Conclusion: Missing Pieces in the Puzzle or Wild Good Chase? A Retrospect and Prospect Jonathan A. Draper 1. Why the Riddle? In his groundbreaking commentary written soon ater its irst publication by Bishop Bryennios in 1883, Adolf von Harnack1 highlighted its signiicance: he more one immerses oneself in the context of the Didache, the more clearly one sees that its author has exhausted, to his mind, everything which belonged in a short evangelical-apostolic manual for the Christian life of the individual (in everyday dealings and in the community). One could not deny that the evidence provided by this writing is quite irst rate. So impressed was Harnack with its evidence, that it formed the key to his picture of the evolution of the early church from the writings of the New Testament to the emerging institution of “early Catholicism” in his massive two volume work, Das Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (1902).2 Ater one hundred and thirty years, 1. Adolf von Harnack, Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel nebst Untersuchuingen zur ältesten Geschichte der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts, TUGAL 2.1, 2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1884), 36–37 (my translation). Harnack’s contention concerning the comprehensiveness of the instructions has been speciically questioned by Georg Schöllgen, “Die Didache als Kirchenordnung: Zur Frage des Abfassungszweckes und sinen Konsequenzen für die Interpretation,” JAC 29 (1986): 5–26. Schöllgen argues that the Didache simply presents an ad hoc collection of burning issues of the day and what is absent from the text is irrelevant for its interpretation. 2. Translated into English as Adolf von Harnack, he Mission and Expansion of -529- 22.Didache.indd 529 3/2/15 12:09 PM 530 THE DIDACHE: A MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE such conidence has proved to be short-lived. Almost every aspect of the evidence has been contested, almost to the point where scholars ceased to use its evidence at all for the reconstruction of early Christianity. Although there is still no consensus on the exact date, the range of possible dates suggested does seem to have narrowed signiicantly among modern scholars, with few arguing for a date later than the beginning of the second century CE, with others arguing for a much earlier date from the mid- to late-irst century.3 Yet if this is indeed a genuine document of the irst or even early second century CE, it is hard to see how pessimism with regard to its use in the reconstruction of the emergence of early Christianity can be justiied, given that it contains practical rules for community rituals and common life as practiced at such an early time, evidence which is not really available elsewhere except incidentally from odd clues here and there in writings with other purposes. On the other hand, it is not surprising that the document is contested and has been from the outset, because it touches in a fundamental way on deep-rooted historical constructions of the early church that relate to legitimations and vested interests of particular denominations and their ecclesiologies. It presents a challenge to any theory of a straightforward evolution from origins to the institutional church of later times, representing a subjugated voice of an alternative strand of the Christian tradition which fell silent. Consequently, any theory of origins that ignores this inconvenient and Christianity in the First hree Centuries (London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam, 1908), esp. 319–68. 3. Most recently Aaron Milavec, he Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE (New York: Newman, 2003), has made a claim that the work represents an oral catechesis dating from 50–70 CE. He is followed in this by homas O’Loughlin, he Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker; London: SPCK, 2010), although he leaves open the question of the inal version of the text within the broad range of the irst century CE: “In all probability a version of the Didache was being committed to memory by groups of followers of Jesus by the middle of the irst century—and what we have relects a very early stage in that text’s life and inluence.” Proponents of a later date at around 110–20 CE include, hesitantly, Kurt Niederwimmer, he Didache: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 53; Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, he Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, CRINT 3.5 (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 45, “turn of the irst century”; and Clayton N. Jeford, “Didache,” EDB 345a–46a., who allows 70–150 CE as the furthest extremes but prefers the early second century. 22.Didache.indd 530 3/2/15 12:09 PM DRAPER: CONCLUSION 531 enigmatic voice that was lost in the march of time is let with a missing piece or pieces of the puzzle—rather like infuriating puzzle pieces of the plain sky that just will not it in at the end of the puzzle or, worse still, that fell of the table and got lost. Whatever date is advocated for its inal redaction, there is broad agreement that it contains early source material, whether originating in oral form or already in written form, so that its inal date does not determine its value entirely. For instance, historians of the Eucharist mostly see very early material here, older than the Didache itself, deriving from Jewish prototypes.4 However, an alternative origin in the Hellenistic symposium is proposed by Matthias Klinghardt,5 although while one should allow for the inluence of Hellenism on irst century Judaism on a wide front as argued by Martin Hengel’s epic work,6 this should also not be allowed to suggest the complete eclipse of culture-speciic elements of Jewish society.7 Almost all scholars since Jean-Paul Audet’s comparison of the Two Ways in the Didache and the Manual of Discipline (1 QS III, 4. So Enrico Mazza, he Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer, trans. Ronald E. Lane (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), places it at the center of his reconstruction of origins, while Jonathan Schwiebert, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom: he Didache’s Meal Ritual and Its Place in Early Christianity, LNTS 373; (London: T&T Clark, 2008), traces it to the early originating moment of an alternative tradition of the Christian Eucharist to that represented by the words of institution. Gerard Rouwhorst, “Didache 9–10: A Litmus Test for the Research on Early Christian Liturgy Eucharist,” in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish Christian Milieu? ed. Huub van de Sandt (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 143–56, takes a middle line arguing that early meal thanksgiving prayers like those presented by the Didache may have existed alongside the Eucharist ofered using the words of institution at a yearly “Quartodeciman Passover with an etiological function which gradually replaced the communal meal prayers.” 5. Matthias Klinghardt, Gemeinschatsmahl und Mahlgemeinschat: Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern, TANZ 13 (Tübingen: Francke, 1996). He is followed by Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: he Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), and Hal Taussig, In the Beginning was the Meal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). 6. Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 vols. (London: SCM, 1974). 7. he experience of the modern form of imperial domination on a far more widespread scale than was possible in the ancient world shows that subjugated cultures are certainly inluenced, even changed in important respects, by the imperial culture, but are not obliterated, reemerging ater the collapse of imperial control even ater hundreds of years. 22.Didache.indd 531 3/2/15 12:09 PM 532 THE DIDACHE: A MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE 13–IV, 26) agree that the material is older than the Didache and represents an originally independent and widespread early Jewish and Christian text or trope.8 he theory of a late literary iction does not seem tenable any more, since at every turn new textual discoveries tend to support the authenticity of the kind of world described in the Didache. he many echoes it inds in multiple early Christian texts evidenced in this volume indicate that it stands in a continuing and evolving tradition. In any case, even if it were to represent a ictional and imagined ideal community, it could only be constructed on the possibilities ofered by real historical experience in its day. Even dreams and visions are rooted in a particular cultural and social reality. 2. The Didache and Jewish Christianity One signiicant development in recent study of the Didache is the result of a greater awareness of the broad span and diversity of irst century Jewish/ Israelite culture, which tends to conirm that this text originates in a Jewish Christian context. here was no overarching monolithic Jewish/Israelite religious expression in the irst two centuries CE but rather a contested public space. Rabbinic Judaism represents only one strand in an evolving tradition battling for hegemony ater the collapse of the Judean temple state. he Didache represents another such strand of Judaism, basing its claims on the acceptance of Jesus as the descendent of David and the Messiah who would return as the Son of Man on the clouds. Its rituals and Christology diverge signiicantly from other types of Christianity known through Pauline Christianity, which became dominant in the West and erased earlier memories but can now be seen to be close to patterns found in other Jewish and Jewish Christian groups—in particular Matthew and James and Revelation. he correlation of the Didache with these texts and other known Jewish Christian writings, such as the Pseudo-Clementine texts and the Odes of Solomon, might provide a focal point for the reconstruction of early Jewish Christianity.9 A particular point of interest is the 8. Jean-Paul Audet, “Ainités Littéraires et Doctrinales du ‘Manuel de Discipline,’” RB 59 (1952): 219–38. 9. In his response to papers in the SBL seminar of 2007 in Washington, Marcus Bockmuehl argued that the traces of Jewish Christianity found in the Didache might relect a much later romanticization of Judaism for which a gentile community is nostalgic. However, this does not match the very early textual traces of the Didache nor 22.Didache.indd 532 3/2/15 12:09 PM DRAPER: CONCLUSION 533 way in which such a Jewish Christian community orientated itself to a mission to the gentiles while seeking to remain Torah observant (6.2–3). Such a stance is well-known from Matt 5, but here it is leshed out by the instructions provided for community life. In the Didache there is a major focus on purity and holiness: from a koinonia of property in chapter 4,10 to the right kind of water to remove impurity and efect such a holy community in chapter 7, to an insistence on the exclusion of those not washed in this way from the pure meal of the community, since they are as unclean as dogs (9.5).11 his insistence on purity is repeated in the instructions ater the meal (10.6) and in the instructions on the Lord’s Day (14). Such an obsession with purity goes with a concern about boundaries in the construction of a new community facing a pressing external threat12 and matches the similar concern in other Jewish groups in the irst and second the way in which the arguments and practice of the Didache follows the inner logic discernible in early Jewish sources. See especially the work of Huub van de Sandt, “Didache 3:1–6:1: A Transformation of an Existing Jewish Hortatory Pattern,” JSJ 23 (1992), 21–24; “Was the Didache Community a Group within Judaism? An Assessment on the Basis of its Eucharistic Prayers,” in A Holy People: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity, ed. Marcel J. H. M. Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz, JCP 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 85–107; van de Sandt and Flusser, Didache; and Peter J. Tomson, “he Halakhic Evidence of Didache 8 and Matthew 6 and the Didache Community’s Relation to Judaism,” in van de Sandt, Matthew and the Didache, 131– 41; “Transformations of Post-70 Judaism: Scholarly Reconstructions and heir Implications for our Perception of Matthew, Didache, and James,” in Matthew, James and Didache: hree Related Documents in heir Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. Huub van de Sandt and and Jürgen K. Zangenberg, SBLSymS 45 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), together with his paper (“he Lord’s Prayer [Didache 8] at the Faultline of Judaism and Christianity”) in this volume; Jonathan A. Draper, “he Holy Vine of David Made Known to the Gentiles through God’s Servant Jesus: ‘Christian Judaism’ in the Didache,” in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, ed. Matt Jackson-McCabe (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 257–83; and “Pure Sacriice in Didache 14 as Jewish Christian Exegesis,” Neot 42 (2008): 223–52. 10. See too my paper (“Children and Slaves in the Community of the Didache and the Two Ways Tradition”) in this volume. 11. Note the paper of Huub van de Sandt (“Baptism and Holiness: Two Requirements Authorizing Participation in the Didache’s Eucharist”) in this volume. 12. According to the widely accepted anthropological model of Mary Douglas developed in Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge, 1966), and Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology, 2nd ed. (New York: Pantheon, 1982). 22.Didache.indd 533 3/2/15 12:09 PM 534 THE DIDACHE: A MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE century CE, such as the haburoth of the Pharisees and the yahad of the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 3. The Relationship of the Didache and Matthew he links with Matthew’s Gospel are very close and demand attention at every turn. he traditional argument has been about whether the Didache is dependent on Matthew, whether they are both dependent on a prior source such as is traditionally designated “Q,”13 or whether Matthew is dependent on the Didache, as some recent scholars have argued.14 A number of scholars, including myself, have argued for a more complex relationship between Matthew and the Didache as an “evolved text,” namely, a text which has had a long history of redaction as the community rule of a living and developing community, so that the earliest layers of the text may be among Matthew’s sources, while the latest layers of the text may relect a knowledge of Matthew.15 Such an approach allows for the continuing inluence of orality and performance on the production and transmission of texts over time. A resurgence of interest in oral tradition has also raised the possibility that what are taken as literary sources in most of the scholarly literature may in fact be relections of a common oral tradition used by both texts. his is a particularly forceful argument if the Didache contains catechetical material which was designed to be memorized by catechumens under the guidance of an elder or teacher.16 However, oral tradition cannot, in my 13. As argued by Helmut Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern, TUGAL 65/5.10 (Berlin: Akademie, 1957), 159–241. Heavy counter arguments are ofered by Christopher M. Tuckett, “he Didache and the Writings that later formed the New Testament,” in he Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1 of he New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 83–127. 14. See Alan J. P. Garrow, he Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache, JSNTSup 254 (London: T&T Clark, 2004). 15. he concept was developed by Robert Krat, Barnabas and the Didache, AF 3 (New York: Nelson, 1965), 1–3; also by Stanislav Giet, L’énigme de la Didachè (PFLUS 149; Paris: Ophrys, 1970). Giet was published posthumously, but the manuscript is dated 1967. 