DIDACHE. - The only manuscript of this little work was discovered in 1875 by Theophilus Bryennius, Metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the library of the monastery of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople (a reproduction of the manuscript edited by R. Harris, London 1897).
Two Greek papyrus fragments (chaps. 1, 3-4; 2, 7; 3, 2) from the 4th century were published by A. L. Hunt (The Oxyrhynchos Papyri, XV [London 1922], no. 1782, pp. 12-15).
In the Apostolic Constitutions, VII, chaps. 1-32, another nearly complete Greek recension of the D. is preserved. A Coptic translation of chaps. 10, 3b-12, 2a was found in a papyrus by G. Horner (Journal of Theological Studies, 25 [1924], pp. 225-31; cf. also C. Schmidt, in Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 24 [1925], pp. 81-99). A Georgian translation of the entire text was published by G. Peradze in the same journal (31 [1932], pp. 111-6, 206). The Latin translation, published by J. Schlecht, Doctrina XII Apostolorum (Freiburg 1900), contains only chaps. 1-6, 1. Other witnesses to the textual history include the ancient Church Orders and the Arabic Life of the monk Shenoute.
I. INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT
Papyrus Oxyrh. XV, no. 782 sometimes preserves the original text better (e.g., 1, 5 and 2, 7). Chapters 1, 5-6 and 13, 5-7 are missing in the Georgian version. The Coptic text adds (as does the Greek text in Const. Ap., VII, 27) a prayer over the chrism at the end of chap. 10. Chapters 1, 3 and 2, 1 are missing in some translations (e.g., A. Casamassa, I Padri apostolici, Rome 1938, p. 10 ff.). It must be remembered that Bryennius’s text, written in 1056, is relatively late, and that, since the D. was used in instruction, reworkings (expansions or abridgments) of the text must be taken into account. It is not possible to reconstruct the original text or to seek it in Bryennius’s manuscript.II. CONTENTS
1) Moral section (chaps. 1-6). The Way of Life (chaps. 1-4): love of God and neighbor, the Golden Rule, and the love of enemies at the outset. The individual sins to be avoided are listed in Bryennius’s text in great disorder. Recommendations on almsgiving, respect for teachers, duties toward family members, and confession of sins (4, 14. That confession should take place in church is a late addition, as shown by Barnabas 19, 12 and Const. Ap., VII, 14, 3). The Way of Death (chaps. 5-6): a new list of sins, beginning with murder and adultery. The obligation to abstain from food sacrificed to idols. Preceded by the counsel to take up the yoke of the Lord and to observe dietary rules (ascetic precepts, 2).2) Liturgical section (chaps. 7-10). Baptism, if possible, in running water. Trinitarian formula for baptism. Fasting (one or two days) by the baptized and the baptizer. Fasting twice a week, in contrast to Jewish practice. Prayer of the Our Father three times a day. Thanksgiving before and after meals over the cup and the bread. Exclusion of the unbaptized from the banquet.
3) Section on “Apostles and prophets” (chaps. 11-16). Distinction between true and false “prophets.” “Prophets” receive the firstfruits, as did the priests of the Old Testament. Sunday Eucharist. Ordination of bishops and deacons, who are not to be despised, for they too serve as “prophets and teachers.”
4) Eschatological section (chap. 16). The Second Coming of Jesus.
###
III. THE PROBLEMS OF THE D
a) The literary character. The D. is not a writing that reflects a real situation of the early Church, but a literary fiction to describe customs and doctrines of the apostolic Church. The written Gospel is presupposed in the D., perhaps the Diatessaron of Tatian (doxology after the Our Father; citation of Lk 6:30 in 1:4; V. Funk, Patres apostolici, I, Tübingen 1901, p. 5 note). The author knew the Epistle of Barnabas, which he copies inaccurately (D. 4:1.2 compared with Barnabas 19:10). The pair of “prophets and teachers” in 15:1 is based on the mention of this group in Acts 13:1, but the author was no longer aware of the original meaning of this pairing (cf. E. Peterson, La λειτουργικά des Prophètes et des didascalies d'Antioche, in Recherches de science religieuse, 36 [1949], pp. 577-579). In attempting to represent the most ancient rite of Baptism (“in living water”) he cannot conceal baptismal usages of a later period (7:2.3).b) The date of the D. It is highly probable that in D. 1:5 the Shepherd of Hermas (Mand., II, 4-6) was used; on the other hand, the D. was known to the author of the Didascalia Syriaca; thus the date of our apocryphon must be fixed between the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didascalia (perhaps around 150).
