Category: Didache - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Conclusion - the Didache Didn't Draw on Matthew

1/7/2022

1/7/22
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Sixteen: Conclusion." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004,244-252.

Garrow concludes that while the Didache is a composite composition, with substantial elements drawn into the record, Matthew is a unified composition. The points of similarity suggest to Garrow that Matthew drew from the Didache rather than the Didache drawing from Matthew or both from some other source (Garrow 2004, 245). For the influence to be upon the Didache, it would have to compel several redactors to choose material which was used by Matthew and nobody else, and to gather the materials into tight clusters while Matthew spread them out. This stikes Garrow as unlikely (Garrow 2004, 246).

A List of Vices

1/6/2022

1/6/22
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Fifteen: Further Points of Contact Between Matthew's Gospel and the Peri/Base Layer." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 238-243.

Garrow previously spent considerable time with connections between Matthew's Gospel and Didache chapters one and 16. In this brief chapter, he evaluates other passages, always questioning whether the Didache text necessarily indicates a knowledge of Matthew (Garrow 2004, 238).

Matthew 15:19 and Didache 5.1 present a list of vices. While Matthew shows similarities to the Didache and Mark, the Didache includes vices which do not appear in Matthew or Mark (Garrow 2004, 239). Matthew 5.5, 7 and Didache 3.7-8 address the meek as inheriting the earth. Didache 3.7 appears to derive from Psalm 36, rather than from Matthew (Garrow 2004, 240). Matthew 19.17-21 compares with Didache 1.2a, 4b; 2.2, where some of the law of God is summarized. Matthew differs in sme elements from Mark 10 and Luke 18. However, if Matthew is a conflation of the Didache and Mark, there is no difficulty. Again, Garrow finds no reason to think the Didache is influenced by Matthew (Garrow 2004, 241). In Matthew 5.21, 27, 33 and Didache 2.2-3, the term for swearing falsely occurs only here and in one other known text. Tis suggests a strong relationship between Matthew and the Didache, though it does not indicate the direction of dependence (Garrow 2004, 241). Finally, Matthew 5.21, 22, 27, 28 and Didache 3.2-3 show a similar understanding of anger and lust. The argument for the Didache depending on Matthew is relatively weak, but there is a fairly strong case for the Didache to depend on Psalm 36, then to be used in Matthew (Garrow 2004, 242).

Garrow concludes that there is no reason to assume Matthew provided the source material for the Didache. Rather, he takes the evidence to point toward the Didache as an influence on Matthew (Garrow 2004, 242).

Which Came First?

1/5/2022

1/5/22
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Fourteen: Matthew's Gospel and Didache 1.1-6." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 216-237.

Garrow considesr the points of contact between Didache 1.1-6 and Matthew's Gospel, bearing in mind the suggestions made in the 20th century that a "Q" tradition informed Matthew's report of Jesus' statements about turning the other cheeck and giving one's tunic to the person who demands a cloak (Garrow 2004, 216). Garrow proceeds by evaluating the points of contact between Matthew and Didache 1.1-6 in turn.

The Golden Rule of Matthew 7.12-14 and Didache 1.1, 2e are closely related. Garrow finds each has a juxtaposition and in each case there is a sense that this is a fulfillment of God's law (Garrow 2004, 217). The connection, in Garrow's opinion, is clear and there is no indication that the Didache would have to depend on Matthew. Therefore, the possibility of Matthew's dependence on the Didache remains open (Garrow 2004, 218). The command to love God and the neighbor in Matthew 22:37-40 and Didache 1.2b-2 is phrased in a very similar way, suggesting a parallel. The omission in Matthew of Mark's use of the Shema suggests Matthew and the Didache are the parallels (Garrow 2004, 218). Matthew 5:38-48 is similar to Didache 1.3b-5a. Garrow considers that the relationship is shown especially through the use of the verb διώκω (Garrow 2004, 219-220).

Garrow does not think any of the points of contact between Didache 1.1-6 and Matthew requires us to conclude that Matthew came first. He next sets out to demonstrate that Matthew's dependence on the Didache is the more likely scenario (Garrow 2004, 220).To do this, Garrow first reviews his theory of the redaction history of the Didache. He has concluded that at least Didache 1.1-6 is a compilation of ten different elements 221). On the contrary, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew seems to be a one-time composition, which touches the material from Didache 1.1-6 at eight different points. This leads Garrow to conclue that Matthew used the Didache as a source (Garrow 2004, 222). The alternative view would require multiple redactors of the Didache to use Matthew or his sources independently. Garrow considers this highly unlikely (Garrow 2004, 223).

The differences in wording between the Didache and Matthean passages emains an important question. To address this issue, Garrow first evaluates similarities between the Didache and Luke's Gospel (Garrow 2004, 224). Garrow demonstrates that there are numerous passages where Matthew and Luke agree in wording against the Didache though all three express the same ideas. He sees this as evidence of the one-person composition of Matthew and of Luke over against the multi-person composition of the Didache. Garrow further suggests that Matthew conflated both the Didache and Luke, a point of view he uses to explain the linguistic differences from the Didache (Garrow 2004, 229). Garrow does provide several examples of passages which may show some level of conflation. The shape of Matthew's alleged borrowing still leaves me with some doubts, however, as Garrow sees redaction in a way I find overly mechanical and dependent on use of very specific and small groups of words. My strong inclination is that writers do not normally engage in that type of editorial work.

Presupposition or Evidence?

1/3/2022

1/3/22
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Thirteen: Matthew's Gospel and Didache 16."The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 190-215.

Garrow has been gradually walking his review back in time, starting with the Modifying Teacher and then moving to the Prophet layer. He now steps back to the "peri/base" layer. For this layer, he will provide three separate chapters (Garrow 2004, 190).

Didache 16 and Matthew 24 have significant similarities (Garrow 2004, 190). GArrow notes there have been presuppositions that Matthew was dependent on Mark, and that the Didache depended on Matthew. However, if Mark 13.26 was actually dependent on Didache 16.8, then Matthew would have to come after the Didache (Garrow 2004, 191). After extensive consideration of the apocalyptic passages, Garrow concludes that the dependence tends to go through the Didache, as other texts lean toward readings using grammar and vocabulary less commonly used by them (Garrow 2004, 193). However, Garrow does concede, at some length, that dependency arguments can often be reversed so as to prove nothing.

Garrow concludes that Matthew 24 is directly dependent on Didache 16, rather than any other possible construction. He describes four propositions which need to be defended in support of his conclusion. The first proposition, that there is a definite connection, he has previously demonstrated. Second, that the Didache was not dependent on Matthew he considers to have been demonstrated by his case that the apocalyptic material depends on Daniel rather than Matthew (Garrow 2004, 200). Third, he sets out to demonstrate that Matthew's dependence on Didache 16 "is plausible or probable" (Garrow 2004, 200).

Garrow illustrates, in side-by-side panels, that Matthew 24 follows Mark 13 for a while, then Didache 16, then returns to Mark 13 (Garrow 2004, 200-201). This strongly suggests that Matthew is the one borrowing, not Mark or the Didache. Garrow finds this pattern at numerous points (Garrow 2004, 204-206).

Garrow has earlier discussed the structure of Didache 16.8-9. He now makes further comparison of it and Matthew 16:27 (Garrow 2004, 209). While Matthew 16:25-28 is very siilar to Mark 8:35-9:1, where it diverges it is to parallel Didache 16.8. This move strongly suggests that Matthew drew from the Didache rather than the Didache drawing from Matthew or Mark.

Matthew 25:31-46 also shows parallels to Didache 16.8-9 (Garrow 2004, 209). Again, where Matthew diverges from Mark, it moves to the Didache, then returns to Mark (Garrow 2004, 20). Again, the Didache appears uninfluenced by Mark, suggesting that the Didache was the source document. Garrow finally notes that while Didache 16 is an orderly whole, the eschatological material in Matthew which is similar is more scattered and less clearly organized. He considers it unlikely that the Didachist would have gleaned these scattered elements and pulled them into a tight, organized work. Therefore, he concludes the Didache was the influence, not the thing influenced (Garrow 2004, 213).

The fourth possibility which Garrow suggested at the start of the chapter is that the Didache and Matthew shared a source. The consistent exclusion of Markan material and the difficulty of defining any source text for this material leaves Garrow of the opinion that Didache as a source for Matthew is a far more likely solution (Garrow 2004, 214).

Matthew Drawing on the Didache

12/31/2021

12/31/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Twelve: Matthew's Gospel and the Prophet Layer."The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 186-189.

