Wilhelm Pratscher, editor The Apostolic Fathers An Introduction BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PRESS Wilhelm Pratscher, Th.D., is Professor of New Testament Studies in the Evangelical Theology Faculty of the University of Vienna. © 2010 by Baylor University Press Waco, Texas 76798-7363 For Kurt Niederwimmer All Rights Reserved. No part of mis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechan on his eightieth birthday ical, phorocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writ ing of Baylor University Press. Cover Design by Pamela Poll Originally published in German as Die Apostolischen vater: Eine Einleitung, © 2009 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen (ISBN 978-3-525-03637-2) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Apostolischen Vater. English The Apostolic Fathers : an introduction / edited by Wilhelm Pratscher ; trans lated by Elisabeth G. Wolfe. p. cm. Includes bibliographiCal references and index. ISBN 978-1-60258-308-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Apostolic Fathers--History and criticism. 1. Pratscher, Wilhelm. II. Title. BR60.A65A6613 2010 270.1--dc22 2010022950 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper with a minimum of 30% pew recycled content. Contents Foreword xi The Corpus of the Apostolic Fathers Wilhelm Pratscher 1 The Didache Jonathan A. Draper 7 1. Textual Tradition 7 2. Dating 8 3. Origin 11 4. Theological Profile 13 5. Reputation 23 6. Bibliography 24 The Epistle of Barnabas Ferdinand R. Prostmeier 27 1. Textual Tradition and Attestation 27 2. Structure, Composition, and Genre 29 3. Intertextual Relationships 31 4. Originating Circumstances 32 5. Theological Profile 34 6. Anti-Jewish Polemic and Its Function 39 7. Bibliography 44 The First Epistle of Clement Andreas Lindemann 47 1. Textual Tradition 47 2. Reception in the Early Church 48 3. Authenticity and Literary Unity 49 4. Genre 49 5. Construction and Content 50 6. Structure 55 7. Intertextual Relationships 57 8. Relationship to Hebrews 59 viii Contents Contents ix 9. The Situation in Corinth and the Motive for Roman 7. Intertextual Relationships 124 Intervention 59 8. Opponents 127 10. Theological Profile 62 9. Theological Profile and Parenesis 127 11. Authorship and Dating 64 10. Bibliography 129 12. Bibliography 66 The Martyrdom of Polycarp The Second Epistle of Clement Gerd Buschmann 135 Wilhelm Pratscher 71 1. Textual Tradition 135 1. Textual Tradition 71 2. Editions and Synopsis of MartPol in Eus HE IV 15 137 2. Literary Unity 72 3. Authenticity and Integrity 138 3. Structure 73 4. Dating 139 4. Genre 74 5. Structure 140 5. Intertextual Relationships 75 6. Form, Genre, and Sitz im Leben 143 6. Theological Profile 77 7. Intertextual Relationships 145 7. Opponents 85 8. Theological Profile 148 8. Authorship 87 9. Bibliography 153 9. Place of Writing 87 10. Dating 88 The Papias Fragments 11. Bibliography 89 Ulrich H. J Kortner 159 1. Textual Tradition 159 The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch 2. Questions of Authenticity and Methodological Problems 163 Hermut Lohr 91 3. Structure and Content 165 1. Evidence of Eusebius of Caesarea 91 4. Genre 167 2. The "Ignatian Question" 92 5. Intertextual Relationships 168 3. Textual Tradition and the Three Recensions of the Ignatians 92 6. Theological Profile 171 4. The Question of Authenticity 93 7. Opponents 174 5. Dating 94 8. Authorship 175 6. Place and Situation of Writing 96 9. Place of Writing 175 7. Structure of the Seven Writings of the Middle Recension 97 10. Dating 176 8. Intertextual Relationships, Traditional and Religious History 100 11. Bibliography 177 9. Genre, Diction, and Style 102 10. Theological Profile 104 Quadratus 11. Bibliography 113 Wilhelm Pratscher 181 1. Textual Tradition and Authorship 181 The Epistle of Polycarp 2. Occasion, Audience, Genre 185 Boudewijn Dehandschutter 117 3. Dating 187 1. Authorship 117 4. Place of Writing 188 2. Textual Tradition 119 5. Historical and Theological Profile 189 3. Literary Unity and Integrity 120 6. Evaluation 192 4. Dating 121 7. Bibliography 192 5. Structure and Content 122 6. Genre 123 x Contents Diognetus Horacio E. Lona 197 1. Textual Tradition 197 Foreword 2. Content and Structure 198 3. Literary Form and Genre 198 4. Literary Unity 199 5. Intellectual Milieu 200 6. Theological Profile 203 7. Authorship, Place of Writing, and Dating 211 The Apostolic Fathers have enjoyed growing popularity over the last decades. The 8. Bibliography 212 terminology and the boundaries are certainly disputed, but the selected writings represent foundational documents from the time of the transition from the New The Shepherd of Hermas Testament the early church. They show the variety of the emerging universal (0 David Hellholm 215 church from the late fu'st century to the end of the second century. 