The Didache And The Ministry
VII
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
THE position of the Didache as the " spoilt child of criticism " is well shown in the importance ascribed to it in accounts of the history of the ministry and the eucharist.
It is with the first of these we must deal now.
The appearance of the Didache in 1883 synchronised with the works of Hatch and Lightfoot on the ministry.
Linton, in his thesis Das Problem der Urkirche in der neueren Forschung, devotes his first chapter to '"' Die herrschende Lehre der 80er Jahre und ihre Probleme."
Some sort of consensus seems to have been arrived at then as to the origins of the historic ministry of the Church.
This was best expressed by J. B. Lightfoot in his note appended to his edition of the Epistle to the Philippians.
According to this theory the ministry of the Church was evolved by the needs of the primitive local autonomous congregation.
The disappearance of the apostolate, of the Twelve and others, left the churches without leadership.
Democratic control led to a collegiate government by a band of bishops or presbyters and deacons.
Quarrels among these and increasing financial and judicial business led to the need for a monarchical episcopate, which would be realised in some outstanding personality, and perhaps perpetuated in his successors.
Ordination would be a later addition, election being the only original means of setting up officers.
The marks of this theory are (a) an insistence on the local autonomy of each church, (0) a desire to find democracy and collegiate government everywhere, (c) a theory of the evolution of the ministry as a result of the administrative needs of the various communities and (d) a hatred of any hierarchical character in the ministry, hierarchy being due to the work of later men like Ignatius or Cyprian.
It also revived the opinion held by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Jerome,
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
John Chrysostom, the Egyptian Church Order, the Canons of Hippolytus and others that originally presbyter and bishop were the same person.
Thus Jerome in Epist. ad Tit. I, I5-I9 says, "Idem presbyter qui episcopus et antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent communi presbyterorum .consilio gubernantur ecclesiz.''
Ambrosiaster on Eph. iv, 11-12 says, " Primi presbyteri episcopi appellabantur.""
The Canons of Hippolytus give the same ordination prayer for bishop and presbyter, and the prayer for the ordination of a presbyter in the Egyptian Church Order seems to be an addition.
All of these early scholars retain what Lightfoot rejects, an ordination, and an ordaining episcopacy which does not coincide with the college of presbyter-bishops.
Lightfoot and others saw in Acts vi, the account of the appointment of the Seven, the origin of the diaconate.
Presbyters and episcopi were officers appointed on the model of Jewish synagogues and Greek clubs.
Hatch, in his Bampton Lectures on the ministry, where he used much Jewish and Hellenistic evidence, only added to Lightfoot's theory in his contention that presbyter and episcopos were not different titles for the same officers.
He held that the Jewish and Greek origin of these two words .denoted a different sphere of activity.
Harnack was very struck with Hatch's work, and brought out a German edition with additional notes.
When the Didache first appeared he quickly produced a learned edition of it with notes in Texte und Untersuchungen, in which he expanded Hatch's theories.
Hatch had seen in the presbyters and bishops two classes of ministers.
To these origina! two Harnack added several more.
He now put forward a patriarchal organisation, dividing the community into mpeoBvrepor and vedrepou, an administrative organisation with ézicKxomo: and éidKovor, an aristocratic organisation by which ascetics and celibates were highly honoured, and a spiritual organisation by which those endowed with special spiritual gifts controlled the community.
He found evidence of all of these, except the second, in the Didache.
Episcopoi and diaconoi are found in chapter XV.
They are to be
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
appointed (yewporovijaare obv éavtois) by the community ; they are to have qualities to fit them for the control of finance and perhaps for judicial work (d¢iAapydpous, mpacis and dAnbets).
The aristocratic division is found in chapter VI, where we hear of the réAevor, who can bear the whole yoke of the Lord, and of others who do what they can.
Those with spiritual gifts, the so-called ' charismatics "
(an, artificial word), are found in chapters XI, XIII.
They are apostles, prophets and teachers.
They are, it seems, wandering missionaries, but they can settle down.
They are not to ask for money and must work for their living, but they are worthy of their food and must be kept.
Prophets, above all, must receive the first-fruits of the community.
Rules are given to distinguish the true from the false prophet, but these spiritual people are beyond the criticism of the laity.
Prophets may celebrate the service described in chapters IX and X.
At it they may edyapiorety doa BéAovow.
Finally the émioxorot Kai dudKovor dpiv Aecroupyotor tiv Aevtoupyiav THv mpodyTAyv Kai SdacKkdrwv.
Harnack considered that all of these classes except the didkovor and émioxomo: were dignitaries of the whole Church, while the bishops and deacons were officers of the local
Church.
He thus found the unifying principle which the theory of Hatch and Lightfoot lacked.
He thought he saw in the spiritual organisation, with its prophets, apostles and teachers, a threefold ministry of divine origin.
This, however, disappeared when the spiritual fervour of the early Church calmed down.
Then the local officers, the bishops and deacons, usurped the functions formerly performed by the charismatics.
This change-over is shown us in the Didache.
Presbyters and bishops were not the same people, but the bishops would most likely be chosen from among the presbyters.
The monarchical episcopate was later evolved from the collegiate administrative system, when apostles and prophets had disappeared.
Harnack's theories have not been much altered since his _ time.
The replacement of the so-called charismatic ministry ' by a local episcopal system still.forms the chief point in histories of the origin of the ministry.
Streeter may have
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
attacked Harnack's formal system and stressed much more the variety in the early Church.
He may have attributed much more significance to great characters like Ignatius or James or John of Ephesus, but Harnack's influence nevertheless remains.
Other additions may have been made.
There may -be a theory that the administrative officers of 'the early Church were one class at first, which divided up later into controlling and serving classes, émioxomo. and dudkovot.
The Didache, which demands the same qualifications for both offices, may be evidence of this.
It may be that the prophet settled in a local church became the first monarchical bishop, as for example Ignatius of Antioch, who boasted of his visions, or the seer John of Ephesus.
Sohm, in his book Das Wesen und Ursprung des Katholizmus, may hold that any organisation is a violation of the spirituality of Christianity, but once the violation has begun, he gives an ordinary account of the development of the ministry.
: :
| Since in all of this theorising the Didache has had great influence, either directly or indirectly, let us consider what the Didache really says, and also what other evidence can be found for the existence of such a state of affairs as Harnack deduces from the Didache.
(i) In Did. IV, 1 the reader is told to remember day and night him that preacheth the word of God and to honour him as the Lord, d@ev yap 7 Kupidtns
Aadretrat, exe? KUpids €orw.
This is derived with the rest of the "Two Ways" from Barn. XIX, g, 10, and ultimately from Heb. xili, 7. "Honour him as the Lord" will be an addition from the words of Christ in Matt. x, 40.
(ii) In chapter VII with regard to baptism, in chapter XIV with regard to the Sunday xAdous dprod, in chapters IX and X 1-6 with regard to the meal described there, whether it be the eucharist or the agape, there is no mention of any minister.
This is of no great importance.
An early commentator could say, as Hilary did, that at first anyone might baptise in order that the Church might grow quickly.
This was a natural deduction from the New Testament.
There, as here, no ministers are mentioned as being in charge of the celebration of the eucharist or of the administration of baptism.
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
(iii) When we come to chapter XV, 1-2, we hear of bishops and deacons.
It says, "Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, meek men, no lovers of money, truthful and approved, for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.
Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honourable men together with the prophets and teachers."
The "therefore '' probably refers to chapter XIV, where are described the Sunday eucharist and the disciplinary measures necessary to ensure that there may be no strife in the community to sully the pure sacrifice.
