These are some notes on the Didache:
The Didache presents two “ways” or “paths” (δύο ὁδῶν) from which one can choose. The early Christian movement called itself “the Way” at the beginning, so this appears to be juxtaposing Christianity with non-Christianity. In other words, there is not a third, fourth, or fifth option for the author. The first way is “Life” and the second way is “Death” (1:1).
The Way of Life is based on Jesus’ teaching that to love God is the greatest commandment and to love neighbor is the second greatest commandment (1:3-4).
Jesus’ teachings about loving one’s enemy is the first thing the author discusses as relates to loving one’s neighbor. Christians are to engage in the positive actions of praying and fasting for enemies, turning the other cheek, going the “second miles”, giving away one’s coat, and refusing to require interest on loans (1:7-17).
The Way of Life exalts the one who gives and humbles the one who takes. This shouldn’t be interpreted as humbling the one who takes in need, but the one who seeks to amass possessions for one’s self (1:18-23).
To love one’s neighbor means to avoid things like murder, adultery, corrupting youth, fornication, stealing, magic, sorcery, abortion, infanticide, coveting, false witness, speaking evil, holding a grudge, being double-minded, being double-tongued, using empty word not supported by subsequent action, plundering, hypocrisy, having an ill-temper, being proud, planning evil things against another, and even hating a single person (οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρώπον). One can reprove their neighbor, pray for their neighbor, and one must love their neighbor more than one loves one’s self/life (οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου) (2:1-7).
The Johannine-like address “my child” appears (τέκνον μου) on several occasions. Christians (or, those on the Way of Life) must avoid every evil and everything that resembles evil including anger, murder, jealousy, wrath, lust, fornication, foul-speaking, pride, omens, idolatry, enchanting, astrology, magic, lying, theft, vainglory, murmuring, blasphemy, selfishness, or thinking evil thoughts. All of these actions are categorized under things that produce murder, adultery, idolatry, theft, and blasphemy. Christians must be meek, long-suffering, full of pity toward others, guileless, quiet, kind, cautious with words, free of self-exaltation, righteous, humble, and able to receive all things as good from God, even negative things (3:1-16).
Christians must honor those who speak the words of the Lord. The other saints must be honored as well. Schism and schismatics must be avoided. Righteous and equal judgment must be administrated. There must be a posture of giving rather than receiving. There must be a willingness to share one’s possessions. This willingness to give must be shown to all people. There should be no respect of persons because Christ will return not for people of a particular social standing, but for those “whom the Spirit has prepared” (ἐφ’ οὓς τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν). Nevertheless, servants are to be subject to Masters as to God (as stated in the canonical epistles). There is this sense in which the Gospel transcends the social structures, yet the Church does not attack the social structures directly, aiming to address those of lower classes with dignity, directing them to do their work as to God (4:1-16).
Christians cannot ignore the Lord’s commandments, or live as hypocrites, passing along the received teachings without addition or subtraction. Christians should confess transgressions to each other, praying without evil on their conscious (4:17-19).
These things mentioned above are the Way of Life (4:20). The Way of Death includes evil, murder, adultery, lust, fornication, theft, idolatry, magic, witchcraft, plundering, false witness, hypocrisy, double heartedness, treachery, pride, malice, stubbornness, coveting, foul-speaking, jealousy, and bold and boastful attitude, self-exaltation, persecuting good people, hating truth, loving lies, not understanding the rewards of righteousness, not “cleaving” to the good, not judging righteously, and attentiveness to evil rather than good. Those who walk in this way are not gentle or forbearing, but love vain things, pursue recompense, show no pity to the poor person, avoid helping those who have hard tasks before them, ignore the Creator of humanity, murder children, corrupt “creatures of God” or “things formed by God” (φθορεῖς πλάσματος θεοῦ), advocate for the wealthy, mistreat the poor, sinful (5:1-5).
This list of do’s and don’ts can be overwhelming. The author says that if one can do these things, one will be perfect. If not, “do what you are able.” One can eat what one wishes to eat, but meat offered to idols should be avoided. Idols are “dead gods” (θεῶν νεκρῶν) (6:2-6).
