Did Ache

Intertextuality and thePericanonicity of the Didache

The Dependence and Commentary of Didache 1:2-6on the Canonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke

Rev. David Dean Mimier King, MDiv, MAMonday 21 May 2012

The Formation of the CanonProf. Pamela EisenbaumIliff School of Theology

Table of ContentsIntroduction 1

The Place of Didache 1:2-6 within the larger whole 3

An Analysis of the Primary Texts 4

Who Is Reading Whom? 19

Pericanonicity 23

Conclusion 24

Bibliography 25

IntroductionNo matter how we try to frame and define it, when biblical scholars talk about canon and

canonicity, we implicitly define a binary opposition. Either a book is canonical or it is non-

canonical, either it is in or it is out. Some scholars, including Lee Martin McDonald, attempt to

nuance this binary by talking about canon 1 — texts that are considered authoritative for a time,

before the hard fixing of canons — and canon 2 — a fixed list of authoritative books to which

nothing can be added and nothing taken away.1 Some talk about open and closed canons, essential

the same concepts with different names. Others insist that if canon is to mean anything, it must

refer to a closed collection of books.2 I would tend to agree with this last assessment. Canon is a

term that we use retroactively to refer to the collection of books that eventually were recognized as

uniquely authoritative.

This leaves the question, though, of how to refer to texts that were considered at least

somewhat authoritative but did not make the final cut of canonization. It is easy to distinguish

between accepted, authoritative texts and texts that were deemed heretical or spurious. What do

with do, though with texts that were on the bubble of canonicity? To call them canon 1 or part of an

open canon is to anachronistically push back a modern sense of canon into the past. I propose,

instead, to acknowledge that canonicity is a later construction and to classify these bubble-texts as

pericanonical. When canon was finally established, these books, Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of

Barnabas, 1 Clement, Didache, were left outside the bounds. They were clearly popular texts.

There is nothing particularly heretical about them. It is an error to say, as McDonald does, that they

D. D. M. King 1 Intertextuality and Pericanonicity

1 Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2007), 55-8. Lee Martin McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), kindle loc. 430-8.

2 Eugene Ulrich, "The Notion and Definition of Canon," in The Canon Debate (eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendreckson, 2002), 34.

were accepted and later rejected.3 They were never accepted into canon because there was no canon

until they were excluded from it. Thus, I choose to call them pericanonical, because are not inside

the canon, but they are around it, they are near it.4

One of these pericanonical texts is Didache, also known as Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

It functioned as scripture in parts of the early church.5 Eusebius lists it among the disputed books,

generally considered spurious, along with Shepherd, Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of

Peter, and the Apocalypse of John.6 Athanasius lists it outside the canon, but says of it, Wisdom,

Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and Shepherd that, “there are other books besides these [canonical

ones] not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly

join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.”7 As the canon becomes fixed,

Didache remains outside it, but just outside. As Athanasius points out, it is still good to read, still

good for instruction.

Since the rediscovery of the text of Didache in 1873, one question scholars have asked is

how it relates to the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke.8 There are several passages in


3 McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings, kindle loc. 406-11.

4 I recognize that playing around with these definitions is largely a matter of mere semantics, and I tend to agree with Gamble that much of the so-called canon debate is little more than a haggling over definitions and terms. See: Harry Y. Gamble, "The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Quaestionis," in The Canon Debate (eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendreckson, 2002), 271. However, I find this term, my own neologism, pericanonical, to be useful and less weighted down with baggage that I do not want to lug.

5 McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings, kindle loc. 2206.

6 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., 3.25. Note: SBL protocol insists that I italicize non-canonical early Christian writings and leave canonical early Christian writings un-italicized. This is yet more evidence that when we talk about canon we are talking about a retrojected, modern concept.

7 Athanasius, "Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter," in Athanasius: Select Works and Letters(ed. Archibald Robertson; vol. IV of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1891), pg. 552, para. 7. Again, SBL protocol calls for me to italicize Shepherd, but to leave books of the Apocrypha un-italicized.

8 Michael W. Holmes ed, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: BakerAcademic, 2007), 338-9.

Didache which are paralleled in Matthew and Luke. I propose that exploring these relationships

will lead to a better understanding of just how Didache ended up in the camp of pericanonical texts.

In this paper, I will look specifically at one section of Didache that contains gospel parallels,

Did. 1:2-6. I will argue that Didache, at least this section of it, shows dependency on both Matthew

and Luke. This dependency begins to explain two things: why Didache fails to make the cut of

official canon and why it still remains close to the canon, in a group of pericanonical texts which are

not canon but are still good to read. The later date of Didache, and its derivative nature, exclude it

from the canon on the grounds of apostolicity. At the same time, this same dependence on,

harmony with, and commentary on Matthew and Luke ensures that Didache will remain “good to

read.”

The Place of Didache 1:2-6 within the larger wholeVirtually all scholars agree that Did. 1-6 draws on an older, likely non-Christian, Jewish

tradition known as the Two Ways and that Did. 1:3-2:1 is a later, explicitly Christian section

inserted into this Two Ways teaching.9 The Two Ways material is attested in other ancient texts,

including Doctrina Apostolorum, the Epistle of Barnabas 18-20, and the Qumran Manual of

Discipline (1 QS 3:13-4:26). However, the section found in Did. 1:3-2:1 is only found in the

Didache. As Tuckett rightly points out, it is impossible to tell whether the insertion of Did. 1:3-2:1

into the Two Ways material happened before, after, or at the same time as the inclusion of the Two

Ways material with the rest of the Didache.10


9 Christopher M. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache," in The Didache in Modern Research (ed. Jonathan A. Draper; vol. 37 of Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums; New York: E. J. Brill, 1996), 110-1. John S. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1," in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu (ed. Huub van de Sandt; Minneapois: Fortress Press, 2005), 113.

