Recent proposals about Q
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Recent proposals about Q
Del
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Recent proposals about Q
Del
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am
Re: Recent proposals about Q
It seems he is taking a word from the Didache and because Matthew has that word to replace a word in Luke he concludes that the word comes from the Didache. Is this typical of his approach? I had assumed he was talking about phrases and not single words.Ben C. Smith wrote:From memory, Garrow is opining that Matthew got the statement about being perfect from the statement in Didache 1.4 which says that, if you turn the other cheek, you shall be perfect.Michael BG wrote: I have now watched the videos. As expected the videos made a detail following of the argument very difficult, made worse by my inability to find in my translation of the Didache by Maxwell Staniforth the sections of the Didache Garrow refers to. An example is that I could not find Mt 5:48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” in Didache 1:4 which I think Garrow states in where Matthew got his version from.
I am glad Garrow is not mad. The videos start off very basic and then switches to Greek. Has anyone seen a critique of these videos or the paper?Ben C. Smith wrote:Again from memory, Garrow is very careful to claim only that the Didache is an instance of Q (that is, some of what people attribute to Q may actually derive from the Didache instead). There is no claim at all that everything covered by Q is also found in the Didache. He may be wrong, but he is not insane.Michael BG wrote:There is another problem. To demonstrate that the Didache is Q Garrow would have to show that every instant where Matthew's version appears earlier than the Luke version Matthew has got his version from the Didache and I don’t think that the Didache covers enough ground for this.
(He also seems to compare the Two Ways in the Didache with the Two Ways in the Epistle of Barnabus is his position on these texts supported by other scholars?)
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Recent proposals about Q
He is talking about phrases. There is obviously some kind of relationship of "be perfect' in the Didache and in Matthew, not because of that one word/phrase, but because that one word/phrase occurs amongst a plethora of other words/phrases (love/pray for your enemies, turn the other cheek, even the gentiles, go the extra mile, give also your cloak, and so on) common to Matthew 5.38-48 and Didache 1.2b-5a, as well as Luke 6.27-36. (If you wish to dispute that overall relationship, I will not be involved; it is obvious.)Michael BG wrote:It seems he is taking a word from the Didache and because Matthew has that word to replace a word in Luke he concludes that the word comes from the Didache. Is this typical of his approach? I had assumed he was talking about phrases and not single words.Ben C. Smith wrote:From memory, Garrow is opining that Matthew got the statement about being perfect from the statement in Didache 1.4 which says that, if you turn the other cheek, you shall be perfect.Michael BG wrote: I have now watched the videos. As expected the videos made a detail following of the argument very difficult, made worse by my inability to find in my translation of the Didache by Maxwell Staniforth the sections of the Didache Garrow refers to. An example is that I could not find Mt 5:48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” in Didache 1:4 which I think Garrow states in where Matthew got his version from.
Garrow is at pains to demonstrate that the best explanation for this interrelationship is that the Didache came first, and then both Luke and Matthew took those concepts from it.
(Barnabas, not Barnabus.) Scholars are in agreement that there is such a thing as a Two Ways tradition, of which both the Didache and Barnabas are instantiations. In his book on the Didache and Matthew, Garrow quotes Tuckett:Michael BG wrote:(He also seems to compare the Two Ways in the Didache with the Two Ways in the Epistle of Barnabus is his position on these texts supported by other scholars?)
It is almost universally agreed that the present text is, in some sense at least, 'composite'. Didache 1-6 incorporates an earlier Two Ways tradition attested also in the Epistle of Barnabas 18—20, Doctrina Apostolorum and elsewhere; further, within this Two Ways tradition, the section 1.3-2.1 is probably a secondary, Christianising addition.
I do not think that Garrow posits a direct connection between Barnabas and the Didache, though he does, IIRC, posit that the Doctrina is a conflation of the Didache and something closer to Barnabas. Did you have a more specific question about Garrow's position on the relationship between these two texts?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am
Re: Recent proposals about Q
My point is that in my English translation I don’t find the wording found in Matthew or Luke.Ben C. Smith wrote:He is talking about phrases. There is obviously some kind of relationship of "be perfect' in the Didache and in Matthew, not because of that one word/phrase, but because that one word/phrase occurs amongst a plethora of other words/phrases (love/pray for your enemies, turn the other cheek, even the gentiles, go the extra mile, give also your cloak, and so on) common to Matthew 5.38-48 and Didache 1.2b-5a, as well as Luke 6.27-36. (If you wish to dispute that overall relationship, I will not be involved; it is obvious.)Michael BG wrote:It seems he is taking a word from the Didache and because Matthew has that word to replace a word in Luke he concludes that the word comes from the Didache. Is this typical of his approach? I had assumed he was talking about phrases and not single words.
