Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

meek" of the original were not taken from Matthew is further probable from the fact that all the other beatitudes are omitted, though at least a part of them might be expected here owing to their applicability to the subject in hand.

The two remaining quotations occur in i. 2, and are referred, the one to Matthew xxii. 37-39; the other to Matthew vii. 12. Of the first, "Thou shalt love God who made thee; secondly, thy neighbor as thyself," it may be said, unhesitatingly, that it is not a quotation from Matthew. This will appear very clearly upon comparison with the Canons and Constitutions, which insert characteristic features of the Matthew passage which do not occur in the "Didache." The commands occur frequently in the Old Testament (for example, Deuteronomy vi. 5, and Leviticus xix. 18), and they must have been constantly upon the lips of the early Christians as forming the very basis of the Christianity taught by Christ. Of the second, which is referred to Matthew vii. 2, it may be said that it is neither in form (the form is negative) nor in words a quotation from Matthew. It is no more than a formulation of the oral tradition as to Christ's teaching on the subject, and falls below his true teaching to the level of already existing principles of morality. The Gospel, the authentic record of his words, first gave the positive form. When we compare the want of quotation, thus shown, with the profuse use of the Gospel of Matthew in the remainder of the " Didache," the argument for the Egyptian authorship of our original document becomes very strong.

We may remark, finally, upon this subject, that if the "Didache" as a whole dates from Egypt, then all reason for referring the original source to Syria vanishes. If, on the other hand, the "Didache" as a whole belongs to Syria (as we shall endeavor to prove) then, accepting our position that there existed an original document, we must assign it to Egypt, or accept an almost inconceivable series of transmissions and retransmissions from one country to the other.

The date of Barnabas (not much later than 100 A. D., or even earlier, according to Funk) compels us to put this original source well back into the last quarter of the first century. There is nothing in the document itself to preclude so early a date; indeed, internal indications point that way, especially its apparent ignorance of all of our Gospels. There is nothing, in fact, which would prevent a still earlier date. But enough that it is to be put as far back as the last quarter of the first century. III. We must next study the nature of this original and the course of its transmission.

It consisted, to speak in a general way, of the first five chapters of our "Didache," with the omission of i. 3-ii. 1, and iii. 1-6. Barnabas omits the latter section, which can be explained, as shown already, only by its omission in the source from which he drew. Barnabas, the Latin fragment, and the Canons all omit the section i. 3-ii. 1, which can be explained only upon a like supposition. This section looks upon the face of it like an interpolation. It is made up wholly of quotations quite against the style of the rest of the "Two Ways" document, and the awkwardness of the phrase ii. 1, inserted to introduce the resumption of the original, broken off at i. 3, betrays a later hand.

This document, originating in Egypt in the latter part of the first century, was first used in a very loose and illogical way by Barnabas, who quoted probably in great part from memory, or, as suggested by Zahn,

changed the order intentionally, with the design of appearing independent, and thus produced an arrangement totally different from that of the original. That the original cannot agree with Barnabas in its arrangement is evident from the preponderance of testimony against it. The same internal arguments, also, which were urged to prove that Barnabas could not be its own original stand here against a similar arrangement of the source from which it drew.

own.

ness

The Latin translation followed, basing itself upon the original source, but at the same time, with the customary liberty of a translation, taking some matter from Barnabas, and perhaps adding new material of its This, as a Latin translation, exercised apparently no influence upon the development of the Greek document, as no traces of it are found in the later Greek recensions. The translation may have been made in the West, though its use of Barnabas renders it probable that it belongs to Egypt. That the Latin fragment follows Barnabas rather than precedes it is evident from its use of the two expressions, "life and death," "light and darkness," over against the single phrase "light and darkof Barnabas, and the single phrase "life and death" of all the other witnesses.1 Had the original contained both expressions how can we explain the agreement of these other witnesses in the single phrase "life and death" and their absolute silence as to the "light and darkness"? The reason for Barnabas's substitution has been mentioned already (page 431), and seems sufficient. When the bearing of this has been carefully considered we submit that the conclusion as to the priority of the Latin, drawn from a comparison of the clauses in regard to the angels,2 must be overweighed. And, indeed, with no more than the single sentence from which to argue, we confess ourselves unable to conclude that the Latin, on account of its greater brevity at this point, must have been original, and that its statement could not have resulted from a condensation of the Barnabas clause. The insertion of the clause by Barnabas seems very natural, having been suggested by the use of govoías preceding, which was introduced as a complement to Sidays. Wishing to justify the insertion and to explain and illustrate its meaning, he did it, in his usual figurative manner, by describing the ways as ruled over, the one by the angel of God and the other by the angel of Satan. Whether the conception originated with him or with Hermas matters not.

[ocr errors]

We may at this point discuss briefly the relation of Hermas to the documents which we are considering. He shows a resemblance at certain points which implies some sort of connection. We may throw out at once, however, all supposed connection of Hermas Vis. iii. 4 with "Didache iv. 7, 8 and Barnabas xix. 8 and 11; also of Mand. xi. with "Didache" xi. In this last both go back upon Matthew vii. 15– 20, but both go their own way independently of each other. Mand. vi. 2 presents a resemblance to the angel clause of Barnabas and the Latin which seems to show dependence upon one side or the other.