10 Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 111.

Contrary to the overwhelming practice of scholars, who choose to look at the redactional

unit of Did. 1:3-2:1, I have chosen in this paper to look at Did. 1:2-6. I do this because, within the

context of the Didache itself, this section represents a literary whole. Thus, I am respecting the

internal literary logic of the Didache over the redactional efforts of scholars when I choose to look

at Did. 1:2-6 as a pericope.

An Analysis of the Primary TextsIn this section we will examine the text of Did. 1:2-6 and compare it with its parallel

sections in Matthew and Luke. When applicable, we will also compare relevant sections of the

Septuagint, the New Testament, and Barnabas.

The question at hand is not exactly intertextuality, at least as it has been so influentially

defined by Richard Hays.11 The main problem that we face when thinking about Didache and the

Synoptics intertextually is that we cannot overcome Hays’ first test for identifying instances of

intertextuality: availability.12 We cannot say with certainty whether Didache came before Matthew

and Luke or vice versa. Therefore, we cannot say that the Didachist had Matthew or Luke

available, nor can we say that Matthew or Luke had the Didache available. As Hays states, “This

criterion implies that echo is a diachronic trope: analyses of literary echo are possible only where

the chronological ordering of different voices is known.”13 When it comes to Didache and the

synoptics, the chronological ordering is not known. In fact, chronological ordering is part of the

puzzle which we are trying to solve. Did Didache know Matthew and/or Luke? Did Matthew and/


11 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29-31.

12 Ibid., 29.

13 Ibid., 30.

or Luke know the Didache? Perhaps they all knew a third source, such as the illusive Q? These are

the questions we are trying to answer with our analysis.

Nonetheless, despite this complication, we can still employ Hays’ model to some effect. If

we set aside the issue of availability and Hays’ related test, historical plausibility,14 we can still

make use of the remaining five tests. They are: 2) Volume — This has to do with how obvious the

allusion is, specifically how much verbal and semantic resonance there is between the two

sources.15 3) Recurrence — How often one source cites the other source.16 4) Thematic Coherence

— How well themes of the citing source match the themes of the cited source. Does it make sense

that the one would invoke the other?17 6) History of Interpretation — The degree to which ancient

and modern interpreters have seen the same connection we think we are seeing.18 Finally, 7)

satisfaction — “… does the proposed reading make sense? Does it illuminate the surrounding

discourse?”19 With these five criteria in hand let us see what we can learn about the connections

between Didache 1:2-6 and its synoptic parallels.

Did. 1:2, though still part of the Two Ways material, does have gospel parallels, in all three

synoptics. The connections begin with the bipartite Great Commandment:20


14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., 31.

19 Ibid.

20 Marked in blue are verbal resonances between Didache and Matthew, Mark, Luke, or LXX. Marked in orange are verbal resonances which only occur between Didache and Barnabas. Throughout this paper, all Greek texts come from NA27, Alfred Rahlfs ed, Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979)., and Holmes ed, Apostolic Fathers. English translations are mine, though are indebted to those of Holmes. These are shallow translations. I am not looking to exegete these passage, but simply to give English readers a sense of what Didache is saying.

Didache Matthew Mark Luke LXX Barnabas1:2 Ἡ µὲν οὖν ὁδὸς τῆςζωῆς ἐστιν αὕτη·

(This, then, is the way of life.)

(This, then, is the way of light.)

19:1 Ἡ οὖν ὁδὸς τοῦ φωτός ἐστιν αὕτη· ...

πρῶτον, (first)

ἀγαπήσεις τὸν θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντά σε·(love God who made you)

v. 38

22:37ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου·

12:29ὅτι πρώτη ἐστιν·ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡµῶν· κύριος εἷς ἐστιν,30 καὶἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου

10:27ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου.

Deut 6:4ἄκουε Ισραηλ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡµῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν5 καὶἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάµεώς σου

19:2ἀγαπήσεις

τὸνποιήσαντά σε,φοβηθήσῃ τόν σε πλάσαντα, δοξάσεις τὸν σε λυτρωσάµενον ἐκ θανάτου. ...

δεύτερον,(second, your neighbor as yourself)τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν·

22:39 δευτέρα δὲ ὁµοία αὐτῇ

ἀγαπήσειςτὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.

12:31 δευτέρα αὕτη

ἀγαπήσειςτὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.

καὶ

τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.

Lev 19:18 καὶἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν

19:5… ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὑπερ τὴν ψυχήν σου. ...

This section of the Didache evidences significant verbal resonance with the synoptic tradition.

While Didache shows nearly equal resonance with texts of the LXX, this being an intertextual

relationship that easily passes all seven of Hays’ tests, there is one significant element of Didache


not explained by LXX intertextuality, but only explained by relationship to the synoptic tradition.

The two commands, love God and love neighbor, are not found together in the Hebrew Bible

tradition: they come from different books. Neither are they found together in Barnabas, a

representative of the Two Ways tradition. True, both commands are found in the first part of

Barnabas 19, but they are not set up as a dual commandment, as they are in Didache and the

synoptics. Instead, they are separated by three verses and jammed into a long catena of prescription

and proscriptions: e.g. you shall fear the one who created you, you shall not exalt yourself, you shall

not corrupt children, you shall not abort a child, etc. Only in Didache and the synoptics are these

two commandments joined together as a pair. Furthermore, Matthew, Mark, and Didache all

designate them with the ordinals “first” and “second.”21

As for the details of the commandments themselves, Didache shows resonance with both the

LXX-synoptic text and with the Barnabas-Two Ways text. Didache’s first commandment draws on

the LXX-synoptic tradition by commanding “love God,” a term not present in Barnabas. Didache

then adds on the term used in Barnabas, “the one who created you,” and continues with all of the

LXX-synoptic material concerning which attributes one should use to love God. For the second

commandment, Didache follows the LXX-synoptic tradition nearly exactly.

