---
title: "Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, the Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions"
author: "Various Church Fathers"
translator: "A. Cleveland Coxe (ed.)"
languages: [en]
shelf: "Church Fathers"
section: 82 of 148
url: https://scriptura.si/works/church-fathers-lactantius-didache-apostolic-constitutions/82/
cite: "Various Church Fathers, tr. A. Cleveland Coxe (ed.), Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, the Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions, section 82. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/church-fathers-lactantius-didache-apostolic-constitutions/82/"
---

# Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, the Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions

*Various Church Fathers, tr. A. Cleveland Coxe (ed.)*

Lactantius, the Didache, the Apostolic Constitutions and early liturgies.

## 82. Section 4.—Authenticity

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/church-fathers-lactantius-didache-apostolic-constitutions/82/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/church-fathers-lactantius-didache-apostolic-constitutions/82/#p-N

[¶0] By this is meant, in this case, the substantial identity of the recently discovered document with the work known and referred to by early Christian writers under the same (or a similar) title. Of apostolic origin no one should presume to speak, since the text of the document makes no such claim, and internal evidence is obviously against such a suggestion. On the other hand, there is no reason for doubting the age of the Codex, or the accuracy of the edition published by Bryennios.

[¶1] Eusebius (d. 340) of Cæsarea, in the famous passage of his history (iii. 25) which treats of the canonical books of the New Testament, names among the “spurious” works (νόθοι) “the so-called Teachings of the Apostles” (τω̑ν ἀποστόλων αἱ λεγόμεναι διδαχαί). The plural form does not forbid a reference to the work under discussion, since Athanasius (d. 373) has a notice clearly pointing to the same writing, in which he uses the singular (Festal Epistle, 39). Rufinus (d. 410) speaks of a brief work called The Two Ways, or The Judgment of Peter; and this fact, in view of the contents of the Teaching, furnishes one of the most important data for the critical discussion. The last notice of the Teaching was made by Nicephorus (d. 828) more than two hundred years before Leon made this copy. Clement of Alexandria (d. circa 216) and Irenæus (mart. 202) use expressions that may indicate an acquaintance with this writing. The more extended correspondences with Barnabas and later disciplinary works are noticed above (sec. 3). The existence of an old Latin translation of the Teaching, of the tenth century, a fragment of which has been preserved, furnishes general evidence to the authenticity of the Greek copy, but by its variations suggests the presence of many textual corruptions. Its closer correspondence with Barnabas has led to the theory that the translator used both documents. Others suppose that its form points to a document which was the common source of the Greek form of the Teaching and of Barnabas.

[¶2] The various theories based on the above facts cannot even be stated. The following positions seem, on the whole, most tenable:—

[¶3] 1. The Greek Codex presents substantially the writing referred to by Eusebius and Athanasius.

[¶4] 2. Owing to an absence of other copies, we cannot determine the purity of the text; but there is every probability of many minor corruptions.

[¶5] 3. This probability calls for care that we do not infer too much from verbal resemblances.

[¶6] 4. The resemblances to book vii., Apostolic Constitutions, are, however, of such a character as establish, not only a literary connection between the two works, but also the priority of the Teaching

[¶7] 5. In the case of Barnabas, the resemblances can be accounted for (a) by accepting the priority of the Teaching, or (b) by assuming a common (earlier and unknown) source, or (c) by accepting the priority of Barnabas, and assuming such corruptions in the Greek copy of the Teaching as will account for the supposed marks of its priority. Despite the general adoption of (a), there remains a strong probability that (b) is the correct solution of the problem.

[¶8] 6. The Duæ Viæ, spoken of by Rufinus, may be the common source. We have no positive evidence, but the “two ways” form so prominent a topic in most of these documents which indicate literary relationship, as to encourage this theory. If there was a common source, it probably contained only matter similar to chaps. i.-v., which was variously used by the subsequent compilers. Here a number of theories have been suggested. None of them, however, necessarily call for a very late date of the Teaching, or compel us to deny that Eusebius and Athanasius referred to substantially the same work as that now existing in the Codex at Constantinople. Many resemblances have been noticed in other works. Probably in the course of a few years all the data will have been collected, and a well-defined result based upon them. But, even in this period of discussion, there is remarkable agreement among critics in regard to the main question of authenticity.

### Section 5.—Time and place of composition

[¶10] Granting the general authenticity of the Greek work, the time of composition must be at least as early as the first half of the second century. If the Teaching is older than Barnabas, then it cannot be later than a.d. 120. If both are from a common source, the interval of time was probably not very great. The document itself bears many marks of an early date:—

[¶11] (1) Its simplicity, almost amounting to childishness, not only discountenances all idea of forgery, but points to the sub-apostolic age, during which Christianity manifested this characteristic. The fact is an important one in the discussion of the canon of the New Testament.

