Tuckett, Christopher M. “Synoptic Tradition in the Didache” pp. 92-128 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.
Tuckett observes that while much 20th century analysis assumes the Didache’s dependence on a Jesus tradition, for instance, a Q document, he and others would argue that the Didache actually depends on a finished version of Matthew’s Gospel (Tuckett 1996, 93). Because of the common view of a history of redaction, the dependence should be considered independently for the different segments. Tuckett notes that the use of other texts is mostly by allusion, not by direct quotation (Draper (ed.), 1996, 94). He considers that Köster does the best job of arranging texts to analyze possible dependence (Tuckett 1996, 95).
Didache 16 has numerous links to materials in the Synoptic Gospels. Tuckett notes that the links to Matthew24 may or may not include elements which scholars also tie to Mark (Tuckett 1996, 96). One of the difficulties in the analysis is that “the Didache and the synoptists could be reflecting standard eschatological motifs and using OT language” (Tuckett 1996, 96). The verbal links are not exclusively related to Matthew, but the parallel idea could be. Unfortunately, the overall pattern of connections throughout needs to be considered. It is possible that both texts drew from the same source material. Some scholars have made that conclusion (Tuckett 1996, 97). Tuckett walks through a number of the passages which show similarities. Of special note is Didache 16:3-5, where there is wording very similar to Matthew, especially 24:10-12, but not found in the other Synoptics (Tuckett 1996, 101). Tuckett acknowledges that the significance of the parallels is unclear. It may indicate a knowledge of Matthew on the part of the Didachist or common use of motifs (Tuckett 1996, 102-103).
Tuckett notes passages outside of Didache 16 as strongly parallel to Matthew as well. Didache 11:7 in its statement about unforgiveable sin agrees with Matthe w12:31. Further, the identification of a true prophet in Didache 13:1 is strongly similar to Matthew 10:10 (Tuckett 1996, 105). The love command and the golden rule statements from Didache 1:2 were fairly common ideas in Judaism. However, the formulation was not widely found except in Matthew 22:38f (Tuckett 1996, 106). Tuckett’s conclusion is that “these parallels can be best explained if theDidache presupposes the finished gospel of Matthew” (Tuckett 1996, 110).
Tuckett moves on to consider parallels of Didache 1:3-2:1 (Tuckett 1996, 110ff). The Two Ways narrative contains almost no specifically Christian content. However, Tuckett finds 1:3-2:1 as an interruption which emphasizes Christian doctrine (Tuckett 1996, 111). There is debate about the source of this doctrinal passage, as it does not clearly appear in the Gospels. Tuckett considers it a Q passage which was not preserved in a canonical Gospel (Tuckett 1996, 113). Tuckett arranges the various parts of Didache 1:3-2:1 into columns with similar ideas from Matthew and Luke in parallel. The ways in which the ideas are presented differ significantly. Tuckett considers that a Q document probably contained the ideas and language which may hve been adapted oonsiderably to suit the purposes of different authors (Tuckett 1996, 114). The ideas of these passages are somewhat problematic in terms of analysis. For instance. in Didache 1:3b, the text asks what good it is to love those who love you, then exhorts loving those who hate you. The theme is very common throughout the New Testament, but the wording may differ. Demonstration of dependence, as Tuckett would like to do, is nearly impossible (Tuckett 1996, 118-119). However, after perusing all the passages, Tuckett’s conclusion is that the Didache is written by an author or authors familiar with both Matthew and Luke in their final forms. I did not find his case to be conclusive.