16. See Jonathan A. Draper, “Vice Catalogues as Oral-Mnemonic Cues: A Comparative Study of the Two Ways Tradition in the Didache and Parallels from the Perspective of Oral Tradition,” in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the 22.Didache.indd 534 3/2/15 12:09 PM DRAPER: CONCLUSION 535 opinion, replace studies of literary composition, because the irst century Mediterranean world was not a context of primary orality. Text and oral tradition were in a continuing and dialectic relationship, which continues to afect even the manuscript traditions of any writing.17 he question has far reaching consequences for the dating of the Didache, of course, but the question does not seem likely to be easily settled, as the diverse papers and positions relected in this volume testify. A more constructive way forward may be to explore the relationship between the praxis of the Didache and the clues in Matthew, asking different questions to chart the dimensions of a Jewish-Christian community life. In other words, could one read them together in the act of historical reconstruction, while leaving open the question of the direction of inluence? Such an approach certainly produced dividends in the two Tilburg conferences hosted by Huub van de Sandt in 2003 and 2007, which resulted in a rich and helpful discourse. he very intensity of the debate indicates the importance of the relationship. he continuing disagreements do not indicate a scholarly crisis but a creative vortex of research. Clearly the evidence is inconclusive and its interpretation depends on prior understandings of the researcher concerning the evolution of the earliest Christian communities. Perhaps instead of trying to determine the direction of their literary composition, future research should read the evidence of Matthew and the Didache (and possibly the epistle of James) together as data for the reconstruction of the praxis and beliefs of a particular community or set of communities that stand in the same early Christian trajectory. his Tilburg Conferences of 2003 and 2007 mentioned above have already opened up this possibility. Although the disagreements remained wide and are relected again in the current volume of papers from a decade of meetings by the SBL seminar so that one could not really speak of an emerging consensus, the range of issues has narrowed somewhat. Matthew and the Didache, whatever Written Gospel, ed. Tom hatcher (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 111–36. See also the papers of Nancy Pardee (“he Didache and Oral heory”) and Perttu Nikander (“he Sectio Evangelica [Didache 1.3b–2.1] and Performance”) in this volume. Note, however, the cautions expressed by John S. Kloppenborg, “Memory, Performance, and the Sayings of Jesus” (paper presented at the Hensinki Seminar on Memory, Helsinki, Finland, 11 May 2011). 17. See the seminal work of David C. Parker, he Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 22.Didache.indd 535 3/2/15 12:09 PM 536 THE DIDACHE: A MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE the direction of supposed dependence, are both now usually regarded as Jewish-Christian/Christian-Jewish texts. Secondly, if the Didache reached its inal form by the end of the irst and beginning of the second centuries CE, this puts it roughly in the same time zone as the composition of Matthew advocated by most Matthean scholars (give or take a decade or two). Given the diference in genre between the Didache and Matthew then, the question of literary dependence may be a red herring that has prevented scholars from moving on to delineate the nature of the community(ies) which used both texts simultaneously and found no contradiction in doing so. 4. The Didache, the Book of Revelation, and the Johannine Tradition he relationship between the Didache and Revelation has received little attention except from Alan Garrow, 18 but seems to call for further analysis—again taking into account their diference in genre. he Didache has prophets who “do a cosmic mystery of the ekklesia” within strictly prescribed rules; Revelation ofers just such a “cosmic mystery of the ekklesia.” No one has imagined the Didache to be a text of early Jewish Christian mysticism, and yet it not only allows but privileges (10.7) and regulates such a practice (13.7–12) in its community rule. Besides this, there are clear traces of the Two Ways trope in Revelation and a similar strict insistence of the avoidance of εἰδωλόθυτον. Relating two such enigmatic texts as the Didache and Revelation may present a daunting task, but may be a productive exercise. Given a date for the Didache between the end of the irst and beginning of the second century CE in the new emerging consensus, it is no longer appropriate to describe it as a Montanist document. Was there, however, a continuing early Christian mystical practice based on the work of “prophets” speaking in the spirit (evidenced not only in the Didache but also in Matthew; e.g., the false prophets of 7:15–23 and the true ones implied in 10:41). Could this prophetic tradition have issued in Montanism not as an innovation, but as a practice the emerging orthodox church sought to suppress? Its links with other works in the Johannine tra18. So van de Sandt, Matthew and the Didache; Huub van de Sandt and Jürgen K. Zangenberg, eds., Matthew, James and Didache; Gunnar Garlef, Urchristliche Identität in Matthäusevangelium, Didache und Jakobusbrief, BVB 9 (Münster: LIT, 2004); and Alan Garrow (“he Didache and Revelation”) in this volume. 22.Didache.indd 536 3/2/15 12:09 PM DRAPER: CONCLUSION 537 dition, such as John’s Gospel, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John, have hardly been explored except by Johannes Betz’s brief study of the Eucharist.19 5. The Didache in Jewish and Christian Mysticism Despite the extensive instructions on Christian prophets and prophecy in Did. 10.7, 11.7–12, 13, and 15.1–2, there has been relatively little interest shown in this material on the part of Didache scholars or in the burgeoning study of Jewish and Christian mysticism emerging from a new understanding of apocalyptic as diferent from (though sometimes overlapping with) eschatology which arose from the work of Alan F. Segal,20 Christopher Rowland,21 John J. Collins,22 Peter Schäfer,23 and many others. It has been the focus of a long running section of the SBL’s “Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism.” he nature and evolution of this widespread inluence and practice of mystical ascent continues to be debated, but its existence as an inluence in Judaism can no longer be doubted in the light of recent studies of mysticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls24 and Philo of Alexandria.25 So it is surprising that none of the participants in the SBL seminar series on the Didache took up this quest with respect to the text. 19. Johannes Betz, “he Eucharist in the Didache,” in he Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan A. Draper, AGJU 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 244–75. Like the Didache, John’s Gospel lacks the words of institution, utilizes the trope of the vine in the context of the meal, and applies the vine to Jesus. It is still an open question whether there are any connections between John and the Didache beyond the eucharistic parallels (e.g., could John’s failure to describe Jesus’s baptism by the Baptist relect a rejection of Christian baptism as one of “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” which is absent also in the Didache?). 20. Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, SJLA 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1977). 21. Christopher C. Rowland, he Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982). 22. John J. Collins, he Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (New York: Crossroad, 1984). 23. Peter Schäfer, he Hidden and Manifest God (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992). 24. See most recently the excellent study of Samuel I. homas, he Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, SBJLEJL 25 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009). 25. See, e.g., Baudouin Decharneux, L’Ange, le devin et le prophete: Chemins de la 22.Didache.indd 537 3/2/15 12:09 PM 538 THE DIDACHE: A MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE he Didache provides instructions to regulate how things are to be done and what is to be forbidden. he rules on Christian prophecy that it provides are oten seen as merely demonstrating the decline of Christian prophecy and the beginning of its demise, yet they encourage it and value it positively as the spirit speaking through the prophet, so that to silence the voice would be blasphemy. Moreover, prophets are allowed to speak “as they will” at the Christian Eucharist (10.7). Indeed, true and tested prophets speak “cosmic mysteries of the ekklesia” (11.11), the kind of language for the mystical ascent to view the risen Christ enthroned in heaven in a number of New Testament texts, according to Rowland and Christopher Morray-Jones.26 Prophets, and to a lesser extent teachers, are the only resident leaders in the Didache community who are entitled to material support (13), and their work is so highly rated that they are to receive the same honor as the bishops and deacons—who are in danger of being overshadowed by the prophets (15.1–2). It is time that this aspect of research into early Christian mysticism was taken up in the light of recent studies of mysticism. An earlier generation of British scholars, led by R. H. Connolly27 and F. E. Vokes,28 regarded the Didache as a Montanist work because of its teaching on prophecy and prophets, but this assumes that Montanists was the originators of Christian mysticism and prophecy rather than a direct descendant of earliest Christianity. Harnack, with his usual acumen, remarked rather of-handedly: Down to the close of the second century the prophets retained their position in the church; but the Montanist movement brought early Christian prophecy at once to a head and to an end. Sporadic traces of it are still to be found in later years, but such prophets no longer possessed any signiicance for the church; in fact, they were quite summarily condemned parole dans l’oeuvre de Philon d’Alexcandrie dit “Le Juif,” SPL 2 (Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1994). 26. Christopher C. Rowland and Christopher Morray-Jones, he Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). hey see 2 Cor 12:2–4, Colossians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and perhaps 1 John as relecting such a Christian mysticism. 27. R. H. Connolly, “he Didache and Montanism,” DRev 55 (1937): 339–47. 28. F. E. Vokes, he Riddle of the Didache: Fact or Fiction, Heresy or Catholicism? (London: SPCK, 1938). 22.Didache.indd 538 3/2/15 12:09 PM DRAPER: CONCLUSION 539 by the clergy as false prophets. Like the apostles, the prophets occupied a delicate and risky position. It was easy for them to degenerate.29 Sadly, the possibilities of this observation for further research into the Didache have not yet been taken up, particularly in the light of its clear and enduring inluence in North Africa and Ethiopia, to which Montanists from Asia Minor led for refuge.30 6. The Didache and Paul Since the early enthusiasm ater its publication in 1883 to ind traces of the Didache in every text of the New Testament and early Christianity or vice versa, there has been little research exploring points of contact or opposition relating the letters of Paul to the Didache. A notable exception was the work of Alfred Seeberg, who sought in many volumes to ind in the Didache an early Christian catechesis lying behind all the early Christian writings and particularly Paul.31 In his recent doctoral thesis, Paul’s Witness to Formative Early Christian Instruction, Benjamin A. Edsall32 reexamines Seeberg’s thesis again in the context of Paul’s practice 29. Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 352–53. 30. Besides the manuscript evidence of the Coptic translation and Oxyrhyncus Papyrus 1782, there is the Vita Shenudi, the Ecclesiastical Canons, the Fides Nicanae, and the presence of large sections of the Didache in the Ethiopic version of the Ethiopian Church Order from the pre-Arabic period, including the whole section on apostles and prophets with chapters 11–13 excerpted. See the new text and translation of Allesandro Bausi, “La Nuova version etiopica della Traditio apostolica: Edizione e traduzione preliminare,” in Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends: Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi, ed. Paola Buzi and Alberto Camplani, SEAug 125 (Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2011), 19–69. he Ethiopian church was evangelized by priests from Asia Minor. his newly discovered text of the Ethiopic version of the Didache lends support to Jean-Paul Audet’s contention (La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres, Ebib [Paris: Gabalda, 1958], 35–45) that the Ethiopic version is an important and early (fourth century CE) witness. 31. Alfred Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Deichert, 1903; Die beiden Wege und das Aposteldreket (Leipzig: Deichert, 1906); and Die Didache des Judentums und der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Deichert, 1908). See also Gunther Klein, Der älteste christliche Katechismus und die jüdische Propaganda-Literatur (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1909), who provides a commentary on the text of the Didache from this perspective. 32. Benjamin Edsall, “‘As I said to you before’: Paul’s Witness to Formative Early 22.Didache.indd 539 3/2/15 12:09 PM 540 THE DIDACHE: A MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE of Christian initiation. It seems that the time is right for a reexamination of the questions raised by suggestive parallels and oppositions between Paul and the Didache, without necessarily invoking the kind of grand scheme suggested by Seeberg.33 To what extent does the Didache stand together with Matthew and the epistle of James as evidence of reaction to or as a counter community(ies) to Paul’s mission? If the Didache presents ancient catechesis for Christian initiation of gentiles, especially the earlier Two Ways tradition that was incorporated into it,34 to what extent might such a pattern of catechesis have been known to and perhaps even utilized by Paul? Might the Christian community in which Paul himself was catechized have used such an (oral perhaps) Two Ways pattern which he modiied in his own practice, as argued over-elaborately by Seeberg a century ago? 7. The Didache and Early Christian Initiation his raises a question as to whether the Didache as a whole represents the earliest manual providing rules to initiate new members and regulate their life in an early Christian community.35 It cannot, of course, be itted into some supposed genre of the “church order,” which did not exist until much later, but it does stand at the beginning of an emerging and multifarious tradition taking up a prior (oral or written) Two Ways teaching and being taken up in its turn into other later such manuals (e.g., the Didascalia, the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons, and the Testamentum Domini). At the heart of it seems to be the practice of Christian initiation for new members who are depicted as gentiles in the “longer title” of the work. he Christian Instruction” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 2013); see also his “Kerygma, Catechesis and Other hings We Used to Find: Twentieth-Century Research on Early Christian Teaching Since Alfred Seeberg (1903),” CurBS 10 (2012):410–41. 33. See the paper of Taras Khomych (“Another Gospel: Exploring Early Christian Diversity with Paul and the Didache”) in this volume; also Jonathan A. Draper, “he Two Ways and Eschatological Hope: A Contested Terrain in Galatians 5 and he Didache,” Neot 45 (2011): 221–51; and “Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and the Catechesis of Gentiles in the Didache,” Relecting on Romans: Essays in Honour of Andrie du Toit’s 80th Birthday, ed. G. J. Steyn, BTS (Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming). 34. his would be especially likely if van de Sandt and Flusser (Didache) are right that the Two Ways in the Didache is evidence of a pre-existing Jewish Greek Two Ways. 35. As was claimed by Aaron Milavec, Didache: Hope, Faith, and Life. 22.Didache.indd 540 3/2/15 12:09 PM DRAPER: CONCLUSION 541 community into which they are initiated appears to be either a JewishChristian/Christian-Jewish community or to stand in the tradition of such a community. Further research into Christian initiation and identity formation in the Didache and a comparison with other such early documents would seem to be called for, moving beyond older debates.36 While liturgists have long valued the Didache in their reconstructions of the earliest form(s) of the Eucharist, as we have seen, particularly because of its divergence from the accounts of the Last Supper in the Synoptics and Paul and because of the absence of the words of institution, they have tended to use chapters 9–10 in isolation from the ritual praxis of the whole text. Likewise, the instructions on baptism have been isolated from a consideration of its place in the rest of the Didache. Can the Didache be analyzed as a coherent manual of an early Christian community’s life and praxis at a particular moment in its development, whatever the origin of the tradition in prior sources which may have been used in the process? he purpose of the collecting and codifying of the tradition would have been to stabilize and regulate the new community. What appears important and appropriate to modern scholars seeking to deine the form of the Didache as a “church order” does not mean that it would have appeared that way to a irst century Jewish-Christian/Christian-Jewish community. he material in the Didache cannot be simply dismissed as the result of an ad hoc and therefore random evolution simply because it does not meet our expectations. 