and Prophets (11.3-12)
11.3-12 2. On the Reception of Itinerant Apostles and Prophets (11.3-12) General The next section, Did. 11.3-12, is a complete unit in itself. Verses 4-6 speak of the apostles, while vv. 7-12 focus on the prophets. I consider the introductory expression in 11.3 redactional. In detail, the pericope can be subdivided as follows:1 a. Introduction (11.3) b. On itinerant apostles (11.4-6) (1) The dignity of the apostle (11.4) (2) The criteria for distinguishing true apostles from false (11.5-6) c. On itinerant prophets (11.7-12) (1) The dignity of the prophet (11.7) (2) The decisive criterion for distinguishing genuine prophets from pseudo-prophets (11.8) (3) Three specific cases (11.9-12) 'Cf. Niederwimmer, "Itinerant Radicalism," 326-27 n. 16.
3 In the matter of apostles and prophets, act this way, according to the ordinance of the gospel.
/a. Introduction (11.3) Comment nance of the gospel." Therefore he introduces it with ■ 3 In my opinion Did. 11.3 comes from the pen of the Didachist.1 For the superscription with irepi cf. 7.1; 9.1.
These superscriptions are drawn from existing tradition.
Kara to boy pa tou evayyeXLou ovtu> Troitjcrare. The ref erence to the "gospel" (singular) is characteristic of the redactor; see 8.2; 15.3, 4. What is meant is either the viva vox evangelii or a written gospel whose text the Didachist can presume to be extant among his readers and hearers.3 It can be called boy pa too evayyeXLov
I therefore believe that the Didachist has formulated such a superscription by analogy in 11.3. Ilepl be mv dirooToXoov nai iTpcupriTtiv thus looks forward to what is to come, that is, the piece of tradition that the Didachist is about to quote. It does, in fact, speak of "apostles and prophets" (and only these).2 In the Didachist's interpre tation, the exposition to follow agrees with the "ordi
1 Here, according to Audet (Didache, 110-15, 436), D2 begins. Audet (pp. 110-11) sees in Did. 11.1-2 the conclusion of the original Didache (D1), and adopts the reading of the Coptic, aAAag dcdaxag (see above).
2 De Halleux's explanation ("Ministers," 306-7) is very forced. He tries to understand the kocl as explicative (because of the absence of tuiv before ■npoipqTusv), and thus arrives at the idea that in the Didache apostles and prophets represent a single group: "the prophets of the apostolic genre." Cf. also at 13.2 below.
3 Examples: Massaux, Influence, 3.163-64: Did. 11.3-9 is composed of recollections from the Gospel of Matthew; Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 10-11:
Did. 15.3 already refers to a written gospel, but
because in it the Kyrios presents his binding instrucas lawgiver, and because, in the understanding of the dons;4 cf. cog ene\evaev 6 nvpioq eu rco evayyeXLip Didachist, the gospel contains the decrees of the Kyrios, avrou ("as the Lord commanded in his gospel," 8.2). it is easy enough to speak of a doypa tov etiayyeAiov.D
There seems to be no problem in thinking of the Kyrios then, three teachings of the Lord") in Barn. 1.6; further in 9.7, and /Se/Satw^rjmt ev roiq bbypaocv rod KvpLov Kai Tusv onrooToXuv ("to be confirmed in the teachings of the Lord and of the apostles") in Ignatius Magn. 13.1; cf. Acts 16:4. Aoypa in this passage means "instruction, prescript, decree" (sc. of the gospel).
As the reference to the boypa tov evayyeXLov cor responds to the phrase ug eneXevoev 6 Kvpcog in Did. 8.2, so ovtu ttoipoaTe corresponds to ovtoi whether this is the case already here in 11.3 remains uncertain; Klauser, Doctrina, 25: the text appears to be reminiscent of Matt 7:15-20; 10:5-42; Audet
{Didache, 442) thinks of the gospel that was written and circulated between D1 and D2; for Vielhauer
(Geschichte, 254), the expression boy pa rod evayyeXiov refers "probably to oral preaching"; Wengst
{Didache, 27-28) suspects references to the Gospel of Matthew here as well, and in particular the Matthean missionary discourse. For the question of the Didachist's knowledge of an apocryphal gospel, see above, p. 51.
