Didache As A Practical Enchiridion For Early Church Plants

By Michael J. Svigel

[Michael J. Svigel is Chair and Professor of Theological Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Abstract

Since its rediscovery in the nineteenth century, scholars have suggested a number of explanations for the Didache’s date, genre(s), and original purpose(s). While scholarship is increasingly moving toward a first-century date for the Didache, no consensus has developed on how it functioned in its first-century ministry context. This article argues that the Didache functioned as a sort of “do-it-yourself” manual—a practical handbook for early church plants resulting from Antioch’s missionary efforts. Thus, the original end-users of the Didache were newly appointed leaders in newly established churches, making the Didache a vital background source for New Testament studies.

* * * * *

Years ago, as my father and I browsed the offerings of a rural flea market, we came upon a gadget-laden table featuring a metal object labeled with a handwritten note: “Tell me what it is, and it’s yours.” About the size of my forearm with a handle on one end and a blunt edge on the other, the mystery item looked like the mutant hybrid of a cattle prod and a handheld mixer. My father and I racked our brains trying to place the thing in some kind of practical context. What did it do? Was it a boring tool? Part of a larger machine? Was it used for cleaning? For measuring? For prying or poking? To this day we have no idea. Chances are the thing is still sitting on that seller’s table, rusting away, as hundreds of ignorant eyes and foolish fingers try in vain to place it in its original context.

So it is with the Didache. There it sits among the relics of early Christian literature, a seemingly misshapen, disproportionate pile of words—a patchwork of practical pieces with an original purpose just beyond our grasp.[1] For about a century and a half scholars have tried to divine its original context—when it was written, where it was written, and for what reasons—in an attempt to determine what, precisely, it was trying to accomplish.[2] If we could figure out how it was used, we would be able to identify it, and maybe, just maybe, we could give it a real name.

It is not as though scholarship has borne no fruit. It has. But it is mixed fruit. For example, with regard to date and provenance of the Didache, a current trend has been a willingness to date the present form of the work to the first century, perhaps as early as AD 50 to 70,[3] but fairly certainly before about AD 100.[4] Though both Egypt and Syria have been suggested as viable candidates for the place of the Didache’s composition or redaction, the general sense among scholars is that the work most likely originated in Syria or its environs.[5]

But what is the Didache? As a composite document,[6] its distinct parts could belong to different “genres” with various individual purposes.[7] However, it seems more likely that the editor(s) (“the Didachist”) would have had some overarching purpose for pulling these pieces together into its final form. This fact has led to a number of theories and reconstructions that have attempted to label the Didache according to its practical function—that is, how the early church actually used it. Many have simply called it a “church order,”[8] a “handbook of church morals, ritual, and discipline,”[9] a “community manual,”[10] or a “catechetical book.”[11] Scholars often imagine the manual functioning as a means of governing a particular local community in its day-to-day ecclesiastical and religious life,[12] but Schöllgen argues that the Didache was actually written to address controversies and correct specific ecclesiastical problems, not to set forth positively any kind of comprehensive church order.[13] Bucking the general “church manual” theme, both Milavec and O’Loughlin regard the Didache as a guide for a mentor-apprentice relationship; thus the term ἡ διδαχή is best understood as “the training”[14] and applies to the entire sixteen chapters of the book.[15] Despite all these attempts at identifying the practical purpose of the Didache, Niederwimmer pessimistically suggests that “there may have been a particular occasion or cause that impelled the influential but unknown author to produce this compilation.

We do not, however, know what that occasion may have been.”[16]

This article presents the thesis that Didache is a practical enchiridion for church plants. As such, the original intended “end-users” of the Didache were newly appointed leaders in newly established churches.

Around the year AD 50, Antioch’s mission to neighboring Gentile towns and villages expanded beyond Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey (c. 48-49). This involved the work of many “prophets and teachers” of Antioch and their missionaries (Acts 13:1). Because the apostles and prophets were considered to be a limited number in the early church,[17] the multiplication of daughter churches quickly began to outpace the circuit of apostolic and prophetic itinerants. The missionary hub in Antioch responded to this acute shortage of eminent apostles and prophets; they provided an easily reproducible document that could serve multiple infant congregations as a basic manual for leaders whose knowledge, skill, and experience were not yet advanced. Thus, in the absence of authoritative church planters, the Didache served as a sort of “do-it-yourself manual.” It equipped local church leaders with the basic tools necessary for continuing their founding missionaries’ work of catechesis, baptism, worship, ordination, and protection and provision of the flock.

The End-Users Of The Didache

The first consideration is rather straightforward. The manner in which the content of the Didache is ordered and presented is best explained if the end-users were not a particular community, all the initiated members of a church, or an individual mentor in a trainer-trainee relationship. Rather, the intended end-users were newly appointed leaders in newly established churches during the early decades of the apostolic period. Of course, the ultimate beneficiaries of the instruction would have been the members of the new congregations; the Didache may have been written for new churches, but it was written to their new leaders. A brief survey of the content of the Didache follows, in which the question is asked: In whose hands does it make the most sense to place this enchiridion?