These officers, we see, have something to do with money matters, and are less likely to receive their due reward of honour in comparison with the more attractive prophets and teachers, though they perform the same Ae:roupyia.
The qualifications demanded in men who are to be appointed to these offices are very similar to those in the Pastoral Epistles, especially in I Tim. iii and Titus i. In the first of these cases presbyter does not occur, in the second it is evident that the presbyter and bishop are the same person.
In Timothy, too, a¢iAdpyupos and Sedoxipaopévos occur, as here.
There has been a very great deal of discussion over the word yeuporovycate.
In the time of the Constitutions of the A postles it meant "' ordain," so the compiler, when adapting the Didache here, used instead mpoyetpicacbe with the meaning
"appoint."
In the New Testament, in Acts xiv, 23, the word isused. There we read (Paul and Barnabas) yetporovijaavres Sé abrois mpeoBurépous kat' exxAnotay, mpocevédpevor were VNOTELOV, mapélevto abrods 7H Kupiw eis év memorevdkercav.
There the word probably means "appoint," as it does in II Cor.
Vill, 19, xetporovnbels ind trav éxkAnodv ovvéxSnuos Hudv, etc.
This is its meaning also in Ign., ad Phil. X, 1, ad Smyrn. XI, 2, ad Polyc. VII, 2.
In Apost. Canon.
I, in A. C. VI, 17, VII, 46, VIII, 4, 5, and Ps. Clem. ad Jac.
II, and in most later writers it means " ordain," having taken the meaning of éiBeois yeupdv in the Pastoral Epistles.
In the New Testament the Seven are ordained by the Apostles, Paul and Barnabas by the prophets and teachers
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
at Antioch, Timothy by Paul.
Timothy was told to lay hands suddenly on no one.
We are not told in Acts xiv, 23 whether Paul and Barnabas ordained the presbyters.
Similarly here, if xetporovioare means elect or appoint, we have only the popular choice mentioned, not the ordination.
This choice was stressed by the Egyptian Church Order, its necessity was urged by Cyprian, it made Augustine and Ambrose bishops against their will.
Do the Acts in xiv, 23 in the case of presbyters and the Didache in the case of bishops and deacons require no ordination?
Some hold that in Acts Paul and Barnabas chose men pointed out by God by their spiritual gifts, and so no extra endowment with the spirit in ordination was needed.
This does not seem to be the point of view of Clement in I Clem. XL-XLIV.
For him the authority of the minister depends not on his spiritual gifts, but on his due appointment by the apostles.
This must, I think, be the implication of Acts xiv, 23, where the apostles appointed, and presumably ordained, the pres_ byters.
In Did. XV, derived as it is from the Pastorals where Timothy ordains, it is peculiar that no ordination is mentioned.
It may, however, be implied as a recognised thing, and the Didache seems to be addressed not to the clergy, but to the people.
The chief difficulty of the chapter is the statement that the bishops and deacons perform the Aceiroupyia of the prophets and teachers.
(iv) In chapters X,7, XI, and XIII we hear of apostles, prophets and teachers.
The apostles of XI, 3-6 are not the Twelve.
This is no difficulty.
Tertullian called the Seventy '' apostles," to Clement of Alexandria Barnabas was always an apostle, in Romans xvi, 7 we hear of Andronicus.and Junias émionuor ev trois dmoorddos.
Paul himself claimed to be an apostle.
In I Cor. xv, 7 we hear of an appearance of the risen Christ to the Twelve, then to all the Apostles.
In II Cor. x-xiii we hear of false apostles.
If there were other apostles than the Twelve, such a claim would be possible, but not otherwise.
An apostle in the Didache is to be received as the Lord; he is to stay in any one place no more than two days at the most.
If he stays
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
longer he is a false prophet.
If he asks for money he is a false prophet, and when he leaves a house he is to take only enough food to last him till he reaches his night's lodging.
The apostle in the, Didache is indeed a lay figure.
He occurs only in these few sentences and in the title.
He is given pre-eminence above the prophet and teacher, but nothing is said about him.
He cannot settle in any place.
When we come to the prophet, the situation is very different.
The prophet is an object of very real interest to the writer of the Didache.
He may dispense with the prayers of Did. IX and X and is allowed to edyapioretv doa OAc.
To test or examine a prophet speaking in the Spirit is a sin against the Holy Ghost which, according to Matt. xii, 31, cannot be forgiven.
However, a prophet must have the behaviour of the Lord.
Not everyone who speaks in the spirit is a prophet.
If one orders a meal in the spirit, he must not eat of it.
If he does, he is a false prophet.
A prophet's teaching and his life must correspond.
In some cases a prophet is not to be followed by the people.
This is when he is zrowv eis pvoTHptov KoopiKov exKAnatas, p17) didaokwv d€ movetv.
Of this enigmatic passage there are more explanations than commentators.
We will discuss it in a note later.
The prophet may ask for money to be given to others who are in want, but not to himself.
In chapter XIII it is said that a prophet, if he is true and wants to settle among you, is worthy of his food, a quotation from Matt. x, 10 which is also quoted in I Cor. ix, 13, 14 and I Tim. v, 17, 18.
Therefore, says the Didache, you must take your first-fruits and give them to the prophets, for they are your high priests, but if there is no prophet, they must be given to the poor.
There is thus real evidence of. an interest in the prophet in the Didache.
It is at times rather incoherent—for example, a prophet must not be tested, and yet he is to be judged by his ways, he is to be followed when, he teaches, but not when he is zrodv els pvoTHhpLov KoopiKOV THS ekkAnoias.
Harnack's statement that a prophet is a wandering minister is an assumption.
Chap.
XII of the Didache, which is an insertion in, the account of
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
the prophets, déals with wandering Christians, and the apostle is a wandering missionary.
The teacher and the prophet, we are told, may settle down, so perhaps the assumption is a just one.
| With the teacher the Didache is as little concerned as _ with the apostle.
He is mentioned in XIII, 2 and XV, 1 and 2 only.
In the first case it is said:
" Likewise a true teacher is himself worthy, like the workman, of his food ''; in the second the Ae:rovpyia of prophets and teachers is mentioned; in the third prophets and teachers are said to be the honourable men within the community.
The Didache thus has a trinity of apostle, prophet and teacher.
The three classes are described, but never named together.
We hear of apostles and prophets in Did. XI, 3, of prophets and teachers in XV, 1-2.
It has been thought that these three classes were different from the bishops and deacons, in being ministers of the whole Church and endowed
_ with a special spiritual charisma, and so are called the . "charismatic ministry.''
Finding the three here, it was natural to look elsewhere to see where they occur.
In the New Testament there are two special places, I Cor. xii, 28 and Eph. iv, 11.
In the first we read:
'' God has set some 'in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues.'
In the second case it is said that "' Christ gave some to be apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints.''
In each of these cases we see a divine origin ascribed to the various classes.
In the first of these apostle, prophet and teacher are distinguished from the others by being arranged numerically,
"first, second, third,'' and by the use of personal titles and not of abstract nouns.
In the second case the order is disturbed: now evangelists and pastors come between prophets and teachers.
In only two other cases does anything like this list occur again.
In Ps. Clem. Homily XI, 35 we are told that the teaching of an apostle, a prophet or a teacher must agree with that of James.
In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter XVI, we do not get a list like this,
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
but there is a curious parallel in the description of Polycarp as an '' apostolic and prophetic teacher."'
Two of the three often occur together.