36. Social Identity heory seems to ofer a promising way forward. his theory was developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner: see “An Integrative heory of Intergroup Conlict,” in he Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1979), 33–48; Henri Tajfel et al., “Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour,” EuroJSP 1 (1971): 149–77. A useful overview of the theory is provided by Stephen Reicher, Russell Spears, and S. Alexander Haslam, “he Social Identity Approach in Social Psychology,” Sage Identities Handbook, ed. Margaret S. Wetherell and Chandra T. Mohanty (London: Sage, 2010). Social Identity heory provides a particularly interesting perspective from which to view a text oriented towards initiation into a “sectarian” community. Garlef (Urchristliche Identität) took up this challenge, seeking to use the theory dynamically to determine the direction of the trajectory of the tradition from Matthew to the Didache to James. See also Stephen Finlan’s paper (“Identity in the Didache Community”) in this volume and Jonathan A. Draper, “Mission, Ethics and Identity in the Didache,” in Sensitivity towards Outsiders, ed. Jacaobus Kok et al., WUNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming). 22.Didache.indd 541 3/2/15 12:09 PM 542 THE DIDACHE: A MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE 8. Conclusion Despite a hundred and thirty years of research into the Didache and a renewed lurry of research on this text in the last three decades, it remains a challenge to any reconstruction of early Christianity that cannot be ignored. he later the text is dated, the more puzzling its data. Where does one place a late community that still speaks of visiting apostles, prophets, and teachers and values speaking in the spirit and mystical revelation; a community that practices community of goods; a community that seems to regard circumcision and Torah as “perfection” without requiring it; a community whose baptism does not mention repentance for the forgiveness of sins and focuses on the ritual quality of the water; a community whose Eucharist makes no mention of the words of institution, the body and blood of Christ, the new covenant; a community that believes in the imminent return of the Lord with the holy ones and a resurrection of the righteous only? he later the text is dated, the more its data presents a problem to reconstructions of Christian origins: those scholars who date the text late end up consigning it to some forgotten rural backwater, a iction or a romantic reconstruction based on nostalgia for a bygone era—without explaining how in that case it came to have such a widespread inluence. Or the earlier the text is dated, the more plausible its data but the more challenging its picture of the early church and its relation to Pauline Christianity. Yet it makes the continuance of the traditions of Jewish Christianity (such as the Pseudo-Clementine writings) into the second and third centuries, and perhaps even beyond, more understandable. Perhaps it exercised an inluence in the emergence of the twin streams of Montanism and Donatism, which contributed to its marginalization and inal disappearance in the West, but with continuing inluence in North Africa and Ethiopia as well as in Syrian Christianity and Edessa. It speaks with a “subjugated voice” from the earliest period of the emergence of Christianity, an alternative trajectory that was not in the end triumphant, but that has let traces in or together with a body of Jewish Christian or Christian Jewish texts that the emergent orthodox Church sought to co-opt (as in the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons) or suppress. he contours of this alternative trajectory are important for our understanding of the canonical texts but also in its own right as a different understanding of and response to the life and teaching of Jesus. It is certainly not a wild goose chase in an age where the rigid orthodoxies of Western Christianity are being questioned by Christians seeking alter- 22.Didache.indd 542 3/2/15 12:09 PM DRAPER: CONCLUSION 543 native expressions of their faith!37 If we “understand all this,” perhaps we might airm the Jesus saying in Matt 13:52 that, “Every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” 37. hese orthodoxies rightly have their place in the canons of Christian tradition, but they are rooted contextually in historical debates that no longer necessarily match the debates facing Christians today. Understandings and practices of ancient Christian texts such as the Didache, which was also regarded as orthodox and useful for catechesis although its authorship was disputed (e.g., by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.25), may provide helpful material for relection. 22.Didache.indd 543 3/2/15 12:09 PM 22.Didache.indd 544 3/2/15 12:09 PM 

children and slaves in the community of the Didache and the Two Ways Tradition Jonathan A. Draper his paper explores the Haustafel (= hT) in Did. 4.9–11 and parallel versions of the Two Ways against the background of the “moral economy” as deined by James c. scott and halvor Moxnes. hese texts insist on “generalised reciprocity” and reject the “balanced reciprocity” practised by the elite in the Greco-Roman context and the “negative reciprocity” they mete out to the underclasses. for this reason the intrusion of the patriarchal ethic of the hT, with its uncompromising one-way instruction concerning children and its support for the institution of slavery, are surprising, as is the absence of instructions concerning husbands and wives. Less surprising perhaps is the absence of instructions concerning the emperor. he background and implications of the instructions are examined to try and reconstruct the social situation in households in the Didache community. he paper concludes that the hT is irmly situated in the social location of koinonia or community of goods in the earliest christian Jewish communities, which challenges traditional mores but also occasions the speciic limitations to koinonia that undermine the egalitarianism of the community. he evidence of the Didache reveals both the social dynamics of the hT and its enduring inluence on emerging christianity. 1. introduction in recent years biblical scholars have shown a renewed interest in the hT genre of literature in the New Testament, driven by both a feminist critique since the ground-breaking work of elizabeth schüssler fiorenza’s In Memory of Her and also a renewed interest in socioeconomic location of -85- 86 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe texts in the ancient world.1 here has been a shit in the scholarly consensus from viewing these texts against the background of stoic philosophy or hellenistic Judaism toward understanding them as a topos of “household management.”2 he evolution and status of the debate has been astutely set out and critiqued in a recent paper by Margaret Y. MacDonald 3 so that there is no need to repeat it here. her insistence that what appears in texts is always only partly a relection of what goes on in reality (that it stands in dialogical tension with reality so that the discussion needs to be more nuanced) is welcome. My own study in this paper has been formed by the work of carolyn Osiek, MacDonald, and Moxnes, though they are not to blame for what i say. in particular, Moxnes’s careful economic analysis of the embedded economic relations relected by Luke’s Gospel in he Economy of the Kingdom4 has raised questions that prompted me to undertake a “moral economy” analysis of the whole text of the Didache as an integral relection of an attempt to construct an alternative economy to the surrounding Greco-Roman economic relations based on patron-client relations, an alternative economy that was only partially successful.5 My economic analysis viewed the hT table in Did. 4 as having subverted and ultimately undermined this egalitarian economy, something i wish to pursue in more depth in this paper, particularly since the hT in the Two Ways tradition has been largely ignored in the discussions of New Testament scholars. a quick lip through the recent literature on the hT shows that these authors either do not refer at all to the Two Ways found in Did. 1–6 and 1. elisabeth schüssler fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist heological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London: scM; New York: crossroads, 1983). 2. James D. G. Dunn, he Epistles to Colossians and to Philemon, NiGTc (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1996), 243. 3. Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Beyond identiication of the Topos of household Management: Reading the household codes in Light of Recent Methodologies and heoretical Perspectives in the study of the New Testament,” NTS 57 (2011): 65–90. she insists that “there is a need for greater nuance with respect to the function of the codes in community life to allow for more complexity and even contradiction based on the variety of actors and perspectives that shaped [New Testament] communities and texts” (72). 4. halvor Moxnes, he Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conlict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel (Philadelphia: fortress, 1988). 5. Jonathan a. Draper, “he Moral economy of the Didache,” HTS.TS 67 (2011), art. #907. DOi:10.4102/hts.v67il.907. DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 87 Barn. 18–29 (and other early christian extracanonical texts in the Two Ways tradition) or only occasionally refer to the apostolic fathers in parenthesis. he general assumption is that, if material is not in the New Testament, it is late and does not need to be taken into consideration. But from 1883 a range of scholars have considered the Two Ways (usually represented by the Doctrina apostolorum) to be a pre-christian Jewish proselyte tract incorporated into a christian document or as presenting one of the very earliest christian catechetical patterns.6 alfred seeberg’s overelaborate claims for the existence of such a Jewish-christian ur-text behind most of the New Testament epistles led to the theory being discounted (see the recent helpful paper of Benjamin edsall7). his perspective has continued to be argued extensively in recent years, however, as for example in my own doctoral thesis.8 huub van de sandt and David flusser have even gone as far as to provide us with a critical text of their hypothesized pre-christian, Jewish, Greek Two Ways.9 aaron Milavec,10 on the other hand, argues that the whole of the Didache dates to the middle of the irst century ce and represents the earliest christian life, something 6. e.g., charles Taylor, he Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, with Illustrations from the Talmud (cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1886); alfred seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Deichert, 1903); Die beiden Wege und das Aposteldekre (Leipzig: Deichert, 1906); Die Didache des Judentums und der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Deichert, 1908); Gunther Klein, Der älteste christliche Katechismus und die jüdische Propaganda-Literatur (Berlin: Reimer, 1909). 7. Benjamin edsall, “Kerygma, catechesis and Other hings We used to find: Twentieth-century Research on early christian Teaching since alfred seeberg (1903),” CurBS 10 (2012): 410–41. 8. Jonathan a. Draper, “a commentary on the Didache in the Light of the Dead sea scrolls and Related Documents” (Ph.D. diss., cambridge university, 1983); see also “Ritual Process and Ritual symbol in Didache 7–10,” VC 54 (2000): 1–38; “a continuing enigma: he ‘Yoke of the Lord in Didache 6:2–3 and early Jewish-christian Relations,” in he Image of Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Christian Literature, ed. Peter J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry, WuNT 158 (Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2003), 106–23; huub van de sandt and David flusser, he Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, cRiNT 3.5; (assen; Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: fortress, 2002); aaron Milavec, he Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE (New York: Newman, 2003). 9. Van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 122–30. hey even go so far as to suggest that “Jesus in formulating his instruction used traditional materials transmitted both in the sermon on the Mount and in the Greek Two Ways” (193). 10. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life. 88 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe supported also lately by homas O’Loughlin.11 Much of this discussion seems to have escaped New Testament scholars and social historians of early christianity. But if it is correct that this material provides a window on irst century Jewish communities or the earliest christian communities or, as i would argue, the early christian Jewish communities in a tension with the early Pauline communities, then it would be essential that it is factored into the discussion of the hT tradition and the burgeoning discussion on early christian households and families. i would argue that this is particularly important because the hT in the Two Ways tradition is set in an explicit and coherent socioeconomic context in the text itself, though this has not been recognized.12 Previous studies of the hT material have been misled by the assumption that paraenesis is a random collection of ethical instruction with no Tendenz, which arises from the form critical approach of Martin Dibelius in his Commentary on the Epistle of James (1976)13 and was adopted by Pierre Prigent,14 Robert Krat,15 and Klaus Wengst16 in their analyses of the Two Ways material in Barnabas. i have modiied the position i took in my doctoral dissertation in that, while i still believe that the Two Ways tradition in the Didache, Barnabas, Doctrina apostolorum, ecclesiastical canons, and epitome apostolorum can be shown to continue the topos and outlines of the Jewish Derek Eretz tradition, i do not think that this tradition is necessarily pre-christian Jewish 11. homas O’Loughlin, he Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker; London: sPcK, 2010). 12. i raised this question in the discussion of the hT material in my doctoral thesis (1983) when the stoic hypothesis prevailed and was given its classic presentation by James e. crouch, he Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel, fRLaNT 109 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). 13. Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, rev. h. Greeven; trans. M. a. Williams, hermeneia (Philadelphia: fortress, 1976). 14. Pierre Prigent, Les testimonia dans le christianiasme primitive: L’épître de Barnabé I–XVI (Paris: Gabalda, 1961); Pierre Prigent and Robert a. Krat, Epître de Barnabé, sc 172 (Paris: cerf, 1971). 15. Robert a. Krat, Barnabas and the Didache, af 3 (Toronto: Nelson, 1965). 