Category: Garrow 2004 - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Conclusion - the Didache Didn't Draw on Matthew

1/7/2022

1/7/22
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Sixteen: Conclusion." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004,244-252.

Garrow concludes that while the Didache is a composite composition, with substantial elements drawn into the record, Matthew is a unified composition. The points of similarity suggest to Garrow that Matthew drew from the Didache rather than the Didache drawing from Matthew or both from some other source (Garrow 2004, 245). For the influence to be upon the Didache, it would have to compel several redactors to choose material which was used by Matthew and nobody else, and to gather the materials into tight clusters while Matthew spread them out. This stikes Garrow as unlikely (Garrow 2004, 246).

A List of Vices

1/6/2022

1/6/22
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Fifteen: Further Points of Contact Between Matthew's Gospel and the Peri/Base Layer." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 238-243.

Garrow previously spent considerable time with connections between Matthew's Gospel and Didache chapters one and 16. In this brief chapter, he evaluates other passages, always questioning whether the Didache text necessarily indicates a knowledge of Matthew (Garrow 2004, 238).

Matthew 15:19 and Didache 5.1 present a list of vices. While Matthew shows similarities to the Didache and Mark, the Didache includes vices which do not appear in Matthew or Mark (Garrow 2004, 239). Matthew 5.5, 7 and Didache 3.7-8 address the meek as inheriting the earth. Didache 3.7 appears to derive from Psalm 36, rather than from Matthew (Garrow 2004, 240). Matthew 19.17-21 compares with Didache 1.2a, 4b; 2.2, where some of the law of God is summarized. Matthew differs in sme elements from Mark 10 and Luke 18. However, if Matthew is a conflation of the Didache and Mark, there is no difficulty. Again, Garrow finds no reason to think the Didache is influenced by Matthew (Garrow 2004, 241). In Matthew 5.21, 27, 33 and Didache 2.2-3, the term for swearing falsely occurs only here and in one other known text. Tis suggests a strong relationship between Matthew and the Didache, though it does not indicate the direction of dependence (Garrow 2004, 241). Finally, Matthew 5.21, 22, 27, 28 and Didache 3.2-3 show a similar understanding of anger and lust. The argument for the Didache depending on Matthew is relatively weak, but there is a fairly strong case for the Didache to depend on Psalm 36, then to be used in Matthew (Garrow 2004, 242).

Garrow concludes that there is no reason to assume Matthew provided the source material for the Didache. Rather, he takes the evidence to point toward the Didache as an influence on Matthew (Garrow 2004, 242).

Which Came First?

1/5/2022

1/5/22
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Fourteen: Matthew's Gospel and Didache 1.1-6." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 216-237.

Garrow considesr the points of contact between Didache 1.1-6 and Matthew's Gospel, bearing in mind the suggestions made in the 20th century that a "Q" tradition informed Matthew's report of Jesus' statements about turning the other cheeck and giving one's tunic to the person who demands a cloak (Garrow 2004, 216). Garrow proceeds by evaluating the points of contact between Matthew and Didache 1.1-6 in turn.

The Golden Rule of Matthew 7.12-14 and Didache 1.1, 2e are closely related. Garrow finds each has a juxtaposition and in each case there is a sense that this is a fulfillment of God's law (Garrow 2004, 217). The connection, in Garrow's opinion, is clear and there is no indication that the Didache would have to depend on Matthew. Therefore, the possibility of Matthew's dependence on the Didache remains open (Garrow 2004, 218). The command to love God and the neighbor in Matthew 22:37-40 and Didache 1.2b-2 is phrased in a very similar way, suggesting a parallel. The omission in Matthew of Mark's use of the Shema suggests Matthew and the Didache are the parallels (Garrow 2004, 218). Matthew 5:38-48 is similar to Didache 1.3b-5a. Garrow considers that the relationship is shown especially through the use of the verb διώκω (Garrow 2004, 219-220).

Garrow does not think any of the points of contact between Didache 1.1-6 and Matthew requires us to conclude that Matthew came first. He next sets out to demonstrate that Matthew's dependence on the Didache is the more likely scenario (Garrow 2004, 220).To do this, Garrow first reviews his theory of the redaction history of the Didache. He has concluded that at least Didache 1.1-6 is a compilation of ten different elements 221). On the contrary, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew seems to be a one-time composition, which touches the material from Didache 1.1-6 at eight different points. This leads Garrow to conclue that Matthew used the Didache as a source (Garrow 2004, 222). The alternative view would require multiple redactors of the Didache to use Matthew or his sources independently. Garrow considers this highly unlikely (Garrow 2004, 223).