We can safely say, based on all seven of Hays’ tests, that Didache and the synoptics all make

allusion to the text of the LXX. It should have been well known to all these authors and easily

identifiable by all the first readers. The volume of verbal resonance is high in all cases, though


21 Garrow also notes the close connection here between Mark, Matthew, and Didache, and suggests that Matthew may have learned from the Didache to drop the Shema, found in Mark. Alan. J. P. Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache (254; ed. Stanley E. Porter; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 218-9. Tuckett suggests that Didache learned the ordinal numbering of the commandments from Matthew. He further concludes that this is evidence against Didache having Q rather than Matthew. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 106. Rordorf, following Jeffords, believes that Matthew and Didache both draw on a “free-floating” tradition independent of Mark and Q. Willy Rordorf, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?," in Jesus and the Oral Gospel (ed. Henry Wansbrough; vol. 64 of Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, ed. David Hill; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 398.

higher between the synoptics and LXX than between Didache and LXX. It is also safe to conclude

that Didache had access to some version of the Two Ways tradition, represented here by Barnabas.

The volume here is not as high, though the command to love the creator is sufficiently loud to

warrant an allusion. What we might lack in volume is made up for in recurrence, as most of Did.

1-6 is spent citing the Two Ways.

However, Didache’s relationship to LXX and Two Ways does not explain one important

detail: the pairing of the commandment to love God with the commandment to love neighbor, found

in Didache and the synoptics, but not in LXX or Two Ways. This detail alone provides us with

sufficient volume to conclude that there is evidence of a relationship here between Didache and the

synoptics.

Following this section on the Great Commandment, Didache continues with a negative

version of the Golden Rule:22 “but whatever you do not wish to occur to you, you do not do to

another.”23

Didache Matthew Luke Tobit1:2πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελήσῃς µὴ γίνεσθαί σοι,καὶ σὺ ἄ^ῳ µὴποίει.

7:12Πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς·

6:31Καὶ καθὼςθέλετε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι

ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁµοίως.

4:15καὶ ὃ µισεῖς

µηδενὶποιήσῃς


22 Garrow following Tuckett and Köster, suggests that the negative form is well-known in Jewish traditions and that Matthew and Luke represent the earliest known positive form. Garrow, Matthew's Dependence, 218. Tuckett, though, still asserts that certain elements here point to Didache’s dependence on Matthew. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 107. Glover believes that the fact the command is negative in Didache excludes the possibility of dependence on Matthew or Luke and suggests dependence on Q. Richard Glover, "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels," NTS 5(1958): 13. Rordorf insists that the negative form in Didache implies a source independent of the synoptics or Q. Rordorf, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?", 398.

23 Marked in blue are resonances between Didache and more than one source, in green Didache and Matthew, in purple, Didache and Luke, and in orange, Didache and Tobit.

Besides being the negative of the versions found in Matthew and Luke, Didache also differs in that

it addresses a single listener, whereas Matthew and Luke address listeners in the plural. The volume

here is not as high as in the previous section. However, it is difficult to imagine that a reader of

Didache familiar with Matthew or Luke would not note a thematic and verbal connection between

these passages. Didache shares more verbal resonance with Matthew than with Luke. If these texts

do not reach to the level of allusion, there is no doubt that they represent at least an echo. The

possible echo in Didache of Tobit, though having significantly less volume, does have the

advantage of sharing Didache’s negative construction: “what you hate, do not do.” However, the

lack of recurring echoes of Tobit in Didache, and the fact that Tobit contains no personal object,

make this relationship seem less likely.

After a brief introductory phrase, “τούτων δὲ τῶν λόγων ἡ διδαχή ἐστιν αὕτη· And this is the

teaching (didache) of these words,” Didache proceeds into a series of material found in Matthew’s

Sermon on the Mount and Luke’s Sermon on the Plain. In fact, the remainder this section of


Didache is paralleled in the Great Sermon. Let us examine these parallels section by section.24

English Did. Didache Matthew Luke

Blessthe ones cursingyou

and prayfor your enemies,but fastfor the ones persecuting you.

see below

1:3Εὐλογεῖτετοὺς καπαρωµένους ὑµῖν

καὶ προσεύχεσθεὑπὲρ τῶνἐχθρῶν ὑµῶν,νηστεύετε δὲὑπερ τῶν διωκόντων ὑµᾶς.

5:44ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν

D W Θ φ pl syb, Eus:[ευλογειτετους καταρωµενους υµαςκαλως ποιειτε τοις µισουσιν υµας]καὶ προσεύχεσθε

ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑµᾶς.

6:27ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῖν,καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς µισοῦσιν ὑµᾶς,28 εὐλογεῖτετοὺς καταρωµένους ὑµᾶς,

προσεύχεσθεπερὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑµᾶς

For what credit is it if you love the ones lovingyou?

Do not even the nations do the same [this]?

ποία γὰρ χάρις, ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτε [φιλητε] τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας [φιλουντας] ὑµᾶς;

οὐχὶ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὸ αὐτὸ [τουτο] ποιοῦσιν;

46 ἐὰν γὰρἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς,τίνα µισθὸν ἔχετε;οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι το αὐτὸ [τουτο] ποιοῦσιν;47 καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς [φιλους] µόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε;οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ [τουτο] ποιοῦσιν;

32 καὶ εἰἀγαπᾶτετοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς,ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν;καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁµαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσιν.[many more examples, vss. 33-34, all with “sinners”]καὶ οἱ ἁµαρτωλοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν.