Before entering a discussion of the book’s content, however, we must pause to discuss the so-called “title” of the Didache.[18] Despite its common usage as such, the opening line of the document, Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, summarizes not the entire content of the book,[19] but only what is styled the “Two Ways” catechetical section.[20] This is supported by several internal considerations. First, the term διδαχή itself appears only six times in the book. Two of these are contained in the two “titles.”[21] Three are found in 1.3, 2.1, and 6.1, all within the Two Ways section and referring internally to the content of the Two Ways teaching.[22] In each case the term is used specifically and exclusively for the content of the Two Ways material and can by no means be applied to the entire book. After the conclusion of the Two Ways section, the term appears again only in 11.2, which refers to someone who may teach “a different teaching (ἄλλην διδαχὴν)” contrary to “these things that have just been mentioned above (ταῦτα πάντα τὰ προειρημένα)” (11.1). Besides this fact, the text of the Didache itself treats the so-called “second title” as the first line of the text.[23] It seems the burden of proof, then, is on the interpreter who would make the title apply to the entire sixteen chapters.

Reluctance to recognize that the “title” refers only to the first six chapters has led to interpretive missteps.[24] Thus, when Milavec insists on translating ἡ διδαχή as “the training,”[25] he then expounds the entire book as if it were to be placed on the lips of a mentor to train his apprentice in the way of life of the community—including everything from avoiding the practice of sorcery (Did. 2.2) to appointing bishops and deacons (15.1). However, if ἡ διδαχή refers particularly to the Two Ways (Did. 1-6), then it would be mistaken to consider the book as a whole and all its parts as a mentor–mentee training manual. Rather, the opening διδαχή section plays a vital part (but only a part) of the more comprehensive original purpose of the work: equipping the newly appointed leaders of newly established churches to carry on the work of the ministry, including, but not limited to, pre-baptismal catechesis.[26]

Having briefly discussed the scope of the title, we now begin a survey of the content of the Didache. The first section—the Two Ways—takes up the first six chapters.[27] This lesson on Christian virtue versus worldly vice makes the most sense if it was included as a tool for those whose responsibility it was to carry out the instruction of new baptismal candidates.[28] These instructors would have been the “leaders” of the community. In this case, the dominance of the second person singular in chapters 1-6 would indicate that the leaders were intended to use the Two Ways almost like a script.[29] This, in turn, would indicate that the instructing leaders themselves were novices in their offices, that is, newly appointed leaders in the communities.

The scripting of the catechesis would be similar to the “scripted” prayers of Didache 8-10. The greatest care was to be taken by the leaders that the right words and ideas be communicated to the catechumens in the Two Ways, just as the greatest care was to be taken by the leaders that proper content be communicated in the public prayers. However, Didache 10.11 makes an important concession: “But permit the prophets to give thanks however [long] they wish.”[30] Justin Martyr echoes this sentiment in 1 Apology 67, where he describes the church’s basic order of worship: “The president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability.”[31] This scripted language for some as well as permissible extemporaneity for others can be explained if the Didache was written for newly appointed leaders in newly established churches, in which the leaders were not yet experienced teachers.[32]

Moving from the Two Ways catechetical section to practical instructions for the provision and protection of the churches, the initial imperative (βαπτίσατε) is second person plural, which marks a shift from the individual catechumen addressed in the script of Didache 1-6. It does not necessarily indicate that now the entire initiated congregation is being addressed.[33] The individual “one baptizing” (ὁ βαπτίζων) in Didache 7.4 is thus the one addressed in 7.2-3 in the second person singular: “But if you do not have flowing water, baptize into other water; and if you do not have cold, in warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”

All of these imperatives regarding baptism, whether in the plural or singular, address those who had the responsibility of overseeing and carrying out the instruction and baptism of catechumens. This is indicated by the close connection between the baptismal act, the Two Ways instruction, and the orders concerning fasting. This is further confirmed by the language used in Didache 7.4: “Command (κελεύω) the one being baptized to fast beforehand one or two [days].” Only those in some kind of leadership role in the congregations would have the authority to actually “issue a command” (κελεύω), which is language of giving a strong, often official, order by a recognized authority figure.[34]

Similarly, the instruction in Didache 8.1—with its second person plural verb (νηστεύσατε) and plural pronouns (ὑμεῖς)—also addresses issues under the purview of the leaders responsible for the ordering of religious observances in the new communities, just as the fasts of the Jews were established by the rabbis and taught to their congregations. Even praying the Lord’s Prayer three times a day in 8.2-3 is an admonition to the congregations through their leaders for the ordering of daily disciplines of prayer and fasting.

From the ordering of religious discipline, the Didachist next moves to the proper observance of the Eucharist. The parallel introductions—Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας (9.1) and Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος (8.1)—should not be overlooked. Van de Sandt and Flusser appropriately note that the parallelism suggests that “we are dealing with a rule for the conduct of church ceremonial.”[35] Properly, those responsible for “church ceremonial”—especially baptism and Eucharist—would be the appointed leaders of the churches.[36] Here the instructions make most sense when viewed as addressing the leaders responsible for the ordering of the new congregations and their worship. It may be proper to note, too, that it is generally agreed that the prayers in Didache 9-10 are likely adapted from the Jewish Birkat Ha-Mazon community meal blessings,[37] which would have been led by the leaders of the Jewish communities.[38] There is no reason to assume the officiating of the new Christian communities’ eucharistic prayers would have been taken from the hands of the appointed leaders of the new churches.

