l 1 3 - 1 4 ,1 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 3 0 ,
132, t34, t38, t4t-42, t44
Qumran (scrolls) 5, l'7, 24, 75

Nag Hammadi library l'I rabbi(s),zrabbinic44, 63, 65, 81, 100, 104
Near East, ancient 3l Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel 65
NT/New Testament 3,6,8, ll-14, 16,22, redactioncriticism/critical 2, 4, l'1, 19-20
25, 2't, 32-33,43, 57, 60-6r, 64, 79, 88, rhetoric,/rhetorical26, 48, 63, 68
9 0 , 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 0 41,0 6 ,l 1 3 , 1 3 6 ,1 3 8 - 4 1 righteous/righteousness 44-45,69, 74, 77,
t34
oral sources/tradition10, 13, 15, 36, 45, ritual 23-24,26-28,45, 103-107,112, 115,
49, 56, 6r, 85, 90, I 14, t3l, 142 12'7,135, t3'7-40