Garrow finds just one link between the Didache's Prophet layer and Matthew, in Didache 11.7 and Matthew 12.31. Here Garrow takes Matthew to depend on the Didache, since the wording agrees with Mattew against Mark. Since Matthew sometimes draws from Mark, Luke, or the Didache, but the Didache oes not seem to draw from any conflation of Mark and Luke, Garrow thinks the dependence runs from the Didache to Matthew (Garrow 2004, 187). Though it's possible that both took the teaching of the unforgiveable sin from another source, Garrow thinks it unlikely that they would have used it in the same way. Therefore, he takes Matthew to depend here on the Didache (Garrow 2004, 189).

Comparing Matthew and the Didache

12/30/2021

12/30/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Eleven: Matthew's Gospel and the Modifying Teacher Layer."The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 161-185.

Garrow considers that there are points of contact between Matthew's Gospel and the Didache, and that these points may be used to show that Matthew depended on the Didache. The earliest layers, if Garrow's thesis is correct, predate Matthew. Garrow's presumption is that there need be only a credible case that Matthew used the Didache, rather than a case that excludes all other possibilities (Garrow 2004, 1260).

Because Garrow places the Modifying Teacher after other layers in the Didache, his assumption is that if Matthew knew the Modifying Teacher material he knew the whole of the text (Garrow 2004, 161). Didache 14.2 and Matthew 5.23-24 appear closely related. Garrow has previously (chapter 7) oted that the reasoning in the Didache, based on Malachi 1.11, suggests that Matthew's Gospel was not available to the Didache. Therefore, he takes this argument for reconciliation to have come to Matthew by means of the Didache, rather than by any other route (Garrow 2004, 162). Garrow does not offer a credible reason for Matthew to ascribe the teaching to Jesus but to have pulled it from the Didache. He does suggest that Matthew may have taken it from the Didache as a teaching of the Lord Jesus, but this is not a convincing argument in my opinion (Garrow 2004, 163).

Matthew 5.26 and Didache 1.5c place teaching of return of "every last cent" into different contexts, but use the very same phrasing (Garrow 2004, 163). The Didache makes no appeal here to the Gospel, and its context is narrower than that of Matthew. Garrow takes Matthew's use of the statement to be a likely result of Matthew's familiarity with and internalization of the idioms used in the Didache (Garrow 2004, 164).

Didache 8.1-2a, 2c-3 and Matthew 6.5-16 speak of fasting and prayer. They urge distinctions from hypocrites, and teach a similar version of the Lord's prayer (Garrow 2004, 165). The context of the fasting and prayer is different but the language used is very similar. Garrow thinks the differences may be explained by Matthew's confaltion of Mark 12.40-44 and 11.25 with Didache 8 (Garrow 2004, 167). Because Matthew uses almost all the statements of Jesus used by Mark, his omission of 12.40-44 is unusual. However, if he conflated these texts at this point, it can be explained rather easily (Garrow 2004, 168). Garrow further sees it as a procedure consistent with Matthew's tendency to collect, collate, and often conflate similar statements (Garrow 2004, 169). Garrow goes on to describe and illustrate this tendency at length. Garrow's conlcusion is that it is perfectly plausible that Matthew drew on the Didache for teaching on fasting, prayers, and almsgiving (Garrow 2004, 177).

Matthew 5.17-20 and Didache 11.1-2 both speak of the importance of preserving authoritative teaching (Garrow 2004, 177). Those who preserve the authoritative Christian teaching are to be rewarded for their faithfulness. Garrow considers these passages to be so similar they must have a literary relationship (Garrow 2004, 178). However, if the Didache passage is from the Modifying Teacher, that author does not normally draw on the authority (such as the Gospel) for the actual modification (Garrow 2004, 178). This suggests it is much more likely tht Matthew drew on the Didache's reading.

Matthew 28.19 and Didache 7.1c, d, and e speak of trinitarian baptism (Garrow 2004, 179). Garrow suggests that the baptismal formula in Matthew actually came from a smattering of passages from the long title of the Didache through 7.1d (Garrow 2004, 180). While I find this argument somewhat tenuous, it does certainly affirm the possibility that Matthew's interest in the Trinitarian formula was informed by the Didache (Garrow 2004, 181).

Matthew 7.6 and Didache 9.5b both speak against giving holy things to dogs (Garrow 2004, 181). Though the aphorism seems fit for a cultural proverb, Garrow denies finding it elsewhere (Garrow 2004, 182). Both passages make the statement in reference to communion. Matthew's use appears awkward to Garrow, suggesting that it was a quotation drawn in from elsewhere (Garrow 2004, 183).

Finally, Matthew 10.10 and Didache 13.1-2 speak of workers being worthy of food (Garrow 2004, 183). The wording is identical. Garrow does not hypothesize a clear track of dependence for this text. However, again, Garrow suggests it was drawn from a known set of sayings of the Lord by Matthew, who wrote later.

Garrow concludes that Matthew may well have drawn material from the Didache, explaining the similarities at the seven points of contact discussed (Garrow 2004, 184).

Redaction Layers in the Didache

12/29/2021

12/29/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Ten: Conclusion: The Compositional History of the Didache." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 150-156.

Garrow concludes part 1 of his book by summarizing the five stages he identifies in the Didache's composition. First, he sees the "peri/base" layer. This material gives us the longer title as well as "1.1-5a; 2.1-5.2a; 6.1-7a,c, e, 4a; 9.1-5a; 11.3a, 4-6; 16.1-6, 8-9" (Garrow 2004, 150). Garrow then sees a layer to be added which deals primarily with support and respect for prophets, in 10.1-7; 11.7-9, 12; 12.1-5 (Garrow 2004, 151). To this he adds the modifying teacher layer. This represents an attempt to soften some of the more forceful statements. Garrow identifies these passages as "1.5b-; 5.2b; 7.1b, d, 2-3, 4b; 8.1-2a, 2c-3; 11.1-2, 9-10; 13.1-15.2" (Garrow 2004, 151). The Gospel layer, which inserts claims to the authority of "the Gospel" was later added, accounting for 8.2b; 11.3b; and 15.3-4 (Garrow 2004, 152). The fifth layer Garrow finds is the Jerusalem addition in 16.7 (Garrow 2004, 152). The text of 16.7 does not seem overly important, but it may have provided a buffer between the universalistic interpretation which may have been possible without it and the more selective picture of resurrection which became more common in the Church.

Garrow sees it as absolutely essential that there be at least two layers present in the Didache (Garrow 2004, 153). He closes his chapter with a diagram of the layers he proposes to make up the Didache's text (Garrow 2004, 154-155). Oddly, page 153 is reproduced nearly exactly on page 156, with a section presenting essential conclusions.

Assigning Text to Authors

12/27/2021

12/27/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Nine: The Full Extend of the Peri Layer." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 142-149.

Garrow previously (ch. 5) considered what he refers to as the peri layer of redaction. In this chapter he considers whether this layer would include Didache 1.3-5a. Here, he finds statements which he considers to be "Q" material, and numerous similarities to both Matthew and Luke (Garrow 2004, 142). However, because he sees 1.5b-6 as characteristic of the modifying teacher, a source he considers to predate the written Gospels, he also sees 1.3-ba to predate the work of the modifying teacher. The text does provide a reason for the beharioral demand, καὶ ἔσῃ τέλειος, which suggests the modifying teacher (Garrow 2004, 143).

The title also suggests to Garrow that there was redactional activity in play. Garrow suggests rather than the short title appearing originally on the outside of a scroll and the longer one as the first line, the title may have been a later addition provided for the convenience of the reader (Garrow 2004, 144). In this scenario the shorter title would be an abbreviation for further convenience. The specification "to the Gentiles" suggests to Garrow the peri layer, since here he finds limitations of the applicability of the text (Garrow 2004, 146). Garrow sees this as the earliest layer of compilation which made the Didache a clearly defined text, so he considers it appropriate to treat the title as a part of that material.

Finally, because Garrow has previously identified 16.1-2 with the peri layer, he makes the additional step here of treating 16.1-6, 8-9 as a part of the layer, as it treats the members of the community as a particular, identifiable unit, in a similar way to the other statements of the peri layer which make some limitations on the scope and participation of Christians (Garrow 2004, 148).

"The Gospel" in the Didache

12/24/2021

12/24/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Eight: The Gospel Layer: 8.2b; 11.3b; 15.3-4." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 129-141.

Though the Didache refers in four places to "the gospel," Garrow takes the references to be from a later contribution (Garrow 2004, 129). When comparing 8.2b, 11.3b, and 15.3-4, Garrow, with Niederwimmer, considers the texts to speak of the same thing and to appear to be from the same author (Garrow 2004, 130). Those who reject the idea, according to Garrow, use a "method of redactional analysis [which] is not sensitive to the possibility that one interpolator could make several small insertions across the spread of a text" (Garrow 2004, 130).

