What do you think?
The Didache Discoveries: Recovering the Apostolic Decree and the Missing Epistle of John
This groundbreaking study digs beneath the surface of one of early Christianity's most enigmatic documents, the Didache, and finds there two texts hidden side by side for nearly two millennia.
The first, compiled by James the brother of Jesus and the twelve apostles in 48 CE, is the Apostolic Decree. This document, partially described in Acts 15, was treated as foundational Christian Scripture by the writers of the New Testament. In that role it provides the starting point for interactions that open out across Paul's letters, the synoptic gospels, and the Johannine literature--enabling solutions to previously unanswerable questions about Paul's theology, the infamous synoptic problem, and the origins of Johannine theological creativity. Crucial to the story of the latter is the discovery of the Didache's second hidden the Missing Epistle of John. This text, referenced in 3 John 9, reworks the sometimes eccentric instructions of the Apostolic Decree and makes them more generally applicable--a move that provides fascinating insight into the ways the writers of the New Testament handled their own sacred text.
The Didache Discoveries promises to impact every major aspect of the study of the New Testament and early Christianity.
The first, compiled by James the brother of Jesus and the twelve apostles in 48 CE, is the Apostolic Decree. This document, partially described in Acts 15, was treated as foundational Christian Scripture by the writers of the New Testament. In that role it provides the starting point for interactions that open out across Paul's letters, the synoptic gospels, and the Johannine literature--enabling solutions to previously unanswerable questions about Paul's theology, the infamous synoptic problem, and the origins of Johannine theological creativity. Crucial to the story of the latter is the discovery of the Didache's second hidden the Missing Epistle of John. This text, referenced in 3 John 9, reworks the sometimes eccentric instructions of the Apostolic Decree and makes them more generally applicable--a move that provides fascinating insight into the ways the writers of the New Testament handled their own sacred text.
The Didache Discoveries promises to impact every major aspect of the study of the New Testament and early Christianity.
248 pages, Paperback
Published June 23, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
The Didache Discoveries appears to compile Alan Garrow’s life’s work on the Didache. His main argument is that the Didache we have is actually a combination of the Apostolic Decree mentioned in Acts 15 and John’s missing epistle mentioned in 3 John 5–9. He then examines numerous other New Testament passages that may have been influenced by the Didache. I have a fondness for the Didache and was curious to learn more. Since I don’t have a horse in the race, I was along for the ride—this could either be a creative discovery or hubris.
Working with a text adjacent to the canon of Scripture, Garrow has more leeway. However, as we’ll discuss later, he draws a lot of conclusions about how the Didache intersects with the New Testament.
I appreciated Garrow’s metaphor of missing keys and missing keyhooks. Sometimes we know of a document that we don’t have a copy of, and sometimes we have a document but don’t know which hook it matches.
However, I found his metaphor of “removing rust” to be less compelling. First, he split the Didache into two hypothetical documents, which he calls the Original Didache and the Revised Didache. He claims that the title “The Teaching of the Lord, by the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles” refers to the Apostolic Decree, and “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” refers to a revised version. This is all based on the argument that parallels and duplication within the document must have been from two separate sources. He says, “Removing the ‘rust’ reveals a text with two titles, two baptism rites, two eucharistic prayers, and two sets of visitor instructions.”
I do not find this argument compelling, since ancient writers were more likely to use repetition as a rhetorical device than we are today. I agree that “single author” is a myth (in both ancient and modern texts!). But I am suspicious of the freewheeling splicing/combining he does to reconstruct hypothetical texts.
Next, he spends a good bit of time on the Original Didache. Why does the Apostolic Decree we have recorded in Acts 15 not match the Didache? Garrow answers that Acts 15 shows Luke highlighting the parts of the Original Didache/Apostolic Decree that were most friendly to Paul. “[I]t is reasonable to expect that Luke, as a partisan reporter, would have highlighted those parts of the decree most favorable to Paul’s position (while perhaps reinterpreting any unfavorable parts), rather than recording the whole compromise in full.”
The differences between the texts are explained by the human inclination to decide a matter with a compromise that each side can interpret as a win for their side. This assumption of Scripture’s formation from human nature without the Holy Spirit rubs me the wrong way. Certainly, God used humans to write Scripture (and be the Church!), but I believe that God guided the writing of Scripture.
