To Give or Not to Give? Deciphering the Saying of Didache 1.6

I. Introduction: Examining the Enigma of Didache 1.6

There is a discernible shift in the moral imperatives one finds listed in the first chapter of the Didache. In the first four verses, the text reads much like a checklist of ethical guidelines: love God, love your neighbor, bless those that curse you, turn the other cheek, etc. For the most part, these imperatives appear without any qualification or clarification. When the subject of almsgiving is broached, however, this pattern changes:

To all who ask you give, and do not ask back, for from their own gifts the father wishes to give to all. Blessed is the one who gives according to the mandate, for he is innocent. But the one not having need is given a hearing, into what he received and why. And in straits he shall be examined about that which he did, and he shall not go thence, until he has given back the last farthing.¹

(Did. 1.5)

Our author seems compelled to explain more precisely the responsibilities and obligations of this practice. What necessitated this explanation? One can suppose some aspect of this behavior was creating problems within his community. Perhaps hard-earned funds were carelessly being squandered. Perhaps personal loyalties were eclipsing objective needs. The text provides us clues, but no certain answers.

Whatever his situation, the Didachist outlined two simple directives regarding almsgiving. The first pertains to the giver. According to Did. 1.5, the one who gives is to give to everyone who asks—no one is to be refused. Such generosity was recognized to be God's will.

The second directive concerns the recipient of the alms. According to the text, the moral responsibility of charitable activity falls squarely upon the shoulders of the beneficiary. If this person has taken alms because of his or her need, they are innocent, but if they receive without need, they shall be held accountable for their action.

In light of these two directives, the subsequent passage becomes somewhat problematic:

English translations of this saying vary a bit, but a consensus seems to have been reached among scholars. A sample of their interpretations bears this out:

Let thine alms sweat into thine hands until thou knowest to whom thou art giving.²

Let your charitable gift sweat in your hands until you know to whom you are giving it.³

Let your donation sweat in your hands until you know to whom to give it.⁴

Let thine alms sweat in thy hands, until thou know to whom thou shouldst give.⁵

Let your alms sweat in the palms of your hands until you know to whom you are giving.⁶

Let your alms grow damp with sweat in your hand, until you know who it is you are giving them to.⁷

If these translations are correct, it appears as though the Didache is contradicting its earlier directives. Rather than the indiscriminate generosity implied in 1.5, the saying in 1.6 seems to advocate hesitancy and deliberation. Furthermore, the ethical responsibility of almsgiving seems to shift. Whereas 1.5 located this responsibility with the recipient, 1.6 suggests that it must rest with the benefactor.

II. Modern Justification for the Apparent Contradiction

The apparent contradiction between Did. 1.5 and 1.6 has divided the opinions of scholars over the authorship of these verses. Some claim they were written by the same hand, while others detect the presence of a redactionist. Regardless of their opinions on who introduced the saying, most scholars do seem to be in agreement on where it came from, and why it appears in the Didache. The modern justification for the origin and presence of 1.6 is best represented in the works of Pere John-Paul Audet⁸ and Patrick W. Skehan.⁹

A. Audet's Argument

Audet's theory is largely based on the witnesses of later Latin manuscripts which incorporate a saying very similar to that in Did. 1.6. Among the authors Audet examined are St. Augustine, Cassiodorus, Abelard, Bernard of...