Chapter 6 THE PROPHET DOCUMENT: 10.1-7; 11.7-9,12; 12.1-5
Chapter 6
THE PROPHET DOCUMENT: 10.1-7; 11.7-9,12; 12.1-5
The purpose of the preceding chapter was to identify those parts of the Didache that belong to the same redactional layer as the eucharistic prayer recorded in Did. 9.1-5a. The aim of this chapter is to find those parts of the text that belong to the same layer as the parallel eucharistic prayer recorded in Did. 10.1-6.
1. Didache 10.7and11.7-9, 12 In Chapter 5 it was noted that Did. 11.6 and 11.7 are roughly juxtaposed, while Did. 10.7 and 11.7 form a cohesive whole when placed together. This invites the possibility that Did. 10.7 and 11.7 were joined prior to their addition to the Didache. This in turn suggests that these two verses were part of a previously existing document, separate from the Didache, which was divided at 10.7/11.7 and inserted into the host text in two separate parts.1
Did. 10.7 shows a strong affinity to 10.1-6 in that both are concerned with the practice of giving thanks. This suggests that 10.1-6 formed an additional part of the separate document to which 10.7 and 11.7 belonged.
The abrupt division of Did. 10.7 and 11.7 provides a clue to the possible continuing extent of this separate document. If 11.7 were the final element of this document, then it is surprising that the interpolator did not simply include 11.7 after 10.7, rather than detaching it from 10.7 and placing this defence of the sanctity of prophetic speech after a discussion of how apostles may be identified as false prophets. However, if 11.7 was always followed by 11.8, then the extant arrangement makes better sense. In this circumstance the means of recognizing apostles who are false prophets
(11.5, 6), coheres with the test for false prophets provided in 11.8. It is likely, therefore, that 11.8 always followed 11.7 as part of the interpolated
A motive for this action is offered in § 3, below, and Chapter 10, § 2.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache document (hereafter referred to as the Prophet document, because of its concern for prophets and prophecy).
Did. 11.8 teaches: 'But not every one speaking in the Spirit (EV TTVEUJJCXTI) is a prophet, but only those whose behaviour is as the Lord's, by their actions you can discern the false prophet from the prophet'. Did.
11.9 goes on to give a concrete example of an action that betrays the false prophesy of a false prophet. Thus, if someone claims to be 'in the Spirit' and uses this to gain food for themselves, then their claim to inspiration is false. In the same way, and using similar language, Did. 11.12 explains that if someone uses the cover of inspired speech to gain money or possessions, then they are a false prophet issuing false prophecy.
11.7.. .and every prophet speaking in the Spirit (ev TrveupaTi) neither test nor judge; every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.
11.8 But not every one speaking in the Spirit (ev TTveujjem) is a prophet, but only those whose behaviour is as the Lord's, by their actions you can discern the false prophet from the prophet.
11.9 Every prophet calling for a table of food in the Spirit (ev TTveupcm) will not eat of it. If he does he is a false prophet...
11.12 If any prophet, speaking in the Spirit (sv Trveupaxi) says, 'Give me money', or anything else, do not listen to him. On the other hand, if he calls you to give it to someone who is in need, do not judge him.
The shared use of the expression 'ev TTVEUMOCTI' in 11.7, 8, 9, 12, and the structural coherence of teaching that moves from the general (11.8) to the specific (11.9,12), suggests that these four verses belong together, and thus belong to the Prophet document, along with Did. 10.1-7.
The structural and stylistic coherence of this programme is disrupted by the inclusion of Did. 11.10-11. In Chapter 7, section 1 below, I will argue that these two verses were inserted as part of a later layer written in response to a possible misinterpretation of Did. 11.9.
The addition of Did. 10.7; 11.7-9, 12 to the eucharistic prayer of Did.
10.1-6 has the effect of revealing a document with a particular relationship to the Peri layer. As was noted in Chapter 2, the eucharistic prayer in Did.
10.1-6 is closely parallel to the eucharistic prayer in the Peri layer (9.15a). The level of similarity between these two prayers points to the direct dependence of one upon the other. That Did. 10.1 -6 is a later development of Did. 9.1 -5 is likely in the light, for example, of the differences between the calls for eucharistic exclusion in Did. 9.5 and 10.6. In the former this rubric is silent, while in the latter a public statement is made. Thus, in 9.5, there is a presupposition of the eucharistic president's knowledge of each member of the congregation, while 10.6 implies the presence of a larger,
6. The Prophet Document: 10.1-7; 11.7-9, 12; 12.1-5
more anonymous gathering, suggestive of a later development in the Church's life.
The addition of 10.7; 11.7-9, 12 to the Prophet document's eucharistic teaching creates a set of instructions that build upon, but go beyond, that which is set down in the Peri layer. Thus, the basic teaching of the Peri layer with regard to the eucharistic prayer itself (9.1 -5a) is largely adhered to by the Prophet document. However, where the Peri layer fails to address an issue, in this case the boundaries that should be placed on prophets when they give thanks at the eschatological meal, this deficiency is made good by a further elaboration in the Prophet document (10.7; 11.7-9, 12).
2. Didache 12.1-5 Just as Did. 10.1-7; 11.7-9, 12 is closely dependent on Did. 9.1-5, while being willing to additionally respond to circumstances created by the presence of wandering prophets, so also Did. 12.1-5 pays consistent homage to Did. 11.3a, 4-6, while adapting those instructions to accommodate the ministry of itinerant prophets:
THE WELCOME:
11.4 Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord.
12.1 Let every one who comes in the name of the Lord be received, after that, when you have tested him, you will know what he is like—for you will have right and left perception.
