Didache and Synoptics

7/28/2019 Didache and Synoptics

1/42

Harvard Divinity School

The Sources, Date and Transmission of Didache 1.3b-2.1Author(s): Bentley LaytonSource: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Jul., 1968), pp. 343-383Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity SchoolStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509155 .

Accessed: 25/10/2011 11:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press andHarvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hdshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1509155?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1509155?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hdshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/42

HARVARD HEOLOGICALEVIEW61 (1968), 343-383.

THE SOURCES, DATE AND TRANSMISSIONOF DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1BENTLEYLAYTON

HARVARDNIVERSITYI

THE unsatisfactory quality of the witnesses to the text of theDidache, especially that of Bryennios' codex Hierosolymitanus54 (a.D. o056), has been emphasizedin a well-knownpaper byErik Peterson.' This evaluation holds true for Did. I.3b-2.1,the object of the present study, to an even greater extent thanwas indicatedby Peterson.Other textual witnesses to the passage besides H (they areenumerated below 2) are few and of limited extent and useful-

1E. PETERSON, tOber einige Probleme der Didache-Vtberlieferung, RivArchCrist27 (1951), 37-68, now in his Friihkirche . . . (Rome, etc., I959), ch. 13. For themost part Peterson's specific conclusions can be accepted only with hesitation, buttheir diagnostic value is sometimes appreciable.2 Witnesseso Did. I.3b-2.I comprise:H: cod. Hierosolymitanus 54 (a.D. 1056), discovered by Bryennios.g: manuscript (s. XIX p.) of a Georgian version (made s. V/X p.), now lostand known only from G. PIRADSE's collation published in ZNW 31(1932), 111-16.papyrus: pap. Oxyrhynchus 1782, Gr.-H. vol. 15 (s.IV p. exeun.), two shortfragments: recto = I.3d-4a and verso = 2.7b-3.2b [the recto text breaks off 47words before the corruption emended below, pp. 345-3491].Const. Apost.: lost copy of the Didache used by the compiler of bk. VII of

the Apostolic Constitutions (a.D. 36o-80 ca.), ed. F. X. FUNK, from which itsreadings can sometimes be inferred. Differences against H which obviously repre-sent conflation with readings from the parallel NT pericopes are extensive andhave not been noted below.To these better-known witnesses may now be added the Syriac Liber Graduum(s.IV/V p.), ed. KMOSKO, s was recently pointed out by A. ADAM in ZKG 68(I957), 25f.: a lost copy of the Didache (perhaps in a Syriac version) quoted--sometimes quite freely--in several passages of the Liber. Loci are collected byAdam, ubi cit. The two instances where verses from 1.3-1.4 are used prove to beof no significance in textual criticism of the passage.The most complete critical edition of the Didache is in J.-P. AUDET, La Didachl(etudes Bibliques: Paris, 1958), superseding F. X. FUNK et al. (19562). Bibliog-raphy is given by AUDET(X-XVI) and must be supplemented from J. QUASTEN,Initiation aux Pares, trad. par J. Laport, t. I (Paris, 1955), 46-48, and items under"Doctrina Apostolorum" in W. SCHNEEMELCHER,Bibliog. Patrist. (Berlin) for1956 seqq.For all NT citations below, NESTLE-ALAND24 is followed, with comparison ofTISCHENDORF"rit. mai., VON SODEN, and ALAND-BLACK-etl. (1966). The readeris referred to K. ALAND, ynopsis IV Evang. (1965 %),82ff. for the relevant Synoptic


3/42

344 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWness; furthermore, their interrelationshipis elusive.3 But theapparent problems of this passage are only minimally relatedto stemmatics. It is rather through study of the sources of Did.I.3b-2.i that more pressing textual problems have receivedclarification. The close verbal resemblance of these verses toother extant texts (in the NT and HermaePastor) is conspicuousand has been noted by all editors since the editioprinceps.4 Thusall editors have found it valuable to consider whether I.3b-2.imay not comprise a harmonizing recueil from other writtensources, sources which would be of relevance for reconstructingthe originalstate of the Didache text. If the consensusof opinionin this regard has not been unanimously negative, nonetheless,no editor has yet been able to describe convincingly the harmo-nistic procedureby which the passagewould have been composed,nor to identify all its sources.On the other hand, an adequate methodology for solving thisproblemhas been slow in development. Onlywith the appearanceof Koester's monograph on the form of Synoptic tradition incertain second-centurywritings5 has there been reached such alevel of refinement n the relevanttechniqueof Quellengeschichte,at least within the field of early Patristic literature,as to be use-ful for the task here proposed. (Unfortunately, the example ofKoester's meticulous care in laying out parallel texts 6 was un-known to J. P. Audet, the most recent editor of the Didache.7)It is also clear, however, that to such a careful comparisonoftext with possible sourcesmust now be addeda secondprocedure,the study of rhetoricalfiguresand literary forms which occur inparallels. For Hermae Pastor, M. WHITTAKER,d., Die Apost. Viiter, I, Der Hirtdes Hermas (GCS: Berlin, 1956) is used; for the Apostolic Constitutions, F. X.FUNx, ed., Didascalia et Constitutiones apost., I (Paderborn, 1905) ; for the LiberGraduum, M. KMosxo, ed. et trad., in Patrologia Syriaca accurante R. Graffin,Pars Prima, III (Paris, 1926).'The papyrus and the Vorlage of Const. Apost. appear to belong to a differentbranch of the transmission from codex H. The Georgian version has not beenplaced. Cf. below, n.6i

and p. 376f.4P. BRYENNIOS,ed. (Constantinople, 1883).'HELMUT KOESTER,ynoptische (tberlieferung bei den Apost. Viitern (Texteund Unters. 65: Berlin, 1957), where Did. I.3b-2.I is treated on pp. 217-39.6 See also the recent attempt of E. MASSAUX,nfluence de l'Avangile de saintMatthieu sur la litterature chritienne avant saint Irdnrde Louvain, 1950).7J.-P. AUDET,La Didachk. Instructions des Ap6tres (etudes Bibliques: Paris,

1958) [HEREAFTER CITED AS "AUDET, Didackh"].


4/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 345the passageas deliberateconstructiveformaldevices: the ultimatepersuasiveness of any postulation of sources for Did. I.3b-2.Idependsboth upon accountingas far as possible for the source ofevery word of the passage and upon identifying the method andmotivation of its putative compositor.8Later in this study the results of such source analysis will berelated to textual criticism of the passage in question. But nomatter what solutions to the textual problemsof this passage theindividual critic may choose to follow, the conclusionsabout theuse of written sources in Did. I.3b-2.i have certain historicaland literary implications as well. If written sources cannot bepostulated, the way is open to label I.3b-2.I as the recordingofa branch of oral tradition independent of Matthew's or Luke'scasting of the Sermon on the Mount. Thus a fragmentof a po-tentially "pre-Matthean"Christian traditionI and, indeed, oneof a somewhat different theological viewpoint from that of theNT parallels o would have been recovered and could be usedas a source for study of the earliest Christian community, es-pecially if one dates the Didache itself to the first century." Onthe otherhand, if written sources for the passage can be identified,they provide a terminus post quem for at least this portion ofthe writing.

IIWhile several of the textual problems discussed below cannotbe consideredapart from the passage's form and sources, one isindependent of such considerations. It may thus be examined8 AUDET (Didackh, 185) has already raised this issue, but for the opposite reason.He rejects the possibility of any use of written sources for Did. I.3b-i.4. Harmo-nization of Synoptic gospel passages is excluded, he maintains, because the orderof phrases would have been rearranged without apparent motivation . . . the puta-tive Editor seems to take neither Mt. nor Lk. as a base but would be working

from both . . . "I1 est impossible d'imaginer comment il aurait put travailler surMt. et Lc. pour arriver A son texte. Et quel profit aurait-il cherch ?"IThus AUDET,Didache, 198; ibid., 27I.10 Below, p. 355, with the remarksby STENDAHL cited there."1As, recently, AUDET,Didache, 187-2IO; J. DANIiLOU, Theology of JewishChristianity, tr. J. A. Baker (London-Chicago, 1964), 30; A. ADAM,Erwigungenzur Herkunft der Didache, ZKG 68(1957), 1-47. Conversely, such results could beused to argue for the primitive nature of the Didache.


5/42

346 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWindependently. Harnack was first to isolate the crux; KirsoppLake, the firstto emphasizethe outstandingneedfor emendation.12

Didache I.4d-eEavXca/,3aro,nqa o-ovrTONo'ov,t o8 ycap8Uvao-am.TESTES:H gU8vao-at] um des Glaubens willendieses tun add. g 13"If anyone seizes from you anything you possess,do not demand it back.Do not, foryou cannot."

Commentators ince Bryennioshave felt called upon to explainthe apparent inappropriateness of this odd phrase, o3v8 yap8ivao-at (Did. 1.4). If one is really powerless (o0v& 8ivacrau) toreclaim stolen goods, there is little virtue in not demandingtheirreturn. Bryennios14saw here a referenceto the force of St. Paul'sinjunction not to "go to law before the unrighteous [i.e., paganmagistrates] instead of the saints (I Cor. 6.I)" and understoodaoTalLrEo mean legal action. But such an interpretation is clearlystrained, as Hanack noted the following year: "Das erscheintmatt und stumpft den evangelischen Gedankenso sehr ab, daszmanvielleicht eine absichtlicheTextfiilschungvermuthenwird."15Both BryenniosandHarnack cite as a textual witness a parallelin the sixth-century Scala Paradisi of Joannes Klimakos (Scala26.347, Migne PG 88.Io29A), mistakenlyconsidering t an imita-tion of the Didache verses:

EVCrE/C0VEV Oav~LtTovL&8ovat,EVcTE(T/TrE/pC0VwoKa't pL aLaTOVVLTo & airoro aovaOVmg9 1jl7 a7TTEtV12 A. HARNACK, Die Lehre der zwiilf Apostel (Texte u. Unters. 2: Leipzig, 1884),in loc.; K. LAKE, ed., Apostolic Fathers, I (Loeb C. L.: London-New York, 1912),311 n.3 Tr. PiRADSE (see note 2).S4AIAAXH (Constantinople, 1883), in loc. Later cited by A. HARNACK (Op. Cit.,n. 12) and F. X. FUNK,Doctrina duodecim apostolorum (Tiibingen, 1887)." HARNACK, Op. Cit. (n. 12), 6.


6/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 347avvacLE'vovTa6Xt-ra7-yXawv craOGJVaKaiovJOViVov KaOEc'rqKEVV.16Yet closer examinationof the passage suggests that Joannes hastaken as his model not Did. 1.4, but rather Lk. 6.30:

?ravrtat'zov1rtMTEL8ovKaoc To7-o a -a LT~2r 1a "/TcTEL.The words 8vvaLE'vovpdXcr-ramost of all, when they are ableto" (like E'o-E/Eo-'pcoV& KCarLo7 atoi0v7) were suppliedquiteindependently by the Byzantine abbot and theorist (as he re-shapedthe Lukan text, no doubt frommemory) to achieve a morepolished or erudite effect through use of the figure of rhetoricalclimax. In any case, one cannot ignore the palpability that8vvaUivov pdXro-rameans precisely the opposite of ov8~ yap8vvacra&Did. I.4).In spite of this, Harnack ingeniously proposes an emendationbased uponthe passage fromJoannes,wronglyassumingthe lattermust reflect some lost copy of a more original text of theseverses: "Hiernachscheint es nahe zu liegen, fiir ob&yap &,vao-atvielmehr KatlTEp vvaLEVOTu conjicieren. Diese 'm6nchische'Fassung wire dann fiir die 'Katechumenen'in das triviale ob8Eyap 8;vaac-a umgesetzt." Harnack'sexplanationis problematical.Why should not a catechumenhave been allowedto hearphraseol-ogy like that of JoannesKlimakos? A sentimentlike (ub9ira-ea)KacLtEp vv'4Evoq is hardly foreign to the theology of the pericopeor peculiarly "monastic" it is implicit in the entire pericope,just as in the very similarpassage at Luke 6.30 (quoted above),and need not have been expressedat all (as it was not in Luke).Thus in fact the crux remained, as even Harnack himself saw,for he did not attempt to introduce the emendationinto the textof his edition.

