auc Se he? “ “τ στον “μὰ aoe divitgicte dis are penton τ os i Ἐν an =| ae | ia = o Fram the Library of Professor Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield Benqueathed by him to the Hibrary of Princeton Chenlogical Seminary BO ache. \ colleetion of the texts, translations, reviews, etc. : Bo the ce. Ἴππος by 7 ’ κ Vo = hs ᾽ ¥ ᾿ 4 \ ! : ᾿ Ἂς ‘ " i { 4 1 ὶ τ ι Ls UG ᾿ ᾿ ‘ ao Fae j AIAAXH TON AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. “TEACHING OF tien LW HY APOSTLES: RECENTLY DISCOVERED AND PUBLISHED BY PHILOTHEOS BRYENNIOS, METROPOLITAN OF NICOMEDIA., EDITED WITH A TRANSLATION, INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, BY ROSWELL D. HITCHCOCK AND FRANCIS “BROWN, PROFESSORS IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS. 1884, Zz. ως, ΟΟΡΥΒΙΘΗΎ, 1884, By CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS. INTRODUCTION. In 1875 Philotheos Bryennios, then Metro- politan of Serrae (now Serres), in ancient Meso- potamia, published the two Epistles of Clement of Rome, from a manuscript discovered by him in the Library of the Most Holy Sepulchre in Fanar of Constantinople. ‘The last six chapters (60-65) of the First Epistle, and the last eight sections (13-20) of the so-called Second Epistle, had never been published before. The date of the manuscript is 1056 a.p. As described by the finder, “it is an octavo volume, written on iii INTRODUCTION. parchment, in cursive characters, and consists of 120 leaves.” First comes Chrysostom’s Synop- sis of the Books of the Old and New Testa- ment; then the Epistle of Barnabas; then the two Epistles of Clement; then the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; then the Epistle of Mary of Cassobelae to Ignatius; followed by eight Epistles of Ignatius (the current seven, besides one to the Virgin Mary). | The “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” Διδαχὴ τῶν dddexa ᾿Αποστόλων, occupies leaves 76-80 of the manuscript. It now seems strange to us that the document thus announced at- tracted so little attention. This same Bryen- nios, now Metropolitan of Nicomedia, in Asia Minor, has again surprised the literary world by publishing, with an abundance of learned illus- tration, this long-lost document. It is printed in Constantinople, and the date of publication 15. 1883. The genuineness of the document can hardly be doubted. It is cited by Clement of Alexandria in his First Stroma; by Eusebius, iv INTRODUCTION. who speaks of it (Hist. mi. 25) as τῶν ᾿Αποσ- τόλων at λεγόμεναι διδαχαί; and by Athanasius in his 39th Festal Epistle. Bickell and Geb- hardt had recently argued that there must have been some such document underlying both the Seventh Book of the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apostolic Epitome. In 1882 Kra- wutzky undertook, from these sources, to re- cover and reconstruct the embedded earlier and simpler document; and with a success of the most pronounced and brilliant character, as now tested by the work just published. This document belongs undoubtedly to the second century; possibly as far back as 120 A.D., hardly later than 160 a.p. The whole tone of it is archaic. It contradicts nothing belong- ing to that age; corroborates some things which may henceforth be more strongly emphasized ; and adds some things for which we may well be very profoundly grateful. The present editors are happy to be able to put this “ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” so ν INTRODUOTION. promptly before the American public. The text has been carefully edited. The translation will be found to be studiously literal. A few notes have been added, which, it is hoped, may be of service both to students and to general readers. | Roswety D. Hrrcncock. Franois Brown. UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, New YorK City, March 20, 1884. vi AIAAXH TON AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. AIAAXKH TON AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. Atdayn Κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν. | “ δ a a “Ὁ Κεφ. a. ᾿Οδοὶ δύο εἰσί, μία τῆς ζωῆς καὶ μία τοῦ ϑανά- του, διαφορὰ δὲ πολλὴ μεταξὺ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν. ἩΧΞ \ > EQOA aA an > Ὁ a 5 - Ἢ μὲν οὖν ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς ἐστιν αὕτη " πρῶτον, 3 / XN \ \ / 'f is ἀγαπήσεις τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντά σε" δεύτε- \ , e ih / ἌΡ . ρον, τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν " πάντα δὲ ὅσα ΨΝ le \ / “ \ \ 3 \ ἐὰν ϑελήσῃς μὴ γίνεσϑαί σοι, καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ μὴ ποίει. “ Τούτων δὲ τῶν λόγων ἡ διδωχή ἐστιν : e > a \ / (Serpe es \ 10 αὕτη: ΕΕΕὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμῖν καὶ προσεύχεσϑε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχϑρῶν ὑμῶν, νηστεύετε \ A n \ / δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς - ποία yap χάρις, Ω 7 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. TEACHING OF THE Lorp, THROUGH THE TWELVE APos- TLES, TO THE NATIONS. Cuap. I.—T'wo ways there are, one of life and one of death, but there isa creat difference between: the two ways. ‘The way of life, then, is this: First, thou shalt love the God who made thee; secondly, thy neighbor as thyself ; and all things whatsoever thou wouldst not have befall thee, thou, too, do not to another. Now of these words the teaching is this: Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for them that persecute you: for what thank have ye if ye ὃ 15 20 25. 30 AIAAXH ΤΩΝ ΔΏΔΕΚΑ ATIOSTOAQON. Lal Lal an aT \ ἐὰν ayaTrate τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς ; οὐχὶ καὶ τὰ 397 ἊΝ 3 ΘᾺ, a) ς \ Ne A \ ἔϑνη τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν ; ὑμεὶς δὲ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς A ¢€ lal ΧΝ > (4 3 / 9 μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς καὶ οὐχ ἕξετε ἐχϑρόν. ᾿Α πέχου τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ κοσμικῶν ἐπιϑυμιῶν. ᾿Εάν δῷ ῥά α εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα τις σοι δῷ ῥάπισμα εἰς τὴν γόνα, / 3 A \ \ 7 \ BA 7 στρέψον αὑτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἔσῃ τέλειος " ΦᾺΝ, 3 ΄ / / v4 ce 3 3 ἐὰν ἀγγαρεύσῃ σέ τις μίλιον ἕν, ὕπωγε μετ᾽ av- na / aN 37 ἊΝ e / “ A 3 a τοῦ δύο" ἐὰν ἄρῃ τις TO ἱμάτιόν σου, δὸς αὐτῷ \ A a 24 / 2 \ n \ t καὶ TOV χυτῶνα" ἐὰν λάβῃ TLS ἀπὸ σοῦ TO σόν, μὴ ἀπαίτει" οὐδὲ γὰρ δύνασαι. Παντὶ τῷ ai- a / n τοῦντί σε δίδου Kal μὴ ἀπαίτει" πᾶσι yap ϑέλει / ξ \ 3 n 20 7 i δίδοσϑαν ὁ πατὴρ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων χαρισμάτων. ς la) Μακάριος ὁ διδοὺς κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν" ἀϑῶος tA 3 2 ἮΝ A / 3 \ εἶ γάρ ἐστιν" οὐαὶ τῷ λαμβάνοντι" εἰ μὲν γὰρ 5 a e χρείαν ἔχων λαμβάνει τις, ἀϑῶος ἔσται" ὁ δὲ \ 7] 57 J fi ς ΧΡ \ > μὴ χρείαν ἔχων δώσει δίκην, ἱνατί ἔλαβε καὶ εἰς 73 A Χ 7 3 / \ τί, ἐν συνοχῇ δὲ γενόμενος ἐξετασϑήσεταν περὶ ce 7 ἕξ \ 3 3 Ἂ 7 é 28 7 ὧν ἔπραξε, καὶ οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται ἐκεῖϑεν μέχρις οὗ ἀποδῷ τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ \ / Ἂ 5 ¢ / cr Vg περὶ τούτου δὴ εἴρηται" ᾿Ιδρωσάτω ἡ ἐλεημοσύ- Ν a / XN a vy cov εἰς TAS χεῖράς σου, μέχρις ἂν γνῷς τίνι das. 35 Κεφ. β΄. Δευτέρα δὲ ἐντολὴ τῆς διδαχῆς Οὐ φονεύσεις, 3 ΄ 5 / 3 Sr οὐ μοιχεύσεις, OV παιδοφϑορήσεις, οὐ πορνεύσεις, 4 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. love them that love you? Do not the nations also the same? But love ye them that hate you and ye shall have no enemy. Abstain from the fleshly and worldly lusts. If any one give thee a blow on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect ; if any one compel thee to go one mile, go with him two; if any one take thy cloak, give him thy tunic also; if any one take from thee what is thine, ask it not back; for indeed thou canst not. To every one that asketh thee give, and ask not back; for to all the Father desires to give of his own gracious gifts. Blessed is he that giveth according to the commandment ; for he is guiltless; wo to him that taketh; for if, indeed, one taketh who hath need, he shall be guiltless ; but he who hath no need shall give account, why he took, and for what purpose, and coming under arrest shall be ex- amined concerning what he did, and shall not go out thence until he pay the last farthing. But it hath been also said concerning this matter: Let thine alms sweat in thy hands, until thou knowest to whom thou shouldst give. Cuap. Il.—Now the second commandment of the teaching 2s: Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not 5 40 45 ὃ0 Keg. 55 60 AIAAXH ΤΩΝ AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQON. 3 ig 3 , 3 , 3 οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ μαγεύσεις, οὐ φαρμακεύσεις, οὐ 4 7 2 a 50. x > φονεύσεις τέκνον ἐν φϑορᾷ οὐδὲ γεννηϑὲν ἀπο- κτενεῖς. Οὐκ ἐπιϑυμήσεις τὰ τοῦ πλησίον, 3 3 / 3 Va > οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, OV ψευδομαρτυρήσεις, οὐ κακο- λογήσεις, οὐ μνησικακήσεις. Οὐκ ἔσῃ διυγνώμων οὐδὲ δύγλωσσος " παγὶς γὰρ ϑανάτου ἡ SuyAwo- σία. Οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λόγος σου ψευδής, οὐ κενός, ἀλλὰ μεμεστωμένος πράξει. Οὐκ ἔσῃ πλεονέκ- 3 Eee: 9 \ e \ 3 Xx / της οὐδὲ ἅρπαξ οὐδὲ ὑποκριτὴς οὐδὲ κακοήϑης οὐδὲ ὑπερήφανος. Οὐ λήψῃ βουλὴν πονηρὰν Q\ fal / 3 ᾽ be 5 κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον cov. Οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄν- JIpwrrov, ἀλλὰ ods μὲν ἐλέγξεις, περὶ δὲ ὧν προσ- 7 ἃ Nee / € \ \ , εὔξῃ, ods δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου. 4 4 “ 3 > x le) \ γ΄. Τέκνον pov, φεῦγε ἀπὸ παντὸς πονηροῦ Kat 3 \ \ Ξ (ὦ 3 a \ / 2 , ὃ ἀπὸ παντὸς ομοίου αὐτοῦ" Μὴ γίνου ὀργίλος " ὁδηγεῖ γὰρ ἡ ὀργὴ πρὸς τὸν φόνον" μηδὲ ζηλω- δ Χ 3 \ ys 4 3 N ‘a τὴς μηδὲ ἐριστικὸς μηδὲ ϑυμικός - ἐκ γὰρ τού- των ἁπάντων φόνοι γεννῶνται. Τέκνον μου, μὴ I > / ε La \ cy 3 ‘ Ν γίνου ἐπιϑυμητής " ὁδηγεῖ γὰρ ἡ ἐπιϑυμία πρὸς τὴν πορνείαν " μηδὲ αἰσχρολόγος μηδὲ ὑψηλόφ- ϑαλμος " ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἀπάντων μουχεῖαι γεν- νῶνται. Τέκνον μου, μὴ γίνου οἰωνοσκόπος " ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν᾽" μηδὲ ἐπα- οὐδὸς μηδὲ μαϑηματικὸς μηδὲ περικαϑαίρων, ' 6 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not practise magic, thou shalt not use sorcery, thou shalt not slay a child by abortion, nor what is begotten shalt thou destroy. Thou shalt not lust after the things of thy neighbor, thou shalt not forswear thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not re- vile, thou shalt not bear malice. Thou shalt not be doubled-minded nor doubled-tongued; for a snare of death is the double tongue. | Thy speech shall not be false, nor empty, but filled with doing. Thou shalt not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor malicious, nor arrogant. ‘Thou shalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbor.| Thou shalt hate no man, but some thou shalt reprove, and for some thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love above thy life. Cuap. I1].—My child, flee from every evil thing, and from everything like it. Be not inclined to anger, for anger leadeth to murder; nor jealous, nor contentious, nor passionate ; for of all these murders are begotten. My child, become not lustful; for lust leadeth to for- nication ; nor foul-mouthed, nor lofty-eyed ; for of all these things adulteries are begotten. My child, become not an omen-watcher; since it leadeth into idolatry ; nor an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, nor 7 65 το τὸ Κεφ. δ΄. δ0 AIAAXH TQN AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ. μηδὲ ϑέλε αὐτὰ βλέπειν" ἐκ yap τούτων ἅπάν- Tov εἰδωλολατρεία γεννῶται. Τέκνον μου, μὴ γίνου ψεύστης" ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ τὸ ψεῦσμα εἰς τὴν κλοπήν " μηδὲ φιλάργυρος μηδὲ κενόδοξος" 3 \ ’ e ZL \ A , ἐκ yap τούτων ἁπάντων κλοπαὶ γεννῶνται. Téx- νον μου. μὴ γίνου γόγγυσος " ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν βλασφημίαν : μηδὲ αὐϑάδης μηδὲ πονηρόφρων- 3 \ ΄ ΕἸ , A { ἐκ yap τούτων ἁπάντων βλασφημίαι γεννῶνται. Ἴσϑι δὲ mpais, ἐπεὶ οἱ πραεῖς κληρονομήσουσι τὴν γῆν. Γίνου μακρόϑυμος καὶ ἐλεήμων καὶ 3 Weis » Δ 9 N \ f \ ἄκακος καὶ ἡσύχιος Kal ayados καὶ τρέμων τοὺς λόγους διὰ παντός, ods ἤκουσας. Οὐκ ὑψώσεις σεαυτὸν οὐδὲ δώσεις τῇ ψυχῇ σου ϑράσος. Οὐ κολληϑήσεται ἡ ψυχή σου μετὰ ὑψηλῶν, ἀλλὰ Ἂ ΄ \ lal > 7 \ μετὰ δικαίων καὶ ταπεινῶν ἀναστραφήσῃ. Τὰ - > ia φᾷ >) \ συμβαίνοντά σοι ἐνεργήματα ws ἀγαϑὰ προσ- δέξῃ, εἰδὼς ὅτι ἄτερ Θεοῦ οὐδὲν γίνεται. Τέκνον μου, τοῦ λαλοῦντός σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μνησϑήσῃ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, τιμήσεις δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς Κύριον" ὅϑεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεὶ Κύριός ἐστιν. ᾿Εἰκζητήσεις δὲ kal ἡμέραν Ta πρόσωπα τῶν ἁγίων, ἵνα ἐπαναπαύῃ τοῖς λόγοις αὐτῶν. Οὐ ποϑήσεις σχίσμα, εἰρηνεύ- σεις δὲ μαχομένους " κρινεῖς δικαίως, οὐ λήψῃ 8 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. be willing to look upon these things; for of all these things idolatry is begotten. My child, become not a liar ; since lying leads to theft; nor avaricious, nor vain- glorious; for of all these things thefts are begotten. My child, become not a murmurer; since it leads to blasphemy ; nor presumptuous, nor evil-minded ; for of all these things blasphemies are begotten. But be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. Become long- suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good, and tremble continually at the words which thou hast heard. Thon shalt not exalt thyself, nor permit over- boldness to thy soul. Thy soul shall not cleave to the high, but with the righteous and lowly thou shalt dwell. The things that befall thee accept as well- wrought, knowing that without God nothing occurs. Cuar. [V.—My child, him that speaks to thee the word of God remember night and day, and thou shalt honor him as the Lord; for where that which pertaineth to the Lord is spoken there the Lord is. And thou shalt seek out daily the faces of the saints that thou mayst be refreshed by their words. Thou shalt not desire division, but shalt make peace between those who contend ; thou 9 90 95 100 105 AIAAXH ΤΩΝ AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ, πρόσωπον ἐλέγξαι ἐπὶ παραπτώμασιν. Ov δι- / , ” x 3, « \ 7 \ ψυχήσεις, πότερον ἔσται ἢ ov, . Μὴ γίνου πρὸς \ \ a ᾽ / \ lal pr \ \ μὲν τὸ λαβεῖν ἐκτείνων Tas χεῖρας, πρὸς δὲ τὸ δοῦναι συσπῶν᾽" ἐὰν ἔχῃς, διὰ τῶν χειρῶν σου δώσεις λύτρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν σου. Οὐ διστάσεις ὃ a +Q\ \ us 4 \ / ovvat οὐδὲ διδοὺς γογγύσεις " γνώσῃ yap τίς 3 ε A A \ 3 , > ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ μισϑοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης. Οὐκ ἀποστραφήσῃ τὸν ἐνδεόμενον, συγκοινωνήσεις Χ / Aes ΔΝ Ν > > NTE 2 δὲ πάντα TO ἀδελφῷ Gov Kal οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι" 5 \ > aA > ΨΖ 3 ᾿ς εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἀϑανάτῳ κοινωνοί ἐστε, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς ϑνητοῖς ; Οὐκ ἀρεῖς τὴν χεῖρά σου ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ σου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς ϑυγατρός σου, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ νεότητος διδάξεις τὸν φόβον τοῦ Θεοῦ. Οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις δούλῳ σου ἢ παιδίσκῃ, “ 5 \ \ 3 Ἂν x 3 7ὕ 3 , τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Θεὸν ἐλπίζουσιν, ἐν πικρίᾳ Vi 3 \ 7 \ pee) > σου, μήποτε ov μὴ φοβηϑήσονται τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμ- φοτέροις Θεόν" οὐ γὰρ ἔρχεται κατὰ πρόσωπον καλέσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ods τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν. Ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι ὑποτωγήσεσϑε τοῖς κυρίοις e n ¢€ vA an > 9 fe \ fr ὑμῶν ws τύπῳ Θεοῦ ἐν αἰσχύνῃ Kal φόβῳ. ? an e , Ἂ a A at 3 Μισήσεις πᾶσαν ὑπόκρισιν καὶ πᾶν ὃ μὴ ἀρεσ- a > Ἂ τὸν τῷ Κυρίῳ. Οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἐντολὰς 7) 7 ν ἃ lL pone Κυρίου, φυλάξεις δὲ ἃ παρέλαβες, μήτε προστι- > an ? of , Seis μήτε ἀφαιρῶν. ᾽ν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐξομολογήσῃ 7 5 \ Ta παραπτώματά TOV, καὶ οὐ προσελεύσῃ ἐπὶ 10 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. shalt judge justly, thou shalt not respect persons in con- victing for transgressions. Thou shalt not hesitate whether it shall be or not. Become not one who for tak- ing stretches out the hands, but for giving draws them in; if thou hast anything, by thy hands thou shalt give a ransom for thy sins. Thou shalt not hesitate to give, nor when giving shalt thou murmur, for thou shalt know who is the good dispenser of the recompense. Thou shalt not turn away the needy, but shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt not say they are thine own; for if ve are partners in that which is imperishable, how much more in the perishable things? Thou shalt not take off thy hand from thy son and from thy daughter, but from youth thou shalt teach ¢hem the fear of God. “~ Thou shalt not lay commands in thy bitterness upon thy slave or handmaid, who hope in the same God, lest they perchance shalt not fear the God who is over yow both ; for he cometh not to call men according to the ap- pearance, but to those whom the Spirit hath made ready. And ye, slaves, ye shall be subject to your lords, as to God’s image, in modesty and fear. / Thou shalt hate every hypocrisy, and whatever is not pleasing to the Lord. Thou shalt by no means forsake the Lord’s commandments, but shalt guard what thou hast received, neither adding to it nor taking from it. In the church gal 110 Ked. ε΄. 120 125 130 Κεφ. ς΄. AIAAXH TON AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ. / 3 5 ΄ - AS προσευχήν σου εν συνειόοήῆσει TOVHPa. UT?) ἐστὶν ἡ ὁδὸς τὴς ζωῆς. Ἢ δὲ τοῦ ϑανάτου ὁδός ἐστιν αὕτη" πρῶτον πάντων πονηρά ἐστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή" φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, ἐπιϑυμίαι, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, εἰδωλο- λατρεῖαι, μωγεῖαι, φαρμακεῖαι, ἁρπωγαί, ψευδο- μαρτυρίαι, ὑποκρίσεις, δυιπλοκαρδία, δόλος, ὑπερ- ηφανία, κακία, αὐϑάδεια, πλεονεξία, αἰσχρολο- γία, ζηλοτυπία, ϑρασύτης, ὕψος, ἀλαζονεία " διῶκται ἀγαϑῶν, μισοῦντες ἀλήϑειαν, ἀγαπῶν. τες ψεῦδος, οὐ γινώσκοντες μισϑὸν δικαιο- σύνης, οὐ κολλώμενοι ἀγαϑῷ οὐδὲ κρίσει δι- καίᾳ, ἀγρυπνοῦντες οὐκ εἰς τὸ ἀγαϑόν, GAN εἰς τὸ πονηρόν" ὧν μακρὰν πραὕὔτης καὶ ὕὑπο- μονή, μάταια ἀγαπῶντες, διώκοντες ἀνταπό- δομα, οὐκ ἐλεοῦντες πτωχόν, οὐ πονοῦντες ἐπὶ καταπονουμένῳ, οὐ γινώσκοντες τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτούς, φονεῖς τέκνων, φϑορεῖς πλάσματος Θεοῦ, ἀποστρεφόμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμενον, καταπονοῦντες τὸν ϑλιβόμενον, πλουσίων παράκλητοι, πενή- τῶν ἄνομοι κριταί, πανϑαμάρτητοι" ῥυσϑείητε, τέκνα, ἀπὸ τούτων ἁπάντων. ed lf , 3 + f A e fal Opa μή τις σε πλανήσῃ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς διδαχῆς, ἐπεὶ παρεκτὸς Θεοῦ σε διδάσκει. 19 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and shalt not come forward for thy prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. παρ. V.—Now the way of death is this: first of all it is evil, and full of curse ; murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, sorceries, rob- beries, false testimonies, hypocrisies, duplicity, craft, arrogance, vice, presumptuousness, greed, foul speech, jealousy, over-boldness, loftiness, pretence *“persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving falsehood, knowing not the reward of righteousness, not cleaving to that which 7s good nor to righteous judgment, on the watch not for good but for evil; far from whom are meekness and humility, loving vanities, pursuing revenge, not pitying a poor man, not laboring for the distressed, not knowing him that made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the image of God, turning away the needy, oppressing the afflicted, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, universal sinners: may ye be delivered, children, from all these. Cuap. VI—See that no one lead thee astray from this way of the teaching, because apart from God does 13 Oo AIAAXH TQN AQAEKA ATIOSTOAON. Εἰ μὲν yap δύνασαι βαστάσαι ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, τέλειος ἔσῃ" εἰ δ᾽ οὐ δύνασαι, ὃ δύνῃ τοῦτο ποίει. Περὶ δὲ τῆς βρώσεως, ὃ δύνασαι βάστασον" ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ εἰδωλοϑύτου λίαν πρόσ- / if 3 lal an eye’ λατρεία yap ἐστι Θεῶν νεκρῶν. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε" ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ 57 ia \ \ la) cares 4 n id / ὄνομα τοῦ ]]ατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Tiov καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. ᾿Εὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχης ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον" εἰ δ᾽ οὐ ΜΕ 3 “Ὁ 2 prs ? \ b] ’ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ, ἐν ϑερμῷ." ᾿Εὰν δε ἀμφότερα \ ” ” 2 Ἂ \ 4 ¢e/ 2 μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα ]]ατρὸς καὶ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπ- τίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύ- νανται" κελεύσεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζό- μενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο. / a A A Κεφ. η. At δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν OU ¢ fe it Ν ΄ ὑποκριτῶν: νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρᾳ σαββά- των καὶ πέμπτῃ" ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετ- pada καὶ παρασκευήν. Μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί, GAN ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ Κύριος ἢ A 2 ῃ 3 a ef ’ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ, οὕτω προσεύχεσϑε" 14 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. he teach thee. [or if thou art able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect; but if thou art not able, what thou art able, that do.. And concerning food, what thou art able, bear; but of that offered to idols, beware exceedingly ; for it is a worship of dead gods. Cuar. VII.—Now concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first uttered all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. ~ But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, ¢hen in warm.~ But if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice, into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and whatever others can; but the baptized thou shalt command to fast for two or three days before. : ὕπαρ. VITI.—But let not your fastings be appointed in common with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second day of the week and on the fifth; but do ye fast during the fourth, and the preparation day. Nor pray ye like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his 15 - 100 175 180 AIAAXH ΤΩΝ AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. , a [4 a 9 a Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ἁγιασϑήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενη- oot Ν \4 , € 3 > a SH. e) %, an ήτω TO VEANMA TOV ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ Kal ἐπὶ γῆς" \ ” Cla \ 3 Ἀ coon ΄ ἱ τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμε-᾿ \ 7 chan \ 2 Ἅ ς a ς ‘ pov καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὴν οὀφείλην ἡμῶν ὡς Kat ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς "ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν, καὶ μὴ 325 , δ᾿ > ΄ 9 ἈΠ ΓΕ ἐν es ELTEVEYKNS ἡμᾶς ELS πείρασμον, AAAA ρῦσαν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ" ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ’ 3 \ IA \ a ες , “ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Tpis τῆς ἡμέρας οὕτω προσεύχεσθε. \ A ,ὔ / ; Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας, οὕτως εὐχαριστήσατε" πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου" Εἰὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου AaBis A / Ὁ 3 ΄, ὶ Ὁ “ Δ 99» fal Tov παιδός σου, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου" σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ κλάσματος ' Εἰὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου" σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς \ 7A ed ΩΝ Le} » 4 τοὺς αἰῶνας. “Ὥσπερ ἣν τοῦτο κλάσμα διεσκορ- πισμένον ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων καὶ συναχϑὲν ἐγέ- Ψ ef ape nh eee ͵ Sos veto ἕν, οὕτω συναχ'δήτω σου ἡ ἐκκλησία ἀπὸ la) , A a 3 \ \ “ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν " δ Lal . \ 2 ΄΄. ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δοξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ ᾿]ησοῦ a fo hee x \ i Χριστοῦ els τοὺς αἰῶνας. Mydeis δὲ φαγέτω “16 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, Hal- lowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth; our daily bread give us to-day, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors, and bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for thine is the power and the glory forever. Three times in the day pray ye thus. παρ. [X.—Now concerning the Eucharist, thus give thanks ; first, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David thy servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant ; to thee be the glory forever. And concerning the broken dread: We thank thee, our Father, for the life and the knowledge which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant; to thee be the glory forever. Just as this broken dread was scattered over the hills and having been gathered together became one, so let thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom; for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat 17 185 Κεφ. 190 195 AIAAXH TQN ΔΏΔΕΚΑ ATIOSTOAQN. Ν / 5 Ἂ an b) , e A 5 5 ς μηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ὑμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ if > 9 7 Α x ‘ βαπτισϑέντες εἰς ὄνομα Κυρίου: καὶ yap περὶ / 7 ς ΄ \ a Nee, “ τούτου εἴρηκεν 0 Κύριος - Mn δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς ’ Κύυσι. “. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐμπλησϑῆναι οὕτως εὐχαριστή- > la) J ΄ A € \ an σατε" Εἰὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ayiov ὀνόματός σου, οὗ κατεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίσ- A ’ / “Ὁ 3 ν δ a Ν τεως καὶ ἀδανασίας" ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ ΙΙησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου" σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς aA / “ ig ” : \ αἰῶνας. Σύ, δέσποτα παντοκράτορ, ἔκτισάς τὰ πάντα ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός σου, τροφήν τε καὶ ή N 57 ἴω 3 7 3 2 / ind ποτὸν ἔδωκας τοῖς aVSpwTrols εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν ἵνα σοι εὐχαριστήσωσιν, ἡμῖν δὲ ἐχαρίσω πνευ- \ Ν \ Χ \ Χ 37 \ ματικὴν τροφὴν καὶ ποτὸν καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ τοῦ παιδός σου. Πρὸ πάντων εὐχαριστοῦμέν ¢ \ 3 NPAC ἢ 2 x ΟΝ σοι ὅτι δυνατὸς εἶ" σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. la 7 n 3 “ “Ὁ ΞᾺ Μνήσϑητι, Κύριε, τῆς ἐκκλησίας σου τοῦ ῥύσα- Stu > Ν Ν a \ lal ONAL αὐτὴν ἀπὸ παντὸς πονηροῦ καὶ τελειῶσαι » \ 3 la) 3 / ‘ Ν ! > x > XN αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου, Kal σύναξον αὐτὴν ἀπὸ a , an 3 τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, τὴν ἁγιασϑεῖσαν εἰς τὴν \ "4 ἃ e€ / ’ a (v4 ἴω σὴν βασιλείαν, ἣν ἡτοίμασας αὐτῇ" ὅτι σοῦ 3 ς , ἫΝ ς / >] \ IA ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις Kal ἡ δόξα εἰς TOUS αἰῶνας. ᾿Ελϑέτω χάρις καὶ παρελϑέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος. 18 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. or drink of your Eucharist, except those baptized into the Lord’s name; for in regard to this the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Cuap. X.—Now after ye are filled thus do ye give thanks: We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name, which thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou hast made known to us through Jesus thy servant ; to thee be the glory forever. Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for thy name’s sake; both food and drink thou didst give to men for enjoyment, in order that they might give thanks to thee; but to us thou hast graciously given spiritual food and drink and eternal life through thy servant. Before all things, we thank thee that thou art powerful; to thee be the glory forever. Remember, Lord, thy church, to de- liver it from every evil and to make it perfect in thy love, and gather it from the four winds, ὁ, the sancti- fied, into thy kingdom, which thou hast prepared for it; for thine is the power and the glory forever. — Let grace come and let this world pass away. Hosanna to 205 Κεφ. ta’. 210 215 225 » AIAAXH ΤΩΝ ΔΏΔΕΚΑ AIIOSTOAQN. ‘Ncoavva τῷ υἱῷ Δαβίδ. Ei τις ἅγιός ἐστιν, ἐρ- χέσϑω:" εἴ τις οὐκ ἔστι, μετανοείτω᾽ apavadd. "Aunv. Tots δὲ προφήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχα- ριστεῖν ὅσα δέλουσιν. Ὃς ἂν οὖν ἐλθὼν διδάξῃ ὑμᾶς ταῦτα πάντα, Ta προειρημένα, deEaoSe αὐτόν: ἐὰν δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκων στραφεὶς διδάσκῃ ἄλλην διδαχὴν εἰς aN A \ ἂν nr 3 ih 3 \ \ TO καταλῦσαι, μὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε" εἰς δὲ TO A ' / \ A , προσϑεῖναι δικαιοσύνην καὶ γνῶσιν Κυρίου, δέξασϑε αὐτὸν ὡς Κύριον. Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἀποσ- Ul 4 A \ a 4 “ > τόλων καὶ προφητῶν κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τοῦ εὐαγ- γελίου, οὕτω ποιήσατε. Πᾶς δὲ ἀπόστολος 9 , \ ς: δα 7 e , 9 ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς δεχϑήτω ὡς Κύριος" οὐ a \ δ, Σ ! EN \ ΜΕ / \ a μενεῖ δὲ ἡμέραν μίαν" ἐὰν δὲ ἢ χρεία, καὶ τὴν ἄλλην: τρεῖς δὲ ἐὰν μείνῃ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστίν. ᾿Εξερχόμενος δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος μηδὲν λαμ- B 2 Fan ” Ψ ce 3 QF 3N\ δὲ > ἀνέτω εἰμὴ ἄρτον ἕως οὗ αὐλισδῇ " ἐὰν δὲ ἀρ- γύριον αἰτῇ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί. Καὶ πάντα 7, a 5 Σ ", > / προφήτην λαλοῦντα ἐν πνεύματι οὐ πειράσετε οὐδὲ διακρινεῖτε: πᾶσα γὰρ ἁμαρτία ἀφεϑή- ec \ € e t > 3 ͵ ᾽ σεται, αὕτη δὲ ἡ ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἀφεϑήσεται. Οὐ A Nile an > ’ , > ͵ πᾶς δὲ ὁ λαλῶν ἐν πνεύματι προφήτης ἐστίν, 3 ΄ : 5 ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τοὺς Ὑρόπους Κυρίου. “Amo οὖν a , 7 © / \ τῶν τρόπων γνωσδήσεται ὃ ψευδοπροφήτης καὶ “0 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. the son of David! Whoever is holy, let him come; whoever is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen. But permit the prophets to give thanks as much as they will. Cuap. XI.—Now whoever cometh and teacheth you all these things, before spoken, receive him ; but if the teacher himself turn aside and teach another teaching, so as to overthrow ¢his, do not hear him; but {7 he teach so as to promote righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But in regard to the apostles and prophets, according to the ordinance of the gospel, so do ye. And every apostle who cometh to you, let him be received as the Lord; but he shall not remain more than one day; if, however, there be need, then the next day ; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. But when the apostle departeth, let him take nothing except bread enough till he lodge again ; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaketh in the spirit, ye shall not try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one that speaketh in the spirit is a prophet, but only if he have the ways of the Lord. So from their ways shall the false prophet 21 230 255 240 AIAAXH TON AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. \ “Ὁ ὁ προφήτης. Καὶ πᾶς προφήτης ὁρίζων τρά- 5 , b) , > b] 2 LES IO \ πεζαν ἐν πνεύματι, οὐ φάγεται ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, cide μήγε ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί, πᾶς δὲ προφήτης διδάσκων τὴν ἀλήϑειαν, εἰ ἃ διδάσκει οὐ ποιεῖ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί. Πᾶς δὲ προφήτης δεδοκι- , - μασμένος, ἀληϑινός, ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον κοσμι- XN 3 , \ / \ lal Ὁ ϑέψον κὸν ἐκκλησίας, μὴ διδάσκων δὲ ποιεῖν ὅσα αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, οὐ κριθήσεται ἐφ᾽ ὑμῶν "Γμετὰ Θεοῦ γὰρ ἔχει τὴν κρίσιν: ὠσαύτως γὰρ ἐποίησαν καὶ οἱ 5 A a « 2 Ἃ » 2 t ἀρχαῖοι προφῆται. νὸς δ᾽ ἂν εἴπη ἐν πνεύματι" ' b) , Ἄς of , 3 3 If Aos μοι ἀργύρια ἢ ἕτερά τινα, οὐκ ἀκούσεσϑε 3 a ὟΝ \ i ” Ὁ, 7 yy αὐτοῦ" ἐὰν δὲ περὶ ἄλλων ὑστερούντων εἴπῃ A 4 δοῦναι, μηδεὶς αὐτὸν κρινέτω. Κεφ. ιβ΄. Πᾶς δὲ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου δεχ- 245 250 V4 37 4 ΄’ 9 Ἂς 6 ϑήτω, ἔπειτα δὲ δοκιμάσαντες αὐτὸν γνώσεσϑε:" , Ν (A ὃ \ \ 69. ? oye yt σύνεσιν yap ἕξετε δεξιὰν καὶ ἀριστεράν. Εἰμὲν. f r > ee} ’ a 3 ey, παρόδιός ἐστιν ὁ ἐρχόμενος, βοηϑεῖτε αὐτῷ ὅσον , > - \ Δ ¢ “ 2 \ 7 BY δύνασθε: ov μενεῖ δὲ πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰ μὴ δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἡμέρας, ἐὰν ἢ ἀνάγκη. Hi δὲ θέλει πρὸς Ψ “Ὁ “ if by 4 2 4 \ ὑμᾶς καθῆσαι, τεχνίτης ὦν, ἐργαζέσϑω καὶ φαγέτω᾽ εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔχει τέχνην, κατὰ τὴν σύνεσιν ὑμῶν προνοήσατε, πῶς μὴ ἀργὸς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ζήσε- 4 ’ 3 > Ms WA La} Tat χριστιανός. Εἰ δ᾽ ov θέλει οὕτω ποιεῖν, χρισ- , a / τέμπορός ἐστι" προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων. 22 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. and the prophet be known. And no prophet who or- ders a meal, in the spirit, eateth of it, unless indeed he is a false prophet ;/ and every prophet who teacheth the truth, if he do not that which he teacheth, is a false prophet. But every prophet, proved, true, acting with a view to the mystery of the church on earth, but not teaching others to do all that he himself doeth, shall not be judged among you; for with God he hath his judgment; for so did the ancient prophets also. But whoever, in the spirit, says: Give me money, or some- thing else, ye shall not hear him; but if for others in need, he bids you give, let no one judge him. Cuar. XIJ.—But let every one that cometh in the Lord’s name be received, but afterward ye shall test and know him; for ye shall have understanding, right and left. If he who comes is a traveller, help him as much ΄ as ye can; but he shall not remain with you, unless for two or three days, if there be necessity. But if he will take up his abode among you, being an artisan, let him work and.so eat; but if he have no trade, provide, according to your understanding, that no idler live with you asa Christian. But if he will not act accord- ing to this, he is one who makes gain out of Christ ; be- ware of such. 23 Κεφ. ty” bo Or Or 260 Κεφ. ιδ΄. 270 275 AIAAXH TQN AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQON. Πᾶς δὲ προφήτης ἀληϑινός, ϑέλων καϑῆσαι \ Ὁ A 47 if 3 a A =) a c 7 πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἄξιός ἐστι τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ. ᾿Ὠσαύ- τως διδάσκαλος ἀληϑινός ἐστιν ἄξιος καὶ av- f er ς 3 / n n 2 n an TOS, ὥςπερ ὁ ἐργάτης, τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ. ITa- σαν οὗν ἀπαρχὴν γεννημάτων ληνοῦ καὶ ἅλωνος, βοῶν τε καὶ προβάτων λαβὼν δώσεις τοῖς προ- φήταις" αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν at ἀρχιερεῖς ὑμῶν. 9 \ \ . » 7, r a ox Eady δὲ μὴ ἔχητε προφήτην, δότε τοῖς πτωχοῖς. ᾿Εὰν σιτίαν ποιῆς, τὴν ἀπαρχὴν λαβὼν δὸς κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν. ᾿ὥσαύτως κεράμιον οἴνου ἢ ἐλαίου ἀνοίξας, τὴν ἀπαρχὴν λαβὼν δὸς τοῖς προφήταις" ἀργυρίου δὲ καὶ ἱματισμοῦ καὶ παντὸς κτήματος λαβὼν τὴν ἀπαρχὴν ὡς ἄν σοι δόξῃ, δὸς κατὰ \ 3 / τὴν ἐντολήν. Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ Κυρίου συναχϑέντες κλά- σατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε προσεξομολογη- σάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν, ὅπως καϑαρὰ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν ἢ. Πᾶς δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἀμφιβολίαν \ Ae ΄, 3 a \ Id Ct IN v4 μετὰ τοῦ ἑταίρου αὐτοῦ μὴ συνελθέτω ὑμῖν, ἕως οὗ διαλλαγῶσιν, ἵνα μὴ κοινωθῇ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν" αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ῥηθεῖσα ὑπὸ Κυρίου: ᾿Εν παντὶ τόπῳ καὶ χρόνῳ προσφέρειν μοι θυσίαν καϑαράν : ὅτι βασιλεὺς μέγας εἰμί, λέγει Κύρι- Ν \ oo if 0 \ > nN ἔθ ος, καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου θαυμαστὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι. 94 TEACHING OF ‘THE TWELVE APOSTLES. Cuar. XIII.—But every true prophet who will set- tle among you is worthy of his support. Likewise a true teacher, he also is worthy, like the workman, of his support. Every firstfruit, then, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets; for they are your high-priests. But if ye have no prophet, give zz to the poor. If thou makest a baking of bread, take the first of it and give according to the commandment. In like manner when thou openest a jar of wine or oil, take the first of z and give to the prophets ; and of money and clothing and every possession take the first, as seems right to thee, and give according to the commandment. Cuar. XIV.—But on the Lord’s day do ye assemble © and break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions, in order that your sacrifice may be pure. But every one that hath controversy with his friend, let him not come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: At every place and time, bring me a pure sacrifice ; for a great king am JI, saith the Lord, and my name is marvellous among the nations. Κεφ. ιε΄. 280 285 295 300 AIAAXH ΤΩΝ AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ. Χειροτονήσατε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ , » , la! / yy "“ \ διακόνους ἀξίους Tov Κυρίου, ἄνδρας πραεῖς καὶ ἀφιλαργύρους καὶ ἀληθεῖς καὶ δεδοκιμασμένους" ς: κα sth, a \ Cea asian ἢ uly yap λενιτουργοῦυσι καὶ αὑτοὶ τὴν λευιτουργί- αν τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων. [Μὴ οὗν ς 4 3 ΄ 3 \ ξ΄ τὶ Ἔ 7 ὑπερίδητε αὐτούς " αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν οἱ τετιμημέ- ς an Ἀ an A \ 7 νον ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων. ᾿Ελέγχετε δὲ ἀλλήλους μὴ ἐν ὀργῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ede A e 3 3 a 3 7 \ SS εἰρήνῃ, ὡς ἔχετε ἐν TO εὐωγγελίῳ " καὶ παντὶ 9 las \ fae die fA \ if ‘ ἀστοχοῦντι KATA τοῦ ἑτέρου μηδεὶς λαλείτω μηδὲ διὺνθ - » , Φ ᾿ / δ \ παρ ὑμῶν ἀκουέτω, ἕως οὗ μετανοήσῃ. Τὰς δὲ Ψ \ e fal \ \ 3 , x ὁ ἂν εὐχὰς ὑμῶν καὶ τὰς ἐλεημοσύνας καὶ πάσας τὰς πράξεις οὕτω ποιήσατε, ὡς ἔχετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγε- λίῳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. Γρηγορεῖτε ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν: οἱ λύχνοι ς a \ 7 \ ς Ἂ Υ ἡ ς A Ἂν ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήτωσαν, καὶ αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκλυέσθωσαν, ἀλλὰ γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι " οὐ yap 5) \ Φ 3 @ ς la (4 nA 39) οἴδατε τὴν ὥραν, ἐν ἣ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ἔρχεται. Πυκνῶς δὲ συναχθήσεσθε ζητοῦντες τὰ ἀνήκον- A lal id A b ] \ 3 Ve € a Ta ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν" ov yap ὠφελήσει ὑμᾶς ὁ πᾶς χρόνος τῆς πΐἵστεως ὑμῶν, ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τῷ 3 7 lal lal 3 i "ἢ lal 3 4 ἐσχάτῳ καιρῷ τελειωθῆτε. ᾿Εν yap ταῖς ἐσχά- ταῖς ἡμέραις πληθυνθήσονται οἱ ψευδοπροφῆται \ ς A Q , \ 3 καὶ οἱ φθορεῖς καὶ στραφήσονται τὰ πρόβατω 26 TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. Cuap. X V.—Now appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek and not ava- ricious, and upright and proved; for they, too, render you the service of the prophets and teachers. Despise them not, therefore; for they are the ones who are honored of you, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as ye have zz in the gospel; and to every one who erreth against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear any- thing from you, until he repent. But your prayers and your alms and all your deeds so do ye, as ye have 7 in the gospel of our Lord. ὕπαρ. XVJ.—Watch for your life’s sake; let your lamps not go out, and your loins not be relaxed, but be ready ; for ye know not the hour in which our Lord com- eth. But ye shall come together often, and seek the things which befit your souls; for the whole time of your faith thus far will not profit you, if ye do not be- come perfect in the last time. For in the last days the false prophets and the corruptors shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love 2% 305 910 618 AIAAXH ΤῺΝ AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ. Ψ ’ \ δ b] , Lh 3 al εἰς λύκους καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη στραφήσεταιν εἰς μῖσος " 5 , \ n > ph V4 3 / avEavovons yap τῆς ἀνομΐας, μισήσουσιν ἀλλή- [4 λους καὶ διώξουσι καὶ παραδώσουσι, καὶ τότε 7, ξ / ς τι n ΤΩΣ ἃ φανήσεται ὁ κοσμοπλάνος ὡς υἱὸς Θεοῦ καὶ ποι- NOEL ONMELA καὶ τέρατα, καὶ ἡ γῆ παραδοθήσε- an a VA ἃ ται εἰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ, καὶ ποιήσει ἀθέμυτα, ἃ 507 , 5 dA ; tone res οὐδέποτε γέγονεν ἐξ αἰῶνος., Τότε ἥξει ἡ κτίσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς τὴν πύρωσιν τῆς δοκιμασίας καὶ σκανδωλισθήσονται πολλοὶ καὶ ἀπολοῦνται, ᾿ ς \ ς / > A Fa 3 n , οἱ δὲ ὑπομείναντες ἐν TH πίστει αὐτῶν σωθή- 7 ς 5 » a n , Nee Mad σονται UT αὐτοῦ Tov καταθέματος. Καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας" πρῶτον, σημεῖον ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ, εἶτα σημεῖον φωνῆς σάλπιγγος καὶ τὸ τρίτον ἀνάστασις νε- r 3 κρῶν " οὐ πάντων δέ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐρρέθη: Ἥξει ὁ ΄ \ / e τὰ 3 3 a Ui Κύριος καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι per αὐτοῦ. Τότε ει ς ἐᾷ ΧΝ tA > , > Ψ ὄψεται ὁ κόσμος τὸν Κύριον ἐρχόμενον ἐπάνω aA a nN 3 la) TOV νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness in- creaseth they shall hate one another, and shall persecute and shall deliver up, and then shall appear the world- deceiver as the Son of God, and shall do signs and won- ders, and the earth shall be given into his hands, and he shall commit iniquities which have never yet been done since the beginning. ‘Then all created men shall come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish. But they that endure in their faith shall be saved/from)this curse. And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first the sign of an opening in heaven, then the sign of the trumpet’s sound, - and thirdly, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but asit hath been said: The Lord will come and all the saints with him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven. 29 USE OF: THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IN, THE eT EA CEI ING 7% OLD TESTAMENT. LINE. LINE *Deut..02 slo eee ae Ὁ ΕΣ ΘΙ, Πρ 86 f. *TODIt AUD cern cei. wore fp oi ΘΟ ΙΗ. RS ee ea al 315 f. *Sirach Bria. cree s ess es WOE, Mal EET ES Nok. cae 273 £. “Sivan daw mitccwy sie yee 91 Ὁ. NEW TESTAMENT. LINE. LINE. SMEG rOs hares a Ris ins ates 09. f. 1 0% Matt. 24 ΟΞ eee 298 f. ἘΝ ΟΣ ie re pat cies 284 f. | *Matt, 24.:24-81......... 313 f. ἘΔ ςτὸν BOT. πη ole eee: 200 1. WMatti) #30~48) τ τὺ ΠΟ ΕΣ SNAG ς Bone, ee 291 f. Μαῦρο Ξε inser ee 15.8.8. Matty 2B IOS, κε τε 140 ἢ ἈΝ πα ‘isi. casa ae ee 289 "Luke 6 27-99... 6. coi 10 Mat Wel: Lae ae Ce ee 183/20) ἀπο: πο ae ge oe 215 f ‘Watt Osea Needs oat Ald t.| *Lukel0* 4-2) ee eee 215f ἜΜ ιν we (216 5. } uke ΡΞ πο νυν 155 f. Mati πο ee ae 256 ἜΤΙ απ 289 f. “Matt D2 elite ace. lh ee Oe4f. | ἜΤΙ 2: Soe sens wee 291 f. "Matt Se Lom 1 εν -, 284 *Acts.A ΟΠ 92 f. ‘Matt. aos beso see. ee 284 SH DHSO : OO ueeme, cee 108 f. ΜΑΙ 205 _> ὟΝ 7 LAS id on A) | _. - a δι Siac yao ans ae ae etal ΝΙ 2 ὁ AS. et Ὗ" 4 Al τ - a ν᾿ ro a rok! ijn UR OQE —— 5 t ’ . ἊΝ. ᾿ A : » eae 3 . } a ce a . a. ὰ Z . ἵ ΤΙΣ oa ἢ - ae ql Ἢ Ν ᾿-- > ¥ τ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ “i r “a ᾿ ὠ ν᾽ . J ν᾿ . 4 ζ Ἱ x { Ἢ - 5 “Bis ἢ 7 - ᾿ i hs Ἷ ὰλ 5 1] δ - {> A ac " = . 1 ΙΑ uM ΄ ‘ ᾿ δ ᾿ bd τ μ᾿ τι 5 3 Ey . νι 4 4 ¥ ¥ ἡ τῇ Ἠ r ‘ y me ἐς 4] ine a 4 t . he, 6 [1 ; Se. » if ἢ ; = > + συ; ΄ = Ὁ ΄ » ᾿ « ν a! Ὧν Σ ~ ae i” ow ϊ ἬΝ " ; “ "“ ᾿ ΤῊ , rae Ἔς a ‘ a! ἡ ᾿ J Η y ΦΨῚ “ ‘ ain -3 vate . & " εν sees Ϊ oe. My a7 ᾿ τ ἀν νυν a2 f ae, ‘ ΜΕΥ ἐν x ΓΜ ΟὟ Ory Ὺ 8 ᾿ + : Pe γν. Lan γ᾽ i ν᾿ ὟΥ: ETN f t Cv. 33 mre | Ἷ ἢ ΣῊΝ avy ἘΞ ὃ = i Pan μ ἈΠ ἀρ δ τ δ a > \ ‘ ΠΣ , τ ι- ἊΝ τ τ 1 > oy vies r , . : fos) ee rer eee ae by ie Ὁ . ’ Ὁ ‘ τ aS hy Se ee 4 he 5 ine yee hae ee Lot Ee ARs, Z, ‘- rene | , ¥ Υ + ᾿ ‘ ae, δ] es iq e - Η Pe ἢ 41% ri ha ρον τὰ I we ; ξ 703 το Κι ω πος : : Ley Biz : . af ees Paty Bs p Ε ᾿ : wre? ᾿ Ἢ Ἴ ν᾽ ὦ I ἐν" ᾿ wat! 7, oe reat a nd ἀν} Ν ἄγ: δ εν 7 ae ws (gas ἐν te igs ects i Sag Dy Wn crore; i: hae g ἔκ ς £ f ᾿ ik eS hse oo) Se Pr } ἠδ } ope Ave μοι Li i. stig a Ore ealere’ (are, ar hott ἰὰλ ἣ ΓΈ ' Ueber das altfirchliche Untervichtsbuch. | 433 i | Die zwei Wege oder dic Entfdeidung des Petrus. Der Litel ift iiberliefert durch Rujinus, Comment. in symb. apost. ὁ. 38. Der Codex Sangerm. und die alten Dructe geben: ,,dte Ent[heidung nach Petrus.” Die Angabe deS Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. 1. Lat betde VeSarten 3211. δ jind z;wet Wege, der eine des Lez benSund Derandre δε Tovdes. Aber Dev Unterjdied ift groR z;wifden den zwei Wegen. Denn Der Weg des Le- θεπὸ einerjeits ijt Diejfer. So die Kirchenordnung. aft wortlic) itbereinjtimmend, aber mit erweiterndDen ZBujdgen, auch der Sittenfpiegel. Dujfollft lieben den Gott, der dig gemadt Hat, aus Deinem ganzen Herzen undoverberrliden den, Der did erloft Hatvom Lode; Diejer Wortlaut der Ko. fttmmt mehr mit dem Barz nabagbriefe al8 mit dem Sjp. itberein, welch Lebterer fich dev biblijcjen Wortfaffung (Deut. 6, 5) nabert; der Anjehlug der Entjheidung an den Barnabasbrief hat die gropere Wahrjdheinlichfeit fiir jich. — Wuferdem jest die Ko. dem Gebote der Gottesliebe ein ,,Grften3" vor, jo- wie Dem der Machftenliebe ein ,Bweitens”, und lapt dort nod) den Sak: ,,was ein erftes Gebot ijt" jowie hier — unmittelbar nach der pofitiven Faffung de3 Gebotes — Die Worte: ,,was εἶπ grweites Gebot ift, an welchen Stiicen das ganze Gejeb Hangt und die PBropheten” fol, gen. Dieje lebterven Bugaben, welche fic) aus Meare. 12 434 | RKrawubty, 30 π. 31 und Matth. 22, 37—40 erfldren, find fiir unecht angufehen, da fie Den Blan der Entidhetdung, neben das Gebot der Gottesliebe alsbald das der Ytachftenliebe und 3war in Der pofitiven Wortfalfung jowohl als auch in der negativen Umfchreibung Hinzuftellen, verdunfeln. — Der Shp. jagt, der Weg deF Vebens fet diejer, den auc) das Gejeh (Deut. 6, 5) vorjchreibe: 3 lieben Gott den Herrvn aus ganzem Herzen und aus ganger Geele αἵδ᾽ den einen und etnzigen, meben welchem ein anderer nicht ift, und den Machften wie fich jelbjt; und alles, was du nicht willft, dab e3 dir gefchehe, Ddiejes jollft du nicht dDem Wndern thun.” Hiernach jcheint dte Verbindung der drei Gage urjpritnglich auch nicht durch »Srftens” und ,Brweitens“, jondern durch das einfache πὸ“ gejcebhen zu fein. und du jollft lieben deinen Nad ften wie Dic) felbft und alles, was du nit willft, Dag eS dir gefmebe, jollft du aud nidtdem Andernthun. — Der Shp. fligt Hier nod) παῷ Lob. 4, 15 den Sag bei: ,, Das ift, was du haffeft, jollft du nicht dem Wndern thin,“ — vielleicht, um die in der heiligen Schrift nicht vorfommende negative Umjdreibung ,,Ule3, was dw nicht willft, u. ἢ. w." biblijdh gu vechtfertigen, oder auch υἱεῖς leicht, um fie noch mehr 211 verdentlicen. Wher iim erfte- ren σα wire ftatt , Das ijt” vielmehr , Denn e3 heift" au jchreiben gerwefeit; im anderen Galle entfteht die Gon- Derbarfeit, dap das gur Verdeutlidhung Beigefiigte un- dDeutlicger ift als das gu Erfldrende. Der Sak hat alfo wohl aud) im Shp. nicht fchon anfangs geftanden. Gm Uebrigen 1. die vorige Bwijchenbemerfung. Ueber das altfivehliche Unterrvichtshud. 435 Du jollft nidt toten, nidt ehebre- men, nidt Huren, nidht Gift mijden, nidmttiten ein Kind δῦ ὦ Whtreibung, nidt nad der Geburt eS umbringen; SGtatt diejes Lertes bringt dev Sjp., wie jcjon frither erwahnt worden, Wtord, Chebruch, RKnabenjchandung, Hureret und Diebftah! nach einander zur Sprade, iwo- nad) in einer Cinjdjaltung nocd) Zauberei, Giftmijdung und beide Arten des KindeSmordes jowte die Begierden nach fremden Giitern erwahut werden. Der Wortlaut der Ko., welder die allerdings jdéon im Barnabasbriefe genannte Knabenjdandung iibergeht und dafiir in Ver- bindung mit Chebrucd) und Hurerei an Giftmijdung und Kindesmord evinnert, ohne das Diebjtahlsverbot nachfol- gen gu lafjen, Diirjte jedoch die urjprituglice Lertgeftalt jein, tndem gerade die Veangelhaftigteit derjelben den Vers fajjer de$ Gittenjptegels 3u jeiner andern Darftellung, die als Verbefjerung mitjammt der nachfolgenden Cin- jehaltung auch m die athiopijde Ueberjegung hintiber- genontnen jowie vom Cpitomator im Codex Ottob. bez nugt wurde, veranlapt haben fann. Du follft nidt falfhes Beugni8 ge- ben, niht SGdh@mahreden Fihren und nidt Shlimmes nadtragen, jollit nidt Doppeljinnig jeinundaud nidt dop- pelziingig, denn eine GdGhlinge des Podesift die Doppelzingigfeit; Deine Rede foll nidt eitel und nidt liigen- Haft jein; om Sip. findet fic) an Diejer Stelle falt mwértlich Derjelbe Fert, dent nur biblijcje Begriindungen beigefiigt 436 Krawupty, find und der Gab: ,,Du follft nicht Τα] ὦ jdworen“ vorausgeht. Lektere Erweiterung Hat aud) der Codex Ottob. Du jollft nidt hHabjidtig jetn und nidt rduberijh und nidt FBeudlerijdh und nidt bdosartig und nidht hodmiitig und nigtannehmen einen jhlimmen Rat ge- gen deinen Racdjten. Auch hier ftimmt der Sip., abgefehen von jeinen biblijchen Zufdben, Glied fitr Glied mit der Ko. iiberein, bis auf die lebte Vorjchrift, welche der Sip. auf die Ge- fabr bejchranft, bet Gericht gum Verderben eines Yeie- Deren aus Miicdficht auf einen Hohen mitguwirfen. Der obige Lert, welchen auch jchon der Barnabasbrief hat, ijt ohne Bweifel vorguziehen. Du jollft nicht Hajjen irgend einen Ween- jen, jondern Die etnen zuredtwetjfen, Dev andern Did) erbarmen, fiir andere beten, wteder andere lieben mehr als Deine Seele. — Der Shp. fagt: ,,Ou jollft nicht Hafjen ivgend einen Menjden“ und fiigt ftatt des Bolgenden nur noch die beiden Schriftitellen bet: ,,Burechtweijen magit du deinen Bruder und nicht jeinetwegen eine Siinde auf dich ποῦς men” (Lev. 19, 17) und ,,Weije gurecht einen Weijen und er wird dich lieben” (Prov. 9, 8). Die WAuslafjung Der lbrigen Lextglteder ift jedoch augenjcheinlich eine ab- jicjtlide, da diefelben, wie fchon gezeigt worden, vom Verfaffer de3 Sip. bald anfang3 eingehend behandelt worden find. Mein Kind, fliehe vor allem Bijfen Ueber das alttirchlice Unterrichtsbuch. 437 und vor allem, was ihm ahnlid ift! Werde nidGt zornig: Denn Der Born fithrt zum Weorde; werde nidt netdijdh und nidt zanfijdh und nidt leiden|daftlid: Denn Daraus πέρι toro. Die Ro. Hat Hier die erfte, furze Cinjdaltung bez siiglich Des Bornteufels. Der Sip. lat bereits an diejer Stelle wie auch fpdter regelmabig (nur die Schlupbformel DeS TodeSweges ausgenommen) die Wnrede hinweg, die jedoch durd) Glemens von Wlerandrien gefichert ift. Gm Ubrigen beftitigt der Sip. den vorliegenden Lert theils wirtlid), theilS andentungsweife. Die athiopifcje Uber- jebung der Ro. Πα! noch bet: neque etiam sis invidus aut morosus neque amator belli, quoniam hoc malum affert exitum. Kind, werde nidt giertg: Denn Die Gier fibrt zur Hureret und jhleppt die Men- jen zu thr. Sdon Bidel!, a. a. Ὁ. ©. 113, bemerft, dab in Der Wiener Handjchrift das Wort ξαυτήν, welches die Druce geben, 3u Wnfang unleferlich gejdhrieben ift. (sm Codex Ottob. feblt der betreffende Sak ganz.) 38 darf aljo wohl αὐτήν fiir ξαυτήν gelejen werden, da die Gier im Meenfcen doch nicht den Weenjchen au fich ziehen fann. Die folgenden Sage der Ko. bilden die gripere CinjGaltung iiber den weibliden und den manntlicden Damon. Der Shp. befchrantt fich hier gleich dem vor- jtehenden Lexrte auf wenige Worte: ,,Werde nicht gierig nad) bidjen Dingen: denn du wirft in ein Unmafh von Siinden gefiihrt werden.“ Kind, werde nit ein Menjd, der jhanod- Theol, Quartaljdrift. 1882. Heft IL. 29 438 _ Krawugty, fide Reden fihrt, nod auch ein jolder, Der Die Wugen Hod trdgt: Denn Daraus entitehfen Ehebredereten. Der Sip. fagt: ,,Werde nicht ein Menjch, der jhandlide Reden fiihrt, noc) auch ein jolcher, der die Augen jchieBen abt, und nicht trunfjidtiq: denn Daraus entftehen Hurereien und Chebrechereien." Kind, werde nidt etn Bogelflugjdhauer, indem e3 zum Gibendienfte fihrt, aud nidt ein Bauberfanger und nidt ein Cr- forjder der Bahl- und Raumgeheit πιπἰ}} 6 und night ein Retnigungsmetfter und wolle Davon nidt wijjen nod Horen: denn aus dem allen entftehen Gibendienereien. Der Sip. lagt die Schlupworte: ,,und wolle davon nicht wiffen” u. 7. w. aus oder vielmehr umj)chreibt die- jelben durch den Gag: οὐδὲ wad non μάϑημα πονηρόν" ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα καὶ ὁ νόμος ἀπεῖπεν, Wodurch zugleid) bas Verbot der Ko.: μὴ γίνου... μαϑηματικός, wofiir Bidell a. a. O. S. 115 ,,Sterndeuter” jagt, feine richtige Deutung erhilt. Im UWbrigen beftatigt der Sfp. unge- achtet jeiner freien Lertbehandlung den obigen Wortlant Der Ro. Rind, werde nidt ein LMitgner, tndem Die Litge zum Diebftahl fihrt, und nidt ein geldgieriger und nist ein rum jitdhtiger Mtenjdh: denn aus dem allen entitehen Diebereien. Die erfte diefer Warnungen jammt ihrer Begriindung jeblt im Sfp., vielleicht weil derjelbe (abweichend von Der So.) fchon friiher vom Diebftahl ansfiihrlich geredet ! Ueber das altfirchliche Untervichtsbuch. 439 und dabet auch die Viige in Verbindung mit dem Dieb- ftahl erwahnt hat (c. 2, p. 199, 20). Dagegen tritt an Diefer Stelle Das Reugnip de Clemens von Wlerandrien fiir Die (δ θεὶς des vorlieqenden ertes ein. Die beiden anderen Warnungen, von Bufjagen begleitet, werden jedoch auch im Sittenjpiegel Hier mitgetheilt. Rind, werde πίε murrjinnig, indem e$ zur Sdmahrede fihrt, und nist ane mapend und nicdt iibeldenfend: denn aus Diejem allenentitehHen OGh@mahreden. Sei vielmehr janftmitthig, indDem die Ganft mitthigendDasS Himmelreid erben. Werde fangmitthig, barmberzig, arglos und rubig, gut und behutjam und gitternd Hinjictlid der Worte, die Ou gehdbrt Haft, Ou jollft dich nidt jelbft erhihen und nidt gejftatten deiner Geele Ber- wegenheit und nidmtanbdngen mit deiner Geele den Hodgeftellten, jondern mit den Geredten und Hemitthigen umgehen. Die did treffendDen Schidungen 1011) Dufirgut hHinnehmen, wijjend, dDapohne Gott nidhis gejdhteht. Cine Vergleichung diejes Lertes, mit defjen lebten Sage wieder die Benugung de3 Barnabasbriefes beginnt, - und de entiprechenden Wbjchnittes im Sittenfpiegel ge- ftattet feinen Sweifel an der CEchtheit des erjteren. Die Ubereinftimmung der Ko. und de8 Sfp. ift auch bier griptentheils eine wortlicje. Mur an einer Stelle ergiebt fic) injofern ein bemerfenSwertherer Unterjchied, als nad) Dem Lert: ,,Werde langmiithig, barmberziq" im der Ko. 29 * 440 Krawubty, noch die Worte: ,,friedfertig, rein im Herzen von allem Bojen” folgen, tm Sfp. dagegen fehlen. Da fich nun Diefelben nach den Ermahnungen zur Sanftmuth und Barmberzigkeit im Hinblid auf die Seligpreijungen der BVergpredigt (Metatth. 5, 5—9) vow felbjt παῦε Legten und Deshalb feicht erjt bet der Wbfafjung der Ko. in Die Schilderung de$ LebenSweges Hineingefommen fein tonnen, Der Sjp. Dagegen bei jeiner BVorliebe fiir Schrifthenugung fauim eine dDerartige Der Schrift entnommene Ermahnung, Die fich in feiner Vorlage fand, iiberqangen hat, find die betreffenden Worte tm obigen Lert αἵ wabhricheinlich 7 unedht weggelajjen worden. Kind, dDenjenigen, welder yu dir δα Wort Gottes redet und Dir ein WriturhHeber des Lebens wird und dir Das Siegel im Herrn verlieh, jollft Dulieben wie Deinen Wugapfel, jein gedenfen bet Madht und bet Tage, ihn ehHren wie Den Herrn: Denn woher dte Witrde Des Herrnin der Rede mitge- theilt wird, Dajelbjtift der Herr. Du jollft aber aufjuden εἰπε Gegenwart taglidh und die Ubrigen, Damit du Did an ihren Worten erquideft, in- Demduifbnenanbhdngft: Denn αἵ ein Heitliger jollft du durd Heilige ge- Heiligt werden. Der Sfp. jagt ftatt: ,,den follft du Leben wie DdDeinen Augapfel”, welden Wusodruc auch Der Barnabagsbrief hat, nitcjterner: ,,den folljt du verberrliden.” erner iibergeht diejelbe Bearbeitung einerjeits die Worte: ,,der Weber das altfireliche Unterridtsbuch. 441 Dir ein Mtiturheber de3 Lebens wird und dir das Siegel im Herrn verlieh”, ertveitert aber anbderfeits den Sag: ign follft du ehren wie den Herrn”, indem fie Ddafiir jehreibt: du follft ifn ehren nicht als einen Urheber des Dajeins, jondern αἵδ᾽ einen, der dir ein Befdrderer des Wohlfeins wird.” Mean erfieht Hieraus, dab der Verfaffer des Sfp. den obigen Wortlaut vor fic) gehabt, aber fiir aut tiberjdwenglic&) angejehen und deshalb mit Wbficht ge- dndert Hat. Wuferdem lantet bet ihm auch die Begriin- dung ftatt: ὅϑεν yao 7 χκυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐχεῖ κύριός ἐστιν, fablicjer: ὅπου γὰρ 7 περὶ ϑεοῦ διδασκαλία, ἐκεῖ ὁ ϑεὸς πάρεστιν. Endlich flirgt der Sfp. den gweiten Theil der Vorjchrift ab, indem ev nur fagt: , Du follft tiglic) aufjuchen die Gegenwart der Heiligen, Damit du Dic) an ihren Worten erquicfeft.” Der ungelenfe Sas bau der BVorlage mag diefe Kitrgung veranlapt haben. — Anderjeits enthalt die Ko. Hier den jcjon bejprochenen und als wahrideinlich unecht dargejtellten Bujak: ,,Du jollft ihn ehren, je nachdem du ἐδ im Stande bift, mit Deinem Schweif und mit dev Wrbeit deiner Hande u. 7. ἢ." Du follft niht Spaltungen verur- fadhen, vielmehr zum Griecden bringen Die Strettenden; Dufollft gereht εἰ ὦ: ten; Du jollft nit perjonlide Rice jit nehmen beim Buredhtweitjen wegen eines gehltrittes: denn night Reid. thum gilt bei Dem Herrn, denn nidt Wilrden ziehter vor, aud night nit Shinheit, jondern Gleig*heit Aller hHerrjht bet thm. Der Sip. dient bet aller Breiheit der Bearbeitung = Ἔα... 442 RKrawubey, sundch{t den Hier mitgetheilten Vorjchriften durchweg zur Beftdtiquug, verweift dann aber ftatt der vorliegenden Beqriindung auf eine Anzahl biblijcher Beifpiele. Cin Bweifel an der Echtheit der betreffenden Worte erjcheint gleichwohl micht angezeigt, δὰ dem Berfaffer des Sfp. jon der rhythmtjde Klang de8 Vertes minder genehm jein fonnte. Mit dem grweiten ,, denn" beginnt namlich anjcheinend ein Dichterijches Citat, defjen Versbau fid) durch Weglaffung de$ Worihens ἐστέ und Umftellung De$ vorangehenden und Des nachfolgenden Wortes leicht wiedergewinnen Lapt. Der handjchriftliche Lert Lautet: ov γὰρ αξίας mooxolver, οὐδὲ καλλος ὠφελεῖ, αλλὰ ἰσότης ἐστὶ πάντων παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. Das ift, in Verfe gebracht: ov yao ἀξίας προχρίνει, οὐδὲ χάλλος ὠφελεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντων ἰσότης παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. Nun ent}pricht aber die Benugung eines derartigen Lertes eher der Geiftesart des Verfaffers der Cnt}cheidung, der auch jonft einen gewifjen RHythmus der Darftellung - liebt, αἵ dem unbeholfenen Autor der Ko. Daher die obige Lextgeftalt beibehalten. on Detnem Gebet follft du nidt zwet- feln, 0b e8 jein wird oder nit: fei nigmt ein Pienjfd, der jeine Hande ausftredt gum Empfangen, zum Geben aber jie einzteht Wenn Du Haft, jo gieb vermittelft dDetner Hande zur Sihne Deiner Gitnden. Ou jollft vid nidt bejinnen zum Geben und forlft nidtmurren, wenn Du giebjt: Denn du Ueber das αν ὥς Untervidtsbuch. 443 wirft erfennen, wer Der gute Qohner- fiatter ift, Ou forlft did nit abwen- Den vom Beditrftigen, jondern Gee meinjdaft gewahren in allen Dingen Deinem Bruder und nidts eigen nen- nen: Denn wenn thrim Unfterbliden Genojjen fetid, um wie viel mehr in Den vergdngliden Dingen. Das Wort gute” vor Vobnerftatter [Ὁ im Shp., findet fich jedoch fcon im Barnabasbriefe. (διαί des lebten Gages, welcher die Pflicht de3 menfchlichen Weit- gefiihls auf die GlaubenSgenofjen 3u_ bejchrvanfen |Geint, jagt der Sfp. gutreffender: dent gemeinjam wurde Das Empfangen von Gott allen Meenjcjen zube- reitet”. itr die (δι θεῖς obigen LerteSs jpricht inde gleichfalls die Ubereinftimmung mit dem obengenannten Briefe. Im UWbrigen fehren die Vorfdriften der Ko. im Shp. faft Wort fiir Wort wieder. Diejes ift Der Weg des Lebens, inner- hHalb deffen (δὲδ Vebens) gefunden 21 werden euch bejdieden jein mige dDurd Sefum CHhriftum unjfern Herrn. — ©Go der Shp. nach einem laingeren, grogentheils dem Barnabasbriefe entnommenen Nachtrage. Gn. der Ko. folgt an Ddiejer Stelle bereits die durch die Wnlage de3 Ganzen geforderte Schlugkermahnung de3 Bartholomaus. Die Worte: ,,Diejes ijt der Weg de$ Lebens” fonnen jedoch in der Cnticheidung, da hier bald noch der Weg DeS Loves gefchildert werden follte, faum gefehlt haben. Und auch die Wunjchformel diirfte nicht erft dem Sip., jondern jdjon der vorgenannten Schrift angehiren, da 444 Krawubdy, aud) die Schilderung des TodeSweges mit einem Wunjdhe jchlieBt, der wegen der Wnrede ,Kinder", die fonft im Sjp. nicht vorfommt, wahriheinlich aus der Cnt}chetdung ftammt. Der Weg des Lodes aber ift an ὦ {πὶ men Handlungen erfennbar: denn anf bemfelben finbdet jic) Unfenntnif Gottes und Cinfihrung vieler Gitter, — Die einige Lexrtquelle iff Hier der Sjp., eine erwet- ternde Wusfchmiicung der Vorlage von Seiten de3 lebteren {aft fich jedoch nicht annehmen. | Durd weldhe Meordthaten (entite hen), Ehebredhereien, Hurereien, Weeineide, gejebwidrige Begierden, Diebereten, Gigendienereien, Baubereten, Wift- mitfdereien, Maubereten, faljde Beuge niffe, Heudeleien, Doppelherzigfeiten, Betrug, Uberhebung, Bosheit, Anmafung, Habjudt, jmanolidhe Rede, Ciferjudt, wredbheit, Hodmuth, Hoffart, Sdheulojig- feit, Berfolgung der Guten, gegen die Wahrheit Haf, zur Viige Viebe, Unfennt nip Der Geredtigfett: — Das GSitndenvergzeichnip der Cnticheidung diivfte hier durd) Cinjchiebungen und Umftellungen mehrfach erweitert und verwirrt worden jein. Bur Wiederherftellung der urjpritngliden Zertgeftalt fehlt jedoch, da die Conjtit. unjere eingige Ouelle find, jeder Anhalt. Denn die Bollbringer dDiejer Dinge hangen night dem Guten an nod aud Dem geredhten Geridte, find wadhjam Ueber da8 altfirdliche Untervichtsbud). 445 nidt zum Guten, jondern zum Θ ὦ Τί πὶ men, von Denen weitabift Ganftmuth und Geduld, das Falj[dheliebend, jagend nad Belohnung, niht bemitleidendden Wrmen, fic nist anftrengend wegen eines Belafteten, nihterfennend den, Der jie gemadt, Moirder von Kindern, RBerftirer des Gebildes Gottes, fig abwendendvom Veditrftigen, δ εἰ πε Deteyrerden, Berddhier δὲν Urmern, tu Willem find ha ft. Die apolt. Conftit. wiederholen hier faft Wort fiir Wort De Lert de3 Barnabasbriefes. Ob fie Hierin auch mit Der Cntjheidung iibereinftimmen, Lapt fich nicht mehr fejtftellen. Moicdtet ihr bewahrt fein, Kinder, vor allen dDiejen Dingen! — S. die Bemerfung zur Wunfehformel, mit welcher die Darjtellung de3 LebenSweges fchlieft. ! 2. Biographijdhe Motizen θεν Guijeppe VYinlatejta. Bon W. Miirnberger. Don Guijeppe Malatefta ijt ein Gejchichtsfchreiber, Defjen Werke murals Manujeripte erhalten find, wahrend ἔθου. feine SebenSverhiltniffe fo gut wie nichts befannt ift. Dte Bibliotheca Vallicellana in Stom bewahrt feinen litevarijden Machlak, auf welchen Lammer in den Analecta Romana ©. 77. 80. 81, Melematum Rom. Mantissa ©. 21. und 243 aufmerffam madte. Gm Giornale Napol. (Nuova serie 1879, I, 3. 5. 354) brachte Gaetano Capaffo einige Motizen ither Mealatejta’s Gee jhichte des Benesianijchen Ynterdict3, welch’ lebtere auch Moris Brojch befaunt ijt, der in feiner Gefchichte des RKirchenftaates (1 Bod. Gotha 1880. ©. 360. not. 1.) von ihrem Wutor jagt: ,Der Berfafjer fchreibt immer tm papiftijden Sinne und war im Vertrauen de$ rodmtijden Hofes, vielleicht be Papftes jelbft.” Von bejonderem Werth fiir Mealatefta’s Btographie {ind die Codices Vallicellani M. 8 und M. 9 = Car- teggio del Ser. G. Malatesta concernente per la mag- τ pen/ G οι: (/L¢4h I. Abhandlungen. 1 Ueber die jog. Swalfapoftellehre, ihre hanptfichlidjten Oruellen und ive erjte Xufnahme. Bon Dr.” Krawugety. 1, Vorbemerfung. Bei dent Mangel an fidheren Machricten iiber die in der {|| τ genannte neuverdffentlidte Schrift des νει Wterthums 1) erjcheint die Frage nad) den 1) . den Wortlaut derjelben oben Ὁ. 383 ff. — Cujebius (Hd. E. IIT, 26 ed. Limmer.) erwahnt ,die fog. Lehren der Apoftel”, δα πα δ (ΒΡ. fest. 39) eine beim Katechumenen- unterrvicht fdon von den Vatern verwendete ,,jog. Lehre der Wpo- ftel”. Der Unnahme, dak Hhiermit unfere ,,Lehre der δ] Wpo- ftel” gemeint jet, ftehen jedoch ernfte Schwierigfeiten entgegen. Denn zur Berjchiedenheit der Titel, welche fiir fic alletn aller- Dings nicht entjcheidend jein wiirde, fommt noch einenthetls die aus PBjeudo-e«CyHyprian (De aleatoribus ὁ. 4) erfichtliche Rertverjchiedenheit der Doctrinae apostolorum und der 8101 35 * 548 Krawugcty, Nuellen over Vorlagen, welche der Verfaffer zu jeiner Ausarbeitung benugt hat, an erfter Stelle von Widhtigkeit. Die ausfiihrlichfte Crovterung diefer Frage hat bi jebt Wd. Harnad 1) geliefert. Das Ergebnis feiner Unterjuchung lautet: ,Der Verfaffer der Adayn hat benugt 1) das 91. V., 2) δα Evangelium, 3) den Barnabasbrief, 4) den Hirten de Hermas; er hat aber auperdem δ wabricheinlih Stitde aus der alten Briefliteratur gefannt; unfider bleibt, mie fich zeigen wird, ob er bereits Kenntnis von dem Cvangelium nach Sohannes befetjen hat 2).” Gm Folgenden jeten mun sunichft einige Umftdnde hervorgehoben, welde darauf {cdlieBen Laffen, dap der Verfaffer der Bwdlfapoftellehre — abgejehen von der gelegentliden Benugung de3 alten Teftamentes, deS Barnabasbriefes und de8 Hirten fo- wie eines Cvangeliums, weldes wabhriceinlich das Evangelium secundum (duodecim) apostolos der Jaza- apoftellehre jowie anderntheils die fharfe Unfechtung hingu, welde der Gnhalt dev Bwoslfapojtellehre nach Const. Ap. VII, 27 jdon vor den Tagen deS Athanajius erfahren hat (S. τὺ. u.). — Wm bedeutjamften erjdien anfdnglic) der Umijtand, dak in der Sti- Gometrie des MicephHorus dev Umfang der Apojtellehre auf 200 Sticen angegeben wird, unjere Bwilfapoftellehre aber in der Handfchrift 203 Beilen ausfiillt. Aber aud) diejer Beweis fiir die Ydentitat beider Schriften ijt evfdiittert, feitbem Wd. Har- nad (vo. Gebhardt und Harnad, Texte und Unterjudungen, II, 1 Leipz. 1884. Proleg. (56, 13 f.) dDavauf hingewiefen hat, δαβ die Brwblfapoftellehre c. 10700 Buchftaben, ,,d. i., den Stichos au 35 Buchftaben gerednet, rund 300 Sticen”, zahlt, wonad Die Angabe des Nicephorus eher auf die anjcheinendé flirzer ρος faften Doctrinae apostolorum 4u begiehen fein bdiirfte. 1) 31. a. O. S. 63—88. 2) A. a. Ὁ. Θ. 65. Ueber die fog. Brwilfapoftellehre. 549 radev und Cbioniten wart), — jeiner Arbeit haupt- jachlic) swet Schriften κι Grunde gelegt hat, ndmlid 1) δ. Harnad jeblieft feine einfcdlagige Unterjucdung a. a. Ὁ. ©. 79 mit den Worten: ,,Soweit das Material Sdliiffe qulagt, jceint jomit das Urtheil geficert, daB der Verfaffer der Adayy unter dem ,,Evangelium deS Herrn” ein aus dem Lucag- Cv. bereichertes Ntatthaus-Cvangelium vovransgefebt und benugt Hat. «1 das vielleicht das Ev. sec. Aegyptios? τὺ dieje Hy- potheje laffen fich manche Griinde anfithren.” Welches dieje Griinde jeten, wird un jedoch nicht mitgetheilt. ὅς das Hebraer-Cvange- lium der MNazarder und Cbtoniten (erwahnt u. a. von Hier υ- nymus ad Matth. XII, 13 mit den Worten: in evangelio, quo utuntur Nazaraei et Ebionitae, quod nuper in graecum de hebraeo sermone transtulimus et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum, und de vir. illustr. c. 2: evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos et a me nuper in graecum latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et Origenes saepe utitur; f. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extr. can. IV, ed. 2, p. 5 sqq.) fprechen folgende WUnzeichen: a) Das- jelbe ftimimte voriwiegend mit unferem Ntatthaus-Cvangelium tiber- ein, wie auch der Evangelientert der Bwolfapoftellehre. b) Dag- jelbe rechnete ἐδ au den griften Verbrechen, einen Ntitbruder zu be- triiben (in evangelio, jdreibt Hieronymus ad Hzech. XVIII, 7, quod juxta Hebraeos Nazaraei legere consueverunt, inter maxima ponitur crimina, qui fratris sui spiritum contrista- verit), und erflart jo die unbiblijche (gegen Matth. XVIII, 15—17 verftpfende) Strenge der Bwodlfapoftellehre gegen die Verleber der MNachjtenliebe (XV, 85 der Harnac’jdhen VBerszahlung). c) Dags- —jelbe fiihrte bereits zur Beit des Origenes (vergl. die obige UWngabe de3 Hieronymus de vir. illustr. ο, 2, Origenes Hom. I in Luc. ad I, 1: ecclesia quatuor habet evangelia, haereses plurima, e quibus quoddam scribitur secundum Aegyptios, alind juxta duodecim apostolos, und Hieron ye mus ady. Pelagianos III, 2: in evangelio juxta Hebraeos, quod chaldaeo quidem sermone, sed hebraicis literis scriptum est , quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum apostolos sive, ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthaeum, bet Hil gen- feld 1. 6. p. 8, 19, 42) auch den Vitel: Evangelium Domini secundum duodecim apostolos und gehirt fomit wohl denjelben 550 Krawubcety, 1) cine fdhon Lange vor den Tagen de3 Cle men3 von Alerandrien entftandene Darz ftelLung der zeit Wege des LCebens und des Todes und 2) eine nod unter den Mad wir- fungen des Unterganges Ferujalems ἐπί: ftandene antizebtionitijme BWernoronung. Bum Sdhluk jodann und einigermapen zur Beftatiquig Der vorhergehenden Darlegungen mige die Aufuahme, welche dex Bwolfapoftellehre bet ihrem erften συ] εἴπει in firdhliden Rreijen ιν Dbheil geworden tft, ein wenig πάθεν beleuchtet werden. 2. Die Darftellung δὲν zwei Wege. 1. Sn der jog. apoft. KRirdhenoronung %) findet fic) eine Befdhreibung des Lebensweges, iwelde qrokenthetls τοὐν mit der Daritellung defjelben Gegen- ftandes in der Bwdlfapoftellehre iibeveinftimmt. Schon Bryennios nimmt oeshalb an, dap die Bwolfapl. Hier der erfigenannten Schrift alg Quelle gedient habe. Die — Uebereinjtimmung der hetden Verte fann inde3 dod) Kreijfen an, in welchen unfere Διδαχὴ Κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεχα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν ent{tanden ift. Bgl. UWpg. 5, 42. 1) ©. itber diejelbe Vib, Theol. Quartal-Sqgrift, © 1882, ©. 362 ff. Werichtigend jet bei diejem WAnlag 21: S. 364 bemerft, dab die Lagarde-Hilgenfeld’jche Vermuthung, in Der apoft. Ro. jet ein dem siweiten Gahrhundert angehsriges Bitch- fein namen8 »Duae viae vel Judicium Petri« (jf. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extr. can. IV, ed. 1, 1866, Zitelblatt und p. 3, 93 und 95; vgl. ed. 2, 1884, Titelblatt und p. 3, 90 und 92) wiedergefunden, bereits mehrere Yahre vor mir von Wd. Hare nad in Bweifel gegogen und fon in deffen Ausgabe δε Bare nabasbriefes vom Yahre 1878 (jf. P. XLVI und G. 73) beanftandet worden iff. S. aud TH. Bahn, Fgnatius v. Unt. (1873), S. 583. Ueber die jog. Brwilfapojtellehre. 551 auch von der beiderjettigen Benugung einer dritten die awet Wege behandelnden Sdvift hervithren und bierfiir fprechen mehr oder minder ent}deidend folgende Um- ftande. a) Beim Gebot der Gottesliebe bringt die Ro. ἢ Den Bujak: ,und verherrliden den, der did οὐδ hat vom Dode.” Dieje Worte de3 Barna- basbriefes (XIX, 2) find allerdings miglider Weife erft bom Verfajjer der Ko. Hingugefiigt, objdon der idriftitellerifden Befahiqung de Lebteren durch eine jolche Wunnahme vielleicht zu viel zugetraut wird 5). Ste fonnen aber auch dev Vorlage angehirt haben und vom Verfalfer dev Bwilfapl. mit Whfidht ausgemerst worden jeit, Da dte Lebtere burdweg pon einer bereits erfolgten Grldfung jcweigt, ja felbft in ihven euchariftijden Gee beten trog 1. Gor. 11, 26 den Tod de3 Herrn zu vevr- 1) Hilgenfeld, 1, 6. ed. 2 p, 112. 2) Bryennio$s, Adayy τῶν dadexa ἀποστόλων, Ct. 1883, σελ. EG, fchretbt von der Ro.: οἸΣυντέτακται δέ, ὡς ἔμοι ye δοχεῖ, ov μετὰ σπουδῆς (ἄσκοπον γὰρ ὅλως ἔοικε τὸ ἔργον), ἀλλὰ παιδιᾶς χάριν μᾶλλον. Naheres j. Theol Qu.- Sadr. 1882, Ὁ. 384—386, 395—399, 407 f., 410—418. — ϑ πὸ in dem unmittelbar vorhergehenden Gage: ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς ἐστὶν αὕτη hat die Ro. einen befferen Text, αἵδ᾽ die Bwolfapl., welder ον ὦ erjt auf Rechnung de3 Verfafjers der Ko. fommt; ebenfo verhalt e3 fic) mit dem Bujab dev Ko.: ove δὲ δλεήσεις au Brwolfapl. II, 7. — Uebrigens Hat der Verfaljer der Ko. dod an obiger Stelle einen eigenen Bujak angebracht. 8 find die Worte: ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη. Aber diejelben verrathen ihren Urjprung fofort dadurdh, δαβ fie nach dem vorausgegangenen πρῶτον tiberfliijjig find, wogegen der Hintweis anf die Wobhlthat Der Erldjung nach den auf die Schdpfung Begug nehmenden Worten: ,Du follft lieben den Gott, der did gee πιὰ hat” fehr awecdmapig ijt. 552 Krawubety, fiinden unterlapt Θ. c. IX und X. Und dieje lebtere Aunahmte empfiehlt jich deshalb als die wahrjdheinlidere, weil der Berfaffer der Bwolfapl. gerade an Ddiefer Stelle fic einer auffalligen Kitrze und Cilfertigheit be- fletBigt, vermige welcher er nicht blop das Gebot der Nachftenliebe mit den furgen Worten: ον εἶπεν Na dz ften wie did felb ft" (ohne Wiederholung de3 Beit- wortes: ,du follft lieben”) wiedergiebt, jondern auch das der Gottesliebe (ohne, wie die Ko., den Buz fab: , aus deinem ganzen Herzen” beizufiigen) auf die Worte befdranft: ,ou jollft lieben den Gott, der dich gemadht hat”, objchon der Bufag im Gebot der Mdchitenltebe ,wie did) jelbft” aud bet dem der Gotteslicbe eine Mapbeftimmung wie (αὶ ὃ Deinem ganzen Herzen” verlangte oder ebenfalls hatte wegbleiben follen. b) Die Anfprache besiiglich des ftandigen Seeliorners der Gemeinde Lautet in der Ko.: ,,Kind, Ddenjenigen, welder zu div das Wort Gottes vredet und dir ein Miturheber des Lebens wird und dir das Giegel im Herrn verlieh, follft du lieben wie deinen Wugaypfel; du jollit aber gedenfen jeiner bet Nacht und bet Tage, follft ihn ehren wie den Herr: denn wobher die Wiirde des Herrn ertint, dafelbft ijt der Herr ἢ)... Statt deffen fagt die Rwilfapl. (IV, 1) fiirgzer: ,, Mein Kind, desjenigen, welcher zu dir das Wort Gottes redet, follft du gedenfen bet Nacht und bet Dage; du jollft aber ihn ehren wie den Herrn: denn woher die Witrde de Herrn ertint, dafelbft ift der 1 Hilgenfeld, 1. c.? p.114 Ueber die fog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 553 Herr.” Auch hier lapt fich σις Beides oenlen, fo- wohl dag der Verfatjer der Ko. jeine Vorlage εὐ! durd) Die fragliden Buldbe erweitert habe, um wicht jeoweden, welder fic) zum Verfiindiger des gdttlicden Wortes auf- wirft, deShalb jdon der treueften Wnhanglicfeit fiir wlirdig 3u οὐξ τοι, alS auch dap die in der Bwolfapl. fehlenden Worie αὐ ὦ unterdrviidt worden feten, werl dev BVerfatjer diefer Schrift in Wnjehung der Seelforge in der That abjonderliche Wege geht, indem er 3. 35. vorjdreibt, dag jeder , Brophet", welcher in einer Gez meinde [ὦ niederzulajjen witnjdt und durch fein Vetragen fic) αἵδ᾽ uneigenntigig und wabrhaft ertwiejen hat, als Hobherpriefter der Chilftenheit mit den gefewlicen Grft- lingSipenden unterhalten werde (c. XI und XITI): einer jolden Denlweife fonnte die Crinnerung an denjenigen, welcher nicht erft feit geftern oder heut in der Gemeinde lehrt, jondern den Glaubigen einft die Gacramente der Wiedergeburt gejpendet hat und feitdem ihr ftandiger Miturheber des LVebens tft, doch nicht recht zujagen. ον die Uripriinglichfett de$ vorliegenden TevieS dev Ko. jpridt aber moch dev WUmitand, dag diejer Legtere anz jcheinend auch bereits im jog. Gitten}ptegel (Const. Ap. VIL, 9) mit beriicfichtigt wird und jomit wohl nicht erft vom Berfatfer der Ko. ftammt. c) Die Darjtelung de3 Lebensweges enthalt jowohl in dev Ko. al8 in der Bwolfapl. einen Wh) chnitt, welder Π ὦ durch eine anffallig μη ες Gliederung und Verzie- rung augszeicnet. (δ find die fieben (oder Το 8) Wn- jprachen oder Mabhniworte, welche mit der Anrede ,, Mein Rind" eingeleitet und durch fedsmalige (in dev Zwalfaypl., welche die beiden ἴον furzen Anjprachen bez. der Unterfdh- - ᾿" eee , bre) χα 554. Krawubety, Heit in cette zujammenszicht *), nur durch fiinfmalige) Wiederholung der Wnrede deutlich vow einander unter- jchieden werden 5. Sn dtefem Wbfchnitt erjcheint nun nicht blop die Wnzabhl der WAnfprachen als tymbolijd be- Deutjam mit Whyicht gewahlt, foudern auch die dev Glieder, aus welchen die einzelnen Anjprachen beftehen, peinlich (oder jollen wir Lieber fagen: ἔοι ὦ Ὁ) berechnet. We- nigftens enthalt die erfte Wniprache — nach einer eit- leitenden Grmahuung allgemeinen Suhalts — ἐφ εἰ (oder, οἷς Cinleitung hingugezahlt, drei), οἷο zweite und Dritte je εἰ πὸ *), Dte Hierte und fitnfte je εἰ und Die fechfte und ftebente (anjceinend) je zwei mal zwei Musfihrungen. Und nicht bloB der Anfang jeder neuen Wunfprache wird jprachlic) — durch die regelmapig wieder- Febrende Wunrede-— gefennzeidnet, jondern anc das Cnde jeder etnzelnen Wusfiihrung oder Crmahuung — durch regelmafig angehdngte Begriindungs)age, welche bejonders bet der VBelprechung dev negativen Pflidtenreihe refrainartig flingen, — bemerflid gemacht. Dieje Begritndungs}age Lauten nach der Orduung der fieben Wnjprachen, wenn wir zundcdjt nur den Wortlaut dev Swolfapl. berticjichtigen: 1) Dap erft der Verfajjer der Ko. Hier eine WAnvrede einge- jchaltet habe, οὐρα weil etn neuer Redner auftritt, ift, da fpater 60 δῇ Kephas ohne Anrede beginnt, minder wahrjcheinlid), als δαβ ‘ei-fop- Die Bwslfapl. Hier von ihrer Vorlage abgewicen jet. 2). Bwilfapl? ΠῚ Leite) on ber απ ΠΣ 118—116. 8) Sv nach dem Lerte, welcher der K.O. gu Grunde liegt; Die KR.O. jelbft jchaltet Hier ihre Bemerfungen itber den tweibliden Lujtdamon ein. Ueber die jog. Brwilfapoftellehre. 555 1: 1. ,denn e3 fithrt δεν Born 2. denn aus dem Wen ent- aur Morodthat; ftehen Morodthaten; ΤΙ 1Π. 8. Denes Πίητι die Gier zur 4. Denn aus dem Allen ent- 11 Ὁ Ὁ cries ftehen Chebrit he; ΤΥ} Ve 5. indem e83um Gigwen- 7. indem die Liige zum Dicb- το π jie ΠῚ ftahlt fiihrt ; 6. Denn aus dem Allen ent- ὃ, Denn anus dem Alen ente- fteht GObendten ft *); fteHen Die bft ah le; ὙΠ VII. 9. indemes zur afterung 18, denn woher die Witrde des fithrt ; Herrvn ertint, dajelbjt {ΠῚ der Herr ; 10. Denn ans dem Allen ent- 14, — ftehen Qafterungen; . tndem δίς Sanftmiitigen 15. denn du wirft erfahren, wer Die Erde erben tverden; Der gute Lohnerftatter ijt; 12. wifjend ἢ, daB obne 16. Denn wenn ihr im Uniterb- Gott nichts gejchieht; lichen Genoffen εἰ, um wie piel mehr in den vergang- lichen Dingen.” — 1) Wie der Todesweg dev Brwiolfapl. (V, 1) zeigt, wird der GoHkendienft hier nicht mit dem Chebruch, jondern mit dem Dieb- {taht und Raub (vgl. Col. 8, 5 und MNtatth. 6, 24) in eine Reihe geftellt: gleichwie Dem Ehebruchverbote werden demnach aud) dem Diebjtahlverbote awet Anjpraden gugetheilt, nur mit dem Unter- {hied, δαβ die Bahl der Ermahnungen und BVegriindungs|age, ent}prechend dem planmapigen Wnwachfen de Umfanges der Wn- jpraden, fich nun bereits verdpoppelt. 2) Die Ko. bietet auch hier (vgl. 2, 4, 8 und 10) die Mehr- gahl (ἐχ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων εἰδωλολατρεῖαι γεννῶνται), wie ohne Btwerfel der urjpriinglide Text gelantet hat. 9) Der Wusdruck ijt, wie fo vieleS Andere, wisrtlich aus dem Lichtwege de$ Barnabasbriefes heriibergenommen und feitet ohne Bweifel ebenfalls einen Segriindungsjak (,,deun ohne Gott gejdieht nichts”) ein. , \ a 556 Krawugety, (δ᾽ ift unverfennbar, dap der Verfafjer diejer Spriicde den beftimmten Blan verfolgt, den Wbichlup eines jeden Theiles feiner Wnjprachen durch einen mehr oder minder refrainartigen Begriindungsjak auch jpradlid) hervorzu- heben. Dtefer Plan findet fic) liicenlos durdhgefiihrt bis sur Legten Wnfprace, wo die erjte Crmahnung (den Ver- Eiindiger deS αὐ οι Wortes wie den Herrn zu ehren) nod vegelred)t mit dem unter 18, angefithrten Begriin- dungsjabe fcbliebt, Dann die an zweiter Stelle folgende Crmahnung zum (tdglicen, friedfertigen, tm Urtheil vor- ficytigen und im Burechtweifen unpartetifden) Berfehr mit den , Hetligen” deS tiblicden Begriindungsjabes ἐπ: bebrt, die an Ddritter und vierter Stelle fid) anveihenden Crmahnungen zum bereitwilligen Wlmofenfpenden und zur Wnerfennung de3 nur bejchranften Wnrechtes auf Brivateigenthum aber wieder planmagbig dte unter 15. und 16. mitgetheilten Begriindungs}age bet ὦ haben. (δ unterliegt mithin faum einem Bwetfel, dag der Lert der Bwolfapl. hier Uticlenhaft ijt. Die fehlenden Vertworte aber enthalt die Ro., in welcher wir bei der Crmahnung beatiglich de3 Verfehrs mit den Glaubigen neben einer qroperen Suterpolation 7) dem abjdliependen Begriin- 1) Hilgenfeld, l. c.? p. 115, 2—8. Wir lejen hier 4u- πὰ]: χολλώμενος γὰρ ἁγίοις ἁγιασϑήσῃ, was mit den unmittel- bar borbergehenden Worten (Aufjuchen jolljt du τἄρ) die Het- ligett, ,,damit dDu did) an ihren Reden εὐ α αἱ ἃ ε ft”) nicht recht im Cinflange fteht und deshalb wohl erft vom Verfaffer der Ko. ftammt. 2W{8dann fehrt die Nede gum Verkiinder des οὐ! ἐπ Wortes guriic, um denjelben al8 wiirdig de3 Lohnes und der Vet- fteuer yu feinem Unterhalt darguftellen: auch diefer Pafjus ift jchwerlich urjpriinglic. Wollte man aber auch entgegengefepter Meinung fein und demgemaf die ftebente Anfprace nicht αἵδ᾽ vier- gliedrig, jondern al8 fechSgliedrig betracjten, jo twlivde dDadurd) Ueber die fog. Bwslfapoftellehre. 557 Dungsjage begegnen: ,denn nimt δὲ εἰ τ πὶ gilt bet Dem Herrn, denn nicht Wiirden sieht er por, aud nit gt nidht Sdhinheit, fondern Gleid- hett aller berr{mt bet ihm”, — ein Lert, welder nad) der Wufforderung, beim Burechtweijen nicht auf dte Perjon zu jehen, inhaltlich in den Bujammenbhang beftens papt, aber vielleicht wegen de rhythmijden Klanges jeiner Worte, die einem Gedicdht entnommen jceinen, dem Ver- fafjer der Bwolfapl. nicht zujagte. Will man deshalb nicht Leihthin annehmen, dak δίς fraglicen Worte gleich- wohl nur ourd das Verjehen eines Wbichreibers zufallig aus dem Lerte der Bwilfapl. verjcdwunden feien, fo wird fic) der Schlup nicht umgebhen Laffen, dag die Bwoslfapl. fowwobl alS auc) die Ko. wahrjdeinlidh auf einer dlteren Darftellung der szivei Wege des Lebens und des Toes fuben, deren Wortlaut weder in der einen nod in Der anderen Schrift, da aud in der Ko. mandhe Sake, wie namentlid) der Podesweg, vermipt tverden, uns voll: ftdndig erhalten ift 4). 2. Die Darftellung de LCebensweges in der Rwilfapl. befteht, wie auf Grund der voranftehenden Nuseinanderjepung fowte dreter Ueberjdriften ungiweifel- haft erjdeint, aus fiinf Whjdhnitten, πάπα 1) aus den. Der obige Machiveis, Daf die Bwslfapl. den urjpriingliden Wortlaut Der fieben WAnjpracen nict mehr vollftindig enthalt, doch feine Beeintradhtigung erletden. 