Back in the 80's about 1987, I purchased the double volume hard copy set of the Double Day publisher's complete works of Charlesworth's translations of pseudographica and each book is fairly large. I read through all those writings over the next few years, but don't remember if I read the Didascalia but I think it's i there, although do remember the Shepard of Hermes, and also the Prayer of Mannessah. Those are mentioned in relation to those volumes here.

Although all of them were interesting, many I felt were as indicated in the notes to be latter day writings, some with a particular doctrinal slant. The one at the time that really jumped out at me as possible inspired and I felt should have been included, at least the most accurate copy that could be derived from the past extant copies was "Book of Enoch" which I also discovered was still used in the Ethiopian Coptic Churches. It's a great text comparison to Revelation in the New Testament to discover the symbolic relationships between them.

Here's a picture of the volumes, someone else has posted online. I purchased them by special order through a bible bookstore, after I'd learned of them while searching bible stuff in a public library. When I saw the collection, I knew I had to have a copy. I don't know if it's been printed since, but if you get the chance to pick up copies, I think you would also enjoy reading through them.

I see that page has a listing of the writings in the 2 Charlesworth volumes. I see he has another listing of extra writings by someone else, many of those I've read also in a book called "The Lost Books of Eden....", this is the copy I have. The "Cave of Treasures" was an unusual and fun read, not due to inspiration, but the interesting look at how some things were considered during the first few centuries still closer to the older traditions.

I have a hard bound interlinear text of the Septuagint which I consult at times since I consider the Masoretic text to be deliberately corrupted in some areas by the post Christian Jewish translator, since he was one and the Septuagint was "the 70 elders" which worked on it, and the Letter of Aristeas is quite informative on that matter. Even without Aristeas, the many uses by the Apostles and Jesus from the Septuagint for scriptural quotes is more than enough to give it all authority needed for it's acceptance, not so for the Masoretic text, which is used for King James version.

Some other books like Young's Concordance (hard cover "blue"), Cruden's concordance, some bible dictionaries (those are fun to read also, some with many images of the places).

That's a lot of reading, and some of it is in dogmatic form which is never fun reading, but does help expand one's understanding and get a better feeling for what the early church was facing in those days, where times it seems many were at odds also with the accepted and newly developing theology, as we've seen already from Gnostic texts.

As we can see even from the Canon of Scripture we accept today, there was some differences between the Judaic Christian church group and the Gentile Christian church groups, and it's only expected there would have been some tensions between those who recently had fled Judea as the Roman army was about to destroy the Temple and Jerusalem till as Christ prophesied "not a stone will be left standing" and as Josephus reports the only thing left which could be recognized later was the Roman garrison, or citadel, which had been on a higher plane above the old city and it's Temple. I suspect the large area they believe is the former temple grounds is actually where the old Roman garrison was instead, but I don't think anyone can be sure about that, yet. Jews were forbidden in Jerusalem for a long time after it's destruction, other peoples settled in the area, and was that way for a long time, so by the time first Jews returned, they really wouldn't have known for sure where the old Temple grounds actually were, and this even before the Wars of Mohammed started around 630 AD. Now that gets off to another subject for another time, on why the African Christian churches accepted Mohammed's rule ahead of the Church in Rome, with which they already had some strong disagreements on authority, who could impose what on other congregations, etc.

I will read through the Didascalia soon enough, see if it's one I read before but under a different name.