Prophets Who Desire to Remain in the Community,
4. Second Appendix: On the Duty to Support Prophets Who Desire to Remain in the Community, and Duties toward Teachers (13.1-7) While at the time of the Didachist there was no longer any need to expect itinerant apostles, the itinerant prophet continued to be a familiar figure in the cofnmunity.
Alongside them there now appeared bibaanaXoi (about whom the ancient tradition in Did. 11.4-12 had not had anything to say).
The problem treated in Did. 13.1-7 is a new one, char acteristic of the time of the Didachist: the prophet arrives with the intention of settling down in the local community.1 The local community must be instructed about how to behave in such situations. The dominant theme of the whole is the prophet; teachers are spoken of only in passing.
The structure is as follows:2 a. Fundamental principles (13.1-2) b. Directions for the distribution (13.3-7).3
1 Differently Audet, Didache, 455-56. He sees no new relationship here and does not acknowledge the picture of the increasingly res ident character of the "itinerant hierarchy."
2 Niederwimmer, "Itinerant Radicalism," 327 n. 17.
3 For Audet's thesis on the origins of Did. 13.3 and 13.5-7, as well as the originality of v. 4, see below.
1 Every true prophet who wants to settle in with you deserves his food. 2/ In the same way, a true teacher, too, deserves his food, just as a worker does. a. Fundamental Principles (13.1) Comment must "deserve his food": a^Loq cart rrjq rpocpfjq avrov.
This is quoted as a valid legal principle. In its full form (as its repetition in v. 2 will show) it reads: a^Loq 6 epyarpq rrjq rpo(prjq avrov. Cf. Matt 10:lOb/Luke 10:7b
(Q?): a£to? 7dp 6 epyarrjq rrjq rpo<prjq (Luke: rov fuadov) avrov. See further 1 Tim 5:18b (rov p,LO&ov), where the logion appears as a scriptural (?) quotation.2 It is dif ficult to decide whether the principle is regarded by the ■ 1 The Didachist first states the fundamental principle in reference to the prophets; afterward, in vv. 3-7, he gives the principle more concrete detail. If one of the prophets (who, we are to understand, was previously homeless) desires to settle in the local community
(Kadrjodou as in 12.3), that should be permitted.1 (The precondition that this must be a genuine prophet is made clear, in passing, by the use of 'apo'K'qrrfq aXrjftivoq.)
The problem is not the prophet's settling down but the question of a livelihood. The basic rule for this is that he
1 The prophet apparently has this right; in contrast, it 2 For this logion cf. Erich Klostermann, Das would be unthinkable for the itinerant apostles in Matthdusevangelium (4th ed.; HNT 4; Tubingen: the Didache (cf. 11.5). Mohr, 1971) 87; Martin Dibelius and Hans
13.1
Didachist as a saying of the Lord,3 or simply as a bind ing legal principle from tradition. He is probably, howev er, construing it as a command from the Lord (as the continuation in vv. 5 and 7—Kara tt)v evToXrjv—sug gests).4 In the nature of things the Didachist intends thereby to give statutory effect to the principle that locally resident Christians are obligated to provide a livelihood for the prophets who desire to settle among them. The office of prophet itself is adequate reason for this obligation of support. It gives a legal claim to Tpcnpr). Thus here the principle of epya^eo^w kocl
(payers ("let him work and eat," Did. 12.3) does not apply. Instead, the prophets need not live from the work of their hands; the community must provide for their daily needs.
■ 2 The verse provides an analogous rule for teachers—as before, this applies only to the genuine teacher, bibdaKaXoq aXpdiVoq (or, as the text says, the commu nity is to guard itself against the \fevbobibdoKaXoq\ Did.
11.1-2). It is true for the teachers (as for the prophets) that they are "worthy of their food," that is, that the community is obliged to provide for their livelihood.5
Excursus: The "Teacher"
The Didache speaks of the bibaoKaXoq only here, in 11.1-2, and in 15.1-2. The word refers neither to the (itinerant) apostles nor to the prophets,6 but to a Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 78-79; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International
Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978) 412-27, esp. 420-21; Francis Wright Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981) 243; Gottfried Holtz, Die Pastoralbriefe (4th ed.; ThHK 13; Leipzig:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1986) 126-27; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Gospel According to Luke
(X-XX1V) (AB 28A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, in 1 Cor 9:14) it refers, correspondingly, to the postEaster missionaries; in Did. 13.1 it applies to the prophets; and in 1 Tim 5:18b it refers to the pres byters. Common to all these cases is that a general principle is given special application to a different set of significant persons in a religious community.
