1 Assembling on every Sunday of the Lord, break
5. On Confession and Reconciliation (14.1-3) 1 Assembling on every Sunday of the Lord, break bread and give thanks, confessing your faults beforehand, so that your sacrifice may be pure.
2 Let no one engaged in a dispute with his com rade join you until they have been reconciled, lest your sacrifice be profaned.
3 This is [the meaning] of what was said by the Lord: "'to offer me a pure sacrifice in every place and time, because I am a great king,' says the Lord, 'and my name is held in won der among the nations.'" nal community life, and so deals with dissension, recon ciliation, confession, and the purity of sacrifices. The presumption that chap. 14 belongs to a later, second redaction3 does not seem compelling.4
Analysis The text is redactional. Its subject is not really the Sunday worship service1 but the particular issue of con fession, or reconciliation, as precondition for the purity required for the carrying out of the sacrifice that is brought before God in the meal celebration. To that extent chap. 14 is not a doublet of chaps. 9-10.2 In the whole section comprising chaps. 11-15, the Didachist has in view the local community to which he is giving instructions for good order and church discipline. Thus he now arrives at a discussion of the questions of inter
Comment ■ 1 The whole clause Kara. KvpLUK.r\v . . . evxotpi-OTqaaTe (v. la) simply constitutes the introduction to the central statement, which will follow only in v. lb. The Didachist wants to speak about confession and the purity of sacri fices, and for that purpose he places the reader in the time of the Sunday worship service. The description of 1 Thus, e.g., Harnack, Lehre, 53; Drews, "Apostellehre," 279; Knopf, Lehre, 35. For Drews and Knopf chaps. 9-10 are about a private meal celebration, and only at chap. 14 does the text begin to speak about the official Sunday Eucharist of the commu nity. Cf. above, p. 141. They then have difficulties with the context and must emphasize that in the section on the Sunday celebration the author restricts himself to the discussion of a single point
(namely, the question of the forgiveness of sins). For 3 Klauser, Audet, and Voobus, see n. 2 below.
2 Differently (and characteristically) Klauser, Doctrina, 28: "Cur hoc loco denuo de eucharistia sermofiat, non bene perspicitur. Forsitan hoc capitulum paulo postea additum est" ("Why there should be discussion of the Eucharist at this place is not clear. Perhaps the chap4 ter was added somewhat after"). Audet has an easier time of it here because he ascribes the chapter to D2: "The author returns to the subject, not because he is a bad writer, or because he had, oddly enough, forgotten something, or because he is compiling his materials at random, or because someone else had 5 created a subsequent interpolation of 14:1-3, but 6 simply because experience has demonstrated, in the meantime, the inadequacy of the instructions in 9-10" (Didache, 460). Voobus (Liturgical Traditions,
78) has still another explanation: The author (in light of the mention of the prophets) makes a digression ad vocem "prophets" in chaps. 11-13 and returns, in chap. 14, to the subject of the Eucharist;
(for Voobus the prayers in chap. 9 are eucharistic prayers: see above, p. 142); but this time it is not the Eucharist as such that is the topic, "but the subject of the confession of sins and its significance in rela tion to the cultic life. If so, then this chapter is not a repetition at all" (ibid.).
Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 49, 63, 93. Rordorf ("Didache," 23) raised the question whether the (second) redactor of the Didache did not return to the subject of Sunday because his community was inclined to oa.pftctTL$eLV (?). So also Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 65. See below, p. 195 n. 9.
One must admit that Did. 15.1-2 represents an interruption. Did. 14.1-3 is only continued and con cluded by 15.3-4. See below. That does not compel us to see 15.1-2 as a later insertion. It is simply a digression. At 15.3 the author again takes up the thread he had dropped.
Audet, Didache, 72-73, 240, 460.
