Chapter 7 THE MODIFYING TEACHER LAYER: 1.5a-6; 7.1b, d, 2-3,4b; 8.1-2a,2c-3;9.5b; 11.1-2; 11.10-11; 13.11-15.2
Chapter 7
THE MODIFYING TEACHER LAYER:
1.5a-6; 7.1b, d, 2-3,4b; 8.1-2a, 2c-3; 9.5b; 11.1-2; 11.10-11; 13.1-15.2
As can be seen from the string of references in the chapter title, the layer now to be considered is a complex one. Its analysis is best undertaken in small stages which can progressively be built up into a whole. The first section to be considered is Did. 11.10-11. l.Didache 11.10-11 In the preceding analysis of the Prophet layer it was noted that Did. 11.1011 appears to have been inserted into the Prophet layer in response to a potential misunderstanding of Did. 11.9. This statement requires explanation at this point.
Did. 11.7-9,12, it was observed, is uniformly concerned with the regulation of prophetic speech 'EV TTVEUIJKXTI '. The instructions begin with the general points that prophetic speech should never be interrupted for testing, and that when testing becomes possible it may be done on the basis of the prophet's actions and their consistency with the manner of the Lord.
Did. 11.9 and 11.12 then provide specific examples of how false inspiration, used to gain food, money or things, may be recognized.
Did. 11.10-11 interrupts the flow of these instructions with material that differs from the immediate context in two respects. First, there is no mention of what a prophet says 'EV TTVEUMCXTI'; rather, there is an interest in what the prophet teaches (SiSdoKco is used three times in 11.10-11 and not at all in 11.7-8,12) and does (TTOIECG is used five times in 11.10-11 but never in 11.7-9, 12). In addition there is an emphasis on the 'true' status of an acceptable prophet in 11.10-11 ('SISCCGKCOV TT|V aArj0Eiav' in 11.10 and 'SsSoKiMaanEVos 6cAr|0i vos' in 11.11) which does not occur in 11.79,12. This change of focus from what a prophet says (11.7-9,12) to what a 'true' prophet does (11.10-11), as well as the disruption to the unity of
The Gospel of Matthew fs Dependence on the Didache 11.7-9,12 caused by the inclusion of 11.10-11, suggests that the latter was interpolated into the former.
Before attempting to attribute this interpolation to a redactional layer of the Didache it is necessary to identify a motive for its inclusion in the extant text. The most important evidence in this regard is provided by the location of the insertion. Didache 10.9 informs its readers that a prophet who eats food called for 'in the Spirit' is a false prophet. This invites the possibility that the insertion at 11.10-11 represents an attempt to respond to this teaching. An itinerant who depended on the hospitality of local congregations may have had such a motive, since, if asking for food 'in the Spirit' could be taken as the mark of a false prophet, then it is possible that asking for food in any circumstance could be treated with circumspection.
The presence of Did. 12.1-5 further exacerbates the prophet's difficulty since this contains a call to be on guard against those who 'trade on Christ'.
I offer the possibility that the obscure interpolation at Did. 11.10-11 was inserted as part of an itinerant's defence of the right to a living without manual work.
I suggest that the strategy of modification was as follows. First, the interpolator affirms the preceding teaching by offering an unexceptionable method for identifying false prophets (11.10), namely, failure to do what they teach. Then a single exception to this rule is introduced: a prophet may be one who 'TTOIGDV sis pucrnrjpiov KOGIJIKOV EKKATIGICXS', without teaching others to do the same. This is certainly an enigmatic saying. Two interpretations are commonly offered by scholars. Either, the 'worldly mystery of the church' is a prophetic action, or it refers to spiritual marriage. The former was clearly favoured by the author of the Ethiopic Apostolic Church
Order (Statute 52), and is the view held by Draper (1995: 297 n. 36):
Many commentators on the Didache take this as a reference to 'spiritual marriage,' for which there is not a single piece of evidence. It is better understood from the perspective of Mt 13:10-17, where Matthew greatly expands the material in Mk 4:10-12. The disciples have been given the power 'to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God.' This is then specifically related by him to the call of Isaiah to prophesy in Is 6:9-10, which is cited. The theme of prophecy is then repeated: 'Blessed are your eyes that see and your ears that hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous people have yearned to see the things that you see, and to hear the things which you hear and did not hear.' In other words, the 'mysteries' are both seen and heard by Matthew's community. This is probably the situation that lies behind the Didache text also.