The language and sentiment of the welcome in each case is remarkably similar. Did. 12.1, however, appears to address a situation where 'apostle' is no longer a suitable description for the type of visitor that is apparently in mind. This term is replaced by 'those who come in the name of the Lord'. This expression suggests individuals engaged in service on behalf of the Lord. A clue to their specific identity may be found in 12.2-3, where it is implied that these visitors adopt a perpetually wandering lifestyle, although the option to settle was apparently open to them. The immediate juxtaposition of 12.1-5 to 11.7-9,12, combined with the parallel references to evaluation of prophets (11.8-9,12) and evaluation of visitors (12.1), also suggest that those 'who come in the name of the Lord' are synonymous with the prophets mentioned in 10.7; 11.7-9, 12. It may be concluded, therefore, that the author of the Prophet document took the Peri layer's teaching concerning apostles and reapplied it to the situation of wandering prophets. These prophets, like the apostles, are to be welcomed, although the visitors must then be subjected to the tests outlined in Did. 11.8-9,12.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache
THE STAY:
11.5 He shall stay only one day, or, if need be, another day too. If he stays three days, he is a false prophet.
12.2b He shall not stay with you more than two or three days if this is necessary.
Despite the similarity of subject and vocabulary the seemingly direct discrepancy between these two verses may give the impression that the latter cannot have been directly influenced by the former. However, the situation of the apostles referred to in 11.5 may have been very different from those of the wandering prophets. The apostles mentioned here are likely to have been envoys sent from and returning to a home base, rather than permanent wanderers.2 While the two-day limit may have been feasible for an occasional traveller of this type, it would have been a disabling restriction for a permanent itinerant. The very fact that the Prophet document, which appears to hold prophetic ministry in high regard (cf.
10.7; 11.7), preserves a harsh limit of three days suggests that the continuing influence of the Peri layer instructions may indeed be seen here. That the Prophet document goes on in 12.3-5 to provide a means by which wanderers may settle (implicitly disallowed by 11.5), further indicates that the priority of this author is to create a viable situation for prophets. Overall then, the Prophet document's treatment of residence shows an awareness of the strictures of the Peri layer instructions, at the same time as wishing to work beyond those previously imposed limits to create viable conditions for travelling prophets, both those who wish to continue travelling and those who wish to settle.
THE DEPARTURE:
11.6a When the apostle leaves, let him receive nothing but enough bread to see him through until he finds lodging.
12.2a If the one who comes is a traveller, help him as much as you can, Once again the Prophet document tackles a question also addressed by the Peri layer. A similar pattern persists. The principle of providing for the ongoing journey of the traveller is taken from the Peri layer and augmented in favour of the itinerant in the Prophet document's version of the teaching.
Draper (1995:295) sees the apostles mentioned in Did 11 as envoys sent from Jerusalem who were expected to return home after delivering their message.
6. The Prophet Document: 10.1-7; 11.7-9, 12; 12.1-5
THE ISSUE OF MONEY:
11.6b If he asks for money he is a false prophet.
11.12 If any prophet, speaking in the Spirit says, 'Give me money', or anything else, do not listen to him. On the other hand, if he calls you to give it to someone who is in need, do not judge him.
The issue of money does not need to be explicitly tackled in Did. 12.1-5 because it has already been covered in 11.12. According to the Peri layer asking for money is the sign of a false prophet, this is echoed by the Prophet document in 11.12. The issue of money is also implicitly tackled, in line with the teaching of 11.6b, in the instructions of 12.3-5, where a prophet is not permitted to use Christ to make a living.
In conclusion, the faithfulness of Did. 12.1-5 to the Peri teaching in 11.4-6, combined with a willingness to expand on the earlier teaching to serve a new situation, suggests that these verses were written by the author who also wrote Did. 10.1 -7; 11.7-9,12, where a similar relationship to the Peri layer's eucharistic prayer (9.1-5a) may be found.
3. Conclusion: The Prophet Document The aim of Chapter 6 has been to identify as much of the extant text of the Didache as was written by the author of Did. 10.1-6. It was noted that Did. 10.7 appears to belong to the same discourse as both Did. 10.1-6 and 11.7, and that the message and style of Did. 11.7 are continued into 11.89, 12. The unit Did. 10.1-7; 11.7-9, 12 was then noted as appearing to build directly upon Did. 9.1 -5a at the same time as expanding the teaching of the earlier text to address the situation of wandering prophets; a pattern repeated in Did. 12.1 -53 in relation to 11.4-6. It was concluded, therefore, thatDid. 12.1-5 was written by the same hand as Did. 10.1-7; 11.7-9,12.
The material so identified is here labelled the 'Prophet document'. This text is referred to as a document, rather than a layer, because the rough separation of 10.7 from 11.7 suggests that this text had a life prior to its insertion into the Didache (at which point it became, of course, an additional layer). The dependence of the Prophet document on the Peri materials offers an explanation, not only for the shape of the Prophet teaching, but also for the fact of its insertion and the way in which it was inserted into the Peri text. That is to say that the person responsible for this interpolation may have done so precisely because the document's teachings are so 3.
Did 13.1-7 cannot belong to the Prophet document because it reacts against the teaching of 12.3-5. See Chapter 7, § 2.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache similar to those of the Peri layer. Further, the fact that the Prophet document addresses two separate subjects also addressed by the Peri text provides a rationale for the rough separation of the Prophet document at 10.7/
11.7. Thus, rather than disrupt the order of the Peri layer's teaching on the eucharist and apostles, the Prophet document was divided and its two halves inserted alongside the parallel materials in the host text.
In conclusion, the content of the Prophet document may be found in the Didache in 10.1-7; 11.7-9,12; 12.1-5. As such it forms a redactional layer of the Didache and so may also be referred to as the Prophet layer.