1. Textual Tradition 215 1hese articles discuss the originating conditions and the intentions of the 2. Literary Composition 216 individual texrs, especially conSidering their theological orientation. 3. Theological Profile 219 I thank my srudenr assistant Thomas Feldkirchner for drawing up the cypeset 4. Intertextual Relationships 230 copy, as well as [he press Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht for including this volwne in 5. Different Categories of Christians 231 their series ofUol Taschcnbiicher (UTB) and the circwnspect printing. 6. Genre 232 This volume is dedicated to my esteemed teacher, Professor Kurt Nieder 7. Place and Date of Writing 237 wimmer, on his eightieth birthday. He made a great contribution to the research 8. Bibliography 238 on these writings through the initiation of the "Commentary on the Apostolic Fathers" (KAV ). The Apostolic Fathers Yesterday and Today Jorg Ulrich 243 Vienna, March 2009 Wilhelm Pratscher 1. The Apostolic Fathers in Early Church History 245 2. The Apostolic Fathers and the Questions of Christianity in the Twenty-first Century 255 3. Bibliography 258 Editions and Translations of the Apostolic Fathers 261 Contributors 265 Index 267 The Corpus of the Apostolic Fathers Wilhelm Pratscher We find the first compilation of individual writings of the Apostolic Fathers already in the earliest manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (N, 4th c.) contains the Epis tle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Herm as, Codex Alexandrinus (A, 5th c.) both epistles of Clement.! Both times the aforementioned texts, because Bible codices arc at issue, are measured against a high, possibly canonical standard. Precisely why they were admitted to the aforementioned codices is beyond our knowledge. 1he occurrence shows in any case cheir esteem in the circles in question. A collec tion of '~postolic Fathers" is naturally not yet in their sights. That is already much more strongly the case in the Codex H (Hierosolymita nus) from the year 1056, discovered by Ph. Bryennios in the library of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople. Next to a few other (partly related) texts we find here the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, both epistles of Clement and the letters of Ignatius (rec. longior). The choice may have been based on the mate rials at hand. That the Epistle of Polycarp was overlooked is hard to reconcile with the reputation of the bishop of Smyrna. But since the knowledge of manuscripts has a well-known happenstance about it, it is not unlikely that it is still in some collection or other in as yet unknown manuscripts. We firSt find ourselves on firm footing with the printed versions. An equiva lenr collection was first published in 1672 in Paris by Jean-Baptiste Cotelier.2 He speaks only in the ride of writings of fathers who flourished in the apostolic period, .in the text itself of an ApostOlicorum Parrum Collecdo" (S.VU).3 He offers the Epistle of Barnabas, both epistles of Clement, the letters of Ignatius, the Epistle and the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, and several more writings. The criterion for inclusion is the assumed historical connection to the time of the apostles. The named texts are supposedly '~postolorum partim comites [. ..J partim discipuli" (S.x).4 In addition to Barnabas (Gal 2: 1; 1C or 9:6; Acts 4:36; and elsewhere), Clement (Phil 4:3) and Hermas (Rom 16:4) appear ing as companions and disciples of Paul, Ignatius and Polycarp are brought into connection with the Johannine tradition in Asia Minor (cf. Eus HE III 36.1-2). 1 Cf. Aland, Text, 117-18. 3 After Fischer. 1s t ed .• 161. 2 The titles of the subsequent editions can be 4 Fischer, 1s t ed .