Closely related to Acts 15 is Paul’s recounting of that interaction in Galatians, where Paul reinterprets the text to his purpose. “For example, why did Paul find himself needing to defend himself against the suggestion that he was still preaching circumcision (Gal. 5:11)? This was because of his known endorsement of the Original Didache / Apostolic Decree—a text that may be understood as teaching that circumcision, while not necessary for shared table fellowship, is ultimately necessary for salvation.” Paul clarifies for the Galatians that circumcision is not required for salvation.
Garrow spends some time explaining how Paul’s other audiences were also familiar with the Didache, especially the Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians clearly references and incorporates pre-Pauline materials. In Paul’s clarification on eschatology in 4:15–17, he specifically refers to a “word of the Lord” (4:15). Garrow’s hypothesis is that the Thessalonians misinterpreted the Didache and were concerned that those who died without being martyred would be left behind. “Read in this way the Didache appears to state that the entire faith of those who fail to achieve martyrdom (and then to join the heavenly holy ones) will be ‘of no account.’” Paul seeks to correct this misunderstanding. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul reiterates much of the content of 1 Thessalonians but changes his tone to clarify its authenticity, specifically referring to his authenticating signature (3:17).
Interestingly, Garrow spends very little time on the Missing Epistle of John, as we have very little explanation of it in Scripture. “The survival of the short and seemingly inconsequential 2 and 3 John suggests that they were initially valued because of their author rather than their content.” Okay, so he takes John to be the author of the Johannine epistles. John mentions traveling missionaries in 3 John 5–8, then says that Diotrephes has been trying to ignore John’s apostolic authority. Garrow’s assumption is that John expanded upon the Original Didache to suit his favorite method of Eucharist and traveling missionaries.
In the second half of the book, Garrow piles on various connections with other Scripture passages throughout the New Testament. By my count, Garrow’s thesis has implications for up to 16 books of the New Testament. (It almost felt like a conspiracy theory—“This solves all the puzzles!”) He often starts sentences with the word “Given” to take his assumptions one step further. However, I wasn’t always clear on the “so what” for how he thinks this should shape how we read Scripture.
Assuming that John reworked the Didache, “Revelation and the Revised Didache have distinctly similar attitudes to eating food sacrificed to idols and the practice of sorcery.” Garrow posits that Revelation is divided into seven cliffhanger sections to be used for Eucharistic meditations for prophets to “give thanks as much as they wish” (Did. 10:7). That’s a cool idea, but I’m not sure what to do with it.
Matthew and Luke each have a few verses overlapping with the Didache, so it may have been part of what we imagine as “Q.” Didache 1:2-5a has some parallels to Luke 6:24–37 and Matthew 5:38–48. He argues that it makes more sense that Luke rephrased the Golden Rule in a positive direction and elided “avoid the fleshly and bodily passions” from the Didache rather than the other way around. However, this leaves the majority of “Q” unaccounted for.
Garrow makes a quick reference to previous teaching about Two Ways in Hebrews 6:1–6. In addition to some verbal connections to 1 Peter 4:12 and 2:11, the Two Ways theme continues through the Church Fathers influenced most by the Petrine tradition. He also mentions a linguistic connection in Mark 13:26.
Paul also refers to earlier teaching in 1 Corinthians about food sacrificed specifically to “idols” (interestingly, not the word for “gods”). In addition, “Given Paul’s knowledge of Didache 16, as evidenced in 1 Thessalonians, and given the high status he attributes to this tradition, there is every reason to suspect that when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 2:9, the ‘Scripture’ he quoted was the Original Didache’s lost ending.” This feels like a bit of a leap.
James refers to previous teaching as the “implanted Word” (1:21) and the “perfect law” (1:25), drawing parallels to the Didache. Garrow claims that James uses the Didache the most conservatively since he was an author of the original Apostolic Decree.
In general, what Garrow says makes sense. There were certainly early teachings like this: early documents dealing with the questions of how gentiles can be Christians, how to deal with traveling apostles, and how to perform the Eucharist. Garrow highlights many interesting parallels between the Didache and the New Testament canon.
