{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01946787800129786, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003893575600259572, 'mean_word_length': 4.732342007434944, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Didache and the Synoptics Once More: A Response to Aaron Milavec

In a recent issue of this journal, Professor Aaron Milavec published a very full and detailed study of a relatively old problem, viz. the problem of how to assess the parallels that exist between the text of the Didache and the Jesus tradition recorded in the synoptic gospels.1 The question of whether the Didache presupposes (or even uses) the texts of (what became) the canonical gospels has been one which has exercised scholarship ever since the Didache was first discovered in 1873. No scholarly unanimity has emerged on this issue. Until recently, several had claimed that a modern trend, almost a consensus, was emerging whereby the Didache is seen to be independent of the synoptic gospels.2 On the other hand, others have argued that the Didache may presuppose (and perhaps “use”) one or more of the finished gospels of the New Testament. (The Didache has the closest set of parallels with the gospel of Matthew, so that for the most part the debate has focused on the relationship between the Didache and Matthew. I am not aware of significant parallels between the Didache and Mark. There are possible links between the Didache and Luke but these are less extensive than those with Matthew. The discussion here will therefore be focused primarily on the relationship between the Didache and Matthew.) In his recent essay, Milavec comes down firmly on the side of those arguing for independence and he argues his case, both positively for itself and negatively