16. he suggestion that Barnabas represents a collection of Jewish legal interpretations had already been made by Leslie W. Barnard (“he epistle of Barnabas and the Tannaitic catechism,” AhR 41 [1959]: 177–90) and has been renewed more recently by Martin B. shukster and Peter Richardson (“Temple and Bet ha-midrash in the epistle of Barnabas,” in Separation and Polemic, vol. 2 of Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, ed. stephen G. Wilson, scJ 2 [Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier university Press, 1986], 17–31). DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 89 as it stands, as argued by van de sandt and flusser. it was developed within the early christian Jewish communities under the pressure of the need for the catechesis and socialization of gentiles. We have no evidence for its use in its current form in Jewish communities, but widespread evidence of early christian usage. he heart of a moral economic analysis lies in the premise that the economy of premodern societies was/is embedded in their ethical system, the social universe that conveys meaning. he accumulation of capital was not an end in itself but rather related to honor and shame, patterns of patron-client relationships stretching up to the ruler himself and down to the lowest human being. Land and the control of its produce, control of the fertility of women, and control of the product of the labor of human beings was represented by the gods and their laws. conversely, ethical and social rules are always simultaneously representations of economic relations. hey receive ideal elaborations in the texts of the elite, but these texts usually represent the “oicial transcript” except where the marginalized insert their “hidden transcript” into the discourse of the powerful.17 here religion plays a key part in modelling the alternative social universe of the poor, powerless, and marginalized. hence the emergence of a “christian” literature as the inal product of a largely illiterate movement of Galilean peasants may provide a glimpse of their alternative social universe, the way they began to embody it in communal life before it was, in turn, taken up into the modiied discourse of a new christian elite. 2. The Variants of the christian Two Ways Text as socially Meaningful hose who have written on the irst six chapters of the Didache, with the notable exception of Milavec, have usually been more interested in tracing the “original text” of the Two Ways and settling the question of whether the Didache or Barnabas is more original. if David c. Parker18 is correct, however, there is no original text in a society that is primarily oral in its communications, and instead we have multiple representations of a tradition that is luid and continually subject to change, to respond 17. he terminology comes from James c. scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance (New haven: Yale university Press, 1990). 18. David c. Parker, he Living Text of the Gospels (cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1997). 90 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe to, and to relect the social situation of the scribes, since text and oral performance are continually interacting and reshaping each other. Looked at in this way, the variants in the representation of the hT of the Two Ways take on new meaning as relecting social and economic development. Most scholars accept that the structure of the Two Ways tradition is best represented by that of the Didache and Doctrina apostolorum (e.g. van de sandt and flusser prefer the Doctrina apostolorum for the structure but the Didache for the text) rather than Barnabas.19 Beyond that it is oten argued that the text of Barnabas represents earlier traditions closer to Jewish origins. since that writer is frequently polemical, though, this needs to be interrogated. Beyond the Doctrina apostolorum, there are also two related fourth century representatives of the tradition that do not have the way of death, namely, the ecclesiastical canons and epitome apostolorum, though its representation of the tradition is sketchy to say the least. he ith century arabic Life of shenudi represents a coptic egyptian text that is also reasonably faithful to the tradition, in my opinion, though its exact Greek basis is oten diicult to reconstruct, since it is a coptic text that survived only in arabic. he apostolic constitutions and canons contains the whole text of the Didache rather than the separately existing Two Ways, again reasonably faithfully but with added commentary and obvious redactions. hen two later Greek texts follow something of the structure and some of the text, paraphrased at times as the basis for an ascetic monastic lifestyle in fides Nicanae and syntagma doctrinae, somehow associated with athanasius, which ultimately inluences the composition of the late fourth century Rule of St. Augustine and the Rule of Benedict. 19. Besides van de sandt and flusser, Didache, see the classic discussions of the Two Ways in Jean-Paul audet, “Literary and Doctrinal ainities of the ‘Manual of Discipline,’” in he Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 129–47; trans. of “ainités Littéraires et Doctrinales du ‘Manuel de Discipline,’” RB 59 (1952): 219–38; Willi Rordorf, “an aspect of the Judeo-christian ethic: he Two Ways,” in he Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan a. Draper, aGJu 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 148–64; trans. of “une chapitre d’éthique judéo-chrétienne: les deux voies,” RSR 60 (1972): 109–28. DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 91 3. The Haustafel in the Didache and its economic Logic in the Moral economy in my article “he Moral economy of the Didache”20 i have argued that there is a consistent socioeconomic pattern of generalized redistribution in the Didache, which is consistent with the creation of the kind of alternative economy of the weak and marginalized in the Roman empire as described by scott.21 it is a rejection of the unequal power relations epitomized by a patron-client system radiating out from the emperor and percolating down to the lowest level of the empire, including its conquered peoples. central to this resistance is insistence on generalized reciprocity, the insistence that labour, goods, and wealth are given to people by God with the express purpose of giving to others so that all beneit. for this reason, inside the community no one is allowed to turn away a needy person, or refuse to give, or even to call their property their own. here is a balanced reciprocity in that goods given to those in need are really given to God, who will reward the giver and remove their sins in exchange. in addition, although they are sharing perishable material goods with the poor, they are also receiving imperishable spiritual gits from them in return. so the hellenistic principle of isotes among friends is not abandoned entirely: it is deconstructed and reconstructed in a radical fashion. Moreover, there is a serious and implementable sanction against abuse of the system of generalized redistribution, namely, that those taking without need are subject to judgment and punishment by the community “until they have repaid the last farthing.” Most probably this would involve exclusion from the community until they repaid in the fashion of 1 cor 5–6. Συνοχῇ (Did. 1.5) does not mean “prison” primarily but “pressure” or “distress.” Paul forbids members to go to pagan courts but to exercise judgment themselves. Didache 4 takes the same line, as we shall see. in “he Moral economy,” i note that the generalized reciprocity and egalitarian alternative economic system developed within this early christian community should not be romanticized (as i believe it is by Milavec and O’Loughlin), but that its limitations and problems should be explored also. chief among these internal contradictions in the system is the presence of the hT insisting on the subjection of children and slaves in chapter 4, and the recognition of the importance of patronage of the 20. Draper, “Moral economy.” 21. scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance. 92 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe wealthy alongside the (probably impoverished) spiritual leadership in chapter 15. he former limits the liberatory potential of the movement for the weakest and most exploited members of the community. he latter reintroduces the web of imperial connections embedded in patron-client relationships by the back door and ensures that, in the long run, the empire strikes back. in this paper i will only be exploring the relationship of the hT in chapter 4 to the moral economy that i have described in the previous paper. first, i set out the material schematically and use the section numbering from the Didache as the basis for the discussion of Barnabas and other forms of the Two Ways in schematic 1. items found only in the Didache are italicized.22 schematic 1: Didache 4 1. he Teacher/Prophet a 4.1 Remember night and day the one who speaks to you the word of God, and honor him [male?] as the Lord [τιμήσεις … ὡς κύριον]. For where the things concerning the Lord are spoken, there is the Lord. 2. Regular communal assemblies for Judgment B 2. and you shall seek out the presence [ἐκζητήσεις … τὰ πρόσωπα] of the saints daily [καθ’ ἡμέραν], so that you can ind rest in their words 3. You shall not make a schism, but you shall reconcile the warring factions. You shall judge justly; you shall not show favouritism [οὐ λήψῃ πρόσωπον] leading to transgression; 4. you shall not doubt [διψυχήσεις] whether it should be or not 3. Requirement for Generalized Reciprocity c 5. Do not be one who stretches out your hands to receive, but one who shuts them up when it comes to giving. 6. if you have [earned anything] through [the work of] your hands, you shall give a ransom for your sins. 7. You shall not doubt [διστάσεις] whether to give, and you shall not grumble when you give, 22. Translations of the Didache are my own unless otherwise indicated. DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 93 for you shall know who is the good giver of the reward. D 8. You shall not turn away the needy person [male?], but you [sg.] shall share all things with your brother [and sister?], and you shall not say they are your own. for if you [pl.] are sharers in what is immortal, how much more in perishable things? 4. household Management e1 9. You [sg.] shall not hold back your hand from your son or from your daughter, but from their youth you shall teach the fear of God [τὸν φόβον τοῦ θεοῦ]. f1 10. You [sg.] shall not reprove in your anger your male slave or your female slave, who hope in the same God, lest they should no longer fear [φοβηθήσονται] the God who is over you both. for he has not come to call with respect of persons [κατὰ πρόσωπον], but those whom the spirit has prepared. f2 11. and you [pl. male?] slaves shall be subject [ὑποταγήσεσθε] to your [pl. male?] masters, as to an image of God [ὡς τύπῳ θεοῦ], in shame and fear. 12. You [sg.] shall hate all hypocrisy [ὑπόκρισιν], and everything which is not pleasing to the Lord. 5. conclusion of the Way of Life: Binding Nature of its Teaching G 13. You [sg.] shall not abandon any commandments of the Lord, but you shall keep what you have received, neither adding nor subtracting. h 14. You shall confess your transgressions [vl. in church], and you shall not come to your prayer with an evil conscience. his is the way of life. in my schematic arrangement i am suggesting ive blocks of progressively ordered and related catechetical teaching that constitute the inal instructions in the way of life and set out a kind of constitution of the community into which the catechumens are being initiated. Whereas much of the previous teaching has been paraenetic, generalized lists of ethical behaviour and prohibited behaviour, this chapter sets out concrete social relations in the community. it is consistent with the rest of the Didache but forms an integrated and well-structured unit. Block 5 constitutes the conclusion of the way of life set out in chapters 1–4 and emphasizes the binding and 94 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe unchanging nature of these social relations as commandments of the Lord. i suggest that, although the instruction forbidding hypocrisy (G) may well belong with block 4 and not block 5, it its equally well with the general conclusion, since double mindedness is consistently rejected in the whole of the Two Ways. its rhetorical function here in terms of its position in the text, however, may relate rather to the behaviour of slaves than to the general conclusion. in block 1, which concerns the relationship of community members to teachers and/or prophets, we need to note the use of the language of patronage, though the advantages being brokered are spiritual ones. she or he is to receive the τιμή, which would usually be reserved for God, because she or he speaks the words of God and hence mediates God’s presence. he principle that speaking the Name or Word or Torah mediates the presence of God is widespread in Jewish thought, as in the well-known m. ’abot 3:3: But if two sit together and words of the Law [are spoken] between them, the Divine Presence rests between them, as it is written, hen they that feared the Lord spake one with another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name [Mal 3:16]. scripture speaks here of “two”; whence [do we learn] that if even one sits and occupies himself in the Law, the holy One, blessed is he, appoints him a reward? Because it is written, Let him sit alone and keep silence, because he hath laid it upon him [Lam 3:28].23 it is taken up in the famous saying of Jesus in Matt 18:20: “for where two or three are gathered together in my name i am there amongst them.”24 here are signs that this way of honoring a superior in the community as if they were the Lord (τιμήσεις … ὡς κύριον) links to questions of patriarchal hierarchy, since the concept recurs in the instruction to the slaves at the bottom of the chain of patron-client relations that they should obey their owners/ masters as if they were a “type” of God (ὡς τύπῳ θεοῦ). in block 1 of chapter 4, however, the text provides the basis for the honor due to the teacher/prophet as patron, even though these igures were inancially 23. all references to rabbinic texts are taken from he Soncino Classics Collection: he Soncino Talmud, the Soncino Midrash Rabbah, the Soncino Zohar, the Bible, in Hebrew and English, Judaic classics Library (New York: Davka), electronic text. 24. celia Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25–30, JsNTsup 18 (sheield: JsOT, 1987). DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 95 in need of support from the community, as the reservations in Did. 11 show and as the monetary and material resources made available to them in Did. 13 clearly show they were. instead of giving material resources to the community as patrons should, they receive resources. Later versions of the Two Ways make this explicit, as we shall see. his is the cause of the conlict in Did. 15, in my opinion, since it undermines the patron-client basis on which bishops and deacons are appointed: honor in exchange for resources. in this respect, 4.1 sets out alternative economic relations in which honor is not given on the basis of material resources and patronage but on spiritual resources of God’s word. But this coheres with the thought in block 3 that material resources and spiritual resources should be equally weighted and with the insistence of chapter 15 that prophets and teachers receive equal honor with bishops and deacons. Block 2 provides for regular meetings of the assembled community for judgment. he “rest” that people seek to ind in the assembly is, in this case, the settlement of legal disputes. he proximity of block 3 suggests that the majority of questions to be addressed by the community assembled for judgment would be socioeconomic, though no doubt questions concerning the testing of visitors (chs. 11–12) and unresolved quarrels between members (chs. 14 and 15) would also feature. he instructions here are based on Lev 19:17–18, as also in Did. 2.6–7 and 15.3.25 he block shows signs of internal and external coherence: he saying on judgment begins with coming together to seek the communal (τὰ πρόσωπα, v. 2) assembly and ends with a prohibition of showing favoritism toward the individual (οὐ λήψῃ πρόσωπον, v. 3), something repeated in verse 10 (κατὰ πρόσωπον) in the instructions to slave-masters. Judgment must not be done double-mindedly (οὐ διψυχήσεις, v. 4), something repeated in the instructions on giving (οὐ διστάσεις, v. 7) and again in the instruction to slaves in that ὑπόκρισις appears in tandem with other words suggesting double dealing/thinking/acting in 5.1 (ψευδομαρτυρίαι, ὑποκρίσεις, διπλοκαρδία, δόλος). Block 3 is the central and principle statement around which the whole series of instruction coheres. it is also central in the structuring of this 25. Jonathan a. Draper, “Pure sacriice in Didache 14 as Jewish christian exegesis,” Neot 42 (2008): 223–52; see also huub van de sandt, “Two Windows on a Developing Jewish-christian Reproof Practice: Matt 18:15–17 and Did. 15:3,” in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? ed. huub van de sandt (assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: fortress, 2005), 173–92. 