4 Cf. rpioc ovv boy para eorcv KvpLov ("there are, ■Kpoaevx^ode in 8.2.
11.4-6 b. On Itinerant Apostles (11.4-6) 4 Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord.
5 He shall stay <only> one day, or, if need be, another [day] too. If he stays three days, he is a false prophet.
6 When the apostle leaves, let him receive noth ing but [enough] bread [to see him through] until he finds lodging. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet.
Analysis which here is evidently not yet restricted to the Twelve.6
The group of itinerant apostles is open, and their num ber is indeterminate.7 It seems certain that epx^o^at npoq vpaq referred to a repeated occurrence. The arriv ing apostles are (as the continuation will show) homeless messengers without property, existing on the contribu tions of the Christian sisters and brothers with fixed resi dences. As messengers of the Kyrios they are entitled to a hospitable welcome and support, and this is to be given them. The instruction says: bex^RTw <Xq Kvpioq (v. 4b),8
Only now does the quotation from an ancient, predidachistic tradition begin. In terms of genre the piece of tradition (vv. 4-12) is one of the "community rules for dealing with itinerant charismatics":1 cf. Matt 10:40-42.2
The subject here is an archaic institution, preceded by the group of Jesus' disciples, and spreading thereafter within certain regions of the post-Easter church, although under much altered conditions.3 Did. 11.4-12 is evidence for the existence of this institution of itiner ant charismatics in the last years of the first century c.e.
It should probably be located in the border region between Palestine and Syria.
Comment ■ 4 Ilaq de4 dnrouToXoq epxopevoq ivpdq vpaq ("Every apostle who comes to you") initially means the first and most venerable group of Christians, who expected a hos pitable welcome from local believers.5 The representa tives of this group bore the honorable title crnooToXoq,
1 Gerd TheiBen ("Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt:
Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare," NTS 21 [1974/75] 201). TheiBen includes
Matt 10:40-42 and Didache 11 in this genre.
2 For comparable material see the contrasting genre of rules for traveling messengers (Mark 6:6b-13; 6
Matt 10:5-26; Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-12). Cf. also 1 Cor 9:14.
3 Cf. only Kretschmar, "Askese," 129-35, and Niederwirnmer, "Itinerant Radicalism," 321-22 (with refer7 ence to the relevant investigations of Gerd
TheiBen).
4 Pierre Nautin ("Notes critiques sur la Didache," VC 13 [1959] 118) considers <5e a mistake and deletes it, as does Wengst, Didache, 82. Ae is absent in the Coptic and Ethiopic.
5 For the general subject of hospitality in antiquity, cf. Otto Hiltbrunner, Denys Gorce, and Hans Wehr, 8
"Gastfreundschaft," RAC 8 (1972) 1061-1123; Michaela Puzicha, Christus peregrinus: Die Fremdenaufnahme (Mt. 25,35) als Werk der privaten Wohllatigkeit irn Urteil der Allen Kirche (Miinsterische
Beitrage zur Theologie 47; Munster: Aschendorff, 1980) 8-11. Still, one should consider that the hos pitality required and expected of Christians, which is the subject of the next section, was superseded by eschatological motivation.
For Audet (correctly) it is here not the Twelve who are spoken of but (questionably) the apostles men tioned in the title of the Didache as he deduces it
{Didache, 446).
There are no fundamental statements here about the office of apostle—of course! For the addressees of the text those kinds of assessments are a matter of course and need not be communicated to them.
The theme of the tradition is not theological reflec tion on the office of apostles but the concrete, par ticular question about how they are to be hospitably received in a given locality.
Massaux (Influence, 3.164) suspects an echo of Matt 10:40. For the relationship to the Synoptic tradi tion, cf. Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 209-10.