• 161. found in a chronological series list at the end of the book. 2 Wilhelm Pratscher The Corpus of the Apostolic Fathers 3 William Wake took over Cotelier's selection in his 1693 edition and was Did B 1C 2C I Polyc MP Pap Q Dio H thereby the first who spoke .in the riLle of the "Apostolic Fathers." Thomas Itrig undenook a reduction of the same in 1699, in dlat be did not include the Epistle Russel 1746 • • • • • • • me ofBamabas and Shepherd of Hem).as in llis "Bibliotbeca Pauum Aposrollco~ • • • • • • • • • • rum." 1hc bistoricaJ argument here met a theological onc: Apostolic Fathers are Gallandi 1765-81 only those writing mac show evidence of the apostoUc spirit. Bam and Herro • • • • • • • • Hefele 1839 are understood as "a spiritu aposto[ico remotiores."s The historical argwnent also relates to both: Neitber the wrher of the Epistle of Barnabas is identical with the Dressel 1857 • • • • • • • companion of Paul, nor Hennas with the person greeted in Romans 16:14. Ittig • • • • also discusses Papias and Quadrams. l1le first was, according to Irenaeus' Adver~ Hilgenfeld 1866 sus Haereses V 33.4, someone who had heard John and a friend of PoJycarp. Mayer 1869 • • .II • • • • • The latter. according to Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica IV 3.2, belongs to the early period and was (IV3. L) praised for his apostolic orthodoxy. Ittig nevertheless Hoole 1872 • • • • • • declined Papias on the jUclgmem of Eusebius (HE III.39.12~13), and he did not • • • • • • • • • include Quadratus because ofbis shormess.6 Ge/HalZa 1875-77 Icrig's restrictive posidon had only a limited history of reception. While Johann Ge/HalZa ed. min. • • • • • • • • • Ludwig Prey foUowed him in his 1742 edition (Epistolae sa'tlctantm Patrom apos 1877 toticarum), Richard Russell'eturned again to the sdeccion of Cordier (Ss. Part-urn • • • • • • • • • Funk 1878-81 apastalicorum Bamabae, Hemlae, Clementis, 19natii, Polycarpi opera). The now ever more usual number of eleven writings of the ApostoUc Fathers Lightfoot 1889-90 • • • • • appears first (witham the srill-unknown Didache) in Andreas Gallandi's Biblio~ (incomplete) theca Vetf!1"l.tmPaf'l'um [. ..J , pllbllshed in Vellice in 1765-1781. To the previously Lightfoot/Harmer • • • • • • • • • • mentioned texts he adds here me wo,k "To Diognetus." 1891 In the followjng years the writings chosen by Cocelier proved to be a kind of • • • • • • • • • • • Funk ed. min. 1901 foundation. With few exceptions they have appeared in all editions to date (as has the Didache since irs publicacion in 1883). Papias and the cexr ''To Diognetus" Hennecke 1904 • • • • • • • have appeared most often alongside them, Quadratus somewhat more seldom. The following table (which presents only a selection, despite its length) should Hemmer • • • • • • • • 1907-1912 make that plain: • • • • • • • • • Lake 1912-13 Editions and Translations of the Apostolic Fathers? • • • • • • • Zeller 1918 Did B 1C 2C I Polyc MP Pap Q Dio H FunklBihlm. 19248 • • • • • • • • • • Cotelier 1672 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Bosio 1940 Wake 1693 • • • • • • • GI/MalWa 1947 • • • • • • • • • • Ittig 1699 • • • • • • • • • • • Kleist 1948 Frey 1742 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Goodspeed 1950 5 Fischer, 1st ed .. 178. and translations can be easily found at the end of 6 Fischer, 1st ed., 183. the book. 8 The exclusion of Hermas in the edition by 7 The bibliographic information for the editions Funk and Bihlmeyer had only a technical basis. The Corpus of the Apostolic Fathers 5 4 Wilnelm Pratscner Editions and Translations of the Apostolic Fathers (cont.) twentieth century. So Otto Bardenhewer9 shows them to be an unstandardized group of texts that neither are internally related nor hatlg tOgether temporally. Did B 1C 2C I Polyc MP Pap Q Dio H In regard to genre there is an unusually great variety. We find a community rule (Did), actual letters (lClem, IgD, PolPhil), a tracrare (Barn), an exhortation Ruiz Bueno 19 50 • • • • • • • • • (2Clem), a martyrdom story disguised as a letter (MartPol), an instruction of Fischer 19 56 • • • • apocalyptic, ethical, and kerygmatic character (Herm), a collection of the Lord's sayings (Pap), and apologetic pamphlets (Qua~r, Diogn). One would be hard SUC I-III 1956-95 • • • • • • • • • • pressed to postulate a unified group of writings from that. The criteria applied since me seventeenth century to the chronological and Grant 19 64-68 • • • • • • • • • dogmatic order are fundamentally sensible. However, the problem is how closely Sparks 1978 • • • • • • • one follows them. Fischer (1956) resuicts himself ro lClem, Ign, PolPhil, and Quadr.10 One ought ro include Papias here as welLII But there tOO a direct apos Quere 1980 • • • • • • • • rolic discipleship is most questionable. Hubertus R. Drobne.r would absolutely not want to employ the collection of the ApostOlic Fathers: according ro literary Klijn 1981-83 • /I • • • • • • • • • and historical categories they are nO( a unified group of writillgS since "on the one hand some of them belong the biblical Apocrypha, whjle on the ome.r hand Balthasar 1984 • • • (0 postapostolic literature includes much more than just these works." 