However, Garrow did not succeed in convincing me of his thesis. His explanation of the Apostolic Decree included too many assumptions about the rhetorical use of repetition and the Spirit’s role in the inspiration of Scripture. Showing parallels to a few verses in Matthew and Luke doesn’t go far in proving the Didache is actually Q. Showing that Peter, Paul, and James all quote earlier teaching doesn’t mean that the Didache is this earlier document.
My conclusion is that even if the Didache is one of multiple instructional texts, it is a valuable resource to learn the themes that were important in the Apostolic Era.
**received early access via NetGalley from the publisher**
Working with a text adjacent to the canon of Scripture, Garrow has more leeway. However, as we’ll discuss later, he draws a lot of conclusions about how the Didache intersects with the New Testament.
I appreciated Garrow’s metaphor of missing keys and missing keyhooks. Sometimes we know of a document that we don’t have a copy of, and sometimes we have a document but don’t know which hook it matches.
However, I found his metaphor of “removing rust” to be less compelling. First, he split the Didache into two hypothetical documents, which he calls the Original Didache and the Revised Didache. He claims that the title “The Teaching of the Lord, by the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles” refers to the Apostolic Decree, and “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” refers to a revised version. This is all based on the argument that parallels and duplication within the document must have been from two separate sources. He says, “Removing the ‘rust’ reveals a text with two titles, two baptism rites, two eucharistic prayers, and two sets of visitor instructions.”
I do not find this argument compelling, since ancient writers were more likely to use repetition as a rhetorical device than we are today. I agree that “single author” is a myth (in both ancient and modern texts!). But I am suspicious of the freewheeling splicing/combining he does to reconstruct hypothetical texts.
Next, he spends a good bit of time on the Original Didache. Why does the Apostolic Decree we have recorded in Acts 15 not match the Didache? Garrow answers that Acts 15 shows Luke highlighting the parts of the Original Didache/Apostolic Decree that were most friendly to Paul. “[I]t is reasonable to expect that Luke, as a partisan reporter, would have highlighted those parts of the decree most favorable to Paul’s position (while perhaps reinterpreting any unfavorable parts), rather than recording the whole compromise in full.”
The differences between the texts are explained by the human inclination to decide a matter with a compromise that each side can interpret as a win for their side. This assumption of Scripture’s formation from human nature without the Holy Spirit rubs me the wrong way. Certainly, God used humans to write Scripture (and be the Church!), but I believe that God guided the writing of Scripture.
Closely related to Acts 15 is Paul’s recounting of that interaction in Galatians, where Paul reinterprets the text to his purpose. “For example, why did Paul find himself needing to defend himself against the suggestion that he was still preaching circumcision (Gal. 5:11)? This was because of his known endorsement of the Original Didache / Apostolic Decree—a text that may be understood as teaching that circumcision, while not necessary for shared table fellowship, is ultimately necessary for salvation.” Paul clarifies for the Galatians that circumcision is not required for salvation.
Garrow spends some time explaining how Paul’s other audiences were also familiar with the Didache, especially the Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians clearly references and incorporates pre-Pauline materials. In Paul’s clarification on eschatology in 4:15–17, he specifically refers to a “word of the Lord” (4:15). Garrow’s hypothesis is that the Thessalonians misinterpreted the Didache and were concerned that those who died without being martyred would be left behind. “Read in this way the Didache appears to state that the entire faith of those who fail to achieve martyrdom (and then to join the heavenly holy ones) will be ‘of no account.’” Paul seeks to correct this misunderstanding. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul reiterates much of the content of 1 Thessalonians but changes his tone to clarify its authenticity, specifically referring to his authenticating signature (3:17).
Interestingly, Garrow spends very little time on the Missing Epistle of John, as we have very little explanation of it in Scripture. “The survival of the short and seemingly inconsequential 2 and 3 John suggests that they were initially valued because of their author rather than their content.” Okay, so he takes John to be the author of the Johannine epistles. John mentions traveling missionaries in 3 John 5–8, then says that Diotrephes has been trying to ignore John’s apostolic authority. Garrow’s assumption is that John expanded upon the Original Didache to suit his favorite method of Eucharist and traveling missionaries.