The phrase is absent in Coptic and Ethiopic but is probably original (against Wengst, Didache, 82).
immediate further restriction: rpelq be eav pelvrj, \pevboTrpo<priTr]q eorlv ("If he stays three days, he is a false prophet," v. 5c).14 It should really say pevboartooToXoq rather than pevborrpoippTrjq, but the one supplying the tradition is apparently unfamiliar with the word pseudoapostolos15 and therefore chooses instead—out of sheer des that is, in the persons of his messengers the Lord him self is a guest in the house.9
■ 5 Now come some regulations regarding the length of an apostle's stay and the provisions to be given to such an apostle for continuing the journey (vv. 5-6). These regulations also serve as a criterion for distinguishing true from false apostles. The remarks are addressed (as peration—a word familiar16 from Old Testament and Jewish language, but probably already from Christian is the whole of the traditional section) to locally resident
Christians. Among other things, they have need of dis tinguishing marks that will enable them to protect them selves against deceivers. When a previously unknown
Christian appears with a claim to be an apostle, how is the truth of the claim to be measured? The first criteri on applies to the length of stay: ov navel be <ei pi)> ppepav plav ("he shall stay <only> one day," v. 5a).10
The strikingly rigorous rule shows that (1) radical home lessness is one of the factors in the existence of apostles in the Didache, and (2) they did not appear as ongoing or even temporarily resident functionaries in these commu nities. Instead, their life is itinerancy. Their office is proclamation, preaching to the whole world. The hori zon of their activity (even though this is not expressly stated in the text) is its eschatological motivation. They seek, as we might say, provisional lodging for only one day at a time, in order to move on.11 Still, there was also the rule eav be r) xpeta,12 koc'l tt)v aXXrjv [sc. rjpepav]
("if need be, another [day] too")—to which we may add pevel (v. 5b). That is, there may be a case of necessity in which the apostle is absolutely unable to travel farther on the following day (for whatever reason).13 In such cases an additional day is allowed. There is, however, an usage as well, "false prophet."17
■ 6 There is a further admonition concerning the guest's provisions when travelling onward on the following morning (or after two days): e^epxopevoq be 6 octtooroXoq iapbev Xapfiaveru el pi) aprov, eaq ov aoXiodij
("let him receive nothing but bread until he finds lodg ing"). The Christians resident in the place who have offered hospitality to the itinerant apostle are required to provide the bare necessities for the continuation of the journey. At the same time the special character of apostolic itinerancy emerges once again here; it is a life based on a willing abandonment of everything beyond what is really and absolutely necessary. The appropriate concern is always limited to the next day's needs. There fore the apostle, when continuing the journey, is to be provided with food for (only) the next day18—not more.
In the evening the apostle will find welcome in another Christian house. Moreover, the host's provision for the apostle is limited to the products of nature: eav be apyvpiov airrj,19 pevboTrpoipr/Trjq (rather than pevboarrooToXoq) earl ("if he asks for money, he is a false prophet," v. 6b). This recalls the prohibitions of Jesus against taking wallet or money on missionary activity:
9 See above, on Did. 11.2.
10 Additional ei pp: Harnack, Lehre, 39, taking it from the editions. This correction is attested by the Ethiopic.
11 A lengthy residence by itinerant apostles is out of the question. As we will see immediately below, the case is different with the itinerant prophets.
12 More common is xpeiav execv; see BAGD, s.v. For eav r) xpela, Bauer notes the parallel in Diodorus
Siculus Bibl. Hist. 1.19.5 (Oldfather, 1.62).
13 Knopf {Lehre, 30-31) writes correctly: "we should probably think of difficult circumstances that delay the departure rather than the pastoral needs of the community."
14 The Ethiopic has modified this. According to that version an apostle may remain up to three days.
15 This is attested for the first time in 2 Cor 11:13 and is probably an ad hoc construction by Paul. The word is then again absent from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and reappears for the first time in Hegesippus (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.22.6); Justin Dial.
35.3 (Goodspeed, 130); Tertullian De praescr. 4.4
(CChrSL 1.190); Ps.-Clem. Horn. 16.21.4 (GCS2 1.228); Const. 6.9.6. Highly instructive is Rev 2:2.
16 The concept is used frequently in the rest of the Didache. In the Apostolic Fathers, it is also found in Hermas Man. 11.2.4, 7 (bis).
17 No consequences may be drawn from the use of the term pevdoTrpoipriTpq regarding the equation of airoaroXog and rcpo<pr]Tr)Q. Correctly: Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 52.
18 Cf., however, Mark 6:8: pi] aprov and Luke 9:3: pr\re aprov.
19 Wengst, Didache, 84: Xapfiavp (following the Coptic).
11.4-6 jU?7 €ig rr)u $u>vr)v xccAkov ("no money in their belts," make their lives secure on the basis of property, but instead have surrendered themselves completely to God's care, which nourishes them from day to day through the gifts of their friends. In all this they simulta neously appear as the ambassadors of a new world to come.