The differences in wording between the Didache and Matthean passages emains an important question. To address this issue, Garrow first evaluates similarities between the Didache and Luke's Gospel (Garrow 2004, 224). Garrow demonstrates that there are numerous passages where Matthew and Luke agree in wording against the Didache though all three express the same ideas. He sees this as evidence of the one-person composition of Matthew and of Luke over against the multi-person composition of the Didache. Garrow further suggests that Matthew conflated both the Didache and Luke, a point of view he uses to explain the linguistic differences from the Didache (Garrow 2004, 229). Garrow does provide several examples of passages which may show some level of conflation. The shape of Matthew's alleged borrowing still leaves me with some doubts, however, as Garrow sees redaction in a way I find overly mechanical and dependent on use of very specific and small groups of words. My strong inclination is that writers do not normally engage in that type of editorial work.

Presupposition or Evidence?

1/3/2022

1/3/22
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Thirteen: Matthew's Gospel and Didache 16."The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 190-215.

Garrow has been gradually walking his review back in time, starting with the Modifying Teacher and then moving to the Prophet layer. He now steps back to the "peri/base" layer. For this layer, he will provide three separate chapters (Garrow 2004, 190).

Didache 16 and Matthew 24 have significant similarities (Garrow 2004, 190). GArrow notes there have been presuppositions that Matthew was dependent on Mark, and that the Didache depended on Matthew. However, if Mark 13.26 was actually dependent on Didache 16.8, then Matthew would have to come after the Didache (Garrow 2004, 191). After extensive consideration of the apocalyptic passages, Garrow concludes that the dependence tends to go through the Didache, as other texts lean toward readings using grammar and vocabulary less commonly used by them (Garrow 2004, 193). However, Garrow does concede, at some length, that dependency arguments can often be reversed so as to prove nothing.

Garrow concludes that Matthew 24 is directly dependent on Didache 16, rather than any other possible construction. He describes four propositions which need to be defended in support of his conclusion. The first proposition, that there is a definite connection, he has previously demonstrated. Second, that the Didache was not dependent on Matthew he considers to have been demonstrated by his case that the apocalyptic material depends on Daniel rather than Matthew (Garrow 2004, 200). Third, he sets out to demonstrate that Matthew's dependence on Didache 16 "is plausible or probable" (Garrow 2004, 200).

Garrow illustrates, in side-by-side panels, that Matthew 24 follows Mark 13 for a while, then Didache 16, then returns to Mark 13 (Garrow 2004, 200-201). This strongly suggests that Matthew is the one borrowing, not Mark or the Didache. Garrow finds this pattern at numerous points (Garrow 2004, 204-206).

Garrow has earlier discussed the structure of Didache 16.8-9. He now makes further comparison of it and Matthew 16:27 (Garrow 2004, 209). While Matthew 16:25-28 is very siilar to Mark 8:35-9:1, where it diverges it is to parallel Didache 16.8. This move strongly suggests that Matthew drew from the Didache rather than the Didache drawing from Matthew or Mark.

Matthew 25:31-46 also shows parallels to Didache 16.8-9 (Garrow 2004, 209). Again, where Matthew diverges from Mark, it moves to the Didache, then returns to Mark (Garrow 2004, 20). Again, the Didache appears uninfluenced by Mark, suggesting that the Didache was the source document. Garrow finally notes that while Didache 16 is an orderly whole, the eschatological material in Matthew which is similar is more scattered and less clearly organized. He considers it unlikely that the Didachist would have gleaned these scattered elements and pulled them into a tight, organized work. Therefore, he concludes the Didache was the influence, not the thing influenced (Garrow 2004, 213).

The fourth possibility which Garrow suggested at the start of the chapter is that the Didache and Matthew shared a source. The consistent exclusion of Markan material and the difficulty of defining any source text for this material leaves Garrow of the opinion that Didache as a source for Matthew is a far more likely solution (Garrow 2004, 214).

Matthew Drawing on the Didache

12/31/2021

12/31/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Twelve: Matthew's Gospel and the Prophet Layer."The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 186-189.

Garrow finds just one link between the Didache's Prophet layer and Matthew, in Didache 11.7 and Matthew 12.31. Here Garrow takes Matthew to depend on the Didache, since the wording agrees with Mattew against Mark. Since Matthew sometimes draws from Mark, Luke, or the Didache, but the Didache oes not seem to draw from any conflation of Mark and Luke, Garrow thinks the dependence runs from the Didache to Matthew (Garrow 2004, 187). Though it's possible that both took the teaching of the unforgiveable sin from another source, Garrow thinks it unlikely that they would have used it in the same way. Therefore, he takes Matthew to depend here on the Didache (Garrow 2004, 189).

Comparing Matthew and the Didache

12/30/2021

12/30/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Eleven: Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer."The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 161-185.

Garrow considers that there are points of contact between Matthew's Gospel and the Didache, and that these points may be used to show that Matthew depended on the Didache. The earliest layers, if Garrow's thesis is correct, predate Matthew. Garrow's presumption is that there need be only a credible case that Matthew used the Didache, rather than a case that excludes all other possibilities (Garrow 2004, 1260).

