« НазадПродовжити »
cessor will show the same. — The missionaries have been greatly cheered by the visit of a special delegate from the Synod of New York, the revered and beloved Dr. Nelson, the first delegate from the churches at home, not a missionary, whom they had ever received. How strengthening such a visit is none can fully know who has not been in such a field. They say: “ The presence in the Knooshya” – a Conference of Protestants — “of Dr. Nelson, and his addresses, through an interpreter, captivated the hearts of all. They were charmed by his very manner and tones, and could scarcely be satisfied with their limited opportunities for hearing the “ venerable father.' It has done them great good, I believe, to see one of the able and devout men who influence the counsels of the great Presbyterian Church in America, and support this missionary work. We beg that we may see many more such on our field.” – Mr. Labaree reports that the college is full to its maximum number (sixty), and an enlarged preparatory department has been added to the female seminary. A new high school has been opened, making four in all, where the boys board themselves. They are a very popular branch of the work. — Rev. S. G. Wilson says: “The Christian public have not been called upon sufficiently to rejoice over the publication of another version of the entire Bible. This time it is in the Ararat-Armenian, a dialect which has the sweetness of a mother-tongue to 600,000 Armenians in Caucasus and Persia.” – Rev. J. H. Shedd says : “ The first Sunday of April was the feast of the Resurrection, which our reformed people observe with as much interest as the old Church. It was the Communion Sabbath at Geogtapa, and a memorable day this year, as it was last. I was invited, and preached for them. The congregation was near five hundred. Seventy-six new members were received, and over sixty propounded for the next communion. The gospel is prevailing certainly in that village, and drawing into the Church the mass of the people. The new members and candidates embrace a large number of young men, both married and single." — On July 15th and 16th the semi-centennial jubilee of the Nestorian Mission was celebrated on the college grounds at Oroomiah. Fifteen hundred men and women assembled, – a more orderly, rationally devout and steadily attentive company, it is remarked, than could be brought together elsewhere between the Euphrates and the Indus. The exercises lasted two days. “The air was redolent with the precious memories of early missionaries, especially of Miss Fiske and Miss Rice. The presence of some of their first pupils added no little interest to the occasion. One gray-haired woman, one of Miss Fiske's earliest girls, came a distance of two days, half the way on foot, over rough mountain roads, to attend the jubilee.” One thing marks the difference between 1835 and 1885 : then there was not a woman in Oroomiah that could read; now, when the women who could read were asked to rise, three fourths of them stood up. — Dr. E. W. Alexander writes that medical missionary work is actively carried on in Oroomiah, and in the new stations of Tabriz, Salmas, Teheran, Hamadan. In these four stations a total of twenty thousand patients are attended annually. “Of these twenty thousand a large majority are Mohammedans, who have been trained from childhood to hate all Christians, but whose prejudices vanish, to a great extent, with their
Charles C. Starbuck.
BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM.
THE “DIDACHE” VIEWED IN ITS RELATIONS TO OTHER WRIT
INGS. It is proposed to discuss in this paper the peculiar and complicated relations which the “ Didache” bears to other ancient writings, and to present the conclusions at which we arrive in regard to its origin and structure.
The most prominent fact in connection with the “ Didache” is the close relationship which its first five chapters sustain to the Epistle of Barnabas, the Latin fragment of the Doctrina Apostolorum, the Ecclesiastical Canons, and the Apostolical Constitutions. The first and fundamental question which this relationship suggests is, With what did the common matter of these different works originate? With this question we shall first concern ourselves.
I. What is the original source of the common matter which appears in the documents mentioned ? Upon this point the opinions of investigators are greatly divided. The majority have found the original either in Barnabas or in the “ Didache,” but a few critics, seeing the inadequacy of either supposition to explain the facts of the case, havo put back of both an older source. This we consider the only tenable hypothesis, and yet, while accepting it, we differ entirely, as will appear, with its strongest advocate, Professor Warfield, in regard to the nature of the original and its existing representative.
To prove the position that an older source lies back of the “ Didache" and Barnabas, we wish to show, first, that the common matter as found in Barnabas is not original, but must have been drawn from an earlier source, and secondly, that our Bryennios's “Didache” is not that source. That the Barnabas appendix is not the original of the common matter has been maintained by many writers, some of whose arguments we may briefly recapitulate.
Barnabas throughout his Epistle is a copier who works over a mass of oral and written traditions, and it is most natural therefore to suppose that he copies in this section also. Again, at the end of chapter xvii., he seems to look back over his Epistle as if it were completed, and then goes on to say, “Let us pass over to another knowledge and teaching." These words certainly imply nothing less than that the writer is about to make use of new material. The word yvóols, which is here added to didaxń, is (as Holtzmann remarks) characteristic of the author of the Epistle (being found in no less than ten different sections), and denotes the high authority of what he is about to give. When we come to exam
1 [The following paper was prepared before the appearance of Professor Warfield's contribution in the December number of this Review. Such coincidences as occur are the result of independent investigations. — Eds.)