Cf. also the quotation in Ps.-Clem. Horn. 3.71.3
(GCS2 1.82): Toil puodov.
The question remains open whether this is oral or written tradition and, if it is written, whether (in this case) it comes from the Gospel of Matthew or perhaps from an apocryphal writing. Harnack
(Lehre, 50) concluded: "Here again the author draws on a saying of the Lord in Matthew's version."
Similarly Massaux, Influence, 3.166; Hagner, Use, 280; cf. Wengst's reflections, Didache, 28-29. He writes that a quotation from the Gospel of Matthew is (in spite of the possibilities considered by Koester,
Synoptische Uberlieferung, 212-13) "by far the most probable" (Wengst, Didache, 28 n. 102).
Nonetheless, the explicit command in vv. 3-7 to give aTTapxv to the prophets who take the place of the high priest in the OT (v. 3) is best understood as a Christian command, namely, a command from the Lord, and especially as a consequence of the logion quoted by the Didachist in Did. 13.1 and 2.
Did. 13.2 repeats the binding commandment again, 1985) 841-50, esp. 848; and esp. A. E. Harvey,
'"The Workman Is Worthy of His Hire': Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church," NovT 24 [1982]
209-21. The logion raises a number of open ques tions: Is the form with rpoipr) (Matthew) or that with pLadog (Luke and 1 Timothy) earlier? Is the 7pcupr) in 1 Tim 5:18b a supposed quotation from the OT, from an apocryphal work, or perhaps even a quotation from Luke's Gospel? Or does the refer ence to ypcttpri apply merely to v. 18a? These ques tions need not be answered here. In the nature of things what we have here is a general legal principle that appeals, in the fashion of hokmah, to wisdom and the assent of reason (sit venia verbo: an immedi ately obvious fundamental principle of "natural law"). We may leave aside the question whether it stems originally from the Jesus tradition or was adopted by it. Harvey ("Workman," 211 n. 9) refers to ptodbu poxdr)aavTi bLbov ("give a wage to the one who has toiled") in Ps.-Phocyl. 19 (cf. Sib. Or.
2.74 \p), and lun'ovvra b' <x^lop /puidbv pepeodai ("one who toils is worthy to receive pay") in Ps.(?)Euripides Rhesus 161-62. The Christian maxim is universally valid and therefore applicable to a vari ety of cases. In the Jesus tradition it refers to the disciples; for Paul (who appears only to allude to it this time in more detail: the Didachist shows that the full text (as known to him) was: d£iog eoTcv 6 epydrpq rijq rpoprjg ainov. This form of the text agrees almost word for word with Matt 10:10b. The Didachist's form is made awkward by the insertion of uairep 6 epyar-qg. It is explained by the unbal anced combination of two statements: ear if d£iog
Ti)q rpoiprig ainoii and the complete quotation of the formula.
De Halleux ("Ministers," 311) differs, identifying
quently) occurred that they wished to become resi dent in one place. Hereafter 15.1-2 (q.v.) will treat the relationship between the charismatic teachers and the "local clergy." Nothing is said about the function of the bibaoKaXoL, nor did anything need to be said as far as the readers of this document were con cerned, because they were all familiar with the person and work of the bcbaoKaXog.9 charismatic office different from both of them.* * * * * 7 The bcbaoKaXog was still absent from the old tradition in 11.4-12, but is mentioned here quite deliberately.
Taken in context, 13.2 strongly suggests8 (and this is confirmed by 11.1-2) that the charismatic teachers had also begun their work as itinerants. It is also true of the teachers in the Didache (as of its prophets) that at the time of the Didachist it sometimes (or even fre clude that the teachers in the Didache must also have begun as itinerant charismatics.
Zimmermann (Lehrer, 142) thinks with reference to the teachers that "because they must have been resi dent in larger numbers than the prophets they may well have been the middle term between the triadic charismatic offices and the episkopoi/diakonoi (15.1).
The whole Didache can certainly be regarded as the product of such a bubaoKaXog." I cannot see that "the content of this office had surely undergone an essential change with increasing distance from Judaism" (p. 143; cf. also p. 218). Zimmermann's the teacher with the prophet. The reference would be to the prophet as teacher. And because, ulti mately, prophet and apostle are also identified (cf.