Because Garrow places the Modifying Teacher after other layers in the Didache, his assumption is that if Matthew knew the Modifying Teacher material he knew the whole of the text (Garrow 2004, 161). Didache 14.2 and Matthew 5.23-24 appear closely related. Garrow has previously (chapter 7) oted that the reasoning in the Didache, based on Malachi 1.11, suggests that Matthew's Gospel was not available to the Didache. Therefore, he takes this argument for reconciliation to have come to Matthew by means of the Didache, rather than by any other route (Garrow 2004, 162). Garrow does not offer a credible reason for Matthew to ascribe the teaching to Jesus but to have pulled it from the Didache. He does suggest that Matthew may have taken it from the Didache as a teaching of the Lord Jesus, but this is not a convincing argument in my opinion (Garrow 2004, 163).

Matthew 5.26 and Didache 1.5c place teaching of return of "every last cent" into different contexts, but use the very same phrasing (Garrow 2004, 163). The Didache makes no appeal here to the Gospel, and its context is narrower than that of Matthew. Garrow takes Matthew's use of the statement to be a likely result of Matthew's familiarity with and internalization of the idioms used in the Didache (Garrow 2004, 164).

Didache 8.1-2a, 2c-3 and Matthew 6.5-16 speak of fasting and prayer. They urge distinctions from hypocrites, and teach a similar version of the Lord's prayer (Garrow 2004, 165). The context of the fasting and prayer is different but the language used is very similar. Garrow thinks the differences may be explained by Matthew's confaltion of Mark 12.40-44 and 11.25 with Didache 8 (Garrow 2004, 167). Because Matthew uses almost all the statements of Jesus used by Mark, his omission of 12.40-44 is unusual. However, if he conflated these texts at this point, it can be explained rather easily (Garrow 2004, 168). Garrow further sees it as a procedure consistent with Matthew's tendency to collect, collate, and often conflate similar statements (Garrow 2004, 169). Garrow goes on to describe and illustrate this tendency at length. Garrow's conlcusion is that it is perfectly plausible that Matthew drew on the Didache for teaching on fasting, prayers, and almsgiving (Garrow 2004, 177).

Matthew 5.17-20 and Didache 11.1-2 both speak of the importance of preserving authoritative teaching (Garrow 2004, 177). Those who preserve the authoritative Christian teaching are to be rewarded for their faithfulness. Garrow considers these passages to be so similar they must have a literary relationship (Garrow 2004, 178). However, if the Didache passage is from the Modifying Teacher, that author does not normally draw on the authority (such as the Gospel) for the actual modification (Garrow 2004, 178). This suggests it is much more likely tht Matthew drew on the Didache's reading.

Matthew 28.19 and Didache 7.1c, d, and e speak of trinitarian baptism (Garrow 2004, 179). Garrow suggests that the baptismal formula in Matthew actually came from a smattering of passages from the long title of the Didache through 7.1d (Garrow 2004, 180). While I find this argument somewhat tenuous, it does certainly affirm the possibility that Matthew's interest in the Trinitarian formula was informed by the Didache (Garrow 2004, 181).

Matthew 7.6 and Didache 9.5b both speak against giving holy things to dogs (Garrow 2004, 181). Though the aphorism seems fit for a cultural proverb, Garrow denies finding it elsewhere (Garrow 2004, 182). Both passages make the statement in reference to communion. Matthew's use appears awkward to Garrow, suggesting that it was a quotation drawn in from elsewhere (Garrow 2004, 183).

Finally, Matthew 10.10 and Didache 13.1-2 speak of workers being worthy of food (Garrow 2004, 183). The wording is identical. Garrow does not hypothesize a clear track of dependence for this text. However, again, Garrow suggests it was drawn from a known set of sayings of the Lord by Matthew, who wrote later.

Garrow concludes that Matthew may well have drawn material from the Didache, explaining the similarities at the seven points of contact discussed (Garrow 2004, 184).

Redaction Layers in the Didache

12/29/2021

12/29/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Ten: Conclusion: The Compositional History of the Didache." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 150-156.

Garrow concludes part 1 of his book by summarizing the five stages he identifies in the Didache's composition. First, he sees the "peri/base" layer. This material gives us the longer title as well as "1.1-5a; 2.1-5.2a; 6.1-7a,c, e, 4a; 9.1-5a; 11.3a, 4-6; 16.1-6, 8-9" (Garrow 2004, 150). Garrow then sees a layer to be added which deals primarily with support and respect for prophets, in 10.1-7; 11.7-9, 12; 12.1-5 (Garrow 2004, 151). To this he adds the modifying teacher layer. This represents an attempt to soften some of the more forceful statements. Garrow identifies these passages as "1.5b-; 5.2b; 7.1b, d, 2-3, 4b; 8.1-2a, 2c-3; 11.1-2, 9-10; 13.1-15.2" (Garrow 2004, 151). The Gospel layer, which inserts claims to the authority of "the Gospel" was later added, accounting for 8.2b; 11.3b; and 15.3-4 (Garrow 2004, 152). The fifth layer Garrow finds is the Jerusalem addition in 16.7 (Garrow 2004, 152). The text of 16.7 does not seem overly important, but it may have provided a buffer between the universalistic interpretation which may have been possible without it and the more selective picture of resurrection which became more common in the Church.

