1. Introduction
It would be a significant landmark in the study of the New Testament and early Christianity if it were possible to identify an extant instance of ‘Q’ – a source of Jesus' sayings used by both Matthew and Luke.Footnote 1 If mainstream understandings of the Synoptic Problem are accepted, however, an obvious obstacle stands in the way of such a breakthrough. The Two Document Hypothesis (2DH), the only mainstream hypothesis that includes a place for Q, posits a document that is more than 4,000 words long and which closely mimics the wording of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels for extensive periods. No extant materials remotely match this description. The other mainstream solutions, the Farrer Hypothesis (FH) and Griesbach Hypothesis (GH), eliminate the need for Q altogether. In short, the established hypotheses all arrive at the same conclusion: there are no extant instances of Q.
This is not a promising start for the quest at hand. There is, however, one aspect of the situation that offers a faint cause for hope. This is the fact that no mainstream solution successfully resolves all the relevant data.Footnote 2 This means that a more complete solution to the Synoptic Problem is theoretically achievable – and such a solution may include a fresh conception of ‘Q’ – and elements of this ‘Q’ may, in turn, be a match for extant materials.
The first two stages of this unlikely-sounding process have already been achieved. The companion article, ‘Streeter's “Other” Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis’,Footnote 3 offers a new solution to the Synoptic Problem, summarised in Fig. 1, that resolves a wide spectrum of relevant data.
The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis (MCH)
The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis (MCH) argues that there is no scope for ‘Q’ in Double Tradition passages where Luke and Matthew agree almost verbatim (High DT passages) since these are best explained by Matthew's copying of Luke without distraction.Footnote 4 The MCH retains a role for ‘Q’, however, to account for Double Tradition passages where Luke and Matthew barely agree (Low DT passages) and in which Alternating Primitivity occurs.Footnote 5 This combination of phenomena, the MCH proposes, is best explained by Matthew's conflation of Luke with Luke's own source.Footnote 6 In such situations, Luke's original source meets the basic definition of ‘Q’ inasmuch as, in the end, it is used by Matthew as well as Luke.
However, beyond the essential property of being a direct source for Luke and Matthew this understanding of ‘Q’ differs entirely from that conceived under the 2DH and reconstructed by the International Q Project (IQP):
(i) The Extent of ‘Q’
According to the IQP there is no direct contact between Luke and Matthew. This means that all the material they uniquely hold in common, the Double Tradition, must have been independently drawn from another entity, namely Q. According to this reasoning the extent of Q must be equal to, or greater than, the extent of the Double Tradition: about 4,500 words.
Under the MCH, however, Matthew draws directly from Luke. This means that there is no requirement for ‘Q’ to supply the whole of the Double Tradition. Indeed, where Matthew and Luke agree almost verbatim it is highly unlikely that a third entity was involved at all.Footnote 7 This means that a role for ‘Q’ is limited to those, relatively rare, passages where Luke and Matthew agree in subject but not in wording – the Low DT passages. This means that the extent of the (combined) ‘Q’ materials is likely to be closer to 450 words.
(ii) The Order of ‘Q’
Supporters of a traditional conception of Q point to striking patterns of similarity between the ordering of Double Tradition material in Matthew and in Luke. If the independence of Matthew and Luke is previously accepted, then these shared patterns may be taken as evidence that Q was a single document in which material was organised in a fixed and particular order.
If Matthew used Luke, however, then any similarities in their ordering of the Double Tradition may simply be due to Matthew's reproduction of the way that Luke chose to order originally independent materials. This means that there is no means of determining how many separate sources may fall within the definition ‘Q’.