1) Daf der Verjaffer der Ko. nicht auch die Bmslfapl. gefannt habe, [01 jedoch mit dem Obigen nicht gejagt fein. Bur Vertheie lung de3 Tertes an die redend anftretenden Apoftel in der Ko. fann vielmehr gerade der Titel der Bwolfapl. angeregt haben und dDergl. m. Dod ijt die leptere nicht als Ouelle der Mo. anguc jeben, 558 Krawugety, beiden Geboten der Gottes- und Nadfitenlicbe, pon welchen das Lebtere εὐ in pofitiver und dann in negativer Formulirung mitgetheilt wird (1, 2), 2) aus einer Rethe von Vollfommenbheitsjpritchen oder Ydeal- porjdriften des Cvangeliums und der chriftliden Broz phetie δορί der Feindesliebe und der Arglofigteit in Crduldung von Gewaltthat und Ausbeutung (1, 3—6), 3) aus einer tiberfidhtlidjen Wufzahlung νι εὐ Cut- haltungs- und Gethdtigungspflidten, welche zunddft an die Verbote dev ziveiten mofaijden Geljebestafel fic anjdlieben und jomit eine Wuslequng zur negativen Wortfafjung de3 Gebotes der Madftenlie be Hilden (II, 2—6, val. I, 2°), zulegt aber pofitive Bethatiquugen der MNadftenliebe (mit Cinfdhlug der Feindesliebe) porjdreiben und dabet bis zur vollfommenften und jelbftlofeften Opferliebe fic) aufjchwingen (II, 7), 4) aus den vorhin bejprocenen, Hier in der Sech3zahl απ]: tretenden Wnjpracen, welche, ahnlich wie der vorige δ θ᾽ πὶ, erjt negative und dann pofitive Pflidten der Nad [Ὁ ὁ πὶ ὁ be einjdarfen, abet aber die Cuthaltungs- pflidyten von vornherein auf οἷο jchlimmen Herzensrequngen und Wufdnge des BHfen ausdehnen und desgleichen den Bethatiquurgspflidten ein weiteres Geltungsgebiet, unter bejonderer Veriicjichtigung de3 Verfehrs mit den Glau- bensqenofjen, vorzeicuen, ja aud) dariiber noch binaus- gehend einerjetts die der erjten mojaijden Gejebestafel ent}prechenden Verbote deS Gigendienftes und dev Vafte- rung (II, 4 und 6) jowie anderfetts die Bflichten der findliden Ergebung in Gottes Willen und der danfbaren AWuhanglidfeit an den Verktindiger deS gvttliden Wortes (ΠΠ, 10 und IV, 1) in Grinnerung bringen und injofern Ueber die jog. Bwolfapoftellehre. 559 auc) eine (negatin und pofitiv lautende) Wuslegung de3 Gebotes der Gottesliebe (val. I, 2”) enthalten, und 5) aus einer Reihe von Crmahnungen religidjen Snhalts, ndmlich bezitglic) dev gotteSftirdtigen Kindererziehung und entipredenden Behandlung der driftliden Knedhte und Midgde, de3 Gebhorjams der legteren gegen ihre Herrn um Gottes Willen und der jduldigen Aufrictig- feit und τοις gegen Gott (IV, 9—14). Vergleidht man nun dtefe fiinf Whjdhnitte unter- / einander, jo {pringt dev engere Bujammenhang de8 Dritten und vierten WAbjdnittes won jelbft in die Mugen, da betde erjt negative und dann politive Vor- {hriften bringen und bet ihren negativen Vorjdhriften die defalogijdhen Verbote: ,,ou jollft nicht tddten” u. 7. τὸ. au Grunde legen. Desgleiden lapt fich eine πάθετε Bu- fammengebirigfeit des dritten Wbjdhnittes mit dem erften gar nicht verfennen, indem die negativen und pofitiven Vorjdriften de8 ovitten Wbjdhnittes zu der pofitiven und negativen Formulivung de$ Gebotes der Nachftenliebe, mit welder der erjte Wbjchnitt jchliept, Die unmittelbare Wuslegung -bilden. Wber auch der vierte Wbhjchnitt fieht mit dem erften in einer nadheren indaltlicen Verbindung und nicht blos in einem mittel- baren, Durch feine Gleichformigfeit mit dem dritten Wh- {chuitte Hergeftellten Sujammenhange, indem, wie der Dritte Wbfdnitt im Wnjdlup an dite lebten ODefalogsworte das Gebot der Nadftenliebe ervldutert, ebenjo der pierte Whjchnitt durd) feine Bezugnahme auf die erjften Defalogsworte auch nocd das Gebot der Gottesliche verdeutlidt. Diefe dret Whi cdnitte erweijen fic jo- mit von Vornbherein als ein einbheitlices und in ich 560 Krawugery, abgejdhloffenes Ganges, in weldhem der angemefjene Fort}dhritt der Geoanfen von felbft hervortritt. Dagegen fallt ἐδ nicht leiht, in jammtliden fiinf 301 dHhuitten einen einbheitliden Blan und Ge- Danfengang zu finden, objchon der Verfajjer uns dadurch zu Hilfe fommt, dap ev den drei Legten Wbj}dnitten die gemeinjame UUeberjdrift giebt: Δευτέρα δὲ ἐντολὴ τῆς διδαχῆς (11. 1), den sweiten 3.07 αϑὸν mit den Worten: Τούτων δὲ τῶν λόγων ἡ διδαχή ἐστιν αὕτη" (I, 8) und den evften mit den Worten: Ἢ μὲν οὖν ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς ἐστιν αὕτη" (I, 2) einlettet. Sm Sinne de3 Verfaffers befteht die Darftellung de3 Lebensweges — hiernad) aus dret Haupttheilen, von welchen dev dvritte allein dvet Whjchnitte im fich begreift ἢ. Wher welcher Zujammenbang verbindet dieje Hauptthetle? τῷ ἐπε nins *) fpridht zwei Vermuthungen aus. Nad) der einen waren die zivet (tm erften Hauptthetle furz an- gefithrten) Gebote der Gottes: und Macftenltebe nad) einander Gegenftand des ziwetten und des dritten Haupt: theiles; nad) Der anderen unterjdteden fitch die beiden legten Hauptthetle wie die zwet Sage: ,, Ghue das Gute” und ,, Mteide das Boje“. Diefe zweite Vermuthung it jedoch augen{deinlich unhaltbar, da im dvitten, vierten 1) Sm Umfange find dieje dret Haupttheile erflarlicher Weije einander nicht gleich: der erfte ὁ (bei Hilgenfeld 1. c.? p. 94 sqq.) nicht mehr αἵ 3 Druckzeilen, der aiweite bereits 18 oder 8 mal 6 und der dritte gar 56 oder nocd) iiber 3 mal 18 Druczeilen. Doch entjpricht diefes Wnfdhwellen des Umfanges Der {chon oben gefenngecichneten Ntanier, in welder die 7 {πε jprachen abgefaft find und welder wir auch im Todeswege wieder begegnen werden. 2) 2. a. Ὁ. 6. 10. Ueber die fog. Bwilfapoftellefre. 561 und flinften der oben befdhriebenen Whidhnitte ebenjowohl! Bethatiguigs- als Cuihaltungspflidten eingejddarft wer- den. Uber auch die erftgenanunte Vermuthung, wonach — Der siwette Haupttheil die Forderungen der Gotteslieke Und Dev Dvitte die Der Nachftenliebe einlaplider darjtellen fol, widerlegt fich von jelbjt, da die Pflichten der Gottes- fiebe, wie die obige Subaltsangabe zeigt, auch) im dvitten Haupttheile und zwar hier weit offener αἵδ᾽ im siweiten ux Darftellung gelangen. Und diefer Llebtere Umftand ent}cheidet auc) gegen die Wufftellungen Wd. Harnad’3?), τοοπα der dritte Haupttheil die Madjtenliebe, dev sweite aber die Gottesliebe zum Gegenftande hatte, indem die Vor- {chriften de8 zweiten Hauptthetles, die Feinde zu lieben, dem Bujdlagenden auch die andere Wange zu τοίου! und jedem Bittenden unterjcdiedslos zu geben (1, 3—6), cine Welt- entjagung verlangten, ,die gar nicht mehr durd) den Ge- fihtspuntt de3 Dienftes am NMachjten motivirt werden” founte und die tm Urdriftenihum in oer Ghat (neben dem Gebet) fiir ,, die divefte und wejentlide Bethatiqung der Gotteslicbe” angelehen worden ware. Denn mit dem- jelben Rechte mug dann aud) im dvitten Gaupttheile eine MAuslegung de3 Gebotes der Gottesliebe gefunden werden, Da wns Hier Voridriften begegnen wie, den MNadchften unter Umftdnden mehr zu lieben αἴ die eigene Seele (II, 7), jehlimme Crlebniffe als gute Hingunehmen, da ohne Gott ja dod) Nichts gejdhehe (III, 10), den Ber: Fiindiger deS gdttliden Wortes mie den Herrn 3u ehren (IV, 1), gegenitber einem Gennjjen der unvergdngliden Giiter Michts jetn eigen zu nennen (IV, 8), dem Ge- 1) WM. a. Ὁ. 6. 45 ἢ. Theol. Quartalferift. 1884. Heft IV. 36 562 Krawubety, bieter αἵδ᾽ einem Wbbilde Gottes mit Scheu und Furdt su gehorden (IV, 11), alles Gottmipfallige zu hafjen (IV, 12) und Sffentlich (in der Gemeinde) feine Ueber- tretungen 3u befennen, um nidt mit bifem Gewiffen gum Gebet hingutreten (IV, 14). Diefe Vorjdriften fjesen nicht weniger, al die Crmabhnungen zur Feindesliebe {owie zur willfahrigen Unbilderduldung und Milothatig- feit, eine wirffame, Lebendige Gottesliebe voraus; ja dieje Vorjdriften weijen auf dieje ihre Vorausfebung wiederholt und unzweideutig bin, mogegen im zweiten Haupttheil nur ein einziges Mal (zur Cmypfehlung der unterjdhiedslofen Milothatigkett) auf Gott Bezug genome men wird (I, 5), daneben aber allerhand Hinweile fic hervordrdngen, die eher an die Selbjtlicbe al3 an die Gottesliebe denfen lajjen, wie dak der Ghrijt ja dod mehr Nacftenliebe zeigen folle als der Heide und dak er algdann feinen Feind haben merde (I, 3), dap er vollfommen fein werde, wenn ev Dem Zuldlagenden auch die andere Wange reide (1, 4), dak er Weggenommenes ja doch nicht wiederzuerlangen im Stande jet, wesbhalb er ἐδ auch nicht evft zurticffordern folle (1, 4), und daf ex feinerjett3 feine Schuld habe, wenn er gemap dem Gebote allen Bittenden und darunter auch folden, die nicht beditrftiq find, gebe (I, 5). Mach dev Auffaffung Harnad’s miifte zwijchen dem sweiten und dvitten Haupt theile doc) mindeftens das umgefehbrte Verhaltnis in der Motivierung der Vorjchriften obwalten. Wie die Dinge fliegen, wird fid) deshalb feine der obigen Vermuthungen liber Den Bujammenhang der drei Haupttheile fefthalten laffen, vielmehr dice Whficht des Verfaffers dahin gegangen fein, 3u den beiden Hauptgeboten de3 Chriftenthums nod Ueber die jog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 563 διρεῖ Jeihen von Vemerfungen hinguzufiigen, von weldhen bie “erjtere jofort in volltinigen Werfungen die Hohe der Hriftlicen Bollfommenheit bejdjreiben, die lebtere aber — unter nur gelegentlidem Cinfdluf von Vollfommenz | heitslehren — mit den negativen und pofitiven Grund- | forderungen Der Nach ftenliebe beginnen und von da bis zur Cinfharfung der widhtigiten veligtojen Pflidten fort- fbreiten jollte. — Cine lidhtvolle Wroronung und ohne Weiteres an- lprechende Darftellung liegt jedoch hiernady in der Bwolfapl. nicht vor und wird um jo weniger anzuerfennen fein, al3 dev Verfaljer, dev feine volltinigen Volfommenhetts- lehren bintendrein jelbjt bedentlid) gefunden 3u haben jdeint, nad dem formliden Sdlug des Todesweges nod) einen Jachtrag bringt, in weldhem die vorausge- Jdhictten hohen Wnforderungen dadurd abgejdhwacht twer- den, δαβ man thun foll, was man finne, wenn man “das ganze Gur Vollfommenheit dienende) Sod de3 Herrn au tragen nicht im Stande fet (VI, 2). Um jo bedeut- jamer erjceint ἐδ, dap in dev ap. Ko. von den oben unterfdiedenen fiinf Ubjchuitten der zweite (die Vollfom: menheitsjpritche) und der fitnfte (dite Sprtiche nad) den fieben Wnjpracen) feblen und dap die dvet iibrigen Wbicdynitte, wie {chon oben gezetgt murde, namentlid) wenn auch der Legte derjelben die aus der Bwilfap. heriiberzunehmende Ueberfchrift, die ihm urjpriinglid angehirt haben diivjte, gurticerbalt*), von jelbft etn 1) Fand der Verfaffer der Bwolfapl. in jeiner Quelle die 3 in der Ko. benubten Wbjdjuitte mit je einer Ueberfdjrift vor, fo begreift e8 fich leicjt, Daf ev nach Erweiterung der Borlage Zu 8 Haupttheilen mit 5 WAbjdhnitten die vorgefundenen 3 Ueberfdriften ὁ0 564. ται βοΐ, liberfichtlides, wobhlgenordnetes und in ὦ abgefchloffenes Ganzes bilden. Bm Wnfange — unter der Ueberfchrift : der Weg de Lebens einerjeits ift diefer” — δίς vier Spriidhe der Gottes- und Madftenliebe, im Sdhlupab- jcnitte — παῷ den Worten: ,,Cin zweites Gebheip der Belehrung aber iftY — odie fiteben funfivoll aufgebauten Anfprachen, in welchen die BPflichten der Macdhjten= und Gottesliebe ihre ausfiihrlidjte Darftellung erhalten, und dazwijdhen — mit der Cinleitung: ,3u diefen Worten aber ift die Velehrung dieje” — ein Whichnitt?), welder ἢ eben fo unmittelbar und offenfundig an den Wnfangs- abjdnitt anjdlieBt, wie er den Grunodvig zu den wetteren , Uusfiihiungen de Sdhlubabfcnittes bildet: — follte ein “foldhes Zufammentreffen und innerftes 2ufammenftimmen der in der Ro. itberlieferten Lerte einer alteren Schrift δια, follte e3 ein Meifterftiice δὲδ fonft fo ungeldicten Verfajfers der Ko. fein, dev hier mit gliidlidem Griff aus feiner Vorlage dte den Zujammenjdhlug der Gheile ftdrenden Wbfdhnitte ausgejcdhieden hatte? Oder ift e8 nidt vielmehr unvergletdlic) mahrideinlider, dab diejer Bujammenjdhlup oer Dheile von dvitter Hand herrithit und fdon einer Quelle eigen tar, aus welder die Verfaffer der Swoblfapl. und der Ko. beiderfetts gefdhipft haben? — den 3 Haupttheilen vorjebte und fomit die Zweite und dritte von ihren urjpriinglichen Stellen entfernte. 1) Derjelbe ift in der Ko. liicenhajt mitgetheilt und aus der Bwilfapl. au ergdnzen, da twenigften8 das Verbot des Diebftahls aiwifchen dem de8 Ehebruches und dem de8 falfchen Beugnifjes ur- {priinglich faum gefehlt hat. — Ym Umfange wadhjen die 3 3105 {chnitte tibrigen8 ahnlich an (mit 83—4, 10—11 und 35—37 Drud- acilen), wie die 3 Haupttheile der Bwilfapl. (jf. o.). Ueber die jog. Bwolfapoftellehre. 565 3. Betvadten wir nod) den in der Brwolfapl. mit- getheilten Todesweg, jo zeigt dicle Darftelung im Vergleid) mit der in dev Bwslfapl. vorausgehenden Schilderung de$ LebenSweges folgende Cigenthitmlich- Fettent : a) Dem Wnfange deS Lebenswege3: ,,€rftens, du jollft lieben den Gott, der dic) gemacht hat; sweitens, — deinen Madhften wie did) felbft” wu. 7. Ὁ. (1, 2) ftehen im Tode8wege die Worte gegenitber: ,(Der Weg des odes aber ift diefer:) Bu alleverit, er tft jhlimm und δ voll” (V,1). Wie fon Bryennios') bemerft hat, evinnert diefer Lert an Hermae Mand. VI. und verdant Demiach jeine jebige Geftalt vielleicht erft dem Verfaffer Dev Swodlfapl. Ym Sittenjptegel (Const. Ap. VII, 18) lauten die entipredenden Worte: δὲν Weg des _ Tode3 aber ift an fdlimmen Handlungen erfennbar: Deun auf demfelben findet man...”, twwomit rect wohl Der urjpriinglide Wnfang δῷ TodeSweges wiedergegeben fein finnte. Wie fic) dte3 aber auch verbalten mag, jedenfall3 ijt dev vorliegende Dert jo allgemeinen Gubhalts, Dab dte fic) anjclieBende Wufzahlung einzelner Siinden wie Mtord, Chebruch, Gier, Hureret, Diebftahl u. 7. ww. dazu in Ghulidher Weife die πάρετε Wuslegung bildet, wie im Lebenswege die auf die betden LiebeSgebote folgenden Derte alS zugehdrige Wuslequug betrachtet fein wollen. Ὁ) Objdhon das eben Gefagte bereits darauf jdliepen ‘abt, dap die Darftellung des Todesweges nad) dem ᾿ς απο ihres Verfaffers derjenigen de3 Lebensweges 1) WM. a. O. S. 28. 566 δια βοΐ, durd ihre Wnlage und Gliederung einiqermapen ents jpvechen joll, wie dies ja auch in der Natur der Sache liegt, weicht die Schilderung de$ TodeSweges von der de8 Lebensweges in der Biwdlfapl. dod) jofort dadurch erbeblic) ab, nag alle Vollfommenhett3siprige dDeSzwetten Haupttheiles unberticficdtigt bleiben. Nun ware aber cin Verjuch, die jenen Spritchen entgeqen- gejebten Erjdheinungen des TodeSweges aufzuzabhlen, FeineSiweg3 unausfithrbar oder auch nur fchiwieriq ge- wejen; jdyon die dret Worte: , Feindfeligkett, Macdhjuct und Wucher” Hatten geniigt, um den Bnbhalt des zweiten Hauptthetls durch die gegenthetlige Schilderung der Haupt- jache nach iv’ Geddachtnis zuriictzurufen. Der vorliegende Vert fithrt deshalb von jelbjt auf ote obige Vermuthung zuriic, dag jene BVollfommenbheits|priiche deS zweiten Haupttheiles nicht Του zur urfpriingliden Darftelung Der zwet Wege des LebenS und de Todes gebhdren, und verrath zugleid, Daf der Verfajjer der Bwoblfapl. e3 unterlajjen bat, nad) Cinfchaltung de8 zweiten Hauptthetls auc) mit dem Wortlaute des Dodesweges die ent}prechende Criveiterung vorzunehmen. 6) Dte im Todeswege aufgezahlten Sitnden fptegelu | den Yubalt des dvritten Hauptthetles in der Weije ab, dah die den dritten Haupttheil beginnende Ueberfidt der Verbote und Gebote mit den alsbald nachfolgenden fechs Wnjprachen hier in Cins zujammenfltebt und nur jene Legten in der Ko. fehblenden Gabe, welme in der Rwblfapl. nod als fitnfter Whi dhnitt deS Lebensweges folgen, nidt bertidjidtigt find. Sn8befondere wachjen die Wortgruppen parallel dex vorlebten und Lebten WAnjprache bis zur Ueberfitlle Ueber die jog. Bwslfapoftellehre. 567 an. SOteht oer erjten Wnfpradce de3 Lebensweges auf dev Seite des Looesweges allein der Mord gegentiber und ent}preden der folgenden (aus sweten in eine 3u- Jamimengezogenen) Wnfprache die Sitnden de Chebruches, Der Gier und der Hureret, jo fommen auf die beiden nadfien AWnfprachen nad der Ordnung de8 vorlieqgenden Tertes Diebftahl, Gsgendienft, Bauberet, Giftmifderet und Raub, auf die vorlegte Wnfprache aber die Τα ἐπ Beugnijje, die Heucheleten, dite Doppelberzigfeit, der Betrug, die Ueberhebung, die Bosheit, die Wumafhung, Die Habjucht, die jchdnodlice Rede, dte Ciferjudt, die το εἰ, der Hochmuth und die Hoffabrt und auf die legte Anjprade eine noch gripere Bahl von Bradifaten, ndmlid) die Unflagen: ,,BVerfolger der Guten, Hafjend Wahrheit, liebend Uiige, nicht erfennend den Lobhn der Gerechtigfeit, nicht anhangend dem Guten noch auch dem gerechten Gerichte, achtjam nicht auf das Gute, fondern auf da8 Sdlimme, von denen weitab iff Sanftmuth und Gedulod, Citles Viebend, jagend nach Belohnung; — nicht bemitleidend den Wrmen, fic nicht anjftrengend wegen eines Belafteten, nicht evfennend den, der fie gemacht hat, (Mtdrder von Rindern, Berftiver de3 Ge-z bildes Gottes,) fich abwendend vom Bediirftigen, unter- Driidend den Bedrangten, der Meicen Beiftinde, der Armen ungerechte Richter, mit allen Siinden bebhaftet.“ — Bon Wortargheit oder Befdhleunigung des Sajluffes faun bier feine Rede fein. Faft jammtlide Wnflagen (3 mal 7 und 1 an Babl), mit melden der Finfternis- weg de Barnabasbricfes (XX, 2) fdliept, find beibehalten worden, felbft die beiden Wnklagen , Miroer pon KRindern, Berftdsrer oes Gebiloes Got 568 Rraroubcty, tes” nidt ausgenommen, obfdon diejelben in der QBwilfapl. nach IL, 2 gum Diebftablsverbote (vermuihlid als Mittel der Crbichleicheret) gehdren und mithin nicht der leBten, jondern der vterten Unjprace gegentiber zu ftellen waren. Gleichmobhl fcliebt dte Darftellung des Todesweges, ohne auf die Save, welche in der Bwoslfayl. auf Die jech3 WAnjpracen noch folgen, — e3 find dte Sage von der gotteSfiirdtigen Kindererzichung und gegen- feitigen UWdhtung dev Herren und RKnecdhte aus Gottes- furcht fowte von der fculdigen Treue und WAufridtigfett gegen Gott — irgend Bezug zu nehmen: wohl ein deut- licheS Wnzeichen, dak auch dieje Sake nicht icon von Wnfang an in der Darjtellung dev zeit Wege geftanden, jondern gleich den ebenfalls im TDode8wege unberiidfid- tigt gebliebenen BVollfommenhetisipriihen de8 giweiten Hauptthetles der Biwsdlfapl. erft vom Verfatjer der Llegteren Dingugefitgt worden find. Schivterig wentgitens ware οδ nicht qeiwejen, wie dew Ddritten und vierten, jo auch den fitnften Wbichnitt des LebenSwegeSs bet dev Belchreibung de3 Vodesweges mit in Crinnerung zu bringen: {chon Worte τ twie ἀφοβία ϑεοῦ oder ἀγρυπνοῦντες οὐκ εἰς φόβον Feod_ bitten bierzu gentigt. Oder vielmehr: οδ ware mur τι nbthig gewejen, eben dieje Worte, welche der Sift eve | nisweg des Barnabashriefes enth alt, gleid | faft allen anderen Beftandthetlen dDiefer Vorlage bei der Bearbeitung de} GodeSweges betzubehalten, wenn diefe Bearbeitung in der Chat οὐ vom Verfaffer der Bwislfapl. ftammt. Gegen wir dagegen eine altere Darftelung der givet Wege voraus, aus welder die vorliegende Schil- Derung de3 Todesweges unmittelbar gefloffen ift und in welder die Bejdreibung de3 LebhenSweges [Ὁ auf die Ueber die fog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 569 jdon oben al8 eng zujammengehdrig dargethanen ovet Nhfanitte befchrantte, jo eriweift fich der in Rede ftehenvde Tert de3 Todesweges αἵδ᾽ eine planmapiq angelegte Gegentiberftelung und Recapitulation, bet deren Wus- arbeitung der mittlere Whi chnitt des LebenSmeges wegen feines vorherrichend negativen Subalts zmwedmabig als nddjte Grundlage diente, daneben aber nicht blos die fieben Wniprachen, jonudern (vgl. den Sag: ,nidt er- fentend den, Der fie gemadt hat”) auch die Tertiworte de3 erften Wbidhnittes gelegentlih) beritdjtch- tigt wurden. "ἢ Mle Wabhrideintichfeit jpricht mithin dafitr, dah οἷο... Darftellung der zeit Wege in der Bwilfapl. fete Oviz ginalarbett, jondern die Erivetterung einer alteren Sahrift | iiber denfelben Gegenftand ijt, in welder auf die zwei’ Hauptgebote der Liebe fofort die defalog-dhulide Wus- fequng folgte und οἷς fieben Wnjpracen den Schlup- abjdnitt de Lebensweges bildeten. Wenn nun Clemens pon Wlerandrien an der vielgenannten Stelle Strom. I, 20 einen Gag anfithrt, welcher diefen fieben AWnfprachen entnommen tft, jo fann man zunddhft thwan- fer, ob bierbet an die Bwilfapl. oder an ihre Ouelle gedadt werden jolle; da πη jener Gag indeR δια εἰῷ als ein Wusiprud ,der Schrift” bezeichnet wird, jo (abt fic) Hierin nicht wohl ein Beugnis fitr οἷς Πίπαους Bwolfapl., jondern vtelmehr nur ein folde3 fiir dte dltere verloren gegangene Schrift finden, deren Cnt- ftehungzeit fofort den Tagen de3 Clemens von Wleran- drien moglidft weit vorausliegend anzujegen tft. Dod) nod) mehr. Der Verfafjer der Bwolfapl._ fdhreibt feine Vorlage Τα unverdndert ab und Τα οἱ 570 RKrawugcety, amar zivei Wbjchnitte in diefelbe ein, entlehnt aber aud) dieje grokenthetls wirtlid) dret andern Gdyriften, nam- lich jeinem Coangelium (val. Matth. V, 39 ff. uw. Lue. VI, 27 ff.) und dem Pastor Hermae (Mand. ΤΙ, 4—6) einentheils (1, 3—5) und dem Barnabasbriefe (XIX, 5, 7, 2 und 12) ἢ) andernthetls (IV, 9—14). Darf von 1) Die von der Bwolfapl. hier gewagte Verbindung der zwei Sage deS Barnabasbriefes: ,BWerlajfe nidt die Gebote dDeS Herrin”, fondern,bewahre, was du (an Offenbarungs- lehren, gl. Deut. 1V, 2 ff.) ,empfangen haft, ohne Hin ,ufiigung und ohne Hinwegnahme”, erjcheint auf den erften Glick widerjinnig, da GlaubenStreue und Gebotsitbertretung in Der Wirklichfeit des LebenS einander FetneSwegs ausjchliefen, (abt fich jedoch ertragen, wenn man den Sinn des erjten Gages im Hinblicl auf den sweiten verallgemeinert und jo wendet, dap Die Gebote de Herrn φιπᾶζ in ihrer Cigenjchaft als Offen- barungslehren (nicht als Sittenvor|chriften) betrachtet werden. Dak aber im Uebrigen die Lichtweg-Spriidhe de3 Barnabasbriefes in der Bwilfapl. allerdings eine faplicere Reihenfolge aufweijen, als fie im Barnabasbriefe felbft haben, ergiebt doch wohl Eeinen Beweis gegen die Priorvitat des lebteren (j. 0. S. 399 f.), da Diejem anjfcjeinend (vgl. I, 4) eine erfolgreide Unterrictsibung borausliegt, in welder jene Sabe am ebeften ihr jentengtdjes Ge- prdge erhalten fonnten und in welcher fie urjpriinglid) bom Ver- fafjer Des Barnabasbriefes auch in einer befjeren, jadgemaperen Gruppierung gebraucht worden fein werden. Gene mitndlide Vehr- iibung ift eine elementare gewefen; erft brieflich unternimmt es Dev Verfafjer, zum miindlich mitgetheilten Unterricht eine vollfome menere Cinficht fowobhl begtighich der Glaubeuswabhrheiten αἵδ᾽ aud besiiglich dev Gittenlehren hingugufiigen (I, 5; XVIII, 1). Qu erfterer Hinficht nun gefdieht died durcdy Darlegung der alttefta- mentliden Weiffagungen und Vorbilder, welche den (anti-ebioniti- jchen) Glaubenslehren zur Veftdtigung dienen und den Lefern in folder Beleuchtug noch teu find. Jn Llegterer Hinficht aber macht ber Verfaffer den BVerfuch, eine eben diejer Darftellung ent{pre- chende Ueberficht der Moralvorjdhriften au liefern, — ein Verjudy, welder vom antijudaiftijdhen Standpunfte unternommen und Des Ueber die fog. Swdlfapoftellehre. 571 einem foldjen Sehviftiteller wohl angenommen werden, Dag ev nach einem Ddervartigen unfelbjtandigen WAnfange halb vom mojfatjchen Defalog und der Ddiejem ΤΠ anjchlieBenden Lehrovdnung de3 Evangeliums (Matih. 5, 21—48; 15, 19; 19, 18 Ff.) abjehend allerdings die Rrafte des Verfafjers weit itberjtieg. — Es jollen awei entgegengejebte LebenSwege befdhrieben werden: jchon liber die δι wahlenden Begzetehnungen fommt der Verfaffer mit fich jelbjt nicht in’3 Reine; ev redet 1, 4 vom Wege der Gerechtigfeit (vgl. 2. Petr. 2, 21), IV, 10 von den Werfen des bdjen Weges, V, 4 vom Wege der Gerechtigfeit und vom Wege der Finjternis, XVIII, 1 vom Wege des Lichtes und vom BWege der Finjterni3, XIX, 1 u. 3 vom Wege des Lichtes und vom Wege de Tode3, XX, 1 vom Wege de3 Schwarzen. — Beide Wege flaffen fitch in je 4 Wbjchnitte zerlegen. Wie fon Bunt, o. S. 394 u. 400, geltend macht, jcheinen im Lichtwege die Gebote dev Gottes- und Machitenliebe (XIX, 2 u. 5) den Anfang eines erften und etnes atveiten Whjdhnittes au fenngeichnen; ebenjo diirfte die Vorjchrijt, fich jelbjt nach Rradften rein gu halten (XIX, 8) einen dritten 310: ΓΤ πὶ einfeiten und mit der allgemeinen Wujforderung, alle Offen- barungslehren treu 3u bewahren (XIX, 11), ein vierter oder Schluf- abjduitt beginnen. Ym Finjterniswege Hhinwieder bildet die mit n»Oogendienft” eingeleitete und mit ,Ntangel an Gottesfurcht” {hliebende Giindenreihe (XX, 1) einen erjten, auch grammatijd abgejonbderten Whjchnitt, auf welcdhen dann noch drei Heptaden von Unflagen (Verfolger der Guten u. 7. w., wachfam nicht zur Gottes- furcdt u. 7. w., nicht evfennend den, der fie gemacht, τ... tv.) und das allgemeine Gchlubwort: ,mit allen Giinden behajftet” folgen. Aber von ftrenger Ordnung der Darftelung ift bet all dem nichts au entdecen. — Gei Befpredhung der altteftamentliden Speife- verbote hat dev Verfaffer drei Klafjen von Siindern unterfdieden, Die Klajfe der immerdar und gainglich Gottlofen, die Klaffe der gottver- geffenen Scheinfrommen und die Kaffe der Raubgieriqes , und in diejer Unterjdhetdung eine vollfommenere Cinficht εὐ ΠΣ (X,1—5,9f.). (δ jdeint, al8 verjuche er nun, bet jedem Wbjdhnitte dev stwei Wege eben diefe Unterjcheidung durchzufiihren und regelmapig gleihjam die Worte cingujchdrfen: ,1. jet treu gegen Gott, 2. (oder 3.) jet aufridtig fromm und 3. (oder 2.) fei 572 | RKrawugety, die nod) folgende gripere Halfte feiner Arbeit vollig oder auc) nur vorwiegend jelbftandig gejdaffen habe 2 unjtraflidh und mildhergig!” Wenigftend finden fic) im erften Whjhnitte (068 Lichtweges) — nach Mtittheilung de3 Haupt- gebotes (Der Gottesliebe) und einer gujdaplicen Mahnung (in den Begierden de3 Hergzen3 einfach und im Cifer de8 Geiftes reich gu jein) — die Sage: ,Du follft nicht anhangen denjenigen, die auf Dem TodeSwege wandeln (α΄. X, 5), jolljt Haffen alle Heuchelei, jollft nicht annehinen einen jchlimmen Rath gegen deinen Machiten” ; im zweiten Wbjchnitt — ebenfalls nach Mittheilung de3 Haupt- geboteS (Der Machftenliebe) und einer gujdblichen Warnung (vor RKindesmord) —: ,,Iicht moigeft du deine Hand guriicdsiehen von deiner Sohne oder von deiner Tochter, fondern von Jugend auf jollft di fie lehren die Furcht δε Herrn, nicht twwerde ein habjfitch- tiger Meenjch, du jollit nicht doppelfinnig und nicht doppelgiingig jein”; im Dritten WUWbfdhnitt — wiederum παῷ Mitthetlung des Hauptgebotes (der Enthaltjamfeit) und einer δι] θη ἐπ Mahnung (nicht eigenntibig gu werden) —: ,Du follft lieben wie deinen Augapfel jeden, twelcher gu dir de3 Herrn Wort redet, folljt ge- denfen des GerichtStages bei Nacht und bet Tage, follft dich nicht befinnen zum Geben”; im vierten Abjdhnitt: ,Du follft be- waren, was du empfangen Haft, follft friedfertig jetn, jollft nicht nahen zum Gebet mit bifem Bewuptlein.” Ym fiinften Wb- jehnitte (Dem erften des FinfterniSweges) begeguen wir nod) den Worten: ,Gipgendienft, Heuchelei, Raub”; im fed ften: ,,BWer- folger dev Guten, Wahrheit haffend, Liigen liebend, nicht acdhtend einer Wittwe oder Waife’; im fiebenten: ,Wacdhjam nicht aur Gottesfurdht, fondern zum Sehlimmen, nicht bemitleidend den Armen”; undim adhten: ,,Micht erfennend den, der fie gemacht, unterdriicend den Bedrangten.” — Hiernach ift e3 nicht unwahr- jGeinlich, Daf dev Verfajfer darauf ausging, bet jedem der beab- jichtigten acht AWbjchnitte ΤΟ Ὁ vor vollendeter Gottlofigteit als auch vor heuchlerijcher Frimmigfeit und vor mitleidlojer Raubgier (oder, im Ginfterni3wege, wenigitens vor Gottlofigfeit und Maub- gier) eine Warnung angubringen. Dak ihm nun die Durdfiih- ruig diefes ohnehin miflicen Vorhabens nicht auf3 Vefte gegliicdt ift, gumal ifm wohl aud daran Ing, feinen von den Lieblings- jpriiden, welche ifm von feiner mitndlicen Lehrthatigheit ber Veber die fog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 573 Oder ift eS nicht vielinehr von vornherein wabhridheinlicy, Dap ev auch Hier eine Gltere Schrift κι Grunde gelegt und diefelbe ahulich, wie ex mit den zwei Wegen gethan, theils gefitrgt, theils urd) Cinjdhaltungen evweitert habe ? Betradten wir, was diefer Vermuthung etwa zur Be- ftdtigung dienen Fann. 3. Die antizebionitijdhe Verordnung. 1. Die zweite Halfte der Bwilfapl. behandelt su- nadft folgende Gegenftinde : 1) die Art zu taufen (VII) jowie wichentlid) zu faften und ἄρ 3u beten (VIII), 2) die euchariftijden Gebete (IX und X) forwie die eucariftifde und erbomologetijde SGonntagsfeier (XIV) und widhtig jdeinen und geldufig jein mocdten, unerwahnt gu Τα πῃ, fteht allerding3 anper Bweifel. Wher e3 begreift fich doch auch, dak bet foldem Vorgehen diejelben Pflicjten wiederholt bevrithrt werden und insbejondere die Wflicht der Mtildhergigkeit jowie der ‘Mildthatigteit mehrmals gur Sprache fommt, ohne dap daraus eine Moithigung entiteht, die von einem anderen Standpunfte aus- gehende und ihre Ausjpriiche nach andern Gefichtspunften verbin- Dende Darjtellung der Wege de3 Lebens und deS Todes (oder auch Die Bwilfapl. felbjt) hier als Quelle de3 Barnabasbriefes anzu- nehmen. WnderntheilS aber ijt dieje legtere Wnnahme dadurcd) απ: gefchloffen, δαβ die Daritellung de3 TodeSweges in der Brwolfapl. augenfdheinlid) vom Finfterniswege deS Barnabagsbriefes abhjangt (j. 0.), wie denn and), um WAnderes gu tibergehen, die Vorjchrift Dev Bwolfapl. (II, 7), unter Umftanden den Nachften wiehr gu lieben alZ die eigene Geele, [Ὁ am leidhteften aus einer Begugnahme auf den Barnabasbrief (XX, 5) evflart, in welcjem dev allgemeine Sag, den Nachften in folcjem Grade 3u lieben, nach 1,4 und IV, 6 nicht melscnes ἊΨ oe, 555 τυ 574. RKrawugcety, 3) die Bejftellung von Cpiffopen und Diafonen und die Werth}chagung derjelben (XV, 1 u. 2). Dieje dret Hauptthetle bilden ein wobhlgenrdnetes und in fic) abgejdlofjenes Ganze8, dad ὦ ans der 9 0100], die Grundbedingungen eines gedethlidhen Gemeindelebens neu etnzujchdrfen, verftehen und begretfen lapt. Wher die Bwslfapl. jdaltet swifden die Vorjdhriften θεν die eucharifti}cben Gebete einerjeits und iiber die euchariftijde und erbomologetijche Sonntagsfeter andererjeits noch eine hetradtlide Rethe eingehender Anweijungen ein, namic a) liber die als ,,QUpoftel” Dbezeichneten Wanbder- prediger, die jcdon als Ltigenpropheten gelten follen, wenn fie an einem Orte Langer als hichftens zwei Tage bleiben oder bet dev Weiterretje Geld verlangen (ΧΙ, 3—b), b) tiber die im Geifte redenden Propheten, die nicht voriwigig 3u beurtheilen, jondern davan als wabhre Bro- pheten zu erfennen jeten, dab fie das Benehmen des Herrn (τοὺς τρόπους Κυρίου) an fich haben, von der im Geifte beftellten Mtablgeit nicht effen, die. verftindete Wahrheit auch jelbjt beobachten und im Geilte nicht fiir Π ὦ jelbft, jondern Hdchjtens fiir andere Bediirftige Geld oder andere Dinge fordern (XI, 7—12), c) tiber die dDurdreijenden Glaubensgenoffen, welde man nbdthigenfalls zwei oder dret Tage beherbergen uno, wenn fie am Ort fid) niederlaffen wollen, um als Hand- werfer oder durch andere Arbeit fic) ihr Brod 3u ver- Dienen, hierbet unterftiigen, tm Falle der Arbeitsjdheu aber meiden folle (XIL), und 4) tiber den Unterbalt, dejfen jeder mabhre Bro- phet, welcher fic) in einer Gemeinde niederlaffen wolle, Ueber die fog. Bwdifapoftellehre. 575 joie jeder wabre Lehrer wiirdig fet, und welder fic, da DdDieje Bropheten die Hobhenpricfter der Gemeinden feten, iiber alle Crjtlinge der Relter und Tenne fowie der Minderv= und Schafherden mit Cinjdlug des An- bruches jedes frifchen Leiges und neugedfineten Wein- oder Delgefajjes erftrecdle, wogegen vom Geld und von Der Befleidung und von jedem fonjtigen Crwerb die Erftlinge nach fretem Crmeffen entrictet merden diirfen (XIII). Wugenjdeinlicy liegt Hter eine bedeutende Unter- brechung deS Zujammenhanges vor'), die fid) am Leich- tejten dur) die Wunahme erflart, dag der Verfajjer dev Swolfapl. auc) hier ein alteres νυ {π᾿ vor jich ge- habt und abulich, mie ev e$ mit der alteren Darftellung ber zwei Wege gethan, durch eine gripere Cinjcdaltung ohne Schonung deS Zujammenhanges erweitert hat 2). 1) And bei Bryennios, aa. Ὁ. σελ. Sy’, lantet die furze Gnhaltsangabe bereits jo, δαβ die Unterbrechung in Die Wugen jpringt. Derfjelbe unterjcheidet namlic) im Gangen vier ΘΕ ἄς, von weldjen das erfte (I-VI) Die 3wei Wege enthalte, das zweite (VII—X und X1V) vom gittlicen Dienft handele, ὃ. 1. von der Taufe, dem Gaften, dem Gebet, der Cucharijtie und der Art, den Tag des Herrn 3u feiern, das dritte (XI—XII1] und XV) fich ἴδεν die Apoftel, PBropheten und Lehrer u. |. tw. verbreite und das vierte (XVI) die Barujie des Herrn betreffe. 2) Auffallig ift παίει der Hinweis χατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν, wel- cher jowobhl im erften, dem LebenSwege eingefchalteten, Whjdhnitte (I, 5) al8 auch Hier (XIII, 5 u. 7) fich findet; noch bemerfens- werther aber twohl, dab, wahrend jener Wbjdjnitt mit einer nur ftilljdweigenden Senugbung de Cvangeliums beginnt (I, 38—5), hier bald anfang3 (XI, 3) ansdriidlid) auf das Evangelium Be- aug genommen wird. Diejer ausdriidliden Begugnahme begegnen wir daun nod) in &. XV, 3 u. 4, einem anjdheinend ebenfalls 576 Krawubcky, 2. Nachdem der Verfajjer die αἵ zuverlapig er- wiejenen Bropheten fiir dite neuteftamentliden Hohen- priefter der Gemeinden evflart und ibnen al3 folden den Bezug der gejebliden Crftlingsqaben feiten3 der Ge- meinde, in welder fie ihren Wobhnfig gewabhlt haben, suertaunt hat, wie ev denfelben auc) οι vorber (X, 7) das Vorrecht ecingerdumt, die euchariftijden Gebete jo fang, al8 fie wollten, auszudehnen, lieB fic) eine Beleb- rung dariiber wohl begreiflicd) finden, was die Gemeinden thun jollten, um derartige prophetijde Hobepriefter und Liturgen ftets zu befigen. Cifriges Bemiihen, den etiwa anjapigen Bropheten an jeinen Wirfungstreis zu feffeln jowie im Bediirfnisfalle einen auswdrtigen oder durd)- reijenden Bropheten zur Ueberfiedlung oder Nieder: {ajjung zu getwiunen oder auch in der etgenen Mitte dte eriwachenden Brophetengaben nidt zu vernacdhlapigen (vgl. 1. Cor. 14, 1 ff), hatte ohne Widerjpruch mit Dem Buvorgejagten empfohlen werden fonnen. Dagegen einen anderweitigen Crjag zu jdaffen und Cpiffopen und Diafonen zu bejtellen, meil aud fie Den Dienft oer Propheten und Lehrer let- jteten (XV, 1), ift eine itbervajcende Wufforderung die fic) mit den vorausgegangenen WAnweifungen θεία: eingejdjobenen Zexte, fowie jon VIII, 2, wo der urjpriinglice Wortlaut durch den Hinweis auf das Evangelium und auferdem Durd) die mitgetheilte Doxologie erweitert fein mag. Wom jech3- aeyuten Rapitel endlich, deffen eSchatologifche Wngaben fich auf irgend ein Evangelium ftiigen, DdDitrvfte gwar die Ermahnung Zur Wachjamfeit (als Schlufwort) fdon in der benubten Vorlage ge- {tanden haben, der aweite Vers dagegen und alles noch Folgende (vgl. htergu auc) Barn. ep. IV, 9 u. 10) wieder von unjerem Autor ftammen. Ueber die fog. Bwilfapojtellehre. 577 li der Britfung und de3 Unterbaltes der Bropheten wiht wohl vertragt Denn jene WAntweijungen jegen Offenbar yoraus, dag die Gemeinden noch nad wie vor Gelegenheit hatter, mahre und erprobte Propheten zur Niederlaffung in ihrer Mitte 3 bewegen. Wenigftens eine Bwifdhenbemerfung, wie die XIII, 4 begitglicy der Erxjtlingsgaben gemacdhte: ,wenn thr feinen Propheten habt" oder findet, ware deshalb bet der Vorjchrift, Cpijfopen und Diakonen 3u beftellen, jehr am Plage gewejen. Dak gleichiwohl jede derartige Cinfcrantung [Ὁ und Lediglic) die Befchatffung von Crjabperfonen fiir die Bropheten und Lehrer vorgejdrieben wird, iwie wenn {don friiher davon die Itede gewejen ware, weld empfindlidjer und nicht 3 bejettigender Mangel an Pro- pheten und Lehrern herrice ἢ, iff faum anders αἱ 1) Der betreffende Lert lautet, mit Bwijchenbemerfungen tiber Den vermuthliden Ginn der eingelnen Worte, vollftandig: Χειρο- τονήσατε (Ὁ. ἰ. Beftellet durch Handausftrecung der wabhfenden Gemeinde und der ordinierenden Liturgen) οὖν (da dies nach dem Vorherbemerften ndthig ift) ξαυτοῖς (fiir euren Bedarf) ἐπισχόπους (VWorfteher im Bejibe dev apoftolijdhen Vollgewalt, je nach der Grife der Gemeinde mit oder ohne priefterliche Wltargehilfen) χαὶ διαχόνους (und Begleiter des Bijchofs, welche ifn namentltch int Unterrichte der Meulinge wie in der Wauffichtsfiihrung und Armenpflege unterftitpen) ἀξίους Κυρίου, ἄνδρας πραεῖς καὶ age λαργύρους καὶ ἀληϑεῖς καὶ δεδοχιμασμένους " ὑμῖν γὰρ (denn euch, Die ihr wegen der Mahe Palaftina’s bisher zwar nur Zuge- wanderte judenchriftlicde, namentlic) in die jerujalemer Ueber- lieferung , Rirdenordnung und Gebets: und Lehriveije eingeweihte und von dort her bevollmactigte Manner — vgl. WApg. 15, 24 — mit prophetijder Begabung oder palaftinenfifdjer Lehrgefchictlich tert au BVorgefesten hattet, jebt aber infolge des Niedergangeds der Dortigen Gemeinden und der Berftirung der heiligen Stadt jolde Manner nicht leicht mehr erhaltet, wegen eurer vorwiegend Heid- Theol. Quartaljerijt. 1884. Heft IV. 37 578 Krawiupety, durch die Vorausjebung eines alteren Lertes 3u vev- ftehen, welchen dev BVerfaffer der Bwilfapl. ungeadhtet Dex voOrausgegangenen grdgeren Cinjdaltung tiber οἷς Wanderprediger und Bropheten hier unverdndert beibe- halten Hat und in welchem jcdyon vorber, vermuthlid in dev Cinleitung, eine fitr die Gemeinden ver- hangnisvolle Verminderung der Propheten und Lebhrer erwabut worden war. Sedenfall3 bereitet die Annahme feine gefcicdtliden Sdwierigtetten, dab, als die in den Wpofteltagen tblichen Wuswanderungen palajtinenfijdher Propheten und Lehrer nad) den auswartigen Gemetnden (vgl. προ. 11, 27; 18, 1 f.; 15, 32; Sac. 3, 1) mebr wud mehr aufhsrten, aljo bejonders nach dem Falle Serujaz Cems, mance Grenggemetnden, — welde bis dabin wegen dev Nahe Palaftina’s ibre firdliden Vorjteher mit Veidy- tigtett aus der Zabl jolcder Bropheten und Lehrer ἐὺς halter batten, nun aber andauernd verwatften — 10 68: lich zuwandernde Whfdmmlinge de auserwabhlten Volfes nijden Whfunft aber auch eher entbehren fonnt, αἵδ᾽ die noch vor- wiegend judenchriftlichen Geineinden, welchen Wtanner mit blogs qriechijder Geiftesbildung flix ihre bisherigen Bropheten und Lehrer feinen vollen Erjag leijten witrden, euch) λειτουργοῦσι χαὶ αὐτοὶ (feiften auch fie, die Heidenchriftliden Vorgejebten, die nicht mehr burch ijraelitijce, jondern durch griechijche Mangbezeichnungen unter: jchieden werden, den Dienjt der ,Propheten und Lehrer”) τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν προφητῶν χαὶ didacxdiov’ My οὖν ὑπερίδητε αὐτούς (Gebhet fie αἴο nicht fiir gering an, tweil fie ja von feiner anderen Herfunft jeten, als ihr felbjt:) αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν (dent fie, eben diefe, geretchen euch zur (τὸ, da fie eud) angehiren und Doch Hochgeehrt find als Wmtsgenofjen der dem auserwahlten Volfe ent{taminenden Bropheten und Lehrer, oder fiirzer: find fie e3 ja Dod, welche aus euver Bahl der (δῆτε neben den Propheten und Lehrern thetlhaft find,) of τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων. Ueber die jog. Bwolfapojtellehre. 579 fid) als Lehrer gefallen lieBen, die, fet e3 aus Untennt- nid, jet e3 aus ebtonitifierender AWnhanglicfeit an die vaterlandijden Gewobhnheiten, a) die chrijtlide Daufform perabjdumten, Ddafiir aber Ὁ) und c) die pharifdijden Faften= und Gebetsitbungen pflegter, ἃ) auch wohl arf ihre Art euchaviftijde Gebete vervricdteten und dabei e) die Sountagsfeter Hintanjegten, und dak durd alles Diejes irgend welche Wmtsnacdhfolger der Wpojftel fdon frithzeitig 3u einer Berorduung veranlabt wurden, in welder nach einer einleitenden Bemerlung itber die herr- chende Nothlage eben dieje Vorjchriften liturgijden und firdenrechtliden BubaltS zu finden waren, die fic) aus Dem Wortlaut der Bwodlfapl. von felbjt nod) 3u einem Hejonderen Ganzen zujammenzufitgen jchetnen 1). 3. Unmittelbar vor der Langeren Cinjdaltung ἰδεῖ die Wanderprediger und Bropheten findet fic) der Lert: νον nun fommt und eud) dies alles, da8 voritehend 1) Beginnend mit dem Hintweije auf die feit dem Balle der Hf. Stadt eingetretene Verminderung dev (paldftinenfifden) ,,Bro- pheten und Lehrer und die Hieraus entftandene langjihrige Ver- waijung mancher Gemeinden, dte nun bereits ἴδον Dinge wie “απὸ und Cucharijtie in Unjicherheit maven oder durch zutvan- Dernde berufsfoje Lehrer in Unjtcherheit verjegt witrden, fonnte jene Verordnung (eines Konvents firchlicer Vorgejegter, vgl. pl. 15, 1 ff.) recht wohl guerft περὲ (μὲν) tod βαπτίσματος und περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας mit Cinjhlup der Vorjchriften iiber Faften und Beten und Sonntagsfeter (VIL bis X u. XLV) und jodann noch iiber die Bejtelung von Cpijfopen und Diafonen und deren Hochach- tung (XV, 1 u. 2) fich dugern, um mit einer allgemetnen Ermah- nung zur Wachjamfeit (XVI, 1) gu jechlieBen: gur Wiederherjtelung Diejer vermuthlicjen Vorlage der Bwodljapl. witrde eS jedoch noch einer eingehenderen Unterjuchung bediirfen, da, abgejehen von Flei- neven Cingelhetten, bejonders die euchariftijden Gebete’ (j. tw. 1.) Den Verdacht einer bedeutenden Kiirgung und Umftellung οὐ: ween. 37 * 580 Krawugycty, Gejagte, lehrt, den nehmet auf; wenn ev, der Lehrende, jedod) felbjt verfehrt ift und eine andere Lehre lehrt zur Mufldjung, fo hiret ihn nicht an: —jedod zur Hine 2ufiigung von Geredtigfeit und Crfenntnis deS Herrn, nehmet ihn auf wie den Herrn”?). Das Lebtere Θάβ οι miipte vollftandiger heiben: ,,twenn ev jedod) eine andere Lehre zwar vortragt, indes eine jolde, δαβ Gerechtigfett und Crfenntnis des Herrn da- durd) vermehrt wird, 70 nehmet ihn auf wie den Herrn.” Man bemerft leicht, dak hiermit das in den erften bet- den Sagen Wusgeiprochene mit etner nicht gerade αὐ: iden Wendung dabhin berichtiqt werden joll, dap nicht set, joudern drei Falle miglich find und nicht blos im erften, jondern auch) im dem beigefitgten dritten Falle Die Mufnahme des Lehrers Pict ijt. Dah der Ver- fafjer der Swoblfapl. dabet einen frembden Tert vor fid) gebabt und in der bezeichneten Weife zu verbefjern ver- jucht bat, wird fic) faum verfennen lajjen, da die Wn- nabie, etn und derjelbe Wutor habe nach jeinem eigenen Plane zuerft jede abweicende Lehre gedchtet, fchon im ndcdjten Sage aber feine Weifung felbjt enthraftet, in- dem der Anjpruch, ein Mtehrer der Gerechtigkeit und Gotteserfenuntuis zu fein, ja jehr [οἰ δι von jedem anders denkenden Lehrer erhoben werden fonnte, denn dod) wohl an gewagt ware. Wher was fiunte den Verfaffer der Qwolfapl. zu dtejer Vertanderung veranlaft haben ? 1) Ὃς ἂν οὖν ἐλϑὼν διδάξῃ ὑμᾶς ταῦτα πάντα τὰ προει- οημένα, δέξασϑε αὐτόν" ἐὰν δὲ αὐτὸς ὃ διδάσκων στραφεὶς δι- δάσχῃ ἄλλην διδαχὴν εἰς τὸ καταλῦσαι, μὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, εἰς Δ. Q ~ A ’ Ἂ - Υ Π ff pe Nae \ δὲ tO προςϑεῖναι δικαιοσύνην καὶ γνῶσιν Κυρίου, δεξασϑὲ αὐτὸν ὡς Κύριον. ΧΙ, 1 u. 2. Ueber die jog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 581 Wohl nichts anderes, αἵδ᾽ dah er jelbft cine andere Lehre vortrug, als in fetner Vorlage vorgezetchuet war, Dabet fic) jedoch al einen Mebhrer dev Geredhtiqkeit und Gotteserfenntnis betrachtete. Wie diejes Legwtere zu verftehen fet, Zetgen etnigermapen {don die Rujagbe, τοῖς der Berfaffer zu feinen beiden Vorlagen macht. Die volltinigen Vollfommenheitsgebote (1, 3—5), δίς in etitent Madjtvage zu den zwet Wegen (VI, 1—3) wieder abgejchiwacht werden mitffen, um nicht eber absufdhrecten al3 anzuloden 1), die Forderung dev DOeffentlidfeit des Siindenbefenntnijjes, welche IV, 14 yum Verte des Barz nabasbriefes (XIX, 12) hingugefitgt wird, die dem Baz terunjer angehdngte (hier ebtonitijd aufsufatfende Ὁ) Dorologie denn dein tft dte Macht und odte Hervrlidfett in die Cwigkeiten” (VII, 2), dad entidiedene Vorgeden gegen gewinnflidjtiqe Wanderprediger und Bropheten (XI, 6, 9, 12) 5) fowie gegen arbeitsjdheue Glaubens- 1) Die Vemerfung: ,,YW2her arch hieritber bleibt doch wohl gejagt: ©€3 jdwike dein AWlmojenin deine Hande, bis dDuerfannt θα, mem Ou gieb ft” (I, 6), gehort wohl nicht hierher, da fie alS Cinwand eines Glofjators angufehen fein diirfte. : 2) Auf Ehelojigkeit der Propheten [εἶπε der Verfaffer jedod) nicht dringen, vielmehr ifnen jelbft mehrmalige Verheiva- tung nachjehen δι wollen: ermahnt er doch XI, 11 die Gemeinden, Gott das Gericht gu iiberlaffen, wenn ein erprobter Prophet εἰς μυστήριον χοσμιχὸν τῆς ἐχχλησίας (Ὁ. 0. woh!, in Begug auf Die Che, die etwas Weltliches und doch in der Kirche nach Cphef. 5, 32 etwas Geheimnisvolles tft), fitr jeine Perfon ftarfe Dinge Lleiftet (ὅσα αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, nimlich durch Verhetvathung und Wies Derberheivathung, nicht durch Enthaltjamfeit, die DdDamal$ eines Shubredners nicht bedurfte), falls er nur nicht fehre, δαβ man e3 ebenjo machen folle; — denn ebenfo Hatten auch die alten Bro- pheten (wenigitens Ojeas 1, 2 ff.; 8, 1 Ff.) gethan. — Cine 582 Krawupcty, genofjen (XIL, 5), δίς Anordnuung der Crftlingsqaben (XIII, 3—7), οἷς firvenge Weijung gegen die Verleger der Bruderliebe (XV, 8), die Cmpfehlung oftmaliger Ronferenzen behufs Crzielung der perfinliden Bolle fommenbett fiir die Bett deS Weltendes (XVI, 2) und die Andeutung, dak beim Weltende dtejenigen, welche in ,iorem” (viaterlichen? ebionitijchen?) Glauben verharren, nicht anders alS von oder unter dem der Vernidhtung Geweihten (dem jerufalemer Dempelberge, 3u welz chem die Cbioniter nocd immer betend fic) binwen- deten 1) 2), witrden gerettet werden (XVI, 5): dieje Cine xelheiten Laffen bereits vermuthen, wie der Verfaffer ὦ als vermeintlicher Mehrer der Geredhtighett und der Cr- fenntuts des Herrn [τ berechtigt anjehen mote, ‘von der itberlieferten Lehrz und GebetSweilje abgutveicden. Nehmen wir nocd hinzu, twas dite Bwdlfapl. aus ihren Vorlagen anjcheinend ausgemer;zt hat. Sm Gebot dev Gottesliebe (1, 2) feblt der (den Cbioniten ohne Sweifel mibfallige) 5) Hinweis auf die bereits erfolgte Crldjung , dev ἰδοῦ, wie wir fon faben, nach dem Wortlaut dev apoft. Ko. zu febliegen, ebenjo wie im Barnabasbriefe (XIX, 2) auch bereits in den zwei We- gerade entgegengejebte WAuslequng }. bei Wd. Harnad a. a. O. au XI, J1. 1) Circumciduntur (Ebionaei) ac perseverant in his con- suetudinibus, ‘quae sunt secundum legem, et judaico charac- tere vitae, uti et Hierosolymam adorent, quasi domus sit Dei. Tren. adv. haer. I, 26, 2. Dev Gert der Bwslfapl. lautet hier: Οἱ δὲ ὑπομείναντες ἐν τῇ πίστει αὐτῶν σωϑήσονται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ καταϑέματος. Bgl. daju ζ ο εἴ, 3, 5 (Vulg. 2, 32). 2) δαί. Philosophumena, VII, 84: Ἐβιωναῖοι... ἔϑεσιν Tovdat- κοῖς ζῶσι, χατὰ νόμον φάσχοντες δικαιοῦσϑαι χαὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγοντες δεδικαιῶσϑαι ποιήσαντα τὸν νόμον. Ueber die fog. Bwolfapoftellehre. 583 get, auf welchen die Bwdlfapl. fubt, geftanden haben Diivfte. Sa jelbft in den euchariftijden Gebeten UX τ. X) unterbleibt jede Crinnevung an den Erldjungstod De3 Herrm, obfcon πα 1. Gor. 11, 26 (fowie nach Suftin, Dial. cum Tryph. δ. 41; vgl. c. 117) dei jedem Genujje der enchariftijhen Gaben eine Verftin- Diguia diejes Dodes ftattfinden jollte und demgemaf auc) in der vom Verfajjer der Bwoslfapl. benugten Ver- promung vermuthlic) vorgefdrieben war. Gm Barnabas- briefe (XIX, 7) werden dte Herrin zur jdonenden Be- handlung ihrer Knecdhte, die auf denfelben Goit hoffen, mit der Bemerfung aufgefordert, dab otejer ihr betder- feitiger Gott gefommen ift, nicht nach Wnjehen der Ber- fom zu berufen, jondern Zu denjenigen, welche der Geift zubereitet hat ἢ. Die Wulunft Gottes im Fleijde und fein Wandelu unter den Menjdhen wird hier als eine Der Vergangenheit angehdrige gejchichtlide Dhatjache porausgelept, die αἴ jolche von ebtonitijc denfenden Mainnern τε nidt anerfaunt wurde 2). Der Ver- faffer dev Bwilfapl. aber giebt den Gert de3 Barnabas: briefe3 im der Weile wieder, dak ev von Gott in der Gegenwart ausjagt, oderjelbe fomme nicht nach Wn- fehen dev Perfon zu berufen *), und fo das Befennt- nid der Mtenjchwerdung Gottes vermeidet. Ueberhaupt 1) Μήποτε ob μὴ φοβηϑήσονται τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις ϑεόν" ὅτι ἦλϑεν οὐ κατὰ πρόσωπον χαλέσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ Ove τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν. 2) Ἐβιωναῖοι δὲ ὁμολογοῦσι μὲν τὸν χόσμον ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄντως ϑεοῦ γεγονέναι, τὰ δὲ περὶ τὸν Χριστὸν ὁμοίως ta Kyoivda χαὶ Καρποχράτει μυϑεύουσιν. Philosoph. 1. ὁ. Cf. Iren. adv. haer. IV, 23, 4 1. I, 26, 2. 3) Οὐ γὰρ ἔρχεται χατὰ πρόσωπον χαλέσαι. 584 RKrawugcety, wird in der Bwolfapl. ote Gottheit Chrifti nivgend3 unsiweidentiq gelehrt. Dejus Chriftus wird einerjcits Der Knesht Gottes (παῖς Feov, ebenjo wie David, IX, 2, 3, X, 2, 3), andeverjetts aber aud der Herr (3. B. VILL, 2 uw. bfter), ja (in dev trinitarifden Dauf- formel VII, 1, vgl. XVI, 4) auch wohl der Sohn Gottes genannt: da indes auch die Chioniten, objcdon fie Sejum fiir ectnen blofen Menfchen erflarten, welder nur wegen feiner Gefegeserfitllung Chriftus heife ἢ), fowobhl die trinitarijdhe Daufformel?) als auch οἷς Feter dDeS ,,LageS des Herrn” *) beibebhielten, veiden diefe Bezeichnungen nicht Hin, um dte Rechtglaubigfeit des Verfajjers der Bwilfapl. wachzuweijen; ja felbjt der Subelruf ‘Qoawe τῷ ϑεῴ AaBid in dev Crwartungs- feier der ReichSsvollendung (X, 6) Hilft tiber dtefen Bwet- fel nicht hinweg, da πα dem Bujammenhange an Chri jtus, deffen Wiederfunft nirgends offen angefiindigt wird (j. XVI, 5—8 τι. vergl. dazu Matth. 24, 30), nicht nothwendig zu denfen ift, die ungewshulice Formel ἢ) vielmebr recht wobl auf denjenigen bezogen werden Faun, αἰ deffen Knecht 31 Wnfang dev Feierlidfeit Da- vid (υἷε auch Sejus) genannt wurde (IX, 2) und wel- cher im Verlaufe dev euchariftijden Gebete 3u wieder- Holter Mtalen und nod) ganz furz vor dem fragliden Subelvufe um dite Herbeifiihrung dev Meidsvollendung augerufen worden ijt IX, 4u. X, 5). @Angefichts diefer Sadlage geht ἐδ nicht wohl an, beim Verfaffer der 1) Philosoph. 1. ὁ. 2) Hteronymus in Lueif. ο, 9. 3) Eujfebius, H. B. III, 28 ed. Lammer. 4) ©. ἴδεν diejelbe Wd. Harnad, a. a. Ὁ. gu X, 6. Ueber die fog. Bwoslfapoftellehre. 585 QBwilfapl., dev wie von der Menjdwerdung und Cr- Lofung jo ard) vor der Geiftesjendung durchweg {dyiweigt, eine Hinneigung zum Montanismus anzunehmen; wohl aber fithren die angegebenen Cingzelheiten, mozu πο der wabhridheinlice Gebrauch des Cvangeliums der Iazaraer und Chioniten (7. 0.) und Nichtgebraudh der paulinijden und johanneifden Schriften fommt*), zu dem Crgebnis, Dap der BVerfafjer der Bwilfapl. wabhricheinlich ciner ebionitifierenden Ricdtung huldigte und fomit an dem Nuffewunge, welchen die Sefte der Chioniten gegen das ahr 200 nabm *), wohl nicht unbetheiligt mar. 1) Mah F Probft, Lehre und Gebet in den 3 erft. chriftt. SFahrh., 1871, S. 182, diirfte auferdem die Weifung VII, 4, dak Der Taufling ein oder atvei Tage vor dev Taufe faften jo, auf Vertwandt}haft mit Ehionitismus deuten, Bal. auch, was XIII, 3—7 liber die nur durch ifr Vetragen beglaubigten bropheten als nunmehrige Hohepriefter und ἴδεν die ihnen gufommenden Crit ling3gaben gejagt wird. Doch verbietet die milde Behandlung Der Speifjeverbote (VI, 8) joie die Annahme der anti-jiidi}dhen saftenorduung (VIII, 1), an jchroffen Cbionitismus gu denfen. 2) Die Partei der gnoftifchen Ebioniten erhielt um jene Beit ijre Clementinijdmen Homilien; den vulgiren Chiont- ti8imus aber vertrat twenig fpater al theologijder Schriftiteller der Vibeliiberjeger Gymmadhus. GS. Ad. SGshliemann, die Clementinen, 1844, S. 476 ἢ. Bgl. auferdem das Wuftreten de Blaftus fowie des Theodotus des Gerbers in Rom um das Gahr 192 und die fich anjchlieBenden dortigen Be- wegungen. (Der damalige rimijdhe Bijchof Victor erlieh nach Dem Pontificalbuche ἴδον den Tanjfvollgug eine ahuliche Beftim- mung, twie fie fic) in den anti-ebionitifden Verordnungen fand. Dev Gerber aus Byzanz aber diirfte, wenn jammtlice alten Nahridten itber ihn und feine Schiiler — die Angaben de libellus synodicus in BVerbindung mit Eujebius H. E. V, 19 ff. nicht ausgenommen — naher gepritft und mit Sezugnahme auf die ποις entoedte Schrift beleuchtet twerden, leicht αἵδ᾽ dev bislang unge- nannte Autor der Brwolfapl. 4u begeichnen jein, dev nach Wbfafjung Diejev fetner Erftlingsjdvift ebenfowohl fihig war, eine Beit lang 586 Krawugety, Die der Bwolfapl. 3 Grunde Liegende altere Verord- ning aber, die im Sinne ihrer Cutftehungszeit 1) als ,atizebionitifd” zu bezetchnen fein wird, bat anfdeinend qrade in dent Whjchnitte, im weldem fie vor einer ab- weidenden und zur Wufldjung fiihrenden Lehre warnte, die bedeutendfte Aenderung und Wbfitrzung erlitten, Wus der jchrviftgemagben *) ,Dankjagung und Broobrehung” iff παῷ XIV, 1 (vgl. IX, 3 uw. 4) cine , Brodbredung und Dankagung” geworden, in tweldher des Vetdens und Sterbens Chrifti feine Crwahnung gejdieht, die Brones- geftalt al3 ein Borbdild der mod) erft zerftreuten, aber einft in der Endzeit zujammenzubringenden Gemeinde Gottes aufgefabt wivd (IX, 4; val. X, 5) und tiber- haupt an die Stelle einer mit dem Genup der Cuchaz alS erfter Raffenrendant dev montanijftijden Prophetic au fungieren, al auch, mit Mtontanus ποίει gu Hterapolis und An- Hialus firchlich verurtheilt, aus dem Kreije der Montanijten, Derert Glaubensridtung er ohnehin nicht theilte, ploglich gu vere jchwinden, αἵ auch Hiernach daheim in der Verfolgung Chriftum au verleugnen, abermals jpurlos gu verjchivinden, um in kon als Sophift aufautreten, und fcblieBltch eine ebiomittjche Gecte gu ftif- ten, deren Wnhanger durd Vejoldung thres Bijchofs MNatalis jo- wie durch gahlreiche Wbanderungen der heiligen Schrift ihrem Meifter wiirdig nachfolgten.) 1) Spater, al8 die ebtonitijde Bewegung bereits feftere Form augenommen und der chrijtlichen Taufe und Sonntagsfeter vom Ebionitismus, welcher dteje Ueberlieferungen beibehielt, feine Ge- fahy mehr drohte, hatte eine anti-ebionitijde Verordnung, bejon- Dev8 wenn dabei nur der gefahrdete Glaube und nicht auch eine lible Vertwaijung der Gemeinden in BSetvacht gefommen ware, aller= dings einen anderen Yuhalt erfordert. Um jo ει τον fonnte der Verfaffer dev Bwolfapl. das zu jeiner Bett in mandher Hinfidt bereitS veraltete Gchriftftiice ungeachtet der entgegengejebten Len- Dens auf jeine Weije benugen. 2) Val. Mtatth. 26, 26; Marc. 14, 22; Luc. 22, 19; 1 Cor. 11, 24. Ueber die jog. Biwolfapoftellehre. 587 riftie {chliependen Gedachtnipfeier de3 vollbradhten Gr- (Hfungsopfers cine erft nach) dem Genuk (wera τὸ su- πλησθῆναι, wie es X, 1 heigbt,) ihren Hodhbepuntt er- reicende Crivartungsfeter de Weltgeridhts und der Neichsvollendung tritt, οἷς fie fitr ebionitt}dhe Gemein- den Bediirfuis fein modte. Bteht man deShalb die im zmetten Bfatf’ [hen FJrenadus-Fragmente ἢ evindbuten ,,deutero-apoftolijden BVerorduingen” Herbet, aus welchen die Leter unter Wndrem wiffen fonnten, DAB dev Herr eine neue Darbringung im neuen Bunde etngejebt babe gemap der Weiffagung de3 Mtalachias pon dem reinen Opfer aller τίς 2), fo geht ἐδ nicht ὍΘΙ an, jene BVerordnungen in dev Bwolfapl. jelbft IMiederzufinden, da in LeBterer zwar (XIV, 3) die Weif- faguing de8 Malachias in Verbindung mit der Sonn- tagSfeier angefiihrt, aber der Cinjebung eines neutefta- mentliden Opfers nirgends angsoritdlic) gedacht wird und δοὼ die ,,3Zweiten Veroronungen der Wpoftel”, in- Dem Το wohl nicht gerade auf fie befonder3 binge: wiejen twitrde, Hieritber fic) deutlicher ausgedritcdt haben miiffen, αἵ fjelbft die neuteftamentlicen beiligen Schrif- ten, 3. Ὁ. Matth. 26, 26 ff. oder Luc. 22, 19 f. Daz gegen erjdeint e3 nicht unmiglic), dap die der Biwdlfapl. zu Grunde Liegenden Vorfdhriften, deren euchaviftijde Gebete in der Bwilfapl. ja nur wmwvollftdndig mitgethetlt werden, behufs Whwehr de Chioniti3mus die Stiftung 1) S. Irenaei Opp. ed. Ad. Stieren, I, 854; Oilgenfeld, VRC. 0. 18; 2) Οἱ ταῖς δευτέραις τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεσι παρηχολου- ϑηχότες ἰσασι τὸν Κύριον νέαν προσφορὰν ἐν τῇ καινῇ διαϑήχῃ χκαϑεστηχέναι xata τὸ Modayliov κτλ. 588 RKrawuts cy, DeS neuen Bundes und οἷς Cinjebung des neuen Opfers nachoriiclic) Hervorgehoben haben. Wielletcht alfo find e3 Ddiefe durch die Biwolfapl. uns grofentheils wieder- gegebenen anti-ebionttifden Beftimmungen, welche etuft Den Vitel: ,,Deutero-apoftolijdhe Verordnungen” firhrten. ay Die ervfte Aufnahme der Bwsilfapoftellehre im Dev Vaterzett. Waren οἷς obigen WAufftellungen itber die Geiftes- rvichtung deS Verfatjers der Biwslfapl. zutreffend, fo ift eS nidt wabricheinlid), dap feine Wrbeit in firdliden / Kretjen jofort beifalliqg aufgenommen worden fet. Sn Wubetracht de Umftandes, dak der Verfajfer wohl erft it dev zivetten Halfte des gweten Gabrhunderts uno sar vermuthlic) in Balaftina oder einem benacdbarten | Lande al Sebriftiteller aufgetreten {{| 1}, erjcetut nun Clemens von Wlerandrien als der nadfte Beuge, welder uns itber die angeregte Frage vielleicdht Musfunft 3u geben vermag. Diefer aber unternimmt ἐδ am Scdhlup feines Padagogen (IIL, 12, p. 304 sqq. ed. Potter.) , felbft gleidfam εἶπαι ,Unterridt der Wpoftel fiir Meulinge” yu Liefern oder vielmebr, von welder Wrt der durch die Wpoftel er- theilte NeulingSunterrigt gewefen fet (οἵα dv ἀποστόλων ἡ παιδαγωγία), quellenmapig angu- geben. Biehen wiv aljo δίοεῖς Grirterungen πάθεν in Betracht. 1) Dies ergiebt fich wenigften3 αἵδ᾽ die nadh{tliegende Annahme, Da dev Wutor anjceinend den Pastor Hermae fennt und fich des Hebraderevangeliums bedient. Ueber die jog. Bwolfapoftelfehre. 589 . Buvdrderft erfahren wir von der ΘΠ de3 Wau- tors, den bisher auf οἷς Laufe Vorbereiteten bet ihrer Cutlajjung aus dem paddagogijdhen Unterridte einen furzen Subeqgriff der Heilslehre gletdhjam mit auf den Weg zu geben und ifnen aus der Heiliqen Schrift die einfadyen Gebote mitzutheilen, welde fie vor den Wee gen DeSSrrthums bewahren und auf dem guten Wege erhalten fonnen. Cinen erften Gubegriff all Diejer Lebensregelu bilde aber der Wusjprud des Herrn (Luc. 6, 31): , Wie thr moll t, dak eud die Men- fhdenthun, fothbuetaudhibribuen.” Dod fei ἐδ miglicd, alle Gebote auch in zwet Worte zujam- menzufatjen, ndmlid) in dte beiden Worte von der Gottes: und Nadftenliebe. Da inde dod auch in’8 Cinzelne dev Gebote eingegangen werden miiffe, ἴο Diene dazu Der mojatj/meDelalog mit jeiner Stindenaufzahlung: Ou follft nicht ehebrechen, nicht GHgendienft tretben, nicht Knaben jdhanden, nicht fteh- fen, nidyt faljfdes Beugnis geben; οὔτε deinen Vater und deine Mutter u. 7. w.” Dies fet zu beachten und was jonft gemah den Sdhriftlejungen befoblen werde. — Hterin befteht der erfte von den dret Theilen de3 beabjichtigten Gchlupunterridts. Wie man leicht be- merit, verfolgt Clemens dabei wejentlich denjfelben Ge- Danfengang, welchen die der Bwdlfapl. 3u Grunde liegende Darftellung dev zivet Wege einhiclt. Denn aud) diefe ftellte im WUnterjdhiede vom Lichtwege des Barnabas: bricfe3 die beiden LiebeSgebote voran und LteR zur naberen Erfldrung dervjelben jofort die Verbote der zivet- ten mofaifden Gelegestafel folgen. Die nddftliegende Vermuthung lautet deshalb dahin, dak unjer Witor eben 590 Krawubcty, dDiefe dltere Darjtellung der zwet Wege hier vor Wugen gehabt habe. Doch lapt fic nicht verfennen, dah die Wusfibrungen de$ Wlevandriners mit dtejer Darjtellung FeineSwwegs vollfommen iibereinitimmen: er jchicdt den beiden Liebesgeboten noc) die Worte: ,,wie thr wollt u. j. ww.” voraus und ermabnut fdblieblih (nad Dtatth. 19, 17 ff.) auch noc) ausdritdlich) das vterte der Behu- gebote, objcyon beide Sdyriftterte in den alteren , 8tet Wegen” anjceinend fehlten. Der Anjclug unferes Wutors an jeine Vorlage ift demnach offenbar fein augs- nabmslos firenger und deshalb lapt fich immerbin die Moglichfett nicht befiretten, dab die Bwoilfapl. jelbft mit ἔρτουν Darjtellung der zwet Wege (objdon dann die AWbweicdung vom Gedanfengange des alerandrinijden Lehrers eine nod) gripere ijt), bier als Vorlage gedient hat. Gedenfalls aber erjcheint ungiweifelhaft, dap die eile Oder Die andere Darjtellung dev zwei Wege (wenn nicht beide zugletch) unjerem Wutor vorjcdwebte, da feine Crwahnung des GHigendienftes und der Knabenjchan- Dung 1) unter den Verboten der ziwetten mojfaifden Ge- jebeStafel nur auf diele Weite erflarlid ijt. — Der giweite Gheil des Schlupuntervichts fodann bringt elute Meihe vow Wusjpriicen der PBropheten und Chrifti, welche tiber den Qnbhalt und Gedanfengang der alteren nowet Wege” hetradhtlid) Hinausgehen. Nimmt man deshalb an, dak Clemens diefe Legtgenannte Sdrift 1) Glemen3 von Wlerandrien nennt szwifden den Defalogs- worten die Knabenjdhandung auch in der Cohort. c. 10, p. 85 und im Paed, II, 10, p. 223 (vglf. Strom. III, 4, p. 527): man erfieht hieraus , wie jehr eine von den beiden vertvandten Darftellungen Der gwet Wege jeinem Gedachtniffe geldufig war. Ueber die fog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 591 bisher vor Augen hatte, jo tft zu jcblieBen, dah er cine Stoffvermehrung fiir witnjdhenswerth eradtete und dab injofern οἷς Bwolfapl. mit ihrem veicheren Snbhalte feinen Betfall gefunden haben dtivfte. Diefe Lebtere Vermuthung gewinnt nod dadurcd an Annehmbarfeit, dap die Wusjpritche, welde auf den Defalog folgen, nidt obue Bezugnahbme auf die Swailfapl. ausgewablt {cheinen. Wenigftens wird als erfter jchriftgemager Be- fehl, welcher neben den Defalogsworten beobachtet wer- den joll, die Mtahnung de8 Yejatas 1, 16—18 ange: fiibrt: ,Waihet euc und merdet vein u. }. w., fernet Gutes thun τ. 1. w.” An zwetter Stelle gejchieht des Gebet ὃ διάδημα jowie an dritter des Saftens, wobet dte Mufforderung, Gutes zu thun durch Uebung der Barntherzigtcitswerfe, betdemal fic) wieder- holt. Hiernad) aber fommt die Mede auf die Opfer, um unter Verwerfung de altteftamentlicen Wltardtenftes als gottgefdlliges Opfer den φευϊπίν τίει Get ft und das Herz, weldmes jeinen Bildner pretft, Hinguftellen. — Bergleicht man mun Hiermit die BVor- {chviften in Dev siweiten Halfte der Bwslfapl. itber die Taufe (VIL), tiber Faften und Beten (VHD und tiber die enchariftijden Gebete IX u. X), fo lapt fich die Mbglichfeit nicht Leugnen, dap die obigen Ausipritde mit Mitcjicht auf dieje Voridhriften, die wegen der Wr- candisciplin im Badagogen noch nicht mitthetlbar jcdeinen founten, zujammengeftellt morden feten. — Dev nadftz folgende Wusjpruc) allerdings ent}pricdt nicht in gleider Weife Dem πάει! Verte dev Bwslfapl., welche nun- mehr (XI, XILu. XLT) von den Wanderprediger u. }. tw. Handelt. Wuf diefen Wbidhnitt nimumt unjer Autor nidt 509 Krawugcty, Besug, deSgletchen auch nicht auf die noch folgenden Vorfdriften tiber die eudyariftijdye Sonntagsfeier (X1V) und liber die Beftellung von Cpijfopen und Diafonen (XV, Lu. 2). Crit bet der Vorjdhrift θεν die briider- lide Zurechtweijung (XV, 3) treffen Swolfapl. und Schlupuuterrict des PBadagogen wieder zujanmmen, {1|: Dem der WAlerandriner an die Wusfpriiche ber das Opfer Den Lert anreiht: , Wenn dein Bruder fid ver: fehlt hat, vermeije e8 thm” uj. w. (uc. 17,3 F.). Mber diefe Wbweidung vom Gedankengange der Bwilfapl. evilart fic) wobl daraus, dap einerjetts die Vor) drift liber die euchariftijhe Sonntagsfeter durcdy das vom Opfer Gejagte erledigt und anderjetts die Sage {θεν Wanderprediger und odergl. jowie itber Cpijfopenbe- ftellung τι. f. Ὁ. nicht bierbergehdrig jcheinen fonnten. Die Vermuthung, dap ote vorliegenden Sdhriftterte im Hinblicl auf die ziweite Halfte der Bwslfapl. ausgewablt “worden jeten, wird fic) deshalb imimerhin nicht jo Letcht abiweijen Lajjen. Dazu fommt, dak auch die noch fol- genden Wusipritche mit der Bwolfapl. zujammentreffen, indem wir unter Andevem mun nod dem Gebote der Setudesliebe und der milligen Cutgegen- nahbme von Unbilden (Luc. 6, 27—29) joie der Crmabuung zur πο δι ἐπ Behandlung der Dienftboten begequen. Beide Stticle entipredhen den beiden Cinjdaltungen, welche in dev erften Halfte dev Swolfapl. (Lu. IV) zur alteren Darftellung de$ Lebens- weges Hhingugefommen find, jo dap thatjachlid im vovr- — Liegenden zweiten Theile des von Clemens ertheilten »CMlupunterridhts”, nachdem im erften Bheile oer Haupt- inalt dev dlteren in der Zwilfapl. verwendeten ,, Swet Ueber die fog. Brwodlfapoftellehre. 593 Wege" furz angegeben worden, alle hiernach nod unbe- rlidfictigten Wbjcnitte der Bwoilfapl., abgejehen von mehreren wohl begreiflicen Auslafjungen (j. v.), fic mehr oder minder augenfallig vertreten finden. Diefe Rhatjadhe dart nicht wohl fiir zufallig gelten, um fo twe- tiger, alS die zulebt erwabute Grmahnung zur menjfd- lichen Behandlung der Dienfthoten ausnahmsweije nicht mit Schriftworten gefdteht und deShalb auch nicht Lediq- lich alS Beijpiel eines jchriftmapigen Befehls, fondern pielmehr vornehmlich aus ἡ: auf den noch zu be- rithrenden Whichnitt der Brwolfapl., welder diefe Cr- mahbmung enthalt (LV, 10), bergejebt worden fein wird Vagt fich aber hiernach faum siweifeln, dab Clemens pou Alerandrien die Bwaslfapl. fennt und im siweiten Cheile jeines padagogijdhen Sdlupunterridhts vor Augen hat, jo folgt davaus zundcdhit doc nicht mehr, als daf ihm cin Hinausgehen tiber den Gedanfenfreis der alteren Darjtellung der zwet Wege witnjdenswerth erfdien und Die Rwslfapl. infofern jetnen Beifall Ταῦ. Denn dah ihm auch diefe dlteve, evjt im dev Bwolfapl. erweiterte Darftellung bei Whfaffung de3 Padagogen befaunt war und vorjchwebte, tit mit vorwiegender Wabhrj εἰμ! οἰ Daraus 3u entnehmen, δα 8. der erfte Gheil jeines Sclup- unterricdts Leniglichh Stticke der Alteren Darftellung απ: fiihrt und dag die von dev Bwodlfapl. in den alteren Lebensweg eingejchalteten Spritche erft im ziveiten Theile und zwar οὐ παῷ den itbrigen der Bwolfapl. etgen- thitmliden Vorjchriften an die Reihe fommen. Wenigz ften3 beweilt diejes Verfahren, dak Clemens die alteren Beftandtheile im dev vom Verfajfer der Ziwolfapl. ge- gebenen Darjtellung der swet Wege yon den jiingeren Theol. Quartalfdrift. 1884. Heft. IV. 38 504 RKrawubety, erft bier bingugefiigten Cinfdhaltungen recht wohl unter- {cheidet: etn Umftand, welder fic) am lLeichteften durd die Wunahme erflart, dak unjer Autor von dem Vor- handenjein jener alteren Beftandtheile αἵδ᾽ einer bejon- deren Schrift bereits damals Kenntnis hatte. Reined- wegs aber berechtiqt der vorliegende sweite Theil de3 Schlubunterridhts zu der Annabme, dak Clemens von Wlerandrien mit dem Bubhalte der Bwodlfapl. ttberhaupt einverftanden gewefen jet. Bunddft war ihm aud diejer θα nod) nicht umfatjend genug. Bwifden dem 3.118: jprucje von der britderliden Surechtweijung und dem Gebote der Feindesliebe bringt deshalb der Sdhlugunter- ridbt noch eine bunte Methe von Sdhriftlehren fiir Sil dz ner, Bollpadter, Gerihtsbeamte und Lanod- wirthe, bestiglih der Unterthanenpflidt, de3 Cide3 und der iblen Nadhtragung, gegen die Liigner und Hodmithigen und, nach Seligprei- jung dev Barmberzigen, gegen den Zorn, wozu {pater nocd) Bemerfungen tiber GebetSvertrauen, Chrgeiz, Bupfertigkeitt und Wohlthatig- Feit bingufommen. Hinwieder tibergeht Clemens einige der Rwolfapl. cigenthiimlide Stiidke, wie namentlid) die Ausfiihrungen tiber dite priifungslofe WAlmofengewahrung (in δ. I dev Zwilfapl.) und tiber die volljtandige oder dom thunlichjte Beobadtung der Gebote des Herrn (in 4, VI). Und will man in diefem Verhalten nod feine bejondere Wbficht evfennen, objchon es jehr nabe liegt, hier eine Verjchiedenheit dev beiderfeitigen WAnfichten als Grund de3 Stillichweigens zu vermuthen, jo macht fid ber Standpuntt δὲ WAlevandriners im Gegenjage zur Biwolfapl. dod wenigitens bet der Frage iiber dite brite Ueber die jog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 595 dDerlide Zurecdhtweijung nachorticlich genug geltend, um eine BVilligung der Bwilfapl. al8 folder nicht weiter fiir wahrideinlich 3u balten. Denn nachdoem Clemens {chon durch den oben eriwdhnten Wusjprudh: ,Wenn Dein Bruder jid verfehlt hat, vermeije e8 ibm und, wenn ev in fic) gegangen, verzethe e3 ihm: wenn ev jiebenmal am Lage jid verfebhlt hat gegen dich und fiebenmal fic) mit dem Belenntnis der Bupe an dich wendet, vergzethe e3 ihm”, die Lehre der Schrift dahin angegeben hat, dak bet Verlegungen der Bruderliebe neben der Hauptpflidt dev Verjihnlid- feit auch die Mebenpflidt der Zuredtweijung obwaltet, fommt er nad der Crmahnung beszitglic) oer Dtenft- boten nocdmals auf die Behandlung der fich verfehlen- Den Briider zuriice und erflart, dag man foldhe Briider gurechtweijen und (furgzineg, gleichjam) mit dem Stecen siichtigen, nict aber (Langjam oder andauernd qualen wid) martern jolle. Jet δὲ καί, Lautet jeine Erflarung Lc. p. 307, τοὺς πλημμελοῦντας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ov κο- λάξειν, ἐπιτιμᾷν δέ" ὁ yao φειδόμενος, φησί (Prov. 18,.24), τῆς βακτηρίας ξαυτοῦ, μισεῖ τὸν ξαυτοῦ υἱόν. Man wird dieje Worte faum anders, als eben ange- geben, auslegen finnen, fofort aber and) cinrdumen nitfjen, Dap diefelben eine Mtibbilliqung deSjentgen ent- halten, was die Biwolfapl. bet Verlebungen der Bruder- liebe vorjchreibt, indem jie XV, 3 alljettiges Sdweigen in Gegenwart de3 Uebelthdters bis nad erfolgter Be- fehrung de3 Legteren zur Bflicht macht. | Wher noc mehr. Nachdem im erjten Dheile des Schluguntervidhts der Jubhalt der alteren , Bwet Wege“ als Kern aller Gebote angefiihrt und im 3ziwveiten Dheile aie te 596 Krawugcty, auf die tibrigen Sttide der Biwoilfapl. naber cingeganger worden, erflart Clemens eS fiir nothwendig, besiiglid) dDiejeS ziweiten Theiles, deffen Wusfpritche das 4weite, nicht durch Mojpes, jondern durch die Wpoftel ver- fiindigte Gefeg bilden, auc) nod) anzugeben, in welder Form die Apoftel ihrerfetts dtejes zmweite Gejeg zur Bez Cehrung und Erziehung der Meulinge ausgedritdt haben. Von folcher Wrt”, heipt e$ beim Uebergange vom siwet- ten 3um dritten Theile des Sdhlufunterridts, 1. ο, p. 307 sq., »{iud die Gejege des Logos, die Worte δε Drojftes, nicht in ftetnerne, vom Finger de$ Herrn bejchriebene Tafeln, fondern in dte allein ungzerftirbaren Mten}chen- Herzen eingezetduet. Deshalb ja wurden zerjdymettert die Dafelu dev Herzensharten, damit die Glaubensqe- bote (at πίστεις) der Unmiindigen in zartempfainglicde Sinnesvermigen ecingepragt wiirden. Betde Gefege jez doc) Ddienten dem Logos Zur erjten erztehlichen Unter- weijung der WMtenjdhett, das eine durch Mtojes, das andere durch) die Wpoftel. Won welder Art nun die erfte erzteblidye Unterivetiung auch durd) die Wpoftel war, auch beziiglih diejer Form jceint mir eine Crbrte- rung nothwendig”*). Hierauf folgen als Beifptele apo- ftolijcher Wnforderungen die Sebhriftftellen Cphej. 4, 25. 262202 τ 8.910 9 2 5) Df 1 2, 2 ΟΠ aes oes 7. 9; Gal.5, 25. 26; 6, 2. 7. 9; 1 Theff. 5, 13. 14. 15;619.<20, 21, 22; ΠΟ. "5... 01 1 ine Ga 8:6, 2 und ton. 12,2829, 003/11. 12:°13 pvorberr ” Ν \ 2 ν᾿ > f 1) ἄμφω δὲ τὼ νόμω διηκόνουν τῷ “όγῳ εἰς παιδαγωγίαν - 3) \ Ν ) 2) τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, ὃ μὲν διὰ Μωσέως, ὃ δὲ δι’ ἀποστόλων. Ole γ᾽ οὖν χαὶ δ ἀποστόλων ἡἣ παιδαγωγία, ἀναγκαῖόν μοι δοχεῖ, καὶ περὶ tod εἴδους διαλεχϑῆναι τούτου. Ueber die fog. Biwslfapojtellehre. 597 {chend Furze, jcdhwunghafte Sentenzen, deren Auswahl jedoch einen engeren Wnfdhlup an den θα" der Biwolf- apt. nicht erfennen fat. Was hat unjer Wutor mun mit Ddiefer Bujammenftelung paulinijher Sdyriftterte wohl beabfichtiqt? Und warum hat er diejelbe, nachdem ev bereits das Gejeb des MtojeS und das der WAypoftel inhaltlid) mitgetheilt hatte, noc [τ nothwendig er- achtet ὁ Bei der augenfdeinliden Bezugnahme auf den Sn- halt der Bwslfapl. im ziveiten Dheile des Schlupunter- ridchtS Lat ὦ der BVerjuch, mit den eigenen Worten Der Wpoftel zu zeigen, welche Form und Gejftalt der von Diejen ertheilte erfte evziehliche Unterricht nachweislid gehabt Hat, wohl nicht anders verftehen, al8 dag anc) Hier dte Mitdfidt auf dite Bwoilfapl. mabgebend war und, wie {chon im zwetten Dheile der Gnbhalt der ἴθ: teren feine vollfommene Buftimmung gefunden hatte, nun insbejondere dev Wujpruch diefer Schrift, als Lehre dev Wpoftel angejehen zu werden, feine gebiihrende Bu- ritdwetjung erhalten follte. Denn zwar erflart Clemens nicht ausdritcdlich, dab er dev neuer|dhienenen fogenanuten Bwolfapl. die alte biblijde Wpl. entgegenftellen wolle, —- ey vedet itberhaupt nicht von der jeinem Getfte vor- {webenden Schrift, jet e3, weil er nicht zum weiteren Befanuntwerden derjelben beitragen wollte, fei ἐδ, weil er Ddtejelbe nicht fitr widhtig genug Hielt, um offen witder- legt 3u werden, — aber thatjachlichh hat er fenes Bor- haben ausgefiihrt und dadurd ohne Zweifel erreidt, dah feine Schiiler gentigend belehrt waren, um den Werth Und die Bedeutung de der Bwslfapl. dbeigelegten Litels richtig beurtheilen xu founen. Cine gitnftige AXufnahme 5OR Krawugefy, dicjer Schrift als folder von Seiten de3 alexandrinijdhen Lehrers wird demnach nicht anzunehmen fein 1). — Wer mn ποῦ die erften 32 RKapitel im jicbenten Bude der apoftol. Conftittutionen mit der Swilfapl. im Cingelnen vergleicht, wird finden, dah der Verfaffer des in diejen Kapiteln enthaltenen und der Machwelt aufbewahrten ,,Sitten|piegel3” den Tert der Bwolfapl. dazu benugt hat, um eine etgene, nod) durch zabhlreide Bwijhenbemerfungen beretcherte Lehre der Wyoftel zu Liefern, ohne durch den Vitel feiner Vorlage fic von manderlet Wbweidhungen, welche theil8 der verjchiedene Standpuntt, theils die fortge- jchrvittene Zeit erforderte, abbalten zu Lajjen, aber and) ohne jeine Vorlage offen zu befampfen oder auch nur 1) Ueber das Schriftcitat aus der fiinften Anfprace der zwei Wege Strom. I, 207. o. Auch die VBeriihrung mit dem erften euchariftijden Gebete dev Brwilfapl. in der Schrift Quis dives salv, § 29, p. 952 ed. Potter. (cf. Paedag. I, p. 107) ijt eher aus einer unmittelbaren Sefannt}haft des Wlerandriner3 mit den betveffenden GebetSworten, welche anjceinend aus der firchlicden Ueberlieferung in die Bwodlfapl. iubergegangen und erft hier ebio- nitijc) verwafjert worden find, als aus einer Benubung der lebt- genannten Schrift herguleitten. Bgl. Wd. Harnad, aa. 0. au [X, 2, und Const. Ap. VII, 25, p. 208, 25 sq. (Clemens hatte vermuthlich einen Lert im Stnne wie: Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν, --- ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Δαβίδ, --- ἧς ἐξεχύϑη τὸ τίμιον αἷμα --- ἡμῶν ent τὰς τετρωμένας ψυχάς.) Bryennios, aa. Ὁ. ©. 4, Anm., weift auferdDem auf Strom. V. 5, p. 664 ed. Potter. hin, wo mit Serufung auf da8 Evangelium und die WUWpoftel jowte auf alle Gropheten Der fdmale Weg der Gee boteund Verbote und der breite, verderblidhe Weg Der Mifte und der ZBornmitthigfett erwahnt werden: doch LaBt fic) eine Besugnahme auf die Bwolfapl. in diefer an Matth. 7,13 u.14 fowie an den obigen Schlugunterricht evinnern- den Tertitelle nicht erfennen. Ueber die jog. Bwolfapojtellehre. 599 zu ertodhnen. Um das Verfahren de Verfaffers twe- nigften3 durch einige Beifpiele yu verdeutlicen, fo Ffiigt der Sittenfptegel in dev Bejdhreibung des Lebensweges zu Der Weijung des Hervn, dem Bujdhlagenden aud) die andere Wange zu veichen, ftatt der nad Matth. 5, 48 sar ftatthaften, aber nach Suc. 6, 36 dod auch der Crildrung bediirftigen Semerfung der Bwoslfapl.: ναι Du wirft vollfommen fein”, die wobhlbemejjenen Worte bei: ,,uicht als ob die Whwebhr verwerjflic) ware, jondern weil die Grtragung δὲ8 Bijen {habenswerther tft.” Const. Apost. (ed. P. A. de Lagarde, Lips. 1862) VIL, 1, p. 195, 15s. Dem AWnfinnen der Swslfapl., jedem Bittenden ohne Briifung der Beodtirftigkeit und Wiirdigteit zu geben, weicht der Sip. durch dte Bez merlung aus, dab Gott feine Sonne itber Boje und Gute aufgeben Laffe (Matth. 5, 45) und demnacdh allen (Ge- rechten und Ungeredhten) gegeben werden folle, dap aber dod (παῷ Gal. 6, 10) den Heiligen ein Vorzug gebiihve (ο, 1, p. 198, 21 sqq.). Mit dervjelben Umficdt lapt der Sip. im Legten Wbfchnitte des Lebensweges, wo die Bwolfapl. in auffalliger Weije das Befenntnis der Mien|dy- werdung Gottes vermetdet, dite betreffenden Worte tweg (c. 18, p. 204, 4) und iibergeht desgletdhen die Mach- tragsbemerfung dev Bwolfapl.: , Wenn du im Stanoe bift, da8 ganze Joc des Herrn zu tragen, fo wirft ou vollfommen fein; wenn aber nicht, thue was du fannit” (c. 19, p. 205, 19). Die eucharijtijchen Gebete Hinz wider werden im Sip. durch eine Anzahl Gage vervoll- ftandigt, in welden die Gottheit Seju fowte jeine Men} d= werdung und fein Crldjungstod offen und wtederholt zum Wusoruc fommen, doch jo, dap dabet nicht blos 600 RKrawuycty, auf den Chionitismus (wie in ὁ. 25, p. 208, 16—28), fonder aud) auf den Marctonismus (vgl. c. 26, p. 209, 15 544.) Bezug geuommen tft’). Wo dte Bwilfayl. die Vorjdrift enthalt, dak den PBropheten gejtattet weroe, das euchariftijche Gebet jo lang, als fie wollen, 3u verridten, fagt der Sip., dab auch den Priejtern dte Verridtung diefes Gebetes geftattet werden mige (ce. 26. p. 210, 2). Nach Uebergehung der Regeln fiir die Unterjhetdung der wahren und falf[cdhen PBropheten ere flart fic) der Sip. Lediglicd fiir Priifung dev Zutwandern- den Lehrer und bereitwillige WAufnahme der rechtglaubig befundenen mit der weiteren Empfehlung, den Wltar- dienern alle CrftlingSgaben joie den Wrmen alle 8601: ten zuzuwenden (c. 28 s., p. 210, 11-29). Besiiglie 1) Der Verfafjer lapt die in dev Bwolfapl. erft nach dem Empfange der Cuchariftie angejebten Danfgebete an Ddiejer ord- nungswidrigen Stelle ftehen, vielletcht aus Miickfichten der Wrean- Disciplin. Gegen den Wearctontsmus und andere die WALeinherr= jchaft GotteS beftreitende Syjteme richten fic) auch eingelne Ge- nerfungen, welche an anderen Gtellen eingejtreut werden, wie bald im Unfange die Sage, dak der LVebensweg der natiirlice, der Todesweg dDagegen nur aus der Yachftellung des Yeindes hingu- gefommen jei (c. 1, p. 197, 16—19) und daf der LebenSweg fein an- Derer jet, als twelchen auch das Gejeb vorjchreibe, nadmlich Gott Den Herrn aus gangem Herzen und aus ganger Geele gu lieben alg den Cinen und WHeinigen (p. 178, 1—3). Um fo anjfalliger erjdeint e8, Da in den Gebeten, welche der Sip. vor dem Em- pfange anjegt, nur Lexrtworte eingejdaltet werden, welche ohne alle pdeutliche Bezugnahme auf andeve Verirrungen τοδί! als UWbivehr der ebionitijchen Denfwerje fic) fenngzetchnuen. Die BVer- muthung liegt hier wohl nage, dab died nicht Sufall, fondern auf Die anti-ebionitijhen Vorjchriften suvitcszufithren jet, auf welchen Die aweite Halfte der Biwodlfapl. fugt und welche der Verfaffer des Sjp. an Diejer Stelle fiir feine Textergdngung benugt haben Dlirjte. Ueber die jog. Bwodlfapoftellehre. — 601 dev 3u beflellenden Bijchsfe, Briefter und Diafonen (70 lautet nunmebr die Aufsahlung) wird das Crfordernif Der Nechtglaubigteit betgqefiigt, dagegen dite Geltung neben den Bropheten und Lehrern πἰ δι mehr erinahnt (c. 31, p. 211, 9—15). Die Vorjehrift endlich, yu einem Mtithruder, welcher Ὁ gegen einen andern ver- feblt hat, fein Wort zu rveden, bis er anderen Sinnes geworden, fallt im Sip. aus. Diefe mannigfadhen GCingzelhetten zeigen, dah der BVerfajfer des Shjp.8 bet jeinen Wbiveichungen von der Bwilfapl. nicht blos der vorgejdhritteneren Cutwicdlung dev firchliden BVerhaltniife und des denjelben ιν Seite gehenden Spradgebraudhes Rechnung getragen, fonudern aud) jeine gegenthetlige Denfweife und Glaubensridtung nicht ohne Umficht und feines Gefithl fiir alles in feiner Vorlage Bedentlide und Verfanglice geltend gemacht hat. Welches ΠΥ εἰ aber tiber den Werth der Bwslf- apl. ihn bierbet geleitet babe, (apt fitch am bejten aus der Schlupbemerfung zu den euchariftifcden Gebeten er- jeben. ,,Wenn einer fommt”, heibt e3 im Sfp. (c. 27, p. 210, 7—11), ,, und auf diefe Wetje den Dank betet, jo nehmet ihn auf als einen Schiiler Chriftt: wenn er aber eine andere Lehre verftindigt, als mwelde euch Chri- jtus durd) uns itbergeben bat, jo gejtattet etnem jolden nicht, den Dank zu beten; denn cin 7 older Ὁ ἐσ: bohOnt mehr Gott, alS dak er ihn verherr: Lidt” ἢ. Mit jo jcharfen Worten fonnte fich der Ver- 1) “Ὑβοίζει γὰρ ὃ τοιοῦτος τὸν ϑεὸν ἤπερ δοξάζει. Der Verfafjer des Sip. ift dabei fein blinder Ciferer: will ev dod 2. Ὁ. bald nacher, dak auch dem guwandernden Grrlehrer das zum Leben MNothwendige gegeben und nur jein Grrthum nicht ange- 602 Krawugcty, fafier de3 Sfp., nacdem er eben erft die eudhariftifden Gebete feiner Vorlage durch fehr wejentlide Rufage dogmatifdhen Yuhalts vervollitdndigt hatte, dock wohl wicht gegen jeden anderen Lehrgehalt des Dankgebetes evfldrven, wenn thm dte Bwilfapl. mit ihrer fo betradht- lid) abwetchenden Guchariftte fiir etwas bejjeres αἵδ᾽ fiir eit veriwerflides Madmwerk galt, das mehr zur Ver- hohuung als zur Verherrlidbung Gottes anleite. Gleidh- wohl wird die Bwilfapl. im Sip. nirgends απδου eviwadbut oder al verwerflich hingeftellt: vermuthlid) war fie Dew Lefern, welche der Sip. im Auge hatte, nicht πάρουν befanunt, fo dab e8 {chon hinreidhend erfdien, ebenfall3 eine Lehre ver Wpoftel, alB welche der Sfp. in feinen Cinleitungsworten (c.1) fich etnfithrt, zu ver- breiten und durch den reicheren Snbhalt der neuen Be- arbeitung jomie durd die obige jdarfe Warnung einer etina {πὰ drohenden Bevorzugung der alteren Schrift vorzubeugen. — Uebrigens tft die ert neuerdings als ,,Sitten|}piegel” bezeichnete Lehre der Wpoftel im fiebenten Buche der apoftol. Conftitutionen nidt die eingige Gegen|chrift, welche dev jlingft veriffentlichten ,ehre der δ] Wpoftel” entgegengeftellt wurde. Bjeudo-Cyprian (De aleatoribus c. 4) bevichtet von einer al8 Doctrinae apostolorum bezeidneten Schrift, im melder die (vom Sip. ftilljdhweigend tibergangenen) Vorjchriften unjerer Bwilfapl. gegen die Verleber der GBruderliebe (XIV, 2 nommen und fetne Gebet8gemeinfdhaft mit ifm eingegangen werbde (c. 28); itberhaupt δεϊ ποι ihn woblitberlegte Rede und umfidh- tige Lehrbeftimmung aus. Sein obiges Verdict fallt deshalb um jo jdjwerer ἐπ᾿ Gewicht. Ueber die fog. Bwolfapoftellehre. 603 τι. XV, 3) mit ecinander verjdimolzen und auf die Sti- rung der in der Kirche ndthigen Oronung bejdrantt werden 7), Diele felbjtandige Art und Weije der Um- avbeitung und Ridtightellung fiihrt in eine Beit σευ, in welder fowobhl das Bedtirfuip nach einer dervartigen Bearbeitung alS auc) dev jchriftftellerijdhe Schajfens- drang noc lebhaft genug war, um eine fo durchgreifende Neugeftaltung, wie tte in der vorliegenden Brobe fic verrath, 3u Dage zu fordern. C8 tft die Beit des dvitten und vierten Sabrhunderts , in welder dite Schrift Doc- trinae apostolorum entftanden fein wird, oder vielmebr, da bereits von Cufebius (H.E. IIL, 26 ed. Limmer.) unter den unedhten, jedoc) nicht von Havretifern ftammen- Den Schriften de neuen Teftaments ,,ote Schrift der Thaten Pauli, der jogenannte Hirt und die Offenbarung Petri und auferdem dev Brief mit dem IJtamen de3 Barnabas und die jogenannten Lebhren der Npyoftel (καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων ab λεγόμεναι Adayal)" augefithrt werden, die Bett des ovitten Jahrhunderts, an welche bier 3u denfen am nadjten liegt. Wenn daz her Athanajius in der Epistola fest. 39 (Opp. ed. Bened. I, 2, 963) al8 Bitcher, mwelde von den Vatern zum BVorlejen beim RKatechumenenuntervichte beftimmt 1) 8. Cypriani opp. ed. Hartel III, 96. Et in doctrinis apostolorum, heifft e3 hier, werde erflart: Si quis frater delin- quit in ecclesia et non paret legi, hic nec colligatur, donec poenitentiam agat, et non recipiatur, ne inquinetur et impe- diatur oratio vestra. Die entjprechenden WWorte der Bwolfapl. lauten: Πᾶς δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἀμφιβολίαν μετὰ τοῦ Etaioov αὐτοῦ (resp. c. 15: παντὶ ἀστοχοῦντι χατὰ τοῦ ξτέρου) μὴ συνελϑέτω ὑμῖν (resp. μηδεὶς λαλείτω μηδὲ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀχουέτω, ἕως οὐ μετανοήσῃ), ἵνα μὴ κοινωϑῇ ἡ ϑυσία ὑμῶν. 604 Krawugcty, worden feten, wea. eine Jogenannte Lehre der NApoftel und den Hivten nennt (καὶ Adayn καλουμένη τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ ὁ Ποιμήν), fo erjdheint e3 zwar nicht unmodglich, dak damals jdon fett Menfdengedenfen unjere (ebionitijivende) 2wilfapl. oder viclmehr ihre Darftellung der zwet Wege hier und da an Stelle des alifirdlicben diejen Gegenftand fiirzer behandelnden Unz tervichtsbitchleins den RKatechumenen vorgelejen und etn- gepragt wurde ἢ und dah mithin jene Schrift von 1) Ginen gewifjen Anhalt fitr dtefe Vermuthung εἰπε der —«“Unftand 3u bieten, dak der Verfaffer des vierten Budes Derapoft Conftitutionen (c. 3, p. 115, 8sqq.) ein Webhe liber Diejenigen, twelde befigeu und unter Verheimlicung (hres Befibes) Whmnojen empfangen, αἵ einen Wusjprud desSHerrn begeichnet, wobet miglicher Weije die ahnliche Stelle im K. 1 der Swolfapl. fetnem Geifte vorjchwebte. Mur ijt dteje Vermuthung (|. BSryennio$s, a aO. S. ὃ, Anm. 18) deshalb wenig Ποῦ, weil doch nur eine Aehnlichfett der Terte obwaltet und insbefon- dere Das betreffende Webhe in der Bwolfapl. fich feineswegs als einen (unmtttelbaren) Wusjprucd) de8 Herrn darjtellt. Dazu fommt, ᾿ δαβ Das dritte Bud dev apoft. Conftitutionen . (0, 4, p. 99, 1—4) in der Mehre vom Almojengeben den Stand- _puntt dex Bwolfapl. durchans nicht theilt und dag mithin, beide | Biicher αἵδ᾽ Arbeit deffelben Verfaffers gedacdht, auch im vierten Bude nicht unfere Bwilfapl., fondern eine Ueberarbeitung und Berichtiguig diejes Bitchleins, die alS Wtemoriertert in der Beit des RKatechumenats eingepragt jpdter leicht mit den ἰδ ὦ ἐπ Biichern aljammengeiworfen wurde, benugt jein Dditrfte. Wn den Sip. lapt {ich Hierbet fretlich nicht dDenfen, da devjelbe die verfangliden 386: merfungen der Bwolfapl. itber das Wlmojengeben ebenjo {ἘΠῚ τ εἰς gend unterdritct, wie die Vorjchriften wegen der Verlegungen der Bruderliebe. Wher wie die Doctrinae apostolorum in legterer Begziehung ftatt des Stillfdhweigens den Weg der Ueberarbettung und Berichtiqung eingejchlagen, founen fie dies recht wohl auch bet dem erjfteren Gegenftande gethan und fo den Text geliefert haben, auf weldem das dritte und vierte Buch dev apoftolijdhen Ueber die fog. Bwilfapoftellehre. 