But

1 Against Warfield, who not only puts the Latin before Barnabas, but also makes it the representative of the original source. The latter view seems absolutely refuted by the existence of the angel clause which, omitted as it is by the Didache and by the Canons, could not have belonged to the original source. That the Latin is even later than Barnabas the argument we have given above seems to prove. Warfield appears to have overlooked the important bearings of the significant phrases quoted.

2 Warfield: Schaff's Teaching, p. 221.

* Cf. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, Th. iii., p. 315.

In the previous section (Mand. vi. 1) "two ways" are mentioned, the one straight (open), the other crooked (σrpeßλń). This favors the supposition of some connection between the documents. We have no data in the passage itself for determining which is the original. If the early date of Hermas be maintained,' knowing its speedy transmission throughout Christendom, we should conclude that both Barnabas and the Latin drew from him. If, however, the late date of Hermas be accepted,2 we must suppose that he knew either Barnabas or the version of the "Two Ways" represented by the Latin translation.

Both Barnabas and the Latin may very likely have reached Rome before the middle of the second century. The point is one of small importance at any rate, and in the present state of uncertainty as to the date of Hermas it is impossible to decide with any degree of assurance.

66

Hermas, Mand. viii. 3-5, has a list of specifications which suggest the way of death" of our original source. A connection here is possible though by no means certain. Internal evidence tells us nothing as to which was the copier, but the early date of the original "Two Ways " renders it probable that it had reached Rome before Hermas wrote, and might well, therefore, have been familiar to him. The connection of Mand. ii. 4-6 with "Didache " i. 5 will be considered later.

[ocr errors]

We may at this point mention Lactantius. The Divine Institutes (Bk. vi. chap. 3), and the Epitome (chap. 59) exhibit parallels to the early portions of the documents under discussion. We think that Dr. von Gebhardt, who discusses these parallels carefully, has shown conclusively that Lactantius (in ideas though not in language) drew directly from the Latin. We should judge from this that the Duae Viae known in the West was essentially the Latin Doctrina of which we possess a fragment. After the writing of Barnabas whether before or after the Latin translation we have no certain means of knowing the original source was augmented by the addition of the section "Didache" iii. 1–6. That this must have been added at the latest early in the second century is proved by the fact that a clause from it ("Didache " iii. 5) is quoted by Clement of Alexandria as ypaon, which implies that it formed an integral undisputed part of a writing which he refers to under that term. The writing itself, as we have seen, belongs to the latter part of the first century, and was, therefore, very naturally looked upon by Clement as Scripture in the wider sense, but were this section an interpolation of late date, many copies of the original must have been in circulation without it, and the passage well known to be spurious could hardly have been quoted by him in such a way. And again, the early date of the addition is proved by the fact that it appears in our completed "Didache" (which, as we shall prove later, belongs to Syria), and must, therefore, have been added before the transmission of the original to that country.

The "Didache," augmented in this way, and with perhaps slight changes incident upon the copying and transmitting of any document, became gradually stereotyped in form, was used for the instruction of catechumens, and was regarded as Scripture in the broad sense. In the

1 97-100 according to Zahn.

2 Latter half of the second century. See article of Dr. Hort in the Johns Hopkins University Circular, December, 1884, in which he shows that Hermas made use of Theodotion's version of Daniel.

8 See Harnack, pp. 283–286.

4 Strom. i. 20, Potter's ed., p. 377.

third century it was used in the compilation of the Ecclesiastical Canons. These follow very closely the substance and arrangement of the augmented source over against Barnabas,1 but at the same time are evidently acquainted with Barnabas, and occasionally insert clauses taken from him (see, for example, the opening sentences of the two works).

It is this augmented source which is mentioned by Athanasius as Διδαχὴ καλουμένη τῶν ἀποστόλων. The document in its Latin translation, whether with or without the section of the "Didache" iii. 1-6 we have no means of knowing, was familiar to the Western church under the name "Duae Viae," or "Judicium Petri," and the Latin name better known in the West was very naturally substituted by Rufinus 2 for the διδαχή of Athanasius.

In the mean time, while the "Two Ways" was thus assuming a stereotyped form in Egypt, a transmission of the document to Syria took place. This transmission must have followed the addition of the section "Didache" iii. 1-6, for this section is found in the Syriac recensions. It must have occurred very early, not later than 110 A. D., probably as early as the very beginning of the century. Supposing the addition of the section just named to have taken place after the compilation of Barnabas, we can yet put the transmission as far back as 100, if we accept Funk's date for the Epistle of Barnabas (96-98). But we are not compelled to suppose that Barnabas chronologically precedes this addition; we have only to suppose the section to have been added to a copy of the original which Barnabas had not seen; the recension which fell into his hands having remained unchanged. This point, however, is of small importance; we can, in any case, suppose the addition to have been made soon enough to allow of the transmission of the augmented document to Syria very early in the second century.

