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).