There is a valid concern to define "gospel" accurately, as used in the Didache. Garrow notes that an assumption that the gospel is necessarily a written work can cause significant challenges in interpretation (Garrow 2004, 131). Likewise, an assumption of a necessarily oral work can create difficulties. Garrow considers it likely the author of the four references had only one thing in mind, and that it is likely to refer to a relatively stable written text. Only in 8.2b with its comment about the Lord commanding do we have a suggestion that an oral source might be more appropriate (Garrow 2004, 132).

To continue with the concept of a written gospel, Garrow concludes that it must be either Matthew's gospel or some lost text. It is only in Matthew that we find "instructions for every dimension of behavior mentioned by the Didache in connection with 'the gospel'; namely, prayer (Mt. 6.9-13; Did. 8.2b), prophets and visitors (Mt. 10.10, 40-42; Did. 11.3b), church discipline (Mt. 18.15-17; Did. 15.3), and almsgiving (e.g. Mt. 5.42; 6.1-4, Did. 15.4)" (Garrow 2004, 133). Did. 15.3 further calls Matthew 18:15-17 to mind. The concepts are hard to come by elsewhere.

The version of the Lord's Prayer found in Did. 8.1-3 does not precisely match that given in Matthew's Gospel (Garrow 2004, 134). Garrow suggests that the prayer as found in Did. 8.1-3 is of an earlier date than that found in Matthew 6, and that the text about it being the Lord's command in the gospel was a later insertion (Garrow 2004, 136). Given all the data, Garrow concludes tht "the gospel" is a later insertion which refers to Matthew's gospel.

Garrow next asks if 8.2b, 11.3b, and 15.3-4 could have been written by the Modifying Teacher he proposed in an earlier chapter (Garrow 2004, 137). He considers that 8.2b and 15.3-4 would not make sense without the prior existence of material from the modifying teacher layer. If 15.3-4 was written by the modifying teacher, Garrow is left with 14.1-15.4 written by one person. However, he considers the order of introduction of topics to be odd for anything designed by one author (Garrow 2004, 137). It would also be surprising that an author who appeals to the gospel as an authority would then use Malachi 1.11 as an argument for the need for reconciliation, rather than Matthew 5.23-24 (Garrow 2004, 138). Garrow concludes that Did. 14.1-3 did not know of Matthew as an authority, but the author of 15.3-4 did.

Garrow further suggests a multiplicity of authors in Did. 8.1-3 because there is an appeal to the authoritative gospel, but a prayer which is not a quotation from that gospel (Garrow 2004, 139).

Because Garrow sees Didache 11.1-2 as being composed by the modifying teacher, 11.3b, which depends on 11.1-2 for context, would have to be a later insertion (Garrow 2004, 140). The context speaks highly of the ancient practice of the prophets rather than appealing to the authority of the Gospel.

In the end, Garrow concludes the four references to the gospel were later additions which refer to Matthew's Gospel. He also concludes that the bulk of the Didache was written prior to Matthew (Garrow 2004, 141).

Attempts to Moderate Teaching

12/23/2021

12/23/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Seven: The Modifying Teacher Layer: 1.5a-6; 7.1b, d, 2-3, 4b; 8.1-2a, 2a-3; 9.5b; 11.1-2; 11.10-11; 13.1-15.2." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 113-128.

In Garrow's understanding of the redaction of the Didache, 11.10-11 may well be present because 11.9 could be misunderstood (Garrow 2004, 113). He notes that in this passage, the emphasis is on what the prophet does and teaches, showing his truth, while in the surrounding material, the emphasis is on the spirit working in the prophet. This suggests to Garrow that the passage was an interpolaion.

In essence, Didache 11.10-11 defends the lifestyle of prophets and urges care for their needs, while 11.9 puts limits on the care (Garrow 2004, 115). Garrow sees it as a sufficient departure from the other material that it should be treated as coming from a different author.

Didache 13.1-7 speaks of specific provisions for prophets. Garrow identifies at least two layers of tradition here, signalled by a change from plural to singular and the presence of teachers early in the passage, but not later (Garrow 2004, 116). As with 11.10-11, the passage seems to clarify and moderate other statements (Garrow 2004, 117). The porphets are to be cared for very much as were the Old Testament priesthood.

The material which Garrow ascribes to "the modifying teacher" regularly treats prophets and teachers together as one functional category (Garrow 2004, 118). This is a common New Testament connection as well. If the person responsible for these texts was a teacher or a prophet, he may well have been troubled by the relatively restrictive statements about care for prophets and teachers, so would seek to moderate the stance (Garrow 2004, 119). Garrow considers 11.1-2 to serve as an attempt to claim legitimacy for an opinion that may have been rejected y the community.

The pattern of an affirmation of prior teaching followed by a moderating view also occurs at 1.5b-6 (Garrow 2004, 120). Here the giving of alms is praised. Then there is a caution to the recipient, and a justification from a quoted saying. Garrow sees this as the same pattern of 11.1-2, 10-11; 13.1-7 (Garrow 2004, 121).

The same pattern occurs, on a larger scale, in 14.1-15.2. Garrow finds it as a very clear element in 14.1-3 (Garrow 2004, 121). The same parallelism, vocabulary, and imagery are used through 15.2. This leads Garrow to ascribe the passage to his modifying teacher.

Garrow makes a rather intricatecut to identify the modifying teacher in "7.1(c) d, 2-3, 4b," daling with baptism (Garrow 2004, 122). Of significant value to Garrow's argument is the shift from refference to baptism "in the name of the Lord" to the trinitarian formula. He takes the less specific formula to be from an early, possibly pre-Christian, period, but the trinitarian formula to be a distinctively Christian interpolation (Garrow 2004, 123). There is, additionally, an external tradition cited.

Didache 8 is often taken as a later interpolation. Garrow finds in 8.1-2a, 2c-3 a suggestion of the modifying teacher, though there is no affirmation, modification, or appeal to external authority (Garrow 2004, 124). However, here there is a substantial difference articulated between Jews and Christians. The last days and prayers are set apart, in a way reminiscent of what Garrow has previously identified in the modifying teacher.

The brief quotation in Didache 9.5b strikes Garrow as a likely contribution of the modifying teacher, explaining the difference between Jews and Christians (Garrow 2004, 125). Garrow also considers there may have been attempts at clarification at 7.1b, and at 5.2b, though all these passages are so brief he does not consider them very practical for analysis (Garrow 2004, 126).

Garrow is fairly certain that he has rightly analyzed the presence of another redactor, one concerned with explanation, the need to care for teachers, and the distinction between Christianity and Judaism (Garrow 2004, 127).

What to Do with Prophets

12/22/2021

12/22/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Six: The Prophet Document: 10.1-7; 11.7-9, 12; 12.1-5." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 107-112.

Garrow has concluded from a redaction criticism perspective that the eucharistic prayers in Didache 9.1-5a come from a different layer of redaction than the prayers in 10.1-6. He now observes that 10.7 and 11.7 show a strong affinity (Garrow 2004, 107). This leads him to conclude that the two verses appeared together in a different document, then were separated and brought into the text of the Didache. 10.1-6 lead naturally into 10.7, so he takes those verses to belong together. Likewise, 11.7-9 make coherent sense together, so Garrow takes them to be part of the document which was brought in (Garrow 2004, 107). Garrow calls this the "Prophet document, because of its concern for prophets and prophecy" (Garrow 2004, 108). In contrast, Garrow considers 11.10-11 to interrupt the logical flow, so as to belong to a different source. The chapters do differ in some ways. Of note in Garrow's mind is a different setting. "In 9.5, there is a presupposition of the eucharistic president's knowledge of each member of the congregatin, while 10.6 implies the presence of a larger, more anonymous gathering, suggestive of a later development in the Church's life" (Garrow 2004, 108-109).

Garrow notes that Didache 12.1-5 shows a change in situation as well. While 11.4 speaks of receiving apostles, 12.1 does not limit the welcome to apostles (Garrow 2004, 109). This suggests to Garrow that the material may belong to a separate layer of redaction, now generalizing instructions about itinerant prophets to be applied to all itinerant people. The limit placed on the time of hospitality suggests to Garrow a climate of prophets making specific journeys rather than living permanently as itinerant propheets. Those people would need more opportunity to receive hospitality (Garrow 2004, 110).

Garrow takes the material to be a "prophet document," not merely a layer. He considers it to be a text that was interpolated without significant loss or change (Garrow 2004, 111).

