The "Didache" thus completed became, later, the basis of the seventh book of the Apostolical Constitutions, which adheres very closely to its original in general arrangement, but shows at the same time resemblances in certain points to the Egyptian documents, which lead us to suppose it based upon a recension of the "Didache," varying slightly from that which we now possess in the direction of the Egyptian original.

IV. We have thus assigned our completed "Didache" to Syria or Palestine. Let us examine in detail our reasons for this position, some of which have already been mentioned in the course of our discussion. As remarked above, the choice lies between Egypt on the one hand and Syria, including Palestine, on the other.

To begin with the external grounds for our position.

First, the seventh book of the Apostolical Constitutions, which dates from Syria, is based upon the "Didache " as a whole, following its order and arrangement almost without a variation, and it is a significant fact that it is the only known work which bears such a relation to it. The presumption is certainly very strong that the document thus employed by the Constitutions belongs not to that country in which every trace of its existence is lacking, but to the region to which the Constitutions themselves belong.

Further, three witnesses, Barnabas, the Latin, and the Canons (at least two of which are known to be Egyptian), omit a certain section ("Didache," i. 3-ii. 1) which is found in the "Didache" and in the Constitutions, which stand thus, in this particular, over against the other three witnesses. Our presumption is certainly strengthened by this fact.

Again, the course of transmission which we have supposed puts into the region of Syria two documents bearing the same name, but very different as to scope, contents, and length; one, the short moral treatise; the other, the longer manual for church use, including the former, and yet at the same time differing entirely from it in its aim, and in all probability not wholly superseding it in the church of that region. When Eusebius, then, speaks of ai leyóμevai Aidaɣaí,1 we see that his plural exactly fits the state of the case as we have supposed it to exist in Syria. It is inconceivable that he could have used the plural to designate simply variant copies or recensions of the same work. The term must include works actually differing as to scope and matter; we know of none which could be called by that name except our "Didache as a whole, and the

tion as compared with the developing episcopacy of the Ignatian Epistles stamps it at once as belonging to a period not later than the first quarter of the second century. We do not propose in this paper to enter into a discussion of the question of date. An early date has been maintained by many besides those mentioned, and is, as we think, satisfactorily proven. An Egyptian origin permits a somewhat later date, and leads Harnack to bring the terminus ad quem down to 160. But he grants that an earlier date must be accepted if the document be put into Syria. His arguments against a time before 120 do not seem at all conclusive. The one based upon a higher and lower grade of morality carries the most weight with it, but this is drawn from chap. vi., which is found only in part in the Constitutions, and, like section i. 3-ii. 1, may be a later interpolation.

1 H. E., iii. 25; Migne, ii., col. 269. Nicephorus Callistus follows Eusebius in using the plural. Eccles. Hist. iii. 46; Migne, i., col. 888. So Anastasius Sinait., Patriarch of Antioch, at the end of his Questiones, according to a Paris manuscript quoted by Cotelerius in his Patres Apost. i. 197.

original "Two Ways," or "Didache," as it too was called. On the other hand, against an Egyptian origin is the fact already noticed, that Athanasius, in referring to the "Didache," could have meant only the first half. That he could not have included more is proved not only by the utter inapplicability of the latter half for the instruction of catechumens, but also by the fact that its position in regard to church organization is utterly at variance with the principles and practice of Athanasius's time. The seventh book of the Apostolical Constitutions, which belongs probably to the same century, shows the changes which a compiler of that age thought it necessary to make in order to render the book appropriate for church use. And further, Athanasius's use of the singular proves that this was the only work of that name known to him and to those for whom his writings were intended, and precludes absolutely the possibility of the existence in Egypt in his time of a document of greater length and of a different nature, such as our present "Didache." "

Before turning to the internal evidence for our position we must discuss some supposed quotations from the latter half of the "Didache which might be claimed to favor an Egyptian origin for the whole. Barnabas in chap. iv. is said to have used chap. xvi. 2 and 3 of the “Didache." Upon examination we find that the parallel narrows itself down to a single sentence. Comparing chap. iv. of Barnabas and chap. xvi. of the "Didache," sentence by sentence, we cannot fail to receive an impression that neither drew directly from the other; each contains so much which the other utterly ignores, and the two go their way apparently so perfectly unconscious of and so entirely uninfluenced by the course of the other. The "Didache chapter is based upon Matt. xxiv. ; Barnabas bears not the slightest resemblance to it. And yet Barnabas, as elsewhere, is made up throughout the chapter almost wholly of borrowed matter. No one pleading for the priority of either has yet been able to find any good reason in the passage itself for holding the originality of one in preference to the other. The conclusion, then, seems clear as clear as in the case of the Barnabas appendix compared with the first chapters of the "Didache that both took the passage in question from a common source. We might throw out the suggestion (space forbids a discussion of it) that the original "Two Ways " may have possessed a hortatory, eschatological conclusion containing the passage in question.