Garrow sees it as absolutely essential that there be at least two layers present in the Didache (Garrow 2004, 153). He closes his chapter with a diagram of the layers he proposes to make up the Didache's text (Garrow 2004, 154-155). Oddly, page 153 is reproduced nearly exactly on page 156, with a section presenting essential conclusions.

Assigning Text to Authors

12/27/2021

12/27/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Nine: The Full Extend of the Peri Layer." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 142-149.

Garrow previously (ch. 5) considered what he refers to as the peri layer of redaction. In this chapter he considers whether this layer would include Didache 1.3-5a. Here, he finds statements which he considers to be "Q" material, and numerous similarities to both Matthew and Luke (Garrow 2004, 142). However, because he sees 1.5b-6 as characteristic of the modifying teacher, a source he considers to predate the written Gospels, he also sees 1.3-ba to predate the work of the modifying teacher. The text does provide a reason for the beharioral demand, καὶ ἔσῃ τέλειος, which suggests the modifying teacher (Garrow 2004, 143).

The title also suggests to Garrow that there was redactional activity in play. Garrow suggests rather than the short title appearing originally on the outside of a scroll and the longer one as the first line, the title may have been a later addition provided for the convenience of the reader (Garrow 2004, 144). In this scenario the shorter title would be an abbreviation for further convenience. The specification "to the Gentiles" suggests to Garrow the peri layer, since here he finds limitations of the applicability of the text (Garrow 2004, 146). Garrow sees this as the earliest layer of compilation which made the Didache a clearly defined text, so he considers it appropriate to treat the title as a part of that material.

Finally, because Garrow has previously identified 16.1-2 with the peri layer, he makes the additional step here of treating 16.1-6, 8-9 as a part of the layer, as it treats the members of the community as a particular, identifiable unit, in a similar way to the other statements of the peri layer which make some limitations on the scope and participation of Christians (Garrow 2004, 148).

"The Gospel" in the Didache

12/24/2021

12/24/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Eight: The Gospel Layer: 8.2b; 11.3b; 15.3-4." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 129-141.

Though the Didache refers in four places to "the gospel," Garrow takes the references to be from a later contribution (Garrow 2004, 129). When comparing 8.2b, 11.3b, and 15.3-4, Garrow, with Niederwimmer, considers the texts to speak of the same thing and to appear to be from the same author (Garrow 2004, 130). Those who reject the idea, according to Garrow, use a "method of redactional analysis [which] is not sensitive to the possibility that one interpolator could make several small insertions across the spread of a text" (Garrow 2004, 130).

There is a valid concern to define "gospel" accurately, as used in the Didache. Garrow notes that an assumption that the gospel is necessarily a written work can cause significant challenges in interpretation (Garrow 2004, 131). Likewise, an assumption of a necessarily oral work can create difficulties. Garrow considers it likely the author of the four references had only one thing in mind, and that it is likely to refer to a relatively stable written text. Only in 8.2b with its comment about the Lord commanding do we have a suggestion that an oral source might be more appropriate (Garrow 2004, 132).

To continue with the concept of a written gospel, Garrow concludes that it must be either Matthew's gospel or some lost text. It is only in Matthew that we find "instructions for every dimension of behavior mentioned by the Didache in connection with 'the gospel'; namely, prayer (Mt. 6.9-13; Did. 8.2b), prophets and visitors (Mt. 10.10, 40-42; Did. 11.3b), church discipline (Mt. 18.15-17; Did. 15.3), and almsgiving (e.g. Mt. 5.42; 6.1-4, Did. 15.4)" (Garrow 2004, 133). Did. 15.3 further calls Matthew 18:15-17 to mind. The concepts are hard to come by elsewhere.

The version of the Lord's Prayer found in Did. 8.1-3 does not precisely match that given in Matthew's Gospel (Garrow 2004, 134). Garrow suggests that the prayer as found in Did. 8.1-3 is of an earlier date than that found in Matthew 6, and that the text about it being the Lord's command in the gospel was a later insertion (Garrow 2004, 136). Given all the data, Garrow concludes tht "the gospel" is a later insertion which refers to Matthew's gospel.

Garrow next asks if 8.2b, 11.3b, and 15.3-4 could have been written by the Modifying Teacher he proposed in an earlier chapter (Garrow 2004, 137). He considers that 8.2b and 15.3-4 would not make sense without the prior existence of material from the modifying teacher layer. If 15.3-4 was written by the modifying teacher, Garrow is left with 14.1-15.4 written by one person. However, he considers the order of introduction of topics to be odd for anything designed by one author (Garrow 2004, 137). It would also be surprising that an author who appeals to the gospel as an authority would then use Malachi 1.11 as an argument for the need for reconciliation, rather than Matthew 5.23-24 (Garrow 2004, 138). Garrow concludes that Did. 14.1-3 did not know of Matthew as an authority, but the author of 15.3-4 did.