2 See his able essay upon the Latin fragment in Schaff's Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, p. 220 sq.
8 See Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des N. T. Kanons ; Theil j., pp. 312314. E. L. H., The Guardian, June 25, 1884. Funk, Theol. Quartalschrift, 1884, p. 399 sq. Holtzmann, Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, 1885; Heft i., p. 158 sq. Brown, in Hitchcock and Brown's Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, p. xxxii. sq.
ine the section itself (chapters xviii.-xx.) the style and arrangement betray at once all the marks of a copy. That the orderly and logical arrangement which appears in all the other documents could have originated with the confused and disordered mass which is found in Barnabas seems upon the face of it impossible. Striking illustrations of this lack of order are given by Zahn, by E. L. H., and by Brown, and many of them are seen to be such as can be satisfactorily explained only upon the supposition that Barnabas quoted from an older source, and, either through lack of memory or with the intention of showing his independence, changed utterly the arrangement of the original. The most noticeable of the many cases is perhaps the insertion of the words fuláčels å tapédaßes in Barnabas xix. 11, where they make no sense, and where they could not possibly have been placed by the original writer. We need not repeat more of the numerous arguments urged by others, but may add to them the following considerations.
That Barnabas's arrangement is not the original is indicated by the fact that all the other witnesses, the Latin, the “ Didache,” the Canons, and the Constitutions, follow a totally different order and at the same time agree almost exactly among themselves. It seems much more natural to suppose Barnabas a confused and sporadic copy, entirely out of the line of development, than to suppose it the source from which was later developed the arrangement which appears with scarcely a variation in all other witnesses. And yet again, the words, “ light and darkness,” by which the two ways are characterized in Barnabas, must be a change from an original source and not the original itself. For were these words original the unanimity with which the other witnesses, the “Didache,” the Canons (which follow Barnabas in many points), and the Constitutions, use the words, “ life and death," with no mention of “light and darkness,” could not be explained. The expression “light and darkness" is a favorite one with Barnabas, who is fond of figurative language, and its substitution here for “ life and death” is thus easily explained. That he knew of the original “ life and death” is seen from his words in chapter xx. 1, “For it is a way of eternal death.” In view of these arguments it seems certain that Barnabas, in chapters xviii.-xx., must have drawn from an earlier source.
In the second place, that this earliest source cannot be the “ Didache" as we have it admits of equally solid proof. Professor Warfield remarks, “Only a few of the most discerning spirits saw that on the one hand Barnabas bears all the marks of a copier, and on the other the · Didache' fails to furnish the matter which he borrowed, and therefore felt bound to assume that they both borrowed their common matter from a third source.” 2 While concurring with him in this conclusion, we do not base it upon the same grounds. Our first reason for believing that the “ Didache,” as we have it, is not the source of Barnabas is not that it “ fails to furnish the matter which Barnabas borrowed,” but that Barnabas failed to use so much which the “ Didache ” does furnish. The argument is a silentio, and yet when we examine the matter which Barnabas omits we shall, as it seems to us, find the argument conclusive. The most striking omission is the section “ Didache " iii. 1-6. Examining the matter and the style of this section, it occurs to us at once that Bar
1 See chapter v. 4, where the “ way of darkness" is spoken of ; and xx. 1, where it is called the “way of the black [one]” (Toù péhavos).
? Schaff's Teaching, p. 221.
nabas would certainly have used it had he known of it. How he could have forgotten or could have resisted employing material so exactly in accordance with his taste is inconceivable. The figurative manner of expression would have delighted him. The balancing of the clauses, one over against another, and the heaping up of particulars under each head are just what we should have expected from him. And yet he shows not the slightest trace of this section in any part of his Epistle. The conclusion seems inevitable that it was unknown to him.
Again ; the section “ Didache ” i. 3–ii. 1 is omitted not only by Barnabas, but also by the Latin fragment and the Canons. This threefold omission can be explained only upon the supposition that the document (whatever it was) from which these three drew likewise omitted this section. In other words, the “ Didache,” as we have it, could not have been the source from which these three drew their common material.
To these considerations we may add the very important fact that there is strong reason for supposing that a document of the general nature of the first half of our « Didache” circulated in the church independently of the second half. The name “Duae Viae," under which it is supposed by most writers that our “ Didache” is referred to, is applicable only to the first six chapters. Still further, Barnabas and the Canons who use these chapters so freely show no knowledge of the remaining chapters.
