t Sim. ix. 17. 1: so Dr. Taylor, Journ. of Phil. xviii. 298. Yet Hermas may rather have the spiritual analogue of the Twelve tribes of Israel in view (cf. Mt 1928), It is noteworthy that in Mand. xii. 3. 2 we read cuveriargoey OUY THs EVTOAMS THE jédexo, and then follows a rebuke of the suggestion that these Zyroaei are too hard for man to keep. It looks as if Did. vi. 2 were being abused in the practice of some. On the other hand, the vnarele rercic of Sim. y. 3. 6 transforms the rerciorgs of Did. i 4, vi. 2, into ‘merit.’
‘the Son of God was heralded by the Apostles.’ Justin Martyr also shows himself familiar with the exact idea of this title, when he writes of rovs amd mavros €Ovous avOpérwv dia THs Tapa TaY droc- rodwy aitod didaxfs meicOévras Kal TaparTnoapevous Td Tadad, év ols mAavduevor dveatpddnaay &0n (Apol. i. 58, cf. ii. 2, 7a Kada éaur@ cuvemiordpevos dua riv amd Tod Xpiorod didaxhv, Td SidacKddov THs Gelas dperfs dmordynoev), And, indeed, it may well be that the very form in which Justin, in common with the Kerygma Petri, Hermas, 2 Clement, and the Apology of Aristides, conceives Christianity, viz. as revealed ‘teaching’ on virtue and vice, owes much to the influence on the first half of the second century of the Christianity set forth in the Acdax Kuplov did Tov dHdexa aroorddwv Tots Z0vecw. This would help to explain the degree to which ‘moralism,’ with its notions of the Divine évrodal and pucdds duxarocvvys, colours that literature. Certainly the title of our book suits the attitude of orthodox circles in the closing years of the first century, when Papias was on the look-out for those who related ras mapa Tov kuplov ty mlorer dedopevas (évrodds), as witnessed by personal ‘disciples of the Lord’ (Euseb. HE iii. 39).
(2) As to chs. vii.-xvi., it is usually assumed that they are homogeneous, and contain nothing alien to the original Didache in its enlarged form. But this is hardly accurate ; and though the accretions are wonderfully few and slight, when we remember the nature of the Didache and the drastic handling to which in other forms it has been subjected (see below, B. ‘Transformations,’ etc.), it is the more worth while referring to them, that they furnish the sole excuse for a paradoxical theory that our Didache ‘did not exist as a book before the 4th century.’ * Besides a number of mistaken or in- conclusive criteria of lateness,+ the treatment of Baptism in ch. vii. is rightly appealed to as un- primitive. It is true that Affusion has here nothing to do with ‘clinic baptism’ (as Dr. Bigg supposes), and therefore is not in itself a mark of late date. But the change of address, from the plural of the community to the singular of the officiating minister, suggests a later hand ; and the suspicion is borne out by the Apost. Const. (in what it has and has not), as well as by the unusual concern for detail—the casuistry of baptism, so to speak — which marks these clauses. They find their fullest parallel in the Clementine Homilies (ix. 19, xi. 26, iii. 73, xiii. 9, 11), and may belong to about the same period, This applies to vii. 2, 3, and to the end of vii. 4. But the injunction to the baptizer and baptized to fast beforehand, and to any others who can to join them in this, is probably original (cf. Justin, Apol. i. 61, nev cuvevxomevay Kal cuvyno- revovrwv abrois). Other minor secondary features are the form of the Doxology in ix. 4, which the quotation in Athan. de Virg. (with the parallel passage in the Apost. Const.) shows once to have been, as elsewhere in the Didache, cod éorw 7 divajus kal 7 dda; and the possible insertion of ix. 5? Kal yap wept rovrou elpynkey 6 KUptos, My dare 7d dyov Trois kuol, In this latter case the formula of citation elpnxey 6 xvpos is certainly not un- primitive ; but the idea (the aya dylos of later liturgies) is not found connected with Mt 7° before Clement (Strom. It. ii. 7) and Tertullian (de Presce. xli.). Further, it duplicates what appears in more primitive form in x. 6°, ef ris dyvos, épxéobw’ et ris ovk éoTl, meravoeirw; and the more elaborate parallel in Apost. Const., which has the like
* Dr. C. Bigg, Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (S.P.C.K. 1898).
+ Some simply turn into proofs of very early date, ¢.g. the following : ‘At what date would it be thought lawful to publish the Lord’s Prayer and a collection of Eucharistic prayers In a book of this description?’ This seems to the present writer to tell rather heavily against the relatively late dates of Harnack and others, and in favour of a first century date.
448 DIDACHE
DIDACHE
thought without citing the words of Mt 7%, shows how apt such an idea was to creep into the text. Finally, in xii. 5, the striking word ‘Christmonger’ (Xpisréuropos, in contrast to Xpi- tuavés at the end of xii. 4) may be suspected of being late in origin. Certainly its use elsewhere is late, beginning perhaps with pseudo-Clement (Epist. de Virg. 1. x. 4, xi. 4, xiii. 5) and Athanasius (de Pseudo-proph., echoing Did.) ; nor does Apost. Const. make use of it, or indeed of xii. 2-5 as a whole. This, however, cannot do more than render the early date of xii. 5 or even xii. 2-5 rather less certain than that of the work as a whole. With such reservations, then, the original contents of the fuller Didache (probably as Hermas knew it) were practically those of our MS.