In Syria the document gradually received new additions, notably the sections i. 3-ii. 13 (consisting of quotations from Matthew and from

1 Warfield puts Barnabas, the Latin fragment, and the Canons together as representing one recension over against the Didache and the Constitutions. It will be seen from what has already been said that this is only in part true. The Canons stand against Barnabas and with the Didache and the Constitutions in two very important particulars: the general arrangement of the matter, and the insertion of the section Didache iii. 1-6. In the light of this comparison, the two recensions, as held by him, seem to be the result of a too superficial generalization, resting as it does upon only a small part of the observed facts. No such generalization tits all the phenomena.

2 Rufinus, Commentarius in Symbol. Apost., c. 38, ed. Migne; col. 374. The Judicium given by Jerome (De Viris Illustribus, c. 1, ed. Vallarsi, tom. ii. col. 813), among Peter's works is probably to be identified with this document.

The date of the section i. 3-ii. 1 is difficult to determine. The question depends upon its relation to Hermas. Mand. ii. 4-6 resembles Did. i. 5 so closely that some connection must be admitted. The passage in Hermas read in its connection does not give us the impression of a quotation. The style of the whole section is uniform, and we can discover no points at which a quotation begins or ends.

Again, as Zahn remarks, the quotation (on whichever side it was made) is very exact verbally, and it is not likely that Hermas would quote from a late apocryphal book so much more closely than from any of the New Testament books. Still further, the Didache contains, in close connection, words from Matthew, and also a very striking quotation from an unknown source, all of which Hermas omits; an omission not easy to explain if he used the Didache. In regard to the passage as it stands in the Didache, we may remark that

VOL. V. NO. 28.

29

other sources) and chapter vi. ; and became, in the course of time, somewhat changed, perhaps, in minor points of style and arrangement. As thus altered (though in all probability as yet without the section i. 3-ii. 1), it was combined by a Syrian or Palestinian writer with a series of ordinances relating chiefly to church rites and discipline, and the document thus completed formed the "Didache" essentially as we now have it, and was given the name "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles " from the fact that its first part already bore that honorable name, and the doctrine of the whole was known to be in strict accord with that taught by the Apostles in Palestine and in the East, and especially by James of Jerusalem. Proceeding from some church of that region closely related in spirit to the Jerusalem church, it could with peculiar fitness assume the name "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles."

There are reasons for supposing that the bulk of the second part already existed and was in use in this part of the church. The fact that the first half rests upon an earlier source furnishes at least a presumption for this. But however this be, the combination as we have it, the issue of the document as a manual for catechetical instruction and for the use of church officers and members, — must have taken place early in the century; not later, certainly, than the first quarter, probably before 120.1

the Didache quotes throughout the section, and it is probable, therefore, that this, too, is a quotation. If a quotation, we know of no source except Hermas from which it could have been taken.

Again, the Didache speaks expressly of a commandment (Tùv ¿vtoλýv), "Blessed is he that gives according to the commandment,” and then follows the parallel with Hermas. Hermas calls the directions which he has giventhe substance of which stands in the Didache — a commandment, concluding the section with the words φύλασσε οὖν τὴν ἐντολὴν ταύτην. The connection is certainly significant.

Still further, Clement of Alex., who shows a knowledge of this or a similar passage (Fragm. ex Nicetae Catena, in Matt. v. 42, Potter's ed., p. 1013), agrees more closely with Hermas than with the Didache. It is probable, therefore, that both he and the Didache drew from Hermas. (Clem. Alex. uses Hermas frequently, often mentioning him by name.) The question as to the date of this section, then, will depend upon the date of Hermas. If we agree with Zahn in putting Hermas as early as 100, we are no nearer a decision as to the date of the section than before. If, however, as the discovery of Dr. Hort seems to necessitate, we put Hermas as late as 150, this section must be thrown into the latter half of the second century. A confirmation of the lateness of the insertion is found in the fact that the Constitutions omit a part of this section, and show variations throughout which seem to imply that there lay before the compiler a recension of the Didache made before the addition of this section, while he added, at this point, matter which he had seen in other and later recensions, but perhaps only vaguely remembered. The Const. (Bk. iv. e. 3) show a clear use of the fragment of Clement mentioned above in a lengthy quotation almost verbally exact. The exactness of the quotation, together with the omission of all matter characteristic of the Didache section, and the fact that the first six books nowhere show a knowledge of the Didache, prove that the Constitutions at this point drew directly from Clement, without the interposition of the Didache. Clement, meanwhile, and the Didache, in their agreement with Hermas, while omitting the characteristic features each of the other, show their direct dependence upon him and their independence of each other.

1 The early date of the last half of the Didache can be fully established upon purely internal grounds. (See Hitchcock and Brown, p. xc. sq.; Schaff, p. 119 sq.) If it belongs to Syria, the simplicity of its ecclesiastical organiza

« НазадПродовжити »