In the second half of the book, Garrow piles on various connections with other Scripture passages throughout the New Testament. By my count, Garrow’s thesis has implications for up to 16 books of the New Testament. (It almost felt like a conspiracy theory—“This solves all the puzzles!”) He often starts sentences with the word “Given” to take his assumptions one step further. However, I wasn’t always clear on the “so what” for how he thinks this should shape how we read Scripture.
Assuming that John reworked the Didache, “Revelation and the Revised Didache have distinctly similar attitudes to eating food sacrificed to idols and the practice of sorcery.” Garrow posits that Revelation is divided into seven cliffhanger sections to be used for Eucharistic meditations for prophets to “give thanks as much as they wish” (Did. 10:7). That’s a cool idea, but I’m not sure what to do with it.
Matthew and Luke each have a few verses overlapping with the Didache, so it may have been part of what we imagine as “Q.” Didache 1:2-5a has some parallels to Luke 6:24–37 and Matthew 5:38–48. He argues that it makes more sense that Luke rephrased the Golden Rule in a positive direction and elided “avoid the fleshly and bodily passions” from the Didache rather than the other way around. However, this leaves the majority of “Q” unaccounted for.
Garrow makes a quick reference to previous teaching about Two Ways in Hebrews 6:1–6. In addition to some verbal connections to 1 Peter 4:12 and 2:11, the Two Ways theme continues through the Church Fathers influenced most by the Petrine tradition. He also mentions a linguistic connection in Mark 13:26.
Paul also refers to earlier teaching in 1 Corinthians about food sacrificed specifically to “idols” (interestingly, not the word for “gods”). In addition, “Given Paul’s knowledge of Didache 16, as evidenced in 1 Thessalonians, and given the high status he attributes to this tradition, there is every reason to suspect that when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 2:9, the ‘Scripture’ he quoted was the Original Didache’s lost ending.” This feels like a bit of a leap.
James refers to previous teaching as the “implanted Word” (1:21) and the “perfect law” (1:25), drawing parallels to the Didache. Garrow claims that James uses the Didache the most conservatively since he was an author of the original Apostolic Decree.
In general, what Garrow says makes sense. There were certainly early teachings like this: early documents dealing with the questions of how gentiles can be Christians, how to deal with traveling apostles, and how to perform the Eucharist. Garrow highlights many interesting parallels between the Didache and the New Testament canon.
However, Garrow did not succeed in convincing me of his thesis. His explanation of the Apostolic Decree included too many assumptions about the rhetorical use of repetition and the Spirit’s role in the inspiration of Scripture. Showing parallels to a few verses in Matthew and Luke doesn’t go far in proving the Didache is actually Q. Showing that Peter, Paul, and James all quote earlier teaching doesn’t mean that the Didache is this earlier document.
My conclusion is that even if the Didache is one of multiple instructional texts, it is a valuable resource to learn the themes that were important in the Apostolic Era.
**received early access via NetGalley from the publisher**
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
The "Didache" is an early Christian document about which there is no consensus as to its date, its origin, and its implications. Although it was mentioned in early Christian and medieval texts, the Didache went missing until Archbishop Philotheos Bryennios discovered a codex in Constantinople in 1873, which contained the Didache. However, it was not until 1880 that Bryennios discovered the text known as "The Teaching of the Lord, by the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles" in 1880. With that discovery came a deep interest in a text that covers rather mundane matters. Even today, people find it intriguing and enlightening.
As for me, I have generally placed the Didache in the Second Century. It makes intriguing points that help us better understand what was happening in the early years of the Christian movement. What we don't know is the origin story. So, we're open to possible theories. Could the Didache, or elements of it, predate Paul's letters and other New Testament texts? If elements of the Didache, even if the final form is from the second century, could we have important documents, including the "Apostolic Decree" that emerged from the Jerusalem Council and the missing fourth letter of John? I am not an expert in such matters, but I am intrigued.