"Ministers," 307), all these words, in principle, refer only to a single group. See above, p. 173 n. 2.
7 On the teachers in the Didache, see Stempel, "Lehrer," 209-17. In my opinion, however, Stempel has overestimated the role and function of the teacher in the Didache. See the general information now in Zimmermann, Lehrer, passim; on the Didache esp. pp. 141-43.
8 It is true that Did. 13.2 lacks a specific reference to fteAuv K(xi}rjoi}(xt. The Didachist could also include the teachers (having already spoken once of the community's obligation to provide sustenance) without necessarily implying that they, like the prophets, originally belonged among the peregrinantes. But 11.1-2 alone already compels us to con remarks must be read within the context of his the sis about the existence of an early Jewish-Christian
Pharisaic teaching office (cf. pp. 218-19).
13.3-7 3 So when you [sg.] take any firstfruits of what is produced by the winepress and the threshing floor, by cows and by sheep, you [sg.] shall give the firstfruits to the prophets, for they are your [pi.] high priests.
<4 If, however, you [pi. throughout v. 4] have no b. Directions for the Distribution (13.3-7) prophet, give [them] to the poor.> 5 If you [sg. throughout vv. 5-7] prepare dough, take the firstfruits and give them according to the commandment.
6 Likewise, when you open a jar of wine or oil, take the firstfruits and give them to the prophets.
7 Take the firstfruits of money and clothing and whatever [else] you own as you think best and give them according to the command ment.
Comment (although there it is yepppa).4 Botiv re Kai npoflaTuv ("cows and sheep") is constructed by analogy to the pre ceding pair.5 Thus the prophets are entitled to bread, wine, and meat from cattle and sheep; in fact they are entitled to the anapxp, the firstfruits, the gifts that were originally dedicated to God and then belonged to the temple, that is, to the priests. With the term airapxp6
(awkwardly used twice), the Didachist deliberately adopts a term from Old Testament cultic language.7 He decrees that the cultic demand of Scripture (the OT) that the anapxp be surrendered as an offering is now translated into an obligation toward the Christian prophets active in the community. To them is due the ■ 3 The text just preceding had spoken of the Tpocpp due to the charismatics. Now vv. 3-71 give a more precise indication of what is meant by rpocpp (whereby it is strik ing that now the text speaks explicitly and solely of prophets as the recipients of these benefits). First men tioned are the anapxp yevvppaTuiv Xpvov Kai aXccvoq, f3oa>v re Kai irpopdmp. The term yevvppa ("firstfruits"), strictly speaking, applies only to the last two expressions.2 In fact H reads yepppaTup, but this (in contrast to Constitutions yeppppdrwp) is probably a simplification.3 rep(p)ppaTa Xppou means the product of the winepress—therefore the wine—while yep(p)ppara aXo)Poq is the product of the threshing floor, the grain.
The whole expression is biblical; cf. Num 18:30
1 Possibly quoted in Lib. grad. 13.2 (Krnosko, 307): see above, pp. 12-13. For the question whether Did. aXcoPOg Kai cog yepppa and Appov ("When you have set apart the best of it, then the rest shall be reck oned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor, and as produce of the winepress").
But cf. Deut 12:6, 17; and similarly 2 Esdr 20:37.
The repetition of the word anapxp is striking. The repetition paints the solemn, cultic action.
For anapxp in the LXX, see Gerhard Delling, "dnapxpf TDNT 1 (1964) 484-85; Alexander Sand,
"anapxp," EDNT 1 (1990) 116-17. Verses 3-7 are held together by the key word anapxp (vv. 3 bis, 5,
6, 7). The constantly recurring expression tpp anapxpp Aa(3cop, dog (dcooecg) describes the solemn action of cultic offering, originally the sacrifice belonging to God alone. The anapxp >s "taken," and then given to the prophets (representing the OT priests, or [as the Didachist sees it] the high priests).
13.3 is quoted in Didascalia apostolorum, see above, p. 15. According to Audet (Didache, 106-10, 23840, 453, 457-58) Did. 13.3, 5-7 is an interpolation
(while 13.4 is to be regarded, in addition, as a later gloss: p. 458).
2 Teppppa is "that which is produced or born (of living creatures), child, offspring" (BAGD, s.v.). Bauer remarks (ibid.) that the use of the term here is "jus tifiable because the last two nouns refer to ani mals."