There is “for the meek are to inherit the earth (Did 1.3) – Mt 5:5b; “some pray for” (Did 1.2) not “pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44b); “be perfect” (Did 1.6) not Mt 5:48 “must be perfect”.
What is the Didache’s negative version “as you wish men would do to you do to them”?
Where is “offering the other cheek”?
Where is the coat?
Where is the cloak?
Where are those who beg?
Where are those who borrow?
Where is “going with him two miles”?
Where is the “love your enemies”?
Garrow does not compare any English sayings across the Didache, Matthew and Luke.
My bad; poor eyesight or not concentrating.Ben C. Smith wrote:(Barnabas, not Barnabus.) Scholars are in agreement that there is such a thing as a Two Ways tradition, of which both the Didache and Barnabas are instantiations. In his book on the Didache and Matthew, Garrow quotes Tuckett:Michael BG wrote:(He also seems to compare the Two Ways in the Didache with the Two Ways in the Epistle of Barnabus is his position on these texts supported by other scholars?)
It is almost universally agreed that the present text is, in some sense at least, 'composite'. Didache 1-6 incorporates an earlier Two Ways tradition attested also in the Epistle of Barnabas 18—20, Doctrina Apostolorum and elsewhere; further, within this Two Ways tradition, the section 1.3-2.1 is probably a secondary, Christianising addition.
I do not think that Garrow posits a direct connection between Barnabas and the Didache, though he does, IIRC, posit that the Doctrina is a conflation of the Didache and something closer to Barnabas. Did you have a more specific question about Garrow's position on the relationship between these two texts?
Garrow I think states that the Didache adds to the Barnabas Two Ways and then Luke uses these additions. Is Tuckett stating that the Two Ways we have in Barnabas is earlier than the Two Ways in the Didache?
What is the Doctrina Apostolorum?
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Recent proposals about Q
Why not? I do not understand.Michael BG wrote:My point is that in my English translation I don’t find the wording found in Matthew or Luke.
What are you asking? I know the Didache has the negative version of the Golden Rule while Matthew and Luke both have the positive, but it is the same basic rule (and is found all over ancient literature, not just here; IIRC, it is usually found in the negative form in antiquity, not the positive).There is “for the meek are to inherit the earth (Did 1.3) – Mt 5:5b; “some pray for” (Did 1.2) not “pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44b); “be perfect” (Did 1.6) not Mt 5:48 “must be perfect”.
What is the Didache’s negative version “as you wish men would do to you do to them”?
Here is an antiquated English translation of Didache 1.3-5:Where is “offering the other cheek”?
Where is the coat?
Where is the cloak?
Where are those who beg?
Where are those who borrow?
Where is “going with him two miles”?
Where is the “love your enemies”?
3 Τούτων δὲ τῶν λόγων ἡ διδαχή ἐστιν αὕτη· Εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμῖν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν, νηστεύετε δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς· ποία γὰρ χάρις, ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς; οὐχὶ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς καὶ οὐχ ἕξετε ἐχθρόν. 4 Ἀπέχου τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ σωματικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν. Ἐάν τις σοι δῷ ῥάπισμα εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἔσῃ τέλειος· ἐὰν ἀγγαρεύσῃ σέ τις μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ' αὐτοῦ δύο· ἐὰν ἄρῃ τις τὸ ἱμάτιόν σου, δὸς αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα· ἐὰν λάβῃ τις ἀπὸ σοῦ τὸ σόν, μὴ ἀπαίτει· οὐδὲ γὰρ δύνασαι. 5 Παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου καὶ μὴ ἀπαίτει· πᾶσα γὰρ θέλει δίδοσθαι ὁ πατὴρ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων χαρισμάτων. Μακάριος ὁ διδοὺς κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν· ἀθῷος γάρ ἐστιν. Οὐαὶ τῷ λαμβάνοντι· εἰ μὲν γὰρ χρείαν ἔχων λαμβάνει τις, ἀθῷος ἔσται· ὁ δὲ μὴ χρείαν ἔχων δώσει δίκην, ἵνα τί ἔλαβε καὶ εἰς τί· ἐν συνοχῇ δὲ γενόμενος ἐξετασθήσεται περὶ ὧν ἔπραξε καὶ οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται ἐκεῖθεν, μέχρις οὗ ἀποδῷ τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην. | 1:3 And the doctrine of these maxims is as follows. Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies. Fast on behalf of those that persecute you; for what thank is there if ye love them that love you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? But do ye love them that hate you, and ye will not have an enemy. 1:4 Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If any one give thee a blow on thy right cheek, turn unto him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect; if any one compel thee to go a mile, go with him two; if a man take away thy cloak, give him thy coat also; if a man take from thee what is thine, ask not for it again, for neither art thou able to do so. 1:5 Give to every one that asketh of thee, and ask not again; for the Father wishes that from his own gifts there should be given to all. Blessed is he who giveth according to the commandment, for he is free from guilt; but woe unto him that receiveth. For if a man receive being in need, he shall be free from guilt; but he who receiveth when not in need, shall pay a penalty as to why he received and for what purpose; and when he is in tribulation he shall be examined concerning the things that he has done, and shall not depart thence until he has paid the last farthing. |
I know there are verbal differences here and there, but those elements are in the Didache.