Alan Garrow has written a book that raises interesting possibilities with "The Didache Discovers: Recovering the Apostolic Decree and the Missing Epistle of John." Garrow holds a D.Phil. from Oxford and serves as vicar of St. Peter's Church, Harrogate, UK. He notes in his acknowledgements that the book has a history, such that it emerged over time, including his doctoral studies. The foundational point of the book is that the "Original Didache" is in reality the "Apostolic Decree" revealed by Luke in Acts. With this theory, what we have in Acts is essentially a summary of a larger document produced by the Twelve, which Paul, James, and other NT authors utilized in their messages. If we add the missing letter of John, which focuses on hospitality, a letter mentioned in 3 John 7, 9, to the Apostolic Decree, we have the foundation for a Revised Didache. Scholars, including Garrow, have concluded that the document Bryennios discovered is a composite work that reveals significant redaction. So, what Garrow does here is explore the text, seeking to find the foundational layers of the document, which he believes leads us back to the Apostolic Decree and John's missing letter.
Garrow's book is divided into five parts. Part 1 is titled "Two Rusty Keys." The chapters focus on removing what he calls rust on an ancient document. The two keys, which he seeks to restore, are the "Original Didache" and "The Revised Didache," both of which he offers in an English translation (Chapter 3). In his view, as laid out in chapter 4, "Two Vacant Hooks: Two Found Keys," the best explanation for the distinct elements of the Didache is the Apostolic Decree and John's missing letter. This is because "the Original Didache bears resemblance to some aspects of the Apostolic Decree (and the Revised Didache resembles some aspects of the missing Epistle of John)" but he suggests that more work needs to be done to prove his point.
Part Two is titled "The Acts-Galatian Conundrum." In two chapters, Garrow explores how Acts pictures the Apostolic Decree and how Paul does so in Galatians. The point of this discussion is that Luke and Paul seem to offer very different pictures of the Decree. In actuality, Paul doesn't mention the Decree at all in Galatians. Nevertheless, the Original Didache, when situated between the two, resolves the conundrum. However, Garrow notes that if Paul carried with him the Decree on the Second Missionary journey, we should see evidence of it in the Thessalonian letters. Thus, Part 3 is titled "The Thessalonians Test." Here in three chapters, Garrow examines "The Ethical Tradition Behind 1 Thessalonians," where he finds parallels to ethical materials in the Didache. Chapter 8 explores "The Eschatological Tradition Behind 1 Thessalonians," again finding parallels to his Original Didache." Finally, in Chapter 9, he focuses on "'Concerning Apostles and Prophets' and 1 Thessalonians." One of the issues that he seeks to address in Chapter 9 is an apparent disjunction between the Didache's warning that true prophets and apostles would stay only two days, whereas Paul was known to stay much longer than that with them. He concludes that when we examine 1 Thessalonians in light of the Original Didache, the Didache drives the entire conversation, including the Thessalonian concern about the fate of those who had died, suggesting that Paul was dealing with the aftereffects of his sharing the Apostolic Decree with them at the beginning of his ministry there. Then in Chapter 10, he focuses on 2 Thessalonians, which appears to be a repeat of the concerns of 1 Thessalonians, again addressing issues emerging from the Apostolic Decree. Chapter 11 offers an interlude focusing on "The Missing Epistle of John," which focuses on elements in the Didache dealing with hospitality. Thus, in his view, the Revised Didache has a Johannine feel, suggesting its origins as the missing letter.
Because he believes the Didache in its final form contains two earlier documents, he is concerned to show how these documents impacted other documents. Thus, Part 4, titled "The Full Circle of Impact," takes note of perceived influences of these documents on "The Creative Fountainhead that Gave Birth to Revelation" (Chapter 12), "Illuminating Q" (Chapter 13), "The Law Reflected in James" (Chapter 14), and "The Corinthians' Scripture" (Chapter 15). In looking at the relationship of the Apostolic Decree and the Missing Epistle of John, if contained in the Didache, meet, in his view, the evidential expectations of influencing these texts. Part 5, which is titled "Restoring the Originals---Revisited," contains annotated Greek versions of The Apostolic Decree/Original Didache and the Missing Epistle of John/Revised Didache.
Having shown the parallels and possible influences of the two pieces of the Didache, he concludes that if correct, his reconstructed Apostolic Decree may serve as the scripture behind the scripture of the New Testament. That is, here is "The Teaching of the Apostles." Whether Garrow is correct is not something I can judge. What I can say is that it is an intriguing idea that is worth exploring further.
