Considerations Respecting Dating of the Didache and Dependence upon Matthew
Considerations Respecting Dating of the Didache and Dependence upon Matthew The dating of the Didache has been heavily dominated by presuppositions regarding the sources used in its composition. Adolph von Harnack, in his influential 1884 commentary, wrote, "One must say without hesitation that it is the author of the Didache who used the Epistle of Barnabas and not the reverse"
(82). Harnack, accordingly, dated the Didache between 135 and 165 and fixed the place of origin as Egypt since Barnabas was conjectured to have been composed there. It wasn't until 1945 that E. J. Goodspeed, aided by the Latin versions of Barnabas that had no Two-Way section, finally put to rest the assumption that the Didache depended upon Barnabas.
Once the Epistle of Barnabas was no longer considered as the source for the Didache, a fresh impetus was given to the question of whether the framers of the Didache used one or more of the Gospels. It is telling that, in 1958, Jean-Paul
Audet devoted forty-two pages to the Barnabasdependence issue and only twenty pages to the Gospel-dependence issue (121–163; 166–186). When examined closely, Audet concluded that even the so-called "evangelical addition" of Did.
1:3b-5 cannot be explained as coming either from Matthew or from Luke (186).
Accordingly, in the end, Audet was persuaded that the manifestly Jewish character of the Didache pointed to a completion date prior to 70 in a milieu (Antioch) that did not yet have a written Gospel (192, 210).
Subsequently, other scholars have shared this willingness to push back the date of composition to the late first or early second century and to call into question direct dependency upon any written Gospel. Draper (1996), Kloppenborg,1
Niederwimmer (1998), Rordorf (1991), and Van de Sandt (2002) argue quite persuasively in favor of this position. Opposition voices, however, are still heard.
C. M. Tuckett of Oxford University, for example, reexamined all the evidence in 1989 and came to the conclusion that parts of the Didache "presuppose the redactional activity of both evangelists" thereby reasserting an earlier position that "the Didache here presupposes the gospels of Matthew and Luke in their finished forms" (230).
Aaron Milavec, the author of this volume, favors a mid-first century date of composition. He came to this gradually over a period of sixteen years. His judgment was shaped by the convergence of many lines of thinking. Some of these have already been presented in this volume. A full examination of this issue can only be found in his longer works (2003b, 2003c, 2005b). By way of responding to
the expressed interest of beginners, however, the following seven brief comments are offered here:
1. When the Didache uses the term euagellion ("good news" or "gospel"), it refers, first and foremost, to the "good news of God" (Mark 1:14; Rom 1:1; 15:16; 2 Cor
2:7; 1 Thess 2:2, 9; 1 Pet 4:17). Thus, in each of the four places wherein the "good news" (euaggelion) is mentioned as a source (8:2; 11:3; 15:3; and 15:4), there is nothing to suggest that this term refers to a written source. Only in the mid-second century does the term "gospel" first take on the extended meaning of referring to written texts (#11e, Niederwimmer 1998:49–51). Tuckett (1989), to his credit, never makes the mistake of imagining that the four references to euagellion (8:2; 11:3; 15:3, 4) within the Didache provide evidence for the existence of an authoritative written "gospel" used by the community.
2. Even in instances of close verbal agreement, care must be taken not to rush to the conclusion that the Didache cited Matthew (Milavec, 2003c:702–704). One can always imagine that Matthew cited the Didache or that each made use of a common source (an oral tradition) that circulated independently (2003c:715–
720, 2005a). In the case of "Do not give what is holy to dogs" (9:5), for example, the Didache puts forward a "saying of the Lord" in order to justify the exclusion of the non-baptized from the eucharistic meal of the community. The same exact saying found in Matt 7:6, meanwhile, shows up right after a warning against hypocrites and is followed by a warning against throwing
"your pearls before swine." Matthew's context clearly has nothing to do with baptism or eucharist. The Didache's context, on the other hand, is only made possible because the eucharist was here regarded as a holy sacrifice (14:1-3)— something quite absent from Matthew's Gospel. When examined in context, consequently, it seems prudent to assume a common source and to rule out literary dependence. When parallel sayings are found scattered within rabbinic materials in reference to temple sacrifices (2003c:378), this judgment is further confirmed.
3. Had the framers of the Didache known or used Matthew's Gospel, it remains incomprehensible that they would have ignored some of the words and the practices found therein. Compare the practices surrounding misbehaving conduct, for instance. The Didache prescribes confessing personal transgressions before the weekly eucharist (14:1) and the shunning of members unwilling to amend their lives (15:3). In contrast, Jesus in Matthew's Gospel requires that the injured party take the initiative to "regain his brother" in three well-defined stages (Matt 18:15-18). At each stage, the misbehaving member is invited to acknowledge his/her sin and to make amends. In brief, both Matthew and the Didache have different practices proposed for different reasons and with different supporting texts (Audet: 172; Rordorf 1978a:36f). Note particularly
how the framers of the Didache artificially stretch Mal 1:11 to fit their purposes
(Milavec, 2003c:554–564) when Matt 5:23 would have provided a ready-made authorization on the lips of Jesus. If Matt 5:23 is absent from the Didache, therefore, one might suspect that the framers of the Didache were not only unaware of Matthew's Gospel but were ignorant of Matthew's oral traditions and his community practices as well.