The next section concerning the authentication of apostles, prophets, and teachers (Did. 11-13) also makes most sense if the instructions were primarily intended for newly appointed leaders of the newly established communities who were responsible for protecting their flocks. Paul charged the Ephesian elders, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God” (Acts 20:28). He warned them that wolves would come in among them, even from among their own ranks (vv. 29-30). Apparently Paul viewed the protection of the flock from false teachers as primarily the responsibility of the appointed leaders in the local church.

In keeping with this early apostolic pattern, therefore, the guidelines for distinguishing true from false apostles, prophets, and teachers in the Didache would primarily be given to the appointed community leaders. Such leaders were the congregations’ gatekeepers to welcome approved apostles, prophets, and teachers (Did. 11.2, 4; 12.1), to test and to judge between authentic and false apostles, prophets, and teachers (11.7, 11, 12; 12.1, 4), and to distribute contributions of provisions to either resident prophets or to the poor (13.1-7). Though these mandates may also have applied to the actions of the corporate body at large, the instructions were properly placed in the hands of the leaders whose responsibility it was to oversee the protection and provision of the churches.

Chapters 14-16 then return to the regulation of ceremonial observances on “the Lord’s day” (Did. 14.1). The order involves the breaking of bread, thanksgiving (Eucharist), and confession of sins (14.1-2), as well as the exercise of church discipline (15.3), prayers, and charity (15.4). Chapter 16 returns to the exhortation to gather together as a church “frequently” in order to be ready for the coming of the Lord (16.1-8).[39] Obviously, these are churchly activities in which the congregation is to be involved. However, the logical conjunction οὖν in Didache 15.1 connects the instructions concerning the appointment of overseers and ministers to the various elements of worship in 14.1-3,[40] indicating that these things are to be conducted by the duly appointed overseers and ministers and/or the “prophets and teachers” (14.1-2). The insertion of instructions concerning the appointment of church leaders and their assistants (overseers and ministers) in Didache 15.1-2, along with the logical connection between these leaders and worship on the Lord’s Day, strongly indicates that the ordering of the service is to be placed in the hands of the appointed leaders.

This survey of the content and language of the Didache supports the thesis that the book makes most sense as a DIY manual—an enchiridion placed in the hands of leaders to equip them to carry out the basic works of churchly services (ἡ λειτουργία, 15.1).[41] Thus, the intended end-users of the Didache were newly appointed leaders of newly established churches.

Ecclesiastical Transition Or Geographical Expansion?

In the past, many have suggested that the Didache evidences a transition from the early first-century church order of itinerant apostles and prophets to the late first- and early second-century postapostolic offices of elders/overseers and deacons.[42] In other words, a common reading of the Didache is that the need for the subapostolic offices of “overseers and deacons” arose as a result of a decrease in the number of apostles and prophets with their deaths toward the end of the first century.[43]

However, the phenomenon of rapid geographical expansion of the church through the planting of new local churches would also have created a demand for nonapostolic/prophetic local leadership. Even if the number of apostles and prophets remained relatively stable, the rapid multiplication of churches in the cities and smaller villages would have created the need for the appointment of community leaders to carry on the ministry without constant direct apostolic and prophetic oversight.

The Didachist would have known that the limited number of itinerant apostles, prophets, and teachers would be increasingly spread thin with the rapid expansion of local churches. He would have been aware that this would result in ever-lengthening spans of time between visits by authoritative foundational apostolic/prophetic missionaries to check on newly established churches with newly appointed leaders. Furthermore, the Didachist would have known that with the instruction and initiation of new converts in the new churches, eventually the need would arise for additional local, permanent overseers and ministers beyond the initial slate of elders appointed by the apostles, prophets, and teachers (cf. Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Rather than requiring these newly established churches to wait indefinitely for founding itinerants to arrive and ordain new leadership, the Didachist placed this responsibility in the hands of the local church’s leadership: “Therefore appoint for yourselves overseers (ἐπίσκοποι) and ministers (διάκονοι) worthy of the Lord . . . for they too minister the ministry of the prophets and teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for they are your honored men, along with the prophets and teachers” (Did. 15.1-2).

