tude of lesser indications are urged on both sides, but it is quite unnecessary to make any decisive pronouncement in favour of either. The essential point is that, from an early date, it was accepted in both, in one or other recension, and therefore comes from the heart of a situation which could not be regarded as impossible, or even as irregular, in either.
(2) Date. — In regard to date, there has been the same wide divergence — dates having been sug- gested from A. D. 50 to 500 — and the same substantial agreement. The great mass of opinion, however, is again divided, in somewhat unequal portions, between two periods — the larger number favouring a date between 80 and 100, and the smaller cling- ing firmly to a date between 120 and 160. Space forbids a detailed examination of the evidence. It may be said briefly, in regard to external evidence, that the earlier date is confirmed by such indica- tions as the citation of the Didache as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria and the fact that it is an adaptation of a Jewish manual. Such an adapta- tion could only be made early. And one thing to be remembered is, that long before its actual dis- covery it had been assigned, necessarily on external evidence, by Grabe (1698) to the closing years of the 1st cent, or the very commencement of the 2nd. Internal evidence confirms this. The general correspondence of conditions with those of the Ascension of Isaiah (see HDB v. 448-9), the vivid contrast with Jewish customs, the simple nature of the liturgy, all point to this conclusion. Another point has been well made by Taylor (op. cit. p. 53), who says in regard to the rules for baptism con- tained in the Didache :
"That distinction should be made more rabbinico between the kinds of water to be used is one of the evidences of the Jewish origin and early date of the Teaching. TertuUian (de Bapt. 4) enumerates the various kinds, making no distinction (Nulla dis- tinctio est, mari quis an stagno, flumine an fonte, lacu an alveo diluatur) ; whilst at a still later date we find merely the injunc- tion to baptize in water {Apost. Const, vii. 22).'
But if Barnabas and Hennas had influence on the textoiour Didache, we seem driven to some such con- clusion as this — that the earlier Christian recension dates from the earlier period (80-100) and the later, which differs only in certain insignificant details, from the later (120-160).
7. Tendency. — Before we go on to discuss the evidence of the Didache, and the bearings of that evidence on the problems of the Apostolic and sub- Apostolic Church, we have to face this question : Has the Didache any special purpose or tendency which would lead us to suspect or to discredit its evidence? In this connexion w^e encounter first the contention of Hilgenfeld that it is coloured by Montanism. But the general discussion to which tlie book gave a great impetus has made clear that it must be pre-Montanist. For if Montanism had arisen, and its problems had to be faced, then this book, if produced in the orthodox interest, would have said much less about the prophets, and if written from a Montanist point of view, it could not have resisted saying more. Krawutzscky, who had so fully anticipated the first part of the Did- ache in his reconstruction, assigned it, on its ap- pearance, to an Ebionite heretic at the close of the 2nd century. But searching criticism has failed to discern any clear trace of that heresy. It has been characterized, on obvious grounds, as pro-Judaistic and anti-Judaistic, which implies that it preserves the balance of normal Christianity. Research has failed to displace it from the main current of the Church's life. No writer with a predilection for any early heresy could have hidden it so well, nor would his book have commanded such universal recognition.
In this connexion mention must be made of the contention of Armitage Robinson that the book
300
DIDACHE
reflects no actual conditions which ever existed anywhere, but is a ' free creation ' of the author working on the basis of 1 Cor. with close depend- ence on Matthew and John. But it is surely un- thinkable that any Christian v,'riter could have produced a manual which had hardly any corre- spondence with the conditions of the Church of which he was a member and just as little with the conditions of the Church of the NT, and with no suggestion of substituting a new ideal of Church life and government. The Didache cer- tainly has its roots in the NT; it also has its dissimilarities from it; but that is because the Christianity familiar to its author had its roots in the NT, but had in the meantime grown to some- thing different. The Didache represents an actual stage in the development through which the Church passed. The purpose of its author was evidently to represent, justify, and confirm actual conditions, and to guard against evident dangers.
8. Church conditions. — It is a simple community with which we are brought into contact in the Didache, Avithout the developed organization and manifold official activity of the communities for which the later bodies of legislation were compiled (see art. Apostolic Constitutions). The in- structions, even in regard to baptism and the Eucharist, are addressed to the community, and not to any official personage or class of officials. The 'sovereignty of the community' is implied throughout. Attempts have been made to evade this. The latest has been already referred to [JThSt xiii. 339 ft".). The significance of the ad- •Iress is here discounted as a mere trick of style, borrowed from the practice of St. Paul. But this stands or falls with the whole theory that the Didache is a ' free creation ' of the author with no relation to actual conditions, a theory which Ave have just shown good ground for rejecting. No Avork Avhich passed over and slighted the recog- nized position of accredited officials could have found such general currency and acquired such Avide repute. The conmiunity, therefore, is sove- reign. It tests traA'ellers and prophets ; it makes provision for the Christian poor ; it sets apart ' bishops and deacons ' ; it exercises discipline ; the Sacraments of the Church are its concern. It is obviously a small community, but not isolated or out of touch Avith the general body of Chris- tians. It is knit to them by the golden thread of hospitality, by the visits of itinerant apostles and prophets, by the unity of the one bread. It is situated in a locality where Christianity is past its first beginnings. The missionary propaganda of the Church is now further afield. Apostles are known only as exceptional visitants on the way to theirproper spheres of labour elsewhere. Though pastits first beginnings, it is not yet beyond the possibility of being taken by outsiders for a mere phase of Judaism. Open divergence of practice in outAvard ordinances is, therefore, strongly emphasized. The moral requirements of the com- munity are of the highest order, but its doctrinal position, though strictly orthodox, is Avanting in precision and fullness. The lack of emphasis on soteriology seems to have been felt by Barnabas, Avho, followed in this respect by the Apostolic CVmrch Ordinance, added to the opening Avoids of the Way of Life—' Thou shalt love God Avho made thee'— the words, 'Thou shalt glorify Him Avho redeemed thee from death.'