Garrow further suggests a multiplicity of authors in Did. 8.1-3 because there is an appeal to the authoritative gospel, but a prayer which is not a quotation from that gospel (Garrow 2004, 139).

Because Garrow sees Didache 11.1-2 as being composed by the modifying teacher, 11.3b, which depends on 11.1-2 for context, would have to be a later insertion (Garrow 2004, 140). The context speaks highly of the ancient practice of the prophets rather than appealing to the authority of the Gospel.

In the end, Garrow concludes the four references to the gospel were later additions which refer to Matthew's Gospel. He also concludes that the bulk of the Didache was written prior to Matthew (Garrow 2004, 141).

Attempts to Moderate Teaching

12/23/2021

12/23/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Seven: The Modifying Teacher Layer: 1.5a-6; 7.1b, d, 2-3, 4b; 8.1-2a, 2a-3; 9.5b; 11.1-2; 11.10-11; 13.1-15.2." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 113-128.

In Garrow's understanding of the redaction of the Didache, 11.10-11 may well be present because 11.9 could be misunderstood (Garrow 2004, 113). He notes that in this passage, the emphasis is on what the prophet does and teaches, showing his truth, while in the surrounding material, the emphasis is on the spirit working in the prophet. This suggests to Garrow that the passage was an interpolaion.

In essence, Didache 11.10-11 defends the lifestyle of prophets and urges care for their needs, while 11.9 puts limits on the care (Garrow 2004, 115). Garrow sees it as a sufficient departure from the other material that it should be treated as coming from a different author.

Didache 13.1-7 speaks of specific provisions for prophets. Garrow identifies at least two layers of tradition here, signalled by a change from plural to singular and the presence of teachers early in the passage, but not later (Garrow 2004, 116). As with 11.10-11, the passage seems to clarify and moderate other statements (Garrow 2004, 117). The porphets are to be cared for very much as were the Old Testament priesthood.

The material which Garrow ascribes to "the modifying teacher" regularly treats prophets and teachers together as one functional category (Garrow 2004, 118). This is a common New Testament connection as well. If the person responsible for these texts was a teacher or a prophet, he may well have been troubled by the relatively restrictive statements about care for prophets and teachers, so would seek to moderate the stance (Garrow 2004, 119). Garrow considers 11.1-2 to serve as an attempt to claim legitimacy for an opinion that may have been rejected y the community.

The pattern of an affirmation of prior teaching followed by a moderating view also occurs at 1.5b-6 (Garrow 2004, 120). Here the giving of alms is praised. Then there is a caution to the recipient, and a justification from a quoted saying. Garrow sees this as the same pattern of 11.1-2, 10-11; 13.1-7 (Garrow 2004, 121).

The same pattern occurs, on a larger scale, in 14.1-15.2. Garrow finds it as a very clear element in 14.1-3 (Garrow 2004, 121). The same parallelism, vocabulary, and imagery are used through 15.2. This leads Garrow to ascribe the passage to his modifying teacher.

Garrow makes a rather intricatecut to identify the modifying teacher in "7.1(c) d, 2-3, 4b," daling with baptism (Garrow 2004, 122). Of significant value to Garrow's argument is the shift from refference to baptism "in the name of the Lord" to the trinitarian formula. He takes the less specific formula to be from an early, possibly pre-Christian, period, but the trinitarian formula to be a distinctively Christian interpolation (Garrow 2004, 123). There is, additionally, an external tradition cited.

Didache 8 is often taken as a later interpolation. Garrow finds in 8.1-2a, 2c-3 a suggestion of the modifying teacher, though there is no affirmation, modification, or appeal to external authority (Garrow 2004, 124). However, here there is a substantial difference articulated between Jews and Christians. The last days and prayers are set apart, in a way reminiscent of what Garrow has previously identified in the modifying teacher.

The brief quotation in Didache 9.5b strikes Garrow as a likely contribution of the modifying teacher, explaining the difference between Jews and Christians (Garrow 2004, 125). Garrow also considers there may have been attempts at clarification at 7.1b, and at 5.2b, though all these passages are so brief he does not consider them very practical for analysis (Garrow 2004, 126).

Garrow is fairly certain that he has rightly analyzed the presence of another redactor, one concerned with explanation, the need to care for teachers, and the distinction between Christianity and Judaism (Garrow 2004, 127).

What to Do with Prophets

12/22/2021

12/22/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Six: The Prophet Document: 10.1-7; 11.7-9, 12; 12.1-5." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 107-112.