Maybe not on his website (been a while since I have been there). But his book is what I am going by in the main.Garrow does not compare any English sayings across the Didache, Matthew and Luke.
Garrow, like most scholars, regards Didache 1.3-5 as an addition to the Two Ways tradition, yes.Garrow I think states that the Didache adds to the Barnabas Two Ways and then Luke uses these additions.
Tuckett is saying that the form of the Two Ways tradition that we find in Barnabas is earlier than what we find in the Didache. To my knowledge, he is not positing a direct connection.Is Tuckett stating that the Two Ways we have in Barnabas is earlier than the Two Ways in the Didache?
A church order manual, extant in Latin, which parallels the Didache in places. The part of it that would have paralleled Didache 1.3-5 is missing in the Doctrina. (Is it possible that your translation of the Didache is actually a translation of the Doctrina, and you have confused the two??) I have the relevant parts of the Doctina here, followed by the Didache itself: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1882&p=41339#p41335. Sorry, though, Latin only. (That page also has Barnabas 18-20 and 4Q473.)What is the Doctrina Apostolorum?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am
Re: Recent proposals about Q
Thank you for the Greek and an English translation alongside.Ben C. Smith wrote:What are you asking? I know the Didache has the negative version of the Golden Rule while Matthew and Luke both have the positive, but it is the same basic rule (and is found all over ancient literature, not just here; IIRC, it is usually found in the negative form in antiquity, not the positive).Michael BG wrote:My point is that in my English translation I don’t find the wording found in Matthew or Luke.
There is “for the meek are to inherit the earth (Did 1.3) – Mt 5:5b; “some pray for” (Did 1.2) not “pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44b); “be perfect” (Did 1.6) not Mt 5:48 “must be perfect”.
What is the Didache’s negative version “as you wish men would do to you do to them”?
Here is an antiquated English translation of Didache 1.3-5:Where is “offering the other cheek”?
Where is the coat?
Where is the cloak?
Where are those who beg?
Where are those who borrow?
Where is “going with him two miles”?
Where is the “love your enemies”?
3 Τούτων δὲ τῶν λόγων ἡ διδαχή ἐστιν αὕτη· Εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμῖν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν, νηστεύετε δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς· ποία γὰρ χάρις, ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς; οὐχὶ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς καὶ οὐχ ἕξετε ἐχθρόν.
4 Ἀπέχου τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ σωματικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν. Ἐάν τις σοι δῷ ῥάπισμα εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἔσῃ τέλειος· ἐὰν ἀγγαρεύσῃ σέ τις μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ' αὐτοῦ δύο· ἐὰν ἄρῃ τις τὸ ἱμάτιόν σου, δὸς αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα· ἐὰν λάβῃ τις ἀπὸ σοῦ τὸ σόν, μὴ ἀπαίτει· οὐδὲ γὰρ δύνασαι.
