DIDASCALIA

DIDASCALIA. – This apocryphal writing claims to be « the Catholic doctrine » of the 12 Apostles and purports to have been written in Jerusalem after the « decree » of the Apostles (Act. 15, 23 ff.). Just as the decree does, so too the D. of the 12 Apostles intends to prevent the infiltration of Jewish practices into the Church of the Gentiles. For this reason, the theoretical center of the book is a discussion of the value of the Jewish law. The author distinguishes between the Decalogue and the ceremonial law. The latter was given after the sin of the golden calf (Ex. 32, 4) and is called δευτέρωσις, « secundatio », that is, miñāh in the sense of Jewish tradition. The first law is a « iugum » (iugum suave: Mt. 11, 30), the second a « vinculum ». Christ came to abolish the second law: « secundationem destruxit » (p. 227, 11th ed., edited by R. H. Connolly). One of the principal duties of the bishop is to distinguish the second legislation from the first (p. 34). Sacrifices were not demanded by God, and this explains the fact that Abel was killed during a sacrifice and that Noah received no praise from God when he sacrificed after the Flood (quotation from an apocryphal work: V. p. 221, 7 ff.). Instead of sacrifices God desired « orationes et precaiones et gratiaurum actiones » (p. 87, 10). This evaluation of the law does not come, as has been said, from Justin and Irenaeus, but has much in common with the ideas of the Jewish Christians and of pseudo-Clementine literature (cf. C. Schmidt, Studien zu den Pseudo-Clementinen [Texte und Untersuchungen, 46, 1], Leipzig 1929, p. 263). The author of the D., who writes for Gentile Christians (quotation from the Sibyl, p. 173), knew the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Peter, Paul, perhaps also Thomas), the Gospel of Peter (v. L. Vaganay, L'Evangile de Pierre, Paris 1930, pp. 167 ff., 184 ff) and that of the Hebrews (L. Vaganay, op. cit., p. 186; R. H. Connolly, part 1, p. xxvii ff.), as well as the prayer of King Manasseh. Pseudo-Clementine literature is not cited, but Jewish traditions reached the author (p. 100, 15 ff., Jewish interpretation of Deut. 6, 5: V. H. L. Strack-P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, I, Munich 1922, pp. 100, 110; 4, the pagans and the left side of God: V. Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 36, 16, Bonwetsch), perhaps through Jewish-Christian traditions. Coincidences with the Didache, Barnabas, and Hermas can also be explained without the hypothesis of literary dependence, but the epistles of St. Ignatius were certainly known to the author of the D., and with Ignatius he shares the importance he assigns to the episcopate and to its activity (distribution of offerings). There is little information about liturgical service, but the details concerning fasting (the strange chronology of Holy Week), widows, martyrs, and order in the church during religious services (the orientation of prayer) are interesting. The original work, preserved in Syriac translations and partly in Latin (the Verona manuscript), was written in Greek (a small fragment published by V. Bartlet, The Didaché reconsidered, in Journal of Theological Studies, 13 [1917], p. 303 ff.). The Greek translation in the Apostolic Constitutions is a reworking. The work was probably written in Syria in the first half of the third century. From Epiphanius, Haer. 70, 10, it is known that the D. was read among the Audiani. It appears that Aphraates (v. BIBLICA) knew it; the same applies to Epiphanius (v. K. Holl, op. cit., p. 209 ff). Among Eastern Christians the D. is often included among the canonical writings.