Baptism begins with a recital of all the things to which the baptized is committed to doing and not doing (those things listed above). Then the one being baptized should be baptized “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in running (“living”, ζῶν) water. The water should be cold as well. If there is no running water, other bodies of water will work, and if there is no cold water, warm water is permitted. If there is nothing like this available then water can be poured on the head of the person being baptized three times “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. Candidates for baptism and the one to do the baptizing should fast prior to the event. If others can join, then others should fast as well. This should be done a day or two prior to the event (7:1-7).
Fasting (prior to baptism, but likely for other occasions as well) should not be done “like the hypocrites”. Whoever might be the “hypocrites” they are described as fasting on the second and fifth day of the week. Maybe this is a day when people expected religious folk to fast, and those who appear to be fasting are easily noticed because they look and act a certain way on a given day. Christians should fast on other days to avoid this association, namely the fourth and sixth days of the week (8:1-2).
Prayer ought to follow the pattern of the “Lord’s Prayer”: Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name, your Kingdom come, your will be done, as in heaven, so as on earth. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us of our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For your’s is the power, and the glory, forever and ever, amen.” This is to be prayed three times, daily (8:3-11). This version of the Lord’s Prayer alongside the baptismal formula would seem to indicate reliance on the Gospel of Matthew.
the archives near Emmaus 
I’m with those scholars such as Barrie Wilson who see the Didache as a reflection of the beliefs of the disciples who lived with Jesus, and were focused on his teachings, as opposed to the Christianity developed by Paul that focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, it represents a more authentic look into the earliest Jesus movement, which was a movement within Judiasm and not a new religion.
I don’t buy into the juxtaposition between disciples of Jesus v. disciples of Paul, but it may represent a type of early Christianity similar to the community addressed by the Gospel of Matthew. This is not to say that there are not tensions in these early communities. It is quite evident whether we read the Book of Acts or the Epistle to the Galatians that there were some forms of Jewish Christianity that didn’t blend well with the Pauline Christianity that includes Gentiles.
Thanks for the overview, Brian. I’m especially attracted to the picture painted by the Way of Life as understood by these early authors. Do you find that early Jewish-Christians wrested with this understanding in the context of their previous way of life (i.e. Old Covenant, Mosaic Law)? In other words, do you see a tension in the Didache with trying to live responsively to the Lord’s commandments as a result of righteousness rather than to achieve a type of righteousness?
Next week I will share some thoughts from Justin Martyr on this topic. In his Dialogue with Trypho the character Trypho represents post-Bar Kockhba Revolt diaspora Jews while Justin is the voice of Christianity. In it he juxtaposes not faith with good works, but faith as expressed through good works over against particularities of Jewish Law such as circumcision, Sabbath keeping, dietary restrictions, etc. As early as the Didache and as late as Justin (thus far) in my reading of early Christian thinkers the Protestant dichotomy between trying to “earn” one’s salvation by doing good deeds and faith for salvation doesn’t seem to exist. Either Paul was too radical for people to grasp, or we are misunderstanding Paul, or some third way?
I might clarify that these good deeds aren’t framed so much as “earning” salvation as the correct response to God’s grace already given, but they weren’t presented as an appendix like many modern evangelicals describe good works either.
You’re right, that Protestant dichotomy is pretty strong. In what sense, then, does the author mean “perfect?” I’m thinking also Matt. 5 when I ask that question, as it seems to me that Matthew touches on a similar theme.
The author uses the word τέλειος, which is the same as Mt. 5:48, so my guess is that he is as ambiguous as the Evangelist here, especially since the author(s) of the Didache seems familiar with the Gospel of Matthew. Telos carries the connotation of moral perfection, but also completeness, maturity, or the fulfillment of purpose. I don’t know that Matthew or the author of the Didache expected Christians to live a life wherein they counted their sins for the day to see if moral perfection had been achieved (the author here even writes, “if you are not able, what you are able that do”), but the commandments of Christ as seen in the Sermon on the Mount are taken seriously, and Christians are expected to live toward those commandments, so this is something we modern Christians need to evaluate!
Brian, I didn’t buy into the juxtaposition easily, but it is the best explantion for the evidence. When you say “there were some forms” of early Christians that didn’t blend well with Paul, who do you mean?
It would be nice to think Paul was denouncing a group of anonymous heretics whose identity has been lost in time, but the most obvious answer is that it is the movement led by James. For one thing, Paul and that group had some bitter battles as recounted in the NT. Paul speaks harshly of “so-called super apostles” and the book of James is quite critical of Pauline ideas.