Knopf, in extremis,attempts to explain ov` yap Uvar-at fromthe inner ethical state of the Christianbeliever ("es ist ihm inner-lich unm6glich,das Seine mit Gegengewaltoder auf dem Rechts-

16 "It is characteristic of the pious to give to everyone who asks, while of thosemore pious still (to give) even to him who does not ask: it is, however, a propertyof the impassible and solitary, it would seem, not to ask back (stolen goods) fromhim who takes them away - most of all when they are able to."


7/42

348 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALEVIEWwege wieder zu nehmen"17). There is, however, nothing to sup-port this metaphoricalor hyperbolicinterpretationof Uvacoa- inthe pericopeas it stands. A clumsy gloss present in the Georgianversion apparently representsa similarattempt to understandtheverse from centuries before: "(und du kannst auch nicht) umdes Glaubenswillen dieses tun" (trans. Peradse). And still thetext is nonsense: if the believer truly cannot, why has exhorta-tion been necessary?In fact, the corruption in this verse can be explained andemended on paleographicalgrounds in such a way that neitherform nor overall sense of the entire passage is violated.

Didache I.4d-e6uTci'LLTE.

Me yaip avvao-a&(rEXELOtEivcu).TESTES: H gMEo] correxi o0b8 H g(E'XELo~ LVCla)upplevi (sed fort. (rEXEUljvaL))um des Glaubenswillendieses tun add. g(glossema ut vid.)"If anyone seizes from you anything you possess,do not demandit back.For, thus you can becomeperfect."

For this relatively infrequent, "retrospective"meaningof 8e, cf.Thuc. 2.34.7, Herod. (13 times, cf. Powell, Lex. to Herodotus,s. v.), Andocides 1.25, Polyb. 3.1o8.3, Euseb. Hist. 6.5.7 and6.25.14.It can be supposed that the corruptionread in H g evolvedthrougha twofold errorin the processof transmission:first, care-

" R. KNOPF, Die Lehre der zwiilf Apostel . .. (LIETZMANN'S Handb. z. NT,Ergdinz.bd. I: Tiibingen, 1920), 9. I. MINASI,La Dottrina del Signore dei dodiciapostoli . . (Roma, 1891), 5, had explained the phrase from the verse whichfollows (assuming 7rar'?p there refers to the idea of the brotherhood of all men).Cf. AUDET,Didachde,268: "Peut-etre aussi l'id'e est-elle simplement que reclamer(dBrarf'w) revient 't chercher une compensation, et que chercher une compensationmeme dans l'ordre de la proprietM,ne vas pas sans un secret retour au vieilequilibre: 'CEilpour ceil, dent pour dent,' ce qui s'accorderait avec le contexte."


8/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 349less omission of 1ETXlO ETVatowing to homoioteleuton (Svvao-ac

EV. eva); then subsequently in the text which remained ("forthus you can") alteration of o8e to ov8eby a scribe who tried-consciously or not - to make better sense of what was left, pre-sumably encouraged by the similarity of 0) to OY in his text,or of coto ov. The completionof the line found in g presupposesreading of the corruptionand is a corrective gloss made and in-corporatedlater in the Greek or the Georgiantransmission.s8As emended,"9he theology of the verse agrees with that of itscontext: in fact nothing new has been added, for its function isnow seen to be essentially formal and rhetorical. The samethought had already been expressedin similar words (cf. earlierin the passage, Kao- E XTE0~ 20), and thus the emended versefunctions both as a refrain and as a punch-line to Did. I.3b-i.4.III

In order to establish the hypothesis that Did. I.3b-2.1 con-stitutes a harmonizingrecueil,21 s will be attemptedbelow, thereare several requisites. The entire text 22 must be verbally derivedfrom other known written texts; for this, meticulousline-by-linecomparison s necessary. Deviations from the postulatedsources,movement from one source to another, and changes in the orderin which borrowedelements occur must be explainedwhere pos-sible, in the case of both phrases and single words. If it is con-cluded that such a procedure,at once harmonizingand editorial,

IsSeen by PARADSE,ZNW 31 (1932), 111-16, at 115."*It is unclear whether (TrXetos elvaL) (cf. 6.2 r7XEtOSg ) or (TreXeLtwOVLat)cf.16.2 &av . . TeXetXELWOIr)s the preferable emendation. Professor K. STENDAHLprefers the former, comparing Mt. 5.48 (oeaee . . TrXetoL) and suggesting thatreXetwOjvatas in Did. 16.2) may mean "be found to be perfect" in a specialeschatological, rather than ethical, sense.

20 On the conjectured original form of this verse, see below, pp. 374-376.SThat harmonization somehow played a role in the composition of 1.3-1.4was suggested as early as HARNACK'Sedition of 1884. The relationship of 1.5 toHermae Pastor has always been considered more dubious. Cf. however, J. A.ROBINSON, Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache (London, 1920). Because nodetailed formal analysis of the supposed harmony has ever been published, thematter has remained controversial. See recently, for example, R. GLOVER'S negativejudgment in The Didache's Quotations from the Synoptic Gospels, NTStud 5(1958), 12-29, and that of AUDETquoted above in note 8.22 The limits of the passage as given here (I.3b-2.I) are firmly established bothon internal grounds and on the literary evidence discussed below, pp. 379-380.


9/42

350 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEWwas in fact used by the author of the passage, some attemptmustbe made to understand his purposein doing so: this will be seenreflected in the newly contrived formal structures of the indi-vidualverses 23 and (more elusively) in shifts of theologicalview-point, fromboth of which somethingof the overall literary intentmay be inferred. Against such results the readercan then weighthe alternative explanations that these correspondencesresultfrom a more tenuous connection or from chance or that thispassage of the Didache constitutesthe single sourceof the severalother written works which it so closely resembles.In general, the purposes and techniques of ancient textualharmonies have been very little studied; the evidence for this in-vestigation is slight, though many such works are known orsurmised to have existed,24while still others must have perishedwithout a trace. (Work on the theologicalpresuppositionsof thisgenrein its applicationto Biblicalscripturehas only been begun,25and cannot be taken up further in these pages.) Best known ofsuchancientharmonies besides the familiarand annoyinghabitof many ancient Biblical scribes to introduce readings from onegospel into the parallel text of another- is, of course, Tatian'sDiatessaron. The broaderlevel of detail at which the famous Sy-rian opponentof Hellenic culture harmonizesin his monumental

23Rhetorical climax, chiasmus, refrain, Blessing-and-Woe, citation of proverb.Cf. the analyses which follow.24 TATIAN'S teacher JUSTIN used a harmony, perhaps less inclusive than TATIAN'S

own Diatessaron (cf. W. SANDAY, he Gospels in the Second Century [London,18761, 90-1o2 ; E. LIPPELT,Quae fuerint Justini Martyris Apomnemoneumata [Diss.Philol. Halensis: I901]; H. F. D. SPARKSn JTS2 14 [1963], 462-66). It is knownfrom Apol. I 15, 9-13, that JusTIN's gospel text did not resemble the Didacheharmony. Both BASILIDESnd MANIare sometimes held to have used harmonizinggospel texts (HENNECKE-SCHNEEMELCHER, ew Test. Apoc., I, 346ff. and 35If. withbibliography); THEOPHILUSf Antioch's lost harmony is alluded to by St. JEROME(epist. 121, 6 ad Algasiam, VII, p. 30, LABOURT),nd a verse has now been re-covered in the Liber S. Jacobi, Codex Calixtinus, ed. WHITEHALL,pud B. DEGAIFFIER, Une citation de l'harmonie evangelique de Theophile . . . , Mel. Andrieu(RevScRel, extra vol., 1956), 173-79. C. VETTIUS JUVENCUSwrote (ca. 330) aharmony of the gospels in Vergilian hexameters (ed. J. HUEMER,Vienna, 1891);nor was his attempt the last. The first and third canonical gospels are themselvespartly harmonies, of course (of Mk. and "Q"). Many of the early papyrus frag-ments of "Apocryphal Gospels" display harmonizing or quasi harmonizing ten-dencies. KOESTERop. cit., n. 5, Io9f.) also draws attention to II Clement in thisregard.

2 0. CULLMANN, Die Pluralitfit der Evangelien als theologisches Problem imAltertum, ThZ 1(1945), 24-37.


10/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 351composition contrasts somewhat with the concern for minutiae(impracticalon any largerscale) which can be seen in the passagestudied here. The suggestion once advancedthat Did. I.3b-i.5ais simply an excerpt from Tatian's gospel harmony can now berejected,26both on the groundsof that difference n scale, and bycomparisonwith the text of the Diatessaron itself.27 The concernof the author, or rather, compositor,of the Didache passage-his choice of material once having been made- seems to havebeen primarily stylistic, to the exclusion of any overridingtheo-logical or scholarly interests 28 - a fact which perhaps sets himapart from his colleagues. It is such concern for style and formthat appear to control the relationship between the Didacheverses and their postulated sources.28a

8 G. DIx's argument for this hypothesis (JTS 34 [19331, 242-50) rests upontextual evidence (ISAAcof Nineveh's Cephalaia) which derives not - as Dix main-tained- directly from the Didache, but from the Apostolic Constitutions, as in-deed AUDEThas already seen. What Dix calls a "Tatianic" reading in ISAACs ac-tually only a conflation with the Lukan parallel to the text in question (cf., however,Liber Graduum, ed. KMoSKO[n. 2 above], cols. 27 and 671). The origin of suchconflations, themselves minute harmonizations, clearly lies in the perfect familiarityof many Christian priests, monks, and scribes with the Biblical texts- of whichwe are reminded by the recent republication of a Coptic document in which"clerics just ordained . . . give to the bishop a written undertaking that they willinter alia learn by heart and be able to recite a specified one of the four Gospelswithin a period varying from roughly two to four months" (J. DRESCHER inJEgArch 51[19651, 225). Elsewhere, monks are reported to have known the entireBible, or great parts of it, by heart (PALLADIUS,Hist. Laus., 11, 26, 32 end, 37).SThe evidence is limited to Tatian's form of Mt. 5.39//Lk. 6.29//Did. 1.4,reconstructed from quotations in EPHREM'S Commentary, viz., in the Syriac man-uscript (ed. L. LELOIR,Chester Beatty Monogr. 8 [Dublin, 19621) at XII, 2 (p. 76LEL.) and in the Armenian version (ed. LELOIR, CSCO 137, arm. i [Louvain, 19531)at VI, 4 (P. 74, 7 and 15 LEL.), VI, II (78, 24), VI, 12 (79, io), VI, 13 (8o, 5),VI 14 (80, 14), XII, 2 (159, 24), XIX, 10 (273, IO). As retroverted by Prof.Robert W. Thomson of Harvard, the Diatessaron verse corresponds to the follow-ing harmonization of Mt. and Lk.: * SartL pa7rilet r7,y ra'y6o'a ov, TrapeXepraebe,with Lk.: not Mt.'s oarp4~ov,verte) [ab] abr4 [Ka] rv i&XX1yv+ latus. Anyputative relationship of the Didache to the Diatessaron is further complicated bythe likelihood that the latter was first composed in Syriac, Kraeling's Greek Durafragment being only from a subsequent translation into Greek.28Contrast the synopsis prepared by AMMONIUS of Alexandria, as also, itssuccessor, the Eusebian Canones (cf. EUSEB. epist. ad Carpianum). In the presentcontext can also be mentioned the strange document, perhaps itself a synopsis,recently edited by I. A. MOIR, Codex Climaci Rescriptus Graecus . .. . [Ms. Greg-ory 1561, L] (Texts and Studies, N.s. 2: Cambridge, 1956), whose exact purposeand date of composition have not yet been fully understood ("Possibly we havehere the rough drafts of some worker who planned to produce an early equivalentof Tischendorf's or Huck's synopses," ibid., 19).

