Chapter 11 Matthew'S Gospel And The Modifying Teacher Layer
Chapter 11
MATTHEW'S GOSPEL AND THE MODIFYING TEACHER LAYER
As noted above, the aim of this chapter, and of the next four chapters, is to show that each point of contact between Matthew's Gospel and the Didache may be explained by Matthew's direct dependence upon the Didache. Beyond this efforts will also be made, where possible, to show that such dependence is not only possible but probable.
It is worth noting, in the case of points of contact within the Modifying Teacher layer, that success in demonstrating Matthew's knowledge of any part of this layer indicates Matthew's knowledge of the whole of the rest of the Didache (less, of course, the Gospel layer and Jerusalem addition).
This is the case inasmuch as the Modifying Teacher layer cannot, by definition, have been composed apart from the two earlier layers that it modifies.
1. Be Reconciled: Matthew 5.24 and Didache 14.2
Massaux (1993: 156-57) assesses the relationship between these two passages thus:
These words [Did. 14.2] recall Mt. 5:23-24... This passage is peculiar to Mt. The presence of the word SiaAAayoknv in this text of the Teaching suggests a literary contact with Mt., which has the same verb 5iaAAayr|0i, a verb which is found only here in the New Testament. Let me add that the general idea is identical to that in Mt.: do not offer any sacrifice - compare
0UGia (Did.) with Scopov ... ETTI TO 0uaiaaTT]piov (Mt.) - to the Lord before being reconciled to your neighbour.
Massaux is justified in pointing out the noteworthy similarities between Did. 14.2 and Mt. 5.23-34. However, this does not provide a basis for concluding that the former necessarily recalls the latter.
In Chapter 7 it was argued that Did. 14.1-3 exhibits the modifying teacher's mode of operation whereby the host text is affirmed (14.1), modified (14.2) and the modification justified by appeal to an external authority, in this case Mai. 1.11 (14.3). If this author were in possession of
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache Matthew's Gospel, then the pattern of argument used in these verses is somewhat surprising. In this case it must be supposed that, in an effort to teach reconciliation prior to sacrifice, an allusion to the specifically relevant words of Jesus (Mt. 5.23-24) is made in Did. \A2, but without any attempt to remind the reader that these are the words of the Master. Indeed, rather than claim authority for these words on the basis that they are those of Jesus, the teacher finds their justification in a partially relevant quotation from Mai. 1.11. In this vein Niederwimmer (1998:198), without further comment, remarks:
The verb SiaXXaooeoSai.. .recalls the dominical saying in Matt 5:23-24...
Strikingly enough, however, the Didachist supports his demand not by appealing to the Lord's words in Matt 5:23-24, but by means of an Old
Testament quotation.
Rather than supposing that the teacher knew Mt. 5.23-24, but chose not to directly invoke it, it is preferable to suppose that Matthew's record of Jesus' words is not referred to because it was not known by the modifying teacher.
The only difficulty with this conclusion is that, at some point, the tradition of Jesus' teaching reconciliation prior to sacrifice did emerge. If Matthew believed that Jesus used these words, then from where did he gain this impression, and why was this information not used by the modifying teacher? An answer to these questions may be provided if the modifying teacher was responsible for composing Did. 14.2, and if this verse was then found by Matthew in its present context.
A feature ofDid. 14.1-3 suggestive of the modifying teacher's directly responsibility for the composition of 14.2, is the use of the sequence: affirmation of the existing text (14.1), modification of the existing text (14.2), justification of this modification by appeal to external authority (14.3).
This pattern suggests that the purpose of the whole unit was to introduce new material into the standing text, and that the nub of that new material is contained in the central modificatory passage, in this case 14.2. Crucially, the fact that the teacher felt it necessary to appeal to an external authority to support the force of Did. 14.2 suggests that the statements within this verse did not already have a firmly established pedigree in the Christian tradition.
If the modifying teacher was originally responsible for the wording of Did. 14.2, then there is no difficulty in understanding why this teaching is not directly attributed to Jesus. At the same time, if Matthew came upon Did. 14.2 in its present context, then his direct attribution of this teaching
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
to Jesus also becomes explicable. This is the case because Did. 14.2 stands within a text entitled, 'The Teaching of the Lord, by the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles'.1 If Matthew knew this text, then it is possible that he treated its entire contents, including the contributions of the modifying teacher, as the teaching of Jesus.
This point of contact between the Didache and Matthew's Gospel is an important one for the claim that Matthew depended directly on the first three layers of the Didache. If the modifying teacher composed Did. 14.2, then neither theories of a shared root tradition, nor of the Didache's use of Matthew's Gospel, can explain the connection between the two texts. The case for Matthew's knowledge of Did. 14.2 in the context of The Teaching of the Lord' also challenges the possibility of Matthew's indirect dependence on the Didache. This means that Matthew's direct knowledge of Did.
14.2 is not only feasible, it is also considerably more probable than the available alternatives. Further, if the observations made in Part I are accurate, then it follows that, if Matthew knew Did. 14.2, then he must also have known the rest of the Modifying Teacher layer, and, consequently, the two preceding layers that it modifies.
2. The Last Penny: Matthew 5.26 and Didache 1.5c Mt. 5.26 and Did. 1.5c have a striking phrase in common in their shared reference to the paying of the last penny. At the same time these passages are distinctly different inasmuch as Did. 1.5b-6 is concerned with combating abuses of the command to give without expecting a return, while Mt.
5.26 continues to deal with the subject of anger that runs throughout Mt. 5.21-26. These passages also differ in that Did. 1.5b-6 does not refer to the words of Jesus, while Matthew's discourse is placed on Jesus' lips.
A number of scholars note that some form of literary connection between the two texts is likely because of the unique shared use of 'anoScps/ aTToSco TOV eoxcxxov Ko5pavxr|v'.2 However, it is unlikely that Did. 1.5c represents a conscious allusion to, or quotation from, Mt. 5.26 because such an invocation would not altogether serve the thrust of Did. 1.5b-6.
That is to say, these verses are concerned to combat the abuse of free generosity by presenting the threat of gaol to potential offenders. The force of Mt. 5.26, on the other hand, is directed towards the promotion of reconciliation, a more eirenic outcome than that envisaged by the Didache. The 1. For a discussion of the redactional location of this title see Chapter 9, § 2.2.
For example, Massaux (1993: 151-52) and Jefford (1989: 48^9).