Now About . . .

12/20/2021

12/20/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Five: The Peri Layer: 6.1-3; 7.1a, c, e, 4a; 9.1-5a; 11.3a, 4-6; 16.1-6, 8-9." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 93-106.

Gorrow theorizes a redactional layer in the Didache which features frequent use of περὶ δὲ, hence called the "peri" layer. This layer, he thinks, sheds light on the eucharistic prayers of chapters 9-10 (Garrow 2004, 93).

There is a striking parallel between Didache 7.1a and 9.1. Both passages introduce a concept with περὶ δὲ followed by a genitive of a conceptual noun. Garrow thinks, however, that due to the phrasing of baptismal formulas (7.1, no article, 7.3, article, otherwise "the name of the Lord" rather than a trinitarian statement), he can discern different layers of redaction (Garrow 2004, 94). Scholars do disagree whetehr the various statements show differences in time of composition, as well as possibly indicating a move from allowing anyone to baptize to having specifically designated ministers (Garrow 2004, 94-95). Garrow takes the statements to be an insertion, made clumsily, as evidenced by the change from a plural to a singular address and the lack of instructions about the length of a fast (Garrow 2004, 95).

Garrow considers the peri layer not to have begun with 7.1, but that the statement in 7.1 indicates a change of topic. This suggests to Garrow that there is a link reaching back into the Two Ways materials. For this, he goes to 6.1-3 (Garrow 2004, 97). He then argues that it would be unusual to use two different types of teaching together (Jewish ethics and baptismal instructions) without inserting material that could suggest a relationship (Garrow 2004, 99). To him, this is the redactional layer which justifies the importance of baptism. Garrow's analysis gradually expands material he fits into the peri layer, as he includes anything which could be understood as coordinating two unconnected ideas (Garrow 2004, 100).

Based on this conclusion, Garrow moves to 11.3a, 4-6, dealing with apostles (Garrow 2004, 101). Again, he finds some statements which could seem disjointed, particularly in 11.3-6. Verses 7-12 are only loosely arranged, but do not seem as startling as the earlier passage.

Garrow effectively takes the instructions about apostles and prophets to have been awkward and require sommothing out and also to have been smooth, thus becoming more awkward when material is inserted. The community understanding was not rightly expressed in terms of apostles and prophets, so the text was changed to partially reflect a change of attitude (Garrow 2004, 102-103). In my opinion, this entire line of reasoning is needlessly complicated.

Garrow finally ties the peri layer to chapter 16, as he observes a similarity between 6.1-3 and 16.1-2, which urge diligence in pursuit of godliness (Garrow 2004, 105). He does foreshadow subsequent chapters in his book in which he will delve into the various ideas in more depth.

Pre-Baptism Teaching

12/17/2021

12/17/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Four: Elements Within Didache 1-5." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 67-92.

Didache 1-5 is presented as pre-baptismal catechesis, which provides ethical guidance for the Christian life. Garrow notes that the material incorporates other early traditions. The Didache material can be compared with the other similar texts, especially Barnabas 18-20, to evaluate integrity of the teaching (Garrow 2004, 67). The material in Didache 1.3-6, or alternatively 1.3b-2.1, appears to have a specifically Christian influence. It is also, significantly, not present in the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum. Otherwise, the Doctrina Apostolorum hasa very close relatinship to the Didache's Two Ways material (Garrow 2004, 68).

Garrow notes that the passage which is considered an interpolation does not show the relatively artful work of a redactor which he would expect, unless the interpolation begins at 1.3a (Garrow 2004, 69-70). The Doctrina differs from the Didache at other points as wll, as does the Dead Sea material. In particular, Doctrina is not as forceful in its descriptions of the outcome for those who fall short in the Way of Life, when compared with the other texts (Garrow 2004, 74).

Garrow entertains the idea that there may be two layers of redaction which led to the current text of Didache 1.3-6 (Garrow 2004, 75). He concludes that 1.3-5a and 1.5b-6 are different elements which entered the teaching as independent sayings at different times (Garrow 2004, 77). Taken as a whole, Garrow's inclination is to take the individual sayings in this part of the Didache to be independent in their origin, but to have been gathered and organized prior to being drawn into the Didache (Garrow 2004, 83). He generalizes this tendency to the entirety of 1.3-5a. This passage has a relatively rhythmic structure, while the rest of the Two Ways does not show such care in word choice or arrangement (Garrow 2004, 84).

Garrow recognizes that it would be beyond the scope of his book to review every place in the Didache where there may be a textual insertion. However, 1.2 and 5.2 are locations he considers important in his overall picture. 1.2, with a "golden rule" statement, has no parallel in Barnabas (Garrow 2004, 85). The golden rule statement, not present in all Two Ways versions, may well have been part of the collection of sayings used els3where. Garrow further takes 5.2a, 5.2b, and 6.1 to be statements added at three different times (Garrow 2004, 88). Garrow makes his argument here based on thier absence in Barnabas. Garrow does concede the parallel of 6.1 in Doctrina Apostolorum, a fact which has led some to consider it part of the source material used in the Didache (Garrow 2004, 89). However, Doctrina uses it in a very smooth manner compared to its use in the Didache. The verse does, however, provide a transition into the discussion of baptism (Garrow 2004, 90).

Garrow closes the chapter by detailing segments of Didache 1-5 which he believers were inserted after the original composition (Garrow 2004, 90-92). He considers this chapter and his chapters 2 and 3 to lay the groundwork for the upcoming analysis of compositional history.

Didache 16 and Eschatology

12/16/2021

12/16/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Three: The Integrity of Didache 16." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 29-66.

Garrow sees Didache 16 and Didache 1 as significant contact points with Matthew's Gospel. Because an understanding of Didache 16.5 is important to interpretation of other passages, Garrow starts by discussing that concept, a "curse that saves" (Garrow 2004, 29).

The mostobvious and popular interpretation of this curse is that it refers to Jesus, becoming a curse (Garrow 2004, 29). One difficulty with this point of view is the lack of an established case being made for Jesus as the curse within the Didache (Garrow 2004, 30). If the connection was made adequately in early Christian thought, this would not be a significant problem. However, it is odd that only here would there be a connection, while elsewhere in the Didache Jesus is referred to simply as "the Lord" (Garrow 2004, 31). Garrow spends considerable time discussing Milavec's view of the curse and the motif of burning, along with responses to Milavec's work (Garrow 2004, 33ff).

Garrow goes on to discuss the possibility that the text of the Didache is missing some parts of chapter 16 (Garrow 2004, 39). The ending is abrupt and not representative of material often included in eschatological texts. The manuscript's remaining half-page of space in a codex where all other available space is filled also suggests the scribe Leon expected there to be more to be included (Garrow 2004, 40).

Garrow considers whether a study of redaction history could make matters more clear (Garrow 2004, 43). 16.7, which many see as a gloss, disrupts the flow of eschatological events. The theory Garrow puts forth is that a longer version of the chapter was somehow truncated, then verse six was inserted to make sense of the shorter version (Garrow 2004, 44). Attempts to reconstruct the longer version generally depend on the agreement between statements in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Renunciation of Boniface (Garrow 2004, 45). Both texts have similarities to the extant material of Didache 16. Garrow also observes a parallel of material in Didache 16 and Revelation 14 (Garrow 2004, 47). He does, however, note there are differences in wording among various passages.

Because Garrow has suggested that Apostolic Constitutions 32 may have depended on a longer version of Didache 16, he considers the authenticity and influences on Const. 32 (Garrow 2004, 50ff). He then conflates Didache 16 and Const. 32 to reconsstruct an "original" reading of Didache 16 (Garrow 2004, 57). The reconstructed text can then be evaluated as a piece of narrative to consider whether it has the kind of balanced structure to be expected in the Didache (Garrow 2004, 60). Garrow does find a balanced system of parallelism in the passage.

Garrow concludes that there is a level of integrity to be found in Did. 16.3-6, 8-9, but that 16.1-2 came from a different period of redaction. He also thinks that both passages of chapter 16 were added at the same time (Garrow 2004, 66).

Eucharist? Something Else?

12/15/2021

12/15/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Two: The 'Eucharistic' Prayers in Didache 9 and 10." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 13-28.