24 Marked in blue are resonances between Didache and more than one source, in green Didache and Matthew, and in purple, Didache and Luke.

English Did. Didache Matthew LukeBut you must love the oneshating you,and you will not have an enemy.

ὑµεῖς δὲ ἀγαπᾶτε [φιλειτε] τοὺς µισοῦντας ὑµᾶςκαὶ οὐχ ἕξετε ἐχθρόν.

[+ακουε τι σε δει ποιουντα σωσαι σου το πνευµα πρωτον παντων]

48 ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν.

35 πλὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε καὶ δανίζετε µηδὲν ἀπελπιζοντες· καὶ ἔσται ὁ µισθὸς ὑµῶν πολύς, καὶ ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ ὑψίστου, ὅτι αὐτὸς χρηστὸς ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀχαρὶστους καὶ πονηροὺς.

We are clearly getting the same general thematic thrust from all three of these texts: do good

things to people who do bad things to you. The volume of verbal resonance is quite high between

all three texts, though there are variations in all. Luke has the listener loving enemies, doing good

to haters, blessing cursers, and praying for abusers. Matthew has them loving enemies and praying

for persecutors.25 Didache has blessing cursers, praying for enemies, fasting for persecutors, and,

eventually, loving haters. Again, there is quite a lot of resonance between all three, but there is

some mixing and matching going on, as well as some unique word choices.26

The “what credit is it to you?” section also has high volume. Didache’s version is highly

abbreviated compared to Matthew and Luke, which in turn do not precisely match each other.

Every word in this section of Didache is found in either Matthew or Luke, though not all in either.

The volume is slightly higher in Luke than in Matthew in the opening question: What credit is it to


25 Some manuscripts also include blessing cursers and doing good to haters.

26 Garrow suggests, against Tuckett, that Didache preserves an earlier version of these sayings than do Matthew or Luke, pointing out that Didache matches Catchpole’s reconstruction of Q. Garrow, Matthew's Dependence, 220. Tuckett suggests that the use of διώκω, persecute, is evidence of Didache’s dependence on redactional Matthew. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 116. Rordorf rejects this as inconclusive. Rordorf, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?", 402. Kloppenborg warns that the use of φιλεῖτε in the POxy XV 1782 version of Didache greatly problematizes the suggestion that Didache relies on Luke here. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 120. Glover sees the agreements of Didache with Luke over Matthew, but only in places where Matthew and Luke are parallel, as evidence that Didache follows Q. Glover, "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels", 14.

you if you love the ones loving you.27 However, in the closing phrase, “Do not even the nations do

the same?” Matthew has higher volume.28

Didache and Luke share more commonality in overall form. Matthew has the commands,

followed by the question, followed by a new command to “be perfect as your heavenly father is

perfect.” Both Luke and Didache start with the commands, then have the question, then reprise the

commands in some way. The character of the reprise is a bit different, though. Luke proceeds from

the love of enemies to lending without expecting return to a call for mercy like God’s mercy.

Didache makes a bit of an undercut of the original themes by saying, “But you must love the ones

hating you, and you will not have an enemy.” Neither Matthew nor Luke ever suggest that this

unwarranted good behavior will result in a reprieve from persecution, but Didache does. For

Didache, and Didache alone, being nice to the bully will eventually cause the bully to stop picking

on you.29 Looking at these texts in parallel reveals this difference, which is quite satisfying for the

illumination of all three.

The next verse of the Didache begins with a phrase that seems a bit out of context, before

returning to material found in the Great Sermon:30


27 Tuckett believes the presence of χάρις in Didache points to a connection between Didache and redactional Luke. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 121. Kloppenborg notes the same, but suggests this evidence is too weak to be conclusive. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 121-3. Rordorf suggest that Luke and Didache come to this independently. Rordorf, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?", 403-4.

28 Glover believes that Didache’s preservation of the “tactless” ἔθνη represents the original reading, thus dependence on a source older than Matthew or Luke. Glover, "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels", 14.

29 Kloppenborg notes a connection of Didache with a parallel passage in POxy X 1224, which also suggests that loving an enemy will bring them closer. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 117.

30 Marked in blue are resonances between Didache and more than one source, in green Didache and Matthew, in purple, Didache and Luke, and in orange, Didache and 1 Peter.

English Did. Didache Matthew Luke 1 Peter

Abstain from fleshly and bodily[worldly] cravings.

1:4ἀπέχου τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ σωµατικῶν [κοσµικων] ἐπιθυµιῶν.

2:11ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν

ἐπιθυµιῶν αἵτινες στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς·

If someone gives to you a blow on your right cheek,turn to them the other as well,

ἐὰν τις σοι δῷ ῥάπισµα εἰς

τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα,στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄ^ην,

5:39ἀo᾽ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς

τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα [σου],στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄ^ην·

Lk 6:29Τῷ τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ [εαν τις σε ραπιση εις Mcion]τὴν [δεξιαν] σιαγόναπάρεχε [αυτω] καὶ τὴν ἄ^ην,

and you will beperfect.

καὶ ἔσῃτέλειος.

48 ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν.

If someone forces you to go one mile, go with them two.

ἐὰν ἀrαρεύσῃ σέ τις µίλιονἕν ὕπαγε µετ᾽ αὐτοῦ δύο·

41 καὶ ὅστις σε ἀrαρεύσει µίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε µετ᾽ αὐτοῦ δύο.

If someone takes up your outer garment, give to them [your] inner garment.

ἐὰν ἄρῃ τις τὸ ἱµάτιόν σου,δὸς αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα·

40 καὶ τῷ θέλοντὶ σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν,ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱµάτιον.