For example, in Acts xiii, I there are prophets and teachers at Antioch, in Hermas, Sim. IX, xv, 4 we hear of the forty prophets and teachers of the preaching of the Son of God and in Ps.
Clement I, de Virg. XI, 4, 10 we hear of the same two.
In I Tim. ii, 7, Paul describes himself as kfpv€ Kai amdorodos, SuSdoxados ebvav.
In Hermas, Vis. III, v, I is a list of apostles and bishops and teachers and deacons, four of the Didache's five.
In Hermas Sim.
IX, xvi, 5 the forty prophets and teachers of Sim. IX, xv, 4 have become apostles and teachers.
In Clem. Alex., Stvom. I, vii, 6, 103, apostles and teachers are mentioned together.
These are the only cases in which all three of the Didache's three classes are mentioned together, and in not many other cases do any two often occur together.
Outside the New Testament, we see, the three occur together only once, in Ps. Clement.
It is in Acts xiii, 11 that prophets and teachers are said to be Aevtoupyoéyres at Antioch.
"' Apostles and prophets " is a phrase found twice in the New Testament in Luke xi, 49 and Rev. xviii, 20.
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of apostles, prophets and teachers.
Apostles, of course, are mentioned often with honour in the New Testament by Paul and the Apocalypse.
We find them oftenin Hermas.
They appoint their successors in Clement of Rome.
There is no need to question the existence of apostles, but they seem to have disappeared early, and the Didache is very little interested in them.
Wandering evangelists, the nearest equivalent of apostles, seem, according to Eusebius, to have disappeared with Panteznus, and he was a survival of an older order.
Teachers are found in Acts, in Paul and in Hermas.
Polycarp was a " teacher," so was Origen, over whose ordination at Cesarea there was such discussion.
In the Passio Perpetue Aspasius was a " presbyter doctor," like the " teaching presbyters '' of I Tim. v, 17, who deserve a double reward.
1 Philastrius, Her. 49, says of the Montanists, "et separant se a catholica ecclesia propter illos suos pseudoprophetas et falsos doctores."'
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
Harnack saw in the "lector" of the Church Orders the charismatic teacher of the Didache, whose position above or below the deacon and subdeacon varies in the Orders.
It is highest in the Apostolic Church Order.
The prophet, of course, was an object of great honour to Paul in I Corinthians, and_to the Church in the Apocalypse and in the persons of Agabus and the four daughters of Philip the Deacon.
Hermas was a prophet, and we find prophets sitting on a bench like a regularly constituted order in Hermas, Vis. III, 1, 8, 9.
In the Apostolic Church Order one of three presbyteresses has to wait for visions.
Ignatius was proud of his position as a prophet.
Polycarp was a prophetic teacher.
John who wore the zéradov and wrote the Apocalypse was a prophet (Eus., H.E. V, 24).
Celsus, we know, met prophets in Palestine, but Origen knew of none then alive.
Irenzus (Her. II, 32, 4) said, od« éorw dpiOpov eimetv TOV xaptopdtwyv dv Kara mavTos Tob Kdéopov 7 exkAnata wapa Peob AaBotoa .
. emiredct, pnré eLarratdoa, pyre eEapyupilopevn.
Justin (Dial. 88) says, Kat map' ypiv gorw iSetv Kat Onretas Kai dpoevas amo Tob Ilvevpatos Tod Aeod yapiopara €yovras.
The anonymous writer in Eus., H.£. V, 17, 4 says, Seiv yap elvar ro mpodytixoy xdpiopa. ev mdon TH exKAnota peéxpe THS TeXelas mapovatas 6 amoatodos agéwot.
Prophets existed as late as the time of the '"' Testamentum Domini."
False prophets are mentioned in the New Testament, in Hermas, in Justin, Dial. 82, Tertullian, de Prescr. IV, and Athanas. in Matt. VII, 15.
Melito, we are told in Eus., H.E. IV, 26, 2, wrote books Iepi modireias Kat mpodnrar, in which we may imagine rules were given for distinguishing
| between true and false prophets.
All of these references give us evidence for the existence in the Church of apostles, of prophetic gifts and of teachers, but they do not give us any evidence of the existence of a threefold charismatic ministry, wandering and preaching, settling down and well paid like that which Harnack and others find in the Didache.
Harnack may be right in seeing in the lector and the exorcist of the Church Orders and in those with gifts of healing '" charismatics " absorbed into the ministry after the local officers had
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
usurped the place of apostle, prophet and teacher.
The high place of the teacher in the catechetical school at Alexandria may be a reminiscence of the charismatic order of teachers.
It may be possible to see in Hermas the great influence of the prophets overshadowing the settled ministry of bishops and deacons.
Streeter sees in Ignatius and John of Ephesus prophets who by their outstanding ability and influence have won for themselves the position of monarchical bishops.
Ignatius saw that unity under one leader had been the salvation of the Church of Antioch, and, being himself a neurotic visionary, he shows in his letters a monomania for episcopacy, which he tries to persuade other churches to accept in place of other systems.
The chief fault, however, in all of these theories is that the critics start with an assumption that the early Church cannot have been in any respect the same in A.D. 100 as it was in A.D. 250.
The greater number of such critics have built up upon the Didache alone their imposing edifice of a history of the ministry.
The only foundation they have for their formal system of a charismatic ministry is the Didache and chance references in other writings.
Even for Canon Streeter's theory of a great variety of charismatic, presbyterian and episcopalian ministries the keystone of the system is the Didache.
Except for the Didache, there is no reference in any Catholic writing to prophets as high priests and as well-paid officers.
Only Paul joins together prophet, apostle and teacher, and only then as three classes of Christians who have a duty to perform to the Church for which they are fitted by a gift from God, but who have not a position in the Church which entitles them to the material support of the Church.
Modern criticism has shown us how fluid and varied 'was early Christianity; its character, its writings, its doctrines, perhaps its organisation varied from place to place according to the genius of its followers.
We do not go as far as Sohm, with his antithesis of spirit and law, but we may well refuse the rigid classification of spiritual gifts into the classes of the charismatic ministry which Harnack and his followers would like to base upon the Didache.
What, then, is the reason for
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
_ the Didache's peculiar position in this matter, in its three- ' fold series of paid apostles, prophets and teachers?
Before _ we deal with that, we will just examine the question of the ' Didache's twofold ministry of bishops and deacons.
It has been said that the New Testament, Hermas, I Clement and the Didache are the only evidence we have
' for the existence of a twofold ministry of presbyter-bishops / and deacons.
Attempts have been made to show that the ' early history of the Church of Alexandria shows us a similar state of affairs in the persistence of collegiate government for many years there in Alexandria after it had disappeared elsewhere.
It is said that at one time the college of pres- - byters chose a bishop from among themselves and ordained
'him.
The whole history of the Alexandrine Church is, ' however, so wrapped in obscurity that nothing can be deduced from it with regard to the history of the ministry.
' Ignatius, too, though so enthusiastic an advocate of monepiscopacy, is said to have recognised the government of 'the Roman Church by a college of presbyters.
We have | put aside for ever the legend of the gathering of the Apostles at Jerusalem to set up the various patriarchates, metropolitan bishoprics and bishoprics, ordaining officers for each area, and, as a result, there comes the problem of the origin
' of that episcopacy which was for many centuries the universal method of ecclesiastical government, and which was found in all Christendom, with the possible exception of _ Alexandria, at the latest by A.D. 150, when Hegesippus could make his lists of bishops of the various sees.
Light- ' foot and the historians of his time saw in evolution the clue to this puzzle; the struggles within a college of pres_byters would demand the emergence of a dictator, a bishop.