c) The environment in which the D. was written. The liturgical usages presupposed in the D. have much in common with those of the pseudo-Clementine literature: Baptism “in living water” (D. 7:1.2 and Pseud.-Clem. Contestatio, cap. 1, p. 4, 20, ed. P. de Lagarde; Homily 26, p. 117, 4 and 12 Lag.), fasting of one or two days before Baptism (D. 7:4, Homil. XI 35, p. 119, 32; XIII 9, p. 136, 21; XIII 11, p. 137, 7; Recogn., VII 34, 30) and it is Peter who teaches the doctrine of the two ways. Now it is known from Rufinus (Commentaria in Symb. apost. 38; V. S. Jerome, De viris illustr., 1) that the doctrine of the two ways, which he identified with the D. of St. Athanasius, Epist. festiva, 39, also bore the title “iudicium secundum Petrum.” This fact suggests framing the D. within the list of apocrypha dealing with Peter. If, as studies of recent years have shown, the D. is a literary fiction, it might perhaps be related to some apocryphal Acts (of Peter, 2), as indeed the Didascalia Syriaca presupposes knowledge of the pseudo-Clementine literature. It must however be emphasized that this is only a hypothesis. Moreover, the D. clearly distinguishes itself from the pseudo-Clementine literature, which, while the latter exalts the hierarchy of the Church, the preferences of the D. go toward the “charismatics” who bear the names of “apostles, prophets and teachers.” It is impossible to explain the term “prophet” in the D. by Montanism (against Connolly and Vockes), because the Montanists restricted the use of this word to three persons, while the propagandists of Montanism received a salary and were not respected as prophets. It is certain that the vocabulary of the D. was greatly influenced by the language of the New Testament, but it is also perhaps true that there existed in the Syriac Church groups of charismatics whom the author of the D. calls “prophets” (or similarly). The possibility cannot be excluded that these are the same wandering ascetics, whom the Epistles of Pseud.-Clement to the Virgins give an impressive description.
d) Survival of the D. The D. was very popular in Egypt, as papyri, St. Athanasius, the life of Schenute, etc., prove. It is noteworthy that the Egyptian Church knew not only “the Two Ways” (which by some are wrongly regarded as a Jewish work), but also the much-debated prayers of chs. 9 and 10. From the Egyptian tradition no certain conclusion can be drawn about the original meaning of these prayers. While D. 9:2 and 4 is also found in eucharistic texts (Serapion, Sacramentarium, XIII, 13, ed. F. X. Funk, Paderborn 1905, p. 174, Papyrus of Der Balyzeh, in C. H. Roberts and B. Capelle, An early Euchologium [Bibliothèque du Muséon, 3], Louvain 1949, p. 26 ff.; Anaphora eliptica of St. Gregory, ed. O. Löfgren, S. Euringer [Orientalia christiana, 30, 2, Rome, 1933, p. 125 v., p. 78], it has been shown by (ps.?) Athanasius, Logos Soterias, cap. 13 (ed. E. V. der Goltz [Texte und Untersuchungen, neue serie, 14, 11], Leipzig 1905, p. 47, 5) that the prayer in D. 9:4 was also used in common table prayers. The exclusion of the unbaptized in D. 9 from the banquet is not proof of the eucharistic character of these prayers, as is shown by the Logos soterias loc. cit. p. 47, II s. Even in the Pseud.-Clementines the unbaptized are excluded from common banquets. Moreover, the text of Bryennios with the substitution of “bread” for “broken” (D. 9:4) is proof of the influence of Egyptian liturgical language on the text of Bryennios (cf. E. Peterson, Méris, Hostien-Partikel und Opfer-Anteil, in Ephemerides liturgicae, 61 [1947], p. 6).