29b καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱµάτιον,καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα [σου] µὴ κωλύσῃς[και εαν τις σου αρῃ τον χιτωνα, προσθες αυτω και το ιµατιον Mcion]


English Did. Didache Matthew Luke 1 PeterIf someone takes from you what is yours, do not demand it back,

ἐὰν λάβῃ τις ἀπὸ σοῦ τὸ σόν,

µὴ ἀπαίτει·

42 τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι µὴ ἀποστραφῇς.

30 παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ σὰ µὴ ἀπαίτει.

for you cannot [are not able].

οὐδὲ γὰρ δύνασαι.

This section of Didache has an interesting mixture of relationships. The first phrase has no

parallels in the synoptics and no parallel in Barnabas. There is a moderate volume echo in 1 Peter.

“Abstain from fleshly cravings,” though, is not the most unique of sentiments. Furthermore, there

are no other recurrences of a connection between Didache and 1 Peter. This might be an echo,

though it would be another question altogether to find who is echoing whom.

Next Didache moves into the general theme of turning the other cheek and rejoins Matthew

and Luke. Initially, Didache follows Matthew quite closely, having a high volume of verbal

resonance and a thematic coherence.31 Luke has a lower volume of resonance, both with Matthew

and Didache, than Matthew and Didache have together. Interestingly, Marcion’s text of Luke has

resonances with Didache that are not present in Matthew or in other manuscripts of Luke. Didache

closes the command to turn the other cheek with the assurance that this will make the disciple

perfect, a lower volume echo of Matthew’s command to be perfect as the father is perfect.32


31 Tuckett notes that both Matthew and Didache refer to the right cheek, against Luke, but is not convinced that this detail comes from redactional Matthew rather than from Q. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 122. Kloppenborg notes it as well, but defers to Tuckett. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 124. Glover notes the use of the primitive Greek ῥάπισµα, suggesting a source earlier than Matthew. Glover, "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels", 15. Rordorf sees the same and suggests independence of the Didache from Matthew. Rordorf, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?", 404-5.

32 Tuckett warns against over-estimating the importance of this “perfection” echo. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 123. Rordorf happily agrees. Rordorf, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?", 405.

Didache continues with another parallel with Matthew. The command to go a second mile

with the person who demands one mile is found in Matthew and Didache, but not in Luke. This

intertext has a fairly high volume.33

In the next command, the one to give a second garment to the person who takes one,

Didache has more resonance with Luke than with Matthew. The most interesting detail here is that

the order in which the garments are given is different. Both Didache and Luke have the outer

garment being taken and then the inner garment being given. Matthew, contrary to logic, reverses

this order.34 In addition there is some resonance in the verbs in Luke and Didache that is not

present in Matthew.

From this point on to the end of the verse, the volume of verbal resonance is greatly

decreased. Matthew and Luke are much closer to each other than either is to Didache. However,

there is still thematic coherence among all three texts in the passage, though Luke is slightly closer

to Didache than is Matthew.35 The verse concludes with a unique — and rather enigmatic —

phrase, “for you are not able to.” What precisely is the point of refraining from demanding one’s

property back if one simply does not have the power to do so? The synoptic versions make all


33 Tuckett and Kloppenborg, though, are not altogether convinced that this comes from redactional Matthew, rather than from Q or Qmt. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 124. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 124.

34 Glover suggests that the Luke-Didache order is the original, that Matthew is the redactor, and that Didache is dependent on a source predating Matthew and Luke. Glover, "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels", 15. Tuckett suggests that Matthew represents a lawsuit situation and Luke-Didache a robbery. He is not willing to state definitively which version represents Q and which is redactional. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 125. Kloppenborg believes that Didache follows Luke over Q and Matthew in this passage, but suggests that the writer is harmonizing between Matthew and Luke from memory. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 126. Rordorf believes that Didache is closer to, but not dependent on Luke. Rordorf, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?", 405-6.

35 Tuckett sees µὴ ἀπαίτει as redactional Luke, and thus evidence that Didache had finished Luke. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 126.

these humiliating acts seem somehow noble or subversive. Didache’s version undercuts this

nobility and subversion by making the ones being oppressed simply powerless to resist.36

The closing verses of Did. 1:2-6 contain quite a lot of material that is not in the synoptics,

though there are still a few parallels.37

English Did. Didache Matthew Luke

Give to all who ask you,and don’t demand it back,

1:5παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦωτί σε δίδου,

καὶ µὴ ἀπαίτει·

5:42τῷ αἰτοῦντί σεδός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαιµὴ ἀποστραφῇς.

6:30παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ σὰµὴ ἀπαίτει.

for the father wills that something from his own graces be given to all. Blessed in the one giving according to [this] command,

πᾶσι γὰρ θέλει δίδοσθαι ὁ πατὴρ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων χαρισµάτων.µακάριος ὁ διδοὺς κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν,

for that giver is immune from punishment.

ἀθῷος γάρ ἐστιν.

Woe to the one taking [receiving].

οὐαὶ τῷ λαµβάνοντι·

For if one having need should take [receive], this one is immune.

εἰ µὲν γὰρ χρείαν ἔχων λαµβάνει τις,ἀθῷος ἔσται·


36 Kloppenborg suggests this as evidence that Didache knew the finished form of Luke and Matthew, but altered the tradition. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 126-7.

37 Marked in blue are resonances between Didache and more than one source, in green Didache and Matthew, and in purple, Didache and Luke.

English Did. Didache Matthew LukeBut the one not having need will make a case why and for what purpose they took [received], and after being imprisoned, will be examined concerning what they have done,

ὁ δὲ µὴ χρείαν ἔχων δώσει δίκην, ἱνατί ἔλαβε καὶ εἰς τί,ἐν συνοχῇ δὲ γενόµενος ἐξετασθήσεται περὶ ὧν ἔπραξε

and they will not leave that place until they have repaid every last coin.