Mark 6:8); paf]Te apyvpiov ("nor money," Luke 9:3); p.rj Krriopade xpvoov p,r}8e apyvpov p.r\be x^^kou eig rag
&vag vpu)V ("Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts," Matt 10:9);20 p,rj /Saarafere /SctAAavnov ("Carry no purse," Luke 10:4). They appear as those who are radically poor for God's sake, who have ceased to try to 20 According to Massaux (Influence, 3.164-65), the Didache is also dependent on Matthew here.
c. On Itinerant Prophets (11.7-12) 7 Do not test any prophet who speaks in the Spirit, and do not judge him, for all sins will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven.
8 Not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet but only the one whose behavior is the Lord's. So the false prophet and the prophet will be recognized by their behavior.
9 No prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit eats of it himself; if he does, he is a false prophet.
10 If any prophet teaching the truth does not do what he teaches, he is a false prophet.
11 No prophet, who is reliable and true, who acts for the earthly mystery of the church but does not teach [others] to do what he himself does, shall be judged by you, for his judg ment is with God. The ancient prophets acted in the same way.
12 You shall not listen to anyone who says in the Spirit, "Give me money, or something," but if he is asking that something be given for others who are in need, let no one judge him. macrocontext is also aware of the rule in Did. 10.7 (for mulated by the Didachist) according to which prophets are expressly granted the right to give thanks however they wish. That text, however, is a redaction within the predidachistic tradition. To return to the source:
TteipapeLP here means to "put someone to the test,"3 and biaKpiPeiP in this location means "make ajudgment" on someone,4 apparently after the completion of the test ing.5 Both are forbidden; the prophet who speaks in the Spirit is not to be put to the test.6 This is so because to put those who speak in the Spirit to the test means test ing the Spirit working within them, and that would be a sin against the Holy Spirit: ttaaa yap dpapria oupedpaerai, avrr] 8e rj dpapria ova cupedpoeTat. Neither of these statements is quoted as a dominical saying (at Analysis After the apostles, the prophets are now named as the second group of charismatics. That they also (initially, and here in Did. 11.7-12) are thought of as peregrinantes is intimated by the context; this is in turn confirmed by 13.1-7, where the text speaks of prophets who wish to settle in the communities.1
Comment ■ 7 The section begins with a warning: koll Trapra TTpO(priTrjv AaAovpra ev irpevpan ov Trecpdaere ovde biOiKpivelre ("Do not test any prophet who speaks in the Spirit"). To prophets belongs AaAelv ev TTPevpan.2 A prophet is TTPevparuiog: ev Ttvev\uan and speaks Ttvevparued. Prophets are found to be irpevpaTLKoq and give instructions to their fellow Christians. The reader of the 1 One should note that no limitation is placed on the length of a prophet's stay as there was for the apostles in Did. 11.5.
2 Cf. ev TrvevpaTL deov AaAelv, 1 Cor 12:3. In 14:2 the text speaks of AaAdv yAmot]: irvevpaTL be
AaAel gvoTripta. Cf. also Hermas Man. 11.5, 8, and 9: Kai TrAr)ode'u~ 6 avdpwiroq eneivoq r<a 7rvevpan to aylw AaAel elq to TtArjdoq Kadwq 6 Kvptoq j3ovAerau ("and that man, filled with the Holy Spirit, speaks to the multitude as the Lord wishes").
("Apostellehre," 273): "We cannot say how 7rei.pa- %eiv and biaKplvecv are to be distinguished, but the former may refer to the behavior of the prophet and the latter to the prophet's speech."
6 The community is not to arrogate to itself the right to criticize.
7 Massaux (Influence, 3.165) differs; cf. also Hagner, Use, 280. Massaux posits dependence on Matt 12:31.
Cf., to the contrary, Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 215-17.
3 BAGD, s.v.
4 BAGD, s.v.
5 Knopf differs (Lehre, 31), agreeing with Drews 8 For the topic of the discernment of spirits or the distinction between real and false prophecy, cf.