Of course, this thesis deprives some scholars of an important historical support for democratically oriented congregational church polity. For example, Daniel Akin has suggested that “the Didache upholds Congregational church government, instructing the local churches to appoint their own bishops and deacons (15:1).”[44] In a later section on the evidence from the Didache, Akin appeals to the same passage, claiming that “it is the responsibility of the congregation to elect their officers. Bishops do not elect bishops, and deacons do not elect deacons.”[45]

However, in light of its first century Sitz im Leben, it seems more likely that the Didache, as a manual for newly appointed leaders in newly established churches, was providing do-it-yourself instructions to the leaders of the churches. Originally the founding apostles (or prophets and teachers) involved in the initial church plants were solely responsible for appointing the leadership of the churches they established (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Eventually, the question would arise regarding how to proceed with the appointment of additional leaders and successors to leaders appointed by apostles. The Didache should not be read as an instruction for leaderless congregations to elect their own leaders by a process of democratic nomination and vote, but as informing newly appointed leaders that they were henceforth responsible for “appointing” (not “electing”) their own overseers and ministers. Thus, Didache 15 seems to lend support for local autonomy of daughter and sister churches, not a process of democratic governance within the local congregation.[46]

Equipping The Leaders To Equip The Saints

The coupling of “prophets and teachers” is rare in early Christian writings. Besides Didache 15.2, it appears only in Acts 13:1 as the description of leaders in the church at Antioch: “Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” Van de Sandt and Flusser suggest that Antioch is the “probable place of origin of these offices [of the Didache]” based on this correspondence, and they suggest that Paul’s reference to “apostles, prophets, and teachers” as primary offices of the church in 1 Corinthians 12:28-29 depends on this Antiochene usage.[47]

This supports the view that at least an early version of the Didache arose in Antioch for use in its missionary efforts. The term “prophets and teachers” would have reflected the common title for established leaders, well known in the sending/planting church of Antioch. Thus, the “prophets” would include even apostolic figures like Paul and Barnabas, while “teachers” would likely indicate apostolic delegates such as Timothy, Titus, and others who had been established over local churches to shepherd them in their infancy. So at the time of the writing of the Didache, the church planters were responsible for establishing local permanent leadership (overseers and ministers) who would serve either alongside of or in lieu of the original “prophets and teachers” (Did. 15.2).

If this was the case, then the Didache would be best understood not as a manual of church order for the church in Antioch or as a community rule for an individual daughter or sister congregation, but rather as an enchiridion placed in the hands of newly appointed leaders in newly established churches to equip them to carry out their new leadership responsibilities. In this vein, Van de Sandt and Flusser relay an interesting correspondence between the order of instruction in Didache 8-10, 14-15 and 1 Timothy 2-3, a “pastoral epistle” instructing Timothy in his pastoral leadership responsibilities.[48]

	Didache	1 Timothy
Instructions on Prayer	Did. 8.2-10.7	1 Tim. 2:1-7
Ethical Conditions of Congregational Worship	Did. 14	1 Tim. 2.8-15
Bishops and Deacons	Did. 15	1 Tim. 3.1-13

Notable parallels also exist between the detailed instructional content of the Didache and the brief reminders of the “elementary teachings” of Christianity in Hebrews 6:1-2.[49]

Didache	Hebrews
Initiatory Catechesis (Did. 1-6)	Initial Repentance and Faith (Heb. 6:1c)
Teaching on Christian Liturgy (Did. 7-10)	Teaching on Baptisms (Heb. 6.2a)
Teaching on Church Leadership (Did. 11-15)	Teaching on Church Leadership (Heb. 6.2b)
Eschatological Conclusion (Did. 16)	Teaching on Eschatology (Heb. 6.2c)

The author of Hebrews notes, “By this time you ought to be teachers (διδάσκαλοι),” but instead they needed someone to teach them the “basic principles of the oracles of God” (Heb. 5:12). The implication is that in their early stages of Christian instruction (6:1-2) and community experience (6:4-5) they had been instructed by the “teachers” in the way they should go. By this point in their journey, they should have been moving toward the role of “teachers” in the community, having achieved a level of understanding and experience characteristic of mature Christians (5:12-14).

All of this suggests, then, that the end-users of the Didache were not the congregations as a whole, but the appointed leaders functioning among the congregations. That is, the genre of the Didache would be best understood as nearer to the pastoral epistles than the ancient church orders that later incorporated some of its teachings and themes. The second person plural that dominates Didache 7-16 should be understood as primarily addressing the newly appointed leaders in the newly established churches, not as primarily addressing the congregation as a whole.

Conclusion: A First-Century DIY Manual?

Due to the nature of the complexities involved in the field of Didache studies, and due to the intention of this present article to be a provocation toward further discussion, the following summary is presented as merely tentative. Not every problem has been solved or every question answered. However, the following presents a plausible scenario for the date, provenance, and even authorship of the Didache in keeping with the evidence and informed by the thesis that the document is a practical enchiridion for newly appointed leaders in newly established churches.