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache case against a direct appeal to Matthew's Gospel is also supported by the fact that no reference to the gospel is made in this passage. Indeed, rather than appeal to Jesus' words in the gospel, the authority of the teacher's remarks are supported, in Did. 1.6, by the quotation of a saying of unclear origin.3
While it is unlikely that Did. 1.5c represents a deliberate attempt subtly to invoke the authority of Mt. 5.26, it is possible that the teacher, having soaked up the language of Matthew's Gospel, unconsciously spoke in Matthean idiom at this point.4 However, this explanation requires a considerable level of unconscious coincidence.5 Of course this solution is always theoretically possible, but it should be treated with caution while less tenuous explanations are also on offer.
An appeal to unconscious coincidence is not required by the proposal that Matthew depended directly on Did. 1.5c. As with the call for reconciliation prior to sacrifice (Did. 14.2), the threat of having to pay back the last penny occurs within a unit in which the modifying teacher affirms the host text (1.5b), modifies that text (1.5c) and then justifies this modification by appeal to an external authority (1.6). As noted above, this pattern suggests that the central modificatory section is the original work of the modifier, hence the need to support this view by appealing to an external authority. If this is the case, then the wording of Did. 1.5c may be seen as original to this setting and its reappearance in Mt. 5.26 as due to Matthew's presupposition of Did. 1.5c. More than that, the fact that Matthew presents these words as the direct speech of Jesus, while the teacher does not, suggests that Matthew knew them in a context suggestive of this exalted origin.
The title of the Didache creates a setting for Did. 1.5c which would allow Matthew to see the contribution of this modifying teacher as part of The Teaching of the Lord'.
Having considered the case for the Didache's conscious or unconscious use of Mt. 5.26, and for Matthew's direct use of Did. 1.5c, it is appropriate
The quotation offered at 1.6 is commonly identified as originating from a translation of Sir. 12.1. However, Niederwimmer (1998: 84-85) suggests that it has not yet been possible to give a secure demonstration of its source.
Tuckett (1996) does not specifically address the connection between Did 1.5c and Mt. 5.26. However, he is anxious elsewhere in his discussion (e.g. 1996: 102) to point out that he perceives the Didache's allusion to, rather than direct quotation of,
Matthew's Gospel.
An appeal to coincidence, even on one occasion, is never entirely satisfactory.
However, it must be remembered that every time this type of explanation is offered the level of coincidence rises accordingly.
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
to give some attention to the possibility that both texts shared a common tradition. This type of understanding is offered by Jefford (1989:51), who declares the Didache's reference to paying the last penny is 'a blatant quotation of the material that appears in the Sayings Gospel Q\
There are two difficulties with this position. First, if, as seems likely, Did. 1.5c is the original work of the modifying teacher, then there is no basis for supposing that this line relies on some earlier tradition. Second, if Did. 1.5c consciously alluded to any other text, then it is surprising that this fact is not mentioned in support of the authority of the teacher's modificatory idea. Further, such a tradition may be expected to preserve the words of Jesus (hence Matthew's placement of the relevant phrase on Jesus' lips), but no mention of such an authoritative origin is mentioned by the modifying teacher.
The primary objective of this section has been to show that Matthew's direct use of Did. 1.5c is feasible. There is certainly no obstacle to this conclusion and so the observations made in the introduction to Part II hold good at this point. Beyond this minimum requirement I have also sought to present positive evidence for Matthew's direct use of the Didache.
3. Fast and Pray: Matthew 6.5-16 and Didache 8.1-2a, 2c-3 There are striking similarities between Did. 8.1-2a, 2c-3 and Mt. 6.5-16.
Both texts teach a practice of fasting and prayer that is self-consciously distinct from the discipline of 'the hypocrites', and both texts include very closely related versions of the Lord's Prayer.
Alongside these strong similarities, however, these texts exhibit some distinctive differences. With regard to fasting, the Didache teaches that Christians should demonstrate their differentiation from 'the hypocrites' by publicly fasting on different days (Draper 1996c: 233-35). Matthew, on the other hand, condemns the public piety of the hypocrites and teaches that fasting should be done without any public show at all. A similar pattern occurs in the case of prayer. The Didache expects its readers to demonstrate their difference from the hypocrites by publicly praying a different prayer from that used by 'the hypocrites' (Draper 1996c: 234-38). This demand is quite different from that required by Matthew, where the emphasis is once again on the value of private over public piety.
The versions of the Lord's Prayer provided by each text are also slightly different: Matthew has the plurals TOIS oupavois and TCX 6(|)£iATi|jaTa, while the Didache has these words in the singular; forgiveness is a present event in Matthew but a past one in the Didache; the Didache explicitly
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache expects thrice daily repetition of the prayer, whereas Matthew's Gospel does not; the Didache includes a closing doxology, while the more widely favoured manuscripts of the gospel do not. Matthew, on the other hand, includes features that do not occur in the Didache'. a reference to differentiation from the practice of Gentiles (before the Lord's Prayer), a reinforcement of the importance of forgiveness (after the Lord's Prayer), and a rule for private piety in almsgiving.
The verbal similarities between these two texts are so extensive as to make some form of literary relationship between them extremely likely, and this is a universal opinion amongst scholars.6 Three types of relationship are logically possible. Either the Didache is directly dependent on Matthew,7 or both texts depend on another unknown written/oral source,8 or Matthew is directly dependent on the Didache? The most credible option will be the one that provides the best explanation for the differences, as well as the similarities, between the two texts.
'There is clearly a close relationship between these two texts. The question of literary dependence cannot easily be settled, since the great verbal similarity is accompanied by a difference of ethos. The direction of dependence between two such texts will depend on prior assumptions' (Draper 1996c: 242). See also Draper (1996b: 8586) and nn. 7 and 8 below.
Massaux (1993:154-55) sees the sequence of the whole block of Jesus material in Did. 8.1-2 as proof of such dependence. Streeter (1924: 508): 'The relationship of this passage [Did. 8.1] to Matt 6.5-16, is clear. It is an interpretation according to the letter, but in flagrant discord with the spirit, of the Sermon on the Mount.'
Koster (1957: 203) favours the view that the Didache here refers to the oral preaching of the Lord, although he does not rule out a reference to a written gospel.
Difficulties with this position were raised in Chapter 8, § 2. Niederwimmer (1998:136) states that the deviations between the two versions of the Lord's Prayer mean that 'It is hard to suppose that the Didache quotes directly from Matthew's Gospel. The agreements would rest on a common liturgical tradition.' Glover (1958:18-19), responding to the quotation from Streeter noted in the footnote immediately above, writes: 'The Didachist's interpretation is not according to the letter of the Sermon on the Mount.
The letter of Matt 6.16-18 is defied as flagrantly as the spirit. The Didache may indeed have found the first part of Matt's text "in some recognised official document": but it is hard to believe that the document was our gospel since an author with Matthew's interpretation before him could scarcely venture to substitute the extraordinary alternative found here.'