3 Bryennios (Aidaxp, 47) conjectured yepppparcop, as do the later editions throughout. Differently
Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 190: yeppparcop. Is this possibly correct?
"Otoip acpaippre rpp dnapxpv an avrov, Kai XoyLodpoeTCii rolg AevLracg cog yepppa and
freely, to the new, ecclesiastical situation and is altered accordingly. In order to underscore the status of the prophets and to insure that thy community rec ognizes its obligation to care for them, the Didachist parallels11 the Christian prophets of his own time with the apx^pelq of the old covenant, thus making the prophets (metaphorically) the "high priests" of Christians.12 This is a striking formulation, and it has no direct parallels in early Christian literature.13 airapx'f] 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).8 Therefore, the cultic offering that the Old Testament community owed to its high priests now belongs to them.9 We may ask whether the terminology
(according to which the prophets appear as apxtepetg) allows us to conclude that the prophets led worship in the Didache communities.10 Did. 10.7 seems to presume that at the time of the Didache the local officials led wor ship, but the prophets had the right to charismatic prayer; 15.1-2 shows both groups in leadership func tions (see below).
■ 4 Then in v. 4 the text is interrupted by a parenthetical remark, eav be pt) expre irpOipr]Tr]v, bore [sc. tt)f orjrapxw] T0^? 7rrcoxot?-14 This statement is probably (as Audet has suggested)15 a later, but still very old, gloss.16
This is the expression of a time when even the prophets have become a rarity. In such cases the community should give its offerings to the poor.
Excursus:The Didachist and Judaism ■ 5 Verse 5 is connected to the discussion in v. 3 and continues it. The guiding word of vv. 3-5 remains onrapxp, the gifts that are due the prophets. Lltlocv
This passage at 13.5 is important for understanding the position of the Didachist with respect to Judaism.
The Old Testament cultic law is transferred, rather 8 There is a characteristic alteration in Const. 7.29.1: irdoau d'Kapxqv yeupppotTccu \r)vov, aXavoq fiowv re Kcd TTpofidroiv buioecq rolq iepevoiv. Now it refers to the Christian priests. Cf. 2.26.3, where the Constitutor (dependent on the Didascalia apostolorum; cf. n. 12 below) parallels the high priests with the bishops, the priests with the presbyters, and the Levites with the deacons.
9 This is expressed only as a general idea. For the OT prescriptions regarding priests' incomes cf. Deut tively interpreted in Christian fashion) are the instances to which the redactor appeals.
12 Compare the contrary position of Tertullian De bapt. 17.1 (CChrSL 1.291): summus sacerdos, si qui est, episcopus . . . ("the high priest, if anyone, is the bishop") and Didasc. (Syriac) 9 (CSCO 401.103;
402.100); and (Latin) 25.20-21 (TU 75.41). For the question whether the Didascalia is quoting the Didache at this point, see above, p. 15.
13 Harnack, Lehre, 52.
14 Wengst, Didache, 86: ru irraxv (with Constitutions and the Ethiopic).
15 Audet, Didache, 458. He considers Did. 13.3, 5-7 an interpolation (106-10, 238-41, 453, 457-58), so that according to him the gloss is to be regarded as a gloss within an interpolation. But the positing of an interpolation in chap. 13 is questionable. Cf.
Niederwimmer, "Itinerant Radicalism," 326.
Against the supposition that there is a gloss in v. 4, see Wengst, Didache, 40 n. 136.
16 Cf. Niederwimmer, "Textprobleme," 121. That the text in Const. 7.29.2 seems to be presupposed does not speak against this. One must presume that this is a relatively ancient gloss in the Didache text.
17 H on la is rare. Hesychius (ed. Schmidt, 3.35) has Sairdvripa, ppupa, onrjpecnor, but appears to con fuse rd onLa and oneicc. cf. the notes ad loc. In the Apophthegmata patrum (PC 65.192A), ania may be dough, i.e., bread dough (eal Aa/Hav onLav eiq to (xproKortelov, evoipoev dprovq, "Taking dough into the bakery, he made loaves of bread"); in 196B
18:3-4; Num 18:8-32; Ezek 44:30; Neh 10:32-39; 2 Chr 31:4-10. The OT is aware of prescriptions for priests' income, but there are no specific regulations for the income of the high priest. The error in the Didache casts a revealing light on the Didachist. For the real income of the high priest at the time of Jesus, see Joachim JeremiasJerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 150-51. The episode in 2 Kgs 4:42 (a gift of firstfruits to an OT prophet) was apparently less suitable for the Didachist's argument.
