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).