Draper (1996c: 243) says: 'If there is a schema underlying Matthew's choice of material, which is not unlikely, then it is not unlikely that it would resemble Didache
8!' In making this statement Draper comes close to saying that Matthew is directly dependent on the Didache. However, he does not actually take this step, preferring instead to see both texts as dependent on a common source (cf. Draper 1996b: 85-86).
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
In seeking to explain the differences between Did. 8.1 -2a, 2c-3 and Mt.
6.5-16, it is necessary to recognize that any number of hypothetical circumstances might be devised for this purpose. This means that the issue here is one of probability rather than necessity. I shall begin, therefore, by presenting my favoured explanation for the differences between the two texts. The relative merits and deficiencies of this hypothesis will then be compared with the main alternatives.
3.1. Matthew Conflates Mark 12.40-44; 11.25 with Didache 8 I propose that the differences between Mt. 6.1-18 and Did. 8.1-2a, 2c-3 are best accounted for as the product of Matthew's conflation of these verses from Did. 8 with the teaching of Jesus recorded in Mk 12.40-44.
Mk 12.40-44 is generally assumed, by those who accept Markan priority,10 to have been omitted by Matthew in his use of Mark's Gospel.
To argue that these verses were in fact used in the construction of Mt. 6.116 it is necessary to show, first of all, that there is nothing about Mk 12.4044 that requires its complete omission by Matthew. In addition, I aim to show that this supposed omission is so surprising that an alternative explanation for the apparent disappearance of these verses from Matthew's
Gospel is invited.
It is commonly recognized that Matthew's Gospel incorporates a very high percentage of Mark's Gospel. Stanton (1989: 63) says that 'Only about 50 of Mark's 662 verses are not found in Matthew'. Goulder (1974:
34) goes fixrther and suggests that The things which Matthew felt called to omit were...: The Young Man in the Sheet (Mark 14.5 If) as being of dubious relevance; the Widow's Mite
(Mark 12.41-4) probably as breaking the thread of the Woes discourse in 23; the Strange Exorcist (Mark 9.38f) as bringing discredit on John - but the logia at the end of the unit find a place elsewhere in Matthew; and a general statement at Mark 3.20, which disappears in Matthew's reformation of the Beelzebub incident. This gives a total of nine verses which have disappeared without trace, 1 !4 per cent of Mark. This figure is noticeably less than those customarily suggested, because we are accounting for such passages as the Seed Growing Secretly, or the coming of Jesus' relatives to lay hold of him, as being altered, and not omitted.
Whatever criteria are employed for measuring Matthew's faithfulness to Mark there can be little dispute that Matthew includes the vast majority of Mark's Gospel. In particular, a comparison of Mk 10.1-16.8 andMt. 19.128.5 shows that Matthew preserves, in order, every element of Mark's text
10. Markan priority is assumed for the whole of this section.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache almost without exception. The two omissions being the young man in a sheet (14.51-52), the loss of which is not surprising, and the lines including the widow's mite (12.40-44).
Goulder's explanation for Matthew's omission of the widow's mite, quoted above, is standard but inadequate. As Goulder admits in relation to the logia in Mk 9.39-42 (and as occurs on numerous other occasions),
Matthew is perfectly capable of rearranging his sources to suit his own structure. The complete omission of Mk 12.40-44 suggests, therefore, that Matthew singularly objected to the content of these verses and not just their location in Mark's Gospel. West (1967-68: 80-83) proposes that the righteous widow did not fit in with Matthew's attitude to women, or that Matthew fought shy of the widow's willingness to give all that she had.
However, this does not provide a motive for leaving these verses out altogether. That is to say, lessons may be gleaned from these verses other than that a woman may be especially commended, or that the giving of every possession is required of Christians.
Matthew's seemingly complete omission of Mk 12.40-44 is particularly startling when it is observed that these verses include one of the very rare occurrences where the teaching of Jesus is actually recorded by Mark, rather than merely commented on in retrospect. Matthew's interest in the teaching of Jesus is made plain by the length and prominence of the Sermon on the Mount, where other loose11 fragments of Jesus' teaching supplied by Mark are included. It is striking, therefore, that one of Matthew's most significant omissions from Mark's Gospel should consist of material that is both rare in Mark and particularly precious to Matthew.
Two observations, therefore, suggest that Matthew is highly likely to have included Mk 12.40-44, in some form, in his gospel: Matthew includes almost every element of Mark's work and he shows a particular interest in the teaching of Jesus. That the widow's mite is not readily detectable in Matthew's Gospel may, therefore, be due to the alteration of these verses in some way, rather than their complete omission. The conflation of Mk
12.40-44 with Did. 8. l-2a, 2b-3 would provide an explanation for this type of alteration.
At the heart of the case for Matthew's conflation of Mk 12.40-44 and Did. 8.1-2a, 2b-3 is the observation that the influence of Mk 12.40-44, combined with Matthew's compositional strategy, may credibly account for almost every difference between Did. 8.1-2a, 2b-3 and Mt. 6.1-18.
11. By the term 'loose', I mean fragments of teaching that are not parables, or otherwise tied to an event in the narrative.
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
Before attempting to demonstrate this point in detail it is appropriate to identify a particular element of Matthew's compositional technique that appears to be at work in his construction of Mt. 6.1-18.
Matthew is a thematizer and collator who tends to group and conflate similar materials together. For example, his parables, healings and discourses are often arranged in blocks of similar kind or subject. In the Sermon on the Mount (a thematized discourse on Jesus' ethical teaching)
Matthew arranges his material, where possible, within a wider organizational framework. As Draper (1996d: 347) remarks: 'The Sermon on the Mount is [Matthew's] own creation, ordering originally independent material (found partially scattered in Luke) according to a grand design'.
This technique may be seen particularly clearly in the antitheses (Mt.
5.21-48). H.D. Betz (1995: 201) comments:
There clearly appears to be a rationale behind the six antitheses and their arrangement in the SM [Sermon on the Mount], but that rationale has so far eluded scholarship; few scholars have even discussed the question. A number of possibilities might be taken to provide an answer to each problem of the arrangement, but at closer inspection, each turns out to be a false lead.
Can the arrangement of the antitheses in the SM be explained on the basis of the Decalogue (Exod 20:2-17)? The answer is negative because only the first two offenses, murder and adultery, follow each other in the Decalogue as well...
