The Didache.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

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?

[Ben C. Smith]

Garrow, incidentally, holds to Matthean posteriority (Mark > Luke > Matthew). I like the unique perspective, but cannot say I am convinced.

[John2]

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.

[John2]

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.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

In case you are at all interested, Garrow has some quality videos on his web site about some of his hypotheses:

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.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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 really think that Didache 16 (or something like it) preceded Mark 13 and Matthew 24.

It is also my impression that parts of the Didache or something like it preceded Mark.

[Ben C. Smith]

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 really think that Didache 16 (or something like it) preceded Mark 13 and Matthew 24.

It is also my impression that parts of the Didache or something like it preceded Mark.

Nice link, by the way. Reading it now.

ETA: His diagrams are so nice and clean... and even pretty.

[MrMacSon]

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)"

http://www.amazon.com/Matthews-Dependen ... N5MC4K653K

[Ben C. Smith]

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)"

http://www.amazon.com/Matthews-Dependen ... N5MC4K653K

Correct. Garrow argues that (most of) the Didache predates Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

[MrMacSon]

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)"

http://www.amazon.com/Matthews-Dependen ... N5MC4K653K

Correct. Garrow argues that (most of) the Didache predates Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Milavec is saying he [Milavec] also has argued that the Didache predates the written Gospels: those citations seem to be Milvec's.

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