12 Lf/HalHo 1990 • • • • • • • • • • The disparity of genres hardly presents a problem for a collection. That much the Apocrypha (or the New Testatnent) shows, where there is also no generic Lind.lPauls. 1992 • • • • • • • • • • • unity. The assembly does not rely on that, though. . The group becomes a collection (as it has since me 17th c.) only through the Holmes 1999 • • • • • • • • • • demonstration of historically and theologically belonging to me apostOlic period. Ehrman 2003 • • • • • • • • • • Both criteria do not Ullderlie the necessity of the assumption of such a collec tion, however, but rather can only allow the already assembled selection to appear meaningful secondarily. Neirher the historical connection with the aposcles can be A brieflook at the corresponding secondary literature (introductions, commentar proven, nor is the theological connection limited to chese writings. ies, and helps) bears this om. In introductions to [he Apostolic Fathers (Vielhauer Bom criTeria can merefore be understood meaningfully only in a further 1975, Reb ell 1992, Jefford 1996, Gunther 1997, and Foster 2007) me writings sense. Historically that would then be writings from the postapostolic period, which already chosen by Cotelier (Barn, 1Clem, 2C1em, Ign, PolPhil, and Herm) and must be expanded quite broadly, to the late first century to the late second cen the Didache were consistently discussed., as well as til Martyrdom of Polyc arp in tury. Theologically it would be documents that accord with the universal church Gunther, Jefford, and Fo ter; Papias in Vjelbauer, Gunther, and Fos[er; Quadra standard (originating in the 2nd C.).13 By that definition all writings from this tus in Foster; and finally Diognerus in Jefford and Foster. period understood as heretical fall out. Also excluded from usefulness would be 'nle situation appears similar with tl1e commen taly series. The "Handbook of the New Twament" 0920-1923) covers Did, Barn, 1 Clem, 2Clem, Ign, PolPhil, 9 Bardenhewer, Geschichtel:80. 11 Cf. Rahner, Viiter, 763. and Henn (the new editions from 1982 on have already included Did, 1C lem, 10 Fischer, Vciter, IX-X. understands the Apostol 12 Drobner, Patrologie, 96. 2Clem, Ign, and PolPhll), and the "Commentary on the Apostolic Fathers" ic Fathers to be "such authors of the early Christian 13 Cf. similar judgments: Rahner, Viiter, 762: "the period [. ..J who according to current scholarship authors of the immediate post-apostolic period"; (1989ff.) includes Did, Barn, lClem 2Clem. Ign, PolPhil, Mru·tPol, aJld Herm. have plausibly proven to be personal disciples or Wegenast, Apostelviiter, 458: "a group of Christian The series "Hermeneia" has included Did, 19n. and Herrn to date. auditors of the Apostles, including Paul and the writers of the second century who still were or ap 111is trend appears even in the indices: Goodspeed, Index (1907) has Did, like, or also without personal acquaintance with pear to be immediate students of the Apostles"; Barn, 1C lem, 2Clem, 19n, PoIPhll, MarrPol, Pap, Diogn. and Herm broken the Apostles nevertheless in their common teach AltanerlStuiber, Patrologie, 43: "The oldest Chris ing to a high degree can be declared upholders and tian writings apart from the NT" (in relation to the down; Kraft, Clavis (1964) Did, Barn, lClem, 2Clem, rgn, PolPhll, and Herm. preachers of the apostolic tradition, but who do epistles of the Apostolic Fathers); Schiillgen, Viiter, 1he problem of defining the Apostolic Fathers has not appeared only since not belong among the authors of the New Testa 875: "Collective name for early writings outside the 6rst printing but has been pondered especially 'ince the beginning of me ment." AltanerlStuber, Patr%gie, 44, also approve the New Testament." this definition. 