Const. 7.30.1 has paraphrased: Tr)v avaordoLpov tov Kvpiov rpiepav, rr)u KvpcaK-qv ipapev ("the day of the resurrection of the Lord, we say the 'Lord's day'"), thus showing that it found both KvptaKr\v and Kupiou in the source. It is possible that a
14.1-3 the time, Kara KvptaKpp be Kvpiov ("the Sunday of the Lord"), is striking and obviously pleonastic. We expect xa#' rjpepap be Kvpiov (as Audet has conjectured),5 but it is proper to maintain the pleonastic text provided by H.6 For the omission of ppepa, cf. Jer 52:12: ev . . . beKarri tov pppoq, and the expression ayopaloi ayoPToa in Acts 19:38.7 Thus it is also possible, in early
Christian language, for KvpiotKr) to stand alone (in place of KupLOCKp ppepa, Rev 1:10), as in Gos. Pet. 9.35 (SC
201.56): Tfi be pvkt'l fj e-jre<puoKep rj avpiaurp, and 13.50
(62): ''Opdpov be Tpq KvpcaKrjq ("in the night in which the Lord's day dawned"); cf. Ignatius Magn. 9.1: ppneTL oafifiaTL^oPTeq, dAAa Kara KvpL0tKr\p fupTeq ("no longer celebrate the Sabbath, but live for the Lord's day"). KvpLOtKr} here, as in this Didache passage, is already a familiar term for the day of the week that is consecrated by the resurrection of the Lord.8 The com munity is accustomed to gather on that day. This is the custom that our passage presumes: ovpax'depreq.9 The Didachist orders that a Eucharist be celebrated on every
Lord's day when the community comes together:
KXaaare aprop nai evxotpiOTrjoaTe. There is something of a parallel to the whole in Acts 20:7: 'Ep be tt\ pva tup oappdrup ovppypepup rjpup xAaaat aprop ("On the first day of the week when we met to break bread"); cf. also Ignatius Eph. 20.2: avpepxeode . . . epa apTOP nXuPTeq ("join in the common meeting . . . breaking one bread"). What, more precisely, does the double expres sion (nAdoare aprop and evyccpiOTpoctTe) mean in this passage? Does xAaaare dprop*0 refer to the breaking of Semitism underlies this pleonasm: Td adfifiara
Rordorf, "Didache," 23): The specific reference to Sunday could be an indirect polemic against oa(3(3aKvpLov (Lev 23:38; cf. Exod 20:10) would have been replaced by Christians with q KvpLani) Kvpiov
(Taylor, Teaching, 61). Cf. nn. 3 and 9.
7 BAGD, s.v. dyopuloq.
8 For the resurrection on the first day of the week see esp. John 20:1, 19; for the celebration on the Lord's day as the day of resurrection cf. (in addition to the passages mentioned hereafter) John 20:26; 1 Cor
TL$eLV. Rordorf and Tuilier even consider this very probable (with references to Gal 4:8-11; Col
2:16-17; Ignatius Magn. 9.1-2), and they wish to explain the pleonasm Kura KvptaKqp tov Kvpiov from that standpoint. The formulation would be intended to exclude the Sabbath as the day for cele bration.
10 Breaking of bread, as in the Jewish ritual, at the beginning of the meal (see above, commentary on 9.3): Mark 8:6 par.; 8:19; Matt 14:19; Luke 24:30;
Acts 20:11; 27:35 (cf. KaTccuXap in Mark 6:41 par.); at Jesus' final meal: Mark 15:22 par.; 1 Cor 11:24; as post-Easter, probably eucharistic meal: 1 Cor 10:16;
Acts 2:46; 20:7; cf. Ps.-Clem. Horn. 14.1.4 (GCS2 16:2; Barn. 15.9; Justin 1 Apol. 67.3 (Goodspeed,
75); 67.7 (Id)-Dial. 24.1 (117); 41.4 (138); 138.1
(260). The stato die in Pliny Ep. 10.96.7 (Mynors, 339) would also refer to Sunday. Cf. b. 'Abod Zar. 6b
(Eduard Lohse, _"ffd/3/3aror'," TDNT 7 [1971] 29 n.
227); Werner Foerster, "KvpLcacoq," TDNT 3 (1967) 1095-96; Lohse, "ctd/S/farot'," 28-35. C. W.
Dugmore has raised some problems about the received interpretation of this passage in the Didache ("Lord's Day and Easter," in Neotestamentica et Patristica: Eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr.
Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag uberreicht [NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962] 275-77). He sug gests the day of Easter for KvpLcacq: "If we take xvpianri in its later meaning of 'Sunday,' we get 'on the Sunday of the Lord.' Since every Sunday is the Lord's Day, the Sunday of the Lord can only mean the Sunday on which he rose from the dead, i.e.
Easter Sunday, but the phrase is infelicitous" (p.
276). Dugmore also (p. 277) understands the para phrase in Const. 7.30.1 (see n. 6 above) as referring to the day of Easter. All this is highly questionable.
9 The Didachist is not aware of a Sabbath celebration in the community. For the Sabbath observance of later, heretical, and especially gnostic-influenced
Jewish Christianity, cf. Lohse, "odfifictTop," 32-34.
1.204): top aprop en evxctpiOTia KXaoag /cal em.delg a\ag ("having broken the bread for thanks giving and having put salt on it"). For the whole, cf.
KbaoLg tov apTov ("breaking of the bread"), Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42. The literature is legion; for an overview, see, e.g., Johannes Behm, "OvuTDNT 3
(1967) 726-43; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, passim; Emmanuel von Severus, "Brotbrechen," RAC 2
(1954) 620-26; Gerhard Delling, "Abendmahl II.
Urchristliches Mahl-Verstandnis," TRE 1 (1977) 56-57; Joachim Wanke, "xAdw," EDNT 2 (1991)
295-96; Klauck, Elerrenmahl, 259-64, and passim.
Literature in Wanke, "kXocu," 295; and ThWNT 10/2.1138-43.
This Didache passage is interpreted differently by Rordorf and Tuilier (Doctrine, 65; cf. earlier
for a public confession of sins (see above at 4.14; ev eKKXrjoia may be an addition by the Didachist). This subject is now resumed.12 Tlpoe^op.0Xojeiodat13 appears only here in our literature,14 and describes a confession of sins before the beginning of the Eucharist.15
FlapairTippaTa ("faults") is used as in 4.3, 14. The con fession of sins purifies those participating in the Eucharist and constitutes the precondition for the purity of the sacrifice presented at the meal: oirtpg nadapa rj dvoia vptiv16 rj. Here Kadapa means "ritually pure." bread as meal for satisfaction of hunger, and evxaPiaTV' oare to the sacramental Eucharist proper?11 Or are the two expressions a hendiadys, together describing the meal celebration culminating in the Eucharist? The lat ter is probably more likely. In any case, with evxocptorrjoaTe the author is thinking of the benedictions given in chaps. 9-10, and perhaps also of the free evXapiorelv of the prophets (10.7). The redactor would already have included here in 14.1 (as in 10.7) the eucharistic prayers in the narrower sense.
Const. 7.30.2 interprets this with a paraphrase, oirag apepiTTog r\ r\ dvoia vpd)v Kai evavcnpopog de<X ("and so let your sacrifice be blameless and acceptable to God").17 What is meant by dvoia, the sacrifice to be pre sented at the meal?18 It seems tempting to understand dvoia to refer to the sacred action of the eucharistic cel ebration,19 or more precisely to associate it with the eucharistic elements (as, e.g., Justin does in Dial. 41.3
[Goodspeed, 138]).20 In that case Did. 14.1-321 would As I have said, however, the whole previous clause, which speaks of the Sunday celebration, serves simply to establish a precondition for the central statement of the text, which is now stated. Before the breaking of bread and thanksgiving, the members of the congregation are to acknowledge their sins, to "confess," in order that the sacrifice to be carried out during the meal will be ritual ly pure (v. lb). That is the point at which the Didachist is aiming in v. 1. The Two Ways tractate had already called
11 Cf. Audet (Didache, 460-61), who refers KXaoare aprov to the breaking of bread and evxapiOTpoare
In addition Poschmann considers it important that in the Didache nothing is said about an absolution
(Paenitentia secunda, 92).
16 H has a mistake, qpav, which was emended by Bryennios, Aidaxv, 49. Cf. also Constitutions.
17 For the pure sacrifice of the eschatological commu nity cf. 1 Pet 2:5; Heb 13:10; Jas 1:27, etc.
18 "During the first three centuries the Eucharist was understood in a threefold way as sacrifice. The sac rifice presented to God is, first of all, the prayers, second, the bread and wine, . . . third, the sacred action at the altar itself as analogue to the sacrifice of the death of Christ" (Lietzmann, Mass, 68).