As for me, I have generally placed the Didache in the Second Century. It makes intriguing points that help us better understand what was happening in the early years of the Christian movement. What we don't know is the origin story. So, we're open to possible theories. Could the Didache, or elements of it, predate Paul's letters and other New Testament texts? If elements of the Didache, even if the final form is from the second century, could we have important documents, including the "Apostolic Decree" that emerged from the Jerusalem Council and the missing fourth letter of John? I am not an expert in such matters, but I am intrigued.
Alan Garrow has written a book that raises interesting possibilities with "The Didache Discovers: Recovering the Apostolic Decree and the Missing Epistle of John." Garrow holds a D.Phil. from Oxford and serves as vicar of St. Peter's Church, Harrogate, UK. He notes in his acknowledgements that the book has a history, such that it emerged over time, including his doctoral studies. The foundational point of the book is that the "Original Didache" is in reality the "Apostolic Decree" revealed by Luke in Acts. With this theory, what we have in Acts is essentially a summary of a larger document produced by the Twelve, which Paul, James, and other NT authors utilized in their messages. If we add the missing letter of John, which focuses on hospitality, a letter mentioned in 3 John 7, 9, to the Apostolic Decree, we have the foundation for a Revised Didache. Scholars, including Garrow, have concluded that the document Bryennios discovered is a composite work that reveals significant redaction. So, what Garrow does here is explore the text, seeking to find the foundational layers of the document, which he believes leads us back to the Apostolic Decree and John's missing letter.
Garrow's book is divided into five parts. Part 1 is titled "Two Rusty Keys." The chapters focus on removing what he calls rust on an ancient document. The two keys, which he seeks to restore, are the "Original Didache" and "The Revised Didache," both of which he offers in an English translation (Chapter 3). In his view, as laid out in chapter 4, "Two Vacant Hooks: Two Found Keys," the best explanation for the distinct elements of the Didache is the Apostolic Decree and John's missing letter. This is because "the Original Didache bears resemblance to some aspects of the Apostolic Decree (and the Revised Didache resembles some aspects of the missing Epistle of John)" but he suggests that more work needs to be done to prove his point.
Part Two is titled "The Acts-Galatian Conundrum." In two chapters, Garrow explores how Acts pictures the Apostolic Decree and how Paul does so in Galatians. The point of this discussion is that Luke and Paul seem to offer very different pictures of the Decree. In actuality, Paul doesn't mention the Decree at all in Galatians. Nevertheless, the Original Didache, when situated between the two, resolves the conundrum. However, Garrow notes that if Paul carried with him the Decree on the Second Missionary journey, we should see evidence of it in the Thessalonian letters. Thus, Part 3 is titled "The Thessalonians Test." Here in three chapters, Garrow examines "The Ethical Tradition Behind 1 Thessalonians," where he finds parallels to ethical materials in the Didache. Chapter 8 explores "The Eschatological Tradition Behind 1 Thessalonians," again finding parallels to his Original Didache." Finally, in Chapter 9, he focuses on "'Concerning Apostles and Prophets' and 1 Thessalonians." One of the issues that he seeks to address in Chapter 9 is an apparent disjunction between the Didache's warning that true prophets and apostles would stay only two days, whereas Paul was known to stay much longer than that with them. He concludes that when we examine 1 Thessalonians in light of the Original Didache, the Didache drives the entire conversation, including the Thessalonian concern about the fate of those who had died, suggesting that Paul was dealing with the aftereffects of his sharing the Apostolic Decree with them at the beginning of his ministry there. Then in Chapter 10, he focuses on 2 Thessalonians, which appears to be a repeat of the concerns of 1 Thessalonians, again addressing issues emerging from the Apostolic Decree. Chapter 11 offers an interlude focusing on "The Missing Epistle of John," which focuses on elements in the Didache dealing with hospitality. Thus, in his view, the Revised Didache has a Johannine feel, suggesting its origins as the missing letter.