' Streeter would see the solution in the personality of great men like Ignatius or John of Ephesus, who would by their
| very personality gain control of a Church.
Neither of these two solutions gives any conclusive reason for the universal emergence of one form of Church Order within a very short
. period.
What real evidence is there for a collegiate form of ' government?
There are those early commentators men- '
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
tioned above who saw the identity of bishop and presbyter in the New Testament writings, from whom came the resulting theory in the Roman Catholic Church to-day that the three Holy Orders are priest, deacon and subdeacon.
This was primarily due to the struggle in the time of Jerome in which the deacons tried to gain power greater than that of the priests.
Before the parochial system arose the priests were in a very peculiar position.
In the New Testament we hear of presbyter-bishops at Ephesus in Acts xx, 17 and |
28, of presbyters set up by Paul and Barnabas in the Churches of the first missionary journey (Acts xiv, 23), of | the Seven at Jerusalem (Acts vi) always later called | "deacons," of presbyters and apostles and of presbyters at Jerusalem (Acts xi, 30, xv, 6, etc.).
To Philippi Paul writes to the bishops and deacons.
In the Pastorals we hear of presbyter-bishops and deacons.
The problem in the New Testament is, however, complicated by the existence of Paul and other Apostles, of John the Elder, who writes his letters to the Elect Lady and to Gaius, of Timothy and Titus.
Timothy and Titus are told to ordain, Paul set up presbyters, the Apostles ordained the Seven, John speaks like one who rules.
When we come to Clement and Hermas we find the same thing.
Thereis in J Clement considerable evidence of collegiate government at Rome and Corinth.
There is no mention of a single bishop at either place, and the strife at Corinth over the elders, which was the occasion of the letter, would have been almost impossible in a Church ruled by a single bishop.
We must, however, remember the passage in I Clement XL—XLIV, with its reference to the Apostles setting up officers and arranging for the continuance of the system they had started.
This honour ascribed to the Apostles is a difficulty in any theory of a presbyterian ministry at Rome and Corinth, and so is the} position of Clement himself.
In Hermas he seems to have had a very special position, for one copy of the Shepherd is to be given to him for communication to other churches.
The universal ascription of J Clement to him shows that he must have held some position of special authority.
Similarly in Hermas there is a great deal of evidence for a pres- | >
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
| byterian system at Rome and for a charismatic ministry struggling with the presbyters and deacons, but we must remember that Clement was in some special position when the first part of the book was written and that the Muratorian Canon tells us that Pius was bishop at Rome when the book was finally completed.
It is not likely that a Roman document like the Muratorianum would err over so recent a period as the episcopacy of Pius.
Thus, whatever the explanation of the transition from the ministry of the time of the Apostles to the episcopal system, it does not seem that outside the Didache there is any evidence for a movement which included the disappearance of a universal threefold charismatic ministry and the emergence from a local twofold ministry of the fully-fledged threefold episcopal system.
The Didache could be a document showing the transition just taking place, the sole survivor of the literature of this transitional period.
This may be so, but such an assumption demands the wrenching from its true meaning of the evidence of other documents we now possess.
If the Didache does not come from some church outside what we know of the Catholic Church, then it does not fit into the pattern of early Christianity presented to us by other documents of fairly well-known authorship and origin.
Moreover, we have seen that the date of origin demanded for the Didache by the relationship between the Didache and Hermas, Barnabas and the Didascalia is comparatively late in the second century.
If that be true, it is unlikely that a primitive state of affairs would last to such a period in any part of the Church.
Commuinications then were very good.
Hegesippus travelled all over the Christian world, the Christians of Gaul write to Rome.
Rome wrote to Corinth, Dionysius of Corinth to many churches, Clement of Alexandria travelled to South
Italy, Marcion came from Pontus to Rome, Justin and Tatian had visited Rome.
At that time we know of the state of the greater part of the Church from well-authenticated sources.
Synods, we learn from Tertullian, were held in Greece and could order special days of fasting.
They were held in Asia to discuss the problem of Montanism.
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
, /| | | In these circumstances it is difficult to see where, in Catholic } circles, such a system as the Didache describes could be in | existence, especially as the wandering ministry demands a fairly widespread area in which to operate.
We are told that the Didache may be using an old document here | describing more primitive conditions.
It might be possible | for that to be the case with regard to the prayers of Did. IX _ and X, but not with regard to the ministry.
It is not likely | that the Didache was giving just a historical picture:
There was some idea of history at this time but it was usually history with a purpose.
Prof. Burkitt thought that it was at this time that there arose an interest in antiquities.
He pointed to the reference to James's chair in Eus.,
H.E. VII, 19, 32, 30.
Julius Africanus and Hegesippus were writing or had written their histories, but they were little more than chronological tables.
Tertullian could see some difference between the Church of the time of the Apostles and that of his own time, for he said that the words used in baptism were a little more than the Apostles actually ordered.
This period was the period when the Canon was first emerging, the time when Ammonius and Tatian would need to make their harmonies, when
Irenzeus stressed the fourfold character of the Gospels.
It was also the time when the various Leucian Acts, the Apocryphal Acts of the various apostles, were written.
There was, it seems, an interest in history, but it was always an interest with a practical end.
The Scriptures were used for the practical purpose of building up the Church and strengthening existing doctrines and customs.
The apocryphal acts were used to teach gnostic or ascetic doctrines and practices.
It would be curious, then, to find in the Didache the only unpractical historical document of no practical interest for contemporary readers except to give a useless historical reconstruction.
The Didache must therefore have a reason for its existence and there must be some reason for the peculiarities of its ministry.
We must first see what these are.
They are:
(i) a threefold paid ministry of apostle, prophet and teacher, of which the second only is an object of any interest to the writer
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
(the prophets can settle in the community ; they can dispense with the prayers of Did. [IX and X and ecdyaporety doa Oédovow ; they receive the first-fruits of the community) ;
(ii) a twofold ministry of bishops and deacons, of whose ordination we are not informed, and who in some way are substitutes for the prophets and teachers.
It is no use finding explanations of these peculiarities in the ministries of the Eustathians, Paulicians, Waldensians or Irvingites.
The date of the Didache makes this impossible, and the Didache is certainly no forgery of any date, whether medieval or modern.
There is too much real evidence for its existence as a real document of the early
Church.
Now, two people who put the Didache at an early date connect it indirectly with Montanism.
One of these two is Rendel Harris, who says, '"' And in fact the New Testament, read in the light of the Teaching says this very thing: it comes down to meet Montanism by showing the sense that is to be attached to the primitive apostolate and prophetic order.''
Leaving aside the phrase '' Read in the light of the Teaching,'' which raises the Didache to a position of unnecessary importance, we see that Rendel Harris considers that the Didache, in its charismatic ministry,
- points out the features of New Testament Christianity which Montanism successfully revived.
Knox, in the passage quoted above, from his St. Paul and the Church of Jerusalem, says that Montanism must have followed fairly closely the fashion of the Apostolic period and that the Teaching gives
"a surprisingly probable account'' of the primitive nonPauline communities.
In these opinions there is one assumption, that Montanism represents an anachronistic survival, or an antiquarian revival of primitive Christianity.
This the Montanists did not themselves believe, and Labriolle, the historian of Montanism, rejected this point of view.
The early Church of the New Testament period seems never to have considered prophets, apostles and teachers to be a fixed ministry to be paid by the community.
Paul may quote the saying that a "' labourer is worthy of his hire'' in connection with the apostle or teacher, but never with the prophet.
