positing here (as in other echoes of the Synoptic tradipoint of view."36 Following a similar direction, Koester
Table 12 Did. 16.3
Matt 24:11-12 Mark 7:15
(3a) ev yap ralq eoxotracq rjpepatg IIpoaexoTe TtXrjdvvdriaoi'raL Kal TtoXXoi if/evdoTrpoipriTaL airo tup fevdoTtpoipriTUP, ol fevboTcpotpfiTctD eyepdrjoovTaL notl oi ipdopelq, (3b) Kal aTpoappaovTai Kal itXavrjoovoiv OLTLPeq epxoPTat ttpoq iipaq roc -Kpo^ara iroXXovqep epdvpaoLP irpofaTUP, elq XvKOvq,2 Kal did to nXrydvodrjnaL eoudev be elotp Kal I) dyaitr) Trio duoplap Xvkol apitayeq. orpaippoeraL fvyqaeTai elq plooq-3 r) dyaTTr] tup ttoXXup.
For the whole, cf. Justin 1 Apol. 16.13 (Goodspeed, 37) and Dial. 35.3 (130).
1 Cf. Mark 13:5-6 par., 12-13 par.; 1 Tim 4:1-5; 2 Pet 3:3; Apoc. Pet. 1-2 (Akhmimic fragment, fol. lOr; Adolf von Harnack, Bruchstiicke der
Evangelien und der Apokalypse des Petrus [2d ed.; TU 9.2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893] 16), etc.
2Cf. Matt 10:16/Luke 10:3 (Q).
3 Cf. 2 Bar. 48.35. cautious:28 Didache 16 depends on Matthew, and what the Didachist wrote in chap. 16 "seems to comment" on the Matthean text.29 One could still ask whether, beyond that, there was influence from Luke;30 in addition the chapter incorporates thematic (not literary) apocalyptic motifs that are attested in Paul and Revelation.31 literary relationships as follows: For him, the source of Didache 16 was part of the Two Ways tractate (see above). The author of the source had used a Jewish basic document, in fact the same one that is the basis of Mark
13.35 The Didachist in turn, while using the Gospel of Matthew, had reworked the Jewish source, Christianized it, "but also quite freely elevated it to match his own point of view."36 Following a similar direction, Koester subjected this chapter to a penetrating analysis.37 He reconstructed a complicated tradition history. The Synoptic material in Didache 16 is said to be made up of three different strands of tradition: (a) 16.1, 6, and 7 come from generally available apocalyptic material; (b)
2. Glover suggested another solution to the problem, positing here (as in other echoes of the Synoptic tradi tion) a literary influence from some form of the Q tradi tion.32
3. Still another possibility was suggested by the attempt of Drews to clarify the outstanding questions.33
At first he adopted the traditional opinion according to which chap. 16 depends on Matthew,34 but that did not suffice for him. He attempted to explain the specifically
16.4b,38 5, and 8 are from a Jewish source, which also 28 Massaux, Influence, 3.167-73 (analysis); 3.173 (sum mary conclusion).
29 Influence, 3.173.
30 Influence, 3.173.
31 Influence, 3.173.
32 Glover, "Quotations," 21-23. Cf. his concluding sug gestions on pp. 28-29.
33 Drews, "Untersuchungen," 70-73.
34 Drews, "Untersuchungen," 71.
35 Drews, "Untersuchungen," 72. This is, however, quite inadequately demonstrated.
36 Drews, "Untersuchungen," 72.
37 Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 173-90.
38 Would this be v. 4b-d in our numbering?
39 Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 189. Thus Matthew 24 was not used (against Drews).
40 Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 190.
41 Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 190.
42 Kloppenborg, "Matthaean Tradition," 54-67.
43 His most important observations are that Did. 16.7 quotes not Matthew but the LXX ("Matthaean
Tradition," 59; on this cf. the earlier work of Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 187); Did. 16.6
"corresponds to Matt 24:30-31 only at those points at which Matthew turned from Mark to his special source (p. 65). On the other hand, Kloppenborg's