6 Wilhelm Pratscher the body of the Apocrypha and the apologists, which shows a certain grey zone between the two groups (Barn on the side of the Apocrypha, Quadr, and Diogn on that of the apologists). Something similar appears to be the case for the early antihereticalliterature.14 The Didache Altogether, not only objective, historical-theological criteria prove decisive in favor of the existing selection of the eleven aforementioned writings,15 but so also Jonathan A. Draperl do (perhaps even more strongly) traditional-pragmatic ones. They have gained acceptance, as the history of the editions shows, and appear therefore to possess a satisfactory (if perhaps also somewhat surprising) persuasiveness.16 1. Textual Tradition Bibliography The text of the Didache was rediscovered by Archbishop Ph. Bryennios in the monastery of the Holy Sepulchre in Istanbul in a major manuscript collection of Aland, K., and B. Aland. Der Text des Neuen Testaments. Stuttgart 21989. early Christian writings also containing the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 and 2 Clement, Altaner, B., and A. Stuiber. Patrologie. Freiburg/BasellVienna 91980. and the twelve letters of Ignatius. His publication of this text in 1883 caused a aardcnbewer, O. Geschichte det' altchl'istlichen Literatur I· 1-0m Ausgang des apostoli sensari.on, since it seemed to provide the missing pieces of the puzzle in the recon schen Zeitaltl!1's bis zum Ende des zweiten Jahrlmnderts. Freiburg i.B. 1913. struction of the evoiurion of early Chl'istianiry.21rs title, Ihe Teaching a/tbe TwcitJC Dl'Obner, H. R. Lehrbuch des Patrologie. Frankfurt/Main 22004. Apostles, was known from the list of dlsputed texts (to a.VTLAey6I1Eva) to be dis Fischer, J. A. Die altesten Ausgaben der Patres Apostolici: Ein Beitrag zu Begriff und tinguishedfrom the gen.uine writings of the New Testameot (Til0I10AoyouI1Eva) Begrenzung der Apostolischen Vater. I, HJ 94, 1974, 157-90; II, HJ 95, 1975, provided by Eusebius (HE III 25). He includes it among those whkh are "spw-i 88-119. ous" (tv Toi<; v68ol<;) and rejecrs irs artribution to rhe aposrles, though he shows ---. Die Apostolischen Vater. Munich 1956. Foster, P., ed. The Writings oft he Apostolic Fathers. London/New York 2007. it not to be heretical and numbers it with texts used by many in the chw-cll. The Didache also figures among the New Testament apocrypha. in the stichometry of Goodspeed, E. J. Index Patristicus sive Clavis Patrum Apostoloricum Operum. Leipzig 1907. icephorus, who attributes 200 sticbs to [r.:l1he manuscript was later moved for Giinther, M. Einleitung in die Apostolischen Vater. ARGU 4. Frankfurt/Main et al. 1997. safety to the Ubrary of the Greek Orthodox Monastery in Jerusalem and given the Jefford, C. N., et al. Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction. Peabody, Mass. number H54, by which it is usually known. It is carefully copied and precisely 1996. dated to 11 June 1056. Thus it is Ukdy to preserve an ancient and accurate arche Kraft, H. Clavis Patrum Apostolicorum. Darmstadt 1964. type, though a fragment preserved in Oxyrhyncus Papyrus 1782 (4th c.) shows Lindemann, A. Apostolischen Vater. RGG4 I, 1998,652-53. many variant readings, as do the partial texts found in Coptic (4th C.)4 and Ethi Rahner, H. Apostolischen Vater. LTK2 I, 1957, 762-65. opic (4th c.).5 A redacted form is incorporated also in the Apostolic Constitutions Rebell, W. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen und Apostolische Vater. Munich 1992. Schollgen, G. Apostolischen Vater. LTK3 I, 1993,875. 1 This chapter contains the original English 5 This text is an insertion inco the Ethiopic text Vielhauer, P. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testa text that was translated into German by Susanne of the Ethiopian Church Order and covers a form ment, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Vater. Berlin/New York 1975. Pratscher for the German edition. of the Apostolic Decree similar to 6.3, 11.3-13.7 Wegenast, K. Apostelvater. DKP I, 1979,458. 