Matt 7:15-20; 1 Thess 5:20-22; 1 Cor 12:3, 10;
11.7-12 least not overtly). At the same time, there is a traditionhistorical relationship between this passage and the logion in Mark 3:28-29 (Matt 12:31) and Matt 12:32/
Luke 12:10 (Q). Our version of the logion can scarcely be traced to Mark/Matthew or to Q (or Matthew/Luke); it probably represents a separate form of the tradition.7
The reference to the Son of man (Q) is absent, as is any relationship to Jesus' miracles (Mark). Here in the Didache the logion is connected with the early Christian prophets. deeds, the man who says that he is inspired"). Indeed, here it is especially the TpoitOL KUpiov by which the true prophets will be known. "Kyrios" means Jesus. Thus the true prophet is in continuity with the lifestyle and praxis of Jesus—the earthly Jesus!13 This reference to the way of life of the earthly Jesus does not appear here by acci dent—if there is really a social and tradition-historical connection between the discipleship movement of Jesus
(in which the aKoXovdouPTeq oriented themselves to Jesus' way of life) and the itinerant prophets of the ■ 8 Now of course this does not mean that all those who appear as prophets are genuinely what they seem.8 The genuine prophets can be distinguished by the Tpoiroi
Kvpiov, as the text says, using an extremely characteristic expression.9 TpoiroL describes the prophets' way of life;10 by it the genuine prophets can be recognized:11 onto tup napirup avrup eiuypuoecr&e auTovq ("you will know them by their fruits," Matt 7:16; cf. v. 20);12 Hermas Man.
11.7: d7r6 rfiq fcotjg bortipa^e top ap&puirop top eyoPTa Didache tradition.
■ 9 Next comes the discussion of particular cases. The one first mentioned is not entirely clear: Kai iraq
KpO(pr)Tr)q 6pifapu Tponrefap ep 7TPevpan15 ov ipayerat art avTrjq. . . . Opi^ecp Tpairefap seems to mean "order a meal."16 The prophet who has arrived as a guest gives an order that a meal (for the needy of the community?) should be prepared.17 A prophet who takes part in the meal is a false prophet (v. 9b).18
■ 10-11 Then follows19 a second characteristic for distin guishing true from false prophets. The one who teaches the truth (rj aXrjfteia), but does not do it, is a false prophet.20 Now (v. II)21 the text addresses a special case, to Trpevpa to delop ("Test the man who has the divine
Spirit by his life"); cf. Man. 11.16: bortipa^e ovp ccko tup epyup Kai Trjq ftcfjq top apfipuirop top Xeyoptol eavTOP
KPevpuTOcpopop elpca ("Test, then, from his life and 14:37; 1 John 4:1-3; Hermas Man. 11.
9 Did. 11.1-2 is not valid with regard to prophets.
Schollgen ("Church Order," 54) interprets thus: v. 7 is said to formulate the "prohibition against putting prophets to the test while they speak in the Spirit," so that spiritual speech cannot be put to the test.
The distinction, on the contrary, emerges of itself out of their way of life (vv. 8-12).
10 Cf. BAGD, s.v.', and the "laudatio" in SIG 2.783.10-11: aiel Kal Kad' rjpepap empouip rij as a recollection of Matt 7:15-21.
14 H has the mistaken 6 pL^iov (which may already have been in its Vorlage). It was emended by Bryennios,
Aibaxq, 43.
15 Wengst (Didache, 84) deletes ep icpevpaTi (with the Coptic).
16 BAGD, s.v.
17 Audet (Didache, 450) thinks that this is probably the meal celebration in chaps. 9-10. That is question able. Cf. Knopf, Lehre, 31.
18 Hermas Man. 11.12 lists the faults of the false prophets, including Kal evdvg irapog eoTi Kal apaLbrjg Kal TroXvXaXog Kai ep Tpu<palg TroXXaig dpaaTpetpopePoq Kal ep erepaLg woXXalg andraig
("He is instantly impudent and shameless and talka tive and lives in great luxury and in many other deceits").
19 Wengst, Didache, 84: Kal irag . . . ; H: irag be. . . .
20 Ignatius Eph. 15.1: kccXop to bibaoKecp, eap 6 Xey up holt) ("Teaching is good if the teacher does what he says"). Cf. also Ps.-Clem. Ep. ad virg. 1.11.8
(Hugo Duensing, "Briefe," 176).