19 E.g., Harnack, "Prolegomena," 139; Knopf, Lehre, 36: "dvoia: the Eucharist as sacrifice"; Lietzmann,
Mass, 193; Drews, "Apostellehre," 279: dvoia refers to the Lord's Supper, not merely the prayers, as sac rifice. The proof of this is said to be the Malachi quotation that follows; see Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 214-15.
20 Ilepi de tuv ev 7tavri tottu (up' ppuv tuv edvav irpooipepopevuv avrw dvouHv, tout' eon rov aprov rfj(; evxapioriag Kai tov rrorripiov opoiug rrjg evXapioriaq, irpoXeyet [sc. the prophet Malachi, to the Eucharist proper. Cf. his interpretation of chaps. 9-10 above, p. 142.
12 The Didachist formulates in a manner reminiscent of Did. 4.14; cf. there (ev eKKXpaiq) eZ,opoXoyr)ot) ra Trapa-KTuipara oov with 14.1: Tcpoe^opoXoypodpevot ra TrapaTtrapara vpav.
13 H reads Trpooe^opoXoyqodpevoi, as do Rordorf and Tuilier, Doctrine, 68, 192 (earlier Rordorf,
"Remission des peches," 286 n. 4; and idem, "Didache," 25 n. 37). Nonetheless, the emendation in Harnack, Lehre, 54, going back to von Gebhardt, which most of the editions have accepted, should be maintained as correct. Cf. Ttpoeiitovreq, Did. 7.1, and irpovrjOTevodrw, 7.4. The Apostolic Constitutions has Kai e^opoXoyovpevoi (although in a different sense).
14 Lampe, s.v., refers otherwise only to Joannes Jejunator (?), Sermo de poenitentia, PG 88.1929B. He does not have irpooe^opoXoyelodaL.
15 Poschmann, Paenitentia secunda, 89. I consider it improbable that the two Didache quotations (4.14 and 14.1) refer to 1 Cor 11:28, as Poschmann sup poses (ibid.). A further question is whether the author is thinking of individual confessions in the presence of the congregation (or before the bishop or another fellow Christian), or simply of a com mon confession by the whole congregation. (Posch mann supposes the latter, p. 90; Rordorf,
"Remission des peches," 286, agrees; as does Moll, Opfer, 110.) On this subject, see above p. 113 n. 16.
1:10-11] Tore ("concerning the sacrifices offered to him by us, the nations, in every place, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and, likewise, the cup of the Eucharist"). Justin, however, is also acquainted with the other idea according to which the eucharistic prayers are a sacrifice to God: Dial. 117.1
(Goodspeed, 234).
14.1-3 case, it is true that participation in the dvoia demands moral purity as ritual purity—and the prior purification by exhomologesis is intended in that sense. represent the oldest explicit instance of the understand ing of the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice.22 This interpreta tion, however, is uncertain. The context permits still another possibility: that dvoLa refers in a special sense to evx^-P^OTXioaTe. The sacrifice that is spoken of so often here would then be the eucharistic prayer offered by the congregation.23 It is stained if guilty persons speak it, but it is pure if their guilt is removed. But is this alternative a justifiable interpretation of the Didache text? No matter how unsatisfying it may appear to a later, more reflective consciousness, one cannot exclude the possibility that these alternatives are utterly foreign to the state of mind reflected in the text (and other, sim ilar texts); that is, the tradition that comes to light here associates the sacred meal with the idea of sacrifice in the most general way, without making detailed specifica tions about what precisely is to be understood by "sacri fice" in this instance.24 That seems to be the most appropriate understanding of the Didache text. In any
■ 2 The demand for purity is made concrete by means of an additional rule. The sacrifice is pure if it comes from those who are reconciled—by which we should apparent ly understand the ranks of the holy community of the end time, in which there is no longer any trace of enmity
(v. 2).25 With Iraq 5e ex^P ktA. the Didachist again resumes the style of the rules in 11.4-6. Apupc^oXia real ly means "hemmed in on both sides, attacked," and then
"ambiguity, doubt, confusion";26 but these meanings of the word yield no sense in this passage. Here it must mean something like "quarrel."27 Trip apuptfioXiav
Iuera Tivoq then means: "to be in a state of enmity with someone."28 Whether eraipoq here means "the neigh bor" in the broader sense or more narrowly the mem bers of the same religious group,29 fellow Christians in 21 The term dvoia is used three times (the third in the quotation from Malachi).
