Synoptic Traditions in Didache
Synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited Dr. Aaron Milavec Center for the Study of Religion and Society University of Victoria Ever since a complete copy of the Didache was first discovered in 1873, widespread efforts have been undertaken to demonstrate that the framers of the Didache depended upon a known Gospel (usually Matthew, Luke, or both) and upon one or more Apostolic Fathers (Barnabas, Hermas, and/or Justin Martyr). In more recent times, however, most scholars have pushed back the date of composition to the late first or early second century and called into question dependency upon these sources. In the late 50s, Audet1. Glover2, and Koester3 cautiously developed this stance independent of each other. More recently, Draper4, Kloppenborg5, Milavec6, Niederwimmer7, Rordorf8, and Van de Sandt9 have argued quite persuasively in favor of this position. Opposition voices, however, are still heard. C.M. Tuckett10 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."11 Clayton N. Jefford, writing in the same year independent of Tuckett, came to the conclusion that the Didache originated in the same community that produced the Gospel of Matthew and that both works had common sources but divergent purposes.12 Vicky Balabanski, in a book-length treatment of the eschatologies of Mark, Matthew, and Didache, reviewed all the evidence up until 1997 and concluded that Did. 16 was written "to clarify and specify certain aspects of Matthew's eschatology."13 This essay will weigh the evidence for and against dependence upon the Gospel of Matthew--the most frequently identified "written source" for the Didache.
[Show full text]