21 Wengst (Didache, 84) again deletes be.
TroXec KXelop tl TrapexeoflaL, tt)p pep eireLKCLap tu>p TpoKWP yeyeppr)p,epog ("always thinking how to provide something more for the city, being most proper in manner"); and Ep. Arist. 144 (SC 89.172): irpog aypr]P enicjKepLP Kal rpo-KUP e^aprcopop biKaLoavp-qg epeKep oeppwg iraPTa apareraKTal
("All [these ordinances] were ordained in a solemn fashion with a view toward chaste behavior and the fashioning of behavior on account of righteous ness").
11 Wengst (Didache, 84) reads, with the Coptic: yp<oaeade top irpo<pqTiqp el dXqdiPog eoTiv ("recognize whether the prophet is true").
12 Cf. Giorgio Otranto, "Matteo 7,15-16a e gli pevbo- •Kpo<pr)Tai nell' esegesi patristica," VetChr 6 (1969)
33-45.
13 Massaux (Influence, 3.165-66) understands Did. 11.8
of men and acts unlawfully." Attempts to work with the Coptic28 or Ethiopic text as a basis do not take us any farther. It is the text of H that must be explained.
It is obscure, but at least it has integrity.29 one that we again can no longer fully understand. To begin with, whatever it concerns applies only to the 'KpocprjTpq 8edoKLp.aop.evoq,22 aXp^tvoq, that is, the "true and tested" prophets.23 Then the crucial clause reads: (7xpoiprjTrjq) txollpv elq pvorripLOV KoapiKOV eMiXpoLaq, prj 8l86lok<pv 8e ixoieiv, ooa avroq ttolsI.
This text constitutes a classic crux interpretum in the Didache. Its formulation is probably cryptic by design,24 although the original audience certainly understood what it was about. In contrast it appears that even the Coptic and Ethiopic translators no longer understood the text.25
(1) Some interpreters30 have attempted to arrive at an understanding of this passage by recourse to the expression following in v. 11c, uaavraq yap eiroLr}aav k(xl oL dpxotloL TtpoiprjraL, with reference to the familiar symbolic actions of the Old Testament prophets.31 They then attribute something similar or analogous to the Christian prophets of the Didache as well. In that case one could understand the text to say that the Didache prophets sometimes clarify or illus trate their prophetic witness through symbolic actions.32 This opinion can be given concrete shape by reference to the analogy, implicit in the concept of p.voT'qpiov KoapiKOV, between the heavenly and earth ly realms. The text could then be understood to mean that the Christian prophets (following their OT mod els), by means of certain actions, present heavenly mysteries in an earthly manner33—most probably the union between Christ and the church.34 In the first place, however, it is clear that in fact only the Old
Testament prophets could be meant by apxaloL Excursus:The Crux of 11.11
The Coptic version (in the German translation by Carl Schmidt)26 reads: "who teaches and attests a worldly (KoaptKoq) tradition {^apaboaiq) in the church (eKKArioia)." The question is whether there ever was a Greek form of the text corresponding to this or whether the Coptic form does not represent, instead, an ad hoc alteration by the translator, who no longer understood the Greek text before him.
Something analogous may be said of the Ethiopic ver sion, which reads at this point (in the English transla tion by George Horner):27 "who acts in the assembly
Trpo<pfjTaL (and not, e.g., the prophets of the earliest Christian period).35
(2) Moreover, the text (as Harnack first rightly real ized, in principle, despite his false interpretation of 22 For beboKLp.aap.evoq, cf. 1 Thess 2:4; 2 Cor 8:22;
"Apostellehre," 274, observes correctly as well).
31 For the symbolic actions of the OT prophets cf.
(1 Sam 15:27-28); 1 Kgs 11:29-40; 2 Kgs 13:14-19; Hos 1:2-11; Isa 20:2-6; Jer 19:1, 10-13; Ezek 4:1-3, etc. In the NT see Acts 21:10-11. For the early
Christian interpretation of these kinds of OT prophetic actions (together with other motifs, e.g., in Num 21:8-9), reference is occasionally made, in connection with this passage in the Didache, to Barn. 12.6-7; Justin Dial. 94.2 (Goodspeed, 209);
Irenaeus Adv. haer. 4.20.12 (SC 100.668-75).
