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).