[¶12] (2) The undeveloped Christian thought, as well as the indications of undeveloped heresy, confirms this position. Christianity was at first a life, for which the Apostles furnished a basis of revealed thought. But the Christians of the sub-apostolic age had not consciously assimilated the thought to any large extent, while their ethical striving was stimulated by the gross sins surrounding them.

[¶13] (3) The Church polity indicated in the Teaching is less developed than that of the genuine Ignatian Epistles, and shows the existence of extraordinary travelling teachers (“Apostles” and “Prophets,” chap. xi.). This points to a date not later than the first half of the second century, probably as early as the first quarter.

[¶14] Most of these phenomena would, however, consist with a date as late as that of the Ignatian Epistles on the theory that the Teaching was written for a community of Christians in some obscure locality. But this theory must admit that there existed for a long time great variety of Church polity and worship. Of this there is, indeed, considerable evidence. The undeveloped form of the doctrinal elements of the work constitutes the most serious objection to the theory of a late origin. On the other hand, it seems on many accounts improbable that the work, in its present form, was written earlier than the beginning of the second century: (1) Such a document would not be penned during the lifetime of any of the Apostles. (2) There is no allusion in chap. xvi. to the destruction of Jerusalem. If the author was a Jewish Christian, as seems most probable, such silence implies an interval of at least one generation. (3) The position of the document in the Codex is after the Clementine Epistles, and before the Ignatian. This probably marks the chronological position. (4) The extreme simplicity scarcely consists with the view that the author was nearly contemporary with the Apostles.

[¶15] Bryennios and Harnack assign, as the date, between 120 and 160; Hilgenfeld, 160 and 190; English and American scholars vary between a.d. 80 and 120. Until the priority to Barnabas is more positively established, the two may be regarded as of the same age, about 120, although a date slightly later is not impossible. All attempts to discover the author are, with our present lack of data, necessarily futile. Even the region in and for which it was composed cannot be determined. Jewish-Christian tendencies are not sufficiently indicated to warrant the assumption of a polemical aim. The document has been assigned to Alexandria, to Antioch, to Jerusalem; indeed, many other places have been named. In favour of the Syrian origin is the literary connection with the Apostolic Constitutions, while the correspondences with the Epistle to Barnabas suggest Egypt as the locality. If the Teaching and Barnabas have a common basis, e.g., the Duæ Viæ, the last may be assigned to Egypt, and the Teaching, in its present form, to Syria. The Palestinian origin is urged by those who lay stress upon the absence of Pauline doctrine in the Teaching [If meant for catechumens only, this fact is sufficiently accounted for.]

[¶16] The question is still an open one.

[¶17] As regards the doctrine, polity, usages, and ethics expressed and implied in the Teaching, the reader can judge for himself. The writer is of the opinion that the work represents, on many of these points, only a very small fraction of the Christians during the second century, and that, while it casts some light upon usages of that period, it cannot be regarded as an authoritative witness concerning the universal faith and practice of believers at the date usually assigned to it. The few notices of it, and its early disappearance, confirm this position. The theory of a composite origin also accords with this estimate of the document as a whole.

[¶18] The version of the Teaching here given is that of Professor Isaac H. Hall and Mr. John T. Napier, which first appeared in the Sunday-School Times (Philadelphia), April 12, 1884. It is now republished by permission of the editor of that periodical and of the joint authors. A few slight changes have been made, some of them in accordance with suggestions from Professor Hall, others to indicate correspondences with book vii. of Apostolic Constitutions.

[¶19] The division of verses agrees with that of Harnack as given by Schaff. The headings to the chapters have been inserted by the editor. The Scripture references have been selected and verified. The notes have been kept within narrow limits. They serve to indicate the relation of the matter to that in other early writings, mainly the Apostolic Constitutions, and to give various readings and renderings. Occasionally explanations and comments have been inserted. In dealing with this, as with most other books, the best method of study is historico-exegetical. To read the book intelligently is better than to read about it. The editor has sought to furnish some help in this method.

### The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

[¶21] The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.

### Chapter I.—The Two Ways; The First Commandment

[¶23] 1. There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways. 2. The way of life, then, is this: First, thou shalt love God who made thee; second, thy neighbour as thyself; and all things whatsoever thou wouldst should not occur to thee, thou also to another do not do. 3. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for them that persecute you. For what thank is there, if ye love them that love you? Do not also the Gentiles do the same? But do ye love them that hate you; and ye shall not have an enemy. 4. 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 thou art not able. 5. Give to every one that asketh thee, and ask it not back; for the Father willeth that to all should be given of our own blessings (free gifts). Happy is he that giveth 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. 6. But also now concerning this, it hath been said, Let thine alms sweat in thy hands, until thou know to whom thou shouldst give.