5 Παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου καὶ μὴ ἀπαίτει· πᾶσα γὰρ θέλει δίδοσθαι ὁ πατὴρ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων χαρισμάτων. Μακάριος ὁ διδοὺς κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν· ἀθῷος γάρ ἐστιν. Οὐαὶ τῷ λαμβάνοντι· εἰ μὲν γὰρ χρείαν ἔχων λαμβάνει τις, ἀθῷος ἔσται· ὁ δὲ μὴ χρείαν ἔχων δώσει δίκην, ἵνα τί ἔλαβε καὶ εἰς τί· ἐν συνοχῇ δὲ γενόμενος ἐξετασθήσεται περὶ ὧν ἔπραξε καὶ οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται ἐκεῖθεν, μέχρις οὗ ἀποδῷ τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην.1:3 And the doctrine of these maxims is as follows. Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies. Fast on behalf of those that persecute you; for what thank is there if ye love them that love you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? But do ye love them that hate you, and ye will not have an enemy.
1:4 Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If any one give thee a blow on thy right cheek, turn unto him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect; if any one compel thee to go a mile, go with him two; if a man take away thy cloak, give him thy coat also; if a man take from thee what is thine, ask not for it again, for neither art thou able to do so.
1:5 Give to every one that asketh of thee, and ask not again; for the Father wishes that from his own gifts there should be given to all. Blessed is he who giveth according to the commandment, for he is free from guilt; but woe unto him that receiveth. For if a man receive being in need, he shall be free from guilt; but he who receiveth when not in need, shall pay a penalty as to why he received and for what purpose; and when he is in tribulation he shall be examined concerning the things that he has done, and shall not depart thence until he has paid the last farthing.
I know there are verbal differences here and there, but those elements are in the Didache.
I should know better.
I am using Early Christian Writings by Maxwell Staniforth (reprint 1978) and he doesn’t have the same verse markings. I have been looking in 2-5 rather than 1, all which Maxwell calls part one. Hence my error.
Thanks for this. I wish you had an area where all your useful posting like this and the ones on the Marcion texts are. I don’t know if a sub-directory could be created which could be seen under the announcements before the main part.Ben C. Smith wrote:A church order manual, extant in Latin, which parallels the Didache in places. The part of it that would have paralleled Didache 1.3-5 is missing in the Doctrina. (Is it possible that your translation of the Didache is actually a translation of the Doctrina, and you have confused the two??) I have the relevant parts of the Doctina here, followed by the Didache itself: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1882&p=41339#p41335. Sorry, though, Latin only. (That page also has Barnabas 18-20 and 4Q473.)Michael BG wrote:What is the Doctrina Apostolorum?
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Recent proposals about Q
Ah, I see.Michael BG wrote:I am using Early Christian Writings by Maxwell Staniforth (reprint 1978) and he doesn’t have the same verse markings. I have been looking in 2-5 rather than 1, all which Maxwell calls part one. Hence my error.
Well, I do have an index to my "gospel text" threads: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1862.Michael BG wrote:Thanks for this. I wish you had an area where all your useful posting like this and the ones on the Marcion texts are. I don’t know if a sub-directory could be created which could be seen under the announcements before the main part.
And I have another index to my (far fewer) "epistolary text" threads: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1939.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Recent proposals about Q
Michael BG wrote:I wish you had an area where all your useful posting like this and the ones on the Marcion texts are. I don’t know if a sub-directory could be created which could be seen under the announcements before the main part.
-
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am
Re: Recent proposals about Q
Has anyone read a critique of Alan Garrows view that the Didache is in fact part of the texts which are called Q?
I think Garrow states that because Luke has the positive Golden Rule and the Didache has the negative form of it, Luke is therefore dependant on the Didache. As Ben C Smith pointed out the negative Golden Rule is found in antiquity. There is Tobit 4:15a
Turning to the sayings I think that Garrow discusses but in the Lucan order:
Mt 5:44a
I yet am-saying to-you, be-loving the enemies of-you
Did 1.3c
Lk 6:27ab
No Matthean version
Did. 1:3g
You yet be-loving the ones-hating you
Lk 6:27c
No Matthean version
Did 1.3b
Lk 6:28a
Matthew and Luke agree with love your enemies but only Luke and the Didache have bless the person cursing you and only Luke has do good to those hating you while the Didache has love those who hate you. However the Didache version of praying for your enemies seems a weakening which is often seen as being later. While it is possible that Luke has got his cursing saying from the Didache, it is equally possible that the Didache got their version from Luke. I think it is more likely that the Didache has moved “love” from “enemies” to “those hating you”.
Mt 5:44b
Did 1:3d
Lk 6:28b
Both Matthew and the Didache have those persecuting you, but Luke has those slandering you. Luke cannot have been following the Didache in preference to Matthew, he could either be changing what he had in front of him on his own initiative or he is following what was in Q. I think the majority of scholars who have considered this conclude that the Lucan “ones-slandering” or “abusing-you” is the older.