2 In some respects it provided the inspiration for and S.1-2 in that order. The text and translation Harnack, Mission. were published by Horner, ApOJtles. Audet argued 3 The length of this "rounded number" is dis that it derives from the fourth century, before Did puted. Zahn, Forschungen, 295-301, sees it as far and Didascalia were incorporated inco the Apos 14 According to Lindemann, Vater, 652, the for inclusion among the Apostolic Fathers, not shorter than H54, but Rordorf/Tuilier, Doctrina, tolic Constitutions. This appears to have been con eleven texts exhibit "certain common characteris because of its apostolic character (cf. Quadratus), 109n3, see it as matching almost exaccly (204 firmed by the discovery of a new and unpublished tics": "they originate from the period ca. 90-170; but because of its late origin. However, it has been stichs) an uncial text of Did. (Cf. Audet, Didache, manuscript by Alessandro Bausi. See Bausi, "San they distinguish themselves from the writings of numbered with them since Gallandi and has a firm Ill; Niederviimmer, Didache, 15-1S.) Clemence," 13-55. A reexamination of Horner's the apologists by form and theological structure, place among them. 4 This text covers 10.3 to 12.2 but is not a frag evidence by Dr. Darrel Hannah and myself con and in contrast ro the New Testament pseudepigra 16 The fact that the period of origin of the eleven ment, but possibly from a training exercise for cluded that text is more reliable once the best pha and the Apocrypha, they do not use fictitious writings presented in the following pages is fre an amanuensis to use up waste papyrus cut from witnesses are used and once the so-called "abbre names of early Christian authors." quencly uncertain will be covered in the forthcom the end of a scroll. See Jones/Mirecki, "Consider viations" are seen to be the result of homoioteleuton. 15 The text "To Diognetus" has the least basis ing edition ofLindemann/Paulsen, Vt'iter. ations," 47-S7. 8 Jonathan A. Draper The Didache 9 VII 1-32 (4th c. from Syria, AposCon).6 These texts provide important evidence Qumran, it has been widely agreed that the Two Ways derives from earlier Hel for a stage of the text earlier than H54, especially when they agree against it.? lenistic Jewish tradition and has been incorporated into Did as a source, perhaps The textual problem is compounded by the existence of an independent text originating from Hasidic circles, similar to what survives in the rabbinic tractate of the Two Ways teaching also entitled 'Ihe Teaching oft he [Twelve) Apostles, cor Derekh Eretz Zuta.12 In this case both Did and Barn would then be predicated responding to Did. 1-6.1, but excluding the Jesus tradition 1.3-6. It is found in on the same source so that this criterion fell away for their respective dating. Sec the Latin Doctrina apostolorum (DocApos), the Ecclesiastical Canons (Can), the ondly, the redactor(s) of Did inserted material drawn mostly from the teaching of Epitome (Ep), the Vita Shenoudi, and in a more attenuated form in the Canones/ Jesus in Q in the Sermon on the Mount as a "first teaching" of the instruction to Fides Nicaeni and the Syntagma doctrinae of Pseudo-Athanas ius; it is also incorpo love God and one's neighbor,13 and the negative form of the Golden Rule ("And rated in the Epistle of Barnabas 18-20 (Barn). It seems that Did is a compilation. whatever you do not want to happen to you, do not do it to another") .14 The It consists of four major sections: the Two Ways (1-6), the Liturgical Section original interpretation of the Two Ways consisting largely of expansions of the (7-10), Rules Relating to Community Life (11-15) and the concluding Apoca Decalogue then follows as a "second teaching." 15 lypse (16). As we shall see, this makes it difficult to date Did, since a source may Significantly, this Jesus tradition is from the Q source, closest to Matthew be considerably older than the collection. Nevertheless, Did in its final form has a and sometimes to Luke but not identical to either. Besides this, there are fur coherence that one should not ignore.8 The material was collected because it was ther parallels to Matthew in 8: 1-2, 9:5 and various other places. For this rea used and continued to be used by a single community after its final editing, and son, a dependence on Matthew and even Luke is posited by some commentators. that community found no contradictions between the sections (however it may Clearly the use of either gospel as a source would provide evidence for the date appear to us). Our purpose in this study is to explore the text for meaning for that of the final edition of the whole text, but this cannot be established with any cer community. tainty. Helmut Koster has argued convincingly that it does depend on the orally circulating gospel tradition. 