A possible explanation for the arrangement and content of the antitheses is that their content was determined by the resources available to Matthew, while their form was determined by his interest in presenting Jesus as giver of the true Law. According to this theory the Decalogue may be maintained as the organizing principle, while the deviation of the antitheses from the substance of these commandments may be attributed to the failure of Matthew's resources to supply further examples of their representation by Jesus.12 Faced with this situation, it is possible that Matthew chose to continue his new version of the commandments by creating headings, or 'theses', related to the teaching of Jesus that was available to him. For example, it is apparent (by virtue of Luke's and Matthew's shared knowledge of a group of sayings expressed in Lk. 6.27-30 and Mt. 5.3942, respectively) that Matthew had access to a saying of Jesus regarding non-retaliation. The thesis that precedes this antithesis is therefore selected by virtue of its appropriateness to the saying in hand, not because the lex
12. Certainly, no further examples of such teaching may be found in Matthew's resources so far as they are represented by Mark's and Luke's Gospels.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache talionis is part of the ten commandments scheme that Matthew initially appears to be using (Mt. 5.21,27). The same pattern occurs in Matthew's section on the love of enemies (5.43-48), and so may be suspected in the case of the other antitheses. This observation is supported by the absence of any of Matthew's sectional headings (the 'theses') in Luke's Sermon on the Plain. It appears, therefore, that Matthew gathered the teaching of Jesus pertaining to the Law, from whatever sources he had available, and arranged this material under suitable headings drawn from traditional sources.13
Matthew's policy of collating and organizing his resources according to a wider organizational framework may also be seen in Mt. 6.1-18, where, instead of creating a new rendering of 'the Decalogue', Matthew offers a new version of a Three Rules saying. The Three Rules' form has already been mentioned in Chapter 4, section 3 in connection with the three rules,
'bless, pray and fast' for your enemies in Did. 1.3. Jefford (1989: 44) claims that 'There is no question that the assemblage of the Three Rules derives from Jewish tradition'. He goes on to cite examples from Tobit
12.8 and Gospel of Thomas 6a, 14a. It is possible, therefore, that Matthew used this organizational scheme to manage the teaching on fasting, praying and almsgiving that he found in Did. 8 and Mk 12.
The distinctive of Jesus' Three Rules, as presented by Matthew, is his emphasis on the virtue of private piety and the heavenly reward that this will bring. The privacy aspect of this theme was, I suggest, taken by Matthew from the teaching of Jesus as presented in Mk 12.38-44. The placing of the account of the widow's offering immediately after Jesus' condemnation of those who exercise an ostentatious piety invites the possibility that Matthew saw Jesus' commendation of the widow as associated with the humility and privacy of her offering.
The 'hope of a future reward' motif is, I suggest, taken up and repeated according to the pattern of the Three Rules in a manner similar to Matthew's threefold expansion of the concept of reward in Mt. 10.40-42 = Mk
9.41.
These ideas of privacy and reward are then combined in Matthew's introduction to his Three Rules teaching:
6.1 Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.
13. In the antitheses, Matthew's headings are not always entirely apposite. However, the antithetical form placed a constraint on the wording of the headings because they had to appear as traditional sayings that were then intensified by the teaching of Jesus.
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
This combined principle is then applied individually to almsgiving, prayer and fasting. Matthew's framework employs a repeated pattern whereby public righteousness leads only to earthly reward, while private righteousness leads to a heavenly reward.
ACT: 6.2 So whenever you give alms PUBLIC: do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others.
EARTHLY REWARD: Truly I tell you, they have received their reward.
PRIVATE: 6.3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 6.4 so that your alms may be done in secret;
HEAVENLY REWARD: and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
ACT: 6.5 And whenever you pray PUBLIC: do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others.
EARTHLY REWARD: Truly I tell you, they have received their reward.
PRIVATE: 6.6 But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret;
HEAVENLY REWARD: and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
ACT: 6.16 And whenever you fast, PUBLIC: do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting.
EARTHLY REWARD: Truly I tell you, they have received their reward.
PRIVATE: 6.17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 6.18 so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; HEAVENLY REWARD: and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
This regular framework is fleshed out with detail provided by both Mk 12 and Did. 8. Thus, the teaching on alms is provided by Mk 12.41-44, prayer comes from both Mk 12.40 and Did. 8.2, while fasting comes from Did. 8.1 alone. Opposition to hypocrisy is taken from Did. 8.1-2a and applied to all three actions. Similarly the virtue of private piety is taken from Mk 12.38-44 and applied to each case.
Into this basic and regular framework Matthew includes further instructions on the subject of prayer. The possibility that these additions were taken from a previously existing source is heightened by the fact that the neat pattern of the Three Rules structure is disrupted by these expansions.
Almost all of these additions regarding prayer may be traced to either Mark's Gospel or the Didache.
6.7 When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache This phrase echoes the condemnation of the scribes' lengthy prayers for show recorded in Mk 12.40. In changing the culprits from scribes to Gentiles, Matthew extends his response to the hypocritical practice of those who 'pray in the synagogues' and so on (6.5), to include Gentiles who exercise an ostentatious piety.
6.8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
This line does not appear in Mark or the Didache. However, there is a parallel in Mt. 6.32b, which may suggest that Matthew has incorporated this line from teaching on prayer provided by the source that is also used in Mt. 6.32.
6.9 Pray then this way:
Our Father in heaven (ev jois oupavois) hallowed be your name.
6.10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
6.11 Give us this day our daily bread 6.12 And forgive us our debts (6(|>ieAri|jaTa), as we also have forgiven (a<j)rJKa|jev) our debtors.
6.13 And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.
The above version of the Lord's Prayer, as already noted, is very close to that found in Did. 8.2. There are, however, four differences between the two texts: the Didache has hv xcp oupavco instead of Matthew's ev TOIS oupccvols; the Didache has oc|>eiAr]v instead of Matthew's 6(|>isATiMOCTa; the Didache has 6C(|)IE JJEV instead of Matthew's ac|)rJKCX|j£v; and the Didache preserves a doxology whereas the most widely favoured manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel do not. The first of these differences is perhaps the most noteworthy. No known manuscript of Matthew's Gospel contains a reference to heaven in the singular at this point. This means that, if the teacher was quoting Matthew's Gospel, then it is highly unlikely that the version used contained the singular form. If the teacher knew Matthew's prayer, therefore, it is necessary to suggest a reason why Matthew's version is altered at this point. However, such a change carries no obvious theological significance, and so a motive for this change is not apparent.
On the other hand, reference to heavens in the plural form is a widely recognized feature of Matthew's redactional activity.14 In this vein, if 14. So Draper (1996b: 86). Examples of occasions where Matthew introduces a
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
Matthew depended on the Didache's version of the prayer a change from singular to plural heavens may be simply and credibly attributed to Matthew's redactional activity.15 The other differences between the two prayers offer less clear advice since, as is so often the case, arguments for the direction of dependence are open to reversal.16 What may be said, however, is that there is no obstacle to supposing that Matthew may have used the Didache's version of the prayer, even if other alternatives are also possible.
