Scholarly Reflections
Voöbus, Arthur. "Part 2: On the Rite of the Eucharist." "Chapter Four: The Source of Didache IX.4." Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm: ETSE, 1968, 137-157.
The history of the liturgical prayer in Didache 9.4 has been a matter of some debate. Voöbus discusses a presumption that there is a relationship between John's Gospel and the Didache, which might help understand the context of the prayer (Voöbus 1968, 137). However, as Voöbus describes, if the concept of gathering the scattered grain in the Didache comes from Jesus' gathering of he bread fragments from feeding the multitude, the entire message is changed. It ecomes no longer a sign of unity but a sign of multiplied provision (Voöbus 1968, 138). To evaluate the passage, Voöbus takes the elements one at a time.
The grain, in Didache 9.4, is viewed as "scattered." The critical argument which associates this with John says that in John 11:52 the people are described as scattered (Voöbus 1968, 139). The word is not in doubt, but its meaning might be. In Matthew 25:24, the same word is used in a sense of "sowing" or "planting." This is a sharply different metaphor, as planting is a purposeful placement of seed. Taking it solely as a destructive dispersal is unwarranted (Voöbus 1968, 140).
Didache 9.4 further says the grain is "gathered" in the bread. Because the term can be used of many stages of the progress from standing grain to having bread, Voöbus is hesitant to declare a clear equivalent with the use in John (Voöbus 1968, 141). In a wide variety of early Christian writings, the gathering into one is not used for picking up fragments to put them in a basket (Voöbus 1968, 142).
Didache 9.4 speaks of the grain scattered "in the mountains." The scholarship which attempts to find parallels with John looks to John 6:3, where the setting is on a mountain (Voöbus 1968, 144). Voöbus observes that the mention of mountains in the two passages serves a completely different function. The image does not create any sort of parallel, a fact which forcefully undermines the argument for dependence (Voöbus 1968, 145).
The word "fragment" used in Didache 9.4 is used to suggest dependence on John. The Didache uses it in the singular, while John describes multiple fragments. Of greater importance to Voöbus is the fact that the parallel in Apostolic Constitutions uses ἄρτος (bread) rather thank κλάσμα (fragment) (Voöbus 1968, 147). This move suggests that any influence of John didn't seem strong over time. In fact, "bread" is typically used rather than "fragment." Voöbus concludes that the Didache reading is the secondary use, rather than a primary (Voöbus 1968, 148).
In conclusion, Voöbus finds that the gathering in John is looked at from a completely different orientation than that in Didache 9. He does not think there is adequate evidence for dependence (Voöbus 1968, 149). The subjects are not the same.
Voöbus concedes that there are significant "affinities" between the Didache ajd John's Gospel (Voöbus 1968, 152). There are many characteristic terms in common. Yet Voöbus maintains the terms and even metaphors which are used to describe early Christianity will rather naturally appear in multiple works (Voöbus 1968, 153). Their roots likely exist throughout the underlying concepts of Christianity which antedate all these documents. Voöbus takes the concepts of the Lord's Supper to be among these early liturgical drivers of metaphor and vocabulary (Voöbus 1968, 156).