And really, if Paul’s opponents were anonymous people at the fringe of the movement, why did he get so angry? It makes more sense if he was battling people who were actually powerful within the movement. A modern example: John Boehner doesn’t spend a lot of time denouncing anonymous Democratic backbenchers, he saves his public vitriol for the President and Harry Reid, people who have the power to counter him.
The Didache is evidence of a Jewish movement based on the teachings of Jesus that placed him in context to Yahweh. As some scholars point out, the parallels between the book and the “Q” material and the book of James is striking.
Gordon
It is possible that Paul had problems with James. It is possible that he denounced James without naming him. One would need to ask why he would do this. He has no qualms with naming names. When he retells of his confrontation with Peter he names Peter, knowing Peter’s popularity, and knowing that challenging Peter may be received unfavorably. When he recalls visiting Jerusalem he names people, walking the thin line between receiving affirmation from people like Peter and James concerning his Gospel while trying to maintain its divine origins. So I am hesitant because possibility doesn’t equate to probability nor the degree of assurance which you present in your comment.
While the Didache may have connections with a Jewish Christianity familiar to the Matthean community, maybe the Epistle of James, and maybe even Q material (though, again, since Q is a hypothetical document I wouldn’t build much of my case on “it”), this doesn’t prove anything as regards a community that self-identified as anti-Pauline or closer to Jesus. We would have to know that members of the Pauline churches are completely divorced from the Jesus of history, that no Pauline associates were part of the broader disciples of Jesus, and this is not something for which I find evidence.
You are right, most of this is speculation. We can’t go back in time. But I would put the level of probability much higher than you. A a couple of points:
1) It isn’t possible Paul had a problem with James, it is one of the more certain things in historical reconstruction. The problems are discussed in Acts, which bends over to smooth over conflict, so the dispute must have been serious and unaviodable to mention. The book of James challenges the very words of Paul. And Paul in his letters discusses the conflict he has with other leaders of the movement.
2) Other ancient writings discuss, such as the Clementines, refer in code to the dispute between the Paul and core disciple factions.
3) I have no idea whether “Q” was a single book, but it is hard to deny that there is another common source to Luke and Matthew that is focused on the teachings of Jesus. That material didn’t just pop out of nowhere.
4) Paul himself writes that he was alone and had been abandoned in his last letter(s). Sounds like he was a pariah.
I think that Paul had no influence on the core group, and he took it upon himself to preach his message outside of the areas in which the core group operated. But he remained a “fringe” figure until the Jewish war with Rome. At that point, Jewish ideas became less appealing, and created an opportunity for Paul’s less Jewish message.
Gordon
These are all possibly true reconstructions. I’m not denying that you might have reasons for them, but I don’t share your confidence.
When we speak of the tension between Paul and James should we think of it as static? Did it exist as long as Paul lived? How do we know there wasn’t resolve between the two? Should we be skeptical of reconciliation because the Book of Acts seems to want to reconnect Paul with Peter and James? Maybe, but it could be far more complex than this. There may have been some later reconciliation of sorts that motivated Luke to reinterpret past tensions through the lens of later resolve between the parties. We don’t know.
Likewise, we have to read a lot into Paul’s abandonment later in life. Does this tell us anything about Paul’s relationship with these former groups? What might it tell us about Paul’s mission, the danger of his message, and the fear of his partners who may not have been as willing to meet the end that Paul was willing to meet? What Paul interprets as abandonment may not have been understood as being done out of spite by those who abandoned him. It could have been done out of fear. Again, we don’t know (and this assumes the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles, a contentious assertion in itself).
Brian LePort, I read one of your comments above that suggests you think there is some sort of difference between what Christ gave the Jews versus gentile Christians. I have been studying these 2nd century writings for a few years now and it has helped me to see very much what Peter was talking about in the last closing remarks of his second letter (see below). I became aware that studying the history of the NT canon that mid or early 2nd century, the gnostics that the apostles fought against (as they denied the humanity and flesh of Christ for one), tried to make the first compilation of the NT writings scattered and non-universally used by the worldwide churches at that time. A Gnostic named Marcion pulled together select letters of Paul only, and pieces of the gospel of Luke in his NT and developed a heretical teaching. Many have used Paul’s letters… this is the basis of the Reformation of the 1500s. Paul’s letters can ONLY be understand when we fully embrace what Jesus said in the gospels. The early 2nd century church has helped me to see that.
2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.