Pardee, Nancy. "Chapter Three: The Generic Development and Compositional History of the Didache." The Genre and Development of the Didache. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, 141-188.
Pardee observes there is every reason to accept the fact that the Didache is self-identified as a "Didache" type of writing, just as Mark's Gospel is a "euaggelion." Though there are not other examples unambiguously identified as such from the same time period this does not negate what the text says (Pardee 2012, 141). The term, Pardee goes on to demonstrate, tended to fall into a specific niche. More so than διδασκαλία, it tended to be used for serious teaching, which was comprehensive in nature (Pardee 2012, 142-143), though by the time of the New Testament the word choice tended to correspond to a geographical location.
Pardee considers whether the New Testament drew a distinction between preaching and teaching. She observes that numerous commentators find considerable overlap between concepts of preaching and teaching (Pardee 2012, 144ff). Teaching is one of the elements which is a common emphasis in both the Didache and Matthew. Pardee notes this is consistent with Matthew's emphasis on the Pharisees, in comparison with Luke, where it is not as heavily emphasized (Pardee 2012, 148). In fact, Pardee sees teaching in the rest of the New Testament as more related to explanation, while in Matthew it overlaps more significantly with preaching. Pardee explores briefly whether or not the term διδαχή refers to a body of doctrine in the New Testament 150ff).
Pardee moves on to a discussion of the structure of the didache. She again emphasizes the division into two parts: 1-15 and 1 (Pardee 2012, 155). She then tracks a number of textual delimiters which suggest layers of redactional activity, with source material being brought into the larger body of material (Pardee 2012, 156ff). These are chiefly in the form of words suggesting either the διδαχή or the εὐαγγέλιον as an authority.
In her structural analysis, Pardee moves through the material in terms which appear very similar to traditional text-critical methods. The significant difference is that rather than looking for specific written sources of the language, she evaluates redactional layers based on internal markers which signal semantic shifts, and which may signal them in different ways. She takes the various types of signals to identify different layers of redaction.
Pardee continues her analysis with a review of the Two Ways section, seeking out structural cues for redaction and consistency of structure (Pardee 2012, 162ff). She does particularly note similarity of themes between the Two Ways material of ch. 1-6 and the apocalyptic material in ch. 16, thus finding signs of overall cohesiveness (Pardee 2012, 167-169). Yet she continues her textual analysis in terms of a search for common sources. This analysis includes extensive citations of other scholars who are seeking textual dependence relations with the New Testament and other early Chrsitian works (Pardee 2012, 170-184 passim).
Based on the previous evaluations, Pardee moves on to a reconstruction of the Didache's development. She postulates stages: first, a Christianized version of the Two Ways (Pardee 2012, 184), second, baptismal and eucharistic instruction for Gentiles (Pardee 2012, 184-185), third, a later update with specific instructions on fasting, prayer, and itinerant prophets (Pardee 2012, 185-186), and finally, a few later editorial changes (Pardee 2012, 186). She further takes the titles to have changed over time, along with the content (Pardee 2012, 187.