Mon-
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
tanists claimed that Montanism was an extension of, not a revival of, the New Testament Church.
It has been thought that the Didache is unfavourable to Montanism because it gives rules for discerning between good and bad prophets, and because it orders bishops and deacons to be set up.
It is therefore said that this anti-Montanist document shows how Montanism was an exaggerated form of ordinary Christianity which at some time had these prophets who were not to be questioned by the people.
There are two mistakes here.
The Montanist prophets seem sometimes to have been limited to three, to Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla.
Maximilla prophesied that after her there would be no further prophet, a statement which is ridiculed in Eusebius and Epiphanius.
At first the movement seems to have been limited in its prophets to these three, and only later to have become the enthusiastic revivalist sect we imagine it to be.
Tertullian does admit other prophets.
He accepts the visions of Perpetua and Saturus, of the sister who saw a disembodied soul and announced its material character.
We are told of Theodotus in Eus.,H.E. V, xvi, 14, who seems to have been one of the Montanist prophets, and died when he fell after trying to fly in the air.
The belief that Montanus received the fullness of the Paraclete must have been a bar to the acceptance of too many prophets.
There is a tombstone, the inscription of which is quoted in Labriolle, La Crise Montaniste, which has the Trinity '' Father, Son and Montanus."'
If, then, the number of prophets were limited, there would be no reason why the Montanists should not require rules for distinguishing between good and bad prophets, especially when we see how the sect quickly broke up into Tascodragites and Quintillianists and so on.
We only know the Catholic writers who classed all prophets remotely connected with Montanism as "false prophets.''
We do not know the interior divisions of the movement, though Tertullian does speak in his adv. Marcionem of false prophets.
The second mistake is to say that the Montanists suspended the historical threefold ministry and replaced it by the ministry of prophets.
Later the law books of the
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
fourth, fifth and sixth centuries tell us of Montanist bishops, priests and deacons.
Lietzmann in his history of the Early Church, vol. II, page 200, says, '' Es ist also nicht richtig, wenn mann den Montanismus wesentlich als eine Reaction der urchristliche Geistestrager gegen das sich entfallende
Amt wertet : er hat die Gemeindeleitung durch die bekannten "Wahlamten' der Episcopen, Presbyter und Diakonen mitgemacht oder gedenfalls spater angenommen, ohne darin einen Abfall von seinen Grundsatzen zu sehen.''
Lietzmann is right. In none of the early evidence concerning Montanism do we find any reference to peculiarities in connection with the ministry except the payment of those who proclaim the Gospel.
In the Passio Perpetua, for example, which, if not originally Montanist, is accepted by Tertullian as such, we read in chapter III of Tertius and Pomponius,
"benedicti diaconi.'"'
In chapter XIII we read, "Et exivimus et vidimus ante fores Optatum episcopum ad dexteram et Aspasium presbyterum doctorem ad sinistram."'
These two are addressed in these words, '"' Non tu es papa noster et tu presbyter.'
In the same chapter we read, " Dixerunt illis angeli:
'Sinite illos refrigerent; et si quas habetis inter vos dissensiones dimittite vobis invicem,' et conturbaverunt eos.
Et dixerunt Optato:
'Corrige plebem tuam, quia sic ad te conveniunt quasi de circo redeuntes et de factionibus certantes,'''
Tertullian in his de Pudicitia attacks the ' Pontifex maximus'' for his edictum, '"'Ego et meechie et fornicationis delicta penitentia functis dimitto.''
He refuses permission to the bishops to pardon grave offences, but he says in the same treatise, chapter XVII, "' Quod si clementiam Dei ignorantibus adhuc et infidelibus competit, utique et peenitentia ad se clementiam invitat, salva illa penitentiz specie post fidem que aut levioribus delictis veniam ab episcopo consequi poterit aut majoribus et irremissibilibus a Deo solo."'
As Labriolle says, Tertullian after he became Montanist still retained his faith in the bishops as the legitimate rulers of the Church and as '' agents exécutifs des officia discipline."'
Ambrosiaster, Comm. in Ep. I, ad Tim. III, says that "' Cataphryge erroris occasionem captantes propter quod post
164.9
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
diaconos mulieres alloquitur (1.e. Paul) etiam ipsas diaconas ordinari debere vana presumptione defendunt.''
Similarly Epiphanius, Panarion, XLIX, says of the Quintillianists, €miokomot te Tap avtois yuvaikes Kal mpeoBTepot yuvaiKes
Kat Ta GAAa.
The Codex Theodosianus XVI, v. 34, speaks of '""Eunomiane superstitionis Clerici seu Montaniste.''
The Codex Justianus I, v. 20, refers to rév Kadovpéevwv adrav TATpLapYwV Kal KoWWaV 7 emiaKdTTwY 7) TpeaBuTepwr 7) SiaKovey
} dAAwv KAnpikav. Jerome, in his Epist. 41, says, '' Apud nos apostolorum locum episcopi tenent; apud eos episcopus tertius est.
Habent enim primos de Pepusa Phrygiz patriarchas, secundos quos appellant cenonos, atque ita in tertium, id est peene ultimum, gradum episcopi devolvuntur."'
In Augustine we hear of Tertullianist presbyters.
Thus in Montanism we find the usual ministry of the Church, at first perhaps in the background, and finally combined with special officers called patriarchs and "' cenones."'
It is probable that when Montanism first arose there were only the three chief orders in the Catholic Church with no patriarchs and metropolitans.
These arose later, and the Montanists imitated them with their patriarchs at Pepusa and their "cenones."'
It cannot be that at first the Montanists rejected the episcopal system.
Tertullian did not, nor did the martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas and their friends.
It would not be likely that a schismatic body would welcome back into its midst things which it had rejected when it first broke with the main body of the Church.
Moreover, no one till the time of Ambrosiaster and Epiphanius attacks the Montanists for any peculiarity in their ministry, and then only for their admission of women to Holy Orders and for their two peculiar higher ranks.
Had there been any peculiarity before it would have been seized upon, for those who attacked Montanism found only too few points which they could reasonably brand as errors in the doctrines of the sect:
Thus it is no argument against the Didache's connection with Montanism that it gives rules to distinguish good from bad prophets nor that it has a ministry of bishops and deacons.
Montanism alone honoured a prophet and paid
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
him as well as does the Didache and could be said to have a ministry of prophets.
It becomes necessary, however, to explain (a) why the Didache has apostles and teachers as well as prophets, and (b) why it has no presbyters.
It is simpler to deal with the second of these questions first.
(0) Though the Didache is a Montanist document, it deals with the Church Order in an archaistic way.
It professes to be the Apostles' version of our Lord's teaching to the Gentiles, and in order to give some appearance of truth to the title the writer, as we have seen, compiles the Didache from various apostolic sources.
Chief among these is the New Testament.
There, as we saw above, only the Pastorals give us any hint of what sort of man is required for a bishop or deacon.
In the Didache they are to be zpaeis, adidapytpous, adyOeis and Sedoxusacuévovs and déiovs rob xupiov.
InI Tim. III, the bishop must be adiAdpyupos, as the deacon must be od« aicypoxepdyjs. The bishop must be émueuxijs, apaxyos and pt) wAnKrys, which resembles the zpacis of the Didache.
The officers of the Didache must be SeSoxinacpeévor, the deacons Timothy has to Soxipaler. ddAnfets and aétous Tob Kupiod is a good summary of the other qualifications demanded by the Pastoral Epistles.