605 Wthanafius gemeint fet. CScliebt ja doch die jcharfe Beurtheilung der Bwilfapl. im Sip. nicht aus, daf Andere nachjichtiger und giinftiger dadhten, namentlich feit infolge der jchon im dvitten Jahrhundert ftrenger beobadhteten Geheimniplehroronung die eigenthiimlide Buritdhaltung der Zwodlfapl. it der Angabe dev litur- gijcen Gebete nicht weiter auffallen modte. Wher immer- hin ftehen dtejer einen Mtiglihfeit noch set andere gegeniiber, δαβ ndmlid) der fatedetifd und dogmatifd wunvergleidlid) anjpredbendere und ebenfalls al8 Unter- εἰ! der Wpoftel fich einfithrende Sip. oder aud) die nad Cufebius inbaltlid) nicht zu beanftandende Sdvift Doctrinae apostolorum, falls vom Pluralis im Titel hier abgefeben werden darf, das von Wthanafius evwabhute Vorlejebud) war'). Und von dtefen drei Mog- Conftitutionen fupen. ἀν den Gebrauch unjerer Βιυ αν. im RKatechumenenunterrichte ergiebt fich dDemnach hier fein gentigender Beweis. 1) Nad Hilqgenfeld, lc? p.89, hie bereits die unjerer Bwolfapl. gu Grunde liegende Darftelung der zwei Wege A- δαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων, jo da auch dieje von Athanafius gemeint fein finnte. GYndeS ftehen jener nicht πάθον. begritndeten Wufitellung swet Bedenfen eutgegen, namic): a) der BWerjfafjer Ὁε8 LebenSiweges gebraucht den WAusdrucd διδαχή (Bwolfapl. I, 3) aur Bezeichnung eines bejonderen, die erfte Uuslequng der Ltebes- gebote mittheilenden Wbjchnittes feiner Darftellung und wird des- Hhalb nicht felbjt jdhon diejen WXusdruck gum Titel des Gangen ge- wahlt haben; und Ὁ) Clemens von Ulery. beanftandet anjeinend Den Vitel ,WUpl.” im ποῖα anuj δία Medeweijfe der WApojtel im neuen Dejtament: er fennt diejen Titel aljo auch nicht bet dem pon ihm als ,Gchrift” angefithrten Unterrichtsbiichlein, das nicht minder al unjere Bwolfapl. von der Spracde der Wpoftel ab- weidt. — ΝΟΜῸΣ 606 Krawupely, Ueber dite jog. Bwodlfapojtellehre. lichfeiten wird fid) der erfteren im Hinblice auf die porftehenden WAusfithrungen tiber Cntftehung, Geiftesart und anfanglice Wufnahme unjerer Zwilfapl. am wee nigften dev Vorzug griperer Wahricheinlidfeit zuerfennen lajjen 1). 1) Bu fpat, um etngehender bevritcdfichtigt 4u werden, {ΠῚ mir die aweite Halfte der oben wiederholt erwahnten Schrift 2d. Har- nad’3 (Zerte und Unter]. Π, 2, S. 101 ff.) jowie der dvitte Theil pon Zh. Rahn’s Forjdhungen gur Gejch. des neuteft. Kanons und der altfircdl. Lit. (j. ©. 278 Ff.) gu Geficht gefommen. Dod fei wenigftens auf das durch) OScar Ὁ. Gebharodt’s Bemiihen qlitctlich beigebrachte Bragment einer Inteintjden Doctrina apo- stolorum (bei Wd. Harnad, a. a. Ὁ. GS. 275 ff.) Hhingewiejen, _ in weldem mit den Worten: Interpretatio autem horum ver- borum haec est: non moechaberis, non homicidium facies etc. in Devjelben Weijfe die defalogahnliche Siindenaufzahlung einge- leitet wird, wie oben begitglic) der dlteren awei Wege als wahr- {heinlich hingeftelt wurde. Ὁ. Ὁ. Gebhardt vermuthet (a. a. 0. ©. 281) wegen diejer anjffalligen Uebereinjtimmung mit dem Geez danfengang der ap. Ko., dak fcon frith aus einer Handjdrift, auf welcher jowobh! die lateinijche Doctrina apostolorum αἵδ᾽ auch Die ap. Ko. fupen, ein (die Vollfommenheitsjpriiche und die Ueber- {chrift des ndchften Haupttheils enthaltendes) Blatt der Bwodlfapl. dur Bufall verloren gegangen fei. Ungeatwungener erflart fitch indes die fragliche Wuslaffung der Vollfommenheitsjpriiche durch die Annahme, dak der Verj. der lLateinijfden Apl. feiner Arbeit (ebenjo wie der Wutor der ap. Ko.) die dlteren swet Wege gu Grunde gelegt und aus diejer Vorlage unter gelegentlider Be- nugung fowohl deS VBarnabasbriefes als auch der Bwolfapl. eine eigene Doctrina apostolorum fergejtellt habe. Gm Uebrigen {cheinen die nunmehr vorliegenden Ausdeutungen der Bwolfapl. Die 4u Aufang gemachte Bemerfung in nicht geringem Grade 21 beftdatigen, Dag an erfter Stelle die Frage nach den Oatellen der neuaufgefundenen Schrift von entjheidender Widhtigheit it. 4 ᾿ af ) <> ΤᾺ πα ᾿ τ( tlre cocten. Vuarteetinf ὌΠ 66.2. 674. (Ti Giger) 2. Die Doctrina apostolorum. Bon Prof. Dr.” Funt. Der Wnfang dtejes Yahres bracdhte der Wifjen|dhajt der αι {{ und RKirchengeichidte mehrere werthvolle BVereidherungen. Das Parifer Bulletin critique N. 5 verfiindigt die MXuffinding oe3 Liber de mysteriis des bl. Hilarius von Poitiers durd Gamurvini im der Bibliothef von Wre330, fowie die Muffindung de3 groperen Theiles deS Tractates, den der rimijche Archidiafon BPelagius 554 gegen die fiinfte allgemeine Gynovde und den Bapft Vigilius verfapte, nad) feiner baldigen Crhebung auf den papfiliden Stubl aber wieder φυυ ὦ: nabur, urd) Whbé Oudhesne in einem Coder der VBibliothef yon Orleans’. Das Bulletino di archeologia cristiana, serie [V, anno IL N. 1/2 enthalt ein aus 54 Herametern beftehendes Gedicht auf einen alS Martyrer im Gril ge- ftorbenen Papft, wahrjdheinlid) Martin 1... jedenfalls widht Giberius, wie de Mojft will, da diejer Papft nicht in der Verbannung fiir den Glauben ftarb. Endlich erjchien in Conftantinopel ein patrijtijdes Werk erjten Ranges, und Diejem jeien die folgenden Beilen gewidmet. Gs ift die 382 oun, Doctrina apostolorum, aus der als ,, Schrift’ bereits pure) Clemens von Wlerandricn (Strom. I c. 20 ὃ 100 p. 377 ed. Potter) ein Citat gebracdt wird, die Cujebius (H. H. IIT ς. 25) neben tem Baftor Herma, dem Barz nabasbrief, den Weten dDeS Paulus und der Offenbarung des Petrus unter den Wpofryphen auffiihrt ; die Athanafius (Ep. 39 ed. Patav. 1777 t. I, 768) in bdte Methe dev Schriften ftellt, dite er alS fiir οἷς Katechhumenen niiblice Gefebticer bezeichnet, namlic) ver Biichher Sirach, Cither, Sudith, Tobias und Paftor Herma; deren Umfang Nice- phorus in der Stichometrie auf 200 Beilen angtbt. Dte Schrift ftammt aus demjelben Codex, dem wir den voll- jtdndiget Lert der Clemensbriefe und eine bemertens- werthe Verbefferung des Veries de$ Barnabasbriefes und ber pfeudvignatianijden Briefe verdanfen, und fie wird uns von dem Wuffinder und Herausgeber, dem ὅτι. Metropoliter Bryennius von Mifomedien, zugleich mit ausfiibrliden Brofegomenen und einem fehr gelehrten Commentar geboten ἢ. Da thr Gnhalt ebenjo bedeutjam alg. ihr Umfang gering tft, und da die Editio princeps einem grofen Dbheil der Lejer der ὅλ. τ τ. nicht zugdng- lich fein und eine andere Wusgabe nicht jo bald erjdeinen wird, jo glauben wir dite Schrift nicht blob anzeigen, jondern zugleich in δε] εν Sprache mittheilen zu jollen. Wir unterziehen uns zunddit lebterer Wufgabe und 1) Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων ἐχ τοῦ ἱεροσολυ- μιτικοῦ χειρογράφου νῦν πρῶτον ἐχδιδομένη μετὰ προλεγομένων χαὶ σημειώσεων, EV οἷς χαὶ τῆς Συνόψεως τῆς Π. A., τῆς ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, σύγχρισις καὶ μέρος ἀνέχδοτον ἀπὸ - d ~ if ς A , Ui τοῦ αὐτοῦ χειρογράφου. “Υπὸ Φιλοϑεέεου Βρυεννίου μητροπολίτου Νικομηδείας. Ἔν Κωνσταντινουπόλει 1883. Die Doctrina apostolorum. 383 Entipfen an die miglichft τονε Ueberjegung einige Bemerfungen an. | * * * Lehre de$ Herru [gegeben] 1) durch die zwHlf WApoftel Den Heiden. 1. (ὃ gibt zwei Wege, einen [Weg] de3 Lebens und einen des Dodes, und e8 befteht eine grofe Verjchieden- Heit zmifcen beiden Wegen. Der Weg des Lebens nun ift diefer. Crftend jollft du Gott lieben, deinen ΘΟ ρον; siweitens deinen Machjten wie dich) felbft; und alles, was immer du willft, dab eS dir nicht gejdehe, das thue aud) du einent anderen nidjt. Die Lehre diejer Worte aber ift folgende: Gegnet diejentgen, twelde euch flucen, und betet fiir eure Feinde, und faftet fiir diefenigen, welche cud) verfolgen; denn welden Lohn werdet thr haben, wenn ihr [nur] dte liebet, die euch lieben? Thun δα: jelbe nicht auch die Heiden? Bhr aber jollt odie lieben, die οἰ Hajjen, und iby jollt feinen Feind haben. (δ: halte dich aller [εἰ εν. und weltlicen Begierden. Wenn div jemand einen Schlag gibt auf die rechte Wange, jo veiche ihm auch die andere Dar, und du wirit voll- fommen jet; wenn dtc) einer beanfprucht auf eine Meile, gehe zivet mit idm; wenn einer deinen Mantel nimmt gib ihm aud) den Rod, wenn einer dir das Deinige ninumt, fordere eS nicht σιν; denn du fannf{t eS midbt. Gib jedem, der dich bittet, und fordere ἐδ nicht φᾷ; Denn der Vater will, dak allen von den eigenen Gaben gegeben werde. Gelig, wer gemap dem Gebote gibt; Denn ev erletdet feine Strafe. Webhe dem, der nimmt; 1) Das in Klammern Stehende ift Zuthat de8 Ueberjebers. 384 Sunt, Denit wenn einer nimmt, der bedtirftig ift, fo wird er Feine Strafe leiden. Wer aber nimmt, ohne bedtirftig zu fein, wird Mechenjdaft ablegen, wmarum er genommen und WOZU, UND in Die Enge gefommen wird er gepriift werden liber Das, was er gethan, und er wird von da nidt herausfommen, bis er den Lebten Heller bezabhlt hat. Wher auc) daritber ift gejagt worden: Dein Wlmofen {éhwike in deinen Handen, bid du weift, mem ou geben ΤΟ], 2. Das ziweite Gebot der Lehre aber [ijt]: Du jollft nicht tddten, nicht die Che brechen, nicht Rnaben jdanbden, nicht Unkeujdheit tretben, nicht fteblen, nicht Zauberet treiben, nicht Gift πιο, das Kind nicht morden durd Mhorius, nod) e8 tHdten, wenn ἐδ geboren ift. Du follft nist begehren das Gut deines Machften, nicht fcwosren, fein Τα δ Beugnigk geben, nicht jdmahen, nicht rach- flichtig fein. Du follft nicht unbeftdndig jein noch dopypel- stingig; Denn eine Sdlinge de Codes ift ote Doppel- siingigtcit. Deine Mede fet nicht Litqnerijch, nicht eitel, foudern gejdttigt durd) die Ghat. Du follft nicht hab- jiichtig fein noch raduberifd, nicht Heudchlerifdh, nicht bb3- artig, nidt itbermtithig. Ou jollft feinen jcblimmen Rath gegen deinen Nachjten annehmen. Du jollft niemand haffen, jondern dte einen jollft du zuredjtiveijen, fiir die anderen beten, wieder andere lieben mehr als dein Leben. - 3. Mein Kind, fliehe alles Boje und alle, was ibm ἀρεῖ ift. Get nidt zornig; denn der Born fithrt zum Mord; noch fet ecifernd oder ftrett}itehtig oder auf- Draujend; denn aus all dem entitehen Mordthaten. Wein Kind, jet nidt begebhrlid); denn die Begterde fithrt zur Ungudht; fiihre Leine fdmugige Meden und fet nicht fred Die Doctrina apostolorum. 885 mit den Wugen; denn aus all dem entftehen Chebriide. Mein Kind, adte nicht auf die Vigel [zur Wabhrfagerei] ; Dent das fiihrt zum Gdgendienfte; fet fein Befdywirer oder Mathematifer nod) treibe Reiniqung [von Krankheit Dder Siinde odurd) Opfer], noc) wolle dergleicen jeben; denn aus all dem entfteht Gsgendienft. Mein Kind, fei nicht Litgnerifd; denn die Vitge [θυ zum Diebftabl; nod geldgterig oder rubmilidtig; denn aus all dem entftehen Diebftahle. Mein Kind, fet nicht miirrvijdh; denn das flihrt zur Lafterung; noc frech nod) δεῖς Schlimmes; Denn aus all dem entftehen Vafterungen. Get aber janft- miithig; denn die Sanfimiithiqen werden als Crbtheil befigen das Vand. Sei langmiithig und barmberzig und unfduldig und rubig und gut und zittere immerdar vor det Worten, die du gehirt Haft. Du follft dich nicht erheben noch 7011 du deiner Seele Verwegenheit geftatten. Deine Seele joll fic) nicht an die Hohen Haugen, jondern du jollft mit den Geredten und Niedrigen verfehren. Dte Schidjale, die div widerfabren, follft du als gut auf: nehmen, wifjend, dap nidts ohne Gott gejdiebt. 4, Mein Kind, du wirft defjen bet Nacht und Lag eingedent jein, der zu div δα Wort Gottes jpridyt, und du wirft ibn οὔτοι wie den Hervn; denn von wo die Herrjdaft genannt wird, da ift der Herv. Du wirft taglich aufjuden das Angelidt dev Heiligen, damit ou did) ihrer Meden erfreueft. Du follft feine Spaltung wiinjden, die Streitenden vielmehr zum Frieden bringen. Du jollft gerecht ridchten, nicht auf die Berfon jehen, wenn bu wegen BVerfehlungen zuredhtweifeft. Du folljt nicht siweifelu, ob eS fein wird oder nidt. Du jollft deine Hande nicht zum Nehmen ausitrecter, zum Geben aber ‘oad Cheol. Quartalferift. 1884. Heft ΠΙ. 25 386 Sunt, aufammenziehen; wenn du haft, wirft Du geben mit deinen Handen [zur] Lifung detner Sinden. Du follft nicht zigern zu geben noch murren, wenn du gibjt; denn bu wirft erfennen, wer der gute Bergelter des Lohnes ift. Du wirft dic) von dem Diirftigen nicht abwennden, jondern alles deinem Bruder mitthetlen und nichts. etgen nennen; denn wenn thr Gemeinjdaft θα: im Unver- gaugliden, um τοῖς vtel mehr in den vergdngliden Dingen? Du follft deine Hand nicht hinwegnehmen von deinem Sohn oder von deiner Godhter, fondern [fic] von Jugend auf lehren die Furcht Gottes. Du jollft deinem Knecht oder Deiner Mtagd, dte auf denjelben Gort hoffen, nicht befehlen in deiner Bitterfeit, namit fie nicht etwa von der Furdt gegen Gott laffen, dev tiber beiden tft; denn er fommt nidt, um nach der Perjon zu berufen, jondern diejenigen, welche dev Geift bereitet hat. Dhr Knechte aber [εἰν unterintirfig euren Herren alS dem Bild Gottes in Scheu und Furdt. Du jollft haffen alle Heuchelet und alles, was dem Herrn nicht gefallt. Ou jollft nicht verlaffen die Gebote des Herrn, fondern bewahren, was du empfangen Haft, ohne Hinguzujegen oder Hinwegzunehmen. Qu der Verfammlung follft du befennen deine Stinden und nicht zum Gebet hing zutreten mit fdledtem Gewiffen. Das ift der Weg des Sebens. 5. Der Weg δε Dodes aber ift diejer: vor allem ift ev jdledht und voll de8 Flude3; Mord, Chebrud, Begierde, Huveret, Diebftahl, Gigendienft, Zauberet, Giftmijheret, Raub, falfches Beuguib, Heuchelet +), Bwei- deutigteit, Crug, Stolz, Bosheit, Anmabung, Habjudt, 1) Dev gvriechifche Text Hat bis bhieher tiberall den Plural: φόγοι, μοιχεῖαι U. f. W. Die Doctrina apostolorum. 387 {hmugige Rede, Ciferjucht, Verwegenheit, UWebermuth, Sdhmeidelet; die Guten verfolgen +), die Wahrheit haffen, Die Liige lieben, den Lohn dev Geredhtigheit nicht erfennen, nidt dem Guten anhdugen noc) dem gerecdhten Gericdte, nist wachen zum Guten, fondern zum Sdlecten, fern jein von Sanftmuth und Geduld, das Gitle lieben, nad) Vergeltung jagen, mit dem WArmen fein Miitletd haben, um den Niedergebeugten fic) nidt bemithen, den Schipfer nicht erfennen, die Kinder tddten, das Gebilde Goite3 pernidten, von dem Dtirftigen fic) abmwenden, den Bez drangten unterdriiden, die Retchen vertheidigen, gegen die Wrmen ungerechtes Geridht tiben, flindigen in allem: befreit euch, Rinder, von alle dem. 6. GSiehe zu, dap dich feiner weafithrt von diejem Weg dev Lehre, da er augerhalb Gott dich lehrt. Denn wenn du tragen faunft das ganze Soc des Herrn, wirft du vollfommen fein; wenn du eS nicht fannft, fo thue das, was dU vermagit. Besiiglich der Speife aber trage, was ou fannft; habe Wht gar jehr vor dent Gdgenopfer ; denn ἐδ ift Verehrung todter Gdtter. 7. Sn Betreff der Daufe aber, taufet alfo: wenn ἰρτ all das Vorhergehende gejagt habt *), taufet auf den Namen de Vaters und de$ Sohnes und des Hl. Geiftes in flieBendDem 5) Waffer. Wenn du fein fliependes Waffer haft, taufe in andevem Wafjer; wenn du e3 αἰ in faltem fannjt, im warmem. Wenn du beides nicht Haft, jo gtepe 1) Statt de$ Gnfinitives hat dev qriechijche Text im Folgenden fiberall da8 Subjtantiv oder Particip: διῶχται ἀγαθῶν, μισοῦντες ἀλήϑειαν U. |. Ww, 2) Wértlich: tenn ihr all das vorher gefagt habt. 3) Wortlich: lebendein. 25 * 388 ount, auf das Haupt dreimal Waffer im Namen des Vaters und de3 Sobhnes und Hl. Geijtes. Bor der Gauje aber fafte, wer tauft und getauft wird und wenn nocd einige andere e3 fdnnen. Dem Taufling wirjt du befeblen, einen oder Zivet Dage zu faften. 8. Cure Faften aber jollen nicht mit den Heucdlern fein; denn fie fafter am Montag und Donnerstag. Ghr follt vtelmehr am Mittwod und Freitag faften. Betet auc) nict wie die Heudler, fjondern wie der Herr in jeinem Gvangelium e3 geboten hat, jo betet: Unjer Vater, Dev Du bift in dem Himmel, gebhetligt werde dein Jame, dein Meid) fomme, dein Wille gejcehe wie im Himmel jo auf Grden; unfer taglices Brod gih uns heute, uno vergib un3 unjere Schuld, wie auch wir vergeben unjeren Sdhuldigern, und fiihre uns nicht in Verjuchung, jondern ertije uns von dem Uebel, weil dein tit die Madt und οἷς Chre in Cwigkeit. Dreimal de3 Tages betet fo. 9, Was aber die Cucharijtie anbelangt, fo jaget aljo Dank. Zuerft in Betreff de Srankes: Wir danfen Dir, unjer Vater, fitr den hetligen Weinftock Davids DeineS Sohne +), den du uns fund gethan Haft ourd yejus deinen Sohn ἢ); div jet Chre in Cwigfeit. Sn Betreff des gebrochenen Brotes 2): Wir danfen div, unjer Vater, flir daS Leben und die Kenntnigz, die du un Haft erfennen Lafjen durd) Sejus deinen Sohn; div fet Chre in Cwigkeit. We dtejes Brot zerftreut war auf den Bergen *) und zujammengefithrt eins wurde, fo mige 1) Der griechifdye Text hat hier und tm Folgenden fajt immer παῖς. 2) Cigentlid): Brechen3, χλάσματος. 9) Naimlich in den Kirnern δο8 Getretdes. Die Doctrina apostolorum. 389 Deine Kirche zujammengefiihrt werden von den Grengzen dev Erde in dein eid), weil dein ift die Chre und die Macht durd Fejus Chriftus in Ciwigkeit. Reiner aber efje oder ivinfe von eurer Cuchariftie, aufer die getauft find auf den Namen de$ Hervn; denn dariiber hat der Herr gejagt: Gebet das Heilige nidt den Hunden. 10. Geid thr aber gejdttigt, jo danfet aljo: Wir Danten div, Hetliger Vater, flv deinen Heiligen Namen, Den Du gepflangt θα in unjere Herzen, und fiir die Kennini®f und den Glauben und die Unfterblicfeit, dte Du uns Haft erfennen Laffen ourcy Yejus deinen Sohn; div fet Ghre in Cwigleit. Du, allmadchtiger Herr, Haft alle3 ervjdaffen um deines Namens willen; du gabft Speije und Tranf den Menjdhen zum Genug, damit jie οἷν Dank jagen; uns aber jcenfteft du geijtlicde Spetie und Sranf und ewiges Leben durd) deinen Sohn. Bor allem danfen wir div, weil du madtig δἰ; div fet Chre in Gwigleit. Set eingedenf, Herr, deiner Kirche, fie zu befreien von allem Boifen und [16 zu vollenden in deiner Siebe, und verjammle fie von den vier Winden, dte geez heiliqte, in dein Reid, das du ihr bereitet haft, weil Dein ift dic Macht und die Chre in Cwigfeit. C3 fomme die Gnade und dieje Welt gehe dahin. Hojanna dem Sohne Davids. Wenn einer heilig ift, jo trete er herzw; wenn er ὁ nicht tft, thue er Bupe. WMtaran Wtha *). Amen. Den Propheten aber geftattet Dank zu fagen, fo viel fie wollen. 11. Wenn nun einer fommt und euch all das Vor- Hergejagte Lehrt, jo nimmt ibn auf. Wenn aber der 1) D. i. der Herv fommt. Bgl. I Rov. 16, 22. 390 Funk, Lehrende jelbft fic) vervirrend eine andeve Lehre Lehrt, 70 dah ev [jene] aufldst, jo hivet ihn nicht; wenn er aber die Gerechtigfeit und Kenntnigb de3 Hervn [in euch] ver- mehrt, jo nimmt ihn auf wie den Herrn. Jn Betveff det Apoftel aber und Propheten thut nach der Lehre des Cvangeliums aljo. Beder Wpoftel, dev gu eud) fommt, werde aufgenommen wie der Herr; ev bleibe aber nidt Langer al8 1) einen Dag, und wenn ἐδ nbthig ijt, auc) Dent andern; wenn εὐ aber dret [Lage] bleibt, ijt er etn falfdher Prophet. Geht der Wpoftel weiter, fo nehme ev nidts mit auper Brot bis zum nachften Aufenthaltsort ; wenn ev aber Geld verlangt, ift er etn Τα ον Prophet. Und jeder Brophet, der im Geifte jpricdt, verjuchet ihn nicht nod) beurtheilet ihn; denn jede Sitnde wird vergeben werden, Diefe Sitnde aber wird nicht vergeben werden. Nicht jeder aber, der im Geifte fpricht, ijt ein Brophet, foudern [nur], wenn ev den Wandel de3 Herr Hat. Wn jetnem Wandel alfo wird der faljde und dev wabhre Prophet evfannt werden. Und jeder Prophet, dev im Geifte [redend] einen ἰῷ beftellt, er wird nicht von ihm efjen, ev fet Denn etn falfdher Prophet. Seder Prophet aber, der die Wahrheit fpridht, wenn er nicht thut, was er Lebhrt, ift ein falfdher Brophet. Seder Prophet, bewabhrt und wabhr- Haftig, dev in der Verjammlung geheimnipvolle, weltlice Dinge vervichtet 2), dabet aber nicht lehrt, man jolle thun, was ev felbft thut, foll nicht von euch gerichtet werden ; 1) Sm Codex, begiv. in dev Wusgabe fehlt εἰ μή vor ἡμέραν, das nach der Parallelftelle c, 12 nothwendig gu ergdngen ijt. 2) So deutet Duchesne die Stelle (Bull. crit. 1884 yp. 93). Dev Text lautet: ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον χοσμιχὸν ἐχχλησίας, ift aber ohne Siweifel corrupt. Die Doctrina apostolorum. 391 deun ev Hat fein Gericht bet Gott; denn folded thaten auch die alten Bropheten. Wenn einer im Geifte [vedend| fagt: Gib miv Geld oder etwas anderes, hiret ihn nicht ; wernt ev aber fagt, man jolle fiir andere geben, die bediirftiq find, jo vichte ibn fetner. 12. ebder, der fommt im Namen de3 Herrn, werde aufgenommen. Hernach aber werdet iby ihn priifen und erfennen; denn thr jollet Rechts und Links που] οἰδεῖ 1). Sit Der Kommende ein Voriibervetijender, jo unterfttiiget ibu, jo viel ihr fonnet; ev wird aber bet cud) nicht Langer alS zwei oder drei Dage bleiben, wenn ἐδ nothig iff. Will ev fic aber bet euch niederlatjen und tft ev ein Handwerker, jo arbeite ev und effe; verfteht er fein Hand- werk, jo forgt fiir ihn nad) eurver Cinjidt, wie er, ohne miipig zu fein, unter euch als Ghrift leben 701. Wenn ev aber nicht jo thun will, dann treibt er mit Chriftus Handel. Habt Wet vor dergleiden Leuten. 13. Seder wabhrbhaftige Brophet, der [Ὁ bet euch niederlajjen will, tft feines Unterhaltes werth. Cbenjo ijt ein wabrbhaftiger Sehrer, wie dev WArbeiter, auch jelbft werth feine3 Unterhaltes. Wlle Critlinge nun der Crtragniffe Dev RKelter und Tenne, der Minder und Schafe wirit ou nehmen und den Bropheten geben; denn fie find eure Hohenpricfter. Habt ihr aber feinen Bropheten, dann gebet [fie] den Wrmen. Wenn du Speife bhereiteft, 70 nimm die Erftlinge und gib fie dem Gebot gemap. Chenjo wenn du einen Krug Wein oder Oel Hffneft, nimm der Wnbrud) und gib ibn dem PBropheten. Und von Geld 1) Wortlich: ihv werdet vechte und Linke Cinjicht haben. 392 gun, und Keidung und allem Befigthum nimm die Crftlinge, wie e8 dir gut diinft, und gib gemapB dem Gebote. 14. Am Gag de3 Herrn *) aber follt ihr euch) ver- jammeln und da3 Brot brechen und Dank fagen, nachdem iby [zuvor] eure Sitnden befaunt habt, auf dab euer Oypfer rein jet. Yeder aber, der Streit hat mit feinem Freunde, dev fomime nicht mit eud) zufammen, bid fie {id verjohut haben, damit euer Opfer nidt verunretnigt wird ; Denn das ift das [Wort], was det Herr gejproden hat: Wn jedem Orte und zu jeder Beit [foll man] mir ein reine3 Opfer darbringen; denn ein groper Konig bin ἰῷ, jpricht der Herr, und mein Jame tft wunderbar unter Den Volfern. 15. Beftellet *) eud) ferner Cpijfopen und Diafonen, wiirdig Des Herru, Manner, die janftmiithig find und fern pon Geldgier und wabhrhaftig und erprobt; denn euch leiften aud) fie den Dienft der Bropheten und Lehrer. Verachtet fie aljo nicht; denn fie find die Geebrten unter οὐ mit den Bropheten und Lehrern 8). Weijet einander zurecht nicht in Born, jondern im Srieden, wie thr ἐδ in dem Cvangelium habt; und wenn fic) einer gegen den νά τε vergeht, 70 fpreche Feiner mit ibm noc) hore ev [thn] bet euch, bis er fitch gebefjert hat. Gure Gebete aber und Wmofen und alle Handlungen verridtet jo, wie ihr e8 in dem Cvangelium eures Herrn findet. 16. Wachet fiir euer Leben. Cure Lampen jollen nicht erldjden, und eure Senden jollen nicht entgiirtet 1) Wortlic&h: Sonntag de3 Herrn. 2) Δειροτονήσατε. 3) Ot τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν x. ὃ. Die Doctrina apostolorum. 393 werden, jondern fetid bereit; denn ihr fennt nidt die Stunde, in welder unjer Herr fommt. Hdufig aber follt ihr eud) verjammeln, fuchend, was euren Seelen noth thut; denn nichts wird οι nitgen die ganze Beit cures Glaubens, wenn iby nicht in der Lebten Beit vollfommen werdet. Denn in den lesten Tagen werden fic) mehren die falfden Bropheten und die Verderber, und die Schafe werden {td in Wilfe verFehren und die Liebe wird fic) in Hap ver- fehren; denn wenn die Ungerechtigtett zuntmmt, werden fie einander Hafjen uud verfolgen und tiberliefern, und Dann wird erjcheinen der Weltverfithrer gleidhjam als dev Sohn GotieS und ev wird Zeicen und Wunder thun, und Die Erde wird in jetne Hande tibergeben werden, und ev wird Frevel vertiben, wie fte feit Cwigkeit niemals gejdheben find. Dann wird das Gefdlecht 1) der Menjdhen in das Feuer der Pritfung fommen und viele werden fich drgern und 3u Grunde gehen; die aber ausharren in ihrem Glauben, werden gerettet werden 7). Und dann werden erjdheinen die Beichen dev Wahrheit: erftens das Beiden der Oeffuung am Himmel, dann das Beidhen der Stimme der Poljaune, und dvittens dite WAuferftehung dev Looten, jedoch nicht aller, jondern wie gejagt ift: (δ wird fommen der Hery und alle Heiligen mit ihm. Dann wird Die Welt den Hervn fommen fehen auf den Wolfen des Himmels. ᾿ξ μὰ 1) Κιτίσις. 2) Dev gviechijche Text fiigt bet: ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ χαταϑέματος. Aber was heift δα Brhennius vermuthet, χατάϑεμα (—= χατ- ανάϑεμα) bedeute Chriftus, jofern die Verivorfenen ihr veriwiinfeben iwerden; oder e8 fet zu lefen: ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ tod xatw ϑέματος, Ὁ. ἰ. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 394 Sunt, So der Wortlaut der Ὁ. A. Wie man fieht, zerfallt δίς Schrift in zwet nicht ganz gleide Theile. Der erfte Theil c. 1—6 ift eine etnfache Unterweijung in der chrijft- licen Sittenlehre, und er fallt in der Hauptiache mit den Capiteln 18—20 de3 Barnabasbriefes zujammen. Dod) ift Der Snhalt der beiden Sdyriften nicht ganz derjelbe, und was noch widhtiger tft, die Rethenfolge der Sentenzen ift vielfach eine verjdiedenc. Was jenen Buntt anbelangt, jo findet man in jeder dev beiden Schriften einzelne Sage, die im Der anderen nicht ftehen. Bn oder D. A. tft indeffen das Cigenthiimlice betradtlider als in B. Sie hat καιροί qropere Stticle, ote Hier fehleu, ndmlich die Worte: Wiles was du wicht willft w. f. Ὁ. bis an das Ende de3 erften Capitels, bezw. den griperen Cheil diejes Capitels, jowie den Anfang und grdReren Theil de$ dvitten Capitels, den UAbichnitt, im dem die Quellen der Hauptfiinden des Mordes, EChebrudhes, Gwgendienftes, Diebftahl3 und der Lafterung aufgezeigt werden. Bestiglich der Meihenfolge ber Sentenzen ift vor allem an Folgendes gu evinnern. Xn der D. A. ftehen die beiden Gebote der Gottes- und Der Nachftenliebe zujammen voran. Gu B find fie von einander getrennt (19, 2. 5) und die tibrigen Gebote find in der Hauptfade jo an fie angeretht, dak jene gewifjer- mapen αἵ Cintheilungsprincip erjceinen. Fretlic) ift die Cinthetlung nicht ftreng durchgefiihrt. Wir finden im erften Theil eingzelnes, twas mehr dem siweiten angebhdrt, wie Die Vorjchrift, einen jehlechten Math gegen den Machften angunebmen (VU. 3) und dem Bruder die Beleidigung nicht nachzutragen (4), und umgefehrt, wie οἷο “δου τί, Die Schicjale als aus Gottes Hand fommend al3 etwas Gutes hingunehmen (6). Wber im ganzen erjdheint der Die Doctrina apostolorum.. 395 Stoff doc in der fragliden Weije angeordnet, und ἐδ diirfte nidt ohne Bedeutung fein, wenn unmittelbar vor dem Gebot der Machjtenliebe die Worte ftehen: du follft Den Iamen des Herrn nidpt ettel nennen, der von der Gottesliebe handelnde «θείς aljo mit diejem Gebote {ehlieBt. Die fraglichen Puntte fallen ferner aud) deb- wegen gegen unfjere Wnnahme weniger ins Gewidt, weil die Gedanfenfolge in B. tiberhaupt und auch in den einzelnen Dbhetlen: fitr fic) Lockerer und weniger genroduet ift alg in D. A. Sn diefer find 3. B. die auf die Wobl- thdtigfeit bestigliden Gentenzen c. 4 p. 19—21 alle δι einem gefdloffencn Ganzen zujammengeftellt. Sn B finden wir fte augseinandergeriffen an dret Orten (19, 8. 9. 11). Dort finden wir ferner c. 4 p. 22 die zujammengehirige Gebote: alles 211 hajfen, was dem Herrn nicht gefallt, und die Gebote de3 Herrm wicht 3u verlaifen, jonoern das Empfangene ohne Bujak und ohne Sdmalerung 3u bewabren, twiederum in unmittelbarer Wufeinanderfolge. Hier ftehen fie wiederum und 3ivar febr weit (19, 2. 11) augseinander, und die Folge der Drennung ift, dab ote siveite Sentens (φυλάξεις, a παρέλαβες) in ihrer Sfolirt- δεῖ! faum verftandlid) ift. Wehnlich verhalt ἐδ fitch mit anderen Stellen. Nur in einem griperen Sttick {{ die Mufeinanderfolge der Sentenzen im wefentlicen die gleide, in der Befdreibung de3 Weges der Stinde, naberhin in Der aweiten und Ldngeren Halfte diefes Wbjchnittes von διῶκται eyadmy an. Sit dev erfte Theil der Ὁ. A. ebenfowobhl vermige eines sithaltes αἵ weil ev im twefentliden fdou bisher befannt war, von gervingerer Bedeutung, fo ift dagegen der gweite mit c. 7 beginnende Wbjcnitt von gripter 396 Funk, Wihtigfeit. Cr gibt uns vor allem tiber die nahere Be- ftimmuig de8 erften Thetles Wufiehlugk, indem aus den Nufangsworten hervorgebht, dah derjelbe fiir den UWnter- richt devjenigen beftimmt tar, welde in die chriftlide Kirche aufgenomimen zu werden iwitnjdten, der Katedhumenen, ein Wort, das itbrigens in der Schrift felbjt noch nicht vov- fomimt. Wn fich aber (abt fic) der MWhfchnitt qewiffermaken als cin firclices Nituale oder als eine RKirdenordnung bezeicynen. Cr handelt der Natur der Sache ent}predend und antitipfend an den erften Theil zundcdhft von der Daufe. Das Faften vor der Gaufe gibt Veranlafjung, ein furzes . Wort iiber dieje Uebung im allgemeinen beizufligen, und δα Hter αἵ Gegenjak ote Pravis der , Heuchler” oder Bhavifder δου αὶ wird, folgt mit δ ΟΠ auf den gleichen Gegenjak eine Belehrung tiber das Gebet. Die Capitel 9—10 Handelu von der Cudariftic, und sipar mit Voranftellung de3 Weines vor dem Brote, wie abnlich Cuf. 12, 14—18 und 1 Ror. 10, 16—21. Wir begegnen Hier den alteften fcriftlic&h fixirten Liturgifden Gebeten. Wir erfahren aber auch zugleic), dak nicht alle an dtefe Gebete gebunden waren, dak e8 vielmehr Berjonen gab, welche in freter Weife Dank fagen ourften, jo wie der Geift e3 ihnen eingab, δίς Propheten. Die auf diejen Puntt bestiglidhe Bemerfung gibt Anlab, von dev Wufnahme und Behandlung der Propheten und Wpoftel, begw. Lehrer joie der einfacen Chriften 3u reden, die gleid) jenen von ausindrts her in eine Gemeinde fommen, fet e3 zu einem voritbergebenden, fet e8 zu einem bletbenden Wufenthalt (c. 11—13), und nad) diejer Digre|fton folgt der Schlup dev MAuseinanderfepung iiber die Cuchariftie (ὁ. 14). Bez jonders bemerfensiwerth ift hier die Crmahnung eines dem Die Doctrina apostolorum. 397 hl. Mable vorangehenden Sitndenbefenntnijjes. Daran vetht fic) die Bemerfung tiber die Geftellung von Ge- meindevorftdnden jowte ein Wort itber die britderlide Bu- το θείᾳ. Den ΘΒ macht endlich die Crmabhnung zur Wacdhjamecit mit Hinweis auf die Lebten Dinge. Gehen wir von der Wnalyje der Schrift zu der Be- ftimmung ihrer Bett ither, jo tft zunddjt 3u bemerfen, Dap fie namentlic allerdings erft durch Cufebius erwabhut wird, und auch vow ihm nicht ganz it dem vidtiqen Vitel, indem ev von τῶν ἀποστόλων αἱ λεγόμεναι διδαχαὶ (AH. EH. ΠῚ c. 25) redet. Qnodejjen fann ἐδ ebenjowenig einent Siweifel unterliegen , dab Cujebius unjere Schrift mit jenen Worten meinte, da fie bald nadbher von Mthanafius αἵ “ιδαχή aufgefiihrt wird, als dafh die Schrift damals fdon Lange Beit vorhanden war. Die Bemerfung des Clemens von Wlerandrien Strom. I c. 20: Οὗτος (sc. ὁ ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίοις πόνοις καυχώμενος) κλέτττης ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς εἴρηται" φησὶ γοῦν: Υἱέ, μὴ γίνου ψεύστης, odnysl γὰρ τὸ ψεῦσμα πρὸς τὴν κλοπῆήν, jegte die D. A. voraus, da die Worte δον, Schrift” bier (c. 4) fich finden, ausgenommen allein das we, ftatt deffen wir τέκνον μου lejen, und die weitere Schrift, die die Worte ebenfalls enthalt, die 7. g. apojftolijde Rirden- oronung (Hilgenfeld, Evang. sec. Hebr. ete. p. 98), ficherlich jiinger iff. Die Schrift war aljo um das Bahr 200 vorhanden, und fie entitand geraume Beit vor diefem Termin, da fie von Clemens als , Schrift” citirt wird. Mud iby θα wetst auf einen jehr frithen Urjprung bin. Gie hat durchiweg ein jo alterthitmlides Geprage und fie besieht fic) auf jo primitive firdlide Verhaltnifje, DagB fie der Mitte deS zweiten Gabrhunderts eher voran- 398 gun, als nachzujegen ift. Wie weit fie aber tiber diejen Termin hinaufzurticten ift, hat ihre Vergleidhung mit dem Paftor Herma und dem Barnabashrief 3n zeigen, mit denen fie fic) fo nabe beriihrt, dap eine unmittelbare MWhhangigfeit im Diejer oder jener Micdtung anzunehmen {{{. Bryennius lagt die D. A. von beiden Schriften ab- Hangen und er jegt thre Cutftehung auf 120—160 an. Durchfclagende Gritnde fiir die Wuffaffung Liegen indefjen nicht vor. Am allerivenigiten ijt die PBrioritat des Paftor gegentiber dev Ὁ. A. bewiejen. Derjelbe berithrt fic) mit ibr Hauptjacdhlic) Mand. IL mit feiner Vehre vom WAlmojen- geben und Mand. XI mit feiner Wuseinanderfepung {θεῖ den faljdhen Bropheten. Dort trijft er mit ihr zum Gheil auch τούν gujammen, wie folgende Gegeniiberftellung setat: D; A..c, 1 Ῥ. 7 86. Πᾶσι γὰρ ϑέλει δίδοσϑαι ὁ πατὴρ ἐχ τῶν ἰδίων χαρισμά- των. Ιαχάριος ὃ διδοὺς κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν᾽ ἀϑῶος γάρ ἔστιν. oN ai ~ , a SD pees Οὐαὶ τῷ λαμβανοντι" εἰ μὲν γὰρ χρείαν ἔχων λαμβάνει τις, 3 ~ a” ς \ f ἀϑῶος EOTAL’ ὃ δὲ μὴ χρείαν ἔχων δώσει δίχην, ἱνατί ἔλαβε χαὶ εἰς τί. PH. M: IL-4. 5. Πᾶσιν γὰρ ὃ Fedo δίδοσϑαι ϑέλει ἐχ τῶν ἰδίων δωρημάτων. Οἱ οὖν λαμβάνοντες ἀποδώσου- σιν λόγον τῷ ϑεῷ, διατί ἔλαβον καὶ εἰς τί" οἱ μὲν γὰρ λαμβά- γοντες ϑλιβόμενοι ob δικασϑή- ς τ Cc σονται, ol δὲ ἐν ὑποχρίσει λαμ- , t ' ς βᾶάνοντες τίσουσιν δίχην. O οὖν διδοὺς ἀϑῶός ἐστιν. Wher was folgt daraus fiir das Verhaltnigz beider Schriften? Offenbar fann der Paftor ebenjo gut von der D. A. abbangig fein al8 diefe von ihm, und wenn wir an die Verwendung der D. A. zum Katedumenenunterridt - denfen, wenn wir ferner erwagen, dah dev Paftor nach der wabhrjdheinlideren Wnnabhme erft um die Mitte de ziveiten Die Doctrina apostolorum. 399 Jahrhunderts entftanden {{{, jo jpricdt die qrogfere Wabhr- fcheinlichfeit fitr die Priovitdt der Ὁ. A. ἢ). Sudeffen diirfte die Ὁ. A. nicht bloB dem Paftor Herma, foudern auch dem Barnabasbrief vorangehen, und zwar aus folgendem Grunde. C3 wurde bereits oben darauf hingewtejen, dap inhaltlic) zujammengehirige Gabe in B mebrfad) ausgeinandergerijjen find. (ὅδ erbhebt fid Daher die Frage, ob ἐδ wabhricheinlider ift, dab die be- treffenden Sentenzen urjpriinglid) mit cinander verbunden waren, jo wie fie auc) inbaltlic) zujammengehsren, und erjt jpdter auseinandergerifjen wurden, oder dap fie ur. ipriinglic) die unnatiirlide Stellung erbielten, in dev wir jte in B antreffen, und erft durch einen Dritten mit Kunft in Die beffere Methenfolge gebracht wurden, in der fie die 1). A. aufiveist? Bisher Hat man zwar die Frage faft etnftimmig im Sinn der Brioritat von Β entjchieden, und fyenn die Frage nur jo allgemein geftellt wird, tft die MobglichEett nicht zu bejftreiten, daw eine urjpriinglid mangelhafte Darftellung fpdter in eine beffere Ordnung gebradt wurde. Wunders aber ftellt fich die Gache dar, jobald wir fie ndber in MWuge faffen. Bleiben wir bet den obigen Beifpielen (S. 395), ἀξ fragen wir, ob wohl anzunehmen fet, dab der Schviftiteller, row dem die Sentengzen iiber die Wobhlthatighkett urjpriing- lich Herrithren, fie in dev zervifjencn Form in B dargeftellt 1) Aud J. W., der die D. A. im Londoner Guardian Yr. 1998 sur Anzeige brachte, betrachtet Hermas als den borgenden Theil. Chenfo ,,wagt” er die Schrift dem Barnabasbrief mit δ Ὁ auf defjen weiter vorgeriicfte Chriftologie voranguitellen, ohne aber das VerhaliniZ niiher zu verfolgen. Cr Halt die Bentigung deS Barz nabasbriefes durd) D. A. nur fiir ziemlic) untwahrjdeintich. 400 unt, Habe, oder ob ἐδ nicht viclmeby wabridheinlider jet, δαβ et die Darftellung in der D. A. geliefert habe? Und wenn Diefes Beifpiel nidt gentigt, jo frage man weiter, ob das φυλάξεις a παρέλαβες, jo wie es in B fteht, ge- irennt und weit getrennt von den Worten, die eigentlich Ἰείπιοιι Sinn beftimmen, von einem Original) driftfteller Herrithren finne? Die Wntwort fann nicht sweifelhaft jet. Die D. A. tft Original und Vorlage von B, nicht uimigefehrt. Freilid) erwadhst het diefer WAuffaffung die Sciwierigkeit, dak nach iby die urfpritnglid) befjere Hronung durch einen Spdteren verjdlechtert wurde. Sie ijt indeffen nicht 70 grop und uniiberwindlicd) als diejenige, die fic) im umgefehrten Fall ergidt, und bestiglich ihrer Vijung ift vor allem an das yu evinnern, was oben in Betreff der Cintheilung des 19. Capitels von B bemerft wurde. Wenn Barnabas den Stoff παῷ den Gefidts- puntten dev Gotteds- und der Nadftenliebe fceiden wollte, jo begreift fic) unmittelbar, marum ev die Worte μισήσεις πᾶν ὃ οὔκ ἐστιν ἀρεστὸν τῷ ϑεῷ Und οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἑγτολὰς κυρίου in den erften Dheil feiner Museinanvder- febung ftellte. Dag er die in der D. A. auf fie folgenden Worte φυλάξεις δὲ ἃ παρέλαβες von ihnen trete, be- weist andererjeits allerdings ein grokes Ungeldic. Wber ift Denn Barnabas ein Sehviftiteller, an den hohe An- forderungen 3u ftellen find? Und ware er diejed παῷ cauderweitigen Letftungen, ijt bier die Gace nicht fo τῷ: aus flav, dag wir ibn wenigftens in diefem Dbheil vou einem groben Mibgriff nicht fretjpredhen fonnen? Haben wir das Verhaltnig der betden Schriften in dem Vorftehenden richtig beftimmt, fo jind wir der Zeit dev D. A. zugleich um einen bedeutenden Sdhritt naber Die Doctrina apostolorum. 401 gefommen. Der Barnabasbrief gehirt nach den Wus- fithrungen, die ἰῷ fiirzlich in dev Qu.-Schr. gab, dem Ende des erften Jahrhunderts an, und jomit ift rund das wayr 100 der terminus ad quem in unferer Frage. Weldhes tft aber wetter der terminus a quo? Yd getraue mir nidt, ibn πάθον zu beftimmen, da man besziiglid feiner doc) nicht itber bloke Vermuthungen hinausfommt. Bei dem Ergebnip, das wir gewonnen haben, liegt auch wenig Daran, ob er einige Fabre mehr oder weniger von Dem terminus ad quem entfernt ift. Gn allen Fallen gehirt die D. A. noch dem erften Sabrhundert an, und Da auch der Slemensbrief οὐ gegen Ende diejes Jabr- hunderts entftanden ift, jo ijt jie ohne Bweifel die altefte τις Schrift, die wir auger den Οἱ {ὦ ει Schriften befigen *). Fragen wir endlich nach der Heimath der Schrift, jo diirfte am ebeften an Wegypten zu denfen fein, und swar θαι] ὦ aus dem Grunde, weil fie zuerft und ohne Biweifel nicht Lange nad) threr Cutftehung durch den Verfaffer δὲ Barnabasbriefes beniigt wurde, der aller Wabhricheinlidhfeit nach ebenfalls in diejem Lande zu fuchen ijt. DMtan hat zwar geglaubt, dap die Verordnung, det Dey Daufe unter Umftdnden warmes Wafer anzuwenden, auf ein falteres Klima Hinweife, und weil Mordiyrien und Kleinafien wegen dev fritheren Wusbiloung der Kirchenver- fafjung in diejen Landern nicht follen in Betracht fommen fiunen, die Schrift Griedenland oder Macedonien, naber- .-.--.-- τ -ο--.------ 1) 3. W. fommt im Guardian zu εἴπου abhnlichen Datirung jelbft im Gall dev Priovitdt des Barnabagsbriefes, indem ev diejen, freilich fchwerlich richtig, auf das Bahr 80 anjett. Theol. Quartalfarift. 1884. Heft LIT. 26 402 Sunf, Die Doctrina apostolorum. hin RKorinth, Athen oder Philippi zuerfennen wollen 1). Die VBegriindung diirfte indejjen nicht ftichhaltig fein, da bet frantlichen und jcdwadlichen Leuten auch in den fitd- licheren Ldndern das Waffer bet der Daufe unter πὶ: ftanden noch fiinftlic) zu ermdrmen fein wird. C3 gebridt mir augenblidlid) an Beit, noch weiter auf die Gace ecinzugeben. Cin Bunft fet aber noch furz hervorgehoben. Die Auffindung der D. A. nbthigt uns, unjere bisherige Wnfidt von der Cntftehung der apo fto- {ἰδ ἐπ Conftituttonen gu dudern. Cin oder viel- mehr der Hauptgrund, aus dem bisher ein juceffiver Urjprung diefes Werkes angenommen wurde, eriweist fich jept alZ binfallig. Die von Cujebius erwahuten Adayai τῶν ἀποστόλων find nicht auf lebtere3, beg. deffen feds evfte Biicher zu begziehen; fie find ein eigenes, bisher unbefanntes, aber jest befanntes Werk, und bet diefem Sadverhalt fteht der Annahme einer einheitlichen Mb- fafjung, bezw. Redaction dev Conftitutionen εὐ ein ernftlides Hindernip entgegen, da die auf die erften fedh3 Biicher fich befchranfenden apoftolijdhen Didaskalien in fyrifder, arabijdher und dthinpijder Sprache nidt fo [α als Vorlage de$ Werkes αἵδ᾽ vielmehr αἵδ᾽ Wuszug aus demjelben zu betradhten find. Bgl. dariiber die Bez merfungen in Lit. Rundfdau 1884 MNro. 4. 1) J. BW. im Guardian. — Hilgenfeld. 8. f. w. Dh. 1884 ©. 371, jdlagt bet der S. 393 Anm. 2 als siveifelhaft be- handelten Stelle vor, ft. tm αὐτοῦ tod χαταϑέματος 3u Lefer an’ κτλ. Demgemafs ware zu iiberjeben: fie werden gerettet wer- den bon dem Flude. Everybopy will be interested in the opinion of 80 competent a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, respecting the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” At the meeting of the Chureh Congress at Carlisle, he read a paper on recent biblical research, which gave him excejjent- op- poritiity to speak of the Bryennios manuscript. _ He says its interest and importance have far ex- ceeded our highest expectations. It proves to ~ be the basis of the Seventh Book of the Apostolic Constitutions ; but this is the least of its signifi- cant points, Its great value is in the light which it throws on the infancy of the Church. Dr. Lightfoot agrees with the English and German critics in placing its origin between A. D, 80—110, instead of the later date, 140—160, assigned it by Bryennios. As to its ecclesiastical signifi- cance he says: Ϊ ΚΟΥ 6 have both an itinerant and a localized minis- _ try, the former consisting mainly of apostles and prophets, and the functions of the two shading off into one another, so that itis not easy to draw the | line between them; and the localized ministry is confined to two orders, who are called bishops and deacons, as in the Epistle to the Philippians and else- where in the Apostolic writings. Where our docu- ? ment has ‘bishops and deacons,” the latter work in the corresponding passage substitutes ‘ bishops, presbyters, and deacons,’ Thus, when our author | wrote, ‘bishop’ still remained a synonym for ‘pres- byter,’ and the episcopal office properly so-called, 3 did not exist in the district in which he lived. Now . there is no distinct trace of this first state of things . —the itinerant ministry side by side with the local- | ized—after the Apostolic writings, not even in the Apostolic Fathers.” The learned Bishop has no doubt of its genu- ineness. He says no one could or would have forged it. It serves no party’s interests, and: pleases nobody, and is to be accepted as the pri- 5 vate venture of some one who desires to set forth ἡ his views on moral conduct and Church order, believing them to represent the mind of the 1 Apostles. The Bishop then points out the sources of the quotations in the document: : “The Lord’s Prayer is given at length, numerous ἢ sayings from the Sermon on the Mount and else- where are introduced, the baptismal formula is quoted. Occasionally, also, we come across echoes of the characteristic language of St. Luke. Coinci- dences with St. John are less close. With St. Paul’s Epistles, again, the writer shows an acquaintance. Coincidences with four of these—Romans, I. Corin- thians, Ephesians, and 11. Thessalonians—indicate a ; free use of the Apostle’s writings. The picture of the Christian ministry, again, is the continuation of | the state of things represented in St. Paul’s Epis- tles. Remembering that the whole work occupies only alittle more than six octavo pages, we are sur- prised at the amount of testimony, certainly much , more than we had any right to expect, which it bears tothe canon of the New Testament. More- over, its evidence has a negative value, also. In his introduction to the ‘Study of the Gospels,’ Dr. Westcott has brought together all the traditional sayings of Christ, and the result shows how very little was reported outsice the canonical gospels. This result is confirmed by the document before us.” 1 Those who, like the Episcopal scholar vf Nasho- tah, attempt to show that Audzeus was the au- thor or forger of the ‘‘ Teaching” in the fourth century, will have a long task, and a small com- pany of adherents. ‘3 ἘΨΕΒΥΒΟΡΥ will be interested in the opinion of 80 competent a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, respecting the ‘'Teaching of the Twelve Aposties.” At the meeting of the Church Congress at Carlisle, he read a paper on recent -piblical research, which gave him pxee salto © aaa ean Opperr (er Me ML es, / SFS ty RESULTS OF RECENT HISTORICAL AND TOPO- GRAPHICAL RESEARCH UPON NEW TESTA- MENT SCRIPTURES.' WHEN I took counsel with myself how I should treat the subject intrusted to me, and what limitations I should fix to the range of topics included in my paper, I soon found that I had no choice. The boundary line was distinctly traced out for me by circumstances. At the Reading Congress a year ago a paper was read on this very subject by an able Oxford Professor—avowedly a continuation of an inaugural lecture which he had recently delivered in the University. In these two papers he had traversed the whole ground up to the date of the last Congress, and no more competent guide in this province could be found. The term “recent” therefore, though sufficiently elastic in itself, must receive a very strict inter- pretation from me. I am constrained to confine myself to the discoveries published within the last twelve months. But I take courage in a prophetic passage which I find in the able and exhaustive summary by Professor Sanday, to which I have already referred. ‘‘ After all,’’ he writes, ‘“‘ we are only picking up the gleanings of bygone ages. We are not reaping a harvest on virgin soil, and yet of late the very gleanings have been so rich, that we cannot refrain from hoping that those which he before us in the immediate 1 Read at the Carlisle Church Congress, 1884, and revised, with additions, by the Author. JANUARY, 1885. B VOL. I. 2 RHSULTS OF HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL future may be not less so.” This hope has not been ‘disappointed. Having thus restricted the sphere of discussion, I shall confine myself to two recent discoveries of great interest ‘and importance for the earliest history of Christianity. I. I will ask you first to accompany me to Asia Minor. It is plain that the students of early Christian history are ‘yet very far from recognising the extreme importance of a thorough investigation of this region. Otherwise there would be no lack of funds to sustain such explorations as those carried on by Mr. Wood at Ephesus and Mr. Ramsay in Phrygia. Asia Minor was the principal scene of St. Paul’s missionary labours; it was likewise the chief focus of Christian thought and action in the second century. Yet Asia Minor teems with undiscovered records of the past. It would only be an innocent exaggeration if I were to say that every spadeful of soil turned up would reveal some secret of antiquity. It should be remembered also that in these regions Christianity courted publicity with a boldness of face which it did not venture to assume elsewhere. Thus we may expect to find there not a few memorials of the earliest Christian times buried under the accumulated rubbish of ages. Even where no distinct Christian records are attainable, the contemporary heathen monuments have often the highest value in verifying, interpreting, and illus- trating the notices in the Bible or in early Christian history. Let me give one single illustration, showing how an accidental discovery, trivial in itself and apparently alien to all the interests of the ecclesiastical historian, may lead to results of the highest moment. Among the stones disinterred a few years ago by Mr. Wood at Ephesus, was ᾿ one containing the name and date of a certain obscure proconsul Julianus. Now this proconsul happens to be mentioned in the heathen rhetorician Aristides. Thus M. Waddington was enabled to correct and revise the chrono- RESEARCH UPON NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 3 logy of Aristides’ life. But it so happens that Aristides elsewhere refers to another proconsul Quadratus—the same who presided at the martyrdom of Polycarp. With these data M. Waddington fixed the time of Polycarp’s death some twelve years before the received date, and the inferential consequences, as affecting Polycarp’s relations with St. John and thus bearing on the continuity of Church doctrine and practice, have the highest value. More recently the labours of Mr. Ramsay, who has explored the comparatively untrodden regions of Phrygia with the eye of a scholar and antiquarian, have thrown a flood of light on the ecclesiastical arrangements of the district; and still greater things may yet be expected from their continuance, if the necessary funds are forthcoming. In the course of one season he discovered about a dozen Christian monumental inscriptions belonging to the second and third centuries, and dating from the reign of Hadrian onward. To one of these sepulchral inscriptions, second to no early monument of Christianity in interest, I desire to direct your attention. Though not having a very immediate bearing on the Scrip- tures, yet indirectly, as indicating the common beliefs and practices of the Christians in these early ages, it has the highest significance. In the spurious Life of Abercius, Bishop. of Hierapolis, as given by the Metaphrast, an in- scription is incorporated professing to have been written by the saint for his tomb in his own lifetime. Though much corrupted and written continuously as if it were prose, it is easily seen to fall into hexameter verses. In the course of his explorations in 1883, Mr. Ramsay discovered in situ a portion of this very epitaph inscribed on an altar- shaped tomb, not however at Hierapolis on the Meander, but at Hieropolis, a more obscure city near Synnada.! As it 1 The results of Mr, Ramsay’s explorations will be found in two articles in the Journal of Hellenic Studies. The Tale of Abercius, 1882, pp. 339 sq., and The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 1883, pp. 424 sq. 4 RESULTS OF HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL answers in all other respects to the notices in the Life of Abercius, Hierapolis in the existing text of this Life is plainly a corruption for Hieropolis. Thus, from being merely a critical puzzle, this epitaph henceforward ranks as a historical monument. Though comprising only twenty- two lines, it is full of matter illustrating the condition and usages of the Church in the latter half of the second century. Abercius declares himself to be a disciple of the pure Shepherd, who feeds his flocks on mountains and plains. This Shepherd is described as having great eyes which look on every side. As we read this description, we may well imagine it drawn from some pictorial representa- tion of the Good Shepherd which the writer had seen in the Roman catacombs or elsewhere. But however this may be, the underlying theology and the reference to the imagery in St. John’s Gospel will be obvious. The author says likewise that the Shepherd taught him “faithful writings,’ meaning doubtless the Evangelical narratives and the Apostolic Epistles. He further sent him to royal Rome, where he saw the golden-robed, golden-sandalled queen, and a people wearing a bright seal. The queen and the seal have been interpreted literally—the one being identified with Faustina, the consort of Marcus Aurelius, and the other explained of the signet rings worn by the higher orders, the senators and knights, among the Romans. On the foundation of this supposed interview with the empress, a legendary story, full of portentous miracles, has been piled. But we can hardly be wrong in giving a figurative explanation to these incidents in accordance with the general character of the epitaph. The queen will then be the Church of the imperial city, and the people wearing the seal will be the Christian brethren signed by baptism. The writer further tells us that he went to Syria, and crossed the Euphrates, visiting Nisibis. Everywhere he found comrades—that is, fellow-Christians. Faith led the RHSHARCH UPON NEW THESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 5 way, and following her guidance he took Paul for his com- panion—or, in other words, the Epistles of the Apostle were his constant study. Wherever he went, his guide set before him for food fish from the fountain. The fountain here, it is hardly necessary to say, is baptism, and the fish is the Divine ΙΧΘΥΣ, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour; so that this is perhaps the earliest example of the acrostic which afterwards became common. This fish is further described as ‘‘ exceeding large and clean,” and as having been grasped by a pure virgin. Faith gives this fish to her ‘‘ friends to eat continually, offering good wine, and giving a mixed cup with bread.’ It is needless to dwell on the picture which is here presented. The miraculous Incarnation, the omniscient omnipresent energy of Christ, the Scriptural writings, the two Sacraments, the extension and catholicity of the Church—all stand out in definite outline and vivid colours, only the more striking because this is no systematic exposition of the theologian, but the chance expression of a devout Christian soul. A light is thus flashed in upon the inner life of the Christian Church in this remote Phrygian city. But I would call your attention more especially to two points. First. The writer describes himself as in his seventy-second year when he composes this epitaph. If it was written, as there is good reason to believe, as early as the reign of Commodus, or perhaps even earlier, he must have been born not later than about A.D. 120—some twenty years after the death of St. John, who passed the last decades of his life in Kphesus, the capital of this same province. Thus he would be reared amidst the still fresh traditions of the last surviving Apostle. Secondly. He visits the far West and the far East, and everywhere he finds not only the same Church and the same sacraments, but also, as we may infer from his lan- guage, the same, or substantially the same, theology. His faith was the faith of the Catholic Church. This monument 6 RESULTS OF HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL therefore is another stubborn protest against certain modern theories of early Christian history. Each fresh discovery is a fresh nail driven into the coffin of Tubingen speculation. IT. From this interesting monumental epitaph I turn to a record of a wholly different kind. When in the year 1875 Bryennios, then Bishop of Serre, published for the first time, from a manuscript at Constantinople, the two Epistles of Clement complete, he gave a list of the other contents of the same volume. Among these was a work entitled The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles. As a work of this name is mentioned by Eusebius and others among early apocryphal writings, a hope was excited in the minds of those interested in such studies, that this might be the book alluded to, and that it would throw some light on the vexed question of the origin of the Apostolical Constitutions. Hight or nine years however elapsed, and no more was heard of it. At length, at the close of last year (1883), it was given to the world. Its interest and importance have far exceeded our highest expectations. It is found indeed to be the basis of the seventh book of the Apostolical Constitutions ; but this is the smallest item in our gain. Its chief value consists in the light which it throws on the condition of the infant Church. We are met however with this preliminary difficulty, that it does not carry its date on its face, and we must have recourse to critical inferences in establishing its age. There can be little or no question however, that it is not only the work mentioned by Eusebius, but also the work quoted by Clement of Alexandria as ‘‘scripture.’”” In the absence of any direct indication, it has been placed as late as A.D. 140-160 by Bryennios, but I do not doubt that we should be more near the mark in dating it with most English and some German critics somewhere between A.D. 80-110. The reasons are briefly these. In the first place, the Hucharist still remains part of the Agape. This follows from the fact that, in connexion with the Eucharistic prayers, directions RESHARCH UPON NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 7 are given about what is to be done when the persons present “are filled,” ‘‘ are satisfied.’ But the separation of the two: seems to have taken place about the time of the Bithynian persecution under Pliny (A.D. 112); and in the age of Justin Martyr they are evidently distinct. In the corresponding. passage of the later work, the Apostolical Constitutions, the: words “ after they are filled’’ are replaced by “after their participation,” the alteration of usage requiring an alter- ation of phrase. Again, the picture which it exhibits of the Christian ministry suggests a very early date. The points. to be observed are twofold. Furst, asin St. Paul’s account in the First Epistle to the Corinthians and in the Epistle to. the Ephesians, so here also we have both an itinerant and a. localised ministry—the former consisting mainly of apostles and prophets, and the functions of the two shading off into. one another, so that it is not easy to draw the line between. them ; and, secondly, the localised ministry is confined to two orders, who are called bishops and deacons, as in the: Hpistle to the Philippians and elsewhere in the Apostolic writings. Here again the comparison with the Apostolical Constitutions is suggestive. Where our document has ‘*bishops and deacons,” the later work in the corresponding, passage substitutes “‘ bishops, presbyters, and deacons.” Thus, when our author wrote, ‘‘ bishop”’ still remained a synonym for “‘ presbyter,’ and the episcopal office, properly so called, had not been constituted in the district in which he lived. Now there is no distinct trace of this first state of things—the itinerant ministry side by side with the localised —after the Apostolic writings, not even in the Apostolic Fathers; while as regards the second point—the identity of meaning in the terms “‘ bishop’”’ and “ presbyter ’’—the latest example is found in Clement’s Epistle, which was written about a.D. 95; andin Asia Minor and Syria at all events, episcopacy proper was a recognised institution when Ignatius wrote in the early years of the second century. As 8 RESULTS OF HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL our work however may with some probability be assigned to Alexandria—for all its affinities are Alexandrian—and the march of events was probably not so rapid there as else- where, we may perhaps allow the latitude of a few years more. But, it will be urged, the description of the “το Ways,” with which it commences, is obviously plagiarised from the Epistle of Barnabas, and this Epistle cannot be placed as early as this date for the plagiarist would require. In replying to this objection, I would altogether waive the question respecting the date of the Epistle of Barnabas, though I might have something to say on this point. But when I find two sets of critics, each maintaining with equal confidence and with some show of reason, the one that Barnabas borrows from the Doctrine, the other that the Doctrine is indebted to Barnabas, a third solution is sug- gested to my mind as more probable than either. May it not have been that neither author plagiarises from the other, but that both derive the matter which they have in common from a third source? The idea of the Two Ways was familiar to Greek philosophers. May not some pious Jew then have taken up this idea and interwoven into it the moral code of the Old Testament, writing perhaps under the mask of a heathen philosopher, who thus was made an unwilling witness to the superiority of Jewish ethics? The adoption of a heathen pseudonym was not an uncommon device with the literary Jew before and about the time of the Christian era, as, for instance, in the maxims of the pseudo-Phocylides and the predictions of the pseudo-Sibyl- lines. The early date which I venture to assign to the Doctrine of the Apostles agrees well with its general character. There is an archaic simplicity—I had almost said a childishness—in its practical directions, which is only consistent with the early infancy οἵ ἃ Church. Such, for instance, is the test which it suggests of truth and falsehood. A true apostle, says the writer, will only remain in a place a RESHARCH UPON NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 9 single day or two at most; if a man who sets up for an apostle stays a third, he is a false prophet. Of the genuine- ness of this document there can be no shadow of doubt. No one could or would have forged it. It serves no party interests ; it pleases nobody; it is neither sacramentarian nor anti-sacramentarian, neither sacerdotal nor anti-sacer- dotal, but both (at least in appearance) by turns. We may therefore safely use it as a witness; but, while doing so, we must be careful not to attribute to it an authority to which it lays no claim. It pleads no official sanction. Its title 1s not intended to suggest its authorship. We may accept it as the private venture of some one who desires to set forth his views on moral conduct and Church order, believing them to represent the mind of the Apostles. But at the same time such a document cannot but reflect fairly well the beliefs and usages of the writer’s age and country. A further caution is likewise needed. It does not profess to be complete. Its desultory character is apparent, for in- stance, in the description of the Eucharistic service, which is plainly fragmentary. We cannot therefore safely draw inferences from its silence. This remark applies especially to doctrine, of which it says next to nothing. Observing these cautions, we interrogate it with regard to the New Testament writings. And here the answer is unexpectedly full. The writer quotes large portions of St. Matthew. The Lord’s Prayer is given at length; numerous sayings from the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere are in- troduced; the baptismal formula is quoted. Occasionally also we come across echoes of the characteristic language of St. Luke, as for instance, ‘‘ What thank have ye, if ye love them that love you” (c. 1), and again “‘ Let not your lamps be quenched nor your loins ungirt, but be ready, for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh” (c. 16). On the other hand the coincidences with St. John are less close. The writer speaks of “‘ the holy vine of David’’; he uses the 10 RESULTS OF HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL expression “‘ perfect in love’; and in a third passage his language is the echo of an injunction in St. John’s Second Epistle. These however, though indicating a sympathy with St. John’s modes of thought, are not decisive as to a knowledge of his writings. Nor indeed if we are right in assigning a very early date to this document, are we justified in expecting such knowledge. With St. Paul’s Epistles again the writer shows an acquaintance. Coincidences with four of these—Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians—indicate a free use of the Apostle’s writtings. We likewise meet with the precept, ‘‘ Abstain from fleshly and bodily lusts,’ which seems to be taken from 1 Peter 1]. 11, but may possibly be independent. The testimony how- ever is not, confined to the passages actually quoted. The prominence given here, as in the epitaph of Abercius, to the two Sacraments, to,these and these only, is the proper sequel to the Lord’s parting commands as related in the Gospels. The picture of the Christian ministry again is the continu- ation of the state of things represented in St. Paul’s Epistles. Remembering that the whole work occupies only a little more than six octavo pages, we are surprised at the amount of testimony—certainly much more than we had any right to expect—which it bears to the canon of the New Testa- ment. Moreover, its evidence has a negative value also. In his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Dr. Westcott has brought together all the traditional sayings of Christ, and the result shows how very little was reported in the early ages outside the canonical Gospels. This result is confirmed by the document before us. It contains indeed one quo- tation of which the source is not known, ἃ prudential maxim of almsgiving introduced with the words, “Τὸ has been said”’; but we have no ground for supposing this to. be given as a saying of Christ. All the evangelical matter, so far as we can trace it, is found within the four corners of our canon- ical Gospels. RESEARCH UPON NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 11 These are the gleanings—neither meagre nor unimportant I venture to think—which a single year has yielded in this portion of our field. J. B. DUNELM. The inscription of Abercius may be restored with tolerable confidence, by the use of this threefold help; (1) The text in the Metaphrast’s Life of Abercius. (2) The fragments on the stone itself. (3) The imitation of it on the tomb of one Alexander (A.D. 216) discovered likewise by Mr. Ramsay at Hieropolis. It will run as follows :— ᾿Εκλεκτῆς πόλεως ὁ πολίτης τοῦτ᾽ ἐποίηολ Ζῶν, IN EX κδιρῷ COMATOC ἐνθὰ θέειν. οὐὔνομ ᾿Αβέρκιός. εἰμι μαθητής ποιμένος ἁγνοῦ, dc Βόοσκει προβάτων ἀγέλδο ὄρεοιν πεδίοιο τε, 5 OdOadmoyc ὅς ἔχει μεγάᾶλογε TIANTH κἀθορῶντδο' οὗτος γάρ M ἐδίδδξε. .«γρᾶμμδτὰ TTICTA’ εἰς ρώμην Oc ἔπεμψεν ἐμὲν βΒδοίληδν Δθρηδδι Kal BaciAICCAN ἰδεῖν YPYCOCTOAON YPYCOTTEAIAON. λὰὸν A εἶλον ἐκεῖ λὰμπρὰν ccpareidan ἐἔχοντδ' ro KAl Σγρίηο πέλον εἶδ Kal ἀοτεὰ πᾶντὰ, NiciBIN, Εὐφράτην διδβάο᾽ πάντη XN ἔοχον cyNomiAoyc’ TlafAon ἔχων ἑπόϊμην), πίοτις πάντη δὲ προῆκε, KAl πἀρέθηκε τροφὴν TIANTH ἰχθὺν ἀπὸ πηγῆς πὰνμεγέθῃ, κἀθὰρόν, ON ἐδράξατο πάρθένος ἁγνή" 1:5 Kal τοῦτον ἐπέλωκε φίλοιο ἔσθειν διὰ TIANTOG, οἶνον χρηστὸν ἔχογοὰ, κέρδομὰ διδοῦοθ, MET ἄρτου. TafTa πὸρεοτὼς εἶπον ᾿Αβέρκιος ὧλε Γρδφῆνοι" ἑβδομήκοοτον ἔτος Kal δεύτερον HON ἀληθῶο. TAYO ὁ νοῶν εὐξζδιτο ὑπὲρ μοῦ πᾶς ὁ ογνῳδόο. 20 ΟΥ̓ MENTO! τύμβῳ τις ἐμῷ ἕτερον ἐπιθησει" εἰ X οὖν, ρωμδίων τὰμείῳ θήσει διοχίλιδ χρυοξ, Kal ΧΡΗΟΤΗ͂ πάτρίδι ἹἹεροπόλει χίλιὰ χργοᾶ.. | Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople. and New Testaments in their order. ' the 51st leaf is found the Epistle of Barnabas. THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE | APOSTLES. | BY PROF. ALBERT L. LONG, D.D. THE following notes of an examination, which | I have just had the opportunity of making, of | the ‘‘ Jerusalem manuscript,” from which the re_ cent editions of the ‘‘Teaching” have been de- rived, will be, perhaps, of some interest to crit- ical scholars, as well as to general readers. The manuscript is found in the library of the Monastery (or Metoche) connected with the Je- | rusalem Patriarchate, in the Phanar or Greek quarter of Stamboul. This establishment is quite distinct from, although near to, that of the The library possesses, accerding to the state- ment of the librarian, six hundred ancient man- uscripts, The Jerusalem manuscript is No. 446* of the collection. It is ἃ stont volume, of what I would call a small 8vo. It is about eight inches long by six wide. It contains one hundred and twenty leaves of stout parchment, well pre- served, but bearing indubitable marks of age. On the first or left hand page of the last leaf (or, using. the numeration common in ancient manuscripts, page No. 120a) there is a subscrip- tion and date—‘‘Finished in the month of June, 6564 (7. e., A. D. 1056), by the hand of Leon the Notary.” The contents of these 120 parchment leaves are as follows: 1. The first thirty-two leaves contain what is entitled John Chrysostom’s Synopsis of the Old Notwith- standing the title includes the New Testament, the Synopsis, however, finishes with the prophet Malachi. 2. From the 33d leaf to the second page of 3. From the second page of the 51st (in the middle of the page) to the middle of the first page of the 70th leaf is found the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. 4, From the middle of the first page of the 70th, to the middle of the first page of the 76th leaf, is the Second Epistle of Clement to the Co- rinthians. 5. On the first page of the 76th leaf, only three lines from the bottom, begins the ‘‘ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” finishing about the middle Ne LC σον τς ON I *In the edition of the Epistles of Clement, Con- stantinople, 1875, by Bishop Philotheos Bryennios, taken from this manuscript, the number of the manu- script is given as 456. Whether it was a typograph- ical error, or the volumes of the Jibrary have been renumbered, I could not find out —_- of the second page of the 80th leaf. The lower Ϊ half of this page is left blank, while at the be- ginning—i.e., on the 76th leaf, between the end of the Bedoiid. Epistle of Clement and the begin- ning of the ‘‘Teaching,” there is inserted (in ink differing slightly in color from other por- | tions of the MS., what appears to be simply a | list of the names of the books of the Old Testa- ment, in Hebrew and Greek, the Hebrew names written in the Greek character, making the usual uncouth appearance. I have as yet no sat- isfactory theory in my miné to account for this insertion in this place. Possibly, the copyist simply thought to utilize the spare half page of | parchment, and after having finished the Sec- ond Epistle of Clement, he thought to put ina little useful general information ; then, having miscalculated his space, and having still three or four lines to spare, he began on the ‘* Teach-— ing.” of trivial and unimportant matter are fre- quently found in ancient MSS, 6. The half page at the close of the “Teaching” is left blank ; but the 81st leaf and the half of Itis a curious fact that similar insertions — the first Gare of the 82d leaf have the Epistle of | Mary of Cassaboli to the saint and holy martyr Ignatius, Archbishop of Antioch. I regret that ‘ the circumstances did not allow any closer ᾿ examination of this disputed epistle, so as to throw, if possible, some light upon the question of the city to which this lady belonged, and whether it was or not Castabala of Cilicia. Antioch is called the City of God (Theoupolis) | as was customary upon coins of a certain — period, 7. Following this Epistle to the Martyr Saint Ignatius, there are twelve epistles from him. Now, inasmuch as there are fifteen epistles ex- tant, which have been attributed to Ignatius, - and out of the fifteen, at the present day eight | are rejected by most biblical critics as spurious, | the enumeration of the twelve given by this manuscript becomes a matter of considerable - interest. I will therefore give it: 3 I. The First is to Mary, two pages. Presum- ably a reply to the preceding. Il. The Second is to the Trallians, from the middle of the first page of the 83d to the mid- \ dle of the second page of the 87th leaf. 11. The Third Epistle is to the Magnesians, from the middle of the second page of the 87th, to the middle of the second page of the 91st | leaf. IV. The Fourth h Epistle j is to the Tarsians, and extends to the first page of the 94th leaf, ending | near the top’of the page. _ = es --ς 5. V. The Fifth Epistle is that to the Philippians concerning Baptism, and extends to the middle of the second page of the 97th leaf. VI. The Sixth Epistle is that to the Philadel- phians, and extends to the middle of the first’ page of the 102d leaf. VII. The Seventh Epistle is that to the Smyr- neans, finishing near the bottom of the second page of the 105th leaf. the Bishop of Smyrna, beginning at the bottom about the middle of the second page of the 107th leaf. Ι ans, finishing near the top of the first page of the 110th leaf. X. The Tenth Epistle is that to Heron, Deacon of Antioch, finishing near the bottom of the second page of the 111th leaf. XI. The Eleventh Epistle is that to the Ephe- sians, extending to the middle of the second page ofthe 117th leaf. XII. The Twelfth Epistle is that to the Romans, and finishes five lines and a half from | the top of the first page of the last leaf (120) of the volume. This is the Epistle to the Romans, more generally regarded as the genuine one. The ‘absence of the amen after the closing words, ‘¢ Fare ye well to the end in the patience of Jesus Christ,” is worth nothing as indicative of agree- ment with the text known to English critics as the Longer Recension. After these five and a half lines, there is one line, well spaced from the above, finely written, in the most contracted and q abbreviated style of hand-writing, containing the subscription and date δύο, mentioned. The last half of the page anda part of the last page then has, in the same handwriting as the rest of the manuscript, an addition in the form | of a genealogical note upon the genealogy of Joseph and Mary, and evidently following the authority of Eusebius, the ecclesiastical his- torian. ‘This has doubtless been simply added by the copyist in order to utilize the empty | jy pamalieant ΠΤ was unable to continue as long as I desired the examination of this interesting volume. There are very many questions of biblical ar- | cheeology, which would be touched upon, and some VIII. The Eighth Epistle is that to Polycarp, — of the second page of the 105th, and finishing | IX. The Ninth Epistle is that to the Antiochi- : | 1 “ΤῸ God alone, the invisible Father of truth, who hath sent unto us the Saviour and the Prince of in- corruption, through whom also he has revealed unto us the truth and the heavenly life; to Him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” ROBERT COLLEGE, CONSTANTINOPLE, 7 A We have already denied, on the authority of a “private note from Professor Long, that he and President Washburn were led, on their second examination of the manuscript of the ‘‘Teach- ing of the Apostles,” to a doubt of the genuine- ness of this now famous writing. We have just received a fuller and more explicit note from’ Professor Long, which we gladly lay before our readers : Ὡς ——— mew ewe SE ---- TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT: In view of the mention made of my name in con- nection with certain statements concerning the Je- rusalem manuscript, I feel that it would be proper for me to make to you the following statement: 1. Ihave no sympathy with any attempt to throw discredit upon the genuineness of the manuscript as a whole, or upon the *‘Teaching,” as a part of the | Same. DI 2. Notwithstanding a vexatious and annoying 8 incident, which I had hoped would not be made ἢ ‘public, but which I find imperfectly described in various newspaper paragraphs, I have never had y any thought of attributing the unwillingness of the { | probably settled by its careful perusal. The four | leaves of the ‘‘ Teaching” are by no means the only gold in this mass of ore. The last para- | (graph of the Second Epistle of Clement to the | ‘Corinthians, just preceding the ‘‘ Teaching,” is as follows: | authorities of the Convent of the Holy Sepulchre to have a page of the “ Teaching” photographed to the cause suggested. Ihave had several other expla- nations, more natural and more satisfactory to my mind, although I do not consider it necessary to make them public. 3. The incident above alluded to, while it was disappointing, yet furnished me the opportunity of examining the manuscript much more thoroughly than I could otherwise have hoped to do. In this examination, I am bound to say also, the Librarian, Sophronius, very cordially gave me every facility which I could ask, and showed very plainly that he was mortified and grieved at the decision of his superior. 4, Upon that occasion I examined the stitching of the sheets. I inserted the photographic fac simile of the last page between the pages in some fifteen or twenty different places, and carefuily compared the handwriting with reference to uniformity in lig- atures and abbreviations andin the shape of certain letters. The result was that I satisfied myself that the volume is entire, written by the same hand; that the *‘Teaching” is an integral part of the volume; and that there is no reasonable ground for doubting the authenticity of the date of the subscription by the hand of the copyist, A. D. 1056. ALBERT L. LONG. ~ ROBERT COLLEGE, CONSTANTINOPLE, Aug. 29th. f . 7 vA Pastor PETERSEN, of Rellingen, has brought out a fifteen-page pamphlet on ‘‘The Teaching of the I'welve Apostles,” which is remarkable among German works on the subject for its con- cise dealing with the facts, and for placing the date of the ‘*Teaching” anterior to the Epistle of Barnabas. The sound common-sense of the treatise makes it almost read like an English or American work. His reasons for putting it an- terior to the Epistle of Barnabas are derived from peo intertal evidence of the document “Th FeV Dg AH. | FALSE xs (ὦ. ν ὡς Touts ¢ Levyou,| Veil ; 30, itself, In the main, they | are such as have con- vinced some of the American and English writers ; the parallel passages in the Epistle of Barnabas show an amplification, and that of such a sort asthe writer of the “Teaching” would by no means haye neglected, had it been before him to extract from. Pastor Petersen also thinks (as the Americans above-mentioned do) that the composition of the ‘‘ Teaching” dates |. back to the very borders of the Apostolic | ake. Anenuich Weert DNL 2 dey THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.* HE teaching of the Lord by the twelve Apostles to the nations. Chapter I.—There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is great difference between the two ways. The way of life is this: first, thou shalt love God that made thee; secondly, thy neighbour as thyself, and whatsoever thou dost not wish to be done to thee, do not thou to another. And the teaching of these two commands is this: Bless those that curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you ; for what thank is there if ye love those that love you? Do not the Gentiles also the same? But love ye those that hate you, and ye shall not have an enemy. Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. cloak, give to him also thy coat. If a man give thee a blow on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect. compel thee to go one mile, go with him twain. If ‘a ‘man If a man take thy If a man take from thee that which is thine, do not ask for it again, for indeed thou canst not. Give to every one that asketh of thee, and do not ask for it again, for the Father wishes gifts to be made to all out of the good things which each has received. Blessed is he that giveth according to tie commandment, for he shall be blameless. Woe to him that receiveth, for if a man receives when he is in need, he shall be blameless, but he that is not in need shall be put upon his trial, why he has received, and for what purpose, and being held fast, he shall be questioned about what he did, and he shall not go forth thence until he has paid the uttermost farthing ; but it has been said about this also, Let thy alms stick to thy hands until thou knowest to whom thou givest. Chapter II.—And the second command of the teaching is: Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery ; thou shalt not corrupt boys; shalt not be guilty of witchcraft ; thou shalt not commit fornication ; thou shalt not steal ; thou thou shalt not use magical drugs ; 4 From the MS, lately published by Philotheus Bryennius, Metropolitan of Nicomedia. See pp. 62, 112. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 93 thou shalt not be guilty of child-murder by abortion or after birth ; thou shalt not covet the things of thy neighbour; thou shalt not commit perjury; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not speak evil; thou shalt not dwell upon wrong; thou shalt not be double- minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is a trap of death ; thy word shall not be false nor empty, but in accordance with thy act. Thou shalt not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor ill-behaved, nor proud. Thou shalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbour. ‘Thou shalt not hate any man, but some thou shalt reprove, and for others thou shalt pray, and others thou shalt love above thine own soul. Chapter III.—My son, fly from all evil, and from everything that is like it. Do not be passionate, for passion leads the way to murder; and do not be envious or quarrelsome or ill-tempered, for murders spring out of all these things. My son, be not lustful, for lust leads to fornication; and do not use foul words, and do not cast lewd glances, for from all these things spring adulteries. My son, seek not after auguries, since that leads to idolatry ; and do not seek after charms or astrology, or lustrations by fire, nor even look at these things, for from all these spring idolatry. My son, be not a liar, for lying leads to theft; nor fond of money, nor of vainglory ; from all these things spring thefts. My son, be not a murmurer, since it leads to blasphemy. Do not be obstinate, nor evil-minded, for from all these things spring blasphemies. But be meek, for the meck shall inherit the earth. Be longsuffering, and merciful, and guileless, and gentle, and good, and always fearing the words which thou hast heard. Thou shalt not exalt thyself, nor permit haughtiness to thy soul. Thy soul shall not be united to the lofty, but thou shalt dwell with the just and humble. Thou shalt accept whatever happens to thee as good, knowing that nothing takes place without God. Chapter 1V.