22 1 Clem. 44.4 may be considered older, but the mean ing of the phrase Sapa rfjq eiriOKOTrfjq there is uncertain. Otherwise one must obviously distin guish between the explicit examples and the idea itself; the latter can be older than the former. Thus, e.g., it seems to me that 1 Cor 10:16-22 implicitly presupposes the idea of the Eucharist as sacrifice.
23 Thus, e.g., Harris (Teaching, 106), with reference to the quotation in Ps.-Cyprian De aleat. 4 (CSEL
3.3.96): ne inquinetur et inpediatur oratio vestra ("lest your prayer be troubled and impeded"); Johannes
Behm, "dva," TDNT 3 (1967) 189-90 (cautiously).
Wengst thinks that dvoia probably means first of all the prayers spoken by the congregation and second, in a broader sense, "the congregation itself as those who celebrate" {Didache, 55).
24 It seems to me that the statements of Audet {Didache, 462-63) tend in the same direction, as do especially those of Voobus, Liturgical Traditions,
Cf. also Frank, "Maleachi 1,1 Off.," 72: "It is impossi ble on the basis of the text to attempt to define the precise referent of'sacrifice,' whether the congrega tion's prayer of thanksgiving or the breaking of bread. All that is permitted us is the conclusion that the whole action of the congregation on Sunday is understood as a sacrifice before God." According to Moll {Opfer, 110) dvoia refers to "the whole action";
/ 115: "the sacrificial gifts in particular," or rather "the . . . eucharistic prayer of thanksgiving spoken over the bread, which remains symbolically attached to the sacrificial gifts."
25 Rordorf, "Remission des peches," 289: "The peni tential stance thus has not only a vertical dimen sion, the sincere confession of sins before God, the holy one, but also a horizontal dimension, namely, reconciliation among brothers and sisters." For the quotation of the present passage in Ps.-Cyprian De aleat. 4, see above, Introduction §2b.
26 Cf. LSJ, s.v.: "state of being attacked on both sides"; "ambiguity," "doubt," "uncertainty of mind."
27 BAGD, s.v. Lampe refers {s.v.) to Leontius of Naples Vita Johann. Eleemos., ed. Gelzer, pp. 12-13: wore prjdeva e'xetf icpoq top TrX-qoiop avrovq p.ax'n1' V ap.<pifio\lav ("so that no one my hold toward his neighbor a dispute or quarrel").
28 "Trip before apapi^oXiap is unusual. Von Gebhardt suggested tipo." (Knopf, Lehre, 36). Audet, Didache,
463: a Semitism (with reference to Moulton, Grammar, 2.430).
29 Cf. Dittenberger, ed., Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones 107: "According to all the canons of typology, this
[the reference of the word dvoia to the Eucharist] is the answer which must be given. However, for the sake of circumspection, the question should be raised whether the same notion also covered prayer, thanksgiving, hymns, in one word, all the acts of worship. There are reasons for thinking that the line between these acts and the evxapioria as 'sac rifice' par excellence was not yet sharply drawn."
Voobus adds (pp. 107-8) that dvoia here does not yet have the usual meaning of propitiation for sins.
Selectae, 2.573.1.
this case,30 is not clear. The only thing that is obvious is the rule that Christians may not participate in worship
(probably more precisely the eucharistic meal) until they have reconciled with their foes. The verb for "to be rec onciled," diaWdooeodaL as in Matt 5:24, like the didachistic rule as a whole, recalls the dominical saying in Matt 5:23-24. First go and be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift (in Matthew 5, of course, this would be the sacrifice in the temple at Jerusalem; in Didache 14 it is the sacrifice brought by the church).31 Anyone taking part in the sac rifice without being reconciled would desecrate the com munity's sacrifice. Koipovodou ("to be profaned") is a common expression in cultic language.32 It is the oppo site of nafiapd (v. 1). While in v. 1 the point was to call people to confess before offering the sacrifice, in v. 2 it is to call them to reconciliation.