10 Thus Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 52-53; different ly de Halleux, "Ministers," 312.
11 The system of thought that lies behind this is obvi ously that of typological exegesis, even if this is not expressed and perhaps is not even brought to the level of consciousness (cf. earlier, at Did. 11.11). We should also take note of the elements that are brought to bear to make up the Didachist's demon stration: (a) the evroXr) (KvpLov), which was quoted in vv. 1-2; and (b) the typological interpretation of the OT. The mandata Domini and the OT (unref lec-
13.3-7 TTOLelv is a crux interpretum for linguistic reasons. This phrase may mean "prepare dough."17 When that has been done,18 the rule is: Tr)v dirapxw Xafiwv dog Kara rpv evToXriv. The phrase Kara Tpv evToXpv is character istic of the style of the Didachist (cf. 1.5 and the repeti tion in 13.7). In the present passage (and in 13.7) it appears that the reference is to a commandment of the Lord,19 most probably the admonition a^Loq eon (6 epydrpg) Tr)g rpo<prjq avrov just cited (vv. 1-2).20 The effort to give as concrete a determination as possible to the sacred offerings to be made for the prophets also affects the following verses (vv. 6-7).
Lpanopoq (in spite of Knopf's protest)22 has its usual meaning here: "clothing." Kal -rrotUToq KTr/parog ("what ever else") makes clear that the preceding list is only a set of examples, and in principle every kind of property is subject to the obligation to make offerings of the dTrapxVThe succession of the three final phrases is noteworthy. Aafiuv rr)v dirapxpv ("take the firstfruits") again recalls the cubic nature of the gifts; dv ool do^rj ("as you think best") liberates the givers from any kind of niggling legalism and appeals to the generosity of individuals; dog Kara rpv evroXpv finally makes clear again, in conclusion, that the offering here demanded rests on a binding "commandment" of the Kyrios,23
■ 6-7 The next verse concerns the offering of wine and oil.21 Both are preserved in earthen containers or jars
(Kepdpiov). Finally, v. 7 speaks of money. The following (AirqX'dov ovv eig to aproKOTrelou TroLfjoca 8vo a it tag, "They'therefore went off to the bakery to make two loaves of bread") and C (emLrjoa cf
OiTtag . . . erroLpoa rag 8vo Oiriag, "I made six loaves ... I made the two loaves") the word could simply mean bread. Bonifaz Miller (Weisung der text of the Apostolic Constitutions has still more inter polations.
22 Knopf refers to "the piece of cloth, either pur chased or woven by oneself, that is to be cut cor rectly" (Lehre 35).
23 Georg Schollgen, "Die Didache—ein fruhes Zeugnis fur Landgemeinden?" ZNW 76 (1985) 141: "It is not very likely that... all the required onrapxcrL are demanded of every member of the community; in that case, the Didache would have anticipated a twofold offering from the produce of the grain har vest: first at threshing (v. 3) and then again when bread is baked (v. 5); there is then a similar double offering of grapes and wine (vv. 3 and 6). Hence it is more likely that, as regards the individual ccKocpxoti, there were different possibilities for ful filling one's obligation to support the prophets."
(For Schollgen's protest against the interpretation of v. 3, or vv. 3-7, as indicating rural conditions, see above, p. 54.) Vater [Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus, 1965]) translates the first example as "grain" (p. 105), but understands onLccg in the other three passages as "bread" (109). I do not want to exclude the possibili ty that the striking oltlocv in the Didache passage is the work of the copyist, while the original text may have read eav oltLcx (from oltLov) TTOLr/g. (The Ethiopic reads "bread," while the Apostolic Consti tutions paraphrases: aproi deppoL.) 18 According to Drews ("Apostellehre," 278) and Knopf (Lehre, 35) one should add, by inference: and when the dough has been baked into bread. But see n. 17 above.
19 According to Drews ("Apostellehre," 278) a quota tion from "an unknown gospel source." See idem,
"Untersuchungen," 63-67, where he postulates a source of dominical commandments. Cf. above at Did. 1.3-7.
20 Another possibility is that evToXp refers to the OT commands. This is less probable; the use of the sin gular is also against it.
21 The Ethiopic has the addition nai peXnoq. The