The difficulty with this view is not only that it is somewhat tenuous in itself, but also that it provides no obvious explanation as to why this par-
7. The Modifying Teacher Layer
ticular modification should be inserted into the Prophet layer at all. Further, Niederwimmer (1998:180-81) makes some valid points against the prophetic action interpretation in his defence of the spiritual marriage alternative: the text...can be understood still more concretely if one thinks not of a symbolic action, but of the whole of the prophet's way of life, namely a matrimonium spirituale in which the prophet lives with his companion. The marriage (as the key phrase jJUGTTipiov KOGIJIKOV eKKArjaias would suggest) is ecclesiologically motivated; that is, it represents the union of Kyrios with his bride, the church. The advantage of this interpretation is that it achieves a focused meaning for an otherwise baffling text; the disadvantage is that it requires us to locate the beginnings of the institution of spiritual marriage relatively early.
Niederwimmer has a strong point when he suggests that the phrase refers to the prophet's whole way of life, and that this action is ecclesiologically motivated. However, the conclusion that spiritual marriage is therefore referred to is extremely dubious. For one thing, a crucial detail of the writer's defence is that this is a practice that has a precedent in the behaviour of the ancient prophets, in other words those of the Old Testament period. Also, as has already been noted in the preceding quotation from Draper, there is not a single piece of evidence for the spiritual marriage interpretation.
Given the apparent impasse over the interpretation of 'the mystery of the church in the world' it may seem preferable to agree with Schollgen
(1996: 55) that v. 11 has 'not yet been satisfactorily explained'. However, there is one avenue of approach that has yet to be considered.
Thus far a number of minor pieces of evidence regarding the meaning of 11.11 has been collected: (1) the context (after 11.9) suggests that this interpolation may be concerned with the prophet's right to ask for food;
(2) the phrase appears to refer to the prophet's whole way of life; (3) this lifestyle expresses something about the nature of the church's relationship to the world; (4) this lifestyle is not to be copied by ordinary Christians; and finally (5) this lifestyle was also adopted by the ancient prophets.
These clues combine to suggest that Did. 11.10-11 presents a defence of prophets' right to food without work because of their unique lifestyle, described as 'TTOIGJV eis |iuaxripiov KoapiKov 6KKAr|aias'. The phrase may refer to prophets' special experience of heaven even while still located on the earth. The picture painted is then of someone whose feet are still in the world but whose head is already in the heavenly experience, from whence prophesy may be given. This exalted spiritual state is possibly
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache meant to imply that the prophet in question should not be expected to engage in such earthly pursuits as manual work to earn a wage. In the absence of such a source of income they must, like the ancient prophets, rely on the hospitality of communities of the faithful. This is a lifestyle that they cannot teach others to copy, but it is very much in their interests to argue that this particular inconsistency between action and teaching should not be regarded as a sign of falsity.
In this interpolation the modifying prophet/teacher begins to show some trademark concerns and techniques of operation: (1) the affirmation of an agreed principle (11.10); (2) the offering of a modification, in the interests of a prophet's lifestyle, to the established norm (11.11); (3) this modification is justified by a reference to some external authority, in this case, the practice of the ancient prophets (11.11).
2. Didache 73.7-7 Before considering the relationship of Did. 13.1 -7 to 11.10-11 it is necessary to examine the possibility that 13.1-7 contains a piece of integrated external tradition.
Clues to the fact that 13.1-7 is not a homogenous text may be found in the presence of features common to 13.1-2, 3b-4, which cannot be found in 13.3a, 5-7. The former verses address plural recipients and consider the treatment of the individual prophet or teacher whom this audience might encounter (the reference to plural high priests in v. 3b is necessitated by the sense of the preceding clause). By contrast, 13.3a, 5-7 addresses the receiver in the singular, apparently assumes the presence of many prophets and makes no reference to teachers at all.1
Schollgen (1996: 56-57) argues that this pattern is created by the author's concern with the prophets and teachers' traditional claim to provision.
Schollgen (1996: 57) thus suggests that To address this question [of provision], the author [of 13.1, 2] had at his disposal a clearly identifiable piece of traditional material. It is clearly discernible, for one thing, in that it is in the Second Person Singular, in contrast to the context; in addition it forms a stylistic and material unity:
3a. Every firstfruit of the product of the vine and of the threshing floor, of the cattle and of the sheep, take now and give the firstfruit to the prophets.
5. If you make dough, take the firstfruit and give it according to the law.
Niederwimmer(1998:191)says: 'it is striking that now [13.3-7] the text speaks explicitly and solely of the prophets as the recipients of these benefits'.