Garrow has concluded from a redaction criticism perspective that the eucharistic prayers in Didache 9.1-5a come from a different layer of redaction than the prayers in 10.1-6. He now observes that 10.7 and 11.7 show a strong affinity (Garrow 2004, 107). This leads him to conclude that the two verses appeared together in a different document, then were separated and brought into the text of the Didache. 10.1-6 lead naturally into 10.7, so he takes those verses to belong together. Likewise, 11.7-9 make coherent sense together, so Garrow takes them to be part of the document which was brought in (Garrow 2004, 107). Garrow calls this the "Prophet document, because of its concern for prophets and prophecy" (Garrow 2004, 108). In contrast, Garrow considers 11.10-11 to interrupt the logical flow, so as to belong to a different source. The chapters do differ in some ways. Of note in Garrow's mind is a different setting. "In 9.5, there is a presupposition of the eucharistic president's knowledge of each member of the congregatin, while 10.6 implies the presence of a larger, more anonymous gathering, suggestive of a later development in the Church's life" (Garrow 2004, 108-109).

Garrow notes that Didache 12.1-5 shows a change in situation as well. While 11.4 speaks of receiving apostles, 12.1 does not limit the welcome to apostles (Garrow 2004, 109). This suggests to Garrow that the material may belong to a separate layer of redaction, now generalizing instructions about itinerant prophets to be applied to all itinerant people. The limit placed on the time of hospitality suggests to Garrow a climate of prophets making specific journeys rather than living permanently as itinerant propheets. Those people would need more opportunity to receive hospitality (Garrow 2004, 110).

Garrow takes the material to be a "prophet document," not merely a layer. He considers it to be a text that was interpolated without significant loss or change (Garrow 2004, 111).

Now About . . .

12/20/2021

12/20/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Five: The Peri Layer: 6.1-3; 7.1a, c, e, 4a; 9.1-5a; 11.3a, 4-6; 16.1-6, 8-9." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 93-106.

Gorrow theorizes a redactional layer in the Didache which features frequent use of περὶ δὲ, hence called the "peri" layer. This layer, he thinks, sheds light on the eucharistic prayers of chapters 9-10 (Garrow 2004, 93).

There is a striking parallel between Didache 7.1a and 9.1. Both passages introduce a concept with περὶ δὲ followed by a genitive of a conceptual noun. Garrow thinks, however, that due to the phrasing of baptismal formulas (7.1, no article, 7.3, article, otherwise "the name of the Lord" rather than a trinitarian statement), he can discern different layers of redaction (Garrow 2004, 94). Scholars do disagree whetehr the various statements show differences in time of composition, as well as possibly indicating a move from allowing anyone to baptize to having specifically designated ministers (Garrow 2004, 94-95). Garrow takes the statements to be an insertion, made clumsily, as evidenced by the change from a plural to a singular address and the lack of instructions about the length of a fast (Garrow 2004, 95).

Garrow considers the peri layer not to have begun with 7.1, but that the statement in 7.1 indicates a change of topic. This suggests to Garrow that there is a link reaching back into the Two Ways materials. For this, he goes to 6.1-3 (Garrow 2004, 97). He then argues that it would be unusual to use two different types of teaching together (Jewish ethics and baptismal instructions) without inserting material that could suggest a relationship (Garrow 2004, 99). To him, this is the redactional layer which justifies the importance of baptism. Garrow's analysis gradually expands material he fits into the peri layer, as he includes anything which could be understood as coordinating two unconnected ideas (Garrow 2004, 100).

Based on this conclusion, Garrow moves to 11.3a, 4-6, dealing with apostles (Garrow 2004, 101). Again, he finds some statements which could seem disjointed, particularly in 11.3-6. Verses 7-12 are only loosely arranged, but do not seem as startling as the earlier passage.

Garrow effectively takes the instructions about apostles and prophets to have been awkward and require sommothing out and also to have been smooth, thus becoming more awkward when material is inserted. The community understanding was not rightly expressed in terms of apostles and prophets, so the text was changed to partially reflect a change of attitude (Garrow 2004, 102-103). In my opinion, this entire line of reasoning is needlessly complicated.

Garrow finally ties the peri layer to chapter 16, as he observes a similarity between 6.1-3 and 16.1-2, which urge diligence in pursuit of godliness (Garrow 2004, 105). He does foreshadow subsequent chapters in his book in which he will delve into the various ideas in more depth.

Pre-Baptism Teaching

12/17/2021

12/17/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Four: Elements Within Didache 1-5." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 67-92.

Didache 1-5 is presented as pre-baptismal catechesis, which provides ethical guidance for the Christian life. Garrow notes that the material incorporates other early traditions. The Didache material can be compared with the other similar texts, especially Barnabas 18-20, to evaluate integrity of the teaching (Garrow 2004, 67). The material in Didache 1.3-6, or alternatively 1.3b-2.1, appears to have a specifically Christian influence. It is also, significantly, not present in the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum. Otherwise, the Doctrina Apostolorum hasa very close relatinship to the Didache's Two Ways material (Garrow 2004, 68).