There is considerable scholarly disagreement about what actual liturgical celebration is described in Didache 9-10. Garrow notes that there are five actions described, and that the difficulty arises from attempts to identify all five in any one liturgical event (Garrow 2004, 14). Didache 10.1 powerfully indicates a meal which is filling. 10.6 invites the repentant to come as a participant in the liturgy (Garrow 2004, 15). It speaks as describing a future event, not one which just happened. In the interim, 10.2-5 is a thanksgiving for use after a meal, presumably the one which was found filling in 10.1. The scholarly world has a high degree of agreement on this issue, as well as the similarity between 10.2-5 and a Jewish Birkat Ha-Mazon (Garrow 2004, 17). The order of elements in 10.2-5 suggests to Mazza and Garrow that the prayer may be intended as a transition from a time of receiving physical food to a time for spiritual food and drink (Garrow 2004, 19). In the analysis, we then back up to 9.1-5, in which Garrow sees the reading being skewed by scholarly reading of 10.1 (Garrow 2004, 19). Here there is a thanksgiving over a "fragment," rather than over "bread," along with a cup. This is strongly suggestive of the eucharist, particularly when we recognize the parallel statement of 9.1 with 7.1, which introduced baptism (Garrow 2004, 20).

Having reviewed the texts, Garrow enumerates five actions which he considers to creat an incompatibility. These actions are, "1. Did. 9.2-4: thanksgivings prior to a eucharist. 2. Did. 9.5; the eating of a eucharist (implied). 3. Did. 10.1: a filling meal (implied). 4. Did. 10.2-3a, 4-5: a thanksgiving after a filling meal. 5. Did. 10.3b, 6: preparation for, and invitation to, a eucharist." (Garrow 2004, 21). The two apparent eucharists do not make sense in one event. As a result, some scholars have attempted to reinterpret either 9.2-5 or 10.6.

In some scenarios, scholars have attempted to understand 10.6 as an inserted rubric inviting people to come to a future celebration or possibly as a dismissal referring to attendance at a liturgy which is now complete. A few have suggested the statement was moved and belongs at an earlier location. Garrow does not consider these attempts to be satisfactory (Garrow 2004, 23).

Another, and probably the most common, way of dealing with the difficulty is to take the event as a filling meal which then introduces the eucharist. 10.2-5 gives thanks for the meal, the 10.6 introduces the eucharist (Garrow 2004, 23). This causes us to understand 9.2-5 as something other than a eucharist. Some take 9.2-5 as prayers for a filling meal, despite the language of a "fragment." Another theory takes the material from chapter nine as prayers which were later associated with an agape meal, though they may have had eucharistic significance at some point (Garrow 2004, 23). All these proposed solutions fail to persuade Garrow (Garrow 2004, 24).

Garrow suggests that the "fragment" language of chapter nine could be explained by a preceding meal at which bread was broken, thus introducing a sixth action, the "meal before the thanksgiving over the cup and the fragment" (Garrow 2004, 25). This in turn suggests that we are presented with two accounts of one event, which includes a full meal and a eucharistic celebration (Garrow 2004, 25-26). Garrow presents a side-by-side comparison (English) of chapters 9 and 10, identifying the significant level of parallelism (Garrow 2004, 26-27).

What Garrow fails to do, in my opinion, is to provide a reason for the presence of the parallel accounts. He comes no closer than concluding that the two accounts belonged to two layers of redaction (Garrow 2004, 28).

Matthew Before or After the Didache?

12/13/2021

12/13/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter One: Introduction." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 1-8.

Garrow relates the Didache to a map which, when discovered, appears valuable, but which is of only very limited usefulness due to the lack of a key. The time and location of composition, as well as the question of literary dependence were uresolved, thus leaving the work without meaningful and necessary context. Garrow's plan is "to present a detailed map of the relationship between Matthew's Gospel and the Didache." (Garrow 2004, 2).

The Didache has been considered to have a date after Matthew's Gospel due to its manuscript location among Apostolic Fathers and the "four references to 'the gospel' (8.2b; 11.3b; 15.3-4) amid, in the case of 8.2b especially, the passages that relate closely to Matthean material" (Garrow 2004, 3). This second argument has a fundamental weakness, since the Didache is widely considered to have undergone several layers of redaction, so these statements may not have been present from the start. Garrow summarizes his counter-argument to be "a relatively simple explanation of the two texts' relationship: namely, that various elements (disparate in terms of style, origin and age) were incorporated into the Didache over time and that, at a later date, Matthew drew on the resulting text in the construction of his gospel" (Garrow 2004, 4-5).

In Garrow's opinion, the redactional history proposed by other scholars has always presupposed the pre-existence of Matthew. This has skewed the scholarly consensus on the dating of the Didache, while it has also created some difficulties, such as requiring that different redactors would have used material in the same way as each other (Garrow 2004, 6). It also suggests that Matthew and the Didachist repeatedly gathered material from the same version of the same tradition. This strikes Garrow as unlikely (Garrow 2004, 7).

The Didache and Jesus

12/6/2021

12/6/21
Scholarly Reflections

Draper, Jonathan. "Chapter Ten: The Jesus Tradition in the Didache." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 269-287.

Draper briefly summarizes the scholarship on the Didache before concluding that it is most likely from the first century (Wenham [editor] 1984, 269). Identifying sources of its contents poses a scholarly problem, in large part due to its apparently early date. Much scholarship has considered the Epistle of Barnabas ch. 18-20 as a source of the "Two Ways" material in chapters 1-6 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 270). This would place the document in the second century, then open the door to its dependence on Synoptic materials. However, the discovery of the Manual of Discipline amongthe Dead Sea Scrolls has suggested that the Two Ways materials could have an earlier foundation. J.P. Audet's work suggests that most of the first ten chapters of the Didache were written about 50-70 AD, prior to the publication of any canonical Gospel (Wenham [editor] 1984, 270). Draper agrees that the work is composite in natuer and that it went through editorial changes before reaching its current form.

The "Jesus tradition" materials in the Didache are mostly contained in 1:3b-2:1; 8, and 15:3-4 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 271). Draper takes these portions to be from the last phase of the work's development . He also observes that the passages are not clearly tied to the Synoptics, but could well be making reference to an oral tradition. This idea is promoted by the Didache's apparent dependence on elements of Jewish tradition which are not given a specifically New Testament interpretation (Wenham [editor] 1984, 272). Draper takes the trinitarian formula for baptism in 7:1 to be a later insertion, in which he sees the formula and its precursor of being baptized "into the Lord's name" as the earlier tradition. The prayers around the eucharist may resenble a Jewish Berakoth more than John chapter six.

Draper repeatedly concludes that elements of the Didache which seem to reflect New Testament, and particularly Matthean, patterns are more likely to derive from other materials, possibly those which were source material for the Synoptic authors (Wenham [editor] 1984, 273). For convenience, Draper lays some of this material out side by side (Wenham [editor] 1984, 274-276). He then describes the language use as "often clumsier than that of the Synoptic Gospels" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 276), which indicates an earlier date. Word choice also tends to reflect Jewish culture, rather than Christian developments (Wenham [editor] 1984, 27). Most important, Draper does not find any of the sayings to demonstrate dependence on Matthew or Luke (Wenham [editor] 1984, 278).

Draper particularly discusses Didache 8, which cites a "gospel" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 279). However, he considers the chapter to be a later insertion, as it breaks up the natural flow in the catechetical manual from baptism to eucharist (Wenham [editor] 1984, 279). Yet even here, Draper sees it as largely independent of Matthew.

Draper continues by reviewing the apocalyptic material from Didache 16 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 280). Though there are similarities to Matthew 24, the language and order don't suggest dependence.

Draper's overall conclusion is that the Didache drew on material which was also used by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark except when also present in Matthew and Luke (Wenham [editor] 1984, 284).

A Church Order with Jewish Roots?

9/9/2021

9/9/21
Tour of Christian History

van de Sandt, Huub, & David Flusser. "Chapter 9: The Didache Community and its Jewish Roots (Did 11-15)." The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002, 330-364.

Didache chapters 11-15 are very like a church order, discussing disciplinary practices and other matters pertaining to living in an ordered community (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 330). Van de Sandt and Flusser discuss this passage's literary composition, then its view of apostles, prophets and teachers, then the Jewish roots of the ideas (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 331).

The relatively scattered organization of materials in Didache 11-15 suggest that this protion of the Didache is not the responsibility of a single author (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 331). Van de Sandt and Flusser discuss the views of Niederwimmer, Patterson, and Draper, who have traced redactional layers based on the clusters of ideas in Did. 11-15 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 331-334). Van de Sandt and Flusser do find "a coherent legal style and a logically consistent line of thought" in chapters 11-13 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 334). Of interest to my research, van de Sandt and Flusser discuss a ontrast in views of composition. J.P. Audet sees the text as originally written by an apostle, then later undergoing readaction. Rordorf and Tuilier consider that particularly chaptesr 11-15 are the product of a community in which the role of different leadres has already changed from any apostolic model (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 336). Van de Sandt and Flusser observe that much of the material in Didache 11-15 has parallels, not only in content, but also in organization, within the canonical letters of Paul (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 339).