καὶ οὐκἐξελεύσεται ἐκεῖθεν,µέχρις οὗ ἀποδῷ τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην.

5:26ἀµὴν λέγω σοι,οὐ µὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν,ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην.

12:59λέγω σοι,οὐ µὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν, ἕως [+οὗ, αν] καὶ τὸ ἔσχατον λεπτὸν ἀποδῷς.

But concerning this is has also been said,

6 ἀoὰ καὶ περὶ τούτου δὲ εἴρηται·

“Let your alms sweat in your hand until you know to whom to give.”

Ἱδρωσάτω ἡ ἐλεηµοσύνη σου είς τὰς χεῖράς σου, µέχρις ἂν γνῷς τίνι δῷς.

There is an awful lot of material in this passage which is known only in Didache. Verse 5

begins with “Give to all who ask you, and don’t demand it back,” a high-volume parallel to both

Matthew and Luke, with slightly more resonance with Luke than with Matthew. Following this,

though is a section in Didache that deals with almsgiving. This section has thematic dissonance

with the synoptics, particularly with Luke. Luke calls for the free giving of alms with no questions

asked. Didache, though, wants to put some limits on almsgiving. First, Didache puts limits on the

receiver. If someone accepts alms that they do not need, they are to be imprisoned and interrogated

and kept locked up until they repay what they have taken. This bears no thematic coherence with


the synoptics.38 It does, however, draw, out of context, on a text found in Luke and Matthew: “until

they have paid every last coin.” In Matthew this text is part of a command to reconcile oneself with

one’s neighbors before presenting oneself before God, lest one’s accuser have one locked up until

one pays the debt. It is a warning on how to avoid potentially unjust imprisonment. In Luke it is a

part of apocalyptic material and warns listeners to settle disputes out of court before the civil

authorities impose the harshest of penalties. In both cases, the goal is to keep disciples from being

unnecessarily imprisoned. Didache changes the tone of these words drastically by using them to

punish any who might accept alms when they are not in sufficient need. Didache follows this up

with a call to those who are giving alms to not give alms out indiscriminately: “Let your alms sweat

in your hand until you know to whom to give.”39 They should, instead, hold onto their gift until

they find someone who is truly in need. This goes directly against the simple call found in the

synoptics “Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow

from you.” (Mt 5:42 NRSV)

As we have seen above, Did. 1:2-6 is not rigidly tied to Matthew or Luke. It does, however,

contain a significant volume of verbal resonance with both Matthew and Luke, sometimes agreeing

with Matthew over Luke and sometimes agreeing with Luke over Matthew. There is also a high

recurrence of intertext, with virtually all of the Matthew parallels in this section of Didache found in

the Sermon on the Mount, and most of the Luke parallels found in the Sermon on the Plain. In

general, Didache seems to represent an abbreviated form, compared with Matthew and Luke.


38 Kloppenborg sees the inclusion of the Lukan πάντι and δίδου, combined with Didache’s immediate restrictions on free giving, as clear evidence that Didache knows Luke. Ibid., 127. Rordorf disagrees. Rordorf, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?", 407. Glover thinks that Matthew and Luke both provide “stylistic improvement” over the older tradition represented in Didache. Glover, "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels", 16.

39 The source of this saying is unknown. Holmes ed, Apostolic Fathers, 347. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 114. Glover believes it is a saying of Jesus which Didache knows from a sayings source. Glover, "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels", 17.

Though there is a great deal of thematic coherence between these texts, Didache seems to represent

a less radical message than Matthew and Luke, as seen particularly in Did. 1:5-6. I think we can

agree that reading these texts together is satisfying for our understanding of them all. The

bibliography attests that scholars have seen connections here, and I will address their views more in

the next section. Having thus addressed our five of Hays’ seven tests for intertextuality, and passed

them, let us move on to the question of direction.

So far, we have left unanswered the question of how to explain the connections and

relationships between these three texts. Are the synoptics dependent on Didache? Is Didache

dependent on the synoptics. Perhaps all three are dependent on another source, like Q? In the next

section of this paper, we will attempt to come to some clarity around the relative likelihood of these

and other explanations for the intertextual resonance between Matthew, Luke, and Didache.

Who Is Reading Whom?The question of who is reading whom is a complicated one, made all the more complicated

by the complex redactional histories of Matthew, Luke, and Didache. In addition to the these three

documents, we are also dealing with at least two hypothetical documents: Q, which is supposed to

explain the parallels found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, and Two Ways, which is supposed

to explain parallels between Didache, Baranabas, Doctrina Apostolorum, and the Qumran Manual

of Discipline. These hypothetical documents, in turn, have generated their own theories of

redactional history.40 Determining which document relies on which other document, and at which

stage of redaction for each, is an incredibly complicated and daunting prospect. Add to this the


40 As is known to most, theories about Q abound in contemporary scholarship. Regarding redaction of Two Ways, Kloppenborg posits no less than five different hypothetical documents which in turn informed the extant witness to the Two Ways tradition. John S. Kloppenborg, "Didache 1. 1-6. 1, James, Matthew, and the Torah," in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (eds. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 195-6. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 108-9.

possibility that many of these hypothetical sources may have been oral rather than written

documents, and the complexity quickly becomes unmanageable.