Because he believes the Didache in its final form contains two earlier documents, he is concerned to show how these documents impacted other documents. Thus, Part 4, titled "The Full Circle of Impact," takes note of perceived influences of these documents on "The Creative Fountainhead that Gave Birth to Revelation" (Chapter 12), "Illuminating Q" (Chapter 13), "The Law Reflected in James" (Chapter 14), and "The Corinthians' Scripture" (Chapter 15). In looking at the relationship of the Apostolic Decree and the Missing Epistle of John, if contained in the Didache, meet, in his view, the evidential expectations of influencing these texts. Part 5, which is titled "Restoring the Originals---Revisited," contains annotated Greek versions of The Apostolic Decree/Original Didache and the Missing Epistle of John/Revised Didache.
Having shown the parallels and possible influences of the two pieces of the Didache, he concludes that if correct, his reconstructed Apostolic Decree may serve as the scripture behind the scripture of the New Testament. That is, here is "The Teaching of the Apostles." Whether Garrow is correct is not something I can judge. What I can say is that it is an intriguing idea that is worth exploring further.
August 1, 2026
Books like this are why I enjoy reading. I wish more academic authors were willing to take risks like Garrow does here. He compellingly argues his thesis, which itself is fascinating: what if the Didache were the Acts 15 decree, the missing epistle of John, and even "Q" (though he largely redefines Q to argue this—but that's fine since I think Q is bogus and his version is more compelling).
I give this book 5 stars for depth of research, originality of thesis, and clarity of thought and expression. However, I struggle with the fact that some of Garrow's argument depends not on the didache, but on his reconstructed didache. And there are other ways to take Garrow's evidence. That said, I'm very intrigued by his proposal and I await the reviews of much better scholars than me.
While I don't think Garrow is coming from a conservative viewpoint (given some logic and some of his his other writings), this book supports some conservative conclusions from surprising directions. In this way, this book reminds me of Trobisch's writings, that do something similar.
If you're interested in the didache, early Christianity, or just a good biblical studies read—Didache Discoveries is highly recommended. I read this in two sittings because it was so engaging.
(Note: I work for Baker Publishing Group but that's not why I loved reading this book)
I give this book 5 stars for depth of research, originality of thesis, and clarity of thought and expression. However, I struggle with the fact that some of Garrow's argument depends not on the didache, but on his reconstructed didache. And there are other ways to take Garrow's evidence. That said, I'm very intrigued by his proposal and I await the reviews of much better scholars than me.
While I don't think Garrow is coming from a conservative viewpoint (given some logic and some of his his other writings), this book supports some conservative conclusions from surprising directions. In this way, this book reminds me of Trobisch's writings, that do something similar.
If you're interested in the didache, early Christianity, or just a good biblical studies read—Didache Discoveries is highly recommended. I read this in two sittings because it was so engaging.
(Note: I work for Baker Publishing Group but that's not why I loved reading this book)
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
In The Didache Discoveries, Alan Garrow argues that the ancient church manual known as the Didache is actually a combination of two highly sought-after, first-century texts: the Apostolic Decree and the Missing Epistle of John.
By stripping away later editorial additions (which he compares to removing "rust"), Garrow separates the document into two distinct layers: an Original Didache and a Revised Didache.
He proposes that the Original Didache is the long-lost Apostolic Decree, an identification that he argues resolves major New Testament puzzles, including the Acts-Galatians conundrum, the background of Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, and the mystery of the "Q" source used by Matthew and Luke.
Also, he identifies the Revised Didache as the Missing Epistle of John, arguing that this text sparked a historical conflict with the church leader Diotrephes and provided the creative, eucharistic foundation for the Book of Revelation
Overall, Garrow reframes the Didache not as a simple instructional manual, but as the 'golden key' that unlocks the earliest chapters of Christian history.
By stripping away later editorial additions (which he compares to removing "rust"), Garrow separates the document into two distinct layers: an Original Didache and a Revised Didache.
He proposes that the Original Didache is the long-lost Apostolic Decree, an identification that he argues resolves major New Testament puzzles, including the Acts-Galatians conundrum, the background of Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, and the mystery of the "Q" source used by Matthew and Luke.
Also, he identifies the Revised Didache as the Missing Epistle of John, arguing that this text sparked a historical conflict with the church leader Diotrephes and provided the creative, eucharistic foundation for the Book of Revelation
Overall, Garrow reframes the Didache not as a simple instructional manual, but as the 'golden key' that unlocks the earliest chapters of Christian history.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews