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.