This much is all that is required for the defence of the larger argument currently in progress.
6.14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 6.15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses.
A final difference between Mt. 6.1-18 and Did. 8.1 -2a, 2c-3 is the presence of a re-emphasis of the importance of forgiveness immediately after Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer (6.14-15). This passage was, I propose, taken from the minimal teaching on prayer to be found in Mk
11.25. As noted above, Matthew is willing to draw snippets of Jesus' loose teaching in Mark's Gospel for inclusion in the Sermon on the Mount. Mk
11.25 is the only instruction regarding prayer that Mark preserves; it is credible, therefore, that Matthew should incorporate this verse in his section on Jesus' teaching on prayer.
Before moving on to consider alternative explanations for the similarities between Mt. 6.1-16 and Did. 8.1 -2a, 2c-3, it is worth recalling the strengths of the above 'conflationary' hypothesis in response to the challenge in hand. Of first importance is a recognition that Mt. 6.1-16 andDid. 8.1-2a,
2c-3 not only contain a large number of words in common, but also exhibit reference to plural heavens where they do not appear in Luke/Q or Mark include, for example: Mt. 7.21 = Lk. 6.46; Mt. 11.12 = Lk. 16.16; Mt. 13.31 = Mk4.30. Within Matthew's 'Special Material' plural heavens are referred to in, for example: 18.23;
23.9; 25.1. In all, Matthew refers to heaven using the plural on 56 occasions, and in the singular 27 times.
15. Koster (1957: 206) seriously entertains the possibility that the Didache's version of the prayer is the older and suggests specifically that the singular form ev rep oupavco may be original.
16. Niederwimmer (1998:136-38) offers a detailed discussion of the various possibilities. While firm conclusions are not easily drawn regarding the significance of the differences between the two prayers, Niederwimmer (1998:136) expresses the opinion that 'It is hard to suppose that the Didache quotes directly from Matthew's Gospel'.
Niederwimmer favours the view that both versions rely on a common liturgical tradition. This possibility will be addressed in due course.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache three types of difference: Matthew emphasizes a private piety, while the Didache is concerned with public acts of prayer and fasting; Matthew includes additional Markan teaching on prayer and almsgiving which is absent from the Didache; and Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer differs slightly from that recorded in the Didache. A satisfying explanation for the similarities between the two texts must also explain these dissimilarities.
The hypothesis of Matthew's conflation of Mk 12.40-44; 11.25 with Did. 8. l-2a, 2c-3 has three specific points in its favour. First, the influence of Mk 12.40 offers an explanation for Matthew's emphasis on private piety over against the Didache's interest in public expressions of Christian identity. Second, this theory explains the absence, from Did. 8, of all the Markan elements within Mt. 6. Third, the slight differences between the two Lord's Prayers, especially the variation in the first line, are accounted for as being consistent with similar examples of Matthew's redactional activity.
It is also noteworthy that the conflationary and organizational programmes demanded by this hypothesis are consistent with several examples of this type of activity elsewhere in Matthew's work.17 In addition, this hypothesis offers an explanation for Matthew's apparent omission of Mark's account of the widow's mite. According to the above, Matthew did include this teaching (in 6.1 -18) but chose to interpret the significance of the widow's offering in the light of the condemnation of ostentatious piety that immediately precedes it.
The next stage in the defence of this hypothesis is to measure its benefits against those of alternative explanations for the similarities and differences between Did. 8.1-2a, 2c-3 and Mt. 6.1-18.
3.2. Didache 8 is Directly Dependent on Matthew 6.5-16 Streeter (1924: 508) suggests that Did. 8 depends directly upon Mt. 6. However, Glover (1958: 18-19) takes him to task for his over-simple assumption:
On Did. viii.l Streeter comments, 'The relation of this passage to Matt. vi.
5-16, is clear. It is an interpretation according to the letter, but in flagrant discord with the spirit, of the Sermon on the Mount. Such interpretations
17. Since the development of the Four Source Hypothesis, Matthew has been widely regarded as a conflator of prior traditions. Several examples of Matthew's conflationary activity are presented in each of the following four chapters, especially
Chapters 13 and 14.
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
only arise where there is a letter to misinterpret and would compel us to assume that the words stood in some recognised official document, even if the author did not expressly quote them as from "his (i.e. the Lord's)
Gospel"'.
... Here one may observe that the Didachist's interpretation is not according to the letter of the Sermon on the Mount. The letter of Matt. 1618 is defied as flagrantly as the spirit. The Didachist may indeed have found the first part of Matthew's text 'in some recognized official document'; but it is hard to believe that that document was our gospel since an author with Matthew's interpretation before him would scarcely venture to substitute the extraordinary alternative found here.
Glover's point, with regard to the Didache's teaching on fasting, is essentially the same as that which has already been made regarding the distinct difference between the ethos of Did. 8 and Mt. 6.1-16.18 This difference is so great that it cannot be explained by a simple copying of Matthew by the Didachist; it appears that some other factor must have been at work. It is possible that the differences between Mt. 6 and Did. 8 may be attributed to the expression of the Didachist's own concerns or the conflation of Matthew with some other hypothetical document.19 However, hypothetical solutions are less satisfying than those, such as that offered in the immediately preceding section, which rely solely on extant sources.
A further difficulty for the view that Did. 8 used Mt. 6 is the fact that the Didache succeeds in completely avoiding every part of Matthew's text which may be seen as coming from Mk 12.40-44 or 11.25. This omission of Markan material in Did. 8 may be coincidental, but such coincidence need not be appealed to if, in fact, Did. 8 was composed separately and prior to the formation of Mt. 6.
In summary, those who claim the direct dependence of Did. 8.1-2a, 2c-3 on Mt. 6.1-16 must provide some explanation for the distinctive differences between these two texts. Such an explanation may theoretically be provided, but not without additional hypothecation and appeals to precise coincidence.
18. See Chapter 8, § 2.2. Draper (1996c: 242) notes: 'The great verbal similarity
[between Did. 8 and Mt. 6.1-16] is accompanied by a different ethos'.
19. Such a hypothetical text would have to be conceived as accounting for every difference between Did. 8 and Mt. 6.5-16. Since every detail of Did. 8 has some element of difference from Mt. 6.5-16, it would be necessary to hypothecate a text with teaching on each aspect covered by Did. 8. Such a text would need to be extremely close to Did. 8 as it now stands. If Did. 8 were dependent on such a text, then there is little motive for the additional use of Mt. 6.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache 3.3. Matthew 6.1-16 andDidache 8.1-2a, 2c-3Dependon Common Tradition
Scholars such as Koster (1957), Glover (1958) and Niederwimmer (1998), who conclude that the differences between Mt. 6.5-16 and Did. 8.1-3 cannot be accounted for by the Didache*s dependence on Matthew, view the similarities between these two texts as the product of their shared dependence on a common tradition.