The reference to the ~ ministry of prophets and teachers is certainly derived from Acts xiii, where prophets and teachers were Ae:toupyodvtes at Antioch, and in I Tim. iii we are told that the bishop must be éidaxrixds.
That the bishops and deacons must not be despised may be a way of expressing what is said in Hebrews xiii, 7, '' Remember your leaders who spake unto you the word of God,"' and I Thess. v, 12, epwrdpev dé buds eldévat Tods KoTL@VTas ev Duiv Kal mpotoTapevous tudv ev Kupiw
Kal vovbetobvras byds, Kal Hyeta0ar adrovs brepeKrepioaod ev ayarn Sua To épyov adtdv.
The retiunuéevor of the Didache may be derived from these passages and be like the 7yovpevoe of Hebrews.
This command, too, would be only natural when addressed to Montanists, who honoured prophets so highly and attacked Catholic bishops so vigorously for their refusal to accept the '' New Prophecy."
The Didache uses the New Testament in order to frame its regulations concerning the ministry, and we find in the
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
New Testament two classes, presbyter-bishops and deacons.
The chief source of the Didache is I Tim. iii, in which presbyters are not mentioned, and so we find merely bishops and deacons in Did. XV.
This does not mean that the Didache knows only a presbyterian form of Church government, for it is supposed to be the words of the Apostles and in I Clem. XL-XLIX the Apostles seem to have been considered bishops.
Tertullian considers the bishops as the successors of the Apostles, and so does Ireneus.
Hippolytus's Church Order, according to the Verona Fragments in the prayer for the ordination of a bishop, expresses the same opinion.
The Didache, then, for all its seeming primitive presbyterianism, may well be an archaising method of describing the threefold ministry of Montanist times, if the writer is in any way trying to carry out what the title of the work professes to be—namely, the Apostles' teaching for the Gentiles.
(a) The same explanation may solve the problem of the occurrence in chapters X, 7, XI and XIII of the Didache of apostles and teachers alongside the Montanist prophets.
We have seen that apostles, prophets and teachers occur in I Cor. xii, 28, that apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers occur in Eph. iv, 11.
Prophets and teachers occur in Acts xiii ministering at Antioch, apostles and prophets will be sent by Wisdom we are told in Luke xi, 49, they are the foundations of the Church we are told in Eph. ii, 20, to them is revealed the mystery of Christ we are told in Eph. ili, 5, they are mentioned in Rev. xviii, 20.
If, then, the writer of the Didache saw these three together in the New Testament, if he honoured the prophet very highly and knew of honour due to apostles and teachers, would he not add regulations concerning apostles and teachers, even though in a very cursory manner, when dealing with his main theme, with prophets, in order to conform to the New Testament ?
This is what we find in these chapters in the Didache.
All the material, almost without exception, is derived from the New Testament.
Thus the permission in Did. X, 7 for the prophets to give thanks as much as they will is probably derived from I Cor. xiv, 16, where we hear of oe
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
blessing (edAoyetv) in the spirit.
Montanist prophets were freed from most regulations.
I Cor. xiv allows them to "bless," so here they may edyapioretv as much as they will.
As we have seen elsewhere the Didache likes to change the words of the source it uses, so it employs not eddoyeiv, but edyapioreiy here.
When we come to Did. XI, 1 and 2, the probable source is the Johannine literature, especially II Johng, 10.
«aradtoat is probably used consciously as a contrast to the Pauline word oixodopeiv, the two words occurring together in Gal. uu, 18.
The command to "receive him as the Lord"' is probably derived from II John 10; '" Do not receive him into your house," from John xiii, 20, '' Whosoever receives the man I send receives me," _and from Matt. x, 40, '' He that receives you receives me.' ag = The doypa TOU evayyeAtou of Did. XI, 3 is probably the speech of our Lord in sending out the Twelve and the Seventy in Matt. x, Luke ix and x, combined with other
New Testament material.
Thus the saying that an apostle is to be received as the Lord is from Matt. x, 4o.
The command that he should not stay in one place more than a day or two contradicts the Pauline practice, but it may be derived from the Matthean order that an apostle must stay in one house till he leaves the town, and that would only be for a short time, as the End was so close.
According to Matthew the Twelve were to have no money or property, for they are " like a labourer, worthy of their food'' (Matt. x,
10), and according to Luke the Seventy are to have no money, but to eat what is set before them in the house where they lodge (Luke x, 8).
So here the apostle is not to ask for money, but to receive food only.
An apostle who breaks these regulations is not a false apostle, but a false prophet. evdardarodos occurs in the New Testament only in II Cor. xi, 13, while pevdorpodrrys occurs often.
The apostle of the Didache, for all his eminence, is a very unreal figure.
We are told nothing about him, nor are we about the teacher, except that he is worthy of his food, is one of the reryuqpevor of the community and performs a Aevroupyia.
This last is, of course, derived from Acts xiii, I
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
and from the Aevrovpyia of prophets and teachers there mentioned.
We have mentioned the teaching presbyter of I Timothy who deserves a double reward, and in the same book it is said that those who are employed in spreading the Gospel should live by the Gospel.
These passages, combined with the universal honour paid to teachers, may be the source of the regulations here.
The descriptions of apostles and teachers in the Didache are very vague.
They are derived from the New Testament, which itself is vague, and they deal with figures of -whom there are none contemporary with the writer.
When we come to the prophet it is different.
The regulations are derived from the New Testament and are often contradictory, but they deal with someone in whom the writer is vitally interested, as if prophets were a contemporary problem.
It is very easy to see the sources of these chapters.
Did. XI, 7 contradicts I Cor. xiv, 29, I John iv, 1 and I Thess. v, 21.
In the first of these Paul tells the Corinthians to let two or three prophets speak and the rest to test them
(dvaxpwvérwoav) ; in the second John says, " Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, if they are of God"; in the third Paul says, "Quench not the spirit, despise not prophesyings, but test all.'
The Didache may, in the interests of Montanism, intend to contradict these passages.
It may support itself by saying that of dAXor of I Cor. xiv, 29 means " the rest of the prophets,'' who may test, and not the laity.
Moreover, the early chapters of I Corinthians _say that the things of the spirit are beyond comprehension
(I Cor. ii, 6-16).
I Thess. v, 20 says, "' Quench not the Holy Spirit, despise not prophesyings,'' and this may be used to support the Didache's contention that prophets are not to be tried (zewpdéfew) or tested (Staxpivew).
The second half of this section—that to test the prophets is to sin against the Holy Spirit and this cannot be forgiven— is derived from Matt. xii, 31.
Only here is this difficult saying of Christ used in this sense, though Epiphanius uses it concerning the Alogoi, who, from fear of accepting false prophets, accepted none, and so rejected the Johannine writings with their promise of the Paraclete.
Did. XI, 8
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
contradicts the previous section, in that we are told that not all who speak in spirit are prophets, unless they have the behaviour of the Lord.
By their ways the true and the false prophets are distinguished.
This is derived probably from Matt. xii, 33 and Matt. vii, 16, in both of which cases there are references to the spirit or to prophets.
A somewhat similar distinction is made in I John iv, 1-6.
Apollonius in Eus., H.E. V, xviii, 8 refers to Matt. xii, 33 and Matt. vii, 16 in connection with the false prophets of Montanism.
Did. XI, 9 is not so clear in meaning.
It reads, '' And no prophet who orders a meal in spirit shall eat of it: otherwise he is a false prophet.''
The Greek of the first half is, kat ms apodyrns dpilwy tpamelav ev mvevpat. od dayetar an' adris.
In the MS. we have 6 pilwyv.