16 The debate over Did's use of synoptic material is by no means settled,17 but what is decisive, in my opinion, is that only Q and special 2. Dating "M" material in a form closest to, but seemingly independent of, the final edition There is no direct evidence for the date and place of origin of Did. All that can of Matthew is used. It is difficult to explain how only the material in Matthew be known must be garnered from the internal evidence of the text and its distri and Luke that is not found in Mark is represented, unless it results from indepen bution. The dating rests above all on decisions about sources, namely, the Two dent access to their sources. One can conclude from this that the final edition of ways, Q, and the Synoptic Gospels. Harnack,9 who published the first major text Did originated in the period when the gospel material still circulated orally and with translation and commentary in German, saw Did as dependent on Barn for in a relatively fluid form (see Just Apol I 15.9-16.1,45-47).18 However, it does the Two Ways and so dated it somewhere in the first quarter of the second cen suggest that the final date for the present text of Did should not be pushed too tury. Others contended that Barn utilized Did.10 However, since the work ofJ .-P. far into the second century (if at aU). On the other hand, the language of 11.3 Audet,11 comparing DocApos to the Manual ofD iscipline (1 QS 3.13-4.26) from ("But with regard to the apostles and prophets, act in accordance with the precept of the Gospel"19) and 15.4 ("Your prayers and alms and all you do should be so 6 This forms, with major redactions, omissions, also shows evidence of additions and editing; see and additions, the entire text of Did. However, its Murphy-O'Connor, "Genese Litteraire," 528-49, 12 Sec Sandr/Plusscr, Didac!g. Lndetd, they see II. 139);TgPsJ zu Lev 19: 18; bSabb 31a. The Gold redactions have a consistent character and where and Verme, Didache, 264-65). While this is true this ehasidie tradition lying behind Jesus' teaching en Rule appears in a positive form as a summary of its text agrees with other witnesses, it provides with respect to genre, it is not true with respect in the Sertnon on the Moune also (193-237). the Law and the Prophets in Matthew 7:12, where important evidence. For the text, see Metzger, to theology, since an exhaustive comparison with 13 The t\yofold love command is ancient and it is followed by a form of the Two Ways teaching Constitutions. the scrolls shows that Did is nearly always closer probably predates the teaching of Jesus. Cf. Tlss (7:13-14), though nothing here suggests literary 7 For a discussion of the textual tradition and to Pharisaic Judaism than to the Essenism of the 5.2, 7.6; TDan 5.3; SifreDt 32.29. See Nissen, dependence. for an excellent critical text and translation, based scrolls, except in the case of tradition common Gott. 15 Cf. Rordol'f, "Beobachtungen," 431-32. on H54, see Rordorf/Tuilier, Doctrina, 102-9. to both (so Draper, Commentary). A sustained, 14 Cf. Tob 4.15; ArisEx 207; Philo. Hypothetica 16 Kosrer, Obcrlidenmg, 159-241. Wengst, Didache, provides a composite text and though not entirely convincing, attempt to read 7.7. This summary of the Law has a long history, 17 For the argumcDt5 for independence, see attempts to reclaim the earliest available form. the text as an early, coherent (oral) composition is especially in the negative form in which it is found Draper, "Jesus Tradition," 269-89. The debate is 8 Contra Schollgen, "Kirchenordnung," 5-26. made by Milavec, Didache. here, and springs from the Jewish Wisdom tradi continued in papers in Sandt (ed.), Matthew. The debate about the Traditionsgeschichte of the 9 Harnack, Lehre. tion (see Dihle, Regel). There are indications of the 18 For a discussion, see Smith, "Justin," 287-90. Kirchenol'dnung and its implications for Did con 10 Or knew an earlier form: Draper, "Barnabas," combination of the double love command with 19 All English translations from the German text tinues (see Steimer, ~rtex Traditionis, esp. 13-27; 89-113. the negative form of the Golden Rule as well. Cf. of Did are based on Schollgen, Didache, unless Mueller, "Ancient Church Order," 337-80. lQS 11 Audet, ''Affinites,'' 219-38. Philo, Quod om. hom. lib. sit 83 (cf. Josephus BJ otherwise stated.