4. The Didache includes a decalogue (Did. 2:2) adapted for gentiles along with a system of "fences" (Did. 3) that give attention to forestalling minor infractions that might provide the slippery slope toward major infractions. Matthew, on the other hand, approaches the insufficiency of the decalogue by developing a series of antitheses designed to insure that "the righteousness" of Jesus' disciples
"exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees" (Matt 5:20). Thus, one finds two diverse religious systems operative relative to the decalogue—each designed in response to diverse communitarian needs. Neither system appears aware of the other.
5. When examined closely, the "hypocrites" in Matthew have little in common with those of the Didache. Matthew prohibits praying "like the hypocrites" who stand "that they might be seen by men" (6:5). The solution, in Matthew's context, is not to change the prayer formula (as in Did. 8:1) but to "go into your room and shut the door" (6:6). Likewise, in the case of fasting, "the hypocrites
… disfigure their faces" (6:16). Matthew would have the followers of Jesus "anoint your head and wash your face" (6:17) thereby disguising their fast from public view. The Didache, in contrast, presumes a common mode of fasting with the "hypocrites"; yet, since fasting together signals public solidarity in the cause prompting their fasting, the days of fasting are deliberately altered. In sum, it would appear that the common term "hypocrites" serves to describe two different classes of people who are to be responded to by two different strategies in two very distinct communities (Audet:172; Rordorf 1978a:36f.).
6. If Matthew 5–8 captures the training program used in his community, this training was seemingly directed specifically to men. Phases like "angry with his brother" (5:22), "your brother has something against you" (5:24), and "eye of your brother" (7:4) reflect a traditional world in which men discuss torah together in the public spaces. The concerns of the women in the courtyards, meanwhile, are silently passed over. Furthermore, Jesus' observations about the one "looking at a woman lustfully" or the man "divorcing his wife" (5:28, 31) also exclusively capture the male point of view. Matthew's editing of Mark's inclusive text relative to divorce would further reinforce the male point of view.
In contrast, while the Didache focuses upon issues that apply particularly to women, other aspects apply particularly to men. The household codes of Did.
4:9-11, meanwhile, are noticeably inclusive. The repeated use of the Greek
expression teknon mou (3:1-6) signifies that either a woman or a man was being addressed. The Didache, consequently, stands apart from Matthew's instructional material by implying that training was offered directly to women (#1e, #1f,
#1k, #2n). Matthew, in contrast, implies a patriarchal setting wherein men gather in training sessions and they, in their turn, pass on to their female dependents what they regard as important for them to observe. In such a world, men are urged to learn; women are urged to obey.
7. Finally, the Didache focuses on God the Father as the expected savior coming to gather his elect into his kingdom (Milavec:2003c, 563–564, 660–666). In Paul's letters and in the sermons of Acts, this focus gets decidedly altered. The one who heralded the kingdom is now being celebrated as the savior who has been raised from the dead, taken up into heaven, and is sitting at the right hand of God awaiting his triumphant return when he will raise the dead to life, judge the nations, and establish God's kingdom. The Didache is conspicuously silent about such things. In its view, the expected "Lord" (Did. 16:8) is none other than the "God of David" (Did. 10:6) who comes to gather his beloved Israel and those righteous gentiles who are attached to Israel into his kingdom on earth (#10n).
Such a soteriology and eschatology would fit comfortably only in the early stage of the Jesus movement when the "faith of Jesus" was still at the center of things and, as yet, "faith in Jesus" had not transposed salvation from the future to the present and from the Father to the Son (#10r).
Should Didache scholars come to accept this way of viewing the Didache, the way would be open for an early dating and for its interpretation as a well-integrated and self-contained religious system that should be allowed to speak for itself. One has only to consider how studies devoted to the Letter to the Hebrew, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Q-Gospel have flourished due to the fact that they have been allowed to stand alone. If the Didache were accorded the same treatment, a new era of Didache studies would thus open up before us. In New Testament courses, one might even envision a time when the Didache would be offered to students as a long-lost window into appreciating a vital form of Christianity that predates the Gospels and that was much closer to the faith and hope of Jesus than the letters of Paul and the sermons of Acts. It would not be surprising to find future editions of the Christian Scriptures being printed with the Didache in an appendix. Future
Christian communities, for their part, might even go so far as to consciously identify themselves as seeking perfection in the Way of Life. In any case, there is one thing of which we can be certain, namely, that the Didache is poised to reveal itself in as yet unexpected ways to this and to future generations.
1 John S. Kloppenborg, "Didache 16:6-8 and Special Matthaean Tradition," Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentlice
Wissenschaft 70 (1979) 54–67.