28a A brief critical apparatus is supplied only for selected words of the NTpassages quoted below. That for the Didache is complete.


11/42

352 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWLOVE OF ENEMIES

? I (Did. I.3b)Did. I.3b Mt. 5.44 Lk. 6.27f.44 yaarc 27 aya~rarc

T0V0 EPOVFVLWV TOV~Xp1)?V,K0?/EO)S TOLELTEKaAtk rotdrfT70o LTOVoTLVV/ps,3bE~XOyEiTE 28EdXO7EL7T

TOVT KTrapoPgOEVOVq vLWV ToV KarapcowL ,ov3 1pKa 1TrpOcTEVXE0cOE Ka7rpocTEVXE'OE Irpocr'EVXEc-0Evirep vrEp 7rTplrc~vXOp&yv1)ptv, (cf.supra oV\,xpois ~ijvY) (cf. supra s. 27)PqOTTEVETEEvlrepToW WOKovT&W 7y(OVOKO*VoW ToWV7CpEatoVTWVv/Laq. v/.kaL. vuaq.vpltv

H (g incert., deest pap.) ] v] E]dXoyE-Tero\,bv.a, Const. Apost. KarapopVOVV V/Zv (v.1. t&g) etc.add. q D Eus. al. ex Lc. 6.27

Didache: "Bless (EiXoyEdr^E)hose who curseyou (KarapcouE'vovq),And pray for (IrpoO-ELXE-E)our enemies(CxOp.v),Moreover, fast (v'qo-Ei;ETE) for those who persecuteyou (8tOKO6v70V)."

Topic: Love of enemies (parenetic).Formal structure (Did. I.3b): rhetorical climax; parallelism."Cursers . . . enemies . . . persecutors" and "bless . . . prayfor . . . fast for." Contrast the looser parallelisticstructuresinMt. 5.44 and Lk. 6.27f. above.Sources: Lk. 6.28 + Mt. 5.44. Note that if read, a variant textof Mt. 5.44 (in 9 D Eus. etc.) would obviate postulation of theLukan parallelas a source for ? I (cf. critical apparatusabove).Use of Lk. in the following ?? makes adoption of this readingunnecessary,however.


12/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 353The text of the Didache passage is more completely organized

by its characteristicrhetorical figure than is either of its postu-lated sources. The choice of structure (three-memberedclimax)can best be explainedas a deliberate"improvement" f the Lukantext, which has three members but no climactic ordering.Elements borrowed from the Synoptic texts occur in theDidache with slight rearrangementof their order: cf. r70o E'Xpoi5vlptv in the table above. Much more of such reorderingwill benoted in the following ??.The phrase V7OTEr'eIEE must be seen as an extra-Synopticadditionby the compositorof the Didache passage. The associa-tion of prayer and fasting is, however, a commonplacein earlyChristianity; thus addition of the words not only facilitatesachievement of the rhetorical figure, but is a perfectly naturalidea in its context. Cf. passages like Mk. 9.29 and I Cor. 7.5,where some copyist has introducedthe addition "and fasting" tomention of prayer, as appearsin certain manuscripts.

Utilization of Mt.'s rWiv &80KdVO'TW4a^ ("persecutors") isnecessary to the formal structure: the Lukan rMTpEcaldrTCOv("abusers") would be relatively too weak for a third memberofthe climax.? II (Did. I.3c-e)

Did. I.3c Mt. 5.46ff. Lk. 6.32, 27,36ac rota yp Xyape (cf. below)av ayairare 4Eav yap ayrmTorcE 32 Ka e ayararE7roO c yaircovrai)v ; rovi) ayairvivrai vjmq, roOV9yaCrwv1-ag 15,.Laq

OVX&Ka rTaEhr 47b ovX Kal Ot EOVLKO 33b Kat ot at/aproXotTo)avTooavo wo) aw'o (roVro D lat.)irotoco';,;

rotov^O-v; TLOVO'LC..v/LEZIE &yar&TE 48 EuE9E oiv^zveLv ... 27 &yairTae44ayCaLrtclEOE VXPOoS ,/LWV... TOV3CXVPOI,VLO,KaX&G, TOLtdTErovgao vaFavm,oUTOoLLv^O'Lvl~ ...Katno niiEm r EXt/POP. (cf. supra xGpov'A


13/42

354 HARVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW("Eo-Eo-oE'V VE 48 "Eo-Eo-E' VLEL 36r'verOEXELOLC14 TrCLp EXELOL q e ~raTlp olKTlp/lOVE-Ka3G

VLyP 0o0VpavLtog VlOpc 0 ovpavLto 0 r7rarTp etc.vTEEL0tsiet. XEL0ETt.vel sim.)DIDACHE 1.3:dyardre ... dyarvras ... H] q re.T... toovvra... Const. Apost. (deest pap.; g incert.)Tr abr6 H g] roVropapyrus Const. Apost. (ut Lc. 6.33 v. 1. ?)dya7raTe'H] q5Xere papyrus Const. Apost. (g incert.)Ka o0X ETe (pap. g edd. EiTeraH) i8Xp6' H pap. g] secl. Koester KcatE'XpbvoV E"e?e Const. Apost.(`eaBerO...&rTiv)dub. supplevi (6oeoOe ovv TAXELot)uppl. (fort. recte) Koester, quisecl. ai 6-L7ArXEtosinfra (v. 4).

Didache: "For what credit (have you)if you love those who love you?Do not even the gentiles/pagansdo the same?You, however- should love those who hate you:And you will have no enemy.(Be perfect, then,As your heavenly father is perfect.)"Topic: Love of enemies (parenetic; justificationof the parenesis).Formal structure (Did. I.3c-e): Chiasmus, symmetrical aboutOVXtK Lr7aVq r~ a r tOLOOLv. Contrast parallelisticstructuresin Mt. and Lk.Sources: Lk. 6.32 + Mt. 5.46 + Mt. 5.47b + Lk. 6.27 + (Mt.5.48).Textual criticism of the passage: below, pp. 374-376.

For a secondtime, the structureof the Didache'sversion of thispassage is more elaborate (here, through introduction of sym-metry) than that of its sources.As in ? I, one element is added by the compositor: KaLL xEETr XOpOv,though cf. Lk. 6.27 r70-oXOpotg. Its structural func-tion is to balance -roiayap Xadpv (Lk. 6.32) in the chiasmus.29

'The third sentence of the ? is a paratactic equivalent (BLASS-DEBRUNNER,Grammar, ? 471.3) of the conditional sentence * &v5' heiZ d&yarr7cerobs turo^vrasvAas, c6X fere EXOp6v. But the latter structure is avoided because of preference forthe imperative, as elsewhere in the parenetic pericopes ?? I-III.


14/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 355The table above indicates how the compositorcould have workedthrough the two parallel Synoptic texts to build this structure:apodosis and protasis of Lk. 6.32 have been transposed to setup the chiastic structure, etc. The shift to the more MattheanEOvy-t the centerpoint probablyrepresentsdeliberatetheologicalchoice in favor of the Matthean understandingof the parenesis.The substitutionof 'Ov"for Matthew'sOVMLKOLs stylistic normal-ization (EGv7j eing more frequent in Jewish and Christiantexts). KaLoib 'erTE EXOp6veems to be work of the compositor:the supposed parallel in the Latin Didascalia (ed. Hauler, p. 4)has been rightly explainedas a borrowingfrom the Didache; cf.Connolly in ITS 24 (1923) at page 148.As Professor Stendahlhas noted,30 he theology impliedby thisparticularstatement of the commandto love one's enemies ("andthen you will have none") takes us a considerabledistance fromthe motivation of primitive eschatological Christianity andapocalypticJudaism- for nonretaliation.Harmonizationof Syn-optic parallels inevitably and mechanically involves the exerciseof choice between texts with theologically distinct implications,however lightly or unthinkinglythe choice may be made; cf. thewordEOv-qiscussedabove. Here, however,introductionof a newtheologicalpoint, though it may reflect the milieu of the Didachecompositor, seems to be completely subordinateto his desire torework the passage stylistically.

NON-RETALIATION? III (Did. 1.4)

Did. 1.4 Mt. 5.39b, 41, 40, 42 Lk. 6.29f.4 '73'1 O39b3 O'xx 29 -7^ 11pcirt-LuTLc ELSr-qv SEcLcV Aa1rtiELEivgqf 8EtaLv 7T?)VGctayova, -PtOVI LcayL0a rova Up,TEOV aLayova prpxeq Kac7vaXX7).'XvT KcTXXqv... Kat qVX'v,a ciyyapEvo7) 41 o YroO -yyapevCTELOT TLZ FLLXLOVV FLLXLOVV,11TXay~eET v raye pcf

8 K. STENDAHL, Hate, Non-Retaliation and Love, i Q S x, I7-20 and Romans12: 19-21, in HTR 55(1962),343-55, at 355, n. 25.


15/42

356 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWavrov8 o. abro 80o ...

v pp, 40 Kal 7T o3XovT7 K1a70r

CLO " OotLKpLO)vata\tOlirUnovYv, robvXLTraov cafldv, ovTobLa"Lov8& aatri a~es (v. 42 8o") a'r&i (v. 30 818ov)KaL VXtrova. KaTOlro/LTov.. KaUWVXtrwva

,.,jjy7i0 ~ 30 7raYTL LLTOVYTL

GrE

42 r3 0o\r2809 880ovdaYvo6p/ (cf. v. 40 Aaflev)7L? KatvyOEovra Kai 7rOrovtpovrosa7ro Oov airo Oov a&LVraLrOatrObov, roa uaFL?)CIdpTCLEL. uqa7ropack.v? ClITCLTaEL..dj&yap ivacu-t (m'XELoV EtlCu).

DID. 1.4:adirxov rTwv apKLKWP KaL7W/LaTLKWP~rtOvUW in H g ante idv 7is aoL etc.]seclusit Audet(cf. infra pp. 375ff.) . . . dirxov rTvaapKLKcP Kac KOOa/LKWZ&rV LtV,Const. Apost. dlOVE71 rE EM rOLOOpTacrwCal r0ov 7Tb veV/La*rpWo70o IrCvT7WdProrxovrTWPCpKLKWP7rtOVLwppapyrusKat TVP chTXXv] ai ega 7TXELOSdd. H g edd. I cf. Liber Graduum XXII 15 (671Kmo.) et II ii 1-2 (271 Kmo.) ] secl. Koester (deest papyrus et test. Const. Apost.)Trs2] im Namen Christi add. g, quod damn. Pe'radseM&e]orrexi oWB,H g(rdXetoselvat) supplevi um des Glaubens willen dieses tun add. g, quod damn.Pgradse. cf. et supra n. g9.Didache: "If anyone gives you a blow on the right cheek,Turn to him the other cheek as well.If anyone conscripts you for one mile,Go with him two.If anyone takes your cloak,Give him your shirt as well.If anyone seizes from you anything you possess,Do not demand it back.

For, in such a way you can (becomeperfect.)"Topic: Examplesof nonretaliationas the way to perfection.Formal structure (Did. 1.4): Rhetorical climax; parallelism.". .. slaps you . . . conscriptsyou for a mile . . . takes yourcoat . . . seizes fromyou anythingyou possess . . ."


16/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 357Sources: Mt. 5-39b + 5.41 + Lk. 6.29 + Mt. 5.40 + 5.42 +Lk. 6.30.Textual criticism of the passage: cf. above, pp. 345-349 andbelow, pp. 374-376

Rearrangementof the texts by the compositorinto four-mem-bered parallelism in rhetoricalclimax was perhaps suggested byparallelism in the Matthean text, a skeletal outline of whichfollows; for the full text see above.Matthew 5.39b-42

39b ~ o-r& oE pc2areSEL....rpeIov ... slapsyou40Ka 7T(Ikovar . . . E, . . . 41 KaL sues foryour coatOcrrs OEdyyape~~E e . .. iraye ... conscripts you42 T(Coroi3U7 ... .b9 Kat begsfromyouroy OE"Xoura...) 1aroo-rpwao borrowsThat Matthew is the fundamental source for this section ofDidache text is also suggestedby the fact that the first two mem-bers of the latter parallel Matthew nearly verbatim.3 Only Mt.

5.39b and 5.41 (cf. above) could have been conveniently adoptedin such a formal structure. Matthew's verse 40 (r7 0oEX0olCo0KpLOtvaLKa 7TV XL~~CVaOv Xaf3Ev), for example, not only is ofa differentsentence structure (cf. also the Lukan parallel), butwas too complex to be easily adaptedbecause of the construction

EXOVo... KPLO'1aLKai. .. Xa83ElV. Put into an E'dv. . clause, itwould have entailed two verbs and an infinitive in the apodosis,destroying the parallelism: *~dvr'' U-OLOtX KPLO~VaLKal 7r~XL7Tvio- ov kXa,3Ev.On the other hand, Luke's saying about theXLroiv and lpdrLOv was readily adaptable, requiring only trans-formation of the participle a'lpovToa. Thus Luke's diction fromthe end of Lk. 6.29 is followed at this point (as well as his wordorder 1l.6rov ... xr v. .. with its particular implications 32).Luke 6.30 ("Give to everyone who begs from you") wouldhave presented itself next. The fact that it is not utilized here

at Replacement of Mt.'s ac Aarl?e with coac5d rtArwa is perhaps to avoid fourutterly parallel sentences (cf. what follows), or perhaps only random.32Viz. of highway robbery, rather than lawsuit (as in Mt.), since the 'd4rov isan outer garment worn over the XLTrwV.


17/42

358 HARVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW(e.g., in a phrase such as *div rugarp o-E)suggests quite clearlythat anticlimax is deliberatelyavoided: at this point the passagewouldhavealreadyread

If anyone slaps you...conscripts you for a mile...takes your cloak...The next Lukan element "If anyone begs.. ." would clearly af-ford an anticlimax. But the remaining sentence in the Lukanpericope (530ob) was also problematic: for its verb, again a'pev("If anyone takes away.. ."), had just been used. Thus it, too,was useless for the finalmemberof the climax.The Matthean parallel offers no solution either (r7yv 'Xovrad. ^oo, aveL'o-ac L, "wanting to borrow"), also being too weakfor a final member. There remained then only one usable verb inthe sources of the pericope (Matthean and Lukan texts 33) - ineither finite or participial form: Mt. 5.40 Kai 7 OEXOVL. . TvXurcva ... Xa pt v. This is used in the Didache wordingas thefinal verb: hEv X / - roqir cro-V^ o-v,y. Here 7-o-o'vmust betaken as a generality: anything you possess 34 (contrast cr -d,"your possessions"). The aorist Xd63-has the force of 'seize','takepossessionof'.The entiretyof the Synoptictexts parallelto the pericopewouldnow have been traversedin the process of harmonisticrecomposi-tion, save for the openingphraseof Mt. 5.42//Lk. 6.30; and thesewords are resumed n the ? which follows (Did. i.5a).With the final sentence (cME yap ,vao-aL tc.), whose textualproblemshave alreadybeen discussed, the notion of perfection isrepeatedfromthe end of Did. 1.3, as a varied refrain.

33Discounting of course, synonyms like Lk. 6.29 7rr b7rovrt = Mt. 5.39 6oTrspar~'let, already used.' Less abstract translations such as "your property," "what is thine" (LAKE)or "ton bien" (AUDET)are probably less correct. For the general distinction, cf.KiYHNER-GERTH, Ausf. Grammatik der gr. Spr.3 (1897), II, i, 268, A. 3.


18/42

ALMSGIVING? IV (Did. .5)

A.Did. 1.5 Mt. 5.42 Lk. 6.30*ravrr^ac'ovr,

42 ^ O 30 av .) dTaoavrownrco arown (7r.r ^v. 1.) a'(E E80v YE&ASbSov v.1.) 0E 8180VKaL KaL KatTrv &XOovraL7roaov) r 7rio 'paVpTro-8avcluaatoa r 0t

/.l airarEL* /t cd7roOrpau)pcq-. /zL aITalTEL.qrro-o ap Mt. 56s]5Glovq 0 pmOkEXEL'ocr-ac Lk. 7ravTl p75v"d. B N W 700 pc] T~ add. X al Cl6car p UE7 add. q A D 0 pm latEK TWO OtCOVXapLtozarmv.

B.Hermae Pastor mand.

/zaKaptog6 8L800s 6a 0eV 8L80r


19/42

Kara T V VroXqv *i)VWd6iogap EoTnY. aEyo d aT ...ovaLT~XaCdi34vovT 5aO OVaov /javovTEdro)ouovo-w Xoyov 710 OEC

&ai EXa3ovKai El 7TL.EL v yap XpdaavEX5b oLpIv yap XaI,48avov'TEXa.,F3avEL&XqO'llEVoLc3io0 oa"01" &KacrGO7'covwL0 8&E XPEavEXwy o&i WEV OKpTEL XaL/alVOW860aEL8K7)V 7io-VOvVL'LK7V.cf. VS.5a suprwva i EXa83EatELer7. (cf. supra&ta7i tc.)

Mt. 5.25b f.iv o-vvoxf& 25bKCLLL4,vXaKNv7EVO/LEv0g8xqO7;r1EdeTaco-YjcET aLirEpt (vErpaeE, 26a/ v Xy OoKat OvK EX rETaL EKEWEV OV pl)lXO))f 'KELOEVciXPis& , Ea avK V o v.L.)dro86%EOvXaGTovo8pv7v. al,ro8 7V 'TOXaoVos8p


20/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 361Didacke: "Give (alms) to everyone who asks of youAnd do not demandrepayment:

For (our) Father wishes all to receive of his gifts.Blessed is he whogives accordingto the commandment:Forhe has donenowrong(a0?6jETT'rv)Woe o the receiver:For f anyone eceivesalms) nneed,He shallhavedonenowrong;But f heis not nneed,He shallbepunishedBecause f whyhe receivedndforwhatpurpose.In imprisonmente shallbeputto thetestforhis deedsandshallnotcomeforthuntilherepayshe astpenny."Topic:Alms.35A) Givingof alms (parenetic). (B) Propercir-cumstancesorreceipt falms minatory).Structure (Did. 1.5): (A) Command;as ? III, but note changeof topic and structural articulation by means of the refraind8e yap 8 vacwat, etc. (B) Blessing-and-Woe (iaKdpLo..... ova.. ) with subordinate parallelism (eI ILv ... xpEtav eXmv ... o 8tP-qXPELavYxco) and concluding eschatological threat (iv o-vvoxlEyEvo/uEvoitc.) Note the recurrence of explanatory clauses in-troduced by ydp (Did. I.4 M&Pyd ... 1.5 ...

o,7lp....l p?v

yap.. .), which supplies another parallelistic,unifying feature tothe formalstructure.Sources (Did. r.5): Lk. 6.30 (perhaps with v. 1. 74) + HermaePastor mand. II (27 Whittaker) 4c + 6a (+ 7a) + 5a + 5b +5a + Mt. 5.25-26.

A. (Did. I.5a)From the standpoint of the postulated sources (though not ofthe topic, nor of the overall formal structure) part A of ? IV35Thecompositorhas now used both Mt. 5.39-42 and 5.43-48. The next verseof Matthew(Mt. 6.1) beginsa pericopeon almsgiving; hus the Didache ntroducesa pericope on almsgivingat the correspondingpoint, even though Mattheanmaterial s not in fact utilizedagainuntil Did. i.5c.


21/42

362 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWcould be considered together with ? III; for in the words 'rav-dT7c alTroivrL E 8t8ov, Lk. 6.30 is resumed from immediatelybefore(cf. the table for ? III, above, p. 356).The strikingresemblanceof these words to a passage in HermaePastor(mand. II [27 Wh.]) Tao-Tv To-TEpovjtEvoOLSv &V r . . .rao-w 8ov" vao-wvyap 6 ObO6380oo-Oat OXEt... may be whatcalled the text to the Didache compositor'smind. This verbalsimilaritywould have made the fusionof texts and the consequenttransition to Pastor an easy one.It is well knownthat Hermae Pastor hoveredat the edge of theNT canon for the first several centuries of its existence (mostconspicuouslyfrom its presencein the great codex 8 of St. Cath-erine's on Mt. Sinai). Widely read in the West - Tertullianknowsa Latin version at Carthage the Pastor is cited as scrip-ture by Irenaeus, ps-CyprianAdv. Aleatores and, at Alexandria,by Clement and Origen. But the Muratorianum calls it only"useful," and this seems to have been another frequent attitude

towards the work (the references are collected in Harnack'sGeschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, I [18931], 49-58). InDid. 1.5-6 the use of Pastor together with Matthew and Luke,as well as with Sirach (see below, on ? V), may be consideredevidence for its canonical status with the compositorof the pas-sage.36The concludingsentenceof Did. I .5a is borrowed romPastor 37(cf. table ? IV) but with a less emphaticword orderand, perhaps

It must be stressed that the geographical situation of the compositor of I.3b-2.1 need not be the same as that of the editor who compiled the remainder ofthe Didache (for the problem of dual authorship, cf. below, pp. 378-382); Alex-andria, where the Pastor was considered ypaqMat least by the third century, wouldbe a distinct possibility. Furthermore, papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1782 attests to theexistence of an Egyptian transmission of the Didache by the end of the fourthcentury; cf. also ATHANASIUS'hirty-ninth Festal Letter (a.D. 367), quoted inAUDET, Didachi, 83f." S. GIET (Hermas et Les Pasteurs [Paris, 1963], 92ff.) notes the parallel be-tween mand. II (27) 4 and the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum (on the latter work,cf. below, pp. 379-380): omnibus enim dominus dari (GIET, dare Ms.) uult de donissuis (Doct. Ap. 4.8). Whether the verse was already present in that Greek Vorlageof the Latin Doctrina which found its way into the Didache as Did. I-VI, can bedoubted on the basis of the convincing alternate text at Did. 4.8. Perhaps use ofa common source by the author of Pastor mand. II (27) 4 and the editor ofDoctr. Ap. 4.8 is implied: but more likely, the Latin (quoted above) only representsa secondary text of the verse, conflating from Pastor - or even from the Didacheitself - later in the transmission.


22/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 363still under Lukan influence,a change in diction: 6 0 E8E8oro-OatOE'XEn Pastor becomes OMXE8&8oo-0ca 6 r ar - p - recallingLk. 6.36, where a similar idea (God's benevolence) is expressedby the wordsyViEvOcEOLKTLLOVES Kc OW4 6 "ra r7 p 1UCVOKr7p1UtVio-riv. (Matthew's parallel text had already been utilized in Did.1.3 [end] and 1.4 [end]: E-G-0' ov vE/r.EkLor9XEwt 6qrarinp ivzpv6ovpamv0oEXELOTCrOrw.)The substitution of Xapw-o'trovwin the sense of materal 'gifts'(on which see W. Bauer, Lexicon, s. v.) for the word 8&prltrwvin Pastor 38 is, on stylistic ground,obscure; perhaps it representsan inclination to use terminologyof a more normatively Biblicaldiction, since in the NT Xdpwto-tais by far the more frequent ofthe two words.

B. (Did. I.5b-c)"Blessings" and "Woes"are literary Formen characteristicofeschatological proclamation and common in the NT and else-

where. The antithetical pairing of the two is considerablyrarer,however.39 The most familiarinstance occurs in the Lukan formof the Beatitudes, Lk. 6.20-26. As that passage immediatelyprecedes the postulated Lukan source of ? I (i.e., of Did. I.3b),it can be assumed that choice of this formal structure was sug-gested to the Didache compositor by Luke's use of it.For the wording,only Hermae Pastor is drawnupon. The fewverbal differencesbetween Pastor and Didache, noted below, canbe explained40 in terms of accommodationof the excerpt fromPastor to the preselectedliterary form of Blessing-and-Woe.In this process of accommodation,considerablerearrangementof the orderof the text takes place. In table ? IV B (above) aredemonstratedthe verbal correspondencesof Didache to Pastor.The nature of the rearrangement s obvious: the "Blessing" hasbeenallottedby the compositorto 06s" 0 - this, of course, beinginevitableconsideringthe topic of ? IV A and the Christianorigin38The word Xdipu,.a does not occur in Pastor; 5cpyrsa (roO KvpIov) elsewhereoccurs only at sim. II (51) 7.19A few Jewish and Mandaean parallels to Lk. 6.20-26 are gathered in R.BULTMANN, History of the Synoptic Tradition,tr. J. MARSH(Oxford, 1963), 112[German ed.,' 117].

OFor exceptions, see below with note 56.


23/42

364 HARVARDTHEOLOGICALEVIEWof the text. Then somewhat strangely, the "Woe" is laid upon"the receiver" in general, 74 Xa/CLPdvovro,nd an antitheticalpair of sentences from Pastor verse 5 (ol IEv... aLpfldvovlrEqO4XfLEdvo ... o E E JTroKp-OTEaO/aLdoVOTES..) is subordinatedthereto. Such a reorderingof the text leads at first to a slight self-contradictionnot present in the source, for we read, "Woeto himwho receives; indeed (ydp) if anyone receives while in need, hehas done no wrong.. ." The contradiction s only relieved in thequalificationwhich follows, "But if he receives without need, heshall

8o-SEL 8hK7Y ...." The point is not, of course, that just as allwho give alms will be blessed, so all who receive shall be punishedat the Final Judgment: only the hypocriteswill. It is difficult toescape the conclusion that in this verse the Didache compositorhas slightly obscured his meaningby impositionof an extraneousform upon borrowedtext.

Comparison with the text from Pastor in its proper order(Greek text in footnote41) clarifies what has happened in thea Hermae Pastor mand. II (27) 4b-7a ed. WHITTAKER:Kbt K7ir K6r7WV FOUv 6 Oeb lawav ro(,acr- b rrepovyrocs 8158ov rXws,7i-afTO ~ A6aVIrLEwSrlvtOVrXs,

rip1trl AJ.7-e8T15y 5l0vrr&LV &p6 0eb6s 818oU0acOgeETKwV 161wovwp7FptlAwv.5aotohvXatA#diVOvTredroWd'covrw 06yov7 Oe &a8t XapovKat ELS l.SbO0t/LV ytp XaZlLf3vovTreSOMXl61~evoL06 &Kac-caorvaL'o01 iv brocplIet

Xall{Agvovres7raovaL 81KtV.ea 6 ohv 85tobSdOW-6OTL'rV.b 's yy&pXCXapevrap&t700 KVUplO7V &W8axoviaLeX&rac,

ILqBtov&a[Oplvov

CC 'yE'rEo OhVj &aOplaK cT'It a&rXw reXeoaOe9oaalvaros rapa r^ Oe^. [CONTINUED]


24/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 365recomposition of the passage; pace Audet,42 the order of textis more logical as found in HermaePastor:Pastormand. I (27) Didache 1.54c-6a

(paraphrased)Giveto all: Give to all:for Godso wills. for Godso wills.(I) Thosewhoreceive (III) Blessed s he whogiveswill give an account o God, Jaccordingo the command.as to why they received. For he hasdoneno wrong.Woeto the receiver.(II) If theywere n straits, (II) If anyonereceives n needthey shall not be punished. he has done nothingwrong.If hypocritical, If withoutneed,theyshallpay the penalty. He shallpay the penalty,(III) Andas forhimwhogives, f(I) becauseof whyhe has doneno wrong[evenif Lhereceived.he gaveto a hypocrite]. J

The verbal changes made by the Didache compositorare few.(a) Blessing: Kamr&-v vroX'v. The phrase surely does notreferto a now forgottencommandof Jesus,as Knopf once asserted(in loc.) The Synopticmaterial found here has been completelyabstracted from the realm of Herrenworteand put back into thecontextof generalsapiential teaching ("Two Ways") - or rather,in view of the full title of the Didache, Apostolicized teaching. Onthe otherhand, the expression-qnvvi-oXrvs hardlya reference tothe "mandate"spoken to Hermas by the Angel of Repentanceinmand. II (2 7), thoughthat word does occur in the parallel to this? from Pastor (cf. Table ? IV) and may be consideredto be itsliteral source. "The" (niv) commandment can only be the one6d6 o y'OUTWCO7rXTwgWLaKovPWj

7aADEaooeobDi ',v I6vroXv ra6rqv,WSADT XEXDiXKaf....'2AUDET, DidachU, i65f.


25/42

366 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWgiven immediately prior (iravr r~7 acroDvi oE 61v); perhapsthe Didache compositorwould have expected only himself to haverecognizedits ironic reference to the source he had just decidedto plagiarize (viz., Pastor EwroXj', vs. 6).(b) Woe: rC'XcaL4d3vovrn.Hermas' plural ot XaEcd3vovrE4s con-verted to a singular,in orderto parallel iaK'ptoq 6 &Uoi04 (supra).~ XPEcaVEXOV. The awkward,or at least unusual,double par-ticiple Xa/~fpdvovTEr0XqlP/LEVo0mand. II [2 71 5) is improved toform a participle + finite verb, Ei XpELav Xv(0O a/i36PdvEtn. Thephrase XpElavXOVy,when he is in poverty," is more specificallyto the point of the pericope than Hermas's ambiguous "beingafflicted." Substitution of ~m Xpdtav XGOV for v lrTOKpto-EtXhatl3dvovreg is for the sake of parallelism.

c4o, yadp orr-rv. Because Hermas's image of trial at the LastJudgment has not yet been introduced, oi'8Kao-'-o'-ovat (mand.II 5) had to be replaced: thus dO4c0os repeated.8O0-o IK7V. In the final phrase of Did. I.5b, the obscure con-

struction &B8svat'Kqv va r is condensed from Hermas'sadroo-ovo-v X6yov... 8ari (vs. 5a, "give an account as to why...") and ro-ovo-wv8I'Krv (vs. 5b, "pay the penalty"). The ex-pressions &LS8vat K)Yvand rtVEtv t'K)v are synonymous; as com-plements, the former takes rnvw rwbq(or dvilrvo' or.rE'p rwvo1)"to someone for some crime." At least two grammaticalinter-pretationsof this passageare thenpossible.The substantive clausetva 7r EXaPEetc. here may stand in place of the genitivum criminis,

as an accusativeof specification:"be punished, (because of) whyhe received and for what purpose." (The crime was wrong mo-tivation [eva ri. . . l 71rt'.. ].) Alternatively, the expression canbe understood as constructio pregnans, although somewhatopaque: "be punished, (having given his account of) why he re-ceived," etc. (as Audet, in loc.).The substitution in the Didache of 'va rL or 8tart is obscure andtrivial- perhaps felt to be more normal diction, or perhapspurely arbitraryor careless.(c) Did. i.5d (cf. Table ? IV B). In the courtroomimageryof this passage (deriving, it seems, from slightly earlier inthe same chapter of Matthew which was postulated as a source" GIET (op. cit. n. 37, 91, n. 3), however, compares Sirach 29.9-13.


26/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 367for ?? I-III) the Didache compositorfurtherdevelops the escha-tological picture established in the preceding lines. By its in-troduction into a pericopeon the hypocritical receipt of alms, thefamous Matthean metaphorabout "paying the last penny" (Mt.5.26) acquires unwonted literalness. Matthew's picture in Mt.5.25, of the consecutive delivery of the sinner to the adversary,judge, bailiff,and finally to prison,44s picked up in the Didacheimmediatelyafter the last stage of the judicial process, imprison-ment. (Did. I.5c already speaks of "paying the penalty" and soat this point presupposesthe prior judicial proceedings.) But theDidache compositor sharpens the metaphor even further: hissinner not only has been "imprisoned" (Ev crvvox 6y7v6E/.EVo)45but is tortured (~'Eraoero-4-era 46) as well for his deeds until hehas "repaid,"no doubt in some heavenly coinage especially ap-propriateon such unpleasantoccasions,the alms he hypocriticallyreceivedon earth. For diro&pcf. also Hermasibid. 5a.

? V (Did. 1.6)Did. I.6 (cf. Hermae Pastor mand.6AXXaKat TIEptToov6OV Edp)Tat II (27) 4bCIUPOcr6 -q') EXEn)/.OUVV7OVTraoo'v o3TEpOV/.EVOtgSoov

ErX~paoo-ov c-7Xc7 pin&o-r6ohco 0

"But concerningthis it is also said:'Let your alms sweat in the palms of your handsuntil you know to whomyou are giving'."Topic: Givingof alms.Formalstructure:Quotationof proverb.

"4Considered apart from the Matthean context, Mt. 5.25-26 has been seen toderive ultimately from the rhetoric of eschatological proclamation (BULTMANN, op.cit., n. 39, 99 and 172 [German ed.,' Io3 and I85f.]). Matthew's use ofthe topos (in a pericope on reconciliation) is ambiguous enough to sustain literalinterpretation--as is that of the Didache (note that the words r7 Oe, Pastormand. II [27] 5a, are not borrowed in the Didache).OatvoXi, 'imprisonment', with a flavor of bureaucratic jargon (abstract forconcrete): an earlier example in pap. Lond. vol. II 354, 24 (dated io B.C.) 4iOvVoX? yEVOMEvoS.~ For association of this term with judiciary torture, see references in W.BAUER,Lexicon, s.v. (2).


27/42

368 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWSource: Sirach 12.I, second recension.