Didache 11-13 takes a particular interest in apostles and prophets, who were apparently itinderant in their work (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 340). Teachers, possibly a different group than apostles and prophets, also are discussed in Didache 11-13 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 342). Teachers seem to be part of the community, while apostles and prophets come from other places. Though apostles are to be received, their time in the community is to be brief and their teaching is to be evaluated very closely (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 343). Prophets, hwo would speak "in the spirit," were accorded a good deal of authority (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 344). Their speech was largely to be accepted, counter to the teaching of Paul, who urged testing prophecies. In the Didache, prophets could be tested by the character of their lifestyle (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 345).

The itinerant nature of aposltes and prophets in the Didache can be contrasted with the acocunts of Paul and Luke. However, it seems fairly consistent with the pattern in Matthew 10 and Matthew 7, where people are sent out on itinerant missions (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 347). Van de Sandt and Flusser find other accounts of itinerant preachers, inclduign those fo a dishonest nature, in early documents. This was particularly prevalent in the rural parts of Syria (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 350).

Van de Sandt and Flusser move on to analyze Jewish roots of Didache 11-15. Chapters 14-15 and the emphasis on the Lord's Day could suggest a contrast with those early Christian communities which still recognized the Sabbath rather than the Lord's Day (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 351). Likewise, the references to the bishop, or overseer, is a prallel not only to Greek culture, but also to the Jewish synagogue ruler. References to what you "have in the gospel" may be speaking of a canonical work or some other document. This also may point toward the community rule of Qumran (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 352). The identities of apostles, prophets, and teachers were common in Jewish thought. They were not only recongized groups, but typically worked in an itinerant manner (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 353). Roles of these apostles, prophets, and teachers can also be seen as consistent with their description in the Didache. Van de Sandt and Flusser describe this at length. Finally, as described in didache 13:3-7, leaders are eligible to receive financial support. This is consistent with Jewish custom as well (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 361). Van de Sandt and Flusser conclude that Jewish customs were at the heart of the context of all the materials in Didache 11-15 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 364).

Borrowed Prayers for Eucharist?

9/8/2021

9/8/21
Tour of Christian History

van de Sandt, Huub, & David Flusser. "Chapter 8: The Didache's Ritual: Jewish and Early Christian Tradition (Did 7-10)." The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002, 271-329.

Van de Sandt and Flusser recognize that customs of early Christian worship including those described in Didache 7-10 showed a strong influence from Judaism. However, recent research has shown that Jewish liturgical practices in the first century A.D. were not as fixed as was previously believed. Particularly, prayers as recorded were possibly normally examples based on oral traditions (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 271). However, recent research of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that the prayers may have been more fixed across time and location than was previously thought (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 272). Within Christianity as well, it is quite possible that liturgical descriptions and prayers were taken with some level of flexibility.

Didache 7 describes baptism in some detail. Van de Sandt and Flusser note that Jewish immersion practices are closely related to early Christian views of baptism (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 273). They do not think the trinitarian concept of baptism from Matthew 28:18-20 is an authentic representation of Jesus' sayings. Therefore, they look elsewhere for an origin of baptism.

Josephus considered baptism among Chrsitians to serve as a sign that their correct behavior had already cleansed their souls (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 274). This is very similar to the view of John's baptism described in Matthew 3:2 and Mark 1:4. The Qumran sect, approximately 10 km away from where John was baptising, practiced immersion as a sign of repentance (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 275). However, baptism was also practiced as an initiation in cases of conversion to Judaism. Van de Sandt and Flusser debate whether it was viewed as one or the other, or perhaps as both, within early Christianity (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 276).

The Didache (7:4) describes a pre-baptismal fast, of both the person officiating and the person receiving baptism. This is also a feature of Justin Martyr's description around 150 A.D. There was also a period of instruction expected (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 280). This is similar to the practice when people would convert to Judaism (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 281).

The specifications of the water used for baptism "are clearly borrowed from Judaism" (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 281). In Didache 7:1c-3a it is to be running water, but if that is not available, cold water may be used, or warm, and if there is no adequate supply it is permissible to pour water on the head. Van de Sandt and Flusser observe that running ("living") water was considered the right medium for purification (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 282). However, there are Mishanic sources which allow for other types of water supply. Van de Sandt and Flusser observe that by the end of the second century A.D. the water used was not considered to be of great importance.

The Trinitarian formula in Didache 7:1, identical to that in Mattew 28:19, is significant. Van de Sandt and Flusser consider the "in the name of the Lord" to be an older formulation than the Trinitarian statement (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 284). They debate whether the formula was borrowed from Jewish sources or may have come from Greek originals, based on variations in the prepositional phrase used in different Greek texts. Van de Sandt and Flusser do consider the relation between Didache 7:1 and Matthew 28:18-20 due to the trinitarian formula. However, they do not htink we can make a safe case for dependence on Matthew or the authenticity of the formula in Matthew (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 286). They further question the solidity of a Trinitarian concept in the first century. However, their debate is based on the fact that the formula is not consistently used, rather than any conclusive evidence of its later development. It remains significant, however, that in Hippolytus the tradition, foreshadowed by Didache 7:3, is to immerse three times in baptism (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 290). Curiously, van de Sandt and Flusser also recognize a Jewish custom of threefold baptism.

Didache 8 addresses fasting and prayer, specifically the use of the Lord's prayer (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 291). The fasting is not to be on the same days when "the hypocrites" fast (8:1). In Matthew's Gospel, the hypocrites were the Pharisees (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 292). However, van de Sandt and Flusser consider it most likely that in the Didache the pious Jews are referred to as hypocrites (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 292). The prayers are prescribed in a fairly specific way in Didache 8:2-3 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 294). Thsi formula departs from the customary Jewish prayers, effectively replacing a Jewish thrice daily prayer with a Christian one.

Didache 9-10 moves on to the eucharist (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 296). The text uses the verb εὐχαριστεῖν to describe the prayers over the cup and the bread, which are recognized as holy. Van de Sandt and Flusser do not tind the text to serve as a parallel to the New Testament accounts, though. There are no words of institution. The actual body and blood of Jesus are not spoken of. Counter to typical practice, the cup preceds the bread. For these reasons the meal has often been taken as something other than the eucharistic meal. Van de Sandt and Flusser consider what kind of meal is described so as then to interpret the prayers surrounding the meal (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 297).

After presenting a parallel version of the prayers of Didache 9 and 10, van de Sandt and Flusser observe that the parallelism of the two passages strongly indicates a parallel occasion, with similar prayers (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 300). The prayers also suggest a meal which is satisfying, not a ceremonial morsel (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 301. One possible interpretation is that 9:2-10:5 refer to a communal meal, but that in 10:6 the text begins referring to a eucharist proper, as it makes a call to repentance and invites the holy to come. The invitation may be to those who are baptized or those who are considered appropriately repentant (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 302). The interpretation which van de Sandt and Flusser reach is that the entire meal is seen as eucharist and that it contains a number of elements. The words of institution are lacking, but may not have been considered necessary in the eucharistic meals of the time (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 303).

Van de Sandt and Flusser do suggest that eucharist may have taken different forms in different time and places, and thus the description given in the Didache may well constitute a eucharistic celebration which would fit in with the liturgy of early Christianity (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 304). Therefore, they consider whether these forms could have become spread more widely in time and place as part of eucharistic practice. A key to this consideration is identifying the practice of receiving the cup first, then the bread (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 305). Van de Sandt and Flusser are able to find evidence of communal meals in which a blessing over wine came before a blessing of bread, both in Jewish and Christian communities. They identify these communities as places where the Didache and Luke's Gospel were used (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 306). They extrapolate that the "bread-wine" order "supplanted the former non-sectarian type in many Chrsitian communities" (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 306).

Van de Sandt and Flusser move on to consider Jewish antecedents of the two different orders of presentation, and extrapolate from their existence that the gospel acocunts do not describe an actual event but are created by Christian communities which read their customs back into the actions of Jesus (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 307). Van de Sandt and Flusser suggest that in 1 Corinthians Paul is doing the same when in 1 Cor. 10 he has the cup first but in 1 Cor. 11 he has the bread first (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 308).

Another tack to take in the invesetigation is the possible source of prayers adapted for use in Didache 9-10. Van de Sandt and Flusser find considerable similarity to Jewish table prayers (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 310). They particularly note Finkelstein's work to connect Didache 10 with the Birkat Ha-Mazon (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 312). The structure of themes is similar, though the contents of the prayers are not so similar. Van de Sandt and Flusser describe their concept of gradual alterations of the texts over time. In the end they conclude that the elements were almost all present in Jewish tradition and were borrowed by a Christian community for liturgical use (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 325).