Again, as remarked by Harnack, Krawutzcky, and others, Athanasius, in speaking of the Aidaxò tûv åroctólov as used for the instruction of Catechumens, could not have included the latter half of the “ Didache,” which is entirely inapplicable to catechumens, — indeed is addressed, in distinction from the first half, to the officers and members of the church, the plural form of address being used instead of the singular. When we add to this the fact that Athanasius used the singular Aldayń, as if speaking of a single well-known document, the conclusion is very strong that he knows nothing of our “Didache," as a whole, but refers to a document which covers the substance of no more than the first six chapters. This document, when considered in the light of the facts already stated, is most naturally identified as to its general substance with the original source for which we are searching.”
We may refer here, as additional testimony for the independent existence of the original document which we have described, to the mention of the “ Didache" by Nicephorus of Constantinople. Ile refers to it in his “ Stichometry," 8 and gives its length as two hundred lines. This measurement, as shown by Gordon,' instead of favoring a reference to the Bryennios “Didache” opposes it. The length of the Epistles of Clement (2,600 lines, according to Nicephorus) is 1,120 lines in the “ Jerusalem " manuscript. Upon this calculation the “ Didache” of Nicephorus must have been but about two fifths of the length of the Bryennios “ Didache." This very significantly corresponds closely to the length of our supposed original in the augmented form used, as shown later, by Clement and 1 Athanasius, Fest. Ep. 39 ed. Migne, ii., col. 1437.
Our conclusion seems far more natural, and certainly fits the facts of the case better, than that of Professor Brown, who, in speaking of the lack of acquaintance with chapter vii. sq. on the part of the Canons, says : “It is very natural that the early chapters which the author of the Teaching' himself designates as required in pre-baptismal instruction should actually have become detached from their original connection, and been circulated by themselves” (p. xvii.). 8 Migne, i., col. 1060.
4 Modern Review, July, 1884, p. 455.
Athanasius. An examination of the list given by Nicephorus shows that it follows exactly the list found in Pseudo-Athanasius ("Synopsis," $ 76), and implies that the writer had in mind the particular document there referred to. And besides, his use of the singular didaxń agrees with Athanasius and Rufinus over against Eusebius. We can, therefore, claim Nicephorus, with right, as a witness to the independent existence of the original document.
We conclude, then, as a result of our investigations that an original source underlies the common matter of the “ Didache,” of Barnabas, of the Latin fragment, and of the other parallels. The references to this document by subsequent writers will be considered later.
II. Having thus proved the existence of a common source we have next to investigate the place and date of its composition. We refer it, without hesitation, and with little fear of contradiction, to Egypt, and put its composition as early as the latter part of the first century.
For Egypt speaks the fact that it was known and used there by Barnabas, and by the Canons, was quoted by Clement of Alexandria, and referred to by Athanasius. Both for Egypt and for an early date speaks the lack of quotations not only from the New Testament as a whole, but also from the separate books. The only other region that has been urged with any show of probability for the origination of the “ Didache,” as a whole, is Syria, including Palestine. All the arguments which have been given for its Syrian authorship are applicable, as will be seen upon examining them, only to the latter half. Among these arguments the only one which may, at first glance, be supposed to support the Syrian authorship of the original “ Two Ways " is the number of quotations from the Gospel of Matthew which it is said to contain. As to this point it is very significant to notice that, of the eighteen to twenty-two quotations in the “ Didache ” which are referred to Matthew, but six occur in the first six chapters; and, further, of these six, three occur in the section i. 3-ii. 1, which is omitted in Barnabas, the Latin fragment, and the Canons, and which, as we shall later in this paper endeavor to prove, is a Syrian addition. Of the remaining quotations the one in “ Didache" iii. 7, “Be thou meek for the meek shall inherit the earth," is referred by all commentators to Matthew v. 3. It is important to remark that it is not an exact quotation from Matthew, but is taken literally, with the single insertion of the article before ynv, from the LXX of Psalms xxxvii. 11. Again, in Barnabas are found only the words “ Be thou meek,” the last clause being omitted. We are not obliged, therefore, to suppose a knowledge of Matthew on the part of the writer of the original document. We are at liberty to conclude either that the latter part of the clause was quoted by the original directly from Psalm Xxxvii., or, what is far more probable in view of the omission of Barnabas, that it did not stand in the original, bnt was inserted afterward by the “ Didache" and the Canons independently, very likely under the suggestion of the use of the clause by Matthew. That the compiler of the Canons depended upon Matthew at this point rather than upon the original source seems probable, when we notice his substitution of the words “ Kingdom of Heaven” for “the earth” against all witnesses, even the Coptic Canons. These words were probably taken by him, through a slip of the memory, from the conclusion of the first and similar beatitude. The variation at this point favors the view that the concluding clause did not exist in the original source. That the words “Be thou