At least an early version of the Didache was written sometime around AD 50 to 60, in the general context of Antioch’s missionary work in establishing new churches.[50] Its “authorship” would have been the leadership (“prophets and teachers”) in Antioch, but Antioch would not have been the “community” in which the Didache functioned. In fact, strictly speaking, there was no “community” of the Didache.[51] If the Didache was to function as a practical enchiridion for early church plants, then talk of a “Didache community” is misleading. The end-users of the document would actually have been the future leadership of a number of communities, some of which may not even have existed at the time of the Didache’s composition.[52]

As preaching resulted in baptismal initiation at the hands of the itinerant apostles, prophets, and teachers (such as Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy) in ever-widening circles beyond Antioch, the founding itinerants appointed leaders to carry on the work of the local ministry in the absence of their founding apostolic/prophetic church planters (Acts 14:23). As the number of increasingly remote churches multiplied beyond the ability of apostles, prophets, and teachers to maintain direct or even frequent oversight, the newly appointed leaders of these newly established churches were given a practical enchiridion to be used in conjunction with any other early Christian writings that had begun to be written and circulated (e.g., early versions of the synoptic Gospels, writings of Paul).[53]

Eventually the first-century practical use of the Didache as a DIY manual would have expired. But it was not replaced, as is so often alleged, by the genre of church orders. Rather, it was replaced by pastoral literature such as Paul’s 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, Ignatius’s Epistle to Polycarp, and, in fact, the whole New Testament canon. Its usefulness would have also been diminished by the maturing of local church overseers and presbyters as well as a more formal network of training and accountability among the churches of an increasingly stabilized catholic Christianity. However, as a document that predates many apostolic writings, the Didache serves as an indispensable background for New Testament studies by giving an important glimpse into the principles, priorities, and practices of the infant church in its earliest years.