96 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe material. Giving of one’s material resources is not an option but a requirement, because it is actually giving to God and a prerequisite for a “ransom for your sins” (v. 6). Doubting (διστάσεις) and grumbling (γογγύσεις) are excluded by recognizing that God is the one who gives and also rewards the giver (v. 7). More radically, however, community members are prohibited from refusing to help the needy person, because they must share everything with other members of the community. hey can call nothing their own: συγκοινωνήσεις δὲ πάντα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἀθανάτῳ κοινωνοί ἐστε, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς θνητοῖς (v. 8) he argument is based “from light to heavy,” a fundamental Jewish exegetical technique (qal wahomer): since the community members already share in imperishable goods, how much more are they sharers in the much less important perishable goods. indeed, their catechetical instruction in the way of life already has put them in debt spiritually to “the one who has spoken the things of the Lord” to them. in any case, since these goods are given to human beings by God for the express purpose of giving to all from God’s own gits, one is obligated to give to all who ask (1.5). Possessions do not belong to individuals. his radical demand is not simply an ideal, but backed up by the judicial system of the community as set out in block 2: anyone who exploits the community by taking without being in need will give an account [to the community assembled in judgment] concerning what she or he took and why, and being in distress [ἐν συνοχῇ] [as a result of exclusion from the community] will be examined concerning what she or he has done and will not be released from there [by readmission to the community] until she or he has paid back every farthing. (1.5) as i have already indicated, debtor’s prison would most likely be beyond the community’s ability to impose. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine a more express implementation of a system of generalized reciprocity in terms of the moral economy theory than the requirement that one should call nothing one’s own but share everything in common with fellow members of the community. in any case, the rules of block 3 would have severe consequences if applied rigorously in a christian Jewish community. he irst and foremost consequence of renouncing ownership of one’s property DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 97 would be the disinheritance of one’s children and the manumission of any slaves one owned. his leads naturally to block 4. Kurt Niederwimmer26 is quite wrong, in my opinion, in supposing that the problems occasioned by this instruction to practice community of goods are ignored in what follows: “hereater the Didachist gives no further attention to the problem of private property in his own remarks.” Block 4 is connected with the preceding blocks because of the insistence on equality before God and community of goods between community members. his has important intracommunal implications for parents and slave-owners and their subordinates. interestingly, husband-wife relations are not mentioned here or anywhere in the document, leaving only arguments from silence. either the problem was too big to allow it to be raised at all, or it was no issue in the community, or it was a complex mix of both. he last option seems most likely to me: it was too big in that there were christian Jewish and christian gentile wives, concubines, and slave women under the control of unbelieving gentiles who could use such an instruction to wives to submit as ammunition to withdraw them from the community. it was too small in that Jewish patriarchy was far stronger and more established than the rather luid gentile situation where elite Greek and Roman women might enjoy a considerable amount of freedom. if both circumstances obtained simultaneously, then it would be both unwise and impractical to lay down a ruling. Most important, in my estimation, is that the document is directed toward gentiles wishing to join a christian Jewish community. Marriage between gentile and Jewish christians would have been unthinkable unless a gentile became “perfect” (got circumcised, ate kashrut, and kept ritual purity). herefore, diferent legal situations might apply to gentile and Jewish christian married women. in any case, the rules concerning giving over one’s property to the community clearly did not extend to releasing free women from their husbands and fathers in the way it might have implied release of slaves by their masters. slave women would have been in the same situation in terms of the legal implications as their male counterparts and are thus covered by the same instructions. he teaching in e1 counters the objection of children to the alienation of their inheritance, drawing on the wisdom tradition: spare the rod and 26. Kurt Niederwimmer, he Didache: A Commentary (hermeneia; Minneapolis: fortress, 1998), 109. 98 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe spoil the child. it must be remembered that progeny remained under the authority of their male parent until the patriarch died. his was true both for Jews and for gentiles in the Greco-Roman world, where the right of the father to put his child to death was an accepted principle. (Male) community members were expected to exercise their rights as patriarchs to enforce on children the adoption of the new faith of their parents, including their submission to the alternative economic system. acceptance of the system of generalized reciprocity advocated here would make these children dependent on the community and force them to participate in it and integrate. at one level this promoted the principles of an alternative economic system in embryo. at another level it undermined it fundamentally by reairming and enshrining in it the patriarchal authority of the male head of household. Moreover, the invocation of patriarchal authority is legitimated by the “fear of God” (τὸν φόβον τοῦ θεοῦ). it is noteworthy that there is no limitation on this authority (such as, for example, “fathers do not provoke your children”!) nor is there any reciprocal instruction to children (for example, “children obey your parents”), possibly because some of the members of the community still had living patriarchs who might seek to exercise their authority to remove their adult child from the community. he instruction would then become counterproductive in the life of the community. in any case, the inclusion of this patriarchal instruction right ater the blueprint for an egalitarian “economic safety net”27 as set out introduced a radical contradiction into the heart of the ideal that ensured its ultimate failure as a genuine alternative economy, in my opinion. Block 5 turns to the issue of slaves, an issue that would have presented itself immediately to any elite person who joined this community, who would have been expected to be a patron of the community by becoming a bishop or deacon, making their house, resources, and inluence available to the community. Gentile slaves purchased by Jews were required to be circumcised (if a man) or immersed (if a woman) and to keep the Torah to the same extent as women and immature children. hey became a part of israel, but with limited rights and responsibilities.28 his was necessary to preserve the ritual purity of the household (something that would have concerned the Didache community also), given their dedication to ritual purity (7.1–4). he principle as stated by Rab huna (d. 297 ce [a2])29 but 27. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 173–227. 28. see van de sandt and flusser, Didache, 137. 29. citations following herman L. strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 99 seemingly everywhere applicable is, “every precept that is obligatory on a woman is obligatory on a slave; every precept that is not obligatory on a woman is not obligatory on a slave” (b. ḥ ag. 4a). according to the Mishnah, while women, slaves, and minors are exempt from reciting the shema and putting on the teillin, they are required to perform the teillah, mezuzah, and berakot ater meals. so on this basis God hears the prayers of slaves as well as the prayers of a woman and a child: R. Judah b. shalom [a5 342–443] said in the name of R. eleazar, “Before God, however, all are equal, women, slaves, poor and rich” (exod. Rab. 21:4). God’s blessings pronounced over israel by the priests apply also to proselytes, women, and slaves (Num. Rab. 11:8). heir cries can reach the ears of God who is over both master and slave, and this places limits on the behaviour of Jewish slave owners! a particularly germane background to the passage and the problems that the instruction that “You shall call nothing your own” would have posed to slave owners is provided by a halakah in the name of R. simeon of Mizpah (T1, alive while the temple was still standing), found both in m. Pe’ah 3:8 and also in t. Pe’ah 1:13, in which form i cite it here: a. One who consigns [all of] his property to his slave—[the slave] becomes a free-person [because the slave as part of the estate, now owns himself]. if [in his consignment of the property the owner] had retained any land at all—the slave does not become a free person, [for we assume that the property retained includes the slave]. B. R. simeon says [T1, while temple was still standing], “Lo, he who says, ‘Lo all of my possessions are given to so-and-so, my slave, except for one ten-thousandths part of them’ [m. Pe’ah 3:8] has said nothing [of binding force], c. unless he speciies [the property in] such-and-such a city or [in] such-and-such a ield. D. and even if he owns [only] that very ield and that very city, [so that, in efect, he wishes to give the slave nothing at all], the slave acquires the property and may buy his freedom.” e. and when they said these words in front of R. Yosé, he said, “he who gives a right answer smacks his lips” [Prov 24:26].30 (New York: atheneum, 1931. english translation of the German 5th edition prepared by the author. 30. Jacob Neusner and Richard s. sarason, trans., he Toseta: Translated from the Hebrew, with a New Introduction (Peabody, Ma: hendrickson, 2002). 100 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe if a Jewish person gave away all or part of his possessions to his slave (the masculine is used following the intention of the halakah, though it would probably apply in some circumstances to women and their maidservants, as in the case of Queen Berenice of adiabene, according to the tractate Gerim), his slave would be regarded as manumitted. in the case of common ownership of property, in which the slave was regarded as owner in common of all the wealth and property of the community, he could legitimately argue that he was now freed. he social consequences of the alternative socioeconomic arrangements of this early christian Jewish community were thus as serious for the question of masters and slaves as for fathers and children (patriarch/kyriarchs and their subordinates) and calls for a special instruction. he instruction provided, however, also undermines the egalitarian and liberatory potential of the movement deriving from Jesus. he fundamental principles of the community are: the spirit falls on patriarchs and subordinates alike; there is no favouritism with God and therefore there can be none in the community; all things must be shared. he solution of the community is to reassert the patriarchal control of slave-masters but limit their power with a strong warning. as with the instructions on parents and children, the instructions on masters and slaves begin with a directive to the patriarch/kyriarch, but in this case it airms the authority of the slave-master and hence the institution of slavery itself, only indirectly protecting the slaves by limiting their power to punish their property without restraint “in their bitterness” (ἐν πικρίᾳ σου). he word πικρίᾳ is a metaphorical application from a word meaning “bitter taste” to “bitter feelings” or “harshness” or “violent temper.”31 in other words, harsh and arbitrary treatment of slaves is prohibited, the kind of treatment that oten let a slave with lasting physical damage or even ended in death. it is noteworthy that both male and female slaves are speciically mentioned, since female slaves were doubly at risk as objects of sexual exploitation by their owners.32 heir inclusion sends an important signal, especially in the context of the prohibition in the Didache’s reformulation of the ethic of the second half of the Decalogue not only of anger as leading to murder but also of desire (ἐπιθυμία), because it leads to fornication (πορνεία) and ultimately to adultery (μοιχεία, 3.2–3). he behaviour of the slave-owner might lead a 31. LsJ 1403b–1404a. 32. carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald, with Janet h. Tulloch, A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: fortress, 2006), 95–117. DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 101 slave to cease to “fear” (φοβηθήσονται) the God who is over both of them. Two observations follow here: the slaves had no choice but to convert with their owner, in line with Jewish practices for slave owning. second, the “fear of God” in verse 10 is rhetorically equated with “fear of the Master” in verse 11, so that the alternative socioeconomic community practice is given with one hand and taken away with the other. he basis for this instruction to the slave owner (no gender is speciied, so it must be held to refer to both male and female slave owners) is fundamental to the community’s ethos, as we have seen: the same God is the hope of both parties and God has no favourites but gives the spirit to both. he whole passage is diicult syntactically and semantically,33 perhaps relecting the complexity of the issue for the community. in the irst place, the exact reference of οὐ γὰρ ἔρχεται … καλέσαι is not clear: the present tense here could refer to the coming of God in judgment or to the irst or second coming of Jesus, though his name is not mentioned; the calling could refer to the call to all human beings inherent in the gospel, but could also refer forward to the coming judgment. To my mind it does seem to include a certain note of eschatological warning to back up an otherwise unenforceable instruction, since although the judgment of the community against violent behaviour might result in expulsion from the community for the slave owner, this would remove one of its patrons. he expression ἐφ᾿ οὓς τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν is also diicult: it may indicate that the process of preparation and acceptance of the slave into God’s covenant through the preparation of the spirit is complete (aorist tense), but it could also mean that God or Jesus came to prepare his people to receive the spirit as a git, even the slave (“upon whom” the spirit has come) and so confers on all community members equal status before God as those who possess the spirit. his is the interpretation i prefer, given the importance of the spirit in this community evidenced in chapter 11 (though the spirit seems always to be the spirit of prophecy in the Didache). he same word πρόσωπον is used here as in the requirement to judge justly in block 2, rhetorically reenforcing the instruction concerning the equality of all members of the community. so, although the instruction airms the institution of slavery and the rights of slave owners, these rights are in theory strictly circumscribed by a requirement to respect the equal humanity of a slave, which is supported by a rat of religious taboos since it is unenforceable any other way. 33. see Niederwimmer, Didache, 110–11 for a discussion. 