In her 2001 article, “The Didascalia Apostolorum: A Mishnah for the Disciples of Jesus,” Charlotte Fonrobert argued that the 3^rd century church order known as the Didascalia Apostolorum should be considered as a type of “Mishna” oriented toward a Christian or “Jewish-Christian” population.  Highlighting their “shared discursive space” and similar approach to biblical hermeneutics, Fonrobert juxtaposed these two works to demonstrate parallel constructions of religious authority and identity.  While these two collections certainly bear some affinity vis-à-vis their projects of asserting religious and exegetical hegemony, when we move beyond the issue of authority we encounter a dramatic divergence between the disparate conceptions of the past each of these works fashions.

The most striking difference between the Didascalia and the Mishna can be seen in the distinctive ways in which they incorporate traditions – whether scriptural interpretations or later prescriptive assertions.  While the former harnesses earlier material in an effort to convey a monolithic tradition within a more univocal presentation, the latter adduces a cacophony of distinct positions, offering a more dialogical formulation that allows for debate.  These distinct approaches to textual transmission speak to a crucial difference between the Didascalia and the Mishna’s visions for their audiences.  Following the work of Mikhail Bakhtin and Yuri Lotman, I argue that the Didascalia’s unified voice seeks to portray a stable and static tradition that must be upheld in the present while the Mishna’s dialogical format recognizes the importance of multivocality, encouraging originality and creativity in the preservation and transmission of the past.