A change of source is here openly signalled for the first time,and the quotationformuladp7qratsuggests that the verse is beingcited as ypac4.Only recently47 has the source of this verse been positivelyidentified as a lost second recension of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)12.1. A second Greek translation (or perhapsa retranslation)ofparts of Sirach is known48 to have been made in antiquity, laterthan the familiarGreekversion. The Greekof the second recen-sion of this particularverse (12.1) apparently does not surviveapart from its citation in the Didache, but Latin and Hebrewmanuscriptevidence, as discussed by P. Skehan, makes it clearthat the Didache text at 1.6 must belong to that recension,andthat the compositorhere quotes verbatim.49It important to note that the verse from Sirach utterly con-tradicts the point of the pericopeas found in the source of ? IV,Hermae Pastor mand. II (27) 4 (note the anaphora): irao-wV0cTEPOV/.LEVOtvSoov cV7TrX(0,L"?&to7ra0coV T&V& 7) T 7)rao-tv&'ov" Irao-t ap 6'OE &Soo-atBEXE&EK rT7OviOV8opldrocLv. In Did. I.5a (? IV A) the emphasis is considerablyless clearthanin the source:"Giveto everyonewho asks fromyou and do not demandepayment.." Here the stressuponiravr (//7aro-wv,ermas) s weakenedby interventionf the lineon repayment aken fromLuke. Furthermore, hile accordingto the Didachethe indiscriminateiver is to be held "blessed"(tuaKdpLto)nd"blameless"Mc0g),thisin itselfdoesnotpre-cludethe possibilityor desirability f responsible istribution fhis goodsto the poor,as urged by Did. i.6. Nevertheless, he

"P. SKEHAN, Didache 1,6 and Sirach 12,1, Biblica 44(1963), 533ff.48From readings scattered throughout the manuscript evidence: ibid., 533.* The Didache's form of Sir 12.1 is quoted, in a Latin translation from the Greeksecond recension, by several Medieval commentators (as early as AUGUSTINE). InHUGHof St-Cher there is positive identification of the verse as "alia translatio" ofSir 12.1 (AUDET,DidachU, 275ff.). SKEHAN (art. cit., n. 47) shows that the variantHebrew Vorlage presupposed by the "alia translatio" is in fact attested in Hebrewby a Cairo Genizah manuscript; he demonstrates that this Vorlage evolved throughinner-Hebrew corruption (posterior to, or independent of, the Hebrew Vorlageof the LXX). A second Greek translation of Sirach, or at least of certain variantverses like the present one, must have been made upon the basis of a secondary(corrupt) Hebrew text and entered Greek transmission by the time of the Didachecompositor.


28/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 369baldness of the quotation formula,as well as the remainingpos-sibility of contradiction 50 between verses 1.5 and 1.6, makes ? Vliable to suspicion as a gloss which has crept into the text fromthe marginof somemanuscript.One important argument against bracketingthe verse is basedupon its overlap with Hermae Pastor mand. II (27) 4b in thewords r7vt 8&g(cf. Table ? V above). It seems likely that theverse from Sirach was called to the mind of whoever included ithere by this verbatim similarity (as mand. II 4c must have beenby Lk. 6.30: Table ? IV). But the phrase riv&8&s ' rivtpw sin Pastor immediately precedes the source of Did. 1.5 (Table ?IV; vss. 4b, 6b in note 41) and is not quoted in i.5 at all. Nowthese words would still have been in the ear of the compositorofI.3b-2.I when he finished 1.5 - but their recollection at exactlythis point in the text by a putative later copyist-glossatorseemsmuch less likely. Thus the verse can best be attributed to thecompositorof 1.5 in spite of the internalcontradictionsconsideredabove.

?VI (Did. 2.i)Aerm'pa 8 E-vroX7)rT7ASaaXqg."Second dvroX of the Teaching."

Source: cf. Hermae Pastor, mandata, for use of the word EvroX'.A transitional verse leading to the legal instructions of Did.2.2ff. For the relationship of I.3b-2.I to the remainder ofDidache chapters I-VI, see below, pages 378-382. Audet (LaDidache [i958], 28I) rightly compares use of the word EvroX~in the titles (mandata I-XII) to chapters of legal teaching inHermaePastor.

From these observationsa numberof conclusionsmay be drawnin support of the hypothesis that Did. I.3b-2.I is directly basedupon the parallel texts just studied.50Which may somehow relate to the omission of both verses 1.5 and 1.6 fromthe Georgian version, unless that is the result of sheer carelessness on the part oftranslator or copyist.


29/42

370 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEW(I) Each of the first four sections of text (?? I-IV) is char-acterizedby one or moredistinct and obvious formalstructures.51By assumingthat in each case the author,that is, the compositor,of I.3b-2.i had in mind a particularstructurebefore setting outto harmonize Synoptic parallel pericopes or in the case of? IV B, to recomposea series of single texts - the verbal dis-crepancies between the text of the Didache and its parallels52become understandable.(2) There is a distinct tendency for the Didache compositorto

stick as closely as possible to the vocabularyof his writtensources(the syntax beinga function of the preselectedformalstructures).This is clearest in ?? I-III, which are based upon two parallelpericopes (by horizontalharmonization);and slightly less evidentin ? IV, wherethree sourcetexts are fused end-to-end (by verticalharmonization). The compositordoes not hesitate to move backand forth at will from one of two parallel texts to the other or tomove backward and forward in the sources in order to extractsingle words of phrases.(3) Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that elements of thesources are not always borrowedin sequence (i.e., the sequencein which they occur in the paralleltexts), in the end, the passagesused as sourcesforma continuity:

Lk. 6.20-26 suggests the formof ? IV B,6.2 7-28 is borrowed n ? I,6.29-30 in ?? III-IV,6.31 doubles Did. 1.2,6.32-33 is borrowed in ? II.Mt. 5.39-42 is borrowed in ? III,5.43 ("You have heard it said, 'Love your neighborandhate your enemy!") is irrelevant to the Didache passageand is omitted,5.44-48 is borrowed n ?? I-II, although5.45 is omitted (but cf. below, p. 375, on use of summaryrefrain lines).Hermae Pastor mand. II (27) 4c-6a is borrowedin a scram-

61 Rhetorical climax, chiasmus, Blessing-and-Woe, refrain.SeeAUDET'S complaint, bove in n. 8.


30/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 371bled order, but all of the text is reworked. ? VI is sug-gested by either4b or 6b.

The ultimate continuity of what seems at first helter-skelterpar-allelism to the Didache would constitutea remarkablecoincidenceif I.3b-2.I were not actually based directly upon these texts. Onthe other hand, the complexity of the order in which the sourcesare used suggests that written sources (rather than memory)supplied the compositor with text. Works like the EusebianCanones, itself based upon an earlier synopsis by AmmoniusofAlexandria(Euseb. Epist. ad Carpianum), suggestthat meticulouscomparison of parallel pericopes was becoming a familiar pro-cedure among certain ancient Christian Biblical critics at leastas early as the third century.

(4) In the Didache, relatively little wordingis added which isnot either already present in the sources or merely structuralframework.53(5) Some of the verbal changes are harder to explain, thoughpossibly they are due to:

(a) Normalization, or what was considered improve-ment, of diction, in part perhaps as a spontaneousacton the part of the compositor.54(b) Textual variants read in the sources but not at-tested today by known manuscripts."5(c) Deliberate variation upon the sources.(6) "Deliberate variation" (5c) must be resorted to as an ex-planationmost frequentlyin the case of ? IV B: 56 here the com-positorworks with single sources. This suggests that the compos-

'Not from the parallel texts: r77TreieTre58 (? I), Kal ot'X Eere C'XOpb ? II),erarEaTcOeratrepZ rv lrpate (? IV). Examples of "framework": AaKripto .. oial... (? IV), i rtus . . (? III).5 09ry for 0rLKol (? II), rb obY for r&oi (? III - strongerand moreappropri-ate to its position in the figure); while 7ra-7lp for Oe6s ? IV) and XaptCrai'rwPfor

5ewpnrjtirwv (? IV) are explained above on other grounds. 5-pcidrtLLua for hairi~etis more puzzling, although cf. note 31 above.5 XPerhaps XapLwoLirwvor 5wpfd!cirwv (? IV), va rl1 or marli ? IV) and AefXPtsoVfor Cws&v,v.1. oi3( IV, Mt. 5.26).56 l XPelap XwY for Ie 7roKpl'ee-aCLpfoer, Schret Kiy for 71obvdleK7Py,,LaT7 or 5marl, o0K + fut. tense for ou' 4I+ aor. subj., FLCXPtSo for ws al ; cf.,however, note 55. OX,6pueot is not converted into e' OX4l1e perhaps in order toavoid eschatological overtones.


31/42

372 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWitor's aim was to (a) plagiarize canonical,57hence theologicallysound and "primitiveChristian,"sources for the compositionofa pseudonymous "Apostolic" teaching, rather than merely in-vent such material forhimself; (b) exercise his literary ability byscrupulous recompositionand improvementof the sources; (c)disguise the fact of plagiarization(which, if obvious,would havespoiled the literary effect), while still using diction and phrase-ology that had a distinctly Biblical flavor. The mark of his out-standing success in the latter procedureis the large number ofmoderncritics who have felt this passage must indeed constitutean extra-Biblical and primitive that is to say Apostolicteaching.(7) Theologicalmotives played no importantrole in determin-ing how the harmonywas composed.(8) Alternate hypotheses on the relationshipof Did. I.3b-2.ito its parallels are far more complex and inelegant- necessitat-ing, e.g., the postulation of a lost source (but not Q, nor theDiatessaron, nor Justin's harmony59) related either to Q or to alost harmonyof Mt. and Lk., and also related to Hermasand tothe Didache, all in someway which cannot be reconstructed. Pos-tulating an "oral source"60 for the passage cannot magically re-lieve the critic of the need to explain the conspicuoussimilaritiesof the Didache to the written sources that it parallels.

IVEarlier editors of the Didache for the most part have lacked

any incisive criteria for choosing among the important variantsof Did. I.3b-2.I - in the absence of a sure estimate of the in-trinsic value of those variants. The principle lectio difficiliorlectio melior has been invoked in the case of d7yarcVE/t&E/XrEtc.(treated below), but the whole perspective upon this problemchanges with assumptionof the theory of sources and composi-tion defended above. Furthermore,radical differencesbetweenthe witnesses at 1.4 init. imply a serious tamperingwith the text5 Cf. above, p. 362, on the canonicity of Hermae Pastor.58 Cf. the title.59Cf. notes 24 (JusmIN) and 27 (Diatessaron).60AUDET, Didachb, 264.


32/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 373at some point in transmission,and the nature and extent of itseffect upon the surrounding ext, as well as its precise cause, hasremained uncertain. For such reasons, critical re-examinationof the text has played an unavoidable role in this study ofDidache I.3b-2.I.In ? II above, four readingsof codex H (those of the Vorlageof the Georgian version being unascertainable61) have beenadopted, against the edition of Pere Audet:

Didache1.3c-eayar~arE'H kLX^rEConst. Apost. (deest papyrus)dyairivraq H 4tLoXovraqonst. Apost. (deest papyrus)

Tr abir6H ro0ro papyrus Const. Apost. (ut Lc. 6.33 v. 1.?)dyairar2 H HLXErTEapyrus Const. Apost.

In three instances the Apostolic Constitutions (joined in thethird by the papyrus fragment, which comprises only I.3d-I.4a)shows an unexpected substitution of the verb LXEZVor dya7T&v.In neither place can the substitution be explained by a knowntextual variant in the manuscript tradition of the NT passagespostulatedas its source,thoughindeedone mightbe inferredfromthese very readings. It must be considered that the readings ofthe Constitutions and papyrus offer the possibility of explainingthe H traditionat this point as reflex scribal correctionsto the NTtext; and their adoptionwould of courserun counterto the sourcehypothesis advanced above. On the other hand, if H were a de-scendant of the same branch of transmission as papyrus + Con-stitutions, and if its readings impliedthat at some point in trans-mission the text had been partially correctedagainst that of theNT parallels,this correctioncould be expectedto have been mademore extensively and in more than one sentence- preciselywhathas happened in the use of the Didache made in the ApostolicConstitutions: e.g., at the end of Did. 1.3, the Constitutions has

a The Georgian verb chiquarebdeth (PARADSE in ZNW 3111932], 112 note I,tnmoc., for the text) is used equally to translate O4Xelvand dyairav in the GeorgianNew Testament. Other words (mostly verbs) from the now lost Georgian manu-script are mentioned ibid., but these - according to the kind advice of Prof.Robert W. Thomson of Harvard - appear to offer no clue as to whether g belongsin the textual family of H or with papyrus Const. Apost.


33/42

374 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEW7rpocrTEvXEcor-EE VITEP(LE1T?)PEa~OT&O vLa9g-ayalTaEo" " ExOpoV9pcouvunderlined passages are readingswith Lk. 6.28, 6.27). Soin the following verse, irola ydp bzv'tuXdpts dv . ., readingwith Luke 6.33; a bit later, KaN o' E6hLKOL (with Matthew)for Kat7aE'OvyDid. 1.3); etc. Thus the readingsof H are prob-ably not later emendations of a text with OktXirEtc. and the4LXEZVeadingscan be treated as "separative"(P. Maas) errors.Adoptionof the H variantsalso obviates the necessity of postulat-ing a morecomplexand far less elegant hypothesison the relation-ship of the Didache passage to its parallels; cf. above, page 372,paragraph(8).A second constellation of textual problemsis more refractory.At Did. 1.4, the position of Ka~ Wo ~ELO in H g is awkward, asit interrupts four parallel injunctions arrangedin rhetorical cli-max (? III). The phrase has already been suspected by Prof.Koester62, who would removeit from its position in codex H andsubstitute a plural imperative (&o'Eo-OEov rEkXELoL)or Kai o~XEfErE XOp'va few lines earlier. This emendation is diagnosticallyuseful, and rightly takes into account the position at which 'OEE-0EovvvpLEti r XELOLo 6 rarqp vpcLv6 ovbpavto rkXEL6oMt. 5.48)occurs in the source of Did. i.4 (cf. Table ? II). But in viewof the formal structure of I.3b-2.I, it seems far preferable(pace Koester) not to excise Ka' oiX Er "XOpp'v.To do so wouldbe superfluous.63 Furthermore,on the basis of such a textualreconstruction,it would be difficult to explain how the presentcorruptionevolved.On the other hand, some such phrase as ('oEEo-OE5v '/LE^tg`XELOL01 6Tar-p EAv 6 ovpavto rTEXEtodo-rwv) // Mt. 5.48, cf. Table ?II) can be restored to the end of Did. 1.3, keeping Koester'sdeletionof Ka 'o-- EXELOq;then ?? II and III are bound togetheras it were by a refrain:

? II E'o-Eo-OE'v V'PEtrEXELOLtc.? III (4E ydp 8vao-at rkXEtooliat.The divergent wording of the refrains results from the com-

62 KOESTER, op. Cit.,n. 5, 222.3 Chiasmus at the end of 1.3 is destroyed by replacement of the last memberwith e-oe-Oei"vetc. (a future tense of categorical injunction: BLASS-DEBRUNNER,Grammar 362).


34/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 375positor's desire for variatio and from the difference in syntaxbetween the pericopes (plural imperative in ? II, singular in? III). The word M8E(o8E' H g) at the end of ? III refers back tothe injunctions of both pericopes; thus the second statement ofthe refrainis a summary ine for both ? II and ? III. To E...S-var-a... Elvat compare the syntax in Mt. 5.45 ..-. o6' ylEv2-Oe... For the same use of summary lines as a varied refrain, cf.Mt. 5.45 and Mt. 5.48.Oneprocess throughwhich such an originaltext may have beenlater corrupted s suggestedby examinationof certain variantsinDid. 1.4:(a) The papyrus fragment begins Did. 1.4 with a lengthy versewhich has been deletedabove, in the text of ? III, as an interpola-tion:

.aKOVE7T .E8E? vTOLO7vra-&Tai OU 7 7TVEv/Lt'-pwovTO vrOvarioo'xovTwvo-apKLKWVE'7rtO!V/LJLV.(b) Bryennios' manuscript (H) omits the emphatic preface ofthis verse and gives simply dirE'ov(!) r 5v oapKtKK KatL

oT&OLaTLK&VmTOvEuyv.The Georgian version presumably agreed with H.(c) It cannot be ascertained whether the Didache exemplarusedfor the Apostolic Constitutions bk. VII64 contained the longerreading (papyrus) or the shorter (H); but its formof the variantis differentstill: d7rExovvov rapKLKV Kat KOOLLKCi tOvUt6o v.The passage - in all three of its forms (a, b, c above) - isclearly intrusive into the tightly-knit formalstructureof ? III; itis not based upon the scripturalsources which have been seen tounderlie all the other lines of the ??; its ascetic theology seemsout of keeping with the basically Matthean outlook of the pas-sage. Accordinglyit has been bracketedas an interpolation.65This interpolation was perhaps first only a marginal gloss;eventually it was copied, unsuitably, into the text just before thephrase (&E'O-E . .. rTXELO tc.) Because this interpolation wasphrased in the singular imperative, the copyist recast the pluralimperativeEEEo-0oEo'v into the singular form which is now foundin H: KaLE74J...

64 VII 2.3-4, ed. FUNK, 388.65 Modern editors, however, often excise the preface to the command but wronglykeep dir7rXovwipoapKLKwr irtOv/Gtr following codex H.


35/42

376 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWA later, Byzantine copyist, perhapsconfrontedwith two manu-scripts (interpolated and noninterpolated) and sensitive to thetheological incongruencyof the gloss with the remainder of thepassage, tried to restore the original text, or at least a text thatseemed theologically more consistent. He excises the strong in-

troductory phrase aKOvE...rvEmvca. But (a) he leaves the weak-ened 'rE'Xovrv o paKKWV ... ErrtOvv?Uvince it has "Apostolic"authority (i.e. parallels I Pet. 2.11) and thus would hardly beforeign to an "Apostolicdidache." (b) From acquaintancewithMt. he knows that... r1EtoLS... belongs with the altruistic in-junctions rather than the ascetic arviXov... - but because Ka`oVn~7kEXLO is now expressed in the second person singular, thephrase will not fit in its most appropriate position, after o'xX ?'ETrEEXp6v. Therefore he moves it to the next possible position, viz.,still after a "Matthean" injunction. Thus in codex H: d~v rt'v,8w pa3tuTLLE1~7rSEqLWavLayLOVc,TaPEJ OP.. . Kat E077 ThXELOg.It may be conjecturedthat the earliest form of this gloss wasthe fullest: it included the entire preface (aKOVE... rpTOov...)and also the fuller reading o-apKLK0VKa`LKOOI/tK&Vnow attestedonly by the Apostolic Constitutions.As for the phraseKia KOo-LKjv 66 readin the ApostolicConstitu-tions, it seems at first glance to be an editorialexpansion upon theshorterpapyrusreading,made by the authorof the Constitutions(who elsewherein bk. VII has at least doubledthe length of thetext quoted from the Didache by such interpolation). Yet thatexplanation is made unlikely by the presence in codex H of thereadingo-apKtK V Ka o-'oLtartLKWOhEruVLWv,hich must be only acorruptionof the same words by metathesis: KAIKOCMIKiINKAIKCOMIKnN - (KAICOMIKnN -) KAICMM(AT)IKnN.Thus omission of Kaa KOOFLL-Kcv in the papyrus is itself merely acorruptionof the interpolation,due to homoioteleuton.67The transmissionof Did. I.3b-2.I can now be partially recon-structed ex hypothesi, though the position of g, the Georgian

SPerhaps a reminiscence of Tit. 2.12, dpvlod'Lgeovot... S KOOFLK E7LOUIUal'S.67ISAAC's Cephalaia (ed. M. BESSON,Oriens Christianus, I [igo11, 51, line 21)paraphrases only the Apostolic Constitutions (cf. note 26), d7riXov rwpv apKLKWVKaL fLWTKS

V wrLO~ILVV Kai TWv 7OYo 70o KO6OtOV(Cod. Vat. graec. 375).


36/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 377version, remains unclear68 and the reconstructionof 8 is uncer-tain, owing to the incompletenessof the evidence inferable fromthe Apostolic Constitutions (above, p. 375, paragraphc).

Mt Lk Sirach

HermaePastor(mand.) .-X (s.IIp.ex.)

*f3PNTApostolic

... .----onstitutions(bk.VII)4 papyrus (s. IV)

*Y"(saec. incert.)

H1 (a.D. Io56)

g (s. XIX, now ost)Collation gainstH by Perads6

(publ. I932)

1KatL Cr(ar)LKWV, Byzantine conjectural correction ofKaL(K)cOtILKOV transmitted rom y; excision of aKOVE 7 O~E...rdvroi (in papyrus and presumably 8, f8 and y); transfer of Kal' Cf. note 61.


37/42

378 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWEa~7rTkXELOo follow orrpKov alr' Kai TV a'XX7v. ertain otherworks copied in the eleventh-centurycodex H also shows signsof critical revisionand comparisonof manuscripts (Audet, Dida-chI, 25 with references).

2 Copy with *KaLKOOtCLKv,corrupt by metathesis withinKaLKOcrtULKOVApostolic Constitutions,8, and /).ad36o-xovcarelessly substitutedfor the readingd~rr~xovApos-tolic Constitutions, 8, /, H). KacLKOU/ULKCZV Omitted carelessly(homoioteleuton).

4 Use of 8 with paraphrase,expansion,and correctionagainstNT parallels. KaiKOU/CLKCUjVs read.5 bTE, Lo0vrag, 4OLXEZTEnexplicable, "conjunctive"errors,also "separative," against dyi ar /1, yaTCrZwT%,yacTcTE2(H, y,A, a, x, and NT parallels). ro0r0omay be a conflation with thewordingof Lk. 6.33 (v. 1.in D lat). For treatmentof these read-ings as separativeerrorsagainst H, see above, page 373f.6 Postulated interpolation immediately after the words MeTfE

EXOpdvof marginal or interlinear gloss read in a (dKovE... . rpTOV... aLrEXov v o-apKLKccKcaKOcO-LKCEVrr?ULO&v),ith resultantrephrasing f E-OCEr....ErXELOL... as Ka r'O- 7TEXELOSo suit thesingularnumberof the interpolation.?Addition of marginal or interlinear gloss dKOVE... rrpPTrov...

ArrEXOvrOV o-apKtLKCVKatKKOO'TLKV rOvUtxv at Did. 1.4.s Archetype containing Did. I.3b-2.1, using Mt., Lk., HermaePastor (mandata) and Sirach as sources. Possible relationshipsof I.3b-2.I to the remainderof the Didache are discussedbelow.

VA few concluding remarks can be offered on the relevance ofthis analysis to the datingof the earliest formof the Didache. Theentire passage analyzed above (i? I-VI) appears to be fromthe hand of a single writer.69 Since that edition of the Pastorwhich contained the Mandates--used as a source in ? IV -can be dated to just after the mid-secondcentury,70 he Didache" PETERSON (n. I, Friihkir., p. 149) brackets 1.6 because of the internal con-tradiction; but cf. above, p. 36970See recently S. GIET,op. cit., n. 38, 280-3Io, using to establish a terminuspost quem the reference in the Muratorian canon (ed. LECLERCQ,Muratorianum',

CABROL-LECLERCQ, DACL, XII [1935], i, 543-60), lines 73-77: "Pastorem uero


38/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 379compositor of I.3b-2.I necessarily wrote no earlier than such adate.