102 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe he instruction to slaves appears to apply to both male and female slaves, although no diferentiation is provided this time, perhaps because it is rhetorically unnecessary. Nevertheless, the inclusion of slaves in an anonymous plural group reduces their humanity. it requires them as a group to submit to their κυρίοις. he plural could be taken as inclusive of both male and female owners, but may have only the male patriarch in mind, since the owner is to be a type of God, and one wonders whether the gender neutrality of God was even on the horizon. clearly the reciprocal instruction to the slave is necessary because their equal humanity before God and equal right to share in the community of goods of the community would undermine the right of the slave owner to continue to own them and to command them to obey. his would then result in elite members of the community ceasing to be able to function as patrons ofering their status and their resources to protect and promote the community’s interests with the outside world. he sanction the instruction receives is severe: the slave owner (male?) is a “type” or image of God, like the image of the emperor struck on an imperial coin. While slaves and women, for that matter, are instructed to respect and submit to their patriarchs as “to the Lord” elsewhere (col 3:22–23; eph 6:5), the language here could be regarded as more extreme. he slave owner is to be the image of God to the slave, and as such, the “fear” that is due to God by both slave-owner and slave, since God is over them both, is now due to the slave-owner by the slave (ἐν αἰσχύνῃ καὶ φόβῳ), since he stands as the image of God. his instruction to slave-owners and slaves is reinforced by an instruction appealing to a general principle that community members should “hate all hypocrisy and all that is not pleasing to the Lord” (v. 12), which i read as the conclusion to the instructions to slave owners and slaves. against this is the fact that the preceding instruction is in the second person plural, since slaves are addressed as a group, which certainly is not suggestive of equal status. he instructions as a whole are couched in the second person singular, however, and the return to a key ethical understanding of the community would require a return to the generalized pattern. a repeated refrain in the Didache is a prohibition of “double-mindedness” in various forms and expressions. hypocrisy is set alongside these expressions of “double-mindedness” and so reinforces the command to slave-owners not to oppress or ill-treat their slaves and to slaves to submit to slave owners without reservation or their own kind of bitterness, so standing parallel to the prohibition of “bitterness” in the conduct of their masters. hey should do everything that is pleasing to the Lord, which would coincide DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 103 with doing what is pleasing to the slave owner, since he stands as a “type” of God. his is an uneasy compromise to be sure, but it is directed in my opinion toward keeping the ideal of generalized reciprocity in place. Block 5 provides a conclusion to the way of life as a whole. it presents the instructions of the way of life as “commandments of the Lord” (v. 3), which must not be tampered with either by adding or subtracting, a common device in writing to reenforce its authority (see, for example, Rev 22:18–19). hese instructions would be particularly poignant to children, however, and more particularly to slaves, who might spend much time “confessing their transgressions” of “hypocrisy” in their attitudes to cruel slave-owners. 4. The hT in the Doctrina apostolorum he Latin Doctrina apostolorum follows Did. 1–6 very closely, so much so that there has long been a debate over whether it is an extract from it or a source for it. Besides smaller variations, the main diference is the absence from the Doctrina apostolorum of the “Q” tradition in Did. 1.3–6 and a diferent ending in the Doctr. 6.2–3. his has led to speculation as to whether it represents a pre-christian Jewish source for an originally Jewish Two Ways teaching. herefore, the diferences between the texts, though small, may oten be highly signiicant. set out in the same structured way as we have noted for the Didache, it appears as follows (dotted line indicates omissions, while italics represent additions or variations).34 schematic 2: Doctrina apostolorum 1. he Teacher/Prophet a 4.1. Qui loquitur tibi uerbum domini dei memineris die ac nocte reuereberis eum quasi dominum unde enim dominica procedunt ibi et dominus est. 2. Regular communal assemblies for Judgment B 2. Require autem facies sanctorum … 34. he text of the Doctrina apostolorum is taken from Willy Rordorf and andré Tuilier, La doctrine des douze apôtres (Didachè), sc 248 bis (Paris: cerf, 1998), 208–9. 104 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe ute te reicias uerbis illorum. 3. Non facies dissensions … paciica litigantes iudica iuste sciens quod tu iudicaberis. Non deprimes quemquam in casu suo … 4. Nec dubitabis *uerum [cj. utrum] erit ac non erit. 3. Requirement for General Reciprocity c 5. Noli esse ad accipiendum extendens manum et ad reddendum subtrahens. 6. si habes per manus tuas … redemptionem peccatorum. 7. Non dubitabis dare nec dans murmuraueris sciens quis sit huius mercedis bonus redditor. D 8. Non auertes te ab egente communicabis autem omnia cum fratribus tuis nec dices tua esse si enim […] mortalibus socii sumus quanto magis hinc initiantes esse debemus? Omnibus enim dominus dare uult de donis suis. [cf. Did. 1.5] 4. household Management e 9. Non tolles manum tuam a iliis … sed a iuuentute docebis eos timorem domini. f1 10. seruo tuo uel ancillae qui in eundem sperant dominum in ira tua non imperabis timeat utrumque dominum et te; non enim uenit ut personas inuitaret sed in quibus spiritum inuenit. f2 11. Vos autem serui subiecti dominis uestris estote tamquam formae dei cum pudore et tremore. 12. Oderis omnem afectationem et quod deo non placet non facies. 5. conclusion of the Way of Life: Binding Nature of its Teaching G 13. … custodi ergo, ili, quae audisti neque appones illis contraria neque diminues 14. … Non accedas ad orationem cum consientia mala. DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 105 haec est uia uitae. for the most part, the Doctrina apostolorum follows the text of the Did. 4.1–8 with little variation, but the variations are signiicant. in the irst place, καθ’ ἡμέραν is omitted, as in the epitome apostolorum, so that it is unlikely that a daily “church meeting” was ever in mind in the earliest tradition. second, and more important, a note of eschatological warning is introduced into the requirement to judge justly and avoid favoritism, thus strengthening its urgency: “You shall judge justly, knowing that you will be judged. You shall not oppress anyone in his case.” hird, in the requirement “to give the fruit of your labor for the redemption of your sins,” the word “give” appears to have been accidentally omitted so that it reads literally, “if you have through your hands redemption of sins” (v. 6) and then runs on “you shall not doubt to give [etc.]” (v. 7). fourth, there is another seeming omission in verse 8, so that it would read, “if we are sharers in mortal things, how much more ought we to do this being initiated?” (leipography from si en[imim]mortalibus). he textual variant could make reasonable sense in that the Two Ways teaching was intended as preparation for initiation (see Did. 7.1), so that the ordinary sharing of all human beings in mortal things is contrasted with the sharing in imperishable things of those who have been initiated into the community. hat wording does, however, weaken the sense of material sharing being a natural consequence of sharing in immortality. fith, the Doctrina apostolorum adds here the saying found in the Jesus tradition section in Did. 1.5b: “indeed the Lord wishes to give to all from his gits.” his in return strengthens the emphasis on community of goods still further, since the material goods belonging to members are in any case God’s gits and remain God’s own property to dispense to others in the community through its members. One wonders whether the insertion of this material from 1.5 here in the Latin text was made later to compensate for the leipography above. in block 4 of the hT: e2 You shall not hold back your hand from your sons, but from their youth you shall teach them the fear of the Lord. f1 You shall not command your male slave or your female slave, who hope in the same Lord, in your anger. Let him or her fear both the Lord and you. for he did not come to invite according to person but those in whom he has found the Spirit [v.l. a humble spirit]. 106 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe f2 and you slaves be subject to your masters as types of God with shame and trembling. You shall hate all hypocrisy, and you shall not do what does not please God. it is noteworthy in e1 that the Doctrina apostolorum has the plural iliis and lacks the express inclusion of daughters, even if they could be understood to be included within the masculine plural. his diference is signiicant in terms of the “invisibility” of women, their inclusion within the male, and their treatment as property to be disposed of in patriarchal society. second, θεός is oten represented by κύριος in the Doctrina apostolorum, a signal that the Lord Jesus may be in mind, at least in the later redactions, since in the same places the tradition is divided. he Doctrina apostolorum is oten regarded as the earliest form of the Two Ways, but even if it is, its wording may in places be later. in the New Testament hT, ἐν κυρίῳ is an important aspect of the rhetoric, but not in the Two Ways, except in the Doctrina apostolorum. in the instructions on slaves and masters, there is a noteworthy variant contained in “let him or her fear both the Lord and you” ater “lest he or she should no longer fear the Lord who is over you both.” he inclusion of this reduces the strength of the injunction to the slave-owner by placing the fear of the Lord alongside that of the slave-owner, thus revealing an elite perspective rather than that of the embryonic alternative socioeconomic community we are exploring here. it shows itself to be a later development. finally, the text has a variant reading in the diicult passage, concerning whom the Lord has come to call: the Doctrina apostolorum has “those in whom he has found the spirit.” he idea that God’s holy spirit indwells slaves who fear God is a radical one: so radical that a variant reading is inserted above the line of the Latin manuscript replacing “holy spirit” with “humble spirit” (humilum)! here are a few variations in the conclusion at block h, but these have no bearing on the hT tradition and can be ignored here. 5. Other Versions of the independent Two Ways Tradition following the Order in the Didache in addition to the Doctrina apostolorum’s close parallel to the Didache, there is a range of other versions of the independent Two Ways tradition. hey highlight the role of the teacher in chapter 4 so that it intrudes from DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 107 block a into block B. here we follow the ecclesiastical canons and the epitome apostolorum.35 schematic 3: ecclesiastical canons and epitome apostolorum 1. he Teacher/Prophet a 4.1 homas said, the one who speaks to you the word of God, And who is the cause of your life And who gives you the seal in the Lord You shall love him [male?] as the apple of your eye Remember him [male?] night and day and honour him [male?] as the Lord. for where the things concerning the Lord are spoken, there is the Lord. 2. Regular communal assemblies for Judgment B 2. and you shall seek out his presence daily and that of the rest of the saints, so that you can ind rest in their words. 3. Cephas said, You shall not make a schism, but you shall reconcile the warring factions. You shall judge justly; you shall not show favouritism leading to transgression; 4. In your prayer you shall not doubt whether it should be or not. 3. Requirement for Generalized Reciprocity c 5. [Do not be one who stretches out your hands to receive, but one who shuts them up when it comes to giving. ce; eP omit.] 6. if you have [earned anything] through [the work of] your hands, you shall give a ransom for [the forgiveness of ἄφεσιν; eP] your sins. 7. [You shall not doubt whether to give, and you shall not grumble when you give, for you shall know who is the good giver of the reward. ce; eP omit.] D 8. You shall not turn away the needy person [male?], 35. he english translation is my own. a critical text can be found in alistair stewart-sykes, he Apostolic Church Order: he Greek Text with Introduction, Translation and Annotation, ecs 10 (strathield, au: st. Paul’s, 2006). ec refers to the ecclesiastical canons; eP refers to the epitome apostolorum. 108 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe but you shall share [συγκοινωνήσεις; eP] all things with your brother [and sister?], and you shall not say they are your own. for if you are sharers in [death, θανάτῳ, eP] what is immortal, how much more in perishable things [mortal things, θνητοῖς, eP]? 4. household Management e1 9. [You shall not hold back your hand from your son or from your daughter, but from their youth you shall teach the fear of God. eP; ce omit] 12. [You shall hate all hypocrisy and everything which is not pleasing (ἀρέσκει) to the Lord. eP: ce omit.] 5. conclusion of the Way of Life: Binding Nature of its Teaching [h 14a. You shall confess your transgressions, G 13a. You shall not abandon any commandments of the Lord, h 14b. and you shall not come to your prayer with an evil conscience. G 13b. You shall keep what you have received neither adding nor taking away [ὑφαιρῶν; eP] his is the way of life. eP: ce omit.] his version of the material is followed closely in the teaching of the famous coptic monk, Bishop shenudi, though with many additions. he text is found in arabic, so some of the variants may be attributed to that.36 schematic 4: The Vita Shenudi (fifth century) 1. he Teacher/Prophet a 4.1 O my son, remember night and day the word of God in your heart for the Lord is present where his Name is spoken, and he is eternally worthy of honour and praise. 2. Regular community assemblies for Judgment B 2. O my son, walk on the way of purity at each moment: you will become strong and powerful in the best way 36. he english translation is my own from the french translation in Émile amélineau, Monuments pour servir à l’histoire de l’Égypte chrétienne aux IVe, Ve, VIe, et VII siècles, vol. 4 of Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire, 1885–1886 (Paris: Leroux, 1888), 289–97. My translation was checked against the arabic text by Gerhard van Gelder at st. John’s college, Oxford. i am grateful for his suggestions and advice. DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 109 so that you can rejoice in their sweet words and their delightful sayings 3. O my son, do not seek to quarrel with your brothers but rather strive to reconcile the warring factions hen you shall judge justly and you shall not be ashamed of reprimanding the ofender for his ofence or the sinner for his sin. 3. Requirement for Generalized Reciprocity c 5. O my son, do not stretch out your hand to receive, but shut it when it comes to giving Beware of acting thus. 6. As far as you are able, you shall give to the poor in order to cover your many sins; 7. but you shall not doubt in your gits whether to give moreover, you shall not be sad when you give and you shall not regret it if you act mercifully: you know well who recompenses one honestly and faithfully it is Jesus the Messiah who pardons sins. D 8. O my son, you shall not turn away the poor but give according to your ability sharing with everyone who is troubled and everyone who is in need of you for if we share with those who do not have anything in perishable things, we share with them in imperishable and lasting things. 