7. The Modifying Teacher Layer
6. In the same way, if you open a jug of wine or oil, take the firstfruit and give it to the prophets.
7. But of gold and of clothes and of every possession take the firstfruit, as it seems appropriate to you, and give it according to the law.
In terms of content, all four verses are concerned with how the aiTapxr) is to be provided. Formally they are constructed according to the same schema:
Trjv aTTapxrjv (with concrete specification) Acxfkov 56s TOIS p ^ J and KCCTCX TT|V evxoArjv, alternating according to an ABAB-Scheme.
That this piece of previously existing tradition was incorporated by the author of 13.1,2, rather than having been added on at a later date, is suggested by the presence of 13.3b-4. These lines are written in direct response to 13.3a, and yet they show strong affinity with 13.1-2. Not only does 13.4 revert to the plural addressee, but it also uses 'prophet' in the singular.
With respect to 13.3b Schollgen (1996: 58 n. 88) notes: 'V.3b, which betrays that it belongs with w. 1-2,4 through the UJJCOV, clearly indicates that the traditional piece of material 3a, 5-7 cannot be a later interpolation'.2 At the risk of confusing rather than clarifying the issue, this means that 13.3a, 5-7 could not have been added to the Didache without the presence of 13.1-2; Did. 13.3b-4 could not have been added without the presence of 13.3a, 5-7, while 13.3b-4 belongs to the same layer as 13.1-2.
In consequence, all of these verses must have been added to the Didache at the same time.
At this stage, therefore, 13.1-7 may be seen as a section concerned with the right of prophets and teachers to provision. In support of that right the author of 13.1,2 refers to, integrates and modifies (by means of 13.3b-4) a previously existing piece of tradition now recorded in Did. 13.3a, 5-7.
Before going on to compare 13.1-7 with 11.10-11, a detail of the way in which the tradition about firstfruits is modified by 13.3b-4 is worthy of note. Niederwimmer (1998: 191-92) observes: with the term aTrapxr) (awkwardly used twice), the Didachist deliberately adopts a term from Old Testament cultic language. He decrees that the cultic demand of Scripture (the OT) that the aTrapxr) be surrendered as an offering is now translated into an obligation towards the Christian prophets active in the community. To them is due the cxTTapxri of what God gives to humanity, and this is because they, the prophets, take the place in the Christian community that belonged to the high priests in Israel. Indeed the prophets are 'your' high priests {Did 13.3b).
Audet (1958: 105,110) and Rordorf and Tuilier (1978:190 n. 5) think w . 3b-4 provide a later expansion. However, Schollgen's case is strengthened by the link between 13.3b and 11.11, as noted in the continuing discussion.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache The thrust of Did. 13.1 -7 is, therefore, that prophets should be treated in the same way as the ancient priests.
Having considered the structure and purpose of 13.1-7, it is now possible to consider the links between this section and 11.10-11.
Did. 13.1-2 shares with 11.10-11 two conceptual links expressed in common vocabulary that is exclusive to the modifying contributor. First, there is a concern for the treatment of prophets who are decribed as 'true'
(11.10 and 13.1). Second, there is also a common interest in those who teach (11.10 and 13.2). Both passages also share a similar context, being located after verses which could be taken as threatening a prophet's right to food/support (11.9 and 12.5).
Both 11.10-11 and 13.1-7 appeal to an external authority or precedent in an attempt to justify their modification of the host text. Thus 11.11 appeals to the practice of the ancient prophets, while 13.1-2 is supported by the external authority quoted in 13.3a, 5-7.
The equation of prophets with priests in 13.3 may also throw further light on the enigmatic '|iUGTTipiov KOGMIKOV 6KKAr|oias' in 11.11. This equation allows 11.11 to be read as referring to the practice of the ancient priests. These priests, as is pointed out in 13.1-7, received the people's firstfruits. Thus, it may be argued, the prophets of the present day, who also have an apparently priestly function with respect to the eucharist
(10.7, also 14.1-2), should not be judged for living by the same means.
In conclusion, the similarities of language, context and rhetorical method suggest that Did. 11.10-11 and 13.1-7 were added to the Didache by the same modifying author.
