The Didache was written before one or more Gospels? John borrowed and enlarged ideas from the Didache when he composed Revelation, which is to be read as five or six compositions?
This is how critical scholarship works. It is not open to evangelicals.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Sounds odd. I re-read the Didache last month. I don’t get the impression it pre-dates the Gospels. It sounds post-apostolic. However even in my edition of the Apostolic Fathers, Holmes suggests it could date from the 70s. Regardless, it’s very early.
I don’t put much stock in the “Q” theories, so that discussion in the article was … interesting. Seeing as how “Q” hasn’t actually been proven to exist and, thus, the theory is built upon little more than hot air, I don’t spend too much time pondering it. That could mean I’m a simpleton, I know …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
….then one would expect to see, if not Q itself, various texts that resemble the hypothetical Q, but separate from the Gospels, no? And if indeed one does not find such texts, then one would find that the evidence for Q is conjecture at best.
And reading the Didache portions, it strikes me as though it’s really not preceding the NT canon, but rather is cobbled together from portions of it available to the writers. It has none of the flow of the NT texts, IMO.
Discussion
NewFascinating
Garrow posits several fascinating theories in this article. It will be interesting to see if further examination and study supports these theories.
NewSeriously
The Didache was written before one or more Gospels? John borrowed and enlarged ideas from the Didache when he composed Revelation, which is to be read as five or six compositions?
This is how critical scholarship works. It is not open to evangelicals.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
NewHeh
Sounds odd. I re-read the Didache last month. I don’t get the impression it pre-dates the Gospels. It sounds post-apostolic. However even in my edition of the Apostolic Fathers, Holmes suggests it could date from the 70s. Regardless, it’s very early.
I don’t put much stock in the “Q” theories, so that discussion in the article was … interesting. Seeing as how “Q” hasn’t actually been proven to exist and, thus, the theory is built upon little more than hot air, I don’t spend too much time pondering it. That could mean I’m a simpleton, I know …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
NewIf Q....
….then one would expect to see, if not Q itself, various texts that resemble the hypothetical Q, but separate from the Gospels, no? And if indeed one does not find such texts, then one would find that the evidence for Q is conjecture at best.
And reading the Didache portions, it strikes me as though it’s really not preceding the NT canon, but rather is cobbled together from portions of it available to the writers. It has none of the flow of the NT texts, IMO.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.