Notes

1. Chadwick amusingly described it as “made up of bits and pieces” (Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, rev. ed., Penguin History of the Church, vol. 1 [New York: Penguin, 1993], 46).
2. For a comprehensive survey of the question of the genre of the Didache, see Nancy Pardee, The Genre and Development of the Didache, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, series 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 5-52. She notes, “This survey of research on the Didache and its component Two Ways text show that the genre of the work is indeed still in question” (ibid., 52.).
3. See Jean-Paul Audet, La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres, Etudes Bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1958), 187-206; Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 CE (New York: Newman, 2003); John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 96-100, 322-27. In 2010 O’Loughlin accurately noted, “The broad consensus today is for a first-century date. This could be as early as 50 . . . or as late as 80 or 90” (Thomas O’Loughlin, The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010], 26).
4. Cf. Marcello Del Verme, Didache and Judaism: Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 5; Willy Rordorf and André Tuilier, eds., La doctrine des douze apôtres (Didachè): Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes, appendices, annexe et index, 2nd ed., Sources Chrétiennes (Paris: Cerf, 1998), 94-97, 232-233; or, as Audet puts it, “une date plus haute que le IIe siècle” (Audet, La Didachè, 187). Dating the Didache in the first century, of course, is not a new suggestion (cf. Joseph Langen, “Das älteste christliche Kirchenbuch,” Historische Zeitschrift 53.2 [1885]: 193-214).
5. Cf. Audet, La Didachè, 206-210; Rordorf and Tuilier, La doctrine des douze apôtres, 97-99. For a helpful survey on the date and provenance of the Didache, see Clayton N. Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 3-17.
6. The Didache has usually (and not unreasonably) been regarded as a composite work that weaves together various texts and traditions developed over the course of several years. On the nature and date of Didache, see the helpful summary of scholarship in F. E. Vokes, “Life and Order in an Early Church: The Didache,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, Part 2, Principat, vol. 27.1, Religion (Vorkonstantinische Christentum: Apostolischen Väter und Apologeten), ed. Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993), 216-18, 230-31. The common account of its composition suggests that an early “Two Ways” treatise was edited into a Christian baptismal catechism with the addition of distinctively Christian logia (Did. 1.1-6.3). To this the Didachist added a liturgical section regulating the rites of baptism and Eucharist (7.1-10.7). A section on discipline and discernment was also incorporated (11.1-15.4), as well as a brief concluding section on eschatological expectations. For much of the twentieth century scholars dated the current redacted form of the Didache in the early part of the second century. See Leslie W. Barnard, Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and Their Background (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967), 99; Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 1 Clement, II Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, Loeb Classical Library 24 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 411; Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell, vol. 1, From Paul to the Age of Constantine (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 126-28; Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 1. A distinct account of a four-stage diachronic development of the Didache motivated by changing needs of the Christian community can be seen in Pardee, The Genre and Development of the Didache, 184-86. Notably, Pardee includes the “mini-apocalypse” (Did. 16) in the original first stage of the Christianization of the Two Ways catechesis, which also included the addition of 1.3b–5 (ibid., 162-84).
7. Niederwimmer, Didache, 2; Rordorf and Tuilier, La doctrine des douze apôtres, 17. Jefford sums up a common consensus with regard to the “genre” of the Didache when he writes, “The Didache is generally viewed as an early church manual that was used to instruct new candidates for a specific Christian community or cluster of related groups” (Clayton N. Jefford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers: A Student’s Introduction, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012], 26). Based on the divergent nature of the material and topics covered in the Didache and its incorporation in later church orders, Jefford suggests that “the composite nature of the work makes it likely that the Didache was used for a variety of purposes during the different stages of its active life” (ibid., 31).
8. See Richard A. Norris Jr., “The Apostolic and Sub-apostolic Writings: The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers,” in The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, ed. Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 19. See also Philip Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885), 16; Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, rev. ed. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), 725; Klaus Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet: Eingeleitet, herausgegeben, übertragen und erläutert (Munich: Kösel, 1984), 18.
9. Niederwimmer, Didache, 2. See also Hermann-Adolf Stempel, “Der Lehrer in der Lehre der zwölf Apostel,” Vigiliae Christianae 34 (1980): 215.
10. Robert A. Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, vol. 3 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary, ed. Robert M. Grant (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1965), 3. Moreschini and Norelli simply call it “a kind of handbook for Christian communities,” saying nothing specific concerning its intended use (Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature, 1:126).
11. William Varner, The Way of the Didache: The First Christian Handbook (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007), 58.
12. Stephen Finlan, “Identity in the Didache Community,” in The Didache: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle in Early Christianity, ed. Jonathan A. Draper and Clayton N. Jefford, Early Christianity and Its Literature (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 31; Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), esp. p. 31. Jefford suggests the Two Ways section (Did. 1-6) in particular was employed as a call to righteous living “within some specific Christian community or by the early church at large to serve as a model for general Christian instruction” (Jefford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers, 32). Similarly, Draper narrows the utility of the Didache for a specific community: “The material was collected because it was used and continued to be used by a single community after its final editing” (Jonathan A. Draper, “The Didache,” in The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction, ed. Wilhelm Pratscher [Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010], 8).
13. Georg Schöllgen, “The Didache as a Church Order: An Examination of the Purpose for the Composition of the Didache and Its Consequences for Interpretation,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan A. Draper (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 43-71, esp. 44, 63.
14. Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 40.
15. O’Loughlin, Didache, 10-13.
16. Niederwimmer, Didache, 3.
17. See C. H. Turner, “The Early Christian Ministry and the Didache,” in Studies in Early Church History: Collected Papers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 13-17. See also Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013), 68-69.