3. Didache 77.7-2 Before considering the relationship of 11.1-2 to the work of the modifying contributor it will be helpful to consider more precisely the identity of this author. One of the features of this writer's contributions to the Didache is a grouping together of the terms 'prophet' and 'teacher'. Thus, there is reference to 'any prophet teaching the truth who does not do what he teaches' (11.10), and prophets and teachers are expected to receive equal treatment in 13.1,2. Eugene Boring (1982: 79) observes that this connection between prophets and teachers is also a feature of the New Testament:
Prophets and teachers are often closely associated in our [NT] sources ...
Among recent writers there seems to be a fresh perception of the way the functions of prophecy and teaching shade into each other, with the result that the prophet is now seen as much more of a teaching figure than
7. The Modifying Teacher Layer
formerly. All the above discussion indicates that the picture of teachers who hand on the firmly-guarded tradition of the sayings of Jesus in one context, while charismatic prophets deliver their inspired, ephemeral revelations from the risen Jesus on the other, is based on fantasy. The horizontal, traditioning function of the churches ministry operated conjointly with the vertical, revelatory aspect. Prophets and tradentst3] were partners engaged in a complementary and mutually-enriching ministry of the word; prophet and tradent were sometimes the same person.
Boring's analysis of the New Testament sources introduces the possibility that a prophet may also be a teacher. It is in the interests of the author of 11.10-11 and 13.1-7, however, to be seen as a prophet more than a teacher because in this role the support due to prophets, according to the tradition cited in 13.3a, 5-7, may be demanded. At root, however, what this so-called prophet does is teach. Thus the way in which prophets should be measured, according to 11.10, is not by the accuracy of their prophecy, but by what they teach.
This prophet/teacher ambiguity also explains the inclusion of 13.2 within the argument. If the author who introduced 11.10-11 and 13.1,3-7 was purely and obviously a prophet, then an appeal to the lifestyle of the ancient prophets and the tradition expressed in 13.3a, 5-7 could have been enough to justify their claim to support. If, however, this character was more obviously a teacher, then an equation between 'prophet' and 'teacher' must also be drawn to ensure that that which applied to prophets also applied to the modifying author. The equation between prophets and teachers is subtly introduced in 11.10 and then made explicit in 13.2. This evidence suggests that whoever wrote 11.10-11 and 13.1-7 saw themselves, at the very least, as a teacher.
At this stage, therefore, it is possible to deduce certain difficulties faced by the modifying teacher, and the technique by which they are overcome.
At the centre of the teacher's unease lay the Didache's strict instructions regarding the feeding, paying and settlement of itinerants. In an attempt to circumvent these rules the teacher appeals to alternative directives from alternative sources of authority, which offer loopholes in the Didache's strictures (hence 11.10-11 and 13.1-7). However, the introduction of alternative teaching, especially when it directly contradicts the existing Didache, requires prior legitimation. This is the role performed by the insertion of Did. 11.1-2.
Draper (1995: 302) remarks, with respect to this passage from Boring, 'Boring's subtle transition from the use of the title "teacher" to that of "tradent"...must be challenged in important aspects. It is better to retain the term teacher.'
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache Didache 11.1-2 once again bears some trademark features of the modifying teacher. It begins with a resounding affirmation of the authority of the existing text. Thus, those who teach the above are to be received and those who turn to an alternative doctrine are to be ignored (11.1 -2a). This statement serves a parallel purpose to that performed by 11.10, in that it confirms the unimpeachable orthodoxy of the author. In 11.2b, however, comes the real purpose of the insertion. After the disarming affirmation of the established text comes the introduction of the possibility that an alternative teaching might, after all, be acceptable: 'but if [the other doctrine] aims at promoting righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord'.
That this final line is the goal of the insertion is betrayed not only by the fact that it is at the end of the insertion, but also by the inclusion of the command to 'receive him as the Lord'. This instruction is not included with reference to those who are simply orthodox (11.1), and yet those who teach another doctrine are to be given this ultimate honour. In Did. 11.1-2, therefore, it appears that a teacher who wished to introduce alternative teaching was preparing the ground for later innovations. These changes allow the teacher to be supported by the community and also to settle there. A permanent teaching presence would, it could be argued, lead to a greater knowledge of the Lord, thus affording the right to be received 'as the Lord'.
4. Didache 1.5b-6 Thus far a pattern in the modifying teacher's approach to the host text has been noted: the modifier affirms the existing teaching (11.1-2a; 11.10), modifies it (11.2b; 11.11 a; 13.1 -2), and then refers to an external authority in justification of the modification (11.1 lb; 13.3a, 5-7). An identical pattern of modification also occurs in Did. 1.5b-6:
AFFIRMATION OF THE HOST TEXT:
1.5b Blessed is the one who gives according to the commandment, for he is guiltless.
MODIFICATION OF THE HOST TEXT:
1.5c Woe to the one who receives. For if he receives because he has need, he is guiltless, but if he does not have need, he shall stand trial as to why he received and for what, and being put in prison he will be examined about what he has done, and he will not come out of it until he pays the last penny.
7. The Modifying Teacher Layer
EXTERNAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MODIFICATION:
1.6 But of this it was also said, 'Let your charitable gift sweat in your hands until you know to whom you give'.
Also observing some of these features of Did 1.5b-6 Niederwimmer (1998: 86) writes:
One receives the impression that the Didachist wanted, by quoting this aphorism, to restrict the appeal to unconditional almsgiving that existed in his tradition. He affirms the tradition. Indeed, blessed is the one who gives!
But at the same time he warns against giving too quickly.
This pattern of affirmation, modification and justification points towards the teacher who wrote Did. 11.1-2, 10-11; 13.1-7 as also responsible for Did 1.5b-6.
5. Didache 14.1-15.2
Did. 14.1-15.2 has a number of points of contact with the body of material that has so far been attributed to the modifying teacher.
Did. 14.1-3 includes the pattern, 'affirm, modify, justify'. Thus, 14.1 affirms the host text by instructing its readers to continue meeting for the eucharist (cf. Did. 9 and 10) and confessing their faults publicly (cf. 4.14).
Did. 14.2 then modifies this tradition by introducing an exception to this pattern for members who are in dispute (14.2). This modification is then justified, in 14.3, by means of an appeal to the external authority of Mai.
1.11.
Did. 15.1-2 shows parallels to the language of 11.10-11 and 13.1-7 in shared references to the concept of testing and truth (11.11 and 15.1), and the pairing of prophets and teachers (13.1-2 and 15.1-2). Further, there is an interest in money that extends from 1. 5b-6 through 11.10-11; 13.1 -7 to the call for the appointment of those who are not greedy for money in 15.1.
Some scholars are reluctant to see a direct follow through from Did. 13 to 14 because, as Schollgen (1996: 59) observes, 'Ch 14.. .does not stand in close relation to what precedes'.4 However, this apparent distance is caused by the integration of a previously existing tradition in 13.3a, 5-7 and so should not be mistaken for a change of author. Further, Kraft
(1965: 173) sees an associative relation between the firstfruits of Did. 13 and the sacrificial thought of Did. 14. In both of these chapters there is a 4.
So also Knopf (1920: 35).
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache transfer of imagery from a Jewish context to a Christian one. Thus, in Did.
13 the Jewish high priest becomes the Christian prophet, while in Did. 14 the Jewish sacrifice becomes the Christian eucharist.
In conclusion then, Did. 14.1-15.2, by virtue of its parallel rhetorical structure, vocabulary and use of imagery appears to be the work of the same modifying author who also added 1.5b-6; 11.1-2, 10-11; 13.1-7 to the Didache.
6.Didzche7.1(c)5d,2-3,4b In the preceding discussion of the extent of the Peri layer (cf. Chapter 5, section 1) it was noted that an external baptismal tradition appears to have been introduced into the baptismal instructions of the Peri layer. Certain features of this addition suggest that this may have been the work of the modifying teacher.
First, the tradition presented in 7.1 (c)d, 2-3, 4b shows some similarities to the tradition used by the modifying teacher in 13.3a, 5-7. As well as addressing the second person singular, both insertions adopt a similar structure. Thus, both traditions begin with a general statement that might be taken as covering every eventuality:
7.2a If you do not have running water, however, baptize in other 13.3a Therefore, when you take any firstfruits of what is produced by the wine press and the threshing floor, by cows and by sheep, you shall give the firstfruits to the prophets, This is then filled out with paired considerations of further eventualities:
7.2b (i) if you cannot in cold, 7.2b (ii) then in warm.
13.5 (i) If you make bread, take the firstfruits and give them according to the commandment.
13.6 (ii) Likewise, when you open ajar of wine or oil, take the firstfruits and give them to the prophets.
Finally, there is a further statement that accounts for any other unconsidered eventuality:
The bracketing of 7.1c is intended to indicate that 7.1c may have appeared in both the host text (7.1a, c, e) and the interpolated tradition (7.1c, d and possibly
7.1e). The dimensions of the host and the inserted text in Did. 7 were discussed in Chapter 5, § 1.
