Draper considers that the discovery of different Two Ways material has recently moved scholars to consider the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas to depend on some third source, rather than one depending on the other (Draper 1995, 89). He asks whether the two documents use this source in such different ways for some neutral reason or due to a different position regarding Judaism.
One possible key to this discussion is that Barnabas may have a different understanding of paraenesis, or exhortative teaching (Draper 1995, 90). Draper identifies some of the characteristics of paraenetic teaching as similar to some of the compositional patterns found in Barnabas, particularly by the lack of cohesiveness in the flow of ideas. It seems clear that the scholarly community recognizes that paraenetic works tend to jump from one idea to another (Draper 1995, 91).Some scholars consider this to be a function of the setting. Marginalized groups tend to engage in paraenetic works. They also typically show signs of conflict in their writing (Draper 1995, 92).
It is worth asking whether there was substantial redaction involved in Barnabas. A study of possible sources, such as we find in Wengst, does not normally cosnider the redactional process involved in putting the sources together (Draper 1995, 93). This can lead to a lack of serious concern with the relationship of a document such as Barnabas to theological underpinnings.
Draper considers the Two Ways passage in Barnabas 17.1-18.1 in some detail. The transition into the material is elaborate. It tries to explain the entirety of the section, as if attempting to establish a relationship with the rest of the document (Draper 1995, 94). The issue of gnosis in the Two Ways is also significant. Critics do not agree whether the meaning is the same as used elsewhere in Barnabas or whether it has different connotations here, a clearer sign of borrowing (Draper 1995, 95).
Draper ultimately considers the Two Ways as a matter of catechetical teaching in Barnabas. The Didache also uses the material as an introduction to the Christian life. (Draper 1995, 96). The binary of life and death forms the key to understanding it in the Didache. However, Draper questions why in Barnabas the material is at the end of the text. This would not indicate it as a foundational starting point, but as a matter of "secondary socialization" (Draper 1995, 97). For this reason, Draper questions whether it would be used for catechesis so much as for some sort of exhortation and development of character qualities. This suggests to Draper that in Barnabas the material is used to confront opposition, rather as an introductory teaching (Draper 1995, 99).
Draper next turns his attention to the idea of irony in classical rhetoric. It is possible that the use of the Two Ways in Barnabas could be intended as irony (Draper 1995, 99). Draper reviews some Plato and Quintilian as examples of classical definitions of irony. The issue is disjunction between what someone says and what is known to be true (Draper 1995, 100). Draper finds this to be a common situation in Barnabas. God does things for his people, they are aware of him, and their lives have no relationship to what God has done (Draper 1995, 101). This leads some, including Wengst, to consider whether Barnabas may be written to address Jewish Christians who think they are living in a way consistent with Torah but know nothing of it (Draper 1995, 103).
Moving to chapter 1 of Barnabas, the superscript may also be an exmaple of irony. Draper observes that the name of Barnabas is present on all manuscripts and that it is known to Clement of Alexandria, however, it is highly unlikely that the apostolic Barnabas was ever considered to be the author (Draper 1995, 103). This would be another use of irony. The greeting, further, indicates the form of a letter, though Draper doesn't consider that Barnabas was ever considered a personal letter (Draper 1995, 104). This, again, is irony at work. The greeting implies the author has changed in his understanding, though there is no evidence to suggest that is so (Draper 1995, 105). Chapter 1.6-8 speaks of three dogmas. Draper, admitting this is a difficult passage, finds that the three positive dogmas argue "against the idea of justification by works of law" (Draper 1995, 108). Once again, there are suggestions that the author is not authoritative, but there is an understanding he is the authority, a use of irony.
The end of the Two Ways material in Barnabas has a relatively smooth conclusion, guiding the reader to walk in the Two Ways, though it is clear that the reader is to walk in the way of life (Draper 1995, 109). The readers of Barnabas are to govern themselves carefully and also be governed by Torah and the guidance in Barnabas. Again, Draper finds this to be a use of irony (Draper 1995, 110).
Draper shifts between considering the work polemical and ironic. In reality, the two categories go hand in hand. Irony will be used to point out the distinction between a real situation and what is ideal, thus creating a polemic. in Baranabas the polemic seems to be directed to persuading people to livel ives which are consistent with the teachings of the Epistle (Draper 1995, 111).