(iii) The Wording of ‘Q’
The IQP has made strenuous efforts to establish, as far as possible, the exact wording of Q. According to the logic of this project, where Matthew and Luke are exactly similar, as often happens in High DT passages, there the exact wording of Q may be found. On the other hand, where there are low levels of agreement between Matthew and Luke, in the Low DT passages, the exact wording of Q is more elusive – indeed it may be necessary to posit multiple versions of Q.Footnote 8
The situation under the MCH is very different. This hypothesis notes that High DT passages are best explained by Matthew's copying of Luke without interference from any other entity. Rather than providing specific, positive information about the wording of Q, therefore, High DT passages serve only to identify pericopes that may be excluded from ‘Q’. More positive information may be gleaned, however, from the Low DT passages. Here, according to the MCH, ‘Q’ is sometimes the factor that explains the differences between Luke and Matthew in, for example, pericopes such as On Retaliation and Love of Enemies, and Woe to the Scribes and Pharisees.
This observation does not offer a formula for reconstructing the text of ‘Q’, but, if correct, it does suggest that the quest for an extant instance of ‘Q’ should focus on materials that address subjects also covered in Low DT passages.
2. A Prime Candidate: Did. 1.2–5a
While there are no extant materials that remotely match the description of Q as understood under the 2DH, the situation is different under the MCH. According to this hypothesis, examples of ‘Q’ may possibly occur in any early Christian tradition that addresses subject matter also covered in a Low DT passage. Among the small number of extant texts that meet this criterion, one stands out in particular:
1.2 Ἡ μὲν οὖν ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς ἐστιν αὕτη· πρῶτον ἀγαπήσεις τὸν θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντά σε· δεύτερον, τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν·
πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελήσῃς μὴ γίνεσθαί σοι, καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ μὴ ποίει.
1.3a Τούτων δὲ τῶν λόγων ἡ διδαχή ἐστιν αὕτη·
Εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμῖν
καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν,
νηστεύετε δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς·
1.3b 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.
1.4a ἀπέχου τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ σωματικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν·
1.4b ἐὰν τίς σοι δῷ ῥάπισμα εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἔσῃ τέλειος·
ἐὰν ἀγγαρεύσῃ σέ τις μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ’ αυτοῦ δύο·
ἐὰν ἄρῃ τις τὸ ἱμάτιόν σου, δὸς αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα·
ἐὰν λάβῃ τις ἀπὸ σοῦ τὸ σόν, μὴ ἀπαίτει· οὐδὲ γὰρ δύνασαι.
1.5a παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου· καὶ μὴ ἀπαίτει·
πᾶσι γὰρ θέλει δίδοσθαι ὁ πατὴρ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων χαρισμάτων.
More than any other extant text, Did. 1.2–5a preserves extensive parallels to a Low DT passage (Luke 6.27–36 // Matt 5.38–48) and so deserves attention as a potential candidate for the role of ‘Q’. To achieve this status, however, these sayings must be credible as a source for Luke and then Matthew.
3. Did. 1.2–5a: A Source for Luke
The idea that Did. 1.2–5a might have been a source for Luke has never been given direct scholarly attention. This is due, in part, to the fact that the Didache was discovered at a time when it was assumed that the Gospels preserved the oldest and most authoritative record of the life and teaching of Jesus.Footnote 9 This starting point, coupled with the Didache's explicit references to ‘the Gospel’ (8.2b; 11.3b; 15.3,4), naturally encourages the assumption that the Didache must, in some sense, be secondary to the Gospels.Footnote 10 The Didache's complex compositional history means, however, that such an assumption is unsafe.Footnote 11 That is to say, even if a ‘post-Gospels’ date were identified for some parts of the text, this does not necessarily apply to every other part, Did. 1.2–5a included.Footnote 12 Ultimately, therefore, the only secure way to show that Did. 1.2–5a could not have been a source for Luke is to demonstrate the opposite.Footnote 13 An expert exponent of this view is Christopher Tuckett.