Our attention is next called to Clement of Alexandria (De Divite Servando, chap. xxix): "He who hath poured out the wine, the blood of the vine of David ;" cf. "Didache," ix. 2: "We thank thee our Father for the holy vine of David thy servant which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant." The parallel is brief, but the peculiarity of the expression renders it striking. The representation of Christ as a vine was very common in the early church; Clement himself in another

1 That Eusebius, although writing in Syria, may have been thinking of Egypt, and of the Didache current there, as well as of Syria, is of course possible, and yet the fact remains that his plural must have been meant to include two different works. Athanasius's singular admits of only one work known to him. If the Didache as a whole, then, is to be thrown into Egypt, the original source which furnishes ground for Eusebius's plural must be thrown out of Egypt, and we are then involved in all sorts of absurdities.

:

2 The singular Aidaxh occurs twice in Athanasius's works in his Fest. Ep. 39 (see above, p. 432 note); and in Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis Scripturæ Sacra, § 76, ed. Montfaucon, ii. 202.

& Potter's ed., p. 952.

place (Paed. i. 15) speaks of the wine of the vine as allegorically signifying the blood of the Logos. The only thing to be accounted for then in the present case is the use of the compound phrase "vine of David." In regard to this we may remark that there is every reason to suppose that the second half of the "Didache," as well as the first, is a compilation from older sources. Many internal indications, into a discussion of which we cannot enter here, point that way. No portion is more likely to have existed before the compilation than the liturgical forms. It is not probable that the individual compiler should himself have composed these; he undoubtedly recorded prayers already in general use. That Clement should know them, even though he did not know the "Didache,” is not only possible, but probable. But, even if these words should be supposed to have originated with the "Didache," yet they might very speedily have become separated from that document, and, as liturgical forms spread both rapidly and widely, might well have been known in Egypt before Clement's time.

Let us turn now to the arguments for our position furnished by the "Didache" itself. All who have contended for a Syrian origin have done so solely on internal grounds, and in the face of what they have considered strong external testimony for an Egyptian authorship. Their arguments have all been met at the start by a counter-presumption, and have therefore received less consideration than many of them merited. Having established, as we think, a presumption upon external grounds in favor of an Asiatic origin for chapters vi.-xvi., we approach the question from an entirely different standpoint. Do internal indications, then, go against our presumption, or do they favor it?

We need not repeat the sound arguments urged by Dr. Schaff (pp. 123-127); the resemblance of the theology to that of James, the Jewish Christian tone (cf. Bryennios, p. 8'), and the significant phrase in the eucharistic prayer (ix. 4). We wish, however, to lay especial stress upon the great use which the "Didache" makes of the Gospel of Matthew.2 It is a significant fact that of some eighteen clear references to that Gospelor to Matthew in connection with Luke every one of them belongs either to the latter half of the "Didache" or to the section i. 3-ii. 1, which we have assumed to date from Syria or Palestine. The bearing of this fact cannot be mistaken. Such a profuse use of a single Gospel at so early a date, and a use which is confined to certain well-defined portions of our document, portions which, upon other grounds, are shown to be of later and different origin, certainly argues very strongly for their origination in a region where that particular Gospel was especially known and used, and where was that but Syria or Palestine?

Still further, the designation of the prophets as "High priests" (xiii. 2), while pointing to the influence of Jewish rites and customs, shows at the same time that development in hierarchical views from which grew in the same part of the world, but a little later, the Epistles of Ignatius, with their great emphasis (betraying a transition state) upon the three orders of the ministry.

1 For some evidences of this see Gordon, Modern Review, July, 1884.

2 Compare the sparing use which Barnabas makes of the Gospel of Matthew. In the entire Epistle, so much greater in length than the Didache, we find but two clear quotations from Matthew; Barn. iv. 14, cf. Matt. xx. 16 and xxii. 14; and Barn. v. 9, cf. Matt. ix. 13. Even these two show an advance over the original Two Ways, which illustrates the difference in date.

Finally, Lucian's "Peregrinus Proteus" furnishes at least a presumption in favor of a Syrian or Palestinian origin for chapters xi. and xii.

Let us consider next the arguments which have been urged against our position. The argument for Egyptian authorship based upon the use of the "Didache" by Egyptian writers applies, as we have shown, only to the original "Two Ways." For the Egyptian origin of the remainder of the "Didache" is urged the fact that traveling teachers and apostles were numerous in Egypt. But from Eusebius (H. E. iii. 37)1 we learn that such traveling evangelists were to be found everywhere during the first and second centuries. The directions in chapter xi. remind us of the sending out of the seventy in Palestine (a direct reference to the Gospel is made in xi. 3), and xi. 4 recalls the words of Matt. x. 40. Again it is urged that the "Didache" agrees with the Sahidic version of Upper Egypt in the form of its doxologies, which omit Baoteía. But Gregory of Nyssa's use of the same form 2 destroys the force of this. And on the other hand the presence in so old a document of the doxology with the Lord's Prayer points toward Syria where (according to Westcott and Hort) the doxology originated.