It seems to me that the author of the Didache has been influenced the “be-praying” of Matthew and Luke when they changed “loving” to “pray for” in the enemies saying.
Mt 5:39d-e
Did. 1.4b-c
Lk 6:29a-b
The last eight words of Matthew match the last eight words of the Didache and they have ῥαπίζει and ῥάπισμα (slap). While Matthew only matched six words with Luke.
Mt 5:40
Did 1.4f
If took-off someone the cloak of-you you-shall-give him also the tunic
Lk 6:29c-d
I agree with the International Q Project of the Society of Biblical Literature that the Lucan version is likely the older version. It makes sense that if someone asks for your cloak that you also give them your tunic, or your coat and your shirt. Why would anyone ask you for your shirt if you also had a coat?
I wonder if the legal language “to-sue” is a creation of Matthews because of the other sayings in chapter 5 such as judgment (v 22), accuser and judge (v 25), certificate (v 31) and swearing (oaths) (v 33).
Mt 5:41
Did 1.4e
If conscripted you someone mile one be-going with him two
No Lucan version
Matthew and the Didache match six words and have ἀγγαρεύσει and ἀγγαρεύσῃ (conscription). In the Dichache all three start with “if” and this I think is evidence of editing and therefore on balance it is likely that the Dichache version is later.
Mt 5:42a
No Didache version
Lk 6:30a
I think the Matthean one is the older.
Mt 5:42b
Did 1.4g
Lk 6:30b
There is also Lk 6:34a
I think that Luke’s use of δανίσητε (you-lending) is evidence that Matthews δανίσασθαι (to-borrow) is more likely from the original text. I also wonder if Luke’s αἴροντος (one-taking-away) was also in the original text. (It seem odd to me that εκλεψαν (steal) is not used.)
Mt 5:46a
Did 1:3e
Lk 6:32a
I think the Matthean version might be the older version with its (μισθὸν) wages. Luke has 3 words that Matthew has and 2 that the Didache has. But this does not clearly suggest that the Didache version was the older and both Matthew and Luke changed it.
Mt 5:46b
Mt 5;47c
Did 1.3f
Lk 32b
Matthew 5:47c and Didache 1.3f are identical and Luke has moved a long way away from them.
Again I do not find the evidence convincing of either that Luke changed what he found in Matthew to agree with the Didache or that the Didache is a version of part of Q.
I think Garrow states that because Luke has the positive Golden Rule and the Didache has the negative form of it, Luke is therefore dependant on the Didache. As Ben C Smith pointed out the negative Golden Rule is found in antiquity. There is Tobit 4:15a
I think Garrow is referring to Didache 1.2dAnd what you hate, do not do to any one.
I am not convinced.All things that you do not want to happen to you, you do not do to another
Turning to the sayings I think that Garrow discusses but in the Lucan order:
Mt 5:44a
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
I yet am-saying to-you, be-loving the enemies of-you
Did 1.3c
And you-shall-pray for the enemies of-youκαὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν,
Lk 6:27ab
But to-you I-say to-the ones-hearing, be-loving the enemies of-youἈλλὰ ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν,
No Matthean version
Did. 1:3g
ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς
You yet be-loving the ones-hating you
Lk 6:27c
Good be-doing to-the ones-hating youκαλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς,
No Matthean version
Did 1.3b
Bless the ones-cursing youΕὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμῖν
Lk 6:28a
Bless the ones-cursing youεὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς,
Matthew and Luke agree with love your enemies but only Luke and the Didache have bless the person cursing you and only Luke has do good to those hating you while the Didache has love those who hate you. However the Didache version of praying for your enemies seems a weakening which is often seen as being later. While it is possible that Luke has got his cursing saying from the Didache, it is equally possible that the Didache got their version from Luke. I think it is more likely that the Didache has moved “love” from “enemies” to “those hating you”.
Mt 5:44b
And be-praying for the ones-persecuting youκαὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς,
Did 1:3d
Fast yet for the ones-persecuting youνηστεύετε δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς·
Lk 6:28b
Be-praying for the ones-slandering youπροσεύχεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς.
Both Matthew and the Didache have those persecuting you, but Luke has those slandering you. Luke cannot have been following the Didache in preference to Matthew, he could either be changing what he had in front of him on his own initiative or he is following what was in Q. I think the majority of scholars who have considered this conclude that the Lucan “ones-slandering” or “abusing-you” is the older.