For the purposes of this paper, I must simplify matters. I am assuming that the document we

call Didache actually contains Did. 1:3-2:1. Conversely, I am ignoring the possibility of any form

of proto-Didache when it comes to speaking about the reliance of Matthew, Luke, and Didache on

each other. I think it is safe to assume that this is a correct characterization as regards the document

referred to by the likes of Eusebius and Anthanasius.41

With that stipulation in mind, we are left with a few possibilities for explaining the

relationship between Didache, Matthew, and Luke. First, Didache could be a source for Matthew

and/or Luke. One of the primary proponents of this theory is Alan Garrow.42 Garrow postulates a

complex compositional history for Didache, dividing the book into several different historical

layers. It would be easy to suggest, then, that an early version of Didache was a source for Matthew

and refrain from making the same case about material found in Did. 1:3-6. Garrow, though, boldly

states that “contacts between Did. 1.1-6 and Matthew’s Gospel are best explained by the direct

dependence of the latter on the former.”43 He suggests that Did. 1:1-6 is dependent on ten different

sources, all of which predate Matthew, and that eight of these sources inform Matthew’s Sermon on

the Mount through Didache.44 Thus Garrow finds conclusive that Matthew must be dependent on

Didache, since the possibility of these eight different sources reaching Matthew separate from

Didache is unreasonable.45 To reach this conclusion, though, one must accept unquestioningly


41 Though our primary manuscript of Didache, Codex Hierosolymitanus, dates to 1056 CE, there is one papyrus, POxy XV 1782, dated to the 4th century, which contains Did. 1:3c-1:4a and 2:7b-3:2a. Holmes ed, Apostolic Fathers, 339.

42 Garrow, Matthew's Dependence.

43 Ibid., 221.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid., 222.

Garrow’s complex compositional framework of Didache. Furthermore, Garrow fails to adequately

account for the fact that Matthew and Luke share a tremendously larger number of parallels with

each other (Q) than do Matthew and Didache. Certainly, we cannot explain all the Q parallels on

the basis of the Didache; Didache is much, much shorter. And if, as Garrow postulates, Didache

preserves something closer to Q than does Matthew, why does Matthew need Didache if Matthew

has Q?46 It is not impossible that Matthew is dependent on Didache, but it does not seem likely.

Second is the opposite explanation: Didache could be dependent on Matthew and/or Luke.

Christopher Tuckett is a leading proponent of the idea that Matthew is dependent on Didache. He

acknowledges the difficulty in determining whether Didache is dependent on Matthew/Luke or on

some version Q, but proceeds by trying to find elements of these sayings that are redactional

Matthew (rather than Q) and linking them to Didache.47 In particular, he notes the use of ordinal

numbers in the Great Commandment48 and the use of διώκω in Did. 1:3.49 He also sees evidence of

Didache’s reliance on redactional Luke, and concludes that Didache had both Matthew and Luke in

their finished forms.50 John Kloppenborg employs a similar technique, using a reconstruction of Q

to find if there are elements of Didache which show dependence on redactional Matthew or

redactional Luke. He finds most convincing the fact that Didache follows Luke against Matthew

and Q in using πάντι in 1:5, while immediately placing limitations on almsgiving, contrary to the

spirit of Luke.51 Kloppenborg concludes that Didache knew the finished version of Luke and either


46 See: Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 116.

47 Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache", 113.

48 Ibid., 107.

49 Ibid., 116.

50 Ibid., 127-8.

51 Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1", 127.

finished Matthew or Q and that orality is at play in Didache’s use of these sources.52 The chief

proponent of the theory that Didache is dependent on Q but not Matthew or Luke is Richard

Glover,53 though the work of Tuckett and Kloppenborg show his thesis to be possible, but less than

likely.

A third opinion is that Didache represents a collection of Jesus’ sayings that is independent

from the synoptic tradition. Willy Rordorf notes the connections between Didache and the

synoptics, but at every point suggests that Didache is working on a similar line, but not dependent

on Matthew and Luke. Key for Rordorf is the Didache’s use of the negative version of the Golden

Rule. He asks, rhetorically, “does he [the Didachist] draw the Golden Rule from Mt. 7.12, but

express it in the otherwise normal negative form, and subsequently add the Synoptic material about

love of enemies and retribution in a form and order different from those both of Matthew and of

Luke?” Rordorf’s conclusion is that Didache preserves a Jesus tradition that is independent of

Matthew and Luke.54 The point about the Golden Rule is an interesting one, but to me, not decisive.

To be sure, the question of dependence with regard to Didache, Matthew, and Luke is a

tricky one. It is nearly impossible to prove which bit of the ever-morphing Jesus tradition Didache

is drawing on in these parallel sayings. The idea that Matthew is drawing on Didache seems the

least likely to me. While it is possible that Didache draws on a source independent of Matthew and

Luke, I find more compelling the idea that Didache knows and comments on Matthew and Luke.

Most convincing to me is that Didache preserves and then de-radicalizes the command to give to all


52 Ibid., 129.

53 Glover, "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels".

54 Rordorf, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?", 411.

who ask. This seems best explained by supposing that Didache knows Matthew and Luke, but

represents a later, more reserved sensibility.

PericanonicityMcDonald postulates six criteria that the church employed to determine whether to accept

writings into the canon: apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity, use, adaptability, and inspiration.55

Applying these to the Didache, we can see how its dependence on the synoptics contributes to its

position as pericanonical. Didache meets the standard of orthodoxy. The fact that it draws so

heavily on the synoptics, and stays close to their themes, means that it remains orthodox. It also

meets the criterion of use, as evidenced by Eusebius and Athanasius. Christians seem to have found

it to be a good handbook, a good first commentary on the gospels. Its continued use into the fourth

century and beyond attests to its adaptability. All three of these criteria have been met in the favor

of canonicity, and they can all be related to its use of the synoptics.

