Recent proposals about Q

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Recent proposals about Q

Post by Secret Alias »

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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Recent proposals about Q

Post by Secret Alias »

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
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Recent proposals about Q

Post by Michael BG »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?

(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?)
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Recent proposals about Q

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.)

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.
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?)
(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:

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
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Recent proposals about Q

Post by Michael BG »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
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.
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.)
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”?
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.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
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?)
(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:

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?
My bad; poor eyesight or not concentrating.
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?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Recent proposals about Q

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote:My point is that in my English translation I don’t find the wording found in Matthew or Luke.
Why not? I do not understand.
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”?
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).
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”?
Here is an antiquated English translation of Didache 1.3-5:

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.
Garrow does not compare any English sayings across the Didache, Matthew and Luke.
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 I think states that the Didache adds to the Barnabas Two Ways and then Luke uses these additions.
Garrow, like most scholars, regards Didache 1.3-5 as an addition to the Two Ways tradition, yes.
Is Tuckett stating that the Two Ways we have in Barnabas is earlier than the Two Ways in the Didache?
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.
What is the Doctrina Apostolorum?
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.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Recent proposals about Q

Post by Michael BG »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
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”?
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).
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”?
Here is an antiquated English translation of Didache 1.3-5:

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.
Thank you for the Greek and an English translation alongside.

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.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:What is the Doctrina Apostolorum?
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.)
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.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Recent proposals about Q

Post by Ben C. Smith »

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.
Ah, I see.
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.
Well, I do have an index to my "gospel text" threads: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1862.

And I have another index to my (far fewer) "epistolary text" threads: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1939.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Recent proposals about Q

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

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.
:cheers:
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Recent proposals about Q

Post by Michael BG »

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
And what you hate, do not do to any one.
I think Garrow is referring to Didache 1.2d
All things that you do not want to happen to you, you do not do to another
I am not convinced.

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
καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν,
And you-shall-pray for the enemies of-you

Lk 6:27ab
Ἀλλὰ ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν,
But to-you I-say to-the ones-hearing, be-loving the enemies of-you

No Matthean version

Did. 1:3g
ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς

You yet be-loving the ones-hating you

Lk 6:27c
καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς,
Good be-doing to-the ones-hating you

No Matthean version

Did 1.3b
Εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμῖν
Bless the ones-cursing you

Lk 6:28a
εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς,
Bless the ones-cursing you

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
καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς,
And be-praying for the ones-persecuting you

Did 1:3d
νηστεύετε δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς·
Fast yet for the ones-persecuting you

Lk 6:28b
προσεύχεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς.
Be-praying for the ones-slandering you

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
ἀλλ' ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην:
But (if) anyone you is-slapping on the right cheek, turn to-him also the other

Did. 1.4b-c
Ἐάν τις σοι δῷ ῥάπισμα εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην,.
If someone to-you give slap on the right cheek turn to-him also the other

Lk 6:29a-b
τῷ τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην,
To one-striking you on the cheek offer also the other

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
καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον:
And to-the one-willing you to-sue and the tunic of-you takes, leave him also the cloak.

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
καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα μὴ κωλύσῃς.
And from the one-taking-away your cloak and the tunic not you-withhold.

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
καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ' αὐτοῦ δύο.
And anyone-who you conscripting mile one be-going with him two.

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
τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός,
To-the one-begging you give

No Didache version

Lk 6:30a
παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου,
Every one-begging you give

I think the Matthean one is the older.

Mt 5:42b
καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς.
And the one-wanting from you to-borrow do-not refuse

Did 1.4g
ἐὰν λάβῃ τις ἀπὸ σοῦ τὸ σόν, μὴ ἀπαίτει· οὐδὲ γὰρ δύνασαι
If took someone from you what-is your not be-requesting neither indeed use-force

Lk 6:30b
καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ σὰ μὴ ἀπαίτει.
And from the one-taking-away that yours not be-requesting

There is also Lk 6:34a
καὶ ἐὰν δανίσητε παρ' ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις [ἐστίν];
And if you-lending (to-those] from whom you-are-expecting to-get-back what to-you credit is-it

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
ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε;
If-ever for you-should-be-loving the ones-loving you what wages are-you-having

Did 1:3e
ποία γὰρ χάρις, ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς;
What-sort for grace if you-love the one-loving you

Lk 6:32a
καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν;
And if you-are-loving the ones-loving you, what to-you grace is-it

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
οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν;
Not also the tax-collectors the same are-doing

Mt 5;47c
οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν;
Not also the gentiles the same are-doing

Did 1.3f
οὐχὶ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν
Not also the gentiles the same are-doing

Lk 32b
καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσιν.
And for the sinners the ones-loving them are-loving

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.
Post Reply