—My son, thou shalt remember night and day him that speaks to thee the Word of God, and thou shalt honour him as the Lord; for where the Lord’s work is spoken of (Κυριότης λαλεῖται), there is the Lord. ‘Thou shalt seek out every day the persons of the saints, that thou mayest rest in their words. Thou shalt not desire schism, but thou shalt set at peace those that are quarrelling. Thou shalt judge justly. ‘Thou shalt not accept persons in convicting for trespasses. ‘Thou shalt not be doubtful (in prayer), whether it shall 5 This may mean ‘‘ Where Christ is announced as the Lord.” ——— τ on RE RE 94 The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. be fulfilled or no. Do not stretch out thy hands to receive, and draw them back for giving. If thou hast anything in thy hand, thou shalt give a ransom for thy sins. Thou shalt not hesitate to give, nor shalt thou murmur as thou givest, for thou wilt know who it is who gives good payment in return. Thou shalt not turn away him that is in want, but thou shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt not say that they are thy own. For if ye are sharers in that which is immortal, how much more in things that perish? Thou shalt not lift up thy hand from thy son or from thy daughter, but thou shalt teach them the fear of God from their youth. Thou shalt not give orders to thy slave or to thy maidservant, who hope in the same God with thyself, in ill-temper, lest they shall cease to fear the God who is above both; for He is not come to call men with respect to persons, but those whom the Spirit hath prepared. And ye slaves be subject to your masters, as representing God, with modesty and fear. Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy, and everything that is not pleasing to the Lord. ‘Thou shalt not forsake the commands of the Lord; but thou shalt keep those things which thou receivedst, neither adding thereto, nor taking therefrom. ‘Thou shalt confess thy sins in the Church, and shalt not come to thy prayer witha bad conscience. ‘That is the way of life. Chapter V.—And the way of death is this: First of all, itis evil and full of cursing; murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, magic drugs, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, double-heartedness, deceit, pride, malice, self-will, covetousness, evil speaking, envy, audacity, arrogance, pomp; persecutors of the good, hating the truth, loving a lie, not knowing the reward of righteousness, not attaching themselves to the good nor to just judgment ; watching, not for good, but for evil; far from meekness and patience, loving vain things, seeking a reward, not pitying the poor man, not toiling for him who is broken down with toil, not knowing Him who made them, murderers of children, corrupters of the creatures of God, men who turn away from him who is in want, who lay burdens on the afflicted, comforters of the rich, unjust judges of the poor, sinners in all things. ‘Turn away, children, from all these. Chapter VIJ.—Take care that nobody lead thee astray from this way of teaching, for he teaches thee that which does not come from God. For if thou art able to carry the whole yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect; but if thou art not able, do that which thou canst do. And as to meats, bear what thou canst; but take good heed to © The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 95 abstain from that which is offered in sacrifice to idols, for that is worshipping dead gods. Chapter VII.—About baptism, baptize thus. After having recited all that has preceded, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in living water; and if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water ; and if thou canst not in cold water, then in warm ; but if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And before baptism let him that baptizes, and. him that is baptized, and any others that can, fast; and thou shalt command the baptized to fast one or two days previously. Chapter VIII.—Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week ; but you should fast on the fourth and on the day of preparation (Friday); and do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, so pray ye :—Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; ‘Thy kingdom come; ‘Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth; give us this day our daily bread ; and forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: for Thine is the power and the glory, for ever. Pray thus three times a day. | Chapter [X.—Concerning the Eucharistical prayer, thus give thanks. First, about the cup: ‘‘ We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant (παιδός cov), which Thou hast made known to us by Jesus, Thy Child (παιδός cov). Τὸ Thee be the glory for ever.” And about the broken bread : “‘ We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known unto us through Jesus, Thy Child. To Theebe the glory forever. As this bread which we break was once scattered over the hills, and gathered together it became one, so may Thy Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom ; for Thine is the glory and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.” And let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, except those who are baptized in the name of the Lord; for about this the Lord said: “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.” Chapter X.—And after reception [lit., after ye are filled] thus give thanks: ‘“ We give thanks to Thee, Holy Father, for Thy Holy Name, which thou madest to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith of immortality, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus, Thy Child. To Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Almighty Lord, 96 The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. didst create all things for Thy Name’s sake, and didst give food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they may give thanks unto Thee; and on us Thou bestowedst spiritual food and drink and eternal life, through Thy Child; and above all we give thanks to Thee for Thy power (ὅτι δυνατὸς et). To Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, O Lord, hy Church, to deliver it from all evil, and to perfect it in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, the sanctified Church, into Thy kingdom, which Thou didst prepare for it ; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David! If any be holy, let him come; if not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.” And allow the prophets to offer what Eucharistical prayers they please. Chapter XI.—Whoever then shall come and teach you all the foregoing, receive him; but if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine, so as to overthrow this, you must not listen to him ; but if his object is to teach righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord; and as to apostles and prophets, treat them according to the rule ofthe Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord; but he shall not abide more than one day, and if need be, one more; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. Let the apostle who comes out receive nothing but bread to last him until he reach his destination; but if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. Ye shall not try or discern a prophet who is speaking in the spirit, for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But it is not everybody who speaks in the spirit who is a prophet, but if he have the ways of the Lord. The false and the true prophet, therefore, will be known by their ways. A prophet who appoints a table, speaking in the spirit, shall not eat of it; ifhe do, he is a false prophet. Anda prophet who teaches the truth, if he does not do that which he teaches, is a false prophet. A prophet approved and true, who gathers Church assemblies for a worldly mystery,® but does not teach others to do what he does himself, shall not be judged by you, for he has his judgment of God ; for thus did also the ancient prophets ; but whosoever shall say in the spirit, give me money, or something else, ye shall not listen to him ; but if he desire you to give in behalf of others who are in want, let no man judge him. Chapter XII.—Let every one who comes in the name of the Lord 6 This is supposed by Bryennius to mean asymbolicalact, such as we find in Ezek. iv. 1, xii. 3, &c. ; but more probably it means a secular art or science taught by the prophet ; for every art or science which had to be imparted by technical rules was called a ‘‘ mystery.” The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. 97 be received, and then by testing him ye’will know what he is, for ye will have understanding right hand and left.” If he who comes is a wayfarer, help him as much as you can ; but he shall not remain with you more than three or four days, if need require ; and if he wishes to settle with you, if he is a workman, let him labour and so let him eat; but if he has no occupation, take measures according’ to your discretion that he do not live as an idle Christian with you; and if he will not do thus, he is one that makes a gain of Christ. Beware of such men. Chapter XIII.—But every true prophet who wishes to remain with you is worthy of his meat; so too, a true teacher, like the labourer, is also worthy of his meat. ‘Thou shalt therefore take and give to the prophets the first-fruits of the press and of the threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, for they are your high priests ; and if you have not a prophet, give them to the poor. If thou makest a feast, take the first- fruits and give them according to the commandment. In like manner, when thou openest a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruits and give it to the prophets, and take the first-fruits of thy silver and of thy clothes, and all that thou possessest to the extent that shall seem good to thee, and give it according to the commandment. Chapter XIV.—Assemble yourselves on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and give thanks, having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. And if any one has a dispute with his companion, let him not join you until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not desecrated ; for this was what was said by the Lord: “Τῇ every place and time ye shall bring to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful amongst the Gentiles.” Chapter XV.—Appoint, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, meek, not fond of money, true and tried men; for they, too, minister unto you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Do not, therefore, neglect them, for they are your honoured ones with the prophets and teachers. Reprove one another, not in anger but peacefully, as ye have it in the Gospel; and if a man does wrong against another, let no one speak to him, nor any of you listen to him, until he has repented. And perform your prayers and alms and all your acts so as ye have it in the Gospel of our Lord. Chapter XVI.—Watch for your life; let not your lamps be 7 That is, ‘‘Ye have understanding enough to distinguish your right hand from your left,” Cf. Jonah iv. rz. NO. XXX. H rendered ‘‘through Jesus Thy Son.” - Inchap. v. φαρμακεῖαι 15 translated ‘philtres” ; - in its parchment cover and on antique paper, 98 Episcopal Supervision on the Continent. extinguished, nor your loins ungirt, but be ready; for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh. And ye shall assemble your- selves together frequently, seeking the things that belong to your souls ; for the whole time of your belief will not profit you unless ye be perfected in the last moment. For in the last days the false prophets and corrupters will abound, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hatred ; for as lawlessness increases, men will hate one another, and persecute and betray one another ; and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and | he shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do unlawful things such as never have been done from the beginning of the world. Then the race of mankind shall come to the trial of the refiner’s fire, and many shall be offended and perish, but they that remain in their faith shall be saved under the very curse. And then the signs of the truth shall appear; first, the sign of the outspreading ;° next, the sign of the voice of the trumpet; and thirdly, the resurrection of the dead—not however, of all, but as it was said, “‘The Lord shall come, and all His saints with Him.” Then the world shall see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Διδαχὴ Harnack, interpolate TY τῶν δώδεκα ᾿Αποστόλων. A Translation with chapter παντὰ προφητὴν - τος Notes, and Excursus (I.-IX.) of the ‘‘ Teaching,” and the Greek Text. of course, b By Canon Spence. (Nisbet.) Tus edition of Lhe Teaching of the Apostles, ι J | In the same: makes an attractive-looking volume. Canon Spence’s translation is good; but there are a few points to which attention may be called. should it not rather be “ druggings” ? In 1- the same chapter φθορεῖς πλάσματος Θεοῦ, ‘“‘corrupters of the image of God,’ should certainly be ‘‘ corrupters of God’s handiwork.” In chap. ix. διὰ ᾿Τησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου is twice That the authorised version renders παῖδα by ες ““son”’ in the Acts cannot be held to justify this translation. Canon Spence would have done better to follow the precedent of the Revised Version and given ‘servant.’ In vhap. Xl. ob μενεῖ δὲ ἡμέραν μίαν, “he shall not stay more than one day.” This is ap- parently the meaning, but it is an impossible rendering of the text as it stands. We must either, with Hilgenfeld, omit the οὐ, or, with with the one or two difficulties of the piece. Πᾶς δὲ προφήτης . . . ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον, ἱκοσμικὸν ἐκκλησίας (chap. xi.), where Harnack takes ποιῶν absolutely, translating ‘‘der in Hinblick auf das irdische Geheimniss der Kirche,’’? Canon Spence translates ‘every, prophet who summons assemblies for the pur- pose of showing an earthly mystery.’ This; gives so good a sense that one wonders any) other should have been suggested; but the objection probably is the use of ἐκκλησίας in a sense which it has almost lost in the New! Testament, and that the arrangement of the} words is too artificial for the rude style of the | | writer. By the ‘earthly mystery” Canon Harnack draws the former, and Canon Spence. Spence understands, with Bryennios, a sym- the latter; but which of the two is right Τῇ bolic action, ike Ezekiel’s laying siege to theldoubt if there are any means of deciding. tile, and by ἀρχαῖοι προφῆται the prophets of!Canon Spence thinks that he sees signs that the Old Testament. This, in spite of Har-/the apostolate was an office which was fast jnack, must surely be right. Even if the/passing away. Now this, I submit, is just. Teaching was written in the second quarter/what we do not see. At the same time, it. jot the second century, if the author was/may be admitted, there is nothing in the j acquainted with the Old Testament at 411, Teaching, assuming its early date, inconsistent — jhe could hardly mean by ‘the ancient/with the common view that all apostles must | prophets ” any but those of the older dispensa-| have been witnesses of the Resurrection. That. | tion. At any rate, we may remember that the apostles of our treatise claimed, indeed, | | the prophets of the primitive Church some+ to have received their commission from Christ _ | times used symbolic actions, as is clear from in person (it might be by supernatural means, | the example of Agabus. as in the case of Paul) need not, from any. In the same chapter, immediately above, is|point of view, be questioned; but to make. | the other chief difficulty. Kat πᾶς προφήτης them necessarily contemporancous with the | | ὁρίζων τράπέζαν ἐν πνεύματι, κιτιλ. This Canonzoriginal twelve, would not this require a higher > ] Spence translates, ‘And no prophet who intantiquity for the Teaching than even Canon ἢ the Spirit orders a love-feast eats himself of'\Spence would ascribe to it? Canon Spence _ it.” Probably this is substantially the mean-‘also lays stress on the position of the episco. a | ing, though for love-feast should be substi-'pate. Bishops and deacons are mentioned as Ϊ tuted a more general expression, such as alif they were almost on a par, and they both | ͵ ' dinner, 7.e., for the poor. If the prophet’s alike hold their office by the election of the i |chief object is to get a dinner for himself,/people. ‘‘Early in the second century,” | |then he is a false prophet. In chap. xvi.jsays Canon Spence, ‘‘the genuine epistles οὗ ὑπ᾽ αὑτοῦ τοῦ καταθέματος is translated ‘ under Ignatius [but which are they ?] testify with © the very curse”; but, in the note, it is ex-‘ample fulness to the rise of the episcopal plained that the ‘‘very curse” is Jesus him- power.” Probably the first quarter of the it self, who is here so-called ‘in terrible irony.”’ second century is precisely the period of 4 This is probably the true meaning; but, if so, church history of which we are most ignorant; _ we ought to read not “under,” but ‘‘by the/and, notwithstanding the assertion, quoted ᾿ very curse.” from Bishop Lightfoot, that ‘early in the ] | Canon Spence’s notes are generally ex-|second century the episcopal office was firmly | |cellent. It is, however, no harm to pointland widely established,’ 1 cannot think this — out that the word Trinity does not, of course, /argument conclusive. There are some strong occur in the text, though Canon Spencelreasons for believing that the Teaching may | writes as if it did) The Excursus in thisjbelong to the first century, but the evidence © volume are an able, though far from ex-/cannot be pronounced conclusive; and, con- } hhaustive, treatment of the several points of'sidering the darkness which still hangs over — ‘interest raised by this treatise. They are too the post-apostolic age, the safest, if not the | short to be in all respects satisfying, and are most satisfactory, course is to hold one’s judg- — not to be compared to the elaborate essay of ment in suspense. Ἱ | Harnack. One of the most important features Rozert B. ΠΕΟΜΜΟΝΡ. of the original work, it is well known, is the _ Hy position assigned to the apostolate, the apostles = ! | being represented as men in active employ- |ment, travelling from place to place, and i/from one of whom a visit might any day be Nlexpected. Now from this circumstance one ᾿ ‘of two inferences inevitably follows: either. 1 | ‘/that the apostolate continued some way into. : =| [the second century, or that the Teaching | ΕἸ θΘΙοηρθ to the first. Of those inferences ἢ Ἤν 4 ὃ or 112 LVotices. , : 4 4 A 4 ιν 46 τὸ By he w Serres tA. Cluol. Chiro ἐκ «ΚΑ, vier Dy “as (e¢ePaotices, VU" SO ¢ AIAAXH TON AQAEKA AIIOSTOAQN, ἐκ TOD ἱεροσολυμιτικοῦ χειρο- γράφου νῦν πρῶτον ἐκδιδομένη μετὰ προλεγομένων καὶ σημειώσεων ὑπὸ ΦΙΛΟΘΕΟΥ BPYENNIOY, μητροπολίτου Νικομηδείας. [Ἔν ἹΚωνσταντινουπόλει, 1883. Pp. 149 and 75.}} There are four ancient documents so similar in their subject- matter, and in the phraseology in which the ideas are clothed, that they must have been copied from each other or derived from a common original. ‘These are (1) the Epistle of Barnabas; (2) the Seventh Book of the Apostolical Constitutions; (3) a treatise first published by Bickell in 1843, and reprinted by Hilgenfeld in 1866, with the double title, ‘‘ The Constitutions delivered by Clement, and the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles,” and “ An Epitome of the Appointments of the Holy Apostles of Catholic Tradition ;” (4) “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” now edited by Philotheus Bryennius, first known to Western Churchmen as one of the two Archrimandrites from Constantinople who attended the Bonn Conference of 1875, then as Metropolitan of Serree and editor of St. Clement’s Epistles, and now as the learned Metropolitan of Nicomedia. What is the relation in which these documents stand to each other ? Can the Epistle of Barnabas be the original of the other three? No. For while there are parts of the Epistle which are identical with parts of the other treatises, there are points in which those treatises agree with one another which are not found in the Epistle of Barnabas. Is the Seventh Book of the Constitutions the original ? No. For names and things of a more modern date are found in the Seventh Book of the Constitutions substituted for their earlier equivalents in the “ Teaching,” e.g. where the ministry of “prophets” is spoken of in the ‘‘ Teaching,” that of ‘“ presbyters” is found in the Constitutions. Presbyters and prophets were, it is true, coeval, but as prophets passed away, while presbyters continued, a later document would not have substituted prophet for presbyter, and therefore the ‘ Teaching” must be more ancient than the Constitu- tions. Is the Epitome the original? No. For it assumes that Peter and Cephas are different persons, and that Nathanael (in addition to Bartholomew) was one of the Twelve. It could not 1 See above, p. 92, for the translation of this treatise. LVotices. ΤῸ have, therefore, been written for at least two or three hundred years after the time of the Apostles. Is the.'“’Teaching” the original? No. For internal evidence shows that if one be derived from the other, the Epitome must be older than the ““ Teaching.” ” It remains that all four of these treatises are recensions of a common original. It would appear that there was a document known as the ‘“ Teaching of the Apostles,” which was regarded as a common property of the early Christians. In its original form it was probably confined to the practical and moral instructions with which the treatise published by Bryennius commences. But very soon there was added to it an instruction on the two sacraments, on the ministry, and on the last day, and the whole was still called the “Teaching of the Apostles.” The first to make use of this document was the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, who has embodied in his work almost the whole of the first section of the “Teaching,” and —a noticeable thing—has a quotation also from the last chapter of it. A passage from it is also cited in the “Shepherd of Hermas.” Next, probably, appeared the treatise now published by Bryennius, which may be regarded as the second recension of the original work, published early in the second century. Then would follow the Seventh Book of the Constitutions in the third century, and the Epitome in the fourth. Besides the proof (in itself sufficient) which we have already given that Bryennius’ treatise is not (as he claims) the original work, there are grammatical indications of the same fact. We will give a few instances. “Thou shalt not be of doubtful mind whether it shall be or no” {πὸ Teaching,” chap. iv.). This passage in the Epitome takes the form, “In thy prayer thou shalt not be of doubtful mind whether it shall be or no” (chap. i.); and in the Constitutions, ‘‘Be not of doubtful mind in thy prayer whether it shall be or no, for the Lord said to Peter on the sea, O thou of 2 As proof sufficient, we cannot do better than refer to the Church Quarterly Review for April, from which we extract the following :—‘‘ The following is a delicate but convincing proof that Bickell’s Epitome is not derived from the ‘ Teaching,’ but wice versd, unless they are both taken from a common original. ‘The first six chapters of the ‘Teaching’ consist of moral and practical instructions, such as ‘Do not kill; do not covet; do not be envious; do not lie.” At irregular intervals, coming sometimes more, sometimes less thickly together, these precepts are preceded by the words ‘My son.’ We see no reason why these words should be sometimes inserted, sometimes not ; and we ask who it is that says‘ My’? ‘Turn to the Epitome, and these difficulties are cleared up. Those words commence new instructions, given, as is there represented, by one and another Apostle. ‘Thus in the third chapter of the ‘leaching,’ we have, ‘My son, flee from all evil. . . . My son, be not lustful. . .. My son, seek not after auguries. . . . Myson, be not a liar.’ But in the Epitome we find, ‘Andrew said, My son, flee from all evil. . . . Philip said, Son, be not lustful. . . . James said, Son, seek notafter auguries. .. . Nathanael said, Son, be not a liar.’ By a well-known rule of criticism, it follows that the Epitome was the original of the ‘Teaching,’ unless they both come from a common source, as is otherwise proved to be far the most likely hypothesis,” NO. XXX. I ΤΙ4 Notices. little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” Here it would seem that the epitomist who wrote the “Teaching” left out the explanatory words of the original, which the other two recensions have preserved. Again, in chapter v. we find a number of nominative cases without a verb attached: the Constitutions supply the verb. Once more, in chapter xu. we read, “ For ye will have understanding right hand and left.” What does it mean? ‘The Constitutions read, ‘For ye have understanding, and are able to know the right hand or the left.” Here the editor of the ‘‘ Teaching ” has apparently cut the materials _ lying before him too short for clearness, while the editor of the Constitutions has been more careful. Apparently, too, the editor of the ‘‘ Teaching” has from the same cause made a mistake in chapter xiv. His text is, ‘Assemble yourselves on the Lord’s Day of the Lord” (κυριακὴν Κυρίου) ; while the Constitutions have no doubt preserved the reading of the original, ‘‘ Assemble yourselves on the day of the resurrection of the Lord, we mean the Lord’s Day” (chap. xxx.). But though not itself the original, it is plainly evident that the “Teaching” is a very early recension of the original. ‘This is shown not only by the prominent position assigned to the prophets, to which we have already referred, but also by other indications not to be mistaken. We will cite one which does not lie on the surface. In the liturgical directions as to the Eucharist we find a very remark- able word used for the reception—pera τὸ éurAyobjvar—“ after ye are filled ;” whereas in the Constitutions the ordinary words—pera τὴν petadnpw—< after the reception,” are used. ‘The word in the “Teaching” indicates that the partaking of the consecrated elements took place at the same time as the love feast, as was the case in the time of St. Paul (1 Cor. xi.). It was still the custom for the Christians to bring their offerings of bread and wine, and a part of their offerings having been taken and consecrated as the .Lord’s Body, to eat the feast of charity and consume the consecrated elements one after the other, carefully “discerning ” the one from the other, and giving thanks for the whole at the conclusion of the feast. ‘Thus wecan understand the words “ after ye are filled.” Ata later date, when the two feasts—the feast of charity and the sacred feast—were separated from one another, the words “ after the recep- tion” were naturally substituted. The treatise given to the world by Bryennius has made a con- siderable stir in the religious world, as we predicted in our last Notices. ΤΙΝ number would be the case. The reviewer in the Guardian accepts Bryennius’ hypothesis that the “Teaching” is the original apocryphal work so known, and suggests an earlier date for it than that which Bryennius has himself proposed, hazarding the conjecture that it may belong to the first century. The reviewer in the Church Quarterly Review, with greater caution, pronounces it to be a recension of the original apocryphal work. Dr. W. Adams, of Nashotah, in the (American) Churchman, suggests that it is an adaptation of the original apocryphal work made by Audeeus in the fourth century for sectarian purposes. Archdeacon Farrar deals with it in the Contemporary Review. Probably we may be safe in concluding as follows. A pious Christian at the end of the first century, reading Acts ii. 42, ‘And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers” (R. V.), undertook the task of setting forth, in a dramatic form, what was this ‘‘ Teaching of the Apostles.” Having done this, and perhaps published it with the alternative name of the “Two Ways,” he may have proceeded to expound the remainder of the verse for the use of his unlettered co-religionists by giving, in like form, a statement as to the ministry, the Sacraments, and the Sunday services, adding to it the received views as to the last day. This document became known as the “ Teaching of the Apostles,” not as emanating from them, but as being the title adopted for the book by the pious author from Actsil. 42. Accepted as, on the whole, a fair statément, it was quoted or made their own by the writer of Barnabas’ Epistle, by the Shepherd of Hermas, by the unknown writer of the treatise now published by Bryennius, by the compiler of the Constitutions, and by the author of the Epitome. Its value is discounted by its having already been before us in all its essential features in the Seventh Book of the Constitutions. The instruction to be derived from this ancient document may be thus summarized :—First, the “‘ Teaching of the Apostles” is in the mind of the writer primarily moral and practical. Secondly, the prominent ceremonies of the early Christians are two—Baptism and the Eucharist. Thirdly, baptism was administered by water and the appointed words; no oil, salt, or other material are known, nor any ritual adopted beyond that of dipping or trine affusion. Fourthly, the Eucharist was celebrated every Sunday in conjunction with the Feast of Love, as it was in the time of St. Paul: fasting was not required of recipients of the Eucharist, but it was required of (adult) 12 116 Lotices. recipients of baptism. Fifthly, the Eucharist was regarded as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, made in joyous acknowledgment of God’s goodness and power in giving food to support man’s life and spiritual sustenance to Christians. Sixthly, the ministry of the Church con- sisted still in part of those who received extraordinary charismata, such as the prophets and teachers, in part of the ordinary clergy, viz. bishops, i.e. presbyters, and deacons, the Apostles themselves (who are represented as the authors of the instructions given), supplying the highest order: there was also a class of itinerating or missionary preachers termed apostles, whom, as well as prophets and teachers, we find in the New Testament. Seventhly, a personal Antichrist was expected in the last days, and a second Advent of Christ was looked for. BAPTISM IN EARLY ART. Tur May number of The Andover Review | contains. an article which will be of great interest to students of Christian archeology. Prof. Egbert C. Smyth col- lects and discusses the pictorial represen- tations of baptism found in the Catacombs, which cover the period from the latter part of the second century to the middle of the sixth. Seven of these pictures are repro- duced from the plates of Garucci and De Roast: in all of which, except one, baptism is represented as by affusion. In the other case, the oldest of all these figures, Christ is represented as in the water, while John stands on the bank and takes his hand to help him out. The general representation seems to be of the candidate standing naked in water ankle deep, while the administrator stands clothed on the bank and showers the water freely over the head of the candi- date. : Professor Smyth accepts Neander’s con- clusion that the prevalent early form of baptism was by immersion; but he raises : | the question how it can bethat, if only bap- tism by immersion was known in the first | centuries, the only form of baptism figured λ in the oldest art that has come down to us, that which dates back to the second cen- | tury, and which is repeated for centuries | a8 850 baptized. pion and the other affusion. The question - ) afterward, the prevalent form is by affusion. | It would seem that, if immersion were practiced elsewhere, affusion was certainly known in Rome. There must have been | at least a tradition preserved in art that pouring water on the head was true baptism, and that it was proper to represent Christ The writings of the early fathers, how- ever, have shown that as far back as the middle of the third century baptism was almost always by immersion, or, rather, | submersion. The Epistle of Cyprian to. Magnus is sufficient proof of this. Cyprian |) Seems not to have known any other bap- | tism than complete immersion, and is not | certain whether, even in the case of the sick, affusion were allowable. He permits it, but with some question. It is curious that. jthere should be this conflict between the two sources of evidence, the literary and she iconographic, the one favoring immer- ecessarily is raised, and is not wholly easy Ὁ answer: Which represents the earlier tra- ition? Which will preserve in the most. bonservative way the first practice? [ Here the ‘‘Teaching of the Twelve } postles” brings us some new light. It | hows us the practice of the end of the rst or the beginning of the second cen- iy, as preserved in literature, not in art . ᾿ | While it is not wholly clear, it shows that _ baptism by affusion was by no means so exceptionala method as in the time of Cyp- It was to be used not on account of : tion. In the seventh section, that on baptism, rian, sickness only, but wherever there was a scarcity of water. This allows that the bap- _tism described as ‘‘in” or ‘‘into” living or other water, when water was abundant, was. by immersion, not of the feet only, as ‘in theart of the Catacombs, but by com- plete immersion, though the language will allow. either. The candidate was to be baptized ‘‘in living water” (not ‘néo here), that is water as of a river, stream, sea, lake, well or fountain ; be had then ‘‘into other water’ (here the } ᾿ΒΡΓΌΠΡ up as a corruption. merit preposition changes), and this water might _be either the cold water of a cistern, or, if this could not be had, hot water, probably that of a public or private bath. But if _ water enough for this could not be had, then it was enough to pour water over the head three times. This last is called bap- tism as well as the ordinary mode; and it is immediately after mentioning this mode | by affusion that the document proceeds, | ἐς Before baptism, let the baptizer and the baptized fast.” ; All this does not prove that between the | egret : eee ray τ Testament and the’ etc.)] Πρὸ dé τοῦ βαπτίσματος προνηστευσάτω >< Teaching,” if the latter is subsequent to the use of affusion had not 5 Hea cee ee -| νὸν πρὸ μιᾶς ἣ Ovo, | We translate the first part of this passage once ' more, with Bryennios’s Greek notes: the. former, Each one can judge for himself whether this is probable. This, at least, is clear to us, that, whatever | may have been the practice of the Early Church on this subject, at the end of the | first century, or soon after, the method pictured in the Catacombs was regarded as perfectly legitimate. Certainly, to-day, with what we know of the unimportance of the ritualism, it cannot be regarded as justifiable to refuse full and equal Chris- tian fellowship to any on the mere ground that they have not received the ceremony if living water could not. Τ ! Havinea translated Harnack’s version of the most important part of the newly discovered “Teaching of the Apostles,” we find it neces-_ sary to make one somewhat important correc- instead of ‘‘sprinkle the head,” as our trans- lation gave it, from an indefinite word in the German, meaning to wet, it should be ‘pour out Ϊ upon the head,” the Greek verb being éxyéw, As this is a somewhat inmiportant passage we give the Greek text: Περὶ tov βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε" ταῦτα πάντα προείποντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου Πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι, [Here, in ἃ foot-note, Bryennios, who writes in Greek, says ‘‘tdwp δὲ ζῶν λέγει τὸ ἄρτι ἀπὸ τοῦ φρέατος ἠντλημένον, τὸ ὑπόγυιον, τὸ πρόσφατον καὶ νεαρόν. Of. In. iv. 10, 11 ; vii, 38,”] ᾿Εὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον᾽ [foot-note by Bryennios, ‘i. e., μὴ πρόσφατον καὶ veapdv, ψυχρὸν δέ" εἰ δ᾽ οὐ δύνασαι év ψυχρῷ, ἐν Gepud, ᾿Εὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχης, ἔκχεον [510] εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα [Here another foot-note of Bryennios to the effect that if they had neither cold water nor warm sufficient for baptism, and necessity was upon Πατρὸς καὶ Yiov καὶ ayiov Πνεύματος. them, they could pour, reference being made, says Bryennios, to clinic baptism. (Tertullian’s “in periculo mortis.” Of, Eusebius h, 6, 6, 43, | 6 βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύνανται. Ἀελεύσεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμε- ‘‘Concerning baptism, thus baptize ye. Having ' previously imparted all these doctrines, baptize ye of baptism in the exact form that is sup- ὁ posed to have been employed in the bap- tism of our Lord. in the text that clinic baptism is referred to. into the name ofthe Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost in living water. [(Foot-note: But living water designates that which has just been drawn from the well, which is recent, fresh and new. See Johniv, 10,11; vii, 88,7] But if you have no living water, baptize in other water [Foot-note: ¢,¢., not | | fresh and new, yet cold]; and if you cannot in cold | water,thenin warm. Butif you have neither, then | pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” _ Of course Bryennios’s foot-notes must be taken for what they are worth. We see no evidence It appears to be lack of water that is referred to, not sickness of the candidate, as_in the famous: passage in Cyprian’s Letter ‘‘ Ad Magnum.” ‘Living water” of course includes all moving water in streams and seas, as well as the water just drawn from a well which, the Samaritan } woman called living water. — eee OF i TWELVE APOSTLES.” AE πυρὶ ἡ πότε ἃ, 340) | in " enumerating the ‘|p. writings of the New Testament (Εἰ. H. ii. 25) dis- tinguishes broadly between those which in his time were acknowledged and those which were disputed. As a sub- class of the latter division he specifies some which in his own judgment are certainly spurious (ἐν τοῖς νόθοις). He thus characterises the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle which purports to be by Barnabas, and ‘“‘the so-called Teachings (didayai) of the Apostles.’ St. Athanasios, in his 389th Festal Letter (A.D. 867), the genuineness of which has been doubted but is usually allowed, gives the Canon of both Testaments, and adds a list of other books, not canonical, nor yet apocry- phal, but authorised (τετυπωμένα) by the Fathers for the instruction of catechumens. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach (Kcclesiasticus), Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Teaching (διδωχή) called of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. An ancient but undoubtedly spurious Synopsis of Holy Scripture which is printed with the works of St. Athanasios mentions the following as disputed books _ of the New Testament, selections from which were trans- lated and read, as approved by the ancient Fathers, and as containing some truths, and having some tincture of inspira- tion, viz., the Travels (περίοδοι) of Peter, the Travels of John, the Travels of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Teaching (διδωχή) of Apostles, the Clementines. Similarly,* at the end of a Paris MS. of the Questions of Anastasios * For the three following references (which however we have verified) we are indebted to Bryennios, “THACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.” 447 of Antioch (d. 599), we find classed among apocryphal books the Travels (περίοδοι) and Teachings (ddayat) of the Apostles. The Stichometria of Nicephoros of Constantinople. (d. 820) enumerates. among the Apo- crypha of the New Testament, between the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistles of Clement, the Teaching (διδαχή) of Apostles, and tells us the work consisted of 200 stichoz or lines. Perhaps the latest witness to the survival of a book with similar title (unless indeed he is merely copying Eusebios) is Nicephoros Callistos (14th century); he places among spurious writings the Epistles purporting to be by Barnabas and ‘‘ the so-called Teachings (dvdayai) of the A postles.”’ | These testimonies are here recounted in order to exhibit the external evidence hitherto available to prove the exist- ence of a book (or books) long forgotten ; and to indicate also the position assigned to it (or them) by early writers. For we may fairly ask whether these various notices neces- sarily point to one and the same work. The title, as given by Eusebios, by Anastasios, and by the later Nicephoros is in the plural form, while St. Athanasios, the Synopsis, and the earlier Nicephoros use the singular. But the difference here (as Bryennios remarks) is not so great as we find in the usage of Epiphanios, who cites the Apostolic Constitu- tions (dsatayai) sometimes as διάταξις, sometimes as διατάξεις. On other grounds we may perhaps be led to apportion the testimonies above cited between two distinct works. ἽΣ In 1888 Cardinal Mai printed, in the tenth and last volume of his Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, some works of the Nestorian bishop HEbediesu, who became Metropolitan of Nisibis A.D. 1286. Ebediesu’s collection of Synodical Canons opens with a portion of a Syriac docu- ment, professing to give Canons instituted by the Apostles themselves. Along with this, Mai prints a Latin version, corrected from one made by Joseph Aloysius Asseman 448 “THACHING OF THE (1710—1782), but not published by him. The Syriac original was re-edited in a complete form by Lagarde in 1856 * from a MS. which describes it as the Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle (a title which properly belongs to another piece). At length by Cureton in 1864 the work was editedt with its proper title Teaching of the Apostlest from a British Museum MS. (containing documents con- nected with Edessa) collated with another MS. in the same store of Syriac literature, and with Lagarde’s edition. Cureton’s English version, revised by Pratten, will be found ἡ in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. XX.§ The structure of this piece is threefold. First comes a quasi-historical account of the descent of the Paraclete on the eleven Apostles, of whom Simon Cephas is alone men- tioned by name. ‘Then follow twenty-seven Ordinances appointed by the Apostles ‘‘in accordance with the Gospel of their preaching, and with the true and faithful doctrine of their teaching ;”’ this being the only portion of the work which professes to be of direct apostolic authority. From this section many later writers have drawn (notably the compiler of the eighty-five Hcclesiastical Canons, frequently appended to bk. vill. of the Apostolic Constitutions) ; as a delineation of an early stage and a local form of the Christian organisation, this section of the document is ex- ceedingly precious. Lastly comes an account of the pursuit of their mission by the Apostles, and of the arrangements made to continue their work. Here a curious list of apostolic * In the Reliquiae Juris Ecclesiastict Antiquissimae (Vienna). It is not to be confounded with a previous (anonymous) publication by Lagarde, the Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace, Lipsiae, 1854; this latter is an epitome (Lagarde thinks it the original) of the Apostolic Constitutions, books I.—VI., and similar in character to the Arabic Didascalia, and to the Ethiopic Didiskalia (edited and translated by T. P. Platt, 1834). + It is unfortunately in a posthumous publication, for which the in- tended preface was never written. Bryennios, who otherwise seems to know everything, appears to be unacquainted with Cureton’s researches. 1 Cureton translates Malphonutho by Doctrine; with Pratten we prefer Teaching. It represents 7 διδαχή in Apoc. 11. 14, 15, 24. § Pratten’s careless note, p. 36, should be corrected by Cureton, pp. 166-7. TWELVE APOSTLES.” 449 names may be gathered, viz., James, Mark the Evangelist, Judas Thomas, Simon Cephas (who is said to have evange- lised Britain), John the Evangelist, Andrew, Luke the Apostle, Addaeus (?.e., Thaddaeus) the Apostle, ‘‘ one of the seventy-two Apostles.” Paul is twice mentioned, but without the title of Apostle; others are named as disciples of Apostles, the first among these being Timothy, Erastus, and Menaus. Is this the document to which the early notices allude? Its designation and its antiquity are so far in its favour. _ The title corresponds with the attestation of St. Athanasios (though by Ebediesu, and in a codex mentioned by Cure- ton, it is quoted as Canons of the Apostles.) A reference to subdeacons (Ord. 5) brings the period of the existing recen sion to the latter part of the third century* ; but there are indications of much earlier date. The name of Bishop does not occur; but the office is described, under the desig- nation of Guide. The Canon of Scripture is thus given (Ord. 10): ‘The Apostles appointed that besides the Old Testament and the Prophets and the Gospel and the Acts of their own triumphs, nothing should be read on the pulpit in the church.” Here Old Testament means ex- clusively the Law; just as New Testament, in the sequel to the Ordinances, means exclusively the Gospel. In that sequel, ‘‘ the Epistles of an Apostle” (specifying the writ- ings of James, Simon, John, Mark, Andrew, Luke, and Judas Thomas, but not mentioning Paul) are directed, on the authority of the Guides, to be ‘‘ received and read in the churches,” even as the ‘‘Acts, which Luke wrote, are read.” | If now we take this book and compare it with the testi- mony of Eusebios, we can see that, whatever be its value in other respects, there is a clear principle which would lead him to class it with those writings which he desig- nates as spurious. That is a term which properly covers * In the East, St. Athanasios is the first to mention ὑποδιάκονοι ; but Eusebios chronicles their existence at Rome about A.D. 250, on the autho- rity of a letter of Pope Cornelius (Εἰ. H. vi. 48). . 29 450 “THACHING OF THE books professing an authorship which does not belong to them. Now the Syriac Teaching claims to give a series of Ordinances on direct apostolic authority ; and this is a claim which Eusebios would assuredly reject, on perusing the treatise. And that he had perused it is a thing in itself highly probable, since he copied and translated from Syriac documents in the archives of Edessa both the account of the alleged correspondence between Abgar and Jesus, and the above-mentioned Teaching of Addaeus (High a. 213): If, again, we consider the witness of the pseudo-Athana- sian Synopsis and of Anastasios, we shall be very much in- clined to say: Here is the writing of which they speak. They agree in placing the Teaching or Teachings of the Apostles among works of a certain class. Looking to the contents of this Syriac piece, it seems no way out of place among writings professing to give an account of the apos- tolic peregrinations. But if, on the other hand, we consult St. Athanasios himself, we find him including the Teaching called of the Apostles among authorised materials for the instruction of catechumens ; and this description corresponds neither with the original purpose nor with the conceivable uses of the Syriac Teaching. St. Athanasios is evidently not writing at random, ‘The other books placed by him in the same class with the Teaching might well be employed in catechetical instruction on the conduct of life. We should certainly expect the Teaching itself to bear the same character. But the Ordinances of the Syriac piece are all ad clerum; they deal with ministerial duties and ministerial disqualifica- tions ; even the pseudo-history which accompanies them has the distinct design of exhibiting a charter of apostolic succession for clerical use. Again, it is difficult to suppose that St. Athanasios would be willing to commend for the instruction of neophytes a treatise dealing with Scripture as we have seen that the Syriac document deals; ignoring the writings of Paul, and admitting apocryphal Epistles to a level with the Acts. IWELVE APOSTLES.” 451 We thus reach the position that while the Syriac Teach- ing may very probably,,be the work alluded to by Eusebios, by the Synopsis, and fby Anastasios, it cannot reasonably be identified with the work to which St. Athanasios refers. LE: In 1875 Philotheos Bryennios published his edition of the Two Epistles of St. Clement of Rome, from a Greek MS8., No. 456 in the Library of the Convent of the Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople, belonging to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and hence called by him the Jerusalem Manu- script. Itisasmall octavo of 120 leaves (size, 19 by 15 centimetres), written throughout in a contracted hand by a notary named Leon, and completed (with the exception of the last article) on Tuesday, 11th June, 1056. Included in it are eight distinct articles, or groups of articles; (1) St.John Chrysostom’s Synopsis of the Old Testament ; imperfect, yet supplying the hitherto missing conclusion of the Prophets; (2) the Epistle of Barnabas, in full; (8) St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians (the only perfect copy) followed by the short homily which is called the Second Epistle ; (4) the Hebrew and Greek titles of Old Testament books; (5) the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; (6) the Epistle (spurious) of Mary of Cassobola to St. Ignatios; (7) twelve Epistles (spurious)}of St. Ignatios; (8) an explanation of the genealogies of Joseph in Matthew and Luke. The appearance of Bryennios’ admirable edition of Clement at once excited a high degree of interest among European scholars. It was the sudden shining of a new and bright star in the Hast; and the gratitude of the learned world for the labours of the erudite Metropolitan of Serrae took the sincerest and most complimentary form, when the hope was expressed that he would make public the further contents of the Jerusalem Manuscript. This, having meantime been raised to the Metropolitan see of Nicomedia (where he sits on the throne of that other Eusebios, greater in ambition and in brilliancy, deeper also 29—2 452 “THACHING OF THE in heretical dye, than him of Caesarea), he has done. The entire contents of the volume (excepting only article 6) have now been edited. Its Ignatian readings were included in Funk’s Opera Patrum Apostolicorum, vol 11., 1881; all other various readings and additional pieces are furnished | in the ample prolegomena and appendices accompanying the editio princeps of the Διδαχὴ τῶν 18’ ἀποστόλων, 1883. If the edition of Clement awakened attention and curi- osity, the appearance of the Didaché has produced nothing short of a sensation.* Bryennios, who does not seem to have been alive to its character in 1875, is now fully im- pressed, after seven years’ close editorial study, with the extraordinary value of this treatise in its bearing upon Christian literature and history, on such points, for example, as the simplicity of worship, the position of the ministry and of the Scriptures. With regard to the critical study of the various works which may be ranked in the general class of quasi-Apostolic Constitutions, he surmises that it will roll the stream of Lethe over most of what has hitherto been written on this subject. His editing of the work has been executed with remarkable care,t and with a singu- larly rich apparatus both of patristic and of modern learn- ing. The judgments which may be formed by scholars on a critical examination of his document, Bryennios does not seek to anticipate ; but with a full and able hand he pours into his prolegomena and notes, written in smooth and ex- cellent Greek,t the main materials which must be employed in any such examination. * Two reprints of the Greek have been issued in the United States, one with a translation and preface by Hitchcock and Brown, the other with a version by Fitzgerald.. Our home scholars have shown no such enterprise. There is also a translation by Starbuck in the Andover Review ; and another in the American Sunday School Times, 23rd April. This last is deservedly described as “more exact than any other now before the public.” We should have been glad to have seen it before issuing our own version. + Except the one lapsus calami, p. 51, n.1 (χειροτονήσατε for προχειρίσασθε). already observed by Canon Wordsworth (Guardian, 19th March), we have noted no sign of nodding. The freedom from misprints is such as to make one wish that the Constantinopolitan firm of Boutyra would open a London branch. t Not “modern Greek,’’ as Archdeacon Farrar loosely says (Contemporary and Expositor for May). TWELVE APOSTLES.” 453 Before we proceed to a detailed account of the work, let us ask how far it fulfils the conditions of those patristic notices of the Teaching by which we have already tested the claim of the Syriac document. To begin with, the title of the Greek document does not exactly correspond with that given in any one of these notices. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is the scribe’s heading; Teaching of [the] Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the nations* is the title self- assumed by the document which he copies. Thus “ the ‘Twelve’ must be regarded as an integral part of the title ; where this precision is not found, the actual name of the work is not given. We are so habituated to the limitation of the word Apostles to those appointed by Jesus Christ in person, that the omission of the defining words “the Twelve’? may seem to us a matter of no moment. But a glance at the Teaching reveals the force of the restricting numeral; ‘‘apostles’’ are freely mentioned in it, but they are the ordinary mission-agents of the Gospel; the Teach- ang claims for itself an authority anterior, even if not superior, to theirs. Here let us say, once for all, that in weighing this and other points we are placed at a disadvantage by being at the mercy of asingle copyist. Leon, though his curst contrac- tionst entitle him to his self-inflicted appellation of ‘‘ sinner,”’ is a very workmanlike scribe; his mere wncuriae are ex- tremely few; probably only six in his whole transcript of the Teaching ; and where, in other pieces, he differs from rival copyists, he is far more often right than wrong, judging by the superior sense of his version. Indeed, if we have a complaint against him, it is that his text is even too good. We should have expected, nay, welcomed, more inequalities, more knotty places, more of the harsh signs of crabbed age in his document, than we actually find. Itisa relief to encounter a few verbal difficulties, where, as a rule, all is such plain perspicuous Greek. On the other hand, as * We are reminded of the direction to the eleven, Matthew xxviii. 19, 20, to go and make πάντα τὰ ἔθνη disciples by baptism διδάσκοντες k.7.A. +See page of specimens of his handwriting in fac-simile at the end of Bryennios’ edition of Clement. 454 «“ THACHING OF THE this is the only text we have, and one that has evidently been prepared with much care, we are bound, even in sus- picious cases, to adhere to it wherever it is capable of yielding a meaning, for, in truth, we have little more than mother wit to check it by.* Let us. proceed to try our witnesses. Might Eusebios have had this work in view when he classed the Teachings of the Apostles among spurious books? It is most unlikely. On the part of the work before us there is not the shadow of a claim to the dignity of apostolic authorship. The claim it makes is to convey the subject matter of the Apostles’ teaching, or rather of their presentation of the Lord’s teach- ing, but not as under their hands or from their mouths. A book of this kind may err; but unless its error involve the deliberate assertion of a new Gospel, ““ spurious’ is not the head under which a careful writer like Eusebios would naturally classify it. And with the testimony of Eusebios goes that of Nicephoros Callistos. Nor, again, does the work class well with those which compose the shady list presented in the pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis. These are all romances, pseudo-history with a pious design, as far removed as possible in structure and in character from the strain and substance of the Teaching. The same may be said of the collocation indicated by Anastasios. When we come to Nicephoros of Constantinople, we get an indication of the size of the work, of which Bryennios is disposed to make some use. The Teaching known to Nice- phoros was a treatise of 200 lines. Now the Teaching in * Bryennios has given us in foot-notes the exact state of the MS. wherever he alters the text. We wish he had reversed the process, reserv- ing all emendations for the foot of the page. His changes, though very sparing, are not always necessary. Thus, following the lead of the Apos- tolic Constitutions, he alters to “ fleshly and worldly lusts” because ‘ fleshly and bodily’ is tautological. Not wholly so, perhaps; for 1 John, ii. 16 may help us to an available distinction. Nor is the emendation a happy one, for κοσμικός in the Teaching is not used in a moral sense. + Harnack does not question that Eusebios refers tothe Greek document ; nevertheless, he says of it that it is “ein Apokryphum, aber ein Falsum darf man sie nicht nennen.’’—Theol. Lt. Zg. 9th Feb., 1884, p. 52. TWHLVE APOSTLES.” 455 the Jerusalem Manuscript occupies about 203 lines. But this measurement, so far from favouring the identity of the two, is an argument against it. Nicephoros fixes the com- bined length of the two Epistles of Clement at 2,600 lines ; they occupy in the Jerusalem Manuscript 1,120 lines.* What then, on this calculation, should be the length, in the Jerusalem Manuscript, of Nicephoros’ 200-line tractate ? Not 208, but only some 86 lines. This would imply a very much shorter document than either the Greek or the Syriac Teaching. To suit the requirements of our Greek document the estimate in Nicephoros’ stichometry would have to be increased to 455 lines, instead of 200. On the other hand, the place which St. Athanasios assigns to the Teaching, while quite unsuitable, as we have seen, to the Syriac work, exactly fits the Greek document. It is precisely a book for those just coming to Christianity and desiring elementary catechetical instruction.t Moreover the relation which it bears to some of its companions in Bt. Athanasios’s list, e.g., Ecclesiasticus and the Shepherd, 1s one of real kinship, both as regards the distinctive purpose of its opening sections, and the ethical tone of the whole. Add to this that we may almost certainly say that St. Athanasios borrows from the Teaching. For he uses (on Matt. vil. 15) the remarkable word χριστέμπορος,} or Christ- monger, and in a connection which closely recalls the prudent directions of the Teaching about knowing false prophets by their works and ways. Bryennios, however, points to an earlier and more weighty citation of the Teaching thanthis. He affirms that Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) ‘‘ reckons this book among the Holy Scriptures, and plainly thus exhalts its authority.” The reference is to Strom. i. 20, where Clement is speaking of * See Bryennios’ Clement, p. 142, n. 4. + Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) advises catechumens not to read apocryphal writings (Catech. iv.), a proof that they were in vogue. 7 Subsequently to St. Athanasios it is found in pseudo-Ignatius (ad Magnes, c. 9; ad Trall, ο. 6). It is desirable to note that it occurs in the later part of the Teaching (c. xii.); for Hilgenfeld thinks that only the earlier part could have been described by St. Athanasios as meant for catechumens (Zeitschr. f. w. Th. 1884, iii. 370). 456 “THACHING OF THE the philosophic Christian who imports into his system ideas appropriated from the false teachings of heathen sages. ‘‘This man,” he says, “‘is called thief by the Scripture, at least it says (φησὶ γοῦν") ‘Son, become not a liar, for lying leads the way towards theft.’” Here is no avowed citation of the Teaching, but a memoriter quotation of a saying which, occurring in the Teaching, occurs also in another work, the fipitome of Rules, of which more anon. Clement does not give the saying in the exact words of either work, but he comes slightly nearer to the Hpitome form than to that of the Teaching. That he deliberately assigns to either one or other the authority of Holy Scripture is an unwarrantable inference from his language. Rather should we conclude that the saying had come to his mind with a general im- pression that he had read it somewhere in Scripture; it seems, in fact, to be based on Prov. xxx. 6—9, a passage the strain of which suits Clement’s curious application of the words he quotes (viz., that dabblers in false, 1.6., heathen philosophy, are plagiarists to boot) far better than does the context either of Hpitome or Teaching.+ All then that we can say about the correspondence of the Greek Teaching with the patristic notices of a work bearing a similar but defective title, is simply this. A prima facie probability allows us to believe that through the discovery of Bryennios we have in our hands the work characterised by St. Athanasios. But there is absolutely no proof of the fact. What St. Athanasios knew as the Teaching of the Apostles may have been something much shorter than the newly-discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, some- thing answering to the measurement of Nicephoros.t * By φησί Clement of Alexandria sometimes means “it is said’; but we may allow the meaning here to be as above. t+ Eusebios gives a list (E.H. vi. 13) of disputed Scriptures quoted by Clement in the Stromateis. He does not mention the Teaching ; yet he can hardly have overlooked the citation discussed above, for he expressly refers to what immediately follows it. This is a fact of weight. It shows at any rate that Eusebios did not recognise, in the Teaching which he knew, the source of Clement’s quotation. t In pseudo-Cyprian De Aleatoribus there is a quotation from Doctrinae Apostolorum, which corresponds to nothing either in the Syriac or the Greek TWELVE APOSTLES.” 457 Bryennios has not even attempted to demonstrate that the treatise he has discovered is a treatise alluded to by any ancient writer. He has simply taken this for granted. He has taken for granted that all allusions to a Διδαχή or Διδαχαί are allusions to the newly-found book; though (1) the book is not cited with its proper title in any ancient author; (2) there is no description of its contents available for its identification; (8) nor any indisputable quotation from it. ELE Slight as is the external attestation to the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, its intrinsic value and interest are superla- tively great. To a certain extent it at once authenticates itself, and did the whole treatise bear the stamp of certain parts, we should pronounce it one of the oldest of Christian writings. But, though it has been carefully worked over by a compiler of strong individuality, it reveals traces of its heterogeneous origin. Bryennios directs us to find its date between the years 120 and 160 A.D. We think the former year too late for some of its contents, the latter too early, if not for the general form of the whole, at any rate for some points in the existing recension. The structure of the work is simple enough; it falls into four main sections, of which the first three deal respectively with Character, Churchmanship, and the Hierarchy, while the fourth isan Appendix, presenting an important accession to the Hierarchy section, and adding the Kyriophany. On a first perusal, the little work seemed at once familiar and unfamiliar. It was like viewing the picture, taken in his early prime, of a friend whom we had only known in very advanced life. The Teaching is manifestly the original of bk. vii., chaps. 1—82, of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapters which present the identical matter and the identical ar- rangement, point for point, of the Teaching, but with ex- Teaching. Hilgenfeld thinks it sufficiently like a passage in the Greek Teaching, chap. xv., to suggest the hypothesis of another recension of this work. 458 “THACHING OF THE cisions, variations, and additions of the fourth century. These variations we shall not pursue, as our concern 15 rather with the antecedents and contemporaries than with the spurious reproduction of the work.* For the first two sections a plain hint (almost a digest in miniature) is supplied in Peter’s third Pentecostal speech (Acts 11. 40—42) : ‘‘ Be ye saved from this crooked + genera- tion. Then they that received his word were baptized... . And they were steadfastly adhering τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, TH κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου Kal ταῖς προσευχαῖς." Assuredly here is the germ of the work ; here is the outline which has been filled up and added to. CHARACTER. In the working out of the scheme, the Character-section (Two Ways), which fills chapters i—yv., bulks more largely than any of the others,.in accordance with the author’s strong ethical motive. It is also more composite, and exhibits more clearly the rings of its growth. The Two Ways, or norm of conduct, is evidently a piece of very early and not improbably of pre-Christian origin. The antithesis, of which it is an expansion, is found verbally in Jerem. xxi. 8; and, with a more distinctly moral application, in Deut. xxx. 15—20. Innumerable are the references to this antithesis, both in canonical and extra-canonical writings. But the first systematic working out of the moral contrast is the ‘‘ Testament of Aser, con- cerning Two Faces of Badness and Virtue,” in the Testa- ments of the Twelve Patriarchs, apparently a pre-Christian work which has been retouched from an early Christian standpoint.t Here, however, the ὁδοὶ δύο ‘ which God * Bryennios has shown that not only is book vii., 1—82, a reproduction of the Teaching, but the other books, both earlier and later, betray an acquaintance with its language. The New York Independent of 1st May mentions an article by Prof. J. C. Long in the National Baptist which reverses the position, making the Teaching “as late as or later than” the Apostolic Constitutions. + Barnabas uses the same term (crookedness) of the Way of Death. t We hold in the main with Grabe, though considering the work, as we have it, not so much interpolated as rewritten, perhaps on an Aramaic \ TWELVE APOSTLES.” 459 has given to the sons of men ”’ are subjective tendencies ; the good man follows the direction of righteous principle, rejecting the evil mind within him*; the bad man tries to act on two sets of principles, and thus becomes “ two- faced.”” There are traces of this also in the Teaching, which is particularly rich in such terms as two-minded, two- tongued, double-heartedness, and the like.+ Now there seem to have been other pieces, which are lost, exhibiting the Two Ways as outward lines of conduct, good and bad, and we can trace in the Teaching the blend- ing of two such pieces. One of these is embedded in a work first printed by J. W. Bickell, in 1843,t and subse- quently edited by Lagarde, 1556, and by Hilgenfeld, 1866, from whom Bryennios reprints it in his prolegomena for purposes of comparison. ‘The other is the Appendix to the Epistle of Barnabas. Of the former piece there exists but one complete MS. (at Vienna) with the title Constitutions through Clement and Canons Hcclesvastical of the Holy Apostles. Apparently it is, as Hilgenfeld conjectures, the treatise referred to by Rufinus (after Jerome) under the double title Dwae Viae or Judicium Petri, titles which answer respectively to two distinct parts of the work.|| Under the title Epitome of Rules © basis. For the opposite view (viz., that it was originally the work of a Jewish Christian), and for the literature of the subject, see Sinker’s admir- able edition, 1869, with Appendix, 1879. See also Sinker’s translation, in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. xxii., 1871. The Muggletonians, on their Prophet’s authority, accept the Testaments as the actual writing of the Patriarchs, and as one of the most valuable books in the Canon of Scripture. * This is the essence of the Muggletonian ethical doctrine of salvation ; Faith being the stable principle, as opposed to Reason, the shifting principle. + So too the Epitome, and, in a less degree,’ the Barnabas-appendix. 1 Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, vol. 1., pp. 107—132. § There is an Arabic and an Ethiopic translation, under the title Canons of the Apostolic Fathers. The Ethiopic text was published by Ludolf as early as 1691 (with a Latin version) in his Ad Hist. Aeth. Comment. The Arabic text, described by Grabe in 1711, has not been edited, so far as we know. || Of these parts, the latter is similar in aim to the Hierarchy section of the Teaching, but it exhibits a much more matured hierarchy; bishop, presbyter, reader, deacon. 460 “TEACHING OF THE of the Holy Apostles, an Ottobonian MS. presents us with the first part only (Duae Viae) ; corroborating the view of the Character section as an independent document, a manual of religious ethics, lost in its original form, yet still circu- lating sometimes separately, sometimes in conjunction with other matter.* Bryennios treats the Epitome as borrowed from the Teach- ing ; but here we cannot follow him. The resemblances are so close that it is clear there has been copying; and the Epitome is the later document. Yet we do not think the Epitomiser had the Teaching before him, for the following reasons: 1. There is nothing in the Teaching which ex- plains its own phrase ‘‘ through the Twelve Apostles.’”’ Now the Epitome sets out with an enumeration of twelve names (they are not called Apostles), ‘John and Matthew and Peter and Andrew and Philip and Simon and James and Nathanael and Thomas and Cephas and Bartholomew and Judas of James.’’+ They are made interlocutors in a sort of dramatic dialogue, in which they give utterance to the several points of the instruction. We think the compiler of the Teaching must have seen the Two Ways presented in this form.t 2. There are traces of this dialogue arrange- ment still extant in the Teaching ; witness the six-times repeated ‘“‘ My child.” The interlocutors begin thus in the Vienna MS.; in the Teaching this phrase looks like an un- removed excrescence on the assimilated matter.§ 38. If the * The Epitome, at the beginning, recites the establishment of the full hierarchy, so that it is not the lost original. + Who were the Twelve Apostles? Donaldson (Jashar, 1854, and Christian Orthodoxy, 1857) has shown the difficulty of gathering an accurate list, even from the New Testament. We have sometimes thought the variations in early writers explicable on the hypothesis of a filling up of the apostolic college, so long as witnesses to the fact of the Resurrection survived ; compare the case of the election of Matthias. { In the Epitome John leads off, at the request of the rest; in the Hier- archy-section, appended in the Vienna MS., Peter leads off, on a similar request. This, as Hilgenfeld well says, may explain the second title Judicium Petri. § The Epitomiser has removed it, perhaps thinking it unsuitable from Apostle to Apostle; but originally it may have been the address of the apostolic speaker to the catechumen. TWELVE APOSTLES.” 464 Epitomiser had the Teaching before him, it is difficult to see why he should have forborne to quote anything from the most important passages in its first chapter, and should have left the fifth chapter (Way of Death) wholly un- touched. 4. Even in Chaps. ii., 111., iv. of the Teaching, where the coincidences with the Epitome are close and verbal, the following special vices are enumerated, of which the Epitome is silent: stealing, magical practices, lust of another’s goods,* sodomy, forswearing, neglect of the re- ligious education of children, ill-usage of slaves, disobedi- ence to masters, and going to prayer with an evil con- science. How can we explain such omissions as the action of a copyist? 5. The Teaching does not appear to be the original norm, inasmuch as (differing from the Hpitome and Barnabas-appendix) it excludes all reference to diabolical influence, a very remarkable omission, showing strong indi- viduality, and corresponding with the total absence of angels from the Kyriophany. Now it must be owned that the presence of Satan is very characteristic of early Christian and late Jewish documents ; and we see here an indication that the Epitomiser had access to an older form of the T'wo Ways than that given in the Teaching. We come now to the Barnabas-appendix. From Barna- bas proper, there is one manifest plagiarism in the Epitome ; the opening salutation of the Hpitome is taken verbatim from the opening words of the Epistle. The Epistle then is older than the Epitome, and a fortiori older than the Teaching form of the Two Ways. But we must distin- cuish carefully between the Barnabas-Hpistle itself and the Barnabas-appendix on the Two Ways. Of this latter the old Latin version of Barnabast knows nothing; but has Explicit Epistola Barnabae at the close of Chap. xvii., which it winds up with a doxology not found in the existing Greek. In our present Greek copies it occurs as * Certainly there are indirect allusions to these three; which makes the direct exclusion of them inexplicable. Barnabas-appendix also omits all the above vices except the third and fourth. ‘The Ethiopic text contains the first four. + In the Codex Corbeiensis, now at St. Petersburg, 462 “ THAGHING) Of ia Chaps. xviii.—xx. of Barnabas, introduced by the sionificant words ‘‘Let us pass to another gnosis and teaching (dvday7).” | In the Barnabas-appendix there is evidence cf a special adaptation of the phraseology of a common document to the mystical point of view of the Barnabas gnosis. The Two Ways are characteristically presented not as ways of good and evil (as in Aser’s Testament), nor of life and death (as in the Hpitome and Teaching), but of lght and darkness ;* and we read of ‘‘ the gnosis given to us”’ for walking in the way of light. The practical precepts are here culled in. very little consecutive order, seemingly as memory suggested them; they consist almost entirely of a cento of prohibitions. One is repeated (‘‘ Thou shalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbour’’). The Barnabas- appendix is certainly the rudest of the three documents, but with the rudeness of the unskilled compiler. In fact it is a jumble, suggesting no clue to its own arrangement:. Tt might almost be explained on the hypothesis of memo- riter borrowing from the Teaching. The Shepherd, anciently ascribed to one Hermas, is reckoned by Bryennios, along with Barnabas, among the sources of the Teaching ; and here we agree with him. The Shepherd has very distinct opinions on the subject of alms- giving and of paying prophets. It says (Com. 2): To all who are in want, give simply, not doubting to whom thou mightst give, or to whom thou mightst not give; give to all, for unto all God wills that gifts be made of his own free-gifts. They therefore who take, shall render account to God wherefore they took and for what; for they that being afflicted take shall not be judged; but they that in hypocrisy take shall stand trial. He, then,that giveth is guiltless; for as: he took from the Lord to fulfil the ministry, he fulfilled it simply, no way discriminating to whom he might give or might not give. This ministry, then, simply fulfilled, was made glorious with God. He therefore, thus simply ministering, shall live unto God. This is indiscriminate almsgiving ; but the Teaching, in a * Yet “death’s way” is incidentally mentioned, and “the way of the black one” is called “an eternal way of death with torment ;” expressions which show the half-digested manner in which the Barnabas-appendix deals with its material. a ~* re TWELVE APOSTLES.” 463 ‘passage to which the Epitome has no parallel,is much more explicit in its cautions both to giver and taker. He [that taketh], having no need, shall stand trial, why he took and for what, and being put in distress, he shall be examined about the things which he practised, and shall not come forth thence until he give back the last farthing. Here is a distinctly human, whereas the Shepherd contem- plates only a divine judgment. ‘The giver, too, is warned in the remarkable saying, quoted as of Scriptural authority: “Τὸ hath been said: ‘ Let thine almsgiving sweat into thine hands until thou know to whom thou givest.’ ’’* _ So, again, the Shepherd (Com. 11) is strongly against any stated maintenance for the prophets; they are to subsist on charity. The Teaching traverses this position in its Hierarchy-section. Charity is to be only a temporary expedient, to meet the case of the destitute and the tra- veller; every Christian must work; and the working prophet, the teacher who settles in a given place, is to have his regular maintenance of first fruits. In both passages we give priority to the Shepherd ; the Didachographer, with his shrewd sense, is the corrector. Accordingly, we stratify thus the Character section of the Teaching. { First comes the Two Ways antithesis, in its simplest form, as in the Epitome; on the one hand, the two-fold positive precept, Love God and thy neighbour, this being the finger-post of the Way of Life; on the other hand, a negative rendering of the golden rule, Do not to - another what thou wouldst 2o¢ wish for thyself, this being the finger-post of the Way of Death. Secondly comes, from the Sermon on the Mount, and from the Shepherd as corrected, a commentary on the Way of Life. Thirdly, the parallel with the Hpitome is resumed, in the words “ΝΟΥ a second commandment of the teaching;” and it is remarkable that what the Hpitome gives as its expanded comment on the negative precept, is here presented as an * This has been rendered as if it were “ Let thine alms drop from thine hands, so long as thou knowest,” &c. In either case it is a caution against indiscriminate giving. 464 “TEACHING OF THE alternative version of the Way of Life*. Fourthly, yet another passage of comment on the Way of Life is given, containing the rules about education and slaves, &c., unknown to the Epitome; at the close is a marked sign of late workmanship, ἐν" ἐκκλησίᾳ for ‘‘in church.’ . Lastly, comes an account of the Way of Death, the prototype of that in the Barnabas-appendix, unless we prefer to consider it derived by both Teaching and ἜΣ from a common document.t CHURCHMANSHIP. We pass from the Character section to the Churchman- ship section. We shall consider it in two divisions—(1) the. Kucharistic Prayers; (2) the other ordinances. 1. The Prayers it may be well to set out infull. This is the thankoffering concerning the cup : We offer thee thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David thy servant, whereof thou gavest us knowledge through Jesus thy servant; to thee the glory unto the ages. And this, concerning the bread (κλάσμα) : We offer thee thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge whereof. thou gavest us knowledge through Jesus thy servant; to thee the glory unto the ages. Like as this broken piece had been scattered upon the hills, and being brought together became one, so let thy Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom ; for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ unto the ages. Lastly, after the sufficing (ἐμπλησθῆναι) : We offer thee thanks, Holy Father, for thy holy name, where thou didst tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge, and faith, and * The Epitome is clearly right, and gives the older setting ; this is properly an exposition of the Way of Death. + Simply by a careful comparison of the data furnished in the Epitome, the Barnabas Appendix, and the Apost. Const., Krawutsky was able, in 1882, to reconstruct the Two Ways document in a form which, so far as it goes, comes surprisingly close to that which it actually takes in the Teaching. See the Tiibingen Theol. Quartalschrift, 1882, pt. 3. Harnack is right to claim this as a triumph of critical sagacity ; we need not say that it bears out our view of the Teaching as a compilation. The second and fourth sections of the Two Ways, not being in the Epitome, are absent also from Krawutsky’s able reconstruction. TWHLVE APOSTLES.” 465 immortality whereof thou gavest us knowledge through Jesus thy servant ; to thee the glory unto the ages. Thou, Sovereign almighty, createdst all things for thy name’s sake, food and drink thou gavest unto men for enjoyment that they might offer thee thanks, and unto us thou freely gavest spiritual food and drink, and life eternal through thy servant. Before all things we offer thee thanks that mighty art thou; [to thee] the glory unto the ages. ‘Remember, Lord, thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in thy love; and bring it together from the four winds, the sanctified unto thy kingdom, which thou preparedst for it, for thine is the power and the glory unto the ages. ,Come grace, and pass this world away. ‘ Hos anna to the God of David. If any is holy let him come; if any is not, let. him repent; maranatha. Amen. _ Hither we have here the most audacious of forgeries, or else a perfectly unique fragment of the earliest Christian antiquity. For fergery there is no discernible motive. These Prayers are certainly not invented in support of the - Kyriology of the remainder of the document; they stand _ apart in their naked Ebionism. Neither were they con- structed in favour of the eucharistic doctrine which appears in Chaps. xii. and xiv., for of this they breathe no whisper. The only points of possible suspicion about their language occur in the third and largest of them. The expression, there, respecting the gift of “spiritual food and drink and life eternal’? is found also in the Epitome. We may explain this as an interpolation in the Prayer ; or as a quotation on the part of the Epitome, and thus a confirmation of the age of the Prayers. In some respects it would be convenient to dismiss the-phrase as an interpolation, for the order of participation which it implies is not that indicated in the arrangement of the Prayers. But this arrangement is in other respects untenable; the Prayer in question, although given to be used after partici- pation, closes with an invitation and prohibition which pre- suppose that participation is not yet begun. Indeed we are disposed to think that the Didachographer has arranged these Prayers simply according to size, and that this explains the inversion of the cup and the bread in the order of celebration. If this inversion belonged to the structure 30 466 ‘“S THACGHING ΟΕ of the Prayers, we might be tempted to discuss the yuestion of its relation to the order of the Paschal rite, and to the Codex Bezae version of St. Luke’s account of the Last Supper.