18. Neither this discussion nor its conclusions should surprise those familiar with the long history of Didache studies. In the original edition princeps, Bishop Bryennios argued that the longer title of the Didache (which is actually written as the first line of the text) referred only to the Two Ways instruction. See his discussion in Φιλοφεου Βρυεννιου, Διδαχη των Δωδεκα Αποστολων (Constantinople: Βουτηρα, 1883), 3.
19. From the earliest years after its initial publication, many commentators have simply assumed the “title” was meant to apply to the content of the entire sixteen chapters of the document. See Spence, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 7. However, already in 1886, Harnack noted a wide diversity of opinions “über die Frage, ob der 2. Titel sich etwa nur auf die ersten 5 oder 6 Kapitel bezieht” (Adolf Harnack, Die Apostellehre und die Jüdischen beiden Wege [Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1886], 5).
20. Niederwimmer notes that early Christian witnesses that testify to the Didache are “subject to the suspicion that they do not refer to the Didache at all but to versions of the Two Ways tractate. In fact, according to the witness of Doctrina, the Two Ways tractate (at least in one version) bore the title (de) doctrina apostolorum (‘[of the] teaching of the apostles’). There is very good reason to suppose that, at a relatively early period, this was the title of the Christianized Two Ways tractate, and that this title was then transferred to the Didache” (Niederwimmer, Didache, 56-57). See also Schaff, Oldest Church Manual, 15-16.
21. Actually, there may not be two titles in the Didache, at least not in the Codex Hierosolymitanus. Rather, it seems that what is often called the “short title” is actually the only title, extracted from the incipit of the actual text, which is, in fact, the opening line of the Two Ways catechesis. Thus, the first line of the catechetical section is Διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. One can imagine that, lacking a usable title, early users of the document would simply have extracted διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων from the opening line. This practice of extracting a title from the incipit would of course become common for medieval manuscripts. Thus, this is not a case of shortening the longer title or lengthening the shorter title, but providing a single title for the document based on the incipit. See the brief discussion in Georg Schöllgen, “Einleitung zur Didache,” in Georg Schöllgen and Wilhelm Geerlings, Didache (Zwölf-Apostel-Lehre) und Traditio Apostolica (Apostolische Überlieferung), Fontes Christiani (Freiburg: Herder, 1991), 25-26.
22. “The teaching (ἡ διδαχή) of these words is this” (1.3); “the second commandment of the teaching (τῆς διδαχῆς) is” (2.1); “see that no one leads you astray from this way of the teaching (ταύτης τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς διδαχῆς)” (6.1).
23. An image of the opening line of the Didache is available at https://upload.wiki-media.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Didtitle.jpg.
24. Concerning whether the title refers to the Two Ways or to the entire book, Rordorf and Tuiler rightly note, “Cette divergence devait avoir des conséquences importantes pour l’interpretation du texte” (La doctrine des douze apôtres, 14).
25. Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary, 40.
26. With regard to Didache 7-16 vis-à-vis Didache 1-6, Glimm notes, “The second part of the Didache (7-16) has an entirely different tone and purpose” (Francis X. Glimm, “Introduction to the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 1 [New York: CIMA, 1947], 169).
27. Some have limited the Two Ways catechetical section to chapters 1-5 (e.g., John S. Koppenborg, “The Transformation of Moral Exhortation in Didache 1-5,” in The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History, and Transmission, ed. Clayton N. Jefford, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 77 [Leiden: Brill, 1995], 88; Varner, The Way of the Didache, 59). However, though chapter 6 does serve as a capstone for the Two Ways instruction, it nevertheless belongs with the first six chapters (cf. Schöllgen, “Einleitung zur Didache,” 30; Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache, 29; Rordorf and Tuilier, La doctrine des douze apôtres, 17, 32). The dominance of the second person singular—suggesting a catechetical address to an initiate—extends through chapter 6 and abruptly ends with chapter 7. Furthermore, the phrase ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες makes the most sense if it refers to the content immediately preceding, which would obviously include chapter 6 (cf. Schöllgen, “Einleitung zur Didache,” 27). Also, Didache 6.2 is logically dependent on 6.1 (γάρ), so the next phrase (“if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be mature”) should best be understood as a reference to the whole Two Ways teaching. The term τέλειος is used elsewhere in Didache only in 1.4, directly in reference to the teaching of Christ in the Way of Life section. The language in 6.2, then, acknowledges the reality that walking perfectly in the virtues of the Way of Life while avoiding all of the vices of the Way of Death is not possible (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 6:16-23; 1 Tim. 1:9-11; James 3:2; etc.). Yet, as in the baptism passage in which imperfection is permitted without simply relativizing the ideal (cf. Did. 7.1-3), the Didachist urges those weak in the faith to strive to do their best (Cf. Barn. 19.8; 2 Clem. 7.3). Finally, it is not the case that περὶ δέ always introduces “a new topic” (contra Varner, The Way of the Didache, 59). In fact, it would be an exaggeration to even call it a “marker.” Depending on the context and intended contrast, the phrase could indicate a hard transition from one topic to another, i.e., “Now concerning,” or as a soft transition from one related but distinct subject within a larger topic, i.e., “but concerning.” Thus, in Didache 9.1 and 9.3, the first περὶ δέ indicates a shift from one topic (daily prayer) to another (Eucharist). The second shifts from the subject of the cup to the bread, the essential unity of these within the same topic of Eucharistia indicated by the fact that the Didachist says, “First, concerning the cup” (Πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ ποτήριου), then, “but concerning the broken bread” (Περὶ δὲ τοῦ κλάσματος). Similarly, Didache 6.3 is conceptually related to 6.2; the previous phrase gives the general rule and 6.3 applies the rule to a special situation that may require specific instruction. The general rule in 6.2 was to strive for maturity, but to at least bear what one is able. Similarly, in 6.3 the general principle is applied to the matter of food: one is to bear what one is able, but in every case one must keep away from food sacrificed to idols. In sum, Didache 6.1-3 contains common vocabulary, a single train of thought, and logical and syntactical connections that make it difficult to pull apart. The passage also begins with a logical connector and reference to the Two Ways catechesis undoubtedly exposited in chapters 1-5. Finally, Didache 7.1 refers to “having previously said all these things” (ταῦτα πάνταπροειπόντες), evidently referring to the content of Didache 1-6 as a whole. This reading is contrary to Spence, who suggested, without warrant, that the phrase ταῦτα πάνταπροειπόντες refers to “what has gone before and to what follows after” (Canon Spence, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [London: James Nisbet, 1885], 30).
28. Once he moves beyond the Two Ways material, Jefford concedes, “The text of chapters 7-15 is not likely to have served this same purpose, that is, instruction for new Christians” (Jefford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers, 32). He notes, then, that these specific instructions are “for the leaders of the Didache community. Combined with the Two Ways tradition of chapters 1-6, which by now had been refined specifically for the instruction of new members, the entire writing may have become a handbook for those who administered the religious and social life of the community” (ibid., 32-33). This perspective is very close to my own, with two important distinctions. I would further clarify that 1) the Didache was placed in the hands of newly appointed church leaders who could have grown out of its prescriptions; and 2) rather than serving a particular established church community, the Didache was to provide a general handbook for numerous churches as they were being established.