■ 3 Strikingly enough, however, the Didachist supports his demand not by appealing to the Lord's words in Matt
5:23-24, but by means of an Old Testament quotation, namely, Mai 1:11, 14, which calls for a fivoia nafiapa
("pure sacrifice"). The introductory formula (avTrj yap eoTLP rj ppifeloa vivo Kvpiov) makes it obvious that what follows is a quotation.33 Kyrios here probably does not refer to Jesus.34 The text of the Septuagint (?) is quoted freely.35 In the second part (Mai 1:14) the quotation is more exact than in the first (1:11).36 The text of Mai
1:10-14 has otherwise played a significant role in the early church's scriptural citations.37 For the most part it serves as a standard argument for the purpose of distinAeyet Kvpioq Aeyec Kvpioq,
TravTOKpancp, — Kai to ovopa pov Kai to ovopa pov enapaveq davpaorov ev Toiq edveocv. ev Toiq edveaiv.
The combination of Mai 1:11b and 14b is unusual.
It is probably explained by the fact that the Didachist does not intend to polemicize (against Judaism); hence vv. 12-13 are omitted from the Koester (Synoptische Uberlieferung, 215 n. 1) rightly criticizes what Knopf says (Lehre, 36) about the "nar rowing" of the rule "limiting it to the community" that thus takes place.
The Didachist does not designate his advice as a word of the Lord, but it is possible that he is think ing of the logion: thus with assurance Harnack,
Lehre, 55; Drews, "Apostellehre," 279. According to Massaux (Influence, 3.156-57), we should consider literary dependence on Matthew. According to Koester (Synoptische Uberlieferung, 214) the author draws "on the treasure of freely circulating commu nity rules." Koester constructs thus: Mark 11:25 rests on the same tradition but has already
Christianized the logion. The Didachist "Christianized" the logion "in an entirely different way than in Mark 11:25" (ibid.).
Friedrich Hauck, "kolvuvckoi; ktA.," TDNT3 (1967) 809; Franz Georg Untergassmair, "Kotvoq," EDNT 2
(1991) 302-3.
Cf. dAAd Kai irepi tovtou 8e eippraL in Did. 1.6 and Kai yap irepi tovtov elppKev 6 evpioq in Did.
9.5 (both redactional). These introductory formulae are characteristic for the Didachist.
Differently Funk, Patres apostolici, 33: Kyrios = Jesus:
"Jesu Christo dictum Veteris Testamenti attribuitur."
Likewise Wengst, Didache, 31.
Mai 1:11b LXX Did. 14.3b
quotation, as Frank ("Maleachi l,10ff.," 71) cor rectly pointed out. Cf. Audet, Didache, 464; Moll
(Opfer, 112) speaks of a "selection process" that he traces to the Didachist. There is a similar combina tion of vv. 11 and 14 in Clement of Alexandria
Strom. 5.14.136.2-3, but one need not suggest influ ence from the Didache (against the note in GCS3
2.418). Muilenburg (Literary Relations, 91-92, 95) suggested that Did. 14.3 is a quotation from the Hebrew text. Indeed the davpaarov in the Didache text (Mai 1:14b), against eirupaveq (LXX, as well as Clement of Alexandria in the passage cited), is strik ing. According to Muilenburg it better reflects the Flebrew kto than does the LXX word (which is a misunderstanding of the Hebrew text). But davpaoTov would not be a good translation either: cf., in contrast, eixdpofiov in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (Muilenburg, Literary Relations, 92).
Against positing a translation from the Hebrew is Vokes, Riddle, 91; he suggested that davpaarov is a reminiscence of Ps 8:2 (there is a typographical error in his text at this point) or Deut 28:58. A dif ferent problem arises from the added Kai xpova in Did. 14.3b. It recalls the version of Targum
Jonathan: and on every occasion when you do My
. . . Kai ev iravri tottoi ev 7ravri tottu Kai xpova npoaipepeiv poi tivoiav Kadapav dvpiapa TTpoadyerai ra ovoparL iuov Kai dvoia Kadapa ...
