In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache
  • James A. Kelhoffer
Alan J. P. Garrow The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 254 New York: T & T Clark, 2004 Pp. xxxiii + 272. $120.

Alan Garrow's latest book is a revision of his 2000 Oxford University D.Phil. thesis, supervised initially by Christopher Rowland and at its conclusion by Christopher Tuckett. Part 1 of the volume under review concerns the compositional [End Page 388] history of the Didache (9–156), and Part 2 examines points of contact between the Didache and Matthew (157–243). The second part, from which the book derives its name, builds upon the first part's conclusions. Providing bookends to these sections are a Greek-English parallel text of the Didache with possible Matthean parallels underlined (xi–xxxiii), introductory and concluding chapters (1–8, 244–52), a bibliography (253–60), and indices of ancient references and modern authors (260–72). Additionally, Garrow's Web site includes links to the book's first and last chapters, the Didache in Greek and English, and information about the author: http://www.didache-garrow.info.

The author notes correctly that scholars are quite divided on whether Matthew and the Didache are independent writings or the Didache is dependent on Matthew (2–7; cf. recent arguments for the former position: W. L. Petersen, "The Genesis of the Gospels," in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis [ed. A. Denaux, Leuven: Peeters, 2002], 33–65; here, 51–53; A. Milavec, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited," JECS 11 [2003]: 443–80). Garrow interacts at length with both conclusions and ultimately dismisses both of them. He advances instead a tertium quid, "that the author of Matthew's Gospel depended directly upon a version of the Didache essentially similar to that rediscovered by Bryennios in 1873 except for the absence of Did. 8.2b; 11.3b; 15.3–4 and 16.7" (2–3). The potential implications of this thesis are obviously far reaching. Scholars would indeed like to know more about the sources utilized by the Synoptic evangelists. Such a breakthrough is precisely what Garrow claims to offer concerning one pre-Matthean source, namely the Didache.

Garrow's thesis stems from two separate observations, both of which, he claims, are widely supported by past scholarship. The first maintains that the Didache is the product of at least two different authors/editors. The second seeks to demonstrate that the Didache and Matthew's gospel share substantial, widely dispersed, and largely unique parallel material. Garrrow infers from these two observations that the numerous parallels are most readily explained by Matthew's use of the Didache since it would be most unusual for the latter's various authors and editor(s) to have used Matthew in the same ways. Either or both of the first two observations can be appreciated without giving credence to Garrow's third point. This review can summarize and evaluate only the main findings of these very complex arguments.

Part 1 offers "a full analysis of the compositional history of the Didache" (153). Among the author's more noteworthy conclusions in these lucidly argued chapters are "that Did. 1–5 contains work derived from nine points of origin" (92). Garrow also maintains that Did. 1.3–5a and 1.5b–6 stem from different stages of composition/editing (77; he argues the same for Did. 3.1–6 and 3.7 [84–85] and for 9.1–5 and 10.1–7 [13–28]). Concerning the Didache as a whole, Garrow concludes that its composition took place in five different stages beginning with a "base layer," which comprised Did. 1.1–5a; 2.1–5.2a; 6.1–7.1a; 7.1c; 7.1e; 7.4a; 9.1–5a; 11.3a; 11.4–6; 16.1–6; 16.8–9 (149). To this document were added directives on the ministry of prophets (Stage II: Did. 10.1–7; 11.7–9; 11.12; 12.1–5) and, subsequently, teachings about finances and self-definition [End Page 389] (Stage III: Did. 1.5b–6; 5.2b; 7.1b; 7...

pdf

Share