The only argument of weight which has been urged against a Syrian origin is drawn from the undeveloped character of the ministry in the "Didache" as compared with the Epistles of Ignatius. In regard to this we may remark, first, that we assign the "Didache" to a date earlier than that of the Ignatian Epistles. In the second place the emphasis which Ignatius puts upon the episcopal office and his reiteration of the duty of obedience to the bishop betrays clearly a transition state, and prove that the office was neither so old nor so widely established as to stand undisputed. In his time the new office may not have been established even throughout the whole of Syria. Again, the "Didache" itself, as mentioned above, shows, in the designation of the prophets as "high priests," an advance in hierarchical views leading to though not reaching the position of Ignatius. And, still further, in chapter xv. there may be, as claimed by Gordon, traces of this same progress toward a hierarchy.

We conclude, therefore, both upon external and internal grounds that our completed "Didache" belongs to the region of Syria or Palestine.

To sum up briefly the main results of our investigations, we hold that an earlier and as yet undiscovered source underlies the common matter of our parallel documents; that this source had its origin in Egypt; was used in the composition of Barnabas, and formed the basis of the Latin translation; was augmented somewhat and afterward quoted by Clement; was used by the Canons and referred to by Athanasius. As thus augmented it was carried to Syria, and became the basis of the first five chapters of our present "Didache," the compilation of which was the work of a Syrian or Palestinian writer.

Finally, we believe that the first five chapters of the Bryennios " Didache," with the omission of the sections i. 3-ii. 1, and iii. 1-6, are, though not indeed an exact, yet the best known representative of the original source.

BERLIN, GERMANY, December, 1885.

1 Migne, ii., cols. 292–293.

Arthur C. McGiffert.

2 De Oratione Dominica, V. Migne, i., col. 1193. See Schaff, p. 124 note. 8 Modern Review, July, 1884, p. 474.

THE LAST CHAPTER OF "THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOS-TLES," ILLUSTRATED FROM PASSAGES IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS.

THE criticism of "The Teaching" thus far affords a striking example of the almost insuperable difficulty of interpreting correctly any literary monument without knowing its setting in the current ideas of its precise time and its relations to other written memorials. This applies especially to the themes of the last chapter, namely, the apostasy of the last time, the return of Christ, the power of Antichrist, and the end of the world. We have drifted so far from primitive ideas on these themes that we are simply left in obscurity and perplexity.

The idea of Antichrist, for example, was not that of an apostate church, nor of an infidel power that scorned all religion. It was of a counterfeit Christ who should deceive the world, draw men to an idolatrous worship, and have power to subject true believers to a fiery ordeal until he should be destroyed along with his followers by the reappearance of the real Christ.

Then the early Christians' idea of the end of the world was not the modern notion of a cyclical winding-up of nature, to which science has accustomed us, but of a destruction of the race because of its wickedness, the faithful being separated from the evil and established in a new heavens and earth.

For the sake of brevity I shall illustrate these two points together, taking the authors in their order of time. "The Teaching" will be found to fall naturally between certain passages of Scripture (2 Thess. ii. 2 Peter iii. 7, 10, 12; 2 John 7), and their development in the writings of the Fathers, who make additions from the Revelation, which last hardly seems to have been known to the author of "The Teaching." I employ the translations of the Ante-Nicene Fathers:

Justin Martyr: "Wherefore God delays causing the confusion and destruction of the whole world. . . . Since if it were not so . . . the fire of judgment would descend and utterly dissolve all things even as formerly the flood left no one but him only with his family who is by us called Noah." 2 Ap. chap. 7.

Irenaeus: "For when he, Antichrist, is come and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the apostasy, . . . sitting also in the temple of God so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ; wherefore also shall he deservedly be cast into the lake of fire. . . . And he shall perform great wonders, so that he can even cause fire to descend from heaven upon the earth in the sight of men, and he shall lead the inhabitants of the earth astray." V. 28.

...

Hippolytus, as illustrating & Koσμowλávos ¿s vids eoû: "For the deceiver seeks in all things to liken himself to a Son of God. . . . And in speaking of the horns being like a Lamb he means that he will make himself like the Son of God, and set himself forward as a king." Christ and Antichrist, chaps. 6 and 49.

Origen: "This also is a part of the Church's teaching, that the world was made and took its beginning at a certain time, and is to be destroyed on account of its wickedness." De Princip. Pref. 7.

Commodianus: "He himself (Antichrist) shall divide the globe into three ruling powers, when, moreover, Nero shall be raised up from hell, Elias shall first come to seal the beloved ones; at which things the region of Africa and the northern nation, the whole earth on all sides, for seven years shall tremble. But Elias shall occupy half the time, Nero shall occupy half. . . . And the