The hypothecation of common tradition is, of course, a possible means of explaining the relationship between these two texts but it is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. A multiplication of entities is methodologically acceptable when no other more straightforward explanation of the evidence is available, as appeared to be the case for those scholars who assumed that the Didache must post-date Matthew's Gospel. As I have attempted to show, however, this assumption is unjustified. Further, Matthew's conflation of Mark's Gospel and Didache accounts for the differences and similarities between these texts to a high degree of completeness.
In this circumstance it is unnecessary to appeal to yet another shared hypothetical tradition.
When the actual shape of a suitable hypothetical source is considered in detail a further difficulty arises. Draper (1996c) argues persuasively that the function of Did. 8 was to provide a means of public differentiation between Pharisaic Jews and emerging Christians. In this context he notes
(1996c: 238):
In both cases, of instructions on fasting and on prayer, it is clear that the practices are not new. The community was already fasting twice a week, in solidarity with other Jewish groups, or the Pharisees at least. The community was already using the Lord's Prayer liturgically, as the doxology and amen shows. What the instruction does is to use these two practices to differentiate between the Christian community and its opponents, Pharisaic
Jews. The days are changed for fasting... The prayer to be recited daily three times to replace the prayers of Pharisaic Judaism in the Lord's Prayer, thus providing a daily re-affirmation of the community's difference from other Jewish groups.
Draper observes that the practice of fasting is not changed, merely the time at which fasting occurs. However, the time at which prayers are said is not changed, therefore the point of differentiation is the content of these prayers. Thus, although Draper is probably correct that the Lord's Prayer was already known in another context it is likely that this prayer had never been used before as the essential thrice-daily prayer of the individual.20
20. The Lord's Prayer (especially the version in Lk. 11) shares a number of
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
The differentiatory function of Did. 8 implies that this teaching on fasting and prayer had never previously been configured in this form. This severely limits the options for the shape of any earlier tradition supposedly shared by both Matthew and the Didachist. The only viable possibility is that the original version of this tradition was incorporated virtually unchanged into the Didache and was also used, with alterations, by Matthew.
3.4. Conclusion The primary objective of this section has been to show that Matthew's direct use of Did. 8.1-2a, c-3 is feasible. There is certainly no obstacle to this conclusion and so the observation made in the introduction to Part II holds good at this point.
In addition, it has been observed that the similarities and differences between Mt. 6.1-18 and Did. 8.1-2a, c-3 are explained if, to create a new
Three Rules saying, Matthew conflated the Didache''s teaching on fasting and prayer (Did. 8.1-2a, 2c-3) with Mark's teaching on prayer and alms
(Mk 12.40-44; 11.25). In suggesting that Matthew did, after all, incorporate the record of Jesus' teaching preserved in Mk 12.40-44, this proposal has the additional advantage of explaining the apparent omission of this passage in Matthew's otherwise (almost entirely) faithful preservation of Mk 10.1-16.8. These factors combine to suggest that Matthew's direct use of the Didache is, at this point at least, not only possible but probable.
4. Preservation of Teaching: Matthew 5.17-20 and Didache 11.1-2 The numerous points of contact between these two passages suggest that there may be a literary dependence between them.21
In addition to elements of vocabulary shared by both passages (particularly the uncommon word KaraXGoai in relation to teaching on the Law; cf. Draper 1996d: 349), there are also four points of conceptual similarity.
First, there is a common understanding that a body of teaching is to be retained unchanged (Did. 11.1) and preserved from destruction (Mt. 5.17). characteristics with the eucharistic prayers recorded in Did 9 and 10. It is possible that this prayer, distinctive to Christian worship, was taken and converted into a 'Christian
Shema' as an act of community self-definition.
21. Draper (1996d: 346-52) draws attention to this similarity and concludes that it is the result of Matthew's direct dependence on the Didache. I have not repeated his reasoning here because it is coloured by the agenda of his wider argument.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache The Didache seeks to preserve Did. 1-10 (which, in Did. 1-6, contains a summary of the community's understanding of the Law); in Matthew the teaching that is not to be destroyed is, once again, the Law.
Second, there is a common disapproval of those who destroy {Did.
11.2) or relax (Mt. 5.19a) the teaching. In the Didache these people are not to be listened to; in Matthew they are the least in the kingdom.
Third, there is a common commendation of those who preserve the teaching {Did. 11.1) and/or commandments in question (Mt. 5.19b). In the Didache these are to be received in the community; in Matthew those who do and teach the commandments are greatest in the kingdom.
Fourth, there is a common perception that it is possible to add to the righteousness of the Law. Did. 11.2b allows that a new teaching may come which leads to an increase in righteousness and knowledge of the Lord;
Mt. 5.20 teaches that such an increase in righteousness, beyond the practice of the Scribes and Pharisees, is necessary for those who wish to enter the kingdom.
The verbal and conceptual similarities between Did. 11.1-2 and Mt.
5.17, 19-20 suggest the possibility of some literary link between the two texts. Draper (1996d: 348) remarks concerning the vocabulary, 'The wording is so close that some kind of literary relationship between the two writings seems to be required'.
It is unlikely that the Didache depended directly on Matthew at this point for two reasons. First, if it is accepted that Did. 11.1-2 belongs to the Modifying Teacher layer, then these verses form part of the teacher's characteristic pattern of affirming the host text (11.1 -2a) and modifying it
(11.2b), before justifying these subsequent modifications by appeal to various external authorities (cf. Chapter 7, section 3). On this basis Did.
11.1-2 may credibly be attributed to the original creativity of the modifier and so dependence on another text is unnecessary. Second, it is noteworthy that although Mt. 5.17-20 contains a number of elements in common with Lk. 16.16-17, none of these shared elements also appear in Did.
11.1-2. This means that any proposal of the Didachist's supposed use of Mt. 5.17-20 must include an explanation as to why only 'non-Lukan' elements of that passage were chosen/alluded to.
The case for Matthew's direct use of Did. 11.1-2 is less difficult to defend. First, if Did. 11.1-2 represents the original work of the modifying teacher, then any literary link with another text may be taken as demonstrating that text's presupposition of these verses of the Didache. Second, the fact that, once again, Matthew places this common material on the lips of Jesus, while the modifying teacher does not, suggests that Matthew
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
found these words in a context where they could be taken as belonging to Jesus himself. Such a context is provided if Matthew found these words inserted into a text entitled 'The Teaching of the Lord, etc.'.22 Third, if Matthew depended on Did. 11.1-2, then his conflation of this text with Lk./Q 16.16-1723 could account for the absence of any Lk./Q material within Did. 11.1-2.