Gordon conjectured 6 pefwv, a Homeric word for sacrifice, which is not very likely to be the true reading.
The Coptic reads, '' Who putteth a table down," the Ethiopic, '"" Who orders a table,'' so that dpi{wv is probably the true reading.
The derivation of this is very likely II Pet. 11, 13 or Jude 12, with the references to those " revelling in their love-feasts, while they feast with you "' and to those " who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feast with you."
These are false teachers and prophets. ctpdzefav is put here in 'the place of dydan, for we have the rpdmeCar of the meals for widows in Acts vi, 2 and the tpdzeCa of the Lord and of devils in I Cor. x, 21.
The writer of the Didache likes to replace words in his quotations with words from other parts of the New Testament.
Did. XI, 10 is very like section 8, and it is derived from Matt. v, 19 and Matt. xxiii, 13.
In the first of these, as here, there is a reference to teaching.
There is on page 173 a special note on Did. XI, 11, and it will be sufficient here to refer to the pvarjpuov péya of Eph. v, 32.
Did. XI, 12 forbids a prophet to ask for money.
In Eus., H.E. V, xviii, 4, it is said, "' Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet from receiving gifts and money," and K. Lake says this is a reference to the Didache.
This is not likely, for it is more likely that Apollonius, when attacking Montanism, as quoted by Eusebius, and the Didache refer to the same parts of the New Testament.
170°
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
The covetousness of the false teachers of II Peter and Jude, the ravenous nature of the false prophets of Matt. vii, 15, | the covetousness of the false teachers of the Pastorals— all these things give the writer of the Didache a reason for forbidding prophets to ask for money.
Chapter XII of the Didache deals with travelling Christians | and is an insertion in the account of the ministry.
Its con- | tacts with the New Testament have been dealt with elsewhere.
Chapter XIII, except for one section, deals with the payment of prophets.1.
They are to be given the first-fruits — of the community.
The one section is the second which says, '' Likewise a true teacher is himself worthy, like the workman, of his food."
This is derived probably from Matt. x, 10 and I Tim. 17, 18.
In the former the worker, the apostle, is worthy of his food, in the second the teaching presbyter deserves a double reward.
The permission accorded to a prophet or a teacher to settle down in a community and be supported by the Church is derived probably from Acts xili, I and 2, with its reference to prophets and teachers at Antioch, and from I Cor. ix, 14, "' So the Lord appointed that those who proclaim the Gospel should live from the Gospel.''
Paul claimed the right for himself and other apostles to be supported by the contributions of the faithful, but in II Thess. i1i he commands that all Christians must be workers, not beggars.
Did. XIII, 3-7 arranges for the payment of prophets by the contributions of first-fruits, and if there is no prophet, for the gift of the first-fruits to the poor.
The chapter contains two difficulties, (a) the statement that the prophets are your high-priests dpyvepets, and (b) the command that the first-fruits of money and clothes must be taken as seems best to you, and given according to the commandment.
With regard to the first of these difficulties, there seems to be no parallel, unless A.C. II, 25 supplies one.
There it is said that the bishops, the Christian high-priests, are prophets and mediators to the people.
A source of the statement in the Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions may be found in 1 We may note that the translator of the Georgian replaces prophets by " theologi.'""
He knows of no well-paid prophets.
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
Exod. vii, I where Aaron, the great high-priest, is to be the prophet, or mouthpiece, of Moses.
A. Robinson in J.TH.S., Vol. XXXV, finds the source of the statement in John xi, 51, where it is said that Caiaphas prophesied
' being highpriest that year.'"'
He thinks that Caiaphas's prophecy is employed in Did. IX, 4.
This is possible, though not very probable. Acts xiii, where we hear of prophets Aevroupyoivres, and I Cor. xiv, 16, where we hear of a evAoyia in the spirit, may be the source, especially when the eucharist has been called a sacrifice through the words of Mal. i, 11, 14 being applied to it.
All of these things may have contributed to persuade the Montanist author of the Didache to call the prophets 1 he honours so much " your high-priest.'"'
Then he would follow Paul's words in I Cor. ix, 13, 14, that those who serve the altar share with the altar and that the Lord ordained that those who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel.
Thus it would be natural to apply tothe prophets the Old Testament rules concerning first-fruits and Paul's reference to the Lord who é:éra&e would be the reason for the use of the word évroAy.
This is all that the Didache has concerning the ministry.
It can be seen that the greater part of the wording and of the various regulations are derived from the New Testament, but that the things described are not the things of the New
Testament.
There are only presbyter-bishops and deacons because the New Testament has only these, but the Apostles, whose teaching the Didache is, can be considered the real bishops.
The literary date of the Didache is against any chance of a twofold ministry existing at the time it was written.
Similarly apostles, prophets and teachers are described because Paul talks of all these, but only the prophet is a living person here, the others have only been added to conform to the New Testament.
Though New Testament descriptions, words and phrases are used, the paid prophet receiving the first-fruits as his due and not as 1 We are told that the Eustathians paid their first-fruits to ascetics.
They were a conservative and retrogressive sect.
This is said to be a practice parallel to the practice of the Didache, but the ascetics do not receive the first-fruits as their salary to which they have a right as do the prophets of the Didache.
M :
X72 +:
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
alms is not a New Testament person.
The prophet paid : and beyond criticism is a Montanist, and not a primitive figure.
Apollonius in Eus., H.E. V, xviii, referred to by Jerome, de Vir. III, XL, attacks the Montanists who provided salaries for those who preach the doctrine of Mon-_ tanus, whose prophetesses received gold and silver and | expensive clothes, whose prophets have taken gifts.
Montanist prophets were well paid and highly honoured.
They and the bishops and deacons could be said to do the same | work, especially with regard to pardoning.
Apollonius asks, "' Does the prophet absolve the martyr of robbery? "
Tertullian apparently allows the Bishops in de Pud. XVIII, 17 to pardon small faults, but elsewhere reserves the right of pardoning to those who have received the Paraclete.
There would be in Montanism, too, a tendency to underesteem the local authorities, the bishops and deacons.
Perpetua, Felicitas and their companions did not, but others would when they compared the humdrum bishops with the marvellous prophets.
In the Didache there is nothing that is contrary to Montanism, for they would have rules to distinguish true from false prophets, they had an ordinary ministry of bishop, priest and deacon, and paid their prophets, who, if true, were beyond criticism.
The Montanists, as Labriolle says quoting the Kypuyya Tezpod, claimed that odSev drep ypadhs
Aéyowev.
The writer therefore described and supported the ministerial chapters of the Didache with New Testament quotations, and this is what causes the confusion of these chapters.
The New Testament is full of chance references | to various ministers and classes which the Didache brings together and applies to something different from what the New Testament knew.
Rendel Harris is absolutely wrong | when he says that the New Testament should be read in the light of the Didache, for then it comes down to meet
Montanism by showing what sense is to be attached to the primitive apostolic and prophetic order.
The Didache is | Montanism dressed up in an ill-fitting New Testament garb.
It is New Testament material not clarified, but twisted and perverted to suit Montanism, to whose prophetic order have
| |
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
been added teachers, for teachers are universally honoured, and especially in the New Testament, and apostles, for there were apostles in the New Testament, and they are those whose teaching the Didache claims to be.
ADDITIONAL NOTE
Didache XI, 11. nas de mpogyrns Sedoxipacpevos, dAnOwos, ToLdv els pvaTpuov KOOpWUKOV EKKANOlas, 7) SLddoKWY S€ ToLEiV, daa adTos Troet, ov
Kpiljnoerat ef budv: peta Dod yap exer THY Kplow. waadTws yap eToinoay Kal ot apyator mpodyrar.
