Vinnie

Didache 8

Of the two versions Christians know in the synoptics, the Lord's prayer here follows Matthew's version (chapter 6) rather than Luke's version (chapter 11).

We see that this is simply called "the Gospel". The later church attributed this work to Matthew which, originally was anonymous.

This means that Matthew had to be composed at the latest, sometime before 110 A.D. when the Didache cited the anonymous Gospel. Also, given Marcan priority we know that Mark has to predate Matthew. This alone would seeminlgy push Matthew and Mark back ito the very late first century.

It cannot be conclusively stated that the Didache quoted Matthew directly and not some other source but this seems likely given the text. When coupled with other arguments it becomes more persuasive. For instance, Mark and Matthew have to be written after the latest events that they record. The norm in scholarly circles is to fix the date closer to the latest datable material. Why? As E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies posit in "Studying the Synoptic Gospels, "The rationale for fixing the date of each Gospel close to the earliest possible time, rather than close to the latest, is that it is difficult to suppose that the authors concealed knowledge of recent events." From this we would ask, do Matthew and Mark show any definite awareness of any events which happened after 90 AD? Sanders/Davies answers in the negative and I myself, am not aware of any. Further, there is nothing in Mark which requires a dating after 70 A.D.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Further, in Smyrneans 1, Ignatius 9abotu the same date as Didache) could show signs of reading the Matthean Baptismal account (Matthew 3:15 especially).

"baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him".

The source is not named, just alluded to. Whic is further indication (though slight) that the Gospels were originally anonymous.

Vinnie

Yuri Kuchinsky

That's for sure, Vinnie. Thus, what you're saying is pure speculation.

Also, of course we don't know that Mk was the earliest gospel. There's plenty of evidence that argues against this.

Quote:

but this seems likely given the text. When coupled with other arguments it becomes more persuasive. For instance, Mark and Matthew have to be written after the latest events that they record. The norm in scholarly circles is to fix the date closer to the latest datable material.

There's no such "norm". You've made it up.

Quote:

Why? As E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies posit in "Studying the Synoptic Gospels, "The rationale for fixing the date of each Gospel close to the earliest possible time, rather than close to the latest, is that it is difficult to suppose that the authors concealed knowledge of recent events."

This is a wonderful example of begging the question fallacy...

Quote:

From this we would ask, do Matthew and Mark show any definite awareness of any events which happened after 90 AD? Sanders/Davies answers in the negative and I myself, am not aware of any. Further, there is nothing in Mark which requires a dating after 70 A.D. Vinnie

Regards,

Yuri.

Vinnie

The ultra-skepticism of Yuri Kuchinnsky reaches the limelight yet again.

Matthew 3:15 is a redactional verse as we know from his copying of Mark's account. Ignatius cites redactional line. As I said, there is a degree of speculation here but many scholars feel this lends much support to the notion that Matthew (not named at the time) was read and used.

Actually, I said that Mark predated Matthew. Isn't that a fact since Matthew used it as a source? Or are you going to say Matthew drew off of an earlier form of Mark whereas canonical Mark was written in the second century? Marcan priority is not heavily disputed today. What's your argument?

"Norm" may have been a bit strong since I have not conducted any polls. But "numerous scholars" as oppsoed to "norm" wouldn't be.

What is your objection to dating gospel works internally through their content? How are the statements above, in bold, flawed?

How so?

Can you show me any events mark mentions that occur after 70 ad? Or any events Matthew mentions or shows awareness of after 90 A.D?

Vinnie

Yuri Kuchinsky

Or this could have been some early source of Mt?

Quote:

Actually, I said that Mark predated Matthew. Isn't that a fact since Matthew used it as a source? Or are you going to say Matthew drew off of an earlier form of Mark whereas canonical Mark was written in the second century? Marcan priority is not heavily disputed today. What's your argument?

I'm saying that our canonical Mk is definitely not an early 1c gospel. It's a corrupt 4c gospel -- and this is a fact. At least the 4c part is a fact.

Yes, you can say that "Matthew drew off of an earlier form of Mark". But then there was also probably something before that "earlier form of Mark".

Basically, what I'm saying is that our mainstream 2ST is a pile of beans.

Quote:

"Norm" may have been a bit strong since I have not conducted any polls. But "numerous scholars" as oppsoed to "norm" wouldn't be. What is your objection to dating gospel works internally through their content? How are the statements above, in bold, flawed? How so? Can you show me any events mark mentions that occur after 70 ad? Or any events Matthew mentions or shows awareness of after 90 A.D? Vinnie

Well, let's make it very simple. You show me which part of Mt demands to be dated prior to, let's say, 130 CE.

BTW, the "letters of Ignatius" are almost certainly a late forgery.

Best,

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

It cannot be conclusively stated that the Didache quoted Matthew directly and not some other source but this seems likely given the text.

Vinnie, how can you be sure that the Didache is so late? I've always thought it among the earliest of Christian documents, at least the core, I believe, is pre-Christian and goes back to 80-100. Most authorities locate several redactions in the text. What makes you that this Matthew passage was in the original work?

From Peter's website:

• Mack states on the provenance of the Didache (op. cit., pp. 241-242): "It is not unthinkable that both the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew stem from the same or closely related communities, though at slightly different times in their histories. . . it would be easy to imagine a social location in some district of southern Syria or northern Palestine where a small group of congregations had formed."

It appears the two works may be related somehow, but the dependence may well be later interpolation of a GosMat passage back into Didache.

• http://www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/didache.htm
  "Are there traces of Q-material in the Didache ? This delicate and highly specialized matter has been investigated by Draper who found details which evicence that the Didache is independent of Matthew "and perhaps even helps to explain the background behind the text of Matthew." 22 This important fact can be generalized, for the Didache suggests an independence over the synoptics, throwing light on the text of these gospels ... It never includes material Matthew & Luke have drawn from Mark. Moreover, it coincides with material which is described as the Q-source ! This confirms that the sayings of Jesus were collected & distributed in a fixed form by oral or written means.23 It was a fluid source apparently also used by non-evangelists (prophets, teachers, over-seers of communities, deacons)."(emphasis mine)

The point above would tend to suggest that Didache predates Matthew.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

This is from Kirby's Site:

John S. Kloppenborg Verbin comments on the Didache (Excavating Q, pp. 134-135):

This is also from the site you linked on the bottom:

I could be reading this all wrong (I'm not 100% fluent in the field of "Didachism" and I admit that up front) but my understanding is that this says that sometime around 100 A.D. (probably before) someone took these two documents or whatever it was and "Christianized them. This does not undermine dependence on Matthew as best as I can see it in any way.

On what grounds are you arguing interpolation?

I'm reserving judgment on that for a day or two. I want to actually go through the Didache in some detail and evaluate that claim.

I also want to post something on Celsus tomorrow and the dating of Matthew and Mark.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

I agree that it does not undermine dependence on Matthew, but I think that it does undermine the dating you've proposed. No, that's wrong too, since I pretty much agree that Matthew falls between 95 and 115. No, I guess that what I mean is, you can't infer a date of Matthew from Didache, because it has been redacted so many times, and nobody knows when.

But it is an interesting and useful thread. What other clues do you use to locate Matthew in time?

Vorkosigan

MortalWombat

Just make sure neither one finds out about the other.

Vinnie

:notworthy