* But seeing that the compiler has demonstrably misplaced the third Prayer, there is nothing unreasonable in the conjecture that he has misplaced the others also. Besides this probable quotation from the Hpitome, there is, in the third Prayer, a possible allusion to St. John’s Gospel. Bryennios has noted that the invocation ‘‘ Holy Father” occurs in John xvii. 11. But ἃ stronger coinci- dence exists between ‘‘thy holy name, where thou didst tabernacle (κατεσκήνωσας) in our hearts,’ and ‘‘ the word ... did tabernacle (ἐσκήνωσεν) in us” of Johni. 14; and if this be a quotation, it is remarkable as suggesting a distinctly Ebionite interpretation of the Gospel phrase.t For what use are these Prayers viewed by the compiler as designed? Are they liturgical, in the sense of being intended for recitation by a celebrant of the eucharistic rite? On the contrary, they are presented as devotions for the faithful (probably moulded on a pre-Christian norm, derived from words of blessing in use at Passover feasts), the liturgia proper being entrusted to ‘‘ the prophets” (cf. Chaps. x., xlll.—xv.), who are the “‘ high priests”’ to perform the ‘‘ sacrifice.’ Certainly there is nothing in them which suggests, even in germ, an act of consecration, or corres- ponds in any way to the contents of the simplest of the ex- tant liturgies. They exhibit strong Hebraistic peculiarities. As in the Lord’s Prayer (which is given with a doxology as the norm of Christian devotion), the object of worship is “our Father,’ ‘‘holy Father.” Jesus is four times mentioned, thrice as the ‘‘ servant’ (παῖς) of God, once as ‘‘Christ’’; in this last instance only, glory is ascribed to God through him. The description of ‘‘ the holy vine of David thy servant, whereof thou gavest us knowledge * The resort to Codex Bezae would suggest Western influence ; Harnack will not admit the possibility of a Western origin of the Teaching. + The rendering “in us”’ (instead of the usual “among us”’) in John i. 14, is not adopted, so far as we know, by any English translator of the New Testament TWELVE APOSTLES.” 467 through Jesus thy servant,” is totally opposed to any identification of the cup with “ἃ communion of the blood of Christ,” as in St. Paul.* The bread repre- sents, not the broken body of Christ, but the hope of unity for the scattered Church of God. No doubt, in St. Paul’s phraseology, the Church is ‘‘ the body of Christ,” but the Prayer contains no hint of the Lord’s body, even in this secondary sense. The third Prayer ad- dresses the Hos annat to the God of David, an expression which Bryennios treats as a scribe’s error, yet it seems characteristic. 2. Rules about other ordinances (chaps. Vi.-vill., Xlv.) ex- hibit Jewish influence. The distinction of clean and unclean meats is not expressly mentioned, but in the caution about eating it is implied, and is directed to be observed as far as practicable, while the use of meats profaned by idol-sacrifice is strongly condemned. There is no absolute antagonism here to the permissions of St. Paul, but the point of view is much more rigid than his. The duty of giving first- fruits is insisted on, though there is no mention of tithe. On the other hand, the Jews are referred to as ‘‘ the * Does not the vine, like the bread, represent the Church? And is not “‘vine of David” the suggestion of a parallel between the kingdom that was, with David at its head, under God, and the kingdom to be, with Jesus at its head, under God? In Epiphanios (Haer. xlv. 4), we are told that “the Apostles say in the so-called Constitution (διάταξις) that ‘God’s planting and vineyard is the Catholic Church.’” This saying is nowhere found in the Apost. Const. + The word is divided ὡς ἀννά, the same division being found in some MSS. of the Gospels. It seems to point to a false etymology. We have long thought that the explanations of Hosanna in early Christian writers were dependent on various misconstructions of the Hebrew. When, e.g., Clement of Alexandria (Paed. i. 5), quoted by Bryennios, gives φῶς καὶ δόξα καὶ αἶνος μεθ’ ἱκετηρίας as the force of dcavvd, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that he has φῶς aives in his mind, as a pseudo-etymon. This is mad enough as a piece of etymology, but not madder than many similar tours de force; not nearly so mad as the Barnabas explication (c. ix.) of the eighteen (17) and three hundred (7) circumcised men of Abraham’s household as prefiguring Jesus and the cross. In the third Prayer of the Teaching the Hos anna immediately follows the aspiration “Come grace,” &c. Hence we have been led to guess that ὡς dvvé may in this case have been derived from 737 Wry “speed grace.” 30—2 468 “ THACHING FOL ΘΗ hypocrites,’ and their special fasting days (Monday and Thursday) and modes of prayer are to be shunned. Fast is, however, to be kept on Wednesday and Friday ; almsgiving is aransom for sins. The Lord’s Prayer is to be recited thrice a day. The Eucharist is to be celebrated each Lord’s Day, and is to be preceded by confession of transgressions ‘‘in church.” When the Didachographer says (chap. iv.) ‘thou shalt not approach ἐπὶ τὴν προσευχήν cov in an evil conscience,’ it may be doubtful whether he means ‘‘ to thy praying-place,” or ‘‘to thy prayer,’ but probably the former. The word is not used again. In tke regulations respecting Baptism (which is, of course, presented as an indispensable qualification for partici- pating in the Eucharist) a change of person from plural to singular is indicative of an accretion of subsequent modifi- cations upon the primary injunction to immerse in “‘ living’”’ 2.€.,1n running water. This rule is pronounced not indis- pensable in either of its parts. Running water is not essen- tial, if it cannot conveniently be had.* Moreover, warm water is allowable in the absence of cold; a provision which probably refers to Baptism in a public or private bath.t It can hardly refer to hot springs, as these would come under the head of running water. Most remarkable is the con- cession that trine effusion on the head is valid, where there is deficiency of water. Bryennios would restrict this to an occasion of necessity, such as clinical Baptism ‘‘ in periculo mortis ;’’ but this is not the case contemplated. It would seem that we must revise the accepted account of the late origin of Baptism by mere effusion. Robert Robin- son (p. 109) thinks he has proved that ‘‘ the baptism of pouring, a mere vulgar errour, may rank with the white * Yet the Catholic tradition in favour of running water is so strong that, even in ordinary Baptism by sprinkling, the water must not simply be dropped upon the face, the drops must actually flow. + Robert Robinson thinks that, while heathen baths were inadmissible as places for Baptism, owing to the idolatrous emblems, the baths of the Jews (and later of the Muhammadans) were used for this purpose. He says that “Christians who lived among the Moors were some of the last who erected baptisteries.” (Hist. of Baptism, p. 64.) TWELVE APOSTLES.” 469 pigeon of Ravenna.’ He explains even the frequent repre- sentation in early art, of the pouring of water on to the head of a person standing up to the waist ina stream, as a purely symbolical expedient of the artist, who of course could not draw a picture of a man wholly submerged. ‘‘ What could he mean, except that to baptize was to wet all over, to cover the whole man with water?” And it is certain that no ecclesiastical decision in favour of the validity of baptism by mere effusion has been produced, prior to that of Pope Stephen III., a.p. 754, in response to the questions of monks in Brittany. Is the permission of a practice after- wards legitimised in the West* a misleading coincidence, or shall we add it to the other faint indications of Western influence in the Teaching? It will be observed that the Leaching, though twice giving the full formula, as in Matt. xxviii. 19, also mentions (chap. ix.) Baptism εἰς ὄνομα Κυρίου. Now the only MSS. which in Acts x. 48 refer to Baptism ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Kvpiov are apparently Western (H, Ll, P.) + The qualifications for Baptism are almost purely ethical, the preliminary instruction being in no way dogmatic, and no express stipulation being made as to the profession of a Creed by the neophyte. This must not be pressed too far ; no doubt a general agreement with the prevailing standard of Christian opinion is presupposed. But the important thing is to observe that the acceptance of an ideal of Chris- tian conduct forms the real test of admission to the Church ; while, as we shall see immediately, the presence of a genuine Christian character is the express criterion of the validity of the ministry. | HIERARCHY. The language of the Teaching respecting Church-officers has already raised a conflict of opinions as to its precise * To this day the Eastern Church does not recognise the validity of Baptism without immersion. + The reading is adopted in our A. V., but rejected by R.V. in favour of “‘in the name of Jesus Christ.’”” We shall see, however, that Κυρίου and τοῦ Κυρίου are not the same thing. 470 “ THACHING OF THE significance*. It does not seem to us that the non- sacerdotal and non-hierarchical interpretation of chaps. ΧΙ. and xiii.—xv. can be sustained.t A primary order of minis- ters is first described, under the designation of apostles and prophets (cf. Eph. ii. 20, and especially Eph. 111. 5). They are apostles, as having a travelling mission ᾧ ; prophets, as belonging to a class of men who “ speak in the spirit,” and approved among such as men of faithful life and unselfish disinterestedness. The implication that there are Chris- tians, speaking in the spirit, but, by reason of their selfish character, not entitled to rank as prophets, 15 very curious.§ Here, as elsewhere, the Teaching diverges from the Shep- herd, who will not allow any but the disinterested prophet to be pnewmatophoros. Perhaps the same tendency which leads the Didachographer to exclude the hypothesis of diabolical influence makes him forbear to distinguish between spirit and spirit. His ideal of the ethical require- ments for a valid ministry is characteristic and sound. He would scarcely allow, with the twenty-sixth Anglican article, that Christians may resort to the ministry of evil men, ‘‘both in hearing the word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments.”’ But even for the Church-teacher, no special dogmatic qualification is demanded. His teaching must fully endorse the rule of conduct and the simple ritual laid down for the general body of Christians; yet he has a large liberty in two important respects. He is not restricted to given forms * Chap. xii. does not refer to the ministry, but to Christians in general. The word παρόδιος “ on the road” (used classically of windows look- ing upon the road) can hardly define a professional itinerant. + A warm ’controversy on the subject has been going on in the columns of the Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette, Dean Reichel holding, with the Presby- terians, that the Teaching discredits High Church notions of Episcopacy. t Note the ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν in 2 Cor. viii. 23; also the mention of Andronicus and Junias or Junia as distinguished ἐν τοῖς ἀποστὅλοις. Rom. xvi. 7. ὃ The phrase is ἐν πνεύματι, but it will not do to translate “in aspirit.” There is no doctrine in the Teaching of spirits, good and bad; nothing like the “ believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God, can a J Os1y. 1. TWELVE APOSTLES.” 471 in celebrating the Hucharist.* And, though he may not contravene the ethical teaching of the Two Ways, or the ordinances of churchmanship, he may develop them, for ‘if one teach to increase righteousness and knowledge (gnosis) of the Lord, receive ye him as the Lord.” Nay more, when the prophet, the minister of tried character, speaks in the spirit, it is the ead OTe sin to submit his utterance to test or criticism. We must here advert to two very puzzling points in the Didachographer’s description of the true prophet. ‘‘ No prophet, ὁ ῥίζων a table in the spirit, will eat of it, unless indeed he is a false prophet.’ The text is not Greek. Bryennios corrects to ὁρίζων, translates ‘‘ order- ing a table,’ and understands it of directing a meal to be prepared for the poor. It were better to render ὁρίζων by ‘‘assigning.”’y; But the scribe is not likely to have bungled over so straightforward a word as ὁρίζων. We prefer to think that the original was ὁ ῥέζων, ‘“ who is offering’’; certainly not a common word, and therefore more liable to be mistranscribed.t We have seen that there is a pronounced sacrificial element in the Teaching, so that ‘‘ offering a table’’ may be admissible ag a phrase for celebrating the Hucharist. But what will the caution imply? Not, surely, non-participation; but that the prophet will not profane a sacred ordinance to personal uses, by making a meal of the Eucharist; cf. 1 Cor x1. 92,34. ‘‘ What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? . . . dfanymanis hungry, let him eat at home.”’ More embarrassing is the statement respecting a true * Bryennios compares the injunction, ‘‘ Now to the prophets entrust ye to offer thanks as much as they will (ὅσα @éAovow)” with the passage in which Justin Martyr (I. Apol. 67) says that the president “ offers prayers and thanksgivings as much as he is able (ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ) ᾿᾿; and tries to show that both are compatible with the use of forms. So they are; but not with restriction to fixed forms. + A friend suggests ‘‘ limiting,’ and understands it of “fencing the tables.” But itis hard to see why the exclusion of the unworthy should involve the non-participation of the celebrant. { In the sacrificial sense, ῥέζω is used only by the poets; but the word occurs in Plato. 472 “THACHING OF THE prophet who is described as “ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον κόσμικον ἐκκλησίας, but not teaching others to do as much as he doth himself.” This man is not to be brought to human judgment; his judgment is with God; he acts as did the ancient prophets. Bryennios, who owns the passage to be ‘dark and obscure,” thus tentatively translates the diff- cult clause: ‘“‘ constituting assemblies for a worldly mystery.” By this he understands summoning the people to witness a symbolic action, such as Isaiah’s ‘‘ walking naked and barefoot’ (Is. xx. 2), Ezekiel’s shaving his head _and beard (Ezek. v. 1), and the like. Yet is ‘‘ constituting assemblies,” in the classical sense, a likely use of the term ἐκκλησία, a term which occurs in two other places of the Teaching in the proper Christian acceptation? And would any one think of judging a prophet for not teaching others to perform purely symbolic acts? We render the clause ‘doing with an eye to the Church’s mystery in the world.’’* But what does this mean ? We were at first inclined to borrow a light from a phrase of the Syriac Teaching, ‘‘as within the upper room the mystery of the body aud blood of our Lord began to prevail in the world ;” and thus to see an allusion to the sacrifice of Christ, as furnishing an ideal of life (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 11). The objection is that such an interpretation of the ‘‘ mys- tery’ implies a view of the Eucharist and of the work of Christ, foreign to the Teaching. The only λύτρωσις men- tioned is of another kind, ‘‘ in case ought thou hast, through thy hands shalt thou give a ransom of thy sins” (Ch. iv.) The only θυσία is not the sacrifice of Christ, but the thank-offering of the baptized. We therefore prefer to interpret the clause by help of the second Eucharistic Prayer, which speaks-of the scattered Church of God, to be * It is objected that ποιέω should not be taken absolutely, in the sense of “to act.” The objection seems hypercritical, as there are a few classical examples of this, and many Hellenistic instances. But the difficulty may be removed by considering the clause “as much as he doth himself” to be the object of ποιῶν as well as of ποιεῖν. Were it not for the ordinary use of ποιέω in the immediate context, it might be tempting to take ποιῶν like ῥέζων in its technical sense of “sacrificing.” TWELVE APOSTLES.” 473 brought from the ends of the earth into his kingdom. The ‘“‘Church’s mystery in the world”’ is the hidden potency of the kingdom of God on earth; a promise, an aspiration, and a pattern. The spiritual prospect of its divine though latent glory supplies an ethical standard towards which the true prophet will ever seek to raise his own life; yet he may feel the unwisdom of preaching to the weak the perfection at which he aims. He treads in the steps of the prophets of old, who, exhibiting in their own persons the life of God’s holiness, forbore to fix their precepts of obligation ‘**too high For sinful men beneath the sky.’’ This interpre- tation accords well with the ethical strain of the Teaching. The primary ministers recognised in the Teaching fall into two classes; apostles, or missionary prophets, and prophets who are willing to settle* as ministers 1n a given place. The apostles are to stay not more than two days in one place, and are to be provided with food, lodging, and bread for their journey at the hands of the faithful, but are not to receive money, a rule which guards against a very obvious and not easily checked abuse of their function. But the prcphet who settles is to have a public maintenance. He is ‘‘ worthy of his meat’; the Teaching does not say, in our Lord’s words, ‘‘ worthy of his hire” (Luke x. 7), but he means the same thing. His stipend is not a fixed one, but, like the priest (Num. xvii. 12, 13) whose representative he is (“they are your high-priests”), he is to have the firstfruit of money and raiment as well as of produce and of prepared food, the amount of firstfruit being fixed at the discretion of the giver.t The poor * The word is καθῆσαι (bis), a form (for καθῆσθαι) which we cannot find except in a var. lect. at Mark iv. 1. Schleusner gives ἐκάθησεν as occurring in a version of Judges v. 17. + The word σιτία here used is not classical. It was understood by the Apostolic Constitutions as meaning “hot loaves.” Sophocles’ lexicon of later Greek (1870) gives. it with the rendering “batch’’ (on the authority of two passages in the Apophthegmata Patrum, A.p. 500, where it means “a batch of unbaked dough’’). In the Teaching it probably means “a batch of fresh-baked bread;”’? though there is a possibility that it may be the seribe’s spelling of σιτεία (like his εἰδωλολατρία (quater) for εἰδωλολατρεία), in which case it may mean “a feed,” “a feast.” 474 “THACHING OF THE come in for firstfruit only in case there is no settled prophet. APPENDIX. 1. It is clear that these apostles and prophets practically answer to the order otherwise distinguished as presbyters, a term which does not oecur in the Teaching. And when we find in the first chapter (xv.) of the Appendix, that, in addition to them, bishops and deacons are to be elected by the Christian community, it is plain that ἃ hierarchy is in full progress. This of itself would lead us to treat the chapter as discovering a new element in the Teaching.* Itis a further sign of an altered state of things that in this Appendix the ministerial term “ apostles” is dropped. Instead of ‘‘apostles and prophets’? we here have ‘‘ prophets and teachers ’”’ (0.8). Now the ‘ teacher ’”’ already occurs as distinct from the ‘‘prophet’”’ in chap. xii.; but in a duplicate clause which has the air of an after-thought, designed to countenance the position (side by side with the quondam missionary who has settled down) of the spiritual man who has never travelled. This latter is a link in the descent to the elected officer (cf. 1 Cor. xii. 20 for the source of the three terms). No especial functions are assigned either to the bishops or the deacons. Degrees are indicated in these terms, but both degrees are entitled to celebrate the liturgia. The original meaning of deacon seems already disappearing or lost. As distinct from the prophets, whose ministry depends upon possession of the spirit, and exhibition of a consistent lite, the other two orders occupy the position of a man-made ministry. They must be men of character, of the same stamp as 1s required in the case of the prophets; but mere election by a show of hands (χειροτονήσατε) constitutes their warrant of office ; no sort of consecration, or succession, 15 hinted at.t Yet the Teaching directs that they are to be * Weshall give a lineuistic reason for believing that chap. xv., in which the “ bishops and deacons ”’ section occurs, belongs to a distinct stratum of the Teaching. + Lhe cheirotonesis, or “ stretching forth of hands”’ to vote, must not be confused with the epithesis or “ laying on” of handsto ordain, mentioned jn 1. Tim. and Heb. TWELVE APOSTLES.” 475 honoured ‘along with” the prophets and teachers. It is easy to see how parity would be a step to pre-eminence. As the exalted level of the Church’s life declined, the self- appointed teachers would gradually fall below the original standard ; and, on the other hand, the Church would care less for the kind of gifts which they exercised, and more for qualities shown by the men of their own selec- tion. In the Apostolic Constitutions the “apostles and prophets” are (save in one tell-tale phrase) wiped out altogether; their place is taken by elected presbyters. The Teaching exhibits the transition in process. Its author places himself on the side of the settled ministry, as against the travelling missionary ; and firmly takes up the cause of the elected officers, in opposition to those who despised them. We note that already church-courts were in operation for the trying of moral offences. They took cognisance of the selfishness of a grasping spirit, and compelled restitution (ch. 1). Their action is probably indicated in the case of reproofs administered to the erring ; and Christians con- victed of wronging their fellows are to be subjected to a species of interdict—‘‘ let no one speak, nor listen of your own accord, till he have repented” (ch. xv.). But, as we have seen, they are not to sit in judgment on prophets whose practical teaching may not come up to the rigid standard of zealots (ch. xi.). No such thing as theological heresy is anywhere hinted at. 2. We now come tothe Kyriophany (chap. xvi.). Who is the Kyrios ? Excepting in the Eucharistic Prayers, the name of Jesus Christ does not occur in the Teaching ;* and besides the absence of the name, there is a total omission also of any reference to any facts distinctive of Christ’s historic per- sonality. The Nativity, the Miracles, the Parables, the Passion, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are all passed * Nor does it in the Third Epistle of St. John; or in the Shepherd, the Epistle to Diognetos, the writings of Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilos. Much might be said on this subject, but there is no room to discuss it here, 476 “THACHING OF THE sub silentio. The three Prayers tell us respectively that “through Jesus thy servant”? our Father made known (1) ‘‘the holy vine of David,” (2) ‘‘ life and knowledge,” (3) “knowledge, faith, and immortality.’ Further than this, only two utterances in the Teaching can be said to be directly connected with the Master; one is the Lord’s Prayer, the other the precept ‘‘ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs.’’* Extracts are given in chap. 1. from the Sermon on the Mount, but there is no indication of their source. The ‘‘ Gospel” is four times mentioned ; in three places this may rightly be interpreted of the written record ; but not so in chap. xi., where ‘‘the decree (δόγμα) of the Gospel” is invoked as the authority for the regulations about apostles and prophets. In the full Baptismal formula, and in a passage of the Kyriophany, Christ is known as “ the Son,” ἐν God’s Son.” Elsewhere (excepting of course the Eucharistic Prayers) he is the Kyrios. But there is an ambiguity about this word. Throughout the Septuagint it represents (at second hand through Adhonai) the Tetragrammaton. In the New Tes- tament, the prevailing, perhaps the universal, usage is that Κύριος, without the article, represents the Tetragrammaton, the incommunicable name of God,t while it is admitted on all hands that ὁ Κύριος, the Master, refers to Christ. In considering the usage of the Teaching we observe a peculiarity which marks off chapters xv.—xvi. from the rest, and compels us to treat them as a distinct stratum. This appendix presents no case of the anarthrous Kyrios ; thrice it has Kyrios with the article, and twice (once in each chapter) ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν, ‘our Lord,” an expression which no where else occurs in the Teaching. ‘The Kyrios of the * An unusual application is made of this saying. It is very frequently employed, in patristic writers, as a warning against putting Christian truths before the unprepared multitude. Once it is applied as a caution , against baptizing the unworthy. But in the Teaching it is used as a defence of the exclusion of the unbaptized from the Eucharist. + The subject has been considered, with some dogmatic bias, by Pearson and Middleton. Without attempting here to discuss the question, we may simply state our conclusion that the anarthrous Κύριος, standing alone, invariably means Jehovah. TWELVE APOSTLES.” 477 Kyriophany is therefore the unnamed Christ. But in the remainder of the Teaching we have Kyrios four times with the article—these places we may of course unhesitatingly interpret of Christ; and twelve times without the article — here the difficulty comes in. At first we were tempted, having reference to certain connections in which Kyrios occurs, to treat the omission of the article as insignificant, and to interpret the word as a mere synonyme for Christ. But on full consideration we reach the conclusion that Kyrios without the article, as in the New Testament so in the Teaching, means Jehovah. Hence we interpret the title of the work ‘‘ Teaching of Jehovah through the twelve Apostles to the nations.” In chap. x1. we understand the meaning to be, if he that teacheth teach ‘to increase righteousness and knowledge of Jehovah, receive ye him as Jehovah” (bis).* In the same chapter we interpret τοὺς τρόπους Κυρίου ““ Jehovah’s character” (cf. Mt. v. 48, Lk. vi. 86). And the expression (chap. xiv.) κυριακὴν Κυρίου we take, not as a mere tautology, but as ‘“‘ Jehovah’s Lord’s- day,” answering to ‘‘ the Sabbath of Jehovah.” Ὁ If then Κύριος means Jehovah, it becomes important to determine whether in this sense the term is applied to Christ. We must admit that there is a passage in which the title ‘‘God” 15 renderedto him. The master of slaves is exhorted (chap. iv.) not to lay orders in bitterness on his slave or handmaid, ‘‘lest they no more fear the God over both (τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις θεόν) ; for he cometh not to call with respect of person, but to those whom the spirit prepared.t A modern reader, accustomed to a severely re- stricted use of the word God, must be warned against drawing, from this expression alone, too large an inference. Taken by itself, it is a phrase which an Arian would freely * Compare “He that receiveth you [whomsoever I send Jo. xiii. 20] receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me” , (Mt. x. 40.) + Compare the phrase “ Hos anna to the God of David.” t Afriend suggests that ἔρχεται. . . . καλέσαι may have the force of a simple future. The parallel passage in the Barnabas-appendix has ἦλθεν, Which shows how it is to be understood. 478 “THACHING OF THE use, and from which even a Socinian would not shrink. Yet we cannot but note a doctrinal progression which has advanced beyond the pure Ebionism of the Eucharistic Prayers. And when we find (chap. ix.) that baptism is described as being εἰς ὄνομα Kupiov,* remembering what the formula is, as twice given in the Teaching, we can hardly doubt that Κύριος here covers Father, Son and Holy Spirit, regarded as one Jehovah. The Kyriology, then, of the main doctrine comes nearest to what is best known as Sabellian. It seems to have been carefully put into this form, with a dogmatic purpose, which has deliberately excluded every less suggestive appel- lation of Christ. How then do we explain the primitive state of the Eucharistic Prayers? Partly from reve- rence these fragments of an earlier age were preserved intact; partly also because, as we may recollect, with Humanitarianism pure and simple, Sabellianism has a strong historic tendency to coalesce. The Appendix has in like manner been left intact; it exhibits some advance upon the mere Ebionism of the Prayers, but the interval between its Kyriology and that of the main document is nevertheless distinctly perceptible. A Kyriophany is pointed to, inthe Maranatha (the Lord cometh) of the third Eucharistic Prayer. The details of the Kyriophany as given in chap. xvi. have some features in common with other presentations of the subject, and others which are peculiar. The growing vice of the age immediately preceding the advent of the Kyrios; the multiplication of false prophets; the appearance of a W orld-deceiver, who shall bear so close a resemblance to the true Son of God as to deceive even the sheep of the fold; all these signs of deepening gloom are dwelt upon with abundance of detail by other early writers. But when we come to the predicted advent, we notice a very remark- able peculiarity, inthe omission of all reference to angels. And of the three special ‘‘ signs of the truth,” the first ig * The Apostolic Constitutions, which otherwise show Arian influence, remove this phrase, substituting eis τὸν τοῦ Κυρίου θάνατον, TWELVE APOSTLES.” 419 one not elsewhere specified. It is the sign ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ. ; This Bryennios would render “ a soaring up in the sky,’ connecting 1t with the account (Thess. iv. 17) of the risen and surviving saints who shall together be “‘ caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the 811. For two sub- stantial reasons this will not do. The ekpetasis is a sign preceding the resurrection; and the rendering “ soaring” depends upon a false etymology.* The ekpetasis is the ‘‘spreading forth’’; but of what? It has been referred to the patristic idea (used also in commenting upon Rom. x. 40) of the stretching forth of the hands of Jesus at the advent, as in the attitude upon the cross.t But itis a sign preceding the advent, so this will not do. We are inclined to think it suggested by the WD of Joel 11..2. The usual rendering of W715 in the LXX. is by ἐκπετάννυμι; and though here it is χυθήσεται, yet the Didachographer could translate for himself, as is evidenced in his (chap. xiv.) citation of Mal. 1. 14. Thus the sign of ekpetasis in the sky is the appearance of the thundercloud (followed by the thunderclap, ‘‘a trumpet’s voice’’) above which the Kyrios shortly appears. We have completed our survey of this interesting docu- ment, and have only a few words of remark to make in conclusion. The age and locality of its production it would be premature to attempt to assign. That it is later than the Shepherd, older than the Apostolic Constitutions, cannot be matter of doubt. Its character is essentially that * From πέτομαι we should get ἐκπτῆσις ; and even this would mean soaring out, not wp. In Acts iii. 8, ἐξαλλόμενος is indeed translated (even in R.V.) “leaping up”; it should be “leaping out” (of the litter). Τῦ 15 true that in a passage of Theophylact, ἐξεπέτασας may be rendered “let fly,” a secondary sense of “spread forth.” Sophocles gives an example of ἐκπέτασις- =“ flying,” but in an author as late as a.p. 950. + Perhaps the earliest mention of “the sign of the cross” inthe sky as preliminary to the second advent is in chap. 36 of the dubious Consummation of the World, ascribed to Hippolytos. See the remarks of Gerard Voss, Theses Theol. et Histor. 1628, p. 270. The idea was suggested by “ the sign of the Son of Man in the sky,’ Matt. xxiv. 30. The Teaching does not contain the title Son of Man. 480 “THACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.” of a compilation, and there are distinct evidences of the individuality of the compiler, who may, or may not, have represented a wide-spread view of the Christian system. Its oldest stratum witnesses to the existence of St. John’s Gospel. It contains extracts from St. Matthew, and gives unmistakable signs of familiarity with St. Luke, with the Acts, and with St. Paul’s writings. There is a strong Hebraistic flavour about it.* Finally, it points to the prior existence of yet older documents, at present undiscovered, but which, considering the wonderful finds of recent years, we dare not pronounce to be hopelessly lost. ALX. GORDON. * Yet actual Hebraisms of language are not numerous. Note the use of (ter) ἐν, like 2 ; and the phrase, τὴν πύρωσιν τῆς δοκιμασίας, for “testing fire ordeal.” There are some traces also of parallelism, 6.6.» “In church thou shalt confess thy transgressions: ” “And shalt not come to thy praying-place in an evil conscience.” 800 THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING [ Oct. pa Mi MY. Cc ee ARTICLE VI. ae Ge THE VOCABULARY OF THE “TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.” BY PROF. LEMUEL 5. POTWIN, ADELBERT COLLEGE, CLEVELAND, OHIO. I. Irs: VOCABULARY COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE New TEs- TAMENT.2 THE agreement between the New Testament and the Teaching in the use of words is in general so obvious and so much a matter of course that it is only necessary to notice the points of disagree- ment. Are there any words in the Teaching not found in the New Testament? Also, are there words in the former with a meaning different from that which they bear in the latter? The following notes are in answer to the first of these questions. The second question seems to allow an almost unqualified negative. ‘The word φθορά, which has in the New Testament its classical meaning of cor- ruption, destruction (6.5. ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς, Rom. viii. 21), in the Teaching (chap. ii.), means abortion, as in the Epistle of Barnabas. Also συνοχή (chap. i.), is to be taken more literally than in the New Testament. In the following list I have intended to include all the words in the Teaching that are not found in the New Testament, however unimportant they may seem, or however close the connection or resemblance. The numbers following each word give the chapter and the line in Scribner’s edition. In the remarks in regard to usage no notice is taken of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apostolical Constitutions, or the Epitome, if the word is used elsewhere. ἀθάνατος, iv. 94. Classical, and in Septuagint. The New Testa- ment adjective is ἄφθαρτος (1 Tim. i. 17), which is perhaps not used earlier than Aristotle. It also has both the substantives ἀφθαρσία (post-classical and in Septuagint):and ἀθανασία, which is classical. 1 [On account of a resemblance between some passages in the first part of this Article and portions of an excellent papet upon the same subject in the Journal of Christian Philosophy, by Dr. Isaac H. Hall, 10:18. due to the author to say that this was intended for the July number of the Bibliotheca Sacra, and all except the last two pages stands as it was then written. ~Eps.]. 1884.] OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 801 ᾿ αἰσχρολόγος, iii. 56. Post-classical. The New Testament has aicxpodoyia (classical) in Col. 111. 8, and αἰσχρότης (classical), refer- ring to the same thing, in Eph. v. 4. ἀμφιβολία, xiv. 270. Classical. In Herodotus 5. 74 it means an attack from both sides — Peloponnesians on one side and Boeotians and Chalcidians on the other. In Aristotle’s Poetic (25. 18) it means a verbal ambiguity, used together with the adjective ἀμφίβολος. In Plutarch it means doubtfulness. The meaning in the Teaching would come from the later usage, and the word might be rendered “a misunderstanding’? —a delicate euphemism for ἔρις or μομφή. See Col. ili. 18, ἐάν τις πρός τινα ἔχη μομφήν. In Matt. v. 23, 24— the parent passage — the expression is ὁ ddeAdds cov ἔχει TL KATA σου. ἀνταποδότης, iv. 91. Found elsewhere only in the Epistle of Bar- nabas (ch. 19), and Epitome (Bryennios Proleg., p.77). The New Testament has ἀνταπόδομα, ἀνταπόδοσις, and ἀνταποδίδωμι. αὐθάδεια, ν. 117. Classical. The New Testament has αὐθάδης (classical) in Tit. i. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 10. γόγγυσος, 111. 66. -Post-classical. The New Testament has yoy- γυστής in Jude 16; also γογγύζω and γογγυσμός, all post-classical. διαφορά, i. 2. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testament has the adjective διάφορος (classical), but the substantive is either διαστολή (post-classical), or διαίρεσις (classical). See Rom. iii. 22; 1 Gor. xii:,4,10,40,.66,.8). διγλωσσία, ii. 42. Found elsewhere only in Epistle of Barnabas (ch. 19) and Epitome (Bryennios Proleg. p. 74). δίγλωσσος, ii. 42. Classical and in Septuagint. In Thucydides it means speaking two languages (4. 109; 8. 85). In the Septua- gint it means deceitful. The New Testament has δίλογος (post- classical), 1 Tim iii. 8. διγνώμων, ii. 41. Found elsewhere only in the Epistle of Barna- bas, chap. 19. The Epitome (Bryennios, Proleg., p. 74) has δίγνομος, as also some texts of Barnabas. The New Testament has δίψυχος (post-classical), James i. 8; iv. 8. διπλοκαρδία, v. 116. Found only here and in the Epistle of Bar- nabas, chap. 19. διψυχέω, iv. 86. Post-classical. The New Testament has δίψυχος. See διγνώμων above. ἐκπέτασις, xvi. 313. The origin of the word is doubtful, also whether it occurs elsewhere or not. If it is from ἐκπετάννυμι it means “expansion,” and is found, according to the older texts, in Plutarch’s Vou. XLI. No. 164. 101 802 THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING { Oct. De Sera Numinis Vindicta, chap. 23. The disembodied souls expressed joy and pleasure “by expansion and diffusion,” χύσει. The Didot edition (1868), however, reads ἐπεκτάσει. If the word comes from ἐκπέταμαι, which is a later as well as poetic form 2 , XN Q EKTTETUC EL δὲ και δια- οἵ ἐκπέτομαι, then it means “flying away.” The only use of it cited by Sophocles is dated about 950 a.p. Bryennios, followed by Canon Farrar (Cont. Rev. May 1884), adopts the latter meaning, and identi- fies it with the ἁρπαγή of 1 Thess.iv. 17.1 Farrar translates, “ First the sign of the flying forth (of the saints) in heaven, then the sign of the voice of the trumpet, and the third, the resurrection of the dead.” But it requires altogether too much ingenuity to make this “flying forth” to come jirst. Why not refer it to the flying forth of the angels sent out to gather the elect? This view would make the above harmonize with Matt. xxiv. 81: “ And he shall send forth his angels [cf. Rev. xiv. 6, ἄγγελον πετόμενον ἐν pecovpavypare| with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” Per- haps the ἐκπέτασις refers to some unexplained “sign of the Son of Man in heaven” mentioned in the previous verse in Matthew. This the paraphrase in the Apostolical Constitutions favors (chap. 32). If so, the meaning of “expansion” would seem more probable. Ac- cording to Alford, on Matt. xxiv. 30, the Fathers generally supposed the “sign” to be a cross in the sky. In any case, the word can hardly mean an “opening” in heaven. In the Septuagint ἐκπετάζω means to spread out, having for its object a cloud in Job xxvi. 9, and the hands in 2 Esdras ix. 5. Canon Farrar says: “ Some sup- pose it to mean the sign of Christ with arms outstretched as on the cross”; but he ‘cites no evidence that the early Christians looked for suchasign. Ifany justification could be found for tampering with the manuscript, one would like to read ἐπιφάσεως for ἐκπετάσεως. ἐνδέω, iv. 92; v. 128. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testament has ἐνδεής, Acts iv. 34. ἐπαοιδός, 111. 59. In Septuagint and classical in the form ἐπῳδός. The New Testament seems not to contain the idea of enchantment, ie. using the magic spell. We find payevw, Acts viii. 9; μαγία, Ἐ1 take this from Bryennios’ note on p. 55 of his edition. The copy received by Dr. Ezra Abbot contains Ms. corrections of this note which entirely, and most happily, change its meaning making, ἐκπέτασις refer to the appearing of the Lord. The corrections are supposed to be by Bryennios himself. They erase #22... ἐκπέτασις (line 4), and ὅθεν δή (line 9), and add an illustrative quotation from 2 Thess i. 7. 1884. | OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. | 803 viii. 11; μάγος, xiii. 6, 8. The Septuagint applies the word ἐπαοιδός to the “ magicians” of Pharaoh and of Nebuchadnezzar. ἐριστικός, ill. 53. Classical. The New Testament has ἔρις. and ἐρίζω, both classical. ζηλοτυπία, y. 118. Classical and in Septuagint, in Num. v., of the law of jealousy. The New Testament has ζήλος and derivatives (classical), but no compounds; also φθόνος (classical), Acts xiii. 4 ; Matt. xxvii. 18, et ἃ]. θερμός, vil. 144. Class. and Sept. The New Testament has θέρμη (Acts xxviii. 3) and θερμαίνω, but for the adjective, eards (post-clas- sical), fervidus, used only figuratively, Rev. iii. 15, 16. θράσος, 111. 73. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testa- ment. has θάρσος once (Acts xxviii. 15), used, as generally in the classics, in a good sense. θρασύτης, γ. 118. Classical. The Septuagint has θρασύς, θρασύνω, and θρασυκάρδιος. θυμικός, iii. 538... In Arist., and the adverb in Polyb. 18. 37 (20), 12. idpdw, i. 52. Classical. The New Test. has the noun, Luke xxii. 44. κακοήθης, ii. 45. . Classical. The New Testament has κακοήθεια once, Rom. i. 29. κοσμοπλάνος, xvi. 304. Found only here and in Apostolical Constitutions, τότε φανήσεται 6 KoopomAdvos, and κατακρῖναι τὸν κοσ- μοπλάνον διάβολον, Bk. 7, chap. 82. See Bryennios, Proleg. p. 50. Compare 2 John 7, πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. κυριακή, xiv. 267. Later than New Testament as_ substantive. The New Testament has the adjective (post-classical) once of the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. xi. 20), and once of the Lord’s day, Rev. i. 10. μαθηματικός, 111. 60. Classical as adjective. Polybius has the substantive, meaning mathematician, in 9. 19,9. In Sextus Em- piricus (A.D. 205) it means astrologer (Sophocles, Lex. s.v.). Tacitus and Juvenal (died a.p. 120) call astrologers mathematici. Ter- tullian (died A.D. 220) classes together “lenones, perductores, aquarioli, sicarii, venenarii, magi, haruspices, harioli, mathematici,”’ Apol. 43... For astrologers the Septuagint, in Isa, xlvii. 13, has ἀστρολόγοι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. In Daniel the king calls. τοὺς ἐπαοιδούς Kal τοὺς μάγους καὶ τοὺς φαρμακοὺς Kal τοὺς χαλδαίους (il. 2), but the word μαθηματικὸς is not found. May not the word, in the sense of astrologer, have been re-borrowed from the Latin ? μῖσος, xvi. 801. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testa- ment has μισέω, but for the noun uses ἔχθρα, not a precise equiva- lent, but the opposite of φιλία, James iv. 804 THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING ~ [Oct. “μνησικακέξω, ii, 41. Classical and in Septuagint, which has also μνησίκακος, Prov. xii. 28. οἰωνοσκόπος, iii. 58. Classical. The Septuagint has οἰωνίζομαι and οἰωνισμός of Joseph’s divining cup, Gen. xliv. ὃ. Also teparo- σκόπος, Deut. xviii. 11. Neither the word nor the idea appears in the New Testament. παιδοφθορέω, ii.'36. In Epistle of Barnabas and later. Compare Juvenal x. 304: “Non licet esse viro, nam prodiga corruptoris Improbitas ipsos audet temptare parentes.”’ πανθαμάρτητος, v. 130. Not in Stephanus, Liddell and Scott, or Sophocles. Appears to be found only here and in the corresponding passages in Epistle of Barnabas (chap. 20) and Apostolical Consti- tutions (7, 18). παρόδιος, xii. 245. Post-classical. Not in the Septuagint, which, however, has πάροδος with the meaning of traveller, 2 Kings xii. 4 — this from the influence of the Hebrew. περικαθαίρω, iii. 60. Classical, and in Septuagint, of Moloch- worship, Deut. xviii. 10. ποθέω, iv. 83. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testament has ἐπιποθέω (classical). But is not ποθήσεις in the Teaching an error of text for ποιήσεις ἢ The corresponding passage in Epistle of Barnabas is οὐ ποιήσεις σχίσμα (chap. 19), and in the Apostolical Constitutions is οὐ ποιήσεις σχίσματα πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους. πονέω, ν. 125. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testa- ment uses κοπιάω (classical) ; also καταπονέω (post-classical), but not with the meaning of labor; also πόνος (classical). πονηρόφρων, 111. 67. Found elsewhere ‘only in the Apostolical Constitutions, Μὴ ἔσό αὐθάδης, μηδὲ πονηρόφρων (7. 7), and in the Epitome (Bryennios;, Proleg. p. 76). προνηστεύω, vil. 147. Classical. In Herodotus, of the sacrificial ceremonies of the Egyptians, 2, 40. | προσεξομολογέω, xiv. 268. I find no examples of this compound referred to in the lexicons. ‘The New Testament ‘and Septuagint have ὁμολογέω (classical), and ἐξομολογέω (post-classical), which also is used in the Teaching iv. 108. σιτία, xiii. 261. This word is found in the Apophthegmata Patrum, which Sophocles dates about A.D. 500. The meaning is plain from the following, to which he refers: Θέλω πληρῶσαι τὸν λογισμόν μου μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λαβὼν σιτίαν εἰς τὸ ἀρτοκοπεῖον ἐποίησεν ἄρτους, 1884. ] OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 805 192, A. ᾿Απῆλθον οὖν εἰς τὸ ἀρτοκοπεῖον ποιῆσαι δύο σιτίας Kal εὗρον ἐκεῖ ἀδελφὸν θέλοντα ποιῆσαι ἄρτους, Kal οὐκ εἶχέ τινα δοῦναι, αὐτῷ χεῖρα, 196, B. For the ᾿Βὰν σιτίαν ποιῇς, τὴν ἀπαρχήν of the Teaching, we find in the Apostolical Constitutions (7, 29), πᾶσαν ἀπαρχὴν ἄρτων θερμῶν, “hot cakes.” συσπάω, iv. 88. Classical. The word properly means to draw together, contract; but as in Latin contrahere, as well as retrahere, is the opposite of porrigere, so here συσπάω is the opposite of ἐκτείνω. Again, συσπᾶν τὰς χεῖρας is not the same as συσπᾶν τοὺς δακτύλους, so that Canon Farrar’s “clenches them tight” must be called an “improvement.” The New Testament has συστέλλω (classical), which is sometimes the opposite of ἐκτείνω, but in Acts v. 6 describes the preparation of the body of Ananias for burial — Latin, com- ponere. voté\dw is the word used in the remarkable parallel pas- sage cited by Bryennios from the Wisdom of Sirach: Μὴ ἔστω ἡ χείρ σου ἐκτεταμένη eis τὸ λαβεῖν Kal ἐν τὸ ἀποδιδόναι συνεσταλμένη, 4,31. Also in the corresponding passage in the Apostolical Con- stitutions (7, 11). τετράς, Vili. 153. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Testa- ment has τετράδιον (post-classical), Acts xii. 4, meaning a company of four. ὑψηλόφθαλμος, iii. 56. Found elsewhere only in the Epitome (Bryennios, Proleg. p. 75). Bryennios points out that where the Teaching has μηδὲ αἰσχρολόγος μηδὲ ὑψηλόφθαλμος the Apostolical Constitutions has οὐκ ἔσῃ αἰσχρολόγος, οὐδὲ ῥιψόφθαλμοςς. The Sep- tuagint has ὑψηλοκάρδιος, Prov. xvi. 5; also κύριε, οὐχ ὑψώθη ἡ καρδία μου, οὐδὲ ἐμετεωρίσθησαν ot ὀφθαλμοί pov, Ps. cxxx. (cxxxi.) 1. But these expressions refer to haughtiness, and ῥιψόφθαλμος means leering, a meaning which the context seems to fasten upon ὑψηλό- φθαλμος --- ἐκ yap τούτων ἁπάντων μοιχεῖαι γεννῶνται. Perhaps the exhortation has women chiefly in mind, and condemns the opposite of modest, downcast eyes. Here the Septuagint furnishes an exact parallel in the use of the noun μετεωρισμός. See Wisdom of Sirach, xxvi. 9, Πορνεία γυναικὸς ἐν μετεωρισμοῖς ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἐν τοῖς βλεφά- ροις αὐτῆς γνωσθήσεται. Compare xxili. 4. φαρμακεύω, ii. 87. Classical and in Septuagint. The New Tes- tament has φαρμακεία and φαρμακός. φθορεύς, v. 127, xvi. 300. Post-classical. The New Testament has φθορά and φθείρω, both classical. χριστέμπορος, Xii. 201. I find no example cited in the lexicons 806 THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING [ Oct. that is earlier than Α.Ὁ. 326. Bryennios cites two examples from the longer Greek Ignatian epistles, which Bishop Lightfoot refers to the latter half of the fourth century. See Contemporary Review, Feb. 1875. The passages containing these examples are not in the shorter epistles, —the Vossian,— which are referred by the same authority to the middle of the second century. The word might possibly be suggested by 1 Tim. vi. 5, νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν Ἁ εὐσέβειαν. REMARKS. 1. Number and classification. ‘The whole number is ferty-five, of which two are found twice, — évdew, φθορεύς; ---- ἃ11 the rest only once. Nineteen are substantially the same as New Testament words: aicypoddyos, ἀθάνατος, ἀνταποδότης, αὐθάδεια, γόγγυσος, δια- φορά, διψυχέω, ἐνδέω, ἐριστικός, θερμός, θράσος, idpow, κακοήθης, κυριακή, μῖσος, προσεξυμολογέω, τετράς, φαρμακεύω, φθορεύς. As to their distribution in the Teaching, two are in chap. i. διαφορά, ἱδρόω ; seven in chap. ii., παιδοφθορέω, φαρμακεύω, μνησικακέω, διγνώμων, δίγλωσσος, διγλωσσία, κακοήθης ; eleven in chap. ili., ἐριστικός, θυμικός; αἰσχρολόγος, ὑψηλόφθαλμος, οἰωνοσκόπος, ἐπαοιδός, μαθηματικός, περικα- θαίρω. γόγγυσος, πονηρόφρων, θράσος ; six in chap. iv., ποθέω, διψυχέω, συσπάω, ἀνταποδότης, ἐνδέω, ἀθάνατος ; seven in chap. v., διπλοκαρϑδία, αὐθάδεια, ζηλοτυπία, θρασύτης, πονέω, φθορεύς, πανθαμάρτητος, with ἃ repetition of ἐνδέω ; two inchap. vii., θερμός, προνηστεύω ; one in chap. vill., τετράς; two in chap. xii., παρόδιος, χριστέμπορος ; one in chap. xili., σιτία ; three in chap. xiv., κυριακή, προσεξομολογέω, ἀμφιβολία ; three in chap. xvi., μῖσος, κοσμοπλάνος, ἐκπέτασις, with a repetition of φθορεύς. Thirty-three of the forty-five occur in the first five chapters. As to usage, twenty-five are classical, of which fivteen are found in the Septuagint, ἀθάνατος (Sept.), ἀμφιβολία, αὐθάδεια, dia- φορά (Sept.), δίγλωσσος (Sept.), ἐνδέω (Sept.), ἐπαοιδός (ἐπῳδός) (S.), ἐριστικός, ζηλοτυπία (Sept.), θερμός (Sept.), θράσος (Sept.), θρασύτης. ἱδρόω, κακοήθης, μαθηματικός (as adjective), μῖσος (Sept.), μνησικακέω (Sept.), οἰωνοσκόπος, περικαθαίρω (Sept.), ποθέω (Sept.), πονέω (Sept.), προνηστεύω, συσπάω, τετράς (Sept.), φαρμακεύίω (Sept.). Four are post- classical, without being ecclesiastical merely, αἰσχρολόγος, θυμικός, παρό- dios, φθορεύς. Four are found in the early Christian fathers, γόγγυσος, διψυχέω, κυριακή, παιδοφθορέω. Two are not found earlier than the fourth century, σιτία, χριστέμπορος. Eight are not found outside of that tetralogy which contains so many identical passages, viz. the 1884. ] “OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES: © Watt 50 Teaching, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apostolical Constitutions, and the Epitome: ἀνταποδότης, διγλωσσία, and διγνώμων(-ος) being in Barnabas and Epitome, πανθαμάρτητος in Barnabas and Apostol- ical Constitutions, πονηρόφρων in Apostolical Constitutions and Epitome, διπλοκαρδία in Barnabas, κοσμοπλάνος inApostolical Con- stitutions, and ὑψηλόφθαλμος in the Epitome. The only: word found nowhere except in the Teaching’ is προσεξομολογέω.. ~This Hilgen- feld changes to προεξ. One word, ἐκπέτασις, is doubtful. 2. To make the best use of this list of words, let us assume that no other writing stands, as the source of its vocabulary, between the Teaching and the New Testament, whatever may have been the in- terval of time. Let us, for the moment, forget the existence of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apostolical Constitutions, and the Epitome. Assuming that the connection: with the New Testament is imme- diate, and not at second hand, we cau see that the vocabulary of the Teaching, with the exception of two or three words, marks it as a natural and early successor, if not a companion in origin, of the New Testament writings. Tirst, there is largely the same word- list. ‘Secondly, the words that are substantially, but not exactly, identical indicate a writer whose mind is filled with New Testament ideas, but is not anxious, as a forger might well be, to reproduce the exact New Testament forms. Thirdly, the classical. words. were, the most of them certainly, the rest probably, still in current use in the first and second centuries of our era. Fourthly, more than halt of these classical words are in the Septuagint, which must have joined with the New Testament writings in forming the early Christian vocabulary. Fifthly, the eight ecclesiastical words given above —not included among those which are substantially in the New Testament — are compounds which might easily arise without leaving any other trace in’ the scanty remains of early Christian writing. This leaves three words, ἐκπέτασις, σιτία; and χριστίμπορος. If the first is from ἐκπετάννυμι, then it is found in Plutarch, and falls into line with the rest. If it is from ἐκπέταμαι, then, as a derivative in the common formative ending -ous, it need not be held very strictly to contemporary usage; for it might be formed at any time, by any writer, as readily as we form words in -ing. It is not so easy to explain the other two words in harmony with the second-century origin of the Teaching. Σιτία is not a word that would be likely to be coined by a writer, like some rhetorical compounds that flash upon the mind in the heat of composition. It has the appearance of 808 THE VOCABULARY OF TIE TEACHING | Oct. a genuine late word, later, even than the Apostolical Constitutions, which has ἄρτους instead. Χριστέμπορος might be the coinage of a vigorous writer; but the connection hardly suggests this. These words are only two among’ many; but in such cases majorities do not rule. These two do not necessarily prove that the ‘Teaching is of late date, but they demand an explanation. If in the Anglo- Saxon Gospels one should find the word “biscuit,” it would not prove that the Gospels were as late as the French word; the French word would be thrown out as spurious. So these words may be thrown out as interpolations, or they may be proved to have existed as early as the second century, or they may be left as doubtful; but they require to be considered. If they belong toa later addition, then the limits of the addition must be sought for. As to χριστέμπορος, if it should turn out to be an interpolation, it would not be the only time that it has figured in that capacity, as the Ignatian [Epistles testify. Leaving all this undecided, let us pass to the second part of our subject. Il. THe VocABULARY OF ‘THE TEACHING COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. The comparison of the Teaching with the New. Testament in respect to vocabulary will yield little of value, if we are shut up to the opinion that the Teaching is later than the Epistle of Barnabas. Before we go further, then, this question must be considered. The Epitome and Apostolical Constitutions need not be taken into account, as it may be assumed that they are both later than the Epistle. 1 will confine the comparison to the vocabulary only. Difference of vocabulary, where the course of thought is substan- tially the same, may be either rhetorical or grammatical and lexical. In the case before us both these kinds of difference can best be seen by examining the two writings in parallel arrangement. The com parison is not between the whole of both, but between the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth chapters of Barnabas, which are given entire, and portions of the first six chapters of the Teaching, which are detached from their connection. The figures preceding the extracts in the right hand column denote the lines in Scribner’s edition. ‘The text of Barnabas is taken from the Prolegomena of Bryennios’ edition of the Teaching, and the arrangement deviates but very little from that which is indicated by his marginal references and special type. 1884.) BARNABAS. 18. Μεταβῶμεν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ ἑτέραν ὋὉδοὶ δύο εἰσὶ Ἂ A Ν 3 is 4 a A διδαχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, ἥτε TOU φωτὸς γνῶσιν καὶ διδαχήν. καὶ ἡ τοῦ σκότους: διαφορὰ δὲ πολλὴ la ΄ A 9 a τῶν δύο ὁδῶν. “Ed ἧς μὲν yap εἰσι τεταγμένοι φωταγωγοὶ ἄγγελοι τοῦ A 7 ἢ A A Θεοῦ, ἐφ᾽ ἧς δὲ ἄγγελοι τοῦ σατανᾶ: καὶ ὁ μέν ἐστι κύριος ἀπ᾽ αἰώνων καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὁ δὲ ἄρχων καιροῦ τοῦ νῦν τῆς ἀνομίας. 19. Ἢ οὖν 6065 τοῦ φωτός ἐστιν Ψ 37” Υ̓ eQ\ € id pee | αὕτη" ἐάν τις θέλων ὁδὸν ὁδεύειν ἐπὶ τὸν ὡρισμένον τόπον σπεύσῃ τοῖς 3, 3 A +f > ε A ἔργοις αὐτοῦ. Ἔστιν οὖν ἡ δοθεῖσα ε a »“" A Lal 2 3 Lal YW γνωσιες TOU περίπατειν ἐν QuTy) “ 3 id ’, ΄ τοιαύτη: ᾿Αγαπήσεις τόν σε ποιή- σαντα, φοβηθήσῃ τόν σε πλάσαντα, δοξάσεις τόν σε λυτρωσάμενον ἐκ θα- , + ε a Ὁ ΄, Ν vatov. “Eon ἁπλοῦς τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ Οὐ κολλη- θ 7 Ν oe 4 9 50 A yo” μετα TWV TOPEVO[LLEVOV €V O ῳ πλούσιος τῷ πνεύματι. 4 ’ Ν ἃ 3 3, θανάτους Μισήσεις πὰν ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν a“ “Ὁ , a ἀρεστὸν τῷ Θεῷ, μισήσεις πᾶσαν ,ὔ ὑπόκρισιν, οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἐντο- Ads Κυρώυ. Οὐχ ὑψώσεις σεαυτόν, » ἈΝ , Ἂν ᾿ 3 ἔσῃ δὲ ταπεινόφρων κατὰ πάντα, οὐκ > je Ov λήψῃ Ν ‘\ \ A 4 βουλὴν πονηρὰν κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον 3 a > Ν Ν 74 αρεις ἐπι σεξᾶντον δόξαν. σου. Οὐ δώσεις τῇ ψυχῇ σου θρά- 3 , 3 ΄ gos. Ov πορνεύσεις, ov μοιχεύσεις, ov παιδοφθορήσεις. Οὐ μή σου ὃ fe ἴω lal 2¢/ 9 3 / λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξέλθῃ ἐν ἀκαθαρσίᾳ τινῶν. Οὐ λήψῃ πρόσωπον ἐλέγξαι τινὰ ἐπὶ παραπτώματι. “Eon πραΐς, Vou. XLI. No. 164. OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 809 TEACHING. (3) ‘Odot δύο εἰσί, pia τῆς ζωῆς καὶ μία τοῦ θανάτου, διαφορὰ δὲ πολλὴ μεταξὺ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν. (5) Ἡ μὲν οὖν ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς 9 Ψ εστιν αὐτΉ" (9) Τούτων δὲ διδαχή ἐστιν αὕτη- Evdoyetre τοὺς a if € τῶν λόγων 7 καταρωμένους ὑμῖν κ-τ.λ. (5) Πρῶτον, ἀγαπήσεις τὸν Θε- Ν 4 ὃν τὸν ποιήσαντά σε" δεύτερον, τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν: πάν- Nang) aN ’ὔ \ ’ Ψ. τα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελήσῃς μὴ γίνεσθαί Ν \ 39, Ν la σοι, καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ μὴ ποίει. (105) Μισήσεις πᾶσαν ὑπό- κρισιν καὶ πᾶν ὃ μὴ ἀρεστὸν τῷ Κυρίῳ. Οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἐντο- λὰς Κυρίου. (72) Οὐχ ὑψώσεις σεαυτόν. (46) Οὐ λήψη βουλὴν πονηρὰν κατὰ τοῦ πλησίον σου. (73) Οὐδε δώσεις τῇ ψυχῇ σου θράσος. (95) Δευτέρα δὲ ἐντολὴ τῆς διδαχῆς Οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύ- σεῖς, ov παιδοφθορήσεις, οὐ πορ-. νεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ μαγεύσεις, ov φαρμακεύσεις. | (84) Ov λήψῃ πρόσωπον ἐλέγ- fat ἐπὶ παραπτώμασιν. (69) Ἴσθι δὲ πραΐς, ἐπεὶ of πρα- 102 : 810 BARNABAS. ἔσῃ ἡσύχιος, ἔσῃ τρέμων τοὺς λόγους aA 3, 3 la a ous ἤκουσας. Ov μνησικακήσεις τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου. Οὐ μὴ διψυχήσῃς, πό- A τερον ἔσται ἢ ov. Οὐ μὴ λάβῃς ἐπὶ Δ A 3 ,ὔ 3 , ματαίῳ τὸ ὄνομα Kupiov. ᾿Αγαπη- \ - e Ν \ 4 σεις TOV πλησίον σου ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου. Οὐ φονεύσεις τέκνον ἐν φθορᾷ, Οὐ Ny, A r Ν A A μὴ ἄρῃς τὴν χεῖρά σου ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ LENDS , Ν 3 a οὐδὲ πάλιν γεννηθὲν ἀποκτενεῖς. σου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς θυγατρός σου, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ νεότητος διδάξεις φόβον Κυ- plov. Οὐ μὴ γένῃ ἐπιθυμῶν τὰ μὴ γένῃ πλεονέκτης, οὐδὲ κολληθήσῃ ἐκ ψυ- χῆς σου μετὰ ὑψηλῶν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ A 4 3 τοῦ πλησίον σου, οὐ “ \ ῳ > , ταπεινῶν καὶ δικαίων ἀναστραφήσῃ. Τὰ συμβαίνοντά σοι ἐνεργήματα ὡς ἀγαθὰ προσδέξῃ, εἰδὼς ὅτι ἄνευ Θεοῦ ὑδὲ , 3 μὴ , οὐδὲν γίνεται. Οὐκ ἔσῃ διγνώμων ΕΣ Ῥ \ \ / οὐδὲ δίγλωσσος" παγὶς yap θανάτου > \ ε ὃ , ε γ ἐστὶν ἣ διγλωσσία. Ὑποταγήσῃ κυ- , ε ’ Lal 3 3 vA \ plots ws TUT Θεοῦ ἐν αισχυνῃ και ΄, > Sa δ 9 , , Nn φόβῳ: ov μὴ ἐπιτάξῃς δούλῳ σου ἢ , a \ παιδίσκῃ σου ἐν πικρίᾳ τοῖς ἐπὶ Ν 9. Ἅ Ν > / , 3 τὸν αὐτὸν Θεὸν ἐλπίζουσι, μήποτε οὐ φοβηθῶσι τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις Θεόν’ THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING [ Oct. TEACHING. A Δ A A ’ εἷς κληρονομήσουσι τὴν γῆν. Τίνου μακρόθυμος καὶ ἐλεήμων καὶ ἄκα- κος καὶ ἡσύχιος καὶ ἀγαθὸς καὶ [ \ , Ν δ, τρέμων τοὺς λόγους διὰ παντός, οὺς ἤκουσας. (40) Οὐ κακολογήσεις, οὐ μνη- σικακήσεις. (85) Οὐ διψυχήσεις, πότερον 3, A A ἔσται ἢ OV. (40) Οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, οὐ ψευ- δομαρτυρήσεις. (47) Οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄν- θρωπον, ἀλλὰ ods μὲν ἐλέγξεις, \ be & tes cat δὲ 3 περὶ δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, os δὲ ἀγα- πήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου. (387) Οὐ φονεύσεις τέκνον ἐν φθορᾷ οὐδὲ γεννηθὲν ἀποκτενεῖς. & (95) Οὐκ ἀρεῖς τὴν χεῖρά σου ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ σου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς θυγα- ’ > Ν “εν , τρός σου, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ νεότητος δι- δάξεις τὸν φόβον τοῦ Θεοῦ. (39) Οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὰ τοῦ πλησίον. (44) Οὐκ ἔσῃ πλεονέκτης οὐδὲ 9 ἅρπαξ. (75) Οὐ κολληθήσεται ἡ ψυχή σου μετὰ ὑψηλῶν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ δὲ- καίων καὶ ταπεινῶν ἀναστραφήσῃ. Τὰ συμβαίνοντά σοι ἐνεργήματα ε 9 θὸ δέξ ἰδὰ Φ ” ὡς ἀγαθὰ προσδέξῃ εἰδὼς ὅτι ἄτερ Θεοῦ οὐδὲν γίνεται. - 3 + ’ ΟΝ (41) Οὐκ ἔσῃ διγνώμων οὐδὲ δίγλωσσος: παγὶς γὰρ θανάτου ἡ , 3 7 ε / διγλωσσία. Οὐκ ἔσται ὃ λόγος σου ψευδής, οὐ κενός, ἀλλὰ μεμεστω- μένος πράξει. (98) Οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις δούλῳ σου Ἃ , Ἦν hon Se SM \ ἢ παιδίσκῃ; τοῖς ἐπὶ TOV αὐτὸν Θεὸν ἐλπίζουσιν, ἐν πικρίᾳ σου, μήποτε οὐ μὴ φοβηθήσονται τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμ- 1884. | BARNABAS. bid > 3 Ν ,, 4 ὅτι ἦλθεν οὐ κατὰ πρόσωπον καλέσαι, . 35Ἃ ee Jew fi ἃ Ν A ε 0; αὴ, ἐφ ους ΤΟ πνευμα ἡτοιμασὲεν. Kow»vyces ἐν πᾶσι τῷ πλησίον σου ‘ 3 ee to τΥΝ * 3 Ν 3 A Kal οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι: εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἰφθά κοι ί ἐστε, πόσῳ μᾶλ- ἀφθάρτῳ κοινωνο , πόσῳ μ 3 Ἂ 4 [ΩΣ 3 + , λον ἐν τοῖς φθαρτοῖς ; Οὐκ ἔσῃ πρό- γλωσσος" παγὶς γὰρ στόμα θανάτου. Ὅσον δύνασαι ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς σου ἁγνεύσεις. a : A A λαβεῖν ἐκτείνων τὰς χεῖρας, πρὸς δὲ an a 3 ’ τὸ δοῦναι συσπῶν. ᾿Αγαπήσεις ὡς , a > ~ id 4 κόρην τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου πάντα τὸν a \ A λαλοῦντά σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Κυρίου. ΄, ε ΄ / ᾿ ε , Μνησθήσῃ ἡμέραν κρίσεως ἡμέρας \ Ἁ Ν 3 7. 9) -4 4 καὶ νυκτὸς Kal ἐκζητήσεις καθ᾽ ἑκά- στὴν ἡμέραν τὰ πρόσωπα τῶν ἁγίων, ἢ διὰ λόγου κοπιῶν καὶ πορευόμενος εἰς τὸ παρακαλέσαι καὶ μελετῶν εἰς Ν a Ν el , “Δ Ν a τὸ σῶσαι ψυχὴν τῷ λόγῳ ἢ διὰ τῶν χειρῶν σου ἐργάσῃ eis λύτρον ἅμαρ- A ϑ / NOLEN y edge τιῶν σου. Οὐ διστάσεις δοῦναι, οὐδὲ Ἂ \ r 4 \ , ε a διδοὺς γογγύσεις ᾿ γνωσῃ δὲ TLS ὍΤΟυ Φυλά- fas ἃ παρέλαβες, μήτε προστιθεὶς μήτε ἀφαιρῶν. τὸ πονηρόν. μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης. Lis τέλος μισήσεις Οὐ ποιήσεις σχίσμα, εἰρηνεύσεις δὲ μα- Κρινεῖς δικαίως. χομένους συναγαγών. ᾿Εξομολογήσῃ 279% ε / 3 / iN ἐπὶ ἁμαρτίᾳ σου, ov προσήξεις ἐπὶ OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. Μὴ γίνου. πρὸς μὲν τὸ. 811 TEACHING. ? ’ 3 Ἀ »” φοτέροις. Θεόν: οὐ yap ἔρχεται. κατὰ πρόσωπον καλέσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οὺς τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν. Ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι ὑποταγήσεσθε τοῖς κυρίοις ὑμῶν ὡς τύπῳ Θεοῦ ἐν αἰσχύνῃ καὶ φόβῳ. ar ? Necks (92) Οὐκ ἀποστραφήσῃ τὸν év- δεόμενον, συγςοινωνήσεις δὲ πάντα Lod ot ἊΝ Ν,) 3 3 ΔΥΣῚ τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι" εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἀθανάτῳ κοι- νωνοί ἐστε, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς θνητοῖς ; 3 Ν \ , (134) Ei μὲν yap δύνασαι Ba- Le o ἣν Ν A ’ στάσαι ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, , δ 9 3 > , a τέλειος ἔσῃ" εἰ δ᾽ ov δύνασαι, ὃ δύνῃ τοῦτο ποίει. (86) Μὴ γίνου πρὸς μὲν τὸ λα- βεῖν ἐκτείνων τὰς χεῖρας, πρὸς δὲ τὸ δοῦναι συσπῶν': (718) Τέκνον μου, τοῦ λαλοῦν- , ‘ / “ A Tos σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μνη- σθήσῃ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, τιμήσεις Ἂς > Ν ε 7 4 Ν ε δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς Ἰζύριον: ὅθεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεὶ ἸΚύριός 9 , AN > Φ' , . Ex ε Se ᾿Βκζητήσ bs δὲ Key ἡμέραν τὰ πρόσωπα τῶν ἁγίων, ἵνα ἐπανα- παύῃ τοῖς λόγοις αὐτῶν. (88) ᾿Βὰν ἔχῃς, διὰ τῶν χειρῶν σου δώσεις λύτρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν σου. Οὐ διστάσεις δοῦναι οὐδὲ διδοὺς γογγύσεις" γνώσῃ γὰρ τίς ἐστιν 6 τοῦ μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀντα- ποδότης. (107) Φυλάξεις δὲ ἃ παρέλα- ? \ 4 3 a Bes, μήτε προστιθεὶς μήτε ἀφαιρῶν. (89) Οὐ ποθήσεις σχίσμα, εἰ- ρηνεύσεις δὲ μαχομένους" κρινεῖς δικαίως. 3 9 ΄ 3 (108) Ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐξομολο- , 4 Ν γήσῃ τὰ παραπτώματά, σου, καὶ 812. BARNABAS. προσευχὴν ἐν συνειδήσει πονηρᾷ. Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ὁδὸς τοῦ φωτός. 20. Ἢ δὲ τοῦ μέλανος ὁδὸς σκολιά 9 ‘\ , ’ὔ ε Ν ᾽ὔ’ ἐστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή! ὁδὸς γάρ ἐστι θανάτου αἰωνίου μετὰ τιμωρίας, 2 κι, ks a 3 -, Ν Ν ἐν ἢ ἐστι τὰ ἀπολλύντα τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν εἰδωλολατρεία, θρασύτης, ὕψος δυνάμεως, ὑπόκρισις, διπλοκαρδία, , , (3 , e ig μοιχεία, φόνος, ἁρπαγή, ὑπερηφανία, παράβασις, δόλος, κακία, αὐθάδεια, ,ὔ , λ ζ, > φαρμακεία, μαγεία, πλεονεξία, ἀφο- ’ ἴων n lal > A Bia Θεοῦ: διῶκται τῶν ἀγαθῶν, μι- σοῦντες ἀλήθειαν, ἀγαπῶντες ψεῦδος, οὐ γινώσκοντες μισθὸν δικαιοσύνης, οὐ κολλώμενοι ἀγαθῷ, οὐ κρίσει δι- καίᾳ, χήρᾳ καὶ ὀρφανῷ οὐ προσέχον- φόβον A ? a Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ TO. πονηρόν, ὧν pa- τες, ἀγρυπνοῖντες οὐκ els κρὰν καὶ πόρρω πραὔτης καὶ ὑπομονή" ἀγαπῶντες μάταια, διώκοντες ἀντα- πόδομα, οὐκ ἐλεοῦντες πτωχόν, οὐ πονοῦντες ἐπὶ ᾿καταπονουμένῳ, εὖχε- ρεῖς ἐπὶ καταλαλιᾷ, οὐ γινώσκοντες τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτούς, φονεῖς τέκνων, φθορεῖς πλάσματος Θεοῦ, ἀποστρε φόμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμενον, καταπονοῦν- τες τὸν θλιβόμενον, πλουσίων παρά- κλητοι, πενήτων, ἄνομοι κριταί, παν- θαμάρτητοι. THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING [ Oct. TEACHING. > λ , ΔΝ , οὐ προσελεύσῃ ἐπὶ προσευχὴν σου ἐ εἰδήσει πονηρᾷ. Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἐν συνειδήσει πονηρᾷ. n ξ 560 Ν A ἡ 0003 τὴς ζωῆς. ε “A ε ¢ (112) Ἧ δὲ τοῦ θανάτου 600s ἐστιν αὕτη: πρῶτον πάντων πονη- ρά ἐστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή: , a ’ φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, ἐπιθυμίαι, πορ- νεῖαι, κλοπαΐ, εἰδωλολατρεῖαι, μα- “- an 2 , γεῖαι, φαρμακεῖαι, ἁρπαγαί, ψευδο- μαρτυρίαι, ὑποκρίσεις, διπλοκαρδία, ld e ld ld 3 4 δόλος, ὑπερηφανία, κακία, αὐθά- δεια, πλεονεξία, αἰσχρολογία, ζη- id λοτυπία, θρασύτης, ὕψος, ἀλαζο- νεία: διῶκται ἀγαθῶν, μισοῦντες ἀλήθειαν, ἀγαπῶντες ψεῦδος, οὐ γινώσκοντες μισθὸν δικαιοσύνης, οὐ κολλώμενοι ἀγαθῷ οὐδὲ κρίσει ιε A 4 δικαίᾳ, ἀγρυπνοῦντες οὐκ εἰς TO > Q a ἀγαθόν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ πονηρόν" ὧν AA ‘ 4 μακρὰν πραὔτης καὶ ὑπομονή, μά- A ld ταια ἀγαπῶντες, διώκοντες ἀνταπό- A ld dopa, οὐκ ἐλεοῦντες πτωχόν, OD “ Ὁ πονοῦντες ἐπὶ καταπονουμένῳ, οὐ γινώσκοντες τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτούς, φονεῖς τέκνων, φθορεῖς πλάσματος Θεοῦ, ἀποστρεφόμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμε- νον, καταπονοῖντες τὸν θλιβόμενον, πλουσίων παράκλητοι, πενήτων ἄνο- μοι κριταΐ, πανθαμάρτητοι: ῥυσ- ’, , aa ca? θείητε, τεκνα, ATO τούτων QATAVTWV. REMARKS. 1. The most striking fact in the comparison is, of course, the close resemblance, amounting in many sentences to absolute iden- tity. The-resemblance is closer than between the Sermon. on the Mount in Luke and the corresponding passages in Matthew. It is very different, however, from the resemblance between the Teaching and the seventh book of the Apostolical Constitutions. The latter has the same language as the Teaching, in almost exactly the same order, from beginning to end; a large amount of additional matter being interspersed, so that it is a sort of running 1884. | OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 818. commentary on the Teaching. The Epitome, also, so far as it goes, But the Epistle of Barnabas, in the portions here compared, has, without much difference in amount, marked differences of arrangement. The Teaching has a more natural and logical order, as will appear not by this parallel arrangement, but by the comparative reading of both in course. 2. The differences that are merely grammatical or strictly verbal, has the same order. without affecting the sense, are the following : BARNABAS. ch. 18. ἥ τε... Kat ἡ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν ch. 19. ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρεστόν 3 ’ News. NX , ἐλέγξαι τινὰ ἐπὶ παραπτώματι Ε ἔσῃ πραΐῦς, ἔσῃ ἡσύχιος, ἔσῃ τρέμων , οὐ μὴ διψυχήσῃς οὐ μὴ ἄρῃ: φόβον 2 Ν 4 3 “ ov μὴ γένῃ ἐπιθυμῶν οὐδὲ κολληθήσῃ ἐκ ψυχῆς ἄνευ θεοῦ ἐστὶν ἡ διγλωσσία ὑποταγήσῃ κυρίοις 3 Ἀπ Aves οὐ μὴ ἐπιτάξῃς μή ποτε οὐ φοβηθῶσι ὅτι ἦλθεν οὐ κοινωνήσεις ἐν πᾶσι ἀφθάρτῳ ... φθάρτοις ὅσον δύνασαι »» 2 LZ, e , καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν 9 lA 9 - ἐργάσῃ εἰς λύτρον “4 Ν / γνώσῃ δὲ τίς εἰρηνεύσεις ... συναγαγών ἐξομολογήσῃ ἐπὶ ἁμαρτίᾳ σου ὡς .« ͵ οὐ προσήξεις ch. 20. εἰδωλολατρεία, ὑπόκρισις, [4 lg ε , 4 μοιχεία, φόνος, ἁρπαγή; φαρμακεία, μανεία ~~ A 9 aw διῶκται τῶν ἀγαθῶν οὐ κρίσει Eh as , €7l TO TOVY pov TEACHING. μία... καὶ μία μεταξὺ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν ὃ μὴ ἀρεστόν ἐλέγξαι ἐπὶ παραπτώμασιν » \ A ,ὕ Chee ἴσθι δὲ pais ... γίνου ἡσύχιος « «+ καὶ τρέμων οὐ διψυχήσεις οὐκ ἀρεῖς τὸν φόβον οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις οὐ κολληθήσεται ἣ ψυχή ἄτερ θεοῦ ἡ διγλωσσία ὑποταγήσεσθε τοῖς κυρίοις 3 9 ΄ἑ OUK επίταςεις Ἂς Υ οὐ μὴ φοβηθήσονται οὐ γὰρ ἔρχεται συγκοινωνήσεις πάντα 3 4 a ἀθανάτῳ ... θνητοῖς 9 Ν ἣν , ei μὲν γὰρ δύνασαι Δ. ᾿ς καθ᾽ ἡμέραν , ΄ δώσεις λύτρωσιν γνώσῃ γὰρ τίς ἐστιν εἰρηνεύσεις 3 Ν ig 4 ἐξ. TA παραπτώματά σου οὐ προσελεύσῃ Plural. ~ 9 »“"ο διῶκται ἀγαθῶν ὑδὲ , οὐδὲ κρίσει εἷς τὸ πονηρόν 814 THE VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING [ Oct. The most of these differences are quite compatible with a memor- iter quotation of either by the writer of the other. Similar varia- tions are heard in the pulpit every Sunday in quoting the Bible. There is also nothing in them to indicate a different period of time in the writers. Are the differences consistent with the supposition that a copy was made with the manuscript before the writer? Cer- tainly not, unless a different text was followed, as is also shown by the difference of order. Is there anything thus far to show which is the original? The indications of working over into a new style are very slight. In one marked case the Teaching has the impera- tive, ἴσθι ..... γίνου, while the other has the Hebraistic future, ἔσῃ; this certainly cannot be called a change into the style of Barnabas. Four times Barnabas has οὐ μή with the aorist, where the Teaching has ov with the future. On the whole, considering only these verbal resemblances and differences, it seems to me that they show that the one writing did certainly come from the other, but without de- termining which. ‘To say that they came from some common source is an easy makeshift; but must not that common source have been substantially the one or the other? 3. The differences that are more than merely verbal need not be here culled out and repeated, as they are obvious. Ido not see how one can read the two columns carefully without the strongest impres- sion that this part of the Epistle is derived from the Teaching. First, the Teaching is simpler, less figurative and ornate: ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς, τοῦ θανάτου instead of ὁδὸς τοῦ φωτὸς, τοῦ σκότους, τοῦ μέλανος ; πονηρά instead of σκολιά; μνησθήσῃ instead of ἀγαπήσεις ὡς κόρην τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ cov. Secondly, the Teaching is more closely biblical. The exact phraseology for the “two ways” is furnished by Jeremiah (xxi. 8), and is not far from Matt. vii. 18, 14; and a large part of chap. i. is from the Sermon on the Mount. Thirdly, the Epistle has the appearance of an amplification of the Teaching. The “two ways” of the latter become two ways διδαχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, and the difference between them is illustrated by the guardian angels set over each. The simple διδαχὴ becomes ἡ δοθεῖσα ἡμῖν γνῶσις τοῦ περιπατεῖν. Not satisfied with ἀγαπήσεις τόν σε ποιήσαντα, Barnabas adds φοβηθήσῃ τόν σε πλάσαντα, δοξάσεις τόν σε λυτρωσάμενον ἐκ θανάτου. Other examples follow. Even the οὐ μὴ λάβῃς ἐπὶ ματαίῳ τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου seems like a translation of ἐπιορκήσεις (derived from Matt. v. 33, and found only there in the New Testament, and but twice in the Old) into the language of the Decalogue. It is 1884. OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 816 ΄ true that some passages in the Teaching are fuller than in Barnabas. The list of sins in chap. 26. of the iatter contains only two not in the Teaching, while the Teaching has seven not in Barnabas. Where Barnabas has pais, ἡσύχιος, τρέμων, the ‘Teaching has besides μακρόθυμος, ἐλεήμων, ἄκακος, ἀγαθός. But a fuller enumeration is a very different thing from an intentional amplification; and in no case, I think, in which the Teaching is fuller is there the appearance of a comment upon the Epistle or a confirmation of it. The quota- tion from Matt. v. 5, that “the meek shall inherit the earth,” is in harmony with the other quotations from the Sermon on the Mount, and is plainly due simply to the word pais. This case suggests the one feature in these chapters of the Epistle which favors their priority to the Teaching — they seem to ignore the Sermon on the Mount. Ifthey were written after the Teaching, why should they avoid the quotations from the Sermon? Further, if they were written before the Teaching, why not before the Sermon on the Mount? and what is there then left to show that they are not an ante-Christian writing incorporated into the Epistle ἢ 1 4. This comparison of the Teaching with certain chapters of the Epistle of Barnabas leaves out of view the late words considered in the first part of this article. If the first five chapters of the © Teaching are earlier than Barnabas, then those late words belong either to a large addition to the first five chapters or to short inter- polations.. The word σιτίαν might have been substituted for ἄρτους or ἄρτους θερμούς by a copyist, without the change of another word. The word χριστέμπορος might have been introduced without neces- sarily carrying with it more than its own sentence. Even if the first five chapters are later than Barnabas, they cannot, for various reasons, be put at a date that will satisfy these late words. The same appears to be true of the remaining chapters. Perhaps the strongest point against the genuineness of χριστέμπορος is that so striking a word is ignored, together with its immediate context, by the Apostolical Constitutions. -Cannot~someceader-of-the-Greek Tathers- tellus whether-or not. Gregory Nazianzen-coined..the.word-? 5, It may seem superfluous to speak of forgery, when it has not been seriously charged. Indeed, it may be asked, How can an 1 A most tantalizing Latin fragment, published in Harnack’s Prolegomena, seems to combine, in the opening sentences, the Teaching with the Epistle. Does this prove that there were widely varying texts of the Teaching, or that some writer had confused it with the Epistle 1 816 ΤῊΕΒ VOCABULARY OF THE TEACHING. [Oct. anonymous writing be the subject of forgery? ‘The answer is, that the silent claim of a certain age to authorship ean be simulated as well as the handwriting of a man. On the supposition that the Teaching is prior to the Epistle of Barnabas, I have already said that a forger would have produced closer resemblances to New Tes- tament diction. But how about a more modern, scientific, and scholarly forgery? Is not the Teaching a “cunningly devised” prototype, drawn from the Epitome and the Apostolical Constitu- tions? We may answer, first, that a forger would hardly have left its relation to the Epistle of Barnabas in so much doubt ;. or perhaps I should say, that the existence of that Epistle, with its variations from the Epitome and the Apostolical Constitutions, would have successfully baffled the efforts of a forger. But secondly, suppose this difficulty in some way removed, we should expect the Teaching, if it be a fabrication, to be more closely conformed to its sources. In the first chapter more than one quarter, mostly at the close, will be searched for in vain in the three parallel writings.! No modern 1 Even if we add Hermas to these three, the illustration of the argument still holds, since the variations from Hermas, at the close of chap. i., are considerable. The following are the portions of Hermas bearing the closest resemblance (Second Commandment. Bry. Proleg., p. 89): Πᾶσι yap ὁ Θεὸς δίδοσθαι θέλει ex τῶν ἰδίων" δωρημάτων. Οἱ οὖν λαμβάνοντες ἀποδώσουσι λόγον τῷ Θεῷ διὰ τί ἔλαβον καὶ εἰς τί" of μὲν yap χαμβάνοντες θλιβόμενοι οὐ δικασθήσονται, οἱ δὲ ἐν ὑποκρίσει χαμβάνοντες. ,, τίσουσι δίκην. ὋὉ οὖν διδοὺς ἀθῷός ἐστιν. In the Independent of July 3, p. 9, Prof. Orris suggests that the close of chap. i., may have been added, or modified, at a. later date ; and finds evidence of this in the words, δώσει δίκην ἱνατί ἔλαβε καὶ. eis τί. One can readily agree with him (and thank him for proving it) that δώσει δίκην should not be rendered ‘‘ shall give account”; but why not give the: usual rendering, “shall pay the penalty,” ‘shall suffer for 10 1 The connec- tion with ἱνατί, etc., would be harsh, but perfectly intelligible, for the idea of giving account, or of being detected, would naturally be supplied. The usual. meaning of δώσει δίκην is the proper antithesis of ἀθῷος ἔσται, just preceding, as the reader will plainly see by stopping at δίκην. The next five words have. close connection logically with what follows referring to the mode of trial and punishment. In Hermas τίσουσι δίκην (cf. 2. Thess. i. 9) takes the place of δώσει. δίκην, and is affirmed of those who receive alms hypocritically.. This writing and the Teaching are at one in leaving the responsibility with the receiver and not the giver. Hence one feels bound to interpret the figurative language — “Let thine alms sweat,” ete. —in harmony with this. The lines containing δώσει δίκην may be read thus: “ Blessed is he that gives according to the com- mandment, for he is guiltless [even if the gift be found to be a mistake]. Woe to him that takes [if the gift is not needed, or is misused] ; for, while the receiver, if needy, is guiltless, the one who is not needy shall pay the penalty [for it will be found out] why he took alms, and for what use he intended! 1884. ] CURRENT PERIODICAL LITERATURE. 817 forger would have left this so. This is well illustrated by Dr. Krawutzky’s attempted restoration,/ referred to in Professors Hitch- cock and Brown’s Introduction. The matter of it—the Two Ways —is found in the first five chapters of the Teaching. Although the restoration appears only in a German translation, its wonderful skill is apparent. But it is the skill of omission. Not a word is added to the Epitome so far as that is followed, or to the Apostolical Constitutions where the Epitome fails. In conclusion, some of the points raised in this article cannot, of course, be settled by the mere examination of the vocabulary. I do not press them; for my object has been simply to help in preparing material for a final decision. it; and when he is brought to trial [or prison] he will be closely examined concerning his conduct, and will not come out until he has paid back the last farthing.” I see no way out of the ‘‘sweat” and toil of the next sentence but by supposing that the ἱδρωτάτω of the Ms. is for fepwrdrn, sacrosancta. 1 Theologische Quartalschrift, Tiibingen. 1882. Drittes Quartalheft. pp. 433-445. Pre be Have tried he ΝΕ the run of the discus- | _Nashotah. We should have expected Jupisco- sions of the “Teaching.” We note, very lately, | | pal scholars to be the first to take up the subject; | _a discussion of the treatise before the Society of | bas Phere sect ube last The-preseat satel Theology in Paris. Prof. Bonet-Maury read 38 by Professor Richey, of the General Theolog- | a long paper, in which he adopted the conclu- ical Seminary in this city. It gives no discussion | sions of Hilgenfeld, who assigns the latest possi-_ whatever of the acer mens itself, bus onl ae ble date, putting the first and earliest part of it, scribes the kindred treatises, the various ‘‘ Con- about the Two Ways, as lateas A.D, 140, with Stitutions,” and the “ Judgment of Peter,” and subsequent additions, largely Montanistic, which then concludes, from the testimony of Atna- come down to the close of the second century. nasius, etc., that it is uncanonical and of no ' These views were combated by Professors binding authority on faith. Of course that is _ Massebieau, Sabatier and Ménégoz, all of whom true. No human being questions it. The real ‘marshaled the evidence that it must mount back 4Uestion is notas to its canonical but as to its his- +o a much earlier time. They agreed that it torical authority and value; and on that subject must be older than the Epistle of Barnabas Professor Richey gives us not a bit of light. He and was composed before the end of the first is content to disparage the work as not Scrip- eentury. In The Church Eclectic for July, ture, and apparently leave it to be concluded | πὸ find the first discussion of the subject that, therefore, it has no other value. That was | “by an American Episcopalian, if we ex- the argument of Omar when he burned the cept the letters of Professor Adams, of | Alexandrian Library. . The ferlet Q< ἢ Veco VP 1 CFE Ἐ ART. V.—The Teaching of th Apostles. cy | ἘΠῚ ¥ FA (1 ) Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων ἐκ TOV Ἱεροσολομιτικῦυ χειρογράφου νῦν πρῶτον ἐκδιδομἔνη μετὰ προλεγομένων καὶ σημειώσεων ὑπὸ PIAOOHOY ΒΡΥΒΝΝΙΟΎ, μητροπολίτου Νικομηδειᾶὰς. Ev ονστάντινουπόλει. πύποις Σ. I, Ἐουτύρα. 