But if there was, as seems natural, and appears to be a justifiable inference from the phenomena of the text, a Jewish catechesis, oral or written, corresponding to the material in "both parts of the Didache, it seems to follow that the first form of the Didache was not the truncated form of L, but the fuller form of the Constantinople MS ; in a word, that chs. vii.-xvi. belong to the primal document. We have, then, to regard L as an abbreviation. But is this credible? How could any Christian writer abbreviate in the manner in which this has been done ? It is easy to explain the omission of chs. vii.-xvi. If L belongs to the 4th cent., as Schlecht himself maintained, there would be at least two factors in the omission : (1) Church conditions did not at all correspond in his day \\'ith the situation in the Didache, and (2) the
298
DIDACHE
DIDACHE
material of the Didache had already been worked up and modernized in other cognate documents to be considered in the next section. The one grave objection to this whole hypothesis— to the primary nature of the whole of the fuller Didache— is the omission in L of i, 3-ii. 1, and the omission in the Epistle of Barnabas of any trace of this passage. How can we explain the psychology of an ab- breviator who could omit the one specifically Christian part, supposing it to be primary? Certain explanations suggest themselves. He may have reckoned these verses among the counsels of perfection, and considered it un\\ise to place them at the outset before catechumens. Did they not belong to a later stage and a higher plane of attainment? Or he may have regarded his version of the Two ^Yays as a kind of equivalent to the abrenuntiatio diaboli, and considered posi- tive precepts out of place. In all probability there was a negative and positive baptismal vow from very early days {dTroTayi^ and crvi>Tay:^). Explana- tion is not impossible, but neither is it necessary. The conclusion of the present writer is, that the fuller Didache, with the probable exception of i. 3-ii. 1, or parts thereof, and a few isolated ex- pressions later, is the primary form ; that it is not an expansion from a form corresponding to L, but that_ L is either an abbreviation of it, which is not inexplicable, or more probably an abbreviation of an earlier form of the complete version.
The stages in tlie history of the Didache were something like this: (1) Jewish document of the Two Ways plus instruction in the practices and customs of the Jewish faith ; (2) a Christian adap- tation (A) corresponding to our Didache with some few omissions, from which (3) the Latin version (L) is an excerpt, and of which (4) our Didache (D) is a slightly revised version, with probably a few more definitely Christian additions. The contents of A were practically identical with our Didache. (For analyses of the history of the text M'hich employ a greater number of recensions see Hamack, Gesch. der altchristl. Litteratur, i. [Leipzig, 1893] 87, and Hennecke in ZNTW ii. [1901] 58 if.)
5. Cognate and dependent works.— (a) Barna- bas.— That the Epistle of Barnabas is a cognate work is obvious. But the significance of the common material has been interpreted in very different ways. The diversity of opinion is per- haps most clearly seen in the first German and the first English editions. The very phenomena which OTove for Harnack the priority of Barnabas, for Hitchcock and Brown prove its later and deriva- tive character. The bulk of the common matter is to be found in three chapters (xviii.-xx.), which contain most of the matter in Didache i.-v., with the exception of i. 3-ii. 1. But there is also a very close parallel, too close to be a coincidence, with Did. xvi. 2 in Barnabas iv. 9, 10. It should be noted in passing that the priority of the Didache seems to be hinted at, if not implied, in the way in which this common matter is introduced in Barna- bas : * Let us pass over to another knowledge and teaching (Sioax-qv).' For without pressing the word, the suggestion is here at least of transition to a new source of material. Without entering into details, the conclusion come to is, that Bar- nabas used the Didache, but in the earlier Christian recension (A). If he had it before him'in document- ary form, he expanded it freely, but he may have 2 noted familiar material from memory and ampli- ed it in the process.
(6) ^ermos.— The connexion with Hermas is neither so extended nor so obvious. The relation- shij) played a great part in earlier discussions from its bearing on the question of date, but it has now receded into the background. It is matter of general agreement now that Hermas used the
Didache, but there is much to be said for the thesis of Hennecke, that both Barnabas and Hermas used the earlier Christian recension (A), while the final form (D) is indebted in some veiy minor points to both.
(c) The Apostolic Church Ordinance. — This is an adaptation of the Didache to suit the altered ecclesiastical condition of Egypt in the end of the 3rd or beginning of the 4th century. Here the bulk of the material of the first part of the Didache is distributed among the individual apostles, who in turn contribute their part in a kind of dramatic dialogue. Following on this, and corresponding to the rest of the Didache, are similarly delivered directions about bishops, presbyters, deacons, readers, widows, deaconesses, the conduct of the laity, and the participation of women in the liturgical service, showing in both the enumeration of office-bearers and the powers ascribed to them a much more developed stage of Church organization. As source the Apostolic Church Ordinance has a form of the Didache very like ours : it may have been the earlier Christian recension, though the mass of textual evidence points rather to its being ours plus Barnabas.