In conclusion, van de Sandt and Flusser take the Eucharistic prayer of Didache 9-10 to consist of multiple layers of tradition. It borrows a basic structure from the currently evolving Jewish table prayers, which were reorganized and translated into Greek, then taken for Christian purposes. The prayers kept their Jewish background, and were adjusted only slightly to fit Christian purposes (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 329).

What Practices Does a Convert Adopt?

9/6/2021

9/6/21
Tour of Christian History

van de Sandt, Huub, & David Flusser. "Chapter 7: A Jewish-Christian Addition to theTwo Ways: Did 6:2-3." The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002, 238-270.

Didache 6:2-3 reiterates the importance of holding to the Two Ways teaching, but, as van de Sandt, the passage makes allowances for those who cannot keep the entire Law (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 238). Because of the lenient nature of the passage, it may well represent an insertion. The material bears a strong resemblance to Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25, and Revelation 2:14, 20. However, it is not identical.

Van de Sandt and Flusser first question where the overall language of the insertion would originate (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 239). The statement expresses and opinion which would not be compatible with that of 8:1-2, where Jews are considered hypocrites (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 241). However, the similar ideas presented in Acts 15 were a well accepted part of Christian piety. The language of Didache 6:2-3 and Acts 15:20 and 29 is very similar (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 242). Later Christian documents seem to associate the ideas of the Didache and Acts 15. Similar concepts can be found in Jewish documents of the period (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 245-247). Idolatry, sexual immorality, and consumption of blood were fairly universally prohibited among Christians and Jews (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 249). Van de Sandt and Flusser discuss at length whether the sin prohibitions of Revelation 2:14, 20 are related to Acts 15 or more closely to Numbers 25:1-2. Their consideration based on vocabulary usage is inconclusive, but they do recognize this cluster of behaviors as significant and bearing weight in first century Christianity (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 257).

The text in Didache 6:2-3 retains the language of "things sacrificed to idols" rather than "idolatry," thus indicating the language had become reasonably common (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 258). It also allows for imperfect or incomplete obedience. This is also consistent with the account in Acts (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 259). Van de Sandt and Flusser conclude that Gentile converts are to keep the same laws which would bind them when they were considering Judaism. The reference to "dead gods" seems to be a reference to any idol (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 261). Van de Sandt and Flusser find this as common language within Judaism applied to any eating and drinking with Gentiles (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 262).

In light of the Apostolic Decree about forbidden practices, van de Sandt and Flusser discuss two views found in early Christianity. On the one hand, some were clear that converts were welcome to participate in as many of the precepts of Jewish law as they could (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 265). Didache 6:2-3 suggests this view, as "perfect" Christians receive the yoke of the Tora. On the other hand, Paul warns against requirements of the Jewish law (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 266). The former view was taken by the majority in early Christianity. Judaism likewise encouraged all to take up Tora as much as possible. However, van de Sandt and Flusser do observe that by the third century there were voices within Judaism which would condemn attempts on the part of Gentiles to keep any of the Law (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 267).

The Sermon on the Mount and Literary Dependence

9/3/2021

9/3/21
Tour of Christian History

van de Sandt, Huub, & David Flusser. "Chapter 6: The Two Ways and the Sermon on the Mount." The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002, 193-237.

Van de Sandt and Flusser recognize that the Sermon on the Mount has some similarity to the Two Ways. In Matthew 7:13-14 we are presented with a way which leads to destruction and a way which leads to life (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 193). There are also numerous elements which the Sermon and the Two Ways have in common from an ethical perspective.

As they begin their analysis of the issue, van de Sandt and Flusser make it clear that there opinion is that Jesus had some intentions in his speech that would not be understood correctly by Matthew, and that "not every part of the Sermon can be traced back to the historical Jesus" (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 184). Their presupposition is that Q material contained a more accurate record, and was mostly adopted in Luke rather than Matthew (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 195). Van de Sandt and Flusser attempt to reconstruct the source material based on the premise that the Sermon on the Mount is a ring composition based on the Derekh Erets and Jewish Two Ways materials.

After a very brief introduction to the Sermon in Matthew 5:1, the sermon is introduced by the Beatitudes (5:3-12) and the comments on "salt" and "light" (5:13-16) (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 197). Van de Sandt and Flusser observe that this material is similar t o material in the Derekh Erets literature. The body of the sermon starts and ends with a reference to Law and Prophets. There are three paragraphs with similar structures, about charity, prayer, and fasting, then three additional clusters of ideas. There is then a Golden Rule statement (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 198).

While there is a clear parallel between Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:23-24, van de Sandt and Flusser note that Matthwe develops his idea with materials they consider derived from the Two Ways (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 201). The vocabuluary and the either-or choices suggest material from elsewhere than Matthew' s normal source.

Van de Sandt and Flusser also find strong parallels between Matthew 5:17-48 and the Greek Two Ways 3:1-6 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 204) One significant challenge in the passage is Jesus' repeated statements apparently overriding the Law, but his affirmation of the Law. Van de Sandt and Flusser resolve this tension with an appeal to multiple sources and layers of redaction (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 205). They do conclude that the apparent dispute Jesus has is not with theLaw, but with certain interpretations of it. The arguments used are typical of Jewish rabbinic debates (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 213). The antitheses, further seen to be derived from traditional teaching were possibly interjected here from another source (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 214). This applies particularly to those not found in Luke. Jesus' affirmation of the Law and his statement about "the least of these commandments" recalls the Jewish idea of some small sins leading to others which are more serious (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 220).

Van de Sandt and Flusser also consider particular parallels of Matthew 5:21-48 and Didache 3:2-6 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 226). The various prohibitions are not only consistent in their ethic, but they are presented in a similar order (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 227). The lesser sins lead to the greater, so both are to be avoided.

A challenge which strikes van de Sandt and Flusser is the fact that the statements in Matthew which are apparently based on the Greek Two Ways add additional requirements. The rigorous attitude is a challenge (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 234). A rigorous attitude was also present among the hassidim, which suggests that Jesus, as Matthew protrays him, would not have been outside of normal bounds in his application of the Law.

Demonstrating That a Text is Culturally Possible

9/2/2021

9/2/21
Tour of Christian History

van de Sandt, Huub, & David Flusser. "Chapter 5: The Two Ways as a Jewish Document." The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002, 140-190.

The Two Ways material in the Didache has long been considered to have a strongly rabbinic character. There remains some debate regarding the extent of Jewish influence (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 140). Some have suggested an influence from dualistic Iranian folklore. Others have taken the material to have numerous layers of progressive development which could obscure the source (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 141). One way or another, both dualistic and non-dualistic tarditions were adopted in early Christian literature. This phenomenon is illustrated by the presentation of the Way of Life with ethical expansions and the Way of Death having simply a list of vices (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 142).

Van de Sandt and Flusser use their reconstruction of a hypothetical Greek Two Ways for their analysis, as they consider their case to have been adequately demonstrated (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 143).

The Hebrew Bible contains many passages in which people are given a choice between good and evil or life and death. The Targums on the various passages reflect an understanding of the choice as well (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 143). For this reason it seems quite natural for the Two Ways to be similar in nature. Of particular interest to van de Sandt and Flusser is the either-or characteristic of dualism, as opposed to a one-sided point of view expressing some things as wrong, others as neutral. They find this dualism in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, particuulary in Siarch 33 (36): 7-15 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 144), as well as other locations. Van de Sandt and Flusser provide several examples and elaborate on the dualistic nature.

The dualistic ideas of the Two Ways may also be seen in the Essene tradition, particularly in the Treatise of the Two Spirits from the Manual of Discipline (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 147). Van de Sandt and Flusser find numerous direct parallels between this Hebrew material and their Greek Two Ways document (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 148-149). However, they consider both documents to be dependent on an earlier document due to what they see as a doctrine of double predestination in the Qumran scrolls, rather than dualism (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 149-150). The community as a whole would not have embraced an idea of real human choice.

Van de Sandt and Flusser also identify traditional materials which remain in the Greek Two Ways. First, they observe that the way of life is particularly dualistic, though they consider Jewish thought on the whole tobe predestinarian (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 156). The command of love for God and neighbor in conjunction is also an old tradition, as illustrated by numerous passages. The presentation of the "Golden Rule" is also evidence of an old tradition (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 159).