Garrow notes that the passage which is considered an interpolation does not show the relatively artful work of a redactor which he would expect, unless the interpolation begins at 1.3a (Garrow 2004, 69-70). The Doctrina differs from the Didache at other points as wll, as does the Dead Sea material. In particular, Doctrina is not as forceful in its descriptions of the outcome for those who fall short in the Way of Life, when compared with the other texts (Garrow 2004, 74).

Garrow entertains the idea that there may be two layers of redaction which led to the current text of Didache 1.3-6 (Garrow 2004, 75). He concludes that 1.3-5a and 1.5b-6 are different elements which entered the teaching as independent sayings at different times (Garrow 2004, 77). Taken as a whole, Garrow's inclination is to take the individual sayings in this part of the Didache to be independent in their origin, but to have been gathered and organized prior to being drawn into the Didache (Garrow 2004, 83). He generalizes this tendency to the entirety of 1.3-5a. This passage has a relatively rhythmic structure, while the rest of the Two Ways does not show such care in word choice or arrangement (Garrow 2004, 84).

Garrow recognizes that it would be beyond the scope of his book to review every place in the Didache where there may be a textual insertion. However, 1.2 and 5.2 are locations he considers important in his overall picture. 1.2, with a "golden rule" statement, has no parallel in Barnabas (Garrow 2004, 85). The golden rule statement, not present in all Two Ways versions, may well have been part of the collection of sayings used els3where. Garrow further takes 5.2a, 5.2b, and 6.1 to be statements added at three different times (Garrow 2004, 88). Garrow makes his argument here based on thier absence in Barnabas. Garrow does concede the parallel of 6.1 in Doctrina Apostolorum, a fact which has led some to consider it part of the source material used in the Didache (Garrow 2004, 89). However, Doctrina uses it in a very smooth manner compared to its use in the Didache. The verse does, however, provide a transition into the discussion of baptism (Garrow 2004, 90).

Garrow closes the chapter by detailing segments of Didache 1-5 which he believers were inserted after the original composition (Garrow 2004, 90-92). He considers this chapter and his chapters 2 and 3 to lay the groundwork for the upcoming analysis of compositional history.

Didache 16 and Eschatology

12/16/2021

12/16/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Three: The Integrity of Didache 16." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 29-66.

Garrow sees Didache 16 and Didache 1 as significant contact points with Matthew's Gospel. Because an understanding of Didache 16.5 is important to interpretation of other passages, Garrow starts by discussing that concept, a "curse that saves" (Garrow 2004, 29).

The mostobvious and popular interpretation of this curse is that it refers to Jesus, becoming a curse (Garrow 2004, 29). One difficulty with this point of view is the lack of an established case being made for Jesus as the curse within the Didache (Garrow 2004, 30). If the connection was made adequately in early Christian thought, this would not be a significant problem. However, it is odd that only here would there be a connection, while elsewhere in the Didache Jesus is referred to simply as "the Lord" (Garrow 2004, 31). Garrow spends considerable time discussing Milavec's view of the curse and the motif of burning, along with responses to Milavec's work (Garrow 2004, 33ff).

Garrow goes on to discuss the possibility that the text of the Didache is missing some parts of chapter 16 (Garrow 2004, 39). The ending is abrupt and not representative of material often included in eschatological texts. The manuscript's remaining half-page of space in a codex where all other available space is filled also suggests the scribe Leon expected there to be more to be included (Garrow 2004, 40).

Garrow considers whether a study of redaction history could make matters more clear (Garrow 2004, 43). 16.7, which many see as a gloss, disrupts the flow of eschatological events. The theory Garrow puts forth is that a longer version of the chapter was somehow truncated, then verse six was inserted to make sense of the shorter version (Garrow 2004, 44). Attempts to reconstruct the longer version generally depend on the agreement between statements in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Renunciation of Boniface (Garrow 2004, 45). Both texts have similarities to the extant material of Didache 16. Garrow also observes a parallel of material in Didache 16 and Revelation 14 (Garrow 2004, 47). He does, however, note there are differences in wording among various passages.

Because Garrow has suggested that Apostolic Constitutions 32 may have depended on a longer version of Didache 16, he considers the authenticity and influences on Const. 32 (Garrow 2004, 50ff). He then conflates Didache 16 and Const. 32 to reconsstruct an "original" reading of Didache 16 (Garrow 2004, 57). The reconstructed text can then be evaluated as a piece of narrative to consider whether it has the kind of balanced structure to be expected in the Didache (Garrow 2004, 60). Garrow does find a balanced system of parallelism in the passage.

Garrow concludes that there is a level of integrity to be found in Did. 16.3-6, 8-9, but that 16.1-2 came from a different period of redaction. He also thinks that both passages of chapter 16 were added at the same time (Garrow 2004, 66).

Eucharist? Something Else?

12/15/2021

12/15/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Two: The 'Eucharistic' Prayers in Didache 9 and 10." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 13-28.

There is considerable scholarly disagreement about what actual liturgical celebration is described in Didache 9-10. Garrow notes that there are five actions described, and that the difficulty arises from attempts to identify all five in any one liturgical event (Garrow 2004, 14). Didache 10.1 powerfully indicates a meal which is filling. 10.6 invites the repentant to come as a participant in the liturgy (Garrow 2004, 15). It speaks as describing a future event, not one which just happened. In the interim, 10.2-5 is a thanksgiving for use after a meal, presumably the one which was found filling in 10.1. The scholarly world has a high degree of agreement on this issue, as well as the similarity between 10.2-5 and a Jewish Birkat Ha-Mazon (Garrow 2004, 17). The order of elements in 10.2-5 suggests to Mazza and Garrow that the prayer may be intended as a transition from a time of receiving physical food to a time for spiritual food and drink (Garrow 2004, 19). In the analysis, we then back up to 9.1-5, in which Garrow sees the reading being skewed by scholarly reading of 10.1 (Garrow 2004, 19). Here there is a thanksgiving over a "fragment," rather than over "bread," along with a cup. This is strongly suggestive of the eucharist, particularly when we recognize the parallel statement of 9.1 with 7.1, which introduced baptism (Garrow 2004, 20).

Having reviewed the texts, Garrow enumerates five actions which he considers to creat an incompatibility. These actions are, "1. Did. 9.2-4: thanksgivings prior to a eucharist. 2. Did. 9.5; the eating of a eucharist (implied). 3. Did. 10.1: a filling meal (implied). 4. Did. 10.2-3a, 4-5: a thanksgiving after a filling meal. 5. Did. 10.3b, 6: preparation for, and invitation to, a eucharist." (Garrow 2004, 21). The two apparent eucharists do not make sense in one event. As a result, some scholars have attempted to reinterpret either 9.2-5 or 10.6.

In some scenarios, scholars have attempted to understand 10.6 as an inserted rubric inviting people to come to a future celebration or possibly as a dismissal referring to attendance at a liturgy which is now complete. A few have suggested the statement was moved and belongs at an earlier location. Garrow does not consider these attempts to be satisfactory (Garrow 2004, 23).

Another, and probably the most common, way of dealing with the difficulty is to take the event as a filling meal which then introduces the eucharist. 10.2-5 gives thanks for the meal, the 10.6 introduces the eucharist (Garrow 2004, 23). This causes us to understand 9.2-5 as something other than a eucharist. Some take 9.2-5 as prayers for a filling meal, despite the language of a "fragment." Another theory takes the material from chapter nine as prayers which were later associated with an agape meal, though they may have had eucharistic significance at some point (Garrow 2004, 23). All these proposed solutions fail to persuade Garrow (Garrow 2004, 24).

Garrow suggests that the "fragment" language of chapter nine could be explained by a preceding meal at which bread was broken, thus introducing a sixth action, the "meal before the thanksgiving over the cup and the fragment" (Garrow 2004, 25). This in turn suggests that we are presented with two accounts of one event, which includes a full meal and a eucharistic celebration (Garrow 2004, 25-26). Garrow presents a side-by-side comparison (English) of chapters 9 and 10, identifying the significant level of parallelism (Garrow 2004, 26-27).

What Garrow fails to do, in my opinion, is to provide a reason for the presence of the parallel accounts. He comes no closer than concluding that the two accounts belonged to two layers of redaction (Garrow 2004, 28).

Matthew Before or After the Didache?

12/13/2021

12/13/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter One: Introduction." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 1-8.

Garrow relates the Didache to a map which, when discovered, appears valuable, but which is of only very limited usefulness due to the lack of a key. The time and location of composition, as well as the question of literary dependence were uresolved, thus leaving the work without meaningful and necessary context. Garrow's plan is "to present a detailed map of the relationship between Matthew's Gospel and the Didache." (Garrow 2004, 2).

The Didache has been considered to have a date after Matthew's Gospel due to its manuscript location among Apostolic Fathers and the "four references to 'the gospel' (8.2b; 11.3b; 15.3-4) amid, in the case of 8.2b especially, the passages that relate closely to Matthean material" (Garrow 2004, 3). This second argument has a fundamental weakness, since the Didache is widely considered to have undergone several layers of redaction, so these statements may not have been present from the start. Garrow summarizes his counter-argument to be "a relatively simple explanation of the two texts' relationship: namely, that various elements (disparate in terms of style, origin and age) were incorporated into the Didache over time and that, at a later date, Matthew drew on the resulting text in the construction of his gospel" (Garrow 2004, 4-5).

In Garrow's opinion, the redactional history proposed by other scholars has always presupposed the pre-existence of Matthew. This has skewed the scholarly consensus on the dating of the Didache, while it has also created some difficulties, such as requiring that different redactors would have used material in the same way as each other (Garrow 2004, 6). It also suggests that Matthew and the Didachist repeatedly gathered material from the same version of the same tradition. This strikes Garrow as unlikely (Garrow 2004, 7).