Ben C Smith

On another thread Jake Jones IV asked if I could give a brief summary of some of what Alan Garrow has written about the Didache and Matthew in The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache:

Steve Avery also chimed in on that thread:

I cannot very well judge the motives of Milavec, Garrow, and any others who have concluded that the Didache is very early, but it seems to me that the synoptic problem is diabolically complex, absolutely inviting diverse investigations into the synoptic sources. Perhaps you could flesh out your characterization of such hypotheses with a few relevant excerpts from those authors that would tend to point up their motives in the way you describe.

This thread is in response to that request. I apologize for the delay; I was away for a while on business. That business trip has given me a great deal of work to do, so my participation on this thread (indeed, on this board) may be severely limited for a long while; nevertheless, I think it worthwhile to take this brief look at the Didache and see where it goes from there.

The Didache was not listed in collections of the apostolic fathers until in 1873 Bryennios stumbled across a manuscript of its text alongside texts of other works numbered among the apostolic fathers (Barnabas, the long form of the Ignatian letters, 1 and 2 Clement). He published the text in 1883. The copy, written by a scribe named Leo, dates itself to 1056.

Coptic and Ethiopic translations of the Didache have since been discovered, as well as a Greek fragment dated to century IV, papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1782. There was also once a Georgian translation, but I think it has been lost.

The Didache was apparently absorbed whole into the Apostolic Constitutions (century IV) and used in the Didascalia (century II or III). Clement of Alexandria (late century II) and Origen (early century III) apparently used the Didache, Eusebius in History of the Church 3.25 lists the teachings of the apostles among the spurious works, and Athanasius in Festal Letter 39 places the Didache in the category of useful patristic reading material alongside (not in) the canon of scripture. Saint Boniface used the Didache in his Baptismal Renunciation (century VIII). Other fathers are also known to have quoted from it or mentioned it.

Furthermore, the Didache holds the two ways tradition in common with the epistle of Barnabas and some Jewish literature.

The external constraint on dating this text, then, is that it probably dates to century I or II.

Scholars, of course, are rarely content to leave matters of dating so wide open. In order to narrow down the date a bit internal factors must be taken into consideration. And that is what Alan Garrow has attempted to do in his book. I will simply present two brief case studies for Matthean dependence on the Didache. Nota bene: I am not yet entirely persuaded of the essentials of the case; but it is very much a worthwhile book nonetheless.

1. Those who have read N. T. Wright will be very familiar with arguments regarding the synoptic apocalypse (Matthew 24 = Mark 13 = Luke 21) vis-a-vis Daniel 7.13. Simply put, in Daniel 7.13 the one like a son of man is going on a cloud to the ancient of days, not to planet earth:

I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man was coming, and he came up to the ancient of days and was presented before him.

However, in Matthew 24.30 = Mark 13.26 = Luke 21.27 the son of man is apparently coming down to earth, since it is affirmed that men will see him coming:

Then they will see the son of man coming on a cloud with power and great glory.

Parallels in 1 Thessalonians 4.16-17 seem to confirm that the direction of this cloud travel, at least so far as the early church was concerned (pace Wright), was thought to be from heaven to earth, not from earth to heaven (to the throne of the ancient of days).

The question then looms: How did the direction, which is so clearly earth to heaven in Daniel 7.13, become reversed so as to now be heaven to earth? Garrow admits the possibility that Mark (or somebody) simply reversed the direction on a whim, creating a novel interpretation of the prophecy. However, he thinks there is a better solution to be found in the Didache.

Didache 16.7-8 according to the Bryennios manuscript reads as follows:

[7] ...not of all [the dead], but rather, as it is said, the Lord will come and all the holy ones with him. [8] Then the world will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

On pages 29-66 Garrow argues for a reconstructed ending that omits verse 7 but augments verse 8 with its most biblical phrase (italicized):

[8] Then the world will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven, and all the holy ones with him....

Now, I feel compelled to state here and now that I disagree with this reconstruction of the admittedly incomplete ending of the Bryennios manuscript. (S. C. Carlson has a great response to Garrow on this matter and on a paper that Garrow submitted to the SBL on the Didache and Paul.) Nevertheless, the insights here will still work with Didache 16.7, since it retains the key phrase, and all the holy ones with him.

That phrase is from Zechariah 14.5:

And the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

This biblical source explains the change of direction for our New Testament texts. Didache 16.7-8 has combined Daniel 7.13 (the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven) with Zechariah 14.5 (the Lord coming with all the holy ones) to produce the idea of the second coming: The Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven with all the holy ones.

Garrow makes the point that the changes to Daniel 7.13 needed to create this idea are shared between the Didache and the synoptics. Both the Didache and the synoptics are, in other words, working with the same redacted text of Daniel 7.13. Who, then, redacted this verse in Daniel to reverse the direction? If it was (one of) the synoptics, then it must have been a one-off kind of thing, since the synoptics do not appear to have used Zechariah 14.5 in order to change the direction of travel on that cloud. And the fact that this redaction fit so well with what the Didache would later do with Zechariah 14.5 comes off as a coincidence. If it was the Didache, however, Garrow argues that all is explained; Didache 16.[7-]8 gets its direction of travel from Zechariah but uses the cloud image from Daniel, and the synoptics later use this redaction of Daniel 7.13, eliminating the holy ones from Zechariah but keeping the direction of travel from Zechariah. The direction of travel, in other words, is redactional residue that points to the Didache having combined two Old Testament texts before the synoptics used those combined texts.