5. conclusion of the Way of Life: Binding nature of the its Teaching G 13a. and if we keep these commandments h 14b we walk on the way of life in the path blessed for eternity which is to the unique king, the Lord Jesus the Messiah, who gives life to those who love him. all of the hT is omitted from the ecclesiastical canons and the Vita Shenudi, probably signaling the monastic orientation of those documents and its use in initiation into the ascetic religious life, so that neither children nor slaves were a concern. certainly the explicit narrative of the Vita Shenudi is an oral performance of the Two Ways to the neophytes and monks by the much venerated coptic ascetic Bishop shenudi. he epitome apostolorum, however, does indicate knowledge of the hT material in this independent Two Ways tradition also, since it has the instruction on children: “Bartholomew said, ‘You shall not hold back 110 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe your hand from your son or from your daughter but from their youth you shall teach them the fear of the Lord’ ” (11). Perhaps this signals that children remained an issue for some ascetics, even if they had renounced their slaves along with the rest of their property. it is an important indication of such a vestigial interest in the hT that the later Two Ways tradition found in egypt, the syntagma doctrinae and fides Nicanae, which are really versions of the same text, contain a prohibition on striking anyone except in order to discipline a small child and even then with a strong reserve: γίνου ταπεινὸς καὶ ἥσυχος τρέμων διὰ παντὸς τὰ λόγια κυρίου μὴ γίνου μάχιμος μὴ τύπτε ἄνθρωπον [ἢ.] εἰ μὴ μόνον παιδίον σου μικρὸν πρὸς παιδείας καὶ αὐτὸ παρατετηρημένως σκόπει μὴ πως διὰ σου φόνος γίνηται πολλαὶ γὰρ εἰσιν αἱ ἄφορμαι. τοῦ θανάτου. (syntagma Viii [4.1– 2]; fides Nicanae) 4.1 Be humble and quiet fearing always the words of the Lord. 4.2 Do not be aggressive. Do not strike anyone, except only your small child for instruction, but observing it closely, watching carefully, lest through you murder is born, for many are the means of death. he wording shows clearly that this instruction comes from the Two Ways tradition, with its reminiscence of Did. 3.1–6 as well as 4.9–10. incidentally, these texts also provides evidence that “not holding back one’s hand” from disciplining one’s child might lead to injury or death and that commanding one’s slave in one’s anger might have the same consequences. in any case, this version of the saying clearly limits it to small children, so it would not apply to adult progeny under the authority of the family patriarch, which could be the case in the Didache. 6. The hT Tradition in the epistle of Barnabas While the hT in the independent Two Ways tradition, whether it is earlier or later than the Didache, follows substantially the same pattern, Barnabas in this as in other material follows a diferent logic. indeed, some have argued that it has no logic.37 his was still following Dibelius’s Traditionsgeschichlich approach to the Pastoral epistles in which he described 37. so, Prigent, Testimonia, and Krat, Barnabas and the Didache. DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 111 paraenesis as a form that had no central thrust or Tendenz but was a loose and incoherent collection of traditional material. as i have argued elsewhere,38 this cannot be said of Barnabas, which expressly changes the social location of the Two Ways material from catechesis for initiation into the community (Did. 7.1) into a secondary gnosis. in the irst place, it is expressly written (whereas the Two Ways in the Didache, existing in writing as it does, represents the outline for an oral performance of catechesis)39 and by an individual (“i have written to you,” Barn. 17.2; “i hasten to write,” 4.9), whereas the Didache nowhere signals the contribution of an individual, utilizing the imperative of communal decisions. it is written in the form of an epistle, whereas the Two Ways in the Didache provides generalized “teaching of the twelve apostles to the gentiles.” in other words, without making any claims about its author, it has adopted the Pauline epistolary mode in order to issue directions to one or more communities. it adopts the same polemical tone as Paul against doctrinal positions it considers wrong, whereas the Didache is concerned with wrong praxis (“keep the commandments that you have received neither adding nor subtracting”) or anomia, failure to observe the Torah according to its understanding, when it polemicizes against false teaching. his switch in Barnabas is neither accidental nor innocent. in chapter 17 the author explains that in what precedes the text has “not omitted anything of the matters relating to salvation,” while in 18.1 this version of Two Ways begins with, “But now let us pass on to another gnosis and teaching.” it is possible, but not probable, that the author simply came across new material and inserted it without relecting on the matter. Whether i am right in my argument that this is part of his attack on christian Judaism, it is certainly a deliberate and conscious “editorial decision” with consequences. i would argue that the author’s seemingly haphazard arrangement of the units of material from the Two Ways tradition is equally a deliberate and conscious deconstruction in much the same way that i would argue that the Gospel of homas is a deliberate deconstruction of 38. Jonathan a. Draper, “Barnabas and the Riddle of the Didache Revisited,” JSNT 58 (1995): 89-113. 39. Jonathan a. Draper, “Vice catalogues as Oral-Mnemonic cues: a comparative study of the Two Ways Tradition in the Didache and Parallels from the Perspective of Oral Tradition,” in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel, ed. Tom hatcher (Waco, TX: Baylor university Press, 2008), 111–35. 112 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe the “Q” tradition and for the same reasons, namely, to defamiliarize and resocialize the initiand. even a cursory read through of Barnabas shows a clear Tendenz running through it, which afects the presentation of the hT also. first, there is a problem with the oice of “teacher,” since the title is rejected by the author in 1.8 and 4.9 (“not as a teacher”), even as “teaching” is being given. second, the author makes a radical rejection of the Torah and denies the status of covenant people to the Jews, seeing his task as being to prevent christians becoming “proselytes to their law” and thereby getting “shipwrecked” (3.6; 4.6). hird, the hebrew scriptures are taken allegorically and eschatologically, so that the ritual provisions of the Torah are either turned into ethics for christians or into signs of the imminent arrival of the parousia. in the case of the block of rules governing community life in Did. 4, certain patterns do also emerge. it will be our contention that these are not accidental due to a faulty memory or a faulty source, but represent an attempt to “spike” the Two Ways teaching at points where Barnabas disagrees with its teaching. We shall focus on this block, set out in below. schematic 5: Barnabas 19.4–12 Block 2 Material Moved to Block 3 and interpolated from chapters 2–3 You shall not commit fornication. 2.2 You shall not commit adultery. 2.2 You shall not corrupt children. 2.2 he word of God shall not go out from you in impurity of any others. 2.3 B You shall not show favoritism to reprove any leading to transgression. 4.3 You shall be meek. 3.7 You shall be quiet. 3.8 You shall be trembling at the words which you hear. 3.8 You shall not remember evil against your brother. 2.3 B You shall not doubt whether a thing shall be or not. 4.4 You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain (cf. “bear false witness” 2.3). You shall love your neighbor more than your own soul. 2.7 Block 4 inverted and interpolated with Material from Outside the hT You shall not kill a child in the womb; 2.2 and moreover you shall not put to death what has been born. 2.2 e You shall not hold back your hand from your son or from your daughter, 4.9 but from their infancy you shall teach them the fear of the Lord. 4.9 You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods. 2.2 DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 113 You shall not be avaricious. 3.5 You shall not be joined in soul with the haughty, 3.9 but you shall conduct yourself with the righteous and lowly. 3.9 You shall receive as good things the things which happen to you. 3.10 You shall not be double-minded or double-tongued, 2.4 for a double tongue is a snare of death. 2.4 f2 You shall be subject to masters [κυρίοις] 4.11 as the image of God, with shame and fear. 4.11 f1 You shall not command with bitterness your male slave or your female slave, 4.10 who hope in the same God, 4.10 lest they cease to fear the God who is over both of you; 4.10 for he did not come to call men according to their outward appearance, 4.10 Block 3 inverted and interpolated with Material from Blocks 1 and 2 D You shall share in all things with your neighbor; 4.8 You shall not call anything your own; 4.8 for if you are sharers of things which are incorruptible, 4.8 how much more should you be of those things which are corruptible! 4.8 You shall not be double-minded or double-tongued, 2.4 [for the double tongue is a snare of death. v. l.] 2.4 As far as possible, you shall be pure in your soul. c1 Do not be ready to stretch forth your hands to take, 4.5 whilst you hold them back to give. 4.5 a You shall love, as the apple of your eye, 4.1 every one that speaks to you the word of the Lord. 4.1 remember the day of judgment night and day. 4.1 B and you shall seek out daily the presence of the saints, 4.2 either laboring in word and going out to encourage, and endeavoring to save a soul by the word, c2 or with your hands working for a ransom for your sins. 4.6 c3 You shall not hesitate to give, 4.7 Nor shall you grumble when giving, 4.7 but you shall yet come to know who is the good paymaster of the reward. 4.7 Block 5 with Part of Block 2 G You shall guard what you have received, 4.13 neither adding nor subtracting anything. 4.13 You shall hate the evil one completely. cf. 4.12 114 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe B You shall judge righteously. 4.3 You shall not cause division, 4.3 but shall make peace between those who quarrel 4.3 by bringing them together. h You shall confess your sins. 4.14 You shall not come to prayer with an evil conscience. 4.14 his is the way of light. 4.14 he clear and logical structure found in Didache and Doctr. 4 has been severely compromised in this rendering of the same material. Little of it is absent outright, but its restructuring changes the meaning and impact. first, as one would expect, given Barnabas’s aversion to teachers (probably relecting the emerging domination of the rabbinate under Roman rule), block 1 is removed and neutralized by redaction and inserted into material concerning giving in block 3, which is restructured to contain all the inancial material on giving. he teacher is no longer honored as mediating the Lord’s presence, but instead is “loved as the apple of your eye” and placed under the threat of judgment: “remember the day of judgment day and night.” second, the material on sharing inancial resources and calling nothing one’s own from block 3 is placed ater the teaching on the submission of children and slaves from block 4. he rhetorical and probably legal force of this would be that patriarchal authority and legal jurisdiction over children and slaves is airmed as preceding and overruling the sharing of material things with the community. he rules for the admission of proselytes in the rabbinic tractate Gerim specify that everything depends on the order in which people are circumcised and baptised: if the slave goes irst, they are regarded as manumitted; if the slave-owner goes irst and then holds his hand on the head of his slaves as they are baptized, then they remain his slaves. hus, in Barnabas sharing is limited and bounded by the prior obligation to unconditional obedience to social superiors. his suspicion is conirmed by the insertion of a block of material drawn from Did. 2 and 3 concerning envy, covetousness, greed, seeking to rise above one’s station, acceptance of one’s fate as God’s will, and duplicity. his disarms in advance the suggestion of equality and manumission, in case slaves might expect it. hird, it is interesting also that the instruction to discipline one’s son or daughter is linked to instruction against abortion and exposure of children. his has a double efect: irst to suggest that the children in question are small children and not adults; second to warn the parent against violence DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 115 toward their children, since there are many ways to put a male or female child to death besides exposure, and it would be permitted in Roman law in certain circumstances. he efect might be to minimize the right of (unbelieving) parents to control their (adult) children and prevent them from joining the community. fourth, slaves are no longer directly addressed at all. instead, the instruction to submit to slave owners and the instruction to slave owners not to mistreat their slaves are inverted. What had been an instruction to slaves to submit to slave owners now begins the couplet and becomes a general instruction to the individual to submit to their “lords/masters” as types of God in shame and fear. addressing slaves directly would already make them social equals in a certain sense. in other words, the same “you” (singular) is addressed in both instructions: submit to your superiors in the patriarchal hierarchy as types of God and do not mistreat your slaves in case they cease to hope in God. 7. The apostolic constitutions 7.9–17 he apos. con. 7 contains the whole of the Didache, but edited in a distinctive way that mostly respects the underlying text but tends to add supporting and illustrative material to it from the hebrew scriptures. it also removes material with which it latly disagrees (for example, the injunction to keep as much of the food law as possible and the prohibition on eating meat ofered to idols in Did. 6.2–3). it clearly continues to regard the Didache as an ancient and authoritative source for christian living, which it places alongside other such sources in its collection. its version of the hT is therefore of considerable interest, since it indicates how it was understood in the third or fourth century (no exact date is possible). in the schematic below it can be seen that it preserves the structure and most of the material intact, but with varying emphases.40 schematic 6: apostolic constitutions 7.9–17 1. he Teacher/Prophet a You shall glorify the one who speaks the word of God to you, 40. My translation. a critical text may be found in P. a. de Lagarde, Constitutiones apostolorum (London: Williams & Norgate; Leipzig: Teubner, 1862). 116 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe and you shall remember him [male?] day and night and you shall honor him [male?] not as the cause of your birth but as the one who has become a good patron to you [ὡς τοῦ εὖ εἶναί σοι πρόξενον γινόμενον]. for where the teaching [διδασκαλία] concerning God is there God is. 2. Regular communal assemblies for Judgment B You shall seek out daily the face of the saints in order that you may rest in their words. You shall not make schisms among the saints You shall remember the Koraites You shall make peace among those who are ighting As Moses reconciling them to become friends. You shall judge justly “For judgment is the Lord’s” [Deut 1:17]. You shall not show favouritism to reprove leading to transgressions as Elijah and Micaiah did to Ahab and Ebedmelech the Ethiopian to Zedekiah and Nathan to David and John to Herod. You shall not be double-minded in your prayer whether it shall be or not. For the Lord said to Peter upon the sea: “O you of little faith, why are you doubting?” [Matt 4:31]. 3. Requirement for Generalized Reciprocity c Do not be one who stretches out the hand to receive but shuts it up when it comes to give. if you have anything through the work of your hands give in order that you have work for the redemption of your sins. For “by alms and acts of faith sins are purged away” [Prov 15:27; 16:6] You shall not be in two minds to give to the poor and you shall not grumble when you give for you shall know who is the repayer of your wage/reward. For he says, “He that has mercy on the poor man lends to the Lord; according to his git so shall it be repaid to him again” [Prov 19:17]. D You shall not turn away the needy For he says, “He that stops his ears, so that he does not hear the cry of the needy himself shall also call DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 117 and there shall be no one to hear him” [Prov 21:13]. You shall share in all things with your brother and you shall not say anything to be your own for sharing in common has been provided by God for all human beings [κοινὴ γὰρ ἡ μετάληψις παρὰ θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παρεσκευάσθῃ]. 