The crucial question then becomes: How is Did. I.3b-2.irelatedto the rest of the document?It may be recalled initially that chaptersI-VI of the Didache,a series of ethical injunctions under the rubric of "Two Ways"(cf. Did. I.I), also exist in a self-contained Latin version, usuallycited as Doctrina Apostolorum.71 Because the Latin Doctrinaomits the Christianizing passage = Did. I.3b-2.I and otherwiseshows only the most external signs of Christianization,72 it is nowusually, and correctly, held to represent an earlier form of thetext than what can be read in the Bryenniosmanuscript. Its lostGreek Vorlagewas almost certainly a Jewish didactic work, usedin the Hellenistic synagogue before the Didache was compiled."The "Two Ways" document's continuing existence within theChristiancommunity, independentof the Didache, is also shownby its use in the letter of Barnabas74 (I8.1-20.2) and in laterworks.75 With the history of the "Two Ways" might be com-pared that of the Jewish Carmina pseudo-Phocylidea, which,though containingno peculiarly Christian ideas, continued to benuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit sedente cathedraurbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre eius." On GIET'S rguments, that editionof the "Shepherd" ascribed to the brother of the pope was slightly earlier than theedition for which the "mandata" were composed. Pius's dates are usually takento be a.D. 142-55. The earliest known reference to the Pastor is by IRENAEUSpudEus. hist. 5.8.7. A Michigan papyrus fragment (p. Mich. 130, olim Inv. 44-H)containing mand. II (27) 6 - III (28) I dates from only two generations after thereign of Pius I: cf. C. BONNER in HTR 2o(1927), 105-16.

71 Codex Monacensis 6264 (olim Frising. 64), J. SCHLECHT, ed., Doctrina XIIApostolorum, Die Apostellehre in der Liturgie... (Freiburg i. B., 1901). Cf. alsothe fragmentary codex Mellicensis Q.52, ibid., I6f.72Only the title "(De) Doctrina apostolorum" and the concluding doxology"per dominum Iesum Christum" etc. are specifically Christian; otherwise the workcould be taken for Jewish.7 Cf. J. A. ROBINSON, The Problem of the Didache, ITS 13(1912), 339.7 Parallel texts in AUDET, Didacht, 138-53 (where on 139f. transpose the head-ings "Barn." and "Doctr.").76 Clearest evidence in Barnabas and in the Vita Shenuti now preserved onlyin Arabic manuscripts (trans. A. HEUSLER in L. E. ISELIN, Eine bisher unbek-annte Version des ersten Teiles der "Apostellehre" [Texte u. Unters. 13: Leipzig,1895], 6-io) and presumably based upon a lost Coptic version of the "TwoWays." Shorter citations from the "Two Ways" (unless from the Didache itself)are studied by B. ALTANER,um Problem der lateinischen Doctrina apostolorum,VigChr 6(1952), 160-67 (now in his Kleine patr. Schriften [Texte u. Unters. 83:Leipzig, 1967], 335-42).


39/42

380 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWcopied in the Byzantine period, presumably as a Christianschoolbook.76

In contrast, then, to the Doctrina, the "Two Ways" as it ap-pears in the Didache has been more thoroughlyChristianized-brought up to date - by insertion of the passage analyzedabove.Its absence from the Doctrina clearly marks it as foreign to theGrundschrift.Thus the relationshipof Did. I.3b-2.I to the rest of the Didachecan be explainedby any of threehypotheses. Either (i) DidacheI.3b-2.i is a Christianizing nterpolationinserted into the Greek"TwoWays"while the latter workcirculatedindependently;thenlater this Christianized"Two Ways" would have been incorpo-rated into the Didache as ch. I-VI. Or, (2) the interpolationwasmade by the same Christian writer who assembled and editedwhat is knowntoday as the Didache (the Bryennios manuscript):the compositor of I.3b-2.I would then have been the compiler ofthe whole work. Or, (3) the passage was interpolated into anedition of the Didache which had been previously published.Elimination of any of these hypotheses with certainty is ex-tremelydifficult.

(i) The absence of I.3b-2.I from the shorter form of the"Two Ways" (= Latin Doctrina) really constitutes no seriousobjection to Hypothesis (i). For circulation of the Latin andat least slightly Christianized 7 Doctrina testifies to the useful-ness of such a documentfor early Christian nstructionand makesit likely thanan even moreChristianizedversion (viz., with addedethical injunctions from the NT) would be even more useful forthe same purposes. The possibility thus remains that the com-positorof I.3b-2.I interpolatedthese verses into the "TwoWays"sometimein the later-secondcentury a.D. (i.e., after the date ofHermae Pastor, which he used as a source); and that shortlythereafterthe Christianized"TwoWays" and othermaterialweregatheredinto what we knowas the Didache.

76D. YOUNG, ed., in Theognis... (Bibl. Teub.: Leipzig, 1961), 95-112. "DasInteresse des Mittelalters [fiir ps-Phok.] beweist die Verhiiltnismiiszige gute undreiche 1tberlieferung," KROLL, 'Phokylides', in PAULY-WISSOWA, RE 20(194I), col.5io; "in der byzantinischer Zeit vielfach als Schulbuch beniitzt," E. SCHUYRER,Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes,' III (Leipzig, 1909), 617.77Seenote 72.


40/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 381Of course the "primitive character" of the contents of Did.6.2ff.has frequentlybeen held to stronglymilitateagainst such an

explanation. It could then be conjecturedthat the originalDid-ache did not contain the "Two Ways" at all and only started atwhat is now Did. 6.2; and that this originalDidache was in factcomposed in the first century a.D. - as the internal evidencesuggests- and bore the title At3aXal (or A~saX'78) v&88EKa dloroorTov. - A Christianized edition of the "Two Ways"containing the interpolation (Did. I.3b-2.i) and published aftera.D. I50 ca. will then have circulated under a title perhaps likethe sub-title of the Bryennios manuscript: A~s3aXKvpiovM3' 7Gv

O88EKaToro&rrv T10 EVEcTw"God'sinstructionfor the gentiles/pagans as taught by the Twelve Apostles"). Conjoining of thetwo documents' contents (Urdidache + Christianized "TwoWays" [with Christian interpolation I.3b-2.I]) could have beensuggested to some later Christian editor by the similarityof theirtitles. Such an hypothesiswould account for the double title nowfound in codex H: -'AaX 77v o8MEKadroo-ro'Xov"8~LaX7KvpLovta'rV8 6o&6MKairoarr'Xav o^Vg o .7(2) The second hypothesis, that the compositor of I.3b-2.Ialso compiledthe rest of the Didache, is no doubt the least attrac-tive (though it is the simplest) - again because of what mostcritics consider to be the primitive (first-century) character ofthe Christianityreflectedin chapters 6.2-16.8.

(3) With this, one is led to the most frequently accepted solu-tion - namely that Did. I.3b-2.I is an interpolation (made, ashas been shown, after a.D. 150 ca.) into a form of the Didache

78Textual evidence for the title varies between the singular and the plural. Thesingular has been used throughout this article because it is now conventional.79AUDET (DidachU, 9Iff.) suggests that behind the second title lies that of theJewish Grundschrift, which he conjectures to have been entitled AtaX' KvpLovrois gOve~Lv(such an hypothesis is made plausible by the word YOveolv). But evenif AUDET is correct, the critic is not therefore justified in restoring the shortenedtitle when editing the text of the Christian Didache. AUDET's heory of such an

original Jewish title, would rather imply that addition of the phrase 8t& rcIV886EKa d7roo-r67hwwas accomplished by the Christian redactor of the "Two Ways."For other Christian disciplinary writings with a double ascription in the title,cf. catrayal r' p 88eKa abroor6AwPv ~L KX7i/evros (the Apostolic Constitutions);AtardteaEs r d'yiwv d7roorb6Xwvrept XelporovLvP th 'IrroXbrov (bk. II of theEpitome Constitutionum Apost. VII, ed. F. X. FUNK, in Didascalia et Const. apost.,II, 77-84). JoHN of Damascus refers to Acts as IIpdes? rSPv ylwv1roorb6Xow adAovica 700 ea-yyeXtrov (de fide orth. IV 1712841, Migne PG 94.II8oC).


41/42

382 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL EVIEWalready published some fifty or a hundredyears earlier. In theearlierversion, no sharp differencewas yet felt between a specialChristian exegesis (that of the Sermon on the Mount) of thecommandto love God and one's neighbor (Did. 1.2) and that ofthe Hellenistic synagogue.80 The assumptionthat only later wasI.3b-2.I interpolated would suggest that within the circles inwhich the first edition of the Didache circulated,only by the timeof the interpolationhad Christianity felt itself to be clearly dif-ferentiated from the matrix of Jewish teaching within which itarose.

From all this, there arises a cloud of uncertainty as to whatconstituted the "original"Didache. This writer's opinion tendstoward the first or third hypothesis above, but certainty is un-attainable.Nor is there, in the end, any clear indication (such as "pre-Mattheangospel tradition") of its date. Every critic will have to

rely upon his own subjective view of the developmentof Chris-tianity and little else - a view extrapolatedand generalizedfroma few precious hints in the writings of the NT, the ApostolicFathers, and a handful of other early documents, to the extentthat any of these can be dated and localized. Clearly, as Audethas recently urged, the characterof the material in Didache 6.2-16.8 seems to resemble what might be expected from a very earlyChristiancommunity. Yet it would be risky to assume that thework, in part or in whole, necessarily predated the Synopticgospels, or even Ignatius of Antioch. Conservatismand deliberatearchaismin the early Churchare attitudesabout which we shouldlike to know muchmore.8'

" Accordingly one would not assign to this putative earlier Didache (withoutI.3b-2.I) the same date and geographical location as the Gospel of Matthew.KOESTER (Op. cit., n. 5, 159-241) notes the lack of positive evidence that theDidache shows any knowledge of Mt. except in I.3b-2.I.

8 The literary fiction in the title (rc^v8d8EKaro7tr6XW is, unless the date ofcomposition be extremely early, a clear example of archaism, used here to lendauthority to the document. ("The twelve apostles" later authored the EpistulaApostolorum, Syriac Didascalia, Apostolic Church Order, etc.) The most importantpoints of evidence usually adduced for an early dating of Did. 6.2ff. are its utiliza-tion of what seem to be Jewish liturgical prayers in the eucharistic service (Did.ch. 9 and io) and the references to "apostles," "teachers,"and "prophets" as thoughcontemporary ecclesiastical officers. For a much later parallel to the first phenom-enon (pace AUDET, who argues that borrowing of Jewish prayers would not have


42/42

DIDACHE 1.3b-2.1 383occurred after destruction of the temple in a.D. 70) one need only turn to theApostolic Constitutions, bk. VII, which has taken over - a.D. 36o-80 ca. - a num-ber of Jewish liturgical prayers for Christian use: see E. R. GOODENOUGH,yLight, Light (1935, New Haven [Conn.] -London), 3o6-58, using BOUssET'S e-marks in NAkGitt, Ph.-Hist. K1. (I915), 435-85.Furthermore, the references to prophets do not necessarily presuppose thatwandering (or even domesticated) prophets were at all common. Indeed, theDidachist seems to be much more concerned with the danger of false prophetsthan the conduct of true ones: later-second century movements like Montanismand figures like Peregrinus (called a "prophet" in LUCIAN,de morte Peregr. ii)or the prophets seen by CELSUs(cf. below) may well have contributed to hisconcern. Apelles, too, had his prophetess. The apocalypse in Did. 16 would thenhave been included more as a blast against false prophets (16.3) than a genuineexpression of "heightened apocalypticism" (even though it may correspondFormally to a quite "primitive" category of material). Earlier in the work thechurch which has a genuine prophet is instructed to offer him subsidy in the formof "first-fruits"; yet the real situation may be implied in Did. I3.4 (which, paceAUDET, there is no truly compelling reason to bracket): &v8 p~iXre 7rpo0oir)v867e roiS 7rTWXotS.Of crucial importance is the interpretation of Did. I5.IXeLporo0vTaareov eavrots erTK67roUSKai &iaK6,vovUlovUS... ivv "y&p ELTovp

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	crossamania
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Didache and Synoptics

Documents