It seems to me that the author of the Didache has been influenced the “be-praying” of Matthew and Luke when they changed “loving” to “pray for” in the enemies saying.
Mt 5:39d-e
But (if) anyone you is-slapping on the right cheek, turn to-him also the otherἀλλ' ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην:
Did. 1.4b-c
If someone to-you give slap on the right cheek turn to-him also the otherἘάν τις σοι δῷ ῥάπισμα εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην,.
Lk 6:29a-b
To one-striking you on the cheek offer also the otherτῷ τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην,
The last eight words of Matthew match the last eight words of the Didache and they have ῥαπίζει and ῥάπισμα (slap). While Matthew only matched six words with Luke.
Mt 5:40
And to-the one-willing you to-sue and the tunic of-you takes, leave him also the cloak.καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον:
Did 1.4f
ἐὰν ἄρῃ τις τὸ ἱμάτιόν σου, δὸς αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα
If took-off someone the cloak of-you you-shall-give him also the tunic
Lk 6:29c-d
And from the one-taking-away your cloak and the tunic not you-withhold.καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα μὴ κωλύσῃς.
I agree with the International Q Project of the Society of Biblical Literature that the Lucan version is likely the older version. It makes sense that if someone asks for your cloak that you also give them your tunic, or your coat and your shirt. Why would anyone ask you for your shirt if you also had a coat?
I wonder if the legal language “to-sue” is a creation of Matthews because of the other sayings in chapter 5 such as judgment (v 22), accuser and judge (v 25), certificate (v 31) and swearing (oaths) (v 33).
Mt 5:41
And anyone-who you conscripting mile one be-going with him two.καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ' αὐτοῦ δύο.
Did 1.4e
ἐὰν ἀγγαρεύσῃ σέ τις μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ' αὐτοῦ δύο
If conscripted you someone mile one be-going with him two
No Lucan version
Matthew and the Didache match six words and have ἀγγαρεύσει and ἀγγαρεύσῃ (conscription). In the Dichache all three start with “if” and this I think is evidence of editing and therefore on balance it is likely that the Dichache version is later.
Mt 5:42a
To-the one-begging you giveτῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός,
No Didache version
Lk 6:30a
Every one-begging you giveπαντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου,
I think the Matthean one is the older.
Mt 5:42b
And the one-wanting from you to-borrow do-not refuseκαὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς.
Did 1.4g
If took someone from you what-is your not be-requesting neither indeed use-forceἐὰν λάβῃ τις ἀπὸ σοῦ τὸ σόν, μὴ ἀπαίτει· οὐδὲ γὰρ δύνασαι
Lk 6:30b
And from the one-taking-away that yours not be-requestingκαὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ σὰ μὴ ἀπαίτει.
There is also Lk 6:34a
And if you-lending (to-those] from whom you-are-expecting to-get-back what to-you credit is-itκαὶ ἐὰν δανίσητε παρ' ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις [ἐστίν];
I think that Luke’s use of δανίσητε (you-lending) is evidence that Matthews δανίσασθαι (to-borrow) is more likely from the original text. I also wonder if Luke’s αἴροντος (one-taking-away) was also in the original text. (It seem odd to me that εκλεψαν (steal) is not used.)
Mt 5:46a
If-ever for you-should-be-loving the ones-loving you what wages are-you-havingἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε;
Did 1:3e
What-sort for grace if you-love the one-loving youποία γὰρ χάρις, ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς;
Lk 6:32a
And if you-are-loving the ones-loving you, what to-you grace is-itκαὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν;
I think the Matthean version might be the older version with its (μισθὸν) wages. Luke has 3 words that Matthew has and 2 that the Didache has. But this does not clearly suggest that the Didache version was the older and both Matthew and Luke changed it.
Mt 5:46b
Not also the tax-collectors the same are-doingοὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν;
Mt 5;47c
Not also the gentiles the same are-doingοὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν;
Did 1.3f
Not also the gentiles the same are-doingοὐχὶ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν
Lk 32b
And for the sinners the ones-loving them are-lovingκαὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσιν.
Matthew 5:47c and Didache 1.3f are identical and Luke has moved a long way away from them.
Again I do not find the evidence convincing of either that Luke changed what he found in Matthew to agree with the Didache or that the Didache is a version of part of Q.
Last edited by Michael BG on Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.