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).
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).
RSS Feed