32 This was first suggested by Bryennios (Aibaxp, 44 n. 16) and is also proposed, with caution, by Schaff
(Church Manual, 203), who also suggested Hicks's interpretation as the most likely possibility after this one (giving a review of Hicks's work). Cf. also Zahn,
Kanon, 3.301: "He (i.e., the prophet) sometimes accompanies his prophetic speech, as did the 'ancient prophets,' with symbolic actions, which under some circumstances may appear unedifying."
33 Taylor, Teaching, 81-92, 150-51. Somewhat differ ently A. Broek-Utne ("Eine schwierige Stelle in einer alten Gemeindeordnung [Did. 11,11]," ZKG 54
[1935] 576-81): the reference is to eschatological mysteries known only to the prophet, who alone is permitted "to accomplish deeds that would not be recommended for others" (p. 580).
1 Tim 5:10; 1 Clem. 42.4; 44.2; 47.4.
23 In fact, beboKtpaapevoq, aXpBivoq could be a clari fying addition by the Didachist; cf. 'rtpoq>r)Triq dXrjdivoq in 13.1, and the eTtLOKOttOL Kal bictKovot
. . . aXrtdelq Kai beboKipaapevot in 15.1. Or does the whole of v. 11 come from the Didachist? Verse
12 would follow very well after v. 10.
24 Cf. Knopf, Lehre, 32.
25 The Georgian version (apart from two meaningless alterations) contains the H text.
26 "Koptische Didache-Fragment," 89.30-32.
27 The Statutes of the Apostles or Canones ecclesiastici (London: Williams & Norgate, 1904) 193,11. 22-23.
Cf. Duensing in Adam, "Herkunft," 36.
28 Adam ("Herkunft," 29) returns to the Coptic text and suggests—in line with his fundamental thesis—a Syriac Vorlage. He posits that the Syriac would have had ;n\tre, reflected in the Greek version by itoielv and in the Coptic by ri.xpAA.ocic (p. 30). Otherwise, in the interpretation of the substance, Adam arrives at a conclusion that, in my opinion, is correct.
29 Drews, "Apostellehre," 274; Audet, Didache, 451.
Differently Bigg and MacLean (Doctrine, 36), who suggest a corrupted text.
30 I restrict myself to the only two attempts at interpre tation that are worth consideration (as Drews,
11.7-12 the term upxcdoL Ttpo<pr)Tai)36 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 spiritual'e, a spiritual marriage in which the prophet lives with his companion.37 This marriage (as the key phrase pvorppcov Kooputov
€KK\r)Oi(x<; would suggest) is ecclesiologically motivat ed; that is, it represents the union of the Kyrios with his bride, the church.38 The advantage of this inter pretation 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. It may be, howev er, that the community at Corinth was already acquainted with spiritual marriage in Paul's time (cf. ter of a "real symbol." In it the heavenly syzygy between Christ and the church is made visible through an earthly illustration; it is present in the ascetic union of the two
Christians. What the prophet does is thus done as an earthly reflection of the heavenly mystery of the church
(namely, its syzygy with the Kyrios).40 Spiritual marriages are here (in the Didache) explicitly approved—although with certain provisos—and they are defended against the objections that may have been expressed by individual fellow Christians,41 on the condition that the prophet in question does not say that his way of life is not the one and only way that is obligatory for all Christians (i.e., bibaoKuv be Trotelv, ooa avroq notel).42 If the prophet lives in his spiritual marriage without trying to impose that way of life on others, then: ov Kpiftpoerai etp' vputv pera deov yap e'xei ttju Kpiotv ("he shall not be judged by you, for his judgment is with God," v. lib). Finally, the text introduces one last argument to make the insti tution of spiritual marriage more comprehensible. The prophets who live in this way thus correspond typologically only to the Old Testament prophets who behaved in the same way (as is said totum pro parte in v. 11c). We therefore have a double typology before us. On the one
I Cor 7:36-38).39
If these suggestions are correct, the passage should be interpreted as follows: it may happen that the prophet will not arrive alone but accompanied by a Christian woman with whom he lives in a spiritual marriage. This may have been somewhat alienating for many Christians
(and in fact it is only permitted for genuine prophets). In such a case the local Christians should recall that this spiritual marriage has (as we would now say) the charac
34 Harris, Teaching, 71-72: "Revera itafere verba obscura explicanda sunt" ("Indeed the obscure words should be so explained" Funk, Patres apostolici, 1.29).