29. See Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 245.
30. Τοῖς δὲ προφήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὃσα θέλουσιν.
31. καὶ ὁ προεστὼς εὐχὰς ὁμοίως καὶ εὐχαριστίας, ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ ἀναπέμπει.
32. Jonathan Schwiebert makes a reasonable challenge to the common interpretation that the prophets are given free license to “dispense with the foregoing prayers and supply their own entirely” (Jonathan Schweibert, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom: The Didache’s Meal Ritual and Its Place in Early Christianity, Library of New Testament Studies 373 [New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008], 92). Rather, he argues that the prophets are given the freedom to expand upon and extend the prayers, using the thanksgiving prayers as “guidelines.” In either case, those in the position of prophet were clearly given authority and freedom that nonprophetic leaders did not have.
33. Bruno Steimer also takes note of the predominant use of the second person plural commencing in Didache 7 and makes the suggestion that the intended audience is a plurality of churches (Bruno Steimer, Vertex Traditionis: Die Gattung der altchristlichen Kirchenordnungen, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 63 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992], 261-62). However, the interpretation presented in this article—that the second person plural primarily addresses a plurality of leaders in a plurality of churches—is additionally supported by several internal considerations.
34. Cf. Matt. 14:9 (of a king); 14:28 (of Jesus); 18:25 (of a master); 27:58 (of Pilate); Acts 4:15 (of a council); 5:34 (of Gamaliel); 8:38 (of the Ethiopian eunuch); 12:19 (of Herod); 16:22 (of magistrates); 21:33 (of the tribune); 27:43 (of a centurion); 1 Clem. 33.3 (of God); 43.2 (of Moses); Did. 8.2 (of the Lord); et al.
35. Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache, 302.
36. Cf. Ign. Eph. 5.2, 20.2; Phld. 4; Smyrn. 8.1-2; Justin, 1 Apol. 67.
37. Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache, 310-29. Cf. Robert M. Grant, An Introduction, in The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary, vol. 1, ed. Robert M. Grant (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1964), 176-77.
38. See Larry W. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 34-36.
39. The final eschatological section (Did. 16.3-8) was written in a descriptive third person and explains to the Didachist’s audience why they must be found “complete in the last time” (16.2). It contains no direct imperatives or admonitions to the readers of the Didache.
40. Cf. Harnack, Die Apostellehre, 4. Audet notes, “La directive donnée à 15:1 sur le choix des évêques et de diacres se présente comma une consequence pratique de ce qui precede” (La Didachè, 464).
41. Chadwick notes, “In the Didache . . . the local ministry is two-tiered—bishops or presbyters and deacons. Between these two orders, according to all the evidence, there is a distinction in liturgical function: in the common eucharist the presbyter-bishop celebrates while the deacon assists. Deacons also helped the bishops in looking after any church property and in administering charitable relief” (The Early Church, 47-48).
42. Michael J. Svigel, RetroChristianity: Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 184-85. See also Varner, The Way of the Didache, 87-88. Chadwick notes, “Evidently the churches established by the travelling missionaries soon came to have local, stationary clergy, subordinate to the general oversight of mobile apostolic authority. For a generation or more the apostles and prophets coexisted with this local ministry of bishops and deacons. This situation is in fact reflected in the Didache” (Chadwick, The Early Church, 46). Similarly, Grant wrote, “Those to whom the Didachist writes are to appoint bishops and deacons whose ministry will be either equivalent or analogous to that of the prophets and teachers. We can say, then, that the primary ministry in the Didache is that of apostles, prophets, and teachers; and that prophets and teachers are beginning to be replaced by bishops and deacons” (Grant, An Introduction, 160).
43. Cf. Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 61.
44. Daniel L. Akin, “The Single-Elder-Led Church: The Bible’s Witness to a Congregational/Single-Elder-Led Polity,” in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity, ed. Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004), 35.
45. Ibid., 39.
46. This matches precisely the polity and process described in 1 Clement 44.1-3.
47. Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache, 346.
48. Ibid., 32, 339.
49. Matthew Larsen and Michael Svigel, “The First Century Two Ways Catechesis and Hebrews 6:1-6, ” in The Didache: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle in Early Christianity, 483-88.
50. Kleist suggested a similar Sitz im Leben: “Antioch, that important Syrian centre of paganism, was evangelized in 42 or 43. St. Paul conducted his first missionary tour between 45 and 48. That, then, was the time when the problem of catechizing pagans came to the fore and pressed for a solution. In 49 or 50, the Apostolic Council looked into the matter and laid down its well-known decrees (Acts 15.28ff.) We are sure, therefore, that about this time some more or less uniform method of catechizing pagans was worked out” (James A. Kleist, The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias, The Epistle to Diognetus [New York: Newman, 1948], 5). Riggs, rather, sees the Sitz im Leben of the Didache as better reflected in the sub-apostolic period when there was “a significant decline in missionary efforts by Christians,” primarily because of the formalizing of the cultic observances of the Didache (John W. Riggs, “The Sacred Food of Didache 9-10 and Second-Century Ecclesiologies,” in The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History and Transmission, ed. Clayton N. Jefford (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 266, 270-273). He makes a sharp dichotomy between the first-century emphasis on church planting and the second-century emphasis on church ordering: “More than anything else, the writings of the second century indicate that significantly less energy was exerted on the Pauline pattern of planting churches, and a great deal more energy was put toward issues of morality, doctrine, and internal church structure” (ibid., 266). Of course, his conclusion assumes deutero-Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles and ignores Paul’s own concern for morals, church order, and doctrine even in the Hauptbriefe. Riggs also ignores the fact that “apostles and prophets” are broadly regarded as ministers of the past by second-century catholic authors.
51. Discussion and debate concerning the identity and identification of the Didachist’s “community” abounds (see, e.g., Finlan, “Identity in the Didache Community,” esp. p. 31; Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache, esp. p. 31; Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 65-66).
52. This might explain why the Didache is “fairly impersonal” in its language (Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 3).
53. In this historical context, the number of apostles/prophets and their delegates would have been relatively few, and each new congregation would have known only those with whom they had direct contact. We know from various places in the New Testament that false apostles, prophets, and teachers were also on the circuit, so the instructions in Didache 11-13 would have been eminently important.