7. The Modifying Teacher Layer
7.3 But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
13.7 Take the firstfruits of money and clothing and whatever you own as you think best and give them according to the commandment.
Similarities of grammar and structure do not, in themselves, provide compelling evidence of a common interpolator. However, it is significant that these two traditions were used to modify the base text in similar ways.
The insertion of 7.1(c)d, 2-3,4b shifts the Didache from being a text that shows no distinct or profound break with the theology or practice of established Judaism, to one that is indisputably Christian. This change is effected by the (proposed) replacement of baptism in the name of the Lord (cf. 9.5) with baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original formula shows continuity with the 'yoke of the Lord' in Did. 6.3. The 'Lord' in this case may be readily understood as referring to the One God, and so baptism into his name could represent an initiation from Paganism into a form of Judaism. With the introduction of the threefold formula, however, the initiation can no longer be seen as bringing the baptized person into the fold of Judaism. Thus the new formula creates a shift away from established Judaism towards a distinctively Christian initiation. This shift is also illustrated by a willingness to depart from the traditional Jewish requirement of living water, although this method is still preferred.
The effect of the baptismal insertion is similar to that created by the insertion of the firstfruits tradition (13.3a, 5-7) because of the modifying teacher's interpretative comment regarding the identity of the prophets,
'...for they are your high priests' (13.3b). This remark casts the interpolator's readers as belonging to an institutional structure that is parallel to, but certainly separate from, that of established Judaism. Thus, what was due to the leaders of the old institution, the Jewish high priests, is now due to the Christian prophets, the leaders of a new institution.
This pattern of endorsing or setting up a practice that is parallel to that of established Judaism, at the same time as being distinctively different from it, is characteristic of other elements of the modifying teacher's contribution. Thus, in 14.1 the teacher instructs the congregation to meet on the Sunday of the Lord, rather than the Sabbath; in 14.2, 3 certain rules governing the sacrifice of the Old Testament are still to be kept (hence the reference to Mai. 1.11), but are now to be applied to the eucharist.
Thus, while it is possible that the baptismal insertion could have been made at almost any point in the text's history, it is most likely that it was inserted by the modifying teacher. This is suggested by a parallel instance
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache of the modifying teacher's willingness to use an external tradition (13.4a,
5-7) to modify the text, and by the separating effect (with respect to mainstream Judaism) that this insertion shares with the modifying teacher's other contributions.
7. Didache &7-2a, 2c-3 Before attempting to argue that Did. 8.1 -2a, 2c-3 was added to the Didache by the modifying teacher it is necessary to confirm the separate nature of Did. 8 with respect to the preceding and following text. Draper (1996b:
85) expresses an uncontroversial view when he observes:
Did 8 appears to be a later addition to the earliest text of the Didache. It is inserted after the reference to the baptismal fast in 7:4, but it has quite a different reference to 'stationary fasts' and daily prayer. It breaks up the natural flow in the catechetical manual from baptism to the eucharist. Moreover, it is not introduced by the formula which characterizes the liturgical sections of the Didache (TTEp\ 5e), and in the Ethiopian version it is set after 11:3-13.
Given that Did. 8.1-3 is a later addition to the text, what features does this insertion share, if any, with the contributions of the modifying teacher?
Neither a pattern of affirmation, modification and justification, nor a separate appeal to an external authority are to be found here. (That the appeal to 'the gospel' is a later addition will be argued in Chapter 8, section 2, below.) However, Draper in his article, 'Christian Self-Definition against the 'Hypocrites' in Didache VIII' (1996c), argues convincingly that the function of Did. 8 is to create a publicly perceivable distance between traditional Jews and converts to Christianity. Thus, he concludes (1996c: 243):
This study of the redactional process at work in the Didache has revealed a community which started by defining itself primarily against the Gentiles.
The material was originally collected for the catechesis of Gentile converts.
Differentiation of the Christian community from the pagan world was a key part in preparation for initiation. However, the lack of clear differentiation from other Jewish groups seems to have caused problems for the community at a later stage, perhaps under attack from the Pharisees.. .the instructions [of Did. 8] provide for Christian behaviour in the crucial public areas of fasting and prayer which would differentiate them from their opponents.
The effect of Did. 8 is, therefore, to create a readily perceptible difference between Christians and Jews. Thus, while (Pharisaic) Jews fast publicly on Mondays and Thursdays, Christians can demonstrate their membership of a distinctly different group by fasting publicly on Wednesdays and Thursdays (Draper 1996c: 233-35). In the same way Christians can be identified
7. The Modifying Teacher Layer
as such by their audible and possibly public recitation of the Lord's Prayer three times a day, instead of praying the traditional Shema or Shemoneh
Esreh of Judaism (1996c: 235-36).