Such is the argument, and it is a good one. Not sure I agree yet, but it is worth a closer look, is it not?

2. On pages 143-147 Garrow ingeniously argues that the longer title of the Didache is original, while the shorter title is merely an abbreviation for convenience. The longer title is as follows:

The teaching of the Lord through the twelve apostles to the nations.

The shorter title is:

The teaching of the twelve apostles.

Garrow argues for a form of the Didache that contained, among many other things, both the longer title and 7.1...:

[1cd] Baptize in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit.

...but lacked the four references to a (probably written, probably Matthean) gospel at Didache 8.2b; 11.3b; 15.3-4.

With this in mind, look at Matthew 28.16-20 (the underlined words and phrases show distinct points of contact with Didache 7.1 and the longer title):

[16] But the eleven disciples journeyed into Galilee unto the mountain which Jesus had ordered them. [17] And having seen him they worshipped, but some doubted. [18] And Jesus went and spoke to them, saying: All authority has been given to me in heaven and upon the earth. [19] Journey therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit, [20] teaching them to keep all things, as many as I commanded you. And behold, I myself am with you all the days until the consummation of the age.

It has been suspected in various quarters that references to the twelve apostles are more primitive than references to the eleven disciples. In that case a change from the eleven disciples in Matthew 28.16 to the twelve apostles in the longer title of the Didache seems odd, while a change from the twelve apostles in the Didache to the eleven disciples in Matthew seems quite natural and quite in keeping with Matthean redaction (of Mark, for instance) elsewhere.

Furthermore, Garrow notes that the Didache only rarely attributes its instructions to the Lord himself, while Matthew does so incessantly. He thinks it less likely that the Didache consistently cut out this stamp of dominical authority than that Matthew understood, based on the longer title (the teaching of the Lord), the entire Didache to consist of dominical instructions, thus feeling no hesitation in putting them on the lips of Jesus throughout his gospel.

Am I convinced? Again, not yet, or at least not entirely (I am wary beyond measure of schemes that discover multiple recognizable layers of redaction and editing behind the extant text). But it is a worthy case, and it deserves attention. The assumption (based on Didache 8.2b; 11.3b; 15.3-4) is usually that the Didache used Matthew, and the question is how it did so. From now on, I think, monographs on the Didache will no longer be safe in making that assumption; they will have to spend a chapter or two arguing for it before going on to other matters.

Oh, by the way, on pages 25-28 Garrow gives an interpretation of the two eucharistic prayers in Didache 9-10 that I find quite compelling. Read the book. I live far out in the sticks in an almost forgotten Midwestern state, two and a half hours from the nearest major city and even further from the nearest world-class library, and I got the copy I am reading via interlibrary loan. I feel that if I can do it virtually anyone can (with potential apologies to Michael Turton, my favorite resident of Taiwan).

Ben.

Roger Pearse

I'm glad to learn that I'm not the only person dependent on ILL. How much does such a loan cost you, may I ask?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

Zero. Nothing. Nada. It is free of charge.

One of the things I pay taxes for, I guess.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Useful to know; thanks.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

The Georgian manuscript of the Didache discovered in the early 20th century has now disappeared but had carefully been collated before vanishing.

The problem is that IIUC most modern scholars believe it was a recent translation into Georgian based on the manuscript published by Bryennios and hence without independent authority.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Good to know. Thanks.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Ben,

Thanks for the info on ILL and the summary.
It is all very helpful!



Jake

robto

Great stuff, Ben, thanks for the summary! Does Garrow address why the synoptics used so little of Didache?

Is there any similar treatment of Barnabas? I mean, an argument for synoptic dependence on it?

Ben C Smith

Not that I recall, but I think there is more overlap than it appears at first. In Didache 1 there is that whole pocket of sayings revolving around the golden rule. In Didache 7 there is the baptismal formula. In Didache 8 there is the dominical prayer. In Didache 9-10 there is the eucharist. In Didache 11-13 there is the apostolic discourse and talk of false prophets. In Didache 16 there is the apocalyptic scenario.

Of the other chapters, Didache 2-6 and 14-15, the former block is more epistolary in nature and the latter block is aimed at the church in particular, an institution which did not get underway till after the gospels leave off their narration.

The synoptics could have used more, to be sure, but it seems to me they already had plenty of material to work with, and more exciting material at that, miracles and controversies and such.

No. The book deals with Barnabas only with regard to its two ways tradition.

Thanks for your interest.

Ben.

Julian

Does the book deal with why the eucharist of Mark and Matthew are completely different from the Didache ritual? A strong argument that the synoptics didn't use, or know, the Didache, IMO.

Julian

P.S. Thanks for the summary, BTW.