1889. (2) Doctrina XTT. Apostolorum. Edidit et adnotationibus illus- travit. ADOLPHUS HILGENFELD. (Novum Testamentum Extra Canonem Receptum.) Fasciculus IV. Lipsiz: T. O. Weigel. 1884. . (3) Zexteund Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur. Von OSCAR VON GEBHART und ADOLF HARNACK. II. Band. Leipzig: Heinrichs. 1884. (4) Lehre der Zwolf Apostel. Von WUNSCHE. Leipzig. 1884. (5) The Official Report of the Church Congress at Carlisle, 1884. Bemrose, London and Derby. (6) The Expositor. May, August, 1884. (7) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. With Introduction, Translations, Notes, and Illustrative Passages. Edited by H. DE Romestin. Oxford ΠΑ ον too 47 (8) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. A Translation, with Notes and Excursus, by Canon SpENCE, Vicar of St. Pancras. Nisbet. 1885. TEN years since the learned world was startled by the new of the discovery of a Greek Codex in the library of the Holy Sepulchre attached to the official residence of the Patriarch 334 The Teaching of the Apostles. of Jerusalem at Phanar in the city of Constantinople, con- taining, among other ecclesiastical documents, the entire Greek text of the two Epistles of Clement, including the long missing portions of the recovery of which had been given up as hopeless. The Codex was of no great antiquity. It was written in cursive characters by one Leo, who describes him- self as ‘a notary anda sinner,’ and was finished by him, as stated in the colophon, on the 11th of June, A.M. 6564, cor- responding to A.D. 1056, just ten years before the Norman Conquest. But though late in actual execution, this precious volume so unexpectedly brought-to light contained documents of the most primitive antiquity. Attention was at first almost exclusively directed to the Epistles of Clement. But the interest of the Codex did not end there. Besides the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Epistles of Ignatius, apparently of the longer recension, it was found to contain a work entitled “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.’ The title was not unknown to scholars. A book under this name was mentioned by Eusebius and Athanasius among early apocryphal writings accepted by the Church, and appeared in some catalogues of Scripture. The hope was naturally awakened that this might be that long lost work. But for a considerable period scholars were left in suspense as to its real character. ‘What may be the value of the Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum,’ wrote Bishop Lightfoot in 1877,* ‘remains to be seen.’ At length, at the close of the year before last, 1883, the treatise was published, and the same sound and cautious scholar now pronounces that ‘its interest and importance have far exceeded our highest expectations.’ t It proves to be a document the composition of which may be assigned to the closing years of the first century, or at latest to the earlier part of the second century (the older date being regarded by the soundest scholars as the more probable), of the genuineness and authenticity of which there cannot be the slightest doubt, and throwing a light as unexpected as it is indisputable on the ritual, organi- zation, and religious life of the infant Church. It may be safely pronounced the most remarkable discovery in eccle- siastical literature in recent times. This discovery is due to the present metropolitan of Nicomedia, previously metro- politan of Serrze, Philotheos Bryennios. This learned eccle- silastic had already become favourably known to western scholars at the old Catholic conference at Bonn in 1875. But few can have been fully prepared for the eminent gifts * Appendix to ‘S. Clement of Rome,’ p. 231. 1 ‘ Report of Carlisle Church Congress, p. 230. The Editio Princeps. 335 -displayed, first in his edition of Clement, and still more notably in that of the ‘Teaching.’ In these, especially the latter, we find an accurate scholarship, a familiarity with the whole domain of early ecclesiastical literature as wellas an acquaint- ance with the latest results of modern criticism, together with a sobriety of thought and a soundness of judgment which would do credit to the ripest scholar of the western world. In the words of the Bishop of Durham,* we may well regard it as ‘a most cheering sign of the revival of intellectual life in the Oriental Church when in this unexpected quarter an editor steps forward, furnished with all the appliances of western learning and claims recognition from educated Chris- tendom, as a citizen in the great commonwealth of litera- ture. Seldom indeed has an editio princeps appeared with so complete an ‘apparatus criticus,’ for which the whole domain of Early Christian literature has been ran- sacked, and its results arranged with a clear estimate of their bearing on the work under consideration. The οτί- ginal intention of Bryennios was, after the publication of the Epistles of Clement, to prepare a new edition of the Epistle of Barnabas. We can hardly be sorry that he: has not carried out this- purpose, and has devoted his -powers to the interpretation and illustration of the far more important and interesting ‘Teaching.’ Any regret we might have felt has been removed by his generous communication of the new readings of this Codex to Hilgenfeld, by whom they have been employed in his recent edition of that epistle,t which has thus supplied that ‘new authority for the Greek of Barna- bas,’ which Bishop Lightfoot has said would be ‘a great gain.’ Bryennios’ editio princeps of the ‘Teaching’ issued from the press of 5. E. Butyra at Constantinople, towards the end of 1883, in a form and style of which no western printing-office would be ashamed. This has been followed in rapid suc- cession by several German editions. We may specially mention those of Hilgenfeld,f and of Gebhardt and Harnack,$ both with learned prolegomena and annotations, and the latter enriched with dissertations on the chief points of interest supplied by the treatise. Wiinsche has also given * ¢S. Clement,’ Appendix, p. 231. + ‘ Barnabze Epistolze,’ edidit Adolph Hilgenfeld. Lipsia, 1877. This edition is appropriately dedicated by the ‘gratissimus editor,’ to Bryennios, ‘Orientalis Ecclesize splendido lumini.’ The new readings have also heen employed by Gebhardt and Harnack in their edition of the ‘ Patres Apos- tolici.’ Leipzig, 1878. { ‘Novum Testamentum extra Canonem.’ Fasciculus IV. Lipsiz, 1884. δ ‘ Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litera: tur.’ Leipzig, 1884. 336 The Teaching of the Apostles. us a very convenient and moderately priced edition, with an excellent German translation and brief notes.* The credit of the first introduction of this precious ecclesiastical ἕρμαιον to the English public must be assigned to Canon Wordsworth, Oriel Professor at Oxford, who, under the initials J. W., con- tributed an article to ‘The Guardian’ newspaper of March roth of last year, describing the nature and characteristics of the newly published treatise, and detailing the chief points on which it supplied information concerning the early Church, and pronouncing it to be a genuine work of ‘the last years of the first century or the beginning of the second. Though in some points the learned author may have seen cause subsequently to modify his conclusions, what has since been written has substantially added but little to the informa- tion supplied by this very remarkable article. Other letters to the same journal have contributed to the elucidation and intelligent estimate of this treatise. We may especially in- stance that of Dr. Sadler (June 4th), and that with the initials E. L. H.t (June 25th), which after Prof. Wordsworth’s letter certainly exhibits the most scholarlike treatment of the work it has hitherto received inEngland. ‘Translations of the ‘ Teach- ing’ have appeared in ‘ The Contemporary Review’ for May by Archdeacon Farrar, and in “The Foreign Church Chronicle’ for June, 1884, by Canon Meyrick. The Archdeacon of West- minster has also contributed to ‘The Expositor’ for May of last year a popular account of the treatise itself, and in the part of the same periodical for August has discussed its bearings on the canon of Scripture. The only complete editions of the work hitherto published in England are the very handy and careful little book by the Rev. H. de Romestin, which in a small compass contains all that is necessary to explain and illustrate the ‘Teaching,’{ and the more elaborate and outwardly attractive volume by Canon Spence, Vicar of St. Pancras.§ Both of these editions supply the Greek text, an English translation, notes, and illustrations. Of the two editions, Mr. de Romestin’s is the more scholarly, Canon Spence’s the more popular. ‘The one is intended for the use of the student, the other for the general reader, for whose behoof also the Canon appends a sermon entitled, ‘The Old Paths,’ preachedin St. Paul’s cathedral on Sunday evening, June 22, * “Lehre der ZwOlf Apostel.’ Leipzig, 1884. + It is an open secret that the writer of this letter is the Rev. Edward Lee Hicks, Rector of Fenny Compton, late Fellow and Tutor of SIDS: Christi College, Oxford. 1 Parker and Co. 1884. S Nisbet and Co. 1885. The Bishop of Durham's Paper. : 337 1884, in which he sets forth the main character of the treatise, and with happy power of adaptation, shows its applicability to the men and women of London at the present day. ‘The sermon is one which it must have been interesting to listen to, and which it is pleasant and instructive to read. But the most important contribution to our knowledge of the ‘Teaching’ and our estimate of its value is the paper read by the late Bishop of Durham at the Church Congress held at Carlisle last October, and published in the recently issued report.* We shall have so frequently to refer to this paper in the course of our article that we will content ourselves now with saying that it stamps with the authority of one of the first scholars of Europe in the domain of ecclesiastical literature, the perfect genuineness of the document, the pro- bability of its very early date, and the confidence with which we may use it as an unbiassed witness regarding the canon of Scripture, the Christian ministry, the sacraments and ordinances of the Church, and Christian teaching in the age immediately subsequent to the apostles. May we venture to express the hope that in this short paper we have only an instalment of Bishop Lightfoot’s critical labours, and that we may before long have the satisfaction of welcoming an edition of the ‘Teaching,’ similar to that which he has given ’us of the Epistles of Clement, and has promised of those of Ignatius. Is it too much to ask that the powers of one who by common consent holds the first place among English scholars in this department of literature may be brought to bear upon the elucidation of the many interest- ing, not to say momentous, questions presented by a work belonging to the epoch with which he is so familiar ? But it is time that we should turn from editions of the Διδαχὴ τῶν ArootéAwy to the work itself. _The first point which presents itself for our consideration is its history. What do early Christian authorities tell us of it? What references to it do their works contain? These, it will be seen, are neither scanty nor unimportant. The earliest notice of the work is in the celebrated passage of Eusebius,t in which he sums up the somewhat desultory statements as to the canon of Scripture he had made in the previous chapters. Dividing the writings which laid claim to apostolic authority into three principal groups: the ‘ Ac- knowledged ’ (ὁμολογούμενο), the ‘Disputed’ (ἀντιλεγόμενο), * ‘ Official Report of the Carlisle Church Congress,’ pp. 230-232. Bemrose and Sons, London and Derby. Woesuseb., “H. FE.’ lib. iii. c. 25. NO, CLXII. 22 338 The Teaching of the Apostles. and the ‘Heretical,’ he proceeds to subdivide the second group into two sections: the ‘Generally recognized’ (γνώριμοι τοῖς πολλοῖς), and the ‘Spurious’ (νόθο) understanding by the latter term books of whose genuineness and authenticity and of the apostolic standing of their authors, there was not satisfactory evidence. In this class, that of the ‘spurious,’ he ranks ‘the Acts of Paul, the so-called ‘“ Shepherd,” the “Revelation of Peter,” and, in addition to these, that which was current as the Epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostlés, τῶν ἀποστόλων αἱ λεγόμεναι διδαχαί. ὃ The contrast which follows between these controverted books and heretical writings is of great importance in settling the position which the ‘Teaching’ occupied in the early Church.f Eusebius’ words prove that the book was not regarded by any as heretical—a conclusive refutation of those who would assign it a heterodox origin—or it would have been rejected as, to adopt his description, ‘in every way monstrous and impious.’ We see alsothat Eusebius regarded its style (ὁ τῆς φράσεως χαρακτήρ), aS in harmony with what he calls ‘the apostolic tone’ (τὸ ἦθος τὸ ἀποστολικόνγ, and that the book was recognized in some sense as Scripture, and was in public use in some congregations of the Christian world. We thus gain from our earliest witness a high though not the highest position for our book. The next authority by whom the ‘Teaching’ is mentioned is Athanasius, some forty years later, in his thirty-ninth Festal Epistle belonging to the year 367 a.p. In this, when dealing with so-called ‘apocryphal writings,’ which he describes as the invention of heretics who affixed dates and names to these compositions according to their pleasure, ‘in order that bringing them forward as ancient they may thereby have a pretext for deceiving the guileless,’ he distin- guishes from such pernicious forgeries ‘that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles,’ and groups it with the Shep- herd of Hermas, the apocryphal books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith and Tobit, as writings ‘excluded from the canon, but authorized by the Fathers as worthy of being read by recent converts to the faith desirous of being instructed in the word of godliness.’{ This passage affords an additional proof that in the fourth century the ‘Teaching’ was well known in the Church, though it was not, like the * Euseb., Hist. Eccl. iii. 25. + Harnack, ‘ Texte und Untersuchungen,’ p, 6. { Athanas., ‘ Epist. Fest.’ xxxix. - The Stichometria of Nicephorus. 339 Shepherd of Hermas, used for public reading in the congre- gation, but by long-standing custom had been allowed for the training of catechumens—to adopt Jerome’s words borrowed in the Sixth Article of the Church of England,—‘ for example of life and instruction of manners.’ The marked distinction he also draws between this book and those he groups with it, and the heretical writings against which it is his object to warn his readers, is another convincing proof of its recognized orthodoxy.* We have to pass over several centuries before we again meet with any reference to the ‘Teaching’ in a catalogue of canonical and apocryphal Scripture. Its absence from these catalogues both Eastern and Western seems to prove that the book had obtained but little currency, and had gradually dropped out of knowledge. There is a possible reference to it in its adulterated form as one of the ‘holy books worthy of reverence’ received by the Church, in the seventy-sixth of the so-called Apostolical Canons under the title ‘The Con- stitutions given to the Bishops by Clement,’ but we find no certain mention of it before the ‘Stichometria’ of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople a.p. 828. This is a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of Holy Scripture generally re- cognized by the Church,{ giving in each case the number of lines, στίχοι, occupied in the Codex. From this latter circumstance it takes its name, ‘Stichometria.’ In the list of the New Testament books he first enumerates the twenty-six universally recognized books, then the ‘ antilego- mena ’—a class comprising only the Apocalypse of John, that of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews—and concludes with the ‘apocryphal’ books. This class includes the Journeyings of Peter, of John, and of Thomas, the Gospel according to Thomds, the two Epistles of Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, and, occupying the fifth place, * Canon Churton, in a letter to ‘The Guardian,’ stigmatizes it as ‘ dis- tinctly anti-Pauline and heretical,’ pervaded by a ‘Sadducean tendency,’ and says that in ‘evading the doctrine of the Cross’ ‘ it corresponds exactly to the teaching which might be expected from the false apostles and deceitful workers who transformed themselves into apostles of Christ.’ With calmer judgment Prebendary Sadler writes in the same paper, ‘This treatise must be either ante-Pauline or anti-Pauline. I would earnestly hope the former, for the writer must have been a very pious, God-fearing man, having an earnest zeal of God, though certainly not according to the knowledge of God and Christ set forth in the writings of SS. Peter, Paul, and John’ June 4, 1884). + Credner, ‘Zur Gesch. d. Kana,’ pp. 119 ff. Westcott, ‘Canon of New Test.’ p.576. ‘Corpus. Script. Hist. Byzant.’ tom. i. Bonn, 1829. 1 Ὅσαι εἰσὶ Θεῖαι γραφαὶ ἐκκλησιαζόμεναι καὶ Kexavoviopévat, καὶ ἡ τούτων στιχομετρία, ; 340 The Teaching of the Apostles. between the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistles of Clement, the Διδαχή ἀποστόλων. The number of lines assigned to it, 200 (στίχοι o’), corresponds so nearly with that of the recently discovered Codex (203 according to Bryennios’ enumeration) that the identity of the two is placed beyond all doubt.* We should again notice that there is no hint of the heretical character of the book. Of much _ inferior value, but not without importance, is the mention of the Adaya? τῶν ἀποστόλων (the plural being used as in Eusebius instead of the more customary singular) in a Catalogue of Holy Scripture appended to a work of Anastasius Sinaita, the patriarch of Antioch (died 599 A.p.) This catalogue enu- merates sixty canonical books, nine deutero-canonical, and twenty-five apocryphal. In the last class, between the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas, we find ‘The Journeyings and Teachings of the Apostles.’ The vagueness seems to show that these books were only known to the compiler of the catalogue by name, and were no longer current. The spurious ‘Synopsis of the Old and New Testa- ment,’ which bears the name of Athanasius, ascribed by Credner to the tenth century, also contains the Avday4 ἀποστόλων among the antilegomena of the New Testament. Ὁ Later authorities had lost all knowledge of the ‘ Teaching’ as an independent work, and usually identified it with the ‘Constitutions.’ Zonaras, in the twelfth century, states that some regarded the Away as the same book as the Acardéeuc, the reading of which, as a book corrupted by heretics, had been prohibited by the Sixth Council, a.p. 680, while - Blastares, in the fourteenth century, goes a step further, and boldly states the identity of the two.[ It is evident that no copies of the original work were anywhere known to which reference could be made, or such a confusion would have been impossible, and the true connection of the two, the ‘Teaching’ and ‘the ‘Constitutions,’ in the seventh book of which the ‘Teaching’ is, so to say, im- bedded, with alterations and additions corresponding with the change of usage and ritual, would have been recognized. But it is not in the catalogues of the book of Holy Scripture alone that the early currency and authority of the ° Teach- ing’ are recognized. This may be gathered even more con- * The marked difference in length formed a difficulty which it was not easy to evade to those who were, previous to Bryennios’ discovery, disposed to iden- tify the Διδαχῆ of Nicephorus with Book VII. ofthe ‘Apostolical Constitutions’. + Bryennios, κά, note 2; Harnack, w.s. p. 10, note 14; Credner, w.s. p. 248. 1 Zonar. apud Coteler, ‘Patr. App.’ I, 193; Migne, ‘ Patrol.’ i. 552; Blas- tar. Coteler, p. 194; Migne,’ Ὁ The ‘ Teaching’ quoted by Clement. 341 vincingly from the use made of it by early ecclesiastical writers. If we were able to accept unhesitatingly the genuine- ness of the Pfaffin fragments of Irenzus we should have a primitive authority of the highest value. At the opening of the celebrated passage,* in which the spiritual nature of the eucharistic sacrifice as opposed to a carnal sacrifice is declared, and the bread and cup are described as being the antitypes of the body and blood of Christ, there is a reference to the ‘Second Ordinances of the Apostles’ (ταῖς δευτέραις τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεσ) introducing the quotation from Malachi i, 11, which we find in the same connection in the fourteenth chapter of the ‘Teaching.’ But if this reference is pre- carious, there is no question of the use of this book, or, perhaps it would be safer to say, of the oral formulary of which the ‘Teaching’ presents the earliest form, by Cle- ment of Alexandria. In the first book of the ‘Stromata,’t after quoting Proverbs xxi. 17 as ‘Scripture’ (ἐξεῖπεν ἡ γραφή) and John vii. 18 as the words of Christ (φησὶν ὁ κύριορ), he proceeds. to adduce as of equal authority a sentence which we find in the ‘Teaching’ (ch. ili. 5). When condemning those who appropriated the wisdom of the barbarians and boasted of it as their own, he proceeds, ‘such an one is said to be a thief by Scripture: for it says, “ My _ son, Demnotved liars ΤῸ ἃ lie leads τὸ theft.’ . The. lax. use of the word ‘Scripture,’ γραφή, not only in the uncanonical writings, of which James iv. 5 is an example (cf. Luke xl. 49), forbids us to press this reference too far. Irenzus (to give a single example), as noticed by Eusebius (‘H. E.’ v. 8), quotes Hermas as Scripture (‘ Adv. Heer.’ iv. 20. 2), and in the ‘Teaching’ itself (ch. i. 6) an anonymous saying, the source of which is entirely unknown, is introduced by, ‘it hath been said,’ εἴρητα. But the form of Clement’s quotation is a sufficient evidence that the book was known and its authority recognized in the last decade of the second century. There are other less certain references to the phraseology of the ‘Teaching’ in Clement. The description of wine as ‘the blood of the Vine of David’{ recalls the remarkable phraseology of the Eucharistic prayer, “ We give thanks to Thee our Father for the Holy Vine of David, Thy servant’ (ch ix. 1), but we can hardly regard it as borrowed from it. The two more probably have a common * Trenzei opera. ed. Stieren, tom i. p. 854. Ed. W. Wigan Harvey, vol. li. p. 500 ; Hilgenfeld, ‘ Didascal. Apost. Antiq. Fragm.’ p. 78. + Clem. Alexand. ‘Strom.’ I. 20, 100, p: 377. 1 Οἶνον τὸ αἷμα τῆς ἀρπέλου τῆς Δαβὶδ eyxéac—‘ Quis Dives Salvetur,’ c. 29. 342 The Teaching of the Apostles. source. Still less is his reference to the familar imagery of the ‘Two Ways’* to be pressed. Bryennios, the minuteness of whose research appears the more remarkable the more attentively his apparatus criticus 15 examined, adduces a passage from the late sixth century writer, ‘John of the Ladder’ (Joannes Climacos), which seems to indicate a recol- lection of the language of the ‘Teaching.’ It runs thus: ‘It is the part of the godly to give to him that asketh, and of the more godly even to him that asketh not: but from him that taketh away the goods not to ask them again, though you are well able to do so, perhaps belong only to those devoid of feeling and to solitaries.’+ When we compare this passage with that in the ‘Teaching :{ ‘If any man take away thy goods ask them not again, for neither art thou able; give to every one that asketh thee, and ask it not again,’ the em- ployment af the same words, though the turn of the thought is different, suggests that the passage in the ‘ Teaching’ was known to the writer, and that the sentence was running in his head. Turning from the East to the West, the utmost diligence of Bryennios has discovered no more than two passages from western writers indicating any acquaintance with the ‘Teaching.’§ The fragment ‘De Aleatoribus,’ attributed at one time to Cyprian, combines two sentences from different ~ parts of the work in one quotation,|| as from the ‘ Teachings of the Apostles,’ ‘in Doctrinis Apostolorum.’ No other quotation or trace of any acquaintance with the text of the treatise is to be found in any other western writers. But Rufinus of Aquileia, republishing the Canon of Jerome, ἢ. 410 A. D., among the books regarded, not as ‘canonical’ but ‘ecclesiastical,’ which were allowed to be read in church, but not used for the establishment of the faith, mentions the Shepherd of Hermas and another short book, libellus, known under alternative titles as the ‘Due Viz,’ or the ‘Judicium secundum Petrum.’ Jerome also enumerates ‘Petri Judicium’* among the books erroneously attributed to St. Peter, in the first chapter of his ‘ De Viris Illustribus.’ We cannot reasonably question that the title ‘Duze Viz’ indicates, if not the actual work which has been so unex- pectedly disinterred, in the form in which we now possess it, yet certainly the original source of the earlier part of it, descriptive of the way of life and the way of death. The * Clem. Alex. trons ν. 5. 31. + Migne, ‘ Pps Greec.’ Ixxxviii. p. 1029. oe OS Rr Oe § ‘ Teaching,’ c. iv. 14; xiv. 2. | Cyprian Op. Ed. Fell. Appendix, p. 32. The Probable Date. 343 alternative title, “Judicium Petri,’ may be most probably ex- plained on the hypothesis of Harnack, that as in the ‘ Epitome’ and in the last book of the ‘ Apostolic Constitutions’ the various moral rules and ecclesiastical and ritual ordinances are ficti- tiously assigned to different members of the apostolic body, with the view of imparting a more definite authority to them, so, with as little warrant, the whole was in this case put into the mouth of Peter, the spokesman of the apostles, and pro- posed to the catechumens on his authority to give more weight to the code.* This will appear more natural when we bear in mind the close relation of Jerome, from whom Rufinus borrowed the title, with the Church of Rome and the chair of St. Peter. We pass now to the probable date of the ‘Teaching.’ Here, as Bishop Lightfoot has remarked, we are met with the pre- liminary difficulty that it does not carry its date on its face, and that we must have recourse to critical inferences to establish its age. The evidence, however, in favour of an early date is very strong. Bryennios, indeed, places it as late as A.D. 140-160, Harnack between 13% and 165 A.D. But we thing Bishop Lightfoot is nearer the mark in dating it with most English and some German critics somewhere between A.D. 80-110. The grounds of decision are almost _exclusively internal. The quotation from the ‘Teaching’ by Clement of Alexandria gives us a very valuable terminus ad guem, which absolutely forbids our placing it later than ἐς. 200 A.D. The internal evidence warrants our dating it much earlier. It is impossible to read the document without being conscious of its primitive character in every part. The moral earnestness which breathes throughout it, and ‘the archaic simplicity, almost the childishness,’ to adopt Bishop Lightfoot’s words, both of its commands and _ its prohibi- tions, bespeak the infancy of achurch. To this we may add what Professor Wordsworth calls ‘a general quietness of tone as to Church questions.’ No writing can be more completely uncontroversial. There is absolutely no reference to dogmatic differences. All turns on purity of life and uprightness of conduct. The entire absence of distinctively Christian doc- trine, the want of any reference not only to the sacrfficial aspect of the death of Christ as an atonement for sin, but to the fact of His death at all; the complete silence as to the resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit or * Harnack acutely calls attention to the phrase τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον in the shorter Appendix to St. Mark, and οἱ περὶ Ilerpov in Ignatius ‘ Ad Smyrn.,’ 3, 2, for the apostolic body, as an indication of the readiness with which the name of Peter alone might take the place of that of the Twelve. 344 The Teaching of the Apostles. His renewing and sanctifying influences; the high moral tone without any mention of the grace of God by which alone the Church of Christ has learnt to believe that true morality is attainable by fallen man; in short, the unspiritual, undoc- trinal, undogmatic character, which has led some writers hastily to condemn it as an heretical book purposely evading the doctrine of the Cross, all point to an epoch of which the Epistle of St. James is the exponent, before the Pauline theology had penetrated, and, we may add, vivified the Church. It speaks of a time when the oral tradition of the words and works of Christ, on which the Synoptic Gospels were based, was the only representative of the present New Testament, and the Epistles of St. Paul and other apostles were slowly becoming known to and winning their way to a position of authority among the scattered congregations of the Christian Church. As Dr. Westcott has observed, ‘“ Those who had heard the living voice of apostles were unlikely to appeal to their written words.’* The words and phrases which recall the language of the Epistles are not to be regarded as quota- tions, but rather as an evidence that a new phraseology had sprung up which had become the common property of Christians, used by them unconsciously without reference to the passages in which, for us, the expressions have become stereotyped. Had the work been later the quotations could not fail to have been more copious and more exact. We are led to the same early date by the remarkable picture the ‘Teaching’ presents of the ritual and organization of the Church. Both are of the simplest character, such as we find in the Acts and Apostolic Epistles, and nowhere else, not even in the Apostolic Fathers. The apostles, prophets, and teachers of the primitive Church, as they are presented to us in Acts xill. 1, 1 Cor. ΧΙ, 28, Eph. iv. 11, and elsewhere, still form the recognized framework of the Christian ministry ; not, how- ever, connected with individual congregations, but itinerating. Of a localized episcopate, or of bishops as a separate order, there is nota hint. The localized ministry, existing side by side with this superior itinerating ministry, is of two orders only: The congregations are independent, self-governing bodies, ministered to by ‘presbyters,’ who are still called ‘bishops,’ as in Phil. i. 1 and. in the Pastoral Epistles, and by deacons. These ministers are appointed by the congregations them- selves. Nothing is said of ordination, though we must not make too much of the argumentum e silentio. The Church is still living in anticipation of the return of its Lord, ‘the * ‘History of the Canon,’ p. 55. Evidences of its Early Date. 345 Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven,’ when its scat- tered congregation, dispersed like grains of wheat on the hills, should all be united in His kingdom, For this unknown day they will ever be on the watch as for their life, on their guard against the ‘world deceiver’ (κοσμοπλάνος), whose coming would inaugurate a period of fearful trial, before the advent of Christ. For them, as for those to whom St. James wrote, ‘the coming of the Lord’ was drawing nigh, ‘the judge was standing before the door’ (Jas. v. 9), and the great event would not be long deferred. The same early period is also shown by the absence of all reference to the heretical tendencies which so soon began to affect the Church. The ‘ false prophets,’ against whom a warning is directed, are not described as heretics, or mis- believers, but inconsistent Christians, such as made a merchan- dize of their professed spiritual gifts, and whose lives were not in accordance with their teaching, men who sought to over- throw (καταλῦσαι, cf. Matt. v.17) the moral law as expounded by Christ. There is not the slightest reference to the Docetic and early Gnostic controversies, such as are to be found abund- antly the Ignatian Epistles. In this respect the ‘Teaching’ 1 separated by a great gulf from the Epistles of St. John. Bryen- nios’ view that these warnings are specially aimed at the ‘ Antitacte,’ an Antinomian sect who followed out the teaching of Carpocrates and the earlier Gnosties to their legitimate issue, has absolutely nothing to support it. The same may be said of the supposed reference to Montanism, also seen by Bryen- nios, and still more of the additions to the text in a Montan- istic interest which Hilgenfeld imagines he has discovered.* We see the tendencies which at a little later period devel- oped in these erroneous systems, but not the systems them- selves. The evil leaven was working but had not yet come to a head. Again, the Eucharist is not yet separated from the Agape. The expression, ‘after they have been filled,’ ‘ satisfied,’ μετὰ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι, when the writer is describing what follows the reception of the Eucharist, indicates a meal such as that described by St. Paul in the Corinthian Church (x Cor. xi. 17-34), where, at the most sacred of all religious rites, it was still possible for one of the communicants (to adopt modern phraseology) to be hungry and eat voraciously, and another to drink to excess.+ ‘The separation of the two, the Eucharist and the Agape,’ remarks Bishop * Hilgenfeld, 2. s., pp. 94, 104 ff. + Harnack’s note is ‘ Also noch eine wirkliche Mahlzeit,’ and that of Hil- genfeld, ‘ Eucharistia vere cena communis, nondum separata ab agape.’ 346 The Teaching of the Apostles. Lightfoot, ‘seems to have taken place about the time of the Bithynian persecution under Pliny, A.p. 112. In the age of Justin Martyr they are evidently distinct.’ The change from ‘after they are filled’ into ‘after participation,’ pera ri μετάληψιν, in the corresponding passage of the ‘ Apostolical Constitutions’ indicates an alteration of usage, necessitating the alteration of phrase. As to the place of composition there is still less to guide us. There is not a single word or expression indicative of any one country more than another, while the absence of all local colour deprives us of what is sometimes a welcome aid. ‘The localities suggested are as various as the vagueness of the data allows. The permission to use warm water for the baptismal rite has been thought possibly to point to a cold climate. But such an induction is in the highest degree precarious. Pro- fessor Wordsworth ‘can only suggest vaguely some Church of Greece or Macedonia.’ ‘Corinth does not seem wholly impossible, or Athens, or even Philippi.’ With the last named Church the mention of ‘bishops and deacons’ as the resident ministry, as in Phil. i. 1, presents a slender thread of connec- tion, which must not however be strained. The judgment of the ablest scholars seems tending to Egypt as its birthplace. ‘Our work,’ writes Bishop Lightfoot, ‘may with some proba- bility be assigned to Alexandria ; all its affinities are Alexan- drian.’ Harnack takes the same view, which is also that of Funk,* partly led to it by the absence in the ‘ Teaching’ of the word ‘kingdom’ in the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer, which also occurs in a Sahidic or Upper Egyptian version of the Gospels ¢ and its close connection with the Epistle of Barnabas. With regard to its author, there is much to lead us to the belief that he was a Jewish Christian of the milder and more conciliatory type, probably an Hellenist. Not a _ violent opponent of Jewish observances like the so-called Barnabas, but at the same time advocating a sharp distinction between Christian and Jews, as in the matter of the biweekly fast. These are not to be held, like those of ‘the hypocrites,’ on Monday and Thursday, but on Wednesday and Friday. ὦ Abstinence from forbidden meats is not to be rigidly enforced, but an allowance made for human weakness. Other indications * ministry at all.” We should infer from the “Teaching” that, ecclesiastically, the ‘ apostles” therein referred to left no successors, but gradu- | and finally disappeared, the νά | grown in power and importance, in the end de- _ veloping the diocesan episcopacy. Whe B ~ OF THE TWELVE sig te ig Ne BY PROF. S. STANHOPE ORRIS. Twelve Apostles ” closes with the sentence : _ thine alms sweat in thy hands until thou know to whom to give.” The language of this sen- tence is, of course, not found in the Scriptures, | ΠΟΥ in the Apocrypha, nor in the Rabbinical the Church; and the limitation which it puts _ on almsgiving is one which some of the Fathers οὗ the Church regarded as incompatible with the | precept to ‘‘ give to every one that asketh.” |. To the query, ‘‘ Some say that we should not give alms without examination, but should in- quire carefully whether he who asks is really in need,’ Athanasius is said to have replied: ‘*So those who think evil pervert the other Scriptures also. For if we are first to examine those who ask, why does the Lord say, ‘ Give to every one that asketh thee Ὁ ἢ In an application of the text, ‘‘ He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and -sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust,” Chrysostom says: ‘‘And do thou, when thou doest alms, not examine the life, nor demand an account of the character. Ele€mosyna is so called that we may give even to the un- worthy. For he who pities, pities not the up- right but the sinner.” + _ Jerome says, ‘‘ We must give to every one that asketh, and must give without discrimination,” adding that: whom he shall give and does not give to every one that asketh, often omits him who deserves (to receive.” ἢ Others teach Aiserimination in giving. the Great says that: ‘‘We should give to him ‘that asketh, but should determine the need of each of those who ask.’’§ _ Clemens Alexandrinus says that the perfect _Ohristian ‘doubtless relieves the afflicted, help- | | ing him with consolations, giving to all that need, but not similarly, but justly, according to desert ; and besides, to him also who persecutes and hates, if he should need it. For, how much ‘more are they who, while hating evil, are gen- erous toward their enemies, animated with love toward those who belong to them! Hence such a man will come to know with accuracy to whom ‘pre-eminently, and how much, and when, and in what way he should give.” || -Bryennios thinks that the Shepherd of Her- δὰ nae manifestly teaches the same as the Didaché in reference to the manner and spirit of giving. But this opinion, as we shall see, is incorrect. The Shepherd of Hermas says: *‘Do good, and from the labors which God giveth thee, give in τ ἈΚ “ Atlhanasti Opera,” Ed. Migne. Vol. IV, p. 650. i “ Chrysostomi Opera,” Ed, Migne, Vol. III, p. 2387. 4, Hieronymi Opera,” Ed, Migne, lib. III, p. 1156, 5 “ Βαβι Opera,” Ed Benedictine. Vol, Ul, p. 71, b ἘΝῚ “Clementis Alex.” Ed. Migné. Strom, Vil, cap 2. “A PASSAGE IN THE “TEACHING | . || of his own gifts. Tur first chapter of the ‘Teaching of the | “Let | writings, nor in the writings of the Fathers of © “He who carefully inquires to. Basil | Give | For to all God wills that there be given ‘hey, then, that receive shall give account to God wherefore they received and why ; for they that receive in affliction shall not be judged, but they that receive in hypocrisy shall pay the penalty. He, then, that giveth is guiltless ; for, as he received his ministry from the Lord to perform it in simplicity, so he per- formed it, without discriminating to whom to. give or not to give. His ministry, then, having been performed in simplicity, isin honor with God. Accordingly. he who ministers thus in simplicity shall live to God.’’* Observe that those who here receive or may | receive, in hypocrisy, are among the number of | those who are assumed to be in want. And, therefore, ‘‘ All that are in want,” as the phrase is here employed, is equivalent to ‘‘ all that pro- fess to be in want,” whether this profession be explicit or implicit. So that the injunction of -Hermas is to give to all that profess to be in _ want, and to give in simplicity, without doubt- ing and without discriminating. The doctrine on this subject in the Epistle of Barnabas is less explicit, but equally simple: ‘‘Thou shalt not hesitate to give ; nor, when giv- ing, shalt thou murmur; give to every ore that asketh thee, and thou shalt know who is the good Rewarder of the gift.’’t The Apostolic Constitutions teach that ‘‘it 4s | our duty to do good to all men without making, nice distinctions between them. For the Lord says: ‘Give to every one that asketh thee.” It is evident, however, that we are to give to him who is really in want, whether he be friend or foe, whether he be a kinsman or a stranger.” { The Shepherd of Hermas says that those who receive in hypocrisy shall give account to God; in the ‘‘Teaching”’ the impression naturally made is that they shall give account to man; and they shall give account, first, for their motive in re- ceiving, and second, for what they receive, and shall be held in custody until they have given back the last farthing. Hermas says, give to) every one that professeth to be in want ; that is, | to every one that asketh thee ; and give in sim- plicity, without doubting and without discrimi- nating. The ‘‘ Teaching” says, Give to every one that asketh thee, provided he be in real need; and, therefore, do mot give in simplicity, with- out hesitating and without discriminating ; but. let thine alms sweat in thy hands until thou know who is indeed in want. The ‘* Teaching,’’ it will be observed, enjoins a carefulness in giving, which some regarded as a perversion of the Scriptures ; a carefulness in giving, which is not enjoined in the Epistle of Barnabas, nor in the Shepherd of Hermas, nor in the Apostolic Constitutions. And this is re- {| markable, if the Epistle of Barnabas and the } oO ies to give or to whom αὐ to give. to all. * “ Hermae Pastor.” Mand. 1. + “ Barnabae Epistola.” Cap. xix. et 4 Conair es ἢ τῶν «ἃ ae,” Labs τὴς cap 4, And it is no less remarkable, if, like the Apostolic ὃ " ΕΠ pest eae they are later than the ‘‘ Teach- ing,” and indebted to it. Is the sentence, ‘‘ Let thine alms sweat i in thy late date, and was the preceding sentence then the words δώσει δίκην ἱνατί, etc. The usual technical meaning of the phrase διδόναι δίκην is “to give satisfaction,” ‘‘to: pay the penalty,” “to suffer punishment.” But it cannot have ‘that meaning here; for we cannot say th&ta man shall be punished with reference to his mo- | tive. The translation, *‘ he shall give account,” | — makes good sense, but is without authority. _ The intransitive verb ‘‘to account,” means, ac- | cording to ‘‘ Webster,” 1, to render an account or relation of particulars ; 2, to give a reason; 3, to answer for in reckoning or judgment. ‘In classic Greek, the first is διδόναι εὐθύνας. the second, διδόναι λόγον; and in Hellenistic Greek, te the third is ἀποδιδόναι λόγον. But never, in | classic, Hellenistic, Byzantine, or modern Greek, does the phrase διδόναι δίκην mean “ to give ac- | count.” Ifit meant this, it would convey the meaning which it cannot have in this passage. But why this elassic phrase in this rare sense, Aéyov? And why does the whole sentence, in the original, differ so in respect of simplicity and clearness from what is said in relation to giving following sentence, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τούτου δὴ εἴρηται, ἰδρωσάτω, etc., there is obscurity. Some refer the τούτου to the precept, ** Give to ---- a RA A ERNE AOE A ELS RENE NSIT mee man who asked and received when he had no need. According to the first view, the καὶ (which modifies, not the following verb, but the phrase περὶ τούτου) is translated also; according hands,” ete., genuine? Or was it inserted ata | additional idea of ἃ satisfactory account, a | in the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Bar- | nabas, and the Apostolic Constitutions? In the | modified, both in thought and style, in order that | the whole sentence might have the appearance | of antiquity? The preceding sentence contains | It must, therefore, mean ‘to submit to trial.” © and not κριθήσεται, or δικασθήσεται, Or ἀποδώσει, every one”; others refer it to the case of the | to the second view, it is translated even. It is — further noteworthy that there were two verbal mistakes in this_sentence in the manuscript found by Bryennios, ἑ ἱδρωτάτω for ἱδρωσάτω, and . δὲ for δὴ. “ἢ “ae the language, ‘“‘Let thine alms sweat in thy hands until thou know to whom to give,” were meant to express, not the doctrine of the apos- , them on the subject of giving, it should have no place in the ‘‘ Teaching,” which professes to be “th ‘Teaching of the Apostles” and not that of , Others. It is needless to say that the verb idpwodtw is radically the same in four members of the { Indo-European family of languages, and has radically the same.meaning in them all—viz., the meaning ‘‘to sweat.” And the proposed substi- ‘fles; but that of a teacher who differed from | ᾿ ἡ troduces a thought adversative to the unquali- fied precept ‘‘to give to every one that asketh.” | And the meaning, in effect, is: Give to every one that asketh ; but even in view of the fact that some ask and receive who have no need, wait until | you are sure that he who asks isin need, and "tution by Hilgenfeld of ἱδρυσάτω ἴον idpucdtwdoes |) | not materially affect the meaning of the sentence ; for the ἀλλά, which introduces the senteuce, in- that you are right in giving. This is correct | doctrine, as far as it goes; but it is a doctrine in advance of that held by the Church on this sub- ject at the time when the “Teaching” was writ- ten. PRINCETON COLLEGE. τ» --«ς, ὦ THE TEACHING OF THE 1WE) VE | APOSTLES. BY PROF. 5. | STANHOPE ORRI he y Tne translations that appeared a year ago of the words σωθήσονται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ Tov καταθέματος — in the last chapter of the “‘Teaching of the — Twelve Apostles,” all differed from each oth 51 and no one of them was felt to be in all respects satisfactory. Harnack said that he did not un- derstand the words, and so left them untrans- lated. In the Andover Review they were ren- dered: *‘Shall be saved by Him the Curse.” To say no more, there is nothing in the contextua relations, and nothing in the known use of the particular word κατάθεμα to justify this transla- tion. Hitchcock and Brown’s translation was: ‘‘Shall be saved from this curse.” . The radical meaning of ὑπό is under ; and, of course, the preposition from, when used in a local sense or ina sense analogous to the local, | is not equivalent to the preposition under, when used in a local sense or in a sense analogous to. the local. Neither is the demonstrative pronoun this equivalent to the intensive αὐτοῦ, Another translation was: ‘‘Shall be saved from under the curse itself.” The idea expressed by from is not contained in ὑπό, but is sug-— gested by the relation of the genitive αὐτοῦ τοῦ καταθέματος ἰο the motion or action of the verb as qualified by ὑπό. The student of Homer is familiar with this rendering of ὑπό in connection with the genitive after a certain class of verbs. For instance, “Iliad” xiii, 198: ὥστε δύ᾽ αἶγα λέοντε κυνῶν ὕπο καρχαροδόντων ἁρπάξαντε---- “85 two lions, having snatched a goat from un-— der the sharp-toothed dogs.” And xvii, 235; νεκρὸν ὑπ’ Αἴαντος ἐρύειν----““ 0 drag the corpse from under Ajax.” These translations, the last of which expressed my own understanding of the words a year ago, all assume that σωθήσονται involves the idea of delivering, of rescuing. In classic Greek, one of the first meanings of g pate is to preserve, protect, keep safe. For in- . | stance, Demosthenes, speaking of a common” safeguard against tyrants, which the nature of | be ἘΊΜΌΙΡ meni possesses oe ips Ἢ “4 3% hear- ‘| as though it were not αὐτοῦ, but τούτους And ἘΣ ΧΩ If you preserve this (ἐὰν ταύτην, σώζητελ, Ὁ their present rendering of it is ‘even this,” as /you can suffer no harm.” And Thucydides reports Themistocles as saying that ‘Athens ‘wag surrounded by walls, and so was able to | protect her citizens” (σώζειν τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας). | In the New Testament Greek, σώζω frequently, if not generally, involves the idea of deliverance, of rescue, And, hence, the verb to save, by | which it is nearly always rendered in the English version, involves, no less frequently, the like ' idea. Asin the following passages: ‘‘He shall save* his people from their sins.” ‘‘Save thy- self and come down from the cross.” ‘Thy | | faith hath saved thee.” ‘*The prayer of faith ὅπ... ever, as the words ‘‘ even this” are a mistransla- not contained in the original. Since, then, when we understand σωθήσονται as expressing deliverance, it is difficult, if not impossible, to see a satisfactory reason for the presence of αὐτοῦ in the text, let us understand the verb as expressing preservation, and then the translation will be: While many shall perish in the fiery trial, ‘‘they who endure in their curse’”; that is, the trial when it is at its utter- | faith ‘shall be preserved beneath the very | - ghall save him that is sick.” But while σώζω is often used in this sense in the New Testament, there are passages in which it has the other meaning—that of preserving. most. ‘‘ And then,” when they have been pre- served even in the extreme of the trial, then of an opening in heaven, then the sign of a sound | As in Mark viii, 35: ‘*Whosoever will save | (σῶσαι) his life, shall lose it.” Here, as σῶσαι | and the verb to lose are antithetic, σῶσαι means, | not to rescue, to deliver, but to preserve, to | keep. And in IL Tim. iv, 18: “The Lord will | deliver me from every evil work, and will save | (σώσει) me unto his heavenly kingdom, σώσει | involves the idea of preservation. | And now the question is, in which of these two senses—to deliver or to preserve—owlyoovtat is used in the last chapter of the ‘‘ Teaching.” If in the former sense, then the third transla- tion is correct, viz.: While many shall perish in the fiery trial, “they who endure in their faith shall be delivered from beneath the curse itself.” But why is it said that they shall be delivered ‘from beneath, not the curse, but the curse αὐτοῦ, the curse itself? Drs. Hitchcock and of a trumpet, and third, the resurrection of the dead; not of all, however, but as was said: The Lord shall come and all the saints with him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.” ; To this translation of the words there is, there can be, no objection on grammatical grounds; the promise made to believers in like circum- stances, Luke xxi, 18: “ Not a hair of your head shall perish.” I may add that, in the light of this rendering of the passage, the last chapter of the “‘ Teach- | irg” favors the opinion that the trial will con- Nees of heaven. PRINCETON COLLEGE, regards it, not, it is true, as acanonical, but | as one of the books appointed to be read by ~ -catechumens. In the Stichometry of Ni- cephorus it stands between the gospel of | Thomas and the epistles of Clement. ; Moreover, we had the first six chapters of the book (the whole book is about as long as the epistle to the Galatians), for the most part in the moral teachings in Bar- nabas, in the ‘‘ Constitutions” and ‘‘ Didas- _kalia” and in the ““᾿Επετομὴ opov”; but these _ordinances become of anentirely new value when we find them in this work, the great Clement, of Alexandria, quotes itas “Scrip. | age of which can be proved. The second ture”; Eusebius places it beside the ‘‘Shep- | | part—Chapters vii—xvi—is essentially new, | herd,” the ‘‘ Apocalypse of Peter,” and the | although the seventh book of the ‘‘ Consti-~ | “ : ‘The Lord will come and all 186 EE which breathes in every line of this δ books) ἢ ae sant ER, with at Then will ihe rot. “see TH oie upon the clouds of Heaven,” us far the “Teaching. ” Look ~ the Christian Church, at your. own icular church and congregation, | w much can still be found of the simp. ic. ‘in thought, in order, in worship, in life, τ" SE, “THE BRYENNTOS MANUSCRIPT. ᾿ TrrouGn the kindness of the libravak of the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y., we have been permitted to examine the first translated it) is: copy of the work of Bryennios which has reached the metropolis. The title (as we ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, now ‘published for the first time his edition from the Jerusalem Codex, with prolego- mena and notes, together witli a collation of the synopsis of the Old Testament, by John Chrysostom, and an unpublished portion of | the same codex, by Philotheos Bryennios, | metropolitan of Nicomedia. Large octavo, 5 francs, 232 pages: Constantinople, 1883.” The Manuscript was discovered by Bry- ennios in the library of the Most Holy | Sepulcher, in Fanar, of Constantinople, | and announced to the learned world in his of the Epistles ent, published at Constantinople, - 1875. The Manuscript is an 8vo volume, written on parchment in cursive characters. It con- tains 120 leaves, andis numbered 456 in the Library. It has a colophon, giving the date of the Manuscript as 1056 A. D., and the scribe, Leon. In 1875 Bryennios announced that the’ Manuscript contained, beside the epistles of Clement, which he then pub- lished, the epistles of Barnabas and Igna- ‘tius, and also the synopsis of John Chrys- which had been lost. ostom and the teaching of the twelve apostles, and promised to publish these as ‘soon as possible. The Manuscript con- tained a section of the epistles of Clement It presented to the learned world for the first time after many ἔυϊτσς these epistles i in a complete form. ~ The learned bishop now gives us the synop- | sis of John Chrysostom and the Teaching of the Apostles, together with other little bits of great interest. The delay in publishing has been bestowed, in the prolegomena and 1 notes, in tracing all the references to this | long-lost writing in all the earliest Christian γ writings, so that the evidence of the gen- ὟΝ: ; ‘uineness and antiquity*of the document is overwhelming. If there had been a prema- ture publication the Christian world would | of Clem- | | is fully justified by the immense labor that: the interest. of. tl | But the learned bishop has wisely retaine more citation from the Apocryphal books whose darling theories are destroyed byvit. dL the document until he could present it in such a form as to compel the consent of the learned world. It comes exactly at the |.right time to smite with crushing power the sectarian prejudices of the several | It will exert | Churches of Christendom. a powerful infiuence in breaking down the denominational barriers. The prolegomena takes up 149 pages, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles with the elaborate notes ὅδ pages, the — The — whole work is a splendid exhibition of | scholarship. Itis a sign that the Orient is to. indexes and appendixes, 20 pages. play an important part in the learned world of thefuture. American scholars will have to study their Greek with renewed dili- gence if they would keep up with the pro- | | duction of the rising scholarship of the Greek Church. If classical Greek has be- come less important, ecclesiastical Greek has risen to vastly greater importance in our times. One of the finest sections of work is the exhibition, by a difference of Greek type, of the text of the Teaching of the - Twelve Apostles embedded in the Seventh Bookof the Apostolic Constitutions,and then | also inthe midstof the Epitome of therules of the holy apostles, where, as in the Apos- tles’ Creed, each apostle has his share- in pointing out the way of life. opsis of Chrysostom of this MS. with the text given in Migne. There is besides a curious list of the Old Testament books in Hebrew and in Greek placed in the MSS. be- tween the second epistle of Clement and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The order of this list is: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua, (this order, it will be noticed, in- serts Joshua in the middle of the Hexa- teuch) Deuteronomy, Numbers, Ruth, Job, Judges, Psalter, I, II, II, IV Kings, [and I] Chronicles, Proverbs, Ecclesiates, Song of Songs, Jeremiah, The Twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel I and IT, Ezra, Esther. This must be very ancient and will be greatly valued by old Testa- ment critics. Bryennios gives a list of pas- sages of Scripture cited in the teaching of the apostles. These are from the Old Testa- ment: Deut. v, 17—19, Zechariah xiv, 5, Malachi i, 11—14. From the Apocryphal book, Tobit 1, Sirach 8; thus there isene- Sceral denominations There is also ~ a careful comparison of the text of the syn-— | | CE gn SS RE ETE Ὁ Testa “there are, fromeMatthew. 20, from Luke 6, from the Acts iv, 3%. The Gospels of | John and Mark are not cited. The citations | from the epistles are Ephesians vi, 5—9, I Thessalonians v, 22, and I Peter ii, 11, The Apocalypse is not cited, even where we | would expect it, in Chapter xvi. The Teaching of the Apostles in chapters | i.-vi. is ethical; ifi vii.—xvi. ecclesiastical } and liturgical. The doctrines of faith are | only indirectly taught. The type of theol- | ogy represented is distinctly the earliest type—the Jewish Christian—and indeed the earliest form of that type—the one repre- sented by Matthew and James. It is a type free from the slightest taint or suspi- cion of heresy. The Jewish Christian type | speedily developed into heretical formes. ‘That this writingis simple and pure and so | near the spirit and the letter of the doc- itrine of Jesus, according to Matthew, is ' one of the strongest evidences, not only of its genuineness, but still more of its very | great antiquity. We do not see howit can | be placed later than the middle of the sec- ; ond century. In tends toward the first } half of that century, and is by all odds the. | most important writing exterior to the New. Ϊ Testament, now in the PORseSieR of the | | Christian. world. THE “TEACHING OF THE APOS- /TLES.” out 6 Step | _ Ivy our article of February 27th we gave | 1 an advance translation of the latter part of | the ‘Teaching,’ the part which was un- known before. Since thena remarkable in- 1 terest has been taken in the work by our F American scholars, and three complete trans- lations have appeared, made from the text of Bryennios, one by Professors Hitchcock text), one in the Andover Review, by Mr. Starbuck, and one by Prof. Frederick ——S ---- Gardiner, in The Churchman. We give, to- | day, our translation of the first six chapters known as ‘‘The Two Ways,” and found in ἃ variety of shapes in the literature of the Early Church, We have taken advantage of American, English and German investi- gations thus far. Observe, in advance, the circumstance | that Matthew XXVili, 19, 20 seems to give the frame upon which this ‘ Teaching” is i built up. a. “Teach all nations” corre-, ponds with the ‘‘ Two Ways” of life and) of death, ἐὰν first six chapters which stand| “below. ὁ - “Baptizing them in the name continuation in chapters eight to fifteen. And, although there is no emphasizing of ‘fend of the world,” is chapter sixteenth. ‘be said to be so far _Harnack still inclines to the years, say 140 and Brown (with their reprint of the Greek | | is not quite clear.] Il Holy Ghost” is found in ὄρνεις, peyouier é. ‘Teaching them to observe all tings. | whatsoever [have commanded you” is the- the ‘‘Lo! 1am with you always,” (d.) the | In Germany the discussion is still in progress, if, indeed, the first surprise can overcome as to leave room for the discussion to begin. to 150, and to Egypt as the country in which it arose, and Delitzsch seems to agree with him. Luthardt thiaks it belongs to Northern Palestine and about the year 100. We may add that the Archimandrite Ba- pheides, in reviewing Bryennios’s book ina Constantineple journal, (the ᾿Εκκλησιαστικὴ ᾿ ᾿Αλήϑεια) declares himself to be in favor of the date 100. There can be little doubt that this date is too early. ° Harnack, whose | knowledge of the first three centuries is of | the widest character, is publishing the > ‘* Teaching” in the first fasciculus of the second volume of ““ Texte und Untersuch- ungen,” and a proof of the first sheets lies before us, containing the Greek text anda German translation in parallel columns. Full notes are in the printers’ hands, and prolegomena with excursus are almost jready. Let us turn to the text: TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve | Apostles to the nations. I.—1, There are two ways—one of Life, and ‘one of Death; and there is a great difference ‘between the two ways. 2. The Way of Life, ‘then, is this: First, Thou shalt love God, that made thee ; second, thy neighbor as thyself ; and all things that thou dost not wish done to thee, do them not thyself’ to another. 3. The teach-. ing of these words is this: Bless those who curse you and pray for your enemies, and fast for those hoa nersecnta you, for what kind of grace is it if ye love those that love you? Do not the hea- ; Se Σ' δαρς, ag aa ne le CLT OL LTS, Pr! and ye shall not have an enemy. 4, Abstain from fleshly and worldly desires. If any one. give thee a blow on the right cheek, turn the other also to him, and thou shalt be perfect; if any one compel thee to go a mnile, go with him two; if any one take away thy cloak, give him | thy coat also; if any one take from thee that ἷ [The «1; which is thine do not demand it back. text adds: ‘* For indeed thou canst not”; which 5. Give to every one that asketh of thee, and demand it not again ; for the Father wishes that something be given to all out of the favors which have been be-. stowed upon each. Blessed is he that give t- according to the commandme Par he is μ᾿ then the same? But love those that hate you, || ἡ cents oue in need receiveth he shall be innocent ; “bat | he who is not in need shall give satisfaction wherefore he received and to what ond; and be- ing put in prison, he shall be examined as to what he has done; and he shall not come out thence until he pay back the last farthing. 8. Moreover, concerning this-also is it said: Let thine alms sweat in thy hands [drop down | on thy hands.”—“J. W.” (John Wordsworth, Prebendary of Lincoln?) in The Guardian, | March 19th] till thou knowest to whom thou --givest. | II.—1. The second commandment of the Teach- ing. 2. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit poder | asty, thou shalt not go with hariots, thou shalt, not steal, thou shalt not use magie arts, thou. shalt not prepare poisons, thou shalt not com-— mit abortion, neither shalt thou kill the child that has just been born, thou shalt not desire that which is thy neighbor’s, 8. Thou shalt not swear, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not backbite, thou shalt not cherish revenge. RR me mn 2 4, Thou shalt not be double-minded, nor double- tongued; for a double-tengue is a snare of death. 5. Thy speech shall not be false nor empty, but filled with the deed. 6. Thou shalt not be an avaricious man, or a robber, or a hypocrite, or an evil-minded man, or a puffed-up man; thou shalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbor. 7. Thou shalt hate no man, but some thou shalt reprove and for these thou shalt pray for: ‘‘for some thou shalt pray,”], and | some thou shalt love more than thine own soul. 111.--1. My child fiee from every evil and from everything that is like it. anger, for anger leads to murder; be neither jealous nor quarrelsome nor touchy, for from all of these murders arise. 3. My child, be not lustful, for lust leads to harlotry, neither a speaker of obscene words, neither a man of lofiy eyes [The sense here seems to be one who stares around at women.], for from allof these sins of adultery arise. 4. My child, be not an augur {one who prophesies from the flight or voice of birds.] since that leads to idolatry, nor a cou- jurer nor an astrologer nor a cleanser [one who pretends to cleanse from disease or from sin by sacrifices or other processes.], neither wish to look at these things, for from all of these idola- try arisps. lying leads to stealing, nor a covetous man, nor a lover of empty fame, for from all of these arise thefts. minded, for from all of these blasphemies arise. ' JT. Be meek, for ‘‘the meek shall inherit the earth.” 8. Be long-suffering and merciful and _ free from evil, and quiet and good and always _ attentive to the words [literally ‘‘ trembling at the words”’ ; compare Isaiah Ixvi, 2,] which thou hearest. 9. Thou shalt not exalt thyself, neither shalt thou give self-confidence a placein thy soul. Thy soul shalt not cleave to the kfty ones, but thou shalt converse with the just and the hum- ble. 10. Whatsoever things befall thee, accept 5. My child, be nit a liar, since 2. Be not given to , 6. My child, be no murmurer, since it | leads to blasphemy, nor self-sufficient, nor evil- | See ee ee πον πππτοο τ 1 -- ἀρο---- - υππσττασαμακα πος ἣν in ‘that. ΠῚ Ἢ ὝΕΣ if ay “them as. : g00d : things, ooo tha 7 happens without God. Σ IV.—1, My child, him ae to thee the - and day, and thou shalt honor him as the Lord, for whence the authority [There is a play on the words in the original! “The lordship . . the Lord.” The sense is: ‘‘Where the Lord’s word is spoken, there the Lord is. whence the Lord’s person speaks,” ‘‘J. W.,’ The Guardian.] is spoken, there the Lordi is. 3 find refreshment in their words. shall be or not. soul.” come or not.”] 5. Be not a stretcher out of the hand in reference to rec¢iving, and a withdrawer of the hand in reference to giving. 6. If thou hast, with thy hands thou shalt give a ransom forthy sins. 7, Thou shalt not hesitate to give know who the good Repayer of the reward is. sharers in that which is immortal how much more in mortal things. the fear of the Lord. come to call with respect to persons, but [he comes] to those whom the Spirit has prepared, 11. And ye away. 14, In the church thou shalt confess thy word of the Lord shalt thou keep in mind night - ἧς om | Seek daily the faces of the saints,that thou mayest | 8. Thou shalt — cause no division, but rather pacify those quar-_ reling ; thou shalt judge justly, thou shalt ποὺ respect persons in reproving for faults.-4. Thou | shalt not be of doubtful soul, whether [a thing] — (‘Thou shalt not bea double ~ Harnack thinks it should be rendered: | ‘‘Doubt not whether (God’s judgment) will | | nor shalt thou murmur in giving, for thou shalt 8. Thou shalt not turn away the needy man, but — share all things with thy brother, and thou shalt — not say that they are thine own; for if ye are — 9, Thou shalt not with- — hold thine hand from thy son or from thy daughter, but from youth thou shalt teach them — 10. Thou shalt not com-— mand thy servant or thy maid, who hope in the | same God, in thy bitterness, lest they cease to fear the God who is over both, for he does not servants be obedient to your masters as to the | type of God,in reverence and fear. 12. Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy and everything that is ποῦ pleasing to the Lord. 13. Thou shalt not neg-— lect the commands of the Lord, but keep what thou hast received, neither adding nor taking — faults and thou shalt not come to thy prayer with an evil conscience. Life. V.—1. But the Way of Death is this ; first of all it is evil and full of curse: murders, adulteries, lusts, whoredoms, thefts, idolatries, conjura- tions, poison-makings, robberies, false witness- ings, hypocrisies, double-heartedness, deceit, This is the Way of pride, wickedness, self-sufficiency, avarice, base-_ speech, envy, impudence, high-mindedness, boasting. 2. Persecutors of good men, hating — truth, loving lying, not knowing the reward of ᾿ righteousness, not joined to that which is good nor to just judgment, attentive not to that which — | is good, but to that which is evil, from whom ‘meekness and patience are afaiy loving vain | things, hastening after revenge, not pitying the poor, not laboring with them that arein dis- | tress, not knowing him that made them, mur- (dering children, destroying what kine has | | “formed [1 form: ὦ ᾿ [ | = veieds Sie : jus born, the other killing the unborn child.’ ed distressing the | ing away the needy, op ressed, helpers of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, sinning in every way. Withdraw your- selves, children, from all these people. VI.—1. See that no man cause thee to errfrom this Way of the Teaching, since he teaches thee without God, 2. 1 If then thou art able to bear all the yoke of the Lord thou shalt be perfect; but ifthou art not able, wnat thou art able this do. 3. Concerning food, endure what thou art able. But keep thyself carefully from that which is sacrificed to idols, for that is the ser vice of dead gods. τ Among the points to be noticed in these opening chapters we mention a few. The Way of Life is the Way of Acts ix,- 2; xix, 9, 28; xxii, 4; xxiv, 14, 22; and the two Ways are the broad way and the narrow way of Matthew. ©. Fasting as well as praying for enemies is |.————— commanded. But fasting and prayer are so closely connected in the Scriptures that it is not clear that this means anything | more than praying. Stilithe germ of a heresy may be found here. ᾿ς The commands for liberality in giving are very emphatic, and the cerrelative com- mandto be slow to receive benefactions shows that a class of lazy paupers were at- taching themselves to the Church. The | | _we say that one’s hands ¢éch to give. | The grossness of the sins against which candidates for baptism are warned indicates | the terrible wickedness of the world about them. Murder, adultery, infanticide, feti- cide, poisoning, and nameless sins are in- cluded. | | There seems to be the germ of a later heresy in the paragraph which declares that beneficence provides a ransom for sin. The confession of sins ‘‘in the Church,” that is, in the congregation, is yet a great way off from the auricular confession of _the later days. The tolerance given to those who are. “not able” to keep all these command- ments is noticeable, as also the strict pro- hibition of the use of food offered to idols. | This shows a stricter rule than Paul cared ! to enforce. The instruction οἵ these six chapters | seems to have been repeated to the can- _didates, who were, very likely, required to ' commit it tomemory. It is marked for its | purely ethical chars wacter. This is most n- | of the answers in the Episcopal Catechism, “ the- one is. παῖε. be itd lespecially the long one beginning, ‘“‘ My | duty toward my neighbor is, to love him origin of the quotation ‘‘Let thine alms | ‘sweat in thy hands until thou know to whom thou mayest give” is not known. So. ; Tenuous and imperative, and reminds one as myself. » All the theological doctrines which one can gather from this portion are, that ‘there is ὃ God: who made us and who | loves all men, who hears prayer, to whom ‘we must * give account”; that ‘‘ without God nothing occurs”; that there is a “word of Goa” which is ‘‘spoken” (read- ing not mentioned); that the Spirit leads men into the truth; that “the Lora” (Christ) has given ebrimeandments to be obeyed, which must neither be added to nor | taken from (thus perhaps still orally trans- mitted). This is all. Theology is still im- plicit, not yet explicit; and being a Chris- tian means accepting Christ as Messiah and. teacher, and obeying his great command of love to God and self-sacrifice for men ey, “THE WAY.” we have to comment in order this week, appears the passage (in the Revised Ver- sion), ‘‘Some were hardened and disobe- dient, speaking evil of the Way.” It would appear that a particular manner of life or teaching had come to be distinguished es- pecially as ‘‘the Way” of these new and peculiar people. That chapter from the Acts does not tell, in any definite terms, just what ‘‘the Way” was; but it is interesting to notice what definition of the term is given in this newly discovered document, the ‘‘Teaching of the Apostles,” dating from the time when some of those were: still living very possibly, or at least their children, against whose ‘‘ Way” those who were hardened and disobedient spake evil. The first six chapters in the ‘‘ Teaching” are devoted to a definition of ‘‘ the Way,” and under this very designation of *‘ the Way of Life” in opposition to ‘‘ the Way of Death.” The ‘“Teaching” begins with these words: “Two Ways there ure, one of Life and one of Death ; but there is a great difference between the two Ways. The Way of Life then, is this, first, thou shalt love God who made thee; second, thy neighbor as thyself, and all things whatsoever that thou wouldst not haye done to thee, do not thou to another,” “Then follow the teachings of this Way in particular, forbidding resentment and re- | taliation in the language of the Sermon on the Mount; requiring prodigality in giving and abstinence in receiving; “been said ‘Let thine alms sweat in thy _ ‘¢for it has = ng In the Sabbath-school lesson, on which: ae Fe - (hands aay thou know to to whom thou shalt 7 { | r εἰς give them.’” The Way of Life, we are. ᾿! ἡ “from the ends. οἵ ἐδ earth into thy king. | further told at much length, forbids mur- |] H ders, lusts, magic, child-murder, falsehood, |) “ covetousness, malice, arrogance, hatred, " jealousy, contentiousness, and requires - meekness, gentleness, humility and guile- ᾿ | lessness. One who follows the Way must honor them who speak the word of God, ig vants, must hate hypocrisy, must confess his sins, must hold fast to our Saviour’s Commandments, and must pray with a clean conscience. ‘‘This is the Way of Life.” Then follows a description of the other Way, the Way of Death. It is the Way of ‘* murders,adulteries, lusts, fornications, i thefts, idolatries, magic arts, sorceries, all this instruction, which was given to candidates for baptism, concludes with the _ | warning: ‘‘See that no one lead thee astray from this Way of the Teaching.” What is noticeable above everything else inthis description of the Way is that ‘itis exclusively ethical. It reads like the Epistle of James. There is in it no this whole treatise, the earliest of the Church manuals, is incidental. What it emphasizes, and what was then wanted in | the Church, was notso much sound be- lief as a radical reformation in the life. In this. whole introductory portion, defining the instruction to catechumens, we are sur- prised to find the mention of not even one distinctively Christian belief; nothing more than the moral teachings of Christ. | But these are taught so uncomprowmisingly | that only a converted soul could accept them. The Way, as here taught, says no- thing about anything beyond downright repentance, conversion and consecration. Only in the latter, ritual portion come in | the Chistian doctrines, and still only inci- dentally. The ritual duties having to do with baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the officers of the Church are fully described; but we are left only to infer the Trinity from the baptismal formula. The prayers with the Lord’s Supper give thanks in gen- eral terms for tbe lifeand knowledge which | thus hast made ‘‘known to us through _ Jesus, the servant,” and for the “knowledge | and faith and immortality which thou hast made known to us through Jesus, thy servant;’ for food and drink, physical and | Lae and me offer Renton: that eer ΒΨ Βα ees nor grudge his gifts, but must share with | the needy. He must be gentle with ser- 1] Lord; but in these earlier and purer days πον τ Ἢ ame, As a hy Ch hurch. ΤῊ ay p — a ; Be _ dom” ; that. τ "grace may come, . and this ord: may pass away”; but they say noth. . ing of the Atonement, nor even the cruci- | of fie Church, it was distinguished from the world, in its own consciousness, chiefly in the way that Christ said it should be. ‘By their fruits shall ye know them.” |. || Their Way was the way of good fruits And. 4 robberies, false testimonies,” etc., etc. And | ger --- a holy, beneficent , life. , - Pages “THE TEACHING OF THE “APOS- TLES.” Lew & δ THe great discovery in Church history | | which we announced last week is of such | capital importance that we recur to it for the _ purpose of indicating more pa ticularly the | bearing of some of its parts. We may here | correct.the evident error of ‘‘ 18838” for 1884, in the date of the number of the Lit- eratureeitung, from an advance copy of which we took our account. theology. Whatever theology appears in |, The discovery of so capital a document, going back to the first half of the second | century, and of so special a character—we might call it a directory of worship—makes | this an annus mirabilis in Church history, | /perhaps a more important year than 1851, which was, we believe, the year of the pub-- lication of the long-lost ‘* Philosophumena” | of Hippolytus, and of the ‘‘ Sic et Non” of Abelard. Of the genuineness of the new document we think there can be little’ doubt. It is fully accepted by Harnack, | the best patristic scholar living. Then. there is in it that peculiar quality which a scholar will recognize which is. beyond forgery. It contains so much which is un-_ expected and fresh, and yet which harmony izes so admirably with everything before known, and it is so simple, so consistent, that the most accomplished scholar could not have forged it, and certainly not a member of the Greek Church. There is no Shapira trick possible in the treatise. Perhaps the most striking point in the whole is its description of baptism. While some portions are not qtite clear in their meaning, it is clear that the manner of bap- tism was regarded asa matter of mere con- venience. Running water was preferred, | | | as ina stream, otherwise standing water, as a in a pool, otherwise warm water, or, finally, Sioa fixion, not a word of ‘‘the blood.” Doubt- ! less a great deal else is silently assumed, as | one Can be assured by the quotations from Matthew, Luke, and Paul, even the whole | system of faith through a dying and risen | | | ; | as well as a law of fasts; that the Lord’s | frmerdian was Pe hai eicn, ididnach there | Day is observed, and not the Jewish Sab- _ 4s nothing to forbid it. But it was not’ yah; and that the resurrection only of the ' considered necessary, and the language is righteous is assured. Beyond this, we quite in harmony with the opinion of those | notice the simplicity of faith and order. who believe that the earliest baptism was The tendency to ceremonialism and formal by affusion, the candidate standing in the ἐν religion had begun, but had proceeded but water, by which the feet were cleansed, and . a little way. τρῇ having it poured with the hand upon | We may return to. this subject again the head; and that total immersion when we receive the full Greek text. Espe- _ was an early development of the strong © cially do we desire to see those first six tendency to magnify the ritualism of chapters which embrace the doctrinal the Church. Τῇ, in this respect, our doc- | teaching given to applicants for baptism, ument proves that the immediate success- | ------ ers of the apostles laid no stress on Immer- f The pening Post discusses the philosophy of SSS the much more important point of believ- of the “‘Teaching of the ae It tells the | ers’ baptism it appears to take the position , tery: be no hint of the practice of infant baptism ' German theological journal, attracted the attention The catechumens who had received the in- York, who published an English translation of this ‘struction. required could hardly fail to in- | German version. As soon as the text of Bryennios clude children of believers as well as con- | Was received, professors in several institutions set. verts from heathenism. about its republication in this country. The New Re ny tant. neint iow f th York professors were first in the field with their edi- P ΡΥ as OO © | tion of the Greek text, accompanied by a translation Church orders. We find, to our surprise, | lowed, almost the next day, with an independent apostles continuing in the Church. But it | translation! and a scholarly critique. A Baltimore is plain that bishops have nothing to do professor at once gave four lectures on the text, 5 fo) | ete.” with them. Bishops are quite a different ; thing. The apostles are nothing else than The Post’s explanation is that there is ingrained itinerant missionaries, who may stop for a | tation of ancient doctrine, and that ‘the ex- day or two to visit a local church, but whose | treme ecclesiastical party, the Episcopal, has: business it is to be off on the outposts | professed to be rehabilitating early usages,” preaching to the keathen. They are not as also Methodists and Irvingites (!) and that an order in the Church, any more than are | all these elements combined in giving an eager prophets, who are mere local exhorters, | Welcome to the document. Our explanation of ‘moved by the Spirit. And the function of the phenomenon is partly in the same line. It ‘both apostles and prophets seems to be Oaed sue ΩΝ Ἦν ἮΝ cat core | importance and value were‘instantly evident..We ὦ ΠῚ ne Bo GY Os y, instantly gave it attention fitting its importance, say “in the Spirit,” they were yet to be | tp the most emphatic way possible we advertised carefully tested and guarded against. the Christian world that this was the most re- Two orders existed in the churches, markable discovery of the age, and we published diately of the publication of the document. Its ee churches. The bishops are simple pastors | Sy that we are notin the habit of giving cur- over a church and not over a diocese. | Trency to silly frauds, and our announcement at- Presbyters are not mentioned, whence | *@cted universal attention. Before our first it seems that the double designation of the | *™20wncement was published, we had privately ; informed a theological professor of the discov- office of , inform 8 pastor employed in.the Acts and ‘ery. He instantly engaged the first copy of Bry- ED ee Hag proved cumbrous, and the -ennios’s Greek text which should reach New single name of bishop was retained. The | York, Only one came, and from that copy Pro- bishops and deacons were chosen by the | fessor Hitchcock’s edition was prepared. We churches, just in what’way is not stated so | also wrote to Jehns Hopkins that this new werk far as yet appears. was interesting to students of stichometry. 