9/18/23
Scholarly Reflections
Jefford, Clayton N. "Chapter Two: The Milieu of Matthew, the Didache, and Ignatius of Antioch: Agreements and Differences." in Van de Sandt, Huub (editor). Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 35-47.
Jefford holds a position that Matthew, the Didache, and the genuine letters of Ignatius all have an Antiochian provenance, though he admits that the evidence for Antioch is tenuous for Matthew and the Didache (Jefford 2005, 36).The texts show signs of access to the same underlying resources, and Ignatius, though he doesn't use Matthew extensively, seems more influenced by Matthew than by the other canonical gospels. While the evidence remains tenuous, Jefford thinks one can make a reasoned conclusion that the same community exercised a strong ifnluence on the three works.
Jefford briefly considers arguments for Egypt as the provenance, observing all are inconclusive (Jefford 2005, 37). British scholarship has historically suggested Palestine as the provenance for the Didache. However, recent scholarship has tended to move at least the final stages of development of the Didache "away from Palestine toward Syria" (Jefford 2005, 38). He also finds some strength in arguments that Matthew may reflect a Syrian context.
The work of Jonathan Draper has recently made some credible suggestions that the Didache depends on a Q tradition which may have accumulated material as the community moved from Palestine to Syria (Jefford 2005, 39). Jefford considers Matthew to show many signs of influence from a Q community as well. The interplay of an established community and influences from outside the community is, in his opinion, an important similarity between Matthew and the Didache. The similarity in concepts but not in wording suggests dependence on similar oral sources, rather than a written source (Jefford 2005, 40). A challenge with this interpretation is presented by the actual use of the materials. Jefford observes that the same idea may be presented in very different contexts in Matthew and the Didache (Jefford 2005, 41). This could easily be taken to show the two texts have different provenance. Yet Jefford takes it as evidence that different authors applied the relevant ideas to different situations.
Jefford reminds his readers that we understand there to be, by necessity, a Jewish background to early Christianity. The influence of Paul was significant to the development of Christianity as well (Jefford 2005, 42). While Pauline theology is not clear in the Didache, we can see that Paul attests to communities in which there are elements both of Jewish and non-Jewish Chrsitianity. We know tha Antioch had both elements, as evidenced by remains in Antioch and by Acts 15 and Galatians 2 (Jefford 2005, 42). The Pauline influence in Antioch is clear, particularly as we consider the concerns which Ignatius shares in his letters (Jefford 2005, 43). Jefford notes the emphasis on heirarchy in Ignatius. Later bishops also show signs of dealing with Jewish factions in Christianity. This suggests there were Pauline and Petrine emphases in the same city.
Jefford considers it important to his inquiry that we attempt to identify the gospel text (or texts) which Ignatius would have taken as authoritative. This is a challenge, since Ignatius only clearly uses a handful of Old Testament writings (Jefford 2005, 44). There are no appeals to Mark, and only perhaps one allusion to Luke. While Jefford finds evidence of John's world of thought there are no quotations. Pauline interpretation seems clear. And the scholarly community largely agrees that Ignatius not only knew and used Matthew, but that he expected his readers to know Matthew as well (Jefford 2005, 45). Jefford therefore concludes that Antioch is a likely provenance for Matthew, and that the apparent parallels in the contexts of Matthew and the Didache suggest the same provenance for the Diache (Jefford 2005, 46). The confluence of evidence suggests to Jefford that Antioch is the most likely large city to serve, primarily due to the fact that Ignatius is clearly associated with that community.
Scholarly Reflections
Jefford, Clayton N. "Chapter Two: The Milieu of Matthew, the Didache, and Ignatius of Antioch: Agreements and Differences." in Van de Sandt, Huub (editor). Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 35-47.
Jefford holds a position that Matthew, the Didache, and the genuine letters of Ignatius all have an Antiochian provenance, though he admits that the evidence for Antioch is tenuous for Matthew and the Didache (Jefford 2005, 36).The texts show signs of access to the same underlying resources, and Ignatius, though he doesn't use Matthew extensively, seems more influenced by Matthew than by the other canonical gospels. While the evidence remains tenuous, Jefford thinks one can make a reasoned conclusion that the same community exercised a strong ifnluence on the three works.
Jefford briefly considers arguments for Egypt as the provenance, observing all are inconclusive (Jefford 2005, 37). British scholarship has historically suggested Palestine as the provenance for the Didache. However, recent scholarship has tended to move at least the final stages of development of the Didache "away from Palestine toward Syria" (Jefford 2005, 38). He also finds some strength in arguments that Matthew may reflect a Syrian context.
The work of Jonathan Draper has recently made some credible suggestions that the Didache depends on a Q tradition which may have accumulated material as the community moved from Palestine to Syria (Jefford 2005, 39). Jefford considers Matthew to show many signs of influence from a Q community as well. The interplay of an established community and influences from outside the community is, in his opinion, an important similarity between Matthew and the Didache. The similarity in concepts but not in wording suggests dependence on similar oral sources, rather than a written source (Jefford 2005, 40). A challenge with this interpretation is presented by the actual use of the materials. Jefford observes that the same idea may be presented in very different contexts in Matthew and the Didache (Jefford 2005, 41). This could easily be taken to show the two texts have different provenance. Yet Jefford takes it as evidence that different authors applied the relevant ideas to different situations.
Jefford reminds his readers that we understand there to be, by necessity, a Jewish background to early Christianity. The influence of Paul was significant to the development of Christianity as well (Jefford 2005, 42). While Pauline theology is not clear in the Didache, we can see that Paul attests to communities in which there are elements both of Jewish and non-Jewish Chrsitianity. We know tha Antioch had both elements, as evidenced by remains in Antioch and by Acts 15 and Galatians 2 (Jefford 2005, 42). The Pauline influence in Antioch is clear, particularly as we consider the concerns which Ignatius shares in his letters (Jefford 2005, 43). Jefford notes the emphasis on heirarchy in Ignatius. Later bishops also show signs of dealing with Jewish factions in Christianity. This suggests there were Pauline and Petrine emphases in the same city.
Jefford considers it important to his inquiry that we attempt to identify the gospel text (or texts) which Ignatius would have taken as authoritative. This is a challenge, since Ignatius only clearly uses a handful of Old Testament writings (Jefford 2005, 44). There are no appeals to Mark, and only perhaps one allusion to Luke. While Jefford finds evidence of John's world of thought there are no quotations. Pauline interpretation seems clear. And the scholarly community largely agrees that Ignatius not only knew and used Matthew, but that he expected his readers to know Matthew as well (Jefford 2005, 45). Jefford therefore concludes that Antioch is a likely provenance for Matthew, and that the apparent parallels in the contexts of Matthew and the Didache suggest the same provenance for the Diache (Jefford 2005, 46). The confluence of evidence suggests to Jefford that Antioch is the most likely large city to serve, primarily due to the fact that Ignatius is clearly associated with that community.
RSS Feed