4. household Management e1 You shall not hold back [οὐκ ἀρεῖς] your hand from your son or from your daughter but you shall teach them the fear of God from their youth; For he says, “Correct your son, so that he shall aterwards be a source of hope for you” [Prov 19:18]. f1 You shall not command [οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις] your male slave or your female slave who trust [πεποίθουσιν] in the same God in bitterness of soul, in case they may groan against you and wrath will come upon you from God. f2 and you, slaves, be subject [ὑποτάγητε] to your masters as images [τύποις] of God with attention [προσοχῇ] and fear, as to the Lord and not to men [cf. eph 6:7]. You shall hate all hypocrisy; and whatever is … pleasing to the Lord, you shall do. 5. conclusions of the Way of Life: Binding Nature of the Teaching and hT additions G Do not at all depart from the commandments of the Lord, but you shall keep the things which you have received from Him, neither adding to them nor taking away from them. “For you shall not add to his words, in case he convicts you, and you become a liar” [Prov 30:6]. h You shall confess your sins to the Lord your God And you shall not add to them, so that it will go well for you with the Lord your God, who does not desire the death of a sinner, but his repentance. [e+] You shall care for [θεραπεύσεις] your father and mother as causes of your birth, “in order that you may live long on the earth which the Lord your God gives you” [exod 20:12]. Do not despise your brothers or your kinsfolk; because “you shall not overlook the household of your seed” [isa 58:7]. [f+] You shall fear the king [τὸν βασιλέα], 118 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe knowing that his election is of the Lord. You shall honor his rulers [τοὺς ἄρχοντας] as ministers of God, for they are judges of all unrighteousness, to whom pay taxes, tribute and every obligation with a willing mind. h You shall not proceed to your prayer in the day of your wickedness, before you have released your bitterness [πρὶν ἂ λύσῃς τὴν πικρίαν σου]. his is the way of life In which may you be found through Jesus Christ our Lord. in the irst place, the apostolic constitutions and canons emphasizes the importance of the teacher, not merely as the one who mediates the word of God and so facilitates the new birth of a person as a christian, but as having a continuing role in a patron-client relationship (proxenon). in other words, the intrusion of Greco-Roman patriarchy is now advanced. Block 2 remains largely intact with added reenforcement of examples and texts from the hebrew Bible in Greek, which does not always follow the septuagint. Double-mindedness, however, is now referred to prayer to God, rather than judgment in community assemblies, and is given the example of the Lord’s command to Peter to walk on the water. Block 3 likewise heightens the importance of giving to the needy with four quotations from Proverbs (15:27; 16:6; 19:17; 21:13) and an unidentiied saying at the conclusion, which is not unlike the addition given by drawn by Doctrina apostolorum from Did. 1.5: “for sharing in common has been provided by God for all human beings.” he hT in block 4 again remains largely unchanged with the addition of supporting material at the end of each of its three sections: from Proverbs (19:18), an allusion to the groaning of the people of israel in egypt and an insistence that the respect is “to the Lord and not to men,” similar in tone to eph 6:7, moving it toward the “in christ” terminology of the hT in the New Testament. Most interesting is the way in which the apostolic constitutions and canons inserts additional hT material in block 5. in the irst place is the second half of the parent-child reciprocal instruction that is missing in Didache: “care for your father and mother” based on the Decalogue in exod 20:12 and also isa 58:7; in the second place is the requirement to fear and honor the king as “elected by God” and other rulers who are “ministers of God.” No supporting texts are provided here. he instruction not to proceed to prayer “with an evil conscience” in Didache, however, refers instead to “in the day of your wickedness, before you have released your bitterness [τὴν πικρίαν σου],” which refers back to the bitterness of the DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 119 slave-master, broadened now to the bitterness displayed by and relected back toward all one’s social and political superiors, one’s κυρίοις. hus it echoes in a certain respect the concern of Barnabas, which turns a requirement to obey the slave-master to a requirement to obey the government or indeed any higher authority, in my opinion. finally, the apostolic constitutions and canons subordinates the whole Two Ways teaching to Jesus christ our Lord, something found also in the conclusion to the Vita Shenudi (is this a surviving trace of recognition of a Jewish or Jewish christian origin of the Two Ways material and a need to “baptize it”?). 8. conclusion he irst thing to emerge from this preliminary study is the consistent and indeed largely verbatim continuity in the central block of teaching concerning the community’s socioeconomic relations: the obligation to share all material things with the community, to call nothing one’s own, and to give especially freely to the poor and needy. his remains true from the earliest layers of the text in the Didache, Barnabas, and the Doctrina apostolorum to the latest layers of the text in the apostolic constitutions and canons, Vita Shenudi, ecclesiastical canons, and epitome apostolorum, as well as the later monastic rules. second, the structural analysis suggests that this insistence on calling nothing one’s own and sharing all things in common is directly linked to the instruction concerning children and slaves. children stood to lose their patrimony, while slaves might anticipate manumission. he instructions on socioeconomic relations directly and unequivocally reassert patriarchal authority and control in this context. hird, there is no moderation or counter to the absolute authority of a parent over a child nor any explicit requirement of a reciprocal relationship beyond what would be required of all members in the general love command (for example, 1.2). it is a one-way command to parents to enforce membership of the community on their children by physical punishment if necessary. slaves and slave-owners, on the other hand, clearly were more problematic, since as property, slaves posed a contradiction to the idea of common ownership of all things and calling nothing one’s own. Moreover, some halakic interpretations of property law might regard slaves as legally free if their masters renounce their property or put it into common ownership in a community of which slaves were also members. his calls forth extensive argumentation in the earliest representatives of the tradi- 120 The DiDache: a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe tion (Didache and Doctrina apostolorum). God views all human beings without favouritism; God calls all human beings to fear, and gives the holy spirit to those who do respond to this call. his imposes an obligation on the slave-owner to recognize their equality before God and to treat them appropriately, without bitterness at this social reversal. On the other hand, their slaves remain slaves and are required to be subject to their masters as a type of God. hey are not even allowed to dissemble hypocritically and give only lip service to their masters. fourth, the absence of an instruction concerning moderation in the exercise of parental discipline is partially addressed by Barnabas by attaching it to material drawn from elsewhere in the Two Ways: “You shall not kill a child in the womb and moreover you shall not put to death what has been born.” in this case, not only infanticide might be implied but also the patriarchal head of the family’s right to harm or kill his child. his is certainly suggested by the interpretation of the way of life given in syntagma 4.2: “Do not be aggressive. Do not strike anyone, except your small child for instruction, but observing it closely, watching lest through you murder is born, for many are the means of death.” fith, this diicult and even contradictory position with regard to slaves has impacted the transmission of the tradition. Barnabas takes great pains in reorganizing the tradition on socioeconomic relations so as to remove what seems to have been a continuing cause of tension. first, the Two Ways in chapters 18–20 is an advanced gnosis following on from what appears in chapters 1–17, concerning which the author says: “To the extent that it is possible clearly to explain these things to you, i hope, in accordance with my desire, that i have not omitted anything of the matters pertaining to salvation” (17.1). he author relocates the instructions concerning community of goods and calling nothing one’s own until ater the instructions concerning children and slaves. further, the author removes the reciprocality of master-slave instructions, since the instruction to slaves is transposed to appear before instructions to slave owners and transformed into an instruction to obey one’s superiors in general so that slaves are not addressed at all. instead, the same person is addressed by implication in both sections of the hT: “submit to your superiors and don’t abuse your slaves.” his rearranged block is prefaced with material from elsewhere in the Two Ways enjoining obedience in general and warning against coveting: “You must not covet your neighbour’s possessions; you must not become greedy. Do not be intimately associated with the loty, but live with the humble and righteous. accept as good the things DRaPeR: chiLDReN aND sLaVes iN The cOMMuNiTY 121 that happen to you, knowing that nothing transpires apart from God. You shall not be double-minded or double-tongued. Be submissive to masters” (19.6–7). slaves become objects and not subjects again, silent and not the addressees of the instruction. sixth, the absence of husband-wife instruction altogether is noteworthy and puzzling in a general instruction concerning social and economic relations in the community. Perhaps it can be explained on the basis of the rabbinical principle mentioned above, that everything that applies to women and children applies to slaves and vice versa. so the continued subjection of the women and children to their male patriarch was implied in the instruction on the continued subjection of slaves. finally, i suggest that the hT in the Two Ways tradition should not be passed over as quickly and silently as it has been in previous discussions of the hT tradition in the New Testament. indeed it may provide valuable missing pieces of the puzzle. his is because it comes with its own socioeconomic relations, namely, community of goods, and because the tradition as it develops provides clear evidence of initial tension and then evolution from being the fundamental rule for all who joined the community to become an advanced gnosis for ascetics that is not required of all christians. Despite this, or perhaps even because of this, the instruction to practice koinonia of goods and to call nothing one’s own survived as a continuing provocation and inspiration in the life of the church, as it has done until today. The DiDache early christianity and its Literature Gail R. O’Day, editor Warren carter Beverly Roberts Gaventa David horrell Judith M. Lieu Margaret Y. MacDonald Number 14 The DiDache a MissiNG Piece Of The PuzzLe iN eaRLY chRisTiaNiTY Edited by Jonathan a. Draper and clayton N. Jeford sBL Press atlanta copyright © 2015 by sBL Press all rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 copyright act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Oice, sBL Press, 825 houston Mill Road, atlanta, Ga 30329 usa. Library of congress cataloging-in-Publication Data The didache : a missing piece of the puzzle in early christianity / edited by Jonathan a. Draper and clayton N. Jefford. p. cm. — (society of Biblical Literature early christianity and its literature ; Number 14) includes bibliographical references and index. isBN isBN 978-1-62837-048-5 (paper binding : alk. paper) — isBN 978-1-62837049-2 (electronic format) — isBN 978-1-62837-050-8 (hardcover binding : alk. paper) 1. Didache. 2. christian ethics—history—early church, ca. 30-600. 3. church—history of doctrines—early church, ca. 30–600. i. Draper, Jonathan a. ii. Jefford, clayton N. Bs2940.T5D525 2015 270.1—dc23 2014036281 Printed on acid-free, recycled paper conforming to aNsi/NisO z39.48-1992 (R1997) and isO 9706:1994 standards for paper permanence. contents abbreviations ....................................................................................................ix introduction: Dynamics, Methodologies, and Progress in Didache studies clayton N. Jefford ......................................................................................1 Part 1: approaches to the Text as a Whole identity in the Didache community stephen finlan ..........................................................................................17 authority and Perspective in the Didache clayton N. Jefford ....................................................................................33 he Distress signals of Didache Research: Quest for a Viable future aaron Milavec...........................................................................................59 children and slaves in the community of the Didache and the Two Ways Tradition Jonathan a. Draper ..................................................................................85 Relections on the Didache and its community: a Response andrew Gregory .....................................................................................123 Part 2: Leadership and Liturgy Baptism and holiness: Two Requirements authorizing Participation in the Didache’s eucharist huub van de sandt .................................................................................139 vi cONTeNTs he Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the faultline of Judaism and christianity Peter J. Tomson .......................................................................................165 Pray “in his Way”: formalized speech in Didache 9–10 Jonathan schwiebert ..............................................................................189 he Ritual Meal in Didache 9–10: Progress in understanding John J. clabeaux .....................................................................................209 Response to essays on Leadership and Liturgy in the Didache Joseph G. Mueller, s.J. ............................................................................231 Part 3: The Didache and Matthew Before and ater Matthew e. Bruce Brooks ......................................................................................247 he sectio evangelica (Didache 1.3b–2.1) and Performance Perttu Nikander ......................................................................................287 he Didache and Oral heory Nancy Pardee ..........................................................................................311 from the sermon on the Mount to the Didache John W. Welch ........................................................................................335 he Lord Jesus and his coming in the Didache Murray J. smith ......................................................................................363 Matthew and the Didache: some comments on the comments Joseph Verheyden ...................................................................................409 Part 4: The Didache and Other early christian Texts Without Decree: Pagan sacriicial Meat and the early history of the Didache Matti Myllykoski ....................................................................................429 vii cONTeNTs another Gospel: exploring early christian Diversity with Paul and the Didache Taras Khomych .......................................................................................455 he first century Two Ways catechesis and hebrews 6:1–6 Matthew Larsen and Michael svigel ....................................................477 he Didache and Revelation alan J. P. Garrow ....................................................................................497 he Didache as a source for the Reconstruction of early christianity: a Response D. Jeffrey Bingham .................................................................................515 conclusion: Missing Pieces in the Puzzle or Wild Goose chase? a Retrospect and Prospect Jonathan a. Draper ................................................................................529 Bibliography ...................................................................................................545 contributors ...................................................................................................589 index of Primary Texts .................................................................................595 index of Modern authors.............................................................................625