3.1 The counter-argument: Did. 1.3–5a used, or presupposes, LukeFootnote 14
In 1989 Tuckett published an important study in which he uses Koester's method to study the relationship between Matthew, Luke and the Didache.Footnote 15 Tuckett expresses Koester's method thus: ‘if material which owes its origin to the redactional activity of a synoptic evangelist reappears in another work, then the latter presupposes the finished work of that evangelist’.Footnote 16
Having applied this method to the relationship between Luke 6.24–37, Matt 5.38–48 and Did. 1.3–5a, Tuckett concludes:
The result of this detailed analysis of Did 1:3-5a in relation to the synoptic parallels in Mt 5 and Lk 6 shows that this section of the Didache appears on a number of occasions to presuppose the redactional activity of both evangelists, perhaps Luke more clearly than Matthew. This suggests very strongly that the Didache here presupposes the gospels of Matthew and Luke in their finished forms.Footnote 17
This confident conclusion, built on detailed and careful research, might appear to end the discussion. There are, however, two significant problems with Tuckett's statement. First, the ‘redactional activity’ to which he refers is Matthew's or Luke's supposed alterations of Q (which are then, according to Tuckett, reproduced by the Didache). The quality of this argument depends, therefore, on the confidence with which it is possible to predict the exact wording of Q. Under any circumstances this is a fragile basis on which to rest subsequent conclusions.Footnote 18 The second difficulty is that, even allowing for the applicability of the method employed, the confidence of this conclusion is not justified by the previous argument. As Andrew Gregory, with specific reference to Tuckett's conclusion, quoted above, notes:
Such a conclusion appears somewhat more definite than [Tuckett's] rather more cautious preceding discussion might be thought to support. Certainly Tuckett can point to a number of instances where the Didache is closer to Luke than to Matthew but, as Glover has argued, such similarities might point to the Didache and Luke each drawing independently but closely on a common source. Furthermore, despite the weight which he puts on the importance of Koester's criterion, Tuckett could point only twice to possible instances of redactional material from each Gospel in the Didache and, as I have argued, neither proposed instance of Lukan redactional material is compelling.Footnote 19
Gregory ultimately concludes: ‘It is not possible to adduce the Didache as a firm witness for the reception and use of Luke.’Footnote 20 Arthur Bellinzoni concurs that ‘there is no convincing evidence that the author of the Didache either knew or used Luke’.Footnote 21 Similarly, Jonathan Draper expresses the view that ‘[i]n none of these sayings from the Jesus tradition and the wisdom tradition can a dependence on either Matthew or Luke be demonstrated’.Footnote 22 Donald Hagner provides a similar assessment: ‘Although the Didache contains an abundance of material similar, and related in some way, to the Gospels, it is very interesting that the case for dependence upon the Gospels is so particularly weak.’Footnote 23
In short, there is insufficient evidence to show that the Didache presupposes Luke. This means that the reverse arrangement, in which Luke used the Didache, cannot be ignored. Before making good this omission, however, it is necessary to note another alternative.
3.2 The Current Consensus: Did. 1.2–5a and Luke Independently Used Common Traditions
A widely advocated explanation for the similarities between Luke 6.27–34 and Did. 1.2–5a is that each author made independent use of similar traditions.Footnote 24
This position is theoretically possible given the oral culture in which the two texts were composed, but it nonetheless relies on the prior demonstration that direct contact, in either direction, is unlikely. As noted above, this much has been achieved in the case of the Didache's use of Luke, but the same has not yet been demonstrated in reverse. This means that further progress is attendant on one question: can Koester's method be used to show that Luke used Did. 1.2–5a?
3.3 Luke's Direct Use of Did. 1.2–5a
In essence, the successful application of Koester's method requires the completion of two stages. First, a particular action must be identified as original to author ‘A’. Second, that same action must be identified as reappearing in text ‘B’. Under these circumstances it is certain that ‘A’ predates ‘B’ and, prima facie, credible that ‘B’ used ‘A’ directly.Footnote 25
A distinctive feature of the Didache allows the relatively unambiguous application of this method. The Didache is widely recognised as a composite document. It begins with a version of the Two Ways (Did. 1.1–2; 2.1–5.2) into which a ‘Sayings Catena’ appears to have been inserted (Did. 1.3b–5a).Footnote 26 The existence of other versions of the Two Ways, in which the Sayings Catena does not appear,Footnote 27 strongly supports the likelihood that their combination in this instance is the original work of the Didachist. The Didachist's creative decision to insert Did. 1.3–5a into Did. 1.1–2; 2.1–5.2 creates a situation where the Golden Rule (1.2) is immediately juxtaposed with sayings on retaliation and enemies (1.3–5a). It is of critical significance, therefore, that the same combination also occurs in Luke 6.27–36.
