Just to make sure... you are positing that there was a Hebrew document known as Matthew, but this document contained mainly or only "special" Matthean material (M) not paralleled (much) in Mark? Do you think it contained Q material too?John2 wrote:I think an explanation for this could be that if the Matthew-type text in the Didache is a translation of an original Hebrew Matthew, the latter would presumably not have had any Markan material because it was in Hebrew and used by Jewish Christians and Mark is in Greek and arguably Pauline.
The Didache.
Moderator: andrewcriddle
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The Didache.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The Didache.
Garrow, incidentally, holds to Matthean posteriority (Mark > Luke > Matthew). I like the unique perspective, but cannot say I am convinced.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: The Didache.
Ben wrote:
"Just to make sure... you are positing that there was a Hebrew document known as Matthew, but this document contained mainly or only "special" Matthean material (M) not paralleled (much) in Mark? Do you think it contained Q material too?"
I'm wondering if the Matthew-type text in the Didache could be a translation from the original Hebrew Matthew mentioned by the Church fathers, and, if so, then perhaps it was made before and/or independently of the canonical Matthew. In other words, the Didache could pre-date the canonical Matthew, like Garrow suggests, but post-date the Hebrew Matthew.
And I'm assuming that an original Hebrew Matthew would not have had any Markan material because the former was supposedly used by Jewish Christians and the latter is arguably Pauline and that the two were combined only in the canonical Greek Matthew and not in the Didache. And I suppose this Hebrew Matthew would have had sayings that are labeled as Q.
"Just to make sure... you are positing that there was a Hebrew document known as Matthew, but this document contained mainly or only "special" Matthean material (M) not paralleled (much) in Mark? Do you think it contained Q material too?"
I'm wondering if the Matthew-type text in the Didache could be a translation from the original Hebrew Matthew mentioned by the Church fathers, and, if so, then perhaps it was made before and/or independently of the canonical Matthew. In other words, the Didache could pre-date the canonical Matthew, like Garrow suggests, but post-date the Hebrew Matthew.
And I'm assuming that an original Hebrew Matthew would not have had any Markan material because the former was supposedly used by Jewish Christians and the latter is arguably Pauline and that the two were combined only in the canonical Greek Matthew and not in the Didache. And I suppose this Hebrew Matthew would have had sayings that are labeled as Q.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:13 pm, edited 4 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Re: The Didache.
Ben wrote:
"Garrow, incidentally, holds to Matthean posteriority (Mark > Luke > Matthew). I like the unique perspective, but cannot say I am convinced."
Yeah, MacDonald has "shipwrecked" that idea for me until something else changes my mind.
"Garrow, incidentally, holds to Matthean posteriority (Mark > Luke > Matthew). I like the unique perspective, but cannot say I am convinced."
Yeah, MacDonald has "shipwrecked" that idea for me until something else changes my mind.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The Didache.
In case you are at all interested, Garrow has some quality videos on his web site about some of his hypotheses:John2 wrote:Ben wrote:
"Garrow, incidentally, holds to Matthean posteriority (Mark > Luke > Matthew). I like the unique perspective, but cannot say I am convinced."
Yeah, MacDonald has "shipwrecked" that idea for me until something else changes my mind.
Matthean Posteriority (Matthew Conflator Hypothesis): http://www.alangarrow.com/mch.html.
The Didache as an Extant Instance of Q: http://www.alangarrow.com/extantq.html.
Just FYI.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The Didache.
Thanks, interesting discussion, really enjoyed it.
I'd like to add a post by our Tenorikuma “Has the Q Source Been Under Our Noses All Along? Luke, Matthew, and the Didache”
I'd like to add a post by our Tenorikuma “Has the Q Source Been Under Our Noses All Along? Luke, Matthew, and the Didache”
It is also my impression that parts of the Didache or something like it preceded Mark.Ben C. Smith wrote:I really think that Didache 16 (or something like it) preceded Mark 13 and Matthew 24.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The Didache.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Thanks, interesting discussion, really enjoyed it.
I'd like to add a post by our Tenorikuma “Has the Q Source Been Under Our Noses All Along? Luke, Matthew, and the Didache”
It is also my impression that parts of the Didache or something like it preceded Mark.Ben C. Smith wrote:I really think that Didache 16 (or something like it) preceded Mark 13 and Matthew 24.
Nice link, by the way. Reading it now.
ETA: His diagrams are so nice and clean... and even pretty.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: The Didache.
In a somewhat critical review of Garrow's 'The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache ' (Bloomsbury Academic, NIPPOD edition; September, 2013), Aaron Milavec, Professor Emeritus, Piqua, OH 45356, says he has argued "that the Didache predates the written Gospels -
- " 'Synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited,' JECS 11/4: 445-448; and
" 'The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E.' [New York: Paulist Press, 2003] 695-698)"
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The Didache.
Correct. Garrow argues that (most of) the Didache predates Matthew, Mark, and Luke.MrMacSon wrote:In a somewhat critical review of Garrow's 'The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache ', Bloomsbury Academic, NIPPOD edition; September, 2013, Aaron Milavec, Professor Emeritus, Piqua, OH 45356, says he has argued "that the Didache predates the written Gospels -
http://www.amazon.com/Matthews-Dependen ... N5MC4K653K
- " 'Synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited,' JECS 11/4: 445-448; and
" 'The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E.' [New York: Paulist Press, 2003] 695-698)"
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: The Didache.
Milavec is saying he [Milavec] also has argued that the Didache predates the written Gospels: those citations seem to be Milvec's.Ben C. Smith wrote:Correct. Garrow argues that (most of) the Didache predates Matthew, Mark, and Luke.MrMacSon wrote:In a somewhat critical review of Garrow's 'The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache ', Bloomsbury Academic, NIPPOD edition; September, 2013, Aaron Milavec, Professor Emeritus, Piqua, OH 45356, says he has argued "that the Didache predates the written Gospels -
http://www.amazon.com/Matthews-Dependen ... N5MC4K653K
- " 'Synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited,' JECS 11/4: 445-448; and
" 'The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E.' [New York: Paulist Press, 2003] 695-698)"
It seems Milavec disagrees with some of Garrows points or arguments, though.
Link to The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E on Amazon