In the light of these factors it is possible to conclude, not only that Matthew's direct use of Did. 11.1 -2 is feasible, but also that such a dependence is positively supported by the available evidence. Thus, the micro-level analysis of the link between Did. 11.1-2 and Mt. 5.17-20 coheres with the macro-level observation made in the introduction to Part II.
5. Threefold Baptism: Matthew 28.19 andDidache 7.1c, d, e The majority of scholars account for the close connection between the baptismal formulae in Mt. 28.1924 and Did. 7.1 by supposing that they both rely on common liturgical practice (cf. Niederwimmer 1998: 127).
Even Massaux, who detects the Didache's direct dependence on Matthew's Gospel at almost every opportunity,25 believes that the Didache's direct literary dependence on Matthew's Gospel is, in this case, doubtful (Massaux 1993:174-75). The case for the Didache's direct dependence on Mt.
28.19 is made all the more dubious if the observations made in Chapter 5, section 1 are accepted. Here it was concluded that Did. 7. Id, 2-3, 4b has the character of a previously existing tradition that has been inserted into the base layer of the Didache. This separate tradition shows little sign
(other than the shared baptismal formula) of connection with Matthew's Gospel, being principally concerned with practicalities such as the types of water that may be used and the length of the pre-baptismal fast.
At first sight, the view that Did. 7. Id, 2-3,4b existed as a separate tradition prior to its insertion into the body of the Didache adds weight to the 22. See Chapter 9, § 2 for a discussion of the redactional location of the Didache's long title.
23. In Chapter 141 shall present a side argument suggesting that Matthew depended directly on Luke's Gospel. However, if Matthew depended on Q for the material also preserved in Lk. 16.16-17, then Mt. 5.17-20 may equally be seen as the conflation of Did. 11.1-2 with Q 16.16-17.
24. 'The suggestion that these verses are later additions to the Gospel seems to go too far, and the evidence adduced in support is rather flimsy' (Hartman 1997: 148).
25. The only other passage that Massaux places in this' doubtful' category is Did.
2.1-3.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache possibility that such traditions were common in the milieu of early Christianity.26 If this were the case, then it is not impossible, as most scholars suppose, that Matthew and the Didache were both dependent on a common tradition in their use of the threefold formula. However, there is an important feature of Matthew's text which militates against the use of a common source and suggests, instead, Matthew's direct dependence on the Didache.
A consideration of the wider context of Mt. 28.19 introduces the possibility that Mt. 28.16-20 was, at least in part, directly inspired by Matthew's knowledge of a version of the Didache which included both the long title and the threefold baptismal formula.
Mt. 28.16, Now the eleven disciples (EVSEKO; pcx0r|TC(vi) went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 16.17 When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. 16.18 And Jesus came and said to them,4 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 16.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations (navxa xa E0vr]), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
(BaTTTi^ovTEs auxous sis TO ovofja TOU Traxpos KCU XOU UIOU KCU XOU ayiou TTVEUUCCXOS) 16.20 and teaching them (6i5aoKovxes auxous) to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'
DidAong title, The Teaching (AiSaxrj) of the Lord, by the Twelve Apostles (5CO5EKC< aTToaxoAcov), to the Gentiles (xois ESVEGIV) ...
[followed in 1.1-6.3 by an exposition of the commandments in preparation for baptism] ... 7. lc, d Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (PaTTxiaccxE sis xo ovopa xou Traxpos KCU XOU uiou KCU xou dyiou TTVEUMCCXOS).
A version of the Didache that began with the long title and incorporated 7.Id, 2-3, 4b, would have included: an instruction by the Lord, via his twelve apostles, to teach Gentiles his interpretation of the commandments prior to their baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.
These characteristics also appear in Mt. 28.16-20: Jesus commissions his eleven disciples to make disciples of all nations, to baptize them in the 26. In terms of extant texts the Didache and Matthew's Gospel represent the only two occasions when the threefold baptismal formula is used prior to Justin Martyr.
This does not preclude the possibility that it was a common rite; however, the fact that, elsewhere, the New Testament frequently refers to baptism 'into the Lord Jesus' but never mentions the threefold formula, does not encourage the view that the latter was common liturgical practice.
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and to teach them to obey his commandments.
This level of connection is particularly striking because, according to the redactional study in Part I (Chapters 5, section 1 and Chapter 7, section
6) the tradition containing the threefold formula was not added to the Didache at the same time as the long title and the exposition of the commandments in Did. 1-6. This means that, if the Didache was directly dependent on Mt. 28.16-20, then two or more separate authors would have had to return to the same passage of Matthew to recreate, in stages, a text reflecting this commission by Jesus.
This difficulty does not arise if Matthew was inspired to compose the Great Commission by his knowledge of a version of the Didache that included the long title, an exposition of the commandments (1-6), and the threefold baptismal formula (7). With such a text in front of him, Matthew could have surmised that the very existence of the Didache provided evidence of an occasion in Jesus' life when he commissioned his twelve apostles to teach the nations his interpretation of the commandments, and to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The final verses of Matthew's Gospel thus records Jesus' direct speech in commissioning the eleven disciples27 (28.16) to make disciples of all nations (28.19), to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit (28.19), and to teach them to obey his commandments (28.20).
In conclusion, the connection between Mt. 28.16-20 and the long title of the Didache, Did. 1-6 and Did. 7.1c, d is most adequately explained by Matthew's direct knowledge of a version of the Didache in which all these elements had already been gathered.
6. Giving What is Holy to Dogs: Matthew 7.6 and Didache 9.5b The apparently proverbial nature of the saying, 'Do not give what is holy to dogs' suggests at the outset that its appearance in both Mt. 7.6 and Did.
9.5 may be due to their shared and independent knowledge of a common 27. The change from Twelve Apostles to eleven disciples is typical of Matthew's redactional activity. The change from twelve to eleven is consistent with Matthew's special interest in the fate of Judas (e.g. 27.3-10). The change from Apostles to disciples is consistent with Mt. 10.1; 11.1 and 20.17 where the twelve are described as the twelve disciples against the witness of Mark and Luke. Matthew only uses the term
Twelve Apostles once, at their commissioning, and consistently avoids it thereafter.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache tradition. A difficulty with this view, however, is that this proverb does not appear in this form in any other known text.28
The similarities between the two texts extend beyond their content and the speaker to whom they are attributed in that both texts bear a connection to the eucharist.29 It is generally overlooked that Mt. 7.9-10 has fish and bread as the desired elements, rather than fish and egg, as in Lk. 11.11-12.