Given that the Didachist originated the combination of Golden Rule and sayings on retaliation and enemies, the reappearance of this combination in Luke shows, according to Koester's method, that Luke knew, or at very least presupposed the existence of, this section of the Didache.
Once contemplated, Luke's use of Did. 1.2–5a has a singular capacity to explain some, otherwise puzzling, differences between the two texts:
(i) The Golden Rule is Negative in the Didache and Positive in Luke
Luke and Matthew both include positive versions of the Golden Rule. This suggests, under the 2DH, that their source, Q, also included a positive version. This creates a puzzle for any theory in which the Didache's version depends on Luke, Matthew, their source, or a later harmony – since the Didache uses the negative form.Footnote 28
These data, by contrast, are readily resolved if Luke 6.27–36 used Did. 1.2–5a. First, there is no difficulty in explaining the Didache's negative version since this was the standard format in Jewish and Hellenistic sources.Footnote 29 Luke's use of the positive version of the rule, on the other hand, credibly arises out of his efforts to combine and integrate the Didache's negative Golden Rule with its positively expressed Sayings Catena. Thus, to iron out this negative–positive disjunction Luke recasts the rule in a positive form, thereby achieving a smooth sequence of sayings in which all the instructions are expressed positively.
This narrative, in which Luke creates the positive version of the rule, coheres with the fact that Luke 6.31 is the earliest known example of this format.Footnote 30
(ii) Luke's Omission of ‘avoid the fleshly and bodily passions’
The saying ‘avoid the fleshly and bodily passions’ (Did. 1.4a) does not appear in the Gospels. Its presence at the centre of the Didache's Sayings Catena is a problem, therefore, for the idea that the Didache might here depend, at whatever remove, on Luke or Matthew.Footnote 31 If Luke used the Didache, however, then his omission of this line is a natural by-product of his integrative editorial programme. To explain why this is the case it is necessary to review an element of the Didache's compositional history.
Prior to being inserted into the Didache, the Sayings Catena 1.3a–5a had its own internal logic. At its core lay a simple gnomic saying ‘avoid the fleshly and bodily passions’, around which were arranged further sets of sayings that served to expand and interpret its meaning.Footnote 32 In the course of the Didache's composition, this Sayings Catena was inserted into the Two Ways immediately after the command to love the neighbour and keep the Golden Rule. The use of the connective phrase ‘Τούτων δὲ τῶν λόγων ἡ διδαχή ἐστιν αὕτη’ (1.3a) confirms that its function thereafter is to expand upon and interpret that which now precedes it. The Didachist's act of inserting the Sayings Catena into the Two Ways thus makes the original role of ‘avoid the fleshly and bodily passions’ redundant. Previously, it had been the focus of attention for ‘Bless those who curse you, pray for your enemies, etc.’ but now that attention is focused on the interpretation and expansion of the command to love the neighbour and keep the Golden Rule.
Luke then completes the redundancy process initiated by the Didachist. That is to say, he creates a full and seamless merger between the Golden Rule and the sayings ‘Bless those who curse you, etc.’ by removing the original central gnome, ‘avoid the fleshly and bodily passions’, and replacing it with the Golden Rule. Now it is the Golden Rule that stands in the central position, where it is interpreted and expanded by the sayings arranged around it.
On this reading, Luke's removal of ‘avoid the fleshly and bodily passions’ is, like his recasting of the Golden Rule, an example of the ironing out an infelicity created by the Didachist's rough juxtaposition of previously separate elements.