The precepts from the Greek Two Ways 2:2-7 cover the ideas in the second table of the Ten Commandments (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 162). This is rather clearly an identification with early Jewish tradition. The concept, in the New Testament, is frequently tied explicitly to love for the neighbor (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 163-164).

The text makes a comparison between sins which are more serious and less serious. Van de Sandt and Flusser see this as a pattern which was borrowed into the Two Ways as its structure differs from other portions (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 165).

Van de Sandt and Flusser conclude that the Greek Two Ways is a composite of four strands of materials which they have identified. The overall ethic expressed is similar to that articulated "in the rabbinic Derekh Erets tractates" (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 172). This traditionr epresents teaching about the way godly people would live on the earth. Though these materials in their final form may date to the late 8th century, van de Sandt and Flusser consider many of the saying sto be considerably older (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 173-174). They also make comparisons between the ideasof the Tractates and the Two Ways.

Van de Sandt and Flusser consider whether they can reach an approximate date for a Greek Two Ways. As it influence both the Didache and Barnabas, it needs to be prior to 100 A.D. (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 179). The Essene community in which many of the ethical teachings appear to have developed is a likely candidate for a community to assemble such a document, and the group on the fringes of that society, which preserved the T.12 Patr. was known to espouse dualism (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 181). This is characteristic of the Greek Two Ways as well.

The social mileau of the Greek Two Ways may be characterized by the statements about charity (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 182-183). There is a great commitment to sharing with one another, not seen uniformly within Judaism, but present in the Essene communities. These ideas have strong parallels in the New Testament writings of Paul and Luke as well (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 187-189).

Reconstructing Hypothetical Text

9/1/2021

9/1/21
Tour of Christian History

van de Sandt, Huub, & David Flusser. "Chapter 4: A Reconstruction of the Two Ways." The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002, 112-139.

Because van de Sandt and Flusser consider the Two Ways material to be derived from a source outside the Didache, they undertake a re-publication of the Two Ways ased on the version in Rordorf and Tuilier, then compare this to the version which actually appears in Didache chapters 1-6 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 112). They then reconstruct a Greek version which they think would like behind the text used for both the Didache and the Latin texts.

The Doctrina Apostolorum, which exists in two medieval manuscripts, has a version of the Two Ways. The two manuscripts show signs of using the same Two Ways source, which is different from that used for the Didache (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 113). The Latin text is provided (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 114-116), with a critical apparatus.

Van de Sandt and Flusser find some structural elements which provide an outline with the Way of Life, its description, then the Way of Death (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 117). The Way of Life is first defined, then explained. The explanation can be divided into several topical categories as well. Van de Sandt and Flusser describe these statements in some detail, also comparing them to potential sources. They conclude of Doctrine and the Didache that "both Two Ways versions share a source that must have been derived from an earlier form of the Two Ways tradition than the one underlying the Two Ways tradition in the letter of Barnabas" (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 118). The pattern of groups of statements suggests this quite strongly, hence the use of the word "must."

Although van de Sandt and Flusser take the Doctrina Apostolorum as the best representative of the Jewish Two Ways, they still think some elements of its text in the Didache and Barnabas show evidence of an earlier version (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 121). For this reason, they attempt a reconstruction of the Greek text which may have served as a source for all three documents. In general they assume that the Greek of the Jerusalem manuscript is the best witness for the parts where there is agreement. There follows the reconstruction, including indicators of text added, omitted, or moved (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 123-128), then a translation of the text into English (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 128-130).

Van de Sandt and Flusser continue with a textual commentary, explaining their decisions in determining the reading (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 131ff).

"Getting Behind a Text" to find a text

8/30/2021

8/30/21
Tour of Christian History

van de Sandt, Huub, & David Flusser. "Chapter 3: The Influence of the Two Ways in Christian Literature." The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002, 81-111.

Van de Sandt and Flusser consider the influence of the Two Ways material on Christian literature. While they concede it is difficult to identify a definitive version, they consider the Latin version as recorded in Doctrina Apostolorum to be the most accurate rendition (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 81).

In post-apostolic Christianity, Clement of Alexandria makes several allusions to commands of God, but they are phrased in ways similar to the same statements in the Didache (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 82). However, Clement shows no signs of knowing about Didache chapers 7-16. This suggests to van de Sandt and Flusser that the Two Ways was known as a separate document.

By the early fourth century there are a number of Latin references to the Two Ways in terms very similar to the Latin material from the Doctrina Apostolorum (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 83). Further, the source material is referenced in various ways by different authors. However, it is not identified as the "teaching of the twelve apostles." Rather, it tends to be referred to as "the Two Ways" (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 85). The materials are frequently found among instructions prior to baptism (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 87-89).

In later time periods, it is important to consider the continued use of the Two Ways materials. For this reason, van de Sandt and Flusser move to the Merovingian and Carolingian periods (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 89). Among the important works is the Rule of Benedict, particularly in chapter four (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 91). Van de Sandt and Flusser consider it very likely that the material which bers a similarity to Two Ways statements was borrowed from elsewhere, somewhere in the distant past (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 92). Since the passages do not seem tobe taken directly from the Didache, van de Sandt and Flusser comment on the passages as separate entities (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 92ff).

The fifteenth sermon of Ps. Boniface, with manuscripts dating back possibly to the ninth century, preserves material from the Two Ways (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 95). Here baptism is present as well, though a renunciation of Satan takes place followed by baptism, then the presentation of the Two Ways teaching. Van de Sandt and Flusser provide a photograph of the text (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 98-100). It is curious that the form of the Two Ways material does not seem derived from either the Greek text that ended up in the Didache text or from the Latin text which was related to that of Benedict (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 101). The text of the sermon, in Latin and English, is reproduced (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 101-103).

In this sermon, with its baptismal context, the renunciation of the devil and the pledge to live a holy life is phrased in terms of the Two Ways materials (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 105). The materials have been arranged to show parallel structures of evil and good.

Finally, van de Sandt and Flusser refer the reader to a series of six teachings, Ratio de Cathecizandis Rudibus, found in a collection of homilies (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 107). The work is possibly based on some catechetical work of Augustine. However, this was probably not prepared until about 800 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 108). A number of the commands are in the form used in the Two Ways sources. Van de Sandt and Flusser conclude that some sort of a Two Ways document was available to the authors of these catechetical works (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 111).

A Frequently Borrowed Tradition

8/27/2021

8/27/21
Tour of Christian History

van de Sandt, Huub, & David Flusser. "Chapter 2:The Jewish Source of Didache 1-6: The Two Ways." The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002, 55-80..

Van de Sandt and Flusser observe that Didache 1-6 is substantially different from the remainder of the work. In this chapter they describe the contents, build a case for multiple compositional layers, and describe the relationship of this section of the Didache with other texts representing the Two Ways tradition (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 55). This is a fairly common emphasis found in much Didache scholarship, especially in the 20th century.

The contents of the Two Ways have been described many times. The way of life is presented, followed by prohibitions. Commands which will assist in pursuing the way of life are presented. Next comes a chapter about the overall precepts of life and duties which are enjoined (ch. 4). The way of death is presented in chapter five, with a catalog of vices and of evildoers. Chapter six presents a conclusion and a clarification of standards (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 56).

The Two Ways tradition, in a Jewish form predating the Didache, was demonstrated to exist in 1952 with Jean-Paul Audet's work on the Qumran Manual of Discipline (1Q5 3:13-4:26). This material not only included the important concepts but did so in a sharply dualistic manner, in a form similar to that of the Didache (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 59). Van de Sandt and Flusser, building on Audet's work, describe Two Ways traditions in other places in the early Christian tradition. Specifically, they consider the Letter of Barnabas ch. 18-20 (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 60), the Doctrina Apostolorum (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 61-63), the Apostolic Church Order and the Epitome of the Canons of the Holy Apostles (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 64-65), the Arabic Life of Shenoute (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 66-67), and the Ps. Athanasian Syntagma Doctrinae and the Fides CCCXVIII Patrum (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 68-69).

Van de Sandt and Flusser conclude that the Two Ways material had Jewish roots but was taen over into Christian writing at an early time (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 70). However, the bulk of the Christian material does not "show familiarity with Did 7-16 nor acquaintance with the evantelical section in Did 1:3b-2:1" (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 70). This suggests a tradition drawn upon by the Didache and by the other works independently. Van de Sandt and Flusser then propose the existence of what they call a "Greek Two Ways" differing from the non-Greek records of Two Ways teachings (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 71). Though they admit the postulated document is not widely recognized, they continue by building a case for Barnabas and the Apostolic Church Order drawing on a different source than that of the Didache (van de Sandt & Flusser 2002, 74ff). Their case is built based on verbal similarities, illustrated by passages presented in parallel.