These acts of self-definition against Judaism are almost exactly similar to the 'parallel but different' practices advocated elsewhere by the modifying teacher: from high priest to prophet (13.3b), from Sabbath to Sunday of the Lord (14.1), from sacrifice to eucharist (14.1 -3). It may therefore be observed that 8.1-3 shows signs of having been added to the Didache by the modifying teacher.
Before moving on, one additional observation needs to be made. While the teacher may have been responsible for the insertion of 8.1 -2a, 2c-3 this should not be taken as implying that this modifier was also responsible for the creation of the Lord's Prayer as found in 8.2d. The purpose of the prayer in this context is to create public differentiation between Christian and Jew. This means that in place of the thrice-daily recitation of a distinctively Jewish prayer a distinctively Christian prayer is required Thus, whatever its original context,6 the prayer at 8.2c must have had an established and distinctive life in the Christian community.
8. Didache 9.5b The quotation offered at the end ofDid. 9.5 is so brief that it is impossible to offer a conclusive assessment of the redactional layer to which it belongs.
However, two features of this line do suggest, on balance, that it is likely to belong to the additions made by the modifying teacher.
The content of the quotation at Did. 9.5b may be credibly attributed to the modifying teacher, inasmuch as, like other elements of the teacher's contribution, it serves to emphasize the differentiation between acceptable and unacceptable members of the community.7 However, this is also an 6.
The Lord's Prayer (especially the version in Lk. 11) shares a number of characteristics with the eucharistic prayers recorded in Did 9 and 10. It is possible, therefore, that this prayer is distinctively Christian because it derives from early eucharistic prayers.
Revelation shows a similar pattern to that exhibited in Did 9.5 in that 'dogs' are barred from the heavenly city (22.15). These persons are not necessarily non-Jews, since 'those who practice falsehood' may also include the traditional Jews who are condemned in Rev. 2.9 and 3.9. If the reference to 'dogs' in Did 9.5b was intended in the same sense as its use in Rev. 22.15, then the differentiating force of Did. 9.5b is consistent with the differentiating force of other elements of the Modifying Teacher layer, such as are noted in §§ 6 and 7, above.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache interest of the author of the Peri layer (in 9.5a at least) and so particular weight may not be placed on this point.
Perhaps more significantly, the author of the Peri layer (to whom Did.
9.1 -5a is attributed) does not otherwise use quotation formulae, unlike the modifying teacher. Further, the quotation formula used in Did. 9.5b is very similar to that used by the modifying teacher in Did. 1.6:
1.6 aAAa Ken Trep'i
TOUTOU 5e
eiprrrai...
9.5b KCU yap rrep'i TOUTOU sipriKev b Kupios...
Thus Niederwimmer (1998:45) may well be justified in expressing the opinion, 'I consider 9.5 redactional. In KCU yap TTEp\ TOUTOU e'ipr|KEV b
Kupios..., the Didachist [modifying teacher] betrays his presence (cf.
1.6)'.8
While recognizing the limited evidence available Did. 9.5b will be treated, on the strength of the similarity between Did. 1.6 and 9.5b, as part of the modifying teacher's work in the following discussion. However, it should be noted that the attribution of this line to the Peri layer would make only a negligible difference to the later discussions with regard to the relationship between the Didache and Matthew's Gospel.
9. Additional Minor Contributions by the Modifying Teacher In addition to the more major additions made, according to this proposal, by the modifying teacher two further additions may also be attributed to this redactor.
The linking line 'TOUTCX TravTa TrpoeiTTOVTES', at 7.1b, is sometimes identified as a later addition. It bears a strong resemblance to 11.1 and so may be the work of the modifying teacher. However, this does not change the status of the relationship between Did. 1-5 and the Peri layer. The addition of 7.1b, at whatever stage it was made, merely serves to make plain the service rendered to 7.1 by Did. 1-6. This addition clarifies rather than modifies.
A similar clarifying instinct may perhaps be found in Did. 5.2b. It was argued in Chapter 6, section 6. that this line was inserted after the addition of Did. 6.1 to 5.2 to make plain what was already clearly implied by 6.1.
Niederwimmer attributes the whole of 9.5 to the 'Didachist' (the final redactor).
