5/7/21
Friday's Orality/Rhetoric Lesson
Kloppenborg, John S. "Didache 16:6-8 and Special Matthaean Tradition." Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche 70(1979), 54-67.
Comparisons of Didache 16 with Mark 13 and Matthew 24 have abounded in the 20th century. Kloppenborg asks whether there is actual dependence. After providing a parallel text of Didache 16:6-8, Matthew 24:29-31, and Mark 13:24-27 (Kloppenborg 1979, 55-56), he refines the question by considering whether the passage in the Didache shows use of "pre-Markan material and the possibility of dependence upon Mt. 24:30-31" (Kloppenborg 1979, 57).
To consider the material Kloppenborg examines redaction of the relevant Synoptic passages, then compares them to the passages in the Didache (Kloppenborg 1979, 57). He begins by considering Matthew 25:31. Though there are doubtless influences and parallel ideas Kloppenborg does consider the verse authentic to Mathew (Kloppenborg 1979, 58). When compared with Didache 16:7, Kloppenborg notes the lanuage is more similar to a reference to the Septuagint than to the text of Matthew (Kloppenborg 1979, 59). This strongly suggests that the text itself is not dependent on Matthew.
Didache 16:8, Matthew 24:30b, and Mark 13:26, which refer to Daniel 7:13 is another case of interest. Kloppenborg argues that "the Didache represents tradition independent of both the Synoptic gospels and of the Vorlage of Mk. 13" (Kloppenborg 1979, 59). The change in wording between Daniel and the Synoptics also appears in rabbinic sources. This suggests it is not a point of redaction in Mark (Kloppenborg 1979, 60). Kloppenborg thus concludes that the different wording in the Didache does not need to be dependent on Matthew or Mark. The agreemend of Matthew 24:30 and Didache 16:8 over against the Septuagint and the other Synoptics does not demonstrate a derivation (Kloppenborg 1979, 62). Kloppenborg notes that the following phrase, μετά δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς is not taken into the Didache (Kloppenborg 1979, 63).
Kloppenborg continues by looking at Didache 16:6, which is parallelled only by Matthew 24:30a, 31. There is certainly a kinship in the ideas and some of the wording (Kloppenborg 1979, 64). Kloppenborg and others have noted a similarity to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, which may be more similar to Didache 16:6 than to Matthew 24:30a, 31. However, he considers the similarity to be best explained by their use of common apocalyptic themes (Kloppenborg 1979, 65). Dependence is not conclusively demonstrated, and again there are ideas and wordss omitted in the Didache which one would expect to be present if it were dependent on Matthew.
Kloppenborg's conclusion is that while he cannot demonstrate a dependence between the Didache and Matthew, there are similarities between the Didache and the material which seems unique to Matthew. This suggests that the Didachist and Matthew may well have had access to a common source which the other Synoptics did not know (Kloppenborg 1979, 66).
Friday's Orality/Rhetoric Lesson
Kloppenborg, John S. "Didache 16:6-8 and Special Matthaean Tradition." Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche 70(1979), 54-67.
Comparisons of Didache 16 with Mark 13 and Matthew 24 have abounded in the 20th century. Kloppenborg asks whether there is actual dependence. After providing a parallel text of Didache 16:6-8, Matthew 24:29-31, and Mark 13:24-27 (Kloppenborg 1979, 55-56), he refines the question by considering whether the passage in the Didache shows use of "pre-Markan material and the possibility of dependence upon Mt. 24:30-31" (Kloppenborg 1979, 57).
To consider the material Kloppenborg examines redaction of the relevant Synoptic passages, then compares them to the passages in the Didache (Kloppenborg 1979, 57). He begins by considering Matthew 25:31. Though there are doubtless influences and parallel ideas Kloppenborg does consider the verse authentic to Mathew (Kloppenborg 1979, 58). When compared with Didache 16:7, Kloppenborg notes the lanuage is more similar to a reference to the Septuagint than to the text of Matthew (Kloppenborg 1979, 59). This strongly suggests that the text itself is not dependent on Matthew.
Didache 16:8, Matthew 24:30b, and Mark 13:26, which refer to Daniel 7:13 is another case of interest. Kloppenborg argues that "the Didache represents tradition independent of both the Synoptic gospels and of the Vorlage of Mk. 13" (Kloppenborg 1979, 59). The change in wording between Daniel and the Synoptics also appears in rabbinic sources. This suggests it is not a point of redaction in Mark (Kloppenborg 1979, 60). Kloppenborg thus concludes that the different wording in the Didache does not need to be dependent on Matthew or Mark. The agreemend of Matthew 24:30 and Didache 16:8 over against the Septuagint and the other Synoptics does not demonstrate a derivation (Kloppenborg 1979, 62). Kloppenborg notes that the following phrase, μετά δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς is not taken into the Didache (Kloppenborg 1979, 63).
Kloppenborg continues by looking at Didache 16:6, which is parallelled only by Matthew 24:30a, 31. There is certainly a kinship in the ideas and some of the wording (Kloppenborg 1979, 64). Kloppenborg and others have noted a similarity to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, which may be more similar to Didache 16:6 than to Matthew 24:30a, 31. However, he considers the similarity to be best explained by their use of common apocalyptic themes (Kloppenborg 1979, 65). Dependence is not conclusively demonstrated, and again there are ideas and wordss omitted in the Didache which one would expect to be present if it were dependent on Matthew.
Kloppenborg's conclusion is that while he cannot demonstrate a dependence between the Didache and Matthew, there are similarities between the Didache and the material which seems unique to Matthew. This suggests that the Didachist and Matthew may well have had access to a common source which the other Synoptics did not know (Kloppenborg 1979, 66).
RSS Feed