80 Among other points we notice that the | the ‘‘ Baltimore Professor” got another very cup, in the Eucharist, is given still to the || 9411} Copy. But no one could expect to get the laity; that baptism is an invariable pre- start of Ezra Abbct. Scarce had we announced | cer 29 | requisite to the Communion; thatiitine the Teaching” before a copy of Bryennios, se uh aE EaCIOH OF Baptist ene sprung” ap; | _ sion, if, indeed, they practiced it at all, on . the great general interest taken in the discovery : now held by the Baptists. There seems to “ A translation of the text, given by Harnack in a , of the editor of a week. religious journal in New ᾿ present differences is the light it throws on | and brief comments. The Andover professors fol- in our religion a Puritanism which is ἃ rehabili- - was no accident by which we learned imme~_ bishops and deacons, both elected by the | the translation in our editorial columns. We can the first in the country, reached him. It was : 4 : from that copy that we published the ‘Greek 1 Ὁ: the chapter on Baptism. It was from that. copy that the Andover translation was made, and its issue in a monthly journal delayed it till the date of the appearance of Union Seminary edition. The first explanation of the attention given to the document is that the public happened to be somewhat authoritatively informed about it in these ways. Then comes the patent fact that Protestants claim to gather their Christian faith from the teachers of the first century, and this gave an extraordinary source of information as to what was taught in the first century, and it touches everybody. It is a manual of Church. teaching and order. It has to do with just the questions on which denominations differ. It describes baptism. It gives the liturgy for the Lord’s Supper. It lays down the duties of the officers of the Church. It swe have noticed, only has published a translation, with not a | of comment, and a Nashotah Professor has | ed ἃ warning against it; The document will ! ‘Hot trouble scholarly and liberal Bpiscopalians, | | who admit that apostolic successioii is tionséuse, : ‘and that episcopacy was a development—and ‘none the worse for that—of the second century. | But itis a blow between the eyes to Roman | Catholics and to “rehabilitating” Ritualists. | Why, it makes the ‘sacrifice’ of the Eucharist | diol aii offering of Christ, but an offering to _ Christ of food, a8 a peacé Offering. Its simplicity ‘is the very antithesis of all formalism in exeed or | worship or government. | eel ....The American public know of Philothéos | Bryennios simply as the learned Bishop of ΚΕ ΟΣ ἊΣ Wor Nicomedia, who has discovered and edited the | complete Greek texts of the two epistles of | Clement of Rome, and the ‘Teaching of the Apostles.” But he is not only a scholar, but a fervent and active Christian man. Two years ago he published a very admirable work of 360 pages, on the more urgent ecclesiastical reforms needed in the Greek Church, and on the means of resisting the encroachments of the Church of Rome. The Greek Synod, which lately met in Constantinople, has expressed its approval of the views of the distinguished prelate and scholar, and directed that his work should be. ! printed and distributed at its own exnonen f a Ee eT ee δον : TES Mion ῶ Atak ete Si koe | ine ΟΣ 2 2 _has @ very clear bearing on questions of bish- Me ae apostolic succession. It has a hundred ‘points of modern, present interest. It could not but attract great attention as soon as the | public was once informed emphatically about it. | But the Post is mistaken in supposing that the Episcopalians have had much to say about it, They have been almost utterly silent, while the Roman Catholive baye not opeaed their mou ths. χά (ee oer’ Among the many remarkable recoveries of long- | lost ancient documents which this century has wit- nessed, there is none which has awakened a more immediate and more wide-spread popular interest. than the discovery of the “ Teaching of the Apostles,” | a catechetical treatise of the early Church, known to. us hitherto chiefly through references to it by Clem-| ent of Alexandria, and such later writers as Euse- bius and Athanasius. Clement, who flourished about the end of the second century, cites the Teaching as Scripture, but it is expressly excluded from the canon by later writers. The fortunate discoverer of this document is the learned Bishop Bryennios of Nico- | media, in Asia Minor; and the ‘place of discovery was Constantinople. The Greek text was recently published, with full prolegomena and notes in modern Greek, by Bishop Bryennios, and The Independent, ‘Which was the first of American journals to announce the publication, gave a translation of Chapters VII. | to XVI. This translation lacked somewhat in exact» | ness, however, being made (owing to the necessities . published, nee ae of Ἐ τ εἰ ἴῃ the Andover Review ; Gardiner, in The Church- man; and Hitchcock ahh Brown in the edition of The Breachino. published, in, Greek and English, by Charles Scribner’s Sons. On account of the popular interest in this remarkable document, as well as in the inter-denominational discussions to which its dis- covery has given a fresh stimulus, we devote the larger part of our Books and Writers department this week to a full and independent translation of | the whole treatise from the original Greek. It is | believed that this translation is more exact than any | other now before the public. One or two illustra- tions may be given. In Chapter XVI., the phrase rendered by us “from under the curse itself” (see | Rev. 22 : 3) is left untranslated by Harnack (and by The Independent, following Harnack), while, by a very natural] mistake, Starbuck’s translation, excel- lent as it is in many respects, here gets the blasphe- mous sense, “ by him, the Curse,” referring to Christ. There is also a lack of accuracy in Hitchcock and Brown’s version, which is most easily seen in such errors as the translation of hupomené (endurance, patience) by “ BUOY α and of mias é duo (one or two) by “two or three.” The date of the original | document is commonly set between 120 and 160 A-D., |and this makes it the earliest Christian manual of | church polity extant, outside of the New Testament Sd we ——— itself. | THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. THE LOED’s TEACHING THROUGH THE TWELVE APOSTLES TO THE NATIONS, [Translated for The Sunday School Times. ] CHAPTER I. Two ways there are, one of life and one of death, but a wide difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, thou shalt love God who made thee; second, thy neighbor as thyself; and all things whatsoever thou wouldst should not occur to thee, thou also to another do not do. And of these say- ings the teaching is this: Bless them that curse you, _and pray for your enemies, and fast for them that per- secute you. For what Hale [is there], if ye love them that love you? Do not also the Gentiles do the samé? _ But do ye love them that hate you; and ye shall not _ have anenemy. Abstain thou from fleshly and worldly lusts. If one give thee a blow upon thy right cheek, turn to him the other also; and thou shalt be perfect, _If one impress thee for one mile, go with him two. If one take away thy cloak, give him also thy coat. If one take from thee thine own, ask it not back, for indeed δι, bestow of his own free gifts, ‘Happy [is] he that giveth | J for to all is the Father willing hi a according to the commandment; for he is guiltless. Woe to him that receiveth; for if one having need receiveth, he is guiltless ; but he [that receiveth] not. having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what, and coming into straits (confinement) he shall be examined concerning the things which he hath done, and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the last farthing. But also now concerning this it hath been said, Let thine alms sweat in thy hands, until thou know to whom thou shouldst give. CuHap. II. And the second commandment of the Teaching: Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit pederasty, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not practice magic, thou shalt not practice witchcraft, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. Thou shalt not covet the things of thy neighbor, thou shalt not forswear thy- | self, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not | speak evil, thou shalt bear no grudge. Thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued ; for to be double- | tongued is a snare of death. Thy speech shall not be, false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. Thou shalt not. be covetous nor rapacious nor a hypocrite nor evil disposed nor haughty. Thou shalt not take evil coun- sel against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not hate any man, | but some thou shalt reprove, and concerning some thou | shalt pray, and some thou shalt love more than thy own life. Cup. III. My child, flee from every evil thing, and from every likeness of it. Be not prone to anger, for anger Jeadeth the way to murder; neither jealous, nor ‘quarrelsome, nor of hot temper; for out of all these murders are engendered. My child, be not a lustful one; for lust leadeth the way to fornication; neither a. | filthy talker nor of lofty eye; for out of all these adul- | teries are engendered. My child, be not an observer of omens, since it leadeth the way to idolatry; neither an enchanter nor an astrologer nor a purifier, nor be will- ing to look at these things, for out of all these idolatry is | engendered. My child, be not a liar, since alie leadeth | the way totheft; neither money-loving nor vainglorious, for out of all these thefts are engendered. My child, be | not a murmurer, since it leadeth the way to blasphemy ; neither self-willed nor evil-minded, for out of all these _blasphemies are engendered. But be thou meek, since _ the meek shall inherit the earth. Belong-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always trembling at the words which thou hast heard. Thou shalt not exalt thyself, nor give over-confidence to thy | soul. Thy soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but with just and lowly ones shall it have its intercourse. The workings that befall thee receive as good, knowing | that apart from God nothing cometh to pass, ' Crap, IV. My child, him that speaketh to thee the | οὐ hin as the ἘΠῚ ‘for [in awe place] eines iotaly tule is uttered, there i is the Lord. And thou shalt seek out day by day the faces of the saints, in order that thou mayest be refreshed by (or, rest upon) their words. Thou shalt not long for division, but shalt bring those | who contend to peace. Thou shalt judge righteously, thou shalt not respect persons in reproving for transgres- | | sions. Thou shalt not be undecided whether it shall be or j no. Be nota stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a | | drawer of them back to give. If thou hast [aught], through thy hands thou shalt give ransom for thy sins. Thou shalt not hesitate to give nor murmur when thou | givest ; for thou shalt know who is the good repayer of ‘the hire. Thou shalt not turn away from him that is in want, but thou shalt share all things with thy brother, ‘and shalt not say that they are thine own; for if ye are _partakers in that which is immortal, how much more in things which are mortal? Thou shalt not remove thy hand from thy son or from thy daughter, but from [their] youth shalt teach [them] the fear of God. Thou shalt not enjoin aught in thy bitterness upon thy bondman or maidservant, who hope in the same God, lest ever they shall fear not God who is over both; for he cometh not to call according to the outward appearance, but ‘unto them whom the Spirit hath prepared. And ye _servants shall be subject to your masters as to a type of God, in modesty and fear. Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy and everything which is not pleasing to the Lord. Do thou in no wise forsake the commandments of the Lord ; but thou shalt keep what thou hast. received, neithed adding thereto nor takingtherefrom. In the church thou shalt acknowledge thy transgressions, and thou shalt not come near for thy prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. CHap. V. And the way of death is this: First ofall it is evil and full of curse: murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, rapines, false witnessings, hypocrisies, double-hearted- | ness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boast- fulness; persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, not knowing areward for righteousness, not cleaving to good nor to righteous judgment, watching not for that which is good but for that which is evil; from whom meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pur- suing requital, not pitying a poor man, not laboring for derers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from him that is in want, afflicting him that is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges ‘of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from ‘all these. | CHAP. VI. See that no one cause tree to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it : teacheth thee. For if thou art able to bear all the yoke _of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect; but if thou art not “a the afflicted, not knowing him that made them, mur-. ο | able, what thou art able that do. And concerning food, “pear what thou art able; but against that y hi ficed to idols be exceedingly on priest guard; f for service of dead gods. Bee Χο Cuap. VII. And concerning baptism, has haptics ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if thou have not living! water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. Butif thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son | and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the bap- tizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but thou shalt order the Repeat to fast one or two days before. Cuap. VIII. But let not your fasts be with the | hypocrites; for they fast on Monday and Thursday ; but do ye fast on Wednesday and Friday. Neither pray -as'the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in his | gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hal- ‘lowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be | done, as in heaven [so] also upon earth. Give us to-day our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, | but deliver us from evil; for thine is the power and. the glory for ever. Thrice in the day thus pray. _ CHap. IX. Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eu- _charist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: | We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David thy servant, which thou madest known to us ‘through | Jesus thy Servant; to thee be the glory forever. And concerning that whieh is broken: We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou madest , known to us through Jesus thy Servant; to thee be the glory forever. Even as this which is Renken was scat-_ tered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let thy church be gathered together from. the ends of the earth into thy kingdom; for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who are baptized into the name of the Lord; for | indeed concerning this the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Cuap. X. But after ye are filled, thus give thanks, We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name which thou didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which thou madest known to us through Jesus thy Servant; to thee be the glory forever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create the whole world for thy name’s sake; thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to thee; but to us thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through thy Servant. Before all things we thank thee that thou art mighty; to thee be the glory forever. Remember, Lord, thy church, to deliver it from all evil andto make it perfect in thy love, and gather it, sanctified, from the four winds, into thy kingdom, which thou hast prepared for it; for thine is the power and the glory forever, — Let ear τ thie = = εν Terr Ae, τ νας. Dern μὰς pty AN cw it race come 4 this world _ pass away. Hosanna | } He Son of ‘David. Whoever. is holy, let him come; Ni Whoever is not so, let him repent. Marantha. Athen! i But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much ἢ as they desire. | Cuap. XI. Whosoever, therefore, cometh and teacheth you’ all these things, which have been said before, receive him. Butif the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not; ‘but [if he teaches] so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord- But concerning the apostles and prophets according to the decree of the gospel, thusdo. Let every apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord. But shall not remain [except] one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goeth away, tet him take nothing but bread until he lodgeth; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet that speaketh in the Spirit ye shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall | be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one that speaketh in the Spirit is a prophet; but ἢ | only if he hold the ways of the Lord. Therefore from ] their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be i known. And every prophet, who ordereth a meal, in ‘the Spirit, eateth not from it, except indeed he be a false i prophet; and every prophet who teacheth the truth, if = he do not what he teacheth, is a false prophet. And 7. vevery prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of Ἵ the church in the world, yet not teaching [others] to do “ what he himself doeth, shall not be judged among you: fi for so also did the ancient prophets. But whoever saith i in the Spirit: Give me money, or something else, ye ᾿ ‘shall not listen to him; but if he saith to you to give ἢ for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him. CHAP. XII. But let every one that cometh in the name of the Lord be received, and afterward ye shall prove and know him; for ye shall have understanding right and left. If he who cometh is a wayfarer, assist him as far as ye are able; but he shall not remain with you, except for two or three days, if need be. But if he willeth to abide with you, being an artisan, let him work and eat; but if he hath no trade, according to your understanding see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. But if he willeth not so to do, he is ἢ a Christ-monger. Watch that ye keep aloof from such. if Cuap. XIII. But every true prophet that willeth to if abide among you is worthy of his support. So also a | true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of ! wine-press and threshing-flour, of oxen and of sheep, ἷ thou shalt take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if ye have not a prophet, give it to the poor. If thou makest a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment, So also when thou openest a jarof wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money and | clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it Ἵ em good to thee, and give accordin; ‘eommantiment. 3 δἰ eee bok: Cuap. XIV. But every Lord's dey’ ΟῚ ye Ruka your- ἡ selves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving, \ ‘ter Having confessed your transgressions, that your | perifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance ith his fellow come together with you, until they be j jeonciled) that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For | iis is that which was spoken by the Lord. In every place | and time offer to mea pure sacrifice; for I ama great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. | Cuap. XV. Appoint, therefore Nor vourseiyce bishops | and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honored ones, together. with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another not in anger, but in peace, as ye have it in the gospel; but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear aught from you until he repent. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as ye have it in the gospel of our Lord. Cuap. XVI. Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed ; but be ye ready, for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh. But.often shall ye come together seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if ye be not made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall Oe: turned into hate; for when lawlessness increaseth, they | shall hate and persecute and betray one dnpthes and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, | and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall.do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an unrolling in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it 15 said: The Lord shall come and all his saints with him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven. “νον. «ὐονξ THACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. Sir—The treatise διδαχὴ σῶν δώδεκα ᾿Αποσσόλων, which was ably reviewed in your columns some three or four months ago, seems to be attracting increased attention, and we are indebted to Archdeacon Farrar for a translation of it in the Contemporary Review for this month. Would you permit me to place before your readers one or two matters connected with it which seem to have escaped notice? The date of its composition has been assigned by the editor, Bishop Bryennios, to about the middle of the second century. Dr. Farrar, without giving any particular reason, considers it as written at the very beginning of that century. Another leading scholar, I am told, considers it to have been composed much earlier, say A.D. 70 or 80. From internal evidence and com- parison of its contents with those of the Apostolical Epistles, I should certainly say that the earliest of these dates is in all probability nearest to the truth; for, having attentively read it many times, I cannot conceive that it could have been written after either St. Paul or St. John had made his mark on the doctrine of the Church. For though one or two isolated phrases may be produced, which seem to resemble some expressions in St. Paul’s or St. John’s Epistles, yet the whole tenour of the treatise ' shows that it could not have been written by one who in the least degree realised the view of the Gospel taken by either of these Apostles. For it is a fact that in this treatise, evidently intended by the author to be a summary of Apostolic teaching, we have not a single reference to those truths which are called the doctrines of | grace. There is, for instance, not only no reference to the sacrifice of our Blessed Lord upon the Cross, or to His Blood shed for the remission of sins, but there is absolutely no refer- | ence to the Death of Christ at all. The writer literally might not have heard of it. In fact, there is not a single mention of | Redemption throughout the book. Besides this, there is no reference whatsoever to the Holy Spirit as regenerating, or renewing, or sanctifying, or purifying the heart. No reference | to the intercession of Christ, and no allusion to that very peculiar truth so characteristic both of Pauline and Johannian Christianity—the truth that the Christian is “in” Christ and Christ “in” the Christian. Now, this ignoring ‘“‘ of the Death of Christ and of the benefits which we receive thereby,” in a treatise which professes to be an embodiment of Apostolic doctrine, is simply amazing, when we consider that there are in the book (chap. ix.) two thanksgiving prayers—(Archdeacon Farrar, I think, wrongly | calls them consecration prayers)—one for the Cup, another for | the Bread, of the Eucharist. Besides these there is closely following upon them a third Eucharistic thanksgiving, a remark- able effusion of mingled piety and poetry, from which all reference to the Lord’s Death is unaccountably absent. Arch- deacon Farrar has a characteristic note on the first of these :— “The Eucharistic consecration prayer is as significant for what it | says as for what it leaves unsaid, and cannot but have weight in modern controversies. There is nota gleam of anything distantly resembling or approaching the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or any analogous doctrine, nor is there even a reference to the words, - | ‘This is My Body,’ ‘This is My Blood.’ ”’ But why does the Archdeacon stop here, and not tell us that the | prayers ignore the death of Christ? _ | Now, surely, if the Lord instituted the Eucharist in the words |“ This is My Body,” “This is My Blood,’ which from the four accounts of it in Scripture He certainly did, then any so-called consecration thanksgiving which takes no notice of such words, ' or of the reconciling death which the institution commemorates, must be simply non-Christian, There may be one or two Christian ideas embodied in these thanksgivings, but since the truth to which the Eucharist witnesses, the death of Christ and _our particular reception of the benefits of that death, is excluded, _the prayer or thanksgiving, so far as the Eucharist is concerned, is, I repeat, non-Christian. __ Now, supposing that the author wrote, say, in the year 100, he must have known the Synoptic Gospels. Archdeacon ᾿ __ : Se Varvar 6 says that Te Ἔπδν St. “Matthew and | St. He mus have known, then, that the Lord said, “ Do this i in oye ἘΠῚ ΤᾺ of Me”’—i.e., of course, ‘of My dying for you.’ He must also} have known at least the earlier Kpistles of St. Paul, and amongst: them that to the Corinthians, containing the account of the original celebration received from Christ Himself—containing » the Eucharistical reference to the death of Christ in the words, | “Ye do show the Lord’s death till He come;’’ containing also the Eucharistic teaching, “ The cup of blessing which we “bless is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ?” ὅσο. (1 Cor. x.) ;, also the reference to ‘“‘ Christ our Passover being sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. v. 7). If, then, he was a Christian teacher—I will not say an orthodox Christian, because the word is so disliked, but I will say a teacher according to the mind of that Spirit Who we all believe inspired St. Paul—could he have written a treatise on the doctrine of the Apostles and avoided all refer- ence to Christ’s death for sin? or could he have written of the Eucharist in seeming unconsciousness of its reference to the same all-reconciling Death? St. Paul, whatever men thought of him and of his teaching, | must have been certainly by far the most widely known teacher of the Church in his day. He was abundantly known to. the Jewish branches of it from his constant visits to Jerusalem. He must have been well known to all the Gentile Churches, at least in Europe and Asia Minor, for he founded most of them and spent his life travelling among them. It must have been known far and wide that he “had credentials as direct from Christ Himself as those of any of the Apostles, and that he instructed the Churches by Epistles which the Judaisers themselves acknowledged to be “‘ weighty and powerful.” If, then, in the year 100 A.p. a Christian professing to write a treatise upon Apostolic doctrine knows nothing of St. Paul’s writings, it must be either through ignorance of God’s greatest movement in the Church since Pentecost, in which case he must of course have been totally incompetent to take upon himself to— write a book with such a title and with such pretensions; or he must have disliked the Pauline view of Christianity, and probably denied the Apostleship of St. Paul, as, I need not say, a Jew of Palestine was not at all unlikely to do. From such considerations I cannot help thinking that this treatise must be either ante-Pauline or anti-Pauline. I would earnestly hope the former, for the writer must have been a very pious, God-fearing man, having an earnest zeal of God, though certainly not according to the knowledge of God and of Christ | 4 set forth in the writings of SS. Peter, Paul, and John. By e ante-Pauline I do not, of course, mean before the time of St. Paul’s Apostleship, or even his martyrdom, but before his, doctrine had permeated the Church, It had certainly made its place in the theology of the Church before the end of the first century; for we have in the Epistle of Clement to the Corin- thians (generally considered the oldest of uninspired Christian writings) several distinct quotations from St. Paul’s Epistles, and very many more distinct references to their contents. | The omission of all reference to Christ’s death in the Kucharistic thanksgivings seems so extraordinary that I have been led to question whether they were really Eucharistic in the sense of referring to the Lord’s Supper, whether they were not. thanksgivings—i.e., eucharists, over ordinary meals, and whether they do not show that at that earliest period, even ordinary meals had more of the character of the Agapé than ‘at later times. And two other considerations seem to lead this way. One that the third thanksgiving is to be said ‘‘after being satisfied’? (Mera τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι), which seems to imply a meal for the satisfaction of the hunger of the body rather than of the soul; another, that at nearly the end (chapter xiv.) there is a much more specific reference to the Kucharist as the speciality of the Lord’s Day, and the fulfilment by the Church, as such, of Malachi i. 11-14. I have mainly directed attention to the divergence between the views of the writer of this treatise and those of St. Paul, because St. Paul directly refers to the Eucharist as intimately connected with both the Body and Blood of the Lord and with His Death; but the same difference is manifest if we take the First Epistle General of St. Peter—the Apostle, be it remem- bered, of the Circumcision. There is nothing in the Didaché in the least degree answering to such an expression as “‘ Obedience ἣν ἐπ -fand sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ,’ nothing a | parallel to “ Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corrup- |tible things, . . . . but with the precious Blood of Christ, 188 of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.’ In fact, the treatise from beginning to end has no trace of that Evangelical truth respecting the efficacy of the Blood and Intercession of Christ and the sanctifying power of the Spirit, which, no matter ᾿ ΒΟΥ in these latter days it may have been perverted or distorted, is the foundation of all the Christian’s hope for the forgiveness of his sins and the subduing of his heart to God. I know no Christian treatise purporting to give an account of practical Christianity so utterly unevangelical in the highest and best and most unsectarian sense of that much-abused word. In writing this it must be understood that I do not for a moment advocate the notion that every short treatise on religion must contain a reference to every truth of the Gospel. I repudiate : altogether such bondage. But in a book written professedly to give an account of the doctrine of the Apostles to find no reference to the death of Christ or to the redemption it effected : is a caution to receive the book for what it is worth, and as a ] testimony to the teaching of the Catholic Church at the end of the first century it seems to me to be worth very little. But it is probable that the book is of considerable value in the matter of Christian antiquities, as representing the Judaical phase of Christianity at its best. And if so, it goes far in explaining the extraordinary energy with which St. Paul, the great Apostle of grace, repudiated that teaching. The book teaches the law pure and simple, and applies the law as if it ‘could give life, which it cannot (Gal. iii. 21),—the law, I grant, | at times very practically and spiritually stated and applied, but Ϊ still the mere law, without any reference to any promise of Ϊ forgiving, or regenerating, or sanctifying, or strengthening grace. For instance, there is but one reference that I remember ‘to the forgiveness of sins, “If thou hast (this world’s goods) thou shalt give with thine hands, as a ransom for thy sins,”’ and in.a note the Archdeacon refers to Daniel iv. 27, which, taken strictly, is not much to the point; but surely some notice should be taken of the doctrine of the real Apostle St. John in 1 John i. 7-10, of St. Peter in 1 Peter ii. 24, of St. Paul in Col..i. 20, 21. There is but one Epistle in the Sacred Canon which seems to | resemble this Didaché in its non-doctrinal character, the Epistle | of St James. In_it Archdeacon Farrar tells us, “We do not. _ | find one direct word about the Incarnation, or the Crucifixion, or ‘the Atonement, or justification by faith, or sanctification by the | Spirit, or the resurrection of the dead ;” but there is.this differ- ence: St. James’s Epistle is not given to teach its readers the doctrine of the Apostles. On the contrary, it is taken for granted that they had been before instructed in and held or continued in “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory’ (James ii. 1). It was rather written to console and support those under persecution, but both the Treatise and the Hpistle evidently belong to the same undoctrinal, undogmatic type of Christianity, and as this type passed away towards the end of the century it seems probable that the dates of the two documents are not very far apart from one another. And now to proceed to another point—Church organisation. The reference to this in chapters xi., xii., xiii. is exceedingly interesting, and in one respect, at least, very useful to contem- plate, for it sets before us the picture of a ministry as self- denying and as unworldly as we have in all Church history. There were then persons called apostles, whose ministry was itinerant, but instead of remaining two or three years in a place, as itinerant ministers amongst us do, they remained but two days. If they remained in any place three days they were to be accounted false prophets. We read in the same chapter xi., ‘“‘When the apostle departs let him take nothing except enough to last till he reach his night’s quarters. If he ask for money he ig a false prophet.” This seems to take Whee to Ae Bias αἱ things ordered by the Lord Himself, rovide neither gold nor silver nor br: i rses ”’ (Math. =. 9) 80 or brass in your purses The Church organisation of this treatise carries us back to the time when missionaries were called apostles, as in Rom. xvi. 7., Phil. ii. 25; but it ig especially interesting as bringing before us the ministerial action of “the prophets,” an order of men to which there has been nothing corresponding since the first oy Baa. cll = ed ΒΡ ν᾿ ΝΎ ΝΎ ΡΟ ΨΥ, ΠΥ Κ᾿ awn — τ ων. τ πο εἰδῶν. = P ees | century in any branch of the Church, or in any body of | - Christians, except amongst some fanatics, as the Montanists, |) the Anabaptists of Munster, and another sect to which I shall presently allude. The names of “apostle’’ and “ prophet” seem to be interchangeable. And yet, though the rule is appa- | rently so strict that an apostle is not to remain above two days in any place on pain of being accounted a false prophet, yet in the very next chapter [ xii. ] special provision is made to ensure the man a maintenance, if he wishes to settle permanently in any place. In chapter xv. they are told to appoint Bishops | (that is, we suppose, overseers of congregations) and deacons, | but nothing is said of the particular duties of these Bishops and deacons. They seem to exercise only the same ministry as the prophets. “They, too, minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.” Altogether, the organisation, if such it can be called, is of the loosest kind, and in every point seems in the sharpest contrast to that into which the Church, | guided, no doubt, by the Holy Spirit, has finally settled down. But there are one or two points about the ministry as repre- sented in this book which deserve mentioning. One, that it | | retains the name of apostle; another, that its most important | ᾿ ministry by far is the prophetical. The state of things here } _ described, or rather hinted at, here appears in the main the same as that which prevailed at the time when the First Epistle to he Corinthians was written; and which, at the time of the writing of the Pastoral Hpistles, seems to have given place to a more localised or settled ministry, in which apparently the prophet has no specified place. There has been, as most of us probably know, a remarkable _attempt made in the nineteenth century to reproduce or resus- ‘citate this ministry of prophets—viz., by the Catholic Apostolic | Church, commonly called Irvingism. In this body the prophet, at least at first, was much more important than the apostle, because, as I understand, it was by the prophets that the apostles were designated; but the issue has not been en- couraging. It is not my purpose to enter into many matters of very great interest connected with this Didaché, such as, for instance, its | relations to the Seventh Book of the Apostolical. Constitutions ; | but I cannot help making a remark upon a view of the latter book, | taken by Archdeacon Farrar, which seems to me unfair. He designates the Seventh Book as “ double-dyed with the spirit of | the falsarius,’’ because the contents profess to be taken down from the mouths of the Apostles.* No doubtitisa “ pious” fraud, but does not the same accusation lie against a man who in the year | 100 professes to write a ‘‘ Doctrine of the Apostles,’ taking no notice of what the real Apostles had written? With respect to the Scripture quotations in this curious book } 4 Archdeacon Farrar writest :— | “The large majority of his Scriptural quotations seem to be made from memory. The Gospels which he seems to be best acquainted | with are those of St. Matthew and St. Luke. The main allusions to | St. Matthew are to the Sermon on the Mount, or to the closing chapters. Scarcely one of them is verbally accurate, which implies | that the writer did not actually possess a manuscript of the Gospel, | and had not one at hand for the purpose of exact quotation.” | Here, then, isa man who at the end of the first century, when } the first three Gospels had been published thirty or forty, one perhaps fifty years, had not a copy of a single one (though he might have written one fairly out in a fortnight), and who only now and then peeps into those of hig neighbours, yet sits down to write a book with the title, ‘‘ The teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles.” | In conclusion, I do not see how the book can be used with any |} honesty against Catholic truth. Its utter absence of ‘‘ dogma,” | which some will hail with satisfaction, really amounts to a | complete absence of all promise of divine grace, whether | expressed in words or embodied in sacraments. | Baptism is mentioned and the water specified that it should | be running water, or, if need be, warm, but not a word about its | having any meaning. The Eucharist, as we have seen, is men- tioned, but without a word of its connection with the all- | reconciling Death. | There is one to me very remarkable passage in the few last . ,sentences—an allusion to the first resurrection of Phil. iii. (the | ie setante ad ’ “a * In the Expositor for May, p, 381, + In the Expositor for May, p. or oT — sh SAR TSOAS Aap EGR τοτ 0 0 — = -- --------.-.-- ee ἢ exanastasis), In the words—-" Lhe third sign, the .tvesurrec ‘of the Dead; not, however, of all, but as hath been said, ‘ The | Lord shall come, and all the saints with Him.’ ” M. F. SADLER. bye + ἐπ νι: Ἢ kets τ ὼ a cae THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES Oped ~ Sir—The great interest felt in the new MS. is widely expressed, but if “the discoverers and all the critics profess themselves unable to interpret’? any one of its sentences, he 1s to be praised who shall solve the difficulty. ΜῈ The true meaning of the paragraph containing the words σοιῶν εἰς μυστήριον κοσμικὸν ἐκκλησίας involves the construction first, and, secondly, the deduction claimed therefrom. 1. In reply to Mr. Birks I venture to suggest that his transla- | tion is very trying— making garniture of a church for a sacra- | mental celebration,” and I doubt that the French word will, as here used, commend itself. I offer no translation, my main concern being with the deduc- | tion so confidently drawn from the paragraph by Mr. Birks, but I may just remind brethren that ἐκκλησιάζω means to cal an assembly or congregation, and so does ἐκκλησίαν wate. M hether | κοσμικὸν is an adjective or a substantive may be doubtful. Of course, “if it were a Greek substantive 1b must have appeared in Greek”? (!) before its supposed Hebrew form, but that trans- | literation does not really prove even so much as Middleton allows. It may be an adiective, as in a similar construction, and with another word, ποιῶν ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς, Acts XIX. 24, The governing word seems to be σοιῶν, and ib is, both in subject | and construction, analogous to St. Luke xxu. 19, ποιεῖτε εἰς 2. 65 “π'οιῶν εἰς. ὌΝ ee eri Now, it is remarkable that κοσμικὸν 15. an infrequent word, used only twice in the New Testament ; but ib is noticeable that Josephus has the phrase κοσμικῆς λατρείας, Which accords with, and perhaps in some measure accounts for, the applicaticn of | the word in question to Church functions, and to the μυσπήριον, OF Holy Sacrament. , fi If the word be an adjective, then it would mean ordered ” ‘or “fair” (“the fair beauty of His temple”), or “ dignified.” | The use of the word in the form κόσμιος in 1 Tim. ii. 9 and iii. 2 is | remarkable. 2. With somewhat more confidence I venture to doubt Mr. -Birks’s inference—viz., that the Didaché shows (contrary to the 'preface in the Ordinal) that there were in the Church “two orders and two orders only . . . . and not three orders |. . . . asin the Epistles of Ignatius.” It is a commonplace of students to know that the names ** Bishop, priest, deacon,’’ as now used, are later than “the Apostles’ time ;” but the thing—three orders—was there “it is evident’’ from the first, and we were so taught to distinguish when preparing for ordination. The Didach?, I think, strongly confirms this truth, for it shows one, called a “prophet” or “ Apostle” (applied to the same person), as supreme in order and doing a Bishop’s proper work of rule and oversight in the Church, with two orders inferior to him. The names of the three orders were not distributed in the New Testament times. St. Paul the Apostle was also called “deacon ;” ‘‘ Apostles’? were, as in the Didaché probably, any messengers of the Churches, and ‘ Bishops” and “ presbyters ”’ _were the same (Titus i. 5-7). In the cases of SS. Timothy and Titus even, specialisation does not yet appear, but it seems likely that the Didaché gives “the missing link,’’ showing a third order to which some belonged, “‘ prophets,’’ who though ordering and ruling have as yet no name of office in the New Testament. If this conjecture be sound then the very early date of the Didaché is confirmed ; it contains a picture of Christian Church- life in, or close upon, the days of SS. Timothy and Titus, and it may throw light upon Ephesians iv. 1l—‘‘He gave some apostles, and some prophets. . . . .” If the Didaché be not a forgery its very early date is almost a necessary conclusion, for Ignatius wrote from his settled bishopric at Antioch, describing a settled order of the Church, } with ‘ Bishops, priests, and deacons”’ of unquestioned obligation, jand it is next to impossible to imagine the Didaché could dedcription of the same settled order. So early a document is invaluable; bnt in proportion to 108. valne is the importance of care and accurate handling in its interpretation: One remarkable coincidence is evidential— viz., that the Didaché and Pliny’s Letier to Trajan agree in_ representing the Holy Sacrament as being the supreme object. (in the days of one "ΟΥ̓ more of the Apostles) of the early | Christians, in “the assembling of themselves together.” Woodleye, Farnborough, June 13, 1884. W. Ε΄. Hopson. | Sir—Is Mr. Birks sure that the ritual he speaks of (the | breaking the middle one of three loaves, and laying by one. portion till the meal is over) is not more recent than the institu- tion of the Holy Hucharist? It is said to be in representation of a portion of the Paschal, lamb which used to be kept to be partaken of when the meal was ended. My only authority at hand is Bickell, Messe wnd Pascha, and ΒΘ refers to Maimonides as saying that, during the existence of the Temple, two loaves sufficed. HENRY DE ROMESTIN. Freeland Parsonage, June 12, 1884. 5 wa Ved Lina - Man 2 $8 | THE - LESSONS OF THE TEACHING OF THE ὍΝ rier | BY PROFESSOR vinnie gcfrare, Do 4. LL.D. | ‘Since the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript of the Bible; in the convent of St. Catharine, at the foot of the Mount of Legislation, by the German Professor Tischen- dorf, in 1859, no literary discovery has created such a sensation in the theological world as that of the Teach-. ing of the Twelve Apostles, by the Nicomedian Metro- | politan Philotheos Bryennios. A book written, in all probability, before the close of the first century, Be Chris- ᾿ tian of the second generation, and [professedly] summing | up the teaching of the apostles on faith and morals, on bap- tism, the Lord’s Supper, public worship, church polity and Ajsniolan’, in fact, a complete church manual, excited the curiosity of all denominations and sects. Garman | French, English, and American divines fell on the pre- : cious morsel with a ravenous appetite. Book after book, essay after essay, appeared since its first publication at Constantinople, in December, 1883, and the theme is not yet exhausted. Nowhere has the interest been more extensive and more practical than in the United States. All denomi- | nations and parties have tried to make capital of it for | their favorite theories and practices. Psdobaptists found in it a welcome argument for pouring or sprink-. ling, as a legitimate mode of baptism ; Baptists pointed triumphantly to the requirement of immersion in living. | water as the rule, and to the absence of any allusion to infant baptism; while the threefold repetition of im- _mersion, and the requirement of previous fasting, suited neither party. Episcopalians were pleased to find bishops and deacons (though no deaconesses), but non- Episcopalians pointed to the implied identity of bishops and presbyters:; while the traveling apostles and prophets puzzled the advocates of all forms of ‘church’ : overnment, “The friends of liturgical worship derived aid and comfort. from the ‘eucharistic prayers, and the | | Prescription to recite, the: Lord’s Prayer three times a | prophets’ ” are permitted to pray 38 long-as they plate after the eucharistic sacrifice with which the Agapé was | connected. Roman Catholic divines found traces of. | purgatory, and the daily sacrifice of the mass, but not a ‘| word about the Pope and an exclusive priesthood, or the 1 worship of saints and the Virgin, or any of the other 1 distinctive features of the papal system; while another Roman Catholic critic depreciates the Didache as a pro- duct of the Ebionite sect. Unitarians and Rationalists were pleased with the meagreness of the doctrinal teach- ing, and the absence of the dogmas of the Trinity, incar- nation, depravity, atonement, etc.; but they overlooked the baptismal formula and the eucharistic prayers, and the fact that the roots of the Apostles’ Creed are at least as old as the Didache, as is proven by the various Ante- Nicene rules of faith. Millenarians and anti-Millena- rians have alike appealed to the Didache with. about equal plausibility. i _ We must look at the Didache, as on any other his- torical document, impartially and without any regard to ‘sectarian issues. It is, in fact, neither Catholic nor Protestant, neither Episcopalian nor anti-Episcopalian, neither Baptist nor Pzedo-Baptist, neither sacerdotal nor anti-sacerdotal, neither liturgical nor anti-litur- gical; yet it is both in part or in turn. | It does not fit into any creed or ritual or church polity or church party of the present day; yet it presents one or more points of resemblance to Greek, Latin, and Protestant views and usages. It belongs, like the writings of the apostolic fathers, to a state of transition from divine inspiration to human teaching, from apostolic freedom to churchly consolidation. This is just what we must expect, if history is a living process of growth. The Didache claims no apostolic authority; it is sim- ply the summary of what the unknown author learned either from personal instruction or oral tradition to be | the teaching of the apostles, and what he honestly | believed himself. It is anonymous, but not pseudony- } mous; post-apostolic, but not pseudo-apostolic. Its | value is historical, and historical only. It furnishes us | important information about the catechetical instruc- | tion and usages in the age and country where it was written, but not beyond. It takes its place among the | genuine documents of the apostolic fathers so called— | Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Her- | mas. These writings fill the gap between the apostles | and the church fathers, from the close of the first to the middle of the second century ; just as the Apocrypha of ‘the Old Testament fill the gap between Malachi and | John the Baptist. The following is a summary of the historical lessons of the Didache as regards the state of Eastern Christian- | ity in the post-apostolic age: Eee one τ ROMP eG bis Sige WET Ne 3 Pee es oes vg 4 as a prepara- Ὁ tion for: church-membership:. ὁ 9°04 ππττ τς 2. That instruction was chiefly moral and practical, — and based upon the Decalogue and the Sermon on the > Mount. No doubt, it included also the main facts in the life of Christ, for the document assumes throughout — faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour, and repeatedly — refers to his gospel. ; 3 - 8. The moral code was of the highest order, far above that of any other religion or school of philosophy. It was summed up in the royal commandments of supreme | love to God and love to our neighbor, as explained by the teaching and example of Christ. The superior morality of Christianity in theory and practice carried in itself the guarantee of its ultimate victory. ? 4, Baptism was the rite of initiation into church-mem- bership, and was administered by trine immersion in a river or fountain, but with a certain freedom as to the quality of the water and the mode of its application; pouring water three times on the head being allowed as legitimate baptism in case of scarcity of water. Fasting before and after the act was required ; but no oil, salt, or exorcism, or any other material or ceremony, are men- tioned. . 5. The Eucharist. was celebrated every Lord’s Day in | connection with the Agapé (as at Corinth, in the time of Paul), and consisted of a fraternal meal, thanksgiy-_ ings, and free prayers for the temporal and spiritual mercies of God in Christ. It was regarded as the Chris- tian sacrifice of thanksgiving to be offered everywhere — and always, according to the prophecy of Malachi, - | _. 6, There were no other sacraments but these two. At | | least, none is hinted at. : | ie | 7. The Lord’s Prayer, with the doxology, was repeated _ ; three timesa day, This, together with the eucharistic = 1. Catechetical instruction was thanksgivings, constituted the primitive liturgy; ust | freedom was given to free prayer from the heart in p ; ae ἦρεν ‘hat day of the week was celebrated as a Lord’s Day, in commemoration of his mapa ni! public worship and the copraae ang Wednesday ἃ ri ere observed as days of lasting. Maco church at large was governed by payee apostles or evangelists, who carried the gospel to ae known parts; by prophets, who were either Bares ot stationary, and instructed, comforted, and revived 889) converts; while the local congregations were ere ‘| by bishops (or presbyters) and deacons, elected and sup Christian people. ΡῈ ματος τινι the Wades of the apostolic writings, Ἔν | especially the Gospel of Matthew, were more or a known,-and their authority bee τοι but there was | led canon of the Scriptures. “t) ht Re the gospel tradition, nothing of any | importance was known concerning Christ and the apos- tles. The Didache, only one extra canonical sentence of uncertain authorship (I. 6), possibly a reported say- / hi "bint Ἦν Be ἢ oan | ὟΣ eee : ae As Bishop πεν δὴ says, «ἈΠ the ΑΣΑ Βἢ mation 80 far as we ean trace it, is found within τ aig corners | of our canonical Gospels.” | 12. The Didache furnishes aqodles soot of ie infinite superiority of the New Testament over ecclesiastical lit- erature. Interesting and important as it is, it dwindles into insignificance before the Epistle to the ον ᾿ which is of about the same size, or the Sermon on the Mount, of which it is an echo. 4 of th θωάίοιος τ ΟΣ “LY Ud. THE “DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLES.” | In the Presbyterian of March 15th was published an extract from the Independent with regard to the book entitied “ The Doctrine of the Apostles,’ lately discov- ered and published by ths metropolitan bishop Bryen nios of Nicomedia. The discovery of this long lost ancient work is an event of more than ordinary inter- ‘est, and deserves a more extended notice. The fact that such a book existed in the early church had long been known through references to it in the works of Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, and other early fathers; but until its recent discovery by Bryennios it had been supposed to be hopelessly lost. Of the edi- tion just issued by the bishop Professor Harnack, of Giessen, has lately published a review, with a German . translation of a part of the book, in the Theologische : Literaturzeitung, from which we gather the following ‘facts. The composition of the book must be assigned to a date between 120 and 160 A.D. It therefore takes rank with the oldest writings which have come down to us from the primitive Gentile Church. In the ex- tract from the Independent, previously published, it is, for example, shown conclusively that according to the writer of this book, “The Doctrine of the Apos- 1168 did not make immersion essential to baptism. Other matters may be mentioned on which the testi | mony of this primitive work is of no less consequénce. Thus, as regards the question of the polity of the early church, “ The Doctrine of the Apostles” agrees with other authorities of the same age in recognizing no church officers but bishops (plainly not diocesan) and deacons. | Much is said of the “prophets,” showing that the gift of prophecy, as mentioned in the New Testament, was LL Ὁ ἐεποπν πα But these “ prophets” ‘are, not represented as officers edddiitital to the constitution of the church. The case is supposed that there might in a church be no prophet. We read also of “ apos- tles,” but they are not regarded as the special succes-| sors of the twelve—rulers over lower orders of the min- istry-—as the High-church theory would have it. In this work the word oniy denotes travelling preachers, | a sense of the word which already appears here and there in the New Testament. (Acts xiv. 4; 2 Cor. Vill. 23, εἰ passim ) | Once again the testimony of this witness from nthe primitive Gentile church is of special interest as re- | gards the question whether, according to apostolic teaching, a millennial age of righteousness was to be anticipated before the second coming of our Lord, and whether the resurrection of the righteous is to be ex- pected as simultaneous with that of the wicked, or is to precede the latter. As toa millennium of righteous- ness before the Lord shall come again the work before | us, like other authorities of the second century, knows | nothing. On the contrary, it describes the last days, very fully, after the manner of Paul and John, (2 Thess. ii; 2 Tim. iii.; 1 John ii. 18, &c,) as evil days. | We are tld, according to Professor Harnack’s trans- lation, that in the last days “the tempter of the world will appear, as if he were the Son of God, and the world shall be delivered into his hand . . . and all mankind shall come into the fire of trial, and many shall be offended and perish.” Then we read:-—“Then shall | appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign that, the heaven sha!l open; then the sign of the trumpet-blast; thirdly, the resurrection of the dead—not, however, of all—but, as it is said, ‘The Lord will come and all the saints with him.’” By this writer of the primitive Gentile church, therefore, it is. explicitly taught that according to the doctrine of the apostles the resurrec- tion of the wicked will not be simultaneous with that of the righteous. - One other fact brought out by this book deserves notice. Professor Harnack, in the article to which we have above referred, calls attention to the complete demonstration which the publication of this book affords, that the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, which have figured so much in discussions touching the | doctrine and polity of the primitive church, are in fact, as had been long suspected, a corrupt and inter- polated compilation of a comparatively late period. : Book VIT. of the Constitutions proves to be simply this ancient Doctrine of the Apostles, deliberately and sys: tematically altered, wherever necessary, to make its ee : support the beliefs and practice of a later ex -age. Thus, wherever the original work has the word “prophets,” the author of the Constitutions has substi- tuted “ priests;” in suitable places he has inserted, in addition to the words “bishops” and “deacons,” the ord “presbyters”—which, in the original document, does not occur—thereby passing’ off the three fold | order of bishops, presbyters, or priests and deacors as of apostolic authority. The directions as to the ad- ministration of the sacraments are also modified by the interpolation of various Ritualistic precepts. The original reference to the mode of baptism is omitted altogether. In the above-cited passage concerning the | second coming of our Lord, after the words “resurrec- tion of the dead,” the compiler of the Constitutions omitted the restricting phrase, “ Not, however, of all,” adding other phrases, so as thereby to expunge the doctrine of a prior resurrection of the righteous, and bring the teaching of the primitive document into agreement with the doctrine concerning the millennium } and advent which by that time had come to be gener- ally accepted in the church. It is with good reason that Professor Harnack re- marks in his review, that “we do not possess another so elegant and instructive illustration of the art of | transforming an old writing” as we have in this chap. vii. of the Apostolical Constitutions, with its studied | and systematic alteration of this primitive Doctrine of _the Apostles. Comment on the above facts is needless. 5. H. KeLLoca. | ~~ | -was practicable,the candidate was, of course, | ‘to be immersed. Pouring or sprinkling was — J at that time known as Clinic Baptism, and _ those who had received it were deemed in- | aa, τ : - eligible to the higher offices of the Church. sae thet y.discompred, * Teeehing of the It was allowed to beirregular even by base Apostles” is now before the public. Does. wo were willing to recognize it as valid. [it Show. that, the,.use, of pouring for bap-_ Now if the opinion shall stand that the | Hsmy has apostolic sanction? ‘‘Teaching” was written as early as the Before the recent discovery, the oldest middle of the second century, and the undisputed mention of the use of affusion seventh chapter be not an interpolation, we ΒΌΥΝ | = ---.---- THE BRYENNIOS DOCUMENT AND THE ACT OF . OF BAPTISM. BY mers PIKE. a” was in the Epistle of Cyprian to Magnus, written about the year 250. Certain. per- sons, converted in sickness, when immer- sion was impracticable, had received mere- ly apouring. It was denied that this was valid baptism and the opinion of Cyprian is. asked. He answers at much length, and | -gives it as his judgment that, in a case of absolute necessity, pouring or. sprinkling may be used for baptism. It will be seen ataglance that the ordinary baptism of that time was immersion. The question _ whether affusion could be accepted in case ΟΥ̓ necessity assumed. that, when immersion have a mention of affusion a hundred years before Cyprian. But it leaves immersion the ordinary act of baptism in the second,’ as it was in the third century. ; The direction is to baptize ‘‘in running water” or ‘‘into other water’; ‘‘but if thou What is the meaning of the Greek word baptize? When the Septuagint says that Naaman went down into the Jordan and ‘baptized himself (ἐβαπτίσατο) we understand that he dipped himself. means immerse in the Septuagint story of hast neither, pour water upon the head.” But if baptize - | Naaman, we must assume, until something — meaning in this place also. render the whole passage: ‘‘ Now, concern- ing immersion, thusimmerse. . . . Im- merse . . . in running water... + for]... . intootherwater.. . . but, if thou hast neither [in sufficient depth | immersion] pour water upon the- for head.” The directions cover two points; first, the kind of water in which the candidate is to be immersed--viz., run- ning water, if possible; second, the thing to be done when immersion is impossible— | viz., pouring water upon the head. The_ ‘¢Teaching,” like Cyprian’s Epistle, sanc- tions affusion, not as the ordinary act, but only ‘‘ necessitate cogente.” The honored editors of the Scribner edi- ‘scribed baptism ‘‘ in water” to be a pouring on the head, while the subject stands ankle- deep in water. This would make the alter- native to be,not between two acts—viz.,bap- tism on the one hand, and pouring on the | other, but between two positions of the candidate—viz., in water and out of water. Now it would seem strange that baptism and pouring, which are not contrasted, should both be mentioned, while of the two positions, the very things to be contrasted, only one was mentioned. If all the writer | meant was, that, during the affusion, the subject should, if possible, stand in water, he certainly took a very roundabout way of saying it. Again, if the same act is re- ferred to in both clauses, we may use the same term in both, and then we shall have: ‘‘ Baptize in water; but if thou hast none, baptize,” or ‘‘Pour water upon the head in running [or] into other water; but if thou hast neither, pour water upon tke head.” Again, while it would not be difficult to understand the words, ‘‘ Im- merse into water” what would be meant by ‘¢ Pour water upon the head into (εἰς) other water’? Suppose, however,that, willing to deal ten- derly with polemics in straits, we conceded that the suggested construction was not ab- solutely inadmissible; it would still remain to be proved that it was the right one. The presumption is that the word daptize means the same in this passage as in the Septua- gint story of Naaman. The presumption is that immersion which, as every writer allows, was the ordinary baptism in the third century, was the ordinary baptism in the second century also. Therefore, until something is adduced to set aside these } presumptions, we must translate the direc- is shown to the co contrary, that. i ‘it has that |} ἢ | tion before is We, therefore, Ἵ 1 practiced affusion, that fact would cer- | tainly have been known also to Cyprian, | affusion; he pleads merely that sprinkling | is mentioned in the Old Testament. h | does not claim that the validity οὗ affusion tion of the ‘‘ Teaching,” consider the pre-~ 18: “ΑΝ μοῦ. immerse pour water upon the head. » Τὴ | other words, the deliverance i in the ““ Teach- ing” is the same as in Cyprian’ 5. Epistle —viz., that affusion may be resorted to, | but only when immersion is impracticable. | “And that, for even this limited use of affusion, the writer of the ‘‘Teaching” claimed apostolic precedent, there is no ground for declaring. Had it been known by this writer that the apostles sometimes who lived buta century later. But Cyprian, cites no apostolic precedent for the use of He ἀξ: * 2}.... a ων Ὁ. a .....-...-ςςς--. Ὁ is beyond question, but uses such diffi- dent expressions as, ‘‘So far as my poor | ability comprehends the matter” and “1 have shown what I think.” Heis particu-_ lar to say that he does not insist that others shall practice affusion; and, to crown all, he declares his willingness that those who. have received affusion shall, on their re- covery from sickness, be immersed. Now is it conceivable that the apostles should | have used pouring for baptism and yet. that fact have been unknown to the Church | of the third century? Is it conceivable that it should have been known that the apostles sometimes practiced affusion, and > yet its validity be denied? When Cyprian was doing his best to establish the validity of pouring, and when the mention of a sin- | gle case of its use by an apostle would have put that validity beyond all question, | is it conceivable that, though he knew οὗ such cases, he should have cited not apos- tolic precedent, but only Old Testament usage; should have. asserted its validity only in the most. hesitating Janguage; should have consented that others should contemn the ceremony by refusing to ad- minister it; and, finally, should have de- ; clared his willingness that an affusion, | which had already been administered, should be ignored by a subsequent immersion? a ee gee ---.-- - | tion, that he had no ins ee that the apostles ever practiced pouring and sprink- ling. And, if Cyprian had had knowledge. of such a thing, the writer of the ‘‘ Teach- ing” cannot have had any knowledge of it. the apostles ever practiced sprinkling or pouring, is proof overwhelming that the apostles never did practice them. On the / &Tp ‘Immerse, but if ‘you c: can Ἷ Cyprian’s epistle shows, beyond all ques- | Cyprian’s Epistle to Magnus proving, as-it | does, that Cyprian had no knowledge that. | a > ὃ , Spirit.” We, there- : 2¢ 5 otf) Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ; oe 8 Cyprian approved the use : 0) pees: other mae pe claimed no apostolic | fore, feel no force whatever in the elaborate, ring, thou C1a, pouring, Ξ ; ; ly elaborate, arguments of Bap- ‘ yriter superfluously elaborate, argumen oD see that the writer of } § ἢ ι ͵ AER Tre ists directe ; at baptize meant : ap Teaching” could pen the above-quoted 1 {1818 dire Cle d fo sett g A Santee es Ἴ I] ei i ithout claiming any apostolic | exclusively immerse. : So, as ac ate ‘i - did—in other applications—but in this par- precedent for affusion.. aed Atl ig Aa NEE ) Though the ‘‘ Teaching” was apparently Now ‘this: 48° perféctly~ intelligible alan: itten «at an early day, it contains many Now this is ] ὶ 2 written at an ea ᾿ ΓΤ ly 8 ‘ guage; ¢ this languaye is, in all godly iti ic recept. It uage; and ; apostolic precep human additions to au fev oD ng us izer sincerity, held by not a few men among is , » baptizer and incerity, | says: ‘‘ Before baptism let the baptizer : the baptized for men who are most exemplary Christians, | pans ἀποβεν ας ἐφ : I fe re” oe ‘¢ Past and at the same time most parte : ἊΝ ΠΡ ane On? i) ; is lt age is sounc POST We Piting O Ὁ i meek scholars. If this language is § during the fourth and the preparation day”; pies εὰ dee te ae Ἢ as We as 2 σ > Is SC as assages : doubtless been Si ead ee ag Ae ritual had | Sincere in many mouths, then the position H *, Slaver al hé noted by the reader. 8 " Bapti int of bapti Vhat : of Baptists on the point of baptism, ¥ ; uni ‘hurch, and from such } °° ἢ] aC ΕἾΡΒΩΣ Ῥοεμμ μέ μα ἀν aie to use | 1} 105 form it properly is, cannot be main eye s the direc : es ἵ > superstition comes ᾿ ΤΥ ΡΣ τες | ‘ing. In the apostolic churches, as by | ba unec δ ΠΊΒ ΔΩ ἱ ins Lae ee is vas regarded To the right answering of that questio Baptists of to-day, baptism was rege g 1g μευ. δα ρνέλα i : Τὰ) in | the Bryennios manuscript contributes, a: ‘ely a symbol. Be it observed tha Ἴ econ Tes act is absolute 1 think, some valuable help. Indeed, e Baptist churches, there 1s an @0s ¢ : oa Raa ἐπε θημϑι ition that water- lieve, and in the present paper I unc ake | ¢reedom from the superstition ὃ ᾽ Se ἢ σε ὟΣ | freedom ial to salvation No | to demonstrate, that the Bryennios me ie ee ae gaat the Friends script by itself alone contains conclusive | Christian people, aside from the age ᾽ ae i she | evidence | xe so li ater-baptism as do ess Sera, τ bia ἣν immersion | suy—that the looser, indeterminate, Baptists. They immerse when E ain eee f the word baptize had not icable; but when it is not, they omit } cred” sense of the ΐ alt ap pracucaple; pu hat | yet, atthe date of the production of the all baptism, without the least thought that 1 yet, at sh t, become established; that the τ ἜΣ " ἕ script, become este ; ‘ 2 ἀξ AS angered there, | manuscript, be ] pte: the-convert’s salvaiion 1s qneans ἢ word baptize then still retained its prope Ni ristian people except the Friends ( apa : ime se, Of Wig ne aryoend di baptized as do | native force and meaning of immerse. 3 ‘ts die unbapt as ee 4 Re a ey the apostolic churches | course, from this, if this be made out, Ὁ Ue cpunariees Ve rertaa could not | will follow—and here lies the importance o τὖ was the same. 1€ ing i acute ΘᾺ Soe tha χρὴ ὅδε; " ons 1 with Christ,” baptism was dis- the point—that, much τῆς ἐπ ΩΣ eee ep eral! ! , ἢ . >» was not establishedin New ‘Testameu te ἐν ith. Βαϊ Δίου a little, the doctrine sense was not established in W pensed with. ὃ » | eh ἀν that baptism was essential Ὁ salva- ἐπα τ π΄ πὶ rose r to let the con- , a8 Ὁ make nee i nd then arose a fear sjatained ΠΣ ΕΞ eee ὍΣΣ a itl t something in the nature of stratiou contained ἐπι the ma = ; Ὁ Ἂς vee die betsy a 1 ο a the case of the plete, atthe same time that the dog ume water-baptism. Ands he Ca hha ia tiie ahead eee 6. ieee or the prisoner, when immersion shows us the sacred ee Ε ees ae WS Stee he Sik jently not yet actually established, it also sick me dive, thoy becan to resort to dently not yet ac tually e ihe ree one ® i ows us that sacred sense not less evi - δ eae d sprinkling as being akin to | Shows us that sacred sens ΤΑ pect: Seite ie ἘΠῊΝ y io the incipien yrocess ΟἹ becoming es- pouring Affusion and aspersion wowld | ly ia the incipient process « τὰ sae ὦ i eee Ore ἘΠῚ of in the Church | tablished. In short, there, perhaps. coul oy 2 ; o ) : : ies i agents aa Ps < Laprrr nye oe erstition that bap- | 20t be imagined a more entirely and ideally ' the rise of the superstit τε atc cacio ke Seaicit Oe ae the truth as to La gs tial to salvation. And itis | satisfactory exhibition of a τὶ “Ξε ἂν yas essent ) salva : Fs aay aes ἘΠΕῚ» ea ΣΝ i" eet lic example, but to this super- | the real sense in whic Ἐπ hen ae npt to apo Gor : Avia the direction | word baptize,than that exhibition whic : in Sfition, that ave τε aby immersion is im- | expectedly is brought down to us in this in- i ” whe ; 7 ΑΝ Seen, oe late hee. in the ‘‘ Teaching,” when ἘΝῚ r upon the | teresting monumentof Christian antiquity. | practicable, Dowie" Let us examine the manuscript afresh, not head.” now for the purpose of ascertaining what evidence conclusive, mark, I ** ga- usage as to baptism was observed by those ... The Examiner says: whontthe document may be assumed to << We would by no means express the opinion that ous g we only say epreser t « sage 4 be V ond reasoL able ; 88 he ‘ Teaching’ 1s an Ingenl us forgery ve ¢ y tha 1158 i | 7a8 immersion, where immersion cument needs to be better authenticated. doubt, w Ἧ iL ig ere ome ae fied with too much haste and) was practicable, with pouring « ; has been acce - “ Ὶ : ᾿ τ mete a water on the head w here immersion credulity. = : Be : Will it please indicate what further authentica- was impracticable—let us, [ say, examine sweat ascent’ the Bryennios manuscript, not now for tion it desires? ἢ the archeological question of current con but simply and only for the philological question of the curre temporary force and meaning ecclesiastical language to the No matter tempi rary usage, nt con- attaching in term baptize. . | repeat, for the moment, what the ancient writer and his brethren did in the way of baptism. ‘That is not to be our present inquiry. Our present inquiry is to be, What didthey mean when they used the word baptize? Did they mean, apply water ritually, in any suitable way that may be practicable, or did they mean immerse? The question is a Simple one. It is not, What was the thing, baptism,for the ancient writer and his brethren? but, What to them meant the word baptize? If the word baptize meant to them, apply water ritually, then perhaps it meant that also to he used the word. eventhen; forthe ‘ Jesus when By no means certainly, sacred” sense may have been acquired in the interval between Christ’s time and the time of the manu- script; whereas, if, on the contrary, the word meant. strictly immerse, to the an- cient writer with his brethren, then, not perhaps, but certainly, the word meant strictly immerse, in Christ’s mouth. For acquired by the be lost by it—except through accomplished the sacred sense once word, would never return to primitive usage, which accomplished return has never yet, even up to this living cecurred, though it may now garded as in the moment, fairly be re- incipient process of 0Cc- The present paper is a humble contribution of help to that process not obscurely observable. curring. already Our immediate question then is, Did baptize, in the Bryennios manuscript, me exclusively, immerse? or did it an, mean, in determinately, apply water ritually? Let us see, Here is the language ; ΠΑΡᾺ concerning — ‘baptism, “baptize vay: Having taught beforehand all these thi | yaptize in the name of the Father, and of the | jon, and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. τ But if thou hast not living water, baptize in [πον water—in warm if thou canst not do if in sold. But if thou hast neither, pour water -apon the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost. But before the baptism, let the baptizer and the one (to be) baptized, and any others who can, fast ; theu shalt command the one (to be) baptized to fast one or two (days) before.” Consider, in the foregoing we have a pre- sumably authentic ancient use of the word | baptize; a use, too, occurring in a distinct- ively ecclesiastical document. Here, evitably, there will be an example of the ‘*sacred ” sense, if such an example is any- where to be found in the Greek literature | of those times. Let us suppose that the ‘‘ sacred” sense, | indeed, holds here, that baptize meant to the ancient writer, apply water ritually. Under this elastic definition the application might, of course, be by sprinkling. Intro- duce this idea, and you have a remarkable result. That result is the following: In case water abounds, you may sprinkle water; in case water fails, you must pour out water, and pour out water thrice on the head. _ Consider this, now, at your leisure. Apply to the problem your best efforts. find it impossible, ultimately and hopelessly impossible, to escape the foregoing reduc- tion to absurdity. The absurdity is inex- tricably, unescapably involved in the logic and language of this article on baptism in | the Byrennios manuscript, if the word baptize, in that ancient, ecclesiastical use | of it, indeed meant, apply water ritually; if, that is to say, it meant anything else than strictly and exclusively immerse. Only suppose, however, that baptize meant im- merse, and every difficulty vanishes. simple, so self-consistent, so self-evidencing is truta when you once but get at the truth! But here meets us an objection—an ob- jection made in entire good faitb. The ob- jector says: Look at the foregoing article again, the whole of it—title, conclusion, and all. Do we not see that the article begins, “Concerning baptism?” Do we not see that thearticle ends, ‘‘ Before baptism?” And is not the clause about the pouring out of | water on the head, embraced thus between two uses of the word baptism, that oblige jus to regard pouring out as, in the view of the writer, constituting baptism? This is a fair question, and it shall have _ ἃ fair answer. ᾿ exceptions will overslaugh the rule. the ‘‘sacred” sense will have quite sup. planted the true; a result now open to universal obser vattun: however, the exceedingly exceptional case | of water failing is referred to by the ancient | writer just in passing, merely by way of but | in- | | brough any influence, So the word baptize in ecclesiastical use. ‘that fortune had not yet befallen the word duced. The fair answer is that the — De ae 1 Πὰς SE TTI TI ash ὦ sacred "ὁ sense was now entered: ot the | road foward being established. The line | of exceptional cases henceforward will be | indefinitely extended, until at length the shen ‘For the present, parenthesis. It is dismissed from thought as soon as mentioned, and the writer pro- | ceeds with choice of language uninfluenced | by what in its nature and relation was | purely parenthetical. In other words, the diction of the writer was here independent of his parenthetical insertion, precisely as, avery where, the syntax of any writer is in- lependent of such matter introduced merely by the way. The true relation to the article as a whole, of the present interjected clause, is capable of being very simply illustrated. Let it be supposed that an order is to be issued for the proper printing of enacted laws. That order might read somewhat as follows: ‘‘Concerning the printing, thus print. Hay- _ ing first made the proper examinations, print in | | dinary modern type. | orint in antique type; if you cannot in large | cype, then in small. | You will | If you cannot get this, (In case you have not suf- | icient type of any sort, write in a fair, round | iand.) Before the printing, let the printer and yroof-reader carefully compare the original | sopy.” | Now here the word printing both pre- ‘edes and succeeds the parenthetical men- | ion of writing. Is, therefore, printing | neant to include writing? Not in the least. | t is simply, for a specified case, an admis- ible substitute for printing. That is all. f, however, it could be supposed that, writing should | eradually, for the particular purpose of preserving laws, supersede printing—the ἢ exception thus bécoming the rule—then, at | length, the word printing, used with refer- ence to that purpose, might very naturally - come to mean something so large and loose as to include writing, too, within its scope. A fortune like this has actually befallen But when tbe Bryennios manuscript was pro- This is inexpugnably proved by the absurdity that flows from supposing the contrary. Here the absurdity is. Face — it again: If there is plenty of water, you are permitted to sprinkle; if the water is pod you are bound to pour. | . _ Bryennios manuscript, ‘This result, I repeat, irrepressibly iss from regarding the word baptize, in the t, aS meaning any- thing else than immerse. The word bap- tize, therefore, means there nothing else than that. Immerse is thus shown to have been, at the date of this document, still the one exclusive meaning of baptize. Much more was immerse the one exclusive mean- ing of the word baptize, when Christ lived on the earth, and when he used the word to enjoin his holy rite. The ‘‘sacred” sense of the term is accordingly a subse- quent growth, and a growth springing from usage not conformed to the ordinance of — Christ. If this is not so, let one show me hiow it is not so, how escape may be had τ from that reduction to absurdity which I once more submit : For baptism, sprinkling of water will an. - swer, if Jordan rolls at your feet; pouring out of water is imperative, if you have but a tumblerfulat command. An absurdity which I assert to be insep _ arably—inseparably is the strong word I confidently employ——inseparably bound wp with the supposition that baptize meant in the Bryennios manuscript anything else than immerse. Immerse, therefore, bap- tize did mean, to this ancient writer, and yet more to Christ. ‘In vain do they worship me, teaching _ for doctrines the commandments of men.” | “Ye are my friends if ye do whatever I command you.” sole Ws _ ‘Tarrytown, N. Y. = _ Tux Rev. A. C. Burrows, of Kent, O., gives his) view of Professor Wilkinson’s reductio ad absurd- um last week : 1 have ““ considered” Professor Wilkinson’s article ‘at my leisure.” I confess, however, that I am not sure that I have “applied to the problem my best efforts.” Iam inclined to husband my resources for some harder problem. wherever it occurs. tien for the word * baptize” of the old,: familiar meaning so often exhibited in art—“‘ to pour water upon the head of a person who stands in water.’’ This is a long phrase to substitute, and it will make an ugly sentence. But the meaning willbe clear. If the idea, the picture presented to the mind, the * thing meant” by the writer of the ‘‘ Teaching,” when he ‘*used the word baptize,” was this, he wrote clearly, logically, without confession, when he said: ‘‘Con- cerning the pouring of water upon the head of a man standing in water, thus do it. Pour water upon his head inthe name, etc., while he stands in living water. Butif thou hast not living water, pour wa- ter upon his head while he stands in other water—in warm, if thou canst notin cold. But if thou hast ρος pour water thrice in the name, etc.,”—1.e., , ΟἿΣ ΚΙ iva | pour. The only way to test such a matter of interpretation is to substitute the supposed | interpretation for the word under examination, | Perhaps Professor Wilkinson | has enough leisure left to consider such a substitu- | _considered Constantinople letter in the _ paper, then it may mean to proclaim by town which has just reached this country, ap> | -σ΄ ; eres va σα ἢ “nater in this last case, although there isnot ἢ water enough to stand in. “But before the pouring | | of the water,” etc. Shc “50 simple, so self-consistent, so self-evidencing is truth, when you once but get at the truth vs τ eae Pt Suppose we try our hand with rofessor Wil- kinson, on a modern variation of the BA Ou on baptism in the Bryennios manuscript. Suppose it be a case of a law requiring all intentions of marriage to be published. Let it read as fol- lows : Concerning the publishing, thus publish. Having Ι first got the license, publish in the village paper. If i you cannot do this, publish in the county paper; if ᾿ you cannot in the Republican paper, then i the Democratic. In case there is no paper, then affixa | _ notice on the church door. Before publishing, be | { sure you have the parents’ consent. Professor Wilkinson will say—we merely apply i his argument—if publish has the technical sense | of making public and not of printing in a news- — erier. ‘Introduce this idea, and you have a re- markable result. That result is the following” : | In case newspapers abound, you may employ the — town crier. In case newspapers fail, you must affix notice to the church door. ‘Consider this now at your leisure.” (We quote Professor Wilkinson. ) “You will find it | impossible, ultimately and hopelessly impossible, to escape the foregoing reduction to absurdity. The ‘“‘reduction” is an absurdity, simply because” the method applied is illogical. fs ooo } 14] ᾿ Ἶ bY ἣ 4 »" seg Hillside,” about whom there is the sus- picion of a theological professor, writes to The Examinerfrom Boston or vicinity, about the Bryennios document : ‘Voltaire once made himselt the sport of European scholars by excessive haste in indorsing a Hindu forgery aS a complete refutation of the Bible. It ᾿ would be humiliating to American Pedobaptist |’ scholars, if they should be found in a similar dilem- ma, after their hasty exultation over the Baptists.” There iS τὸ danger. But why should Baptists get on the wrong side of this matter? Itis a great deal better policy to accept heartily the facts of criticism and not seem so terribly anxious lest something shall show them wrong. ~ We see no reason why Baptists saould quarrel — with the ‘‘Teaching,” Indeed it is a pretty fair | Baptist document, Certainly it gives no help to ‘‘ Pedobaptists.” " ln - Pd NOT A FORGERY. | THose writers and journals which had |! critical discernment enough not to be thrown off their balance by that very ill- Boston Advertiser, throwing suspicion on the integrity of Bishop Bryennios and the authenticity of the ‘‘ Teaching of the Apos- tles,” discovered by him, can take comfort _ to themselves in a discovery, the account of [which proves the “impossibility of af The absolute absence of avy proof of forgery, and the absolute-unanim- | | which contained a sermon of St. Boniface en- forgery. ity of all good scholars in accepting the new discovery ought to have made intelligent lee careful about accepting the sugges- tions of the Advertiser correspondent. But there are a great many people who do not know enough to tell a scholar from an ig- noramus. To them this anonymous Con- ' stautinople writer, who was allowed to ac- company President Washburn and Pro- fessor Long, when they went a second time pres to take a photograph of the right-page, is as good authority as Harnack or Funk, or | deceive such men. Zahn, or Hilgenfeld or Wordsworth. They do not 866 how impossible it would be to replied to the injurious words that we had letters from both President Washburn and Professor Long, written after they had ~made this second attempt, and that they in- | timated no suspicion of the genuineness of © the manuscript, but only blamed the pig- | headedness of the custodian who could not read a word of it, our correction could not _ overtake the original slander. A score of papers, whose editors had sectarian reasons for wishing to discredit the ‘‘ Teaching,” | spread abroad the suspicion and declared that American scholars and journals had been too hasty in accepting the document, and then reminded us solemnly of the Shapira forgeries. conception of the utter impossibility that the forgery of such a document could escape - detection. It is for the utter annihilation of these cavilers, who cannot understand the inter- nal evidence involved, and who do not know enough to trust tbe verdict of schol- ars, because, as we hav: said, they cannot tell a scholar when they see him, and have not the wisdom to accept the judgment of those who do have this faculty of recogniz- ing scholarship, that we give this piece of conclusive evidence just brought to our knowledge in the second part ot Harnack’s edition of the ‘‘ Teaching.” Harnack’s senior associate in the editor- ship of the series of volumes entitled, And when we instantly | These writers have no. i ne ‘‘Texts and Investigations in the Historv of | Old Christian Literature.” of which his edi- tion of the ‘‘ Teaching” is a part, is the dis- , tinguished scholar, Oscar von Gebhardt. In reading Martin Kropft’s Mellicensis,” published in 1747, he discov- ered a reference to a treatise in Latin, en- titled ‘‘ Teaching of the Apostles,” which | had been entirely overlooked by scholars. eee a τσσαοιὶΝ ἜΝ 568 ςς Bibliotheca | } { It was an account of a “manuscript of the twelfth century, belonging to that library , titled “De Abrénuntiatione in Baptismate.” The account continues: page is found ‘Teaching of the Apostles,’ but imperfect. It begins: There are two ways in the world, of life and of death, of light and of darkness, etc.” Von Gebhardt saw that this was probably a Latin trans- | lation of the ‘‘ Teaching,” and he set to | He wrote to the librarian | work to find it. of the library for the manuscript, and re- ceived the reply that it was no longer there | and could not he traced. Then he looked | up the sermons of St. Boniface and found that thissermon ‘‘ De Abrenuntiatione,” is No. 15ia his collected writings, was first published by Martene in 1783, and the copy printed is by him credited to the courtesy of one Bernhard Pez. Now Pez was the custodian of this very library, and it was probably from this very manuscript that the printed copy wastaken. This sent ‘On the last LL gemmnnd neem ~ os ene ae ee Von Gebhardt to the writings of Pez; and in the rubbish of his forgotten ‘‘ Thesaurus Anecdotorum” it was found that Pez had published this sermon of Boniface’s aad ap- pended to it all that was found of the’ ‘‘ Teaching of the Apostles.” And here we give it below, translated from the Latin, as_ it was written in a twelfth century manu- script and printed a hundred and fifty years ago. ἐς There are two ways in the world, of life and of death, of light and of darkness. ‘¢‘Over these are set two angels, one of right- eousness, the other of unrighteousness, ‘* And the difference is great between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, thou shalt love the eternal God who made thee. Sec- ond, thy neighbor as thyself. And all which thou wouldst not have done to thee do not thou to another. ‘‘And the interpretation of these things is this: Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not speak false witness, thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication . . . thon shalt not cumpound poisons, thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, nor destroy one already born. Thou shalé not covet anything of thy neighbor’s. Thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not speak evil. Thou shalt not be mindful of evil deeds. be empty nor false. nor . That this is part of a translation of the Thou shalt not be double | in giving counsel, nor double-tongued; for the | tongue is a snare of death. Thy word shall not | Thou shalt not be covet- | ous, nor ἐιλήρας ἐλ nor rapacious, nor ἃ Botreters τὸς ---- ς-οΟ-------.- .-- ο«-.---.-.-.--.. .-'-.-----ς----ςς.--. β ame title, and, so far as it goes, isa comparisons. the Seventh Book of the Apostolic Consti- tutions, nor from the many-named ‘‘ Con- | stitutions of Clement” (‘‘ Epitome,” ‘‘ Cop- | tic Constitutions,” ‘‘ Syrian Constitutions,” “ Due Vie,” ‘Judgment of Peter”), nor similar source, but can only be a transla- | tion of this very Greek ‘‘ Teaching of the | Apostles” which Bryennios has just pub- | lished. The integrity of Bryennios, unsus- Τ pected by any decent scholar, is thus surpris- | ingly confirmed by this forgotten fragment Ἰ of a Latin translation printed a hundred and fifty years ago from a manuscript seven hundred years old. We trust that those | who have given currency to the suspicion | will make haste to undo the injury. 4 Ir has been both amusing and provoking to _ observe how that Constantinople letter in the Boston Advertiser, throwing suspicion on the ‘manuscript of the “Teaching of the Apostles” discovered by Bryennios, has been seized upon by a number of people who are delighted to spread abroad its insinuations, and who are not restrained by their complete ignorance of the subject. It is in just those two denominations whose extreme tenets have seemed to some to be discredited by the ‘‘Teaching ” that this un- seemly haste to believe it a forgery without one scintilla of evidence, and against all evidence, has occurred. We mentioned last week that letters received by us from Presi- dent Washburn and Professor Long, with whom the Advertiser correspondent went to examine the manuscript, suggested no suspicion of anything more than the pigheadeduess of the ignorant official in charge, who could not read the manuscript and was willful and stupid enough to insist that the last page of the manu- script, of which a photograph had been taken, was part of the ‘‘ Teaching.” Prof. E. C. Smyth has now written a letter to The Advertiser, in which he has shown clearly enough the impos- sibility of the thing’s being aforgery. There is a certain indecency about the suggestion, whether made in Constantinople, or repeated and indorsed by The Churchman, The Examiner, The Watchman and other papers, which de- serves attention. What would these papers say if some distinguished scholar in their own de- nominations, if they had one as thoroughly learned in patristic literature as the Bishop of Nicomedia, or if Profegsor Richey or OQsgaod or Long or Lincoln were publicly posted as having very likely forged’ the authorities they ore quoting? There would be some in- dignation. But it is ποὺ 8 bit 2; less ‘an offense in the case of Bryennios. He = “is no unknown man, but a graduate of a German | university, and known for many years for his ing,” is perfectly’ evide evident. It has very - air translation, as will be seen by | It could not have come from ᾿ from Barnabas or Hermas, or any other ἢ — ath” π΄ τὐ΄.-τ--.--.--.- 4 porta work in patristic science. ‘ching ” isa forgery, then his Edition ~€ Clement is based on a ¥5 Pi the same manuscript volume, hand. But it is simply ridicu- éwriters, who never read the Greek of ~istles of Clement or of one of the Visions | of ‘Hermas, to venture to fling about these un- - founded imputations, when not a competent | | scholar of Germany, England, France, or Amer- | ica, has any question on the subject, though a dozen have studied the matter thoroughly. | We would like to suggest to our hasty friends that when there isa forgery made it is not the scholars who swallow it, and the ignoramuses_ who discover it. ae sf Spill Diggs e: CRED ge 3 ie Tue New Mork Times ee an’ amusing editor, who has shown himself greatly ‘troubled because the ‘‘Teaching of the Apostles,” discovered by Bryennios, does" \tot recognize the hierarchical order in the ‘Church which was fully developed ‘into ‘separate orders of bishops, priests, and dea- ‘cons during the second and third centuries. \He has evidently been coached by some stiff high churchman who cannot bear the idea that the episcopal order, as it now ex- ists, did not come fresh minted from the hand of our Saviour himself; and, some time ago, he made this the basis of a sus- been long agreed by the best ecclesiastical scholars of all Christian bodies, Episcopal. and non-Episcopal, that the bishops were originally identical with elders or pas- — created by the prominence assumed by a presiding elder, or bishop. . the party of gentlemen who attempted to script of the ‘* Teaching,” which is in a graph of the last page of the volume con- themselves expert paleeographers, supposed they had a photograph of a page of the photograph was sent to us. came to examine the developed photograph, however, they found, what a careful read- ing of Bryennios would have tuld them, that the ‘“‘ Teaching ” was not at the end of picion of the genuineness of the “Teuch- ing,” ignorant of the fact that it has ΠΟΥ letter to the Boston Advertiser, by a corre: spondent in Constantinople, who went with get a photograph of a page of the manu-— convent in that city. They took a photo-. | ‘‘Teaching” itself; and a copy of that- When they the volume, but occupied a few pages in τα WEL: A RONG ὭΣ τ tors, and that gradually a distinct order was | The Zimes writer has at last found a little. comfort, which he is quick to seize, in ea | | taining the ‘‘ Teaching,” and not being — poe eer ‘the middle of Ey ene They." δ back to the monastery for the,” photographing the right τ΄ ignorant monk in charge αι > ' already had the right thin. —, not allow them totake the pictus-+. , ; ber of the party on the last occasion writes, the letter to the Advertiser, in which he suggests that there may have been special | reasons why the monk deceived them the. first time, and afterward refused to let them. take a picture, though he did allow them to see and personally examine the volume at. leisure. The correspondent says that, it there were any forgery, which he is care-| | ful not to say he believes, there is no man) ‘more competent to execute it cleverly, from | his great knowledge of the early Church | ‘writings, than this Bryennios. The Times editor is delighted with this suggestion, and | accepts it as a proved fact, and heads his article ‘‘ Easy Credulity.” Our readers will know better than to accept a word of this suspicion. The two gentlemen who attempted to secure the | | photograph were President Washburn and Professor Long. We have received letters | from both of these gentlemen (and no one in the East has a more thorough acquaint- ance with Oriental character), and neither of them entertains the least suspicion of the good faith of Bishop Bryennios. It is a mere | ‘ease of that stubborn pigheadedness which -is characteristic of ignorant officials no- _ where more than in the Orient. The Times writer has never read the ‘* Teaching.” He says there is in it an ‘‘ab- sence of any mention of Bishops (with a capital B). The fact is they are mentioned freely.. It is presbyters that are not men- tioned, because they are the same as bishops. It is further made a suspicious circum- stance that the manuscript has not been sent to Germany to be examined by Euro- | pean scholars. It is, however, accessible | to them when they come to see it, and all | the collations Harnack has asked for have “been freely given by correspondence; and | | further, not one of the distinguished patris- tic scholars of Germany who have written | on the subject has intimated a suspicion of its genuineness; neither Harnack, nor Hilgenfeld, nor Zahn, nor Funk. The in- ternal evidence is abundant and striking, , and is related to so many little points that it would puzzle a congress of the most as-| tute scholars to forge so gennine-looking ἃ. document. Besides, we would like to have | our lover of bishops tell us what possible | motive a Greek bishop could have for forg-) 4 ἦ E Ξ | nobody, he permits nobody to see it. The fact |, | says, ‘‘ denied the authority of Bishops.” | | orders of the priesthood., This is ‘ precisely | what a clever forger of the ‘Teaching’ would | either Catholics or Protestants to prove his PPE I “= eet ee BR 4 a ee ce ‘ing a document which, as the Times editor | 4 i" Ἵ The Tumes adds: — ΤῸ these suspicious circumstances should be ) added the fact that the pretended manuscript i was discovered in a library in Constantinople | which has been ransacked scores of times, and) which contains only about 600 Manuscripts. It is in the highest degree improbable that the kecn | hunters who had examined again and again me | small number of manuscripts should never have discovered the ‘ Teaching’ among them.” The airy tone of this paragraph makes Τὶ | pBry the play of a day or two to go over. ‘this small number of manuscripts.” It is, | if it was really — | on the other hand, a large number, and it is not probable that they have ever been thoroughly examined, so as to know what. little treatise may be concealed in a large ; volume in a difficult hand, filled chiefly | | with well-known or. worthless monkish | works which do not need collation. ‘The _ argument denies the possibility of any new | Ϊ discoveries of lost manuscripts. HOCH ἢ ΨΥ iy Tal << ee Tue Times, of this city, is allowing some- | body to write nonsense in its editorial colnmns, about the ““ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” | A recent article tries to prove the document a forgery, by showing that it is non-commital on 4 the two most important questions which divide | Catholics and Protestants, the Eucharist and the ἡ Priesthood. The “Teaching” does not indicate | whether it regards the Eucharist asa sacrifice or a symbol; nor is it clear on the question of the | PERV IT BPSGe Sota corse τος do.” He would ‘“‘avoid answering old ques- tions in such a way as to make it necessary for work a forgery.” This argument simply is, reduced to iis naked absurdity, that, in order to prove the Gospel of John, for example, a forgery, — you have only to assume that the forger would have written just as John has written! He would be very clumsy, indeed, at forgery who would write the “‘ Teaching” in such a way as to decide the questions which separate Catholics and Protestants. The document, in other words, bears marks of the first century, there- fore it is to be looked upon with suspicion. ὦ Another suspicious circumstance is that Bryen- nios will not ‘permit any one to see the manu- script.” He hasn’t ‘‘shown the original manu- script, which he claims to have found, to any one,” and when .to this is added the ‘‘ curious fact” that no one ever found the manuscript be- fore, the case seems to be about complete against the Metropolitan of Nicomedia. The Times writer implies that Bryennios has the manuscript in his possession. He shows it to --......ὕ...ὲ.. ᾿ ee is that the manuscript is notin his hands, it is tection of the righteous?” Most certainly in the library where he found it; that he is not 1] their penne se fi; y 1 unaeestood ay be sou b é its custodian nor the custodian of the library ; | Tf suet Ἶ ; ᾿ that the library is not under his ecclesiastical es ΣΤῈΣ their meaning, in answer it may be said, that, while the Scriptures re- control; and, furthermore, that, owing to κῃ diffi- ferred to, considered in themselves, will f culty between the Patriarch and himself, he 18. | not tree even to enter Constantinople; he is | bear the interpretation given them, even as practically exiled to Nicomedia. One of the daily the words of our Lord, ‘“‘My Father is ; papers of this city conclusively proved to its greater than I,” considered in themselves, ΜΝ τ ctestan cat Mat Liviayatanett “Roti fidte yee Sea ae 7 ant alvingstone 8 Socinianism, yet, in comparison with other letters, forwarded through Stanley, were for- ae : ; : Scriptures, that interpretation is, to say the geries. The Times is engaged in a task quite as ᾿ Υ ἐπρττα σα ΡΝ least, doubtful. Those passages, in order . promising. 3 hake ον Ὁ : to our appreciation of their full meaning, ὶ iv, 183—18, our document may, after all, only be | must be viewed in connection with others emphasizing the resurrection of the righteous.’ such as the following: (1.) That both διὰ It is freely admitted that Premillenarian- Lord and the Apostle Paul speak of a | ism is not ‘‘taught” in the chapter referred special resurrection of the righteous, which to. But is it too much to claim that, the ed- | is to be striven after, and which they itors themselves being witnesses, it is sug- | designate as from the dead (ἐκ vexpor) | gested ὃ If not, why was the note written? (Luke xx, 35; Phil. iii, 11), the preposition In point of fact nothing is directly taught indicating the raising of only a portion of in the document concerning a Millennium | the dead. (2.) That the Apostle Paul, who (by that name) at any period, either before believed in a resurrection of ail the dead, or after the Second Advent. But it must! ‘‘both of the just and unjust” (Acts xxiv, be evident to every careful reader that the 15) speaks of different orders in the teachingis utterly inconsistent with the now resurrection—‘‘ Christ the first fruits, after- prevalent doctrine concerning the Millen- | Wards they that are Christ’s at his com- ‘ nium—namely, that it is to precede the ing” (1 Cor, xv, 22, 23); (it is true that he ‘ coming of the Lord. mentions only the first and the second The last chapter begins with the exhorta- “order,” leaving the third tobe inferred; tation ει Watch for your life’s sake; let your | but the first and second are manifestly lamps not go out, and your loins not be re-‘ separated by millennia, and the implication laxed, but be ready; for ye know not the’ | 18 that the resurrection of the third order hour in which our Lord cometh.” There “| occurs at ‘‘ the end,” vers. 24.) (3.) That the is no interjection here of an earthly period || Apostle John declares (Rev. xx, 4-6) that of righteousness and blessedness before the | there are to be two resurrections, sepa- Advent. On the contrary, ‘the last days” | tated by an interval of a thousand years are described, immediately afterward, as (hence the term Millennium), the subjects those of abounding iniquity and distress; | of the first being possessed of. the charac- after which are set forth the signs of the | teristics of those mentioned in Matt. xxiv, Advent, the resurrection of the righteous || 31, I Thess. iv, 18-18, I Cor. xv, 23, and dead, andthe Advent itself. ‘| those also mentioned in Luke xx, 35 and Now it is literally true that, in all this, Phil. iii, 11, who are specified as being ‘“Premillenarianism is not directly taught”; | raised from the dead. In view of these put it is just as true, that Post-millenarian- | facts, is it not questionable whether Matt. ism is most certainly, though, of course, | xxiv, 31, and I Thess. iv, 18-18, may ‘‘ only impliedly denied. But the editors also de- be emphasizing the resurrection of the clare that Premillenarianism is ‘‘ perhaps righteous”? Is it not, to say the least, not even indirectly taught.” Sofarit may possible, that, in ‘‘following the ‘lead of be remarked, as the mere text of the chap- the New Testament,” the authors of the ter under consideration is concerned, per- , ‘‘ Teaching” intended to set forth a resur- haps not; but, let it be observed, the only | rection of the righteous, separated by the alternative is the implication that there is period of the Kingdom (that is, in the lan- to be no Millennium. | guage of the present day, the Millennium) It was said above that the Millennium, by from the final resurrection? that name, is not mentioned in the docu- Newarg, N. J. ment; but itis by no means certain that it -----εο----- is not mentioned under another title. In the Eucharistic chapters (ix and x) the following petitions occur: ‘Just as this q broken bread was scattered over the hilis; and having been gathered together became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy Kine- pom”; and again, ‘‘ Remember, Lord, thy Church, to deliver it from every evil and to make it perfect in thy love, and to gather it from the four winds, τέ, the sanctified, into thy Kinepom, which thou hast pre- pared for it; for thine is the power and the glory forever. Let grace come and let this world (κόσμος) pass away. - - + Maranatha (Our Lord cometh]. Amen.” Now it is | demonstrable, in my judgment, from the | Scriptures and from Ante-Nicene writings, that the term Krvapom was never applied to the Church of the present age previous tc the establishment of the Church by the Em- peror Constantine, but that it was always used to designate what is now generally styled the Millennium. It is not designed in the present paper, to attempt the demonstration of the posi- tion taken. To do so, in view of the pre- vailing judgment of the Church, would re- quire a treatise rather than a newspaper article. Attention, however, will be called to the following facts. In the first place, the Kingdom mentioned in chapters ix and x of the ‘‘ Teaching,” is not the Church in the condition in which it existed inthe second century; it is, manifestly, the one ] into which she is to be gathered at the coming of the Lord. Apparently it is the one contemplated in the eschatological dis- course of Jesus, recorded Matt. xxiv, xxv; Mark xiii; Luke xxi. (See especially Luke xxi, 81, and Matt. xxv, 1, where the term “Kingdom” is introduced.) In the second place, the authors of the ‘‘Teaching,” in the petitions of chapters ix and x, and in the declarations of chapter xvi, apparently | had in view the discourse of our Lord, just referred to. Not only is the exhortation ‘Watch, therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Malt. XXiv, 42; xxv, 13) substantially reproduced; but the order of events, culminating in the ad- vent and the establishment of the Kingdom, is apparently the game as that set forth therein. In conclusion, attention will be briefly called to the final sentence of the note under consideration. Did the editors in- tend to assert therein that, in Matt. xxiv, 81 and I Thess. iv, 18—18 our Lord and the apostle were ‘‘only emphasizing the resur- “ THE ἘΝ EDITIONS OF ING OF THE | JS Eps Ania Wp e5* 1 Adis S. Hitchcock and Brown were first in the field with an American edition of ‘‘The Teach- | ing of the Apostles”; and at that time they ex-— pressed their purpose of issuing a larger and | better edition early in. the Autumn of 1884. Meanwhile, many an edition, translation, dis- cussion, and criticism went forth, exhibiting all degrees of fitness and wisdom on the part of their authors, with the general result that Bryennios, in his editio princeps, had reaped the field pretty thoroughly as to the facts, and | jeft the gleanings mostly in the line of reasoning Ὶ ᾿ divided between Palestine er Syria, and Egypt; _of the ‘‘ Teaching” by Irenzxus, by Clement of “- Eusebius (and later as far ἃ8. Nicephorus) and | and conclusions. Harnack prepared the fullest | edition in Germany, and Hilgenfeld the most bold and brilliant one. The English mostly waited, producing a few essays and translations that were able enough in talking about the “Teaching,” but mediocre in their direct hand- | ling of it. The Frenchmen generally followed the lead of some one or another author in another country, with but little independent work. The Scandinavians worked with some independence. The Americans generally waited for the promised larger editions, and contented themselves with | some special treatises of uncommon ability on | particular points connected with the document, while the periodicals—especially the religious weeklies—teemed with essays of the sort that usually greet a nine days’ wonder. Some de- nominational partisans ventured the gratuitous suggestion that the whole was a forgery by Bry- ennios, but without bringing to their uncon-_ scious satire a tithe of the convincing power of Whately’s ‘‘ Historic Doubts” respecting the ex- | istence of Napoleon Bonaparte. | Concerning the antiquity of the document, and the substantial integrity of the manuscript in which it is preserved, there is a pretty close | agreement among al! the scholars of every coun- | try ; the majority, in England, Germany, Amer- ica, and elsewhere, assigning it to a time about, the close of the first century, and the minority, who suppose it subsequent to the Epistle of Bar- nabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, putting it at various dates—but none later that A. D. 165. As to the country of its origin, scholars are one of the reasons for choosing the latter coun- try being that the separation between the office of bishop and presbyter, and the supremacy of the former, was of later growth in Egypt than in Palestine or Syria. Among the reasons for the early date are the citations and quotations a“ Alexandria, by Tertullian, and others, down to. the internal evidence of the document itself. As Wordsworth and Canon Spence showed, it marks a transition period, when the office of apostle, even in the lower sense, was disappear- ing, when the ‘‘ teacher,” in the original higher cr nn me -.- ---- [ { Pee ee —- e poled aati | sense, was beginning to be a thing of the past, POSTLE: ba i and when the New Testament ‘ prophet” was: already a rarity, esteemed above the stated bish- ops and deacons; which last two still remained the only stated and permanent offices in the / Church, the presbyter being still apparently identical with the bishop, though the two were . soon to be differentiated, and their former identity almost forgotten by Ignatius and Tertul- lian. The ‘‘ omissions” of the ‘‘Teaching” speak — in such a way that they cannot be mistaken, as may be seen by reading the prolegomena to Har- nack’s edition, or the Excursus I, II, and IX, of the edition of Canon Spence. Its unconscious ear-marks of antiquity, too, are manifold—in its © language, its coincidences and in the impress of its time throughout. Pi On the other hand, the τος of a for-* gery by Bryennios involves his stultifying him-— self in his ecclesiastical position and theological. tenets, rests on no basis that would command respect in a lawsuit for fifty dollars, and is coupled, wherever it appears, with ignorance or. faulty representation of the facts of his connec- tion with the document, and a desire to bolster up some peculiar views or prepossessions. Bry-. ennios had as strong reasons, and, in some re-. spects, the same reasons, for rejecting the docu- | ment as those who suggest that he forged it. The new and enlarged édition of Hitchcock and Brown is in every way a great improvement | upon their former one, as a work of deliberation and thoroughness is better than a work of haste. | It bears everywhere the marks of conscientious- ness. The translation, though based upon the — previous one, has been purged of its former inac- curacies, and, however taste may vary as to the style of the translation and its expressions, it is faithful and correct. Abundant use has been made of the work of others, as was to be ex- pected, and the bees have made very good honey. | But it is in the introduction and notes that the | chief labor appears. As to date, the editors assign it to about the close of the first century, — and yet do not feel that there is any need for being strenuous about a date so very early. They believe, with the majority of critics, that — the document is prior to the Epistle of Barna-— bas and the Shepherd of Hermas, with full re- spect, however, for scholars who put those treatises first in time. (Of course, the three writings are not independent ; and those who would make the ‘‘ Teaching” a late treatise have the same quarrel with Barnabas and Hermas, as well as with the ‘*‘ Two Ways’). They incline to the opinion that the country of the ‘‘ Teaching” — was Egypt, giving an array of reasons which | they think cannot be shown for any other cdun- try. Their introduction is very full and sheet ough, leaving perhaps only one portion of the > ground that might be better covered in ἃ work of its scale—viz., the connection with the | apostolic cane>s and constitutions ; but no com- [ς τον { ᾿ΠΟΝΙΗυΥ | ot _‘NOVOLZONV τ . eer aw Lb y= | plaint can reasonably be made of neglect, con- sidering the size of the treatise. The limit of expansion had to be fixed somewhere. troduction contains twelve sections, in which are discussed the codex in which the ‘*Teach- ing” was discovered; the integrity of the text; the history of the treatise in the early Church ; modern discussions before Bryennios ; | the sources, arrangement of matter, purpose and scope, and doctrine of the ‘‘Teaching” ; the constitution of the churches according to its tes- | timony ; its date and place of composition ; and, finally, the peculiarities of the codex, and the printed texts. Less full than the prolegomena of Harnack, it yet produces for the first time in English a number of matters and documents that are to be welcomed. The parallels with Barna- ‘bas, Hermas, the apostolic canons and constitu- tions are set forth in a way easily taken in by the eye. Krawutzcky’s “ΤΟ Ways,” as pro- duced by critical conjecture before the ‘‘ Teach- ing” was discovered, is given entire, in English, with the differenses from the ‘‘Teaching” marked by appropriate type. The ‘‘ apostle” and the ἐς prophet” of the *‘ Teaching” are passed over a little too summarily. In the tables, which show the peculiarities of the printed texts, alittle too much importance is given to the work of Curry; for that was merely a reprint of Orris’s (in the “Journal of Christian Philosophy”) ,italics, punc- tuation, and all, with only the insertion of a few bracketed explanatory words (and those not always correct), cne change of a word, and a few changes in the spelling. . The notes are the result of much labor, valu- able in many directions, and always careful to record the character of: the vocabulary, with reference to classic, New Testament, or Septua- gint Greek diction. Rarely a note goes against the translation ; as, 6. g., that respecting Chapter i, line 15. The translation reads: ‘‘And ye shall have no enemy”; but, according to the sentiment of the note, it should read: ‘‘And ye will have no enemy.” The notes on Chap- ter vii are uncompromising in the matter of baptism, and squarely take the ground that to baptize, in the New Testament, means to ‘fapply water as a symbolic purifying act,” and quotes with approbation the words of Lightfoot, to the effect that the word ‘‘ baptisms,” properly and strictly, is not to be taken of dipping or | plunging, but, in respect of some things, of washing only, and in respect of others, of sprinkling only.” The notes on baptism occupy some four pages, and remind us of some hot | controversies of forty years ago. The notes are incomparably fuller and better than in the first edition. ‘They express, of course, the author’s views. It should be said that the introduction is the work of Dr. Brown, and the notes that of Dr. Hitchcock, while the translation rests on the joint responsibility of the two. with a list of words not found in the New Testa- ment, or not used therein in the same sense. The Appendix, mainly furnished by the cour- | tesy of Dr. Schaff (who is shortly to bring out an” edition of be τ Σ ἐὰν τος ΜΝ ἈΙΘΕΡΊν, ule is OB The in- | The notes close | important essays on the subject. ditions are made by Professor Brown. This por- tion is, perhaps, unique, as it is valuable; and it | fills thirteen pages. The whole book is a pretty comprehensive and conscientious edition, in- tended to cover the ground asa general text and commentary edition from the scholarly and | Christian points of view. The work of Canon Spence, which has but just j reached this country, is likewise a scholarly | affair ; but it does not, apparently, aim at being a thorough treatise on every point. Its posi- tion in the Didache literature is quite peculiar, _giving-e-new- look at the subject, with such a ᾿ 68] of freshness that it is readable and profit- . able, ἢ nly. to the Englishmen, who, with yak national inertia, have nelgected the ‘* Teaching,” but even to: those who have been careful to exbaust every edition and treatise procurable. The book begins with the English translation, and ends with the Greek text. The | peculiarity of the notes, among editions in Eng- | lish, is the abundance of patristic quotations and material. The translation and notes need _ Inore and fuller specimen quotations to show | their character than oar space will allow; yet Some things may be cited. For the passive δίδοσθαι (Chapter i) an active rendering 15. em- ployed. 1n the same chapter we have the ren- “ dering: ‘‘ Let thine alms drop like sweat into thine hands so long as (or, until) thou knowest to whom to give. In Chapter iv, κυριότης is ren- dered “‘the glory of the Lord,” and annotated as if that were a literal translation. In the *“noble Giver of the reward.” portion of Chapter vii: ‘While considerable license was permissible in the description of water used—running or other water, while im- | mersion or aspersion were alike sanctioned— | the use of the Baptismal Formula given by the > | Son—in the name of the ever-blessed Trinity—_ |is declared here to be absolutely necessary for the validity of the rite.” On the subject of bap- _tism the author also quotes from Hitchcock and |Brown’s earlier edition. | garded as a direct reference to ‘ Pharisees” ; and this, with many other indications, rather strong in the aggregate, is taken as pointing to a Jewish-Christian origin of the Teaching.” In Chapter x, the rendering “ἡ gather her, now made holy, from the four winds, into thy kingdom,” _ early American-translation ; and doubtless with more correctness than those who consider “ the | sanctified” as a distinctive epithet. In ‘‘Christ- | trafficker” (Chaptey xii), a another American lead is followed, with a change of word. In Chapter xiv, we have the sing cepylar rendering, ‘* the Lord’s Lord’s day,” ae soe ‘the remark that the seeming autology ig” “arent in the origi a “yms in-), cludes editions and τῶν ἀπο with the more} Bracketed ad- same chapter, καλὸς ἀνταποδότης is translated| Nor should we here pass over his note on a It should also be said ἂ that, in Chapter viii, the term ‘“‘hypocrites” is re- uses the same expedient of changing the order of words, instead of expressing the (un-idiomat- _ ic in English) article, that was employed in an P nal {. { ἡ ica which, in the ‘‘Teaching”” ta gap in our knowledge” is ‘‘supplied just as we should-ex- pect, that is to say, we have a description of the transition from the state of things described in ‘the Acts and the Epistles of Paul” to ‘‘that pre- supposed in the Ignatian Epistles.” - But itis in the nine ‘‘ Excursus” (the canon uses the Latin plural) that the remarkable things are summed up. Among other things they give the early history of the patristic cita- | tions of the “Teaching,” and a brief account οὗ each Father who quoted or cited it, with the date of his literary activity. The author con- cludes that the ‘‘Teaching” dates from the time when the ‘‘ prophet” was the principal person of influence in the Christian community, and, - while the power of the [Episcopal] bishops is jast dawning. Also, the ‘‘Teaching”’ must have issued from a Jewish-Christian center”; and -hemakes a rather long argument to show that its place was probably Pella, among the Jewish refugees ; and that it is one of three writings (of widely different characters) of the Jewish school; the others being the Epistle of James, and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Its testimony to the canon of the New Testa- ment is considered explicit as to Matthew and Luke, and implicit as to John and the Epistle to the Romans, as well as to others of the Pauline | Epistles. The use of the Old Testament is such as to show a Jewish origin, and the allusions to | - wine-press oil, and the like, show a village origin | rather than one in a city like Alexandria, An- | -tioch, or Corinth. Very fresh and enlivening, | - and generally valuable, is all that the author has | | | | | to say about the relation of the ‘‘Teaching” to | Barnabas and Hermas, and about the state of the Church as shown in the patristic citations (in the notes and as) summed up in Excursus VY. The citations represent the wide extent of the world, and most of the schools of training. marks on the “apostles,” the ‘‘ prophets,” the ‘teachers’ and the ‘‘ bishops and dea- cons.” Each of these heads fills a separate Ex- cursus, which cannot be read without interest ; and the interest is greatly enhanced by the fact that the utterances are those of an open-minded and scholarly dignitary of the Church of Eng- land. Excursus IX, on the ““ Bishops and Dea- cons,” is specially noteworthy, as the following quotation will show: ‘‘Nor need we inquire why these two orders, bishops and deacons, alone are mentioned, to the exclusion of the or- der of presbyters; for, in the language of the | _apostolic age, to which this writing of the be Teaching of the Apostles’ belongs, the bishop Hl and the presbyter were identical.” [Here Canon Spence cites numerous passages from the Epis- tles and Acts to show this fact.] ‘‘ As late as ' the last decade of the first century, in the _ Epistle of Clement of Rome, the terms bishop i) 3 and presbyter were still convertible.” ‘‘ The + ᾿᾿ of the Episcopal power,” he goes on to pay, *. ~“s\place early in the second century. The : } tory note to this publication is by Pres. D. Ὁ, Yet freshest and most suggestive are the re- | Gilman, stating that the photographs were ob- . was gradual, = ransition. ἴωμεν a i In view of all this, we are. prepara to find Ὶ Canon Spence assigning the “Teaching” to the _ last quarter of the first century. But, he had © already taken that position and stated it to be that of the majority of. scholars, in a stirring sermon (‘‘ The Old Paths,”) on the ‘‘ Teaching _ of the Apostles,” preached in St. Paul’s Cathe- dral, in London, June 22d, 1884, which he has added at the end of the Excursusin this book. The value of Canon Spence’s edition is notin | its new matter, for of that there is not so much ; | but its manner of presentation, its amplifying | on certain peculiar points in the last few Ex- | cursus, its putting the old knowledge in a new light, not to mention the standpoint of its author, and the key-note he strikes, make it a very alluring book. The undertone is that of Christian love, looking back to any and every | light of the “‘ old paths,” and insisting that the choice of the ‘two ways” is as destitute now as ever of a third alternative. - Three pages of the Bryennios Manuscript have been reproduced by photography by the ‘Publication Agency of Johns Hopkins Univer- _ sity, and edited with notes by J. Rendel Harris, | Associate Professor of New Testament Greek and Paleography. Only one hundred and twenty-five copies have been printed. The pages include the last verses of the Epistle of Barna- bas, the superscription and opening of the first | Epistle of Clement, the close of the second Epis- | tle of Clement, the first verses of the ‘ Teaching | ot the Apostles,” the last verses of the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, the catalogue of the Old Testament books (Hebrew roughly repre- sented in Greek letters, and the Greek equiva-. lents), and the beginning of the genealogy of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Above this last fragment is the scribe’s date, eleventh day of June in the indiction 9, and year 6564 (of the world), answering to A.D. 1056. The introduc- — tained by the Rev. Charles R. Hale, D.D., of Baltimore, some three months ago. The notes. of Professor Harris are chiefly confined to mat ters connected with these pages, and are ably done. Facing each photographic page is its transcription in ordinary Greek type, done with ability and accuracy. On page C (fol. 120, a), | line 3, his reading is probably wrong in insert- | ing τοῦ before θεοῦ, though there is some slight color for the insertion. Professor Harris takes occasion to correct a mistake or two of former editors. His remarks about the punctu- ation need to be taken with, not against Bryen- nios. Appended are two pages of notes on the cata- logue of Old Testament writings, by Mr. Cyrus Adler, a student in the Semitic Seminary of the ‘University, able, and quite in place for readers _and students, and as a complement to this work, though superfluous to a biblical critic. : DA fede LISLE SE Ξ — — Pe se THE TEACHING OF THE APOS- | - 'TLES IN FRANCE.* © _ France has produced a few good essays upon the ‘‘Teaching of the Twelve Apos- ᾿ 4168, notably one by L. Massebieu in 1884, in La Revue de ἢ Histoire des Religions, an- other, by the same, in Le Temoignage, Feb- ruary, 1885, and a series of eight papers by Paul Sabatier (now pastor of Veglise Saint , Nicolas, in Strassburg), in successive num- bers of L’ Hglise Libre, in 1884. Less im- portant, but worth a passing mention, are articles by !’Abbe L. Duchesne in the Bul- Le Temoignage; a long compilation of mat- ter from other sources, by G. Bonnet Maury, partly in the Critique Philosophique and partly in the Critique Religieuse ; an essay by Εἰ. de Muralt, in the Revuede Thé- ologie et de Philosophie; a dissertation chiefly on the origin of the episcopal office, by S. | Mathieu, in the Revue de Théologie, of Mont- sance, on the organization of the Primitive Church; an anonymous article in La Se- maine Religieuse, of Geneva; and an arti- cle by Jean Reville in the Renaissance. But it is only within a few weeks that a real has appeared in France. This is the work ot Paul Sabatier, author of the series of articles above mentioned, that appearéd last year in L’ Hglise Libre. The result is one worth the delay. It is by no means, as some of the French essays were, a rehash of matter that had appeared everywhere else, but is a fresh, original work, made after full study of nearly all the preceding publications, and a great deal of independent research by the author himself. Scarcely any portion of the work is without its new matter, except the Greek text; and that contains the more important conjectural emendations of other editors, in the shape of foot-notes. The text fol- lowed is that given by Bryennios. The Introduction contains an account of ἐς discovery of the ‘‘ Teaching,” and of the _maauscript in which it occurs; giving, ΓΘ ΆΝ > Sees z * ATAAXH ΤΩΝ Ib’ ἈΠΟΣΤΌΛΩΝ, κα pi- daché ou l’'Enseignement des Douze Avpotres. Texte Gree, retrouvé par Mor. PHILOTHEOS BRYENNIOS, Μέ- _tropolitan de Nicomédie, publié pour la premiére fois en France, avec un commentaire et des notes, par PauL “Saparier, ancien élévedela Faculté théologie protest- ante de Paris. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, Société likewise, in ἃ long foot-note;-a sketch of” the life and labors of Bishop Bryennios, the data for which were kindly furnished by the bishop’s secretary, and which ἴδ᾽. _ Speaking of the publications called forth by | betin Critique; a series by E. Menegoz, in | | and commented upon in many separate pam- | from holding the first place. ° {ς $ ° ee ee ee ie ho Renate all believed that they were going to find in the edition of the ‘‘ Teaching,” with the Greek | text translation, notes and commentary, | substantially the same with that published — ‘a short time since in Tur INDEPENDENT. In passing, the author stops to correct a. current error relative to Bryennios’s edition of the ‘‘ Teaching,” stating that {ts matter is written in ancient, not modern, Greek. the appearance of the ‘‘ Teaching,” the au- thor remarks upon its reception in America . in terms that are worth translating. After mentioning the scholarly quality of the German works, and their little effect on the German people, he proceeds: ‘“‘It was quite otherwise in America, where | | the text of the Didaché, transmitted by tele- graph, was immediately reproduced in many newspapers, political or religious, and translated phlets. [Here a footnote says that the edition of Hitchcock and Brown was published March 20th, and 5,000 copies sold the same day.] But, in that effervescence, scientific interest was far The different sects new document means of upholding their own pretensions and combating those of their neigh- bor-sects. The question of baptism, in partic- ular, was made the order of the day; and, strangely enough, partisans and adversaries alike attempted to rest their different opinions upon the same passages. “Let us hasten to say that, after that ava- . lanche of works, too often mediocre, there have _ appeared in America some serious studies, sci- entific and independent. We are happy to notice one among the others which deserves to be | placed alongside of the finest German mono- raphs, and which appears to announce among | our friends of the United States a theological de-" velopment little known hitherto. It is due to. the joint labor of Messrs. Stanhope Orris, Ren- del Harris, Hall, and Craven. Dividing the dif- ferent questions among themselves according to their aptitudes and their special studies, they have furnished a monograph which, while very learned, succeeds in being very clear and easy | to consult.” (A foot-note refers to the Journal | of Christian Philosophy, in which those articles appear. ) The author acknowledges the kindness of various Americans, Englishmen, and Germans in furnishiag him with many articles on the ‘‘Teaching ”; but his bibliog- | raphy is merely a select one, in tabular form, filling a little more than two pages. The translation is very neat and spirited ; the notes pertinent, not very voluminous, but containing much new matter, especially showing the indebtedness of the author of anomyne. 8vo, pp. 167. : | ‘the “ Teaching” to the son of Sirach. Τ of the translation appearing in familiar | ‘spots throughout. Asa whole, the trans- lation and notes are not surpassed by any work of like compass. After the transla- tion comes the Historical and Critical Study in eight sections, treating severally of the catechetical instruction, baptism, fasting and prayer, the eucharist, spiritual gifts, and ecclesiastical offices, deacons and bishops, events at the end (of the world), | order appears settled or tangible. and the date and origin of the work. It is impossible to abstract the matter of || the notes and the ‘‘ study”; for it is pre- sented almost in abstract, and is very rich and full. But the whole plan of treatment, whether in detail or as a whole, is different from that of any other edition. In general Ἶ troublesome places are very well resolved, | | but not in a unique manner, the neatness; MM. 1€ ἢ from the fraternal Jewish meal, with the | | bread and cup which were blessed thereat. | ΝΜ. Sabatier is inclined to consider the cup | “of the Lord’s Supper as the eztraordinary ' ‘‘cup of blessing,’ and the cup of the Didaché’s eucharist as that™ of the other more ordinary meal. And here it may be mentioved that the author endeavors to trace the catechesis, the baptism, the fast- ing, prayer and eucharist, from the Jewish practices, of which they are adaptations or modifications, down as far as tradition or Of in- tensest interest is the discussion of these and the commentaries upon it. the author looks at it from the Jewish | upon the subject gives us a better or fairer side, considering that, when Christians first became such, under Christ’s own ministry, they silently kept the non-char- acteristic portions of the order and 561. vice in which they were brought up, and emphasized at first only the obvious picture of primitive Christianity, its nurses ie The work is unique, and 1 and its cradle. cannot be neglected without loss. Confident in the strength of his conclu- | sions, the author has not attempted to do over again the work of others, whether in matters in which Christianity differed from | Germany or America. He is little indebted, Judaism. And he has made some such study of the ‘‘Teaching,” with its catechet- ical portion, its prayers, ucharist, etc., its baptism, its | that many others have apparently, to works onthe ‘‘Teaching” that have appeared in England, though greatly | indebted to English researches on other | subjects. He has thought it unnecessary ‘de with regard to the Jewish elements || to make a separate study of the style and ia the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s | _ Prayer, and the other teachings of Jesus. | Following in this line everywhere, draw- | ophy, of April, 1884, as sufficient, and show- ing that the vocabulary takes us back to- ing on the Talmud and other Jewish the ‘‘ Teaching” is a very early production, and the production of a Jewish Christian. The conclusion respecting its very early date he had put forth last year; but now he does not hesitate to declare his opinion that the ‘“Teaching”’ was written early in the last half of the first century; even before the great missionary journeys of Paul! As between our author and those who) put the ‘‘Teaching” later than the Epistle of | Barnabas, the case seems clear. But it is not necessary that the date be quite so. 1 early as the impetus of the author’s argu- | |} ment carries him. A like pressure of argu- | ment would put the composition of {86 Book of the Acts earlier than Paul’s earlier’ }, epistles. However, the author’s use of nis | argument must be conclusive with those δὰ 4 writers who, like Renan, have thought the » Lord's Supper to be a development out of ἡ the agape, which itself was 8 development | sources, the author has brought to light an | overwhelming array of proofs to show that | vocabulary of the ‘‘ Teaching,” referring to one made in the Journal of Christian Philos- the time when the New Testament writings points; and hardly less so that of the re- | maining subjects. The whole work is very { | luminous, and its reading will make the | “Teaching ” a new document for most of | those who are already familiar with its text | No work | were composed, or not far therefrom. It will be noticed that M. Sabatier differs \\ from Canon Spence in respect to date. The latter puts it 1] than the destruction of Jerusalem; but question, and deliberately puts it earlier. It is not to be supposed that the last word has yet been spoken on all points connected with the ‘‘Teaching”; it is understood, in- deed, that Mr. Taylor, the author of a remarkable edition of the ‘‘Pirke Aboth,” has in preparation an edition of the ‘‘ Teach- ing” on the same general lines as this of M. Sabatier; but the present work has raised a torch which is an honor to France, and an honor not at all dimmed by his present settlement within the boundary of Ger- . many, . Sabatier considers the | | THE DIDACHE. ONCE MORE.* tles” has long been intended by Dr. Schaff, and considered by him as an essential sup- plement to his “" Church History,” though it is now issued by a different publisher. The work is, therefore, on a somewhat dif- ferent line from most others, and in many respects to be judged differently. Its plan itself, though it is not the most voluminous edition of the ‘‘ Teaching” in existence. It is dedicated, by permission, to Bishop _Bryennios, whose portrait (the same cut that appeared some weeks ago in Harper’s Weekly) serves as a frontispiece. the ‘‘ Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre” in Stamboul, where the manu- script containing the Didaché was found, script, which show less and look somewhat rougher (as photo-engravings of type and script always do) than the photographs of kins University, though the copy, in com- mon Greek type, corrects a typographical Omission in that publication. tains the account of the life of Bishop Bryennios, which has already (substan- tially) appeared in ΤῊΝ INDEPENDENT, with the original data thereof in Greek, and a photo-engraved fac simile of a letter of Bishop Bryennios. To all is added also a somewhat select bibliography, with de- publications called forth by the discovery of the Didaché, and copies of illustrations, found in works on other subjects, and taken from ancient pictorial representa- tions of baptism. — The work opens with a chapter on the Jerusalem Monastery, which is not a de- scription, nor new, but in place here. The account of the manuscript, following, is one of the few which gives the correct spelling of ‘* Cassoboli,” though in one in- stance it is wrong by a misprint. The re- mainder of the preliminaries are brief, but *THE OLDEST CHURCH MANUAL, CALLED THE THAOCHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. TON AQAEKA ATIOSTOAQN. ne piaachd and Kindred Documents in the original, with transla- tions and discussions of post-apostolic teaching, bap- tism, worship, and discipline; and with illustrations and fac similes of the Jerusalem Manuscript. By PHILIP ScuHar¥F. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. 8yo, PS viii, 301. Price, $2.00, ee ee Ae the same matter published by Johns Hop-. It also con- | AIAAXH Fhe Laefprsle! fn: “A / AN edition of the ‘‘ Teaching of the Apos- — includes much more than the ‘‘ Teaching” | The vol- | ume is further adorned with a picture οἵ. with two photo-engravings from the manu- | scriptions fuller than usual of editions and | Didache. as a church manual, breaking his the one on baptism is very long, and treats mainly of later times. baptism expresses, of course, the author’s views; and he finds t7ine immersion as the form sanctioned in the Didaché, apparently from its direction of trine ajfusion, or else from an inference from the baptismal for- mula, coupled with the doctrine of later Christian fathers. Accordingly, the docu- ment would convict the Baptists of heresy in not immersing three times. Now and then a matter is inserted which ought not to be there, as the copying of Dr. Hitch. | cock’s “ amamid,” (p. 48, second eke | about which there is some misprint, or something else wrong, and for which it will bea puzzle to find any ‘‘ good author- ity.” So, in references to changes alleged in England, etc., ‘‘ from immersion to pour- minster Assembly of Divines ‘‘ decided by a close vote of twenty-five to twenty-four in favor of sprinkling” is a little wrong. The vote was, in substance, ing) being conceded to be the proper mode of baptism, immersion was to be recognized as equally proper. This chap- ter presents Dr. Schaff as quite opposite to Dr. Hitchcock in his views of the New Testament mode of baptism; and Dr, argument of the anti-immersionists assertion, on pages 56, 57, that ie | ized Christian communities which detache¢ | salvation from ecclesiastical ordinant er, | and taught the salvation of unbaptized | infants and unbaptized but believing adults” is a trifle startling, and needs some inter- | pretation, in nearly every term of the propo- sition, in order to pass unquestioned. The statement that ‘‘ Westcott and Hort, with some of the oldest authorities, read | ῥαντίσωνται for the received text βαπτίσωνταγ" in Mark vii, 4, needs a little modification. The reading was known and rejected long ago by other critics, was | some of his texts (¢. g., Triglott and earlier editiones. academice), but afterward. re- jected ; . while i in Westcott and Hort the re: | ing has the alternative in the margi one they consider so nearly probable a temporarily adopted by Tischendorf in “they show the rhetorical spur of enthusi- * asm. Almost insensibly the author passes ' from the preliminaries to a discussion of the i | matter up into short chapters, except that ἢ The chapter on. | ing and from pouring to sprinkling,” ᾿ (p. 52) the statement that the West-. on the question whether, sprinkling (orpour- , Schaff hardly does justice to the i The Pd e Baptists and Quakers were the first. vane “render their absolute dec ancient text (especially by a scribe used to -immersion as the ordinary form of baptism, _| but seeing that immersion was impossible here) any paleographer can tell; account for. while the reverse change is by no means so easy to | : ay _| How easily.» the former might have. peen | | formed from the latter in copying an - Passing by the rest of the discussion of | chureh order, the chapter ‘‘the Didaché | and the Scriptures” seems so full as to be> If the writer of the. a little strained. Didaché knew the Apocakypse (and yet wrote as Dr. Schaff thinks, at some time from A. D. 90—100), and if the fact is established in the way Dr. Schaff follows, it would seem that almost anything else could be proved. Dr. Schaff, however, says that the ‘* resemblances are remote indeed,” and | probably would not wish his arguments to be taken as more than suggestions. In the “Style and Vocabulary,” Greek scholars” would probably not follow the author in considering κυριακὴ as anon-New Testament ᾿ word, merely because the adjective has no substantive expressed in the Didache. In his list of New Testament words not used in the New Testament sense” he includes ἀνταπόδομα, giving it the meaning of *‘re-"' venge’’; but he renders it in the New Tes- tament sense (‘‘reward’’) in his translation. In his comment on λύτρωσις he puts the Didaché on a Procrustean bed which would lop off the heads and feet of most Greek lassic authors. The truth is that the Didaché uses tropical language of just one grade higher than the ordinary English translations. It makes good sense to trans- late literally: shalt give redemption of thy sins.” ‘‘Through thy hands thou The time of composition is considered by | Dr. Schaff to be a little earlier than A.D. 100, its place Palestine, or Syria; perhaps either Antioch or Jerusalem. After the preliminary discussions, whose chief char- acteristic is their connection with later Church history, there follow the text of the Didaché itself, with translation and notes, and an enthusiastic excursus by Dr. B. Bo] Warfield, which builds too much on narrow foundations, even going so far as to sur- mise that the plural designation of the | ‘¢ Teachings” by Eusebius and his follow- ers may be taken to indicate the existence of variant texts; then the parallels in Bar. nabas, Hermas, the Apostolical Church — Order (the tract called ‘Due Vie vel Ju- dictum Petri,” by Hilgenfeld); the same from the Coptic, translated by Tattam (not - ~— — " - = i i ne as might b Θ᾽ suppo sed from: 4 a hale look at the title-page ¢ of the book), | and the seventh book of the Apostolical ᾿ Constitutions. In all these parallel docu- | ments, the closer parallels with the | Didaché are noted by appropriate type, — both in the Greek and in the English. . The correct text of the Didaché follows the manuscript more closely than even | Bryennios, putting variants and conjec-_— tures in the margin, along with Scripture | allusions and quotations. The translation | is generally very good; though it is hard to justify ‘‘ from our own blessings” in I,5, considering the order of words in the Greek, which refer the “own” to the. ‘* Father,” while otherwise it. might pos. | | sibly 90 grammatically, but not intelligibly, with 7ao:—unless, perhaps, -Dr. Schaff hag — recognized the. logical difficulty, and taken | the bull by.the horns in a paraphrase. In | VI, 2,8 thou shalt. be perfect” is prob- ably a slip for “thou wilt be perfect,” A misprint or two cannot be helped; but it i a J unfortunate on p. 202, where a former translation is Ὁ ied as ‘‘ working into fin- stead of unto} the mystery of the church tn the world,’ and also on p. 166, where | κοδράντης, quadrans (farthing) is explained ᾿ as “ἃ quarter of an ass.” The Roman ὧν | is well enough anglicized, and ace may — stand for assaréwm in one of its senses; but the double-s in this case is misplaced. Such harmless misprints as ἰθρόω for ἰδρόω, p. 99, are to be reckoned among the un- avoidable things. The peculiar value of this edition consists first, in its main aim as a supplement to the | author’s ‘‘ Church History,” and its un- | ceasing allusions to and connections with later history; second, in its coming so late | in the series of editions of the Déidache and its industrious compilation from all sources (for a multitude of matters, how- ever, it was impossible to give credit to former investigators or laborers without swelling the volume enormously), and its references to other works, thus supplying the means of going to other sources for matters which the author treats less fully; and third, for its pictorial illustrations and fac similes, and its matter respecting Bishop Bryennios. The book would have been richer had it contained a more extended description of the monastery, especially of its library. How far this work will supersede others. is a question to be settled more by the student’s need than otherwise. There is scarcely one of the larger editions that | ΟΥ̓ elucidating the progress of the organ- mer editions, and gathered a desirable scattered fragments; but its from other fields have not interfered with™ history. ἘΝ ) FAs. Heeto ἘΣ a -- παρ ν i: ot contain matter peculiar to itself, and scarcely one that the thorough student | would not wish to have. None of them furnishes a better guide to other sources than the present one, nor has more matter extraneous to the main subject. Some others are fuller in the matter of text and commentary, in the strict character of an edited edition, and some others are fresher in certain lines of independent thought. This one never forsakes its main purpose ized Church, not even in its notes on the text. It.has reaped much fruit from for- amount together which would otherwise be gleanings « its own proper harvest in the field of Church / We can imagine how ashamed a scholar like’ Prof. Frederic Gardiner (for the Episcopal Church is not devoid of scholars) must feel to see in the chief organ of his denomination such a paragraph as the following, by Prof. William Adams, D.D., of Nashotah Theological Seminary, on the ‘‘ Teaching of the Apostles” : ** When this book first came before me I wrote upon it an article, to be found in The Churchman of April 12th. I had not then the Greek text as edited by Bishop Bryennios. I now have this. I have read it carefully, and my opinion is unchanged. It is an apocryphal book, and of no value whatsoever,” When the book of Bryennios came to this coun- try Professor Gardiner was one of the first to see its value, and translated the ‘ Teaching” for The Churchman. Dr. Adams read the translation, and, without having seen the Greek text, which was then accessible in the Union Seminary | edition, pronounced against the work; and he now repeats that it is of no value. In s0 doing he simply writes himself down an incompetent | scholar, who knows nothing about the subject, and is not fit to teach in a theological seminary. The notes of Bryennios, if the Professor is able to read them, ought to be sufficient to con- | vince any unprejudiced mind of the genuineness and value of the ‘“‘Teaching,” and of its great antiquity. On that subject there is, as we an- ticipated when we first introduced it to the American public, absolutely no difference οὗ, opinion in Germany, France, Great Britain and America. The yote has already been taken. We have on our table Von Gebhardt and he ee ought to respect, like Professor Wadsworth and Canon Farrar, say the same thing. There is no | question that the date of its composition cannot be later than the second century, and. the doubt _ is whether it does not go back to the first. That depends on whether it shall prove to be earlier or later than the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Thatit is earlier than the | Apostolic Constitutions, and than what is called | by the various designations of ‘Two Ways,” | ‘‘ Judgment of Peter,” and the ‘‘ Constitutions ’ of Clement,” and that these are developments of it, is beyond question. —"! DEAN REICHEL, who has been called the most ἡ learned dignitary of Irish Episcopacy, has a pa- per on the ‘‘Teaching of the Apostles” in The _ Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette, in which he says that this new discovery ‘‘makes the old contro- versy about the divine right of Episcopacy and Presbyterianism obsolete.” Recognizing this as _ probably the most ancient document after the New Testament, if not, indeed, older than some parts of the New Testament, he says that the ecclesiastical organization it presents answers to no ecclesiastical organization now existing. ‘Its bishops and deacons are, of course, the same as the Presbyterian bishops and deacons of the Phi- | quent order, and its apostles are a kind of itinerat- | ing missionaries, whose rapid passage from place to nights anywhere) throws a marvelous light on the extraordinary rapidity with which Christianity over-. spread the Roman Empire like wildfire.” This last suggestion as to the effect of this rapid itinerating is an interesting one. We do not re- member anything just like it in modern missions, although our missionaries are recognizing the great value of their itinerating tours, which some. of them, at least in India, carry on on a large scale. Wecommend the Dean’s candid and schol- arly recognition of the evident meaning of the now famous old document to the Nashotah Pro-- fessor, who denies its antiquity because it is less hierarchical than Irenzeus, and to those other | unanimity, each discover their own polity ex- actly pictured out inthe ‘‘ Teaching.” A new document like this is to be studied with impar- tiality, with no attempt to make ecclesiastical . capital out of it. ΤῸ A A RECOVERED DOCUMENT OF THE PRIMITIVE English Church, whom Professor Adams. lippian Church; but its prophets are Jike no subse-. | place (they are forbidden to stay longer than two. Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Congregational critics who, with such amazing and amusing. - i : CHURCH. | Harnack’s _ editi j i Α ἧ é ὍΝ [ {on αἱ HOD, « Just mpceured, whose διδαχὴ τῶν Δώδεκα ᾿Αποστόλων ἐκ τοῦ Ϊεροσο- rum postolicorum Opera” is a chief . λυμιτικοῦ χειρογράφου νῦν πρῶτον ἐκδιδομένη | Standard authority of the very. earliest | 1 » + . ὑπὸ Φιλόθεου Βρυεννίου μητροπολίτου | poveslastical. writings, We have also Hilgen- Νικομηδείας (Ἐν Κωνσταντίινουπόλει.) } feld’s edition, who has introduced it, learnedly annotated, into a new edition of his ‘“‘Novwn (HERE has always been great difficulty in Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum.” Both lettling what the original documents were out of these authorities accept it fully as being the bf which the so-called ‘ apostolical constitu- very same ancient document of which Eusebius }ions’’ were put together. Of the four and Athanasius speak, and a discovery whose harts often assigned, Bickell conjectured that. Importance cannot. “ sg aaa = ae 4 Ϊ |) with the first part of the book called | Two Ways,” or ‘The Judgment of Peter,” _ Epistle of Barnabas. _| Nicephorus. ‘came from some early writing, standing in ‘close connexion with the latter part of the This early writing _, Archbishop Bryennius thinks he has dis- | covered in the document called “*‘ The Teach- ing of the Twelve Apostles,” which he has | printed from the Jerusalem MS. of the year]. - | 1056 (now at Constantinople), which contains | the epistles of Clement and Barnabas in their | complete Greek form. The document itself is based largely on the Epistle of Barnabas, partly, perhaps, also on the ‘‘ Shepherd ᾽ of Hermas (though this is less | certain), and is essentially the same work as | that referred to by Eusebius, Athanasius, and The first five chapters are meant | for the instruction of catechumens ; the rest is |a ‘Church and House book of the ancient 1 Christians,’’ as Bunsen named it in the second 1 volume of his Christianity and Mankind, and is equally valuable for what it ordains and for what it abstains from ordaining. Some rules are laid down; much is left to Christian free- |dom. Wecan already see ‘‘the Christian school and the Christian congregation, Christian worship and Christian 116: but there is little that can be used for controversial pur- poses, any more than there is in the Cata- combs. The simplicity and common-sense of the instruction is remarkable. In alms- giving we should know to whom we are giving, and give through the church officers, who know the needs of each. The author would have approved of Aristotle’s constant formula, ‘‘always regard the person, the | time, the amount, the manner,” &c.—a for- {mula which Clement of Alexandria adopts. Now we should say, Do not give to tramps, but give through the clergy, district visitors, scripture readers, relieving officers, and so on. Again, men are not pressed beyond their strength : “ΤΠ thou canst bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect; but if thou canst not bear it, do what is in thy power....In the congregation thou shalt confess thy trans- gressions, and shalt not come to thy prayers with an evil conscience ” (see Ps. xxxyv. 18). In baptizing, “if thou hast no living [fresh] water, dip into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm water; and if thou hast neither, pour water thrice on the head in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” ἢ ΜᾺ : At the Thanksgiving (Eucharist) thus thank ye: “First for the cup; we thank thee our Father ον the holy vine of David thy servant which ἐπα madest known to us through Jesus thy \ servant [παιδός]. To thee the glory for ever. And lich is broken; we thank thee our and drink and eternal life through thy servant. the seventh book, which largely coincides | for ever. Thou, Almighty Master, didst: create ᾿ ‘¢ The | all things for thy name, gavest food and drink ἢ to men for enjoyment that they might thank | thee, and to us thou didst grant spiritual food Before all things, we thank thee for thy power.. To thee the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, ' thy church, to deliver it from all evil, and perfect it in thy love. . . . But permit ye the prophets to give thanks as much as they will. . And concerning the apostles and prophets according to the rule of the Gospel so do. And let every apostle coming to you be received as \the Lord, and he shall not remain:a day, but if ‘there be need the second day also, but if he remain three he is a false prophet. . . . On the, Lord’s Day gather together, break bread and give thanks, and confess your sins that your sacrifice may be pure. . . . Elect for yourselves | — bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek and not covetous, and true and tried, for they too minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.” ert pi ee Thus teaching is still carried on by men who have the gifts of the spirit, and who travel about to preach; but the practical work of management and of charity is entrusted to bishops and deacons, whom each church elects for itself as its settled managers. What date and place can we assign to the Treatise? The tone is early, especially in what concerns the ministry and the Eucharist, and baptizing in ‘living water’’—7.e., of rivers or springs. The author says we must not fast, as the hypocrites (7.e., Jews) do, on the second and fifth day of the week, but on the fourth and on the preparation (Friday). | Again, such references as that to offering the} first fruits for charity may show that he was connected with the early Jewish Christian | Church. There is still also a strong expecta- tion of the Second Advent being near. The author does not name himself, or refer the book to famous names of prophets or apostles, as so many early apocryphal works do, and as the author of the ““ Apostolical Constitutions’ does; his is the simple tone of an earnest teacher, ‘‘My son, do thus; this is the way of life.’ He is not aware of much heresy, except the practical heresy of covetousness and false desires. He does not refer by name to the books of Scrip- ture, but seems to allude to several passages, from St. Matthew and a few from St. Luke pand St. Paul. He gives the Lord’s Prayer more in accordance with the Textus Receptus than with the Vatican MS., but reads ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, omits τῆς before γῆς (as Vat.), reads τὴν ὀφειλήν, and has at the end only ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα (as also in chap. ix.). He is per- haps following some liturgical source rather than St. Matthew. But farther on he uses Matt. vii. 6 : μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον Tots κυσί. Inone place he uses the expression μαραναθά from 1 Cor. xvi. 22, and Prof. Wordsworth has sug- , The Nook ἢ 6 ΘΠ. written os a Ct ~ ΤΣ τ τ {Father for the life and knowledge which thot) (¢Corinth or some Greek church. | nome madest known to us through Jesus thy servant. Pauline church is most probable, which used To thee the glory for ever. As this which " mainly the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the broken wa ems ttored upon the mountains an vate wiay bé Some Way ὁπ "ἔν the second’ became onttby being brought together, so let | cate tif Hermas used our book, and not | thy church be brought togethe? a a ΓΞ ΤΠ ΡΣ Σ Beverinis: puts it between 120 4 , earth into thy kingdom, for | vice versa). at pra the eth to Thy Reon for le ean). Beye Boy anne ean of Christ for ever; ... and after ye are ἔοι Gnosticism and Montanism in το ἮΝ ἯΙ πον ἢ thus thank ye; We thank thee, Holy ke is of the slightest. The interest ὁ 0 aia thy holy name which thou didst ἐὰν faith and | i8 great, for it helps us to see how works : | hearts, ang pe Lally Leas ors 4 to us| the ‘‘ Apostolical Constitutions Fa cai "εἰ A i rT “. hou mades nov 5 A cae δὲ a orate and. τώδε Yat. To thee the glory ally built up, early writings Incorpo: est . Ε Cae eo, ἘἘὔ ὄἪ _ _THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE fig ee : “APOSTLES. ἘΚ. 2S /{4 _ It is now little more than ἃ year since the’ American theological world was startled by the alleged discovery of a new document belonging to the sub-apostolic age. The present publication of a new American edition of | the text of this now world-famous treatise, The Teach- ing of the Twelve Apostles, affords an opportunity briefly to note the resulis of a year’s criticism of the document. : : . £090, | τ Published in 1883 through Boutyra of Constantinople : _by thg discoverer, Philotheos Bryennios, the Greek met- | -ropolitan of Nicomedia, the Teaching has for more than twelve months been subjected to the closest critical seru- ‘tiny by German, French, English, and American scholars. The profoundest criticism of the document has come from | Germany ; the widest popular interest has been displayed “in America, where the Teaching may almost be said to have been seized out of the hands of patristic scholars, and utilized at once for polemical purposes by denomi- national apologists. Nor was this one-sided method of discussion wholly to be regretted. It insured a kind of criticism to which the document was not subjected by Continental European scholars (with the exception, per- haps, of the Roman Catholic Bickell), and to which it was only partially subjected in England. The latter coun- U try made no contribution of first importance, either | from the critical or the polemical standpoint. Professor - Wordsworth, Bishop Lightfoot, and Canon Spence _ directed scholarly attention to the treatise; but Arch- | deacon Farrar’s translation of it was notably disap- pointing in respect of Greek scholarship. “J ‘The results of a year’s criticism have been directly in | favor of the sub-apostolic origin of the newly recovered | ‘document, The series of sensational articles which, ; _ appeared in the Boston Advertiser, and which for a i a " ; - : Be *AIAAXH TON AQAEKA ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, recently discovered and published by Philotheos Bryennios _ Metropolitan of Nicomedia. Edited with a translation, introduction, 1 _ and notes. By Roswell D. Hitchcock and Francis Brown, professors _ in Union Theological Seminary. A new edition revised and greatly -enlarged, 8yo, pp. cxy, 8. New York: Charles Scribner's Sor | TI ; ns. | . Jt _ Price, $2.00. | + ἢ ] Le ee ere eae : oa ee reo Se a ᾿ time shoe. the faith: ith of some who wer Ὁ not familiar witk the ‘evidence i in favor of the Teaching, aie beer 20Wn to be the work of an. ill-informed and-culpably. careless newspaper correspondent; and. they would not have “been mentioned here but for the” impression which they! created outside. the circle of patristic students. The| ‘impartial serutiny of all the evidence available, on the’ part of original investigators, has resulted in pushing | the probable date of the Teaching nearer to the apos-. | tolie age than was at first conceded. The years A. Ὁ. 90 and A.D. 150 probably mark the points within which | the date of the document will ultimately be fixed. Tn the case of the parallel passages in the epistle of Barna- bas and the Teaching, a greater teudency is shown to régard the text of the Teaching as the earlier of the two. The opinion has also gathered strength that we ‘must look to Egypt for the origin of the Teaching; and a strong argument—though not, we think, a conclusive one—can be urged in favor of this opinion. In point of fact, the Teaching has, so far, not only come out of the fires of criticism unscathed, but an earlier date and a more important place in early Christian literature is now assigned to it than was originally claimed for it ‘by Bry- ennios himself. Krawutzcky, who refuses to accept this as the original of his now famous restoration, stands | practically alone among scholars. The new American edition by Professors Hitchcock and Brown calls for no extended criticism. It is the completed work of which the first edition issued last year by the same authors was merely a hasty outline. At several places the former translation has been modi- fied; among others at the difficult passage in the six- beens chapter, where the rendering of ὑπὸ (hypo), line ‘311, as “from under,” first suggested by The Sunday School Times, has been adopted. . There is a full intro- duction covering the history of the Teaching, and dis- cussing the question of the relationship of the document to other early Christian literature. In matter and style this -introduction is popular as weil as scholastic. While the original Greek is freely quoted, it may be said in general that-this introduction contains in English the passages from early Christian Hterature, quoted in the edition of Bryennios in the original Greek. The labors of the Germans receive aiso a fair share of attention. In comparison with the hastily prepared notes which | appeared in last year’s edition, the notes in the present volume are fall and satisfactery. They cover sufficiently the questions started by the linguistic peculiarities of the Greek of the Teaching; and all non-biblical words, and biblical words used in a non-biblical sense, are care- fully indicated. - mt The volume is, of course, net free from minor errors. ΑΒ a sample we may instance the rendering of τῶν Παύλου Πράξεων ἡ γραφή, 6 τε λεγόμενος Ποιμὴν by “the Acts of Paul, the writing which is called Shepherd ”—a rendering which must surely be an oversight, as the words “the writing” belong by construction to the preceding genitive. The ed eee ation of Cremer for or Lucian’s use of the word ‘odd: (hodos) ga little surprising ἴα. view of the fact that the ε ταν οι is. quo din full from Lucian in. Bryennios’ 8 original edition, and- that the) meaning ascribed to it by Cremer can be found in any good modern lexicon, and | even in the venerable ae ge -who also_ makes the | ‘reference to Lucian. | In an appendix Professor Philip Schaff ἐγ τῷ ' ‘auseful Digest of the Didache Literature, which covers all importants European and American notices to date. | Professor Schaff’s ascription of the-authorship of The | ‘Sunday. School Times version, following, apparently a guess by The Independent, is only partially correct. , | The version was the joint work of two trans|ators—of the | editorial staff (Professor Isaac H. Hall and Mr. John T. Napier)—not of one; each having taken one-haif, and | the two going over τε whole together. Professors Hitchcock and Brown’s new edition of the | Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is the most complete | edition yet published in America, Its full notes and introduction, its clear Greek text, and its satisfactory summary of the literature of its subject, fit it for use in. ithe theological seminary. The English translations ‘from patristic literature in the introduction, and the translation of the Teaching itself which faces ihe Greek | | text, make it suitable for use by the general reader also. | Η- : ‘ ; Ἃ : ἘΣ 4 sic anew : ΞΈΞΣΣΤΣ Re ed 280 ae γε ον 2355. πω. cme ee ἀνα fear aware Suac eran 526 πάσα wee αὶ ey μι +] . 5 δὰ ¢ Ἢ τ ' % * a Bates Metin ss er oe aw wok α ἐφ 8 a " ἱ ; Hi % ὃ 3 ἢ i ἵν 4 ἢ ἢ: vase Ser τς νι eee νος ἄν αν νὰ eer toe ΣΎ ΕΣ 2 4" ee π᾿ et τς Teese io a ow oP aoe ees seve ee τειν τ, 71:5: (ae δα, ας ὧν ψα eet ται mae ate tal 4 Teoh RE SATE oT C3 2A. Ss : = re ἑ απ σ΄ τ ~ pth rn Seen ee eS ah eae te wigs 4 o rer Ue Ro ει ἦν. ine bie ahs wage Se ig ae hee γαῖ . Sey : Η ων te - af on? paar