It is possible, given the eucharistic flavour of other fish and bread meals in the gospels,30 that Matthew made this change to improve the connection between the saying used in Mt. 7.6 (if it was known to have a eucharistic origin) and Mt. 7.7-11.
Given the three points of similarity between Mt. 7.6 and Did. 9.5b, there are grounds for suggesting that a direct link of some kind exists between them. However, the direction of that link, when taken in isolation, is difficult to determine. There is strong evidence that both texts quote from another source. In Did. 9.5 the quotation formula makes this selfevident. In Mt. 7.6 the saying is so odd in its context that it is highly unlikely to be due to Matthew's redaction.31 That is to say, it appears directly to contradict the sense of the preceding verses (do not judge) and the 28. Massaux (1993: 156) notes that the Talmud contains no trace of a proverb of this kind. Moreover, the fact that Jesus/the Lord is presented as the author of this saying in both cases renders unlikely the suggestion of Bultmann (1972: 107) that a stock secular proverb lies behind the quotations. One possible origin for a Lord's saying of this kind may be found in Rev. 22.15, where 'dogs' are excluded from the holy city, within which the final messianic banquet may be expected to take place. In Garrow
(1997: 52-53) I note the possibility that Revelation was designed to be performed in a eucharistic context. If this was the case, then the prohibition of dogs from the city may reflect the prohibition of the unworthy from the eschatological feast of the eucharist.
However, even if Matthew and the teacher did derive their saying from Revelation, it is unlikely that they both independently re-shaped this saying so as to arrive at identical renderings. It is, of course, possible that another eucharistic prophecy contained the exact words used by both Matthew and the teacher. However, the fact that no record of such a prophecy survives means that such a proposal requires the creation of another hypothetical entity. The relationship between the Didache and Matthew's
Gospel creates considerable scope for the proposal of such entities, but their multiplication ultimately leads to a requirement for untenable levels of coincidental sharing by both Matthew and the diverse contributors to the Didache.
29. Massaux (1993: 156) overstates the case when he says that 'It is certainly undeniable that the "thing to preserve" in Mt. is not the Eucharist' [emphasis added].
30. Fish and bread eucharists are commonly depicted in catacomb and sarcophagus art of the early Christian centuries. See Heidenreich (1962).
31. Tuckett (1996: 108) concurs that 'Do not give what is holy to dogs', is not clearly MattR.
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
following (give to those who ask). If Matthew had wanted to balance the teaching on judging and giving with some redactional remark, then he could surely have managed something a little smoother than the famously awkward Mt. 7.6.32
Since both texts quote from another source, and both texts quote an identical proverb attributed to Jesus, there is little scope for pinning down the direction of the dependence between them. Therefore, it must be concluded that, when taken in isolation, this parallel may be equally well attributed to Matthew's direct dependence on the Didache, or to the Didache's direct dependence on Matthew.33
7. The Worker's Food: Matthew 10.10 <m/Didache 13.1-2 That there is likely to be some form of literary link between these two passages is suggested by the fact that they preserve an identical saying that is distinct from similar sayings found elsewhere. As Massaux (1993:
166) notes, regarding Did. 13.1-2:
There is an exact verbal coincidence with Mt. (oc^tos yap b epyaxris' T % Tpo(J)fis auToG), and it is all the more discernible that in Lk. and 1 Tim.,
Tpoc|)f}s is replaced with MtoSou.
Beyond this it is difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the relationship between the two texts because it is not possible to demonstrate that the saying was originally composed by either author.
It is highly unlikely that the modifier is responsible for the creation of the saying as it stands in Did. 13.2. The rights of teachers and prophets, rather than 'workers 'perse, are the prime concern of the modifier. Thus, the additional mention of workers makes most sense if the teacher attempted to apply a generally accepted principle, 'the worker deserves his food', to the particular situation of those working as prophets and teachers. Taken in isolation, therefore, there is no reason why the modifier could not have taken this saying from Mt. 10.10.
To observe that the Didache's use of Mt. 10.10 is possible is not, by any means, to say that such dependence is necessary. Matthew's Mission
Discourse, in common with the Sermon on the Mount, shows signs of 32. Goulder (1974: 265): 'This is the most difficult text in the Gospel on any account'. H.D. Betz (1995: 493): 'The saying in 7:6 has always been known for its obscurity...'
33. Van de Sandt (2002) argues in some detail that the Didache is unlikely to have borrowed from Matthew's Gospel in this instance.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache having been conflated from a collection of related sources.34 If Matthew used a prior source in this case, then there is no reason why that source could not also have been quoted by the modifying teacher in Did. 13.2. At the same time there is no specific obstacle to the possibility that Did. 13.2 was one of the resources upon which Matthew drew in the creation of his
Mission Discourse.
Ultimately there is not enough evidence to pin down the exact nature of the relationship between Mt. 10.10 and Did. 13.2. The fact that Matthew presents this saying as the direct speech of Jesus, while the Didache does not, might possibly be taken as pointing towards Matthew's knowledge of this saying in the context of * The Teaching of the Lord, etc.'. At the same time, however, alternative explanations for the shared use of this saying are also viable.
8. Conclusion: Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer The introduction to Part II observed that the simplest explanation for the presence of so many points of contact between the first three layers of the Didache and Matthew's Gospel is that Matthew found and used the diverse traditions previously gathered together in this layered document.
The purpose of this chapter has been to test this hypothesis by examining whether or not Matthew's direct dependence on the Didache is credible at each of seven proposed points of contact between Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher layer.
Having conducted individual studies of the relevant parallels it is possible to conclude that there is no obstacle to the feasibility of Matthew's direct dependence on the Didache at any of the seven points of contact considered. More than that, it has been argued that Matthew's direct use of the Didache provides the fullest and simplest explanation for the similarities and the differences between the two texts in the case of: 'be recon34. Since the development of the Four Source Hypothesis, Matthew has been widely regarded as a conflator of prior traditions. Examples of Matthew's conflationary activity are presented in each of the following four chapters, especially Chapters
13 and 14. Dungan (1971: 51-63) argues, against majority opinion, that Matthew's
Mission Discourse is not a conflation of Luke/Q, Mark and Special Matthew. Dungan's arguments are reversible and so it remains likely that Matthew does here conflate a set of related traditions. However, even if Dungan's thesis were correct, this could not be taken as in any way demonstrating that 'the worker deserves his food' is original to Matthew.
11. Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer
ciled' (Did. 14.2 = Mt. 5.23-24), 'the last penny' (Did. 1.5c = Mt. 5.26), 'pray and fast' (Did. 8.1-2a, c-3 = Mt. 6.1-16), 'preservation of teaching'
(Did 11.1 -2 = Mt. 5.17-20) and 'threefold baptism' (Did. long title + 7.1 d = Mt. 28.16-20).