THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW’S DEPENDENCE ON THE DIDACHE

Written by Alan J. P. Garrow Reviewed By Andrew Gregory

First published in 1883, the Didache (‘Teaching’) is about the same length as Galatians, but there is little certainty as to its date, its purpose or its provenance. The absence of unambiguous internal evidence is complicated further by significant questions about the integrity of the text. There appear to be inconsistencies and tensions between different parts of the Didache, and various scholars have offered different theories as to how it was edited over time.

Of particular interest are numerous parallels between the Didache and Matthew. Such parallels are usually explained in one of two ways: either the author of the Didache used Matthew, or the author of each text drew independently on the same pool of earlier traditions. Both alternatives are rejected by Alan Garrow, who sets out to demonstrate that the Didache was a source used by Matthew.

This is a bold hypothesis, but it rests on a startlingly simple observation: if the Didache evolved over time, then the conventional views require the creation of Matthean parallels at a number of points in the Didache’scompositional history. Further, its direct and indirect contributors are required to show a particular preference for material unique to Matthew. Such a scenario, suggests Garrow, is improbable. Much more simple is the proposal that Matthew drew on the Didache at a late stage in its development.

Garrow’s hypothesis rests on careful and extensive engagement with the text of the Didache. Yet his monograph is written in such a way that readers are able to follow the main arguments even if they pass over much of the supporting detail. The main introduction and conclusion are clear and accessible, and further introductions to each of the two main sections of the book prepare for and summarise the detailed arguments that follow. (These are on pages 10–13 and 158–60; it is unfortunate that they are not listed in the table of contents.) The full text of the Didache is also printed at the beginning of the book, with a facing English translation. This is also available to download at www.didache-garrow.info, together with other resources for readers of the book.

As with all arguments that depend on complicated and unverifiable (but of course unfalsifiable) theories about how texts developed over time, Garrow’s thesis about the compositional history of the Didache is vulnerable, at least at the level of detail. The fewer compositional elements that are allowed, the less problematic becomes the observation that each includes material found also in Matthew. This observation, together with the counter—argument that some of the material shared between Matthew and the Didachemay arise from the redactional (i.e. editorial) work of Matthew (which would mean that the author of the Didache used Matthew, not vice versa) means that Garrow’s hypothesis remains not proven. (As, I should add, do the alternatives. The fact that other scholars argue that Matthew and the Didache are independent of each other means that they are likely to agree with Garrow that the presence of Matthean redaction in the Didache is not beyond dispute.)

Meticulously argued, but engagingly written (where else would you find the analogy of a saying, ‘onion in a fish-pie’?), Garrow’s monograph offers a fresh perspective on a much-debated topic. It offers new perspectives on many of the issues on which serious study of the synoptic problem depends, and it demonstrates the value of tackling old problems from new angles. But our lack of evidence with which to situate the Didache in its historical context means that this text continues to raise more questions than it answers.


Andrew Gregory

Oxford