However, this would be a very curious interpolation given the confusing arrangement of Did. 9 and 10 as they currently stand. Further, the parallel between Did 9.5 and 10.6 suggests that some form of prohibition against the unworthy is likely to have stood in the original eucharist at Did. 9.1-5.
7. The Modifying Teacher Layer
Inasmuch as this type of clarification is close to that performed by the addition of'xauTcx Travxa TrpoeiTrovxes' in 7.1, then the addition 5.2b may also be seen as the work of the modifying teacher.9
10. Summary and Conclusion: The Modifying Teacher Layer The work of the modifying teacher leaves an intermittent trail across the extant text of the Didache. However, these contributions are linked by a common method of modification10 and by a common interest in two distinctive and related priorities: the rewards due to teachers and the need to achieve institutional separation from traditional Judaism.
The subject of the honouring and payment of teachers is addressed in the instruction to equate teachers with prophets and high priests, and to reward them on the basis of that equation (11.10-11 and 13.1 -7). A similar focus appears in the call to receive 'as the Lord' those whose teaching leads to an increase in righteousness, even if their doctrine is at variance with that of the Didache itself (11.1-2). The instruction to appoint bishops and deacons who are 'not greedy for money' (15.1) may reflect a desire to ensure that funds to itinerant teachers are not curtailed by local leaders.
While securing the teacher's income the modifier's insertions also limit their potential outgoings. Thus, 1.5b-6 offers a defence against the expectation that a teacher should lead by example in giving 'to anyone who asks you, and do not ask for it back'. It is perhaps also significant that the honour due to teachers and prophets is set as the standard for the regard in which bishops and deacons should be held (15.2), since this encourages local leaders to uphold the honour of itinerants.
Passages concerned to achieve institutional separation from Judaism include: the threefold baptismal rite (7.1b-3, 4b), which offers a distinctively Christian pattern of initiation, in contrast to the more ambiguous baptism 'in the name of the Lord' likely to have preceded it in the Peri/
Base layer (cf. 9.5a). A similar effect is achieved by the modifier's teaching on fasting and prayer, in contradistinction to the practice of the 9.
None of the following arguments for Matthew' s use of the Didache depend on an accurate assessment of the redactional location of Did. 5.2b or 7.1b. These assessments are made for the sake of completeness.
10. The teacher adopts the practice of affirming the existing text, offering a modification of that text and then justifying that modification by means of appeal to an external authority. This pattern occurs in response to the Didache(s teaching on unconditional giving (1.5b-6), the payment of prophets and teachers (11.1-2,10-11; 13.17), and the celebration of the eucharist (14.1-3).
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache 'hypocrites' (8.1-2a, 2c-3). Separation is also expressed by the replacement of Jewish priests with Christian prophets and teachers (11.10-11;
13.1-3), the Jewish Sabbath with the Christian Sunday of the Lord (14.1) and the Jewish sacrifice with the Christian eucharist (14.3).
The two strands of the status of teachers and separation from Judaism are interwoven in the modifier's contributions and intersect, for example, in Did. 13.1-3. Here the teacher equates prophets with teachers, and then prophets (and thus teachers) with high priests. The result is a rationale for the financial support of prophets (and teachers) but it is one that requires the institutional separation of the Christian movement from Judaism.
In conclusion, the passages considered in this chapter {Did. 1.5b-6; 5.2b; 7.1b,d,2-3,4b; 8.1-2a,2c-3;9.5b; 11.1-2; 11.10-11; 13.1-15.2)display a consistency of method, vocabulary and purpose that is suggestive of a single redactor.11
11. It is not crucial, for the purposes of the argument in Part II, that one redactor was responsible for the insertion of all of these passages. Indeed, this ensuing argument depends on the presence of multiple contributors to the Didache, and so would benefit from arguments to suggest that these additions were made by more than one contributor. That said, such a conclusion would adversely affect my later arguments if it could be shown that elements attributed to the modifying teacher were in fact added after the insertion of the four references to 'the gospel'. This is not possible, however, in the crucial case of Did. 8. because the references to 'the gospel' within this chapter could not have been made in the absence of 8.1 -2a, 2c-3. Similarly, the 'gospel' references in 15.3-4 are unlikely to have been added to a text in which the instructions of 14.1-15.2 were not already present. Given the threads of connection that bind 8.1-2a,
2c-3 and 14.1-15.2 to the other verses considered in this chapter, it is unlikely that any of these passages were added after the insertion of the 'gospel' references.