VERSIONS.
Ethiopic:
. who acts in the assembly of men and acts unlawfully shall not be judged by you, for his judgment is from God; because thus did the ancient prophets.
Georgian: adds "' of Christ' after éxxAyotas, and " then"'
before od KpiOyjoerat.
Coptic, according to Homer:
Every prophet true they having proved these which he teacheth and as he doeth mystery of a tradition according to good order in the Church they are not giving judgment against him among you: but his judgment is being with God: thus also they
'were doing, the prophets of the times.
According to Schmidt, Z.N.2.W., 1925, p. 99, '?Der lehrt und bezeugt eine weltliche (koopixds) Uberlieferung in der Kirche."
The Greek text is therefore almost certainly correct.
No emendations are likely to be correct.
The Ethiopic merely paraphrases the Greek to escape any difficulties.
The Georgian literally translates the Greek.
The Coptic is more likely to read as Schmidt translates it, not as Horner does.
Horner seems to suppose that the Coptic reads xdopuov for koopixdv.
We may note that the Coptic and the Ethiopic omit the clause pr didoKcwy dé moveiv doa adros
FTOLEL.
This seems to be one of the places where the writer writes something for himself, and does not take it from his source.
In all cases of this there is difficulty.
Compare, for example, 'and you will have no enemy "' in Did. I, 3, odd€ yap dvvacat in Did. I, 4, d0ev yap 7 Kupidtyns Aadetrat, exet KUpids eoTW in Did. IV, 1.
There are numerous explanations of these
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
passages, and there are even more of Did. XI, 11.
A few are set out here :— In the Oxford Herald: a sacrament for use in this life.
Rieks : for a worldly secret (in connection with celibacy).
Volkmar: in Bezug auf die Ehefrau als das Abbild der mit der himmlischen Herrn vereinten Kirche.
Hilgenfeld: omnis propheta verax probatus qui per mysterium facit ecclesias cosmicorum vel gentilium neque vero eas disciplinam paracleti severam docet ..
Harnack: agens respectu mysterii terreni_ ecclesize scilicet matrimonio abstinens.
Krawutzcky:
Wenn er in bezug auf die Ehe etwas | Weltliches und doch in der Kirche etwas Geheimnissvolles ist, fiir seine Person starke Dinge leistet (durch Verheirathung und Wiederverheirathung).
Wiinsche: der Versammlungen zu einen Geheimniss von der Welt macht.
Bonnet Mauret: exercant son corps en vue du mystére terrestre de l'Eglise sans imposer aux autres ses pratiques ascétiques.
In the case of Hilgenfeld there are two emendations proposed, pay for mov and koopuxdv for Kocpikov.
He supposes it to be a Montanist statement.
The " worldly "' are the psychici who do not accept the Paraclete.
Petersen wants to read xéopuov, as does Horner in the Coptic.
In view of the text supported by the versions, neither of these _ emendations is likely to be correct.
The first problem presented is the case of éxxdAnoaias, whether it is the genitive depending on pvorypiov or the accusative depending on zo.dv.
Hilgenfeld and Wiinsche, it will be seen, take the latter view.
The versions generally | read "' in the Church."
The second problem is the pvorrjpiov Koopixdv.
Hilgenfeld and Harnack and Bonnet-Mauret, it will be seen, think this refers to ascetic practices, undertaken because of the relationship between Christ and His Church.
Krawutzcky and others think it refers to marriages like that of Hosea undertaken to express this relationship.
C. Taylor refers | to the use of images, as for example the Brazen Serpent used by Moses.
On the whole it seems that symbolic actions must be referred to.
Ireneus says (Her. IV, 20, 2), '"" Non solum autem per visiones que videbantur et per sermones que preconabantur sed et in operationibus usus est prophetis
THE DIDACHE AND THE MINISTRY
» ut per eos prefiguraret et premonstraret futura.
Id quod a prophetis typice per operationem factum est ostendit apostolus vere factum in Ecclesia a Christo.''
Such acts _ are those of Jeremiah, who buried the linen girdle and broke _ the pot, of Ezekiel, who shaved himself, of Hosea with his marriages, of Agabus, who bound himself.
Such acts which must not be followed by the community would be _ those of doubtful propriety with reference to the mysterious relationship between Christ and the Church.
Paul, in Eph. v, discusses human marriage and the marriage between Christ and the Church, and says that this is a great mystery.
The Acts of Peter and Paul ig refer to something like this.
There it is said, womep ex ths mAcupas Tod >Adap 7) Eva otrws Kal €k THs mAcupas TOO yptoTod extiobn 7% 'ExKkAnoia.
Origen _ im Gen. III seems to support Harnack, " Verum ecclesia _ Christi gratia ejus qui pro se crucifixus est roborata non
solum ab illicitis nefandisque cubilibus verum etiam a concessis et licitis temperat, tamquam iam virgo sponsa
Christi castis et pudicis virginibus floret, quibus testamentum eternum in eorum circumcisa carne servatur."'
_ Similarly Justin, Dzal. 134, applies this idea to the story of Jacob's two wives.
C. Taylor supports his view by quoting Barn. XII with the discussion there of the prophetic meaning of the Brazen Serpent and Justin, Dial. 94, where it is said of the brazen serpent hung on the tree, pvaorrpiov dua, TOUTOU Ws TPOePNHY EKT}|PVGGE.
' pvoripiov means either a symbolic action or a mysterious truth, according as one construes éxkAyolas as the object of zov or the genitive of apposition with pvorrprov.
Either meaning is possible.
That the genitive is likely to be correct may be seen from Rom. xvi, 25-6, where the Church is a pvoryjprov.
Koopukds is used in the New Testament of the earthly sanctuary contrasted with the heavenly pattern in Heb. ix, 1 and of earthly lusts in Tit. ii, 12.
It is thus contrasted with the "' heavenly," and might be more likely to mean here worldly but symbolic actions.
In classical Greek it means " universal," and so here may mean the universal and mysterious truths of the Church.
Kpiljoerar ef...
This is a New Testament usage found in Acts xxv, 9 and I Cor. vi, 1-6.
"The ancient prophets."
These words may, and are more likely to refer to prophets of the Old Testament than to such figures as Agabus, though both classes may be in the writer's mind.
Hilgenfeld and Harnack think primitive Christian prophets
THE RIDDLE OF THE DIDACHE
are referred to, most commentators refer the passage to the | Old Testament and specially to Hosea, whose marital relation- | ships were not to be a model to be copied.
The general sense of the passage can easily be seen, | the performance by prophets when under the influence of :
'| the Spirit of outrageous actions of symbolic meaning is | not to be condemned, nor are the actions to be copied by | lay folk.
The exact meaning of the various words is not | very certain.
It is not likely that the practice of asceticism _ can be referred to, for that was usually to be copied, not | otherwise, in all Christian circles, and especially among the | Montanists.
The order of the words makes it more natural _ to construe éxxAyoias with pvorjpiov, and so to think of the wonderful mysterious Church, an object of awe to the world,
| mysteriously joined to Christ as a bride.
This seems the most likely mystery to be referred to, though the New Testament talks of the mystery of the Last Day in I Cor. —
XV, 51, of the mystery of Godliness in I Tim. iii, 16, of Evil and so on.
This way, however, xoopixds does not retain its normal ecclesiastical meaning.
These difficulties cannot be solved with any degree of finality, but they do not seem to affect the general sense, which is comparatively clear.