(iii) ‘Love your enemies’ Is Absent from the Didache but Present in Luke
‘Love your enemies’ appears in both Luke and Matthew. This invites the expectation that a text dependent on the Gospels, or on a harmony of the Gospels, would also include this distinctive saying. At the same time, the twin appearance of ‘love your enemies’ suggests, according to the IQP, that this saying was also present in the source shared by Matthew and Luke. The fact that it does not appear in the Didache presents a puzzle, therefore, for theories proposing the Didache's use of the Gospels, a harmony of the Gospels, or the Gospels' source.
The presence of ‘love your enemies’ in Luke, despite its absence from the Didache, is not so difficult to explain if Luke used the Didache. As observed above, Luke integrates elements that appear separately in the Didache's Two Ways and Sayings Catena. The same impetus, on a smaller scale, plausibly led to the combining of the command to love, from Did. 1.2, with the command to ‘pray for your enemies’, from Did. 1.3, to create ‘love your enemies’. On this reading, Luke's reworking of the Didache marks the point of origin for the distinctive saying ‘love your enemies’.Footnote 33
(iv) Separate Sayings in the Didache are Combined in Luke
In each of the above examples Luke appears to rationalise and integrate elements of the Didache that were originally separate, namely Did. 1.2 (Two Ways) and Did. 1.3–5a (Sayings Catena). This pattern also persists in the way Luke treats originally separate sayings within Did. 1.3–5a.
Did. 1.4b combines four sayings concerned with response to humiliating force:
ἐὰν τίς σοι δῷ ῥάπισμα εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἔσῃ τέλειος·
ἐὰν ἀγγαρεύσῃ σέ τις μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ’ αυτοῦ δύο·
ἐὰν ἄρῃ τις τὸ ἱμάτιόν σου, δὸς αὐτῳ καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα·
ἐὰν λάβῃ τις ἀπὸ σοῦ τὸ σόν, μὴ ἀπαίτει· οὐδὲ γὰρ δύνασαι·
In each case the volition of the victim is limited. They did not choose to be struck, or to be subjected to corvée, or to have their possessions taken. The victim's only freedom is in their response to the initial outrage.
Did. 1.5a then recalls a saying designed for a very different set of circumstances:
παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου καὶ μὴ ἀπαίτει·
πᾶσι γὰρ θέλει δίδοσθαι ὁ πατὴρ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων χαρισμάτων.
Here force is replaced by a humble request. The subject of this request is enjoined to respond in a way that is consistent with the actions and attitude of the Father. In this situation, therefore, the giver has the freedom to act with autonomy and grace.
The distinctly different character of the two sets of sayings suggests that they did not originate together. At some point, however, they came to circulate together – probably by virtue of the shared catchwords μὴ ἀπαίτει.
Given the separate character of Did. 1.4b and Did. 1.5a it is striking that, when elements of these sayings surface in Luke 6.30, they appear as a single couplet:
παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου,
καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ σὰ μὴ ἀπαίτει.
This arrangement is awkward to explain on the basis of the Didache's use of Luke.Footnote 34 By contrast, if Luke used the Didache, he repeats the pattern seen throughout Luke 6.27–36 and Did. 1.2–5a: Luke reproduces the Didache's combination of previously separate elements and progresses their integration.
The question at hand is: does Koester's method show that Luke used, or at very least presupposed, Did. 1.2–5a? Inasmuch as Luke reproduces the Didachist's novel combination of the Golden Rule and Sayings Catena, the answer is yes. A compelling benefit of this outcome is that Luke's integration of elements only roughly juxtaposed in the Didache helps to explain a series of otherwise puzzling differences between the two texts.
In concluding that Did. 1.2–5a is a credible source for Luke,Footnote 35 a significant step has been made towards identifying these verses as an extant instance of ‘Q’.Footnote 36 All that remains is to demonstrate similar use by Matthew.
4. Did. 1.2–5a: A Source for Matthew
The Matthean parallels to Did. 1.2 and Did. 1.3–5a do not occur, as they do in Luke, in close combination. This means that the relationship between Matthew and the Sayings Catena and the Golden Rule are best considered separately.
4.1 Matthew and the Sayings Catena
Before attempting to discern whether Did. 1.3–5a was a source for Matt 5.38–48 it is critical to establish whether Luke 6.27–36 was also a source used in the creation of Matt 5.38–48. This is important for two reasons. First, if Matthew used Luke 6.27–36, and (as argued above) Luke used Did. 1.3–5a, then Did. 1.3–5a was necessarily, in the technical sense, accessible to Matthew.Footnote 37 Second, if Matthew used Luke to create his version of the Low DT passage On Retaliation and Love of Enemies, then this raises the question, why does Matthew here deviate from Luke so extensively? One possible explanation is that Matthew switches between Luke and another source – much as, in Matt 13.31–2, he switches between the two versions of the Parable of the Mustard Seed found in Luke 13.18–19 with Mark 4.30–2: see Synopsis 1.Footnote 38
The Parable of the Mustard Seed
If Matthew's deviations from Luke 6.27–36 have a similar cause, then this generates a specific expectation – Matthew's ‘other’ source should similarly match Matthew's deviations from Luke.
The likelihood that Matt 5.38–48 did indeed make direct use of Luke 6.27–34 is supported by two factors. First, as argued in ‘Streeter's “Other” Synoptic Solution’, Matthew made extensive use of Luke on other occasions and, on this basis, it is credible that he also did so here.Footnote 39 Second, and more specifically, Matt 5.38–48 reuses features original to Luke's redaction of Did. 1.2–5a including, in Matt 5.44, Luke's freshly minted phrase, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν.Footnote 40 According to Koester's method, the reappearance of Luke's original activity within Matt 5.38–48 supports the likelihood that the latter used the former.
As noted above, establishing Matthew's use of Luke 6.27–36 is important inasmuch as it confirms that Did. 1.3–5a was accessible to Matthew. In addition, this conclusion supports the hypothesis that Matthew's deviations from Luke in passages such as On Retaliation and Love of Enemies are the product of his conflation of Luke with another source. This, in turn, creates a demanding test for the Didache in its candidacy for the role of that ‘other’ source: it should match Matthew's deviations from Luke 6.27–36. As Synopses 2 and 3 illustrate, this is indeed the case.Footnote 41
On Retaliation
In On Retaliation, Matthew deviates from Luke in the use of ῥαπίζω rather than τύπτω and in specifying the ‘right’ cheek. He also deviates from Luke in including the ‘extra mile’ saying. Both of these deviations are accounted for if Matthew alternated between Luke and Did. 1.3–5a, much as he alternates between Luke and Mark in Synopsis 1.
Love of Enemies
In Love of Enemies, Matthew deviates from Luke to include ‘pray for those persecuting you’, in his use of ‘the Father’ rather than ‘Most High’, and in the phrase ‘do not even the Gentiles do the same’. Again, these deviations match the text of Did. 1.3–5a.
Matthew concludes his pericope Love of Enemies with an instruction that closely mimics Luke 6.36. Matthew's version includes, however, a distinctive deviation which, once again, is matched by an element of Did. 1.3–5a: see Synopsis 4.
Be perfect
Given that Matt 5.38–48 conflated Luke with another source, and given that Did. 1.3–5a matches the required characteristics of that source with remarkable precision, it is probable that Matthew knew and used the Sayings Catena.
4.2 Matthew and the Golden Rule
The case for Matthew's use of the Sayings Catena having been made, a similar line of reasoning can be used with respect to Matthew's use of the Didache's Golden Rule. First, Matthew's dependence on Luke 6.31 is indicated by his reuse of the positive form of the rule – as coined by Luke. At the same time, however, Matthew's deviations from Luke's version suggest the possible influence of another entity. As previously, the Didache matches one of the deviations in question: see Synopsis 5.
The Golden Rule
4.3 Matthew and Did. 1.2–5a
The pattern of Synopses 2–5 suggests that Matthew conflated Luke with traditions remarkably similar to those found in Did. 1.2–5a. Given that Did. 1.2–5a was accessible to Matthew, as it had been to Luke before him, there is no obstacle to an obvious probability: Matthew used Did. 1.2–5a directly.Footnote 42
4.4 Did. 1.2–5a, Luke 6.27–36 and Matt 5.38–48: Resolving the Triangle
The triangle of interrelationships between Did. 1.2–5a, Luke 6.27–36 and Matt 5.38–48 can appear something of a Gordian Knot.Footnote 43 A virtue of the preceding conclusions, however, is that they allow a simple and consistent explanation for the patterns of similarity and difference between these three texts: Luke reworks Did. 1.2–5a to create an integrated set of sayings from its roughly juxtaposed elements; after which Matthew conflates Luke's reworked version with the original.
According to this account, Did. 1.2–5a identifies as a source for both Luke and Matthew and, as such, qualifies as an extant instance of ‘Q’.
5. The Synoptic Problem Revisited
In ‘Streeter's “Other” Synoptic Solution’ I observed that attempts to solve the Synoptic Problem are like reconstructions of a multi-vehicle traffic accident. Previous attempts to solve the Problem have generally restricted themselves to considering the interactions between Mark, Q, Luke and Matthew. What happens, however, when parts of the Didache are also found at the scene? Supporters of the various competing hypotheses must answer this question for themselves. Their answers will not do justice to the data, however, if Did. 1.2–5a is treated as an inconvenient afterthought.
How then does the Matthew Conflator Hypothesis accommodate Did. 1.2–5a? The narrative generated by this hypothesis absorbs this additional factor without difficulty. Indeed, Matthew's conflation of Luke 6.27–36 with Did. 1.2–5a provides a concrete illustration of two conjectural elements of the MCH. First, that Low DT passages may be created by Matthew's conflation of Luke with another source.Footnote 44 Second, that Matthew's conflation of Luke with Luke's own source may create instances where Matthew is more primitive than Luke, even while also using Luke.Footnote 45
A complete reconstruction of the pattern of interactions between the Synoptic Gospels (and the Didache) is not possible. The best that can be hoped for is a heuristic model that accounts for diverse elements of data within a consistent overarching narrative. This much is achieved by the MCH. Here Luke behaves consistently in treating his sources (elements of Mark, the Didache and others) one at time, while Matthew is consistent in drawing together, and occasionally conflating, related materials from Mark, Luke, the Didache and elsewhere.Footnote 46
6. An Outstanding Question: What Is the Didache?
I began by noting that it would be a significant landmark in the study of the New Testament and early Christianity if it were possible to identify an extant instance of ‘Q’ – as in, a source of Jesus’ sayings used by both Luke and Matthew. On achieving this breakthrough it emerges, perhaps predictably, that progress with one puzzle merely permits access to a fresh battery of questions. In this particular case, one stands out in particular: what is the Didache?
Since its rediscovery in 1873 the Didache has proven exceptionally difficult to place in terms of its date and provenance. This is because some elements appear particularly primitive, such as the Eucharistic prayers in Did. 9 and 10,Footnote 47 while others seem more at home in a later setting, such as the appeals to the authority of ‘the Gospel’ (8.2b; 11.3b; 15.3–4).Footnote 48 In the past this tension has sometimes been resolved by proposing that the Didache belongs to a marginal community that persisted in using early traditions and practices.Footnote 49 This solution is untenable, however, if the Didache was, at some point in its history, sufficiently mainstream to be used by both Luke and Matthew. Under these circumstances, the tensions within the text are best resolved by allowing that the original Didache was subject to later additions. This invites, in turn, a renewed focus on the question of the Didache's compositional history.Footnote 50 While this challenge is not likely to be greeted with much enthusiasm by scholars, the rewards for success are potentially extraordinary. Somewhere within the Didache lies a document that was treated as an authoritative source of Jesus' sayings by both Luke and Matthew. Such a text does not belong on the margins of the early Christian movement; it is a document with enormous, possibly even apostolic, prestige.Footnote 51