Mai 1:14b LXX 8lotl fiaoiAevc; peyaq eyco eipi, Did. 14.3c otl fiaoiAevq peyaq eipL, will (in R. P. Gordon, "Targumic Parallels to Acts
XIII 18 and Didache XIV 3," NovT 16 [1974] 287).
Gordon says of the text of the Didache, "Here the
14.1-3 hand problems that arise with regard to the leadership of the community (the subject of chap. 15). In the first instance he decrees that the community may only offer its eucharistic sacrifice in a pure state when (1) the members have been purified of sin by a previous confes sion, and (2) all quarrels have been cleansed away by a prior reconciliation. Only in this way can the sacrificing community be clean; only in this way can it offer the pure, eschatological sacrifice prophesied by Malachi.39 guishing the new Christian ritual observance from that of the old covenant. That contrast, however, is not emphasized here in Did. 14.3 (at least not overtly). In the context of the Didache, the quotation from Malachi is simply intended to verify the demand for a pure sacri fice.38 The quotation is linked to the remarks in 14.1-2 by means of the key phrase dvaia aadapa.. The author was probably already thinking of the dvoLa Kordapa in the Malachi text when formulating Did. 14.1.
At this point the train of thought is interrupted. The real continuation of the topic here introduced is to be found in Did. 15.3. Inserted between these two parts is a section on problems of community leadership, probably inspired by the association of "presiding at the Eucharist with the Eucharist itself."40
In retrospect we find a more or less cogent train of thought here. While in chaps. 11-13 the Didachist had, in a sense, looked outward (toward the arriving guests of the community), in chaps. 14-15 he looks inward (at the relationships within the community itself). In doing so he touches on two groups of questions: on the one hand the moral status of the community, and on the other
38 "The prophetic promise has now been fulfilled"
(Frank, "Maleachi 1,1 Off.," 72).
39 The method of scriptural interpretation this time is not especially typological; rather it follows the gen eral principle of prophecy and eschatological fulfill ment.
40 Funk (Patres apostolici, 33) emphasized xeiporovr)aare ovv eavrolq emaKOTrovg Kai biaKOVovq {Did. readings of MT (and LXX) and Targum Jonathan are combined in ev -navTi TOira Kai xpovut" (p. 288).
Of the two possibilities suggested by Audet, Didache, 463-64 (a reminiscence of an old, lost form of the text, or an accommodation of the text to the church's sacrifice), Gordon, while writing "although there is indeed an ancient text," nevertheless con siders the latter more likely, namely, "that both the Targum and Didache have adapted Mai i 11 to suit their own particular doctrinal needs" (p. 288).
36 For davpaorov, which is still remarkable, see n. 35 above. One may ask whether it is possible to con clude from the free quotation of the OT that the Didachist may also have quoted the Gospel text before him (if he had one) with the same freedom.
37 Justin Dial. 28.5 (Goodspeed, 122); 41.2 (138); 116.3 (234); 117.1 (234) and 4 (235); Irenaeus Adv. haer. 4.17.5-6 (SC 100.592-95); Tertullian Adv.
Marc. 3.22.6 (CChrSL 1.539); 4.1.8 (1.546); Adv. Iud.
5.4, 7 (2.1351, 1352); Clement of Alexandria Strom.
5.14, 136.2-3 (GCS3 2.418), etc. Cf. Frank, "Maleachi l,10ff.," 70-72. The Didache quotation appears to be "the earliest Christian application of the saying in Malachi" (p. 71).
15.1), from which follows that the episkopoi and diakonoi administer the eucharistic liturgy. Similarly
Drews, "Apostellehre," 280; Knopf, Lehre, 37; Audet, Didache, 464-65. This is probably correct. J.
Muhlsteiger ("Verfassungsrecht der Friihkirche,"
ZKTh 99 [1977] 272) remarks: "The Sunday synaxis . . . appears to have been perceptibly disrupted by the irregular availability of prophets and teachers; this called for a remedy. The directive in Did. 15.1 about the selection of bishops and deacons thus appears as a practical consequence of the necessity of a regular eucharistic celebration on Sunday."