Arguing against canonicity, though, are the three other criteria. Again, we can relate all of

these to Didache’s dependence on Matthew and Luke. If Didache is dependent on the synoptics,

then it is later than they are. If it comments upon them, then it is derivative. Being also

anonymous, Didache fails the test of apostolicity. It represents the work of someone just outside the

apostolic age. It thus also fails the test of antiquity, though just barely. No doubt, Didache is old,

probably older than some texts in the canon. Still, it represents an adaptation of and commentary on

the gospels. For this very reason, one might question its inspiration. All these factors may have led

to Didache being placed outside, but just outside, the canon.


55 McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, 406-20.

ConclusionIf we conclude that Didache is dependent on, and commenting on, both Matthew and Luke

— a conclusion that is not absolutely provable but seems to me the best explanation for the high

volume of intertextual references — then we may be able to shed some light on Didache’s

pericanonical status. Its dependence on the synoptics makes it fail the test of apostolicity, and

possibly those of antiquity and inspiration. The fact, though, that Didache is in dialog with

Matthew and Luke, that it provides a partial commentary on them and interpretation of them, means

that it stays orthodox, useful, and close to the canon. It contains a simplified, cut-down version of

key points in the Great Sermon, and thus serves as good teaching tool, a good introduction to

Christianity. For this reason, Didache remains, even after the initial limiting of scriptures into a

fixed canon, a pericanonical text that is not canonized, but is still good to read.


BibliographyAthanasius. "Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter." Pages 551-2 in Athanasius: Select Works and Letters.

Edited by Archibald Robertson. Vol. IV of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1891.

Brox, Norbert, Georg Kretschmar, Kurt Niederwimmer, Clement, Johannes Baptist Bauer, and Hermas. Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.

Court, John M. "The Didache and St. Matthew's Gospel." Scottish Journal of Theology 34, no. 2 (1981): 109-20.

Del Verme, Marcello. Didache and Judaism: Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work. New York: T &T Clark, 2004.

Draper, Jonathan A. "The Apostolic Fathers: The Didache." Expository Times 117, no. 5 (2006): 177-81.

Draper, Jonathan A. "The Didache in Modern Research: An Overview," Pages 1-42 in The Didache in Modern Research. Edited by Jonathan A. Draper. Vol. 37 of Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums. New York: E. J. Brill, 1996.

Draper, Jonathan A. "The Didache: It's Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity." Biblical Interpretation 13, no. 3 (2005): 333-6.

Draper, Jonathan A. "The Jesus Tradition in the Didache," Pages 72-91 in The Didache in Modern Research. Edited by Jonathan A. Draper. Vol. 37 of Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums. New York: E. J. Brill, 1996.

Eusebius. Eccl. Hist.

Gamble, Harry Y. "The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Quaestionis," Pages 267-94 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass.: Hendreckson, 2002.

Garrow, Alan. J. P. The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 254. London: T & T Clark, 2004.

Glover, Richard. "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels." New Testament Studies: An International Journal 5 (1958): 12-29.


Gregory, Andrew F. and Christopher M. Tuckett eds. The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

Henderson, Ian H. "Didache and Orality in Synoptic Comparison." Journal of Biblical Literature 111, no. 2 (1992): 283-306.

Holmes, Michael W. ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: BakerAcademic, 2007.

Jefford, Clayton N. "An Analysis of the Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: The Role of the Matthean Community." Thesis (Ph D), Claremont Graduate School, 1988.

Jefford, Clayton N. The Didache in context : essays on its text, history, and transmission. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 77. Leiden ; New York: E.J. Brill, 1995.

Jefford, Clayton N. ed. The Didache in Context: Essays on its Text, History, and Transmission. of Supplements to Novum Testamentum 77. New York: E. J. Brill, 1995.

Kloppenborg, John S. "Didache 1. 1-6. 1, James, Matthew, and the Torah," Pages 194-221 in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Kloppenborg, John S. "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1," Pages 105-30 in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu. Edited by Huub van de Sandt. Minneapois: Fortress Press, 2005.

Layton, Bently. "The Sources, Date and Transmission of Didache 1.3b-2.1." Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 343-83.

McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2007.

McDonald, Lee Martin. Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, & Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: Newman Press, 2003.

Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003.


Niederwimmer, Kurt. The Didache: A Commentary. Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible 82. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

O'Loughlin, Thomas. The Didache: A Window on the Earlist Christians. Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2010.

Rahlfs, Alfred ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.

Rordorf, Willy. "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?," Pages 394-423 in Jesus and the Oral Gospel. Edited by Henry Wansbrough. Vol. 64 of Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Edited by David Hill. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.

Sandt, Hubertus Waltherus Maria van de. Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

Sandt, Hubertus Waltherus Maria van de and Jürgen Zangenberg. Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.

Sandt, Huub van de. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by P. J. Tomson. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 5. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.

Sandt, Huub van de ed. Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu. Minneapois: Fortress Press, 2005.

Schwiebert, Jonathan. Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom: The Didache's Meal Ritual and its Place in Early Christianity. Edited by Mark Goodacre. Library of New Testament Studies 373. New York: T & T Clark, 2008.

Syreeni, Kari. "The Sermon on the Mount and the Two Ways Teaching of the Didache," Pages 87-104 in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu. Edited by Huub van de Sandt. Minneapois: Fortress Press, 2005.

Taylor, C. An Essay on the Theology of the Didache. Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1889.

Tuckett, Christopher M. "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache," Pages 92-128 in The Didache in Modern Research. Edited by Jonathan A. Draper. Vol. 37 of Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums. New York: E. J. Brill, 1996.

Ulrich, Eugene. "The Notion and Definition of Canon," Pages 21-35 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass.: Hendreckson, 2002.


Vokes, F. E. The Riddle of the Didache: Fact or Fiction, Heresy or Catholicism? London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1938.

Walters, Brent S. ed. Didachè: The Unknown Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. San Josè, Calif.: Ante-Nicene Archive, 1991.


Date post:	13-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	john-evans
View:	10 times
Download:	4 times