rung, 198-200, 240. Wengst (Didache, 28) is inclined Pet 2:22; Ignatius Eph. 7.1. Who are the Kvveg in
9.1-5 6vxglplot[(x means the entire meal celebration or the foods themselves. It is also uncertain whether evyotpiot'ia at this point refers simply to the nonsacramental meal of the community (which has been the subject thus far),74 or whether (and recall that we are looking at a redactional text) the term already includes the sacra mental Lord's Supper that will follow at 10.6. I consider the latter more probable. the Didache we should consider the possibility of oral tra dition, or a quotation from an unknown apocryphal gospel. The Didachist interprets the logion77 as an authoritative confirmation of the prohibition he has just expressed. If Jesus forbade giving what is holy to the dogs, he thus forbade (also at any rate)78 the giving of the sacred food to the unbaptized.79 Hence to ay lop = the sacred food (possibly we should expand this to mean that oi ayioi = the baptized), and oi nvveq = the unbap tized.80 The concept to ayiov can certainly refer to the food of the Christian community meal;81 it is more probHere again (cf. Did. 1.6), the Didachist has the tenden cy to give authority to his remarks by adding a support ive quotation (v. 5b): Kai yap irepi tovtov elprjKev75 6
Kvptoq introduces a quotation from the Jesus tradition.
The subsequent quotation, pp Score to ayiov Tolq kvol, is found word for word in Matt 7:6; however, it is not cer tain that the Didachist is quoting Matthew's Gospel.76 In 12:42/Luke 11:31; 1 Clem. 36.4 (= Ps 2:8); Ignatius
Rom. 6.1; Hermas Sim. 8.3.2.
70 Dibelius, "Mahl-Gebete," 121-22.
71 The response may originally have been: on aov eoTiv r\ bvvaptg kocl r) 5o%a eig rovg aiavag. See above. Audet conjectures dp.rjv (Didache, 401).
72 Betz ("Eucharist," 249) differs: this is "old tradition, not first composed by the redactor of the Didache but taken over."
73 For the formulation oi (HanTLoflevreg eig ovo/xa Kvpiov, cf. the baptismal formula in Did. 7.1, 3, and above, pp. 126-27 nn. 8, 11, and 12.
74 Stuiber, "Eulogia," 915: "If this is a liturgical agen da, evxapiOTia would refer to the foods over which the one evyapLOTia is spoken as table prayer."
75 Cf. Did. 1.6: dAAd /cat irepi tovtov 8e elpr)T<xi\ and 16.7: dAA' <hg eppePp, both of which are redac tional.
76 Obviously, Massaux (Influence, 3.156) thinks here of a quotation from Matthew, as does Hagner, Use,
280. To the contrary: Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 198-200, 240. Wengst (Didache, 28) is inclined once again to think of Matthew. The logion is also found in Gos. Thom. (Coptic) 93: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, because they will throw it on the dung heap" (cf. Leipoldt, 49). Cf. also Basilides in Epiphanius Pan. 24.5.2 (GCS 1.262).
77 For the aporetic question (as I see it) about the meaning of the mashal in Matthew's Gospel, cf.
Erich Klostermann, Das Matthausevangelium (4th ed.; HNT 4; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1971)
66-67; Otto Michel, "kiW," TDNT 3 (1967) 1101-3; Sigfred Pedersen, "kvcot'," EDNT 2 (1991) 332;
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans.
Wilhelm C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 418: "The logion is a riddle. Neither (a) its origin nor (b) its original meaning nor (c) its meaning in the Matthean context can be completely made clear."
78 Kai yap irepi tovtov. Strictly speaking, the redactor does not say that the Jesus saying refers only to this case. We can understand him to mean, "The word of the Lord, which you know, forbidding us to give what is holy to the dogs, can also be interpreted to mean that it is forbidden to give the eucharist to the unbaptized." Gregory Dix differs: Christ's prohibi tion applies not only to the sacramental Eucharist, but also to the community meal (The Shape of the Liturgy [2d ed.; repr., London: Black, 1970; New
York: Seabury, 1982] 92-93).
79 Otto Michel ("kvuv," TDNT 3 [1967] 1103) sees a material relationship between the Jesus saying and its interpretation in the Didache: "The cultic form of the saying of Jesus suggests that it be applied also to the Church's worship."
80 Rev 22:15 is somewhat different, and different again is the polemic against false teachers in Phil 3:2; 2
Pet 2:22; Ignatius Eph. 7.1. Who are the Kvveg in Matt 7:6? The unworthy hearers of the proclama tion? Or the Gentiles? Or the false brethren? Or the apostates?
81 Cf. Richard H. Connolly, "Agape and Eucharist in the Didache," DR 55 (1937) 488; Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 39 n. 1. Indeed, we should note the regulation for the catechumens at the agape:
Hippolytus Apost. Trad. 26-27 (SC 11.102-5); cf. Die Canones Hippolyti 33.2.172 (ed. Achelis [TU 6.4;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1891] 106-7); more remotely comparable is Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.70.5-6; 71.1-3 (GCS
2.92-93) and—with regard to monastic community meals—Ps.-Athanasius De virg. 13 (ed. von der Goltz
[TU, n.s. 14.2a; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906] 47-48): "If /
able, however, that we should assume that the Didachist sacramental celebration of the Lord's Supper, and his is not thinking simply of the community meal that has prohibition applies in a special sense to that been the subject before this. Instead he includes the celebration.82
■jropa oov -pyiaopevov earl). For the exclusion of a woman catechumen is found at the table, do not let her pray with the believers, neither sit down to eat your bread with her . . . for are you not holy to the Lord God, and is not your food and drink sanc tified?" (eav be evpedij KaTpxoupevr) ev tt? the novices from the ritual meal at Qumran, see
IQS 6.16-17, 20-21.
82 Possibly serving as a bridge to the redactor's inter pretation is the circumstance that, in Jewish tradi tion, to dytov is sometimes used for "sacrificial meat." Cf. Klostermann, Matthausevangelium, rpa7T6p7, p-r) avvevx^odui perd tusv ttiotuiv, ovbe pq
Koc&lcnjq <payelv tov aprou oov pef aurrjg . . . ou yap ayia el Kvp'uo tco dea, Kai to (3puipd oov nai to 1102-3; Luz, Matthew 1-7, 418.