35 Against Harnack, Lehre, 46-47. For this expression, cf. Josephus Ant. 12.413; and Luke 9:8, 19:
TrpotprjTriq Tig tup upxotiup ctPeoTp ("one of the ancient prophets had arisen").
36 Harnack, Lehre, 44-47; idem, "Prolegomena," 121.
37 This is the interpretation of (among others) Drews, "Apostellehre," 276; Knopf, Lehre, 32-33; Gunther
Bornkamm, "pvarripiop ktA." TDNT 4 (1967) 824-25 ("probably"); Hans von Campenhausen,
Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht (2d ed.; BHTh and for renunciation of marriage by individuals, as well as for spiritual marriage. On the whole subject, see Niederwimmer, Askese, passim.
39 For the discussion of this, see Niederwimmer, Askese, 116-20.
40 The alternative proposed by Drews is false: "Then it is not a matter of illustrating the relationship between Christ and the community; rather, one should live according to that relationship."
41 By contrast, when the Ps. Clementine Epistula ad virgines speak against living with the napdepoi, they are polemicizing against an institution that has already become depraved; cf. 1.10.1 (Duensing,
"Briefe," 175) and the whole second letter (Duensing, "Briefe," 180-88). These letters probably originated in the 3d century (Altaner and Stuiber,
Patrologie, 47; cautiously also Duensing, "Briefe,"
14; Tubingen: Mohr, 1963) 78 n. 10 (ET of 1st ed.:
Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries [London: Black,
1969] 73 n. 119); Mattioli, Didache, 150 n. 75 (per haps); Adam, "Herkunft," 43; Kretschmar, "Askese,"
168). Adam ("Herkunft," 48) pleads, to the con trary, for a period "about 170." Their origin in east ern Syria appears to me to be certain. As regards the Didache, however, that is not an argument for locating the Didache in eastern Syria, contrary to what Adam says.
42 The point of the Coptic version is different: see above. Adam ("Herkunft," 43) suggested: "The Syriac version to be detected behind the Coptic
137 and n. 18; Wengst, Didache, 85 n. 100, and 98.
Of course, one should take leave of Harnack's false interpretation of apxcnot 'KpotpfiTcu (which Wengst also adopted, with some caution). The necessary reflection on this was already presented by Drews,
"Apostellehre," 276.
38 The basic passages for the concept of the syzygy are Gen 1:27 and 2:24. This concept could serve as a foundation both for marriage (as in Eph 5:22-24)
should not listen to him (cf. 11.2). It is a different matter if the prophet makes such demands on behalf of the needy (vorepodPTeq).44 In that case: prjdeu; avrop
KpcveTW ("let no one judge him"; cf. ov Kpidpaerai e<p' vpiip in v. 11). hand, spiritual marriage corresponds to its heavenly model, namely, the union of the Kyrios with his bride, the church; on the other hand, however, the prophet liv ing in a spiritual marriage repeats, in typological fash ion, the model (understood in a salvation-historical sense) of the Old Testament prophets. One can see that in this (isolated) passage some of the "theological" con victions of the Didache tradition, or of the Didachist, peek through, and yet it is characteristic of the unique quality of this book (and its sources) that the didactic implications are not expounded nor given full scope but remain merely as hints, and that they appear unsystemat ically, in a way that seems almost accidental, as if evoked by particular situations.
This ends the quotation from the predidachistic tradi tion.45 The ordering of the instructions remains to be considered. Each time, the dignity of the charismatics is first emphasized (11.4, 7); only then follow the criteria by whose aid one can distinguish false prophets from genuine apostles or prophets. That means that, for those who handed on this tradition, the first matter of con cern was apology for the charismatics; only secondly was there interest in a polemic against the false prophets.
■ 12 Finally, the concluding verse of the section discuss es one last case. The admonition corresponds to v. 6b. A prophet is disclosed as a false prophet if, when (suppos edly) speaking ev -npevpaTL, he demands money or something of value (erepd nra).43 In that case, one fragment appears to be a description of previous 45 We should recall that in 11.11 it is possible that circumstances." That can scarcely be true. either a part or the whole is a redactional text.
43 Cf. Hernias Man. 11.12b.
44 Wengst (Didache 44) has dAAoi; (with the Ethiopic) instead of d'AAup varepovvTUP (H).